Military Review

Miracle tanks in June forty first. Miracle Tank Fiasco

154
Miracle tanks in June forty first. Miracle Tank Fiasco



A bit in stories wars of so mysterious and contradictory pages as the use of Soviet tanks new types in the summer of 1941. In epic tales, the T-34 and KV receive hundreds of marks from shells without a single penetration, the KV tank alone stops the tank group, the 26-ton T-34 tanks rush about, barely touching the ground and crushing everything in its path

The flip side of the epic tales was the persistent view that beautiful cars became the victims of their own commanders and that they were massively abandoned without a fight. If used correctly, the wonder tanks would have had to crush the enemy before the German tank groups reached the Dnieper.

In the dark ...

The first riddle is the fact of the complete lack of information about the new Soviet tanks in the Wehrmacht. The T-34 and KV have entered tank units in border districts since the end of 1940. By June, 1941-th account was already on the hundreds. In Alytus, they stood in open parks not far from the railway, on which there were trains from East Prussia. Moreover, in Leningrad, the KV tanks drove to factory tests in public. You could even estimate the volume of their production. Nevertheless, the pocket guide for the Wehrmacht on Soviet armored vehicles, published in June 1941, was not mentioned in the T-34 and KV tanks. In addition to T-38, T-26, T-28, T-35 and BT, there is only an experienced heavy SMK tank called T-35C. Information about this car came to the Germans from the Finns - in December 1939, the QMS was blown up on a land mine in the depths of the Finnish defense. In the documents OKH / FHO (Department for the Study of Eastern Armies OKH) there is a tank T-32, not included in the directory. As we know, in the USSR one of the prototypes was called “thirty-four”. However, the performance characteristics of the T-32 tank, according to OKH / FHO, have nothing in common with the T-34 and the present A-32. The same T-35 appears before us: one 76,2-mm cannon, two 45-mm cannons, five machine guns, and an 30 mm armor. At the same time, the mass is markedly underestimated for the five-tower giant - 35 t.

... but fully armed

However, ignorance does not always mean unpreparedness to meet with new enemy tanks. It is not even about the experience of the French campaign and the meetings of the Germans with heavy B1bis. In addition to reference books on Soviet tanks in the Wehrmacht, there were secret schedules of armor penetration of anti-tank, tank and anti-aircraft cannons. The lines of charts began much higher than the thickest armor that the Germans could meet in the USSR, according to their pre-war data. They evaluated the armor T-35C (QMS) in 60 mm. The 88 mm anti-aircraft gun took 100-mm armor even with 1 km. A sabot to the 50-mm anti-tank gun PAK-38 punched on 100 m twice as much - 120 mm armor. Accordingly, 50-mm tank gun with a short barrel on the 100 m when firing a sabot projectile turned out to be in the teeth armor thicker than 90 mm. However, it is necessary to emphasize that there were few tanks with weaver guns in the Wehrmacht.

Without much emotion

So, early in the morning of 22 June 1941, the troops of the three German army groups crossed the Soviet border. Where did the Germans first meet with the T-34 and HF? Most of the new tanks were in the Kiev Special Military District, but the first German meeting with them occurred not in Ukraine, but under Alytus in the Baltic States and in the Grodno area.

In the afternoon of June 22, near Alytus (Olita), a tank battle took place between the 5 Tank Division of Colonel FF Fedorov and the 7 and 20 Tank Divisions of the German 3 Tank Group. The Soviet version says that the division of Colonel Fedorov met the enemy in defense, but the study of documents leads to a different conclusion. The Germans captured the bridgeheads on the Neman, and then followed a counterattack of Soviet tanks on the bristling with anti-aircraft guns and anti-tank guns. In the evening report of the 3 tank group, the battle near Alytus was rated as “the largest tank battle during the period of this war” (that is, World War II) for the 7 tank division. Own losses, according to the report of the 3 th TGr, amounted to 11 tanks, including four "heavy" (Pz.IV). According to Soviet data, from 24 T-28 tanks that participated in the battle 16 was lost, from 44 T-34 - 27, from 45BT-7 - 30. As we can see, almost three dozen T-34 were lost at a time. Moreover, the German command did not cause any special emotions in the collision with the “thirty-four” under Alytus.


KB-2
German soldiers inspect the wrecked tank KV-2 with a weapon in the installation of MT-1. On the turret and the mask of the gun one can see at least a dozen traces of shell projectiles. A tank from the 2 Tank Division of the 11 Army. Baltic, summer 1941 of the year.


Where did the HF go?

Under Grodno, tanks of the 11 th mechanized corps of General D.K. Mostovenko 22 June were used in a counterattack against the German infantry advancing on the city. Tankmen managed to prevent the immediate collapse of the defense of rifle units, but at the cost of heavy losses. In total, according to German data, in battles on the outskirts of Grodno on the first day of the war 180 Soviet tanks were destroyed.

On the very first day of the war, the fate of all three tanks of the 11 KV of the mechanized corps was decided. One fell over and sank in the swamp. The second was immobilized by hits in the chassis. It was the first KV tank that the Germans faced in battles. Oddly enough, no reports of this collision followed. Apparently, the tank was disabled before it showed its invulnerability. The third HF remained in the workshops due to a malfunction, and later it was blown up during the departure. This episode answers the question of where the HF and T-34 went in the summer of 1941.

As a result of the battles, the Germans noted that Soviet tankers acted "energetically and stubbornly in groups of 20 – 40 combat vehicles.” On the other hand, it was stated that "the effectiveness of the 3,7-cm anti-tank gun is sufficient against all types of tanks encountered."

New fast tanks

Following the results of the battles near Grodno with parts of the Mostovenko corps, the Germans received the first reliable information about the newest Soviet T-34 tanks. Tankers captured reported that they had “two types of tanks in service: T-26 with 4,5-cm anti-tank gun and two machine guns, booking - 15mm, and T-34 with 7,62-cm gun and two machine guns. Reservations - minimum 30 mm. In service with the 11 th mechanized corps were really T-26 and T-34 (28 units). The latter had family ties with BT. The exact number of Thirty-Fours lost 22 June is unfortunately unknown.

On the second day of the war, the Kiev Special Military District, which became the South-Western Front, joined the process of acquiring Germans with the new Soviet armored vehicles. At the town of Radzekhov, near the border, a clash of Soviet forward detachments and the German 11 Panzer Division occurred. The result of the battle was the loss of the Soviet side 37 tanks, including at least six T-34, the German side recognizes the irretrievable loss of seven tanks. Under the Radzekhov, the thirty-four Germans noticed and appreciated: “There were very fast heavy enemy tanks with 7,62-cm guns that shoot perfectly from long distances. Our tanks are clearly inferior to them. " It was indicated that at close range 37-mm guns still hit "fast tanks". In general, the picture "a typical battle of new tanks" loomed more and more clearly. The most important participant in the fighting from the German side was artillery, both field and anti-aircraft. Its fire hit the tanks, cut off the infantry from them, and in fact disrupted the Soviet attacks. The Soviet artillery did not keep pace with the tanks - standard STZ-5 tractors for the mechanized corps were not suitable for a maneuverable battle.

Invincible ram

Much more dramatic was the meeting of the Germans with KV tanks in quantities of more than one. They engaged in battle on different sectors of the front and actually caused shock to the enemy. The first was again the Baltic States. The vanguard of the 6 Tank Division of the 4 TGr in the morning of 24 June captured a bridgehead on the Dubissa River near the town of Raseiniai. Soon the bridgehead was under attack by tanks of the Soviet 2 tank division, including heavy KV-1 and KV-2. It quickly turned out that they were “completely invulnerable to anti-tank weapons in caliber up to 3,7 cm.” The Soviet counterattack rolled through Dubiss and the tank attack struck the main forces of the Zekendorf battle group of the 6 Panzer Division. She did not have any saving anti-aircraft guns, and conventional artillery and rocket launchers were used to combat the new tanks. In 13: 00, the first KV in the Baltics was hit by an 150-mm field howitzer shell. Nevertheless, KV crushed artillery positions, shot and rammed light tanks 35 (t) of Czechoslovak production.

In 17: 30, the Acht-Comma-Akhty arrived in the area of ​​operations of the Zeckendorf battle group - 88-mm anti-aircraft guns. The Germans managed to stop and even reverse the Soviet tank attack and destroy several steel giants. The study of the remaining Soviet tanks on the battlefield and the interrogation of captured tankers gave them a fairly complete picture of the technical characteristics of the KV-1 and KV-2.

Incredible Caliber

24 June 1941 of the year was the day of the mass entry into battle of new tanks - the time difference was a matter of hours. Soviet counterattacks followed Grodno (6 th mechanized corps), Nemirov (4 th mechanized corps). However, the attacks T-34 and KV did not become all-destructive. Later, the commander of the 4 Tank Division, which had fought under Grodno, General Potaturchev, during interrogation in captivity, said: "Light German anti-tank guns were ineffective against heavy Russian tanks (50 – 68т), with other tanks, including T-34, they fought successfully"

It was 24 of June that the diary of General Halder made an entry: “A new heavy type Russian tank appeared at the front of Army Groups South and North, which apparently had a 80 caliber mm gun (according to a report from the North Army headquarters - even 150mm which, however, is unlikely). ” In fact, it was absolutely true: KV-2 tanks with 152-mm guns operated in the MT-1 unit operated under Raseiniai.

25 – 26 June increased the use of new tanks. They counterattacked the German infantry, tanks and self-propelled guns on the Narew, on the outskirts of Lviv, near Raseinia, and under Brody, Dubno and Radzehov. The “invulnerability” of the new tanks turned out to be rather conditional. Thus, the losses of the 12 armored vehicles of the tank division in the counterstroke under the Brods 26 June amounted to the 33 tank, including five KV and eighteen T-34. 26 June was set a kind of record: under the Radzehov in one battle, nine KV tanks were destroyed at once. The maneuverable nature of the border battle also had an effect, which led to the gradual withdrawal of the T-34 and the KV from the system for technical reasons. Their reliability and service life at the time left much to be desired.

Why didn't a miracle happen?

However, one should not think that Soviet tank counterattacks were completely useless. They only did not achieve the effect expected from the wonder tanks. Even counterattacks using light tanks made the German units stop. Without this, the collapse of the defense of the border armies stretched along the front of the rifle divisions would be much faster. The constant threat of tank counterattacks forced the Germans to worry about the flanks and carefully move forward. Particularly effective were the counterattacks in which the KV tanks participated. For example, in the battle log of Army Group “South” 29 June, it was explicitly stated that the advance of German troops to Lviv was “held back by counterattacks carried out with the support of heavy tanks.”

A natural question arises: was the tactics adopted by the command of the Red Army expedient? It was more or less useless to sit and wait for the enemy in ambush in the summer of 1941, if only because it was not known where and in which direction the Germans would strike the next blow. Moreover, the Germans changed the direction of the strike literally on the move. One solution was suggested - counterattack. The weaknesses of the organization of the mechanized corps and the tactical blunders of the Soviet commanders led to attacks with a weak support of artillery and infantry. This unleashed the Germans with the use of heavy cannons against tanks, ranging from 88-mm anti-aircraft guns to 105-mm cannons and 150-mm howitzers, and also allowed them to fire on the sides of the new tanks. If for KV the direction of shooting was not decisive, then for T-34 shots into the board from the “door hammers” often became deadly.

They did everything they could

At the end of June 1941, in Belarus, the KV tanks became a battering ram for breakthroughs from encirclement in the Bialystok region. With their help, groups of encirclements managed to escape from the "boiler". In the tank battle under Dubno, the German 16-I tank division suffered heavy losses. The 88-mm anti-aircraft guns remained the main means of fighting the HF. In late June and early July, in view of the worsening of the situation, the general withdrawal of Soviet troops to the old border began. Damaged and failed KV and T-34 had to throw.

It is clear that T-34 caused much less emotion among Germans in the summer of 1941, than KV. Actually, when German memoirists in 1950 – 1960-s write about “T-34” in the first months of the war, it is in most cases about HF. In the documents as the main character are "52-ton" and "super heavy" tanks. Later in the memoirs, they became the average Soviet tank, how much of the war was the T-34-76. The nickname "door knocker" 37-mm anti-tank gun received for its impotence against the KV.

The real story is terribly far from the legends and tales of the miracle technology. Nevertheless, T-34 and KV have made a significant contribution to the disruption of the Barbarossa plan. In September, 1941-st at the gates of Leningrad, realizing the impossibility of taking the city by storm, the German staff from the 41-th motorized corps wrote a phrase that best describes the use of new Soviet tanks: “He [the enemy] does not have enough infantry, but heavy tanks an obstacle, the struggle with which takes a lot of time. "
Author:
Originator:
http://www.popmech.ru/article/9111-chudo-tanki-v-iyune-sorok-pervogo/
154 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Shadowcat
    Shadowcat 24 August 2013 07: 56 New
    15
    The article is nonsense.
    The reason for ignorance about Soviet tanks is the good work of our counterintelligence.
    The reason for the high losses (most of the non-combat) is in the underdevelopment of technology and its childhood diseases
    The fact that 88mm guns were nonsense in all parts. Of course, more than 17 thousand of them were built, but this is a drop in the bucket and they certainly would not be enough for all parts. Plus they were not supposed to work on tanks, but work on aviation. They were supplied to the infantry and, in general, began because of new Soviet tanks with which the 41st German main Pak36 was not able to fight. But Pak38 never became so massive and 10 thousand guns do not solve anything (and if we take more precisely 2500 equipment for the 41st year).
    You can write a lot about this, but the cause of Rezun and Solzhenitsyn lives on, and alas, is not going to rot.
    1. maxvet
      maxvet 24 August 2013 08: 35 New
      22
      Though they shouldn't have, they worked, and not only on the eastern front.
      The fact that the article is nonsense, I do not agree
      On the first day of the war, the fate of all three KV tanks of the 11th mechanized corps was decided. One toppled over and sank in a swamp. The second was immobilized by hits in the chassis. This was the first KV tank that the Germans encountered in battles. Oddly enough, there were no reports of this clash. Apparently, the tank was disabled before it showed its invulnerability. The third HF remained in the workshops due to a malfunction, later it was blown up when leaving
      и
      The reason for the high losses (most of the non-combat) is in the underdevelopment of technology and its childhood diseases
      I see no contradictions
      1. Shadowcat
        Shadowcat 24 August 2013 09: 42 New
        +4
        Quote: maxvet
        On the first day of the war, the fate of all three KV tanks of the 11th mechanized corps was decided. One toppled over and sank in a swamp. The second was immobilized by hits in the chassis. This was the first KV tank that the Germans encountered in battles. Oddly enough, there were no reports of this clash. Apparently, the tank was disabled before it showed its invulnerability.

        Can I read where?
        1. maxvet
          maxvet 24 August 2013 10: 14 New
          +4
          Quote: ShadowCat
          Can I read where?

          in an article, or didn’t you read it?
          1. Evgeniy-111
            Evgeniy-111 25 August 2013 23: 32 New
            +1
            On what documents (articles, archives) was the article written? Links?
        2. creak
          creak 24 August 2013 11: 14 New
          +8
          The commissar of the 8th mechanized corps of the Southwestern Front N. Popel left interesting memoirs about the battles of this corps in June 1941 in the afternoon tank battle of Lutsk-Brody-Rivne. In the border battle in Western Ukraine, T-34 and KV tanks were actively used and there were more of them in the Kiev military district before the war than in other districts. By the way, the author mentions that our commanders also knew almost nothing about the technical characteristics of the new German tanks , apparently this process is mutual ... Memoirs are interesting in that N. Popel took a direct part in the battle in the battle formations of the corps and was a living witness to those events. Books are called: "In a difficult time." "The tanks turned west."
          1. krpmlws
            krpmlws 24 August 2013 12: 29 New
            20
            Poppel wrote that his T-34 had more than twenty direct hits, and the tank remained in service. The article was generally superficial and controversial, put a minus. It was written in the spirit of all scribblers scribbles. They showed on TV a German veteran tanker who fought on T- 3, he said that as soon as he saw the T-34, he immediately reversed. Here is the eloquent assessment of the T-34 as a front-line soldier, and not the verbiage that this scribbler is engaged in. It’s possible to take apart all this nonsense for a long time, but in general everything is clear .
            1. Avenger711
              Avenger711 24 August 2013 12: 49 New
              -3
              Over 20 hits from 37 mm? For God's sake. The joke is that the order beats the class, and the Germans in the 41st had more order and not without a German mat, but they quickly coped with the T-34, plus a numerical superiority. Maybe he will take the T-34 with him a couple of dozen Fritz, but sooner or later it will be lost.

              As for your fritz with T-3, it doesn’t even say anything about what the gun was on this T-3, that is, just verbiage, similarly our taankists remember that sometimes they just jumped out of the tank, seeing how they induced "tiger".
              1. Setrac
                Setrac 24 August 2013 15: 35 New
                13
                Quote: Avenger711
                The joke is

                The joke is that the God of war is artillery, it was the superiority (numerical) in artillery that determined the success of the Wehrmacht at the beginning of the war, and no “gold” tanks could compensate for this.
                Artillery caused the main damage to the enemy, and tanks and infantry killed the survivors. And what you wrote about class and order is abstract reasoning.
                1. Drummer
                  Drummer 24 August 2013 19: 51 New
                  +4
                  Well, and evil tongues all about some kind of interaction between the military branches slander.
                  1. Setrac
                    Setrac 24 August 2013 20: 16 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Drummer
                    Well, and evil tongues all about some kind of interaction between the military branches slander.

                    The interaction of the military branches is of course necessary, but it is aimed at ensuring that artillery knows where to shoot!
                2. krpmlws
                  krpmlws 25 August 2013 14: 26 New
                  +6
                  The Germans' task was to detect Soviet tank columns in advance (for example, reconnaissance aircraft from the first days of the war intensely searched for the 1MK, which in reality was near Leningrad, and the motorized division of this corps was the first to enter the battle only in the Western Dvina wassat ) .Next, the Germans pulled artillery, forming strong anti-tank strongholds. If there were tanks, they ambushed them and counterattacked from different directions, trying to draw the enemy into crossfire. The Soviet tactics of using tanks in 41g were extremely poorly developed and that’s exactly what the main reason for the failures of counterattacks by Sov.MK. Frontal strikes with the support of motorized infantry did not bring the result that was expected. Only later did they begin to use more active reconnaissance to identify enemy strongholds that were used by tanks and were surrounded and destroyed by infantry. various factors (low motor resources, poor art support, etc.), which certainly influenced the results of the battles, but all these factors alone did not determine the failures. If everything was perfect in the Red Army and the MK were properly organized and fully equipped, they would have support aviation, it would still have little effect on the outcome of the fighting. And vice versa, if the Red Army owned the rules This tactic of battle, including tank forces, would radically change the situation. I can’t speculate how much, but it’s a fact. It’s very relevant now, because the commander usually does not have an ideally armed and organized army, so he should be able to extract the maximum of what has, thanks to the construction of tactics based on the knowledge of the pros and cons of their troops and the enemy, this is the art of a warlord. Then the general, explaining the reasons for his failures, will not have to refer to the lack of anti-slip armor in his tanks, the surprise of the attack and tp
              2. tomket
                tomket 25 August 2013 02: 09 New
                +4
                Actually, in Wehrmacht, in 41, there was an obscure tank fear, which was then observed in our troops in 43, the phenomenon itself is quite natural, the Germans weren’t stupid enough to rush to the square, so people in funnels hid from them on 20 .
            2. alone
              alone 24 August 2013 22: 54 New
              +2
              t-34 in TTX was superior to any German tank they had in 1941.not to mention the KV
              1. Setrac
                Setrac 24 August 2013 23: 24 New
                +2
                Quote: lonely
                t-34 in TTX was superior to any German tank they had in 1941.not to mention the KV

                Well, the T-54 was also superior to any 1941 German tank, what's the difference if the T-34 got rid of childhood diseases only by 1942 and started fighting?
                1. aviator46
                  aviator46 25 August 2013 22: 36 New
                  +2
                  The T-34 in 1941, yielding in a number of positions (separation of crew member functions, the quantity and quality of surveillance devices), had the same reservation as Pz.IV, somewhat better mobility and significantly more powerful weapons.
                  After installing a long-barreled gun in early 1942, the Pz.IV was able to hit Soviet and American tanks beyond the reach of their guns. Until the end of 1943, the combat characteristics of the T-34 remained virtually unchanged, and the Pz.IV took first place among medium tanks, and to be precise - actually until the summer of 1944.
              2. Stas57
                Stas57 25 August 2013 12: 13 New
                +7
                Quote: lonely
                t-34 in TTX was superior to any German tank they had in 1941.not to mention the KV

                Well, why are you like that .... mediocrely sketched?)))
                communication - the cornerstone of success in battle along with the review - no connection! how to organize cooperation in battle with flags ....
                I recall that the availability of high-quality communications + air and artillery gunners on some kind of sd kfz, allowed the Germans to quickly respond to changing circumstances.
                there is no review either, the commander is busy with anything except the review of the battlefield in the whom’s tower (which is also missing), the assessment of the situation and the adoption of a decision.
                and you can continue for a long time ...
                all this negated all the advantages of 34
                ps, well, the classic tanks are not fighting in a vacuum ..

                pps in WOT do not play, then you have such an example, very conditional

                2 teams - one on stock t-34, chat communication. crews are also stock. people gathered for the game by chance.
                the second one is on upgraded 3s and 4s, the crews are upgraded, there are high-level 3 artifacts, Skype communications, the team has been playing together for a year now.
                who will win?
                1. slava_sherb
                  slava_sherb 25 August 2013 21: 15 New
                  0
                  cool thanks
                2. krpmlws
                  krpmlws 27 August 2013 05: 52 New
                  -1
                  Communication is an important factor, but more important is the tactics of the combat use of tanks. An example from WOT: the aspect ratio in favor of the Soviet group of tanks, consisting of KV1, KV2, T-34 and light tanks, without Skype, but with adequate tactics and a centralized command; "Germans ": T-4, T-3 and light tanks. Who will win? Three artifacts do not matter, there were howitzers in the TD. I bet that is Soviet.
                  1. Shadowcat
                    Shadowcat 28 August 2013 20: 01 New
                    -1
                    began to compare the spherical tanks of the WOT with the real ones. In a real tank, even if you tear your ass to the British flag, but neither the caterpillar, nor the motor, nor the gun will begin to work after five seconds. if you can still fix the goose after climbing out of the tank (and this is all on the battlefield and shooting such a brave fighter for a sweet soul) then the rest is only in workshops and field workshops. It turns out that a tank with a broken track / gun / motor is all no longer capable.
                    So do not compare the toy with real - this is at least stupid.
      2. Shadowcat
        Shadowcat 24 August 2013 09: 44 New
        +2
        Quote: maxvet
        Though they shouldn't have, they worked, and not only on the eastern front.

        Due to the fact that there was no alternative) If there was an alternative, everything would be nya
      3. Vodrak
        Vodrak 25 August 2013 06: 24 New
        +3
        The article, frankly, is quite controversial: the Soviet tanks were clearly better than the German ones, but the unpreparedness of the crews and mediocre leadership nullified all the remarkable technical features of these vehicles. It got to the point that diesel tanks were refueled with gasoline, like tanks of previous models. Basically, all the victories of our tankers in the early days of the war were only due to their personal dedication and heroism. Later, when the equipment was further developed and the crews taught, plus an analysis of real combat experience, these tanks became a real, all-devastating fighting force.
        As for the T-34, they were in service in the Soviet Army almost until the 60s. This indicates the reliability and good potential of this model of our tank construction. Even in the last battles in Yugoslavia, they took part, this suggests that the potential of these machines has not been exhausted at the moment. In any case, the T-34 and KV are weapons of victory, something on which our grandfathers won us Freedom and the opportunity to live.
        1. Stas57
          Stas57 25 August 2013 12: 15 New
          +1
          Quote: Vodrak
          As for the T-34, they were in service in the Soviet Army almost until the 60's. This indicates the reliability and good potential of this model of our tank construction.

          you confused the T34-76 produced only half a year, with a bunch of problems, and the T34-85, which was in service until the 90 years.
          1. Aleks21
            Aleks21 25 August 2013 13: 51 New
            -2
            Actually, the T34-85 appeared only at the beginning of 1944. And before that, six months had to scratch the paint on tigers and ferdinants from a 76mm beater ...
            1. Stas57
              Stas57 25 August 2013 15: 33 New
              0
              Sorry, produced six months before the start of the war, I meant it
              A85 yes, 44
            2. Alex
              Alex 6 February 2014 11: 08 New
              +1
              Quote: Alex21
              I had to scratch the paint on tigers and ferdinants from 76mm beater ...
              Yeah, especially the Ferdinand did the weather ...
              A young (or aged, I don’t know) man, these notorious machines were already 90 pieces (for reference - we had 50-55 pieces of T-35, and no one considers this a serious tactical force) and after the Battle of Kursk they only met occasionally. So before you shine with erudition, take care of knowledge.
          2. Vodrak
            Vodrak 25 August 2013 20: 38 New
            +1
            I read somewhere that the number 34-85 was not great. Throughout the war, all the same, the main ones remained 34-76.
            I don’t know if it is true or not. Correct me if I'm wrong.
            1. chehywed
              chehywed 25 August 2013 21: 16 New
              0
              Quote: Vodrak
              I read somewhere that the quantity of 34-85 was not great.

              General release of T-34-85 tanks
              1944 1945 Total
              Т-34-85 10499 12110 22609
              Т-34-85 ком. 134 140 274
              ОТ-34-85 30 301 331
              Total 10663 12551 23 214
              Judge for yourself.
        2. slava_sherb
          slava_sherb 25 August 2013 21: 16 New
          +1
          Yes, only those T-34 tanks of 41 years were no longer in service, but there were others, for example, T-34-85
        3. aviator46
          aviator46 26 August 2013 20: 23 New
          0
          "He was not ergonomic, unreliable, very vulnerable, ineffective. And all these shortcomings had to be compensated by human patience and human lives."
          "In the fall of 1942, the T-34 and KB-1 tanks were sent to the United States for research. Their tests overseas began on November 29 and continued for exactly a year. As a result, the T-34 engine failed after 72,5 hours, and KB-1 - after 66,4 hours. T-34 passed only 665 km. The engine worked under load 58,45 hours, without load - 14,05 hours. A total of 14 failures occurred. According to the test results, it was noted that the air cleaner not suitable for this engine, practically does not hold up dust, but on the contrary, helps to accelerate wear and reduce reliability. "
          “From March 1943 to April 1947, the Research Institute BT-Polygon conducted warranty tests of 129 vehicles (T-34, T-44, self-propelled guns). They showed that in 1943 the service life of the main components and assemblies of the power plant was barely enough for 300-400 km ... "
      4. Rico1977
        Rico1977 25 August 2013 23: 24 New
        0
        I’m guessing that such a fishing rod as Isaev wrote all these stupid books of the 90s about the war. Isaev - most of our tanks were either destroyed from the air, or destroyed by crews due to lack of shells and fuel. But not in battle. Such historians need to be hung up in columns for Faberge, and not his insane books should be published
        1. aviator46
          aviator46 26 August 2013 21: 03 New
          +1
          In the 41st it was ..
          Almost all of them in the first months of the war were abandoned due to the lack of fuel and / or ammunition or breakdowns escaping from the crew environment.
          As a result, by the end of the year, slightly more than a thousand tanks remained in the entire USSR, and the troops had to be packed with ersatz like the T-60, and thirty-four did not make up half of the Soviet tanks until the 43rd.
          However, it’s incredible, but for some year the designers managed to simplify the Koshkin prodigy almost to a stone hammer, and the factories transferred to the Urals began to supply tanks again, but in quantities never seen before.
      5. Alex
        Alex 5 February 2014 23: 55 New
        +1
        Quote: maxvet
        I see no contradictions
        It's a pity. But everything is on the surface: comparing the BATTLE EFFICIENCY or the inefficiency of tanks with the TECHNICAL problems that affected this efficiency are two different things.
    2. Papakiko
      Papakiko 24 August 2013 10: 05 New
      15
      Quote: ShadowCat
      You can write a lot about this, but the cause of Rezun and Solzhenitsyn lives on, and alas, is not going to rot.

      Yes, there are enough Sorosovo feedings!
      And the article "bloody bulge of a dead ass."
      Bylby our grandfathers "miracles" with wooden sticks on brooms on top then the Wehrmacht in the Urals, Christmas met.
      And since this did not happen, the "UYOI" on the plywood wafers were the forces of the Fascist unified geyropa.
      And our grandfathers and great-grandfathers are immortalized in an impenetrable and inextricable feat for the defense of the fatherland.
      1. slava_sherb
        slava_sherb 25 August 2013 21: 18 New
        +1
        no one disputes courage and heroism, only at what price and after paying this price what happened
    3. Drummer
      Drummer 24 August 2013 10: 32 New
      +8
      Isaev cites excerpts from the German railways on the effectiveness of the Pak-36 - at the beginning of the war it was considered sufficient, then the Germans had enough conventional field artillery besides Pakov and Flakov (10,5 cm field howitzers played an important role in repelling the Soviet attacks at Rassenyai and Rasekhov).
      1. Airman
        Airman 24 August 2013 13: 43 New
        -12
        Quote: Drummer
        Isaev cites excerpts from the German railways on the effectiveness of the Pak-36 - at the beginning of the war it was considered sufficient, then the Germans had enough conventional field artillery besides Pakov and Flakov (10,5 cm field howitzers played an important role in repelling the Soviet attacks at Rassenyai and Rasekhov).

        Firstly, the caliber of guns WORLDWIDE is determined in MM or inches, but not in cm.
        1. Drummer
          Drummer 24 August 2013 14: 31 New
          10
          As for the whole world, you got excited about it - see the German nomenclature of weapons, it was about 10,5 cm LeFh 18
          1. Airman
            Airman 24 August 2013 18: 58 New
            -3
            Quote: Drummer
            As for the whole world, you got excited about it - see the German nomenclature of weapons, it was about 10,5 cm LeFh 18

            In Russia, the caliber has always been measured in MM, and when it comes to Russian weapons, it’s silly to talk about the German system. Then the caliber of the “three-ruler” will sound like 0,762 cm, and the cartridge of the caliber is not 7,62. And our guns were three-inch, or 76,2 mm.
            1. Vodrak
              Vodrak 25 August 2013 06: 33 New
              +5
              M ... Yes, it's hard to be stupid ....
              When you buy a TV, they tell you that it has a .....- inch screen, do you always ask to convert to millimeters?
              Each country has its own standards in various measurement measures.
              Centimeters were taken for artillery in Germany at that time.
              Just accept it, well, if it's really hard to keep a calculator close by.
              1. Corsair
                Corsair 25 August 2013 15: 01 New
                +2
                Quote: Vodrak
                M ... Yes, it's hard to be stupid ....
                When you buy a TV, they tell you that it has a .....- inch screen, do you always ask to convert to millimeters?

                Why unnecessarily "run into" a person?
                Your example with the "diagonal", because it is also not indisputable, because until recently we had the kioscope diagonal indicated in centimeters fellow
                1. Vodrak
                  Vodrak 25 August 2013 20: 43 New
                  +2
                  I agree with you and apologize to my opponent, but so categorically to say that the caliber is measured ONLY in millimeters is also not correct.
                  Once again I apologize, a little out of stupidity flared up.
                  Thank you.
          2. Airman
            Airman 25 August 2013 21: 36 New
            0
            The article is about the Soviet T-34 tanks with a 7,6cm gun, and the T-26 tank with a 4,5cm gun. And I did not understand, if the author wrote this article for the Germans, why did he post it on this forum? In the USSR and Russia, the caliber of guns is measured in mm. Here on the forum, one author recently measured the speed of a helicopter in knots. How tired of these links to everything foreign, do we have that the Russian language is so poor, or will we adapt to the west?
            1. Stas57
              Stas57 25 August 2013 21: 57 New
              +1
              Quote: Povshnik
              The article is about the Soviet T-34 tanks with a gun of the caliber 7,6cm, and the T-26 tank with a gun of the caliber 4,5cm. And I did not understand, if the author wrote this article for the Germans, why did he post it on this forum?

              the author did not post anything here, this is a copy-paste from the American popular science magazine.
              in my opinion this is obvious and there is no secret.
              1. Xeueys
                Xeueys 27 October 2013 22: 28 New
                0
                It seems to me that you are a stupid person.
        2. Shadowcat
          Shadowcat 24 August 2013 17: 07 New
          +2
          mmm ... you are not quite right sir. In mm in the USSR and in my opinion France, in Germany in cm, and in Britain just in inches.
          1. Yemelya
            Yemelya 24 August 2013 19: 42 New
            +1
            Quote: ShadowCat
            In mm in the USSR and in my opinion France, in Germany in cm, and in Britain just in inches.


            In pre-revolutionary Russia, too, it seems, in inches.
            1. Shadowcat
              Shadowcat 24 August 2013 22: 21 New
              +1
              in lines. remember the famous three-ruler)
              1. Yemelya
                Yemelya 24 August 2013 22: 26 New
                +2
                Quote: ShadowCat
                in lines. remember the famous three-ruler)


                The line, as I recall, is 1/10 inch.
          2. 73petia
            73petia 25 August 2013 11: 45 New
            +1
            Quote: ShadowCat
            and in Britain just in inches.

            In my opinion, in Britain at that time the caliber of artillery was measured in pounds. As now the caliber of hunting smoothbore weapons. (Approximately, 12 gauge hunting rifle means the diameter of the ball obtained from 1/12 of a pound of lead). For example, on the "Matilda" was a "two pound" gun (40mm).
          3. Aleks21
            Aleks21 25 August 2013 13: 55 New
            +1
            In Britain, it’s terrible - I still did not understand their “5 pound”, “8 pound” guns.
        3. Stas57
          Stas57 24 August 2013 18: 30 New
          +2
          Tell the Germans, dead ends, they counted in centimeters
        4. nnz226
          nnz226 24 August 2013 23: 38 New
          +6
          not at all! The Germans just measured the caliber of their guns in centimeters! Even our trophy 3 inches went with the 7,6 cm index with the addition of the letter "R", which meant belonging to Russian cannons. Their "aht-ahts" also have a name from the caliber in cm: 8,8 cm, hence the name: "eight-eight" in German naturally.
          And Isaev writes just the truth, and is not a “Soros feed-up”, for the first expertly smashed the nonsense of the traitor Rezun with his “Icebreakers”, etc. see "Antisuvorov." The super-tanks T-34 and KV could not, despite their qualities, greatly influence the battles in 1941 due to the inability to use them, maintain them, “childhood diseases”, etc. As the cynical proverb says: "Technique in the hands of a barbarian is a piece of scrap metal." But this only emphasizes the greatness of the feat of our grandfathers and great-grandfathers, who were untrained to fight in 1941, and who broke the Wehrmacht and erased it to dust !!!
      2. geniy
        geniy 10 February 2018 19: 44 New
        0
        At the beginning of the war, the Germans considered their 37 mm caliber “door knocker” sufficient simply because the Soviet troops initially had a lot of high-speed tanks such as BT-5, BT-7, and even amphibious T-38s. And then the light tanks of Astrov began to arrive, and this was until 1943.
    4. Yemelya
      Yemelya 24 August 2013 12: 39 New
      +3
      Quote: ShadowCat
      Plus they were not supposed to work on tanks, but work on aviation. They were supplied to the infantry and, in general, began because of new Soviet tanks with which the 41st German main Pak36 was not able to fight.


      Soviet aviation in 1941 did not shine, and the anti-aircraft gunners had experience of fighting tanks - they knocked out the Matilda in France.
    5. Avenger711
      Avenger711 24 August 2013 12: 44 New
      +2
      No, not nonsense.
      The issue has long been considered, a small amount of 88 mm with a competent approach can knock out a sufficient number of T-34s with HFs, again the author has repeatedly indicated this in his books, the lack of infantry in mechanized corps led to the exchange of their tanks for German infantry. And there are 105 mm guns.
      Once again, jamming of the tower near the HF is noted when practically anything falls into the turret joint, moreover, the Germans already had information about this in July throughout the army.

      50 mm guns even KV perfectly take on board.
    6. zmey_gadukin
      zmey_gadukin 24 August 2013 15: 44 New
      +1
      Quote: ShadowCat
      but the cutter

      Well, just the reason for the article would not be approved)))
    7. Alekseev
      Alekseev 24 August 2013 21: 16 New
      10
      Quote: ShadowCat
      The article is nonsense.

      I do not think so.
      Although the answer to the question: why the “miracle” KV and t-34 tanks did not crush the advancing German troops in June-July 1941 and where have thousands of soviet tanks gone Among the border districts, it has long been known to both specialists and those who are seriously interested in military history.
      And without Suvorov-Rezun.
      Yes, tanks that were good in design were not at all the pinnacles of technical excellence, the time between failures was not at all great.
      And the tank formations of the Red Army were just forming, they managed to put a lot of tanks, including the KV and T-34, but there was neither skillful, experienced command, nor normal combat, technical and rear support, nor a sufficient number of trained crews, nor proper combat coordination of units.
      And without this you can’t fight, tanks will simply turn into piles of scrap metal! (which happened really in the summer of 1941)
      So it was, as the author writes, one in the swamp, the other under repair, the third was knocked down, the fourth was lost without fuel, the fifth without ammunition, the sixth stood on the march from those. malfunctions or untrained crew, etc. etc.
      So 10500 tanks in the border districts melted (though historians have an opinion that only 3800 were supposedly serviceable, which just raises the issue of technical support and training), of which 1475 are KV and T-34
      In the words of G.K. Zhukov (in an interview with K. Simonov): “It must be clearly said that the German army was better than our army by the beginning of the war, better prepared, trained, armed, psychologically more prepared for war, drawn into it ... that the Germans had an advantage in every way. "
      Therefore, the Germans did not crush the KV and t-34 in 1941.
      1. Shadowcat
        Shadowcat 24 August 2013 22: 48 New
        +2
        The article is nonsense because the author just does not write about it. He leads fights, quoting. But it does not go into the details that you said. In addition, if the Germans could not "adapt" to the battle, then they would have bent back in Czechoslovakia. They knew how to adapt, knew how to think, knew how to make decisions. Their generals went through battles in Europe and had EXPERIENCE, and the experience of wars is practically unbearable.
        We had experience with the generals, but the experience was Civilian (on carts and if lucky with armored trains), HalkinGol (which we just won due to ordinary soldiers biting into the ground despite the betrayal of the general (Blucher and Co)), Spanish where light tanks still dominated.
        In fact, it all came down to the fact that we had breastfeeding on the embrasure with faith in the ultimate goal (guys, I’m not so much pushing the feat of Matrosov and many of our soldiers, purely expression), and the Germans’s tank for embrasure and suppressing it (purely practicality).
        As you can see, I fully share your opinion. But you yourself understand - in the current war the main thing is how to give in to the dish. Now it is filed negatively, not deeply in details that people who are savvy in the subject know, and so superficially. And this is precisely what makes the article negative.
        1. maxvet
          maxvet 25 August 2013 08: 13 New
          0
          [quote = ShadowCat] The article is nonsense because the author just does not write about it. He leads fights, quoting. But that does not go into the details that you said [/ quote
          if the author did this, the article would be five times larger
          1. Shadowcat
            Shadowcat 25 August 2013 09: 21 New
            0
            Do you prefer two lines of unsubscribe or serious analysis?
    8. 755962
      755962 24 August 2013 21: 17 New
      0
      ACCORDION...

      And no comment.
    9. vjhbc
      vjhbc 24 August 2013 22: 07 New
      -2
      you probably from a parallel reality you probably beat the Germans there and waged war on foreign territory and we had everything very bad Germans generally did not notice our tanks and approached Moscow and Stalingrad
      Quote: ShadowCat
      The article is nonsense.
      The reason for ignorance about Soviet tanks is the good work of our counterintelligence.
      The reason for the high losses (most of the non-combat) is in the underdevelopment of technology and its childhood diseases
      The fact that 88mm guns were nonsense in all parts. Of course, more than 17 thousand of them were built, but this is a drop in the bucket and they certainly would not be enough for all parts. Plus they were not supposed to work on tanks, but work on aviation. They were supplied to the infantry and, in general, began because of new Soviet tanks with which the 41st German main Pak36 was not able to fight. But Pak38 never became so massive and 10 thousand guns do not solve anything (and if we take more precisely 2500 equipment for the 41st year).
      You can write a lot about this, but the cause of Rezun and Solzhenitsyn lives on, and alas, is not going to rot.
    10. alone
      alone 24 August 2013 22: 53 New
      +2
      Quote: ShadowCat
      Plus they were not supposed to work on tanks, but work on aviation.


      because of the huge losses of Soviet aviation, the Germans could use these 88 mm anti-aircraft guns against tanks. And do not forget that German aviation, especially fighter, completely dominated the air.
    11. aleks
      aleks 25 August 2013 13: 32 New
      +2
      Why are all the links based on the opinion of the adversary - is this a new historical technique? And ours, senior lieutenant Kolobanov, August 20, 1941. in the composition of 3 KB2 he shot 44 tanks, what factor should be attributed? And there are many such examples.
    12. The comment was deleted.
    13. aviator46
      aviator46 25 August 2013 22: 19 New
      +4
      Most of the T-34s in the summer of 1941 were not destroyed by the enemy, but abandoned with breakdowns or from running out of fuel in order to escape from the encirclement even for their two.
      However, the glorious German anti-aircraft gunners should not be forgotten.
      Back in the 37th year in Spain, and then in the 41st in Africa, the Germans began to use anti-aircraft FlaK 36 caliber 88 mm against tanks.
      And here neither millimeters of armor nor tilt saved.
      Artillerymen with 105-mm divisional cannons also did not lag behind, so the few thirty-four who reached the enemy without breaking down and not getting lost along the road, though belatedly, turned out to be a worthy welcome.
      The main armor file is the mechanic’s hatch and a machine gun hole in the frontal sheet. When hit, it is driven inside, with the corresponding result ...
    14. stalkerwalker
      stalkerwalker 26 August 2013 02: 19 New
      +4
      Quote: ShadowCat
      The article is nonsense.
      The reason for ignorance about Soviet tanks is the good work of our counterintelligence.

      Why nonsense? Maybe you just didn’t like it?
      A. Isaev has a lot of good, detailed materials about the Great Patriotic War, and not only about it.
      And this article is some kind of squeeze, I suspect that the author (or site managers) did not want to abuse time and place. I recommend "10 World War II Myths" edited by the same author.
      About information about tanks.
      If the Fuhrer on the eve of the attack declared that the USSR was a colossus with feet of clay that would fall apart at the first blows, and the Wehrmacht triumphantly walked through the fields of Europe, and the main part of the Red Army tank formations were less powerful than the T-34 and KV-1 tanks, then Why "drive the wave"?
    15. EvilLion
      EvilLion 6 February 2014 14: 41 New
      +1
      For idiots, I inform you that against the 88 mm and the more so the 105 mm, no armor of those years saved, further it is only a matter of quantity. Although Rommel’s troops managed to crush the invulnerable British tanks with an EMNIP of only 3 dozen 88 mm. You can 50 mm, getting into the driver’s hatch, or the board is an unambiguous serious defeat for the T-34. In general, at the end of the 42 year, for the failure of the T-34, 4-5 hits were required. For a short period of time, children's diseases do not play a special role, although jamming the towers at the HF from getting any bullet in the joint is a children's disease? On the Sherman, for example, the shoulder strap of the tower is covered with armor and bullets with shells cannot get there.

      Cannons of high power are not in the first line, they are not very vulnerable to attacking tanks, therefore it is not necessary to kill a lot of skill in the leaning tanks from 88 mm. Subsequently, not so much tanks fought with the anti-tank movement, as artillery, which interfered with the ground, the tanks only cleared. And if there is not enough infantry with artillery, then any 34 will sooner or later get on board even from 37 mm, but in conditions of retreat, any irreparable instant damage means dropping the tank.

      So there shouldn’t be any questions, just look at the armor penetration tables of the guns of those years to understand that the invulnerability of tanks is very arbitrary.

      And yes, there are different 88 mm guns, there is an 71 caliber anti-aircraft gun, and there is a less powerful 56-caliber gun that stood on the tiger, the task of these guns is not to fight aviation (the 88 mm anti-aircraft gun against attack aircraft is generally completely useless, its task shelling of bomber formations at high altitude, and there the main fuse is set correctly and the bombers will be shattered with fragments), and the destruction of bunkers. Already something, and artillery in infantry chats is not enough, and up to such calibers from which it is useless to book.

      So we learn materiel.
  2. Eugene
    Eugene 24 August 2013 08: 56 New
    +8
    Controversial article. But still liked it.
  3. Iraclius
    Iraclius 24 August 2013 09: 43 New
    +9
    The article is complete nonsense. The cases when the BT and T-34 were confused did take place.
    Confusion with the calibers of Soviet tanks also took place. But to confuse the heavy KV-2 and T-34 or BT - this is not ignorance, but the lack of professionalism of Hitler officers.
    In general, I did not quite understand the ideas of the article. Show that the Soviet tanks were not a "wunderwaffe"? And who claims this? There is no perfect weapon. But the fact remains that there were no rivals to our KV at the initial stage of the wars. What tanks were used illiterate? So even Soviet historiography does not hide this. But there was no other choice.
    The author somehow completely forgot that the army was actively re-equipped and there were very few new types of tanks so that they could somehow significantly affect the outcome of the battles.
    This will all be later ... And the crews worked out, and the tactics of competent tank ambushes, and the interaction with the infantry, and the invulnerability of the KV will fully manifest itself. The Voyskovitsky battle of Zinoviy Kolobanov was recently dismantled! .. What kind of German tank can it boast of a hundred and a half hits and maintain combat efficiency?
    The article is a well-deserved minus. And gives it "rezunovschinoy" ... negative
    1. maxvet
      maxvet 24 August 2013 10: 25 New
      +7
      Quote: Iraclius
      And gives it "rezunovschinoy" ...

      In fact, Isaev is one of the main opponents of the rezun. The article is excerpts from his books where he just says that there is no miracle of weapons and is unlikely to be.
      And the conclusion from the article ... then your comment can be understood as- "we already know this, and there is nothing to write about it"
    2. Drummer
      Drummer 24 August 2013 11: 04 New
      -11
      Where did you find in the article about "Hitler officers who confused KV and BT"?
      The article does not claim to be original (especially since Isaev has long been bogged down in self-copying), but it is completely true. By the beginning of the war, more than 34 T-2000 and KV tanks had been riveted; far from all of them were out of order for technical reasons (this is a separate issue, the author did not touch upon it). The article directly indicates the battles in which the T-34 and KV took part (Nemirov, Razdekhov, Rassenyay, Alytus), combat losses and the results achieved, where they were.
      Quote: Iraclius
      This will all be later ... And the crews worked out, and the tactics of competent tank ambushes, and the interaction with the infantry, and the invulnerability of the KV will fully manifest itself.

      When “KV will prove itself fully”, they will call him a burden on the army and begin to develop the KV-1S in a hurry.
      Quote: Iraclius
      Voyskovitsky battle of Zinoviy Kolobanov recently disassembled the same!

      This bullshit was disassembled many times.
    3. recrut6666
      recrut6666 24 August 2013 12: 46 New
      +7
      and you read his book, everything is written according to documents and memoirs! according to the recollections of tankers who fought on t-z4, in mymu called "I fought on t-34", this tank was good only at the beginning of the war (if it was not far to go), there are memories only of those who came to fight in 43-44 ! and then they did not enter into head-on collisions with enemy tanks, but tried to fight from the flanks. the article says that it is not necessary to exaggerate the TTX t-34, it was not a miracle tank! the article says that Soviet soldiers constantly counterattacked the enemy, without the support of infantry, surrounded, knowing that with a high probability they would not return from the battle! before the modification t-34-85 went to survive in a battle in a tank was not easy! and I think who is shouting most about patriotism here, they probably didn’t even serve in the army, not to mention the enemy’s attack under fire !!!
      1. Shadowcat
        Shadowcat 24 August 2013 17: 21 New
        +3
        Ahem sir, but what's the point of hitting an opponent in the forehead where does he have the thickest armor? Or do you think that is so op, and all the tanks that at the front are made of t-34-76 t-34-85t? They began to cross over to them in the 44th year, because industry was able to produce the necessary. and there was an opportunity to give re-equipment and retrain the crew. And expand it to one person.
        You won’t do it in a day. Therefore, it was necessary to fight on the old t-34-76 in the 43-44th year, giving the opportunity to retrain the crews and rearm the units.

        Quote: recrut6666
        the article says that it is not necessary to exaggerate the TTX t-34

        no one exaggerates. The tank was good in the first months of the war. But the enemy would be a fool if he had not developed methods of dealing with them. The Germans have never been. Why do you think there were instructions to withdraw and after to take the tanks into pincers and hit the side projections of the t-34 in the first months of the war (it’s very strange - the Germans hit the side, and it’s shameful for us to do this when tanks with thicker armor appeared)? Recommendations for the destruction of HF? After all, it was not casual.
  4. Timeout
    Timeout 24 August 2013 09: 57 New
    +4
    The next version as the Nazis - the Russians bent down. Grief writers with their thousands of destroyed Soviet tanks already got it, only none of them admit that 70% of the losses were not combat (breakdowns, lack of fuel and lubricants and ammunition). Even these graphomaniacs simply forget that the Germans fought offensive battles and simply could not use anti-tank artillery, and during the counterattacks they used everything up to heavy artillery. And the “historian” Isaev decided to rewrite the chronicle of the Second World War according to the type as they are now teaching in the West, where according to their version the Second World War was won by the citizens of America and Americans, and here at the end of the article they contradict themselves.
    1. maxvet
      maxvet 24 August 2013 12: 17 New
      +8
      Quote: Timeout
      "historian" Isaev decided to rewrite the chronicle of the Second World War according to the type as it is being taught in the West, where, according to their version, the World War II was won by the citizens of the USA and Americans

      Have you read Isaev at all? There is no trial on the comment. Your commentary from the series “Pasternak did not read, but I condemn”
      1. Timeout
        Timeout 25 August 2013 15: 03 New
        0
        Here is one of the creations of this author, what do you want to say, even the name speaks for itself? The fact that this comrade for 4 years tried to rewrite the history of the Second World War in his own way, is that also nothing? At the same time, relying on the memoirs of Nazi officers who were published in the west. For me personally, there is a more authoritative opinion of my maternal grandfather who was engaged in field repairs of both Soviet and captured equipment. And it’s worth remembering the child prodigy that the Russians didn’t come up with. Not one agitist or wartime newspaper ever wrote about miracle weapons, but wrote about the heroism of the Soviet soldier in the above privacy, of the Soviet people as a whole, this is a miracle weapon!
        1. maxvet
          maxvet 26 August 2013 08: 44 New
          +1
          This topic was spelled out by Isaev as an answer to the reason, when he (the rezun) weaved about the Soviet “super tanks” which did not roll out the Germans just because before the war (Stalin was supposed to start it on the rezon on July 10), all Soviet tanks were dismantled and repaired
  5. de bouillon
    de bouillon 24 August 2013 10: 46 New
    +5
    Quote: ShadowCat
    The article is nonsense.
    The reason for ignorance about Soviet tanks is the good work of our counterintelligence.
    The reason for the high losses (most of the non-combat) is in the underdevelopment of technology and its childhood diseases
    The fact that 88mm guns were nonsense in all parts. Of course, more than 17 thousand of them were built, but this is a drop in the bucket and they certainly would not be enough for all parts. Plus they were not supposed to work on tanks, but work on aviation. They were supplied to the infantry and, in general, began because of new Soviet tanks with which the 41st German main Pak36 was not able to fight. But Pak38 never became so massive and 10 thousand guns do not solve anything (and if we take more precisely 2500 equipment for the 41st year).
    You can write a lot about this, but the cause of Rezun and Solzhenitsyn lives on, and alas, is not going to rot.



    88 matches have always been actively used against tanks

    from the fields of Normandy and the southern steppes of Russia to the desert of North Africa. "Long arm" always helped to fight with enemy tanks
    1. Shadowcat
      Shadowcat 24 August 2013 17: 22 New
      +4
      I do not deny it. But if there is a good anti-tank gun, why use an anti-aircraft gun for this? And if not, you have to get out otherwise the gut wraps around the geese.
  6. Stas57
    Stas57 24 August 2013 11: 03 New
    +5
    "" "" "" The fact that in all parts there were 88mm guns is nonsense. "" "" "

    He invented and denied it himself?
    88, in most cases, was attributed to the army team, especially those who were at the tip of the strike, neither in the front, nor in the whole country.

    The pro 36 is also stupid, I took it on board, the reports of the State Academic Bolshoi Theater are in Shein’s book
    1. fzr1000
      fzr1000 24 August 2013 13: 36 New
      +2
      Sorry, but first of all it was an anti-aircraft gun, there were more than 2000 of them at the beginning of the war on all fronts and the territory of Germany, and the need for them was never satisfied for the entire 2 MV. These guns began to arrive in the ground forces only in 1941 in a rather limited amount. So to think that the Germans were always at hand, where necessary, on the Eastern Front, had these anti-aircraft guns, is not true.
      1. Stas57
        Stas57 24 August 2013 18: 40 New
        +4
        Anti-aircraft, I didn’t say anywhere that it was PTO.
        At the expense of quantity, one of the characteristics of the Germans is the 41 ability to concentrate what is needed where necessary. The initiative is with them.
        Plus, the above 10cm penetration guns were not inferior to 88, and they were in almost every TD + RGK
    2. Shadowcat
      Shadowcat 24 August 2013 17: 32 New
      +2
      Do you think 126 guns (according to Wiki) from the landmen were enough for the front from the North Ocean to the Black Sea, assuming only that it was all placed on the Eastern Front? Or less than 2000 cannons to the front of the whole of Europe, and northern Africa (consider here that anti-aircraft gunners not only work at the front, but the protection of strategic objects and cities is not unimportant)?
      How many guns were there to meet the needs of the army? It's like saying that one S-400 regiment will cover all of Russia now.
      1. Stas57
        Stas57 24 August 2013 18: 46 New
        0
        Answered above.
        I repeat, when you know where to beat, then you know what and what awaits you, therefore you need to have 88 and 10cm at the tip of the strike, and there you will get behind the mallet and hammer. 10cm guns were also few, however.
        1. Shadowcat
          Shadowcat 24 August 2013 22: 11 New
          0
          I will not argue. But I think you yourself understand that counterattack for that and counterattack to ideally eliminate (or at least slow down) the enemy’s strike. So the question of concentration here was easy because everything was in the tank division (hopefully decrypted correctly). But given that our fighters did not just die, but beat out the selected and seasoned, time-tested and seasoned German units and depriving them of materiel, they might not have time to replenish them (the speed of movement of the unit plus the industry should be able to produce). As a result, everything results in a crisis.
          Moreover, I add that even our generals, gaining experience, realized that it was not necessary to stretch troops along the entire front, namely to concentrate them on the tip of the main strike. By the way, the PTOPs (or somehow I don’t remember the names) appeared in the mass used on the Kursk.
  7. Selevc
    Selevc 24 August 2013 11: 06 New
    +6
    Recently, for some reason everywhere they write that the Germans did not know about the T-34 and KV before the attack on the USSR ... Well, I really doubt it !!! How did they not know if before this the USSR actively used KV tanks in the Finnish War and some of them were even captured by the Finns - and so that the Germans did not know about it? Well, I can’t believe it at all !!!
    The caliber projectile for the 50-mm anti-tank gun PAK-38 pierced 100 meters twice as much - 120 mm of armor
    Well, this author completely bent !!!
    The frontal armor of the tiger was 100 mm and could not be penetrated by the Soviet 45s, in principle, but the 76 mm guns didn’t take the forehead either, but they took the side at distances of no more than 300 m ... And in the article, a 50 mm shell pierces 120 mm of armor! !! Is the author even familiar with the basics of physics or skipped classes?
    1. maxvet
      maxvet 24 August 2013 11: 17 New
      +1
      On June 24, a general entry appeared in General Halder’s diary: “A new type of Russian heavy tank appeared on the front of Army groups South and North, which apparently has an 80 mm gun (according to the report of the headquarters of Army Group North, even 150 mm, which, however, is unlikely) "

      Agree, if Halder had known about the t-34 and kv before, he would have written differently. If you have any other information on this score, post it.
      Is the author even familiar with the basics of physics or skipped classes?
      I don’t know how Isaev’s physics is, but he cited German data.
    2. Stas57
      Stas57 24 August 2013 11: 20 New
      +5
      And where does 45?
      Magpie had problems with bb to 43go
      In general, before you run into and blame the author for something, you read books and reports, but you can, ignoramus, look directly at the penetration of Pak38 directly on the wiki so as not to disgrace yourself.
      There are sources given
      http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pak_38
      Penetration with a caliber armor-piercing projectile at an angle of 90 ° at a distance of 1000 m 51 28 51 (914 m) 61 (47 [4])
      Penetration with a projectile at an angle of 90 ° at a distance of 500 m 81 61 (457 m) 120 (70 [5] [6])
      ↑ Zemtsov V.M. 50-mm German anti-tank gun mod. 38 (5cm PAR-38) is a quick guide to installation and operation. - Publication of the Art Academy, 1943. - S. 58. - 64 sec. - (Main Artillery Directorate of the Red Army).
      1. Selevc
        Selevc 24 August 2013 12: 48 New
        +4
        You are a respected ignoramus and write different nonsense - but you never know what is written on Wiki, you should not blindly believe this !!! The fence also says - what of that? A 50-mm shell, in principle, cannot penetrate armor of about 100 mm and even more so 120 !!! The mass of the projectile is too small and do not speed it up - its armor penetration is growing very slightly ...

        Soviet 76-mm anti-tank gun had armor penetration up to 100 mm !!! By the way, it’s also written in the same Wiki ... And even then, for a more or less equivalent match with the Tiger, a 34-mm gun was put on the T-85 since the 76-mm gun was already not enough to guarantee the penetration of the same 80-100 mm Tiger armor. ..

        That is why the Germans successfully used an 34-mm gun against the T-88 and KV, and this is a completely different scenario ...
        1. Drummer
          Drummer 24 August 2013 13: 27 New
          +3
          Quote: Selevc
          You are a respected ignoramus and write different nonsense - but you never know what is written on Wiki, you should not blindly believe this !!! The fence also says - what of that? A 50-mm shell, in principle, cannot penetrate armor of about 100 mm and even more so 120 !!! The mass of the projectile is too small and do not speed it up - its armor penetration is growing very slightly ...

          The penetration depth also depends on the ratio of the density of the material of the projectile (core) and the armor; in a pzGr 40 sub-caliber grenade, its core is made of tungsten and its penetration is much higher than that of a steel shell of the same mass. By the way, initially the T-34 was to be armed with a 57 mm Zis-4 cannon, only because the Zis-4 was not ready, a 34 mm cannon was inserted into the T-76 turret, which immediately led to problems (cramped space, small air defense, high gas contamination of the combat branches).

          Soviet 76-mm anti-tank gun had armor penetration up to 100 mm !!! In the same Wiki, by the way, it is also written ...

          The characteristics of the Soviet 76-mm guns are far from the standard, especially since the Zis-3 was not a purely anti-tank gun, but was inferior to 57mm Zis-2 in armor penetration.
          And even then, for a more or less equivalent match with the Tiger, a 34-mm gun was delivered to the T-85, since the 76-mm gun was already not enough to guarantee the penetration of the same 80-100 mm Tiger armor ...

          T-34 The Tiger is not an opponent, the 85 mm cannon was put on it not for the fight against the Tigers, it was necessary to do something with medium German tanks (Pz-IV of the F2 series and higher, Panthers).
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion 6 February 2014 14: 46 New
            0
            And this is already the achievement of German technologists, their medium-caliber armor held up well, although it was pricked from a groats.

            There is no need to write nonsense about ZiS-4, it was put in the autumn of 41, like an anti-tank gun, it was overkill, so anti-personnel, even when they mastered its production in 43, they didn’t even put it, even 85 mm by high-explosive action turned out to be completely inadequate.
          2. geniy
            geniy 10 February 2018 20: 12 New
            0
            Few people know that the sub-caliber shells of the Second World War were reel-shaped, unlike modern feathered ones with a detachable pallet. But the reel shape has a huge aerodynamic drag and makes the projectile just somersault over long distances. therefore, a German (and Soviet, too) sub-caliber projectile could hardly penetrate armor at a distance of over 100 meters.
        2. Stas57
          Stas57 24 August 2013 18: 49 New
          0
          Kindergarten, chesslovo.
          I understand there is nothing to refute the report of 43 of the year, everything else is without comment.
        3. Alex
          Alex 6 February 2014 12: 44 New
          +1
          Quote: Selevc
          The mass of the projectile is too small and do not speed it up - its armor penetration is growing very slightly ...
          You are not right. Penetration (other things being equal and unchanged) depends on the kinetic energy of the projectile, which is determined by the well-known formula (mv ^ 2) / 2. That is, an increase in speed in 2 times leads to an increase in energy in 4 times.

          In practice, everything is much more complicated. The increase in speed leads to an increase in air resistance, which, in the general and simplified case, is related to the speed exponentially. Hence a very complex design dilemma: to increase speed (increasing the charge of the charge, the length and configuration of the barrel are some other tricks) or to go on a simpler way - to increase the mass of the shell (increasing the caliber of the gun). This path is also quite promising: the mass of a cylindrically-conical body is proportional to its volume, and it (while maintaining the length) is directly proportional to the square of the diameter of the body (gun caliber). In reality, the length of the projectile also grows, and at the same initial speed it gains more energy.

          True, there is a third way - changing the design of the projectile: introducing various cores, changing the shape and design (projectile shells), other methods of destruction (cumulative ammunition). Which way to choose, or to what extent to use all three, depends on many factors: scientific and technological school, design decisions, possibilities of industry, availability of raw materials (the Germans, by the way, had great strains with tungsten), the general ideology of military design, and so on. other, other ...
    3. Drummer
      Drummer 24 August 2013 12: 22 New
      +3
      In the Finnish war, not a single HF was captured, the Finns examined and removed part of the equipment from the heavy QMS (mine) mentioned in article T-35C.
      Quote: Selevc
      The frontal armor of the tiger was 100 mm and could not be penetrated by the Soviet 45-ts, in principle, but the 76-mm guns also didn’t take their foreheads, but they took the board at distances of no more than 300 m ...

      The Soviet magpies are a complete analogue of the German 37 mm Pak-36 / KWK-36 and do not differ from them in armor penetration (ours have more fragmentation effect), the 50 mm Pak-38 / KWK-39 is much more powerful.
      And in the article, a 50-mm shell pierces 120 mm of armor !!! Is the author even familiar with the basics of physics or skipped classes?

      The reduced thickness of the T-34 frontal armor reached 90 mm (taking into account the angle of inclination), nevertheless, it was pierced by 50 mm subcaliber shells from Pak-38 (or a similar tank KWK-39/60) at a distance of more than 1000 m. Generally, mass application the Germans’s sub-caliber (“reel”) ammunition in the spring and summer of 42 caused a real shock and the proceedings at the very top — tank losses jumped sharply.
      1. Avenger711
        Avenger711 24 August 2013 12: 52 New
        -4
        Yes, they simply squandered the barrel so that at least the noise from the explosion would frighten them.
      2. Selevc
        Selevc 24 August 2013 13: 04 New
        +1
        In the Finnish war, not a single HF was captured, the Finns examined and removed part of the equipment from the heavy QMS (mine) mentioned in article T-35C.

        So it wasn’t? Have you seen the photo of the tank museum in Password? T-34 and KV-1 with crosses on the towers? So ours have not lost a single HF? - and this is in the most difficult conditions of the taiga and marshy terrain ... So in 1941, on the plains of Belarus and Russia, the KV was unreliable and in the Finnish taiga, when overcoming an excellent defense line, it was invulnerable and reliable?
        Something clearly does not fit !!!
        1. Drummer
          Drummer 24 August 2013 13: 35 New
          +5
          One experienced KV participated in the Finnish war, nothing happened to him.
          Quote: Selevc
          So it wasn’t? Have you seen the photo of the tank museum in Password? T-34 and KV-1 with crosses on the towers?

          Obviously, these are trophies of the war of 1941-44.
          1. Yemelya
            Yemelya 24 August 2013 19: 47 New
            +3
            Quote: Drummer
            One experienced KV participated in the Finnish war, nothing happened to him.


            We managed to send several more HFs with a large tower (future HF-2).


            Quote: Selevc
            So it wasn’t? Have you seen the photo of the tank museum in Password? T-34 and KV-1 with crosses on the towers? So ours have not lost a single HF?


            There is one KV-1 shielded, summer 1941 release, the second KV-1 with a reinforced tower, 1942 release
            1. Drummer
              Drummer 24 August 2013 20: 02 New
              0

              We managed to send several more HFs with a large tower (future HF-2).

              I don’t remember the details. Irincheev seemed to write that they did not participate in the battles (did not have time).
              1. Yemelya
                Yemelya 24 August 2013 21: 38 New
                +1
                Quote: Drummer
                I don’t remember the details. Irincheev seemed to write that they did not participate in the battles (did not have time).


                The data is inconsistent. M. Svirin also writes that they did not have time, although one can find such quotes:

                K.A. Meretskov: “When breaking through the front in the Sumy region, heavy KV tanks armed with large-caliber guns were used for the first time. Tanks passed through the area of ​​Finnish fortifications without the slightest harm to themselves, despite numerous direct hits. At our disposal was an almost invulnerable tank. From that time I fell in love with HF and always tried to have them at my disposal. ”

                The commander of one of the tanks, Lieutenant Glushak, recalled the events of those days: “The fortifications of the Mannerheim Line were solid. Large granite troughs stood in three rows. To make a passage 6-8 meters wide, we had to shoot concrete-piercing shells five times. While we were clearing the bumps, the enemy fired at us quickly. We quickly discovered a bunker and crushed it with two shots. After the battle, we counted 48 traces of hits on the armor, but not a single shell pierced the armor. ”
        2. ruslan207
          ruslan207 24 August 2013 15: 02 New
          +1
          You dear, you don’t know the topography of Belarus around the forest, and swamps
        3. Stas57
          Stas57 24 August 2013 18: 53 New
          +1
          Selevets, what are you arguing, funny, c. Finnish not a single HF is lost, Read Kolomiyets, about the Leningrad HF1
        4. Alex
          Alex 6 February 2014 12: 50 New
          +1
          Quote: Selevc
          Have you seen the photo of the tank museum in Password? T-34 and KV-1 with crosses on the towers?
          These are later trophies: KV-1 was used in battles near Leningrad almost until the very end of the blockade (which was then repaired, there was also something left of the pre-war backlog). And the T-34 was certainly not used in the Winter War.
        5. zombirusrev
          zombirusrev 29 July 2017 14: 39 New
          0
          The Germans SOLD a lot of dates to captured equipment. the forerunner Pavlov allowed them to arrange a catastrophe in the central direction. During the Finnish War, dates captured only the T-26. The rest of the samples or already during the Second World War or the Germans sold them. But the fact that we with the command in the beginning was a big mess is Yes, it was.
      3. Stas57
        Stas57 24 August 2013 18: 51 New
        +1
        Drummer, differ, due to violation of production technology, the 45 shells were worse, the report is in Shein’s book.
        1. Drummer
          Drummer 24 August 2013 19: 57 New
          0
          With red-hot tips it is not entirely clear: they were all like that or the party is defective. The fact that the magpie and the "door knocker" have a common origin, practically do not differ in design and characteristics.
          1. Stas57
            Stas57 24 August 2013 21: 28 New
            0
            If only one batch ...

            At least according to 42 reports, this problem has not disappeared.
            The fact that they are relatives, I do not argue, but you said about armor penetration)))
            1. Alex
              Alex 6 February 2014 12: 54 New
              +1
              Quote: Stas57
              but you said about armor penetration)))
              Passport and real armor penetration, unfortunately, are not always the same. And defeat tables are often simply calculated from bench tests based on reduced gunpowder mounts that mimic the increase in distance. Not entirely correct, but such is the practice of that time in all countries of the world (as it is now, not in the know, maybe that has changed).
      4. Timeout
        Timeout 26 August 2013 07: 26 New
        0
        Quote: Drummer
        The reduced thickness of the T-34 frontal armor reached 90 mm (taking into account the angle of inclination), nevertheless, it was pierced by 50 mm subcaliber shells from Pak-38

        Dear, the sub-caliber projectile in all calibers was called PzGr 40, only in the year 42 for the Pak-38 they were no longer manufactured, released mainly for large calibers. And released in the year 42 of these shells for example for PaK-40 only 7 thousand. And in the years 44-45, not one single-caliber projectile was released! To destroy one T-34, up to 6 PzGr 40 shells from the Pak-38 went, and only 5 of them were included in the VET ammunition!
      5. EvilLion
        EvilLion 6 February 2014 14: 48 New
        0
        Where is 90 mm? 60 maximum. The core of the sub-caliber could simply crumble into dust after breaking, therefore they switched to 75 mm, make a hole a little, you also need to shave something inside.
      6. geniy
        geniy 10 February 2018 20: 20 New
        0
        You correctly noted that the reduced thickness of the inclined armor of the T-34 = 90 mm. But do not take into account the fact that in a real battle any tank does not necessarily stand at an angle of 90 degrees to the enemy. In principle, this can be any angle - from 0 to 90. And then the reduced thickness of the T-34 armor can be from 150 to 100 mm.
        Few people know that the sub-caliber shells of the Second World War were reel-shaped, unlike modern feathered ones with a detachable pallet. But the reel shape has a huge aerodynamic drag and makes the projectile just somersault over long distances. therefore, a German (and Soviet, too) sub-caliber projectile could hardly penetrate armor at a distance of over 100 meters.
        Although the German sub-caliber shells did indeed penetrate the armor of Soviet medium tanks, it probably happened in favorable conditions for the Germans - when Soviet tanks were approaching very close to German positions, and it was also likely that when a German tank was knocked out, a German cannon disguised itself immediately this itself, and immediately destroyed by other Soviet tanks in this attack.
    4. Alex
      Alex 6 February 2014 12: 28 New
      +1
      Quote: Selevc
      Recently, for some reason everywhere they write that the Germans did not know about the T-34 and KV before the attack on the USSR ... Well, I really doubt it !!! How did they not know if before this the USSR actively used KV tanks in the Finnish War and some of them were even captured by the Finns - and so that the Germans did not know about it? Well, I can’t believe it at all !!!
      In the Winter War, the T-100, SMK and KV tanks were used in combat in quantities of one each - front-line tests of experimental samples. So forget about the plural: only the QMS was knocked out and not evacuated, which the Finns, for some reason, did not thoroughly study. In any case, EMNIP, after the war, the QMS stood practically where it remained. By the way, all the manhole covers were also in place (this is about the myth of a non-armored cover). But why the Finns did not inform the Germans about such a wonder, for some reason they never wrote. You see, not so cloudless relations were between the allies.
  8. wulf66
    wulf66 24 August 2013 11: 19 New
    -3
    "The author Alexei Isaev is the author of many books on the history of the Second World War." Judas Rezun also sprinkled a lot of libel and also calls himself a writer and historian.
    1. Avenger711
      Avenger711 24 August 2013 12: 52 New
      +1
      Isaev is the author of Antisuvorov. Learn the materiel.
  9. Stas57
    Stas57 24 August 2013 11: 29 New
    +6
    In general, I am delighted by some screaming commentators who managed to pour mud on the author, although all the questions about the application of 88, penetration of the T34, the use of the Kv tank have already been sucked a thousand times according to Soviet and German documents,
    We read Shein and Ulanov, Kolomiyets, Svirin and so on. There are reports there, with the details of the tanks, the nature of the damage, the reasons for the loss of equipment in the summer of 41, for the reader on the topic, Isaev did not say anything new.
    I am ashamed not to know the history of my country, ashamed.
    1. maxvet
      maxvet 24 August 2013 11: 37 New
      +3
      Quote: Stas57
      Isaev said nothing new

      I agree, it’s just easier to read, and more accessible (in terms of bookshelves)
      1. Stas57
        Stas57 24 August 2013 11: 47 New
        +5
        But some ignoramuses who have not even read the Baryatinsky topic have a break in the template.
        It is bitter to watch.

        The article is for the poppie, and it is written in simple language, and the point is that there is no miracle weapon if you do not have an emergency weapon, and a third of the brigade are illiterate, even though you give 90, it still will not help.
        What we have in 41, that the Germans have their super tanks at the end of the war, there is still a stronger crowbar.
  10. AK-74-1
    AK-74-1 24 August 2013 11: 49 New
    +1
    I liked the article. But the author is very one-sided considering the situation. Firstly, the first hours and the surprise of the attack were not taken into account. Secondly, the circumstances of internal degradation of command and communications (combat and non-combat losses of officers, the destruction of communications centers and rear institutions) were not taken into account. Thirdly, the work of aviation is not taken into account as a means of reconnaissance and attack. The same Kolobanov battle is evidence of the competent actions of the Russian wars and the degradation of the military command of the Nazis, which led to huge losses. Surprise is a decisive means.
    1. maxvet
      maxvet 24 August 2013 12: 02 New
      0
      Quote: AK-74-1
      the first hours and the suddenness of the attack are not taken into account

      Read the same Isaev and Drabkin "June 22 Black Day of the calendar", there are a lot of interesting
      1. AK-74-1
        AK-74-1 24 August 2013 12: 33 New
        +1
        The fact is that military operations are not specifically tank platoons or companies in the field, but first of all, interaction and you need to make an hourly comparison table where the actions of the parties would be described. To talk about a single battle or about one part is to say nothing. That is, we seem to see a situation that the T-34 Lavrinenko built up an 52 tank, and in another situation, we see how someone Hartman built up 300 planes. Isaev wrote correctly, but one-sidedly. It seems that he did not lie, but threw a piece of shit. Well liberoids are excusable. I personally liked Pokryshkin’s memoirs. It gives a full layout, to the height and results of the ground services. About the "Black Day Calendar" I heard a lot and tried to analyze. But it is written in such a way that it is completely unclear who acted. But you can not consider the actions of "Branderburg" in isolation from the Wehrmacht and the actions of parts of the USSR.
        1. maxvet
          maxvet 25 August 2013 08: 20 New
          0
          Quote: AK-74-1
          About the "Black Day Calendar" I heard a lot and tried to analyze. But it is written in such a way that it is completely unclear who acted. But you can not consider the actions of "Branderburg" in isolation from the Wehrmacht and the actions of parts of the USSR.

          There the atmosphere of the first day is transmitted very well
  11. ruslan207
    ruslan207 24 August 2013 12: 08 New
    +2
    The article delusional Germans in the early days of the war had air supremacy. Junkers could destroy our tank columns effectively from the air.
    1. Avenger711
      Avenger711 24 August 2013 12: 56 New
      +1
      Sorry, but you just blurted out nonsense. I'm not talking about the insignificance of the number of "lappetnikov" and the overwhelming superiority of the USSR Air Force in the early days.
      1. ruslan207
        ruslan207 24 August 2013 15: 07 New
        +1
        A comrade why he shot himself in the Air Force Commander because he could not give an order to his falcons, the airfields were destroyed with airplanes and the Lappetniks were a symbol of the blitzkrieg
      2. zmey_gadukin
        zmey_gadukin 24 August 2013 15: 57 New
        +1
        Quote: Avenger711
        but you just blundered nonsense

        this is nonsense:
        Quote: Avenger711
        the overwhelming superiority of the USSR Air Force in the early days.
        1. zombirusrev
          zombirusrev 29 July 2017 14: 44 New
          0
          Someone Medinsky :) says that in the first days of the war the Germans had the biggest losses FOR THE DAY up to the moment of the seizure of air power by the Soviet Air Force. I myself didn’t know this, but because our air bosses in every possible way counteracted the introduction of radio communications (I'm not talking about encryption), it was not possible to come up with different flags or check the banners, even if we were on airplanes, it was not possible to call them or redirect them in the air.
  12. olviko
    olviko 24 August 2013 12: 38 New
    13
    "The real story is terribly far from legends and tales of miracle technology"



    "Another event hit us like a ton of bricks: the first Russian T-34 tanks appeared! The amazement was complete. How could it turn out that they were up there, did not know about the existence of this excellent tank? T-34 with its good armor, perfect shape and a magnificent 76.2-mm long-barreled weapon made everyone awe, and all German tankers were afraid of him until the end of the war. " Our most dangerous opponents in Russia were the T-34 and T-34-85 tanks, which were equipped with long-barrel 76,2 and 85-mm guns. These tanks were already dangerous for us at a distance of 600 meters from the front, 1500 meters from the sides and 1800 meters from the rear. "Commander of the 2nd company of the 502nd battalion of heavy tanks cavalier of the Knight's Cross with oak leaves, Otréleutant Otto Carius

    "
    "Those who already participated in the battles were still under the terrible impression of the Russian T-34 tanks." The commander of the 14th army. Cavalier of the Knight's Cross General Fridolin von Senger und Etterlin.

    "


    Now I will focus on the Russian tank troops, which entered the war, having a great advantage - they had a T-34 tank, much superior to any type of German tanks ....
    Russian tank designers knew their job well. They focused on the main thing: the power of a tank gun, armor protection and patency. During the war, their suspension system was much better than in German tanks and tanks of other Western powers ... ". General F. Mellentin. Chief of Staff of the 5th Tank Army.

    "

    ... the Russians, having created an exceptionally successful and completely new type of tank, made a great leap forward in the field of tank building. "Lt. Gen. Engineer Erich Schneider

    "
    "The Soviet T-34 tank proved to be surprisingly good, having great cross-country ability and maneuverability. The T-34 tank was trouble-free everywhere on any terrain. Russian tanks could operate where, according to our standards, this was impossible. The armament of the T-34 tank was also exclusively effective. For the Soviet infantry, he was an excellent plotter and a very effective means of support. " . Oberst General Hans Friesner, commander of the Army Group "Southern Ukraine".

    "
    "October 6 ... For the first time, the superiority of Russian T-34 tanks manifested itself in decisive form. The division suffered significant losses.

    .

    Particularly disappointing were the reports we received about the actions of Russian tanks, and most importantly, about their new tactics. Our anti-tank weapons of that time could successfully operate against T-34 tanks only under particularly favorable conditions. For example, our tank IV with its 75 mm short barrel. the cannon had the ability to destroy the T-34 tank only from the back, hitting its motor through the blinds. This required a lot of art. General of the tank forces Heinz Guderian.

    And the best commentary on the article is the story itself. After all, it was not the Germans on their Tigers that rode through the cobblestones of Red Square, but our T-34s, KV and IS triumphantly entered the Brandenburg Gate.
    .

    ....



    .

    "

    .
    1. Drummer
      Drummer 24 August 2013 12: 48 New
      -1
      Quote: olviko
      And the best commentary on the article is the story itself. After all, it was not the Germans on their Tigers that rode through the cobblestones of Red Square, but our T-34s, KV and IS triumphantly entered the Brandenburg Gate.

      Entered there is far from the T-34 model of 40 years, and even more so not KV.
      1. zmey_gadukin
        zmey_gadukin 24 August 2013 16: 00 New
        +2
        Quote: Drummer
        Entered there is far from the T-34 model of 40 years, and even more so not KV.

        progress does not stand still, and progress in wartime is taking leaps and bounds.
        at 45, the Germans also did not fight in PZ-1
      2. zombirusrev
        zombirusrev 29 July 2017 14: 51 New
        0
        The problems of the T-34 are the general indifference of the tank authorities. Those. formally, a good tank, not a radio station, not a command tower (surveillance devices) .... well, the generals didn’t have enough time to ride the T-34 during the exercises. on this occasion there is a good book by Yu.I. Mukhina "If not for the generals." In there, the topic is grasped well. Those. He didn’t have tanks and planes, but in generals. Our generals are all professionals, only wartime generals are professionals to take warm places and knock out stars, then wartime generals like Rokossovsky and Gorbatov are wartime generals. Those. Until this change took place, everything was okay.
    2. Gari
      Gari 24 August 2013 15: 14 New
      +3
      Quote: olviko
      And the best commentary on the article is the story itself. After all, it was not the Germans on their Tigers that rode through the cobblestones of Red Square, but our T-34s, KV and IS triumphantly entered the Brandenburg Gate.
      1. solomon
        solomon 24 August 2013 16: 31 New
        +3
        Interesting photo. On the starboard side of the T-34-85, a counter-faustpatron shield is visible.
  13. sergey158-29
    sergey158-29 24 August 2013 15: 26 New
    +3
    The right question! But if this 1000 miracle tanks had not been spread from the Baltic to the Black Sea, but brought into several shock tank groups ... but, history does not tolerate subjunctive ...
  14. spd2001
    spd2001 24 August 2013 15: 28 New
    +1
    When the Red Army was tempered in countless battles, then the weapon in her hands became a miracle. "Miracle" Wehrmacht technique 1944-45 didn’t do any miracle. Result Victory Banner over the Reichstag.
  15. solomon
    solomon 24 August 2013 16: 47 New
    +5
    In my opinion, the author, citing negative examples of the beginning of the Second World War, wanted to make a sensation. And so, just a thickening of colors and biased conclusions.
  16. xomaNN
    xomaNN 24 August 2013 18: 55 New
    +1
    It rests on the obvious anyway - frames decide everything! Poorly trained tankmen + nervous commanders incompetence + crude (because new and technologically unworked) equipment didn’t give in 41 even 50% of the KV and T-34.
  17. unknown
    unknown 24 August 2013 19: 12 New
    +2
    On the issue of "renegades"

    Official science could not contrast anything with Rezun’s books.
    The events of the initial period of the war, when the Red Army suffered a catastrophic defeat in terms of the number of personnel, the number of military equipment and the quality of its quality, having lost almost all equipment and about 4 million prisoners, including dozens of generals, by the end of the year, the Soviet and Russian official historical science prefers not to study, but to replace it with various nonsense.

    That is why Rezun received such recognition. He only filled the vacuum created by the officials themselves.
    Of course, his judgments and conclusions are not undeniable.
    But at least his pro-English position is understandable.
    But, no one could argue with him, arguably, without emotions.
    The only worthy official book is Meltiukhov’s monograph, “The Missed Chance of Stalin,” in which the author acknowledges both the superiority in numbers, the mobilization that began before the war, and The Storm.
    There are other worthy authors: Bunich "Operation Thunderstorm", Beshanov "Tank Pogrom", Solonin, but they have nothing to do with official science.
    1. slava_sherb
      slava_sherb 25 August 2013 21: 30 New
      +1
      I agree, but about the pro-English position is unlikely
  18. unknown
    unknown 24 August 2013 19: 25 New
    +1
    What are the negative examples?

    The army is larger
    Techniques more at times
    Quality is not worse
    Mobilization began before the war

    But in the end?
    Catastrophic rout:
    by the end of 41 years, 4 mln. prisoners, including dozens of senior officers
    Almost all pre-war equipment and weapons are lost
    Huge territory left

    And the almost deathly silence of official science
    It is not surprising that Rezun’s books were received with a bang, even in his explicit pro-English position
    Themselves to blame.
    The only decent answer is
    Meltiukhov’s monograph “Stalin’s Missed Chance” (in which, incidentally, the presence of Thunderstorm is recognized)

    Other worthy authors: Bunich (Operation Thunderstorm), Beshanov (Tank Pogrom of 1941), Solonin, who investigated the causes of the 1941 disaster, have no relation to official historical science.
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 24 August 2013 20: 01 New
      +2
      Quote: ignoto
      The army is larger

      On the western border of the USSR, the Wehrmacht with its allies exceeded the Red Army by one and a half times, the enemy had a numerical advantage.
      Quote: ignoto
      Techniques more at times

      This is also a lie.
      Quote: ignoto
      Quality is not worse

      The same place, where the "equipment at times".
      Quote: ignoto
      Catastrophic defeat

      The catastrophe did not happen, the USSR won.
      Quote: ignoto
      the end of 41 years-4 mln. prisoners, including dozens of senior officers

      At the beginning of the war in the western direction, the USSR had an army of 3.2 million people, even the delivant can see that the number of 4 million prisoners is very high, apparently those who were stolen in Germany were taken as prisoners.
      1. geniy
        geniy 10 February 2018 20: 34 New
        0
        You don’t understand a damn thing on all counts, but especially on the latter, comparing 3,2 million prisoners available as of June 22 and 4 million prisoners as of December 31, 1941. Therefore, although although the number of troops at the beginning really was also there, immediately from the first days of the war mass mobilization began and the number of new soldiers was constantly added and most of them were captured.
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 14 February 2018 22: 47 New
          0
          Quote: geniy
          and most of them were captured.

          And who then stopped the Wehrmacht?
          Before you write on the dates you admire.
    2. sdv68
      sdv68 16 September 2013 17: 26 New
      0
      Quote: ignoto
      The army is larger


      Wehrmacht with more than 7 million. The Red Army a little more than 5 million (and even distributed throughout the USSR). Is it time to go to school?

      Read the first biography of Meltiukhov before referring to such "authorities".
      1. geniy
        geniy 10 February 2018 20: 35 New
        0
        But the Wehrmacht fought not only with the Soviet Union. The mass of German troops was also spread throughout Europe, including in Africa and Greece, not to mention France, Norway, etc.
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 14 February 2018 22: 50 New
          0
          Quote: geniy
          But the Wehrmacht fought not only with the Soviet Union. The mass of German troops was also spread throughout Europe, including in Africa and Greece, not to mention France, Norway, etc.

          Why all these tricks? At the time of the beginning of World War II, 5.5 million Wehrmacht fighters with satellites were concentrated near the western border of the USSR against 3.2 million Red Army fighters. And all the main participants in the hostilities and the Third Reich and the USSR and the USA and Japan had other fronts.
  19. Ivanovich47
    Ivanovich47 24 August 2013 19: 53 New
    +1
    Wehrmacht soldiers can evaluate our tanks for justice. Here is the opinion of the famous German tank commander of the 2 company of the 502 battalion of heavy tanks of the cavalier of the Knight's Cross with oak leaves of the Oberleutenant Otto Carius. It seems that this opinion is quite authoritative. He began the war in June 1941 ordinary soldier loading on the tank Pz.Kpfw. And the knights' crosses were not given to German tankers for trifles:
    The first Russian tanks appeared T-34! The amazement was complete. How could it turn out that up there, they did not know about the existence of this excellent tank? The T-34, with its good armor, perfect shape and magnificent 76.2-mm long-barreled gun, thrilled everyone, and all German tankers were afraid of him until the end of the war.
    And more:

    Our most dangerous opponents in Russia were the T-34 and T-34-85 tanks, which were equipped with long-barreled 76,2 and 85-mm guns. These tanks were already dangerous for us at a distance of 600 meters from the front, 1500 meters from the sides and 1800 meters from the rear. If we fell into such a tank, we could destroy it with 900 meters of our 88-mm. the gun. The tank Joseph Stalin, whom we met in 1944, was at least equal to the tiger. "He won significantly in terms of form (as did the T-34)."
  20. Snoop
    Snoop 24 August 2013 20: 00 New
    +2
    So much noise))) What leads Isaev really has long been chewed by many. It is strange that BTT lovers do not know this. Miracle weapons were not and never will be, that’s the whole story. Many T-34-76, KV-1 were thrown during the retreat in view of the fact that they failed. Read Drabkin. Books with tanker memories. T-34-76 sample 40, 41 years. was unreliable, a march of 100-200 km. one hundred percent failure of the transmission or engine. The KV-1 was equally unreliable. Plus, insufficient development of new technology by crews. The Germans opposed these tanks with good cooperation between the military branches, but we had problems with this.
  21. Stas57
    Stas57 24 August 2013 20: 04 New
    +5
    I allow myself a brief conclusion from reading the literature on the subject.
    Sorry, from the tablet, because the links later.
    Regarding the pack.5Yes, the pack37 had problems with t34, but this does not mean that it was not vulnerable. At real combat distances, the T34 was struck in a lateral projection, yes, it required some effort, but there is one more point, when firing the 45 armor it did not break through, but the shell knocked out the cork, hitting the crew with fragments of the inside of the armor.
    The data is in any serious book on t34, in particular by Shein and Ulanov.

    Ref 88
    88 anti-aircraft gun, in the vast majority of cases it was attached TD or PD in the tank direction, so a small one. their number was not reflected in the application, the Germans could choose.
    I repeat, in addition to everything in the TDK and RGK there were 10cm guns that confidently hit any Soviet tank at a range of more than 1km, but heavy 10cm howitzers had medium characteristics.
    But, even if these types of guns were not available, the anti-tankers coped with the task, with a creak, but coped, using the blindness of the 34, they let them get closer and hit the sides.
    Again in TD and tanks were not rarely used together, having art and air cover forced us to use equipment on unfavorable conditions, cutting off the rear and infantry,
    Not to mention the problems of new tanks, crews and commanders.

    regarding t34
    t34-76 and t34-85 are not the same tank, as mentioned above, and most importantly! these are different crews, with different levels of technical knowledge. they are different commanders, although they are the same people, they are different armies, even though the country is one.
    I think our soldier of the 45 model of the year, would have torn the Germans in 41 even on t26 and in a couple of months,))

    regarding a common problem41
    as noted above, the systemic problems of the outbreak of war were superimposed on one another — new equipment with childhood illnesses and new crews that knew their weapons, were ahead of schedule and deployed. the weakness of the rear, the new tactics of the enemy and the loss of initiative by us, etc., and so on and so on.
    All in total, I repeat, did not give advantages to our side, despite the fact that we had miracle tanks, but could not apply them properly.

    for the concept of the whole 41 problem. I advise you to read a lot, I myself did not fully understand, however. to start--
    Isaev-boilers 41
    Shein and Ulanov-Order in the tank forces
    1. Yemelya
      Yemelya 24 August 2013 23: 58 New
      +2
      Quote: Stas57
      for the concept of the whole problem 41. I advise you to read a lot, I myself did not fully understand


      To understand the losses of the Soviet BTT in 1941, I advise you to explore the topic of restoring wrecked armored vehicles in the conditions of advance / retreat.

      This will largely explain where thousands of Soviet pre-war tanks evaporated and why the Tigers, Panthers, etc. did not save Germany.
      1. maxvet
        maxvet 25 August 2013 08: 29 New
        0
        Quote: Emelya
        This will largely explain where thousands of Soviet pre-war tanks evaporated and why the Tigers, Panthers, etc. did not save Germany.

        Tanks cannot save, a tank is an integral part of the Stas57 army, by a soldier of model 45, he meant an army of model 45 years (structurally, psychologically, and of course experience)
    2. maxvet
      maxvet 25 August 2013 08: 27 New
      +2
      Quote: Stas57
      I think our soldier of the 45 model of the year, would have torn the Germans in 41 even on t26 and in a couple of months,))

      if only the rules allowed 10 “pluses” for one thing. I absolutely agree with you !!!!!! In principle, Baryatinsky writes about this and that our T26 and BT5-7 could, if properly applied, fight on equal terms with all Germans (except t4-a with him almost on equal terms)
      1. Drummer
        Drummer 25 August 2013 10: 41 New
        0
        Quote: maxvet
        if only the rules allowed 10 “pluses” for one.

        IMHO, the opposite is true. Positive changes in 1943-45 more related to the optimization of OSH and the saturation of new technology, while the level of training of personnel during the war only fell (all participants write about this).
        Quote: maxvet
        In principle, Baryatinsky writes about this and that our T26 and BT5-7 could, with proper use, fight on equal terms with all Germans (except for the T4-a and almost equal with it)

        Most of the BT and T-26 did not reach a meeting with German tanks - they were controlled by German infantry and anti-tankers. There are no miracles, compare the protection of BT / T-26 and Pz-III / IV from the fire of standard anti-tank weapons and everything will fall into place (there is no question about the gun). We must pay tribute to the Soviet tankers who went into battle on these coffins.
  22. Mark III
    Mark III 24 August 2013 20: 28 New
    +2
    For the first time I read that the T-34 is a `miracle weapon`. It is believed that the T-34 is a legendary tank. And the legendary one because he reached Berlin and won. Moreover, he became the `parent 'of armored vehicles up to the T-90.
  23. yur20100
    yur20100 24 August 2013 21: 01 New
    -1
    you feel the hand of the liberalist who wrote this article
  24. Des10
    Des10 24 August 2013 22: 21 New
    +2
    More than the article was pleased with the comments, especially Rezun's clever opponents.
    And the article is a plus. At least some attempt to explain the losses in the initial period of the war.
  25. 7ydmco
    7ydmco 24 August 2013 23: 42 New
    +2
    The dominance of German aviation, also made a significant contribution to our losses in tanks.
  26. bublic82009
    bublic82009 25 August 2013 00: 50 New
    0
    Well, the Nazis could not write about the T-34 taking them for BT-7 or T-26. the shape of the tower is almost the same in the distance. Well, the technique itself is just iron. you still need to be able to fight on it. Wehrmacht tankers on their tanks have long traveled and knew far and wide. and our village boys T_34 and KV only mastered. and even because of the carelessness of the rear, it was necessary to shoot fragmentation shells at the enemy tanks. lacked armor-piercing shells.
  27. papik09
    papik09 25 August 2013 07: 36 New
    0
    Quote: Emelya
    Quote: ShadowCat
    In mm in the USSR and in my opinion France, in Germany in cm, and in Britain just in inches.


    In pre-revolutionary Russia, too, it seems, in inches.

    In pre-commercial Russia in lines, not in inches (line - 1/10 of an inch) hi
    1. Yemelya
      Yemelya 25 August 2013 12: 27 New
      0
      Quote: papik09
      In pre-commercial Russia in lines, not in inches (line - 1/10 of an inch)


      Small arms caliber, clear stump, in lines (for convenience), art. guns in inches - 3x-6-inch, etc.
  28. Tver
    Tver 25 August 2013 08: 09 New
    -1
    Almost none of the "experts" remembered aviation! Or were tank gunners discussing the article? German "things" shredded our tanks more than all the tankers and gunners combined. In 41, the overwhelming superiority of the Luftwaffe ensured victory throughout Europe.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 25 August 2013 09: 23 New
      +3
      Quote: Tver
      German "things" shredded our tanks more than all the tankers and gunners combined.

      ?
      You are confusing something. The "experts", unlike you, know that the share of aviation is 4-5%
      1. Kars
        Kars 25 August 2013 09: 46 New
        +2
        Quote: Spade
        You are confusing something. The "experts", unlike you, know that the share of aviation is 4-5%

        To this does not hinder to add losses from depleted vehicles with fuel and supplies for the same tanks. And the weakness of the air defense, especially mobile, which allowed to storm the supply columns is almost unpunished.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 25 August 2013 10: 04 New
          0
          Do you have numbers for abandoned vehicles? Interest?
          1. Kars
            Kars 25 August 2013 10: 21 New
            +2
            Quote: Spade
            Do you have numbers on abandoned vehicles? Interest?

            Somewhere there is Ulanov. And they will not be small. It will only be difficult to distribute. But I hope you will not deny attacks on the supply columns and their effectiveness by German aviation? Well, or to whom do you count if the aviation destroys the steam engine that the T-34 was carrying, and the composition of the German infantry unit capture?
            About more air strikes on the railway nodes, there is also fuel and ammunition (in principle, there were very few spare parts) for tanks.
            1. Drummer
              Drummer 25 August 2013 11: 04 New
              +1
              Well, let's say not 5%, but 10%. All the same, this does not give grounds to assert that "the pieces made tanks more than all the tankers and artillerymen combined."
              1. Stas57
                Stas57 25 August 2013 11: 52 New
                +1
                Well, Rudel’s guy read it, it happens ...
              2. Kars
                Kars 25 August 2013 11: 54 New
                +2
                Quote: Drummer
                All the same, this does not give grounds to assert that "the pieces made tanks more than all the tankers and artillerymen combined."

                I would not share at all, everything needs to be considered in a complex.
            2. Lopatov
              Lopatov 25 August 2013 15: 12 New
              +2
              This is not serious. Let's calculate how many tanks were missed by the Red Army due to the evacuation of Kharkov, the blockade of Leningrad and the cessation of Stalingrad, and we attribute this to the "credit" to the German tanks as the main strike force of the blitzkrieg.

              Yes, statistics began only in 1943. When they came to. But the largest number of Soviet tanks until 1942 suffered from the "long" 50-mm gun. If not mistaken, about 50%
          2. Kars
            Kars 25 August 2013 10: 24 New
            +1
            _______ only I don’t know the aircraft stopped him, but such cases could well be.
  29. olviko
    olviko 25 August 2013 12: 09 New
    +2
    The author of the article confused God's gift with fried eggs. Inadequate crew training, poor material and technical maintenance and repair, and tactical and technical characteristics of the T-34 are one thing. Compare the reasoning of the cabinet “expert” with the opinions of those who have experienced the power of this “legend” in their own skin.
    "A large number of Russian T-34 tanks were thrown into battle, causing great losses to our tanks. The superiority of the material part of our tank forces, which has occurred so far, has now been lost and now passed to the enemy. Thus, the prospects for quick and continuous success disappeared About this new situation for us, I wrote in my report to the command of the army group, in which I outlined in detail the advantage of the T-34 compared with our tank IV, pointing out the need to change the design of our tanks in the future. I finished my report with a proposal to send immediately we’ll have a commission on our front, which should include representatives from the armaments department, the ministry of armaments, tank designers and representatives of tank-building companies.With this commission, we were supposed to inspect the tanks on the battlefield and discuss the design of new tanks. demanded to accelerate the production of larger anti-tank guns capable of penetrating armor of the T-34 tank ... Prominent designers, industrialists and weapons control officers came to my tank army to familiarize themselves with the Russian T-34 tank, which is superior to our combat vehicles; directly on the spot, they wanted to understand and outline, based on the experience gained in warfare, measures that would help us again achieve technical superiority over the Russians. The proposals of front-line officers to produce exactly the same tanks as the T-34, for the shortest possible time to correct the extremely unfavorable situation of the German armored forces, did not meet with any support from the designers. The designers were confused, by the way, not with aversion to imitation, but with the impossibility of releasing with the required speed the most important parts of the T-34, especially the aluminum diesel engine. In addition, our alloy steel, whose quality was reduced by the lack of necessary raw materials, was also inferior to Russian alloy steel. It was decided to make up for this shortcoming as follows: release the previously developed design of the Tiger tank weighing almost 60 tons and, in addition, construct a lighter type of tank weighing 35-45 tons, which was later dubbed the Panther. tank forces general Heinz Guderian
    “Let’s open the German Combat Operations Manual for the mouth of the Tiger heavy tanks (Merkblatt 47a / 29 von 20 Mai 1943). The main task in the battle for the Tigers was ... the destruction of Soviet T-34 tanks! Not only that, the crews of the Tigers were also ordered each disabled if possible, detonate the thirty-four using explosive charges transported inside the Tiger. “See, the thirty-four Fritzes were firmly salted, since each of them was to become the Tiger’s personal goal. Yes, and in order to surely destroy, the crew was assigned the sapper task ..




    .


    .



    .
    1. Stas57
      Stas57 25 August 2013 12: 27 New
      0
      The author of the article confused God's gift with fried eggs. Inadequate crew training, poor material and technical maintenance and repair, and tactical and technical characteristics of the T-34 are one thing. Compare the reasoning of the cabinet “expert” with the opinions of those who have experienced the power of this “legend” in their own skin.


      why is there an opinion, for that political pardon .. Heinz, whether he spoke at that very moment, about "an example of backward Bolshevik technology"
      and as the tail was pinched, the general was immediately to blame frost general dirt new super tanks, though for some reason only in October, he didn’t see them in a lot.
      memoirs, they are such memoirs .....
      1. olviko
        olviko 25 August 2013 13: 21 New
        +2
        Okay, let’s leave Guderian. But here is what the German historian, former Wehrmacht officer Werner Haupt, writes today:

        “Among the enemy’s tanks were also completely unknown to the Germans, excellent in their maneuverability and combat power T-34 tanks, against which at that moment all anti-tank weapons were powerless.”
        The famous German military historian, Major General B. Müller-Gilebrandt, whose book "The German Army in 1933-1945" is recognized in the world historical circulation as the authoritative and most objective encyclopedia of the Wehrmacht, concludes that the significance of the T-34 tank in the war comes out far beyond the outstanding technical characteristics of an armored car.
        “At the beginning of the campaign, the Red Army was armed with a new T-34 tank, which the German ground forces could not oppose to either an equivalent tank or corresponding defensive means. The appearance of the T-34 tank was an unpleasant surprise, because it is due to its speed and high cross-country ability armor protection, armament, and mainly the presence of an elongated 76-mm gun, which has improved accuracy and penetration of projectiles at long, still not reachable distances, was a completely new type of tank weapon.The appearance of T-34 tanks radically changed the tactics of tank operations If until now certain requirements were imposed on the design of the tank and its armament, in particular to suppress infantry and infantry-supporting means, now the main task was to destroy enemy tanks as far as possible in order to create the preconditions for subsequent success in battle. In this At the same time, new tank designs appeared, on the basis of which tanks of types V (Panther) and VI (Tiger) were later introduced.
        I would like to note that of all the quoted German officers and generals, there is not one who wrote his own lines, being in Soviet captivity, living under the supervision of the staff in the GDR or experiencing fears for their lives in other places. Nobody pulled their tongue. In general, they write about the battles of the Wehrmacht in excellent tone and do not hide their antipathies to the USSR. But obviously the outstanding qualities of the thirty-four in comparison with the German and Allied tanks were so obvious that it was simply impossible not to mention it. No other model of Soviet military equipment has received such close attention of German memoirists, and not a single report of the Aberdeen training ground on testing samples of Soviet weapons has been quoted by our Russophobic democrats so often. Do you hope that you will be able to shut up, wipe the opinions of those for whom during the war years the T-34 was a constant nightmare?
        1. Drummer
          Drummer 25 August 2013 14: 54 New
          0
          Compare the losses in the tanks of the USSR and Germany, then we'll talk about what and for whom it was a nightmare.
          1. olviko
            olviko 25 August 2013 16: 23 New
            0
            I don’t know about you, dear, but personally I don’t have any arguments against, cited in earlier posts, estimates expressed by German military officers and generals who are familiar with this problem, as I understand it, not from movies and articles.
    2. zmey_gadukin
      zmey_gadukin 25 August 2013 12: 29 New
      +2
      Yes, and capture the 34-ku and use against ours, the Germans were not fools either ...
      They knew a lot about good tanks.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 25 August 2013 15: 16 New
        +2
        This is not an indicator. Do you know how many Churchillies were in our troops that even their own tankers didn’t really like, and Churchill himself said that “this tank has more flaws than mine”? How many “Sherman”, which the British called the “Lighter Rolson”, and the Germans “British skillet”?
  30. The comment was deleted.
  31. Rico1977
    Rico1977 25 August 2013 23: 24 New
    +1
    I’m guessing that such a fishing rod as Isaev wrote all these stupid books of the 90s about the war. Isaev - most of our tanks were either destroyed from the air, or destroyed by crews due to lack of shells and fuel. But not in battle. Such historians need to be hung up in columns for Faberge, and not his insane books should be published
    1. Stas57
      Stas57 25 August 2013 23: 33 New
      0
      Are you not a practicing solubist?
      they all abandoned it, and went to give up.
      In reality, the photo from the damaged 41 summer equipment is enough, as well as the combat episodes of the collision with our tanks.
  32. Vadim117
    Vadim117 26 August 2013 14: 00 New
    0
    guys, do not forget that until the 43rd year, German aircraft did what they wanted in the air! The Junkers attack aircraft burned our tanks, as well as all the ground units in batches! Yes, and German optical instruments Karl Zeiss were much better than ours, which is sad!
  33. Sergl
    Sergl 26 August 2013 20: 44 New
    0
    While the Wehrmacht was advancing on all fronts - the command did not pay much attention to the individual successes of the Red Army and the features of new tanks. When, for a number of reasons, the German offensive stalled - then the search for the guilty party in the camp of the enemy begins, clouds of tanks appear in the reports, well, frost, how could it be without them.
  34. oracul
    oracul 9 February 2018 08: 10 New
    +1
    From the article an unpleasant aftertaste. Firstly, the T-34 was recognized as the best medium tank not by the results of 1941, but by the entire war. Secondly, the beginning of the war was marked, first of all, by the failure of the generals and many unit commanders, who forgot that they were responsible for the direct preparation of soldiers for military operations, and not Stalin, to whom many pseudo-historians and haters of Soviet power. Now it’s not just known, but it’s proved that we had more modern technology than the Germans, i.e. industry gave the army what it promised, but the training of officers and soldiers left much to be desired. Not for nothing that Stalin wanted to understand shortly before his death the reasons why in most districts the directive to bring troops into full combat readiness, which was sent a few days before June 22, was not implemented.