Angara: Triumph or Oblivion. 4 part

64
As it was before

Now, dear reader, we are forced to temporarily move away from the main theme of our narrative. We will not advance a bit in the understanding of rocket technology until we reflect on a number of issues. It is possible to study the technical characteristics of launch vehicles for years, but one can never understand why the rocket is removed from production, although according to its characteristics it is perfect. Or vice versa: a seemingly unpretentious rocket turns into a legend.

Naturally, there are objective reasons for everything. But then why were these reasons ignored when the rocket was launched into the series? The answer is obvious: these reasons simply did not know, could not predict. The most effective way to predict the direction is to know the previous one. history preceding events.

Why does a raven, to drink from an incomplete jug, throw stones there? Because he, knowing the law of fluid displacement, predicts events that will occur. Let us and we, following the example of the crow studying history, will try to grope these laws of design.

In order to analyze historical events and draw the right conclusions, one needs to take an object for study, where randomness is minimized. What do you think, the fact that we released the most massive tank and aircraft in the entire history of technology, is it a coincidence? Obviously not. The reason for this was the principles of design and production of this technology. And of course, we will try to answer the question why this is not possible with Western designers.

We continue the theme of constructive reserve. There are many more examples, but we will dwell on the most evident, on the aforementioned T-34.

As is known, the German designers decided to create their own tank as opposed to the "thirty-four", which would not be inferior, and surpassed it in some indicators. And it turned out to be nonsense: a constructive reserve began to “evaporate” with the speed of dry ice already at the design stage!

The design “research” algorithm is approximately the same. A powerful, heavy, high-impact gun required an extensive armored turret. All this should stand on a massive armored hull, which, in turn, should be served by a heavy, with many rollers, chassis. And these rinks scrolled massive and wide tracks, otherwise it is impossible, because the tracks will get stuck in a children's puddle, or the tracks will break. Now there is not enough engine power? No problem. We deliver even more powerful and massive. They completely forgot where to shove the gas tank for such a "gluttonous engine"? Find a “brilliant” solution: increase the body tank and reduce the tank. It’s okay that a tank in such a fuel reserve will travel only 80 km on rough terrain, let’s put a fuel truck behind it. Well, the fact that the fuel truck, being a "red rag" for the Russian aviation, he doesn’t go over rough terrain, these are his problems, we are “constructing” the tank, not a tanker. The main thing is that everything was fabulously written in the memoirs of the German tankers, and the Russian liberal historians assented to them.

As you guessed, the story is about sad for the Wehrmacht famous "Panther". Now let's take a close look at the ugly brainchild, still born from the belly of the vaunted German industry.

As a result, the Germans, in their constructive "decisions", made ends meet. They turned out to be an “average” monster tank with a giant bouquet of “children's”, or even completely incurable diseases, 45 tons in mass! Tanks KV-1 and EC-1, which weighed less than him, somehow became uncomfortable to call "heavy."

Just think, Hitler postponed the operation “Citadel” several times in order to accumulate more such “masterpieces”, naturally, three quarters of the “masterpieces” remained to “sunbathe” on the Kursk fields. And many of them fell apart on the way to the battlefield! And at the beginning of 1944, the chief inspector of the Wehrmacht’s armored forces, Heinz Guderian, reported to Hitler that most of the tank’s childhood diseases had been overcome. True, in a matter of months, this “rosy-cheeked infant” began to have other diseases, but already of a “gerontological” nature.

The fact is that the manufacturer of 57-mm anti-tank guns began to receive compliments from the front, resulting in a pleasant bewilderment of our designers. It was about the fact that the anti-tank gun, which already worked perfectly against this tank, now began to pierce it at inconceivable distances. The casket was opened simply: the surface hardened rolled tank armor was made on the technological limit, and the slightest manipulations with alloying elements made it suitable only for a medieval knight. And the question is not in the deficit of alloying additives, but in the shortage of medulla in German technologists.

Let us recall at least how our metallurgists "mocked" the Il-2 armored hull, especially when part of the mines for the extraction of alloying metals were in the hands of the Germans. After the forced improvements, the armor was not only not worse, but by some indicators it was even better, moreover, it was cheaper.

You can still tell a lot about this “exclusive” of the German military industry, but if we are talking about a constructive and technological reserve, you need to be sure to say that this reserve was just not enough to equip the “Panther” with a 88-mm gun, despite all the efforts of the Germans . As a result, the “Panther” with its 75-mm instrument became the owner of the infamous anti-record in the “nomination caliber / mass of the tank,” and the owner of this record with its 122-mm gun and the same mass as its counterpart, was EC-2 .

True, the "zombie historians" can argue that the caliber is one of the indicators. But this is the most important decisive indicator. Do not forget that the projectile must have decent high-explosive, fragmentation, concrete and many other properties. By the way, the EC-2 was designed, among other things, so that at a safe distance (with such armor and maneuver), almost any enemy of the enemy could be turned into a concrete crumb. And what could make the "Panther" gun? Flying at high speed "blanks" (which is not surprising for designers: extend the barrel and more gunpowder into the sleeve) made holes in the enemy's armor, but it is better not to remember about the other qualities of the projectiles.

Modern "tank experts" need to firmly grasp and record on their foreheads that in most cases a real tank is a maneuverable and protected unit for fire support of mobile connections, that is, the fragmentation-high-explosive effect of its projectiles tank produces havoc in manpower and equipment in the ranks of the enemy. It is especially good at suppressing firing points, and, of course, the tank unit produces the maximum effect when it enters the operational field, severing rear-line communications to the enemy. But the "shooters" between the tanks in the vast majority belong to the category of computer games. It is costly and unprofitable to let a tank into a tank, and the Prokhorov slaughter is an exception. In the fight against the tank, there are such means as anti-tank artillery, minefields, and finally, aviation.

Well, now, returning to the “Panther”, you need to ask yourself the question: didn’t the Germans have a rather expensive “anti-tank gun”? With reservations, it can be called self-propelled and somewhat conditionally (especially from the second half of the 44) protected. To compare, however, the "Panther" with the T-34 for the price is generally incorrect. We only note that the cost of "thirty-three", despite the quality modifications during serial production, decreased in 2,5 times.

Then, maybe, the Germans succeeded with the number of Panthers produced? It's even worse. Dear "toys" it is impossible to produce a large series, for each produced German "mastodon" our half-starved women and children gave out fourteen T-34!



"Thirty-four" became a legend, she turned the world tank building. It became clear that there is no need to release numerous classes of light, medium, infantry, heavy and super heavy tanks. The tank T-34 formed the world standard, the standard of the MAIN tank. And no "panther" can even come close to this standard! I would like all these "advanced writers of the new wave" coming from "Panther" to religious ecstasy and writing it into the best tank of the Second World War, to say the following: the most effective betrayal is when the "historian" because of his chronic lackluster thinking is sincerely convinced that writes the truth. However, the “fifth column” will be discussed below.

Doomsday Plane

Now I want to ask a question: what would Stalin do with such “panther” unfortunate developers? The answer is not original. In the best way for them, he would have sent these “developers” to develop pits in the far taiga with picks. Why did not Hitler do this, although the “design thought of the Third Reich” still didn’t run him so far around his finger, and he subsequently knew this very well? Yes, because in a different way all these German-Anglo-Saxons cannot do because of their “deep mentality”! Perhaps the designers of the West have their own design tenets? They are extremely primitive. The first postulate is the principle of a “round - roll, square - worn” loader who is dazed of alcoholism, the second is the principle of a three-year-old child “bigger, faster, more powerful - always better.”

How these principles work, we will now understand. For examples, I will always take the cult technique of the belligerent countries - because the display of these principles is very clearly visible on it. Take the famous stuck Yu-87 “Stuck”. Yes, it’s perfect with diving bombs, but in order to get out of the dive just as well, you need to give it a large wing area, which was done, but then the reverse side of this action opens: great aerodynamic drag, which gives low flying speed. It turns out that at the “facility” the “laptezhnik” works great, but the designers did not “foresee” how to safely get to the “work” and back. Rather, they, as always, solved the problem with one unknown. As a result, the "Junkers" were in the "trend" only as long as the Luftwaffe dominated the sky. As soon as the situation changed, the “blitzkrieg symbols” were blown out of the sky like a wind.

Can the designer solve problems with two or more unknowns? A Russian designer, having a dual dialectical thinking, which he inherited from our great ancestors, makes this work easy, as if playfully. As always, I will give an illustrative example of the legendary technology.

From the beginning of the 30 of the last century, the world's aviation thought was trying to create a frontline aircraft, a soldier aircraft, but one very serious problem arose. A low-flying plane that circled over an enemy crowd of people and equipment with a kite, everything fired - from tank cannons to machine guns and pistols, that is, the plane had to be booked. This is where the dialectical contradiction turns out, which is beyond the teeth of Western thinking.

A heavy armored plane turns out to be less speedy and maneuverable, so there are a lot of chances to get a shell in the “belly”. An airplane without armor is more maneuverable, but even one bullet at low altitudes can be fatal for it. There are two different design problems, seemingly incompatible. Not surprisingly, for one-sided Western brains this is a dead end; moreover, at the end of 30, the United States officially closed the research program as unpromising.

The great Russian designer Sergey Vladimirovich Ilyushin combined these diametrical opposites into a single whole, and the Wehrmacht received for his punishers the Doomsday machine, the “black death” - the legendary attack aircraft Il-2. For well-known reasons, I will not dwell on this super-airplane, but in order to deal with the triumph of the Soyuz and the future victorious march of the Angara on the example of this attack aircraft, it will be easy for us to learn the basic, integral principle of the Russian design idea.



This idea consists of four postulates. It can be (with some variations) formulated something like this. The most effective construction is an inexpensive construction, and for a construction to be inexpensive, it must be massive. Here, on two postulates, you need to stop and say that for the Anglo-Germans this is again a dead end, a vicious circle. They can not reach the cheapness of any fighter, if it is, say, the 5% segment of the Air Force of this country. You can really try to make it as good as possible, more qualitative, but these will be palliative measures, with 5% the airplane will go, say, to the 7% -th segment. Dramatically more “sales market” does not increase - this is not a civilian sphere, where zombized people cannot live without certain shampoos and floorcloths. Especially (by the example of Ukraine) it is impossible to get the market of a multi-million country entirely, because the situation when Hitler will sell tanks and planes to Stalin, leading a war with him will be absurd.

Let's return to the postulates. Russian design thought easily breaks this "vicious circle" and gives the third postulate - in order to increase the mass mass character of the structure, it is necessary to increase the segment of its functionality. Using the example of the Yak-9, I told how the series is increasing through the formation of functional modifications, but with “Ilyushin” it is a bit wrong.

The fact is that it is impossible to functionally modify the structure, being far from the original source, from the base model. Yes, the Yak-9BB could close the gaps in the missing bombers (it was necessary to quickly launch it into the series), but the Yak-9BB did not become a full-fledged bomber jacket, so it was a small-scale one. Sergey Vladimirovich went a little further, namely along the path of improving the basic model.

And here it is worthwhile to voice the fourth postulate, which was most clearly expressed in its attack aircraft: in order to increase the functionality of the structure, it is necessary to increase the functionality of its component nodes and assemblies, and then they will duplicate each other fully or partially. In turn, this means that composite nodes are either not placed initially, which leads to a reduction in the weight of the structure (this is very important for the aircraft) and a decrease in its cost (see the first postulate), or in the event of combat damage, the composite damaged node (unit) partially or completely duplicated by another node, which leads to an increase in the reliability of the structure. Sounds surprising, but nothing complicated. For example, armor plates are almost 100% included in the power circuit of the aircraft, and not hung like armor, which was done before in the aircraft industry. This made it unnecessary to put a lot of reinforcement elements, spars, and so on, but the most important thing is that apart from observing the weight culture, it gave savings to aluminum, which was sorely lacking.

Another example. The height trimmer on the "Ile" is designed so that in the event of a rudder damage, the pilot put the "wounded" plane on the trimmers. There are many such examples. IL-2 - this is truly the highest aerobatics of design ideas! Anyone, it seemed, his lack of Ilyushin turned into dignity.

Let us dwell only on one “shortcoming”: a large wing area, allowing a heavy “Ilu”, on the one hand, to increase the combat load, and on the other hand, it did not add speed and playfulness (that is, it flies like an iron). However, let the fighter compete with such an “iron” in a horizontal maneuver - in the second bend he will get a deadly “fairing” from the “humpback”. Moreover, the large wing made the “Il” phenomenally stable in flight, which in turn allowed even a poorly trained pilot to master the flying flight, which became the hallmark of this attack aircraft. Indeed, such “visits” to the Germans became an insoluble headache for them. The “shaving” IL-2 radar, visually and even by sound, is almost impossible to detect, which gave the newly appeared “Stealth” the main advantage in the war - surprise.

Do not forget that the armor "Ela" on the "shaving" not only protects against accidental bullets, but also allows you to make an emergency landing "on the stomach" in almost any terrain. And finally, steady in flight, “IL” “allows” to make such holes in itself, a small part of which would drive absolutely any other aircraft into the ground. Cases were recorded when the “Il” was landing on the airfield, having received more than 500 hits!

The combat use of IL-2 is an endless theme, and I have to summarize.

Thanks to the brilliant design "policy" IL-2 has become the most massive aircraft in the history of world aviation. He unceremoniously “devoured” dozens of series of pretty good planes, or at best left them on a meager production ration. And it is not surprising that from more than 20 of the large series of planes fighting on the front, the number of “silts” reached the absolute number of 1 / 3. Functionality, mass, simplicity and reliability - these are the four pillars on which our great record holder's pedestal rests.

Considering what has been said in this chapter, it will be much easier for us to predict the "space" policy of the West and to understand whether it is so terrible. Of course, it will be easier to understand the genesis of the Russian space and analyze its development trends.

And we will try to answer the question about the intellectual and technological potential of the West now. Yes, by impotence and malice, they can, on orders, turn bombers into a lunar crater cemetery where the Thirty-Fours father MI Koshkin is buried, or kill our missile scientists with blunt cynicism, disguising it as a terrorist attack in Volgograd. Anything smarter? They made smarter, for example, especially strong armor for knights, which, being beautiful, heavy sarcophagi, buried these dogs at the bottom of Lake Peipsi. They made the “Dora” cannon, for the maintenance of which only the gun crew needed “just something” 5000 people, and its seriality had “as much as a whole” one copy. You can recall the Supertank "Maus", which in principle could not be routed, but in principle, he also could not fight. Or recall the super-expensive and unnecessary stealth bomber stealth, which was invisible only for impressionable American housewives who have fantasy.

This list is endless, and since their one-sided brain is not capable of “creating” in another way, they, believe me, will still delight us with their “innovations”. And some of their cosmic “know-hows” with which they are trying to intimidate us, as Gorbachev intimidated at one time, we will examine in detail in the following chapters.

Concluding the section, I would like to admit that the industrial and technical potential of our overseas "friends" and their strategic puppets is huge. How and how to beat them, we already guess, the more we don’t have to be wise, we have a military space program, bequeathed to us, as the tablets of a dying prophet, the Soviet Union. Our task is to prevent these tablets from being “trampled on the fifth column,” and let us think about how to do this in the next chapter.
64 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Sheremetev
    +17
    5 September 2014 09: 55
    Ladies and gentlemen. Finally we managed to settle the problem of "small chapters". Only a third of the material has been published. In the last three big parts, there will be no distraction from the rocket theme. I'm sure you will enjoy these parts more than Part 1. I would be very happy to talk to you all. Thanks for your support and understanding.
    1. +3
      5 September 2014 10: 58
      We look forward to it, the topic is interesting.
  2. +4
    5 September 2014 10: 28
    Many thanks to the author for the informative article and objective analysis! God forbid we do not slide down to the level of Wehrmacht designers!
    1. 0
      23 February 2015 20: 56
      All of Europe worked for them. Not always voluntary. In addition, the general level of Europe was (and remained) not up to par. And the Russians fought for their own home and did not have the right to make a mistake.
  3. Witch
    +7
    5 September 2014 10: 48
    I’ll probably pick up a bunch of minuses, but I am against such a cheers-patriotic approach.
    By exposing German designers as morons, we only downplay the price of our victory. If everything was so bad with the Panthers, then the Red Army would not have created units entirely on the Panthers and the best crews would not land on them.
    Here you can give a bunch of reverse examples of what kind of stupid constructors we have, what they could not, did not convince, etc.
    For example, the release of armored personnel carriers, four-wheel drive trucks.
    We couldn’t create an effective infantry support weapon, unlike the Germans with their BAR ... (I know about the nude Ferdinanad, I read, but in my inexperienced view his combat effectiveness is still lower) Hetzer was also considered the pinnacle of the evolution of tank destroyers and riveted not one year after the 45th ...
    1. +1
      5 September 2014 11: 00
      The author gave vivid examples. Again, the tank destroyer is a very specialized vehicle.
    2. +9
      5 September 2014 11: 24
      > Making German designers look like assholes

      you misunderstood the author’s idea, kmk. He said that the Western worldview leads to the design of unreasonably expensive and complex devices
      1. 0
        5 September 2014 12: 17
        Quote: xtur
        Western worldview leads to the design of unreasonably expensive and complex devices

        And so it was, by and large. Just remember the "Tiger" designed by F. Porsche with its electric transmission. Everything was very good, convenient, etc., but the main thing was not taken into account - the lack of a sufficient amount of non-ferrous metals in stock, energy intensity and manufacturability of production. As a result, a lot of time and money was spent, but a Heinschel design tank went into production.
      2. -1
        5 September 2014 14: 06
        M113 Gavin in terms of mass and prevalence surpasses any Soviet armored box.
    3. 0
      5 September 2014 11: 52
      But what about su 85, su 100, etc. ???
    4. +1
      5 September 2014 12: 49
      Hetzer was uncomfortable, and the StuG-III and Su-76M had different niches of tasks. The first and main task of StuG is to accompany infantry in battle as part of formations and destroy field fortifications and firing points. Su-76M - purely anti-tank self-propelled guns.
      Correctly compare Marder and Su-76.

      A suitable StuG counterpart is the Su-85, no worse.

      Hetzer was very close, he was only effective on paper. In practice - not really, a weapon for partisans.
      1. +1
        5 September 2014 14: 22
        What for pure anti-tank self-propelled guns? The Germans did not have so many tanks that such a massive machine would spend at least half the time on them. This is a machine operating directly in the ranks of the advancing infantry.
    5. +2
      5 September 2014 13: 31
      Quote: Witch
      I’ll probably pick up a bunch of minuses,

      "Eubov to be afraid - do not give in your mouth" ... fellow
      Quote: Witch
      If everything was so bad with the Panthers, then the Red Army would not have created units entirely on the Panthers and the best crews would not land on them

      The situation was the same with captured and repaired Soviet tanks in the Wehrmacht - what is the Donbass militia fighting today?
      Quote: Witch
      We could not create an effective infantry support weapon, unlike the Germans with their STAR ...

      Not a single country that took part in World War II was able to provide its army and navy with a complete nomenclature of military vehicles, ships, and aircraft.
    6. +3
      5 September 2014 14: 05
      No divisions on "panthers" were created in the Red Army, the lower-level divisions, a platoon, maybe a company, which were not mixed with the T-34, if possible, for friendly fire. All this was used, usually in anti-tank quality, like a normal tank, then the crews complained about the lack of mobility, and, strangely enough, the armor chips, for which on the T-34 of later releases, immediately a complaint to the plant went (apparently the quality improved greatly, in 41st fragments were the main threat to the crew).

      StuG-III was produced largely due to its low cost, because there is no tower and mechanisms for its rotation. In the USSR, there were such delights as the SU-122, SU-85, and later the SU-100, and this is without taking into account the heavy vehicles and the SU-76, which is just in the "Hetzer" niche. With a sufficient number of tanks, the issue with self-propelled guns was not particularly acute, and they were spent, unlike the T-34 and SU-76, which always go in the first echelons, more slowly.

      The SU-100 outlived the Hetzer and is still used in some places, just the USSR could afford to build massively T-54s, and not tiny cars, the level of banana republics. And yes, the "hitzer" is Czechoslovakia.
  4. +3
    5 September 2014 11: 11
    Great article! Readable and interesting!
  5. +1
    5 September 2014 11: 25
    > German Anglo-Saxons

    probably, germanosaxians sounds simpler and more natural
  6. 0
    5 September 2014 11: 26
    Quote: Witch
    I’ll probably pick up a bunch of minuses, but I am against such a cheers-patriotic approach.
    By exposing German designers as morons, we only downplay the price of our victory. If everything was so bad with the Panthers, then the Red Army would not have created units entirely on the Panthers and the best crews would not land on them.
    Here you can give a bunch of reverse examples of what kind of stupid constructors we have, what they could not, did not convince, etc.
    For example, the release of armored personnel carriers, four-wheel drive trucks.
    We couldn’t create an effective infantry support weapon, unlike the Germans with their BAR ... (I know about the nude Ferdinanad, I read, but in my inexperienced view his combat effectiveness is still lower) Hetzer was also considered the pinnacle of the evolution of tank destroyers and riveted not one year after the 45th ...

    Yeah, "Hetzer" was generally produced by Sweden until the 60s ...
  7. +1
    5 September 2014 11: 32
    Quote: Freeway_ 3007
    "Hetzer" was generally produced by Sweden until the 60s ...

    “Hetzer” or Jagdpanzer 38 - It was developed by the Czechoslovakian company BMM on the chassis of the light tank PzKpfw 38 (t) in November 1943 - January 1944 as a cheaper and more massive replacement for StuG III assault guns, but was later reclassified as a tank destroyer primarily for the acquisition of anti-tank units of infantry and cavalry divisions.
    The Hetzer series production began in April of the 1944 of the year, all in all, at least 2827 self-propelled guns of this type were produced before the war ended. Self-propelled guns were actively used by German troops at the final stage of the war, mainly on the Soviet-German front. 75 "Hetzer" in December 1944 - January 1945 of the year was also transferred to Hungary. After the war, the production of the “Hetzer” was resumed in Czechoslovakia, where self-propelled guns were produced for the needs of their own army under the designation ST-I / ST-III, and also by order of Switzerland under the designation G-13. In total, from 1946 to the beginning of the 1950's, another 318 self-propelled guns were released. Although the Hetzer were retired in Czechoslovakia a few years after the end of production, in Switzerland they remained in service until the 1972 year.
    In Sweden, "Hetzer" has never been produced.
  8. +1
    5 September 2014 11: 38
    Thanks for the article +. I look forward to continuing. You can copy everything, but it will already be gone, it just falls short. There are enough examples (AKA, TT, Su).
  9. Crang
    -3
    5 September 2014 11: 42
    The Thirty-Four became a legend; it turned the world of tank building upside down. It became clear that it was not necessary to produce numerous classes of light, medium, infantry, heavy and superheavy tanks. The T-34 tank formed the world standard, the standard of the BASIC tank.
    Well, you obviously bent the author. The first official MBT in the world appeared only in the 60s. It was the T-64A. If we discard the not always logical classification and try to find MBTs in WW2 simply by signs, then KVAS - KV-85 and the German tank Panther - are quite drawn to the MBT role. The rest have clear signs of a medium or heavy tank. Including the T-34-85.
    1. +3
      5 September 2014 19: 19
      Don't play so much WOT. The realities of life are very different;)
    2. 0
      5 September 2014 21: 31
      Quote: Krang
      If we discard the not always logical classification and try to find MBTs in WW2 simply by attributes, then KVAS - KV-85 and the German Panther tank - are quite drawn to the MBT role.
      I do not agree ... MBT, almost in pure form - KV 13
      1. +1
        5 September 2014 21: 38
        Quote: svp67
        KV 13

        In its pure form, if one rests on the word BASIC, then it is all the same T-34, T-4 and Sherman with an 76 mm gun.
        And so the tiger could become the first MBT, use oblique reservation on the Fritz on it and refuse the front transmission.
        1. +2
          5 September 2014 21: 45
          Quote: Kars
          In its pure form, if one rests on the word BASIC, then it is all the same T-34, T-4 and Sherman with an 76 mm gun.

          The T-34 was forced to BASIC. Which does not detract from either its performance characteristics or the design idea that created it.
          Hi!
          hi
          1. +1
            5 September 2014 22: 23
            Quote: stalkerwalker
            T-34 forcedly became the MAIN

            If the war hadn’t started, the T-34M would have become the main one; Kv had no chance of becoming mass.
            Quote: stalkerwalker
            Hi!

            hi hi
            1. +2
              5 September 2014 22: 37
              Quote: Kars
              If the war hadn’t started, the T-34M would have become the main one; Kv had no chance of becoming mass.

              Do not happen the blockade of Leningrad ...
              Yes, and what to guess on the coffee grounds ...
              1. +1
                5 September 2014 22: 59
                Quote: stalkerwalker
                Do not happen the blockade of Leningrad ..

                So then there was Chelyabinsk, a couple more plants.
                Quote: stalkerwalker
                Yes, and what to guess on the coffee grounds ...

                I personally like distracting. And you can remember the post-war history of the T-10 did not become a mass tank, and the T-54 / 55 / 62 were riveted by tens of thousands.
                At the same time, I personally think that the IS-7 should have been brought to mass production.
                1. +2
                  5 September 2014 23: 10
                  Quote: Kars
                  And you can remember the post-war history of the T-10 did not become a mass tank, and the T-54/55/62 were riveted by tens of thousands.
                  At the same time, I personally think that the IS-7 should have been brought to mass production.

                  I suspect that everything came down to the reduction of the army and navy by Nikitka, when the development and production of heavy tanks was delayed until better times.
                  Today, the requirements for heavy and medium tanks of the post-war classification are combined to the requirements for MBT - the benefit of modern technology allows.
                  1. +1
                    5 September 2014 23: 26
                    Quote: stalkerwalker
                    Army and Navy Nikitka

                    there is probably.
                    Quote: stalkerwalker
                    tanks of post-war classification, combined to requirements,

                    I personally like to compare the IS-7 with the 2 Challenger, with little regard to progress in electronics and its size and the appearance of combined armor.
                    1. +2
                      5 September 2014 23: 45
                      Quote: Kars
                      I personally like to compare the IS-7 with the 2 Challenger, with little regard to progress in electronics and its size and the appearance of combined armor.

                      It's hard for me to debate this topic - the "Tank Encyclopedia" is not at hand ... laughing
                      So ... in general terms ...
                      Each manufacturing country positions its tanks as the best (Russia, Ukraine, USA, China, France, Germany, Israel). And whose tanks took part in real hostilities? And with what results?
                      Only on this branch are critical arrows flying along the T-90, and T-72, along the Morkva and Abrash ...
                      Until now, there is no ONE opinion on which WWII tank is considered the best, successful, after all.
                      For example - I think that the PM is a very good pistol - simple, does not pull your hand, when firing even "reinforced" cartridges it does not push you back. But it seems to me that there are many people who think exactly the opposite ...
                      1. +1
                        6 September 2014 11: 17
                        Quote: stalkerwalker
                        There is still no ONE opinion on which WWII tank is considered the best

                        Well, I'm ready to fight for the Sherman firefly

                        Quote: stalkerwalker
                        "Tank Encyclopedia" is not at hand

                        http://mirageswar.com/armor/19355-yenciklopediya-tankov.html

                        Of course, I have paper, but progress does not stand still
                      2. +2
                        6 September 2014 11: 38
                        Quote: Kars
                        Of course, I have paper, but progress does not stand still

                        It’s not for me to argue with you ...
                        On a patriotic basis, I consider the T 34-85 (as an upgraded T-34) the best ... wassat
                      3. +1
                        6 September 2014 12: 44
                        Quote: stalkerwalker
                        Quote: Kars
                        Of course, I have paper, but progress does not stand still

                        It’s not for me to argue with you ...
                        On a patriotic basis, I consider the T 34-85 (as an upgraded T-34) the best ... wassat

                        I would say that he is the best for the Soviet troops, as is his concept.
                      4. +2
                        6 September 2014 16: 30
                        Quote: Kars
                        On a patriotic basis, I consider the T 34-85 (as an upgraded T-34) the best ...
                        I would say that he is the best for the Soviet troops, as is his concept.

                        Quote: Kars
                        Well, I'm ready to fight for the Sherman firefly

                        The Amyrykan tank building had the time and opportunity to evaluate the merits and demerits of Soviet tanks tested at the Aberdeen test site in 1942. A higher level of technical equipment should be added, as well as the level of workers who "smoothly rebuilt" from the production of cars to tanks.
                        T 34-85 took part in the 1979 Sino-Vietnamese conflict.
                      5. +1
                        6 September 2014 19: 27
                        Quote: stalkerwalker
                        Amyrykan tank building had time

                        Firefly is an American-English tank building.
                        Quote: stalkerwalker
                        A higher level of technical equipment should be added, as well as the level of workers who "smoothly rebuilt" from the production of cars to tanks.

                        Well what can I say this can not be attributed to the cons.
                        Quote: stalkerwalker
                        T 34-85 took part in the Sino-Vietnamese conflict of 1979 of the year

                        most likely also post-war construction, when they began to pay more attention to quality.
                        But here we must take into account that I’m talking about a relative tank in isolation from the shaft of production, tactics, the quality of the crew of its morale, etc. I say what to put in a row panther, t-34-85, Comet, Cromwell, Sherman with 76mm, T-4, Firefly - I'll choose the latter.
                      6. Crang
                        0
                        6 September 2014 20: 06
                        What is so good about "Firefly" Kars? Do you know what the Germans called "Shermans" in WWII? "Stove for Tommy", "American Cauldron", etc. The Americans themselves called their tank "Fried Ass" or the name of a lighter, which in advertising of those times "lights up immediately and the first time." Moreover, the T-34 did not have any offensive nicknames until the very end of the war. He received the klikukha "Caviar Bank" only during the Korean War, where he had to fight the Pershing and M48. In general, the Sherman-Firefly is not a balanced tank. Everything is cultural in him in terms of firepower, optics and electronics, but in other positions he remained a tank of the appearance of the 30s. T-34-85 and Pz.V "Panther" are much more balanced and successful tanks.
                      7. +1
                        6 September 2014 20: 30
                        Quote: Krang
                        Do you know what the Germans called "Shermans" in WWII?

                        The Germans met with the Shermans after the rearmament of the PT artillery at Pak-40, if they were Shermans from the USSR in 1941 instead of the T-34 everything would have been the same by themselves. Or had the Germans seen the first T-34 in 1943 - they would have called them a stove Ivanov. And the rest is just the inertia of army thinking.
                        Quote: Krang
                        T-34-85 and Pz.V "Panther" are much more balanced and successful tanks.
                        nothing more balanced, especially the panther,
                      8. Crang
                        0
                        6 September 2014 21: 30
                        Quote: Kars
                        if they were Shermans in the USSR in 1941 instead of the T-34, everything would have been the same.

                        But such "Shermans" in the 41st were not even in the project.
                        Quote: Kars
                        nothing more balanced, especially the panther,

                        Well, of course not. Firstly, they already had a completely modern, advantageous from the point of view of protection, ergonomics and stability of the body shape. Normal running gear. Normal mobility and permeability. The Firefly, with its weak carburetor engine and "transitional" body, had none of this. He was tall, very comfortable as a target, often toppled to one side, had poor passability and burned like a candle. Booking it did not inspire confidence. In general, if the "Firefly" turret with this cannon were installed on some other WW2 tank, it would really be a good pepelats. But no. As anti-tank self-propelled guns "Firefly" was nothing. As a tank - so-so. Panther is better. T-34-85 too.
                      9. +1
                        6 September 2014 21: 40
                        Quote: Krang
                        But such "Shermans" in the 41st were not even in the project.

                        Well, the T-34 came up against the 37 mm anti-tank guns as the basis of the German anti-tank defense.
                        Quote: Krang
                        Well, of course not. Firstly, they already had a completely modern, advantageous from the point of view of protection, ergonomics and stability of the body shape. Normal running gear. Normal mobility and permeability. "Firefly" with its weak carburetor engine and "transitional" body did not have any of this.

                        All this was not a panther, with its weight, boasting an engine. In general, I am too lazy to argue with you about empty things, it has already been at least two times.
                        Quote: Krang
                        He was tall, very comfortable as a target, often tumbled to one side, had poor traffic and burned like a candle

                        this is stupid nonsense - you read books like I see here I don’t see.
                        I will give a photo of comparison.
                        By the way, have you already seen the torn T-72B3?
                      10. +3
                        6 September 2014 21: 52
                        Quote: Kars
                        By the way, have you already seen the torn T-72B3?

                        Where??? what
                      11. Crang
                        0
                        6 September 2014 22: 02
                        Quote: Kars
                        By the way, have you already seen the torn T-72B3?

                        I saw a torn tower of the usual T-72BM 1987 Kars. Novorossia does not have a T-72B3.
                        Quote: Kars
                        this is stupid nonsense - you read books like I see here I don’t see.
                        I will give a photo of comparison.

                        Correctly what Kars gave. So what we see. T-34-85. The height of its body is about 1,5 meters. The terrain screen in a European theater of operations is approximately 1m. In total, the enemy in most cases will see in the sight only 0,5 m of the hull of our tank and a narrowed tower with 90mm frontal armor. To hit such a target is much more difficult than "Sherman" from which in the European theater of operations in the sight of the enemy will loom at least 1m of the hull, not counting the tower. In addition, the Sherman's transmission with fire-hazardous hydraulics is located at the front, which is not buzzing in terms of fire hazard. The only advantage of the "Sherman" over the T-34-85 when it is used directly as a tank, I think the presence of a VN stabilizer is doubtful, given its design. Otherwise, it is worse. But in defense, when firing at enemy armored vehicles from cover, this "Firefly" is really very good. In such a situation, security and mobility fade into the background, and only firepower plays a role. With which "Firefly" everything was fine.
                      12. +1
                        6 September 2014 22: 15
                        Quote: Krang
                        That's right what Kars gave. So what do we see. T-34-85

                        go carry ravings with an eagle to Andrei from Chelyabinsk.
                        terrain screens at standard distances in 600-1200 for tanks with a line of sights at an altitude of 2 meters from the ground.

                        Quote: Krang
                        T-72BM 1987-g

                        show me one with such a stray
                      13. Crang
                        0
                        6 September 2014 22: 25
                        Quote: Kars
                        terrain screens at standard distances in 600-1200 for tanks with a line of sights at an altitude of 2 meters from the ground.

                        Approximately 1 meter.
                        Quote: Kars
                        show me one with such a stray

                        Shhssss Kars. Don't tell anyone about Toka. Well, they gave it to me. We must fight for our lives. Defend against these NATO beasts who want to kill the Slavs from the world. As for the "torn off" T-72B3 turret, there is nothing surprising in this Kars. With regard to all-aspect protection against cumulative ammunition, the T-72B3 is worse than the usual T-72B because its VDZ kit does not cover the tank as tightly as the KNDZ of its predecessor. Actually, everyone knows this very well. But in general, tanks of the T-72 series, as expected, are more tenacious and suffer, on average, less losses than the T-64.
                      14. +1
                        6 September 2014 22: 51
                        Quote: Krang
                        Approximately 1 meter.

                        where did you pick up this nonsense?
                        Quote: Krang
                        On the whole, the T-72 series tanks, as expected, are more tenacious and suffer on average less losses than the T-64.

                        like somewhere there are statistics, and so basically the photos of the damaged T-64 are static positions with full ammunition from the hail or hurricane.
                      15. Crang
                        0
                        7 September 2014 06: 39
                        Quote: Kars
                        like somewhere there are statistics, and so basically the photos of the damaged T-64 are static positions with full ammunition from the hail or hurricane.

                        Based on what did you conclude Kars? How can you precisely determine by this weapon what weapons it was destroyed? Just T-64/80 explode much more often due to its design.
                      16. 0
                        7 September 2014 10: 54
                        Just T-64 / 80 explode much more often due to its design.
                        Not more often than T72, under the same conditions ...
                      17. +1
                        7 September 2014 11: 00
                        Quote: Krang
                        Based on what did you conclude Kars

                        based on more than one photograph.
                        Quote: Krang
                        Just T-64 / 80 explode much more often due to its design.

                        The T-64 has more shells in the carousel, so there are a lot of completely disassembled hulls, but what difference does it make that the tank cannot be restored.

                        And all the same, I’m wondering about the terrain screen for a tank whose sights are located 2-2,4 meters above the ground.
                      18. 0
                        7 September 2014 11: 10
                        Quote: Kars
                        And all the same, I’m wondering about the terrain screen for a tank whose sights are located 2-2,4 meters above the ground.
                        Any Soviet post-war tank has sights just at this height. What’s the catch?
                      19. +1
                        7 September 2014 11: 55
                        Quote: svp67
                        Any Soviet post-war tank has sights just at this height. What’s the catch?

                        What is such a catch? It’s just interesting that at a distance of 1200 meters from an enemy tank, the caterpillars will be visible on flat ground?
                      20. 0
                        7 September 2014 12: 16
                        Quote: Kars
                        ? It’s just interesting at a distance of 1200 meters from the enemy tank that the caterpillar will be visible on level ground?

                        The question is not clear. At such a distance without instruments, what is a caterpillar can be understood, but with observation instruments, and especially aiming, you can even distinguish the heads of nails on targets, what do you think can be seen in the chassis?
                      21. +1
                        7 September 2014 12: 22
                        Quote: svp67
                        with observation instruments, and especially aiming, you can even distinguish the heads of the nails on the targets, what do you think can be seen in the chassis?

                        no question at all, you can see it, or it will be closed by the so-called terrain screen.
                      22. 0
                        7 September 2014 12: 44
                        Quote: Kars
                        You can see it, or it will be closed by the so-called terrain screen.
                        What is a Terrain Screen? Our planet is not a "billiard ball", the gunners know what the creation of "fields of visibility and non-visibility" is, this is more important. A tank standing in an open field, but with tracked shelves in the grass, and the same tank standing at the same distance on a railway embankment will be seen in different ways ... will be seen in all details ...
                      23. +1
                        7 September 2014 16: 32
                        Quote: svp67
                        What is a Terrain Screen?

                        ok let's go on the other side
                        Quote: Krang
                        Correctly what Kars gave. So what we see. T-34-85. The height of its body is about 1,5 meters. The terrain screen in a European theater of operations is approximately 1m. In total, the enemy in most cases will see in the sight only 0,5 m of the hull of our tank and a narrowed tower with 90mm frontal armor. To hit such a target is much more difficult than "Sherman" from which in the European theater of operations in the sight of the enemy at least 1m of the body will loom,



                        Quote: Krang
                        I do not argue that the T-72 also explode with the separation of the tower. But this is still less common than with the T-64 or T-80. Why - already a hundred times explained to you.

                        Quote: svp67
                        Not more often than T72, under the same conditions.

                        Something I swp67 believe more than you.

                        Quote: Krang
                        You do not understand what a terrain screen is.
                        Cut-off in the scheme 1 m from the surface of the earth in the scheme
                      24. Crang
                        0
                        7 September 2014 17: 35
                        Quote: Kars
                        Something I swp67 believe more than you.

                        And I don’t have to believe Kars if you can check everything yourself. You're so stupid that you don’t understand the obvious. I already gave you the T-64 and T-72 diagrams on which the zones of the projection of MOH and AZ, respectively, were marked in red. What else is there to you incomprehensible? Plus chickens Katri T-64, which generally do not screen his MZ in any way (it turns out above them). That’s the whole difference. The child will understand.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Cut-off in the scheme 1 m from the surface of the earth in the scheme

                        That is:

                        As you can see, "Sherman", although formally and not much higher than other tanks, but in fact looming "convenient" for shelling with his forehead, it will be much stronger than others.
                      25. +1
                        7 September 2014 20: 09
                        Quote: Krang
                        And I don’t have to believe Kars if you can check everything yourself.

                        You, as usual, are talking nonsense, already beginning to tell tales beyond the zones. If you don’t have statistics. And you just want to say so, but you will still rave.
                        Quote: Krang
                        and in fact looming "convenient" for firing with his forehead, he will be much stronger than others.

                        much stronger? there is a literal trifle in a few percent, while the Sharik’s body is thicker, and I’m sorry I can still argue with whom the quality of armor is better in the USSR in difficult military conditions. Or in the USA in greenhouses.
                        Quote: svp67
                        Kars, you scare me, are you a supporter of Lyashko? )))
                        Rather, you, for some reason, have you immediately associated the other side with the back)))

                        then the side - the front surface of the Sherman is significantly larger than that of the T-34-85 or within the spread of the dispersion ellipse?
                      26. Crang
                        0
                        7 September 2014 20: 25
                        Quote: Kars
                        You, as usual, are talking nonsense, already beginning to tell tales beyond the zones. If you don’t have statistics. And you just want to say so, but you will still rave.

                        What is Kars. Anything that does not fit into your theory of the superiority of the T-64 you without batting an eye immediately call delirium? This is not Kars nonsense, but specific millimeters. And they show that the T-72 is better.
                      27. Crang
                        0
                        7 September 2014 20: 27
                        Quote: Kars
                        much stronger? there is a literal trifle in a few percent

                        Kars can you tell me the projection area of ​​the open areas of these tanks? There are not a few percent and 30% percent is obtained.
                        Quote: Kars
                        , and I'm sorry, you can still argue with whom the quality of armor is better in the USSR in difficult military conditions. Or in the USA in greenhouses.

                        It was believed that stronger. Although the American was more viscous and did not give shards.
                      28. +1
                        7 September 2014 20: 38
                        Quote: Krang
                        you without batting an eye immediately call nonsense?

                        I posted these pictures 20 times - but they will not confirm your words in any way
                        Quote: Krang
                        o in general, the T-72 series tanks, as expected, are more tenacious and suffer on average less losses than the T-6

                        Quote: Krang
                        Kars can you tell me the projection area of ​​the open areas of these tanks

                        just think it will give you? You vet so stupid that you try to reduce everything to arithmetic progression)))
                        Quote: Krang
                        It was believed that stronger.

                        no, it wasn’t considered - except perhaps for some memoirs when it was necessary to cry out a land lease, and so the t-34 went to the troops with scanty cracked shells, etc.
                      29. Crang
                        0
                        7 September 2014 20: 53
                        Quote: Kars
                        no, it wasn’t considered - except perhaps for some memoirs when it was necessary to cry out a land lease, and so the t-34 went to the troops with scanty cracked shells, etc.

                        Are you kidding yeah? Then they saved on a complete set, but not on quality. For negligent work, they could attribute self-mutilation or sabotage and shoot. Take a look online pictures of the destroyed T-34 Kars. Pay attention to welds. When they were torn apart, the armor was torn to pieces, and the weld remained intact. That's how Kars did then. And compare that to this shit. With the quality of even military equipment, dill now has serious problems:

                        The case tears at the seams like a cardboard. And try to find at least one T-72 torn in the same way. You will not find. At T-72 the tower is torn off and that's it. And the T-64 is just tearing like paper into pieces. Svidomo because the hands from the ass grow.
                      30. +1
                        7 September 2014 21: 05
                        Quote: Krang
                        Are you kidding yeah?

                        You fucked, read the real source of Soviet tank building.
                        how the arrival of machine tools under Lend-Lease allowed to reduce the number of marriage, here is a book about the pre-war state, with the outbreak of war everything just got worse
                        http://flibusta.net/b/237970
                        Quote: Krang
                        where they tore - armor tore into pieces, and the weld remained intact. That's how Kars did then.

                        show these photos, I’ll take a look, and in fact the tanks didn’t count on confronting the internal explosion, and if the BC detonated, the tower was abandoned for 50 meters without any difference, or the hull fell apart anyway and cannot be repaired by the crew. 64 saved weight by order of defense mines, it has more shells and carousels.
                      31. Crang
                        0
                        7 September 2014 20: 57
                        And here is what turns these T-64s into scrap metal:
                      32. +1
                        7 September 2014 20: 59
                        Rather, Hurricane and Grad, there is only one photo with the BPS getting into the T-64, most of the traces of howitzer artillery, MLRS and destruction during the retreat.
                      33. Crang
                        0
                        7 September 2014 21: 29
                        Aren't you tired of publishing the same photo? Can you still photograph this tower from different sides? Here is another "Bulat":
                      34. Crang
                        0
                        7 September 2014 21: 31
                        Quote: Kars
                        just one photo with the BPS getting into the T-64, most of the traces of howitzer artillery, MLRS and destruction during the retreat.

                        Uh-huh. And why are they retreating with such "cool" tanks? Well, our T-72s of course were all destroyed by these T-64 and Kars?
                      35. +1
                        7 September 2014 21: 39
                        Quote: Krang
                        Uh-huh. And why are they retreating with such "cool" tanks? Well, our T-72s of course were all destroyed by these T-64 and Kars?

                        Because the militia also has a lot of T-64, most likely more than the T-72 from the military. And since one battle was already, the T-64 knocked out the 2 T-72 simple people, but he himself suffered damage to be repaired.
                        But the main thing is not in tanks, but in the general concept.
                        Quote: Krang
                        NATO enters its troops in western Ukraine Kars
                        are those in the exercises? how they introduced and will withdraw.

                        Quote: Krang
                        And you don’t give them. Take your RPG and urine from these pigs.

                        Do you remember what I promised you? I don’t refuse promises, and apparently I have chances, and I will have two attempts.
                      36. Crang
                        0
                        7 September 2014 21: 44
                        Quote: Kars
                        And so one battle was already T-64 knocked out 2 T-72 simple truth, but he himself suffered damage to be restored.

                        Yes Yes Yes. What are you driving? Show the holes on these T-72s. They were destroyed by artillery and aircraft dill.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Do you remember what I promised you? I don’t refuse promises, and apparently I have chances, and I will have two attempts.

                        No. I don’t remember Kars. You are now in control of the dark side of the force. It is treated only by our T-72B3. They can bring you either freedom and insight, or death. Choose yourself what you like best.
                      37. Crang
                        0
                        7 September 2014 21: 40
                        So far, only one "Bulat" Kars:
                      38. +1
                        8 September 2014 11: 18
                        Quote: Krang
                        Yes Yes Yes. What are you driving? Show the holes on these T-72

                        I gave you a photo of two padded T-72, the holes are really invisible, but the fact that they were knocked out is intended
                        Quote: Krang
                        Not. I don’t remember Kars.

                        treat memory
                        Quote: Krang
                        They can bring you either freedom

                        freedom foreign tanks do not bring
                        Quote: Krang
                        So far, only one "Bulat" Kars

                        and T-72B3

                        and this beaten T-72 irrevocable, lined t-72 has already been dragged.
                      39. Crang
                        0
                        8 September 2014 12: 26
                        Quote: Kars
                        I gave you a photo of two padded T-72, the holes are really invisible, but the fact that they were knocked out is intended

                        Of course, artillery, aircraft and anti-tank systems were shot down.
                        Quote: Kars
                        freedom foreign tanks do not bring

                        Foreign tanks are when the "Abrams" will come to you Kars. And consider our T-72Bs as yours. we are one people.
                        Quote: Kars
                        and this beaten T-72 irrevocable, lined t-72 has already been dragged.

                        Yes, you have already pulled up with your pictures. All the same tank takes pictures. I have only one "Bulats" turned into scrap metal - at least ten photos (different). And the T-64BV cannot be counted at all. Ours do not like these tanks - shitty. They used it at first. In the beginning when they were taken away from Svidomo. The need also forced WWII tanks to be removed from the monuments. And now almost all MBTs are now T-72.
                      40. Crang
                        0
                        7 September 2014 20: 59
                        NATO brings troops to western Ukraine Kars. And he is going to help the dill with his military equipment. You may soon see "Abrams" Kars. That will crush women and children. Try to crush. Don't let them. Take your RPG and these pigs urine.
                      41. +1
                        7 September 2014 22: 01
                        _______________________________
                        Ground clearance T-34 400 mm
                      42. Crang
                        0
                        7 September 2014 22: 06
                        Well, why did you draw a line at ~ 800mm? Terrain screen - 1m.
                      43. +1
                        7 September 2014 22: 16
                        I spent at the meter level, and the height along the T-34-85 1700 body and you can forget about the terrain screen, this is a random factor, the tank might just as well be on a hill, the grass may burn out and so on and so forth, and a book that I advised you to read, the mosquito will tear your template and you will cease to be so de m.
                      44. Crang
                        0
                        8 September 2014 08: 38
                        Quote: Kars
                        you can forget about the terrain screen, this is a random factor, a tank with the same success can be on a hill, the grass can burn out, and so on and so forth

                        Do not forget about the scientific calculations of the Soviet research institutes. And in the jungle Kars how? The same chance and probability, and the tank can be seen from 3000m? There are official calculations in this area. Yes, of course - this is a randomly probabilistic process. And the tank can really be on a hill or somewhere else. But in 90% of cases, it will be hidden by about +/- 1 meter.
                      45. +1
                        8 September 2014 10: 27
                        Quote: Krang
                        Don't forget

                        do not forget that you de beat this is important. but artillerymen and tankers are not deb beaters if they see the turret of the tank, then they, unlike you, know perfectly well that just below it is the hull.))))
                      46. Crang
                        0
                        8 September 2014 10: 31
                        Quote: Kars
                        do not forget that you de beat this is the main thing.

                        What are you Karsushka. If I beat, then say that you are just a Svidomo degenerate zombie with amputated brains - to give you a compliment. On the topic - the concept of "terrain screen" was not invented by me, but existed in ancient Soviet times. And if you found out about it only yesterday, then it is exclusively your Kars problem.
                      47. +1
                        8 September 2014 11: 12
                        Quote: Krang
                        On the topic - the concept of "terrain screen" was not invented by me

                        It was thought up, but not so debly, as easily as you got it when even grass was used))) But you are so stupid that you’ll vryatli that for a tank with a line of fire and a gun that has great persistence of firing at distances of 600-1200 meters all your nonsense is not important, while the firefly has a lot more persistence due to the higher initial speed and ammunition, okay, the usual Sherman 76 mm had more armor penetration than the 85 mm T-34
                      48. Crang
                        0
                        8 September 2014 11: 25
                        Quote: Kars
                        , okay, the usual Sherman 76 mm had greater armor penetration than 85 mm T-34

                        About the same. With less mass and effectiveness of the OFS. A tank, however, must be able to fight not only with armored vehicles.
                        Quote: Kars
                        But you are so stupid that it’s almost impossible for you to say that for a tank with a height of the line of fire and with a gun with great persistence of firing at distances of 600-1200 meters, all your nonsense is not important

                        You cretin gave you the shell dispersion ellipse. So put it on the projection of the T-34 or "Sherman" hidden by the screen of the area. You will see that the likelihood that the blank will fall into a vulnerable spot, much higher in the Sherman.
                        Quote: Kars
                        It was invented, but not so debi, flintered like you did when even grass was used)))

                        What is the problem. Grass works just like a screen. No one will shoot through it. little use.
                      49. 0
                        7 September 2014 19: 39
                        Quote: Kars
                        ok let's go on the other side
                        Kars, you scare me, are you Lyashko's supporter? ))))) And on account of the fact that the higher the target, the more chances of hitting it, so this is pure theory of shooting. There is such a thing as an ellipse of dispersion, this is when from a weapon, without changing anything to make a lot of shots, then the hits are distributed not around a circle, but in the form of an ellipse elongated in height ... and 1 meter on the ground, this is not some kind of "terrain screen ", and the average height of the ATT barrel is above the ground and if it aims lower, then there is a chance to" drive "half of the shells into the ground.
                      50. Crang
                        0
                        7 September 2014 15: 01
                        Quote: Kars
                        based on more than one photograph.

                        I do not argue that the T-72 also explode with the separation of the tower. But this is still less common than with the T-64 or T-80. Why - a hundred times already explained to you. This is perfectly obvious to any sane person. By the way, there are a lot of pictures of the blown up T-64 on the network that pulls out VLD with meat. The T-72 body remains more or less intact.
                        Quote: Kars
                        And all the same, I’m wondering about the terrain screen for a tank whose sights are located 2-2,4 meters above the ground.

                        You do not understand what a terrain screen is. The terrain screen characterizes the relief of the earth's surface and vegetation. We have a relief and vegetation such that even in an open field about 1 meter of the tank will be hidden either by grass / bushes or by terrain in 95% of cases. Look at this Kars video:
                        http://yandex.ru/video/search?filmId=MELQUwB0UXI&text=Т-90А%20видео
                        You see - the tank drove off a bit and its hull was almost no longer visible. This is what a terrain screen is.
                      51. 0
                        7 September 2014 11: 16
                        Quote: Krang
                        The only advantage of the "Sherman" over the T-34-85 when it is used directly as a tank, I think the presence of a VN stabilizer is even doubtful, given its design.
                        Stupidity, you completely do not take into account that with the front MTO position, then it was possible to achieve more comfortable conditions for shooting, since the tower was located in the center, the rear MTO position, was able to win only after it was possible to install the engine across. And the "Sherman" has significantly more advantages than those that you named, take at least a torsion bar suspension and the ability to mount a 105 mm cannon ...
                      52. Crang
                        0
                        7 September 2014 15: 03
                        Quote: svp67
                        And "Sherman" has significantly more advantages than those that you named, take at least torsion bar suspension

                        You are not mistaken?
                        Quote: svp67
                        the ability to install a 105 mm gun ...

                        So on the T-34-85 it can be installed if desired. And in "Panther"
                      53. 0
                        7 September 2014 21: 55
                        Quote: Krang
                        You are not mistaken?
                        Yes, there is such a thing, I made a mistake in the HC type, but I was not mistaken in the main thing, that the HC Sherman allowed a smoother and more comfortable movement of the tank for firing over rough terrain, without "swinging" than much "sinned", a simpler suspension a, la Christie T34
                        Quote: Krang
                        So on the T-34-85 it can be installed if desired. And in "Panther"
                        I will not say anything about the Panther, since I do not know of such projects, but on the T34 they tried to install 100 mm TP, the tank was called T34-100, and immediately revealed that the tank, as a combat unit, immediately lost a lot in combat qualities, so how the nose of the car turned out to be very overloaded, the speed dropped, the strong recoil of the 100 mm gun, did not allow firing on the move, did not withstand the transmission elements, and more than 15 degrees from straight-line movement, due to the height and characteristics of the hCh ... In short, it was required too much to alter, in fact it turned out, almost a new tank ...
                      54. Crang
                        0
                        7 September 2014 21: 58
                        Quote: svp67
                        The effective recoil of 100 mm guns did not allow firing on the move, the transmission elements could not withstand

                        Did the Sherman's transmission withstand the recoil of an even more powerful 105mm gun?
                        Quote: svp67
                        and more than 15 degrees from rectilinear motion, due to height and

                        So the "Sherman" height was even higher.
                        Quote: svp67
                        In short, it took too much to redo, in fact it turned out, almost a new tank ...

                        A "Sherman" with a 105mm cannon tank simply ceased to be. The result is a "self-propelled 105mm cannon".
                      55. 0
                        8 September 2014 10: 05
                        Quote: Krang
                        Did the Sherman's transmission withstand the recoil of an even more powerful 105mm gun?
                        Yes withstood, her efforts after all ...
                        Quote: Krang
                        So the "Sherman" height was even higher.
                        But then the tower was located in the center of the hull, and there was only one difficulty - balancing the tower itself, but technically it is much easier than balancing the whole tank ...
                        Quote: Krang
                        A "Sherman" with a 105mm cannon tank simply ceased to be. The result is a "self-propelled 105mm cannon".
                        Well, why so. It turned out a full-fledged combat vehicle, which proved this both in the sands of Sinai and in the South American Andes ...
                      56. 0
                        7 September 2014 10: 52
                        Quote: Krang
                        Do you know what the Germans called "Shermans" in WWII? "
                        And T34-85 in Korea the Americans called "cans of caviar" and so what? I won't say anything about the name of our tanks from our tankers ... until 1944 and the appearance of the T34-85 and IS2, the names were, the same not the best ... "Sormovo freaks", the softest is about the T34.
            2. 0
              7 September 2014 10: 48
              Quote: Kars
              If the war hadn’t started, the T-34M would have become the main one; Kv had no chance of becoming mass.

              With all due respect, but you are wrong. Do not start a war, the T-50 was supposed to become the most massive, it was for it that the Stalingrad tank was built ... And the KV 1 and 2 were not when not planned, as a mass tank, it was always considered a tank of "high-quality amplification"
        2. 0
          7 September 2014 10: 43
          Quote: Kars
          And so the tiger could become the first MBT, use oblique reservation on the Fritz on it and refuse the front transmission.
          And as a result, we get that the Germans would have the first MBT "Panther" with an 88-mm gun ...
          And at the expense of the location of the transmission, the question is very controversial, the most massive American tank "Sherman", had the same and no one will say that it was a bad tank.
          1. +1
            7 September 2014 11: 06
            Quote: svp67
            had to become t-xnumx

            Well, it’s easy to vet, and somehow it weakly claims the title of MBT even if it were the most massive and widespread.
            Quote: svp67
            As a result, we get that the Germans would have the first MBT "Panther" with an 88-mm cannon.

            The same option, but with its weight the panther did not manage to make a decent side protection.
            Quote: svp67
            And at the expense of the location of the transmission, the question is very controversial, the most massive American tank "Sherman", had the same and no one will say that it was a bad tank

            I will not speak for the Sherman, but installing a monoblock on a tiger would reduce the height of the case, get rid of the cardan, and what the hell is not joking, it could reduce the overall length.
            1. 0
              7 September 2014 11: 21
              Quote: Kars
              I will not speak for the Sherman, but installing a monoblock on a tiger would reduce the height of the case, get rid of the cardan, and what the hell is not joking, it could reduce the overall length.

              What, what but the Tiger-1 with the long everything was fine, by the way it was one of the most maneuverable tanks. The ratio of length to width is one of the smallest. And they could reduce the height, apply a double cardan, as on Czech cars, did not want ... for our happiness.
              1. +1
                7 September 2014 12: 02
                Quote: svp67
                everything was fine with a long one

                I think it would be possible to take away even at least half a ton of two weights. And if you also have a height, it can still be a couple of tons.

                There is a cool drawing of a tiger with a front MTO is also an option.
                1. 0
                  7 September 2014 12: 14
                  It is interesting, but the Germans would never have gone for this, since in this version the tower would have left the center ...
                  1. +1
                    7 September 2014 12: 20
                    Quote: svp67
                    but the Germans would never do that

                    Germans they are. Quite often just strange
                    1. 0
                      7 September 2014 13: 29
                      Quote: Kars
                      Germans they are. Quite often just strange
                      You shouldn't be so, they are quite "readable", as they are "rational" and having made one decision, they follow it in the future ...
                      1. +1
                        7 September 2014 16: 23
                        Quote: svp67
                        You shouldn't be so, they are quite "readable", as they are "rational" and having made one decision, they follow it in the future ...

                        honestly after the suspension of Knipken (chess) and king-tiger / mouse we can say that they often flirted. the same ferdinand - why did he have 200 mm of his forehead when 120 mm was enough for his eyes.
  10. +1
    5 September 2014 12: 05
    Interesting, readable. But about the Panther, the message was initially wrong. This is not a breakthrough tank like Isa's, this is an anti-tank tank. He had to stop the hordes of 34, and this task is a priority. But it's better to wait for UV. Kars'a, he is in the subject better than many.
    1. Crang
      +1
      5 September 2014 15: 21
      Quote: Bugor
      But as for the Panther, the message was initially incorrect. This is not a breakthrough tank, like Isa, it is an anti-tank tank.

      I wonder on what basis you assigned such a "capacious" classification to the "Panther"? In my opinion, a completely normal tank. Tank it cannot be somehow. It is inherently universal.
      1. 0
        5 September 2014 19: 23
        On the basis that the tank is a universal machine on the battlefield, and the Hans by the end of the war reduced all their panzerwales to tank destroyers, if we consider Panther or Tiger B as a tank destroyer, then yes, not the worst unit, but even in this role with a bunch of pathologies. And history has proven it.
        1. Crang
          0
          6 September 2014 18: 21
          Quote: Firstvanguard
          and the "Hans" by the end of the war reduced all their panzerwaals to tank destroyers

          Who told you that? The Hans defended themselves at the end of the war. And accordingly, their tanks also fought on the defensive. In defense, any tank will be more effective. And "Panther" is no exception here.
      2. 0
        5 September 2014 21: 33
        Quote: Krang
        Tank, he can not be somehow. It is inherently universal.
        Not true ...
        How versatile are the T-70 and PT-76? And they, too, are TANKS ... So that the tank may well be "somehow", even now ...
        1. Crang
          0
          6 September 2014 18: 43
          Quote: svp67
          Not true ...
          How versatile are the T-70 and PT-76? And they, too, are TANKS ... So that the tank may well be "somehow", even now ...

          Light tanks perform several specific tasks. But if we are talking about medium, heavy or basic combat, then good a tank of this class is always a universal machine.
    2. +1
      5 September 2014 21: 40
      Quote: Bugor
      anti-tank tank.

      Rather, a tank destroyer is a Panther and CT built more for the sake of art systems,
      1. 0
        7 September 2014 10: 38
        Quote: Kars
        Rather, a tank destroyer is a Panther and CT built more for the sake of art systems,
        If I agree with "KT", then with "Panther" no ...
        1. +1
          7 September 2014 11: 08
          Quote: svp67
          then with "Panther" no ..

          Well, I don’t know for me 7,5 cm KwK 42 is a very specific art system.
  11. 0
    5 September 2014 12: 36
    I also did not really like that the author exposes the designers of other countries to be stupid. In my opinion, there were simply different tasks. For the Germans, create an "object" within the specified characteristics, and for the Soviet, create the most simple product suitable for mass production.
    1. 0
      5 September 2014 19: 59
      Quote: The Cat
      I also did not really like the fact that the author makes the designers of other countries stupid.

      Not stupid, read carefully.
      Quote: The Cat
      In my opinion, there were simply different tasks.

      The tasks were set exactly the same: to create a tank superior to enemy tanks.
      Quote: The Cat
      For the Germans, create an "object" within the specified characteristics, and for the Soviet, create the most simple product suitable for mass production.

      and the Soviet ones - to create the most simple product suitable for mass production. within the specified characteristics. hi

      As an example of a completely different approach, I’ll give a classic when the Yankees swell a million greens and create a pen that can write in zero gravity, while the Russians, without further ado, use a banal pencil worth 4 kop.
  12. Alexander
    0
    5 September 2014 14: 30
    This is what happens when a person far from aviation and astronautics begins to talk about the advantages and disadvantages of technology, without understanding it at all. "The brilliant design" policy "of the Il-2" led to huge losses of these machines, so the version without a gunner went into series production, which made the aircraft a target for tearing apart enemy fighter aircraft. After thinking it over, the designers placed the arrow to protect the aircraft in the rear hemisphere. But the ingenious design of the Il-2 did not provide for booking for the shooter, and therefore the arrows became consumables for one sortie. For some reason, the author does not consider these "shortcomings" at the cost of life. Yes, you won't be able to land the plane with trimmers, this is sheer nonsense and an amateur's gag. The author does not know what a trimmer is and why he is on an airplane. And if I knew, I would not have written this. It's ridiculous to read about entering a fighter's tail at a bend! So Stuck was an unsuccessful plane due to its large wing area, and the author praised the IL-2 for the same drawback! Contradict yourself. They also came up with some 4 postulates! The fact that the yak-3 was made of plywood was a general decision ?! No, there were simply no options! The fact that the design of the aircraft was so simple and even primitive is the fault of a lack of resources, materials, skilled workers. There was a war. These are not the fruits of ingenious design solutions, the designers did not have a simple choice. It was necessary to give the technique to the Front. As a former employee of the Tupolev Design Bureau, it is hard for me to read that the whole "genius" of Russian design thought lies in the primitiveness and cheapness of the design. With such a "primitive" "cheap" technology, we sent the first man into space, built titanium boats, the world's most powerful reactors, American rockets fly on our "primitive" rocket engines, Buran flew into space on "primitive" automatics and landed on an airfield on its own ! Aren't you ashamed to insult really talented people so much for their achievement?
    1. Sheremetev
      +1
      5 September 2014 15: 51
      Alexander, who did you work in the KB, a cleaner of technical premises? Sheer incompetence! I know better than you what a trimmer is. If you are not able to figure it out yourself, then at least read the testimonies of the ILov pilots, who described landing on the trim tabs with a damaged rudder. In fairness, I will say that except on IL, I have never seen a description of such a landing anywhere else. As for the horizontal maneuver, I am ashamed to speak with you as a "constructor". Open any reference book and compare the duration of the turn of the IL-2 and let's say ME-109, FV-190 or the term "duration of the turn" does not tell you anything either? I don’t even want to talk about your other "arguments".
    2. +1
      5 September 2014 20: 07
      Totally agree with you
    3. +1
      5 September 2014 22: 55
      Quote: alexandr
      This is what happens when a person far from aviation and astronautics begins to talk about the advantages and disadvantages of technology, without understanding it at all. "The brilliant design" policy "of the Il-2" led to huge losses of these machines, so the version without a gunner went into series production, which made the aircraft a target for tearing apart enemy fighter aircraft. After thinking it over, the designers placed the arrow to protect the aircraft in the rear hemisphere. But the ingenious design of the Il-2 did not provide for booking for the shooter, and therefore the arrows became consumables for one sortie. For some reason, the author does not consider these "shortcomings" at the cost of life. Yes, you won't be able to land the plane with trimmers, this is sheer nonsense and an amateur's gag. The author does not know what a trimmer is and why he is on an airplane. And if I knew, I would not have written this. It's ridiculous to read about entering a fighter's tail at a bend! So Stuck was an unsuccessful plane due to its large wing area, and the author praised the IL-2 for the same drawback! Contradict yourself. They also came up with some 4 postulates! The fact that the yak-3 was made of plywood was a general decision ?! No, there were simply no options! The fact that the design of the aircraft was so simple and even primitive is the fault of a lack of resources, materials, skilled workers. There was a war. These are not the fruits of ingenious design solutions, the designers did not have a simple choice. It was necessary to give the technique to the Front. As a former employee of the Tupolev Design Bureau, it is hard for me to read that the whole "genius" of Russian design thought lies in the primitiveness and cheapness of the design. With such a "primitive" "cheap" technology, we sent the first man into space, built titanium boats, the world's most powerful reactors, American rockets fly on our "primitive" rocket engines, Buran flew into space on "primitive" automatics and landed on an airfield on its own ! Aren't you ashamed to insult really talented people so much for their achievement?

      Alexander, a lot of letters, a little understanding.
      First, strangely enough, but the losses of Soviet aviation in the Second World War are the smallest among all the air forces of the belligerents with the least casualties and the largest number of sorties.
      Especially for people like you, I undertake to fill out the data in an article within a month and post it on the VO.
      Regarding the "lack of resources, materials, qualified personnel" - and here you hit your finger in the sky. This is called the rational use of resources, materials, qualified personnel, which allowed in the process to constantly increase output, reduce labor intensity and cost, while improving quality.
      Indeed, the "Stuck" was outdated and unsuccessful, and the Il-2 was revolutionary in its success, because it carried out its work without a gunner and under the conditions of the Luftwaffe's air supremacy. Let me remind you for clarity that at the beginning of the war there were no instructions and manuals on the combat use of this aircraft. And, by the way, the German analogue from Henschel flew single-seat until the end of the war.

      Quote: alexandr
      As a former employee of the Tupolev Design Bureau, it is hard for me to read that the whole "genius" of Russian design thought lies in the primitiveness and cheapness of the design.

      Yes, of course, a primitive, even to the point that the Yak-3 you mentioned was superior to German fighters.
      Not primitiveness, but thoughtfulness and manufacturability!

      In general, read carefully.
    4. 0
      6 September 2014 20: 50
      Samara. Monument IL-2.
      Place for newlyweds. Defined so to speak by "gunner" and "pilot" laughing young people.
      By the way ... One of my grandfather had incentives for rationalization during the Second World War at the aircraft factory in Kuibyshev.
      The second one fought, including on the Kursk Bulge.
  13. postoronim V
    0
    5 September 2014 14: 44
    Normally, as in the film "flying hussar squadron" I would like to add: "... Denis Vasilyevich line, line ...", but we will help to reason.
  14. padonok.71
    0
    5 September 2014 15: 24
    The front-line tankers spoke very well of Hetzer, they were afraid of this car and respected it. I spoke personally with the commander of the 14th Guards. tank brigade, Ukrainian front, participant in the Sudeten offensive operation in 1945. Zeltanov Mikhail Ignatich (now deceased) - only "enthusiastic" reviews. Small, low, fidgety, with a powerful anti-tank cannon. As the grandfather said: "X ... you will get there!". And he spat with relish. Again, from the words of GRANDFATHER, in 45g. one Hetzer knocked out half a company from an ambush. A cramped one - 34kA, also not a 3-room apartment.
  15. +2
    5 September 2014 17: 32
    The author has strongly and unjustifiably shifted the emphasis in the failures of design thought only towards designers. In fact, designers are only one thing, and far from the most important link in the state’s military machine. Including and in the third Reich. The fact that the Customer made difficult requirements, constantly changed them and was not able (including for objective reasons) to organize production is clearly not the fault of the designers. Plus, undercover games, intense competition, lobbying and so on. Need I say that we had it?
    So blaming only the designers, to put it mildly, is not quite right to blame for the failures, as well as for the luck, of the work of the military industry.
  16. -1
    5 September 2014 20: 32
    Didn't like the article. To find fault with the German designers of the grounds, IMHO, there are none. They created many wonderful weapons, implemented many ideas that the victorious countries did not hesitate to use after the war. And the Germans knew how to make their designers work when they felt the need to. In the tyrnet, there was an answer from the MG-42 designer about how he managed to create such a wonderful machine gun. The answer was something like this: "..or a machine gun, or a camp ..". You can also recall the "electric bots" that were late for the war, prepared for production and actually produced by assembling compartments manufactured at other enterprises. There are many things to remember.
    The author cited the large wing of the Yu-87 as a drawback, which did not allow him to develop high speed. For the IL-2, for some reason, the large wing is already exhibited as a virtue. Mismatch, however ...
    And about the shaving flight of the IL-2 as the "corporate identity" of this aircraft, it is indicated that thanks to it the aircraft were difficult to detect. Maybe this is the case, or maybe the fact that the IL-2 was very vulnerable from below from behind to attacks from fighters. And the Germans knew this perfectly well.

    "This idea has four postulates. It can (with some variations) be formulated like this. The most effective design is an inexpensive design, and for a design to be inexpensive, it must be massive."
    To write that this is stupidity ... seems to be impolite, and there is some rational grain in this statement. but no more than that.
    The most effective design, IMHO, is a design that allows you to solve the tasks assigned to it at minimal cost. And mass has nothing to do with it. There are a lot of examples. For example, was the first satellite launched in 1957 effective? Unconditionally !!! He solved his tasks. Was he MASS? No. A maximum of three to 5 pieces were made. The cost of manufacturing a single copy is important for items that are planned to be released in mass circulation. For unique equipment, price is often of secondary (if not tertiary) importance.

    From my point of view, the author has "banged the tops" and shares his "knowledge" with others. Maybe this is interesting to someone, but personally to me - no.
    1. Sheremetev
      0
      5 September 2014 23: 56
      I would like to answer your criticisms. Let's start by picking up the tops. Understand, the format of the article does not allow me to mess with elementary, primitive things. Let's say a large wing area is good or bad? The question is not correct. It all depends on the tasks for which the aircraft is designed. And if the aircraft is being produced, then the task of the subunits in its combat use is to neutralize the disadvantages of this quality and make the most of the advantages. Take the Ju-87, a large wing area made this aircraft an unrivaled dive bomber. Why? For effective diving, two main qualities are needed. First: high aerodynamic drag. The higher the resistance, the lower the dive speed. A low dive speed allows you to take the plane out of the dive at the lowest possible altitude, which leads to the accuracy of bombing. And what other quality is needed to get out of the peak practically at the ground? That's right - this is the second: a large wing area. I explained in my article that these qualities were good for the Stuka at the beginning of the war, but bad in the second half, because the air resistance made the junkers slow. Take the PE-2 dive bomber. He could not get out of the dive as low as "Stuck", because its wing area is small, but the speed is high, which gave him a chance to get away from the fighter. Now IL. Yes. the large wing area did not add to his agility, but there were many advantages: low stall speed, i.e. he could hang over the battlefield; low takeoff and landing speed i.e. he could work from "killed" airfields; safe shaving flight (due to stability); short bend, etc. True, the large wing area still did not allow the IL to dive as well as the Ju-87, because the IL's wings would not withstand such a load and would fold. In a word, there are many nuances, and for known reasons, I cannot chew such things. The material is designed for a prepared reader.
  17. 0
    5 September 2014 20: 51
    Quote: Wheel
    Wheel RU Today, 19:59 ↑

    Quote: The Cat
    I also did not really like the fact that the author makes the designers of other countries stupid.

    Not stupid, read carefully.



    Well, right then the article does not say this, but the meaning is clear ... When Soviet designers are called "brilliant" and "smart", then an analogy can be drawn ...

    Quote: Wheel
    The tasks were set exactly the same: to create a tank superior to enemy tanks.


    Superior in what? T-34 and "Panther" were different in everything ... And how can you compare tanks designed for different tasks?

    Quote: Wheel
    within the specified characteristics. hi


    And if ever the finished product corresponded to the technical specifications? After reading many memoirs of Soviet designers of the Second World War and after, I can’t remember this ...
    1. +1
      5 September 2014 23: 36
      Quote: The Cat
      Well, right then the article does not say this, but the meaning is clear ... When Soviet designers are called "brilliant" and "smart", then an analogy can be drawn ...

      And the Soviet designers were not smart?
      Quote: The Cat
      Superior in what? T-34 and "Panther" were different in everything ... And how can you compare tanks designed for different tasks?

      Let's dance from the stove.
      At the start of the war, the Germans believed that "tanks with tanks do not fight."
      Practice has shown the opposite.
      In the end, they were forced to create something superior to 34-ku and HF.
      As they understood this superiority, it was their problem.
      They tried to copy 34, but the "stone flower" did not come out.
      As a result, we created what we created.
      Quote: The Cat
      And if ever the finished product corresponded to the technical specifications? After reading many memoirs of Soviet designers of the Second World War and after, I can’t remember this ...

      Quote: The Cat
      And if ever the finished product corresponded to the technical specifications? After reading many memoirs of Soviet designers of the Second World War and after, I can’t remember this ...

      Well, streamlined, let's say that as close as possible to the given characteristics. hi
  18. 0
    5 September 2014 23: 15
    It’s okay that a tank in such a fuel reserve will travel only 80 km on rough terrain, let’s put a fuel truck behind it. Well, the fact that a fuel truck, being a “red rag” for Russian aviation, does not travel over rough terrain, these are its problems, we are “constructing” a tank, not a gas tanker.

    Is it that the European part of the USSR in WWII was entirely rugged terrain? laughing With a great distance from at least a semblance of roads? With all the desire to use "rough terrain" - far from communications in the Second World War, it was contraindicated to move away. Supply. Or tanks, lonely and proud ships of the desert then? laughing Or was air domination not realistic? At the 1st stage of the war with the Germans? And did the Soviet leadership understand this ???
    In 1941, the Germans in the first turn rushed forward along the roads, changing them like gloves ... For the speed is stupidly higher.
    Just think, Hitler postponed the operation "Citadel" several times in order to accumulate more of such "masterpieces", of course, three quarters of the "masterpieces" remained to "sunbathe" on the Kursk fields.

    Exchange for the time of the offensive. Of the Soviet ... which after a grandiose tank battle was already scarce. They killed most of the Soviet tank fleet. It is better than plugging holes at the front with a mass of T-34.
    The T-34 tank formed the world standard, the standard of the BASIC tank. And no “panthers” can even come close to this standard!

    T-34-57 for what purpose was created?
    The T-34’s ascension to this world standard was expensive. But the T-34 tank is the undisputed tank. Still, you cannot bet on only one type of weapon. It is not known how everything will turn out.
    1. 0
      5 September 2014 23: 42
      Quote: Lexi2
      All the same, you cannot bet on only one type of weapon. It is not known how everything will turn.

      There is a wise truth: they do not change horses at the crossing.
  19. 0
    6 September 2014 11: 20
    Quote: Sheremetev
    I would like to answer your critical remarks. Let's start by picking up the tops. Understand that the format of the article does not allow me to mess with elementary, primitive things. .....

    Do not need. But there should be no inconsistencies in the article. If it does not, then take another example to illustrate your point.
    Quote: Sheremetev
    .... Take the PE-2 dive bomber. He could not get out of the dive as low as "Stuck", because his wing area is small, but the speed is high, which gave him a chance to get away from the fighter .....

    The PE-2 did not have a chance to escape the fighter. DID NOT HAVE!!! The speed of the PE-2 produced in 1943: at the ground 434 km / h, at an altitude of 4800 - 515 km / h. The speed of the Bf-109F (1942) is 600 km / h. (data taken from www.airpages.ru). The PE-2 could have tried to dump "home" as soon as possible, until it was intercepted, but could not get away from the fighter. By the way, in the memoirs of the fighter pilots who carried out missions to escort the PE-2, this desire of the PE-2 crews to quickly "dump" was assessed negatively: any hitch of the cover fighter group (battle, maneuver, etc.) left the bombers unprotected, which was fraught ...

    Quote: Sheremetev
    ... In a word, there are many nuances, and for well-known reasons, I can’t chew such things. The material is designed for a trained reader.

    I absolutely did not understand about the calculation of the "prepared reader". On a completely stupid or what?
    Who is the material for? A specialist in the field of aircraft construction? No. In the field of tank building? No, because specialists in these fields will not be able to learn anything from your material (neither new nor old). Your material clearly belongs to the genre of "popular literature", i.e. initially oriented towards the "layman".
    The genre is useful, there are no words, however, IMHO, imposes a great responsibility on the writer.
    You must have at least respect for a potential reader and not create a mess in his head and not "hang noodles".
    I, for example, am an "unprepared" reader. But I read a lot of literature on the history of technology and memoirs. Therefore, when reading your creation, I note a bunch of negative points.

    Russian (Soviet) designers have created many excellent pieces of equipment. They are what is called "by ear". And it is not customary to remember design failures somehow, and their list is very long. A similar picture is observed for ALL: the Germans, Americans, British, French, etc.
    1. Sheremetev
      0
      6 September 2014 23: 20
      The PE-2 did not have a chance to escape the fighter. DID NOT HAVE!!! The speed of the PE-2 produced in 1943: at the ground 434 km / h, at an altitude of 4800 - 515 km / h. The speed of the Bf-109F (1942) is 600 km / h. (data taken from www.airpages.ru). The PE-2 could have tried to dump "home" as soon as possible, until it was intercepted, but could not get away from the fighter. By the way, in the memoirs of the fighter pilots who carried out missions to escort the PE-2, this desire of the PE-2 crews to quickly "dump" was assessed negatively: any hitch of the cover fighter group (battle, maneuver, etc.) left the bombers unprotected, which was fraught ...

      Dear, will you tell me that the speed of a fighter is greater than the speed of a bomber? What do you mean, "PE-2 has no chance" ??? Finally, understand that air combat is not a speed competition with a start and a finish. Try to knock down the "pawn", it is very maneuverable and fidgety. It is necessary to attack from a safe distance so that the shooter does not catch. And when leaving the attack, you must not manage not to fall under the fire of the "pawn's" forward-facing weapons. There may be no opportunity for a second attack. PE-2 can be easily lost from sight (clouds, haze, "brilliant green" - if it dives and goes at low level). Sea options. PE-2 loved to accompany fighters, for speed and altitude. It happened that even without escort fighters, the flight returned without losses, although the "pawns" attacked the "Messer". Why should I explain such primitive things to you? Because you were "formatted" by memoirs (I guess which one), well, read on.
      1. 0
        6 September 2014 23: 50
        Quote: tolancop
        The PE-2 did not have a chance to get away from the fighter. DID NOT HAVE

        Although the fighter could catch up with the PE-2, a sufficiently strong defensive weapon prevented the attacks. The fighter must first, in many cases remove the shooter from the tower, only then could destroy the pawn, and a rare case when the pawn flies alone and it is difficult to poke around with the group , there might not be enough fuel. So to hit a pawn required a quantitative superiority of fighters and a surprise attack. Yes, and all the bombers could only survive in the group, and a single or damaged one became prey.
      2. -1
        8 September 2014 23: 16
        "Avoiding a fighter" and "fighting off a fighter" are somewhat different things, don't you think?
        And I do not need to explain primitive things. And substitute concepts. You wrote that the Pe-2, having a high MTF speed, escaped from fighters. I have denied this. Pe-2 could not get away from the fighter, since the speed of the fighter is clearly higher and the initiative remained with the fighter - to attack or to leave.
        The Pe-2 could fight off the "impudent", but with varying success. Have you ever heard of the tactics of the Germans - a dive attack with approaching and shooting into the lower hemisphere of the Pe-2 and Il-2? And what is there, in the lower hemisphere of the Pe-2? One ShKAS caliber 7.62 ("humane weapon" according to reviews in your memoirs so unloved).

        And do not write about horseradish German tanks. Those who encountered them in battle did not consider them worthless.

        And it is not clear why such a critical attitude towards memoirs. Memoirs are also different. There are very high-quality samples, but there are frank crafts. If a former fighter pilot writes that he did not like to accompany the Pe-2 and gives it a consistent explanation, why should I not believe this statement? If the author of the memoirs in his presentation gives out a picture in which the ends meet well, why should I not trust the author?

        And, again, I don’t need to explain primitive things. Undertook to write about "Angara", write about "Angara", and do not hang vermicelli.
  20. 0
    6 September 2014 16: 59
    However, in the article the word "Angara" I came across only in the title.
    I feel that next time the author will please us with recipes of Georgian cuisine. laughing
  21. -1
    7 September 2014 21: 27
    The author of the article does not need to "pour water" about good and bad tanks and planes and be distracted from the topic. Let's better talk about the "Angara". So, the "light" variant has successfully flown and next year the "medium" and possibly "heavy" will fly from Plesetsk. The Vostochny cosmodrome is being successfully built, and against the background of this grandiose construction, I, for example, noticed the familiar outlines of the Soyuz launch complex. Launch complex "Angara" allows to carry out prelaunch preparation operations in automatic mode, without the participation of personnel. For comparison. about 150 people work at the Soyuz launch site for an hour and a half.
    Any sample of technology is subject to moral and physical aging, and rockets are no exception. Soviet ballistic missiles originate from the captured FAU-2. It was she who served as a model for copying and further improvement. Soviet 8Zh38, 8A11,8, 51KXNUMX - they all "left" the FAU. So write about this legendary rocket, its design, control system devices that were installed on the Vostoks, Voskhod and Soyuz. At least it would be "in the subject".
    You can write as much as you like about tanks and self-propelled guns, attack aircraft and dive bombers, savor their advantages and disadvantages, forgetting to say that they were based on foreign models. Without the acquisition of the American Christie tank factory, there would have been no BT-7 and later the T-34. The license for the Vickers light tank and the Carden-Lloyd tankette laid the foundation for the production of the T-26 tank and the T-37,38 light amphibious tanks. Without the American Wright Cyclone engines and the French Hispano-Suiza, there would have been no I-16, SB, Jacob, or Peshek. It was important that in the USSR, in a short time, specialists were trained who were able to move from blind copying to improving foreign designs and creating their own developments. Why is this controversy about the trimmer, the duration of the turn on an attack aircraft or a fighter - the author of the article himself did not fly, like many commentators. It seems to me that in the final version of the article about "Angara" will be written even less than mine.
  22. +1
    7 September 2014 23: 58
    What kind of pr .... ki zamusnuyut such a competent article?
    Actually, there is one remark. The West knew how to create good things, but for a long time: Saturn launch vehicles or Virginia-class nuclear submarines. Nothing fundamentally new has been created during this time. There is also a light aircraft of the fifth generation (the heavy one turned out to be just super expensive and unprofitable!), Which is used at the very least. The West became hostage to the economic system that it itself created and implemented. It is impossible for them to create something good and cheap, because they transferred production to countries with cheaper labor. And this process cannot be reversed, at least it will be very difficult to do it. More precisely, only when a roasted rooster pecks in one place. So the technological advantage of the West over us will soon melt away, and then you will get ahead.
  23. xren
    -1
    10 September 2014 23: 58
    which is no wonder for designers: lengthen the barrel and more gunpowder in the sleeve


    A clear demonstration of the quality of the article.