Military Review

Tanks of the Third Reich Series - E

73
Tanks of the Third Reich Series - E



Everything that ever happened in storiesDespite the vultures of secrecy, as a rule, sooner or later it becomes available to the public. There is no secret that would not have been revealed years later. This truth also applies to the secret developments by the designers of Nazi Germany of completely new and unique tankswhich, under a positive set of circumstances, could play a decisive role at the end of World War II. The plans of the top of the Third Reich about world domination were not destined to come true, and their tanks from the E series remained at the level of experimental samples. Despite the fact that military vehicles never began to be mass-produced, today many weapons experts call them the crown of the technical thought of German designers, and we must admit that there is every reason.

E-50 - medium tank

Of all the various plans of the Entwicklung program (or abbreviated as "E"), the highest tank was pinned on the medium tank under the code E-50. This machine had to change not only the obsolete Pz.IV, but also “Panther”, which, undoubtedly, imposed special duties on the designers. By the way, it will be noted that, apart from E-100, this plan was closer to implementation.



In the 1944 year, having suffered a series of defeats on all fronts, Germany switched to full energy and raw material savings. True, the tanks were produced in the quantities as before, but in comparison with the armored technique of the opponents, they were inferior in all respects, from defense to firepower and driving performance. In addition, the low safety of the chassis “panther” was in the hands of the enemy. It was possible to escape from these shortcomings only by reworking the chassis design. Work on the creation of a completely new combat vehicle was entrusted to two companies - Daimler-Benz and MAN. A brilliant engineer and an excellent leader - General H. E. Knikamp.

There was not much time left; because of this, a significant part of the components was copied from existing tank models and, above all, from the well-proven “Tiger II” in real-life combat. In order to facilitate mass production, in the factory at each of the development stages of the new tanks, certain improvements were made and work was done on a certain unification of the E-50 and E-75 plans, but it wasn’t possible to bring them to a logical conclusion.

One of the key issues that the German designers had to solve in the shortest possible time was a weak undercarriage. The chassis with the placement of rollers in a staggered manner, previously used on the “Panther” and “Tiger”, had a number of drawbacks that significantly influenced the overall combat capability of the tanks. Plus, from the technological side, the similar scheme was very far from ideal, and as a result there was a need for a completely new type of suspension system, more simple.

It is impossible not to recognize the fact that the German designers coped with the task quite successfully - in MAN 1944, a unique suspension scheme, often called a “silent block”, was proposed. It consisted of twin rollers from a “Tiger II” tank, 800 mm in diameter, combined into a joint unit. The road wheels were installed on spring-loaded levers and were located on different sides of a single-track truck, however, in their construction, shafts of identical length were used. The presence of a special bearing-spacer made it possible to change the condition of the wheel in relation to the crest of the track. Springs with an installed internal shock absorber were assembled from conventional Bellevielle washers and assembled in cylinders.

The shape of the hull and its armored defense were determined in an extremely short time. It was mainly taken from “Tiger II”, but the angle of inclination of the frontal armor plates was slightly increased. Therefore, the layout and overall dimensions of the E-50 and “Tiger II” were about the same.

As a power unit, it was decided to use an upgraded version of the engine Maybach HL230, called HL234. This model was equipped with a direct fuel injection system and for a short time allowed to increase the power from the existing 900 to 1200 hp. The placement of fuel tanks, fans and radiators was similar to the placement on the “Tiger II”, which completely excluded the installation of box components in the rear part of the hull.

The tower for the new tank E-50, in order to save time and money, borrowed from the tank “Panther II”, which was removed from serial production from 1944. The constructors of Daimler-Benz and Skoda were engaged in the development of this design, the experts of which proposed a much cheaper and more technologically advanced during mass production version of the tower with the real possibility of installing KwK44 75-mm gun. The thickness of the sides was increased to 60 mm, and the straightened frontal armored sheet to 120 mm. In addition to the standard gorgeous optics, it was planned to install a Zeiss stereo range meter, night vision device and hydraulic stabilizers on the Panther II tower. According to the working documentation, this tower was codenamed Schmalturm.

To the great disappointment of the Panzerwaffe command, plans to re-equip front-line units with new tanks completely failed. True, by May 1945, the main components of the E-50 design were worked out and the French took full advantage of these trophy developments, whose tank-building industry based its designs on German designers ARL-44.

E-75 - heavy tank

According to the idea of ​​creating a single series of E tanks, the heavy E-75 was supposed to resemble E-50 in appearance. The key difference was the installation of thicker armor and a much more powerful main weapon. The chassis of both heavy and medium tank must be identical. This was all done with the aim of collecting various modifications during mass production on one line.



E-100 - super heavy tank

The E-100 is a German super-heavy tank from the 2 World War I period. By the time of its completion of the creation of the tank E-100 were nearing the finish line. The development of the project design and the construction of the first prototype were carried out by Adler from Frankfurt am Main. The starting date for the design of the E-100 tank is considered to be 30 on July 1943. Not paying attention to the personal order of Hitler in December 1944, to stop all work on the creation of super-heavy tanks, the design and construction of the layout were continued in Hausenbek in the Paderborn region. From the beginning of the 1945, the chassis and chassis were ready. By the beginning of the tests, the Maybach HL 230 motor, OG 401216 box was installed in the company. Maybach company and Henschel L 801 steering gear. 1000 mm track widths were developed and prepared for installation by Adler. However, a tank equipped with these tracks did not fit the dimensions of the railway platform, which would have made transportation difficult during redeployment.



When developing the E-100 tank, they used the classic German gearbox gearbox - the engine was located in the rear, and the drive wheels - in the frontal part of the tank. Armored protection: 240 mm (frontal part) and 120 mm (side). As weapons on the E-100, it was planned to install a 150 caliber gun or a mm 170 coaxial with a Maus Turret 75 mm gun. It was assumed that the E-100, equipped with a Maybach HL 234 motor and the Mekydro control unit, will develop a cruising speed of up to 40 km / h. The prototype E-100 was captured in the Paderborn area by British troops.



With the capitulation of Germany in World War II, the plans of the Wehrmacht to create tanks capable of conquering the world collapsed!
73 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Renat
    Renat 21 October 2013 08: 38 New
    12
    Anyone who has the opportunity to go to the Kubinka tank museum look at the German monster of the tank "Mouse" the only survivor. Only 2 pieces of these 180 ton giants were made. I wonder what kind of bridge this monster can withstand.
    1. Gazon
      Gazon 21 October 2013 08: 55 New
      +4
      It was planned to move Mouse along the bottom, respectively, with the installation of specials. equipment for this.
    2. Volkhov
      Volkhov 21 October 2013 08: 59 New
      +8
      At Mouse, the electric transmission and the river, he had to move along the bottom with power via cable from a second tank or generator. This also allowed for the defense of underground bases on the shore to withdraw anti-airborne defense tanks from the sea without revealing the place of the gate.
      On the other hand, how can at least a 50-ton bridge be preserved on the front line?
      This is a special purpose tank for the defense of their capitals, and not capture other people.
    3. cezarb95
      cezarb95 27 October 2013 19: 35 New
      0
      yeah, I saw a giant, and ours ours collected the remnants of both cars, but it will survive, except perhaps the railway, but not
  2. ivshubarin
    ivshubarin 21 October 2013 08: 49 New
    +1
    The "mouse" of the river was supposed to cross the bottom with a remote control
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 October 2013 15: 03 New
      +9
      Quote: ivshubarin
      The "mouse" of the river was supposed to cross the bottom with a remote control

      She probably could have done without a remote one - this miracle drives into the river, all the water - splashes onto the banks, and the mouse trampled along the shallow channel ... laughing
  3. GRusl
    GRusl 21 October 2013 08: 50 New
    +1
    It would be interesting to look at these cars, if they were built. How would they drive, how they shot, etc. Purely from a technical point of view.
    1. klimpopov
      klimpopov 21 October 2013 09: 25 New
      +6
      Go to Cuba. There are many interesting things. The mouse that is represented there is assembled from two tanks and, in my opinion, has never been on the go, but I could be wrong. Well, quite a popular photo from the same Cuban.

      His tower in my opinion from this, "tankers" if that will correct.

      1. cezarb95
        cezarb95 27 October 2013 19: 37 New
        0
        I think they drove it, and now it can drive, the museum’s technicians, I remember when we were there, they rolled out the panther, and maybe all the equipment is sometimes rolled out
  4. avt
    avt 21 October 2013 08: 55 New
    +7
    This is truly a dream of reason gives rise to monsters. Well, you can still, according to our Pushkin, the tsarina gave birth to a son, or a daughter, not a mouse, not a frog, but an unknown animal. "
    1. kalibr_12x76
      kalibr_12x76 21 October 2013 12: 12 New
      14
      Can you imagine how much poorer the "World of Tanks" would be without them smile
      (I don’t play it myself, but I heard it)
      1. cezarb95
        cezarb95 27 October 2013 19: 38 New
        0
        I play, without e-shek, it would be poorer by 4 tanks in total, e-25,50,75 and 100 wink
  5. GDP
    GDP 21 October 2013 09: 32 New
    +2
    The "mouse" tank is just a trifle compared to the project of the "rat" tank weighing 1000 tons ... There were also projects in the USSR for super heavy tanks, for example, the KV4 weighing 180 tons, although our giants are far from the Germans :)
    1. cezarb95
      cezarb95 27 October 2013 19: 40 New
      0
      if the Fritz were built, and we took ourselves, then another rat, one in a special hangar cubes for him, and one for revision, it would be interesting if our geniuses would create it?
  6. loft79
    loft79 21 October 2013 10: 05 New
    +7
    "but in comparison with the enemy armored vehicles, they inferior in all respects, from protection to firepower and performance "

    Strange statement what Especially about "from defense to firepower."

    7.5cm KwK 40 L / 48 APCBC, range 1000m, penetration 98 mm.
    7.5cm KwK 42 L / 70 --------------- || --------------- 121 mm.
    1. revnagan
      revnagan 21 October 2013 12: 40 New
      +3
      Quote: loft79
      A strange statement Especially about "from defense to firepower."

      How did you like the phrase about "low security" fool undercarriage of Panthers and Tigers? Looks like a fiction writer. Article "-".
      1. loft79
        loft79 21 October 2013 13: 10 New
        +7
        I got it! laughing
        This Mlyn is not a very competent translation from English (May Gooole-translate come with you)

        safety - safety, security, reliability

        Quote: revnagan
        "low security"

        this is "low reliability" fellow drinks
    2. avdkrd
      avdkrd 23 October 2013 13: 32 New
      0
      The Germans in the last phase of the war had great difficulties with alloying additives and the thickness of the armor could not compensate for this. The gloomy Teutonic genius created great concepts, but the manufacturability (in terms of production complexity) of their tanks wanted to be better. There is an opinion that the Panzirwaffe was just ruined by novelties in the form of Panthers, Royal Tigers and other high-tech, but difficult to manufacture and expensive "beasts", having taken resources and capacities from factories producing Tigers and Panzirov 4. Soviet factories riveted T-34 without unnecessary fuss , quite simply and at the same time radically modernizing it, while constantly increasing production, in addition, the ideology of using tanks has radically changed and the role of tanks in the Red Army has changed from anti-tank to the main means of supporting infantry. Tank duels were not removed from the agenda, but the priority was the versatility of weapons, which left its mark when choosing a weapon. The thesis that the German tanks LOST IN ALL PARAMETERS is, of course, absurd, but the irony is that the parameters of the German tanks DO NOT PROVIDE ADVANTAGES due to the changed tactics of their opponents and numerical superiority. The tactics of combat use, material and technical superiority, the presence of initiative (imposing one's own tactics) is a more important condition for victory than the purely qualitative superiority of equipment samples, which, moreover, could not be launched into the series.
      1. cezarb95
        cezarb95 27 October 2013 19: 42 New
        0
        as far as I heard, the quality of the armor of the Germans became worse, because after Kursk, they had trouble with nickel
  7. Tommygun
    Tommygun 21 October 2013 10: 08 New
    +3
    "Therefore, the layout and overall dimensions of the E-50 and Tiger II were approximately the same." Those. was created average tank in the dimensions of the Royal Tiger !!!
    1. loft79
      loft79 21 October 2013 10: 22 New
      +3
      Moreover, with a design weight of 50 tons in metal, it would weigh 55 tons, or even all 60 tons (well, that's fine). Close to the Tiger.
  8. pensioner
    pensioner 21 October 2013 10: 26 New
    +3
    This machine had to change not only the obsolete Pz.IV, but also “Panther”
    But this is not clear to me. The Panther was a great tank. I have a good friend, an armored vehicle designer by profession, a great connoisseur of the world history of tank building and a real expert on problems in this area. PhD, professor, etc. So: in his opinion "Panther" is the best tank of WW2. With 2 amendments (his): 1. Small cannon resource
    2. Constantly deteriorating steel quality. He says that the low reliability of the mechanics is connected precisely with the quality of the steel. If the Germans had no "hunger" with alloying elements, then there would be almost no problems with the reliability of the "Panther". Why invent something else to replace a good tank?
    1. bistrov.
      bistrov. 21 October 2013 10: 59 New
      +7
      Quote: retired
      1. Low resource guns2. Constantly deteriorating steel quality.

      In that case, why did your "professor" forget about the third drawback of the "Ranter", such as a small power reserve? In fact, the designers and the military of fascist Germany suffered from such a disease as tank fear, therefore all tank developments, both existing and promising, were anti-tank, to the detriment of other qualities. Hence the unreasonable overweight of vehicles due to excessively thick armor, the preference for the anti-tank version of the gun, in damage to the high-explosive action and, again, an unreasonably low power reserve, because of which these tanks are forced, mainly, to act from ambushes. Purely defensive tanks.
      1. postman
        postman 21 October 2013 11: 39 New
        -3
        Quote: bistrov.
        Purely defensive tanks.

        Poor Poles, Czechs, Belgians, French, English and Russian ...
        They did not even suspect that Germany had "purely" defensive tanks ...
        22.06.1941
        The distance from the demarcation line in occupied Poland, which after the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, in fact, was the border between the Third Reich and the Soviet Union, to Moscow was total 1100 kilometer.

        While tank divisions covered tens of kilometers per day, infantry moving on foot and on horseback did not keep up with them.
        “Walking, walking - 14 days in a row ... I can’t take it anymore,” wrote one soldier of the 7th Infantry Division, one of the Wehrmacht’s elite units.
        1. bistrov.
          bistrov. 21 October 2013 13: 23 New
          10
          Quote: Postman
          They did not even suspect that Germany had "purely" defensive tanks ...

          And you do not distort, describing the well-known initial period of the war. This is a second period when both warring parties were in approximately equal conditions: armies were mobilized, they were at war, industry was rebuilt in a military fashion. It was here that the difference appeared in the two schools of tank building and it was the Soviet school that won.
          1. postman
            postman 21 October 2013 14: 50 New
            -10 qualifying.
            Quote: bistrov.
            . This is a second period when both warring parties were in approximately equal conditions:

            Since 1943, the Wehrmacht REDUCED, defending and snapping.
            WHY FOR HIM (Wehrmacht) fast tanks?
            Quote: bistrov.
            and it was the Soviet school that won.

            Resources won.
            As for the "school", we look carefully at the ratio of losses (just don’t, like Kars, consider tanks as losses after a FULL CAPITULATION)
      2. pensioner
        pensioner 21 October 2013 12: 32 New
        +2
        Quote: bistrov.
        In that case, why did your "professor" forget about the third drawback of the "Ranter", such as a small power reserve?

        No. Did not forget. He said that 250 km. at one gas station (especially in Europe) - it’s enough. Unless of course all the rear services are working properly, and not as the Germans had at the end of the 44th and the beginning of the 45th ...
        Quote: bistrov.
        your "professor"
        No irony needed. Really a professor. The beginning Department of one very serious of our factory. awarded the orders and medals of the USSR.
        1. bistrov.
          bistrov. 21 October 2013 13: 48 New
          +2
          Quote: retired
          He said that 250 km. at one gas station (especially in Europe) - it’s enough

          In 1943, the whole of Europe had long been under the German, "Panther", first introduced into battle near Kursk, showed itself not from the best side, almost 90% of the tanks were out of order precisely for technical reasons, some were not even able to get from the place of unloading to line of attack, I do not understand what you can admire here? Yes, certain technical innovations were used in the Panther, but its main weapon, which was worth fearing, was a long-barreled 75 mm cannon (about the same was on the P-4 tank) and 80 mm armor. By the way, the design of the "Panther" has retained an archaic layout: the engine in the rear, the drive in the front, after the war, it was not used anywhere. But it is precisely the Soviet layout: - the power unit in the rear, armament in the front, retained its leading position for many years and is still accepted throughout the world. Why did "Panther" delight your "professor" so much?
          1. Kars
            Kars 21 October 2013 13: 57 New
            +5
            Quote: bistrov.
            first introduced into the battle of Kursk

            And what’s the unusual raw tank. Do you think the KV T-34s in 1941 were much better?

            And about 42-43? When were there moments when there were more Soviet tanks under repair than combat ready? Or when the tankers refused to go into battle on the T-34 from Sormovo?
            Quote: bistrov.
            , this is precisely the long-barreled 75 mm gun (about the same stood on the R-4 tank)

            Would we poor stand about the same on the Four.
            Quote: bistrov.
            . But it was the Soviet layout: -the power unit at the rear, weapons at the front

            Maybe in the middle of armament all the same? And this is a French lineup.
            Quote: bistrov.
            Why did "Panther" delight your "professor" so much?

            There is a lot of things - but in the equipment we were lucky that the 88 mm gun was not delivered immediately.
            Quote: bistrov.
            By the way, the design of the "Panther" has retained an archaic layout:
            It’s strange why it is archaic? It was outdated at the time of production? Americans with the same stamped Shermans by the thousands.
            1. postman
              postman 21 October 2013 16: 59 New
              -4
              Quote: Kars
              stamped Sherman by the thousands.

              I will clarify: Sherman SECOND by number issued (produced) in the 2nd MV.
              And this is after

              Der sowjetische T-34, von US-Militärs getestet
              Im Jahr 1943 begutachteten US-Spezialisten sowjetische Panzer. Sie waren begeistert. Doch bald fanden sie Fehler: im Getriebe, im Stahl. Und nach 343 Kilometern fraß sich der Motor fest

              Evaluation Of The T-34 And Kv Tanks By Engineers Of The Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Submitted By Firms, Officers And Members Of Military Commissions Responsible For Testing Tanks
            2. pensioner
              pensioner 21 October 2013 19: 40 New
              0
              Kars! With all due respect to you, but only in March 42-October there were more repairs than combat-ready ones (Baryatinsky)
              1. Kars
                Kars 21 October 2013 20: 05 New
                +1
                Quote: retired
                but only in March 42-October

                And is it ONLY?
                At the same time, I wrote cunningly - especially for people like YOU -
                Quote: Kars
                there were moments
          2. pensioner
            pensioner 21 October 2013 14: 50 New
            +1
            Quote: bistrov.
            Why did "Panther" delight your "professor" so much?

            He gave an example of a tank barrier: "You won't get around and you won't approach." From a technical point of view, I'm a complete layman, but he really liked some solutions. And he spoke just about 44-45, when they were already at war in Europe. I will see, ask again about the Panther. And here he also looks at the site. Well man loves Panther. And once again I will ask without irony. He really is a real professor. In addition to his main job, he also manages to teach. True, now he is very busy at work ...
          3. The comment was deleted.
          4. i.xxx-1971
            i.xxx-1971 8 December 2013 09: 53 New
            0
            This is propaganda. The tanks burnt by our attack aircraft were called technically faulty. Twilight German genius crap and shy.
      3. revnagan
        revnagan 21 October 2013 12: 45 New
        0
        Quote: bistrov.
        Purely defensive tanks.

        Well, rather "anti-tank" breakthrough tanks (so to speak).
    2. Bigriver
      Bigriver 21 October 2013 12: 03 New
      +3
      Quote: retired
      ... Panther was a beautiful tank ...
      2 .... He says that the low reliability of mechanics is connected precisely with the quality of steel. If the Germans had no "hunger" with alloying elements, then there would be almost no problems with the reliability of the "panther". Why invent something else to replace a good tank?

      Good for 42-43 year, with enough material, personnel и technological resources.
      Please note which tank was planned to replace the "five"
      1. Simplification of the chassis. Since it is expensive to manufacture, the small resource of the rollers and the complexity of repair in combat conditions. For example, after a mine explosion.
      2. Strengthening the side. 40 mm, as you know. For mass VET is not a problem at all.
      3. Caliber guns. The low high-explosive effect of a thick-walled OFS, and the weak power of the armor-piercing IS-2M on the forehead.
    3. Firstvanguard
      Firstvanguard 21 October 2013 12: 15 New
      +2
      I do not know what is there and how the "professor" thinks. But the opinion of the tankers who fought both on the "Panther" and the T-34-85, is definitely not in favor of the first. Moreover, not only the tankers of the USSR, but the Wehrmacht, who fought in captured thirty-fours.
      1. Luga
        Luga 21 October 2013 14: 10 New
        +4
        Argued with one friend, just compared T-34-85 and "Panther". The dispute was not over. Next weekend we'll go fishing with him, we will continue. In this regard, can I ask you for a link to the source? Especially about the opinion of the German tankers?
        1. postman
          postman 21 October 2013 16: 30 New
          +1
          Quote: Luga
          Especially about the opinion of German tankers?

          No such data.
          Quote: Firstvanguard
          Moreover, not only the tankers of the USSR, but the Wehrmacht, who fought on captured thirty-four.

          YES?
          In 1941-1943, the German army captured a significant amount of T-34/76.


          According to the numbering of captured vehicles adopted in the Wehrmacht, the thirty-four was designated Pz.Kpfw.747 T-34 (r). Modifications of different years in the German official documentation carried the following designations: A (1940), B (1941), C (1942), D / E / F (1943). T-34 (r) Ausf D (actually T-34 arr. 42) received the nickname "Mickey Mouse", two round landing hatches in the tower in the open state caused such an association.
          Reich Elite Tank Troops also did not disdain trophy thirty-four. The tank regiment, etc. Great Germany (Grobdeutschland) used the T-34 (r) until 1945.
          So same with french, belgian, british, chesh
        2. vladimirZ
          vladimirZ 21 October 2013 17: 15 New
          0
          "... just compared the T-34-85 and the Panther ..."


          Earlier, the site discussed the topic "T-34 against" Panther ", if you have not read it, read it. Http://topwar.ru/41-t-34-protiv-pantery.html
          And also the topic "Black Cat" Panzerwaffe "http://topwar.ru/1575-chernaya-koshka-pancervaffe.html#comment-id-1542300
          The quality of the armor "Panther" can be given a photo on the site http://intertruck.ru/albums/12/50/
        3. Firstvanguard
          Firstvanguard 22 October 2013 13: 44 New
          0
          Read in the "paper" edition, if memory does not change the magazine "Front illustration". There were scans of the "operating instructions" of captured tanks, including panthers. And the German counterparts about the T-34. Only factual material with documentary evidence. Only the gunners liked the German father, they liked the gun and the sight. The units that fought on captured vehicles are indicated, at what time and on what sectors of the fronts. Unfortunately, I have no idea where to find it in electronic form.
          Besides this, I came across a report on the tests of the panther at the test site in "Kubinka". By the way, the myth about the invulnerability of German tanks has been inflated to the point of disgrace, the results of the shelling of captured samples confirm this. Hero tanker Fadin A.M. went to the T-34 for a duel with "Ferdinand" with one single cumulative, which means he was sure that there was a chance to knock him out.
          He who seeks finds. Yandex to help hi
      2. loft79
        loft79 21 October 2013 14: 40 New
        0
        Quote: Firstvanguard
        but the Wehrmacht, who fought on the trophy thirty-four.

        I'm interested too. Link please, if not difficult.

        Compared to the T-34s, the 85s were not enough to capture (ours were still advancing).
        "In the battles of 1944-45, the German army took a small number of T-34 / 85s. During the fierce battles near Warsaw, the 5th SS Panzer Division Wiking managed to capture several tanks and use them against the Red Army. 5 The 252st Infantry Division during the fighting in East Prussia captured one T-34/85 and took it into service. "
    4. Michael_59
      Michael_59 27 October 2013 21: 44 New
      0
      Quote: retired
      So: in his opinion "Panther" is the best tank of WW2


      Explain to your expert that the Germans drew the "panther" looking at the Soviet T-34.
  9. Prohor
    Prohor 21 October 2013 11: 23 New
    +9
    The prospects of all these models are very easy to evaluate - the post-war world tank building did not go the German way. So, there were no prospects.
  10. Drosselmeyer
    Drosselmeyer 21 October 2013 11: 55 New
    +1
    After the terror over the tanks by the IL-2 and Typhoon attack aircraft, these boxes did not have a single chance on the battlefield. Sometimes it seems that in the tank designers in Germany someone deliberately harmed in favor of the allies, creating such prototypes.
    1. Kars
      Kars 21 October 2013 12: 03 New
      +1
      Quote: Drosselmeyer
      After the terror over the tanks by Il-2 and Typhoon attack aircraft,

      If Terror honestly, it is said too loudly. Especially on our front. There are a bit more on the west, but not such catastrophic losses, such as from a lack of fuel.

      Quote: Prokhor
      post-war world tank building did not follow the German path. So, there were no prospects.

      Well, what is meant by the German route in this post? If the E-series tanks, then there was not only the E-100 mastadont (naturally in the projects) but also quite intelligible vehicles of the middle (according to the German concept of course) class. Yes and there was no one to go as such Germany destroyed. So there was either the Soviet or American path.
      1. Prohor
        Prohor 21 October 2013 13: 29 New
        0
        I meant purely German bells and whistles - a staggered arrangement of rollers, "front-wheel drive" with a motor in the back, a huge tower (they came to it, but later) ...
        1. Kars
          Kars 21 October 2013 13: 59 New
          +1
          Quote: Prokhor
          chess arrangement of skating rinks

          Only this is a German trick.
    2. Kars
      Kars 21 October 2013 12: 04 New
      +1
      _________________
    3. Bigriver
      Bigriver 21 October 2013 12: 13 New
      +1
      Quote: Drosselmeyer
      After the terror over the tanks by the IL-2 and Typhoon attack aircraft, these boxes did not have a single chance on the battlefield ...

      You can talk about terror winked
      But, about the terror of tank formations on the march, along the roads, and on the Western Front.
  11. Fotoceva62
    Fotoceva62 21 October 2013 11: 57 New
    +7
    Quote: Prokhor
    The prospects of all these models are very easy to evaluate - the post-war world tank building did not go the German way. So, there were no prospects.

    Everything that can be said about the tanks of the E-series victory of technology over common sense.
    What kind of world conquest can be talked about if tens could be released, maybe hundreds, and the military commanders needed tanks, though not the best, here and now. And how to service, evacuate and repair these masterpieces with permission? The only possible purpose of these monsters is mobile fort. Now about the panther: instead of one PKW5 it was possible to release a pair of PKW4 or assaults, or maybe three four Hetzer. In the conditions prevailing at the beginning of the combat use of panthers, the four and the vehicles on its base were quite adequate for the enemy armored vehicles. In general, all subsequent attempts by the Geman tank building to create super tank testify that the Germans' design idea in this area came to a standstill and went on to master the budget dough.
    1. Walker1975
      Walker1975 21 October 2013 15: 53 New
      0
      But read the names of engineering firms: Mercedes, Skoda, Maybach ... now these German cars calmly plow open spaces of Russia and Ukraine.
  12. svp67
    svp67 21 October 2013 12: 21 New
    +1
    It is worth regretting that the Germans did not bring and put the E75 and E100 on the stream, their economy would "bend" faster, and we should be glad that the E50 suffered the same fate, this car could "spoil a lot of blood ..."
  13. understudy
    understudy 21 October 2013 14: 06 New
    +4
    I would like to see how this monster about 180 tons will begin to move along the bottom of the river ... belay Or did the Germans initially planned to concrete the bottom and the banks? I remember that my light equipment could not get out on the sandy coast of the Elbe after "swimming", but here is a fucking cloud of iron.
  14. Roland
    Roland 21 October 2013 14: 49 New
    +2
    In this pederach, on a Cuban, they allowed to get inside Mouse. watch from 5:25

  15. abc_alex
    abc_alex 21 October 2013 15: 00 New
    0
    Mouse, this is a defensive tank. Rather, it’s not even a tank, but a kind of mobile bunker. It was understood that it should move along defensive lines, like an armored train without rails along a specially equipped road. Or take a pre-equipped caponier.

    The Germans, of course, did a lot of oddities, but they didn’t understand that this monster was useless in an attack. If he doesn’t get ashore himself, they will pull him up in tow. A couple of Tigers harnessed - extended.
  16. Fotoceva62
    Fotoceva62 21 October 2013 15: 06 New
    +3
    To the question of comparing the T-34-85 and PANTHER. Comparing cars of different classes is at least illiterate. The T-34-85 appeared 1.5-2 years later than it should be, but this is explained by the state of our industry, especially the lack of trained labor. The T-34-76 became what it should have been only in 1943. Refusals of our tankers from the T-34-76 in 1942. Read the order "Not one step back" there everything is laid out on the shelves. Panther is an example of kaa tanks or what happens when a tank is designed and produced at an atomic company. A shed the size of a PKW-6B with an unbalanced turret that refused to turn at 13 degrees of roll. In general, a heavy anti-tank SPG. By the way, the German tankers were not enthusiastic. But against the Panther-2, series E -100 we already had T-44, IS-3, and by 1946 T-54.
  17. DesToeR
    DesToeR 21 October 2013 16: 06 New
    12
    "The fool was dumped by the Germans with their Panthers, Tigers and other Ferdinids ..." - Soviet designer of self-propelled guns and tanks Gorlitsky. Instead of one such "cat", it was possible to release 3 pieces. T-4 or 5-6 pcs. "Hetzerov". The article is a poor-quality translation of a Western hack. I especially liked the pearl "from the well-proven Tiger II." Royal Tiger: the dimensions and weight of the vehicle do not correspond to the artillery system and the armor installed on it. Regarding the magnificent "Panther." The main armor of 2mm was installed on a tank the size of a CT and weighing 45 tons (side of the hull and turret, stern - about 40% of the vertical surface tank) and an artillery system of 70mm. In 75, for a heavy tank it was ridiculous. The cost of the tank was prohibitive, maintainability was zero. Instead of 1943 pieces of these masterpieces, you could give an army of 6000 "Hetzers" with the same gun and armor. The most successful tank of the Germans - this is Tiger 30000. It was he who forced to raise the bar for anti-tank artillery, he "forced" the USSR to develop and launch new tanks, he, not the Panther, was the "nightmare" of any Soviet about the tanker.
  18. Mhpv
    Mhpv 21 October 2013 16: 52 New
    +4
    The USSR fought against the Nazis, and these kortavaya toads and Anglo-sexy are like jackals, who will more quickly compare the achievements of the direct mentors of the Chinese laughing
    1. bask
      bask 21 October 2013 17: 15 New
      +3
      Quote: mhpv
      si like jackals, who will quicker work time

      Here is one of their achievements in 1943.
      British tank Nahuel (Nahuei DL 43), 36,1 tons, ec 4 people
      1. postman
        postman 21 October 2013 17: 46 New
        +2
        Quote: bask
        British tank nahuel

        Cool, only read correctly Nahuel
        and he ARGENTINSKY, not British.
        haute couture Alfredo Aquilis Baisi
        1. bask
          bask 22 October 2013 00: 28 New
          +1
          Quote: Postman
          haute couture Alfredo Aquilis Baisi

          To be more precise, the American medium tank M4 "Sherman" is still taken as a basis.
          1. Alex 241
            Alex 241 22 October 2013 00: 36 New
            +2
            Hi Andrey, here is the Australian Sentinel, the machine gun turret inspires optimism laughing
          2. postman
            postman 22 October 2013 01: 15 New
            -1
            Quote: bask
            the basis is still taken, the American medium tank M4 "Sherman"

            ?
            So it’s written on the wiki
            Some strange "basis":
            1. Sherman and M3 cast housing, here WELDED

            The body was welded from sheets of rolled armored steel, located at different angles.

            2. "Nahuel modelo Baisi 1943"
            - TAMET industries cast towers (according to some data from photographs of the towers of tanks Samua and T-34)
            - 5-speed (4 forward gears, 1 reverse) gearbox developed and installed Car repair company Pedro Merlini
            - The tank was equipped with a gasoline 12-cylinder V-shaped, forced, carbureted engine FMA-Lorraine-Dietrich 12EB liquid cooling, with a capacity of 500 hp (365 kW), providing a maximum speed of 40 km / h on the highway. This engine in the 30s Argentines installed on a licensed French fighter Dewoitine D 21
            -75 mm gun Krupp L / 30 model 1909

            Well, perhaps:
            The chassis design was borrowed from the M3 tank. She had 6 rubber track rollers on board, connected in trolleys in pairs, as well as 5 support rollers.
            и
            The tower was cast of chromium-nickel steel and had a semicircular streamlined shape.

            as well as
            Nahuel Medium Tank Layout was classic

            ================= then our T-34 = we can say: Christie’s tank is taken as the basis

            But not
            Quote: bask
            British tank Nahuel (
            ,anyway. tongue
  19. Dronza
    Dronza 21 October 2013 19: 01 New
    0
    Heavy tank E-100.
  20. mixxlll
    mixxlll 21 October 2013 19: 24 New
    +1
    I’ve sat down for a long time on the world of tanks, and here’s what I’ll say: there is nothing better than ours in terms of balanced firepower, speed, and protection. The USSR didn’t stand still, but the Germans were the first to unify the platforms, although I could be wrong.
    1. Lesnik
      Lesnik 23 October 2013 00: 21 New
      0
      You may be wrong wink
      according to Heinz Guderian, the main reason for the irretrievable losses in the tanks was precisely the very large range of spare parts for the entire tank army park, due to the large number of modifications of the main tanks, which made it impossible to unify the spare parts (I read for a long time as a captain) but it makes sense remembered smile
      P, SY. And the source is G. Guderian "Tanks in front".
  21. DesToeR
    DesToeR 21 October 2013 21: 57 New
    0
    There was no unification of the platforms and it was close! Rollers, gun masks and all. And what's the point of making a tank the size of a 90-ton, but weighing 50 tons? It is better to shrink the reserved volume, make an individual rather than a unified suspension, put a less powerful (and therefore more economical) engine, transmission. As a result, get a tank weighing 35-40t. The Germans are good designers and techies, but they don’t have a Russian vein to predict the future. They are not dreamers, and therefore not conceptualists. Stupidly good performers. Focusing on the word stupidly.
    1. postman
      postman 21 October 2013 22: 56 New
      -1
      Quote: DesToeR
      Stupidly good performers.

      ?
      Come on
      - Porsche undercarriage and electric torque transmission system from prime movers to drive wheels of an 8,8-mm Pak 43/2 Sfl L / 71 Panzerjager Tiger (P) Ferdinand »
      -sighting devices, surveillance devices with protection against atmospheric precipitation, road dust and dirt
      - rotating polik (under the tower)
      snorkel


      -Ladungsliger Tiger
      -Sturmpanzer Bar with 305 mm L / 16 on the VK4501 (H) chassis.
      Geschutzwagen VI Series
      -24cm Kanoncntrager Tiger
      - teeth on the tracks, and the drive wheel at the end had slots (DW I)
      - Chess arrangement of road wheels (VK6501 (H))
      -75 mm anti-tank gun Gerat 0725 L / 55 with a conical barrel (Gerlich patent)
      semi-automatic transmission Maybach OLVAR
      power steering wheel
      - The constructive solution of the Porsche track rollers (Rubber bandages lay between the solid steel rink disks)
      - Docking of armor plates by the "dovetail" method
      MTO automatic fire extinguishing system
      -HL-2103-30 engine with Kurbelwellen-Benzinanlasser
      -or e.g. grenade launchers Nebelkerzenwerfer-39 (NbKWrf-39)
      -Starting devices for S-mines with electric launch: standard Springmine-35 fragmentation mines (frog mines), the mine exploded at a height of about 90 cm above the ground. Mina hit unburied soldiers within a radius of 25-39 m from the break point.
      -mortar Nahverteidigungswaffe - "short-range self-defense weapon"
      -or JagdPanzer IV (Sd Kfz 162) from Vomag

      - well, or a comic story with a ceramic composition Zimmerit (Hochma of course)
      Etc. etc.

      In July 1944, a gunner from the Tiger's crew, commander of the 3rd company of the 506th heavy tank battalion, Hauptmann Wacker, hit a T-34 tank located at a distance of 3600 m on the other side of the front line.
  22. Snoop
    Snoop 22 October 2013 03: 58 New
    0
    They correctly said that the Soviet tank school won. Bet on a massive and relatively cheap and field-repairable tank. And the point is to design and produce mastodons in piece quantities in the conditions of the Second World War? It would have been much better for the Germans to force the release of the T-IV, as the medium tank did its job.
  23. DesToeR
    DesToeR 22 October 2013 11: 13 New
    0
    -Ladungsliger Tiger
    -Sturmpanzer Bar with 305 mm L / 16 on the VK4501 (H) chassis.
    Geschutzwagen VI Series
    -24cm Kanoncntrager Tiger
    - teeth on the tracks, and the drive wheel at the end had slots (DW I)
    - Chess arrangement of road wheels (VK6501 (H))
    -75 mm anti-tank gun Gerat 0725 L / 55 with a conical barrel (Gerlich patent)
    semi-automatic transmission Maybach OLVAR
    power steering wheel
    - The constructive solution of the Porsche track rollers (Rubber bandages lay between the solid steel rink disks)
    - Docking of armor plates by the "dovetail" method
    MTO automatic fire extinguishing system
    -HL-2103-30 engine with Kurbelwellen-Benzinanlasser
    -or e.g. grenade launchers Nebelkerzenwerfer-39 (NbKWrf-39)
    -Starting devices for S-mines with electric launch: standard Springmine-35 fragmentation mines (frog mines), the mine exploded at a height of about 90 cm above the ground. Mina hit unburied soldiers within a radius of 25-39 m from the break point.
    -mortar Nahverteidigungswaffe - "short-range self-defense weapon"
    -or JagdPanzer IV (Sd Kfz 162) from Vomag

    ... and now, when you design it all (in the realities of military time pressure), collect, debug, and hardly manage to produce single copies ... you will see on the battlefield in front of you a serial practically solid cast IS4 at a distance of 500-800m. And this will be the last thing you see in your life. Because the USSR produces such tanks 2-3 times more, its armor is not taken by your child prodigy from a distance further than 300m, all your detection systems and sights at a distance of 500-1000m (80% of the Great Patriotic War’s collisions were at this distance) do not solve etc. And its rough and noticeable 122mm holes or splits the forehead of the next cat with a bang. If I’m not mistaken, the small arms designer Simonov said: it’s difficult to design, but simple to design is difficult.
    1. postman
      postman 22 October 2013 19: 52 New
      -1
      Quote: DesToeR
      ... and now, when you design it all (

      left the topic. THEME (application with aplomb), I recall:
      Quote: DesToeR
      Stupidly good performers. Focusing on the word stupidly.

      To call a German engineer (practically in any field) "dumb", "dumb executor" ....
      can only be a stupid illiterate, who does not know anything and who has not seen in his life a "psepvdospet", of which now (in the age of the Internet) is full.
      Any homo will laugh at the symbiosis of "Germans" and "stupid, stupid kolipastas".
      Quote: DesToeR
      you’ll fix it, it’s difficult to fix the release of single copies ...

      In total, 53800 German tanks and self-propelled guns were released during World War II.
      released and not lessened, and not such masterpieces
      Remind me who orbited the largest fleet of turbojet fighters? "in a busy situation"
      Quote: DesToeR
      Because the USSR produces such tanks 2-3 times more,

      it is useful to compare the NUMBER OF DESTROYED TANKS, with one and the other stolrons, EVEN taking into account that Germany fought on 2 (3,4 or how many are there) fronts.
      It’s even pointless to comment on this hatred.
  24. DesToeR
    DesToeR 22 October 2013 11: 26 New
    +1
    In July 1944, a gunner from the Tiger's crew, commander of the 3rd company of the 506th heavy tank battalion, Hauptmann Wacker, hit a T-34 tank located at a distance of 3600 m on the other side of the front line.

    Well done gunner! And hundreds of other T-34s bypassed tank units at a distance of more than 3600m and forced the Germans to throw their expensive toys into the cauldrons without a fight. You are not surprised: why, having a developed T-1943 tank in 43, the T-34-85 was launched into production. Or why in 1944, when there was no time pressure with the supply of equipment to the troops, the troops were not saturated with T-44 tanks? Well, the T-44 is a worthy competitor to the vaunted Panther. Because under the conditions of a strategic offensive, the vehicle's reliability and its driving performance are no less important than armor or a cannon. You can stupidly "shoot" all the enemy tanks. Or, using quantitative superiority, it is possible to "break" the front of the enemy in a weakly defended place and surround his tank units. Well, in the "cauldron" everything will be digested - "Tigers", "Panthers", E-XX ...
    1. postman
      postman 22 October 2013 19: 55 New
      -1
      Quote: DesToeR
      battlefield throw their expensive toys in boilers

      Can I? I would like to compare with those "inexpensive" toys that were thrown into the boilers of the Red Army?
      Huh?
      Quote: DesToeR
      You are not surprised: why, having developed the T-1943 tank in 43, the T-34-85 was launched into production

      Why wonder? the answer is in T-34-85, the tower and the barrel.

      Quote: DesToeR
      didn’t fill the troops with T-44 tanks?

      we look carefully at how much they produced, THEIR SIMPLY HAS NOT BEEN SUCCESSFUL TO DELIVER TO the DB zone, a no brainer.
      But still need to retrain and MTO
      Quote: DesToeR
      Or, using quantitative superiority, you can "break"

      Are you telling me that you are trying to explain the basics of tank tactics and strategy?
  25. DesToeR
    DesToeR 22 October 2013 23: 26 New
    +1
    To call a German engineer (practically in any field) "dumb", "dumb executor" ....
    can only be a stupid illiterate, who does not know anything and who has not seen in his life a "psepvdospet", of which now (in the age of the Internet) is full.
    Any homo will laugh at the symbiosis of "Germans" and "stupid, stupid kolipastas".


    Well, where can we get a saber. It’s easier to put a gun with a conical barrel into production, and shells for it are expensive than to design an 85mm system in 76mm dimensions. Or come up with a connection of sheets in a spike than cast parts of the frontal armor and towers of high-quality steel, etc. The problem has two solutions, the Germans ALWAYS chose a laborious and low-tech path

    In total, 53800 German tanks and self-propelled guns were released during World War II.
    released and not lessened, and not such masterpieces


    Well done Germans, only 80% of these samples were weighing up to 25t. Now compare how many such cars were made in the USSR. Moreover, the USSR lost the European part of the country in 1 year with all the ensuing consequences, and the whole of Western Europe worked for Germany.

    it is useful to compare the NUMBER OF DESTROYED TANKS, with one and the other stolrons, EVEN taking into account that Germany fought on 2 (3,4 or how many are there) fronts.
    It’s even pointless to comment on this hatred.


    Compare also the lost state with the entire population. Do not count your chickens before they are hatched.

    we look carefully at how much they produced, THEIR SIMPLY HAS NOT BEEN SUCCESSFUL TO DELIVER TO the DB zone, a no brainer.
    But still need to retrain and MTO


    Well, so how did the Germans plan on teaching their miracle E-do tanks to teach everyone, but to provide everything? Provide (yes just deliver to the battlefield) tank unit armed with 90t tanks will be heavier.

    Remind me who orbited the largest fleet of turbojet fighters? "in a busy situation"

    I will not remind you of anything, but I will say this: the military are not interested in the agglomeration of the fleet, it is much more interesting to compare the number of British Gloucester flights with the German Me-262. A fleet of 100-200 pieces can be trivial to stand at the airport without fuel or because of a flight ban.
    1. Kars
      Kars 22 October 2013 23: 36 New
      +2
      Quote: DesToeR
      It’s easier to put a gun with a conical barrel into production

      Yes, you hike from a dense forest.
      The conical trunk in the USSR did not come in handy; out of hundreds of attempts, one was made so-so.
      Quote: DesToeR
      than design an 85mm system in 76mm dimensions

      Actually, no one designed it either. The T-34 tower had to be changed all the same. This is already to forget that the Soviet gun is a bored 76 mm German anti-aircraft gun, torn in the USSR under a license.
      Quote: DesToeR
      high quality steel

      For starters, this is not the fault of German engineers that there were no ligation additives, and secondly, rolled armor is stronger than cast.
      Quote: DesToeR
      The problem has two solutions, the Germans ALWAYS chose a laborious and low-tech path

      It may be time-consuming, but about a non-technological one, you turned it down.
      Quote: DesToeR
      Well done Germans, only 80% of these samples were weighing up to 25t. Now compare how many such cars were made in the USSR
      And at the same time, the USSR lost a huge part of the western territories, and fought in its territory for three years - why didn’t the Germans do well?

      Quote: DesToeR
      and the whole of Western Europe worked for Germany.

      It worked, it’s only that it was constantly bombed. And Lendlis worked in the USSR. And don’t need about 4% of it. It’s like the average temperature in the hospital. Some key positions are replayed%
    2. postman
      postman 23 October 2013 01: 24 New
      0
      Quote: DesToeR
      Well, where can we get a saber.

      No need to distort. I myself, if it comes to that: "sivolapotny" and nothing, there is no complex, on the contrary.
      Quote: DesToeR
      Or

      You just don’t understand what you’re talking about.
      Was (in person): Maza Henkel, Daimler, Porsche, Liebher, Fuchs (tereks now), O&K, Namco Dinklacken, MBB, shipyard in Kiel, etc. I advise you to START from this
      Quote: DesToeR
      Germans ALWAYS chose a laborious and low-tech path

      Delirium. Delirium is 100%
      Friends bought Filng Systems, w / w 2yrs KSM, although 30% more expensive
      Tobacco monster (USA), factory in St. Petersburg, brother engineer, starting equipment German — works until SIMPLE, 5-7 year old Italian — sent to Honduras, I BUY A NEW GERMAN, car patents from them — almost all German
      Quote: DesToeR
      Now compare how many such cars were made in the USSR.

      And who is arguing? crushed by count, resources, and (why hide) the whole world practically
      Quote: DesToeR
      to train your miracle E-do tanks

      Adventurism and mysticism was characteristic of the Reich leadership.
      How else? so many blindfolds (and what) on conscience.
      Quote: DesToeR
      the tank unit armed with 90t tanks will be heavier.

      I am glad that they made such a mistake as (Kars correctly noted changing the main medium tank in the middle of the war - a strategic miscalculation)
      Sturmgeschutz 27t - Porsche E-25 Jagdpanzer
      This guy was a genius, not "dumb"

      Quote: DesToeR
      Compare also the lost state with the entire population.

      What?

      Quote: DesToeR
      more interesting to compare the number of flights of English Gloucesters with German Me-262

      Well?
      Erich Rudorffer, Heinz Bär, Heinrich Ehrler, Theodor Weissenberger, Walter Schuck, Gerhard Barkhorn, Walter Nowotn, Erich Rudorffer ..
      Gloucester Meteor - produced 230 (or something about)
      Messerschmitt Me.262 under 2000 ISSUED !!!!
      (Do I need to fart further?)

      ?
  26. DesToeR
    DesToeR 22 October 2013 23: 55 New
    +2
    Yes, you hike from a dense forest.
    The conical trunk in the USSR did not come in handy; out of hundreds of attempts, one was made so-so.

    And I do not claim that in the USSR they launched this gun - in Germany they adopted

    Actually, no one designed it either. The T-34 tower had to be changed all the same. This is already to forget that the Soviet gun is a bored 76 mm German anti-aircraft gun, torn in the USSR under a license.

    The cannon was designed (and installed, by the way) under the standard tower with a 1420 mm shoulder strap. Put into production with a new tower.

    For starters, this is not the fault of German engineers that there were no ligation additives, and secondly, rolled armor is stronger than cast.


    And where does the additive and method of joining sheets? The Germans did not know how to cook armor as they did in the USSR. Rolled armor has no advantages over cast - the difference in casting quality.
    It may be time-consuming, but about a non-technological one, you turned it down.

    It was not I who turned it down, but reports on man-hours and the consumption of raw materials and materials for the production of units. technicians "bent". Everything is measured in specific numbers. This is not my fantasy - but a tough economy, I think you will agree that war is an economy.

    And at the same time, the USSR lost a huge part of the western territories, and fought in its territory for three years - why didn’t the Germans do well?

    But the Germans lost their entire country for less than 46 years in less than a year, what are the Russians not good at?

    It worked, it’s only that it was constantly bombed. And Lendlis worked in the USSR. And don’t need about 4% of it. It’s like the average temperature in the hospital. Some key positions are replayed%


    And in the USSR, 80% of factories and military productions were captured, destroyed or put on rails - comparable to the carpet bombing of the Allies. Did Lend-Lease work for us? So after all, Germany also received weapons from its satellites (Czech Republic, France), resources and soldiers (all countries of Western Europe without exception)
    1. Kars
      Kars 23 October 2013 00: 08 New
      +1
      Quote: DesToeR
      that in the USSR they launched this gun - in Germany they adopted

      Because they could not.
      Quote: DesToeR
      under a standard tower with a 1420 mm shoulder strap. Put into production with a new tower

      Do you think it was a successful design? Why then didn’t rearm the linear T-34-76?
      Quote: DesToeR
      And where does the additive and method of joining sheets? The Germans did not know how to cook armor as they did in the USSR.

      Strange always thought that in order to weld high-quality armor steel, alloying elements are needed. And where is it written that the Germans didn’t know how to cook steel? It’s not the fact that Soviet armor was better.
      Quote: DesToeR
      Rolled armor has no advantages over cast - the difference in casting quality.

      Has, take an interest in the question. Rolled and cast armored parts of the same thickness, rolled shows better armor resistance. Casting of the USSR was mainly used for mass production. There were not many rolling mills in the USSR.
      Quote: DesToeR
      And the Germans lost their whole country for less than 46 years in less than a year, in which the Russians are not well done

      Well, for starters, not for a year, but for 6 years. Of these, 4 years they fought with almost all the worlds. SOVIET course well done, but only half of the country was destroyed. And the real good fellows are Americans.
      Quote: DesToeR
      And in the USSR, 80% of factories and military productions captured, destroyed or put on rails

      Is this not the fault of the Soviet leadership and army?
      Quote: DesToeR
      Did Lend-Lease work for us?
      Worked, and how. The quality of the T-34 and IS-2 directly depended on the supply of imported machines.

      Quote: DesToeR
      after all, Germany also received weapons from its satellites (Czech Republic, France), resources and soldiers (all countries of Western Europe without exception)

      Does anyone deny this? But you still don’t forget about the bombing. The USSR itself was not able to deliver strategic attacks on the rear of the Germans. Therefore, I can’t predict how many Germans would make tanks without regular raids of Fortresses and Liberators.
  27. Lesnik
    Lesnik 23 October 2013 00: 13 New
    0
    Super nice to read ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  28. DesToeR
    DesToeR 23 October 2013 00: 28 New
    +1
    Do you think it was a successful design? Why then didn’t rearm the linear T-34-76?

    Because they carried out a qualitative modernization of the entire tank, the tower decided the issue of the distribution of functions between crew members. Thanks to manufacturability (casting all the same, rather than welding), it was possible to establish production without reducing the quantity.

    Strange always thought that in order to weld high-quality armor steel, alloying elements are needed. And where is it written that the Germans didn’t know how to cook steel? It’s not the fact that Soviet armor was better.

    The armor was so much better that in the USSR they even refused surface cementation. Russian armor of the same thickness as the German one was not only stronger, but also more viscous.

    Has, take an interest in the question. Rolled and cast armored parts of the same thickness, rolled shows better armor resistance. Casting of the USSR was mainly used for mass production. There were not many rolling mills in the USSR.

    I was interested in the question. The best / worst armor resistance is shown not by armor, but by a part made of it. The cast tower / forehead, as one piece, was stronger, but in view of the fact that it was produced in priests, it was more FRAGILE. Do you see the difference? Those. the tower could withstand fewer hits, but with a better non-penetration result. In post-war tanks this defect was leveled out.

    Well, for starters, not for a year, but for 6 years. Of these, 4 years they fought with almost all the worlds. SOVIET course well done, but only half of the country was destroyed. And the real good fellows are Americans.

    Not for 6 years, but for 1 year, if you count from June 22, 1944. Before that, the Germans took over the territory.

    Is this not the fault of the Soviet leadership and army?


    It is not the fault of the German leadership that they forgot Bismarck and Clausewitz and nevertheless climbed into Russia. This dispute is on the principle of "" - itself "".

    Does anyone deny this? But you still don’t forget about the bombing. The USSR itself was not able to deliver strategic attacks on the rear of the Germans. Therefore, I can’t predict how many Germans would make tanks without regular raids of Fortresses and Liberators.


    Until 1943, nobody intensively bombed Germany. The statistics of the bombing of Germany is proof of this. Mass raids on the cities and factories of the Reich began in mid-1943. The peak was reached in February 1945. There is an interesting infa regarding the forecasting of production in Germany: the peak of production occurred in 1944 (September). The answer to the low output of weapons is simple - until 1943 industry was not mobilized in Germany, that is, the workers worked mainly on one shift.
    1. Kars
      Kars 23 October 2013 10: 30 New
      +1
      Quote: DesToeR
      high-quality modernization of the entire tank

      Oh well? And where does this come to the T-34-76? Which came to Berlin with a native 76 mm cannon?
      Why didn't everyone re-equip?
      Quote: DesToeR
      Thanks to manufacturability (casting all the same, rather than welding), it was possible to establish production without reducing the quantity.

      Oh, well? Priyamo because of technological effectiveness? And before that, were your T-34 towers completely welded? I’m not talking about stamped ones. What’s even more technological.
      Quote: DesToeR
      The armor was so much better that in the USSR they refused even surface cementation

      Where did you get this nonsense? Even Ibragimov didn’t reach such a confrontation.
      Quote: DesToeR
      Russian armor of the same thickness as the German one was not only stronger, but also more viscous.

      I hope you are able to confirm your words with links to third-party sources?
      Quote: DesToeR
      The best / worst armor resistance is shown not by armor, but by a part made of it.
      Is the armor part made of armor? So what's the catch?

      Quote: DesToeR
      The cast tower / forehead, as one piece, was stronger, but in view of the fact that it was produced in priests, it was more FRAGILE. See the difference

      Are you making up something? In the puffy. Rude? And that the rolled parts were not produced as one part? And can you confirm these theses? Otherwise, it is not clear why now the Russian Federation puts a welded tower on its T-90A, and not a cast one.
      Quote: DesToeR
      Not for 6 years, but for 1 year, if you count from June 22, 1944. Before that, the Germans took over the territory.

      Oh well? I always thought that the Fritz rolled back well from the battle of Moscow, and finally stopped strategic offensive operations after Stalingrad and El Alamein.

      Quote: DesToeR
      It is not the fault of the German leadership that they forgot Bismarck and Clausewitz and nevertheless climbed into Russia. This dispute is on the principle of "" - itself "".

      Strange you are some kind of shot - it turns out that the Soviet troops rolled back to the Volga and the Caucasus is it insignificant?
      Quote: DesToeR
      Until 1943, nobody intensively bombed Germany.

      But they bombed. And the Germans bombed the Soviet Urals?
      Quote: DesToeR
      Mass raids on the cities and factories of the Reich began in mid-1943.

      But is this naturally not significant in your eyes?
      Quote: DesToeR
      the answer for low arms production is simple - until 1943 industry was not even mobilized in Germany

      And yet, at the same time, they reached the Volga, and held the Citadel (although not successfully)
      So your conclusions about low tech are scattered under the weight of facts. The Germans provided their troops in one shift and somehow reached the Volga.
  29. DesToeR
    DesToeR 23 October 2013 02: 15 New
    +1
    You just don’t understand what you’re talking about.
    Was (in person): Maza Henkel, Daimler, Porsche, Liebher, Fuchs (tereks now), O&K, Namco Dinklacken, MBB, shipyard in Kiel, etc. I advise you to START from this

    I just don’t understand what you are writing about ...
    And who is arguing? crushed by count, resources, and (why hide) the whole world practically

    How much? What periods do you mean? What quantitative superiority was in the Red Army at the end of 1941? And in 1942, what prevented the Germans from completing the rout? According to your logic, in the summer of 1943 the Panzervaffe should have smashed the Russian army to pieces, but it all ended with a strategic retreat. So did tigers, panthers and ferdinandes blunder on Kursk? In the USSR, they CONSCIOUSLY abandoned over equipment and soldiers in favor of the mass army. And the sagging of the performance characteristics of serial samples is an inevitable evil in such a situation. And to expose the German wunderwaffes in such a situation is the hidden mud spraying of domestic weapons designers. Do you even know that they were actually forbidden to work on promising models of weapons until 1943 - all for the front and not be distracted. And the Germans continued to invent a miracle weapon. Even when Hitler forbade working on samples that could not be given to the front for 1 year. In Germany they UNDERSTAND their mistake. The main unit of armored vehicles for 1945 was planned self-propelled gun - Hetzer with a 75mm gun and armor up to 60mm. What kind of E-XX could be discussed in such a situation? But no, they developed, built samples, conducted tests ...

    I am glad that they made such a mistake as (Kars correctly noted changing the main medium tank in the middle of the war - a strategic miscalculation)
    Sturmgeschutz 27t - Porsche E-25 Jagdpanzer
    This guy was a genius, not "dumb"

    The genius Porsche Sr. TWICE suggested an electric transmission car for the contest. Twice flew by. Since it was clear even to the Germans super techno- ries - the car is a corpse. Not only that, this design was not tested on tanks weighing 50-70 tons, but also the car cost as much as 2 FW-190 attack aircraft. Plus, metal (non-ferrous) physically would not have been enough for her from the Reich. Before the war, it was necessary to offer its E-25 as a mobilization option, and even on units of mass-produced cars.
    1. postman
      postman 23 October 2013 04: 11 New
      -1
      Quote: DesToeR
      I just don’t understand what you are writing about ...

      therefore, you have the audacity and stupidity to say:
      Quote: DesToeR
      They are not dreamers, and therefore not conceptualists. Stupidly good performers. Focusing on the word stupidly.

      Do not make the world laugh, well, I will turn to your own method of provocation:
      argue that the Germans are stupid, this
      Quote: DesToeR
      it's hidden mud pouring
      of our soldiers, designers, rear officers, who over 4 years broke the most (probably) strongest enemy in the world, at that time.
      With fools, or something fought?
      Quote: DesToeR
      Do you even know

      I know that technologically the USSR could not do what he wanted.
      He could not and cannot today. This is ABC, Machine Group A
      Quote: DesToeR
      And the Germans continued to invent a miracle weapon.

      A normal reaction, people waging war and wanting to win, much less after the 43rd, when the scales swayed in the other direction.
      The IVS turned to God, to his brothers and sisters.

      Quote: DesToeR
      The main unit of armored vehicles for 1945 was planned self-propelled gun - Hetzer with a 75mm gun and armor up to 60mm

      Yes? Have you read the WaPruef archives?
      Production statistics for some models

      Code Model Year Qty

      101 PzKpfw I 1934-1943 7571
      121 PzKpfw II 1935-1944 8558
      (LT35) PzKpfw 35(t) 1935-1939 424
      140 PzKpfw 38(t) 1938-1942 1411
      138/2 JP 38(t) Hetzer 1944-1945 2584
      141 PzKpfw III 1936-1944 5733
      161 PzKpfw IV 1936-1945 8544
      171 PzKpfw V Panther1942-1945 5976
      173 Panzerjager V JP1944-1945 425
      181 PzKpfw VI Tiger 1942-1944 1355
      184 Panzerjager Ferdinand / Elephant 1943 90
      182 Tiger II Ausf. B "Konigstiger" 1944-1945 489
      186 Jagdpanzer VI Jagdtiger 1944-1945 85

      Quote: DesToeR
      Twice flew by.

      Do you even know how and why? or so trotling.?
  30. DesToeR
    DesToeR 23 October 2013 05: 08 New
    +2
    of our soldiers, designers, rear officers, who over 4 years broke the most (probably) strongest enemy in the world, at that time.
    With fools, or something fought?

    The answer of the Soviet designer:
    "The fool was dumped by the Germans with their Panthers, Tigers and other Ferdinids ..." - Soviet designer of self-propelled guns and tanks Gorlitsky.

    For me, this is an exhaustive answer. You are not satisfied with the opinion of the participant in those events i.e. contemporary

    A normal reaction, people waging war and wanting to win, much less after the 43rd, when the scales swayed in the other direction.
    The IVS turned to God, to his brothers and sisters.


    Well, first of all, it is not clear why the nation of geniuses under all favorable conditions "the scales in the other direction" swung. Until 1943, there were plenty of chances to win with their miracle weapon. It didn’t look good ... The reaction of the USSR leadership was normal - to mobilize all the available resources and get down to business: the release of today's military products, train personnel for its development, unify samples. Nobody rushed to organize the mass production of KV-3 and A-43 either in 41 or 42. The same thing was true for its time, the Wunderwaffe, on paper. Today, looking at the beautiful pictures of E-series tanks, it is pleasant to talk about the genius of German designers. The question is, why all this was not in the mass series? Because it is impossible to saturate the troops with such super-complicated and expensive weapons. The Panther was much simpler than the E-series, and even that T-4 could not be replaced. Tigers of both versions 2000pcs. done in 3 years. Some IS-2s were released from the end of 1943. Or do you not consider IS for a normal tank? How did the Russians manage to do this with "group A machines"?

    Yes? Have you read the WaPruef archives?
    Production statistics for some models

    Code Model Year Qty

    101 PzKpfw I 1934-1943 7571
    121 PzKpfw II 1935-1944 8558
    (LT35) PzKpfw 35 (t) 1935-1939 424
    140 PzKpfw 38 (t) 1938-1942 1411
    138/2 JP 38 (t) Hetzer 1944-1945 2584
    141 PzKpfw III 1936-1944 5733
    161 PzKpfw IV 1936-1945 8544
    171 PzKpfw V Panther1942-1945 5976
    173 Panzerjager V JP1944-1945 425
    181 PzKpfw VI Tiger 1942-1944 1355
    184 Panzerjager Ferdinand / Elephant 1943 90
    182 Tiger II Ausf. B "Konigstiger" 1944-1945 489
    186 Jagdpanzer VI Jagdtiger 1944-1945 85


    So what does this statistic mean?

    Do you even know how and why? or so trotling.?


    answer:

    Since it was clear even to the Germans super techno- ries - the car is a corpse. Not only that, this design was not tested on tanks weighing 50-70 tons, but also the car cost as much as 2 FW-190 attack aircraft. Plus, metal (non-ferrous) physically would not have been enough for her from the Reich.
    1. postman
      postman 23 October 2013 13: 17 New
      -2
      [quote = DesToeR] Soviet designer response: [/ quote]
      Does not make mistakes, one who does nothing.
      what to call the enemy (and what kind) "stupid", you must have something more serious than publications on topvar, it is desirable to be of course the creator of "SAMOKHODOK" Lev Izrailevich ...
      quote = DesToeR] You are not satisfied with the opinion of the participant in those events ie contemporary [/ quote]
      there are other opinions, it is enough to ask a question not in Russian.
      It's all about the little things. And the answer seems to be in statistics
      http://weltkrieg2.de/Waffen/Kampffahrzeuge/Panzer/info/Zahlenvergleich-deutsche-
      russische-panzer.htm

      [quote = DesToeR] So what does this statistic mean? [/ quote]
      the absurdity of your statement about the Hetzer, I don’t quote on whose chassis and where it (the Hetzer) was manufactured
      [quote = DesToeR] Not only that, this design was not tested on tanks weighing 50-70 tons [/ quote]
      suspension christie and t-34?
      [quote = DesToeR] the car also cost as much as 2 FW-190 attack aircraft. [/ quote]
      mistakenly
      [quote = DesToeR] Plus the metal (non-ferrous) physically would not have been enough for her from the Reich [/ quote]
      Do you know what a submarine is? Battery for submarines, color-coded components for submarines?
      the tank is "resting"
      And the number of submarines produced, and the Doenitz concept?

      the tablet doesn’t mold, but I’ll figure it out
      Table 14. The main indicators of the military-economic potential of fascist Germany by mid-1941 (annual production) 2.
      Table 14. The main indicators of the military-economic potential of fascist Germany by mid-1941 (annual production) 2.
      Indicators
      Germany with Austria
      Germany's European allies
      Germany Occupied Countries
      Total
      German resources increase at the expense of the allies and occupied countries
      Area (thousand sq. Km)
      554
      801
      1922
      3277
      5,9 times
      Population (million people)
      76
      78
      129
      283
      3,7 times
      electric power
      (billion kWh)
      52
      15
      43
      110
      2,1 times
      Coal (million tons)
      185
      2
      161
      348
      1,9 times
      Iron ore (million tons of pure iron)
      3,4
      0,5
      22,4
      26,3
      7,7
      Copper ore (thousand tons of pure copper)

      31
      1
      67
      99
      3,2

      Bauxites (thousand tons)
      93
      848
      1176
      2117
      22,8
      Oil (million tons)
      0,5
      8,7
      0,8
      10,0
      20,0
      Cast iron (million tons)
      16,3
      1,4
      20,2
      37,9
      2,3
      Steel (million tons)
      20,0
      3,2
      20,4
      43,6
      2,2
      Aluminum (thousand tons)
      131
      23
      64
      218
      1,7
      Cars (thousand pieces)
      333
      75
      268
      676
      2,0
      Cereals (million centners)
      136
      148
      264
      548
      4,0
      Cattle (million heads)
      22,9
      15,3
      45,4
      83,6
      3,7
      Pigs (million heads)
      26,7
      9,9
      27,8
      64,4
      2,4
      Wool (thousand tons)
      19,6
      59,7
      59,4
      138,7
      7,1
      ---------------------------------
      about porsche suspension- fairy tales about bb
  31. DesToeR
    DesToeR 23 October 2013 14: 13 New
    +2
    Does not make mistakes, one who does nothing.
    what to call the enemy (and what) "stupid", you must have something more serious than publications on topvar, it is desirable to be, of course, as the creator of "SAMOKHODOK" Lev Izrailevich ..

    It is my right to have a personal opinion. You do not agree with him - hence the dialogue is a normal phenomenon in communication.

    the absurdity of your statement about the Hetzer, I don’t quote on whose chassis and where it (the Hetzer) was manufactured


    The absurdity of your statements was confirmed by the war. But the Soviet "Hetzer" on the chassis of light tanks, assembled from automotive units took Berlin 45m. Hetzer's chassis was produced in the Czech Republic, and what problems it was to produce them at other factories, the fact that the Germans did not take advantage of the opportunities are their problems. Didn't understand the comment about Christie's suspension on the T-34? The whole war went away, they did not even move the torsion bars, although the samples were tested.

    Do you know what a submarine is? Battery for submarines, color-coded components for submarines?
    the tank is "resting"
    And the number of submarines produced, and the Doenitz concept?


    A submarine is a prerogative, judging by the context - a submarine. You still compare a pistol with a machine gun. The concept is the same, but the purposes are different. Comparing a submarine with a tank "can only be a stupid illiterate, who does not know anything and who has not seen in his life a" pseudo-specialist ", which now (in the age of the Internet) is full." The tank is "resting", but there is a cost-effectiveness criterion. A submarine can sink a ship of 20000t-60000t displacement, die heroically and recoup the cost of building a dozen of its kind. A tank worth 250000-400000 Reichmarks does not have such "performance". In 1943 self-propelled guns Ferdinand pounded a lot, stopped the avalanche of Soviet tanks? Or the opinion of the "fast" Heinz in not spreading?

    about porsche suspension- fairy tales about bb


    I have outlined my "fairy tale", I would like to see yours.
  32. postman
    postman 24 October 2013 11: 38 New
    -2
    Quote: DesToeR
    It is my right to have a personal opinion. You disagree with him

    I did not deny the right. Yes, I do not agree: to call the Germans (they would have taken someone else) - "DULL" colipast ... this is comme il faut
    Quote: DesToeR
    The absurdity of your statements was confirmed by the war. AND

    You do not understand, this is about the peremptory statement:
    Quote: DesToeR
    The main unit of armored vehicles for 1945 was planned self-propelled gun - Hetzer with a 75mm gun and armor up to 60mm.


    Quote: DesToeR
    what problems were letting them out at other factories,

    Other factories could not cope with what they were obliged to produce, and they (plants) were against it, but I didn’t give it in vain: JagdPanzer IV (Sd Kfz 162)
    Quote: DesToeR
    About Christie's suspension on the T-34 did not understand koment

    I will answer in your words (just change the weight)
    Quote: DesToeR
    Not only was this design not tested on tanks weighing

    And nothing .. reached the end of the war

    Quote: DesToeR
    They didn’t even rearrange the torsion bars, although the samples were tested.

    Either the torsion bars, deploy the backstage, shift the MTO and the normal tank, OR THE NUMBER OF SHAFT
    "To fight not by quantity, but by skill" = not for this event
    Quote: DesToeR
    You still compare the gun with a machine gun.

    Do not write nonsense, the submarine was given on the consumption of color meta.
    kg per tank and TON per submarine, nothing was done, however I brought the extraction and smelting of colormet, everything is there, YOU JUST WERE NOT READING TO READ, nhow about with the number of flights of the gloucesters, the main thing is to blurt out (maybe it will slip)
    Quote: DesToeR
    A submarine can sink a ship in a 20000t-60000t displacement, die heroically and recoup the cost of building a dozen of its kind.

    1. the war is not won at sea, they are won on land
    2. during the period under review (we are talking about tanks, about new tanks) .. it was practically not essential
    .
    The submarine was important: to block the Atlantic and the path to Murmansk with Arkhangelsk
    in 1944 (second 1/2) it was already losing relevance
    Quote: DesToeR
    I have outlined my "fairy tale", I would like to see yours.

    About what?
    about the suspension?
    Where to send WaPruef materials and American / British findings?
    Here I will not post them, because they are in German and English, and after me with Appolon follows manic perseverance - and DELETES SunE, which is not in Russian, or the word "Dyrimar", for example.
    Although I do not see the difference between m / y Appolon or "Dyrimar", in a literary sense.
  33. DesToeR
    DesToeR 25 October 2013 12: 51 New
    +2
    I did not deny the right. Yes, I do not agree: to call the Germans (they would have taken someone else) - "DULL" colipast ... this is comme il faut


    When projects of tanks over 50 tons were proposed in the USSR, Kalinin called the Chief Designer (I do not remember his last name) and put in front of him a book with the carrying capacity of railway platforms, the dimensions of the tunnels, their radii, etc. Then it became clear that it was impossible to make such tanks and deliver them to the battlefield without changing the railway composition and rebuilding the tunnels. Logistics became more complicated. In the USSR, the designers and management had enough "genius" to understand the senselessness of such machines in the army. In Germany, we went through the creation of special platforms with a carrying capacity of up to 70 tons, then it turned out that not all bridges can withstand such a railway train - they changed the arrangement of platforms, reduced the number in one train, etc. Those. had a bunch of haemorrhoids with logistics. The combat readiness of all these miracle tanks has always been extremely low, moreover, they quickly squandered this very combat readiness due to the overloaded chassis and increased dependence on the railways.

    Either the torsion bars, deploy the backstage, shift the MTO and the normal tank, OR THE NUMBER OF SHAFT
    "To fight not by quantity, but by skill" = not for this event


    Don't talk nonsense about the "quantitative shaft". Most of the tanks of the Second World War had a non-torsion suspension. The Germans themselves did not produce all machines with torsion bar suspension, the "workhorse" of the Panzerwaffe T-4, for example. And nothing was at war, and not bad. Until now, the non-torsion suspension is used on tanks, for example, the Merkava.
    1. Kars
      Kars 25 October 2013 12: 56 New
      +1
      Quote: DesToeR
      When in the USSR they proposed tank designs of over 50 tons, Kalinin called the Chief Designer (I don’t remember his last name) and put in front of him a book with the loading capacity of railway platforms,

      And?

      IS-4 60 tons
      KV-2 52 tons
      T-35 50 tons
    2. postman
      postman 25 October 2013 18: 47 New
      -2
      Quote: DesToeR
      Kalinin called and put in front of him a book with the loading capacity of the railway platform, the dimensions of the tunnels

      RF: axle load of up to 8 tf (and somewhere else 5), with bridges that same trouble (Recently, in the Volgodskaya timber carrier collapsed along with the bridge, Procuratrua is still there)
      GERMANY: without Gehnemigung, unaccompanied, drive ALL ALL-terrein Crane Liebherr LTMs up to 1400.
      Width, height, etc.:
      http://www.liebherr.com/AT/ru-RU/products_at.wfw/id-179-0/measure-nonMetric
      20 euro yellow lamp on the back and forth
      ALL of them are 12 tons per axle FOR EXTRA
      2008 tons of transformers were transported from Austria in 185, the route was agreed by Gehnemigung
      When passing bridges (under), the SAMA automatics lowered the rookery onto the rollers, so they rustled
      I can bring many examples of oversized transportation (Buran, Wind turbine blades, Reactors, turbines)
      No problem
      why am I? (otherwise you won’t understand)
      In Germany (and Europe) - NO SUCH PROBLEMS (railway and road bridges)
      u have.
      Recall the 1MV: plying the Kaiser army m / a on the western and eastern fronts, the rout of the Samsonov army.
      WHAT IS THE PERIOD OF THESE "Monsters", Where did the DB go?
      Quote: DesToeR
      Don't talk nonsense about the "quantitative shaft"

      What are you stupid about? or fool around specially?
      Val: the number of German tanks (fighting on the Western, Eastern fronts, in Africa, Italy, Norway) and the number of tanks of the USSR (well, what else to dumbfold, add the British, American, Canadian and some French)
      Got it?
      alles?
  34. DesToeR
    DesToeR 25 October 2013 12: 53 New
    +1
    About what?
    about the suspension?
    Where to send WaPruef materials and American / British findings?


    It is not necessary to send anywhere. Give your conclusions briefly and justify. I did not claim that Christie's suspension is the pinnacle of design thought. I claimed that the suspension of the Germans on their tanks is stupid. The Germans themselves (both the military and the designer) recognized this. A problem always has N-solutions. You can put a suspension with a staggered arrangement of rollers of large diameter. And you can put an arms stabilizer on the tank and solve the problem of firing in motion. By the way, the Germans, with their suspension, did not achieve what they used it for: there was no possibility of more or less accurate shooting right away on the Tigers and Panthers.
  35. DesToeR
    DesToeR 25 October 2013 13: 06 New
    +2
    Do not write nonsense, the submarine was given on the consumption of color meta.
    kg per tank and TON to the submarine, nothing could be done, however I brought in the extraction and smelting of the colormet, everything is there, YOU JUST WERE NOT READING TO READ, well, as with the number of airplane departures of the gloucesters, the main thing is to blurt out (maybe it will slip)


    Well, then compare the proportion of metal in the battleship "Bismarck" and the tank "Tiger", for example. An amazing ratio will turn out. I bothered to read, but what's the point? If you provide data, then take the trouble to give analytics, dynamics and comparison at least skem or. Figures without comments and comparisons are agul, i.e. your times and tons do not say anything.
    In the war, Tsvetmet went to radio electronics, and to electric motors, and to munition fuses, and a lot more. There was reason to think about the criterion of cost-effectiveness. But to swallow hundreds of scarce kg of color in a tank, which can die from a dozen reasons (from a half-wooden attack aircraft attacking a railway station, to a Molotov cocktail from an infantryman) - a foolishness of bottomless depth. Plus, with this wunderwaffe it also needs to be worn as a small child. But he works on the principle - where they brought there and shoot, he himself will not reach the battlefield like a submarine for sure.

    1. the war is not won at sea, they are won on land
    2. during the period under review (we are talking about tanks, about new tanks) .. it was practically not essential
    .
    The submarine was important: to block the Atlantic and the path to Murmansk with Arkhangelsk
    in 1944 (second 1/2) it was already losing relevance


    Well, why did the "brilliant" German designers until the end of the war designed and produced their U-bots? Their last submarines in their performance characteristics retained "relevance" for a good ten years after the war.
    1. postman
      postman 26 October 2013 00: 52 New
      -2
      Quote: DesToeR
      Well, then compare the proportion of metal in the battleship "Bismarck" and the tank "Tiger"

      so you yourself answered, not far away as "yesterday" argued that Germany did not have enough color for the suspension electrom. for Porsche.
      Enough, and on it and on Tirpitz and on the submarine
  36. DesToeR
    DesToeR 25 October 2013 13: 38 New
    +1
    You do not understand, this is about the peremptory statement:
    Quote: DesToeR
    The main unit of armored vehicles for 1945 was planned self-propelled gun - Hetzer with a 75mm gun and armor up to 60mm.


    Quote: DesToeR
    what problems were letting them out at other factories,

    Other factories could not cope with what they were obliged to produce, and they (plants) were against it, but I didn’t give it in vain: JagdPanzer IV (Sd Kfz 162)


    The statement about Hetzer as a priority direction in the release for 1945 is not mine, I confess. I don't remember where I found it. But this is confirmed by the fact that at the end of the war the Germans began to install anti-tank guns, even on the chassis of Czech all-terrain vehicles. The Germans quickly realized that the self-propelled guns on the chassis of the T-3 and T-4 linear tanks were not much cheaper, and technologically too. But on the chassis of a Czech light tank (outdated by the middle of the war) - that's it. And compare the performance characteristics of the Hetzer self-propelled guns with the self-propelled guns on the chassis of the four - they are almost equal in terms of armor, weapons and mobility. So it makes sense to "pull" from the release of the chassis of a medium tank, quite modern by the way at that time, if you can continue to produce on the basis of a cheaper and simpler Czech tank. And Germany had enough capacity. No need to dissemble - all of Western Europe stood under the Reich. And France before the defeat was one of the leading countries in the production of armored vehicles, and there were unique developments in the use of casting in the production of tanks. The problem is not in the capacities, but in how the Germans got their clothes off. Instead of one Panther, several Hetzers with a similar gun could be released. And the combat survivability of Hetzer in front of the most massive 45mm-76mm cannons of the USSR was similar.
    1. Kars
      Kars 25 October 2013 13: 49 New
      +2
      Quote: DesToeR
      The statement about Hetzer as a priority direction in the issue on 1945 is not mine, I admit

      There was none.
      Quote: DesToeR
      that at the end of the war the Germans began to put anti-aircraft guns even on the chassis of Czech all-terrain vehicles

      The Germans put PT guns on everything that goes since the beginning of the war.
      Quote: DesToeR
      But on the chassis of the Czech light tank (obsolete by the middle of the war)

      They did Marder on it a long time ago.
      Quote: DesToeR
      And France, before the defeat, was one of the leading BTT countries,

      Bylo. But the Germans did not make tanks at its plants.
      Quote: DesToeR
      Instead of one Panther, it was possible to release several Hetzer with a similar gun.

      And could you stand it? A gun from Panther?
      As for the material and labor intensity of the Panther, yes, but the Germans probably know better - they need to be trained in tankers by three Hetzer, and the Fritz used to train crews well before the end of the war.
      Panther alone is a mistake
      1. postman
        postman 25 October 2013 18: 51 New
        -2
        Quote: Kars
        and the Fritzes, until the end of the war, were old to train crews well.

        IN!
        I’m explaining everything to him about the shaft, but he’s sliding onto the merkava
        JUST AS HOW AND BY AIRCRAFT (NUMBER) of Gloucesters, against 262, it is necessary to make such a thing
        ==================
        And here's a question for you (according to our dispute, and indeed, the remote control in the back, the drive (transmission) in the front, the classic layout (the Germans, Sherman, etc.)
        Literature you dofiga.
        QUESTION: How was it with the damage and death of the tank crews?
        Ours and Germans (protected by transmission)
        Got data?
        The Germans have people (special) roads and few of them
        We have a brow, for a brow and did not consider: ordered to take the height
        What a ratio.
        maintainability understandable
        1. Kars
          Kars 25 October 2013 19: 04 New
          +1
          Quote: Postman
          QUESTION: How was it with the damage and death of the tank crews?

          Okay, I’ll assume that it was a question of whether the transmission protected the crew?

          No one kept such statistics, or I didn’t come across. Although most likely no one did. But in my opinion nothing special helped.
          1. postman
            postman 26 October 2013 00: 50 New
            0
            Quote: Kars
            Okay, I’ll assume that it was a question of whether the transmission protected the crew?

            Yes.
            Quote: Kars
            Nobody kept such statistics, or I did not come across.

            Okay, come on.
            -number of destroyed (or destroyed) (tanks) of the USSR and Germany
            - the number of dead (wounded) tankers on either side.
            After all, do you have this data?
            Quote: Kars
            But in my opinion nothing special helped the transmission.

            ?
            Breaks through the armor, then?
            Must
        2. Kars
          Kars 25 October 2013 19: 04 New
          +1
          ______________
  37. DesToeR
    DesToeR 25 October 2013 19: 22 New
    +2
    I’m explaining everything to him about the shaft, but he’s sliding onto the merkava


    Like vodka at the same table drank.

    And here's a question for you (according to our dispute, and indeed, the remote control in the back, the drive (transmission) in the front, t


    Well, if you answer so. Do you have any evidence that this arrangement contributed to the ADDITIONAL protection of the crew? And the fact that the oil in the gearbox burns no worse than gasoline itself with its literature do you know? Do you know where the Panther repair with the removed gearbox was? And the spalls (not even breaking through) of the inner layer of armor worked well not only for the crew but also for the transmission. No need to give out need for virtue. The layout of the Germans had its own logic and certainly not security.

    The Germans have people (special) roads and few of them
    We have a brow, for a brow and did not consider: ordered to take the height
    What a ratio.
    maintainability understandable


    How to relate your post to the losses of soldiers of the Germans and the USSR during the Second World War? Or are you from the category of those who believe in German generals, who have always fought with a 5-6-fold superior enemy, and always successful? Have you noticed that they always consider units (divisions or corps), and not soldiers and weapons? The losses of Germans and Russians are correlated approximately as 1 to 1,4, and the USSR lost about 3 million. military personnel in the first months of the war only prisoners of war. If we discard these one-time losses, then the remaining 3-4 years was actually parity, on average. All the same, the Germans had an advantage in June 41g: the troops were fully mobilized and concentrated for the attack. In the summer, the USSR was able to set 41 three separate trains, each of which was weaker than the German troops. They were defeated one by one, without any miracles of strategy and wunderwaffe.
    1. postman
      postman 26 October 2013 00: 49 New
      -2
      Quote: DesToeR
      Like vodka at the same table drank.

      Quote: DesToeR
      Well, if you answer so.

      Man, you are either damn inattentive, or you have a complex, excuse me.
      THERE WERE YOU ONLY ONE KARS (may Allah extend his days)
      With you, unlike you, ONLY ON YOU. Do not flatter yourself. / Well, then I can’t go any further, I left, I’ll arise under a different flag if I reach +
  38. DesToeR
    DesToeR 25 October 2013 19: 26 New
    +1
    Quote: DesToeR
    The statement about Hetzer as a priority direction in the issue on 1945 is not mine, I admit

    There was none.

    Wikipedia will come down?

    At the beginning of 1945, a self-propelled gun project was developed to replace the Hetzer, which received the designation Jagdpanzer 38 (d) (d - German. Deutschland - "Germany"). The development of self-propelled guns was carried out within the framework of the Wehrmacht’s Arms Management Program for standardization of tank chassis and self-propelled guns adopted in October 1944, which envisaged leaving only three types of chassis in production - Pz.KpfW.38 (t) in the form of “Hetzer”, “Panther” and “ Tiger II. " But the increase in the production of the Hetzer was hindered by the inappropriateness of the Czechoslovakian machine to the equipment and technological processes of German enterprises, which created problems with the availability of the chassis for the production of other types of armored vehicles [31]. Designed for production at German plants, the Jagdpanzer 38 (d) generally retained the layout and basic features of the Hetzer, but its body was lengthened by 40 cm and the track width increased by 6 cm. The thickness of the frontal reservation was increased to 80 mm, while while the side sheets became vertical. The PaK 39/2 gun was replaced with a more powerful 75 mm PaK 42/2 gun with a barrel length of 70 calibers. The self-propelled gun was supposed to be equipped with a Prague V-103 diesel engine, which developed a maximum power of 220 liters. p., AK 5-80 transmission and a reinforced turning mechanism, which provided the Jagdpanzer 38 (d) maximum speed, according to various sources, 40 [31] or 45 km / h, despite the mass increased to 16,5 t [31] [ 32].

    The project was considered attractive in terms of price - efficiency and it was decided in July 1945 to switch to the production of Jagdpanzer 38 (d) all the remaining tank building capacities - Alkett, Krupp, MIAG and Nibelungenwerk - with achievement by the end of July monthly production of 1250 cars. Designed in early 1945, the designs of the Jagdpanzer 38 (d) family of armored vehicles also included [31] [32]:
    1. Kars
      Kars 25 October 2013 19: 33 New
      +1
      Quote: DesToeR
      Wikipedia will come down?

      No, it won’t come down. So you brought me nothing. At the same time there were PROJECTS to transfer everything to the E-series tanks.
      Quote: DesToeR
      Jagdpanzer 38 (d

      But Hetzer isn’t close to it. Just a variation on the theme

      And the warp between tanks and self-propelled guns in Germany began earlier.



      In the middle of 1944, the German side, realizing all the significant design flaws of the Hetzer, intended to develop a new modification on the expanded 38 (d) base. Krupp worked on remodeling the awkward fighting compartment and installing an 75mm L / 70 gun. However, the project No.Bz. 3471 Panzerjäger 38T mit 7.5cm L / 70 (KwK42) did not reach the series until the end of 2MB finally turned off the development.
  39. DesToeR
    DesToeR 25 October 2013 19: 59 New
    +1
    Jagdpanzer 38 (d)
  40. Jager
    Jager 25 October 2013 20: 01 New
    +1
    I want to say only one thing - the Germans have already tried to unify the medium and heavy tanks in terms of units. And what came of it? The unfortunate "Tiger 2" could hardly crawl and had the overall reliability of a 20-year-old VAZ. Yes - cannon, yes - armor. What about the rest? Mobility, maintainability? The Germans made an unforgivable strategic mistake in wartime - they tried to exalt the quality of weapons over their quantity. In addition, they sprayed their design and economic forces (the number of the most diverse types and brands of equipment is amazing, but I will not say anything about modifications at all. There was a complete and absolute mess here. In addition, the Germans did not develop a single concept of a medium tank ("four" to 43 It is morally outdated and has exhausted its modernization resource), this can be seen from the "Panther" - an extremely unsuccessful tank.
  41. Kars
    Kars 25 October 2013 20: 04 New
    +1
    Quote: Kars
    The statement about Hetzer as a priority direction in the issue on 1945 is not mine, I admit
    There was none.

    Quote: DesToeR
    Jagdpanzer 38 (d)

    If This is Hetzer, then I'm sorry.

    Hetzer at the Czech plants produced with the maximum opportunity, but what could produce there besides them? So what about priorities))) is not worth it.
  42. DesToeR
    DesToeR 25 October 2013 20: 13 New
    +1
    But Hetzer isn’t close to it. Just a variation on the theme


    Yes, technically it's not Hetzer. But I argued that the Germans abandoned their expensive toys in favor of a cheap and massive means. And why is this not close to Hetzer? By armor, purpose, size, weight and weapons, i.e. conceptually - this is Hetzer. Yes, developed by the Czechs for German capacities, but improved performance characteristics, but this is not a 70-ton monster with dubious combat and tactical effectiveness.

    No, it won’t come down. So you brought me nothing. At the same time there were PROJECTS to transfer everything to the E-series tanks.


    Projects and plans are not exactly the same thing. In 1942 in the USSR there were the same projects to produce a "single" tank, but the reality did not allow it. In addition, in a situation where there is a shortage of weapons, but there is the capacity to produce, if not a super tank, but a light self-propelled gun / tank, both the Germans and the Russians chose the latter. For example, the USSR has Astrov's cars on the LT T-40 chassis, the Germans have self-propelled guns on everything that is outdated or could be found / released: marders, panzerjagers of all stripes, Hetzer.
    The essence of the dispute was about the E-series and what kind of super bending machines it would be. And I argue that the Germans would have been engaged in their production and the picture would have been worse than with Tiger 2. The cost-effectiveness criterion would have rested on them. Plus, the USSR was already preparing an adequate response in much more real weight with approximately the same performance characteristics
    1. Kars
      Kars 25 October 2013 20: 24 New
      +1
      Quote: DesToeR
      . But I argued that the Germans abandoned their expensive toys in favor of a cheap and massive means

      How do you then explain at least E-100 and MAUS?
      Quote: DesToeR
      And why is this not close to Hetzer?

      Because.
      Quote: DesToeR
      those. conceptually - this is Hetzer

      Why not a Jagdpanzer IV?
      Quote: DesToeR
      but this is not an 70 ton monster with dubious combat and tactical effectiveness.

      These were also developed.
      Quote: DesToeR
      but there is power to produce, if not a super tank, but a light self-propelled gun / tank, and the Germans and Russians chose the latter.

      Not really. The Germans always used everything that came to hand, and this was before the crisis with a lack of weapons, and at the same time with the arming of the Tigers and Panthers.

      Quote: DesToeR
      And I argue that the Germans would have been engaged in their production and the picture would have been worse than with the Tiger 2.

      The 2 tiger, in principle, is also a mistake. And if the Germans were to produce the E-series, well, for example, in 1942 we would be poor. For 1945, all German projects are on
      Quote: Jager
      Jagdpanzer 38 (d)
      no more than projections.
  43. DesToeR
    DesToeR 25 October 2013 20: 47 New
    +1
    How do you then explain at least E-100 and MAUS?

    Foolishness of bottomless depth. Or in the words of a German military man about Dora - a technical masterpiece, unfortunately absolutely useless. In addition, these are concepts and not production models. The Russians "ran" this stage in the late 30s and early 40s. SMK, T-100, KV-3 (however, they did not have time to finish building the E-100). Well, the projects KV-4 and KV-5. The Russians were smart enough to understand, when these machines were on paper, that the way to increase the mass was a dead end. The cost-effectiveness criterion fell the faster the more the mass was.

    Why not a Jagdpanzer IV?

    I guess, yes. But the question then: why develop a new chassis for the Germans Czechs? After all, Alkett studied the four in vain - even if the conveyor would continue to drive. I think that this yagd. 38 (d) was worth as Hetzer, so the Germans decided.

    Not really. The Germans always used everything that came to hand, and this was before the crisis with a lack of weapons, and at the same time with the arming of the Tigers and Panthers.


    Not really. Used, but not for military purposes. The same French cars were used as training and security in France. The release of ersatz cars of the type Marder and Jagd. 1 was initiated precisely after the attack on the USSR. A 75mm gun with cannon ballistics was put on Sturmgeshütz to fight tanks, the same after the attack on the USSR.

    The 2 tiger, in principle, is also a mistake. And if the Germans were to produce the E-series, well, for example, in 1942 we would be poor. For 1945, all German projects are on


    And if the USSR had set up the issue of KV-3 and A-43 in the year, so 1940 we would have given it to the Fritz in 41 ... As the Russians say: the testicle is expensive for Khrestov’s Day (well, or a spoon for dinner).
    1. Kars
      Kars 26 October 2013 11: 42 New
      +1
      Quote: DesToeR
      Dope of bottomless depth.

      This is not an explanation but an assessment. Try to explain again, otherwise your statement about
      Quote: DesToeR
      But I argued that the Germans abandoned their expensive toys in favor of a cheap and massive means.

      untenable.
      Quote: DesToeR
      I guess, yes. But the question then: why develop a new chassis for the Germans Czechs

      You’re confusing something. The Czechs did everything they could at their plants. And the Germans did their own at their plants as part of the unified chassis E program, and this has nothing to do with the hatzer as such.
      Quote: DesToeR
      After all, Alkett studied the four in vain - even if the conveyor would continue to drive.
      Yes, but this does not mean that it was necessary to continue to do on the basis of the four, and not to make a new, more cheap chassis.

      Quote: DesToeR
      Not really. Used, but not for military purposes.

      Learn the question better.
      Quote: DesToeR
      The release of ersatz cars such as Marder and Yagd.1 was initiated precisely after the attack on the USSR.

      Well, not so much time passed between the fall of France and the attack on the USSR.
      So, in the 1941 year, the 174 French R-35 (Renault R-35) were converted into self-propelled guns with the 47-mm Czech anti-tank gun (L / 43.4).

      Quote: DesToeR
      And if the USSR had set up the issue of KV-3 and A-43 in the year, so 1940 we would have given it to the Fritz in 41 ... As the Russians say: the testicle is expensive for Khrestov’s Day (well, or a spoon for dinner).

      But the chances of establishing a series of E instead of a giger are greater (since the Tiger Panther went into the series really)
      than the USSR to do A-43, given that it wasn’t possible to launch the T-34M
  44. DesToeR
    DesToeR 25 October 2013 21: 08 New
    0
    It was unsuccessful, because having an excellent design school, the Germans screwed up by adopting a "raw" and unfinished Pz V.


    Add: screwed up twice. The first time that they launched into production two tanks almost equal in terms of performance characteristics: T-3 and T-4. The second, when they adopted two actually heavy T-5 Panther and T-6 Tiger tanks. The panther was superfluous. The tiger was more suitable for the role of TT both in armor protection and in armament.
  45. Arkan
    Arkan 26 October 2013 10: 58 New
    0
    These cumbersomes were intended for defense, for maneuverable combat, they would hardly fit. Germany was losing the war, and therefore the technology is appropriate.
  46. DesToeR
    DesToeR 26 October 2013 21: 01 New
    +1
    This is not an explanation but an assessment. Try to explain again, otherwise your statement about


    What level of response do you expect? I am not a historian to formulate an answer based on facts and figures. That it was nonsense I have no doubt. At least from the fact that the tanks (and the E-100 and Mouse were tanks) suffer losses not only from barreled artillery fire. And if you allocate several regiments of Il-2 to strike at a dozen tigers, you still need to fork out, then bombing a dozen Mausov is justified by the forces of the B-17 air wing. Those. these "miracle tanks" have outgrown the cost of the classic systems for their destruction and passed into another "weight" class. And what, in principle, did Mouse bring to the battlefield? Pushkku in caliber 128mm and 75mm. Yes, for the same materials, it was possible to release two Jagdtigers with 128mm and two Panthers. Thus, to double the number of "trunks" and to diversify the risks of one-time loss in case of death.

    You’re confusing something. The Czechs did everything they could at their plants. And the Germans did their own at their plants as part of the unified chassis E program, and this has nothing to do with the hatzer as such.


    Then how to accept the fact that the development of Yagd38 (d) was carried out under (I don’t remember the list) the factories of Germany and their technology. Chekhov was quite satisfied with their Hetzer. The point is to create two machines with almost identical characteristics in parallel? Although the Germans have repeatedly made such a mistake.

    Yes, but this does not mean that it was necessary to continue to do on the basis of the four, and not to make a new, more cheap chassis.


    In war conditions, making a new, albeit cheaper chassis is an impermissible luxury. The T-34, at first, was an expensive medium tank, and went into the series with a great creak, but no one decided to break the conveyor either because of the A-43, nor because of the KV-13, nor even because of the T- 43 (approximately 70% unification with the T-34).
    1. Kars
      Kars 26 October 2013 21: 11 New
      +1
      Quote: DesToeR
      not a historian, that would formulate the answer on figures and facts.

      Then you are not in brbsats right with phrases like
      Quote: DesToeR
      But I argued that the Germans abandoned their expensive toys in favor of a cheap and massive means.

      And even more so APPROVE. Given that work on the E-100 went until the end of the war.
      Quote: DesToeR
      Then how to accept the fact that the development of Yagd38 (e) was carried out under (I don’t remember the list) the factories of Germany and their technology

      so it confirms my words
      Quote: Kars
      the exes did everything they could in their factories, while the Germans did their own in their factories as part of the unified chassis E program, and this has no relation to the hatzer as such.


      Quote: DesToeR
      Chekhov was quite satisfied with their Hetzer.

      Chekhov? Them? You confuse something again? Which Czechs? They complied with the Germans.
      Quote: DesToeR
      The point is to create two machines with almost identical characteristics in parallel?

      Well, with almost identical you bent - I would like to see a panther gun on a Czech 75 mm hatcher.
      Quote: Kars
      In the middle of 1944, the German side, realizing all the significant design flaws of the Hetzer, intended to develop a new modification on the expanded 38 (d) base. Krupp worked on remodeling the awkward fighting compartment and installing an 75mm L / 70 gun. However, the project No.Bz. 3471 Panzerjäger 38T mit 7.5cm L / 70 (KwK42) did not reach the series until the end of 2MB finally turned off the development.

      something comes to me again.
      Quote: DesToeR
      In war conditions, making a new, albeit cheaper chassis is an impermissible luxury.

      This is a fallacy. Especially in relation to German industry.
      Quote: DesToeR
      The T-34 was the same, at first, an expensive medium tank, and with great creak went into the series, but no one dared to break the conveyor

      And perhaps in vain. And the fact that he has fallen in price is a simplification of everything that is possible. To such an extent that the tankers on Sormovsky T-34 refused to go into battle, a huge percentage of broken tanks, etc.
  47. DesToeR
    DesToeR 26 October 2013 21: 14 New
    +1
    But the chances of establishing a series of E instead of a giger are greater (since the Tiger Panther went into the series really)
    than the USSR to do A-43, given that it wasn’t possible to launch the T-34M


    How did you calculate these odds? For example, all Soviet heavy tanks "grew" from the KV series. Yes, technically they were different from each other, but the components and assemblies, the engine and weapons had good acceptance plus industrial development. But in the USSR they understood very clearly that when creating a heavy tank it was necessary to "spin" in a weight of 45-50 tons. Under this weight, the undercarriage and engine-transmission group "gave out" acceptable for war conditions reliability and performance characteristics of the tank in mobility. And the Germans with their Tigers and E-series "jumped" in weight with a step of 25 tons. Where is the aggregate TESTED and adjusted base for these chassis? That is why I do not understand why you think that it was easier to launch them into production than, say, KV-3, IS-3, IS-4, Object2XX, or what else did we come up with?
    1. Kars
      Kars 26 October 2013 21: 43 New
      +1
      Quote: DesToeR
      How did you calculate these chances?

      And what is there to scrub? The Germans were able to make 6000 panthers and 1.5 thousand Tigers.
      Quote: DesToeR
      For example, all Soviet heavy tanks "grew" from the KV series.

      What did you get? And ALL of this is loudly said. KV-1 and IS-2 are the rest of the unit KV-85. IS-1 can not be shielded.
      Quote: DesToeR
      ... But in the USSR they understood very clearly that when creating a heavy tank it was necessary to "spin" in a weight of 45-50 tons.

      Who said that? And why was the IS-4 60 ton?
      Quote: DesToeR
      From this weight, the chassis and engine-transmission group "gave out" reliability acceptable for war conditions

      In fact, this is precisely the problem of the chassis and the fact that the motors were not powerful.
      Quote: DesToeR
      Where is the aggregate TESTED and operationalized base for these chassis?

      You have no doubt in the presence of the Tiger? No? Therefore, if you were to start the E series instead of the Tiger, the Germans would have done it.
      Quote: DesToeR
      That’s why I don’t understand why you think that it was easier to launch them in a series than say KV-3, IS-3, IS-4
      I’m not saying that it’s easier. I’m saying that they would be launched, because the Tigers and Panthers did.

      Though if I honestly wonder where

      Quote: DesToeR
      The armor was so much better that in the USSR they even refused surface cementation. Russian armor of the same thickness as the German one was not only stronger, but also more viscous.


      Did you take that?


      And by the way, I recommend downloading

      Panzerwrecks_5
      look at how many E-100 cases have done.
  48. DesToeR
    DesToeR 26 October 2013 22: 28 New
    +1
    And what is there to scrub? The Germans were able to make 6000 panthers and 1.5 thousand Tigers.


    So what? About 4 thousand were released in the USSR. KV-1 and over 2 thousand. IP. Launched into production of the IS-3. A similar picture is obtained. The KV-3 and IS-4 machines cited as an example that the USSR also had developments in the weight of 60 + t. But no one was going to release these cars in large quantities. IS-4 was not released from a good life, but because of a failure with the IS-3, and even then in peace conditions they made about 200 pieces. and stopped.

    What did you get? And ALL of this is loudly said. KV-1 and IS-2 are the rest of the unit KV-85. IS-1 can not be shielded.


    What are the cars that didn’t "grow up" with KV?

    You have no doubt in the presence of the Tiger? No? Therefore, if you were to start the E series instead of the Tiger, the Germans would have done it.


    Well, Tiger 2, if I understood correctly, weighed about 68t. He was planned to replace the E-75 or E-90 or E-100. The weight is apparently more, but about problems with the chassis in your article from Tankaster it’s well written. Or do you think that if the fascists 70-75t didn’t complete the chassis for a 90t tank, the car would have gone better? They could arrange the release, but the issue is not the issue, but the effective application.

    Did you take that?


    I took this from various sources, which describe the creation of light and medium tanks with anti-shell armor in the USSR. After studying the German T-3 tank with cemented armor, in the USSR they tried to make an armored hull with the same. Empirically found that it is optimal, in the conditions of Soviet technology) to cement the armor of at least 25 mm. And there was a choice when creating a medium tank which armor to put 30mm with cementation or 45mm without. We chose the second.
    1. Kars
      Kars 26 October 2013 22: 46 New
      +1
      Quote: DesToeR
      So what? In the USSR they released about 4tys. KV-1 and over 2tys. IP

      That's just not quite so. KV began to do before the war. Build them with 1942 year.
      Quote: DesToeR
      The KV-3 and IS-4 machines cited as an example that the USSR also had developments in the weight of 60 + t.

      In the USSR, such machines were developed before the war. You can remember the T-35.
      Quote: DesToeR
      But no one was going to release these cars in large quantities.

      They weren’t released at all. But to state how much they were PLANNED to release.
      Quote: DesToeR
      IS-4 wasn’t released from a good life,

      But let out a vet?
      Quote: DesToeR
      What are the cars that didn’t "grow up" with KV?

      So because besides HF and IP there was nothing. That would be ALL.
      Quote: DesToeR
      so Tiger 2, if I understood correctly, weighed about 68. He was planned to replace the E-75 or E-90 or E-100. The weight is apparently more, but about problems with the chassis in your article from Tankaster it’s well written.

      But does the CT and E-90 have the same suspension?
      Quote: DesToeR
      Or do you think that if the fascists 70-75 didn’t have completed the chassis for the 90t tank, it would be better to drive the car?

      It may well be.
      Quote: DesToeR
      They could arrange the release, but the issue is not the issue, but the effective application.

      Probably from the ineffective use of the Tigers and Panthers, the Red Army suffered heavy losses in the final stage of WWII?
      Quote: DesToeR
      I took this from different sources

      Simply put, did you come up with this yourself? Does anyone else adhere to your point of view? Who can be sloated?

      mounting
      a frontal sheet with side sheets collapsed.
      Found: 88-mm tank gun pierces the bow
      part of the body. When hit in the frontal part
      the shell ricochets, but due to poor quality
      armor forms a gap in the armor. The body armor has
      low viscosity - spalling, delamination,
      cracks. Shell welds when shells hit
      into sheets are destroyed.
      Conclusions: 88-mm German tank gun with 1500 m
      breaks through the front of the T-Z4 ...
      To increase the armor resistance of the armored housing
      T-Z4 needs to improve the quality of armor and welded
      seams ".
  49. DesToeR
    DesToeR 26 October 2013 23: 35 New
    +1
    That's just not quite so. KV began to do before the war. Build them with 1942 year.


    What exactly is not so?

    In the USSR, such machines were developed before the war. You can remember the T-35.


    Developed, I IT affirm. So what. Nobody released them in bulk.

    They weren’t released at all. But to state how much they were PLANNED to release.


    I do not understand the meaning of your individual posts? There were approved plans for the release of the KV-3 tank, it was a requirement to produce KV-1 tanks with armor increased to 90 mm. So what? What does this prove or disprove? But the fact that the issue did not start says a lot.

    So because besides HF and IP there was nothing. That would be ALL.


    But what are two heavy tanks in one war a little? The Germans did the same with two Tigers. What is the meaning of the number of models I do not understand? And the fact that having established the release of IP a year later than the Tiger, and releasing them in quantity more than both German models, speaks of the superiority of Soviet designers.

    But does the CT and E-90 have the same suspension?

    It may well be.


    Yes, that's just the point that the chassis is different. If the E-series was on the same chassis as the Tiger2, then one could still assume that after 2 years of using this type of suspension, the Germans would bring it to mind. And so, not having solved the problems with one (torsion), they rushed to design another - maybe it will slip through. In the USSR, their torsion bar for TT was brought only by 1943. In 1942, the weight had to be reduced, and not only because of the checkpoint, the rollers presented the same "surprises"

    Probably from the ineffective use of the Tigers and Panthers, the Red Army suffered heavy losses in the final stage of WWII?


    The Red Army advanced at the final stage of the war. She did not have such an advantage in surprise as the Wehrmacht in 1941. Yes, and German cats fell into their element: an ambush from a prepared position, a counterattack in a certain intelligence direction, etc. If you have statistics on the level (share) of losses in tanks in the Red Army until the summer of 1943 and after that it would be interesting to see if it increased or remained at about the same level. Those. Is the contribution of the presence / absence factor of the Tigers and Panthers from the Germans significant or not?

    Simply put, did you come up with this yourself? Does anyone else adhere to your point of view? Who can be sloated?


    You will of course excuse me, but this is not my point of view, these are events, i.e. data. The fact that the military of the USSR liked the German troika with its armor - it was. The shelling of a 45mm PT cannon showed the effectiveness of armor against armor-piercing shells. Research was carried out for the T-50 and T-34 tanks. 45mm armor was preferred due to its viscosity and resistance to subsequent hits. Similar 30mm cemented armor was more fragile and expensive to manufacture. A more "heavy" version was preferred, plus the welded seams were of better quality (cementation at the edges was not disturbed during welding).
    1. Kars
      Kars 26 October 2013 23: 52 New
      +1
      Quote: DesToeR
      . The firing of an 45mm PT gun showed the effectiveness of armor against armor-piercing shells. AND

      BUT HOW DO YOU ON THIS FACT FIND THAT THE SOVIET ARMOR IS THE BEST?
      Quote: DesToeR
      5mm armor was preferred because of its viscosity and resistance to subsequent hits. Similar 30mm cemented armor was more fragile and expensive to manufacture.

      Well, maybe THIS IS THE PROBLEM OF NAME OF THE SOVIET ARMOR?

      SO THAT you WRITE even IBRAHIM in the Confrontation (you know what kind of book?) Did not think of.
    2. Kars
      Kars 26 October 2013 23: 59 New
      +1
      Quote: DesToeR
      What exactly is not so?

      that nothing new was introduced. like the Germans did after the Four Tiger.
      Quote: DesToeR
      Developed, I IT affirm. So what. Nobody released them in bulk.

      BECAUSE they could not. BECAUSE the main thing was on PAPER. And not like the Fritz in models and hardware.
      Quote: DesToeR
      But the fact that the issue did not start says a lot.

      WHAT ABOUT? Not just your ASSUMPTIONS, but specific references.
      Quote: DesToeR
      But what are two heavy tanks in one war a little? The Germans did the same with two Tigers

      Well, the Germans are all the same three, and still do not deserve EVERYTHING.
      Quote: DesToeR
      If the E-series was on the same chassis as the Tiger2, then it would be possible to assume that the Germans would bring it to mind over the 2 year of using this type of suspension

      The 2 tiger has not been used for two years. And why do you assume that the E-series chassis will have many problems?
      Quote: DesToeR
      In 1942 it was necessary to reduce the weight, and not only because of the checkpoint, the rollers presented the same "surprises"
      Have you ever read the story of KV-1? What if it's not a secret?


      Quote: DesToeR
      Yes, and German cats fell into their element

      So did the Germans use their tanks effectively or not?
      Quote: DesToeR
      They could arrange the release, but the issue is not the issue, but the effective application.
  50. DesToeR
    DesToeR 26 October 2013 23: 48 New
    +1
    mounting
    a frontal sheet with side sheets collapsed.
    Found: 88-mm tank gun pierces the bow
    part of the body. When hit in the frontal part
    the shell ricochets, but due to poor quality
    armor forms a gap in the armor. The body armor has
    low viscosity - spalling, delamination,
    cracks. Shell welds when shells hit
    into sheets are destroyed.
    Conclusions: 88-mm German tank gun with 1500 m
    breaks through the front of the T-Z4 ...
    To increase the armor resistance of the armored housing
    T-Z4 needs to improve the quality of armor and welded
    seams ".


    And the armor of the T-34 was designed to hit 9-10kg of a projectile fired at an initial speed of 800 to 1000m / s? Or give a similar example of shooting with a 122mm cannon on Panther's forehead? Or shelling the forehead of Tiger 2 from the same guns? The T-34 armor was designed to hit shells from 37-50mm guns. In 1939-1942, the Germans did not have enough tanks with a 88mm caliber gun.
    1. Kars
      Kars 26 October 2013 23: 50 New
      +1
      Quote: DesToeR
      And the armor of the T-34 was calculated

      ))))))))))
      Quote: DesToeR
      about due to poor quality
      armor forms a gap in the armor. The body armor has
      low viscosity - spalling, delamination,
      cracks. Shell welds when shells hit
      into sheets are destroyed.

      Any other questions? By the way, did you still tell tales about viscosity.
      And the quality of the armor is low is not a secret for a long time.