Once again to the question of the "Porokhovshchikov tank"

45
In every country there are people who love to “reprimand” their history or “add points” to their country, attributing to it all imaginable and inconceivable achievements and perfection. For what and why this was done in the USSR, it is clear: workers of the CPSU regional committee received sausages, but in the field of ballet ... But then it seemed that the archives were opened, and the documents were given the opportunity to study (though not all), and corresponding books, and with links to sources have been published. But the old songs are still heard. Here is an example from today.

Turns out to be a happy birthday tank in Russia should be considered May 18, 1915. It was then that Russia allegedly began testing the first tank of A. Porokhovshchikov under the name "All-Terrain Vehicle". And he, it turns out, successfully passed the test. The team of creators was ready to soon “bring” the car to mind and even make it floating. But the inertness of the tsarist military experts led to the fact that the support project never received, as well as a number of other projects of our nugget designers, which were being developed in Russia at the same time as the All-Terrain Vehicle.



We will not specify who wrote all this, although this statement itself is best of all illustrated by an old proverb: “An old dog cannot learn new tricks.” That is, the one who studied in youth from one book, does not always accept everything new. But then it is worth seeing whether the tank was born 18 on May 1915 of the year, and were the experts from the GVTU really short-sighted? That is, are all the attributes of the tank present in the “Rover” by A. Porokhovshchikov?

Once again to the question of the "Porokhovshchikov tank"


I hardly need to describe in detail this “successful tank”, the images of which bypassed, probably, all the Soviet and post-Soviet publications “on tanks”. But let us remember that the track there was one there, that he was driving with wheels, that it couldn’t have been sealed in any case due to the design features (and how would he then float?) And that there was no weapon on it. The tower with the machine gun was added to it later. But how could one man lead this “tank” and shoot him? And finally, the most important thing: a tank must overcome (and tear!) Wire obstacles! Could this do "Rover"? No, I could not! Small mass, small size and the caterpillar itself - canvas or rubber tape. Consequently, this is not a tank, but ... it was an all-terrain vehicle, and a bad all-terrain vehicle, which is why it was rejected! And it is sad that people whose professional competence enters all this to know, for some reason, even now they are holding onto the “traditions of the Ochakov times and the subjugation of the Crimea”. But even in the textbook on the design of tanks for the 1943 year said: "The tank is a combat vehicle that combines armor protection, fire and maneuver." In this case, even if the armor on the "Rover" was, then there was no weapon. And even if he was driving in the snow at a decent speed, then ... he couldn’t precisely tear the wire obstacles. What kind of tank is it then?

And, by the way, that's why it is believed that the British did the first tank. With all the shortcomings of the Mk.I, he could do it all, and all these three incarnations were present in his design! And they also built experienced designs and models, but they never considered tanks for tanks. For example, they built a reduced wooden layout of the Hetterington “cruiser”, looked at it, weighed it all, and decided to turn out to be what they did in June 1915 of the year. But it was a layout, not a tank!


Mk.i


At the same time, in July 1915, Colonel Evelen Bell Crompton presented the draft, too, a composite, but already four-track tank with weapons in four towers, located on both of its hulls in a linearly elevated pattern, like towers on a warship! The car received the designation Mk.III (the first two were rejected before), but although it turned out to be better than the previous ones, it still didn’t recommend it for building the “Committee of Land Ships” created by Winston Churchill’s concerns, considering it too cumbersome and challenging!

Nor did the projects of designer Robert Francis MacFay, a Canadian engineer, have a grumpy and quarrelsome character. Interestingly, the very first of his project provided for a propeller, which allows us to say that he thought of them as floating! He was also on his other project. Moreover, it was supposed to raise and lower it in order to protect it from damage when it strikes the ground. Interestingly, the main feature of the last two of his cars was a tracked chassis of three caterpillars located in a triangle: one in front, two in the rear.

In this case, the front caterpillar was supposed to play the role of a steering device, i.e. rotate in different directions, as well as change their position relative to the body in a vertical plane. The designer has provided a front and a special cutter for barbed wire and a “nose” of armor plates that flips up at the top to protect this steering track and its driving wheel.

His second project was a tank on four tracks, but the two front ones were located one after the other. At the same time, a high-lying front caterpillar should have made it easier to overcome vertical obstacles, and all the others - to provide a relatively low pressure of the heavy machine on the ground.

Accordingly, the weapons on it could be installed both in the case itself and in the two sponsons on both sides of it. But the project seemed too sophisticated to the military, so that it was also abandoned. Although it would be interesting to get a car, in any case, probably not worse than the serial English tank Mk.I, and all the other tanks from the same series.

Yes, but how did Porokhovshchikov react to the remarks made to him, namely that his “Rover” is small, has no armament, does the caterpillar often fly off the drums? And he took them! As evidenced by his other project, fortunately, has survived to this day. In August of the same 1915 of the year, he proposed the GVTU project of the Earth Armadillo in two versions - field and serf.

One could just call his invention a technical nonsense, but his nonsense turned out to be very interesting and even instructive. To begin with, the armor of the field battleship had to withstand the fire of field artillery, the second - the serf! Well, and his car itself looked not so unusual, but simply monstrous. She had no corps as such. Instead, there was a steel riveting truss with a length of 35 and a width of 3 m, which had a chassis of 10 motor-wheels in the form of armored rollers with a diameter of 2,3 each. The 160-200 hp petrol engines were located directly in the skating rinks, and the transmission and fuel tank were also located there. Here, according to the plan of the “talented” inventor, there were also three people serving both the engine, and two machine guns and a bomb! That is, the "battleship" would have a whole arsenal of 20 machine guns and 10 bombers on each side, that is, two machine guns and one bomb inside each wheel! But engineer Porokhovshchikov and this was not enough. Therefore, he placed two armored towers in front and behind, with one 4 — 6-inch caliber gun (101,6 — 152,4 mm) and a smaller caliber gun coupled with it. In the center of the farm, an armored cabin was supposed for the commander of the “battleship” and his assistants, and a searchlight was at the top. The entire crew of the Field Armadillo was supposed to be 72 people. Armor - 101,6 mm. The declared speed should be from 4,4 to 21 km / h. The length of the “battleship” basically allowed it to force ditches and ravines up to 11 m in width. But the inventor clearly did not think about the bending loads with which his platform would have been subjected. As about how such a machine will turn. Of course, theoretically, she could do it, like any tank, slowing down rollers on one side. But ... for this it would be necessary to synchronize the rotation of all these rollers, and to achieve this it would be almost impossible. But he proposed to put the "battleship" on the railway course, so that he could move by rail.

“The fortress battleship”, apart from booking, was distinguished by the presence of an armored casemate for the landing party in 500 people. It turned out some kind of "assault machines" of antiquity and the Middle Ages, and even the Japanese ninjas, who also seemed to have something similar (in fact, pure fantasy!), But Porokhovshchikov’s fantasy left him far behind. Now imagine yourself in the place of the members of the GVTU, think about how this “miracle” should have shaken on the go, and most importantly, remember the strength of materials and twisting tensions in such farms, and you would then fully support the decision from 13 August 1915 on the meeting Technical Committee: “... even without detailed calculations, we can confidently say that the proposal is impracticable. It would be advisable for use in a combat situation to distribute the armadillo’s armament to separate mobile units not connected to one rigid system. ”

Typically, such inventors do not accept any criticism and go "to the end." But Porokhovshchikov agreed with the proposal on “distribution among the links”, and by the end of 1915, he presented the project “The Earth Battleship” from “articulated links” or armored platforms “able to deviate from each other in all directions”.

That is, it was an “articulated tank” with armored gun turrets and with logging for the landing - an unattainable dream of designers and today. Each "platform" consisted of two pairs of rollers and an armored platform with weapons. It is clear that this project was not considered. But the most surprising thing is that he did not offer all this to any drop-in student, but an engineer with a completed technical education who was supposed to understand how stupid and inefficient everything that he offers.

Speaking of "other projects", you can recall the idea of ​​a wheel-drum of a certain S. Podolsky, who in October of the same 1915 of the year offered a car already on six-meter rollers, but a company of soldiers was supposed to push it! At the same time, according to the inventor, it was necessary to install turrets with machine guns for shooting at a running enemy;

And what other real-life tank projects were in Russia at that time? That is, projects were, yes, but are they being implemented? And finally, the conclusion from the foregoing can be made as follows: it seems to me that we have a rather nice and rich history that there is no point in improving by writing down projects of not very competent engineers and designers in positive, dubious quality.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

45 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    24 February 2015 06: 30
    midget is a very interesting idea. I fully think has the right to life!
    1. avt
      +8
      24 February 2015 09: 36
      Quote: Nitarius
      midget is a very interesting idea. I fully think has the right to life!

      Exactly until the moment when you get to the place of the drawn little man, and if you get into battle on this one .... it is better to shoot yourself right away. One great commander of all times and peoples - Tukhachevsky has already punched in practice this wunderwaffe in the form of a Cardin Lloyd wedge, spanked thousands of them and then did not know what to do with it. The maximum benefit was only in DOSAAF / OSAVIAKHIM and in the troops when teaching driving, but a dozen, well, hundreds would be enough for that. a propulsion device, nothing more, although of course for its time it was quite interesting and worthy for further development, taking into account the achievements of other designers, but not as a combat and some kind of practical machine.
    2. +1
      24 February 2015 11: 15
      therefore, they hacked that complete nonsense (even at the current level) - a machine with a height of only 70 cm will not be able to overcome significant vertical obstacles, the low mount point of the machine gun sharply limits the ability to fire on rough terrain, the armor covering the undercarriage almost to the ground will interfere with it movement in addition, at the same time, to steer, and shoot, and to observe the battlefield alone is inconvenient, but the designer even provided the opportunity to fire on airplanes
      1. xren
        0
        25 February 2015 01: 45
        If everything is so elementary, why didn’t they immediately begin to build normal tanks?
        Almost reached the Second World War. Mediocre all, probably.

        Or maybe it's just, easy to be a strategist, seeing the battle from the side?
      2. 0
        18 January 2021 13: 56
        Quote: your1970
        that's why they hacked it to death (even at the current level)

        Delirium or not delirium is still unknown, because it was Porokhovshchikov's "All-terrain vehicle" that was involved in the birth of the Renault FT-17 tank, consider the fundamental principles of the tanks of the entire Interbellum period:
        The history of this tank began in December 1915, when Colonel Jean-Baptiste Eugene Estienne, a member of the French Advisory Committee on Special Forces Artillery, having visited the allied French Russia, got acquainted with the project of the Vezdekhod tank created by Alexander Porokhovshchikov. Having paid who should be in the Russian War Ministry, Estienne secured the closure of the financing of the Porokhovshchikov project, and by paying some more, he received detailed drawings of the Russian design.
        Returning to France, Estienne offered these drawings to Louis Renault, the owner of the largest car manufacturer in France. Renault, having familiarized himself with the drawings in detail, refused to buy, citing the refusal by the lack of experience in the construction of such machines. However, the Russian project was simple, like everything ingenious, and Renault, who had an excellent visual memory, was able to quite accurately reconstruct these drawings after returning from negotiations. Wasting no time, Renault started building his own version of the Russian "All-terrain vehicle".

        Although the disadvantages of Porokhovshchikov's "tank" are very, very strong. Well, about the same as the A-32 tank compared to the T-44.
        1. 0
          18 January 2021 15: 12
          Yes, the A-32 is a super tank trickier than any modern tank in comparison with the "All-terrain vehicle"
          There, even the visual memory that was not needed was especially strong - everything was so primitive ...
          It really was
          Quote: avt
          quite a full-scale model, a ma-max for working out a propulsion device, nothing more

          Canvas tape as a caterpillar, then rubber
          1. 0
            18 January 2021 16: 27
            Yes, in comparison with the "All-terrain vehicle" A-32 and even the T-26, they are very "supertanks". But we are talking about the period of the appearance of tanks as such, and not about the development of the "All-terrain vehicle" from something. Wok as an author came to the idea of ​​creating
            The idea of ​​creating a tank prompted the inventor to observe the training maneuvers, during which the movement of the chain was practiced. "It's not a fun thing to run into the attack under the enemy's machine guns," Porokhovshchikov later shared his impressions. It was then that the idea came to attack the enemy with the help of protected armor and a highly passable tracked vehicle armed with machine guns.

            What would have grown out of the "All-terrain vehicle" if it were not for the corruption and inertia of tsarism, we hardly know, although in 1917 the "All-terrain vehicle 2" with a crew of 4 people was proposed. But what did Renault do with what he remembered from the drawings? He took the "classic tank layout", but replaced one mono-track for two side ones.
            I'm interested in something else. Where did you get the idea that Porokhovshchikov's car was only 70 cm high? I look at the photo and see that even if we take it for granted that the people of that time were somewhere 20 cm lower than us, then the body of the All-Terrain Vehicle is clearly higher than 1 meter, and with the tower it is even higher than one and a half meters, although in other places write
            "All-terrain vehicle" 3,6 meters long, 2 meters wide and one and a half meters high without a tower after the final configuration and revision, it was supposed to weigh about 4 tons.
    3. 0
      24 February 2015 13: 44
      Yeah ... compare the guided torpedo in which the man was sitting .. the chance to survive is one hundred percent zero !!!!
  2. +7
    24 February 2015 07: 28
    Skhoduket made a strong impression. How can you think of such a thing? The design is almost from star wars (if you change the machine guns for the blasters and insert the gravitsapu).
    1. +3
      24 February 2015 15: 03
      it looks like
  3. +7
    24 February 2015 07: 43
    And what other really real tank projects were at that time in Russia? That is, there were projects, yes, but are they being implemented?
    Yes, there were projects, and such as the project of a heavy tank by Vasily Dmitrievich Mendeleev, which, unfortunately, remained only a project in 1911, and the implemented project of the Lebedenko tank, which was assembled in the forest near Dmitrov in the spring of 1915 under conditions of increased secrecy. , and tests began on August 27, 1915. The author decided to "run over" the Porokhovshchikov's tank, but, indeed, "In every country there are people who like to" age "their history or" add points "to their country, attributing to it all the conceivable and inconceivable achievements and perfection." , like those who strive to fuck their story. They still argue who invented the propeller, and much more is shared in the championship, this is normal. It’s not normal to sprinkle ash on your head, then the author needs to challenge the invention of Radio Popov, arguing for the Italian Marconi.
    1. +10
      24 February 2015 09: 34
      It was like that, but it’s an infection, it’s stuck in the first ditch ...
      1. +3
        24 February 2015 10: 05
        The British Mark I could well be stuck in those ditches, but it’s really hard to imagine such wheeled tanks in real combat. Perhaps the Germans would have been enchanted by fear, gathered a couple of such monsters at the front for a breakthrough in a suitable area, but all this is very fantastic. You can, of course, recall the siege towers that were assembled before the assault of the walls during the siege, but in our case, collecting these tanks before the assault is not the best technical solution, but scooting them on the march generally requires very strong imagination and stormy optimism. Nevertheless, such a tank was. It is a pity that, impressed by this giant, they had previously ignored the Mendeleev’s project (and did not recall it later), and it solved the problem of transporting, indeed, a very heavy tank. Mendeleev believed that the tank would need to be transported over long distances by rail, which was able to withstand it. Therefore, he came up with a special device that would help to install this tank on the railway ramps. Further, the armored vehicle could move with the help of a steam locomotive or independently. It was possible to significantly lighten the tank by finalizing the project, but it was simply poher, although it had many interesting technical solutions. The figure shows the tank of Vasily Mendeleev in comparison with the size of the tank Lebedenko.
        1. +3
          24 February 2015 10: 34
          Herbert Wells seems to have been familiar with Lebedenko's project (here it is the notorious intelligence service of His Majesty!) And was inspired by it in his work "War of the Worlds". Honestly - delirium of a drug addict, but the sludge is better.
          According to the Mendeleev’s tank, in our time you’ll try to solve the problem of moving 170 tons of a structure even on a flat road (even now it’s difficult), but in those optimistic times and even with the set of those proposed. no solutions at all.
          1. +3
            24 February 2015 13: 04
            War of the Worlds came out in 1897.
            1. 0
              24 February 2015 17: 31
              Quote: Sahalinets
              War of the Worlds came out in 1897.

              I admit, I got it. All the rush and desire to say something "smart". But it still looks like a combat tripod (although a combat tricycle is more correct)
          2. +2
            24 February 2015 13: 18
            Quote: mark1
            According to the Mendeleev tank - you will try in our time to solve the problem of moving 170 tons of construction
            Yes, Mendeleev's tank was close in weight to the Nazi "Mouse" (188 tons), because it was a project, where of its 173,2 tons, 86,46 tons accounted for the mass of armor; and 10,65 tons for the mass of weapons. The tank was supposed to be armed with a 120 mm naval gun and have armor of 100-150 mm, you must admit that with such tabs it is much easier to put a 100 mm or 76 mm cannon, and reduce the armor to 20-30 mm, respectively, reducing the mass of the tank. For comparison, the Mark I had 6-10mm armor and a pair of 57mm cannons. Finally, there would be a terms of reference, Mendelev's project could have been revised in general, retaining the general idea of ​​his tank, which was quite reasonable for that era.
            1. +5
              24 February 2015 17: 18
              VD Mendeleev was fully aware that creates the PROJECT - no more. There was also air suspension for shooting (it was implemented in the BMP), but they certainly could not have embodied it at that time. By the way, EMNIP, he did not insist on the implementation of his idea.
              1. +2
                24 February 2015 19: 31
                Quote: Alex
                VD Mendeleev was fully aware that creates the PROJECT - no more.
                Nevertheless, the project was created three years before the start of the war, and from the Mendeleev’s project it could very well have turned out to be a real combat vehicle, with its fine-tuning and correction. Having a tank for the 1914-1915 year, even at the level of German A7V solutions, is still better than not having anything.
                1. +5
                  24 February 2015 20: 30
                  I absolutely agree that the engineering study of the project and its practical adaptation could ultimately lead to some practical results. It’s not a fact, of course, that a real fighting machine would have turned out (agree A7V - that’s the same monster), but the experience of development and practical implementation would certainly not have been lost.

                  In general, as for me, it’s interesting to get acquainted with the first pioneer developments of any technology (military is no exception), so many solutions - successful and not very useful, and vice versa - you find that you’re simply amazed and the courage of the developers (in some of them I would I wouldn’t be afraid of imprisonment. True, I, fortunately for progress, is not a standard feel ), and their faith in technology, technical naivety and calculation.
    2. 0
      25 February 2015 18: 32
      Heavy tank project V.D. Mendeleev was actually a super-heavy self-propelled gun mount for the needs of coastal defense - something like a proto "Mouse", but of course without a rotating turret. According to the project, the car was a huge parallelepiped (the walls were strictly vertical on all sides). The bow was supposed to house a naval gun - a 120-mm Vickers cannon or a 152-mm Canet cannon. Guchennik branches were supposed to flow around the car body around the perimeter. The design weight of this "tank" was so high, and the power of the actually available engine was so low - that this self-propelled gun could hardly even move independently, even along the highway, let alone over rough terrain. In general, this project in the conditions of the then Russia with its undeveloped heavy industry could hardly have been implemented. By the way, to date, no one has presented a complete set of design documentation for this machine for everyone to see. There are only drawings, which are rather sketches on how the car might look like without any scaling and any serious calculations on its mass. required engine power. Particularly eye-catching is the supposedly lowered machine-gun turret, for which there is no place in the hull.
      As for the so-called Lebedenko tank, this unit, during the very first sea trials on the ground, got stuck in a ditch, where it was thrown in order to rust peacefully in the open air and subsequently to be disassembled into metal. In general, a wheeled tank is a dead end branch of evolution.
      Because called Porokhovshchikov's tank is generally a myth. Suffice it to recall his combined armor, in which exotic sea grass was used as a filler - i.e. seaweed. Although they were later replaced with ordinary felt. And the tales about his outstanding data during the sea trials are nothing more than fairy tales, not confirmed by anything. Porokhovshchikov was a businessman and inventor who grasped at everything that, at least hypothetically, could bring profit. In addition to the "all-terrain vehicle", he invented airplanes, cars and much more. In short, all these shushpanzer from the "Iron Kaput" series, no more.
      I have the honor.
  4. +1
    24 February 2015 10: 03
    If we did not become the birthplace of tanks, then we can declare ourselves the birthplace of a snowmobile, at least Porokhovschikov’s propulsion scheme (if the wheels are exchanged for skiing) allows us to state this.
    1. +4
      24 February 2015 17: 20
      Quote: mark1
      you can declare yourself homeland

      But what, there is an urgent need to become the homeland of at least something? Or are we already without this a worthy place in the history of science and technology?
      1. +1
        24 February 2015 17: 39
        Quote: Alex
        But what, there is an urgent need to become the homeland of at least something?

        There is no need, just, but the tradition of declaring oneself the forerunner of all things is
  5. 0
    24 February 2015 11: 00
    all-terrain vehicle !!! - and not a tank, no armor, no weapons, no maneuver (two small wheels on the sides on the ground would turn quickly), an English tank is really a TANK, even by today's standards
  6. +2
    24 February 2015 11: 54
    It is interesting to know about delusional projects. But it is not necessary to "omit" Russian designers like that - then tank building was just beginning, so then different concepts were developed. You read the article - it feels like in Russia the designers were completely stupid. The west was also full of crazy ideas.
    1. +4
      24 February 2015 17: 23
      Yes, Shpakovsky piled a whole book, only an interesting thought can be traced there: everyone is complete fools, Shpakovsky is a genius of all times and peoples.
      1. 0
        25 February 2015 21: 53
        Does this book have smart designs?
        1. +3
          25 February 2015 23: 03
          The thing is that it examined quite real combat vehicles (land and sea), which, of course, had weaknesses and not the most successful technical solutions. Shpakovsky, obviously, considering himself a sort of engineering guru, began to speculate about what designers would need to do. Moreover, his own fabrications were no less controversial than those discussed. However, the pathos of utterances and tone (of the type that you had to be mediocrity, so as not to think of it) should not leave the reader and shadow of doubt who is the true genius in the field of military construction. Now it’s just a bummer to scour in his opus and to analyze each of these episodes, it’s better to read it yourself - maybe I’ve been too biased.
          1. +2
            2 March 2015 21: 48
            Quote: kalibr
            Does this book have smart designs?

            If you are talking about this book --- Shpakovsky V.O. Tanks. Unique and paradoxical --- I completely agree: the self-PR is already jumping around. And the projects there are quite ordinary, real. It’s another matter, smart or not. But I think that those who developed them were not fools either, and had an engineering education, and received experience in designing, and quite real tasks from the military.
  7. +1
    24 February 2015 12: 06
    How much fancy, however!
    And now?
    A cheese head on a matchbox is the whole project.
    Like with cars. No flights.
    But how many opportunities and new materials have appeared! )
  8. +2
    24 February 2015 13: 32
    in the midget one is good, the hatches are brewed and buried laughing
  9. -3
    24 February 2015 17: 28
    The author of the Liberoids-Democrats? Then everything falls into place - the "order" from Washington is completed. The so-called Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor Shpakovsky (the last name does not say anything?) Vyacheslav writes about Porokhovshchikov: "... by design "Talented" inventor. "And what, excuse me, besides paperwork, did he personally invent? Or did he do something useful for the country? And how clearly did he apply this to 1915:" ... But in the textbook on the design of tanks in 1943 it is said: "A tank is a combat vehicle that combines armor protection, fire and maneuver." Porokhovshchikov was an engineer, albeit with a wild imagination, but who is the author? Pustobrekh, the false historian and the fifth column. It is time for the administration to stop publishing "ordered" provocative articles on the site. Or are you also becoming "liberal-democrat0-bulk"?
    1. 0
      25 February 2015 21: 46
      "Every citizen is obliged to die for the fatherland, but no one is obliged to lie for his sake."
      Charles Louis Montesquieu
      And where is the lie and distortion of reality seen in the material of V. Shpakovsky? And where is it written that telling the truth is unpatriotic? The project does not say a word that the body is made of armor. The tower was attached to him later. In the documents of the inventor it is not. The tape - rubberized fabric - is not suitable for the caterpillar, it cannot tear the wire. And what did the Gunpowders offer? And then, as he learned about tanks from newspapers, he began to say that it was he who invented the first tank. By the way, and with what wording was he shot in Stalin's time, you know? Take an interest ...
    2. 0
      25 February 2015 23: 16
      You, Rezmovech (the last name doesn’t say anything?), You need to calm down, otherwise they found out of nowhere "a blunder, a false historian and a fifth column." It remains to remember the "enemy of the people" and the ChSIR. Once again, calmer.
  10. wanderer_032
    0
    24 February 2015 19: 42
    It turns out that the tank’s birthday in Russia should be considered May 18, 1915. It was then in Russia that the tests of the first tank of A. Porokhovschikov, called the All-Terrain Vehicle, allegedly began.

    Ultimately, the project included this car. And there was this project for that time no worse than other projects on armored vehicles throughout the rest of the world.



    For example, Renault-FT tanks, which were later produced in Soviet Russia under license, had initially a very similar design.



    Someone was ahead, someone was behind. If Porokhovshchikov would have been given the “green light” and would have approached his project more seriously, as well as provided him with financial support, then Russia could have received its Renault-FT much earlier.
    Design flaws and so on would be eliminated during R&D.
    1. +2
      25 February 2015 21: 48
      The green tank was painted in TM by the artist Pokrovsky already in our time. Actually this was not in the 1915 project of the year!
      1. 0
        25 February 2015 21: 59
        Shpakovsky, calm down, eat some candy :) the obamka will give you a tranche for "historical research"
  11. 0
    24 February 2015 23: 13
    if the Porokhovschikov’s project is 35 meters long and cut into 3 parts, then from the extreme pieces you will get good tanks for their time
  12. 0
    25 February 2015 16: 34
    I recommend reading the book by S. Fedoseev "Tanks of the First World War". There is also about the priority of A. Porokhovshchikov and other tank projects in Russia.
    1. 0
      25 February 2015 21: 52
      Many people like to express their opinions on the principle that I didn’t read, but everything is bad there. So the advice to read S. Fedoseev’s book is good, but I don’t think that he will change much. There is immediately a man who will blame Fedoseyev for being a false historian and working for the State Department. Although ... in which direction the door opens in the archive, where all the papers of the GVTU are stored and does not know.
  13. 0
    26 February 2015 23: 26
    Quote: kalibr
    Many people like to express their opinions on the principle that I didn’t read, but everything is bad there. So the advice to read S. Fedoseev’s book is good, but I don’t think that he will change much. There is immediately a man who will blame Fedoseyev for being a false historian and working for the State Department. Although ... in which direction the door opens in the archive, where all the papers of the GVTU are stored and does not know.


    Shpakovsky, it’s not the person of Porokhovschikov, but I’m sorry, I won’t write in capital letters. The point is your attitude towards people - with what neglect you treat them, with what arrogance! Consider yourself a genius? But then you make a passage - put forward requirements for a combat vehicle from 1943 to the construction of 1915. Genius? Well, of course !!! And one should not belittle one’s (here I have doubts whether it is your own) power. PR? Promote on health, but, advice, not on technical forums. Your attempts in sopromaty look very funny))) For this I bow, don’t be ill.
    1. 0
      27 February 2015 07: 09
      Well, firstly, I'm not Shpakovsky, why did you decide this? I just don't like fools. It was a question of whether the Porokhovschikov tank made or not a tank. And here the requirements are the same, both in 1915 and in 43. You do not understand this, it is your misfortune, not Shpakovsky. What in the farm of this length will not be the strongest stresses? Are you saying this? And the last ... to take the shortcuts off is not very pretty. So you can say about you, the explicit son of a guard from the tower!
  14. 0
    27 February 2015 23: 41
    Quote: kalibr
    Well, firstly, I'm not Shpakovsky, why did you decide this? I just don't like fools. It was a question of whether the Porokhovschikov tank made or not a tank. And here the requirements are the same, both in 1915 and in 43. You do not understand this, it is your misfortune, not Shpakovsky. What in the farm of this length will not be the strongest stresses? Are you saying this? And the last ... to take the shortcuts off is not very pretty. So you can say about you, the explicit son of a guard from the tower!


    The fact that you are Shpakovsky - there is no doubt about that) Narcissism and rushing! And, believe me, it is better to be "the obvious son of a watchman from the tower" than a shitty citizen of your country !!!
    1. 0
      28 February 2015 07: 18
      There was a conversation about tanks, and you got personal. Then to them ... Russian officers and patriots who took the oath to the tsar-father rejected this "tank" and what are you talking about? And not me, but others explained everything to you here, right? But somehow Shpakovsky got you, the name is not the same. Well, there's nothing you can do about it: who likes the priest, who likes the priest, who the priest's daughter - said the devil took off his panties and sat in the nettles. You can continue to believe that Porokhovshchikov made a tank, but this will not add autobahns, Biryusa avfons and Samara iPads, and the average salary of up to $ 3250, as in Japan, will not grow. Trend, including and in consciousness it is necessary to change!
  15. -1
    28 February 2015 21: 29
    Quote: kalibr
    There was a conversation about tanks, and you got personal. Then to them ... Russian officers and patriots who took the oath to the tsar-father rejected this "tank" and what are you talking about? And not me, but others explained everything to you here, right? But somehow Shpakovsky got you, the name is not the same. Well, there's nothing you can do about it: who likes the priest, who likes the priest, who the priest's daughter - said the devil took off his panties and sat in the nettles. You can continue to believe that Porokhovshchikov made a tank, but this will not add autobahns, Biryusa avfons and Samara iPads, and the average salary of up to $ 3250, as in Japan, will not grow. Trend, including and in consciousness it is necessary to change!


    If you could have noticed, I didn’t say a word that Porokhovshchikov "invented the tank." Everything rests on your very dismissive attitude towards people, and not just towards Porokhovshchikov - re-read your article. And it's not about the name Shpakovsky, I repeat - it's about the attitude towards people. Your arrogance just finishes off, love for yourself precious goes off scale.
    And the autobahns and so on will not be added not for me - for the country. In this you are right, if not sad. Advice for the future - I will paraphrase one well-known saying - "love not yourself in the state, but the state in yourself." Something like this...
  16. 0
    2 March 2015 11: 40
    Porokhovshchikov’s ideas are still very relevant today, for example, the combat use of motorcycles such as ATVs for RDGs in special operations is intensively underway, so they are returning to small tanks such as tankettes with a crew of 2 people (driver-mechanic + commander-gunner) and high speed and maneuverability ( for example a crawler motorcycle) is also curious and interesting in itself ...

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"