Military Review

How pacified Hitler's menagerie

136
Destroying the T-VIH "tiger" and the T-VIB "royal tiger" was far from easy. To verify this, we compare the tactical and technical characteristics:


Tank Weight, t Armor, mm Gun, mm
Tiger | 55 | 82 - 102 | Xnumx
T-34 | 28,5 | 45-55 | Xnumx


The Tiger had a long-barreled cannon and could hit the thirty-fours from the 1,5-2 km distance, and the T-34 from the 300-500 m distance, and even then only on the side of a sabot projectile.

T-VIH Tiger Tank

The words sometimes encountered in the front press that “tigers” burned in battle as matches, merely an aphorism, no more. And then, heavy German Tanks they were often confused with the modernized T-IV medium tanks, in which the gun barrel was "extended" in 1942, and armor was strengthened to somehow equalize with the T-34.

T-IV tank

T-VIH "Tiger" on the Soviet-German front was massively used in July 1943 in the battle of Kursk. For half a year they were confronted by a heavy KV-1 tank (KV-1С) with a powerful 76-mm cannon 41,5 barrel with a caliber increased by armored frontal body parts increased to 105 mm armament in 34 year. The crews of the Soviet machines had to show the highest skill, to act mainly from ambushes, in order to win the duel against the “Tiger”. Rescued and high maneuverability "thirty-four." Yielding to the "tigers" in the power of fire, she, in capable hands, often effectively opposed them.

Heavy tank KV-1

In the winter of 1944, more powerful T-34 / 85 tanks began to flow into the Guards tank units (the turret with an increased armor thickness had a long-barreled 85-mm cannon). Appeared in the army and the EC-2, subsequently recognized as the strongest tank of the Second World War. The 122-mm semi-automatic gun of the 1943 model installed on it had muzzle energy 1,5 times as large as the X-NUMX-mm T-VIH gun. At a distance of 88 m, a projectile weighing 500 kg and an initial speed of 25 m / s punched armor with a thickness of up to 790 mm. IS-140 itself had a booking 2-120 mm. The baptism of "Joseph Stalin" tanks received under Korsun-Shevchenkovsky in February 90, where they showed their unsurpassed fighting qualities.

Medium Tank T-34 / 85

Heavy tank IS-2


So who are these, these tank aces who pacified the Hitlerite menagerie?

The championship is shared by the crews of the "thirty-five" from the 1-th tank army of General Mikhail Katukov, who gained fame as real hunters on the "tigers" in the battle of Kursk.

7 July 1943 g ... Oboyan highway near a small village Yakovlevo defended a company of Guards Lieutenant Vladimir Bochkovsky from the 1 Guards Tank Brigade.



At dawn on the highway appeared 7 "tigers" and to the infantry regiment. A little later - another 3 tank columns with "Tigers" in my head. This did not bother the defenders. The whole day 8 "thirty-three" repulsed attacks.

Because of the shelters, they hit the enemy's cars aptly. The determination of the Nazis diminished, the battle began to wear a confused character. It was then that the crew of Lieutenant Georgy Bessarabov’s guard opened his account of the destroyed heavy German tanks. The T-VIH was the third car he burned by noon. Bessarabov destroyed her from ambush, when she framed the board. And then the crew won the duel with two more “Tigers”.

By evening, the fascists apparently guessed that only a handful of tankers were acting against them, and resumed the attacks on the Bochkovsky company, the later commander Mikhail Katukov recalled. Above the village hung "Messers". One of the bombs exploded next to the machine guard Lieutenant Sokolov. Tank, tilted, moved into a deep funnel. Bochkovsky took the padded “thirty-four” in tow. The rescue was already near, but the German shell landed in the car - the gun barrel flew away from it, the flame shot up above the engine. Sokolov died. Under a hail of shells, the caterpillar tore off Bochkovsky's tank. The company ordered his crew to pull the caterpillar, but another explosion — the languages ​​of fire ran down the Bochkovsky car. Crews of wrecked tanks and the 4 motorized infantry, who until recently defended their line, climbed onto the armor of the Bessarabov machine, and maneuvering among the gaps, she left the village. "

In the morning, a company of 5 vehicles again stood in the way of the Germans. Only for the 2 of the day of the fighting, the tankers destroyed the enemy's 23 tank, including several "tigers". Subsequently, Lieutenant Bessarabov brought the score to the destroyed Nazi tanks to 12, Of these, 4 - "Tigers". Unfortunately, 29 December 1943 was killed in the battles for the city of Kazatin.

7 The Tigers destroyed the ace of the 1 Tank Army (200 Tank Brigade) Lieutenant Mikhail Zamula. 6 "Tigers" and 1 "panther" knocked down the company commander of the 53 Guards Tank Brigade junior lieutenant Alexander Milyukov. He arrived at the front in 1942. He fought as a mechanic driver on the KB, moved to the "thirty-four", where he soon became commander. In February, 1943 in the battles for Kharkov, his crew won the first victory, and over the "tiger". In the midst of the Kursk battles, in a sharp duel, he burned down the “panther” and then another 3 “tiger”. In 1944, Milyukov graduated from the Saratov Tank School. Another 2 "Tigra", he chalked up already in 1945-m. For his courage and heroism, he was awarded the title Hero of the Soviet Union.



The tank assists for the destruction of Hitler's menagerie also include the commander of the T-34 tank, Lieutenant Grigory Brazhnikov, and the commander of the EC-2 tank, Lieutenant Ivan Hitsenko.

Grigory Brazhnikov distinguished himself at the Kursk Bulge. Initially, his crew destroyed the medium tank T-III and one T-V1H "tiger". But then, in one of the fights, Brazhnikov managed to shoot 350 - 400 and 4 "tigers" from the distance, spending 8 shells on them. True, the lieutenant got carried away and, in the heat of battle, did not notice the fifth, who managed to deliver a fatal blow to his thirty-four. Fortunately, the crew remained intact.

Lieutenant Khitsenko participated in the breakthrough of the enemy defenses in the area of ​​the city of Ruzhan (Poland). 15 January 1945. the crew entered into an unequal battle with 10 heavy enemy tanks and 5 of them hit. In the same battle, the brave tanker was killed. The X-NUMX of the T-VIH tank was destroyed by the tank commander of the 4-th Guards Tank Brigade Guards Junior Lieutenant Vasily Yermolaev.

That fight broke out with. Zanki Zhytomyr region 7 December 1943 of the year. At dawn, the Germans attacked their strongest T-VIH Tiger tanks.

... Half an hour after the start of the attack, 3 combat vehicles also appeared in front of the crew of Junior Lieutenant Vasily Yermolaev. Beat them in the forehead? Vasily thought for a second. No, nothing will come of it, Let me take a closer look. He waited for one of the Tigers to substitute the board, and opened fire.

A few shots, and Hitler's predator caught fire. Then another one flashed. Luck. And what a luck. But there was nothing for firing at the third - the sabot shells ran out. Only they could penetrate the thick armor of the "tiger". Now he could deal with the T-34 without difficulty. The shot thundered, and the thirty-fours of Yermolaev caught fire. But the crew did not leave the car. T-34 at full speed rushed towards the "tiger" and crashed into his side. Both cars exploded. Later, the tank commander of the younger guard Lieutenant Vasily Yermolayev and the driver’s mechanic sergeant Andrei Timofeev will be awarded the title Hero of the Soviet Union, posthumously. Of the 6 destroyed by the crew in that battle, the 4 tanks were the strongest tanks of fascist Germany - the T-VIH Tiger.

In December, 1943 th in battles near Zhytomyr tank commander 13-th Guards Tank Brigade Guards Junior Lieutenant Ivan Golub destroyed 3 T-VIH "tiger" and 2 T-VG "Panther". 3 "tiger" on the account of the commander of the T-34 tank, Lieutenant Grigory Chesak from the 10-th Guards Ural volunteer tank corps. The same number of menacing machines on the account of the platoon commander of the 14-th tank regiment, Lieutenant N. Laiseikin. Of the 9 tanks destroyed in one of the battles on the Kursk Bulge - 3 were T-VIH. 3 "tiger" and 2 medium T-III in the 3-hour battle at the Kursk Bulge destroyed the crew of Lieutenant M. Frolov from the 178-th tank brigade. 3 "tiger" from 18 destroyed tanks on the account of the platoon commander and the crew of the T-34 45-th Guards Tank Brigade of the Guard Lieutenant Vladimir Maksakov.

August 1944 g. Sandomierz bridgehead.

A German 501 heavy tank battalion with a new secret vehicle, the T-VIB super rotor tiger, arrived in a front-line lane, near the Polish village of Ogleduv, which was pre-cordoned off by the SS. Before the battle, the German battalion commander set up his tankers:
- "Royal Tiger" impenetrable. We just hunt for Russian tanks.

But I did not have to hunt.

... There were five of them in the thirty-four tank crew (T-34 / 85). The commander is junior lieutenant Alexander Oskin, the driver is sergeant Alexander Stetsenko, the gun commander is sergeant Abubakir Merhaidarov, the gunner radio operator Alexander Grudinin and the loader is junior sergeant Alexey Khalychev. In the evening they received an order to reconnoiter.



Oskin gave the command, and the Thirty-Four moved in a westerly direction. On the armor of the car settled down. It was not possible to enter Oglenduv: on the outskirts the crew noticed German tanks, there were over a dozen of them. Engage in battle - recklessness.

Under the cover of the onset of darkness, the Thirty-Four was frozen in a grain field opposite the village. A deep ravine separated from it, the road to the east stretched from Oglendów, and it could be easily controlled. Crew members disguised the car in sheaves. Then they made a snag - they put down the same big shocks in other places of the field. The night passed quietly. At dawn, Oskin noticed that a column of heavy vehicles appeared from the Oglenduva side. They looked unusual and formidable.

“They look like tigers,” Merhaidarov said. - But not they. Maybe "panthers"?
- "Tigers", "Panthers"? We will beat, without asking a surname, - Oskin said resolutely.

The crew commander knew: you need to beat on the sides. Such an opportunity will be presented - the tanks will go on the road. And he was not mistaken. Soon the column stretched out along the ravine, moreover, for some reason it stopped. Immediately 14 machines framed the boards under the 85-mm Thirty-Four gun. Oskin decided to hit the lead tank. Shot rang out. Hits - right under the tower.
- well! Guide below! - commanded Oskin. - The fire!

The second shell hit the side. Having destroyed armor, he set fire to the fuel tanks. The flames became mercilessly devour a new brainchild of the firm "Henschel". And Oskin shouted:
- On the second!

And a new torch flashed on the opposite side of the ravine.

The Nazis swept panic. Their tanks began to depart in Ogleduv. And only the third giant, who stood directly against the Thirty-Four, got ready for a battle by sending a cannon to the Soviet machine. Now everything was decided by seconds.

- I do not see the goal! - excitedly reported Merhaidarov.

Camouflage sheaf closed the lens sight. Oskin leaned to the waist from the tower, the sheaf flew off to the side. A shot rang out, and a third torch flared in the predawn haze.

By that time, reinforcements arrived. Soviet tankers went on the offensive. Oskin's thirty-four, pursuing the Nazis, broke into Ogleduv. And again, surprise: in the village without movement stood 3 royal "Tiger". Crews, apparently, were preparing for an offensive, but they expected that they would be brought into battle secondarily, and therefore tankers were not there. The SS, guarding the tanks, did not provide significant resistance. In short, the tanks fell into the hands of our fighters.



The beaten and captured "royal tigers" showed the commander of the 3 tank army Pavel Rybalko. He was amazed at their size and was extremely surprised that the “thirty-four” managed to deal with these menacing machines. Soon one of the giants was put on display in the Moscow Gorky Park of Culture and Recreation on public display by Muscovites.

How pacified Hitler's menagerie


From the memoir literature is known and such an episode. During the battles on the Sandomir bridgehead, the tank battalion of the guard Major Vladimir Zhukov stumbled upon an 16 unknown tank during a night attack in one of the settlements. Their crews slept in village houses. The attack was so sudden that only three crews managed to jump into the hatches of their tanks and carry away what is called legs. The guardsmen captured the 13 of the all-purpose "Royal Tigers".



These machines were created by Henschel in response to the appearance of our EC-2. She produced a total of 489 tanks. For the first time, as we already know, they entered the battle in August 1944 on the Sandomierz bridgehead. No changes on the Soviet-German front caused.
Author:
136 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. The comment was deleted.
  2. The comment was deleted.
  3. The comment was deleted.
  4. Sakhalininsk
    Sakhalininsk 25 May 2013 09: 05
    23
    Many thanks to the author for an interesting essay about Soviet tank aces.
  5. VP123
    VP123 25 May 2013 09: 14
    10
    We beat and we will beat the adversary.
    1. Interface
      Interface 25 May 2013 21: 57
      +2
      From the fashions we got a good zoo))
  6. svp67
    svp67 25 May 2013 09: 27
    14
    For six months they were opposed by the heavy tank KV-1 (KV-1С) with a powerful 76,2-mm gun with a barrel length of 41,5 caliber, with armor of the frontal parts of the hull increased to 105 mm, medium tank T-34 / 76

    Our tanks KV-1, KV-1s and T34-76, at the time the Tigers appeared on our front, were armed with a cannon created in the Grabin Design Bureau and had very similar indicators in terms of armor penetration, which, by the way, caused the appearance of the KV-85. so a tank of "quality enhancement" must have more powerful weapons ...

    and T-28, entered service in the 1933 year.

    - I wonder on what part of the front there were clashes between the T28 and the Tigers? If the author has such information, then let him share it - it is interesting.

    And in general, one of the main tanks, at the time of the appearance of the "Tiger", in the Red Army was a light tank T70, with a 45 mm cannon ...
    1. baltika-18
      baltika-18 25 May 2013 11: 48
      15
      Quote: svp67
      And in general, one of the main tanks, at the time of the appearance of the "Tiger", in the Red Army was a light tank T70, with a 45 mm cannon.

      Indeed, in some corps their number reached 40% of the total composition. So 122 T-34 and 70 T-7o took part in the famous tank attack near Prokhorovka.
      But I would like to say about our preparation for the meeting with the "menagerie" of the Wehrmacht. The first "Tigers" appeared in January 1943 on the Leningrad front. And already in February 1943, production of the famous "St. John's wort" SU-152 began. The first regiment was formed. already in May and sent to the Kursk salient. An extremely effective remedy against the "menagerie".
      1. svp67
        svp67 25 May 2013 11: 58
        +4
        Quote: baltika-18
        A very effective remedy against the "menagerie".


        It remains to add a fly in the ointment ...
        When a 152 mm projectile hit the "Tiger", its destruction was guaranteed, but the very low rate of fire of this "artillery self-propelled gun" nullified many of its advantages in the fight against heavy tanks ...
        1. baltika-18
          baltika-18 25 May 2013 13: 51
          14
          Quote: svp67
          but the very low rate of fire of this "artillery self-propelled gun" nullified many of its advantages in the fight against heavy tanks ...

          You are wrong. Although the rate of fire was really 2-3 rounds per minute. But given the fact that they could hit Tiger tanks already at a distance of 2000 meters, they acted from ambushes and were used massively, they were a truly effective weapon.
          1. Avenger711
            Avenger711 25 May 2013 15: 39
            +4
            For 2000 meters, the SU-152 with a direct-shot range of 500-600 meters will not get anywhere, but it doesn’t need much. Decides in general quantity.
          2. Agent.
            Agent. 25 May 2013 15: 58
            +2
            So that from 2000 you sometimes need to hit and have good sighting equipment and, most importantly, a very good gun, with minimal gaps. We must in fact know how successfully it was used, then there will be no doubt how effective it is. I do not have similar data about it
          3. Kars
            Kars 25 May 2013 15: 59
            +6
            Quote: baltika-18
            But given the fact that they could hit Tiger-type tanks already at a distance of 2000 meters, they operated from ambushes and were used massively, they were a truly effective weapon.

            It’s if you hit, the rate of fire is one thing, but there is also an initial speed - even if a piglet is 50 kg and 600 is enough to inflict damage incompatible with repair, the trajectory turned out to be not flat, and even along a moving target - it’s very, very difficult
        2. Avenger711
          Avenger711 25 May 2013 15: 37
          0
          dpm is not so important even in WoT, and in a real battle of shelters even more.
        3. wecher75
          wecher75 26 May 2013 02: 42
          +1
          Tar by the way. The self-propelled gun SU-100 was more effective. But alas, she appeared at the end of the war. And all the hardships of fighting with the beast fell on the shoulders of the T-34
      2. Agent.
        Agent. 25 May 2013 14: 36
        +5
        As far as I know and the rate of fire of the IS-2 is 2 times inferior to the tiger, the tiger’s gun and sighting equipment were better. All the same, the Germans did good technique. The same American Shermans were forced to adopt similar tactics as our T-34s. Often the three fell upon one Tiger, one distracted, causing fire and often perished, and the other broke through to the rear or hit point blank. But the Germans were very smart with her, the tanks, especially the latter, were expensive, difficult to manufacture, repair. On the same Kursk arc of many Panthers, the engines just caught fire. At the end of the war, more royal tigers got stuck because they ran out of fuel and the Germans themselves blew them up. Our tankers sometimes received orders to bypass specific groups of Korov tigers, and when left without supplies they quickly went out of order.
        1. baltika-18
          baltika-18 25 May 2013 15: 14
          +4
          Quote: Agent.
          But the Germans were far too sophisticated with her, the tanks, especially the latter, were expensive, difficult to manufacture, repair

          Here you are right. The resource of the Tiger tracks, for example, was only 200 km. They had to be brought to the battlefield by rail. The operation of replacing rollers and caterpillars was very time consuming, the caterpillar weighed almost 3 tons, the operation was impossible in the field. heavy, with a specific ground pressure of 1,04 kg / cm7, with an optimal load about, 0,8-700. Gasoline engine 540 hp, tank 90 liters, enough for XNUMX km. states the following:
          -Avoid steep climbs and frequent gear changes (over 12 degrees)
          - speed no more than 10 km / h
          If the tank for some reason failed (breakdown or knocked out), then as a rule it rushed to the battlefield, since in order to tow it it was necessary to have 2 combat-ready "Tigers" nearby, one could not cope, not to mention the traction tractors possibility, which was only 18 tons. Weight of "Tiger" 57 tons.
          1. Agent.
            Agent. 25 May 2013 15: 50
            +2
            Even in spring or autumn, they were clogged with clay-earth because of their design, and if the tank was freezing for several hours without movement, they got up upright. And then an unexpected sovetskaya attack ...))
          2. Yemelya
            Yemelya 26 May 2013 18: 44
            0
            Quote: baltika-18
            to tow it, it was necessary to have 2 combat-ready "Tigers" side by side, one could not cope, not to mention the traction units, which were only 18 tons. The weight of the "Tiger" was 57 tons.

            For such a case, there were the Bergepanther armored vehicles, and one serviceable one was enough to tow one damaged one.
        2. Avenger711
          Avenger711 25 May 2013 22: 12
          -1
          Most often they simply did not contact the tigers, or they were destroyed by heavier cars. Tank battle is not so frequent.
        3. Alex
          Alex 20 August 2013 17: 12
          +2
          Nothing lasts forever ... Just deja vu 1941 of the year with the exact opposite and at a different level.
      3. Barracuda148
        Barracuda148 25 May 2013 14: 47
        +3
        This self-propelled gun was not made to fight the menagerie, she had other tasks. Breaking the defense is her task.
      4. Argon
        Argon 25 May 2013 15: 41
        +2
        Well, in the picture it’s ISU-152, but getting into it from the maneuvering target is more luck than skill.
        1. baltika-18
          baltika-18 25 May 2013 19: 38
          0
          Quote: Argon
          Well, in the picture it’s ISU-152, but getting into it from the maneuvering target is more luck than skill.

          The maneuverability of the "Tiger" was useless, it is good purely at a blow in a straight line, in the forehead.
          1. Agent.
            Agent. 25 May 2013 20: 11
            0
            in an ambush he’s still nothing. Long-range powerful and accurate gun + good sighting equipment in high multiplicity and not a small rate of fire And from a distance it was almost impossible to penetrate it. Here you’re supposed to stand such a man on a knoll, in the bushes, ahead of the field for a couple of kilometers and a tank attack on him, how many he will kill .... sad In his class, he was one of the best, how to use, it happened and they were driven into swamps. But he didn’t take the barrier either, dear or heavy ....
            1. Avenger711
              Avenger711 25 May 2013 22: 03
              -1
              It is possible that not much. Although there have been some successes.
              1. Agent.
                Agent. 26 May 2013 15: 29
                0
                perhaps. With the speed and maneuverability of the T-34, especially if the terrain is embossed
            2. skeptic
              skeptic 27 May 2013 10: 56
              0
              Quote: Agent.
              Here you’re supposed to stand such a man on a knoll, in the bushes, ahead of the field for a couple of kilometers and a tank attack on him, how many he will kill ....


              Become. AND WHERE ARE THEY? request

              In the end, for such ambushes ISU-152, just right.
          2. svp67
            svp67 25 May 2013 22: 00
            +2
            Quote: baltika-18
            The maneuverability of the Tiger was lousy,


            Who told you this?
            The transmission and controls are worth talking about separately. In terms of convenience for the driver, nothing of the kind was seen on any tank of those years, with the exception of the "King Tiger", which had a similar transmission. Due to the use of an automatic hydraulic servo drive, no significant physical effort was required to control the 56-ton tank. Gear shifted with just two fingers. The turn was carried out by slightly turning the steering wheel. Controlling the tank was so simple that any member of the crew could handle it, which turned out to be important in a combat situation.

            In addition to the transmission, the low ratio of the length of the bearing surface to the track width L / B - 1,26 (for comparison: for the Panther - 1,5, for the IS-2 - 1,78, y Mk lV - 1,72, XNUMX).
            1. Kars
              Kars 26 May 2013 09: 27
              +1
              The Baltic most likely confused maneuverability and cross-country ability. It can also be blamed for low tactical mobility. And these factors are usually greatly exaggerated.
              1. svp67
                svp67 26 May 2013 11: 40
                +1
                Quote: Kars
                The Baltics most likely confused maneuverability and cross-country ability. You can also be blamed for low tactical mobility.

                Perhaps, but a lot depends on:
                - the adequacy of the command and the quality of its decisions;
                -crew training;
                - the availability and quality of engineering support.
                Otherwise, it ends with this:


                1. Kars
                  Kars 26 May 2013 15: 41
                  +1
                  Quote: svp67
                  - the adequacy of the command and the quality of its decisions;
                  -crew training;
                  - the availability and quality of engineering support.
                  Otherwise, it ends with this:


                  This is also true, but under the same general conditions, the tiger’s cross-country ability will still be worse, as well as more restrictions on the terrain and weather conditions.
      5. Leksander
        Leksander 25 May 2013 20: 47
        +1
        Quote: baltika-18
        For the first time "Tigers" appeared in January 1943 on the Leningrad front

        And not September 22, 1942?
        1. baltika-18
          baltika-18 25 May 2013 21: 36
          0
          Quote: Leksander
          And not September 22, 1942?

          Maybe. I don’t have such data.
          1. Avenger711
            Avenger711 25 May 2013 22: 03
            +2
            Everyone has it.
        2. Alex
          Alex 20 August 2013 17: 24
          +2
          Yes, exactly then.
    2. bask
      bask 25 May 2013 11: 48
      +5
      Quote: svp67
      Leniya "Tiger", the Red Army had a light tank T70, with a 45 mm cannon


      SU-100, which became the best domestic medium, anti-tank self-propelled guns in the Second World War .. This combat vehicle, armed with a powerful 100-mm gun and had good maneuverability and armor protection.
      But the main drawback is that the fighting compartment was located in front. The overall size of the self-propelled guns increased in length, the barrel extended in front of the hull. This made it difficult to maneuver in narrow passages on city streets and limited cross-country terrain. And a further increase in the length of the guns, which were designed on the basis of the T-34, was no longer possible. I needed a complete rearrangement of the tank with a front-mounted MTO.
      ,, Uralmashzavod ,, began to design a new self-propelled guns in the summer of 1944. The chief designer is N.V. Kurin.
      SU-100M1, armed with a 100-mm gun D-10S, using nodes, T-34 units, with the front location of the MTO and the rear location of the fighting compartment.
      SU-100M2, armed with a 100-mm D-10S cannon, on the basis of the T-44 tank engine-transmission units, with the rear location of the fighting compartment.
      The SU-100M2 project won. In October 1944, Uralmashzavod was asked to produce prototypes of the SU-100M2.
      An individual torsion bar suspension T-44 was used in the chassis.
      The end of the war, the reduction in the size of the army, the presence of a large number of self-propelled guns in the army. The adoption of the T-54, equipped with a 100-mm cannon. All this influenced the closure of the project SU-100M2.
      A MULTIPURPOSE PLATFORM WAS CREATED IN THE 44TH !!! For MBT, self-propelled guns, BTR-T / BMP-T.
      1. svp67
        svp67 25 May 2013 11: 53
        +3
        Quote: bask
        In September 1944 years


        You will remember 2013, then the superiority of our tanks over the German "Tigers" will become generally overwhelming ...
        We are talking about the Great Patriotic War, and do not forget that, for example, in the 1943 year on the Kursk ledge, many of our tank brigades had almost half of the T70 ... so we had corresponding losses.
        1. Horde
          Horde 25 May 2013 14: 29
          +5
          You will remember 2013, then the superiority of our tanks over the German "Tigers" will become generally overwhelming ...


          the article once again testifies that it wins the battle by only technical superiority, but LEARNING, KNOWLEDGE OF TECHNIQUE, PREPARATION, tactically competent management by the commander of his unit, and of course COURAGE AND EXTREME.
          At the time of the war, the lack of experience and training of our tankers was one of the reasons for the great loss of tanks of the Red Army.
        2. bask
          bask 25 May 2013 17: 29
          +2
          Quote: svp67
          The gang brigades had almost half of the T70 in their composition ... so we had corresponding losses.

          Here are the Nazis .. and went along the road, alterations of light and captured tanks, self-propelled guns, tank destroyers, assault guns.
          As an example, a tank destroyer: ,, hatzer ,, Hetzer Jagdpanzer 38 Sd.Kfz. 38.
          In 1943, the company, Henschel, developed. Tank destroyer, hatzer, based on a well-developed light chassis !!! Czechoslovak tank TNP, and the German designation Pz.Kpfw. 38.
          Tank destroyer had: low hull strength. A 75 mm RaK39 / 2 anti-tank gun with a barrel length of 48 calibers was installed.
          The release was begun in 1944 and continued until the end of the war. In total, about 2600 self-propelled guns were produced.




          .
        3. bask
          bask 25 May 2013 17: 49
          0
          Quote: svp67
          almost half of the T70 ... so the losses we had were consistent

          On the basis of the T70 in the year 43, self-propelled guns were already developed, with the SU-76 with the ZIS-3 gun.
          If they put EIS-2, they would make an excellent tank destroyer.
          Performance characteristics of self-propelled guns SU-57 of 1943.
          combat weight -12 tons.
          crew - 4 people.
          armament 57-mm anti-tank gun ZIS-2.
          ammunition 22 shots.
          reservation:
          Forehead and hull side - 60 mm
          Roof - 20 mm
          Carburetor engine, GAZ-203, 140 hp
          Transmission: mechanical with 5-speed gearbox, 4 forward and 1 reverse gear.
          Chassis :; 6 track rollers on board, 3 support rollers, rear wheel drive
          Speed ​​- 40 km / h.
          Р — Р ° РїР ° СЃ С… РѕРґР ° - 300 РєРј.
          In the series did not go.
          1. Horde
            Horde 25 May 2013 18: 31
            +2
            Basque welcome!

            stumbled upon a video of how the Rearguard club - the guys are engaged in the restoration of old military equipment, they found a German self-propelled gun shtug-40 in a swamp, pulled out, washed, cleaned and it turned out that the old iron looks even very decent, the paint did not peel off, the caterpillars rotate, it can even fire succeed smile
            [media = http: //arergard.com/videoarhive/podjem-tehniki/9-podjem-nemeckoy-sau-stug
            40]
            and such things are obtained after restoration
            1. bask
              bask 25 May 2013 21: 12
              +1
              Greetings Horde hi
              Looked. Thanks for the link.
              Quote: Horde
              and such things are obtained after restoration

              I’ve dreamed of doing this all my life! But this is only a dream. Happy people!
    3. nnz226
      nnz226 25 May 2013 15: 23
      0
      The T-28 had an extremely short-barreled 76-mm cannon, designed more likely to fight machine guns, bunkers, etc., this cannon could penetrate the armor of tanks of the late 30s, but there can be no question of knocking out Tigers at all. Even if the long-barreled (by 1941 standards) 76-mm T-34 and KV-1 cannon "did not play" in 1943 against the "Tigers" (400-500 m of effective firing at the enemy, and even at the side, it is desirable - not bad method of suicide), so the losses in the Prokhorov battle of our tanks are many times greater than the German losses. Although the battle was won (the Germans refused further attacks), the price of victory was dire. It is precisely because of the difference in the effective target engagement distance between our and German tank guns. Question: was it impossible (like the Germans on the T-IV) to increase the barrel length of the 76 mm gun, to increase the initial velocity of the projectile and the range of the target hit? And then I had to readjust the release of the T-34 for a new turret with an 85 mm cannon ...
      1. Horde
        Horde 25 May 2013 15: 44
        +4
        76-mm gun T-34 and KV-1 "did not play" in 1943 against the "Tigers" (400-500 m of effective shooting at the enemy, and even on board, it is desirable - a good method of suicide), that's the loss in the Prokhorov battle our tanks are many times greater than the German losses


        I have never once seen a commander in my memories that we would use HAZARDS to cover the DEAD DISTANCE, i.e. the distance at which our tanks couldn’t hit tigers, but tigers, how our tanks were hit. Prokhorovka Rotmistrov’s tank army’s ineffective offensive when tigers shot an offensive army from a distance. Imagine our tanks firing smoke grenades up to 500m away from the tigers and then popping out of the smoke cover and can hit the tigers. Or is it still the same way applied?
      2. Bigriver
        Bigriver 25 May 2013 17: 52
        +2
        Quote: nnz226
        ... Question: but it was impossible (like the Germans on the T-IV) to increase the barrel length of the 76 mm gun, to increase the initial velocity of the projectile and the range of destruction of the target? And then I had to re-arrange the release of the T-34 under a new tower with a 85 mm gun ...

        A larger barrel with a higher muzzle velocity is a new weapon that simply would not fit into the service circle of a thirty-four turret. But most importantly ...
        F-34 had a shot and ballistics division Zis-3. A new weapon would require a new ammunition. In a war, this is a nightmare.
        Yes, and why this stupid garden fence? Not giving any quality gain. T-34-85 - it is the most, under the strategic conditions of 44-45 years. When we need to break into more defense than with individual Cariuses, find out: who has the drian longer?
        In 1944 "weaving" appeared. Let different "seals" find out their relationship with her :)))
    4. Ross
      Ross 26 May 2013 01: 18
      +3
      Unfortunately, so many Tigers were "destroyed" in the reports by the tankers of the 1st Tank Army on the Kursk Bulge, the Nazis in fact did not have it in the units.
      1. Bigriver
        Bigriver 26 May 2013 05: 17
        +3
        Quote: Ross
        Unfortunately, so many Tigers were "destroyed" in the reports by the tankers of the 1st Tank Army on the Kursk Bulge, the Nazis in fact did not have it in the units.

        Near Kursk, they often wrote in reports: "Tiger type 4 tank". That is, they meant the screened "four" Ausf H. Over time, only "Tigers" remained :)
  7. Vladimirets
    Vladimirets 25 May 2013 09: 45
    0
    "The" Tiger "had a long-barreled cannon and could hit the" thirty-four "from a distance of 1,5-2 km, and the T-34 - from a distance of 300-500 m, and even then only into the side with a sub-caliber projectile."

    In the context of the article, did not understand how the T-34 differs from the thirty-four? In general, he always had deep respect for tankers: to sit in an iron box, when all the enemy's thoughts are aimed at destroying the tank, this requires unparalleled courage.
    1. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 25 May 2013 12: 46
      +2
      B ***, I can not stand it when the question is minus. Well, if you're smart, tell me what to minus?
      1. Bigriver
        Bigriver 25 May 2013 14: 30
        +4
        Quote: Vladimirets
        B ***, I can not stand it when the question is minus. Well, if you're smart, tell me what to minus?

        The author clumsily formulated, hence the incomprehensibility.
        He had in mind the following.
        The tiger could hit the T-34 from 1,5-2 km.
        A T-34 Tiger - only BPS on board and from 300-500 meters.
        As far as I know, in 1943 there was no BPS at the T-44 BC. In the XNUMXth - a couple of pieces, and it was necessary to report in great detail for their use. The shell was very expensive.
        PS I didn’t minus stop
        1. Vladimirets
          Vladimirets 25 May 2013 14: 33
          +1
          Big River, thanks for the tour, but in the articles you need to write more specifically.
          1. Stas57
            Stas57 25 May 2013 17: 09
            +2
            "Tiger" had a long-barreled cannon and could hit the "thirty-four" from a distance of 1,5-2 km, and the T-34 - from a distance of 300-500 m, and even then only to the side with a sub-caliber projectile. "

            B ***, I can not stand it when the question is minus. Well, if you're smart, tell me what to minus?

            and what’s not clear, the tiger’s trunk beat 34 with 1.5 km, and 34 of the tiger with 500 m,
    2. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 25 May 2013 16: 59
      -2
      [i] [/ iArguments not visible ....
      1. Vladimirets
        Vladimirets 25 May 2013 20: 19
        0
        I'll try another comment, maybe a minus? smile
  8. sevtrash
    sevtrash 25 May 2013 09: 52
    +1
    It seems that as soon as the 20 of the Tigers-2 was at the Sandomierz bridgehead. It is unlikely that they could change something in such an amount.
    1. svp67
      svp67 25 May 2013 10: 36
      +3
      Quote: sevtrash
      It seems that as soon as the 20 of the Tigers-2 was at the Sandomierz bridgehead. It is unlikely that they could change something in such an amount.

      As much as they could. German "panzerwafe" have always been a formidable force, and they very severely "punished" those who forgot about it ...
      So that the feat of our grandfathers will always be respected.
      1. sevtrash
        sevtrash 25 May 2013 12: 31
        +1
        The quality of the training of German troops, tank, including not to be questioned. But still, at least 20 tanks, even 20 Tigram-2s, can’t cope with at least Katukov’s tank army.
      2. Kars
        Kars 25 May 2013 16: 03
        +3
        Quote: svp67
        have always been a formidable force, and they very severely "punished" those who forgot about it ...

        Even in 1945, especially in defensive battles
        1. Agent.
          Agent. 25 May 2013 16: 39
          +2
          What an interesting sign. We have about 3000 and 300 for everyone else. Well, yes, they helped a little America win the war))
        2. svp67
          svp67 25 May 2013 17: 35
          +1
          Quote: Kars
          Even in 1945, especially in defensive battles

          Good afternoon. Is this a statement or a question?
          1. Kars
            Kars 25 May 2013 17: 45
            +3
            Of course, I’m not special in spelling, but I rarely forget to put a question mark, and here I didn’t deliberately deliver it.
            1. svp67
              svp67 25 May 2013 18: 00
              +1
              Quote: Kars
              Of course, I’m not special in spelling, but I rarely forget to put a question mark, and here I didn’t deliberately deliver it.
              Well then I am my own "?" taking off ...
        3. The comment was deleted.
    2. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 25 May 2013 12: 28
      +5
      Quote: sevtrash
      It seems that as soon as the 20 of the Tigers-2 was at the Sandomierz bridgehead. It is unlikely that they could change something in such an amount.

      Read "Tigers in the Mud" by Otto Carius, it seems that if it were not for the suckers infantrymen, the tigers would have killed all our armored formations without any questions. Oh yes, I forgot, frosts, dirt, Hitler's mediocrity, the sluggishness of the RMO and the rear, and so Karius is a hero.
      1. sevtrash
        sevtrash 25 May 2013 12: 36
        +3
        I read Carius, but didn’t read it, because indeed, from his book it seems that he destroyed hundreds of Soviet tanks without any tension. Of course, the training of German tank crews as a whole was higher, but even the tank forces of the Soviet army even evaluated Mellentin by 1944 as a formidable force.
        1. Igarr
          Igarr 25 May 2013 19: 52
          +1
          You still read Rudel ...
          how he destroyed a half-tank army for a flight .. on his Stuck.
          It’s called ... PR book - Pilot Pieces ..
          .
          for colleague nnz226:
          The T-28 also had a long-barrel gun, L-10 with a barrel length of 26 calibers (26x76,2 = 1, 98 METERS).
          Another thing is that multi-turret tanks turned out to be a dead end.
          Now, imagine the M3 Lee ... with three-tier weapons - against the Tiger.
          After all, our grandfathers also fought on them. And for me - so is my uncle.
          .
          The result of the war speaks for itself.
          We won!
          It is a fact. Undeniable.
          1. Igarr
            Igarr 25 May 2013 20: 05
            +2
            I decided to search about the M3.
            Found. On armor.kiev:
            ".. But in the USSR, the MZ tanks were met without enthusiasm. By the middle of 1942, the production of T-IIIJ and T-IIIL tanks began in Germany with 50-mm armor and a long-barreled 50-mm cannon that penetrated armor up to 500 mm from a distance of 75 m. , tank T-IVF and assault gun "StuG III" (we know as "Artsturm") with a long-barreled 75-mm cannon with even greater efficiency. Armor no longer saved the tank MZ. Speed, maneuverability, stealth were needed. there was no tank.High, having especially poor maneuverability on Russian roads, with an insufficiently powerful engine (power 340 hp versus 500 hp for the T-34 of the same mass), moreover, very sensitive to the quality of fuel and lubrication , tank "Lee" did not evoke good reviews from our tankers. But even such shortcomings would be tolerable, if there were no rubber-metal tracks on the tank. During the battle, the rubber burned out and the tracks fell apart. The tank became an immobile target. Tankers did not forgive this. their sentence could not have been comfortable maintenance and service, neither large side doors, which made it easy to evacuate the crew from a wrecked vehicle, nor strong weapons. That is why the MZ tanks received the contemptuous nickname "Mass Grave for Six" from Soviet tankmen. The report of the commander of the 134th tank regiment, Colonel Tikhonchuk, dated December 14, 1942, with an assessment of the tanks of the "General Lee" MZ has been preserved:

            "American tanks in the sands work extremely poorly, the tracks continually fall down, get stuck in the sand, lose power, due to which the speed is extremely low. When shooting at enemy tanks, due to the fact that the 75-mm cannon is mounted in a mask and not in the turret , you have to turn the tank, which buries itself in the sand, which makes it very difficult to fire. "
            Note that neither the British nor the Americans used MZ tanks with such intensity as the Russians, because the intensity of the fighting in Africa and on the Western Front was very far from what was happening on the Eastern Front.

            The Allies, too, recognized the shortcomings of the Lee / Grant tanks and therefore removed them from production. Since August 1942, the M4 "General Sherman" tank began to be produced in the USA, and the Mk VIII "Cromwell" in the UK.
            .
            About 1400 tanks were delivered to the USSR.
            Multiply by 6 ..? Person?
      2. Alex
        Alex 20 August 2013 17: 37
        +2
        Yes, I generally have the impression that his mother’s maiden name was Munchausen ... lol
  9. stalker
    stalker 25 May 2013 09: 56
    +4
    no matter what our "western well-wishers" say, the Russians knew how to fight, are able and will be able to win with any technique and any weapon.
    1. Corsair
      Corsair 25 May 2013 12: 53
      +5
      Quote: stalker
      no matter what our "western well-wishers" say, the Russians knew how to fight, are able and will be able to win with any technique and any weapon.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  10. The comment was deleted.
    1. Airman
      Airman 25 May 2013 11: 11
      13
      Quote: bambur_2zyqyqux
      on the site "There are no secrets" http://tv.tainam.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=614&Itemid=127

      there is a film "Myths and Strangeness of the Second Patriotic War," which raised the question of the result of the Battle of Kursk and the irrecoverable losses of tanks on both sides. Irrecoverable losses of the Kursk battle of the USSR - 500 tanks, Germany - 3 tanks. And in the morning the Germans disappeared. At night we plunged and departed, if I'm not mistaken, to Crete. That is, with the true history of the Battle of Kursk, not everything is as yet described.

      And do you believe that? Someone really wants to revise the history of the Second World War, to show that our fathers and grandfathers did not know how to fight. And why on earth, after the Battle of Kursk, the "winners" departed for Crete, or maybe for heaven?
      1. sevtrash
        sevtrash 25 May 2013 12: 49
        +3
        It seems that as a result of the Battle of Kursk there was an investigation of the Soviet command, since the losses were already very great - Vatutin’s fears were partially justified. And they rated the battle not very well. However, if you read Rokosovsky, then he talks about Vatutin’s mistakes quite definitely.
        In fact, the introduction of the armies of the Steppe Front is a fire event in response to the breakthrough of the Voronezh Front.
        1. revnagan
          revnagan 25 May 2013 16: 39
          -1
          Quote: sevtrash
          It seems that as a result of the Battle of Kursk there was an investigation of the Soviet command, since the losses were already very great - Vatutin’s fears were partially justified.

          For 50 days of the battle during three operations - defensive Kursk (July 05–23) and offensive: Oryol (July 12 – August 18) and Belgorod – Kharkov (August 03–23), the Red Army lost about 6000 tanks and self-propelled guns; four times less. The main role in tank fights was played by the German guns 88/71 and 75/70 (caliber in mm / length in calibers).
          1. rexby63
            rexby63 25 May 2013 21: 35
            0
            Why minus? From the 5th TA there really is not much left, and Stalingrad and Tatsinsky were badly battered.
            1. revnagan
              revnagan 26 May 2013 12: 29
              +1
              Quote: rexby63
              Why minus? From the 5th TA there really is not much left, and Stalingrad and Tatsinsky were badly battered.

              Yes, this is "Urrryayaya-patriots." They are "abysmal, panimous, abysmal." You know, but I am also "abysmal", but it was so. Ours were really great, like our victory in this battle.
          2. Airman
            Airman 26 May 2013 16: 38
            0
            Quote: revnagan
            Quote: sevtrash
            It seems that as a result of the Battle of Kursk there was an investigation of the Soviet command, since the losses were already very great - Vatutin’s fears were partially justified.

            For 50 days of the battle during three operations - defensive Kursk (July 05–23) and offensive: Oryol (July 12 – August 18) and Belgorod – Kharkov (August 03–23), the Red Army lost about 6000 tanks and self-propelled guns; four times less. The main role in tank fights was played by the German guns 88/71 and 75/70 (caliber in mm / length in calibers).

            German losses were less, but not 4 times. They and we have different statistics, so take in half, and everything will be true.
          3. Yemelya
            Yemelya 26 May 2013 16: 51
            0
            Quote: revnagan
            The main role in tank fights was played by German guns 88/71 and 75/70 (caliber in mm / length in calibers)

            88/71 - only for “Ferdinand”, 75/70 - only for “Panther”. It seems that 75/43 and 75/48 played the main role.
            1. Kars
              Kars 26 May 2013 20: 45
              +1
              And _______- Nashorn?
              1. Yemelya
                Yemelya 26 May 2013 21: 50
                0
                Yes, I forgot.
                Although the term "tank" is hardly applicable to "Nashorn", "Ferdinands" at least had the appropriate armor and went on the attack.
                1. Kars
                  Kars 26 May 2013 21: 53
                  +1
                  Quote: Emelya
                  Although the term "tank

                  Quote: Povshnik
                  Red Army lost order 6000 tanks and SAA, the enemy - four times less. The main role in tank fights was played by the German guns 88/71 and 75/70 (caliber in mm / length in calibres).
                  1. Yemelya
                    Yemelya 26 May 2013 21: 55
                    0
                    I phrase
                    Quote: revnagan
                    Primary role in tank fights German guns played 88/71 and 75/70
                    commented.
                    1. Kars
                      Kars 27 May 2013 08: 35
                      +1
                      Quote: Emelya
                      commented.

                      That self-propelled guns and tanks go in the same boiler, and
                      Quote: Emelya
                      Although the term "tank" is of little use to "Nashorn"
                      Does it play a role? Like the fact that a tank battle is not necessarily an attack, and only with tanks.
        2. Alex
          Alex 20 August 2013 17: 52
          +2
          In addition, there was a well-known report by Rotmistrov addressed to the Supreme, where our and German losses were also analyzed and the technical characteristics of tanks were compared. I remember the phrase "... please take steps to overcome the arrogance of our tank designers ..." (I can’t vouch for the verbatim, now there are no materials at hand). What "yes. then yes - since 1940, the tank has been modernized mainly only in terms of manufacturability and maintainability, which, in fact, were brought to the highest level. But they forgot about the weapons ... I don't know why: either the evacuation and the acute shortage of tanks, or they left it "for later", or something else. The questions are quite obvious ...
      2. El-bog
        El-bog 27 May 2013 09: 01
        -2
        This film was shown on Russia-24 hours. The official state channel. The Germans made the film with Nashi. Yes, the Germans have three tanks - irreparable losses. There is no reason not to believe this. The Germans damaged equipment consisted of their three positions. Weak, medium and irreplaceable. And how many do not say holva, it will not become sweeter in your mouth. How many damn Russian stupidly put in the war ?! They threw their hats ...
      3. Alex
        Alex 20 August 2013 17: 44
        +2
        Quote: bambur_2zyqyqux
        And in the morning the Germans disappeared. They plunged at night and departed, if I am not mistaken, to Crete.


        Indeed, we have departed. But not all, but only the Leib standard "Adolf Hitler". And not all, but without tanks. And he never got to Crete, but remained in Italy.

        And so everything is true. And only 3 was lost by the tank, and they broke through the front, and surrounded four fronts (together with the reserve), and they corrected the situation, and won the war. In a sore imagination ... beaten generals ... and our henchmen ...
    2. Fofan
      Fofan 25 May 2013 13: 51
      10
      Quote: bambur_2zyqyqux
      The irretrievable losses of the Battle of Kursk of the USSR - 500 tanks, Germany - 3 tanks. And in the morning the Germans disappeared. They plunged at night and departed, if I am not mistaken, to Crete. That is, with the true history of the Battle of Kursk, not everything is as they describe so far.

      ahaha, it’s necessary to think of such nonsense laughing Germans lost the Kursk arc because the Panzervaffe left for Crete wassat probably to work on a tan and show the tigers the sea
    3. nnz226
      nnz226 25 May 2013 15: 33
      12
      3 tank losses - the Germans themselves estimated their losses. And they, too, they "checked out" ours ... Stay the battlefield for us, it could be the other way around in assessing losses. Again, there is a damaged tank (a caterpillar or a skating rink is broken), which will be restored in a couple of days in a rembat and again into battle, but there is a burned one, which is only in an open-hearth furnace. The Germans blew up all our tanks that were left on the battlefield, "rooting out" from the point of view of the possibility of repair. Much has been written about how they described the losses of their tanks under various articles (details can also be found on this website). Even a tank subject to 3-month repair at the factory (!!!) they did not consider to be damaged ... So there is a lie, there is a big lie, but there are statistics (especially German in calculating their losses)! And the Germans did not go forward the next day after Prokhorovka, but began to withdraw their forces. So the task of our tankers: "to stop the advance of German tanks" was completed. Low bow to the soldiers of that WAR !!!
      1. Agent.
        Agent. 25 May 2013 16: 44
        +2
        Yes, this is complete complete nonsense and propaganda! If you collect only one photo from the Kursk arc and count the number of burning German tanks, you will get no less than three! Although the ratio was not in our favor, the T-34 was stupid to let go of tigers.
        1. Kars
          Kars 25 May 2013 16: 56
          +2
          ________________
      2. Alex
        Alex 20 August 2013 17: 58
        +2
        Nmtsy generally trick masters. hot arrange master classes. If all their victories are folded, then there is still not a single airplane and tank on the whole planet. Here are just a parade in Berlin, not in Moscow.

        Oh, I'm lying. There were two parades in Moscow, but not according to that scenario ...

        Once again, eternal glory and eternal peace to the soldiers of that war!
    4. revnagan
      revnagan 25 May 2013 16: 32
      10
      Quote: bambur_2zyqyqux
      The irretrievable losses of the Battle of Kursk of the USSR - 500 tanks, Germany - 3 tanks. And in the morning the Germans disappeared. They plunged at night and departed, if I am not mistaken, to Crete. That is, with the true history of the Battle of Kursk, not everything is as they describe so far.

      Are you not an American? And I also remembered the vulgar joke "... so big, but in the skirts varish ..." And now let's connect the remnants of your logic. So: on the southern face of the Kursk ledge, in the army group "South" at the position of the Voronezh front the 10th tank brigade was advancing, consisting of three battalions: the 51st and 52nd (204 "paters") and 503 heavy (45 "tigers"). Another 46 T-VIs were included in the motorized division "Grossdeutschland", and 42 - port, 13-15 tanks, were distributed among the SS divisions "Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler" (the land was broken with glass forever), "Das Reich" and "Tetenkompf". In total on this face the Germans had: 6 tank and 5 motorized divisions, numbering 1493 tanks and 253 assault guns.
      On the northern face against the Central Front, units of Army Group Center acted: 6 tank divisions, the 21st tank brigade consisting of 2 battalions - the 261st and 505th heavy, as well as the 656th tank destroyer regiment (90 "elephant "653rd and 654th divisions). In total, in this direction, the enemy deployed 746 tanks (of which 45" tigers "and 280 assault guns.
      Now let's take the calculator in our hands and calculate: 2239 tanks and 533 assault guns at the Fritz. If you believe your post, then the Hans had 2236 tanks left by the end of the Battle of Kursk, and ours lost 500.T.E. the losses of the parties amounted to 1: 166. We multiply 2236 by 166 and get 372666,6. These are so many of our cars that could destroy the tanks left by the Nazis. In this situation, you could advance to Vladivostok, and not to Moscow. And suddenly I quickly turn off the Fritz fishing rods and dope. After the victory is won! Ah, yes! You will now say that the Allies landed in Normandy, and Schicklgruber was very scared. Here again the Americans saved the whole world. Well - well. You know, dear, as long as there are people on the site with Soviet education, you are unlikely to be able to fool anyone here. babe on the European and American, where such information quickly to the people knocks.
    5. svp67
      svp67 25 May 2013 18: 14
      +3
      Quote: bambur_2zyqyqux
      Germany - 3 tank

      Photos will say better words ...



      1. Gahprom
        Gahprom 25 May 2013 23: 19
        -2
        Photos will say better words ...

        on one photo of the little square ....
    6. rexby63
      rexby63 25 May 2013 21: 22
      +1
      Yes man, you hit. Wow what storytellers found. If you leave alone the Soviet official historiography, then Zamulin V. and Lopukhovsky L. spoke quite soberly about the Kursk Bulge
    7. Simon
      Simon 25 May 2013 22: 35
      0
      I did not understand that the Germans were so scared on the Kursk Bulge that they decided to hide from our tanks in Crete? laughing Usually the Germans removed tanks from the western front or from Africa to the eastern front, and from the eastern front, some kind of absurdity, they hardly did it.
      1. svp67
        svp67 25 May 2013 22: 50
        +1
        Quote: Simon
        I didn’t understand that the Germans were so scared that they decided to hide from our tanks in Crete


        The German command, conducting an operation on the Kursk salient, was forced to expose other areas, which was used by the allies, who prepared and carried out an operation to seize Sicily, as a result of which the fascist regime "staggered" in Italy and Italy could actually withdraw from the war, which Germany could not allow. Therefore, it was necessary to withdraw part of the forces from near Kursk and transfer to Italy, to strengthen the German grouping there, to prevent Italy from leaving the war and prepare to repel a possible Allied landing operation ... But most importantly, the mechanized units, in most of them were redeveloped "lightly", leaving and transferring their heavy weapons, primarily tanks and self-propelled guns to the remaining formations, in the new place they received equipment from factories, both new and restored ... By the way, this fact puts under doubt the figures of "low" losses of German troops.
  11. rexby63
    rexby63 25 May 2013 10: 38
    +1
    at least somehow equalize with the T-34


    The phrase - "somehow" is not entirely appropriate. The Ausf.H competed quite successfully with the T-34 of the 1942 model. And so the article, despite the generally positive mood, was written with flaws. I will not put anything. And I could write more about the 1st Guards
    1. Airman
      Airman 25 May 2013 11: 14
      +2
      Quote: rexby63
      at least somehow equalize with the T-34


      The phrase - "somehow" is not entirely appropriate. The Ausf.H competed quite successfully with the T-34 of the 1942 model. And so the article, despite the generally positive mood, was written with flaws. I will not put anything. And I could write more about the 1st Guards

      So write, maybe we'll learn something new.
      1. rexby63
        rexby63 25 May 2013 12: 37
        0
        What for? Better to read professionals than to write unfinished articles. About Katukov M.E. well written by his widow Katukova E.S., Baryatinsky M.B.
        And about tanks - M.N. Svirin
        1. Fofan
          Fofan 25 May 2013 14: 06
          +2
          Quote: rexby63
          What for? Better to read professionals than to write unfinished articles. About Katukov M.E. well written by his widow Katukova E.S., Baryatinsky M.B.
          And about tanks - M.N. Svirin

          and Katukov's memoirs - "on the edge of the main blow" is forbidden to read?
          1. rexby63
            rexby63 25 May 2013 16: 43
            0
            Why is forbidden, be sure to read. Moreover, Baryatinsky quotes from his book almost in the volume of the book itself (figuratively speaking, not literally).
        2. Stas57
          Stas57 25 May 2013 17: 14
          -1
          Better to read professionals than to write unfinished articles. About Katukov M.E. well written by his widow Katukova E.S., Baryatinsky M.B.

          the Baryatinsky will come down, but it’s not suitable for the pros - its main bread is kopipast, about the widow is generally strange, because in places it unnecessarily catches up with something that certainly didn’t exist, and it’s not at all a fact that she witnessed many stories, especially when there are Katukov
          1. rexby63
            rexby63 25 May 2013 21: 12
            0
            Let's just say that Ekaterina Sergeevna is one of the few who, after the death of Mikhail Efimovich, tried to preserve his memory of him (maybe purely as a woman, not for us to judge her). And only a really close person can write good about a person. And then here on the forums it was already recorded in the "yavrei". So whoever is catching up is your brother of the forum.
          2. Simon
            Simon 25 May 2013 22: 47
            +1
            If you wouldn’t meddle with your paper, historical books should also be read by eyewitness articles. You only disgrace yourself.
            1. Stas57
              Stas57 25 May 2013 23: 11
              0
              Quote: rexby63
              Let's just say that Ekaterina Sergeevna is one of the few who, after the death of Mikhail Efimovich, tried to preserve his memory (maybe purely feminine, not for us to judge her).

              And at M.E. had memory problems? he was undeservedly forgotten or smeared, however, as she writes, IMHO unnecessarily, memoirs are a complicated matter, and not everyone succeeds

              And then here on the forums it was already recorded in the "yavrei". So whoever is catching up is your brother of the forum.

              it is certainly superfluous - a Jew or not, I look at business

              Quote: Simon
              If you wouldn’t meddle with your paper, historical books should also be read by eyewitness articles. You only disgrace yourself.
              is there anything in fact, or as usual just overslept?
              1. rexby63
                rexby63 25 May 2013 23: 44
                0
                And at M.E. had problems with memory


                Usually, with death, a person's thought process disappears. And as she writes, I have already said, it is not for us to judge. And once again about the memory, we open Lelyushenko's "Notes of the commander", chapter 2, we meet the name of Katukov only once and then in a completely vague context. Although we must pay tribute, about ordinary tankers (Lyubushkin, Burda, Raftopullo) Dmitry Danilovich writes a lot and with respect. What is it - disrespect, envy, or "something with memory has become"? Regarding Hetman, you can write a separate novel in general, and you ask some left-wing questions. Or are they rhetorical? And you just wanted to troll a little?
                1. Stas57
                  Stas57 26 May 2013 15: 13
                  0
                  Usually, with death in a person, the thought process disappears.

                  I'm not talking about mental memory, I'm talking about folk. M.E., kmk, had no such problems. We read carefully. And then ...
                  And once again about the memory, we open Lelyushenko's "Notes of the commander", chapter 2, we meet the name of Katukov only once, and then in a completely undefined context.

                  Well, well, and what do you say ...
                  1,-At the end of the day on October 4, the second echelon of the 4-th tank brigade headed by Colonel M.E. Katukov and brigade commissioner M.F. Boyko arrived in Mtsensk.
                  2, On the morning of October 5, I was at N P at Katukov.
                  3, -Katukov looked at me questioningly.

                  http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/lelyushenko_dd/02.html
                  and this, I note, a comcor, he could do without such details at all, while the 11 brigade remembers as many, its fighters mention less, its commander 4 times.


                  and then oops, we open the same Katukov - the brigade next to it, who fought for almost a week, is mentioned only 2 times,
                  The fact that she participated and, in fact, saved 4 TBR, is not a word.
                  handed down almost under zero MSB is no longer remembered after 6go.
                  actions of our aviation, never
                  etc
                  What is it - disrespect, envy, or "something with memory has become"?

                  you study this question a little more and much will open

                  You ask some kind of leftist questions. Or are you rhetorical? And just wanted to troll a little?

                  the only problem is your ability to perceive the text ...
                  1. rexby63
                    rexby63 26 May 2013 16: 13
                    0
                    Katukov looked at me questioningly.


                    So what is next? Katukov does not seem to know what to do

                    actually saved 4 tbr


                    From this place in more detail

                    the only problem is your ability to perceive the text ..


                    Or yours - listen only to yourself
                    1. Stas57
                      Stas57 26 May 2013 16: 58
                      0
                      So what is next? Katukov does not seem to know what to do

                      and?

                      From this place in more detail

                      search and find, on the net more than, and even more so in books.


                      Or yours - listen only to yourself

                      words words.
                      I note that I am conducting a dialogue with you, and I can confirm that you cannot read carefully. But do you need him?
                      1. rexby63
                        rexby63 26 May 2013 18: 16
                        0
                        and?

                        Okay, ab ovo: "On the morning of October 5, I was on the NP near Katukov. From here it was clearly visible how the enemy tanks were approaching the front line of the defense, preparing to crush the guns and press the trenches occupied by our infantry. Artillery fire forced the enemy infantry to lie down, which followed the tanks, and direct-fire guns knocked out several combat vehicles, but a significant number of Nazis continued to rush forward, meeting staunch resistance from border guards from the battalions of Drozhzhenko and Tetyushev.
                        Katukov looked at me questioningly.
                        - Give fire from ambushes! - I ordered ... "Maybe I'm exaggerating and Katukov just observes the chain of command, but it seemed to me that he was still in charge of the battle and there was no need for subordination.

                        seek and find


                        "The tankmen of the 11th brigade of A.V. Bondarev rendered great help to their friends from the opposite bank" (Lelyushenko). But it didn’t "actually saved 4 TBR".

                        read carefully you do not know how


                        There is a sin.
                      2. Stas57
                        Stas57 26 May 2013 18: 53
                        +1
                        Maybe I exaggerate and Katukov simply abides by subordination, but it seemed to me that after all he led the fight and subordination was useless here.
                        namely, it was most likely that Lelyushenko was still leading the battle, at least it was his duty, and I recall that M.E.K. was not the only tank colonel, commander of the brigade, that would make decisions individually, as it is written in his memoirs))

                        The tankmen of the 11th brigade of A.V. Bondareva "(Lelyushenko) provided great help to their friends from the opposite bank. But they did not" actually save 4 tank brigades. "
                        it’s still simpler, such questions are not raised in heroic memoirs, you need to read special books)))

                        in the morning the 6.10 detachment occupied the above forest near Volobovo / 2km east of Khomutovka / and the enemy was not found. In the 16.30, two delegates from the 4 infantry brigade arrived at the detachment with the order of the deputy corps commander, Major General A.V. Kurkina.

                        "1. Prior to the 40 tanks of the enemy, they circumvented the right flank of the 4 tanks and attack the First Warrior.

                        2. The detachment immediately come forward in the direction of Sergievskoye, Yarygino and flanking from the course to attack the enemy together with 4tbr »

                        does Katukov have a word about this? not.
                      3. rexby63
                        rexby63 26 May 2013 19: 21
                        0
                        I admit defeat. Where is this from?
                      4. Stas57
                        Stas57 26 May 2013 19: 28
                        +1
                        I admit defeat. Where is this from?

                        Yes, I did not think to hit you))

                        it is the railway train 11 tbr, it all ended in badly large losses, and at 11 tbr and at 4 tbr
                        but in general the question is more than studied and not so clear, read the short version here-
                        http://mzensk1941.narod.ru/index/0-24
                      5. rexby63
                        rexby63 26 May 2013 20: 28
                        +1
                        Thank. Very grateful
  • Bosk
    Bosk 25 May 2013 10: 54
    +3
    That's right!, You have to beat the adversary without asking for the last name!
  • loft79
    loft79 25 May 2013 11: 11
    +7
    This is not an article, but a copy-paste

    How pacified Hitler's menagerie
    Col. Anatoly Dokuchaev
    Military knowledge. - 1998. - No. 6


    and in my opinion too pathetic and not very competent. IMHO
    1. Gahprom
      Gahprom 25 May 2013 23: 18
      -1
      not all data are supported by modern science
  • tomket
    tomket 25 May 2013 11: 38
    +3
    memories often flash in the west when, for example, a projectile fired by a Sherman from a distance of 150 m vertically went up, ricocheting off the tiger tower, when the king tiger appeared, they usually used the "All at once" technique, concentrating the fire of everything that was nearby at that moment on a single target ... Or they simply called aviation. Well, in general, the quality of armor on the royal was worse than on ordinary tigers, I think this is not a secret to anyone, and the old crews preferred to continue to fight on ordinary tigers.
  • Fofan
    Fofan 25 May 2013 13: 44
    +3
    Quote: Vladimirets

    Read "Tigers in the Mud" by Otto Carius, it seems that if it were not for the suckers infantrymen, the tigers would have killed all our armored formations without any questions. Oh yes, I forgot, frosts, dirt, Hitler's mediocrity, the sluggishness of the RMO and the rear, and so Karius is a hero.

    Well yeah .... a book written about the German war against the USSR, after the defeat of Germany, and even during the Cold War. probably the most unbiased book in the world!
    1. tomket
      tomket 26 May 2013 01: 01
      +2
      It’s strange how he, along with Rudel and Hartman, didn’t reach the Urals? probably Hitler was sitting behind him and pounding him on the head, he was possessed)))))
    2. Yemelya
      Yemelya 26 May 2013 16: 24
      +1
      Quote: Fofan
      a book written about the German war against the USSR, after the defeat of Germany, and even during the Cold War. probably the most unbiased book in the world!

      "Tigers in the Mud" does not look like an example of anti-Soviet propaganda during the Cold War - there the Americans get rid of, and the Russians are shown as worthy opponents. Refers to this book, I do not argue, it is like any other genre of memoirs about the war - with a certain amount of skepticism.
  • makrus
    makrus 25 May 2013 13: 45
    +2
    boyan, definitely. if anyone pacified this "menagerie", it was anti-tank artillery.
  • Genady1976
    Genady1976 25 May 2013 13: 47
    +2
    Russian tanks are the most tank tanks soldier Glory to the heroes of the tank.
  • Roll
    Roll 25 May 2013 13: 53
    0
    fellow But interestingly, here it is described here that the fascist menageries were destroyed by Soviet tanks. And how did the tanks obtained by Lend-Lease fight. Did they beat the Tigers and Panthers? But it’s somehow one-sided, T-34, Quarter. I not only do not underestimate the dignity of our tanks and the heroism of the tankers, but I also need to write about the duels of our tankers in foreigners with the Nazis.
    1. Fofan
      Fofan 25 May 2013 14: 08
      +1
      Duc in the next branch Red star aliens everything is written
    2. Bigriver
      Bigriver 25 May 2013 14: 54
      +5
      Quote: Rolm
      ... And how did the tanks obtained by Lend-Lease fought. Did they beat the Tigers and Panthers? ..

      "Churchili" showed themselves little in the Red Army. "Valentines" is a tank for reconnaissance and security. "Grants" showed themselves to be average. Exotic, however, even for us. For some reason, many tankers mention the particularly good flammability of the Grants. Sherman is a thirty-four level. Better in some ways, worse in other ways. The guns are comparable in terms of armor penetration.
      The task of the tank corps, brigade, regiment, army, all the same, is not to find and beat the Tigers and Panthers on the battlefield :)))
      The task is different. When the infantry with artillery and aviation rushed the main tactical defense of the enemy - you need to rush into the operational depths. Here separate TK and TA were also applied. Torn communications, smashed the rear, communications centers, fought with suitable reserves, destroyed new emerging centers and lines of defense. But there could have been tanks.
    3. tomket
      tomket 26 May 2013 01: 03
      0
      and what kind of duel if only firefights could resist the tigers, but they didn’t reach us. As one veteran in the book of A. Drabkin said, before the advent of t-34-85 and is-2, they ran from tigers like hares.
      1. Bigriver
        Bigriver 26 May 2013 05: 28
        +1
        Quote: tomket
        and what kind of duel if only firefights could resist the tigers, but they didn’t reach us. As one veteran in the book of A. Drabkin said, before the advent of t-34-85 and is-2, they ran from tigers like hares.

        Well, in general, it’s even tactically wrong to get involved in battle, fulfilling the task of developing operational success.
        When meeting with a thread of Schwere Panzer-Abteilung 501, it is more correct to cover yourself with IPTAPs, a brigade and "tear" further. The Germans in the first half of the war, when they had the initiative, acted the same way.
        Therefore, IMHO, the main quality of our tank formations were: speed, maneuverability, pressure. We were winning at the operational level. The Germans concentrated on tactics. What is the strategic and operational mobility of the Tigers battalion? Ugh: ((Often they simply did not have time to sew up our breakthroughs with their "fire brigades".
        1. Kars
          Kars 26 May 2013 16: 22
          +1
          By the way about Firefly
        2. svp67
          svp67 26 May 2013 16: 28
          0
          Quote: Kars
          Kars (2) By the way about Firefly


          Ours, too, "drilled" good holes in the skin of the Tiger
          1. Kars
            Kars 26 May 2013 18: 41
            +1
            Quote: svp67
            Ours, too, "drilled" good holes in the skin of the Tiger

            Holes were drilled unconditionally, the only question is from what distance
            1. svp67
              svp67 26 May 2013 18: 44
              0
              Quote: Kars
              Holes were drilled unconditionally, the only question is from what distance
              Judging by the diameter of the hole, the caliber is clearly not 76,2 so the distance was good, especially in the side armor ...
              1. Kars
                Kars 26 May 2013 19: 26
                +2
                Quote: svp67
                Judging by the diameter of the hole, the caliber is clearly not 76,2 so the distance was good, especially in the side armor.
                The diameter of the hole in the armor after hitting ammunition of caliber ammunition, and in principle 76.2 can do this, but more likely 85 mm anti-aircraft gun. And in my case it’s exactly 76,2 and the distance is more than 1 km

                photo from a different angle of your animal
  • Sashko07
    Sashko07 25 May 2013 14: 41
    +4
    Recently I was in Kiev, visited the Museum of the Great Patriotic War. Here he is handsome soldier
    1. Gahprom
      Gahprom 25 May 2013 23: 15
      -1
      so what? clap you got to the museum?
      such postwar 85tok half the country on pedestals
  • gen-48
    gen-48 25 May 2013 15: 58
    12
    Guys, it doesn't matter which menagerie crawled in front of our grandfathers and great-grandfathers. The main thing is that they pushed the enlightened "Europe" into zh..pu. In his last battle, my dear grandpa, Hero of the Soviet Union, Panarin Anton Ivanovich, after seizing a bridgehead on the other bank of the Oder River, personally knocked out 6 German tanks. From the reconnaissance squadron of 146 people, after 2 days of the battle, 11 seriously wounded remained alive, including my grandfather (he lost a leg). These were the people. I beg your pardon. Maybe not quite on the topic, but we have time for them ...
  • Alf
    Alf 25 May 2013 17: 23
    0
    Quote: nnz226
    Question: but was it impossible (like the Germans on the T-IV) to increase the barrel length of the 76 mm gun to increase the initial velocity of the projectile and the range of the target’s destruction? And then I had to re-arrange the release of the T-34 under a new tower with a 85 mm gun ...

    It is possible, but an increase in barrel length leads to an increase in recoil force, which, in turn, leads to the installation of new recoil devices. Accordingly, to increase the volume of the guns and reduce the internal volume of the tower. In addition, by creating a new tower for the T-34, 2 birds with one stone were killed at once: 1. They increased the thickness of the turret’s armor and 2. They threw a more powerful 85-mm cannon with a more powerful HEAM shell. If my memory serves me, then experiments were carried out with the installation of an anti-aircraft 76 mm gun arr. 31 years old in the old tower, but the shot was no longer fired at this gun, the armor-piercing action of this shell did not reach 85 mm, and the internal volume of the tower also decreased.
    1. sevtrash
      sevtrash 25 May 2013 17: 50
      -1
      The internal ballistics of the Soviet guns was not very good. The armor penetration of German, American guns is 75 mm higher than the Soviet 76 mm. A 88 mm German gun is generally a masterpiece. For tanks, especially taking into account the fight against the tank, a smaller caliber with the same armor penetration gives a larger stock of shells, less load for the loading crew, recoil, etc.
      1. Gahprom
        Gahprom 25 May 2013 23: 16
        0
        sevtrash

        you're right, but patriots are not educated, that's why they are minus
        1. Bigriver
          Bigriver 26 May 2013 09: 54
          0
          Quote: Gahpro
          sevtrash

          you're right, but patriots are not educated, that's why they are minus

          Was the inner ballistics worse? Right And what follows from this?
      2. Bigriver
        Bigriver 26 May 2013 09: 41
        0
        Quote: sevtrash
        The internal ballistics of the Soviet guns was not very good. The armor penetration of German, American guns is 75 mm higher than the Soviet 76 mm. A 88 mm German gun is generally a masterpiece. For tanks, especially given the fight against the tank, a smaller caliber with the same armor penetration gives a larger stock of shellsless load for the crew-loader, recoil, etc.

        What is the ratio of OFS / armor-piercing in the laying of T-34-85?
        There is no fat and chocolate in one bottle. And each question has its own price.
        The Germans piled a Panther with a long drain Kwk 42, which had less power of the OFS than the "four".
        The masterpiece "akht comma akht" stood on a tank with negligible operational mobility.
        And all these anti-tank tanks were made not to win the war, but to delay their caput.
        1. sevtrash
          sevtrash 26 May 2013 17: 41
          +1
          Some consider the panther to be the best tank of the last years of World War II. Technologically, it may not have been completely brought up, and 2 were brought up during the war.
          And what is the main task of the tank? Which is better - 28 shells with significant high-explosive action or 92 with sufficient? One shot from a 122 mm gun, or, on the other hand, 3 shots from 88 mm at the same time?
          1. svp67
            svp67 26 May 2013 17: 45
            0
            Quote: sevtrash
            One shot from an 122 mm gun or, on the other hand, an 3 shot from an 88 mm at the same time

            Here the question is not quite correctly posed - the first may be the only one ... which, in principle, is the best.
            1. sevtrash
              sevtrash 26 May 2013 18: 38
              0
              The next layer will already go here - whoever detects the enemy first, who has the best surveillance equipment, the coherence of team interaction, who will aim faster and more accurately - only then a shot and not necessarily the final one.
              1. Kars
                Kars 26 May 2013 18: 52
                +1
                Layer by layer, but it turned out that mass and simplicity won.

                As for the best, it should either be divided by classification or recognize the T-34 in the complex
                1. sevtrash
                  sevtrash 26 May 2013 19: 01
                  0
                  Yes, the productivity of production, respectively mass, but also the accumulation of experience partially by crews, as well as officers of different ranks
        2. Yemelya
          Yemelya 26 May 2013 17: 50
          0
          Quote: BigRiver
          The Germans piled a Panther with a long drain Kwk 42, which had less power of the OFS than the "four".

          A common misconception. I used to think so too, but in fact, that the number of explosives is the same.
  • regsSSSR
    regsSSSR 25 May 2013 18: 50
    +2
    Quote: bambur_2zyqyqux
    on the site "There are no secrets" http://tv.tainam.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=614&Itemid=127




    there is a film "Myths and Strangeness of the Second Patriotic War," which raised the question of the result of the Battle of Kursk and the irrecoverable losses of tanks on both sides. Irrecoverable losses of the Kursk battle of the USSR - 500 tanks, Germany - 3 tanks. And in the morning the Germans disappeared. At night we plunged and departed, if I'm not mistaken, to Crete. That is, with the true history of the Battle of Kursk, not everything is as yet described.

    I had both grandfathers fighting in the war, one of them stormed Berlin and this is a REAL HISTORY and not a myth! and if history is being studied in MYTHS, it will soon turn out that the Americans stormed Berlin and stole various mythical-strange films there too! you can already hear the shas, ​​but that the Russians also fought in World War II ?? belay and by the way, and who are these Russians! Oh oh these are such terrible animals you would know current !!!! here are your historical myths
  • bublic82009
    bublic82009 25 May 2013 19: 07
    +2
    not only our tanks were burning. but the German burned.
    1. Genady1976
      Genady1976 26 May 2013 00: 41
      0
      burned like current matches nemchur quickly pulled them out of the battlefield
  • galiullinrasim
    galiullinrasim 25 May 2013 19: 42
    +2
    all argue and compare, but they have broken the horns of all the beasts with that strong beast, and therefore glory to our soldiers forever. and the fact that we are supposed to be a nichnik to them is also debatable. And now there are true warriors — read about Avganchev and about Chechnya not of Western and mattress writers. otherwise I won the soldier from their ordinary Ryan. I don’t remember the more idiotic movie — to save one a lot of people are also boasting. Still races about the axiom is not fighting, weapons are not fighting people
  • Muxauk
    Muxauk 25 May 2013 22: 54
    0
    Quiet-modest heroes brought victory day closer. Such thousands and thousands of their stories. Pts interesting to read, well done tankers !!!
  • igor kv-2
    igor kv-2 26 May 2013 09: 12
    0
    The T-34-76 1940 was a light tank and the KV-2 was cooler!
  • malikszh
    malikszh 26 May 2013 09: 54
    -1
    What were these captured tigers for re-melting, or how were our captured ones used?
  • Andrey77
    Andrey77 26 May 2013 12: 21
    -1
    How was Hitler's "menagerie" pacified?
    Maybe I should write an article about how the Stalinist "zoo" was pacified? About 41-42 years?
    1. Kolyma
      Kolyma 26 May 2013 14: 11
      0
      but what if I say "yes" then write something ?!
    2. Argon
      Argon 26 May 2013 15: 08
      -1
      Yes, actually in 41; 42g there were no problems of a qualitative solution to this issue (there was a quantitative one, they had enough tanks, we had little PTI means). But in the summer of 43g, the problems started qualitative; with weapons, the new German tanks simply was to destroy.
      1. Bigriver
        Bigriver 26 May 2013 15: 51
        +1
        Quote: Argon
        Yes, actually in 41; 42g there were no problems of a qualitative solution to this issue (there was a quantitative one, they had enough tanks, we did not have enough anti-tank equipment) ...

        Even if VET funds were sufficient, it would have little changed the picture in the 41st. Because, as a means, and most importantly, there was nowhere to take the experience of quickly shutting down breakthroughs from.
        We needed structural, organizational shifts. It was necessary to collect, rethink the experience of the war, completely change the views on the defense system of the division-regiment-battalion. Which was done by the end of the 42nd - the beginning of the 43rd.
        And it's not about the number of tanks in the Wehrmacht. It is necessary to consider combat-ready mobile connections.
        1. Argon
          Argon 26 May 2013 23: 30
          -1
          Dear BigRiver, well, you are retelling my words in the third derivative, it's not good, of course everything is like that, you only understood "Zisuh of the second" until the 45th.
          1. Bigriver
            Bigriver 27 May 2013 13: 56
            0
            Quote: Argon
            ... well, you are retelling my words in the third derivative, it's not good, of course everything is like that, you only comprehended "Zisuh of the second" until the 45th was always lacking.

            Well, this ..., you somehow formulate so that you can be understood accurately and not ambiguously. Figs knows what you mean by "quality solution"?
            If something hooked - please forgive.
            Zis-2 say not enough? Are you looking at annual production or is it a collective assessment of reviews from veterans?
            In the second half of the Second World War, thank God, ANY ammunition was already enough, this is IMHO the main thing. And the trunks were a great variety. What allowed to concentrate fire.
            Look at the outfit of artillery units and formations after July 44th on a kaku-thread of an attack or tank army going on a campaign :))
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 26 May 2013 18: 03
    +1
    A year ago I read a book of memoirs of the German commander "Tiger" (Unfortunately, I do not remember the details of the book :)). According to him, being a fairly young non-commissioned officer, he became a tank commander. Of course, there is a lot of bragging there, and several burned T-34 and KVs in one battle, etc. But what exactly happened was that after serious damage to his tank in battle, the repairmen dragged the car away for repairs and he, without changing the tank, fought on it for a long time, having received several iron crosses.
  • DRUG DRUG
    DRUG DRUG 26 May 2013 21: 10
    0
    "-" Tigers "," Panthers "? We will beat without asking the last name"
  • AlexMH
    AlexMH 26 May 2013 21: 13
    0
    http://русскоедвижение.рф/index.php/articles/military-equipment/54-military-equi
    pment / 9087 ----- qq

    Here is a report on the tests of the "Royal Tiger" in Kubinka for reference. Note that at the end of the war, some German crews did not want to transfer from their few remaining Tigers 1 to Tiger 2. It is clear from the report why :)
    1. Yemelya
      Yemelya 26 May 2013 22: 27
      0
      I'm here http://forum.topwar.ru/topic/28- to the best of his ability, dispelled some misconceptions about the "Tiger-B".
      1. Kars
        Kars 27 May 2013 08: 37
        +1
        Quote: Emelya
        http://forum.topwar.ru/topic/28

        And they didn’t say fairy tales, it’s a pity that after upgrading the site he doesn’t let the forum go.
        But I would be ashamed to remind you in your place.

        =========================================================== ===
        DLE + IPB3 v1.0.0
        -------------------------------------------------- ---
        http://kaliostro.net/
        -------------------------------------------------- ---
        Copyright (c) 2009-2011 kaliostro
        =========================================================== ===

        Zend Optimizer not installed

        This file was encoded by the Zend Guard. In order to run it, please install the Zend Optimizer (available without charge), version 3.3.0 or later.
  • Alf
    Alf 26 May 2013 22: 18
    0
    Quote: sevtrash
    The internal ballistics of the Soviet guns was not very good. The armor penetration of German, American guns is 75 mm higher than the Soviet 76 mm. A 88 mm German gun is generally a masterpiece. For tanks, especially taking into account the fight against the tank, a smaller caliber with the same armor penetration gives a larger stock of shells, less load for the loading crew, recoil, etc.

    Then why the odds on the next Panther 2 stuck 88, and not the beautiful KwK 42? Does she have a longer and heavier shell?
    1. sevtrash
      sevtrash 27 May 2013 09: 17
      0
      "Taking the Tiger II tank into service in the fall of 1943, the Ministry of Armaments and Ammunition issued an assignment to develop a new Panther II tank, with the condition of maximum unification of these two vehicles in terms of components."
      Actually, it was a question of the influence of internal ballistics on armor penetration, while the sufficiency of a smaller caliber than that of rivals.
      "When the 7.5 cm PaK 42 entered service in 1943, its lethality was better than that of most Soviet, American and British tank guns. [1] In this respect, it even surpassed the famous 8,8 cm KwK 36 mounted on a tank. "Tiger""
  • Alf
    Alf 26 May 2013 22: 23
    +1
    Quote: Igor KV-2
    The T-34-76 1940 was a light tank and the KV-2 was cooler!

    And with what fright did the T-34-76 become light with a mass of even the first sample of 26,5 tons? And how is the KV-2 cooler? In fact, the T-34 and KV-2 tanks of different classes and, accordingly, different purposes. Such a comparison, it’s the same as comparing the P-51 Mustang and the B-25 M Itcell.
  • mkpda
    mkpda 27 May 2013 10: 11
    +1
    "T-VIH" Tigr "on the Soviet-German front were massively used in July 1943 in the battle at the Kursk Bulge. 1 caliber barrel, with increased armor of the frontal parts of the hull to 1 mm, medium tank T-76,2/41,5 and T-105, which entered service in 34. "
    This phrase casts doubt on the author’s ownership of the topic. We have already paid attention to factual and logical errors, but since the author touched the T-28, I want to highlight this issue a little.
    By the time the T-VIH "Tiger" appeared on the Soviet-German front, the T-28s were in service with the remnants of 1 MK (there is no material at hand with the name of the unit at that time) near Murmansk and possibly in single samples in Leningrad. There was no Tiger near Murmansk, and there is no such information about the clash near Leningrad. The T-28, even with the L-10, could not hit the T-VIH "Tiger" (only damage the chassis or jam the turret with great luck), but on its base the experienced 85 mm (F-30) and 95 mm (F-39 ) tank guns, which "fit" into a standard turret (it was required to strengthen the shoulder strap). F-39 could really threaten the T-VIH "Tiger". One can only regret that such a successful type was abandoned (largely due to Kotin's personal ambitions) and did not go through the entire available path of modernization ...
  • Kovrovsky
    Kovrovsky 27 May 2013 15: 11
    0
    Quote: igor kv-2
    The T-34-76 1940 was a light tank and the KV-2 was cooler!

    The T-34 was a medium tank all its life! The KV-2 had completely different tasks, it was armed with a howitzer.
  • Kovrovsky
    Kovrovsky 27 May 2013 15: 24
    0
    Quote: Agent.
    As far as I know and the rate of fire of the IS-2 is 2 times inferior to the tiger, the tiger’s gun and sighting equipment were better. All the same, the Germans did good technique. The same American Shermans were forced to adopt similar tactics as our T-34s. Often the three fell upon one Tiger, one distracted, causing fire and often perished, and the other broke through to the rear or hit point blank. But the Germans were very smart with her, the tanks, especially the latter, were expensive, difficult to manufacture, repair. On the same Kursk arc of many Panthers, the engines just caught fire. At the end of the war, more royal tigers got stuck because they ran out of fuel and the Germans themselves blew them up. Our tankers sometimes received orders to bypass specific groups of Korov tigers, and when left without supplies they quickly went out of order.

    The ISa's rate of fire is lower due to the fact that a separate loading shot, besides, a decent mass of the projectile, a small volume of the fighting compartment obviously did not speed up the loading process! And the "Tiger" has a unitary projectile, like a similar "anti-aircraft gun".
  • Kovrovsky
    Kovrovsky 27 May 2013 17: 10
    0
    Artillery played the main role in the fight against German tanks. Especially the so-called "Pak-fronts" by the Germans.
  • polida
    polida 31 May 2013 02: 37
    0
    The main role was played by our Grandfathers
  • kamenval
    kamenval 20 June 2013 15: 31
    0
    The main thing is the RUSSIAN SPIRIT, and iron can be riveted as much as you like, and whatever you want. Many thanks to our GRADUATES for the VICTORY.
  • Alex
    Alex 20 August 2013 17: 09
    +2
    svp67
    but the very low rate of fire of this "artillery self-propelled gun" nullified many of its advantages in the fight against heavy tanks ...


    Self-propelled guns are not intended for tank duels. To do this, they have not only a low rate of fire, but their armor is disproportionate. ACS, according to the idea, is a means of strengthening tanks, from assistants in tank battles (especially heavy ones). So, to consider the SU-152 a panacea in the fight against the Tigers is at least reckless.
  • Oleg Kalugin
    Oleg Kalugin 3 August 2017 12: 17
    0
    For the article "+" - sik definitely!
    No doubt, the Tiger is an excellent car and their crews were professionals, which in the compartment yielded good results.
    But if these tanks were an order of magnitude larger, then their presence would complicate the life of the Red Army, but the result would be the same. And only because the quality of both tankers and spacecraft command reached a new level in three years! And 44 years old, was for the Wehrmacht the reckoning for our 1941.