Creator of the armored legend: Mikhail Ilyich Koshkin

71
Creator of the armored legend: Mikhail Ilyich Koshkin


To the birth of the most famous tank of all time T-34 its chief designer walked a very winding path

There are geniuses whose fate is similar to a Bickford fuse: from a certain moment they burn, without ceasing, until death stops them. Such were, for example, Mikhail Lomonosov or Alexander Suvorov. And there are geniuses whose life (if you continue the sapper association) is like a bomb. The only moment comes when the charge is triggered - and the roar of this explosion is carried for decades. Such people include, for example, the creator of a backpack parachute, Gleb Kotelnikov. And the creator of the most famous tank, for all history armored vehicles - the legendary T-34 - Koshkin Mikhail Ilyich.


Designer Mikhail Koshkin. Photo: wikipedia.org

Now, three quarters of a century after his death, there is a great temptation to find those turning points in the fate of the future T-34 designer, who predetermined his “tank” future. But no. The fact that Mikhail Koshkin took up tanks was the result of a long chain of coincidences. And this very chain is a classic example, as Arkady Gaidar wrote, “an ordinary biography in extraordinary time.”

The apprentice caramel shop

As far as the ordinary biography of Mikhail Koshkin is, it can be clearly seen from the history of his childhood. This is where nothing is outstanding! The typical history of the peasant family of Central Russia. Born 3 in December 1898 of the year in the village of Brynchagi, Yaroslavl Province, Misha Koshkin was the third child in a small land family - which, in fact, explains such a small number of children. His father, realizing that he could not feed everyone with his land, had to constantly disappear in the out-of-work fields: logging and construction. And one day he simply did not return home: he overstrained himself on a felling of the forest and died.

That year, Mikhail Koshkin was six years old. Four years later, he left his mother and two sisters, straining at the farm, at home and went to work in Moscow for work. The first place of work of the future designer was the Einem confectionery factory - the future factory "Red October". In 1908, a smart and executive teenager from Yaroslavl Province became an apprentice in a caramel shop. And almost all the money earned by hard work was sent to mothers and sisters - and thus literally saved them from starvation.

In the red-brick buildings on Bersenevskaya Embankment, Mikhail Koshkin worked for nine years, until his turn came to be drafted into the army: For the third year Russia participated in a world war. Koshkin pleased the service right on the eve of the February Revolution, and therefore did not fight long. I went to the Western Front, where I served all the time under the command of General Anton Denikin, was wounded in August, and mobilized at the end of the year.

But in the Red Army, the military career of the future tank designer was different. In 1918, Koshkin volunteered for service in the Red Army railway squad, fought at Tsaritsyn, then at Arkhangelsk, did not get to the Polish front because of typhoid, but he managed to go to the South, where he already served as a political commissar.

Party worker from Vyatka


Everything that happens with Mikhail Koshkin after the Civil War also fits into the concept of “ordinary biography in extraordinary time”. As an active political worker, in 1921, he goes to study at the Sverdlov Communist University: the Soviet government needs its own managerial personnel to replace those lost in troubled times. Moreover, ideologically correct cadres: it was not by chance that the university occupied the same complex of buildings on Miusskaya Square in Moscow, where then the Higher Party School of the CPSU was located until the very end of the USSR.

University graduates, as a rule, quickly finished work in production and transferred to the party organs. So it was with Koshkin: a confectionery factory heading to Vyatka in 1924 (it must be thought, the distribution took into account the nine-year experience of the party agitator at one of the best confectionery industries in Russia), after a year he goes to work as the head of the agitation and propaganda department in the district committee of the Communist Party . For four years, Koshkin made a good party career, reaching the post of head of the department of the provincial committee of the CPSU (b).


Koshkin (right) in Vyatka. Photo: wikipedia.org


And then his fate made another unexpected turn. By this time, Mikhail Koshkin managed to get acquainted with the most famous in Soviet Russia, Vyatich - Sergei Mironovich Kirov. And, as the designer’s daughter Elizabeth recalls, it was Kirov who, with his personal order, included Mikhail Ilyich among the "party members" - the communists mobilized to study in universities: the country that started the industrial breakthrough required new engineering personnel.

Apparently, precisely because the lists were approved by Kirov, Koshkin went to study at the newly opened Leningrad Machine-Building Institute, which arose on the basis of the machine-building faculties of the Polytechnic and Technological Institutes and was directly subordinate to the People's Commissariat of Heavy Industry. It is curious that Mikhail Koshkin was one of several hundred LMSI students who spent the entire time of study at the walls of this university. In the 1934 year, when Mikhail Ilyich had already been distributed to the former Putilov factory, the institute was incorporated into the Leningrad Industrial Institute - the re-established Polytech.

Student tank builder


Mikhail Koshkin, a student of the military-mechanical department of the Leningrad Machine-Building Institute, worked at the Gorky Automobile Plant, where at that time they began to create their own tanks. And on the pre-diploma practice I got into the development engineering machine-building department - OKMO-Leningrad Plant No. 174 named after K.Е. Voroshilov, created on the basis of the tank production plant "Bolshevik".

Confident, perfectly getting along with people, Koshkin liked the management of GAZ, and the plant clearly lacked its design personnel for tank production. It is not surprising that even before Mikhail Ilyich went to pre-diploma practice, a personal call was made to Koshkin from Gorky to the office of the People's Commissariat of Heavy Industry. But, apparently, he himself was well aware that he did not have enough knowledge for independent design work, and there was simply no one to get them at GAZ. And therefore, when the distribution commission reported on the Gorky “order” for Koshkin, he decided to seek an appointment to the OKMO.

Whose word can outweigh the request of the Gorky people addressed to one of the most penetrative commissars, Sergo Ordzhonikidze? Koshkin found such a person in the person of someone who had already turned his fate. With a request to leave him in Leningrad, Mikhail Ilyich turned to Sergei Kirov. And he respected the desire of his “godson”: the omnipotent leader of Leningrad, who had only a few months left, achieved that Koshkin was appointed to the place where he himself was asking. A few months later, already in 1935, the Leningrad Experimental Machine Building Plant No. 185, for which the future creator of the Thirty-Fours came to work, was given the name of the dead Kirov.

Leningrad graduate

It was here that Mikhail Koshkin, a graduate of the LMSI military-mechanical department, learned the basics of designing tanks. Among his immediate leaders were legendary tank designers, such as Semyon Ginzburg and Nikolai Barykov. And the fact that the design office of the plant number 185 was engaged mainly in medium tanks, and determined the future direction of his own work.

The first experience in the creation of medium tanks Mikhail Koshkin, who came to the position of designer, was obtained when the design bureau was developing the T-29 tank. Another legendary Soviet tank builder, the leading designer of the design bureau, Professor Nikolai Zeits, supervised the work in this area. And although the experimental medium tank built in five copies did not go into the series, the developments on it were used in the next project - the T-46-5 medium tank, also known as the T-111.

The basis for this armored vehicle was the light tank T-46, which was supposed to replace the well-proven, but no longer able to withstand the anti-tank artillery light tank T-26. When it became obvious from the experience of fighting in Spain that the battlefield of the coming war would belong to medium tanks, the design bureau of the 185 plant had been developing its own car with counter-booking for a year. And most importantly - and this was a fundamentally important aspect of the project! - without the possibility of driving only on wheels: Semyon Ginzburg and most of his subordinates have already appreciated the futility of the idea of ​​a wheeled-tracked tank. The designers understood well: a purely tracked vehicle is distinguished by a much larger stock of modernization, it can be equipped with much thicker armor, and its design is distinguished by greater adaptability and simplicity.

All these ideas were incorporated into the design of the T-46-5 from the very beginning of work on it, in which Mikhail Koshkin participated. But he couldn’t develop the new tank for a long time: at the end of 1936, he was able to go from an ordinary designer to the deputy head of the design bureau in just two years and transferred to the design bureau of the Kharkov Locomotive Plant, the main manufacturer of the wheeled-tracked tanks of the BT series. It was here, in Kharkov, that his finest hour was waiting for him, that same explosion, the echo of which is still audible.

Kharkov appointee


... 28 December 1936, the people's commissar of heavy industry Sergo Ordzhonikidze, signed an order by which Mikhail Ilyich Koshkin was appointed head of the tank design bureau of the plant No. 183 - the former Comintern Kharkov Locomotive Building Plant. In the CB itself, the newcomer, who arrived in the city in the first days of January, was viewed with doubt. An old party apparatchik, a recent university graduate, a man who managed to survive without arrest arrests and consequences in relation to several of his superiors at once ... In short, in Kharkov, Koshkin was taken wary. The situation was aggravated by the fact that the KB was seriously feverish. Former manager Afanasy Firsov, who paid for the unreliability of the gearbox of the new BT-7, has been removed from his post and works as a simple designer. The bureau itself is actually divided in half: while some engineers are developing new tanks, others spend days and nights in production to bring to mind already adopted weapons.

It is not surprising that first of all Mikhail Koshkin, whom Firsov himself instructed and brought up to date, decides to tackle the problems of the BT-7 on the conveyor. And pretty soon, with the help of lead designer Alexander Morozov and other colleagues, he manages to improve the reliability of the capricious BT transmission. And soon there is a solution for the problem of gluttony high-speed tank. Under the guidance of Koshkin, instead of a gasoline engine that has been depleted and requires a lot of fuel, the BT-7 engineers put the DB-2 “high-speed diesel” developed here. It is he who will soon receive the B-2 index and become the heart of the future T-34. He will be installed on the latest modification of high-speed tanks - BT-7M.

But neither the modernization of the BT-7 already in service, nor the design work on the creation of the next wheeled-tracked modification of the BT-9, was not a really exciting job for Mikhail Koshkin. Understanding perfectly well that the future belongs to tanks exclusively tracked, he was looking for an opportunity to prove his point in action. And such a chance presented himself to Mikhail Ilyich and his like-minded people from KB-24 in the fall of 1937. It was at this time that the Armored Directorate of the Red Army gave Kharkov citizens the task of developing a new BT-20 tank. The document, which envisaged the creation of a light tank with anti-missile booking, 45-mm cannon and inclined armor, was signed on October 13 1937. In fact, it is from this day that the fate of the T-34 tank can be counted.

Parent of the legendary tank


In the documents of the second half of the 1930-x development of each tank KB had a letter index. The first letter - A - was assigned to the products of Kharkov plant number 183. Therefore, the first prototype of a light wheeled / tracked tank, created as part of work on the BT-20, was called the A-20. At the same time, work began on the “initiative” project of a purely tracked vehicle, which eventually received first an A-20 (D) index, that is, a “caterpillar”, and later - A-32.

In February, 1939, both projects — and the ordered A-20, and the “smuggling” A-32 - were reviewed at a meeting of the Defense Committee in the Kremlin. The fact that there were two projects before the discussion, rather than one, was a great merit of the new plant manager No. 183, who came from the Kirov plant in Leningrad, Yuri Maksaryov, who arrived in Kharkov in October 1938. Despite the strongest pressure from the military, and above all, Deputy Commissar of Defense Marshal Kulik, personally presenting the projects, Mikhail Koshkin managed to insist that the factory be commissioned to make prototypes of both machines. As far as we know, such a decision was made only after the designer was supported by Stalin himself, by that time not so unequivocally as before, who looked at the prospects of wheeled-tracked vehicles.

Competition tanks passed tests in the second half of the summer of 1939, and were appreciated by the state commission. However, the commission members did not dare to give preference to this or that tank. Apparently, the cause of indecision was not so much the tactical and technical data of the tested samples (the tracked tank clearly proved its advantages), as purely political motives. After all, to give preference to one of the options meant to enter into conflict either with the leadership of the Red Army or with the leadership of the CPSU (b), which no one clearly wanted. So everyone decided the troop tests, on which the military clearly liked the purely tracked A-32.

The final decision on the fate of the new tank was made in December 1939. December 19 The Committee of Defense under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR adopts Resolution No. 443ss. This document decides to adopt the Red Army 11 new models of tanks, armored vehicles and tractors. The first item in the resolution is the Leningrad KV tank, the second is the T-32 tank "tracked, with a B-2 diesel engine, manufactured by plant No. 183 Narkomsredmash". The same document prescribed the following changes to the tank design: “a) increase the thickness of the main armor plates to 45 mm; b) improve visibility from the tank; c) install the following armament on the T-32: 1) F-32 76 mm cannon, coupled with a machine gun of the 7,62 caliber mm; 2) separate machine gun caliber 7,62 mm radio operator; 3) separate machine gun caliber 7,62 mm; 4) anti-aircraft machine gun caliber 7,62 mm. Assign the name of the specified tank "T-34".


Pre-war tanks produced by plant number 183. From left to right: А-8 (БТ-7М), А-20, Т-34 of model 1940 with a gun Л-11, Т-34 of model 1941 with a gun Ф-34. Photo: wikipedia.org

And the third point was "BT tank - with a diesel engine B-2, manufactured by plant number 183 Narkomsredmash." Moreover, the fate of this tank - the first created by the factory design bureau under the leadership of Mikhail Koshkin! - was put in direct dependence on the production of T-34. Because in the same resolution, plant No. 183 was instructed: “a) to organize the production of T-34 tanks at Kharkov Plant No. 183. Comintern; b) produce an 2 prototype prototype of T-34 tanks for 15 in January 1940 of the year and an installation batch in the number of 10 units for 15 of September in 1940 of the year; c) to release at least 1940 T-200 tanks in 34; d) to bring the capacity of plant No. 183 for the production of T-34 tanks on 1 in January of 1941 to 1600 units; e) until the full development of the serial production of T-34 tanks, to produce a BT tank from 1 in December of the year with the B-1939 diesel engine installed on it; e) to produce at the factory number 2 in 183, at least 1940 BT tanks with a diesel engine B-1000; g) In 2, discontinue the BT tank with a B-1942 diesel engine, replacing it completely with the T-2 ... ”.

Immortal constructor


Two prototypes of the T-34 tank were required for troop testing. And if not by mid-January, but by February 10 the tanks were ready and handed over to the military, who confirmed: the novelties fully justify the hopes placed on them. A month later, the same two cars under their own power went from Kharkov to Moscow to participate in the demonstration of samples of new equipment, adopted by the most famous decree.

This stage, during which Mikhail Koshkin himself spent a lot of time on the levers of new products, has long become a legend. The same as the words of Stalin, who allegedly after the demonstration of T-34 in the Kremlin called him either “the first swallow” or simply “swallow” ... But what was definitely not a legend was the most severe pneumonia with which Koshkin returned back to Kharkov from this run. It was she who brought the thirty-four creator to the grave. Neither emergency surgery to remove the lung, which was performed by surgeons who came from Moscow, did not save, nor intensive treatment: 26 of September 1940 of the year of Mikhail Ilyich Koshkin did not.

At the funeral behind the coffin of the chief designer of the design bureau of plant number 183, as the eyewitnesses later recalled, the whole team went. For four years, Koshkin managed to love everything: direct subordinates, masters, and simple workers. And no one that day knew that they were not just burying the designer of a tank — they were burying the man who created the most famous car of the Second World War.

After less than a year, T-34 was baptized in combat, and five years later it became the main symbol of victory in World War II. And they forever immortalized the name of their creator, which, however, was far from immediately widely known. The Stalin Prize for the creation of T-34 Mikhail Koshkin was awarded posthumously only in 1942 year. And half a century after his death, in 1990, he was awarded the highest labor award - he was awarded the title Hero of Socialist Labor.


T-34 in Berlin, May 1945. Late 1944 production vehicle. Photo: waralbum.ru

By this time, there was not even the grave of the famous designer in Kharkov. The Germans destroyed it during the occupation - apparently, quite deliberately: not being able to revenge Koshkin himself, they destroyed the memory of him. But the "thirty-four" avenged their creator and immortalized his name. After all, this winning tank is more often than any other found on pedestals of many monuments to the heroes of the Great Patriotic War. And each of them is a monument not only to the fallen heroes, but also to the person who created the tank legend, the most massive and most famous in the history of world tank building.
71 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    2 August 2015 05: 32
    Tank soldier, you can’t say a little about him
    Totally not say great songarticle +!
    1. +2
      2 August 2015 18: 23
      Indeed, it is this winning tank that is most often found on the pedestals of many monuments to the heroes of the Great Patriotic War. And each of them is a monument not only to the fallen heroes, but also to the person who created the legend tank

      Tank T-34-85 - a monument to M. Koshkin and the tankers of the Great Patriotic War in Pereslavl-Zalessky
      (cry)
      1. The comment was deleted.
  2. -14
    2 August 2015 06: 00
    Here, the legendary tank. More legends than truths.
  3. -3
    2 August 2015 07: 13
    Another murzilka.
    A complete set of gossip. And the "contraband T-32" (for some reason they are especially fond of this kind of "contraband", completely forgetting that it simply could not exist in those days, it was called "Wrecking", and for this they were sometimes shot), which was actually developed according to the task of ABTU to replace the T-26.
    Yes, yes, "Koshkin's brilliant creation" was not contraband, but made (converted from A-20) on the instructions of ABTU. And he lost the wheel drive because the purpose of the machine was changing (the "success development" tank became the "infantry escort" tank), and she no longer needed a wheel drive. For the same reason, the caliber of the gun and the thickness of the armor were increased. All this was done on the instructions and according to the plans of ABTU.
    At the same time in Leningrad the already tested T-126SP (infantry escort tank) was rejected. An absolutely correct decision, a frankly outdated TTZ was issued for him. Instead, an "object 135" was created, which was then transformed into a T-50 (a "success development" tank). The Leningrad transformation was of exactly the opposite nature. There the infantry escort tank turned into a success development tank. In other words, there was a castling, the A-20 was replaced by the T-50. Who gave such an order to Leningrad, also Koshkin?
    The A-20 itself (BT-20) was converted by Dick from a BT-7 with a V-2 engine (BT-7M or BT-8). This tank (BT-7M) was created (began to be created) by Firsov, Chelpan and Bondarenko (plant director). But during the years of repression they were all imprisoned. And some, it seems, were shot because their fate is unknown. Therefore, the "authors" were appointed others. Moreover, Koshkin didn’t even work on the completely raw T-34, because in 1940 has died.
    The question arises, and what really "created Koshkin"? I put the L-20 cannon into the tower of the Dikovsky A-11 on the instructions of ABTU (it was extremely unsuccessful, there was clearly not enough space for it, a more or less suitable tower appeared only in 1942), removed the wheel drive (also on the instructions of ABTU) and slightly thickened armor (and also on the instructions of ABTU), is it called "created a tank"? So I recently also "created an autobomb". He unscrewed the factory wheels, and screwed on the Chinese ones, with a higher profile. Probably, I will declare myself a brilliant designer. There is every reason. And the traffic police will most likely declare me a contraband.
    In fact, the T-34 was a bullshit tank. Even for the USSR. Just a slightly redone light tank with a medium caliber gun. In the USSR in those days there was a really good KV-1 Kotin tank. But it was a little expensive. Moreover, he did not graduate there, Leningrad quickly got into the environment. But Stalingrad (STZ, one of the factories for the production of T-34), no. Yes, and Kharkov surrendered later encirclement of Leningrad. Therefore, the choice was made in favor of the T-34. But this is really very sorry.
    Well, since there was a Soviet tank, then it was "brilliant and unsurpassed." After all, the USSR did not produce other weapons. Only that. They told themselves fairy tales, and believed in them. There was no one else.
    1. +6
      2 August 2015 08: 17
      The T-34 was the best tank of its time. And he still serves in the armies of the Papuans. To develop success, the best tank for the entire war was not invented. The Germans did not produce success tanks in the required quantities, therefore, even with a breakthrough of the defense, they did not shine. Although for the whole war I do not remember the breakthrough of defense and the Germans entering the operational space. Comparing German tanks with tanks of the Soviet Union is generally stupid. Since the concept of tank forces allows an oncoming tank battle in a pinch. Basically, hacking the defense and seizing territories in the operational space, where you will not find heavy weapons. And for these purposes, the T-34 was ideal.
      1. -7
        2 August 2015 08: 48
        Quote: bogdan4ik
        The T-34 was the best tank of its time.

        Of course. At the USSR in 1942 There were simply no other tanks then. Or he, or T-60 (70). The choice was extremely not rich.
        Quote: bogdan4ik
        To develop success, the best tank for the entire war was not invented. The Germans did not produce success tanks in the required quantities, therefore, even with a breakthrough of the defense, they did not shine. Although for the whole war I do not remember the breakthrough of defense and the Germans entering the operational space.

        Really. Summer 1941 and 1942, it doesn’t seem to be telling you anything at all.
        Quote: bogdan4ik
        Comparing German tanks with tanks of the Soviet Union is generally stupid. Since the concept of tank forces allows an oncoming tank battle in a pinch.

        Well yes. "Tales of Grandmother Arina". It’s you who tell us quite well the pre-war views on tank troops. True, they later did not pass the test of the war. But these are "little things".
        But nothing that since 1944. T-34/85 became the main anti-tank weapon of the Red Army? Just because there was nothing more to destroy German tanks. That was not in the Red Army normal VET gun throughout the war. Not created. Failed.
        Quote: bogdan4ik
        Basically, hacking the defense and seizing territories in the operational space, where you will not find heavy weapons. And for these purposes, the T-34 was ideal.

        You read about the guaranteed mileage of the T-34. Especially in the beginning. Then you will understand. And about the "capture". And about "perfect".
        1. +4
          2 August 2015 12: 55
          Quote: top1
          The USSR in 1942 There were simply no other tanks then. Either he or the T-60 (70). The choice was extremely poor.

          Err, young man. Isn't that a brand like KV?
          1. -3
            2 August 2015 13: 09
            Do you communicate more politely, Denis. I’m fit for your grandfathers, I guess. And look at the release of these same KV-1 and KV-1s during the war years. Rummage in the literature.
            1. +5
              2 August 2015 14: 50
              Quote: top1
              And learn about the release of these same KV-1 and KV-1s during the war years. Dig into literature.

              Well, I don’t know such a liter that convinces that they were not there!
              There is a contradiction to myself that there is a liter
              Quote: top1
              In the USSR in those days there was a really good KV-1 Kotin tank.

              This author is not familiar?
              Zinovy ​​Kolobanov not far from here a Nazi column on an imported Sherman or an M-10 thugs?
              And KV-2 was not designed to break through the Mannerheim line, but invented my inflamed brain?
              The word is not a sparrow
              1. -5
                2 August 2015 16: 04
                Quote: Denis
                Well, I don’t know such a liter that convinces that they were not there!

                What do you mean was not? There were. But are you able to compare the scale of the release? And to conclude that in fact the mass tanks to Kursk were t-34 and T-60 (70). Everything else was small-scale. And there’s no point in discussing it.
                By the way, you also forgot the KV-1s. It was also such a small-scale product. It was different from the KV-1, if you don't know.
                Quote: Denis
                This author is not familiar? And KV-2 was not designed to break through Mannerheim’s lines, but invented my inflamed brain?

                Was this also a good tank? And where does the Mannerheim line?
                Quote: Denis
                Zinovy ​​Kolobanov not far from here a Nazi column on an imported Sherman or an M-10 thugs?

                Actually on the KV-1. Learn all the same materiel.
                1. +1
                  2 August 2015 21: 29
                  Quote: top1
                  Learn all the same materiel.

                  And punctuation marks too
                  Then KV-85, BT series, T-26, T-28 and T-35 to the heap
              2. The comment was deleted.
        2. +3
          2 August 2015 14: 22
          Quote: top1
          That was not in the Red Army normal VET gun throughout the war. Not created. Failed.

          You seem to have a "clouding" in your consciousness. So we had 57 mm anti-tank guns, 100-mm anti-tank vehicles from Grabin?
          and what could the Germans boast of?
          1. +2
            2 August 2015 14: 41
            ZIS-2 was discontinued due to excessive armor penetration, then the truth was returned when a tiger with a panther appeared in the Wehrmacht, 100mm appeared only at the end of the war and did not play a significant role. The main gun of the anti-tank defense was as it was and remained 45mm.
            1. -2
              2 August 2015 16: 32
              Quote: Nehist
              ZIS-2 was discontinued due to excessive armor penetration

              Do not repeat "red propaganda". ZIS-2 mod. 1941 could not put into production due to its inconsistency with the production capacities of the USSR. Before the war in the USSR there was only one plant (in Podlipki, bought in Germany at the very end of the 20s), which could drill trunks with a rifled part deeper than 100 inches. But he was not distracted by another firing anti-aircraft guns 52-K.
              Quote: Nehist
              then the truth was returned when a tiger with a panther appeared in the Wehrmacht

              ZIS-2 arr. 1943 were able to put into production at the end of 1943. on a machine park supplied under Lend-Lease.
              Quote: Nehist
              The main gun of the anti-tank defense was as it was and remained 45mm.

              ZIS-3. All the way, the main weapon of the Red Army anti-tank equipment was the "divisional" ZIS-3. The age of forty-five (converted by the Germans by order of the USSR at the very end of the 20s for the French naval gunpowder Hotchkiss model 1896 on a German field machine) ended in the late 30s. Then there was only torment.
              1. +2
                2 August 2015 17: 25
                Although he wrote something correctly, not everything is still lost)
                To this it is worth adding shells, such as a 45-mm, alteration from a 47-mm naval gun to a Hotchkiss cannon, and 76,2-mm, from the French Canon de 75 mle 1897 - a 75-mm field gun mod. 1897, which for the Russian army were recalibrated to the Russian standard. This was the trouble of our artillery. Millions of such shells have been stored in warehouses since the time of the Russo-Japanese War.
                The Germans, capturing thousands of 76,2 mm F-22 and F-22 USV, converted them into anti-tank tanks by boring a breech under the sleeve of their 75 mm shell. Especially for these guns, the Germans produced special shells with their shells. As a result, the power of the gun almost tripled.
              2. 0
                2 August 2015 20: 02
                Quote: top1
                Do not repeat "red propaganda". ZIS-2 mod. 1941 could not put into production because of its inconsistency with the production capacity of the USSR.


                Yes Yes...
                In 1943, on the Kursk Bulge, the Central Front had 4 anti-tank regiments with ZIS-2, which during the defensive phase of the battle used up 11,5 thousand rounds
                As of January 1, 1944, there were about 1700 guns of this type, about 2300 guns were delivered to the troops during the year, losses for the year amounted to about 1100 guns [29], 460,3 thousand 57-mm shells were consumed during this period [30] .

                In 1945, the ZIS-2 was used most intensively. In January - May 1945, the troops received about 800 ZIS-2, losses amounted to about 500 guns [29], 580,1 thousand 57-mm shells were used up [30]. 57-mm guns took an active part in the battles near Lake Balaton in Hungary, where German troops massively used armored vehicles, and, together with other types of anti-tank guns, played a major role in the destruction of enemy tanks and self-propelled guns.

                Of course, this is not a scale for the USSR, but nevertheless, our enemy did not produce anti-tank guns in larger quantities ...
              3. 0
                3 August 2015 00: 02
                ZIS-3 as a VET is a forced measure, divisional artillery was not intended to fight tanks at all, it was further modified as a VET weapon as a VET weapon only in vertical aiming angles
            2. +1
              2 August 2015 17: 10
              No, the ZiS-1942 has become the main weapon of the anti-tank system since 3, the corresponding sight was mounted on such guns, a completely different sight was mounted on the guns for the role of regiment. Since 1942, they also went to the M-42 anti-tank missile, a long-barrel 45-mm anti-tank gun, but they cannot be compared in terms of production scale. In 1943, the production of the ZiS-2 57-mm PTO was resumed, but on the ZiS-3 carriage. In 1944, the PTO BS-3 100 mm went
          2. -2
            2 August 2015 16: 51
            Quote: svp67
            So we have 57 mm anti-tank guns, 100 mm anti-tank guns Grabin missing?

            In 1941? Of course they were absent. At the end of 1943, when the ZIS-2 arr. 1943 were able to put into production, she already did little to break through. The level of German technology has gone far ahead. I did, but bring me closer. If it was not discovered and destroyed before. And it was not easy to achieve this, the "curbstone" was rather big.
            100 mm BS-3, this is a marine B-34 on a field carriage. Very controversial gun. The mass in the fighting position of 3650 kg. Like an anti-aircraft gun. Is that normal in your opinion?
            Quote: svp67
            and what could the Germans boast of?

            Many of them. They could boast that their gunners had the ability to hit Soviet tanks from afar, from safe distances. The entire war, except for its very initial period. But even there, the Germans cleverly got out, quickly adopted temporary Pak 97/38. Based on her "motives" Grabin later made the ZIS-3. In fact, also anti-tank, but under the brand name "divisional".
          3. The comment was deleted.
        3. +3
          2 August 2015 15: 28
          But nothing that since 1944. T-34/85 became the main anti-tank weapon of the Red Army? Just because there was nothing more to destroy German tanks. That was not in the Red Army normal VET gun throughout the war. Not created. Failed.

          For those who are especially obstinate, I want to remind you that since 1944 the main anti-tank weapons have become the self-propelled guns SU-100 and the anti-tank gun BS-3.
          Go to the forum "Everything obor.rat", you will be received there with a bang. You don't belong here...
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. +2
              2 August 2015 19: 49
              Quote: top1
              Look at the numbers of their release. These "main anti-tank weapons".

              Yes, what can you say ... Well, it's really bad. And that we didn’t have, and even that was bad for us. How was the enemy defeated?

              I hope we had enough of these 2,5 kg of "stuff"?
    2. +2
      2 August 2015 08: 39
      Not every tank of that time had frontal armor of 90 mm (45 + tilt angle), even heavy.
      1. 0
        2 August 2015 08: 54
        Quote: cth; fyn
        Not every tank of that time had frontal armor of 90 mm (45 + tilt angle), even heavy.

        Have you at least read something on this subject, or something. Where does 90 mm come from? This is not arithmetic. Read about normalizing a shell on an armor. Read about the armor break. About homogeneous and heterogeneous armor.
        In the end, read about the front beam. Here is the photo in the article. The front beam is pierced by a shell. The crew is likely a kayuk. 90 mm, damn it.
        1. +2
          2 August 2015 10: 40
          Quote: top1
          You at least read something ..... in the end read ....

          This is not about you?
          “Excuse me,” he exclaimed with youthful importunity, “but there are no Lauren-Dietrichs in the race! I read in the newspaper that there are two Packards, two Fiats and one Studebaker.
          - Go to hell with your Studebaker! shouted Ostap. - Who is Studebaker? Is this your Studebaker relative? .....
          The young man had long been pushed aside by the stewards, while Ostap waved his arms for a long time and muttered:
          - Connoisseurs! It is necessary to kill such experts! Give him a Studebaker!

          Nothing personal, classic
          1. -2
            2 August 2015 10: 59
            I do not understand your "sarcasm". Do you also think that 45 mm of armor at an angle of 30 degrees is 90 mm? Have you read anything on this topic either?
            That's right, no need. when you read less, it seems that you know more. Here is the "Golden Calf", it's possible. And fun, too.
            1. 0
              2 August 2015 15: 33
              "Grandpa" - 45mm at an angle of 45 degrees, "where is 30, Zin?"
              P.S. Tyapni (those) "sotochku" and on Censor.net, they love such people there.
              1. 0
                2 August 2015 17: 55
                Quote: REZMovec
                "Grandpa" - 45mm at an angle of 45 degrees, "where is 30, Zin?"

                Granddaughter, when you start to learn geometry at school, you will understand.
                Quote: REZMovec
                P.S. Tyapni (those) "sotochku" and on Censor.net, there they like

                I already see what you have already pulled.
            2. +2
              2 August 2015 16: 15
              Quote: top1
              I do not understand your "sarcasm". Do you think too ...

              I don’t think, I know that the T-34 on the bridge of Berlin was rejected. And I consider you a chatterbox, having read articles from Wikipedia. And at the expense of the parades (this is from another comment), yes I love this thing, I remember the parades with thirty-four, the last day was. I don’t remember the parades with Panzerkampfwagen VI (III, IV, v). They burned them, or captured. With crews ....
              1. -4
                2 August 2015 17: 01
                Quote: colonel
                I know that the T-34 on the bridge of Berlin rejected

                And if he was of a normal design, he would not "otklatsya"?
                Quote: colonel
                And I consider you a chatterbox, having read articles from Wikipedia

                Should I be upset?
                Quote: colonel
                I don’t remember the parades with Panzerkampfwagen VI (III, IV, v)

                Are you upset?
                Quote: colonel
                They burned them, or captured. With crews ....

                Only them?
      2. The comment was deleted.
    3. +3
      2 August 2015 10: 34
      Do you take on a lot of responsibility? simple and reliable in operation, maintainability and, accordingly, in production. And as you yourself know everything ingenious is simple. And there is nothing to rush heard or read in a vague edition. Our people, and they are trying to omit all of Russia. And you there too with your statements and sayings. Not ashamed? Or are you a mishandled Cossack from behind a hill?
      1. -7
        2 August 2015 11: 06
        Quote: v.nosov100
        simple and reliable in operation, maintainability and, accordingly, in production

        Well, about insecurity, there's nothing to argue about here. Unreliable.
        As for the constantly mentioned maintainability, it would be reliable, it would not be necessary to constantly repair. And maintainability would not come in handy.
        Quote: v.nosov100
        Our people, and they are trying to omit all of Russia.

        Enemies around? Somewhere I heard it before. The Bolsheviks, if not mistaken. Are you not one of them?
        Quote: v.nosov100
        Or are you a mishandled Cossack from behind a hill?

        But what about! Not only enemies around, but also spies. Pests. So teeming and harming. I already thought all such individuals died out. But no. How old are you, dear?
        1. 0
          2 August 2015 15: 36
          Liberal-shitty ruler and hated commune. "Dedok", isn't it time to go to Nikanor, you've been delayed here somehow. Comrade Stalin's flaw ...
          1. 0
            2 August 2015 17: 56
            Quote: REZMovec
            Liberal-dermocratic prvdorub and commune-independent.

            Get well.
        2. 0
          2 August 2015 22: 57
          Quote: top1
          would be reliable, would not have to be constantly repaired.

          Where does such obstinacy in breakdowns come from? Do you need to repair anything else?
          Sometimes they shot at war, for those who don’t know
          And then they started talking about breakdowns
    4. +3
      2 August 2015 10: 34
      Talk nonsense.
      There are such indicators as manufacturability, maintainability, low cost .... according to them, the T 34 was an unsurpassed machine.
      In the 40th, the T-34 exceeded many cars in terms of such indicators as armoring and weapons.
      Of course, the engine was deficient, optics and radio equipment left much to be desired ... But a good spoon for dinner, the T-34 went into production, it was created on time. And finalized on the go, already being in production.
      The Americans in the late 30s didn’t have any tanks at all, and their best Sherman tank, created three years later, had clear signs of the influence of the thirty-four. Could the Americans afford to create and produce a more sophisticated and expensive car? Probably they could. But they went along the production path of Sherman, which, like the thirty-four, was mass-built at any automobile plant, using auto parts.
      The Germans, having created their tank masterpieces, could not establish mass production.
      1. -11
        2 August 2015 11: 14
        Again, this maintainability. Have you ever wondered why he needed this maintainability?
        Quote: Cap.Morgan
        In the 40th, the T-34 exceeded many cars in terms of such indicators as armoring and weapons.

        What was or was not in the 40th is of little interest to us.
        Quote: Cap.Morgan
        Of course, the engine was deficient, optics and radio equipment left much to be desired ... But a good spoon for dinner, the T-34 went into production, it was created on time. And finalized on the go, already being in production.

        But what, immediately normal tank could not be done? Did you have to redo the light tank? And then with his platform tormented the whole war? What prevented you from immediately making a normal product?
        Quote: Cap.Morgan
        The Americans in the late 30s didn’t have any tanks at all, and their best Sherman tank, created three years later, had clear signs of the influence of the thirty-four.

        In which place? Why are you fantasizing?
        Quote: Cap.Morgan
        But they went along the production path of Sherman, which, like the thirty-four, was mass-built at any automobile plant, using auto parts.

        Did not know. I did not know that the conveyor method of production of G. Ford's products (in fact, he mainly became famous for it) was invented in the USSR at the KhPZ.
        Quote: Cap.Morgan
        The Germans, having created their tank masterpieces, could not establish mass production.

        Yeah. I understood. So, you are not aware of German problems with fuel and alloying additives. That’s why such strange conclusions.
        1. 0
          2 August 2015 15: 40
          "Grandfather", you contradict yourself, and when there is nothing to say - What was or was not in the 40th is of little interest to us.
          1. -1
            2 August 2015 17: 58
            Quote: REZMovec
            and when there is nothing to say - What was or was not in the 40th is of little interest to us.

            Learn the story, undergrowth. The war began in 1941, a little later.
        2. +1
          2 August 2015 18: 57
          But what, it was impossible to make a normal tank right away? ... What prevented you from immediately making a normal product?


          The absence of a full-time psychic in the development team. The T-44, in the platform of which the appearance of MBT was laid for at least 60 years in advance, came out of recommendations for improving the design of the T-34. And for this, the design of the T-34 had to be tested. They tested, threw comments, but there was no time to correct them - the volume of OCD was too large, and the air smelled like a big war. And when the OCD was conducted, it turned out that it was easier to end the war with the T-34-85 than to re-arrange the conveyors.
          By the way, the T-34 abusers, rightly noting the shortcomings of its design, do not see the highest technological effectiveness of its production point-blank.
          1. -2
            2 August 2015 19: 15
            Quote: Assistant
            The absence in the development team of full-time psychic

            Give up. The torsion bar suspension was on the KV and T-50. And only on the T-34 it miraculously was not. Is this also due to the lack of psychics?
            A three-man turret with a 76 mm cannon fit perfectly on the KV-1. And on the T-34 with the same cannon, the tower was miraculously double? Why is the psychic to blame? No, they just didn't want to make a new tower. A 45 mm cannon was put into the old 76 mm cannon. And good. And it will do. And so the whole T-34, it was all built on the principle of "so it will come down." And it was necessary to make a quality product. And beat the hands of those who dragged the T-34 into production.
            Quote: Assistant
            And for this, the design of the T-34 needed to be tested

            He was well tested in state trials. Read the list of claims. Of course, the tank was not accepted for production. But there were pushers and pushed through. Then I had to pay for it with blood.
            Quote: Assistant
            They tested, threw comments, but there was no time to correct them - the volume of OCD was too large, and the air smelled like a big war.

            Oh well. I recognize the Council of Deputies. We make a five-year plan in three years, and then for another 10 years we eliminate the shortcomings and imperfections of "done ahead of schedule." This is the wrong approach. The correct approach is to make a five-year plan in 5 years, but efficiently.
            Quote: Assistant
            And when the R&D was carried out, it turned out that it was easier to end the war with the T-34-85 than to readjust the conveyors

            You do not write to me in "smart words". I know for sure that no one was going to change the T-34 during the war. And if not for the Battle of Kursk, no T-34/85 would have appeared. Not changing anything while increasing output, this is the main principle of the leadership of the USSR.
            Quote: Assistant
            By the way, the T-34 abusers, rightly noting the shortcomings of its design, do not see the highest technological effectiveness of its production point-blank.

            And I can't see. And I do not see the "advantages of the design". A five-seat tower with a powerful cannon, as it was already in the KV-1 at the very beginning of the war. For that time, the F-32 and ZIS-5 were no less powerful than the C-53 in 1944. But in January 1942. “wise Stalin” made a strategic mistake, instead of the KV-1, he chose the T-34 as the main tank. And then for another 3 years, Soviet tank crews paid for it with their lives. Ah, yes Stalin, ah, yes "well done."
            1. +1
              3 August 2015 01: 33
              But in January 1942. “wise Stalin” made a strategic mistake, instead of the KV-1, he chose the T-34 as the main tank.


              But nothing that the T-34 is exactly 2 times cheaper than the KV-1? At actual prices in 1941, HF cost from 523 to 635 thousand rubles. apiece, and the T-34 - from 269,5 to 325. So it was possible, of course, to make the KV-1 the main tank. But they would be 2 times less.
              And by the way, one of the WWII member countries in the second half did just that: concentrated its efforts on the production of heavy expensive tanks, to the detriment of medium, cheaper, technologically advanced and mobile ones. Do not tell me what this country was called?


              TsAMO, fund 38, inventory 11355, case No. 634, p. 79.

              Oh well. I recognize the Council of Deputies. We make a five-year plan in three years, and then for another 10 years we eliminate the shortcomings and imperfections of "done ahead of schedule." This is the wrong approach. The correct approach is to make a five-year plan in 5 years, but efficiently.


              Of course wrong. But only 5 years to complete the tank was not. The war in the most favorable case for the USSR was expected in 1943, in other cases even earlier. So the choice was not between good and bad tanks, but between the presence in the troops of the main battle tank and its absence. With all due respect to the design of the HF, due to its high cost, its production was permissible in peacetime, but not in war.
        3. 0
          2 August 2015 23: 00
          Quote: top1
          why did he need this maintainability?

          In order to restore the damaged one. Has it occurred to me?
      2. The comment was deleted.
    5. +3
      2 August 2015 12: 53
      Quote: top1
      And he lost the wheel drive because the purpose of the machine was changing (the "success development" tank became the "infantry escort" tank), she no longer needed a wheel drive

      The wheel drive wasn’t from a fun life. The resource at the tracks was extremely small and they tried not to spend it on the march. As soon as they could make the corresponding tracks, the wheeled tanks were a thing of the past
      In fact, the T-34 was a bullshit tank. Even for the USSR.
      Why "even," a panzerwaffe fan?
      And what about the ease of repair and maintenance, which of Pz. , Pz.Bef.Wg. or DW. so marked?
      How many % of cars could be repaired in the frontline (and this is without sending them to the rear to the factory!) lane?
      Our tank repair company moved at the tail of the columns of regiments and brigades of the corps, helping crews eliminate the problems that arose on the machines and, if necessary, repair them.
      Everything is similar to AK, many samples surpass it in some indicators, but surpasses AK in a set of indicators
      1. -7
        2 August 2015 13: 17
        Quote: Denis
        The wheel drive wasn’t from a fun life. The resource at the tracks was extremely small and they tried not to spend it on the march. As soon as they could make the corresponding tracks, the wheeled tanks were a thing of the past

        PPC. Why are you writing comments? Are you just training your fingers? Do you understand the purpose of the infantry escort tank?
        Quote: Denis
        And what about the ease of repair and maintenance, which of Pz. , Pz.Bef.Wg. or DW. so marked?

        Cool. In addition to "good maintainability" no one can remember anything good. And already on this factor an original conclusion is made that the T-34 is the best tank.
        Or not enough knowledge? Rather like the last.
        Quote: Denis
        Everything is similar to AK, many samples surpass it in some indicators, but surpasses AK in a set of indicators

        What is superior? Slingshot or PPSh? However, the latter left not far from the first. What, and even the MP-40 is superior? Of course, superior. After all, the MP-40 is a submachine gun. And with normal weapons, not ersatz, have you tried to compare it?
        PS Denis. AK is of two types. These are completely different things between us. What are you talking about?
        1. 0
          2 August 2015 14: 54
          Quote: top1
          AK is of two types. These are completely different things between us. What are you talking about?

          About the good old AKM and maybe C

          However, the discussion is useless due to the lack of arguments. The story of comics and Discovery "is not taught. Which, however, is the same
          1. -2
            2 August 2015 15: 58
            Quote: Denis
            About the good old AKM and maybe C

            Darling, AK is of two types. AK (it is also called AK-47) and AK-74. Everything else is a subspecies of these two species. This is really a completely different weapon. Learn the materiel.
        2. The comment was deleted.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    6. +1
      2 August 2015 14: 19
      Quote: top1
      In fact, the T-34 was a bullshit tank

      Well, you said stupidity, otherwise you can’t name it ...
      1. -3
        2 August 2015 14: 47
        In fact, 34 had a lot of complaints before the age of 43, plus it was cheaper, you know that it was easier to make a new one than to repair it? And you about maintainability ...
        1. -2
          2 August 2015 17: 31
          Who sang this to you? Repairs are different. Even major repairs of equipment, without modernization, are cheaper than new. Now, if the repair with a significant modernization, then we can agree.
      2. -1
        2 August 2015 16: 41
        Quote: svp67
        Well, you also said stupidity, otherwise you can’t name it ..

        I don't have that habit. Just because he was the only one doesn't automatically mean he was good.
      3. The comment was deleted.
    7. +2
      2 August 2015 15: 23
      Top1, you, my friend, what will you be - red or white?
      What are you talking about? You are aware of this - comparing the T-34, a mobile, fairly well-armored vehicle with powerful weapons, and a heavy KV-1, clumsy, and therefore slower, with a weaker weapon and "no" transmission, the gearbox of which was "switched on" when help the sledgehammer "assistant driver", he is a radio operator? Yes, Soviet tanks were simple, not as comfortable as their competitors. This is the genius of Koshkin and his team - a massive, "no problems" and cheap tank, which could be assembled by women and teenagers. Yes, for one destroyed German "Tiger" or "Panther" there are 3-5 destroyed T-34s, but the latter could be restored by the forces of divisional PARMs and even regimental remroths. What could not be done with the "beasts" ...
      P.S. Scalp sitting exactly on the train, knocking on the keyboard is easy. What have you done in life yourself?
      1. -2
        2 August 2015 17: 30
        Quote: REZMovec
        You, my friend, what will you be - red or white?

        For the whites, my friend, for the whites. Those. for the Russians, if it's completely incomprehensible.
        Quote: REZMovec
        You are aware of yourself - comparing the T-34, a mobile, pretty good armored vehicle with powerful weapons and a heavy KV-1, slow and, therefore, slower, with a weaker gun

        Would you read some books or something? At one time they had the same guns, the L-11 and F-32 were called. Then they put on the T-34 F-34, and on the KV-1 ZIS-5. And these were the same, they showed only fastening.
        Quote: REZMovec
        "no" transmission, the checkpoint of which was "turned on" with the help of a sledgehammer by the "assistant driver", is he a radio operator?

        Granddaughter, you should read something again. You are writing about the T-34. Posing as KV-1.
        Quote: REZMovec
        massive, "no problems" and cheap tank, which could be assembled by women and teenagers.

        Soon you will already write that dogs and cats. Don't make up nonsense. The men were collecting. A massive and cheap, does not mean as bullshit as the T-34 was. These are not synonyms. And if you are by design, then "Dick's genius", not Koshkin.
        Quote: REZMovec
        but the latter could be restored by the forces of divisional PARMs and even regimental remrots.

        Of course it could. If the tanks did not burst, the shells did not detonate or if the tank did not burn. Unfortunately, this happened flat and close. Such was the design. Ingenious and legendary.
        Quote: REZMovec
        What have you done in life yourself?

        I forgot to report to you.
    8. 0
      2 August 2015 23: 07
      Judging by the amount of some strange malice, you are a resident of Ukraine. But, even this does not justify those streams of lies and poison that you poured here on the readers. Of course, the memories of the Nazi invaders and their recognition of the merits of this tank is not an argument for you. But it may be that Hitler credited the designer Koshkin to your personal enemies (albeit posthumously) with a more authoritative opinion. For some time now, Mr. Shikelgruber’s opinion has been held in high esteem in your country. And the grave of Koshkin was not accidentally destroyed by the fascists, even the dead he was deeply hated by them.
  4. +3
    2 August 2015 07: 32
    In general, the KV was a heavy tank. And it had problems with the gearbox. And the T34 was a technologically cheap tank and it was repaired perfectly. Yes, there was nothing to choose from.
    1. -8
      2 August 2015 07: 39
      You don't really look at the terms. The KV-1 was in fact the same T-34, but better protected and with a more successful design of crew jobs. You can't deny Kotin's talent. In addition, he had a torsion suspension, which means that it was already possible to get somewhere from short stops from it.
      Yes, there was a problem with the KV-1 gearbox. It had to be solved (decided on KV-1s) and run at all plants. But they didn’t do that in the USSR. Therefore T-34 had to use until the very end of the war. You look at the loss figure of the T-34. It’s possible to go crazy. Indeed, in every car there was a crew.
      1. +5
        2 August 2015 08: 05
        A professional can be seen from afar :-)
      2. +1
        2 August 2015 10: 46
        Quote: top1
        Kotin cannot be denied talent.

        Wow, it’s become easier, I’ve come down. And when will we see your cars at the parade?
        1. -6
          2 August 2015 12: 32
          Quote: colonel
          Quote: top1
          Kotin cannot be denied talent.

          Wow, it has become easier, condescending.

          Why condescended? If a person is talented, that’s what you need to say. Unless, of course, the toad does not choke. It doesn't strangle me. Therefore, I am writing this.
          Quote: colonel
          And when will we see your cars at the parade?

          Can’t you live in peace? Do you need parades?
        2. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. +9
      2 August 2015 08: 15
      The secret of manufacturability and maintainability of the T-34 is that initially this machine was technically very "raw" and unfinished, breakdowns of both the transmission and the V-2 engine, which initially had a very small resource, were in the order of things. That is why, so that the tank does not have to be driven to the tank repair plant or even to the workshops for each repair, the designers have provided a number of measures to facilitate the work of the repairmen - this is a removable cover over the engine, and a large hinged cover plate of the transmission department and a number of other measures which can be listed for a long time. Thanks to all this, the T-34 became extremely convenient for repairs. almost free access was provided to all problematic components and assemblies, of which the T-34 originally had a lot.
      By the way, describing the T-34 tank, all researchers unanimously forget that this tank was not originally conceived as a mass vehicle for the Red Army - the T-34M and the Leningrad T-50 (the latter was supposed to become the main tank for the Red Army). Therefore, the T-34 was practically not brought to mind before the war, it was not modernized - all this was forced to do during the war, when there was no time or opportunity before the development (or rather for launching in a large series) of a new medium tank. The T-34 initially had almost the ultimate design, that's why its modernization and bringing its characteristics to the requirements of the war (the most severe test and examiner of any military equipment) and especially the creation of the T-34-85 Victory tank was a real feat of Soviet tank designers and technologists.
      I have the honor.
      1. -4
        2 August 2015 14: 50
        I would argue with you about maintainability, but in the field it is certainly easier to repair, but at what cost? It was cheaper to make new
        1. -3
          2 August 2015 16: 21
          Quote: Nehist
          I would argue with you about maintainability, but in the field it is certainly easier to repair, but at what cost? It was cheaper to make new

          Here I am about the same. And they tell me something about "high maintainability". And they can't come up with more arguments.
          1. +1
            2 August 2015 17: 33
            The apotheosis of all today's thoughts!
            Isn't it funny to yourself, "Dedok"?
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. 0
          2 August 2015 17: 32
          You should go back to school, and then you can argue)
  5. +2
    2 August 2015 08: 03
    The parent of the T-34, KV, T-40 tanks is Dmitry Grigorievich Pavlov. As the head of the GABTU, he outlined the principles, requirements and performance characteristics of all three future machines with complete accuracy and clarity to designers. He gave an extremely clear assignment for design and it was he who introduced adjustments to the design in the course of work. He formulated theoretically, set out on paper, and practically proved a new concept for the development of armored forces, which Zhukov stole. And which was returned in 1943. Koshkin is the only contractor. Moreover, his trip to Moscow in a tank was forced, because Koshkin did not have time to prepare the car by the deadline, and he could show it next time only after showing a model of the tank with STZ. He decided to arbitrarily rush to Moscow. Khrushchev came to such a reverence for Koshkin.
    1. -9
      2 August 2015 09: 04
      Quote: bogdan4ik
      He formulated theoretically, set out on paper, and practically proved a new concept for the development of armored forces, which Zhukov stole. And which was returned in 1943.

      I did not understand about the concept. All Soviet tanks (German, British, French, etc.) fit into the pre-war doctrine. Breakthrough tank KV-1 (at the beginning of the war the Germans were just being developed and appeared in 1942, the T-6), the T-34 infantry escort tank (the Germans had T-4), the T-50 success development tank (the Germans had T-3) ... I don't mention a trifle. The concept did not pass the test of the war and was changed along the way. Didn't understand what Pavlov “brilliantly foresaw” in it and snatched Zhukov away?
      Everyone noted that the Germans in 1941. bypassed the centers of resistance of the Red Army, explaining this by the "new, unique and brilliant tactics of the Wehrmacht." In fact, they simply did not have a breakthrough tank. So they were maneuvering.
      Quote: bogdan4ik
      He decided to arbitrarily rush to Moscow.

      How is it, arbitrarily? Who would have let him out of the gate? No, it was a planned event. On the instructions of the plant management. By the way, only one of the two reference (!!!) tanks reached Moscow.
  6. -9
    2 August 2015 08: 35
    Quote: Alexander72
    By the way, describing the T-34 tank, all researchers unanimously forget that this tank was not originally conceived as a mass vehicle for the Red Army - the T-34M and the Leningrad T-50 (the latter was supposed to become the main tank for the Red Army).

    Well, of course. And nothing that the "non-mass" T-34 was produced from the very beginning at KhPZ and STZ, and supposedly the mass T-50 was supposed to be produced only at plant # 174 in Leningrad? Why relay internet gossip? Moreover, the "mass and developed in Kharkov" T-34M existed only in the form of a promise to KhPZ to develop it. And it never existed in a "living" form.
    Quote: Alexander72
    Therefore, the T-34 was practically not brought to mind before the war, it was not modernized - all this was forced to do during the war, when there was no time or opportunity before the development (or rather for launching in a large series) of a new medium tank.

    Of course. Because at KhPZ they thought they had made the perfect tank. But what about? Did they think they did, but put it into production? And how would the "comrades from the NKVD" look at this?
    Quote: Alexander72
    The T-34 was originally of almost ultimate design, so its modernization and bringing its characteristics to the requirements of the war (the most severe tester and examiner of any military equipment)

    Of course. After all, it was all the same light A-20. Who is to blame for the USSR that he tortured this lightweight construction all the way? What prevented even before the war to make a normal medium tank, and not to remodel a light one?
    Quote: Alexander72
    the creation of the Pobeda T-34-85 tank was a real feat of Soviet tank designers and technologists.

    You are not familiar with the meaning of the word "feat". Therefore, use it where it is completely inappropriate. Confuse it with the word "work". And "call of duty."
    1. +1
      2 August 2015 09: 55
      You judge from the position of aftertaste. And then you simply did not know, did not know how, studied during the war. Yes, and elementary time was not enough. Industrialization in Germany took place in the middle of the 19th century. In our 20s and 30s, one of the main reasons. By the way, tell about American tanks or English as Americans burst with a Sherman, someone who interfered with them.
      1. -11
        2 August 2015 10: 15
        Quote: timyr
        You judge from the position of after-knowledge. And then they simply didn’t know, they didn’t know how, they studied during the war.

        What about the Germans? How did everyone know and know how in 1941?
        Quote: timyr
        Yes, and elementary time was not enough.

        How was that not enough? The Bolsheviks began to prepare for world war in 1918. Since the Bolshevik coup. Do not believe? Read their charter. Germany began to prepare from the moment Hitler came to power, i.e. much later. The Germans, why did?
        Quote: timyr
        Industrialization in Germany took place in the middle of the 19th century. We have one of the main reasons in the 20s and 30s.

        "Do not read Bolshevik newspapers at breakfast." Industrialization in Russia took place under the tsar. As far as possible, of course. In the 20s and 30s, an attempt at a "great leap" took place in the USSR. Which ended in zilch. Happy wind. From the anus. During WW2, the USSR fought with weapons of WW1 level. This was the real "level of technological development" of the USSR. Soviet industrialization gave the country nothing but millions of tortured slaves.
        Quote: timyr
        By the way, tell us about American tanks or English ones, how the Americans burst with a Sherman, who interfered with them.

        And where did they burst, if not a secret? I don't remember any slop. Can you remind?
        1. +1
          2 August 2015 10: 47
          Americans with Shermans burst. Before invading Normandy, the question was which tanks to produce Sherman or Pershing military insisted on producing Shermans, although they had experience fighting in Africa with T4, T5 and T6. When the battles began in Normandy, the Americans were shocked by the losses. Sherman did not break through armor of tigers and panthers. I had to put a new cannon more powerful, strengthen armor and deploy production of pershing but it was too late. And tell us about industrialization under the tsar: how many tanks, planes, engines were made under the tsar. As in the troops one Preparations for the three polagalas.Da and figures in the studio about the millions tortured by solzhnenitsyna whether how many he 100000mln. And why not myliard.
          1. -8
            2 August 2015 12: 19
            Quote: timyr
            Yes, and tell us about industrialization under the tsar: how many tanks, aircraft, engines were produced under the tsar.

            And "industrialization" is the production of a specific type of product? Do you understand the meaning of this term?
            Quote: timyr
            As in the army, one rifle relied on three.
            What year was that?
            Quote: timyr
            Yes, and the numbers in the studio about the millions tortured by Solzhnenitsyn or something, how many there he has 100000 million.

            No need to dance on the bones of the innocently killed. For this, in a decent society, it is necessary to give in the face. At least.
            1. 0
              2 August 2015 16: 17
              "Grandfather" - you earned in the face with each of your vys.erom.
              I'm afraid you won’t survive ...
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. 0
            2 August 2015 15: 12
            I wonder what mass tank of the USSR and the Allies generally guaranteed to break through the last T4 about 5 and 6 I do not even ask.
            1. -2
              2 August 2015 16: 19
              Quote: Nehist
              I wonder what mass tank of the USSR and the Allies generally guaranteed to break through the last T4 about 5 and 6 I do not even ask

              And where does "pierce"? There are few complaints about the armor penetration of the T-34. Even to those who were armed with L-11. The main complaints about the design of the tank itself. The very same "brilliant". Here is the sea of ​​claims. And with the artillery of the T-34, except for 1943, everything was more or less in order.
            2. The comment was deleted.
            3. 0
              2 August 2015 17: 35
              IS-2 and Pershing, this is offhand. Few?
              1. -1
                3 August 2015 00: 11
                Do not tell me their number? What IP that Pershing were not mass tanks
        2. +1
          2 August 2015 14: 16
          30 thousand student places in higher technical institutions of Russia in 1915. This is not even a drop in the bucket, it is nothing, given the literacy of the population. What is industrialization?
          1. -3
            2 August 2015 16: 13
            Quote: Flatter
            30 thousand student places in higher technical institutions of Russia in 1915. This is not even a drop in the bucket, it is nothing, given the literacy of the population. What is industrialization?

            Harmonious, reasonable and feasible. Much more harmonious than handing out papers to dropouts that they are already scientists. Then starve a part of the population, but take it abroad and sell grain. Then with this money buy "smart machines". Bring them to the USSR, dump them in a heap and rot there. Because there is no one to work for them.
            1. -1
              2 August 2015 17: 37
              RS "Echo of Moscow" and TC "rain" are already waiting for you, "grandfather".
              Hurry up there, cookies will be handed out and they will clap
          2. The comment was deleted.
        3. +1
          2 August 2015 16: 15
          "Grandfather", don't you confuse "God's gift with scrambled eggs"
          Germany, at all times of its existence, prepared for wars and led them. Experience, therefore, was not small.
          The industrialization of the Russian Empire is a pure bluff. Always, starting with the Romanovs, your beloved tsarism hindered the development of everything Russian. Starting with communication in secular society in French and ending with admiration for everything foreign. Russian nuggets did little to break through the "walls of autocracy." Many issues in terms of the development and armament of the Republic of Ingushetia were resolved in the beds of the great princes - one ballerina Kshesinskaya did a lot of nasty things, and there were tens, hundreds, thousands of them - each at its own level ...
          Germany also went through the entire Second World War with weapons of the First World War. Yes, something was added, but the USSR did not sit still.
          So, "bad" "old", "bad" (you can immediately see where they taught).
          1. 0
            2 August 2015 18: 53
            Quote: REZMovec
            Germany, at all times of its existence, prepared for wars and waged them

            Yeah. Especially during the Weimar Republic. She didn't even have an army then.
            Quote: REZMovec
            The industrialization of the Russian Empire is a bluff of pure water.

            Baby Russia built squadron battleships. Battleships. Fig, but nonetheless. There were few countries in the world capable of building them. This was already a certain level of development.
            Quote: REZMovec
            Many issues in terms of the development and armament of the Republic of Ingushetia were resolved in the beds of the Grand Dukes - one ballerina Kshesinskaya did a lot of nasty things, and there were dozens, hundreds, thousands of them - each at its own level ...

            You are a great politician. I read Soviet garbage and you crack like a broken rattle.
            But in one I agree with you, autocracy had to be changed to capitalism. And they changed one form of feudalism to another. It’s a shame to look into people's eyes.
            Quote: REZMovec
            Germany, too, went through the entire second world war with weapons of the first world

            Germany was generally unimportantly armed. Better than the USSR, but in fact very bad.
            Quote: REZMovec
            but the USSR did not sit still.

            I sat there. And just in place. Simulated violent activity. Only a three-inch model was tortured from 1930 to the end of 1940. 10 years. And then they were removed from production due to professional incompetence. No, then, after the start of the war, production had to be restored. And the cannon miraculously became "the best in the world" (like everything that the Bolsheviks touched). But at the end of 1940. was more honest. With the words "Fuck you ...", they simply got rid of the three-inch sleeve. 10 years of "suffering", expenses, etc., go down the drain.
    2. +5
      2 August 2015 12: 45
      I never argue, because I consider this to be unproductive. However, in response to your comment:
      "The T-50 tank was supposed to replace the T-26 tanks in the troops, and according to the original plan for the rearmament of the Red Army armored forces, it was supposed to be the most massive (remember that the first order for the T-34 was only 600 vehicles). In 1940-1941. this plan, however, was amended as a result of the decision to form mechanized corps, but even they required no less than 14 thousand T-50 tanks, of which it was planned to produce 1942 in 4000 and 1943 in 10. The fact that the T-000 was considered as a full-fledged component of the country's tank fleet can be judged by the joint decree of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR “On increasing the production of KB, T-50 and T-34 tanks, artillery tractors and tank diesels for the III and IV quarters of 50 ", adopted after the meeting of the Politburo of the Central Committee on June 1941, 25."
      For large-scale production of T-50 tanks, it was planned to transfer plants No. 174 and No. 37. In addition, it was planned to create a version of the T-50 with a 76,2 mm F-32 gun (the one that was installed on the KV-1), a new 8-cylinder diesel engine with a capacity of 400 hp, a twin installation of anti-aircraft 23 mm automatic guns , as well as a bridge tank and a minesweeper, it was planned to create a hydromechanical gearbox and much more. All this was in the R&D plans of Glavspetsmash of the NKSM for 1941, all of which was prevented by the outbreak of war.
      I am familiar with the meaning of the word "feat", but I believe that what our tank builders did during the war years, working on the modernization of the T-34 and the creation of new armored vehicles, in those difficult conditions was a real feat.
      I will not discuss the rest indicated in your comment; read something about Kolomiyets and Baryatinsky for a start. And then judge the T-34 and its designers.
      I have the honor.
      1. -7
        2 August 2015 13: 05
        Quote: Alexander72
        "the T-50 tank was supposed to replace the T-26 tanks in the troops

        You read all kinds of nonsense, and you cannot understand from this. What, where and how.
        Already read quietly, why should you quote this nonsense? I wrote to you in Russian, instead of the T-26, the T-34 was planned.
        Quote: Alexander72
        For large-scale production of T-50 tanks, it was planned to transfer plants No. 174 and No. 37. In addition, it was planned to create a version of the T-50 with a 76,2 mm F-32 gun (the one that was installed on the KV-1)

        Have you seen the thickness of the armor of this "monster"? Did not see? Then look.

        This is a German 20 mm automatic cannon "trained". What kind of infantry escort could there be? And the T-26 was an infantry escort tank.
        Quote: Alexander72
        a new 8-cylinder diesel engine with a capacity of 400 hp, a twin installation of anti-aircraft 23 mm automatic guns, as well as a bridge tank and

        In Russian, it is called valentarism. Favorite Bolshevik occupation, by the way.
        Quote: Alexander72
        but I think that what our tank builders did during the war years, working on the modernization of the T-34 and the creation of new armored vehicles, in those difficult conditions was a real feat

        They just did their job. In principle, you are right. Under the conditions of general Soviet mismanagement, this was a real feat.
        Quote: Alexander72
        read what Kolomiyets and Baryatinsky for a start

        And the Murzilka magazine. Still must Murzilka magazine should be read.
        PS By the way, Baryatinsky (T-34 in combat) speaks quite critically about the T-34. Without "Soviet pathos".
        1. -1
          2 August 2015 16: 24
          Also TNS penetrated the German T-3, not to mention Skoda and T-2
          1. 0
            2 August 2015 19: 20
            Quote: REZMovec
            Also TNS penetrated the German T-3, not to mention Skoda and T-2

            And what, can you somehow illustrate your nonsense? Daddy, TNSh was a tank version of the ShVAK aviation flare. And that’s like a sentence for her.
    3. 0
      2 August 2015 16: 00
      "Vumy Dedok" - FEAT is labor and military.
      1. -2
        2 August 2015 16: 07
        Quote: REZMovec
        The feat is labor and military.

        Explore the meaning of the word "feat". Even a labor one. Some, damn it, "labor exploits" in the USSR were. And a complete ass in the bottom line. This is because anything was called a feat. Even if the "comrade designer" lifted his ass from the chair and drew something on the drawing board. By the way, what he should have drawn before the start of the war.
        1. +1
          2 August 2015 17: 42
          The feat of the designer's comrade is that he was half-starved, in the cold, sitting and drawing for 14-16 hours a day, without days off and holidays for 4 years.
          And before the war, he could not know how this or that detail, construction would behave. The landfill is nothing, WAR is EVERYTHING.
          If at least a little in the topic of design work - I must understand, if not - sit down and don't open your mouth ...
      2. The comment was deleted.
  7. The comment was deleted.
  8. -11
    2 August 2015 09: 04
    Unfortunately, the natural path of Russia's military-technical development was interrupted by the October Zionist coup.
    Most of the samples of weapons and military equipment of the Red Army at the beginning of World War II bore the imprint of incompleteness, dilentantism, or outright wrecking.
    During the war years, partially, in certain types of weapons, it was possible to fix it.
    The best version of the T-34 tank is the T-44, which practically did not take part in the war. In fact, a completely different machine, which Koshkin had nothing to do with.
    The "genius designer" Koshkin is from the same galaxy of "designers" as Mikoyan, who appropriated the Polikarpov high-altitude fighter project. Although he is far from Yakovlev, who actually destroyed Polikarpov and his aircraft, including the best I-185 fighter.
    1. -9
      2 August 2015 09: 53
      Quote: ignoto
      Unfortunately, the natural path of Russia's military-technical development was interrupted by the October Zionist coup.

      In one small sentence, I would directly question everything:
      1. The real "level of military-technical development of Russia" clearly manifested itself in the days of the RYA and WW1. Level just above the baseboard. Although, it is difficult to disagree with you. By the time of WW2, he was already below this very plinth. Later, in one Pharisaic country, products of this level will be called the most ingenious and legendary in the world, created through tireless work ... Etc. etc. And some will even believe it.
      2. January. The Bolshevik coup took place in January 1918. It was carried out by dispersing the Constituent Assembly, the only legitimate body of state power in the country at that time. The interim government was not legitimate; it was consensus.
      3. As for the "Zionist", I do not agree. Rather, it was a variation of "Pugachevism". But somewhat unusual. The fact that at the head of the RCP (b) were mostly Jews (the same Trotsky, the creator of the Red Army) allowed this "Pugachevism" to win the Civil War. But this was already a historical catastrophe.
      1. +4
        2 August 2015 12: 18
        1. It is amazing how the most massive Il-2 and T-34 combat vehicles were produced with the "below the plinth" level, nuclear weapons were created, and the first satellite was launched 12 years after the war. Probably off the floor "
        2. and do not care, the 90s clearly demonstrated what is happening with the country and the economy when the bourgeoisie comes to power.
        3. But it is possible to repeat the same catastrophe, the Bolsheviks for the first time in history made the USSR a world technological leader, which has never happened before and is not observed after.
        All the time a raw materials appendage.
        1. -7
          2 August 2015 12: 27
          Quote: GreyJoJo
          it is surprising how the most massive Il-2 and T-34 combat vehicles were produced with the "below the plinth" level, nuclear weapons were created, and the first satellite was launched 12 years after the war.

          Nuclear weapons were created before the war? When you read the text, try to understand what is written there.
          Quote: GreyJoJo
          The 90s clearly demonstrated what is happening with the country and the economy when the bourgeoisie comes to power.

          And in which country, if not a secret, she came to power in the 90s? I don’t know that. But it would be interesting to see such a country.
          Quote: GreyJoJo
          but you can repeat the same disaster,

          Can. If the list of victims of the regime start with you and your loved ones.
          Quote: GreyJoJo
          for the first time in history, the Bolsheviks made the USSR a world technological leader, which has never happened before and is not observed after

          Where have you read such nonsense?
          Quote: GreyJoJo
          All the time a raw materials appendage.

          Here to the point. All time. Starting from tsarism.
          1. The comment was deleted.
      2. -3
        2 August 2015 16: 33
        "Dedok", with the dispersal of the constituent assembly by the Bolsheviks, you are lying - read the primary sources, and not what Svanidze and the bulk of you prescribed in the training manuals from the State Department ...
        1. -1
          2 August 2015 19: 26
          You, dear, than write on such topics, it’s better to go to the store, buy notebooks by September 1. And a couple of diaries. One for teachers, one for parents. And then with your academic performance you can’t sleep on your ass.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. +3
      2 August 2015 10: 56
      It is necessary to compare the T-34 with the machines of other countries in a certain time period.
      In the late 30s, the thirty-four looked decent.
      The German T 3 and T 4 had insufficient armor protection, a short-barreled gun ...
      The French Somois were not bad. But almost did not fight. In England and America at that time there were no good tanks. So why not take the T 34 into service as the main vehicle.
      Moreover, during the war, a redesigned, modernized T 34-85 appeared with a modified box, with a new filter, with another gun, turret, optics ...
      1. -4
        2 August 2015 12: 06
        Quote: Cap.Morgan
        In the late 30s, the thirty-four looked decent

        I want to remind you that the war in the USSR was in the 40s.
        Quote: Cap.Morgan
        The German T 3 and T 4 had insufficient armor protection, a short-barreled gun ...

        But the Rostov-on-Don tachanka had no gun at all. And there was no reservation. This is me about the T-III, if you do not understand. How can you compare tanks of different classes? T-III must be compared with BT of all brands and T-50.
        About the guns. As for the "short-barreled gun", you are again confusing an infantry escort tank and a medium tank. For an infantry escort tank, the length of the barrel did not matter. But it mattered for a medium tank. Therefore, after making sure that the pre-war tank concept collapsed, in early 1942. the Germans launched their first medium tank. It was called Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.F2. Check out what his KwK.40 L / 43 cannon was capable of. F-34 there was even nothing to do there. And in the spring of 1943. The Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.G received an even more powerful KwK.40 L / 48 cannon. But also the T-34 in 1944. received a powerful S-53 cannon. But this gun actually surpassed the gun of the German T-IV in terms of armor penetration. And only starting with the T-34/85 can we talk about some kind of superiority in firepower of the T-34/85.
        About the armor. It should be borne in mind that the German T-IV was armored with cemented heterogeneous armor. We take its strength for 1,000. And T-34s were armored with rolled homogeneous armor (with a slight surface hardening). Prewar. The strength of this armor can be taken with a coefficient of 0,744. During the war, cast armor was used. Its strength can be taken with coefficient. 0,644. Therefore, do not be confused by 50 mm of German armor. In fact, this is 67,2 mm of Soviet rolled armor and 77,6 mm of Soviet cast armor.
        As for the slope of the armor, everything is complicated here. For shells of different calibres, its strength will be different. The effect will be anyway. But far from the one obtained by arithmetic conversion.
        Quote: Cap.Morgan
        Moreover, during the war, a redesigned, modernized T 34-85 appeared with a modified box, with a new filter, with another gun, turret, optics ...

        T-34/85 cost the Soviet people a lot to praise him. Those machines and equipment, as well as tips on improving the design of the T-34, they were not just given. Many millions of lives have been paid for. By the beginning of the war, the USSR (its level of technological development) could well have had such equipment on its own that would allow him to detain the Germans on the old border, exhausting and destroying them until they asked for peace. On the terms of the USSR. The USSR could, but the Bolsheviks could not. This is the main tragedy of the country. In an impotent manual.
        1. -3
          2 August 2015 16: 48
          T-3 infantry escort tank? At speeds up to 67 km / h? And is he a different class? This is the same MEDIUM tank as the T-34 and their functions are the same.
          The T-4 is already closer to the heavy tanks, especially the latest modifications, and here it really needs to be compared rather with the KV-1, but not with the T-34.
          I agree with the armor, there is such an action.
          About the impotence of the leadership of the USSR - nonsense, although the guys from the Novodvorskaya clan tried to prevent in full growth ...
          1. 0
            2 August 2015 19: 33
            Quote: REZMovec
            T-3 infantry escort tank? At speeds up to 67 km / h? And is he a different class?

            Along the way, you still have a problem with the understanding of the read. Do you know Russian with a dictionary?
            Quote: REZMovec
            This is the same MEDIUM tank as the T-34 and their functions are the same.

            Where is the T-III average? Front or profile? Are you able to comprehend what I have written? So far, this is not noticeable.
            Quote: REZMovec
            The T-4 is already closer to the heavy tanks, especially the latest modifications, and here it really needs to be compared rather with the KV-1, but not with the T-34.

            Of course. Of course, the 25 ton (this is already at the very end of the war) T-IV is more appropriate to compare with the 48 ton KV-1. But not with the 32 ton T-34/85. For your reference, schoolboy, the very first and lightest T-34 mod. 1940 already weighed 26 tons. T-IV in those days weighed 20 tons.
        2. 0
          2 August 2015 18: 25
          [quote = top1] [quote = Cap.Morgan] In the late 30s, the thirty-four looked decent [/ quote]
          I want to remind you that the war in the USSR was in the 40s.
          [quote = Cap.Morgan] The German T 3 and T 4 had insufficient armor protection, a short-barreled gun ... [/ quote]
          But the Rostov-on-Don tachanka had no gun at all. And there was no reservation. This is me about the T-III, if you do not understand. How can you compare tanks of different classes? T-III should be compared with BT of all classes
          Whose quote about unarmed t3
          1. 0
            2 August 2015 18: 40
            Quote: timyr
            Whose quote about unarmed t3

            Where does this come from? From the phrase "How can you compare tanks of different classes?" Where is it written about "unarmed"?
      2. 0
        3 August 2015 01: 07
        Quote: Cap.Morgan
        Ado compare T-34 with machines of other countries in a certain time period.

        And also in mass and on the trunk, the Germans did not have anything similar.
    4. 0
      2 August 2015 16: 30
      After the "perestroika" coup, you, not a friend, do you live better?
      Leave your nonsense on political topics for another site.
      As for technology - yes, it was like that. But the same Mikoyan and Gurevich later developed their own wonderful aircraft. But Polikarpova is a pity. By the way, this trouble has always been in Russia, not only during the USSR.
      1. 0
        2 August 2015 19: 24
        Quote: REZMovec
        After the "perestroika" coup, you, not a friend, do you live better?

        And what, someone lives worse?
  9. +1
    2 August 2015 09: 05
    Mikhail Ilyich Koshkin- man is a legend ... and the same tank was created ... if the debate about him does not subside ...
  10. +3
    2 August 2015 09: 53
    for ignoto RU.
    In technology, as in life, there is the concept of “I want” and “I can.” To understand what was happening in the industry of the USSR, read Grabin’s book “Weapons of Victory.” Everyone understood the flaws of the T-34, but the army needed the tank here and now. Unique in combat capabilities and maintainability, the machine is extremely technological in production. And at the same time, in terms of the range of combat capabilities, it surpasses all medium tanks in the world. The quality corresponded to the technology of a special period. The T-34_85 appeared not in 1942, but in 1944, so no one thought that industry would have to be exported beyond the Urals, and the Germans would reach the Volga. This is real life.
    Regarding Comrade Polikarpov, the non-adoption of the I-185 was due to more than objective reasons, read the realities of testing, war and industry.
    1. -8
      2 August 2015 10: 19
      Quote: Fotoceva62
      And at the same time, in terms of a complex of combat capabilities, it surpasses all medium tanks in the world.

      Is it possible to clarify this phrase? Which medium tanks were superior to the T-34? What, and T-IV, was also superior? Is it possible to clarify in which particular place? Among the repairs per 1 km? What indicator?
      1. +2
        2 August 2015 12: 14
        Are you talking about tanks or about cars of Formula 1?
        The T-34 was not a child prodigy, many of those. solutions were on other machines.
        Its legend in the combination of many solutions, as well as the possibility of its mass production.
        this tank was perfect for the Red Army - massive, easy to field repair, did not require serious those. knowledge and skills of the crew.
        I will not argue about rational armor slopes - they are actively used in modern tank building and the nickname "door knocker" says a lot.
        1. -8
          2 August 2015 12: 51
          Quote: GreyJoJo
          Its legend in the combination of many solutions, as well as the possibility of its mass production.

          His legend is from the Department of Agitation and Propaganda of the Central Committee of the CPSU. And exactly from there the legendary nature of other Soviet crafts on the topic of "weapons". Almost everyone.
          Quote: GreyJoJo
          as well as the possibility of its mass release.

          And this is related to his performance characteristics. By the way, in the production he was quite complicated. See how and from how many parts at least its bronkorpus was welded.
          Quote: GreyJoJo
          did not require serious ones. knowledge and skills of the crew.

          And why is that?
          Quote: GreyJoJo
          and the nickname "door knocker" says a lot.

          This is the ubiquitous Department of the Central Committee of the CPSU. He invented nicknames for everyone. Then what was the nickname for forty-five? You probably don’t know that the Germans had 37 mm sub-caliber shells? Read what kind of "beaters" they were in this version. I don't think that's what the tankers called them.
          Quote: GreyJoJo
          I will not argue about the rational tilts of armor - they are actively used in modern tank building

          The fact of the matter is that the angle of inclination matters. The main objective of inclined armor is to provide a rebound. The tilt angles of the T-34 did not provide this. Helped, of course, but not fully.
          1. +1
            2 August 2015 16: 55
            Proving anything to a troll is useless. "Dedok" are you from Minstets?
      2. 0
        2 August 2015 16: 52
        Germans attributed T-4 to the heavy class.
        And by the totality of all characteristics, even the enemy set the T-34 as an example. Hitler set a task for his designers to create a similar tank. Not in the know, "Dedok"?
        1. 0
          3 August 2015 01: 10
          Quote: REZMovec
          T-4 Germans themselves were classified as heavy


          On the trunk.
          there they got both square and txnumx
  11. +1
    2 August 2015 11: 22
    The Germans, why did?
    Quote: timyr
    Industrialization in Germany took place in the middle of the 19th century. We have one of the main reasons in the 20s and 30s.

    "Don't read Bolshevik newspapers at breakfast." Industrialization in Russia took place even under the tsar. As far as it was possible, of course. In the 20s and 30s, an attempt at a "great leap" took place in the USSR. Which ended in fluff. Cheerful wind. From the anus. During WW2, the USSR fought with WW1 weapons.
    It's strange how the war was won with weapons of 1 mv. Yes, and do not watch modern TV about Russia, which we have lost. Or under the king there were jelly banks and milk rivers. By the way, the tsar was thrown off not by the Bolsheviks, but by their own in February. There was no smell of Bolsheviks there
    Just then, the Temporary destroyed everything that is possible and impossible. For example, the temporary army was destroyed and the police dispersed.
    1. -7
      2 August 2015 12: 11
      Quote: timyr
      Strange how the war was won by weapons of 1 mv.

      And you compare the loss. Immediately everything will fall into place.
      Quote: timyr
      By the way, the Tsar was not thrown over by the Bolsheviks, but his own in February.

      Well, what are their own? These are representatives of the bourgeoisie. In February 1917 a bloodless bourgeois revolution took place in Russia. As in all civilized countries of the world.
      Quote: timyr
      Or under the king there were jelly banks and dairy rivers.

      And who wrote about this?
      Quote: timyr
      Just then, the Temporary destroyed everything that is possible and impossible. For example, the temporary army was destroyed and the police dispersed.

      Don't write nonsense, okay? And the Bolsheviks did not overthrow the Provisional Government, but the Constituent Assembly. In January 1918
      1. +2
        2 August 2015 13: 34
        I wonder who disordered Russia in 17 from February to October. And the revolution was in October and not February. You either write nonsense before reading Wikipedia. Just look with your anti-Soviet Russophobia do not fall
        1. -9
          2 August 2015 13: 43
          Are you even a living person or a robot? It seems to me that individuals often "graze" on the Internet, which, apart from three key phrases from "History of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks. A Short Course", do not remember or know anything. So they write everything that is not lazy. The main thing is that they write "ideologically correct". And, what is most striking, they do not want to know anything but these three phrases. They don't know, and they don't want to know. Amazing.
          And in October 1917. there was no revolution. And there was not even a coup. So, armed disassembly between two groups. Restoration (feudal) coup occurred in January 1918. By dispersing the Constituent Assembly, the only legitimate authority in Russia at that time. The Bolsheviks lost the election, and they made a putsch (armed coup).
          Thus, the bourgeois republic in Russia lasted only 11 months.
          1. +2
            2 August 2015 14: 03
            Your legitimate body was driven by everyone. Starting with the Bolsheviks ending with white generals. And if there was a constituent assembly, then you can present the fruits of his rule over 90 years. And as for the losses, tell the Second World War how much we and the Germans lost there. We are 8767000 irrevocably Germans with 7800000 allies. And your passage about the defenseless German three is interesting. Lie less on t3 there was a gun in the last modification of 50mm.
            1. -3
              2 August 2015 15: 53
              Quote: timyr
              Your legitimate body was driven by everyone. Starting with the Bolsheviks ending with white generals.

              Do not lie. White generals just fought for the Constituent Assembly. Against the Bolshevik putschists.
              Quote: timyr
              And if there was a constituent assembly, then you can present the fruits of his rule over 90 years.

              No need to imagine anything. Representative has not yet grown.
              Quote: timyr
              We are 8767000 irrevocably Germans with allies 7800000

              your numbers are not credible.
              Quote: timyr
              And your passage about the defenseless German three is interesting.

              Was there a "passage"?
              Quote: timyr
              Lie less on t3 there was a gun in the last modification 50mm

              Dear, who are you discussing with? With you? Which hand?
              1. +1
                2 August 2015 16: 28
                Learn the history of the ignoramus komuch dispersed kolchak. Official loss data. You wrote about the three yourself or not. And the tachanka of Rostov didn’t have armor and a gun. If anyone didn’t understand it, I’m talking about your words or not. Not worth our grandfathers and great-grandfathers. The problems they faced they solved.
                1. -2
                  2 August 2015 16: 37
                  Quote: timyr
                  Learn the story of the ignoramus komuch dispersed kolchak

                  do you not understand Russian? The difference between the Constituent Assembly and Komuch, too? Your problems ...
                  Quote: timyr
                  Not worth our grandfathers and great-grandfathers.

                  It was just our grandfathers and great-grandfathers who worked a miracle on such lozenges, razdolbankas and with such semi-finished shit in their hands. You can also remember "the best guns and airplanes in the world." For a complete set.
                  1. +1
                    2 August 2015 16: 51
                    Komuch is a constituent assembly that gathered in Samara after the dispersal by the Bolsheviks. And the white generals, like the Bolsheviks, dispersed him. So you did not answer about how much the Bolsheviks tortured.
                    1. -1
                      2 August 2015 16: 55
                      Quote: timyr
                      Komuch is a constituent assembly that gathered in Samara after the dispersal by the Bolsheviks.

                      It could not gather in Samara. Exactly for the same reason why they could not gather in Petrograd. There was no quorum. Some of the deputies "accidentally died." And another part ended up in prison with the Bolsheviks. Probably by accident too. So only an illegitimate farce could gather in Samara.
                  2. +1
                    2 August 2015 17: 48
                    Troll, as there is a troll)))
              2. +1
                2 August 2015 17: 47
                White generals fought for the tsar-priest, we learn history, it is advisable to read the memoirs of the whites themselves.
                You masturbate "Dedok" yourself, it seems like with both hands, in turn, but the climax does not come)
                Maybe you’ll take care of mine. If you reach?
            2. The comment was deleted.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. 0
          7 August 2015 04: 51
          Yes, all the same, just painted in a different color.
          The national composition of the same Social Revolutionaries is easy to google, you don’t even have to bother about the Bandovites.
          Then Stalin pressed almost all of them, leaving a few odd pocket maniacs like "compatriots", so that henceforth it would always be a reminder to everyone that this is ...
      2. 0
        2 August 2015 17: 00
        Losses of TROOPS Germany: USSR as 1:1,3, i.e. The Germans lost about 8 million military personnel, the Red Army about 10,5 million. The USSR lost about 20 million people among the civilian population. Manuals from Solzhenitsyn and Svanidze send to the State Department for alteration.
        I wrote about the constituent assembly above - teach materiel, "Dedok".
  12. The comment was deleted.
  13. +5
    2 August 2015 13: 40
    Glory to the Great Designer !!!!
  14. +2
    2 August 2015 17: 00
    The people at 17 supported the Bolsheviks. Because they didn't talk, they did. By the way, you didn’t answer like that about the industrialization that the tsar carried out, about t3, about losses in the Second World War. If the whites won, Russia ended at best in 41.
    1. -1
      2 August 2015 17: 08
      Quote: timyr
      The people in 17 supported the Bolsheviks. Because they did not chat, but did.

      Agree supported. Not all, but most. Because the Bolsheviks promised to take everything away and divide it up. Taken away. And even those with whom they promised to share. Threw, in other words. In fact, the formula was simple. This is not surprising. Enchanting stupidity is surprising, how could the Bolsheviks be believed?
      Quote: timyr
      why didn’t you answer about the industrialization that the king spent

      ZIS-3, the only gun of the Red Army at the beginning of the war that could well knock out German tanks, this is the Russian division arr. 1902 With minor changes.
      Three-line - I won’t even specify. So everything is clear.
      Colemat Maxim - there too.
      Nagan - there too.
      Forty - redesigned by the Germans by order of the USSR at the very end of the 20s on the ground gunpowder French sea Hotchkiss arr. 1896 (manufactured in Russia under license) on a German field machine.
      Enough for now.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. +1
        2 August 2015 17: 48
        Quote: top1
        ZIS-3 .... this is a Russian division arr. 1902

        Yes, really? belay
        Here is the ZiS-3

        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/76-мм_дивизионная_пушка_обра

        zts_1942_goda_ (ZIS-3)


        And here is the Russian 76-mm divisional cannon of 1902

        https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=76-мм_дивизионная_пуш

        sample_1902_
        years & action = edit


        True "one and the same weapon" wassat

        Quote: top1
        ZIS-3, the only gun capable of firing at tanks of the Red Army

        A "forty-five", of course, could not shoot at tanks.
        And what with the fact that
        At the end of 1931, the designers of plant No. 8 installed a new 37-mm tube in the casing of a 1930-mm anti-tank gun of the 45 model, built according to the documentation purchased from the German company Rheinmetall, and slightly strengthened the gun carriage....
        This system was adopted in March 1932 under the name "45 mm anti-tank gun of 1932 model", at the factory the gun received the index 19-K.

        Do you think that in every country it was necessary to invent his bicycle?
        But what about this? -
        All the classic mortars of the 1930s were copies or upgraded options the French Stokes-Brand mortar of 1927, .....
        In early 1943, after studying the Soviet trophy specimens and trophy documentation, for the Wehrmacht began production of a copy of the Soviet 120-mm mortar Under the name 12-cm Granatwerfer 42.
        1. -2
          2 August 2015 17: 53
          Quote: Jintonic
          True "one and the same weapon"

          Truth. Read the literature. Just one slightly modified. And that’s all.
          Quote: Jintonic
          A "forty-five", of course, could not shoot at tanks.

          I have used the term "knock out".
          Quote: Jintonic
          Do you think that in every country you had to invent your own bike?

          You do not spread nonsense from the wiki. There's a lot of funny stuff in there. Should everything be accepted and repeated?
          1. +1
            2 August 2015 20: 24
            Quote: top1
            Truth. Read the literature. Just one slightly modified. And that’s all.

            Well, yes, "slightly changed" - only the general caliber.
            On this basis, it can be argued that the SVD is a Mosin rifle, only slightly modified.
            Give links to sources where it is argued that these tools are the same thing.
            Quote: top1
            I have used the term "knock out".

            Not true. You have used a "term"
            nice to knock
            which is NOT a term at all. What do you mean "not bad"? From what distance? What projectile? Armor penetration? Possibility of disguising the position and unmasking consequences of the shot?

            Quote: top1
            You do not spread nonsense from the wiki. There's a lot of funny stuff in there. Should everything be accepted and repeated?

            Prefer nonsense from your own head? There is apparently even more funny than in the wiki
            Quote: top1
            ZIS-3, .... this is a Russian division arr. 1902 With minor changes.

            The barrel, the wedge gate, the recoil devices, the counterbalancing mechanism, the machine with sliding beds, the wheel travel with suspension are all "small changes". Aha! The main thing that remains in common is the caliber!
            What is actually the bore diameter and EVERYTHING! And on this basis, you approve tools of different times and designs - the same thing with minor changes? Based on the "hole size"?
            Well you are funny laughing laughing laughing where is wikipedia wink
      3. 0
        2 August 2015 18: 00
        You're lying, ZiS-3 appeared only closer to the summer of 1942.
        About small changes from the 1902 division, can you elaborate? By the way, this is a Russified Frenchwoman from Schneider.
        And what is clear with the three-ruler? Yes, the development of Nagan was taken as a basis, but it was redistributed to the requirements of the Russian army, the capabilities of Russian industry and the Russian cartridge.
        The same is with the "MAXIM", by the way, no one has ever made a better machine for it.
        It’s Nagan, it’s only Nagan, only for the soldiers it was simplified (they worsened, it’s not a matter of shooting the pork snout with self-cocking).
        This is the kind of "industrialization" in Ingushetia has existed since the 19th century.
        You yourself hammer nails into the lid ...
  15. +1
    2 August 2015 17: 28
    Zis3 royal cannon. Do you smoke comrade share. And where does 45. You were asked about tsarist industrialization. With spoken weapons, war does not win the war with the best army in the world. So what about unarmed t3 or you don’t read what you write. Tanks under the king made either airplanes or rockets. And as for machine guns and rifles, read how much they did under the tsar and the Bolsheviks. The Mosin rifle was modernized in the year 30 and the Maxim machine gun was also under the cursed Bolsheviks. And about TT I heard either SVT or Goryunov's machine gun or PPSh. Enough hopefully. Or there, as it was under the king, it was supposed to arm the soldiers with axes.
    1. -2
      2 August 2015 17: 46
      Quote: timyr
      Zis3 royal cannon. Do you smoke comrade share.

      Imperial, old man, imperial. The German diesel fuel attached to it and 180 g of powder added to the shell do not change the essence of the matter. Imperial.
      Quote: timyr
      And where does 45. You were asked about tsarist industrialization.

      I answered you. He showed the real fruits of tsarist industrialization. You probably already guessed that in order to make a marine Hotchkiss and a field three-inch gun, you had to have the appropriate equipment? Here it is, royal, and it was. Here it is, royal, and worked. Here they are, the results. Where is the Soviet one?
      Quote: timyr
      With spoken weapons, war does not win the war with the best army in the world.

      Win. Weapons always come with cannon fodder. Worse weapons, you need to add more meat. Better weapons, less meat. Draw conclusions yourself.
      Quote: timyr
      So what about unarmed t3 or you don’t read what you write.

      What are you talking about? What clung to me with this T-III?
      Quote: timyr
      And as for machine guns and rifles, read how much they did under the tsar and under the Bolsheviks.

      Who cares? On the royal armament did. The conversation was about this, do not distort.
      Quote: timyr
      The Mosin rifle was modernized in the year 30 and the Maxim machine gun was also under the damned Bolsheviks.

      Read something about that "modernization" or something.
      Quote: timyr
      And I heard about TT or SVT or a Goryunov machine gun or PPSh. Enough hopefully

      Of course. Rare listed. That's right, everything. I say, it’s a great miracle that with the set of "weapons" that the Bolsheviks supplied (I cannot use the word "armed") to the Red Army, it reached Berlin. A lot of cannon fodder, apparently, had to be added.
      Quote: timyr
      Or there, as it was under the king, it was supposed to equip soldiers with axes

      Yes, what axes. Hooligan slingshots. To lie, so to lie.
      1. +1
        2 August 2015 19: 09
        , here you are stubborn, but with the king WHERE did the equipment come from?
        Or did RI produce diverse machines?
        Equipment under the three-ruler and Nagan was bought from Nagan, a Belgian industrialist.
        Equipment for maxim-ku was bought in England and the USA.
        The equipment for the division was bought in France, from Schneider, and thanks to Kshesinskaya - the mistress of the Grand Duke, I don't remember the name and patronymic, I don't keep creatures in my head. This scamper rubbed into great ears the words about a good "kickback". As a result, the Russian army received a shitty cannon and a shitty shell for it. Although the choice was between Krupp and Schneider.
        The Krupp gun was better, but Kshesinskaya’s charms were even better, what for the state’s defense is needed, if you can grab some bribes ...
  16. 0
    2 August 2015 18: 11
    You don’t believe the real story about axes; read Manikovsky’s memoir. Weapons were not enough, and there was an idea to equip soldiers with axes on long poles and in melee. Weapons will be taken from the adversary. Just your beloved tsarist generals and the bourgeoisie did not have enough weapons. All over the world they bought from the Japanese, in South America. And as for T3, you yourself wrote that he is unarmed. And all the examples that you brought are made and produced under the Bolsheviks. On machines that were purchased in the 20-30s.
    1. -2
      2 August 2015 18: 36
      Quote: timyr
      Just your beloved tsarist generals and the bourgeoisie did not have enough weapons.

      Did you understand what you wrote? "Tsarist generals" are the feudal army. Where does the bourgeoisie come from? The bourgeoisie is an element of the next OEF, capitalism. Those who were called "capitalists" under feudalism were not really capitalists. Because was the chief feudal lord. And no capitalists were possible under him.
      Quote: timyr
      All over the world they bought from the Japanese, in South America.

      What do you mean? To the fact that feudalism in the form of a monarchy is rotten through and through? So I totally agree with you. You can not continue.
      Quote: timyr
      And as for T3, you yourself wrote that he is unarmed.

      I did not write that he was unarmed. I wrote that the T-III and T-34 are cars of different classes. A few different things, right?
      Quote: timyr
      And all the examples that you brought are made and produced under the Bolsheviks. On machines that were purchased in the 20-30s.

      Really? Do you seriously think that someone in the world would sell dual-use machine tools to the Bolsheviks? As far as I know, there was only one such case, when the Bolsheviks bought an anti-aircraft gun factory in Germany in the late 20s. I don't know any more miracles. If you know, enlighten me.
      Quote: timyr
      read the memoirs of Manikovsky

      No, I'd rather read about Panikovsky. laughing
  17. 0
    2 August 2015 18: 38
    About the tachanka Rostov she who did not understand t3 which unarmed tank did not you write
    1. -1
      2 August 2015 18: 56
      I have already answered 100 times, the phrase "tanks for different purposes" does not mean "one tank was unarmed." Learn racial, it will come in handy.
  18. 0
    2 August 2015 18: 49
    About STZ, KhTZ, GAZ I heard or not, the Germans sold us rolling shafts on which they then rolled the armor. We cooperated with the company Messerschmidt. Enough or how, before writing nonsense, read first what you write
    1. -1
      2 August 2015 18: 59
      Quote: timyr
      the Germans sold us rolling shafts on which they then rolled armor

      The Germans in the hungry years of Weimar were ready to beat and sell their souls from hunger. But this is not an indicator. Few were bought from them, more were needed. While selling. True, they bought a lot of bullshit. This is also true. But these were already such "smart customers". In red pants.
      1. +1
        2 August 2015 19: 15
        And the Americans, too, were hungry, either the British or the Czechs. By the way, we bought rolling shafts in the years 39-40, and also presses and gear cutting machines. By the way, at the factory where I worked, there were vertical drilling machines for 37 years Westinghouse and a planer for Rheinmetal 38 years
        1. -2
          2 August 2015 19: 22
          Quote: timyr
          And the Americans, too, were hungry, or the British or the Czechs.

          Oh really? What, peanut butter was in short supply?
          Quote: timyr
          By the way, we bought rolling shafts in 39-40 years, and also presses and gear cutting machines.

          Do not fantasize.
          Quote: timyr
          By the way, at the factory where I worked, there were vertical drilling machines for 37 years Westinghouse and a planer for Rheinmetal 38 years

          This is not bought. It is repaired.
          1. +2
            2 August 2015 19: 51
            Westinghouse repair rooms tell us when we took the repertory from America. Usa calmly delivered equipment to us before we were 39. It’s strange, but the technological map for machines was 39 years old. This is the Germans paid us reparations in advance, even before 41 years. And this is when we took Washington. I missed something.
      2. 0
        2 August 2015 19: 26
        "Grandfather", you are very similar to one troll who was crucifying here recently that the 7,62x25 TT cartridge is a hunting one.
        Got out in a new way?
        I recommend registering here http://militarizm.ipb.su/index.php?act=idx, maybe you can get enough mind, preferably in the topic "Discussion on Historical Topics". There, by the way, it is customary to give references, and not to engage in idle talk.
  19. 0
    2 August 2015 21: 32
    ,,, who will tell you what kind of series, I do not really understand request
    1. +1
      2 August 2015 22: 03
      Quote: bubalik
      ,,, who will tell you what kind of series, I do not really understand


      T-34-85. Only for some reason without cylindrical side fuel tanks.
  20. +4
    3 August 2015 00: 33
    In fact, the T-34 was a bullshit tank. Even for the USSR. Just a slightly redone light tank with a medium caliber gun. In the USSR in those days there was a really good KV-1 Kotin tank.
    This statement "top1" outraged.

    I want to quote the text from the book of memoirs by M.E. Katukov "On the edge of the main blow" p. 207, during the Second World War, the commander of the 1st Tank Army, which happened on September 17, 1942 at a reception in the Kremlin at the Supreme Commander-in-Chief:
    ... Stalin, pacing around the office, asks me a question:
    - Do you think our tanks are good or not? Speak bluntly.
    I answer that the T-34 tanks have fully justified themselves in battles and that we have high hopes for them. But the KV heavy tanks and T-60 and T-70 combat vehicles in the troops do not like.
    Stalin paused for a moment, arching an eyebrow questioningly:
    -For what reason?
    -KV, Comrade Stalin, is very heavy, slow and, therefore, not maneuverable. Obstacles they overcome with difficulty. But the thirty-four do not care at all. In addition, HF break bridges and generally bring a lot of extra trouble. And the KV is armed with the same seventy-six-millimeter gun as the thirty-four. So, one wonders, what kind of combat advantages does a heavy tank give us? If the KV’s gun was stronger, bigger in caliber, then it’s another matter. Perhaps you could put up with its weight and other design flaws. I criticized the light T-60 tank. It’s armed, even if it’s automatic, only a 20 mm gun. This machine cannot wage a serious struggle with the enemy’s armored forces. In addition, it has low ground clearance and marches on it, attacking in the snow and mud is a dead thing. In the battles near Moscow, we had to carry these tanks in tow.
    The light tank T-70 has more solid armor protection, is armed with a 45 mm cannon, it has two automobile engines installed, but it only began to enter service and so far has not shown itself to be anything special
  21. 0
    3 August 2015 23: 49
    Quote: bogdan4ik
    The parent of the T-34, KV, T-40 tanks is Dmitry Grigorievich Pavlov. As the head of the GABTU, he outlined the principles, requirements and performance characteristics of all three future machines with complete accuracy and clarity to designers. He gave an extremely clear assignment for design and it was he who introduced adjustments to the design in the course of work. He formulated theoretically, set out on paper, and practically proved a new concept for the development of armored forces, which Zhukov stole. And which was returned in 1943.



    I agree that a competently set task is 50% of the business.