Military Review

The most ... "gun tanks" of the world

81
Already the very first Tanks of the world (of those that actually participated in the battles) had cannon weapons, the purpose of which was the destruction of enemy machine guns. “Shoot fast, shoot low!” - It was indicated in the memo - an instruction to the English tank gunners. “Better your shell pours sand into the enemy’s eyes than whistles over his head!” The 57 mm caliber was optimal for this purpose. Not without reason, the Germans, the opponents of the British, put on their A7V 57-mm gun Nordenfeld, although there were other projects. In particular, it was planned to install a 75 mm cannon with a shortened recoil, however, not only were all orders for them painted, the German military was confused by the redundancy of these weapons. In their opinion, the “stormtrooper” would simply have no one to shoot at from this gun. The Russian military also reasoned that it was not without reason that not one of the projects of Russian inventors was adopted. And the point is not only in their technical imperfection. Frightened weapons: 203-mm howitzer and 102-mm guns. "Well, what the hell, the tank has such firepower!" And not without reason the French tanks "Saint-Chamonix", armed with 75-mm field guns, were used not so much as tanks, but as self-propelled guns. The Saint-Chamon 25-ton tank, which also had to have such a gun, did not go into the series. But the Renault FT-17 with a 37-mm gun proved to be the best. Moreover, the French modernized it throughout the 30s, and built all their other cars with an eye on this “warlike baby” - they were so impressed with its military successes.



The first Soviet tank armed with an 45-mm gun was the T-24, which besides it also had a very powerful machine-gun armament, consisting of four machine guns. If the USSR had more of them, and, accordingly, we would have a more developed industry and ... less dependent on the "western experience" specialists, it was from this tank that a brilliant история development of the Soviet armored vehicles. And so ... there were too few of them and they came out too raw to affect something.

The mods on the new caliber 47-mm were again introduced by the British, and by their example 30-mm guns were also installed on Soviet 45-tanks. Again, it was believed that tanks were more likely to fight with infantry than with other tanks, so even Vickers Medium tanks were delivered to India without guns, only with machine guns. What for? But here the inertia of thinking clearly manifested itself. After all, if the infantry is the main objective of the tank, then both the 37, and 47, and even the 57-mm caliber are clearly insufficient.

The most ... "gun tanks" of the world

A1E1 Independent. Despite the impressive size, he had only one 47-mm gun and four machine guns!

And here our Soviet designers turned out to be more far-sighted than the British. They are on their multi-tower tanks "Vikkers-16 T" and "Independent", no matter what. continued to put the gun caliber 47-mm. Moreover, the same "Vickers" in the three towers had the following composition of weapons: a large 47-mm cannon and a 7,71-mm machine gun and two small 7,71-mm machine guns each. But the Soviet T-28 had a large 76,2-mm gun, a machine gun and two machine guns in the front towers in a large turret. True, in battle, it would be better not to face them. Still, the English gun had a greater flatness, a rate of fire and penetrating power. But. if we say that a tank is weapon against infantry (and in the 30-s the overwhelming majority of military specialists thought so), the T-28 should be recognized as more appropriate to such views than the British tank. Well, the "five-tower battleship" T-35 also became a more than worthy answer to the English "Independent" with its one and only 47-mm gun.


The Pzkpfwg-III Ausf A was armed with a short-barreled 37-mm cannon.

Surprisingly, in the pre-war years, the caliber of guns grew very slowly. The standard caliber of the French was 47-mm, the English 42-mm, in the USA 37-mm, 45-mm in the USSR, in Germany - 37-mm. As already noted, the same 75-mm guns were placed on such tanks as 2С, В1, Т-28, Т-35, German NBFZ and Т-IV, however the number of the latter was scanty, and all these guns were short-barreled. The Germans themselves, who were standing on the T-IV gun, were called “stubs,” the barrel was so short, and the speed of his projectile was only 285 m / s. That is, there is a colossal inertia of thinking, which once again proves that people are, in general, very dumb creatures.


Pzkpfwg-III Аusf F. On it was already installed a gun caliber 50-mm, but also short.


Pzkpfwg-III Ausf M. Only this model received a long-barreled gun caliber 50-mm, but it was too late ...


Pzkpfwg-IV Ausf E and its 75 mm stub L / 24.

But when did the "big war" begin. then everything became immediately obvious to everyone: the caliber of a tank gun must be larger, and she herself should have a long barrel, which ensures high speed to the projectile. It turned out that the guns are more profitable than machine guns in the fight against infantry. For example, in North Africa, the German T-IVs simply opened heavy, un aimed fire from cannons at the positions of the British, and that was enough to demoralize them, and then without loss to break through their trenches. The length of the gun barrel on the Soviet T-34 tank began to grow rapidly, and the same trend, coupled with an increase in caliber, became the mainstream throughout the war.


T-34 in the version with 57-mm tool.

True, an attempt was made to put a long-barreled 34-mm gun on the T-57. Set, but it turned out that to meet with the German tanks, these machines at the front ... was not possible! I had to shoot at the already wounded cars. The result was great! But the "infantry" 57-mm shells were rather weak. That is why the modification of the T-34 / 85 and got exactly this weapon: powerful enough to fight with tanks, and with a good high-explosive projectile!


"Matilda II" with 76,2-mm "howitzer" - tank direct support.

Simultaneously with the caliber began to grow and indicators such as barrel length and armor penetration projectile. 37-mm caliber guns were replaced by Germans with 50-mm. Then they had 75-mm tank guns with a barrel length, first 43, then 48, and finally 70 caliber.


Pzkpfwg V Ausf F was planned to equip 88-mm gun, and on the experienced tanks E to put even guns in 100 length and all in order to raise the armor, while maintaining a large ammunition.

The same was true of the powerful 88-mm gun. Finally, the 128-mm cannon hit the SAU. And in the same way, the guns of more and more large calibers were also placed on Soviet ACS - 85,100,122, 152-mm. And the 152-mm howitzer was already on the pre-war Soviet KV-2 tank!

In the United States, 37, 75,76,2 and 90-mm guns were used in the US (105 and 155-mm ACS), in England they switched from 42-mm to 57 and then to the traditional 75-mm and 76,2-mm in Sherman Firefly. It should be noted that the shells of all these guns had not only good armor-piercing qualities, but also traditionally had a good high-explosive and fragmentation effect.



АМХ-50-120 looked more than solid, but it turned out to be too big, too ... too ... too ... that is, unsuitable in everything!


"Challenger" Mk I.

The war ended with the stabilization of tank calibers. The USSR settled on 100-mm, USA on 90-mm, England 83,9-mm (on some of the fire support machines there were 95-mm howitzers with a particularly powerful high-explosive projectile). True, in the USSR, a cannon was put in 122-mm on heavy tanks, and work was underway on adopting an 130-mm tank gun. Actually it was created, and tanks were already developed for it. But then, in fact, they refused from heavy tanks in the USSR, and did not make new cars with 130-mm. For a while, everyone thought that this would be enough for those calibers that are enough. But then the most lagging behind, that is, the British, created their famous tank gun caliber 105-mm L7 and all its other partners in NATO immediately began to put it on their cars, including the United States. The USSR responded with a smoothbore 115-mm caliber gun, and the British put a 120-mm cannon on their new machines. By this time, the gun of the same caliber was already on the American heavy tank M103 and experienced French cars. The Germans and Americans, and then the Japanese and South Koreans, got the same, but only a smooth-bore weapon. In the USSR, in response to this, an 125-mm smooth-bore gun appeared, which has not been losing ground for many years and has only been continuously improved. In the West, they wrote about the need to create an 140-mm tank gun, in our country tanks were tested on which were 152-mm guns. The Americans used the 152-mm gun on the M60-2 tanks and the Sheridan tank, but this is not exactly “that”. After all, these are guns - launchers. And the main means of destruction in them was guided projectile, so in this case, these tanks "do not count."


An experimental tank on the Centurion chassis with an 180-mm gun.

The British armed themselves with one of their experienced tank 180-mm gun (caliber guns of the cruiser "Kirov"), but it is clear that the matter did not go beyond the experiments. However, tanks with the largest caliber (not experienced, but serial!) Still existed, and the guns on them stood in as many 165-mm. These are the so-called engineering tanks M728, created on the basis of tanks M60. They, in addition to special equipment, are armed with this large-caliber short-barreled weapon, firing a powerful high-explosive projectile, designed to destroy various obstacles.


So it would look like a T-90MS tank with a completely non-standard 145-mm cannon. As you can see, because of its dimensions, there is not so much room in the tower for the crew and the automatic loader.

What rests the problem of growth caliber tank guns? For the British, especially in weight! On their tanks there is a rifled gun with separate loading, and already today a 120-mm shell with a tungsten core for it weighs at the limit of the possible. The same is true for 140-mm projectiles, which are very large and heavy. For our 152-mm shells, an automatic loader may well be created (there is an experience!), But ... many shells cannot be loaded into it! And the question is: can we expect slow growth in the future, “step by step” of gauges - well, let's say, we will again have an 130-mm caliber, and in the West 127-mm, and then “everyone will calm down” on 135-mm . Or someone wants to get ahead again and then the predictions about super-powerful 140 and 152-mm guns will come true ?!


М728 - sapper tank.

Fig. A.Shepsa
Author:
81 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Koshchei
    Koshchei 3 September 2015 06: 59 New
    +18
    That is, there is a colossal inertia of thinking, once again proving that people, in general, are very stupid creatures.

    Dear author! Don't be arrogant to your ancestors. Always look for motives for actions, then, perhaps, the decisions made will not seem so stupid. The absence of such an analysis always raises questions and creates a great field for private versions. To globally generalize a particular genre is completely disastrous.
    1. igordok
      igordok 3 September 2015 07: 47 New
      +7
      The topic of the article is interesting. But for this statement: the article is neither a plus nor a minus.
      1. Throw
        Throw 3 September 2015 12: 02 New
        +3

        That is, there is a colossal inertia of thinking, once again proving that people, in general, are very stupid creatures.

        There is evidence that people are strong with a backward mind, but the author, as he aptly and self-critically wrote, is a very stupid person.
        laughing
    2. kalibr
      3 September 2015 07: 54 New
      +2
      It seems that everyone knows about the existing inertia of thinking. I did not come up with anything new. You apparently took it personally.
      1. Alf
        Alf 3 September 2015 13: 34 New
        +8
        Quote: kalibr
        It seems that everyone knows about the existing inertia of thinking. I did not come up with anything new. You apparently took it personally.

        The inertia of thinking is one thing, and writing all people stupid is, to put it mildly, unwise.
        Although, as far as I remember, Mr. Shpakovsky had similar highs since the time of Tankaster.
        The Germans themselves standing on the T-IV gun was called a “cigarette butt”, he had such a short barrel, and the velocity of his projectile was only 285 m / s

        Author, learn the materiel.
        For example, in North Africa, the German T-IV simply opened strong aimless fire from guns at the positions of the British and this was enough to demoralize them, and then break through their trenches without loss.

        Not in order to demoralize, but in order to raise a cloud of sand into the air and limit visibility. Eh, the "expert" ...
        1. kalibr
          3 September 2015 20: 47 New
          0
          Not all people are stupid, far from it. And 80% is Pareto's law. And this law, again, was not I who invented it, so what are the “vysery” here. And why is it so rude? We are not in the barracks ... As for 385 - well, the hand jerked, and then did not notice what? Do not get up, do not ...? And then about “demoralizing” ... You see, I read the memories of the English who fought in Africa and there was a phrase about the demoralizing fire of the German T-4. I liked it and I put it in the book "Libyan swing", which was supposed to be published in the editorial office of TM. But it did not come out, and something is being used from it now. There were excellent photos from the Imperial Museum of War in London. So who, what likes, who pop, and who gets ...
          1. dvina71
            dvina71 3 September 2015 23: 49 New
            +2
            Quote: kalibr
            About 385 - well, the hand twitched, and then did not notice, so what?


            And about the 57mm guns of the T-34, didn’t you jerk? Lavrinenko Dmitry Fedorovich, what does this name mean for you?
            1. kalibr
              4 September 2015 08: 54 New
              -3
              It does not tell me anything, so I saw the photo in Pravda, but who it is and I did not have time to read it.
              1. Alf
                Alf 4 September 2015 13: 44 New
                +1
                Quote: kalibr
                It does not tell me anything, so I saw the photo in Pravda, but who it is and I did not have time to read it.

                The name of Lavrinenkov is known to everyone who is more or less interested in the history of Soviet tank troops.
                1. kalibr
                  4 September 2015 19: 53 New
                  -1
                  So after 17 years of publishing Tankmaster and 3's books about tanks, I missed it, ahhhhh! And as it happened, I myself do not understand ...
          2. Alf
            Alf 4 September 2015 13: 42 New
            +1
            Quote: kalibr
            Not all people are stupid, not at all. And 80% according to Pareto law. And again, I did not come up with this law, so what kind of "vysery" is there.

            And who do you consider yourself to be 80% or the 20 remaining?
            Quote: kalibr
            About 385 - well, the hand twitched, and then did not notice, so what? Do not get up, do not ... t?

            Before you send it to print, you need to read what is written.
            Quote: kalibr
            You see, I read the memories of the British fighting in Africa and there was a phrase about the demoralizing fire of the German T-4.

            The British demoralized a lot of things, primarily the fact of war.
            1. TWR
              TWR 4 September 2015 17: 47 New
              +1
              Quote: Alf
              The British demoralized a lot of things, primarily the fact of war.

              Oh, to me these "cowardly English." And so, trembling fearfully, looking cowardly, fearing everything in the world, they took and slowly conquered the whole world. Nearly. With rare exceptions.
              And now they are sitting and afraid. Probably. That for them something bad will be. And what to take from them? They are demoralized.
            2. The comment was deleted.
            3. kalibr
              4 September 2015 19: 41 New
              0
              Of course to 20%. The author of 35 books in the USSR, the Russian Federation, England and Germany + 600 with more than articles just for the last three years simply cannot be in 80 ...
              Written read, but when you write a lot of eyes "zamylivaetsya." How many thousands of signs do you write per day?
              The English demoralized a lot of things, yes, but that does not mean that this opinion of them does not matter. So it seemed to them, it means it was so! We cannot determine their mental state then, in the desert ...
  2. parusnik
    parusnik 3 September 2015 07: 48 New
    +4
    The weapons were scaring away: a 203-mm howitzer and a 102-mm gun. "Well, what the hell, the tank has such firepower!" .... There was no engine for such a tank ... would be, the weapons didn’t scare ..
  3. cth; fyn
    cth; fyn 3 September 2015 08: 29 New
    +6
    Cho for the popularization of a rather serious topic? Yes, there are so many reasons for the small caliber at the beginning of history that you can write a dissertation (remember even if General and General Grant, why was they sponsored?), But here everything was reduced to a stupid corner of a person, minus the article, complete nonsense.
    1. kalibr
      3 September 2015 08: 47 New
      -2
      This dissertation? This one of us is nonsense?
      1. cth; fyn
        cth; fyn 3 September 2015 08: 56 New
        +2
        No, it is possible to make a dissertation on this topic (I generally said this in a global sense, so that it would be clear that the topic is vast and multifaceted), but why did you think that I should put it here honestly in a stupor.
  4. inkass_98
    inkass_98 3 September 2015 08: 32 New
    -1
    Thank you, the article is excellent, the illustrations are beautiful. In principle, nothing new was discovered, but reading is still easy and pleasant.
    The caliber of tank guns will grow anyway, at least in our army. Our 125-mm shells have practically exhausted themselves (I mean BOPS), they lack power against modern bourgeois tanks, we need to increase the length, weight and speed of the "scrap", and the current AZ does not allow this. The time for change has arrived, we will wait for the choice of our military.
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 3 September 2015 08: 43 New
      +3
      And rockets for what? 5 km, 1000mm everything is in openwork, there is something to beat abrams and leopards with.
    2. remy
      remy 4 September 2015 00: 09 New
      0
      another picture for the mood ....
  5. LMaksim
    LMaksim 3 September 2015 08: 32 New
    +4
    True, an attempt was made to put a long-barreled 34-mm gun on the T-57. Set, but it turned out that to meet with the German tanks, these machines at the front ... was not possible! I had to shoot at the already wounded cars. The result was great! But the "infantry" 57-mm shells were rather weak. That is why the modification of the T-34 / 85 and got exactly this weapon: powerful enough to fight with tanks, and with a good high-explosive projectile!

    Totally wrong! A 57 mm gun appeared on the T-34 as a result of a shortage of 76 mm guns and already during the war. A 85 mm gun was mounted on the T-34 due to the inability of the 76 mm gun to penetrate the armors of the German Tigers. In addition, there were experiments on the installation of a 100 mm gun on the T-34, but the chassis could not withstand the recoil of such a powerful gun.
    What does the problem of increasing the caliber of tank guns rest against?

    The higher the caliber of the projectile, the larger its dimensions and weight, the less ammunition will be on the tank. We recall the BK on the T-26 (45 mm gun), T-34 (76 mm gun) and IS-2 (122 mm gun). The higher the caliber, weight and dimensions of the projectile, the longer the gun will recharge (again compare the T-26, T-34 and IS-2) and the greater the recoil of the gun. On the other hand, a large caliber allows you to inflict damage to the equipment without even breaking through its armor. We recall the tests of SU-152 during the shelling of Ferdinand. The shell did not penetrate the armor, but self-propelled mechanisms failed due to a powerful blow, and the dogs inside contained a shell shock.
    1. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 3 September 2015 09: 54 New
      +2
      Quote: LMaksim
      Totally wrong! The 57 mm gun appeared on the T-34 as a result of the shortage of 76 mm guns and already during the war.

      Not really, Maxim.
      Work on ZIS-2 and ZIS-4 was carried out BEFORE the war.
      It was more “complex” fluff than the classic F-34.
      1. LMaksim
        LMaksim 4 September 2015 15: 32 New
        0
        Colleague, I came across information that, as a result of a shortage of 76mm guns, part of the T-34 was produced with 57mm guns. In addition, there were attempts to install these guns on the A-20 tractor. By complexity, I completely agree, Grabin did not engage in nonsense.
        1. Alf
          Alf 4 September 2015 17: 03 New
          +1
          Quote: LMaksim
          there were attempts to install these guns on the A-20 tractor.

          These were not attempts.
          Production of the ZIS-30 began only on September 21. In total, until October 15, the plant assembled 101 ZIS-30 (including the first prototype), which took part in the final stage of the battle for Moscow. In September-October 1941, all these vehicles came to equip batteries of anti-tank guns (6 vehicles per battery) in motorized rifle battalions of tank brigades of the Western, Bryansk and right wing of the South-Western fronts. In total, about 20 tank brigades were staffed.
        2. TWR
          TWR 4 September 2015 17: 40 New
          0
          Quote: LMaksim
          I came across information that as a result of a shortage of 76mm guns, part of the T-34 was produced with 57mm guns.

          This is incorrect information. On the contrary, there were not enough tanks. Therefore, very 1941. a batch of F-34 tank guns (about 500 pieces) on field carriages went into the troops.
          T-34/57, this is an attempt to make a fighter tank. Pretty quickly abandoned her.
    2. Stas57
      Stas57 3 September 2015 10: 07 New
      +1
      Totally wrong! The 57 mm gun appeared on the T-34 as a result of the shortage of 76 mm guns and already during the war.

      this is completely wrong
      one of the issues is the inability of 76 mm shells to penetrate new types of German tanks at ranges greater than 700m due to poor quality
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 3 September 2015 13: 12 New
      0
      Quote: LMaksim

      Totally wrong! The 57 mm gun appeared on the T-34 as a result of the shortage of 76 mm guns and already during the war.

      The fighter tank with a 57-mm gun based on the T-34 was in the plans of GABTU before the war.
      Quote: LMaksim
      A 85 mm gun was mounted on the T-34 due to the inability of the 76 mm gun to penetrate the armors of the German Tigers.

      The question is debatable.
      Another point of view is that the 85-mm gun appeared on the T-34 as a response to the Germans introducing a 75-mm anti-tank gun: it was necessary to arm the tank with a gun whose direct-fire range would equal or exceed the effective fire range of the new anti-tank gun. Because direct fire was the fastest and easiest way to fire, and the time spent on an aimed shot, when detecting anti-tank fire was critically important.
      There were 2 ways to raise the direct range shot: increase the initial speed and increase the caliber. An increase in the USSR’s initial speed was not suitable - at the same time, due to the thickening of the walls of the projectile, its power was reduced for its “soft” targets, which were basic for tanks (see Order No. 325 and the composition of the BC). This was especially critical precisely for the USSR with its mobility equipment made of steel cast iron.
      That is why, by the way, the 76-mm S-54 gun with an increased initial speed lost the 85-mm S-53 - even though the S-54 did not require an expansion of the tower’s shoulder strap.
      There was a second way - to increase the caliber. At the same time, again there were limitations: it was necessary to fit into those calibers, the ammunition for which were in the series. So the choice was clear - only 85 mm.
  6. Stvr-103
    Stvr-103 3 September 2015 08: 32 New
    +7
    True, an attempt was made to put on the T-34 long-barrel 57-mm gun. They set it up, but it turned out that these vehicles at the front didn’t have a chance to meet with German tanks! I had to shoot at already wrecked cars
    ц

    And this, excuse me, did they get so much from the broken equipment?
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 3 September 2015 08: 37 New
      0
      It seems like some kind of tank ace was driving a t-34-57.
      1. cth; fyn
        cth; fyn 3 September 2015 08: 41 New
        +2
        Dmitry Lavrinenko
        1. kalibr
          3 September 2015 08: 53 New
          0
          In the photo in Pravda, where his crew is awarded the gun 76-mm.
          1. cth; fyn
            cth; fyn 3 September 2015 09: 02 New
            +1
            http://opoccuu.com/t-34-57.htm
            There is a photo of Lavrynenko with the crew in the background of the car
            especially knowing the “truthfulness” of Truth, I would not take it as a reliable source.
            1. kalibr
              3 September 2015 09: 57 New
              0
              We have already discussed here somehow the “Truth” as a historical source and came to the conclusion that ... the source is, yes, but it’s very difficult to work with and need to be very careful. But it is unlikely that Lavrenenko and his comrades did not install at their tank. I remember this photo, it is a large format on the second page at the top left. Now I looked at the footnote that you suggested and it says there, under the photo, that the 57-mm "can be clearly seen" cannon. Yes, perhaps, although when I first saw this photo in Pravda, I did not think so. Well, everyone can be mistaken.
            2. Stas57
              Stas57 3 September 2015 10: 02 New
              +2
              Quote: cth; fyn
              There is a photo of Lavrynenko with the crew in the background of the car
              especially knowing the “truthfulness” of Truth, I would not take it as a reliable source.

              source like opoccuu smacks of shit
              there were no tanks with a gun 1 mm in the 57 guards
              the short barrel 76 mm is clearly visible in the photo


              I say well opoccuu shitty resource
          2. Aleksandr72
            Aleksandr72 3 September 2015 10: 47 New
            0
            According to all archival data, Dmitry Fyodorovich Lavrinenko fought on a T-34 tank with a 76-mm F-34 gun, usual for this tank. Even the “all-knowing" Wikipedia agrees with this.
            It seems to me alone that the article did not find a place for this "cannon tank" (although for me it is rather a well-armored self-propelled pillbox). Voto from Kubinka:
            1. Eternal Watch
              Eternal Watch 3 September 2015 10: 53 New
              0
              Quote: Aleksandr72
              It seems to me alone that in the article there was no place for this "cannon tank"

              Quote: Aleksandr72
              (although for me it is rather a well-armored self-propelled pillbox).

              When you are next to this monster it’s just a rash repeat
              1. Throw
                Throw 3 September 2015 12: 15 New
                0
                Interestingly, with the command “by cars” did the muscle men run behind the stairs?))
            2. bistrov.
              bistrov. 4 September 2015 01: 10 New
              0
              This is a German experimental tank "mouse", created in 2 copies, weighing 188 tons! Frontal armor 200 mm., 128mm gun. The designer is the famous Ferdinand Porsche. He eloquently shows that the design idea in Nazi Germany, in the field of tank building has come to a standstill.
            3. LMaksim
              LMaksim 4 September 2015 15: 36 New
              0
              Yes, the pillbox was good. 128 and 75mm guns in one bottle. It’s a pity they didn’t have a chance to fight, it would be interesting to see. Maybe fortunately?
        2. Stas57
          Stas57 3 September 2015 09: 59 New
          +1
          Lavrinenko on the T-3457?
          Well, come up with why?
          1. bionik
            bionik 3 September 2015 10: 18 New
            0
            Somehow we discussed with Stas57, on the shield of Lavrinenko and T-34-57, opoccuu a resource in kind shit.
            1. cth; fyn
              cth; fyn 3 September 2015 10: 22 New
              0
              okay, I’ll take it into account.
    2. kalibr
      3 September 2015 08: 52 New
      0
      You know, there was an article in the magazine "Tankomaster." Not mine, but it's from there. So I did not invent it. But I do not know about the fights between the T-34 / 57 and the German tanks. What has, on the basis of that and wrote. If wrong, give more accurate information, write about the battles of these tanks. It will be great!
      1. cth; fyn
        cth; fyn 3 September 2015 09: 07 New
        +1
        I’m not a creator, I’m a consumer, let’s write about armor, otherwise we know so little about Japanese helmets.
        1. kalibr
          3 September 2015 09: 45 New
          +2
          About helmets too, I promise you that. There is a lot of material, now it is being processed. But also tanks - love from 1980 of the year, already 35 of years, you cannot throw off this account!
          1. cth; fyn
            cth; fyn 3 September 2015 10: 01 New
            +2
            By the way, on ft17 they put a large gun in a fixed wheelhouse, so he wasn’t such a kid. There are many reasons why large guns didn’t put it, and riveted hulls that could not withstand recoil and the mass of guns with engine power, the inability to fit the gun in the wheelhouse under the existing pursuit, in general I am more for the theory of lack of technology, because in the late 30s up to 152 mm, why? Because they have accumulated technology and equipment. This is my point of view, it may not be correct, but for my perverted logic, it is quite logical.
      2. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 3 September 2015 09: 40 New
        0
        Quote: kalibr
        But I do not know about the battles between the T-34 / 57 and German tanks.

        Vyacheslav, you wrote in the article ... "They set it up, but it turned out that these vehicles at the front didn’t have a chance to meet with German tanks! I had to shoot at already wrecked cars... ".
        To put it mildly, this is not at all true.
        T-34 with the rest of ZIS-4 fought as part of the 21 brigade.

        The case you described is the activity of the "company 100" in August 1943 of the year with ZIS-4M, and no more.
        ..............

        By article:
        The first half is more detailed than the second. It's a pity.
        All in all - Thank you very much.
        hi
        1. kalibr
          3 September 2015 09: 48 New
          0
          Well, I didn’t write about combat work, but about guns, so I didn’t dig deep, focusing on an article from TaMa. Well, if they have encountered in battles, well, well, but in general, this does not change much. The Germans, too, did not manage with cannons with a tapered barrel, and one of the reasons was that there was little explosive in the projectile. So in general, conceptually, everything is correct.
          1. Alf
            Alf 3 September 2015 13: 39 New
            0
            Quote: kalibr
            The Germans didn’t have a chance to get cannons with a conical barrel either, and one of the reasons was that the shell had little explosive.

            And where does the conical trunk?
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 3 September 2015 13: 33 New
      0
      Quote: Stvr-103
      And this, excuse me, did they get so much from the broken equipment?

      T-34-57, b / n 20 - this is the tank of the commander of the tank regiment of the 21st brigade Hero of the Soviet Union M.A. Lukina. Lost, most likely, with artillery.
      The tanks of the Lukin group marched at high speed. In the sight of a tank gun, the commander of the 21st regiment already saw the house where the headquarters of the 611th German heavy artillery division was located. But hardly the tank gun of his T-34 fired the first shot at this headquarters, when the caterpillar of the Lukin tank was smashed at the bridge across the Kamenka River by return fire from the enemy. The driver of the tank - Sergeant Nenenko, under cover of the fire of his comrades, got out of the tank gun and machine guns through the front hatch and tried to restore the broken track. But to do this failed. Through the same hatch Nenenko crawled back into the tank and, together with the crew, continued the battle, destroying the enemy with fire from a place. Gradually, in such an unequal battle, the enemy surrounded the tank, firing at it from camouflaged guns and machine guns. The guns and machine guns fell silent among the tankers, the ammunition came to an end. Major Lukin ordered the crew to retreat to the forest through the front hatch. The driver Nenenko, the gunner-radio operator Emelyanov and the artillery-gunner-gunner Sashkov began to retreat to the forest with short dashes. At this time, Major Mikhail Alekseevich Lukin, the commander of the crew and the 21st Tank Regiment, jumped out onto the tank’s armor for some reason through the upper T-34 hatch with two revolvers in his hands and was killed by bursts from a machine gun and machine gun.
      Frightened by the long fire from the tank and its resistance, the Germans cautiously left the bushes at the bridge, approached the body of the fallen commander at the broken tank. Then, making sure that he was dead, they turned over the body of the murdered Lukin with his boots, rummaged around his pockets, ripped insignia and awards from the tunic, then thievously pulled the boots off his feet ...
      All this was seen by local boys, adolescents aged 15-17, and other residents of Troyanov. The Nazis guarded the broken tank and the body of Lukin. Only on the third night did four boys, schoolchildren from Troyanov - Nikolai Kuzmin, Alexei Pavlov, Volodya Nekrasov and Mikhail Petrov - manage to secretly take the body of the deceased Soviet tankman and bury him on a hill, near the banks of the Kamenka River.
      After the release of Troyanov, in January 1942, a group of Lukin's former associates in the regiment and brigade led by A. Vitruk found his grave with the help of three children (the fourth of them fell at the hands of the invaders). On January 24, 1942, along the streets of the city of Kalinin, on a T-34 tank without a tower, the coffin with the body of Hero of the Soviet Union Major Lukin, accompanied by battle tanks, was delivered to Lenin Square and buried here under mourning, farewell salute from tank guns ...

      http://vif2ne.ru/rkka/forum/arhprint/57103
  7. Moskvich
    Moskvich 3 September 2015 09: 17 New
    0
    Quote: Stvr-103
    True, an attempt was made to put on the T-34 long-barrel 57-mm gun. They set it up, but it turned out that these vehicles at the front didn’t have a chance to meet with German tanks! I had to shoot at already wrecked cars
    ц

    And this, excuse me, did they get so much from the broken equipment?


    This quote was also embarrassing, from other reliable sources it is known that at least 10-15 of these tanks took part in battles in the fall of 1941.
    1. kalibr
      3 September 2015 09: 52 New
      0
      I do not argue, but only always the tanks fought against the tanks? Sad photos that here can be the result of anything? Where is it written that this T-34 was hit by a German tank?
      1. Bayonet
        Bayonet 3 September 2015 10: 49 New
        -3
        Quote: kalibr
        The sad photos that are given here could be the result of anything? Where is it written that a German tank knocked out this thirty-four?

        Well, of course, a certain category of people believes that OUR tanks cannot be knocked out by the enemy - well, at worst, a short circuit in the wiring or a meteorite ... winked
        1. kalibr
          3 September 2015 13: 35 New
          0
          Or a projectile hit 75-mm guns or 105-mm howitzers and even a close explosion of a bomb, is not it?
    2. Stas57
      Stas57 3 September 2015 10: 55 New
      +1
      Tank T-34 with 57-mm gun ZIS-4, lined up near the village of Troyanovo. 17.10.41. The vehicle belonged to Major Lukin, commander of the tank regiment of the 21 th tank brigade.

      if you want, who and how looted to find out has no problem, the main thing is to want
  8. valerysvy
    valerysvy 3 September 2015 09: 45 New
    0
    Thanks for the article ... INTERESTING ...
  9. Stas57
    Stas57 3 September 2015 09: 45 New
    0


    experienced tank with a division number 1 tank and a cross from the times of Poland-France ?!
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 3 September 2015 09: 53 New
      0
      In Germany, nothing was lost, all tanks that could not effectively fight or sawed into vehicles of another class (marder) or left as desks for neophytes.
    2. kalibr
      3 September 2015 10: 03 New
      0
      Yes, everything went into battle! Then from this type of chassis refused. The series was small and it was experienced, but why not let her into battle?
    3. Das Boot
      Das Boot 3 September 2015 12: 13 New
      +2
      Quote: Stas57
      experienced tank with a division number 1 tank and a cross from the times of Poland-France ?!

      substantive comment)
      just as an offtopic: the white cross is a great target. Almost exactly to the center. The “penny” commander was out of luck.
  10. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 3 September 2015 11: 20 New
    +1
    The coup in the battle of the tank-against-tank will produce one
    who is the first to make an unusual 120-125 mm caliber missile with GOS,
    able to make the right slide in front of an enemy tank
    and hit him at the top of the tower or motor (optional).
    Such a rocket will force a radical redo of tanks.

    Such missiles, in principle, exist, but in calibers of 150-155 mm or more.
    That is, they cannot be launched through the trunk.
    Those missiles that can be launched through the barrel are obsolete
    Laser illumination without a slide before hitting a target. Their cumm. heads
    not enough to break through the frontal armor.
    1. Throw
      Throw 3 September 2015 12: 34 New
      +1
      ..knowing how to make the right slide in front of an enemy tank
      and hit him at the top of the tower or motor (optional).
      Such a rocket will force a radical redo of tanks.

      Because maneuvering missile will be, then warhead is not kinetic, but cumulative. Therefore, they will not radically redo anything. Put on top of the DZ and KAZ, which low-speed PSU easily affects. To overcome the rocket will need to be done with a tandem warhead and a separate shot-simulator.
      In which trunk it will turn out to cram and how to shoot, the question ..
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 3 September 2015 13: 17 New
        +2
        "Put on top of DZ and KAZ, which low-speed PSU easily affects" ////

        You're right. They will do so, but this is a serious alteration of the tank.
        The fact is that the top of the tower is very difficult to block with DZ tiles - there are many
        hatches, devices, machine guns. And, do not forget, you need to cover another motor from above!
        KAZ is an expensive thing. For cover from above radar radar is needed.
        (Trophy with 4 radars - half a million dollars). Equip them all
        tanks are very expensive.
        It turns out that a small smart rocket will cause the tank to rise in price in a million dollars
        not less.
    2. Taoist
      Taoist 3 September 2015 13: 20 New
      +1
      Something tells me that they will not do this ... why "cram the invisible" if you can place the air-craft by type of ship - here, for any large ammunition, it is not necessary - and in the cell size you can fit ATGM and SAM and UAVs for reconnaissance ...
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 3 September 2015 14: 33 New
        0
        This is also an option. But a classic gun is impossible
        completely replace with missiles: it is not known in advance which type
        battle to be. For example, infantry support is more convenient
        just carry cheap high-explosive shells,
        either buckshot, or high-explosive armor-piercing (against concrete).
        A wound rocket with a slide will help well against a tank, but
        keep a dozen of them.
        1. Taoist
          Taoist 3 September 2015 15: 36 New
          0
          So in general, that’s what’s going on. Fortunately, now there is the opportunity to make "unmanned combat modules" and for the tank commander you only need to move the joystick in order to choose the best combat module and type of ammunition to hit a specific target.
    3. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 4 September 2015 17: 35 New
      +1
      Quote: voyaka uh
      The coup in the battle of the tank-against-tank will produce one
      who is the first to make an unusual 120-125 mm caliber missile with GOS,
      able to make the right slide in front of an enemy tank
      and hit him at the top of the tower or motor (optional).
      Such a rocket will force radically redo tanks .....

      Not a fact.
      "..." Afganit "- a complex of active protection (KAZ) of the tank. Developed in Russia in the 2010s.
      Designed to protect heavy armored vehicles from anti-tank cumulative shells (ATGM and CS) and sub-caliber shells ....
      .... Ballistic protection elements are located under the turret on the hull, which makes them difficult for most ammunition, unlike all other KAZ, radar systems are duplicated. There is a jamming system and the ability to destroy ammunition using the main AFAR radar and anti-aircraft machine gun (this protection scheme can actually also be a separate independent complex). [1]
      The Afganita developers also received patent RU 2263268 for an active defense system based on the “impact core” principle, which makes it possible to shoot down promising ammunition at speeds of up to 3000 m / s [2]; currently (before the completion of state tests), an option is set with the target speed up to 1700 m / s [3] which is also enough to intercept almost any ammunition at its maximum speed.
      First of all, “Afganit” is a strike nucleus launched from fired missiles initially forward in the direction of mounting the missile container, then in any direction, capable of effectively destroying attack shells of all types [4] there are also 2 types of ammunition hidden in the tower from side impacts for jamming effective against all modern anti-tank missiles as a means of disguise at the time of the attack. [5] .....
      Missile defense
      .... The masking elements of the "Afganita" are located in small roof mortars. Defense Update experts indicate [10] that masking elements act simultaneously as a smoke screen, a multispectral curtain (including the IR range) and opaque curtains for millimeter wave radar stations (by ejecting a cloud of miniature dipole reflectors). According to Defense Update, this completely blocks anti-tank systems built on the principle of laser (Hellfire, TOU, Bassoon, Stugna-P, Skif), IR-guidance (Javelin, Spike) and with its own MW-radar (Brimstone, JAGM), making T -14 protected from these missiles, as well as from gliding self-guiding charges (“mantles”). Experts from Janes's 360 magazine [8] agree with Update Defense that the T-14 will have a means of setting opaque curtains in the infrared, which hides the T-14 from anti-tank weapons with infrared guidance like the Javelin ATGM.
      Defense Update experts indicate that the masking part of KAZ Afganit is triggered by an AFAR radar (radar with an active phased array), the glass LTCC antennas ("matrices") are spaced and oriented in four directions, with all matrices tilted up to control upper hemisphere [11]. Thus, the AFAR radar has a circular coverage and control of the upper hemisphere ...... "

      If you look closely at our military equipment, which participated in the May 9 parade, this system is not only on the T-14 tank, but also on the T-15 armored personnel carrier and Kurganets-25.
  11. Das Boot
    Das Boot 3 September 2015 12: 07 New
    +1
    Pzkpfwg-IV Ausf E and its 75 mm stub L / 24.

    Panzerleute called him "hemp")
  12. Das Boot
    Das Boot 3 September 2015 12: 42 New
    +2
    I don’t know, but it seems to me that the “most cannon” thesis implies the number of cannons 1+)) We had no equal here) Even with the HF we did not immediately decide whether it was two-turret or one-turret two-cannon)
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 3 September 2015 13: 36 New
      0
      Quote: Das Boot
      I don’t know, but it seems to me that the “most cannon” thesis implies the number of cannons 1+)) We had no equal here) Even with the HF we did not immediately decide whether it was two-turret or one-turret two-cannon)

      Two-guns and the Germans had:

      But we had a three-gun five-turret tank:
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 3 September 2015 14: 12 New
        0
        Oops ... the last photo fell off:
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 4 September 2015 17: 50 New
          0
          To replace cannons in small towers with 2A42 (like on BMP-2) add optics to them and why not BMPT?
          or a tank for fighting in the city
      2. bionik
        bionik 3 September 2015 14: 21 New
        0
        QMS experimental Soviet heavy tank.
        1. bionik
          bionik 3 September 2015 14: 25 New
          0
          T-100-experimental Soviet heavy tank.
  13. bionik
    bionik 3 September 2015 13: 19 New
    0
    M3-American medium tank. Two guns 75 mm and 37 mm.
    1. bionik
      bionik 3 September 2015 13: 27 New
      +1
      KV-2 "Klim Voroshilov" .1 × 152-mm tank howitzer arr. 1938/40 (M-10T).
      1. Das Boot
        Das Boot 3 September 2015 15: 01 New
        +3
        The last war of legend. Syrian PzKpfw IV Ausf.H in the Golan 1967.
  14. TWR
    TWR 3 September 2015 13: 43 New
    0
    The Germans themselves standing on the T-IV gun was called a “cigarette butt”, he had such a short barrel, and the velocity of his projectile was only 285 m / s. That is, there is a colossal inertia of thinking, once again proving that people, in general, are very stupid creatures.

    Before writing this, the author needs to understand that before the war the T-IV was positioned as an "infantry" tank. Those. tank infantry direct escort. Therefore, the "cigarette butt", to fulfill his intended tasks, was just right for him. Before the war, the armies of the whole world had these same "infantry" tanks.
    In the USSR, it was the T-34. And before him, in "shaggy times", it was a T-26.
    After the outbreak of the war, it became clear that the concept of "infantry" tanks was erroneous. And the "butt" (KwK.37) in the spring of 1942. was replaced by KwK.40. After that, the pre-war "infantry" T-IV turned into a normal medium T-IV wartime. All the rest of his performance characteristics corresponded to this in the "infantry" version.
    In the USSR in July 1942 Soviet production of the medium tank was also launched. They became the small-scale KV-1s. After watching the Germans, the Soviet strategists decided that the heavy tanks of the Red Army were also not needed. And they remade the pre-war "breakthrough tank" KV-1 in the middle KV-1s. I think the appearance in August of that year of the German heavy T-VI was an unpleasant surprise for them. Do not guess. The answer (IS tanks) followed only at the end of 1943.
    And the KV-1s tank, as medium, was very good. Better German T-IV. But it was produced in small series. Therefore, the main tank of the Red Army became the same pre-war "infantry" T-34. Which no major changes until the end of 1943. not undergone. Widely publicized by propagandists, the extension of the trunk by 10 klb. its fighting qualities were not affected much and did not turn it into a medium tank. The tank did not correspond to the tasks that were facing medium tanks at that time. But there was no other mass. Because after the outbreak of war, he was chosen as the main one. Therefore, they fought with what was.
    Pzkpfwg-III Ausf M. Only this model received a long-barreled gun caliber 50-mm, but it was too late ...

    What was late? Berlin fell?
    In fact, the less long-barrel German 50-mm tank gun was not bad. Of course, in terms of VET, the long-barreled was better. But no tragedy from the presence of a shorter barrel has occurred. Pzkpfwg-III before the war was positioned as a "success development tank" (it’s cavalry, it’s cruising, the name depended on the country). It was also used at first. Until the war assumed a positional character, after which the need for vehicles of this class was reduced to a minimum.
    In the USSR, BT tanks were an analogue of the “troika”. Which should have been replaced by the T-50.
    then everything immediately became obvious to everyone: the caliber of the tank gun should be larger, and she herself should have a long barrel, providing the projectile high speed.

    The pre-war concept of tank classes has changed. Tanks began to be divided into light, medium and heavy. Their tasks began to include VET tasks. Therefore, the guns have become universal.
    It turned out that guns are more profitable than machine guns in the fight against infantry.

    This was known even before the war. "Infantry" tanks before it switched to a caliber of 75-76 mm.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 3 September 2015 14: 27 New
      0
      Quote: TWR
      Before the war, the armies of the whole world had these same "infantry" tanks.
      In the USSR, it was the T-34. And before him, in "shaggy times", it was a T-26.

      To be precise, in the USSR, the T-26 was to replace the T-50 with an infantry tank. The T-34 was originally wanted as a replacement for the T-28. But the T-50 did not have time to put in a series - and the T-34 had to become a jack of all trades.
      Quote: TWR
      After watching the Germans, the Soviet strategists decided that the heavy tanks of the Red Army were also not needed. And they remade the pre-war "breakthrough tank" KV-1 in the middle KV-1s.

      KV-1C was just a heavy tank. The facilitation of the reservation was due to the fact that Soviet strategists had seen enough of the reports of tank commanders, in which complaints about the overload of the original HF and the unreliability of its mechanisms were flowing.
      The KV-13 was supposed to be the middle in the KV line. But it did not grow together. However, their business was not in vain - and from KV-13 grew IS.
      Quote: TWR
      I think the appearance in August of that year of the German heavy T-VI was an unpleasant surprise for them.

      This surprise has been awaited already since the beginning of 1941. In addition, by the time the Tigers appeared and the usual “rollers” of the Panzervaff reservations had grown.
      Quote: TWR
      And the KV-1s tank, as medium, was very good. Better German T-IV. But it was produced in small series.

      And he during his release and could not go into a major series. There are at least two reasons. Firstly, this is an acute shortage of rolled products thicker than 45 mm (there was even a GKO decree on the economy of this rental). Actually, precisely because of this shortage, the IS received so many cast armor parts. Secondly, the lack of machine tools for processing shoulder straps of towers with a diameter of more than 1500 mm. After all the evacuations at the USSR tank plants, there were one and a half such machines: one whole - at ChKZ (he gave the KV program), and one half-dismantled set in Sormovo (machines of this type after installation and adjustment were not to be disassembled and transported at all ... but with us were able to reassemble it and set it up in a year - and after that they let it into the T-34-85 program).
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. TWR
        TWR 3 September 2015 15: 06 New
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        To be precise, in the USSR, the T-26 was to replace the T-50 with an infantry tank. The T-34 was originally wanted as a replacement for the T-28.

        This is not true. Absolutely. See below Pavlov’s letter to Voroshilov. It should be noted that instead of the T-20 (A-20) they made the T-50, and instead of the T-32 they made the T-34.
        Quote: Alexey RA
        But the T-50 did not have time to put in a series

        Would be needed, would have acted. But just like their counterparts, the T-III was no longer needed. Therefore, they did not. That was the right decision.
        Quote: Alexey RA
        KV-1C was just a heavy tank.

        Yes, I didn’t put it right. KV-1s was "potentially the best medium tank". For the very best medium tank of the times of 2MB, he had to attach a tower from the T-1943/34 at the end of 85. That's all. But this excellent chance was missed. After which the propagandists began to inflate the bubble about the" beautiful T-34. "
        Quote: Alexey RA
        in which the flow went complaints about the overload of the initial HF and the unreliability of its mechanisms.

        A new checkpoint by the summer of 1942. mastered the production. The armor could not be thinned, it was not a problem. The problem was armament. There was no suitable gun for the heavy tank in the USSR. Therefore, there was no tank.
        Quote: Alexey RA
        This surprise has been awaited since the beginning of 1941

        Waited. But they did not wait. Therefore, they decided that he would no longer be. And in August 1942. he happened.
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Secondly, the lack of machine tools for processing shoulder straps of towers with a diameter of over 1500 mm

        There was no shortage of this. Look at the pre-war plans for the release of the KV-1. In addition, you yourself write that the equipment did not go away at ChKZ. Then look at how much before the war only the ChKZ was supposed to produce.
        In fact, everything is simpler. By the end of 1941 almost the entire pre-war tank fleet of the Red Army was lost. And to "indulge" with diversity was not with one's hand. By that time, 34 plants were operating with the T-3. Therefore, at ChKZ, the production of HF was reduced to 25%, and the rest was also replaced by the T-34. The tank was frankly unimportant. But there was no way to rearm. Therefore, they fought with what was. And crushed the shaft.
        Quote: Alexey RA
        and after that they started up the T-34-85 program

        T-34/85 was launched not on pre-war equipment. Before the war, there were not so many machines of this level in the USSR.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 3 September 2015 16: 52 New
          0
          Quote: TWR
          This is not true. Absolutely. See below Pavlov’s letter to Voroshilov. It should be noted that instead of the T-20 (A-20) they made the T-50, and instead of the T-32 they made the T-34.

          This letter is as of 1939. And this is the personal opinion of Comrade Pavlov regarding a specific class of light infantry escort tanks - the heirs of the Vickers-6t.
          At the same time, plant 185 has been developing the tank since 1938 to replace the T-26 on the topic "SP" - on the basis of deep modernization of the T-26. And at the beginning of 1940, work on this topic also began plant 174 (manufacturer T-26). In the end, it was his option, after a series of adjustments (associated with the change in the technical specifications in the direction of enhancing protection - from 45 mm BBS from all distances) and was adopted as the T-50.
          That is, the T-50 is the end product of the development of a new infantry escort tank with anti-shell armor - to replace the T-26. This tank was to become the main Soviet BTV.
          Quote: TWR
          Would be needed, would have acted. But just like their counterparts, the T-III was no longer needed. Therefore, they did not.

          Yeah ... would have condensed diesel from the air, ball bearings and much more. Or in a mystical way, they would completely rebuild Plant 37 so that it could work with 14-ton tanks.
          A car of the T-50 type (LT with protivosnaryadnym armor), our BTV requested the entire war. And for its absence, they fought on the “valentines” (which were left in production for us for an extra year).
          Quote: TWR
          A new checkpoint by the summer of 1942. mastered the production. The armor could not be thinned, it was not a problem. The problem was armament. There was no suitable gun for the heavy tank in the USSR. Therefore, there was no tank.

          The gun was. She did not fit into the tank. smile
          Therefore, the KV-100 and KV-122 remained experimental.
          And the 85 mm with its pure fragmentation shells was good only for the ST. The TT gun required the destruction of field fortifications. And the same dugout at several speeds required a minimum of 122 mm.
          Quote: TWR
          There was no shortage of this. Look at the pre-war plans for the release of the KV-1.

          The pre-war plans (based, among other things, on the planned delivery of new machines, including where you yourself understand where) came to an end with the outbreak of war. After the completion of the evacuation in the USSR, exactly one and a half machine remained. One - at ChKZ and a set of parts in Sormovo. New machines began to arrive only in 1943.
          Quote: TWR
          T-34/85 was launched not on pre-war equipment. Before the war, there were not so many machines of this level in the USSR.

          I did not write about the entire program, but specifically about the release of the T-34-85 in Sormovo. The processing of epaulettes of towers at the plant 112 was launched on an evacuated machine installed on its own. That is why this plant began the production of T-34-85 first - while the rest were waiting for the completion of the delivery, installation and commissioning of new equipment.
          1. TWR
            TWR 3 September 2015 17: 53 New
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            This letter is as of 1939.

            So what? Tank projects by that time were approved and the tanks themselves were preparing for production. The only difference is that they decided to do T-34 instead of 1 plant at 2 (STZ and KhPZ). Therefore, instead of the T-20, they made the T-50 with the release of it at the plant to them. Voroshilov in Leningrad.
            Quote: Alexey RA
            And this is the personal opinion of Comrade Pavlov regarding a specific class of light infantry escort tanks

            There is no personal opinion in official correspondence. This is the doctrine of tank rearmament of the country, set forth by the person who carries it out. Head of ABTU. By the official.
            Quote: Alexey RA
            At the same time, the plant 185 already since 1938 has been developing a tank to replace the T-26 on the topic "SP" - on the basis of a thorough modernization of the T-26.

            Led. But this project was rejected. In favor of the T-32, and later the T-34.
            Quote: Alexey RA
            In the end, it was his option, after a series of adjustments (associated with the change in the technical specifications in the direction of enhancing protection - from 45 mm BBS from all distances) and was adopted as the T-50.

            The T-50 grew out of the "Object 135", and not from the T-126SP.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 3 September 2015 19: 05 New
              0
              Quote: TWR
              Tank projects by that time were approved and the tanks themselves were preparing for production.

              T-20 and T-32?
              At the time of writing Pavlov's opinion, no projects were approved. Moreover, the resolution 443ss explicitly states that the T-32 will be launched into production only after amendments are made, plus the BT-7 with a diesel engine remains in production. And generally speaking:
              In accordance with this resolution, from January 1, 1941, establish and leave the following types of tanks in production:
              1) KV heavy tank
              2) tank T-34
              3) tank T-40

              That is, about the T-20 or T-50 there is generally no question. And it can’t be, because the T-20 was abandoned, and the design on the topic of the joint venture (on which the T-50 will be made) has not yet been completed.
              Quote: TWR
              There is no personal opinion in official correspondence. This is the doctrine of tank rearmament of the country, set forth by the person who carries it out. Head of ABTU. By the official.

              Sumptuously. And how then to evaluate the changes in the technical specifications for the joint venture tank, which is designed to replace the T-26? After all, they were introduced precisely by the GABTU.
              T-20 and T-50 are two different plants. Two different lines.
              Quote: TWR
              Led. But this project was rejected. In favor of the T-32, and later the T-34.

              In fact, in favor of the T-126 (SP). From which, when finalizing it under the new requirements of the State Academic Technical University for the “light tank of improved reservation”, object 135 grew.
              Quote: TWR
              The T-50 grew out of the "Object 135", and not from the T-126SP.

              And what did object 135 grow out of? wink
              Who did Troyanov and Ginzburg cut their bookings to meet the new requirements of the State Academic Technical University for the 14-ton tank?
              1. TWR
                TWR 3 September 2015 19: 45 New
                0
                Quote: Alexey RA
                that the T-32 will be put into production only after making changes, plus the BT-7 with a diesel engine remains in production

                Well yes. Prior to the release of the tank for its replacement. At first, the T-20 was planned, but then they decided to make the T-50.
                Quote: Alexey RA
                That is, about the T-20 or T-50 there is generally no question.

                And where does the Decree? Are we discussing the text of the Resolution?
                Quote: Alexey RA
                T-20 and T-50 are two different plants. Two different lines.

                The plants are different. The line is one. What is unusual? KhPZ and STZ also had never before made "infantry" tanks. And they ordered, and began to do.
                Quote: Alexey RA
                In fact, in favor of the T-126 (SP).

                And what, which factory did these tanks produce? In what quantities? In what years?
                Quote: Alexey RA
                From which, when finalizing it under the new requirements of the State Academic Technical University for the “light tank of improved reservation”, object 135 grew.

                You know how to make fun.
                Quote: Alexey RA
                And what did object 135 grow out of?

                From culman and whatman paper.
                Quote: Alexey RA
                Who did Troyanov and Ginzburg cut their bookings to meet the new requirements of the State Academic Technical University for the 14-ton tank?

                The Internet "prospectors."
                By the way, you also have "information for thought." T-50 is very strongly compared with the T-III. Even a separate commander was introduced into the tower, although he was there like a cow's saddle (in modifications after the outbreak of the war he was removed from there). But the T-III was a "cavalry" tank. But not an infantry escort tank at all, as you are trying to convince us. Why's that? Why so carefully howl tanks for various purposes?
          2. TWR
            TWR 3 September 2015 17: 53 New
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            That is, the T-50 is the end product of the development of a new infantry escort tank with anti-shell armor - to replace the T-26. This tank was to become the main Soviet BTV

            Nonsense. And about the "replacement". And about the "main". You read less Internet. And do not argue with Pavlov. His memo is document. Is worth more expensive than all articles on the Internet combined.
            In addition, the real state of affairs in the Red Army is confirmed by Pavlov’s note, and not by "Internet sensations."
            Quote: Alexey RA
            would condense diesel from the air, ball bearings and much more. Or in a mystical way, they would completely rebuild Plant 37 so that it could work with 14-ton tanks.

            Why do something for the sake of an unnecessary car?
            Quote: Alexey RA
            A T-50 type car (LT with anti-ballistic armor) our BTVs asked for the whole war

            Those. a machine with 40-45 mm armor and a 76 mm gun did not suit them. Give them a car with 37 mm armor and a 45 mm gun. Were they BDSM? Maybe they also BT-7M demanded the whole war?
            Quote: Alexey RA
            And for her absence fought on the "valentines"

            M-yes.
            Quote: Alexey RA
            The gun was. She did not fit into the tank.

            May I ask what was called? And where was it made?
            Quote: Alexey RA
            including yourself understand where)

            No, I don’t understand. Enlighten.
            Quote: Alexey RA
            One - at ChKZ

            I suggested that you look at the pre-war plans for the production of HF at ChKZ.
            Quote: Alexey RA
            That is why this plant began the production of T-34-85 first - while the rest were waiting for the completion of the delivery, installation and commissioning of new equipment.

            As if on the contrary, the last. The last T-34/76 was released in June 1944. in Gorky.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 3 September 2015 19: 17 New
              0
              Quote: TWR
              Nonsense. And about the "replacement". And about the "main". You read less Internet. And do not argue with Pavlov. His memo is a document. It costs more than all the articles on the Internet combined.

              His memo was written at a time when neither the T-50, nor the object 135, nor even the T-126-1 was. But there was a "joint venture theme" to develop a new infantry escort tank, which later turned into a "light tank of improved reservation." There was no smell of a T-20 replacement there.
              Quote: TWR
              Those. a machine with 40-45 mm armor and a 76 mm gun did not suit them. Give them a car with 37 mm armor and a 45 mm gun.

              That is, a 30-ton huge rattling reconnaissance machine for some reason did not suit them. They needed a light small tank of 14-16 tons with bulletproof armor that could go anywhere.
              Quote: TWR
              I suggested that you look at the pre-war plans for the production of HF at ChKZ.

              200 KV at ChTZ in 1941. All other plans can not be watched - the planned supply of equipment with the outbreak of the war somehow did not work out.
              Quote: TWR
              As if on the contrary, the last. The last T-34/76 was released in June 1944. in Gorky.

              The first T-34-85s were released in January 1944 at Sormovo Plant 112. Plant 183 began to produce them only in March. Plant 174 - in June.
              1. TWR
                TWR 3 September 2015 19: 35 New
                0
                Quote: Alexey RA
                There was no smell of a T-20 replacement there.

                But in fact it happened. Or will you find the T-20 in the production program of the USSR?
                Quote: Alexey RA
                They needed a light small tank of 14-16 tons with bulletproof armor that could go anywhere

                Too lazy to look. Look, on the Internet there is a photo of a damaged T-50 "with anti-ballistic armor." The automatic T-II 20 mm gun made a sieve out of it.
                Quote: Alexey RA
                planned deliveries of equipment with the outbreak of war somehow did not work out.

                They did not ask before her. Nobody sold the USSR equipment. He was expelled from the League of Nations and was under sanctions. And even more so, Germany did not sell him anything.
                Quote: Alexey RA
                The first T-34-85s were released in January 1944 at Sormovo Plant 112.

                This is "Fedot, but not that." This is a T-34 with an 85-mm D-5T gun in a double the tower. And the real T-34/85 was produced with a S-53 gun in triple the tower. The first such tanks were produced by the plant No. 183 "Name of the Comintern" in Nizhny Tagil on March 15, 1944. Plant No. 112 Krasnoe Sormovo launched its first tanks in April 1944. (according to some reports at the very end of March). In June 1944 Plant No. 174, Omsk, switched over to the production of such machines.
    2. Stas57
      Stas57 3 September 2015 15: 58 New
      0
      Quote: TWR
      secondly, before writing this, you need to understand that the T-IV was positioned before the war as an "infantry" tank. Those. infantry direct support tank

      let's say so- 37 and 50 mm trunks trunks did not have enough high-explosive action, so the "cigarette butt" appeared
      1. TWR
        TWR 3 September 2015 16: 24 New
        0
        Quote: Stas57
        let's say so- 37 and 50 mm trunks trunks did not have enough high-explosive action, so the "cigarette butt" appeared

        Treshka, this is generally a tank for another purpose. His guns weren’t particularly needed.
        1. Stas57
          Stas57 3 September 2015 16: 57 New
          0
          Does it somehow refute my words?
    3. 97110
      97110 3 September 2015 20: 17 New
      0
      Quote: TWR
      "Infantry" tanks before it switched to a caliber of 75-76 mm.

      Grandfather fought on the "infantry" Matylda. With a 40 mm gun in 1944.
      1. TWR
        TWR 3 September 2015 21: 26 New
        0
        Not all in 1937. were as advanced as the Germans with their T-IV.
  15. bistrov.
    bistrov. 3 September 2015 13: 49 New
    0
    After all, what is the superiority of the T-34? Everything was balanced: booking, diesel engine, low ground pressure, powerful weapons, large refueling mileage, technological excellence. Let and to the detriment of the convenience of the crew and relatively weak sights. The Germans had to catch up, they created more superior tanks only by mid-1943. And they had to do it from scratch. For Soviet designers it was enough to put on the T-34 a more spacious tower with 85 mm. cannon to neutralize the advantages of German tanks. Moreover, the technology has remained the same, proven. This allowed to maintain a quantitative advantage of Soviet tanks. And let the Soviet tanks suffer rather large losses (this was explained, first of all, by the anti-tank orientation of the German tank guns, powerful 88 mm anti-tank guns of the Wehrmacht and the latest developments of hand grenade launchers (faustpatrons) (for some reason, such weapons were never adopted in the Red Army), due to which Soviet tanks suffered heavy losses in close combat, but the overall quantitative advantage was retained by Soviet tanks, which were, in addition, much more mobile. radios of the number of Soviet tanks within the limits of the tank army (up to 500 units in one place), which created the conditions for numerous breakthroughs of the German defense and the circular coverage of German troops, which, in fact, served as the main reason for their defeat. a good ratio of all the qualities of a combat vehicle, which is why it was named the best tank of the Second World War. Glory to its designer-Koshkin!
    1. TWR
      TWR 3 September 2015 14: 30 New
      0
      Quote: bistrov.
      After all, what is the superiority of the T-34?

      Above what?
      Quote: bistrov.
      Everything was balanced

      Really?
      Quote: bistrov.
      Albeit to the detriment of the convenience of the crew and relatively weak sights

      Not convenience, but ability. A crew of 4 people could not perform the functions of a crew of 5 people. Physically could not. Therefore, the T-34/76 did not fit into the concept of modern tank war at all. He was of limited legal capacity, in short.
      Quote: bistrov.
      The Germans had to catch up, they created more superior tanks only by mid-1943.

      Possessed him directly from 22.06.41g. This is the same T-IV with a “hemp” (in our country it is contemptuously called a cigarette butt). In fact, in the ammunition to the "hemp" were cumulative shells. Which burned up to 70 mm of armor. “The most powerful three-inch cannon of the magnificent T-34” did not even dream of such a thing. The downside for the Germans was only that the cumulative shells were initially expensive. And shot close. Therefore, since the spring of 1942. KwK.37 has been replaced by the long-barreled KwK.40.
      A similar "useless cigarette butt" was adopted by the Red Army only in 1943. And it was called OB-25. It was a universal cannon (mainly anti-tank) of the regimental unit, the main anti-tank ammunition of which was the same cumulative projectile.
      Quote: bistrov.
      It was enough for Soviet designers to put on the T-34 a more spacious tower with 85 mm. cannon to neutralize the advantages of German tanks.

      Enchanting. There are no words.
      Quote: bistrov.
      Moreover, the technology has remained the same, proven.

      This platform has remained the same. With a minimum amount of armor.
      Quote: bistrov.
      And let the Soviet tanks suffered quite large losses

      Why's that? Not from the "high technology"?
      Quote: bistrov.
      It was just found the best option, a good ratio of all the qualities of a combat vehicle.

      Is this your personal opinion?
      Quote: bistrov.
      Therefore, he was named the best tank of the Second World War.

      By whom? You? Or the Department of Agitation and Propaganda of the CPSU Central Committee? A little higher, you wrote something about "fairly large losses." And about the "balance". How could the “best” and “balanced” have such “pretty big losses”?
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 3 September 2015 14: 49 New
      -2
      Quote: bistrov.
      After all, what is the superiority of the T-34? Everything was balanced: booking, diesel engine, low ground pressure, powerful weapons, large refueling mileage, technological excellence.

      Booking the T-34 before the start of the war was considered insufficient.
      The diesel resource was brought to the minimum requirements of TK in 1944. Finally, it was brought to the DZ only after VKN. The diesel power in the first years was stable at 30-50 hp. below the declared 500 hp
      The low specific pressure turned out to be a minus in the end - the tracks had to be narrowed, otherwise they simply glided over the ground (the T-34 could not take the slope that the “three” overcame).
      Powerful weapons ... let's say enough to complete the main task - the fight against infantry.
      Large refueling mileage ... according to the results of the 1941 tests, serial T-34s at full tank refueling were able to go from 165 to 180 km.
      Technological excellence ... also only by 1943-1944. Prior to this - problems with the nasal beam, problems with hardening. Plus cutouts in the sides under the trunnion pins.
      The result is a paradox: the T-34 became a really balanced tank when it had already begun to become obsolete (the production of the T-1944 had already begun in 44).
      Quote: bistrov.
      It was enough for Soviet designers to put on the T-34 a more spacious tower with 85 mm. cannon to neutralize the advantages of German tanks. Moreover, the technology has remained the same, proven.

      It was enough for German designers to put a turret with a 50 / L60 or 75 / L48 cannon on the “three” or “four” to neutralize the advantages of Soviet tanks. Moreover, the technology has remained the same, proven.
      Quote: bistrov.
      Therefore, he was named the best tank of the Second World War.

      For the USSR.
      Quote: bistrov.
      Glory to his designer-Koshkin!

      Or maybe Dick? Or Morozov, who finished the raw car? wink
      1. bistrov.
        bistrov. 3 September 2015 16: 40 New
        0
        Mr. Aleksey, what are you weaving? What is an "insufficient reservation"? The frontal armor of T-34 in 1941 was not taken by any German anti-tank gun, so the Wehrmacht was forced to attract 88 mm at first. anti-aircraft guns.
        - let it be known, they couldn’t put another tower on the “three”, it just didn’t fit on the shoulder strap, the four also had 75 mm. the gun turned out to be the limit, although it had a sufficient initial velocity, but its shell had a weak high-explosive effect.
        -That you say that the T-34 tanks were "bad", but they fought the whole war, almost unchanged, and the Germans were forced to discontinue the P-3 in 1942, the P-4 were forced to weigh additional armor and all they were equally used only in the second echelon, after the Tigers and Panthers.
        -T-34 until recently were used in local conflicts, in Africa and South America. Something I did not see there, neither P-3, nor P-4. Everyone went to the stove back in the 40s.
        And finally, the most important argument: what did your R-3 and R-4 not take Moscow if they were so "magnificent"?
        1. Stas57
          Stas57 3 September 2015 16: 56 New
          +1
          -That you say that the T-34 tanks were "bad", but they fought the whole war, almost unchanged,

          hand face.
          they even speak of several thousand changes.
          moreover, the tank mod 41 and mod 45 are 2 really different cars.
          Quote: bistrov.
          -T-34 until recently were used in local conflicts in Africa and South America. Something I did not see there neither P-3, nor P-4. Everyone went to the stove back in 40's

          but above was a photo of Syrian 4ki
          eka happens
          Quote: bistrov.
          The front armor of the T-34 in the 1941 year was not taken by any German anti-tank gun

          and guys with 5 cm PaK 38 are not good ...
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 3 September 2015 18: 07 New
            0
            Quote: Stas57
            moreover, the tank mod 41 and mod 45 are 2 really different cars.

            Real progress was already by 1944. Five-step, multicyclone, kombashenka, motor resources, sights and surveillance devices (clone of the Polish-English Mk.IV).
        2. TWR
          TWR 3 September 2015 17: 19 New
          0
          Quote: bistrov.
          The front armor of the T-34 in the 1941 year was not taken by any German anti-tank gun

          Wrong. Correctly write "only one cannon Rak. 35/36 did not take."
          Quote: bistrov.
          Therefore, the Wehrmacht was forced to attract 88 mm at first. anti-aircraft guns

          This is the story of the KV tank.
          Quote: bistrov.
          but her shell had a weak high-explosive effect.

          Really? And because of such a weak action on the T-V arr. 1943 used the same caliber? Didn’t guess that the "high explosive action is weak"?
          Quote: bistrov.
          You say that the T-34 tanks were "bad", but they fought the whole war, almost unchanged

          This is the trouble.
          Quote: bistrov.
          Germans were forced to withdraw R-3 from production as early as 1942, R-4 were forced to weigh additional armor, and they were still used only in the second echelon, after the Tigers and Panthers.

          They valued German life dearly.
          Quote: bistrov.
          T-34 until recently were used in local conflicts in Africa and South America.

          By whom? The townspeople? The townspeople.
          Quote: bistrov.
          your R-3 and R-4 didn’t take Moscow

          Tanks of the city do not take. They don’t even drive themselves. This is a tool that people control. The Germans controlled the tanks well. But the Germans ruled armies and higher poorly. At all times. With any emperor leaders. This is a feature of the national mentality. Can not. It happens. Therefore, historically, they are closer to the anus. And the world is ruled by representatives of other nations.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 3 September 2015 18: 11 New
            0
            Quote: TWR
            Really? And because of such a weak action on the T-V arr. 1943 used the same caliber? Didn’t guess that the "high explosive action is weak"?

            To be honest, then for the OFS for 75 / L70, the claims were just for the weak impact. Their problem was that, due to the high initial velocity, the projectile went too deep into the ground before the explosion. However, the only tank with 75 / L70 at that time was used mostly in the PT role, where the OFS was not particularly important. smile
            By the way, our 85mm OFS didn’t have any at all - it had an OS inherited from the anti-aircraft gun (approximately equal to 76 mm of cast iron in power). But for a one and a half-fold increase in the range of a direct-fire shot, she was forgiven this drawback.
        3. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 3 September 2015 18: 03 New
          0
          Quote: bistrov.
          Mr. Aleksey, what are you weaving? What is an "insufficient reservation"? The frontal armor of T-34 in 1941 was not taken by any German anti-tank gun, so the Wehrmacht was forced to attract 88 mm at first. anti-aircraft guns.

          ... A-34 tank with an armor thickness of 45 mm at close range cannot successfully fight with 37-47 mm anti-tank artillery, therefore it does not correspond to its intended purpose, caused by an insufficiently clear idea of ​​the state of modern anti-tank artillery and an insufficiently substantiated approach to resolve this issue
          (c) “The state of tank weapons and the need to create new classes of tanks”, engineer of the Leningrad plant No. 185 Koloyev.
          For armor penetration:
          50-mm anti-tank gun PaK.38, ordinary armor-piercing:
          75 mm normal sheet showed a back strength limit of 700 m, a through penetration limit of 400 m. That is, starting from a distance of 700 m and closer PaK.38 can penetrate the armor of an unshielded HF, with 400 m it is guaranteed to penetrate.
          Moreover, head-on shooting starting from a direct shot distance was statutory only for our VET. The Germans built anti-tank missiles on flank fire - see the analysis of damage to T-34 tanks by our specialists in 1942. And even a “mallet” made its way into the T-34.
          Quote: bistrov.
          - let it be known, they couldn’t put another tower on the “three”, it just didn’t fit on the shoulder strap, the four also had 75 mm. the gun turned out to be the limit, although it had a sufficient initial velocity, but its shell had a weak high-explosive effect.

          The armament of the "four" in a couple of years has grown to 75 / L48, and the "three" - up to 50 / L60. The theoretical advantage of the Soviet T-34-76 was neutralized. “Three-lang” turned out to be an unpleasant surprise for us: half of the destroyed T-34 near Stalingrad - on the account of 50 mm.
          As for the weak 75 mm OFS, the T-34-85 didn’t have any OFS during the war - only the OS.
          Quote: bistrov.
          -That you say that the T-34 tanks were "bad", but they fought the whole war, almost unchanged, and the Germans were forced to withdraw R-3 from production already in 1942

          Plan to remove. In 1938, a new tank was developed to replace the “three” - the future “panther”. The Germans' problem was that it was made under war with the Allies in 1943.
          Quote: bistrov.
          , R-4 were forced to weigh additional armor and they were still used only in the second echelon, after the Tigers and Panther.

          Do you know the tiger type 4 tank? That's how we rated Ausf.F2.
          Quote: bistrov.
          And finally, the most important argument: what did your R-3 and R-4 not take Moscow if they were so "magnificent"?

          In fact, they with fights (which the original plan did not provide for) reached Moscow. And their counterparts perished in a border battle, near Senno-Lepel, near Smolensk, etc.
    3. Das Boot
      Das Boot 3 September 2015 15: 18 New
      0
      Quote: bistrov.
      After all, what is the superiority of the T-34?

      One set of “thirty-four” has a lot, moreover, most of them are not techies. The tank is certainly great, but by no means invincible.
  16. Alf
    Alf 3 September 2015 13: 58 New
    +1
    Quote: TWR
    Having looked at the Germans, the "strategists in red pants" decided that the heavy tanks of the Red Army were also not needed. And they remade the pre-war "breakthrough tank" KV-1 in the middle KV-1s. I think the appearance in August of that year of the German heavy T-VI was an unpleasant surprise for them. Do not guess.

    KV-1 was redone in KV-1C not because of strategists in red pants. It was just necessary to increase the reliability of the HF, but only a decrease in the reservation helped. HF transmission was at its limit.
    and it didn’t turn it into a medium tank. The tank did not correspond to the tasks that were facing medium tanks at that time. But there was no other mass. Because after the outbreak of war, he was chosen as the main one.

    And what tasks do you think were facing medium tanks that the T-34 could not perform? And what tasks impossible for the T-34 could the T-IV fulfill?
    1. TWR
      TWR 3 September 2015 14: 39 New
      +1
      Quote: Alf
      but only reducing the reservation helped.

      A completely new checkpoint helped. On the KV-1 was "reinforced" from the T-28. Reducing the reservation did not play any positive role in this.
      Quote: Alf
      And what tasks do you think were facing medium tanks that the T-34 could not perform? And what tasks, impossible for the T-34, could fulfill the T-IV

      Those that required the presence of a third person in the tower. These tasks, and the main tank had them most, of the crew of T-34/76 out of 4 people could not be fully completed. They could be carried out, but at the cost of heavy losses.
      Figuratively speaking, the T-34/76 was a "headless horseman." If the “rider” suddenly “grew out of his head” (the commander-gunner began to control the tank), then the Colt “fell out of his hand”. Both were equally bad.
      1. Alf
        Alf 3 September 2015 16: 02 New
        +1
        Quote: TWR
        A completely new checkpoint helped. On the KV-1 was "reinforced" from the T-28. Reducing the reservation did not play any positive role in this.

        The mass of KV-1 is 47 tons.
        The mass of KV-1C 42,5 tons, then a positive effect on mobility and reliability.
        1. TWR
          TWR 3 September 2015 16: 29 New
          0
          47 and 43 tons, this is not a big difference. The new gearbox allowed to maintain the weight (and protection) of the previous level. But the task was set to "facilitate." Facilitated.
          SU-152 on the KV-1s platform weighed 45,5 tons. And nothing, the checkpoint coped.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  17. Das Boot
    Das Boot 3 September 2015 15: 23 New
    0
    but forgot about the Italians. Fiatovsky P26 / 40, for example? So what, that only 100 pieces were released? laughing This is unlucky (Tuscany, 1944)
  18. bulat
    bulat 3 September 2015 17: 50 New
    +1
    About the length of the barrel. The military demanded in the terms of reference that the barrel did not go beyond the dimensions of the tank. It would cling to the ground when overcoming ditches and steep heights. In the German four, they even installed a tower position sensor for the driver for this reason.
    1. LMaksim
      LMaksim 4 September 2015 15: 49 New
      0
      Yeah, and I came across such a requirement in different articles.
  19. Engineer
    Engineer 4 September 2015 16: 30 New
    0
    Sorry, did I miss something? But what is this 145mm gun on the T-90MS? It is when? Where is it? Where is it from? There is only 152 mm 2A83, but it was never put on the T-90.
    1. kalibr
      4 September 2015 19: 49 New
      0
      This is a hypothetical option. West offers 140. We have 152. Something average is equal to 145 mm, it’s written there ... Maybe nothing will happen, but to estimate the layout - why not? Both 130 and 135, and 155 - everything is possible on the computer.