"Peeped Tank"

How in the past did the armies of different countries of the world come into service Tanks? In some countries they were invented and created independently from beginning to end. Some countries bought other people's developments, but put, for example, their own cannon. And for some countries it was enough to “spy” what a foreign tank looks like in order to build its own. And there is nothing shameful or shameful about this! For this reason, intelligence exists in order to deliver the necessary information to the country on time, and thereby save it strength and money!


"Peeped Tank"

The first version of the tank "Vikkers 16 t."

For example, in the USSR, this is how three-turreted T-28 tanks appeared. Accidentally circumstances were formed, because it could well be quite different. But the fact is that being in England with the commander Khalepsky, the head of the tank engineering design bureau S. Ginzburg once saw a three-tower tank in motion on an English training ground and, quite naturally, became interested and began to ask about it the English. But those, referring to the fact that it should be adopted by the British army, categorically refused to discuss the tank itself, and the possibility of selling it in the USSR, and besides, its price was very high. So the Vickers 16-ton tank (the most modern British tank of that time!) Did not get to the Khalepsky commission that time. However, during his second business trip to England, since we still bought quite a lot of Vickers cars, Ginzburg tried to “talk” everyone he could and as a result got quite a lot of valuable information, which is clear from the following his letters.


The first version of the tank "Vikkers 16 t." Back view.

"The CHAIRMAN of the Scientific-Technical Committee UMM (Scientific and Technical Committee of the Office of Motorization and Mechanization - approx. V.Sh.)
As a result of my conversations with English instructors, I was the last to receive the following information about the 16-ton Vickers tank:
1. The tank has already been tested and recognized as the best example of English tanks.
2. The overall dimensions of the tank are approximately equal to those of the 12-ti Vickers ton II tank.
3. Maximum speed 35 KLM (so in the text - approx. Author.) Per hour.
4. Reservations: tower and vertical sheets of the combat compartment 17-18 mm.
5. Armament: in the central turret - one “big” in the side front turrets - on the 1 machine gun. Total one gun and 2 machine gun.
6. Team: 2 officer / or one /, 2 gunner, 2 machine gunner, 1 driver.
7. The air-cooling motor in the 180 HP has a start from an inertial starter and from an electric starter (the latter is a spare one). Start is made from inside the tank. Accessibility to the motor is good.
8. The suspension on each side has 7 candles with springs. Each candle relies on one of its own rink. The rollers are about a six-ton ​​device (meaning “Vickers 6-ton” - the future Soviet T-26 - author's note.) The suspension tells the tank’s stability not worse than a six-ton ​​tank.
9. Rear wheel drive.
10. Caterpillar fine hinged with removable screw-in spurs. Keeping and guiding a caterpillar is like a six-ton ​​tank.
11. The central tower has an optical sight and optical observation.
12. The driver’s seat in the middle in the middle provides good visibility for driving.
13. Transmission - gearbox and side clutches. The box of speeds of two types: original / patented / and normal type.
14. The range is the same as that of a six-ton ​​tank.
15. NOTE: The information was received only after the translator stated that we had already bought this tank and are awaiting its receipt.
Information was given: engineer mechanic-mechanic, senior master and the driver who conducted the tests of this machine. Information about the car is still classified.
16. APPENDIX: scheme of the plan and side view of the tank.
CONCLUSION: Joining the conclusion of the above instructors that this vehicle is the best example of British tanks, I consider that this vehicle is of maximum interest to the Red Army as the best modern type of maneuverable medium tank.
As a consequence, the purchase of this machine is of invaluable interest. This machine will be released into the army units now or in the near future and, therefore, secrecy will be removed from it (as in the text - author’s note).
Beginning Test groups: / GINZBURG / "


The first version of the tank "Vikkers 16 t." Front view.

So those who say are right: “a gossip is a godsend for a spy,” and another proverb is also true: “the forbidden fruit is sweet”! By the way, the “Vickers 16-ton” was not used by the British Army as a result, but the Red Army received the medium tank T-28 developed on the basis of its concept!


Top view of the tank. The hemispherical manhole covers on the machine-gun turrets and the commander's turret of the Bishop’s Miter are clearly visible.

Well, the Vickers 16 T itself did not turn out right away either, all of a sudden, and its fate was very revealing, just like the tanker Christie. Vickers began working on it in 1926. In this case, it was assumed that he would replace in the troops tanks Mk I and Mk II, adopted for service in 1924 - 1925. and showed themselves from the best side. The task was given to the company so that its creative potential could manifest itself to the maximum. The main requirements of the Military Department were reduced to the following requirements: in comparison with the predecessors, the armament of the tank was strengthened, but at the same time its mass should not be more than 15,5 tons. This would give the opportunity to throw it across the rivers with a standard army pontoon carrying capacity of 16 tons.


The serial version of the "Vickers 16 T" in the version of the commander tank.

And the company turned around: two machine-gun turrets in front, one behind and a cannon turret in the center were to keep all the space around the tank under powerful shelling. But designated as A6, the tank was eventually rejected by the military: it did not fit the restrictions on weight. During the processing of the drawings, the number of towers was reduced to three, and in 1927, Vickers built two prototypes of the machine, designated A6EXNNUMX and A1X6. Outwardly, they were very similar and differed only in the type of transmission. The A2EX6 had a Armstrong-Siddley four-speed gearbox, and the A1EX6 had a Swiss Winterthur / SLM. The engine on both tanks used the same: X-NUMX-strong air-cooled Armstrong-Siddley V2 carburetor engine. The armament in the three towers was very powerful: in a large turret 180-mm cannon and 8-mm machine gun and two small towers with two 47-mm machine guns in each. Sparky machine guns doubled their rate of fire, and water radiators were booked. The crew consisted of six people. Reservations were, as before, clearly insufficient. Only 7,71 - 7,71 mm. The mass was 9 t because of what later these tanks just became widely known as the "Vickers" 14-ton. Tests of cars at the end of 16, at the Farnborough site, demonstrated good capabilities of the machine, in particular, that they can reach speeds up to 16 km / h, although their suspension, largely copied from the Mk I and Mk II tanks, was not too unsuccessful. In the year 1927 made the third copy of the tank - AXNUMHEZ. The number of machine guns on this machine was reduced to three (one in each turret) and a new six-speed planetary gearbox of the Wilson system was installed. In total, six such tanks were built, of which three were prototypes. Apparently, it was precisely the machines of the latest issues of Ginsburg that he saw, because nowhere does he write about twin machine guns, but how impressive is that ?! The cannon on the tank again stood the old - 40-mm rapid-fire QF 1928 pounder, with ammunition in 6 shells. For machine guns tank had 47 cartridges in tapes. The armor on the three serial machines in the front (the front of the hull and the turret) was increased to a thickness of one inch - 3 mm, but still this was not enough at the beginning of the 180s. The tank was not adopted by the British army, since it turned out to be not needed because of its redundancy. In the colonies he had nothing to do, and then the British did not intend to fight on the continent.


Soviet experienced T-28, 1932 year.

Well, in the USSR, at first, the experienced T-28 also had a 45-mm gun, but then it received an 76,2-mm gun and in this capacity showed itself from the best side and fought with the Germans up to the 1942 year, and near Leningrad to the 44- wow Well, after the 1939, the English tanks were scrapped. That is, like the Christie tank, this “Vickers” turned out to be more useful in another country than in its own, and Ginzburg is just brilliant, that he managed to “spot” him in time!
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

58 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Bongo 17 September 2015 06: 40 New
    • 18
    • 0
    +18
    Well, in the USSR, on the experimental T-28, at first there was also an 45-mm gun, but then he got an 76,2-mm gun and in that capacity proved to be the best and fought with the Germans until the 1942 year, and near Leningrad until the 44- wow.

    T-28 really did not prove to be bad with proper use, first during the Finnish, then during the Great Patriotic War. Another question is that these were modernized tanks with shielded armor and the 76,2-mm L-10 tank gun (pictured). Initially, the T-28 were armed with an ineffective tank version of the regimental gun of the 1927 model of the year with a short sleeve (the initial velocity of a high-explosive fragmentation projectile was 262 m / s).
    1. inkass_98 17 September 2015 08: 29 New
      • 13
      • 0
      +13
      The pepelats was interesting, but all the same, its time passed almost before birth, it did not correspond to the realities prevailing at that time.
      1. Alf
        Alf 17 September 2015 09: 16 New
        • 8
        • 0
        +8
        Quote: inkass_98
        The pepelats was interesting, but all the same, its time passed almost before birth, it did not correspond to the realities prevailing at that time.

        I do not know. According to the military, in the Winter War, the T-28 proved to be better than all other types of tanks.
        1. Bongo 17 September 2015 09: 28 New
          • 8
          • 0
          +8
          Quote: Alf
          I do not know. According to the military, in the Winter War, the T-28 proved to be better than all other types of tanks.

          The fact is that by the 1940 year it was already a pretty finished and well mastered by the crews car. Better than the T-28 shielded with additional armor and armed with the L-10 gun, we had nothing at that time. 50 mm frontal armor confidently held 37 mm Finnish anti-tank shells. Severe HF then only appeared and has not yet got rid of "childhood diseases."
    2. voyaka uh 17 September 2015 13: 43 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      In your photo, the Finnish captured T-28 from the museum.
      In total, their Finns squeezed 7 pieces and greatly appreciated and cherished.
      Decommissioned only in the 50s.
  2. parusnik 17 September 2015 07: 09 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    The tank was not adopted by the English army, because it was not needed because of its redundancy.... They are too smart, the British ... for themselves ... but in the USSR it fit ...He fought with the Germans until 1942, and near Leningrad until the 44th
  3. Volga Cossack 17 September 2015 08: 15 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    from a mediocre car a very good t-28 grew up. He also rode well in Minsk at 41 ........
    1. kalibr 17 September 2015 08: 21 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      You see - you tank! And Geliogabal for a change!
  4. bionik 17 September 2015 09: 19 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    T-26 - Soviet light tank. It was created on the basis of the English Vickers Mk.E tank (also known as the Vickers 6-ton), purchased in 1930. Adopted in the USSR in 1931. There was also a machine gun 2 × 7,62 mm DT. (At the top of the original)

  5. kvs207 17 September 2015 09: 27 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    T-28, definitely looks more interesting and harmonious than the Vickers.
    But there was also the T-29, a wheeled - tracked version.
  6. 0255 17 September 2015 09: 34 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    T-28 looks archaic, but cool! good One of the most beautiful tanks, in my opinion
    1. Nagaibak 17 September 2015 14: 41 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      I agree with you 100% !!!)))
    2. yehat 17 September 2015 22: 10 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      and what is archaic in it?
      many elements at one time were quite modern and even effective.
  7. jjj
    jjj 17 September 2015 10: 16 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And remember, the Germans also had a Rheinmetal
  8. jjj
    jjj 17 September 2015 10: 22 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    German Rheinmetal
  9. turk 17 September 2015 10: 24 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    but then he received a 76,2 mm gun and in that capacity proved to be the best and fought with the Germans until 1942, and near Leningrad until the 44th.

    In fact, for 1941. This is true. In terms of power / quality, the most successful in the Red Army in 1941. there were tanks T-28E. That was only at the beginning of the war, only 103 pieces.
    1. kalibr 17 September 2015 12: 32 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Total ... And how much did the Germans have T-4?
      1. turk 17 September 2015 12: 52 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: kalibr
        And how many Germans did the T-4 have?

        80 (North) + 259 (Center) + 100 (South) = 439. These are of all kinds, including old models (132 pcs).
        True, in addition to 103 T-28E in the "not ready for war of the Red Army" was another 501 combat ready HF and 891 combat ready T-34.
        HF does not even add up, because there were no analogues to them in the Wehrmacht.
        But 103 T-28E with 891 T-34 can be folded (994 pcs). And compare them with 307 new T-IV.
        And the old T-IV (132 pcs) can easily be compared with the usual T-28 (189 combat ready) and T-35 (48 combat ready), total 237 combat ready. And do not forget about another 100 partially combat ready T-28. They probably quickly podshamanili and also put into action. Moreover, they could do on their own, without plants. It was enough just to disassemble for parts 89 incompetent T-28, who were also in the troops.
        And somehow the Bolshevik picture of the "unpreparedness of the Red Army" after these figures does not work.
        1. kalibr 17 September 2015 13: 44 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          And what is it you immediately minus someone put, eh? Although all the numbers are correct ...
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. turk 17 September 2015 14: 07 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Quote: kalibr
            And why did you immediately put someone minus, huh? Although all the numbers are correct ..

            The numbers are correct, but not "patriotic." And on this site (in my opinion) + basically (not all) are put not for the reliability of the information, namely for its "patriotism".
            The paradox of the situation is that “patriotism” has nothing to do with real patriotism. But it is directly related to ostriches. With their habit of hiding their heads in the sand. And also to the throats. Who have the habit of shouting "take on the show." And also to the Bolsheviks, who were ready to "dissolve the dissenters" into the camp dust. Just to shut up.
            I generally propose to redo everything differently. Left a response to the comment, you can vote. Did not leave, rest. And then shkolota sits pimple and shuts up knowledgeable serious people. We have nothing to say except obvious stupidity. So, the "beauty" in the end is obtained. Kindergarten, extended group. Primarily.
            1. kalibr 17 September 2015 14: 41 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Yes, I totally agree with you. And also, so that people write about themselves who is who. There is no shame in the fact that you are a plumber (if you express smart things) and there is absolutely nothing to be ashamed of living in the outback, and not in Moscow. Professors all can not be. But no!
        2. Alexey RA 17 September 2015 15: 24 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Quote: turk
          And do not forget about another 100 partially combat-ready T-28s. They probably quickly podshamanili and also put into action. Moreover, they could do on their own, without plants. It was enough just to disassemble for 89 28 combat-ready Ts, which were also in the troops.

          Hehe hehe ... and here we get into the features of Soviet statistics. The fact is that tanks sent to plants for repair or modernization were listed on the balance sheets.
          At the same time, for example, the fact that the tank entered modernization did not mean at all that it would come out of this modernization. For instance:
          On the basis of the order of the Head of ABTU-KOVO, in September 1940, units of military unit 5427 sent 25 T-28 tanks to the screen at the Kirov plant. The tanks were removed from conservation, so they were in good condition and fully equipped.
          The military representative of the Kirov plant did not accept tanks for shielding, and by order of the LVO, the tanks were transferred to the 4th tank division of the 1st mechanized corps.
          So far, only 9 tanks have arrived from the shielding, which, in technical condition, are in an ugly form: the armament of the vehicles is rusty, dirty, with trunks [corroded]. The machines are not working, the mechanisms are rusty, deregulated, many batteries are beaten even without electrolyte. From the individual kit, a lot of spare parts and tools are missing.

          Или:
          By the time of the termination of repair of T-28 machines at the Kirov plant there were only 83 T-28 tanks, of which:
          1. 23 cars were in various stages of repair
          2 disassembled machines for repair
          3. 17 cars not disassembled
          4. 16 cars written off under acts ...
          Yet 23 cars that were in various stages of repair were completed, and a significant number of parts of the repair machines were used to complete these machines. Due to the fact that the parts from the disassembled machines were not enough for the complete assembly of these 23 machines, a number of units (sloths, drive wheels, upper rollers, tracks) were partially removed even from those machines that are considered unassembled according to documents. As a result of this, it is impossible to restore all disassembled machines at this time at either Kirovsky or another factory.

          Here it is: out of 83 T-28s listed as parts, but standing at the factory, 16 were decommissioned before the repair was completed. And another 60 were written off or transferred to rembases later - due to the fact that
          Parts and assemblies removed from the machines and available are stored in 4 places under two canopies and open air.
          Based on the total number of units and parts, the commission believes that it is impossible to assemble a single machine completely.

          Source: Ulanov. Shein. Order in the tank troops?

          In addition, most of the tanks failed the same parts. So cannibalism will not help here.
          1. kalibr 17 September 2015 16: 03 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            That is also the statistics was crap. N-yes!
            1. Alexey RA 17 September 2015 16: 20 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: kalibr
              That is also the statistics was crap. N-yes!

              Have you read the Act on the acceptance of NCOs? Under Voroshilov, the people's commissariat did not even know the actual number of the Red Army.
              The People’s Commissariat does not have an accurately established actual strength of the Red Army at the time of admission. Accounting personnel due to the fault of the Main Directorate of the Red Army is in an extremely neglected state.

              As Tymoshenko came, they began the recount and inventory, comparing documents and actual availability. In this case, for example, it turned out that:
              comparing the presence of combat vehicles with the number of industrial plants produced, the following discrepancies were revealed:
              Missing:
              BT-7 - 96 cars
              BT-2 - 34 cars
              BT-5 - 46 cars
              T-26 - 103 cars
              T-38 - 193 cars
              T-37 - 211 cars
              T-27 - 780 cars
              BA-10 - 94 cars
              BA-6 - 54 cars
              FAI - 234 cars ...
              Raised archival material since 1929 for accounting, special. sending and writing off combat vehicles did not give a significant change in reducing shortages, because decommissioning of military vehicles until 1936 was not conducted.
              The number of decommissioned vehicles, for example T-27 - 26 units - is clearly not true, because the production of these machines began in 1931 and in 10 years this figure should undoubtedly be much larger

              The source is the same The incredibly scandalous work of the defiling Andreas and Dimitros, "Faith is strong? Where did the children of the God-Emperor go?" (C)
            2. yehat 17 September 2015 22: 34 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              statistics is a well-known manipulation tool. The same data can be rotated very differently. For example, no matter how you turn on the media - the ruble added,
              but for a year inflation exceeded something))).
          2. Alexey RA 17 September 2015 16: 47 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Alexey RA
            А 60 more written off or transferred to rembazy later

            Oops ... miscalculated - 44 more written off or transferred to rembazy later. recourse
          3. turk 19 September 2015 10: 54 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Here it is: out of 83 T-28s listed as parts, but standing at the factory, 16 were decommissioned before the repair was completed. And another 60 were written off or transferred to rembases later - due to the fact that

            The ones written off in the figures I have given have already been taken into account.
        3. Nagaibak 17 September 2015 15: 42 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          = turk "And somehow the Bolshevik picture of the" unpreparedness of the Red Army "after these numbers does not work."
          We all practice in counting tanks?))) Are we exposing the commies?))) For a long time, everything has been counted and published. Not only tanks are fighting like that.))) And deployment and mobilization are all laid out on shelves, but no, they all expose.))) Denial of readiness is refuted.))))
          1. turk 19 September 2015 10: 56 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Nagaibak
            Expose the commie?)))

            Bolsheviks. In those days there were Bolsheviks. While expose. We hope that the case will be brought to court for their crimes in the past.
          2. The comment was deleted.
        4. Alexey RA 17 September 2015 16: 51 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: turk
          But 103 T-28E with 891 T-34 can be folded (994 pcs). And compare them with 307 new T-IV.

          Better with "treshki". For the basis of the Panzerwaffe was precisely the “treshki”. And the “fours” until 1942 were a command vehicle and a support tank.

          Our T-34 was compared precisely with the “three” - and according to the test results we received that the T-34 has no significant advantages over it except in the caliber of the guns.
          1. family tree 17 September 2015 20: 45 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Alexey RA
            received that the T-34 has no significant advantages over it except in the caliber of the guns.

            There was one more, 34-ka, at the start she did a three-ruble note as a standing one, then, three-fold, having opened up, overtook the 34th. Only later, with the weighting of three, a 300-ton strong Maybach carburetor, with a pedal catching revs, lost to a 500-strong V-2, with an all-mode centrifugal regulator, which was also “wound up” at the front, hell with it, with a resource , maneuver is more important wink
            1. Alexey RA 18 September 2015 10: 46 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: perepilka
              There was one more, 34-ka, at the start she did a three-ruble note as a standing one, then, three-fold, having opened up, overtook the 34th. Only later, with the weighting of three, a 300-ton strong Maybach carburetor, with a pedal catching revs, lost to a 500-strong V-2, with an all-mode centrifugal regulator, which was also “wound up” at the front, hell with it, with a resource , maneuver is more important

              500 h.p. on b-2? Yes, you are an optimist, comrade ... in trials of three serial T-34s of March 1941 release, it suddenly became clear that the power of the V-2 does not exceed 465-480 hp. Along the way, it turned out that the range of the T-34 is only 165-185 km.

              In addition, the T-34 had big problems with the transmission.
              The engine in the process of acceleration runs only a small part of the time at modes close to maximum power and therefore, due to the small number of gears, engine power is not used. Correspondingly, fuel is consumed, the path and acceleration time increase, etc. Underutilization of engine power also occurs when driving on the ground, as to switch to a lower gear, which means that you can return to normal engine mode without difficulty shifting gears only with a strong decrease in tank speed.

              Switching gears from I to II and from II to III without the use of special techniques (gas leakage, etc.) is always associated with the danger of turning off the engine, as shockless shifting requires a reduction in engine speed to almost idle.

              The gearbox is simple in design, manufacture, assembly and repair. However, this simplicity was bought at a high price. The gearbox is difficult to control, does not allow rational use of engine power and affects the combat qualities of the tank.

              Four forward speeds that the box gives are clearly not enough to get a quick acceleration of the medium tank. Switching to a lower gear is inevitably associated with a large decrease in machine speed.

              There were complaints from the troops that ordinary mechanical drivers had to stop the tank in order to change gears. And also the fact that when trying to shift gears in motion while moving on arable land, even experienced T-34 mechanical drivers have time to stop during gear changes.
              In fact, due to the difficulty of shifting gears, tanks went into battle in one gear - the second. And this means that the speed was limited to 15 km / h and the tank did not have any reserve for maneuvering the speed (jerky movement to complicate life for PTP calculations).
          2. yehat 17 September 2015 22: 42 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            the t34 had actually a round armor, which the 37mm guns (the most popular pto of that time) could not confidently penetrate. This was a significant advantage over a three-ruble note, in which only the forehead was normally armored. In combination with a more powerful gun, the situation was about the same as when comparing Pziii and BT-7. The only difference was that with sub-caliber shells (of which there were very few), the PzIII could pierce any tank with 500m in the forehead.
            I don’t understand these “tests” at all. Another would compare t34 with a fixed bunker.
            1. Alexey RA 18 September 2015 10: 37 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: yehat
              the t34 had actually a round armor, which the 37mm guns (the most popular pto of that time) could not confidently penetrate. This was a significant advantage over a three-ruble note, in which only the forehead was normally armored.

              Until the Soviet 45-mm guns with Soviet shells of release until November 1941, the three-wheeler was armored in the same way as the T-34 against the German 37-mm.
              30-mm armor "three" (and this is the thickness of the side) pre-war 45-mm BBS confidently took only from 150-200 m.
              Quote: yehat
              In combination with a more powerful gun, the situation was about the same as when comparing Pziii and BT-7.

              The more powerful T-34 gun had only OFS and shrapnel. The pre-war plan for the release of the BR-350A NKBP failed miserably.
              1. turk 19 September 2015 11: 41 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Alexey RA
                30-mm armor "three" (and this is the thickness of the side) pre-war 45-mm BBS confidently took only from 150-200 m.

                Do not fantasize. From this distance, they took 50-mm armor of German tanks. And they took 30-mm armor from a long distance.
                Quote: Alexey RA
                Until the Soviet 45-mm guns with Soviet shells of release until November 1941, the three-wheeler was armored in the same way as the T-34 against the German 37-mm.

                Well yes.
                Quote: Alexey RA
                The pre-war plan for the release of the BR-350A NKBP failed miserably.

                Don't be so upset. Almost no plan in the USSR has ever been implemented. Valuantarism and incompetence.
            2. turk 19 September 2015 11: 48 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: yehat
              the t34 had actually a round armor, which the 37mm guns (the most popular pto of that time) could not confidently penetrate. This was a significant advantage over a three-ruble note, in which only the forehead was normally armored.

              Well, let's compare.
              T-34s with "circular reservation" and Wehrmacht vehicles (T-38 (t) E and F - of the German period, T-3, T-4), which are as if without circular booking. And what do we see? The armor plate of the upper part of the T-34 sidewall is 40 mm, and the armor plate of German tanks is 30 mm. But the T-34 armor plate is homogeneous, cementless. And the "Germans", heterogeneous cemented. If we translate a 30 mm German sheet into Soviet, we get 40,3 mm. Where is the T-34 advantage now?
          3. turk 19 September 2015 11: 08 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            And the “fours” until 1942 were a command vehicle and a support tank.

            226 command (without guns) tanks are not taken into account in the figures given by me.
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Better with "treshki".

            Who is having a crack? HF? T-34? Why? What does the T-34 have to do with the treshka? Treshka is an analogue of BT tanks. Later, the T-50 was to replace the BT.
            Treshek (with 50 mm cannons) on the Eastern Front was 717 pcs.
            BT-7 (37) (with heavy armor) in the Red Army in combat ready condition was 2747 pcs. There were 706 of the same combat ready BT-7, but with a diesel engine. They were called BT-7 (39) or BT-8. It depends. Total 3464 is quite normal combat ready tank development success (they are cavalry, they are cruising).
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Our T-34 was compared with the "three"

            All compared with three rubles. There was simply nothing more to compare, there was nothing other than 2 cents "for experiments" before the war.
        5. family tree 17 September 2015 20: 17 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: turk
          Moreover, they could do on their own, without plants. It was enough just to disassemble for 89 28 combat-ready Ts, which were also in the troops.

          Not a mechanic what The T-34 stopped due to the low B-2 engine resource, HF because of the gearbox, the T-28 also had a weak spot, a heavier loaded middle part of the support, four of the 12 rollers, to facilitate turning, only broke more often, yes and M-17t, which has already worked out its aircraft engine resources on planes.
          Well, you get a dozen broken 34-ks and an order to make five of them. And all have jammed, completely engines, up to the pistons for the melt.
          The Germans, when they were draping from near Moscow, throwing equipment, simply put a trotyl block with a fire pipe and KDshka on the engine, regardless, gasoline ran out in the car, or the hodovka broke, in any case, with the same group of malfunctions, in the field, due to the throwing of spare parts Repair is not possible.
          1. turk 19 September 2015 11: 15 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: perepilka
            T-34 stopped due to low B-2 engine life

            Read the reports. There was no resource. But even before it was worked out, it came extremely rarely. The tank rained mostly in other parts.
            Quote: perepilka
            HF due to PPC,

            And who was to do her new? The people were either shot or sitting. Therefore, they put the "reinforced" from the T-28. But she did not pull. Then, in 1942. half a year did and mastered a new one.
            Quote: perepilka
            And all have jammed, completely engines, up to the pistons for the melt.

            Passion-muzzle. See above.
            Quote: perepilka
            with the same group of faults, in the field, due to the throwing of spare parts, repair is not possible.

            Write platitudes.
        6. yehat 17 September 2015 22: 26 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          this is because you reduced the picture to the point.
          availability is determined not only by technical serviceability and a set of spare parts.
          In addition, tank breakdowns are usually typical, and replacing parts with broken ones is not so easy to reanimate. The main problem was the lack of a sufficiently developed infrastructure for servicing tank units — workshops, spare parts, trained mechanics, fuel trucks, etc. from the technical side, as well as reconnaissance, artillery, competent and experienced tankmen, commanders, etc. Also, organizational structures were also unsuccessful - too slow and cumbersome. Another colossal problem was the consequences of the Stakhanov movement - in pursuit of quantity in reporting, the tanks received a huge number of defective elements and shells, which turned into a disaster in real battles. That is why in 2 months almost all tank forces were reset to zero, and not because they were stupidly unable to start a tank.
        7. goose 18 September 2015 17: 31 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: turk
          501 combat-capable KV and 891 combat-ready T-34.

          Are you kidding? Trained crews were less than 30% of this number. Part of these cars was on the road and rather big, because could not unload due to the lack of ramps of suitable carrying capacity. The technical condition is inferior - not more than 10% of cars were able to roll out at a spring inspection, fuel supply 25% and shells (armor-piercing in many parts was 0% in warehouses). And these are fully combat ready tanks, as you say?
          The T-26 had another trouble - more than 80% of the fleet was not provided with normal tracks (those that existed had a resource of about 200 km. The new ones had a resource of about 600 km, but were released in a small series), some had to be dismantled. A review at the Kiev PSB showed that the combat readiness due to the lack of spare parts excluding tracks on BT and T-26 tanks was a little over 50%. The most combat-ready tank was the T-26. The BT-7M was in trouble. Let me remind you that many tanks from the conveyor were imposed by state acceptance with defects and shortages, and stood in the parks for dismantling, because spare parts were not manufactured.
          1. turk 19 September 2015 11: 26 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: goose
            Trained crews were less than 30% of this number.

            Did you come up with this yourself?
            Quote: goose
            Part of these cars was on the road and rather big, because could not unload due to the lack of ramps of suitable carrying capacity.

            Did they set off on the road?
            Quote: goose
            And these are fully combat ready tanks, as you say?

            Of course. And which ones? You tell your passions about the lack of shells and fuel to gullible scammers. Another thing is that in the units “commanders in red pants” they could easily store tanks without all this. So that it doesn’t happen by chance. And no one warned them that in fact, everything is bad. But these questions are not for ABTU.
            Quote: goose
            more than 80% of the fleet was not provided with normal tracks

            You are directly a storehouse of discoveries in the field of tank technology.
            Quote: goose
            that the combat readiness due to the lack of spare parts excluding caterpillars for BT and T-26 tanks was slightly more than 50%.

            Those. You are not aware of combat readiness categories. I adhere to the classic criteria, and in the category combat ready indicate only tanks of the 1st and 2nd category.
            Quote: goose
            Let me remind you that many tanks from the conveyor were imposed by state acceptance with defects and shortages

            No, you are definitely a treasure trove of discoveries in the field of tank technology.
      2. yehat 17 September 2015 22: 15 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        T4 was not the main tank. The main one was PzIII - a whole bunch of modifications (965 units on the border on June 22), twice as much as m4. Slightly smaller than the PzIII, there were Czech tanks PzKpFw 38 (t) (Czech 38t) - 772.
        T4 replaced T3 only because the wider shoulder strap of the tower made it possible to install more powerful weapons in the wider tower and had modernization resources. On June 22, 1941, the T4 was inferior in many ways to the PzIII system.
  10. datur 17 September 2015 10: 28 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    [quote = 0255] T-28 looks archaic, but cool! good One of the most beautiful tanks, in my opinion --- and in MOGILEV he proved to the Germans that the armor is strong and our tanks are fast !!! wink
  11. bionik 17 September 2015 10: 57 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Not much story On July 3, 1941, the T-28, under the command of Major Tank Troops Vasechkin, with a crew of driver Dmitry Malko and three cadets, raided Minsk already captured by the Germans, ramming enemy trucks, knocking down infantry, destroying the enemy with cannon and machine gun fire. A group of soldiers and a truck on the street were destroyed. Voroshilov, a column of motorcyclists on the street. Ulyanov, the concentration of manpower and enemy technology on the street. Yankee Kupala and in the park to them. Gorky. Having spent ammunition, the tank began to leave the city and was stopped only on the eastern outskirts by anti-tank battery fire. Major Vasechkin died, having already got out of a burning car. The driver - Senior Sergeant Dmitry Malko - managed to leave the tank and get through the front line to his own. The commander of the machine-gun tower No. 3, cadet Nikolai Pedan was captured and was released in 1945. Charging cadet Fyodor Naumov was hidden in the underground by local women, after which he made his way to the partisans. The fate of the last cadet, Alexander Rachitsky, is unknown. (C)
  12. Madlinx 17 September 2015 11: 11 New
    • 12
    • 0
    +12
    T-28 on the go
    1. Nagaibak 17 September 2015 14: 45 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      MadLynx "T-28 on the go."
      Could this be the tank in V. Pyshma?))) I posted my photo above. Damage to the trunk is similar.)))
      1. bionik 17 September 2015 14: 58 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        He himself, we have V. Pyshma.
        1. Nagaibak 17 September 2015 15: 37 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          bionik "He himself, we have V. Pyshme."
          And that's great!)))
        2. igordok 17 September 2015 16: 37 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: bionik
          He himself, we have V. Pyshma.

          It is possible in more detail. Is he already in the Urals? They restored it in Pskov, took the corps from the fortified area, from under Luga. The towers are also from the fortified areas. Fortune takers, were offended by this, that they did not leave the case to rust in the ground. The shoulder strap of the tower is a remake, sharpened by a friend.
          1. bionik 17 September 2015 18: 30 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Yes, in the Urals. It is located in the museum “Combat Glory of the Urals” by V.- Pyshma. The photo is higher with a colleague Nagaybak (shot in the museum).
  13. Mestny 17 September 2015 19: 35 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Quote: kalibr
    That is also the statistics was crap. N-yes!

    Well, of course. Everything was bad. How did you win? Unclear.
    Probably they threw hats against the will of a bloody tyrant.
    Yes? So your masterminds broadcast?
    1. kalibr 17 September 2015 20: 06 New
      • -2
      • 0
      -2
      My inspirers? I have my head on my shoulders! How old are you?
      I have more than 60 and since 1980 I have been studying the history of BTT. He worked in the archives of the Ministry of Defense and in the archives of KPRIVO, and in the archives of abandoned inventions in Kuibyshev. I had my own magazine - Tankomaster. Three books on tanks ... And do you think I need inspirers? I want to sort it out to the end ... And, by the way, how rightly you noticed EVERYTHING WERE A SHIT, the tyrant was at the head (it's not me, Putin said it!), And we won !!! Agree that it is inspiring. Me, at least, and you not?
  14. moskowit 17 September 2015 21: 07 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Each model, each sample gave something new, allowed to gain experience in design, in production technology, training of production personnel, a different link. Development of the production of armored steels and so on.
    Look only at the example of tank towers. From riveted "pots" to fully cast. The use of electric welding. How many representatives of the Paton Institute, founded in 1934, invested in this matter. Take a look at the 20's tanks of the early 30's. They are all riveted and could not withstand artillery fire. Shells tore riveted sheets and shells were torn in two.

    So that all this made it possible during the war in the Soviet Union to produce about 100 000 tanks of various samples. And who produced them? Mostly old workers, women and adolescents ...
    1. kalibr 17 September 2015 21: 48 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Yes, exactly, I completely agree with you on this!
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. The comment was deleted.
    2. Alexey RA 18 September 2015 10: 54 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: moskowit
      Take a look at the tanks of the 20s and early 30s. They are all riveted and could not withstand artillery fire. Shells tore riveted sheets and shells were torn in two.

      You can also look at the pre-war HF. Compounds of thick armor plates - on guzhuzh with the subsequent welding.
    3. goose 21 September 2015 09: 26 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      If you are talking about tanks, 100 thousand. USSR could not do