Military Review

Killer tanks

131
The National Interest compares World War II armored vehicles


We can say that the best tank is the one that defeated the enemy. Or depending on your point of view, the tank that does not shoot at you. But actually the best choice tank - It is always a real nightmare for technicians and historians. In this matter there are a lot of variables and conventions, as well as experts and experts storiesthat will argue you to death. But let's look at the analysis data from the book of military analyst and authoritative specialist in tank battles of the Second World War, Stephen Zalogi (Steven Zaloga), whom he called “Champions in armor. The best tanks of World War II "(Armored Champions: The Top Tanks of World War II).

So which tank was the best in World War II? Forgive tank fans, but there is no such car. Pledge wisely bypasses this scientific minefield, without naming "the best tank of the greatest generation." “The tank, protected by 45-mm armor, was invulnerable in 1941, but by the year of 1945 it was doomed to a quick defeat,” writes the author. “The tank with the 76 millimeter cannon in 1941 was the world champion, but by 1945, such a weapon was already a useless cracker in a tank duel.”

Killer tanksIn his book, Pledge does not highlight the best tank of the Second World War, but names the best tank for each war year. What is more important is how the author solves the difficult question of why the seemingly best tanks so often belong to the losing side. For example, weaker German tanks in the 1941 year caused the most powerful damage to the tank fleet of the USSR, and the Israeli “Super Shermans”, which became a modernized version of the remnants of World War II, destroyed modern Russian tanks in 1973.

Pledge solves this difficult problem by choosing two leaders for each year. He calls the first one “The Choice of the Tanker”, and this rank is given to the car that occupied the leading place in terms of traditional indicators - firepower, armor protection and maneuverability. And he calls the second leader “The choice of commander”, based on the general indicators of the suitability and usefulness of the tank and taking into account such factors as reliability and the number of manufactured vehicles. Thus, although the legendary German Tigr has more firepower and has more robust armor than self-propelled artillery mounts of the StuG III assault guns (this is a tank without a turret, from which a cannon sticks out of the hull), guns StuG III, or three tanks "Tiger", writes Pledge, and given the reliability factor, the Wehrmacht could get either seven StuG III or one "Tiger" in working condition. "

Such an approach in the analysis gives quite unexpected results. The French tanks cannot be taken seriously, but in 1940, Somua S-35 won the nomination “Choice of the Tanker” due to the balanced combination of high for its time indicators of firepower, armor protection and mobility. But the problem with the S-35 and many other Allied tanks at the beginning of the war was the turret, where two people were stationed, and the commander fired from a cannon. It turned out that the tank commander could not follow the battlefield, did not control the situation and was unable to respond to rapid changes in the combat situation.

In contrast, the German Pz IV with its low-speed gun on paper was considered weak. But in the tower he housed three people: the gunner, loader and commander. The commander's hands were free and he could truly command the crew. Thus, Pz IV wins in the nomination "The choice of commander", because it surpasses other machines as a means of achieving victory in battle.

Some preferences Pledges do not cause much surprise. The only tank in his book that won prizes for 1941 for the year in both categories - “The choice of commander” and “The choice of tankman” - is the T-34. Despite the turret for two people, the T-34 with its excellent firepower, armor and maneuverability shook the Germans and surpassed the previously invincible German tanks. And the German infantry watched in horror as its anti-tank shells bounce off the powerful T-34 armor. Some may protest, saying that the Germans in 1941 still suffered huge losses to the Soviet tank forces, but this was largely the result of poor crew training, shortcomings in maintenance and repair, and gaps in Soviet tactics. T-34 became the champion not because he won the battles in 1941, but because he did not let the Soviets lose much more battles than they lost.

In 1943, the contrast between technical performance and combat effectiveness becomes most striking. It is not surprising that the "Tiger I" became the "Choice of the Tanker", because he has thick armor and a powerful gun and he inspired fear in the allied forces. But it was an expensive tank, there were few such machines (1347 “Tigers I” were built in total, while T-34 - 84 thousands), and it was difficult to maintain and repair them. The bloodless and desperate German infantry divisions on the Eastern Front needed tank support to repel the powerful waves of the advancing T-34, but the few and exhausted Tigers battalions could not help them. As a result, the situation was saved by a small assault gun StuG III slightly higher than human growth. This self-propelled artillery installation was cheap, had decent armor and firepower, and managed to strengthen the defense of the German infantry, which was under heavy pressure, which had to fight off the inexorable offensive of the Soviet troops. Thus, the StuG III assault rifle defeated the Tiger in the Commander's Choice category.

In the 1944 year, the German Panther, whose combination of firepower, armor protection and mobility influenced the western tank building of the post-war period, comes out on top in terms of technical characteristics, and the Soviet T-34 / 85 becomes the most useful and effective production. The rather strange absence of American and British tanks in this list is explained by the mediocrity of such models as Sherman and Cromwell. Although the British "Matilda" in 1940 – 1941 for a short time ruled in North Africa, and the Sherman debuted quite successfully in 1942, the Western allies deserved applause only when the war was almost over. In 1945, the American M-26 Pershing in the nomination “Choosing a Tanker” pressed the powerful but overly heavy and unreliable German “Royal Tiger”. And M4A3E8 "Sherman" won in the category "Commander's Choice" due to its reliability, a large number and high-speed armor-piercing shells.

Those who know something about the design of tanks and tank battles, the information provided is mostly familiar. But Pledge skillfully sprinkles various amazing facts into the narrative. For example, the T-34 has impressive characteristics, but on the battlefield it turned out to be very unreliable. American experts who investigated the T-34 model 1942 of the year were amazed to learn that the resource of the diesel engine of this tank is just an hour in 72. And its air filter was so poorly designed that a tank on the dusty road could drive only a few hundred kilometers, after which the engine failed (the Americans also discovered that the British Cromwell had 199 man-hours for maintenance, while the M4A3E8 Sherman "Total 39).

Do these historical ratings have any significance today or are they only suitable for curiosity? After the 1945, the US military was carried away by the most modern weapons. If today's Pentagon could be moved back to 1943, he would certainly have decided to build Tigers, not Shermans and T-34.

Today, when the US military budget is experiencing a tremendous burden, trying to pay for the development and construction of extremely expensive weapons systems such as fighter F-35, it is worth remembering that the very small feature in the structure (tower for two people or more defective elements in software ) may be the most decisive impact on the effectiveness of the weapon. It does not matter how it looks on paper.
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/articles/27273
131 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Riv
    Riv 30 September 2015 05: 29 New
    +24
    Did the author of the article replay in WoT? Or is it such a book advertisement? I hate it.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. siberalt
      siberalt 30 September 2015 07: 14 New
      +13
      You can understand the author. Autumn is in the yard laughing
      1. andj61
        andj61 30 September 2015 08: 32 New
        +4
        Quote: siberalt
        You can understand the author. Autumn is in the yard laughing

        The usual fall aggravation? winked
      2. avt
        avt 30 September 2015 10: 22 New
        +6
        Quote: siberalt
        You can understand the author. Autumn is in the yard

        The moon is close to the Earth, and even in its shadow - “bloody” and, again, has just left the “bloody battle” at World of the same tanks. Here and shares, “fighting”, virtual experience. than in particular.
        Quote: sanya.vorodis
        And why is this article ANYTHING?

        You are wrong, this is not an article about tanks, but a list of the author’s symptoms for making a diagnosis. Which, in fact, is well-known - having beaten on the computer in the World of the same tack coekaker.
      3. lelikas
        lelikas 30 September 2015 11: 19 New
        +23
        Bliiin, you still remember about the E-25 marathon! :)))))
        The best tank is the one that stands after the Victory on the monuments. soldier
      4. Setrac
        Setrac 30 September 2015 18: 12 New
        +3
        The author has a creative crisis, the muse has swelled.
        1. Firstvanguard
          Firstvanguard 1 October 2015 20: 57 New
          +2
          And I liked the article, about WWII tanks, I already knew a lot without it, I liked the approach. When in my professional activity less experienced colleagues ask a question about equipment, which is better, sample A or sample B? I always ask a question, what is better for what? And in any technical field, so, when trying to give a definite answer, anyone answering will inevitably slide down to the level of African films, whether it’s better, a truck, an excavator or a bulldozer.
          And yes, the T-34 is the best tank of war wassat because this machine, like no other tank model, contributed to the victory of my homeland in that terrible war in the history of mankind. This is my subjective opinion. soldier
    3. kalibr
      kalibr 30 September 2015 07: 59 New
      +2
      Opinion Pledges are always valuable! This is the master in the field of BTT.
      1. lelikas
        lelikas 30 September 2015 13: 51 New
        +2
        Quote: kalibr
        This is the master in the field of BTT.

        And the modeler and moderator of the Missing Link. laughing
        1. kalibr
          kalibr 30 September 2015 15: 10 New
          +1
          It’s necessary to rest on something. I also made models of tanks for many years ... and it only helped.
      2. family tree
        family tree 30 September 2015 22: 55 New
        +3
        Quote: kalibr
        This is the master in the field of BTT.

        In the States. Among ours, such as Svirin, Chobitok and others, we respect that it promotes tank themes, and Soviet tank building in the West, although they indicate that both texts and drawings suffer from inaccuracies
    4. RBLip
      RBLip 30 September 2015 08: 32 New
      +43
      Quote: Riv
      Did the author of the article replay in WoT?

      the author of the article writes crap. and already the “analyte” and “expert” a certain pledge can be seen immediately strong. tiger - the choice of a tanker? nude nude. "pershing"? lack of isov? in general, for me, so a bunch of myths and absurdities. and further. not t-34s and ISs won that war. and an obscure kid from IPTAP from a nameless height, who lay down next to his forty-fifth, but did not let all these fours and tigers out. and those boys who slept 3 (!) hours a day, but ensured the release of these thirty-four on time with overfulfillment. and those unknown farmers who ate the whole quinoa, and bread to the front to the last spikelet ... something like that.
      1. igorvoschenko
        igorvoschenko 30 September 2015 08: 54 New
        +17
        RBLip, I will subscribe to your every word.

        And about the boys, and about the swan that my grandmother ate ...

        I’ll only add our tank crews, who apparently didn’t know that the t34 engine lives 72 hours) But how would my grandfather in a tank reach Berlin?

        Crap, not an article
        1. Genry
          Genry 30 September 2015 10: 57 New
          +10
          As for the filters in the first T-34 it was. The engine was choking. If the filter was removed, it clogged with dirt. But it was quickly fixed.
        2. Uncle VasyaSayapin
          Uncle VasyaSayapin 30 September 2015 12: 30 New
          +5
          It was about those cars that were in the 41st. One of the reasons why there were huge losses of equipment at the beginning of the war is a small resource. This phenomenon is generally characteristic of new technology. Maybe you remember at the end of the 34s Putin drove on the newest combine. So the reaper broke, a few tens of meters after that. Nothing, made changes, everything works like a clock. At first, the T-3 was also an unreliable tank, about which the Americans made conclusions after checking. Due to design flaws, the production of the IS-4 had to be stopped altogether and the production of the IS started. On the monuments are mainly post-war cars. This is our practice. And not only with us. Similar problems arise in other technologically advanced countries, not to mention the underdeveloped. But the same British, the founders of tank building, for example, made cool tanks, but they seemed to lag behind modern requirements for a couple of years, which is also dumb. And the article is more similar to the reasoning of the layman - an amateur of armored vehicles, than to the opinion of a professional expert. Reading is not interesting.
          1. Amurets
            Amurets 30 September 2015 13: 39 New
            +1
            Look at the history of English tank building during the years of World War II; there you will see how, without testing, the unfinished tanks were first put on the conveyor, and then instead of sending tanks to the troops, they were sent to training centers because the tanks had irreparable defects.
        3. shasherin.pavel
          shasherin.pavel 30 September 2015 18: 57 New
          +4
          The aircraft engine "Aviation Mikulin" was tested on 50 hours of continuous operation. And if we multiply 72 hours by (average speed) 25 km / h = 1800 km. This is a straight line on the map from Murmansk to Sevastopol. It must be remembered that when the T-34 and KV tanks were delivered to the United States, our specialists were not even allowed to get close to the tanks, American "tractor drivers" were stupidly put into cars (just look at the American tanks of that time) and they even destroyed the T without reading the instructions -34 earlier than HF, than led to bewilderment of our specialists, HF was considered technically less reliable. Apparently, if you really want to break the car, then the HF can only be shot. In the memoirs of our tankers, you can read that the drivers, before the fighting in Germany, whose engines worked for more than 200 hours, were awarded medals "For Military Merit". And you can recall the photo where against the background of the Reichstag stands the T-34-76 with the L-11 gun. And they stopped putting it on tanks in the 1941 year.
          1. family tree
            family tree 30 September 2015 23: 22 New
            0
            Quote: shasherin.pavel
            The aircraft engine "Aviation Mikulin" was tested for 50 hours of continuous operation.

            In B-2, the technical task indicated 100 hours, and so, these 72 are not bad, for starters. After replacing the filter with “Cyclone” and further running in, in general, on 72s and 90s, the development of these engines costs, and how many of them have gone into civilian life, in the form of integers and halves
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 1 October 2015 11: 43 New
            0
            Quote: shasherin.pavel
            The aircraft engine "Aviation Mikulin" was tested for 50 hours of continuous operation. And if we multiply 72 hours by (average speed) 25 km / h = 1800 km. This is a straight line on the map from Murmansk to Sevastopol.

            The average speed of 25 km / h is you, my friend, a big optimist.
            Even for 1945, judging by the document "Information on the consumption and stock of motor resources of military vehicles of the 9th Bobruisk Red Banner Corps as of January 1, 1945", the average operational speed (mileage / engine hours) of tanks and self-propelled guns is less than 10 km / h.

            Just do not forget that the engine's engine life is consumed even when the tank is standing - for example, while it expects the formation and extension of the column ahead of the units.

            In addition, the average engine life of 72 hours does not mean at all that the diesel engine will work out precisely these 72 hours. He can work 80-90 hours, and can die after 50-60.
      2. Alekseev
        Alekseev 30 September 2015 12: 59 New
        +2
        Quote: RBLip
        not t-34s and ISs won that war. and an obscure kid from IPTAP from a nameless height, who lay down next to his forty-fifth, but did not let

        That's right!
        And the article, sir ... An unsystematic set of banal truths.
        Quote: Uncle VasyaSayapin
        ... more like the reasoning of a layman - a lover of armored vehicles, than the opinion of an expert expert.
        1. shasherin.pavel
          shasherin.pavel 30 September 2015 19: 04 New
          0
          Quote: Alekseev
          and the unknown kid from IPTAP

          But the trouble is to your reason, there were forty-five on the border, by August they were sorely lacking. Even German generals wrote that the terror of the 41 of the year near Moscow was the PTRD and PTRS, which seemed to German tankers under each bush.
          1. KSLip
            KSLip 30 September 2015 23: 52 New
            +1
            Quote: shasherin.pavel
            But the trouble is to your reason, there were forty-five on the border, by August they were sorely lacking.

            http://topwar.ru/29218-protivotankisty-kak-chasti-pod-nazvaniem-proschay-rodina.
            html
      3. Gomel
        Gomel 30 September 2015 16: 46 New
        +1
        this is absolutely true!
    5. forester
      forester 30 September 2015 09: 17 New
      +1
      Quote: Riv
      Did the author of the article replay in WoT? Or is it such a book advertisement? I hate it.

      Yes, the author’s cretinism is evident. Diesel with a resource of 72 hours? (the author is not even a piece of an idiot far from technology) On our tanks, for the first time in the world, a diesel engine was installed just because of its high resource and power. Ferdinant Porsche, after familiarizing himself with the captured T-34, said that he had no shortcomings (I believe the enemy) in the article there is some kind of pledge nonsense, and he also has problems with history - in the 41st 34-k there were very few Germans' victories and the numerous losses of our tank corps due to the fact that they consisted of outdated weakly protected and lightly armed tanks
      1. tolancop
        tolancop 30 September 2015 09: 46 New
        +9
        I did not like the article, but I cannot agree with your criticism. There were problems with the B2 diesel resource at the beginning of the war - the resource was small, which is already there. But over time, brought to acceptable values. By the way, I noticed for a long time that for a T-34 model of 40, a diesel power of 500 hp was indicated, and for a T-34-85 only 400 hp. Deformed to increase reliability?
        Now about the losses. The numerous losses of our tank corps at the beginning of the war are explained not only by the weak and "outdated" materiel. She was not so weak and outdated. Obviously, there were problems with the correct use of the available equipment, and with a large number of non-combat losses due to the weak rembase ...
        1. forester
          forester 30 September 2015 10: 43 New
          +1
          data on the diesel resource in the internet, however, gleaned
          Quote: tolancop
          I did not like the article, but I cannot agree with your criticism. There were problems with the B2 diesel resource at the beginning of the war - the resource was small, which is already there. But over time, brought to acceptable values. By the way, I noticed for a long time that for a T-34 model of 40, a diesel power of 500 hp was indicated, and for a T-34-85 only 400 hp. Deformed to increase reliability?
          Now about the losses. The numerous losses of our tank corps at the beginning of the war are explained not only by the weak and "outdated" materiel. She was not so weak and outdated. Obviously, there were problems with the correct use of the available equipment, and with a large number of non-combat losses due to the weak rembase ...

          You, however, also talk about technology in forums for woodpeckers and Wikipedia to all kinds of people, and I respected this engine with my own hands and revived it in DOSAAf in my youth. And you also know how our engineer’s couch is - reducing power and reducing the throttle ratio will not add reliability to others peers and the T-34.85 was heavier than the first 34-kilograms as much as 6 tons 32 tons versus 26 (t-34 arr. 1940) No one will install a weaker motor while increasing the mass. Being far from understanding and knowledge of technology, believe infe from the Internet. T-34 was 18hp per tonne - take a calculator and consider A diesel engine life at 72h is possible if it was collected by a drunk locksmith
          1. Amurets
            Amurets 30 September 2015 11: 15 New
            +10
            If you are such a great connoisseur, you should know that the B-2 diesel engine afterwards was aviation. A bad air cleaner, the main reason for the failure of the diesel engine. In my practice, there was more than one case of diesel engine failure. And the super-reliable YaMZ and tender Mitsubishi and Cummins and V-2 modifications including: Two, three hours with a faulty water filter and piston can be thrown out. The gaps are such that you can start the engine only with a tugboat, and the standard 80 liters of oil is enough for half a day. That's why only by 1943 when a new transmission appeared , modernized the air supply and fuel supply systems, and then the reliability of the T-34 increased. By the way, by that time about 15000 changes and improvements had been made to the tank.
            1. shasherin.pavel
              shasherin.pavel 30 September 2015 19: 22 New
              +2
              Quote: Amurets
              By the way, by this time they brought about 15000 into the tank

              suggestions and more 500 inventions. Do not cut back on the facts of tank building history.
          2. tolancop
            tolancop 30 September 2015 14: 44 New
            +1
            You, however, are also talking about technology in forums for woodpeckers and judge all Wikipedia ...
            Why such a conclusion, let me know? ... I didn’t refer to the data from the Internet, you attributed it to me. The source of my knowledge - "Encyclopedia of Tanks" - such a healthy volume, publications somewhere in the late 80s, early 90s. And I learned the power of the B2 diesel engine of the T-34 tank of 500 forces back in 1970, there was such a magazine - "Technique-Youth", from ottuzh and infa. By the way, there was also a B2K diesel engine of the KV-1 tank - 600 hp.
            However, I fully admit that for the tank of the 40th year the maximum power was indicated, and for later versions it was some other (operational or some other). I’m not going to judge, and my assumption of deforming the assumption is there, and it may well be that it’s incorrect.
            In addition, information about the low reliability of diesel engines at the initial stage does not contradict common sense: the raw, at first, images in the production process were brought to the necessary conditions (technology mastered, materials selected). Not a single serious thing leaps into the perfect world - everyone suffers from "childhood diseases", even those that later earned a reputation for being overly reliable.

            "...- and I respected this engine with my own hands fingered and revived in DOSAAf in his youth .." Happy for you. But what does this have to do with engine life? Nothing. I’ve dismantled and assembled AK many times before the army and during the service. And what, he added from this in reliability?
            ".. And you our engineer know the couch as well - this is a decrease in power and a reduction in the thrust-weight ratio, which in no way adds reliability, all other things being equal ..."
            Well, UNBELIEVED You are our engineer who was sorting tank diesel into DOSAAF ...
            Do not confuse hot with heavy. Power is a characteristic of the engine. Thrust-to-weight ratio is a characteristic of the machine on which this engine is installed.
            Somewhat different concepts, don’t you ?.
            Now about the power-resource ratio. I had to hear from fairly reliable sources about forcing the Zhiguli engines (in the standard a little more than 70 forces) to a power of 150 hp. Only the resource of these motors, in contrast to the standard ones, was scanty. And descriptions of cases of engine deformation in order to increase their resource have come across to me in the literature.

            "... No one will install a weaker motor with an increase in mass. Being far from understanding and knowledge of technology, believe infe from the Internet ..."
            with accusations of illiteracy more careful, please. And with definitive conclusions too. “No one will install ...” - if he approves, he will install, and will be glad to the impossibility ... Offhand an example from the automobile industry: the VAZ-2106 at the time of the start of production had a 2106 engine - the most powerful of the classic family. as they were issued, both 2103 and 21011 were set, i.e. weaker. What was, then set. The weight of the car, however, did not increase, but the thrust-weight ratio you loved so much fell.

            "... A diesel engine life at 72h is possible if it was collected by a drunken locksmith ..."
            The presence of a drunk locksmith does not rule out. But the likelihood of an unfinished design, IMHO, is still higher. There are cases when a certain sample is immediately launched into a large series, but, as a rule, an experimental batch is first produced ... Why would it? Recently I read the book of Malimon which describes our legend and a synonym for reliability - AK. How it was launched into production and after how many YEARS it became what it became ... A very instructive reading. Recommend.

            I suppose enough ..
            1. shasherin.pavel
              shasherin.pavel 30 September 2015 19: 44 New
              0
              Quote: tolancop
              Thrust-to-weight ratio - characteristic
              indicating how many tons of tank weight falls on one l \ s. The characteristic of the machine is indicated as “Pull on the hook”, which was suitable for tractors, but not for tanks, since their pulling force is not the main thing. By the way, a comparison of a VAZ in peacetime, with a wartime tank, is from the yard of the "Yellow House". We can recall only one case in Leningrad, when due to the blockade on the HF there were not enough diesels, but there were torpedo carburetor from G-5 boats, but with 670 horsepower. with reduced speed compared to aviation, because with an increase in speed the boat screws “cut” the water without giving traction. But it lasted a little over a week.
              Quote: tolancop
              AK How it went into production

              But even for that time he was a record holder of reliability, on which others were already equal. Later, new technologies already affected all the details of the AK and even the barrel, but the highlight of the AK is the preliminary rotation of the sleeve after the shot and only then pulling the sleeve out of the barrel, which prevented the separation of the bottom of the sleeve through the groove. It is this invention of Mikhail Kalashnikov that all designers of weapons copy under a cartridge with a groove, and not with a hem.
              1. tolancop
                tolancop 30 September 2015 22: 32 New
                +1
                "... By the way, the comparison of the VAZ in peacetime, with a wartime tank, is from the yard of the Yellow House .."
                There was no comparison of a VAZ with a tank. An example of a VAZ is shown as an illustration that a conscious impairment of the characteristics of the equipment is quite possible. VAZ is not satisfied, please, an example of wartime. ZiS-5 trucks in wartime were produced according to an abridged version: without one headlight, front brakes, and there were references that without doors too. Again criticism that the technology is not military? I agree. But he repeatedly met (in tyrnet, however, the mention of arming combat aircraft under the shortened program: there were not enough air guns and machine guns, so they put only one barrel, instead of 2 or 3, laid down according to the original design.
        2. shasherin.pavel
          shasherin.pavel 30 September 2015 19: 17 New
          +1
          One must be careful when reading: 500 l / s is a forced mode for short-term operation, the nominal operating mode is 400 l / s. ISovsky was already installed on the T-44 in 520 l / s, it should be noted that 600 l / s was installed on the HF, but motor life was reduced, while it was the same engine as on the T-34. Power was switched with one lever, experienced tankers, when fighting went on flat terrain, turned on engines, adding revolutions, but reduced power to 350 l / s instead of the nominal 400 l / s, and this was quite enough, but the T-34 on a dirt road gave under 60 km / h. A big problem was the gearbox, the tankers set the second speed and did not switch for the whole battle. But from 1942 of the year, they created a new 5 speed box, with a preliminary choice of speed. T-34-76 received the prefix "C" - high-speed, but at the end at the end of 1942, this prefix was not used.
          1. tolancop
            tolancop 30 September 2015 22: 37 New
            +1
            "One must be careful when reading: 500 l / s is a forced mode for short-term operation, ..."
            How many do not peer into letters and words, but if the line says "Engine power is 500 hp" and then another characteristic that is not related to power goes on, then there will be no understanding that 500 hp refers to the forced mode.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 30 September 2015 10: 37 New
        +4
        Quote: forester
        Diesel with a resource of 72 hours? (the author is not even a piece of an idiot far from technology) On our tanks, for the first time in the world, a diesel engine was installed just because of its high resource and power.

        For the first time in the world? The Poles and the Japanese look at you in bewilderment.

        As for the B-2, it was brought to mind only by 1944. Prior to that, even on peacetime tanks it produced 465-480 hp. with passport 500 hp And the B-2 resource was such that for the KV and T-34 tanks of the combat training park, the GABTU immediately required a second diesel engine from the industry, and battle tanks were put into the boxes with a flow rate resolution of not more than 30 hours per year and only for training exercises.
        Quote: forester
        in the 41st 34-k there were very few German victories and the numerous losses of our tank corps due to the fact that they consisted of outdated weakly protected and lightly armed tanks

        Very little - This is about 970 T-34 in the border districts.
        Quote: forester
        Ferdinant Porsche after reading the captured T-34 said that he has no shortcomings (I believe the enemy)

        Gorgeous. It is better to believe the enemy than their specialists, who wrote about the T-34 that:
        As a result of conducted combat firing with the solution of fire missions, the disadvantages were identified:
        1) The tightness of the crew in the fighting compartment due to the small dimensions of the tower on the shoulder strap.
        2) The inconvenience of using ammunition stacked in the floor of the fighting compartment.
        3) Delay in the transfer of fire, due to the inconvenient location of the turret swivel mechanism (manual and electric).
        4) The lack of visual communication between the tanks when solving the fire task due to the fact that the only device that allows circular viewing - PT-6 is used only for aiming.
        5) The inability to use the TOD-6 sight due to the overlapping scale of the aiming angles with the PT-6 device.
        6) Significant and slowly damping oscillations of the tank during movement adversely affect the accuracy of firing from a gun and machine guns.

        In early April, s / g, when checking, according to the technical conditions, the amount of effort on the handle of the rotary mechanism on machines with mounted guns F-34, received in March, it was found that the force on the handle required to rotate the tower reaches 30-32 kg ...

        But there was still a transmission and suspension ...
        The main friction clutch.
        The operation of the main clutch and fan assembly is generally unsatisfactory.
        Gearbox
        In the run, there were several cases of “neutral loss” (the link lever is in the neutral position, and the speed is on) and heavy gear shifting were noted on all cars ...
        Wrong choice of gear ratios of the gearbox is the reason for the unsatisfactory dynamics of the tank and reduces its tactical value.
        Heavy gear shifting and "neutral loss" make it difficult to control the tank and lead to emergency stops.
        The gearbox and its drive require fundamental changes.
        Chassis.
        The short service life and low coupling qualities of the tracks, the deterioration of the placement of tank units by suspension wells, the high consumption of rubber on the support wheels and ridge engagement characterize the structural and strength qualities of the chassis as unsatisfactory.
        1. forester
          forester 30 September 2015 10: 59 New
          -4
          Another Internet tech specialist with quotes and lists of flaws from it is not clear which source Porsche I dare to remind you was the designer of German tanks
          1. Amurets
            Amurets 30 September 2015 11: 19 New
            +5
            I wonder what Porsche tanks are armed with the Wehrmacht?
            1. shasherin.pavel
              shasherin.pavel 30 September 2015 19: 57 New
              +3
              Tower, it was used for the "Tiger VIH", which passed the test of the chassis, but did not have time to arm. Isn't it a wonderful situation when the tank is tested and adopted, when the turret is not ready for it, so they put the Porsche tank on the Tiger-VIH tower, and the 90 Porsche tank hulls, prepared before being converted into service, are converted to Ferdinand. You can also recall that the Royal Tigers were produced with two towers: Andersen's angular tower and a tower copying the T-34 41 tower of the year from Porsche.
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 1 October 2015 11: 54 New
                0
                Quote: shasherin.pavel
                Isn’t it a wonderful situation when the tank is tested and adopted, when the turret is not ready for it, so they put the tower from the Porsche tank on the Tiger-VIH, and the 90 Porsche tank hulls, prepared before being put into service, are converted to Ferdinand

                Heh heh heh ... so the Germans by May 1941 realized that they were too late with the development of the tank. So they decided after the approval of the final performance characteristics of the heavy (May 26, 1941) that in order to reduce the time of putting into series, both plants in 1942 should not only issue 3 prototypes, but also begin production of the first series - 100 tanks per plant. The winner of the competition will receive orders for the heavy and continue mass production. The loser - will be satisfied with the paid order for 100 + 3 cars. And where to put the hull and chassis did not go into a series of cars, the Germans knew well - Sturer Emil an example.
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 30 September 2015 11: 54 New
            +3
            Quote: forester
            Another Internet tech specialist with quotes and lists of flaws from an unknown source

            Read the docks - they rulez! (C)
            These quotes are taken from the Test Report of the three T-34 long-range tanks. Quoted by Ulanov A.A., Shein D.V. Order in tank troops.
            Quote: forester
            Porsche I dare to remind you was a designer of German tanks

            Can an exact quote from Porsche be? With an indication of the source.
            By the way, against the background of Porsche tanks, the T-34 may have had no flaws. smile

            Patriots are always pleased, who do not believe the data of domestic tests recorded in the documents, but who believe the words of Western designers, uttered, it is not known when and for what reason.
            And even even the example of Guderian does not teach them anything ... I’m talking about a well-known case when Heinz was forced to conceal the ... mach of his subordinate to invent a fairy tale about invulnerable Soviet tanks flying through mud and snow (despite the fact that the domestic the docks indicated that the T-34 was moving in second gear under such conditions at a speed of no more than 12 km / h). This Heinz pearl looked especially good against the background of his autumn report, which
            ... the Soviet T-34 tank is a typical example of backward Bolshevik technology. This tank can not be compared with the best examples of our tanks.
          3. kalibr
            kalibr 30 September 2015 15: 32 New
            +1
            But no. He was not a tank designer! He made only ONE tank - the Porsche Tiger ... he did not go into the series, but Ferdinand did on the chassis of the 90 machines. Is it a tank? Is this a "miracle of technology"?
          4. shasherin.pavel
            shasherin.pavel 30 September 2015 19: 53 New
            +2
            Where did the Porsche cars come from then? I dare to assure you that abroad, any company can create whatever it wants, the main thing is that this product is bought by the army for its weapons or someone else. Japanese Mitsubishi built from cars to airplanes, now it even builds ships. Hundey originally built ships and port cranes, but then she acquired a car factory and made her own car. Porsche was originally a car designer. But Morozov did not build anything except tanks.
      3. kalibr
        kalibr 30 September 2015 15: 17 New
        +2
        And how little? You will not name a number? Compared with the German T-4, there were ... many, but the T-1, T-2, T-3 were inferior to "34" in all respects! And the "obsolete", "weakly armed", "weakly protected" tanks almost surpassed German tanks in almost all respects, not to mention the number. With one battering ram they could destroy the entire tank tank of the Wehrmacht and there would not be much less of them. And after all, there were both KV and KV-2 ...
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 30 September 2015 18: 31 New
          +1
          Quote: kalibr
          Compared to the German T-4s, there were ... many, and the T-1, T-2, T-3 were inferior to the "34" in all respects!

          "Unit" with "deuce" - yes. But the "troika" according to the results of our tests was inferior to the T-34 only in the caliber of the gun.
          Quote: kalibr
          And the "obsolete", "weakly armed", "weakly protected" tanks almost surpassed German tanks in almost all respects, not to mention the number.

          And here not so simple. Booking the same "kopeck piece" is much better than that of the T-26 and BT. Armament and surveillance and communications equipment, too. The “Czechs” have roughly the same picture (recall that the future Pz.35 (t) was once considered in the USSR as a replacement for the aging T-26).
          And if you recall - how many of all T-26s and BTs were technically sound and combat-ready ... then the picture is very sad.
      4. Nehist
        Nehist 30 September 2015 15: 55 New
        +1
        This is nonsense !!! 41 of our 45mm guns that were standing on tanks pierced any Wehrmacht tank, but the fact that the shells were not high-quality is another matter and the T-34 was not so small, the Wehrmacht had nothing of the sort. It’s just that under the attacks of our tank corps, saturated infantry divisions were substituting infantry divisions.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 30 September 2015 17: 02 New
          +1
          Quote: Nehist
          This is nonsense !!! 41 of our 45mm guns that were standing on tanks pierced any Wehrmacht tank, but the fact that the shells were not high-quality is another matter

          The whole problem is that the 45-mm shells were of high quality. Their armor penetration on cementless armor is fully consistent with the theory.
          But on cemented armor, they gave armor penetration of only 30 mm to 150-200 m. And the reason here was constructive. I had to make a shell with stress locators ("undercuts"), which physically pierced cemented armor, but did not meet the criteria for armor penetration (too much shell mass remained outside, along with undercuts). These shells went into series with November 1941.
      5. shasherin.pavel
        shasherin.pavel 30 September 2015 19: 07 New
        0
        Quote: forester
        from obsolete weakly protected and lightly armed tanks

        Truly the Germans found out what the T-34 was near Tula, the trouble was that each tank was distributed personally by Stalin in the 41 year, so there weren’t enough of them.
      6. Predator
        Predator 30 September 2015 20: 02 New
        +1
        It’s just not necessary at the expense of the losses in 1941! That all the tanks of the Wehrmacht were PKW 4? There were only eight hundred of them. And the T 34 is far beyond 1000. And all the other tanks are not better than the T 28 and BT, or rather worse. They’re not fighting tanks, but people and structures, it was precisely in this indicator (structure) that we lost the Wehrmacht in 1941 and 1942.
      7. family tree
        family tree 30 September 2015 23: 31 New
        +1
        Quote: forester
        Yes, the author’s cretinism is evident. Diesel with a resource of 72 hours?

        In the terms of reference for B-2, it was indicated: 100 hours before overhaul. Nothing like that, right? At the stand, prototypes achieved
        On our tanks, for the first time in the world, a diesel engine was installed just because of its high resource and power
        Just because of the fact that I was straining with gasoline. The diesel engine is more difficult to maintain and due to its stiffer characteristics, all other things being equal, its engine life is less than that of a carburetor.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 1 October 2015 10: 43 New
          +1
          Quote: perepilka
          Just because of the fact that I was straining with gasoline.

          Not just with gas. The carburetor engines of Soviet tanks were extremely demanding on fuel, requiring only aviation gasoline for themselves.
          As a result, it turned out that the BTV competed in fuel with the Air Force and selected the capacity of the refinery, which could be used to produce aviation grades of higher grades.
          Take a look at the Tank Service Manual BT-7, 1941 edition.
          TTX, page 9: "Fuel for the engine ... Aviation gasoline brand B-70"
          CHAPTER TANK FILLING, p.1.1, p.338: "Refueling of tank gasoline tanks is carried out by Baku aviation gasoline of the 2nd grade (specific gravity 0.748-0.755 at a temperature of +20).

          Same tank T-26 (GVIZ NPO USSR, Moscow-1940)
          Стр. 18
          Fuel ..... Light Groznensky gasoline of the 1st grade or AVIATION CRACKING-GASOLINE.

          Also refueling the tank (p. 287)
          For refueling the tank Grozny light gasoline 1st grade (specific gravity 0,755 at a temperature of +15 shrad) or aviation cracking gasoline.

          Brochure "experience in the exploitation of light tanks" (GVIZ NPO USSR, Leningrad-1940)
          To supply new types of T-26 tanks only gasolines of the first and highest grade - not lower than Groznensky . It is strictly forbidden to fill motor gasoline in tanks to avoid the possibility of damage to the material part.

          Service Guide. tank T-70 contains such. "Used fuel ... Gasoline KB-70 or B-70. In exceptional cases, work on cracked gasoline of the 2nd grade (gasoline) is allowed. Under no circumstances should Grozny first-class gasoline or gasoline mixed with ligroin or kerosene be used. "

          (c) VIF2-NE
          http://vif2ne.ru/nvk/forum/arhprint/562235
  2. svp67
    svp67 30 September 2015 05: 43 New
    +5
    No, there should be one nomination "Preference of the author ..." But here is such a point
    And the M4A3E8 Sherman won the “Commander’s Choice” category due to its reliability, large number and high-speed armor-piercing shells.
    And if you compare the super reliability of the T34-85, its quantity and the power of the gun, then the result will be higher. So that all these ratings are, well, very subjective ...
    1. Revolver
      Revolver 30 September 2015 07: 17 New
      +4
      And as for reliability ... Well, let's put the dviglo early T-34 survived 72 hours. And how long, according to statistics, did the tank survive on the front line? I don’t remember exactly, but in my opinion several times less. It was not for nothing that after the war, tank builders (and aircraft builders) began to complain - peacetime technology must withstand much longer operation.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 30 September 2015 10: 47 New
        +3
        Quote: Nagan
        And as for reliability ... Well, let's put the dviglo early T-34 survived 72 hours. And how long, according to statistics, did the tank survive on the front line? I don’t remember exactly, but in my opinion several times less

        The problem is that you still need to get to the front line. For example, 8 MK before entering the battle was less than 500 km, while leaving 40% of its T-34s on the roads. In 1942, it happened that on a 100-km march from the nearest railway station to the battlefield, teams lost up to half of their equipment.
        According to the T-34 test results at the end of 1940, it was generally concluded that:
        Tactical use of the tank in isolation from the repair bases is impossible, due to the unreliability of the main components - the main clutch and chassis.

        And this despite the fact that it was such tactical use of the tank that was the main one for him - after the MK entered the breakthrough.
    2. Bayonet
      Bayonet 30 September 2015 07: 28 New
      +2
      Quote: svp67
      And if you compare the super reliability T34-85

      Well, "super-reliability" - it is said loudly, and the fact that the tank was distinguished by its exceptional maintainability, yes!
      1. svp67
        svp67 30 September 2015 20: 02 New
        0
        Quote: Bayonet
        Well, "super-reliability" - it is said loudly, and the fact that the tank was distinguished by its exceptional maintainability, yes!

        If the T34-85 did not have super reliability, this would not allow the Red Army Command to carry out SUCH DEEP offensive operations.
        Largely thanks to the receipt of modern machines through the Lend-Lease in 1943, it was possible to significantly improve the manufacturing quality of V-2-34 engines, five-speed gearboxes, final drives, etc. Already there were cases when the engines worked on tanks without breakdown for several hundred hours. This was facilitated by the replacement of generally good Cyclone air purifiers with an even more efficient Multicyclone, the introduction of all-mode regulators, etc. Improving the reliability of the engine and transmission positively affected maneuverability. And if the average speeds remained the same, then the time during which the tank could move at that speed increased. In addition, tankers ceased to be afraid of actively maneuvering on the battlefield. All this also affected the security of combat vehicles. It is not for nothing that there are old tank proverbs that “the damage to a tank is proportional to the square of its speed” and simple and accurate: “Armor is garbage, but our tanks are fast!”
        The increase in reliability of the T-34-85 tank as a whole proved to be very useful at the final stage of the Great Patriotic War, when the Red Army was characterized by large-scale and dynamic offensive operations.
        http://www.redov.ru/voennaja_istorija/t_34_v_boyu/p9.php
    3. kalibr
      kalibr 30 September 2015 07: 53 New
      0
      You are not up to date. After the war, our tank marshal offered to leave Valentine and Sherman in the army for current service. A T-34 canned. It is because of reliability!
      1. Meh-forester
        Meh-forester 30 September 2015 08: 38 New
        +2
        Quote: kalibr
        You do not know

        I don’t know the same thing.
        Quote: kalibr
        After the war, our tank marshal

        At least the name of this marshal can be called ...
        Quote: kalibr
        suggested leaving Valentine and Sherman in the army for current service. And the T-34 canned. It is because of reliability!

        It’s hard to believe. “Shermans” and “Valentines” came to us under the Lend-Lease program, and all tanks that were not destroyed during the hostilities, we undertook to return and pay money for them.
        In total, under the Lend-Lease program, the Soviet Union got:
        - 3664 medium tank M4A2 "Sherman",
        - 2394 English and 1388 Canadian Valentine's
        And how many of them survived to Victory? For the Red Army, these are not the volumes that would be sent to the T-34/85 warehouses
        1. tolancop
          tolancop 30 September 2015 09: 59 New
          +1
          I’ll add my 5 kopecks: and where was the “Marshal” going to take spare parts and ammunition for foreign cars ... Including, it’s very similar about the “artistic whistle”. In addition, “on the way” were the T-44, IS-3, etc.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 30 September 2015 11: 04 New
          +1
          Quote: Meh-forester
          At least the name of this marshal can be called ...

          Marshal of the armored forces Fedorenko. Head of ABTU and GABTU, commander of armored and mechanized troops of the Ground Forces.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 30 September 2015 11: 02 New
        +3
        Quote: kalibr
        You are not up to date. After the war, our tank marshal offered to leave Valentine and Sherman in the army for current service. A T-34 canned. It is because of reliability!

        You are not quite right. Not leave the army Valentine and Sherman for current serviceand force designers to bring the resource, maintainability and serviceability of domestic peacetime tanks to the Sherman and Valentine levels.
        Of the currently available armaments of the Red Army, tank equipment should be the American medium tank Sherman M4A2 with artillery. armament in the form of a 76,2 mm cannon of high power and the Canadian light tank "Valentine" MK-9 with a 57-mm tank gun limited rollback ...
        Specified Tank Samples compares favorably with domestic ease of management, significantly increased life between repairs, ease of maintenance and repair and their weapons, armor and mobility allow you to solve a whole range of problemsadvanced by armored forces ...
        According to numerous reviews from tank units, these types of tanks can be considered the best for serving in peacetime, mastering military equipment ...
        I ask you to consider a set of measures for the speedy improvement of the design of domestic tanks, so that they can be compared with the best foreign models in terms of guaranteed mileage, ease of operation, repair and maintenance ...
        (c) Marshal of the armored forces Fedorenko.
        1. kalibr
          kalibr 30 September 2015 15: 38 New
          0
          You have written well. This was written by the magazine "Technique and Armament" and this phrase was remembered. But there is no magazine at hand, hence this inaccuracy. But it does not change much in essence. Bring to the level - this is WAITING FORWARD. And when will they bring it? And will they bring it? These are all questions for the FUTURE TIME, and you need to serve on the tanks now.
      3. Bayonet
        Bayonet 30 September 2015 11: 13 New
        0
        Quote: kalibr
        You are not up to date. After the war, our tank marshal offered to leave Valentine and Sherman in the army for current service.

        No, not in the know. I hear it for the first time. Anyway, it happens when drunk you can blurt out .... that you don’t want to remember! hi
  3. Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich 30 September 2015 05: 50 New
    +25
    So which tank was the best in World War II? Forgive the tank fans, but there is no such car.
    the grandfather considered his KV-1 to be the best, the basis for three years, was never hit, although the visited grandfather's face is evidence of a mass of hits. injured twice, and both times outside the "climate".
    1. venaya
      venaya 30 September 2015 06: 01 New
      +6
      Quote: Andrew Y.
      the grandfather considered his KV-1 to be the best, the basis for three years, was never hit, although the visited grandfather's face is evidence of a mass of hits. injured twice, and both times outside the "climate".

      The experience of the tankman Kolobanov confirms your words best of all. Not a single tank in the world can repeat its feat.
      1. svp67
        svp67 30 September 2015 06: 25 New
        +3
        Quote: venaya
        The experience of the tankman Kolobanov confirms your words best of all. Not a single tank in the world can repeat its feat.

        You are sure? In general, a tank is a tool that people use. And before our Kolybanov there were examples of the successful use of single tanks against numerous opponents, and after the same.
        1. venaya
          venaya 30 September 2015 07: 58 New
          +3
          Quote: svp67
          ... a tank is a tool that people use. And before our Kolybanov there were examples of the successful use of single tanks against numerous opponents, and after the same.

          Yes, there were examples, but Kolybanov is the absolute world record holder in relation to the number of armored vehicles hit by him. Silence of his military success is a true surprise. How to make his absolute record as illuminated as possible? But together with Kolybanov, it turns out that his KV-1 tank also set a record, which should also be adequately evaluated, do you disagree?
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 30 September 2015 11: 07 New
            +2
            Quote: venaya
            Yes, there were examples, but Kolybanov is the absolute world record holder in terms of the number of armored vehicles that he crashed.

            Still to know - whose it was armored vehicles? And then the tanks hit by Kolobanov, even taking into account the traditional German spreading of losses for a month, have not yet been found in German docks.
            Yes, and in other armies, the champions were - the same Wittmann with Boyot.
            1. venaya
              venaya 30 September 2015 13: 00 New
              0
              Quote: Alexey RA
              Quote: venaya
              ... Kolybanov is the absolute world record holder in terms of the number of armored vehicles wrecked by him.

              Still to know - whose it was armored vehicles? And then the tanks hit by Kolobanov, even taking into account the traditional German spreading of losses for a month, have not yet been found in German docks.
              Yes, and in other armies, the champions were - the same Wittmann with Boyot.

              You have found my non-accuracy here: Kolybanov is the absolute world record holder in terms of the number of armored vehicles that he crashed in one battle, on the only ammunition of the KV-1 tank shells. And now it’s becoming clear that no "Wittman with Boyot“he’s not fit to be indifferent, because their successes are stretched out in time and it is impossible to compare them with Kolybanov. As for the German docks, this is serious, but possibly correctable, since Kolybanov himself in the hospital saw a film with the results of aerial reconnaissance in the news, maybe a tape But everything needs to be checked.
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 30 September 2015 15: 26 New
                0
                Quote: venaya
                And now it’s becoming clear that no Wittmann with Biyot is suitable for him, because their successes are stretched in time and it is impossible to compare them with Kolybanov.

                According to Biyot, the canonical figure is 2 “fours” and 11 “triples” for 1 battle.
                According to Wittmann - 11 tanks and 13 armored personnel carriers in 1 battle.
                But there was still a battle of Carius in Malinovo 22.07.1944/XNUMX/XNUMX, in which the German overclame, after comparison with our docks, was surprisingly small.
                1. svp67
                  svp67 30 September 2015 18: 20 New
                  0
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  According to Biyot, the canonical figure is 2 “fours” and 11 “triples” for 1 battle.
                  According to Wittmann - 11 tanks and 13 armored personnel carriers in 1 battle.
                  But there was still a battle of Carius in Malinovo 22.07.1944/XNUMX/XNUMX, in which the German overclame, after comparison with our docks, was surprisingly small.

                  But there was also an Englishman, Norman Plow, a lieutenant who destroyed 20 Italians on his Matilda, their medium tanks Fiat M13 / 40 of the 10th Army, in a battle on February 7, 1941 near Bedoma Fomma in North Africa
    2. igordok
      igordok 30 September 2015 08: 44 New
      +2
      Quote: Andrew Y.
      the grandfather considered his KV-1 to be the best, the basis for three years, was never hit, although the visited grandfather's face is evidence of a mass of hits. injured twice, and both times outside the "climate".

      You brought an unsuccessful but revealing photo. KV-1 crushed the headquarters machine of the presumptuous Germans, but died out and was shot by artillery. This battle occurred while trying to liberate the 5 Island on July 1941 with the forces of two tank regiments of the 3 Tank Division, without infantry support. These KV-1 tanks arrived at 3TD 2-3 on July. 2 - KV-1, about 15 T-26 and XT at its base, as well as several wrecked German cars and trucks of the German 1-th tank division remained lined on this field.
      This tank, with a shot barrel, the Germans then blew up. But his sister-in-law was restored and used in the 8 Wehrmacht tank division.


  4. Homo
    Homo 30 September 2015 05: 52 New
    +5
    It’s not tanks that win, but those who control them both sitting in the tank and sitting at headquarters. Without the ability to drive, aim, shoot, plan operations - tanks are a lot of scrap metal!
  5. Tatarname
    Tatarname 30 September 2015 05: 57 New
    +2
    Strange article. Any tank, a killer. Because it is intended to kill and destroy. And a good tank, one that survived the battle and saw the death of the enemy. But the tank lives, in a real battle, not for long.
  6. Russian Uzbek
    Russian Uzbek 30 September 2015 06: 35 New
    -1
    another tank specialist from WoT
  7. Arktidianets
    Arktidianets 30 September 2015 06: 40 New
    0
    Alas, I did not catch the point of the article .. request
  8. V.ic
    V.ic 30 September 2015 07: 00 New
    +1
    The vinaigrette from the tanks was (according to the author) better than the vinaigrette from the "self-propelled guns".
  9. SAM 5
    SAM 5 30 September 2015 07: 03 New
    0
    So you can rant about any weapons.
  10. kartalovkolya
    kartalovkolya 30 September 2015 07: 09 New
    +1
    Each sandpiper praises its swamp and why should we think that the Western “analyst” will put the tanks of its current “probable opponents” in the first place ?! And this whole article is nonsense and complete nonsense!
    1. kalibr
      kalibr 30 September 2015 07: 57 New
      +2
      You just do not know Steven Pledge! This is the most respected tank specialist in the West. He is not invited by an expert only and his fees are sky-high. Therefore, his opinion is very interesting. Of course, if English if you don’t know and don’t read their books in the original, it will be the “analyst” in quotation marks - “they are all bad”.
  11. Yak-3P
    Yak-3P 30 September 2015 07: 14 New
    0
    each statement of this tank expert is very, very controversial .. let’s read the memoirs - the guys on su 76 and su 85, while experimenting from the 41st to 44th in Poland with a battery of 4 cars, were eating up panthers and tigers and fadin at 34 with 76mm ferdinand and his retinue decided
  12. nivander
    nivander 30 September 2015 07: 44 New
    0
    amphibious tanks of the Second World War period had thin armor and in terms of armament they could not be compared to even light tanks. But can they be called weak and not even included in the nomination?
  13. Seraphimamur
    Seraphimamur 30 September 2015 07: 52 New
    0
    Judging by the article, the author in WoT reached the 7th level. I wish him further creative success.
  14. Meh-forester
    Meh-forester 30 September 2015 08: 11 New
    +3
    Do these historical ratings have any meaning today or are they only suitable for satisfying curiosity? After the 1945 year, the American military carried away with the most modern weapons. If today's Pentagon could be transferred back to the 1943, he would undoubtedly decide to build the Tigers, not the Shermans and not the T-34.
    Author AU !!! What are you talking about? What "Tigers" for the American army are you talking about in 1943? The US military has always done what it considered necessary. Their "Sherman" is the crown of development of both the thoughts of designers and the military. And they were right, because, first of all, the army needed a MASS tank, which the Germans had T-4, we have T-34, and the French S-35. A "Tiger" is a completely different type of tank, a sort of "cherry on the cake." The Americans became the "cherry" M-26. So, do not confuse similar, but completely different in essence things.
  15. unknown
    unknown 30 September 2015 08: 26 New
    +1
    The crew of the S-35 tank is three people. In the tower, ONE. The tank commander, he’s a gunner, he’s loading.

    The author of the article gives the total number of T-34 tanks, including the post-war release.

    Until 1943, the T-34 was a raw machine. In the T-34-85, some of the shortcomings have become obsolete, although the main suspension type Christie remained.

    The most massive German tank was an assault tank (turretless) based on the T-III. T-IV - in second place.
    1. Mordvin 3
      Mordvin 3 30 September 2015 08: 52 New
      +2
      What does it mean: T-34 is a raw machine? In 41, the Germans did not massively use an eight-eight gun.
      1. Meh-forester
        Meh-forester 30 September 2015 09: 43 New
        +3
        Quote: mordvin xnumx
        What does it mean: T-34 is a raw car?
        This means that at the first stage of the war the amount of its losses for TECHNICAL reasons was VERY SIGNIFICANT. As one of the tankers said: "everything that could break" broke on it ...
        Quote: mordvin xnumx
        In 41 Germans did not massively use an eight-eight cannon.

        Here you are wrong, just in 41 and 42, based on the experience of fighting with the English “Matilda”, with Soviet tanks that broke into the depths of defense, just they, and even 155mm howitzers only fought ...
        1. Mordvin 3
          Mordvin 3 30 September 2015 10: 13 New
          +2
          They broke more due to insufficient crew training. And the Germans “8-8” in 41 stood on anti-aircraft guns (although here I may be wrong}.
          1. svp67
            svp67 30 September 2015 18: 39 New
            +2
            Quote: mordvin xnumx
            And the gun "8-8" in 41 Germans stood on anti-aircraft guns (although here I may be wrong}.

            No, you are not mistaken, but it was precisely them that the Germans used in the VET, taking advantage of the fact that our tanks attacked without proper support by infantry and artillery fire. Not only that, these anti-aircraft guns were the “main caliber”, so Siebel’s landing boats fermented us on the Black and Azov Seas
      2. Amurets
        Amurets 30 September 2015 10: 45 New
        +3
        In principle, ignoto was right. Yes, thirty-four was a raw car. And if it weren’t for war, we would praise another car: T-34M. And the designers and Stalin knew and saw the shortcomings of our tanks. Who knew the sticks of the pre-war pores deeply , namely the military in the development of tanks. Requirements to maintain the wheel drive, short-barreled guns small caliber guns for the sake of greater ammunition. According to Grabin’s memoirs, they had to send powerful guns for re-melting. Specifically, the weak L-11 F-32 guns on the KV. The more powerful F-34 came into service after the outbreak of the war. Therefore, the M-2 howitzer had to be fitted on the KV-152. gearboxes and transmission. Weak main friction clutches. And only by 10, when they designed a new gearbox and a new main clutch, got rid of transmission problems. We should not assume that only the armored hull affects the reliability and completeness of the machine. On captured equipment and not only on T- 1943 but the Germans also adapted their sights to trophy artillery, considering our optics cloudy. With their optics the Germans could shoot at dusk for half an hour longer than ours. And therefore, despite the lack of tanks at the beginning of the war, despite the defects in the tanks of the Stalingrad and Sormovsky factories, others didn’t enter the army in September 34, our tankers did the most. They didn’t let the Germans win.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 30 September 2015 11: 21 New
          +3
          Quote: Amurets
          Those who are deeply versed in tanks of the pre-war era know which sticks they inserted, namely the military when developing tanks. Requirements to maintain the wheel drive, short-barreled guns, small caliber guns for the sake of more ammunition

          The requirement for an anti-ballistic reservation tank with a divisional gun was put forward by Pavlov in 1937. Given the position held by Pavlov, this was the official position of the GABTU. Reverence towards the wheel drive was caused by the fact that a new tank was urgently needed, and the GABTU was not sure about the ability of KhPZ to develop a vehicle of a fundamentally new class for the plant in time. But the plant and design bureau completed the task and made 2 new tanks.
          Quote: Amurets
          Powerful guns, according to the memoirs of Grabin, had to be sent for re-melting

          Yeah ... and according to documents signed by the same Grabin, these powerful cannons made only 6 pieces. And there was no tank under them.
          Quote: Amurets
          The more powerful F-34 came into service after the outbreak of war.

          17.IV.1941
          In early April, s / g, when checking, according to the technical conditions, the amount of effort on the handle of the rotary mechanism on machines with mounted guns F-34, received in March, it was found that the force on the handle required to rotate the tower reaches 30-32 kg

          The 76-mm tank gun of the 1940 model (F-34) was actually put into service in July 1941. But it began to be installed on the T-34 earlier - from the beginning of 1941.
          1. Amurets
            Amurets 30 September 2015 11: 52 New
            +1
            You probably mean a 107mm gun that I didn’t even put in the tank, and the opponent of this gun was J.Ya. Kotin and Ealtsman. But there was also a prototype S-53 gun of 85mm caliber. One stood in the T-28 tank and several lay on stock.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 30 September 2015 12: 31 New
              +2
              Quote: Amurets
              But there was also a prototype S-53 cannon of 85 mm caliber. One stood in the T-28 and several lay in the warehouse.

              Are you talking about the F-30? So there was a problem with her - she did not pass the shooting test.
              ... shooting tests were not carried out due to the fact that there was no necessary number of shots and the reaction of the recoil of the gun to the shoulder strap was expected to be slightly higher than that allowed by the project

              Plus, the F-30 had the traditional misfortune of the Grabin guns - too big a breech. Only HF with its large shoulder straps was suitable for its installation - and a new tower was required.
              Only trouble! It was very difficult for 3K to have a sleeve over 550 mm in length and turn around with it in the KV-1 turret (as with the 85-mm sleeve). Therefore, neither F-27 nor F-30 went in the KV-1 tower. Therefore, in the ZIS-5 they returned to the ammunition arr. 1900/1902

              And one more thing: the new caliber before the war is a wild smut for industry.
              ... such a transition in peacetime is a wild blow to the country's budget, especially aggravated by the lack of mobilization of shots? What kind of "super-wise" ruler would go for it? Where he will take in 1939-1941 six powder factories (taking into account Lendliz), two shell, six equipment, and even reserves of Chilean copper, which in 1944-1945 provided only the absence of shell hunger for land 85-mm tank and self-propelled systems ? And this is due to the fact that the war in the air has already been won for us and the anti-aircraft 85 mm (and 100 mm) ammunition is no longer available? Indeed, in reality, work with the 95 mm in 1940-1941. were stopped precisely by these circumstances? After all, in order to just complete the mission on only anti-aircraft guns and their ammunition, we spent all the limits a year in advance!

              Let me remind you that for the 85 mm anti-aircraft guns by the beginning of the war for the year they were able to make only 1 BC per barrel.
              1. Amurets
                Amurets 30 September 2015 14: 02 New
                +1
                Thanks for the clarification. In the memoirs of Grabin and Shirokorad’s book, I read something completely different. If there was really hunger with 107 mm shells, there was no shortage of 85 mm shells and they chose this caliber precisely because there was no shortage of shells. I know the story about 95 mm ammunition and the first against the new caliber were Ustinov and Vannikov.
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 30 September 2015 15: 35 New
                  0
                  Quote: Amurets
                  If there was really hunger with 107mm shells, there was no shortage of 85mm shells, and we chose this caliber precisely because there was no shortage of shells

                  The devil is in the details.
                  The shortage of 85-mm shells was overcome by 1943. And in 1941 - you see for yourself, even for barely enough.
                  But in 1943 the "long" 76-mm projectile for anti-aircraft guns was no longer produced, which was the last nail in the coffin cover of the high-speed S-54 tank, which climbed into the standard T-34-76 turret. So there were no competitors in the 85 mm.

                  By the way, the following tank / anti-caliber caliber was determined in approximately the same way: by 1943, 107-mm shells were also discontinued. This was one of the main reasons for the funeral of a line of 107-mm tank / anti-tank guns and gave green light to a caliber of 100 mm.
                  But in the 107-mm caliber such monsters were developed ...
                  107-mm anti-tank gun M-75, developed in the spring and summer of 1941.
                  Estimated penetration - 165 mm at an angle of 30 degrees at a distance of a kilometer.
                  (c) Yuri Pasholok
        2. Meh-forester
          Meh-forester 1 October 2015 10: 00 New
          0
          Quote: Amurets
          In principle, ignoto is right. Yes thirty four was a raw car

          Let's just say, "in the part concerning." The T-34 was a "raw" year until 43, when it was possible to solve the main problems with reliability in a constructive way, and with the advent of the T-34/85, and in production. All tankers noted that the T-34/85 is the best machine, at that time, produced by us and it can no longer be called "raw"
    2. vomag
      vomag 30 September 2015 09: 08 New
      +1
      T-34-85 part of the shortcomings are obsolete, although The main-type suspension Christy remained. And can you read more about the shortcomings?
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. tolancop
      tolancop 30 September 2015 10: 10 New
      +1
      This is what the T-34 suspension did not please. How many did not read materials (memoirs, etc.) - did not meet critics of a suspension bracket. A small diesel resource at the beginning of the war was. there was a problematic and difficult transmission in operation. The assignment of secondary functions to the tank commander was. There was a noisy mover due to crest engagement. About the bad suspension - I do not remember!
      1. Bayonet
        Bayonet 30 September 2015 11: 44 New
        0
        Quote: tolancop
        This is what the T-34 suspension did not please.

        The suspension of the Christie system proved to be quite reliable in operation, but, due to the lack of friction of its constituent elements, it tended to sway violently even on good roads.
        1. kalibr
          kalibr 30 September 2015 17: 47 New
          0
          Yes, I read a review of American engineers at the T-34 tested at the Aberdeen Proving Ground and there it is indicated - "swinging". Big moves of the balancers and this and + and -.
  16. Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 30 September 2015 08: 32 New
    +1
    Now in the "West", and in Russia the same thing, a lot of "expert" writers have appeared who spent all their childhood and youth without getting out from the table with a computer, playing various "military" games and "simulators". Such experts literally overwhelmed the market with their books, with "pseudo-expert" assessments of various events and military equipment, as well as on the topic "what would happen if ..." Most of their "creations" are open slag, but I come across very “funny” specimens, really “funny” ones, I personally was the last of such “funny” creations to read a book in which the author in all seriousness with “scientific” calculations and “evidence” on more than 300 pages, examined the “influence” of dust for battles and in general, for the entire course of the Second World War. After reading that creation, I went around for a while, dumbfounded, not understanding how it relates to what I read, and then I realized, damn it, it’s the same as the “novels” by Daria Dontsova- “chewing gum for the brains” - the next “vyser” of the sofa “expert” and it should be treated the same way: read and forgot.
  17. Aleksander P.
    Aleksander P. 30 September 2015 08: 40 New
    +3
    An article, like a book, has a right to exist. And the approach to the separation of tanks is more than appropriate, there are tanks and self-propelled guns for armor which I really would not want to be in a battle (su-76, for example, the same Sherman and t 34-85), but having such efficiency and capable of mass production, such machines solve the outcome of the war is the choice of commanders, but there are tanks with super characteristics, for the armor of which I would like to personally hide in battle, but who are not able to decide the outcome of the war, because there are always few of them. I’m a plus for the author, a minus for critics, as I understand it, because they weren’t named the 34 best for all times, but this is true, in such a bloody competition like war, you can’t be the best forever.
  18. igordok
    igordok 30 September 2015 08: 51 New
    +2
    I agree with the author that tanks should be compared by years, and maybe more often. Tanks, like any military equipment, quickly become obsolete, especially in war conditions.
  19. morozik
    morozik 30 September 2015 08: 51 New
    +8
    The Soviet tank KV-1 and its dead tanker who shot a German tank column. Voronezh Front. January-February 1943

    He stood to the end, but the Nazis did not miss
  20. sergo1914
    sergo1914 30 September 2015 08: 53 New
    +2
    "this is a tank without a tower, with a gun sticking out of the hull"

    Here it turns out !!! And then I racked my brains laughing
  21. EvilLion
    EvilLion 30 September 2015 08: 56 New
    +1
    Thank you, I neighing, for the whole Second World War they couldn’t make a normal gun for the Sherman, simply because of a lack of understanding which tank is needed, and the Panther is essentially a heavy anti-tank self-propelled gun of a rather dubious level of protection (85 mm ), which eventually failed to replace Pz-IV. At the same time, by the end of the war, all but the strands were already one shots, various kinds of devices like 17-tifuntovki, 85 / 88 mm anti-aircraft guns and, all the more, three-inch different systems were up to horseradish and more. By the end of the war, the T-34-85 already had a sufficient resource and, in principle, was somewhere ahead of the technical competitors by a year, if by the summer of the 44, the share of the T-34 with 85 mm guns had reached half, then the Americans with normal 76 mm trunks time only combed, while Sherman, as a product of a technically developed state, is technically good, but not particularly impressive as a tank.
    1. Revolver
      Revolver 30 September 2015 09: 29 New
      +3
      Quote: EvilLion
      Thank you, I neighing, for the whole World War II they couldn’t make a normal cannon for “Sherman”


      The Angles made a 17-pound (caliber, by the way, only 76 mm, but the mass of the shell and the initial speed - be it the Tiger, it took almost 2 km in the forehead) and put it on the Sherman - it turned out Firefly. The Americans were offered, but they refused, it is not clear why.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 30 September 2015 11: 34 New
        +1
        Quote: Nagan
        The Angles made a 17-pound (caliber, by the way, only 76 mm, but the mass of the shell and the initial speed - be it the Tiger, it took almost 2 km in the forehead) and put it on the Sherman - it turned out Firefly. The Americans were offered, but they refused, it is not clear why.

        Probably because the Americans shared tanks and tank destroyers.
        The tanks were entrusted with the fight against infantry and field fortifications (as, incidentally, with us). Special tank destroyers that were part of the TD were supposed to deal with tanks.
        That is why high-speed guns were considered unsuitable for tanks by the Yankees - because a high initial velocity means thick projectile walls and greater burial in the ground. That is - a decrease in high-explosive and fragmentation effects.
        But on the tank destroyers they bloomed and smelled.
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 30 September 2015 18: 25 New
          0
          You have the wrong opinion about the purpose of the tanks, the tank must break through the defenses and cut off enemy communications
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 30 September 2015 18: 58 New
            0
            Quote: Setrac
            You have the wrong opinion about the purpose of the tanks, the tank must break through the defenses and cut off enemy communications

            You are considering a tactical application. And I - typical targets of tanks.
            4. Tanks do not fulfill their main task of destroying enemy infantry, but are distracted by the battle with enemy tanks and artillery. The established practice of opposing our enemy’s tank attacks and getting involved in tank battles is wrong and harmful.
            (...)
            2. Tanks, acting in conjunction with infantry, have as their main task the destruction of enemy infantry and should not be separated from their infantry by more than 200 - 400 m.
            (...)
            5. When enemy tanks appear on the battlefield, the main battle with them is artillery. Tanks engage in battle with enemy tanks only in the event of a clear superiority of forces and advantageous position.
            (...)
            The corps should not get involved in tank battles with enemy tanks, unless there is a clear superiority over the enemy. In the event of encountering large enemy tank units, the corps detaches anti-tank artillery and part of the tanks against the enemy tanks, the infantry, in turn, puts forward its anti-tank artillery, and the corps, obscured by all these means, bypasses the enemy tanks with its main forces and hits the enemy infantry with the aim of tear it from enemy tanks and paralyze the actions of enemy tanks. The main task of the tank corps is the destruction of enemy infantry.
            (...)
            9. The use of the mechanized corps as an echelon of breakthrough development can only be after the combined-arms formations have overcome the main defensive line and the attacking infantry has entered the areas of enemy artillery positions.

            In special cases, the mechanized corps, when the enemy’s defense is poorly equipped, can independently solve the tasks of breaking through the front and defeating the enemy to the entire depth of his defense. In these cases, the mechanized corps must necessarily be strengthened by howitzer artillery, aircraft and, if possible, breakthrough tanks.

            Order of the NPO of the USSR No. 325 of October 16, 1942
            “On the combat use of tank and mechanized units and formations”
  22. alexej123
    alexej123 30 September 2015 09: 35 New
    +2
    The Second World War has already put everything in its place. Including the opinion of the enemy - the Germans. T-34 is the best. Not because ours, but because, at a certain, crucial stage, he had no equal. Later, the "tiger" was both more powerful and better protected, and with the best tank gun. What's the point?
  23. tolancop
    tolancop 30 September 2015 10: 23 New
    +5
    The best tank - I don’t know. “Sherman” was not bad. At one time, he read "The Tanker on a Foreign Car," Vines. Conclusion - a very good tank. Is he better than the T-34? In some ways, yes: more convenient (the habit of amer’s comfort), more reliable (well, yes, they were not built by half-starved women and children in cold shops) and much more. But there is a small episode in the book when the Shermans, which is called “ran into” ... And the T-34s rescued them ... The Shermans retreated, and the T-34s went forward !!! The episode is small, but IMHO, says a lot.
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 30 September 2015 12: 21 New
      +1
      There were already comments saying that the dispute was pointless and I would probably agree with them. Even the T-34s of 1940 and 1945 are already two different cars. I don’t take the gun’s caliber. Another transmission and main clutch, reduced effort on the controls Therefore, it seems pointless to argue, especially in each country, its own approach and vision of the problems of tank troops.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 30 September 2015 12: 41 New
        +3
        Quote: Amurets
        Even the T-34s of 1940 and 1945 are already two different cars

        I will tell you more: already T-34/40 and T-34/43 are two different cars. "Pyatistupka", gun, turret (cast or stamped "mold"), kombenushenka, tracks, air filter, etc., etc.
        1. brn521
          brn521 1 October 2015 11: 42 New
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          I will tell you more: already T-34/40 and T-34/43 are two different cars.

          For me, at one time, the discovery was that the T-34/42 and T-34/42 from the same plant and from the same batch can differ significantly.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 1 October 2015 16: 50 New
            +1
            Quote: brn521
            For me, at one time, the discovery was that the T-34/42 and T-34/42 from the same plant and from the same batch can differ significantly.

            EMNIP, the unforgettable Sormovsky plant, made its first T-34s from components that arrived in bulk from other plants after evacuation.
            In general, it seems that after the formation of the NKTP T-1941 in 34, they made a lot of things, not only new plants, but also old ones that were tested. For example, upon the fact of changes made at STZ, there was even a Decree of GKO No. 1957. About the investigation by the USSR Prosecutor's Office of the facts of deterioration in the quality of part of the T-34 tanks produced by STZ as a result of the use of a new unauthorized final drive design.

            In the end, the case of the “T-34 zoo” reached the temporary detention center, after which they demanded from the top to stop the mess and begin unification.

            Moreover, the T-34 is not an isolated case. You can recall the same "Katyusha", in which the discrepancy was such that the unified (normalized) installation even got its own index - BM-13N
            1. brn521
              brn521 2 October 2015 10: 52 New
              0
              Quote: Alexey RA
              Decree of GKO No. 1957.

              Searched, read, thanks. An article in Kommesant (http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1761259), for example, is impressive. The general conclusion of the article is that the production of the T-34 in accordance with the established standards was established only in 1944. And before that, an ersatz was often produced, somehow brewed with flagrant violations of technology from pseudo-armor in a pseudo-factory. Armor cracked when assembling the hull of the tank.
  24. mamont5
    mamont5 30 September 2015 14: 01 New
    +1
    Quote: igorvoschenko
    I’ll only add our tankers, who apparently did not know that the t34 engine lives for 72 hours)

    In such cases, you just need to compare. With the enemy. How long was the engine of German tanks of that time.
    And so, the approach is interesting - to identify the best tank at every stage of the war. Here are just indicators for comparison, you need to select more and more carefully.
    By the way, a good study on tanks of that time was conducted by M. Baryatinsky. It will be interesting to read and compare. http://www.4tanks.ru/books.php
    1. tolancop
      tolancop 30 September 2015 15: 07 New
      0
      IMHO, finding out which tank was the best at what stage of the war is a meaningless task. A tank is a tool for solving a certain range of tasks. The breakthrough tact is one thing, the Tank Fighter is another. A tank for a European theater of war, for an African and an Asian one (war on the islands) is also not the same thing ... Different tasks - different requirements ...
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 30 September 2015 15: 43 New
      0
      Quote: mamont5
      In such cases, you just need to compare. With the enemy. How long was the engine of German tanks of that time.

      I met data that the engine life of German tank engines was used up only by the end of the Smolensk operation.
  25. Amurets
    Amurets 30 September 2015 14: 25 New
    +1
    Yes, it’s difficult to select criteria. Even a comparison of engines by such a parameter as the expediency of choosing a fuel. This mainly concerns the Germans. They believed that they had a lot of synthetic gas, and there was little diesel, and therefore it was more profitable to give diesel and heavy fuel to submariners. The tank lives in war a few hours and the installation of expensive fuel equipment on tanks is impractical. Besides Baryatinsky, Igor Shmelyov and Maxim Kolomeyts have many interesting books on tanks.
  26. Thor
    Thor 30 September 2015 14: 33 New
    0
    The author clearly decided to realize the proverb: "every gopher in the field is an agronomist!" His approach interested himself only in its originality!
    PS It was also necessary to "compare paper tanks"!
  27. vnord
    vnord 30 September 2015 14: 37 New
    0
    They forgot to raise the question of the lack of high-quality armor-piercing shells for tank guns in the troops in 1941. I read statistics on the corps on them at the beginning of the Second World War and wept. Mostly there was a marriage (the guys ground), but the pre-war ones were also not so hot. In the buildings on the border there was a shortage of shells in some, there was not a complete ammunition at the beginning of the war. But the question of the quality of the KV-1 transmission was not decided, but the transmission of the T-34 was decided, as it were, not to the T-34-85 (the problem was the lack of quality of gear cutting machines for the production of gearboxes). We decided after delivery under the lend-lease.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 30 September 2015 16: 55 New
      0
      Quote: vnord
      Mostly there was a marriage (the boys ground), but the pre-war ones were also not so hot.

      What kind of boys? The design of the BR-350A was such that even experienced specialists could not cope.
      For 1940: order - 150, delivered - 000.
      For 1941: the order - 400 000, delivered by the beginning of June - 118 000.
      In total, from 1936 to June 1941, the army received 192 armor-piercing shells of 700 mm caliber. Out of 76,2 originally ordered.
      But in 1941 there was still an additional order for armor-piercing shots (plus the already mentioned 400), which the NKBP completely disrupted.
  28. vnord
    vnord 30 September 2015 14: 40 New
    0
    Look at the data on the quality of workmanship T 34, by factories. The quality and performance characteristics of the products of the Nizhny Novgorod plant (Sormovo) and Tagilsky is very big difference. As if different models.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 30 September 2015 17: 09 New
      0
      Quote: vnord
      Look at the data on the quality of workmanship T 34, by factories. The quality and performance characteristics of the products of the Nizhny Novgorod plant (Sormovo) and Tagilsky is very big difference. As if different models.

      ... and in conclusion, Comrade Malyshev, I really want to hope that you will finally be able to do something with the "Sormov freak" on which our tankers are afraid to fight ...
      (c) IVS
      Nevertheless, after retrofitting the plant with machine tools, the Sormovsky plant improved product quality. And after the commissioning of the evacuated "in bulk" machine for processing shoulder straps of large-diameter towers - it became the lead one according to T-34-85.
  29. vnord
    vnord 30 September 2015 14: 40 New
    +1
    Look at the data on the quality of workmanship T 34, by factories. The quality and performance characteristics of the products of the Nizhny Novgorod plant (Sormovo) and Tagilsky is very big difference. As if different models.
  30. rvsn90
    rvsn90 30 September 2015 18: 06 New
    0
    I do not understand what this article is about or why or why? wassat
  31. Jager
    Jager 30 September 2015 18: 58 New
    0
    "Pershing" - the choice of commander? HOOT !!! Then the IS-3 in the studio! Caterpillars are dumped from it by all the vehicles of both the Allies and the Germans at that time.

    I suggest that the whole site chip into the author’s good book on the history of armored vehicles, and Pledge a ticket to Kubinka so that he doesn’t look at pieces of paper, but "feels" with his hands and stops writing nonsense.
  32. Bosk
    Bosk 30 September 2015 19: 32 New
    0
    But what about the IS-2 ?, it seems like the only breakthrough tank ..., I mean that this is probably the only tank that could not only successfully deal with any enemy armored vehicles, but also use its gun no less successfully against long-term defensive structures. ..
  33. yastr
    yastr 1 October 2015 15: 29 New
    0
    Guys, this article is reminiscent of the print version of the movie from the Discovery Channel request