Military Review

The development of armored personnel carriers in Russia: from the first to the present. Part two

26
Hello comrades militarists! Today, continuing the cycle of articles, I will tell you about the formation and development of armored personnel carriers as a type of weapon in the Red Army.


First part: Development of armored personnel carriers in Russia: from the first to the present day

The interwar period


The young Soviet power, not yet recovered from its past wars, was forced to keep pace with the times. Despite the economic difficulties, the Workers 'and Peasants' Red Army was arming foreign weapons, the development of our own weapons was actively carried out: from personal infantry to combat aviation. Developed and ground armored vehicles, in particular, armored personnel carriers. So, we will consider the first attempts of Soviet engineers to create an armored personnel carrier.

D-14


At the end of 1930, the bright minds of the Experimental Design Bureau of the Directorate of Mechanization and Motorization of the Red Army paid attention to the well-proven Communar tractor manufactured by KhPZ (Kharkov Locomotive Plant). Engineers decided to create a landing tank based on a tractor. The model was based on the G-75 model, equipped with a hp 75 gasoline engine.



The first Soviet tractor "Kommunar"


In the spring of 1931, a prototype landing tank D-14 was ready. In the summer of 1931, the car was tested. The body of the armored vehicle was made of sheets of steel 6-11 mm thick, fastened with rivets. In the front of the case was an engine - a gasoline 4-stroke liquid cooling. The capacity of the fuel tanks of 284 liters provided a cruising range of 150 km.


Amphibious tank D-14. The side doors of the car are clearly visible.


The troop compartment occupied the entire middle and aft part of the vehicle. The landing party was 15 people. Landing and landing was carried out through side doors (three on each side). Crew - 2 person: the driver and commander of the car. Armament - two DT-29. Very funny is the fact that the developers of the machine assumed that the machine guns could be installed in one of the 4 ball units, located one by one in the front, aft and side armor plates of the troop compartment and the control compartment.



The machine did not pass the factory tests and was not accepted for service. Further development of the armored carrier was discontinued.

TP-1


13 February 1931, the T-26 tank was adopted by the Red Army. The modern machine began to be produced at the Bolshevik plant in Leningrad, production was planned to be adjusted at the Chelyabinsk and Stalingrad tractor plants under construction. The tank, which the army needed, was produced in two-turrets: machine-gun and cannon-machine-gun. Later, due to the increase in the number of tanks in the armies of European countries, a “tank destroyer” - a single-topped T-26 armed with an 45-mm cannon, will be born. It was supposed to produce a tank and as an infantry carrier. Thus, in 1932-1933, students of the military academy of armored forces showed a design of an armored personnel carrier based on T-26. The vehicle received a different layout from the tank: the engine was moved from the rear of the hull to the middle, thus freeing up enough space for the landing compartment; engine compartment located in front of the machine.

The development of armored personnel carriers in Russia: from the first to the present. Part two




Armored personnel carrier TR-1.


The TP-1 was sheathed with steel 6 — 10 mm thick, i.e. had bulletproof armor. Armored car engine - 6-cylinder four-stroke American "Hercules" with a capacity of 90 l / s. Armament: DT-2 machine gun 29 in the front and rear walls of the troop compartment with 4977 ammunition ammunition (79 discs on the 63 cartridge!). The armored box, sheathed with 6-mm armor and the landing compartment, had a wide door at the back of the vehicle. The crew - 1 man (driver) and 14 paratroopers (!).


Rear view, clearly visible armored


The paratroopers sat shoulders to shoulders, their knees resting on those sitting opposite. There were also loopholes in the armored corps, but firing of them was possible only with 5 paratroopers in DO. The car, which arrived at the landfill in August 1933 and was tested in 1934, was not put into service for the following reasons: close troop compartment, insufficient maneuverability (the weight of the loaded car increased to 9,5 tons), fast engine overheating, leaking hull (during passage even a small water obstacle, the troop compartment was flooded with water). Nevertheless, the experience in creating the car was useful for the development of the next tracked armored personnel carrier of the Red Army - TR-4.

TP-4




TP-4


Created also on the basis of the T-26 tank, the TP-4 had a slightly different layout than its ancestor, the TP-1. The machine was developed in 1933 by the plant spetsmashresta them. CM. Kirov. Made in the amount of three samples. The troop compartment, which is also an armored box, was moved to the middle of the hull. Landing and landing of infantry were made through two side doors.


TR-4. Side view


The landing force was located on five folding seats installed along the drive shaft connecting the engine and transmission (two on the right and three on the left). Two benches were located along the side walls of the cabin and had folding footrests for foot rest. In the landing cabin was also placed the armament of the machine - 2 DT-29 in ball units with ammunition in 4980 cartridges. It is worth adding that the troop compartment was ventilated (the fan was located at the rear of the hull). Crew - 1 people, landing - 12-14 people. The engine compartment with the engine "Hercules" was located in the rear of the hull and was separated from the landing with a partition. Access to the engine could be obtained through two special hatches.



The armor protection remained at the level of the TP-1 - anti-bullet, made of armored rolled sheets with a thickness of 6-10 mm. The connection of armor plates was carried out by welding. The power reserve of the machine is about 120 km. Despite the fact that the car almost got rid of the "childhood" diseases of its predecessor, it was not accepted for service.

Further development of the B-based T-26 was not conducted.

BA-22



BA-22 Sanitary Armored Carrier


The next project to create an armored personnel carrier was already wheeled vehicle. In September, a sanitary armored personnel carrier, BA-1938, was created on the basis of a three-axle GAZ-AAA. Initially, the car was built by order of the sanitary department of the Red Army to transport wounded soldiers, but the possibility of using it as a combat vehicle was. So, the machine could accommodate - 22 stretcher with patients or 4 -10 paratroopers (depending on equipment). The layout is classic for a wheeled car - a GAZ-AA engine with 12 horsepower. ("lorry") was located in front of the armored personnel carrier. The compartment for transporting people (to call it “amphibious”, the author does not raise a hand, comrades) occupied the entire middle and aft part of the car. Landing and getting out of the car for "passengers" was carried out through two security doors placed in the stern.


BA-22. Front and aft machine parts


The crew consisting of the commander and the driver could get in and get out of the car through the side doors of the control cabin. The body of the car was made of rolled armor steel 6 mm thick (i.e., anti-bullet booking), which has rational tilt angles. Armament was missing, however, as well as embrasures for firing by paratroopers. The car, which passed the factory mileage of 330 km, was modernized and later sent to state trials. Testing machine failed due to low tactical and technical characteristics. For service is not accepted.

Great Patriotic War


By the beginning of World War II, the Wehrmacht and the armies of its allies participating in the attack on the USSR already had armored transporters. Sdkfz 251 / 250, better known as the "Hanomag", were not uncommon in army groups advancing along the entire Eastern Front.



Sonderkraftfahrzeug 251


Did the defending and retreating Soviet troops have similar vehicles? No, unfortunately, our troops did not have such machines. The Soviet military leadership, preoccupied with the enormous losses of technology, tried with all its might to fill them. Despite the fact that almost all efforts were devoted to the release of "basic", already traditional, types of equipment, such as tanks and self-propelled guns, but the development of armored personnel carriers did not stop.

BA-64E



"Base" of the future armored personnel carrier - BA-64


14 March 1942, the armored car BA-64 was adopted by the Red Army. Soon Gorky engineers, impressed by the experience of using German armored personnel carriers, decided to create an armored personnel carrier on the basis of their brainchild. The prototype was ready for October 22 1942.


"First sample"


The machine retained the hull shape of the original sample, but the machine gun turret was removed, thus freeing up space for paratroopers. However, the "removal" of the machine gun turret did not mean that the developers were going to leave the car unarmed. Installing DT-29 seemed possible. But soon, the BA-64 alterations in the BTR were interrupted until March of the 1943 year, when a second sample was assembled, known to us as the BA-64 from the landings in the human 4.


BA-64E with 4 paratroopers


In the same month, a sample BTR was created with the possibility of placing up to 6-ti troops. 3 April 1943 was developed another version of the armored personnel carrier, but on the basis of the BA-64B.


BA-64E with "high" sides


The sides of this variant were raised higher, and two loopholes were made on each side. Armament was absent. By the end of the year, GAZ engineers built three BA-64Es, which were sent to front-line tests. In both cases, the car was given a negative assessment: closely, uncomfortable, ineffective.



According to the results of military tests in September 1944, GAZ manufactured three more samples of BA-64E. Each armored personnel carrier was designed for 4's landing troops and had additional loopholes in the front and rear. Reservations and mobility of the car remained at the level of BA-64.

28 September 1944, these cars were shown to the marshal of the tank forces Ya.N. Fedorenko. He proposed some changes. Taking into account the recommendations of the Marshal, GAZ built three more armored personnel carriers with different options for implementing the proposed changes. Despite the encouraging reviews of Marshal Fedorenko during the next show and trials, these modifications did not go into the series, mainly due to the fact that the war was already ending and the car did not have time to get to the front.

TP-42


Under the conditions of a disastrous shortage of armored personnel carriers in the Red Army (despite the Lend-Lease deliveries of American M3 Half-track and Scout-car, British Universal Carrier), by the end of 1942, such a machine was created at the Stalin plant. The semi-tracked ZiS-42M was taken as a base, a donor, the production of which was established at the plant of the same name.


ZIS-42M


The car had a classic layout: the engine compartment in the front, the control compartment in the center, and the landing gear in the aft one. The engine was supposed to be the same as on the ZIS-42M - 6-cylinder air-cooled ZIS-5М with the power 80 hp The crew of the car - the driver, the commander (gunner) and 14 man landing. Armament - one DT-29 and the ability to fire from personal small arms through the embrasures (each shooter could fire, as the embrasure was 14) in the side armor plates. Regarding the booking, you can only assume (which the author will do), since the car was made in a single version with a wooden case. Most likely, the armor would be bulletproof from 6 to 15 mm.


The only made model of an armored personnel carrier TB-42


By the beginning of 1943, a wooden case was made, which was soon presented to the military. The BTR project was approved by the Main Armored Directorate. It was supposed to release an experimental batch of 5 vehicles by the summer of 1943, but the project was curtailed due to the poor usability and difficulty in operating the tracked propulsion.

B-3


The development of another Soviet armored personnel carrier was conducted at full speed in the design bureau of the automobile plant named after I.V. Stalin under the leadership of V.A. Grachev at the beginning of 1944. And this time, the plant developer of the new BTR resorted to the old principle: “create a new one based on the existing one”. So, the machine was created on the basis of the AT-3 artillery tractor that failed the tests. In turn, the AT-3 was a sort of "symbiosis" of the truck ZiS-5 and the tank base SU-76М.




"Donors" of the future armored personnel carrier B-3. Bottom - SU-76М, above - ZIS-5


The layout of the car was classic for that time: the front compartment - MTO, the middle one - the control compartment, and the fodder one - the amphibious assault landing. The engine of this miracle was the engine from the same ZiS-5 - carburetor six-cylinder 3 and С-16 with the power 85 hp. Access to the engine could be obtained using folding side hatches that close the engine. The maximum speed of the vehicle was of the order of 40 km / h, the tank volume in 150 liters provided the BTR with a theoretical power reserve of the order of 150 km. The body is welded, made of rolled steel 6-16 mm thick.



B-3


The troop compartment of the open type, i.e. there was no such roof, so in some cases it was possible to fix the awning. Armament - 12.7 DShK on the open turret in the middle of the machine. All fighters also had the opportunity to fire from embrasures. The crew was 12 people: 10 paratroopers, the driver and commander of the machine. The paratroopers could use the aft door to exit / enter the car, or they could use the doors on the sides intended for the commander and driver. Also, the developers assumed the possibility of using BTR as a conveyor of ammunition (fuel, etc.).

In the same forty-fourth, an armored personnel carrier was sent to tests at the Research Test Tank Test Site, where the vehicle did not pass, despite promising ground pressure indicators (of the order of 0,3 kg / cm2), which promised the machine an incredible permeability with "insignificant" weight (7100 kg). The military, to put it mildly, “did not like” the same mixed type of propulsion because of its complexity in operation and low reliability. We must not forget about the rapid overheating of the engine inherent in all proven machines of those years. The machine was not adopted.

Conclusion


I would like to write something of my own and try to “defame” the military a little, for the reason that they did not in any way facilitate the adoption of such a necessary type of weapons as armored personnel carriers, because the army was in dire need. But I will not do this, let others do it. I would also like to write about such projects as an attempt to create an armored personnel carrier on the basis of a reliable workhorse of the Red Army - SU-76M. But I haven’t found any reliable confirmations of this project (with the exception of the “creativity” of fans of alternative stories). But we are not like that, right? We do not like an alternative story, we love only the facts, so you see that there is.

Dear readers! Found a mistake, inaccuracy or omission? Write to the author! Thank you in advance!
Author:
Articles from this series:
Development of armored personnel carriers in Russia: from the first to the present day
26 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. parusnik
    parusnik 28 November 2015 07: 23 New
    10
    Thank you, Vladimir, a good article .. about D-14, TR .. first read ..the army was in dire need. But I will not do this, let others do it...but about this, don’t worry .. schA will appear ... smile Once again, thanks ... interesting ..
    1. Stroke
      28 November 2015 14: 14 New
      +9
      And thank you for the rating. And this, so to speak, retreat about the "alternative" is a cry of the soul. While searching, they, visionaries, pretty much spoiled the nerves.
      1. mirag2
        mirag2 29 November 2015 08: 38 New
        +5
        For the article and the photo in it, MONTIDOUSLY HUGE THANKS!
        Very interesting!
        And I learned things that I never knew about.
      2. afdjhbn67
        afdjhbn67 6 December 2015 06: 38 New
        0
        Quote: Stroke
        And thank you for the rating.

        A good article, even I am infinitely far from armored vehicles read with pleasure
  2. Amurets
    Amurets 28 November 2015 07: 45 New
    +5
    Thank you for the interesting materials. I first heard about the TP series and the TB-42 armored personnel carrier and saw the photo for the first time. A lot was written about Dyrenkov’s works, but somehow contradictory. An interesting article. I wrote the first comment.
  3. Sergey-8848
    Sergey-8848 28 November 2015 07: 58 New
    +6
    Great article, like the first. Separate photo illustrations can generally be called exclusive. And for correcting minor errors (alas, inevitable), there is the Ctrl + Enter method.
  4. igordok
    igordok 28 November 2015 09: 24 New
    +3
    Thanks. A little tired of waiting. But again, THANK YOU so much.
  5. Nikolay71
    Nikolay71 28 November 2015 10: 10 New
    +3
    We look forward to the next article in the series. Thanks to the author!
  6. Volga Cossack
    Volga Cossack 28 November 2015 10: 34 New
    +2
    very good series of articles. thanks to the author. meaningful and visualized. Yes, and in an orderly way. before that I read everything in fits and starts in different places. thanks - combined materials.
  7. Cap.Morgan
    Cap.Morgan 28 November 2015 11: 00 New
    +3
    Interesting article.
    All the same, full-fledged armored personnel carriers only appeared after the war. It's a pity. The thing you need on the battlefield. How many lives could be saved.
    Probably simple.
    The light tank and the armored personnel carrier are approximately equal in production complexity and cost.
    A tank is better for breaking through the front. And in the reports it looks menacing.
    1. shasherin.pavel
      shasherin.pavel 28 November 2015 18: 37 New
      +1
      Quote: Cap.Morgan
      The light tank and the armored personnel carrier are approximately equal in production complexity and cost.
      ??
      Are you sure about this? Try to assemble a plastic model of a German armored personnel carrier, there are also special mounts for rifles, two MP-39 for the driver and commander of the car, shelves for satchels, shelves for canisters with fuel for six pieces. And I could not collect the tracks for the model to the end, I did not have the patience. Given the fact that every week it was necessary to extrude with a solidol of 126 points. But a light tank is smaller than average in size, and I'm not talking about heavy tractors that the three of them could evacuate the Tiger VIH, and they have engines in 185 - 250 l / s. which could be put on the T-II and the mass of 12.15 and 15.13 tons, and this is the mass of T - III. So for the Wehrmacht, one medium or heavy armored personnel carrier is minus one medium tank.
      1. Secta
        Secta haki 28 November 2015 22: 01 New
        0
        And each time there was one living compartment of the motorized infantry, when a mortar mine exploded near the armored personnel carrier in which it was sitting. sad
        For some reason, the Red Army was not so, and German mortars (not machine guns at all) exterminated the Soviet attacking infantry, which was unprotected by armor, while it was walking or riding on top of tanks in the zone of shelling from mortars. Also, the Soviet rearguards did not have the opportunity to move away from the pressing Germans without heavy losses when the mines flew after them.
        A mine that has fallen into the ranks of the attackers bumps into the ground at an angle of 90, all of its fragments scatter parallel to the surface of the earth into a circular one and go to the infantry, even if it almost doesn’t lie down or not.
        German mortar positions could not be crushed with a fire shaft, since mortars, unlike machine gunners, will be able to aim from closed positions using a spotter with a stereo tube, and this is commonplace for them (machine gunners can only do this sometimes).

        An armored personnel carrier is, after all, for a coward who is not able to SHOULD BREAST a bullet, not catch fragments from enemy mortar mines in all placesHow did some people all teach?
        There aren’t even words like “Mina” or “Mortar” in the article and in the comments, fashion designers edrit you in your hooves ...
        Mortars killed more soldiers in WWII than all other weapons taken together! And these were mainly SOVIET SOLDIERS, and not some others.
        1. Secta
          Secta haki 30 November 2015 13: 46 New
          +2
          minus, minus ... laughing you "scribes" immediately visible.
    2. strannik1985
      strannik1985 1 December 2015 12: 35 New
      0
      All the same, full-fledged armored personnel carriers only appeared after the war. It's a pity. The thing you need on the battlefield. How many lives could be saved.
      Probably simple.

      At the time of the outbreak of war, armored personnel carriers were part of the armored reconnaissance companies of the ORB of tank divisions (mortar half-platoon, 3 75-mm guns, 49 machine guns, 31 armored personnel carriers, car repair departments (after the platoon), 197 military personnel, 5 3-ton trucks, 1 2-ton truck, 1 2-passenger car, 2 passenger cars Kfz.1,2 tracked motorcycles Kfz.2,2 motorcycles without a stroller). Against the background of thousands of trucks, tracked tractors, this is quite a bit. Well, the choice is an armored personnel carrier, or an SPP SPG, or a heavy truck, or a base for a military air defense machine.
      1. Secta
        Secta haki 1 December 2015 14: 44 New
        +3
        These are German armored personnel carriers, half-tracked and with armor even slightly better than the BMP-1. In the procuring units for every 2 tanks there were at least 1 such APC.
        1. strannik1985
          strannik1985 1 December 2015 16: 16 New
          0
          In what?
          As part of the Army Group “South” on the armored personnel carrier, 1 company 9 motorized infantry regiment of the 9th tank division, 1 company 110 motorized infantry regiment of the 11th tank division, 1 company 66 motorized infantry regiment of the 13th tank division. There were no armored personnel carriers at all in the 14th and 16th tank divisions. In 16 tank 2 companies on armored personnel carriers appeared only in May 1942, the battalion in 1944. In the company 13 armored personnel carriers, 10 line and 3 commander. There are 143-149 tanks in divisions, only 1 TGr has 728 tanks.
          1. Secta
            Secta haki 2 December 2015 12: 31 New
            +2
            In all. The German infantry was all motorized infantry and rode on armored personnel carriers back in France. In tank units there were more tanks than armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles assigned to them, in motorized infantry there were more armored personnel carriers than tanks. The armored personnel carriers arrived primarily where there were German tanks and not Czech ones.
            1. strannik1985
              strannik1985 2 December 2015 16: 05 New
              +1
              In the Wehrmacht, by May 1940, there were 338 Sd. Kfz. 251 of all modifications. Is the source of your knowledge possible?
              1. Secta
                Secta haki 3 December 2015 16: 37 New
                +1
                Is it possible to find out where yours are from and which “all” of those available or envisaged at that time? Any "modification" of SdKfz251 easily turns into a standard version. This standard - not the only standard half-track armored personnel carrier that Nazi Germany had before the Polish campaign, in which the Wehrmacht attacked EXACTLY as well - was taking its infantry to the line of enemy trenches behind the armored personnel carrier through the mortar fire zone, which is the most dangerous for infantry. The Germans had so much other various light semi-caterpillar (armor) equipment that no one distracted the standard armored personnel carriers from the main purpose, nor did they drive them into the thick of the oncoming tank battles (in France or under a prokhorovka) where there was nothing for the motorized infantry to do.
  8. Firstvanguard
    Firstvanguard 28 November 2015 12: 29 New
    +1
    Thank you hi informative.
  9. Mooh
    Mooh 28 November 2015 14: 50 New
    0
    The car received a different layout from the tank: the engine was moved from the back of the hull - to averagethus freeing up enough space for the landing compartment; the engine compartment was located in front machine parts.

    Lapchik. And the article is wonderful, the author, you are well done and are growing right before your eyes. We look forward to new materials.
    1. shasherin.pavel
      shasherin.pavel 28 November 2015 18: 47 New
      +1
      What is "Lyapchik"? The T-26 has an aircraft star-shaped engine in the 100 l / s lying horizontally in the stern, on the armored personnel carrier the engine is already in the middle part, we look at the mufflers, and the transmission compartment like Vickers is in front, we look at the drive sprocket. You have to be careful!
      1. Mooh
        Mooh 29 November 2015 18: 44 New
        0
        Lover in a logical mismatch: the engine in the center - MTO in front. This does not happen. Accordingly, in our case, the phrase should read like this: "the transmission or gearbox or the transmission compartment (the author knows best what he had in mind) was located in front of the car."
        There is a very heterogeneous circle of readers, so you need to monitor not only the actual errors, but also exclude the possibility of ambiguous interpretation. Otherwise, you don’t have time to look back, they will all turn it over and they will also refer to you as a source wink
        1. shasherin.pavel
          shasherin.pavel 29 November 2015 19: 53 New
          0
          We put punctuation marks: "there is enough space for the landing compartment; the engine-transmission compartment was located in front of the machine." After the word "Compartment" is a semicolon, not a comma. You can change "enough space for the airborne compartment. The engine-transmission compartment was located in front machine parts. [/ quote]
  10. shasherin.pavel
    shasherin.pavel 28 November 2015 18: 52 New
    0
    It is a pity that pulling the AT-3 is not shown. And in the photo UralZiS and again the problem of restoration: tires and wheels from Gas 51. On the 9 holiday in May they drove into the city "Vilis" and "Gas 64" all on American rubber. “You give an application and 100 dollars per wheel assembly. No problems,” the restorers said. When will our car builders learn to serve customers!
  11. architect
    architect 28 November 2015 19: 01 New
    +2
    even then the "V" shaped armored hull and stern doors for the landing, the designers looked to the future!
  12. Klibanophoros
    Klibanophoros 29 November 2015 06: 11 New
    +1
    It is also surprising that the Red Army before the war still had a fairly large number of armored vehicles of the BA series (such as BA-3, BA-6, BA-10, BA-11), however, attempts to develop armored personnel carriers on their basis were practically not accepted. In part, this state of affairs can be explained by the weak capacities of the Soviet automobile industry, while tanks were designed and manufactured on a more impressive base of tractor and locomotive plants.
    And it so happened that thanks to the advent of Lend-Lease cars, the government realized the need for a quantum leap in the automotive industry. First of all, in the production of trucks, of course.
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 29 November 2015 08: 58 New
      0
      What else can you think of? The armored personnel carrier is mainly tracked, the Red Army has no justification for their absence.
  13. Down House
    Down House 29 November 2015 09: 47 New
    0
    The "Stalin" armored personnel carriers of the BA and ZIS (l) were the most beautiful, personally, of course, my opinion.
  14. dudinets
    dudinets 29 November 2015 18: 45 New
    +1
    as far as I understand (and I could be wrong) the problem was in a low-power engine, not able to pull a pile of iron with an assault on a rough and rugged terrain funnel.
    1. shasherin.pavel
      shasherin.pavel 29 November 2015 20: 02 New
      0
      You are not mistaken: engines were the weakest point in the USSR. As well as illiteracy in the maintenance of engines and repair. We are proud that ZiS could even ride a solarium. So what? A man was discussing on a VAZ 04, while the engine was working, he filled the solariums so that he could drive, smoke, chad only before refueling, and drive five kilometers, and what was the engine? you won’t put pressure on his party conscience. But we are proud: our ZiS could ride kerosene, so let him whatever you want. After that, how many “Students” and “International” were killed, instead of bringing good gasoline and refueling, they poured them our low-octane.
      1. Secta
        Secta haki 1 December 2015 14: 46 New
        +3
        You are mistaken, the tanks were even heavier, but somehow they still drove with the available engines.
  15. tchoni
    tchoni 29 November 2015 22: 35 New
    0
    That's interesting ... The Australians, and after the Americans used the Sherman without a tower as an armored personnel carrier and called it a “kangaroo”, were there any attempts to use the t-34 for similar purposes
    1. Stroke
      1 December 2015 16: 50 New
      +1
      As far as I know, no. But I came across something similar to the BT-7 base. It seems to be interesting, but one thing caused doubts: this is a drawing made in the Compass, and the hand of the "alternative engineer" attached to its creation.
    2. alecsis69
      alecsis69 7 December 2015 15: 42 New
      0
      On the basis of the T-34 there was an attempt to develop the AT-42 artillery tractor, the frontal armor was maintained at the same angle, the side was vertical, the engine was transferred from the aft to the middle, and a cargo platform mounted onboard with an awning was mounted behind the engine. In one of the options saved machine gun. From such a tractor to an armored personnel carrier one step, but work was stopped due to the outbreak of war.
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 7 December 2015 21: 27 New
        0
        Quote: alecsis69
        From such a tractor to an armored personnel carrier one step, but work was stopped due to the outbreak of war.

        Again, what else can you come up with? According to T-34, KV, Is-2, and self-propelled guns, for some reason, due to the outbreak of war, they were not stopped, and were continued in many steps or even started.
  16. kos2cool4u
    kos2cool4u 5 December 2015 19: 04 New
    +1
    Quote: SectaHaki
    In all. The German infantry was all motorized infantry and rode on armored personnel carriers back in France. In tank units there were more tanks than armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles assigned to them, in motorized infantry there were more armored personnel carriers than tanks. The armored personnel carriers arrived primarily where there were German tanks and not Czech ones.

    Here she is a victim of agitprop, this is generally a big mistake about the Wehrmacht's universal motorization during the Second World War
    1. Secta
      Secta haki 6 December 2015 05: 54 New
      +1
      The first thing you comrade in the photo is, you throw yourself up to process fools in this vein? ... or pansher chocolate?