Military Review

How the Victory Weapon was Cooked - T-34 in Nizhny Tagil

55
How the Victory Weapon was Cooked - T-34 in Nizhny Tagil117 years ago 3 was born in Yaroslavl province in December. Soviet design engineer Mikhail Ilyich Koshkin was born. Created before the war, the tank T-34 rebuilt history: both the history of mankind, making a significant contribution to the victory over absolute evil, and the history of military equipment. T-34 became the ancestor and legislator tank fashion for decades to come - the combat vehicle design is so universal and technically perfect.


In addition to high direct combat characteristics - the tank was notable for maneuverability, excellent armament, armor resistance - the car had a high manufacturability of the design, which was an extremely important moment for the organization of its mass in-line production.

“Rivet tanks” is not quite the correct definition for characterizing the workflow, but if you look at the production of the T-34 during the war years, it is only that that comes to mind. The fact is that they are no longer riveted, and cooked. Yes, as no one in the world.

Without mass production, military victory would have been out of the question, and here Koshkin’s design genius combined with the scientific and engineering genius of dozens of people who participated in both the production and the improvement of the T-34. If it were not for the heroic work of engineers and craftsmen, welders, assemblers, women and teenagers in military factories, T-34 would not weapons Victory.

The world's largest center of production of the most important weapons of the era, tanks, became "Tankograd" - Nizhny Tagil. The first T-34 out of the gates of the Ural tank plant N183 them. Comintern 18 December 1941 of the year. In total, during the years of the Great Patriotic War, the Ural Tank Factory produced 30 thousand 627 tanks T-34-76 and T-34-85.

The hard work of engineers and technologists has given its results. During the war, the labor intensity of manufacturing one tank was reduced by 2,4 times, and the cost almost doubled, from 270 thousand rubles per tank to 142 thousand rubles. If the complexity of the manufacture of a diesel engine was reduced in 2,5 times, then the armored hull - in whole 5 times. What led to such a dramatic qualitative improvement in the working process for the manufacture of armored hulls?

In 1941, the Institute of Electric Welding of the Ukrainian SSR Academy of Sciences was founded in Nizhny Tagil from Kiev; its founder (1935 year) and director was Yevgeny Oskarovich Paton. All efforts of the Institute of Electric Welding were aimed at solving scientific, technical and organizational problems of the production of tanks in Nizhny Tagil.

One of the advantages of the T-34 was the sloping arrangement of its frontal armor and the cast tower (however, all the years of the war in different industries made both cast and welded and stamped towers). They cooked armor by hand, it was a long process, and only a highly skilled welder could do it.

Even before the war, Paton began experiments on the automation of the welding process in production. In 1939 — 1940, the creation of high-performance automatic submerged arc welding was completed at the Paton Institute. Decree of the USSR Government 20 December 1940, the new technology was introduced at 20 plants, it began to be used in the production of steel electric beams, bridge cranes, cars, boilers, ships.

Before the war, the Soviet industry received a real trump card in the sleeve - an automatic technology for welding steel that has no analogues in the world. In the production of tanks, it gave an extraordinary effect compared to manual welding. Nobody in the world has done anything like this - in the United States during World War II, tank armor was riveted, like on 19th-century cruisers, and in Germany - they were cooked by hand.

In Nizhny Tagil, the Institute of Electric Welding developed and introduced for the first time in the world the technology of automated welding of armored hulls of T-34 tanks. A production line was launched for the production of armored tanks. By the end of 1942, six units were already operating at the Ural tank factory, and later - nineteen. Other tank factories, Uralmash and the Voroshilov Kirov Plant, evacuated to Chelyabinsk, were also actively interested in submerged-arc welding. Installations for submerged-arc welding were commissioned either at one or another enterprise — only at the plants of the People's Commissariat of the tank industry, by year 1943 did 50 auto-welding installations work.

The performance of automatic welding was not in any comparison with the performance of other methods of welding. For example, the tower’s shoulder strap sector was manually boiled for 5 hours, and 49 minutes for an automatic machine. Instead of 280, highly skilled welders for automatic welding got 57 workers, often teenagers, after 5-10 training days. In addition, the input of one installation released seven welding transformers and eight chokes-regulators. Plants began to save up to 42% electricity.

There was another big plus: during automatic welding, the internal stresses in the metal decreased significantly. This made it possible to dispense with the use of annealing furnaces - local stresses disappeared.

There were problems. One of them were cracks that occur during the auto-welding of armor steels. Thin, often not visible to the eye. The solution at the Institute of Electric Welding was found - there was a proposal to place a low-carbon filler wire in the cutting edge. Thus, not only was the carbonization of the seam and the zone reduced, but the productivity of the process was also increased.

It later turned out that the flux reserves of AN-1 smelted before the war in the Donbass had been exhausted. Specialists began to work on the most difficult task, the solution of which was a fundamental contribution to the development of welding metallurgy. In a very short time, it was decided to use blast-furnace slags as a flux. The slag of the blast furnace, which works on charcoal, came up — there was practically no sulfur in it. To become a full-fledged welding flux, blast furnace slag lacked 10% manganese oxide and metallurgists added manganese ore to the slag.

A lot of difficulties and problems were solved with the release of the T-34, not a single book is enough to tell about the heroism of the creators and those who produced Victory weapons. Like any complex technical product, T-34 began to live its own life, overgrown with names, events, legends. And the main one was the legend of its designer, Mikhail Koshkin, who laid an unlimited resource in his combat vehicle.
Author:
Originator:
http://regnum.ru/news/it/2027422.html
55 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. gla172
    gla172 26 December 2015 06: 14 New
    12
    Interesting, but not enough.
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 26 December 2015 07: 00 New
      +7
      Quote: gla172
      Interesting but not enough

      Alas, the topic, on the one hand, is poorly studied, on the other hand, those materials for welding under a flux layer are interesting only for specialists and written for specialists. The author took only a small piece from the works of Academician E.O. Paton.
      1. rkkasa xnumx
        rkkasa xnumx 26 December 2015 07: 38 New
        15
        Quote: Amurets
        those materials for welding under a flux layer are interesting only for specialists and are written for specialists

        Well, why?
        In my opinion, such materials are useful to everyone who is at least a little interested in the history of the Second World War, and that technique.
        For example, I heard that automation of the welding process greatly saved time and resources, but only in this article did I find numbers like:

        "The turret ring sector was manually welded for 5 hours, and automatically - 49 minutes. Instead of 280 highly qualified welders, 57 workers, often teenagers after 5-10 days of training, took up automatic welding. In addition, the commissioning of one installation freed up seven welding transformers and eight chokes factories are now saving up to 42% of electricity. "

        Therefore, thanks to the author for this - at least a small educational program.
        1. Amurets
          Amurets 26 December 2015 08: 36 New
          +5
          Quote: rkkasa 81

          Therefore, thanks to the author for this - at least a small educational program.

          You are right. The fact that the need to clean the welds, which took a lot of time and effort, has disappeared, I have not reduced the merits of the author in this article, it’s just a narrowly specialized topic. It’s also interesting that the armor in the Urals began to be rolled to Blooming. He knows. It’s just that these small, but very important episodes of the production of weapons do not pay attention.
          1. NIKNN
            NIKNN 26 December 2015 20: 04 New
            +4
            Quote: Amurets
            Quote: rkkasa 81

            Therefore, thanks to the author for this - at least a small educational program.

            You are right. The fact that the need to clean the welds, which took a lot of time and effort, has disappeared, I have not reduced the merits of the author in this article, it’s just a narrowly specialized topic. It’s also interesting that the armor in the Urals began to be rolled to Blooming. He knows. It’s just that these small, but very important episodes of the production of weapons do not pay attention.

            It's not about who knows what. Raise for our grandfathers and fathers! drinks
        2. Stas57
          Stas57 26 December 2015 09: 07 New
          -8
          Quote: rkkasa 81
          For example, I heard that automation of the welding process greatly saved time and resources, but only in this article did I find numbers like:

          Well, you just need to read more, this is not a secret infa, and not the merit of a mediocre article lowering the TOPVAR level below the baseboard


          In January 1942, welding of the sides of the T-34 hull began at two automatic installations. The hull of this tank required a large amount of welding work. The bottom and wing liner were welded to the side with two powerful seams longer than 5 meters. A qualified welder spent about 20 hours on this work. A welding machine controlled by a teenage student could do this job in 2 hours.

          Million kilometers of welds to win
          David Pogrebisky

          The performance of automatic welding did not compare with the performance of other welding methods. For example, a qualified welder worked for about 20 hours on welding a liner to the side with two seams longer than five meters. After an 5 - 10 days of training, an unskilled worker could automatically weld this seam in 2 hours automatically. Instead of a five-hour manual welding, the tower overhead sector welded the machine in 49 minutes, etc.
          V.V. Peshkov, A.B. Kolomensky, V.A. Frolov, V.A. Cossacks
          WELDING
          INTRODUCTION TO SPECIALTY
          Edited by Dr. Tech. sciences V.A. Frolova
          Recommended by the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation as a textbook. Voronezh 2002
          1. rkkasa xnumx
            rkkasa xnumx 26 December 2015 12: 09 New
            +7
            Quote: Stas57
            Well, you just need to read more, this is not a secret infa

            Ordinary inhabitants (and I think there are a lot of such in VO), this information is unlikely to be met. For example, neither Svirin nor Baryatinsky has it. Therefore, for people like me, the article is useful.

            Quote: Stas57
            not the merit of a mediocre article lowering the level of TOPVAR below the plinth

            OK. Let the article be mediocre. And it was she who unfortunate TOPVAR lowered below the plinth.
            Then write you, the article is "not mediocre". Raise the TOPWARE from your knees.

            Threat Thanks for the links.
            1. Stas57
              Stas57 26 December 2015 12: 54 New
              +3
              Quote: rkkasa 81
              OK. Let the article be mediocre. And it was she who unfortunate TOPVAR lowered below the plinth.
              Then write you, the article is "not mediocre". Raise the TOPWARE from your knees.

              The article above is amateurish, look.

              How the weapon of Victory was brewed - T-34 in Nizhny Tagil.
              ok, it's about armor itself or about welding, however ...
              117 years ago On December 3 in the Yaroslavl province was born the Soviet design engineer Mikhail Ilyich Koshkin.
              ok, Koshkin is an excellent designer, an article about him? strange, because he is with KhPZ ..
              ok, look further.

              Without mass production, there would be no question of a military victory, and here Koshkina's design genius combined with the scientific and engineering genius of dozens of people who participated in both the production and the improvement of the T-34.
              The world's largest center for the production of the most important weapons of the era, tanks, became Tankograd - Nizhny Tagil. .


              no, the article is not about Koshkin, not about Kharkov, the article is about Tagil and welders.

              In 1941, the Institute of Electric Welding of the Ukrainian SSR Academy of Sciences was founded in Nizhny Tagil from Kiev; its founder (1935 year) and director was Yevgeny Oskarovich Paton. All efforts of the Institute of Electric Welding were aimed at solving scientific, technical and organizational problems of the production of tanks in Nizhny Tagil.
              nevertheless, about Paton E. Oh, then why is Koshkin higher, why is he and not the same Morozov? N. F. Tsyganov? and many others?

              Isn’t it right to start with words right away Without mass production, why bind to the anniversary of Koshkin if we are talking about Paton welding?


              One of the advantages of the T-34 was the slanted arrangement of its frontal armor and the cast turret.
              .
              . They cooked armor manually, it was a long process, and only a highly qualified welder could deal with it.

              everything is so, but what is the relationship between welding and tilting? or it is written above, in general terms, or is written here with so. technology.
              it is not done.

              Before the war, Soviet industry received a real trump card in the sleeve - an automatic technology for welding steel, which has no analogues in the world.
              Well, how can I say, it really had no analogues, because it was worthless, and the method that was drafted and applied during the war years was very different from the pre-war one, in this it really had no analogues.
              By the way, the Americans used the same method in shipbuilding and very actively. But this is by the way ..
              Then there is a normal story on the topic of "cooking", which breaks off mid-sentence and ends with a hostile Koshkin, although an article about Paton.

              most likely the journalist did not have enough space spent on nonsense.

              As a result, it is not told:
              -on the heroism of the creators of the method, their original solutions, etc.
              - not told about the hero himself, his institute, his developments.
              - the author did not read the fundamental work * on the subject.
              - the article is frankly weak, not familiar with the topic of the person - the style of recent times on TopVar

              * Paton E.O. Memories
              Young Guard, 1958. - 368 c .: ill. - (The life of wonderful people, issue 258).
              The book is the autobiography of Yevgeny Oskarovich Paton - a civil engineer, designer, teacher who developed the capital course "Iron Bridges" for training bridge builders, the founder and director of the first research Institute of electric welding, vice-president of the USSR Academy of Sciences.
    2. Stas57
      Stas57 26 December 2015 08: 41 New
      +3
      one-sided like that, only about welding, you can add, for example, about new carousel machines from the UK and the USA, about a bunch of all sorts of "little things" such as pneumatic impact wrenches, angle grinders and other tools, about cooperation with other factories (boxes with ChKZ), about how they released 2nd conveyor for adjusting T34-85.
      Add about hundreds of new and interesting technical solutions in production that accelerated, simplified and cheapened production, etc., etc.
  2. tanit
    tanit 26 December 2015 07: 00 New
    +1
    "This is the rule, where it lies - ingenious simplicity. And the chief designer's life that passed into this tank" (Koshkin, song "T-34")
  3. rkkasa xnumx
    rkkasa xnumx 26 December 2015 07: 09 New
    +3
    Without mass production, there would be no question of a military victory, and here Koshkina's design genius combined with the scientific and engineering genius of dozens of people who participated in both the production and the improvement of the T-34.

    In general, the ratio is price quality, it is important for any product, and is always taken into account.
    And for military equipment during the great war, when it is spent by tens and hundreds of thousands, this ratio becomes even more important.

    Well, before the Soviet designers and technologists you can only, as they say - take off your hat hi
    1. bocsman
      bocsman 26 December 2015 08: 00 New
      13
      [quote = rkkasa 81] Well, in front of Soviet designers and technologists, you can only take off your hat, as they say.
      And not only . A simple caster remembered how his grandfather cast simple cast irons, laying out the form with charcoal. As you know, a cast tower with the same thickness is weaker than a stamped or rolled from rolled sheets. And by spreading the casting mold of the tower from the inside with charcoal, we achieved the fact that during the casting process the outer layer of the armor was additionally carbonized and a sandwich was obtained, which increased the shell resistance of the tower. And you can’t count such examples! Talented our people!
      1. rkkasa xnumx
        rkkasa xnumx 26 December 2015 08: 21 New
        0
        Yes, I completely agree with you.
        1. Amurets
          Amurets 26 December 2015 12: 08 New
          +1
          Quote: bocsman
          ] Well, before the Soviet designers and technologists you can only, as they say - take off your hat.

          Grabin was the first to apply design and technological design. Designers from his design bureau recalled how Vasily Gavrilovich could ask how to make a given part, and they studied the assembly of non-assembled units and "Basics of descriptive geometry" under the guidance of old assemblers. The terminology of this "geometry" is being studied in the encyclopedia of the Russian governing language. (Mata)
    2. The comment was deleted.
  4. parusnik
    parusnik 26 December 2015 07: 25 New
    +1
    Before the war, Soviet industry received a real trump card in the sleeve - an automatic technology for welding steel, which has no analogues in the world.... Probably not a trump card, but a joker ..
  5. pravdor
    pravdor 26 December 2015 07: 31 New
    +1
    The author, but where did Mr. Gorky go? Why is the Gorky Automobile Plant not mentioned in the article? Unlike Nizhny Tagil - Gorky also bombed! Where is Stalingrad? Where is Omsk? If you touch upon such topics, then please, indicate all those who forged OUR Victory with their labor and heroism !!!
    1. atos_kin
      atos_kin 26 December 2015 09: 07 New
      +1
      Have you tried to work yourself?
  6. Gray 43
    Gray 43 26 December 2015 09: 36 New
    +1
    Interesting article! But it is possible and more authentic)))
  7. tanit
    tanit 26 December 2015 10: 03 New
    +2
    "Children with women at the machines, men have long been at war" (Koshkin, "T-34")
    Children and women riveted, cooked - this Tank. Unfortunately, all names and surnames can no longer be recognized ...
    Gentlemen and comrades.
    Who and in whom believes - put what according to your Faith (a candle, for example) will emphasize your respect for these Great People.

    Sincerely, but for some reason, tears in my eyes.
  8. moskowit
    moskowit 26 December 2015 10: 14 New
    -1
    Great feat of the people! The production of the tank was brilliantly developed technologically. It is correctly emphasized that the assembly was attended by workers of average skill (women and teenagers). In addition, I want to note that the armored hull was going "into a thorn", which increases the length of the welding seam several times.
    1. BV330
      BV330 2 January 2016 01: 55 New
      0
      I want to note that the armored hull was going "into a thorn" - this is what spike he was going to, if until the end of the war the frontal sheets were connected through a damn nasal beam, which was not even hardened, and made its way through almost any gun of the German anti-tank defense ??
      Just tormented by the question, why the hell, having automatic welding machines, did not change the nose knot, and start collecting it a la Panther from 2 sheets into a spike instead of a beam?
  9. Alex
    Alex 26 December 2015 10: 25 New
    +3
    "Nature rests in the children of geniuses."
    How great a man, a talented scientist and a true patriot was Yevgeny Oskarovich, and what kind of n.i.d.o.s. became his son.

    Dovzhenko shot a film about Paton and his method of automated submerged arc welding, but so long ago he saw that I couldn’t remember the name.
    1. Serg koma
      Serg koma 2 January 2016 14: 12 New
      0
      Quote: Alex
      g.i.d.o.y became his son.
      Which son do you mean, or both?
      He had two sons: Vladimir Evgenievich Paton (March 18, 1917 - February 28, 1987) and Boris Evgenievich Paton (born 1918)
      1. Alex
        Alex 3 January 2016 20: 25 New
        +2
        Quote: Serg Koma
        Which son do you mean, or both?

        Boris, of course, is still that loach, always served those in power. With science, to put it mildly, it did not work out very well, but the political scent was simply phenomenal.
  10. AlNikolaich
    AlNikolaich 26 December 2015 10: 44 New
    +4
    Automatic welding is the greatest development of Academician Paton! Automatic welding eliminates lack of fusion and other weld defects. At the same time, a qualified technician is used as qualified personnel, and rather low-skilled workers are directly involved in the work. Their function is to fill the hopper with flux, charge the coil with wire, set the welding tractor to the beginning of the seam, and press the button. Then the machine moves by itself, ensures its movement at a given speed, filler wire feed at a given value ... The welder only monitors the process and cleans the seam from slag. The intervention of the adjuster is only required in the event of a malfunction, and during the readjustment of production!
    With automatic welding, structural strength equal to a monolithic product is ensured!
    1. KVIRTU
      KVIRTU 28 December 2015 12: 52 New
      0
      Supplement: welding automation - yes, Evgeny Oskarovich.
      And here is the welding itself: "... In 1888, the Russian engineer N. G. Slavyanov was the first in the world to apply in practice arc welding with a metal (consumable) electrode under a layer of flux.
      For this work of engineering at the world electrical exhibition in 1893 in Chicago, he will receive a gold medal with the wording “For the technical revolution made”.
      1. KVIRTU
        KVIRTU 28 December 2015 12: 57 New
        0
        He (Slavyanov) paid special attention to the mechanization and automation of electric arc welding, performed welding with the world's first semiautomatic welding machine ("electric melter"), which he himself designed.
  11. tanit
    tanit 26 December 2015 11: 11 New
    +2
    I will not quote Koshkin. As a person, he is not ordinary enough.
    But - the production technology, the available mass production itself ... And (could not resist) "Broken sides of all German beasts of steel, And Moscow - in the Golden Lights - under the Victory sky of the Country ...."
    I don't give a damn if Panther is cooler. How many of these panthers have you made? Who made them and how? And about 34, everything is clear and painfully clear - and who, and how.
    Everlasting memory. Eternal Glory.
  12. tanit
    tanit 26 December 2015 11: 38 New
    +1
    Grandmothers are a labor front. Grandfathers - one Japanese bayonet (in the bayonet) ..., the second - an NKVD operative.
    I remember. I am proud.
    Fashionable word
    Flood? Flood.
    Something is boiling ....
  13. Reptiloid
    Reptiloid 26 December 2015 11: 58 New
    +1
    Very good article. Thank you. I am glad that I found out about people like Koshkin, Paton. Now I have to look in other sources myself. It's impossible to fit everything into one publication. Respectfully.
  14. Technologist
    Technologist 26 December 2015 12: 10 New
    +1
    It was possible to observe the process of electroslag welding, amusing, in fact - this is a melt filling of a cavity between two parts to be welded.
    1. tanit
      tanit 26 December 2015 21: 32 New
      0
      Notice, to repeat this yourself, with all your (and my) knowledge, it will be weak. hi
      But - women and children - somehow knew how. hi
  15. shrimp
    shrimp 26 December 2015 12: 41 New
    +1
    HOW MUCH I REMEMBER WELDING SEAMS CHECKED ON THE SHOOT. AUTOMATICALLY WELDED SEAMS SUPPORTED BETTER
    1. Technologist
      Technologist 24 January 2016 11: 33 New
      0
      The metal burst near the seam, and the seam remained intact.
  16. onega67
    onega67 26 December 2015 12: 45 New
    +1
    What a bastard zamenovusali ???
    1. Stas57
      Stas57 26 December 2015 15: 30 New
      -1
      Well, for example.

      for the approach to the topic "strike", more details above why.
  17. tanit
    tanit 26 December 2015 12: 53 New
    0
    Quote: onega67
    what a bastard zaminusali ???

    In any good deed, no bastard. For this, there are wonderful articles - so that non-humans would also appreciate them.
  18. anew
    anew 26 December 2015 13: 30 New
    -9
    The T-34 tank he created before the war redrawn history: both the history of mankind, making a significant contribution to the victory over absolute evil, and the history of military equipment. The T-34 became the ancestor and trendsetter of tank fashion for decades to come - the design of a combat vehicle is so universal and technically perfect.

    It seems that the author is slightly off topic. The most sloppy and technically backward product from the pre-war tank trio of the USSR (KV-1, T-34 and T-50) is called "the ancestor and trendsetter of tank fashion for decades to come." These "decades" turned out to be short. Already T-44 mod. 1944 with the T-34 had little in common. A T-54 mod. 1945 with the T-34 actually had nothing in common.
    The T-34 is the "random hero". Just by 22.06.41. it was the only Soviet tank that could, albeit with reservations, move independently. And the only Soviet tank, the production of which was somehow mastered. Those. in fact, it was the only tank that was in the USSR at the beginning of the war. There was simply no alternative. A much more worthy contender, the KV-1 (in the KV-1s version), began to move independently only by the summer of 1942. When he was no longer needed. Well, and everything Soviet, it is known, was "great and legendary." Even if the tank, which from the very beginning was produced, as a not very successful tank for direct support of the infantry (T-34, if someone did not understand), take it and, WITHOUT ANY CHANGES, assign it to the MBT role. Where he was, like a cow saddle (see the number of losses). At least the T-34/76 was fully concerned. And what about the T-34/85 arr. 1943 you can already start arguing.
    Truly, the Bolshevik pharisaism knew no bounds. And the author for some reason let them go after them. Yes, there was a T-34 tank. His role in the Second World War was enormous. But why write him empty panegyrics? It seems that strict uncles from the district committee are not insisting now?
    1. Cap.Morgan
      Cap.Morgan 26 December 2015 14: 34 New
      +1
      Well do not tell.
      Another dozen developments, both Soviet and Western, moved independently.
      Among them is the famous Vickers, aka T-26, cheap, with a 45-mm cannon, which, with half a kilometer in the 41st, took any German tank,
      "KRISTI", aka BT-7, including shielded, armored, were floating modifications of Soviet vehicles.
      According to many, including Western analysts, the T-34 was the best tank in terms of qualities, its counterpart Sherman went into the series 3 years later, the corresponding modification of the German T-4 with anti-shell armor began to be made only in the spring of 1942.
      T-50 could be a good car, but alas, a little expensive.
      Our Finnish "partners" perfectly adapted the T-34 to their needs, it was called "weaving" there, trophy thirty-fours served in the SS troops. In my opinion, this is a fairly high assessment of our car, if the Germans did not hesitate to use it despite the diesel engine.
      1. anew
        anew 26 December 2015 15: 18 New
        0
        Quote: Cap.Morgan
        Among them is the famous Vickers

        Quote: Cap.Morgan
        CHRISTIE"

        Are these Soviet tanks?
        Quote: Cap.Morgan
        aka T-26,

        Quote: Cap.Morgan
        aka BT-7,

        These tanks are 22.06.41g. were in production? No, they didn’t stand. Why mention them?
        Quote: Cap.Morgan
        T-34, according to many, including Western analysts, the best tank in terms of quality

        If you choose the right "analysts", they will give you something else.
        Quote: Cap.Morgan
        T-50 could be a good car, but alas, a little expensive.

        PPTs. In which place? It was just cheap. In everything. Not the cheapest cheap stuff like the T-60, but nonetheless. And what was good about the T-50, if not a secret? The pre-war concept of "success development tank" died out in late 1941 and early 1942. The Germans later removed their T-III, the German analogue of the T-50, from production. What for the Red Army would need a T-50?
        Quote: Cap.Morgan
        Our Finnish "partners" perfectly adapted the T-34 to their needs, it was called "weaving" there, trophy thirty-fours served in the SS troops

        Why are you doing this? What does this confirm?
        Quote: Cap.Morgan
        In my opinion this is a fairly high rating of our car, if the Germans did not hesitate to use it despite the diesel engine.

        Bullshit, of course. Better a bulky armored car (now it's not about the T-34) than an unarmored soldier.
        But the Germans did not shun trophy weapons at all. And the USSR, by the way, too.
        1. shasherin.pavel
          shasherin.pavel 26 December 2015 20: 54 New
          0
          Quote: anew
          Its T-III, the German counterpart of the T-50,

          I would compare with the T-26 or BT, but compare the side armor in 37 mm on the T-50 with 15 mm on the T-III ... But Ba-10 based on the Gas-AAA lorry were used before 1944, even in German troops like trophies. And there are photos of this.
          Quote: anew
          What for the Red Army would need a T-50?
          However, T-60 and T-70 and Su-76 were also needed.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. anew
            anew 26 December 2015 22: 29 New
            0
            Quote: shasherin.pavel
            I would compare with the T-26 or BT, but compare the side armor of 37 mm on the T-50 from 15 mm on the T-III.

            Pz.Kpfw.III Ausf.J Sample 1941 booked in the forehead with 50 mm armor. And in a circle of 30-50 mm of armor. At the same time, do not forget to translate German armor into Soviet armor. odds ~ 1,344.
            Quote: shasherin.pavel
            However, T-60 and T-70 and Su-76 were also needed.

            T-60 and T-70, these are small armor plates that do not have common parts with the T-34. Those. their release did not affect the T-34 shaft. Therefore, they were not superfluous either. As for the SU-76, it is generally 76 mm self-propelled guns.
            But a light tank of "success development" (like a cavalry raider, but for armor) was not needed during WW2.
            1. Cap.Morgan
              Cap.Morgan 27 December 2015 00: 08 New
              0
              T-34 and combined the characteristics of many classes of tanks adopted then.
              He did a great job with raiding, an example of this is a breakthrough to Tatsinskaya and the destruction of the airfield. Typical raid.
              1. anew
                anew 27 December 2015 00: 27 New
                0
                Quote: Cap.Morgan
                T-34 and combined the characteristics of many classes of tanks adopted then.

                Dv was up to 2MV only 3 classes of tanks:
                1. Heavy breakthrough tank. T-34 there sideways.
                2. Tank escorting infantry. This was the site of the T-34 before the war. But since The T-34 was not immediately designed like this, but was converted from the "success development tank" A-20, then it had a serious jamb. This is a two-seat tower. It has always been a two-seater, even with a 45mm cannon. Before the war in the USSR it was believed (rather stupidly) that a success development tank did not need a separate commander in the turret. Then they somehow squeezed in a 76-mm cannon, which the infantry escort tank needed. Because of this, the tower became a square one, because there were two too cramped. A "cramped", it's not cramped on the heap. This is the loading speed, and the accuracy and aiming speed. And a little more added reservations. Those. in fact, it turned out to be a well-protected development success tank, but only with a 76-mm cannon. And with a kosyachny turret because of the silly pre-war concept of a two-man turret in the success development tank.
                3. Tank development success. Theoretically, the T-34 could work in this area. After all, he was redone from just such a tank. Moreover, the alteration of the engine and fuel tanks did not concern.
        2. Cap.Morgan
          Cap.Morgan 26 December 2015 23: 57 New
          0
          French cars for example Germans fused the Romanians.
          Although Somua and Renault 35 were not bad.
          T-34 was used despite the difficulties with the supply of diesel fuel. The use of Soviet thirty-four units of the SS indicates the high quality of this tank. The SS men had an advantage over the Wehrmacht in the choice of weapons. For example, Leibstandart first received the Tigers.

          The Germans had cars similar to our T-26, and BT-7 - Czech-made.
          Produced their own such T-2.
          And in development they had a new modification - Lynx. They even produced a few dozen. That is, the Germans did not consider this direction as a dead end.
          The fact that the T-26 was not produced is understandable, the machine no longer corresponded to the time, but by the fortieth year about 10 were produced. Therefore, they were no longer manufactured.
          The BT-7 was modernized, for example, there was a modification of the BT-7E with a 76 mm gun and inclined armor.
          A significant part of this technique was in service. But since they were really produced a lot, they deserve mention.
          1. anew
            anew 27 December 2015 01: 02 New
            0
            Quote: Cap.Morgan
            T-34 was used despite the difficulties with the supply of diesel fuel.

            What are the difficulties? While there was a captured fuel, used. There was no diesel logistics of its own.
            Quote: Cap.Morgan
            The use of Soviet thirty-four units of the SS indicates the high quality of this tank.

            It says that the tank was captured as trophies. And nothing more.
            Quote: Cap.Morgan
            The Germans had cars similar to our T-26, and BT-7 - Czech-made.

            Approximately BT-7 corresponded only to Pz.KpfW.35 (t) (155 pieces in the invading army). The remaining Czechs (Pz.KpfW.38 (t) of two species) were noticeably stronger protected.
            Quote: Cap.Morgan
            They even produced a few dozen. That is, the Germans did not consider this direction as a dead end.

            Is this not a dead end? Even the T-50s did more.
            Quote: Cap.Morgan
            The BT-7 was modernized, for example, there was a modification of the BT-7E with a 76 mm gun and inclined armor.

            Yes? As far as I remember, the USSR "E" meant "screened". I do not think that additional hitch. armor can be called an upgrade. And I have not heard of the release of such tanks, unlike the T-28E.
            And about the gun, it’s BT-7A. Theoretically, and it could be weighted extra. armor. True, I do not know anything about this.
          2. The comment was deleted.
        3. Snoop
          Snoop 27 December 2015 07: 17 New
          +1
          The T-50 was a pretty good light tank. Combat use showed that it was an excellent tank for the initial period of the war. Head of GBTU RKKA Fedorenko Ya.N. gave a high assessment of the tank: "Your new tank is extremely needed at the front. It is reliable, unobtrusive, perfectly armored, has excellent maneuverability and mobility. The Red Army command asks you to make every effort to force the release of tanks to the front in every possible way ..." And, unlike the T There was a gunner in the crew of -34-76 arr. 41. If the commander of the T-34, in addition to his duties, was engaged in aiming the gun and firing a shot, then the commander of the T-50 had only his own direct responsibilities: control of the battlefield and crew management. quick decision making and rate of fire.
          1. anew
            anew 27 December 2015 11: 00 New
            -2
            Quote: Snoop
            The T-50 was a pretty good light tank. Combat use showed that it was an excellent tank for the initial period of the war.

            The T-50 was a tin. In general, all Soviet tanks except the KV-1 suffered from weak armor. And the calculation of the slope of the armor did not justify itself, owls. the designers did not know about the normalization of the shell on the armor. Even the 20-mm automatic reconnaissance gun Pz.KpfW.II made a sieve from the T-50 (see photo).
            Quote: Snoop
            And unlike the T-34-76 arr. 41 years in the carriage was a gunner. If the T-34 commander, in addition to his duties, was engaged in guiding the guns and firing a shot, the T-50 commander had only his direct duties: control of the battlefield and crew control. What naturally affected the speed of decision making and rate of fire.

            The gunner was in the pre-war "ceremonial" copies of the T-50 (rolled armor). In the same instances, cemented armor was also used (in general, a showy and clearly unrealizable solution in the series). In ordinary copies (with a cast turret) there was no gunner, tk. it no longer fit there. Therefore, the usual T-50 was as blind as the T-34/76. In addition, of course, the armor was not cemented, but ordinary, homogeneous.
            Quote: Snoop
            Head of GBTU RKKA Fedorenko Ya.N. praised the tank

            Find me owls. weapons that would be bureaucrats from the Defense Ministry are critically evaluated. At least in public.
      2. Stas57
        Stas57 26 December 2015 15: 59 New
        -1
        According to many, including Western analysts, the T-34 is the best tank in terms of the totality of qualities, its counterpart Sherman went to the 3 series a year later,

        I’ll tell you a secret, T34-76 obr40-42 (the one where they still cooked with handles) and T34-76 / 85 obr 44-45 are two very different machines, and not the first option was the best.
        The corresponding modification of the German T-4 with protivosnaryadnym armor began to produce only in the spring of 1942.

        it's like?
        the four were initially protivosnaryadny, Ausf.F had a forehead 50 mm and was issued since April 41

        In my opinion this is a fairly high rating of our car, if the Germans did not hesitate to use it despite the diesel engine.

        the Germans used a lot of things, but 34 frankly did not like and cherished, they loved to fight in comfort ...


        Quote: anew
        These "decades" turned out to be short. Already T-44 mod. 1944 with the T-34 had little in common. A T-54 mod. 1945 with the T-34 actually had nothing in common.

        I would also call 44ku the ancestor, but the "tail and ears" are still visible.

        Quote: anew
        The T-34 is the "random hero". Just by 22.06.41. it was the only Soviet tank that could, albeit with reservations, move independently. And the only Soviet tank, the production of which was somehow mastered.

        fu, what a grown, fu.

        T26, KV, T28 and so on were mastered
        unlike 34, the plans for which were not implemented at all by the beginning of the war.


        of course he could move, though not for long, like HF)
        Quote: anew
        Those. in fact, it was the only tank that was in the USSR at the beginning of the war.

        okay, that's not funny anymore.
        1. anew
          anew 26 December 2015 17: 04 New
          0
          Quote: Stas57
          T26, KV, T28 and so on were mastered

          T-26 from production in 1941. was filmed. The plant was preparing for the production of T-50.
          T-28 from production was removed even earlier. Instead, the plant mastered the production of HF.
          But the KV-1 began to drive confidently on its own only in the KV-1s version from the summer of 1942. After the production has mastered the new original gearbox. Before that, there was "reinforced" from the T-28 (as usual, they were in a hurry to take the tank into service), but the KV-1 weighed 47,5 tons, and the T-28 25,5 tons. Therefore, the "reinforcement" did not help, in the hands of the usual mechanized drivers, an ordinary serial tank did not move well under its own power.
          Quote: Stas57
          of course he could move, though not for long, like HF)

          Could have been for a long time, but in one gear. This was the peculiarity of his ancient "tractor" checkpoint. But that was better than nothing. Because in addition to the T-34 on 22.06.41/XNUMX/XNUMX. there was also this very "nothing". As an alternative.
          Quote: Stas57
          okay, that's not funny anymore.

          I do not have such a habit. In production in 1941 actually stood ONLY KV and T-34. The T-50 was still in the plans, but it never reached the series (and thank God).
          Read about the "features" of the KV and T-34 above. Therefore, the only tank of the USSR, which at the beginning of the Second World War was in production and could confidently move independently was only T-34. Of course, he was assigned to the role of MBT (in January 1942). It was simply that the USSR had nothing else then.
          1. Stas57
            Stas57 26 December 2015 18: 16 New
            -1
            Quote: anew
            T-26 from production in 1941. was filmed. The plant was preparing for the production of T-50.
            T-28 from production was removed even earlier. Instead, the plant mastered the production of HF.


            Well, it was shot, but what are we talking about?
            And the only Soviet tank, the production of which was somehow mastered.

            mastered production is established production and communications at the level of plant / plant and plant / plants.
            all this was on obsolete tanks, i.e. The USSR could at any time launch them back into production with minimal losses.
            Yes, at the same time, he is well known to users.

            Quote: anew
            Could have been for a long time, but in one gear. This was the peculiarity of his ancient "tractor" checkpoint. But that was better than nothing. Because in addition to the T-34 on 22.06.41/XNUMX/XNUMX. there was also this very "nothing". As an alternative.

            Yes, all the same, both have motor resources in 50 hours, and shitty clutches and inept crew.

            Quote: anew
            I do not have such a habit. In production in 1941. actually stood ONLY KV and T-34. The plans still stood T-50, but he did not reach the series (and thank God).
            here I am about that, it’s more clear.
            X-NUMX, T-41, T-26, T-40, T-60 were released in the summer 50 (41 and 15)
            we omit this, the moment that the USSR had a reserve of tanks more than German


            Quote: anew
            Read about the "features" of the KV and T-34 above. Therefore, the only tank of the USSR, which at the beginning of the Second World War was in production and could confidently move independently was only the T-34. Of course, he was assigned to the MBT role (in January 1942). The USSR simply had nothing else then.

            opa and already one 34, and how? 34ka was the same ram, with a bunch of problems and sores as KV.
            not just a fugitive, neither one nor the second, both could not stand the marches.
            1. anew
              anew 26 December 2015 19: 59 New
              0
              Quote: Stas57
              those. The USSR could at any time launch them back into production with minimal losses.

              For starters, I could not. Production at LKZ was completely and quite long ago reorganized to produce HF. So with the T-28 in no way. Yes, and there was no point, so there was a tank. Another T-28E, wherever it went. But in general, junk. KV-1 was potentially significantly better. If not for the checkpoint.
              At the factory to them. Voroshilov also production was re-shifted under the T-50. In addition, the T-26 was completely unnecessary, because who replaced him with the T-34 was produced at the KhPZ and STZ.
              After the beginning of the Second World War, the evacuation of factories began from Leningrad. The KV-1 survived thanks to its release at ChKZ. And the T-50 was lost as a result of the evacuation. It is for the better, it was replacing the BT-7M, and tanks of this concept independently "died" during the war.
              Quote: Stas57
              Yes, all the same, both have motor resources in 50 hours, and shitty clutches and inept crew.

              That, yes. And another air filter. But in KV-1 there was also a problem with the gearbox.
              Quote: Stas57
              41m produced T-26, T-40, T-60

              T-26s were not produced, but tanks that were rejected by military acceptance in 1940 were completed. Therefore, they were listed for 1941. But these were no longer serial cars.
              And there was the T-40s. Before the T-60.
              Quote: Stas57
              we omit this, the moment that the USSR had a reserve of tanks more than German

              Much. But by the winter of 1941. this stock was almost completely lost. If you recall the reserve, then you can still recall 2887 cannon ba. 1 and 2 categories, i.e. in combat ready condition.
              Quote: Stas57
              not just a fugitive, neither one nor the second, both could not stand the marches.

              And again, I remind you of the problem with the checkpoint at KV. In addition, KhPZ and STZ did not evacuate anywhere. Therefore, all the trump cards were in the T-34.
            2. shasherin.pavel
              shasherin.pavel 26 December 2015 21: 12 New
              +2
              Quote: Stas57
              motor resource in 50 hours

              Why are you all clung to the motor resource? Aircraft engines were designed for 50 hours at maximum speed, without afterburner. If such an engine is used at medium speed, then its service life increases to 400 hours, which is confirmed by the fact: when reaching the borders of Germany, medals "For Military Merit" were awarded to driver mechanics whose engines had worked up to four hundred hours. And a motor hour is a motor hour: the engine must make exactly as many revolutions as it does in an hour at maximum power. Pokryshkin himself wrote and said that the afterburner "Airacobra" burned the engine for three or four battles. And the fight itself can last no more than 10-15 minutes. 60 minutes of battle plus takeoff, landing at medium speed and "scribe" to the American engine.
              1. BV330
                BV330 3 January 2016 01: 49 New
                0
                A scribe with a violation of operating modes, and on the wrong fuel and oil. And with the amers themselves, these motors flew out for 300 hours. ((
        2. Cap.Morgan
          Cap.Morgan 27 December 2015 00: 23 New
          0
          The Germans did not use for example the T-26 and BT.

          The fact that the T-34-85 is a serious revision of the thirty-four is understandable. But it arose only in the 44th. When a radical turning point had already occurred in the war, the T-34-76 appeared in the 39th, the first two vehicles left the slipways in January 40th and at that time was a revolutionary machine. That is why it was difficult to establish the production of this machine, it was accepted raw, unfinished, but it nevertheless went into the army. The troops have already begun to master it, gain experience.
          British technology of that period was clearly under-equipped, recall Matilda and Churchill.
          The United States did not have any experience in the production and development of armored vehicles. Stewart was just planning for their production, and this is an analogue of an outdated BT removed from our conveyor.
          1. anew
            anew 27 December 2015 00: 49 New
            0
            Quote: Cap.Morgan
            The Germans did not use for example the T-26 and BT.

            Top T-26. I will lower BT.
            Quote: Cap.Morgan
            and at that time was a revolutionary machine

            Is it possible in more detail? About revolutionism.
            Quote: Cap.Morgan
            she was accepted raw, unfinished, but she went nonetheless to the troops

            This is "style advice". All Soviet technology was adopted in this way.
            Quote: Cap.Morgan
            British technology of that period was clearly under-equipped, recall Matilda and Churchill.
            The United States did not have any experience in the production and development of armored vehicles.

            There were still German tanks. Very good, although there were enough stocks there too. For example, the Germans did not have breakthrough tanks. But there were tanks for the development of success of dubious need. And a bunch of all kinds of obscure armor.
            But the Germans quickly orientated themselves. And already in the spring of 1942. the Wehrmacht received a very good ersatz-MBT Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.F2. And since the summer of 1943. already real MBT PzKpfw V "Panther".
            CA real MBT received after WWII. A ersatz-MBT T-34/85 began to enter the army only in the spring of 1944.
            1. hohol95
              hohol95 27 December 2015 23: 33 New
              -1
              Try not to rank the T-34 in tanks of direct infantry support! For this task, the T-26 and its successor T-50 were created! T-34 was supposed to change the BT-7! And KV-1, like a tank breakthrough enemy defenses, respectively, T-28 and T-35!
              1. anew
                anew 27 December 2015 23: 52 New
                0
                Quote: hohol95
                Try not to rank the T-34 in tanks of direct infantry support!

                Try to read at least some book on this subject.
                Quote: hohol95
                For this task, the T-26 and its successor T-50 were created.

                The T-26 was replaced by the T-32, and then the T-34. For this, a 76-mm cannon was put into a turret designed for a 45-mm cannon.
                Quote: hohol95
                T-34 was supposed to change the BT-7!

                BT-7M was to be replaced by a T-50. Therefore, before the war, and conducted its comparative tests with the German Pz.KpfW.III. Do you understand? The Pz.KpfW.III (German success development tank) was compared with the T-50, not the T-34.
                They write whatever they get. And it’s completely off topic. At least the nature of the reservation of tanks looked. Although, there you need to understand what and why it was.
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. svp67
            svp67 2 January 2016 10: 32 New
            0
            Quote: Cap.Morgan
            The Germans did not use for example the T-26 and BT.

            Who told you this?

            Trophy tanks T-26 of the 1939 model, adopted by the Wehrmacht, received the Panzerkampfwagen T-26C 740 (r) index.
            The captured tanks BT-7, adopted by the Wehrmacht, received the Panzerkampfwagen BT 742 (r) index.
      3. shasherin.pavel
        shasherin.pavel 26 December 2015 20: 44 New
        +3
        Quote: Cap.Morgan
        "CHRISTI", aka BT
        -2. more precisely, only the hull of the tank with the chassis, even without a turret, was studied and adopted.
        Quote: Cap.Morgan
        Sherman's analog

        was built after studying the T-34 and SQ in the States. But about the merits of Sherman and his shortcomings, you can write whole books. In 44, many of the parts were disbanded in the heat because the rubber tires of the road wheels melted. But the United States is not an Arctic camp and the desert there, the question is: did the Americans experience it in the heat? Aviation gasoline. .. rollover on the slopes. and so on and so forth.
        The T-50 was the best light tank of the Second World War, but was produced in Leningrad and managed to produce only 50 vehicles, but it is even present in the photographs of the Great Patriotic War in the 1944 year, and even a shepherd is present in the crew. The T-72 did not even take a lap-dog, there was even such a test of comparisons of T-34 and T-72. A good tank cannot be expensive, but a light tank with 37 mm armor in a circle and at a speed of 50 km is not seen in any army in the world.
        Quote: Cap.Morgan
        use despite the diesel engine.

        What is a diesel engine so bad ?! Can the T-72 be redone for a carburetor? It would be worth recalling that part of the Panthers near Kursk and even part of the Royal Tigers in 1944 ignited spontaneously before approaching the front line.
      4. BV330
        BV330 2 January 2016 02: 34 New
        0
        T-50 could be a good car, but alas, a little expensive.
        This is a myth, it was much smaller and lighter than 34 matches, and at the same time more technological.
        So, after the initial development in production, an automatic machine would be much cheaper.
        Sobsno Svirin wrote a little on this subject in 3 volumes. )))
        And it’s a pity, of course, that Zalzhman’s face took Zizhov’s and killed this car, treacherously ordered to gut the stock of engines taken out for evacuation. And there was no one to give into this face. (((
        1. svp67
          svp67 2 January 2016 04: 43 New
          +1
          Quote: BV330
          T-50 could be a good car, but alas, a little expensive.
          This is a myth, it was much smaller .... 34 matches .....

          Well let's compare
          Here is the T34 of 1940

          And here is the T50

          Compare the height: T34 - 2400 mm, T50 -2250 mm - a difference of 150 mm in favor of T50
          Width: T34 - 3000 mm, T50 - 2200 mm - a difference of 800 mm in favor of the T50
          It is long: T34 - 5920 mm, T50 - 5400 mm - a difference of 520 mm in favor of the T50.
          It seems like your truth and really, but the difference is not big and there is one minus for the T50 - it is not possible to make the proper shoulder straps for installing a more powerful gun at the T50. Now let's take a reservation scheme and see that the T34 is better ...


          So much is controversial in your statements.
          1. BV330
            BV330 3 January 2016 01: 25 New
            0
            Thanks for the circuit)).
            In general, I did not claim that the T-50 is superior to 34-ku. Sobsno difficult to expect this from the machine in the 14-16 tons of mass (from 2 plants) against 26-28 in 34-ki.
            In any case, the armored hull is 1,5 times smaller in mass, and its welding, and the "half" of the drygatel, and the torsion bar instead of the candle one with its wells and double walls - in aggregate, simply cannot be on a par with the 34th. ))
            For the guns, most likely the designers did not lay a large margin for a possible replacement, but after all, under the ballistics of a 45 mm M-42, or a weak 76 mm with a muzzle brake, the tower would probably withstand it. And for the NPP, maybe more was not necessary? Throughout the war, the Valentines were praised with their 40 and 57mm. And consider the T-50 is our version of Valentine.
            I only mean that in the role of a direct support tank the T-50 would be clearly much better than all the ersatz T-40, -30, -60 and -70, would suffer much less losses, and would release a 34-ok resource for more operational tasks.

            PS: on the top diagram, you have the T-50 version of the Kirov plant, they did not seem to be launched into the series.
            1. anew
              anew 3 January 2016 14: 02 New
              0
              Quote: BV330
              in the aggregate, they simply cannot stand on a par with the 34th.

              The T-60 was even cheaper. Do you think it was necessary to change the thirty-four to him?
              Quote: BV330
              but after all, under the ballistics of a 45-mm M-42, or a weak 76-mm with a muzzle brake, the tower would probably withstand it.

              And the F-34 would withstand, because the shoulder strap of the tower was the same. But why?
              Quote: BV330
              And for the NPP, maybe more was not necessary?

              For the NPP they made T-60, T-70, and then SU-76. Because they did not have identical parts with the T-34. And the release of the T-34 did not interfere. Would hinder, they would not be.
              Quote: BV330
              Throughout the war, the Valentines were praised with their 40 and 57mm.

              Valentine didn’t bother anyone at all. made abroad.
              Quote: BV330
              I just mean that in the role of a tank of direct support for the T-50, it would be clearly much better than all the ersatz T-40, -30, -60 and -70,

              He had a diesel engine. It has a lot in common with the T-34 engine. And the weight, for production in the shops of factories for the production of binders, is too large. Therefore, he had no chance of production. And the T-70, as an "infantry" tank, was, in general, no worse. And the SU-76 is better.
            2. The comment was deleted.
        2. anew
          anew 3 January 2016 13: 50 New
          0
          Quote: BV330
          And it’s a pity, of course, that Zizhov’s muzzle Zaltsman took and killed this car ... And there was no one to give into this muzzle.

          What made you so upset? Do you propose to make an OTB neither T-34, but T-50? But what about the 37 mm armor from which the 20 mm German automatic gun made a sieve?
          1. BV330
            BV330 3 January 2016 17: 08 New
            0
            I was outraged by the fact of such meanness - to gut someone else's property, knowing that there would be no replacement and the tank itself was being buried.
            The T-50 was not planned for production in those factories where they made 34 matches, why should it become MBT?
            And the armor, since the 37mm T-50 armor was originally heterogeneous cemented, and exceeded the durability of the 45-mm homogen in 34-ki. Something not to hear stories about the brave Panzerwaffers on the twos, cheerfully resolving 34 matches. )))

            PS: thanks for the info about the same diameter of the shoulder straps of the T-50 and T-34 towers. So there would have been no big problems and F-34, and ZiS-4 with a muzzle.
            1. anew
              anew 3 January 2016 18: 19 New
              0
              Quote: BV330
              knowing that there will be no replacement and the tank itself is buried.

              So many things are not a sin to bury on time.
              Quote: BV330
              The T-50 was not planned for production in those factories where they made 34 matches, why should it become MBT?

              And in what factories was it made? At first they planned to do it at the plant. Voroshilov. Then they threw it from plant to plant for a long time. And then they covered it, switching to the production of the T-34 at the same factory. Those. The T-50 in fact interfered with the production of the T-34.
              Quote: BV330
              so the 37mm T-50 armor was originally heterogeneous cemented

              So she was in the valuaristic plans of the Design Bureau of the plant to them. Voroshilov. From the very beginning it was clear that the armor would be rolled (on which tanks in the USSR was it cemented?). And after the outbreak of war, the towers became completely cast. And from this double.
              Quote: BV330
              Something not to hear stories about the brave Panzerwaffers on the twos, cheerfully resolving 34 matches.

              The T-34 had thicker armor than the T-50. In fact, the T-50 never had cemented armor.
              Quote: BV330
              So there would have been no big problems and F-34, and ZiS-4 with a muzzle.

              Would get up. In the double version.
        3. The comment was deleted.
    2. Stilet
      Stilet 27 December 2015 17: 41 New
      0
      The essence of the article is people, and tanks are just tanks. As long as we have such people, we will have tanks, planes and much more. You can "hook" the author of the article, but it is much more important to look at the true essence of things.
    3. Klos
      Klos 28 December 2015 23: 26 New
      +1
      How did the T-34 reach Berlin and Prague with fighting? And even in Yugoslavia in the 90s it moved and fought?
      1. anew
        anew 28 December 2015 23: 45 New
        -2
        Quote: Klos
        How did the T-34 reach Berlin and Prague with fighting?

        To answer this question, you probably need to read the comment you answer to again.
        In addition, it must be understood that there were a lot of modifications of the T-34. There were even gasoline engines. In addition, since 1944. the T-34 went into the army, which generally differed significantly from previous models. This is the so-called T-34/85. By the way, it was he who was noticed in Yugoslavia. And he often stands on the monuments. Although the USSR fought mainly T-34/76 of various modifications. Their release was finally discontinued only in the summer of 1944.
  19. Cap.Morgan
    Cap.Morgan 26 December 2015 14: 35 New
    0
    Quote: Cap.Morgan
    Well do not tell.
    Another dozen developments, both Soviet and Western, moved independently.
    Among them is the famous Vickers, aka T-26, cheap, with a 45-mm cannon, which, with half a kilometer in the 41st, took any German tank,
    "KRISTI", aka BT-7, including shielded, armored, were floating modifications.
    According to many, including Western analysts, the T-34 was the best tank in terms of qualities, its counterpart Sherman went into the series 3 years later, the corresponding modification of the German T-4 with anti-shell armor began to be made only in the spring of 1942.
    T-50 could be a good car, but alas, a little expensive.
    Our Finnish "partners" perfectly adapted the T-34 to their needs, it was called "weaving" there, trophy thirty-fours served in the SS troops. In my opinion, this is a fairly high assessment of our car, if the Germans did not hesitate to use it despite the diesel engine.
  20. db1967
    db1967 27 December 2015 12: 30 New
    +1
    With all due respect to Nizhny Tagil smile - "Tankograd" was in Chelyabinsk. And the armor and engines for the Nizhny Tagil T-34 came from us. Nizhny Tagil is rather an assembly plant.
  21. hohol95
    hohol95 27 December 2015 23: 30 New
    0
    Thanks for the good article! The topic is interesting and on the Internet I found an article that reveals this topic even better and without unnecessary scientific terms! Article by Sergei Ustyantsev "Lesson two: you need to think before the fight"! Found on the page of the Military Industrial COURIER !!!
  22. cth; fyn
    cth; fyn 28 December 2015 11: 21 New
    0
    I read it M. Svirin, not such a genius was Koshkin, the organizer, yes, but not the designer. But this does not diminish his feat, because it was he who was able to organize the work of the design bureau and issue a completely successful tank. I really liked about the 112 factory at Svirin, that's where it really is from rags to riches.
    1. Evrepid
      Evrepid 30 December 2015 16: 49 New
      0
      Different articles write a lot of different things.
      If you open the issues of "T-34" magazines, which involve the collection of a model of the T-34-85 tank and read what they write there. That is, there is about Paton and about Koshkin and about Morozov and about how the T-34 was created and about modifications and about the heroism of the designers and about what kind of initiative it was by the designers.

      For instance. the same diesel for the tank, how it was created, where and who ... It's not just like that ... It will not work on enthusiasm. And about the gun for the tank.

      Of course, enthusiasts of their craft worked in Kharkov! But they did not create a tank alone. And all in fact perfectly remember how many changes have been made to the design from the initial model to the point that it reached Berlin.