Military Review

Tank KV-1: giant in armor

193
Tank KV-1: giant in armor



Thanks to the creation tanks KV, the Soviet Union became the only state to have in 1941 in large quantities heavy tanks with anti-shell armor. The Germans called HF a monster.

The main disadvantage of the majority of tanks of the second half of the 30-s was weak armor, penetrated by fire anti-tank guns and heavy machine guns.

KV-1 was different from them. It was created in 1939 under the direction of J. Kotin. The tank had a 76 mm gun and three 7,62 mm. machine gun. The crew of the tank - 5 man.

The first KVs passed military tests during the Soviet-Finnish war, which was the first conflict where heavy tanks with anti-bullet armor were used. Then, at the front, Soviet heavy tanks KV and multi-turret QMS and T-100, which operated as part of the 20 tank tank brigade, were tested.

If in tank battles, which were rare in the Finnish war, the newest machines did not take part, they turned out to be indispensable for breaking through enemy fortifications. KV-1 withstand hitting virtually any anti-tank projectile guns. At the same time, the 76-mm gun was not powerful enough to fight the enemy’s pillboxes. Therefore, already during the war, on the basis of the KV-1, the development of a tank with an enlarged turret and an installed 152 mm began. howitzer (future KV-2). At the same time, according to the experience of the Soviet-Finnish war, it was decided to abandon the creation of heavy multi-turreted tanks, which turned out to be expensive and difficult to manage. The choice was finally made in favor of HF.

As of June 1941, the KV could be considered one of the strongest heavy tanks in the world. In total, at the beginning of June 1941, the units of the Red Army numbered 412 KV-1.

There is a known case in June 1941 of the year in the Rassenaya area, when one KV-1 bound the actions of the German division for almost two days. This KV was part of the 2-oh tank division, which brought German troops a lot of trouble in the early days of the war. Apparently spent fuel, the tank took up a position on the road near the marshy meadow. In one of the German documents noted:

“There was practically no means to cope with the monster. Tank can not be circumvented around the swampy area. It is impossible to bring ammunition, the seriously wounded died, they could not be taken out. Attempting to eliminate a tank with an 50-mm anti-tank battery from a distance of 500 meters resulted in heavy losses in calculations and guns. The tank had no damage, despite the fact that, as it turned out, 14 received direct hits. From them there are only dents on the armor. When the 88-mm gun was brought up to the distance of 700 meters, the tank quietly waited until it was placed on the position, and destroyed it. Attempts by sappers to undermine the tank were unsuccessful. The charges were inadequate for huge caterpillars. Finally he fell prey to cunning. German tanks 50 simulated an attack from all sides to divert attention. Under cover, she was able to push and camouflage the 88-mm cannon from the rear of the tank. From 12 direct hits, 3 requested armor and destroyed the tank. "



In the 1942, the production of the upgraded version - KV-1 (high-speed), adopted on 20 August 1942, was started. The mass of the tank decreased from 47 to 42,5 t by reducing the thickness of the hull armor plates and the size of the tower. Tower - cast, acquired a slightly different appearance and was equipped with a commander's turret. Armament remained similar to the KV-1. As a result, the speed and maneuverability increased, but the armor protection of the tank decreased. The installation of a more powerful 1-mm gun (similar to the prototype preserved in Kubinka) was intended for the KV-85, but this tank did not go into series. Subsequently, on the base of the KV-1s with the 85 mm gun, the KV-85 was created, which however did not become massive due to the switch of production to the IS tanks. The soldiers called the tank "kvasok."

In tank battles, at least until the middle of 1942, German troops could hardly counterpose the KV-1. However, in the course of the fighting, the tank’s drawbacks also became apparent - relatively low speed and maneuverability compared to the T-34. Both tanks were armed with 76-mm guns. True, KV had a more massive in comparison with the "thirty-four" armor. Suffered from HF and frequent breakdowns. When moving, the tank broke almost any road, and not every bridge could withstand the 47-ton tank. The heavy tank "Tigr" appeared among the Germans at the end of 1942, surpassing any heavy tank at that time of the war. And the KV-1 was virtually powerless against the Tiger, armed with a long-barreled 88-mm cannon. The Tiger could hit the KB at great distances, and a direct hit with an 88-mm projectile would disable any tank of that time. So, February 12 1943 of the year near Leningrad three “Tigers” hit 10 KB without damage from their side.

From the middle of 1943, the KV-1 is less and less common on the fronts of the Great Patriotic War - mainly near Leningrad. However, the KV-1 served as the basis for the creation of a number of Soviet tanks and self-propelled guns. So, on the basis of the KV was created SU-152, armed with 152 howitzer gun. To this day, only a few KV-1 units have survived in Russia, which have become museum pieces.
Author:
Originator:
http://russian7.ru/2014/08/tank-kv-1-gigant-v-brone/
193 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. aba
    aba 27 February 2016 07: 16
    12
    Seem a small difference in caliber: 76 and 88, and the end result is significant.
    But thanks KV-1! For the first days, for the experience gained and for the base for other products.
    1. dokusib
      dokusib 27 February 2016 08: 19
      41
      Normal difference in calibers. Not at all. Plus, the barrel length of the gun is very different. Which ultimately gives completely incomparable ballistics for these two guns. Roughly speaking, the KV-1 has a gun designed to support infantry using high-explosive ammunition. And 88 was created as an anti-aircraft gun for high-altitude bombers, as a result of which it had a huge initial velocity of a projectile at that time and, as a consequence, high trajectory persistence when firing at ground targets. By the way, here very recently there was a very good article about 88.
      1. Pig
        Pig 27 February 2016 08: 29
        10
        not only the Germans put anti-aircraft guns on the tanks, our 85mm gun was also the former anti-aircraft gun ... a long barrel - a good initial velocity of the projectile - good armor penetration
        1. shasherin.pavel
          shasherin.pavel 28 February 2016 09: 44
          +3
          Coarse, very rude ... For the T-34-85 the projectile was taken from an anti-aircraft gun, but not the gun itself, where the muzzle brake was used, since the recoil and reel were at the gun from the caliber 76 mm, The muzzle brake takes on itself 30% of the return . the anti-aircraft gun also differs in that it was possible to divide the barrel into three parts and replace the most worn parts of the barrel, especially with regard to the breech section, where the loads are greatest. The T-34 does not have a muzzle brake, the rollback is reduced to 70 cm due to the dimensions of the tower, and the barrel is not detachable. So only TTX anti-aircraft guns that successfully fought with Wehrmacht tanks near Moscow were taken.
          1. karbine
            karbine 29 February 2016 09: 07
            -1
            Quote: shasherin.pavel
            the anti-aircraft gun also differs in that it could divide the barrel into three parts and replace the most worn parts of the barrel,

            These are anti-aircraft guns of the old production. Theoretically, they could replace the barrel pipe. Almost no one did this, and indeed, in the 40s, monoblock trunks were already going into the series.
            Of course, due to the lack of DT, the S-53's anti-recoil devices were original.
          2. Uncle VasyaSayapin
            Uncle VasyaSayapin 29 February 2016 11: 21
            +1
            The article is a set of ridiculous "stamps" and well-known facts. In 1941, production tanks with anti-cannon armor were in the hands of Great Britain and France in 1939. Their guns had less armor penetration, but they were enough for German vehicles of that time (1941). A special feature of the KV-1 was that its armor and cannon were redundant in 1941, and already insufficient in 1942. In 1943, our designers developed the IS-2, which, with the same weight, surpassed the KV in all characteristics except for the speed and dimensions of the hull.
            In general, the article is about nothing. But for children’s coloring, it would certainly fit.
      2. carbine
        carbine 27 February 2016 12: 19
        +2
        Quote: dokusib
        And 88 was created as an anti-aircraft gun for high-altitude bombers, as a result of which it had a huge initial velocity of the projectile at that time and, as a consequence, high trajectory persistence when firing at ground targets

        You have written everything correctly. Only I would not praise the Tiger gun. The fact is that the ballistics of anti-aircraft guns basically coincides with the ballistics of anti-tank guns. Therefore, anti-aircraft / anti-tank guns, this is the lot of self-propelled guns or tank destroyers. And tanks are often equipped with universal guns.
        For the Tigers, something more 100-110 mm would be more suitable. And the 88-mm KwK 36 L / 56, this is a necessary step, they just had nothing more suitable. In my opinion, the Germans for the Tigers needed to experiment with 10,5 cm schwere Kanone 18. trunks. There would be more sense.
        1. Stas57
          Stas57 27 February 2016 12: 33
          +1
          Quote: carbine
          In my opinion, the Germans for the Tigers had to experiment with the trunks of 10,5 cm schwere Kanone 18.

          It was already on Tolstomaks, did not like
          1. AK64
            AK64 27 February 2016 12: 52
            +6
            Quote: carbine
            In my opinion, the Germans for the Tigers had to experiment with the trunks of 10,5 cm schwere Kanone 18.

            A connoisseur of "everything" .... what
            / and spat
            1. Cap.Morgan
              Cap.Morgan 27 February 2016 19: 54
              +1
              There was a Jagdtiger machine with a 128 mm gun.
              A series of 70 vehicles, however, the gun was under development and in limited quantities entered service at the very end of the war.
          2. The comment was deleted.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. creak
          creak 27 February 2016 13: 00
          +8
          Quote: carbine
          Only I would not praise the Tiger gun.

          I would like to note that the gun itself was half the battle without proper optics ... And the sights on German tanks, compared to ours, were at the highest level - which cannot be said about ours ... This fact was noted by all of us without exception tankmen ...
          1. shasherin.pavel
            shasherin.pavel 28 February 2016 10: 04
            0
            I read in the memoirs of German soldiers and officers that Soviet binoculars amazed enemies and allies. There is a story about how an American officer exchanged a trophy "Zeiss" for Soviet binoculars, and even with a supplement of the liquid type. Here I will tell you a case from my life ... I’m in short. We were doing repairs in the garage of my brother Vladimir, well, we drank a liter with three more repair assistants .. it seemed a little. The brother said: "There is still at home, now now .." and went for more. In front of my eyes, he pours our "Stolichnaya" into a bottle of whiskey "White Horse" (then rarely did anyone have an idea how whiskey looked in a glass) and bring it to the garage. And it began: "After all, the Americans ... know how to make whiskey, not at all like ours with their" Stolichnaya ". Look what difference it makes that they drank before and now." We bought our optics for sniper Mosinks in Germany, improved and created the "Sight Universal" sight, which the Finns copied and even began to produce. It was also copied in the Wehrmacht. Our tank guns were equipped with Zeiss sights, which were produced under license. The German tanks were equipped with observation devices from Polish tanks produced in 1937. Ours copied these observation devices from German tanks and installed them on the T-34-76 of 1943. So don't blah blah about the scopes. The only thing was the superiority that the Germans invented night sighting devices before anyone else. Sights, like tanks, were constantly being modernized, millet is easier to criticize than to write the truth. For any innovation in the Wehrmacht captured as a trophy, they were awarded orders. And they did not hesitate to copy.
        4. minirulet
          minirulet 29 February 2016 15: 25
          0
          Why is this a necessary step? The whole tank was essentially made for this weapon! 88mm gun was the best at that time.
          1. karbine
            karbine 29 February 2016 17: 03
            -1
            Quote: minirulet
            88mm gun was the best at that time.

            At that moment, the Tiger was enough for her. But the tank is not made for 1 day, especially in war conditions. Although, maybe 88-mm KwK 36 L / 56 (like the 88-mm KwK 43 L / 71) at that time was the best option. Indeed, for something like 10,5 cm schwere Kanone 18, you would have to harness some kind of semi-automatic loading. And these are unnecessary problems.
            But on the Panther, it was necessary from the very beginning to put the 88-mm KwK 36 L / 56, as the most optimal at that time.
            1. minirulet
              minirulet 1 March 2016 15: 01
              0
              I do not agree. The 75mm panther gun had no problems with the armor penetration of Allied vehicles until the very end of the war. Namely, to combat tanks, the panther was created. But the high-explosive shell was weak, yes.
              1. The comment was deleted.
              2. karbine
                karbine 1 March 2016 16: 57
                0
                Quote: minirulet
                But the high-explosive shell was weak, yes.

                High explosive. And not a shell, but a grenade.
                In general, Internet stories are very funny to read. That's because everyone on the internet praises the Soviet 76,2-mm OF grenade OF-350. Like, it was powerful, etc. etc. And precisely in the same place, a common place on the Internet is the weakness of the OFG Panther (Sprgr. 42). In this case, the weight of explosives in OF-350 = 621 g. And in Sprgr. 42 = 620g. And the type of explosives is the same. Paradox.
                I prefer the Soviet pre-war "anti-aircraft" 76,2-mm fragmentation grenade UO-361 with a mass of 682 explosives. And the Soviet BB shell from the same gun. In general, I believe that a KV-1s with such a gun (this is a 5st generation ZIS-1 gun) would be ideal. A completely complete analogue of the Panther would have turned out, only arr. 1942, a year before the Panther. It would be just fine if it was he who became the Red Army MBT from the summer of 1942. It was not difficult to do this, by the end of 1942. KhPZ and STZ ceased to exist. Therefore, few production facilities would have to be reconfigured.
                Quote: minirulet
                I do not agree.

                THAT knows him. Maybe 7.5 cm KwK 42 for the Panther was nothing. There is no talk about armor penetration. But the fragmentation was not very. Both her and the three-inch. No, not to say that it’s really bad. But not so well.
                1. carbine
                  carbine 1 March 2016 17: 05
                  0
                  I will supplement the picture.
              3. The comment was deleted.
      3. shasherin.pavel
        shasherin.pavel 28 February 2016 09: 37
        0
        Quote: dokusib
        Roughly speaking, the KV-1 has a gun designed to support infantry using high-explosive ammunition.

        Roughly speaking, all 76 mm guns used a 76 mm 40-inch projectile and therefore could even fire shrapnel. Here the English 34-mm "Matild" and "Valentine" had only armor-piercing and fragmentation shells, that is, they could not be put on a land mine, which explodes after penetrating to a certain depth of the breastwork or wall. The KV could use both shrapnel and blasting ones, the latter could not be used on every battery, it all depended on the skill of the battery commander, and the tankers were not artillerymen, they were not taught such subtleties, therefore you rarely hear that the T-XNUMX and KV used shrapnel.
        1. dokusib
          dokusib 29 February 2016 15: 36
          0
          I agree with you. I actually wrote about this. That on KV was a gun designed to support the infantry, and not to confront the tanks
      4. Litsvin
        Litsvin 28 February 2016 23: 17
        -2
        The difference in calibers is only one thing. Barrel length is second. What is 88mm "aht-aht" is also known. These are, perhaps, along with our ZiS-3, two of the most famous guns of the period of World War II. Back in the Soviet period, a lot of literature was written about "KV" tanks, both professional and "amateur", while in the "amateur" literature many myths were written that exalt the real experience of operating KV tanks - they just took plots and wrote Soviet "propanandists" "texts" that our citizens read about a certain invincible KV tank. Then, this originally and indicated information was replicated by other writers, etc. As a result, "myths about" KV "were formed," reinforced "by such real events as" a friendly meeting of the whole Panzerffen tank group with one single INVINCIBLE miracle hero "KV-2". This story near Raseiniai has been analyzed in detail from a professional point of view by people who are far from propaganda emotions - there is a good article by a colonel of tank forces (I do not remember his last name), who dispelled this myth. Reconstruction of those events and comparison with other similar meetings of the Germans with the "KV" testifies to only one thing - our tankers turned out to be excellent strategists, who fully managed to take advantage of the nature of the terrain. Those. they created a plug in the "bottleneck" which was practically impossible to remove due to the lack of the Germans' ability to deploy anti-tank weapons. The problem of the Raseiniai "KV" could be solved very quickly with a pair of "Ju-1", if the German staff officers quickly assessed the degree of threat.
        Another "myth" about the "KV", widely used by "scribblers" - "the Germans did not know", "the appearance of the" KV "tank was a shock for the Germans", etc. They knew, even as they knew about the KV tanks, they knew where they were made, and the approximate performance characteristics. The Germans learned good information from the Finns with photographs, assessments of the results of firing at new conscientious heavy tanks, interviews with Finnish soldiers and officers, etc. The only "but" - the Germans carried out a thorough analysis and their engineers "underestimated" the booking of our tanks to "40-50 mm". They did not think, based on their knowledge of the anti-tank artillery systems existing in the world at that time, that a tank was created in the USSR with excessive armor. Simply put, they miscalculated. In 1941, yes, the KV was a definite threat to the Germans. With the advent of the "Tiger-1" the threat of the "KV" was eliminated - it effectively penetrated our tank from 1500 m, while holding the blow of the 76mm "KV" cannon. When creating the Tiger, the Germans also developed new, even more effective, armor-piercing shells, which were also used in the entire 88mm artillery. My grandfather, who fought in the middle of 1942 until the end of 1944 in the tank forces, did not feel any enthusiasm about the "KV", as well as from the British tanks. He called "KV" clumsy and clumsy. But my grandfather spoke very warmly and positively about our T-34-1943, T-34-85 and American diesel Shermans.
        1. nimboris
          nimboris 29 February 2016 04: 15
          0
          You forgot to mention the 17-pound British. How Churchill praised her, putting him on a par with the T-34 and Messer 109.
          1. Litsvin
            Litsvin 29 February 2016 12: 55
            +1
            Churchill praised a lot of things - a typical two-faced English personality. The demagogue, whose words very often diverged from deeds.
            Once the opponents of Churchill and the ruling coalition in the English parliament proposed to bring and put in front of the building of the English parliament a captured Tiger-1 and the best English tanks for a visual comparison. The action "visual comparison" was rejected due to inappropriateness and cost of transportation. Only a demagogue could compare his "17-pound mallet" with such masterpieces of weapons as the T-34 and Me-109.
    2. Alex
      Alex 27 February 2016 09: 48
      17
      Quote: aba
      Seem a small difference in caliber: 76 and 88, and the end result is significant.

      The gauge is linear and the area is square. Therefore, even a small increase in caliber leads to a significant increase in the cross-sectional area of ​​the projectile, and hence the mass, which is quite significant for an armor-piercing projectile. Plus Flak 18 - anti-aircraft gun with a breakneck projectile speed. Thus, what is said "with the world on a string", accumulates a large muzzle energy and significant momentum.

      Flak 18 was almost the only means of dealing with KV in the first stage of the war. Then, on its basis, they created the tank versions of the KwK 36 for the "Tiger" and "King Tiger".
      1. Stas57
        Stas57 27 February 2016 10: 44
        +1
        Flak 18 was almost the only means of dealing with KV in the first stage of the war. Then, on its basis, they created the tank versions of the KwK 36 for the "Tiger" and "King Tiger".

        10.5 leFH18
        10.5 K18
        15 sHF18
        1. Bersaglieri
          Bersaglieri 27 February 2016 10: 48
          0
          These are not mobile.
          1. Stas57
            Stas57 27 February 2016 11: 38
            0
            These are not mobile.

            less mobile than xnumx?
            Oh oh
        2. Alex
          Alex 27 February 2016 10: 55
          +2
          These are only mentioned in the general outline. It's like: "and also widely / successfully used ..." But in reality only "akht-aht" was quite mobile, powerful and "point-like".
          1. Stas57
            Stas57 27 February 2016 11: 39
            0
            Quote: Alex
            These are only mentioned in the general outline. It's like: "and also widely / successfully used ..." But in reality only "akht-aht" was quite mobile, powerful and "point-like".


            What is the bad mobility of the above guns?
            1. AK64
              AK64 27 February 2016 11: 57
              +3
              For the last two - in weight. Well, the 105mm howitzer KV actually didn’t take.

              And its rate of fire, as well as its ballistic characteristics, were not at all those that are desirable for anti-tank crews. (The ballistics and rate of fire of "88" was satisfactory for this purpose: the weight and price of the device were a disadvantage)
              1. Stas57
                Stas57 27 February 2016 12: 20
                0
                Quote: AK64
                For the last two - in weight.

                with what crossover?
                K18-Weight5,642 kg
                8.8 cm Flak 18-Weight7,407 kg

                Well, 105mm howitzer KV actually did not take.
                took the red fifth with 0,5-1km

                And its rate of fire, as well as its ballistic characteristics, were not at all those that are desirable for anti-tank crews. (The ballistics and rate of fire of "88" was satisfactory for this purpose: the weight and price of the device were a disadvantage)
                Well, yes, yes, poor ballistics, but I would not have discounted it because of the spread
                1. AK64
                  AK64 27 February 2016 13: 01
                  +2
                  with what crossover?
                  K18-Weight5,642 kg
                  8.8 cm Flak 18-Weight7,407 kg


                  On four wheels - or two.
                  In addition, the 105mm gun was by no means widely distributed on the Eastern Front: the total number of troops in 1941 is known to me, they were not provided for by the standard staff of the division, and only a few divisions had such divisions.
                  Therefore, there is much less information about the actions of 105mm cannons on tanks than about "88".


                  Well, yes, yes, poor ballistics, but I would not have discounted it because of the spread

                  They did not drop it: they put the 105mm howitzer on anti-tank positions. But the problems of howitzers against tanks, the low rate of fire and an erratic trajectory, are general and fundamental.

                  That is, they were put against tanks not at all from a good life.
                  1. Stas57
                    Stas57 27 February 2016 13: 22
                    +2
                    Quote: AK64
                    On four wheels - or two.
                    In addition, the 105mm gun was by no means widely distributed on the Eastern Front: the total number of troops in the 1941 is known to me, they were not provided for by the standard staff of the division, and only a few divisions had such


                    Xnumx cm were in all tank divisions (battery), as well as in the divisions of the RGK


                    Quote: AK64
                    Therefore, there is much less information about the actions of 105mm cannons on tanks than about "88".

                    only PR magic, someone worked - and someone created legends)
                    let's say, usually, etc. at the tip of the blow, which means that it has a standard K18 battery + most likely a K18 battery from the RGK + a 88 battery from the RGK, well, sFH18 and leFH18 on the suction))
                    here is one example of 10cm K18 on HF





                    Quote: AK64
                    They did not drop it: they put the 105mm howitzer on anti-tank positions. But the problems of howitzers against tanks, the low rate of fire and an erratic trajectory, are general and fundamental.

                    That is, they were put against tanks not at all from a good life.

                    Well, I’m not talking about a good life, I’m saying that these howitzers were in all traffic rules and so on, and that they could not only in theory but also in practice
                    1. AK64
                      AK64 27 February 2016 13: 59
                      0
                      10 cm were in all tank divisions (battery), as well as in RGK divisions

                      And where is so on, if you had to fight with Soviet tanks in the main way?

                      But that’s not even the point.
                      And the thing is the ability to create an adequate anti-tank defense. The fact is that 75 pieces of 37-mm anti-tank guns that were in German front end turned out to be helpless against the T-34 and KV - that’s the point. And 4 pieces of K18, simply due to the fact that there were ONLY FOUR pieces, this fact did not change in any way: four guns are simply not enough to build the defense of the division on them.


                      here is one example of 10cm K18 on HF

                      How do you know that this is her?


                      Well, I’m not talking about a good life, I’m saying that these howitzers were in all traffic rules and so on, and that they could not only in theory but also in practice

                      So they were put against the tanks: where are you going? But this is already an emergency use. And again: for the normal defense of the division - 75 anti-tank units: this created an adequate density of anti-tank fire. But 37mm anti-tank guns were practically powerless. Where so many 105mm howitzers to pick up?
                      1. Stas57
                        Stas57 27 February 2016 14: 25
                        0
                        Quote: AK64
                        And where is so on, if you had to fight with Soviet tanks in the main way?

                        when? in 41 this is not so; in 42 already

                        Quote: AK64
                        But that’s not even the point.
                        And the thing is the ability to create an adequate anti-tank defense. The fact is that 75 pieces of 37-mm anti-tank guns that were in German front end turned out to be helpless against the T-34 and KV - that’s the point. And 4 pieces of K18, simply due to the fact that there were ONLY FOUR pieces, this fact did not change in any way: four guns are simply not enough to build the defense of the division on them.

                        what division, in what period, in what place, what regiment, on what site? What were the terrain, mines, ravines, means of amplification, engineering zag, etc.?
                        give clear examples.

                        Quote: AK64
                        How do you know that this is her?

                        Well, you just google the picture and check
                        Quote: AK64
                        So they were put against the tanks: where are you going? But this is already an emergency use. And again: for the normal defense of the division - 75 anti-tank units: this created an adequate density of anti-tank fire. But 37mm anti-tank guns were practically powerless. Where so many 105mm howitzers to pick up?

                        nowhere, it was about
                        Flak 18 was almost the only means of combating HF at the first stage of the war.
                        I indicated what was still, and how bad it was for the Germans, is the second question.
                      2. AK64
                        AK64 27 February 2016 14: 39
                        +1
                        when? in 41 this is not so; in 42 already

                        Well, yes, yes ...
                        It was about the front that the Soviet mechanized corps crashed.

                        However, do not believe me - find Isaev Aleksey, he is kind and has a lot of time - he will tell.

                        what division, in what period, in what place, what regiment, on what site? What were the terrain, mines, ravines, means of amplification, engineering zag, etc.?
                        give clear examples.


                        And here the "examples"? An absolutely stupid calculation of the division's capabilities in defense.
                        The German frontline defense, say the 15 km lane, has the 75 anti-tank missile. She is attacked at the front by say 5 km tank division. Against 50 tanks (they don’t order charters to put more on 5 km) has 25 anti-tank vehicles (really a little more, but these are trifles).
                        This is not entirely adequate for itself, not enough, actually, we need "infantry means". But considering that in the case of Soviet tanks, 90% (!!!) of tanks were knocked out by 37-mm anti-tank vehicles without problems from any normal distances, this turns out to be above the roof: the remaining 10% can somehow be recaptured. But if all 50 KVs and T-34s turn out to be on the same site, then all that remains is to pray ... Because it is clear that even 4 K18s will not be able to cope with them in any way. And even 12 pieces can handle it.

                        We turn the table: a German TD is attacking a Soviet SD. For 15 km of the front, only 48 45-mm anti-tank vehicles, or 16 pieces in the attack area. Three tanks per cannon - this is a defeat at once, they will not hold back. And if we take into account the "quality" of the armor-piercing projectile ... And the infantry's lack of anti-tank weapons ...

                        That's all accounting.


                        Well, you just google the picture and check

                        How do they know?

                        nowhere, it was about
                        Flak 18 was almost the only means of combating HF at the first stage of the war.

                        And, well, there’s no reason to argue with this: people are too lazy to look at what was in the composition of the Wehrmacht (or so on) ...


                        I indicated what was still, and how bad it was for the Germans, is the second question.

                        I absolutely agree: that "nothing but" is a legend
                      3. Stas57
                        Stas57 27 February 2016 15: 00
                        0
                        Quote: AK64
                        Well, yes, yes ...
                        It was about the front that the Soviet mechanized corps crashed.

                        which Mk crashed into dozens of PDs, and now I remember that they crashed about TG, and this is far from pd, they ran across many and unsuccessfully.



                        Quote: AK64
                        And here the "examples"?

                        yes with the same read above
                        . And 4 pieces of K18, simply due to the fact that there were ONLY FOUR pieces, this fact did not change in any way: four guns are simply not enough to build the defense of the division on them.
                        stop, but 4 units K18, it’s still with the TD, which also had a tank regiment in the state.



                        Quote: AK64
                        How do they know?

                        google and find out, on the Varalbum this photo is lying. I will tell you, the answer is written on the tower.
                        Quote: AK64
                        And here the "examples"? An absolutely stupid calculation of the division's capabilities in defense.
                        The German frontline defense, say the 15 km lane, has the 75 anti-tank missile. She is attacked at the front by say 5 km tank division. Against 50 tanks (they don’t order charters to put more on 5 km) has 25 anti-tank vehicles (really a little more, but these are trifles).

                        stop, this is a spherical horse on a spherical globe with the same owl.

                        for example, under Rzhev, Leningrad or Smolensk, all these imaginary km in real life will stumble into one single bridge or isthmus of ravines, where I would concentrate the main point.

                        Quote: AK64
                        This is not entirely adequate for itself, not enough, actually, we need "infantry means". But considering that in the case of Soviet tanks, 90% (!!!) of tanks were knocked out by 37-mm anti-tank vehicles without problems from any normal distances, this turns out to be above the roof: the remaining 10% can somehow be recaptured. But if all 50 KVs and T-34s turn out to be on the same site, then all that remains is to pray ... Because it is clear that even 4 K18s will not be able to cope with them in any way. And even 12 pieces can handle it.

                        another fabulous reality, where did you come from in the tbr, and in td 50 KV and T-34 ?!
                      4. AK64
                        AK64 27 February 2016 15: 22
                        +1
                        which Mk crashed into dozens of PDs, and now I remember that they crashed about TG, and this is far from pd, they ran across many and unsuccessfully.


                        Uh-uh - uh-uh ... This is for you to Isaev, he likes to talk about it.
                        (I don’t like it.)
                        For example, the counterattack of the Boldin group, consisting of the 6 and 11 mk, and 6 mk. The blow was inflicted on the Suvadka ledge. Goth by that time went far ahead, and stood against the Soviet mk.
                        You can read how it looked "from the other side" from Carius (or whatever his name is): "fortunately the roar of fire drowned out the screams of the tankers." The Soviet mk just crashed on the German front lines.



                        Quote: AK64
                        And here the "examples"?


                        stop, but 4 units K18, it’s still with the TD, which also had a tank regiment in the state.

                        That is why to emphasize exactly these 4 k18 and it is not clear why: "there is also a tank regiment there!" (in the regular composition of 222 tanks, if three-battalion, or about 170 units - if two-battalion)
                        And 75 pieces of 37mm PTP again
                        And where does 4 pieces K18?

                        stop, this is a spherical horse on a spherical globe with the same owl.


                        The necessary means of the division and their staff is calculated approximately in this way.
                        Of course, the General Staffs do this more subtlely, but the essence of the calculation is approximately as follows.
                        It is on the basis of such calculations that tasks are set for divisions.

                        for example, under Rzhev, Leningrad or Smolensk, all these imaginary km in real life will stumble into one single bridge or isthmus of ravines, where I would concentrate the main point.

                        Why consider “special cases” without looking at “regular” first?
                        If you have a river, then most likely you will be cut a defense line much wider, that's all.

                        another fabulous reality, where did you come from in the tbr, and in td 50 KV and T-34 ?!


                        That is why I used subjunctive mood:
                        "If only ..." And in real life, the T-34 and KV had only 10% of the tank fleet - and the rest were knocked out by regular means with 200% efficiency
                        (just do not say that 200% does not happen)
                      5. Stas57
                        Stas57 27 February 2016 16: 28
                        0
                        Quote: AK64
                        Why consider “special cases” without looking at “regular” first?
                        If you have a river, then most likely you will be cut a defense line much wider, that's all.

                        this is an ordinary example.
                        Quote: AK64
                        That is why to emphasize exactly these 4 k18 and it is not clear why: "there is also a tank regiment there!" (in the regular composition of 222 tanks, if three-battalion, or about 170 units - if two-battalion)
                        And 75 pieces of 37mm PTP again
                        And where does 4 pieces K18?

                        I don’t know, but you clung to them, for example, I remember about 5, and about 7.5, and about 10.5, and about 15cm
                        Quote: AK64
                        For example, the counterattack of the Boldin group, consisting of the 6 and 11 mk, and 6 mk. The blow was inflicted on the Suvadka ledge. Goth by that time went far ahead, and stood against the Soviet mk.

                        there was actually a wild cross, well, I realized that this is not yours
                      6. AK64
                        AK64 27 February 2016 16: 43
                        +2
                        I don’t know, but you clung to them, for example, I remember about 5, and about 7.5, and about 10.5, and about 15cm


                        Well, don't - I didn't "grab"! You yourself asked .. someone there "than immobile." I told you "by weight". And this answer is correct.

                        It's not about a fundamental possibility / impossibility, namely, "not mobile enough". (Ideally, the PTP should change position by the forces of calculation.)

                        I'm not saying that they were not used. Just if I use howitzers, then this means that regular means are already powerless. Which in itself creates a completely different situation at the front.
                      7. Stas57
                        Stas57 27 February 2016 17: 03
                        0
                        Quote: AK64
                        Well, don't - I didn't "grab"! You yourself asked .. someone there "than immobile." I told you "by weight". And this answer is correct.

                        Is the fig correct if they are 1.5 tons lighter than 88?
                        Quote: AK64
                        It's not about a fundamental possibility / impossibility, namely, "not mobile enough". (Ideally, the PTP should change position by the forces of calculation.)

                        at xNUMX calculation 18 people are quite capable of both deploying and digging.
                        Quote: AK64
                        I'm not saying that they were not used. Just if I use howitzers, then this means that regular means are already powerless. Which in itself creates a completely different situation at the front.

                        I use everything, including infantry stray.
                        the total number of HF and K18, sHf, leFН was approximately proportional to each other
                      8. AK64
                        AK64 27 February 2016 17: 57
                        +2
                        Is the fig correct if they are 1.5 tons lighter than 88?


                        I didn’t roll Flack or K18 across the field. But in general, I have the impression that due to the fact that the Flac 4 has wheels, it was easier to ride.

                        at xNUMX calculation 18 people are quite capable of both deploying and digging.

                        I said "change position", not "deploy and dig in."
                        "Change position" is to roll out from the yard, roll 150 meters to the left (or right), where another yard has already been dug out in advance.

                        The navels of IMHO will be unleashed for both K18 and Flac, about the same. But at least Flack did not need to deploy. (Essentially a trifle, but still)

                        the total number of HF and K18, sHf, leFН was approximately proportional to each other

                        If we talk about quantities, then in this list leFН quietly outweighs everything else, and the CV by the number of pieces covers an order of magnitude.
                      9. Stas57
                        Stas57 27 February 2016 18: 20
                        0
                        Quote: AK64
                        I didn’t roll Flack or K18 across the field. But in general, I have the impression that due to the fact that the Flac 4 has wheels, it was easier to ride.

                        K18 was collapsible



                        Quote: AK64
                        I said "change position", not "deploy and dig in."
                        "Change position" is to roll out from the yard, roll 150 meters to the left (or right), where another yard has already been dug out in advance.

                        I don't ctrl + f give a search for the word "change position" other than this post.)))

                        Well, not the point, yes, 88 the same calculation did not roll across the field back and forth *, at best on the asphalt and move a little, but obviously not "with fire and wheels."
                        call 10 cm K18 less mobile than Flak88 at least strange)) both are definitely not pack 36 or 45.

                        * especially in this form
                    2. The comment was deleted.
                2. AK64
                  AK64 27 February 2016 16: 46
                  +1
                  there was actually a wild cross, well, I realized that this is not yours


                  Yes, what a "cross": the usual counterstrike for 41.
                  Isaev loves this example because it fits perfectly into his "theory" that "the infantry has worn down the tanks."

                  (I myself consider such views somewhat extreme and slightly one-sided, but as a whole, most of the Soviet TDs in the 41st crashed into infantry or scattered on marches)
          2. shasherin.pavel
            shasherin.pavel 28 February 2016 10: 49
            0
            Quote: AK64
            Three tanks per gun --- this is a rout immediately, they won’t hold. BUT

            General statistics say that one killed P.T.P. caliber 45 mm accounts for three enemy tanks.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Cap.Morgan
    Cap.Morgan 27 February 2016 18: 05
    0
    Somehow I can’t believe that the German 105 graph paper did not take HF.)))
    1. karbine
      karbine 27 February 2016 19: 13
      0
      Quote: Cap.Morgan
      Somehow I can’t believe that the German 105 graph paper did not take HF.)))

      I took it, why not? But the Germans had only 105 mm cannons, and 105 mm howitzers weren’t easy to get into the tank. But if you get there, then the tank will at least become.
    2. AK64
      AK64 27 February 2016 20: 27
      0
      Somehow I can’t believe that the German 105 graph paper did not take HF.)))


      So howitzer. It's about the howitzer. Why should she have taken? It’s not caliber that breaks through, but energy and momentum. (Well, or a jet of cumulative ammunition)

      However, stas57 has already noticed that "took the red fifth from 0,5-1km"
      About a kilometer, I personally do not believe it, but rummaging through and checking me is too lazy. It’s easier to agree.
  • Alf
    Alf 27 February 2016 17: 26
    0
    Quote: Stas57
    10.5 leFH18
    и
    Quote: Stas57
    15 sHF18
    howitzers, by their principle, are little suitable for fighting tanks.
    Rђ RІRѕS,
    Quote: Stas57
    10.5 K18
    really serious thing.
    1. Stas57
      Stas57 27 February 2016 17: 43
      +1
      the question was that Flak 18 were almost the only a means of combating HF at the first stage of the war.
      I pointed out that this is not entirely true
      1. Alex
        Alex 28 February 2016 13: 24
        +1
        Quote: Stas57
        I pointed out that this is not entirely true

        So no one seemed to claim its exclusivity. Or a word almost doesn't mean there are options? However, there is a proposal: let someone with information and knowledge write an article about the use of means of fighting Soviet tanks at the "blitzkrieg" stage. Did our TDs crash only on "flacks"? There are fragmentary information, but I have not read a detailed analysis. It would be interesting.
        1. Stas57
          Stas57 28 February 2016 15: 11
          0
          Quote: Alex
          does the existence of options almost mean?

          means that 88 was the main thing and everything else was secondary and insignificant, in practice, depending on various factors (location, time, etc.), the main means against medium and heavy tanks was either the standard 3,7 / 5,0 anti-tank or tanks or regular for pz .div. armament artillery regiment.
          88 is a means of amplification from the RGC, and it was not always and not everywhere, unlike.

          Did our TDs crash only on "flacks"? There are fragmentary information, but I have not read a detailed analysis. It would be interesting.
          about the structure, organization and roads they fought, first of all.
          in the second about PTO, classic artillery, grenades, and even axes.
  • carbine
    carbine 27 February 2016 12: 28
    +2
    Quote: Alex
    Caliber is a linear characteristic, and the area is quadratic.

    And the mass of shells is generally cubic.
    1. Alex
      Alex 27 February 2016 12: 40
      +4
      Quote: carbine
      And the mass of shells is generally cubic.

      I agree, but here we must take into account the fact that the length of the projectile does not necessarily correspond to the caliber in the same proportion. So as you can see, increasing the caliber is a more profitable step compared to increasing the length of the barrel. But then their own nuances appear: weight, ammunition, ease of loading (you can’t deploy much in a tank), rate of fire, the ability to operate automation, and a host of other aspects.
    2. Proxima
      Proxima 27 February 2016 13: 30
      0
      Quote: carbine

      And the mass of shells is generally cubic.

      Cheap Troll, did you go through geometry with physics? MASS AND VOLUME - DIFFERENT CONCEPTS!
      1. Alex
        Alex 27 February 2016 13: 39
        +4
        Quote: Proxima
        MASS AND VOLUME - DIFFERENT CONCEPTS!

        For homogeneous bodies made of the same material - interconnected. Through density, which is the ratio of mass to volume. True, it is impossible to consider a shell to be a homogeneous body, of course, therefore there can be (and in practice is) deviations of t unambiguous mathematical correspondences.
      2. karbine
        karbine 27 February 2016 19: 17
        0
        Quote: Proxima
        Cheap Troll, did you go through geometry with physics? MASS AND VOLUME - DIFFERENT CONCEPTS!

        Actually, I set out things that are known to any worn-out gunsmith without special education. Always and everywhere, the dependence of projectile weight on caliber is considered so. And more precisely, it is already regulated by the length of the projectile. So that's it, dear you are our Troll.
      3. The comment was deleted.
  • Litsvin
    Litsvin 29 February 2016 13: 26
    0
    "Flak 18s were almost the only means of dealing with KVs at the first stage of the war" - you are right, among the guns that hit "KV" at long and medium distances - yes. A little later (late 1941), 75mm KWK 40 tank guns with a 43 caliber long barrel appeared. These guns, installed in "Shtugi" and "T-4", effectively fought against "KV" tanks at medium distances in conditions of maneuverable tank battle.
    The second effective means of fighting the "KV" were "Stuka" - dive bombers Ju-87. German pilots managed to "put" dive bombs in a circle with a diameter of 10 m - more than enough for any tank. The literature contains numerous descriptions of the effectiveness of the Yu-87 raids on tank subunits. The Germans tried out the tactics of fighting tanks with the help of dive bombers back in France. There are photographs where our "KVs" lie overturned on their side or on the roof - these were the Junkers "worked". The effectiveness of the raids was very high due to the training of German pilots - until 1941 the duration of training flights in the Luftwaffe dive aviation was 420 (FOUR AND TWENTY !!!!) hours. This is even more than in fighter training units - 400 hours. My grandfather once said that our taxi drivers were afraid of dive-bombers as well as 88mm German guns. There was even such a rule - when moving on the march with the threat of a Ju-87 raid, quickly disperse the tanks, the crews to leave the vehicles and take cover. When the tank was defeated, the crew remained intact.
    Well, and the third means of dealing with "KV" in the initial period of the war - "a gallant, brave German grenadier with a box of explosives." True, the Germans didn't have many such "gallant grenadiers" who wanted to fight the "Russian monster" KV ". smile
  • carbine
    carbine 27 February 2016 12: 08
    0
    Quote: aba
    Seem a slight difference in caliber: 76 and 88,

    Wow, small. Huge actually. To evaluate this difference, raise these numbers into a cube. After this, the difference can be estimated more or less clearly.
    1. Proxima
      Proxima 27 February 2016 13: 03
      0
      Quote: carbine
      Quote: aba
      Seem a slight difference in caliber: 76 and 88,

      To evaluate this difference, raise these numbers into a cube.

      You won’t get off even with a cube. It is necessary to consider a minimum as the volume of the cylinder, where the caliber will be its base.
    2. Alex
      Alex 27 February 2016 13: 16
      +5
      Colleagues, I did it offhand. The ratio of calibers 75 and 88 mm is 1,17. If we take a proportional increase in mass, then for an AP projectile with a ballistic tip (Vicki's data), an increase in mass from 7,2 kg should be 11,51 kg, while for the Tiger the projectile weight was 10,9 kg. In general and in general, the numbers are quite comparable, the difference can be fully attributed to technological and design features.

      Thank you all for the discussion.
      1. karbine
        karbine 27 February 2016 19: 24
        0
        Quote: Alex
        On the whole and in general, the figures are quite comparable, the difference can be fully attributed to technological and structural features.

        The length of the shells is different. In calibers. If you bring to the same length, then just about what happens. The method, of course, is crude. But for rough estimates, it is quite common and well-known.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  • major124
    major124 27 February 2016 20: 36
    0
    The length of the sleeve to 8,8 mm - 57 cm, and to 76,2 - 40 cm .... the difference is palpable .... Well then the diameter, length and weight of the warhead ...
  • HMR333
    HMR333 27 February 2016 22: 56
    0
    It’s not only the caliber but also the length of the barrel, but it was a huge difference, I mean! Of course, speed and accuracy as well as breakdown power grew at times!
  • shasherin.pavel
    shasherin.pavel 28 February 2016 09: 24
    0
    We need to look at the Wehrmacht trophies, redone F-22, there is such a sleeve for the 76 mm gun! Just as the designer intended, creating a gun for the 76 mm anti-aircraft gun shell, and he was forced to use a three-inch projectile. Then, during the war, the designers were asked if it was possible to return to the production of the F-22 under a new shell, to use it against the Tigers, but this threatened to stop the conveyor of the ZiS-3 gun. Well, as for the caliber: a half-liter bottle corresponds to the caliber of 76 mm, but Yessentuki's plastic on 1.5 liter is close to 85 mm. And if you look carefully, you can see that the sleeve from 8.8 is cm in the Tiger, it is shorter than the sleeve 85 mm for the T-34. And again, in which ... I want to tell you that there is a difference in measuring calibers in the West and in the Russian Empire, the USSR and the Russian Federation: we measure the projectile along the shell of the shell, and in the west the caliber includes a copper belt, which is 85 caliber is 1.5 mm in height and 3 mm in circumference. Initially, the 85 caliber is a German projectile for the upgraded 8.8 anti-aircraft gun. The USSR bought a license for the production of the German anti-aircraft gun 75 mm, and was issued as 76 mm, that is adapted. under our caliber, which came another three-inch. But then there was no 85 caliber, therefore, from the 88-mm caliber of the German anti-aircraft gun, they threw out 3 mm, a copper belt and received 85 mm. It was the difference in measurement that led to the legend that in the Russian Empire they bought an English 47-mm sea gun and grind a copper belt on shells up to the caliber 45-mm. For the caliber 47-mm, the copper strip is 1-mm in height and 2 mm in circumference, which is 45-mm in our specifications.
    1. karbine
      karbine 28 February 2016 12: 00
      0
      Quote: shasherin.pavel
      We need to look at the Wehrmacht trophies, redone F-22, there is such a sleeve for a 76 mm gun

      In the predetermined F-22, the original cartridges were used on the serial PaK40 715x100 mm sleeve, while the "native" was 385x90 ​​mm. The chamber was being bored, since Grabin apparently could not calculate the barrel. Or wrong in the calculations.
      Quote: shasherin.pavel
      Just as the designer intended, creating a gun for a 76 mm anti-aircraft gun shell, and he was forced to use a three-inch shell.

      He came up with this story only later. If Grabin had planned this, then when the F-22 was put into production on the "divisional" cartridge, the thickness of the walls would have been reduced for it. He just allowed a marriage at work, and then got out as best he could.
      Quote: shasherin.pavel
      Then, during the war, the designers were asked if it was possible to return to the production of the F-22 under a new shell, to use it against the Tigers, but this threatened to stop the conveyor of the ZiS-3 gun.

      Check out how much each F-22 barrel cost the USSR. They would probably be cheaper from pure gold. In addition, the 57-mm ZIS-2, their production was restored in 1943, pierced much more than the 76-mm F-22, even on the "anti-aircraft" cartridge.
      Quote: shasherin.pavel
      The USSR bought a license for the production of the German anti-aircraft gun 75 mm, and produced as 76 mm,

      The USSR bought a license to manufacture a 76-mm anti-aircraft gun. And the Germans made such a gun from their 88-mm by drilling a "hole" of a smaller diameter, and sawing off a part of the barrel lengthwise. In 1938. this fact was revealed, and everything returned to normal, incl. the workpieces have become longer, and the "hole" has become the same. This is how the 85-mm anti-aircraft gun 52-K appeared. And so that the carriage did not fall apart, a diesel fuel was attached to it.
      Tagunov, by the way, the Germans, the receiver of 76 mm 3-K, was shot at about the same time. I don’t know, maybe because I didn’t calculate the 3-K barrel, as a result, a lot of extra high-quality metal was spent on production. And this is wrecking.
      The Germans captured Soviet 76 and 85-mm anti-aircraft guns bore into their caliber and used.
      Quote: shasherin.pavel
      It was the difference in measurement that led to the legend that in the Russian Empire they bought an English 47-mm naval cannon and grind a copper belt on shells to a caliber of 45 mm. For the caliber, the 47-mm copper band is 1 mm in height and 2 mm in circumference, which is 45 mm in our specifications.

      Actually, for 45 matches 47 mm shells of sea Hotchkiss were transferred. These guns were made in Russia and many shells remained for them. The body of shells (not belts) was 46,5 mm in diameter. But in its pure form, the 47-mm gun on such cartridges (ancient) would be already weak. Therefore, the Germans from BYUTAST, having studied the shells, suggested grinding 0,75 mm around the circumference of the BODY OF Shells, which is why they became a 45-mm caliber. And the gun received excellent anti-tank characteristics.
      1. karbine
        karbine 28 February 2016 23: 41
        0
        Quote: karbine
        The Germans captured Soviet 76 and 85-mm anti-aircraft guns bore into their caliber and used.

        Here are the data on the bore of the Soviet 76-mm anti-aircraft guns.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 27 February 2016 07: 19
    22
    In the right hands and when used correctly, any weapon becomes lethal. Not to mention the KV-1. Yes, the tank is heavy, but this is a heavy tank. Its task is to break through the lines of fortifications, and not rush through the fields. And let the "thirty-fours" enter the breakthrough and go out into the operational space and use their advantages. This also needs to be understood, but we have everything - if a tank, then it must be super - be able to run fast, have powerful weapons, and resist enemy shells. I will not tire of repeating that any weapon is a compromise of characteristics and capabilities. And sometimes, in order to achieve some, you need to sacrifice others. The question is what do you want to get at the end. So the KV-1 is essentially a powerful and invulnerable (for the period of the outbreak of war) machine. We had to pay for this with mass and mobility, but it so happened that we did not take part in breaking through the defensive lines. Rather retreating. But here it was possible to successfully use the HF. As shown by the battle at Rasseny. But here it is rather a coincidence.
    And so the car is excellent, if you use it for its intended purpose. Although then there were no trailers capable of bringing tanks to the battlefield, so I had to drive on my own, which led to frequent breakdowns, as a result. But it is, thoughts aloud.
    Article plus, tank five plus smile
    1. Proxima
      Proxima 27 February 2016 11: 15
      +4
      Quote: Rurikovich

      And so the car is excellent, if you use it for its intended purpose.

      Who would argue. The KV-1 became "bad" only for one reason - the "thirty-four" was too good. Katukov told Stalin that "we would put up with the shortcomings of the KV, if it were compensated by the FIRING POWER OF THE TANK." The low-power cannon is definitely the "Achilles heel" of the KV-1.
      1. Stas57
        Stas57 27 February 2016 11: 40
        +1
        Who would argue. The KV-1 became "bad" only for one reason - the "thirty-four" was too good.

        guess what the lined HF is evacuated from the field?
        and immediately the second riddle, what will happen to the tow truck after the process?
        1. Proxima
          Proxima 27 February 2016 12: 26
          +1
          Quote: Stas57

          guess what the lined HF is evacuated from the field?
          and immediately the second riddle, what will happen to the tow truck after the process?

          In theory, it should be evacuated by the Voroshilovets tractor, in practice - by another KV-shkoy. What then happens to the towing HF - everyone guesses - it will also need to be towed later. Yes, and with "Voroshilovts" not everything is so smooth, it pulls the KV only on a normal road, for example, on arable land, no longer.
          1. Stas57
            Stas57 27 February 2016 12: 35
            -1
            Quote: Proxima
            In theory, it should be evacuated by the Voroshilovets tractor, in practice - by another KV-shkoy. What then happens to the towing HF - everyone guesses - it will also need to be towed later. Yes, and with "Voroshilovts" not everything is so smooth, it pulls the KV only on a normal road, for example, on arable land, no longer.

            Bingo, one HF is if the conditions are good, and in gear, in a ravine, two
            Voroshilovites simply did not have enough, and then yes, both for repair
          2. shasherin.pavel
            shasherin.pavel 28 February 2016 11: 23
            +1
            Quote: Proxima
            towing HF - everyone guesses - it will also need to be towed later

            Are you not reading memoirs !? completely or just journalism? Tigers from the battlefield on the Leningrad Front than pulled? Two HF pulled out an 57-ton hulk with a damaged chassis. At the same time, the left-hand track rollers without a caterpillar and with an external roller deployed at 90 degrees left a half-meter trench. The Tiger VIH tank, left by the crew, evacuated one HF and delivered it to the railway station without any effort. This tank under serial number 00003 was exhibited in Gorky Park. In 1944, the documents of this division were seized, where this tank was listed in a lengthy repair.
            1. Stas57
              Stas57 28 February 2016 12: 05
              0
              Quote: shasherin.pavel
              Are you not reading memoirs !? completely or just journalism?

              memoirs = fairy tales
      2. carbine
        carbine 27 February 2016 12: 38
        -8
        Quote: Proxima
        The KV-1 became "bad" only for one reason - the "thirty-four" was too good.

        Enchanting nonsense. The usual Soviet pre-war city. Moreover, given the origin (Kharkov), then the city is squared. Of course, the KV from LKZ (still a "firm") was structurally much better than the T-34. But he had his shoals.
        Quote: Proxima
        Katukov told Stalin

        Have you been present? Are you sure that Katukov demanded to replace tanks with thick armor with tanks with thin? Tanks with normal crew, tanks with trimmed? I’m just sure of the opposite.
        1. Proxima
          Proxima 27 February 2016 13: 19
          +4
          Quote: carbine
          [
          Enchanting nonsense. Plain Soviet pre-war g (pro T-34)

          Base troll, dear. With such cheap posts, your payroll curators will definitely not take you. I have one question for you. Can you name at least one WWII tank that would surpass the T-34 in global EFFICIENCY (production, operation, performance characteristics, etc.)?
          1. AK64
            AK64 27 February 2016 13: 32
            +5
            Quote: carbine
            Enchanting nonsense. Plain Soviet pre-war g (pro T-34)


            Base troll, dear. With such cheap posts, your payroll curators will definitely not take you.


            By the way, it also seemed to me that a friend was at work. That is, judging by the amount of time he spends here, these are his main responsibilities, and he has no other business at all.

            You will pay attention to time and perseverance: some amateur would have spat for a long time ...

            I have one question for you. Can you name at least one WWII tank that would surpass the T-34 in global EFFICIENCY (production, operation, performance characteristics, etc.)?

            Sherman.

            Yes, and the same Panther, for that matter.

            The T-34 was only good for the Russians: for Soviet production and for Soviet crews.
            The T-34 was also undoubtedly a huge progress from everything that was before: and before it were essentially only BT and T-26. (Well, plus the 500 T-28 - a good tank by the way, but much more expensive than the T-34 and much more difficult to manufacture)
            1. Proxima
              Proxima 27 February 2016 14: 00
              0
              Quote: AK64

              Sherman.

              Yes, and the same Panther, for that matter.


              About "Sherman" - in a nutshell you can not refute, there is no time, but about "Panther" - an extremely INEFFECTIVE TANK. Bold minuses "Panther" for: WEIGHT CHARACTERISTICS ("medium" tank after all); EXPENSIVE PRODUCTION AND as a consequence of this, a small circulation of the produced tanks (production of "Panthers" and T-34 was like 1:14 !!!); low maintainability, unreliability in operation, small caliber (especially, this affected the high-explosive fragmentation action of the projectile), etc.
              1. AK64
                AK64 27 February 2016 14: 57
                +1
                About "Sherman" - in a nutshell, you can not refute, there is no time,

                And there is no need to "refute": the Sherman is quite a successful tank, and in many ways is better than the T-34. (In some ways it is worse, but "on the whole in terms of the balance of criteria" it quite adequately calls into question "give an example ...")

                that's about the "Panther" - an extremely INEFFECTIVE TANK.

                I'm afraid that too many will not disagree with you

                Fat cons "Panther" for: WEIGHT CHARACTERISTICS ("medium" tank after all);

                And what's the problem with weight? Well, the T-72 also weighs 44 tons - is that bad?

                Weight alone is neither bad nor good. Weight creates problems - that's all. But the Germans solved these problems: Panther, regardless of weight - flying. (But KV, at the same weight, ate crawling.)

                EXPENSIVE PRODUCTION AND as a consequence of this, a small circulation of the produced tanks (production of "Panthers" and T-34 was like 1:14 !!!);

                This is YOU how do you think something? Over a year and a half (just a year and a half) of production, more than 6 K Panthers were produced. T-34 for TWO years was produced about 28-30 thousand units.
                And this despite the fact that the production of T-34 was debugged by that time, and the Panthers had only been launched for almost a year.
                So, even if you take not one and a half years of Panther production, but two (which is wrong, actually), then only 1 to 5 will work out.

                You’ve got a mistake, my dear Sir.

                (You could add 400 more Yargpanter, well, God be with them, and without that it’s clear that your accounting department is limping on both legs.)

                low maintainability

                Absolute untruth.
                Oh yes, they also had to remove five wheels if the camera but the fact that they pierced the side ...

                Yes, but they just didn’t prick their cameras = that wasn’t, sir.

                unreliable operation,

                Again twenty-five ...
                That's really valid: the T-34, which even in the 45th with difficulty 1500 km without serious damage nursed - you have a model of reliability; and Panther, which regularly ran 3000 overhaul mileage - suddenly yes fragile ....

                Double standards, however. No?

                small caliber (especially, this affected the high-explosive fragmentation of the projectile), etc.


                At your leisure, take an interest in the high-explosive fragmentation effect of an 85mm shell - this is an old chip in which all newcomers to all tank forums are poked. If it is simpler: the real high-explosive fragmentation effect of the Soviet 85mm projectile was only slightly better than the Soviet 76mm projectile. Despite the fact that the latter was like dirt, and they cost once cheaper. And in the tank they fit almost twice as much.

                So that.

                And the Germans also had the SLA was excellent, which allowed them, for example, even from 37mm (with its insignificant high-explosive fragmentation!) With T-3 to knock out machine guns from 1-2 shots.
                The T-34s couldn’t do this, although the shell was much more powerful.

                So do not retell the legends: the Panther was simply a tank of another generation: with the change of generation, the price and complexity increase - but the weapons of the previous generation do not play against the new at all.
                1. Proxima
                  Proxima 27 February 2016 17: 10
                  +1
                  Quote: AK64
                  And what's the problem with weight? Well, the T-72 also weighs 44 tons - is that bad?

                  A large tank mass is BAD, even under the condition of comparable ground pressure (bridges, transportation by rail, etc.). If the Panther has the same mass as a heavy tank, then let it be classified accordingly. Then all questions regarding the "duel" single combats of T-34 and Panther will be removed. In general, of the disadvantages of PANTHER, I did not mention a lot of little things. Take at least such a "trifle" as the cruising range (80 km over the intersection) - this is not at all into any gate, for a "tank of the future"! And on the water of the number of produced tanks - complete illiteracy! The number of Panthers released is less than 6 thousand, and not like yours - 30 thousand! Even if we take the issue by years, the ratio will not be 1:14, but 1: 8. What difference does it make for you? Does it make a difference for you which block to be crushed is 14 tonne or 8 tonne? The T-34, in any case, was always larger, and this is a huge plus! So, dear, place your "other generation" tank in the trash heap!
                  1. Cap.Morgan
                    Cap.Morgan 27 February 2016 18: 31
                    0
                    I’ll insert my 5 cents.
                    Panther has embodied many innovations.
                    Incredibly effective gun. Rational slopes of the armor, and with powerful frontal armor. Application on the latest modifications of infrared equipment.
                    Cruising cross country is low for any tank.
                    So if you look at the design itself, then the Panther tank is unusually effective.
                    But other factors often play a role in war. Cost. Maintainability. Manufacturability. In these factors, the USSR certainly exceeded Germany.
                    10 T-34s were more effective than one Panther.
                    1. AK64
                      AK64 27 February 2016 18: 53
                      +1
                      Rational armor tilts
                      ,
                      Hehe ... Drawn from the T-34, and to the smallest detail.
                      And the inclinations are NOT rational for the Panther: the PDA in front did not allow the frontal sheet to be tilted as we would like.

                      Application on the latest modifications of infrared equipment.

                      Et yes: there were many new baubles ...

                      But other factors often play a role in war. Cost. Maintainability. Manufacturability. In these factors, the USSR certainly exceeded Germany.

                      Not obvious: say Panthers broke much less than the T-34.
                      At the "reliable" T-34, the overhaul mileage was only brought to an acceptable 1500 by the end of the war. The Panther did not have such problems, it passed 3000. So why do they need "maintainability" if it doesn't break?
                      And for the price: all the same, Germany was at a significantly higher level of industrial development and could afford to pay more for quality.
                      That is, it is difficult to compare the devices created for production at different levels of the industry.

                      The T-34 is a brilliant tank - but it is brilliant precisely for the USSR, with precisely the Soviet state of industry.

                      10 T-34s were more effective than one Panther.

                      Hehe ... But to "10 T-34" it would be necessary to add "10 Shermans" - that would be more accurate ... But it’s hard to disagree: the Germans did not succeed in saturating them with quantity.
                      (And thank God that is so!)
                      1. Cap.Morgan
                        Cap.Morgan 27 February 2016 20: 07
                        0
                        Well, yes.
                        I will only add that Germany could not in principle surpass the Allies in the number of tanks and self-propelled guns produced, as well as other military equipment. The logical way out of this situation was to develop better, more modern weapons. Here are just the Germans could not establish the production of these complex weapons in sufficient quantities. There was not enough time to refine technologically sophisticated new designs.
                      2. karbine
                        karbine 27 February 2016 20: 12
                        +1
                        Quote: Cap.Morgan
                        that Germany could not in principle surpass the Allies in the number of tanks and self-propelled guns produced, as well as other military equipment.

                        Of course. The allied potential did not compare with the industrial potential of the Axis countries.
                        Quote: Cap.Morgan
                        The logical way out of this situation was to develop better, more modern weapons.

                        Which they did. For example, Panther.
                        Quote: Cap.Morgan
                        Here are just the Germans could not establish the production of these complex weapons in sufficient quantities.

                        Of course. The allies simply crushed the Axis countries with prom and mobility potentials.
                      3. AK64
                        AK64 27 February 2016 20: 32
                        +1
                        I will only add that Germany could not in principle surpass the Allies in the number of tanks and self-propelled guns produced, as well as other military equipment. The logical way out of this situation was to develop better, more modern weapons. Here are just the Germans could not establish the production of these complex weapons in sufficient quantities. There was not enough time to refine technologically sophisticated new designs.


                        So they thought the same way ...

                        Here's the thing:
                        1. even Hitler understood that Germany would lose a protracted war.
                        2. And therefore, the only chance is a quick war.
                        3. And therefore, it makes no sense to plan a protracted war - because see paragraph 1.

                        Well, it turned out ... you know how.

                        In principle, the Germans lost the war - losing the battle of Moscow: after that, their defeat was only a matter of time. (Well, for the USSR, it was of course the issue of losses of the USSR as well.)
                      4. Alf
                        Alf 27 February 2016 23: 00
                        0
                        Quote: AK64
                        In principle, the Germans lost the war - losing the battle of Moscow

                        The Germans lost the war back in August 1941. About this there is an entry in the diary of Manstein on August 23, 1941. It is not known how many troops will be needed for military operations next year.
                        And this is a signal that the blitzkrieg failed, and the Reich had no other ways to win the war.
                      5. AK64
                        AK64 27 February 2016 23: 15
                        0
                        The Germans lost the war back in August 1941.


                        You still laugh, but there is an opinion that the Germans lost the war in August 1940 - losing the Battle of Britain.

                        I just didn’t voice this opinion as ... too radical.

                        So let’s stop at the Battle of Moscow: if they had suddenly taken it, then there would have been options.
                      6. shasherin.pavel
                        shasherin.pavel 28 February 2016 12: 39
                        +1
                        Quote: AK64
                        Battle of Britain.
                        ???? !!!!
                        What do you call "battle"? 200 fighters against German bombers! Is this a "battle"? What then did we have at Stalingrad? Which lasted six months, occupied the territory of six France, 1,5 million participants! This is MEGA BATTLE, SUPERMEGA BATTLE. And the Kursk Bulge! what should I call her? When a three-month-old kitten grappled with a huge rat in the village of an aunt, and they scattered all the buckets and milk boxes, scattered rakes on shovels in the entryway, the roar was that adults were scared awake. We jumped out into the hallway, and there the rat is trying to climb into the hole, and the Gypsy sits on its back, grabbed the rat by the scruff of the neck and rests against the wall with its paws so that the rat will not be allowed into the hole. That was a battle !!! and when Great Britain, over which the Sun does not set, fights off German bombers in the air and does not fight on the ground, this is a battle, while giving way to the "Air Battle over the Kuban". It was a battle where the Luftwaffe was defeated. And Britain's millet was driven to the island and they spit on it, as Raikin said: "He shouts at him .. No respect." No movie "Battle of Britain" I like, but I understand that all the heroes of this battle fit in one photo with Winston Churchill. This is not a battle, this is air combat.
                      7. karbine
                        karbine 28 February 2016 13: 13
                        -1
                        Quote: shasherin.pavel
                        What do you call "battle"? 200 fighters against German bombers! Is this a "battle"?

                        Battle of Britain in 1940 was. And no need to fantasize about "200 fighters". She had a gigantic meaning for the subsequent development of history. The Germans lost it, after which Hitler realized that it would not be possible to force the channel on the oared launches, the Royal Flint would crush it. And the Luftwaffe will not be able to prevent it from the air.
                        Therefore, a blitzkrieg plan arose in the USSR, and then a planned siege of Britain.
              2. shasherin.pavel
                shasherin.pavel 28 February 2016 12: 16
                -1
                Quote: Cap.Morgan
                that Germany could not in principle surpass the allies

                This means: I have a sword and a shield, and you only have a "cut cucumber" knife and you decide to attack me? Well, this is possible only if you do not see the enemy's growth because of the shield, suddenly there is a child hiding, and if you see that you have a sixth part of the planet from the Baltic to the Pacific Ocean, then excuse me, then the "du-aks" are beaten so that on head shorter than steel. Or shout: "Fight like that! Wait, I'll just put on my battle armor."
                Few people will remember how Hitler in 1944 said from the rostrum: "Nobody thought that such an inadequate and despicable blow would follow against us." Do you understand the "sneaky" blow was inflicted on them in 1944.
              3. karbine
                karbine 28 February 2016 12: 59
                -1
                Quote: shasherin.pavel
                This means: I have a sword and a shield, and you only have a "cut cucumber" knife and you decide to attack me?

                You somehow forget that these are allies in 1939. attacked Germany, and not vice versa. And already further Hitler had to spin. He could not win a normal war, so he put on blitzkriegs. Somewhere it turned out, but somewhere it didn’t.
                The USSR fell under distribution, in general, because it did not accept the Germans' offer to join the tripartite pact. And he who is not with us is against us. After that, Hitler realized that Dzhugashvili was his enemy, and decided to push him behind the Volga and the North. Dvinu.
                After 22.06.41/1941/XNUMX the puzzle has developed, Dzhugashvili had mobility potential, the Anglo-Saxons had industrial potential. Hitler only had a blitzkrieg. In XNUMX Hitler clicked him and then it was already a formal massacre for delaying the moment of his suicide.
                Quote: shasherin.pavel
                and if you see that in front of you is the sixth part of the planet from the Baltic to the Pacific Ocean

                This 1/6 of the population did not represent anything serious, except for the population. There was no industrial potential, and one-on-one the Germans would have rolled out the USSR, if not in 1941, then in 1942. Just slowly, but surely, it would nullify the entire industrial potential. After which the USSR would have been defeated. Of course, the Anglo-Saxons did not need it, they did not want to fight with their human resources. Therefore, they supplied the USSR in full. The USSR paid a colossal price for the right to hoist a banner over the Reichstag. And in irreplaceable units, in human lives. And the Anglo-Saxons quite habitually spent on products (in fact, in money), which then "recaptured" back 100 times.
                Quote: shasherin.pavel
                Few people will remember how Hitler in 1944 said from the rostrum: "Nobody thought that such an inadequate and despicable blow would follow against us."

                Apparently he meant the United States, which actually fought against Germany, without declaring war on it.
          2. shasherin.pavel
            shasherin.pavel 28 February 2016 12: 07
            0
            What I want to say: when were you last on the ground? We have many places where this "pinter" of yours can shoot at 3 km? I'm not talking about the Voronezh region, but there are solid hills there, it's still not a stone desert. And how will your "pinder" shoot through the forest for 2 km? I drove from the Murmansk region to Anapa on the 99th and wondered everything: where can you shoot in line of sight for 2 km? Well, if only from a hill of some kind, but then you yourself are exhibited as a monument. And the cannon cannot be lowered below 6 degrees, or the tank itself can be tilted forward. Then all the more you expose the motor part to fire. There are very few places in nature where you can fight at 600 meters, you need to prepare this position for yourself, choose it and take aim.
          3. karbine
            karbine 28 February 2016 13: 09
            0
            Quote: shasherin.pavel
            There are very few places in nature where you can fight at 600 meters,

            Why so fantasize?
      3. karbine
        karbine 27 February 2016 19: 58
        0
        Quote: Cap.Morgan
        10 T-34s were more effective than one Panther.

        Why 10? Because they built a lot more? But this is not an indicator. The USSR actually built only tanks. Germany was worth ships, submarines, armored personnel carriers and even FIG knows what. The tanks simply did not have enough capacity and raw materials. What is the merit of the T-34? What is its effectiveness? If Germany focused only on tanks, it would build them more than the USSR. But would lose the naval war with the United States and Britain. But there would be no talk of the terrible cost of the Panthers. Normal and inexpensive were the tanks. Tyrnets misinterpret everything as usual.
        I would have armed Panthers not 7,5 cm Kw.K. 42, and 8,8 cm KwK 36 L / 56.
        Quote: Cap.Morgan
        Cost. Maintainability. Manufacturability. In these factors, the USSR certainly exceeded Germany.

        Of course. Of course, Lada significantly surpass the Volks in almost everything.
        1. Cap.Morgan
          Cap.Morgan 27 February 2016 21: 35
          +4
          Quote: karbine
          Quote: Cap.Morgan
          10 T-34s were more effective than one Panther.

          . The USSR actually built only tanks. Germany was worth ships, submarines, armored personnel carriers and even FIG knows what. The tanks simply did not have enough capacity and raw materials. What is the merit of the T-34? What is its effectiveness? If Germany focused only on tanks, it would build them more than the USSR. But would lose the naval war with the United States and Britain.
          Quote: Cap.Morgan
          Cost. Maintainability. Manufacturability. In these factors, the USSR certainly exceeded Germany.

          Of course. Of course, Lada significantly surpass the Volks in almost everything.

          The USSR built a wide range of military equipment. Moreover, produced in large quantities.
          This is not only tanks, but also combat aircraft, artillery pieces, small arms ...
          The quality of this technique was not outstanding but was sufficient for the successful conduct of hostilities.
          The United States did not have problems with technology but in the conditions of war they went the same way.
          Wasn’t it possible for the Americans to simply rip off, copy the most interesting pieces of German technology? Of course they could.
          But it is difficult. It’s risky. Costly.
          It’s easier to rivet tens of thousands of Shermans. After all, production has been established and worked out, and a dozen new ones will come to the troops for 1 dead from factories.
          It turns out the USSR went the right way.

          As for Germany’s outbreaks, the economy of occupied Europe has successfully operated on the Reich

          If you participate in survival races, and that was exactly what the Great Patriotic War was, then Lada is better than Volks.
          For 100 bucks you will buy 000 Frets and only 20-3 Volks.
        2. AK64
          AK64 27 February 2016 22: 24
          +4
          If you participate in survival races, and that was exactly what the Great Patriotic War was, then Lada is better than Volks.


          Absolutely.
          And rich Americans did exactly the same, riveting the Sherman, Liberty bulk carriers and M3 assault rifles: in the mass war, mass wins.

          And the Germans also realized this, but it was too late to drink Borjomi. (An example of awareness of the Heinkel He 162 Volksjager --- flying Volkswagen)
        3. karbine
          karbine 28 February 2016 08: 32
          -1
          Quote: Cap.Morgan
          It turns out the USSR went the right way.

          Of course, the more technology, the better. Five soldiers in a tank are anyway more effective than 5 soldiers with rifles. It would be even more efficient to produce good tanks. For example, a new turret with an 85 mm cannon should not be installed on the T-34 platform, but on the KV-1s platform. But this required a reconfiguration of production at the ontka plants and did not go for it. Not sure if this was done correctly.
          And Germany would also go that route. But she did not have the capacities, and in the end, there was no raw material for this.
          Quote: Cap.Morgan
          As for Germany’s outbreaks, the economy of occupied Europe has successfully operated on the Reich

          Give it up. What is the "economy of occupied Europe"? Belgium, Denmark, Czech Republic, Norway, Holland, part of Yugoslavia, 1/3 of France, Poland and part of Greece. That's the whole "occupied Europe". Britain in the production of aircraft overtook this very "occupied Europe".
          Quote: Cap.Morgan
          If you participate in survival races, and that was exactly what the Great Patriotic War was, then Lada is better than Volks.

          Do not fantasize. There was no race for survival. And s / s of one Volks was quite comparable with the cost of one Lada. Once again, the USSR fought very expensively.
        4. The comment was deleted.
      4. shasherin.pavel
        shasherin.pavel 28 February 2016 12: 45
        0
        The USSR did not build battleships, during the war, like Germany ... But it finished building submarines, repaired damaged cruisers, leaders and destroyers, but built BTsch, Watchdogs, new submarines of the "Baby" type with reinforced torpedo armament.
        But Germany did not build new plants in huge quantities.
      5. karbine
        karbine 28 February 2016 13: 07
        0
        Quote: shasherin.pavel
        But he completed the construction of submarines, repaired damaged cruisers, leaders and destroyers, but built BTsch, Watchdogs, new submarines of the "Baby" type with reinforced torpedo armament.

        This is nonsense, not "construction". Scale units. Not even worth mentioning.
        Quote: shasherin.pavel
        But Germany did not build new plants in huge quantities.

        Even as she built. And in huge quantities. Underground and in adits.
      6. The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • AK64
    AK64 27 February 2016 18: 43
    +2
    The large mass of the tank is BAD, even with comparable pressure on the ground (bridges, transportation by rail, etc.).

    Wrong.
    A large mass is not bad in itself, but because it creates problems (say, transmission loads). But if you are capable of solving these problems, then you are indifferent to the mass.
    The Germans solved the problem. But in the USSR they could not solve them - and therefore invented that "the mass is bad!"
    HF the same 44 tons - but he could not ride. (But that the mass of HF is bothering someone - this is not a word.)

    If the Panther has a mass like a heavy tank, then let it be classified accordingly.

    Why is it still?

    My Dear Sir, technical devices and products are classified not by weight or color, but BY APPOINTMENT.
    "Heavy tank", according to the concepts of that time, is a tank for breaking through a fortified line. In such a tank, mobility and mobility are sacrificed for defense. But where is that in Panther?

    The Panther, according to modern concepts, is the world's first MBT ("main tank"). But then there were no such words.

    In general, of the disadvantages of PANTHER, I did not mention a lot of little things. Take at least such a "trifle" as the cruising range (80 km over the intersection) - this is not at all into any gate, for a "tank of the future"!

    You forgot to add "power reserve on internal tanks"- this is a very important point, because on the Panther, too, it was possible to hang many, many cans. in domestic the tanks of Soviet tanks are somewhat less than just a power reserve - that is, there are "double standards" here.

    In addition, when you burn in a tank, you understand that it would be better if it had less gasoline, less. The Germans had armored tankers, and therefore they did not bother with such nonsense.


    But for water, the number of tanks produced is complete illiteracy! The number of Panthers released is less than 6 thousand, and not like yours - 30 thousand!

    Bah, you don’t know how to read in Russian ...

    And I'm trying to clarify something ...

    Go read it first. And then I will write further.

    The remainder did not comment, due to meaninglessness.

    Even if we take the issue by years, the ratio will not be 1:14, but 1: 8. What difference does it make for you? Does it make a difference for you which block to be crushed is 14 tonne or 8 tonne? The T-34, in any case, was always larger, and this is a huge plus! So, dear, place your "other generation" tank in the trash heap!
  • The comment was deleted.
  • shasherin.pavel
    shasherin.pavel 28 February 2016 11: 54
    +1
    Quote: AK64
    Well, the T-72 also weighs 44 tons - is that bad?

    But he carries a cannon with 26 kg., A shell, and the Panther has a 6 kg shell.
    Quote: AK64
    T-34, which even in 45 with difficulty 1500 km nursed without serious damage

    Before the storming of Berlin, the mechanics of the drivers, whose motors worked for 400 hours, were awarded medals "For Military Merit". But it was originally designed for 50 hours, then pulled up to 100 hours. You probably don't know very well that aircraft engines worked for 50 hours. This is work at maximum power, with maximum fuel consumption. Here, my "Belarus" when cleaning snow consumes 4.8 liters per hour, and at an average speed of about 2 liters, at idle about 200 grams per hour. 50 hours at maximum load is about 150 hours at an average speed on a straight horizontal line. 150 hours at a speed of 30 km are equal to 4500 km. Even if the maximum speed is from an average of 50 to 50, then up to 2000 km. But if not in mathematics, then after the war the T-34 was sent to factories and the mechanical unit was brought from 500 km to 3000 thousand kilometers. Since in peacetime, tanks easily nursed these 500 km of guaranteed mileage, since they were not knocked out from the anti-tank gunnery. I want to remember how tank troops approached Berlin, so I was in a division of one T-34 in 41 years, he fought near Moscow. So they wrote that they put him behind the column, the engines smoked like a smoke curtain. By the way, there is even a photo of this very tank against the background of the Brandenburg Gate with an L-11 cannon.
  • shasherin.pavel
    shasherin.pavel 28 February 2016 11: 31
    +1
    It would be worth remembering that out of 200 Panthers on the Kursk Bulge, 20 burned down when they reached the front line. At the same time, the tankers did not consider the Panther as a serious rival. "But how huge she is," was the first thing that the host of the T-24 channel said when he was shown the repaired Panther on the move. And most of all he was amazed that the place for a mechanic is very very close, in no way compared to the T-34. But this is the largest tank, apart from the T-35 five-turret, and the Royal Tiger. "
  • Alf
    Alf 27 February 2016 22: 51
    0
    Quote: AK64
    Yes, and the same Panther, for that matter.

    6000 Panthers and 53000 T-34s. There is a difference ? The car is good, but you can’t just mass-produce it.
    1. AK64
      AK64 27 February 2016 23: 22
      +2
      6000 Panthers and 53000 T-34s. There is a difference ? The car is good, but you can’t just mass-produce it.


      This is an incorrect calculation: Panthers were released only 2 years, of which the process also needs to be mastered.
      For two years - only 28 thousand T-34s. (15 thousand - maximum output - in the 44th, and 13 thousand - reduced output of the 43rd and 45th)
      And besides the Panthers, it would be necessary to add 400 Yargpanter.

      In addition, the Soviet Union except the T-34 did not produce anything (well, almost). And the Germans at the same time Tigers (1300 total), T-4 (about 6-7 thousand units in the same two years), and so on ...

      That is: the Germans could release Panther in large numbers. Let not as mass as the T-34 and Sherman, but Enough mass.
      1. Alf
        Alf 27 February 2016 23: 50
        0
        Quote: AK64
        And besides the Panthers, it would be necessary to add 400 Yargpanter.

        SU-100 = 1350 pcs until April 45th.
        Quote: AK64
        And the Germans at the same time Tigers (1300 total)
        1. AK64
          AK64 28 February 2016 00: 04
          +2
          SU-100 = 1350 pcs until April 45th.


          A stake of 400 Yargpanter is more than 1350 Su in 28.

          HFs are not considered because Panther is only from the 43rd year: everything that is irrelevant before.
    2. karbine
      karbine 28 February 2016 08: 33
      -1
      Quote: Alf
      The car is good, but you can’t just mass-produce it.

      How is this known? It is quite possible. But for this the Germans did not have the capacity.
  • karbine
    karbine 28 February 2016 12: 34
    -1
    Quote: AK64
    By the way, it also seemed to me that a friend was at work.

    It means that there are already two of you unhealthy.
    Quote: AK64
    That is, judging by the amount of time he spends here, these are his main responsibilities, and he has no other business at all.

    What kind of Russour is so global that there is still a troll to appoint here? Nevertheless, you, my dear, I recommend drinking greenback categorically. Like your friend nicknamed Proxima.
    As for perseverance, because it is read by fragile souls. And what will they endure having read your delirium? No, someone should upset you.
    Quote: AK64
    The T-34 was only good for the Russians: for Soviet production and for Soviet crews.

    Too shy to ask, what was bad for all of these factors KV-1C? Everything about him was no worse than that of the T-34. Was he overly protected? Crews did not need protection and preferred plywood T-34? Here's how Proxima claimed it a little higher.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • AK64
    AK64 27 February 2016 14: 26
    +2
    The KV-1 became "bad" only for one reason - the "thirty-four" was too good.

    KV had a terrible transmission. (CCP, to be precise, but the rest is not a fountain.)

    As a result, HF did not even take out a fuel tank, on average, it broke before the fuel ran out.

    How, very good tank?

    And this problem with the transmission on the KV was never solved even on the ISs: the maximum resulted in "you can endure with a severe headache."
  • Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 27 February 2016 20: 19
    +1
    And over time, the KV-2 appeared with a powerful 152 mm howitzer gun. Not only the frontal projection, but also the mass increased. Consequently, the transmission load increased and the permeability worsened. Therefore, the thesis of compromises is repeated! And relative to the KV-1 - it was possible to strengthen firepower by putting a more powerful gun without increasing the caliber. But everything came up against our traditional bureaucracy, excuses, undercover games ... Although in the initial period, and with this gun, the KV-1 was a powerful machine. This is already with access to a qualitatively new level in 42-43gg. needed a radical modernization. And so for its time it was the best car of its class. all the same, the T-34 medium tank has its own tasks. And the KV-1 coped with its own in the initial period, even when retreating. In military terms. And everything else - the rear, supply, repairs - is a separate topic for discussion.
    1. Alf
      Alf 27 February 2016 23: 17
      +1
      Quote: Rurikovich
      And relative to the KV-1 - it was possible to strengthen firepower by putting a more powerful gun without increasing the caliber.

      And where to get it, a more powerful gun? Put 3-K? So by then, neither 3-K nor the projectile for it were mass-produced.
      1. karbine
        karbine 28 February 2016 08: 42
        -1
        Quote: Alf
        So by then, neither 3-K nor the projectile for it were mass-produced.

        Shells for 3-K and 51-K were issued. Another thing is that there was a shortage of anti-aircraft guns. Therefore, nobody would take them in favor of tanks. Although the 76-mm anti-aircraft guns were actually not capable. Aeroplanes from the time of 1MB have already noticeably changed.
    2. karbine
      karbine 28 February 2016 08: 37
      0
      Quote: Rurikovich
      But everything ran into our traditional bureaucracy, excuses, undercover games ...

      Everything rested on the capabilities of Soviet industry. Before the Second World War, long-barrels in the USSR could only be made at plant number 8 in Podlipki. But he was loaded with the release of anti-aircraft guns. Therefore, the maximum for everything else was a 40-gauge three-inch.
      Quote: Rurikovich
      still T-34 medium tank - it has its own tasks

      There were no medium tanks in those days. The T-34 was an infantry escort tank. Then he was appointed something like an MBT, but he was very bad there. Nevertheless, they fought them, because there was nothing else.
  • Alf
    Alf 27 February 2016 22: 47
    +1
    Quote: Proxima
    The low-power cannon is definitely the "Achilles heel" of the KV-1.

    Before the war, Grabin deduced the formula Tank-cart for a gun. It was he who installed the 28-mm F-85 gun on the T-39.
    The paradox of the situation was the power of the F-32 gun, which hit all targets on the battlefield. Therefore, they thought that a 76-mm gun for the KV-1 was enough. But ...
    In March 1941, the leadership of the Red Army received from intelligence information that in Germany developed tanks with powerful armor, already coming into service of the Wehrmacht. It was decided to retaliate. On March 15, 1941, the SNK of the USSR and the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks ordered the Kirov plant to begin production of the T-150 tank with the serial name KV-3, and slightly modified characteristics (76-mm F-34 gun, V-5 engine with 700 hp .). Nevertheless, on April 7, 1941, the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR and the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks adopted resolution No. 827-345ss. It determined new parameters for the KV-3 tank
    About the KV-3 tank.
    1. To amend the Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR and the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks No. 548-232ss of March 15, 1941, I order:
    a) install armor KV-3: forehead 115-120 mm, tower 115 mm;
    b) equip the KV-3 with a 107-mm ZIS-6 gun with an initial projectile speed of 800 m / s.

    But after the outbreak of the war, it turned out that this was a disinformation and there were no tanks with anti-ballistic armor in service with the Panzerwaffe. But when T-IVF2 appeared and in the summer of 1942 the Tigers lit up under Mgoy, then it turned out that the KV-1 gun was weak.
    1. AK64
      AK64 27 February 2016 23: 03
      +1
      Grabin before the war deduced the formula

      Alf, obey good advice (and I will not advise bad): do not mention This name in a decent society. The people at the mention of this name Satanet. (There are many reasons for this.)

      I personally do not like Shirokorad, but with this characteristic of the person you mentioned, he 100% agree.

      Therefore, it was considered that a 76-mm gun for the KV-1 is enough.

      And correctly calculated.
      There were LOTS of 76mm shells, and for nothing (royal yet).

      But when T-IVF2 appeared and in the summer of 1942 the Tigers lit up under Mgoy, then it turned out that the KV-1 gun was weak.

      AND HOW MANY Tigers "appeared under Mga"? azhnik five pieces? Or even six? And they showed themselves strongly there?

      A year later, near Kursk, there were either three, or as many as four battalions (40 in the battalion in the state) near Kursk. Is it worth the fence for this garden?
      1. Alf
        Alf 27 February 2016 23: 57
        +1
        Quote: AK64
        Alf, obey good advice (and I will not advise bad): do not mention this name in a decent society. The people at the mention of this name is Satan. (There are many reasons for this.)

        And what name in decent society is customary to mention?
        Quote: AK64
        AND HOW MANY Tigers "appeared under Mga"? azhnik five pieces? Or even six? And they showed themselves strongly there?

        But it doesn’t matter. The fact is that it was a signal, the enemy got a thick-armored tank with a powerful gun.
        Quote: AK64
        A year later, near Kursk, there were either three, or as many as four battalions (40 in the battalion in the state) near Kursk. Is it worth the fence for this garden?

        Worth it.
        The appearance in late 1942 - early 1943 of the new German heavy tank "Tiger" overnight made the Soviet heavy tank KV-1 and its "high-speed" modification KV-1s obsolete. The armor of the KV tank, which was not penetrated by German tank and anti-tank guns in 1941 and early 1942, was not particularly difficult for the Tiger gun, and the 76 mm ZIS-5 gun mounted on the KV could penetrate only the Tiger’s side and rear armor from distances not exceeding 200 m. Under these conditions, work was accelerated to develop a new heavy IS tank for the Red Army and artillery weapons capable of penetrating Tiger armor.

        KV-85.
        1. AK64
          AK64 28 February 2016 00: 15
          0
          And what name in decent society is customary to mention?

          Tighten a little and read the characteristic at Shirokorad. Shirokorod is sometimes biased - but in this case he is more likely to be polite (because you can’t say anything in the non-ostrich book - he would have put it wrong verbally).

          But it doesn’t matter. The fact is that it was a signal, the enemy got a thick-armored tank with a powerful gun.

          If you throw yourself for every "signal", the scammer won't last long. Are there any "signals"?
          In reality, under the Mgoy, the helplessness of new tanks that were corny stuck in a swamp was demonstrated.


          Quote: AK64
          A year later, near Kursk, there were either three, or as many as four battalions (40 in the battalion in the state) near Kursk. Is it worth the fence for this garden?


          Worth it.

          It’s good that the Supreme Commander-in-Chief was not as impressionable as you.


          The appearance in late 1942 - early 1943 of the new German heavy tank "Tiger" overnight made the Soviet heavy tank KV-1 and its "high-speed" modification KV-1s obsolete.

          Well, yes, well, yes ... Especially when you consider that the purpose of the KV is a "breakthrough tank", that is, breaking through fortified lines. How many Tigers can be found on the fortified lines?

          The armor of the KV tank, which was impenetrable by German tank and anti-tank guns in 1941 and early 1942, was not particularly difficult for the Tiger gun, and the 76 mm ZIS-5 gun mounted on the KV could penetrate only the Tiger’s side and rear armor from distances not exceeding 200 m. Under these conditions, work was accelerated to develop a new heavy IS tank for the Red Army and artillery weapons capable of breaking through the Tiger armor.


          These are strange tales from Murrrrr-Zilok.
          In reality, near Kursk, the Germans were able to collect either three, or azhnik four battalions of the Tigers.
          Yes, the tank is terrible, and has done a lot of trouble. But in a mass war, four battalions do not play a role.
          KB-85
          1. Alf
            Alf 28 February 2016 00: 28
            0
            Quote: AK64
            And what name in decent society is customary to mention?
            Tighten a little and read the characteristic at Shirokorad. Shirokorod is sometimes biased - but in this case he is more likely to be polite (because you can’t say anything in the non-ostrich book - he would have put it wrong verbally).

            Well, well, Grabin, according to Shirokorad, so-and-so. But who do you recommend reading?
            The Supreme was not impressive, but the new KV-85 and IS-1 appeared.
            Quote: AK64
            The armor of the KV tank, which was impenetrable by German tank and anti-tank guns in 1941 and early 1942, was not particularly difficult for the Tiger gun, and the 76 mm ZIS-5 gun mounted on the KV could penetrate only the Tiger’s side and rear armor from distances not exceeding 200 m. Under these conditions, work was accelerated to develop a new heavy IS tank for the Red Army and artillery weapons capable of breaking through the Tiger armor.

            These are strange tales from Murrrrr-Zilok.

            Is something wrong in my quote? Explain specifically.
            1. karbine
              karbine 28 February 2016 11: 30
              0
              Quote: Alf
              But who do you recommend reading?

              How "whom"? Him, of course. Read and study his comments, this is what the speech is about.
              Quote: Alf
              Is something wrong in my quote? Explain specifically.

              The work was boosted with the advent of the Panthers. With rare Tigers, the command of the Red Army was ready to fight with what was. But realizing that Panther would soon be very much, he forced the development of a new gun and a tank for it.
    2. karbine
      karbine 28 February 2016 09: 06
      -1
      Quote: Alf
      Grabin before the war deduced the formula

      Grabin brought out? Oh well. Formulator, damn it.
      Quote: Alf
      It was he who installed the 28-mm F-85 cannon on the T-39

      Installed. I just forgot to find a place where this gun could be mass-produced. And the second time to embark on an adventure, no one was planning a similar adventure with his F-22.
      However, no. Found Grabin in 1940. such an adventurer again. It turned out to be Marshal Kulik. Rather, Marshal Kulik found Grabin. As a result, the Red Army at the beginning of the Second World War was left without a normal anti-tank gun at all. And the main gun of the PTO was the "divisional" three-inch gun, which was absolutely not suitable there. But there was no other, Kulik and Grabin worked hard.
      Quote: Alf
      But after the outbreak of the war, it turned out that this was a disinformation and there were no tanks with anti-ballistic armor in service with the Panzerwaffe.

      Just in case, I inform you that "misinformation" is mainly found in the heads of the sofa marshals. Who have no idea how the German heterogeneous armor differed from the Soviet homogeneous (even if rolled).
      The Germans in the invasion army had 774 newest tanks with frontal armor (converted to Soviet homogeneous, and inclined to vertical) of 70 mm. The regular forty-five took such armor from about 150 m. only from an ambush. And the Germans had 526 new tanks with old towers, there was a forehead. the armor was ~ 50 mm.
      For reference, the reservation of the latest German tanks was approximately equivalent to the T-28E (100 vehicles in the western districts), the reservation of the second was approximately equivalent to the T-34 (823 vehicles in the western okrug).
      The Germans did not have machines similar to the KV (400 in the western environs). However, these "terrible monsters" possessed a reduced forehead. armor only 80 mm. Not much more than the latest German tanks. Another thing is that the Germans made tanks with diff. booking, and the USSR, with a circular. From this there is a noticeable difference in weight with a comparable level of forehead thickness. armor.
  • shasherin.pavel
    shasherin.pavel 28 February 2016 11: 09
    0
    Quote: Proxima
    Low power gun

    How is this? The most powerful tank gun in the world until 1942, suddenly turned into a low-power! Compare the explosives of the Wehrmacht tanks with a caliber of 75 mm in 176 grams of 41 of the year and 76 mm projectile F-34 with almost 600 grams of explosives. The Germans generally shouted that the Russian howitzers put on tanks. It was because of the enormous power of the explosive projectile that the towers flew from the T-34 in a fire. F-34 is studied at all institutes of artillery weapons: for a combination of light weight, compactness and accuracy, combined with penetration. That is: it is possible to increase the penetration ability, but the mass and dimensions will increase, which will entail an increase in the turret and the mass of the tank.
    1. karbine
      karbine 28 February 2016 11: 22
      0
      Quote: shasherin.pavel
      The Germans generally shouted that the Russian howitzers put on tanks.

      The Germans, they were so noisy. I just hear everywhere about their screams. And so, shouting to Moscow and the Volga, they dopped.
      Quote: shasherin.pavel
      F-34 is studied at all institutes of artillery weapons: for a combination of low weight, compactness and accuracy, combined with penetration.

      No need to fantasize. The usual universal tank gun. Nothing at all special. The same C-53 that stood on the T-34/85 is much better.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. carbine
      carbine 1 March 2016 02: 35
      0
      Quote: shasherin.pavel
      The most powerful tank gun in the world until 1942, suddenly turned into a low-power!

      In terms of fragmentation and explosiveness, no. And in terms of armor-piercing, everything is very controversial. Do not forget that the Germans had full-time cumulative shells arr. 1938 (as many as 9 different species). And taking these shells into account, it turns out that the F-34 is probably not the most effective in all respects.
      Formally, it was the F-34 that was the most powerful. But power is not efficiency. And even more effective in terms of armor-piercing could be German guns. Yes, the same despicable German "butt" is quite possibly superior to the allegedly coolest F-34 (and ZIS-5) in everything. Or maybe it didn’t exceed in armor-piercing. The fact is that HEAT shells have their own shoals.
      But what definitely excelled was shrapnel and high explosiveness (see the appendix).
      Quote: shasherin.pavel
      Compare the explosives of the Wehrmacht tanks with a caliber of 75 mm in 176 grams for 41 years

      Still, not 176, but 680 grams.
      Quote: shasherin.pavel
      almost 600 grams of explosives

      Still, not 600, but 621 grams.
  • carbine
    carbine 27 February 2016 12: 32
    -2
    Quote: Rurikovich
    And let the "thirty-four" enter the breakthrough and enter the operational space and use their advantages.

    Actually, BT was built just for these purposes. Which then planned to be replaced by a T-50.
    T-34s were originally infantry escort tanks, they began to drive through the fields only later, forcedly.
  • Litsvin
    Litsvin 29 February 2016 14: 21
    0
    Tank "KV", according to the confessions of our own military, "DIDN'T PLAY THE ROLE ATTACHED TO IT ON THE BATTLE FIELD." Among our other military men, the same Pavel Rotmistrov wrote about this in his post-war works, whom no one can accuse of incompetence.
    The reasons are also known:
    1. The tank entered the operational troops "raw" with a lot of technical flaws... They arose both from the initially unsuccessful design of components and assemblies, and due to the low technological level of production - almost "marriage".
    2. The crews were not trained to use this weapon. Those who were hired as tankers for line service before the war were yesterday's peasants, only some of whom could have experience with tractors. "... And here the tank - what is in common with the tractor is only in the presence of tracks and two levers ...." (this is also a quote from the general's memoirs). The tank was so new that even the mechanics of their repair parts could not work with it (see literature).
    3. Lack of spare parts, spent repair base.
    4. The organizational structure of the tank forces of 1941.
    5. Wrong tactics of using KV tanks. Even taking into account all the reasons for the defeat of the Red Army in 1941, the KV tanks could become a serious problem for the Germans and cause them real tangible damage. If our commanders, who knew all the shortcomings of the KV tanks, did not throw them into the notorious meat grinder, but use them - a quote: “... as stationary, dug into the ground and camouflaged firing points with attached infantry units and small-caliber artillery .. . "in the most dangerous directions of movement of German troops, the damage the Germans would have suffered much more serious.
    And so we have what we have - a tank battle near Dubno or Senno. How many KV tanks are there ??? Tank battle near Senno - in terms of the number of participating tanks on both sides - this is generally the BIGGEST TANK BATTLE during the Second World War. Only by our Soviet propaganda this fact was deliberately hushed up, since we lost more tanks near Senno than our tanks TOTAL were near Prokhorovka. The Massacre of Senno in Soviet literature is generally not mentioned as an event, there is only a mention of some ordinary clashes. That's how they fought ... Only with God's help they won.
  • parusnik
    parusnik 27 February 2016 07: 38
    +8
    The Germans called HF a monster...Our gentle and gentle beast ...
  • Galich Kos
    Galich Kos 27 February 2016 07: 52
    +6
    The KV-1 and T-34 are amazing tanks. Who is interested in the topic of tankers in the Second World War, I recommend reading the works of Ivan Koshkin "When the armor burned", "We will not stand for the price", "Moscow is behind us". Although the books are fictional, they are stunning in their authenticity and what is most remarkable and surprising is the famous army humor. So I recommend reading it, you won't regret it.
    1. sevtrash
      sevtrash 27 February 2016 16: 13
      0
      Quote: Galich Kos
      B-1 and T-34 are amazing tanks. Who is interested in the topic of tankers in the Second World War, I recommend reading the works of Ivan Koshkin "When the armor burned", "We will not stand for the price", "Moscow is behind us". Although the books are fictional, they are stunning in their authenticity and what is most remarkable and surprising is the famous army humor. So I recommend reading it, you won't regret it.

      Thanks for the tip, started reading "When the Armor Burned", it goes well. But as for the reliability, I doubt that they are all good fellows and correct, but the beginning of the war, the lack of experience, plus the pre-war repressions. On the other hand, fiction does not have to be punctual.
  • bionik
    bionik 27 February 2016 08: 01
    11
    Assembly shop tanks KV-1 Chelyabinsk Kirov plant.
    1. vorobey
      vorobey 27 February 2016 08: 24
      +5
      Quote: bionik
      Tank Assembly Shop


      The wrong technique was called Volkswagen laughing
  • mamont5
    mamont5 27 February 2016 08: 03
    +7
    Quote: aba
    Seem a small difference in caliber: 76 and 88, and the end result is significant.

    There still barrel length played a role. The barrel of our 76 mm was a bit short, and the German 88 mm anti-aircraft gun was born, which played a role. In vain ours on 85 mm did not pass earlier.
    1. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 27 February 2016 08: 22
      +9
      Quote: mamont5
      The barrel of our 76 mm gun was short, and the German 88 mm anti-aircraft gun was born, which played a role. In vain, our 85 mm did not pass before.

      The "Panther" has a 75mm cannon, but due to its 70 caliber length it was very effective.
      1. Alex
        Alex 27 February 2016 10: 32
        +8
        Quote: Vladimirets
        The "Panther" has a 75mm cannon, but due to its 70 caliber length it was very effective.

        "Panther" had a pronounced "anti-tank" orientation. Hence the choice of gun: a smaller caliber - less weight and dimensions, more ammunition. Plus, the dimensions of the machine itself are smaller.

        In general, "Panther", IMHO, is a bad car, and it was late. For the end of 1943 - the beginning of 1944, niches for her were somehow not particularly visible. At the beginning and in the middle of 1942, it wouldn't have been worth it.
        1. Vladimirets
          Vladimirets 27 February 2016 10: 46
          +2
          Quote: Alex
          In general, "Panther", IMHO, is a bad car, and it was late. For the end of 1943 - the beginning of 1944, niches for her were somehow not particularly visible. At the beginning and in the middle of 1942, it wouldn't have been worth it.

          Everyone notes a good gun with decent characteristics and a serious frontal reservation, but at the same time low technical reliability. request
          1. Alex
            Alex 27 February 2016 11: 00
            +6
            Quote: Vladimirets
            Everyone notes a good gun with decent performance.

            Who can argue, the guns of the Germans are traditionally excellent, one might say - the calling card of Germany. But (once again I will make a reservation, this is only IMHO) "Panther" was late for the second half of the war. I don't really see any particular need to have both "Tiger" and "Panther" at the same time. I understand that in the German General Staff, too, not all stupid people were sitting, but at least after one, but the logic of their decision in this particular case is not clear to me. Or as in that joke:
            "- Did you order a fight for the wedding?
            - No, no, thanks, no!
            - I don't care, paid ... "
            1. AK64
              AK64 27 February 2016 12: 04
              -1
              I don't really see any particular need to have both "Tiger" and "Panther" at the same time. I understand that in the German General Staff, too, not all stupid people were sitting, but at least after one, but the logic of their decision in this particular case is not clear to me.


              Y-yes ...
              I would certainly say "thank God that you are not the General Staff" - but again you will be offended and say that you are being insulted. But this is true.

              However, if we are talking about the German General Staff, it would be better if you were sitting there ...

              First, I will note that the Germans did have capitalism (whatever the modern liberals say about this, there was precisely capitalism in Germany). And that means there were many factories and firms. And they didn’t want to release “alien”, but wanted “their own”.

              It was "first". And "secondly" the Tiger is a "heavy tank", with all the ensuing qualities of this type of equipment. And the Panther could well be considered the first MBT. Again, with all the consequences.

              If it’s even simpler: Tiger is conceptual step back - the result of Russian fright. While the panther is step forwardand next generation tanks.

              That is, as a result of the "Russian fright," some stepped back --- and others forward. That's all.
          2. AK64
            AK64 27 February 2016 11: 28
            0
            Everyone notes ... but at the same time low technical reliability. request


            And can the names and places of work of these "all" who are "celebrated"? WHERE is "low reliability"?

            The "low-reliability" Panther was in 43rd, near Kursk. Moreover, it seems to me, the reason for this was the lack of training of the mechanics, who tried to drive it like a T-4, that is, in higher gears - and that was the engine overheating. (Yes, yes - the only gripe is engine overheating)
            1. Vladimirets
              Vladimirets 27 February 2016 11: 47
              +3
              Quote: AK64
              the reason for this was the lack of knowledge of the mechanical drivers who tried to drive it like a T-4, that is, in high gears - that’s the engine overheating. (Yes, yes - the only gripe is overheating of dvigla)

              This is "unreliability" when only a high-class crew is needed to control the equipment.
              Quote: AK64
              The "low-reliability" Panther was in 43rd, near Kursk.

              Near Kursk, the mechanical drivers were to blame, then the lack of alloying additives in the armor, and yes, the tank is excellent. wink
              Quote: AK64
              Sofa strategists, damn it ...
              In 1941, the Germans did not plan land wars longer than 1942. So the Panther was piled when the need arose, and not earlier.

              And the German generals, who do you think? Not couch strategists, if you did not calculate land wars beyond the 42nd? And who is to blame here?
              Quote: AK64
              And before that they had a magnificent T-3. It is gorgeous.

              And what is its splendor?
              1. AK64
                AK64 27 February 2016 12: 16
                0
                This is "unreliability" when only a high-class crew is needed to control the equipment.

                Operators need to be trained, that's all. Any new technique requires user training.
                Mekhvody simply did not understand that the T-5, in comparison with the T-4, has more specific power and it does not need, accordingly, to drive in higher gears, that's all.


                Near Kursk, the drivers were to blame,

                Guilty are those who did not give mehvodov at least a week at the tankodrome with instructors.
                then the lack of alloying additives in the armor, and yes,

                This is not about Panther. And actually German metallurgists more or less coped with this problem.

                And the German generals, who do you think? Not couch strategists, if you did not calculate land wars beyond the 42nd? And who is to blame here?

                Generals plan operations in accordance with strategic decisions of political leadership. Here are some complaints to him.

                And what is its splendor?

                It takes a very long time to explain. And especially for citizens who are used to comparing numbers in tables, not products. So, according to the numbers in the C grade plates, the tank itself and the tank. And if we take tanks, and not his numbers, then it was a masterpiece: like a Mercedes in comparison with the Moskvich-412.

                When it was tested in Kubinka, the reviews were "the best tank".
                1. Vladimirets
                  Vladimirets 27 February 2016 12: 24
                  +2
                  Quote: AK64
                  This is not about Panther.

                  Well, why? Already in the 44th, armor began to be pricked in all German tanks.
                  Quote: AK64
                  Generals plan operations in accordance with strategic decisions of political leadership. Here are some complaints to him.

                  I understand, again Hitler is to blame for everything? Yes, yes, I read Guderian, Kesselring and others. They were given the task of defeating the USSR, they could not cope, because they did not learn much, but Hitler was to blame anyway. yes
                  Quote: AK64
                  And if you take tanks, and not his numbers - then this was a masterpiece

                  That is, in your subjective, but very authoritative opinion?
                  Quote: AK64
                  When it was tested in Kubinka, the reviews were "the best tank".

                  Reviews from whom? And what kind of modification did the trio experience?
                  1. AK64
                    AK64 27 February 2016 12: 40
                    -2
                    I understand, again Hitler is to blame for everything?

                    The measure of guilt is determined by the court.
                    I am not a court, and who and what is guilty is not going to understand. (and by the way, the court was after all!)

                    Yes, yes, I read Guderian, Kesselring and others. They were given the task of defeating the USSR, they could not cope, because they did not learn much, but Hitler was to blame anyway. yes

                    You have wasted your time reading nonsense.
                    From a decent one can read Halder's service diaries: in contrast to the "memoir" (that is, post-factum fantasies), Halder has diaries, and service diaries.

                    So on the topic: everyone acts to the extent of their competence, and in the state apparatus this is especially so. The General Staff received information and received the task. The information turned out to be incorrect, and the task was unsolvable - that's all.

                    So decide "who is to blame", since you are interested in the degree of guilt.

                    And if you take tanks, and not his numbers - then this was a masterpiece

                    That is, in your subjective, but very authoritative opinion?

                    According to no less subjective and much more authoritative opinion of Kubinka specialists, this was exactly the same.

                    When it was tested in Kubinka, the reviews were "the best tank".


                    Reviews from whom? And what kind of modification did the trio experience?


                    Have you been cut off from Google? What ugly, ugly people .... Well, try to take advantage of other mischief-makers: you will certainly find the names of those scoundrels who dared to value an enemy tank so highly - they left their signatures on the Test Acts!

                    And I, sorry, old, and these names are forgotten.
                    1. Vladimirets
                      Vladimirets 27 February 2016 14: 45
                      0
                      Quote: AK64
                      So on the topic: everyone acts to the extent of their competence, and in the state apparatus this is especially so. The General Staff received information and received the task. The information turned out to be incorrect, and the task was unsolvable - that's all.

                      So decide "who is to blame", since you are interested in the degree of guilt.

                      Why are you jumping off your topic? request Or these are not your words:
                      Quote: AK64
                      Generals plan operations in accordance with strategic decisions of political leadership. Here are some complaints to him.

                      Quote: AK64
                      Well, try to take advantage of other mischief-makers: you’ll find the names and surnames of those villains who dared to value the enemy tank so highly — they left their signatures on the Test Acts!

                      And I, sorry, old, and these names are forgotten.

                      Why should I look if these are your statements that you cannot confirm in any way? You simply affirm something, and answer all objections: d. Urak himself.
                      1. AK64
                        AK64 27 February 2016 15: 04
                        -2
                        Why should I look if these are your statements that you cannot confirm in any way? You simply affirm something, and answer all objections: d. Urak himself.


                        So you are too lazy to google the "Cuban test of PzKpfw III"? Or YOU don't know how to use Google?

                        No, I do this for you I will not: I have many other and much more important matters, and I have not the slightest desire to convince the lazy people of anything.
                      2. Vladimirets
                        Vladimirets 27 February 2016 15: 11
                        0
                        Quote: AK64
                        So you are too lazy to google the "Cuban test of PzKpfw III"? Or YOU don't know how to use Google?

                        Why should I punch something, if you approve, then confirm.
                        Quote: AK64
                        there is not the slightest desire to convince lazy people of something.

                        Clearly, the talker is all-knowing. yes
                      3. The comment was deleted.
                      4. Vladimirets
                        Vladimirets 27 February 2016 15: 57
                        0
                        Quote: AK64
                        Lazy, arrogant and ugly little girl with a dirty tongue.

                        The language itself must be monitored little by little. yes
                        Quote: AK64
                        in terms of their mobility, security and usability of the crew of the PzKpfw III Ausf. F was recognized in the USSR as the best foreign tank in its class

                        The best foreign tank, catch the difference?
                        Quote: AK64
                        And do not be you ugly, lazy and vile little boy with a dirty mouth

                        Again, the language must be monitored.
                        Quote: AK64
                        Because I don’t like such vile and boorish ones

                        Because to merge when there are really no arguments is the easiest way. Well, since morally weak, then all the best.
  • AK64
    AK64 27 February 2016 11: 24
    -4
    "Panther" had a pronounced "anti-tank" orientation. Hence the choice of gun: a smaller caliber - less weight and dimensions, more ammunition. Plus, the dimensions of the machine itself are smaller.

    This is not true: Panther in a sense became the first MBT. Or at least a candidate for these.
    Or is the T-72 "anti-tank oriented"?

    In general, "Panther", IMHO, is a bad car,

    In the fantasies of diman strategists, the Panther is "unsuccessful".

    Yes, and late. For the end of 1943 - the beginning of 1944, for her niches were somehow not particularly visible. But at the beginning or middle of 1942, she would not have had a price.


    Sofa strategists, damn it ...
    In 1941, the Germans did not plan land wars longer than 1942. So the Panther was piled when the need arose, and not earlier.
    And before that they had great T-3. Exactly great. Which, it seemed to them, with correct gun, all the problems should have been solved.
    1. Alex
      Alex 27 February 2016 11: 35
      +4
      It is clear that without rudeness a dispute does not work. Behind the sim - the adios, the tormentor.
      1. AK64
        AK64 27 February 2016 11: 49
        -3
        Where is the "rudeness"?

        However, I'm sorry: I had no intention to offend you

        But sorry, what is "dispute"maybe with you if you don't know the hardware?
        This is not disputethis is education
  • Bongo
    Bongo 27 February 2016 08: 27
    +5
    Quote: mamont5
    There still barrel length played a role. The barrel of our 76 mm was a bit short, and the German 88 mm anti-aircraft gun was born, which played a role. In vain ours on 85 mm did not pass earlier.

    It's not just the length of the barrel. 76-mm guns L-11, F-32, ZIS-5 with similar ballistics were created under the projectile of a 76-mm divisional gun of 1902 model with a cylindrical sleeve.
    Before the war V.G. Grabin created a tank gun under a bottle-shaped projectile from a 76-mm anti-aircraft gun 3K. But it was rejected by the military because of the accumulation of huge stocks of old 76-mm shells.
    The German 8,8 cm FlaK 36 was significantly superior to our 76 mm tank guns in terms of mass and initial projectile speed.
    1. AK64
      AK64 27 February 2016 11: 17
      -3
      The German 8,8 cm FlaK 36 was significantly superior to our 76 mm tank guns in terms of mass and initial projectile speed.


      But it only appeared on tanks in 42nd (single Tigers), and in mass only in 43rd. But in 41st the Germans "boasted" 75 / L24 "with a cigarette butt"
      1. Stas57
        Stas57 27 February 2016 11: 43
        +1
        Quote: AK64

        But it only appeared on tanks in 42nd (single Tigers), and in mass only in 43rd. But in 41st the Germans "boasted" 75 / L24 "with a cigarette butt"

        Nuno, there was 3,7 cm KwK 36 and 5 cm KwK 38
      2. Bongo
        Bongo 27 February 2016 14: 57
        +3
        Quote: AK64
        But it only appeared on tanks in 42nd (single Tigers), and in mass only in 43rd. But in 41st the Germans "boasted" 75 / L24 "with a cigarette butt"

        If you are not "in the know" then the 8,8 cm FlaK 36 is an anti-aircraft gun. What do cigarette butts have to do with it? No.
        1. AK64
          AK64 27 February 2016 16: 38
          0
          If you are not "in the know" then the 8,8 cm FlaK 36 is an anti-aircraft gun. What do cigarette butts have to do with it? no


          What is your native language for you? You obviously do not understand Russian ... Can I try to write for you in English?

          He clearly wrote: "That's just appeared this (that is," 88mm Flak ") on tanks only in 42 (single Tigers), and in the mass only in 43. But in the 41st Germans "boasted" 75 / L24 "cigarette butt"

          Well, so as not to get up twice:
          Nuno, there was 3,7 cm KwK 36 and 5 cm KwK 38

          What about "well, well"? Comrades, as I understand it, suffer from large hummingbirds.
          And as the most effective for 1941, then it was 5 cm KwK 39: it seems that there were already troes with those in the 41st, albeit in an insignificant number (I will not argue, because I check laziness).
        2. The comment was deleted.
    2. karbine
      karbine 29 February 2016 09: 24
      0
      Quote: Bongo
      under a bottle-shaped shell

      Then write under the cartridge. And that sounds strange.
      Quote: Bongo
      Before the war V.G. Grabin created a tank gun under a bottle-shaped projectile from a 76-mm anti-aircraft gun 3K.

      Quote: Bongo
      Before the war V.G. Grabin created a tank gun under a bottle-shaped projectile from a 76-mm anti-aircraft gun 3K.

      I have not heard of this. According to Kotin’s idea, this was supposed to be ZIS-5, but it was not even created, because there was nowhere to do.
      Quote: Bongo
      But it was rejected by the military because of the accumulation of huge stocks of old 76-mm shells.

      In fact, this is not an argument (although it is very common on the internet). Yes, a stock of old card (later called shrapnel) 76 mm cartridges were available. But it existed after the Second World War, because in the 20th century no one in dense ranks attacked. And disposed of them at the same time, after the Second World War. But just the armor-piercing shells for all the guns were sorely lacking.
      Quote: Bongo
      The German 8,8 cm FlaK 36 was significantly superior to our 76 mm tank guns in terms of mass and initial projectile speed.

      How can I compare anti-aircraft / anti-tank ballistics with universal? Yes, and a different caliber. The German anti-aircraft gun must be compared with the S-53. Here they are just about equal in everything.
    3. karbine
      karbine 29 February 2016 09: 24
      0
      Quote: Bongo
      under a bottle-shaped shell

      Then write under the cartridge. And that sounds strange.
      Quote: Bongo
      Before the war V.G. Grabin created a tank gun under a bottle-shaped projectile from a 76-mm anti-aircraft gun 3K.

      Quote: Bongo
      Before the war V.G. Grabin created a tank gun under a bottle-shaped projectile from a 76-mm anti-aircraft gun 3K.

      I have not heard of this. According to Kotin’s idea, this was supposed to be ZIS-5, but it was not even created, because there was nowhere to do.
      Quote: Bongo
      But it was rejected by the military because of the accumulation of huge stocks of old 76-mm shells.

      In fact, this is not an argument (although it is very common on the internet). Yes, a stock of old card (later called shrapnel) 76 mm cartridges were available. But it existed after the Second World War, because in the 20th century no one in dense ranks attacked. And disposed of them at the same time, after the Second World War. But just the armor-piercing shells for all the guns were sorely lacking.
      Quote: Bongo
      The German 8,8 cm FlaK 36 was significantly superior to our 76 mm tank guns in terms of mass and initial projectile speed.

      How can I compare anti-aircraft / anti-tank ballistics with universal? Yes, and a different caliber. The German anti-aircraft gun must be compared with the S-53. Here they are just about equal in everything.
  • AK64
    AK64 27 February 2016 11: 20
    0
    On the Panther 75mm stood: armor-piercing above than 88mm, with a much higher rate of fire and greater BC. (I am silent about the rollback - this is a problem on tanks)
  • gla172
    gla172 27 February 2016 08: 04
    +4
    The tank is good. It is especially interesting to read the memories of tankers of the initial period of the Second World War.
  • Gray brother
    Gray brother 27 February 2016 08: 41
    +4
    The Germans also had heavy tanks in 1941 :-)
    Heavy French tanks B1 and B1bis were captured by the Germans in the amount of 161 copies. Here they received the designation PzKpfw B1 / B1bis (f) and the serial number Sd.Kfz.740 (f). At the beginning of 1941, Daimler-Benz received a task to install a heavy flamethrower in the frontal plate of the PzKpfw B1 (f) tank instead of the 75 mm SA34 L / 17 gun. On April 19, 1941, the tests of the first converted tank were carried out, which showed good efficiency of the upgraded model. A flamethrower tank could throw a combustible mixture at a range of 40-45 meters, and the stock of fire mixtures was enough for 200 fire shots.
    And on May 31, 1941, Hitler ordered the allocation of two companies of flamethrower vehicles to the East. These were the former 7th companies of the 201st and 202nd tank regiments of the 100th tank brigade, combined into the 102nd battalion of flamethrower tanks. Each company included 12 flamethrower and 3 linear tanks. In the future, the release of these machines was carried out irregularly. According to various estimates, the Germans during 1941-42 managed to convert from 50 to 60 tanks into flamethrower. In November 1941, the Germans formed another battalion (213rd) with heavy tanks PzKpfw B1 / B1bis (f) of a two-armed composition. It was planned to be used to protect the northern coast of France. True, it was equipped only with linear machines (75-mm SA34 gun in the frontal sheet of the hull and 47-mm SA35 in the APX-4 turret).
  • tchoni
    tchoni 27 February 2016 09: 48
    +1
    The tank is good. But they could not use it wisely.
    1. cosmos111
      cosmos111 27 February 2016 10: 26
      +2
      Quote: tchoni
      The tank is good. But they could not use it wisely.

      and not only him, but also the T-34 and the fleet of light tanks ... especially the BT-7 ...

      its mastered, there was still armored vehicles (the country only learned to write and read)

      KV-2 and T-34 are stuck in some kind of Eric.
      1. AK64
        AK64 27 February 2016 11: 41
        +3
        and not only him, but also the T-34 and the fleet of light tanks ... especially the BT-7 ...

        You just can’t imagine what kind of BT was that BT.

        I’ll open your eyes (a little bit): from the surveillance devices at BT (all types) there was only .... a gap in the board towers. The commander was advised by the instructions to observe the battlefield ... through the scope.

        Submitted?

        its mastered, there was still armored vehicles (the country only learned to write and read). KV-2 and T-34 stuck in some sort of eric.

        "In such an erik" almost everything that was in the world at that time would have got stuck: even if it was German or French.
      2. tchoni
        tchoni 27 February 2016 17: 33
        +1
        Yes. It is very disappointing that the lives of the headquarters and the indecision of the highest military and political leadership of the country were paid with human lives.
        And a lesson for the future ...
      3. tchoni
        tchoni 27 February 2016 18: 18
        +2
        I’m only afraid that this is not a Eric, but a specially trained moat.
  • Alex
    Alex 27 February 2016 09: 52
    +8
    ... When the 88-millimeter gun was brought up to a distance of 700 meters, the tank calmly waited until it was put into position, and destroyed it ...
    I am amazed at the endurance of the tankers. Mayakovsky rightly said:
    Nails would be made of these people
    Harder would be in the world of nails.
    1. Kim Klimov
      27 February 2016 10: 06
      +5
      We must pay tribute to the quality of the German tank "nails". They showed themselves on the battlefield no less worthy. There was someone to compete with.
  • KBR109
    KBR109 27 February 2016 09: 56
    +4
    One of the reasons for the delay with the transition to guns 85 was the lack of the necessary machinery for boring larger shoulder straps of towers.
  • kalibr
    kalibr 27 February 2016 10: 20
    +3
    Unfortunately, a banal repetition of banal information. In the book of the collective of authors of the Kirovsky plant "Without secrets and secrets" all this is described much more interestingly.
  • Robert Nevsky
    Robert Nevsky 27 February 2016 10: 28
    +2
    FOR OUR SOVIET HOMELAND!
  • Stas57
    Stas57 27 February 2016 10: 51
    +1
    There is a known case in June 1941 of the year in the Rassenaya area, when one KV-1 bound the actions of the German division for almost two days. This KV was part of the 2-oh tank division, which brought German troops a lot of trouble in the early days of the war. Apparently spent fuel, the tank took up a position on the road near the marshy meadow. In one of the German documents noted:

    “There was practically no means to cope with the monster. Tank can not be circumvented around the swampy area. It is impossible to bring ammunition, the seriously wounded died, they could not be taken out. Attempting to eliminate a tank with an 50-mm anti-tank battery from a distance of 500 meters resulted in heavy losses in calculations and guns. The tank had no damage, despite the fact that, as it turned out, 14 received direct hits. From them there are only dents on the armor. When the 88-mm gun was brought up to the distance of 700 meters, the tank quietly waited until it was placed on the position, and destroyed it. Attempts by sappers to undermine the tank were unsuccessful. The charges were inadequate for huge caterpillars. Finally he fell prey to cunning. German tanks 50 simulated an attack from all sides to divert attention. Under cover, she was able to push and camouflage the 88-mm cannon from the rear of the tank. From 12 direct hits, 3 requested armor and destroyed the tank. "

    here is a lecture on this subject
    https://youtu.be/NCIxvRx4_l0
  • gla172
    gla172 27 February 2016 11: 13
    +2
    And interestingly about the failed modifications, it is also interesting to read.
  • AK64
    AK64 27 February 2016 11: 14
    +2
    The whole article is the most complete nonsense - a compilation, and critically meaningless, from the Web.

    Tanks with ballistic armor, they tell us, weren't there? So the author’s release: booking T-34 is also anti-shell. Yes Yes. And such was not only in name, but in essence.

    And besides the KV and T-34, both British Matildas boasted of anti-cannon armor (both 1 and 2, the second, by the way, had no worse armor than the KV); French Hotchkiss Eich53 ("light", by the way), Renault R35, Somua S35; Sar 2Tse, Char B1 (this one was quite a "French KV", only his transmission was better), Char D2

    In general, I would like to recommend the author to teach the materiel first, at least at the level of breaking through in Google "anti-shell booking"
    1. sibiryouk
      sibiryouk 27 February 2016 18: 10
      +1
      Let the BOOKS read, not Google, in the books a lot of interesting things!
  • carbine
    carbine 27 February 2016 12: 01
    +1
    Quote: Yuri Starshov
    Tank KV-1: giant in armor

    The KV-1 was a very good tank for its time. But he had a lot of "sores". I will not dwell on all of them, I will dwell only on 2 main ones:
    1. He had a completely unusable checkpoint. This is a usual thing for the USSR called "Give". Those. we do something in three days, we report, we get awards, ranks, positions, and then we finish it for three years. The checkpoint on the KV-1 was "reinforced" from the T-28. Therefore, the tank could only ride tolerably at reference checkpoints with factory mechanical drives behind the levers. As soon as the usual mechanized drivers were put on the levers, and then, moreover, the war began, the KV checkpoint, as they say, "fell down". A normal checkpoint was mastered only by the summer of 1942, when the KV no longer had prospects.
    2. There was no gun for him. At first it was planned to install a 3-K tank version. But then it would be necessary to limit the production of 52-K anti-aircraft guns. Then it was planned to install a tank version of the F-22. But the problem was that they could not make such a gun commercially and cheaply in the USSR then. And nobody wanted to sign up for expenses similar to those for the production of land F-22s, so they put the serial 30-caliber L-11 (then they replaced it with about the same F-32, and then put the single 40-caliber F-34) .
    Of course, such a gun was like a mare's tail. Therefore, it would be more correct to recall the F-22 from the troops, replace their barrels with 40-caliber, turning them into F-22USV, and convert the F-22 barrels into tank barrels. And install them on the KV-1. In addition, no one then knew about Grabin's marriage with the F-22 barrels (Grabin most likely knew, but prudently did not tell anyone what can be seen from the F-22USV, which had exactly the same marriage, but the ZIS-3 were already deprived of it ). And if during installation in the KV-1 it opened (as with 51-K), then they could be sharpened under the 3-K / 51-K cartridge ("anti-aircraft"). Then it would be a great cannon for the KV-1. Of course, for the time being. Then it would also have to be changed to a more powerful one.
    In addition, there were a lot of options on how to put on the KV-1 the re-sharpened swinging parts from the 3-K / 51-K barrels that had exhausted their resource. The Germans were not lazy to sharpen the captured in the caliber 88 mm. The Italians were doing this in general everywhere, starting with their main naval cannons (they were even originally designed like that) and ending with the rifle barrels (the 7,35x51 mm Carcano cartridge was supposed to go into the shot and bored barrels from weapons on the 6,5x52 mm Carcano cartridge, hence its "strange" caliber). Something was not heard about such a practice in the USSR. The USSR fought dearly, even if we count just pieces of iron, ignore human losses. A rich country with a rich population, what to say.
    In other words, none of this happened, and the KV-1 never got a decent gun.
    1. pimen
      pimen 27 February 2016 13: 36
      0
      Quote: carbine

      The KV-1 was a very good tank for its time. But he had a lot of "sores". I will not dwell on all of them, I will dwell only on 2 main ones:
      1. He had a completely unusable checkpoint. This is a usual thing for the USSR called "Give". Those. we do something in three days, we report, we get awards, ranks, positions, and then we finish it for three years. The checkpoint on the KV-1 was "reinforced" from the T-28. Therefore, the tank could only ride tolerably at reference checkpoints with factory mechanical drives behind the levers. As soon as the usual mechanized drivers were put on the levers, and then, moreover, the war began, the KV checkpoint, as they say, "fell down". A normal checkpoint was mastered only by the summer of 1942, when the KV no longer had prospects.

      the box would go if he had front wheels
      Quote: carbine

      2. There was no gun for him.
      ... there were a lot of options on how to put on the KV-1 the re-sharpened swinging parts from the exhausted 3-K / 51-K barrels. The Germans were not lazy to sharpen the captured in the caliber 88 mm. The Italians were doing this in general everywhere, starting with their main naval cannons (they were even originally designed like that) and ending with the rifle barrels (the 7,35x51 mm Carcano cartridge was supposed to go into the shot and bored barrels from weapons on the 6,5x52 mm Carcano cartridge, hence its "strange" caliber). Something was not heard about such a practice in the USSR. The USSR fought dearly, even if we count just pieces of iron, ignore human losses. A rich country with a rich population, what to say.

      There were enough guns for 41-42 years, but at the expense of regrinding - so in addition to the strategic retreat of the Red Army (battlefield for the enemy), we had an acute shortage of machinery for the release of our long barrels (the question even stood between 52K and ZIS2)
      1. AK64
        AK64 27 February 2016 14: 18
        +2
        Quote: carbine

        2. There was no gun for him.
        ... there were a lot of options on how to put on the KV-1 the re-sharpened swinging parts from the exhausted 3-K / 51-K barrels. The Germans were not lazy to sharpen the captured in the caliber 88 mm. The Italians were doing this in general everywhere, starting with their main naval cannons (they were even originally designed like that) and ending with the rifle barrels (the 7,35x51 mm Carcano cartridge was supposed to go into the shot and bored barrels from weapons on the 6,5x52 mm Carcano cartridge, hence its "strange" caliber). Something was not heard about such a practice in the USSR. The USSR fought dearly, even if we count just pieces of iron, ignore human losses. A rich country with a rich population, what to say.


        Comrade is seriously raving ...
        Actually, in the shot trunks they changed the liner - oh ... again.
        Actually, in the USSR, there was also a practice of re-shooting shot trunks - the comrade is simply not in the know.
        And actually, where was it to find the shot trunks, in the amount of 500 pieces (by the number of KV) in the 1940s? The shot barrels for anti-aircraft guns appeared a little later.
        (We’ll also be silent about the fact that the Germans for some reason didn’t put shot trunks on their tanks ....)

        In general, the usual heavy nonsense for this comrade

        As for the savings: the American comrade again is not aware that in the USSR, let’s say, tank engines remade aviation engines that have exhausted their resources for a long time. Long. All BT on such, and the first T-34, too.

        There were enough guns for 41-42 years, but at the expense of regrinding - so in addition to the strategic retreat of the Red Army (battlefield for the enemy), we had an acute shortage of machinery for the release of our long barrels (the question even stood between 52K and ZIS2)

        Well, then all the more would you like to master the repair of the shafts somehow, as there are not enough new machines to do, no?
        This is me about your own argument ...
        But by the way, they mastered it ...

        However, it is useless to spend time on an American comrade - believe me, I tried.
        1. karbine
          karbine 28 February 2016 10: 53
          0
          Quote: AK64
          Actually, in the shot trunks they changed the liner - oh ... again.

          I understood. Your level of technological development has settled on ancient fastened trunks. You still have not reached the monoblock trunks. Get on, we'll wait.
          Quote: AK64
          We’ll also be silent about the fact that the Germans for some reason didn’t put shot trunks on their tanks ....)

          Maybe because they had enough capacity to produce new trunks?
          Quote: AK64
          In general, the usual heavy nonsense for this comrade

          I read you, and already seriously fear for your loved ones. You are somehow completely out of your mind.
          Quote: AK64
          And actually, where was it to find the shot trunks, in the amount of 500 pieces (by the number of KV) in the 1940s? The shot barrels for anti-aircraft guns appeared a little later.

          Those. information about the F-22 trunks did not reach your brain. Or reached, but did not stay there. It's okay, no one was surprised. Your constant distortions, they are known to all.
          Quote: AK64
          As for the savings: the American comrade again is not aware that in the USSR, let’s say, tank engines remade aviation engines that have exhausted their resources for a long time. Long. All BT on such, and the first T-34, too.

          For starters, they were not redone. They were immediately made for subsequent use in tanks. Learn the materiel.
          Quote: AK64
          However, it is useless to spend time on an American comrade - believe me, I tried.

          I don't know why I am an "American comrade". In addition, I did not write this at all, what is highlighted in your quote. You have already started talking completely. Earlier, you attributed other people's sayings to me only sometimes, but now, more and more often. You need to drink brilliant green, my dear.
        2. The comment was deleted.
    2. Cap.Morgan
      Cap.Morgan 27 February 2016 20: 47
      +1
      At that time - and the time of the beginning of the production of KVs, the beginning of the 40th armor of the vast majority of tanks of a possible enemy did not exceed 40 mm and therefore the armor penetration of the KV gun was sufficient.
      1. AK64
        AK64 27 February 2016 22: 47
        +1
        At that time - and the time of the beginning of the production of KVs, the beginning of the 40th armor of the vast majority of tanks of a possible enemy did not exceed 40 mm and therefore the armor penetration of the KV gun was sufficient.


        That's it!
        Exactly so: not only at the time of creation, but also in 1941 (two years later), the KV gun was guaranteed to hit all possible enemy tanks, while the KV armor was not pleased with any tank and anti-tank guns. (keep quiet about K18 - it’s not a PTP!)

        So why make a fence about "85mm"?
        Moreover, the warehouses are filled with exactly 76mm shells (still royal ones, still issued in the WWI), and even 85mm shells were scarce even at 44-45 and cost much more?

        Or does it need to be done to obscure the stupid amer "carbine"? Well, then he would tell us here which Soviets were stupid, putting unnecessary and redundant 855 on the tanks, despite the fact that they had 76mm shells at least eat ...
        1. Alf
          Alf 28 February 2016 00: 15
          0
          Quote: AK64
          and the 85mm shell even in 44-45 was scarce and cost much more?

          And how is the deficit known? A larger caliber apriori shell costs more.
          1. AK64
            AK64 28 February 2016 00: 24
            0
            And how is the deficit known?

            From the camel is known.
            76mm shells in the 41st still royal manufacture were in huge quantities, even in the WWII with a fright done. And the 85mm was a new caliber, just the first anti-aircraft gun (52-K) was made for it. Shell production was negligible and undeveloped.
            In fact, for example, the reason for choosing a 122mm howitzer cannon for the IS, instead of the 100mm D-10 (which seemed to be "asked for") was just a shortage of 100mm shells.

            A larger caliber apriori shell costs more.

            And the scarce one costs even more.
            Read at least Shirokorada, and then express your thoughts.
        2. karbine
          karbine 28 February 2016 11: 12
          0
          Quote: AK64
          Moreover, the warehouses are filled with exactly 76mm shells (still royal ones, still issued in the WWI), and even 85mm shells were scarce even at 44-45 and cost much more?

          Where did these "overflowing warehouses" come from? This is after WW1 and Civil War? Throwing Internet nonsense indiscriminately.
          Yes, there were reserves of buckshot (later became known as shrapnel) from imperial times. So these reserves were not shot even during WW2, the Germans did not go on the attack in a closed formation. And white, contrary to the famous movie soap, too. After 2MB, these shells had to be disposed of.
          Quote: AK64
          still royal, still in WWI released

          I understood. The phrase WW1 "shell hunger" is unknown to you. The tsarist army appears to you as "full bins of all sorts of things."
          Quote: AK64
          Exactly so: not only at the time of creation, but also in 1941 (two years later), the KV gun was guaranteed to hit all possible enemy tanks

          The tank is not made for 1 day. And in the case of Soviet tanks, it is generally done "forever". Therefore, the supply of Soviet tanks was necessary. He was needed since the summer of 1942. But the army received it only in 1944.
          Quote: AK64
          still royal, still in WWI released

          Quote: AK64
          Or does it need to be done to obscure the stupid amer "carbine"?

          Already the "stupid amer". What will happen next? "Dumb Paraguayan"? Go, look at yourself in the mirror,. Because only such people are capable of splashing saliva on the internet and inventing stupid cliches.
    3. karbine
      karbine 1 March 2016 17: 40
      0
      Quote: carbine
      KV-1 was a very good tank for its time.

      generally outraged by the search for some mythical "talents" of Koshkin and the complete ignorance of Kotin's real talent. Just some kind of boorish disregard.
      After all, what did Kotin conceive in the late 30s? He conceived exactly the same thing as the Germans since 1943. called Panther. The difference was only in the details, with Panther the reservation was frontal, with the HV circular. Another was the layout of the tanks. But in principle, it was exactly the same thing.
      1. With the checkpoint turned out to be an ambush. But Kotin is not to blame here. He was rushed to the Finnish War. And he physically did not have time to make a new checkpoint. I had to be content with "reinforced" from the T-28. The result is known, the HFs moved extremely irregularly.
      2. ZIS-5, the first generation, the one that Kotin intended, had the ballistics of the 3-K anti-aircraft gun. Not the 7.5 cm KwK 42, of course, but the 7.5 cm KwK 40 will be more powerful. But the Soviet defense industry did not give him such a gun before the war. Nor did he give him the F-22 converted to an "anti-aircraft" cartridge (this was the second generation of the ZIS-5). He gave him a completely cut L-11 and F-32, and then about the same ZIS-5 of the third generation (with ballistics F-34).
      Of course, for such stubs, the HF housing was redundant. But this is no longer fault, but Kotin’s misfortune. But here another question comes up, in 1943, when they made a new tower for the 85-mm weapon, there was no longer a normal platform under it. Because only a big dreamer can call the T-34 platform suitable for the new tower.
      And the HF platform itself (with the exception of the checkpoint, made a new one by the summer of 1942) was beautiful. The T-34 platform, even if you do not look at the weight, only on the structure, to the Kotin product, as to the Moon. But, a paradox. Koshkin is recorded in the great, Kotin is almost forgotten. Perfect nonsense turned out.
    4. karbine
      karbine 1 March 2016 17: 40
      0
      Quote: carbine
      KV-1 was a very good tank for its time.

      generally outraged by the search for some mythical "talents" of Koshkin and the complete ignorance of Kotin's real talent. Just some kind of boorish disregard.
      After all, what did Kotin conceive in the late 30s? He conceived exactly the same thing as the Germans since 1943. called Panther. The difference was only in the details, with Panther the reservation was frontal, with the HV circular. Another was the layout of the tanks. But in principle, it was exactly the same thing.
      1. With the checkpoint turned out to be an ambush. But Kotin is not to blame here. He was rushed to the Finnish War. And he physically did not have time to make a new checkpoint. I had to be content with "reinforced" from the T-28. The result is known, the HFs moved extremely irregularly.
      2. ZIS-5, the first generation, the one that Kotin intended, had the ballistics of the 3-K anti-aircraft gun. Not the 7.5 cm KwK 42, of course, but the 7.5 cm KwK 40 will be more powerful. But the Soviet defense industry did not give him such a gun before the war. Nor did he give him the F-22 converted to an "anti-aircraft" cartridge (this was the second generation of the ZIS-5). He gave him a completely cut L-11 and F-32, and then about the same ZIS-5 of the third generation (with ballistics F-34).
      Of course, for such stubs, the HF housing was redundant. But this is no longer fault, but Kotin’s misfortune.
      And the platform itself (with the exception of the checkpoint, made a new one by the summer of 1942) was beautiful. The T-34 platform, even if you do not look at the weight, only on the structure, to the Kotin product, as to the Moon. But, a paradox. Koshkin is recorded in the great, Kotin is almost forgotten. Perfect nonsense turned out.
  • engineer
    engineer 27 February 2016 13: 09
    +1
    and now the old question. why sun ussr. having a quantitative and qualitative superiority in tanks. rolled back to Moscow before the weak T-z.? and t-4. T-5 and T-6 appeared in Germany only in the year 42 and beyond. to which our responded t-34-85. ex. sau -152. but at the beginning of the war the USSR exceeded Germany in tanks. it means not only in tanks.
    1. AK64
      AK64 27 February 2016 13: 24
      0
      and now the old question. why sun ussr. having a quantitative and qualitative superiority in tanks. rolled back to Moscow before the weak T-z.? and t-4. T-5 and T-6 appeared in Germany only in the year 42 and beyond.


      Then take into account those who write about "quantitative and qualitative" - ​​lamers and other journalists. That's why.
      1. sibiryouk
        sibiryouk 27 February 2016 18: 06
        +2
        Because the Germans knew how to fight and the weak T-3, T-4. And the Red Army mechanized units were just a crowd of armed people, while they learned to fight the war, the war was over!
        1. AK64
          AK64 27 February 2016 18: 31
          0
          Because the Germans knew how to fight and the weak T-3, T-4. And the Red Army mechanized units were just a crowd of armed people, while they learned to fight the war, the war was over!


          Y-yes ... Again "legends about the Niberlungs" and other supermen
          Moody, illiterate ignorance, that’s what it is.

          And this is nothing that the "weak" T-3 Soviet specialists somehow called "the best foreign tank"? (On the T-34, the same citizens only wrote complaints.)

          And this is nothing that BTshki, how did the T-26s (and I am already silent about the "floats" and others) made their way out of the Mauser 98 with a standard and mass armor-piercing bullet developed by an 18th year engineer? And they didn't just break through - but let's say BTs also burned with a blue flame.
          Nothing?

          This is the Germans, it means, "weak" - but as the Russians have some kind of barokhlo - so immediately screams about "so he is a floating \ literary \ highway!"
          1. Cap.Morgan
            Cap.Morgan 27 February 2016 18: 42
            +1
            Quote: AK64
            Because the Germans knew how to fight and the weak T-3, T-4. And the Red Army mechanized units were just a crowd of armed people, while they learned to fight the war, the war was over!


            Y-yes ... Again "legends about the Niberlungs" and other supermen
            Moody, illiterate ignorance, that’s what it is.

            And this is nothing that the "weak" T-3 Soviet specialists somehow called "the best foreign tank"? (On the T-34, the same citizens only wrote complaints.)

            And this is nothing that BTshki, how did the T-26s (and I am already silent about the "floats" and others) made their way out of the Mauser 98 with a standard and mass armor-piercing bullet developed by an 18th year engineer? And they didn't just break through - but let's say BTs also burned with a blue flame.
            Nothing?

            ;

            Wow. The first time I hear that a BT or T-26 made its way through a rifle bullet. Of course, by chance that only in life does not happen. From a carbine and a plane you can shoot down, but this is not typical, completely unbelievable, one-time unique case.
            About the fact that the T-3 is the best tank of the Wehrmacht, especially in the mouth of Soviet specialists, it also sounds surprisingly somehow. I heard that Czech cars were very good. But no one praised the three rubles. She quickly exhausted the possibilities of modernization and gave way to the T-4.
            1. AK64
              AK64 27 February 2016 19: 10
              0
              Wow. The first time I hear that a BT or T-26 made its way through a rifle bullet. Of course, by chance that only in life does not happen.


              And this is a terrible secret about which you can not tell anyone. (I think you understand why not?)
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_bullet

              That is why Zhukov wrote "quite a lot of lightweight and outdated" ...
              These tanks were not suitable for this very reason, and there is nothing to count them.

              And, by the way, the mass appearance of the PTR killed the T-2: as soon as there were a lot of PTR, the production of the T-2 immediately stopped ...

              About the fact that the T-3 is the best tank of the Wehrmacht, especially in the mouth of Soviet specialists, it also sounds surprisingly somehow.

              Not "the best tank of the Wehrmacht" but simply "the best foreign" - but not "absolutely", namely for that (1940) year.
              The panther is better understood. But in 1941, the C grade is just a fairy tale: not "on the plates" but as a product.
              1. AK64
                AK64 27 February 2016 19: 11
                0
                By the way, the bullet that I mentioned, K-bullet is a development in 1918. So that
                1. Cap.Morgan
                  Cap.Morgan 27 February 2016 21: 08
                  +2
                  Wow. K-bullet. 8 mm? However.
                  Really so unimportant armor.
                  A 12-14 mm bullet did indeed penetrate the armor of light tanks, but this is already an anti-tank gun.
                  1. AK64
                    AK64 27 February 2016 21: 48
                    +3
                    Wow. K-bullet. 8 mm? However.

                    Not 8mm but standard 7.92 - Mauser standard cartridge. Developed in 1918, versus you yourself understand the British. By 1941, they already had better.

                    And then read carefully:
                    armor penetration is a random process, there is a scatter of parameters. It does not happen that "up to 100 m" breaks through everything, but at 101 m it stops sharply. It seems to be clear to everyone - but as soon as it comes to a conversation - this obvious fact is forgotten here.
                    So the K-bullet pierced, back in 1918, up to 15mm British armor.
                    But ... not always and not at all, but only up to 100m, and with a probability somewhere around 25-30%. But you weigh the same density of fire! After all, everyone shoots! Each infantryman has 10 such cartridges, and the machine gunners have 2 ribbons where the armor-piercing and incendiary are alternated. That is, statistics against the tank.

                    Another problem: the Soviet armor was not British, and by no means for the better. But not all - because the armor in the USSR was different. Here at the Kirov plant there was cemented armor (again - not all and not always), and it was held for such a shot. And here’s BTS ... This is a guard.

                    And now the "conspiracy theory": Pavlov (the Kingdom of Heaven to the warrior Dmitry, suffered for someone else's fault) was in Spain, and there he actually realized it all. Arriving, he tried to draw attention to the fact. It turned out badly for him: according to the results of his attempts to shout out, the Kharkov plant switched to the production of BT-7 (instead of BT-5) - but that was a fiction: they paid more attention to the shape of the tower (bastards!) Than to the real strengthening of the armor. In BT-7, only the forehead was reinforced, up to 22mm, which, in principle, already held ANY armor-piercing pool. But the board remained the same! And there are huge tanks.
                    And for the authorities (and for the enemy - who knew where and where) they changed the shape of the tower.

                    So it goes.

                    Nevertheless, Pavlov got through, and from late 1939 / early 1940 an intensive screening program began: it was assumed that tanks would be screened in factories. It would be better not to do this - because as they did ... As a result, the tanks were confused, mixed, not returned to the unit ... Etc. etc. (If desired: the book by Dima Sheen and Andrei Ulanov "order in the tank forces" - in a personal conversation, the authors expressed themselves much more sharply than on paper.)

                    That is why Zhukov wrote "there were quite a few light and outdated ones" - they simply could not be used against the Germans! (What could he write? The truth, perhaps?) It could be used against the Poles, against the Japanese monjo. So they sent everything that survived in the massacre of the summer and autumn of 1941 to the Far East, against the Japanese.

                    It's your discovery day, huh?

                    Do not find it hard, go over the topic, give me ++++, so as not to be thrown from the site.
                    1. Cap.Morgan
                      Cap.Morgan 27 February 2016 22: 23
                      0
                      Very interesting.
                      Well, in principe and Panther, a 45-mm shell sometimes made its way.
                      Of course, this did not lead to the complete destruction of the tank, but nonetheless.
                      Interesting ...
                      1. AK64
                        AK64 27 February 2016 23: 39
                        +2
                        Of course, this did not lead to the complete destruction of the tank, but nonetheless.


                        So with the Soviet, it was also very different. Here T-26 sometimes came out of the battle as a sieve: Mikhail Svirin (Heavenly king - he said that he died recently; Misha was a good man) said that the armor-piercing cores from T-26 were sometimes almost swept out with a broom after the battle. But if the crew member didn’t get there, then it somehow managed. The tank did not burn, but this is important.
                        But BT is another matter: BT had huge tanks long in a tank in the fenders. And the armor from the side - on the strength of 15mm, even the BT-7. You see, yes?

                        That's why BT tankers hated fiercely.

                        PS: thanks for +++ - I noticed. (I’m not conceited, ratings aren’t important to me - but if I’ll throw it out, I’m likely to be too lazy for a new regit)
                      2. Cap.Morgan
                        Cap.Morgan 28 February 2016 00: 18
                        -1
                        You have interesting comments ...)))
                        Informative.
                  2. karbine
                    karbine 28 February 2016 19: 45
                    +1
                    Quote: AK64
                    Each infantryman has 10 such cartridges, and the machine gunners have 2 ribbons where the armor-piercing and incendiary are alternated. That is, statistics against the tank.

                    In fact, it was useless to shoot such cartridges from rifles. You confuse them with German PTR caliber 7,92 mm.
                    Quote: AK64
                    Here at the Kirov plant there was cemented armor (again - not all and not always), and it was held for such a shot.

                    Did you come up with this yourself? Cemented armor was planned on the T-50. Only. And that’s because after it was actually done, it turned out that the reservation task was weak. And to alter the increase in thickness does not work. Therefore, cementless. remade to cement. But in fact, all the same, the armor of a few T-50s was not cement, and after the start of the Second World War the tower became generally cast (and double).
                    Quote: AK64
                    But the board remained the same! And there are huge tanks.

                    Another fabulist drew. You frightened us with "passions" about German kolamatchiks, who use kolemets to fire in bursts, and 15 mm through and through (and there also infantrymen from gever help). Sew tanks in a row, and like a sieve. Bundles. In fact, these are your NORMAL fantasies. None of this was even nearby. T-60 / T-70 / SU-76, all of them had 15 mm armor board. And this is a wartime BTT, when the capabilities of the German anti-tank defense system were well known. So, only Pak, even PzB did not help (see tests).
                    Quote: AK64
                    That is why Zhukov wrote “there were quite a few light and outdated ones” - they simply could not be used against the Germans!

                    And what was he supposed to write? It was necessary to somehow explain the drap to Moscow, so he explained how he could.
                    Quote: AK64
                    Do not find it hard, go over the topic, give me ++++, so as not to be thrown from the site.

                    I will not deliver. For a flight of fancy, perhaps. But usually I don’t have such a habit.
            2. Cap.Morgan
              Cap.Morgan 27 February 2016 21: 03
              0
              I read about the three that the tank was not bad, especially in the commander’s version.
          2. AK64
            AK64 27 February 2016 20: 22
            +2
            But no one praised the three rubles. She quickly exhausted the possibilities of modernization and gave way to the T-4.

            Treshka "gave way" to the Panther.
            She could not "give way" to the four in any way - because these two models began to be produced at the same time. Moreover, the C was "basic" and the four was "additional". The reason for this diversity is capitalism and different factories: not everyone could (and not everyone wanted) to master the complex C grade in production.
            But Pantherka is the same companies as the C grade.

            The four, contrary to the opinion of the "experts" judging the tanks by the cheaters in the plates, were initially a rather unimportant tank. And then how they took it to the full limit with modernizations: the chassis of the four was brutally overloaded with modernizations and barely held it. (And it was already impossible to strengthen it without fundamental changes.)
            1. Cap.Morgan
              Cap.Morgan 27 February 2016 22: 30
              0
              I read that it was impossible to place a more powerful gun in the treshka tower. Therefore, the chassis was used for self-propelled guns, and the maximum caliber T-III is 50 mm.

              Well yes, competition. For example Tiger and Ferdinand - Porsche Tiger.
              1. AK64
                AK64 28 February 2016 00: 00
                +2
                I read that it was impossible to place a more powerful gun in the treshka tower. Therefore, the chassis was used for self-propelled guns, and the maximum caliber T-III is 50 mm.


                Troetsk was originally designed for a 55mm gun. But such (fortunately) was not available at that time, and they put a blank - 37mm. Then, when the 50mm (KvK 38 and KvK 39) finally got their hands on, they set it up. There were no problems in putting a long 75mm in the three-piece - they stuck it into the four, but the four did not. And in general, if 34mm was stuck in a tiny T-76 tower ... The troika has a noticeably larger tower.

                But someone came up with the idea to radically change (or radically boil over - capitalism is the same!) And go to a fundamentally new tank - Panther.

                In fact, KvK 39 rather reliably made thirty-four holes: given the high rate of fire and much better SLAs, in a duel situation the chances are higher than three (although not as much as Panther's).
                1. karbine
                  karbine 28 February 2016 10: 06
                  +1
                  Quote: AK64
                  Troetsk was originally designed for a 55mm gun. But such (fortunately) was not available at that time, and they put a blank - 37mm. Then, when the 50mm (KvK 38 and KvK 39) finally got their hands on, they set it up. There were no problems in putting a long 75mm in the three-piece - they stuck it into the four, but the four did not. And in general, if 34mm was stuck in a tiny T-76 tower ... The troika has a noticeably larger tower.
                  But someone came up with the idea to radically change (or radically boil over - capitalism is the same!) And go to a fundamentally new tank - Panther.

                  When you speak, it feels like you are raving.
                  By the way, on the Pz.Kpfw.III Ausf.N mod. 1942 stood 7,5 cm KwK 37 L / 24. The same "cigarette butt". It didn't get there anymore.
            2. Alf
              Alf 27 February 2016 23: 36
              +2
              Quote: AK64
              Treshka "gave way" to the Panther.

              Why not the Royal Tiger?
              Quote: AK64
              She could not "give way" to the four in any way - because these two models began to be produced at the same time.

              The troika lost to the Four and was discontinued at the moment when the T-4 was able to dramatically strengthen its armament without changing the turret, replacing the 24-caliber 43 and 48-caliber guns. At Troika, this was impossible.
              1. AK64
                AK64 28 February 2016 00: 44
                -2
                Why not the Royal Tiger?
                Quote: AK64
                She could not "give way" to the four in any way - because these two models began to be produced at the same time.


                The troika lost to the Four and was discontinued at the moment when the T-4 was able to dramatically strengthen its armament without changing the turret, replacing the 24-caliber 43 and 48-caliber guns. At Troika, this was impossible.


                You will excuse me for being straightforward, but you are a very stubborn and very stupid person. I forgave you and made your stupid thing about the Mk-4 scope - and as I see it in vain I let it go - you will now waste my time on idiocy.

                Are you too lazy to see who and when produced tanks? After all, I SAID EVERYTHING - the rest is HOME.

                Do not waste my time on YOUR stupid things.

                I show you why you are stupid - and this is the last time.

                The manufacturer and developer of the Tigers - both the 1st and 2nd - is Henschel-Werke, and no one has produced them except.
                Four-piece manufacturer - from start to finish Krupp. And NOBODY except Krupp did NOT produce them. Issued from the 36th to the end of the war.
                The developer of the C grade is Daimler-Benz, and he also produced it.
                But Panther ... The developer is MAN, but Panther has many manufacturers: All the same MAN, Henschel-Werke (yes, the one that seems to be occupied by the Tigers), Demag and (fanfare !!!) Daimler. Yes, Daimler.

                So who replaced whom and to whom?

                You took me 20 minutes. If you were a little smarter, you yourself would conduct this search and not take away my the time.
                It is politeness to respect someone else’s time (time is money; I hope you don’t steal someone else’s money? So why do you think it is possible to steal someone else’s time?)
                1. karbine
                  karbine 28 February 2016 10: 14
                  +1
                  Quote: AK64
                  You took me 20 minutes. If you were a bit smarter, you yourself would have conducted this search and not taken my time.
                  It is politeness to respect someone else’s time (time is money; I hope you don’t steal someone else’s money? So why do you think it is possible to steal someone else’s time?)

                  Do you work as a minister? Or a member, shy to say, a correspondent? Why are you so busy on websites for days on end? Temporarily retired? Or in the presidential personnel reserve?
            3. karbine
              karbine 28 February 2016 10: 30
              0
              Quote: AK64
              Moreover, the C was "basic" and the four was "additional". The reason for this diversity is capitalism and different factories: not everyone could (and not everyone wanted) to master the complex C grade in production.

              Wow. It turns out that tanks before the war were divided into main and additional. Here it is, a new word in the history of weapons. I suggest you sit right behind the doctor’s. A discovery of what.
              Actually stop your verbal diarrhea. I was silent for a long time, but I have no strength to read your invented "facts".
              The three was a success development tank. In different countries, tanks of this category were called differently. Somewhere cruising, somewhere cavalry, somewhere even operational. In the USSR, BTs were analogous to treshki, and before the war they developed the T-50 to replace it.
              The four was an "infantry" tank. Those. tank for direct support of infantry. Before WW2 there was such a concept, the infantry goes on the attack forward, and behind it is a self-propelled armored gun firing. Something like an ACS support, only with a turret. In the USSR, such a tank was the T-26, and before the Second World War, the T-34 replaced it. Later, during the Second World War, the T-34 was replaced first by the T-60/70, and then, finally, by the SU-76.
              After the beginning of the Second World War, the T-4 and T-34 were withdrawn from the "infantry" and assigned to the role of something like MBT. For this, the gun was changed on the T-4, but nothing was changed on the T-34. Because the whole tank would have to be changed, except for the cannon, and this is expensive.
              Later, the Germans did the real Panther MBT, but again they didn’t do anything sensible in the USSR. Only a new tower was installed on the T-34. It was a good tower. Only in 1941 it was she with a 76 mm gun that would have been standing on the T-34, and not since 1944. At that time, it was already necessary to change not only the tower, but the entire platform as a whole.
              1. pimen
                pimen 28 February 2016 10: 46
                +1
                Quote: karbine

                Later, the Germans did the real Panther MBT, but again they didn’t do anything sensible in the USSR. Only a new tower was installed on the T-34. It was a good tower. Only in 1941 it was she with a 76 mm gun that would have been standing on the T-34, and not since 1944. At that time, it was already necessary to change not only the tower, but the entire platform as a whole.

                the platform was, and not very bad - t44, but "they decided not to change the horses in the crossing", limiting themselves to t34-85
                1. karbine
                  karbine 28 February 2016 10: 57
                  +1
                  Quote: pimen
                  but "they decided not to change the horses in the crossing", limiting themselves to t34-85

                  Well, i.e. actually was not.
                  Quote: pimen
                  the platform was, and not very bad - t44

                  I doubt that it is not bad. Somehow in pure form she did not go. And quickly enough it was redone in the T-54.
                  1. pimen
                    pimen 28 February 2016 11: 44
                    0
                    Well, t54 is already much! better than panthers
              2. hohol95
                hohol95 28 February 2016 17: 34
                0
                The T-50 was to replace not the BT, but the T-26! From that it was an infantry escort tank! BT changed on the T-34! T-28 and T-35 on KV-1!
                1. karbine
                  karbine 28 February 2016 18: 15
                  +1
                  Quote: hohol95
                  The T-50 was to replace not the BT, but the T-26! From that it was an infantry escort tank! BT changed on the T-34! T-28 and T-35 on KV-1!

                  But the head of ABTU Komkor Pavlov disagrees with you. He just claimed that the T-32 (later T-34) went to replace the T-26, and the T-20 (later T-50) to replace the BT. And the People's Commissar of Defense Marshal Voroshilov informed so.
                  1. hohol95
                    hohol95 28 February 2016 23: 52
                    0
                    I will not mind Voroshilov! More leafing through the literature! But you will not object to the fact that before the appearance of the TIGER, the heavy duty in the shift was Pz. IV? They classified the technique by gun caliber! Until the TIGER!
                    1. karbine
                      karbine 29 February 2016 01: 10
                      0
                      Quote: hohol95
                      They classified the technique by gun caliber! Until the TIGER!

                      A frequent statement. I was not interested in this issue, so I cannot confirm or deny anything.
                      I only know that by design the PzKpfw IV was an "infantry" tank, and the PzKpfw III was a "cruiser" tank. In 1941.
                      Since 1942, given that the blitzkrieg failed, the line of German tanks has undergone a change. PzKpfw IV has become something like MBT, and PzKpfw III has become unclear what. Don’t sew the mare’s tail. Because until 1943 still produced reconnaissance PzKpfw II.
                      In 1943 another rebuilding happened. PzKpfw IV became a kind of universal snitch, and PzKpfw III (and PzKpfw II) was discontinued. PzKpfw V has become something like an MBT. There were no more changes in the pan-waffle until the end of the war.
                      PzKpfw VI since 1942 stood apart all the way.
                2. The comment was deleted.
          3. AK64
            AK64 27 February 2016 20: 22
            -1
            But no one praised the three rubles. She quickly exhausted the possibilities of modernization and gave way to the T-4.

            Treshka "gave way" to the Panther.
            She could not "give way" to the four in any way - because these two models began to be produced at the same time. Moreover, the C was "basic" and the four was "additional". The reason for this diversity is capitalism and different factories: not everyone could (and not everyone wanted) to master the complex C grade in production.
            But Pantherka is the same companies as the C grade.

            The four, contrary to the opinion of the "experts" judging the tanks by the cheaters in the plates, were initially a rather unimportant tank. And then how they took it to the full limit with modernizations: the chassis of the four was brutally overloaded with modernizations and barely held it. (And it was already impossible to strengthen it without fundamental changes.)
            1. pimen
              pimen 27 February 2016 20: 53
              0
              Well, what was the potential of the six-wheeled three-wheeler - Pz3n with KWK37?
            2. hohol95
              hohol95 28 February 2016 17: 30
              0
              The British copied not the sights, but the observation devices of the Pole Gundlyach's system! The sights were copied from the German ones! And the Panther was conceived as a replacement for the Four! And she "ate" a lot of resources on which she could build up to 10 Fours instead of 6 thousand Panthers! And at the beginning of the war, the Germans IV considered heavy - not by mass, but by the caliber of the gun !!! And according to the gun, the Panther was transferred from heavy to MEDIUM (44 tons against 30 tons of T-34 and Sherman) !!!
          4. karbine
            karbine 28 February 2016 10: 01
            +1
            Quote: Cap.Morgan
            The first time I hear that a BT or T-26 made its way through a rifle bullet. Of course, by chance that only in life does not happen.

            From anti-tank PzB punched. But in 1942. BT and T-26 are few and these guns were removed from production.
            Quote: Cap.Morgan
            About the fact that the T-3 is the best tank of the Wehrmacht, especially in the mouth of Soviet specialists, it also sounds surprisingly somehow.

            Surprisingly or not, before the Second World War, the T-III won the comparative tests.
            Quote: Cap.Morgan
            I heard that Czech cars were very good.

            T-38 (t) E and further were not bad. But everything was spoiled by a 37-mm gun.
  • tchoni
    tchoni 27 February 2016 18: 15
    +1
    It's about people. We always knew how to wave a saber and put it against the wall. But to think and organize the work - no, no. Not a royal (commissar, secretary, presidential - necessary to emphasize) business. Let the slaves have a headache about it. I will set a task for them, I will limit the time and I will hang the punishing hand over them - let them spin. Plus the fear of recognizing errors and pluralism (a nasty word, but, here it is appropriate).
    Here they haut a box of KV. Do you think the "tiger" had no problems? Childhood Illness? Did the bridges keep him straight? - not a bit! Simply, the design flaws were compensated for by the organization of combat use. Complex car? - to recruit crews with tankers with experience and training. Heavy - to carry out engineering reconnaissance of the extension routes, survey of bridges. Difficulties in repair - assign a repair unit to each battalion. Equip it with everything, up to the machines supplied, etc. etc.
  • fa2998
    fa2998 27 February 2016 14: 27
    +1
    Quote: aba
    Seem a small difference in caliber: 76 and 88, and the end result is significant.

    By the way, the "Panther" was equipped with a 76 mm gun. And compare them with guns on the T-34 and KV-1. Ours look like cigarette butts. Yes, at the beginning of the war this was enough to fight the T-3, T-4, the first series (unshielded). Then the T-3,4 "got better", and new tanks appeared and problems began.
    Our tanks and the engine and gearbox were located at the rear and took up a lot of space. The tower is shifted forward and plus frontal armor and all the load on the front rollers. Neither increase the armor nor put a powerful gun. Our coped - on the T-44 engine was put across and shifted the tower to the center. And there were gain opportunities. hi
    1. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 27 February 2016 16: 36
      0
      Quote: fa2998
      76 mm equipment

      75mm.
    2. sibiryouk
      sibiryouk 27 February 2016 18: 03
      0
      This was after the war.
  • sibiryouk
    sibiryouk 27 February 2016 18: 14
    0
    In the World of Tanks series, a book about KV has recently been published, I recommend reading it.
  • tank64rus
    tank64rus 27 February 2016 18: 39
    0
    KV honestly worked his bread. The Germans nicknamed him the ghost tank in 1941. That says a lot. As for comparisons in 1943, went to the KV-85 series with an 85 mm gun. This one could already fight with and with the Tiger and Panther. But on the basis of KV the IS tank was already ready, first with an 85mm and then with a 122mm cannon. They may say that this is a different tank, but look carefully, it grew out of KV.
    1. Cap.Morgan
      Cap.Morgan 27 February 2016 21: 13
      +1
      Quote: tank64rus
      KV honestly worked his bread. The Germans nicknamed him the ghost tank in 1941. That says a lot. As for comparisons in 1943, went to the KV-85 series with an 85 mm gun. This one could already fight with and with the Tiger and Panther. But on the basis of KV the IS tank was already ready, first with an 85mm and then with a 122mm cannon. They may say that this is a different tank, but look carefully, it grew out of KV.

      All the same, the entire severity of the war was carried on his shoulders by the T-34.
      Undoubtedly, the KV tank played a large role primarily as a basis for the development of more powerful tanks and self-propelled guns of the IS series.
      1. AK64
        AK64 28 February 2016 00: 25
        +1
        All the same, the entire severity of the war was carried on his shoulders by the T-34.


        So
    2. karbine
      karbine 28 February 2016 09: 39
      0
      Quote: tank64rus
      The Germans nicknamed him the ghost tank in 1941.

      These "Germans" mostly sat in the department of agitation and propaganda of the Central Committee of the CPSU, where, for a healthy salary, they successfully wrote the history of the Second World War in the form that everyone knows.
  • Denimax
    Denimax 27 February 2016 21: 40
    +1
    In my opinion, a very mediocre tank turned out.
    Of the benefits can be called:
    Wide caterpillar = good cross.
    Small cats = good harness. It’s not a 34-puck ride. I will not say anything about Tigers and Panthers.)
    Good reservation = you can’t say anything, except about the frontal of the driver’s arm.
    Engine and transmission = this is for specialists. I know that with the power unit it was not very good.
    With surveillance devices, also not very.
    But the gun is clearly not on order. With guns, all tanks suffered. You can adapt with any technique, but if there is no long and powerful arm of defeat, then it’s difficult to fight.)
    1. karbine
      karbine 28 February 2016 09: 35
      +1
      Quote: Denimax
      With surveillance devices, also not very.

      Compare the observation devices KV-1 and T-4F.
      For the Germans, the KFF.2 surveillance device at the Mehdov + TZF.5a sight at the gunner. The rest is all gaps.
      At KV, 2 observation devices at the driver, an optical sight at the radio operator, 2 periscopic devices at the loader, 2 sights at the gunner (periscope. + Telescope.), Optical. sight + 2 device periscope + commander’s panorama of the commander.
      As you can see, KV is much richer. Even in the T-34 there were 5 periscope instruments + sight + commander’s panorama.
      Because of this poverty, the "sniper's dream", the head of a tank commander, often stuck out of the hatches of the turrets of German tanks. The most cunning of them acquired a field panorama and it was sticking out of the towers, not the commander's head.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • PKK
    PKK 27 February 2016 21: 50
    0
    Quote: aba
    Seem a small difference in caliber: 76 and 88, and the end result is significant.

    Not only the caliber, but also the weight of the powder and the quality of the powder in the sleeve, played a role.
  • AK64
    AK64 28 February 2016 00: 46
    +1
    Everything, guys, I'm tired of you - on this joyful note, I finished the part in this topic.

    Kindly, go from top to bottom and give me ++++: I am not conceited, and I am not torn for grades. However, as I understand it, there are banyats for the negative rating.
    1. karbine
      karbine 28 February 2016 18: 57
      +1
      Quote: AK64
      Everything, guys, I'm tired of you - on this joyful note, I finished the part in this topic.

      Good news.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. dealvi
      dealvi 29 February 2016 08: 35
      0
      Sorry you left the conversation. To write so many nonsense and then leave so gracefully) If you do not mind, I can prove it on my fingers.
  • Bormanxnumx
    Bormanxnumx 28 February 2016 00: 57
    +1
    Quote: AK64
    That is, the Anshli sights, from which our one-on-one copied their own, were bullshit?


    But haven't they copied from German?
    Americans somehow highly praised the Soviet breaking sights ...

    But they "copied" only on the T-34 and KV, but BEFORE that ... Well, besides, only part of the OMS was attached, which in general was traditionally much better for the Germans.

    The problem was not in the design of the sketched sight, but in the quality of the glass used for the production of lenses. German sights gave a clearer and brighter "picture".
  • complete zero
    complete zero 28 February 2016 03: 35
    -1
    Quote: carbine
    Quote: dokusib
    And 88 was created as an anti-aircraft gun for high-altitude bombers, as a result of which it had a huge initial velocity of the projectile at that time and, as a consequence, high trajectory persistence when firing at ground targets

    You have written everything correctly. Only I would not praise the Tiger gun. The fact is that the ballistics of anti-aircraft guns basically coincides with the ballistics of anti-tank guns. Therefore, anti-aircraft / anti-tank guns, this is the lot of self-propelled guns or tank destroyers. And tanks are often equipped with universal guns.
    For the Tigers, something more 100-110 mm would be more suitable. And the 88-mm KwK 36 L / 56, this is a necessary step, they just had nothing more suitable. In my opinion, the Germans for the Tigers needed to experiment with 10,5 cm schwere Kanone 18. trunks. There would be more sense.

    I agree ... and yet the "88" was perhaps the best tank gun (in terms of the totality of qualities) in the war?
    1. karbine
      karbine 28 February 2016 09: 22
      0
      Quote: complete zero
      and yet the "88" was perhaps the best tank gun (in terms of the totality of qualities) in the war?

      And why is the 85 mm S-53 worse? Nothing. Exactly the same.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • dealvi
    dealvi 29 February 2016 08: 37
    0
    AK64 is a banal Troll, it’s strange that they argued with him at all (There are so many absurdities in his words, he’s already taking the hell out of it.
  • dealvi
    dealvi 29 February 2016 09: 03
    0
    Well, out of boredom. To call the T-34 an infantry tank, it must be ... an expert on the history of tanks.
    Call the panther the first obt, this is from the same opera.
    Can you explain your words, Mr. AK64?
    1. karbine
      karbine 29 February 2016 10: 07
      0
      Quote: dealvi
      Well, out of boredom. To call the T-34 an infantry tank, it must be ... an expert on the history of tanks.

      You, in order not to get bored, argue with the head of ABTU, Comcor Pavlov. When you argue, let me know.
      1. dealvi
        dealvi 29 February 2016 11: 07
        0
        in the USSR there was simply no division into infantry and "other" classes of equipment.
      2. dealvi
        dealvi 29 February 2016 11: 09
        -1
        workout for the mind. T 34 just according to your logic, and there is the first obt.
      3. dealvi
        dealvi 29 February 2016 11: 12
        0
        Why did they delete it?
      4. dealvi
        dealvi 29 February 2016 11: 14
        0
        not used to the site litter. And so Corbin, do you acknowledge that the first OBT was t 34?
      5. dealvi
        dealvi 29 February 2016 11: 16
        0
        If you are AK, then smearing you about maintainability is a separate joy))
      6. dealvi
        dealvi 29 February 2016 11: 17
        -1
        just don't write crap
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • dealvi
    dealvi 29 February 2016 11: 05
    0
    and where did you find the contradiction?
  • dealvi
    dealvi 3 March 2016 11: 15
    0
    So suddenly the debaters merge, which is a pity. By the way, maintainability has little to do with the motorcycle resource. It is rather an opportunity to recover equipment after damage in battle. Suddenly you did not know.
  • fitter71
    fitter71 15 March 2016 00: 56
    0
    Quote: Litsvin
    Reconstruction of those events and comparison with other similar meetings of the Germans with the "KV" testifies to only one thing - our tankers turned out to be excellent strategists, who fully managed to take advantage of the nature of the terrain. Those. they created a plug in the "bottleneck" which was practically impossible to remove due to the lack of the Germans' ability to deploy anti-tank weapons.

    contradicts your statements about the "mythicality" of the situation itself - read YOUR text ...
    Quote: Litsvin
    Another "myth" about "KV", widely used by "scribblers" - "the Germans did not know"

    Quote: Litsvin
    The Germans learned good information from the Finns with photographs, assessments of the results of firing at new conscientious heavy tanks, polls of Finnish soldiers and officers, etc. The only "but" - the Germans carried out a thorough analysis and their engineers "underestimated" the booking of our tanks to "40-50 mm". They did not think, based on their knowledge of the anti-tank artillery systems existing in the world at that time, that a tank was created in the USSR with excessive armor. Simply put, they miscalculated.

    how can you "underestimate" the thickness of the armor knowing the mass and having the results of the firing on hand? then - not a very "thorough" (quoting YOU) analysis was carried out. did they know or did not know ?! you will figure it out first, and then write :)))
    Quote: AK64
    The measure of guilt is determined by the court.
    I am not a court, and who and what is guilty is not going to understand. (and by the way, the court was after all!)

    you will not believe, but ... Hitler was not convicted and formally is not a criminal. the very case when it seemed to the main victims that "everyone already understands everything" and "everyone knows everything anyway." But now the 21st century has come - and some people are ready to "not condemn" Nazism ... in the course - which countries?
    Quote: Cap.Morgan
    The population of the USSR was 2 times larger than in Germany.
    We will not even discuss the raw material capabilities of the USSR. In Germany, there is practically nothing but coal, bauxite and iron ore. And then in insufficient quantities. Agricultural opportunities are also quite modest.
    Of course, the industrial potential of Germany was quite high. However, yielding to the general level of production and technology of the USSR, it was almost on a par with Germany in the possibilities of military production. Since it was precisely in the military sphere that the efforts of the USSR were concentrated in the period of pre-war industrialization.

    Well, nonsense ... the whole of Europe worked for the Wehrmacht with the exception of the Great Britons. Well, yes - not everything in Europe could be dug - even if they carried ore from Sweden. something else. but in the Wehrmacht there were not only foreign fighters - Swedes, Danes, French, Spaniards - all this in addition to the "traditionally" famous allies - but also Czech cannons and tanks, French cars, but of course there was no one to plow the land, yes ... so much - then the volunteers rushed to the east to poke fun ... and the population of all of Europe is almost twice as against the USSR - which fought against us in one way or another ...
  • Alex_623
    Alex_623 April 3 2016 19: 27
    0
    Quote: Aspeed
    That is, the Anshli sights, from which our one-on-one copied their own, were bullshit?

    The sight is just great. But the workmanship is really bullshit!
    The same with Revi's fighter scope:
    the original is excellent, and the workmanship of the Soviet copy is bullshit ...
  • Alex_623
    Alex_623 April 3 2016 19: 53
    0
    Quote: fitter71
    but in the Wehrmacht there were not only foreign fighters - Swedes, Danes, French, Spaniards - all this in addition to the "traditionally" famous allies - but also Czech cannons and tanks, French cars, but of course there was no one to plow the land, yes ... so much - then the volunteers rushed to the east to poke fun ... and the population of all of Europe is almost twice as against the USSR - which fought against us in one way or another ...

    My young friend, do not talk nonsense and learn the materiel:
    in the Wehrmacht there never were neither Swedes, nor French, nor Danes - they were in the SS troops!
    Do you know or explain the difference between the Wehrmacht and the SS?

    In addition, you forgot about the Russian part of the SS, about the ROA, etc. etc. - is not it?