Military Review

Blitzkrieg tanks in combat (part of 2)

101
Based on the experience of the Polish company in France, three “high-speed cuirassier divisions” (Divisioins Cuirassees Rapide - DCR) were created, consisting of two B-1 battalions (60 vehicles) and two battalions tanks H-39 (78 cars). The fourth was in the formation stage, besides these units lacked support from the motorized infantry (they were given only one motorized infantry battalion), but, most importantly, they did not have any combat experience! In addition, 400 English, Belgian and Dutch tanks fought against the Germans, so that in total the Allies had significantly more than 3500 tanks in service with the French army.


Another thing is that the combat characteristics of most of them were not balanced, so their use was extremely difficult. Thus, the French tank “Somau” S-35, armed with an 47-mm gun and machine gun, had a maximum armor thickness of 56 mm, but a crew of three people: a driver, radio operator and tank commander, who was in the single-seater and overloaded with such number of duties that he simply could not successfully combine them all. He had to simultaneously monitor the battlefield, hit targets with a cannon and a machine gun, and besides, charge them. Exactly the same tower was on the tanks D-2 and B-1-BIS. Therefore, it turns out that a single unsuccessful development of French engineers lowered the combat capability of three types of combat vehicles of the French army, although the idea of ​​such a unification itself deserves all approval. Tank B-1 was the heaviest, as it had a combat mass in 32 tons and a maximum armor thickness equal to 60 mm. His armament consisted of 75- and 47-mm guns in the hull and in the turret, as well as several machine guns, but the crew was only four people, so he also could not effectively serve this tank. So, his driver had to perform the function of the gunner 75-mm guns, which was charged by a special loader, the radio operator was busy with his radio station, while the commander, like on the S-35, was overloaded with duties, and had to work for three. The speed of the tank on the highway was 37 km / h, but on the ground was much less. At the same time, the high altitude made it a good target for German anti-aircraft 88-mm guns, from the shells of which even 60 mm armor could not save! Renault R-35 / R-40 was a typical representative of the post-war generation of French light infantry escort tanks. With a combat mass of 10 tons, this double tank had armor 45 mm thick, a short-barreled 37 mm SA-18 cannon and a machine gun paired with it. The speed of the tank was only 20 km / h, which was completely inadequate for the conditions of a new, maneuverable war.

Blitzkrieg tanks in combat (part of 2)

Padded B-1 in the square of the French city.

In May, 1940, the machines of this type, there were 1035, and another part was in reserve. More perfect, in any case, in terms of armament and speed, can be considered a tank of the company “Hotchkiss” H-35 and in particular its subsequent modification H-39. Unlike machines of earlier releases, the X-NUMX-mm SA-37 cannon was mounted on it with the barrel length 38 of caliber and the initial velocity of the armor-piercing projectile 33 m / s. The speed of the H-701 was 39 km / h and practically did not differ from the speed of the S-36. The thickness of the armor 35 mm, the crew consisted of two people. At the beginning of the war tanks H-40 / H-35 there were 39 units and, if it were not for the lack of a radio station and the cramped turret, they could even become serious opponents for Hitler’s Parzerväff. It turns out that the French had a light tank in the first echelon of the 1118 and another 1631 medium tank D-260 and D-1, produced in 2-1932. By 1935, they were already considered obsolete, but they could also be used.

Moreover, it turns out that tanks with a double turret, and armed with the same fairly effective 47-mm gun and a crew of three, existed in the French army. These are AMC-35 or ACGI, also supplied to Belgium. With a combat mass of 14,5 tons, these tanks had a maximum armor thickness of 25 mm and developed speeds up to 40 km / h. The crew consisted of a driver, commander-gunner and loader, i.e. had the same distribution of responsibilities as on the Soviet T-26 and BT-5 / BT-7. It is not at all clear why the tower of this particular tank was not installed on the D-2, B-1 and S-35 chassis, since all these tanks are the same age at the time of development and production. But since AMC-35 was intended to equip reconnaissance units, they were released in very small quantities, and they did not play any role in the battles.

How did the military clashes between German and French tanks take place in May - June 1940? Firstly, the massive strikes of Hitler’s aviation, tanks and motorized formations immediately caused a massive panic that quickly spread along the roads along which the soldiers of the Allied forces retreated interspersed with the civilian population. Secondly, it immediately became clear that in cases when French tanks tried to counterattack the enemy, the N-39s were quite easily destroyed by German anti-tank and tank guns from a distance of 200 m, especially when the last used armor-piercing shells with an initial velocity of 1020 m / s

The situation was worse with the S-35 tanks, which even with such projectiles were able to hit almost point-blank, from a distance less than 100 meters. Therefore, the German tank crews and gunners sought to get them on board, especially since the French tactics of using tanks made it easy for them. Taking advantage of the fact that due to the small range of the French cars often had to refuel, the Germans, whose intelligence from the air was put very well, tried in the first place to attack such compounds. In particular, thanks to skillfully conducted reconnaissance forces by motorcyclists and armored vehicles, the 7 German Tank Division received information that the French DCR-1, equipped with B-1 and H-39 tanks, was in front of the station. The French who did not expect the attacks were attacked by German tanks Pz.38 (t) and Pz.lV, which were marching at top speed. Moreover, from their 37-mm guns, German tankers tried to shoot at the ventilation grilles of the French B-1 tanks, choosing the distance of 200 meters and less for this, and Pz.lV from their short-barreled 75-mm guns fired at trucks, fuel trucks and French crews tanks outside the cars.

It turned out that French tanks at close range could not shoot at Germans from 75-mm guns, since they do not have time to turn after them. Therefore, in response to frequent firing from the Germans, they were forced to respond with slow fire from their 47-mm turret guns, which, in the end, led them to a complete rout. Some successful attacks of French tanks, in particular, units under the command of Charles de Gaulle - the future president of the French republic, as well as individual successes in Poland, had no significant consequences, and could not have them.


Wounded "Somau" S-35

Meeting with stubborn resistance on one of the sites, the Germans tried to bypass him immediately, break through to the rear of the enemy and seize his supply bases and lines of communication. As a result, the victorious tanks found themselves without fuel and ammunition and were forced to capitulate, having exhausted all possibilities for further resistance. In addition, they were also not very unsuccessfully used, evenly distributed throughout the front, while the Germans collected them in one fist in the direction of the main attack.

In the summer battles of 1940, in France, tanks of the English Expeditionary Force also took part. But here, as it turned out, the problems with their use were no less. Thus, the British troops used double tanks Matilda MK. I with a combat mass of 11 tons and pure machine-gun armament. True, unlike Pz.I, their armor was 60 mm thick, but the speed was only 12 km / h, i.e. even less than that of R-35, so they could not bring any substantial benefits in this new, highly maneuverable war. The cruiser tank Mk.IV with a crew of four people with a combat weight of 15 tons had armor 38 mm thick, 40-mm cannon and machine gun, and even had a speed of 48 km / h. Another English cruiser, the A9 Mk.I with a crew of six people stationed in three towers, was very high-speed as on the Soviet medium tank T-28. The armament on it consisted of a 40-mm cannon, a machine gun paired with it and two more machine guns in the machine-gun turrets located on either side of the driver’s booth. The speed was 40 km / h. However, the maximum thickness of the armor was only 14 mm, besides, the tank was distinguished by a terrible design with a lot of “zaman” and angles that really attracted German shells, which is why almost every shot on this machine reached its goal.

Due to the fact that the British did not have high-explosive shells for 40-mm guns, they could not conduct effective fire on infantry. It was believed that with such a small caliber there was still no great benefit from them, and the British armed some of their “cruisers” with lightweight 76-mm cannons with a short recoil and even 95-mm howitzers. Their task was shooting high-explosive shells at enemy artillery positions, pillboxes and bunkers, as well as the defeat of enemy personnel. Due to the specifics of their combat missions, the British called the vehicles with such weapons tanks "close" support (or CS). Interestingly, in this approach to the use of tanks, they were by no means original, it suffices to recall the Soviet "artillery tanks" on the T-26 and BT chassis and even such a German tank as the Pz.IV with its short-barreled 75-mm gun. It turns out that of all the vehicles of the British tank park, only the A-12 "Matilda" Mk.II - 27-ton tank with a crew of four, 40-mm cannon and 78-mm armor in front was a really strong and hard-to-attack tank, although its speed was only 24 km / h on the highway and 12,8 km / h on rough terrain. Those. Again, this tank was not suitable for maneuver operations that were conducted in France by German tank corps.


English and French trophies under Dunkirk.

However, even the British had very few of these tanks, since their own production of armored vehicles in England before the war was amazingly small: in the 1936 year, the 42 tank, 1937-32, in 1938-419, in 1939-969, and only 1940, after the fall of France, when it was necessary in the shortest possible time to compensate for the loss of tanks in the area of ​​Arras, where 21 in May 1940, in order to delay the advance of German tanks to Dunkirk, a massive tank counterattack was launched. Nevertheless, the entire 58 tanks Matilda Mk.I and 16 Matilda Mk.II participated in it, and the defeat of the German tank forces in the area was not achieved.


A typical French tank 1940. A lot of armor, little space and weapons.

Truly, with pitiful forces, the British “fell” on the German troops that day and, it should be noted that, despite the lack of air support and poor support by infantry forces, at the very beginning they were a complete success. The German 37-mm anti-tank guns and the 20-mm guns of the Pz.II tanks were completely powerless against the English armor, while the machine-gun British tanks quite successfully hit the gun crews, trucks and caused a strong panic among the German infantry.

However, the forces were still too unequal, and this time the successful attack of the thick-armored British cars from the very beginning was eventually repelled by 88-mm anti-aircraft guns and 105-mm field howitzers. It turned out that the 88-mm gun hits the A12 tank from a distance at which its 40-mm gun could not respond, and a larger caliber gun could not be placed on it because of the too small diameter of the shoulder strap of its turret. In turn, an increase in diameter inevitably had to be reflected in an increase in the width of the tank itself, which was hampered by ... the width of the railway gauge in England (1435 mm.). Interestingly, the same was the railway track in Europe. And there she also interfered with the Germans, because of which the same “Tigers” had to “change” into transport tracks for transportation by rail.


German tank Pz.III passes by a destroyed French village.

The result was a vicious circle, from which the British tried on the Matilda Mk.III tanks, which, as already noted, were armed with lightweight 76-mm cannons (CS). As a result, three people in the turret of this model of the Matilda tank were barely placed, the ammunition load had to be significantly reduced, and the combat capabilities of the tank diminished, since the lightweight projectiles of this gun practically did not have armor-piercing capability. Subsequently, the crews of the cruiser tank Mk.VI "Kruseyder" and the infantry Mk.III "Valentine" continued to suffer from the cramped turret, especially after they received new and large-sized 57-mm tank guns. Meanwhile, all that was then required to achieve the complete success of the British armored forces was tanks with 80-mm armor thickness and 57-mm caliber guns, which, if necessary, could be easily replaced with more powerful 75-76-mm guns!

Thus, as paradoxical as it may sound, the British were brought down by their railways, while the French became hostages of their outdated tactical principles and the costly fortified Maginot line at the border. By the way, the French designers managed to create very modern technically tanks in just a few pre-war years. But since they were forced to focus on the instructions of their military, they turned out cars that lost to the German blitzkrieg tanks. Having defeated France, the Germans captured approximately 2400 tanks from 3500 units of armored vehicles held by the French as trophies. The usual practice of using them has been the alteration or rearmament of captured vehicles. For example, on the basis of the B-1, the Germans were able to create a good flame-throwing tank, while the chassis of other machines were used to turn them into conveyors of ammunition and all sorts of ACS.


"Matilda" Mk.II: well, at least something ... But only for only two years!
Author:
101 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. qwert
    qwert April 28 2016 07: 13
    +10
    If all the French fought like De Gaulle, the Germans would have had a hard time. French tanks allowed a serious rebuff to the Germans. But, the French - there are French
    1. Tatar-in
      Tatar-in April 28 2016 09: 52
      +14
      Not for nothing, when signing the surrender, the Germans were surprised that the French consider themselves winners too
    2. Azitral
      Azitral April 29 2016 11: 54
      0
      In the First World War, the Germans considered the French the most dangerous enemy ("terrible"). So, I think, it's not about the quality of the nation. Coincidentally. Of course - the winners! This lets many people down, and not even because of relaxation.
    3. Come on
      Come on 2 May 2016 14: 17
      0
      And how much and how quickly did the German walk off-road to Moscow? How many prisoners and killed did the Red Army lose? How much would France get in there?
  2. Thirteenth
    Thirteenth April 28 2016 07: 43
    +14
    In general, the German tanks of that time in their performance characteristics were almost no better than the English or French tanks, and often even inferior to them. But in the tactics of using armored vehicles, the Germans were ahead of the rest, plus a factor of surprise.
    Hmm, I respected those Germans more than I respect the current ones, even despite the fact that they were Nazis.
    1. AK64
      AK64 April 28 2016 08: 23
      +3
      In general, the German tanks of that time in their performance characteristics were not nearly better than the English or French tanks,

      This is a very strange conclusion ...
      Most of the 4 French tanks are infantry escort tanks. Most of it is conceptually obsolete. But it turns out - "did not yield"
      / and shook his head /

      And all because people do not compare the tanks, but the numbers in the plates: but according to the numbers in the plates, after all, the truth is "not inferior"

      plus a surprise factor.

      What kind of "surprise" if the war lasts almost a year?
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Thirteenth
        Thirteenth April 28 2016 11: 54
        +6
        What kind of "surprise" if the war lasts almost a year?


        Indeed, what is such a surprise ??? The Allies played balls for themselves, went to the whores, and then the Germans began to attack them)))

        Quote: AK64
        This is a very strange conclusion ...
        Most of the 4 French tanks are infantry escort tanks. Most of it is conceptually obsolete. But it turns out - "did not yield"



        Most of the German tanks were made up of armor-clad armor 1 and 2, with cardboard armor, too, but not advanced vehicles. Even in the first panzers 3 and 4, the armor was not very strong. And the allies had thick-armored Matilda and Somua. However, for some reason this did not save the allies ... The Germans plundered them in a matter of weeks! By the way, the Germans at that time on the western front had 4 thousand tanks? No! The Germans had less tanks than the enemy. They just used them more competently.
        In the summer of 41, the Red Army had an overwhelming superiority in tanks, but we all know how it ended. The conclusion can be made simple: the amount of equipment does not determine the outcome of the battle
        1. BAI
          BAI April 28 2016 12: 58
          +1
          "the number of vehicles does not determine the outcome of the battle"

          How else does it determine! Near Kursk, the frontal attack of the 4th Panzer - the army to zero, but the Germans were stopped, although they were much smaller. By the way, the whole tactics of the Germans is to create overwhelming superiority in the direction of the main blow.
          1. Thirteenth
            Thirteenth April 28 2016 13: 10
            +1
            Quote: BAI
            "the number of vehicles does not determine the outcome of the battle"

            How else does it determine!



            Of course they determine, but subject to their correct use. All the same, in 1943 the Red Army was not the same as in 41. I had a lot of experience both among ordinary tankmen and tank commanders.
            The quality of our army was different! Learned to fight less.
        2. BAI
          BAI April 28 2016 12: 58
          +1
          "the number of vehicles does not determine the outcome of the battle"

          How else does it determine! Near Kursk, the frontal attack of the 4th Panzer - the army to zero, but the Germans were stopped, although they were much smaller. By the way, the whole tactics of the Germans is to create overwhelming superiority in the direction of the main blow.
          1. Orlenok ILLI4A
            Orlenok ILLI4A April 28 2016 22: 48
            +2
            The 5th Guards Tank Army counterattacked near Kursk, I think you have a typo.
        3. Mavrikiy
          Mavrikiy 21 May 2016 17: 46
          +1
          “The Germans had fewer tanks than the enemy. They just used them more competently.
          In the summer of 41, the Red Army had an overwhelming superiority in tanks, but we know how it all ended. The conclusion is simple: the number of vehicles does not determine the outcome of the battle "
          Everything is correct. Organization, tactics, strategy. Communication of aviation, tanks, infantry and headquarters. How quickly the information will go there and the command here. The Germans were unmatched. from here successes with small forces. Yes Yes. Information already then. We have radio in the troops, you know, saboteurs cut wires. And couriers, "10 thousand couriers alone." Hence the belated reaction to all changes.
          And the tanks of the French and British are tanks, in comparison with German bicycles. They didn’t reach ours, but still.
      3. Mavrikiy
        Mavrikiy 21 May 2016 17: 33
        +2
        "This is a very strange conclusion ...
        Most of the 4 French tanks are infantry escort tanks. Most of it is conceptually obsolete. "
        How can I tell you. German tanks matched the breakthrough and blitz krieg concept. All at the expense of speed. Plus great planning and organization. French and British tanks were quite suitable for defense. Stronger weapons and thicker armor. And concepts are written on the battlefield. The Germans buried their "tigers" in the ground, though more successfully than the French. Concept. They would have tried raids on "tigers", movies.
    2. yehat
      yehat April 28 2016 09: 28
      +8
      the Germans did a great job coordinating the work of tankers
      they had competent crew requirements, ergonomics inside the car, as well as
      Adequate charter, tactics, intercoms inside tanks and fully operational radio communications.
      Also, the Germans took care of the visibility of their cars and minimal mobility.
      And in the exercises, they worked out ALL the basic tactics.
      All together gave them a certain initiative. And the French tanks could only show themselves in battles such as prokhorovka - when a mass of tanks go head-to-head, while in a maneuvering war there were completely different conditions.
      1. Tatar-in
        Tatar-in April 28 2016 09: 51
        +1
        Um ... a wack is not a maneuvering battle ?? !! Just we won thanks to maneuvers and tactics. T-34 and T-70, were maneuverable and Pz.IV and especially Pz.VI, the front itself was not large due to maneuverable combat and landing in the rear and rear, it was possible to achieve great results.
        1. samoletil18
          samoletil18 April 28 2016 10: 30
          +4
          That's just the price of the Prokhorov battle was huge. Although, there are more questions to P. Rotmistrov and his headquarters. Tankers and factories (!) Fulfilled their duty.
          1. jjj
            jjj April 28 2016 11: 13
            +1
            It is hardly worth measuring strength: a tank against a tank. There is also artillery
          2. Riv
            Riv April 28 2016 12: 11
            -4
            Miles sorry ... And what is so "huge" you think the price of Prokhorovka?
            1. sibiryouk
              sibiryouk April 28 2016 19: 27
              +1
              According to various estimates, between 400 and 700 Soviet tanks were lost, and most of them could not be restored. The Germans lost about 200-300 vehicles, but were able to evacuate and restore 50-60% of them, and Rotmistrov’s tank army was essentially-DESTROYED! The Germans broke through the Soviet defense in this sector virtually to the full depth!
              1. Azitral
                Azitral April 29 2016 12: 17
                +3
                Yes Yes. Katukov wrote that, according to Manstein, he burned five out of every two tanks of the 1st TA. And then he darted from the rest, though, of course, masterfully and heroically, with the highest military art.
                Again the myth about "countless hordes" who crushed the knights of the 3rd Reich in number. In this case, the number of tanks. Where - by the number? Before the war, only twice as many people lived in the USSR as in the Reich. And in 43, when everything was cut off, west of the Black Earth Region. Read Isaev. He has given specific figures of losses in all notable operations. And the Prokhorov battle, indeed, was not a model of organization and was not at all successful. But they stopped it, and that was enough for your "respected" Germans to roll back. Now, if they were smart enough - not to climb, then I would respect them. And so - they allowed themselves to be used against themselves. Shame.
              2. Mavrikiy
                Mavrikiy 21 May 2016 18: 02
                +2
                Quote: sibiryouk
                According to various estimates, between 400 and 700 Soviet tanks were lost, and most of them could not be restored. The Germans lost about 200-300 vehicles, but were able to evacuate and restore 50-60% of them, and Rotmistrov’s tank army was essentially-DESTROYED! The Germans broke through the Soviet defense in this sector virtually to the full depth!

                And what did clever Germans do with a torn depth?
                Yes. The tank army was essentially-DESTROYED! Great and powerful Russian language. Have you tried to rout PLATO? And the company, and the battalion? Wat the Red Army, you can try to defeat, it is known how it ended, the defeat of the Wehrmacht. Less emotion. Well, the T-34 in attack, albeit with 85 mm, is still no match for a tiger with 88 mm zenith. The pagon under the tower is almost 1,5 times larger.
          3. Thirteenth
            Thirteenth April 28 2016 12: 26
            +4
            Quote: samoletil18
            That's just the price of the Prokhorov battle was huge.



            Not only the Prokhorovka battle, but the entire Second World War as a whole. Recently I read the book "I fought in the T-34". There, the author publishes the memoirs of veterans of tankers. My God, what a huge loss in tanks and men! Despite all the advantages of our tanks, the losses were enormous. Each tanker described in this book was knocked out and burned more than once. Huge losses were suffered from the Tigers Panthers and PTO 88 mm.
            The war was terrible. But people, our ordinary Soviet people were real heroes and heroes.
            1. Boatsman_Palych
              Boatsman_Palych April 28 2016 12: 50
              +8
              Quite right, the victory over such an enemy was very difficult. Our tanks, on average, went on the attack 3 times, the German ones 11 times. Only by 1944 did they learn to fight adequately. And after that, as the Germans themselves admit - "changed places" - they drove in tank wedges for hundreds of kilometers and covered up to 600 km in one operation. But the enemy was serious: at 45 he had to fight off his counteroffensive. Veterans, unlike the current sofa strategists, did not hesitate to write that at Balaton our infantry fled under the blows of German tanks and only anti-tank crews, together with corps artillery, saved the situation.
              1. Thirteenth
                Thirteenth April 28 2016 13: 03
                +2
                More veterans compared our T-34s with Lendlizovskie Matilda, Sherman, Valentine. In terms of crew comfort and convenience, the imported technician definitely won, but our vehicles were better in terms of the most important combat qualities such as weapon power, security, maneuverability.
                By the way, at first many tankers wanted to fight in comfortable imported tanks, but battles dotted I. Later, the luxurious interior decoration of foreigners was no longer so appreciated.
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA April 28 2016 17: 32
                  +2
                  Quote: Thirteenth
                  In terms of crew comfort and convenience, the imported technician definitely won, but our vehicles were better in the most important combat qualities such as weapon power, security, maneuverability.

                  Marshal of the BTV Fedorenko (head of the ABTU of the Red Army and the commander of the BMV of the Ground Forces) believed that the armament, armor and mobility of the Sherman and Valentine were sufficient to solve all problems.
                  Of the currently available armaments of the Red Army, tank equipment should be the American medium tank Sherman M4A2 with artillery. armament in the form of a 76,2 mm cannon of high power and the Canadian light tank "Valentine" MK-9 with a 57-mm tank gun limited rollback ...
                  Specified Tank Samples compares favorably with domestic ease of management, significantly increased service life between runs, ease of maintenance and repair, and at the same time their armament, armor and mobility make it possible to solve the whole range of tasks put forward by armored forces...
                  According to numerous reviews from tank units, these types of tanks can be considered the best for serving in peacetime, mastering military equipment ...
                  I ask you to consider a set of measures for the speedy improvement of the design of domestic tanks, so that they can be compared with the best foreign models in terms of guaranteed mileage, ease of operation, repair and maintenance ...
                  1. Thirteenth
                    Thirteenth April 28 2016 20: 39
                    -1
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    Marshal of the BTV Fedorenko (head of the ABTU of the Red Army and the commander of the BMV of the Ground Forces) believed that the armament, armor and mobility of the Sherman and Valentine were sufficient to solve all problems.



                    I don’t know what Marshal Fedorenko thought, but most tankers who fought in tanks and not in headquarters preferred the T-34.
                    1. Alexey RA
                      Alexey RA April 29 2016 10: 14
                      +2
                      Quote: Thirteenth
                      I don’t know what Marshal Fedorenko thought, but most tankers who fought in tanks and not in headquarters preferred the T-34.

                      Most tank crews who fought in tanks Lend-Lease tanks were never seen. And they also talked about such passions about foreign cars that one wonders: for example, about "Sherman lighters".

                      But the same Loza in the “Sherman” was almost satisfied with everything.

                      By the way, as I understand it, the phrase According to numerous reviews from tank units You also wrote down Fedorenko’s personal opinion?
                  2. yehat
                    yehat 4 May 2016 09: 47
                    +1
                    I will clarify: recommended for PEACE time!
                    and about the tasks - also a big question!
                    in 42, it was already clear that the 76mm gun is completely insufficient for solving problems,
                    then appeared t34-85. and Fedorenko suddenly thought that enough ...
                2. Record Nadoev
                  Record Nadoev April 29 2016 16: 47
                  0
                  Quote: Thirteenth
                  but in terms of the most important combat qualities such as weapon power, security, maneuverability, our vehicles were better.

                  Whom? The Shermans did not even have guns of the three-inch level, their M3 were noticeably more powerful. And the American M1 was at the level of 85 mm S-53.
                3. The comment was deleted.
              2. BAI
                BAI April 28 2016 13: 04
                +1
                Yes, I completely unexpectedly learned that the Panfilov division "from March 17 to 28, 1945, when attacking the city of Saldus in Latvia, was surrounded in the composition of about 300 people, more on the Kurland front did not appear. "
                1. Thirteenth
                  Thirteenth April 28 2016 13: 06
                  +1
                  Yes, the Germans were warriors. But ours turned out to be even better.
              3. BAI
                BAI April 28 2016 13: 08
                +1
                Yes, quite unexpectedly I learned that the Panfilov division "from March 17 to 28, 1945, when attacking the city of Saldus in Latvia, was surrounded and, having lost almost the entire composition of the dead and missing in this period, leaving the encirclement in the composition of about 300 people, more on the Kurland front did not appear. "
              4. moskowit
                moskowit April 28 2016 18: 40
                +3
                Had the good fortune of working for a long time with war veteran Nikolai Alexandrovich Romanko. He had to be a participant in the battles of Szekesfehervar. A lot of what was told. Then, at the end of the 70's, I heard the name of the city for the first time, and even more so about the German counterattack and initial success. We are used to the fact that the Red Army after the Battle of Kursk almost went forward without stopping. And then I read a lot ... Yes ... Terrible time. Honor and Glory, Eternal Memory of the Alive and the Fallen and almost all already gone!
            2. Record Nadoev
              Record Nadoev April 29 2016 16: 53
              0
              Quote: Thirteenth
              and VET 88 mm

              VET 88 mm for the entire war was released only 2037 barrels in a portable version. On the T-34, a 75-mm anti-tank missile was enough. From 1942 to 1945, in the portable version, 23303 barrels were produced.
        2. Record Nadoev
          Record Nadoev April 29 2016 16: 43
          +1
          Quote: Tatar-in
          T-34 and T-70, were maneuverable and Pz.IV and especially Pz.VI, the front itself was not large due to maneuverable combat and landing in the rear and rear, it was possible to achieve great results.

          1. T-34 and T-70 were forced to try to go on the flank, because their guns did not pierce anything in the forehead. The Germans did not have such a need, their guns pierced everything, and from a safe distance for them.
          2. The ratio of irretrievable losses BTT 6: 1. In favor of the Germans.
        3. The comment was deleted.
        4. yehat
          yehat 4 May 2016 09: 41
          +1
          yeah, they won, after which the commander was almost shot for, so to speak, success. Wonderful victory! You should at least look at the information about what the battle at Prokhorovka was worth and what the results are.
          PS do you think that a field reduced to a bottleneck by 2 ravines and covered in that place by 2 batteries of German anti-tank guns is an excellent example maneuverable war?
        5. yehat
          yehat 4 May 2016 10: 49
          +1
          Prokhorovka is presented as some kind of training ground where tanks fought, but the first part of the battle was a completely different scenario - when the waves of tanks of Rotmistrov went to the well-prepared positions of the anti-tank guns Pack 42. Half of the tanks were knocked out before they opened fire. Actually, the tank battle began later - when (mostly) the tigers tried to help out their gunners and launched a flank counterattack. As a result, the mass of our tanks twice a day moved towards the enemy, reducing the distance under the deadly fire of guns of 7,5 cm Kw.K. 42 and 8.8cm 36 L / 56, the fire of which our tanks were not able to withstand at distances even greater than 1.5 km. They moved because from afar the fire was ineffective. As a result, about 150-200 tanks were lost thanks to the mediocre tactical plan of our command, when they were simply beaten. I must say that the tankers themselves were not very experienced. So much for maneuvering.
      2. Azitral
        Azitral April 29 2016 12: 05
        0
        That's right, you just did not mention the optimal composition of the tank formations: their contribution is the inclusion of motorized infantry, self-propelled guns and even howitzers in the composition of the tank formations to combat PTA.
    3. iouris
      iouris April 28 2016 11: 00
      +2
      War is hard work and must be organized effectively. It's just that France, after 1 MV, was long fat on reparations that the Germans paid, and paid. With fewer resources, but more motivated soldiers and a superior organization, the Germans defeated the strongest superpower land army in Europe. In the "elite" of France, there were too many Germanophiles and supporters of Nazism. People like de Gaulle made up a small minority. A prominent supporter of Hitler was, in particular, Renault, who after the war was simply beaten in prison until he was beaten to death.
    4. washi
      washi April 28 2016 13: 37
      +2
      Quote: Thirteenth
      In general, the German tanks of that time in their performance characteristics were almost no better than the English or French tanks, and often even inferior to them. But in the tactics of using armored vehicles, the Germans were ahead of the rest, plus a factor of surprise.
      Hmm, I respected those Germans more than I respect the current ones, even despite the fact that they were Nazis.

      In theory, there were ours, the theory of Triafindalov, the deep raids of Budyonny.
      It’s just that the Germans did it at a new technical level and were able to organize interaction.
      1. moskowit
        moskowit April 28 2016 21: 08
        +2
        I absolutely agree with you. And it is high time for Semyon Mikhailovich to pay tribute as one of the outstanding military leaders! During the "thaw" (you have to come up with such a term) for the obstruction of the Greatest State, Semyon Mikhailovich turned out to be, as it were, an opponent of the "outstanding commanders" of the 30s, and after summing up the results of the Great War in the shadow of the Great Generals and their Supreme Commander, who broke the back a fascist beast! Budyonny did a lot as the Commander of the Southwest Direction in the summer of 1941. And this is by no means a front!
      2. and why
        and why April 28 2016 23: 37
        +3
        As far as I remember, one of the theorists of the use of tank wedges was just De Gaulle, who wrote a book about this in the early 30s, this book did not interest the French, but the Germans were very interested. Apparently, the theory of using powerful tank forces in the 30s was common among advanced young officers, but the old generals adhered to the theory of trench warfare in the spirit of WWI, when tanks are evenly distributed among the infantry and perform a supporting role in supporting the infantry. Therefore, the "unconventional" strikes of the German tank masses for the old people were stunning. Ours made the same mistake. In addition, there was an important political moment - neither France nor Russia expected a blow from Hitler. The French hoped that he would go east to Russia. And later we hoped that he would stop at the border and take care of Britain.
  3. inkass_98
    inkass_98 April 28 2016 07: 45
    +4
    57-mm cannons, which, if necessary, could easily be replaced with more powerful 75-76-mm guns

    Yeah, that was practically impossible to do. To replace the 76 mm gun with the T-34 with the 85-mm gun, the tank had to be completely redone. Approximately the same story with HF in the process of transition to IP. For some reason, the Germans did not change the guns to a larger caliber in the T-III and T-IV, changing only the barrel length - and the tower there was excellent, spacious.
    Those. with the ease of replacing the gun, something does not stick ...
    1. faiver
      faiver April 28 2016 07: 57
      +4
      Well, as the Germans did not change? on treshka and 37mm and 50mm and 75mm guns were set ...
      1. sabakina
        sabakina April 28 2016 09: 10
        +4
        inkass_98
        To replace the T-76 34 mm gun with an 85 mm one, the tank had to be completely redone.

        The T-34 case was also redone? Damn it, and M. Koshkin just set up another tower, because designed a tank with the expectation of installing a larger head with a more powerful gun.
        And KV and IS are generally different tanks.
        1. yehat
          yehat April 28 2016 09: 42
          +1
          probably talking about the intermediate tank kv-85
          1. inkass_98
            inkass_98 April 28 2016 11: 56
            0
            Quote: yehat
            sq-xnumx

            Absolutely.
        2. Bigriver
          Bigriver April 28 2016 09: 49
          +3
          Quote: sabakina
          inkass_98 To replace the T-76 34 mm gun with an 85 mm gun, the tank had to be completely redone.

          ... M. Koshkin just set up another tower ..

          Koshkin died in 1940. It seems that Nabutovsky was dealing with the problem of inserting a new tower.
          Of the "global" alterations, there was only a 180 mm widening of the turret ring.
          ... because designed a tank with the expectation of installing a larger head with a more powerful gun ...

          Strictly speaking, the prototype T-34 was designed for a 45-mm gun. Thus, f-34 is already a more powerful weapon. wink
        3. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA April 28 2016 10: 10
          +2
          Quote: sabakina
          Damn it, and M. Koshkin just set up another tower, because designed a tank with the expectation of installing a larger head with a more powerful gun.

          Koshkin could not deliver anything - he died before the start of the war. The original T-34 tower was generally designed under the installation of a 45-mm or 76-mm gun (Pavlov insisted on the 76-mm division). And it seems that the main one was just 45 mm, since in the turret of serial tanks with a 76 mm gun, access to the observation devices was practically blocked by the breech of the gun, and the sights (TOD-6 and PT-6) interfered with each other and did not allowed to use the electric tower GN during aiming.
          Electric rotary turret mechanism.
          Access to the starting flywheel of the electric drive is hindered from below by the electric motor housing, on the left by the viewing device and the tower housing, on the right by the forehead and PT-6 device. Turning the tower in any direction is possible only if the head deviates from the forehead of the PT-6 device, i.e. the rotation of the tower is actually done blindly ...
          Telescopic sight TOD-6.
          The window of the scale of angles of aiming of the telescopic sight is blocked by the lever of the angles of the terrain of the PT-6 device ... Installation of sighting data is possible at elevation angles of 4 - 5,5 degrees and 9 - 12 degrees, which actually makes it impossible to fire with the TOD-6 sight. The drum of the aiming angle scale is located in the middle of the sight and access to it is extremely difficult.
          The viewing device of the "circular review".
          Access to the device is extremely difficult and observation is possible in a limited sector to the right up to 120 degrees ... A limited field of view, the complete impossibility of observation in the rest of the sector and ... the inconvenient position of the head during observation makes the viewing device unusable.
        4. inkass_98
          inkass_98 April 28 2016 12: 00
          +1
          Quote: sabakina
          Damn it, and M. Koshkin just set up another tower,

          That’s what it’s about, that not the gun in the tower is changing, but the whole tower has to be redone.
        5. goose
          goose April 28 2016 12: 57
          0
          Quote: sabakina

          The T-34 case was also redone? Damn it, and M. Koshkin just set up another tower, because designed a tank with the expectation of installing a larger head with a more powerful gun.
          And KV and IS are generally different tanks.

          Everything was redone for the T-34M and other prototypes, but not everything took root on a live tank in order not to change the armored production.
        6. sibiryouk
          sibiryouk April 28 2016 19: 35
          +1
          In order to set up a new tower and expand the line, the slope of the side armor plates was changed. As a result, the shoulder strap increased to 1600mm.
      2. inkass_98
        inkass_98 April 28 2016 12: 07
        +2
        Quote: faiver
        and three rubles and 37mm and 50mm and 75mm guns were set ...

        Do not confuse the pedals. For the treshka, the 75-mm gun was never a priority, for this there was a T-IV, it had such a gun, only the barrel length changed.
        1. faiver
          faiver April 28 2016 12: 38
          +1
          Pz.Kpfw.III Ausf.N, nearly seven hundred 42-43 tanks were launched.
    2. yehat
      yehat April 28 2016 09: 41
      +3
      in T4, the wide shoulder strap of the tower allowed the installation of 75mm guns with high muzzle energy and,
      given the experience of panthers, this was enough until the end of the war. t3 had problems with this and
      the tank was limited to a 50mm cannon, which ultimately put an end to it.
      the question is not so much in caliber (on t4 it was also possible to put a 152mm gun from brumbar,
      for example, in Stug-3 they put it getting STUH42),
      how much is the energy of the projectile and the size of the chamber’s guns located inside the tower.
      for example, at the tiger-1 88 gun, the gun was not of a relatively large caliber, but it occupied
      a lot of space inside the tower. Firefox generally had a problem with this.
      This is what dictated to increase the shoulder strap of the tower, and not the caliber. Another problem was the height of the tower, which significantly limited the vertical aiming of guns. True, this rarely affected. Mostly in urban battles and in mountainous, hilly areas. For example, tigers were having trouble aiming in the mountains of Italy.
      1. samoletil18
        samoletil18 April 28 2016 10: 54
        +3
        I will add only T3. The latest modification of the Pz IIIN already came with a short-barreled 75mm. And after that there were no modifications. Our T-34 later received a transverse arrangement of the engine, torsion bars, and "grew" to the T-55. You can minus me, which has already happened, but I consider this line as follows: -34, 34-85, -44, -54, -55, not -34, -34-85 and -44, -54, -55. It was just that technological progress required changes that were in line with the spirit of the times. Now, if they launched the T-43, I would also separate the post-war ones. I forgot the T-62.
        Of course, I’m off topic with our rulers, I apologize for the time taken. Just somehow, a dispute arose on the site. I remembered. hi
  4. oldav
    oldav April 28 2016 08: 16
    +1
    It is interesting, but if the USSR attacked the Germans, while they were busy with the French and the British, how events would turn out. It was necessary to do this, even with a loss of 10 to 1, but it was necessary.
    1. faiver
      faiver April 28 2016 08: 29
      +1
      no one figured that the Germans would deal with France so quickly
      1. yehat
        yehat April 28 2016 09: 44
        +3
        this is not all - the USSR, after advancing in Poland, was not ready from the word for deep military operations. The maximum is 300-400 kilometers. Therefore, the attack was no use.
    2. Stirbjorn
      Stirbjorn April 28 2016 09: 04
      +2
      at that time, the French and British were seriously preparing for war with the USSR, including in Finland. The Molotov-Ribentrop Pact was concluded not from a good life
      1. samoletil18
        samoletil18 April 28 2016 10: 57
        +1
        This is for cutters with runes. They will bring the Red Army to Lisbon and Indochina will join.
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA April 28 2016 10: 25
      +6
      Quote: oldav
      It is interesting, and if the USSR attacked the Germans, while they were busy with the French and the British, how events would have turned.

      It would be very bad to turn. For the situation in the Red Army in the summer of 1940 is very well known - according to the Act of transfer of NPOs from Voroshilov to Tymoshenko. And there - horror, horror, horror.

      In addition, the entire first half of 1940, the Red Army departed from the war with Finland. For this seemingly local conflict actually hit the entire group in the Western theater.
      Here is the situation in KOVO for April 1940:
      Today, in the Kiev Military District, there are 14 tanks in four tank brigades. The war sold them apart, tank brigades scattered. I have to say bluntly, if there will be mobilization now, our KOVO brigades are not ready. The tanks of these brigades are now returning from the Leningrad Military District. This practice of pulling should be stopped. And I will seek, I must bluntly declare, while I am the chief of this kind of troops, that no more units will be destroyed, if tanks are needed, let them take the whole part.

      Moreover, the tanks returned in such a condition that they needed to be driven right away for repairs (especially engines whose motor resources were knocked out by frequent warming up in the winter).
      Quote: oldav
      It was necessary to do this, even with a loss of 10 to 1, but it was necessary.

      Who needs? France and Britain, who did everything to break the alliance with the USSR in 1939, and in 1940 even seriously considered the option of war with the USSR? For their interests, do you want to put 10 of our soldiers in one German? In the best case scenario, we would be patted on the shoulder, demanded to give Poland its land, imposed next Versailles sanctions on Germany - and in 20 years we would again face the problem of German national revanchism.

      In addition, can you guarantee that the blow of the USSR in 1940 will not lead to the fact that the whole of Europe will unite against the threat of Bolshevism? The Red Hordes from the East want to take over Europe! Remember Finland!
      1. oldav
        oldav April 28 2016 12: 33
        -1
        Of course, if you put yourself in the place of Stalin, then everything is true. But if he looked into the future and saw what would happen ... Well, they would put a million against 100 thousand, let's say, it’s all the same less than in 1941 (up to 3.5 million). Moreover, the Germans in 1940 were also weak. France was conquered thanks to the T-1 and T-2 wedges.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA April 28 2016 14: 15
          +2
          Quote: oldav
          Of course, if you put yourself in the place of Stalin, then everything is true. But if he looked into the future and saw what would happen ... Well, they would put a million against 100 thousand, let's say, it’s all the same less than in 1941 (up to 3.5 million).

          What will we fight? In 1940, the entire army was in the process of reorganization. Just moved from the triad and the police-territorial system to cropped formations and universal appeal. BTV come to life after SFV. There are no operational plans:
          By the time the People’s Commissariat of Defense was received and surrendered, there was no operational war plan — in the West — in connection with the occupation of Western Ukraine and Western Belarus; in Transcaucasia - in connection with a sharp change in the situation; in the Far East and Transbaikalia - due to changes in the composition of the troops - the existing plan requires revision.

          Mobplan - no:
          In connection with the war and a significant redeployed troops mobilization plan violated. The People’s Commissariat of Defense has no new mobilization plan.

          States - no:
          Organizational activities for rifle divisions are not completed. The divisions do not have new states and exist in the old, not justified states.

          Etc.

          Level of training ... Here is the situation in the ZAPOV at the beginning 1941:
          The other day, uv.Malysh threw another "manual for the populace in the 41st" (tm) aka "REPORT TO THE COMMISSIONER OF DEFENSE OF THE USSR MARSHAL OF THE SOVIET UNION Comrade S. Timoshenko. OF THE YEAR."

          The fat begins literally from the first pages, in the "Operational preparation" section. "Over the past 4 months, the District has carried out the following measures to train senior command personnel and staffs:" (blah-blah-blah list of events on two pages) and the following phrase tops it all:
          "As a result of all these activities, the operational training of senior officers significantly increased and evaluated mediocre."
          Then everything is no less beautiful.
          "Infantry.
          ...
          Conclusion: constituency units and units, fulfilling your requirement for co-ordinating mouths and battalions quite ready for simple combat missions "

          “The training of mortar units and subunits is mediocre, with the exception of the 24th OMB, which is poor. The training of the 45th and 76th regiments of artillery is mediocre.
          ...
          The conducted artillery firing and viewing exercises showed that the division’s artillery of the District was prepared to perform combat missions in the main types of combat mediocre.
          ...
          The training of the regiments of the ARGK is mediocre, with the exception of 311 popes and 318 hap RGKs, whose training is poor. "
          © Ulanov
          Quote: oldav
          Moreover, the Germans in 1940 were also weak. France was conquered thanks to the t-1 and t-2 wedges.

          Uh-huh ... and more than six hundred "threes" and "fours" just stood next to each other - AFK. smile
        2. Mikhail Matyugin
          Mikhail Matyugin April 28 2016 22: 03
          +1
          Quote: oldav
          Moreover, the Germans in 1940 were also weak. France was conquered thanks to the t-1 and t-2 wedges.

          Yeah, pleased. The Germans won due to the magnificent tactical interaction of all the armed forces. And jokes, incidentally, acted almost better than anti-tank artillery.
  5. Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat April 28 2016 09: 09
    +2
    The second part of Mr. Skvortsovsky's article differs for the better from the first part, in which there was more "politics" than information about tanks itself. This part is "+".
  6. SokolfromRussia
    SokolfromRussia April 28 2016 10: 03
    +1
    Poor infantry support is a mistake of many armies. In the Yugoslav People's Army, for example, in the armored battalion with the 31 tank there was only one mechanized company with the 10 BMP ...
  7. Vega
    Vega April 28 2016 10: 08
    0
    The Germans are strategists, the French are tactics, and even then not so much.
  8. igor67
    igor67 April 28 2016 10: 08
    +2
    I shot tanks last year
    1. igor67
      igor67 April 28 2016 15: 13
      0
      T4 true Czech
    2. igor67
      igor67 April 28 2016 15: 20
      +1
      Light tank Stuart
  9. Bredovich705
    Bredovich705 April 28 2016 10: 16
    0
    This is really about tanks and even in the photo they are, and not propaganda of the 1940 model. Article "+"
  10. samoletil18
    samoletil18 April 28 2016 10: 37
    0
    To the author +. Considered our comments. Well done! good
    1. kalibr
      April 28 2016 16: 50
      +2
      I didn’t take anything into account! This was originally a chapter. Very large in volume. Therefore, it had to be cut in half. The editors of the site give materials not according to the order of their writing, but in their opinion, based on their vision of the page. So ... she was already like that before comments.
  11. Bigriver
    Bigriver April 28 2016 11: 04
    +1
    Mr. Shpakovsky writes enchanting crap in places:
    ... it turned out that the 88-mm gun hit the A12 tank from a distance at which its 40-mm gun could not respond, and a larger caliber gun could not be placed on it because of the too small diameter of the shoulder strap of its tower. In turn, an increase in diameter would inevitably have an effect on the increase in the width of the tank itself, which was hindered ... by the railway gauge in England (1435 mm.). Interestingly, the railway track in Europe was the same. And there she also interfered with the Germans, because of which the very same “Tigers” had to “change shoes” for transport tracks for transportation by rail.

    It's about Matilda.lol
    I would like to ask the entogo gentleman: And the Churchillies were transferred to the theater of operations only on trailers and on their own? They are 80 centimes wider than Matilda. And the "Tiger", traveling on the same narrow track on transport goose, was wider than the "Matilda" by almost a meter.
    A tank with a widened hull is, in fact, a completely different tank. And he could not have anything to do with "Matilda". Different engine, different layout, different turret, different weight and chassis, etc.
    And the width of the railway track does not apply at all to the installation of a more powerful weapon on the Matilda.
    1. kalibr
      April 28 2016 16: 45
      +2
      There is such a curator of the Royal Tank Museum in Bovington, David Fletcher. Author of many books on tanks and the most famous "The Great Tank Scandal" - this is from there. As you understand, I couldn't come up with such a thing myself, for this ... I just don't have enough imagination.
  12. Bigriver
    Bigriver April 28 2016 11: 14
    +2
    More by the author:
    ... A-12 Matilda MK.II - a 27-ton tank with a crew of four, a 40-mm cannon and 78-mm armor in front was a really strong and intractable tank, although its speed was only 24 km / h on the highway and 12,8 km / h on rough terrain. Those. this tank was again unsuitable for the maneuver operations carried out by German tank corps in France.

    "... and also there were many old and outdated tanks in the Red Army." repeat
    In 1939-42, the military structures of all European armies, without exception, were not suitable for a maneuver war against the Wehrmacht. And also the USA and the USSR.
    And tanks in these structures are only one of the elements.
  13. The comment was deleted.
  14. SerB60
    SerB60 April 28 2016 12: 31
    0
    After all, you can write about tanks without politics. For the first part I put a minus, now a plus for the author.
    1. kalibr
      April 28 2016 16: 46
      0
      And what makes politics so embarrassing to you?
      1. SerB60
        SerB60 April 28 2016 20: 24
        -1
        The fact that it is out of place and not there her bustle. Write about tanks? Write about them and related facts, events and more. No need to savor our pre-war smoke breaks with the Germans and stick out our attitude towards Stalin.
        1. kalibr
          April 28 2016 20: 44
          +1
          It seems to me that there was no savoring there. It was not me who spoke about totalitarianism in the USSR, but the popularly elected president. And what, you urge me to admire the totalitarian system, which eventually led the country to the gravest catastrophe of 1991? What should I be moved by? Your "happiness" that you have read a couple of books on history and think that you understand it. A very common misconception. But how many I have read and in how many archives have worked and ... why shouldn't I "stick out my attitude." It is based not on the stories of grandfathers and grandmothers, as one wrote here, but on very solid sources. Do you want a sweet lie? Did you receive a lot of it in the past and how did it end? So let me write what I know and as I see fit. By the way, no one bothers you to write the way you want!
          1. Severomor
            Severomor April 28 2016 21: 11
            +1
            Quote: kalibr
            But how many I have read and in how many archives I worked and ... why shouldn't I "stick out my attitude." It is based not on the stories of grandfathers and grandmothers, as one wrote here, but on very solid sources


            But the greatest "historian" Pivovarov read even more, including "solid sources".
            Now we admire how he cripples fragile minds?
            1. kalibr
              April 28 2016 21: 31
              +1
              I don’t know who the Brewers are and what he read there more or less. This is not interesting to me. In my opinion, fragile minds cripple lies, and if everything has been checked and double-checked many times and in addition has been voiced by the president of the country, then this is a normal flow of information.
              1. Severomor
                Severomor April 28 2016 23: 27
                +1
                Quote: kalibr
                I don’t know who the Brewers are and what he read there more or less.


                But you know)))))))))))))))

                Quote: kalibr
                and in addition, voiced by the president of the country, this is a normal flow of information


                Nuuu, our president repented for the German Katyn execution, so what? All admit German guilt? Mzht politics, and mzht something else. I’m not ready to be fooled by this.
                1. kalibr
                  April 29 2016 06: 53
                  -1
                  Quote: Severomor
                  But you know)))))))))))))))

                  Why should I cheat on you? A stranger I'll never see? What is the point! What if it somehow pops up? Reputation is something that a PR man and a historian cannot sacrifice. I wrote about it many times here.
                  And not to admit guilt, but to demand the most thorough investigation with the involvement of foreign experts from third countries. And only then to say "it's a lie" or "it's true."
          2. The comment was deleted.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  15. Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 April 28 2016 16: 19
    0
    Quote: AK64
    What kind of "surprise" if the war has been going on for almost a year?
    Yes, but the breakthrough plan for the Maginot line was really unexpected, and even the accident with the crash of the headquarters plane with a lucky card - the Allies thought it was a setup and the Germans wouldn’t attack so accurately, and the Germans decided that it was worth taking a chance and taking risks. ..

    Quote: Thirteenth
    our T-34 with Lendlisian Matilda, Sherman, Valentine. In terms of crew comfort and convenience, the imported technician definitely won, but our vehicles were better in the most important combat qualities such as weapon power, security, maneuverability.
    Well, I don’t know, it seems like T34 is quite comparable with Sherman?
    1. kalibr
      April 28 2016 16: 47
      +1
      Read the book by veteran tanker Chibisov - "British tanks at the Cool Log" ...
    2. Record Nadoev
      Record Nadoev April 29 2016 16: 27
      +1
      Quote: Warrior2015
      Well, I don’t know, it seems like T34 is quite comparable with Sherman?

      Which T-34 with which Sherman?
      If you look at the gun, the T-34/76 loses to any Sherman, except for the very first (they were released by a very small number), which were armed with the M2 gun. At the same time, the T-34/85 is approximately equivalent to Sherman with the M1 gun. And noticeably inferior to Sherman with a gun 76 mm QF 17pdr.
      As for protection, if Shermanov with 51 mm of armor in his forehead can still be somehow tried to compare with the T-34, then those with 64 mm, these are already better protected.
    3. yehat
      yehat 6 May 2016 10: 12
      +1
      not quite. They are united only by mass character and the formal class of a medium tank, the tanks are completely different.
      for example, Sherman was better suited for deep breakthroughs for the banal reason that Christie shook much more in the tank with the suspension and the tankers got tired much faster. In turn, maneuverability and mobility were better with the t34, which favorably distinguished him in battles on rough terrain. The silhouette distinguished t34. After upgrading the t34 to t34-85, Sherman began to lose dramatically and like an gun platform. And so you can sort out for a long time.
  16. Torins
    Torins April 28 2016 17: 24
    +1
    Quote: Thirteenth
    Quote: BAI
    "the number of vehicles does not determine the outcome of the battle"

    How else does it determine!



    Of course they determine, but subject to their correct use. All the same, in 1943 the Red Army was not the same as in 41. I had a lot of experience both among ordinary tankmen and tank commanders.
    The quality of our army was different! Learned to fight less.

    For some reason, you don’t take into account that the Germans in the 41st did not meet all Soviet tanks at once. They simply did not focus on the possible directions of the Germans' strikes, while you from Sverdlovsk rolled tanks to Smolensk, those that were near Smolensk had long been burned down. And this applies not only to tanks. To beat the enemy in parts, concentrating all his forces on the direction of the blows - this is the tactics of the Germans. And they did it quite well, at first ...
    1. yehat
      yehat 6 May 2016 10: 17
      +1
      tanks in the border districts were enough to fight back. It was not necessary to drag anything from under Smolensk, it was only necessary to make sure that the tanks were effective.
      And in fact, during maneuvers, they lost more than half, two-thirds of the remaining were left mediocre in deliberately uncomfortable situations. And the rest of the Germans quite well piled on the Germans, but there were already not thousands, but tens of them. And what could they do against the 2 tank armies of the Center group, in which 75% of retired tanks returned to duty?

      Separately large claims to the equipment of tank units: the lack of intercoms, efficient radio stations, cloudy optics, poorly made armor-piercing shells, a catastrophic lack of adequate mechanics, spare parts, and rem. bases and cargo fleet, poor location of warehouses, indirect effect of lack of coordination with other parts, lack of high-quality military intelligence.

      Unfortunately, the tank mechanized corps of the border armies were strong only on paper.
  17. Record Nadoev
    Record Nadoev April 29 2016 11: 35
    +2
    Quote: Vyacheslav Shpakovsky
    At the same time, it turned out that French tanks at close range could not shoot German from 75-mm guns, since they did not have time to turn after them. Therefore, in response to frequent shooting from the Germans, they were forced to respond with slow fire from their 47-mm turret guns, which, in the end, led to their complete defeat

    This, excuse me, is complete nonsense. The 75 mm guns were not at all intended for firing at tanks. A 47-mm guns were approximately equivalent to the German 50-mm long-barrel. Therefore, the S-35 in 1940. were very strong. Very very strong. And there is nothing to nod at the tanks.
    In general, the idea and the S-35 scheme itself for that time is very, very attractive.
    Quote: Vyacheslav Shpakovsky
    Truly, with pitiful forces the British “fell” on German troops that day

    You better take an interest in what "relics" the Germans were in 1940. "attacked" the British-French troops. Laugh out loud. What these allies clearly did not expect was a German strike. But, as you know, the city takes courage.