Military Review

Soviet SAU against German tanks. Part 2

165



By the beginning of 1943, an alarming situation for our command had developed on the Soviet-German front. According to reports coming from tank units of the Red Army, the enemy began to massively use tanks and self-propelled guns, which in terms of armament and security characteristics began to surpass our most massive T-34 medium tanks. First of all, this applied to the modernized German medium tanks Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.F2 and the StuG III Ausf. F. Frontal armor 80 mm thick, long-barreled 75-mm guns, combined with excellent optics and well-trained crews, allowed German tankers to more often emerge victorious in tank duels under equal conditions. In addition, the enemy's anti-tank artillery became more and more saturated with 7,5 cm Pak guns. 40. All this led to the fact that the Soviet T-34 and KV ceased to dominate the battlefield. The situation became even more alarming after it became known that new heavy tanks were being built in Germany.

After the defeat of the Germans at Stalingrad and the transition of the Soviet troops to the offensive, the loss of qualitative superiority in the armored vehicles of the USSR was largely compensated for by the ever-increasing production of tanks and the growth of the operational skills of the Soviet command, the training and skills of the personnel. At the end of 1942 - the beginning of 1943, the Soviet tank crews no longer suffered such catastrophic losses as in the initial period of the war. As German generals complained: “we taught Russians to fight on our heads”.

After the seizure of a strategic initiative in the conditions of offensive military operations, the armored units of the Red Army required qualitatively new models of equipment. Taking into account the operating experience of the SU-76M and SU-122, assault self-propelled artillery systems armed with large-caliber howitzers designed to destroy fortifications during the breakthrough of the enemy’s defenses and anti-tank self-propelled guns with guns based on anti-aircraft and sea guns were developed.

During the planned 1943 offensive operations of the year, it was expected that the Soviet troops would have to break into a long-term defense in depth with concrete pillboxes. The Red Army needed a heavy SPG with weapons similar to the KV-2. However, by the time the production of X-NUMX-mm howitzers M-152 was discontinued, and the KV-10 themselves, which did not prove too good, were all lost in the battles. The designers have come to the understanding that from the point of view of obtaining optimal weight and size characteristics, placing a large-caliber gun in an armored wheelhouse on a combat vehicle is more preferable than in a turret. The refusal of the rotating tower allowed to increase the habitable volumes, save weight and reduce the price of the car.

In February, 1943, at ChKZ, began the serial production of the SU-152. As follows from the notation, the self-propelled gun was armed with 152-mm ML-20C - a tank modification of a very successful 152-mm howitzer-gun mod. 1937 (ML-20). This gun was in the niche between the long-barreled guns of special power and the classic field howitzers with a short barrel, strongly winning the first in mass and in the firing range of the second. The SU-152 gun had a horizontal shelling sector 12 ° and elevation angles −5 - + 18 °. In practice, the rate of fire did not exceed 1-2 rds / min. The ammunition included 20 shots of separate-cartridge loading. Theoretically, all types of ML-20 cannons could be used in ACS, but mostly they were high-explosive fragmentation projectiles. Direct firing range reached 3,8 km, the maximum firing range from closed positions — 6,2 km. But shooting from closed positions, for several reasons, which will be discussed below, was practiced very rarely by self-propelled guns.

Soviet SAU against German tanks. Part 2

SU-152


The base for the ACS was a heavy KV-1С tank, while the Su-152 was almost the same as the tank for protection. The thickness of the frontal armor of the cabin was 75 mm, the hull forehead was 60 mm, and the hull and wheelhouse side board was 60 mm. The combat weight of the vehicle is 45,5 T, the crew is 5 people, including two loaders. The introduction of two loaders was due to the fact that the weight of the high-explosive fragmentation projectile exceeded 40 kg.

The serial production of ACS SU-152 lasted until December 1943, and ended simultaneously with the cessation of production of the KV-1С tank. The number of built SU-152 in different sources is indicated differently, but most often the figure of 670 appears.

The most active self-propelled guns were used on the front in the period from the second half of the year 1943 to the middle of the year 1944. After the termination of the release of the KV-1С SAU SU-152, the troops replaced the units based on a heavy IS tank. Compared with self-propelled tanks SU-152, they suffered less losses from anti-tank artillery and enemy tanks, and therefore many heavy SAUs were written off due to resource development. But some of the cars that have undergone a refurbishment, participated in hostilities before the surrender of Germany.

The first SU-152 entered the troops in May 1943 of the year. Two heavy self-propelled artillery regiments for 12 ACS in each took part in the battle near Kursk. Contrary to popular myths, due to the small number of special influence on the course of hostilities, they did not have there. During the battle on the Kursk Bulge, self-propelled guns were usually used for firing from closed firing positions, and, moving behind tanks, gave them fire support. Due to the fact that there were few direct collisions with German tanks, the losses of the SU-152 were minimal. However, there were cases of firing at enemy tanks direct fire.

Here is what the battle report for 8 July 1943 of the 1529 TSAP, which was part of the 7 Guards Army of the Voronezh Front, says:
“During the day, the regiment fired: 8.07.1943 in 16.00 at the battery of assault guns on the southern outskirts of TSW. "Polyana". 7 self-propelled guns were hit and burned and 2 BATTH was broken, 12 OF grenades were consumed. In 17.00, on enemy tanks (up to 10 units), which entered the 2 grader road, km south-west of north-west coastal formations. "Batratskaya Dacha". Direct fire SU-152 3 th battery 2 tank were lit and 2 hit, one of them T-6. Consumption 15 OF garnet. In 18.00, the commander of the 3 th guards visited the 7 battery. Army Lieutenant-General Shumilov and made thanks to the calculations for excellent shooting at tanks. In 19.00, a column of vehicles and infantry carts was fired on the road south of the north. "Glade", 2 car crashed, 6 carts with infantry. To infantry company dispersed and partially destroyed. Consumption 6 OF garnet ".


Based on the above combat reports, we can draw two conclusions. First, it should be noted a good shooting performance and low consumption of projectiles: for example, in the first combat episode of 12 high-explosive fragmentation grenades were hit with 9 targets. Secondly, based on other combat episodes, it can be assumed that the enemy, having fallen under heavy weapon shelling, retreated faster than the SAU crews managed to completely destroy it. Otherwise, the consumption of shells could be significantly higher. That however, does not detract from the combat value of heavy self-propelled guns.



Reports on the results of the fighting among the armored vehicles destroyed by the crews of the SU-152, repeatedly appear heavy tanks "Tiger" and PT SAU "Ferdinand". It is fair to say that shooting even 152-mm high-explosive fragmentation projectile at German tanks gave a very good result, and for the withdrawal of enemy armored vehicles from the system, a direct hit was not always required. As a result of a close gap, the running gear was damaged, observation devices and armament were knocked out, and the tower was wedged. Among our soldiers, SU-152 self-propelled guns deserved a proud name - “St. John's Wort”. Another question is how it was really deserved. Of course, the armor of a single German tank could not withstand a hit by an armor-piercing projectile fired from an 152-mm howitzer cannon. But, given that the ML-20 direct shot range was about 800 meters, and the firing rate did not exceed 2 rounds / min at best, SU-152 could successfully act against medium and heavy tanks armed with long-barreled guns with high rate of fire, from ambush.

The number of destroyed "Tigers", "Panther" and "Ferdinadov" in the summaries of the hostilities and in the memoir literature many times exceeds the number of these machines built in factories in Germany. As a rule, screened "fours" were called "Tigers", and all German self-propelled guns were called "Ferdinands".

After the capture at the beginning of 1943, near Leningrad, the German tank Pz.Kpfw. VI "Tiger" in the USSR began to hastily create tanks and self-propelled guns armed with guns capable of fighting with enemy heavy tanks. Tests at the site showed that the 85-mm anti-aircraft gun can cope with medium-distance armor at the Tiger. Designer F.F. Petrov created a tank X-NUMX-mm gun D-85 with ballistic data of anti-aircraft guns. Option D-5S armed with PT SAU SU-5. The angle of elevation of the gun from −85 ° to + 5 °, the sector of horizontal shelling was ± 25 °. Direct firing range - 10 km, maximum range - 3,8 km. Due to the use of unitary shots, the rate of fire was 12,7-5 shots / min. The Su-6’s ammunition contained 85 shells.


SU-85


The machine was created on the basis of the SU-122, the main differences were mainly in armament. Production of the SU-85 began in July 1943, and did not have time to take part in the battles at the Kursk Bulge. Thanks to the use of a well-developed SU-122 case, it was possible to quickly establish mass production of anti-tank self-propelled guns SU-85. In terms of security, the SU-85, just like the SU-122, was at the level of the medium T-34 tank, the armor thickness of the tank destroyer did not exceed 45 mm, which was clearly not enough for the second half of the 1943.

The ACS SU-85 entered separate self-propelled artillery regiments (SAP). In the regiment there were four batteries with four installations in each. SAPs were used as part of fighter anti-tank artillery brigades as a mobile reserve or attached to small units to enhance their anti-tank capabilities, where often infantry commanders were used as line tanks.

Compared with the 85-mm anti-aircraft gun 52-K range of ammunition in the ammunition ammunition was much higher. O-365 fragmentation grenades weighing 9,54 kg after mounting the fuse on a high-explosive action could successfully be used against enemy fortifications. An armor-piercing tracer with a ballistic tip 53-BR-365 weighing 9,2 kg, with an initial speed of 792 m / s at a distance of 500 meters normal pierced through 105 mm armor. This made it possible to confidently hit the most common medium-sized German tanks Pz.IV of later modifications at all real combat distances. If you do not take into account the Soviet heavy tanks KV-85 and EC-1, which were built a little, before the appearance of the T-34-85 tanks, only SAU SU-85 tanks could effectively deal with the average enemy tanks at distances of over a kilometer.

However, the first months of combat use of the SU-85 demonstrated that the power of 85-mm guns was not always sufficient to effectively counter the enemy’s heavy tanks, Panther and Tiger, which, with effective sighting systems and security advantages, imposed a long-range battle. . A sub-caliber BR-365P projectile was well suited for fighting heavy tanks; at a distance of 500 m along the normal, he pierced armor with a thickness of 140 mm. But sub-caliber projectiles were effective at relatively short distances, with an increase in the range of their armor penetration characteristics dropped sharply.

Despite some shortcomings of the SU-85 in the army were loved, and this self-propelled gun was very popular. A significant advantage of the SAU, compared with the T-34-85 tank, which appeared later, armed with a gun of the same caliber, had better working conditions for the gunner and charging in a more spacious fighting room than the tank tower. This reduced crew fatigue and increased the practical rate of fire and accuracy of the fire.

In contrast to the SU-122 and the SU-152, the anti-tank SU-85, as a rule, operated in the same battle formations together with the tanks, which is why their losses were very significant. From July 1943 to November 1944, military acceptance of the 2652 industry took combat vehicles, successfully used until the end of the war.

In 1968, according to the story of the writer V.A. Kurochkina "In war as in war" about the commander and crew of the SU-85 was shot a wonderful film of the same name. Due to the fact that all SU-85 had been written off by that moment, SU-100, which was then in the Soviet army, was still in its role.

6 November 1943, the decision of the State Defense Committee adopted a heavy assault ACS IAM-152, created on the basis of a heavy tank "Joseph Stalin". In the production of ISU-152 replaced the SU-152 based on the KV tank. Armament self-propelled guns remained the same -152,4-mm howitzer gun ML-20 with arr. 1937 / 43 The gun was induced in a vertical plane ranging from −3 to + 20 °, the sector of horizontal pickup was 10 °. The range of a direct shot at the target height 2,5 m - 800 m, the range of direct fire - 3800 m. The real rate of fire 1-2 rds / min. Ammunition was 21 shot separately-cartridge loading. The number of crew members remains the same as in SU-152 - 5 people.


ISU-152


Compared with its predecessor, the SU-152, the new ACS was much better protected. The most massive in the second half of the war was the German 75-mm anti-tank gun Pak 40 and the guns of medium tanks Pz. IV at distances greater than 800 m could not penetrate the frontal 90 mm armor that had a slope 30 ° with an armor-piercing projectile. The habitability conditions of the ISU-152 combat unit became better, the crew’s work became somewhat easier. After identifying and eliminating “childhood diseases”, the self-propelled gun showed unpretentious maintenance and a fairly high level of technical reliability, surpassing the SU-152 in this regard. ISU-152 was sufficiently maintainable, often self-propelled guns that received combat damage were returned to service several days after repair in field workshops.

The mobility of the ISU-152 on the ground was the same with the tank EC-2. Reference books indicate that self-propelled guns on the highway could move at a speed of 40 km / h, while the maximum speed of a heavy tank IS-2, weighing the same 46 tons, is only 37 km / h. But in reality, heavy tanks and self-propelled guns moved on roads with hard surface at a speed of no more than 25 km / h, and on rough terrain 5-7 km / h.

The main purpose of ISU-152 at the front was the fire support of the advancing tank and infantry units. 152,4-mm high-explosive fragmentation shell OF-540 weighing 43,56 kg, containing about 6 kg of trotyl with a fuse set for fragmentation effect, was very effective against unarmored infantry, the installation of a fuse on a high-explosive action against the bunkers, billets, bunkers, armored ceilings and capital brick buildings. One hit of a projectile fired from a ML-20C cannon into a three-four-storey medium-sized city house was often enough to destroy all living things inside. ISU-152 turned out to be especially in demand when the assault turned into fortified areas of the city blocks of Berlin and Königsberg.

Heavy ACS IMS-152 inherited from its predecessor the nickname “St. John's wort”. But in this field, the heavy assault self-propelled gun was significantly inferior to the specialized PTs of the ACS, armed with high-ballistic guns and 6-8 gunshots / min. As already mentioned, the range of a direct shot of an ISU-152 gun did not exceed 800 meters, and the firing rate was only 1-2 shots / min. At a distance of 1500 meters, an armor-piercing projectile 75-mm cannon KwK 42 of a German tank "Panther" with a barrel in 70 calibers pierced the frontal armor of the Soviet self-propelled gun. With the fact that German tankers on 1-2 Soviet 152-mm projectile could respond with six aimed shots, engage in direct fights with heavy enemy tanks at medium and large distances was, to put it mildly, not reasonable. By the end of the war, Soviet tankers and self-propelled guns had learned to correctly select positions for anti-ambush, acting for sure. Careful disguise and quick change of firing positions helped to achieve success. In the offensive, the low rate of fire of 152-mm guns was usually compensated for by the coordinated actions of a group of 4-5 ACS. In this case, with a head-on collision, the German tanks that were not numerous at that time had almost no chance. According to archival data, from November 1943 to May 1945, the 1885 self-propelled guns were built, production of the IMS-152 was completed in 1946 year.

In 1944, the production of MIS-152 was largely hampered by a shortage of ML-20C tools. In April, the 1944 of the year began the serial assembly of the ACS IMS-122, which were armed with an X-NUMX-mm A-122-C gun with a barrel-length 19 caliber. These tools were in abundance in the warehouses of artillery weapons. Initially, the A-48C had a piston-type shutter, which significantly limited the rate of fire (19 — 1,5 shot per minute). In self-propelled ammunition there was 2,5 shots of separate-cartridge loading. As a rule, these were 30 high-explosive and 25 armor-piercing shells. This ratio of ammunition reflected the purpose for which self-propelled guns often had to fire.


ISU-122


In the autumn of 1944, the ACS IMS-122С with the 122-mm self-propelled version of the D-25С gun equipped with a semi-automatic wedge gate was launched into the series. The D-25C firing rate reached 4 rds / min. In terms of this indicator, the self-propelled gun, thanks to the better working conditions of the loaders and the more spacious layout of the combat compartment, was superior to the heavy tank EC-2, which was armed with a practically similar D-25T gun. Visually, the ISU-122 from the ISU-152 was distinguished by a longer and thinner gun barrel.

ISU-122 proved to be even more versatile and demanded by car compared to ISU-152. The good rate of fire, the high direct shot range and the great power of the projectile action made it equally effective both as a means of artillery support, and as a highly effective PT SAU. At the front, there was a kind of “division of labor” between MIS-152 and MIS-122. 152-mm guns were used as assault, operating in cities and on cramped roads. ISU-122 with its longer gun was difficult to maneuver on the streets. They were more often used for breaking through fortified positions in open areas and for firing from closed positions in the absence of towed artillery in case of fast breaks when the towed guns did not have time to move past the tank and mechanized units of the Red Army. In this role, the great firing range exceeding 14 km was especially valuable.


ISU-122С


The characteristics of the ISU-122С instrument made it possible to fight with the enemy’s heavy tanks at all available combat distances. 25-kg BR-471 armor-piercing projectile, leaving the barrel of the D-25 gun with an initial speed of 800 m / s, pierced the armor of any German armored vehicle model, except for the Ferdinand self-propelled artillery unit. However, without a trace for the German self-propelled gun a blow to the frontal armor did not pass. Chips occurred from the inner surface of the armor, mechanisms and aggregates broke down from powerful shaking. The high-explosive steel grenades OF-471 and OF-471Н had a good striking effect on bronzesels when the fuse was set to a high-explosive effect. The kinetic strike and the subsequent explosion of 3,6 — 3,8 kg of TNT, as a rule, was enough to bring the enemy's tank down without even breaking through the armor.



MIS-122 of all modifications were actively used at the final stage of the war as a powerful PT and assault ACS, playing a large role in the defeat of Germany and its satellites. In total, the Soviet industry delivered 1735 self-propelled guns of this type to the troops.

Talking about Soviet self-propelled installations with 122-152-mm caliber guns, it can be noted that they, despite the available opportunity, rarely fired from closed positions. This was mainly due to the lack of knowledge of the crews of ACS for effective fire from closed positions, an insufficient number of trained spotters, lack of communications and location control. An important circumstance was the consumption of shells. The Soviet command considered that it was easier and more profitable to accomplish the combat task of firing direct fire, firing several 152-mm projectiles, albeit with the risk of losing the vehicle and crew, than wasting hundreds of projectiles with an unobvious result. All these factors caused the fact that during the war years all our heavy self-propelled artillery mounts were designed for direct fire, that is, they were assault.

Lack of security and not always satisfying the military power of the armament of the tank guns SAU SU-85 caused the creation of self-propelled guns with 100-mm guns of unitary loading. The self-propelled unit, designated SU-100, was created by the designers of Uralmashzavod in 1944 year.

The results of the shelling at the landfill of captured German tanks demonstrated the low effectiveness of 85-mm shells against high hardness installed at rational inclination angles of German armor. Tests have shown that for confident defeat of heavy German tanks and self-propelled guns, an instrument with a caliber of at least 100-mm was required. In connection with this, it was decided to create a tank gun using unitary shots of the 100-mm naval universal gun with high ballistics B-34. At the same time, a new SAU hull was designed on the chassis of the medium tank T-34. The thickness of the upper, most vulnerable from the point of view of the probability of hitting shells, part of the frontal armor was 75 mm, the angle of inclination of the frontal sheet was 50 °, which in ballistic resistance exceeded 100 mm armor sheet installed vertically. Significantly increased in comparison with the SU-85 security allowed to confidently resist the penetration of projectiles from 75-mm anti-tank and guns of medium tanks Pz. Iv. In addition, the SU-100 had a low silhouette, which significantly reduced the likelihood of hitting it and made it easier to disguise while in the shelter. Thanks to the well-developed base of the T-34 self-propelled gun after the start of deliveries to the troops, there were almost no complaints about the level of reliability, their repair and restoration in front-line tank repair shops did not cause difficulties.

According to the experience of military operations and, taking into account the numerous wishes of the Soviet tank crews and self-propelled guns, a commander's turret, similar to that used on the T-100-34, was introduced on the SU-85. An overview of the turrets was provided by the periscope viewing device MK-4. Along the perimeter of the commander's turret there were five viewing slots with quick-change protective triplex glass blocks. The presence of a fairly good overview of the battlefield at the SAU commander made it possible to timely detect targets and control the actions of the gunner and the driver.


SU-100


When designing the SU-100, initially, certain attention was paid to the ergonomics and living conditions in the combat compartment of the new self-propelled guns, which was uncharacteristic of the Russian tank design during the war years. Although, of course, the level of comfort typical of Allied armored vehicles, and partly Germans, was not achieved for the four crew members, and the situation inside the self-propelled gun was Spartan. The Soviet self-propelled guns SU-100 were very fond and were perceived as a punishment for transferring to another vehicle.

The combat weight of the SU-100 due to the abandonment of the turret, even with better security and larger-caliber guns, was about half a ton less than the T-34-85 tank, which had a beneficial effect on mobility and maneuverability. However, the self-propelled mechwaters had to be very careful when driving on very rough terrain, so as not to “scoop” the ground with a relatively low long-barreled gun. Also for this reason it was difficult to maneuver in the narrow streets of European cities.

In preparation for the start of mass production of the SU-100, it turned out that the supply of self-propelled units to the troops was hampered by an insufficient number of existing 100-mm guns. In addition, the enterprises of the People's Commissariat of Ammunition failed to promptly launch the production of 100-mm armor-piercing shells. In this situation, as a temporary measure, it was decided to install X-NUMX-mm D-85С guns on new self-propelled guns. The ACS with the 5-mm gun in the new case was designated the SU-85M. In 85, 1944 of such installations was built.

SAU SU-100 was armed with X-NUMX-mm cannon D-100-arr. 10 g. With a barrel length 1944 gauges. In the vertical plane, the gun was induced in the range from −56 to + 3 °, and in the horizontal 20 °. The D-16C cannon, which proved to be exceptionally powerful and effective, could fight all types of enemy heavy armored vehicles. After the war, tank T-10 and T-10 tanks, which are still used in many countries, were armed with tank versions of the D-54T.

The direct range of an 53-BR-412 armor-piercing projectile against a target with a height of 2 meters was 1040 meters. At a distance of 1000 meters, this projectile, weighing 15,88 kg, pierced the normal 135 mm armor. The high-explosive fragmentation shell of the RP-412 15,60 kg mass contained 1,5 kg of TNT, which made it an effective means of destroying field fortifications and destroying enemy personnel. In the ammunition Su-100 there was a 33 shot unitary loading. Typically, the ratio of high-explosive and armor-piercing shells was 3: 1. The combat rate of fire with the coordinated work of the gunner and loader reached 5-6 rds / min.

From September 1944 to May 1945, the troops were transferred around 1500 SU-100. The enemy very quickly appreciated the security and firepower of the new Soviet SAU, and German tanks began to avoid a frontal collision with them. Landing and mobile ACS with 100-mm guns, due to higher rate of fire and long-range direct shot, were even more dangerous opponents than heavy EC-2 tanks and self-propelled guns with 122 and 152-mm guns. According to combat characteristics, the closest German analogue of the SU-100 is the SAG Jagdpanther, but they were built three times smaller during the war.



The most notable role of the SU-100 was played during the Balaton operation; they were very effectively used by the 6-16 of March of the 1945 of the year in repelling counterattacks of the SS 6 Panzer Army. Self-propelled guns of the 207, 208 and 209 self-propelled artillery brigades, as well as several separate SAPs took part in the battles. During the operation, SU-100 proved to be a highly effective means in the fight against German heavy armored vehicles.

It was SU-100 that became real “Hunters”, although for some reason in memoir, “okolodokumentumentalnuyu” and fiction, these laurels are given heavy SU-152 and ISU-152, much less likely to enter into firing duels with German tanks. Given the post-war production, the number of SU-100 built exceeded 3000 units. In the 50-70-s, these self-propelled guns were repeatedly upgraded, and in our country were in service until the beginning of the 90-s.

Based on:
http://ww2history.ru/soviet_sau.html
M.N. Svirin. Artillery armament of Soviet tanks 1940 — 1945. - M .: Exprint, 1999
Author:
Articles from this series:
Soviet SAU against German tanks. Part 1
165 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. The comment was deleted.
  2. Good cat
    Good cat 13 May 2016 06: 37
    -2
    The article is good, but the cliché that wanders from article to article is annoying that "in the memoirs of ferdinand tigers and panthers, dozens of times more were destroyed than produced."
    1. Bongo
      13 May 2016 08: 27
      +60
      Quote: Good cat
      The article is good, but the cliché that wanders from article to article is annoying that "in the memoirs of ferdinand tigers and panthers, dozens of times more were destroyed than produced."


      But don't you get annoyed and read the combat reports that were provided by the commanders of self-propelled artillery, tank and fighter-anti-tank units and compare the real number of German heavy tanks and self-propelled guns produced. According to these reports, then all the German "Tigers", "Panthers" and "Ferdinands" were destroyed several times. However, in war it is quite understandable and it is not always possible to determine in a battle at a distance of several hundred meters, being inside a T-34 or SU-100, whom you burned, and it is not always possible to distinguish the shielded "four" from the "Tiger".
      Comrades, as an author, I have a earnest request to you, let's not "mold" each other's minuses. After all, everyone has the right to their point of view.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 13 May 2016 09: 15
        +38
        Quote: Bongo
        However, in war it is quite understandable and it is not always possible to determine in a battle at a distance of several hundred meters, being inside a T-34 or SU-100, whom you burned, and it is not always possible to distinguish the shielded "four" from the "Tiger".

        Not only in this case. The Germans had a rather high-quality case of evacuating wrecked vehicles from the battlefield, followed by restoration.
        1. Bongo
          13 May 2016 09: 18
          +21
          Quote: Spade
          Not only in this case. The Germans had a rather high-quality case of evacuating wrecked vehicles from the battlefield, followed by restoration.

          Partly agree yes In the second half of the war, the percentage of restored cars was also very large. True, evacuating to the rear and restoring damaged tanks was possible only if the battlefield remained behind you.
          1. yehat
            yehat 13 May 2016 10: 48
            +15
            on the Kursk Bulge most of the broken or padded panthers and tigers
            the Germans had time to pull in for repair, though then some of these cars were captured right there
          2. 11 black
            11 black 13 May 2016 16: 46
            +11
            Quote: Spade
            Not only in this case. The Germans had a rather high-quality case of evacuating wrecked vehicles from the battlefield, followed by restoration.

            Quote: Bongo
            In part, I agree yes. In the second half of the war, the percentage of restored cars was also very large. True, evacuating to the rear and restoring damaged tanks was possible only if the battlefield remained behind you.

            So that's the point - the first half of the war, our retreating, the equipment remaining on the battlefield fell to the Germans, the second half of the war - exactly the opposite yes
          3. NEXUS
            NEXUS 14 May 2016 12: 59
            +12
            Quote: Bongo
            True, evacuating to the rear and restoring damaged tanks was possible only if the battlefield remained behind you.

            Good afternoon, Seryozha. hi
            The article is good and meaningful. With pleasure I read. Thank you!
            But about this thesis that I singled out, let me disagree with you. During the battle, the wrecked cars were also being taken out from under the fire for repair. This was what my grandfather told me.
            1. Bongo
              14 May 2016 13: 21
              +5
              Quote: NEXUS
              Good afternoon, Seryozha.

              Good day, Andrey! hi
              Quote: NEXUS
              The article is good and meaningful. With pleasure I read. Thank you!

              drinks
              Quote: NEXUS
              But about this thesis that I singled out, let me disagree with you. During the battle, the wrecked cars were also being taken out from under the fire for repair. This was what my grandfather told me.

              Not quite so, which of course does not detract from the merits of your grandfather. Under direct fire, direct fire of anti-tank guns or tank guns to evacuate a wrecked tank means losing tractors and repairmen. Under mortar or shelling from closed positions, they really were often evacuated. Again, when our troops went over to the offensive, there was no need to risk the lives of military personnel in the evacuation units.
              1. NEXUS
                NEXUS 14 May 2016 13: 29
                +11
                Quote: Bongo
                Under direct fire, direct fire of anti-tank guns or tank guns to evacuate a wrecked tank means losing tractors and repairmen.

                Verno. But in 41 and in 42, tanks were desperately lacking. And evacuation under enemy fire was forced. At the same time, as my grandfather said, it was not always the evacuation parties that were engaged in withdrawing padded tanks from the battlefield during a fight. Often this was done by our other tanks, while firing from their guns.
                Best regards drinks
                1. Bongo
                  14 May 2016 13: 34
                  +3
                  Quote: NEXUS
                  Verno. But in 41 and in 42, tanks were desperately lacking. And evacuation under enemy fire was forced. At the same time, as my grandfather said, it was not always the evacuation parties that were engaged in withdrawing padded tanks from the battlefield during a fight. Often this was done by our other tanks, while firing from their guns.

                  Of course, it also happened yes But again, it’s like a forced, not systemic practice. So it was possible to evacuate a not too damaged car. And not everyone, pulling out the T-34 with another "thirty-four" is not always realistic. With heavy tanks it was even more difficult.
                  1. NEXUS
                    NEXUS 14 May 2016 13: 43
                    +6
                    Quote: Bongo
                    And not everyone, pulling out the T-34 with another "thirty-four" is not always realistic. With heavy tanks it was even more difficult.

                    Believe it or not, Seryozha, but according to his grandfather's recollections, the KV-1 picked out the 34 from under the fire. How did two or three 34 cling. KV-1 was worth its weight in gold and by and large it was more or less he fought as equals with the German Tigers in the open field, although his gun was not as long-range as the German, but due to the inclined reinforced armor, the advantage of the enemy was not critical.
                  2. PKK
                    PKK 14 May 2016 16: 36
                    -5
                    for the lost equipment, then it was necessary to answer to the NKVD, and before it it is difficult to justify.
        2. Stas57
          Stas57 13 May 2016 09: 24
          +8
          Quote: Spade
          Not only in this case. The Germans had a rather high-quality case of evacuating wrecked vehicles from the battlefield, followed by restoration.

          evacuation, if the battlefield was left for us / they were all perfectly placed
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 13 May 2016 10: 17
            0
            Quote: Stas57
            evacuation, if the battlefield was left for us / they were all perfectly placed

            We had the same BREM, how many Germans? Allowing to evacuate the car during the battle.
            1. Stas57
              Stas57 13 May 2016 10: 30
              +7
              Quote: Spade
              We had the same BREM, how many Germans? Allowing to evacuate the car during the battle.

              at what moment? for example in 44 -45 the need for such machines in our army was much less than 41
              in the 41-42-43 and the Germans, not anxious fours took part in evacuation, but a pair of Sd.Kfz.8, for example, according to the staff for 1177 11.1943 2 Panther, in Rem-Evac Company, go on 10 Sd.Kfz.2, 3 4,5 from 30 Sd.Kfz.XNUMX, XNUMX XNUMX from XNUMX Sd.Kfz.XNUMX, XNUMX XNUMX from XNUMX Sd.Kfz. XNUMX ton, several kubel, motics and great on XNUMX people.
              Often ordinary tanks and tractors were usually involved in evacuating; according to the latter, there were a lot of complaints.
              1. sibiryouk
                sibiryouk 13 May 2016 16: 01
                +7
                From the 2 half of the 1943g, American tractors with diesel engines 150-210ls capable of developing large traction forces were supplied, and also from 1944g appeared domestic tracked tractors with diesel engine B-2 (deformed 250-300лс). They were used for evacuation.
            2. EvilLion
              EvilLion 13 May 2016 12: 29
              +7
              The Germans didn’t have them either, but the tank on average recovered 5 times, until it was finally burned, or was written off.
          2. yehat
            yehat 13 May 2016 10: 50
            +4
            evacuation - yes, but repair - no. Our repairs were not carried out so actively, and it was often easier to pull apart a broken car for spare parts in order to repair others for replacement.
            1. Stas57
              Stas57 13 May 2016 10: 59
              +12
              Quote: yehat
              Our repairs were not carried out so actively, and it was often easier to pull apart a broken car for spare parts in order to repair others for replacement.

              and how much, if you even climbed a neutral gear to a neutral?
              yes, and cannibalism was developed both among us and among the Germans, I will "take off now, and then let the flyer do what she wants"

              Shcherbak offended in earnest.
              - Have you seen me in a fight? Not afraid-- Scherbak
              will not let you down. The car, like a swallow, will rush around the "tigers".
              “God forbid you to get to them!” The corporal seriously said .-- Do you think on this wire to go far?
              - At the first wrecked tank I will take off the traction and put it on.
              - Simply go to the technical part, take this craving and deliver.
              -- Of course. Two hours already stand. Do not leave you, Grishka, worthwhile driver. No shit will come, - concluded Domashek and got out from under the tarpaulin.
              - Lieutenant, how long will we stand here?
              Sanya sighed heavily:
              -- I do not know.
            2. kotvov
              kotvov 13 May 2016 13: 15
              +11
              Our repairs were not carried out so actively, and it was often easier to pull apart a broken car for spare parts, in order to repair others for replacement.
              You ask about the maintainability of our and German cars. And where they can be repaired. The Germans lost in this.
              1. Stas57
                Stas57 13 May 2016 14: 38
                +2
                Quote: kotvov
                You ask about the maintainability of our and German cars. And where they can be repaired. The Germans lost in this.

                Where? Here I have a great book on repairing Tiger tanks, step by step all the repairs on the knee are displayed, and the engine bulkhead and the removal of towers, etc.
                The high level of mechanization to help them
            3. ARS56
              ARS56 16 May 2016 17: 11
              +1
              That is, you confirm that you have repaired, otherwise why spare parts?
              Our equipment was very different from the German high maintainability in the field, which is actively used in view of the acute shortage of tanks and self-propelled guns.
        3. Mordvin 3
          Mordvin 3 13 May 2016 10: 43
          +10
          Quote: Spade
          Quote: Bongo
          However, in war it is quite understandable and it is not always possible to determine in a battle at a distance of several hundred meters, being inside a T-34 or SU-100, whom you burned, and it is not always possible to distinguish the shielded "four" from the "Tiger".

          Not only in this case. The Germans had a rather high-quality case of evacuating wrecked vehicles from the battlefield, followed by restoration.

          For the destruction of the Tigris, or Ferdinand, awarded. Something everyone here is modestly silent about it.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 14 May 2016 17: 30
            +5
            Quote: Mordvin 3
            For the destruction of the Tigris, or Ferdinand, awarded. Something everyone here is modestly silent about it.

            They were awarded, right. But I'll tell you that the tankers had an order "not to leave the car" while it was functional. And the worst thing for them was the immobilization of the tank on the battlefield. That is, the tank becomes an easy target. And our tankers had to continue the battle, standing motionless, firing a cannon and a machine gun.
            Just imagine, there is an immobilized tank in the middle of this whole mess, and the crew continues the battle, with the thought that they cannot but escape and defend themselves against the enemy projectile.
        4. The comment was deleted.
        5. dr.star75
          dr.star75 13 May 2016 22: 12
          +7
          "The Germans had a pretty good job of evacuating wrecked vehicles from the battlefield with subsequent restoration." - Here you are not quite right. One of the advantages of our tanks was their high maintainability close to the front line. But for the repair of German tanks, they had to be returned to the factory.
          1. Stas57
            Stas57 14 May 2016 00: 33
            +12
            Quote: dr.star75
            But for the repair of German tanks, they had to be returned to the factory.











      2. yehat
        yehat 13 May 2016 10: 38
        +6
        I want to correct it - it is possible to distinguish between t4 and t6, and Ferdinand can be even over a long distance, but on condition that earlier there was an opportunity to examine them calmly and in detail, but there was usually no such thing
      3. novel66
        novel66 13 May 2016 12: 44
        +15
        I would add that the situation is mirrored, according to reports, the Germans also "destroyed" the T-34, obviously more than was possible. fine. many human thanks to the author!
      4. The comment was deleted.
      5. Good cat
        Good cat 13 May 2016 16: 46
        0
        I don’t sculpt the cons, it’s just interesting, you read the reports yourself and compared them with how much was produced? I do not think the author is the same. Then, in the headquarters of the Red Army, the same competent people sat and divided these victories into two and four.
      6. netslave
        netslave 14 May 2016 09: 46
        +5
        Another point that explains the unrealistically large number of "destroyed" equipment: in a battle on an enemy tank, artillerymen, tankmen, and aviation can simultaneously work. And if a tank is eventually destroyed, it is not always possible or desirable to figure out who exactly destroyed it. Everyone will write it down at their own expense, and one destroyed machine will turn into 2-3 reports.
      7. Alekseev
        Alekseev 15 May 2016 18: 54
        +4
        Quote: Bongo
        Do not be annoyed and read

        That's right!
        The article is very interesting, and from the D-10T (T-55) cannon is practically an analogue of the D-10С installed on the Su-100, I even had to shoot. Very powerful tool (in its class, of course).
        The cabin of the old ISU-152, on which we fired at the landfill, is pierced with a practical projectile (pig) through 1000.
        The only thing I didn't understand was the phrase "... a lot of heavy SPGs were decommissioned due to resource depletion"?
        Heavy SAU is not a plane of those years. What armor corps lost resource? laughing
        That is unlikely. The BTT is subjected to a major overhaul, which consists of complete disassembly, the replacement of all units with new or thoroughly repaired. Writing off for remelting is possible only with obsolete equipment or with very significant military damage.
        1. svp67
          svp67 15 May 2016 19: 16
          +4
          Quote: Alekseev
          What armor corps lost resource?

          Most likely. Our heavy tanks, the release of the times of the Second World War had a weak corps in the area of ​​logistics, after the war, one of the stages of modernization provided for the strengthening of the corps.
          It is more interesting here that
          Here is SU-45 based on T-37, middle of 30-x

          But OCA-76, 1944 of the year

          That is, the design thought was quite at the level, but there were similar problems with the implementation, especially the OSA projects are a pity, the Red Army could dramatically increase the mobility and security of the regimental-divisional artillery ...
        2. Bongo
          16 May 2016 01: 28
          +4
          Quote: Alekseev
          The only thing I didn't understand was the phrase "... a lot of heavy SPGs were decommissioned due to resource depletion"?
          Heavy SAU is not a plane of those years. What armor corps lost resource?
          That is unlikely. The BTT is subjected to a major overhaul, which consists of complete disassembly, the replacement of all units with new or thoroughly repaired. Writing off for remelting is possible only with obsolete equipment or with very significant military damage.


          It is not strange that part of the SU-152 was written off for precisely this reason. Do not forget that this machine was created on the basis of the discontinued KV and it was in 1944-1945 that it found spare parts for the chassis and transmission. already problematic. In addition, repair companies did not want to bother with the equipment which the troops left very little. Moreover, at that time, ISU-152 went massively, surpassing SU-152 in reliability and security.
          1. Alekseev
            Alekseev 16 May 2016 14: 43
            +2
            Quote: Bongo
            Do not forget that this machine was created on the basis of the discontinued KV and it was in 1944-1945 that it found spare parts for the chassis and transmission. already problematic

            The power plant of the IC is not much different from the KV. There are used more advanced units (CP, PMP) which allowed to recover from KV diseases.
            Of course, now it is difficult to say what was more expedient in those years: write off the SU-152 for scrap, or make a major overhaul with the replacement of units with Isovye.
            In addition, there is indeed information that
            Quote: svp67
            Most likely. Our heavy tanks, the release of the Second World War had a rather weak corps in the area of ​​logistics
            hi
            Yes, and BTT in the ranks, despite the huge losses (96,4 thousand units) at the end of the war was enough (more than 30 thousand)
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 13 May 2016 08: 34
      +8
      Considering that the Ferdis were made of ready-made "Tiger-R" hulls, which Porsche had riveted 90 pieces in advance, but in the end flew with an order for the Pz-VI, which was the car from "Henschel", it is somehow incomprehensible claim. At the front, any assault self-propelled gun was called "Ferdinands", although almost no one saw a real "Fedya" in the eyes.

      There really were a lot of "Panthers", like a line tank instead of a "four".
      1. yehat
        yehat 13 May 2016 10: 52
        +3
        There were a lot of panthers only from the middle of the 44 of the year - before that the release was small and breakdowns; the Germans often prevented the Germans from using them in large numbers.
    3. BAI
      BAI 13 May 2016 12: 37
      +4
      "Ferdinands" were produced only 91 pieces and they fought simultaneously on the eastern and western fronts. In the first battle - the battle of Kursk, irrecoverable losses amounted to 35 units (destroyed and captured). So then, in principle, they could not destroy many of them.
    4. BAI
      BAI 13 May 2016 12: 37
      +2
      "Ferdinands" were produced only 91 pieces and they fought simultaneously on the eastern and western fronts. In the first battle - the battle of Kursk, irrecoverable losses amounted to 35 units (destroyed and captured). So then, in principle, they could not destroy many of them.
    5. dmitrii.safonov.dm
      dmitrii.safonov.dm 13 May 2016 19: 25
      +3
      Do not read memoirs !!! A stamp is a stamp !!! The author provides summaries and statistics! The question is why annoyed in vain !!!
    6. Akuzenka
      Akuzenka 13 May 2016 22: 53
      +3
      But, unfortunately, it is. But the author made a blunder. Tigers near Leningrad were captured at the end of 1942, not 1943. I am ashamed to write such an article.
    7. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 14 May 2016 19: 25
      0
      grandfather said that the su-85 was not called a "bitch", as a rule the entire crew was killed because of the location of the fuel tanks and ammunition.
      1. Suhow
        Suhow 14 May 2016 20: 44
        +4
        if I'm not mistaken, then they called the bitch SU-76, or tarpaulin Ferdinant. And not 85 to.
      2. 11 black
        11 black 15 May 2016 08: 12
        +2
        Quote: Andrey Yurievich
        grandfather said that the su-85 was not called a "bitch", as a rule the entire crew was killed because of the location of the fuel tanks and ammunition.

        And what about German tanks with gasoline - PETROL engines, especially the Panther, what should you call then - "damn pan", "brazier", other options?
        Next - Su 85 really never called this nickname.
        They say that the Su-76 was called that, there is still a sarcastic comparison with Fedya, but apart from someone's oral "memoirs" there is no evidence of this, at least I never came across, if there is written evidence - in the studio.
        And it’s unsubstantiated to blame the car, which was no worse than the German Marder, used by the Germans until the end of the war in the same role as the Su-76, just silly.
        Like comparing both these sau with ferdinant.
        1. The comment was deleted.
  3. igordok
    igordok 13 May 2016 06: 52
    +12
    Thank. It seems to be well-known facts, set out very interesting. Even read.
  4. Uncle Murzik
    Uncle Murzik 13 May 2016 07: 11
    +6
    article plus, and not one!
  5. inkass_98
    inkass_98 13 May 2016 07: 30
    +7
    Sergey, many thanks, very interestingly stated.
    Quote: Good cat
    annoying is the cliché that wanders from article to article that "in the memoirs of ferdinand tigers and panthers, dozens of times more were destroyed than produced"

    So it is much more annoying that wherever you spit, there were "tigers" and "ferdinands" everywhere. And judging by some films, the Germans started the war with them.
    1. Bongo
      13 May 2016 08: 31
      +7
      Quote: inkass_98
      Sergey, many thanks, very interestingly stated.

      drinks
      Quote: inkass_98

      So it is much more annoying that wherever you spit, there were "tigers" and "ferdinands" everywhere. And judging by some films, the Germans started the war with them.

      Let's leave it on the conscience of unscrupulous filmmakers and consultants. On the other hand, during the times of the USSR, when filming films about the Second World War, the task was to show what a powerful enemy we won. Hence the "Tigers" in 1941 near Moscow. It was common for all the belligerents to overestimate their own achievements; unfortunately, in a war, they cannot do without it. request
      1. zadorin1974
        zadorin1974 13 May 2016 12: 17
        +6
        Greetings colleagues.Avtor Respect! Regarding the technology in the film, how many current models of BTTs of those years can be used on the shooting? That's the answer. Here and T-3 on MT-LB and tigers on 55.
        1. sibiryouk
          sibiryouk 13 May 2016 16: 10
          +4
          It's just that Soviet tanks T-44, T-54, etc. are too massive and the cannon is long-barreled, so when draped under the German ones, they looked like "Tigers", and not like T-III or T-IV.
    2. 97110
      97110 13 May 2016 09: 44
      +8
      Quote: inkass_98
      And judging by some films, the Germans started the war with them.

      This is if the tracks do not look. And if you look, you see your own family, with a built-in miracle of technology. A better drawn German (Czech, Italian, Finnish) tank than a BT-7 T-55 turned into a BT-35. In the dimensions of the tank, the caliber and the length of the barrel is also a historical truth. 54 (t) next to the cook, armed with an ax, allows you to believe in the victory of the latter. And T-55, XNUMX, even with a tower of black roofing iron, visually suppress the brave cook, not allowing the poor viewer to believe in directorial finds.
    3. Good cat
      Good cat 13 May 2016 16: 51
      +4
      In films on 90% t-55 plywood sheathed rolls.
  6. EvilLion
    EvilLion 13 May 2016 08: 29
    0
    SU-100 even managed to make war in Afghanistan. In WoT, she gives out like a god.
    1. Bongo
      13 May 2016 08: 38
      +5
      Quote: EvilLion
      SU-100 even managed to make war in Afghanistan.

      Rather, the SU-100 were included in the military contingent entered into the DRA. I know nothing about combat use there. request In the late 80s, these machines were still "in storage" in the Far East. Tankers there also operated the modernized T-34-85 for a very long time. Compared to the T-54/55/62, T-XNUMXs and self-propelled guns based on them had much better maneuverability on soft soils.
      1. Lankaster
        Lankaster 13 May 2016 10: 43
        +13
        Su-100 and in Yemen "lit up" in 2014.
        1. guzik007
          guzik007 13 May 2016 12: 40
          0
          Do you notice anything strange in the photo?
          1. Mordvin 3
            Mordvin 3 13 May 2016 17: 34
            +3
            Quote: guzik007
            Do you notice anything strange in the photo?

            We notice. fellow
      2. creak
        creak 13 May 2016 11: 00
        +3
        Su-100 was used quite actively in the post-war period in Arab-Israeli conflicts, and the self-propelled guns were not of Soviet manufacture, but made in Czechoslovakia.
        In addition, they lit up in Angola and a number of other local conflicts.
        An enviable example of longevity ....
      3. The comment was deleted.
  7. svp67
    svp67 13 May 2016 08: 35
    +6
    It was SU-100 that became real “Hunters”, although for some reason in memoir, “okolodokumentumentalnuyu” and fiction, these laurels are given heavy SU-152 and ISU-152, much less likely to enter into firing duels with German tanks.
    Yes, because the Su-152 showed itself back at the Kursk Bulge and honestly, the sight of a flying cat tower, when meeting with a 152-mm projectile, is somehow more impressive than a neat "hole" from a 100-mm
    1. Bongo
      13 May 2016 08: 43
      +5
      Quote: svp67
      Yes, because the Su-152 showed itself back at the Kursk Bulge and honestly, the sight of a flying cat tower, when meeting with a 152-mm projectile, is somehow more impressive than a neat "hole" from a 100-mm

      How many "cats" were destroyed by the SU-152 near Kursk, given that there were only 24 of them there? And let's be honest, our self-propelled guns had few chances in a head-on collision, given the range of a direct shot, protection and rate of fire. Although, of course, you are right that the visual special effects when hit by a 152-mm projectile are much more interesting.
      1. CAMS
        CAMS 13 May 2016 11: 34
        +1
        let's face it, the whole war was fought hand-to-hand, i.e. infantry suffered all the war and knowingly the artillery for the infantry was a god, not tank crews
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 13 May 2016 12: 36
          +7
          Artillery gave 85% of all corpses in World War II, neither tanks, nor aircraft, much less infantry itself with its infantry, are not even close here.
    2. Stas57
      Stas57 13 May 2016 08: 45
      +2
      Quote: svp67
      Yes, because the Su-152 showed itself back at the Kursk Bulge and honestly, the sight of a flying cat tower, when meeting with a 152-mm projectile, is somehow more impressive than a neat "hole" from a 100-mm

      dodo, on atoms ...
      shelling of the Tigger from 18 May 43
      1. svp67
        svp67 13 May 2016 08: 57
        +2
        Quote: Stas57
        shelling of the Tigger from 18 May 43

        So what? Here is also a report:
        PzKpfv. VI “Tiger”
        Shelling:
        Excerpts from the report of the 9 TK of the Central Front about conducting experimental firing at the T-VI Tiger tank, which was shot down by our troops: “The 37-mm MZA, 45-mm, 76-mm and 85-mm guns were involved in firing at the tank. the guns. Shooting was carried out on a stationary tank in the forehead and onboard of its armor-piercing and sub-caliber projectiles of all the above systems. Shooting results:
        a) When firing into the frontal armor of a tank, not a single projectile from all systems missed in firing at a distance of up to 200 m does not pierce it. At a distance of 400 m 45-mm projectile displays armament (gun barrel, machine gun) and gives the tower jamming. From a range of 400 m, an armor-piercing 85-mm projectile enters the armor on 12 — 13 cm and remains in its depth (measured on the tip of the projectile; the initial measurement point is the outer surface of the armor).
        b) In shooting on the board of the 37-mm tank, the projectile does not penetrate the armor, makes only small dents in it, with the 400 — 300 m it punches the rollers, tracks. The 45-mm sub-caliber projectile penetrates both side armor and turrets from a range of 200 m (hereinafter, the side and stern armor of the turret, and not the gun mask) and closer; armor-piercing projectile does not take armor. 76-mm armor-piercing projectile does not take armor at all ranges. It makes the tower seize and dents in the side armor from the range to 300 — 400. The sabot pierces the armor with the 400 and closer both to the side and to the tower. 85-mm armor-piercing projectile pierces the armor with 1200 m and closer, and both the side armor and the tower.
        ... More 15 on April, 1943 of the State Defense Committee, in response to the appearance of new German tanks on the Soviet-German front, issued a decree No. 3187ss "On measures to strengthen anti-tank defense", which obliged the State Aviation Administration to subject the ground forces to anti-tank and tank guns mass production, and in the 10-day period to submit its conclusion. In accordance with this document, the deputy commander of the BT and MB Lieutenant-General of Tank Forces V.M. Korobkov ordered to use the trophy "Tigr" during the tests, which took place from 25 to 30 in April 1943 of the year at the NIIBT test site in Kubinka. The test results were not encouraging. Thus, the X-NUMX-mm regular BR-76A armor-piercing tracer F-350 cannon did not penetrate the German tank’s onboard armor even from the 34 distance m! The 200-mm 85K anti-aircraft gun of the 52 model of the year, which from the distance to 1939 m penetrated its 1000-mm frontal armor, as well as the 100-mm M-107 gun and the 60-mm A gun -122.
        1. Stas57
          Stas57 13 May 2016 09: 21
          +3
          So what? Here is also a report:


          and where there are three digits of the 152 tower trap in it?
        2. faiver
          faiver 13 May 2016 11: 25
          0
          I didn’t understand about breaking through 12-13cm of armor from a tiger with a 85mm projectile - if my memory doesn’t change my memory of a tiger frontal armor 100mm ie 10cm
          1. Stas57
            Stas57 13 May 2016 11: 31
            +4
            Quote: faiver
            I didn’t understand about breaking through 12-13cm of armor from a tiger with a 85mm projectile - if my memory doesn’t change my memory of a tiger frontal armor 100mm ie 10cm


            The 85-mm projectile enters the armor at 12 — 13 cm and remains deep inside it (measured at the tip of the projectile; the starting point of measurement is the outer surface of the armor).
  8. netslave
    netslave 13 May 2016 08: 45
    +6
    Sergey, thank you so much for the article!
    Reread the other day "I fought in the T-34" by Artem Drabkin. I wonder if there is a similar collection of memoirs of self-propelled gunners.
    1. Bongo
      13 May 2016 08: 51
      +5
      Quote: netslave
      Sergey, thank you so much for the article!

      drinks
      Quote: netslave
      Reread the other day "I fought in the T-34" by Artem Drabkin. I wonder if there is a similar collection of memoirs of self-propelled gunners.

      Quote: netslave
      Reread the other day "I fought in the T-34" by Artem Drabkin. I wonder if there is a similar collection of memoirs of self-propelled gunners.

      Drabkin also wrote about self-movers, but in general it is a very poorly covered topic. There are a couple of art books, written according to the memoirs of the participants of the Second World War and all. hi
      1. Thunderbolt
        Thunderbolt 14 May 2016 00: 40
        +3
        Gorsky S. Notes gunner SU-76. Liberators of Poland.http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/gorskiy_s01/index.html
        Krysov bc "Battery, fire!". Self-propelled against the "tigers".
        http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/krysov_vs/index.html
        And then there is this book (including on my bookshelf). As a child I really liked it. The author himself did not fight on tracks, but seemed to command a communications platoon in the SA regiment on a Lend-Lease armored car. Not because of the armor, but a little from the side. They tried to "hide" mainly behind their heavy self-propelled guns. But in the confusion of the battle, they often had to cover and take on fire from the flanks, if it was necessary to cover a damaged self-propelled gun or make reconnaissance. also interesting memoirs, but I confess I did not read the first book ..))
  9. Free wind
    Free wind 13 May 2016 08: 58
    0
    After the ferdinant was produced, the elephant was different from the ferda in the presence of machine guns. On our heavy self-propelled guns, the mechvod, the gunner and the commander of the vehicle were officers.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 13 May 2016 09: 42
      +4
      And if you look at how many Ferdinantes and Elephantates are released. And how much they shot, it becomes sad.
      1. xan
        xan 13 May 2016 23: 38
        +3
        Quote: Zaurbek
        And if you look at how many Ferdinantes and Elephantates are released. And how much they shot, it becomes sad.

        Well, be sad. There was no equipment capable of producing equipment to combat these monsters. They had to be destroyed by aviation and artillery. There the Germans in 41 did not have a tank stronger than the t-34, not to mention the KV, and reached Moscow on machine-gun tanks. So ours did what they could, and fought on what they themselves did.
    3. yehat
      yehat 13 May 2016 11: 02
      +5
      after Ferdinand, the Elephant was NOT produced. These are the same Ferdinands, re-equipped with a machine gun from the experience of the Kursk Bulge.
    4. Nehist
      Nehist 13 May 2016 11: 30
      +6
      Who told you that Elephant was released? Simple to the released 8,8 cm Pak 43 / 2 Sfl L / 71 Panzerjager Tiger (P) Sd.Kfz. 184 Added a machine gun and renamed.
  10. yahont
    yahont 13 May 2016 09: 17
    +3
    Thanks for the interesting article.
  11. Arktidianets
    Arktidianets 13 May 2016 09: 18
    +3
    Good article, thanks for the work.
  12. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 13 May 2016 09: 41
    +6
    It shows a clear separation of self-propelled self-propelled guns - MIS 152, C-122 and PT Isu-122, Su-85 / 100. The howitzer, naturally, has a large dispersion and it is problematic to shoot at the tank, but a heavy PF projectile to destroy buildings and pillboxes. You also do not forget that the USSR had difficulties with the production of barrels for PT guns before 43, until equipment was supplied from the USA and England, the late (1944) release of the T-34-85 tank was connected with this. We did not have machines for boring more than the T-34-76 shoulder strap tower.
    1. yehat
      yehat 13 May 2016 11: 04
      +2
      the USSR had a small reserve in 40 year on the trunks of PT guns, which were released on their own initiative. They were let out just after 41.
      1. sau-t
        sau-t 13 May 2016 13: 30
        0
        Quote: yehat
        who released on their own initiative

        "Initiative order" is sabotage and execution. Especially in wartime.
        There were no "backlogs" at the factories. On account in 1941. there was every cannon.
        Do not read memoirs. And if the reader, do not believe them completely.
        1. yehat
          yehat 13 May 2016 16: 46
          +1
          we fought the Finns in 40 and not for long. it was not wartime.
          and I'm not talking about guns, but about the trunks that were made to 2 by experienced guns - 57mm and some other, which they recognized before the war as redundant and expensive and did not deliver to the stream, however, the barrels remained in the warehouses. And in 42 I remembered them, resumed production and used trunks made before the war.
          Therefore, the production of new guns went faster than it could.
          True, ready-made guns did not appear at Kursk on time.
          1. sau-t
            sau-t 13 May 2016 17: 37
            0
            Quote: yehat
            who were recognized before the war as redundant and expensive and did not put the flow

            PPV Read something about guns ZIS-2 / 4 arr. 1941
            Quote: yehat
            however, the trunks remained and lay in warehouses

            There was nothing there. Do you understand? Especially 57-mm, which in 1941g. could do by the piece. Everything went into action, there was nothing to fight.
            Quote: yehat
            And in 42 they were remembered, they resumed production and they used trunks made before the war.

            In 1942 no production no guns renewed did not have.
            Quote: yehat
            True, ready-made guns did not appear at Kursk on time.

            What were these mythical guns called?
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 13 May 2016 14: 11
        +2
        And before the war, the machine park, KSAT was purchased in Germany.
      4. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 13 May 2016 14: 11
        0
        And before the war, the machine park, KSAT was purchased in Germany.
  13. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 13 May 2016 09: 44
    +2
    Personally, my ideal self-propelled - T-54-122. Very beautiful car, we are standing in Krasnodar on the backwater. Rare model.
  14. Lopatov
    Lopatov 13 May 2016 10: 05
    +10
    Talking about Soviet self-propelled installations with 122-152-mm caliber guns, it can be noted that they, despite the available opportunity, rarely fired from closed positions. This was mainly due to the lack of knowledge of the crews of ACS for effective fire from closed positions, an insufficient number of trained spotters, lack of communications and location control.

    This is, I'm sorry, nonsense. Communication is not a problem, as are "spotters" with topographic location. Crew training, even more so.

    Did not shoot with the PDO because it was impractical. Small portable BC, the lack of devices for firing from the ground. And this is when, during periods of artillery preparation, attacks and artillery support, sometimes by rail wagon at each gun was laid out.

    The Soviet command considered that it was easier and more profitable to accomplish the combat task of firing direct fire, firing several 152-mm projectiles, albeit with the risk of losing the vehicle and crew, than wasting hundreds of projectiles with an unobvious result.

    Also, I apologize, nonsense. This is not "the Soviet command believed," this is a concrete scientific fact. Even on a modern battlefield, there are targets that are impractical to engage in fire with a closed OP with conventional unguided ammunition. For example, single armored targets. Like a "tank in a trench". Therefore, for the period of artillery preparation for the attack, weapons were always allocated for direct fire. For hitting targets of this type.

    A separate line is DOTS and PILOTS. Shooting combat coverage is ineffective and was used (and used) only as a last resort.

    In terms of efficiency and time in the rightful first place, shooting direct or half-direct aiming at the floor (vertical) wall of the bunker
    On the second, shooting with floor fire at the floor wall with the PDO. The so-called "shooting to destroy" Quite a difficult operation. First, the battery or a platoon of guns must be moved to a line close to perpendicular to the floor wall. To exclude ricochets. Then a rather difficult zeroing is performed each guns (in all other cases, only the main one was shot, the rest were shot at its settings). Well, actually, shooting for destruction.
    Well, on the third, shooting at the combat surface with hinged fire. Long, "shell-intensive", with non-obvious results.


    All these factors caused the fact that during the war years all our heavy self-propelled artillery mounts were designed for direct fire, that is, they were assault.

    Rather, the main factor was that all the "assault" self-propelled guns produced were not enough to carry out the tasks of hitting targets with direct fire. And I had to deal with even such non-trivial tasks as the secret promotion of the ML-20 to the "front end"
  15. Verdun
    Verdun 13 May 2016 10: 10
    +7
    The article is, in principle, not bad, but in some places it evokes ambiguous feelings. The technical data of the ACS are given in some detail, but, in my opinion, the correct conclusions are not always drawn on the basis of these data. Attacking enemy tanks from an ambush is a normal phenomenon, even when the vehicles are the same in terms of weapons and armor, since it significantly increases the chances of the attacking side. War is not a knightly tournament to constantly fight face to face. Frontal attacks are more likely from the mediocrity of the commanders and from desperate situations. 1. SU-2 and ISU-152 got their nickname "St. John's wort" well deservedly. And the point here is not only that the outwardly effect of being hit by a large-caliber projectile looked impressive, although the T-IV simply turned over when a 152-mm projectile hit the side. The problem is that when a powerful explosive charge explodes next to the tank, there is a "armored effect", the crew is hit by the blast wave. In this case, the damage to the tank itself may be insignificant. The rate of fire of the 152 mm gun, 152-1 rounds per minute, is practically equal to the rate of fire of the IS-2 tank. At the same time, the effectiveness of 2 mm guns during the assault on cities and fortified areas was significantly higher than that of smaller caliber guns. 152. It is very annoying that the T-3 medium tank is constantly compared to the heavy "Tiger". Thirty-four, especially armed with an 34 mm gun, was capable, with the proper luck and skill of the crew, to destroy the Tiger. And it is quite natural that being a medium tank, it was inferior to a heavy tank in terms of armor.
    1. sau-t
      sau-t 13 May 2016 13: 47
      +1
      Quote: Verdun
      SU-152 and ISU-152 got their nickname "St. John's wort" deservedly.

      They did not have such nicknames during the Second World War. This is later, filmmakers have come up with.
      Hypericums were, quite nominally, SU-85, SU-85М, ISU-122 / ISU-122С and SU-100. Those. crazy (classic) ACS category TD-Tank Destroyers.
      Here you can also include the "Soviet know-how" of the second half of the war, turret PT (TD-Tank Destroyers) ACS T-34/85 and IS-2. Those. full-fledged tanks of a modern level in the USSR in the second half of the Second World War could not do, the technological and technical lag affected. Therefore, they were replaced with advanced (turret) tank destroyers. And, like some ersatz tanks, they threw them into battle. The Germans stuffed them a lot, but they did even more. What to do, you had to pay for the lag.
      And SU-152 and ISU-152, this is different, these are heavy artillery movers (SPA-Self-propelled Artillery). Anti-tank combat was not part of their mission. Although, if they fall, they could. Duri in the projectile was a lot.
      Quote: Verdun
      And it is quite natural that being a medium tank, it was inferior to a heavy tank in terms of booking.

      Thirty-four in almost all parameters were inferior even to the ancient Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.F2 arr. 1942 And this is the one that T-34 / 85 arr. 1944 Therefore, of course, thirty-fours only like to compare schoolchildren with Pz.KpfW.VI.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 13 May 2016 19: 27
        +3
        The German division of the Waffen SS "Reich" has fought on the T-34-76 since 42.
        And her officers, who left a memoir, were not so categorical
        in relation to t-xnumx. In their opinion, to support infantry attacks with their 34 mm high-explosive
        shells tank fit well. When meeting with enemy tanks (for them - Red
        Army) they did not attack in the forehead, but lured the Russian 34 into ambushes under their fire
        34rok. Those. It was possible to fight with the correct tactics with the T-34-76.
  16. avia12005
    avia12005 13 May 2016 10: 35
    +20
    Batya served in the 333-th separate heavy tank-self-propelled Guards Orders of Alexander Nevsky, the Battle Red Banner and the Red Star of the Polotsk-Novobug regiment. 1-th Baltic and 1-th Far Eastern front from 1943 to 1950 year, Baltic, China and Korea on this machine.
  17. uskrabut
    uskrabut 13 May 2016 11: 02
    +5
    Author plus. Article liked.
    By the way, I happened to be inside SU-100. The conditions are really spartan, inside it is dark, the view through the viewing devices is weak, but what to expect from an armored fighting vehicle. Then the movers do not envy.
  18. igordok
    igordok 13 May 2016 11: 18
    +5
    In a self-propelled gun with a fixed wheelhouse, the mech-water essentially had to be the gunner "horizontally". The coherence between the mech-water and the gunner had to be impeccable.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 13 May 2016 11: 36
      +5
      Quote: igordok
      In a self-propelled gun with a fixed wheelhouse, the mech-water essentially had to be the gunner "horizontally".

      This is not entirely true.
      The gunner with the aiming horizontally and he did an excellent job. A driver was only needed to change the sector of fire.
      For example, Su-100. 16 degrees horizontally. At a distance of two kilometers is 500 with a penny meters on the front.
  19. DesToeR
    DesToeR 13 May 2016 11: 45
    +2
    Quote: Free Wind
    After the ferdinant was produced, the elephant was different from the ferda in the presence of machine guns.

    The Elephant self-propelled gun was not produced, but was converted from the Ferdinand.
  20. Arkan
    Arkan 13 May 2016 11: 56
    +3
    "Sotka" beauty, my grandfather who fought the entire war in anti-tank artillery, praised her for her fighting qualities.
    1. xan
      xan 13 May 2016 23: 47
      +1
      Quote: Arkan
      "Sotka" beauty, my grandfather who fought the entire war in anti-tank artillery, praised her for her fighting qualities.

      Of course you will praise, when almost the whole war did not know how to fill up the next cat. And then lupi in any projection, you will not be mistaken.
  21. DesToeR
    DesToeR 13 May 2016 12: 08
    +5
    Talking about Soviet self-propelled installations with 122-152-mm caliber guns, it can be noted that they, despite the available opportunity, rarely fired from closed positions. This was mainly due to the lack of knowledge of the crews of ACS for effective fire from closed positions, an insufficient number of trained spotters, lack of communications and location control.

    I disagree with "lack of training" and an insufficient number of spotters as the main factors. The very design of the self-propelled guns with a front-mounted gun in the frontal armor plate with a small elevation angle and a lowered barrel line did not imply effective external fire. In fact, when firing from a closed position, the loaders could regulate the firing range only with a hinge of a propellant charge, the "play" with the elevation of the barrel was not allowed by the limitation of vertical guidance in 18 ... 20gr.
    The Soviet command considered that it was easier and more profitable to accomplish the combat task of firing direct fire, firing several 152-mm projectiles, albeit with the risk of losing the vehicle and crew, than spending hundreds of projectiles with an unobvious result

    The Soviet command was absolutely correct in its opinion. received in hand a "tool" weighing 46 tons with anti-cannon armor and a gun with a flat trajectory of fire. For shooting from closed positions, it was enough to create a self-propelled gun weighing from 11 to 24 tons with bulletproof armor and a gun placed in the open wheelhouse behind the vehicle. There were analogues of such machines in the USSR - the SU-76 with a 76mm divisional cannon, and in Germany - the Humel self-propelled gun with a 150mm howitzer and the Vespe self-propelled gun with a 105mm howitzer. Well, "hundreds of shells with an unobvious result" were fired by towed artillery, making defensive positions look like a lunar landscape. So it is not entirely appropriate to talk about it with a lot of saving shells, and even at the expense of a 46 ton high-tech product.
  22. sau-t
    sau-t 13 May 2016 13: 15
    -5
    By the beginning of 1943, the situation on the Soviet-German front was alarming for our command. According to reports from the Red Army tank units, the enemy began to massively use tanks and self-propelled guns, which, in terms of weapons and security characteristics, began to outperform our most massive medium-sized T-34 tanks.

    Actually in 1942. The release of the latest BTT (the next generation) has reached the Germans 2851 pcs. Of course, T-34 had nothing to oppose. And the release of this armored vehicle began from the very beginning of 1942. Is it really only in 1943g. Was all this armored armada seen in the USSR?
    First of all, this applied to the modernized German medium tanks Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.F2 and SAU StuG III Ausf. F

    They are in 1942g. total made 1594 pcs. And different Marder made 1169 pcs. Although we do not consider the Marders to be accepted, our own self-propelled guns in the USSR almost did not. Only now they were armed with fully-fledged PaK40.
    Frontal armor 80 mm thick, long-barreled 75-mm guns in combination with excellent optics and well-trained crews made it possible for German tank crews to be more often equal winners in tank duels.

    How can you even compare the Soviet three-inch tank with the German PaK40 / StuK40 / KwK40? It's like comparing a pistol to a slingshot. What "victory in a tank duel" could have been, if only it was not an ambush? Somehow once it is already necessary to realize that the complex (and something can only be considered in the complex) the PaK40 / StuK40 / KwK40 cannon-cartridge-projectile was only slightly inferior in armor penetration to the later Soviet 85-mm artillery complex. And to compare with it the Soviet 76-mm complex based on a three-inch model is at least strange.
    There were no such guns from other belligerents, mainly. At the beginning of the war, they were very few among the Americans (75-mm M2). And the Germans released them limited until the summer of 1943g. (PaK97 / 38). Interestingly, the basis of all these guns (М2, PaK97 / 38 and three inches) was the French Canon de 75 modèle 1897.
    You can be proud of the three-inch (and three-line too) during WW2 exactly the same as the Nagant revolver. But naturally no one is proud of the revolver, and they are proud of the "legendary three-inch" (and three-line). Everyone has their own weirdness.
    As for direct comparison, the T-34/76 cannot be compared even with the PzIII Ausf.N. Yet they understood how a tank differs from a "non-tank". Those. they did not produce completely complete analogues of the T-34. The Pz.Sfl is conceptually similar to the T-34/76. II Hornisse (produced 1941 in 2).
    All this led to the fact that the Soviet T-34 and KV no longer dominate the battlefield

    Yes, "they stopped dominating." Here in 1941. they gradually dominated to Moscow. And in 1942, before Stalingrad. After that, "they stopped dominating."
    As I could in 1942. "dominate a tank" (in fact, in general, a turret assault ACS T-34), if its cannon by the middle of the same year could not penetrate much, and it would be more correct to call the armor "cardboard"?
    The situation became even more alarming after it became known about the creation of new heavy tanks in Germany.

    The Germans were weird. For the "Eastern Front" the shaft of Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.G and Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.H would be enough. They had no competitors there. And beat them until 1944. there was nothing.
    1. sau-t
      sau-t 13 May 2016 14: 17
      -5
      Quote: sau-t
      Those. they didn’t release completely complete T-34 analogues.

      Now, if we took the Pz.Kpfw.III Ausf.N, pull the KwK7,5 cannon out of its turret along with the tank commander, and instead shove the experienced Rheinmetall-Borsig's 37 cm L / 7,5, then we would get a certain model of BTT, vaguely reminiscent of the T-40,8/34. In a sense, such a sample would be noticeably more powerful than the T-76/34.
      And if then to remove the turret from this tank, and instead of somehow putting the turret from Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.G, then we would receive a certain sample of armored vehicles, remotely resembling T-34 / 85.
      Of course, the type of suspension, layout and many other things would have been completely different. But the general idea of ​​how the Soviet "legendary tanks" correlated in terms of their power with the German ones is quite understandable.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. faiver
      faiver 13 May 2016 17: 58
      +1
      What nonsense is this? How did replacing the gun with the Pz.KpfW.IV turn it into the newest tank of the next generation?
      1. sau-t
        sau-t 13 May 2016 18: 26
        -3
        Quote: faiver
        What nonsense is this? How did replacing the gun with the Pz.KpfW.IV turn it into the newest tank of the next generation?

        Learn materiel. Why am I, stupid, going to explain something to you?
      2. Bongo
        14 May 2016 11: 54
        +3
        Quote: faiver
        What nonsense is this? How did replacing the gun with the Pz.KpfW.IV turn it into the newest tank of the next generation?

        I usually try to refrain from harsh and categorical statements, but excuse me, you asked for it yourself. Stupidity is contained in your comments, because you apparently find it difficult to compare the composition of weapons and the security of Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.C and Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.H tanks.
        1. faiver
          faiver 14 May 2016 12: 22
          0
          and why stupid in my comments? the engine is the same, the transmission is the same, the booking has increased and the gun changed, the weight of the tank increased by seven tons - what made it the newest and transferred to another generation? I'm not saying that the four is a bad tank, it was a very good car, but it did not make it the next generation tank ...
          and if my memory does not change my message did not apply to you ...
          1. Bongo
            14 May 2016 12: 32
            +3
            Quote: faiver
            and why stupid in my comments?

            Categorical! negative
            Quote: faiver
            the engine is the same, the transmission is the same, the booking has increased and the gun changed, the weight of the tank increased by seven tons - what made it the newest and transferred to another generation?

            And where does the publication say: "made him the newest and transferred to another generation"? If you do quote, please be kind enough to quote verbatim.
            Quote: faiver
            and if my memory does not change my message did not apply to you ...

            You are commenting on the publication, the author of which is just me. hiIn order to avoid misunderstandings, you should quote a specific opponent.
            1. faiver
              faiver 14 May 2016 12: 40
              +1
              No, the comment on which my message followed was deleted, in your publication of this and not, why I was surprised at the answer ...
              hi
              1. Bongo
                14 May 2016 12: 43
                +1
                Quote: faiver
                No, the comment on which my message followed was deleted, in your publication of this and not, why I was surprised at the answer ...

                So we did not understand each other request But, if you had quoted your opponent, this situation would not have arisen. hi
  23. ivselim
    ivselim 13 May 2016 14: 04
    +4
    great article. Thanks to the author, I enjoyed reading both parts.
  24. DesToeR
    DesToeR 13 May 2016 14: 31
    +3
    Quote: sau-t
    Actually in 1942. The release of the latest BTT (the next generation) has reached the Germans 2851 pcs.

    I would like to know the names of these newest BTTs, especially the "next generation". Or are you talking about the modernized T-3 and T-4?
    Quote: sau-t
    Is it really only in 1943g. Was all this armored armada seen in the USSR?

    For the USSR "armored armada" and 2851 pcs. were far from equivalent concepts.
    Quote: sau-t
    How can you generally compare the Soviet tank three-inch with the German PaK40 / StuK40 / KwK40? This is how to compare a gun with a slingshot.

    Elementary can be compared, for example, by the power of high-explosive fragmentation projectile.
    Quote: sau-t
    As regards direct comparison, T-34 / 76 cannot be compared even with Pz.Kpfw.III Ausf.N.

    Yes, I agree with you, the "troika" cannot be compared with the T-34.
    Quote: sau-t
    As I could in 1942. "dominate a tank" (in fact, in general, a turret assault ACS T-34), if its cannon by the middle of the same year could not penetrate much, and it would be more correct to call the armor "cardboard"?

    As I understand it, it's not enough for you to invent your own classes in small arms, and you smoothly flowed into the BTT? The T-34 cannon pierced everything that moved on the Eastern Front before the appearance of the first Tiger tanks. Neither the T-3, nor the T-4, nor even the vaunted Panther presented any difficulty in breaking the armor for the Soviet "three-inch".
    Quote: sau-t
    The Germans were weird. For the "Eastern Front" the shaft of Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.G and Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.H would be enough.

    Well so you from your sofa know better than the Germans then.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 13 May 2016 15: 29
      +4
      About T-4 side screens and 75mm gun with a long barrel, there is such an opinion that if the Wehrmacht would focus on the mass production of these machines, the military successes would be more. There is another opinion that Germany had a limited amount of armor steel and they decided to make supertanks.
    3. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 13 May 2016 15: 29
      +2
      About T-4 side screens and 75mm gun with a long barrel, there is such an opinion that if the Wehrmacht would focus on the mass production of these machines, the military successes would be more. There is another opinion that Germany had a limited amount of armor steel and they decided to make supertanks.
    4. sau-t
      sau-t 13 May 2016 15: 35
      -2
      I would like to know the names of these newest BTTs, especially the "next generation".

      Excuse me:
      Pz Kpfw IV (7.5cm L / 43 or 48 KwK40) - 895 pcs.
      Pz Kpfw Tiger I (8.8cm KwK36) - 84 pcs.
      StuG III (7.5cm L / 43 or L / 48 StuK40) - 699 pcs.
      And 1173 Self-propelled Anti-tank Guns (SPATG) of different models.
      This contrasts very strongly with the USSR, where the BTT of the new generation in 1942g. 0 (zero) units were released. And even in 1943, only 1718 pcs. (Germans 10613 pieces).
      For the USSR "armored armada" and 2851 pcs. were far from equivalent concepts.

      I want to remind you that in 1941g. approximately 3,5, thousand tankers of old (of the previous generation) tore up the personnel of the Red Army.
      for example, the power of high-explosive fragmentation projectile.

      It is possible for this indicator. Here 680g of ammotol of a German 75-mm projectile will easily "tear" 621g of ammotol, which was equipped with a Soviet 76,2-mm projectile. And even the German 75-mm "weakened" (620 g. Ammotol) from the Panther's cannon will not lose to the Soviet either.
      But on armor penetration these guns should not be compared. There is nothing to compare, there is a shame in a three-inch.
      The T-34 cannon pierced everything that moved on the Eastern Front before the appearance of the first Tiger tanks.

      Of course, even the Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.G in an unshielded version (until 1943), the F-34 had chances to penetrate from afar. But this is only if the crew were fast asleep. Or, from an ambush. In fact, the KwK40, which was already on the Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.F2 from the beginning of 1942. did not leave any chance of rapprochement in one-on-one mode. Those. it was possible to destroy German tanks, but at the cost of heavy losses. Or from ambushes.
      Neither the T-3, nor the T-4, nor even the vaunted Panther presented any difficulty in breaking the armor for the Soviet "three-inch".

      Gee-gee. Pz.KpfW.III in 1942. smoothly turned into an "infantry support tank". Those. into such an advanced turret ACS. And even a special gun was put there, a 75-mm KwK37 cigarette butt. And, in general, he did not deal with enemy tanks. Any Pz.KpfW.IV made in 1943. and then (partly at the end of 1942) or the Pz.KpfW.V in one-on-one mode could do with the T-34/76 what he liked. The latter had no chance of success at all. But to realize this, the "wise Soviet leadership" needed the Battle of Kursk. And without this, it never came.
      The T-34/85 had a slightly better chance. But we must clearly understand that 45 mm of armor in 1944, it was already "plywood". But the cannon was approximately up to the level of the 75 mm KwK40 (it was on the Pz.KpfW.IV from the beginning of 1942), it was possible to pull up, yes. But the level of the 75-mm KwK42 could not even be dreamed of.
      "Fanerka" in combination with art of a more or less acceptable level together gave something like a turret tank destroyer (TD-Tank Destroyer). It was with this “miracle” that WW2 had to be finished. Using ersatz instead of a full-fledged tank. At that time, the Soviet industry was apparently not capable of more.
      Well so you from your sofa know better than the Germans then.

      And where is the sofa? The Germans worked for the future. In addition, they had a lot of fronts. And far from everywhere, the ancient feeble three-inch arm of the 1MB was used as the main cannon of the PTO (and the tank one, too).
      1. faiver
        faiver 13 May 2016 18: 05
        +2
        Firstly, the tank junk was more than 3,5tys, secondly, the defeat of the personnel of the Red Army in 41g. suffered primarily from the skillful interaction of all the armed forces of the Wehrmacht and the lyutvvaffe, and not only from the German Panzer. and no more nonsense to carry about t-34 sau ..., this is at least silly ...
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. sau-t
          sau-t 13 May 2016 18: 23
          -1
          Quote: faiver
          first tank junk was more 3,5tys

          3123 pcs, if you subtract training tankettes (in the battles of participation did not take) Pz Kpfw I, flamethrower Pz Kpfw II and commander tanks (without guns).
          Quote: faiver
          and no more nonsense to carry about t-34 sau ..., this is at least silly ...

          At least silly not to notice the obvious things. And to continue the Bolshevik bla-bla-bla, about the most advanced technique in the world. Which their party and the government supplied the army.
          And if you see on the BTT tower, do not be so sure that this is a tank. It could be ... and BTR, for example.
  25. Forever so
    Forever so 13 May 2016 14: 59
    +4
    We had in Chita, Kashtak in the school a few Weave, and then in the troops in Nizhneudinsk, too, and a couple of Weave and T-34, all on the go. Compared to 62, they seemed like toys. So still, I did not understand why they were being held. if only on the parade in the first row.
  26. DesToeR
    DesToeR 13 May 2016 16: 08
    +4
    Quote: sau-t
    Excuse me:
    Pz Kpfw IV (7.5cm L / 43 or 48 KwK40) - 895 pcs.
    Pz Kpfw Tiger I (8.8cm KwK36) - 84 pcs.
    StuG III (7.5cm L / 43 or L / 48 StuK40) - 699 pcs.
    And 1173 Self-propelled Anti-tank Guns (SPATG) of different models.

    Well, I see only one line with the "next generation" BTT - this is "Pz Kpfw Tiger I (8.8cm KwK36) - 84 pcs." Everything else is modernization and a surrogate.
    Quote: sau-t
    I want to remind you that in 1941g. approximately 3,5, thousand tankers of old (of the previous generation) tore up the personnel of the Red Army.

    Not 3,5 thousand, but about 6 thousand, and not a "personnel" one, and not a mobilized, and even torn into three echelons, quite an ordinary army of a CONCEPTION character. Moreover, each of these three echelons was weaker than the Wehrmacht - the Germans did not show any miracles of strategy and advanced tactics. Stupidly won the number.
    Quote: sau-t
    Here 680g of German 75-mm ammotol can easily "tear" 621g of ammonotol

    Awesome difference in explosives, as many as the Germans have more 59 GRAM! Urgent all the guns and shells for scrap.
    Quote: sau-t
    But on armor penetration these guns should not be compared. There is nothing to compare, there is a shame in a three-inch.

    We must not compare the guns, but the goals for these guns. The English floor gender war and 40mm enough.
    Quote: sau-t
    In fact, the KwK40, which was already on the Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.F2 from the beginning of 1942. did not leave any chance of rapprochement in one-on-one mode.

    And what about the battle of tanks in a vacuum? And why will they "get closer" in the conditions of ETVD?
    Quote: sau-t
    Gee-gee. Pz.KpfW.III in 1942. smoothly turned into an "infantry support tank".

    Pz.KpfW.III in 1942. smoothly turned into scrap metal in the margins of the Second World War and then was not produced ... for some reason ???
    Quote: sau-t
    T-34 / 85 had a bit more chances.

    T-34-85 left no chances not only for the four, but also for the Panther
    Quote: sau-t
    But the level of 75-mm KwK42 did not even have to dream.

    Nobody considered this gun (and its "level") great, because it makes sense to make 75mm and shoot from a cartridge case equivalent to 100mm? The cartridge for this super gun was larger than that of the 88mm Tiger tank. Only the Germans dabbled in this - they created a medium tank, though weighing with a heavy one. And in the USSR, they immediately installed 122mm and paid off - the newest "Tiger B", without leaving the battlefield, instantly became obsolete.
    Quote: sau-t
    And where is the sofa? The Germans worked for the future.

    The fact of the matter is that they did not have any prospects. There was a hurry 1941g., Search and feverish release of handicrafts / alterations / upgrades 1942 - 1943gg. Correction of mistakes and childhood diseases in 1943. and a bummer in the fight against the mass of Soviet tanks T-34-85 and EC-2 in 1944-1945. Full failure with the BTT - this is the whole story of Panzervaffe.
    1. sau-t
      sau-t 13 May 2016 19: 59
      -3
      Quote: DesToeR
      All the rest is modernization and surrogate.

      The surrogate is T-60 / 70 and SU-76 as an assault SAU.
      The surrogate is the T-34 / 76 and the T-34 / 85 as a medium tank.
      A surrogate is the EC-2 as a heavy tank.
      And this is not a complete list of surrogates. For these (and others) surrogates had to pay. Human lives.
      Quote: DesToeR
      Not 3,5 thousands, but about 6 thousands.,

      3123 pcs, if you subtract training tankettes (they did not take part in the battles) Pz Kpfw I, flamethrower Pz Kpfw II and command tanks (without guns). According to Thomas Yenz. What did you include there, what did you get "about 6 thousand"? Armored vehicles, perhaps?
      Quote: DesToeR
      and not otmobilezovannaya but still torn into three echelons quite a regular army of CALLING nature.

      The Red Army was partially mobilized. In addition, the Wehrmacht was exactly the same draft army with practically no combat experience, like the Red Army. The days of the "prince's fighting squads" are long gone.
      Quote: DesToeR
      Stupidly won by quantity.

      Yeah. Which they did not have. Some cannon tanks in boesp. State in the Red Army was more than 14 thousand. And almost 3 thousand guns on the BA. The transported VET guns were about 15 thousand. And so, in everything.
      Quote: DesToeR
      even on the 59 GRAM, the Germans have more!

      Not on 59, but on 10%. Besides, what you are not happy? You offered to compare, I compared. Did not expect such a weight distribution? Teach materiel, you will not be mistaken.
      Quote: DesToeR
      We must not compare the guns, but the goals for these guns.

      Do not wag. Otherwise, if I start to compare the goals, you will finally sit in a puddle. At least because in the same 1941g. The 1 mm of the Soviet pre-war rolled armor was approximately equal to the German 1,344 mm. Further, the ratio deteriorated to about 1,553 mm, because cast armor was widely used in the USSR. Then it improved slightly when Germany switched to homogeneous rolled armor. And at the very end, due to the lack of additives, German armor finally lost its position.
      Quote: DesToeR
      The English have half a war and 40mm

      Well, if you count from 1939, then probably half of the war (until the end of 1942). Then they switched to more powerful weapons. Do not forget, the British were APCBC shells, which in the Red Army could only dream of (this was only in caliber 100 mm). Mostly treated with primitive shells AP, less APC. Therefore, the 40-mm two-pounder with an APCBC armor-piercing projectile armor was approximately equal to the 30-club three-inch L-11 or F-32.
      Quote: DesToeR
      And why will they "get closer"

      Just the Germans had no reason. A powerful forehead, powerful art and high-quality projectiles made it possible to knock out Soviet tanks from afar. Soviet tankers had to converge.
    2. sau-t
      sau-t 13 May 2016 19: 59
      -3
      Quote: DesToeR
      and then not released ... for some reason ???

      The Germans did not need more. Outdated yourself. And was smoothly replaced by Pz Kpfw V.
      Quote: DesToeR
      T-34-85 left no chances not only for the four, but also for the Panther

      You are a great dreamer. With his "cardboard armor" and low-power cannon? After all, the 85mm S-53 with the APC projectile (there was no other) was roughly the same as the 75mm KwK40 with the APCBC projectile. And in no way could it compare with the 75 mm KwK42 with the APCBC projectile. How could the T-34/85 "leave no chance"? What subject? What did he have for this?
      Quote: DesToeR
      Nobody considered this gun (and its "level") great, because it makes sense to make 75mm and shoot from a cartridge case equivalent to 100mm?

      Did they tell you EVERYTHING right? Personally?
      Quote: DesToeR
      The cartridge of this super gun was bigger than the cartridge of the Tiger 88mm tank.

      The horror is terrible. The Germans were crying, probably, like children. The length is something, as much on 21 mm (2 cm) more. Nightmare. True, the cartridge on the 1,76 kg is lighter.
      Quote: DesToeR
      Only the Germans and so indulged

      I recommend paying attention to the British 76,2 mm HV tank gun. This is a tank "compact" version of the 17-pounder (the 17-pounder itself was much more powerful). Almost one-to-one repeats the performance characteristics of KwK42. To make it clearer what it is, the Soviet 152-mm cannons possessed similar armor penetration. Only farther than 1000 m of them it was forbidden to shoot (figs you will get), but from German and British, by no means.
      But the full-fledged (not “compact tank) British 76,2-mm Mark IV, which was mounted on the Sherman IIC, was approximately equal in armor penetration to the Soviet 122-mm cannon. And it has a significantly greater armor penetration than HV and KwK42.
      So, about "only the Germans indulged in this", you obviously got excited.
      Quote: DesToeR
      And in the USSR, they immediately installed 122mm and did not lose - the newest "Tiger B", without leaving the battlefields, instantly became obsolete.

      It is a pity that the Germans did not know. In addition, I already wrote, the EC-2 was not a tank, but a tower PT SAU. And from the usual PT ACS IMS-122C, it differed mainly in the presence of a rotating tower. This is the maximum that the industry of the USSR could give in those days of the army. For the present high-grade heavy tank in the USSR there was no gun.
      At the same time, the presence of powerful self-propelled guns of anti-tank guns does not cancel the release of tanks by the enemy, as it is not strange. On the horses no one is transplanted.
      Quote: DesToeR
      There was a hurry 1941g., Search and feverish release of handicrafts / alterations / upgrades 1942 - 1943gg. Correction of mistakes and childhood diseases in 1943. and a bummer in the fight against the mass of Soviet tanks T-34-85 and EC-2 in 1944-1945. Full failure with the BTT - this is the whole story of Panzervaffe.

      You, like those Decembrists. Only they were far from the people, and you from reality.
  27. Klos
    Klos 13 May 2016 17: 17
    +5
    After reading some comments, I wondered: “How did our grandfathers get the Panzerwaffe with such a shitty armored vehicle?” The paradox, however
    1. sau-t
      sau-t 13 May 2016 17: 25
      -4
      Quote: Klos
      After reading some comments, I wondered: “How did our grandfathers get the Panzerwaffe with such a shitty armored vehicle?” The paradox, however

      You need to compare the most important thing, the loss, to understand what's what.
      1. Klos
        Klos 13 May 2016 21: 20
        0
        27 million for the sake of life on earth. Owls are strange creatures. Do not compare with the Nazis who burned alive children and old people. "Go and see" - I recommend
  28. DesToeR
    DesToeR 13 May 2016 18: 37
    +3
    Quote: sau-t
    You need to compare the most important thing, the loss, to understand what's what.

    Losses? Full and unconditional surrender - this time, the division of the country into two parts on 45 years - these are two, the occupation of the whole of Germany is still three. So consider the loss ...
    1. sau-t
      sau-t 13 May 2016 20: 46
      -3
      Quote: DesToeR
      Losses? Full and unconditional surrender - this time, the division of the country into two parts on 45 years - these are two, the occupation of the whole of Germany is still three. So consider the loss ...

      Those. most importantly, the loss of lives of at least 27 million compatriots you do not care in any way. Sadly Scoops are strange creatures.
      1. cro23cus02
        cro23cus02 27 November 2017 12: 03
        0
        Well, it would not be necessary to attribute 27 million to front-line losses. Although the front losses were probably more than the Germans. It seems to me that at least half of this figure is in the civilian population.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  29. bionik
    bionik 13 May 2016 19: 04
    +7
    Commander-in-Chief I.V. Stalin personally examines the "Hypericum" SU-152.
  30. Munchhausen
    Munchhausen 13 May 2016 20: 38
    +3
    To buy with a 152mm mine bomb, even a modern tank will not find it enough.
    I can imagine what kind of seams happened to the unhappy Panthers, not to mention the PX4))
    Just do not tell me that the German tanks simply would not have admitted to his ISU-152. Who asked them?)
  31. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 13 May 2016 20: 57
    +2
    Auto RU:
    All these SAUs have a clear bias of the center of gravity forward: both the gun and the armor.
    How to withstand the front rollers? In theory, they should have been
    constantly break down.
    There are statistics, information about this?
  32. Stas57
    Stas57 13 May 2016 21: 00
    +3
    sau-t
    What is the registration account?
    I lost on the Roll of Wallpaper .. can I ban an idiot for ip?))
    1. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 13 May 2016 22: 36
      0
      What is the registration account?
      I lost on the Roll of Wallpaper .. can I ban an idiot for ip?))
      You still suggest to ban it on the head ... lol
    2. Mordvin 3
      Mordvin 3 13 May 2016 22: 47
      +6
      Quote: Stas57
      What is the registration account?

      The third dozen is at least. Now a new name will come up, and say that the best tank is Sherman, and everything else is a misunderstanding of the Lord. laughing
    3. bionik
      bionik 14 May 2016 03: 46
      +1
      Quote: Stas57
      sau-t
      What is the registration account?
      I lost on the Roll of Wallpaper .. can I ban an idiot for ip?))

      It is easier not to respond to posts of similar trolls (what has developed lately on the site) and not to engage in polemics with them.
  33. Munchhausen
    Munchhausen 13 May 2016 21: 06
    +1
    Quote: sau-t
    What "victory in a tank duel" could have been, if only it was not an ambush?

    What is not a tank duel from an ambush? Very effective. Ferdinands \ Elephanta (and not only) on the Kursk Bulge suffered on the march from ambushes (tanks and PT), as well as from IL-2. Head-on with them to fight on t-34, as you, I hope, understand, no one was going.
  34. DesToeR
    DesToeR 13 May 2016 21: 07
    +6
    Quote: sau-t
    And was smoothly replaced by Pz Kpfw V.

    Replaced? Yes, you seem to understand the BTT worse than in the "shooter". The funniest statement I've ever heard about the Panther. And why then the tank "Panther" and "four" at the same time did not replace?
    Quote: sau-t
    You are a great dreamer. With his "cardboard armor" and low-power cannon?

    You don't understand what you are trying to write about. 70% of the vertical armor of the Panther tank weighing 45 tons was the same as the T-34-85 weighing 32 tons. The T-4 had even worse booking. Plus the T-34-85 in cross-country ability and power reserve would have run over both fascists at once - an indisputable advantage in the war of engines. And the 85mm cannon destroyed any of these tanks with one round - no second was required.
    Quote: sau-t
    The length is something, as much on 21 mm (2 cm) more. Nightmare.

    Well, the fighting compartment is smaller - try to load a longer projectile in the small Panther turret. Nightmare. 1600mm diameter of the turret ring - less than even that of the T-34-85.
    Quote: sau-t
    But the full-fledged (not “compact tank) British 76,2-mm Mark IV, which was installed on“ Sherman

    Evaluation using epithets like "full" / "inferior" leads to vague thoughts about your race ?! You cannot see the simple fact that only every tenth shell fired from a tank gun was armor-piercing - in 9 cases out of 10 the tank did not fight with the tank. The gun that you kindly called "full-fledged" in the second half of the war was installed only by the British - for the USSR, the caliber of 76mm for tanks has become the last century. And it had high armor penetration only thanks to the "crowbars". Naturally, it was not even close to being equivalent in armor penetration to a 122mm Soviet tank gun, especially at long distances, especially in sloped armor, where the weight of the projectile, and not the initial velocity, becomes the decisive factors.
    Quote: sau-t
    In addition, I already wrote, the EC-2 was not a tank, but a tower PT SAU.

    In addition, you have already answered this nonsense - do not enter your naming system - it looks idiotic. According to her, all German heavy tanks are not tanks, but tower self-propelled anti-tank pillars
    Quote: sau-t
    Only they were far from the people, and you from reality.

    Reality is the red flag of the USSR over Reistag, and the "blizzard" that you are driving is simply ridiculous.
  35. Munchhausen
    Munchhausen 13 May 2016 21: 21
    0
    Quote: voyaka uh
    Auto RU:
    All these SAUs have a clear bias of the center of gravity forward: both the gun and the armor.
    How to withstand the front rollers? In theory, they should have been
    constantly break down.
    There are statistics, information about this?

    In short - the secret of the company.
  36. seregatara1969
    seregatara1969 13 May 2016 22: 02
    +4
    in weave the mechvod had the most luxurious place. gunner and commander had a folding seat the size of two palms (one half backside). mechvod sat on all the money. the meekstate iron seat (well, on the post-war trailed plows such were set) the commander and gunner were sitting on a plank.vot such Spartan conditions were on that war
  37. DesToeR
    DesToeR 13 May 2016 22: 15
    +4
    Quote: seregatara1969
    in weave the mechvod had the most luxurious place. gunner and commander had a folding seat the size of two palms (one half backside).

    "Sotka" was still a limousine for tankers, the German "Hetzer" - this is the "standard" of Spartanism.
  38. Gippo
    Gippo 13 May 2016 22: 53
    +3
    SU-100 "St. John's wort".
    Finally I saw an adequate article.
    Usually "nedoEGEShniki" thought it was ISU-152.
    It was difficult to explain to the modern boobies unique TTH SU-100.
    Thanks to the author.
  39. aba
    aba 13 May 2016 23: 52
    +3
    Excellent article!
    And the fact that there are shortcomings, so they are in any business. They do not have one who does nothing. wink
  40. kirpich
    kirpich 14 May 2016 10: 53
    +1
    By the beginning of 1943, the situation on the Soviet-German front was alarming for our command. According to reports from the Red Army tank units, the enemy began to massively use tanks and self-propelled guns, which, in terms of weapons and security characteristics, began to outperform our most massive medium-sized T-34 tanks. First of all, this applied to the modernized German medium tanks Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.F2 and SAU StuG III Ausf. F. Frontal armor 80 mm thick, long-barreled 75-mm guns in combination with excellent optics and well-trained crews allowed German tank crews to be more often equal winners in tank duels under equal conditions. In addition, the enemy’s anti-tank artillery became increasingly saturated with 7,5 cm Pak guns. 40. All this led to the fact that the Soviet T-34 and KV no longer dominate the battlefield. The situation became even more alarming after it became known about the creation of new heavy tanks in Germany.

    After the defeat of the Germans at Stalingrad and the transition of the Soviet troops to the offensive, the loss of qualitative superiority in the armored vehicles of the USSR was largely compensated for by the ever-increasing production of tanks and the growth of the operational skills of the Soviet command, the training and skills of the personnel. At the end of 1942 - the beginning of 1943, the Soviet tank crews no longer suffered such catastrophic losses as in the initial period of the war. As German generals complained: “we taught Russians to fight on our heads”.


    Something here is one with the other does not fit.
    Sergey, explain.
    1. Bongo
      14 May 2016 12: 07
      +3
      Quote: kirpich
      Something here is one with the other does not fit.
      Sergey, explain.


      Everything is quite simple, on the one hand, by the end of 1942, our tanks ceased to dominate the battlefield in terms of protection and firepower. On the other hand, our command finally learned to use tank formations competently. And the troops gained experience in operating and using equipment, and the personal skill of tankers increased. By that time, the industry had already switched to a war footing and had established the supply of ever increasing quantities of armored vehicles to the troops. In addition, it should be understood that the main enemy of German tanks was anti-tank artillery. All this made it possible to compensate to a certain extent for the loss of quality superiority in technology. Something similar happened with the Allies. "Tigers" and "Panthers" as a rule won fire duels with British and American tankers. But the large number of Allied tanks and air supremacy devalued the qualitative superiority of German tanks in protection and firepower.
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 14 May 2016 14: 13
        +2
        Quote: Bongo
        Everything is quite simple, on the one hand, by the end of 1942, our tanks no longer dominate the battlefield by security and firepower.

        By the end of 42, and even more so until 42, the dominance of our tanks was not, and the inept use of tank units by our General Staff.
        But everything changed when Pavel Alekseevich Rotmistrov proposed a new concept and tactics for the use of tank formations. And this played a key role in the Battle of Kursk. It was the 5-I Guards Tank Army that was formed according to the new principle that participated in the Battle of Kursk.
  41. kirpich
    kirpich 14 May 2016 14: 05
    0
    and well-trained crews allowed German tankers on an equal footing more often to emerge victorious in tank duels

    Did the Germans have well-trained crews at 1943 ???
    .. They were knocked out in 1942.

    All this led to the fact that the Soviet T-34 and KV no longer dominate the battlefield.

    Aha, and began to dominate Velentayny, Matilda, Chester ......
    AND WON THE HITLER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    ... And the Russians helped a little. repeat
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 15 May 2016 10: 41
      +1
      Did the Germans have well-trained crews at 1943 ???

      Were Surprisingly, they were. Both in 44, and in 45. I was surprised to know how much, for example,
      the crews of the "heavy tank battalions" (Tigers) survived.
      Hundreds of tankers arranged "meetings of veterans" until recent years, while
      all did not die of old age.
      However, many were replaced by 5-6 tanks. Tiger hit, and the crew
      survived. In Tigre, tank survival rates were very high.
  42. kirpich
    kirpich 14 May 2016 14: 40
    0
    You can minus your right. But! Who will bring the facts that by the year 1943 the Germans had trained crews? They simply did not have enough time to coordinate the crews.
  43. DesToeR
    DesToeR 14 May 2016 20: 23
    +2
    Quote: kirpich
    Who will bring the facts that by the year 1943 the Germans had trained crews? They simply did not have enough time to coordinate the crews.

    There are no statistics. But the Germans had a higher survival rate due to the more successful layout of the fuel tanks in the rear of the car - there was more time to jump out of the heating up tank. Plus, until 1943, the battlefield, as a rule, remained with the Germans, which made it possible to "collect" the wounded and, accordingly, return to duty. After the hospital, the German tanker got only into the tank troops, and not into the infantry, aviation or wherever - the Nazis appreciated the tankers. The notorious Vitman marched on the Eastern Front at Stug and died in the Tigris on the Western. Otto Carius fought on the Eastern Front and survived the war. In general, the German tank went into battle before being hit three times more than the Soviet one. They had experienced crews in 1943, up to the Kursk Bulge, or, as one Soviet general put it, before the "Panzerwaffe swan song".
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 15 May 2016 10: 47
      +1
      "They had experienced crews in 1943, before the Kursk Bulge, or as one put it
      Soviet general before the "Panzerwaffe swan song". ////

      In the Battle of Kursk, the Germans lost not so many tanks, or rather
      not many crews. Here the elite infantry (grenadiers, "great germany", Waffen SS) suffered heavy losses, which have not been compensated to the end.
      War.
    2. 11 black
      11 black 15 May 2016 19: 06
      0
      Quote: DesToeR
      No statistics. But the Germans had a higher survival rate due to a better layout of the fuel tanks in the rear of the car - there was more time to jump out of the expanding tank.

      You forget about what exactly the Germans had in the tanks ... the tank of the Soviet car could explode only when it was empty, diesel fuel caught fire much less often and much weaker than gasoline, the tank of the German car exploded empty and flashed on any hit regardless of the amount fuel in it.
  44. kirpich
    kirpich 14 May 2016 21: 07
    +2
    Quote: DesToeR
    But the Germans had a higher survival rate due to a better layout of the fuel tanks in the rear of the car - there was more time to jump out of the expanding tank.


    I don't even want to answer this nonsense.
  45. Gippo
    Gippo 14 May 2016 22: 12
    +1
    But everything changed when Pavel Alekseevich Rotmistrov proposed a new concept and tactics for the use of tank formations. And this played a key role in the Battle of Kursk. It was the 5-I Guards Tank Army that was formed according to the new principle that participated in the Battle of Kursk.

    And here is more detailed please.
    Pavel Alekseevich just revived this old idea.
    But why she did not work, the question to the NKVD and personally to Comrade Stalin.
    1. hohol95
      hohol95 15 May 2016 00: 28
      -1
      Nobody wants to denigrate the merits of P. A. Rotmistrov! But before the "throw" of the 5th tank, the strike of the 1st TANK Katukova ME was planned! Katukov defended his opinion about the inexpediency of switching from defense to ATTACK ...
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 15 May 2016 10: 51
        +2
        "Pavel Alekseevich Rotmistrov proposed a new concept and tactics
        the use of tank formations. "////

        For this "concept" he almost got a tribunal.

        Stalin told him, having learned about the losses near Prokhorovka:
        "What, g ... yuk, killed ALL the tanks of the Red Army in one day?"
        1. hohol95
          hohol95 15 May 2016 18: 10
          0
          You are strong in the speeches of Stalin! Captain fulfilled the order of the front commander and approved by the rate! For some reason they don’t ask! All dogs hang on Rotmistrova!
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 15 May 2016 23: 19
            +1
            Rotmistrov in the middle of 1944 altogether removed from command
            combat units and sent to the rear until the end of the war.
            Unfortunately, it's too late.
            "Undertaker" of tankers, a rare de ... l: "tank waves", like
            cavalry waves of the civil war.
  46. hohol95
    hohol95 15 May 2016 00: 21
    0
    Dear Friend AUTHOR - BE KINDLY DO NOT TURN ISU-122 WITH ISU-122С! They were armed with completely different tools! ISU-122 was armed with the A-19 corps gun in the ML-20 unit and she had a crew of 5 people! The crew had a lock! And the ISU-122С was armed with a D-25С with a semi-automatic bolt and excluded the lock from the crew! Rate of fire with 4-5 speaks / min. dropped to 3,5 vs / min But there was a gain in mass and crew reduction! Both the one and the other ISU were produced until the end of the Great Patriotic War!
    1. Bongo
      15 May 2016 03: 14
      +4
      Quote: hohol95
      Dear Friend AUTHOR - BE KINDLY DO NOT TURN ISU-122 WITH ISU-122С! They were armed with completely different tools!

      Dear Alex, in the publication of this talk.
  47. Volga Cossack
    Volga Cossack 15 May 2016 20: 28
    +1
    good article!!!! Plus, no doubt !!!! Thanks for the whole cycle !!!
  48. Backfire
    Backfire 27 May 2016 03: 46
    -1
    Great article. very interesting.
  49. Andrey Zh
    Andrey Zh 15 June 2016 16: 10
    0
    Interesting, good article! Thank you very much to the author!