Military Review

How Soviet armor defeated the German

28
How Soviet armor defeated the GermanAgain on May 9, wreaths and flowers will be laid at the monuments erected in honor of the feat of the Soviet people. In many places such famous monuments became Tanks T-34, turned into symbols of the great Victory.


On the day of the national holiday in Moscow and a number of other Russian cities, the restored T-34 tanks will be held in parade, recalling how 70 more than a few years ago brought fear on the Nazi invaders, breaking through enemy defenses and smashing their fortified points.

But in June 1941, General Guderian, who proceeded from the decisive role of tank armies in the land war, believed that the successes of the armored vehicles led by him on the fields of Poland, France, Holland, Belgium, Yugoslavia would be repeated on Soviet soil. However, telling in his memoirs about the October 1941 battles of the year in the Moscow direction, the general had to admit:

“A large number of Russian T-34 tanks were thrown at the battle, causing great losses to our tanks. The superiority of the material part of our tank forces, which has taken place so far, has been lost and has now passed to the enemy. Thus, the prospects for quick and continuous success disappeared. ”

Guderian decided to immediately draw conclusions from what happened: “In this report, I wrote about this new situation for us to the command of army group, in which I described in detail the advantages of the T-34 tank compared to our T-IV tank, pointing out the need to change the design of our tanks in future. I finished my report with a proposal to send a commission to our front, which should include representatives from the armaments department, the ministry of armaments, tank designers and representatives of tank-building companies. I also demanded to speed up the production of larger anti-tank guns capable of penetrating the armor of the T-34 tank. The commission arrived at the 2 Tank Army of November 20. ”

However, the conclusions of the commission members did not encourage Guderian. He recalled: “The proposals of front-line officers to produce exactly the same tanks as the T-34, in order to rectify the extremely unfavorable situation in the shortest possible time, did not meet with any support from the designers. The designers were embarrassed, by the way, not by aversion to imitation, but by the impossibility of releasing with the required speed the most important parts of the T-34, especially the aluminum diesel engine. In addition, our alloy steel, the quality of which was reduced by the lack of necessary raw materials, was also inferior to the Russian alloy steel. ”

How was created T-34

Over the 14 years before the October battles of 1941, the armored forces and military production in the USSR were in disrepair. Speaking in December 1927 at the Fifteenth Congress of the Party, the People's Commissar for Military and Naval Affairs K.Ye. Voroshilov reported that the number of tanks of the USSR (less than 200, along with armored cars) was not only lagging behind the advanced countries of the West, but also from Poland. Not enough metal for the production of armored vehicles. The People's Commissar reported: "70,5% of cast iron, 81% of steel, 76% of rolled products compared to the pre-war level is, of course, not enough for the needs of a widely developed economy and defense ... Aluminum, this necessary metal for military affairs, we are not at all we produce. "Speaking of the" archaic remnants of the times of Ivan Kalita "at defense enterprises, Voroshilov said that" when you see them, it takes aback. "

At the end of the 20, alloyed steel was not smelted in the USSR. To study the process of its production, Soviet metallurgists were sent abroad. Among them was my father, Emelyanov Vasily Semenovich (on the photo), a graduate of the Moscow Mining Academy. During the long overseas business trips to Germany, France, Italy, England, Norway, he managed to learn a lot about foreign steelmaking, especially about smelting ferroalloys. Shortly after returning to his homeland, he was appointed chief engineer of the ferroalloy plant in Chelyabinsk. This plant was one of three such plants, which allowed our country as a whole to solve the problem of the production of alloyed steel.

Such steel was especially needed in the production of weapons. Therefore, the experience and knowledge of the father were in demand in the military industry. In 1937, he was appointed deputy head of the main board for the production of armor for the defense industry of the USSR. Meanwhile, the Spanish Civil War, during which the Soviet Union supplied weapon Republicans, showed the weakness of Soviet tanks: enemy 37-millimeter guns easily hit them. Therefore, the Soviet military demanded the creation of tanks protected by solid armor.

These requirements began to be realized. Under the guidance of designer J.I. Kotin created heavy tanks from the KV and IS series. Even earlier, work on designing the high-speed T-185 tank with anti-bulking armor protection began at the Leningrad Plant No. 29. Soon, a similar tank was created at the Kharkov plant number 183. By order of the People's Commissar of Heavy Industry G.K. Ordzhonikidze December 28 1936 Deputy Chief Designer of the Leningrad Plant No. 185 Mikhail Ilyich Koshkin was sent to the Kharkov Plant, where he headed the design bureau. Together with a team of young designers, Koshkin was able to design the tank, which later became known as the T-34.

31 March 1940. The Defense Committee ordered the serial production of T-34 tanks.

On May 17, 1940, two such tanks, along with other Soviet armored vehicles, entered the Kremlin’s Ivanovo Square, where they were examined by Stalin and other members of the Politburo. Stalin especially liked the T-34 tank, and he called it the “first swallow”.

Soon these tanks were tested on the Karelian Isthmus, where the fighting had recently ended. Tanks successfully overcame escarpes, dolbybol, anti-tank ditches and other fortifications of the “Mannerheim Line”.

Unfortunately, the chief designer of the T-34 M.I. Koshkin became seriously ill with pneumonia during the driving of tanks from Kharkov to Moscow. The doctors removed one lung from him, but this did not help the patient. 26 September 1940, the talented designer passed away.

Meanwhile, the transition to mass production of tanks revealed a number of unforeseen difficulties. In his memoirs, his father wrote: “It was still not entirely clear what technology to adopt for mass production of armor protection, especially tank turrets. On light tanks, the towers were welded from individual parts cut from armored sheet steel. Some parts had a convex shape, and they were stamped on presses. The same technology was adopted for the production of heavy tanks. But thick armor demanded more powerful pressing equipment for the manufacture of tower parts. Such presses were available at the plant, but in insufficient quantities. Well, if the program is increased, how to be then? Pressing equipment will become a bottleneck. But the case clearly goes to war, and heavy tanks will not be needed for parades, they will need thousands. How to be?

My father had the idea: cast tank turrets. He decided that in almost any metallurgical plant in any steel mill it would be possible to cast towers. The difficulty was to convince other people of this.
According to the father, “a reasonable and brave military representative, Dmitrusenko, turned out to be at the plant. He immediately agreed with the proposal to try to make cast tank towers.

The towers were cast, and then were tested along with welded towers. The father wrote: “In most of the welded towers, after four or five shells hit them, cracks appeared in the welds, while the cast ones did not reveal any defects.” Similar results were achieved with repeated tests.

Soon the father was summoned to a meeting of the Politburo. After reviewing the draft resolution, in which it was proposed to move to the production of casting towers, Stalin asked the head of the Avtobronevy Directorate, Ya.N. Fedorenko: “What are the tactical and technical advantages of the new towers?” Fedorenko explained that they can be made in foundries, whereas for the production of old type towers, powerful presses are required for stamping individual parts. “I did not ask you about this,” Stalin interrupted him. - What are the tactical and technical advantages of the new tower, and you tell me about the technological advantages. Who is involved in military equipment? ” Fedorenko called General I.A. Lebedeva.

“Is he here?” Asked Stalin. Lebedev rose from his seat. Stalin repeated his question to him. According to the father, “Lebedev hesitated and began, in essence, to repeat what Fedorenko said. Stalin frowned and angrily asked: “Where do you serve: in the army or in industry? The third time I ask a question about the tactical and technical advantages of the new tower, and you tell me about what opportunities open up before the industry. Maybe you should go to work in industry? ” The general was silent.

I felt that the decision to move to the casting towers might not be made, and, raising my hand, I asked for the floor. Turning in my direction, Stalin repeated once again: “I ask about tactical and technical advantages.”

The father replied: “I want to say this, Joseph Vissarionovich,” and handed the cards with the results of polygon shelling of armored towers to Stalin. The father explained: “The old tower, welded from individual parts, has weak spots - welds. The new tower is a monolith, it is of equal strength. Here are the results of tests of both types at the site by firing. "

Stalin carefully examined the cards, returned them to his father and said: "This is a serious consideration." He paused, walked around the room, and then asked a new question: “Tell me, how does the position of the center of gravity change when moving to a new tower? Is the machine designer here? ”

One of the designers of the tank got up from the spot, whose father’s name was not mentioned in the memoirs. The designer said: "If it changes, Comrade Stalin, it is insignificant."

“Slightly is not an engineering term. Did you think? ”Stalin replied harshly. “No, I didn't,” the designer quietly answered. "And why? After all, this is military equipment ... And how will the load on the tank's front axle change? ”
The designer also quietly said: “Slightly.” “What do you keep saying all the time“ insignificantly ”and“ insignificantly ”? Tell me: did you do the calculations? ”-“ No, ”the designer answered even quieter. "And why?". The question hung in the air.

Stalin put a leaflet with a draft decision in his hands and said: “I propose to reject the proposed draft resolution as unprepared. Tell the comrades that they are not part of the Politburo with such projects. To prepare a new project, allocate a commission to which Fedorenko should be included, he pointed out to S.A. Akopov, - and his. Stalin pointed to his father.

Father and designer in a depressed condition left the meeting room. Along the way, they were caught up by General Shcherbakov, an employee of the Committee of the Defense Committee. He and another employee of the Committee Saveliev suggested that his father should urgently prepare a new draft resolution, taking into account Stalin’s comments and with the necessary certificates.

Father worked on this for the rest of the day and all night. By the morning all the necessary documents were ready. Akopov and Fedorenko signed them with their father.

A few hours later, Stalin reviewed these materials and signed the decision to launch the production of casting towers. Two years later, my father received a second-degree Stalin Prize for participating in the development of casting towers for the T-34 tank.

After the start of the war

By 22 June 1941, the country produced X-NUMX T-1100 tanks. They accounted for 34% of all tanks manufactured by Soviet industry in six months. However, the retreat of the Soviet troops threatened the country's tank production. Tank factories were hastily evacuated to the Urals. The father also went there, having a mandate with him, signed by I.V. Stalin, who said that he, Vasily Semelyan Yemelyanov, "is authorized by the State Defense Committee at the tank factory," and that "he is obliged to ensure that the program for the production of tank hulls is overfulfilled."

At the Ural factory, to which the father was sent, the installation of equipment for tank production was just beginning. Under normal conditions, such an installation should have taken four to six months. My father went to the installers and explained to them: "The Germans are near Moscow. We need tanks. We need to know exactly when the workshop will be mounted." Installers asked for twenty minutes to think.

When the father came back to them, their brigadier said: "Order us to have several sunbeds put ... You will not have to sleep, we will rest when we cannot hold tools. Tell me that food from the dining room was also brought here, but that time a lot will be lost. If you do what you ask, we will complete the installation in 17 days. "
According to the father, people worked as a single human body. The installation was completed in 14 days. The workers didn’t meet the impossible due to technical standards for the installation of equipment at the cost of an incredible strain of their strength. However, as my father recalled, then such work in the rear was the rule rather than the exception.

Meanwhile, the emergence and successful actions of the T-34 and other heavy Soviet tanks forced Hitler to decide on the production of an already developed model of a tiger tank weighing 60 tons, and then a lighter tank, the panther. However, according to Guderian, in January 1942, Hitler decided that a new cumulative grenade, "possessing a very high penetrating ability of armor, in the future will reduce the value of tanks." Tests of "tigers" in combat took place only in the autumn of 1942, in the Leningrad region. All the tigers moving in the column were destroyed by Soviet anti-tank artillery. This circumstance led to a new delay in the production of these tanks.

However, the Germans tried to exploit vulnerabilities in the T-34 tank. They found that if the projectiles were sent to the joint between the turret and the tank hull, the turret could jam and it would stop rotating. In the padded German tanks, our fighters found sketches of T-34 tanks indicating where to aim.

My father recalled: “It was necessary to quickly eliminate this weak spot. I do not remember who the first thought occurred to me how to eliminate this shortcoming. The offer was surprisingly simple. Armored details of a special form were attached to the tank hull in front of the turret, allowing the turret to rotate and at the same time eliminate the possibility of its jamming. Immediately, all the corps began to be produced with these additional details, and we sent sets of parts to the front for their installation on combat vehicles. ”

The Germans continued to strike with projectiles at the junction between the tower and the hull, exactly following the instructions. They probably wondered why their shots did not bring the desired result.

Meanwhile, the tank factories continued to improve the production process. In his memoirs, the father wrote: “In the armored body of the tank there was one small, but important detail with a long narrow slit, called“ reticle ”. Through it, using a system of mirrors, the driver could view the terrain. Machining this part was very difficult. It was necessary first to drill out high-strength steel, and then thoroughly process the inner surface of the gap with a long milling cutter of a special shape, called “fingertip”. Before the war, this cutter was manufactured by the Moscow plant “Frezer” and even then belonged to the category of a scarce tool. And then a new difficulty arose: “Frazer” was evacuated from Moscow, and at the new place they had not yet had time to mount all the equipment and start production. We had only two finger mills at the plant, and one of them was essentially unusable. Tank corps cannot be made without a part with a “reticule slot”. It was obvious to everyone. How to be?".

My father recalled that after a long discussion, “someone was in favor of trying to cast these details. If we make exact forms and try to improve the casting technique, then maybe we can manage to keep within the specified sizes ... There were excellent foundry workers at the factory. ” After consulting with them, it was decided: “Cast, only cast!”.

The first cast parts were successful. But doubts arose: “Will the parts withstand the ground tests?” Father wrote: “Immediately sent several cast parts to the landfill. The landfill was located near the plant. Shot the details of all the established rules. The results are great! Hence, finger mills are no longer needed. Everyone cheered up, as if everyone at once stopped the tedious toothache. ”

My father recalled that “from the front there were continuously various requests and information about which parts of the tank should be improved or changed.

They also began to receive tanks for repair. Somehow, carefully examining such a tank, which arrived from the front, we saw a soldier’s medal “For Courage” at the driver’s seat. On the ribbon, a small spot of blood was dried. Everyone standing near the tank, as if on cue, took off their hats and silently looked at the medal.
Their faces were solemnly severe. ”

Zverev, the senior master of the span for machining parts, said with some anguish: “If I were shot right through now, it would have seemed easier. Shame burns everything from the inside, only you think that you don’t do everything you need. ”

The reaction of Zverev and other workers was explainable. Although they worked hard to do everything “right” and tried to make the tanks invulnerable to the enemy’s bullets and shells, they knew that for many tankers their products turned into steel coffins.

The data, which subsequently led in his study, Lieutenant-General V.V. Serebryannikov, testified: the tankman could survive no more than 1,5 battles. But such battles did not stop throughout the war.

The victory of Soviet tanks on the Kursk Bulge

22 January 1943. Hitler published an appeal to all tank building workers to increase efforts to produce new armored vehicles, the appearance of which was to prove Germany’s advantage in modern weapons technology and ensure a change in the war. Guderian wrote that "new powers to expand the production of tanks, granted to Minister of Armaments A. Speer, testified to the growing concern about the declining combat power of the German armored forces in the face of the constantly increasing production of the old but beautiful Russian T-34 tank." In accordance with the plan "Citadel", developed by Hitler, the main power of the 1943 summer offensive of the year was to make up the new "tiger" and "panther" tanks.

Describing the first day of the battle on the Kursk Bulb 5 July 1943, Lieutenant General N.K. Popel recalled: “Perhaps, neither I nor any of our other commanders saw such a number of enemy tanks at once. Colonel General Got, who commanded the Nazi tank army 4, was betting everything. 10 operated against every company in 30 tanks - 40 German. "

A week after the start of the German offensive, 12 July, the largest tank battle of World War II near Prokhorovka unfolded. It involved up to 1200 tanks and SPGs. A participant in the Battle of Prokhorovka, Lieutenant Colonel A.A. Golovanov recalled: “I don’t find words or colors to describe the tank battle that took place near Prokhorovka.

Try to imagine how about 1000 tanks colliding in a small space (about two kilometers along the front), showered each other with a hail of shells, burning fires of already wrecked tanks ... There was a continuous roar of engines, metal clanging, crashing, explosion of shells, wild iron screech , tanks went to the tanks.

It was such a roar that squeezed the membrane. The bitterness of the battle can also be represented by casualties: more than 400 of German and no less than our tanks were left to burn out on this battlefield or lay in piles of twisted metal after an explosion of ammunition inside the car. And it all lasted all day. "

The next day, Marshal G.K. Zhukov and lieutenant-general of tank forces P.A. Captain drove past the battlefield. Rotmistrov recalled: “A monstrous picture presented itself to the gaze. Everywhere wrecked or burned tanks, crushed guns, armored personnel carriers and cars, piles of shell sleeves, pieces of caterpillars. Not a single green bylaid was on the blackened ground. to cool down after extensive fires ... "That's what a tank attack means," quietly, as if to himself, Zhukov said, looking at the broken "panther" and our tank T-70 crashing into it.

Here, at a distance of two dozen meters, the “tiger” and the thirty-foursomers seized as if firmly grabbed.
Marshal shook his head, surprised by what he saw, even took off his cap, apparently paying tribute to the deep respect of our dead tank heroes who sacrificed their lives in order to stop and destroy the enemy. "

According to Marshal A.M. Vasilevsky, "the nearly two-month Kursk battle ended in a convincing victory for the Soviet Armed Forces."

Guderian stated: “As a result of the failure of the Citadel offensive, we suffered a decisive defeat. The armored forces, replenished with such great difficulty, due to large losses in people and equipment, were put out of action for a long time. Their timely restoration to conduct defensive actions on The Eastern Front, as well as to organize the defense in the West in case of a landing which the Allies threatened to land next spring, was called into question. Needless to say, the Russians hurried to use their success. there were no more calm days on the Eastern Front. The initiative was completely transferred to the enemy. "

So Hitler's plans were buried - to achieve a breakthrough in the war, relying on the technical superiority of "civilized" Europe.
Having broken off the German offensive, the heroic crews of the T-34 and other Soviet tanks proved the advantage of Soviet armor over the German one.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.stoletie.ru/territoriya_istorii/kak_sovetskaja_brona_odolela_germanskuju_683.htm
28 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Atomist
    Atomist 20 May 2016 19: 15
    +18
    Thanks for the interesting article. A low bow to all Warriors of the front and rear.
  2. Verdun
    Verdun 20 May 2016 19: 36
    +16
    There were excellent casters at the factory. ” After consulting with them, it was decided: "To cast, only to cast!"
    There were several factories that produced the T-34 tank. Not all of them had the necessary technology. Not everyone could provide a sufficiently high quality of parts. It is a fact. But, oddly enough, in some cases it was the harsh realities of a particular production that led to positive results. The TCM teacher at the institute where I studied, said that he had the opportunity to get acquainted with the results of the analysis of the casting quality of T-34 towers produced at different plants. Casting was carried out into the "earth" - in pre-formed earthen molds. At those enterprises where the molding shops were not heated, in the winter period the armor of the towers turned out to be stronger, due to the fact that the molten metal, in contact with the cold walls of the mold, crystallized more densely and finely. Here is such a squiggle! And thanks to the author of the article. The T-34 was a good tank. The tank that brought us victory.
    1. overb
      overb 21 May 2016 00: 52
      -11%
      Quote: Verdun
      The T-34 was a good tank. The tank that brought us victory.

      Victory brought sacrifice. Millionths. That was the main factor.
      1. Mavrikiy
        Mavrikiy 21 May 2016 06: 01
        +11
        Quote: overb
        Quote: Verdun
        The T-34 was a good tank. The tank that brought us victory.

        Victory brought sacrifice. Millionths. That was the main factor.

        In the first place is the organization. It was the organization of the Reich and the Wehrmacht that enabled Hitler to smash Europe. And our organization of the USSR, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union with Stalin at the head, has turned the Bosko on your side.
        1. will you
          will you 27 May 2016 18: 29
          0
          organized for a very long time unacceptably long and unfortunately the victims are too large, but what does the tank that was really very good
          1. verboo
            verboo 27 May 2016 22: 46
            0
            Quote: misin
            but what does the tank that was really very good

            Which one and where? The IS-2 tank was the pinnacle of the folk art of Soviet self-made people in the design and production of tanks during WW1. But there is no point in dwelling on it, a total of 107 of them were made. The T-34/85, a light tank by that time (in the USSR it was called "medium"), was the mass one. How was it good in comparison with the German PzKpfw V medium tank? And how was he good in comparison with the heavy German contemporary PzKpfw VIB? The correct answer is nothing, they are not classmates.
            Was it good compared to the lightweight German PzKpfW IV Ausf.H? Controversial point. Although he had advantages in comparison with him. But let's not forget, in 1944. it was not the main panzerwaffe tank. So, potty little thing. And in the end to catch up with this trifle, this is not a particularly great achievement.
      2. Andrey Skokovsky
        Andrey Skokovsky 17 December 2016 17: 34
        0
        hmm, actually the losses in the Second World War on the 1 of the Euro-occupant - 1.3 of a Soviet soldier
        and if we discard the losses of prisoners destroyed by the European integrators in concentration camps, then maybe one to one
        what sacrifices are you talking about? about millions of civilians purposefully tortured by the "civilized" in the course of the fascist genocide?
        or maybe millions of Germans who died during the first and second world wars for the interests of the United States and England? the latter, yes, a lot, in its truth stupidity ....
    2. The comment was deleted.
  3. Bort radist
    Bort radist 20 May 2016 19: 44
    +14
    Something simple with the modernization of the T-34:we must pay tribute to our designers - they did not rest on the laurels of their first successes and carefully studied front-line experience. For the first year of the war, the T-34 has changed a lot. It is believed that every year up to three and a half thousand changes were made to the design of this tank. The armor thickened, the tower changed several times - at first it was streamlined welded, like on pre-war tanks, then it became hexagonal cast, the gun was replaced - the more powerful F-34 replaced the place of the old L-11. However, the gun is also a rather dark moment in the history of the T-34. If previously it was believed that the tank was armed with guns of only two calibers - until December 1943 - 76 mm (T-34-76), and then 85 mm (T-34-85), today it can be argued that the series were still and T-34-45 and T-34-57. A. Karpenko mentions the first in a review of Russian armored vehicles published in St. Petersburg in 1996, and M. Svirin and M. Kolomiyets writes about the second in his research. However, tanks with 45 mm cannons did not find a place in the army because of their weak weapons. And the second did not become mass, perhaps because of the intrigues of the developers of artillery weapons - the 57 mm gun could confidently destroy the new German Tiger and Panther tanks, but the gunners were already fighting for the right to install 34 mm guns and 85 mm in the T-57 the gun was out of work, although (another paradox!) tanks with these guns were launched twice in a series - in 1941 and 1943.
    It is believed that half of the tanks are made of armor welded at the Kuznetsk Metallurgical Combine. The T-34 at the KMK checkpoint was installed in 73. Arrived under its own power. Starred in the movie Hot Snow.
    1. veteran66
      veteran66 20 May 2016 20: 34
      +6
      Quote: Bort Radist
      although (another paradox!) tanks with these guns were launched twice in a series - in 1941 and 1943.

      and what is paradoxical, along with the introduction of the ZiS-2 anti-tank defense system, in the 41st it was withdrawn from service as having excessive armor penetration (in fact, due to the huge number of barrels defective due to the imperfection of the machines) and again they were adopted in 43- m, after the delivery of high-precision drilling machines from the United States for Lend-Lease.
    2. Alf
      Alf 20 May 2016 23: 16
      +3
      Quote: Bort Radist
      today it can be argued that the series also had T-34-45 and T-34-57. A. Karpenko mentions the first in a review of Russian armored vehicles published in St. Petersburg in 1996, and M. Svirin and M. Kolomiyets writes about the second in his research. However, tanks with 45 mm cannons did not find a place in the army because of their weak weapons.

      There were none in reality. There was a decree on the release of the T-34 N1 tank with a 45 mm gun due to the non-delivery of 76 mm guns to the plant.
      Quote: Bort Radist
      And the second did not become mass, perhaps because of the intrigues of the developers of artillery weapons

      And that is not true. The high-explosive fragmentation effect of the 57-mm shell is much lower than that of the 76-mm shell. Moreover, the main part of the T-34 was made up of HE shells.
    3. overb
      overb 21 May 2016 00: 59
      +1
      Quote: Bort Radist
      although (another paradox!) tanks with these guns were launched twice in a series - in 1941 and 1943.

      In 1943. T-34/57 tanks were not put into production. We made 4 experimental tanks, this is the whole "series" of 1943. ended. And in 1941. they have done very little. The ZIS-4 was not suitable for a tank, perhaps for a tank destroyer. But in this case, there was no self-propelled platform for her.
      Quote: Bort Radist
      T-34-45 and ... A. Karpenko mentions the first in a review of Russian armored vehicles published in St. Petersburg in 1996

      So I can mention the 305-mm cannon in the T-34 tower. However, this does not mean that it is true.
    4. Logos
      Logos 22 May 2016 19: 52
      0
      And the second did not become mass, perhaps because of the intrigues of the developers of artillery weapons - the 57 mm gun could confidently destroy the new German Tiger and Panther tanks, but the gunners were already fighting for the right to install 34 mm guns in the T-85

      The 57mm gun had no prospects. Firstly, the armor penetration of a 57-mm armor-piercing projectile fell more strongly at a distance of relatively 85-mm, and secondly, it carried a much smaller explosive charge than an 85-mm projectile, which would lead to the fact that it would be guaranteed to destroy the "Tiger" or When penetrating the Panther, he could not (here it is appropriate to recall that for the guaranteed destruction of these tanks it was necessary to penetrate several sub-caliber shells of 76mm guns - the fighting compartment of German tanks was too spacious to destroy everything there with one kinetic energy of the projectile)
      I’m completely silent about the high-explosive fragmentation action of 57mm OFS - it was even inferior to the action of 76mm guns, not to mention 85mm
    5. will you
      will you 27 May 2016 18: 33
      0
      The 57 mm gun was out of work though (another paradox!)

      no paradoxes, there simply weren’t shells for them from the tsar’s depots, unlike 45mm and 76 mm three-inch
      The 57mm size, although it was produced in small batches under the tsar, was rare, respectively, and there was practically no equipment for its production, and as they correctly write below, the problems were with long-barrel technology
      1. verboo
        verboo 27 May 2016 22: 52
        -1
        Quote: misin
        there simply weren’t shells for them from the tsar’s depots, unlike 45mm and 76 mm three-inch

        As for the three-inch models, I'm already tired of reading this. Ask about the availability of ammunition for them on the eve of the Second World War. There were no "royal reserves". Especially after the Civil War. On the contrary, there was a shortage of shells. But there were shells for the 47-mm guns of Hotchkiss.
        Quote: misin
        The 57mm size, although it was produced in small batches under the tsar, was rare, respectively, and there was practically no equipment for its release

        Well, yes, where did he come from? After all, they were produced in France.
  4. cherkas.oe
    cherkas.oe 20 May 2016 20: 34
    +5
    A deep bow to our grandfathers and fathers who created weapons, whom they defeated in the most terrible war in the history of mankind, the most powerful and most cruel enemy in its inhuman nature.
  5. Barakuda
    Barakuda 20 May 2016 20: 55
    +4
    Low bow, to say the least. My grandmother survived the blockade (even though I am an old 43-year-old). And whatever they say there, Memory! And with molybdenum a bit in the shell.
  6. Comrade Glebov
    Comrade Glebov 20 May 2016 23: 09
    +3
    Glory to our tankers! But the T-34 is a purely people's tank, many modifications were made at factories even without the knowledge of the designers. Verdun is right when he says there were several factories. As far as I remember, these were: Krasnoe Sormovo, STZ, ChTZ, factories under number 183 (Uralmash and KhPZ), etc. These tanks are not only a symbol of Victory, they are primarily the Unity and Will of the multinational Soviet people embodied in metal. That is why in Europe the T-34 is the most hated and at the same time the most difficult to destroy monument.
  7. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 20 May 2016 23: 28
    -8
    "Try to imagine how about 1000 tanks colliding in a small space (about two kilometers along the front), showering each other with a hail of shells," ////

    Tanks did not collide there. The Germans were waiting for the Russian advance in this place,
    dug in and were in a dull defense.
    Their anti-tank guns knocked out to half advancing in dense waves
    (Rotmistrov's idea) of Soviet tanks.
    The Germans lost 14 tanks. Much less than in the first days of the offensive on
    on the Kursk Bulge.
    1. Verdun
      Verdun 21 May 2016 03: 21
      +2
      Tanks did not collide there. The Germans were waiting for the Russian advance in this place,
      dug in and were in a dull defense.
      If I’m not mistaken, you are voicing the interpretation of the battle at Prokhorovka by an English tank theorist, I don’t remember the name right away. Many modern "researchers" so to speak often rely on this article. The interpretation is more than controversial and counts the loss of German tanks, as claimed, according to the German Federal Military Archives. Since the Germans often underestimated their losses, especially in the second half of the war, there is no particular reason to believe this data. It seems that many more cars were hit. I read the memoirs of a German tanker who was directly involved in this battle. So he wrote that many "Tigers" simply stopped due to the fact that they ran out of fuel. Another conversation is that the repair and evacuation service of the Germans worked well and they managed to drag a significant part of the damaged tanks to the rear for repairs. And when they write about the losses of the Soviet army, no one understands how many of the destroyed tanks were returned to service. And, by the way, the main tank losses of the Germans during the Battle of the Kursk Bulge were not from tanks and artillery, but from attacks by ground attack aircraft.
    2. altel
      altel 21 May 2016 04: 28
      0
      during the reflection of the counterattack on July 12, the Germans lost about 200 tanks, assault guns and self-propelled guns, of which about 40 were irretrievably (i.e., 160 were damaged), so the total loss of 5 TA near Prokhorovka on July 12 turned out to be 2.5 times more than the loss of the Germans. irrevocable in tanks and sau go as 6: 1 is not in our favor. Our military lost about 350 tanks irretrievably, and the Germans about 70. Warrior ah-don’t cheat and do not cheat
    3. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 21 May 2016 07: 38
      +3
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Tanks did not collide there.

      Gas chambers also did not exist and there was no Holocaust.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 21 May 2016 12: 47
        -5
        When there is essentially nothing to argue, the best way is to transfer the conversation to another
        theme.

        It is clear enough: in general, the Battle of Kursk was won by the Red Army. And this
        became a fundamental turning point in the Second World War.
        But the battle of Prokhorovka was an absolutely lost battle due to stupidity
        Rotmistrova with huge losses
        and the battlefield left behind by the Germans (therefore their easily damaged tanks
        the Germans evacuated, and the Russian damaged tanks were blown up after the battle).
        Because of this failure, the outcome of the entire battle was in jeopardy.
        But Hitler, recognizing his strategic failure - the entourage of the Kursk ledge failed -
        and large losses of elite infantry, the continuation of the operation was canceled.
        And he ordered me to switch to defense, which in practice meant retreat.
        1. Verdun
          Verdun 21 May 2016 13: 32
          0
          But the battle of Prokhorovka was an absolutely lost battle due to stupidity
          Rotmistrova with huge losses
          If you carefully study the entire course of the Battle of Kursk, it becomes clear that the tank battle near Prokhorovka was not at all due to the tactical intent of any of the parties, as some are trying to imagine. Oncoming tank battle with large forces is a nightmare of any tanker, and the main task of the command of such a battle is to avoid. The main task of tanks, especially medium-sized ones, is to break through the defenses and destroy manpower, hence their main ammunition is HE, and not armor-piercing. In what happened under Prokhorovka there is more chance than intention. That is why both sides were forced to transfer tank reserves there already during the battle, in order to achieve an advantage in power. Hence, apparently, the assertion that Russian tanks appeared on the battlefield in waves. But just the same, German tanks were on the battlefield. They were transported to the combat area by rail and immediately after unloading they were sent to the combat area.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. The comment was deleted.
            1. svp67
              svp67 21 May 2016 14: 39
              +1
              Quote: overb
              As for the OFS, they were given to the tanks not for "destroying manpower", but for defense against transported anti-tank artillery. Those. to destroy artillery crews, not infantry.

              The main task of the tank in the offensive, and also in defense, is to support the actions of the infantry. To solve this problem, the OFS is necessary for the tank, since with its help the firing points that interfere with the operation of our infantry are easily destroyed. But the PTO is the main target for artillery, it must destroy them with mortar and barrel artillery fire. Combined arms combat is like playing an orchestra, where each "instrument" has its own role
              1. overb
                overb 21 May 2016 15: 54
                -1
                Quote: svp67
                The main task of the tank in the offensive, and in defense is to support infantry actions.

                You are confusing a tank with an "infantry tank". There was such a category of BTT before the Second World War. And in the Red Army and in the Wehrmacht (and in general, all). Already in the course of the Second World War, it was replaced by assault self-propelled guns (excuse me, who did it) and was deleted from the "tank theme".
                Quote: svp67
                That is why the tank is necessary for solving this task of the General Pharmacopoeia, because with its help the firing points that interfere with our infantry’s operations are easily destroyed.

                This is the task of infantry artillery, from mortars to corps of howitzers. OFS tanks were needed in order to finish off undestructed artillery crews, as well as for artillery crew actions in isolation (in a breakthrough) from infantry artillery. It is only in the "movie about the war" that the tanks stand side by side and the OFS is shooting somewhere.
                1. svp67
                  svp67 21 May 2016 16: 08
                  0
                  Quote: overb
                  You are confusing a tank with an "infantry tank". There was such a category of BTT before the Second World War

                  You confuse this category existed in England
                  Quote: overb
                  And in the Red Army and in the Wehrmacht (and in general, for everyone).

                  Yes? Prove it. The Red Army somehow paid more attention to the universality of tanks, it was not for nothing that the T-34 was adopted before the war, which was supposed to go to equip both mechanized and infantry units and formations ...
                  Quote: overb
                  It is only in the "movie about the war" that the tanks stand side by side and the OFS is shooting somewhere.

                  In your films, it may be so, but we, for example, still have a standard for firing a long-range tank unit. And the practice of recent wars proves that concentrated fire of tanks, for something, for example, a bunker or a fortified building, helps the infantry very much in advance.
                  Quote: overb
                  OFS tanks were needed in order to finish off undetermined artillery calculations, as well as for artillery operations in isolation (in a breakthrough) from infantry artillery

                  Once again, I repeat that the tank is primarily needed to destroy what interferes with the advance of the infantry. As you say "infantry artillery" has a radius of destruction of about 15 km, so it is certainly possible to break away from it, but not desirable. Yes, and helping the infantry, you expect reciprocity from her, she also understands that without tanks it will be very difficult for her, so mortars, machine guns, snipers, all this will work on the enemy's anti-tank defense.
                  1. overb
                    overb 21 May 2016 19: 44
                    -1
                    Quote: svp67
                    You confuse this category existed in England

                    Well yes. And also in the USSR (T-26, and then T-34/76) and in Germany (Pz.KpfW.IV L / 24, and then Pz.KpfW.III / 75).
                    Quote: svp67
                    not for nothing before the war was adopted our T-34, which was supposed to go on the staffing of both mechanized and infantry units and formations ...

                    This is a reel of 2MB times. I’ll let you know, it began in 1939.
                    And initially, the T-34 was an ordinary infantry tank (see screen).
                    Quote: svp67
                    And the practice of recent wars proves that concentrated fire of tanks, for something, for example, a bunker or a fortified building, helps the infantry very much in advance.

                    On the bunkers shoot OFS and from the depths of their location? Do you hold the thread of conversation? Or is it already starting to carry you?
                    Quote: svp67
                    I repeat once again that the OFS tank is primarily necessary for the destruction of what interferes with the advancement of infantry.

                    You are trying in vain to crush me with your mantras. Will not work. Read above, I wrote everything to you.
                    Quote: svp67
                    on this mortars, machine guns, snipers, it will all work on the enemy’s anti-aircraft defense.

                    They are up to the stars. In isolation (breakthrough), what infantry can drag away on itself, will not be able to finish off (reach) the enemy’s anti-aircraft artillery. Just at this moment, the time comes for the OFS of the tank guns. And not like in the movies.
                  2. The comment was deleted.
            2. Verdun
              Verdun 21 May 2016 14: 42
              0
              and for defense against transported artillery VET
              It is difficult to defend against an attack from an ambush from a VET for a tank. It is for these purposes that they require the support of the infantry or - during WWII - cavalry. By the way, my grandfather, who started the war as an officer in tank troops, considered cavalry to be the best means of escorting tank attacks. More mobile than infantry, it did not lag behind tanks, did not impede their advancement, and it coped with the task of destroying anti-tank missiles no worse.
              1. overb
                overb 21 May 2016 15: 17
                -2
                Quote: Verdun
                It is difficult to defend against an attack from an ambush from a VET for a tank.

                Artzasad, this is a rare type of warfare in a full-fledged war. Most often they are found in feature films.
                Quote: Verdun
                or - during WWII - cavalry

                Cavalry for equestrian attacks? You are an admirer of Rokossovsky, who is so in 1941. in an hour ditched 2 cavalry divisions, the 17th and 44th?
                Quote: Verdun
                By the way, my grandfather, who started the war as an officer in tank troops, considered cavalry to be the best means of escorting tank attacks.

                The private opinion of a non-specialist is inexpensive. Horses and riders, unfortunately, were not booked. Therefore, the cavalry during WW2 is just mobile infantry. I emphasize, not panzergrenadiers, not motorized infantry, but mobile infantry. Those. regular infantry, but with "fast legs".
                Quote: Verdun
                and the task of destroying the VET was no worse.

                Another "adherent of Rokossovsky".
                VET, already in isolation from its line of defense, had to destroy tanks. That's just for this they were given the OFS. But on the line of their defense, the tanks generally have nothing to do, anti-tank artillery before the breakthrough should be destroyed by infantry artillery (mortars and howitzers). And anti-tank, if there were goals.
                1. Verdun
                  Verdun 21 May 2016 15: 24
                  0
                  Artzasad, this is a rare type of warfare in a full-fledged war.
                  Do you apparently think that WWII was an inferior war?
                  Cavalry for equestrian attacks?
                  This is not about attacks in the equestrian system - it was the Poles who liked to rush at tanks with drafts - but about escorting the tanks. To conduct hostilities, the cavalrymen dismounted and acted like ordinary infantry. The point is that a combination of tanks and cavalry allowed maintaining a higher pace of advancement, which was sometimes critically important.
                  The private opinion of a non-specialist is inexpensive. Horses and riders, unfortunately, were not booked.
                  Grandfather was a senior lieutenant in the reserve, which in those days was equated to a regular military. He got his first combat experience during the "Winter War". At the same time, the infantry that went on the offensive, if you are aware, also did not have armor. I hope I answered your comments?
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                  2. overb
                    overb 21 May 2016 15: 44
                    -1
                    Quote: Verdun
                    Do you apparently think that WWII was an inferior war?

                    And where did you see massive artillery ambushes? In films about the war?
                    Quote: Verdun
                    Poles loved to rush into tanks with drafts

                    Well, in principle, yes, Rokossovsky Pole.
                    Quote: Verdun
                    and about escorting tanks

                    Escorting tanks outside the battle is more convenient on motorized infantry trucks.
                    Quote: Verdun
                    To conduct hostilities, the cavalrymen dismounted and acted like ordinary infantry.

                    How then could they "keep up with the tanks"? Do you read yourself from the outside?
                    Quote: Verdun
                    The point is that a combination of tanks and cavalry allowed maintaining a higher pace of advancement, which was sometimes critically important.

                    I ask you again HOW? And why did the motorized infantry on trucks not suit your grandfather?
                    Quote: Verdun
                    At the same time, the infantry marching on the offensive, if you are in the know, also did not have armor.

                    The infantryman is small, the cavalryman is large. The infantryman (tank paratrooper) could move on the armor, this was impossible for the cavalryman.
                    In other words, stop fantasizing.
                    1. Verdun
                      Verdun 21 May 2016 16: 06
                      0
                      Once again I ask you, HOW? And why did the motorized infantry on trucks not suit your grandfather?
                      What kind of trucks can be on the offensive? What are you talking about? Do you even imagine the density of fire in the zone of offensive battles on the same Kursk Bulge? These are not "pinpoint strikes" for you.

                      How then could they "keep up with the tanks"? Do you read yourself from the outside?
                      A tank offensive is not a 20 meter spurt. Sometimes it was necessary to overcome kilometers in the deployed formation on the ground. Run after the tank, moving at least at a speed of XNUMX km / h, and I'll look at you.
                      And where did you see massive artillery ambushes? In films about the war?
                      My grandfather’s tank was knocked out twice during the fighting. Both times - anti-tank artillery from an ambush. Defending Tula, he himself stopped the advance of German armored vehicles with the same flank attack from an ambush, this time with a tank. This is so, for example. This will probably surprise you, but the territory of the former USSR, and Russia in particular, is not a level table, not a desert in Iraq or Syria, where a tank or anti-tank gun can be found for kilometers. Although, for fans of frontal attacks, what you seem to be, it does not matter.
                      1. overb
                        overb 21 May 2016 19: 53
                        -1
                        Quote: Verdun
                        What trucks can be on the offensive? What are you talking about?

                        Yes, all about the same. In hiking orders, it just can be. How are your horses. Because in chains that trucks that horses can not be.
                        Quote: Verdun
                        Do you even imagine the density of fire in the zone of offensive battles on the same Kursk Bulge? These are not "pinpoint strikes" for you.

                        Have you decided to "translate the arrows"? Not worth it.
                        Quote: Verdun
                        Sometimes it was necessary to overcome kilometers in the deployed formation on the ground. Run after the tank, moving at least at a speed of 20 km / h, and I'll look at you.

                        Those. Do you want to tell me a story here right now that cavalrymen on horseback in an attack must accompany tanks? Are you in yourself?
                        Quote: Verdun
                        ambush anti-tank artillery.

                        Why did the Germans need ambushes? Their anti-tank artillery was able to shoot Soviet tanks head-on from safe distances. In addition to the ancient 37 mm guns, of course. But they also did not need to arrange ambushes, because T-34/76 were mostly blind.
                        Quote: Verdun
                        Although, for fans of frontal attacks, what you seem to be, it does not matter.

                        Ek, you put everything on the shelves. Instantly.
                        Whatever it was, but a supporter of cavalry attacks on horseback during the Second World War, like you, I am not.
                      2. svp67
                        svp67 21 May 2016 20: 07
                        0
                        Quote: overb
                        Why did the Germans need ambushes?

                        Do you even imagine what a battle is all the more with tanks?
                        Quote: overb
                        Their anti-tank artillery was able to shoot Soviet tanks head-on from safe distances.

                        Yeah, it had and it "had" ... It is still necessary to get into the tank. He does not stand still, he moves. And the fact that the German PTO, due to the unsuccessful design of the openers, after a couple of shots were buried in the ground so that they had to be pulled off by a tractor from the spot, did you hear?
                        What threatened the VET in a head-on collision with tanks






                      3. overb
                        overb 21 May 2016 20: 34
                        -1
                        Quote: svp67
                        Do you even imagine what a battle is all the more with tanks?

                        And I also advise you to imagine this.
                        German PaK40 APCBC shell pierced the T-34 in the forehead from 1000-1500 m. Tankers in the T-34, with its blindness, most likely did not have time to see these guns. Therefore, the Germans had no need to play ambushes.
                        But who needed to play them was the Soviet anti-tankers. Because funny farts (sorry, great and legendary) ZIS-3 with their ancient APC shell since the end of 1942. German Pz.KpfW.IV could have penetrated into the forehead, except that almost at point blank range. The situation became critical since the summer of 1943, after the advent of Pz.KpfW.V. ZIS-3 didn’t even punch him in the forehead. Therefore, Soviet tankers were FORCED to arrange various ambushes, flirting suicide batteries, etc.
                        Quote: svp67
                        And the fact that the German technical and vocational schools, because of the unsuccessful design of the openers after a couple of shots, were buried in the ground so that you had to pull them off the tractor from the place you heard?

                        They still have a coloring coloring was not glamorous.
                        Don't make up any nonsense in the form of "arguments". The massive German PaK40 at a distance of 1000 m hit the same armor by 60% (!!!) more than the Soviet three-inch. At the same time, the Pz.KpfW.IV and T-34/85 were equipped with tank analogues of these guns. The Pz.KpfW.V cannon hit more than 2 times more armor (210%). And even the "great and terrible" 85mm S-53 of the T-34/85 tank (1944) hit only 3,5% more than the Pz.KpfW.IV cannon (1942). And the Pz.KpfW.V cannon (1943) still hit 53% more than the C-26.
                        This was the "ratio of technology".
                        Quote: svp67
                        What threatened the VET in a head-on collision with tanks

                        You are trying in vain to embarrass me with "scary pictures". Better look at the figure of the total losses of the Red Army tanks. Fuck you. The Germans, probably, in total, had less anti-tank guns than they shot tanks and self-propelled guns.
                      4. svp67
                        svp67 21 May 2016 20: 48
                        +2
                        Quote: overb
                        And I also advise you to imagine this.

                        I believe they were called "Farewell Homeland" for a reason.
                        Quote: overb
                        German PaK40 APCBC projectile pierced the T-34 in the forehead from 1000-1500 m.

                        In theory and at the training ground, in battle this is not always the case.
                        Quote: overb
                        Therefore, the Germans had no need to play ambushes.

                        Yeah, the storyteller ... Meli Emelya is your week.
                        Quote: overb
                        Therefore, Soviet tankers were FORCED to arrange various ambushes, flirting suicide batteries, etc.

                        An interesting story about the ZiS-3 and the transition to tanks.
                        Quote: overb
                        They still have a coloring coloring was not glamorous.

                        How is it not polite of them .. Ay yai yai ... Not good.
                        Quote: overb
                        Don't make up any nonsense in the form of "arguments".

                        You will thoroughly study this materiel, and not sprinkle it with "naked tsyfir".
                        Quote: overb
                        This was the "ratio of technology".

                        And who is challenging the figures given to you? it remains only to clarify the balance of forces. What and who had more? The Germans have "super guns" or the Russians have "so-so guns". And who won that war as a result.
                        Quote: overb
                        Better look at the figure of the total losses of the Red Army tanks. Ofigete.

                        No, I’m not crazy, because I saw them, but I advise you to see the numbers of how many tanks were restored in the front-line workshops and on the battlefield, and then compare them with the German ones. I assure you, you go nuts even more.
                      5. overb
                        overb 21 May 2016 21: 20
                        -3
                        Quote: svp67
                        In theory and at the training ground, in battle this is not always the case.

                        Always do not hesitate.
                        Quote: svp67
                        An interesting story about the ZiS-3 and the transition to tanks.

                        Of course, anti-tankers, not tankers.
                        Quote: svp67
                        You will thoroughly study this materiel, and not sprinkle it with "naked tsyfir".

                        So you will learn. Especially for the "terrible defect PaK40".
                        Quote: svp67
                        it remains only to clarify the balance of forces. What and who had more? The Germans have "super guns" or the Russians have "so-so guns".

                        Do not forget to compare combat losses. So, just in case.
                        Quote: svp67
                        And who, as a result, won that war.

                        Many who. For example, Venezuela and Haiti. And also, you will probably be surprised, Bulgaria, Hungary, Italy, Romania, Finland.
                        As for the "global winners", there are 4 countries, including France. So your question is so difficult.
                        Quote: svp67
                        how many tanks were restored in the front-line workshops and on the battlefield

                        And the restored tanks, are those on which they went unsuccessfully for a picnic? Or mushrooms in the forest? If you don’t want to, compare the number of tanks and self-propelled guns completely lost and ofigite.
                        Do not want to go nuts, stop challenging the obvious.
                    2. will you
                      will you 27 May 2016 18: 53
                      0
                      Quote: overb

                      German PaK40

                      They were not in 41 until November from the word completely
                      In 1942, a gradual rearmament of all Wehrmacht anti-tank artillery units began on the Pak 40, which was finally completed by the beginning of 1943.
                      so the calculations of the beater sisters by the way, by the way, of our magpies, by the middle of 42, also had to play cat and mouse

                      Quote: overb
                      funny farts (sorry, great and legendary) ZIS-3 with their ancient shell

                      probably it’s stupid to call a cannon a gun that almost 2 years of war pierced everything that moves with the Germans in any projection

                      and on t4 it was not PaK40 at all, but a short cigarette butt
                    3. verboo
                      verboo 27 May 2016 23: 15
                      -1
                      And also PaK38. And also PaK97 / 38. And also PaK181 (f). Incidentally, the Germans had more of them at the beginning of the Second World War than their PaK38. And also PaК36 (t). And also PaK M37 (t). Do not worry about the Germans, in addition to the beater, they still had enough other means of VET.
                      Quote: misin
                      probably it’s stupid to call a cannon a gun that almost 2 years of war pierced everything that moves with the Germans in any projection

                      For starters, about 1,5. In addition, the three-inch version was too large and noticeable on the battlefield. ZIS-3 with DT slightly corrected the situation. But not too radical.
                      In addition, the war in Europe (WWII phase) lasted almost 4 years. What about the remaining 2,5 years?
                      Quote: misin
                      and on t4 it was not PaK40 at all, but a short cigarette butt

                      And on the Pz.KpfW.III stood at the time when they were "infantry tanks". But from the moment the Pz.KpfW.IV became the main tank of the Panzerwaffe (medium at the time), the KwK40 immediately took its place in the turret.
                      But this cannot be said about the T-34/76. From the "infantry tanks" to the main (medium) tanks, he migrated without any changes. And he was in this role, did not sew the tail of the mare.
                      But then he was appointed legendary. In general, the Bolsheviks' habit of "chatting up the problem", i.e. Appointing frankly unsuccessful weapons as legendary is striking. There were great specialists in this area. Modern PR specialists learn and learn from them.
            3. The comment was deleted.
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 21 May 2016 21: 01
    -4
    "In what happened near Prokhorovka, there is more chance than design"

    There was no accident in the battle of Prokhorovka, not one
    on the other hand.
    There was a massive offensive of Soviet tanks on anti-tank
    German defense. There was no oncoming battle.
    The Germans broke through the defenses in the south of the Kursk ledge, they knew
    that the tank army is going to liquidate the breakthrough and dug in.
    Having organized the defense, as usual, from 88 mm anti-aircraft guns, and their tanks
    only helped out of ambushes.
  • overb
    overb 21 May 2016 00: 45
    -5
    “A large number of Russian T-34 tanks were thrown into battle, causing great losses to our tanks. The superiority of the material part of our tank forces, which has taken place so far, has been lost and now has passed to the enemy. Thus, the prospects for quick and continuous success disappeared ”

    No, after all, Guderian was incredibly clever. Apparently he assumed that they could be sent to a concentration camp. Therefore, just in case, I prepared an excuse in the form of a "terrible T-34". Something before October 1941, the T-34 passed among the Germans not at all as a "terrible tank", but as a "funny Mickey Mouse".
    I wrote about this new situation for us in my report to the command of the army group, in which I outlined in detail the advantages of the T-34 tank compared to our T-IV tank,

    And who doubted? He covered his ass in advance, there is no doubt about it. Dodger.
    Offers of front-line officers to produce exactly the same tanks as the T-34

    But this is pure memoirial lies. However, this is precisely what Guderian is mainly famous for. Enchantingly deceitful and imaginative memoirs. Sorry, Rommel did not live. There would be two boots, a pair of losers losers.
    and the impossibility of releasing with the required speed the most important parts of the T-34, especially the aluminum diesel engine.

    Enchanting. The Germans, the inventors of the diesel engine, producing engines for every taste, could not make tank diesel. Guderian, as usual, burns not childishly.
    How was created T-34

    Very simple. They took the ancient tank Christie. Podshamanili him under the production capabilities of dead Soviet industry. Those. The gearbox is a simple tractor, clutches from the simplest tractor, the suspension is more primitive than the primitive, etc.
    At first the tank was with removable tracks. But then he became heavy and could no longer move on wheels, the bandages crumbled. So the tracks stopped being removable.
    At first, the tank was "operational" (aka cruising, aka cavalry in other countries). Then "castling" matured, which was carried out extremely primitively. Instead of a forty-five, a three-inch tank was inserted into the turret of the operational tank. After that, the tank was called "infantry" (infantry support). There was very little space in the tower, but this did not bother the ingenious designers, it was there after all. So, they had to fight. The rest is not their problem.
    By the way, if the tank remained "infantry", then at the very least it would be possible to fight on it. But the trouble was that after the beginning of the Second World War, all the pre-war "concepts" burst at once, like a soap bubble. And the T-34/76 suddenly, somehow unexpectedly for everyone, became something of an MBT. But this was already a disaster, for this he was absolutely not suitable. But that's another topic.
    In the late 20s, alloy steel was not smelted in the USSR.

    Why? Did the Bolsheviks hang all the "enemies" at the Izhora and Obukhov factories? Somehow under the tsar, albeit with a slight delay, the production of more or less modern armor was mastered.
    1. overb
      overb 21 May 2016 00: 46
      -7
      Together with a team of young designers, Koshkin managed to develop the design of the tank, which later received the name T-34.

      And then. Great experience was people. As many as 3 years have passed since the end of the Soviet educational program.
      Maybe enough to call Koshkin a constructor? This is a young specialist, speaking in a later language, was.
      Stalin especially liked the T-34 tank, and he called it the "first swallow."

      He was a great "specialist" in all matters. It was through his efforts that the country suffered for 4 years with the T-34, three-inch and IL-2. and many more with what. Strange, as soon as she didn’t grunt.
      Meanwhile, the transition to mass production of tanks revealed a number of unforeseen difficulties

      The stump is clear. "Ingenious designers", they did not even think to consult with technologists. This was especially true of someone named Grabin.
      The father explained: “The old tower, welded from individual parts, has vulnerabilities - welds. The new tower is a monolith, it is equally strong.

      Cast parts, they are like a double edged sword. The seams are stronger because They are not here. But the turret details themselves are weaker, due to the weaker structure of the armor. For equal strength they were made thicker. And this is overweight and less internal volume. For example, when switching to cast towers, the T-50 crew was reduced by 1 person (commander), he did not have enough space inside.
      However, as my father recalled, then such work in the rear was more likely the rule than the exception.

      Wow, it was real hard labor, not labor. I read the memories of a turner. At 15, he came to the factory when the war began. For 3,5 years he had 2 or 3 days off. There were no more days off. The working day lasted from 12 to 18 hours. For being late for work, at first they were fined, and again they could imprison them. Therefore, in the winter they didn’t go home, they slept at the factory. For a 12-hour shift, some bourd was fed once in the dining room. For a monthly salary, it was possible to buy about 2 kg of black bread on the market. It was impossible to quit the factory. That was such a labor.
      The Germans continued to strike with projectiles at the junction between the tower and the hull, exactly following the instructions. They probably wondered why their shots did not bring the desired result.

      What kind of a visionary is he writing? Bullshit.
      Guderian wrote that "the new authority to expand the production of tanks, granted to the Minister of Armaments A. Speer, testified to the growing alarm in connection with the decreasing combat power of the German armored forces in the face of the constantly increasing production of the old but beautiful Russian T-34 tank"

      No, still Guderian read, this is not to respect yourself. It is better to read the leaflet about plastic windows, there will be more sense.
      According to Marshal A.M. Vasilevsky, "the almost two-month Battle of Kursk ended with a convincing victory for the Soviet Armed Forces"

      You can say what you want. In this case, it is advisable not to be interested in losses. Otherwise, the puzzle will not work out.
      1. overb
        overb 21 May 2016 00: 47
        -4
        Guderian stated: “As a result of the failure of the Citadel offensive, we suffered a decisive defeat. The armored forces, replenished with such great difficulty, due to large losses in people and equipment, were put out of action for a long time. Their timely restoration to conduct defensive actions on The Eastern Front, as well as to organize the defense in the West in case of a landing which the Allies threatened to land next spring, was called into question. Needless to say, the Russians hurried to use their success. there were no more calm days on the Eastern Front. The initiative was completely transferred to the enemy. "

        Of course, such "trifles" as the opening of a second front in Europe in the summer of 1943. and as a result of this, the surrender of Italy in the autumn of the same year, the dreamer Guderian did not notice. It happens.
        1. will you
          will you 27 May 2016 19: 26
          0
          And how many divisions were transferred from the eastern front to the western?
          1. verboo
            verboo 27 May 2016 23: 17
            0
            Quote: misin
            And how many divisions were transferred from the eastern front to the western?

            Transferred. For example, Leibstandart AG. But even more were not brought into battle, for example, the SS Panzer Corps. We decided to save strength, because offensive, this is a loss.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Verdun
        Verdun 21 May 2016 10: 25
        +1
        Together with a team of young designers, Koshkin managed to develop the design of the tank, which later received the name T-34.

        And then. Great experience was people. As many as 3 years have passed since the end of the Soviet educational program.
        Maybe enough to call Koshkin a constructor?
        At the time of the creation of the AK-47, Kalashnikov was also a novice designer. However, this did not prevent him from creating a wonderful weapon.
        1. overb
          overb 21 May 2016 10: 47
          -6
          Quote: Verdun
          At the time of the creation of the AK-47, Kalashnikov was also a novice designer. However, this did not prevent him from creating a wonderful weapon.

          Oh him.
          Oh, create.
          Oh, beautiful.
        2. The comment was deleted.
    2. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 21 May 2016 06: 13
      +1
      "No, after all, Guderian was incredibly clever. Apparently he assumed that they could be sent to a concentration camp."
      This is how gossip is born, theories are sucked from the finger and history is rewritten. Guderian is a coward, and until October the Germans had no losses from the T-34. Yes, really funny. And sad from the meanness, the so-called people.
      1. overb
        overb 24 May 2016 21: 32
        +1
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        Guderian is a coward, and until October the Germans had no losses from the T-34.

        Where did you get such sensational information? Have they invented or suggested someone?
  • altel
    altel 21 May 2016 01: 46
    -1
    For the Battle of Kursk, the Germans put into operation new equipment; "Tigers, Panthers", Their 75-mm and 88-mm tank guns had a projectile speed of 925-1100 meters per second, and the range of a direct shot was 1,5-2,5 km , exceeding the 76-mm T-34 F-34 cannon by 2,5 times and in combination with Zeiss optics left no chance for our tankers to survive in duels. The main German T-4 tank received a 75-mm 48-caliber gun, and the medium tank T-3s installed 50-mm guns with a length of 42 and 60 calibers. The artillery regiments of the SS tank divisions included divisions of self-propelled 150-mm howitzers "Hummel" and 105-mm howitzers "Vespe", which at that time were superior to our self-propelled guns (SU -76 and SU-122) .SU-122 and SU-152 had separate loading and, as a result, a low rate of fire. In anti-tank divisions, in addition to towed guns, there were a significant number of 75-mm self-propelled guns "Marder-2" and equipped with captured 76,2- mm anti-tank self-propelled guns "Marder-3". The "old friends" - 75-mm self-propelled assault guns (StuG-3) and 105-mm self-propelled nye assault howitzers (StuG-42).". Southwest of Prokhorovka, a battle took place between the main forces of the 5th Guards Tank Army and the 2nd SS Panzer Corps. Rotmistrov's 5th Panzer Army suffered huge losses that day. Vatutin had no reserves that day and he asks Stalin had 3 more corps (he had already received 11 corps to be reinforced by July 7) .In the Russian new military encyclopedia of 1999, for the first time, it was officially recognized that the 5th Guards Tank Army suffered the following heavy losses (about 3 thousand people killed and wounded, tanks and self-propelled guns 350 units were irrevocably lost, and 450 units were damaged). Rotmistrov himself noted that the wide field turned out to be cramped for such a number of tanks. Before the battle of Prokhorovka on July 12, according to the reports of the brigade commanders, there were 860 combat-ready tanks in its units, including 42 sau ..In the second SS corps there were about 340-345 tanks, assault guns and self-propelled guns. The Germans were expecting a blow from the 5-tank army. In the first echelon of our troops, 40% were light T-70s and self-propelled 76-mm guns based on these tanks and could they arefight on an equal footing only with the tanks of the Germans T-3. Meanwhile, only the T-4 the Germans in the opposing SS units had almost half, which surpassed our main T-34s in firing range and penetration. In the same place, the Germans pushed forward three anti-aircraft batteries of 88-mm guns, and created a density of anti-aircraft guns of about 40 guns per km of the front. We also need to add 130-140 field guns, which also destroyed our advancing tanks. The Germans stopped advancing and took up defenses, waiting for blow, this was the reason for the large losses of the Red Army near Prokhorovka, and for this our commanders and historians came up with a "counter tank battle" after the war after the war. "-JV Stalin, when he learned about our losses, was furious: after all My tank army was intended according to the plan of the Headquarters to strike at Kharkov. And then again it had to be replenished. Verkhovny decided to remove me and put me on trial. This was told to me by Vasilevsky, who made a report to Stalin .. "(from the memoirs of P. Rotmistrov). Stalin, seeing Rotmistrov, said to him, "Why did you ... burn the army in a day!?" the party of comrade G.M. Malenkov. The materials of Malenkov's commission on the Voronezh Front are kept in the Presidential Archives. The materials are still considered secret. Only the conclusion of the commission is known: the fighting of the 5th Guards. tank army on July 12, 1943 near Prokhorovka, she called "a model of an unsuccessful operation."
  • Bort radist
    Bort radist 21 May 2016 05: 49
    +1
    Quote: veteran66
    along with the introduction of the ZiS-2 anti-tank defense system, in the 41st it was withdrawn from service as having excessive armor penetration (in fact, due to the huge number of barrels defective due to machine imperfections)

    Quote: overb
    We made 4 experimental tanks, this is the whole "series" of 1943. ended.

    Quote: Alf
    And it's not true

    Which confirms that the creation of technology is a complex process, the struggle of technologies, personalities, worldviews, ... The model of technology and the name of the designer are just the visible part of the iceberg.
  • Verdun
    Verdun 21 May 2016 15: 15
    0
    Quote: overb
    No, after all, Guderian was incredibly clever. Apparently he assumed that they could be sent to a concentration camp. Therefore, just in case, I prepared an excuse in the form of a "terrible T-34". Something before October 1941 the T-34 passed among the Germans not at all as a "terrible tank", but as a "funny Mickey Mouse"

    The logic of such comments is simply amazing! If we continue to develop a similar idea further. Guderian was a coward, and received all his ranks and awards exclusively for his beautiful eyes. At the same time, most of the German military leaders were insidious and near-minded villains, who had prepared excuses in the event of defeat even before the start of the Second World War. One can only wonder why Poland and France surrendered and why the British Expeditionary Force pulled for the English Channel ?!
    1. overb
      overb 21 May 2016 15: 36
      -5
      Quote: Verdun
      If we continue to develop such a thought further

      You do not continue, you will not succeed.
      Quote: Verdun
      Guderian was a coward, and received all his ranks and awards exclusively for beautiful eyes.

      For dexterity. Do you know such a thing as "dodger"? You can also use the word "careerist". This is exactly what the vaunted Guderian really was.
      The competition was Rommel, but he died early.
      Quote: Verdun
      At the same time, the majority of German military leaders were insidious and near-minded villains

      About insidious, I don't know, but narrow-minded, it's a fact. For the Germans, historically, it is difficult with the "flight of thought". Incl. and military. Therefore, they never had commanders at all. They often write that the mentality is like this. I disagree, it's not about mentality, it's about the structure of society. Although, such a structure of society, again, most likely from the mentality.
      Quote: Verdun
      even before the start of the Second World War prepared an excuse in case of defeat

      There were quite a few such "cover-ups". One of them is Guderian. This is why his "fantasy memoir" is so popular among a certain category. Flatter the pride of narrow-minded individuals.
      Quote: Verdun
      One can only wonder why Poland and France surrendered and why the British Expeditionary Force pulled for the English Channel ?!

      What is surprising there?
      Poland simply could not, although it really wanted to.
      France did not want to, although she could.
      Britain did not plan to "lay" its soldiers from the very beginning. For this she had the Poles prepared, and then the French. But it turned out a little differently.
  • Logos
    Logos 22 May 2016 20: 00
    0
    The designers were confused, by the way, not with aversion to imitation, but with the impossibility of releasing with the required speed the most important parts of the T-34, especially the aluminum diesel engine

    The designers were rather embarrassed by the diesel itself. Germany, with its fuel shortage and the kriegsmarine's need for diesel fuel, was not able to supply tank military with diesel, and therefore gasoline engines were preferred. The situation in the USSR was exactly the opposite - there was a lot of oil, but the refining capacities for the production of high-quality gasoline were few, because gasoline was scarce than diesel, which predetermined the popularity of the diesel engine (and the fleet spent relatively little fuel - in the Second World War the Soviet fleet especially did not show and the military was not a priority kind at all)

    The Americans, by the way, had the same problem as the Germans. In the war in the Pacific, the American fleet "devoured" all supplies of diesel fuel, and therefore a gasoline engine was installed on the Sherman. And a small batch of "Shermans" with diesel engines was sent to the USSR, tk. the American army abandoned these tanks due to supply difficulties
  • Torins
    Torins 23 May 2016 23: 59
    0
    Confused by the described time frame for creating tanks, there are inconsistencies, but in the article about the quality of steel this is not critical) And by the way the T-34 as far as I remember at the beginning of the war, the army was 800 with something, but checking this information at night looking too lazy . So I could be wrong)
    1. will you
      will you 27 May 2016 19: 30
      +1
      1100 excluding 150 issued in June
  • Torins
    Torins 24 May 2016 00: 09
    0
    Do not forget to compare combat losses. So, just in case.

    Irretrievable combat losses were 1 to 1.3, which is not critical, especially considering that the Germans spent much more time on the defensive during the war than ours, and the defender, as you know, must kill three enemies for one of his dead. hi
    1. overb
      overb 24 May 2016 01: 04
      -1
      Quote: Torins
      The combat irreparable loss was 1 to 1.3, which is not critical

      The farther into the forest, the thicker the partisans. Apparently soon we will hear that the German tank losses were 10, or even 100 times higher than the Soviet ones.
      One small question, why 1 in 1,3? How can this be, if up to Oct. 1943 in the USSR, "suicide tanks" were produced (T-60/70, 3348 units in 1943), and up to 2 plg. 1944 "tanks", which already in 1943. in fact, there were no guns (T-34/76, in 1943, for some reason they were made as many as 15833 pieces and another 3976 pieces in 1944)? Where did they all go?
      How could this be if the tanks, which at least something could penetrate the Germans in 1943. (and even at the end of the year) only 254 units were produced. Against 5428 pcs. the Germans. And this is not counting the German: 3042 assault guns (in the USSR the self-propelled horror of the SU-76 was so called, it makes no sense to give figures for their release) and 1685 self-propelled anti-aircraft guns (in the USSR they were not made at all).
      True, Germany in 1943. made only 90 "tank destroyers" (but Ferdinand with PaK43), and the USSR 760 (SU-85).
      You can still recall the transported artillery. In 1943 the Germans made 9864 guns (various, including 862 completely freaky PaK43), and the USSR 1855 guns (ZIS-2 arr. 1943).
      In 1944 the situation of the USSR with self-propelled artillery of all kinds (including tanks) became noticeably better. But the advantage was also far away, and in the transported artillery there remained about the same failure. So, it is not clear where 1 to 1,3 came from.
      In addition, let us recall more than 27 thousand tanks of the Red Army 1941 (against 3 thousand German ones). Also gone somewhere, on Jan 1. 1942 there were very few tanks in the Red Army. Although the Red Army was defending itself, and, in your words, the losses should have been 1 to 3.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. will you
      will you 27 May 2016 19: 29
      +1
      The combat irreparable loss was 1 to 1.3,

      this is the wrong number
  • Torins
    Torins 28 May 2016 17: 54
    0
    Quote: overb
    Quote: Torins
    The combat irreparable loss was 1 to 1.3, which is not critical

    The farther into the forest, the thicker the partisans. Apparently soon we will hear that the German tank losses were 10, or even 100 times higher than the Soviet ones.
    One small question, why 1 in 1,3? How can this be, if up to Oct. 1943 in the USSR, "suicide tanks" were produced (T-60/70, 3348 units in 1943), and up to 2 plg. 1944 "tanks", which already in 1943. in fact, there were no guns (T-34/76, in 1943, for some reason they were made as many as 15833 pieces and another 3976 pieces in 1944)? Where did they all go?
    How could this be if the tanks, which at least something could penetrate the Germans in 1943. (and even at the end of the year) only 254 units were produced. Against 5428 pcs. the Germans. And this is not counting the German: 3042 assault guns (in the USSR the self-propelled horror of the SU-76 was so called, it makes no sense to give figures for their release) and 1685 self-propelled anti-aircraft guns (in the USSR they were not made at all).
    True, Germany in 1943. made only 90 "tank destroyers" (but Ferdinand with PaK43), and the USSR 760 (SU-85).
    You can still recall the transported artillery. In 1943 the Germans made 9864 guns (various, including 862 completely freaky PaK43), and the USSR 1855 guns (ZIS-2 arr. 1943).
    In 1944 the situation of the USSR with self-propelled artillery of all kinds (including tanks) became noticeably better. But the advantage was also far away, and in the transported artillery there remained about the same failure. So, it is not clear where 1 to 1,3 came from.
    In addition, let us recall more than 27 thousand tanks of the Red Army 1941 (against 3 thousand German ones). Also gone somewhere, on Jan 1. 1942 there were very few tanks in the Red Army. Although the Red Army was defending itself, and, in your words, the losses should have been 1 to 3.

    I’m not talking about tank losses, but losses in people. The armored forces of the Wehrmacht and the USSR had different tasks and a different overall strategy. And as the war showed, the Soviet strategy was much better. German engineers produced tanks incompatible with the depletion war they waged. For which they paid.
    1. verboo
      verboo 28 May 2016 18: 33
      -1
      Quote: Torins
      I’m not talking about tank losses, but losses in people.

      Are you going to seriously think about losses in people 1 to 1,3? Then I'm with you out of the way. The demographic losses of the military of Germany and the USSR, calculated by the card index method, are treated as 1: 3,5. The demographic losses of the military of Germany and the USSR, calculated by the balance method, are treated as 1: 2,9. And the Bolsheviks invented fairy tales about 1 to 1,3. They were generally great inventors.
      Quote: Torins
      The armored forces of the Wehrmacht and the USSR had different tasks

      The same types of troops in different countries of the world have the same tasks.
      Quote: Torins
      And as the war showed, the Soviet strategy was much better.

      Yes? What is it? I just see that the Soviet strategy was not suited to hell (see the corresponding losses).
      Quote: Torins
      produced tanks incompatible with the depletion war they waged

      Where did this "revelation" come from? Good tanks were produced by the Germans. Unlike many.
      Quote: Torins
      For which they paid.

      They paid for something else. Tanks have nothing to do with it.
  • beeper
    beeper 13 November 2016 23: 18
    +1
    I tried to remember the long narrow viewing slot in the T-34 or KV hull and could not, it was in the IS-2 frontal armor (with a straightened nose), and the T-44 at the end of the war ... hulls of light tanks?
    The history of the creation of the "T-34" began even before the arrival of the confectioner - "party thousander" at the KhPZ and continued happily after the "departure", since the remaining designers coped with their work and without the party "pumping" - the job of their teachers, repressed military engineers. ... - the founders of the concept and design of the "thirty-four", now headed by a talented tank Designer-Alexander Alexandrovich Morozov, he is also the Chief Designer of the epoch-making "T-54" and "T-64", and conceived, but never built under his life, a tank with an uninhabited tower "object 477" ("Hammer") - the forerunner of the "Armata", which predetermined the entire course of post-war tank building up to the present day!
    About Stalin, Guderian and the Battle of Kursk, the article is written very pastorally ... IMHO
    Threat I noticed in someone's "expert" comments that the Nazis called our "T-34" "Mickey Mouse" - this is not so! wink They called the light tank "BT-7M" "Mickey Mouse", because of the two oval turret hatches, which in the open position resembled the ears of this cartoon mouse!