Military Review

Foreign tanks in the army of the USSR

360
Foreign tanks in the army of the USSR



Deliveries of armored vehicles to the USSR began in the fall of 1941. On September 3, Stalin sent a letter to Churchill, the content of which the prime minister had brought to President Roosevelt. Stalin’s message spoke of a deadly threat looming over the Soviet Union, which could only be removed by opening a second front and urgently sending 30 tons of aluminum to the USSR, as well as at least 000 aircraft and 400 tanks monthly. In accordance with the First (Moscow) Protocol, the United States and Great Britain pledged to supply 4500 tanks and 1800 tankettes within nine months.

Armor is strong

The first in the USSR in October 1941 with the convoy PQ-1 were the English Matilda. The British adopted the infantry tank Mk II Matilda on the eve of the Second World War, it was most widely used in North Africa and on the Soviet-German front. This 27 ton machine was protected by a 78-mm frontal armor and armed with an 42-mm cannon. Depending on the modification, two 6-cylinder AES or Leyland diesel engines were installed in tanks with a total power of 174 or 190 hp, the maximum speed reached 24 km / h - more for an infantry direct support vehicle and was not required.

For the 1941-1942, the Matilda was the least vulnerable machine, surpassing our KB in this respect: only shells of the German 88-mm anti-aircraft guns could "take" it, but not tank and anti-tank guns. The “Matilda” cannon was not inferior to our “forty-five” and, like her, until the summer of 1942, German tanks of all types were struck.

The power plant and the Matilda planetary gearbox were very reliable, but the well-protected undercarriage was difficult. It worked perfectly on flat solid ground, but it was quickly breaking down on Russian roads. The small volume of the three-seat turret and the small diameter of the turret charm did not allow the artillery system of a larger caliber to be placed in it, which predetermined the fate of the Matilda: by the 1943, it was no longer used in the combat units of the British army. Until August, 1943 "Matild" was released by 2987, of which the British delivered 1084 to the USSR.


Cromwell MK VII
The story of the lend-lease armored vehicles would be incomplete, if not to mention a few cars sent specifically for testing. These are five American tanks М5, two М24 "Chaffee" and one М26 "General Pershing", as well as six British "Cromwell". Add 115 armored repair and recovery vehicles M31, created on the basis of the medium tank M3, and 25 of the Valentine Bridalleader roadblocks.

Tank crew favorite

The McI Valentine was also an infantry tank. By weight (16 t), he rather belonged to light ones, although by thickness of armor (65 mm) exceeded other heavy machines. Its maximum speed was the same as that of the “Matilda”, which was explained by a less powerful engine. The Valentine I installed a carburetor engine with 135 horsepower, while the rest of the modifications were diesel engines AES and GMC with 131, 138 and 165 hp engines.

Despite the increase in power, the dynamic characteristics of the machine did not change, since its mass increased: starting with Valentine VIII instead of 40-mm they put 57-mm cannon, and on Valentine XI - with a gun of 75 mm.

A special feature of this tank was the lack of skeletons to build the hull and turret; Bronelists processed by templates and sizes so that they mutually closed. When assembling the housing separate units joined by bolts and rivets. In contrast to the "Matilde", the chassis of "Valentine" was not booked: moreover, the brake drums were located outside the body, which adversely affected their survivability. The drawback was the dense layout of the fighting compartment, especially for vehicles with a three-seat tower models III and V.

British and 2394 Canadian Valentines were sent to the Soviet Union; in the latter, instead of the English coaxial 1388-mm BESA machine gun, the American 7,92-mm Browning М7,62А1914 was installed. Machines were supplied with 1- and 40-mm guns. The Soviet tankmen "Valentine" was the most popular of British tanks. Suffice it to say that in 57 — 1944, its production was preserved solely for the satisfaction of Soviet applications.


The crew of the British medium tank Mk II Matilda II,
delivered in the USSR under a lend-lease. Bryansk front, summer 1942 of the year.

Namesake premiere

The heavy infantry tank Mk IV Churchill is better known from the phrase allegedly said by the legendary English prime minister: “The tank that bears my name has more flaws than me.” Yes, his device was very archaic: in order to increase the volume of the hull, the designers of the Vauxhall motors company placed the undercarriage elements under the hull, the caterpillar skirted it, like those of the First World War period.

But they achieved this goal: in the power compartment they installed a Bedford 12-cylinder horizontal engine with an 350 horsepower, and thanks to a wide sheet sheet, they used a tower with 57-mm (starting with Churchill III) and then with 75-mm cannons On the Churchill I and Churchill II, an 40-mm gun was installed, which was not enough for a heavy tank, so an 76-mm howitzer was also mounted in the front plate. The 152-ton machine protected by 40-mm armor developed speed to 25 km / h.

Reliable, in general, the undercarriage had significant drawbacks: the high frontal branch of the caterpillar was vulnerable to artillery fire, and the caterpillar itself often wedged the tower. However, until the end of the war, Churchilli 5460 was released. In the 1942 — 1943 in the USSR, the 301 tank III and IV were installed, differing only in the method of manufacturing the tower. Perhaps they sent several Churchill-Crocodile flame-thrower tanks (such a machine is on display at the Museum of armored vehicles in Kubinka).


A company of American tanks MNNXX "General Lee",
supplied in the USSR under the Lend-Lease, advances to the leading edge of the defense of the Soviet 6-th Guards Army. July 1943 of the year.

A typical drawback of British infantry tanks, typical of Soviet tanks of the first period of the war (excluding KB), was a small amount of combat compartment and the inability of the undercarriage to Russian conditions. In general, these were reliable vehicles, superior to the German ones in terms of armor protection, and capable of effectively fighting them in terms of armor until the Tigers and Panthers appeared on the battlefield.

Full speed ahead on good gasoline!


The first American tanks that arrived in the Soviet Union under the Lend-Lease program were the lightweight M3 General Stuart and the average M3 General Lee, better known as the M3 and M3. The M3 is deservedly considered the best light tank of World War II. The British tankers who fought in North Africa forgave him both the weak armament and the fire hazard of the aircraft engine, but the Stuart allowed them to constantly hang on the tail of the pursued German-Italian troops.

The tank’s dynamic performance was excellent: a Continental 7 cylinder engine with an HP 250 power. clocked up a 12-ton car to 58 km / h; tank mobility and efficiency of its running gear found amazing. That's just the 37-mm gun, which is not inferior to the Soviet 45-mm in terms of armor penetration, turned out to be rather weak by the 1942 year. Place the same more powerful artillery system did not allow the size of the tower. Nevertheless, the M3l was produced before 1943, until it was replaced by a more advanced M5, which had both advantages and disadvantages of its predecessor.

a.
Exulting Sofia residents
welcome the Soviet soldiers entering the Bulgarian capital in the tanks "Valentine", which were supplied to the USSR under the lend-lease.

In 1942-1943, the Red Army received 1665 M3 and M3A1 tanks, which, if they were not superior, then not inferior to the Soviet T-60 and T-70. With the general simplicity and reliability, the M3l showed a significant drawback: if the T-60 and T-70 automobile engines willingly consumed low-grade gasoline, the Stuart motor preferred exclusively high-octane aviation, on our fuel, it quickly failed.

Vulnerable three-story building

The other "general" - М3с - our tankers dubbed the "common grave for seven". Having met the war with virtually no tanks, the Americans often made decisions lying on the surface, because there was no time for a deep elaboration of the projects. Therefore, 75-mm cannon was placed in the side sponsor (ledge), which was much easier and faster than developing the original tower. The limited firing angle of the 75-mm gun was compensated by installing a turret with an 37-mm cannon, and a machine gun above the turret.

Thus, a 27-ton three-story mastodon with a height of 3 m was formed; The 340-strong nine-cylinder star-shaped aircraft engine Continental accelerated this multi-magnificence up to 42 km / h, so the M3s were as good as German tanks for mobility. As for weapons, for all the flaws in its layout, it remained quite powerful until 1942.

According to the British, General Lee turned out to be the strongest tank they had in North Africa: its 75-mm cannon cracked any German vehicles as a walnut, and 37-mm armor confidently held the attacks of the enemy projectiles. It was worse with the survivability of the chassis. In the 1941 — 1942, the 6258 “Lee” produced six modifications that differed only in manufacturing technology. 1386 tanks M3 arrived to us. Despite the impressive appearance, the Red Army men and commanders did not care about them what the nickname given to them meant so much.


Loading tanks "Matilda"
in one of the British ports for shipment to the USSR.

M4 Sherman and T-34: not twins, but brothers

Realizing the inborn vices of the "General Lee", the Americans began to build a medium tank with an 75-mm cannon in a tower of circular rotation. All models of this tank, which received the army name М4 General Sherman, were similar in appearance. Only the type of power plant differed, and the guns, turrets, and layout were the same. Outwardly, only the M4А1 with a molded case stood out. Baptism "Shermans" received in November 1942 of the year in North Africa near El Alaimen and proved to be the strongest in this theater of operations.

At the beginning of 1943, they appeared on the Soviet-German front. Since the US Army was considered the standard carburetor engine, the model M4A2 with two 6-cylinder diesel engines GMC 6046 power 375 hp it did not find use in it and was mainly exported to England and the USSR.

Armament and booking "Sherman" are not inferior to the T-34. The smaller tilt angle of the armor plates was compensated for by their greater thickness, and the 75-mm gun before the appearance of the Tigers and the Panthers hit German tanks of all types. However, a new gun with a caliber of 76 mm with an initial speed of an armor-piercing projectile 810 m / s allowed the Sherman to hit the enemy's heavy tanks at a distance of up to 1 km. Soviet tankers liked the Shermans with their viscous armor 50 − 75 mm thick; on 1944-1945 machines, its thickness reached 75-100 mm.


Valentine CFB Borden
If the Soviet tanks were divided into light, heavy and medium during the Second World War, the British were divided into two main classes: infantry and cruising. The infantry were designed to support infantry action and could be both light (Valentine) and heavy (Churchill). Lightly armored cruiser tanks were intended for independent action, for example, for rapid penetration into the rear of the enemy. British cruising tanks in the USSR were practically not supplied.


Patency МХNUMXА4 of the first series, equipped with rubberized tracks, was limited, and soon they were replaced with new ones - with a rubber-metal hinge (silent-block), which increased the survivability of the fingers connecting the tracks. In addition, the grouser spurs were attached to the tracks. With rubber caterpillars, the Sherman accelerated to 2 km / h.

Significant deficiencies had a suspension of this tank - the same as the M3. At the end of March, the 1945 of the year changed its structure: instead of two rollers in the cart, two paired ones were used, the buffer springs were made horizontal, rather than vertical, as before; on the carts put the shock absorbers. At the same time solved the problem of lubrication.

An important advantage of the Shermans - like other American and British tanks - was the presence of a conventional or large caliber anti-aircraft machine gun; on the Soviet EC-2 and heavy self-propelled guns they appeared only in 1944 year. A total of 10 960 tanks МNNUMXА4 were manufactured, 2 vehicles arrived in the USSR - including 4063 with 1990-mm gun and 75 - with 2073-mm gun. In May-June, the 76 of the year received several vehicles with horizontal suspension, which, as part of the 1945 mechanized corps, participated in the defeat of the Kwantung Army.

In general, the Sherman was reliable and easy to use, which was confirmed by its tests in the winter and summer of 1943. By the end of tests М4А2 passed 3050 km without serious damage. Losing T-34 in the dynamics of movement (due to a less powerful power plant) and in side stability (the higher and narrower Sherman often fell on its side), the American tank had a number of important advantages.


Mk. VII Tetrarch
Among the first British tanks to arrive on the Eastern Front was the Mk. VII Tetrarch. Production of these airborne vehicles with the original chassis began in 1940; before 1942, 171 was released, of which 20 came to the USSR. The seven-tonne Tetrarch with the 165-powerful Meadows engine developed speeds up to 64 km / h and was armed with an 40-mm gun.

In particular, one additional crew member (5 man at Sherman versus 4 man in T-34) allowed the functions of the gunner and the tank commander to be separated. The combination of these functions in the Soviet tank often led to a slow reaction to enemy fire and, as a result, to defeat in tank duels.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.popmech.ru/weapon/14094-krasnozvezdnye-inostrantsy/
360 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Uncle Murzik
    Uncle Murzik 14 May 2016 05: 53
    +2
    Of course, thanks for your help, but these "irons" except "Shermans" are difficult to call tanks!
    1. Para bellum
      Para bellum 14 May 2016 06: 29
      +1
      Yes, and "Sherman" is the same "iron": The silhouette is high, the weapon is weak (not counting the firefly). In my opinion, the Anglo-Saxons did not build anything outstanding during the war. Well, of course, thanks for the help, albeit for our gold.
      1. kalibr
        kalibr 14 May 2016 07: 53
        +39
        Again you are talking about gold ... You have already written about it here. The Lend-Lease Program did NOT PROVIDE PAYMENT for spent materials, and unspent materials had to be returned. Thus, in theory, it was free. But there was a "reverse lend-lease" - that is, we supplied (not in direct offset, but again according to what they needed) timber, fish (we essentially fed the whole of England with our fish during the war!), Tungsten, molybdenum ... Then, at the end of the war, all this should be recalculated and equalized "bash for bash". Gold was used to pay for deliveries BEFORE SIGNING THE AGREEMENT ON LAND-LEASE and purchases of what was not included in it. Tanks were included in the Lend-Lease program. We ordered a lot of things, and, of course, paid for it in gold. Well, those who carried it were not very competent in matters of international agreements, and no one educated them on them, so they went for gold. So gold had a place to be, but not for everything and not in the way many people say about it. In reality, we still owe the United States a certain amount for the supplies that we left for ourselves, albeit very little. Inflation has eaten up a ton of money!
        1. Uncle Murzik
          Uncle Murzik 14 May 2016 08: 15
          +23
          In addition, the USSR paid in gold for allied supplies. So, only one British cruiser "Edinburgh", which was sunk by German submarines in May 1942, contained 5,5 tons of precious metal.

          A significant part of the weapons and military equipment, as expected under the Lend-Lease agreement, the Soviet Union returned after the war. Having received in exchange an invoice for a round sum of $ 1300 million. Against the backdrop of the cancellation of Lend-Lease debts to other powers, this looked like an outright robbery, therefore JV Stalin demanded that the “allied debt” be recounted.


          Subsequently, the Americans were forced to admit that they were mistaken, but added interest to the total amount, and the final amount, taking into account these percentages, recognized by the USSR and the USA under the Washington agreement in 1972, amounted to 722 million greens. Of these, 48 million were paid by the United States under Leonid Brezhnev, in three equal installments in 1973, after which the payments were discontinued due to the introduction of discriminatory measures by the American side in trade with the USSR (in particular, the notorious “Jackson-Vanik Amendment” - author).

          Only in June 1990, during new negotiations between Presidents George W. Bush and M.S. Gorbachev, did the parties return to a discussion of Lend-Lease debt, during which a new deadline for final repayment of debt was established - 2030, and the remaining amount of debt - 674 million dollars.
          1. overb
            overb 20 May 2016 18: 36
            -2
            Quote: Uncle Murzik
            In addition, the USSR paid in gold for allied supplies.

            For trade deliveries. Trade did not stop even during the war. The USSR had no currency; it paid in gold.
            Quote: Uncle Murzik
            So, only on one British cruiser "Edinburgh", which was sunk by German submarines in May 1942, there were 5,5 tons of precious metal.

            This is approximately 222 million dollars at the current rate. Pennies for foreign trade.
            Quote: Uncle Murzik
            Having received in exchange an invoice for a round sum of $ 1300 million.

            He received nothing in return. Received only for what has not been returned. And it was a lot to return (i.e. bought by the USSR), because a lot of what was required by the national economy.
        2. goose
          goose 19 May 2016 10: 28
          +2
          Deliveries from the UK are in no way associated with Lend-Lease. They had to pay for them.
          Do you seriously think that it is normal to lose all the tanks and planes delivered under Lend-Lease? Actually, the part loses its combat effectiveness with a loss of 30% and is assigned to the rear. So the Lend-Lease was actually just a discount of about 25%, but it wasn’t free.
      2. Stas57
        Stas57 14 May 2016 08: 39
        +11
        Yes, and "Sherman" is the same "iron": The silhouette is high, the weapon is weak (not counting the firefly). In my opinion, the Anglo-Saxons did not build anything outstanding during the war. Well, of course, thanks for the help, although for our gold


        the first mass application is spring-summer 42.
        even the 3 brigades at the front are better than these 3 brigades in the rear.
        even such a tank provides moral and technical assistance to the infantry.

        Tall silhouette

        Like KV-2,7

        And the 75 mm M3 L / 37,5 gun is about the same as Ф34
      3. Seren
        Seren 14 May 2016 10: 19
        +8
        My grandfather, after being wounded for a bottle of alcohol, organized his re-distribution to the Sherman brigade and did not regret it after the T-34
        1. Verdun
          Verdun 14 May 2016 11: 58
          +14
          My grandfather, after being wounded for a bottle of alcohol, organized his re-distribution to the Sherman brigade and did not regret it after the T-34
          With all due respect to your grandfather, I want to note that because of the lack of spare parts and for tactical reasons, the Shermans were often in reserve.
          1. Seren
            Seren 14 May 2016 14: 34
            +4
            Therefore, already in Sherman, he was wounded a second time and was left without a leg. True, this wound saved his life, subsequently his entire battalion was destroyed near Balaton.
        2. cast iron
          cast iron 15 May 2016 12: 30
          +2
          An ordinary tanker could not organize transfers to the necessary units, even for a bottle of alcohol. You are a brazen Russophobian liar.
          1. veteran66
            veteran66 15 May 2016 18: 59
            -1
            Quote: cast iron
            The rank and file tankman could not organize transfers to the necessary units

            you don’t know Russian well ... read the memoirs of veterans of Drabkin “Soldier’s diaries” and “Trench truth” there are many examples of this. And there is nothing Russophobic about this.
      4. Kars
        Kars 14 May 2016 11: 01
        +6
        It is strange that NATO does not cover NATO tank biathlon)))



        And in anticipation of news from Thailand about the purchase of Chinese MBT)
        1. cosmos111
          cosmos111 14 May 2016 14: 01
          +5
          Quote: Kars
          It is strange that NATO does not cover NATO tank biathlon)))


          Kars, on In the forum, everything was taken apart by 11.05.16. (You must read the whole site).

          http://forum.topwar.ru/topic/4805-evropeyskiy-tankovyiy-biatlon/

          1. Kars
            Kars 14 May 2016 14: 03
            +2
            Quote: cosmos111
            Kars, in the VO-forum, everything was taken apart by 11.05.16. (You must read the whole site).

            not a forum not mine
        2. svp67
          svp67 15 May 2016 13: 36
          +2
          Quote: Kars
          And in anticipation of news from Thailand about the purchase of Chinese MBT)

          hi
          But what about the "deal of the century" to buy the "supertank" "Oplot"?
        3. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 15 May 2016 23: 49
          +2
          The Germans took 1st place, the Danes 2nd, the Poles on T72 - 3rd.
          Americans are only 4th.
          The Leopards flashed.
          1. Come on
            Come on 16 May 2016 02: 29
            0
            Poles on T-72? Maybe on the "Solid" PT-91?
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 16 May 2016 12: 25
              0
              I got it mixed up. On the converted T- there were Slovaks,
              and the Poles were on Leo-2.
              In general, 3 first places - at Leo-2.
      5. Beefeater
        Beefeater 14 May 2016 16: 17
        +3
        Quote: Para bellum
        Yes, and "Sherman" is the same "iron": The silhouette is high, the weapon is weak (not counting the firefly). In my opinion, the Anglo-Saxons did not build anything outstanding during the war. Well, of course, thanks for the help, albeit for our gold.
        Sherman above thirty-four only 20 centimeters
        And the tool is the same in effectiveness
        Yes, and for a land lease paid up to two thousandths
        Although they claimed that only 4% of all costs were worth this landliz
        1. cast iron
          cast iron 15 May 2016 12: 32
          +4
          You’ll go to Kubinka and in the real world see what a giant and tall Sherman and what a squat T-34. Compare the height of the Sherman and the T-34 - everything will immediately become clear.
          1. PHANTOM-AS
            PHANTOM-AS 15 May 2016 12: 46
            +1
            Quote: cast iron
            You’ll go to Kubinka and in the real world see what a giant and tall Sherman and what a squat T-34. Compare the height of the Sherman and the T-34 - everything will immediately become clear.

            Quote: Beefeater
            Sherman above thirty-four only 20 centimeters

            Who cares, here's a comparison of all of these on Lend-Lease:
            http://www.rushnglory.com/topic/682-ленд-лизовские-танки-в-к
            armimatilda
            w /

          2. AK64
            AK64 15 May 2016 16: 04
            -3
            You’ll go to Kubinka and in the real world see what a giant and tall Sherman and what a squat T-34. Compare the height of the Sherman and the T-34 - everything will immediately become clear.

            Why compare the height of the hull and not the tank?

            And what are the problems with height?
            According to the prewar and military view, a larger tank is an advantage: the infantry behind it will take refuge, and more infantry can take refuge.
            Yes Yes.

            As for the T-34 --- it’s not Sherman that’s high, but just the T-34 is low: as a result, the T-34 has an unacceptably small angle of lowering the gun.
            I understand that it’s hard to believe and even understand - but this is a fact.

            This marriage, by the way, was inherited by the entire post-war line of Soviet tanks. What is characteristic: the tankers constantly repeated about this angle, but the "genius" designers continued to "lower the profile" with the persistence of the bird.
            1. pimen
              pimen 15 May 2016 16: 52
              +7
              Quote: AK64
              As for the T-34 --- it’s not Sherman that’s high, but just the T-34 is low: as a result, the T-34 has an unacceptably small angle of lowering the gun.
              I understand that it’s hard to believe and even understand - but this is a fact.

              the declination angle of the tank’s gun does not depend on its height, but on the tower’s construction (mainly the distance between the breech and the roof of the tower)
              1. AK64
                AK64 15 May 2016 16: 55
                -2
                the declination angle of the tank’s gun does not depend on its height, but on the tower’s construction (mainly the distance between the breech and the roof of the tower)


                So in Soviet tanks, the height was also lowered due to the "distance between and the roof."
                See profile T-34.
                1. pimen
                  pimen 15 May 2016 17: 13
                  +4
                  Quote: AK64
                  So in Soviet tanks, the height was also lowered due to the "distance between and the roof."

                  this is the height of the Sherman was lifted up with a radial engine, put on the bottom.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                  2. AK64
                    AK64 15 May 2016 17: 18
                    0
                    Whatever, my Dearest Sir, whatever
                    1. pimen
                      pimen 15 May 2016 17: 23
                      0
                      and it doesn’t matter anymore, because they all inherited a common box
                  3. Verdun
                    Verdun 16 May 2016 22: 16
                    0
                    this is the height of the Sherman was lifted up with a radial engine, put on the bottom.
                    No, it's more likely that the Sherman was created on the M3 Li units, the main weapon of which was located in the hull on the right along the vehicle.
              2. Cat man null
                Cat man null 15 May 2016 16: 59
                +2
                Quote: pimen
                Quote: AK64
                As for the T-34 --- it’s not Sherman that’s high, but just the T-34 is low: as a result, the T-34 has an unacceptably small angle of lowering the gun.
                I understand that it’s hard to believe and even understand - but this is a fact.

                the declination angle of the tank’s gun does not depend on its height, but on the tower’s construction (mainly the distance between the breech and the roof of the tower)

                - so him, Oryasin .. tankid, damn it .. sorry, I can’t see him (in an emergency I have this miracle), I would also .. played around laughing
            2. yehat
              yehat 16 May 2016 12: 55
              +3
              it is not a marriage, but a conscious choice.
              besides the Germans had the same
              Europe is almost entirely plain, it was not so important there to have chic vertical aiming angles.
          3. veteran66
            veteran66 15 May 2016 19: 04
            +2
            Quote: cast iron
            what a giant and tall Sherman and what a squat T-34.

            an optical illusion, Sherman is simply narrower, so it seems to be higher than it really is. For information, the Tiger is even 30 cm higher than Sherman, but this T-34 did not save ..., unfortunately.
        2. AK64
          AK64 15 May 2016 15: 58
          0
          And the tool is the same in effectiveness

          This is not true: Soviet armor-piercing shells were poor - they put little molybdenum.
          Well, this is not out of dope or ignorance - just there was no molybdenum to put it. But tungsten was not put at all.
          Therefore, American guns, with the same seemingly longer and more powerful, pierced the armor better.

          Yes, and for a land lease paid up to two thousandths

          In reality, less than 5% of its value was paid for the land lease.
          This is despite the fact that under the terms of the Lend-Lease, everything delivered should either have been expended / lost, or subject to return / payment.
          The USSR received a huge number of machines, which did not want to be returned. But I didn’t want to pay either.
          Although they claimed that only 4% of all costs were worth this landliz

          Yes. Anything can be affirmed.
        3. veteran66
          veteran66 15 May 2016 19: 01
          0
          Quote: Beefeater
          And the tool is the same in effectiveness

          the American gun was better than ours in terms of effectiveness, these are the conclusions of our State
          1. overb
            overb 20 May 2016 18: 56
            +1
            Quote: veteran66
            the American gun was better than ours in terms of effectiveness, these are the conclusions of our State

            Depends on what kind.
            75 mm M2 approximately corresponded to a three-inch. They are understandable, the roots are the same, the French 75-mm field gun Canon de 75 mle 1897 Schneider. Very few tanks with such guns were made at the very beginning.
            The 75 mm M3 was noticeably holeier than the M2.
            76,2 mm M1 approximately corresponded to the Soviet 85 mm gun.
            The 90 mm M3 was slightly leaky than the Soviet 152 mm howitzer gun ML-20 and the 75 mm German KwK42 gun. But slightly less leaky than the Soviet 122-mm gun D-25 and the British 76,2-mm 17-pounds.
          2. The comment was deleted.
        4. yehat
          yehat 16 May 2016 12: 52
          0
          Yes, you look with your own eyes, not a ruler!
          in the projection above a meter above the ground, the Sherman’s area is twice as large, and the height nifiga is not 20 cm different.
          True, it’s more correct to compare T34-85 with Sherman.
          the main advantage of the Sherman was a smooth reliable move - the tank proved to be good in long raids. At t34, because of the suspension of Christie, there was great shaking and the crew quickly recoiled
        5. murriou
          murriou 20 May 2016 10: 31
          0
          Quote: Beefeater
          Sherman above thirty-four only 20 centimeters

          You are confusing different models of the T-34.
          The T-34-85, yes, was almost on par with the Shermans in height due to the very high turret. Well, it was hard to shove in a much more powerful 85-mm gun with a limited turret pursuit; I had to increase the turret upwards. But the firepower has increased significantly, the Shermans are no match.

          And the T-34-76, having a gun close to the Sherman one, were low for that period: 2,4 m, in the middle class - an anti-record. Well, on a par with it in terms of height were the "sort of medium" 14-ton Japanese Chi-Ha and Italian M-13/40, many times weaker in all respects and rather light by our standards.

          In any case, the T-34 hull was much lower than the Sherman's and much better protected along the sides. Very often "Shermans" died in battle from piercing the side and detonating just behind this side of the ammunition shells located.
          1. overb
            overb 20 May 2016 19: 06
            0
            Quote: murriou
            But the firepower has increased significantly, the Shermans are no match.

            The 85 mm ZIS-S-53 approximately corresponded to the American 76,2 mm M1 gun.
            Quote: murriou
            A T-34-76, having a gun close to Sherman

            The 75mm M3 was not "close to three". These were the very first 75 mm M2s. But there were few of them produced and they were not supplied to the USSR.
            Quote: murriou
            The T-34 was much lower than the Sherman's and much better protected along the sides. Very often "Shermans" died in battle from piercing the side and detonating just behind this side of the ammunition shells located.

            Do not exaggerate. And don't make up "advantages". The Sherman boards were protected at about the level of the Pz.KpfW.IV. Those. enough for a car of this class.
        6. overb
          overb 20 May 2016 18: 44
          0
          Quote: Beefeater
          And the tool is the same in effectiveness

          Is the gun the same? What kind of Sherman and T-34 are you talking about? About the very first with a 75 mm M2 gun? Yes, this gun was roughly equivalent to the Soviet three-inch. But they were not supplied to the USSR, and in general, very few were made. The 75 mm M3 was already noticeably more powerful. And the 76,2 mm M1, indeed, was approximately equivalent to the Soviet 85 mm gun.
        7. The comment was deleted.
      6. pilot8878
        pilot8878 15 May 2016 00: 04
        +3
        Quote: Para bellum
        Yes, and "Sherman" is the same "iron": The silhouette is high, the weapon is weak (not counting the firefly). In my opinion, the Anglo-Saxons did not build anything outstanding during the war.

        But the veterans in their memoirs are quite supportive of Emche.
        1. kig
          kig 15 May 2016 01: 55
          +3
          Read D. Loza "Tankman in a Foreign Car" - he speaks quite well of the Shermans.
          1. cast iron
            cast iron 15 May 2016 13: 29
            0
            Is Vine the only main source of "truthful" information for us? )))
      7. veteran66
        veteran66 15 May 2016 18: 54
        +3
        Quote: Para bellum
        And "Sherman" is the same "iron":

        reading the first two comments, one cannot but recall Lavrov, with his famous "Devil, b ... db!" Did you want to quickly cut down the plus signs?
    2. faiver
      faiver 14 May 2016 08: 28
      +19
      why irons? normal tanks of their time with their strengths and weaknesses, which our tanks also possessed. it's better to crawl Matilda than flying BT
      1. max73
        max73 14 May 2016 08: 59
        +11
        I agree, comrade. As for the "emcha", the Hero of the Soviet Union Dmitry Loza rated them even higher than the "thirty-four", especially noting the fact that the ammunition rack of the "Shermans" did not detonate.
        1. jjj
          jjj 14 May 2016 10: 37
          +11
          As actions in auxiliary directions, as a self-propelled armored gun mount, as a firing point for infantry support, especially while its tanks were not densely - yes. These machines had their good qualities - of course. But...
          We will not repeat the mantras introduced into our consciousness about the superiority of the Western school of weapons. Our tanks were not so comfortable for habitation, but they won. And even when, as they say: “the appearance of the Tigers and Panthers on the battlefield, our tanks won. And look at the Allied parade immediately after the Victory. When our tanks went, the allies fell silent
          1. Para bellum
            Para bellum 14 May 2016 10: 50
            +16
            "Quiet" is a poor word. The first public appearance of the IS-3 shocked the allies! Even then, they considered us as rivals, and this tank had nothing to oppose.
            1. Aaron Zawi
              Aaron Zawi 14 May 2016 11: 01
              -1
              Quote: Para bellum
              "Quiet" is a poor word. The first public appearance of the IS-3 shocked the allies! Even then, they considered us as rivals, and this tank had nothing to oppose.

              Come on, sir. Before that, the Allies were in battles against the Tiger and Royal Tiger tanks. And nothing. Moreover, at the beginning of 1945, the M-26 went into production.
              1. Aaron Zawi
                Aaron Zawi 14 May 2016 11: 08
                +5
                Sorry, I inserted the wrong photo. Here is the M-26 Pershing.
                1. Para bellum
                  Para bellum 14 May 2016 11: 19
                  +11
                  Enlighten, dear, how many "Royal" and simple "Tigers" have recorded the M-26 "Pershing" on their account, I don’t remember such data.
                  1. Aaron Zawi
                    Aaron Zawi 14 May 2016 11: 36
                    +1
                    Quote: Para bellum
                    Enlighten, dear, how many "Royal" and simple "Tigers" have recorded the M-26 "Pershing" on their account, I don’t remember such data.

                    The M-26 was delivered to the troops in small numbers at the end of February 1945 and did not have time to prove itself fully. But first, something else is important. The performance characteristics of the Pershing were quite decent, and their output in 1945 alone amounted to 1400 cars, while the United States could easily increase this output without stress for the economy. All who talk about the "throw to the English Channel" forget about the economic situation in the USSR in 1945 and the absolute domination of the Allied bomber aviation.
                    I suggest off to finish. wink
                    1. Para bellum
                      Para bellum 14 May 2016 11: 41
                      +8
                      Key phrase in our discussion on armored vehicles:
                      Quote: Aron Zaavi
                      the absolute dominance of Allied bomber aircraft.

                      However, nothing has changed. hi
                    2. activator
                      activator 14 May 2016 11: 46
                      +4
                      Quote: Aron Zaavi
                      those who talk about the "throw to the English Channel" forget about the economic situation in the USSR in 1945 and the absolute domination of the Allied bomber aviation.

                      In 41, German aviation also dominated wink and nothing was done, but the economic situation, I think, would be such that the factories that previously worked for Germany and at least somehow survived began to work for the USSR. And on earth, the dominance of the USSR was overwhelming.
                      1. vadim dok
                        vadim dok 14 May 2016 22: 13
                        -5
                        They didn’t do it themselves! Lend-lease in the most difficult time, when almost all of the USSR aviation was destroyed in the first weeks and months of the war, as well as the terrible bombing by the allies of Germany, destroying its military-historical potential and distracting German aircraft from the Soviet front.
                      2. samoletil18
                        samoletil18 15 May 2016 07: 57
                        +1
                        In the most difficult time, Lend-Lease did not have much influence. I understand the reason is also in the actions at the front: the Anglo-American allies were afraid not to receive a refund of the money spent for help, and they handed it in in doses, mixing with used "harikkeins", incomprehensible tetrarchs. And with PQ-17 the time was right ... Not only V.Pikul drew attention to this. But the change in the routes of the convoys led to the receipt of a significant amount of supplies only by October 1942, and the battle for the Caucasus and Stalingrad was fought mostly on its own ... Oh, yes! 20 (!) "Tetrarchs".
                      3. Come on
                        Come on 16 May 2016 12: 40
                        +3
                        I hope those who participated in Lendliz, from the USA and England, if they are still alive, never read comments like yours. After all, this disgrace is simple.
                    3. activator
                      activator 15 May 2016 08: 35
                      +1
                      Quote: vadim dok
                      their military-historical potential and distracting German aircraft from the Soviet front.

                      C'mon, this is due to the fact that Hitler attacked the Soviet Union, the Germans had to distract their aircraft from the bombing of England. And so I remember England was about to give up.
                    4. overb
                      overb 20 May 2016 19: 37
                      0
                      Quote: activator
                      And so I remember England was about to give up.

                      Do you have any secret documents? No? Then why whistle?
                      10.05.41/XNUMX/XNUMX Britain rejected not that surrender. Even just a German proposal for section Of Europe. I didn’t want to share. The consequence of this was 22.06.41/XNUMX/XNUMX, unfortunately.
                    5. The comment was deleted.
                  2. cast iron
                    cast iron 15 May 2016 12: 37
                    +4
                    Minus slapped you for the west servility. You should at least read in what year and in what month the first Lend-Lease convoy came and in what quantity. Suddenly it turns out that the counterattack near Moscow was organized and carried out practically without outside help.
                  3. voyaka uh
                    voyaka uh 16 May 2016 00: 01
                    +2
                    Near Moscow, there were already English Vallentyns and Matilda.
                    Just in time.
                    By December, both German and Soviet tanks were knocked out, factories
                    in the Urals have not yet begun release,
                    so the share of "Englishmen" was large.
                2. Alf
                  Alf 16 May 2016 00: 26
                  +1
                  Quote: vadim dok
                  , as well as the terrible bombing of the allies of Germany, destroying its military-historical potential and distracting German aircraft from the Soviet front.

                  Yeah, in 1944, the production of tanks and aircraft in Germany reached a peak.
                  Quote: vadim dok
                  military historical potential

                  MILITARY TECHNICAL. There is no point in destroying the historical potential.
              2. veteran66
                veteran66 15 May 2016 19: 20
                -1
                Quote: activator
                And on earth, the dominance of the USSR was overwhelming.

                Well, yes ... at 47 people were dying of hunger and its consequences, the demographic failure was such that we still cannot cope. "We did it ..." "We" are now sitting on a soft sofa with a full refrigerator and letting go of jokes ... I would say, but the modernists will not miss.
              3. activator
                activator 15 May 2016 20: 00
                +1
                Quote: veteran66
                Well, yes ... at 47 people were dying of hunger and its consequences, the demographic failure was such that we still cannot cope. "We did it ..." "We" are now sitting on a soft sofa with a full refrigerator and letting go of jokes ... I would say, but the modernists will not miss.

                And you are a veteran liar with what you and I congratulate you, I did not write "we coped" I give you my literal quote
                Quote: activator
                In 41, German aviation also dominated and managed nothing, and
                referring to our grandfathers. Therefore, leave your malice to yourself. And we really have lost a lot of people, do you think that we had to give up? is it so democratic how many lives would be saved on reservations or ghettos right?
              4. veteran66
                veteran66 15 May 2016 21: 12
                +1
                I don’t know what you had in mind there, so write more clearly, but I will stay with me.
                Quote: activator
                do you think you had to give up?

                this is where you read from me? I am simply against this capricious idea of ​​a victorious march to the English Channel, especially put forward by such unfortunate patriots that divisions are commanded on the sofa.
              5. activator
                activator 15 May 2016 21: 41
                +3
                Quote: veteran66
                I don’t know what you had in mind there, so write more clearly, but I will stay with me.

                It’s not for you to tell me how to write to me, and I repeat again that you added a gag to my comment and gave it out as if I wrote it, that is, you lied. And you also find the audacity to accuse me of not writing clearly for you, but This is an excuse for your problems. If you don’t catch up with something, develop.
                Quote: veteran66
                I am simply against this capricious idea of ​​a victorious march to the English Channel, especially put forward by such unfortunate patriots that divisions are commanded on the sofa.

                By the way, this idea was touched upon by Aron Zawi and nobody mentioned it to me either, but for some reason he raised this subject, and in a typical manner for Israeli comrades like you won, but you yourself have already died and where would you be a sivolap allies. I understand that no one wanted a new war, but if I had to, I guess that by the velvet season the Allies would already be swimming in the waters of Normandy, or the English Channel.
        2. yehat
          yehat 16 May 2016 13: 05
          -2
          and how did you manage? Lost almost 100% of the tanks of the border units, at least 70% in parts of the 2nd echelon - is it called coped?
          By the way, most of the tanks in the battle died not from tanks or aircraft, but from artillery - 37mm and infantry cannons and howitzers.
        3. overb
          overb 20 May 2016 19: 28
          -1
          Quote: activator
          And on earth, the dominance of the USSR was overwhelming.

          In what? If the number of victims, then yes.
        4. The comment was deleted.
      2. Verdun
        Verdun 14 May 2016 13: 48
        +6
        All who talk about the "throw to the English Channel" forget about the economic situation in the USSR in 1945 and the absolute dominance of bomber aviation
        Allied strategic aviation was not able to change the situation on the battlefield and did not reach even the Urals, or even Moscow. As for tactical aviation, there is no need to talk about the advantages at all. As for the economy ... From Berlin to the English Channel is nevertheless closer than from Moscow to Berlin.
      3. iouris
        iouris 14 May 2016 15: 48
        +4
        Stalin to the "allies": "Well, we will show that we can do it in the air, and we will show that we can do it on the ground."
      4. Alf
        Alf 16 May 2016 00: 22
        +5
        Quote: Aron Zaavi
        the absolute dominance of Allied bomber aircraft.

        According to the strategists, yes. But precisely for such cases, Stalin and the coast of P-63 Kingcobra and Spitfire Mk-9. Just for this, the TA-152 was reduced to separate air regiments in the Air Force. The tactical aviation of the Allies was rather weak. Its basis was B-25 Mitchell, B-26 Marauder and A-20 Boston. The cars are not bad, but they were nothing super-coming. By the way, still pre-war development.
        The US and allies did not shine with attack aircraft. In the event of a conflict, US tactical aviation (I’m not talking about Britain at all, both due to its size and equipment) would be a pretty bad bit, because as a Mustang escort fighter at an altitude of 2-4 thousand, they did not dance against the Yaks and LA .
    3. faiver
      faiver 14 May 2016 11: 36
      +15
      Well, in fairness it should be noted that the EC-3 depicted in the photo at the parade also did not knock out a single royal or simple tiger, these machines did not take part in the war - they did not have time ...
      1. Para bellum
        Para bellum 14 May 2016 12: 46
        0
        I agree, rightly so. IS - 3 cited as an image. hi
      2. Come on
        Come on 16 May 2016 12: 46
        0
        In addition, how many Pershing served, and how many IP 3.
    4. WUA 518
      WUA 518 14 May 2016 13: 04
      +6
      Quote: Para bellum
      Enlighten, dear, how many "Royal" and simple "Tigers" have recorded the M-26 "Pershing" on their account, I don’t remember such data.

      Read: Tank battle in Cologne on March 6, 1945, interesting material http://alternathistory.com/pershing-protiv-pantery, http://vn-parabellum.com/us/m26_bat.html
      1. Para bellum
        Para bellum 14 May 2016 14: 15
        +1
        Thanks for the link.
      2. activator
        activator 14 May 2016 15: 27
        +1
        And I have some garbage on the link opens
        1. WUA 518
          WUA 518 14 May 2016 16: 41
          +1
          Quote: activator
          And I have some garbage on the link opens

          There are two links, separated by commas.
        2. activator
          activator 14 May 2016 19: 57
          +1
          Thank you, not noticed hi
    5. Kaiten
      Kaiten 15 May 2016 20: 48
      +1
      Quote: WUA 518
      Read: Tank battle in Cologne on March 6, 1945, interesting material http://alternathistory.com/pershing-protiv-pantery, http://vn-parabellum.com/us/m26_bat.html

      nice to read a knowledgeable person
  2. Stas57
    Stas57 14 May 2016 13: 58
    +2
    Quote: Para bellum
    Enlighten, dear, how many "Royal" and simple "Tigers" have recorded the M-26 "Pershing" on their account, I don’t remember such data.

    and Is3?
  3. AK64
    AK64 15 May 2016 16: 22
    +1
    Enlighten, dear, how many "Royal" and simple "Tigers" have recorded the M-26 "Pershing" on their account, I don’t remember such data.


    And how many IS-3s?
  4. veteran66
    veteran66 15 May 2016 19: 16
    +1
    Quote: Para bellum
    "Royal" and ordinary "Tigers" on their own account recorded M-26

    and you have the same question about the IS-3, lope?
  • yehat
    yehat 16 May 2016 13: 03
    -1
    both pershing and m60 tanks are not bad, but still, when meeting with the IS-3, they had very few chances. They were good only when meeting with the old IS-2 or t34-85.
  • activator
    activator 14 May 2016 11: 30
    +4
    Quote: Aaron Zawi
    Quote: Para bellum
    "Quiet" is a poor word. The first public appearance of the IS-3 shocked the allies! Even then, they considered us as rivals, and this tank had nothing to oppose.

    Come on, sir. Before that, the Allies were in battles against the Tiger and Royal Tiger tanks. And nothing. Moreover, at the beginning of 1945, the M-26 went into production.

    Yes, the Germans were in shock laughing
  • Verdun
    Verdun 14 May 2016 11: 53
    +7
    Before that, the Allies were in battles against the Tiger and Royal Tiger tanks. And nothing.
    This is where, in the Ardennes, or what? That's just it, that nothing. At the same time, "being in battles" and "winning battles" is a big difference. My grandfather also "took part in battles" near Kharkov and even got out of the encirclement, but he was not particularly enthusiastic about this.
    Moreover, in early 1945 they went into a series of M-26
    English A41 Centurion, in my opinion, was a much more serious opponent.
    1. cast iron
      cast iron 15 May 2016 13: 31
      -1
      I think that T44, that T54 was doing this very "Centurion" like a hot water bottle. About Is-3 or subsequent Isa generally keep quiet.
      1. AK64
        AK64 15 May 2016 16: 32
        -2
        I think that

        Keep thinking
        I’m generally silent about Is-3 or subsequent Isa.

        The entire series, right up to the T-10, is completely unsatisfactory.

        ISy --- fairy tales for students. The real victory tank was the T-34.

        ISs --- This is when they drive a finger over the numbers in the plates - and they admire: "what good numbers".
        And I don’t understand that there is a lot of armor and guns - this is not a tank, it is a bunker.
        1. Alf
          Alf 16 May 2016 00: 30
          +1
          Quote: AK64
          And I don’t understand that there is a lot of armor and guns - this is not a tank yet, it is a bunker

          Then what is the Royal Tiger? Fixed fort?
          1. AK64
            AK64 16 May 2016 11: 15
            0
            Then what is the Royal Tiger?


            Let us know about the claims to the mechanical reliability of the Tigers-2, plz.
          2. murriou
            murriou 20 May 2016 12: 09
            +1
            Quote: AK64
            Let us know about the claims to the mechanical reliability of the Tigers-2, plz.

            Take an interest in their participation in the battles at the Sandomierz bridgehead.
            And the results of tests in Kubinka of these "magnificent" machines, captured incl. without a fight thanks to their "reliability".

            “Already when the tanks were moving on their own to the loading station, numerous defects were discovered: at 86 km, the left steering wheel failed due to the destruction of bearings and the left drive wheel due to the shear of all the fastening bolts. The heat of up to 30 degrees Celsius during these days turned out to be excessive for the cooling system, which led to overheating of the right engine block and to constant overheating of the gearbox.Do not have time to repair the tank, as the right-hand final drive completely collapsed, which was replaced with one removed from another tank, but it also failed due to the destruction of the roller bearing In addition, every now and then it was necessary to change the tracks of the tracks, which are prone to destruction, especially when turning. The design of the tensioning mechanism of the tracks was not fully worked out, which is why every 10-15 km of the march it was necessary to adjust their tension again. "

            "During sea trials, which passed with great difficulties associated with the low reliability of the chassis, power plant and transmission elements, it was found that 860 liters of gasoline is enough for 90 km of driving on a country road, although the instructions for the car indicated that this gasoline should be enough for 120 km Fuel consumption per 100 km was 970 liters, instead of 700 liters according to the captured instructions.
            ...
            The average speed on the highway was 25-30 km / h, and on the country road - 13,4-15 km / h. The maximum speed specified in the technical documentation of the tank, 41,5 km / h, was not achieved during sea trials. "

            Like this. Enough? wink
        2. Come on
          Come on 16 May 2016 16: 27
          -1
          The Royal Tiger still fought and proved its performance characteristics, 20 tanks had time to bang, until he was defeated.
        3. yehat
          yehat 17 May 2016 15: 04
          +3
          the royal tigers fought mainly against poorly organized defense, the tanks met medium or light or heavy, but the old ones with weak weapons - like churchyards. Against worthy opponents were rarely used.
          In the same ardennes, tiger-2 was beaten mainly by troops that did not manage to take up defense.
          The speed made him very vulnerable to artillery, in the lateral projection the tank was poorly protected and therefore suffered heavy losses from ambushes.
          Near Balaton, I watched photo reports, about 80 percent of tigers-2 hits got on board.
      2. cast iron
        cast iron 16 May 2016 17: 44
        +2
        A series of tanks "Joseph Stalin" existed right up to the end of the 1980s in the army. The Leningrad Design Bureau made cool heavy tanks, and you can't cross it out with your libelous unreasonable.
      3. yehat
        yehat 17 May 2016 15: 06
        +1
        no demagoguery. at the parade in Berlin, the IS-3 was still a crude and therefore problematic tank, but after 4-5 post-war years, its operation was debugged and it became a very serious machine.
  • cast iron
    cast iron 16 May 2016 17: 44
    +2
    You are probably praying for the English "centurions")))) Alas, in terms of handling for the driver, these were NANELY tanks. The British themselves have repeatedly said and shown this. Controlling a centurion is inconvenient and rather difficult. Compared to the T-54. And the Soviet tank is better in armor protection.
  • yehat
    yehat 17 May 2016 14: 56
    +1
    IS-not bad tanks. It is only necessary to understand that the IS is not so much an anti-tank unit as it is on the MBT cannon - with a universal cannon.
    The IS-3 was first made raw, but after the war it was significantly brought up and it was a very, very good tank both for battle and for operation.
    T10 is not only ours, but also many foreign specialists highly appreciate it. Why suddenly he became bad is not clear.
    As for the "real victory tank", you underestimate the role of other tanks, especially the production vehicles T70, KV-1, KV-1S, KV-85, IS, IS-2 and Lend-Lease.
    t34 due to lack of protection since 42 years suffered heavy losses. Not everyone could reach victory.
  • overb
    overb 20 May 2016 20: 20
    0
    Quote: cast iron
    I think that T44, that T54 was doing this very "Centurion" like a hot water bottle

    The T-44 would be an excellent tank in 1942. A good tank in 1943. Not a bad tank in 1944. But already in 1945 it was a gray mediocrity. Which is generally unclear why released.
    He could make Centurion only in pink dreams.
    T-54 under certain circumstances could do. The gun was supposedly good. But without the automatic loader, its potential could not be fully revealed.
  • AK64
    AK64 15 May 2016 16: 18
    -1
    In the picture you have not Pershing in Chaffee - the tank is light
    1. murriou
      murriou 20 May 2016 12: 01
      0
      There really is no Pershing, you guessed it. wink
      But not "Chaffee" either, you missed. A M-60.
      They still have something in common in the running gear, one, as it were, a school of designers.
  • Alf
    Alf 16 May 2016 00: 11
    0
    Quote: Aron Zaavi
    Moreover, in early 1945 they went into a series of M-26

    And in the USSR in December 1944 went to the T-44 series. TTX is no worse. In 1944, 25 copies were produced, in 1945, another 880 pieces.
    1. AK64
      AK64 16 May 2016 11: 12
      -1
      And in the USSR in December 1944 went to the T-44 series. TTX is no worse. In 1944, 25 copies were produced ....


      Quite a strange "series" - 25 pieces.
      (And these "things" were quite different from one another --- because in fact the T-44 was brought to something useful only after the war, and in the 44th they experimented, and nothing more.)
      1. Alf
        Alf 16 May 2016 22: 06
        0
        Quote: AK64
        Quite a strange "series" - 25 pieces.

        This is in the 44th, but how much came out in 45? Yes, and Pershing in the 45th in Europe, too, did not wander in the thousands.
      2. yehat
        yehat 17 May 2016 15: 12
        +1
        how do you manage to turn everything inside out?
        The T44 could start production at the end of the year 43, but did not do it, because the T34-85 was already produced, and the T44 was a new machine, it would be necessary to reduce production and go through all the problems of introducing a new machine. Therefore, its release was not forced.
        And this tank, according to the reviews of the tankers themselves, was very good.
        1. overb
          overb 20 May 2016 20: 24
          0
          Quote: yehat
          T44 could start production at the end of 43 years, but did not do it, because T34-85 was already produced

          The normal T-34/85 with a triple tower was launched in the spring of 1944.
  • murriou
    murriou 20 May 2016 11: 56
    0
    Quote: Aaron Zawi
    in early 1945 they went into the series M-26

    And as an illustration - the M-60, the modernized Patton. Public applause wink
  • AK64
    AK64 15 May 2016 16: 14
    -8
    The first appearance of the IS-3 in public plunged the Allies into shock!


    If he also traveled ....
  • veteran66
    veteran66 15 May 2016 19: 14
    -1
    Quote: Para bellum
    and there was nothing to deliver to this tank.

    come on, tank versus tank this is typically our approach, unfortunately, not quite right. The Germans also thought about what they got about their Tiger. Aviation was a good tool against tanks, both the Germans at the beginning of WWII and the Allies at the end proved it. And heavy tanks went into oblivion ...
    1. AK64
      AK64 15 May 2016 22: 19
      0
      Aviation was a good tool against tanks, both the Germans at the beginning of WWII and the Allies at the end proved it.

      Not at all: statistics do not confirm expectations of the effectiveness of aviation against a tank.
      The statistics of the allied German tanks, after the war, was calculated, several of them themselves were discouraged: somewhere less than 10% of the battered Germans belong to aviation.
      And in the first place - all the same armor-piercing shells - about 50% of them hit. Kumu (everyone - both artillery and manual) also somehow did not show themselves very much.
      And heavy tanks went into oblivion ...

      Well, not why, not why: IMHO, the niche disappeared and MBT appeared (Panther as the first, M26 three, T44 third). MBTs were able to perform all the tasks of the strands, so the meaning was gone.
      The Soviets, however, as usual, "had their own special pride," and continued to tinker with the weights (it is not clear why) right up to the 60s.
      1. cast iron
        cast iron 16 May 2016 17: 46
        +1
        Yes, you sho? And the United States produced M48 and M60 - those still heavy hippos-overgrown and did not complex like you about Is-s.
      2. yehat
        yehat 17 May 2016 15: 16
        0
        panther with its 75mm bundle - MBT ???
        This is a purely anti-tank machine, manufactured exclusively because it was well suited for battles against numerous Shermans and T34s.
        at the same time, the tank was very weak when attacking combined-arms prepared positions due to too weak result from firing high-explosive bombs
        1. overb
          overb 20 May 2016 12: 55
          0
          Quote: yehat
          panther with its 75mm bundle - MBT ???

          KwK42 fart? Then what then is the T-34/76, KV-1, SU-76 and ZIS-3?
          Quote: yehat
          at the same time, the tank was very weak when attacking combined-arms prepared positions due to too weak result from firing high-explosive bombs

          The power of her OFB Sprgr. 42 was exactly the same as the Soviet 76,2 mm BMF. Both had 620 g of ammotol.
          Quote: yehat
          This is a purely anti-tank machine, manufactured exclusively because it was well suited for battles against numerous Shermans and T34s.

          Armor-piercing Pzgr. 39/42, of course, it's just a plague. Approximately the same armor penetration was possessed by the Soviet 152-mm ML-20 shells. Only from KwK42 it was possible to shoot further than 1000 m, and from the ML-20, FIGs will get.
    2. Come on
      Come on 16 May 2016 16: 32
      +1
      If they had enough time to rivet, at least 5 thousand Tigers 2, Yagdtigrov, Panther, then they would pour a lot of blood on both the Red Army and the Allies. Since those that managed to do, they showed themselves excellently. And about the era of heavy tanks, which supposedly sunk somewhere, I disagree, today they only do heavy ones.
    3. murriou
      murriou 20 May 2016 12: 25
      +1
      [quote = veteran66] [quote = Para bellum] tank versus tank this is our typical approach, unfortunately, not entirely correct. [/ quote]
      This is not our approach. This is the approach of WoT gamers and teenagers.

      In reality, it was our tanks that focused primarily on fighting field fortifications, infantry, and artillery. Therefore, a large (relatively) caliber, a powerful HE shell and the predominance of HE shells in ammo. Separately, "fighter tanks" such as the T-34-57 were created, which were later replaced by tank destroyers.

      The Germans in the first half of WWII went in the offensive vein, so their tanks at first did not have anti-tank orientation. In the second half, they mainly had to defend themselves, hence the roll in Fri opportunities.
      1. overb
        overb 20 May 2016 13: 11
        -1
        Quote: murriou
        Therefore, a large (relatively) caliber, a powerful HE shell and the predominance of HE shells in the BC.

        There were no powerful cannons in the USSR, that's the whole "secret". Until 1943. the most powerful in the USSR was an ancient three-inch pukalka from WW1. In the middle of 1943. finally launched the 57-mm ZIS-2, when it was already late enough. Yes, and in the tank, she was not suitable, they did only transportable. Instead, at the end of 1943. in a self-propelled (tank) version launched the 85-mm series.
        It should be noted that the most powerful of them, 85 mm, in terms of armor penetration was approximately at the level of KwK / PaK40, which has been on the Pz.KpfW.IV since 1942. As a result, only in the spring of 1944. The T-34/85, in terms of a combination of factors, equaled the reinforced versions of the Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.G, which the Germans built at the end of 1942.
        Tank guns more powerful than the 85-mm ZIS-S-53 were not created during the Second World War in the USSR.
        1. murriou
          murriou 20 May 2016 14: 08
          +1
          Quote: overb
          There were no powerful cannons in the USSR, that's the whole "secret".

          If you don’t know something, it doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen. wink
          This means that you need to expand your "knowledge".
          He will be glad to help you K.O.

          Quote: overb
          Until 1943 the most powerful in the USSR was an ancient three-inch bullet from the time of 1MB.

          Which was modernized in 1930, increasing the kinetic energy of the projectile from 1,08 MJ to 1,34 MJ, bringing it to the level of the world's most powerful analogues. Only the Japanese Tip90 and the Czech "Skoda" with an 8-kg projectile were more powerful at that time.

          What does this mean including in terms of armor penetration, even you hopefully will understand.

          In 1936, Grabin made the F-22, in which the initial speed of a heavy armor-piercing projectile increased to 690 m / s, kinetic energy to 1,55 MJ - one and a half times more compared to PMV, at that time it was the most armor-piercing anti-tank projectile in the world and the most powerful gun of this caliber.

          In 1941, the T-34 and KV tank guns were the most powerful in the world: in other countries, close-caliber tank guns were short-barreled, and most tank guns were much inferior in caliber and power.

          There were projects using 107 mm cannons as tank guns, there were ZIS-4 guns - this is a tank version of the ZIS-2 arr. 1941, and not 1943 at all, as you write, were in 1941. T-34-57 tanks with just such guns. At that time, the power and armor penetration of Soviet tank guns were even excessive.

          Quote: overb
          In the middle of 1943 finally launched the 57-mm ZIS-2, when it was already quite late.

          They did not "launch", but resumed production, which was interrupted in 1941. for its excess capacity.

          Quote: overb
          Yes, and it was not suitable for a tank, they made it only transportable.

          Again you wrote nonsense. See above about the T-34-57.

          Quote: overb
          the most powerful of them, 85 mm, in terms of armor penetration was approximately at the level of KwK / PaK40, which stood on the Pz.KpfW.IV since 1942.

          This is exactly what I already wrote about, but you did not understand.
          The 85-mm gun with a 9-kg HE shell was universal, and much more effective for a general-purpose tank, and the German 75-mm long-barreled guns that KwK40 and KwK42 were highly specialized for PT applications.

          "T-34/85 on a combination of factors equaled the enhanced versions of the Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.G"
          This is for what aggregate, as considered? By WoT standards, or what other games are you used to equal?

          And nothing so that the passability and armor protection of the T-34 was much higher than that of any "four" up to the latest versions with their 80-mm forehead, but still cardboard sides?

          Quote: overb
          Tank guns more powerful than the 85-mm ZIS-S-53 were not created during the Second World War in the USSR.

          Discover the existence of a 100-mm D-10 gun, the parameters of armor penetration of a 122-mm D-25T gun, the dates of their development and adoption. I wish you success. wink
          1. overb
            overb 20 May 2016 15: 30
            0
            Quote: murriou
            This means that you need to expand your "knowledge".

            What, can you think of something? It would be interesting to know what?
            Quote: murriou
            increasing the kinetic energy of the projectile from 1,08 MJ to 1,34 MJ,

            Muzzle in fact, but it doesn’t matter, the essence is the same. In fact, the ratio was 1,125 and 1,380 MJ. Do you seriously want to argue that 1,380 MJ in 1930. Was there enough in such a caliber? You remind about the Soviet 76,2-mm anti-aircraft guns of the German design 3-K arr. 1930 with a DE of 2,164 MJ?
            In addition, you somehow forget about the ancient shell of a length of 3,6 klb. Even in 1930. it was already a laugh, less than 3,8 klb. even then, few then did.
            Quote: murriou
            Only the Japanese Tip90 and the Czech "Skoda" with an 8-kg projectile were more powerful at that time.

            In fact, the Second World War happened a little later than 1930, if you are not in the know. And over 10 years almost everything has changed in artillery. In the world, not in the USSR.
            Quote: murriou
            In 1936, Grabin made the F-22, in which the initial velocity of a heavy armor-piercing projectile increased to 690 m / s, kinetic energy to 1,55 MJ

            Actually 1,487 MJ. God knows not that for 1936. In addition, there was a "sadness", this gun could not be made in a large batch. Therefore, in 1938. it was abandoned in favor of the same ballistically dull three-inch model. 1930 Have noticed, already 8 years under the tail.
            Quote: murriou
            at that time it was the most armor-piercing anti-tank gun in the world and the most powerful gun of this caliber.

            Did you come up with this yourself? What for?
            How could it be "the most armor-piercing" if it was a field universal gun of a divisional link. There were basically no analogues of it, because based on the experience of WW1, the leading countries of the world completely abandoned field universal guns.
            Quote: murriou
            In 1941, the T-34 and KV tank guns were the most powerful in the world.

            That, yes. But 1941 is over. And then came 1942. And all the superiority of the three-inch evaporated.
            Quote: murriou
            There were projects using 107 mm guns as tank

            These were not projects, they were aboutжprojects.
            Quote: murriou
            there were guns ZIS-4 - this is a tank version of the ZIS-2 arr. 1941, and not 1943 at all, as you write, were in 1941. T-34-57 tanks with just such guns.

            In fact, learn to understand what you read. ZIS-2/4 in 1941 they couldn’t do it in series, there was nothing on it. Therefore, their production was mastered only in 1943, at the American machinery park.
            In addition, for tanks ZIS-4 arr. 1941 and ZIS-4M arr. 1943 categorically unsuitable because of their narrow anti-tank orientation. From ZIS-4M they could make self-propelled guns, but they did not, because there was no capacity to manufacture platforms for them.
          2. overb
            overb 20 May 2016 15: 30
            0
            Quote: murriou
            At that time, the power and armor penetration of Soviet tank guns were even excessive.

            Enchanting nonsense. Read tyrnet further.
            and resumed production, interrupted in 1941. for her excess power.

            Examine the materials (they are on the net) that preceded the removal of ZIS-2 from production. Not according to Grabin’s memoirs, there are more reliable sources.
            Again you wrote nonsense. See above about the T-34-57.

            Unlike you, I do not have such a habit. Learn why ZIS-4M mod. 1943 refused to bet on the T-34. Although 4 experimental tanks in 1943 did.
            Also learn how many of these T-34 / 57s did in 1941.
            The 85-mm gun with a 9-kg HE shell was universal

            Tank, this is not an artillery ship. The desire of one model to embrace the vast is understandable in general. But stupid in essence.
            I have not met any complaints about the weakness of the OFZ three-inch. Moreover, the German 75mm OFS Panther Sprgr. 42 was almost the same with him. Therefore, it is not entirely clear what the grand plus 9 kg of the projectile is. Although he, of course, was. Oil porridge can not be spoiled.
            and the German 75mm long barrels that KwK40, that KwK42, were highly specialized for PT applications.

            Did you come up with this again? About Sprgr. 42 from KwK42 I wrote a little higher. Regarding Sprgr. 34 from KwK40, then its explosive charge was 10% more than the explosive charge of the OFS three-inch. I wrote to you above that even in 1930. three-inch shell structurally was already a complete sediment. Those. even in the drawings.
            This is for what aggregate, as considered?

            In terms of armament, security and other key factors.
            By WoT standards, or what other games are you used to equal?

            I don’t play games, I have long left this age.
            And nothing so that the throughput and armor protection of the T-34 was much higher than that of any "four" up to the latest versions with their 80-mm forehead

            I wrote about the 80-mm forehead, this model has been made since the end of 1942.
            but still cardboard sides?

            You do not align heterogeneous armor with rolled and cast. In addition, except for the side armor of the tower, there is no reason to be particularly interested. Why, guess for yourself.
            Discover the existence of a 100 mm D-10 gun

            Try to push a 30 kg projectile into the chamber on the move in a tank, without being blown up by your own fuse. Then let's talk about a kind of "tank gun" D-10S. By the way, that's why they didn't put it on tanks.
            Quote: murriou
            armor penetration parameters of the 122-mm D-25T gun, the dates of their development and adoption.

            Tank guns with separate-case loading do not exist in wildlife. In the USSR, they could fantasize as much as they wanted and call white green, but the D-25T is not a tank gun. And from this BTT, on which she stood, these are not tanks. There are no such tanks. Only perhaps "Soviet tanks".
  • yehat
    yehat 16 May 2016 13: 01
    -2
    only the allies did not know that they were shown practically unworkable cars.
    Too in a hurry to do, bringing Is-3 took quite a while.
    1. cast iron
      cast iron 16 May 2016 17: 47
      0
      Alone you found out everything and the whole "truth" finally told us))) Burn more.
    2. svp67
      svp67 16 May 2016 17: 49
      +2
      Quote: yehat
      only the allies did not know that they were shown practically unworkable cars.
      Too in a hurry to do, bringing Is-3 took quite a while.

      I think that the resource "non-combat" would be enough to bring a lot of "combat" tanks into the "trash"
      1. yehat
        yehat 17 May 2016 15: 24
        0
        Yes there was no resource.
        cars during the maneuvers suffered heavy losses from breakdowns,
        the same situation when during the citadel the Germans were able to use no more than 35% of the cash panthers. And a tank without maneuverability is not a tank.
        there were no operating instructions, they did not know how to repair, there were no spare parts.
        Well, what is the combat efficiency ??? Dot with a gun?
  • vadim dok
    vadim dok 14 May 2016 22: 06
    -6
    The T-34 tank was very flammable (it burned well) due to poor fuel tank layout, leaking diesel fuel and oil. In a fire, 12 seconds were left to evacuate the crew, which, with a small number of hatches, was not possible for everyone. a mechanic is a driver and a tank commander, and this is at best. And diesel fuel when burning is much more dangerous than extinguishing gas, very viscous and it looks like napalm.
    1. Mordvin 3
      Mordvin 3 14 May 2016 22: 19
      +5
      Vadim dock.

      What kind of T-34 are you writing about?
      1. AK64
        AK64 15 May 2016 16: 36
        +2
        What kind of T-34 are you writing about?

        The above is true of any of.
        T-34 inherited from BT huge fuel tanks in the fenders, the length of a tank.
        When getting into the tank, the crew doused themselves with diesel from a diesel fuel, and then it all caught fire on coveralls.

        So what kind of "12 sec" is there ... "Like I was looking for a latch with my hands without skin ..."

        And why do you think tankers on the T-34 put a stick between the hatch and the armor?
        1. Mordvin 3
          Mordvin 3 15 May 2016 18: 32
          +2
          Quote: AK64
          The above is true of any of.

          I do not agree. Five crew members will pop out longer than four. And on the T-34 of the first releases, a healthy and heavy hatch that was difficult to open, especially in a shell-shocked state.
    2. cast iron
      cast iron 15 May 2016 13: 32
      +1
      Gasoline vapors explode that your shell. He doesn’t even need to burn. This is the question of diesel fuel.
      1. AK64
        AK64 15 May 2016 16: 39
        -1
        Gasoline vapors explode

        Why, then, did not anyone explode except the T-34 and BT?
        Maybe because the tanks of everyone else were hidden in the engine compartment, which itself was separated from the fire fighting bulkhead and usually had an automatic fire extinguishing system? AND?
        1. cast iron
          cast iron 16 May 2016 17: 48
          +2
          All tanks burned beautifully and exploded beautifully from the explosion of BC with a direct hit. Tales Russophobian do not tell.
        2. cast iron
          cast iron 16 May 2016 18: 02
          0
          Why then the "Shermans" were nicknamed "Zippos" lighters? ))) The partition of the tanks did not save what?
        3. yehat
          yehat 17 May 2016 15: 28
          0
          fire extinguishing machine appeared only on the tiger
          I didn’t hear something, that on T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 there was some sane fire extinguishing machine. Fire hazard panthers were actively used by tankers on t70 -
          often 1 hit in the engine compartment was enough to eliminate a heavy car.
      2. veteran66
        veteran66 15 May 2016 19: 31
        0
        Quote: cast iron
        This is the question of diesel fuel.

        and diesel fuel explodes from a shell entering the tank. All these stories, that, supposedly, a diesel tank is less flammable, nonsense!
        1. cast iron
          cast iron 16 May 2016 17: 49
          -1
          Diesel fuel does not explode. And then you still have to get into the tank. But gasoline vapors - coolly explode regardless of where the spark came from. He himself repeatedly performed a trick with a canister and a spilled AI-92.
          1. svp67
            svp67 16 May 2016 17: 52
            +1
            Quote: cast iron
            Diesel fuel does not explode.

            Yes, the solarium itself does not explode. But her couples are EXCELLENT, not nearly worse than
            Quote: cast iron
            gasoline vapors - cool explode no matter where the spark came from.
          2. veteran66
            veteran66 16 May 2016 19: 43
            -1
            Quote: cast iron
            He himself repeatedly performed a trick with a canister and a spilled AI-92.

            these tricks are just for children in the yard, the detonation coefficient of solariums is 1,5 times higher than gasoline. Do you know the principle of the diesel engine? After all, it works without ignition, shaitan!
      3. overb
        overb 20 May 2016 13: 18
        0
        Quote: cast iron
        Gasoline vapors explode that your shell. He doesn’t even need to burn. This is the question of diesel fuel.

        Diesel fuel vapors explode even steeper (see diesel engine system).
        In addition, gasoline itself does not burn, its fumes burn. But diesel burns by itself. Therefore, the consequences of this burning on the human body are different, the diesel fuel is terrible.
    3. Alf
      Alf 16 May 2016 00: 31
      0
      Quote: vadim dok
      12 seconds

      Why 12, not 11 or 13?
      1. svp67
        svp67 16 May 2016 17: 53
        0
        Quote: Alf
        Why 12, not 11 or 13?

        13 - there is no such figure in America, but there are 12 + 1 or 14-1, and in general 12 is a beautiful number.
  • veteran66
    veteran66 15 May 2016 19: 10
    0
    Quote: jjj
    but they won.

    agreeing with you in many ways, I want to ask a question, but were the allied tanks always the losers? Yes, and ours fought on them notably. It’s just that it wasn’t customary to promote, as they say now. The crew is fighting, not the tank.
  • Saburov
    Saburov 14 May 2016 15: 21
    +7
    Quote: max73
    announced, comrade. As for the "emcha", the Hero of the Soviet Union Dmitry Loza rated them even higher than the "thirty-four", especially noting the fact that the ammunition rack of the "Shermans" did not detonate.


    You will study the material before writing such nonsense.

    Once again, I repeat about the detonation of BC. In order for the ammunition to detonate, it is necessary: ​​when the armor is burned by a cumulative projectile strictly in the projection of the ammunition and if the gas stream hits the shell or the HE shell (which is extremely unlikely), the armor-piercing blank hits the HE shell, and not the sleeve. the fuse is blown off the fuse, the fuse tripped when the detonator capsule was unbroken (from impact) and 99% of the causes of detonation of the detonator is a subsequent fire. For the BC to explode, it is necessary to match the above reasons, which is very rare in nature. So you most likely have heard tales of horror stories. And 34 does not know its peers in the combination of security, firepower, maintainability, and therefore is rightly recognized throughout the world as the best WWII tank and even the best tank in the history of mankind (according to Discovery).
    1. vadim dok
      vadim dok 14 May 2016 22: 18
      -4
      BC was mainly concreted after the tank was ignited. The main part of the VK in T34 was located on the bottom of the tank, where puddles of diesel fuel accumulated due to leakage of durite hoses and their connections.
    2. AK64
      AK64 15 May 2016 16: 43
      0
      You will study the material before writing such nonsense.


      Go learn courtesy first, "expert."

      As for the topic: In a 75-76mm shell in a sleeve 600-700 grams of gunpowder. With the ignition of these 600-700 grams, and in the enclosed volume of the tank ... hell becomes fierce. And the tank flies off from a pair of powder charges.
      1. Saburov
        Saburov 15 May 2016 18: 53
        +3
        Quote: AK64
        As for the topic: In an 75-76mm shell in an 600-700 shell, a gram of gunpowder. When igniting these 600-700


        One more nonsense and you will tell me to the graduate of ChVTKU about flying towers?
        During my entire service after the CTFTC for more than 25 years, I only saw 2 times how I detonated the BK, in the first BK it burns out more often and not detonates, in the second the artillery gunpowder does not detonate, but burn in the process of the chemical self-oxidation reaction and in the third, to immediately detonate BC needs a coincidence of very unlikely factors that I described above. In 99% of cases, detonation of a detonator is a fire and this happens after a while, by heating the detonator and not always. More often from detonation of HE shell. A good example, throw a bullet into a fire, after how much will it pop? And now the question is: calculate according to the formula, how much time does it take for heating to detonate the BC?

        PS In order not to believe the tales about the torn towers (especially in the photo), study the material so that in the future you don’t fall for such nonsense.
        1. Saburov
          Saburov 15 May 2016 19: 17
          0
          Here is a typical case when penetrating the main armor by cumulative.

          As can be seen from the video, the BC burned out and there was no question of any torn tower, and there were tens of kilograms of artillery gunpowder (powder charges).
          1. Come on
            Come on 16 May 2016 16: 47
            -5
            In this case, the tower was not torn off because the hatches were open and most likely there were few powder charges, because the BC was visible at the end. But in general, the towers of Soviet tanks fly because the ammunition is divided into shells and powder charges, which are shattered throughout the BO. If the hatches are sealed up tightly and the godfather, or fragments from the CS breaking through the armor, touch such a powder charge, then due to its burning enough pressure is generated so that the tower flew tens of meters from the tank.
            1. svp67
              svp67 16 May 2016 16: 57
              +1
              Quote: Yeah, well.
              then, due to its burning, sufficient pressure is formed so that the tower flew tens of meters from the tank.

              No, not enough. The "fire of charges" leads to the undermining of the OFS and KS and the detonation of the entire ammunition unit, and already because of this, the "demolition of the tower" occurs. If it were as you say, the shells would remain intact, they would simply be scattered with the wreckage of the car ...
              Quote: Yeah, well.
              But in general, the towers of Soviet tanks fly because the ammunition is divided into shells and powder charges, which are shattered throughout the BO.

              This is due to the fact that a charge with a partially combustible sleeve is used, which lies in the warhead so that it allows the possibility of fire.
              1. Come on
                Come on 17 May 2016 01: 57
                0
                Exactly so, the shells are charred, but the whole ones are lying next to the disfigured tank, if during the penetration there were no OFS touched, or otherwise it should burn for a couple of minutes until it bangs. The powder charge is still not small, and when ignited, it instantly ignites others, which essentially makes a sealed BO the same sleeve, and the tower hatches, or the tower itself, with a shell, figuratively.
                1. Cat man null
                  Cat man null 17 May 2016 02: 15
                  +1
                  Quote: Yeah, well.
                  Exactly so, the shells are charred, but the whole ones are lying next to the tattered tank

                  "Nails", probably, mostly .. so they explode - do not know how .. request

                  Throw flood, you have all three timesA already explained .. people who clearly are not only the tank in the picture in TyTruba seen .. yes
                2. Come on
                  Come on 17 May 2016 12: 00
                  -1
                  Unlike you, I also did not see tanks in the picture, so what do I need? They didn’t add anything clever, for some reason they began to explain to me about nails that do not explode .. When gunpowder ignites, OFS do not have time to detonate. So what did they fit in? Okay, they’d add something clever ..
            2. AK64
              AK64 17 May 2016 03: 50
              0
              No, not enough.

              Pretty funny ....
              "Missing / missing" is a ridiculous argument about nothing. Count up the energy of several powder charges at your leisure. What is "missing"?
              The explosion of gunpowder was the cause of the death of British battlecruisers in the Jutland battle as an example.


              "Fire of charges" leads to the undermining of the OFS and KS and the detonation of the entire ammunition,

              Why's that? Not at all necessary. There are a lot of cases of burnt powder charges and scattered whole shells.
              A TNT projectile will detonate only if the detonator is screwed in and not protected, and this detonator detonates. And detonation of a fuse is actually not so common

              and because of this, the "demolition of the tower" occurs.

              There is at least one remarkable chronicle: hit (either in the T-34 or in the HF, I don’t remember), and with a delay of a second or two - bang, and the tower flew away.
              So explain with detonation.
              There is no need for detonation for this: ignition of even one charge can very well lead, due to the capsule, to ignition of others.
              And the detonation of explosives is not needed.

              If it were as you say, the shells would remain intact, they would simply be scattered with the wreckage of the car ...

              And there are such photos, with scattered shells.
              Moreover, the whole car often - it was the tower that flew away. With the detonation of the BC, I would expect the body to fly apart on the panel.
          2. Saburov
            Saburov 16 May 2016 21: 38
            +1
            Quote: Yeah, well.
            In this case, the tower was not torn off because the hatches were open and most likely there were few powder charges, because the BC was visible at the end. But in general, the towers of Soviet tanks fly because the ammunition is divided into shells and powder charges, which are shattered throughout the BO. If the hatches are sealed up tightly and the godfather, or fragments from the CS breaking through the armor, touch such a powder charge, then due to its burning enough pressure is generated so that the tower flew tens of meters from the tank.


            The era of amateurs has begun ... In order not to write stories about torn towers, study the material (for example, that artillery gunpowder does not detonate, but burn during the chemical reaction of self-oxidation) so as not to write such rubbish in the future.
            1. Come on
              Come on 17 May 2016 01: 49
              -1
              Exactly what is burning, where did I write about detonating? They burn, which leads to pressure inside the BO. YouTube is full of "tales" about the severed towers! Here you can pose as someone you want, but it's a fact. Moreover, if after the Chechen companies there was no video left - a shot at a tank - a penetration - the tank to shreds, or the tower flew away, but only filming the consequences and eyewitness stories, then Syria and Ukraine left no doubts. This is a line-up problem, because the same Abrams protect the crew, even if the BC is blown up.
              1. The comment was deleted.
    3. cast iron
      cast iron 16 May 2016 18: 01
      -1
      Hey, school connoisseur, how do you explain that the Nazis called your favorite "Shermans" "Zippo" lighter? And I'll explain to you - the Tsermans burned like a gasoline lighter - long and delicious.
    4. overb
      overb 20 May 2016 13: 28
      +1
      Quote: AK64
      In a 75-76mm shell in a sleeve, 600-700 grams of gunpowder.

      The full (usual) charge of the three-inch cartridge contained 1,08 kg of gunpowder. German 75mm Pzgr. Patr. 39 KwK 40 contained 2,43 kg of gunpowder.
      650 g of gunpowder was in the cartridge of the Soviet mountain 76,2 mm gun E-2 arr. 1938
  • veteran66
    veteran66 15 May 2016 19: 35
    -1
    Quote: Saburov
    which is very rare in nature.

    well, well .. why then did they come up with a "wet" ammunition rack? And the main disadvantage of the T-72 is the frequent detonation of the ammunition when a shell hits the hull. Something does not fit with "nature"
    1. Saburov
      Saburov 15 May 2016 23: 38
      +4
      Quote: veteran66
      well, well .. why then did they come up with a "wet" ammunition rack? And the main disadvantage of the T-72 is the frequent detonation of the ammunition when a shell hits the hull. Something does not fit with "nature"


      Where do you get experts from? After the Second World War, this fire protection of the combat station was not applied at all. Although it was rarely used in the Second World War. And you know what's on the 72? There are not shells, but gunpowder in sacks, what the hell is a wet warhead? For a quarter of a century I drummed at the 72 and in my whole life I saw only twice the detonation of the BC and then once at the 80 (defeat the side of the hull and hit a cumulative jet in the shells near Tolstoy-Yurt) and the second time when the 72 was half burning, after 12 I tried to get away (13 grenade hit right under the shoulder strap). So, both in the first and the second, just the 72 proved to be very worthy and proved to be a reliable machine. Find me at least one video, how does a BC detonate at 72 after a shot? And all these photos with torn towers are the results of a subsequent fire or deliberate detonation after a tank was shot down. So you a young man immediately got into a conversation and immediately blurted out nonsense. Man does not believe in anything so holy as what he knows the least about.
      1. svp67
        svp67 16 May 2016 17: 00
        +3
        Quote: Saburov
        I drummed a quarter of a century on the 72nd

        What are doubts, otherwise they would not say that
        Quote: Saburov
        There are no shells, but gunpowder in caps

        There are no KARTUZOV there. There is a CHARGE WITH A PARTIALLY BURNABLE TUBE WITH A STEEL PALLET.
        So that there is a sleeve.
        The only ones who used caps were the British.
        A cannon that uses a cartridge loading has a significantly different device from a cannon with a cartridge loading.
        Our TPs are pure guns for HOUSING LOAD,
        1. Saburov
          Saburov 16 May 2016 22: 00
          +1
          Quote: svp67
          What are doubts, otherwise they would not say that


          Doubt me what's the matter?

          Quote: svp67
          There are no KARTUZOV there. There is a CHARGE WITH A PARTIALLY BURNABLE TUBE WITH A STEEL PALLET.


          Yah? Straight eyes opened! So for the future, in slang it is called a cap (although I heard other names as Salute, Glass, Candle, Noshpa). And by right, it is called a burning sleeve.
          1. svp67
            svp67 16 May 2016 22: 14
            -1
            Quote: Saburov
            So for the future, in slang it is called a cap

            Do not drop the image of the ChVTKU even lower, God forbid which of the gunners will read it now. The cap is a "bag with a charge of gunpowder for firing a gun". And it doesn't have the ignition device that every cartridge case has.
            1. Saburov
              Saburov 16 May 2016 22: 28
              0
              Quote: svp67
              Do not drop the image of the ChVTKU even lower, God forbid which of the gunners will read it now. The cap is a "bag with a charge of gunpowder for firing a gun". And it doesn't have the ignition device that every cartridge case has.


              Have you read past the lines? Or should I report to you? All of us "Kobzari" called him that way and no one except you expressed a reproach. More wishes?
      2. veteran66
        veteran66 16 May 2016 19: 02
        -1
        Quote: Saburov
        And you know that on the 72nd separate loading?

        Who told you about the wet ammunition in the T-72? And what does it have to do with charging separately with sacks in Sherman, there’s a unitary shell. Tankman!
        1. cast iron
          cast iron 16 May 2016 19: 12
          0
          So it’s typical for a troll to turn everything upside down and blame the person for what he did not say and did not mean))) And then to laugh.
    2. Alf
      Alf 16 May 2016 00: 36
      +2
      Quote: veteran66
      and for what then the "wet" ammunition rack was invented?

      Wet styling BK used in the Sherman, and even then not at all.
      Question to you. If the wet styling saved the detonation of the BC, what prevented it from being used on all Shermans and subsequent tanks?
      1. veteran66
        veteran66 16 May 2016 19: 04
        -2
        Quote: Alf
        what prevented it from being used on all Shermans and subsequent tanks?

        Yes, there was haemorrhage with her, the amount of ammunition decreased, the ammunition was removed from the fighting compartment.
    3. svp67
      svp67 16 May 2016 16: 58
      +1
      Quote: veteran66
      Yes, and the main disadvantage of the T-72 is the frequent detonation of ammunition when a shell hits the body

      From getting into the case of the BK T-72 DO NOT DETECT. To do this, it would be necessary to break through the armor, which does not happen so often.
  • svp67
    svp67 16 May 2016 18: 01
    +1
    Quote: Saburov
    In order for the ammunition to explode, it is necessary: ​​when the armor is burned by a cumulative projectile strictly in the projection of the ammunition and the gas stream enters the shell or the HE shell (which is extremely unlikely), the armor-piercing blank hits the HE shell, and not the sleeve. the fuse is blown off the fuse, the fuse tripped when the detonator capsule was unbroken (from impact) and 99% of the causes of detonation of the detonator is a subsequent fire. For the BC to explode, it is necessary to match the above reasons, which is very rare in nature. So you most likely have heard tales of horror stories. And the 34th does not know its peers in the combination of security-firepower-maintainability and therefore is rightfully recognized throughout the world as the best WWII tank and even the best tank in the history of mankind (according to Discovery).

    Everything is beautiful, only the moment is missed that the explosion and, accordingly, the general detonation of the BC of our tanks occurred due to the fact that in the pre-war shells TNT was enhanced by RDX, which increased the sensitivity of the shells to fire. During the war, the use of TNT-hexogen mixture in tank shells was abandoned due to an acute deficiency of RDX and because of the danger of detonation of the tank ammunition in case of fire.
    1. brn521
      brn521 17 May 2016 12: 58
      -1
      Quote: svp67
      the detonation of the BK of our tanks was due to the fact that in the pre-war shells TNT was enhanced by RDX

      Not only with us. Apparently this was the reason for the use of "wet" styling in some Shermans for example. In the event of a fire, they detonated, but they gave the tankers a lot of time to get away. And with normal OFS, it usually did without detonation. About the same Shermans there are memories of how ours were forced to sit out under a damaged and burning tank. We heard how the shells were knocking out the shells, but nothing happened.
      And we didn't just sit out, we could not have time to jump out of the tank. There is a case on iremember.ru where one tanker says that he almost went crazy at one time. A friend of his, the commander of a neighboring tank, when the tower was blown up and destroyed, managed to jump out only "halfway". He lay there, clapping his eyes, scraping his hands on the ground, then dreamed in nightmares.
      The problem was solved when changing the nomenclature of shells. On the T-34-85 ammunition is not so detonated.
  • cast iron
    cast iron 15 May 2016 12: 33
    -1
    And the fact that gasoline fumes coolly detonates from a spark - it apparently slipped away from Vines.
    1. veteran66
      veteran66 15 May 2016 19: 37
      -1
      Quote: cast iron
      gasoline fumes coolly detonate from a spark

      when a projectile breaks into a tank through armor from its kinetic energy and the off-line effect of OM, even gear oil is ignited. What spark are you writing about?
      1. Saburov
        Saburov 15 May 2016 23: 49
        +5
        Quote: veteran66
        when a projectile breaks into a tank through armor from its kinetic energy and the off-line effect of OM, even gear oil is ignited. What spark are you writing about?


        Who told you that? This is how the tank should be corked in order to create such pressure when the solarium is lit. The slots will need to be covered up, the holes smoked and even inside the oxygen cylinder put with high pressure! Please pay attention to this aspect, understandable even to the amateur. I explain at an extremely simple level! Ammunition explosion occurs outside (on the armor), and not inside the tank! Consequently, a shock wave, or huge air pressure, occurs outside, not inside the machine. And the shock wave propagates with supersonic speed. She simply does not have time to penetrate into the machine through an opening with a diameter of several millimeters or tens of millimeters (up to 80mm.) Now more about overpressure and shock wave. The cumulative jet itself does not create any significant shock wave due to its small mass. The shock wave is created by the detonation of the explosive charge of the ammunition (explosive action). The shock wave CANNOT penetrate the thick-armored barrier through the hole pierced by a cumulative jet, because the diameter of such a hole is negligible, it is impossible to transmit any significant impulse through it. Accordingly, excessive pressure cannot be created inside the armored object.
        You are a young man, either you did not study well at school, or you played too many games.
        1. veteran66
          veteran66 16 May 2016 19: 14
          -3
          Quote: Saburov
          Ammunition explosion occurs outside (on the armor), and not inside the tank!

          Why are these stories about cumulative ammunition, I already know its principle of action, in the world there are only cumulative ammunition ???? It is necessary to read carefully before climbing with the teachings. I explain to the tankers that the Brond BPS effect is inherent in the BWA, and also, very often against, the tanks used concrete munitions. It's about them, not cumulative shells. But when such shells hit, their enormous kinetic energy creates the temperature and pressure from which ignition of any combustible liquids occurs.
          1. Saburov
            Saburov 16 May 2016 22: 25
            +1
            Quote: veteran66
            Why are these stories about cumulative ammunition, I already know its principle of action, in the world there are only cumulative ammunition ???? It is necessary to read carefully before climbing with the teachings. I explain to the tankers that the Brond BPS effect is inherent in the BWA, and also, very often against, the tanks used concrete munitions. It's about them, not cumulative shells. But when such shells hit, their enormous kinetic energy creates the temperature and pressure from which ignition of any combustible liquids occurs.


            Yes you? Well, what about the forum for calculating the kinetic energy of a projectile? And again you, sorry for the expression bunch ... in a puddle. And then BOPS and WWII? You are already starting to get confused in the testimony. And besides, even BOPS is not enough kinetics to create critical pressure in the armored space (learn physics and the effect of PS damage). The hole then BOPS is still small, just due to kinetics (which, by the way, in physics transforms into thermal energy) destroys armor, strikes fragments the crew and creates a fire in the near-arm space. So what is the pressure?
    2. svp67
      svp67 16 May 2016 17: 08
      0
      Quote: cast iron
      And the fact that gasoline fumes coolly detonates from a spark - it apparently slipped away from Vines.

      And the fact that "cool" detonates the vapors of any fuel, including diesel, apparently escaped you ...
      Here's how it looked on the T-34 first releases
      1. cast iron
        cast iron 16 May 2016 17: 59
        0
        And what does this photo prove, spruces? Do you have a story for this shot? Maybe the tank burned after being hit and its BC detonated in 30-40 minutes? Maybe the crew blew it up during the retreat?
        1. svp67
          svp67 16 May 2016 18: 24
          -1
          Quote: cast iron
          And what does this photo prove, spruces?

          This is a photo of a typical T-34 tank explosion. The T-34 BT inherited Christie’s suspension and the layout of the fuel tanks between the sides (the BT and T34 had a double side)
          1. svp67
            svp67 16 May 2016 18: 30
            +3
            And check out this:
            "Ref. N 632/3
            11 / 1X-44 g.
            Report of the special laboratory NKV N 101-1 on the topic:
            STUDY OF THE PECULIARITIES OF DAMAGE OF T-34 TANK FUEL FUEL TANKS TO ARMORING-HEAM AND COMMULATIVE (ARMOR-RESISTANT) AMMUNITIONS OF THE GERMAN Fascist Army.

            Repl. Performers: Rozov, Kaminsky, Shurov
            Head: Sarafanov

            1. Background
            In the battles of the spring-summer of 1943, tank commanders. armies, tank commanders. buildings and armored personnel carriers began to note the frequent cases of death of T-34 tanks in battles that occurred with the explosion of fuel tanks, or a fire of the fighting compartment: For example, the cases of fire of T-34 tanks in the battles of the summer of 1943 near Kursk exceeded the cases of fire of T-70 tanks 4-9% ...
            By order of the beg. BTU GBTU of the Red Army Colonel-Engineer Afonin September 11. In 1943, a commission was formed to study this issue.
            Our group was studying the possibilities of exploding a T-34 fuel tank using various armor-piercing means and assessing its possible impact on the crew and internal crew. equipment:

            2. Statement of the problem
            :
            Inspection by the commission at the SPAM bases of 72 combat vehicles destroyed during the fighting on the Kursk ledge showed that most of them (68%) were destroyed by a fire resulting from the depressurization of the fuel tank and the subsequent ignition of diesel fuel.
            All of these tanks have a defeat of the side or the wing of the tank armor-piercing, armor-burning shell, or explosive bombardment:
            About a third of these tanks lack one or two fuel tanks and there is destruction inside the tank, or a partial or complete destruction of the hull welds resulting from an internal explosion.
            Only a small part of the tanks (8%) have traces of an internal explosion with traces of a fire.
            Whereas 24% of combat vehicles were destroyed only as a result of an internal explosion, and no signs of fire were found in them. Often, even the ammunition is completely stored in stacks.
            According to the received order, our group investigated precisely this type of lesion - a fuel tank explosion
            :
            Members of the commission, engineer-colonel Gurov and associate professor of MVTU Krutov, after examining the consequences of detonated tanks, suggested that the damage was caused by the explosion of the front fuel tanks located in the T-34 after exposure to some German-specific ammunition.
            Engineer Major Firsov suggested that a similar explosion of a fuel tank can occur as a result of a rupture inside a tank of high-temperature ammunition based on a termite or electron
            -
            Group Comrade Sarafanova received the task personally from the beginning. GBTU to investigate the possibility of fuel detonation in T-34 tanks when various types of anti-tank ammunition of the German fascist army get into it.
            :
            1. Mordvin 3
              Mordvin 3 16 May 2016 18: 40
              +3
              [quote = svp67]

              And in what year did the Germans get shells with ground fuses? Maybe this is somehow connected? [Quote = svp67] after exposure to some German specific ammunition. [/ quote]
              1. AK64
                AK64 17 May 2016 08: 26
                0
                And in what year did the Germans get shells with ground fuses?

                In the 19th century, but what?

                Armor-piercing always and everywhere is the bottom fuse. (when there is an explosive charge there, of course.)
            2. veteran66
              veteran66 16 May 2016 19: 22
              -1
              Quote: svp67
              And check out this:

              in-in, and then here some "tankers" prove that diesel fuel, like water, does not burn. There was an interesting little book about the first tank battle in the Second World War near the town of Brody, where, at the end, interesting facts were given, for example, following the results of the first battles, GABTU concluded that the destroyed tanks as a result of fire from a shell on diesel fuel by 1% more than gasoline. I agree that this may be a statistical error, but it still turns out that there is no difference.
              1. svp67
                svp67 16 May 2016 21: 57
                +1
                Quote: veteran66
                in-in, and then here some "tankers" prove that diesel fuel, like water, does not burn.

                The solarium is on, but it doesn’t light up well, because for this it must be heated to form fumes. But the couples themselves burn EXCELLENT and no less excellent EXPLODE when certain conditions are created.
                1. AK64
                  AK64 17 May 2016 00: 00
                  -1
                  The solarium is on, but it doesn’t light up well, because for this it must be heated to form fumes. But the couples themselves burn EXCELLENT and no less excellent EXPLODE when certain conditions are created.


                  Well, in each case only and only vapor. The K-phase (though liquid, even solid) does not burn: either evaporation or gasification always occurs (the latter, say for coal.)
                  Gasoline is more easily flammable because its evaporation temperature is much lower.

                  But only the energy when breaking through the armor (even a blank, without explosives at all) is such that these temperature differences are already indifferent.

                  He told somehow similar experts that the aluminum engines of the T-34 were burning. So too much by giggles - well, they just can’t believe that that engine is not matches, not matches at all, it was set on fire. It is difficult for a person with average life experience and without a penal education to believe that aluminum is very fun and even joyfully burns.
              2. brn521
                brn521 17 May 2016 14: 01
                0
                Quote: veteran66
                sho equally it turns out that there is no difference.

                There is a difference in operation. Gasoline in barrels, buckets. Gasoline spilled on the ground and clothes - but the tankers lived with the tank, they heated there, smoked, cooked food. In winter, the tank was warmed up before launch, igniting a solarium under the engine. Replace with gasoline - fires and explosions, including with the death of personnel and equipment will become unmeasured.
            3. bastard
              bastard 16 May 2016 22: 27
              +1
              Quote: svp67
              And check out this:

              I can't answer you by mail regarding your comments on my comment, some wrong "tags", although I did not use unprintable words and offensive expressions addressed to you either. Apparently, the "organism" of this site is so arranged that it would be impossible to answer. And the answer is. Looks like no luck.
              Be healthy! hi
              PS: I’m printing slowly, so the second time I type, sorry, I won’t.
            4. Saburov
              Saburov 16 May 2016 22: 42
              0
              Quote: svp67
              COMMUNICATIVE


              One word can already doubt the authenticity of this information.
              In general, they usually give a source or a copy of documents (if these are works and scientific work). And the paper will endure everything. For example, at least so.
            5. brn521
              brn521 17 May 2016 13: 38
              +1
              Quote: svp67
              Ex N 632/3
              11 / 1X-44 g.
              Report of the special laboratory NKV N 101-1 on the topic: ...

              The primary source http://wap.militera.borda.ru/?1-20-960-00001078-000-160-1 is in economy mode, or http://militera.borda.ru/?1-20-0- 00001078-000-10001-0-1167146895 in full forum display mode.
              The author is Svirin Mikhail Nikolaevich, aka Dedmish. Specialist in the history of tank building. Text is a compilation of a 70-page document. It just appeared a habit of not believing and looking for primary sources, he dug up, maybe it would be useful to someone.
          2. svp67
            svp67 16 May 2016 18: 33
            0
            4. Equipment for research
            To verify the assumptions of vol. Gurov, Firsov and Krutov, with the help of NII-48 and Uralmashzavod, three full-scale mock-ups of sections of the T-35 tank hull with a fuel tank installed inside were built from 34 mm thick armored steel. 135 l (see devil. 2), also according to the accompany. By letter N 312-a from 21.1U-44 of the BT command, the body of the T-34 tank with a turret and equipment installed inside, but without armament, was put on the range.
            ...
            5. Conducting field experiments.
            The first shelling of full-scale models was carried out on 12 / X11-43 from the ballistic barrel of a 75-mm anti-tank gun mod. 40 g. From a distance of 30 m.
            1. During the test, the fuel tank was filled completely with diesel fuel obtained by escorts. letter to comrade Athos from 5 / X11.
            In total, 8 shells were used. 38, 5 shells arr. 39/40 and 5 armor-burning. The results are shown as follows:
            During the tests, the tank was completely destroyed 3 times, 4 times diesel fuel caught fire: No explosions were recorded.
            When shell fragments of sample 39/40 hit the tank, the latter experienced sharp braking. Many fragments did not pierce the tank through:
            Conclusions: The filled tank of the T-34 tank cannot be a source of an internal explosion of the T-34 tank, but it even serves as protection against fragments of armor and cores of shells model 39/40.
            2. Since Comrade Krutov expressed the view that gasoline also cannot explode if the tank is full, with the sanction of Comrade. Fedina a gas tank was installed in the section. According to which 3 shots were fired by a projectile of arr 38 and 1 armor-burning. No explosions were recorded; in 2 cases, gasoline caught fire.
            The second stage of the tests was started on 9/11-44. The same weapons were used for the tests, but supplemented with an 88-mm dynamo-reactive cannon arr. 43 g, firing 88-mm armor-burning mines.
            According to the approved program, tanks that were not completely filled were tested.
            At the same time, before conducting the shelling tests, a tightly closed tank fumbled in the back of the truck along a country road for 1-2 hours, after which the fuel was drained from it according to the attached diagram and the tank was installed on the model:
            :
            4 series of shots. Tank filling 10-25%
            A tank explosion causes a comulative jet to enter it when it is filled from 25% or less.
            The equivalent explosive power was about 30-50 grams of TNT. Knocked out the hatch on the roof of the layout, designed to load the fuel tank.
            In the case of filling with gasoline, the explosiveness of the mixture decreases on average by 1,5 times compared to diesel fuel. The detonation of the tank caused the hatch to open. The welds of the layout remained intact.
            :
            A different picture is observed when a high-explosive part of a 75-mm armor-piercing shell with a red ring, having equipment of 80 grams, ruptures inside an empty tank. TNT with a detonator of 20 gr. phlegmatized ten in an aluminum glass.
            In this case, the high-explosive effect of the projectile is sharply (several times) enhanced. The detonation resulting from the explosion of the tank destroyed the welds of the wing liner bottom, after which the bottom was torn out and the roof of the layout was partially destroyed by the resulting shock wave. The layout is inoperative.
            :
          3. svp67
            svp67 16 May 2016 18: 35
            +1
            6. Conclusions:
            The best ratio for the detonation of the T-34 fuel tank is caused when it is filled with fuel by 10-15% of the volume and when the armor-piercing projectile ruptures inside the tank arr. 38 "mouth" containing 80 grams of TNT and 20 grams. phlegmatic ten. Flushing causes an immediate detonation of fuel vapor, which develops with the action of the projectile, enhancing its fragility by 2-4 times, which corresponds to the impact of 105-122 mm armor-piercing projectile.
            An even better total high-explosive action is obtained when a middle name is broken in the tank. 76,2 mm armor-piercing projectile BR-350A containing 150 grams of TNT, which in total corresponds to 152 mm armor-piercing projectile type BR-540B containing 400 grams of TNT.
            With a decrease in the caliber of armor-piercing ammunition, the probability of a tank explosion decreases sharply. 37-mm and 45-mm armor-piercing shells practically do not cause detonation of the T-34 fuel tank: It should be noted that an increase in the caliber of the armor-piercing ammunition does not lead to a significant increase in the explosive power of the boerpipas detonated inside the tank. Optimally for the detonation of tanks, the presence of a 75-85 mm munition containing 50-100 gr. TNT, or a smaller amount of stronger brisant substances (for example, 30-80 grams of a mixture of A-1X-2, or 25-50 grams of phlegmatized hexogen). At the same time, the tank capacity should be at least 100 liters. 30-50 l. tanks do not create a significant increase in the explosive efficiency of armor-piercing ammunition.
            :
            Countermeasures:
            1. Prevent the placement of fuel tanks in the fighting compartment of the tank.
            2. During the battle, first consume fuel from the rear tanks, since their defeat is not so likely
            3. To strive by constructional measures to reduce the accumulation of fuel vapors and the formation of high concentration fuel vapors inside the tank. For example, to introduce fuel supply from the tanks by replacing it with a non-combustible liquid, or gas that does not support combustion: Arrange the blowdown of the fuel tanks with carbon dioxide, exhaust gases, or constantly ventilate the front tanks.
            4. To reduce the volume of fuel tanks inside the fighting compartment of the T-34 by at least half.
            5. Place fuel tanks behind airtight armored baffles:
            Rozanov
            Kaminsky
            Schurov
            early gr. Sarafanov "
          4. cast iron
            cast iron 16 May 2016 23: 19
            +1
            I note that cases of undermining the front tanks became frequent only in 1943 when the Nazis appeared in large numbers with more powerful shells and cannons. Until 1943, it was quite at the level of other tanks.
            1. AK64
              AK64 16 May 2016 23: 50
              0
              I note that cases of undermining the front tanks became frequent only in 1943 when the Nazis appeared in large numbers with more powerful shells and cannons.


              Do not fantasize: just until the 43rd, broken tanks usually remained on the territory occupied by the enemy, and then an analysis of the reasons was not possible.

              That is, everything until the 43rd is the essence of fantasy.
        2. Saburov
          Saburov 16 May 2016 21: 44
          +1
          Quote: cast iron
          And what does this photo prove, spruces? Do you have a story for this shot? Maybe the tank burned after being hit and its BC detonated in 30-40 minutes? Maybe the crew blew it up during the retreat?


          Do not explain to him ... let the person read fairy tales, do not take away his hope.
  • AK64
    AK64 15 May 2016 16: 10
    -1
    especially noting the fact that the Sherman's ammunition stowage did not detonate.


    They also did not burn tanks.
    Yes Yes.
    T-34 inherited from BT tanks in the fenders, in full length. Upon successful entry into the tank, the entire crew was drenched in diesel fuel, and all this ignited.
    The T-34 had a very bad probability of survival when hitting a tank: in fact, only two people could (only could) have time to jump out. And then "how lucky."
    1. Saburov
      Saburov 15 May 2016 19: 01
      +5
      Quote: AK64
      They also did not burn tanks.
      Yes Yes.
      T-34 inherited from BT tanks in the fenders, in full length. Upon successful entry into the tank, the entire crew was drenched in diesel fuel, and all this ignited.
      The T-34 had a very bad probability of survival when hitting a tank: in fact, only two people could (only could) have time to jump out. And even then "how lucky"


      To imagine ... they will recruit children in the fleet, then suffer!

      Where did you get this nonsense? What diesel fuel crushed and ignited? Are you out of your mind, have you tried to set fire to diesel fuel yourself? In it, cigarette butts and matches extinguish, it’s impossible to set fire to it even with an incendiary cartridge! Young man, you at least learn the main materiel so that you are not laughed at! Or you made a mistake on the site, go ahead to the forum on tank games!
      And the probability of survival of any tank is bad, when breaking through the main armor!
      1. pimen
        pimen 15 May 2016 19: 21
        +1
        at the expense of tanks in the fighting compartment area - a bad decision, and diesel fuel instead of gasoline - little comfort
        1. AK64
          AK64 15 May 2016 22: 10
          0
          diesel fuel instead of gasoline - little comfort


          In general, it’s not a consolation: the tank is not set on fire with matches, and the energy that is released when the armor is pierced by an armor-piercing shell such that there the armor starts to leak.
          1. cast iron
            cast iron 16 May 2016 17: 55
            -2
            Uhahaha))) leak armor)))) Steel? )))) You have seen enough from Ukraine vidos with a black aluminum BMD after a fire, you saw drops of aluminum and made a space-scale space inference! Expert!
            1. svp67
              svp67 16 May 2016 18: 13
              +2
              Quote: cast iron
              Uhahaha))) leak armor)))) Steel? ))))

              Learn the theory of penetration of armor; in the place of penetration, the armor DOES actually leak, since it begins to melt due to tremendous pressure and heating.
              1. cast iron
                cast iron 16 May 2016 18: 18
                +1
                Comrade "expert", when an old armor-piercing projectile breaks through the armor, there is a "plastic deformation" of the metal in the penetration zone. There is no question of metal melting.

                Moreover, when a cumulative jet is pierced, the armor metal also does not melt, because the temperature of the cumulative jet is not more than 900 degrees Celsius.
                1. AK64
                  AK64 16 May 2016 23: 53
                  -1
                  Comrade "expert", when an old armor-piercing projectile breaks through the armor, there is a "plastic deformation" of the metal in the penetration zone. There is no question of metal melting.

                  Moreover, when a cumulative jet is pierced, the armor metal also does not melt, because the temperature of the cumulative jet is not more than 900 degrees Celsius.

                  That is, about the hydrodynamic (viscous slurry) model of armor penetration non-expert didn’t hear, and therefore giggles?
                  Well, ignorance is often the cause of increased ridicule.
                2. cast iron
                  cast iron 18 May 2016 19: 00
                  0
                  Does expert not understand the difference between molten metal and how the barrier behaves at high pressures and penetration rates?
                3. AK64
                  AK64 19 May 2016 06: 03
                  0
                  Go serva learn to read.

                  In general, IQ is visible, visible.
                4. The comment was deleted.
          2. yehat
            yehat 17 May 2016 15: 47
            0
            this is precisely the basis for the use of cumulative ammunition, and not the melting point.
            1. AK64
              AK64 17 May 2016 19: 58
              0
              this is precisely the basis for the use of cumulative ammunition, and not the melting point.

              / in side /
              Lord ...

              Baby, for the 22nd time I’m building: it’s not about godfather.
              In cumulative, in fact, another model is completely, there is actually a theory of jets. There, in general, it was originally an ideal liquid and not viscous.

              Read carefully first
  • AK64
    AK64 15 May 2016 22: 07
    -6
    Ham recorded in the emergency
  • The comment was deleted.
  • brn521
    brn521 16 May 2016 13: 49
    +1
    Quote: Saburov
    Where did you get this nonsense?

    As for the burning tanks, you can pick up the same Drabkin, in the books "I fought in the T-34", and in large volumes. At the beginning and middle of the war, our tanks burned, and in large numbers. The tank crew on the old T-34s had two fears. 1) burn alive with the tank. 2) do not have time to evacuate a sufficient distance before detonating ammunition in a burning tank. And yes, oil ignition is mentioned at least once. So urgently raise all your considerable experience concerning the Second World War and the T-34 and start to debunk this case :).
    1. Saburov
      Saburov 16 May 2016 14: 48
      +1
      Quote: brn521
      As for the burning tanks, you can pick up the same Drabkin, in the books "I fought in the T-34", and in large volumes. At the beginning and middle of the war, our tanks burned, and in large numbers. The tank crew on the old T-34s had two fears. 1) burn alive with the tank. 2) do not have time to evacuate a sufficient distance before detonating ammunition in a burning tank. And yes, oil ignition is mentioned at least once. So urgently raise all your considerable experience concerning the Second World War and the T-34 and start to debunk this case :).


      At least you did not cite science fiction writers as an example, who have the same relation to tanks as I do to ballet. Do not read more Jewish books and newspapers. The paper will endure everything. Read better normal sources and research on this subject (there are plenty of them now, albeit outright misinformation too), rather than fiction.
    2. cast iron
      cast iron 16 May 2016 17: 57
      0
      Since when has fiction from the author, who only saw the tank in the pictures, become a source of unconditional truth? The author gave you a couple of cases as a trend, and you are happy.
      1. brn521
        brn521 17 May 2016 12: 17
        -1
        Quote: cast iron
        Since when is fiction from the author ...

        Quote: Saburov
        At least you did not cite science fiction writers as an example ...

        And what about fiction, science fiction and so on? Books - collections of memoirs of participants in the Second World War. And if anything, the same Google about refutations seems to be a fig, so you are the first. Please, write a refutation article on VO, educate the public. And do not forget about the site "I remember" http://iremember.ru/memoirs/tankisti/. Judging by yours, there are also solid science fiction writers gathered there.
        Quote: cast iron
        The author gave you a couple of cases as a trend

        It was not the author who issued it, but the authors of the memoirs themselves. The author summarized and on this basis highlighted this issue when interviewing.
        Quote: Saburov
        Read better normal sources and research on this

        The argument is useless without names and references.
  • svp67
    svp67 16 May 2016 18: 11
    +1
    Quote: AK64
    T-34 inherited from BT tanks in the fenders, in full length.

    The tanks of the first T-34s were located, not only there, but also in the double-hull space, where Christie's suspension elements were located, that is, the tanks actually occupied about 40% of the side projection
  • cast iron
    cast iron 18 May 2016 18: 59
    +1
    The Shermans' tanks did not burn, but the Nazis affectionately nicknamed them "Zippo Lighter". Apparently the steel burned well in Sherman. It was special - combustible.
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 15 May 2016 23: 55
    -1
    "the fact that the Sherman's ammo rack did not detonate." ////

    The Germans on the captured T-34s also redid the laying of shells so
    so that they do not detonate. It's a shame that engineers in factories
    could not think of it.
    1. AK64
      AK64 16 May 2016 11: 06
      0
      The Germans on the captured T-34s also altered the laying of shells so that they did not detonate. It's a shame that the engineers at the plants could not think of this.


      How exactly?
      What was redone there?
      And why did it detonate?

      It always seemed to me that just shells on the floor are the best that you can think of.
    2. brn521
      brn521 16 May 2016 14: 22
      0
      Quote: voyaka uh
      It's a shame that engineers in factories
      could not think of it.

      Engineers thought of a lot and corrected a lot. But later, when we finally restored some decent production. The real t-34, made in accordance with all the rules, is the t-34-85. And before that there was a nightmare. There was no optics, no rubber, no electric motors. Instead of armor, some ersatz made using simplified technology was an article on VO. Not enough simple things. Even a piece of tarpaulin with which the tank was covered, and that was of great value, because it replaced the tent for the tankmen. And when lost, there was nothing to replace. There was no paper in the headquarters, important information was recorded on newspaper pages.
      1. overb
        overb 20 May 2016 14: 08
        0
        Quote: brn521
        The real t-34 made in accordance with all the rules is the t-34-85

        We are more or less tolerant of the T-34/85 model release since August 1944. The first (spring) model has a rather weak tower reservation. In this configuration, the T-34/85, in terms of the combined performance characteristics, perhaps managed to surpass the German Pz.KpfW.IV.
        Of course, he was far from other, more powerful, brands of German tanks.
        Due to the lack of a powerful tank gun, more powerful tanks than the IS-1 (107 units in 1943-44) were not produced during the Second World War.
  • Verdun
    Verdun 14 May 2016 12: 18
    +7
    crawling matilda is better than flying BT
    And what kind of manner do many people like to compare heavy tanks with medium ones, and medium ones with light ones? Probably such people wrap hefty screws with a watch screwdriver, and hammer in a hundred square nails with a wallpaper hammer? And what would not now compare the same "Scorpio" with the "Challenger"?
    1. faiver
      faiver 14 May 2016 12: 31
      -2
      here the question is not in the classification of tanks by category ...
    2. AK64
      AK64 16 May 2016 10: 56
      0
      And what is the manner in which many people compare heavy tanks with medium tanks and medium tanks with light tanks?


      It is necessary to compare what is - with what is.
      There were BT, and there were Matilda. There were no others. And if so, then the comparison is justified.

      In this sense, the BT is such a tank that considerable remains of these were removed from the army and transferred to the Far East, to frighten the Japanese.
  • yehat
    yehat 16 May 2016 13: 00
    0
    no better and no worse. both have catastrophic flaws, and a balanced machine was needed. I still don't understand why our generals ignored the fact that the German units were saturated with 37mm cannons, which meant the grave for any BT horde.
    1. AK64
      AK64 17 May 2016 19: 55
      -1
      Still don't understand why

      I’ll open your eyes: BTs didn’t burn from pug = pulleys — they burned from an armor-piercing bullet (from a simple Mauser fired).
  • revnagan
    revnagan 14 May 2016 10: 30
    +7
    Well, why not? "Wallentines" were also very, very decent cars in their class.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Berg194500
    Berg194500 14 May 2016 13: 27
    +4
    I read a veteran who fought on Valentine, praised the tank, the car was good for its class, it was qualitatively made and comfort is on the level
  • vadim dok
    vadim dok 14 May 2016 21: 54
    +1
    Road spoon to dinner! By September 1942, a lot of tank units were lost, so Lend-Lease deliveries were salvage in the full sense of the word!
  • Lens
    Lens 15 May 2016 10: 09
    +3
    So you think meeting the enemy in 1941 and 1942 on the T-26, T-38, T-28 and T-35 was more effective? Thank you for these "irons" only because "the spoon is good FOR LUNCH". They just appeared on time ... I am in no way a supporter of alternative history, but you cannot brush off Lend Lease either. Who can say how many Soviet aircraft were built from imported aluminum? How many shells are filled with American TNT? We are accustomed to counting tanks, cars and airplanes and grinning - a drop in the ocean ... But the sea consists precisely of drops.
    1. cast iron
      cast iron 15 May 2016 13: 35
      0
      The Russian army fought quite well until October 1942 and even won without any significant Lend-Lease.
      1. veteran66
        veteran66 15 May 2016 19: 44
        -3
        Quote: cast iron
        and even won

        made sure right up to the Volga.
        1. cast iron
          cast iron 16 May 2016 17: 23
          +1
          Do I understand correctly that the general counteroffensive near Moscow in December 1941 is a "defeat" from your point of view? Or maybe this counteroffensive would not have taken place without a couple of dozen foreign tanks? Remind me when the first convoys to Russia came? And what equipment did they bring us first?
      2. Come on
        Come on 16 May 2016 17: 12
        +2
        The secular army, and not Russian, was Russian under the tsar. And Lendlis was already in the fall of the 41st.
        1. cast iron
          cast iron 16 May 2016 17: 25
          +2
          Do I understand correctly that the USSR is the legal successor of the Russian Empire, and social life is based on the cultural traditions of the Russian nation? Therefore, there is no need to find fault with words. Thanks to people like you, the word "Russian" will soon be forgotten. There will be only Tajiks, Armenians, Caucasians and others.
          1. AK64
            AK64 17 May 2016 08: 31
            0
            Do I understand correctly that the USSR is the successor of the Russian Empire, and that social life is based on the cultural traditions of the Russian nation?

            You misunderstand.
            And, naturally, he was not the "legal successor" (but the Russian Federation is just the "legal successor" of the USSR, with all that it implies)
            And in essence, the USSR was precisely a Russophobic, anti-Russian entity, where exactly the Russians were the only discriminated group.
            (For comparison: Georgians or Jews did not even kill their "princes" and bourgeois)
            1. cast iron
              cast iron 18 May 2016 19: 05
              +3
              At the same time, for some reason, the Russians lived in their own Russia and no nationalities in the number of millions with diasporas went to Russia to establish their own Sharia until 1991. My family is Russian. She lived in the Uzbek SSR and did not feel any discrimination until 1991. Do you have something to cover? Are you our "discriminatory"?
              1. AK64
                AK64 19 May 2016 06: 13
                0
                At the same time, for some reason, Russians lived in their own Russia, and no ethnic minorities in the amount of millions with diasporas went to Russia to establish their own Sharia until 1991. My family is Russian. She lived in the Uzbek SSR and did not feel any discrimination until 1991. Do you have something to cover? Are you our "discriminatory"?


                Yes, at least the fact that the Russian intelligentsia in the USSR was disproportionately small. Even the proportion of the population was far from reaching.
                At least that, not far from you, that it was the Russian non-population that was reproduced much more slowly than the nationals. But in the Empire it was exactly the opposite: it was the Russians that were reproduced like rabbits, overtaking all the national minorities as lying.
                At least by the fact that during the 75 years of the USSR, virtually no Russians were at the top of the power, this is such an amazing fact. In the country, even at its very end, the Russian population was always more than 50% (and in the beginning it was 75% - compare this decrease in the share!), But there was no Russian leadership. The only one you could call Russian is Gorbachev. And even that from head to toe lied and cheated.

                Yes, if you were smarter, you would at least read that the communists themselves wrote about national politics.

                In general, you are listed on the ignore list as inappropriate and unsuitable for either IQ or training. Learn the materiel first, and then come.
    2. Come on
      Come on 16 May 2016 17: 11
      +2
      Nichrome behold "a drop in the ocean"! Several thousand tanks, the same number of planes, trucks, machine tools, food ... Of about $ 90 billion allocated for lend-lease, the Americans returned about $ 5 billion (this is at those prices). Where the Nazi troops would have stood in 1942, without this help, especially in the defense of Moscow, only God knows.
      1. svp67
        svp67 16 May 2016 17: 16
        +3
        Quote: Yeah, well.
        Wherever Hitler’s troops stood in 1942, God alone knows without this help, especially during the defense of Moscow.

        And how did the allied supplies help us during the defense of Moscow? They didn’t have much time to get there, in the vast majority of them there were used units armed with Soviet equipment and equipment from stocks. So, here is an example not very ...
      2. activator
        activator 16 May 2016 18: 24
        +1
        Quote: Yeah, well.
        Nichrome behold "a drop in the ocean"! Several thousand tanks, the same number of planes, trucks, machine tools, food ... Of about $ 90 billion allocated for lend-lease, the Americans returned about $ 5 billion (this is at those prices). Where the Nazi troops would have stood in 1942, without this help, especially in the defense of Moscow, only God knows.

        So soon you’ll begin to measure the amount of land lease in light years. The same wika speaks of a total of 50.1 billion, of which the USSR is 11,3 billion and to England 31.4 billion France 3.2 China 1.6 billion, and the rest came from a reverse lease lease from England to the United States.
        1. activator
          activator 16 May 2016 18: 51
          +3
          And here from the same wiki why it was more profitable to supply goods under a lend-lease than to fight.
          According to Stettinius, Senator George, Chairman of the Finance Committee, explained why it is worth spending money on a Lend-Lease program:

          [USA] now spend about 8 billion a month. If it were not for the preparations that we made in these months, having won time, the war, I am sure, would have continued for a year longer. We spend up to 100 billions of dollars a year on war, and besides, we could lose a huge number of lives to the country's best sons. Even reducing the war by only half a year, we will save 48 billions of dollars, spending only 11 billions, and the blood of our soldiers, the tears of our mothers, cannot be estimated at all ...
          So, land lease in comparison with the war was quite a profitable enterprise for the United States.
  • avt
    avt 15 May 2016 19: 23
    +1
    Quote: Uncle Murzik
    Of course, thanks for your help, but these "irons" except "Shermans" are difficult to call tanks!

    I personally heard from a deceased distant relative, he was a mechanic on, as he himself said, “Valentina,” so he praised him very much and compared to 34 he noted high-quality armor and, in general, high-quality manufacturing, but complained that the gun was rather weak, about the caliber did not say, but clearly not 75mm.
    1. Verdun
      Verdun 16 May 2016 00: 57
      +7
      - "Valentina", so he praised him very much and compared with 34 he noted high-quality armor and, in general, high-quality manufacturing,
      The T-34 tank was produced at eight enterprises with various production capabilities. The cars produced on them differed significantly not only in quality, but also structurally. At the same time, I see no reason to compare the light tank "Valentine" with the medium tank T-34. But, even if you compare ... The speed on the highway is 25 km / h for Valentine and 54 km / h for the T-34, the cruising range is 150 km against 380 km, the armament is 40 mm against 76 mm. In addition to the greater thickness of the armor plates, which, unlike the T-34 armor, did not have slope angles, the British tank could not boast of anything.
      German documents of the 4th Panzer Group note the fact of the first use of British Type 3 tanks (Mk.III Valentine. - Author's note) against the 2nd Panzer Division on November 25, 1941 in the Peshka area. The document said: "For the first time, German soldiers faced the fact of real aid to England, which Russian propaganda had been shouting about for so long. British tanks are much worse than Soviet ones. The crews taken prisoner by German soldiers are scolding" the old tin boxes that the British gave them. "
      1. AK64
        AK64 16 May 2016 10: 51
        -2
        In addition to the greater thickness of the armor plates, which, unlike the T-34 armor, did not have tilt angles, the English tank could not boast of anything.


        This is if the numbers in the tablets are compared.
        And if you compare the tanks, then
        (1) all Britons had excellent quality armor - better than Amerovskaya, if Che. (Amerovskaya was a good homogen, and British also cemented superficially).
        It is better not to compare it with the Soviet one.
        (2) All forum "signs" forget that a tank is not a bunker, and not digits are important there. The tank in the first place is vehicle. On which hung armor and put weapons. But vehicle still primary.

        So the British tanks, and the Amer, were a very good vehicle: they did not break. Unlike...
        But in the T-34 (which, by the way, I repeatedly called brilliant tank) just by the 45th turnaround mileage of 1500 km were able to achieve.
        1. Verdun
          Verdun 16 May 2016 14: 22
          +3
          This is if the numbers in the tablets are compared.
          It was not by chance that I posted in the comments a link to the impressions of the German military. Or do you think that they compared the "numbers in the plates" during the battle?
      2. brn521
        brn521 16 May 2016 14: 32
        0
        Quote: Verdun
        scold "old tin boxes that the British gave them"

        There is such a thing. Only the Americans made normal deliveries. The British often tried to sell us open junk. Could at the beginning of the war and "killed" Valentines foist. But over time, our acceptance was nevertheless adjusted.
        1. Verdun
          Verdun 16 May 2016 14: 44
          +1
          The British often tried to sell us open junk. Could at the beginning of the war and "killed" Valentines foist
          You see what a thing! When the Germans give their mark
          English tanks are much worse than Soviet ones.
          they have every right to do so, since the German army encountered British armored vehicles not only on the eastern front. The British supplied themselves with not killed equipment. And it is unlikely that "Valentines" could be "killed". The tank was put into production in the middle of 1940.
          1. AK64
            AK64 17 May 2016 03: 35
            -2
            they have every right to do so, since the German army was confronted with British armored vehicles not only on the eastern front.

            First of all, it would be necessary to see if this is such a "evaluator", and where this "evaluator" "collided" with both Soviet and Angdian ones.
            And secondly - no, they don’t. For the assessment of the enemy’s point of view does not take into account such a simple factor as reliability.
            But the reliability of the Soviet and all foreign tanks differed very much
            1. cast iron
              cast iron 18 May 2016 19: 08
              +2
              Indeed, the reliability was different. If Hitler's "Panther" from a sharp start tore the transmission for itself, then the "unreliable" T-34 did not have these problems. Each tank had its own weaknesses and only one T-34, according to Russophobes, consisted entirely of only one weak point.
  • goose
    goose 19 May 2016 10: 24
    +3
    But just on what Shermans, delivered to the USSR, did the author find 75-100 frontal armor and a new 76-mm gun of increased ballistics? We were supplied exclusively with Sherman with a 1 mm M75 gun, no better than the T-34/40, and 51 mm frontal armor with a slope of about 30 degrees, which was definitely no better than the T-34 frontal rolled armor. The only plus is the lack of a mechanical drive hatch, where the equivalent T-34 armor was about 30-35 mm due to the design weakness. A very modest power reserve, gluttony and lack of tankers and cans in the troops greatly complicated the operation of the Shermanov. And the rest - the truth, yes, it did not break, it was convenient.
    For that they loved Valentines, when booking better than Sherman and a decent gun, which was enough for a 30-mm side of German tanks up to 43 years old, he ate 2-3 times less, also did not break and had a very low silhouette.
  • kalibr
    kalibr 14 May 2016 06: 32
    +11
    I would like something new. And we all read it many times with the same words ...
    Or, for example, this phrase: "The first in the USSR in October 1941 with a PQ-1 convoy arrived the English" Matilda "." Yes, we have arrived. But how many were there? And here's the most important thing: they decided the outcome of the battle near Moscow, as is often written about in the West or not? That is, the role of tanks varies depending on where they are. Good tanks "in the wrong place" are of no use to anyone, and "bad" ones in the right place often decide everything. How was it in this case?
    1. cosmos111
      cosmos111 14 May 2016 07: 04
      +13
      Quote: kalibr
      I would like something new. And we all read it many times with the same words ...

      And the article on VO was already similar.

      Quote: kalibr
      "The first to arrive in the USSR in October 1941 with a PQ-1 convoy were the English Matildas." Yes, we have arrived. But how many were there?


      ARMORED EQUIPMENT DELIVERED TO THE USSR BY THE LEND-LISA PROGRAM.

      American tanks:
      lightweight M3A1 1676
      lightweight M5 5
      lightweight M24 2
      medium M3 1386
      medium M4A2
      (with 75-mm gun) 2007
      medium M4A2
      (with 76-mm gun) 2095
      heavy M26 1
      BREM M31 115
      English tanks:
      "Valentine"
      of which canadian xnumx
      1388
      "Matilda" 1084
      Churchill 301
      "Cromwell" 6
      "Tetrarch" 20
      Bridgelayer "Valentine-
      Bridgleier "25
      American SU:
      ZSU M15A1 100
      ZSU M17 1000
      SPG T48 650
      SPG M18 5
      SPG M10 52
      British armored personnel carriers:
      "Universal Carrier"
      of which canadian xnumx
      1348
      American armored personnel carriers:
      M2 342
      M3 2
      M5 421
      M9 413
      T16 96
      М3А1 "Scout" 3340
      LVT 5
      Total 12505 tanks
      Total SU 1807
      Total 7179 armored personnel carriers


      It should be borne in mind that the table indicates the number of combat vehicles sent (total 21 units). During the escort of the northern convoys, 491 M443A3 light tanks, 1 American medium tanks, 417 half-track armored personnel carriers, 54 M228A3 Scouts, 1 Valentines, 320 Churchill's, 43 Matildas and 252 Universal were lost.

      In total, during the years of World War II, the Soviet Union actually received 19 510 units of armored vehicles through Lend-Lease, which amounted to about 16% of tanks, 8% of self-propelled guns and 100% of armored vehicles from our production.

      Sources: A.A. Belousov "Material and technical support of armored and mechanized troops in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945", "History of the tank forces of the Soviet Army", "Soviet tank forces of 1941-1945", M., Voenizdat, 1973, S. Zaloga, J .Grandsen "Soviet tanks of World War Two", London, 1984, Baryatinsky M. "Armored vehicles of the USSR. 1939-1945".
      1. Uncle Murzik
        Uncle Murzik 14 May 2016 07: 23
        +1
        it would be better if the allies opened a second front in Europe, in 1942 at least! or in 1943 how many lives would be saved!
        1. cosmos111
          cosmos111 14 May 2016 07: 29
          +2
          Quote: Uncle Murzik
          it would be better if the Allies opened a second front, in 1942 at least!

          Article about the 2th Front?
          1. Uncle Murzik
            Uncle Murzik 14 May 2016 07: 33
            +4
            no, an article about "disinterested" allies!
        2. kalibr
          kalibr 14 May 2016 07: 36
          +6
          Better for us, but not for them! And why did they have to try for us? "Friendship is friendship, and tobacco apart!" We can still say lucky that in the same USA the point of view of Roosevelt, not Truman, prevailed. Of course, he reasoned very cynically. But from the point of view of the interests of the United States ... right!
          1. Uncle Murzik
            Uncle Murzik 14 May 2016 07: 41
            +1
            yes we know "nothing personal, only business" "the world standard of democracy!
            1. Aaron Zawi
              Aaron Zawi 14 May 2016 08: 38
              -2
              Quote: Uncle Murzik
              yes we know "nothing personal, only business" "the world standard of democracy!

              Well yes. For example, London in 1940 was bombed with gasoline from Soviet oil.
              1. Uncle Murzik
                Uncle Murzik 14 May 2016 09: 04
                +6
                and that we were allies with england in 1940? belay
                1. Aaron Zawi
                  Aaron Zawi 14 May 2016 09: 10
                  +1
                  Quote: Uncle Murzik
                  and that we were allies with england in 1940? belay

                  In 1941, at the time of the attack on the USSR, neither Britain nor the United States were allies of the USSR, which did not prevent them from joining the military-technical cooperation with the USSR.
                  1. Uncle Murzik
                    Uncle Murzik 14 May 2016 09: 20
                    +7
                    The decree of US President Franklin Roosevelt of December 13, 1941 allowed such transactions and the Americans to conduct business with enemy companies, unless there was a special ban on the US Treasury. American corporations very often and without problems received such permission, supplying formal enemies with much-needed topics such as steel, engines, aviation fuel, rubber, and radio components. The benefit was mutual: warring Germany received the raw materials and goods necessary for its industry, American companies received superprofits from transactions with the enemy. Thus, the American oil monopoly Standard Oil, belonging to the Rockefeller family, which produced, transported, refined oil and marketed petroleum products, regularly supplied Hitler Germany with fuel and synthetic rubber during the war years. Deliveries also went to Italy. At the same time - the most interesting! - In the United States during the war years, there were serious problems with the supply of synthetic rubber for American industry. In the case of Germany, there were no problems.
                  2. alexej123
                    alexej123 15 May 2016 13: 33
                    +7
                    Dear, how many Western firms and brands collaborated with Hitler? Germany has a guilty complex towards Israel, and Western brands? Has anyone apologized? And, I think, some of these brands are currently sold in Israel. Then what are you buying? And, I understand, only business, nothing personal. Before blaming the USSR, it does not bother to look at the politics of their country from a different angle.
                    1. Come on
                      Come on 16 May 2016 19: 46
                      0
                      So you are comparing the country and its leadership with some sort of sharazhki, firms, companies? :)
                  3. The comment was deleted.
                2. 97110
                  97110 14 May 2016 17: 38
                  +4
                  Quote: Uncle Murzik
                  and that we were allies with england in 1940? belay

                  Were they planning to bomb Baku in 1940? And your well-maintained state was prevented from building viciously. What are you worried about them?
                3. AK64
                  AK64 15 May 2016 16: 53
                  -2
                  and that we were allies with england in 1940?


                  What would hint at the strategic genius of the Soviet leadership, no?
              2. iouris
                iouris 14 May 2016 15: 56
                +4
                From 1928 to 1942, Oppel was apparently owned by General Motors.
                The production of bearings and anti-aircraft guns was located in "neutral" Sweden and Switzerland, not to mention the financial side of the First and Second World War.
              3. fzr1000
                fzr1000 15 May 2016 23: 34
                +5
                Nothing that Standard Oil delivered to Hitler until 1944? Soviet oil still let's reproach.
          2. Uncle Murzik
            Uncle Murzik 14 May 2016 08: 02
            +10
            If we see that Germany wins the war, we should help Russia, and if Russia wins, we should help Germany, and let them kill as much as possible, ”US President Harry Truman, 1941 Senator. USA and adhered to this doctrine throughout the war
          3. AK64
            AK64 15 May 2016 16: 50
            -1
            And why did they have to try for us? "Friendship is friendship, and tobacco apart!" We can still say lucky that in the same USA the point of view of Roosevelt, not Truman, prevailed.

            Yes, Truman is just a hillbilly who said out loud what you can’t say - and nothing more.
            And so they had one point of view.

            Here was a wonderful series of articles about WWII as a war between ... Great Britain and the USA.
            Yes, that's right: whoever and how would not have fought, but in fact it was a war for world domination between the then hegemon - Britain and the "challenger" - the United States.

            The USA won (as we now know).

            Those who have a desire to put a minus to me - I refer to the mentioned series of articles: it is difficult to read, but I personally agree with the author.
        3. Aaron Zawi
          Aaron Zawi 14 May 2016 08: 36
          +4
          Quote: Uncle Murzik
          it would be better if the allies opened a second front in Europe, in 1942 at least! or in 1943 how many lives would be saved!
          in 1943 the rout of the Italo-German forces in North Africa was completed. Sicily was liberated, a foothold in Italy captured. At the same time, the United States almost single-handedly fought with Japan in the vast expanses of the Pacific Ocean, which also required enormous material and human efforts.
          1. Uncle Murzik
            Uncle Murzik 14 May 2016 09: 12
            +4
            well, you read about the scale of these "battles"! Rommel with one corps almost rolled the "allies"
            1. Aaron Zawi
              Aaron Zawi 14 May 2016 09: 28
              +4
              Quote: Uncle Murzik
              well, you read about the scale of these "battles"! Rommel with one corps almost rolled the "allies"

              I think you read, not the most serious literature.
              On May 12, the US-British leadership officially announced that the resistance of the Italo-German forces in North Africa had ceased. According to German data, about 150 thousand German and 100 thousand Italian soldiers and officers were taken prisoner ...

              these were the remnants of the Axis bloc fighting the Allies. Can’t you find a little more body?
          2. 97110
            97110 14 May 2016 17: 41
            +2
            Quote: Aron Zaavi
            USA almost alone fought with Japan

            And the "heroic" Dutch? And Yuk? How is it "alone"?
            1. Aaron Zawi
              Aaron Zawi 14 May 2016 22: 36
              -1
              Quote: 97110
              Quote: Aron Zaavi
              USA almost alone fought with Japan

              And the "heroic" Dutch? And Yuk? How is it "alone"?

              After 1942, almost alone. The British had difficulty holding part of Indochina, the Australians and New Zealanders mostly helped the British, and the main battles at sea and on the islands were dragged by the Americans.
              1. 97110
                97110 15 May 2016 13: 39
                +9
                Quote: Aron Zaavi
                and the main battles at sea and on the islands were dragged by the Americans.

                I respect your erudition. Therefore, assess the efforts of the Yankees in the battle for the Gaudal Canal, where, if my memory serves me right, they dragged the terrible weight of the destruction of the 12,5 thousandth landing for how many months? What else were they doing during this time? Why did their navel crack, their forehead was sweaty, and their crotch was soapy? Midway, Gaudal Canal - these are just the battles where YUS "broke the spine" of Japan and won World War II. And we went out into the wide steppe, from Kalach to Grozny, so - take a walk.
          3. Alf
            Alf 16 May 2016 00: 52
            +1
            Quote: Aron Zaavi
            in 1943 the rout of the Italo-German forces in North Africa was completed.

            And how many German tanks were in North Africa? Well, if a couple of hundred counted.
            1. AK64
              AK64 16 May 2016 10: 43
              -3
              And how many German tanks were in North Africa? Well, if a couple of hundred counted.

              Well, yes, yes ...
              Of course, where are the tanks from Africa? Pioneer Dawn about tanks in Africa did not tell ....

              In Tunisia alone, nearly five hundred were captured, including the Tigers.

              Well, Boryatansky isn’t talking about it, is he? And there was nothing to mean
        4. arlekin
          arlekin 14 May 2016 12: 37
          +7
          Quote: Uncle Murzik
          it would be better if the allies opened a second front in Europe, in 1942 at least! or in 1943 how many lives would be saved!

          I wonder how you imagine the Allied landing in Normandy in 1942? I got it like this:
          The Americans, not paying attention to the fact that the Japanese are chasing and beating them throughout the Pacific Ocean, are assembling a mobilized but untrained army, which lacks tanks, aircraft, and artillery. Then they put her on merchant ships and send her to Europe across the Atlantic Ocean, to the delight of the "packs of wolves", the tactics of dealing with which have not yet been created. Those who are fortunate enough to survive, land on the shore and, without air superiority, try to seize the bridgehead. At this time, the ships rush back for the next batch of soldiers, the escort ships leave with them, to protect them from submarines.
          When the second wave of the landing arrives, I’m afraid that there will be no memories left of the first.
          Let me remind you that when we crossed the Dnieper in 1943, losses amounted to 22000 soldiers per day, not without reason was the most massive rewarding with the GSS for this operation. But the Dnieper is still a little narrower than the Atlantic.
          1. AK64
            AK64 16 May 2016 10: 37
            +1
            I wonder how you imagine the Allied landing in Normandy in 1942? I got it like this: .....


            Now look at the operation Torch: there was exactly everything that you here so ardently condemn. Moreover, it was in the fall of 1942.
        5. Beefeater
          Beefeater 14 May 2016 17: 16
          -1
          Quote: Uncle Murzik
          it would be better if the allies opened a second front in Europe, in 1942 at least! or in 1943 how many lives would be saved!

          If the USSR began military operations against Germany in 40, they would have saved even more lives
          1. 97110
            97110 14 May 2016 21: 47
            +3
            Quote: Beefeater
            If the USSR began military operations against Germany in the 40th

            would receive a single bloc of capitalist countries, as during the war with Finland. Dreaming is not harmful, of course, but it is better to think with gratitude about the genius of Stalin, who pitted the arrogant Saxons with Hitler.
            1. Alf
              Alf 16 May 2016 00: 56
              0
              Quote: 97110
              would receive a single block of capitalist countries,

              WHICH countries? In the middle of 1940, one Britain remained unconquered in Europe, which trembled only at the thought of the German invasion. Of the entire bloc, only the United States remained, which did not at all burn with the desire to fight.
          2. Uncle Murzik
            Uncle Murzik 15 May 2016 05: 40
            +4
            The USSR last concluded an agreement not to attack with Germany, if that!
          3. AK64
            AK64 16 May 2016 10: 35
            -1
            If the USSR began military operations against Germany in 40, they would have saved even more lives


            Hardly.
            And the army in 1940 was unimportant (in the 41st it was already better), and the US position could be a little different.
            And the "US position" is both Lend-Lease and the second front (Britain alone would not be enough for a full-fledged one).

            You look at the question from the point of view of the "war between the US and Britain".
          4. Pomeranian
            Pomeranian 16 May 2016 10: 58
            +1
            Quote: Beefeater
            If the USSR began military operations against Germany in 40, they would have saved even more lives

            What are you! And by whom and by what was the USSR supposed to attack Germany in 1940?
        6. 97110
          97110 14 May 2016 17: 36
          +1
          Quote: Uncle Murzik
          how many lives would be saved!

          They tried it. In Dieppe. So we are not talking about saving our lives. How many of their "valuable" lives would have been wasted. The Germans would have eaten them to dust in France in 1942. And in Africa they landed. And in Italy.
          1. Alf
            Alf 16 May 2016 00: 58
            0
            Quote: 97110
            In Dieppe.

            Dieppe planned as an exploratory raid, respectively, and the forces and means and GOALS were quite certain.
            1. AK64
              AK64 16 May 2016 10: 27
              +1
              Dieppe planned as an exploratory raid, respectively, and the forces and means and GOALS were quite certain.


              And where can we read about Dieppe's planning as a "reconnaissance raid"?
              Also, go, Baryatyansky in the tank collection?
              Or did Pioneer truth tell about it?

              Dieppe was most likely a diplomatic demonstration for Stalin: "see? we tried - it doesn’t work out yet"

              At the same time, I honestly say "most likely" - because, unlike Boryatyansky, I realize that I do not know the truth
        7. Kenneth
          Kenneth 14 May 2016 21: 53
          0
          And Italy is not Europe for you. In 1943, the Allies opened a second front in Europe and knocked out Germany’s largest ally from the war.
          1. 97110
            97110 15 May 2016 14: 33
            0
            Quote: Kenneth
            Italy is not Europe for you.

            Who was addressed to? Me and Italy Europe. And it will not be difficult for you to address explicitly, how am I to you?
          2. Alf
            Alf 16 May 2016 01: 03
            +2
            Quote: Kenneth
            Germany's largest ally.

            It’s not about whether they said Italy — Italy costs us 2 divisions — to protect and to defeat. With its participation in the war, Italy dragged Germany into a hopeless war in Africa and the Balkans. This is said about such allies. With such allies no enemies are needed. Germany was the only valuable ally of Romania. Not at all because of the Romanian troops, but because of the Romanian oil.
            1. AK64
              AK64 16 May 2016 10: 23
              0
              It’s not about whether they said Italy — Italy costs us 2 divisions — to protect and to defeat. With its participation in the war, Italy dragged Germany into a hopeless war in Africa and the Balkans. This is said about such allies. With such allies no enemies are needed. Germany was the only valuable ally of Romania. Not at all because of the Romanian troops, but because of the Romanian oil.


              Bullet fool - well done bayonet!
            2. Come on
              Come on 17 May 2016 00: 20
              0
              Hitler needed African oil, not Romanian.
        8. veteran66
          veteran66 15 May 2016 19: 46
          -1
          Quote: Uncle Murzik
          it would be better if the allies opened a second front in Europe, in 1942 at least! or in 1943 how many lives would be saved!

          Of course it would be better, but they recovered only by the 43rd year. And how do you imagine the scale of the troop deployment to Europe?
      2. kalibr
        kalibr 14 May 2016 07: 33
        +9
        These are general figures! It is more interesting how much Matilda was involved at the same time at the front, and their% in relation to our tanks. And then it will be possible to compare these figures with Halder's diary, that is, to have a "cross-check". Because, as judging by Chibisov's memoirs "English tanks at the Cool Log" by Matilda under Kr. Log, they played no role at all. Where did they play it then? That is, in my opinion, the time for common phrases in our history is over. It is necessary specifically - here they decided the outcome of the battle, here they were all burned, here they were used for staged photos. Without this, our history will remain a "history of common phrases" for 12 volumes. Whereas in the USA the history of the Second World. wars - 99 volumes, and in Japan ... 100!
        1. Aaron Zawi
          Aaron Zawi 14 May 2016 08: 42
          +1
          Quote: kalibr
          And where did they play it then?

          In my personal opinion, near Moscow, where they accounted for 10% of the entire tank fleet of the Red Army. And a special role was played by Lend-Lease tanks during the defense of the S. Caucasus, where they accounted for up to 40% of that of the Red Army troops defending the Caucasus. This was due to the Iranian Lend-Lease route.
          1. Uncle Murzik
            Uncle Murzik 14 May 2016 09: 31
            -6
            Well, your opinion is an argument! by chance is not a participant in the Great Patriotic War?
            1. Aaron Zawi
              Aaron Zawi 14 May 2016 09: 49
              +3
              Quote: Uncle Murzik
              Well, your opinion is an argument! by chance is not a participant in the Great Patriotic War?

              Of course not. But I read on the subject all that is available.
      3. cast iron
        cast iron 15 May 2016 13: 38
        +3
        How many tanks and aid were transferred to the USSR before the summer of 1942? And then suddenly it turns out that the counter-offensive near Moscow managed somehow without the help of "disinterested" "allies".
      4. Alf
        Alf 16 May 2016 00: 46
        +1
        Quote: cosmos111
        In total, during the years of World War II, the Soviet Union actually received 19 510 units of armored vehicles through Lend-Lease, which amounted to about 16% of tanks, 8% of self-propelled guns and 100% of armored vehicles from our production.

        Now give a breakdown by year of delivery ...
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Aaron Zawi
      Aaron Zawi 14 May 2016 08: 32
      -2
      Quote: kalibr
      I would like something new. And we all read it many times with the same words ...
      Or, for example, this phrase: "The first in the USSR in October 1941 with a PQ-1 convoy arrived the English" Matilda "." Yes, we have arrived. But how many were there? And here's the most important thing: they decided the outcome of the battle near Moscow, as is often written about in the West or not? That is, the role of tanks varies depending on where they are. Good tanks "in the wrong place" are of no use to anyone, and "bad" ones in the right place often decide everything. How was it in this case?

      No, we haven't decided. But near Moscow, 10% of the entire tank fleet of the Red Army was "Matilda". Is it a lot or a little? Let everyone decide for himself.
      1. Uncle Murzik
        Uncle Murzik 14 May 2016 08: 56
        -2
        After the collapse of the USSR, debts were reissued to Russia, and the end of payments is expected already in 2030. Great-grandchildren of veterans will pay with gold that their great-grandfathers paid for blood
        1. Cat man null
          Cat man null 14 May 2016 09: 12
          +1
          Quote: Uncle Murzik
          After the collapse of the USSR, debts were reissued to Russia

          - they were not reissued immediately "after the collapse", but, in general, it was so

          Quote: Uncle Murzik
          the end of payments is expected already in 2030

          - But this is something new, for mnu, at least ..

          Do not specify:

          - what kind of "payments" do you mean?
          - what is the remainder of the "debt", to whom and for what, if possible?
          - where does the term 2030 come from?

          Quote: Vika
          Technically, the debts of the USSR were divided into debts to governments (Club of Paris), and debts to private banks (Club of London); debt for land lease was a debt to the US government, that is, part of the debt to the Paris Club. Russia fully repaid its debt to the Paris Club in August 2006

          - Thus, the Soviet Lend-Lease debt was paid off almost ten years ago belay
          1. Uncle Murzik
            Uncle Murzik 14 May 2016 09: 21
            -4
            Well, then the grandchildren did not pay the debts! belaydeliveries were free of charge as they want to convince us here
            1. Cat man null
              Cat man null 14 May 2016 09: 53
              0
              Quote: Uncle Murzik
              Well, then the grandchildren did not pay the debts! deliveries were free of charge as they want to convince us here

              - dear, I did not quite understand which of my questions you answered here
              - supplies of "consumables" (including "spent" equipment) - as far as sclerosis does not change me, indeed, according to the terms of Lend-Lease, the USSR was not paid
              - the "unspent" part of the same, for example, equipment was subject to payment. Refund, and in case of non-return - payment.

              Everything is simple, like an orange, as we see yes

              PS: And yet - what is there who is going to pay someone .. right up to the year 2030? wink
              1. Uncle Murzik
                Uncle Murzik 14 May 2016 10: 32
                -2
                drop the link that debts have already been paid, if not difficult! smileotherwise I didn’t see anything in your link about Lend-Lease debts! belay
            2. Beefeater
              Beefeater 14 May 2016 17: 22
              +1
              Quote: Uncle Murzik
              Well, then the grandchildren did not pay the debts! belaydeliveries were free of charge as they want to convince us here

              You had to either pay or return
              Stalin did not return a lot of equipment, for example, the "Airacobra" planes, so he had to pay
              1. Uncle Murzik
                Uncle Murzik 15 May 2016 14: 26
                -1
                lodges do not decorate a man! The United States was still trying to cheat on the USSR, they also set interest!

                “A significant part of the weapons and military equipment, as expected under the Lend-Lease agreement, the Soviet Union returned back at the end of the war. Having received in exchange an invoice for a round sum of $ 1300 million. Against the backdrop of the cancellation of Lend-Lease debts to other powers, it looked like an outright robbery , therefore, JV Stalin demanded to recount the "allied debt."


                Subsequently, the Americans were forced to admit that they were mistaken, but added interest to the total amount, and the final amount, taking into account these percentages, recognized by the USSR and the USA under the Washington agreement in 1972, amounted to 722 million greens. Of these, 48 million were paid by the United States under Leonid Brezhnev, in three equal installments in 1973, after which the payments were discontinued due to the introduction of discriminatory measures by the American side in trade with the USSR (in particular, the notorious “Jackson-Vanik Amendment” - author).

                Only in June 1990, during new negotiations between Presidents George W. Bush and M.S. Gorbachev, did the parties return to a discussion of Lend-Lease debt, during which a new deadline for final repayment of the debt was established - 2030, and the remaining amount of debt - 674 million dollars. THE USSR!"
              2. Uncle Murzik
                Uncle Murzik 15 May 2016 22: 56
                -2
                surely forgot to return the planes shot down by the Germans! belay
  • moskowit
    moskowit 14 May 2016 07: 39
    +9
    I suggest reading the book by Dmitry Loza "Tanker in a foreign car" ...
  • ivselim
    ivselim 14 May 2016 07: 59
    0
    Article and author +
  • Yak28
    Yak28 14 May 2016 08: 14
    +1
    I am sure at 100% that if the United States were in the place of the USSR, and the USSR in the place of the United States, the Soviet Union would send military equipment to help the Allies without interruption. This is about decency, communist and capitalist regimes.
    1. kalibr
      kalibr 14 May 2016 08: 26
      +8
      And it would be very in vain. We sent a lot of things where FREE. In the same Poland, Germany destroyed by the war, the Baltic countries. So what? Did they say thank you? Sent to hell at the first opportunity! People are mostly big brutes. Their morality is - if it can - let it do! Therefore, to supply free of charge is the very last nonsense that one country can afford in relation to another. no, you can supply "free of charge": cannons without shells, ships ... written off for scrap, "grenades of the wrong caliber" ... You cannot supply good things for free! It's like giving away pieces of the Fatherland for free!
      1. Uncle Murzik
        Uncle Murzik 14 May 2016 08: 31
        0
        In addition, the USSR paid in gold for allied supplies. So, only one British cruiser "Edinburgh", which was sunk by German submarines in May 1942, contained 5,5 tons of precious metal.

        A significant part of the weapons and military equipment, as expected under the Lend-Lease agreement, the Soviet Union returned after the war. Having received in exchange an invoice for a round sum of $ 1300 million. Against the backdrop of the cancellation of Lend-Lease debts to other powers, this looked like an outright robbery, therefore JV Stalin demanded that the “allied debt” be recounted.


        Subsequently, the Americans were forced to admit that they were mistaken, but added interest to the total amount, and the final amount, taking into account these percentages, recognized by the USSR and the USA under the Washington agreement in 1972, amounted to 722 million greens. Of these, 48 million were paid by the United States under Leonid Brezhnev, in three equal installments in 1973, after which the payments were discontinued due to the introduction of discriminatory measures by the American side in trade with the USSR (in particular, the notorious “Jackson-Vanik Amendment” - author).

        Only in June 1990, during new negotiations between Presidents George W. Bush and M.S. Gorbachev, did the parties return to a discussion of Lend-Lease debt, during which a new deadline for final repayment of debt was established - 2030, and the remaining amount of debt - 674 million dollars. Well and then free
        1. moskowit
          moskowit 14 May 2016 10: 51
          +5
          For a long time in the home library there is a book by Vladimir Nikolayevich Zhukov "The Chronicle of the Steamer Hugo." So it describes that ships loaded with furs went across the Pacific Ocean to pay the Lendleys debt ... "Soft Gold" ... The same currency .. ...
        2. Beefeater
          Beefeater 14 May 2016 17: 25
          -1
          Edinburgh was a British cruiser, and a Lend-Lease American program
    2. Stas57
      Stas57 14 May 2016 08: 41
      +4
      Quote: Yak28
      I am sure at 100% that if the United States were in the place of the USSR, and the USSR in the place of the United States, the Soviet Union would send military equipment to help the Allies without interruption. This is about decency, communist and capitalist regimes.

      Is there such kindness with horseradish? they would have come up with the same lend-lease in exchange for machine tools, gunpowder or metals
    3. Aaron Zawi
      Aaron Zawi 14 May 2016 08: 47
      0
      Quote: Yak28
      I am sure at 100% that if the United States were in the place of the USSR, and the USSR in the place of the United States, the Soviet Union would send military equipment to help the Allies without interruption. This is about decency, communist and capitalist regimes.

      In 1940, Britain was in a difficult situation at that time, the USSR not only did not help Britain, but also actively traded with Germany, supplying the latter with oil, grain and rare metals.
      1. Uncle Murzik
        Uncle Murzik 14 May 2016 09: 07
        +3
        Already during the Nuremberg trials, the former president of the Imperial Bank, Hjalmar Schacht, said in an interview with an American lawyer: “If you want to indict industrialists who helped rearm Germany, then you must indict yourself. You will be required to indict the Americans. The Opel automobile plant, for example, did not produce anything other than military products. Your General Motors owned this plant. And what did it do during the war?
        1. Beefeater
          Beefeater 14 May 2016 17: 27
          -3
          Opel trucks manufactured, ordinary civilian trucks
          1. Alf
            Alf 16 May 2016 01: 18
            +1
            Quote: Beefeater
            conventional civilian trucks

            And these
            Quote: Beefeater
            conventional civilian trucks
            weren't at the front? And if they were not at the front, it means that they replaced other trucks that went to the front in the rear. But what, these Opels could not carry shells, guns and infantry?
            If you think so, then GAZ-AA, GAZ-AAA, ZIS-5 were also civilian ordinary trucks. And the famous Studebakers, too.
            1. AK64
              AK64 16 May 2016 10: 19
              -3
              And how could the Americans oppose the work of Opel plants?
              Threaten with a finger? Or give a strict order to not work?
      2. Uncle Murzik
        Uncle Murzik 14 May 2016 09: 12
        +5
        The decree of US President Franklin Roosevelt of December 13, 1941 allowed such transactions and the Americans to conduct business with enemy companies, unless there was a special ban on the US Treasury. American corporations very often and without problems received such permission, supplying formal enemies with much-needed topics such as steel, engines, aviation fuel, rubber, and radio components. The benefit was mutual: warring Germany received the raw materials and goods necessary for its industry, American companies received superprofits from transactions with the enemy. Thus, the American oil monopoly Standard Oil, belonging to the Rockefeller family, which produced, transported, refined oil and marketed petroleum products, regularly supplied Hitler Germany with fuel and synthetic rubber during the war years. Deliveries also went to Italy. At the same time - the most interesting! - In the United States during the war years, there were serious problems with the supply of synthetic rubber for American industry. In the case of Germany, there were no problems.
      3. activator
        activator 14 May 2016 09: 24
        +6
        Quote: Aron Zaavi

        In 1940, Britain was in a difficult situation at that time. The USSR not only did not help Britain, but also actively traded with Germany, supplying the latter with oil, grain and rare metals.

        Well, if England had not refused technology to France with the USSR, then everything might have turned out differently.
        February 21, 1940 Commissar of Foreign Affairs V.M. Molotov directed I.M. Maisky as follows explain to the British government the policy of the USSR towards Germany: “First. We consider it ridiculous and insulting for us not only to affirm, but even to simply assume that the USSR allegedly entered into a military alliance with Germany .... Second. An economic agreement with Germany is just a trade agreement, according to which export from the USSR to Germany reaches only 500 million marks, and the agreement is economically beneficial for the USSR, since the USSR receives a large number of machine tools and equipment from Germany, as well as a fair amount of weapons, in the sale of which we have always been refused both in England and in France. The third. Just as the USSR was neutral, it remains neutral unless, of course, Britain and France attack the USSR and force them to take up arms. Stubbornly spread rumors of a military alliance between the USSR and Germany are fueled not only by some elements in Germany itself, in order to confuse England and France,
      4. Verdun
        Verdun 14 May 2016 10: 11
        +5
        The USSR not only did not help Britain, but also actively traded with Germany, supplying the latter with oil, grain and rare metals.
        So after all, at that time the USSR and Germany were in political and partially economic isolation from England and the USA. It seems that, in view of these circumstances, the Soviet leadership considered Germany its natural ally. However, at some point, probably it was.
      5. Ukropus
        Ukropus 14 May 2016 14: 02
        +2
        Quote: Aaron Zawi

        In 1940, Britain was in a difficult situation at that time, the USSR not only did not help Britain, but also actively traded with Germany, supplying the latter with oil, grain and rare metals.

        Dear, do you recall how the British Empire behaved during the Soviet-Finnish war of 1939-1940? To whom and how did she help? And who did not hesitate to voice officially through her prime minister the official about the armistice with Germany for the sake of opening joint actions against the USSR? If someone is very hard and ill, he does not rush into a fight, especially receiving cuffs from another opponent. the question is: why the hell is it to help a country that, throughout its history, with the exception of a couple of episodes, is your enemy and geopolitical opponent. Fullton put everything in its place. And the British Lend-Lease is a merit of Roosevelt. If he was not sure or would be against the help of the USSR, Britain would not send us a cartridge in the life of a cartridge. So it goes.
        1. Beefeater
          Beefeater 14 May 2016 17: 31
          -2
          Churchill on June 22, 41, announced his assistance to the Soviet Union. There was no talk of any Lend-Lease then.
          1. Ukropus
            Ukropus 14 May 2016 18: 49
            +3
            OK. Then de jure the British Lend-Lease was not and could not be, because BI itself was a member of the American (the only true) Lend-Lease and received US assistance. There was a sale by the USSR of British-made equipment, including for gold. There were, of course, charitable foundations and so on. Thank you very much for that. Yes, and everyone who helped, you need to be grateful. With the payment of debt for US dollars, the Soviet rulers behaved to put it mildly not decently. You need to pay for your debts, not to bargain and evade payment. Moreover, that country could very well afford it ...
            1. 97110
              97110 14 May 2016 22: 01
              +2
              Quote: Ukropus
              that country could very well afford it ...

              Too shy to ask ... Did you write about the USSR like that? Where people were starving after the war and not because the Communists ate everything, but because the Germans DESTROYED the most populated and developed part of the country. Or about today's Russian Federation? Where weddings for lard dollars are given to children by celestials. But this lard is private - it’s not for state needs, it’s a drink and pro ... Well, this is indecent.
            2. Uncle Murzik
              Uncle Murzik 15 May 2016 12: 58
              +1
              A significant part of the weapons and military equipment, as expected under the Lend-Lease agreement, the Soviet Union returned after the war. Having received in exchange an invoice for a round sum of $ 1300 million. Against the backdrop of the cancellation of Lend-Lease debts to other powers, this looked like an outright robbery, therefore JV Stalin demanded that the “allied debt” be recounted.


              Subsequently, the Americans were forced to admit that they were mistaken, but added interest to the total amount, and the final amount, taking into account these percentages, recognized by the USSR and the USA under the Washington agreement in 1972, amounted to 722 million greens. That's how the United States tried to cash in on the country, which extended the bulk of the war!
            3. Alf
              Alf 16 May 2016 01: 20
              +1
              Quote: Ukropus
              You need to pay for your debts, not bargain and evade payment

              Before you pay on debts, you must first JUST calculate them.
              1. AK64
                AK64 16 May 2016 10: 10
                -2
                Before you pay on debts, you must first JUST calculate them.

                Smart people think when they take it.
                Before returning, they are considered crooks.

                I'm not talking about Lend-Lease, I'm "in general": the desire to match the debt before the return characterizes a swindler.
        2. kalibr
          kalibr 14 May 2016 22: 32
          +3
          Yes, but Churchill, already four hours after the attack on the USSR, announced in the House of Commons that Britain would provide military assistance to the USSR and the first Dervish convoy that came to us was from England.
          1. Uncle Murzik
            Uncle Murzik 15 May 2016 10: 01
            +1
            only he came on August 31!
            1. kalibr
              kalibr 15 May 2016 16: 46
              +1
              This is fast, by the way! Count: while you decide, pick it up, take it to the northern ports, load it, arrange it with delivery, then a week, if not more. This is quick, I repeat.
      6. alexej123
        alexej123 15 May 2016 13: 44
        +7
        Again 25. Let's move a little earlier - to 1937-1938. After all, Stalin offered to appease Hitler, he allocated troops, there was only one request that they would let through. Answer? Munich Agreement, after which Hitler came to believe in his impunity. And that was one of the causes and conditions of the Holocaust - the destruction of your people. I am not an anti-Semite, but "I am plagued by vague doubts." Guys, you got a good education in the USSR. You know how to think. And now repeat the mantras "USSR and Stalin are enemy" like clockwork dummies.
        1. kalibr
          kalibr 16 May 2016 18: 17
          0
          Quote: alexej123
          You guys got a good education in the USSR.

          And why didn’t it save us from 91?
          1. alexej123
            alexej123 17 May 2016 12: 00
            +3
            Here you are right. I think many people had “rainbow” pictures from “Western life” in their eyes. Many had a thought - "And I want it that way." But life has shown realities. I think after such a "vaccination", while these generations are still alive, this will not happen again. Although, I may be wrong.
            1. AK64
              AK64 17 May 2016 19: 48
              0
              Here you are right. I think many people had “rainbow” pictures from “Western life” in their eyes. Many had a thought - "And I want it that way." But life has shown realities. I think after such a "vaccination", while these generations are still alive, this will not happen again. Although, I may be wrong.


              Thank God, there is a "test tube experiment": Sev. Korea vs. South Korea.
      7. The comment was deleted.
  • da Vinci
    da Vinci 14 May 2016 09: 14
    +4
    Article +, article design (section and photo mismatch) two - request
  • Koshak
    Koshak 14 May 2016 09: 40
    +3
    "Only in June 1990, during new negotiations between Presidents George W. Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev, did the parties return to discussing the lend-lease debt, during which a new deadline for the final repayment of the debt was set - 2030, and the remaining amount debt - $ 674 million. "
    Don't * yourself! Five generations to pay for such "allied help"! Although, what am I talking about - and now the bankers are very upset that the Russians do not strive to take out loans, and they try to repay the borrowed ones faster, instead of leaving the debts to the heirs ...
  • Verdun
    Verdun 14 May 2016 10: 07
    +6
    Having started the war in tank units, my grandfather, a senior lieutenant in the reserve, noted the strong armor of the Matilda, but believed that this advantage was offset by the low mobility and relatively weak armament of the vehicle. Churchill and Valentine were weak machines in his opinion. By the way, the author of the article, declaring about the popularity of "Valentine" among the troops, does not give any factors that justify this popularity. It seems that the reason for the large deliveries of "Valentine" to the USSR lay in something else. He appreciated the Sherman well, but considered it weaknesses in the chassis and a high silhouette. In general, as a fought tanker, one of the important advantages of armored vehicles, he considered a low silhouette, which made the vehicle unobtrusive on the battlefield, simplifying its disguise.
    1. 97110
      97110 14 May 2016 22: 07
      +4
      Quote: Verdun
      my grandfather - a senior lieutenant in the reserve - noted the strong booking of "Matilda"

      My grandfather, senior lieutenant, platoon commander Matyld, also noted good booking and machine guns. He especially scolded the chassis. The caterpillars were clogged with Estonian dirt and the engine did not have enough to crank them, they were torn on the cobblestone (Tartu).
    2. sibiryouk
      sibiryouk 15 May 2016 11: 10
      +2
      Valentines were delivered until the end of the war, like light tanks (for reconnaissance, escorting convoys, guarding staffs). Since the production of their light tanks (T-70m, T-80) was turned back in mid-1943.
  • Yak28
    Yak28 14 May 2016 10: 51
    -1
    Quote: Stas57
    Is there such kindness with horseradish? they would have come up with the same lend-lease in exchange for machine tools, gunpowder or metals

    And our country is so interesting, it loves to help everyone for free, to the detriment of and at the expense of its population
  • Andrey VOV
    Andrey VOV 14 May 2016 11: 16
    +3
    Quote: seren
    My grandfather, after being wounded for a bottle of alcohol, organized his re-distribution to the Sherman brigade and did not regret it after the T-34

    Here she is a Jewish savvy))) Do not think anything bad, a joke of humor, your grandfather is a hero tanker and his respect is huge!
    1. Yak28
      Yak28 14 May 2016 20: 38
      0
      Cool lol laughing
    2. cast iron
      cast iron 15 May 2016 13: 53
      0
      How smart is that? You Troll Russophobian fairy tale composed about a non-existent grandfather, and you are glad. You then look at his messages.
  • AllXVahhaB
    AllXVahhaB 14 May 2016 12: 29
    0
    The article is extremely unsuccessful layout of the text and illustrations of the respective machines! A schoolboy would do better! Would appeal to the players WOT, perhaps ...
    1. 97110
      97110 14 May 2016 22: 12
      0
      Quote: AllXVahhaB
      A schoolboy would do better!

      So do it. Better schoolboy. We will admire and set you as an example to those who are worse than a student. But for now, he DID. And you have said bad things to the person for the work done, without doing anything yourself. (0 publications from you).
  • filalex79
    filalex79 14 May 2016 13: 55
    -8
    Honestly, their whole technique of that period is guano!
  • 3officer
    3officer 14 May 2016 15: 01
    +1
    It is a pity that very few samples of military equipment of those years have survived to this day. In the post-war years, few people thought about the historical value of the same German tanks produced in small batches. Surely everything was started up for "melting down", now T34 early modifications are in the afternoon with fire ...
  • Robert Nevsky
    Robert Nevsky 14 May 2016 15: 07
    0
    Yes there were allies, but now they are crafty enemies.
    1. 3officer
      3officer 14 May 2016 15: 27
      +3
      Well, they were crafty even then, although "Uncle Joe" was not a simpleton.)
  • Grave With Cross 3
    Grave With Cross 3 14 May 2016 18: 46
    -1
    Now many suppress the help of the allies, but the Victory Marshal said that without the allies we would not have won the war.
    "The belittling of the role of Western supplies in Soviet military conditions was aimed primarily at affirming the myth of the" economic victory of socialism "in World War II and the superiority of the Soviet military economy over the military economies of capitalist countries, not only Germany, but also Great Britain and the United States. after 1985, Soviet publications began to come across other assessments of allied aid. For example, Marshal G.K. Zhukov in post-war conversations with the writer K.M.Simonov said: “Speaking of our preparedness for war from the point of view of economy, economy, we must not be silent and factors such as follow-up assistance from allies. First of all, of course, on the part of the Americans, because the British in this sense helped us minimally. When analyzing all sides of the war, this cannot be discounted. We would be in dire straits without American gunpowder; we would not be able to fire as much ammunition as we needed. Without American Studebakers, we would have nothing to carry our artillery on. Yes, they largely provided our front-line transport in general. The production of special steels, necessary for the most varied needs of the war, was also associated with a number of American supplies. "At the same time, Zhukov emphasized that" we entered the war, still continuing to be an industrially backward country in comparison with Germany "{4}. K. Simonov's transmission of these conversations with Zhukov, which took place in 1965-1966, is confirmed by the statements of G. Zhukov, recorded as a result of wiretapping by the security forces in 1963: “Now they say that the allies never helped us ... But after all it cannot be denied that the Americans were driving us so much materials without which we would not be able to form our reserves and could not continue the war ... We had no explosives, no gunpowder. There was nothing to equip rifle cartridges. The Americans really helped us out with gunpowder and explosives. And how much steel sheet they drove to us! Could we have quickly set up production of tanks, if not for American help with steel? And now they present things in such a way that we all had our own in abundance. "
    1. Uncle Murzik
      Uncle Murzik 15 May 2016 09: 59
      -2
      Can I link to Zhukov?
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Charlemagne
    Charlemagne 14 May 2016 19: 07
    +3
    The grandfather in the war studied as a gunner on the Sherman, spoke well of the comfort and stabilization of the gun.
  • Charlemagne
    Charlemagne 14 May 2016 19: 08
    +2
    Photo of allied equipment supplied to the USSR
  • Charlemagne
    Charlemagne 14 May 2016 19: 11
    0
    Amphibian Ford GPA
  • Charlemagne
    Charlemagne 14 May 2016 19: 12
    +2
    Scout car m3
  • Charlemagne
    Charlemagne 14 May 2016 19: 18
    +1
    Not in the subject, but I can not help but share the Hummel photo. Pay attention to the driver’s wheelhouse - the fascist was not lucky ...
  • Torins
    Torins 14 May 2016 19: 27
    0
    Quote: faiver
    Well, in fairness it should be noted that the EC-3 depicted in the photo at the parade also did not knock out a single royal or simple tiger, these machines did not take part in the war - they did not have time ...

    You have forgotten about the very good T-44, which were in the front reserve as well as the IS-3, in principle they could have been used, but spared. And so they could surprise not only the "allies" but also the Germans hi
    1. sibiryouk
      sibiryouk 15 May 2016 11: 02
      +1
      The T-44 was not in any reserve, due to technical problems, a crude, unworked design, "childhood diseases" and simply unsuitability for the harsh conditions of the front ALL T-44 tanks released were sent to tank schools as training samples! (see the monograph by M. Svirin).
  • ibirus
    ibirus 14 May 2016 21: 17
    +8
    "In particular, one additional crew member (5 people in the Sherman versus 4 people in the T-34) made it possible to separate the functions of the gunner and the tank commander. Combining these functions in a Soviet tank often led to a slow reaction to enemy fire and, as a result, to defeat in tank duels "? The author is right, but only half. 4 people were in the T-34-76, 5 crew members were brought into the T-34-85, one should know that.
  • Lens
    Lens 15 May 2016 10: 29
    +9
    I will add a commentary to an interesting article with information not listed in any book. My grandfather, a sergeant, a tanker, fought a little over a year. Then injury, treatment, life-long disability. It burned four times. Changed four cars. Two T-34s, "Valentine" and "Sherman". The foreigner was caught on gasoline, so the grandfather joked bitterly - "it was more pleasant to burn on ours - they did not flash so quickly ..." But I’m not even talking about that! I remembered the story of getting the Sherman.
    They began to unpack this imported miracle. In addition to wonderful repair kits and a set of tools, in all the boxes for spare parts there were mittens, scarves, chocolates, scribbled notes in broken Russian wishing a speedy victory over the enemy. This is how ordinary American workers tried to express their help to Soviet soldiers. We started cleaning the gun. And it is packed with grease from edge to edge. Push out with a bannik ... Bam! Broken glass ringing. Lo and behold - a can of stewed meat and a broken bottle of whiskey! Quickly to the neighbors - "the trunk was cleaned, no?" Each tank contained whiskey and stew in the gun barrel. We washed the novelty, in general ... With a snack.)))
  • Pitot
    Pitot 15 May 2016 11: 43
    +1
    And for me, the IS-3 is just handsome. Apollo among the tanks.
    1. pimen
      pimen 15 May 2016 12: 14
      0
      perhaps with a pike nose
      1. Alf
        Alf 16 May 2016 01: 24
        0
        Quote: pimen
        perhaps with a pike nose

        What?
        1. pimen
          pimen 16 May 2016 08: 35
          +1
          when firing on the forehead, two additional ricochet planes appeared - this is good, but when firing from significant heading angles, the advantage disappears, while in the traditional version - on the contrary. It turns out then. Plus the great complexity and weight of the VLD of the same thickness
          1. cast iron
            cast iron 27 May 2016 23: 45
            +2
            However, due to the "pike nose" it was possible to allocate space for a separate mechanic drive hatch at significant angles of inclination of the VLD. The Is-2 had no mechanic drive hatch - there was no room for it. And due to the design of the VLD, the IS-3 has a place. Recently I was in the tank museum in Kubinka. I examined the Is-3 very closely. An impressive tank. With such relatively small dimensions, it is so essential to outperform huge "tigers", "panthers" and even more so the huge American M-48 or M-60 in booking. The Soviet tank building school is still the best in the world.
    2. Des10
      Des10 15 May 2016 15: 18
      0
      yes, elegant and menacing - and now.
      1. kalibr
        kalibr 15 May 2016 17: 06
        0
        But quickly withdrawn from service, while the inelegant Is-2 decommissioned when?
        1. Charlemagne
          Charlemagne 16 May 2016 12: 47
          -1
          In 1995, I read once in the MK application. My would, I would not remove them from weapons ...
          1. AK64
            AK64 16 May 2016 23: 48
            0
            My would, I would not remove them from weapons ...


            Yes, with a checker, what is there ...
            1. Charlemagne
              Charlemagne 17 May 2016 00: 58
              -1
              There are situations where the checker may well find application. Machetes are still used in some countries, no one complains. good
        2. cast iron
          cast iron 27 May 2016 23: 46
          0
          In the wild of the modified Is-4 or T-10 model, the IS-3 served in the army until the early 1990s in some parts. So about Is-2 it is not necessary to fill in. Is-2 simple as felt boots and in the mid-1950s did not meet the requirements.
  • AK64
    AK64 17 May 2016 00: 07
    0
    About "solar against gasoline":
    at one time I asked M.N. Svirin (Heavenly Kingdom to him) why the diesel was introduced into the tanks. He said: "fire prevention when refueling" - for some reason very often for some reason in the armored forces at a banal refueling tanks blazed.

    Well, in hindsight, I got another, much more reasonable explanation:
    the V-2 hammer was originally aviation (and by the way ... but let's not talk about that). Planned it for distant bombers. But by the time he was actually ready for the series, aviation engines for 1K mares had already appeared, and the modest 450 diesel power for aviation became unacceptable.
    But the motor was ready. And they began to look for where to apply it.
    Well, the installation of aircraft engines on tanks was a long tradition.

    That is why diesel and solarium are also therefore.
    So there is no need to look for "advantages" - there is just rationalism: there is a suitable motor and it must be applied. Do not throw away labor and money?
    1. cast iron
      cast iron 18 May 2016 19: 30
      +2
      How do you explain that diesel engines began to completely dominate all tanks after the war? Forgot to make gasoline or what? )))
      1. AK64
        AK64 19 May 2016 06: 22
        -2
        How do you explain that diesel engines began to completely dominate all tanks after the war? Forgot to make gasoline or what? )))


        I’m ignoring you as an intellectually and morally immature creature. When you ripen, then come and then we’ll talk.
        1. murriou
          murriou 20 May 2016 10: 55
          +2
          Quote: AK64
          I’m ignoring you as an intellectually and morally immature creature. When you ripen, then come and then we’ll talk.

          It is interesting to hear this from a creature constantly issuing messages rare in debilizm and illiteracy.

          Well, you can think of anything you want about anyone, but why did the post-war tank designers of all countries massively adopt exactly those design features of the T-34 that you are stubbornly trying to declare as shortcomings, and not an advantage? Including the use of diesel engines?
  • murriou
    murriou 20 May 2016 10: 51
    +1
    Quote: AK64
    Why compare the height of the hull and not the tank?

    You ask strange (for an understanding person) questions.
    Then, that the probability of hitting the tank is determined by the projected area of ​​the silhouette.
    You can consider the height of the tank at the tip of the antenna and count it at least 5 meters, but the projection area does not depend on the height of the antenna, and not even on the height of the tower with periscopes, but on the height of the hull, is that clear?

    Quote: AK64
    According to the prewar and military view, a larger tank is an advantage: the infantry behind it will take refuge, and more infantry can take refuge.

    A crouched infantryman suffices one and a half meters or less. T-34 had a sufficient height. Even the T-70 was enough, why more?

    Quote: AK64
    As for the T-34 --- it’s not Sherman that’s high, but just the T-34 is low

    That's why post-war tank designers of all countries tried to make the silhouette as low as possible, forgetting to ask your smart advice. The British on "Chieftain" even put the driver to the ground in order to lower the height of the tank wink

    The best of modern foreign, "Leopards" are just on a par with the T-34, the "Merkavas" are taller, but they also have a tall tower, and the hull is even lower than the T-34, with a combat weight more than twice as great.

    Quote: AK64
    as a result, the T-34 has an unacceptably small angle of lowering the gun.

    Now try to explain how the angle of descent of the gun is related to the height of the tank, and why it is needed at all.
  • murriou
    murriou 20 May 2016 11: 08
    +1
    Quote: AK64
    V-2 hammer was originally aircraft

    You, as always, heard a ringing - but did not know where it is.

    The aircraft was AN-1, the predecessor of V-2 and our other diesels, including really aviation.
    Its power was initially 750hp, gradually rising to 1250hp.
    Ach-30 and its modifications, with power from 1500 to 1900 hp, became a further development of aviation diesel engines.
    B-2 developed initially as a tank version.

    By the way, in 1957, when a more powerful tank engine was needed, the same trick was repeated 20 years later: the later aviation diesel in the tank version was crammed into the tank, only its power was already 1000+ hp, then they made a specialized tank engine.
  • BEECH 1972
    BEECH 1972 11 June 2016 14: 03
    +1
    Quote: cast iron
    You’ll go to Kubinka and in the real world see what a giant and tall Sherman and what a squat T-34. Compare the height of the Sherman and the T-34 - everything will immediately become clear.

    Only the Sherman’s building, overlaps the silhouette of the T 34 almost to the middle of the tower. And here in my opinion there is absolutely nothing to talk about. The only thing is that the T 34-85 was slightly higher than the old T-34, due to the higher tower, but nevertheless their more vulnerable body was much lower and it was easier to hide. We can only add that most of the Shermans were equipped with a gasoline power plant and, when practically guaranteed, they were a mass grave - a crematorium for the entire crew. The main tanks of the breakthrough were always the T 34, closer to the end of the war along with the first ISs, and the KV, Sherman or captured PZs were used mainly for fire support of combined arms attacks, either as reserve reserve tanks, or, as in some cases, as highly mobile firing points when suppressing artillery or small arms fire of the enemy.
    1. overb
      overb 11 June 2016 18: 37
      0
      Quote: BUKa 1972
      Only the Sherman’s building, overlaps the silhouette of the T 34 almost to the middle of the tower

      It is not the height that matters, but the frontal area.
      Quote: BUKa 1972
      most of the Shermans were equipped with a gasoline power plant and when hit almost guaranteed they were a mass grave - a crematorium for the entire crew.

      1. What did the type of power plant have to do with the "crematorium"? Do you tell us all the Soviet nonsense, or just a part?
      2. Man transfers gasoline more easily, because his couples are burning. And dispolo burns by itself. Therefore, the injuries from its burning are much stronger.
      Quote: BUKa 1972
      The main tanks of the breakthrough were always T 34

      And this is not good. Because they were never intended as breakthrough tanks.
      Quote: BUKa 1972
      and KV, Sherman or captured PZ, were mainly used for fire support of combined-arms attacks

      What nonsense. For this, the Red Army had the T-26. Then the T-60/70. And later SU-76. Although planned T-34. But they were seized from there before the war.