Military Review

The development of ways to combat enemy anti-tank weapons during the war

71
The development of ways to combat enemy anti-tank weapons during the war



Mass saturation of units and formations of modern armies tanks and other armored vehicles as a result led to the fact that they on the battlefields became one of the most important. Therefore, the confrontation of anti-tank weapons (PTS) with them, as shown by a number of local wars of the twentieth century, is the main content of modern combined arms combat.

Extremely rich experience in fighting enemy tanks and overcoming its anti-tank defense was gained during the years of the Great Patriotic War. Consider some of the directions of development of ways to combat PTS in overcoming the anti-tank defense of the German troops.

To combat tanks, the fascist command widely used field and anti-aircraft artillery, Aviationspecial anti-tank weapons and tanks. To increase the effectiveness of field artillery in the fight against well-armored Soviet tanks in the ammunition of caliber systems up to 155 mm, the enemy began to include cumulative shells in 1943. They hit armored targets at ranges of up to 800 m. Armor-piercing shells and anti-tank bombs also entered the arsenal of aviation. The special combat vehicles of the German forces were continuously improved. The effective fire range and armor penetration of German anti-tank artillery by the summer of 1943 increased 3 times. Self-propelled anti-tank artillery and special melee combat vehicles (faustpatrons, anti-tank rifles, grenades, etc.) were created.

Tanks as a multipurpose combat weapon were also the most effective anti-tank weapon, especially in the offensive and in the movement of mobile defense. An analysis of Soviet tank combat losses shows that, on average, 75% of them were hit by artillery and tank fire at a range of 500-1500 m. From other means of loss were: from melee PTS - 12,6%, anti-tank mines - 9%, aviation - 3,4% .

For the defense of the main lines in 1944-1945. The Nazis created a high density of TCP. Although the enemy was echelled by TCP, however, the bulk of them were located in the main lane, from 6 to 8 kilometers in depth. The order of 80% PTS within it was located in the first two positions. To defeat Soviet tanks on the march, in the waiting and departure areas, the enemy used aircraft and long-range artillery. With the approach of our tanks to the front line of the German defense and with the breakthrough of its main line, all the anti-tank weapons of the enemy were consistently connected to combat.



As the experience of the most important offensive operations of the third period of the Patriotic War showed, the probability of a successful breakthrough of the German defense depended, first of all, on the degree of destruction of anti-tank weapons, the rate of attack, and also on the effectiveness of the fire support of the advancing tanks. Of particular importance was the defeat of the adversary’s TCP by artillery fire and air strikes in preparation for an attack. The experience of Lviv-Sandomirka, Vistula-Oder, Berlin and other operations shows that the high reliability of fire destruction of the TCP was achieved in the course of a short, but powerful artillery preparation. At the same time, the raids at the beginning and end of the artillery preparation were especially important. Anti-tank defense of the enemy was suppressed during the period of artillery preparation to the full depth of the main line of defense. However, due to the fact that the caliber of almost 70% artillery was less than 100 mm, it was possible to reliably suppress the adversary’s TCP only in the first and second positions, that is, to a depth of the order of 5 km.

For the destruction of the observed enemy PTS during the artillery preparation period, guns that conducted direct fire were used very effectively. Their density was usually 20-30, and in some operations, up to 60 and more trunks per breakthrough 1 km. Along with artillery, a large amount of fire destruction tasks for the adversary’s TCP were performed by front-line aviation, which produced during the war 46,5% of all its sorties in support of the fighting of tanks and infantry.

Aviation suppressed anti-tank defenses, delivering massive strikes by assault and bomber air divisions and corps on anti-tank strongholds, artillery positions, and anti-tank reserves of the enemy. Usually these actions were linked in time and objects with artillery strikes, actions of tanks and infantry.

The most characteristic was the following sequence in the application of air and artillery strikes (it can be traced by the example of the 3 of the Belarusian Front in the East Prussian operation). Before the start of artillery preparation, a massive strike followed with the involvement of most of the bomber and up to 20% attack aircraft on objects located in the main German defense zone. In the course of the artillery preparation, aviation made strikes against TCP, tanks and other enemy fire weapons on the flanks of the breakthrough, in the depths of the two first lines of its defense. Aviation training ended immediately before the start of the attack with a massive strike by large aviation forces against anti-tank targets in the breakout area.



In cases where the enemy has a high-density PTO with a high density of TCP in the main defense zone (East Prussian operation, Vistula-Oder and Berlin operations), artillery support of the attack of Soviet tanks and infantry was carried out by one or two firing shafts to a depth of 2-4 km or by sequential concentration of fire. This made it possible to significantly reduce the effectiveness of the enemy’s anti-tank fire in overcoming the first and second positions of his main defense line.

For maximum fire impact on the TCP and other enemy fire weapons during an attack by tanks, achieving continuity in the transition from artillery preparation to artillery support of the attack was important. So, during the Vitebsk-Orsha operation, the last raid fire went on increasing, up to the maximum allowable mode. In terms of power and character, it almost corresponded to the firing shaft, which was why a surprise attack was achieved. For 2-3 minutes before the end of the artillery preparation, one-third of the artillery concentrated fire at the first line of the firing shaft (in 200 meters from the front edge). At the end of the artillery preparation, the rest of the artillery also moved the fire to the same line, but it was conducted in small jumps (there was a "slide" of fire), respectively, advancing the advancing tanks and infantry. This provided a breakthrough in the first position with relatively small losses in the tanks.

The defeat of the TCP and aircraft tanks with the beginning of the air support for the attackers was usually carried out by layered strikes on 40-60 aircraft. The areas of strikes of each echelon of aircraft were successively shifted 1-1,5 km into the depths of the fascist defense, providing continuous fire impact on its TCP from the air. The artillery escort of the attacking forces to the depth of the tactical zone of the German defense was carried out both in the pre-planned areas by successive concentration of fire and by the call of the commanders of tank units and artillery spotters in the radio tanks.

In order to increase the effectiveness of the fire defeat of the PTS and enemy tanks by artillery at that time it was planned to reassign it to the rifle battalions, regiments and tank brigades. The fighting revealed the urgent need for direct support of the attacking tanks of the first battle line with self-propelled artillery installations (SAU), which destroyed the PTS with their fire and fought against the counterattacking enemy tanks. To solve these problems was created armored self-propelled artillery. Already in 1943, it became organizationally part of tank units and was the best firing means for escorting tanks in the attack. Thanks to armor protection and high maneuverability, the ACS could act directly in tank battle formations, and their more powerful weapons made it possible to destroy the adversary’s PTS even before our armored vehicles entered the zone of effective enemy fire. In the most successful operations, the ratio of SAU and tanks in the breakthrough of the German defense was 1: 2, i.e. every two tanks supported one ACS.



The experience of a number of operations of the third period of the Patriotic War showed that, after artillery and air preparation had been completed, tanks supporting infantry at a depth of two to five kilometers were subjected to fire from German PTS and tanks that had been preserved and transferred to the breakthrough site. The density of artillery fire after the completion of artillery preparation decreased. In these cases, the effectiveness of the fight against PTS and enemy tanks depended on the construction of the battle order of the tanks, the tactics of actions and their close interaction with the ACS. Self-propelled artillery attacked, as a rule, in the combat formations of the attacking infantry and supported the tanks of the first combat line with fire. The second echelon of tanks (when building a tank brigade in two echelons) advanced for infantrymen at a distance of up to 200 m.

During the breakthrough of a strong anti-tank defense (Berlin operation, in the 1 of the Byelorussian Front and East Prussian operation in the 2 of the Byelorussian Front) heavy tanks were used, respectively, in the indicated operations 33% and 70% of the NPP tanks. Combat experience revealed that the combat properties of armored vehicles were important for successful combat against PTS and enemy tanks. Therefore, during the war all types of Soviet tanks were continuously improved. The caliber of medium-tank tanks increased from 76 mm to 85 mm, and heavy - from 76 to 122 mm. As a result, the direct shot range increased by 30-50%, the effectiveness of hitting targets increased. Increased armor protection, by installing the commander's turret on combat vehicles, improved visibility, improved fire accuracy and maneuverability of tanks.

During the entry into the breakthrough of mobile units of armies and fronts, the defeat of the PTS and tanks in front of the breakthrough border and on its flanks was carried out by artillery and aircraft during the period of providing entry, fire tanks, self-propelled guns, first-level artillery. For example, for the security of the entry into the battle 3 th Guards. During the Lvov-Sandomierz operation, five artillery brigades and four rifle divisions were involved in the tank army, and the 2 th guards were brought into battle. the tank army in the Berlin operation provided five artillery brigades, two regiments and artillery of five rifle divisions. This made it possible to attract from eight to twelve divisions of artillery and mortars to engage the enemy’s TCP in the lanes of the entry into battle of tank armies.



Artillery usually suppressed enemy anti-tank defenses in front of and on the flanks of mobile groups to a depth of four to five kilometers from the entry line, but most reliably to depths of 2-2,5 km. The greatest effectiveness in the defeat of the PTS was achieved when the fire was planned in advance, and the artillery officers from tanks that were in combat formations of armored battalions carried out the call and corrected it by radio.

Large role in the defeat of TCP and enemy tanks when entering mobile groups played by aviation. The suppression of anti-tank defense during this period was carried out, as a rule, during an aviation offensive involving up to 70% of front aviation. The air offensive included: preliminary air preparation, when tank and anti-tank reserves were suppressed; direct aviation training (the aircraft continued their strikes against the German reserves, and also suppressed TCP, tanks, artillery); aviation support of forward detachments and the advance of the main forces, during which, along with strikes against reserves, aviation suppressed TCP and enemy tanks in front of advancing tanks at the request of commanders of armored formations. The most powerful airborne impact on enemy anti-tank defenses was in the first 2-3 hours after entering mobile groups.

After reaching the operational depth and the detachment of mobile groups from the main forces, they lost the support of artillery of combined-arms forces. The suppression of the enemy’s anti-tank defense at intermediate defensive lines at that time and the fight against his tanks were carried out by standard and attached artillery, aircraft, tank and motorized infantry fire.

Success in the fight against PTS and enemy tanks in the operational depth strongly depended on the saturation of tank and mechanized corps (armies) with artillery and the number of supporting aircraft. The saturation of tank armies with artillery averaged 18-20 guns with mortars for each battalion. The ratio of tanks and SPG was within: one medium or heavy SPG on the 3-4 tank.

To accompany tank brigades in the 1 tank army in the Lviv-Sandomierz operation, artillery tank support groups were created according to the number of brigades based on self-propelled artillery. Sometimes these groups included anti-tank and rocket artillery. The creation of highly mobile artillery tank support groups increased the independence of tank brigades against PTS and enemy tanks in their highly maneuverable combat operations.



According to the experience of the most important operations of the third period of the war, the actions of the tank army in the operational depth supported up to three air corps. The massive use of melee PTS in the German army sharply marked the problem of fighting them and sharply limited the independence of tank combat operations. Additional measures were required to ensure the actions of armored vehicles. In particular, thorough reconnaissance of the firing positions and locations of enemy TCP was conducted and their destruction by artillery and aircraft. Mandatory support of each tank by machine gunners was introduced (Berlin operation). Enhanced tank security at their location on the spot. The most important condition for the suppression and destruction of the melee PTS was the qualitative interaction of individual tanks with small units and infantry groups, both during the breakthrough of the German defense and during operations in the operational depth.

In the fight against PTS and enemy tanks were involved almost all the combat means possessed by the troops. This task during the offensive was solved in several directions simultaneously. The main ones were: an increase in the degree of fire damage of the adversary’s TCP by artillery fire and air strikes during the preparation of the attack; improving the construction of the battle formations of tank formations in order to ensure the most effective interaction of all combat assets during the offensive; improvement of combat properties of tanks and self-propelled guns; creation of the most acceptable organizational structure of tank units and formations; Achievement of continuous fire support of the attacking echelon of tanks throughout the combat.

Sources:
Reznichenko V. Tactics. M .: Military Publishing. 1987 C.183-192
Sychev K. Fight against anti-tank weapons. // Military Thought. 1989. No.12. C. 34-46
Tsynkalov A. Fighting enemy anti-tank weapons. // visage 1977. No.7. C.18-23.
Middeldorf E. The Russian Campaign: Tactics and Weapons. SPb .: Polygon; M .: ACT, 2000. C. 187-189.
Sychev K. Fighting rifle division. M .: Voenizdat, 1958. C.33-39.
Author:
71 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. qwert
    qwert 26 May 2016 07: 05
    +4
    Domestic artillery was truly the "God of War". The German generals also recognized this. Many of the issues that the Germans solved by aviation were solved by ours with artillery strikes. And no less effective, including fiery shafts.
    1. Mik13
      Mik13 26 May 2016 10: 44
      +3
      Quote: qwert
      Domestic artillery was truly the "God of War". The German generals also recognized this. Many of the issues that the Germans solved by aviation were solved by ours with artillery strikes. And no less effective, including fiery shafts.


      Yeah:
      With two hundred guns per kilometer of the front, they do not ask or report on the enemy, they only convey to which line our advance units have reached
    2. The comment was deleted.
  2. Volga Cossack
    Volga Cossack 26 May 2016 07: 29
    +9
    The Germans themselves in the second half of the war themselves noted the increased effectiveness of Soviet anti-tank artillery ..... that resulted in the construction of breakthrough tanks in the so-called tank bell. Thank you for the article ..... The anti-tank brigades received a double salary and a special sleeve insignia .... but they were also close to death ..... real heroes!
    1. overb
      overb 26 May 2016 10: 54
      0
      Quote: Volga Cossack
      The Germans themselves in the second half of the war themselves noted the increased effectiveness of Soviet anti-tank artillery

      Does it lie? By what means? In 1943 only 1855 more or less normal transportable cannons were made. And another 760 in the form of self-propelled guns + 254 in the form of tanks. Unless by the end of 1944. increased. And even then, not at the expense of the transportable artillery of the VET (2765 pieces were made), but at the expense of the T-34/85 (10633 pieces). Those. the main means of vocational training of the Red Army at the end of 1944. became T-34/85. Which actually is like a tank, and not anti-tank artillery.
      1. svp67
        svp67 26 May 2016 21: 48
        0
        Quote: overb
        Those. the main means of vocational training of the Red Army in late 1944. became T-34/85.

        No. The conclusion is not correct. The main PTS of the Red Army, starting in 1943, was the attack plane Il2
        1. overb
          overb 26 May 2016 22: 24
          -6
          Quote: svp67
          No. The conclusion is not correct. The main PTS of the Red Army, starting in 1943, was the attack plane Il2

          Read about the landfill tests in the NPC of the Air Force of the spacecraft of small arms and cannon armament IL-2. Experienced pilots without fire resistance achieved an insignificant number of hits. And the number of BTT lesions tended to zero.
          In general, the IL-2, this is one of the main mistakes of the Soviet aviation. And above all, because of the stubbornness of Dzhugashvili regarding his weapons. Against tanks, it was useless, and against manpower, it was redundant. But she stubbornly put on the IL-2. As a result, the Red Army lost 64,5 thousand barrels of light anti-aircraft artillery.
          In addition, the aircraft, due to its characteristics, had a very small average flying time before its destruction. And the air arrows were at all something like a consumable.
          IL-2 is a legend (the story of supposedly invented advantages). Similar to the three-line, three-inch and T-34. And the organizer of these legends is the same.
          1. svp67
            svp67 27 May 2016 09: 21
            +3
            Quote: overb
            Read about the landfill tests in the NPC of the Air Force of the spacecraft of small arms and cannon armament IL-2. Experienced pilots without fire resistance achieved an insignificant number of hits. And the number of BTT lesions tended to zero.

            Dear, I read this report. So, here is the main means of tank destruction, during the operation of the Il-2 attack aircraft, the cumulative bomb was PTAB-2,5-1,5, by the way it is the most massive bomb in the Red Army Air Force, it was with its help that tanks were effectively destroyed, so it could be used by area.
            1. verboo
              verboo 27 May 2016 22: 29
              0
              Quote: svp67
              Dear, I read this report. So, here is the main means of tank destruction, during the operation of the Il-2 attack aircraft, the cumulative bomb was PTAB-2,5-1,5, by the way it is the most massive bomb in the Red Army Air Force, it was with its help that tanks were effectively destroyed, so it could be used by area.

              The FTAs ​​were good at first when the Germans completely ignored the danger from the air. But within a few days (!!!) (as in the report) they switched to dispersed marching and battle formations, as a result, the effectiveness of the PTABs decreased by 44,5 times (as in the report). But, nevertheless, the PTAs were still more effective than bombs, but already 2-3 times.
              At the same time, the conversation was not originally about bombs or RSs. We talked about the guns of VYa, which the Soviet infantry (as air defense systems) was deprived of due to the voluntarism of a poorly speaking Russian mustachioed figure. The attack aircraft did not need them, but they stubbornly put them.
              As for the photograph of the Tiger you posted, the signature to it is a fake. This is a fairly well-known photograph of the shelling of the Tiger at the firing range by field and tank artillery. Holes from 85-mm shells, 57-mm shells and 76-mm sub-caliber shells are clearly visible. Attack aircraft and PTABs had nothing to do with this Tiger.
            2. The comment was deleted.
          2. goncharov.62
            goncharov.62 7 November 2016 17: 47
            0
            "IL-2, this is one of the main mistakes of Soviet aviation" - It looks like our grandfathers won the war only because of the "main mistakes" ...
            1. rjxtufh
              rjxtufh 7 November 2016 22: 57
              0
              Quote: goncharov.62
              It seems that our grandfathers won the war only because of "major mistakes" ...

              And who are your grandfathers? Americans?
              Because they only won from the war.
              And our grandfathers from the war only lost. Although it was won.
              P.S. Learn Russian. Useful.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. moskowit
      moskowit 27 May 2016 21: 24
      +1
      I invite everyone who is interested in the topic of PTO and fighting tanks to read the book by Artyom Drabkin "I fought a panzerwafe, double salary, triple death." The book contains the memoirs of anti-tank gunners.
      1. Monarchist
        Monarchist 1 June 2016 19: 39
        0
        Correctly suggest: there are memories of people REALLY other German tanks.
  3. igordok
    igordok 26 May 2016 07: 55
    +5
    In the picture with Ilami. Perhaps I am mistaken, but a little high to open fire on the ground?
    It is clear that the artist sees so.
    1. godofwar6699
      godofwar6699 26 May 2016 08: 53
      +5
      The world's only flying IL-2 attack aircraft good

      1. Warrior2015
        Warrior2015 26 May 2016 11: 33
        +2
        Quote: godofwar6699
        The world's only flying IL-2 attack aircraft

        Oh thanks, what a charm! Interestingly, but he still has a native engine? or how do Americans usually put theirs on such planes?

        The pilot, by the way, is a pro - a cool take-off / landing, although of course without bomb load and without a shooter.
        1. godofwar6699
          godofwar6699 26 May 2016 12: 05
          +3
          restoration included parts of an IL-2 removed from a swamp near Pskov, but flew in with another American-designed engine.

          In 1998, Paul Allen - the billionaire began acquiring and retaining vintage aircraft. Allen's passion for aviation and history, and his awareness of the increasing rarity of the original WWII aircraft, prompted him to restore these artifacts to the highest level of certainty and share them with the public.

          Paul Allen's Flying Heritage
        2. Kaiten
          Kaiten 26 May 2016 16: 34
          +3
          Quote: Warrior2015
          The pilot, by the way, is a pro - a cool take-off / landing, although of course without bomb load and without a shooter.

          Professionals of a very high class, look how gently he puts the car. Without the slightest blows, she leads her as an experienced horse rider.
          1. Warrior2015
            Warrior2015 26 May 2016 19: 16
            +1
            Quote: Kaiten
            Professionals of a very high class, look how gently he puts the car. Without the slightest blows, she leads her as an experienced horse rider.

            Well, the IL-2, and even with a new (?) American engine, and without a combat load - which was already a fairly light and well-controlled aircraft - in general, there is no problem taking off and landing.

            Although the level - it is always visible as they say professionalism on the face.

            But a small plane - why not land it, is simply there in general. But a large-sized one like Airbus - this is a chip, this is serious (not to mention just about the take-off run).
    2. overb
      overb 26 May 2016 10: 59
      +2
      Quote: igordok
      Perhaps I am mistaken, but a little high to open fire on the ground?

      To the point. wink
  4. godofwar6699
    godofwar6699 26 May 2016 08: 58
    +2
    The aircraft was restored by order of an American collector and after restoration in early 2012, transferred to the United States
  5. Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 26 May 2016 09: 47
    +4
    The article somewhat contradicts the information that has appeared recently. Namely, no fight with the enemy anti-tank defense system throughout the war was carried out in the Soviet army on an ongoing basis. Yes, don't be surprised. Naturally, in some operations, some forces were allocated to open the enemy anti-tank defense and its subsequent suppression, but nevertheless, in fact, our command came to the conclusion that despite all the troubles that the enemy anti-tank defense causes, there is no special "need" to "bother" and it is necessary to destroy anti-tank equipment only during the offensive, so to speak "on the move." And there were the following reasons:
    1) the German anti-tank defense system was always built taking into account the separation, a lot of reserve positions were prepared in advance, etc. thus, revealing the "primary" anti-tank defense, it was impossible to plan where the artillery would be diverted after the initial strike of our forces.
    2) the Germans never had all the anti-tank forces on the first line of defense. On the first line, they kept no more than 30-40% of all anti-tank equipment, strengthening them as needed during the battle.
    3) The high mobility of German medium-caliber anti-tank weapons made it possible for them to quickly maneuver with fire, which often nullified all our data obtained during "reconnaissance in force", etc. Data on the alleged "self-burying" of German artillery during shots is not confirmed by memoirs most likely the inventions of modern "sofa" scientists.
    4) the variety of types of German anti-tank weapons and their effectiveness required too careful planning of the fight against them, which was often impossible due to the hasty preparation of our offensive operations.
    5) our command always underestimated the German anti-tank defense system, I don’t even understand for what reason, waging a war on the principle of “there is no war without losses,” otherwise how can we explain that at the last stage of the war, when a lot of anti-tank grenade launchers “Panzerfaust” and “Panzershrek ", as well as very effective cumulative grenades, the" factory "screening of our armored vehicles was never introduced.
    6) the lack of self-propelled mortars and light infantry howitzers did not allow for maneuvering the identified means of anti-aircraft defense on intermediate defense lines during the offensive.
    7) disgusting interaction with our aviation, which did not even come close during the entire war with that of the allies, did not allow the effective use of ground attack aircraft in "real" time mode to combat anti-aircraft defense in the offensive.
    Thus, due to all these factors, we did not conduct a real fight against the enemy's anti-aircraft defense for almost the entire war, the command relied on the fact that the advancing troops would themselves "sort out" the enemy's anti-aircraft defense with their own means, already in the "course of action." This "approach" greatly simplified and shortened the planning time for offensive operations for our command, but also allowed the German anti-tank defense system to inflict heavy losses on our advancing troops for almost the entire war.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 26 May 2016 10: 08
      +12
      Somehow you dumped everything in a heap ...

      Indeed, there was no special, separate "fight against ATT". A complex impact was made on the enemy. And this was justified, because the infantry, too, should not be left without artillery support.

      The main objective of artillery during the period of artillery support for the attack was not destruction, but the suppression of manpower and firepower of the enemy. Including VET

      The high mobility of the anti-tank missile did not have much significance with artillery support for the attack using the fire shaft method. I hope you understand why.

      "Factory screening" was simply impossible. Time. And the command made an absolutely adequate decision, having adopted the presence of infantry cover as the best method of protecting armored vehicles from the "faustics".

      The defeat of VET means as single targets with closed fire is a long and very costly affair. Therefore, the decision to shift the main role to tanks, self-propelled guns and guns firing direct fire is absolutely adequate, and in fact has no alternatives.
      1. qwert
        qwert 26 May 2016 15: 54
        +1
        Quote: Spade
        Somehow you dumped everything in a heap ...

        I think so, Monster_Fat is already used to thinking in English, which is why it bothers everything in a heap trying to set out in Russian. Yes, and reads like American books. But, this is not a reason for reproach. To each his own
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 26 May 2016 10: 16
      +5
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      5) our command always underestimated the German anti-tank defense system, I don’t even understand for what reason, waging a war on the principle of “there is no war without losses,” otherwise how can we explain that at the last stage of the war, when a lot of anti-tank grenade launchers “Panzerfaust” and “Panzershrek ", as well as very effective cumulative grenades, the" factory "screening of our armored vehicles was never introduced.

      Isaev had the results of shooting trophy "fausts" on domestic and German screens. The result was the same: the best screen for the tank is the infantry interacting with it, destroying the "faustniki" before firing.
      It was in the 2nd Guards. tank army, where tests were held mesh screens, recruited from a steel bar with a diameter of 4 mm with a pitch of 40 mm. The resulting grid was mounted on the bracket strictly vertically (in the photo they are littered) at a distance of 600 mm from the side of the tank. The test results were as follows:
      “A shot from Faust“ 2 ”(a modernized Faust cartridge for heavy tanks) was fired at the tank from a distance of 12 meters [the typical distance for using this weapon in street combat is dr_guillotin]. As a result of the shot, the mesh surface was torn in an area of ​​4200 sq.cm. and had a deflection towards the armor. The hole in the inclined sheet of the side of the tank was through, elliptical in shape, with a minor axis equal to 30 mm. The hole on the inside of the armor was not deviating in size. ”

      The “upgraded Faust cartridge” is “Panzerfaust 60M” or “Panzerfaust 100M”. The second version of the screen, tested by the management of the armored supply and repair of the 2nd Guards. tank army, was a steel sheet 1,5 mm thick, reinforced as well as a mesh. He also did not live up to expectations: “With a shot from Faust“ 2 ”the sheet was torn from the same distance, the hole in the lower part of the tower was through, of circular cross section, with a diameter of 30 mm.”

      The latest experiment was replicated at the NII BT Polygon in Kubinka by shelling a Pz.Kpfw.IV trophy tank equipped with standard screens - “Shurtsens”. A Faustpatron (judging by the Panzerfaust 60M or Panzerfaust 100M attached to the report attached to the report) led to its destruction and defeat of the tank turret. The cumulative jet pierced the Pz.Kpfw.IV turret from side to side.

      Some effect from the premature actuation of the “Faustpatron” was nevertheless observed. If the Faustpatron grenade fell into an unshielded tank, then the diameter of the hole reached 70 mm (usually 45 - 50 mm), with a cone-shaped spall from the inside of the armor with an outlet diameter of up to 80 mm. Thus, the screen did not provide a solution to the problem of protecting tanks from being defeated by the Faustpatrons of the most common modifications in 1945. Shields of thin sheet armor protected at best from bullets of anti-tank rifles, cumulative shells with a caliber of about 75 mm and worsened the conditions for penetration of armor by small-caliber armor-piercing shells.
      1. Monster_Fat
        Monster_Fat 26 May 2016 10: 58
        0
        "Barrage" is ineffective for one simple reason - "shooting in areas" and that says it all.
        It is better to look at how the fight against ATT was organized by the allies. There was where to learn. The Allies had an excellent relationship with the assault aircraft thanks to the excellent service of forward gunners who moved with the troops. Again, this was possible due to the well-established radio communication, the absence of "bureaucratic" chains in the organization of interaction between the combat arms. In addition, the allies in the ranks of the troops moved self-propelled mortars and light howitzers, which opened fire along a hinged trajectory from behind terrain shelters and other shelters, destroying the revealed enemy anti-tank weapons without resorting to the use of armored vehicles. By the way, in the last year of the war, the Germans on the western front lost 75% of armored vehicles and anti-tank equipment from the action of aviation. And on the eastern front, the Germans lost 75% of the equipment from the actions of our armored vehicles. This is because the Allies were mainly conducting an "air" offensive, while we were conducting an armored one.
        As for the shielding, I read the book of memoirs of Soviet tankers about the battles of 45, and there they bitterly complain that the tanks were not shielded at the factories (which the Germans did on their tanks), they had to "shield themselves" by handicraft methods - bed nets, sheets of metal, etc. But such "shielding" did not hold well and, when fired, often flew off the hull or was blown away by wires and other debris when maneuvering in cities, and this led to heavy losses from "faustics" There were even cases of mass "Fausto-fear" among tankers. It also describes how, when the "faust" got into the self-made shielding, it was blown to shreds and the so-called "witch suction" marks remained on the armor, but the armor itself did not break through.
        1. brn521
          brn521 26 May 2016 15: 06
          +2
          Quote: Monster_Fat
          "Barrage" is ineffective for one simple reason - "shooting in areas" and that says it all.

          The fire shaft is just effective, because it means that the Soviet command in this sector managed to collect the necessary amount of artillery.
          Quote: Monster_Fat
          In the last year of the war, Germans on the western front lost 75% of armored vehicles and anti-tank missiles from aviation. And on the eastern front, the Germans lost 75% of the equipment from the actions of our armored vehicles.

          I had the general impression that we took care of Germany for ourselves. In order to dislodge the VET in the same Berlin, in fact, many buildings had to be razed to the ground. Instead, tanks and infantry were sent there, despite casualties.
        2. qwert
          qwert 26 May 2016 15: 37
          +6
          Quote: Monster_Fat
          "Barrage" is ineffective for one simple reason - "shooting in areas" and that says it all.
          I must say this to Shoigu, otherwise he was going to produce some new MLRS intended for firing at squares. And NATO does not interfere with reporting, let the MLRS be removed from service.

          Quote: Monster_Fat
          It is better to see how the fight against VET was established among the allies. There was where to learn. The Allies had excellent cooperation with attack aircraft thanks to the excellent service of advanced gunners who moved with the troops.

          Or maybe to begin to compare the intensity of the fighting on the Eastern and Western Front? bully And then learn how to fight slowly and with the enemy who is not resisting in full force.
          About aircraft controllers. Here, for example, an excerpt about Vershinin: "In May 1943, Major General of Aviation K. A. Vershinin was again appointed commander of the 4th Air Army, which was now part of the North Caucasian Front. At the head of the army, he participated in an unprecedented scale by that time. and the fierceness of the air battle in the Kuban in April-June 1943. There Vershinin widely used the constant watch of aircraft controllers at the forefront, the massive use of forces during air battles .... "
          And here is an excerpt from the book "The Soviet Air Force in WWII 194-1945": In the 6th Guards Tank Army and the combined arms armies, which were supposed to advance in the main directions, operational groups of air army officers were allocated, designed to call aviation from airfields and control it on the battlefield, as well as coordination with the combined-arms command of issues of interaction during the operation, information of the commander and headquarters of the air army about the current situation. On the eve of hostilities, the commanders of the interacting assault and fighter divisions left for the tank and mechanized corps, who organized their command posts in the combat formations of the troops. Aircraft controllers with their own radio equipment were sent to rifle and tank divisions. "So the air traffic controllers are not the Anglo-Saxon know-how.
        3. Lopatov
          Lopatov 26 May 2016 18: 05
          +6
          Quote: Monster_Fat
          "Barrage" is ineffective for one simple reason - "shooting in areas" and that says it all.

          This does not say anything.
          First of all, because this is not "shooting in squares", but "shooting along the lines" With a crazy density of fire - 150-250 meters per 12 gun division (according to the standards of the war)

          Quote: Monster_Fat
          It is better to see how the fight against VET was established among the allies. There was where to learn. The Allies had excellent cooperation with attack aircraft thanks to the excellent service of advanced gunners who moved with the troops.

          Are you sure you're not confusing anything? For the reality is somewhat different ... Massive bombing with obligatory "friendly fire" and vague results. Here is the basic "method" of Anglo-American aviation. Monte Cassino, Normandy ... examples of the sea.

          Quote: Monster_Fat
          In addition, self-propelled mortars and light howitzers were moving among the allies in the ranks of the troops, which opened fire on a hinged trajectory due to terrain shelters and other shelters, destroying the enemy’s anti-aircraft equipment without resorting to the use of armored vehicles.

          Interesting method. But totally ineffective.
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 26 May 2016 10: 39
      +4
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      6) the lack of self-propelled mortars and light infantry howitzers did not allow for maneuvering the identified means of anti-aircraft defense on intermediate defense lines during the offensive.

      As soon as we leave direct fire from the fire, we immediately get an increase in the number of ammunition used to suppress the target by 1-2 orders of magnitude. And the growth of time, too. But while we are crushing anti-tank missiles - tanks are standing, and the enemy is tightening reserves; Remember how Kim’s battalion, with its 4 x 45 mm, detained the Eberbach camp group for 4 hours - and gave time to blow up bridges in Krichev. Plus, problems associated with communication, adjustment, training of crews, etc. begin.

      For the Red Army of the Second World War with its conscription contingent, it was easier to use tanks and assault self-propelled guns to direct anti-aircraft assault.
    4. Stas57
      Stas57 26 May 2016 11: 04
      0
      the article is a little confused -43 is the death of the PTR and certainly not the birth of kuma
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 26 May 2016 11: 52
        +1
        Quote: Stas57
        the article is a little confused -43 is the death of the PTR and certainly not the birth of kuma

        EMNIP, the Germans have been using Kuma against us since the fall of 1941.

        But our godfather was born just in 1943. Uv. D. Sheina, pomnitsa, there was a story of her creation ... horror-horror. The pre-war work was especially "pleased": four specialized design bureaus fought for 3 years - and as a result "attempts to reproduce the patent did not lead to positive results". Only war trophies helped. And then, the idols of the 1942 model pierced less than their caliber.
        1. Stas57
          Stas57 26 May 2016 12: 01
          +4
          Quote: Alexey RA
          EMNIP, the Germans have been using Kuma against us since the fall of 1941.

          Yes, in the troops since the fall of 41.
          moreover, it was in field art, such as 18 cm LeFH18 kuma 10 cm Gr.39 rot Hl appeared in autumn 41
          Well, the fate of the PTR just with 43 rolls wildly towards sunset — he could not seriously hit the enemy’s heavy armored vehicles at the beginning of the war, and even more so with the 42-43gg
    5. qwert
      qwert 26 May 2016 15: 26
      +1
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      The article is somewhat contrary to the information that has appeared recently.
      Just about recently. Now there is a lot of generally "interesting" information. Especially with Beshanov. I would not be surprised if in 20 years we read that the Americans took the Reichstag, and that three drunk Russians who happened to be in Berlin raised the red banner over it. Oh. so these new facts, you read to them and wonder, how do we still get to Berlin ????? On the other hand, you take an old Soviet magazine, read an article about the principles of capitalism and life under it. And you are surprised, well, after all, they told us everything correctly. Why didn't they believe? This is me about the fact that, for example, I believe in Soviet sources more than those that appeared during Volkogonov's time and ending with today's "masterpieces" by Beshanov and Co.
      1. Monarchist
        Monarchist 1 June 2016 20: 02
        0
        Volkogonov, in principle, is not bad, but he is very one-sided and biased. As for Soviet sources about the Second World War, there was a lot of ideological rubbish (alas, this is the reality), but there was also a lot of truthful information. As for the current "research", you are right: a lot of mud in order to belittle our victory!
    6. cast iron
      cast iron 3 June 2016 01: 46
      0
      Just the same screening of Russian tanks in the Berlin operation was factory.
  6. Andrey VOV
    Andrey VOV 26 May 2016 10: 12
    +2
    But nevertheless, you must admit that there were no such crazy losses during tank attacks as in 41 in the summer and especially in 43 on the Kursk Bulge, maybe I’m not completely one hundred percent right, who knows and has other facts please bring, this will be very interesting and informative.
    As for the fauspatrons, the tankers used various home-made means of combating camouflage grenades ... as for the lack of industrial development of screens and their use on tanks, then this is probably a mistake or simply not before, because the number and rate of release of tanks had to be increased. ... and not all types of tanks and Sau from the first shot made their way through the Fauss, but of course they hurt us great.
    Sorry for the confusion
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 26 May 2016 10: 22
      +3
      Quote: Andrey VOV
      As for the fauspatrons, the tankers used various home-made means of combating the cumulative grenades ...

      Most of which were either ineffective or ineffective at all.

      Do not forget that we had to go a long time to reach the current "knife" screens with the probability of an abnormal operation of a cumulative munition or its destruction of only 50-60% ...
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 26 May 2016 11: 14
      +2
      Quote: Andrey VOV
      as for the lack of industrial development of screens and their use on tanks, well, there is probably a mistake or just not up to it, because it was necessary to increase the number and rate of release of tanks

      Factory screens were. And in the photo of shielded cars from Berlin - they are.
      The problem is that, as I quoted above, the screens from the "fausts" did not help. Neither ours, nor German.
  7. Andrey VOV
    Andrey VOV 26 May 2016 10: 56
    0
    Well, it’s natural that home-made defenses were ineffective .. but if at least somehow it helped save the lives of our tankers, then this is good .... and the truth is, the best defense against the fauspatron is infantry .... well trained, past fire and water is our mother infantry!
  8. overb
    overb 26 May 2016 11: 35
    -11%
    They hit armored targets at ranges up to 800 m

    Large-caliber guns were allowed to shoot up to 1000 m. (ML-20). But getting in with it was worse.
    The aircraft also received armor-piercing shells and anti-tank bombs.

    In fact, the losses of the German Panzerwaffe from aviation were minimal. And the nature of the weapons, in particular the Il-2, is insanity. But nothing could be done, there was a "great specialist" in this field. The mustachioed one who spoke bad Russian.
    However, due to the fact that the caliber of almost 70% of the artillery was less than 100 mm

    It was still possible to shoot directly from the tank from a 76-mm Soviet flare gun at a German anti-tank gun. With good chances of success. But in terms of space ...
    Therefore, during the war years, all types of Soviet tanks were continuously improved. The caliber of tank guns of medium tanks increased from 76 mm to 85 mm, and heavy - from 76 to 122 mm.

    The guns were not normal, so they were "improved". The 85-mm cannon was rooted in the 30s and was already frankly weak for the second middle of the Second World War. I had to put it on a self-propelled cart from the past with light armor, and this structure was called a "medium tank". In fact, in 1944. The T-34/85 was comparable to a normal light tank (e.g. Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.H). And the fact that he weighed a lot at the same time is his problem.
    With the "heavy tank" everything was even worse. For him there was NO gun AT ALL. Therefore, we made a hybrid of an SPG and a tank (like a musk ox, or a "tank" KV-2, as you like). Like, this was done on purpose to increase the power of the high-explosive shell. For those who are not in the know, tanks are not self-propelled guns. They have slightly different goals and objectives. And the weapons they need are somewhat different.
    by installing a commander’s turret on combat vehicles, visibility was improved, accuracy of fire and maneuverability of tanks increased

    Really? And why were they placed so shortly and immediately after the Second World War they were abandoned?
    1. Kostya Andreev
      Kostya Andreev 26 May 2016 11: 51
      +5
      Have you returned by changing your name 100500 times? Do I know you!!!
      Your nonsense will not even comment!
      1. overb
        overb 26 May 2016 11: 58
        -7
        Quote: Kostya Andreev
        Do I know you!!!

        I don’t know you. But I won’t comment on your tantrums either. Nothing to comment on.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Stas57
        Stas57 26 May 2016 12: 11
        +2
        Quote: Kostya Andreev
        Have you returned by changing your name 100500 times? Do I know you!!!

        Rolloboev returned under a different nickname, now he overb

        Well, nothing, he quickly catches his 3 thousands of minuses)
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 26 May 2016 11: 57
      +3
      Quote: overb
      It was still possible to shoot directly from the tank from a 76-mm Soviet flare gun at a German anti-tank gun. With good chances of success

      Before the mass appearance of the Pak-40. After that, the direct range of the tank gun was equal to the effective range of the anti-tank gun - and the chances of success of the tanks fell sharply.
      Actually, the introduction of 85-mm guns was precisely caused by the need to increase the range of a direct shot without reducing the power of the General Pharmacopoeia.
      Quote: overb
      For those who are not in the know, tanks are not self-propelled guns. They have slightly different goals and objectives. And they need a slightly different weaponry.

      And what are the tasks of a heavy tank during WWII?
      At that time, the doctrine "tanks do not fight with tanks" was still in effect. And not only with us, but also with the Allies (remember the bunch of US armored vehicles: anti-personnel "Shermans" and anti-tank self-propelled guns covering them).
      1. Kostya Andreev
        Kostya Andreev 26 May 2016 12: 12
        +2
        dear, [quote = Alexey RA] Alexey RA [/ quote in vain you enter into a dispute with this comrade, hysterical, changing names, substituting concepts, uses different criteria when assessing the parties, a waste of time.
        a priori considers all Soviet weapons and equipment sucks, and Russian too.
        For example, a Soviet 76 mm cannon is a gun, then most likely the American M3 is a heavy-duty gun.
        or IL-2 shitty weapons, and not a good plane. despite the fact that the Germans and allies did not have a special attack aircraft, he could argue that there was an excellent thunderbolt or typhoon, which was armed to the teeth, and that the ally did not have to bother with the attack aircraft and so on and so forth. and she won’t be able to understand that it’s one thing to hang over the front line when everything that can and cannot shoot at an airplane, and another attack of unprotected targets.
        1. Revolver
          Revolver 26 May 2016 18: 07
          0
          Quote: Kostya Andreev
          Germans and allies of the special attack aircraft did not have

          Well, the Yu-87 kagbe with hanging guns was precisely an attack aircraft, sharpened against tanks. And they spoiled the blood of our tankers a lot, the same Rudel. Even if he halves his reports of victories, adjusted for the tendency to exaggerate, it still turns out a lot, too much. He deserved his iron cross with diamonds, although in my opinion he more deserved a birch posthumously, but did not grow together.
        2. IImonolitII
          IImonolitII 29 May 2016 02: 00
          0
          Well, suppose A-26 is a great attack aircraft. but appeared late, of course.
        3. Mikhail Matyugin
          Mikhail Matyugin 31 May 2016 15: 21
          0
          Quote: Kostya Andreev
          IL-2 shitty weapons, and not a good plane. despite the fact that the Germans and allies did not have a special attack aircraft, he could argue that there was an excellent thunderbolt or typhoon, which was armed to the teeth, and that the ally did not have to bother with the attack aircraft and so on and so forth. and she won’t be able to understand that it’s one thing to hang over the front line when everything that can and cannot shoot at an airplane, and another attack of unprotected targets.

          Well, it's like someone. For example, liquid cooling with a weak Il-2 oil cooler in general strongly leveled its booking. Not to mention the single-engine scheme.

          And the Germans had Hs-129, didn’t they hear? Such a specialized attack aircraft. In addition, Ju-87, especially cannon modifications. and most importantly, the assault modifications of the Fw-190 type F and G.

          And the Western allies have completely cost themselves: the Americans - with thunderbolts and Lightings, the British - with Typhoons, tempestas and Mosquito.
      2. overb
        overb 26 May 2016 12: 46
        -9
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Before the mass appearance of the Pak-40.

        Of course. Or if the Germans got stuck there. Or if there is a lot of T-34/76, and PaK40 alone.
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Actually, the introduction of 85-mm guns was precisely caused by the need to increase the range of a direct shot without reducing the power of the General Pharmacopoeia.

        Actually, this was due to the fact that the T-34 needed a gun. Just a normal tank gun. Because three-inch from 1943. she could not be considered already. So they adapted the only thing that was. At the same time, in 1943-44 they made 19809 units of T-34/76, 9504 units of SU-76 / 76M and a tueyu zuchu ZIS-3. This is all three inches, if anyone is not in the know. And they were quite proud of this fact. Instead, already in 1942. start working on promising new guns. And in 1943. begin to gradually master their release.
        Quote: Alexey RA
        And what are the tasks of a heavy tank during WWII?

        Including and anti-tank warfare from close range. IS-2 could not do this, there was no rate of fire. One miss or fragmentation shell in the chamber and that’s all, you can open the hatches and run. You can not open and do not run, but the chances of success were small.
        Quote: Alexey RA
        At that time, the doctrine "tanks do not fight with tanks" was still in effect.

        Yes, there was no such doctrine by the time of the Second World War. These are Internet fables. Even tanks were specially made multi-equipped, with anti-tank and anti-personnel guns. I will not give examples, you yourself know.
        And then the guns were replaced with one, but universal. The Germans did the "smarter" thing, they left the anti-personnel gun (KwK.37), but supplied it with a cumulative projectile. But then they still switched to universal guns
        Quote: Alexey RA
        anti-personnel "Shermans" and anti-tank self-propelled guns covering them

        Of course, self-propelled guns had a longer range of destruction. Therefore, tanks supported the rear. It was a common practice, not just with Americans.
        As for the "anti-personnel Shermans", then most likely you mean Shermans with 75 mm M3 M4A3E2 Jumbo cannons. It happened, but this is not the most typical option. Since the M4A3E2 Jumbo was a specialized tank. Shermans with universal 76,2 mm M1 cannons were much more common in the US Army. This is an approximate analogue of the Soviet 85mm S-53 and the German 75mm KwK40.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 26 May 2016 13: 33
          +3
          Quote: overb
          Actually, this was due to the fact that the T-34 needed a gun. Just a normal tank gun. Because three-inch from 1943. she could not be considered already.

          Until the end of the war, some continued to put on the ST the exact same 40-caliber 75 mm.
          Quote: overb
          Yes, there was no such doctrine by the time of the Second World War. These are Internet fables.

          Yeah ... and order number 325 is also a fable. And 2/3 - 3/4 OFS in the tank tanks - too. smile
          Quote: overb
          As for the "anti-personnel Shermans", then most likely you mean Shermans with 75 mm M3 M4A3E2 Jumbo cannons.

          No. These are all Shermans with 75mm cannons. For, according to American doctrine, supported by the commander of the ground forces, the main purpose of the tank was soft targets. Tank destroyers were supposed to be engaged in tank destroyers that were part of the BT formations.
          Quote: overb
          Shermans with universal 76,2 mm M1 cannons were much more common in the US Army.

          Which were released 3 times less during the war than tanks with 75 mm guns. laughing
          And only 2,3 times more than "Shermans" with a 105-mm "cigarette butt".
          1. overb
            overb 26 May 2016 17: 16
            -3
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Until the end of the war, some continued to put on the ST the exact same 40-caliber 75 mm.

            Why not? The gun was cheap, supplied to the Allies by Lend-Lease (at the expense of the US budget), therefore it was produced. And how many are there, these British, Russian, Chinese, French, etc. due to a weak gun die, it was of little interest to them.
            By the way, it was not "exactly the same as the three-inch". Exactly the same (in terms of efficiency) was the 75 mm M2 cannon (installed on M3 tanks in 1941). And the M3, thanks to a more advanced shell, was noticeably better than the three-inch one.
            Quote: Alexey RA
            And 2/3 - 3/4 OFS in the tank tanks - also

            Depended on the tank and its gun. T-34/57 according to the requirements of NKTP dated 01.12.43. 2/3 was equipped with armor-piercing and sub-caliber. And the T-34/76 by the same standards, only 25% (this is the minimum percentage for all types of tanks).
            But the fact is that armor-piercing tanks were equipped. This means that the concept "tanks do not fight with tanks" did not exist. According to the above requirement, it was not possible to find a single tank that was not equipped with BB and PC ammunition.
            As for the order number 325 (aka number 271). Here explain to me, be so kind as how it was possible to fulfill paragraph 4 of this order in practice? If in 1944 the Germans made 7875 modern tanks and 8310 assault guns. But the industry of the USSR made only 2765 modern transported guns? Why should the soldiers have beaten all this, if not tank guns and guns of self-propelled guns (16452 units)? The legendary forty-foot and three-inch? What about the victims? So this order is 1942. quickly lost its relevance.
            But the Germans might be interested in this principle. In 1944 they made 12719 transportable cannons and anti-tank guns and 482 self-propelled guns.
            Quote: Alexey RA
            These are all Shermans with 75mm cannons.

            Then, your statements are past. In addition to the specialized M4A3E2 Jumbo, the Americans almost did not leave tanks with M3 guns. And even if they left, then later they were already changed in the troops by 76,2 mm M1. The vast majority of tanks with M3 cannons went to the Lend-Lease allies.
            Quote: Alexey RA
            3 times fewer of them were released into the war than tanks with 75 mm guns

            But basically they kept everything for themselves. And even the USSR fell into something.
            Quote: Alexey RA
            And only 2,3 times more than "Shermans" with a 105-mm "cigarette butt".

            Specialized self-propelled howitzer (tower). In the USSR, they also did this, SU-122 (classic, cabin).
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 26 May 2016 18: 37
              +2
              Quote: overb
              Why not? The gun was cheap, supplied to the Allies by Lend-Lease (at the expense of the US budget), therefore it was produced. And how many are there, these British, Russian, Chinese, French, etc. due to a weak gun die, it was of little interest to them.

              Exactly the same, apparently, they were of little interest - how many Americans would die. Because the Shermans fought with the 75 mm in the US BTV until the end of the war.
              Quote: overb
              By the way, it was not "exactly the same as the three-inch". Exactly the same (in terms of efficiency) was the 75 mm M2 cannon (installed on M3 tanks in 1941). And the M3, thanks to a more advanced shell, was noticeably better than the three-inch one.

              On the quality of the shell - I agree. But in terms of initial speed, it was inferior to the F-34 by 40-60 m / s. But the initial speed is the range of a direct shot.
              Quote: overb
              Depended on the tank and its gun. T-34/57 according to the requirements of NKTP dated 01.12.43. 2/3 was equipped with armor-piercing and sub-caliber. And the T-34/76 by the same standards, only 25% (this is the minimum percentage for all types of tanks).

              So the T-34-57 is not a linear machine. This is a fighter tank, an analogue of American turret tank destroyers.
              Quote: overb
              As for the order number 325 (aka number 271). Here explain to me, be so kind as how it was possible to fulfill paragraph 4 of this order in practice?

              We read the order further:
              In the event of encountering large enemy tank units, the corps detaches anti-tank artillery and part of the tanks against the enemy tanks, the infantry, in turn, puts forward its anti-tank artillery, and the corps, obscured by all these means, bypasses the enemy tanks with its main forces and hits the enemy infantry with the aim of tear it from enemy tanks and paralyze the actions of enemy tanks. The main task of the tank corps is the destruction of enemy infantry.

              What to beat? 45-mm 53-K and M-42 with undercut shells, 76-mm with solid armor-piercing, 85-mm anti-tank guns, "coils" in the end. Moreover, the "coils" initially went only in ipt.
              Quote: overb
              Then, your statements are past. In addition to the specialized M4A3E2 Jumbo, the Americans almost did not leave tanks with M3 guns.

              2 brtd Yankees received the first "Shermans" from the 76-mm only on July 18, 1944. In the report on the battles of September 1944, phrases like "The tanks plastered it with 75 mm fire."
              In the end, full of photos of American "Shermans-75" and on the Siegfried Line, and in the Ardennes. So the Shermans from the M3 served with the Yankees along with their 76mm brothers.
              Quote: overb
              But basically they kept everything for themselves. And even the USSR fell into something.

              Heh heh heh ... over 2000 Shermans with a 76mm cannon - is that something? smile
              1. overb
                overb 26 May 2016 19: 07
                -3
                Quote: Alexey RA
                Because the Shermans fought with the 75 mm in the US BTV until the end of the war.

                Really? But what about the fact that they exchanged M3 guns in the field for M1 you did not finish? And how many of them were there, these tanks with M3 in the US Army? Mostly special tanks M4A3E2 Jumbo. Although, of course, old tanks with old cannons could easily come across.
                Quote: Alexey RA
                But in terms of initial speed, it was inferior to the F-34 by 40-60 m / s.

                And what kind of bonus is this?
                Quote: Alexey RA
                But the initial speed is the range of a direct shot.

                This is only one of its components.
                Quote: Alexey RA
                45-mm 53-K and M-42 with undercut shells

                Do not make a cult out of the Hartz locators, as it is sometimes found on the Internet. And don't upset me for forty.
                Quote: Alexey RA
                76 mm with solid armor-piercing

                And what, they could beat something? Germans used old technology in the middle of 1943. was a bit. Yes, and they did not let her in the forefront.
                Quote: Alexey RA
                85 mm anti-tank gun

                Charming. During the war years, 0 (zero) pieces were produced.
                Quote: Alexey RA
                "coils" in the end. Moreover, the "coils" initially went only in ipt

                Coils could only be fought from ambushes. Because otherwise the tank had time to detect and destroy the anti-tank vehicles even before it could start shooting at it with coils. In addition, the Tigers and Panthers had bobbins in their foreheads, like elephant grains.
                Quote: Alexey RA
                2 brtd Yankees received the first "Shermans" from the 76-mm only on July 18, 1944

                Maybe someone received them only in the summer. But they began to do it back in the winter of 1944. In addition, on used tanks they changed M3 to M1.
                Quote: Alexey RA
                So the Shermans with M3 served with the Yankees along with the 76 mm brothers.

                It cannot be completely ruled out that some of the tanks remained with the M3 guns.
                Quote: Alexey RA
                more than 2000 "Shermans" with a 76-mm cannon - this is "something"

                Well, let it be "noticeable".
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 27 May 2016 10: 28
                  +2
                  Quote: overb
                  Really? But what about the fact that they exchanged M3 guns in the field for M1 you did not finish? And how many of them were there, these tanks with M3 in the US Army? Mostly special tanks M4A3E2 Jumbo. Although, of course, old tanks with old cannons could easily come across.

                  He-he-he ... well, here's the situation for December 12, 1944: out of 937 "Shermans" of the American 1st Army, only 314 had a 76-mm gun.
                  Quote: overb
                  Charming. During the war years, 0 (zero) pieces were produced.

                  I had in mind simplified versions of the 52-K without anti-aircraft kit.
                  Quote: overb
                  Coils could only be fought from ambushes. Because otherwise the tank had time to detect and destroy the anti-tank vehicles even before it could start shooting at it with coils. In addition, the Tigers and Panthers had bobbins in their foreheads, like elephant grains.

                  And why hit it in the frontal projection? It was in 1941-1942 that the anti-tank vehicles were hit in the forehead from the distance of a direct shot. By 1943, the understanding had finally come that the VET should be built on the flank and oblique - as the Germans did (and as Pavlov suggested following Spain). Yes, and fans were fired to shoot in the forehead (but the surviving ipt-shniki gained experience). In the same SBD there are many orders of the 43rd about new principles for constructing anti-tank missiles, anti-tank missiles, fire bags, flirting guns, etc.
                  And the side of the same "Panther" is thinner than that of the T-34. smile
                  1. verboo
                    verboo 27 May 2016 22: 01
                    0
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    Well, here's the situation for you on December 12, 1944: out of 937 "Shermans" of the American 1st Army, only 314 had a 76-mm gun.

                    I don’t know, I’m not familiar with these statistics. Therefore, I can’t discuss anything here.
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    I had in mind simplified versions of the 52-K without anti-aircraft kit.

                    I do not know about such. There were serial 52-Ks. And about some others, not in the know.
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    And why hit it in the frontal projection?

                    Because in a normal battle, with a tank attack, you won't be able to hit anywhere else. And there are different "options", this is from the cinema. That's just there a lot of all sorts of "tricky options". But in a real battle, only head-on. Or, in rare cases, into the side of the tower.
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    By 1943, the understanding had finally come that PTO should be built on the flank and oblique

                    Understanding could come as anything. But a tank attack is a certain number of tanks moving in something like a line. Of course, you can shoot oblique fire. But the distance at the same time increased so much, and the angle of attack was so sharp that there was no point in this.
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    In the same SBD there are many orders of the 43rd about new principles for constructing anti-tank missiles, anti-tank missiles, fire bags, flirting guns, etc.

                    Oh yeah. The Bolsheviks were very eager for voluntaristic orders and projects.
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    And the side of the same "Panther" is thinner than that of the T-34.

                    I could give a short lecture on this subject. But I won’t. I will confine myself to the observation that the top of the side of the Panther for a gun with a caliber of 67 mm was the equivalent of a vertical homogeneous armor 73 mm thick. And the top of the side of the T-34 for the gun caliber 45 mm, 54 mm. The bottom of the Panther’s hull (behind the wheels) for the 54-mm gun was the equivalent of 54 mm vertical homogeneous armor. And the bottom of the T-34 case for a gun with a caliber of 45 mm, 45 mm. It is clearly seen that the T-34 on the side armor housing with the Panther did not even lie nearby. If it’s interesting, then the side of the KV-1S hull, with the top and bottom, for a 60-mm cannon was 60 mm. Those. the upper side of the Panther's hull was armored noticeably better than the KV-1C, and the bottom, slightly worse.
                2. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 27 May 2016 10: 36
                  +2
                  Quote: overb
                  And what, they could beat something? Germans used old technology in the middle of 1943. was a bit. Yes, and they did not let her in the forefront.

                  Yes, yes, yes ... nothing was punched at all. Apparently political instructor Zetterling is lying.
                  At the same time, the commander of the 1837th iptap major N.E. Lysyuk east of Krasnaya Dubrava extended 10 guns out of 12 remaining in the regiment parallel to Oboyan highway from south to north. In addition, the brigade commander delivered two 76-mm guns directly on the road north of Krasnaya Dubrava. These were the so-called "flirting" guns. Thus, the highway was blocked by a team in two places.

                  After the column of the battle group of the 11th TD, moving from high. 251.2 along the highway to the north, approached a distance of 2000 m to the "flirting" guns, their calculations began to conduct a quick fire with fragmentation shells. The Germans felt that the Russians could not stand the nerves, and, stopping the movement of vehicles with infantry, they moved the armored vehicles forward. The crews were afraid of mines, so the tanks and assault guns did not go with a deployed front, but with a wake line. The column moved slowly, after some time about 40 enemy aircraft appeared over the positions of the two "flirting" guns. In three groups they bombed their location, and after 15–20 minutes they were destroyed. After that, the tanks began to increase speed. Lieutenant Colonel N.D. Chevola at that moment was at the NP 1837th iptap. As soon as the advanced enemy vehicles entered the sector of shelling the regiment’s guns on the left flank, on his orders, all calculations were hit on the sides of the tanks. The fire was strong and unexpected for the enemy. Thanks to a thorough camouflage of positions and reception with “flirting” guns that distracted the attention of the tank crews themselves, the Germans could not detect the ambush in time.

                  According to the report of the brigade, the execution of the convoy of the 11th TD lasted eight minutes, during which time 31 armored units were disabled. According to data compiled by Swedish researchers N. Zetterling and A. Frankson, the number of the 11th td per day from 24.00 on the 7th to 24.00 on July 8 decreased by 17 tanks. Considering that the entire territory in which the cars left that were damaged by the 27th military police station were under German control, their repair services quickly restored a significant part of the equipment. At the same time, as noted in the documents of our compound, among the remaining smokers on the highway were heavy tanks. Apparently, they belonged to the 52nd Panther battalion, which supported the 11th.
                  1. verboo
                    verboo 27 May 2016 22: 04
                    0
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    the commander of the 1837th iptap major N.E. Lysyuk east of Krasnaya Dubrava extended 10 guns out of 12 remaining in the regiment parallel to the Oboyan highway from south to north. In addition, the brigade commander delivered two 76-mm guns directly on the road north of Krasnaya Dubrava. These were the so-called "flirting" guns. Thus, the highway was blocked by a team in two places.

                    This is not a combined arms battle, this is an ambush. An ambush is an uncharacteristic phenomenon, so it’s not suitable for examples.
                  2. The comment was deleted.
                3. IImonolitII
                  IImonolitII 29 May 2016 02: 10
                  0
                  Quote: overb
                  Really? But what about the fact that they exchanged M3 guns in the field for M1 you did not finish?

                  It is impossible to replace the M3 gun with the M1 in the field - the new tower in the field workshop cannot be cast, and the old rear part cannot be redone.
                  1. verboo
                    verboo 29 May 2016 03: 01
                    0
                    Quote: IImonolitII
                    It is impossible to replace the M3 gun with the M1 in the field - the new tower in the field workshop cannot be cast, and the old rear part cannot be redone.

                    The fact that there were no difficulties when replacing M3 with M1 in the same tower was apparently not known only to you.
                    1. IImonolitII
                      IImonolitII 30 May 2016 00: 34
                      0
                      Apparently, you do not know only about the design of the M4 sherman tanks, the difference in towers of different types, the number of Sherman of various modifications in the Pacific and European theater of operations. If you are talking about Jumbo, then there was originally a modified T23 tower, designed to install the M1 gun. To the towers of the M4 variants .. (75) .. she had nothing to do
                      1. verboo
                        verboo 30 May 2016 00: 43
                        0
                        Quote: IImonolitII
                        Apparently, you do not know only about the design of the M4 sherman tanks, the difference in towers of different types, the number of Sherman of various modifications in the Pacific and European theater of operations.

                        Respected. The fact that the Yankees massively exchanged M3 guns for M1 in the field in the same towers is not known to you alone. It's your problems. No need to ship me empty. And leave your clever terms to boys with incomplete secondary education.
                      2. IImonolitII
                        IImonolitII 30 May 2016 01: 46
                        0
                        Well, well, enlighten me, dark. Drop at least one photo, at least one mention of the M1 gun is not in the T23 tower. Yes, you can still tell when they were produced, it may turn out that until July 44, they appear in combat units. And it turns out that while the T34 was a self-propelled cannon, the M4 was the same, only better made. A 85mm gun on the t34 and 76mm on the m4 appeared almost simultaneously. Well, I’ll leave clever terms for people with an incomplete secondary education, because gentlemen with complete primary education consider them empty and ask them not to load it.
            2. The comment was deleted.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. Revolver
          Revolver 26 May 2016 18: 14
          +2
          And it’s not a matter of caliber, but ballistics. The same "Panther" had 75mm. The Sherman Firefly had 76mm, and penetrated the front of any German tank, including the Tiger, from more than a kilometer. Compare the weight of the projectile and the muzzle velocity, and everything will become clear.
  9. Lopatov
    Lopatov 26 May 2016 18: 10
    +1
    Quote: overb
    It was still possible to shoot directly from the tank from a 76-mm Soviet flare gun at a German anti-tank gun. With good chances of success. But in terms of space ...

    And from the divisional 76 mm ZiS-3 in terms of space, is it anyway? Religious prohibition?
    1. overb
      overb 26 May 2016 18: 35
      -3
      Quote: Spade
      And from the divisional 76 mm ZiS-3 in terms of space, is it anyway?

      And how did the tank three-inch Soviet flapper differ from the ZIS-3?
      Quote: Spade
      Religious prohibition?

      First you need to find out why?
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 26 May 2016 19: 07
        +4
        Quote: overb
        And how did the tank three-inch Soviet flapper differ from the ZIS-3?

        Uh ... did you even read the article? I understand that I want to troll, but, damn it, the T-34 has absolutely nothing to do with artillery involved in the artillery preparation of an attack by shooting from closed OPs.

        And the attempts to shove it here look ... too stupid.


        Quote: overb
        First you need to find out why?

        Indeed, why conduct artillery preparation and artillery support for the attack ... After all, it was necessary to put "normal tank guns" on the T-34, and the need for artillery would disappear completely ...
        1. overb
          overb 26 May 2016 19: 18
          -4
          Quote: Spade
          I understand that I want to troll, but, damn it, the T-34 has absolutely nothing to do with artillery involved in the artillery preparation of an attack by shooting from closed OPs.

          You would be nice to try to understand what was written. Especially for you I will repeat with explanations (explanations, this is where bold):
          From the Soviet 76-mm flapper (F-34, ZIS-5) it was still possible to shoot directly from the tank at a German anti-tank gun. With good chances of success. But in terms of space (from ZIS-3)...

          So understandable, I hope? Do not chew further? What is F-34, ZIS-5 and ZIS-3 you know?
          Quote: Spade
          And the attempts to shove it here look ... too stupid.

          Of course. For those who have problems with understanding what is written in Russian, it is unwise.
          Quote: Spade
          Indeed, why carry out artillery training and artillery support for the attack ...

          Yes, the question is, why carry out, as it were, "artillery preparation" with three-inches. You will be greatly surprised, but already in the 30s of the last century a "divisional gun" of such a ridiculous caliber remained only in the Red Army. A WW1 belch that everyone else, in her experience, has given up on.
          Quote: Spade
          After all, it was necessary to put on the T-34 "normal tank guns", and the need for artillery would disappear completely ...

          Does it seem to you that you have successfully cut it off? Consider that in 1943-44. were the normal guns on the t-34/76? Believe that the T-34/76 in the indicated period of time is a normal, in fact the main, tank?
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 26 May 2016 20: 06
            +2
            Quote: overb
            You would be nice to try to understand what was written.

            I looked.

            The phrase in the article: "The enemy's anti-tank defense was suppressed during the period of artillery preparation to the entire depth of the main defense zone. However, due to the fact that the caliber of almost 70% of the artillery was less than 100 mm, it was possible to reliably suppress the enemy's PTS only in the first and second positions, that is, to a depth of about 5 km. "
            Your phrase in response: "It was still possible to shoot from a tank with direct fire from a Soviet 76-mm dead-fire gun at a German anti-tank gun (PTO) cannon. With good chances of success. But in areas ..."

            Do not cut the fool.

            Quote: overb
            Yes, the question is, why carry out, as it were, "artillery preparation" with three-inches.

            Oh ... The most enchanting question. But what is the question, such is the answer. They were used because they were available.
            And after all, not only they ... At the level of the rifle division there were also "Kulak sawed-off" 122-mm, there were 120-mm mortars.


            Quote: overb
            Does it seem to you that you have successfully cut it off? Consider that in 1943-44. were the normal guns on the t-34/76? Believe that the T-34/76 in the indicated period of time is a normal, in fact the main, tank?

            Money again for fish ... In artillery, you are swimming openly, and therefore are you trying to reduce everything to the T-34? Once again: they had nothing to do with the ground artillery of the Red Army.
            1. overb
              overb 26 May 2016 20: 34
              -4
              Quote: Spade
              I looked.

              So, not everyone in the book sees letters.
              Quote: Spade
              Do not cut the fool.

              I do not have such a habit. And the need.
              But if you have problems understanding what is written in Russian, then do not pass it on to others.
              А
              Quote: Spade
              But what is the question, such is the answer. They were used because they were available.

              And if there were also slingshots, would you use artillery preparation from slingshots? And would that be too good?
              Quote: Spade
              At the level of the rifle division, there were also 122-mm "Kulak sawn-off shotguns", there were 120-mm mortars.

              If there were such forces and means, why was it useless to fool around in areas? Was there any extra money? However, apparently, yes. The USSR usually did not consider money, however rich the country was. With a poor population.
              Quote: Spade
              In artillery, frankly floating

              Gee-gee. But you successfully joked that. Appreciated.
              Quote: Spade
              Once again: they had nothing to do with the ground artillery of the Red Army.

              Really? And I thought that it’s just such a regiment with a motor. It was mistaken, apparently.
              PS. I bring you to the emergency. I don’t like your manner of fanning the opponent out. Here just now the next portion has happened. Yes, and with an understanding of what is written in Russian, you have obvious problems.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 26 May 2016 21: 54
                +3
                Quote: overb
                But if you have problems understanding what is written in Russian, then do not pass it on to others.

                May be. Let's figure it out.
                The article contains a rather controversial statement that 70 percent of the artillery involved in the artillery preparation of the attack had a caliber of less than 100 millimeters.
                Explain to me, what does the T-34 tank have to do with this thesis?


                Quote: overb
                If there were such forces and means, why was it useless to fool around in areas?

                Have you ever seen how they work? It seems not ... But I had to shoot at the school. Substitute. The impression is "it won't seem a little". Especially considering its rate of fire.


                Quote: overb
                Gee-gee. But you successfully joked that. Appreciated.

                This is a fact; there’s no getting away from it.


                Quote: overb
                PS. I bring you to the emergency. I don’t like your manner of fanning the opponent out.

                Yes please. Only I do not put cons at all. 8)))))))))))))
                I’m just an uncomfortable opponent for you, I'm stopping lying. 8))))))
                1. overb
                  overb 26 May 2016 22: 55
                  -2
                  Quote: Spade
                  Explain to me, what does the T-34 tank have to do with this thesis?

                  I even copy it and lay it out again. Maybe this time you will understand the meaning of the phrase written in Russian:
                  "It would be nice for you to try to understand what was written about. Especially for you I will repeat it with explanations (explanations, this is where in bold):
                  From the Soviet 76-mm flapper (F-34, ZIS-5) it was still possible to shoot directly from the tank at the German anti-tank gun. With good chances of success. But by area (from ZIS-3) ... "

                  I can’t understand what is written there so complicated that you entered the clinch? Why are brains stuck?
                  Quote: Spade
                  Impression - "it won't seem a little"

                  Impressions are often false. And also naive. Especially if you compare them with impressions, for example, from the "work" of a 122-mm howitzer.
                  Quote: Spade
                  This is a fact; there’s no getting away from it.

                  And again you are funny.
                  Quote: Spade
                  Yes please. Only I do not put cons at all.

                  Apparently I was wrong. I apologized for this in a previous comment.
                  Quote: Spade
                  I’m just an uncomfortable opponent for you, I'm stopping lying.

                  Yes, I don’t care with whom to argue, because The level of my knowledge in this area is quite high. Therefore, I am confident in myself. Moreover, he is not gleaned from the Internet gossip in the forums, like most. Therefore, I write as it is. If the tank turned three-inch during 1943. into the flapper, and I write. If I did not have a right to exist during the Second World War, a three-inch field, I write.
                  And about lies, so you take the trouble to give examples. So decent people decided to do.
            2. The comment was deleted.
  10. Monarchist
    Monarchist 26 May 2016 19: 22
    +1
    Monarchist. It is strange for some reason that the tankers respected the T34 / 85 at Drabkin, I do not remember that they scolded the new 34. I had a neighbor, a front-line soldier Uskov P.Ya. He had been a mechanic driver T1944 since November 34. He knew the American Sherman well. Comparing amer and our T34, he always noted how much more convenient it is to control death, but he always ended up with the conclusion: 1 Amer is a convenient target for the Germans + Amer "loved" high-quality fuel. In the Second World War, we did not have high-quality fuel, and technical inspection was, of course a rarity
    1. overb
      overb 26 May 2016 19: 34
      -4
      Quote: Monarchist
      It is strange for some reason that the tankmen respected t34 / 85 at Drabkin. I don’t remember scolding the new 34

      While everyone was riding trolleybuses, the Lada also seemed to be on top of perfection. Especially near Zaporozhets.
      Quote: Monarchist
      I had a neighbor, veteran Uskov P.Ya.

      Uskov’s opinion is certainly very valuable. And it is very uncharacteristic for those who managed to fight on a foreign car. Basically everywhere reviews are exactly the opposite. And the war veteran is different.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 26 May 2016 20: 13
        +3
        Quote: overb
        And it is very uncharacteristic for those who managed to fight on a foreign car. Basically everywhere reviews are exactly the opposite.

        If users managed to survive ...

        "Ronson", "Oven for Tommy" "British Frying Pan" ... These names appeared for a reason.
        1. overb
          overb 26 May 2016 20: 36
          -4
          Quote: Spade
          "Ronson", "Oven for Tommy" "British Frying Pan" ... These names appeared for a reason.

          Yes, the British skillet is very suitable for Shermans.
          And the stove for Tommy, also for the Shermans, is very suitable.
          Yes, and Ronson, this is also Britain.
          Have you ever guessed something at least once? At least for decency?
          He learned how to arrange his opponents with a fan only. Marshal, damn it, sofa.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 26 May 2016 21: 55
            +4
            Quote: overb
            He learned how to arrange his opponents with a fan only. Marshal, damn it, sofa.

            And here you have a statement just the deepest ...
            1. overb
              overb 26 May 2016 22: 38
              -1
              Quote: Spade
              And here you have a statement just the deepest ...

              Yes, I apparently made a mistake, I apologize. Here with this one Mik13 drew with this.
          2. Mik13
            Mik13 26 May 2016 22: 19
            +5
            Quote: overb
            He learned how to arrange his opponents with a fan only. Marshal, damn it, sofa.

            And my cons. I went in the evening to look at comments - and decided that your work deserves an adequate assessment.

            I rarely set cons, but you deserve it — you have everything for which I usually put them — except for Nazism. Namely: - rudeness, peremptory and illiterate judgments, inability to constructive discussion and the transition to the individual.
            I believe that you are simply a troll. Therefore, the faster you type your own, the faster the site will stop stinking.
            In the place of moderators, I would have already banned you - but so far I am making my contribution.
            1. overb
              overb 26 May 2016 22: 30
              0
              Quote: Mik13
              but so far I am making my contribution.

              Deposit-deposit. You will know more from this. It’s good that they’re not allowed to shoot in the basements, as before. This one would probably shoot. So it’s more convenient to argue, the arguments are weighty, lead.
              I draw the attention of moderators that the actions of this figure are directly contrary to the rules of the site.
              1. Mik13
                Mik13 26 May 2016 22: 39
                +5
                Quote: overb
                Deposit-deposit. You will know more from this.

                Well, firstly, my knowledge is there, who adequately assessed. You are not in this list - and never will be.
                And secondly, that nonsense that you deigned to make comments - this is not knowledge - this is information slop. A hellish mixture of Volkogonovschina, Rezunovschina and Svanidzevschina. Maybe you Novodvorskaya before dying for a skull bit? Or did her spirit infuse you? If so, I have bad news. Ilinichny had a headache that would have hurt you, you would have needed a psychiatrist. And then, perhaps, haloperodole will return you to reality from the world of virtual pseudo-history.
            2. The comment was deleted.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 27 May 2016 10: 17
          +1
          Quote: Spade
          "Ronson", "Oven for Tommy" "British Frying Pan" ... These names appeared for a reason.

          He-he-he ... the problem is that the first 2 have nothing to do with the USSR. For the BTV RKKA ordered and received mostly diesel tanks (the same "Shermans"). Gasoline foreign cars were, EMNIP, only LT.

          So the stories about the cardboard "Shermans" supplied by the damned Yankees burning like lighters are an aberration of memory
      2. Monarchist
        Monarchist 1 June 2016 21: 21
        0
        In my opinion, the person who fought on T34 is better aware of its deliveries and shortcomings than the person reading books. That is, the Discovery also praised the T34 more. Agree that it’s easier to hit a high target with a smaller one. For some reason, the Germans were more afraid of the Russian front, rather than the West with all of their Shermans.
    2. bubalik
      bubalik 26 May 2016 21: 02
      0
      "monarchist" ,, Uskov .P.Ya ,, completely do not remember, very interesting ,,,
  11. Monarchist
    Monarchist 1 June 2016 20: 39
    0
    "... put on a self-propelled cart from the past with light armor, and call this defeat a" medium tank. "For a long time, my neighbor was P.Ya. "It is comfortable for the driver to work on an American, but it is very difficult to turn the levers on our levers. By the evening, his hands fall off." In conclusion, he said that he was still alive because he fought in Russian. .34) Amer was "fussy" only preferred high-quality gasoline (we did not produce it then) 85) needed careful maintenance, but our drivers did not do it + he was weaker: 1mm! The Americans themselves admitted that their "Sherman "inferior to T2
    1. verboo
      verboo 1 June 2016 21: 16
      0
      Quote: Monarchist
      In conclusion, he said that he remained alive - because he had fought in Russian.

      Apparently he could predict fate.
      Quote: Monarchist
      Amer was "fussy" only preferred high-quality gasoline (we did not produce it then)

      Your mechanic driver Uskov thought in a straightforward way. True, Shermans were delivered to the USSR with a pair of GM 6046 diesel engines. But this is no longer important.
      Quote: Monarchist
      needed careful care, and our drivers didn’t do it

      Needed only elementary regulations. And didn't need to be adjusted. More than once I had to read that in the units where the Shermans were there were special American representatives who made sure that the mechanics did not climb inside the tanks. And nothing was "regulated" there.
      Quote: Monarchist
      he was weaker armed: 75mm!

      At least basic knowledge on this subject stock up. Before you write such frank nonsense. It is necessary to call the 75 mm M3 weaker than the 76,2 mm F-34. Yes, the F-34 was not suitable for the soles of this M3.
      Quote: Monarchist
      The Americans themselves admitted that their "Sherman" is inferior to the T34

      Of course. The petitioners wrote about this a day later.
      You would have thought at least once where in a technically and technologically backward country, located on the edge of the earth, good technology would come from? Where does it come from, who can create it? Who will teach this creator? And on what technological base will he create it, if all this base basically went to the Bolsheviks from tsarism? Those. was the beginning of the century. And the "industrialization" of the 30s is one sheer profanation, which practically did not give the country, except for gigantic human sacrifices, nothing. So, nothing significant, more than one propaganda. The Bolsheviks did not succeed, they could not.
      1. verboo
        verboo 1 June 2016 21: 41
        0
        Quote: Monarchist
        a person who fought on T34 knows better its delivery and flaws than a person who reads books.

        You have already decided once what your "expert" fought on. And then contradict yourself.
        Quote: Monarchist
        Something and in Discovery praised the T34 more

        A very reliable source of information. It competes with the inscription on the fence.
        Quote: Monarchist
        Agree it is easier to get into a high target with less than that.

        If you want to compare the BTT by this indicator, then compare the area of ​​the frontal projections, and not just the height or width.
        Quote: Monarchist
        For some reason, the Germans were more afraid of the Russian front, rather than the West with all of their Shermans.

        How do you know such things?
  • bionik
    bionik 26 May 2016 12: 00
    +1
    The trophy tractor Vickers pulls the rare Cancer-41.
  • chenia
    chenia 26 May 2016 12: 27
    +4
    Quote: Monster_Fat
    6) the lack of self-propelled mortars and light infantry howitzers did not allow for maneuvering the identified means of anti-aircraft defense on intermediate defense lines during the offensive.



    And for what? bullet on reverse ramps?
    And in the text I was amused by the presence of an artilleryman, a spotter in the tank, specifically for fighting against the TCP (if he is in the tank 300-500m from the battle line, then it is also possible, and completely for other things).
    The most profitable firing at enemy’s means of direct firing, direct fire, HE grenade (more than a caliber). As a rule, 85, 100,122 mm of tanks followed us, and then 152 mm self-propelled guns that extinguished the identified anti-tank equipment (and more serious, tanks in the trenches and IT). And the tanks at the end of the war had quite decent calibers, who freed them from this work?
    NU and tactical way-the firing shaft.

    Quote: Monster_Fat
    it’s better to see how the fight against VET was established among the allies. There was where to learn. The Allies had excellent cooperation with attack aircraft thanks to the excellent service of advanced gunners,


    If there is a problem with the enemy's TCP, then they have completed their task.
    The prepared frontier is essentially an ambush. The fire with which is effective the first 2-3 minutes. If during this time (well, maybe a little more) 30-50% of the tanks participating in the attack are affected, then the attack stops. And not the fact that it will happen again - a maneuver is possible. Although at the same time all the TCP can be destroyed.

    The call of artillery fire (and not in terms of fire at the borders, but with specific shooting at a separate target with a PDO is a huge loss of time). And I am silent about aviation in general.
    Here, these means (aviation and artillery) need not be fought with the cause, but with the investigation (deployment of enemy reserves, with a possible counterattack).
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 26 May 2016 13: 49
      +5
      Quote: chenia
      As a rule, 85, 100,122 mm of tanks followed us, and then 152 mm self-propelled guns that extinguished the identified anti-tank equipment (more serious tanks in the trenches and IT).

      Giggles ... I remember the posted uv. Ulanov's letter from our infantryman (detained by the censor) - about how the SU-152 was used by mistake. "Heaven and earth are mixed ... I do not know how the Germans, but we did not like".
    2. Monster_Fat
      Monster_Fat 26 May 2016 14: 18
      -4
      The allies had one method of dealing with anti-tank defenses: having stumbled upon an anti-tank defense system and having suffered the first losses, they withdrew tanks that fired harassing fire from behind cover and mortars entered into action, which hit the anti-tank defense positions, followed by attack aircraft that hammered this anti-tank defense system along with mortars light howitzers, and then tanks again went to the bloodless anti-tank gunnery. But of course you can do as Enko and K did: send T-34s forward and while they are being shot, identify anti-tank gun emplacements that were already suppressed by heavy self-propelled guns standing in the second echelon. Same method why not. But only to the question about the heavy losses of the T-34 in such battles, Yenko answered in the following vein: "Well, they burned the T-34, well, that's what the war is, now is not 42, there are a lot of tanks ... The main thing is" Forward! "
      1. Kostya Andreev
        Kostya Andreev 26 May 2016 14: 34
        +3
        Read how the Germans burned the Shermans, make allowances for the theater of operations (where the Germans had a defense in the west, similar to the one on the eastern front). What you write looked like this: there is an tiger in an ambush in a dangerous area, without cover by artillery, air infantry, the allies ride along the road, the first shot at the head, the second at the closing, the crews of the allies leave the aircraft arrives and knock the enemy tank, since there is no air cover. or the artillery hits, because the tank without cover, then there is nothing to crush them with, voila, the tank is destroyed. or thrown.
        And by the way, your phrase:
        Quote: Monster_Fat
        "Well, they burned the T-34, well, that's what the war is about, now it's not 42 years old, there are a lot of tanks ... The main thing is" Forward! "
        may apply to allies and opponents, such a stamp designed to show the cruelty of Soviet commanders and the philanthropy of commanders of a progressive democratic world and giving hope that the Nazis are not such cannibals as Soviet commanders.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 26 May 2016 15: 00
        +4
        Quote: Monster_Fat
        The Allies had one method of combating anti-tank missiles: having stumbled on anti-tank guns and having suffered the first casualties, they diverted tanks that were harassing from behind shelters, and mortars that hit the positions of anti-tank guns came into action, followed by attack aircraft that were hammering this anti-tank guns with mortars and light howitzers, and then the tanks again went to the bloodless anti-tank missile.

        Yeah ... in theory. In practice, however, tanks could walk in landmines to an unsupported anti-tank missile system, because you must not lose pace. Or storm the long-term defense, crawling along a single passage through the gouges.

        By the way, here's another for the main objectives of the tanks:
        The main task of the armored units is to attack the infantry and artillery pieces of the enemy. A great place to hunt can be the rear of the enemy. Do your best to get there.
        © Patton
        1. brn521
          brn521 26 May 2016 15: 52
          +2
          Quote: Alexey RA
          In practice, tanks could mines on an unsupported anti-tank missile system.

          And what happened when the offensive was disrupted?
          Judging by the recollections, it often happened that we collected the remains of tanks from the guts and repeated the same thing. Despite the fact that on the side of the enemy nothing was revealed and suppressed at all. Then they reported upstairs that the offensive was impossible due to the exhaustion of armored vehicles. In a different scenario, this would be a failure to comply with the order and a failure of the offensive, loss of shoulder straps and a tribunal. And already after that it was possible to start begging for some sort of air or artillery support in combination with a new portion of tanks. Those. tanks were actually drained for reporting. I don’t know, maybe there are tales, or maybe ours thus tried to save infrastructure and civilians. Moreover, it is during this period that the most evidence is given that some tankmen attached to the infantry colonels simply sent everyone and locked themselves in the tank without responding to orders.
          By the way, about this moment, the interaction of tanks and infantry. You can recall the same self-propelled guns attached to the infantry. Their crews obeyed the infantry command. The logical result is an attempt to pose as a tank cover and inglorious death. Not like VET, they threw them with simple grenades. Then, of course, instructions were issued directly prohibiting this matter. But the fact remains, the infantry command took care of the personnel and easily sacrificed equipment for this. It was also one of the ways to drag the infantry into the offensive by launching armored vehicles forward. Without this, it was sometimes simply impossible to drive out one of the trenches.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 26 May 2016 16: 36
            +4
            Quote: brn521
            And what happened when the offensive was disrupted?

            And there was no breakdown. There was only a slowdown. For the Yankees concentrated such forces that they slowly but surely pushed through the defense. At the same time, losing no less than ours in similar situations.
            Over the course of ten months, the 3rd Panzer Division lost 1348 Sherman medium tanks in battle (more than 580% of the nominal strength of 232 tanks), of which 648 were completely destroyed. In addition, non-combat losses amounted to approximately 600 tanks.

            The Yankees had good repair capacities + supply of new tanks. Plus, they were advancing (knocked out equipment remained on their territory). So, the number of vehicles was supported by the efforts of repairmen and suppliers.
            That was with the crews not so simple.

            By the way, here is a description of that attack on an unsuppressed VET from an eyewitness:
            Each task force had one minesweeper tank. Having overcome the crest of the hill and overtaking the infantry, they drove straight into the minefields. Although they had to fight not only with mines, but also with thick mud, at first these tanks showed themselves well. Under the blows of the chains, several minutes exploded, adding an extra pair of funnels to the field. But in the end, both minesweeper tanks got bogged down, because on wet ground the engine power was not enough to crank the drum and tracks at the same time. Frozen, they were excellent targets and were soon knocked out.
            The next tanks of the columns had no choice but to go around the minesweeper tanks and break through. It ended in a nightmarish domino - the first of the tanks rounded a minesweeper and walked several meters before being blown up by a mine. The next one went around both of them and moved a little further, when he also came across a mine and was blown up.
            This continued until one tank finally broke through the minefield to continue the attack. The one behind him tried to follow the same route, and sometimes he managed to pass the minefield unharmed. By the third tank, however, the soft ground turned into a swamp, where armored vehicles were stuck, despite the "duck paws" that we put on the connecting links of the tracks. And every tank that got stuck became a stationary target for deadly anti-tank fire. The Germans continued to fire at the damaged car until it caught fire. If the crew tried to get out, they would come under concentrated fire from their machine guns.
            Our brave tankers knew that their cars on a soggy minefield were doomed to certain death, and still continued the offensive. That was one of the most heroic attacks in the history of the war. 64 medium tanks moved into the first attack, and in the first 26 minutes of the battle we lost 48 vehicles. Losses among the crews in this terrible battle were appropriate ...
            By sunset, the 1st task force with huge losses reached Gastenrath. In one of the columns of nineteen tanks (including the minesweeper tank), four remained by the end of the day: the remaining fifteen remained in the minefield. The surviving tanks had a little easier - the infantry moved forward with difficulty and could not cover them.
            By the way, all night American tanks stood in front of the enemy without infantry. Almost like we did in the Stalingrad area in 1942 - "the infantry did not go after the tanks, and the tankers themselves guarded their tanks all night at the positions repelled from the Germans".
          2. Warrior2015
            Warrior2015 26 May 2016 19: 26
            0
            Quote: brn521
            in that some tankmen attached to the infantry colonels simply sent everyone and locked themselves in the tank without reacting to orders.

            Since the radios in the Sov.technique were weak, there was always the opportunity to refer to an idle connection. But the leadership could send an ambassador. laughing
    3. Lopatov
      Lopatov 26 May 2016 18: 20
      +5
      Quote: chenia
      And in the text I was amused by the presence of an artilleryman, a spotter in the tank, specifically for fighting against the TCP (if he is in the tank 300-500m from the battle line, then it is also possible, and completely for other things).


      Actually

      444. For direct support by the fire of a tank attack division in the depths of the enemy’s defense, advanced observers are identified who move in tanks along with the first tank echelon.

      445. The main task of an observer in a tank is the reconnaissance, target designation, and correction of the Division’s fire in sections of the offensive zone that are not observable or poorly observable from land based NPs.

      447. For target designation and correction of fire in the offensive zone, lines are drawn on the map after about 1 km .............

      448. After passing through each line with the first echelon of tanks, an advanced observer moves after it with rifts, stopping at the designated lines for observation and fire control.

      This is according to PSNA 1942-43
  • Forever so
    Forever so 26 May 2016 13: 43
    0
    Hmm, the tank fucked by blank ........ All charters are written in blood. But today we do not have self-propelled guns battlefield. The terminator does not pull on it. Apparently today, the main emphasis was on the destruction of manpower of the TCP with small calibers, thermal barrels.
  • chenia
    chenia 26 May 2016 15: 08
    +3
    Quote: Monster_Fat
    Having stumbled upon a VET and having suffered the first losses, they were withdrawing tanks

    Believe me, they don’t fight, even the allies. You need a certain amount of losses during an attack to cancel it.

    Quote: Monster_Fat
    who hollowed this VET along with mortars and light howitzers,

    Air strikes and artillery fire at one frontier generally spread out over time

    Quote: Monster_Fat
    send forward the T-34 and while they are being shot, to identify the firing points of the VET, which were already suppressed by heavy self-propelled guns standing in the second tier


    At first Self-propelled guns are not the second echelon, they are built into the battle formation. but not in the first line.

    Secondly they, along with attacking tanks, begin to destroy anti-tank weapons of the enemy.
    I said that PT artillery is a quick consumable item (I'm an artilleryman and I know what I'm saying). Their task is to detain the enemy to regroup their units or even units.

    third direct fire (and related target designation)
    the fastest, most reliable and less expensive way to destroy anti-money laundering equipment (and indeed any).

    Fourthly pace is everything. And primarily on the final loss. Breaking through the enemy’s defenses and maintaining a high offensive pace, thereby forcing his main forces to withdraw under the conditions of a semicircle, or even the general environment, and incur huge losses. Losses are not determined on the first day of the operation. and last.
  • chenia
    chenia 26 May 2016 18: 52
    +1
    Quote: Spade
    448. After passing through each line with the first echelon of tanks, an advanced observer moves after it with rifts, stopping at the designated lines for observation and fire control.
    This is according to PSNA 1942-43


    My quote.
    "hung up ... just to fight the TCP of an artilleryman - spotter in a tank," "
    And then "(if he is in a tank 300-500 m from the battle line, something else is possible, and completely for other things).



    Well, where is the contradiction? Especially after the words "moves after him rolls."
    And shooting at a single target, how do you imagine this?
    You are an artilleryman.

    For targets with a front and depth, yes, a call of fire at the borders or pre-detected targets, yes. And I wrote about this.

    Well, you know the line of defense, this is up to 200-300 m between the guns (then probably no more than 100 m.)
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 26 May 2016 19: 30
      +2
      Quote: chenia
      And shooting at a single target, how do you imagine this?

      What does "single target" have to do with it? They worked for unplanned goals. Including anti-tank defense in the depths of the enemy's defense. Including for single targets, if their defeat by direct fire of tanks / self-propelled guns / guns is impractical.


      Quote: chenia
      Well, you know the line of defense, this is up to 200-300 m between the guns (then probably no more than 100 m.)

      200-300 is a platoon line. And then it is doubtful where the Germans came from on the radio station for each anti-tank gun. Trying to control the voice of the fire of a gun located 150 meters is a non-trivial task

      But even so, for the division it’s quite normal for yourself. Suppression Fire. To provide the ability to destroy the Fri unit direct fire. After all, they also did not wait until they were clicked out. And defeating a comparatively low target with lay fire is still a task.
  • Aviator_
    Aviator_ 26 May 2016 21: 22
    0
    A good note, although somewhat boring, but the abundance of comments compensates for this boringness.
  • Lens
    Lens 26 May 2016 21: 30
    -1
    And my grandfather on the Oder jammed fish from the trophy "faut" smile So according to his memoirs - water with silt and fish rose ten meters up! Powerful TCP, however, the adversary by the end of the war appeared ....
  • chenia
    chenia 26 May 2016 21: 38
    +2
    Quote: Spade
    Trying to control the voice of the fire of a gun located 150 meters is a non-trivial task


    And that a platoon leader can effectively control the fire of an AT unit in battle? The signal "Fire" and nothing more.

    So I’ll tell you, and KO is not always able to do this when shooting at moving targets. The initiative is more with the gunner, the choice is his. There is a shelling sector and forward.

    In a real battle (not staged shots) near the gun, the gunner and loader, the rest in the slot, and do not protrude (except with the windward -KO). Washed off by the fragments of these numbers, two more pop up and if the gun intactly continue the battle. Pop out to throw boxes with b / p or deploy a gun.

    Quote: Spade
    But even so, for the division it’s quite normal for yourself. Suppression Fire.


    Well, at the frontier, at least a battery with 200-300 m gaps between platoons.
    ADN will not be enough, this time.
    Let the tank be not a spotter, but an advanced KNP (with the whole set - though this is something like a modern one), Well, how long does it take to "shake out" the tank, attach, etc. determination of the initial, zeroing. (And 4 projectiles fugitive) and - 75 shells flew away.


    And tankers play preference before shooting. And this is taking into account that before that there was a battle that stopped TB at least (ADN was given to it).

    And put a 122 mm RP near the trench, direct fire from self-propelled guns is difficult.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 26 May 2016 22: 12
      +1
      Quote: chenia
      And what about the platoon commander can effectively control the fire of anti-tank units in battle?

      Must, without this, no way.


      Quote: chenia
      Well, at the frontier, at least a battery with 200-300 m gaps between platoons.
      ADN will not be enough, this time.

      In order to make the work of calculations difficult by fire along the deployment line? Enough is enough.

      Quote: chenia
      Let the tank be not a spotter, but an advanced KNP (with the whole set - though this is something like a modern one), Well, how long does it take to "shake out" the tank, attach, etc. determination of the initial, zeroing. (And 4 projectiles fugitive) and - 75 shells flew away.

      They were not "shaken out". Unless only to designate the target for the KNP division with tracers or missiles. And they did not get attached. They simply assigned landmarks at each line and, if possible, shot them in advance. From them and "danced"

      449. Target designation is made on the map. The observer puts the target on the map and indicates the distance to the target from the nearest landmark in the countries of the world (north, east, south and west). Example: “Landmark 5; north 500; west 300; tanks. "
      The receiver of the target designation finds a landmark on the map and, based on the received coordinates, puts the target on the map using a coordinate measure or an aiming ruler.
      If the target is close to the point at which the data is prepared for firing, fire is opened without amendment, or amendments are introduced by eye.
      At the lines observed from the main NPs, target designation is carried out with tracer bullets and shells, as well as missiles.


      Quote: chenia
      And tankers play preference before shooting. And this is taking into account that before that there was a battle that stopped TB at least (ADN was given to it).

      About the "battalion to battalion" - I'm not sure. This also has to be torn off from work on the fire shaft or the PSO.

      Well, about "to prefecture"

      452. With a long delay at any boundary and need to shoot an important target sighting lead by observation signs. ' Observations and commands are transmitted as usual.

      That is, a full sighting only when possible or special need.

      Do not forget, this is PS 43 years
  • ftgad
    ftgad 26 May 2016 22: 15
    +1
    somehow they forget about such a means of combating anti-tank weapons, such as the Su-76 (used by the second echelon, as it should be).

    for one, those who write about "wunderwaves", such as "faustpatron" and others like him. I would like to see the numbers of destroyed Soviet tanks
    1. overb
      overb 26 May 2016 23: 17
      -1
      Quote: ftgad
      somehow they forget about such a means of combating anti-tank weapons, such as the Su-76 (used by the second echelon, as it should be).

      In fact, the SU-76 / 76M was not a means of combating anti-tank war. They positioned themselves as assault artillery. But due to the weakness of their guns (ZIS-3), they could not perform the functions of assault self-propelled guns. But often they were actually executed. With considerable losses.
      In fact, the SU-76 / 76M were a "battalion with a motor". Exactly the same as the "tank" T-34/76 starting since 1943only less heavily protected. And cutting, not a tower. An intermediate option, between the transported ZIS-3 and T-34/76. It was difficult for these motor divisions to deal with the VET; normally dug PaK40 could easily burn them from far away (the T-34/76 had a better position). But even they, with a well-known crew qualification, could also destroy it, even the SU-76 / 76M had chances here.
      But against the new models of German tanks, these engine divisions were tight. Therefore, they did not pull on real assault guns (such as StuG III / IV). Only on the "division with a motor".
      I apologize for the terminology, but the categories of normal self-propelled guns are not quite suitable for this technique. This technique (T-34/76 and SU-76 / 76M), it is outside the categories. therefore it is better to call them foggy, self-propelled artillery. Without specifying their purpose.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 27 May 2016 11: 08
        +2
        Quote: overb
        In fact, the SU-76 / 76M was not a means of combating anti-tank war. They positioned themselves as assault artillery. But due to the weakness of their guns (ZIS-3), they could not perform the functions of assault self-propelled guns.

        And than 76 mm direct fire is bad against open OT or field fortifications?
        According to the experience of the same Finnish one, to bring even the DOS to an unfit state, one could either pick it up with 203-280 mm suitcases for a long time and tediously, or get into the embrasure with a 1-mm shell 2-76 times.

        After all, the tasks of assault self-propelled guns are not limited solely to the fight against anti-tank missiles.
        Quote: overb
        It was difficult for these motor divisions to deal with VET; normally dug PaK40 could easily burn them very far

        But for this, dowry infantry is needed. Which ideally goes in front of the self-propelled guns, detects the positions of anti-tank vehicles, reports self-propelled guns about them and simultaneously crushes them with the fire of riflemen and mortars.
        1. verboo
          verboo 27 May 2016 21: 32
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          And than 76 mm direct fire is bad against open OT or field fortifications?

          And is that all the tasks of assault guns? Imagine a plane, and it has a powerful motor. And a lot of bombs fit. And guns with machine guns, hurt yourself. But there is one small detail, he can’t fly. Can you call such a plane good? So the SU-76 / 76M was the same. She could solve some of the tasks of the assault gun. And part, no. From this a general assessment, unsatisfactory.
          Quote: Alexey RA
          After all, the tasks of assault self-propelled guns are not limited solely to the fight against anti-tank missiles.

          But even without the possibility of solving these problems, these were not real assault guns.
          Quote: Alexey RA
          But for this, dowry infantry is needed. Which ideally goes in front of the self-propelled guns, detects the positions of anti-tank vehicles, reports self-propelled guns about them and simultaneously crushes them with the fire of riflemen and mortars.

          PaK40 could burn the SU-76 / 76M right at the limit of the range of its shot. No infantry can help here. This is very far away for her.
        2. The comment was deleted.
      2. ftgad
        ftgad 27 May 2016 13: 49
        +1
        Quote: overb
        They positioned themselves as assault artillery.

        by whom?
        Quote: overb
        In fact, the SU-76 / 76M were "a division with a motor

        yes, and this is one of its advantages
        Quote: overb
        normally dug PaK40 could easily burn them very far

        could, but the su-76m is far from the prerogative target for the PAK, but the pack for the su is very even.
        Quote: overb
        only less heavily protected. And cutting, not tower

        Find a more armored classmate of about the same mass. Strange, but the Germans have at least a third of BTC with open cuttings or a cover in the form of only a gun shield.
        Quote: overb
        But against the new models of German tanks

        but against obsolete? and besides pt-struggle, su had other tasks.
        Quote: overb
        Therefore, they didn’t pull on real assault guns (such as StuG III / IV)

        they didn’t pull, because they solved a wider range of tasks

        In general, both VET and its assault are complex activities, and comparing one of the elements without taking into account the rest is not a good thing
        1. verboo
          verboo 27 May 2016 21: 23
          0
          Quote: ftgad
          by whom?

          The command of the Red Army.
          Quote: ftgad
          yes, and this is one of its advantages

          Compared to ZIS-3? Of course. You can still remember the armor. Although anti-shatter, but still armor.
          Quote: ftgad
          but the su-76m is far from the prerogative goal for the PAK, but the pack for the su is very even.

          You probably confused it with the word "priority". It happens. In fact, assault weapons and anti-tank guns are antipodes. Ardent. Therefore, relative to each other, priority. Although, of course, the anti-tank gun was not averse to tanks. And even mostly. Assault gans were quite good for bezrybe. For a snack.
          Quote: ftgad
          Find a more armored classmate of about the same mass. Strange, but the Germans have at least a third of BTC with open cuttings or a cover in the form of only a gun shield.

          The Germans produced the widest range of BTTs. There was no one bald devil. The USSR produced only a few positions. And in the position of "assault ACS" there were SU-76 / 76M. If you want to compare them with German Self-propelled Anti-tank Guns, then you shouldn't. The SU-76 / 76M, undoubtedly surpassing them in terms of protection, are definitely inferior in terms of armament. And in general, these are different categories of BTT. If you want something from that area, then here is the ZiS-30 mod. 1941 Just a Soviet self-propelled anti-tank gun. And the SU-76 / 76M is a Soviet assault gun. Only in view of the deadness of this tool, diphtheria.
          Quote: ftgad
          but against obsolete? and besides pt-struggle, su had other tasks.

          This is exactly what the SU-76 / 76M could solve "other problems". But the tasks of AT combat (included in the tasks of assault guns), no. The gun would not allow. The one that is kind of brilliant and legendary.
          Quote: ftgad
          they didn’t pull, because they solved a wider range of tasks

          Those. take the tasks of the assault gun, subtract the AT combat from them, and as a result you get a "wider range of tasks." Original.
          Quote: ftgad
          In general, both VET and its assault are complex activities, and comparing one of the elements without taking into account the rest is not a good thing

          The tasks of the assault gun also include the tasks of the AT. In general, assault guns are former pre-war "infantry tanks". It was just that during WW2 they were transformed into assault SPGs. But their goals and objectives remained the same.
          If interested, the last Panzerwaffe "infantry tank" was the PzIII Ausf.N (1943). And then, only StuG.
        2. The comment was deleted.
  • chenia
    chenia 26 May 2016 23: 09
    +1
    Quote: chenia
    Must, without this, no way.


    But as? (meaning that time without radio communications). Make fire cards. determine the sectors of fire, the order of fire, the signal of fire for part of the guns, for all guns, a signal for changing positions. - a rocket launcher, a messenger, well, maybe for a nearby weapon by voice.

    Quote: chenia
    Enough is enough.


    What about the fire shaft? They will not interfere. Calculation of the combat capabilities of the T-12 battery (true against the M-60), 2 guns are immediately withdrawn from the calculation of the suppression of artillery fire (meaning OV). 4 guns should destroy 16 tanks (1: 4) and stop TB (almost 30%). with a firing efficiency of 35-50% and a combat rate of 4 rounds / min. In short, the lifetime of a PT battery is 2,5 -3 min. And that’s all. But the attack is thwarted.


    Quote: chenia
    At the lines observed from the main NPs, target designation is carried out with tracer bullets and shells, as well as missiles.


    Well, firstly, this is the infantry target designation, and here they are the Kherachat and self-propelled guns, and all the surviving tanks.
    Well, if the target is observed from the main KNI, the corrector is fucked. And I’m agreeing to fuck at the previously agreed lines and the goals that have been tracked and shot, but I have already indicated this.

    Something I did not understand, I quote Lopatov, but pops up that he is himself.