Military Review

Sirken Tank: Breakthrough Heavy Tank Project

31
Sirken tank is a symbol of a heavy project tank breakthrough, which was developed in the USSR in January 1933. The project was born within the walls of the design bureau of the Bolshevik plant under the direct supervision of engineer Konstantin Karlovich Sirken. According to the project, the heavy tank was to receive ballistic armor and powerful artillery weapons located in several towers. However, in the end, the project never left the stage of outline design.

The design of the Sirken tank belonged to the “golden” century of world tank building. It was in the 1920-e and 1930-e years in the period between the two world wars in the world explosive growth of interest in creating the most incredible tanks was recorded. Since the beginning of the Second World War, designers didn’t care about the extravagance: all participants in the conflict needed reliable, simple and well-protected tanks that could be produced en masse, launching combat vehicles in huge batches with minimal costs for their mass production. Against this background, only the German tank industry stood out with its heavy tank "Tiger" and conditionally medium tank "Panther". These combat vehicles were difficult to attribute to easy-to-use and production.

The tanks, developed during the 1920-30-ies, were born in the calm period without much detail about their use on the battlefield and the nature of the upcoming battles. Before the outbreak of World War II, armored vehicles were massively used only twice: during the Spanish Civil War, as well as during the Soviet-Japanese conflicts that occurred on Khalkhin Gol and Lake Hassan. At the same time in these conflicts are not used heavy tanks. At the same time, engineering thought was no longer in place, and the design offices of the USSR, Europe and the USA literally fell ill with tankomania. The development of armored vehicles has become incredibly fashionable, allowing designers to implement their most innovative and ambitious ideas.

Sirken Tank: Breakthrough Heavy Tank Project


Back in 1929, the Soviet Union created the Office for the Mechanization and Motorization of the Red Army (with 1934, it became known as the Armored Directorate). The members of the management were quite progressive people who tried to develop their own, Soviet classification of armored vehicles. As a result, in their classification there was a place for 5 types of tanks: reconnaissance, combined, operational, high-quality reinforcement tank and powerful special purpose tank.

The field for the activities of Soviet engineers and designers was quite extensive. The first three types of tanks could be safely attributed to light or medium ones, or even to tankettes, which could solve part of the proposed tasks, for example, reconnaissance, while the latter two were heavy machines. At the same time they had different functions and purpose. The tank of high-quality reinforcement was to take part in the breakthrough of the heavily fortified defensive lines of the enemy, while having good weapons and armor in combination with the fleet that would keep up with the advancing troops, providing them with fire and maneuver. But the “powerful special purpose tank” could already be viewed from different points of view. The specification for this car provided for the availability of counter-reservation and weapons that would be able to cope with the enemy’s concrete fortifications. In fact, it could have been about the artillery ACS.

The concept of this tank was innovative, that at the beginning of the 30-ies of the last century was the reason for the emergence of a large number of unique projects for tank building. Since the concept itself was vague, and none of the Soviet designers had any ideas about the “ideal” tank, they used not only their own experience, but also foreign experience. As a result, multi-tower tanks with their multi-tiered location appeared. The multi-tiered location of the towers helped save space in the tank hull and better shelling radius. There was also the possibility of installing the main and auxiliary guns, a large number of machine guns.

Konstantin Karlovich Sirken, 1946 year


It is now worth recalling the Soviet designer Konstantin Sirken (1888-1963), a man who was tied to armored vehicles by the First World War. This specialist is entirely related to the generation of revolutionary enthusiasts who themselves have made their careers, being a native of the common people. The son of a valet and laundress, who has a 3 class behind the general education school and worked as a turner at the Admiralty shipyards of St. Petersburg, he was able to use the fruits of the revolution. The social elevator brought it up to the Stalin Prize, which the designer received in 1951 year - “For the fundamental improvement of naval artillery production methods”. It is worth noting that to get the Stalin Prize, without having any real services to the country, in those years it was simply impossible. A curious detail is the fact that Sirken took part in the first Russian Olympiad, which took place in 1913 in Kiev. He took part in weight-lifting competitions, winning a silver medal.

By 1933, Konstantin Karlovich was already a fairly well-known and respected specialist with extensive experience in the field of creation of armored machinery. During the Civil War, he was involved in the construction of armored trains, and then he headed an artillery plant, was later appointed Marshal Klim Voroshilov to the commission of the Supreme Economic Council for the purchase of foreign technologies and traveled abroad, where he got acquainted with samples of new tanks. Over time, he became first the chief engineer, and then the director of the tank department of the Leningrad plant "Bolshevik", later transformed into the Plant of Experimental Mechanical Engineering No. XXUMX.

At the very beginning of 1933, Sirken undertakes to develop a project for his own tank. But since at that time he was still more of an artilleryman than a tank builder, he turned out to have a classic “land battleship” of the sample of the First World War, although taking into account all the advanced technical achievements of the last few years. The design of the Sirken tank today can serve as a clear confirmation of how vague the ideas of what kind of tanks armies needed and how exactly the price and quality parameters should be balanced, as well as the possibility of launching the machine into mass production.

107 mm 1910 / 1930 model gun


Arming his heavy tank Sirken planned 107-mm gun model 1910 / 1930, which was produced at the factory "Bolshevik" in Leningrad (former Obukhov factory), as well as in Stalingrad at the factory "Barricades" from 1931 to 1935 years, at least. The 107-mm 1910 / 1930 model cannon was a heavy artillery gun of the interwar period. This tool was specially developed for Russia by the French, the French company Schneider worked on its creation. During the modernization of the 1930, the following significant changes were made to the design of the gun: the barrel length was extended by 10 calibers; the gun acquired the installed muzzle brake; there was a separate sleeve loading.

The main problem was that it was not technically feasible to develop a tank turret for the 107-mm guns in the 1933 year. The length of the barrel without the muzzle brake was more than 4-meters, and the mass of the gun in the combat position was almost 2,5 tons. The way out of this situation was the installation of 107-mm guns in the frontal part of the hull. K. Sirken presented his version of a heavy breakthrough tank in January 1933 to the state commission. The development of the combat vehicle proceeded in parallel with the work on the Danchenko project. Sirken developed his project in the Bolshevik design bureau. On closer examination of his project, the influence of foreign experience of tank building, for example, tanks of the First World War period, is clearly guessed. And the chassis of the Sirken tank was almost completely copied from the British Vickers MK.E chassis, which was widely known as the Vickers Six-ton ​​tank and became the basis for the T-26 family of Soviet tanks. In terms of layout, the design of the Sirken tank was closer and somewhat reminiscent of heavy French tanks.

For each side, the Sirken heavy tank undercarriage included two sets of carts with 4 supporting rollers each and 6 supporting rollers, as well as front driving and rear guide wheels. Tracked from steel tracks.



The layout of the heavy tank Sirken was significantly different from the classic layout. At the same time, by that time, the Soviet military preferred tanks with a serious set of weapons. Therefore, in his project, the designer took into account their wishes, the new tank was planned to be equipped with four different-caliber guns at once. At the stern of the tank was a turret with an 76,2-mm cannon installed in it (horizontal guidance angles - 220 degrees). In the middle of the hull there was a commander tower with a dome for observation, this tower could conduct circular shelling (at 360 degrees), it was planned to install two 45-mm 20K guns at once. To combat the low-flying aircraft of the enemy, several machine guns were installed on the tank. In the front of the car, in the front hull of the hull, an 107-mm 1910 / 1930 sample gun was placed (horizontal guidance angles - 20 degrees).

The tank hull was assembled from armor plates with a thickness from mm 20 to mm 80. The commander’s tower could rotate 360 degrees and had a round-trip booking - 80 mm. The plans of the creator of the tank as a power plant considered a powerful gasoline engine that developed the 1500 HP. With such an engine, a tank that weighed more than 80 tons, according to technical calculations, was supposed to accelerate when driving on a highway to a speed of 30 km / h. Such a speed quite suited the Soviet military.

As a result, the design of the Sirken tank was thoroughly reviewed and rejected by the commission for a variety of reasons, among which were flaws and miscalculations that were made in the drawings and design. As a result, the project never went beyond the sketch stage; this combat vehicle was not released in metal. Also, the state commission was concerned about the suspension on leaf springs, which was clearly not suitable for a combat vehicle weighing about 85 tons. Suboptimal was the placement of weapons. But one of the most important problems was in the engine, which was inaccessible to the Soviet industry of those years, however, in the world no one could boast of having such a motor. Some countries switched to their development only during the Second World War.

Tactical and technical characteristics of the tank Sirken:

Combat weight - up to 85 tons.
Reservations: the front of the hull, the front of the turret and the sides of the turret - 80 mm, the sides and the stern of the hull - 60 mm, the bottom and the roof of the hull - 20 mm.
Armament: 107 / 1910 model 30-mm gun, 76,2 / 1914 model 15-gun, 2х45-mm 20K gun.
Engine power - 1500 HP
Maximum speed (highway) - 30 km / h.
Crew - to 10 people.

Information sources:
http://warspot.ru/3393-tank-sirkena-iskra-blagorodnogo-bezumiya
http://www.aviarmor.net/tww2/tanks/ussr/sirken.htm
http://ww2history.ru/tank_sirkena.html
Open source materials
Author:
31 comment
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, daily additional materials that do not get on the site: https://t.me/topwar_ru

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. qwert
    qwert 20 June 2016 07: 20
    +2
    It is strange that there is no information about this tank in any directory. Even Karpenko.
    1. svp67
      svp67 20 June 2016 07: 39
      +2
      Quote: qwert
      It is strange that there is no information about this tank in any directory. Even Karpenko.

      Apparently because this is not a tank, but just a tank project. In those years, there were a lot of different projects.
      1. klm-57
        klm-57 21 June 2016 00: 47
        0
        Also, for the first time I hear about this tank. It is necessary to rummage in the manuals on armament and armored vehicles.
    2. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 20 June 2016 19: 02
      0
      Svirin had, there was about it and Grotte tank.
    3. VOENOBOZ
      VOENOBOZ 20 June 2016 21: 31
      0
      There is not enough metal for such a giant.
  2. Bashibuzuk
    Bashibuzuk 20 June 2016 07: 27
    +3
    A terrible, formidable, indestructible miracle-yuda machine.
    Super self-propelled guns, super tank.
    And as we all know, the foreign prefix "super" in Russian is replaced by the prefix "shit".
    It is good all the same that in decision-making bodies sat quite realistic and competent people. Which, in spite of vague considerations about what kind of tanks are needed and for what, they immediately saw obvious stillborn freaks.
    .
    In this regard, I have only complete bewilderment.
    This means that at that time, in the USSR and earlier in time, there was, after all, not a "reversal" and a "revolution of hydration". A process that meets the aspirations of the people.
    Explicit rubbish did not crawl through.
    This I mean that from the "great revolutionaries" in Kiev so far only rubbish is rushing - sheathing with tin, etc. etc.
    .
    Well, and throws ... a flight of associations.
    Monday morning.
  3. svp67
    svp67 20 June 2016 07: 40
    +2
    Against this background, only the tank industry of Germany stood out with its heavy Tiger tank and the conventionally medium Panther tank. These combat vehicles were difficult to attribute to simple to operate and manufacture.
    Interestingly, how do you evaluate the English tank industry against the general background?
    1. Kenneth
      Kenneth 20 June 2016 14: 35
      +1
      OK and grateful. Almost all of our pre-war tank building came out of English.
  4. parusnik
    parusnik 20 June 2016 07: 52
    +7
    Konstantin Karlovich Sirken took part in setting up the production of the first series of Soviet tanks and tankettes. On April 7, 1932, he was awarded the Order of the Red Star No. 21 "For dedication, energy and enthusiasm in strengthening the country's defense capability." "Voroshilov", "Maxim Gorky", "Molotov", as well as on cruisers like "Chapaev". In 30, Sirken was sent to the place where his path began as an engineer designer of armored trains - to Kramatorsk. Here, at the Kramatorsk Machine-Building Plant, he was to establish the production of ship gun turrets. But soon the Great Patriotic War broke out, which forever took his son from him: Senior Lieutenant Oleg Sirken, a bomber aviation pilot, died on July 1938, 22. The Kramatorsk plant is evacuated, and everything that they do not have time to take out is blown up. In 1941, Sirken worked at the plant No. 1942 in Komsomolsk-on-Amur - he was organizing the assembly of command and rangefinder posts on the cruisers Kaganovich and Kalinin, for which he was awarded the Order of the Red Star for the second time. Since 199 Sirken is again in Kramatorsk, takes part in setting up the production of ship turret artillery installations at the Starokramatorsk machine-building plant. In 1945 he retired. Konstantin Karlovich died on November 1956, 4. A memorial plaque Sirken to Konstantin Karlovich was installed on the house number 1963 on Central Street in Kramatorsk. Is it safe?
    1. Bashibuzuk
      Bashibuzuk 20 June 2016 08: 25
      +4
      No one will say a bad word about Konstantin Karlovich Sirken.
      A worthy man.
      And the Stalin Prizes were not distributed right-to-left.
      .
      And the project .... the project is nonsense. Armored train on the tracks.
      Only now, I am sure, this project was drawn collectively, by young, promising people. And they hung this nonsense on the elder, on K.K. Sirken.
      And the whole trick.
      1. Serg koma
        Serg koma 22 June 2016 06: 04
        +1
        Quote: Bashibuzuk
        And the project .... the project is nonsense. Armored train on the tracks.

        We now understand this - "nonsense". At that time, this was one of the stages of the future development of tank building. The results and experience of the Second World War (in tank building) crossed out the use of multi-turret tanks (one of the examples), but the world "trendsetters" all developed this direction ... So to the word "nonsense", looking from the 21st centurycan be attributed to the T-35, T-100, SMK and many other projects, both embodied in metal and remaining on paper.

        Now about this concept. Remove the multi-turret fashionable at that time from the project (pass-through, ICE, etc. I will not say anything, because we are considering the concept), we get a wonderful heavy self-propelled gun, FERDINAND or ANIMAL 30s in one bottle. laughing But just to understand this, it would take 10 years, the bloodiest war and the application of the latest technologies at that time, both in welding, and in engine building, artillery, instrument making, and yet, still, in many ways.

        Probably Sirken K.K. in the fifties understood that his project of the 30s was a dead end for the development of tank evolution.
  5. evil partisan
    evil partisan 20 June 2016 07: 55
    +3
    I don’t really understand this: did we have 30 hp gas engines in the beginning of the 1500s? The most powerful aircraft engine at that time (M-25) produced no more than 800 hp. (I can, of course, be mistaken ... but it seems so ...) ... Enlighten who is in the know. Thanks in advance. hi
    1. tasha
      tasha 20 June 2016 12: 27
      +2
      The question is interesting. Do not forget that K.K.Sirken began designing his tank in 1933. Prior to this, there were projects T-30 and TP-1. From book to book in the description of TP-1 the phrase wanders:
      "At the beginning of 1932, due to the unavailability of the engine, the TP-1 project was adapted for the Mikulin aircraft engine with a capacity of 1450 hp, and in March it was closed due to the extremely high cost (10733,118)."


      What is this mysterious engine? Maybe we are talking about the engine M-35 (1932) design capacity 1250-1500l.s
      M-34 units were also used in two of the three engineered versions of the powerful M-35 engine. One was an 18-cylinder W-shaped (three blocks standing 80 ° apart), the other was an 24-cylinder X-shaped (four blocks).


      Judging by the description - something amazing. However, which tank is such an engine .. wink
  6. ALEA IACTA EST
    ALEA IACTA EST 20 June 2016 08: 28
    +3
    The armor is thicker, more guns. On the posters, I think he would have looked very impressive. Its use would be limited to posters.
  7. Bersaglieri
    Bersaglieri 20 June 2016 11: 08
    +5
    "Iron Caput" :)

    There was a lot of similar "creativity of the masses" in the 30s.
  8. tasha
    tasha 20 June 2016 11: 57
    +2
    It seemed to me that the author recompiled the article by Andrey Martyanov "Sirken's Tank: a spark of noble madness", indicated in the sources (link to warspot.ru).
  9. Kenneth
    Kenneth 20 June 2016 12: 45
    -4
    Interestingly, he suffered from this during working hours or was treated for insomnia. In general, the 30s were marked by many frankly moronic projects of aircraft tanks, etc., which were not handled by professionals in this field. This was not the case in the west.
    1. tasha
      tasha 20 June 2016 13: 08
      +3
      The projects were quite in line with the spirit of the time when they believed that nothing was impossible.
      About the tanks. The military imagined the tanks to be multi-turreted, one of the arguments, for example, was the possibility of firing left-right "when overcoming enemy trenches" ... And calling them "moronic" is simply ugly ... Just as it is unwise to laugh, for example, at those embodied in metal T-28, T-29, T-35. And to the heap of М3С ...
      1. Kenneth
        Kenneth 20 June 2016 13: 16
        -3
        You did not understand my promise
        I repeat that the layman was engaged in this design. And many other non-professionals were involved in the presentation of various govnoprojects of different trash that sometimes were even built due to the proletarian origin of the nuggets from the people. I’m not going to laugh at the commissioned military multi-tower monsters, because they were the implementation of cockroaches in the bosoms of the then military theorists.
        1. tasha
          tasha 20 June 2016 13: 32
          +1
          Understanding the thing is, 50 \ 50.

          History knows many cases when the ideas of lay people led to breakthroughs in science and technology.

          As for the implementation of absurd projects, the same Lebedenko tank, for example, was built due to the fact that Nikolay II liked the winding model. It all depends on the competent filing and punching ability of the inventor.
          1. Kenneth
            Kenneth 20 June 2016 14: 29
            -4
            It is a pity that Nikolashka did not order a dozen models for himself and did not calm down. After all, professionals explained Mendeleev where to go with his tank. And then the king .... this is again on the issue of professionalism. And by the way, do not confuse the ideas of lay people and their development of specific gadgets.
            1. tasha
              tasha 20 June 2016 15: 50
              +3
              And it seems to agree with you, but it seems not. Often, professionals are held captive by existing dogmas and worldviews, cannot perceive something new that goes beyond the usual views and theories. In the subject, how hard, professional military accepted the idea of ​​a tank.

              On the other hand, how many of them are militant amateurs ... I know for two of them, for example. wink

              I will add. This is the talent of a true professional - the crazy idea of ​​seeing a new path. See brainstorming theory.
              1. Kenneth
                Kenneth 20 June 2016 16: 08
                -1
                Let's draw a tank with a tower from below to hit the enemy in a vulnerable bottom and with a garden from above so that it can sneak up unnoticed.
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 20 June 2016 15: 53
      +3
      "Which was not done by professionals in this field. In the West, this was not." ///

      In the West, often private traders do development for their money. Sometimes they are good, sometimes they are not.
      Development is not for the state. tender, and in order of initiative.
      They are not on the state. budget. Thunderbolt made a private trader, F-16, a gun Barrett ... full of examples.
      From here - in the USA there are a lot of innovations (introduced inventions).
      1. Kenneth
        Kenneth 20 June 2016 16: 06
        -2
        Before the war in the USSR, there were practically no specialists outside the KB capable of conducting complex technical developments. And there are many examples of this.
  10. Leeder
    Leeder 20 June 2016 13: 34
    +3
    Quote: Bashibuzuk
    And as we all know, the foreign prefix "super" in Russian is replaced by the prefix "shit".
    It is good all the same that in decision-making bodies sat quite realistic and competent people. Which, in spite of vague considerations about what kind of tanks are needed and for what, they immediately saw obvious stillborn freaks.

    Come on, the T-35 passed, although it was already visible on paper how many flaws it had.
    In those years, the concept of tanks was only being worked out. In any case, even negative experience is also experience.
    1. Bashibuzuk
      Bashibuzuk 20 June 2016 14: 41
      +2
      So the T-35 is a real tank.
      He looks like a tank, and not like a mutant Tortilla.
      The T-35 could concentrate fire of the main caliber and 45 heels, not counting machine guns, on one side.
      Sirken's tank is not capable.
      I suppose that for the military of that time it was a "very large cockroach"
      ...
      The T-35 looks beautiful like a heavyweight knight.
      T-Sirken looks like a overfed loser-squire.
      In my opinion and taste.
      A - "... what is your evidence?"

      Oh missed. T-Sirken could even concentrate two forty-five with a 76-graph paper.
      Yes seriously.
      But now, it seems to me that the commander of this miracle would quickly fade from the roar, would receive ear barotrauma.
      This was the end of the battle.
      And in childhood, I believed that there is no stronger T-35 in the world. Everybody believed.
  11. Leeder
    Leeder 20 June 2016 14: 57
    +1
    Quote: Bashibuzuk
    So the T-35 is a real tank.
    He looks like a tank, and not like a mutant Tortilla.

    So what? Is it bad or good that he went into the series? I believe that we didn’t need a nafig, they built 2-3 pcs to break in technologies, and that's enough.
    Now we can say what is viable and what is not. And in those years they went by trial and error.
    The T-35 could concentrate fire of the main caliber and 45 heels, not counting machine guns, on one side.

    If he could get to the enemy, if he didn’t break, if he wasn’t shot from a slow course, etc. etc.

    Sirken's tank is not capable.
    I suppose that for the military of that time it was a "very large cockroach"

    The concept of an assault tank was in the air for a long time, and was based on the experience of the 1st World War, when high speed was not needed, due to the poor development of anti-tank missiles. Models and prototypes of assault tanks were in almost all countries and most were frankly miserable. Mainly due to the technological weakness of the engines. Therefore, in the T-35 they sacrificed armor, although he was already heavier ...

    The T-35 looks beautiful like a heavyweight knight.
    T-Sirken looks like a overfed loser-squire.
    In my opinion and taste.
    A - "... what is your evidence?"

    Perhaps beauty, the only plus of this tank. And he had an order of magnitude more minuses.
  12. wanderer_032
    wanderer_032 20 June 2016 17: 24
    +1
    Combat weight - up to 85 tons.

    Apparently, everything came up against the creation of a power plant of the required capacity, as well as the requirements of the UMM RKKA for transportability and the carrying capacity of bridges of that time.
  13. Crimea26
    Crimea26 20 June 2016 17: 34
    0
    the crew - from dwarfs, shells - for a couple of shots, gasoline - km. on 10....
    1. tasha
      tasha 20 June 2016 17: 57
      +4
      You hurried with a comment. There is still no clarity about the size of this tank. But if we take the image of the T-35 tank (length 9720mm) as the basis and compare the length of the barrel of the 20K gun with the design of the Sirken tank (also 20K in the central tower), then we can assume that the dimensions of both tanks are approximately comparable. Or pay attention to the photo of the 107mm gun with the calculation.
      Inspire, in short ...