Military Review

The project of a medium tank VK 3002 (DB), Germany

97
In the summer of 1943, during the Battle of Kursk, German troops first used the latest medium Tanks Pz.Kpfw.V Panther. These combat vehicles were created taking into account the experience gained and were supposed to change the situation at the front. The design of the Panther tank was developed by MAN. At the same time, another variant of the armored car, created by designers from Daimler-Benz, could go into the series. This version of the medium tank was designated VK 3002 (DB).

VK projects 3002, one of which subsequently allowed to begin rearmament of the army, started at the end of November 1941. By this time, a number of German enterprises had already developed several options for promising medium tanks with certain characteristics, but over time, the further development of these machines was considered impractical. So, from the experience of the first months of the war with the Soviet Union, which had several types of medium and heavy tanks with good protection indicators, it was decided to abandon a number of existing projects and create new ones instead.

It is often mentioned that the Soviet medium tank T-3002 became a direct incentive for the emergence of two VK 34 projects. This combat vehicle had relatively thick armor with rational tilt angles, which provided effective protection against various anti-tank weapons. As a result, the Soviet development interested the German military, which resulted in an order to create a similar tank. November 25 1941 companies Daimler-Benz and MAN received a technical task to develop a new tank. Both projects received the general designation VK 3002. The development of the two firms also had to receive additional letters to determine the creator.

The project of a medium tank VK 3002 (DB), Germany
Model of the tank VK 3002 (DB) in the first version. Photo Aviarmor.net


In accordance with the terms of reference, the prospective medium tank should have a combat mass at the level of 30 t and be equipped with armor thickness up to 40 mm. Separately, the installation of armor plates was specified at angles to the vertical. Having an engine power of not more than 700 HP the tank had to move along the highway at speeds up to 55 km / h. To improve off-road mobility, a large-width caterpillar should be used. The main armament was required to use long-barreled tank gun caliber 75 mm.

Design work on the first versions of the promising tank lasted for several months. Daimler-Benz completed the preliminary development of its version of the VK 3002 (DB) tank in February 1942. In their new project, the Daimler-Benz designers used a number of ideas that were not completely characteristic of German tank construction. In addition to rational booking angles, obviously borrowed from Soviet tanks, the new VK 3002 (DB) also had to have a classic layout that was almost never used in German projects.

The new medium tank was supposed to receive an armored hull with a characteristic shape formed by inclined sheets. There was a frontal sheet with a large angle of inclination, in which there was a driver's access hatch and a machine-gun installation. Behind the front sheet, it was necessary to weld inclined sides, forming large fusible niches. Behind the tower on the sides were projected large protruding covers for some units of the power plant. Aft hull sheet was installed with a slope inward. There was a roof, made in the form of a single plane without changes in height. As part of the armor hull it was proposed to use sheets of thickness up to 40 mm.

The layout of the hull was classic, but uncharacteristic for German tanks. In front of the station was located control, behind which there was a fighting compartment. The feed was given under a single engine compartment with all the relevant units.


Modern model VK 3002 (DB) of the first version. Photo Henk.fox3000.com


As the main element of the power plant were considered several different products. Initially, it was proposed to use the Daimler-Benz MB507 diesel engine, which was a modified version of the engine for boats for various purposes. Nevertheless, serious problems could arise with such a power plant, which made it necessary to look for alternatives. Subsequently, such searches led to a certain result. An updated version of the project, which appeared later, received a different engine.

The first version of the tank VK 3002 (DB) received a chassis, clearly talking about trying to rethink the Soviet experience in the light of their own developments. The tank was supposed to receive four double support rollers of large diameter on each side. It was proposed to equip the rollers with spring suspension. Between the rollers, with a significant excess over them, the supporting rollers were to be located. In front of the hull were placed the guide wheels, while the leading were in the stern. Such an unusual for German tanks chassis layout was associated with the rejection of the front placement of the transmission.

For the tank was developed a new tower of complex shape, which provided the required level of protection and had sufficient internal volume. The tower consisted of two straight sheets that formed the forehead and stern, as well as two curved sides. From above, the crew was to defend the roof with a commander's turret at the left side. Especially for the new project was developed armor mask guns of unusual shape. It differed from existing samples by a polygonal section and an enlarged upper part.

The basic one weapons VK 3002 (DB) was supposed to be a gun 7.5 cm KwK 42. This 75 caliber gun with a barrel length 70 caliber was equipped with a muzzle brake, a vertical wedge gate and weighed about 1 tons. Several types of unitary shots with projectiles of various purposes were suggested for use with this gun. Depending on the type of projectile, the initial velocity reached 1120 m / s. Using the Pz.Gr.40 / 42 sub-caliber armor-piercing projectile at a distance of 1 km, it was possible to penetrate about 150 mm of homogeneous armor.


Possible appearance of a serial armored car. Figure Wardrawings.be


Additional armament of the tank was to consist of two MG 34 machine guns of 7,92 caliber mm. One of them was suggested to be mounted in one installation with an instrument, the second - in the embrasure of the frontal sheet. A machine gun was supposed to be located on a rocking installation, covered with a small armor detail. In the stowed position, this detail closed the window in the front plate, and the machine gun was completely inside the tank. In the combat position of the machine gun turned on the mounts, raising up the barrel and armor cap of the front sheet.

The crew should have included five people. The driver and radio operator were located in the front office, in the front of the hull. It was suggested to observe the situation with the help of the hatch and front wall embrasure. Landing in the car should be made through round hatches in front of the sides. The use of hatches in the roof was not possible due to the specific location of the tower, the front sheet of which was located at a minimum distance from the front of the hull.

The jobs of the three other tankers were located in the fighting compartment, inside the tower. At the left side of each other were the gunner and the commander. On the right was the gunner's workplace. Most of the free volume inside the fighting compartment was given to the placement of ammunition. The turret received a manhole on the commander's turret, as well as similar devices on the stern of the sides.

Due to the use of new ideas and technical solutions, the prospective medium tank was not distinguished by large dimensions. The length of the vehicle reached 6 m, width - 3,2 m, height - 2,69 m. The combat weight, depending on some factors, was to be at the level of 30-34 t. With the help of the 650-strong engine, the tank could accelerate to 55-56 km / h Cruising, according to calculations, was 195 km.


Layout of the second version of the tank. Photo Aviarmor.net


The first version of the medium tank VK 3002 (DB) project was completed in February 1942. A set of necessary documents was prepared, and in addition, a large-scale model was assembled, demonstrating the overall appearance of the prospective armored vehicle. All this was presented to the customer. The command studied two variants of the medium tank and made conclusions. At the same time, as far as we know, the leaders of Nazi Germany disagreed.

The country's top leadership in the person of Adolf Hitler favored the project of the company Daimler-Benz. Probably, this decision was affected by the similarity of VK 3002 (DB) and the Soviet T-34, as well as the success and potential of the latter. Using his position, the Fuhrer pushed through the introduction of a new tank in the current plans for the construction of armored vehicles. In the foreseeable future, the military industry was to build two hundred new medium tanks. In the future, their production could be continued. Thus, VK 3002 (DB) at a certain stage had every chance of becoming the main medium tank of the German army.

The Wehrmacht Armaments Directorate, in turn, preferred the MAN project. The medium tank VK 3002 (M), unlike its competitor, looked more successful and promising. Experts felt that such a machine has much greater potential in terms of modernization, and also more fully corresponds to the technical task. In addition, this tank did not look so much like a copy of Soviet armored vehicles.

In accordance with the existing regulations, the company Daimler-Benz began to build a prototype of its new tank. However, the completion of the prototype assembly was in doubt. Shortly after making an ambiguous decision on the serial production of the not the best version of a medium tank, the military gathered a special commission, which was to finally determine the results of the competition.


Unfinished prototype VK 3002 (DB) of the first version. Photo Aviarmor.net


13 May Commission issued a final decision. The project of the company Daimler-Benz was declared unpromising. Due to the significant similarity with the Soviet T-34 and due to the lag in some characteristics, this car was considered unsuitable for serial construction and mass operation in the army. The VK project 3002 (M), in turn, received higher marks and was recommended for further development with the subsequent start of mass production.

In connection with the decision of the commission, the company-developer VK 3002 (DB) had to stop building the first prototype. By this time, an armor hull was made, on which some elements of the chassis and internal equipment had been installed. Rollers, tracks, turret, weapons, etc. an experienced tank did not have time to get.

According to the company "Daimler-Benz", the decision of the army commission was not fair. Nevertheless, the developers have recognized that the project in its current form needs to be improved. For this reason, by the end of May, an updated version of the VK 3002 medium tank (DB) was developed, which differed from the original by a number of features. By changing the composition of the installed units and processing part of the systems, it was planned to improve the performance and re-interest the customer.

First of all, it was decided to abandon the diesel engine. Instead, it was proposed to install the Maybach HL 210 P45 hp carburetor in the aft hull compartment. The chassis was reworked, resulting in eight large-diameter support rollers each with an individual torsion bar, staggered. The location of the guide and drive wheels remained the same, and the supporting rollers were removed. The hull structure has been redesigned to meet the updated requirements. Thus, the thickness of the frontal sheet increased to 650 mm. Tower, weapons, etc. remained unchanged. At the same time, some systems were refined for various purposes.


Unfinished armored vehicles at the factory Daimler-Benz. In the center - VK VK 3002 (DB). Photo Henk.fox3000.com


Calculations showed that the updated version of the VK 3002 (DB) tank differs from the base one in higher driving characteristics, and also has other advantages, primarily of a production and operational nature. Combat qualities were to remain at the same level, which was associated with the preservation of the 75-mm cannon and two rifle-caliber machine guns.

Daimler-Benz once again prepared the documentation and built a model of the new tank, which was presented to the customer for a second review. The command once again got acquainted with the project of a promising tank and studied this proposal, defining its prospects. The decision remains the same. Further development was to get VK project 3002 (M) from the company MAN, and VK 3002 (DB) should be stopped. Daimler-Benz designers were forced to move to work on other promising projects.

In accordance with the first orders of the management, the company Daimler-Benz started the construction of the first experimental tank VK 3002 (DB). By May 1942, when a special commission chose a different project, a building with an incomplete assembly was built. In connection with the modifications of the project, the construction of the prototype was suspended. The final closure of the project led to the cancellation of all further work. The prototype of the medium tank remained in the form of an unpainted body with several additional units. According to various sources, the unfinished tank chassis remained at the Daimler-Benz factory, where it was kept until the very end of the war. Only in 1945, unwanted units were sent for cutting.

With the decision from 13 in May 1942, MAN was entrusted with the further development of the existing VK project 3002 (M). Changes in various design features and various modifications of this project eventually led to the appearance of the serial tank Pz.Kpfw.V Panther. Unlike its unfortunate competitor, the armored vehicle from MAN successfully passed the tests and was put into service, eventually becoming one of the main tanks in Germany.


Based on:
http://aviarmor.net/
http://ww2history.ru/
http://achtungpanzer.com/
http://armor.kiev.ua/
Chamberlain P., Doyle H. Complete reference book of German tanks and self-propelled guns of the Second World War. - M .: AST: Astrel, 2008.
Author:
97 comments
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. Awaz
    Awaz 27 June 2016 07: 14
    +2
    what can I say .. tank Koshechchkina, created a reserve for many decades to come. There were times when the vaunted Germans only tried to copy Soviet equipment, and it was not always successful)))
    1. Stas57
      Stas57 27 June 2016 09: 15
      +6
      Quote: AwaZ
      what can I say .. tank Koshechchkina, with

      tank whom?
      1. stalkerwalker
        stalkerwalker 27 June 2016 09: 19
        +9
        Quote: Stas57
        tank whom?

        Koshkina, Kotina, Koshechkina ....
        Uh ... What else is there about cats? repeat
        1. evil partisan
          evil partisan 27 June 2016 13: 26
          0
          Quote: stalkerwalker
          What else is there about cats?

          And I called my cat Ilyich ... repeat
          Hi, sailor! drinks
          1. stalkerwalker
            stalkerwalker 27 June 2016 13: 44
            +4
            Quote: Angry Guerrilla
            And I called my cat Ilyich ..

            Is the cat still alive? laughing
            Hi!
            hi
            1. evil partisan
              evil partisan 27 June 2016 15: 52
              0
              Quote: stalkerwalker
              Is the cat still alive?

              Until I got drunk like ... what
              Hi fazendeiro! wink I didn’t forget about your apple garden with the moonshine attached to it ... repeat
              1. stalkerwalker
                stalkerwalker 27 June 2016 22: 29
                +2
                Quote: Angry Guerrilla
                I didn’t forget about your apple garden with the moonshine attached to it ...

                Yura....
                I didn’t recognize you in makeup. belay
                You will be rich! bully
                1. Ruslan67
                  Ruslan67 27 June 2016 22: 53
                  +1
                  Quote: stalkerwalker
                  You will be rich!

                  RGD-5 nibbled him am Let first learn the right bridges to derail yes Incidentally, Iceland has a fine shave after the first half 2: 1 good
                  1. stalkerwalker
                    stalkerwalker 28 June 2016 08: 41
                    +3
                    Quote: Ruslan67
                    RGD-5 nibbled him

                    Rus, hello!
                    drinks
                    You, as always, in your role!
                    good
    2. AK64
      AK64 27 June 2016 09: 37
      -3
      Koschechchkina

      Sounds like an insult

      created a reserve for many decades to come.

      Ahem ... What?
      1. Riv
        Riv 27 June 2016 14: 38
        +1
        Kote will take over the world on T-34 tanks.
    3. Potter
      Potter 27 June 2016 10: 09
      +16
      The Koshkin T-34 tank was a palliative transitional model from BT, retaining a number of its characteristic features (candle pendant, etc.). From the beginning of production it was considered as a transitional model - and the main and most massive tank came out. With all its flaws.
      Chased for the future, 40 years ahead, created the T-44 Morozov, with a transverse engine and torsion bar suspension. The T-44 quickly turned into a T-54, then a T-55, T-62.
      1. yehat
        yehat 27 June 2016 14: 14
        0
        the problem was not in Koshkin and his tank, but in the fact that the production workers very strongly resisted the introduction of production after bt. t-34 and then with a lot of blood introduced, and then ...
        torsion bar suspension, etc. they generally said that they could not do it. Sometimes it reached the point of absurdity.
        1. troyan
          troyan 27 June 2016 18: 38
          +1
          Some things really could not be done in series, so that it was inexpensive and of a sufficient degree of quality. Therefore, the designers (on the advice of Koshkin and after his death) in many ways compromised with the manufacturers.
      2. troyan
        troyan 27 June 2016 18: 35
        0
        Quote: Potter
        Chased for the future, 40 years ahead, created the T-44 Morozov, with a transverse engine and torsion bar suspension.

        Before his death, Koshkin already planned to install the engine across, due to this save on weight to increase frontal armor and install more powerful weapons.
    4. iouris
      iouris 27 June 2016 11: 03
      +1
      Quote: AwaZ
      tank Koshechchkina

      Sometimes it's better to chew. Chewing thoroughly You help society.
    5. yehat
      yehat 27 June 2016 14: 12
      0
      I wonder if I could replace this tank quickly with the PZ IV?
    6. dumkopff
      dumkopff 28 June 2016 05: 48
      0
      Mikhail Ilyich Koshkin - t-29, t-46, t-34. Joseph Yakovlevich Kotin - KV-1, KV-2 and many other heavy tanks and self-propelled guns.
  2. parusnik
    parusnik 27 June 2016 07: 39
    +3
    Thus, the VK 3002 (DB) at a certain stage had every chance of becoming the main medium tank of the German army.... But somehow it didn’t grow together ... It’s interesting, but it would work out? .. Thank you, photos are interesting, I didn’t meet VK 3002 models ..
    1. bandabas
      bandabas 27 June 2016 08: 21
      +8
      As a result, we got another heavy tank. And the T-IV remained the average "workhorse" until the end of the war.
      1. Verdun
        Verdun 27 June 2016 12: 57
        +4
        Quote: bandabas
        As a result, we got another heavy tank. And the T-IV remained the average "workhorse" until the end of the war.

        That's just it, that, apparently, the Daimler-Benz project is clearly closer to the medium tank than the Panther, which means it is simpler and cheaper. The desire of many army officials to get a kind of "wunderwaffe" instead of a good "workhorse" has ruined and continues to destroy many promising projects.
        1. AK64
          AK64 27 June 2016 14: 03
          -3
          That's just it, that, apparently, the Daimler-Benz project is clearly closer to the medium tank than the Panther, which means it is simpler and cheaper.


          Tell me, why, why do you (and the rest) give your fantasies as truth? It’s not in the 80s you live: after all everything is at hand!
          Is it difficult for you to break through the price of Panther and T-4 in Google ??? After all, this is a matter three minutes!
          Excellent Panther cost 117 thousand Reichmarks
          T-4 was worth 103.5 thousand.
          Is there a big difference in price? 15% only.

          And what is the conclusion from this? In my opinion, the conclusion is that this ... a T-4 byak (and a T-4 is exactly a byak) wouldn’t be worth producing, that the T-4 is a expenditure of money and materials, since at a price it is almost equal excellent Panther.
          Or do you have other conclusions from these numbers, huh?
          Indeed, in terms of combat capabilities, one Panther is like a 4-5 T-4, perhaps ...

          PS: T-4 was produced because the Krupp factories were still unable to do anything better. That is, the choice was "either T-4 in addition to the others, or nothing in return."
          1. stalkerwalker
            stalkerwalker 27 June 2016 14: 23
            +6
            Quote: AK64
            Excellent Panther cost 117 thousand Reichmarks
            T-4 was worth 103.5 thousand.
            Is there a big difference in price? 15% only.

            ... On average, the costs per Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger I were 250,000 Reichsmarks. For comparison, the PzKpfw III cost RM 96200, and the PzKpfw IV RM 103500, and the PzKpfw V Panther RM 117000, all these figures are given excluding weapons and radios...
            Infa from the book of M. Baryatinsky "Panther".
            1. AK64
              AK64 27 June 2016 14: 51
              -3
              excluding weapons and radios ...

              Exactly, you are right with Baryatinsky.
              But here only the weapons and optics and radio in the DB and in MAN were obviously the same.
              So where does the price difference come from?
              1. stalkerwalker
                stalkerwalker 27 June 2016 14: 53
                +2
                Quote: AK64
                So where does the price difference come from?

                Well what are you, right thing?
                Would you compare Priora with Vesta ...
          2. Verdun
            Verdun 27 June 2016 14: 25
            +2
            Quote: AK64
            Is it difficult for you to break through the price of Panther and T-4 in Google ??? After all, this is a matter of three minutes!
            Excellent Panther cost 117 thousand Reichmarks
            T-4 was worth 103.5 thousand.
            Is there a big difference in price? 15% only

            First, 15% is sometimes important. Secondly, we are talking not only about cost, but also about the possibility of mass production. Thirdly, I personally did not compare the Daimler-Benz project with either the T-IV or the Panther. The Germans had the task of creating a good medium tank, at least equal to the T-34. They could not cope with this task. T-IV in various modifications produced 8686 units, "Panthers" - 5976 units, and T-34 - 84 units. Agree that there is a difference.
            1. stalkerwalker
              stalkerwalker 27 June 2016 14: 50
              +5
              Quote: Verdun
              The Germans had the task of creating a good medium tank, at least equal to the T-34. They could not cope with this task.

              Pz.IV with a 75-mm long-barreled gun KwK 40 with a barrel length of 43 calibers and an initial armor-piercing projectile speed of 770 m / s and increased armor protection with 80-mm frontal armor.
              This version of Pz.IV Ausf.H became the most massive: from April 1943 to May 1944, the factory workshops of three manufacturing companies - Krupp-Gruson AG in Magdeburg, Vogtiandische Maschinenfabrik AG (VOMAG) in Plausen and Nibelungenwerke in S. Valentin - left 3960 combat vehicles.
              In general, it can be argued that of all German tanks during the Second World War, the Pz.IV was the most balanced and versatile. In this car, various characteristics were harmoniously combined and complemented each other. The "Tiger" and "Panther", for example, had a clear bias towards security, which led to their overweight and deterioration of dynamic characteristics. The Pz.III, with many other characteristics being equal to the Pz.IV, did not reach it in armament and, having no reserves for modernization, left the scene. The Pz.IV with a similar Pz.III, but a slightly more thoughtful layout, possessed such reserves in full least. This is the only tank of the war years with a 75 mm cannon, whose main armament was significantly strengthened without changing the turret. The turret of the T-34-85 and Sherman had to be changed, and, by and large, these were almost new machines.
              1. AK64
                AK64 27 June 2016 15: 29
                -3

                In general, it can be argued that of all German tanks during the Second World War, the Pz.IV was the most balanced and universal. In this machine, various characteristics harmoniously combined and complemented each other.

                Yes, he was byak, just byak.
                And byak originally: Krupp made excellent guns, but the tanks of the Krupp factories weren’t simple in profile.
                The T-4 was put into service as an addition to the T-3, as an "artillery support tank" (1 battalion on a TP of 4 battalions was originally planned)

                The "Tiger" and "Panther", for example, had a clear bias towards security, which led to their overweight and deterioration of dynamic characteristics.

                You would first look at the characteristics of the Panther - the tank fluttered like a bird, despite its 44 tons of weight.
                But just the T-4 in modification H was overloaded, the suspension was overloaded to the limit, and the tank sank noticeably on the front end: the front roller was already "rested" by the overload, and nothing could be done about it - all possibilities were exhausted. It was completely out of the blue to ride it. And the Panther flew.

                Yes, and the mobility of the T-6 for a heavy tank was quite - Churchill couldn't get on the parapet, and no one blamed the T-6 for such a sin.

                Pz.III, with many other equal characteristics with Pz.IV, did not reach it in terms of armament and, having no reserves for modernization, left the stage.

                The T-3 both held out and pulled. And the "long paw" 50mm (60 calibers) was quite adequate against the same T-34, and the 75mm "butt" on the T-3 was quite set (model N).


                Pz.IV with a similar Pz.III, but a little more thoughtful layout, fully possessed such reserves.

                Quite the opposite: the T-3 was a toy, a swallow, and was adored by tankers. It was his early versions in the 40th in Kubinka that were rated "the best foreign tank". Yes Yes.
                And the T-4 is like that ... originally junk. Well, the Krupp factories could not do complex machines ...

                This is the only tank of the war years with a gun of 75 mm caliber, in which the main armament was significantly strengthened without changing the turret.

                They put 37mm, 50mm short, 50mm long, 75mm short. To the same tower.

                But what is the advantage of "no changing the tower"? What is this, the dignity of the tank? This is strange to me ... How does this reflect combat capabilities?
                1. troyan
                  troyan 27 June 2016 18: 53
                  +2
                  Quote: AK64
                  The T-3 was a toy, a swallow, and adored by the tankers.

                  Right Riding, excellent optics, ease of placement, speed and maneuverability - therefore, unit commanders loved to use the Pz-III as a team.
                2. code54
                  code54 27 June 2016 20: 13
                  +3
                  Where is your "Panther" fluttering, In the game on your computer? ....... So it fluttered that the techies didn't keep up with it !?
            2. AK64
              AK64 27 June 2016 15: 10
              -8
              Firstly, 15% are sometimes important.

              He knows how you and your friends know me. infuriate? Yes, because you (everyone) have the Internet at hand, and it takes 5 seconds to break through the "Panther price". But you don't want to take advantage of this opportunity.
              That is, to mean, you just don’t know how to, you mean, you are all illiterate. Otherwise, I can’t explain such an attitude like illiteracy. Well, it's not the 80s, when this figure was impossible to find. And not even the 90s, when the Internet was already there, but the filling was not the same as it is today. But today everything is there! So why don’t you use something, huh?


              Secondly, we are talking not only about cost, but also about the possibility of mass production.

              Panthers were produced quite en masse: the production rate per year is higher than that of the squalid T-4.

              Thirdly, I personally did not compare the Daimler-Benz project with either the T-IV or the Panther. The Germans had the task of creating a good medium tank, at least equal to the T-34. They could not cope with this task.

              Here and ... "Couldn't" rivet Zaporozhets - Mercedes instead made - in weaklings, huh !? A panther with a comparable wing price for any Allied medium tank. So why did the Germans have another freak? They had "average" - T-3 and T-4. So why create another one?


              T-IV in various modifications produced 8686 units, "Panthers" - 5976 units, and T-34 - 84 units. Agree that there is a difference.

              Goshshpodya ... So after all, the Germans also produced washing machines in the war. Yes Yes. Here, add a washing machine to the T-4 and the Panthers, maybe another figure will come out.

              And besides, you are just a con: 84 thousand is production for all the years until 1953. And in the war they fired about 50 tons of T-34. (Moreover, these figures also include tanks that were restored in the factory, that is, the same tank could be counted several times)
              1. stalkerwalker
                stalkerwalker 27 June 2016 15: 15
                +5
                Quote: AK64
                Gosh, really ...

                Quote: AK64
                And besides, you’re just a con

                And you, my friend, some brawler ... You do not need the truth, and skirmishes on the forum ...
                laughing
                1. AK64
                  AK64 27 June 2016 15: 35
                  -2
                  And you, my friend, some brawler ... You do not need the truth, and skirmishes on the forum ...

                  Not at all: the brawler and the flamegogon are just Verdun: why else to attribute to the production of T-34 tanks made AFTER the war?

                  What is this, "truth" or what? Strange "truth"
              2. Warrior2015
                Warrior2015 27 June 2016 15: 39
                +1
                Quote: AK64
                So after all, the Germans also produced washing machines during the war. Yes Yes. Here, add a washing machine to the T-4 and the Panthers, maybe another figure will come out.

                Well, this only proves that they were fools. Why washing machines in a war? There Joseph, Old Man Vissarionych didn’t even bother with such stupidity - all his life he washed the people in the troughs and in the rivers, so why change something?
                1. AK64
                  AK64 27 June 2016 15: 52
                  0
                  Well, this only proves that they were fools. Why washing machines in a war? There Joseph, Old Man Vissarionych didn’t even bother with such stupidity - all his life he washed the people in the troughs and in the rivers, so why change something?


                  But what about "concern for the population"? German Frau to wash with pens or what?

                  But if without jokes - no, not fools; not really fools. Just neither Hitler nor his generals did not plan protracted war. This is a very important point for understanding the whole thing.

                  All Germans were well aware that they could not win a protracted war.
                  Therefore, they planned a blitzkrieg.
                  Therefore, they did not mobilize the economy right up to the 44th.

                  This is not stupid - this is a strategic miscalculation.

                  But why they did not consider the protracted war, why this thought did not occur to them - this is a serious question.
                  I think they had a reason, and I think they were cleverly misinformed. Hence the "oddities" of June 1940.
                  1. stalkerwalker
                    stalkerwalker 27 June 2016 22: 33
                    +2
                    Quote: AK64
                    Therefore, they did not mobilize the economy right up to the 44th.

                    Quote: AK64
                    Is it difficult for you to break through the price of Panther and T-4 in Google ??? After all, this is a matter of three minutes!

                    There, strike for three minutes about the beginning of the mobilization of the Reich economy in January 42nd, after the funeral of the blitzkrieg near Moscow.
                    1. AK64
                      AK64 27 June 2016 23: 04
                      -2
                      There, strike for three minutes about the beginning of the mobilization of the Reich economy in January 42nd, after the funeral of the blitzkrieg near Moscow.


                      That's only in 1943. In January 1943.
                      But this was a "total mobilization" of people, but not yet a mobilization of industry.

                      German tank production weather (1940-1945):
                      2111 3207 5371 11480 18288 3649

                      And this is the production of aircraft by years (1940-1944):
                      +10247 12401 15409 24807 40593

                      It is easy to see that it was in the 44th that 40% of aircraft were produced, and just over 40% of tanks.
                      And this, we note, under the bombs of the allies. (Contrary to the opinion of Soviet citizens, the bombing very strongly, not "perceptibly" but precisely "strongly", reduced German production in 1944.)
              3. Alex_59
                Alex_59 27 June 2016 15: 42
                +2
                Quote: AK64
                "Couldn't" rivet the Zaporozhets - instead they made Mercedes - into weaklings, eh !?

                That's where they got burnt. To win, all that was needed was a T-34 on a massive scale to a huge front. And they squeezed out the wunderwaffe in pieces by Soviet standards. The result is known - May 9. So wimps, yes.

                It’s not tanks fighting, not divisions, not even armies. Military-economic systems are at war. Taking out the TTX from the context of almost any German product and comparing it with ours, we will almost always get German superiority. What's the use? Our number was such that even a slight lag in quality did not affect the final result. We didn’t make the most ideal equipment with the hands of children and women from cheap materials and was easy to learn by soldiers. That IL-2, that PPSh-41, that T-34. In combination with combat experience in the second half of the war, this gave a turning point in the war.
                1. AK64
                  AK64 27 June 2016 16: 05
                  -2
                  That's where they got burnt. To win, all that was needed was a T-34 on a massive scale to a huge front. And they squeezed out the wunderwaffe in pieces by Soviet standards. The result is known - May 9. So wimps, yes.


                  Well, again, they left the topic and went "universal scope" ...

                  Well, I'll try to explain as I understand it. However, look above the answer to Ratnik.

                  First of all, they could handle the T-34. But to 50 thousand T-34 it would be necessary to add another 50 thousand Shermans, and the British added something there. That is, in general, about 40 thousand tanks of three manufacturing countries fought against the German 200 thousand. And in my opinion it is obvious that the Germans had no chance to equal the volume of production in the Germans. So there was only a chance to replay in quality.
                  In my opinion it is logical.

                  Further: Panther was quite mass produced, not by the piece.


                  It’s not tanks fighting, not divisions, not even armies. Military-economic systems are at war.

                  And here and there!
                  After all, the Germans knew perfectly well without you that they could not win a protracted economic war! And they counted only and only on blitz krieg.
                  But why and why did they get into a war in which they could not win ... ??? This is a serious question ...

                  My opinion --- the Germans were thrice thrice a century skillfully put up by suckers (the first time was WWI)

                  Moreover, mind you, I do not idealize the Germans. But TWO times in 50 years on the same rake... It could not have done without someone else’s help
                  1. troyan
                    troyan 27 June 2016 18: 57
                    +1
                    Quote: AK64
                    But TWO times in 50 years on the same rake ...

                    For 30.
                    Quote: AK64
                    It could not do without someone else’s help

                    And everyone knows with whose.
                  2. Alex_59
                    Alex_59 27 June 2016 21: 29
                    +4
                    Quote: AK64
                    So there was only a chance to replay in quality.
                    In my opinion it is logical.

                    In principle, I agree with you, but I still think that it is logical, it is logical, but in general it is a mistake. Quality comes first when the gap is wide. Well, for example, when on one side hatchets and bows, and on the other a gatling card holder. Then the situation cannot be corrected by any number and heroism. But in the Great Patriotic War format, German quality exceeded the Soviet one not at times, but by percent. But the quantity ... Well, all the same 6000 Panthers vs 19 000 T-34-76 and 20 000 T-34-85. This is already at times. Whatever the Panther was magnificent, it could not be everywhere at the same time. And where the German infantry was not there, it was quite successfully crushed by not the best, but the ubiquitous T-34. And she, this infantry, somehow on the quality of the Panther at this moment did not care.
                    Quote: AK64
                    And here and there!
                    After all, the Germans knew perfectly well without you that they could not win a protracted economic war!

                    Again, I agree, but apart from "but no," because just "but yes," which is confirmed by your next phrase about the fact that the Germans understood that they had gotten themselves in the wrong place by attacking the USSR. Blitzkrieg is in cozy Europe, not in our open spaces. So in the aggregate "military power + economy" the USSR won this war of attrition.
                    1. AK64
                      AK64 27 June 2016 22: 49
                      0
                      In principle, I agree with you, but I still think that it is logical, it is logical, but in general it is a mistake.

                      And there was nothing else left: in terms of quantity they lost even faster.


                      Again, I agree, but apart from "but no," because just "but yes," which is confirmed by your next phrase about the fact that the Germans understood that they had gotten themselves in the wrong place by attacking the USSR. Blitzkrieg is in cozy Europe, not in our open spaces.

                      Uh, no, you didn’t understand: they made a mistake back in 1939, even without the USSR. The attack on the USSR is already out of hopelessness: they had nowhere else to go. The British gave them Tsung Tswang and an economic blockade. And the Führer couldn’t do anything ... So the idea came to him to expand the theater of operations to the east, and at the same time to receive the resources of the USSR ...

                      Well, basically there was some chance ...

                      Here, on this particular issue, it is better to disassemble the PMV --- less lies in the PMV.
                      Look, in 1914 Germany suddenly started a war against the England-France-Russia alliance, to which it was guaranteed to lose. WHAT FOR? Why? This is suicide!
                      Lost guaranteed and completely without options ...

                      So Wilhelm was clearly waiting for something wrong, and clearly did not expect such a development of events. Some events for him suddenly became completely unexpected - but WHY? After all, it all seems obvious to us ...
                      And it seems that William in 1914 was bred as a sucker for war, having promised something wrong.

                      So it seems that the same thing happened with Hitler: he clearly believed that there would be no development of war. But why? After all, there must be reasons for him to think so!

                      (Just don't need that "": "" this is not an explanation, but an admission of one's own incompetence.)

                      So in the aggregate "military power + economy" the USSR won this war of attrition.


                      Hehe ... No, not like that. Won if theoretically take, USSR + England + blockade of Germany. (And you can even without the United States - although in real life and the United States invested in the economic part.)
                      England may not have actively fought, but it blocked Germany, which is already a significant contribution to the depletion of the economic war. (But it’s about the war of attrition, isn’t it?)
                      1. Alex_59
                        Alex_59 28 June 2016 06: 51
                        +2
                        Quote: AK64
                        there was nowhere else for them to go. The British gave them Tsung Tswang and an economic blockade.

                        It was necessary to negotiate with the Englishwoman. Their contradictions were not insurmountable, and the British in the 40-m Finns against the USSR helped. Could agree.
                        Quote: AK64
                        They won, if theoretically taken, the USSR + England + the blockade of Germany. (And you can even without the United States - although in real life the United States has invested in the economic part.)
                        England may not have actively fought, but it blocked Germany, which is already a significant contribution to the depletion of the economic war. (But it’s about the war of attrition, isn’t it?)

                        I am not inclined to cheer-and-patriotic denial of the contribution of GB and USA to the victory, but all the same the USSR could have overcome Germany without them. It would simply have been given with more lives and time.
                      2. AK64
                        AK64 28 June 2016 10: 41
                        -2
                        It was necessary to negotiate with the Englishwoman.

                        Didn’t you try? Soldiers were released from Dunkirk

                        Their contradictions were not insurmountable, and the British still helped in the 40th Finns against the USSR.

                        No, they didn’t help. Tryndels around the world for help, but in fact they only used it as an excuse to capture Narvik.
                        But the French - the French rushed to help really.

                        The point here is not "who is FOR who is against", but how the state interests are wriggling fancifully. The British had no interest in the Finns --- but for some reason the French had ...


                        I am not inclined to cheer-and-patriotic denial of the contribution of GB and USA to the victory, but all the same the USSR could have overcome Germany without them. It would simply have been given with more lives and time.

                        Without the United States, he could and could, but without Brtania - no, he could not. Britain's contribution is a blockade. (Even the United States could not have organized the blockade without Britain.) And without the blockade, Stalin would have had to look for the "Brest peace".

                        Just in numbers, look, I brought there for a comrade with a coat of arms the production of tank aircraft by years: in the 44th, 18 thousand tanks and 40 thousand aircraft --- and this is in the conditions of the blockade and under continuous bombing. The economic competition of the USSR would inevitably lose.
              4. code54
                code54 28 June 2016 01: 14
                +1
                .... "So after all, the Germans also produced washing machines during the war. Yes, yes. Add washing machines to the T-4 and the Panthers, maybe a different figure will come out."
                Goebels not a relative of you ???
              5. code54
                code54 28 June 2016 01: 16
                0
                The man wrote as if the Union during the war only riveted tanks!
            3. The comment was deleted.
          3. bandabas
            bandabas 27 June 2016 16: 04
            0
            Like princess girls, they are few and lacking in all. Selyavy. That is, such is life.
          4. loft79
            loft79 27 June 2016 19: 21
            0
            The man wrote: "easier and cheaper." In wartime, the key word is "simpler". More materials were required, labor intensity in comparison with the 4th one was high. Panther "- 156000 people / hour." Four "- 89700 people / hour. So the price is not a big deal. In general, the question:" What would be better (if only) to make a 4-ku or a Panther ", stupid. a bunch of factors. hi
        2. yehat
          yehat 27 June 2016 14: 16
          0
          the panther was not ruined. the tank was released in a large series and showed itself in defensive battles against just ordinary "medium" is not bad. If the panther had been made half a year earlier, it could have shown itself near Kursk.
          1. AK64
            AK64 27 June 2016 14: 56
            -1
            tank .... showed itself in defensive battles against just ordinary "medium" is not bad.

            Why "defensive"? And why "not bad"?
            Panther is the first tank of a new generation, the first MBT

            she could show herself at Kursk.

            Sorry: but tipun to your tongue - nafig-nafig such alternatives!
            Tigers drank blood near Kursk, and there were a little more than a hundred of them. And you also want this beast ... No, really not already - died so died
            1. Alf
              Alf 27 June 2016 19: 08
              +2
              Quote: AK64
              Panther is the first tank of a new generation, the first MBT

              MBT is the weight of the medium, the mobility of the medium, booking and arming heavy.
              Panther.
              Heavy weight 46 tons.
              Mobility average 50 km / h.
              The armor is medium-forehead and the tower is still back and forth, and the side is 40 mm, for heavy it is not serious.
              The armament of the middle, because with excellent armor-piercing performance, a clear weakness of the OFS.
              Already someone, and MBT Panther has never been. Let's just say mid-overgrowth.
            2. yehat
              yehat 28 June 2016 11: 02
              0
              1. Near Kursk there were fewer than 60 active panthers. The rest were broken and most were captured. And mostly tigers drank blood, by the way.
              2. Panther MBT with such a highly specialized gun? This is a complete misunderstanding of the term MBT.
              3. Only in defensive battles did the panther prove itself because it was too weakly defended for the offensive and did not have adequate weapons to break through the prepared defense, and in the defense it was mainly necessary to knock out tank breakthroughs, for which it was well sharpened. Due to the panther's weakness in the attack, the Germans were often forced to endure attacks at night.
          2. troyan
            troyan 27 June 2016 19: 02
            +1
            Quote: yehat
            If the panther had been made half a year earlier, it could have shown itself under the Kursk.

            Actually, they were near Kursk.
            Colonel von Grundhurr:
            The "efficiency" of the use of "Panthers" deserves special attention. Of the 200 tanks that debuted near Kursk, 160 were out of action by the end of the first day, and after another 9 days only 43 Panthers remained in service. Many broke down on the way from the railway to the front line, and the heavy weight of the vehicles made towing much more difficult. "
            1. yehat
              yehat 28 June 2016 11: 07
              0
              Panthers near Kursk were only nominally. Due to the lack of knowledge of the materiel, the tank participated very little in battles. If Panther A of the 44-year-old were dragged, under Kursk for 43 years,
              this could seriously complicate the fighting, especially in the south.
        3. Revolver
          Revolver 27 June 2016 18: 40
          +1
          The Germans even in 1942, and even more so by the end of the war, had a shortage of people and especially fuel. They could only crew and refuel as many tanks as they could. In many ways, therefore, they were forced to rely on a few tanks, but technically superior to anything they can meet. The Britons had similar, though not so acute problems at the beginning of the war, hence the Matilda and Churchillies, which were impenetrable by the German guns of that time.
          At the same time, the United States, and especially the USSR, relied on mass production and use, though not of the coolest, but quite adequate tanks (Sherman and T-34, respectively), the benefit of both people and fuel was enough. In the open country, three Shermans almost always dealt with one German "cat", while two usually burned out. On a rugged, with natural shelters, everything depended on the training of the crews, well, and luck was not superfluous.
          1. yehat
            yehat 28 June 2016 11: 11
            +1
            You made a very common mistake - a tank is not an anti-tank weapon! The panther did not have adequate weapons and armor against infantry units in trenches equipped with anti-tank guns and howitzers. And the Sherman and T34 just had adequate guns for such purposes and had good autonomy. Read what problems the Germans experienced with a counterattack in the Ardennes!
            The offensive was choked for the banal reason that the tanks could not go far.
      2. troyan
        troyan 27 June 2016 18: 45
        0
        Pz-IV wanted to be removed from production in order to increase the production of "Panthers". Guderian convinced the Fuehrer to cancel this decision due to the fact that the Pz-IV was the real "workhorse" of the Wehrmacht, and the changeover of production, the higher price, and the complexity of the Pz-V design would lead to a decrease in the production of the total number of tanks.
        There is an opinion that it would be more profitable for the Germans to modernize the "four" and continue to produce the "Tiger", and not also spray on the "Panther".
        1. yehat
          yehat 28 June 2016 11: 16
          0
          the four performed tasks, but had inadequate protection. These tanks suffered losses, unlike panthers and tigers, even in small skirmishes. I would say the quartet's finest hour was in '42, when modifications to the Ausf.F2 were coming to the front. At this time, for him was the best attitude of the enemy’s armor, firepower and anti-tank structure.
          I think it was impossible to do better than the Germans did - a mix of heavy, medium tanks and self-propelled guns.
  3. aba
    aba 27 June 2016 07: 59
    +3
    Unlike its unsuccessful competitor, the armored vehicle from MAN successfully passed the tests and was adopted

    A successful competitor or not a successful one, but only one result - May 9, 1945!
  4. Letnab
    Letnab 27 June 2016 08: 05
    +4
    one-on-one layout with the T-34 ...
    1. Alf
      Alf 27 June 2016 19: 18
      0
      Quote: Letnab
      one-on-one layout with the T-34 ...

      Similar solutions cause similar images.
  5. AK64
    AK64 27 June 2016 09: 09
    0
    Hmm ...
    IMHO, the reasons why they took the MAN model:
    (1) the similarity of the silhouettes of tanks D-B and T-34, which in the war would create problems.
    (2) More important: DB already produced a "C", which at that time was quite suitable for the military. (The tank was excellent, contrary to the opinion of the "experts".) But MAN was "free" (it did not produce tanks). That is, it turned out that the MAN model was a plus to the existing production.

    In general, both configurations, "transmission in front" and "transmission in the rear", have both their pros and cons. And the balance for each of them, in general, is about the same.
    But I note that the above is true only for the "engine along", that is, BEFORE the dviglo was put across: this is an amazing thing, but just such a simple proposal as "dviglo across" made it possible to greatly improve the design as a whole.
    1. chenia
      chenia 27 June 2016 10: 07
      +4
      Quote: AK64
      But I note that the above is true only for the "engine along", that is, BEFORE the dviglo was put across: this is an amazing thing, but just such a simple proposal as "dviglo across" made it possible to greatly improve the design as a whole.


      I agree. The real revolutionary tank was the T-44. It is a pity that I didn’t have time for the war (although before the Victory they built 600 of them somewhere).

      And the T-34 was always surprised by the decision to have a stern slope towards the tower, and not vice versa (then there is a lot of space for units).
      1. AK64
        AK64 27 June 2016 10: 31
        0
        I agree. The real revolutionary tank was the T-44.

        +1
        Actually, a number of innovative solutions are used almost unchanged until the T-62, and even further.
        And the T-34, with all due respect to Koshkin and the T-34 tank in general (T-34 is a brilliant tank in its own way), is Christie squeezed to the limit.
        It is a pity that I didn’t have time for the war (although before the Victory they built 600 of them somewhere).

        As far as I know, about a hundred until May 1945.
        And even the normal tests of the T-44 passed after the war already. (2500 km without important breakdowns in trials! It's almost a miracle)

        And the T-34 was always surprised by the decision to have a stern slope towards the tower, and not vice versa (then there is a lot of space for units).

        On the layout diagram, there you can’t put the main gear in another way. All the same, the main transmission is a healthy fool. Panther has a bevel reverse because the main gear is ahead.

        The superstructure over the engine compartment of the T-34 is more surprising to me.
      2. Berkut24
        Berkut24 27 June 2016 11: 07
        +3
        The slope towards the tower is explained by the fact that no other units were supposed to be installed. Traditionally, engineers for our tank school reduced the projection of the tank and its armored volume. The only thing that could be placed in an additional volume was the fuel tanks. But the designers preferred that in the case of a shell hit, a fire outside is better than a fire inside.
  6. AK64
    AK64 27 June 2016 11: 26
    0
    But the designers preferred that in the case of a shell hit, a fire outside is better than a fire inside.

    (1) The first T-34s had no external tanks.
    (2) Tanks on the T-34 were placed in the fenders and even between the "candles" of the suspension. That is, applying your logic, "the designers preferred that in the event of a projectile hit, a fire inside the BO is better than a fire inside the MO."
  7. potapych
    potapych 27 June 2016 11: 26
    0
    failed, failed, well and good !!!
  8. Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 27 June 2016 12: 17
    +1
    I will say that although I am not a pro in tank building, I did not know about such a model of German tanks. Many thanks to the author!
  9. ratfly
    ratfly 27 June 2016 13: 56
    0
    It was very interesting to see the German incarnation of the T-34. I read a lot about it, but it was interesting to see the models in the picture.
  10. igordok
    igordok 27 June 2016 14: 53
    0
    On the port side, one after another gunner and commander. On the right was the workplace gunner.

    A tank with two gunners, but without a loader !? recourse It is clear that a mistake, but more carefully necessary.
  11. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 27 June 2016 15: 55
    0
    The Germans, it was possible not to invent anything, but to disassemble the T-34 and make a copy of it from their armor and adjusted for their technology. The machine would not be complicated, but adjusted for the capabilities of German industry, an order of magnitude better.
    1. Alf
      Alf 27 June 2016 19: 23
      0
      Quote: Zaurbek
      The Germans, it was possible not to invent anything, but to disassemble the T-34 and make a copy of it from their armor and adjusted for their technology.

      And make a copy of the tank untermanent? Nine, this is not possible, it is an insult to the Aryan spirit.
    2. Nehist
      Nehist 27 June 2016 23: 49
      0
      But the trouble they couldn’t do was tank diesel, the aircraft did and the tank didn’t.
      1. stalkerwalker
        stalkerwalker 28 June 2016 08: 56
        +2
        The Germans throughout the war had problems with fuel. The fleet (surface and underwater) consumed the MAJOR mass of fuel oil and solariums. You cannot fill tanks with synthetic gasoline.
      2. AK64
        AK64 28 June 2016 17: 35
        -3
        But the trouble they couldn’t do was tank diesel, the aircraft did and the tank didn’t.

        And is it nothing that the V-2 is exactly aviation?
        And it’s nothing that traditionally put aircraft engines on tanks?

        Well and besides: what is the benefit in a diesel engine on a tank? And there is no particular benefit: mythical advantages are completely compensated for by real shortcomings.
        1. stalkerwalker
          stalkerwalker 29 June 2016 09: 41
          +2
          Quote: AK64
          And is it nothing that the V-2 is exactly aviation?

          The farther into the forest, the closer your shirt is to your body .... laughing
          Quote: AK64
          Well and besides: what is the benefit in a diesel engine on a tank? And there is no particular benefit: mythical advantages

          Yes, you, my friend, your own car, I guess, there was no spawn .... wassat Even the concept of torque does not want to chew ....
          fellow
          1. Ruslan67
            Ruslan67 29 June 2016 09: 51
            +2
            Quote: stalkerwalker
            The farther into the forest

            ..the thicker Ethiopt laughing
            Quote: stalkerwalker
            Even the concept of torque does not want to chew ....

            Spit kaku am Eat better cucumber yes well, or sausages drinks
            1. AK64
              AK64 29 June 2016 11: 05
              0
              boor recorded in the emergency
          2. AK64
            AK64 29 June 2016 10: 58
            -1
            Yes, you, my friend, I’ve probably never had my own car .... wassat I don’t even want to chew the concept of torque ....


            Another boor shares brain juice?

            Well, they say superficially:
            (1) diesel is much more complicated
            (2) as a result, more expensive
            (3) as a consequence of (1) it is heavier than the carburetor equal in power
            (4) maintenance of diesel engines with mechanical drives in the field - that is still a problem (including due to complexity)
            (5) A diesel engine requires much better air purification (because of which tankers suffered until the 43rd)
            (6) diesel is eating oil (in early versions of the T-34, oil ran out before gasoline)
            (7) starting a diesel engine in winter is flour (why did a comrade get the Stalin Prize for a simple stove)
            (8) ..... continue on your own, son with typewriter
            1. stalkerwalker
              stalkerwalker 29 June 2016 13: 46
              +2
              Quote: AK64
              Another boor shares brain juice?

              Keep an eye on the bazaar, cabron's idiot
  12. Bormanxnumx
    Bormanxnumx 28 June 2016 16: 14
    0
    Quote: Alex_59
    That's where they got burnt. To win, all that was needed was a T-34 on a massive scale to a huge front. And they squeezed out the wunderwaffe in pieces by Soviet standards. The result is known - May 9. So wimps, yes.

    With this passage, are you trying to cross out the titanic efforts of those people who brought it closer on May 9th? Listen to you, so the Germans were not the USSR + Allies defeated, but simply they economically ruined themselves.
  13. Bormanxnumx
    Bormanxnumx 28 June 2016 16: 27
    +2
    Quote: stalkerwalker
    The Germans throughout the war had problems with fuel. The fleet (surface and underwater) consumed the MAJOR mass of fuel oil and solariums. You cannot fill tanks with synthetic gasoline.

    Here is the very synthetic gasoline obtained from coal, the Germans and refueled their tanks.
    1. stalkerwalker
      stalkerwalker 29 June 2016 09: 47
      +2
      Quote: BORMAN82
      Quote: stalkerwalker
      The Germans throughout the war had problems with fuel. The fleet (surface and underwater) consumed the MAJOR mass of fuel oil and solariums. You cannot fill tanks with synthetic gasoline.
      Here is the very synthetic gasoline obtained from coal, the Germans and refueled their tanks.

      Synthetic gasoline went to the needs of vehicles. Tank Maybachs demanded high-octane gasoline, as did aircraft engines. Otherwise, Hitler would not have thrown panzervaffen into crazy counterattacks in Hungary when the last oil fields were lost.
      Synthetics - ersatz. And it did not provide the required good thermal return. Many wise men in the 90s poured a mixture of the 76th with the 93rd in the Agens brought from Germany. As a result - the engine to the landfill.
      1. AK64
        AK64 29 June 2016 11: 04
        -1
        Synthetic gasoline went to the needs of vehicles. Tank Maybachs demanded high-octane gasoline, as did aircraft engines. Otherwise, Hitler would not have thrown panzervaffen into crazy counterattacks in Hungary when the last oil fields were lost.
        Synthetics - ersatz. And it did not provide the required good thermal return. Many wise men in the 90s poured a mixture of the 76th with the 93rd in the Agens brought from Germany. As a result - the engine to the landfill.


        Does a bunny share a brain juice with a machine?
        And is it nothing that the Bergius process (which was used in the 3rd Reich) gives exactly that high-octane gas at the outlet, and it was precisely on it that the Luftwaffe worked?

        However, spend time on boors ... Why?
        1. stalkerwalker
          stalkerwalker 29 June 2016 13: 53
          +2
          Quote: AK64
          However, spend time on boors ... Why?

          For the orphaned and the wretched :
          at low temperatures synthetic high octane gasoline decomposed into fractions ...
          Ash stump, in Spain there are no frosts. Only thermal shocks in idiots.
  14. Bormanxnumx
    Bormanxnumx 28 June 2016 16: 52
    0
    Quote: Nehist
    But the trouble they couldn’t do was tank diesel, the aircraft did and the tank didn’t.

    It should be noted that the Soviet tank diesel V-2 was born by processing the Hispano-Suiza HS 12Y CARBURETOR engine with the addition of a BOSH injection pump. Yes, and in the post-war tank diesel engines 5TD and 6TD, the Germans could not do without - it was spied on from an aviation two-stroke 6-cylinder Jumo 205 engine with oppositely moving pistons.
    1. stalkerwalker
      stalkerwalker 29 June 2016 09: 52
      +3
      Quote: BORMAN82
      It should be noted that the Soviet tank diesel V-2 was born by processing the Hispano-Suiza HS 12Y CARBURETOR engine with the addition of a BOSH injection pump. Yes, and in the post-war tank diesel engines 5TD and 6TD, the Germans could not do without - it was spied on from an aviation two-stroke 6-cylinder Jumo 205 engine with oppositely moving pistons.

      Yes Yes....
      ALL Internal Combustion Engines derive their pedigree from the Watt Steam Engine. wassat Everything else - variations on the topic of modernization of fuel supply systems (depending on type), the use of ignition systems, changes and improvements to the combustible mixture, etc. laughing
      1. Bormanxnumx
        Bormanxnumx 29 June 2016 18: 42
        +2
        If you think so, then they trace their ancestry from the Thomas Saver engine, and Watt "finished" it wink
  15. Bormanxnumx
    Bormanxnumx 29 June 2016 18: 36
    0
    Quote: stalkerwalker
    Quote: BORMAN82
    Quote: stalkerwalker
    The Germans throughout the war had problems with fuel. The fleet (surface and underwater) consumed the MAJOR mass of fuel oil and solariums. You cannot fill tanks with synthetic gasoline.
    Here is the very synthetic gasoline obtained from coal, the Germans and refueled their tanks.

    Synthetic gasoline went to the needs of vehicles. Tank Maybachs demanded high-octane gasoline, as did aircraft engines.

    For the tank "Maybach" 230 P45, leaded OZ74 gasoline with an octane rating of 74 was declared, aviation gasolines were already with an octane rating starting at 91.
  16. fitter71
    fitter71 31 July 2016 07: 53
    0
    Quote: AK64
    Well, and besides: what is the benefit of diesel in a tank? And there is no particular benefit: mythical prИthe property is completely compensated by real shortcomings.

    you my friend are nonsense and nonsense. Of course - having a well-developed oil refining system and an unlimited available resource of any oil products, you don’t have to worry about fuel economy (which is what diesel differs in the first place), but when this very oil is scarce, you have to invent a bicycle such as synthetic gasoline (Germany) or a disadvantage those same refining capacities and their ability to produce the right fuel ... to compare the capabilities of the USSR and Germany of that time (and even the current ones - which is already there) - does not happen? in other words, Germany’s tank diesel engine would not have hurt - if they had it (but it was good), but for the USSR - V-2 - that’s it, despite the fact that it took a lot of scarce aluminum. Well, nonsense about the great complexity of V-2 compared to Maybachs, leave for yourself and people like you :)
  17. Arct
    Arct 16 December 2016 01: 55
    0
    Especially for the lover of Internet searches AK64
    Yes, the Pz.Kpfw.III was a good light to medium tank with one fundamental caveat. Cars with the characteristics of the J, L, M, N series would have been ideal in 1939-41, but not in 42-43 when they were produced. Much more optimal would be an increased release of StuG based on them, which were quite successfully used in 44-45 years. That is, instead of mass production of Pz.Kpfw.IV in various modifications, the Germans stubbornly "pulled" the C grade to the level of the T-34 and M4. In the end, they did not pull it. Plus the phenomenal reliability of the "troika" was achieved at the cost of an overcomplicated and extremely time-consuming structure both in production and in repair.
    The Panther is a tank that is clearly over-praised in the press. Yes, the Germans fought well on it, but not thanks to, but rather in spite of. There were no more options anyway. And I can't even call this tank a middle one. Extremely capricious, with a mass of "childhood diseases" (which in mass production were only cured by a third) and very unreliable in comparison with three, four and six. A "not heavy" tank, capable of acting effectively only in defense and absolutely none in attack. I won't even talk about problems with shooting at the slightest roll.
    In fact, the Germans made three "extra" tanks. The "middle" grade of the latest modifications (the four was much more effective in this regard). "Medium" five with scanty weapons and armor for their masses. Again, a finished XNUMX would be much more effective as an average. And VIB is a bulky, unreliable and clumsy coffin for positional battles.
    Let's say thanks to the "gloomy German genius" who did not allow the Germans to bring to a brilliant completion a four in the middle class and six in the heavy tank class. Brought to mind and produced in large quantities, they would have drunk much more blood from us than the entire "menagerie" created in reality.