Military Review

War of Motors: weapons of the Red Army before the beginning of the Great Patriotic War

79
War of Motors: weapons of the Red Army before the beginning of the Great Patriotic War



Modern war will be a war of engines. Motors on the ground, motors in the air, motors on water and under water. Under these conditions, the winner will be the one who will have more engines and a greater power reserve.
Joseph Stalin
At the meeting of the Chief Military Council, January 13 1941


During the years of the prewar five-year plans, the Soviet designers created new models of small weapons, tanks, artillery, mortars and aircraft. Into service fleet more and more advanced destroyers, cruisers, patrol ships arrived, and special attention was paid to the development of the submarine fleet.

As a result, before the start of the Great Patriotic War, the USSR had a fairly modern system of weapons and military equipment, and even surpassed German counterparts in some tactical and technical characteristics. Therefore, the main reasons for the defeat of the Soviet troops in the initial period of the war cannot be attributed to miscalculations in the technical equipment of the troops.

TANKS
According to 22 on June 1941, the Red Army had an 25 621 tank.
The most massive were light T-26, which accounted for almost 10 thousand cars, and representatives of the BT family - there were about 7,5 thousand. A significant proportion were tankettes and small amphibious tanks - almost 6 thousand modifications were in service with the Soviet troops. -27, T-37, T-38 and T-40.
The most modern at that time tanks KV and T-34, there were about 1,85 thousand units.


KV-1 tanks

Heavy tank KV-1

KV-1 entered service in the 1939 year, mass-produced from March 1940-th to August 1942 year. The tank mass was up to 47,5 tons, which made it much heavier than the existing German tanks. He was armed with a 76 caliber millimeter cannon.
Some experts consider the KV-1 to be a landmark for the world tank building machine, which had a significant impact on the development of heavy tanks in other countries.



The Soviet tank had a so-called classic layout - the division of the armored hull from the bow to the stern, successively into a control unit, a combat and a motor-transmissive compartment. He also received an independent torsion bar suspension, anti-rigging circular protection, a diesel engine and one relatively powerful weapon. Previously, these elements were met on other tanks separately, but for the first time in the KV-1 they were brought together.
The first combat use of the KV-1 relates to the Soviet-Finnish war: a prototype tank was used 17 December 1939 of the year when the Mannerheim line was broken.
In 1940-1942, 2769 tanks were launched. Until 1943, when the German Tiger appeared, the KV was the most powerful tank of the war. At the beginning of the Great Patriotic War he received the nickname “ghost” from the Germans. Standard projectiles 37-millimeter anti-tank gun of the Wehrmacht did not penetrate his armor.


T-34 Tank

Medium Tank T-34
In May, the Red Army’s Armored Directorate of the Red Army proposed to Plant No. XXUMX (now the Kharkov Malyshev Transport Engineering Plant) to create a new tracked tank. Under the leadership of Mikhail Koshkin model A-1938 was created. The work went in parallel with the creation of the BT-183 - an improved modification of the already commercially available BT-32 tank.

Prototypes A-32 and BT-20 were ready in May 1939, according to the results of their tests in December 1939, A-32 received a new name - T-34 - and was adopted with the condition to finalize the tank: bring the main booking to 45 to improve the review, install 76-millimeter cannon and additional machine guns.
In total, by the beginning of World War II, the 1066 T-34 was manufactured. After 22 June 1941, production of this type was deployed at the Krasnoye Sormovo plant in Gorky (now Nizhny Novgorod), Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant, Uralmash in Sverdlovsk (now Yekaterinburg), Plant No. XXUMX in Omsk and Uralvagonzavod (Nizhny Tagil ).



In 1944, the serial production of the T-34-85 modification began with a new turret, reinforced armor and a 85-mm gun. Also, the tank has proven itself due to its ease of production and maintenance.
In total, more than 84 thousand T-34 tanks were manufactured. This model was involved not only in the Great Patriotic War, she visited many armed conflicts in Europe, Asia and Africa in 1950-1980-s. The last documented case of the combat use of the T-34 in Europe was their use during the war in Yugoslavia.

AVIATION
By the beginning of World War II, Soviet aviation was armed with many types of combat aircraft. In 1940 and the first half of 1941, the troops received almost 2,8 thousand modern vehicles: Yak-1, MiG-3, LaGG-3, Pe-2, Il-2.
There were also fighters I-15 bis, I-16 and I-153, bombers TB-3, DB-3, SB (ANT-40), multipurpose P-5 and Y-2 (Po-2).
The new aircraft of the Red Army Air Force were not inferior to the Luftwaffe aircraft in terms of combat capabilities, even exceeded them in a number of indicators.


Stormtrooper IL-2

Stormtrooper IL-2
Armored attack aircraft IL-2 - the most massive combat aircraft in stories. In total more than 36 thousand cars were produced. He was called the "flying tank", the leadership of the Wehrmacht - the "black death" and "iron Gustav." German pilots nicknamed Il-2 "concrete plane" for its high combat survivability.



The first combat units, which were armed with these machines, were created just before the war. Divisions of attack aircraft were successfully used against enemy mechanized and armored units. At the beginning of the war, the Il-2 was practically the only aircraft that, in the conditions of superiority of German aviation, fought the enemy in the air. He played a big role in deterring the enemy in 1941.
During the war years, several modifications of aircraft were created. IL-2 and its further development - attack aircraft IL-10 - were actively used in all major battles of the Great Patriotic War and in the Soviet-Japanese war.
The maximum horizontal speed of the aircraft on the ground was 388 km / h, and at an altitude of 2000 m - 407 km / h. The rise time to 1000 m height is 2,4 minutes, and the turn time at this height is 48-49 seconds. At the same time, during a single combat turn, the attack aircraft gained 400 meters in height.


MiG-3

MiG-3 night fighter
The design team, led by A. I. Mikoyan and M. I. Gurevich, in 1939, worked hard on a fighter for combat at high altitudes. In the spring of 1940, a prototype was built, which received the brand MiG-1 (Mikoyan and Gurevich, the first). Subsequently, its upgraded version received the name of the MiG-3.

Despite the significant take-off weight (3350 kg), the speed of the serial MiG-3 at the ground exceeded 500 km / h, and at an altitude of 7 thousand meters reached 640 km / h. It was the highest speed at that time obtained on production aircraft. Due to the high ceiling and high speed at altitudes above 5 thousand meters, the MiG-3 was effectively used as a reconnaissance aircraft, as well as an air defense fighter. However, poor horizontal maneuverability and relatively weak weapons did not allow him to become a full-fledged front-line fighter.
According to the estimates of the famous ace Alexander Pokryshkin, conceding in horizontal lines, the MiG-3 significantly exceeded the German Me109 in a vertical maneuver, which could serve as the key to victory in a collision with fascist fighters. However, only top-class pilots could successfully pilot the MiG-3 on vertical turns and at extreme overloads.

FLEET
By the beginning of World War II, the Soviet fleet had a total of 3 battleship and 7 cruisers, 54 leader and destroyer, 212 submarines, 287 torpedo boats and many other ships.

The pre-war shipbuilding program envisaged the creation of a “large fleet,” which would be based on large surface ships — battleships and cruisers. In accordance with it, the Soviet Union type battleships and the heavy cruisers Kronstadt and Sevastopol were laid in the 1939-1940, and the unfinished cruiser Petropavlovsk was acquired in Germany, however, plans for a radical renewal of the fleet were not to be realized.
In the prewar years, Soviet sailors received new light cruisers of the Kirov type, leaders of the destroyers of the 1 and 38 projects, destroyers of the 7 project, and other ships. The construction of submarines and torpedo boats was booming.
Many ships were completed in the course of the war, some of them never took part in the battles. These include, for example, the cruisers of the 68 "Chapaev" project and the destroyers of the 30 "Ogneva" project.
The main types of surface ships of the prewar period:
light cruisers like "Kirov",
leaders of the types "Leningrad" and "Minsk",
destroyers of the type "Wrath" and "Savvy",
minesweepers like "land mines",
torpedo boats "G-5",
sea ​​hunters "MO-4".
The main types of submarines of the prewar period:
small submarines of type "M" ("Baby"),
medium submarines of types "Sh" ("Pike") and "C" ("Medium"),
underwater minelayers of the type "L" ("Leninets"),
large submarines of types "K" ("Cruising") and "D" ("Decembrist").


Kirov type cruisers

Kirov type cruisers
Light cruisers of the type "Kirov" were the first Soviet surface ships of this class, not counting the three Svetlana cruisers that were laid down under Nicholas II. The 26 project, on which the Kirov was built, was finally approved in the autumn of 1934, and developed the ideas of the Italian light cruisers of the Condotieri family.



The first pair of cruisers, the Kirov and Voroshilov, was laid in 1935 year. They went into service in 1938 and 1940's. The second pair, "Maxim Gorky" and "Molotov", was built on the modified project and expanded the composition of the Soviet fleet in the 1940-1941 years. Two more cruisers laid in the Far East, until the end of World War II only one of them, the Kalinin, was put into operation. Far Eastern cruisers also differed from their predecessors.
The total displacement of Kirov-type cruisers ranged from about 9450-9550 tons for the first pair to almost 10 000 tons for the last. These ships could reach speeds of 35 nodes and more. Their main armament was nine X-NUMX-millimeter guns B-180-P, located in the three-gun turrets. On the first four cruisers, anti-aircraft weapons were represented by six X-NUMX B-1 calibers of millimeters, 34-millimeter 100-K and 45-millimeter machine guns. In addition, the Kirov carried torpedoes, mines and depth bombs, seaplanes.
"Kirov" and "Maxim Gorky" almost all the war was held supporting gun fire from the defenders of Leningrad. "Voroshilov" and "Molotov", built in Nikolaev, participated in fleet operations on the Black Sea. They all survived the Great Patriotic War - they were destined for long service. The last part of the fleet in 1974 left the "Kirov".


Submarine "Pike"

Submarines "Pike"
"Pike" became the most massive Soviet submarines of World War II, not counting "Baby".

The construction of the first series of four submarines began on the Baltic in 1930, and the Pikes were built in 1933-1934.
These were submarines of the middle class, the underwater displacement of which was about 700 tons, and the armament consisted of six torpedo tubes of caliber 533 of millimeter and 45-millimeter 21-K gun.
The project was successful, and by the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, more than 70 Shchuk were in the ranks (a total of six submarines had built 86 in six series).
Submarines of the type S are actively used in all maritime theaters of war. From 44 who fought "Schuk" killed 31. Opponent lost from their actions almost 30 ships.



Despite a number of shortcomings, “Pikes” were distinguished by comparative cheapness, maneuverability and survivability. From series to series - all in all, six series of these submarines were created - they improved their seaworthiness and other parameters. In 1940, two U-type submarines were the first in the Soviet fleet to receive equipment that allowed torpedo firing without air leakage (which often unmasked an attacking submarine).
Although after the war only two “Pikes” of the last X-series series entered service, these submarines remained in the fleet for a long time and were decommissioned at the end of the 1950s.

ARTILLERY
According to Soviet data, on the eve of World War II, the army had almost 67,5 thousand guns and mortars.

It is believed that the Soviet field artillery was even superior to the German in combat qualities. However, it was poorly supplied with mechanized gear: agricultural tractors were used as tractors, up to half of the guns were transported with the help of horses.
The army was armed with many types of artillery guns and mortars. Antiaircraft artillery was represented by guns of calibers 25, 37, 76 and 85 of millimeters; Howitzer - modifications caliber 122, 152, 203 and 305 millimeters. The main anti-tank gun was the 45-graph paper of the 1937 model of the year, the regimental - 76-mm model of the 1927 of the year, and the divisional - 76-mm 1939-th.


Anti-tank gun firing at the enemy in the battles for Vitebsk

45 mm anti-tank gun model 1937 of the year
This gun was one of the most famous representatives of the Soviet artillery of the Great Patriotic War. It was developed under the leadership of Michael Loginov based on the 45-mm 1932 gun of the year.



The main fighting qualities of 45-graph paper were maneuverability, rate of fire (15 shots per minute) and armor penetration.
By the beginning of the war in the army there were more than 16,6 thousand guns of the 1937 sample of the year. In total, more than 37,3 of thousands of such guns were produced, and production was curtailed only by 1944, despite the presence of more modern models of ZiS-2 and similar in caliber M-42.


Volley "Katyusha"

Combat vehicle rocket artillery "Katyusha"
The day before the start of the Great Patriotic War, the BM-13 combat artillery combat vehicle was adopted by the Red Army, later called Katyusha. It has become one of the world's first salvo systems.

The first combat use took place on July 14, 1941, near the railway station of the city of Orsha (Belarus). The battery commanded by captain Ivan Flerov with volley fire destroyed a cluster of German military equipment at the Orshinsky railway junction.
Due to the high efficiency of use and ease of production, by the fall of 1941 the city of BM-13 was widely used on the front, having a significant impact on the course of hostilities.
The system allowed to carry out a volley with all charges (16 rockets) in 7-10 seconds. There were also modifications with an increased number of guides and other versions of the missiles.
In the course of the war, about 4 thousand BM-13 were lost. A total of about 7 thousand installations of this type were manufactured, and the "Katyusha" was removed from production only after the war - in October 1946 of the year.

WEAPON
Despite the widespread introduction of tanks and aircraft, increased artillery, the most massive weapons remained infantry. According to some calculations, if in the First World War the losses from small arms did not exceed 30% of the total, then in World War II they rose to 30-50%.
Before the Great Patriotic War, the supply of rifles, carbines and machine guns to the troops grew, but the Red Army was significantly inferior to the Wehrmacht in terms of saturation with automatic weapons, such as machine guns.


Snipers Rosa Shanina, Alexander Yekimov and Lydia Vdovina (from left to right). 3 Belarusian Front

Mosin rifle
Adopted in 1891, the Mosin X-NUMX caliber rifle millimeter remained the main weapon of the Red Army infantryman. All were released about 7,62 millions of such rifles.

Modifications of the 1891 / 1930 model had to take the fight in the most difficult months of the beginning of the Great Patriotic War. Due to its low cost and reliability, the weapon has bypassed its young self-loading rivals.
The latest version of the “trilinea” was the carbine of the 1944 model of the year, which was distinguished by the presence of a fixed needle bayonet. The rifle has become even shorter, the technology has been simplified, and the maneuverability of the battle has increased - a shorter carbine makes it easier to conduct close combat in thickets, trenches, fortifications.
In addition, it was the design of Mosin that formed the basis of the sniper rifle, which was put into service in 1931 in the year and became the first Soviet rifle, specially created for "marking and destroying the enemy’s commanders first."


Soviet and American soldiers. Meeting on the Elbe, 1945 year

PCA
Submachine gun Shpagin caliber 7,62 millimeter was adopted in the 1941 year.



This legendary weapon became part of the image of the winning soldier - it can be seen in the most famous monuments. PPSH-41 fell in love with the fighters, having received from them the affectionate and respectful nickname "papa". He fired in virtually any weather conditions and at the same time was relatively cheap.
By the end of the war, the PPSh were armed with the order of 55% of fighters. A total of about 6 million pieces were produced.
Originator:
http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/3388193
79 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. V.ic
    V.ic 3 July 2016 07: 58
    +10
    And the radio was disgusting.
    1. NIKNN
      NIKNN 3 July 2016 12: 53
      +14
      A set of scanty information is generally known to everyone, and even with mistakes.

      MiG-3 night fighter

      They did not specifically create night fighters, we can only talk about the use of such quality.
      It’s difficult to write about everything at once and probably it’s not necessary therefore I don’t put a minus.
    2. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 3 July 2016 16: 06
      -1
      Quote: V.ic
      And the radio was disgusting.

      Well, maybe she wasn’t, maybe they didn’t know how to use it. All the same, this thing is complicated, Yes, the commanders and they were still.
      The Germans have radio communications on every tank and aircraft. We have this level only in 1943.
      1. V.ic
        V.ic 3 July 2016 16: 25
        +1
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        Well, maybe she wasn’t, maybe they didn’t know how to use it. All the same, this thing is complicated,

        There was such a writer Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov, and so he owns the phrase that "there is no second freshness sturgeon."
  2. Internal combustion engine
    Internal combustion engine 3 July 2016 08: 06
    +11
    Let's paraphrase Comrade Stalin: "Modern war will be a war of robots. Robots on the ground, robots in the air, robots on the water and under water. In these conditions, the one who has more robots and a greater supply of power will win." The USSR managed to prepare for the war of motors, will we be able to prepare for the war of robots with our chaotic, market economy? If we fail and do not have time, they will crush us.
  3. Alf
    Alf 3 July 2016 09: 22
    +15
    however, the Red Army was significantly inferior to the Wehrmacht in terms of saturation with automatic weapons, such as submachine guns.
    But it was sharply superior in self-loading rifles, which the Wehrmacht did not have at all.
    Even the German commanders noted the impression that the Red Army men are all armed with machine guns.
    up to half of the guns were transported using horses.

    And the German artillery, you might think, all moved on a mechtag ...
    The most modern at that time tanks KV and T-34, there were about 1,85 thousand units.

    This is on June 1, on June 22 in the Red Army, there were 2040 T-34 and KV.
    1. moskowit
      moskowit 3 July 2016 11: 48
      +9
      Right. The myth of the Wehrmacht's full motorization is firmly rooted in consciousness.

      The German army crossed the border with the USSR with a herd of 1 heads. The infantry division had just over 000 horses. Or rather 000 ... data from the book "Victory Army against the Wehrmacht" table 6000 ...

      Also about the general armament of the Wehrmacht soldiers with submachine guns ...
      According to the state 04 / 400 of 5 on April 1941, the Red Army division was armed with the 1204 submachine gun against the 486 in the German infantry division. True enemy machine guns on 40 units were more.

      In fairness, I must say that this state contained the minimum number of divisions (I do not have the exact number). Basically, before the war, rifle divisions were kept in the state of 4 / 120 in the amount of 5864 people but with the corresponding weapons and equipment in warehouses. To mobilize from the national economy additionally received 2000 horses and 400 cars ...
      During the war, the staff of the rifle division changed 9 times, optimized, so to speak.
      1. moskowit
        moskowit 3 July 2016 15: 58
        +2
        I do not understand the minusers. Put a negative explain the position. And then you can not understand. Not for information, not for horses, not for small arms.
        Just slapped and smirks. Explain yourself...
        1. Mavrikiy
          Mavrikiy 3 July 2016 16: 57
          +3
          Quote: moskowit
          I don’t understand the minusers. Put a negative explain the position. And then you can not understand. Not for information, not for horses, not for small arms.
          Just slapped and smirks. Explain yourself.

          Well, I didn’t minus, but it’s written crap.
          "Over the years of the pre-war five-year plans, Soviet designers have created new models of small arms, tanks, artillery, mortars and aircraft. The fleet received more and more advanced destroyers, cruisers, patrol ships, and special attention was paid to the development of the submarine fleet."
          New in relation to what? By 1913? Especially the cruisers, as they went and in the West they all turned sour.
          "As a result, before the start of the Great Patriotic War, the USSR possessed a fairly modern system of weapons and military equipment, and in some tactical and technical characteristics even surpassed the weapon-grade German counterparts."
          When you write about a gun that "tactical and technical characteristics", for God's sake, what to ask of you, but when about a complex of weapons of the Armed Forces, here your term, to put it mildly, is not appropriate.
          "Therefore, the main reasons for the defeat of Soviet troops at the initial period of the war cannot be attributed to errors in the technical equipment of the troops."
          Honestly, they had some fun. We were ahead of the rest! Both in quality and quantity. If you put our BTs against their "Invincible Armada" and give half an hour, no more, the fluff will end up flying out of the armada, and you ... it's a shame to listen.
          "The most modern KV and T-34 tanks at that time numbered about 1,85 thousand units."
          Well, modern, well, indestructible so what? But would there be 3,0 thousand and the situation would change for the better? Rave. 5,5 thousand videos were taken up by the organization and it would take time to realize this, but for now thought was pouring blood.
          "A significant proportion were wedges and small amphibious tanks - the Soviet troops were armed with a total of almost 6 thousand modifications of the T-27, T-37, T-38 and T-40."
          And sho? They burst into us on "tigers"? No, on the same wedges, if not worse.
          In short, it’s not a phrase that’s a pearl, well, it’s boring.
          1. moskowit
            moskowit 3 July 2016 17: 17
            0
            Dear, I didn’t write an article ... I just gave the data in the comments, highlighting the true state of affairs at the beginning of the war ...
            1. AK64
              AK64 3 July 2016 21: 01
              -5
              I just gave the data in the comments highlighting the true state of affairs at the beginning of the war ...


              Are you flattering yourself ...
              For example, you say
              The Red Army division was armed with 1204 submachine guns versus 486 in the German infantry division.

              Are you sure? Are you sure there was at least one division in which these "1204" were present? On a piece of paper, I'll write you anything, but not a single micron where there were tanks in the state of the Red Army.

              So you deserve the minuses: this is not a "true state of affairs", as you self-confidently assert, but no more than good wishes.
              1. Predator
                Predator 3 July 2016 21: 55
                +2
                WELL YOU ARE NOT VERY MUCH.And that 6 mk was not in the state (I immediately explain it in the tanks) ?! And right away the question was, how did the Wehrmacht until the fall of 1941 not notice the T-34 and KV ?! Even though I’m lying ... one 2 TD of the Red Army nobly drove 6 TD of the Wehrmacht ... while there were shells and fuel ...
                1. Stas57
                  Stas57 3 July 2016 22: 15
                  +2
                  Quote: Predator
                  Wehrmacht until the fall of 1941 did not notice the T-34 and KV?

                  and he didn’t notice? this is news!
                2. AK64
                  AK64 3 July 2016 22: 16
                  0
                  WELL YOU ARE NOT VERY MUCH. And that 6 mk was out of state (I immediately explain, in tanks) ?!

                  The only one which is more or less equipped with tanks in the state. But the heavy and medium (546 in the state of 1941) did not reach.


                  And immediately the question is, how did the Wehrmacht until the fall of 1941 not notice the T-34 and KV ?!

                  Did you eat Temezhnikov? How did you "not notice" it? There are a bunch of German photos, and a bunch of reports of German infantrymen from meetings.


                  Although I’m lying ... one 2 TD of the Red Army knowingly drove 6 TD of the Wehrmacht ... while there were shells and fuel ...

                  Nobody "drove" anyone. Well, there were episodes near Raseinayai, where one KV tank regiment of the 6th TD held in place for two days.
                  1. Stas57
                    Stas57 3 July 2016 22: 30
                    +1
                    Quote: AK64
                    Nobody "drove" anyone. Well, there were episodes near Raseinayai, where one KV tank regiment of the 6th TD held in place for two days.

                    cut sturgeon, about a tank regiment.
                    supply column
          2. booki
            booki 3 July 2016 19: 59
            -6
            Quote: Mavrikiy
            New in relation to what? By 1913?

            Very correctly raised question.
            Quote: Mavrikiy
            We were ahead of the rest! Both in quality and quantity. If you put our BTs against their "Invincible Armada" and give half an hour, no more, the fluff will end up flying out of the armada, and you ... it's a shame to listen.

            Fantasy is easy. But life showed something else. Pooh flew mainly from the side.
            As for "we were ahead of the whole planet." In terms of quantity, I do not argue, the USSR managed to build a lot of iron boxes.
            But the quality. Where did quality come from in the USSR? It was a backward, half-starved country, which with difficulty mastered the products of a more or less simple redistribution. Look at the weapons of the Second World War, it's impossible to look at these "legendary samples" without tears. For all these three-line, PPSh, forty-five, three-inch, T-34 and other IL-2. What part of the planet was the USSR ahead of? And in what?
            And also I propose to think about what the USSR lagged behind with millions of victims. After all, they took not just like that, not from scratch.
            1. Alf
              Alf 3 July 2016 23: 17
              +8
              Quote: booki
              To all these three-rulers,

              The main weapon of the Wehrmacht infantry was the Mauser-96K carbine, an analogue of the mosquito.
              Quote: booki
              forty

              The basis of the PTO of the Wehrmacht's infantry division of 1941 is PAK-36, a 37-mm gun.
              Quote: booki
              T-34

              Guderian in the 41st, having familiarized himself with the captured T-34s, demanded to copy them or make copies of their most successful nodes.
              1. booki
                booki 3 July 2016 23: 35
                -9
                Quote: Alf
                The main weapon of the Wehrmacht infantry was the Mauser-96K carbine, an analogue of the mosquito.

                Calling Mauser an analogue of the Nagant rifle, converted by Mosin to a wound cartridge (Nagan-Mosin rifle) is not even somehow funny. Besides the fact that both of these rifles are magazines, they no longer have anything in common. This is how to compare Mercedes with Lada.
                Worse than the Nagan-Mosin rifle were only the Japanese Arisaka and Italian Carcano in the caliber of 6,5 mm. But only because of the poorly selected caliber. And if we consider only the design, then there was no worse Nagan-Mosin rifle. One shutter, like the Lebel shutter, was worth. And after all, the beautiful shutter under the wound cartridge, Lee shutter, was already widely known. But no, good things were not needed, they took worse.
                Quote: Alf
                The basis of the PTO of the Wehrmacht's infantry division of 1941 is PAK-36, a 37-mm gun.

                Do you demonstrate erudition? When was the German Wehrmacht infantry division a part of the Red Army?
                Quote: Alf
                Guderian in the 41st, having familiarized himself with the captured T-34s, demanded to copy them or make copies of their most successful nodes.

                And I have heard this story many times too. From such "specialists" as you. They also invented it. Their "level".
                1. Stas57
                  Stas57 3 July 2016 23: 48
                  +3
                  Calling Mauser an analogue of the Nagant rifle, converted by Mosin to a wound cartridge (Nagan-Mosin rifle) is not even somehow funny. Besides the fact that both of these rifles are magazines, they no longer have anything in common. This is how to compare Mercedes with Lada.

                  have both
                  fundamentally no difference, the only difference is that I like it more, by the arm, etc.
                  1. booki
                    booki 4 July 2016 00: 04
                    -7
                    Quote: Stas57
                    both
                    fundamentally no difference, the only difference is that I like it more, by the arm, etc.

                    No one says that Mauser was the height of perfection. He was far from the Lee-Anfield rifle. But the Nagan-Mosin rifle was not close to Mauser either. It is enough to compare the performance characteristics of these rifles.
                    1. Svidetel 45
                      Svidetel 45 4 July 2016 00: 59
                      +8
                      That's it, compare, and it turns out. that Mosin (and it’s not necessary to mold Nagana so diligently for her, Mauser also created his product from scratch) the rifle is not inferior to Mauser, it’s another matter that the workmanship is not the same, it’s understandable, weapons for the Wehrmacht were riveted at first-class factories in Czechoslovakia , France, Belgium and other countries, and during the war we had 14-15 year old boys behind the machines and workbenches, look at the photos of the war years.
                      1. booki
                        booki 4 July 2016 01: 13
                        -7
                        Quote: Svidetel 45
                        that Mosin (and don’t do not have to so diligently sculpt Nagan to her

                        How is it not necessary? The Nagant rifle was redesigned for a flange cartridge, so there is nothing to do with Nagant here? Do you even want to remind you what money Nagant received for the "Mosin rifle"? Do you think they just wasted money?
                        Quote: Svidetel 45
                        the rifle is not inferior to Mauser

                        In what? In stock color? After all, the Nagan rifle during the alteration under the wound cartridge was spoiled quite strongly. One shutter of the type of Lebel shutter is worth. And the increased gaps?
                        No, there wasn’t anything better than the Mauser rifle in the three-ruler.
                        Quote: Svidetel 45
                        and during the war we had 14-15 year old boys behind the machines and workbenches, look at the photos of the war years.

                        So you think about where and why the skilled workers have gone.
                        In addition, they have always been such a three-line. 14-15 year old boys did not drive a gag, all according to the drawings.
                      2. Svidetel 45
                        Svidetel 45 4 July 2016 14: 06
                        +7
                        It’s clear where the skilled workers went, because the USSR with a population of less than 200 million people, and in fact with a population of 150 million, including the population of Central Asia and the Caucasus, as a result of failures in the first weeks and months of the war, lost territory with a population of 40- 45 million, while the population of Germany and its satellites and occupied countries amounted to more than 300 million. Just don’t need to remember the Anglo-Saxons, until the age of 44, the Americans were fighting in the Pacific with the Japanese, and the British were on their island, where Hitler drove them to 40, and especially did not protrude, except for air raids.
                        And as for your statement "everything is according to the drawings", it is immediately clear that you have never even held a file in your hands, and not that you stood at the machine, because according to the same drawings the master and the student will make completely different quality things.
                        Yes, the design of the Nagan rifle was initially considered, however, it had a number of drawbacks, Mosin introduced fundamental changes and little remained of the Nagant rifle. And that Mauser immediately created his rifle immediately from a flintlock gun? Since the mid-19th century, a huge variety of all kinds of designs have appeared, just choose and refine using the new capabilities of technology. The development of design thought follows the path of interaction and exchange of previous developments, and no one creates anything from scratch, all revolutionary discoveries are preceded by previous experience, miracles do not happen. An example of this is the famous Parabellum pistol, or the appearance of an all-metal sleeve preceded by the practice of using cartridges in a paper shell. The thing is that Russophobes always try to immediately discover the discoveries and inventions of Russians with the previous achievements of other inventors, especially if these inventors are foreigners, but the achievements of foreigners never with the works of Russian scientists or inventors. For example, the periodic table of Mendeleev’s elements in the West is simply a periodic table
                      3. oking
                        oking 4 July 2016 15: 53
                        -5
                        Quote: Svidetel 45
                        Just do not remember the Anglo-Saxons

                        How is it not necessary? And then whom to remember?
                        Quote: Svidetel 45
                        Just do not remember the Anglo-Saxons, until the age of 44, the Americans were engaged in a showdown in the Pacific Ocean with the Japanese, and the British were sitting on their island, where Hitler drove them in 40, and did not particularly protrude, except for air raids.

                        Just in case, I want to inform you that in 1941. the British fought in North Africa. And in 1942. they were joined by the Americans.
                        I also want to surprise you, the second front in Europe was opened in the summer of 1943. First in Sicily, and then in Italy. As a result, already in the fall of 1943. Italy capitulated.
                        These are basic things to know.
                        Quote: Svidetel 45
                        because according to the same drawings the master and the student will do things completely different in quality.

                        possibly different in quality. But identical in purpose. If only one of them is not a marriage.
                        Quote: Svidetel 45
                        Mosin made fundamental changes and little remains of the Nagant rifle.

                        Mosin, this is an errand boy. What members of the commission told him, he contributed.
                        And everything remained of the Nagan rifle, except for what was connected with the welcoming cartridge. First of all, Nagan’s rifle left the barrel and its production technology. For this, he received his prize.
                        Quote: Svidetel 45
                        And that Mauser immediately created his rifle immediately from a flintlock gun?

                        What does Mauser have to do with it?
              2. AUL
                AUL 4 July 2016 09: 08
                -3
                have both
                fundamentally no difference, the only difference is that I like it more, by the arm, etc.

                And you fought with both?
                1. Stas57
                  Stas57 4 July 2016 11: 06
                  +2
                  Quote: AUL
                  And you fought with both?

                  hunted, I can no longer express my opinion about weapons?
            2. Svidetel 45
              Svidetel 45 4 July 2016 01: 09
              +4
              These are not "bikes", there is numerous evidence that the T-34 was a very unpleasant surprise for the Wehrmacht, including such evidence in the memoirs of Hitler's warriors, but for some reason you did not know this, probably because you did not want to to know, apparently, the thought of the wretchedness of everything Russian gives you great pleasure.
              1. booki
                booki 4 July 2016 01: 19
                -5
                Quote: Svidetel 45
                These are not "bikes", there is ample evidence that the T-34 was a very unpleasant surprise for the Wehrmacht

                Well, bring at least one. Until the second half of the fall of 1941. Later they showered like peas from a bag. When it became clear that the company was 1941. the capture of Moscow will not end, and the Germans urgently needed an excuse.
                Quote: Svidetel 45
                including such evidence and in the memoirs of Hitler’s warriors can be found

                Oh, there you can find everything. For every taste and color.
                Quote: Svidetel 45
                the thought of the wretchedness of all Russian gives you great pleasure.

                Just in case, I want to inform you that nothing Russian was at war with the Germans in the Second World War. The Soviet fought. I'm sorry you didn't even know that. Now I hope you will know.
                1. Operator
                  Operator 4 July 2016 02: 17
                  +4
                  Rogulya booki: you understand tanks like your farm pig in oranges - T-34 / 57 of the 1941 model of the year (below) and VK 3002 / DB of the 1942 model of the year (above)

                  https://topwar.ru/97233-proekt-srednego-tanka-vk-3002db-germaniya.html
                  1. booki
                    booki 4 July 2016 02: 28
                    -4
                    Quote: Operator
                    Rogulya booki: you understand tanks like your farm pig in oranges

                    Milay, how are you feeling? Have you already decided to post children's pictures as "iron proofs"? What do you find in common between the models of weapons you indicated, apart from some small external similarities? After all, apart from this, there is nothing in common there at all. In SMS, absolutely.
                    By the way, I want to remind you that another tank was adopted by the Germans. Outwardly, the T-34 is not at all similar.
                    So, here, too, "I played and played, I didn't guess right". Scroll further.
                  2. The comment was deleted.
                  3. Operator
                    Operator 4 July 2016 02: 44
                    +6
                    In order to slide down to copying the enemy's tank in wartime (according to the technical specification approved at the highest damage level), you must first get awfully sick of this tank - and you are all about your own, about Roguev - "tales".

                    The words "layout" and "tank weight" are, of course, an empty phrase for you - after all, photographs and performance characteristics of tanks are just pictures and Chinese letters for you.
                  4. booki
                    booki 4 July 2016 02: 54
                    -5
                    Quote: Operator
                    In order to slide down to copying the enemy's tank in wartime (according to the technical specification approved at the highest damage level), you must first get awfully sick of this tank - and you are all about your own, about Roguev - "tales".

                    I ask once again especially dull, what is common between these two tanks, except for some external similarities? Wishlist Operator? So this is not an argument. Post pictures to schoolchildren. They are usually not up to date on this topic, so they are likely to believe you.
                    Quote: Operator
                    The words "layout" and "tank weight" are, of course, an empty phrase for you - after all, photographs and performance characteristics of tanks are just pictures and Chinese letters for you.

                    Those. you can’t confirm your figures with numbers. You really want to. Therefore, idle talk with a smart look.
                    Funny.
                    Even in the pictures it is clearly visible to those who understand that the tanks are not different, but completely different. Just slightly alike.
            3. Alf
              Alf 4 July 2016 16: 40
              +3
              Quote: booki
              Just in case, I want to inform you that nothing Russian was at war with the Germans in the Second World War. The Soviet fought. I'm sorry you didn't even know that. Now I hope you will know.

              And the mosquito so dear to you under what power was created? A revolver revolver?
              And the battleship Paris Commune, destroyers like Novik? A 122 mm howitzer arr. 1910?
              1. oking
                oking 4 July 2016 16: 54
                -2
                Do you like talking to the TV? Oh well.
                Quote: Alf
                And the mosquito so dear to you under what power was created?

                When the French Republican. And redone during the imperial.
                Quote: Alf
                A revolver revolver?

                When the French Republican.
                Quote: Alf
                And the battleship Paris Commune, destroyers like Novik? A 122 mm howitzer arr. 1910?

                Not the Paris Commune, but Sevastopol. At the imperial.
                You do not confuse different stages in the history of Russia and the USSR. USSR, this is not the Russian Empire. And the Russian Federation, this is not the USSR.
              2. Alf
                Alf 4 July 2016 17: 33
                +1
                Quote: oking
                When the French Republican.

                ? -? -?
                Quote: oking
                A revolver revolver?
                When the French Republican.

                In which France was it created?
                When you speak, one gets the impression that you are delusional. ("Ivan Vasilyevich is changing his profession")
                Carbine Zeus and others! Have you decided to play it safe with new nicknames, sensing an imminent departure?
              3. oking
                oking 4 July 2016 17: 44
                0
                Quote: Alf
                In which France was it created?

                I’m going to surprise you very much, but Nagan, this is the last name. French And the Nagant rifle with the Nagan revolver was created by the Nagans. The French are like that. In France. And only then their designs were bought by Russia. Still the imperial one.
              4. AK64
                AK64 4 July 2016 18: 17
                0
                I promised myself not to react to ... this, I gave.

                Belgians they are, Belgians

                Hurry it once again in the ban.
              5. oking
                oking 4 July 2016 18: 58
                -3
                Quote: AK64
                Belgians they are Belgians

                It does not matter. Belgians, these are the same French.
                Quote: AK64
                Faster it would once again in the ban

                Do not worry. We will organize for you personally.
    2. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 5 July 2016 06: 01
      +1
      Answer for booki GB
      When it became clear that the company was 1941. the capture of Moscow will not end, and the Germans urgently needed an excuse.
      More in detail because of what the Germans screwed up so what happened? Not our tanks and planes failed them, not their tanks and planes failed them, well, well, give birth ...
      1. oking
        oking 5 July 2016 08: 59
        -3
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        Not our tanks and planes let them down

        No.
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        not their tanks and planes let them down

        Also no. Their "generals" let them down. All kinds of Guderians and others.
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        well, well, give birth ..

        Can you give birth? Then why Mauritius? A lot of male hormones?
  • Cat
    Cat 4 July 2016 20: 32
    +1
    The dreamer is Guderian himself. Read his memoirs.
    1. oking
      oking 4 July 2016 21: 27
      -2
      Quote: Kotischa
      The dreamer is Guderian himself. Read his memoirs.

      Read. Only in vain did he spoil his eyes. It would be better if I read flyers on poles. There, at least it would not have been written how the genius Guderian almost brilliantly defeated everyone, but Hitler took the victory from him.
  • Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 5 July 2016 05: 53
    +1
    Quote: booki
    But no, good things were not needed, they took worse.
    And I have heard this story many times too. From such "specialists" as you. They also invented it. Their "level".

    Dear Liberast, when will we stop sizzling and shed tears of the crocodile?
  • Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 5 July 2016 05: 48
    +2
    [quote = Mavrikiy] We were ahead of the rest! Both in quality and quantity. If you put our BTs against their "Invincible Armada" and give half an hour, you no longer need to, the fluff will end up flying out of the armada, and you ... it's a shame to listen. [/ Quote]
    As for "we were ahead of the whole planet." In terms of quantity, I do not argue, the USSR managed to build a lot of iron boxes.
    But the quality. Where did quality come from in the USSR? It was a backward, half-starved country, which with difficulty mastered the products of a more or less simple redistribution. Look at the weapons of the Second World War, it's impossible to look at these "legendary samples" without tears. For all these three-line, PPSh, forty-five, three-inch, T-34 and other IL-2. What part of the planet was the USSR ahead of? And in what?
    And also I propose to think about what the USSR lagged behind with millions of victims. After all, they took not just like that, not from scratch. [/ Quote]
    1. "Having hardly mastered the products of more or less simple redistribution", are you friends with the head? Tanks, planes - a simple redistribution? Moreover, such as high-altitude long-range bombers, which really have no analogues in the world, what can we say about the T34 and KV1.
    All the generals of the Wehrmacht were on their knees in front of the military-industrial complex - give us a Deutsche T34 and we got NINE. Diesel! German, as they say, is an invention, but we made the Germans in their field. "Semi-starved, having hardly mastered 2x2? It turns out not a link, or rather bullshit, your nonsense.
    2. In quantity, I do not argue, configure iron boxes
    Hitler would gladly have built more iron boxes than he had, but it turned out that the whole of Europe, wide-spreading legs, turned out to be thin. The Germans burst into us in exactly the same "boxes", but .... unlike them, we had a qualitative leap in armament. "PPSh, forty-five, three-inch, T-34 and other IL-2." PPSh against Schmeisser is king. Trilinear and Mauser - why are we grieving? The magpie is a cool gun. Disadvantages? Those who did not have them, everything was improved during the war.
    The advanced Germans came close to us with a 37mm anti-tank gun, they are Papuans. And we have 45mm. "According to the memoirs of a number of prominent German military leaders, for example, von Mellenthin and Middeldorf, the Pak 35/36's inability to fight the T-34 was" a dramatic chapter in the history of the German infantry. " These are very reserved German bosses. And so in everything.
    3. It is boring to list all your nonsense. Snot and tears of liberals-I do not believe. On your part, this is not a conversation, but anger and mockery.
    1. oking
      oking 5 July 2016 09: 52
      -4
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      Tanks, planes - a simple redistribution?

      It depends on which tanks and planes.
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      Moreover, such as high-altitude long-range bombers that really have no analogues in the world

      What nonsense. The USSR could not make a normal fighter. And the bomber ...
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      what to say about T34 and KB1.

      Indeed, what to say about them? The first was converted from an "operational tank", so it was blind as a mole. In addition, due to an unsuccessful design, they exploded and burned like matches. The Germans stuffed them a little less than they produced in the USSR.
      The second did not travel long and fast. Often I didn’t go at all, because They took it without testing, by pulling. By the summer of 1942 They taught him to ride (made a new checkpoint, which they should have done back in 1940), but by the end of the year he was completely out of date. Although at that moment it was the coolest thing that could be done in the USSR.
      Such was the "advanced tank technology" in the USSR.
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      All the generals of the Wehrmacht were on their knees in front of the military-industrial complex - give us a Deutsche T34 and got "NINE"

      Enchanting nonsense. Have you ever heard that the owners of Mercedes asked themselves a Lada? No? Why do you believe in these stories? Already T-4 arr. spring 1942 was noticeably stronger than the T-34/76. In everything.
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      Diesel! German, as the invention says, but we made the Germans in their field.

      Generally, in terms of the aggregate characteristics, the advantages of a diesel engine over "gasoline" are very doubtful. In addition, diesel fuel burns better (gasoline does not burn at all, its vapors burn), and with more serious consequences for the crew. The Americans kept gasoline tanks for themselves, and diesel tanks were sent to the USSR. It says a lot.
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      "Half-starved, having hardly mastered 2x2?

      Exactly. Compare the lorry and the ZIS-5 with Studebaker. Even the production of all-wheel drive heavy BA could not be mastered, because could not master the 6x6 scheme. Only 6x4 or 4x4.
      So no need to talk about the "rich, prosperous, happy and technically advanced Stalinist USSR", the favorite tale of the mustachioed Joe fans.
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      but .... unlike them, we had a qualitative leap in armament

      Oh, this is a deep thought. I would like to clarify what he, this leap, consisted of. And whether it was a sideways leap.
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      PPSh against Schmeiser - the king.

      The bullshit delirium. The Para cartridge and the weapon on it are still in service. Incl. and in the Russian army. And the TT cartridge and the weapon on it, where is it? Yes, exactly where under the "happy and rich USSR" you used to poke a crumpled newspaper with the faces of leaders. There was no special paper, there was a shortage.
      1. oking
        oking 5 July 2016 09: 53
        -3
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        A three-ruler and a Mauser - why mourn?

        You can’t list a lot of things. For example, we grieve about the density of fire. And we grieve about the density of aimed fire in a square.
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        Forty is a cool gun. Disadvantages? Those who did not have them all improved the systems during the war.

        It was a beautiful cannon. In 1884, at the time of its creation. In 1930. the Germans, by order of the USSR, put it on a field carriage and slightly altered the ballistics. In this form, she was interesting until the end of the 30s. But it was released until the end of the Second World War. Do you know why the gunners called her "Goodbye, Motherland"?
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        everyone in the war improved the system.

        No. Outside the USSR, unusable systems were removed from production. Examples are Pak 35/36 and Pak 38. Moreover, Pak 38 was much stronger than forty-five. And the German tanks of the second half of the Second World War were much stronger than the Soviet ones. However, Pak 38 was replaced by Pak 40 by the Germans. And the forty-five was "strengthened" by the threat of reprisals for the retreat.
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        pushed to us with a 37mm anti-tank, the Papuans are the Papuans.

        Pak 35/36 has already been discontinued. But there were enough of them for numerous herds of BT and T-26. Like the T-34. The problems were only with HF.
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        And we have 45mm.

        And they have Pak 38. Do you want to compare them?
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        for example, von Mellenthin and Middeldorf, the Pak 35/36's inability to fight the T-34 was "a dramatic chapter in the history of the German infantry."

        Do not fantasize. Pak 35/36 did not take the T-34 in the forehead. But perfectly took them on board. Exactly the same situation in 1941. was with new German tanks and forty-five. But for some reason you praise her, moreover, she was graduated throughout the war. And Pak 35/36 was replaced by Pak 38 before WWII. But the Germans did not have long in the troops at the very beginning. And there was no tragedy in this, the Germans had other means of vocational training. This is clearly seen in the number of losses of Soviet tanks.
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        On your part, this is not a conversation, but anger and mockery.

        Not at all. A stingy and bitter statement of fact. Half and half with dry analysis. So that the second time the people on the bike of pro-Bolshevik agitators did not fall for it, and did not step on the mop. And if he did, he would have known in advance what "bright future" awaits him.
        This is silly bravado and bravado on your part. Like, "Soviet, this is the best." No, it was a poor and technically poorly developed country. This is under "developed socialism". And under Stalin's "socialism" it was an eternally half-starved and technically backward country. It could not be otherwise, because Stalin's "socialism", it was a kind of slave-owning OEF. And slavery in our time cannot be effective, it will surely lose to neighbors in the competitive struggle. And the feudalism of "developed socialism" also flew by for a reason. Keep this in mind.
  • AK64
    AK64 3 July 2016 21: 07
    -2
    Honestly, they had some fun. We were ahead of the rest! Both in quality and quantity. If you put our BTs against their "Invincible Armada" and give half an hour, no more, the fluff will end up flying out of the armada, and you ... it's a shame to listen.


    N-yes ... The work of the Rezon-Solonin lives and triumphs ...

    / and shook his head /

    It’s interesting how many times it’s necessary to say that German standard small arms completely pierced the armor BT / T-26 / floatsso they hear? They did not believe, but at least heard?
  • Cat
    Cat 4 July 2016 20: 27
    +2
    Our grandfathers were faced with a fighting army mobilized for two years, which did not know defeat! Poland fell in three weeks, Norway in two, France held on for about a month, Denmark one day. We fought for four years and we won. This is the most important thing, and not the ratio of the number of PCA and mp38!
    1. oking
      oking 4 July 2016 21: 30
      -2
      Quote: Kotischa
      Our grandfathers were faced with a fighting army mobilized for two years, which did not know defeat!

      And the Red Army was also well mobilized. And fought more than 2 years. And also did not know defeats.
      Quote: Kotischa
      We fought for four years and we won. It is most important

      Who are we"? In addition, I recommend paying attention to the level of losses. It is most important.
  • booki
    booki 3 July 2016 19: 38
    -4
    Quote: moskowit
    The myth of the Wehrmacht's full motorization is firmly rooted in consciousness.

    The Germans until 1941 produced only 7989 BTT units. This is all, including funny reconnaissance cars and training wedges. Even in the invasion army, they used a small amount of captured equipment, Czech (780 pcs), French (74 pcs) and even British (9 pcs). In total, even 9 thousand do not run.
    In the Red Army on 01.06.41/31192/XNUMX there were XNUMX units. tracked and wheeled BTT. The overwhelming advantage in quantity is obvious.
    In addition, by them in 1941. 5870 units were produced. BTT of all kinds, from tanks to reconnaissance vehicles. And this is taking into account the already begun war.
    At that time, according to peacetime plans, the production of only the KV-1, KV-2 and T-34 tanks for 1941. in the USSR it was planned in the amount of approximately 250 cars per month. And with the launch of the ChTZ plant at full capacity, this figure should have been increased by about a third. 4 thousand a year in peacetime production mode only of KV and T-34 tanks, this is too much for a peaceful country. Simply physically, such a breakthrough of tanks would not have been possible to contain. And such an army, because each tank relies on a crew and so on. And they all want to eat, although they do not sow and do not plow.
    Quote: moskowit
    Also about the general armament of the Wehrmacht soldiers with submachine guns ...

    The Germans were not without exception armed with this ersatz weapon. Only those who were entitled to it according to the state. Of course, they did not have any "submachine gunners" either. The submachine gun companies are not a reason for pride, they are a sign of trouble. There shouldn't have been any in the infantry. This is one of the million Soviet myths that it is good. Specialized tank paratroopers could be armed with such weapons, but no more.
    Quote: moskowit
    According to the state, 04/400 of April 5, 1941, the Red Army division was armed with 1204 submachine guns versus 486 in the German infantry division.

    This is bad.
    Quote: moskowit
    True, the enemy had 40 light machine guns more.

    Do not exaggerate. Light machine guns were not in service with either side of the Second World War, both the Wehrmacht and the Red Army. Those. at all. In the Wehrmacht, this role was played by shortened machine guns on the bipod. In the Red Army in this role were heavy automatic rifles on the bipod.
    Only the British Army had light machine guns during WW2. The Americans used the Soviet pre-war scheme, a heavy automatic rifle + self-loading. Only their self-loading Garanda worked, and the Soviet one did not.
    1. Alf
      Alf 3 July 2016 23: 21
      +4
      Quote: booki
      Light machine guns were not in service with either side of the Second World War

      And what is DP-27?
      Quote: booki
      In the Wehrmacht, this role was played by shortened machine guns on the bipod.

      I haven’t laughed like that for a long time.
      Quote: booki
      In the Red Army in this role were heavy automatic rifles on the bipod.

      Name at least one.
      1. booki
        booki 3 July 2016 23: 42
        .
        Quote: Alf
        And what is DP-27?

        Read on this thread. I won’t write 10 times.
        Quote: Alf
        I haven’t laughed like that for a long time.

        You do not have to laugh, but cry. Write in the subject of small arms, being completely unaware of the basics of this matter.
        Quote: Alf
        Name at least one.

        Read on this thread. I won’t write 10 times.
        Quote: Kotyara Bold
        DP-27? Or who is he? Again with your charter in a foreign monastery you climb?

        A little higher, I already wrote that there are a lot of people who write about small arms, being completely unaware of the basics. You, Fatty, it concerns first of all. Learn, for starters, how an automatic rifle differs from a machine gun. Hint to you, the capacity of the store does not play any role here.
    2. Kotyara Fat
      Kotyara Fat 3 July 2016 23: 22
      +3
      DP-27? Or who is he? Again with your charter in a foreign monastery you climb?
    3. Stas57
      Stas57 3 July 2016 23: 52
      +6
      Quote: booki

      Do not exaggerate. Light machine guns were not in service with either side of the Second World War, like the Wehrmacht,

      indulge in mushrooms?
      and in the photo?
      Breda M1930 is it probably foot?
      or Hotchkiss .....
      Yes, by the way, what kind of crap shortened MG in the form of a handbrake?
      Wehrmacht in this role were shortened machine guns on the bipod.
      1. booki
        booki 3 July 2016 23: 59
        -8
        Quote: Stas57
        indulge in mushrooms

        Who you are? What for?
        Quote: Stas57
        and in the photo?
        Breda M1930 is it probably foot?
        or Hotchkiss ....

        Well, tell us, my dear, where in Germany the Breda M1930 machine gun was produced.
        or Hotchkiss ....
        Quote: Stas57
        Yes, by the way, what kind of crap shortened MG in the form of a handbrake?

        So think about it.
        Under the mushrooms ...
        1. Stas57
          Stas57 4 July 2016 00: 18
          +5
          Quote: booki
          So think about it.

          that is, he invented it?
          Quote: booki
          Well, tell us, my dear, where in Germany the Breda M1930 machine gun was produced.
          or Hotchkiss ....

          oh, and we only Germany opposed the USSR, yes, and MG 099 (i) is it a phantom? and France is a free country, but what about the photo that has quieted down?
          1. booki
            booki 4 July 2016 00: 35
            -7
            Quote: Stas57
            that is, he invented it?

            What did you come up with? What hand-guns shoot rifle, not machine-gun cartridges? So this is a question of basic literacy. How to write letters to be able to.
            Quote: Stas57
            and in our country only Germany opposed the USSR

            Who else? France? You didn’t mix anything up? Or do you like mushrooms?
            Quote: Stas57
            is MG 099 (i) a phantom?

            This is a terrible weapon that made a radical change during the war. Especially when you consider the completely idiotic cartridge 6,5 × 52 mm Manlicher-Carcano.
            This "weapon" is not even worth mentioning.
            Quote: Stas57
            but what about the photo that has quieted down?

            An illiterate opponent is always easy to identify by rudeness. When there is no knowledge and arguments, he always slides to him.
          2. Stas57
            Stas57 4 July 2016 00: 54
            +6

            booki What did you come up with? What hand-guns shoot rifle, not machine-gun cartridges? So this is a question of basic literacy. How to write letters to be able to.

            oh, pussycat was offended and added me to the emergency, as if it would save you from the minuses

            and shopping mall, self-invented classification about cartridges.
            Who else? France? You didn’t mix anything up? Or do you like mushrooms?
            I guessed with mushrooms, so what about trophy machine guns? Doesn’t it already count for the Wehrmacht?
            Shosh MG-156 for you, I’ll notice the 7,65 × 53 mm Mauser rifle.
            ni-


            booki
            a terrible weapon that made a radical change during the war. Especially when you consider the completely idiotic cartridge 6,5 × 52 mm Manlicher Carcano.
            This "weapon" is not even worth mentioning.
            oh, yes, it doesn’t fit the concept of a handbrake in the Wehrmacht, what a tough little fufu, oh oh.
            But the fact that he was armed with the Wehrmacht? so kitty in a puddle with a loud statement that
            Do not exaggerate. Light machine guns were not in service with either side of the Second World War, like the Wehrmacht,

            although, despite the invented rules, the Wehrmacht still had the MG 099 (i) handbrake under ... pubs ... a rifle cartridge.
            booki An illiterate opponent is always easy to identify by rudeness. When there is no knowledge and arguments, he always slides to him.

            so what do we have in the photo?
            how is it with MG.26 (t) and MG.30 (t) under the pubs .. rifle cartridge? was not in the Wehrmacht, right?
            In short, everything with you is ignoramus clear, and the minuses you and without me poke a full panama, do not be sad.
  • booki
    booki 3 July 2016 19: 02
    -7
    Quote: Alf
    But it was sharply superior in self-loading rifles, which the Wehrmacht did not have at all.

    The Germans did not have a rifle cartridge. Just absent as a class. And they did not consider it right to do machine guns.
    In 1941 still tried to do. But 7,5% of the delays (G41 (M)) seemed to them an excessive indicator. Therefore, this idea was abandoned.
    For comparison, SVT-40 gave 9,75% of the delays.
    For reference, you can cite the percentage of delays of the Garand rifle - 1,75%.
    Quote: Alf
    This is on June 1, on June 22 in the Red Army, there were 2040 T-34 and KV.

    On June 1, 1941 the troops had 1396 tanks KV-1, KV-2 and T-34. The monthly production plan for these tanks (STZ, KhPZ and LKZ) in 1941 (without ChTZ, the launch of which was planned for the end of the year) totaled approximately 250 tanks. Therefore, on 22.06.41/1570/XNUMX. in the troops there could be approximately XNUMX tanks of the above brands. Plus / minus, of course, but we can only talk about a couple of dozen.
    1. Stas57
      Stas57 3 July 2016 19: 39
      +5
      Quote: booki
      The Germans did not have a rifle cartridge.

      ?!

      7,92 × 57 mm what is it?
      1. booki
        booki 3 July 2016 20: 02
        -8
        Quote: Stas57
        7,92 × 57 mm what is it?

        The German 7,92 × 57 mm cartridge was not a rifle cartridge. It was a "machine gun" modification of a rifle cartridge. Or, in short, "machine gun cartridge". Such a cartridge is used in heavy machine guns. And in light machine guns, a regular rifle cartridge is used.
        1. Stas57
          Stas57 3 July 2016 20: 49
          +4
          Quote: booki
          The German 7,92 × 57 mm cartridge was not a rifle cartridge. It was a "machine gun" modification of a rifle cartridge. Or, in short, "machine gun cartridge". Such a cartridge is used in heavy machine guns. And in light machine guns, a regular rifle cartridge is used.

          raising an eyebrow
          Gewehrpatrone 7,92 × 57 Mauser coming from the rifle cartridge 8x57, equipped with Gew. Bl. P machine gun?
          well let it be so ....
    2. not main
      not main 3 July 2016 20: 30
      +4
      Quote: booki
      The Germans did not have a rifle cartridge. Just absent as a class.

      And what did they shoot from the M98? and they fired a cartridge 7,92 * 57! And given that Mauser was the main infantry unit (in 1941) ... what did they shoot with? Is it really 9 * 19?
      1. booki
        booki 3 July 2016 21: 03
        .
        Quote: non-primary
        And what did they shoot from the M98? and they fired a cartridge 7,92 * 57!

        Cartridge 7,92 * 57 mm with sS bullet (12,83 g).
        It was also allowed to shoot a cartridge with a "lightweight" bullet SmE (11,53 g), although the first cartridge was the main one. But, in any case, both of these cartridges, by world standards, are "machine-gun" modifications of rifle cartridges. Or, in short, "machine gun cartridges".
        At the same time, light machine guns use conventional rifle cartridges for firing.
        The Germans had a strange concept of small arms. She died in 1945. and had no continuation (except for "assault rifles", which died later, in the USSR in 1974). There are statements that the post-war MG1 and 3 are the same MG42, but under the patronage of NATO. This is an illiterate statement. If only because it uses a rifle, not a machine gun cartridge.
        There was a rifle cartridge in the USSR. It was a cartridge with a bullet "L" (9,6 g). There was also a rifle cartridge in a machine-gun modification (machine-gun cartridge) with a bullet "D" (11,8 g). The British had different cartridges. And the Germans only have a machine-gun cartridge, that's all. Although, there was also a training one (with a very light bullet). But it was not a live round.
        1. Kotyara Fat
          Kotyara Fat 3 July 2016 23: 26
          +3
          And again, forehead against the wall! Are you shaw, sorry, peas? Why the heck do you invent your classes if they were invented before you? Which machine gun? He is a SCREW!
          1. booki
            booki 3 July 2016 23: 48
            -6
            Quote: Kotyara Bold
            Which machine gun? He is a SCREW!

            Fat, how many times do you need to write something in Russian so that you understand something?
            In strengthening your understanding of the language, I can not help you. Read written many times. Maybe then understanding will come.
            Quote: Kotyara Bold
            Are you shaw, sorry, peas?

            Certainly not a brake.
        2. Operator
          Operator 4 July 2016 01: 29
          +5
          "Uncle Petya, are you a fool?" (FROM)

          Cartridges are classified by their size, and not by bullets in their composition. Therefore, in nature there is one single rifle cartridge 7,92x57 mm, equipped with various bullets.

          As well as 7,62x54, 7,62x51, 7,62x39, 5,56x45, 5,45x39, etc. etc.
          1. booki
            booki 4 July 2016 01: 42
            -5
            Quote: Operator
            Uncle Petya, are you a fool? "(C)

            And what, Uncle Petya, do you often get this kind of questioning?
            Quote: Operator
            Cartridges are classified by size

            Wah. This is a new word in ballistics. The next move you will probably surprise us with the fact that the cartridges are classified by the color of the varnish.
            Quote: Operator
            Therefore, in nature there is one single rifle cartridge 7,92x57 mm, equipped with various bullets.

            "A conversation with a clever janitor, poorly versed in the class structure of society (patrons), did not give Ostap any pleasure" (Ilf and Petrov).
            Quote: Operator
            As well as 7,62x54,

            But what about cartridges with bullets "L" and "D"? Why is it prescribed to fire cartridges with "L" bullets from PK and SVD (before that DP, VM, SVT, RP), and cartridges with "D" bullets, from SGM (before that Maksimka and SG)?
            Whims in the Ministry of Defense are sitting? Or, traditionally, pests? Not consulted on time with you?
            1. Operator
              Operator 4 July 2016 01: 56
              +3
              You in your dill reality look like a clown on the Russian portal - continue to rest assured that replacing the light bullet L with the heavy bullet D in the same cartridge 7,62x54 clones it in double size (classified as 7,62x54Л and 7,62х54Д laughing ), replacement for the LPS bullet - in the triple, replacement for the T-46 bullet in the fourth, etc.
              1. booki
                booki 4 July 2016 02: 09
                -3
                Quote: Operator
                You in your dill reality

                Ukropskaya? And why is it Ukrop, and, for example, not Paraguayan? Sounds WORSE? And, I'm embarrassed to ask, besides the "ukrop shadow", will there be any other arguments on the topic? No? Clear.
                Quote: Operator
                like a clown - continue to rest assured

                Well what are you. Where am I to you, a great professional in the difficult clown craft. And so I am, a school amateur.
                Quote: Operator
                that replacing a light bullet L with a heavy bullet D in the same cartridge 7,62x54 clones it in double size

                Cloning does not clone. And divides into 2 different subcategories.
                It would be nice for you to practice understanding the texts written in Russian. And then you are all somehow bad.
                Here's another topic for reflection for a couple of days - intermediate cartridges come in 2 main subcategories. Which, do not tell by chance? Only you all the last HOPE.
                Quote: Operator
                classified as 7,62x54L and 7,62x54D laughing), replacement for an LPS bullet in a triple, replacement for a T-46 bullet in a quarter, etc.

                Well, why do we need all these confirmations? I already agreed that you, as a clown, are beyond competition.
                1. Operator
                  Operator 4 July 2016 02: 35
                  +3
                  Categories and subcategories of cartridges are absent from the word at all.

                  Each cartridge according to the international classification has its own unique designation, consisting of digital designations of the caliber of the bullet and the length of the cartridge case, separated by the arithmetic symbol of multiplication.

                  There are a lot of intermediate cartridges, but not two, including 7,65x32, 8x35, .30 Carbine, 7,92x33, 7,62x39.

                  The cartridges 5,56x45 and 5,45x39 are low-pulse, not intermediate.
                  1. booki
                    booki 4 July 2016 02: 48
                    -6
                    Quote: Operator
                    Categories and subcategories of cartridges are absent from the word at all.

                    Yes? But what about all these intermediate and other rifle cartridges? There are still pistols. And, even scary to say, carabiner.
                    Quote: Operator
                    Each cartridge according to the international classification has its own unique designation, consisting of digital designations of the caliber of the bullet and the length of the cartridge case, separated by the arithmetic symbol of multiplication.

                    Very scientific. But in fact, the usual verbose banality. Treponya about nothing.
                    Quote: Operator
                    There are a lot of intermediate cartridges, but not two, including 7,65x32, 8x35, .30 Carbine, 7,92x33, 7,62x39.

                    You decided to spam the whole branch with your commonplace? Not worth it. By the way, the .30 Carbine cartridge is not intermediate. Saprise.
                    Quote: Operator
                    The cartridges 5,56x45 and 5,45x39 are low-pulse, not intermediate.

                    Sweetheart. Cartridges 5,56x45 and 5,45x39 are intermediate.
                    You swim, my dear, in this thread, like ..., well, I'll tell you later.
    3. Alf
      Alf 3 July 2016 23: 23
      +4
      Quote: booki
      The Germans did not have a rifle cartridge. Just absent as a class.

      A Mauser-96k what shot? Pistol cartridge?
      1. booki
        booki 3 July 2016 23: 42
        -7
        Quote: Alf
        A Mauser-96k what shot? Pistol cartridge?

        HE shells. Read on this thread. I won’t write 10 times.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  • Alf
    Alf 3 July 2016 09: 29
    +8
    Mehtyaga ...
    1. Stas57
      Stas57 3 July 2016 09: 40
      +2
      this is a regular ID
      and this is mot.



      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Stas57
        Stas57 3 July 2016 13: 02
        +2
        some crap, embedding is blocked.
        then so

        http://acemodel.com.ua/pages/models/72219/8.jpg
        http://media.informpskov.ru/pictures/20130523185836.jpg
        http://savepic.net/8208197.htm
        http://savepic.net/8206173.jpg

        as well, yes, the article is not at the Topvar level, rather for reposting VKontakte, YaP and so on. contingent
    2. PKK
      PKK 3 July 2016 18: 11
      -2
      Fur traction, as it came, was given to the best batteries, and horse traction remained with the worst artillerymen. For example, "Hot Snow" by Yuri Bondarev and "Unblocking of Stalingrad by Gott" Menyailov. Some of the waste batteries were used to lure the German offensive into a bag.
  • Aleksandr72
    Aleksandr72 3 July 2016 09: 59
    +9
    This article walks on different sites. Thanks to the author for the work. But the article itself is practically about nothing. Why didn’t I personally understand the famous IL-2 attack aircraft in the article, judging by the name of the state of armament of the Red Army before the war. But as of June 01.06.1941, 57, there were only 2 Il-19 attack aircraft in the Red Army, of which only 5 in the western military districts: the Baltic Special and Kiev Special military districts - 8 each, in the Western Special - as many as XNUMX. I don’t think what kind of three weeks before the war, the situation with attack aircraft changed dramatically.
    The total number of combat aircraft in the Red Army as of 01.06.1941/18/759 was 16, of which serviceable - 052, defective - 2, combat-ready crews - 707. there were not enough trained crews even for serviceable aircraft. Moreover, these figures even include such old junk as I-13, DI-211, I-5, TB-6, TB-15, R-1, R-3, R-Z, rarities like DB-A (5 pieces per the entire army), captured aircraft captured in the Baltics, like the Gloucester "Gauntlet" and all kinds of ANBOs (whose combat effectiveness and combat readiness is in great doubt).
    And in the same way, the situation was not only in aviation, but literally in everything. Especially deplorable, as V.ic's colleague correctly noted, the situation was with radio communications.
    By the time the war began, communications in the Red Army were the bottleneck. Radio stations were actually available almost exclusively at division headquarters and above. And even then in insufficient quantities. Radio encryption is manual and at a very low level. Below is just a wired connection and messengers. Of course, if we leave aside such exotic types of communication as pigeon mail, heliographs, communication with service dogs. Almost all aircraft did not have radio stations. On ground combat equipment, radio stations were to be installed only on commander tanks.

    And the lack of reliable communications of their own (it came to the point that troops were controlled only by telephone over the stationary wire lines of the People’s Commissariat of Communications, with the former civilian personnel remaining in the Baltic States, Western Belarus and Western Ukraine, who did not have much sympathy for the Soviet authorities, and often was openly hostile - I believe that not only Brandenburg-800 was to blame for the loss of communications in the very first days of the war) - this automatically meant a loss of command and control - the worst thing that could happen to a commander of any level.
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 3 July 2016 12: 08
      +1
      Quote: Aleksandr72
      But on 01.06.1941/57/2 in the Red Army there were only XNUMX Il-XNUMX attack aircraft,

      Basically, attack aircraft were in the 4th assault air regiment, which was allocated for military trials. V. Emelianenko. "In the harsh military air."
  • Stas57
    Stas57 3 July 2016 10: 16
    +4
    Some experts consider the KV-1 to be a landmark for the world tank building machine, which had a significant impact on the development of heavy tanks in other countries.

    who, on which tanks is it noticeable?
    He also received an independent torsion bar suspension, anti-ballistic circular protection, a diesel engine and one relatively powerful gun. Previously, these elements were found on other tanks separately, but in KV-1 they were first assembled together.

    Matilda?

    At the beginning of the war, the Il-2 was practically the only aircraft that, in the conditions of superiority of German aviation, fought the enemy in the air.

    is it a single Il2, about which even in the movie they shot that he had a stick in the back with someone struggling in the air? Chasing Messers?
    1. Alf
      Alf 3 July 2016 23: 30
      0
      Quote: Stas57
      Matilda?

      Matilda-40-mm gun. Lack of OFS.
      KV-1-76-mm gun, OFS-6,2 kg.
      1. Stas57
        Stas57 4 July 2016 00: 13
        +1
        Quote: Alf
        Matilda-40-mm gun. Lack of OFS.
        KV-1-76-mm gun, OFS-6,2 kg.

        Well, ok, oh oh are all the advantages of the tank all that you can take ??
  • demiurg
    demiurg 3 July 2016 10: 30
    +7
    Where is the review of engines? Where is the battle for every kilogram of aircraft weight, for every kilowatt of engine power? Where is the review bringing the V-2 to the reliability that we see today among its descendants? Why is there not a word about armored cars? They were released a lot.
    The topic is not disclosed. Seriously, even in school books they write more. Multiple-page works can and should be written about any of the objects mentioned in the article, describing the combat path and modernization.
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 3 July 2016 12: 24
      +4
      Quote: demiurg
      Where is the review of engines?

      I completely agree! In November 1941, Stalin personally asked Katukov whether the KV and T-34 tanks would have enough resources to be transferred to another sector of the front? This is according to Katukov's recollections. How the ASh-82 was brought up is well described in the book about A. Shvetsov "Battle for Speed." And how tank engines were made in Zubov's 2-volume book. "Tank Engines".
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 3 July 2016 12: 53
    +2
    “As of June 22, 1941, the Red Army had 25 tanks.
    The most modern KV and T-34 tanks at that time numbered about 1,85 thousand units. "///

    It is significant that the amount of equipment in the army does not matter if
    technology not to be able to use tactically correctly and not have the means to support it on the go.

    25 thousand tanks Soviet industry continuously produced more than 10 years,
    and they were lost in 3-4 months.
    1. AK64
      AK64 3 July 2016 15: 13
      -5
      It is significant that the amount of equipment in the army does not matter if
      technology not to be able to use tactically correctly and not have the means to support it on the go.


      The fact is that 90% of these "tanks" were not corny tanks: in 90%, "armor" was made through from German small arms. An armor-piercing bullet, but it did. (K-bullet, if in doubt. Moreover, K-bullet is 1918, and in 1941 they already had better armor-piercing bullets)

      And what did the 37mm PTP do with them ...

      Here, at least be able, even not be able, but even just lie down and die.

      Exception: T-34, KV and a significant part of the T-28 (shielded or with cemented armor)

      So of course you can talk about 25 thousand tanks - and it’s as if formally, truth. Moreover, against the Poles or the Japanese, this and actually it would be true. But against the Germans, a huge flock of BT is just a way to burn gasoline and tank ... to kill.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 3 July 2016 16: 23
        +4
        "The fact is that 90% of these" tanks "were not corny tanks" ///

        The trick is that out of 4 thousand German tanks that attacked the USSR on
        at dawn on June 22, a significant part was also not corny tanks:
        T2 machine gun wedges, Czech lightweight, T3 with short-barreled guns ...
        Actually with the long-barreled guns the Germans had ... zero tanks.
        But - somehow - not by quantity, but by smart tactics, the Panzerwaffe moved on, seeped in, surrounded, sometimes doing 50 km a day ...
        1. Stas57
          Stas57 3 July 2016 17: 39
          +1
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Czech lungs, T3 with short-barreled guns ...

          T3 with what sorry?
          Prague PzKpfw 38 (t) EG were on 50 mm of their forehead and 45 it is hardly

          a significant part was also not corny tanks:

          uh, N and G 30 + 30 -this is quite normal normal projectile armor + combine, surveillance devices and communications - some will be better
        2. Papandopulo
          Papandopulo 3 July 2016 18: 22
          +1
          Tankers were all knocked out by German aircraft, tanks do not drive without fuel. Most of it was abandoned by the crews in good condition for its use.
        3. AK64
          AK64 3 July 2016 21: 28
          -2
          The trick is that out of 4 thousand German tanks that attacked the USSR on
          at dawn on June 22, a significant part was also not corny tanks:
          T2 machine gun wedges, Czech lightweight, T3 with short-barreled guns ...


          This is not true: none of the German types of tanks made their way into secular small arms. Generally.
          Moreover, there were no PTRs in the Red Army, which made the 45mm PTR (45 pieces per SD) the only anti-tank infantry weapon. Even if these guns were adequate to the task (and they weren’t), there were too few of them (45 pieces per SD staff) to saturate the defense of the rifle division with them.

          However, these 45mm anti-tank guns could only successfully fight the T-1, T-2 and Czechs; They pierced T-3 and T-4 only from too short distances.

          So, as of the summer of 1941:
          on the one hand, 90% of the "tanks" of the Red Army penetrated the enemy's small arms, despite the fact that the Germans also have 75 anti-tank guns on the front.
          On the other hand, the only weapon against the lightest Wehrmacht tanks were 45mm anti-tank guns (for example, 2/3 of the Wehrmacht tanks were more or less "immune" to them)

          Such is accounting


          But when the PTRs became widespread in the Red Army, then the Germans had to urgently stop the production of T-2 and even remove them from the line battalions (in the T-2 state, the place was only in reconnaissance, but in reality they were still quite a summer linear battalions completed)

          Like this: some PTR "killed" the T-2 as a class. Not because PTRs are cool - but because there are a lot of them.

          Actually with the long-barreled guns the Germans had ... zero tanks.

          WHAT FOR? "Tanks with slippers do not fight"

          But - somehow - not by quantity, but by smart tactics, the Panzerwaffe moved on, seeped in, surrounded, sometimes doing 50 km a day ...

          This is not a "clever tactician of the Germans" - this is absolutely, absolutely .... in general, mistakes of the other side.
          1. booki
            booki 3 July 2016 22: 19
            -1
            Quote: AK64
            Moreover, there were no PTRs in the Red Army, which made the 45mm PTR (45 pieces per SD) the only anti-tank infantry weapon.

            Let's calculate the states of the beginning of the Second World War:
            1. Carried forty-fifty - 54
            2. Half-traps (shrapnel to strike) - 18
            3. Division (shrapnel to strike) - 16
            as well as:
            4. DShK (this was enough for some Germans) - 9
            5 mm anti-aircraft guns - 37
            6 mm anti-aircraft guns - 76
            7. Heavy cannon (forty-five) BA - 10.
            As you can see, the list of regular VET funds is much wider.
            Quote: AK64
            However, these 45mm anti-tank guns could only successfully fight the T-1, T-2 and Czechs; They pierced T-3 and T-4 only from too short distances.

            Depends on what. The point is that you have to watch the modifications. On 22.06.41. the Germans had 774 very well protected tanks. These are tanks of new models. The Soviet KV-1s are noticeably stronger than them, and the Soviet T-28Es are slightly weaker. Of the total number, by the way, 390 Czech Pz.Kpfw 38 (t) Ausf.EG. It is not entirely clear the general attitude in Runet to the "Czechs" as to suck, the tanks of these modifications were quite strong.
            There were also 526 tanks of the "transitional" series. These are Pz.Kpfw IV Ausf.E and Pz.Kpfw III Ausf.H. The T-34 is roughly comparable to them.
            The remaining tanks were weaker, although there were no analogues of the old series Pz.Kpfw IV, Pz.Kpfw III and even Pz.Kpfw 38 (t) in the Red Army, the BT-7M was an approximate analogue of the Pz.Kpfw 35 (t).
            So, already "transitional" models were quite within the power of forty-fives, and from fairly long distances. True, for this they had to get into the tower. Older models were within the power of forty-fives from fairly long distances and to any point of the frontal projection.
            With the new models it was harder. Of the forty-five they could be hit either aboard or from close range (150-200 m). Absolutely impenetrable for forty-five in 1941. the Germans did not have tanks.
            Quote: AK64
            on the one hand, 90% of the "tanks" of the Red Army penetrated the enemy's small arms

            Not 90, but 63%. Moreover, "bullet-proof" was about 8000 units. Quite enough for a successful defense on the borders of the USSR.
            Quote: AK64
            (we feed 2/3 of Wehrmacht tanks were more or less "immune" to them)

            "Immune", like the Soviet KV-1, were not at all. I mean, at all.
            774 tanks fought forty-five from a distance of 150-200 m or from afar aboard.
            Another 526 tanks fought from a distance of about 800 m into the tower, or 150-200 m into the hull or from afar into the side.
            The rest fought from a distance of 800 m and further to any point in the projection.
            Quote: AK64
            "Tanks with sneakers don't fight"

            Even as they fight.
        4. Alex
          Alex 4 July 2016 16: 38
          +3
          I will correct / a little bit.
          Quote: voyaka uh
          T2 machine gun wedges
          T-II were with an aviation 20-mm cannon (though power is still). Purely machine gun were TI.

          T3 with short-barreled guns
          They had a bit with 50-mm long-barrels, these serious opponents were.

          czech lungs
          Well, 38 (t) with its A-7, even though 37mm, looked pretty good too. Now I don’t remember offhand, but EMNIP, the "Czechs" made up almost 20% of the Wehrmacht's BTT in 1941.

          In general, you are right - the Germans worked out the tactics of using tank troops and their interaction with aviation to perfection.
      2. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 3 July 2016 16: 34
        +4
        Here is the whole German "armada" for you:

        - TI (two machine guns 7,92 mm) - about 180;
        - T-II (20 mm cannon, machine gun 7,92 mm) - 746;
        - 38 (t) (37 mm gun, 2 machine gun 7,92 mm) - 772;
        - T-III (37 mm or 50 mm gun, 3 machine gun) - 965;
        - T-IV (75 mm short-barreled gun, two machine guns 7,92 mm) - 439
        - Another 200 commander.

        Only the T-III with the 50 mm gun and the T-IV could confidently engage in tank duels. And then - from very close distances
        And the rest - only with the Tatar-Mongol tricks.
        1. moskowit
          moskowit 3 July 2016 17: 37
          0
          So, due to the excellent interaction of the combat arms, the excellent training of the headquarters and personnel, the Germans with "cardboard" tanks achieved a great advantage.

          But the one behind whom the Truth wins! The truth was ours and we crushed the European military armada and industry, led by fascist Germany.

          They beat the Polish-Hungarian-Swedish invasion at the beginning of the 17 century. They beat the Swedes with their allies. Beat Napoleon with the European Army. Hitler was beaten with all the European weapons and equipment.
        2. Stas57
          Stas57 3 July 2016 17: 59
          -1
          Quote: voyaka uh

          - TI (two machine guns 7,92 mm) - about 180;
          - T-II (20 mm cannon, machine gun 7,92 mm) - 746;
          - 38 (t) (37 mm gun, 2 machine gun 7,92 mm) - 772;
          - T-III (37 mm or 50 mm gun, 3 machine gun) - 965;
          - T-IV (75 mm short-barreled gun, two machine guns 7,92 mm) - 439
          - Another 200 commander.

          Only the T-III with the 50 mm gun and the T-IV could confidently engage in tank duels. And then - from very close distances
          And the rest - only with the Tatar-Mongol tricks.


          the first 2 types in the first line were used little, either at headquarters or among the pioneers.
          in tank dueling with BT of all types, T26, T37 and so on. floats could enter any Wehrmacht tank. Or have they all forgotten about them? - here we think there is no tun, but here we wrap the fish?
        3. AK64
          AK64 3 July 2016 21: 47
          -1
          Only the T-III with the 50 mm gun and the T-IV could confidently engage in tank duels. And then - from very close distances
          And the rest - only with the Tatar-Mongol tricks.


          Once again, especially for you:
          (1) a tank duel in the summer of 1941 is a rare exception: "tanks with punks do not fight"
          (2) in a huge Soviet tank herd, about 6 units (or about 25%), these floats, with "armor" that not only made their way from the T-1 machine guns - they made their way with a plunge.
          (3) The "armor" of T-26 and BT tanks was fired from T-1 machine guns. Yes, yes, it is also known from Spain. 37mm killed them instantly.
          (4) so ​​that even a duel situation arose, then only the T-34, KV and part of the T-28 (in total about 2-2.2 thousand units in the whole country) could somehow stand against German tanks. This is against somewhere around the same number of T-3, T-4 and Shtug (even without Czechs).
          (5) But duel situations in the summer of 1941 are rare exceptions: the Germans fought correctly and did not agree to a duel. So you need to look at the ratio of exactly "TD vs. SD" and "TD vs. PD" --- I roughly described the reult.
          (6) it should be taken into account that in the Soviet tank herd only about 2/3 of the tanks were actually ammunition. A bunch of tanks didn’t even leave the parks corny and was lost due to the lack of spare parts in case of essentially malfunctions
          1. booki
            booki 3 July 2016 23: 03
            -5
            Quote: AK64
            "tanks don't fight punks"

            They are fighting. It’s just that when there are 25 thousand tanks, there’s nowhere to hide them so that the enemy’s tank passes by. Although, if you try ...
            Quote: AK64
            in a huge Soviet tank herd, about 6 units (or about 25%), these floats, with "armor" which not only made their way from the T-1 machine guns - they made their way with a plunge.

            Better to proceed from the "land armor" in the amount of 31192 pieces. This will be more correct. And then with the "tank herd" do not understand. Himtanks to count? And what about tank-based vehicles?
            So, there were 3582 swimmers. These were the so-called. "small tanks". Those. reconnaissance, in later terminology. Actually, it was a sin to fight in an adult way. They weren't built for that.
            Yes, and 9-13 mm of armor you can’t spit.
            In addition, the T-1s were training and staff machines. And they did not participate in battles.
            Quote: AK64
            3) The "armor" of T-26 and BT tanks was fired from T-1 machine guns. Yes, yes, it is also known from Spain.

            After the war in Spain, T-26 mod. 1939 and 1940, as well as tanks BT-7 mod. 1937, arr. 1939 and BT-7A with enhanced reservation. In total, 6199 of them were released.
            Quote: AK64
            (6) it should be taken into account that in the Soviet tank herd only about 2/3 of the tanks were actually ammunition.

            77% among tracked BTTs and 89% among wheeled BTTs. Or 79% (24655 units) of the total number of BTTs were combat-ready. The Germans had more%, but also not all 100% of their BTTs were combat-ready 22.06.41g.
          2. faiver
            faiver 5 July 2016 12: 09
            +1
            Enough of a fairy tale to tell the professor about piercing the armor of the t-26 and BT with machine guns ... and even telling such tales, the professor somehow forgets that in response to the machine gun bursts of the Pz-1, he risks grabbing the 45 millimeter response from which the 13mm armor will not save for sure ...
            1. Stas57
              Stas57 5 July 2016 14: 29
              0
              Quote: faiver
              Enough of a fairy tale to tell the professor about piercing the armor of the t-26 and BT with machine guns ... and even telling such tales, the professor somehow forgets that in response to the machine gun bursts of the Pz-1, he risks grabbing the 45 millimeter response from which the 13mm armor will not save for sure ...


              it is not a secret that 7,92-mm armor-piercing bullets of the SmKH brand (an armor-piercing bullet with a reinforced tungsten core, according to the tables, they pierced armor with a thickness of 12-13 mm at a distance of 100 m) You can compare the armor of the T26 - it is clear that it machine gun could well, the question is what is the armor effect.



              also there was PTR
              Armor-piercing core was made of tungsten carbide.
              The cartridge with a bullet of this type was adopted by the 1937, and was intended to destroy targets protected by light armor. At a range of 500m, the SmKN bullet pierced the armor sheet with a thickness of 2cm (at a meeting angle of 90º).

              I note immediately- 500 is Patrone 318 for anti-tank rifles, and not for 98K
              http://копанина.рф/publ/9-1-0-129
              1. faiver
                faiver 5 July 2016 17: 37
                0
                Well? reservation and T-26 and BT-7 15mm, i.e. fired from a distance 50m? But the tanks do not shoot? I don’t understand what sense to attract by the ears ..., I admit isolated cases, but not so that it would be in the system ...
                1. AK64
                  AK64 5 July 2016 18: 33
                  0
                  reservation and T-26 and BT-7 15mm, i.e. fired from a distance of 50m? But the tanks do not shoot?

                  А where should they shoot? Attacks a tank of a platoon position (in the defense zone, just about 1 tank per platoon). Where it is him to shoot? In the trenches? What's the point? There are many trenches, arrows are hiding ...
                  And on the other hand, a platoon is 30 rifles + 3 machine guns.

                  I don’t understand what sense to attract by the ears ..., I admit isolated cases, but not so that it would be in the system ...

                  It was against this "system" that the counterattacks of the Soviet mechanized corps crashed in June. Ask yourself on occasion why in June the counterattacks of the Soviet mechanized corps could not penetrate the defenses of the German infantry divisions. Could not - a fact: they were not bogged down in tanks, but in banal infantry. Or, as Isaev says, "the infantry trampled on the tanks." Excuse me, how can the infantry trample steel tanks? And this is how it can - Here it and there is an answer.

                  And this despite the fact that, according to pre-military ideas, 1 mk should have been able to defeat 2-3 Germans. But really mk crashed on the infantry.

                  Well, of course, you can certainly look for "betrayal" instead. but in the descriptions of the Germans everything is quite present: tank attacks and burning tanks: "Fortunately, the roar of the flame suppressed ...".

                  Or didn’t you listen to anything about the June counter-attacks?
                  1. faiver
                    faiver 5 July 2016 18: 46
                    0
                    yeah, the mechanized corps was slanted with machine guns, after such statements I have nothing to say
                    1. AK64
                      AK64 5 July 2016 19: 18
                      0
                      yeah, the mechanized corps was slanted with machine guns, after such statements I have nothing to say


                      Surprisingly: they gave the person links, they chewed them up and put them in his mouth - but he is stubborn, and seeing the inscription “buffalo” on the elephant’s cage, he does not believe his eyes.
                      Well, what are you going to do here?

                      And what do you think, why Pavlov, the same Dmitry Pavlov, whom the local extras habitually believes to be a traitor, was so banging his head against the walls, pushing anti-projectile armor? (And why and who was resisting him? And why were tanks with anti-shell armor only possible in 1940, and not in the 37th? And why was the conical tower on the BT of the 37th model?)

                      And why did the screening of old tanks suddenly start before the war? What screened - even knows? 4-5mm leaves. Think it's from guns? And why not shielded tanks with cemented armor?
                      And, by the way, the action with shielding was successfully triggered.
                      and why the favorite of the local crowd, Zhukov, so boldly writes off in his "memoirs" "quite a lot of outdated and light tanks"? Is he, or a pest that doesn't count them as tanks?

                      That's really true - "even if you see, then do not believe your eyes"

                      Here's what you do: catch Alyosha Isaev on the Net and ask him. "Dr. Gilletin" or something like that.
              2. AK64
                AK64 5 July 2016 18: 21
                0
                it's not a secret that the 7,92 mm armor-piercing bullets of the SmKH brand (armor-piercing bullet with a hardened tungsten core,

                Tungsten is already expensive and new.
                K-bullet, 1918, high-speed steel core. Beat 15mm British armor. The truth is bad - the probability of penetration is somewhere around 30% from less than 100m. (True, not from "98k" but understandable from a normal full-size "98".) But when companies and machine guns shoot ...
                Reference:
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_bullet
                Sorry, in English. There was an article on Wiki in Russian, but patriots are vigilant. Braces are observed, and do not allow Orthodox youth to corrupt. (Earth bow to them)

                according to the tables pierced armor 12-13 mm thick at a distance of 100 m)

                15mm Without tables - British experience with PMV.
                You can compare the armor of the T26 - it is clear that "point-blank" with his machine gun could well, the question is what is the armor effect.

                The Spanish experience is available - dyryavili-s.
                About "zabronevoe action" - here you are of course right. In the case of the T-26, the result is wounded in the crew. That is, a tank cannot perform a combat mission.
                Svirin said that almost with a broom after the battle, the cores were swept out of the T-26.
                But the T-26 was not burning.

                But BT ... BT has huge fuel tanks in the BO, in the fenders. ("Fortunately, the roar of the flames drowned out the screams of the tankers")
                That's why BT tankers didn’t really, very much like BT.

                also there was PTR

                Yes, this is pampering ... When mouths and machine guns are hammering on the tank, what are individual PTRs?
                (But when the PTR appeared in the Red Army massively, exactly massivelythen the T-2 came to an end quickly)
        4. faiver
          faiver 5 July 2016 11: 48
          -1
          a couple of hundred 35 (t) forgot to finish writing ...
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. booki
        booki 3 July 2016 20: 25
        -3
        Quote: AK64
        The fact is that 90% of these "tanks" were not corny tanks: in 90%, "armor" was made through from German small arms. An armor-piercing bullet, but it did.

        Your figure is somewhat exaggerated.
        Definitely b / bullet did not break through:
        1. HF
        2. T-35
        3. T-34
        4. T-28
        5. T-26 mod. 39-40gg
        6. BT-7 arr. 37g (easy to recognize by the conical tower) and 39g (aka BT-7M), as well as BT-7A.
        If we look at the number of all tanks of these brands, as well as the old BT-2, BT-5 and "small" (as they called intelligence tanks in the USSR) T-37, T-38 and T-40, then the percentage of those that could be amazed is 63%. This is definitely a lot. But the "unaffected" was about 8000 pieces. And this is certainly a lot.
        Again, "hit" is a loose concept. Much depended on the distance and angle of attack, the rifle is a very close combat weapon. In addition, breaking through armor is far from disabling a tank.
        Quote: AK64
        And what did the 37mm PTP do with them ...

        Yes, it was already a serious weapon. Despite the derogatory attitude towards him in RuNet.
        Quote: AK64
        Exception: T-34, KV and a significant part of the T-28 (shielded or with cemented armor)

        Do not exaggerate. Only KV-1, that's all. T-34 and T-28E only from some angles. At the same time, the T-28E was, of course, much stronger than the T-34 in terms of a combination of factors. LKZ, it was a "firm".
      5. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 3 July 2016 22: 57
        +1
        "But against the Germans, a huge herd of BT is just a way to burn gasoline" ////

        The largest herd was the T-26. The Germans - captured "Russian Vickers" - willingly used them in the 41 offensive,
        as a simple and fairly reliable infantry support tank. With a good gun 45 mm. Despite the fact that with
        they simply were thrown into breakdowns, a certain number of captured T-26s reached the border to Leningrad itself.
        So all the same, the main thing is a reasonable use, and not the thickness of the armor.
        1. AK64
          AK64 3 July 2016 23: 14
          -6
          The largest herd was the T-26. The Germans - captured "Russian Vickers" - willingly used them in the 41 offensive,
          as a simple and fairly reliable infantry support tank. With a good gun 45 mm. Despite the fact that with
          they simply were thrown into breakdowns, a certain number of captured T-26s reached the border to Leningrad itself.
          So all the same, the main thing is a reasonable use, and not the thickness of the armor.



          Stop telling tales. Stop telling tales.

          And the fact is the fact: during the attack of the Soviet TD on the positions of the German front, 90% of the tanks (as I say, or 2/3, as it is there, another reincarnation) were amazed by the enemy’s rifle shooting. It is a fact. True, approximately 10% of Soviet tanks turned out to be more or less immune from regular anti-tank equipment, and emergency funds had to be used.

          But when attacking the German TD positions of the Soviet SD, the 45 mm guns turned out to be the minimum anti-tank weapon. The self-defense of infantry was practically absent. (Because I don’t feel like bunches of pomegranates and other bottles as such)
          And this is also a fact.

          These are the facts. And the rest is your imagination.

          Yes, about the T-26 in the Wehrmacht: they used the parts themselves before the first breakdown. Longer use: redone in self-propelled guns, removing towers and putting a gun behind a shield. (By the way, the Polish Vickers were remade before that. Yes, actually: https://topwar.ru/92652-75cm-pak-97-38f-auf-pz-740-r-proekt-sau-na-baze-tanka -t-
          26.html)

          As you can see, the Germans did not like the T-26 tank. But the chassis was used, yes
          1. faiver
            faiver 5 July 2016 12: 11
            0
            Where is your fact documented? photos and documents to the studio shot from machine guns T-26 and BT ...
  • Echo
    Echo 3 July 2016 14: 17
    +2
    . Where about the motors? Where is the comparison of the most technologically advanced types of engines - aircraft engines? Where is the M105 vs DB.601? Where is the AM-42 vs Jumo. 213? Where is the M-82 vs Twin Wasp and BMW.801? Without this, an article is not an article.
    1. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 3 July 2016 16: 26
      -1
      Quote: Echo
      . Where about the motors? Where is the comparison of the most technologically advanced types of engines - aircraft engines? Where is the M105 vs DB.601? Where is the AM-42 vs Jumo. 213? Where is the M-82 vs Twin Wasp and BMW.801? Without this, an article is not an article.

      Excuse me so to speak, well again, but what are the "most technologically advanced types"?
      "Friend Arkady, don't speak nicely," speak clearly.
    2. moskowit
      moskowit 3 July 2016 17: 28
      -2
      And where about the motors ... (joke) ...
  • Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 3 July 2016 16: 15
    0
    AUTHOR WHAT I WANTED TO SAY, heartfelt: "Over the years of the pre-war five-year plans, Soviet designers have created new models of small arms, tanks, artillery, mortars and aircraft. The fleet received more and more advanced destroyers, cruisers, patrol ships, and special attention was paid to the development of the submarine fleet."
    New in relation to what? By 1913 or earlier? Especially cruisers flooded and sour in the West. Well, on the submarine we were ahead of the rest, for sure.
  • Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 3 July 2016 16: 20
    +1
    "Therefore, the main reasons for the defeat of Soviet troops at the initial period of the war cannot be attributed to errors in the technical equipment of the troops."
    I will say more specifically, thanks to the care of the RCP (b) and personally Comrade Stalin, the Red Army had the best weapons in the WORLD.
    1. booki
      booki 3 July 2016 20: 45
      -8
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      I will say more specifically, thanks to the care of the RCP (b) and personally Comrade Stalin, the Red Army had the best weapons in the WORLD.

      To begin with, WKB (b). For having made a coup and usurped absolute power in the country, Dzhugashvili, nicknamed Stalin and his court ... renamed.
      Can you name an example of "the best weapon in the world"? At least one? And also think about why the Red Army, supposedly "possessing the best weapons in the world," suffered such colossal losses.
      1. Mavrikiy
        Mavrikiy 3 July 2016 21: 54
        +3
        Quote: booki
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        I will say more specifically, thanks to the care of the RCP (b) and personally Comrade Stalin, the Red Army had the best weapons in the WORLD.

        To begin with, WKB (b). For having made a coup and usurped absolute power in the country, Dzhugashvili, nicknamed Stalin and his court ... renamed.
        Can you name an example of "the best weapon in the world"? At least one? And also think about why the Red Army, supposedly "possessing the best weapons in the world," suffered such colossal losses.

        Third attempt: VKP (b). "For having committed a coup d'etat and usurping absolute power in the country, Dzhugashvili, nicknamed Stalin, and his courtier ... renamed."
        I respect Stalin very much, but to say that he made the Great October Socialist Revolution will not turn his tongue. Or maybe the Soviet school is to blame, they told us about Lenin-Trotsky and K.
        Maybe you need to start there?
        1. booki
          booki 3 July 2016 23: 22
          -7
          Quote: Mavrikiy
          I respect Stalin very much,

          Are you bdsm?
          Quote: Mavrikiy
          o say that he made the Great October Socialist Revolution language will not turn.

          Learn the story you need.
          There was no VOSR. There was a creeping in essence counter-revolutionary coup, arranged by some Bolsheviks, which ended in January 1918. Then Russia fell apart. It should be noted by their efforts. This was driven by a certain Ulyanov nicknamed Lenin.
          Stalin committed his coup d'etat Dzhugashvili later, in 1924-25.
          Quote: Mavrikiy
          Maybe you need to start there?

          Well no. This is for you at school. Normal. Basic knowledge pull up.
          1. Papandopulo
            Papandopulo 4 July 2016 17: 54
            0
            Quote: booki
            Are you bdsm?

            And what did he do wrong to you? Or you didn’t, but you wanted it so much, and therefore now don’t love him?
            1. oking
              oking 4 July 2016 18: 55
              -3
              Quote: Papandopulo
              And what did he do wrong to you? Or you didn’t, but you wanted it so much, and therefore now don’t love him?

              Like what? He seized (usurped) absolute power in the country, and then by his actions (or inaction) contributed to the death of millions of my compatriots. Physically, in the truest sense of the word. And tens of millions were doomed to slave labor and a half-starved beggarly existence. And references to "bad henchmen" are not appropriate here, the person who seized absolute power must also bear absolute responsibility.
              Of course, I have no right to give a legal assessment of his deeds, but I very much hope that a trial will take place during my lifetime, which will nevertheless give a legal assessment of the "deeds" of this reactionary usurper. And he will close this issue once and for all.
              As for the "great and mighty Stalinist USSR", this is the usual bullshit from his fans. During his lifetime, the USSR was an impoverished and dilapidated country on the outskirts of the world. And, somehow, always poor and always dilapidated. First by the Soviet regime. Then the war. Then "the restoration of the destroyed economy." Then something else. A country that did not interest anyone in the world at all, except that the Anglo-Saxons in the period 2 MV. And even then, only as a supplier of cannon fodder. After they no longer needed this meat, they kicked the USSR together with Dzhugashvili into the far corner. Continue to rot further. The slave-owning mode of production that was then in the USSR (called socialism), by definition, could not be productive.
              In 1963, i.e. 10 years after the death of Dzhugashvili, the situation changed, the Yangelevskaya missile 8K-64 (aka R-16 or SS-7 Saddler according to NATO classification) was delivered to the DB. From that moment on, the USSR began to be interested in the world, tk. from that moment on, he received the means of delivering nuclear weapons to almost anywhere in the world. But this was already significant after Dzhugashvili under the "bad Khrushchev" and already Soviet feudalism. Moreover, Dzhugashvili had nothing to do with missiles. He was foolishly promoting aviation. And once again I did not guess. Such was the "genius". And the missiles were promoted by the "bad Khrushchev".
              Moreover. In 1961 at the XXII Congress of the CPSU, Khrushchev promoted a program for the development of the wealth of Siberia. According to her by 1980. oil production was to increase by 4,7–4,8 times, and gas production by about 14,5–15,0 times.
              And again he guessed right. In 1974. oil prices jumped 2,5 times, to $ 50 per barrel. And in 1980. another 2,5 times, up to $ 120 per barrel. This monetary period of the feudal development of the USSR was called "developed socialism". It is about him that the apologists of "socialism" are always sad. However, in 1986. oil prices fell to about $ 40 a barrel, and the hedgehog is dead.
              This is a brief history of the USSR. As you can see perfectly well, the Dzhugashvili period has nothing to do with the "achievements of socialism". But it is directly related to the mass destruction of an innocent population. In different ways, by action and by inaction.
              The question is, what can you love the Dzhugashvili regime for? For any such achievements? He had no achievements. But the victims were colossal.
              I can understand the admirers of Brezhnev. I can understand the admirers of Khrushchev (I myself am to some extent his admirer). I can understand the admirers of even Ulyanov (they are usually called Trotskyists). But I cannot understand the admirers of Dzhugashvili and cannot. In addition to BDSM, nothing comes to mind.
              1. Papandopulo
                Papandopulo 5 July 2016 00: 13
                0
                Quote: oking
                In addition to BDSM, nothing comes to mind.

                You can still - canceled the socialization of wives, shot the 5th column of these same Trotsky’s assistants, prohibited abortion, and introduced the Criminal Code article for drug addiction and homosexuality, and there was no question for you at all ...
                1. oking
                  oking 5 July 2016 01: 17
                  -1
                  Quote: Papandopulo
                  abolished the socialization of wives

                  Do not invent.
                  Quote: Papandopulo
                  gunned down the 5th column of these same Trotsky's henchmen

                  Approve the killing of compatriots? Do not forget, you yourself and your loved ones in this situation, too, can at any time become this very column. You don’t have to stand on the tower with a rifle, you can easily rot in the hut.
                  Quote: Papandopulo
                  and there was no question for you at all ...

                  To me.
                  1. Papandopulo
                    Papandopulo 5 July 2016 13: 25
                    0
                    Not canceled?

                    they are not compatriots to me, oking = booki?
      2. Kenneth
        Kenneth 3 July 2016 22: 41
        +2
        While not a fan of Stalin and the Communist Party, I nevertheless note that Kohl in the first world war on a very secondary front, not only did he oversleep the country. So also this country in normal development to the war had practically nothing. Connoisseurs do not need to yell that we had the most airplanes and we came up with tanks because it did not bring happiness.
        1. AK64
          AK64 3 July 2016 22: 59
          -2
          While not a fan of Stalin and the Communist Party, I nevertheless note that Kohl in the first world war on a very secondary front, not only did he oversleep the country. So also this country in normal development to the war had practically nothing. Connoisseurs do not need to yell that we had the most airplanes and we came up with tanks because it did not bring happiness.


          Another "expert"

          / and sighed /
          1. Kenneth
            Kenneth 4 July 2016 08: 28
            -1
            When you have nothing to say, you only have to sigh
            1. AK64
              AK64 4 July 2016 09: 55
              -1
              When you have nothing to say, you only have to sigh


              And what can the professor say about the rampant and boorish babble of the janitor? Just sigh and advise you to go and read at least one smart book.

              What i did
              (And yes, I'm a professor)
              1. booki
                booki 4 July 2016 10: 34
                -4
                Quote: AK64
                (And yes, I'm a professor)

                Why are you doing this? The fact that you can well understand pestles and stamens (or declination and conjugations) does not mean at all that you understand something in armaments. And rifleman in particular.
              2. Papandopulo
                Papandopulo 6 July 2016 00: 45
                0
                Quote: AK64
                (And yes, I'm a professor)

                And how many languages ​​can you show right away?
                1. AK64
                  AK64 6 July 2016 01: 44
                  0
                  I am not a language professor. Nevertheless, I can send it somewhere on 5-6 (this is counting Ukrainian, Polish, Tatar and Mongolian for Russian dialects)
              3. The comment was deleted.
        2. booki
          booki 4 July 2016 02: 58
          -4
          Quote: Kenneth
          While not a fan of Stalin and the Communist Party, I nevertheless note that Kohl in the first world war on a very secondary front, not only did he oversleep the country.

          Dzhugashvili, nicknamed Stalin in September 1941. he did exactly the same thing for which the Bolsheviks at one time defamed Kerensky. And on what, in fact, they "rose" in due time. Those. his coup of 1924-25 was not decorative, within the framework of one ideology, but completely real, with a change in all value systems of coordinates (and the destruction of the former Bolshevik elite, right down to ordinary apologists of that ideology). If you look at this more closely, then it was the usual reactionary degradation of society. Who does not know, then this is the reverse process of the revolutionary transformation of society (revolution). That is, to put it simply, it was an ordinary counter-revolution. And, already the second, after the Bolshevik counter-revolution of 1917-18. Those. society since February 1917. in a relatively short period of time collapsed by 2 evolutionary steps down, approximately to the Russian historical level of the mid-19th century. Having lost many millions of people. It was a civilizational catastrophe, and it is absolutely impossible to understand that the "fans of Stalin" find it positive in this.
          Quote: Kenneth
          So also this country in normal development to the war had practically nothing.

          And what did the "Stalinist USSR" have? In addition to the royal three-line, the forty-five (the royal naval gun of Hotchkiss on the German field carriage), the Maxim and the three-inch? And everything that was stored up by the "wise Dzhugashvili" for the war, everything went to the Germans. Who perfectly used all this throughout the war.
          1. Kenneth
            Kenneth 4 July 2016 08: 27
            +4
            Let's say not all went. Well, it’s not important, but it’s important that the industry remains that continued to stamp all this and give new samples since 1941 in quantities larger than adversary. But Colin's industry only in 1916 at least somehow began to meet the needs of the front, and even without its tanks and aircraft.
            1. booki
              booki 4 July 2016 09: 17
              -5
              Quote: Kenneth
              Well, it’s not important, but it’s important that the industry remains that continued to stamp all this and give new samples since 1941 in quantities larger than adversary.

              My dear, 25% of Lend-Lease deliveries (including purchases for money until September 30.09.41, XNUMX) were food. The Bolsheviks simply had nothing to feed the population and the army. What industry are you talking about? Even more hungry people (and even with American supplies it was hungry) could neither fight nor work.
              As for the industry. The technological maximum of the pre-war USSR was made up of three-inch guns. This level performed by the USSR ceased to be relevant already at the end of 1942. At the same time in the USSR it was "very far-sighted" just in 1942. adopted the three-inch ZIS-3 and the forty-five M-42. Draw your own conclusions about the "ingenious foresight of the Soviet leadership".
              Another thing is interesting. The German series of PaK / KwK / StuG40 L46 cannons technologically fit well into the Soviet technological maximum. And while the guns of this series were quite relevant throughout the Second World War. But nothing similar was produced in the USSR, they continued to rivet already almost completely useless three-inches on the "divisional" cartridge. At the same time calling them "legendary" and "the best". At least we were ashamed, the three-inch model just did not lie next to the German PaK / KwK / StuG40. Although, I repeat, these were products of exactly the same technological level (and the M-42 Model 1942 forty-five was also of exactly the same level). Those. could be produced in the same workshop, on the same equipment. Only the Germans produced a cannon, but in the USSR, God knows what.
              Even more striking is the fact that even cartridges were mass-produced for a normal field gun in the USSR. These are the so-called "anti-aircraft" 76-mm cartridges. But no. Until the end of the war, they continued to rivet the almost useless and powerless ZIS-3 and M-42.
              And about gasoline and thermal power plants. Without American high-octane gasoline and thermal power plants, Soviet aircraft in the sky would have remained so rare as in 1941. Just because modern aviation required powerful engines. And powerful engines required high-octane fuel. But with this in the USSR then it was bad. Whether we like it or not.
              Quote: Kenneth
              But Colin's industry only in 1916 at least somehow began to meet the needs of the front, and even without its tanks and aircraft.

              Colin’s army didn’t even think of rolling back to the borders of Great Russia. And Yoshin’s army No. 1 (cadre) for the most part surrendered, and the subsequent numbers (actually a militia) rolled back to the Volga.
      3. disgraced shooter
        disgraced shooter 4 July 2016 00: 20
        -6
        Quote: booki
        "possessing the best weapons in the world" suffered such colossal losses.

        Why everyone has now suffered, weapons have nothing to do with it.
        1. booki
          booki 4 July 2016 00: 57
          -7
          Quote: Disgraced Shooter
          Why everyone has now suffered, weapons have nothing to do with it.

          How is it?
          "Companies of submachine gunners" armed with PPSh pukalka because of the lack of normal weapons, is there anything here?
          Tank T-34/76 with a lack of separation of functions and from this almost completely "blind" is nothing here?
          Three-inch, which since 1943. Already little could break here is not necessary?
          Forty-five, which is already in 1942. could there be little to break here?
          The complete absence of MZA in the ground forces, is there no reason for this?
          Self-loading, which they did, did, and did not do it, is it not necessary? By the way, the Soviet concept of weapons of the lower infantry level was very, very good. It is easy to trace the example of a similar, American. But the American concept worked, because BAR and Garand worked. In the Red Army, the SVT-40 did not work, and the DP-27 was only tolerant. But no more than that.
          Armor-piercing shells of the AP and APC categories, while all the other participants used APCBC shells is this not a concern? It's nothing? No, this is not a trifle. For example, the Soviet anti-aircraft gun 52-K, the Soviet heiress of the German Flak18, beat 13% less armor than its German heiress Flak36. And this despite the fact that a potentially Soviet projectile for VET purposes was better (a longer projectile). But the type of shell killed all the benefits.
          There are many such examples. And behind each are the victims of the Soviet people. Each lack of weapons as a result was compensated by losses.
          1. disgraced shooter
            disgraced shooter 4 July 2016 01: 10
            -1
            "Companies of submachine gunners" armed with PPSh pukalka because of the lack of normal weapons, is there anything here?
            But why didn’t the PPS please you?
            1. booki
              booki 4 July 2016 01: 25
              -6
              Quote: Disgraced Shooter
              But why didn’t the PPS please you?

              I don’t remember something, so that I could be honored to feed pigs with you.
              1. disgraced shooter
                disgraced shooter 4 July 2016 01: 36
                +1
                I don’t remember something, so that I could be honored to feed pigs with you.

                Reply
                quote
                Report Site Violation
                And you know how to honor the grazing of pigs) ,,,,, well, be able to continue).
          2. Parsec
            Parsec 4 July 2016 01: 18
            +4
            Quote: booki
            Self-loading, which they did, did, and never did,


            Quote: booki
            SVT-40 did not work

            Quote: booki
            and the DP-27 was only tolerant. But no more than that.


            Rampant race.
            1. booki
              booki 4 July 2016 01: 23
              -5
              Quote: Parsec
              Rampant race.

              And then. Totally rampant. Here, for example, from a test site.
      4. Svidetel 45
        Svidetel 45 4 July 2016 00: 45
        +4
        Because besides weapons, the ability to use them, and the ability to fight, in general, decides much more, and this ability includes a variety of aspects - organization, quality of control, and so on.
        And your like-minded liberoids made a real coup and overthrow of the tsar in February 17, broke a bunch of firewood, and then in October 17 the Bolsheviks took power into their own hands in order to save the country.
        1. booki
          booki 4 July 2016 01: 00
          -7
          Quote: Svidetel 45
          liberoids in February 17, broke a bunch of firewood, and then in October 17 the Bolsheviks had to take power into their own hands in order to save the country.

          Yes, they "saved" her. For this, for a start, they tore it apart. Right at the beginning of 1918. Completing his anti-state coup.
          Another "trouble" is that the country did not need any Bolshevik salvation. But it was imposed.
  • Kenneth
    Kenneth 3 July 2016 22: 35
    +3
    Something I did not read about radio stations. And without them, all this technique is an uncontrollable herd
    Flags and wing swings are difficult to control in battle. Worse than the lack of radio stations, only the equipment of commander tanks with antennas in the form of handrails, so that the adversary knows better who to knock out.
    1. AK64
      AK64 3 July 2016 22: 57
      -1
      Worse than the lack of radio stations, only the equipment of commander tanks with antennas in the form of handrails, so that the adversary knows better who to knock out.


      The conical towers on BT-7 mod 1937 from the same opera --- to know exactly what they are dealing with
  • disgraced shooter
    disgraced shooter 4 July 2016 00: 16
    +2
    The machine guns seemed to have been only among non-commissioners and sergeants, as well as the Mauser carbine in the bulk of the infantry.
  • booki
    booki 4 July 2016 12: 59
    -5
    Quote: Article
    Modern war will be a war of engines. Motors on the ground, motors in the air, motors on water and under water. Under these conditions, the winner will be the one who will have more engines and a greater power reserve.
    Joseph Stalin
    At the meeting of the Chief Military Council, January 13 1941

    Bullshit, of course. In the style of Dzhugashvili, nicknamed Stalin. Which became clear in the summer of 1941. Suddenly, he began to win the one who had no more engines, and they were better.
    1. disgraced shooter
      disgraced shooter 4 July 2016 13: 35
      0
      Suddenly, he began to win the one who had no more engines, and they were better.
      The one who got ahead and attacked the first became the winners, the motors did not play a special role in this particular case at all.
      1. booki
        booki 4 July 2016 14: 44
        -4
        Quote: Disgraced Shooter
        The one who got ahead and attacked became the winner

        Those. do you think that if the USSR attacked Germany on June 21.06.41, XNUMX, he would immediately defeat it? Are you sure that this is not nonsense?
        Quote: Disgraced Shooter
        motors in this particular case did not play a special role at all.

        Are you talking about aircraft and tank engines?
        1. Cat
          Cat 4 July 2016 20: 59
          +1
          The USSR faced the best military machine in the world, and won. You can argue for a long time and compare the first with the second, the third with the fourth. But victory will still be for our grandfathers and great-grandfathers! AND HER DON'T TAKE IT OUT OF THEM !!!
          1. oking
            oking 4 July 2016 21: 34
            -2
            Quote: Kotischa
            USSR faced the best military machine in the world

            Who told you that?
            Further, generally nonsense.
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 5 July 2016 12: 09
    -2
    All had German T-3, T-4, self-propelled guns and Czech T-38 50 mm cited armor which the Soviet 45 gun in 1941 did not take. T-2 (30 mm cemented armor and 20 mm gun) is also better than BT-7 and T-26.
    The armor of all Soviet tanks except for the foreheads of KV, T-34 and T-28, which is more than 90% of the tanks in the Red Army, was taken not only by 37 mm guns, but also by 7,92 mm rifle guns.
    The forehead KV and T-34 are also under the strength of German 50 mm PT guns, 88 mm zen. and 105 field guns. The German infantry of 1941 was also very effective against the use of hand grenade tanks and Fri min.
    More than 90% of Soviet fighters in 1941 were slower than German bombers.
    1. faiver
      faiver 5 July 2016 12: 36
      +1
      no need to tell tales in 41, our 45ka fought quite effectively with any Wehrmacht tanks, with the exception of certain modifications of captured French thick-armored tanks, but they could hardly be said on the eastern front ...
      1. Stas57
        Stas57 5 July 2016 14: 58
        0
        Quote: faiver
        no need to tell tales in 41, our 45ka fought quite effectively with any Wehrmacht tanks, with the exception of certain modifications of captured French thick-armored tanks, but they could hardly be said on the eastern front ...

        what is "effective"?
        is it effective?

        I remind you that Pz.Kpfw.III Ausf.H is the forehead of 30 + 30 from the factory, and Pz.Kpfw.III Ausf.G is additional reservation, Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.F1 50mm, PzKpfw 38 (t) E-50mm
        1. faiver
          faiver 5 July 2016 17: 31
          0
          Pz.Kpfw.III Ausf.H - three hundred units, additional information about additional booking Pz.Kpfw.III Ausf.G not seen, Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.F1 - how many units? PzKpfw 38 (t) E - how much did you do on 22.06.41?
          Fought on Pz.Kpfw.38 (t) O. Carius wrote in his memoirs: “We cursed the fragile and inviscid Czech steel, which did not become an obstacle to the Russian anti-tank 45-mm gun. The wreckage of our own armor plates and mounting bolts did more damage than the fragments and the shell itself. ”
          1. Stas57
            Stas57 5 July 2016 18: 10
            0
            Quote: faiver
            PzKpfw 38 (t) E - how much was done on 22.06.41

            From November 1940 to May 1941, the 275 tanks of modification E were launched
            Quote: faiver
            Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.F1

            it doesn’t matter, all four 4s were either dropped or immediately new modifications
            Pz.KpfW.IVD (October 1939-May 1940). 229 units released In 1940-41, the frontal armor of the body is reinforced with 20 mm sheet.
            Pz.KpfW.IVE - (September 1940-April 1941). 223 units released Shielded initially.
            Pz.KpfW.IVF - (since April 41). Initially 50 mm.
            it turns out that all linear T-4 Wehrmacht to Barbarossa had 50 mm forehead.
            -439pcs
            Quote: faiver
            Pz.Kpfw.III Ausf.H - three hundred units.

            310 yes. Book by May
            From April 1940 to May 1941, the 600 PzKpfw III Ausf.G. was built.

            Well, it doesn’t matter, it still didn’t break through)
            1. faiver
              faiver 5 July 2016 18: 41
              0
              very funny, then who were the German tanks knocked out? bullshit all this excuse me ...
              1. Stas57
                Stas57 5 July 2016 19: 02
                +1
                Quote: faiver
                very funny, then who were the German tanks knocked out? bullshit all this excuse me ...

                and how did they get to Moscow if they got so easily beaten? But they knocked out like all the other countries, point blank and ambushed, or did you think she sewed the Germans through with km ?.
                Or comrade Fedorenko ssa ... sorry, poured into my ears ??
                or enemies dug in and crap in NII48?
                the problem is well known to history buffs, and the questions of faith or not faith are in another organization.
              2. AK64
                AK64 5 July 2016 20: 56
                0
                very funny, then who were the German tanks knocked out? bullshit all this excuse me ...


                Excuse me for being blunt, but why are you so stubborn? Here the format is not even a forum, but comments - and no one should prove anything to you, resting. Neither I nor Stas.

                They gave you information for thought - and then you yourself. You yourself — and you refute this information for yourself, or you yourself are convinced that it is right. And do it quietly and calmly - in the working order. All the more so today Everything is online

                And to pose as a fighter with enemies here is not just a losing, but also a stupidly stupid position.
                1. faiver
                  faiver 6 July 2016 14: 23
                  0
                  so why are you stubbornly proving something to me? do not prove, we will quietly live each in our own world :)
          2. oking
            oking 6 July 2016 15: 25
            0
            Quote: faiver
            PzKpfw 38 (t) E - how much was done on 22.06.41/XNUMX/XNUMX?

            390 pcs Ausf.E and Ausf.G.
            Quote: faiver
            Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.F1 - how many units?

            84 piece.
            Quote: faiver
            Pz.Kpfw.III Ausf.H - three hundred units.

            And as many Pz.Kpfw.III Ausf.J.
            Quote: faiver
            Fought on Pz.Kpfw.38 (t) O. Carius wrote in his memoirs

            Perhaps he fought on PzKpfw 38 (t) Ausf.D or earlier. There were 235 of them in the invasion army. And yet there were PzKpfw 35 (t). And Carius could well write about them.
      2. oking
        oking 6 July 2016 15: 40
        0
        Quote: faiver
        no need to tell tales in 41, our 45ka fought quite effectively with any Wehrmacht tanks, with the exception of certain modifications of captured French thick-armored tanks, but they could hardly be said on the eastern front ...

        But there were 774 pcs. Pz.Kpfw.III Ausf.J, PzKpfw 38 (t) Ausf.EG and Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.F1. Their forty-five took in the forehead from 150-200 m.
        And another 526 pcs of transitional models Pz.Kpfw.III Ausf.H and Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.E. Forty-five also hit them in the forehead of the hull (but not in the forehead of the tower) from just 150-200 m.
    2. oking
      oking 6 July 2016 15: 51
      0
      Quote: Kostadinov
      All had German T-3, T-4, self-propelled guns and Czech T-38 50 mm cited armor which the Soviet 45 gun in 1941 did not take.

      774 new German and Czech tanks made their way forty-five in the forehead from 150-200 m. Another 526 tanks of transitional models made their way into the forehead of the hull from the same distances. They fought in the forehead of the tower from afar. Just like the rest of the German tanks.
      Quote: Kostadinov
      The forehead KV and T-34 are also under the strength of German 50 mm PT guns, 88 mm zen. and 105 field guns

      And also:
      1 mm Pak 47 (t) Sample 36g
      2. 47 mm Pak 181 (f) Sample 37g
      3. 75 mm Pak 97/38 arr. 41g
  • geologist
    geologist 29 October 2016 16: 34
    0
    If the population, due to its illiteracy and backwardness, is not friends with modern technology, then at least a cut in quality and quantity of weapons, the enemy will still reach Moscow. In World War I, we lacked the latest Mosin rifles and it seemed necessary to protect them like the apple of an eye, but the monthly losses at the front amounted to 200 thousand pieces. The attitude towards them was ugly - rifles lay on the parapet of trenches in dust and dirt. GAU representative Fedorov (the same one who created the Russian assault rifle) hardly put things in order at the front regarding repair and cultural relations with the rifle. It was the barbaric attitude towards the most reliable rifle that made him refuse to continue work on the machine gun. He realized that the population was not ready for sophisticated weapons.
    By World War II, our brilliant designers created the T-34 tank. An engine based on an aviation BMW-VI with a Boshevsky fuel equipment is unreliable and very complex for children with 4 education classes - 70% of tankers.
    Events on Damansky in the 70s of the 20th century. The senior officer does not know the device of the T-62 tank and leads the tank platoon on board to the enemy artillery.
  • Skif_S
    Skif_S April 18 2017 13: 59
    0
    Quote: oking
    Quote: Svidetel 45
    Just do not remember the Anglo-Saxons

    How is it not necessary? And then whom to remember?
    Quote: Svidetel 45
    Just do not remember the Anglo-Saxons, until the age of 44, the Americans were engaged in a showdown in the Pacific Ocean with the Japanese, and the British were sitting on their island, where Hitler drove them in 40, and did not particularly protrude, except for air raids.

    Just in case, I want to inform you that in 1941. the British fought in North Africa. And in 1942. they were joined by the Americans.
    I also want to surprise you, the second front in Europe was opened in the summer of 1943. First in Sicily, and then in Italy. As a result, already in the fall of 1943. Italy capitulated.
    These are basic things to know.
    Quote: Svidetel 45
    because according to the same drawings the master and the student will do things completely different in quality.

    possibly different in quality. But identical in purpose. If only one of them is not a marriage.
    Quote: Svidetel 45
    Mosin made fundamental changes and little remains of the Nagant rifle.

    Mosin, this is an errand boy. What members of the commission told him, he contributed.
    And everything remained of the Nagan rifle, except for what was connected with the welcoming cartridge. First of all, Nagan’s rifle left the barrel and its production technology. For this, he received his prize.
    Quote: Svidetel 45
    And that Mauser immediately created his rifle immediately from a flintlock gun?

    What does Mauser have to do with it?