Military Review

Light tank T-45: option to upgrade the tank T-60

45
The Red Army at the beginning of World War II had more than 23 thousand tanks different types. The technical condition of these machines was also different. The start of the war, catastrophic for the USSR, and the series of defeats of the summer-autumn of 1941 seriously mowed down the Soviet tank fleet. By the beginning of the counterattack near Moscow, the Red Army managed to assemble only 774 tanks, of which only 222 were heavy and medium.


Light tank T-60, on the basis of which they then tried to create an upgraded version of T-45, did not appear from a good life. The plans of the military was the launch into mass production of the light tank T-50, which, by a set of tactical and technical characteristics, was a very worthy fighting vehicle, but during the war the Soviet industry was not able to master its production. In peacetime, having spent some time, the tank would have necessarily launched into the series, but the country had no more peacetime.

In such an environment, when the T-50 never went into the series, and the Soviet tank units suffered huge losses in battles with the aggressor, the light tank T-60 was born. This light tank was developed after the start of World War II. It was the result of a deep modernization of the light tank T-40, which was conducted by the design bureau under the direction of N. A. Astrov. The tank differed from its “donor” in better armor protection and more powerful weapons - the 20 automatic cannon (TNSh-20 or ShVAK). For the first time on the tank was used a device for heating in the winter time of the engine coolant.

Light tank T-40


In the conditions of an acute shortage of tanks, the main advantage of the T-60 light tank was its simplicity of production in Soviet automobile factories with extensive use of automobile mechanisms and components. The tank was produced simultaneously in four factories. In addition, a BM-8-24 volley fire system with 24 guides for launching 82 mm caliber missiles was developed and mass-produced at its base. In a short time, the Soviet industry released almost 6 of thousands of these tanks, which played a very important role in the battles of the initial period of the war and in the battle for Moscow, when each armored unit was on the account.

In the course of mass production of the light tank T-60, attempts were made repeatedly to improve the performance of the combat vehicle — everyone was well aware that the combat value of the tank was very low. Soviet tank crews often called these vehicles BM-2 (a mass grave for two people), “suicide bombers”, and even “coffins”. Tankers did not complain about their poor booking and weapons, considering them easy prey for German tankers and anti-tank artillery. So in August 1941, the design office of the plant number 92 in the city of Gorky, on its own initiative, began to design a new ZIS-19 cannon, which was designed to arm a T-60 light tank. The new gun was an 37-mm cannon with a barrel length 66,7 caliber, with an initial velocity of the projectile - 915 m / s and ballistics from the 37-mm anti-aircraft gun 1939 model year. In this case, the ammunition used is the same as with the anti-aircraft gun. In October, the 1941 of the year began to develop here a variant of the ZIS-19BM gun - 45-mm cannon with a barrel length 46 of calibers with an initial velocity of the projectile 757 m / s. This gun was a further upgrade of the 45-mm tank gun 20K.

As early as December 1941, Plant No. 92 had at its disposal a light tank T-60. As soon as possible - from 20 December 1941 of the year to 13 January 1942, the company developed the final installation drawings, and in just a week - from 12 to 19 January 37-mm ZIS-19 gun was manufactured in metal and installed in the T-60 tank turret . After upgrading this gun in April 1942, comparative ground tests of the second version of the 37-mm ZIS-19 gun in the T-60 tank and 45-mm tank gun of the 1938 model installed in the T-70 light tank were completed.

Light tank T-45: option to upgrade the tank T-60
T-60 tanks during a parade on Red Square


According to the results of the tests (from the ZIS-19 gun, 826 shots were made) it was noted that the accuracy of the gun battle at the 2000 meters distance was unsatisfactory, at the 1000 and 500 meters distance, it was better than the table values ​​for the 37-mm anti-aircraft gun. A good rate of fire was also obtained - up to 10 rounds per minute without correcting the tip of the gun and 6-7 rounds per minute with adjustments to the tip. Along with this, the ZIS-19 gun had a low barrel durability, as well as a number of shortcomings in the operation of the tensioning mechanism and percussion mechanism. In addition, it was very difficult to fire from 37-mm guns placed in a standard turret of the T-60 tank because of the crowded turret and the unsuccessful positioning of the pickup mechanisms. In conclusion, it was noted that the ZIS-19 gun could not withstand a series of tests.

Attempts to strengthen the armament of the T-60 tank were also made at other Soviet factories. For example, at the Gorky Automobile Plant (GAZ) they produced a light tank T-60, armed with a 45-mm gun installed in the new turret, but on the old pursuit. At the end of 1941, a prototype tank model was made and tested by shooting, after which an order was issued for the construction of a similar tank, but from armored steel. However, in connection with the creation of the T-70 light tank, further work on the placement of 45-mm guns in the T-60 tank at GAZ was discontinued.

We worked on our project of a more advanced tank and in the design bureau of the plant No. XXUMX. Here, simultaneously with the testing of the ZIS-37 engine (the ZIS-16 forced engine with an aluminum piston and an aluminum head), in the shortest possible time were able to prepare a draft of a new light tank, which was designated as T-5. A combat vehicle made on the basis of the T-45 tank was proposed as an alternative to the other light tank T-60 of the GAZ plant. The explanatory note to the design of the T-70 tank, directed by the plant director No. 45 Milling and the chief engineer Martirosov to the SSTU KA from 37 May 20, contained the following information:

Prototype tank T-45, top left view. Sverdlovsk May 1942 of the year


“In order to significantly improve the combat performance of the T-60 tank, preserve the mass production of this tank, facilitating an immediate transition to its production without reducing production volumes, the 37 plant based on the T-60 light tank designed and built a prototype called the T-45 . As a result, the company managed to create a single-engine tank with a more powerful power plant and the resolution of the issue of installing a reinforced version of weapons with almost equal tactical and technical characteristics with the T-70 tank and saving metal consumption for 2500 kg. "

The new tank had the same ammunition as the T-70. A new turret of a larger size was installed on it with an 45-mm cannon and an 7,62-mm DT machine gun paired with it. The tower was installed on the existing chase of the light tank T-60. Although the tower was enlarged, it still remained single. It was not possible to place a double turret on the T-60 tank hull, even using the more powerful ZIS-16 engine. At the same time, a simplified slewing mechanism of the turret of the T-60 tank and a regular lifting mechanism of the gun with a trigger device were used in the weapons installation. The successful arrangement of the controls and mechanisms of the new turret on the T-45 tank, as demonstrated by the tests, made it possible to significantly increase the rate of fire of the 45-mm guns, bringing the rate to 7-8 shots per minute against 4-5 shots per minute in the T-70 tank ( shooting was carried out from the scene). Simultaneously, the construction of the tower was simplified: instead of 233 parts of which the light tank tower T-60 consisted, the number in the turret of the T-45 tank was reduced to 141, and the new parts were only 46. At the same time, the thickness of the armor plates of the turret has grown from 25 to 35 mm.

The design of the hull of the light tank T-45 almost did not change compared with the tank T-60. There was only an increase in the thickness of the upper front hull sheet from 15 mm to 25 mm, and also the design of the mechanical drive hatch was changed. The modified hatch allowed the driver to leave the combat vehicle in any position of the turret. At the same time, the undercarriage of the T-45 light tank migrated to it from the T-60 tank unchanged. It consisted of 4-x support and 3-x supporting rollers, guide wheels and front-wheel drive wheels (on each side).



As a power plant on the T-45 tank, it was planned to use the ZIS-16 engine, which developed the power of the 85 HP. This motor was a forced version of the engine ZIS-5. The explanatory note, which was sent to the GABTU KA, noted: “The ZIS-16 engine is more reliable in operation than the GAZ-202 engine, and is able to work on the second grade of gasoline instead of the aviation one, which consumes GAZ-202. In the future, it is possible to further increase the power of the ZIS-16 engine. Further speeding up of the power plant will increase the fighting qualities of the T-45 tank against the T-70. Delivery of ZIS-16 engines from the Miass Automobile Plant named after Stalin is possible soon. ” However, in reality, the production of the ZIS-16 engine in Miass, where the engine production of the ZIS was evacuated, was not mastered.

The transition to the serial production of the light tank T-45, which was distinguished by improved characteristics compared to the T-60 and was not much inferior to the tank T-70, could be carried out at plant No. 37 in a short time, without reducing the production program of tanks, since the technological equipment production tank T-60 remained almost in full. However, as a result, the T-45 remained a project. The absence of the ZIS-16 engine and the impossibility of installing a two-seat turret on the tank also had an effect. At the same time, according to the assurance of the designers of GAZ, they were just completing the development of the design of the T-70 tank with a twin turret, to which the military gave their preference. And the light tank T-70 itself was already in mass production and was well mastered by industry.

Tactical and technical characteristics of the tank T-45:

Overall dimensions: length - 4,1 m, width - 2,39 m.
Combat weight - 6800-7000 kg.
Reservations: the front of the tower - 35 mm, the front of the case - 25 mm.
Armament - 45-mm gun and 7,62-mm machine gun DT.
Ammunition - 90 shots.
The power plant is a carburetor 6-cylinder engine ZIS-16 with horsepower 85.
Maximum speed - up to 45 km / h (on the highway).
Power reserve - 300 km.
Crew - 2 person.

Information sources:
Kolomiets M.V. Tanks- "suicide bombers" of the Great Patriotic War T-30, T-60, T-70. Moscow: Eksmo, 2010. 160 with.
http://strangernn.livejournal.com/1375990.html
http://www.aviarmor.net/tww2/tanks/ussr/t-45.htm
http://tank.uw.ru/articles/sowetskie/sovet1/lite
http://wowar.ru/tank-t-60
Author:
45 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Bongo
    Bongo 11 July 2016 06: 47
    +14
    In general, a normal publication, there are of course minor reservations like:
    The tank was distinguished from its “donor" by better armor protection and more powerful weapons - the 20 automatic cannon (TNSh-20 or SHVAK).
    The TNSH-20 is a tank version of the ShVAK 20-mm aircraft cannon, "or" is not appropriate here.
    1. Malkor
      Malkor 11 July 2016 08: 47
      0
      During the Second World War it was necessary to fight with what is and not with what we would like, but then after a couple of years. Many good ideas were never realized in the conditions of the war, the USSR made up for lost time after the Victory.
      1. Stas57
        Stas57 11 July 2016 11: 05
        +1
        Quote: Malkor
        During the Second World War it was necessary to fight with what is and not with what we would like, but then after a couple of years. Many good ideas were never realized in the conditions of the war, the USSR made up for lost time after the Victory.

        The USSR began to produce this type of tank after the war?
        Why write frank banalism and stupidity with a second comment? waiting for a plus sign?
        1. Malkor
          Malkor 11 July 2016 13: 14
          +9
          No plus sign. The idea is that good projects are often complex, in this regard - the implementation of complex projects, the USSR became freer precisely after the Second World War. Your logic is not clear why releasing a tank after the 45th, if it was a compromise already in the 42nd, and in the 43rd it simply did not correspond to the conditions of the War. During these 4 years, military thought has stepped forward very well.
      2. Egor rustic
        Egor rustic 1 October 2016 21: 54
        0
        [quote = Malkor] all correctly produced what they could produce. and as practice has shown, the main non-ideal weapon. the main ability to use it.
        it is written that in winter conditions it is impossible to use. but there are facts of how light T-60 tanks in the winter helped cavalrymen to leave the campaign in the rear of the Germans. I hope everyone understands that there was no question about roads?
  2. kugelblitz
    kugelblitz 11 July 2016 08: 19
    +10
    Soviet tankers often called these vehicles BM-2 (mass grave for two people), "suicide bombers" and even "coffins".

    It’s clear that you can’t build a Tiger or IS with such weight and units, though the machine itself turned out to be quite reliable and with good handling. How aggregation weight gain would be a mystery. Let's say the T-70 was not a great resource.
    And so the tank was actually not bad, the forehead was better protected than the T-26 and BT-7, had a high cross, the latter was especially useful in marshy terrain. It was on the Leningrad Front that these machines performed well.
    When compared with opponents, the tank was at a level. For example, the Pz.II was more bulky and less protected by 14 mm armor, but the gun was better and the specific power was slightly higher, the same thing with the 38M Toldy with 13 mm armor and PTR Solothurn, as well as with a high specific power even higher than that of the German . The Italian L6 stood out from this, with its well-defended 40 mm turret, but with weaker forehead armor of 30 mm, but the Italians really reached a mass of only 6,8 tons, unlike the Germans with 8,9 tons and the Hungarians with 8,5. 60, which is comparable with our T-6 and its XNUMX tons, as well as the specific power parameters coincided.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 11 July 2016 12: 11
      +4
      Quote: kugelblitz
      When compared with opponents, the tank was at a level. For example, the Pz.II was more bulky and less protected by 14 mm armor, but the gun was better and the specific power was slightly higher

      Hmm ... why are you comparing a 1941 tank with a 1937 tank? Indeed, by 1941 the armor of the "two" in the frontal projection had increased to 35 mm.
      1. kugelblitz
        kugelblitz 11 July 2016 12: 25
        +4
        Well, Duc deuce was in service at that moment, like the earlier models. Although I do not argue, many of the hinged armor was present. The Hungarians and Italians, too, the cars were pretty fresh.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 11 July 2016 13: 30
          0
          Quote: kugelblitz
          Well, Duc deuce was in service at that moment, like the earlier models. Although I do not argue, many of them had mounted armor.

          EMNIP, to "barbarossa" the Germans shielded most of the old models of the tanks remaining in the army.
          1. Stas57
            Stas57 11 July 2016 13: 34
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            EMNIP, to "barbarossa" the Germans shielded most of the old models of the tanks remaining in the army.

            to all pushed them into second roles - pioneers, orderlies, staff officers, etc.
          2. kugelblitz
            kugelblitz 11 July 2016 14: 45
            +1
            With 38 (t) he could well fight for example, of which there were quite a lot of Germans at that time. If the shells for TNSh-20 were with a tungsten carbide core.
            1. Stas57
              Stas57 11 July 2016 14: 56
              +1
              Quote: kugelblitz
              With 38 (t) he could quite fight for example

              regular 45 took the frontal 25 + 25 of Prague no more than 200
              1. kugelblitz
                kugelblitz 11 July 2016 15: 02
                +2
                As far as I know from "Tigers in the Mud", and indeed from the riveted design, as well as from the reviews about Czech armor steel, even the lack of penetration amazed the tank crew. Namely, rivets, flying off fragments of armor, which in itself was fragile. Italian tanks had a similar disease.

                In general, the T-60 as a plus had a very low profile and it was easy to disguise it due to its size, so to speak, how to apply it.

                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 11 July 2016 15: 39
                  +6
                  Quote: kugelblitz
                  In general, the T-60 as a plus had a very low profile and it was easy to disguise it due to its size, so to speak, how to apply it.

                  The dimensions of the T-60 also had a downside:
                  Overcoming the snow cover.
                  On country roads near the front, T-34 and KV tanks pass without difficulty, T-60 land on the bottom.
                  Snow from 25 to 50 cm on the battlefield. Tanks KV and T-34 pass without difficulty, T-60 with a depth of snow more than 25 cm. Burrow and land.
                  ...
                  From experience in the operations of tanks of the 20th Army in winter conditions.
                  Practice has shown that it is best to use the T-60 and T-40 in the winter to guard and defend headquarters, to pursue the enemy along roads and in settlements. T-60 and T-40 in offensive combat because of the large snow cover can not participate off-road.
                  ...
                  Tank units of the 5th army.
                  T-60 when lifting 15-20 degrees with an average icing of the lift was not taken.
                  ...
                  From the report to the head of ABTU of the Western Front.
                  I’m making a conclusion about the use of T-60, T-40 and T-30 tanks in winter conditions.
                  From the experience of the war with the German invaders during the period from November 30.11.41, 16.01.42 to January XNUMX, XNUMX, the following was revealed.
                  Light tanks T-60, T-40, T-30 in a snow cover of 30-40 cm. Cannot move in the snow. A narrow caterpillar cuts snow to the ground, sits on the pressed snow at the bottom and skids. Examples: 13.1.42 when attacking the Ilyinsky 145 Tbr, T-60 tanks were used in the amount of 17 pieces. All tanks, as soon as they turned off the road for deployment, were stuck at the edge of the forest.
                  The crews of the T-60 tanks of the 31st Tank Brigade in the amount of 5 pieces were tasked with capturing Aksenovo. The personnel took all measures to accomplish this task, and in spite of this, not a single tank reached Aksenovo. All tanks were stuck in the snow at the time of deployment. ”
                  © Ulanov

                  The frequency response, in summer, the TNS had no less problems - in dusty conditions, the delicate automatics of the former air gun regularly refused.
                  1. Stas57
                    Stas57 11 July 2016 16: 00
                    +1
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    © Ulanov

                    or as
                  2. kugelblitz
                    kugelblitz 11 July 2016 16: 35
                    +1
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    A narrow caterpillar cuts snow to the ground, sits on the pressed snow at the bottom and skids.

                    It was rather affected by the light weight of the tank. Compare the ground pressure.

                    T-60 - 0,53-0,63 kg / cm²
                    T-34 - 0,62 kg / cm²
                    KV-1s - 0,77-0,79 kg / cm²
              2. Stas57
                Stas57 11 July 2016 15: 08
                0
                Dadada, I foresee your objections - all types of tested sub-caliber for 42 year showed about the following;
                1. kugelblitz
                  kugelblitz 11 July 2016 15: 12
                  0
                  For some reason, my picture is not loaded on the topwar, the link to it is direct http://i78.fastpic.ru/big/2016/0711/e5/12d86f5c77848bf227c264dd1ed400e5.jpg

                  Or text

                  Ammunition Angle Distance, 50 100 300 500
                  armor-piercing 90 ° 35 28 22 15

                  Sources: "Artillery armament of Soviet tanks 1940-1945" Armada-Vertical, No. 4, 1999
                  V. Grabin "Weapon of Victory", 1987

                  By the way, at the same time, the picture of the early two fell, with 14 mm of armor.
                  http://lib.rus.ec/i/75/592075/i_095.jpg
                  And here is another
                  http://tanki-v-boju.ru/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Pz2_2.png
                  1. Stas57
                    Stas57 11 July 2016 15: 29
                    0
                    Quote: kugelblitz
                    For some reason, my picture is not loaded on the topwar, the link to it is direct

                    the embedding has long been dead
                  2. Alexey RA
                    Alexey RA 11 July 2016 15: 41
                    0
                    Quote: kugelblitz
                    Or text

                    Ammunition Angle Distance, 50 100 300 500
                    armor-piercing 90 ° 35 28 22 15

                    Interestingly, these are the results of the shootings? Or, as always, Jacob de Mar? what
                    1. kugelblitz
                      kugelblitz 11 July 2016 15: 59
                      0
                      Maybe, and maybe the results of the shelling made themselves felt.
    2. Cat
      Cat 11 July 2016 21: 57
      0
      Normal Russian humor. American "Grants" also stuck in the years of the Second World War - a mass grave for six (BM6).
  3. inkass_98
    inkass_98 11 July 2016 08: 20
    +3
    Actually, the decision to maintain the production of T-70 is quite logical. The transition to the production of a new tank would require additional costs and increase the range of parts necessary for its production. In a war, this would not be entirely justified. T-70 was already well mastered + there was a version with a double tower on the way. Just the option when the best is the enemy of the good.
  4. Amurets
    Amurets 11 July 2016 10: 02
    +4
    << As a power plant on the T-45 tank, it was planned to use the ZIS-16 engine, which developed a power of 85 hp. This engine was a forced version of the ZIS-5 engine. >>
    The Gaz-85 and Gaz-202 engines, as well as the ZiS-16, had one significant drawback at that time. There were not enough aluminum alloys to produce pistons and cylinder heads. In addition to this problem, the problem of evacuating the ZiS plant in Ulyanovsk and Miass was added. Miass was evacuated from the ZiS engine.
    << ZIS has chosen the path of evolutionary development. He created a bus version of the ZIS-16 engine, which he forced by changing the valve timing, switching from cast-iron to aluminum pistons, increasing the compression ratio to 5,7. As a result, the power increased to 85 hp. from. at 2600 rpm (s. 73 hp at 2300 rpm), the torque increased from 28,5 to 30 kgf-m. These indicators have been achieved with minimal equipment changeover. However, the ZIS-16 had no prospects for further development, and already in the post-war period, the ZIS had to replace it with a completely new engine. >>
  5. Fonmeg
    Fonmeg 11 July 2016 10: 50
    +2
    Back in August 1941, the design bureau of plant 37 and GAZ began work aimed at arming the light tank T-60 with a cannon that had a good fragmentation shot with satisfactory armor-piercing. Actually, as they said then, "you need to make a tank for a cannon." The design bureau of plant 37 (chief engineer Martirosov) decided to keep the tank's hull unchanged and work only in the field of improving the power plant and creating a new turret with weapons.
    The new turret with a 45-mm cannon was manufactured in collaboration with the Design Bureau of Plant 92 (Grabin). As a result, by January 1942 the tank "062" (or T-60-2) was manufactured with a 45-mm ZIS-19BM cannon in a new turret and an increased thickness of the upper frontal plate to 25 mm.
    However, the design bureau was counting on installing an engine with a capacity of 110 hp in the tank. ZIS-60, in extreme cases 88 hp ZIS-16 (forced versions of the ZIS-5 with an aluminum piston and an aluminum head), the production of which was not mastered by the Miass plant on time. In addition, the T-70 tank was already adopted and the work on a very promising prototype, the T-45, was curtailed.
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 11 July 2016 13: 17
      0
      Quote: Fonmeg
      However, the design bureau was counting on installing an engine with a capacity of 110 hp in the tank. ZIS-60, in extreme cases 88 hp ZIS-16 (forced versions of the ZIS-5 with an aluminum piston and an aluminum head), the production of which was not mastered by the Miass plant on time. In addition, the T-70 tank was already adopted and the work on a very promising prototype, the T-45, was curtailed.

      In Miass, engines with aluminum heads were never produced, and aluminum pistons for subsequent modifications of the ZiS-5m and UralZiS-355 UralZiS-355m engines came from Moscow and Ulyanovsk.
  6. Berkut24
    Berkut24 11 July 2016 11: 36
    +1
    And when these tanks were riveted, the Battle of Kursk burst out nowhere, which showed that the time of light tanks had long passed. The trouble of many of our generals during the Second World War was that they could not present new demands to the industry in time. It was necessary to receive gigantic losses on the battlefield in order to understand that light armor in an attack is already hopeless, and a 76mm gun is not relevant for the T-34. It's a shame that after the loss of one of the first "Tigers" by the Germans near St. Petersburg and its study by our specialists to Kursk, in fact, nothing was done. and the Germans, after the first meeting with the T-34 in 41, began to curtail the production of light tanks and small anti-tank calibers.
    1. kugelblitz
      kugelblitz 11 July 2016 12: 04
      +5
      Why? The Germans just did not completely abandon light tanks, they found a niche for tracked scouts and as a base for various self-propelled guns. For example Pz.II ausf L "Luchs" or based on chassis 38 (t).
      Also, the Americans continued to produce both the M3 (M5) "Stewart", also releasing the new M24 Chaffee. True, they think this decision has degenerated due to the successes in North Africa, where the enemy was frankly weak. Along the way, this influenced the use of them as linemen, and not as scouts. But the chassis also served as the basis for a considerable number of self-propelled guns and special vehicles.
      Also, the T-40 essentially became the progenitor of the Su-76, ZSU-37, the K-61 transporter, and the Y-12 (M-2) artillery tractor.
      1. Berkut24
        Berkut24 11 July 2016 18: 42
        -1
        They just abandoned the tanks. And the fact that the platform was used, as you rightly noted, is another song. I wrote that ours before the Kursk operation and even in the operation itself used light tanks as shock tanks. If you calculate the composition of our tank forces, exhibited under the same Prokhorovka, you can only clutch his head. Formally, it seems like the Germans withdrew and we won. In fact, we again fought with meat and tin instead of armor.
        1. Riv
          Riv 12 July 2016 11: 11
          +1
          What do you dislike in Prokhorovka? Less read overseas historikoff like Evans. In his opinion, the Germans lost only three cars in the Prokhorov battle.
          1. Egor rustic
            Egor rustic 1 October 2016 21: 20
            0
            how many and what died is unknown to us. but 2 facts are known. 1) the Germans retreated. meaning that the losses were incompatible with the offensive. 2) after the Kursk arch, the production of light tanks almost stopped. meaning the loss of light tanks was enormous.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 11 July 2016 13: 27
      0
      Quote: Berkut24
      And when these tanks were riveted, the Battle of Kursk struck nowhere, which showed that the time of light tanks had already passed. The trouble with many of our generals during the Second World War was that they could not present the new demands of industry on time.

      Ahem ... you just didn’t see the GABTU hoteliers. smile
      It was not about the demands of the military. It was a matter of industry.
      The same armor protection of a medium tank was required to be strengthened throughout the war. And the result? Developed the T-43 - did not go into the series, the industry could not. Shielding was carried out in homeopathic quantities - suspension problems. They tried to increase the thickness of the turret armor to 60 mm (the first version of the "mold") - armored vehicles with a thickness of more than 45 mm are enough only for KV (the savings of thick armored vehicles were even included in the GKO decree).
      By the way, it was the lack of thick armor plates that led to the widespread use of casting on IP (with subsequent dances around reinforcing the frontal part).
      Quote: Berkut24
      It's a shame that after the loss of one of the first "Tigers" by the Germans near St. Petersburg and its study by our specialists to Kursk, in fact, nothing was done.

      And what could be done?
      To produce "coils" at a shock pace? Done.
      Resume production of 57 mm anti-tank gun? Done.
      Once again, demand to speed up the work on "kuma"? Done - but everything ran into the fuse.
      Demand to complete the 152-mm self-propelled guns, lasting almost a year of development, and issue drawings and a prototype, as well as launch the series as soon as possible? Done.

      What else can be done?
      Remove the T-70 from production? Excellent - what should I change it for? There is no working SU-76 yet - it has problems with the engine and transmission.
      Discontinue 45 mm? The same question - what to replace? And not only in production, but also in the troops. Because the 45 mm is a battalion gun. And if you change it to something more powerful, then you will have to change the means of traction. But the Red Army does not have them.
      1. pimen
        pimen 11 July 2016 14: 47
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        The same armor protection of the medium tank was required to strengthen the entire war. And the result? Developed the T-43 - the series did not go, the industry could not. Screening was carried out in homeopathic quantities - problems with the suspension.

        in fact, the recipe was: increase the lower side sheet by 70-80cm, add one roller, pull the bottom under it by half a meter, without touching the front end interface, lengthen and strengthen the VLD with an increase in the angle of inclination. The car would be equal to the panther in length, would get better security, and with less weight - and comparable mobility
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 11 July 2016 15: 49
          0
          Quote: pimen
          in fact, the recipe was: increase the lower side sheet by 70-80cm, add one roller,

          Where to add a skating rink? More precisely - where to put his candle? There is not a forest of torsion bars on the bottom, but rather high candles with springs.
          Quote: pimen
          to lengthen and strengthen the VLD with increasing angle of inclination.

          Where to get rolled products thicker than 45 mm? His barely enough for HF. Even for the "mold" 60-mm sheet was not found. And 45-mm rolled against 75-88 mm, no matter how you tilt it, the protection is poor. For Jacob de Mar no longer works here.

          In general, there was not only a recipe for strengthening the armor protection of the T-34, but also a "live" tank in metal. T-43 was called. smile
          1. pimen
            pimen 11 July 2016 16: 30
            0
            - lengthen the lower side plate (forward), lengthen the bottom to close the contour, "tilt" the candle of the new front roller back, if you are talking about that.
            - stupidly sculpt mounted armor, I'm not in the subject
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 11 July 2016 17: 53
              0
              Quote: pimen
              - stupidly sculpt mounted armor, I'm not in the subject

              Monsieur knows a lot about perversions. © smile

              According to the results of the combat use of shielded T-34s, it turned out that the screen thickness should be at least 20 mm. And you can’t put it directly on the armor - you need a gap. Otherwise, the 75 mm breaks through both the screen and the main reservation.
              It’s easier to put the T-43 in a series - it has a forehead like that of an HF, and even a sloping one. smile
              1. pimen
                pimen 11 July 2016 18: 12
                0
                in my opinion, it would be possible to hang 45mm, and the slope would be clearly greater than that of the t-43 (I do not know about this)
          2. Egor rustic
            Egor rustic 1 October 2016 21: 39
            0
            Actually, it was about reworking the T-60 light tank in the T-45. where did you get the t-34 and t43?
      2. Berkut24
        Berkut24 11 July 2016 18: 48
        -1
        Lord ... This is war! here the option "at least something" does not work. This "something" simply does not solve any problems other than filling roadside ditches and field hospitals with the remains of soldiers. We have an option when the armor does not hold any German shell at all, and the cannon obviously cannot knock out a single tank. For example, I don't understand why the Germans used the chassis of light tanks for a mobile anti-aircraft gun, while ours hid in trenches without such equipment until the end of the war.
        1. Egor rustic
          Egor rustic 1 October 2016 21: 30
          0
          read the memoirs of pilots attack aircraft. what they got up with anti-aircraft guns in case of detection.
          the only salvation of anti-aircraft guns. this is their number.
      3. oking
        oking 12 July 2016 00: 03
        +3
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Indeed, by 1941 the armor of the "two" in the frontal projection had increased to 35 mm.

        And if we recall that it was a heterogen, then a total of 46-47 mm of the Soviet homogen is obtained.
        Quote: kugelblitz
        and indeed, in design with rivets, as well as in reviews of Czech armored steel, even the absence of penetration hit the tank crew. Namely, rivets, flying off fragments of armor, which in itself was fragile.

        "Passion about T-38 rivets" have become widespread in the Russian Internet. And in fact, the problem was partly there. But it was extremely difficult to penetrate the armor of the PzKpfw 38 (t) (Ausf. E and G). The armor was cemented (and at the same time homogeneous) and in terms of the durability of the frontal part significantly exceeded the armor of the T-34. Therefore, complaints on this topic are groundless, it is better to get a rivet in the vat than to pierce the armor with a shell. In fact, those who were already dead in other tanks and would not complain about anything complained.
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Or, as always, Jacob de Mar?

        He sins only one, shamelessly overestimates the performance of Soviet guns. I could not imagine the quality of Soviet shells.
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Resume production of 57 mm anti-tank gun? Done.

        What is done? In 1943 made only 1855 pcs. In Kursk, ZIS-2 practically did not participate.
        Quote: Alexey RA
        almost a year of development of a 152 mm self-propelled guns and give out drawings and a prototype, as well as launch a series as soon as possible? Made by

        SU / ISU-152, these are artillery self-propelled guns. They have nothing to do with anti-tank missions.
        Quote: Alexey RA
        then you will have to change the means of traction. But the Red Army does not have them.

        What is it that the Germans have everything, but the Red Army has nothing? Maybe it was not a thrust?
        For example, the Germans back in 1940. developed a cannon that became their workhorse for the entire WW2, this is the 75mm PaK / KwK / StuG40 series. An ordinary high-tech cannon for production with the simplest equipment. In the USSR, there was a lot of such equipment, but they made "legendary three-inches" on them, which were not suitable for German guns. Why is that? Because "savings". The German cannons fired full rounds. And Soviet three-inch guns fired cartridges with charges a little more than WW1 times. At the same time, in the USSR, 76-mm cartridges with full charges (the so-called "anti-aircraft" cartridge) were produced in full swing. But the field artillery was not transferred to it, it is expensive to shoot. As a result, in 1943. The Red Army were left without normal field and tank artillery at all, only with the "legendary" three-inch pukals. Moreover, it was in this matter that there were no technological restrictions. The most real man-made problem. Created by ourselves out of the blue. Apparently, from the great genius of the "minds" solving this problem.
        But how convenient it was in 1939 to begin to transfer the artillery of the Red Army to a new cartridge. And from the production of F-22 arr. 1936 in 1939 It was decided to refuse. And from the production of 76 mm anti-aircraft guns in 1939. It was decided to refuse. It seems that here it is, the right decision goes into the hands itself. But no.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 12 July 2016 12: 00
          +2
          Quote: oking
          What is done? In 1943 made only 1855 pcs. In Kursk, ZIS-2 practically did not participate.

          Do you think that at the height of the war it is so simple to return to production a cannon, which was removed from production in 1941, including because of the extreme difficulty of manufacturing the barrel?
          Quote: oking
          SU / ISU-152, these are artillery self-propelled guns. They have nothing to do with anti-tank missions.

          But there were no other practically ready-made self-propelled guns with a heavy gun in the USSR at the beginning of 1943. The SU-122 with its howitzer does not make much sense in solving PT problems.
          Quote: oking
          But how convenient it was in 1939 to begin to transfer the artillery of the Red Army to a new cartridge. And from the production of F-22 arr. 1936 in 1939 It was decided to refuse. And from the production of 76 mm anti-aircraft guns in 1939. It was decided to refuse. It seems that here it is, the right decision goes into the hands itself. But no.

          Hehehehe ... Remind you - how many times before the war the question was raised about replacing a three-inch? 95 mm, 85 mm - and each time everything rested on industry and resources. In real life, for the few 52-Ks before the war, the industry was barely able to produce 1 BC per barrel - 10% of the required rate.
          The FAI wrote that one of the limiting factors was copper - during the war, the program for producing shells for the ZIS-S-53 and D-5 was pulled out due to Chilean copper and the removal from production of 76-mm anti-aircraft shells.
          1. oking
            oking 12 July 2016 13: 31
            -2
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Do you think that at the height of the war it is so simple to return to production a cannon, which was removed from production in 1941, including because of the extreme difficulty of manufacturing the barrel?

            Personally, I think this step is generally wrong. Already the second after the adoption of the "legendary", but in fact slop (somewhere already in 1943) ZIS-3. Do not forget who we are dealing with, this is the "Stalinist USSR". This means that the left ear will be scratched with the right foot. And for a lot of money. No other way. For "mismanagement" and "stupidity" is the second name of this regime.
            And so it happened. And if in 1941. ZIS-2 was valorous, then in 1943. she was just weird. Because demanded a truly colossal cost. These include the purchase of equipment for the production of trunks for her. And the establishment of the production of completely original ammunition. The result was insanely expensive, with low output and poorly effective. Although VET capabilities ZIS-2 in 1943. were still interesting. But the war continued ...
            In addition, the gun was highly specialized, only PTO. In 1943. mastering the production of such low-power specialized PTO guns already looked very strange. And the NKVD had every reason to pay attention to the "restorers of production."
            And that's why from 22.06.41. and until the beginning of 1943. The "brilliant Soviet designers" were picking their noses and offered nothing to replace the practically tsarist and low-power three-inch jacket, this is a big question. And interesting. After all, there was something to offer. And there were grounds, the war in 1942-43. did not even think about ending.
            Quote: Alexey RA
            But there were no other practically ready-made self-propelled guns with a heavy gun in the USSR at the beginning of 1943.

            So what? Well, let's beat them with the flies, since there are no fly swatter. And even newspapers.
            Quote: Alexey RA
            You remind - how many times before the war the question was raised about replacing a three-inch?

            Who cares? It is important that this replacement was not.
            Quote: Alexey RA
            95 mm, 85 mm

            And then. The Bolsheviks did not look for reasonable and cheap ways. They’re bigger, but more expensive. Then they agree.
            Quote: Alexey RA
            In real life, for the few 52-Ks before the war, the industry was barely able to produce 1 BC per barrel - 10% of the required rate.

            The most common ammunition in the Red Army before the war on 01.06.41. there were 76-mm "regimental" and "anti-aircraft" shots. 96 and 93%, respectively. Allegedly terribly widespread "divisional" was only 67%. Those. we again stumble upon another myth of the Runet. There are no numbers.
            But in the USSR even this fact was stubbornly ignored. And what was not released there. And then all this Soviet g **** about, so as not to criticize, was appointed "legendary". And what is the demand from the legend? But it was not legendary, no, it was just shit.
            Quote: Alexey RA
            They wrote to the FAI

            And what kind of source of revelations is this? If type VO, then it’s already funny.
            Besides, what relation exactly 76-mm "anti-aircraft" cartridges can have to the copper deficit? It looks like another runet cartoon.
    3. Forest
      Forest 11 July 2016 14: 04
      +1
      Light tanks are just the progenitors of BMPs, which, incidentally, are the main form of technology for motorized rifles. What earlier, what now, they are losing to the tanks in terms of armament and armor, but they are not abandoned. And at the end of the war, T-70 learned to use - both as reconnaissance, and attacks on enemy columns, and were the first to go to bridgeheads when bridges were not built.
      1. Cat
        Cat 11 July 2016 22: 02
        +3
        T-70 and T-60 in the war ended well served as command tanks in the regiments of self-propelled guns and vehicles towing anti-tank artillery.
  7. old grandfather
    old grandfather 11 July 2016 12: 48
    +5
    T-45 is the name of the project. The experimental tank was marked T-60-2
  8. 2005 Aleksey
    2005 Aleksey 24 July 2016 12: 00
    0
    The PzKpfw itself would have envied such a tank. bully