Military Review

Divers of the Federation Council of the Russian Federation raised the Sherman American tank from the bottom of the Barents Sea

144
From the bottom of the Barents Sea, military divers raised the American tank of the Second World War. Reports about it Interfaxciting a statement by the interim chief of the press service of the North fleet Russian Navy Andrei Luzik:

Specialists of the search and rescue control department of the Northern Fleet during the tactical-special exercise of the rescue forces raised the American Sherman medium tank from the bottom of the Barents Sea. The work was carried out in the area of ​​the sinking of the transport "Thomas Donaldson", torpedoed by a German submarine in March 1945. The vessel was part of one of the last Northern convoys sent by the allies of the anti-Hitler coalition in the USSR with a load of military equipment.


Divers of the Federation Council of the Russian Federation raised the Sherman American tank from the bottom of the Barents Sea


Besides tank other equipment was raised to the surface, including anti-aircraft guns, machine guns and a steam train.

According to Andrei Luzik, all the equipment extracted from the bottom of the Barents Sea after the completion of work in the flood zone of “Thomas Donaldson” will go to the main base of the Federation Council of the Russian Federation in Severomorsk.

The works are carried out, including with the use of uninhabited remotely controlled underwater vehicles. They are engaged in underwater reconnaissance and video recording of the actions of diving groups. In the near future it is planned to create a film about work at the bottom of the Barents Sea in the area of ​​flooding of American transport.

Works are under the control of the Northern Fleet Commander Vice Admiral Nikolai Evmenov.

It should be noted that the start of work on the rise of military equipment from the board of "Thomas Donaldson" dates back to 2010 year. At the same time, from a flooded vessel, they managed to raise a road roller, which later entered the exposition of the museum working on the Krasin icebreaker.

The M4 “Sherman” tank has a combat mass of about 30 tons. Such tanks were manufactured from 1942 to 1945. Used by the armies of the United States, Britain, the USSR and a number of other countries, subsequently including Israel. Over the years the production of such machines created almost 50 thousands of units, which makes the "Sherman" one of the most massive tanks in stories.
Photos used:
game.hostenko.com
144 comments
Ad

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

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. seti
    seti 19 July 2016 16: 33
    +19
    It is a pity that this technique did not contribute to the victory over fascism. But will serve as an exhibit to posterity.
    1. Scoun
      Scoun 19 July 2016 16: 36
      +28
      Quote: seti
      It’s a pity this technique did not contribute to the Victory

      It is much more pity for people who did not reach quite a bit before the Victory. Including..
      sinking of the transport "Thomas Donaldson", torpedoed by a German submarine in March 1945 of the year. The ship was part of one of the last Northern convoys
      1. sever.56
        sever.56 19 July 2016 16: 51
        +27
        He lived in the early sixties in a hut, one hundred and fifty meters from the Kola Bay, and about a kilometer from my house on the bay there was a dump of old ships and submarines, including during the Great Patriotic War. There, the boys and I covered everything we could. All these ships and boats were sawn for scrap. And for sure, in the history of these old people there are many glorious pages. It was only later that they began to gather grain by grain, to look for the remaining boats, ships and aircraft. It is very unfortunate that then the authorities did not attach much importance to preserving the memory of that terrible war. Only somewhere in the early seventies began to deal with this matter.
        1. VALERIK_097
          VALERIK_097 19 July 2016 18: 57
          +3
          sever.56 SU Today, 16:51 ↑
          not to reproach you, remember where you found part of the cabin from the "Kursk". It's a shame.
      2. INVESTOR
        INVESTOR 19 July 2016 18: 00
        .
        Send to the Donbass to the militia.
      3. Cossack
        Cossack 20 July 2016 02: 27
        +5
        This transport was sunk by the U-968 submarine. 4 people were killed and 65 were saved as a result of the torpedo. The captain of the boat died in Hamburg on January 9, 2008 at the age of 87. He took command of the first boat at the age of 22 in May 1942. His second boat was U-968 from the moment of construction on March 18, 1943 to May 9, 1945.
    2. Grandson of Veteran
      Grandson of Veteran 19 July 2016 17: 14
      +3
      The technique of the Second World War is cool! I do not understand the other. Really in MARCH !! 1945 !! we still delivered tanks for land lease ?! Maybe the author with the date of the sinking of the transport which confused ??
      1. volot-voin
        volot-voin 19 July 2016 17: 32
        +2
        Quote: Veteran's grandson
        The technique of the Second World War is cool! I do not understand the other. Really in MARCH !!

        Somehow the tank looks behind and as outdated for 1945. It does not look close to the Soviet T-34-85, KV and IS, as well as the German tank fleet. Maybe the Americans out of habit fused junk to the allies, or better, they couldn’t offer anything.
        Reminds tanks of the 20s and 30s, when the tank industry only took steps forward, after the 1st World War.
        I would not like to leave in such a tank against a tiger or a panther ....
        1. Yuri11076
          Yuri11076 19 July 2016 18: 00
          +6
          As always, the photo may be different in the article. There were many modifications of Sherman tanks with various guns, and the photo in the article is so ...
          1. Cossack
            Cossack 20 July 2016 02: 36
            +3
            This is a tank raised from this vehicle. The truth is, it happened back in July 2014.
          2. Cossack
            Cossack 20 July 2016 02: 38
            +1
            This is a tank raised from this vehicle. The truth is, it happened back in July 2014.
            1. mroy
              mroy 20 July 2016 11: 09
              0
              The muzzle brake gives out the M1A1C gun, and it was practically not inferior to our S-53 for the T-34-85. For the 1945th is a completely modern car.
          3. The comment was deleted.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 19 July 2016 18: 05
          +11
          Quote: volot-voin
          Somehow the tank looks backward and as obsolete for 1945.

          So this is a photo of a museum "Sherman" in 1942, not a raised tank.
          In 1945, new Shermans with 76 mm were already coming to us.
          Quote: volot-voin
          Maybe the Americans out of habit fused junk to the allies, or better, they couldn’t offer anything.

          The Yankees delivered us exactly what they fought for.
          Moreover, our representatives in the USA also chose - which of the proposals will be delivered to the USSR (because the offer exceeded the delivery capabilities).
          Quote: volot-voin
          I would not like to leave in such a tank against a tiger or a panther ....

          But in vain. Viscous armor + high-quality shells with high armor penetration. During trials, the 75-mm cannon pierced the side of the "tiger", which the F-34 was too tough for. And the American 76-mm even surpassed the ZIS-S-53:
          10. American 76-mm armor-piercing shells penetrate the side plates of the Tiger-B tank from a distance 1,5-2 times greater than domestic 85-mm armor-piercing shells "

          Anyway - tanks do not fight tanks. Order No. 325 of 1942 confirms this.
          1. Andrey Yuryevich
            Andrey Yuryevich 19 July 2016 18: 40
            -7
            Quote: Alexey RA
            During trials, a 75-mm cannon pierced the side of a "tiger" F-34 was too tough
            what for the plane? what
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 19 July 2016 18: 41
              +8
              Quote: Andrey Yurievich
              what for the plane?

              Tank 76-mm gun Grabin. smile
              It is interesting because it was formally adopted six months after it actually began to be put on the T-34 (the casket just opens - it was first adopted by the T-34 complete with the F-34, and then it was taken separately and the gun) .
              1. Andrey Yuryevich
                Andrey Yuryevich 19 July 2016 19: 47
                +1
                Quote: Alexey RA
                Tank 76-mm gun Grabin.

                thank! how dumb I am ... recourse
            2. Stas57
              Stas57 19 July 2016 19: 07
              0
              Quote: Andrey Yurievich
              what for the plane?

              The 76-mm tank gun F-34 is the tank gun of the Gorky Plant No. 92, which T-1941 tanks have been equipped with in series since 34.
              https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/76-мм_танковая_пушка_образца
              _1940_year_ (F-34)
              1. Andrey Yuryevich
                Andrey Yuryevich 19 July 2016 19: 48
                +1
                Quote: Stas57
                76-mm tank gun F-34 - tank gun of the Gorky Plant No. 92,

                and thank you. hi
          2. Verdun
            Verdun 19 July 2016 18: 51
            +4
            Quote: Alexey RA
            ... During trials, the 75-mm cannon pierced the side of the "Tiger", which the F-34 was too tough for.

            On board the Tiger made its way and F-34. At all. Only Shermans could boast of good armor penetration, which the British equipped with 17 and pound guns (since the 1943, it was not supplied to the USSR), and the American version with an 76 mm gun (Release - from January 1944, was supplied to the USSR quite limited).
            But in vain. Viscous armor + high-quality shells with high armor penetration.
            + weak chassis + high silhouette, thanks to which Sherman was visually detected earlier than the T-34, + gasoline engine that burned well.
            1. Stas57
              Stas57 19 July 2016 19: 08
              +2
              Quote: Verdun
              On board the Tiger made its way and F-34. At all. Only Shermans could boast of good armor penetration, which the British equipped with 17 and pound guns (since the 1943, it was not supplied to the USSR), and the American version with an 76 mm gun (Release - from January 1944, was supplied to the USSR quite limited).

              Well, yes, what's the difference - 600 or 200 meters?
              1. Verdun
                Verdun 19 July 2016 19: 57
                +2
                Quote: Stas57

                Well, yes, what's the difference - 600 or 200 meters?

                This, if I may say so, document is not the first time you have been posting it. And questions arise.
                1. Why, if this is a document, does it indicate the various models of the American shells used and does not indicate the models of the Soviet ones? "Regular armor-piercing shell" - what is this? The F-34 used shells BR-350A, BR-350B, BR-354P ...
                2. Why, if this is a document on real tests, the angle of the projectile’s and armor’s meeting is not indicated, which was mandatory according to the methodology used in the USSR?
                3. Why do other sources indicate different armor penetration of the M-1944 gun installed on Sherman before the beginning of 3?
                1. Stas57
                  Stas57 19 July 2016 20: 48
                  -3
                  Quote: Verdun
                  This, if I may say so, document is not the first time you have been posting it. And questions arise.
                  1. Why, if this is a document, does it indicate the various models of the American shells used and does not indicate the models of the Soviet ones? "Regular armor-piercing shell" - what is this? In F-34

                  no problem
                  1. Verdun
                    Verdun 19 July 2016 21: 49
                    +2
                    Quote: Stas57
                    no problem

                    This piece of paper is even more doubtful. The fact is that on the early KV-1 models the L-11 gun was installed (the same as on the T-34 earlier versions), then the F-32 and, starting in the fall of 1941, the ZIS-5. Where is F-34 here?
                    1. Inok10
                      Inok10 19 July 2016 22: 11
                      +5
                      Quote: Verdun
                      This piece of paper is even more doubtful. The fact is that on the early KV-1 models the L-11 gun was installed (the same as on the T-34 earlier versions), then the F-32 and, starting in the fall of 1941, the ZIS-5. Where is F-34 here?

                      ... there is one more "spicy" moment T-VI "Tiger" (55 tons) was born only in 1942 year ... when up to this point the main tank of the Nazis was the T-IV, which was not an enemy of the T-34-76, even the pre-war first issues ... as a result, in 1943 we received the T-34-85 as a countermeasure to the T-V " Panther "and T-VI" Tiger "... the correct chronology of events, it looks like this ... "accidentally forget" about development dates and batch production dates ... hi
                      1. Stas57
                        Stas57 19 July 2016 23: 17
                        +4
                        Quote: Inok10
                        ... there is another more "piquant" moment of the T-VI "Tiger" (55 tons) was born only in 1942 ... when until that moment the main tank of the Nazis was the T-IV, which was not

                        yes you are a genius
                        no, so a GENIUS!
                        This is the famous shelling of the Tiger 43 of the year.
                        Genius !, sorry genius!
                        it was based on the results of this shelling that a decision was made both to recreate the production of 57 and 34-85.
                        Write about Ukraine, judging about marshaldom? Well, write on. Why do you need the history of the Homeland? Kick Obama, there give more
                    2. Stas57
                      Stas57 19 July 2016 23: 13
                      0
                      Quote: Verdun
                      This piece of paper is even more doubtful. The fact is that on the early KV-1 models the L-11 gun was installed (the same as on the T-34 earlier versions), then the F-32 and, starting in the fall of 1941, the ZIS-5. Where is F-34 here?

                      you at least read the wiki chtol
                      Serial production of Ф-34 was carried out at the factory number 92 according to some sources from 1940 to 1944 year [2], according to others - from February 1941 to 1944 year [4]. A total of 38580 guns were manufactured.
                      In 1941, KB Grabin created a special modification of the gun, designed for installation on a heavy tank KV-1. This gun, distinguished from the F-34 by the construction of the cradle, the device and mounting of the armor, as well as a number of small parts, received the factory index ZIS-5 and was adopted by the official name 76-mm tank gun mod. 1941 g. The serial production of ZIS-5 lasted from 1941 to 1943 year, all were made 3577 guns.


                      but what does Grabin write
                      The same method created another tank gun based on the F-34 and F-22 SPM. In this case, they used without changes 63,5 percent of parts from Ф-34 and 4 percent - from Ф-22 SPM. The new 76-millimeter gun designed for the KV-1 tank was assigned the ZIS-5 factory index. Designers in collaboration with technologists and manufacturers created this model in the shortest possible time, although there were significant difficulties: for the new system, it was necessary to design an original cradle. Boris Gennadievich Lasman successfully completed this work.

                      In short, start with Wikipedia - your level
                      1. Verdun
                        Verdun 20 July 2016 11: 11
                        0
                        Quote: Stas57
                        In short, start with Wikipedia - your level

                        I have always been pleased with such arguments. Nevertheless.
                        At the same time, 63,5 percent of parts from F-34 and 4 percent from F-22 SPM were used without changes.
                        this does not mean at all that these tools were identical in their characteristics. For example, the German company Opel was very proud that in 1939 it was able to unify about 40% of parts on cars of the model range that was produced. That is, on all cars - from the Opel Cadet, to the Opel Admiral and the Opel Blitz truck. But in terms of their characteristics, they were very different cars. So with the guns. After all, a change in the design of the gun carriage, cradle, recoil truck, etc., seriously affects ballistics even when using the same barrel. In any case, it is impossible to consider paper with an initial error as a serious evidentiary argument. Even if we consider the ZIS-5 a deep modification of the F-34, it was still the ZIS-5.
                      2. Stas57
                        Stas57 20 July 2016 12: 25
                        0
                        Quote: Verdun
                        this does not mean that these guns were identical in their characteristics

                        Well, you prove that these guns were with different characteristics not in terms of design but in ballistics, etc.
                        Yes, and not on the example of Opel, on a specific example of F-34 and ZIS-5

                        In any case, it is impossible to consider paper with an initial error as a serious evidentiary argument. Even if we consider ZIS-5 a deep modification of the F-34, it was already ZIS-5.

                        not, gentlemen who signed this document, believed that the ballistics and ammunition of the guns did not have cardinal differences.
                        That is ballistics, because the ZIS-5 differed from the F-34 in the construction of the cradle, the device and lock fastening, as well as a number of small parts. But the trunk, its length, slicing were identical.
                        have a different opinion? let's have tables, graphs, etc.
                      3. Verdun
                        Verdun 20 July 2016 14: 30
                        0
                        Quote: Stas57
                        not, gentlemen who signed this document, believed that the ballistics and ammunition of the guns did not have cardinal differences.

                        First, the gentlemen such documents were not signed. everything is somehow bigger comrades. And secondly, I do not argue about the similar characteristics of the F-34 and ZIS-5 in armor penetration. I say that these guns had certain differences and, if we are talking about serious documents, they should have passed under them under different names. Because documents they are not written differently.
                      4. Stas57
                        Stas57 20 July 2016 16: 25
                        0
                        Quote: Verdun
                        . Because documents are not written differently.

                        Yes, you will not believe how they just are not written.
                2. The comment was deleted.
                3. Stas57
                  Stas57 19 July 2016 20: 59
                  0
                  Quote: Verdun
                  2. Why, if this is a document on real tests, the angle of the projectile’s and armor’s meeting is not indicated, which was mandatory according to the methodology used in the USSR?

                  no problem
                  1. Verdun
                    Verdun 19 July 2016 21: 51
                    -1
                    Quote: Stas57
                    no problem

                    What is this paper about? They shot at nothing, at no one ...
                    1. Stas57
                      Stas57 19 July 2016 23: 19
                      +1
                      Quote: Verdun
                      Quote: Stas57
                      no problem

                      What is this paper about? They shot at nothing, at no one ...

                      it's all the same document - it is searched on the network for 5 minutes, but judging by the fact that you did not find it, you do not need it
                4. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 20 July 2016 09: 57
                  +2
                  Quote: Verdun
                  1. Why, if this is a document, does it indicate the various models of the American shells used and does not indicate the models of the Soviet ones? "Regular armor-piercing shell" - what is this? The F-34 used shells BR-350A, BR-350B, BR-354P ...

                  Yes, because it is a document of the spring of 1943. Then the F-34 was the only full-time armor-piercing shell - BR-350A.
                  1. Verdun
                    Verdun 20 July 2016 11: 14
                    0
                    Quote: Alexey RA

                    Yes, because it is a document of the spring of 1943.

                    BR-350B mastered since the end of 1942, and mass-produced since March 1943. So in the spring of 1943 he was already. Unless, of course, not counting February for spring.
                    1. Alexey RA
                      Alexey RA 20 July 2016 11: 57
                      0
                      Quote: Verdun
                      BR-350B mastered since the end of 1942, and mass-produced since March 1943. So in the spring of 1943 he was already. Unless, of course, not counting February for spring.

                      In March, it was rather not the BR-350B, but the BR-350SP:
                      But the wide release of 76-mm armor-piercing shells of the BR-350B type, mastered from the summer of 1942, began de facto only in March 1943. Moreover, due to the lack of explosives to equip his chamber, the first batches were produced with "neutral" equipment ( instead of explosives filled with chalk) or in the "solid" version (BR-350BSP).

                      Moreover, he was also not very good with armor penetration:
                      Meanwhile, even the existing UBR-354B round, which is being delivered to the troops, equipped with a BR-350BSP (solid) projectile, under favorable conditions, is capable of penetrating the side armor of a Tiger tank at a distance of up to 100-200 m ...


                      Also, do not forget that for the USSR "the beginning of production" and "availability in parts" are completely different things. The same BR-350A has been in the series since 1940. But even in the middle of 1942 they wrote:
                      In view of the lack of the required number of kamor armor-piercing shells in artillery units, the shooting of German tanks from 76,2-mm divisional guns with projectiles of other types is common ...
                      © Report "The defeat of the armor of German tanks." July 1942 NII-48
                      1. Verdun
                        Verdun 20 July 2016 14: 59
                        0
                        We take our gun
                        Penetration table for 76-mm tank gun mod. 1940 (F-34) [10]
                        Range, m At a meeting angle of 60 °, mm At a meeting angle of 90 °, mm
                        Dumbhead caliber armor-piercing projectile BR-350A
                        100 69—86 80—89
                        300 63—79 76—84
                        500 59—70 70—78
                        1000 50—63 63—73
                        1500 43—52 58—65
                        Dull-headed with localizers caliber armor-piercing projectile BR-350B
                        100 74—89 86—94
                        300 69—82 81—90
                        500 62—76 75—84
                        1000 55—71 68—78
                        1500 48—55 62—69
                        Caliber projectile BR-354P
                        100 n / a — 92 n / a — 102
                        300 n / a — 87 n / a — 98
                        500 n / a — 77 n / a — 92
                        and compare with the American.
                        Penetration table for the 75 mm M3 gun
                        Homogeneous steel armor, meeting angle 60 degrees
                        Type of projectile \ Range 500 m 1000 m 1500 m 2000 m
                        APC M61 66 mm 60 mm 55 mm 50 mm
                        AP M72 76 mm 63 mm 51 mm 43 mm
                        HVAP T45 117 mm 97 mm 79 mm 64 mm
                        Hardened steel armor, 60 degree viewing angle
                        Type of projectile \ Range 500 m 1000 m 1500 m 2000 m
                        APC M61 74 mm 67 mm 60 mm 54 mm
                        AP M72 66 mm 53 mm 41 mm 33 mm
                        The T45 shell was not mass-produced.
                        It can be seen from the comparison that the guns are close in their characteristics. At the same time, even judging by the test results that you refer to, it is more likely not about the advantage of an American weapon, but about the higher quality of the ammunition used in it.
                      2. Alexey RA
                        Alexey RA 20 July 2016 18: 33
                        0
                        One small question - are you sure. that the armor penetration table is based on the results of real shots of real shells on real armor? But it is not just a tabular version of the Jacob de Mar formula.
                        Simply put - for what armor is armor penetration given? Our 45-mm domestic armored plates also confirmed the performance characteristics. And on German armor with the same shells it gave 30 mm from 150-200 m.

                        The advantage of an American gun in armor penetration is connected with shells. As M. Svirin wrote, ours could not swell so many dopants into a mass shell. And our German type weld head also failed. We had to make a body with a mushroom head and uneven hardening, which initially gave 90% of the marriage.
                        That is, we take a solid cast, grind out a mushroom-shaped head and subject the case to uneven hardening so that the head is solid and breaks through the armor (collapsing at the same time), and the less hard, but less fragile chamber part ensures the passage of a burst charge beyond the armor. Here is such a difficult happiness of the technologist, which in the event of war will require millions of copies.
                        © D. Shein
                        Yes, and with serial shells, this head often simply broke off, not fulfilling its main function.
                        As the uv. M.Svirin:
                        ALL of our armor-piercing shells were worse than German, English and American. But not because they were made less accurately, but because it took about 50 times more money (according to standard hours) to spend one German 8-mm round with a shell with a welded head and a stamped armor-piercing cap than our 57-mm armor-piercing shot from ZIS-2. Their projectile was made by 3 highly qualified people (turner, welder, stamper), ours was one (turner), and it was enough to have 4 category.

                        Quote: Verdun
                        At the same time, even judging by the test results that you refer to, it is more likely not about the advantage of an American weapon, but about the higher quality of the ammunition used in it.

                        Who cares? Armor penetration is calculated according to the "weapon-projectile" complex. And if there is no normal serial BBS for the gun, then its armor penetration is inferior to its counterparts. You can't load a gun with armor penetration tables, and you can't match the "tiger". smile
                      3. Verdun
                        Verdun 20 July 2016 21: 31
                        0
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        One small question - are you sure. that the armor penetration table is based on the results of real shots of real shells on real armor?

                        No, not sure. Like the tables that are laid out
                        Stas57
                        . Because in real tests for armor penetration, they indicate, in addition to information about the type of projectile, type of armor, distance of the shot, angle of encounter with the armor and its thickness, the following parameters:
                        1. Weather conditions. Air temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure and wind direction.
                        2. The lot number from which the ammunition is taken.
                        3. The barrel number of the gun from which the shot was fired, and the degree of wear.
                        4. Well, and if possible, the batch number of the reservation. If it is a question of shelling not of an armor plate, but of a specific technique, indicate its model and serial number.
                        Otherwise, the tests turn into profanity.
            2. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 19 July 2016 19: 14
              +4
              Quote: Verdun
              a tall silhouette, thanks to which Sherman was visually detected earlier than the T-34,

              I hope you do not measure Sherman’s height using an anti-aircraft machine gun? wink
              Quote: Verdun
              gasoline engine that burned well.

              Only the Allies and only the Army. The USSR and the Marines took exclusively diesel Shermans.
              Quote: Verdun
              + weak chassis

              GABTU she arranged.
            3. Stas57
              Stas57 19 July 2016 19: 22
              0
              Quote: Verdun
              + weak chassis + high silhouette, thanks to which Sherman was visually detected earlier than the T-34, + gasoline engine that burned well.

              how tall
          3. Orionvit
            Orionvit 19 July 2016 21: 24
            +1
            But in vain. Viscous armor + high-quality shells with high armor penetration. During trials, the 75-mm cannon pierced the side of the "tiger", which the F-34 was too tough for. And the American 76-mm even surpassed the ZIS-S-53:
            Where does this information come from? I watched about ten years ago a discovery film about WWII tanks. American tank crews said that the Sherman was a coffin on tracks. At least six, seven Shermans were nominated against one “Tiger”, and when the “Tiger” was still brought down, there were two or three “Shermans” left. This is the proportion based on the results of the battles on the second front.
            1. Verdun
              Verdun 19 July 2016 21: 55
              +2
              Quote: Orionvit
              Where does this information come from?

              This is proprietary information exclusively for fans of Sherman tanks. smile
              Here is such a proportion, according to the results of battles on the second front.
              To attack the Tiger and Sherman and T-34, it was necessary to reduce the distance. So, it was necessary to either attack from an ambush, or somehow approach. The latter was quite problematic, because at a great distance the Tiger carried both our and American tanks. In this regard, Sherman was in a less advantageous situation, since he was bigger and higher. Whatever some would say, but almost 240 mm in height differences were important in this case. At the same time, Sherman’s suspension, due to its design features, was more often struck in battle.
            2. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 20 July 2016 10: 33
              0
              Quote: Orionvit
              Where does this information come from? I watched about ten years ago a discovery film about WWII tanks. American tank crews said that the Sherman was a coffin on tracks. At least six, seven Shermans were nominated against one “Tiger”, and when the “Tiger” was still brought down, there were two or three “Shermans” left. This is the proportion based on the results of the battles on the second front.

              During our offensives, our tankers' encounters with the "tigers" ended in about the same way.
              The same battle for Antopol-Boyarka with a tank brigade knocked out in several attacks by Kurochkin was written from life - in real life, in that battle, he sat in the SU-85 himself. And on the other side of the sight were the LSSAH Tigers. Moreover, according to the results of the battle, Wendorf and Wittmann's machines (yes, the same one) were damaged.
              Or you can recall the battle in Malinovo - 41 TBR 5 TC against a pair of "tigers" (one of which was commanded by the notorious Otto Carius). Result:
              According to combat reports of 41 TBRs, since the evening of July 21, it has lost 10 reports irrevocably and 2 damaged, in another, as many as 13 vehicles, 12 T-34s and 1 M-3-S. Nine of which, according to the write-off documentation, were burned down in or near Malinovo. For five Is-2s, complete clarity, their loss is unequivocally confirmed by both the 48Gv.TCCI and Schwer Panzer Abt documents. 502 except that support for aviation in German documents does not appear.
          4. mroy
            mroy 20 July 2016 11: 42
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Anyway - tanks do not fight tanks. Order No. 325 of 1942 confirms this.


            By the way, according to the American regulations of WW2, the same is true - tanks are the concern of anti-tank equipment. But on D-Day it turned out that the Germans had not read these regulations.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 20 July 2016 12: 04
              +1
              Quote: mroy

              By the way, according to the American regulations of WW2, the same is true - tanks are the concern of anti-tank equipment. But on D-Day it turned out that the Germans had not read these regulations.

              This is not the Germans did not read the charters. This American commanders could not organize the statutory interaction of tanks and self-propelled guns.
              Because when it was possible to organize this interaction, the situation usually looked like this: "a German tank crawled out, knocked out the "Sherman", then a tank destroyer hit it - and it no longer fired".
          5. mroy
            mroy 20 July 2016 11: 50
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            But in vain. Viscous armor + high-quality shells with high armor penetration. During trials, the 75-mm cannon pierced the side of the "tiger", which the F-34 was too tough for. And the American 76-mm even surpassed the ZIS-S-53:


            Not in vain, but if the Tiger or Panther does not substitute the board, then what? And neither F-34, nor S-53, nor M-3, nor M-1 took them directly into their foreheads. And KwK 36 and KwK 42 Sherman punched in the forehead from a great distance. Here, either P-47 is called up or dumped on foot, and if the weather is non-flying, then immediately on foot.
            Moreover, in the West, the Shermans, as well as in the East, mostly had to attack, and the Tigers and Panthers defend themselves, that is, quite often they had the opportunity to act from ambushes, often prepared in advance.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 20 July 2016 18: 51
              0
              Quote: mroy
              Not in vain, but if the Tiger or Panther does not substitute the board, then what?

              And then we must recall the order 325. Which clearly and clearly states that:
              When enemy tanks appear on the battlefield, the main battle with them is artillery. Tanks engage in battle with enemy tanks only in the event of a clear superiority of forces and advantageous position.

              The corps should not get involved in tank battles with enemy tanks, unless there is a clear superiority over the enemy. In the event of encountering large enemy tank units, the corps detaches anti-tank artillery and part of the tanks against the enemy tanks, the infantry, in turn, puts forward its anti-tank artillery, and the corps, obscured by all these means, bypasses the enemy tanks with its main forces and hits the enemy infantry with the aim of tear it from enemy tanks and paralyze the actions of enemy tanks. The main task of the tank corps is the destruction of enemy infantry.

              That is, STs should not get involved in battle with enemy tanks - except in the case of clear superiority over the enemy. Maneuver is our everything, especially since the "tigers" and "panthers" are pretty bad with it (cross-country ability + gluttony).
              After I saw how when the Panther's engine was started from a temporary tank (a 20 liter plastic canister) gasoline was decreasing before our eyes, it was idling - I understood why German tanks could not be called the best in that war ... Guys , 700 liters of 87th gasoline for the Panther and over 1000 for the royal Tiger per hundred kilometers - nothing can be cured.
              © fvl1_01
              How many of us fought against Lisyanka, even the latest ISs put there - and then it dawned that you could hit bypass.
              The next day the village of Lisyanka was surrounded and taken. It captured 16 panthers abandoned without fuel, two Pz.lVs and two assault guns.
        3. Verdun
          Verdun 19 July 2016 18: 15
          0
          Quote: volot-voin
          Somehow the tank looks behind and as outdated for the 1945. Next to the Soviet T-34-85, KV and IS, as well as the German tank fleet it does not look.

          This is another reason to think about the fact that for the whole WWII until 1945 nothing was better than this tank in the USA.
        4. Mavrikiy
          Mavrikiy 19 July 2016 18: 45
          0
          Quote: volot-voin
          Quote: Veteran's grandson
          The technique of the Second World War is cool! I do not understand the other. Really in MARCH !!

          Somehow the tank looks behind and as outdated for 1945. It does not look close to the Soviet T-34-85, KV and IS, as well as the German tank fleet. Maybe the Americans out of habit fused junk to the allies, or better, they couldn’t offer anything.
          Reminds tanks of the 20s and 30s, when the tank industry only took steps forward, after the 1st World War.
          I would not like to leave in such a tank against a tiger or a panther ....

          Well, take a break. However, you were deceived. Infa, this is infa, but an illustration of how lucky. Now, if you look carefully ... In the photo there is an exhibit of the Sherman Museum in 1942. If the tank was 1945, then the 75 mm gun with a muzzle brake is quite decent. But nothing to do with the photo.
          I propose to forgive amers. And as Porthos said, the truth about England is: The Ostraans. Where did their tank culture come from? Fight with the Indians, or butt with Yap?
          And they are on it and in Korea and ...
          I agree not to roll. But they were blown into second place after T34, in terms of quantity. And the Americans say that he is better than the T34. See the memories of Korean war veterans. How are they on the Shermans all in a pancake. Funny, probably insanity is already affecting, so many years have passed.
          By the way, amers who wanted on our 34ke in the battle, too, would not be found. Interior decoration s.
          1. Verdun
            Verdun 19 July 2016 18: 55
            +5
            Quote: Mavrikiy
            And the Americans say that he is better than the T34.

            The Americans say that Saber is better than the MiG-15, that the M-16 is better than the AK, that Abrams is better than the T-90. And do you believe that too?
        5. Stas57
          Stas57 19 July 2016 18: 55
          0
          Quote: volot-voin
          Somehow the tank looks behind and as outdated for the 1945. Next to the Soviet T-34-85, KV and IS, as well as the German tank fleet it does not look.

          The British 17-pound cannon pierced the Tiger's forehead from a kilometer distance.
          here is a comparison of our and amer’s cannons on the tiger
        6. Revolver
          Revolver 19 July 2016 19: 27
          +3
          Quote: volot-voin
          Reminds tanks of the 20s and 30s, when the tank industry only took steps forward, after the 1st World War.
          I would not like to leave in such a tank against a tiger or a panther ....

          Nevertheless, they left, and on the eastern front, and on the western, and beat the Germans.
          And the Jews in the Sherman went against the Arab T-55, and won.
          1. igor67
            igor67 19 July 2016 19: 59
            +4
            Quote: Nagan
            Quote: volot-voin
            Reminds tanks of the 20s and 30s, when the tank industry only took steps forward, after the 1st World War.
            I would not like to leave in such a tank against a tiger or a panther ....

            Nevertheless, they left, and on the eastern front, and on the western, and beat the Germans.
            And the Jews in the Sherman went against the Arab T-55, and won.
          2. Verdun
            Verdun 20 July 2016 18: 24
            0
            Quote: Nagan
            And the Jews in the Sherman went against the Arab T-55, and won.

            You will laugh, but in many respects everything depends not on the tank, but on those who are sitting inside it.
        7. Sly
          Sly 19 July 2016 19: 49
          0
          Quote: volot-voin
          Somehow the tank looks backward and as obsolete for 1945.

          America at that time was quite lagging behind in tank building, compared with nat germany and the USSR, which at the end of the second world made a major breakthrough in this matter.
        8. The comment was deleted.
        9. sandrmur76
          sandrmur76 20 July 2016 02: 49
          0
          Read what veterans write about Sherman. Yes, it was gasoline, but nobody canceled comfort. The gun stabilizer was. There are pros and cons everywhere. My opinion (of a couch officer) is not up to t34-85 (price, quality, etc.). But in a battle and a tractor like on the Black Sea (Sevastopol) the armored personnel carrier is also a combat unit. But there’s even a tilt of armor here! I’m waiting for it to be shown (it’s good that I live in Murmansk). If I don’t rush to Kubinka laughing I think in the village Safonovo anchor will drop.
          1. Mordvin 3
            Mordvin 3 20 July 2016 03: 07
            +2
            Quote: sandrmur76
            .My opinion (couch officer) does not reach t34-85 (price, quality, etc.)

            But better than the T-34-76. Sherman also had machine guns on the tower.
        10. volot-voin
          volot-voin 21 July 2016 13: 02
          0
          Quote: volot-voin
          I would not want to leave in such a tank against a tiger or a panther ...

          Minuscule, read about the same Rommel, better memoirs, the memories of British tankers who fought on the Sherman against Rommel in the North. Africa. The gun may not be bad, but the chassis .. A number of disadvantages.
          The fleet of the USSR and Germany of that time was advanced and dynamically developing.
          http://pro-tank.ru/bronetehnika-england
          1. Stas57
            Stas57 21 July 2016 17: 43
            0
            Quote: volot-voin

            Minuscule, read about the same Rommel, better memoirs, the memories of British tankers who fought on the Sherman against Rommel in the North. Africa. The gun may not be bad, but the chassis .. A number of disadvantages.
            The fleet of the USSR and Germany of that time was advanced and dynamically developing.
            //pro-tank.ru/bronetehnika-england

            dynamical?
            what could be more dynamic than the development of BT America, which started the war without serious armored vehicles and ended with decent world models
      2. Koshak
        Koshak 19 July 2016 17: 52
        +4
        Quote: Grandson of Veteran
        Really in MARCH !! 1945 !! we still delivered tanks for land lease ?! Maybe the author with the date of the sinking of the transport which confused ??

        The last JW-67 Arctic Convoy departed from Scotland on 12 May; arrived in Kola Bay on May 20, 1945
      3. Stas57
        Stas57 19 July 2016 18: 35
        +1
        Quote: Veteran's grandson
        Really in MARCH !! 1945 !! we still delivered tanks for land lease ?!

        21 August 1945, President Truman announced the end of the lend-lease program
      4. Amurets
        Amurets 20 July 2016 00: 04
        0
        Quote: Veteran's grandson
        The technique of the Second World War is cool! I do not understand the other. Really in MARCH !! 1945 !! we still delivered tanks for land lease ?! Maybe the author with the date of the sinking of the transport which confused ??

        Lend-lease deliveries went until October 1945. I did not find the exact date, but according to indirect data, the last King Cobras, minesweepers and other LEND-LIZ goods arrived at the ports of the Far East in October 1945. Maybe someone has more accurate data, but in March 1945,
        officially, the goods still went through the LEND-LIZ until May 12, 1945, and then according to the Molotov-Mikoyan List. >> http://statehistory.ru/35/Lend-liz--Mify-i-realnost/
        Officially, Lend-Lease deliveries to the USSR ceased on May 12, 1945. However, until August 1945, deliveries continued according to the “Molotov-Mikoyan list”.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. siberalt
      siberalt 19 July 2016 20: 20
      +2
      The Americans are good at selling arms in World War II. And if the expression "coffin on wheels" came from, then first of all from "Shermans". The opinion is not mine (not for me to judge), but it is found in military literature.
  2. Roman1970
    Roman1970 19 July 2016 16: 35
    +12
    From the bottom of the Barents Sea, military divers raised an American tank from World War II.
    Interesting work in people. But I can’t get to the museum in Kubinka. Eh ...
    1. zennon
      zennon 19 July 2016 17: 16
      +1
      Quote: Roman1970
      Interesting work in people. But I can’t get to the museum in Kubinka. Eh ...

      Unforgivable! Be sure to visit !!!
    2. In100gram
      In100gram 19 July 2016 19: 34
      0
      Quote: Roman1970
      Interesting work in people.

      She is still complicated and dangerous.
  3. engineer74
    engineer74 19 July 2016 16: 36
    +3
    Curious what they are looking for actuallyin this parachute? what They’ve been diving for 6 years ...
    1. pavelty
      pavelty 19 July 2016 16: 45
      +1
      Conspirology?))
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. sever.56
      sever.56 19 July 2016 16: 56
      +3
      Quote: engineer74
      Curious what they are actually looking for, in this parade?

      Quote: engineer74
      They’ve been diving for 6 years ...


      For some, gold diamonds on the Achod are the main value, and for some, the memory of the feat of their people and then allies is the greatest value in the world.
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. Normal ok
      Normal ok 19 July 2016 18: 22
      +1
      Quote: engineer74
      Curious what they are looking for actuallyin this parachute? what They’ve been diving for 6 years ...

      Practice skills / technology.
    6. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 19 July 2016 18: 41
      +2
      Quote: engineer74
      Curious what they are actually looking for, in this parade?

      The usual regular training of personnel at a successfully turned up object.
      I wonder how many years his fleet will have enough and who will be inspected and unloaded after him? smile
  4. Приговор
    Приговор 19 July 2016 16: 38
    +5
    The tank itself is very mediocre. But, as a museum exhibit and witness of those years, no doubt will take its rightful place.
    1. mroy
      mroy 19 July 2016 16: 54
      +5
      I do not agree, the tank with its shortcomings, but which car does not have them. Moreover, many serious flaws were eliminated by the M4A3E8.
      And so it is at the level of direct competitors - T-34 and Pz.IV. Another thing is that he often had to fight with the Panthers, especially after day D.
      A wonderful exhibit, I hope to take its place in Kubinka. By the way, it may well turn out to be M4A3E8, the production dates are just March 1944 - April 1945.
      Still, it's a shame, March 45th, there was very little left ...
      1. zennon
        zennon 19 July 2016 17: 35
        0
        Quote: mroy
        And so it is at the level of direct competitors - T-34 and Pz.IV.

        It’s very tall, you’ll miss the hell. Thank you, it was delivered with a diesel engine, and it was mainly produced with gasoline engines, and different ones. They burned like torches. When hit by a crew it is vital to leave the car as soon as possible. It is not easy for people who are often shell-shocked to do this. Many burned out ... And yes, it’s reliable.
        1. Stas57
          Stas57 19 July 2016 18: 59
          +2
          Quote: zennon
          He’s very tall, you’ll miss the hell.

          for the anti-aircraft gun piercing the barrel on the 500 m, these cm are at the level of statistical error
        2. Stas57
          Stas57 19 July 2016 19: 05
          +1
          gasoline engines, and different. Burned like torches

          everyone burns like torches, but on Sherman, for example, there were fire extinguishers in the engine compartment
    2. Bayonet
      Bayonet 19 July 2016 17: 04
      +12
      Quote: Sentence
      The tank itself is very mediocre.

      Tanker Dmitry Fyodorovich Loza, author of the books “A Tanker in a Foreign Car” and “The Tale of the Sherman Tanks”, described that the main problem of the Sherman was the high location of its center of gravity: “The tank often capsized on its side like a Russian doll. I lead a battalion, and, on a bend, my driver is hitting a car on a pedestrian curb. Yes, so that the tank turned over. Of course, we crippled, but survived. ” On the other hand, the Sherman was better than many tanks in terms of maintainability. “Another big plus of Sherman was the recharge of batteries. On our thirty-four, to charge the battery, it was necessary to drive the engine at full power, all 500 horses. Sherman’s in the fighting compartment was a charging petrol walk-behind tractor, small as a motorcycle. He started it - and he charged you the battery. It was a great deal for us! ”
      The 76-mm American gun on the Sherman in penetration ability was approximately comparable to the Soviet 85-mm gun.
      The 76 mm English cannon on the Sherman was comparable in penetration ability to a panther cannon.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 19 July 2016 18: 11
        +2
        Quote: Bayonet
        “The tank often capsized on its side like a Russian doll. I lead a battalion, and, on a bend, my driver is hitting a car on a pedestrian curb. Yes, so that the tank turned over. Of course, we crippled, but survived. ”

        Vine described 2 cases in 2 years. Once a year is, of course, often. smile
        Quote: Bayonet
        The 76-mm American gun on the Sherman in penetration ability was approximately comparable to the Soviet 85-mm gun.

        Not "comparable", but superior to the 85mm gun:
        10. American 76-mm armor-piercing shells penetrate the side sheets of the Tiger-B tank from a distance of 1,5-2 times greater than the domestic 85-mm armor-piercing shells
        1. Runx135
          Runx135 20 July 2016 05: 30
          +1
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Vine described 2 cases in 2 years. Once a year is, of course, often.

          Once, if there is nobody nearby, it’s difficult to manually turn the tank over even by the whole crew ...
          1. mroy
            mroy 20 July 2016 10: 24
            0
            I subscribe to every word - we somehow dropped the T-72 mechanical drive from the ramp when I drove into the tractor, and set it on its side - they sorted out the day and this was in the park of the re-assembly of the tank division, that is, there was almost any technique.
        2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Stas57
      Stas57 19 July 2016 17: 12
      +1
      Quote: Sentence
      The tank itself is very mediocre

      as stated above, the tank itself at the level of competitors, as a museum exhibit will not be superfluous
    4. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 19 July 2016 18: 15
      +1
      Quote: Sentence
      The tank itself is very mediocre.

      But the head of the GABTU Marshal of the Armored Forces Fedorenko disagrees with you:
      Of the currently available armaments of the Red Army, tank equipment should be the American medium tank Sherman M4A2 with artillery. armament in the form of a 76,2 mm cannon of high power and the Canadian light tank "Valentine" MK-9 with a 57-mm tank gun limited rollback ...
      Specified Tank Samples compare favorably from domestic ease of control, significantly increased overhaul mileage resource ease of maintenance and repair and wherein their weapons, armor and mobility make it possible to solve the whole range of tasks put forward by armored forces...
      According to numerous reviews of tank units, these types of tanks can be considered the best for serving in peacetime, the development of military equipment ...
      I ask you to consider a set of measures as soon as possible improving the design of domestic tanks so that in terms of guaranteed mileage, ease of operation, repair and maintenance, they can catch up with the best foreign designs ...

      That is, in terms of fighting qualities "Sherman" GABTU was quite satisfied. But in terms of technical and operational, it was superior to Soviet tanks, which had to be urgently brought up to the level of a "foreign car" so that they could be used for training l / s in peacetime (when the resource is very important).
      1. serezhasoldatow
        serezhasoldatow 19 July 2016 18: 34
        +2
        Yeah !!! According to numerous reviews from tank units, these types tanks can be considered the best for serving in Peaceful time, mastering military equipment ... A better conclusion is not necessary !!!
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 19 July 2016 18: 46
          +2
          Quote: serezhasoldatow
          Yeah !!! According to numerous reviews from the tank units, these types of tanks can be considered the best for military service in peacetime, the development of military equipment ... A better conclusion is not necessary !!!

          You missed the main thing:
          and at the same time their armament, armor and mobility make it possible to solve the whole set of tasks put forward by the armored forces ...

          That is, the combat characteristics of the "Sherman" in 1945 met the requirements of the GABTU - on a par with the T-34-85.
        2. Stas57
          Stas57 19 July 2016 19: 11
          0
          Quote: serezhasoldatow
          for service in peacetime, the development of military equipment

          the problem is in the higher technical level of Sherman
  5. Elephant
    Elephant 19 July 2016 16: 46
    +2
    The tank should not be transferred to the Americans, as was the case recently with Israel.
  6. xant
    xant 19 July 2016 16: 47
    +15
    A Voronezh region. they raised the tank t 34-76 from the bottom of the Don at the Stalingrad Tractor Plant in the summer of 1942. This is an extremely rare beast, it is easy to distinguish it by track rollers, they are without rubber bandages. There are many more simplifications.
    1. Smoked
      Smoked 19 July 2016 17: 10
      +1
      Yes, they raised it, a rare instance. As a result, they gutted him inside and stupidly left one building, according to idiotic laws.
      IMHO with Sherman will do the same.
      1. serezhasoldatow
        serezhasoldatow 19 July 2016 18: 35
        +2
        Have you participated in the climb?
  7. Dikson
    Dikson 19 July 2016 16: 49
    0
    In Kubinka there are two roofing felts, three roofing felts Sherman ..
  8. Terner38
    Terner38 19 July 2016 16: 54
    +1
    Training with benefit.
  9. Old Horseradish
    Old Horseradish 19 July 2016 17: 09
    0
    But I'm interested in: is the armor really rusty = in salty water? Is there any corrosion?
    1. Stas57
      Stas57 19 July 2016 17: 14
      0
      But I'm interested in: is the armor really rusty = in salty water? Is there any corrosion?

      perhaps not, or shallow, but in the air he will quickly die without treatment.
    2. AVA77
      AVA77 19 July 2016 17: 27
      +1
      All tanks are rough to the touch. They will tear off, they will be painted like new. Aluminum and zinc are a problem. Oxidized to salt, the shells are terrible.
  10. Cosmonaut
    Cosmonaut 19 July 2016 17: 12
    0
    "The Dutch auction Troostwijk has put up for sale an unusual lot - the Sherman M4 (105) HVSS tank, which participated in the filming of the movie" Fury. "The starting price of the restored combat vehicle is € 250, and the auction will continue until January 000, 19." (from)
    http://warspot.ru/4871-tank-sherman-m4-iz-filma-yarost-prodayut-za-250-000-evro
    In Kubinka there is, not one! winked
    Sales Technologies ??? Write in a personal, who wants a tank ??? wassat
    Article (-).
  11. Cosmonaut
    Cosmonaut 19 July 2016 17: 18
    -4
    There are no minuses according to the report, but the rating was lowered! recourse
    Sales Technologies ??? Do you interfere? wassat
    Threat.
    The headline of the article is not entirely clear - "The work was carried out in the area of ​​the sinking of the Thomas Donaldson transport torpedoed by a German submarine. in March 1945 of the year. The ship was part of one of the last Northern convoys sent by the allies in the anti-Hitler coalition to the USSR with a cargo of military equipment. "(C) from the article.
    Really, in March 1945. , we needed this scrap metal ???! recourse
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 19 July 2016 18: 24
      +3
      Quote: Cosmonaut
      Really, in March 1945. , we needed this scrap metal ???!

      Shermans fought in our BTV until the end of World War II. Zhukov, among others, even requested them for the Berlin operation. Yes, and in the Manchurian operation, they were noted.
      Normal medium tank. Our GABTU was quite satisfied with its combat characteristics. But in terms of ease of control, significantly increased overhaul life, ease of maintenance and maintenance, the "Sherman" was unmatched among our wartime tanks - as Fedorenko reported, demanding that our tanks be brought to this level.
  12. Alekseits
    Alekseits 19 July 2016 17: 20
    -3
    Quote: xant
    A Voronezh region. they raised the tank t 34-76 from the bottom of the Don at the Stalingrad Tractor Plant in the summer of 1942. This is an extremely rare beast, it is easy to distinguish it by track rollers, they are without rubber bandages. There are many more simplifications.

    Most importantly, it was reported that this is the ONLY tank of the T-34-76 model with a 76mm gun. All other surviving T-34-85 models, with 85mm. How reliable, I can’t say.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 19 July 2016 18: 36
      +3
      Quote: Alekseits
      Most importantly, it was reported that this is the ONLY tank of the T-34-76 model with a 76mm gun. All other surviving T-34-85 models, with 85mm. How reliable, I can’t say.

      Unreliable. T-34-76 stand as monuments in Volgograd, in Kamensk-Shakhtinsky, in Medyn (there are generally T-34-76 arr. 40 g.). At least three T-34-76 were in Ukraine.

      Two T-34-76s stand at the Memorial to the Fallen Soviet Soldiers in Tiergarten.
    2. serezhasoldatow
      serezhasoldatow 19 July 2016 18: 37
      0
      The only surviving of those released in Stalingrad.
      1. Stas57
        Stas57 19 July 2016 19: 19
        -1
        Quote: serezhasoldatow
        The only surviving of those released in Stalingrad.

        one more..

        In the United States, there is an April 1941 release car. Tank number F-1404144, was part of the 4 TD 6 MK, captured during the fighting in Belarus. It was later used by the Germans, captured by the Americans, transported to the Aberdeen Proving Ground.
        In Medyn there is another tank, serial number 1409008. The vehicle belonged to Captain Pozolotin, commander of the 1th battalion of the 17 tank brigade. Tank 10 October 1941 during the battle in the village of Radyukino landed in the Shan River. The car was lifted in the 1956 year.
        The third famous tank is in Bondarevka, Lugansk region. The 1942 tank of the year of manufacture, in this form, they were released just before the moment they went into a series of cars similar to those pulled out.
    3. mroy
      mroy 20 July 2016 10: 26
      0
      Not quite so - this is the only surviving T-34-76 produced by the Stalingrad Tractor Plant
  13. DimYang
    DimYang 19 July 2016 18: 15
    -1
    For this tank paid with our gold. So it is three times as valuable.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 19 July 2016 18: 29
      0
      Quote: dimyan
      For this tank paid with our gold. So it is three times as valuable.

      Lend-lease military equipment was supplied free of charge. It was only necessary to pay for civilian goods that Lend-Lease recipients kept after the war.

      The confusion with gold and payment is due to the fact that the USSR was not first included in this program, and then, in parallel with Lend-Lease, it purchased goods that were not included in the Lend-Lease lists. And he delivered them along with Lend-Lease goods (otherwise they couldn’t be transported along the northern or southern route - the USSR merchant fleet almost all went to the Far East, and they were not able to provide their TR TRs with an escort).

      But military equipment was precisely on Lend-Lease.
      1. DimYang
        DimYang 19 July 2016 20: 24
        -1
        Here, as in the current advertising on retail chains, when they say you take a telly tablet for free. Then it was exactly the same. So the gold paid.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Normal ok
      Normal ok 19 July 2016 18: 30
      +2
      Quote: dimyan
      For this tank paid with our gold. So it is three times as valuable.

      Under the terms of Lend-Lease, we had to pay only for those samples of equipment that at the end of the war remained intact in our service. What was lost during the hostilities was not payable.
  14. Grandson of Veteran
    Grandson of Veteran 19 July 2016 18: 30
    0
    Quote: Koshak

    Koshak
    (3)

    Today, 17: 52

    ↑ ↓ New


    Quote: Veteran's Grandson Really in MARCH !! 1945 !! We were also supplied with tanks under Land Lease ?! Maybe the author got it wrong with the date of sinking of the transport ?? The last "Arctic convoy" JW-67 departed from Scotland on May 12; arrived in Kola Bay on May 20, 1945

    Thank you, I didn’t know!
  15. Galleon
    Galleon 19 July 2016 18: 45
    +5
    A tank, a steam locomotive, guns ... - but for the emergency rescue service of the fleet, what good practice turned out, huh !? Yes, and with benefit!
  16. Cosmonaut
    Cosmonaut 19 July 2016 19: 00
    -3
    I WILL REPEAT (-) an article !!!
    Even according to the comments! wassat
  17. Cosmonaut
    Cosmonaut 19 July 2016 19: 05
    -5
    Quote: Alexey RA
    Quote: Cosmonaut
    Really, in March 1945. , we needed this scrap metal ???!

    Shermans fought in our BTV until the end of World War II. Zhukov, among others, even requested them for the Berlin operation. Yes, and in the Manchurian operation, they were noted.
    Normal medium tank. Our GABTU was quite satisfied with its combat characteristics. But in terms of ease of control, significantly increased overhaul life, ease of maintenance and maintenance, the "Sherman" was unmatched among our wartime tanks - as Fedorenko reported, demanding that our tanks be brought to this level.

    shl. "The Shermans in our armored vehicles fought until the end of World War II."
    Of course, somewhere you need to shove this nonsense!
    Shermans - this is a finishing weapon, and so complete crap for gold!
    zy_2: "... demanding to bring our tanks to this level ..." (this, your rush quote).
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 19 July 2016 19: 19
      +3
      Quote: Cosmonaut
      shl. "The Shermans in our armored vehicles fought until the end of World War II." Of course, we need to shove this indecency somewhere!
      Ek, you attached the 1st Guards Order of Lenin to the mechanized corps.
      Quote: Cosmonaut
      Shermans - this is a finishing weapon, and so complete crap for gold!
      For free.
      Quote: Cosmonaut
      zy_2: "... demanding to bring our tanks to this level ..." (this, your rush quote).
      Your victory, I do not argue, I can’t, is under the table. (((
      This is a quote from Marshal BTV Fedorenko.
      I ask you to consider a set of measures for the speedy improvement of the design of domestic tanks, so that they can be compared with the best foreign models in terms of guaranteed mileage, ease of operation, repair and maintenance ...

      But, of course, you know better than the chief of the State Academic Bolshoi Theater - what were the tanks on which his subordinates fought.
  18. Cosmonaut
    Cosmonaut 19 July 2016 19: 15
    -1
    Quote: serezhasoldatow
    The only surviving of those released in Stalingrad.

    This is a significant clarification !!! smile
  19. Cosmonaut
    Cosmonaut 19 July 2016 19: 22
    -5
    Quote: Cosmonaut
    There are no minuses according to the report, but the rating was lowered! recourse
    Sales Technologies ??? Do you interfere? wassat
    Threat.
    The headline of the article is not entirely clear - "The work was carried out in the area of ​​the sinking of the Thomas Donaldson transport torpedoed by a German submarine. in March 1945 of the year. The ship was part of one of the last Northern convoys sent by the allies in the anti-Hitler coalition to the USSR with a cargo of military equipment. "(C) from the article.
    Really, in March 1945. , we needed this scrap metal ???! recourse

    Auto RU.
    If you wrote crap, fix it or delete it! Adminresurs will not add, you, brains! wassat
    I already answered minus without justification! wassat
    1. Stas57
      Stas57 19 July 2016 19: 28
      +1
      "Thomas Donaldson"

      "Thomas Donaldson" of the Liberty project. Transport followed from America as part of the JW-65 convoy and was torpedoed by German submarines in March 1945.
      German boat U-995 20 in March near Murmansk finished off the previously damaged U-968 transport "Thomas Donaldson" (7200 tons)

      Name Thomas Donaldson
      Type: Steam merchant (Liberty)
      Tonnage 7,210 tons
      Completed 1944 - Bethlehem-Fairfield Shipyards Inc, Baltimore MD
      Owner American Export Lines Inc, New York
      Homeport baltimore
      Date of attack 20 Mar 1945 Nationality: American

      Fate Sunk by U-968 (Otto Westphalen)
      Position 69.26N, 33.44E - Grid AC 8867

      Complement 69 (4 dead and 65 survivors).
      Convoy JW-65
      Route Gourock (11 Mar) - Murmansk
      Cargo 7679 tons of general cargo, including 6000 tons of ammunition, foodstuffs and locomotives and tenders as deck cargo
      History Completed in February 1944

      Notes on loss In the afternoon on 20 Mar, 1945, U-968 attacked the convoy JW-65 and reported a destroyer and a Liberty sunk and another Liberty ship torpedoed. In fact, the sloop HMS Lapwing (U 62) of the 7th Escort Group and the Liberty ship Thomas Donaldson were sunk.

      The Thomas Donaldon (Master Robert Headden) was the twentieth ship as the convoy formed into one column to enter Kola Inlet and was hit at 13.15 hours on the starboard side by one torpedo about 20 miles from the mouth of Kola Inlet. The torpedo struck the engine room, killed one officer and two crewmen on watch below and destroyed the engines. Due to her dangerous cargo the master ordered the crew of eight officers, 34 crewmen and 27 armed guards (the ship was armed with one 5in, one 3in and eight 20mm guns) to abandon ship after 10 minutes. The most left in the two port lifeboats and a raft and were picked up by HMS Bamborough Castle (K 412) (T / Lt MS Work, DSC and Bar, RNR), while others jumped overboard and were picked up by HMS Oxlip (K 123) (T / Lt JK Craig, RNVR). One man died after being rescued. The master and eight crew members remained aboard and were later taken off by HMS Honeysuckle (K 27) (T / Lt JA Wright, RNR), which took the ship in tow toward Kola Inlet. At 16.30 hours, a Soviet tug took over the tow but the Thomas Donaldson sank stern first at 17.45 hours, one-half mile from Kilden Island in 68 ° 26´30N / 33 ° 44´20E.
  20. Cosmonaut
    Cosmonaut 19 July 2016 19: 33
    -6
    Quote: Stas57
    "Thomas Donaldson"

    "Thomas Donaldson" of the Liberty project. Transport followed from America as part of the JW-65 convoy and was torpedoed by German submarines in March 1945.
    German boat U-995 20 in March near Murmansk finished off the previously damaged U-968 transport "Thomas Donaldson" (7200 tons)

    Name Thomas Donaldson
    Type: Steam merchant (Liberty)
    Tonnage 7,210 tons
    Completed 1944 - Bethlehem-Fairfield Shipyards Inc, Baltimore MD
    Owner American Export Lines Inc, New York
    Homeport baltimore
    Date of attack 20 Mar 1945 Nationality: American

    Fate Sunk by U-968 (Otto Westphalen)
    Position 69.26N, 33.44E - Grid AC 8867

    Complement 69 (4 dead and 65 survivors).
    Convoy JW-65
    Route Gourock (11 Mar) - Murmansk
    Cargo 7679 tons of general cargo, including 6000 tons of ammunition, foodstuffs and locomotives and tenders as deck cargo
    History Completed in February 1944

    Notes on loss In the afternoon on 20 Mar, 1945, U-968 attacked the convoy JW-65 and reported a destroyer and a Liberty sunk and another Liberty ship torpedoed. In fact, the sloop HMS Lapwing (U 62) of the 7th Escort Group and the Liberty ship Thomas Donaldson were sunk.

    The Thomas Donaldon (Master Robert Headden) was the twentieth ship as the convoy formed into one column to enter Kola Inlet and was hit at 13.15 hours on the starboard side by one torpedo about 20 miles from the mouth of Kola Inlet. The torpedo struck the engine room, killed one officer and two crewmen on watch below and destroyed the engines. Due to her dangerous cargo the master ordered the crew of eight officers, 34 crewmen and 27 armed guards (the ship was armed with one 5in, one 3in and eight 20mm guns) to abandon ship after 10 minutes. The most left in the two port lifeboats and a raft and were picked up by HMS Bamborough Castle (K 412) (T / Lt MS Work, DSC and Bar, RNR), while others jumped overboard and were picked up by HMS Oxlip (K 123) (T / Lt JK Craig, RNVR). One man died after being rescued. The master and eight crew members remained aboard and were later taken off by HMS Honeysuckle (K 27) (T / Lt JA Wright, RNR), which took the ship in tow toward Kola Inlet. At 16.30 hours, a Soviet tug took over the tow but the Thomas Donaldson sank stern first at 17.45 hours, one-half mile from Kilden Island in 68 ° 26´30N / 33 ° 44´20E.

    Actually, what is this ??? fellow
    Where is our gold ???! belay
    At the bottom ???
    In March 1945, Zhukov asks for Sherman ?! lol
    "Allies" ", IMMEDIATELY !!!! laughing respond and send, these tanks ... to Murmansk !!! Where, these tanks, is waiting for an accidentally uninhabited submarine .... A good joke !!! laughing
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 20 July 2016 10: 49
      0
      quote = Cosmonaut]
      Actually, what is this ??? fellow
      Where is our gold ???! belay
      At the bottom ???
      In March 1945, Zhukov asks for Sherman ?! lol
      "Allies" ", IMMEDIATELY !!!! laughing respond and send, these tanks ... to Murmansk !!! Where, these tanks, is waiting for an accidentally uninhabited submarine .... A good joke !!! laughing[/ Quote]
      What a charm - Imago in its purest form. smile
      [quote] Imago (here: substitution - lat.) - the sixth technique.

      It consists in the fact that a certain unimaginable scarecrow, having nothing to do with a real enemy, is slipped into the reader, after which this fictitious enemy is destroyed. [/ quote]
  21. Khariton
    Khariton 19 July 2016 19: 48
    0
    Golden tank ... the USSR was forced to pay with gold for such a freak ..! We needed airplanes, trucks, food, metals, machine tools ... And most importantly, the second front of which we did not wait when the Soviet Union was very difficult!
    1. Stas57
      Stas57 19 July 2016 20: 52
      0
      Quote: Chariton
      Golden tank ... the USSR was forced to pay with gold for such a freak ..!

      already said, these are free
      1. Khariton
        Khariton 19 July 2016 21: 27
        -1
        Quote: Stas57
        Quote: Chariton
        Golden tank ... the USSR was forced to pay with gold for such a freak ..!

        already said, these are free

        I'm not sure..! These arrogant Saxons make up such an agreement that it is essentially FREE! But in fact they paid with gold and platinum, for everything! And they still set the conditions (different ..))) What they were, they remained, they are only more cynical now ... But they are already unpunished, they are afraid to be! We have rockets and not only ...
        1. Stas57
          Stas57 19 July 2016 23: 21
          +1
          Quote: Chariton
          I'm not sure..!

          look for documents on the lease and see for yourself, the hour of free evidence is over for today
      2. ando_bor
        ando_bor 19 July 2016 22: 33
        +1
        They did not transfer the ownership of the property provided under the Lend-Lease, according to the law on Lend-Lease, this tank belongs to the United States.
    2. mroy
      mroy 20 July 2016 10: 37
      0
      In the 42nd allies, there was virtually nothing to open a second front in Europe. Britain was still retreating after Dunkirk, where almost all the heavy weapons remained, in the USA they only figured out what a normal tank should look like and began to produce M4. Plus, in the Pacific Theater, the United States was all very unclear, a lot of resources went there
      No, they even honestly tried to land in Dieppe in August 42nd, after which they finally realized that they had nothing to land and no one to land on.
      An attempt at a mass landing at 42 most likely led to the absence of a second front and at 44m.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 20 July 2016 11: 41
        0
        Quote: mroy
        In the 42nd allies, there was virtually nothing to open a second front in Europe. Britain was still retreating after Dunkirk, where almost all the heavy weapons remained, in the USA they only figured out what a normal tank should look like and began to produce M4.

        In the USA, there were big problems with the army. Almost all the interwar time in their army was only 3 divisions. Half of the land servants served in the coastal defense.
        In 1938, against the backdrop of aggravation in Europe and Japan's growing appetites in Asia, they decided to begin a gradual increase in the army. And here is the war in Europe. The army had to be increased at an unprecedented pace - from 1939 to 1941 the number of divisions increased 17 times!
        There were no personnel (a few reserves were scooped up right away), equipment was not (the military industry was still being deployed), and Roosevelt, with his lend-lease, was raking everything and everything out. In short, according to the results of the 1941 exercises, it turned out that the United States still has no army and will not have another year.
        And most importantly, if there was an army, there would be nothing to land it on. Even in 1942, for Operation Torch, it was necessary to choose neutral French North Africa - because there was not expected to be much resistance, and the main landing force and heavy equipment were planned to be unloaded in the ports captured by the forward groups.

        About raking everything and all Roosevelt Lend-Lease - this is not an exaggeration. In early 1941, a group of senior officers of the Army came to threats of appealing to Congress and the media about undermining the US defense capability - when they found out that Roosevelt was planning to give all the produced B-17s (including the army order) to the UK. After a long bid, the army team and the president agreed to divide orders 50/50 (half - the United States, half - Lend-Lease). And Roosevelt ... switched from factories to arsenals, already raking out weapons from them at the expense of future deliveries. For example, he deprived the army of 500 guns of the caliber of 75 mm (20% of the reserves). And this is in the midst of deploying new parts!

        In short, the situation in the US Army for 1941-the first half of 1942 was even worse than ours in 1939-1940. At least we had a larger deployment base — 25 personnel divisions, and not 3, like the Yankees had. smile
        Quote: mroy
        Plus, in the Pacific Theater, the United States was all very unclear, a lot of resources went there

        Not so much - after the fall of the Philippines and before the start of the big offensive, the United States tried to shift the ground war onto the shoulders of the Allies. Yes, and for the air war, special novelties (except for "lightning") were not sent (but taken away from the TO V-17).
        However, this is not surprising - according to all pre-war plans for the war with the Berlin-Rome-Tokyo axis, the main theater was considered the European theater of operations, and Germany was the main enemy (in this case, Italy's weakest axis link was to be knocked out first).
  22. Cosmonaut
    Cosmonaut 19 July 2016 19: 53
    -4
    Quote: Alexey RA
    Quote: Cosmonaut
    shl. "The Shermans in our armored vehicles fought until the end of World War II." Of course, we need to shove this indecency somewhere!
    Ek, you attached the 1st Guards Order of Lenin to the mechanized corps.
    Quote: Cosmonaut
    Shermans - this is a finishing weapon, and so complete crap for gold!
    For free.
    Quote: Cosmonaut
    zy_2: "... demanding to bring our tanks to this level ..." (this, your rush quote).
    Your victory, I do not argue, I can’t, is under the table. (((
    This is a quote from Marshal BTV Fedorenko.
    I ask you to consider a set of measures for the speedy improvement of the design of domestic tanks, so that they can be compared with the best foreign models in terms of guaranteed mileage, ease of operation, repair and maintenance ...

    But, of course, you know better than the chief of the State Academic Bolshoi Theater - what were the tanks on which his subordinates fought.

    Actually, your answer provokes a technical discussion in a technical discussion ...
    But in this article, this was not discussed !!!
    In 1945, especially in the spring !!! Shermans, to hell were not needed !!! the maximum that can be assumed that they were picked up at the expense of the sent GOLD !!! And the debts, according to the free land lease, WE, paid for a long time !!! And not only for yourself !!!
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 20 July 2016 10: 43
      0
      Quote: Cosmonaut
      In 1945, especially in the spring !!! Shermans, to hell were not needed !!!

      February 27, 1945 G.K. Zhukov requested replenishment of equipment for the upcoming battle for Berlin:
      "To put the units in order after the Pomeranian operation to prepare the front for the Berlin operation, I ask you to give the 1st Belorussian Front:
      1 M100-A4 tanks;
      2-250 T-300 tanks;
      3 SU-100;
      4 SU-50;
      5. 30 thousand [people] replenishment to bring [number] of infantry divisions to 5-6 thousandth;
      6. 2 combat sets of shells and mines.
      Please inform me of your decision. "
      (...)
      March 28, 1945 G.K. Zhukov turned to I.V. Stalin with a new application for replenishment of people and equipment. Regarding armored vehicles, it stated the following:
      "Load the front in bulk to bring to the states:
      IS tanks - 108 [130]
      T-34-748 tanks [300 T-34]
      M4A2–115 tanks [100 Sherman]
      ISU-122–29 [60]
      ISU-152–8 [40]
      SU-85–92 [80]
      SU-76–266 [220]
      Total tanks - 971
      self-propelled guns - 395 "

      Quote: Cosmonaut
      In 1945, especially in the spring !!! Shermans, to hell were not needed !!! the maximum that can be assumed that they were picked up at the expense of the sent GOLD !!! And the debts, according to the free land lease, WE, paid for a long time !!!

      We paid for civilian goods that we left to ourselves after the war.
      And they paid for a long time because for 30 years they agreed on the amount to be paid. As a result, taking into account inflation, the USSR and the Russian Federation paid interest, or even fractions of a percent, of the initial cost left to themselves in 1945.
  23. Cosmonaut
    Cosmonaut 19 July 2016 19: 57
    0
    Quote: Chariton
    Golden tank ... the USSR was forced to pay with gold for such a freak ..! We needed airplanes, trucks, food, metals, machine tools ... And most importantly, the second front of which we did not wait when the Soviet Union was very difficult!

    capacitor positive (+) lead
    PS. forgot about Hess !!! About the 2nd front !!!
    For three years, the arrogant Saxons sat and waited (by the way, next year they should declassify the docks on the flight of Hess)!
    Even in Africa, they, Rommel dashed a little scruff! laughing We sat and did not blather !!! laughing And the tanks, in desert coloring, fought in Russia !!!
  24. Forever so
    Forever so 19 July 2016 20: 09
    +1
    The Americans will have a tantrum now)) because with the advent of this tank the power of the Northern Fleet of Russia will increase incredibly, the tank is American.
    1. ando_bor
      ando_bor 19 July 2016 22: 29
      +1
      I don’t know what is there according to the laws of the sea, how many lay, who raised it? But when transferring property under the Lend-Lease Act, ownership was not transferred, in any form and condition this tank and everything else raised was owned by the United States.
  25. Sasha75
    Sasha75 19 July 2016 20: 15
    +3
    So the May 9th war did not end with the Japanese, it was also necessary to fight, and the Americans promised and delivered us a lot under this business. During the Manchurian operation of the Soviet troops, the Kwantung army under the command of General Otozo Yamada lost about 84 thousand soldiers and officers killed, more than 15 thousand died from wounds and illnesses in the territory of Manchuria, about 600 thousand people were captured, while the irretrievable losses of the Soviet Army amounted to about 12 thousand people. the Americans didn’t think that we would quickly figure it out and there were supplies. And as for diving, this is a very good school. Work at depths. Applying new equipment. They do the right job with the bulk load. They study so that it wouldn’t be like Kursk. They forgot how to do it and didn’t know it.
  26. Cosmonaut
    Cosmonaut 19 July 2016 23: 18
    -3
    I doubt that cons DIVERS OF SF have instructed cons!
    In fact, I don’t even want to counteract !!! Go to the media, oooo! laughing
  27. Cosmonaut
    Cosmonaut 19 July 2016 23: 24
    0
    Well, raised the tank ????
    Well, wrote an article ????
    What did you want to achieve ??? Sracha ???
    Always, pzhl !!!
    Adequate request, to the author and others like him in the ass, if you shit, then not for the sheep! laughing
  28. Cosmonaut
    Cosmonaut 19 July 2016 23: 32
    -2
    Actually, to me, it’s not completely fucking who and how it hangs Crap !!!
    Especially under high ratings !!!
    Until they blame me, I won’t dump !!!!
  29. Cosmonaut
    Cosmonaut 19 July 2016 23: 56
    -2
    "Specialists of the search and rescue operations department of the Northern Fleet during a special tactical exercise of the rescue forces raised the American medium tank Sherman from the bottom of the Barents Sea."
    Actually what, there is nothing more to do ??! wassat
    Probably, in the North, to hell, more worthy goals !!! laughing
    Incl. , minusoids shove the gunwale into the "slingshot" !!! laughing
  30. Cosmonaut
    Cosmonaut 20 July 2016 00: 04
    -1
    Quote: Forever so
    The Americans will have a tantrum now)) because with the advent of this tank the power of the Northern Fleet of Russia will increase incredibly, the tank is American.

    Do not worry, judging by the reaction to the drowned "American tank", saw cut and no more! laughing
    There are no Admirals whom I would believe! I remember when the Vysotsky Navy Group of Companies began, I wanted to shoot myself ...
    But the bandits had weapons, the officers did not! I had to hide gifts from the cadre!
  31. Cosmonaut
    Cosmonaut 20 July 2016 00: 13
    -1
    Quote: Sasha75
    So the May 9th war did not end with the Japanese, it was also necessary to fight, and the Americans promised and delivered us a lot under this business. During the Manchurian operation of the Soviet troops, the Kwantung army under the command of General Otozo Yamada lost about 84 thousand soldiers and officers killed, more than 15 thousand died from wounds and illnesses in the territory of Manchuria, about 600 thousand people were captured, while the irretrievable losses of the Soviet Army amounted to about 12 thousand people. the Americans didn’t think that we would quickly figure it out and there were supplies. And as for diving, this is a very good school. Work at depths. Applying new equipment. They do the right job with the bulk load. They study so that it wouldn’t be like Kursk. They forgot how to do it and didn’t know it.

    Well, yes, even though I am in a wild concussion, but ... "the use of new technology, work with an oversized load is done correctly, they study so that it is not like with Kursk.
  32. Cosmonaut
    Cosmonaut 20 July 2016 00: 23
    -2
    I would like to answer reasonably, sometimes argue and sometimes agree!
    This Wishlist was killed by comments - bzymk-morons who didn’t push their nose forward!
  33. Cosmonaut
    Cosmonaut 20 July 2016 00: 28
    0
    Quote: Cosmonaut
    I would like to answer reasonably, sometimes argue and sometimes agree!
    This Wishlist was killed by comments - bzymk-morons who didn’t push their nose forward!

    minusoid, fart in the pressure chamber ... wassat
  34. Cosmonaut
    Cosmonaut 20 July 2016 00: 34
    -1
    Quote: Cosmonaut
    Quote: Sasha75
    ... And as for diving, this is a very good school. Working at depths. Using the new technology, they do the right job with the bulk load, they study so that it wasn’t like with Kursk;

    Well, yes, even though I am in a wild concussion, but ... "the use of new technology, work with an oversized load is done correctly, they study so that it is not like with Kursk.

    I hope that not a graduate of Lenkom minus!
  35. Cosmonaut
    Cosmonaut 20 July 2016 00: 40
    -1
    Quote: Stas57
    Quote: Chariton
    I'm not sure..!

    look for documents on the lease and see for yourself, the hour of free evidence is over for today

    Oh, these haritono-stasiki .... wassat
  36. Cosmonaut
    Cosmonaut 20 July 2016 01: 31
    -2
    Actually, you can pile on the chariton-stasiks, but who will deny that the info about ENTOT SHERMAN, as it were, were not brought to the toilet and dumped here! bymes! laughing
    PS. three nines zero repeat
  37. Cosmonaut
    Cosmonaut 20 July 2016 01: 54
    -3
    I don’t know, out of logic, but I’ll ask - for HOREN, in March 1945 .. the Sherman medium tank in the Murmansk region ??? laughing
  38. shkiper83
    shkiper83 20 July 2016 03: 01
    +1
    Quote: Cosmonaut
    Quote: Forever so
    The Americans will have a tantrum now)) because with the advent of this tank the power of the Northern Fleet of Russia will increase incredibly, the tank is American.

    Do not worry, judging by the reaction to the drowned "American tank", saw cut and no more! laughing
    There are no Admirals whom I would believe! I remember when the Vysotsky Navy Group of Companies began, I wanted to shoot myself ...
    But the bandits had weapons, the officers did not! I had to hide gifts from the cadre!

    It was necessary to shoot yourself, otherwise chatter and no more
  39. CTPEJIKuH
    CTPEJIKuH 20 July 2016 05: 31
    0
    Quote: Verdun
    Quote: Mavrikiy
    And the Americans say that he is better than the T34.

    The Americans say that Saber is better than the MiG-15, that the M-16 is better than the AK, that Abrams is better than the T-90. And do you believe that too?

    Is that not so? :)
  40. Cosmonaut
    Cosmonaut 20 July 2016 08: 59
    -1
    Quote: shkiper83
    Quote: Cosmonaut
    Quote: Forever so
    The Americans will have a tantrum now)) because with the advent of this tank the power of the Northern Fleet of Russia will increase incredibly, the tank is American.

    Do not worry, judging by the reaction to the drowned "American tank", saw cut and no more! laughing
    There are no Admirals whom I would believe! I remember when the Vysotsky Navy Group of Companies began, I wanted to shoot myself ...
    But the bandits had weapons, the officers did not! I had to hide gifts from the cadre!

    It was necessary to shoot yourself, otherwise chatter and no more

    Familiar chatter! laughing
    Thank God that the officer, in our hot time, is always and everywhere useful !!!
    However, it is unlikely that you understand this !!!
  41. james
    james 20 July 2016 10: 02
    +1
    Help for all those who argue By Belton Cooper "Deadly Traps". These are memoirs, not fiction.
    //fanread.ru/book/9382299
    Memoirs of an American officer.
    1. mroy
      mroy 20 July 2016 10: 42
      0
      I support. Everything about Sherman is clear and unvarnished. The author is a true techie. And do not be afraid of the word "memoirs" - the book is written very interesting and very easy to read.