Military Review

SAU M36: The American Argument Against The Tigers

120
After the American army met the Wehrmacht on the battlefield, it quickly became clear that the United States simply did not have an effective means to defeat the heavy German tanks. The main American tank M4 "Sherman" and the self-propelled gun M10 Wolverine (Wolverine) created on its basis with their 76-mm guns were poorly adapted to the fight against new German tanks - the Tigers and Panthers. Fortunately for the Americans, they were able to quickly assess the threat. With the German "Tigers" they encountered back in 1943 in Africa. The results of this meeting seriously accelerated the work on creating a new self-propelled gun on the same chassis of the Sherman tank, but already armed with a 90-mm gun.

Serial production of a self-propelled anti-tank unit, designated M36 and also known as Slugger and Jackson, began in April 1944, in the summer the self-propelled gun was already in the army. However, the installation was late for the conduct of Operation Overlord and the landing of the Allies in France. The M36 ACS engaged the Germans in the fall of the 1944 of the year, and until the end of the war the American heavy tanks, Pershing, were the only truly effective means of fighting German heavy tanks. After the end of the Second World War, the self-propelled gun, which was released in a series of 2324 copies, remained in service with the American army for a long time, having managed to take part in hostilities in Korea, and was also in service with other countries. At the same time, unlike the M10 ACS, not a single M36 self-propelled gun until the end of World War II was delivered to US allies.

In October 1942, the Americans turned to the idea of ​​exploring the possibility of converting an 90-mm anti-aircraft gun into an anti-tank gun, which had a high initial velocity of the projectile. The gun was planned to be installed on tanks and self-propelled units. A similar experience the Germans with their famous "eight-eight" had even earlier. Their anti-aircraft gun, turned into an anti-tank gun, is rightfully one of the most famous artillery systems of the Second World War.



At the beginning of 1943, the Americans tentatively tried to install an 90-mm gun into the turret from the M10 ACS, but it turned out that it was too heavy and long for the turret that was already in place. Therefore, in March of the same year in the United States began to develop a new tower, designed to install 90-mm cannon. It was decided to leave the chassis from the ACS M10. The modified anti-tank self-propelled gun was tested at the Aberdeen Proving Ground. The car was very successful, so the military made an order for 500 of such installations, which received the designation self-propelled gun Т71.

In June 1944, the self-propelled artillery mount was put into service under the designation МХNUMX. It was used by Americans in battles in Europe at the end of 36. Self-propelled gun proved to be the most successful combat vehicle, which was able to fight with German heavy tanks "Tiger" even at long distances. Some American anti-tank battalions, which were armed with ACS M1944, achieved great success with moderate losses.

After the first units were re-equipped with new anti-tank self-propelled guns, the M36 was first used in combat only in October 1944 of the year, during battles on the German border. Since after the losses that the German tank forces suffered in the summer of 1944, massive attacks from them became a rarity, the interest of the American army to the new machine and the speedy rearmament of the existing units fell. But the massive use of armored vehicles by the Germans during the offensive in the Ardennes, when a large number of heavy tanks, including the new “Royal Tigers”, were used, again demonstrated the inadequacy of the M10 SAU as a tank destroyer, again making them a priority for the M36 SAU. By January 1945, there were 6 battalions armed with M36 SAUs, five in the 12 group of armies, and the sixth in the 6 group of armies in the Western European theater of military operations. Statewide, in each such battalion in three anti-tank companies there were a total of 36 self-propelled M36 self-propelled guns.



The M36 ACS was distinguished by its classic layout. The engine compartment was located in the aft part of the hull, the combined control and transmission compartment was located in the frontal part, the combat compartment was located in the middle part of the combat vehicle, and a rotating tower was also located here. The crew of the tank destroyer consisted of a 5 man: a driver, his assistant, a gunner, a loader and a self-propelled gun commander.

The M36 ACS had a differentiated counter-booking armor, the armor plates were located at rational inclination angles, the combat compartment was open at the top. Various modifications of this self-propelled gun had one of two hull options: the M36 and M36B2 modifications — the M10 ACS hull; the M36B1 modification — the M4A3 hull.

The armored hull from the M10 ACS was a rigid box-shaped supporting structure that was assembled by welding from rolled sheets of armor steel 6, 10, 13, 19, 25 and 38 mm thick, using cast armor parts. The upper frontal part of the body of the self-propelled gun had a thickness of 38 mm and a slope of 55 degrees to the vertical. The lower frontal part of the body was a cast transmission casing, which had a wedge-shaped shape with similar inclination angles to the top, with cylindrical housings of the side gears. The lower part of the sides of the body of the self-propelled gun consisted of vertical armor plates 25 mm thick, the upper part of 19-mm armor plates that are tilted in 38 degrees. The hull feed was a national team, it consisted of 19-mm armor plates: from a wedge-shaped upper part, which had an inclination of 38 degrees and a lower vertical. The roof of the self-propelled gun body consisted of 19-mm armor plates in the area of ​​the turret box and 10-mm armor plates - above the engine compartment, the bottom of the case was assembled of armor plates with a thickness of 13-mm. The upper branch of the SAU tracks was additionally covered with 6-mm screens, which were tilted in 38 degrees. In addition, the upper frontal and side parts of the body of the self-propelled guns were equipped with special bolt fasteners designed for installation of hinged booking of different thickness.

The hull of the M4A3 tank had a similar design, however, it was distinguished by a greater thickness of armor plates and the absence of attachments for hinged armor. The transmission housing was similar to that on the M10 ACS, but the upper frontal part was 64 mm thick and its angle of inclination was 47 degrees. The onboard armor plates of the hull had a thickness of 38 mm, while their upper part was vertical, with the exception of bevels located in the area of ​​the engine compartment. The stern of the SAU housing consisted of upper and lower 38-mm armor plates, which were located at an angle of, respectively, 22 and 10 degrees, and formed a pocket between them, which served to release exhaust gases. The roof of the self-propelled gun body was assembled from 19-mm armor plates and had a slope of 83 degrees above the engine compartment, and the bottom of the case was composite - in front of the thickness of the armor was 25 mm, in the area of ​​the engine compartment 13 mm.

SAU M36: The American Argument Against The Tigers
Soldiers of the 301 Infantry Regiment are sheltering from a sudden artillery bombardment in the city of Schillingen. In the center of the tank destroyer M36, photo: waralbum.ru


The solid-cast self-propelled artillery tower, the M36, was identical for all modifications, it was distinguished by a cylindrical shape and a well-developed feeding niche. The sides of the tower had a thickness of 32 mm, on the zygomatic parts they had a slope of 5 degrees, turning into a vertical stern section of the same thickness. The feed for the tower's niche, which played the role of a counterweight, had a significantly greater thickness - 127 mm. The frontal part of the ACS tower was distinguished by its complex shape and was covered with a horizontally cylindrical cast mask of the gun, which had a thickness of 76 mm. The main part of the self-propelled turret was open at the top, but the feeding area, as well as a small section in the frontal part of the turret, had a roof whose thickness ranged from 10 mm to 25 mm. The M36 self-propelled guns of the late editions were equipped with a light-armored turret roof, which was welded from rolled sheets.

The main weapon of the M36 self-propelled gun was the 90-mm threaded semi-automatic M3 gun. This tool had a barrel-monoblock length 50 gauges (length 4500 mm) and a vertical wedge gate. To ensure smooth vertical guidance and balancing, the 90-mm gun MXXUMX was equipped with a spring-type compensator. The technical rate of fire of this anti-tank gun was 3 shots per minute. At that time, the 8-mm gun M90 was one of the most powerful serial anti-tank weapons that were at the disposal of the American army and the only serial tank weapon that could effectively hit heavily armored German tanks at medium and long distances battles.

The American Army's 90-mm armor-piercing ammunition handbook provided the following information on the capabilities of the gun in the fight against the German Tiger II and Panther tanks: the M82 late-caliber projectile pierces all armor plates except for the upper and lower frontal parts of the hull and gun mask tank "Tiger II". The penetration of the lower frontal hull detail of the Panther tank hull was achieved at distances of 594 and 869 meters. Caliber projectile T33 - pierces the upper frontal part of the hull of the tank "Panther" at distances to 1006 meters, against the mask of the gun of this tank is ineffective. M304 sub-caliber projectile - pierces the upper frontal part of the Panther tank at distances up to 366 meters, and the Tiger II tank - up to 91 meters. The forehead of the turret and the mask of the gun are at distances up to 732 meters.

ACS M36 "Jackson" (90mm GMC M36) 703-th battalion of US tank fighters in the outskirts of Verbomon, Belgium, photo: waralbum.ru


The reticle of the M36 ACS telescopic optical sight was designed for firing M82 armor-piercing projectiles with an initial speed of 808 m / s. She was marked up at a distance of 4600 meters. For firing other types of shells it was necessary to use a special conversion table. For shooting from closed positions on self-propelled guns, there was an azimuth pointer M18 and an elevation quadrant M9, as well as an artillery quadrant M1, which was used to adjust the elevation quadrant.

Auxiliary equipment of the self-propelled unit consisted of a large-caliber 12,7-mm machine gun M2 HB, which was located in the pivot installation, located on the roof of the stern of the turret of the SAU. The ammunition of the machine gun numbered 1000 cartridges, which were in 20 loaded ribbons in the shops-boxes. The machine gun had a rate of fire - 450-550 shots per minute, its combat rate of fire was about 75 shots per minute, and the maximum effective firing range was 1400 meters. For self-defense, the crew of self-propelled artillery mounts were nominally armed with five M7,62 1 rifles with 450 cartridges for them in 30 box magazines, as well as 12 hand grenades of various types. Also as weapons self-defense could be used Thompson submachine guns.

Depending on the modification, the M36 self-propelled guns could be equipped with several engine variants. So on the M36 and M36B1 machines, a V-shaped 8-cylinder carburetor engine of liquid cooling made by Ford was used as the power plant, it was a GAA engine. With a working volume of 18 liters, he developed the maximum power in 500 HP. The fuel for this engine could be gasoline with an octane rating of at least 80. On the M36B2 modification, the power plant consisted of two in-line 6-cylinder diesel engines of liquid cooling. These were the motors of the company General Motors 6046 Model 71. With a total working volume of almost 14 liters, such a power unit could reach maximum power in the 410 hp.

SAU M36 of the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA)


The self-propelled crew members located in the open tower had no special means of observation. The equipment of the ACS was regularly included binoculars M3. The driver and his assistant on the march could observe the terrain through open hatches, and in battle, use periscopic prism viewing instruments with a single magnification M6 for the review of the terrain. One device in the manhole cover and a third one to the left of the mechanic drive hatch, it served to review the sector on the left side of the combat vehicle.

The maneuverability of the fire of the M36 ACS has significantly increased compared to its predecessor M10 due to the replacement of the manual horizontal-angle drive with an electro-hydraulic drive, which equalized the installation with the base tanks. At the same time, the self-propelled gun was equipped with the same relatively primitive telescopic no-joint sight, which had a threefold increase and fixed aiming net. While the later American-made M4 “Sherman” main tanks received a significantly more sophisticated T8 periscope sight, which had a sixfold increase, the specialized tank destroyer equipped with an 90-mm gun and a longer effective range, kept the simplified sight. At the same time, the main advantage of the telescopic sight, which was rigidly fixed on the gun mount, was greater firing accuracy due to the absence of articulated arms between the sight and the gun.

Performance characteristics of the M36 Jackson:

Overall dimensions: length - 5972 mm (with forward gun - 7465 mm), width - 3048 mm, height - 3277 mm.
Combat weight - 33,5 tons.
Armament - 90-mm gun M3, 1х12,7-mm machine gun M2HB.
Ammunition - 47 shots, 1000 cartridges.
The power plant - V-shaped 8-cylinder carburetor engine Ford GAA, maximum power - HP 500
Maximum speed - 42 km / h (on the highway).
Power reserve - 280 km (on the highway).
Crew - 5 man.

Information sources:
http://mg-tank.ru/usa/M36%20Jackson.htm
http://all-tanks.ru/content/samokhodnaya-artilleriiskaya-ustanovka-m36-«slagger»-ili-«dzhekson»
http://pro-tank.ru/bronetehnika-usa/samohodnie-ustanovki/166-m36-slagger
Open source materials
Author:
120 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. demiurg
    demiurg 21 July 2016 06: 38
    +2
    Interestingly, are the Tiger and Tiger-2 still tanks or tank destroyers? This is what I ask. If their main task was to destroy the tanks, then how to name the means to combat them?
    1. igordok
      igordok 21 July 2016 06: 55
      +13
      Quote: demiurg
      Interestingly, are the Tiger and Tiger-2 still tanks or tank destroyers? This is what I ask. If their main task was to destroy the tanks, then how to name the means to combat them?

      You will come up with another BTT class now laughing : fighter-tank-fighter, counter-fighter tank or tank defender. smile
    2. Kenneth
      Kenneth 21 July 2016 07: 55
      0
      This tanks do not fit into the concept of tanks with tanks do not fight.
      1. demiurg
        demiurg 21 July 2016 08: 35
        +5
        And the meaning of the tank to fight with the tank? The tank should still support the infantry.
        I understand everything, gloomy genius and all that, but with the tigers and panthers on the eastern front, the Germans did not carry out a single large successful offensive operation. And the USSR spent. We will conclude whose concept was more correct?
        1. Kenneth
          Kenneth 21 July 2016 08: 59
          +2
          And the point is to fight a fighter with a fighter. The tank is primarily a universal tool. And about the successful or the unsuccessful, how many were those tigers to play a fundamental role.
          1. Ukropus
            Ukropus 21 July 2016 09: 19
            -8
            O. Karius with his tank platoon (3 pzkvVI) destroyed only when one village was captured near 25 of Soviet TT (from his memoirs). True, these are just words, but nevertheless, exchange one disabled tiger for 20-25 sq or is this an indicator of effective use? With such efficiency on TVD, where they were used, their role was to be observed in principle ... it is clear that 489 units of CT and 1400 units of ordinary tigers fade in comparison with the number of pz3 and pz4. They were not the main workhorses, but still. ISs are also relatively t-34 and t-60 released a scanty amount.
            1. mroy
              mroy 21 July 2016 09: 37
              +9
              Grandfather is old, he is forgiven for whistling, but to draw far-reaching conclusions from his words is not necessary. If you add the number of destroyed Soviet tanks in the memoirs of German tankers, the number seriously exceeds their output by the factories of the USSR.
              1. Stas57
                Stas57 21 July 2016 09: 43
                +1
                Quote: mroy
                Grandfather is old, he is forgiven for whistling, but to draw far-reaching conclusions from his words is not necessary. If you add the number of destroyed Soviet tanks in the memoirs of German tankers, the number seriously exceeds their output by the factories of the USSR.

                oh come on, add up the number of tanks destroyed by the award tanks, planes and soldiers of the Germans, we fought with China.
                you should always look at the primary documents, not the hunting stories of memoirists, which are full of any army.
                1. mroy
                  mroy 21 July 2016 10: 31
                  +3
                  And I didn’t say anywhere that we have it just like in a pharmacy. You can’t restore the exact picture at all, and even the system of accounting for your own losses does not clarify the picture. I read that the Germans if the plane returned damaged and was decommissioned, then this is no longer a combat loss.
                  1. Stas57
                    Stas57 21 July 2016 11: 00
                    +1
                    Quote: mroy
                    I read that the Germans if the plane returned damaged and was decommissioned, then this is no longer a combat loss.

                    must be seen at least once in your life
                    http://www.airwar.ru/history/av2ww/axis/germloss/germloss.html
                    1. mroy
                      mroy 21 July 2016 12: 02
                      0
                      Thank you, informative.
                2. Beefeater
                  Beefeater 21 July 2016 22: 22
                  -1
                  In our primary documents you will not find the truth.
                  Stalin, receiving reports of enemy losses, immediately divided them by 3 in order to have more or less close to the truth data.
              2. Kenneth
                Kenneth 21 July 2016 09: 51
                +2
                I remember reading a book on repair and restoration services.
                It indicated around 400 thousand restored tanks. That is, the tanks were repaired many times. And the Germans reported on their destruction. Ours, too, were not shy.
                1. Mother CheeseEarth
                  Mother CheeseEarth 21 July 2016 11: 11
                  +1
                  Quote: Kenneth
                  And the Germans reported on their destruction.

                  Everything is correct. The difference between "destroyed" and "restored" often goes to zero.
                  The crew is usually dead, you need to prepare a new one.
                  The "restoration" of man-hours may require no less than the construction.
                  Therefore, on the battlefield, that wounded, that killed, that's all "minus one".
                  1. Kenneth
                    Kenneth 21 July 2016 12: 48
                    +4
                    Is not a fact. Suppose a blank in the engine. The engine smokes moderately, the crew smokes bamboo under the tank, the German writes himself a tick and runs for the medal. At night, the repairmen change the engine, hang a hole with painted plywood, the crew sleeps off. In the morning, a surprised German, feeling a medal, sees in front of him a tank with yesterday’s number and begins to believe in God.
                    1. Mother CheeseEarth
                      Mother CheeseEarth 21 July 2016 13: 28
                      0
                      Quote: Kenneth
                      Is not a fact. Suppose a blank in the engine. The engine smokes moderately, the crew smokes bamboo

                      1. In theory, anything could be. In practice, I think I will not be greatly mistaken if I say that in the overwhelming majority of cases after the "damage" the crew was, if not entirely, then partially killed for sure.
                      2. A tank repaired in "field conditions", as a rule, with a probability of 100% no longer corresponds to the declared characteristics, especially in terms of security.
                      I think you are familiar with the term "Lithuanian designer", with a tank, IMHO, everything is even worse.
                      3. You completely disregard TIME FACTOR AND NUMERICAL ADVANTAGE.
                      The tank has a task, it did not fulfill it, the unit did not fulfill, time and initiative are automatically on the side of the enemy because of the numerical advantage. This is often much more important than the ability to recover. tomorrow tank.
                      PS And the enemy "knocked out" tank can capture, which is even worse than he will destroy it earlier.
                    2. Alexey RA
                      Alexey RA 21 July 2016 17: 49
                      +7
                      Quote: Kenneth
                      Is not a fact. Suppose a blank in the engine. The engine smokes moderately, the crew smokes bamboo under the tank, the German writes himself a tick and runs for the medal. At night, the repairmen change the engine, hang a hole with painted plywood, the crew sleeps off. In the morning, a surprised German, feeling a medal, sees in front of him a tank with yesterday’s number and begins to believe in God.

                      Hehe hehe ... I recall the classic:
                      The driver did not like self-propelled guns and was afraid of her. Shcherbak's secret dream was to move to a repair company. But moving there is not so easy, especially when you are sitting at the levers of a car. “It would have been happiness if the Fritz had rolled a blank into the engine compartment: they were kaput and everyone was alive.”

                      Moreover, the author knew perfectly well what he was writing about - for he copied Maleshkin from himself. According to the award list, in that very battle for Antopol-Boyarka, it was Kurochkin who took the battle with two German "tigers" and destroyed one of them. The second, however, also failed to leave.
                      By the way, the "tigers" were not simple - Wendorf and Wittmann's machines.
                  2. Beefeater
                    Beefeater 21 July 2016 22: 25
                    0
                    I’ll tell you that the crew is usually alive. Many tankers changed ten tanks each.
              3. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 21 July 2016 10: 06
                +4
                Quote: mroy
                Grandfather is old, he is forgiven for whistling, but to draw far-reaching conclusions from his words is not necessary.

                Grandfather, of course, is old, confuses a lot and loves to pull a blanket over himself beloved. But according to our documents, the losses of July 22 in the Malinovo region were indeed large.
                Of the 23 recorded on the account 502 TTB for 22.07.44/16/18, taking into account ambiguities and errors in the documents with our data, 41-21 beat with a stretch. According to combat reports of 10 TBRs, since the evening of July 2, it has lost 13 reports irrevocably and 12 damaged, in another, as many as 34 vehicles, 1 T-3s and 2 M-48-S. Nine of which, according to the write-off documentation, were burned down in or near Malinovo. For five Is-502s, complete clarity, their loss is unequivocally confirmed by both the 34Gv.TCCI and Schwer Panzer Abt documents. 24 except that support for aviation in German documents does not appear. One T-XNUMX burned down in XNUMX TBR, in a battle with Beltera's company at Leikumi.

                About half of them are on account of Karius and two "tigers" who acted together with him. The rest on the account of other tanks 502 Schwerepantserabtaylung, artillerymen (including "shtugs") and infantry.
                1. Stas57
                  Stas57 21 July 2016 10: 19
                  0
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  Grandfather, of course, is old, confuses a lot and loves to pull a blanket over himself beloved. But according to our documents, the losses of July 22 in the Malinovo region were indeed large.

                  came and ruined everything)
                  and I already prepared a reference from Rostik
                  1. Alexey RA
                    Alexey RA 21 July 2016 10: 48
                    0
                    Quote: Stas57
                    came and ruined everything)
                    and I already prepared a reference from Rostik

                    Duc ... on the very battle of Carius and in general the actions of 5 TC in the Rezhitsky-Dvina operation, Marchenko is our everything. smile
              4. Outsider V.
                Outsider V. 21 July 2016 22: 42
                +1
                Alas, the same can be said about the reported numbers of destroyed German tanks in the Red Army, especially the Tigers.

                About grandfathers: a few years ago, on May 9, an old veteran tanker was shown on TV, who claimed that in 1945, in one day, his crew captured 18 Tigers (this is a whole company of a heavy tank battalion with the number five hundred what?). Perhaps he was referring to T-IV.
                1. goose
                  goose 25 July 2016 17: 21
                  0
                  Quote: By outsiders V.
                  Perhaps he meant T-IV.

                  And they were called in the summaries. Tiger Type IV. In a real tank battalion, there were rarely more than 12 PzKpfw-VI combat-ready vehicles, which Carius writes about. About 2/3 of the park was usually under repair. To solve the daily tasks of the battalion, 8 vehicles were enough.
                  Tankers could have captured the repair factory, where these Tigers were waiting for repairs. There probably were more tank companies in number.
            2. goose
              goose 25 July 2016 17: 15
              +2
              Carius should be read with caution, his experience, of course, is valuable, but with the magnitude of the losses he somehow always exaggerated. More than once, in his book, the nodes of the VET were destroyed in fact remaining intact. A shot in the direction of the gun he counted as a hit. Although he himself wrote that in practice he noticed VET at a distance of just over 100 m, the book abounds with a description of the destruction of entire accumulations of VET at a distance of more than 1 km. It’s the same with tanks.

              It should be noted that the T-60 and T-70 were mass-produced until the end of the evacuation of tank factories. After the completion of the evacuation of the plants and their commissioning, the production of LT became scanty, only self-propelled guns were issued on their basis in a limited number.

              Although Prokhorovka in 1943 there were almost half of the tanks - light T-70 and T-60, which predetermined large losses in the oncoming battle. But from the same year, LT performed only auxiliary functions and were not the basis of tank units.
          2. demiurg
            demiurg 21 July 2016 09: 19
            -2
            And who prevented the construction of tigers by the thousands? Panthers and grooves were built.
            Maybe because the front did not need more than a few hundred of them? One or two tigers supported from afar the attack of a company-battalion of grooves or panthers. And it’s just like Fri Sau. Panthers and grooves burned, and tigers filled the bill.
            1. Ukropus
              Ukropus 21 July 2016 09: 41
              +7
              They were prevented from actually mass production of technology and resource consumption, as well as a shortage of tungsten and other materials + unlimited possibilities for barrel / optics manufacturers and the allied production facilities of manna and other allied bombers bombed by the allies.
              1. goose
                goose 25 July 2016 17: 24
                0
                Quote: Ukropus
                produce manufacturability and resource intensity, as well as a shortage of tungsten and other materials

                Tungsten was needed for shells, so in practice the Germans fired only PzGr39, and models 40, 41 had occasional use, like the sub-caliber ones in the Red Army.
            2. mroy
              mroy 21 July 2016 09: 52
              +5
              Panthers produced only about 6 thousand units from 1943 to 1945, which is not too much, considering that only in 1944 10,5 thousand T-34-85s were produced.
              And the IS-2 from 1943 to 1945 was released 3385 pieces.
              But the Germans had enough fowls. The tiger was still a tank, and by no means the most successful one and was used as a tank.
            3. AK64
              AK64 21 July 2016 10: 28
              +4
              And who prevented the construction of tigers by the thousands? Panthers and grooves were built.

              The price got in the way
              One or two tigers supported from afar the attack of a company-battalion of grooves or panthers. And it’s just like Fri Sau. Panthers and grooves burned, and tigers filled the bill.

              You just don't know
          3. Mother CheeseEarth
            Mother CheeseEarth 21 July 2016 10: 59
            +1
            Quote: Kenneth
            And about the successful or the unsuccessful, how many were those tigers to play a fundamental role.

            A minimum is enough, if only because the tank was created for quality gain and here the question is not how many TIGER destroyed, but how many other tanks he "covered" with himself.
        2. AK64
          AK64 21 July 2016 10: 20
          0
          The tank should still support the infantry.

          No, it should not.
          This is a French tactic that has demonstrated its bankruptcy.
          with tigers and panthers on the eastern front, the Germans did not carry out a single large successful offensive operation.

          Panther Tigers are to blame?
          Strange ...

          You can’t imagine what the Tiger is.
          So, for example, in the Battle of Kursk, the 69th A was pretty successful in repelling German attacks for three days (Routh groups, if the details are interesting). Three days.
          And then the Germans sent there one battalion Tigers ....

          And the USSR spent. We will conclude whose concept was more correct?

          Yeah - that's what the USSR began to produce T-54 ..
          Why didn't you adhere to the "concept"?
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 21 July 2016 10: 59
            +8
            Quote: AK64
            So, for example, in the Battle of Kursk, the 69th A was pretty successful in repelling German attacks for three days (Routh groups, if the details are interesting). Three days.
            And then there the Germans sent one battalion of the Tigers ....

            Well ... here it is worth making a discount on some difference in the OSH. The same German battalion is almost our brigade. And sometimes more - on the Kursk Bulge there was a German two-battalion tank regiment of 200 vehicles.
            As Anisimov had there ...
            M ... duck in lieutenant uniforms laughed when he was told how they burned a platoon of "tigers". Regiment - platoon. One after the other, having spat at the fucking correspondent under his feet, the Letekhi and higher ranks turned away so as not to see his faces, the junior lieutenants simply left the showroom in the distance.

            And so, some rear guard begins to show off at the fuel depot: what are you, heroes, fighting with one German with three armies ... But what - he has no idea about the states of the units, what the “tiger” looks like at you, too. But there is a lot of ambition. I wonder if there is an intelligent and polite man among the front-line soldiers who will explain that a platoon of Soviet self-propelled guns is two cars, and a platoon of German tanks is five, or will it go about being spat out? And that their self-propelled regiment, when fresh, is sixteen barrels, and the German tank regiment is under one hundred and fifty armored beasts, more than one and a half of our brigade or almost like an American division ...
            1. AK64
              AK64 21 July 2016 11: 12
              +3
              Well ... here it is worth making a discount on some difference in the OSH. The same German battalion is almost our brigade. And sometimes more - on the Kursk Bulge there was a German two-battalion tank regiment of 200 vehicles.
              As Anisimov had there ...


              The fact is that in the Raus group (aka Kempf group; the Raus group, Kempf - named after the generals) there were more than 300 tanks - the 3rd shopping mall. And somehow it didn’t really work out. Then the 503rd heavy tank battalion, 45 Tigers, EMNIP.
              It would seem - it was 300, well, they added 45 ... What changes?
              Well, this one battalion opened the defense of 69A as ... a tin can: at that time there was simply nothing to oppose the Tigers, that is, nothing at all.

              For the beaten Tiger, orders were given. (For Panthers did not give)
              1. Verdun
                Verdun 21 July 2016 11: 51
                +2
                Quote: AK64
                Well, this one battalion opened the defense of 69A as ... a tin can: at that time there was simply nothing to oppose the Tigers, that is, nothing at all.

                Go to Bullfinches. There, on a museum site, there is a tiger, whose frontal armor is pierced by a shell, apparently fired from a ZIS-2 gun. So, about "nothing at all", you are in vain.
                1. Stas57
                  Stas57 21 July 2016 11: 55
                  +3
                  Quote: Verdun
                  Go to Bullfinches. There, on a museum site, there is a tiger, whose frontal armor is pierced by a shell, apparently fired from a ZIS-2 gun. So, about "nothing at all", you are in vain.

                  The gun was re-accepted into production on June 15 1943.
                  I wonder how it could stop the Tigers near Kursk?
                  1. Verdun
                    Verdun 21 July 2016 12: 28
                    +1
                    Quote: Stas57
                    The gun was re-accepted into production on June 15 1943.
                    I wonder how it could stop the Tigers near Kursk?

                    Probably in the same way as 1942 under Bullfinches. I understand that the 371 guns released in 1941 are few. So the Tigers at that time were unlikely to have been released more.
                    1. Stas57
                      Stas57 21 July 2016 12: 51
                      -1
                      Quote: Verdun
                      Probably in the same way as 1942 under Bullfinches.

                      Tiger in 42 under Bullfinches of Moscow Region?
                      eka, I have not read such a grass for a long time.



                      I understand that the 371 gun released in the 1941 year is a bit. So the Tigers at that time were unlikely to have been released more.

                      are they all the xnumx thing left intact ?, well ok, let and now you smear xnumx pcs to the front from the eagle to belgorod
                      1. Verdun
                        Verdun 21 July 2016 12: 58
                        +1
                        Quote: Stas57
                        42 tiger under bullfinches of the Moscow region?
                        eka, I haven’t read such a grass for a long time

                        Well, I put it wrong. Simply, according to the nameplate in the museum, the Tiger standing there was knocked down in the 1942 year. Of course, not under Bullfinches, but they simply dragged him there. And, by the way, in addition to the ZIS-2, the 52-K anti-aircraft gun coped well with the Tigers, and a lot of them were released by the beginning of the war.
                      2. Stas57
                        Stas57 21 July 2016 13: 20
                        +2
                        Quote: Verdun
                        Well, I put it wrong. Simply, according to the nameplate in the museum, the Tiger standing there was knocked down in the 1942 year. Of course, not under Bullfinches, but they simply dragged him there. And, by the way, in addition to the ZIS-2, the 52-K anti-aircraft gun coped well with the Tigers, and a lot of them were released by the beginning of the war.

                        The chassis number is 251227, a heavily damaged vehicle located at the Nakhabino military training ground, where it is often used as a strong target. This tank was found with several Shermans (which are on display in Lenino-Snegiri) and the Tiger Hull, which is now in a private collection in Germany. In total there were three different Tigers at the Nakhabino Test Site (the third was completely destroyed), all three were brought from the Courland boiler, Latvia, and belonged to Schw.Pz.Abt. 510.

                        even the body kit shows that the car is clearly not 42 year
                      3. Verdun
                        Verdun 21 July 2016 14: 14
                        0
                        Quote: Stas57
                        even the body kit shows that the car is clearly not 42 year

                        I did not search on the Internet. I read what was written on the tablet in the museum when I visited - for a long time. There was no body kit then on the tank. It was generally rusty and incomplete.
                        This tank was found with several Shermans.
                        To believe that this Tiger was destroyed by the Sherman is definitely not worth it, since it was hit in the frontal armor.
                        Chassis number 251227, a heavily damaged vehicle located at the Nakhabino military training ground, where it is often used as a strong target
                        I didn’t look at the number, but there weren’t any other military injuries on the tank that I saw. It is possible that we are talking about different cars. At the same time, you somewhat depart from the main topic - available at the time of 1942-1943 means of destruction capable of knocking out the Tiger. Could a tiger be knocked out of a 52-K anti-aircraft gun?
                      4. Stas57
                        Stas57 21 July 2016 14: 48
                        0
                        Quote: Verdun
                        At the same time, you somewhat depart from the main topic - available at the time of 1942-1943 years of weapons capable of knocking out the Tiger. Could a tiger be knocked out of an 52-K anti-aircraft gun?

                        but I thought you were rejected by bullfinches and a tiger ...

                        Yes.
                      5. AK64
                        AK64 21 July 2016 15: 08
                        +5
                        . Could a tiger be knocked out of a 52-K anti-aircraft gun?

                        (1) How many 52-K were in the divisions?
                        (2) How many 52-K were in the hulls (in the hull artillery)?
                        (3) How many armor-piercing shells were there for the 52-K in the summer of 1943 in general, and in BC in particular?

                        PS: And the Tigers could be pierced from 107mm guns. And from 122mm guns. And even from 122mm guabitz cannons. and from the 152 mm can push.
                        The battleship could have been fitted too.

                        And the only problem is that all this is fantasies. AND full-time in the summer of 1943, Soviet divisions did not have the means of anti-tank defense capable of fighting the Tigers. And even IPTAPs could not deal with the Tigers.

                        You just need to understand and admit this fact - and not strain the rear seats in senseless disputes that "the battleship Oktyabrin could easily have them."

                        You just need to understand and accept it. And to understand that in July 1943, Soviet soldiers made another feat
                      6. Verdun
                        Verdun 21 July 2016 15: 23
                        +2
                        Quote: AK64

                        And the only problem is that all this is fantasies. And in the summer of 1943, the Soviet divisions did not have the full-time means of VET capable of fighting the Tigers.

                        It will probably be a discovery for you, but the Germans did not have the standard means of fighting the KV-1 at the beginning of the war. And, at that stage, for them these tanks were no less a problem than the Tiger later became for us.
                        (1) How many 52-K were in the divisions?
                        (2) How many 52-K were in the hulls (in the hull artillery)?
                        (3) How many armor-piercing shells were there for the 52-K in the summer of 1943 in general, and in the BC in particular?
                        Please recommend reading. Just read to the end.
                        85 mm anti-aircraft gun arr. 1939 was exclusively widely used by units of the Red Army. The units of these guns provided both air defense of the front-line units and air defense of administrative centers and industrial enterprises. These guns were in service with the anti-aircraft artillery divisions of the RVGK, consisting of three regiments of anti-aircraft artillery of small caliber and one regiment of medium-caliber guns (sixteen 85-mm guns and forty-eight 37-mm guns).

                        A significant part of the 85 mm anti-aircraft guns was used as anti-tank. For example, according to the state of 1940, in each of the 10 anti-tank artillery brigades formed before the war, there should also be twenty-four 85-mm anti-aircraft guns used as anti-tank guns, among other weapons. In fact, due to the slow development of the production of 107-mm guns, which also had to arm these brigades, the number of 85-mm guns in them was 48 units or more. Armed with 85-mm anti-aircraft guns, the anti-tank division was a regular combat unit of each tank and mechanized corps of the Red Army for almost the entire war.
                      7. yehat
                        yehat 21 July 2016 15: 47
                        0
                        something I feel guile. First, the 85mm anti-aircraft gun appeared as a purchased gun from the Germans before the war and underwent changes with an increase in the caliber 76-> 85mm.
                        Secondly, there were considerable problems with the manufacture of barrels for these guns. And suddenly it turns out that the gun is wide, everywhere, as many as 48 units. But in reality, the shortage of anti-aircraft guns in Belarus in 41 was such that there was no talk of any kind of mass air defense. Not to mention the fact that a significant number could be allocated to tanks.
                        In the year 43, the situation with the completeness of 85mm guns changed as a plus, however, I would recall that given the shortage of guns from 41 years old, they were still missing. In addition, the armored penetration of the German 88 anti-aircraft gun and our 85mm is still seriously different, you do not need to build unnecessary illusions with analogies.
                      8. AK64
                        AK64 21 July 2016 16: 11
                        0
                        It will probably be a discovery for you, but the Germans did not have the standard means of fighting the KV-1 at the beginning of the war.

                        You are extremely stubborn and very narrow-minded.
                        If you were smarter, you would ask, rather than argue.
                        PaK38 was a standard PTP. Qu she quite confidently punched. In the summer of 1941, the PaK38 was few, very few, but nevertheless 2 pieces per division were statewide.
                        According to the state, understand?

                        Yes, and 88mm anti-aircraft guns in the divisions were regular.
                        And, at that stage, for them these tanks were no less a problem than the Tiger later became for us.

                        Not at all. And if only because the Germans brought the Tigers into separate breakthrough battalions, 40 (or 45) each, while in the Red Army and Kv and T-34 were spread in the mass of BT and T-26 (with their reservation from the wind) .

                        All the cho you dragged there about 52-K - not interesting and not relevant. In fact, 52-K were very expensive for the USSR, there were very few of them - it was sharply insufficient even for air defense of cities (by no means troops).
                        All 52-K were consolidated in the Air Defense Division. That is, the use of these by troops against tanks in the summer of 1943 is from the realm of fantasy.

                        % "- K was really used against tanks. But each such case is disaster . Examples: October 1941, Moscow, the Germans breakthrough to Stalingrad in August 1942. This is a disaster every time.
                        By the way, in August 1942 there was no sense from anti-aircraft guns: the calculations were from girls, they often didn’t even manage to give out a uniform. Girls did not know how to fight, and died under mortars.
                        In little white dresses.
                      9. Stas57
                        Stas57 21 July 2016 16: 20
                        0
                        Yes, and 88mm anti-aircraft guns in the divisions were regular.

                        no
                      10. AK64
                        AK64 21 July 2016 16: 52
                        0
                        Where did they get the 88 with which they regularly knocked out tanks that we have, that the allies (especially in Africa)?
                      11. Stas57
                        Stas57 21 July 2016 17: 19
                        0
                        Quote: AK64
                        Where did they get the 88 with which they regularly knocked out tanks that we have, that the allies (especially in Africa)?

                        Luftwaffe
                      12. AK64
                        AK64 21 July 2016 18: 29
                        0
                        And what did they have in the air defense battalion?
                        I can’t find something ...

                        Here for example:
                        The division had a full armored reconnaissance battalion of six companies, and an antiaircraft battalion. The latter contained twelve towed 88-mm. guns as well as guns of smaller caliber, but lacked almost a fifth of its personnel.


                        But this is an SS division, in the 41st there were none
                      13. Stas57
                        Stas57 21 July 2016 18: 34
                        +1
                        who do they have?
                        in large numbers, heher fell into 44, and in extremely small, homeopathic doses, they were in 41.
                      14. AK64
                        AK64 21 July 2016 18: 44
                        0
                        Where did the 88s that Rommel routinely used in Africa come from, and, say, those near Arras in 1940?

                        Generally speaking, the "heavy" (divisional) battalions of divisions had exactly 88 divisions. The only question is who exactly had the heavy battalions ...
                      15. Stas57
                        Stas57 21 July 2016 19: 21
                        +1
                        backlash

                        606th Air Defense Battalion (Flak-Abteilung (mot) 606)
                      16. The comment was deleted.
                      17. Verdun
                        Verdun 21 July 2016 16: 30
                        +1
                        Quote: AK64
                        That is, the use of these by troops against tanks in the summer of 1943 is from the realm of fantasy.

                        Figuratively speaking, when the 52-K reflected the attacks of German tanks in 1941 near Lobnya, and when they did the same during the defense of Tula (and the Germans themselves write about it, and my grandfather, who defended Tula, saw it with his own eyes) - it was all fantastic . As for the problem for the Germans, the KV-1 tanks were.
                        "The 6th Panzer Division of the Wehrmacht fought for 48 hours with one and only Soviet tank KV-1 (" Klim Voroshilov ").

                        This episode is described in detail in the memoirs of Colonel Erhard Routh, whose group tried to destroy the Soviet tank. The fifty-ton KV-1 shot and crushed with its caterpillars a convoy of 12 supply trucks that went to the Germans from the captured city of Raiseniai. Then with targeted shots he destroyed the artillery battery. The Germans, of course, returned fire, but to no avail. The shells of the anti-tank guns did not leave a dent on his armor - the Germans who were struck by this later gave the KV-1 tanks the nickname "Phantom". But what about the cannons - even the 1-mm howitzers could not penetrate the KV-150 armor. True, the soldiers of Routh managed to immobilize the tank by detonating a shell under his caterpillar.

                        But Klim Voroshilov was not going to leave anywhere. He took a strategic position on the only road leading to Raiseniai, and for two days delayed the advancement of the division (the Germans could not get around it, because the road passed through the swamps, where army trucks and light tanks were stuck).

                        Finally, by the end of the second day of the battle, Routh managed to shoot the tank with anti-aircraft guns. But when his soldiers cautiously approached the steel monster, the tank turret suddenly turned in their direction - apparently, the crew was still alive. Only a grenade thrown into the hatch of the tank put an end to this incredible battle .. "
                        Although, probably, you will say about it - fantastic. And about the number of anti-aircraft guns ...
                        Production 52-K was conducted exclusively at the factory number 8 named. Kalinin, who until the winter of 1941-42. located in the village of Podlipki (Moscow region), and then was evacuated to Sverdlovsk. By June 22, 1941, the troops had 2630 52-K guns.
                      18. AK64
                        AK64 21 July 2016 16: 56
                        -2
                        You know, I'll put you in an emergency.
                        And you know why? But I'm not interested in arguing with stubborn and narrow-minded.
                        For me, as I understand it, the facts are not important and the story is not interesting - you are much more interested in your personality against the background of the Runet. Unfortunately, I will not be able to share this your love for yourself.

                        Well, since the conversation with you in this case is obviously meaningless, then ... Goodbye.
                      19. Verdun
                        Verdun 21 July 2016 17: 05
                        +2
                        Quote: AK64
                        For me, as I understand it, the facts are not important and the story is not interesting - you are much more interested in your personality against the background of the Runet.

                        You should not attribute to me your qualities. And emergency is your right. I myself do this sometimes. True only when the opponent, instead of arguing arguably, begins to be rude. And about
                        But I'm not interested in arguing with stubborn and narrow-minded.
                        you're not right. Yes, I’m stubborn, I repent. But I always try to defend my point of view on the basis of knowledge and arguments. You like to immediately dismiss the opponent’s arguments and believe only in your truth. And if you're right, then why be afraid? I haven’t put ratings in disputes for a long time.
                      20. sibiryouk
                        sibiryouk 21 July 2016 17: 47
                        +5
                        AK64 - why do you need opponents? You are always right!
                      21. AK64
                        AK64 21 July 2016 18: 41
                        0
                        AK64 - why do you need opponents? You are always right!


                        In any "controversy" there is at least one dddurr cancer and one cheater. I don't want to be either one or the other.
                      22. Riv
                        Riv 22 July 2016 16: 38
                        +2
                        ... but you have to ...
                      23. The comment was deleted.
                      24. Stas57
                        Stas57 21 July 2016 17: 23
                        +1
                        Quote: Verdun
                        Although, probably, you will say about it - fantastic. And about the number of anti-aircraft guns ...

                        KV1 that worked out 88
                      25. Alexey RA
                        Alexey RA 21 July 2016 18: 39
                        +3
                        Quote: AK64
                        All 52-K were consolidated in the Air Defense Division. That is, the use of these by troops against tanks in the summer of 1943 is from the realm of fantasy.

                        85-mm guns were not only in air defense. Some of them were used in iptadn, which were given as means of amplification:
                        Once again, two tank corps (10th and 2nd) were withdrawn to the Prokhorov direction, which, due to the reserve of the front, were reinforced with two anti-tank artillery divisions of 85-mm guns and two mortar regiments.

                        Quote: AK64
                        % "- K was really used against tanks. But every such case is a disaster.

                        No need to escalate. Strengthening anti-tank defense with anti-aircraft guns was a regular solution.
                        Remember at least the composition of the 316th artillery in October 1941 - even before the start of the battles in the Volokolamsk direction:
                        ... the division was strengthened by four cannon artillery regiments of the RVGK, three artillery and anti-tank regiments; part of the artillery of the artillery group DD of the 16th Army, as well as artillery of the 302nd machine gun battalion and the 1st division of the artillery regiment of the 126th rifle division, was supposed to operate in the division strip. A total of 153 guns were in these units and groups.
                        Thus, in total in the defense zone of the 316th Infantry Division there were 207 guns, of which: 25 mm - 4; 45 mm - 32; 76 mm PA - 14; 76 mm YES - 79; 85 mm - 16; 122 mm howitzers - 8; 122 mm cannons - 24; 152 mm cannons - 30.
                        The artillery anti-tank reserve of the division, consisting of two anti-tank artillery regiment batteries, armed with four 85-mm anti-aircraft guns and four 45-mm anti-tank guns.
                      26. AK64
                        AK64 21 July 2016 19: 14
                        0
                        Strengthening anti-tank defense with anti-aircraft guns was a regular solution.

                        That 52-K was not enough even in the 43rd to cover even transport hubs in the rear of the army ...

                        As of the 43rd, as far as I know (that is, I could be wrong), all 52-K divisions were reduced to air defense divisions. And in the 43rd there was enough of them only for industrial centers - and even that was bad enough, that is, it was not enough.

                        The situation with the release of tank guns based on 85mm was changed only with the receipt of equipment from amers: what was to drill on. But this is the second half of the 43rd.
                        Then they tried to do anti-tank missiles based on the 52-K trunk. (Refused by the absence of trunks)

                        And in the 42nd 52-K guns on direct fire - this means the tanks have broken through. That is, a disaster, not "regular use" at all.
              2. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 21 July 2016 13: 31
                0
                Quote: AK64
                The fact is that in the Raus group (aka Kempf group; the Raus group, Kempf - named after the generals) there were more than 300 tanks - the 3rd shopping mall. And somehow it didn’t really work out. Then the 503rd heavy tank battalion, 45 Tigers, EMNIP.
                It would seem - it was 300, well, they added 45 ... What changes?

                Yeah ... just increased the number of tanks by 15%.
                45 TT by Soviet standards - this is a little pokotsennaya heavy tank brigade of the end of the war. In our tank armies before the Berlin operation, even the TT was less. smile

                In addition, EMNIP, for 3 days of battles, formations 69 A pretty much lost their combat effectiveness. The problems were already on July 11:
                The command of the 69th A placed the main hope on the 2nd mall. Firstly, he was in place, secondly, his brigades still retained combat effectiveness, and thirdly, there were simply no other mobile reserves, as well as artillery, too. It was impossible to keep the defense only with infantry, without enough anti-tank weapons in the zone where the enemy strikes with an armored fist.
                A catastrophic lack of time and a problem with reserves — these two factors were decisive for the Soviet side when making decisions during the battles near Prokhorovka. This was most pronounced on the night of July 11.
                By the morning of July 11, in the case of A.F. Popov, the situation with armored vehicles was very difficult. At 7.00, he had less than half of the regular number of tanks, only 74 operational combat vehicles, including the 26th Assault Brigade - 12 (3 T-34, 9T-70), the 99th Assault Regiment - 35 (16 T-34 , 19 T-70), 169th brigade - 23 (16 T-34, 7 T-70) and the 15th guards. OTP - 4 (MK-4)
                1. AK64
                  AK64 21 July 2016 16: 19
                  0
                  Yeah ... just increased the number of tanks by 15%.

                  Yes, these 15% are nonsense - there simply the result was immediately visible.
                  45 TT by Soviet standards - this is a little pokotsennaya heavy tank brigade of the end of the war. In our tank armies before the Berlin operation, even the TT was less. smile

                  Two Soviet breakthrough heavy tank regiments. So what?
                  In the 3rd mall there were more than 300 tanks - and they could not break through the defense of 69A. And these 45 pieces of Tigers broke through it, not really and out of breath.

                  In addition, EMNIP, for 3 days of battles, formations 69 A pretty much lost their combat effectiveness. The problems were already on July 11:

                  11th is already strong after the events of which I speak. The 503th battalion there was marked on the 8th or 9th, having opened the defense like a knife.
                  Somewhere on the net there was an excellent article about 69A, With maps and battle schedules. (I could not find something ...) Well, or a look from the German side in Glanz.
              3. goose
                goose 25 July 2016 17: 33
                0
                Quote: AK64
                There was simply nothing for the tigers, that is, nothing at all

                Mines, but by the time the TTBt was launched, they were gone. The defenders did not have the means of qualitative strengthening. With proper control, heavy tanks were required to open the defenses with the top guns of the ZIS-3, with minimal losses. We would have fallen on the 52-K regiment, where everyone would have died out, or would have gone further to look for a weak spot in the defense. It should be recalled that in 75 1943% of anti-tank missiles were 45-mm guns, mainly 53K. There were practically no improved M-42s, and a sub-caliber projectile was issued 1 per gun.
                there was really nothing to pierce the Tiger in the forehead with. Only mines and aircraft.
          2. Mother CheeseEarth
            Mother CheeseEarth 21 July 2016 11: 12
            -1
            Quote: AK64
            This is a French tactic that has demonstrated its bankruptcy.

            Oh come on. What did StuG demonstrate? How much StuG was released and how many Pz do you remember?
            1. AK64
              AK64 21 July 2016 11: 16
              -1
              Oh come on. What did StuG demonstrate? How much StuG was released and how many Pz do you remember?


              Here Shtug was a cheap technical tank, in the German version. But Germans did not attach normal tanks to infantry.
              1. Mother CheeseEarth
                Mother CheeseEarth 21 July 2016 11: 52
                -1
                Quote: AK64
                But Germans did not attach normal tanks to infantry.

                "Normal" are turret cavalry?
                You probably won’t believe it, but judging by the number of cavalry and infantry tanks (those that were self-propelled guns) the Germans didn’t think so!
                1. AK64
                  AK64 21 July 2016 14: 03
                  +1
                  "Normal" are turret cavalry?

                  The Germans did not have "cavalry" tanks
                  You probably won’t believe it, but judging by the number of cavalry and infantry tanks (those that were self-propelled guns) the Germans didn’t think so!

                  You, I see, are very stubborn, and not very reasonable. Take a look at the production by years - you learn a lot.

                  I will help you: until the end of 1941, the Germans produced 3500 medium tanks and only 700 Shtugs. Moreover, out of these 700 pieces, more than 500 were produced in 1941.

                  This is the only unremarkable attitude to the question. Not your fantasies.

                  Oh yes, yes, yes, it was still light ...

                  So, 1200 T-38 and 400 T-2 should be added to the aforementioned. And not one, which is typical, self-propelled guns.

                  Here is a German attitude, without fantasy
                  1. Mother CheeseEarth
                    Mother CheeseEarth 21 July 2016 14: 41
                    0
                    Quote: AK64
                    The Germans did not have "cavalry" tanks

                    Are you familiar with the term "tank classification"?
                    Well, I'll tell you that all the "pre-war" Panzerkampfwagen according to the Franco-British classification were considered CAVALERY.
                    Or OPERATIONAL tank according to the Soviet classification.
                    And the fact that the Germans themselves did not call them that does not affect the fact that they can be classified as OPERATIONAL or CAVALRY.
                    Quote: AK64
                    Check out production by year

                    Quote: AK64
                    until the end of 1941, the Germans produced 3500 medium tanks and only 700 Shtugs.

                    THERE ARE YOURSELF AND MEETbefore hanging tags on the opponent.
                    StuG III was produced since 1940, and in large quantities (as they themselves noticed) only since 1941, and the same Pz. IV has been produced since 1936.
                    You are a genius, damn it, in the 41st year to compare them!
                    (And StuN was, more than 400 cars a year)
                    Quote: AK64
                    need to add 1200 T-38

                    No, don't.
                    It CZECH TANK. The Czechs produced what their industry allowed.
      2. AK64
        AK64 21 July 2016 10: 03
        +1
        This tanks do not fit into the concept of tanks with tanks do not fight.

        This concept was originally speculative (theoretical). And by the summer of 1943, she finally died (giving an incentive to develop in the direction of MBT)
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 21 July 2016 10: 35
          +3
          Quote: AK64
          This concept was originally speculative (theoretical). And by the summer of 1943, she finally died (giving an incentive to develop in the direction of MBT)

          Uh-huh ... it died so much that the Americans refused to re-equip the Shermans with a 17-pounder, with a great creak put a 76-mm cannon in its place - but at the same time they kept tank divisions in tank divisions, actively re-equipping them with new equipment. smile
          And ours did not lag behind, reinforcing the tank and mechanized units with iptap-am and sap-am.
          1. AK64
            AK64 21 July 2016 10: 56
            0
            Uh-huh ... so dead that the Americans refused to re-equip the Shermans with a 17-pounder, with a great creak they put a 76-mm cannon in its place - but at the same time they kept tank divisions in tank divisions, actively re-equipping them with new equipment. smile
            And ours did not lag behind, reinforcing the tank and mechanized units with iptap-am and sap-am.

            And what was left to do if the existing tanks were not good enough against the tanks?
            However, the Americans sculpted the M-26, which is MBT. The Germans piled Panther, which is also MBT. And in the USSR they designed the T-44 --- and he, too, MBT.
            And why would it be so if "punks do not fight with sledges"?

            The concept of "slippers with banks" - it was quite speculative from the very beginning. It was quite difficult to fight exactly in such a way that it was according to this concept, because it quickly became clear that the tank was the best anti-tank weapon.
            Making "tanks-fighters" and "just tanks" separately is a rather expensive way.
            1. Mother CheeseEarth
              Mother CheeseEarth 21 July 2016 11: 26
              -1
              Quote: AK64
              The Germans piled Panther, which is also MBT.

              But the Germans, the Germans then knew that?
              Judging by the fact that the Panther is a Panzerkampfwagen, and not Kampfpanzer did not know. But you let them know, edit the German Wikipedia!
              Quote: AK64
              It was quite difficult to fight in a way that was in accordance with this concept.

              It is difficult, and no one is arguing. But first of all, it is necessary to fight "effectively", and efficiency and universality are diametrically opposite things.
              1. AK64
                AK64 21 July 2016 14: 07
                -2
                Ba: yes, it’s again the same hard-cook ...

                How didn’t I immediately see it, I took it for a man ...

                To ignore, to ignore .. In the emergency it makes no sense to put - he will swim under the 125th nickname tomorrow
                1. Mother CheeseEarth
                  Mother CheeseEarth 21 July 2016 14: 48
                  +2
                  Quote: AK64
                  yes it's again the same hard-cook

                  My advice to you, remember, finally, that "hard rock" has a nickname in Latin letters and does not have an avatar. It's not difficult, is it?
                  Quote: AK64
                  How didn’t I immediately see

                  Not for the first time, you actually don't "look at anything" on a regular basis.
                  Quote: AK64
                  To ignore, to ignore

                  How predictable!
                  As in essence, there is nothing to say and attempts to "troll" (very weak, by the way) failed, so immediately rude and in an emergency. Keep it up!
          2. mroy
            mroy 21 July 2016 15: 29
            0
            In the United States, it was considered bad manners to use foreign-made weapons. And then the American tankers were jealous of the English and the material of Patton and McNair, who insisted on continuing the production of Sherman instead of putting Pershing into production.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 21 July 2016 18: 23
              +1
              Quote: mroy
              In the United States, it was considered bad manners to use foreign-made weapons.

              Mwa-ha-ha ... yes, the Yankees, for the sake of foreign Bofors, killed two of their own designs - a 37-mm land anti-aircraft gun and a 28-mm naval machine gun. Moreover, the latter had been tortured since the beginning of the 30s, and in 1940 it was just managed to be made to work normally.
              But after getting acquainted with the British version of the "bofors", it was decided to buy a license for the land and naval 40-mm MZA from the Swedes, not to conclude new contracts for the American MZA, and to execute the existing ones only until the Swedish product was put into series.
        2. Mother CheeseEarth
          Mother CheeseEarth 21 July 2016 11: 21
          -1
          Quote: AK64
          This concept was originally speculative (theoretical).

          But the Germans did not even know, smoking near Moscow in the 41st.
          Quote: AK64
          And by the summer of 1943, she finally died

          Please provide the statistics of which guns were used to destroy the bulk of German tanks since Summer 43?
    3. alpamys
      alpamys 21 July 2016 08: 06
      +3
      Quote: demiurg
      Interestingly, are the Tiger and Tiger-2 still tanks or tank destroyers? This is what I ask. If their main task was to destroy the tanks, then how to name the means to combat them?

      judging by the name, it’s all the same tanks, Der Panzerkampfdare
    4. Malkor
      Malkor 21 July 2016 08: 21
      0
      Basic does not mean the only one. The modern chrysanthemum (tank destroyer) cannot attack infantry as effectively as the tiger supported on the offensive; it is rather a means of defense and subtle tactical influence in other conditions. While the tiger is a full-fledged tank, both in defense and in offensive, like a tank it is very flexible on the battlefield.
      1. demiurg
        demiurg 21 July 2016 08: 29
        +1
        On the offensive, in the trenches, through the mud? With its power ratio and pressure on the ground? Maintain infantry in battle formation?
    5. AK64
      AK64 21 July 2016 10: 01
      0
      Interestingly, but the Tiger and Tiger-2 are still tanks or tank destroyers?


      These are heavy tanks.
      And the main task is a breakthrough tank (as with all cords)
    6. AK64
      AK64 21 July 2016 10: 01
      0
      Interestingly, but the Tiger and Tiger-2 are still tanks or tank destroyers?


      These are heavy tanks.
      And the main task is a breakthrough tank (as with all cords)
    7. Mother CheeseEarth
      Mother CheeseEarth 21 July 2016 10: 56
      0
      Quote: demiurg
      But is the Tiger and Tiger-2 still tanks or tank destroyers?

      Google "tank classification".
      The tiger was called Panzerkampfwagen VI, that is, "line tank number 6".
      On the other hand, the Tiger was a further development of the "Durchbruchwagen1 and 2" project, that is, "breakthrough tank number 1 and 2".
      Accordingly, it would be more correct to call it "heavy-weight linear breakthrough tank" or simply "breakthrough tank".
      Quote: demiurg
      then what are the means to combat them?

      To begin with, the Tiger could theoretically be destroyed by anything, so the question, IMHO, is initially meaningless.
      1. Andrey77
        Andrey77 21 July 2016 11: 33
        +1
        This is a classification issue. The Japanese carried the helicopter carrier with a displacement of 19 thousand tons to DDG (destroyer with URO). According to our classification - BOD. Such a good BOD ...
    8. Recoil
      Recoil 21 July 2016 15: 55
      0
      combat charter, part 3, Tank on the defensive.
      124.
      When the enemy goes over to the attack, the tank, at the command (signal) of the platoon commander, destroys primarily the attacking tanks and other armored vehicles of the enemy, primarily control vehicles and vehicles equipped with mine trawls. During the battle, fire is fired independently and at the command (signals) of the platoon commander in cooperation with the fire weapons of the motorized rifle unit.

      Their charter was about the same. Nothing has changed, goals: tanks, lbt, manpower
    9. goose
      goose 25 July 2016 17: 06
      0
      Quote: demiurg
      If their main task was to destroy tanks

      Their main task was not to fight with tanks, but to strengthen them qualitatively on a narrow section of the front to combat fortifications, anti-tank missiles and tanks, if necessary.
      Following from the tasks, the reservation was circular on the Tiger-1. The Tiger-2 had a more anti-tank orientation, but the power reserve and mobility in any case did not make it the most convenient PT-weapon, although differentiated booking and a great gun allowed.
    10. INF
      INF 21 November 2016 17: 50
      0
      Breakthrough tank.
  2. demiurg
    demiurg 21 July 2016 09: 23
    +2
    O. Karius with his tank platoon (3 pzkvVI) destroyed only when one village was captured near 25 of Soviet TT (from his memoirs). True, these are just words, but nevertheless, exchange one disabled tiger for 20-25 sq or is this an indicator of effective use? With such efficiency on TVD, where they were used, their role was to be observed in principle ... it is clear that 489 units of CT and 1400 units of ordinary tigers fade in comparison with the number of pz3 and pz4. They were not the main workhorses, but still. ISs are also relatively t-34 and t-60 released a scanty amount.

    Tell us then why the mass production of tigers was not deployed. The Germans would have destroyed Soviet tanks in a month. What got in the way? High cost? For the sake of exchanging 1 to 25, this made sense anyway.
    Why didn't this perfect tank become a victory tank?
    1. mroy
      mroy 21 July 2016 09: 58
      +1
      And there was no exchange with IS 1:25. There were no funds or production capacities for the production of thousands of tigers. Although the Germans had built together 489 KT a thousand Tigers, there would have been more sense from them. And if these funds were invested in the production of Panthers, then this would be even more meaningful. Although all this would simply prolong the agony of the Third Reich, the Allies were still stronger economically.
    2. AK64
      AK64 21 July 2016 10: 40
      +2
      Tell us then why the mass production of tigers was not deployed. The Germans would have destroyed Soviet tanks in a month. What got in the way? High cost? For the sake of exchanging 1 to 25, this made sense anyway.
      Why didn't this perfect tank become a victory tank?

      It is not interesting for you to tell something because you, instead of listening, show languages ​​and figs.

      The tiger for its intended purpose, and according to the statement of work, was a breakthrough tank.
      Breakthrough tanks, due to some specificity, are not massive in principle.
      In addition, the Tigers were very expensive: in the 42nd, the Tigers cost 800 thousand marks --- while the T-3 and T-4 stood at about 100 thousand (already with weapons and optics if). Or a little less than 100 thousand - if not.

      That is, in the 42nd 1 Tiger at a price equal to 9 average.

      By the 44th price of the Tigers decline, to ... more or less tolerant 250 thousand marks. But in this state it’s 5 Panthers for the price of 2 Tigers.

      Herschel’s plant simply could not be built anymore.

      Well, to close the topic: in principle, the Tiger for German tank building and German military science was a "step back" - a breakthrough tank is exactly a "step back". Tankers Tigers naturally loved - why, so much armor! But the generals are not. And rightly so.
      But the Panther was "step forward."
      It is here that there are answers to your "malicious questions"
      1. Mother CheeseEarth
        Mother CheeseEarth 21 July 2016 11: 32
        -2
        Quote: AK64
        The tiger for its intended purpose, and according to the statement of work, was a breakthrough tank.
        Breakthrough tanks, due to some specificity, are not massive in principle.

        Exactly. With your permission, I will add that for the overwhelming number of goals and directions, the power of the Tiger was corny redundant.
        Quote: AK64
        Tigers were very expensive: in the 42nd Tigers cost 800 thou marks

        In general, in parallel, how much they cost in stamps, the Third Reich was an authoritarian state in a state of war, there was no point in talking about any "market value" in stamps, only material and labor intensity were important.
        1. Andrey77
          Andrey77 21 July 2016 11: 42
          0
          The "Tiger" had an excellent MSA. And yes, rather, it is a purely anti-tank vehicle. 88 mm anti-aircraft gun for infantry is redundant.
          1. Mother CheeseEarth
            Mother CheeseEarth 21 July 2016 12: 56
            0
            Quote: Andrey77
            88 mm anti-aircraft gun for the infantry is redundant.

            If the Germans were only interested in the "power" of the gun, then they would have stuck an even larger diameter "butt" into the Tiger, like on many of their other machines.
            In this case, the antiaircraft gun is not only power, it is, first of all, a long range of "effective firing", which made it possible to guarantee the destruction of not only tanks, but also artillery guns from a safe distance.
            Because "armor penetration" depends (if simplified) on the caliber and firing range.
          2. goose
            goose 26 July 2016 09: 54
            0
            Quote: Andrey77
            The "Tiger" had an excellent MSA. And yes, rather, it is a purely anti-tank vehicle. 88 mm anti-aircraft gun for infantry is redundant.

            By SLA, did you mean good training for tank commanders?

            88-mm infantry was weaker (fragmentation effect) than the OFS 24-caliber 75-mm "butt" Stugov. The high-explosive effect was barely enough for field fortifications. As a result, they tried to shoot at the infantry only from a machine gun.

            Another thing is that all this Panther was completely lacking, unlike the PzIV or T-34.
        2. Verdun
          Verdun 21 July 2016 12: 02
          +4
          Quote: Mother CheeseEarth
          In general, in parallel, how much they cost in stamps, the Third Reich was an authoritarian state in a state of war, there was no point in talking about any "market value" in stamps, only material and labor intensity were important.

          The cost of any product is not only the cost of the materials from which it is produced, and the cost of depreciation of equipment. An important component of the price are man-hours spent on production. The high price of the Tiger indicates the high complexity of its production, which, especially during the war, when tanks are needed at the front yesterday, is certainly important. And the average tank produced yesterday is often more important than the good tank produced tomorrow. No matter how good the Tiger, but a small number of production of these machines - only less than 1500 pieces - does not speak in his favor. If you calculate the length of the fronts on which the Germans had to fight, you get less than one car per kilometer, taking into account all the cars that were fired. But thirty-odd thousand T-34s are another matter ...
          1. Mother CheeseEarth
            Mother CheeseEarth 21 July 2016 13: 01
            -2
            Quote: Verdun
            No matter how good the Tiger, but a small number of production of these machines - only less than 1500 pieces - does not speak in his favor.

            I already wrote that the power of the Tiger for many purposes was corny redundant, so even if there were opportunities for mass production of the Tigers, such a production would still be pointless.
            Quote: Verdun
            The cost of any product is

            I already wrote that the Third Reich was an authoritarian country at war.
            In this case, no matter what the "market value" of the Tiger was formed of, the amount of equipment produced depended on the needs of the army and the capabilities of industry, in particular, the material-labor intensity of the product.
      2. goose
        goose 26 July 2016 09: 50
        0
        Quote: AK64
        But the Panther was "step forward."
        It is here that there are answers to your "malicious questions

        Moreover, the forehead of Panther G turned out to be more persistent than the forehead of the "Tiger". And the operational readiness of this tank was much more than 30%, typical of the "Tiger". And it was possible to transport without dancing with tambourines to replace rollers and caterpillars, and even could be pulled out of the mud. It was impossible to pull the Tiger out of the mud even with a train of tractors, only by the same Tiger.
  3. Ukropus
    Ukropus 21 July 2016 09: 54
    0
    described above. but I’ll add that a tank without a skilful crew will never be a prodigy. there were 2-3 dozen skillful tankers like Carius and Wittmann in the Wehrmacht. Ordinary drivers of the 3 pazika or Prague in TT simply could not unleash the potential of the tank. Karius and that year in school after lst studied in order to sit in the striped.
    Regarding the German statistics of the damaged Soviet tanks, it seems to me that there was a propaganda approach (most of the memoirs of the German military fell on the 1960s-70s). If the Soviet commanders were so stupid and lost so much technology in reality (on the scale described by Carius, Rudel, etc.), there would have been no capture of Berlin in 1955 ...
    1. Stas57
      Stas57 21 July 2016 09: 59
      +2
      Quote: Ukropus
      described above. but I’ll add that a tank without a skilful crew will never be a prodigy. there were 2-3 dozen skillful tankers like Carius and Wittmann in the Wehrmacht. Ordinary drivers of the 3 pazika or Prague in TT simply could not unleash the potential of the tank. Karius and that year in school after lst studied in order to sit in the striped.

      you are not on the forum HERE, learn to write normally
    2. Andrey77
      Andrey77 21 July 2016 11: 46
      +1
      In aviation, the percentage of overpriced shots is even higher. By 1942, we had all set the Luftwaffe. Well, the Germans are our entire air fleet.
  4. Tsoy
    Tsoy 21 July 2016 10: 05
    +1
    With its armor, the M36 was certainly not a very comfortable place in a battle with a tiger. Ambush our all.
  5. mroy
    mroy 21 July 2016 10: 10
    0
    Quote: AK64
    These are heavy tanks.
    And the main task is a breakthrough tank (as with all cords)

    Look. And the peak of their appearance in noticeable quantities occurred during the retreat, that is, defensive battles, where the pros were leveled, and the cons declared themselves to their full potential.
    And then, in the offensive, the repair services, a damaged, broken or stuck tank will be pulled out and repaired, and in the retreat this is an irretrievable loss.
    1. AK64
      AK64 21 July 2016 10: 59
      +1
      Look. And the peak of their appearance in noticeable quantities occurred during the retreat, that is, defensive battles, where the pros were leveled, and the cons declared themselves to their full potential.
      And then, in the offensive, the repair services, a damaged, broken or stuck tank will be pulled out and repaired, and in the retreat this is an irretrievable loss.


      Well, yes.
      Moreover: while the Germans were advancing, they somehow managed to do without heavy breakthrough tanks. And when they stopped advancing, then no heavy load will save.
      In addition, the "heavy breakthrough tank" itself in the German tank concept is a step backwards, a step towards WWI.
      1. Mother CheeseEarth
        Mother CheeseEarth 21 July 2016 11: 35
        0
        Quote: AK64
        In addition, the "heavy breakthrough tank" itself in the German tank concept is a step backwards, a step towards WWI.

        Oh?
        And nothing that the concept of a "breakthrough" in their tank doctrine existed from the very beginning, and such vehicles were called Durchbruchswagen, and they were developed right from the 30s and even before the beginning of WW2 ?!
        1. Andrey77
          Andrey77 21 July 2016 11: 52
          0
          Developed, but Guderian dragged his concept. No less effective.
          1. Mother CheeseEarth
            Mother CheeseEarth 21 July 2016 13: 04
            0
            Quote: Andrey77
            but Guderian dragged his concept. No less effective.

            Look how.
            So the self-propelled guns, the main armored vehicles of the Reich (excluding any armored vehicles) fit into the "Guderian concept", but the Durchbruchswagen turns out not?
            Interesting interesting.
          2. AK64
            AK64 21 July 2016 14: 12
            0
            Developed, but Guderian dragged his concept. No less effective.


            Guderian is out of business: Guderian is a self-proclaimed genius, and nothing more.
            Turkey he is pout and liar.

            Just the one who survived and left his memoirs - the one and all in white. And during the life of Guderian was ... indecent person. (The chief of merit stole from his own - such is the goose)
          3. The comment was deleted.
  6. mroy
    mroy 21 July 2016 10: 12
    +1
    And the "Jackson" was a very good car, according to the recollections of the same Belton Cooper, it was the M36 that were the main fighters against the Panthers and Tigers in France in the battle formations of the US Army.
  7. nivander
    nivander 21 July 2016 12: 18
    +2
    The main drawback of the M36 was a weak reservation. In March 1945, Panther from the 2nd battalion of the 3rd tank regiment of the 2nd Panzerdivisia gained 4 M36 in a row from a distance of 1800 meters and shot through the Rhine with an ordinary blank.
    1. Mother CheeseEarth
      Mother CheeseEarth 21 July 2016 13: 07
      -1
      Quote: nivasander
      The main drawback of the M36 was a weak reservation.

      Why disadvantage? Why exactly the tank?
      According to the American doctrine (developed, by the way, on the basis of the German Polish-French companies), "the anti-tank defense of the troops was to be provided by anti-tank units armed with specialized tank destroyers on a tracked chassis, possessing greater mobility and more powerful weapons, with less protection than tanks."
      1. mroy
        mroy 21 July 2016 15: 33
        +2
        This is a common problem - at first some plan according to doctrines, and then others fight in reality
  8. Ukropus
    Ukropus 21 July 2016 15: 50
    -2
    Quote: Stas57

    you are not on the forum HERE, learn to write normally

    But in fact there is something to say?
    I am writing on the forum, it seems, as a relatively adequate and competent people.
    For malogra I translate normal into "normal":
    skill (English) - skill. In this case, skilled.
    Wunderwaffe (German) - "wonder weapon". No comment?
    1. Ukropus
      Ukropus 21 July 2016 16: 26
      -1
      Lt is a light tank, in particular I mentioned Pz.Kpfw. 38 (t) Praga, on which O. Karius began to fight.
      St - medium tank. I mentioned in vain. O. Karius did not fight in medium tanks, although mainly the crews of medium tanks (PZIII, PzIV) retrained / improved their qualifications in order to serve in units with heavy tanks.
      Tt is a heavy tank.
      Pazik3 - Pzkpfw.III of any modification.
      And forgive me for my "striped" metaphor. I did not aim to offend the feelings of persons with a fine mental organization and WoT complexes.
  9. Santor
    Santor 21 July 2016 18: 44
    0
    Quote: Ukropus
    O. Karius with his tank platoon (3 pzkvVI) destroyed only when one village was captured near 25 of Soviet TT (from his memoirs). True, these are just words, but nevertheless, exchange one disabled tiger for 20-25 sq or is this an indicator of effective use? With such efficiency on TVD, where they were used, their role was to be observed in principle ... it is clear that 489 units of CT and 1400 units of ordinary tigers fade in comparison with the number of pz3 and pz4. They were not the main workhorses, but still. ISs are also relatively t-34 and t-60 released a scanty amount.

    The liar is still one .... It has long been exposed. Reading is certainly useful .... But keep in mind that liar ...
  10. Riv
    Riv 22 July 2016 16: 44
    0
    "Tigers" in Africa? Hmmm ...