AT previous article we looked at the overall premise of the Red Army defeats in battles 1941 city, and now try to evaluate, the impact on the unsuccessful action of tank forces had design, PBF, and production culture tank T-34, developed in the pre-war and early war years.
first, what I would say at once: without any doubt, T-34 was an outstanding tank, It has become a landmark for Soviet, and for the world of tank. but, Unfortunately, one time his dignity Absolutized, and disadvantages - not noticed, This was particularly characteristic of the times of the USSR. Then everything went exactly the opposite - on the virtues began to forget, but the disadvantages were presented to the reading public in a very exaggerated form. As a result, among the interests of social history developed polar views on T-34 - whether the child "gloomy Soviet genius" is a perfection, to you, conversely, perfection was only on paper, and in practice, the T-34 was a bunch of defects tank, which are possible.
Actually, truth, as always, It is somewhere in the middle, and seriously interested in the history of the tank lovers have long is about T-34 know, benefit on this subject came sufficient number of excellent, professionally written works. Such people this article is nothing new will not be able to tell, because it is written on the basis of the same material, with whom they have long been familiar.
booking
As part of the armor of T-34 at the time of its inception, it is obvious and clearly superior to other tanks of the world in the same class. Of course, Standard Classification of tanks in those years did not exist in the world, but there was a fairly clear distribution of "duties". So, France and England were divided tanks (including) in the infantry, intended for direct support of the latter on the battlefield, and cruising (cavalry), designed for raids on the enemy's rear.
obviously, that the T-34 in its concept is much closer to the cavalry (cruising) tank, respectively, and compare it with the need to "soma" S35 and English "Crusader". In Germany analogue T-34 should be regarded as T-3 and appropriate modifications, probably, T-4, as, Although there is an opinion, that the Germans considered this heavy tank, but support this view documents supposedly found. They all have a defense corps on a loss 25-36 mm, though, bronelisty that they had no rational inclination angles, and German only T-4 had a body forehead, reaching the 50 mm, and T-4 H modifications frontal body armor has been strengthened more thick boneplitoy 30 mm (what, apparently, provided the total armor protection on a loss 50 mm).
Against this background, situated at a larger angle 45 mm armor T34 looked excellent. As close to the level of body armor T-34 medium tank M3 United States "Lee", who had a sloping forehead body armor plates 38-51 mm vertical side and 38 mm, but strictly speaking, M3 are not the same age as "Thirty", so how did the troops only from June 1941 city, Yes, and it is still inferior "Thirty".
During spring testing 1940 g. the tower T-34 was made of two shots of the 37 mm gun "Vickers - 6 t 'and 45mm guns BT-7. Armor has withstood, on it were only a dent.
Those most hit
Displayed a similar armor protection only frontal 50 and 60 mm armor plate of tanks German: on tests during shelling 45 mm armor-piercing tracer 50mm frontal armor self-propelled "Artshturm" and 60-mm T-3 was not broken with any distance, 50-mm armor T-4 was able to knock 50 m, but the Czech "Prague" was weaker than 38T - 50 mm armor (we are talking about a military tank modifications, to obtain a gain to book) beyond our armor-piercing tracer with 200 m. However, it will be appreciated, The tower T-34 shelled "in board", while the 30-mm bead German tanks, obviously, had a lower resistance (indirect data penetrated 45mm projectile with 150-300 m).
In this way, body armor T34 superior German tanks, what, as a matter of fact, recognized by the Germans themselves. And it is not about this or that memoirs, which could be motivated by a desire to write off their failure to "this terrible, conquering T-34 ", and the "Panther" and "King Tiger", design which Germans used rational angles of inclination of armor plates. However, the indisputable fact, that the T-34 was better to book, not testified invulnerability Soviet tank.
At first, in the construction there were "weak spots" - so, eg, 34-45-mm shell, caught in the chassis, I could ricochet up, break through 15 mm and the bottom of the fender liner, in this way, go inside the armored housing, no breakthrough armor. shell, caught in the wheel rim, I can pass into the body through the cut in the armor (arranged to said balance passage) and a spring balancer, etc..
Secondly, even in those cases,, when the armor was not penetrated, kick shells could still cause serious damage to the tank. So, during a test firing T34 explosive grenades 76.2 mm armor was not broken in any case, but getting into the chassis led to the rupture of the caterpillars, destruction of the drive wheel, sloth, supporting wheels.
All this is not a disadvantage T34, as the rest of the world tanks, generally speaking, also had various technical holes in the hulls, through which the tank can be struck, and besides, their tracks and rollers can also be disabled as described above. It is about, protivosnaryadnym that book does not make an invincible tank - any tank still remain vulnerable places, where he can hit enemy shell.
The most significant disadvantage of armor T-34 was that, that mass-produced tanks prewar and war production of the first years it was lower, than the prototype. So, eg, in a memo to the name of KE. Voroshilov from 27.12.1940 reported, that the results of the test series T-34 in September of the same year:
«…tower armor made its way at an angle 30 degrees 45 mm armor piercing projectile with a distance jughead 160 m, and in previous trials in the factory armor under these conditions I did not break the distance 50 m».
Of the three towers of the full range of tests, only one stood, It was found unsatisfactory strength welds.
It is very well to the results of the so-called test Mariupol, when fired were subjected to two serial "almost tank" T-34: the landfill were delivered to non-empty housing, as it has been done before, and almost entirely staffed by car, not only had the gun and, You can understand how, engine.
One of these tanks
It revealed, that small-caliber anti-tank guns can cause significant T-34, sometimes - critical damage at a distance 170-250 m.
Need to say, that in those years, armor-piercing projectiles, our military experts were divided into ostrogolovye and slow-witted, It is considered, that the first, with better armor penetration, will ricochet from the armor with rational angles, and the latter will not be able to break it. And even if "the limit of power" armor will be broken, the projectile enters the inside of the tank, but only a small knock out plug, which will be the only "damaging factor" in zabronevom space. It was believed, that such plugs are very few chances to impress the crew or any important tank unit.
Alas, it turned, that even 37-mm shells ostrogolovye (used captured "Bofors") at a distance above often ricocheted, and penetrated armor. They themselves are in most cases not completely inside pass, but, At first, kicked NOT plug, and a few fragments of the tank armor, and secondly, together with fragments of often within the passage and the head of the projectile. In this way, chance of defeat in a tank for something (or someone) significant increases significantly.
So, eg, in one case, a 37-mm projectile, without going into the tank, struck the right leaf tower, dents caused fragmentation of the upper and lower overhead, why the tower jammed. In another case was broken armor protection casings and casings themselves, that would entail a tank stop. clear, What threatens such damage in combat.
On the other hand, it is not necessary and "demonizing" of Mariupol and other similar tests. If it is not too "impressed" descriptions of individual hits, and look at the whole picture, it turns out, even serial T-34 were very well protected from ground antitank weapon Wehrmacht beginning of World - 37mm Pak 35/36, which, by the way, after broneprobivaemosti gave way to 37-mm guns "Bofors", from which the firing was performed in T-34 Mariupol. That is out of it could knock out the T-34, but it needs to be fired almost point-blank, desirable - no more 150 m, a better and closer to, but even then there was no guarantee inflict decisive damage our tank with the first shot. And also the second, and the third ... Why are there - the T-34 has not always been able to hit even from a powerful long-barreled 50-mm cannon, which the German "three" were later!
If we look at the report on the susceptibility of T-34, drawn up in the autumn 1942 city, we will see, what 154 the tank out of service, receiving collectively 534 hit, wherein here includes not only 37mm, but shells 50-;75-; 88- and 105 mm artillery systems, and hit an unidentified caliber. Part of the result made piercing projectiles of 50-mm.
In other words, for, to disable one T-34, gunners and the tanks of the Wehrmacht was necessary to provide them in the middle 3,46 hit, although in some cases the number of hits in one tank reached 11. The number of safe damages, that is, those, which did not lead to injury mechanisms and injury of the crew, was 289 or 54% the total number. Interesting, that were considered safe 68% all 37-mm hits and 57% 50-mm. By piercing projectiles subconsciously expect the highest percentage, but in fact it turned out, that costly 50-mm-piercing ammunition give the same percentage of sound results, as 37 mm artillery, i.e 68%.
I would like to mention an interesting aspect of the "tank" discussions, dedicated armor protection T34. The thing is, that revisionists, ie adherents in terms of "protection of the T-34 will not old enough", completely ignore the memoirs of German military and work, indicating the failure to resist German VET T34. Yes, that's it to recall the German historian Paul Karel "Eastern Front":
«Antitank part of the 16th Armored Division quickly moved to position its 37-mm anti-tank guns. For the enemy tank! Range 100 m. Russian tanks kept coming. the fire! hit. Another and another hit. The servants went countdown: 21, 22, 23-minutes 37mm projectile hit to the armor steel colossus, bounced off her, as peas from the wall. Gunners loudly swearing. Their commander was white with tension. The distance was reduced to 20 m.
- Aim to support tower, - ordered Lieutenant.
Finally, they got it. The tank turned around and began to roll. Ball Bearing tower was struck, tower jammed, but the rest of the tank remained intact».
Exceptional combat stability T-34 was observed in papers E. Middeldorfa, B. Mueller-Hillebrand ... yes Heinz Guderian, finally! Alas, revisionists Germans no faith, and motivated by the fact, what, breakwater, German generals really did not have any problems with the "Thirty", but sometimes to cover up their mistakes, neuspeshnыe actions, the presence of Red Army "miracle unbeaten tanks" T-34 (and HF).
In rebuttal submitted, eg, Report of the Acting commander of the 10th Panzer Division, Lieutenant Colonel Sukhoruchkin, It is reported the experience of fighting the T-34, that "the armor hull and turret of the race 300-400 m breaks 47 mm armor-piercing projectile ". But, At first, still not clear, Whether we are talking about 50-mm shells and 37-mm, 50-mm projectile is done could well (true, with probability approximately 50%). And secondly, revisionists somehow forget, that fights, the results of which were compiled report Sukhoruchkin, for our tankers have not been successful.
The author of this article in any case does not reproach lieutenant colonel who fought in a lie, but, impartial reasoning, it was exactly the same motive to cover up their failures by the German "miracle PTO", as the Germans - to justify their failures "wonder-tanks". This contradiction in its logic revisionists prefer to ignore: according to their views, all, who contradict their theories, frankly lie, and who confirms - telling the truth, truth and nothing but the truth.
I would also like to note, that the reports of various commissions and observers are taken we have a lot of truth in the last resort, but this is not always the case. Here is an interesting example: the results of tests armor protection T34 concluded harmfulness driver's hatch. The first shell hit him usually tore his attachment, and the next - "hammered" deep housing, hitting the driver. From this it was concluded, that the hatch is harmful, and that in the future is to abandon all these hatches.
At the same time, many of the driver, conversely, We are seen in this manhole great dignity. It can be opened, locking in various height positions, which provided, eg, a very good overview on the march. And in the battle, many of the driver preferred not to "hide behind the triplex", and keep an open hatch about palm, thereby changing the protection on the best visibility. Last, surprisingly, It is often much more useful, what additional protection, which provides a closed hatch. Too many tankers talk about the crucial role of the driver, whose timely action in combat became the key to the survival of the crew, and apparently, better visibility greatly contributed to such actions.
But, if the tank turned out to still hit, the said hatch allowed the mechanic-driver to leave the car with ease, what, Alas, other crew members say it was impossible. And that's how it turned out, what, in spite of its "negligent" attitude to their own safety, and to, what 81% all result in a T-34 had a body, and only 19% - the tower, major losses crews were just stationed in the tower of the commander and loader, but mehvody, despite formally weakened protection, died less often.
Besides, open hatch provides natural ventilation while moving in combat, and taking into account, which effectively removed from the tower of the powder gases learned only after the war (and not only we, by the way), Recently, too, it has a very important.
Chassis
Here, Alas, the T-34 release of the pre-war and early war all really bad, and this applies to almost every part of the running of our tank. And, there can not even be "nod" to the culture of mass production, because, generally, with suspension problems observed and reference, collected almost the first prototypes by hand.
T-34 military tests spring 1940 g.
Engine, diesel V-2 was the beginning of the war had not yet been brought up to standard. Testing mass-produced cars in November and December 1940 g. it was recognized, that "the reliability of the engine within the warranty period (100 hours) satisfactory ", but then, it was noted, such that the warranty period for T34 small, and need at least 250 hours. Nevertheless, in line units of diesel is often not given and laid him on a guarantee 100 hours, where breaking through 70, where through 40, and even after 25 hours.
Particularly vulnerable point of our diesel was, apparently, air cleaner, who had a very bad design. Head of the 2nd management Glavrazvedupravleniya Red Army Major General tank troops Khlopov cited the following data findings, Americans did on the test results of T-34 in Aberdeen Proving Ground:
«diesel good, easy… Disadvantages of our diesel - criminally bad air cleaner on the T-34. Americans consider, that only a saboteur could design a similar device».
But enough problems and in addition to the engine. Transmission of T-34 was a real technical curiosity, gear change in which the required movement of the gears relative to each other. In the world, generally speaking, We have long made the next step, creating gearbox, in which the change gear ratio is achieved not shift gears, and changing the position of the small claw couplings. Then we take the second step, by typing in the box synchronizers, allows switching speed without shock and noise. AND, finally, Czechs and the British made a third step, implementing on their tanks planetary gearboxes, that the Soviet Union intended to design and implement in the first half 1941 city, but, Alas, did not make it.
Generally, T-34 was the least perfect of all possible box. She was unreliable, It breaks easily, because the driver was easy to make a mistake and "stick" instead of the first-fourth speed, or instead of the second - third, which led to the failure of the PPC. We can only fully agree with the findings of domestic landfill engineers NIIBT at Kubinka, that, arranging comparative tests of domestic, trophy and lend-lease equipment, gave the following assessment:
«Boxes domestic tanks Transmission, especially T-34 and SW, do not completely satisfy the requirements of, of a modern combat vehicles, giving the gearbox as the Allied tanks, and enemy tanks, and behind, at least for a few years on the development of tank technology».
Main clutch T34, connects the engine to the gearbox, It was also not reliable and easy enough to go out of order, it was enough to make just one wrong move. AV. Cooper, After preparing the injured driver-mechanics at the T-34, said: «The last third of pedal need to let go slowly, to avoid tearing, because if there is a tear, it probuksuet machine, Friction and pokorobitsâ». This failure was called "burn the clutch", although there was no combustibles, and, Alas, It occurred frequently.
As a result of the above, we can state, that at first the chassis of T-34 left much to be desired and, really, a disadvantage of our tank. Technical reliability chassis "tridtsatchetverok 'first series perfectly illustrates the timing of the test series T-34 in November and December 1940 g. Net while driving three tanks was 350 hours 47 minutes. But in order, to ensure that this time, needed repairs Brigade forces of the two men - the factory specialists for a total of 414 hours, and more 158 hours and 9 minutes tanks repaired their own crews.
In this way, of the total test time 922 o'clock 56 minutes tanks were on track only 38% all time, a 62% time spent in repairs, and for the most part - is too complex, so that it can perform the crews of the tank!
The situation was radically improve only at the beginning 1943 city, January is the T-34 were equipped with new air purifiers such as the "Cyclone" (and not one, and two), and in March - a new five-speed gearbox with constant mesh gears, and (the exact time the author of this article innovation, Alas, unknown) simple, but effective priborchikom with the proud name of "servo", facilitating the mechanics of the driver control the main clutch. All this did not make the chassis of T-34 model, but, certainly, It ensures the required level of reliability for the discharge of the tank problems, but by this stage the history of "Thirty" we will come back later.
In the meantime, we note, that in all the above drawbacks were at T34 suspension undeniable merits and. This is a very powerful engine, which gave our tank high power density (ratio of engine power to the weight of the machine), and - wide tracks, reduces the specific pressure on the ground. All these qualities could not express themselves fully until, while the main problems with the chassis have not been resolved, but in 1943 city, when did it happen, It proved to be extremely way. Besides, undoubted advantage was duplication compressed air engine start.
Interesting, that the chassis of T-34 in addition to these advantages was the dignity of an imaginary, namely: low flammability of diesel fuel. certainly, indicative demonstration of one of the designers, which first thrust a torch into a bucket of gasoline and cause fire, and then stuck to the other torch bucket with diesel fuel, where he went out and, It makes a great impression on the audience. But an enemy shell - this is not a torch, its impact is much stronger, therefore in fighting T34 burned with about the same intensity, and that the tanks, equipped with a petrol engine.
However misconception about the fire was very common, and played a positive role .... As famous Russian military theorist AA. Svechin: «If the value of tangible assets in the war is very concerning, the great importance has faith in them». Soviet tankers were confident, that the neighborhood with huge reserves of fuel they are not particularly threatened, and this confidence, naturally, It affects their actions in battle.
The crew and the conditions of his work
In this respect to the T-34 has four rightly claims.
The first of these: suboptimal crew, in which there 4 man, while still required to complete the work of five medium tank. the, that the commander of the crew must battle command, without the distraction of aiming or charging gun - a fact, confirmed military experience all the warring parties. German T-3 and T-4, English "Crusader" with the 40-mm gun had 5 man crew, and the American M3 "Lee" to his two guns - 6 and even 7 people.
In fairness, we note, that the T-34 still be here not the last, rather than the penultimate place - the crew of the French "Soma» S35 and S40 newer, whose production had not deployed to the fall of France, It consisted of only three people.
Need to say, that the problem of shortage of one person for the T-34 has been recognized by us very quickly, but, for objective reasons, just as quickly to resolve this issue could not be. The main reason was to The second disadvantage tank - too small tower with a narrow epaulet, in which even two of the crew members was seriously placed. Shove there is a third, without increasing the overhead, there was absolutely no way.
However, the rest of the world tanks, it was also not very good. Best of all Germans have decided the issue - a large tower on the three period.
Driving the German tower: 1 - 50 mm cannon; 2 - machinegun MG 34; 3 - telescopic sight; 4 - flywheel rotating mechanism tower; 5 - Gunner's seat; 6 - seat of the loader; 7 - the commander's seat; 8 - Handle stopper tower; 9 - A flywheel mechanism of lifting the gun; 10 - gun fence.
The British with their "Crusader" went on the same way, placed in the tower three. Alas, Tower in size was not German, so that, when a frail 40 mm gun was replaced by 57-mm, only place left for two, and the commander also had to perform the charging function. But the British understood, that such a scheme would not be successful in subsequent projects have returned to the triple towers.
Americans somehow miraculously managed to cram into a small turret with a 37 mm gun M3 "Lee" Gunner, commander and loader, although states, charging that was below the rest. It is unlikely that the conditions there were better, than T-34, but then the Americans created the "Sherman", with a relatively comfortable for three people tower. But the French have distinguished - the tower of "Soma» S35 and 40 It was designed for exactly one! That is, the French tank commander had not only command, but also himself rested and direct gun.
The third problem T-34 pre-war sample was very uncomfortable tank control - in some cases,, to switch speeds and other, associated with management actions, mechanic-driver had to apply a force to 28-32 kg. The same speed mehvoda often could not switch the hand, and he was forced to help themselves knee, if not to resort to the help of arrow-radio operator of the nearby.
later, of course, with the improvement of the transmission that question was solved, but this, yet again, It happened at the beginning of 1943 g. Furthermore, according to witnesses: «The driver of the long march lose weight two kilograms of three. All was exhausted. it, of course, It was very hard» (P. J. Kirichenko).
AND, finally, fourth issue I was in a bad review of the car. But for a story about it in this article have no place, so…
To be continued…
/Andrew from Chelyabinsk, topwar.ru/
