The best Soviet tanks. Soviet tanks and armored vehicles All tanks of the Second World War of the USSR

The tanks of World War II marked a leap in the development of armored vehicles, showing how important their role was on the battlefield. German generals were the first to understand the power of quick strikes that crushed infantry and enemy fortifications. Guderian and Manstein managed to defeat the Polish army in a couple of weeks using combat vehicles, after which it was the turn of the French. The Anglo-French troops held out for more than a month, but were unable to oppose the German tanks and were pressed against Duncker, from where they were able to evacuate.

The history of World War II tanks began in 1939, when the outcome of battles was often decided by the cutting blows of light and medium tanks, their breakthrough and the destruction of the rear. In the period before 1941, there were practically no anti-tank weapons and experience in combating armored vehicles. Later, heavy tanks with shell-resistant armor began to appear, for example, the Soviet KV-1, which was almost invulnerable to German guns, but unreliable and with poor maneuverability. Germany in 1942 used one of the most powerful tanks World War II - Tiger, which has powerful armor and a magnificent cannon.

USSR response

Despite the appearance of multi-ton monsters, medium tanks were still in demand. They were the ones who acted as workhorses, making daring flank breakthroughs and hastily transferring to dangerous sectors of the front, destroying enemy columns on the march. The best tank of World War II, the T-34, was a medium tank, weighing about 30 tons, thin sloping armor, a medium-caliber gun and a speed of more than 50 km/h. The Americans classified their Pershing as heavy, although in terms of characteristics it was average. Of course, it is worth mentioning the Wehrmacht, which threw the Panther into battle in 1943, which became one of the most popular and dangerous German military vehicles, thanks to its combination of mobility, armor and firepower.

For many years, there was a kind of competition between the USSR and Germany to create the most advanced machine. The Germans relied on technology and characteristics, trying to make it possible to destroy any enemy from afar and withstand any return shot. The disadvantages of this approach were the complexity and cost of production. Soviet engineers relied on manufacturability and mass production, even when creating the legendary thirty-four. This approach justified itself during bloody tank battles, and later, when Germany began to experience a shortage of resources, Soviet tanks finally won.

Other countries

Armored vehicles of other countries lagged significantly behind in development. Japanese tanks did not have serious protection and weapons, like the Italian and French ones, and looked like guests from the past.

Great Britain, in addition to Churchill, who distinguished himself with excellent armor but poor mobility and reliability, also produced other vehicles. The massive Cromwell had good mobility, a powerful weapon, and could withstand the Panthers. The Comet, which appeared at the end of the war as a result of Cromwell's modification, was even more successful and successfully combined the necessary characteristics.

The United States produced 49,234 medium Shermans, which made their mark in World War II. The tank, not distinguished by protection or firepower, became the most popular after the T-34 due to its successful design and ease of production.

Interesting experimental tanks World War II, like the built Maus, which became the largest tank of World War II, or the giant Ratte, which remained on the drawings.

During the war years, a huge number of armored vehicles were produced, some of which are little known and are in the shadows of history.

On this page you will find a list of tanks of the Second World War with photographs, names and descriptions, which is in no way inferior to an encyclopedia, and will help you find out interesting details and not get confused in the variety of combat vehicles.

The history of the creation of two famous WWII tanks is very interesting. It can explain the rather ambiguous assessment of these two vehicles, and provides an explanation for some of the failures of our tankers that took place in the summer of 1941. The whole problem is that not even experimental, but conceptual cars went into production.
None of these tanks were created to arm the army. They were only supposed to show what a tank of its class should look like.
Pre-war tanks produced by plant No. 183. From left to right: BT-7, A-20, T-34-76 with L-11 cannon, T-34-76 with F-34 cannon
Let's start with KV. When the leadership of the country of the Soviets realized that the tanks in service were so outdated that they were no longer tanks at all. Then a decision was made to create new technology. Certain requirements for this technology were also put forward. Such a heavy tank should have had anti-ballistic armor and several guns in several turrets. For this technical project, the design of machines called T-100 and SMK began.
QMS


T-100


But the designer of the SMK, Kotin, believed that a heavy tank should have a single turret. And he had the idea to create another car. But his entire design bureau was busy creating the ordered QMS. And then he was lucky: a group of students from the Armored Tank Academy arrived at the plant for their graduation project. These “students” were entrusted with creating a new tank. Without hesitation, they shortened the SMK body, leaving room for one tower. A second cannon was stuck into this tower instead of a machine gun. And the machine gun itself was moved to the rear niche of the turret. The armor was strengthened, bringing the weight of the project to that specified in the task. We stumbled upon knots, the drawings of which were studied at the academy. They even took components from an American tractor that had been discontinued in the States 20 years earlier. But they didn’t change the suspension, copying it from the SMK. Despite the fact that the length of the tank has decreased by 1.5 times. And the number of suspension units decreased by the same number. And the load on them has increased. The only thing the “students” themselves did was install a diesel engine. And according to these drawings the KV tank was created. Presented for testing along with the T-100 and SMK.
The very first KV, autumn 1939


But then it started Finnish War and all three tanks were sent to the front. Which revealed the complete superiority of the KV concept over other tanks. And the tank, despite all the objections of the chief designer, was accepted for service. The Great Patriotic War, which began soon, revealed all the shortcomings of the HF design. The tank turned out to be extremely unreliable, especially these tanks suffered from suspension failures and components copied from an American tractor. As a result, in 1941, only about 20% of these vehicles were lost to enemy fire. The rest were abandoned due to breakdowns.
QMS in battle


SMK blown up by a landmine in the depths of Finnish positions


Military people are generally conservative people. If they considered a heavy tank to have a multi-turret, then this is exactly what they ordered. And if the tanks for raids were wheeled and tracked, then this is exactly the type of vehicle they ordered. To replace the BT-7 series tanks. But they wanted a car protected from anti-tank artillery. Why was it supposed to make inclined armor? The Koshkin military design bureau in Kharkov issued an order for such a vehicle.
A-20


A-32


But he saw a completely different car. Therefore, together with the vehicle ordered by the military, which received the index A-20, he made almost exactly the same one, A-32. Almost, with 2 exceptions. Firstly, the mechanism of movement on wheels was removed. Secondly, the A-32 had a 76.2 mm cannon. Instead of 45 mm on the A-20. At the same time, the A-32 weighed a ton less than the A-20. And in tests, the A-32 proved to be more preferable than the A-20. Especially when the next modification of the A-34 vehicle was released, with more durable armor and an F-32 cannon, the same as on the KV. True, the weight of the tank increased by 6 tons. And the spark plug suspension, inherited from the A-20, began to not hold up.
Tank A-34 (2nd prototype)


But the Red Army was in dire need of new tanks. And despite the identified defects, the tank went into production. And even with a more powerful and heavier F-34 cannon. Koshkin and the gun designer Grabin knew each other. Therefore, even before the appearance of this gun in service, he received a set of drawings. And based on them, he prepared a place for a cannon. And the medium T-34 turned out to have a more powerful gun than the heavy KV. But as a result of design costs, the situation turned out to be close to the situation with HF. T-34s of the first releases were more often abandoned due to breakdowns than due to combat damage.
The very first KV, but in the spring of 1940 after its conversion according to the KV-2 project. And the turret from the very first KV, which had the number U-0, was installed on the tank number U-2.


This is not to say that the designers did not recognize the shortcomings of their cars. The fight against “childhood diseases” of structures began immediately. As a result, by 1943 we managed to obtain those famous T-34 and KV that we know about. But in general, these vehicles were considered only as temporary, until the appearance of new tanks. So Kotin worked on the KV-3 with a 107 mm cannon. And the design bureau in Kharkov over the T-34M. The design of the car, with a transverse engine and vertical sides. The T-34M even managed to be put into production. We made about 50 sets of parts for this type of tank. But before the capture of Kharkov, not a single tank had time to be completely assembled.
T-34M, also known as A-43.


And so it turned out that the tanks of victory were tanks whose appearance was not foreseen. And their adoption was considered a temporary measure and not for long. Tanks that were not intended to be used as main tanks, and which were simply design concepts.
It cannot be said that in 1940, after the shortcomings of our new tanks were identified, there were no attempts to create new vehicles. I already wrote about the T-34M project. There was an attempt to create a new heavy tank. Received the index KV-3. In the project of this vehicle, an attempt was made to eliminate the shortcomings inherent in the KV-1 and KV-2 tanks (the same KV-1, but with a new turret and a 152-mm howitzer), and the experience of the war with the Finns was also used in the project. It was planned to arm this tank with a 107 mm cannon. However, tests of the first model of the gun were not successful. It was difficult and inconvenient for the loader to work with ammunition of this size and weight. Therefore, the tank presented for testing in the summer of 1941 was armed with the same 76 mm cannon. But then the war began and in September 1941 the experimental vehicle went into battle on the Leningrad Front. From which she did not return and is officially listed as missing. But there is a report from one of the commanders of the Red Army, who claimed that the tank that broke through into the depths of the German defense was fired upon by 105-mm German howitzers. From the fire of which the ammunition detonated. The turret was torn off, and the tank itself was completely destroyed.
KV-3. Layout.


The newsreels are probably familiar to everyone. They show a seven-wheeler KV-3 with a turret from the KV-1.


But neither the T-34M nor the KV-3 were considered as the main tank of the Red Army before the war. It was supposed to be a car with the T-50 index. The prototype of this vehicle was created in 1940 and looked very much like the T-34, only it was slightly smaller in size. But it had the same 45-mm sloped armor, although the vehicle was armed with a 45-mm cannon and 3 machine guns. The project was considered not entirely successful; the machine turned out to be too high-tech. And the factories where it was planned to be produced could not master it. And the tank turned out to be too heavy for its class.
T-126 in Kubinka


Then it was decided to reduce the thickness of the armor to 37 mm, remove the forward machine gun, and install not a stack of machine guns in the turret, but one machine gun. Apply a number of other technical solutions aimed at reducing weight and manufacturability of production. All this pushed back the start of production to June 1941. And production vehicles appeared in the army after the start of the war. In total, not many such tanks were produced, several dozen. The plant for their production was evacuated from Leningrad, and at the new location it was decided to begin production of other types of machines.
T-50


Its competitor created at the Kirov plant


But we will continue to talk about unknown Soviet tanks of the 2nd World War. I already wrote about the T-34M project, but the developments of this project turned out to be in demand. In 1943, the T-43 tank, which was the direct successor to the T-34M project, was put into service. But the appearance of “Tigers” and “Panthers” on the battlefields did not allow this vehicle to go into large production. But it served as the basis for the best WWII tank, the T-44. By mid-1942 it became clear that the Red Army needed a new medium tank. The design of such a tank, called the T-43, was completed by June 1943. The main requirement of the military, to provide maximum protection with a minimum increase in mass, was fulfilled. Its hull, which inherited the T-34 configuration, already had all-round 75 mm armor. The thickness of the frontal part of the turret, in which the 76.2 mm F-34 tank gun was installed, was increased to 90 mm (versus 45 mm for the T-34). But the length of the engine-transmission compartment could not be reduced, resulting in a smaller fighting compartment. Therefore, in order to provide the crew with the necessary internal space, the designers used a torsion bar suspension, more compact than a candle suspension with vertical springs, as on the BT and T-34 tanks. Superior to the T-34 in terms of armor protection and not inferior in armament to the heavy tank KV-1 and KV-1s, the medium tank T-43, however, approached the heavy tanks in terms of specific ground pressure, which negatively affected maneuverability and range. And its design was extreme, excluding further modernization. And when the serial “thirty-four” was equipped with an 85-mm cannon, the need for the T-43 temporarily disappeared, although it was the turret from the T-43 that was used with minor modifications for the T-34-85 tank, so the experience of working on it was not in vain. The fact is that the test run of the T-43 is 3 thousand km. clearly proved the correct choice of torsion bar suspension for a medium tank and the futility of gradually changing the traditional layout.
T-43


T-34 and T-43


It became clear that a fundamentally different machine was needed. It was this that they began to design at the Morozov Design Bureau. The result of the work was the T-44 tank. The creation of the T-44 tank began at the end of 1943. New tank received the designation “Object 136” and in the series - the designation T-44. On new car not only did they use a transverse engine arrangement, but also a number of other technical innovations. Being implemented separately, on different tanks, they would not have given a noticeable effect, but together they made the design of the T-44 such that it determined the development of domestic armored vehicles for decades. The height of the engine-transmission compartment was reduced by moving a new type of air cleaner from the camshaft of the Y-shaped engine to the side. By the way, the B-44 diesel itself was equipped with improved fuel equipment, which made it possible to increase power from 500 to 520 hp. With. with the same cylinder volume as on the previous B-34. In place of the fan, which protruded beyond the dimensions of the crankcase, a compact flywheel was installed. This made it possible to mount the diesel engine on a low, rigid, but light engine frame, and as a result, the body height was reduced by 300 mm.
Two experimental samples of T-44


The medium T-44 and its German counterpart, the heavy T-V “Panther”.


They also introduced other design developments that could not be implemented on serial T-34s. So new scheme The engine and transmission compartment made it possible to move the turret of a new design with the 85-mm ZIS-S-53 cannon to the center of the hull, where the tankers were less affected by the tiresome angular vibrations of the vehicle, and the long-barreled gun could not stick into the ground when moving over rough terrain. Firing accuracy has also increased. And most importantly, this alignment allowed the designers to increase the thickness of the frontal armor plate to 120 mm without overloading the front rollers. We would like to add that the increase in the strength of the front plate was facilitated by the relocation of the driver's hatch to the roof of the hull and the abandonment of the ball mounting of the course machine gun, since combat experience revealed its insufficient effectiveness. In the new tank, the course machine gun was rigidly fixed in the bow of the hull, and in the vacant place next to the driver was placed fuel tank. On prototype T-44-85 there was a small gap between the second and third road wheels. On production vehicles the gap was between the first and second rollers. In this form, the T-44 successfully passed state tests and was adopted by the Red Army in 1944. T-44 tanks were mass-produced in Kharkov.
T-44


From the end of 1944 to 1945, 965 tanks were manufactured. T-44s did not take part in hostilities. Although they began to enter the troops in the spring of 1945. So until May 9, 1945, into service with individual guards tank brigades 160 tanks of this type were received. Which were in the 2nd echelon of the active army. And which should have been an unpleasant surprise for the Germans if they had new types of tanks. For example, the Panther-2 being developed. But there was no need for this type of tank. And the T-44 did not take part in the hostilities. Even against Japan. Thus falling out of sight of military historians. It's a pity. Because this tank was the best tank of the 2nd World War.

KV-1 - the first serial heavy aircraft of the USSR

However, the strength of the Soviet army was not only in heavy tanks. Very important role Medium tanks played in the battles, of which the USSR also had a lot, and they were often superior foreign analogues. Its modification T-34-85 also played a very special role in the war. This tank was not only the most popular, but also, according to Soviet and foreign experts, the best tank of the Second World War.

There were a lot of light tanks in the USSR, both pre-war and those produced and developed already during the Second World War. True, in this war light tanks were no longer able to cope with many tasks, but when used correctly they provided serious support to the infantry. Of the Soviet light tanks, the one that stood out in particular was recognized as one of the best lungs tanks of that time. However, very few of them were produced for many reasons, and the Red Army used the T-60 and T-70 much more actively.

It is also worth mentioning the T-37A, T-38 and T-40 - the only amphibious tanks in World War II. Unfortunately, they were mainly used simply as light tanks, although there are also cases of their being used for their intended purpose, that is, for crossing water barriers.

It is also worth noting that only the USSR and Germany had modern self-propelled guns in their arsenal.

In general, we can say that during World War II the USSR had the most extensive and, without a doubt, the most powerful tank fleet in the whole world. In addition, Soviet designers responded very quickly to improvements in enemy technology, immediately releasing new, more durable tanks with increased firepower.

Before World War II, Japan mainly only purchased and researched foreign tanks. In the 20-30s, several vehicles were developed, but Japan lagged far behind both the USSR and Germany, and even the USA, and very few tanks were produced here. One of the most advanced vehicles was the Chi-He tank and its modification Chi-Nu. An SPG was also created based on Chi-He. The Japanese actively used tanks only against the Americans, although without success.

Tanks of Italy

In the early 30s, Italy did not have a developed tank industry and more or less modern tanks, however, such tanks were extremely needed. To create them, they purchased the MKVI wedge from future enemies, modernized it and began producing it under the name C-V-29. Then came the C-V-33 and C-V-35 (L3/35), which were called tanks, but were actually wedges.

In 1939, the M11/39 was launched into production, a year later - the M13/30, and during the war, two more vehicles - the M14 and M15. The latter were classified as medium tanks, although in fact they were light.

As a result, at the beginning of World War II, the Italians had about one and a half thousand tanks, but their combat power was extremely low. Before the capitulation in 1943, the Italian industry produced 2,300 vehicles, but in battle they were ineffective and were used ineptly, so they did not play a special role in the battles.

Soviet T-26. In many publications one can now find references to the enormous superiority of Soviet troops over German troops at the very beginning of the Great Patriotic War and to the colossal total number There were more than 23 thousand tanks in the Red Army by the summer of 1941. However, it is often not specified what type of tanks formed the basis of this armada.

The main battle tank of the Red Army was the T-26 light tank. In 1931-1933 It was produced in a version with two turrets and only machine gun armament, representing a slightly improved copy of the British Vickers-Armstrong light tank. In total, more than 1,600 units of this weapon were produced. Since 1933, the T-26 began to be produced with one turret and cannon and machine gun armament. It was produced until 1941, when the outbreak of war showed its complete unsuitability. 11,218 units were produced. Thus, more than half of the Red Army tanks in the summer of 1941 were these vehicles.

The single-turret T-26 was produced in various modifications, most with a weak 45 mm cannon and one or two 7.62 mm machine guns. The tank was intended for fire support of infantry and was not suitable for breakthroughs as part of large tank formations. He was slow moving maximum speed 30 km/h) and had a small power reserve (130 km). However, practice has shown that it was also not suitable for supporting infantry, because it had armor only 25 mm thick in the front of the turret and 16 mm in the forehead of the hull, and even less on the sides. It easily penetrated even the weak 7.92 mm German anti-tank rifles. All T-26 tanks were lost by the Red Army before the end of 1941.

German T-I. One should not think that only the Red Army had a lot of outdated weapons at the beginning of the war. The Wehrmacht also had plenty of it. Thus, as of September 1, 1939, the basis of its tank fleet was still made up of T-I light tanks, produced from 1935 to 1938 - 1445 units out of 3466. This tank was armed with only two 7.92 mm machine guns. Despite his small mass, he had, however, not much high speed movement (maximum 37 km/h). The thickest armor of only 13 mm in front of the turret and hull was easily stitched with a burst of heavy machine gun. The shortcomings of the T-I were revealed during the war in Spain, and its production ceased. The T-Is in service began to be converted into combat vehicles for various purposes, self-propelled artillery units, etc. However, by the beginning of the operation in France, the Wehrmacht had 1,276 of these tanks, including 523 in the active army. Germany even began the war with the Soviet Union with 877 in service. T-I tanks, of which 281 vehicles were involved in the invasion of the USSR.

French FCM 2C. However, it was not only ultra-light tanks that turned out to be unsuitable for combat in World War II. Super-heavy tanks turned out to be just as useless.

At the end of World War I, the French produced several 70-ton FCM 2C tanks. Until 1945, these were the heaviest tanks in the world. They were intended to break through the enemy’s fortified defenses, but they did not have time to take part in the First World War.

Despite its impressive weight and huge crew (12 people), this tank had rather modest artillery armament - only one 75-mm cannon. He also had four 8-mm machine guns - one on each side. This tank brontosaurus could reach a maximum speed of only 12 km/h, making it an excellent target for artillery. At the same time, its armor, as the subsequent experience of World War II showed, was completely insufficient to conduct a defensive battle even with enemy medium tanks: 45 mm in front and 20 mm on the sides.

FCM 2C tanks did not have a chance to participate in the battle. In May 1940, the French command sent six surviving tanks on railway platforms to strengthen their defenses. All were bombed along the way by German aircraft. Even if they had reached the battlefield, an equally sad fate would have awaited them there.

The Soviet T-35 turned out to be another useless “land dreadnought”. It was armed with three cannons (1 - three-inch and 2 - 45 mm) and five 7.62 mm machine guns. The 50-ton colossus was serviced by a crew of 11 people. Army General S.M. Shtemenko wrote that before the war the T-35 was considered the pride of the Soviet armored forces. From 1933 to 1939, the Kharkov plant produced 61 such machines. All of them were in service with the Kyiv Special Military District in 1941.

With its low speed (maximum speed 30 km/h) and weak armor (30 mm on the turret front, 20 mm on the hull front), the T-35 was very vulnerable on the battlefield. However, only a few of these tanks were lost in battle. Most did not get there and broke down on the march. In the very first weeks of the war, all T-35s were Soviet troops irretrievably lost.

American M3 (Grant/Lee). Having very limited combat experience before World War II, the Americans believed that the more they stuffed a medium tank with all sorts of weapons, the better it would be. So, in the spring of 1941, even before the United States entered the war, the M3 tank was born, which the Americans named, depending on personal preferences, in honor best general North or South during the Civil War - "Grant" or "Lee". With the normal characteristics of a medium tank of the initial period of World War II (weight 27.2 tons, armor 50 mm in front and 38 mm on the sides, maximum speed 40 km/h, cruising range 230 km), the Grant/Lee had powerful weapons: one 75 mm and one 37 mm cannon, four 7.62 mm machine guns. To maintain such a farm, a crew of seven people was required.

However, the designers of the tank seemed to have done everything on purpose to minimize the effectiveness of using these weapons. Thus, the most powerful gun was not located in the turret, but simply in the forehead of the hull and could only fire at what was directly in front of the tank. The tacky-looking tank was taller than wide, which brought considerable pleasure to the enemy artillerymen: it was very convenient for them to aim at it.

"Grant/Lee" was supplied in large quantities to US allies in the anti-fascist coalition. Including in the USSR in 1941-1942. 1,400 of these machines were delivered. Soviet tanks sts nicknamed "Grant/Lee" mass grave for seven."

In the Second world war tanks played a decisive role in battles and operations; it is very difficult to single out the top ten from a multitude of tanks; for this reason, the order in the list is rather arbitrary and the tank’s place is tied to the time of its active participation in battles and its significance for that period.

10. Tank Panzerkampfwagen III (PzKpfw III)

PzKpfw III, better known as the T-III, is a light tank with a 37 mm gun. Reservation from all angles – 30 mm. The main quality is Speed ​​(40 km/h on the highway). Thanks to the advanced Carl Zeiss optics, ergonomic crew workstations and the presence of a radio station, the Troikas could successfully fight with much heavier vehicles. But with the advent of new opponents, the shortcomings of the T-III became more apparent. The Germans replaced the 37 mm guns with 50 mm guns and covered the tank with hinged screens - temporary measures yielded results, the T-III fought for several more years. By 1943, production of the T-III was discontinued due to the complete exhaustion of its resource for modernization. In total, German industry produced 5,000 “triples”.

9. Tank Panzerkampfwagen IV (PzKpfw IV)

The PzKpfw IV looked much more serious, becoming the most mass tank Panzerwaffe - the Germans managed to build 8,700 vehicles. Combining all the advantages of the lighter T-III, the “four” had a high firepower and security - the thickness of the frontal plate was gradually increased to 80 mm, and the shells of its 75 mm long-barreled gun pierced the armor of enemy tanks like foil (by the way, 1,133 early modifications with a short-barreled gun were produced).

The weak points of the vehicle are that the sides and rear are too thin (only 30 mm in the first modifications); the designers neglected the slope of the armor plates for the sake of manufacturability and ease of operation for the crew.

Panzer IV is the only German tank that was in mass production throughout World War II and became the most popular tank of the Wehrmacht. Its popularity among German tankers was comparable to the popularity of the T-34 among ours and the Sherman among the Americans. Well-designed and extremely reliable in operation, this combat vehicle was, in the full sense of the word, the “workhorse” of the Panzerwaffe.

8. Tank KV-1 (Klim Voroshilov)

“...from three sides we fired at the iron monsters of the Russians, but everything was in vain. The Russian giants were coming closer and closer. One of them approached our tank, hopelessly stuck in a swampy pond, and without any hesitation drove over it, pressing its tracks into the mud ... "
- General Reinhard, commander of the 41st tank corps of the Wehrmacht.

In the summer of 1941, the KV tank destroyed the elite units of the Wehrmacht with the same impunity as if it had rolled out onto the Borodino field in 1812. Invulnerable, invincible and incredibly powerful. Until the end of 1941, all the armies of the world did not have any weapons capable of stopping the Russian 45-ton monster. The KV was 2 times heavier than the largest Wehrmacht tank.

Armor KV is a wonderful song of steel and technology. 75 millimeters of solid steel from all angles! The frontal armor plates had an optimal angle of inclination, which further increased the projectile resistance of the KV armor - German 37 mm anti-tank guns they didn’t take it even at point-blank range, and 50 mm guns – no further than 500 meters. At the same time, the long-barreled 76 mm F-34 (ZIS-5) gun made it possible to hit any German tank of that period from any direction from a distance of 1.5 kilometers.

The KV crews were staffed exclusively by officers; only driver mechanics could be foremen. Their level of training far exceeded that of the crews who fought on other types of tanks. They fought more skillfully, which is why they were remembered by the Germans...

7. Tank T-34 (thirty-four)

“...There is nothing worse than tank battle against superior enemy forces. Not in numbers - that didn’t matter to us, we got used to it. But against more good cars- this is terrible... Russian tanks are so agile, at close ranges they will climb a slope or overcome a swamp faster than you can turn the turret. And through the noise and roar you constantly hear the clang of shells on the armor. When they hit our tank, you often hear a deafening explosion and the roar of burning fuel, too loud to hear the dying screams of the crew ... "
- opinion German tankman from the 4th Tank Division, destroyed by T-34 tanks in the battle of Mtsensk on October 11, 1941.

Obviously, the Russian monster had no analogues in 1941: a 500-horsepower diesel engine, unique armor, a 76 mm F-34 gun (generally similar to the KV tank) and wide tracks - all these technical solutions provided the T-34 with an optimal balance of mobility, firepower and protection. Even individually, these parameters of the T-34 were higher than those of any Panzerwaffe tank.

When the Wehrmacht soldiers first met the “thirty-four” on the battlefield, they were, to put it mildly, in shock. The cross-country ability of our vehicle was impressive - where German tanks didn’t even think about going, the T-34s passed without much difficulty. The Germans even nicknamed their 37mm anti-tank gun“knock-knock”, because when its shells hit the “thirty-four”, they simply hit it and bounced off.

The main thing is that Soviet designers managed to create a tank exactly as the Red Army needed it. The T-34 ideally suited the conditions of the Eastern Front. The extreme simplicity and manufacturability of the design allowed as soon as possible to establish mass production of these combat vehicles, as a result, the T-34s were easy to operate, numerous and ubiquitous.

6. Tank Panzerkampfwagen VI “Tiger I” Ausf E, “Tiger”

“...we took a detour through a ravine and ran into the Tiger.” Having lost several T-34s, our battalion returned back..."
- a frequent description of meetings with PzKPfw VI from the memoirs of tank crews.

According to a number of Western historians, the main task of the Tiger tank was to fight enemy tanks, and its design corresponded to the solution of precisely this task:

If in initial period World War II German military doctrine had a mainly offensive orientation, then later, when the strategic situation changed to the opposite, tanks began to be assigned the role of a means of eliminating breakthroughs in the German defense.

Thus, the Tiger tank was conceived primarily as a means of combating enemy tanks, whether on the defensive or offensive. Taking this fact into account is necessary to understand the design features and tactics of using the Tigers.

On July 21, 1943, the commander of the 3rd Tank Corps, Herman Bright, issued the following instructions for the combat use of the Tiger-I tank:

...Taking into account the strength of the armor and the strength of the weapon, the Tiger should be used mainly against enemy tanks and anti-tank weapons, and only secondarily - as an exception - against infantry units.

As combat experience has shown, the Tiger's weapons allow it to fight enemy tanks at distances of 2000 meters or more, which especially affects the enemy's morale. Durable armor allows the Tiger to approach the enemy without the risk of serious damage from hits. However, you should try to engage enemy tanks at distances greater than 1000 meters.

5. Tank "Panther" (PzKpfw V "Panther")

Realizing that the Tiger was a rare and exotic weapon for professionals, German tank builders created a simpler and cheap tank, with the intention of turning it into a massive Wehrmacht medium tank.
Panzerkampfwagen V "Panther" is still the subject of heated debate. The technical capabilities of the vehicle do not cause any complaints - with a mass of 44 tons, the Panther was superior in mobility to the T-34, developing 55-60 km/h on a good highway. The tank was armed with a 75 mm KwK 42 cannon with a barrel length of 70 calibers! Armor-piercing sub-caliber projectile, fired from its hellish mouth, flew 1 kilometer in the first second - with such performance characteristics, the Panther's cannon could make a hole in any Allied tank at a distance of over 2 kilometers. The armor of the Panther is also considered worthy by most sources - the thickness of the forehead varied from 60 to 80 mm, while the angles of the armor reached 55°. The side was weaker protected - at the level of the T-34, so it was easily hit by Soviet anti-tank weapons. The lower part of the side was additionally protected by two rows of rollers on each side.

4. Tank IS-2 (Joseph Stalin)

IS-2 was the most powerful and most heavily armored of the Soviet serial tanks period of the war, and one of the strongest tanks in the world at that time. Tanks of this type played a big role in the battles of 1944-1945, especially distinguishing themselves during the assault on cities.

The thickness of the IS-2 armor reached 120 mm. One of the main achievements of Soviet engineers is the efficiency and low metal consumption of the IS-2 design. With a mass comparable to that of the Panther, the Soviet tank was much more seriously protected. But the too dense layout required the placement of fuel tanks in the control compartment - if the armor was penetrated, the Is-2 crew had little chance of surviving. The driver-mechanic, who did not have his own hatch, was especially at risk.

City assaults:
Together with the self-propelled guns at its base, the IS-2 was actively used for assault operations in fortified cities, such as Budapest, Breslau, and Berlin. The tactics of action in such conditions included the actions of the OGvTTP in assault groups of 1-2 tanks, accompanied by an infantry squad of several machine gunners, a sniper or a marksman with a rifle, and sometimes a backpack flamethrower. In case of weak resistance, tanks with assault groups mounted on them broke through at full speed along the streets to squares, squares, and parks, where they could take up a perimeter defense.

3. Tank M4 Sherman (Sherman)

"Sherman" is the pinnacle of rationality and pragmatism. It is all the more surprising that the United States, which had 50 tanks at the beginning of the war, managed to create such a balanced combat vehicle and rivet 49,000 Shermans by 1945. various modifications. For example, in ground forces The Sherman with a gasoline engine was used, and the Marine Corps units received the M4A2 modification, equipped with a diesel engine. American engineers rightly believed that this would greatly simplify the operation of tanks - diesel fuel could easily be found among sailors, unlike high-octane gasoline. By the way, it was this modification of the M4A2 that came to the Soviet Union.

Why did the Red Army command like the “Emcha” (as our soldiers called the M4) so ​​much that they completely switched to them? elite units, for example the 1st Guards Mechanized Corps and the 9th Guards tank corps? The answer is simple: Sherman had the optimal ratio of armor, firepower, mobility and... reliability. In addition, the Sherman was the first tank with a hydraulic turret drive (this ensured special pointing accuracy) and a gun stabilizer in the vertical plane - tankers admitted that in a duel situation their shot was always the first.

Combat use:
After the landing in Normandy, the Allies had to come face to face with German tank divisions, which were sent to defend Fortress Europe, and it turned out that the Allies had underestimated the degree of saturation of the German troops heavy types armored vehicles, especially Panther tanks. In direct clashes with German heavy tanks, the Shermans had very little chance. The British, to a certain extent, could count on their Sherman Firefly, whose excellent cannon made the Germans great impression(so large that the crews of German tanks tried to hit the Firefly first, and then deal with the rest). The Americans, who were counting on their new weapon, quickly found out that in order to confidently defeat the Panther head-on, its power armor-piercing shells still not enough.

2. Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausf. B "Tiger II", "Tiger II"

The combat debut of the Royal Tigers took place on July 18, 1944 in Normandy, where the 503rd Heavy Tank Battalion managed to knock out 12 Sherman tanks in the first battle.”
And already on August 12, Tiger II appeared on the Eastern Front: the 501st heavy tank battalion tried to interfere with the Lvov-Sandomierz offensive operation. The bridgehead was an uneven semicircle, its ends resting on the Vistula. Approximately in the middle of this semicircle, covering the direction to Staszow, the 53rd Guards Tank Brigade defended.

At 7.00 on August 13, the enemy, under the cover of fog, went on the offensive with the forces of the 16th Tank Division with the participation of 14 Royal Tigers of the 501st Heavy Tank Battalion. But as soon as the new Tigers crawled to their original positions, three of them were shot from an ambush by the crew of the T-34-85 tank under the command of junior lieutenant Alexander Oskin, which, in addition to Oskin himself, included driver Stetsenko, gun commander Merkhaidarov, radio operator Grushin and loader Khalychev . In total, the brigade's tankers knocked out 11 tanks, and the remaining three, abandoned by the crews, were captured in good condition. One of these tanks, number 502, is still in Kubinka.

Currently, the Royal Tigers are on display at the Saumur Musee des Blindes in France, the RAC Tank Museum Bovington (the only surviving example with a Porsche turret) and the Royal Military College of Science Shrivenham in the UK, the Munster Lager Kampftruppen Schule in Germany (transferred by the Americans in 1961) , Ordnance Museum Aberdeen Proving Ground in the USA, Switzerlands Panzer Museum Thun in Switzerland and the Military Historical Museum of Armored Weapons and Equipment in Kubinka near Moscow.

1. Tank T-34-85

The T-34-85 medium tank, in essence, represents a major modernization of the T-34 tank, as a result of which a very important drawback of the latter was eliminated - the cramped fighting compartment and the associated impossibility of complete division of labor among the crew members. This was achieved by increasing the diameter of the turret ring, as well as by installing a new three-man turret of significantly larger dimensions than the T-34. At the same time, the design of the body and the arrangement of components and assemblies in it have not undergone any significant changes. Consequently, there are still disadvantages inherent in vehicles with a stern-mounted engine and transmission.

As is known, greatest distribution in tank building they received two layout schemes with a bow and stern transmission. Moreover, the disadvantages of one scheme are the advantages of another.

The disadvantage of the layout with a rear-mounted transmission is the increased length of the tank due to the placement in its hull of four compartments that are not aligned along the length, or the reduction in the volume of the fighting compartment with a constant length of the vehicle. Due to the large length of the engine and transmission compartments, the combat compartment with a heavy turret is shifted to the nose, overloading the front rollers, leaving no space on the turret plate for the central or even side placement of the driver's hatch. There is a danger that the protruding gun will “stick” into the ground when the tank moves through natural and artificial obstacles. The control drive connecting the driver with the transmission located in the stern becomes more complicated.

T-34-85 tank layout diagram

There are two ways out of this situation: either increase the length of the control (or combat) compartment, which will inevitably lead to an increase in the overall length of the tank and a deterioration in its maneuverability due to an increase in the L/B ratio - the length of the supporting surface to the track width (for the T-34- 85 it is close to the optimal - 1.5), or radically change the layout of the engine and transmission compartments. What this could lead to can be judged by the results of the work of Soviet designers when designing the new medium tanks T-44 and T-54, created during the war and put into service in 1944 and 1945, respectively.

T-54 tank layout diagram

These combat vehicles used a layout with a transverse (and not longitudinal, like the T-34-85) placement of a 12-cylinder V-2 diesel engine (in the B-44 and B-54 variants) and a combined significantly shortened (by 650 mm ) engine and transmission compartment. This made it possible to lengthen the fighting compartment to 30% of the hull length (for the T-34-85 - 24.3%), increase the diameter of the turret ring by almost 250 mm and install a powerful 100-mm cannon on the T-54 medium tank. At the same time, we managed to move the turret towards the stern, making room on the turret plate for the driver's hatch. The exclusion of the fifth crew member (the gunner from the course machine gun), the removal of the ammunition rack from the fighting compartment floor, the transfer of the fan from the engine crankshaft to the stern bracket and the reduction in the overall height of the engine ensured a decrease in the height of the T-54 tank hull (compared to the T-34- tank hull 85) by approximately 200 mm, as well as a reduction in the reserved volume by approximately 2 cubic meters. and increased armor protection by more than two times (with an increase in mass of only 12%).

During the war they did not go for such a radical rearrangement of the T-34 tank, and, probably, this was the right decision. At the same time, the diameter of the turret ring, while maintaining the same hull shape, of the T-34-85 was practically maximum, which did not allow placing an artillery system in the turret of more than large caliber. The tank's armament modernization capabilities were completely exhausted, unlike, for example, the American Sherman and the German Pz.lV.

By the way, the problem of increasing the caliber of the main armament of the tank was of paramount importance. Sometimes you can hear the question: why was the transition to an 85-mm gun necessary, could it be improved ballistic characteristics F-34 by increasing the barrel length? After all, this is what the Germans did with their 75-mm cannon on the Pz.lV.

The fact is that German guns were traditionally distinguished by better internal ballistics(ours are just as traditionally external). The Germans achieved high armor penetration by increasing the initial speed and better testing of ammunition. We could respond adequately only by increasing the caliber. Although the S-53 cannon significantly improved the firing capabilities of the T-34-85, as Yu.E. Maksarev noted: “In the future, the T-34 could no longer directly, in a duel, hit new German tanks.” All attempts to create 85 mm guns with initial speed over 1000 m/s, the so-called high-power guns, ended in failure due to rapid wear and destruction of the barrel even at the testing stage. To “duel” defeat German tanks, it was necessary to switch to a 100-mm caliber, which was carried out only in the T-54 tank with a turret ring diameter of 1815 mm. But this combat vehicle did not take part in the battles of World War II.

As for the placement of the driver's hatch in the front hull, we could try to follow the American path. Let us remember that on the Sherman the driver and machine gunner’s hatches, originally also made in the sloping frontal plate of the hull, were subsequently transferred to the turret plate. This was achieved by reducing the angle of inclination of the front sheet from 56° to 47° to the vertical. The T-34-85's frontal hull plate had an inclination of 60°. By also reducing this angle to 47° and compensating for this by slightly increasing the thickness of the frontal armor, it would be possible to increase the area of ​​the turret plate and place the driver’s hatch on it. This would not require a radical redesign of the hull design and would not entail a significant increase in the mass of the tank.

The suspension hasn't changed on the T-34-85 either. And if the use of higher quality steel for the manufacture of springs helped to avoid their rapid subsidence and, as a result, a decrease in ground clearance, then it was not possible to get rid of significant longitudinal vibrations of the tank hull in motion. It was an organic defect of the spring suspension. The location of the habitable compartments in the front of the tank only aggravated the negative impact of these fluctuations on the crew and weapons.

A consequence of the layout of the T-34-85 was the absence of fighting compartment rotating tower tower. In combat, the loader worked standing on the lids of cassette boxes with shells placed on the bottom of the tank. When turning the turret, he had to move after the breech, while he was interfered with spent cartridges, falling here on the floor. When conducting intense fire, the accumulated cartridges also made it difficult to access the shots placed in the ammunition rack on the bottom.

Summarizing all these points, we can conclude that, unlike the same "Sherman", the possibilities for modernizing the hull and suspension of the T-34-85 were not fully used.

When considering the advantages and disadvantages of the T-34-85, it is necessary to take into account one more very important circumstance. The crew of any tank, as a rule, in everyday reality does not care at all about the angle of inclination of the frontal or any other sheet of the hull or turret. It is much more important that the tank as a machine, that is, as a set of mechanical and electrical mechanisms, works clearly, reliably and does not create problems during operation. Including problems associated with the repair or replacement of any parts, components and assemblies. Here the T-34-85 (like the T-34) was fine. The tank was distinguished by its exceptional maintainability! Paradoxical, but true - and the layout is “to blame” for this!

There is a rule: to arrange not to ensure convenient installation and dismantling of units, but based on the fact that until they completely fail, the units do not need repair. The required high reliability and trouble-free operation are achieved by designing a tank based on ready-made, structurally proven units. Since during the creation of the T-34, practically none of the tank’s units met this requirement, its layout was carried out contrary to the rule. The roof of the engine-transmission compartment was easily removable, the rear hull sheet was hinged, which made it possible to dismantle large units such as the engine and gearbox in field conditions. All this was of enormous importance in the first half of the war, when due to technical malfunctions the more tanks than from enemy influence (as of April 1, 1942, for example, the active army had 1,642 serviceable and 2,409 faulty tanks of all types, while our combat losses in March amounted to 467 tanks). As the quality of the units improves, reaching highest indicator with the T-34-85, the importance of the repairable layout has decreased, but one would hesitate to call this a disadvantage. Moreover, good maintainability turned out to be very useful during the post-war operation of the tank abroad, primarily in the countries of Asia and Africa, sometimes in extreme climatic conditions and with personnel who had a very mediocre, to say the least, level of training.

Despite the presence of all the shortcomings in the design of the "thirty-four", a certain balance of compromises was maintained, which distinguished this combat vehicle from other tanks of the Second World War. Simplicity, ease of use and maintenance, combined with good armor protection, maneuverability and fairly powerful weapons, became the reason for the success and popularity of the T-34-85 among tankers.