Legendary weapon of the Second World War - Tank T-34 76

The Soviet medium tank T-34 76 became the most important combat unit of the USSR during the Great Patriotic War, thanks to a large number of successful design solutions and discoveries.

Of course, one cannot say that the T-34 turned out to be an ideal machine, but the simplicity of its design, ease of repair and amazing unpretentiousness in battle made it possible to become a truly great weapon. Of course, not without the heroism of domestic tank crews, who often sacrificed themselves and showed miracles of the Russian spirit and ingenuity.

History of creation

In 1937, the Soviet leadership formulated general principles for building a new tank for the troops. The rapid development of anti-tank systems in the world played a leading role in the deep modernization of existing armored forces.

Lightly armored vehicles of the USSR - T-26 and BT-5 in the Spanish Civil War shortly before the bloody battles of World War II showed extremely weak qualities on the battlefield. They had frankly thin armor that could not even withstand hits from 37mm guns. Another danger was the use of gasoline engines, which emitted vapors that could easily ignite from the slightest spark.

Of course, the leadership of the USSR tried to take into account the mistakes of past projects, and immediately made a detailed technical specification for the new machine.

In 1938, it was decided to make prototypes (the projects were called A-20 and A-32) and test them.

In 1939, these tests started. It turned out that the A-32, with more armor than the A-20, as well as a 76mm cannon, has better performance. In addition, it had sufficient potential for further modernization.

By March 1940, it was ordered to produce two pre-production tanks, which were called the T-34 of the 1940 model. But there is another designation - T-34-76 - based on the caliber of the main gun.

The project was entrusted to the shoulders of the Kharkov Steam Locomotive Plant. The main designers were the famous domestic specialist Mikhail Ilyich Koshkin and Adolf Dick. The latter was later arrested due to a delay in completing technical documentation, so Koshkin continued the work.

The gun for the first two experimental tanks was developed by two factories: L-11 in Leningrad and F-32 in Gorky.

There was no difference in caliber, but the F-32 gun turned out to have a large (in length) barrel. We noticed this after assembly (it must be said that the edge of the barrel protruding beyond the nose armor led to the fact that the vehicle could rest against the ground when overcoming trenches and ditches). They did not change anything, so the first two samples had barrels of different lengths.

In February-March 1940, production samples were tested at a test site in the Kharkov region. And on March 6, the T-34-76 covered almost 750 km from Kharkov to Moscow in 6 days under its own power and off-road. Thus, management demonstrated the reliability of the new car (and accumulated the necessary mileage required for testing).

Higher officials noted such an extraordinary move, and on March 31, 1940, a decision was made to mass-produce the tank for the needs of the army. By the way, the cars got back to Kharkov the same way.

T-34 76 is a real symbol of the Great Patriotic War. Thanks to its excellent maneuverability, maneuverability and reliability, ease of assembly, the vehicle became the most popular tank during the years of conflict.

T-34 in the cinema

Despite the very large number of T-34-76 produced, few copies of this tank survived after the war. Therefore, in films, this tank is almost always replaced by the T-34-85 modification, as was the case, for example, in the famous series “4 Tankers and a Dog” or in the film “Hot Snow.”

Authentic copies of the T-34-76 are present in the following films:

• “Two Soldiers” • “Ivan Nikulin - Russian Sailor”; • “The Great Turning Point” (T-34-76 model 1942 was shown with and without a commander’s cupola); • “Lark” (for this film the T-34-76 was specially reconstructed at the Lenfilm studio).

Design

The T-34 76 tank had a major influence on the course of the Second World War due to design solutions that were unique for its time. For the first time, a long-barreled gun was installed on a medium tank. This move made it possible to significantly exceed all analogues existing at that time in terms of initial projectile speed (612 m/sec) and, accordingly, penetrating force.

One of the main design moves in the T-34-76 is considered to be a surprisingly optimal combination of angles of inclination of the frontal and side armor.

Thanks to this, it was possible to increase the survivability of the tank. The diesel power plant, which produced 500 hp, helped to win a big design victory. (19.2 hp per ton of weight), which was an advanced indicator of that time.

Along with obvious advantages, the T-34 also had disadvantages. The design included little space for the crew. The tank commander and mechanic had poor visibility. And the hatch for the driver, located on the frontal armor, turned out to be a big design mistake, as it increased the vulnerability of the tank. No less problematic was the transmission, which often failed.

Often, due to the special rush in production (for obvious reasons, since the country was in a state of war), a lot of defects and outright defects left the factory. This also left an imprint on the overall reliability of the machine.

The layout of the tank was classic. The engine was located in the stern, and in the front there was a place for the driver and radio operator. The tank commander's position was in the turret, to the left of the gun. He served as a gunner. The loader was located to the right of the gun. In total, the vehicle crew included 4 people.

The bow of the tank hull was protected by 45 mm armor.

A periscope viewing device was installed on the driver's hatch. The course machine gun was protected by an armored cap. The entire body was made of eight rolled armored sheets welded together. Six of them were mounted at different slopes to the vertical (frontal - 53° and 60° to the horizon, side top - 40°, rear - 45° and 47°). And only the side lower armor was made strictly vertical.

The rear and side armor was 40 mm thick. Later it was strengthened, making it 5 mm thicker. The upper part of the hull under the turret varied in thickness from 16 to 20 mm. Bottom – 13 mm.

The cast turret of a tank, which is ingrained in the minds of the average person, does not correspond to reality. Turrets were cast only for heavy tanks, such as the KV1 and IS-2, and there were few of them.

For the T-34-76, a welded turret was made from rolled armor plates. In the upper part there was a hatch for the crew, as well as a ventilation hole and a PT-6 periscope sight. The side and rear sheets were installed at an angle of 30°. The rear part was protected by a removable armor panel, which was necessary for replacing and repairing the gun. The thickness of the frontal armor of the turret was 45 mm.

The tank received five pairs of road wheels. The drive wheels were located at the rear. Small-link caterpillars were made using the same technology as for the BT tank. However, the width exceeded the prototype and reached 550 mm.

The tank received a 76 mm L-11 gun with a barrel length of 2.32 meters.

The gun's ammunition load was 77 rounds, and for the most popular models of 1942-1944 it was expanded to 100 rounds (thanks to the optimization of stowage technology). The gun was mounted on trunnions in the front of the turret, paired with a 7.62 mm DT machine gun (the same was in the bow of the hull).

The supply of ammunition for machine guns was 2898 or 3087 pieces (and on models without a radio station it reached 4725 pieces).

The top of the "thirty-four" with a 76.2 mm cannon, or the T-34 model of 1943 against the T-IVH

In a previous article, the author described the measures taken by the German military and industrial leadership to stop the threats posed by the T-34 - a tank with ballistic armor and a powerful 76.2 mm cannon. It can be said with good reason that at the beginning of 1942 the Germans did not have a single widespread weapon system that would reliably defeat the T-34, with the possible exception of an 88-mm anti-aircraft gun. But by 1943, the Wehrmacht and the SS for the most part were re-equipped with anti-tank guns and tanks quite capable of fighting the T-34. The decisive role here was played by the 75-mm Pak 40 cannon, various modifications of which were used as a towed artillery system, as well as guns for tanks and various self-propelled guns.

Thus, at the beginning of 1943, the T-34 lost its status as a tank with anti-ballistic armor. What did our designers do?

T-34-76 model 1943

In principle, the T-34 design had certain weight reserves and made it possible to increase the thickness of the armor, however, this was not done.
The main changes to the T-34 in the first half of 1943 consisted of increasing the engine life, improving ergonomics and increasing the situational awareness of the tank. The “Fiery Heart” T-34, the V-2 diesel engine, after getting rid of “childhood diseases”, was a high-quality and completely reliable tank engine.

The same B-2

However, it often failed prematurely due to the poor performance of the air purifiers. The head of the 2nd Directorate of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Red Army, Major General of Tank Forces Khlopov, who observed the tests of the T-34 at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, Fr.

During 1942, the situation improved somewhat, but still our tanks received truly high-quality Cyclone air purifiers only in January 1943. And this significantly increased the service life of their engines. The latter now often even exceeded the table values.

The second important innovation was the transition to a new five-speed gearbox. As far as the author was able to figure out, it was first used on the T-34 in March 1943, and in June it was already used everywhere at all tank factories that produced “thirty-fours”. In addition, the design of the main clutch was slightly modernized, and all this together led to a significant simplification of the work of driver mechanics. Until this time, operating a tank required great physical strength; in certain circumstances, the force on the lever had to reach 32 kg. In addition, it was very difficult to “stick” a new gear while the main clutch was operating, but it was very easy to burn it out, which is why many tankers did it easier before the attack. They engaged the starting 2nd gear, but at the same time removed the rev limiter from the engine. This brought the diesel engine to a rotation speed of 2,300 rpm, and the tank’s speed in this gear to 20-25 km/h, which, of course, greatly reduced the engine’s service life.

The new gearbox and improved clutch did not require either “miracle heroes” behind the tank levers or fighting in one gear. Control of the T-34 after these innovations became quite satisfactory. Although the T-34 transmission never became exemplary and still contained a number of obviously archaic solutions, after these innovations the “thirty-four” really became reliable and unpretentious in operation and easy to control.

The tank's observation devices made a huge step forward. Unfortunately, the narrow shoulder strap of the turret did not allow the introduction of a fifth crew member and thereby divide the responsibilities of the gunner and tank commander. Nevertheless, in terms of situational awareness, the crew of the T-34 produced in the summer of 1943 was an order of magnitude superior to the “thirty-four” of earlier models.

On the T-34 model 1941, the tank commander had a PT-K panoramic device and two periscope devices located on the sides of the tank. Alas, the PT-K turned out to be not very good in design, and most importantly, it was installed extremely poorly. Although theoretically it could provide a 360-degree view, in fact the T-34 commander could only see ahead and a 120-degree sector. to the right of the direction of movement of the tank. The side “periscopes” were extremely inconvenient. As a result, the review of the commander of the T-34 mod. 1941 was very limited and had many “dead” zones inaccessible to observation.

Another thing is the commander of the T-34 mod. 1943. Since the summer of this year, the “thirty-four” finally had a commander’s cupola, equipped with 5 sighting slits, and on it was located the MK-4 periscope observation device, which had a 360-degree view. Now the commander could quickly look around the battlefield using the sighting slits, or thoughtfully study it using the MK-4, much more advanced than the PT-K.

According to one of the domestic “gurus” in the history of tanks, M. Baryatinsky, the MK-4 was not a Soviet invention, but a copy of the English Mk IV device, which was installed on British tanks that came to the USSR under Lend-Lease. Of course, our military and designers carefully studied Lend-Lease equipment and compiled a list of successful solutions for foreign tanks recommended for implementation on domestic armored vehicles. So, the Mk IV device usually occupied the very first line in this list, and one can only regret that the MK-4 did not go into production earlier. This is all the more offensive since, according to the same M. Baryatinsky, the Mk IV was produced under license in England itself, and its inventor was the Polish engineer Gundlach. In the USSR, the design of this device has been known at least since 1939, when Polish 7TR tanks came into the possession of our military!

Be that as it may, the T-34 arr. 1943 received one of the most advanced observation devices in the world, and its location on the hatch of the commander's cupola provided excellent viewing sectors. However, many tankers noted in their memoirs that in battle they practically did not use the capabilities of the commander’s turrets, and sometimes the hatch was kept completely open. Naturally, in this situation it was impossible to use the commander's MK-4. Why is that?

Let's return to the T-34 mod. 1941 The tank was equipped with a TOD-6 telescopic sight, with the help of which the commander, acting as a gunner, aimed the tank gun at the target. This sight was very advanced in design; its only significant drawback was that its sight changed position along with the gun: thus, the commander had to bend down more and more, the higher the elevation angle of the gun. But still, TOD-6 was completely unsuitable for monitoring the area.

But on the T-34 arr. 1943, the commander, performing the duties of a gunner, had at his disposal not one, but two sights. The first, TMFD-7 performed the same functionality as TOD-6, but was more advanced and of higher quality. However, it, of course, was not suitable for observation: in order to inspect the battlefield from TOD-6 or TMDF-7, it was necessary to rotate the entire turret. However, the commander of the modernized T-34 also had at his disposal a second, periscope sight PT4-7, which, having the same viewing angle of 26 degrees, could rotate 360 ​​degrees. without turning the tower. In addition, PT4-7 was located in close proximity to TMDF-7.

Thus, in battle, the commander, wanting to inspect the terrain, had the opportunity, without changing his body position, to “switch” from TMDF-7 to PT4-7 - and for many this was enough, so many commanders really did not feel the need to use the commander’s cupola in battle and MK-4. But this did not make the latter useless - after all, even when participating in a battle, a tank does not always engage in fire combat, and, being, for example, in an ambush, the commander had the opportunity to use the sighting slits of the commander’s cupola and the MK-4.

In other words, the support for the commander in both his guises - both the commander and the gunner of a tank gun - has improved qualitatively. But that was not all. The fact is that in the T-34 mod. 1941, the loader had almost no visibility, except for the ability to use the side periscopes of the tank commander. True, there was practically no sense from this - due to the extremely unfortunate location of the latter.

But on the T-34 arr. 1943, the loader had his own MK-4 device, which was located on the roof of the turret and had a full, although, apparently, not 360-degree view - it was probably limited by the commander’s cupola. In addition, the loader had 2 sighting slits at his disposal.

The driver mechanic received more convenient means of observation, consisting of two periscope devices. As for the gunner-radio operator, he also received a “new thing”, a diopter sight instead of an optical one, but this had almost no effect on anything: this crew member was and remains almost “blind”.

At the end of the story about the surveillance devices on the T-34 mod. 1943 it is worth mentioning the quality of the optics. Let's face it, the quality of German instruments remained unsurpassed, but our pre-war optics, although somewhat worse, still met their objectives. However, the Izyum Optical Glass Factory, which produced it, was evacuated in 1942, which, alas, greatly affected the quality of its products. However, the situation gradually improved, and by mid-1943, manufacturers managed to ensure quality that was quite comparable to the world standard.

In other words, by about mid-1943, the Red Army tank crews finally received the tank they dreamed of in 1941 and 1942. – the development of the T-34-76 has reached its peak. In this form, the “thirty-four” was produced until September 1944, when the last 2 vehicles of this type rolled off the assembly line of plant No. 174 (Omsk).

Let's try to compare what happened between Soviet and German gunsmiths, using the example of comparing the T-34 mod. 1943 and the best German medium tank T-IVH, production of which began in April 1943.

Why was the T-IVH chosen for comparison, and not the later T-IVJ, or the famous “Panther”? The answer is very simple: according to the author, the T-IVH should be considered as the pinnacle of development of the T-IV tank, but the T-IVJ had some simplifications in its design designed to facilitate its production, and it was produced only from June 1944. In addition , it was the T-IVH that became the most popular tank of the series - in total, Krupp-Gruson in Magdeburg, VOMAG in Plauen and Nibelungenwerk in S. Valentin produced 3,960 of these tanks, that is, almost half (46.13%) of all “fours” "

As for the Panther, in fact, it was not a medium, but a heavy tank, whose weight was quite consistent with that of the IS-2 heavy tank and was superior to the American M26 Pershing heavy tank (the latter, however, was later reclassified as a medium , but this happened after the war). However, subsequently, the author will definitely compare the T-34-76 and the Panther, since this will be absolutely necessary for understanding the evolution of Soviet and German tank forces.

T-34 vs T-IVH

Alas, a large number of military history buffs argue in approximately this way: the T-IVH had armor thickness up to 80 mm, and the T-34 only 45 mm, the T-IVH had a long-barreled and much more powerful 75 mm cannon than the Soviet one F-34 - so what else is there to talk about?
And if we also remember the quality of the shells and armor, then it is quite obvious that the T-34 lost in all respects to the brainchild of the “gloomy Teutonic genius.” However, the devil, as we know, is in the details.

Artillery

The T-IVH was equipped with an excellent 75-mm KwK.40 L/48, which was an analogue of the towed Pak-40 and had slightly better characteristics than the 75-mm KwK.40 L/43 gun installed on the T-IVF2 and parts of the T-IVG .
The latter had a design similar to the KwK.40 L/48, but the barrel was shortened to 43 calibers. The KwK.40 L/48 fired a caliber armor-piercing (AP) projectile weighing 6.8 kg with an initial speed of 790 m/sec. At the same time, the domestic F-34 fired 6.3/6.5 kg projectiles with an initial speed of only 662/655 m/sec. Taking into account the clear superiority of the German projectile in quality, it is obvious that in terms of armor penetration the KwK.40 L/48 left the F-34 far behind.

True, the Russian projectile had one advantage - a higher explosive content, of which 6.3 kg BR-350A and 6.5 kg BR-350B contained 155 and 119 (according to other sources - 65) g, respectively. The German caliber AP projectile PzGr.39 contained only 18, possibly 20 g of explosives. In other words, if a Soviet armor-piercing caliber projectile penetrated armor, then its armor-piercing effect was noticeably higher. But it is unclear to the author whether this gave any advantages in battle.

In terms of sub-caliber ammunition, the KwK.40 L/48 was also superior to the F-34. The German gun fired a 4.1 kg projectile with an initial speed of 930 m/sec, the Soviet – 3.02 kg with an initial speed of 950 m/sec. As is known, the striking element of a sub-caliber ammunition is a relatively thin (about 2 cm) pointed pin made of very durable metal, enclosed in a relatively soft shell, not intended to pierce armor. In modern ammunition, the shell separates after firing, but in shells of those times it was destroyed upon impact with enemy armor. Since the German projectile was heavier, it can be assumed that, with an almost equal initial speed, it retained energy better and had better armor penetration with increasing distance than the lighter domestic one.

High-explosive fragmentation ammunition KwK.40 L/48 and F-34 were approximately at the same level. The German projectile with an initial speed of 590 m/sec had 680 g of explosives, the indicators of the Soviet OF-350 were 680 m/sec and 710 g of explosives. For the F-34, O-350A cast iron grenades with a reduced explosive content of 540 g were also used, as well as older ammunition, which should have been fired at a reduced initial velocity, but which were loaded with up to 815 g of explosives.

In addition, the F-34 could use grapeshot and shrapnel ammunition, which was not in the range of the German gun: in turn, cumulative ammunition was produced for the KwK.40 L/48. However, it is likely that in 1943, neither one nor the other was widely used.

Thus, the German artillery system was obviously superior to the domestic F-34 in terms of impact on armored targets, which is not surprising - after all, the KwK.40 L/48, unlike the F-34, was a specialized anti-tank weapon. But in “working” against unarmored targets, the KwK.40 L/48 did not have any particular advantage over the F-34. Both guns were quite convenient for their crews, but the Soviet one was much simpler technologically. The sights had quite comparable capabilities.

Booking

Protection T-34 mod. 1943 increased slightly in comparison with its previous modifications. A brief description of it can be given as follows: “all 45 mm.” T-34 mod. 1940 had 40 mm armor on the sides of the hull where the armor plates were inclined, as well as in the stern. The gun mantlet also had only 40 mm.

The T-34 arr. 1943, in all cases the armor thickness reached 45 mm. In cases where cast turrets were used on the T-34, their thickness increased to 52 mm, but this did not provide an increase in protection: the fact is that cast armor steel has less resistance than rolled steel, so in this case the thickening of the armor only compensated her weakness. At the same time, the T-34’s armor had rational angles of inclination, which in a number of combat situations made it possible to hope for a ricochet of an enemy projectile of at least 50 mm, and in some cases even 75 mm caliber.

As for the T-IVH, everything turned out much more interesting with it. Yes, the thickness of its armor really reached 80 mm, but we must never forget that exactly 3 armored parts in the entire tank had this thickness. Two of them were located in the frontal projection of the tank, another one protected the commander’s cupola.

Unfortunately, the author did not find the T-IVH reservation scheme; I had to slightly correct the scheme of the early modification.

In other words, the T-IVH was very well protected in the frontal projection; only the 25 or even 20 mm armor plate located between the lower and upper 80 mm armor plates raises doubts. Of course, its inclination is 72 degrees. should have guaranteed a rebound, but theory and practice are two different things. As we know, the creators of the T-34 were faced with situations where small-caliber projectiles seemed to be supposed to ricochet off the “rationally inclined” armor, but for some reason they did not do this.

The forehead of the T-IVH turret had, in general, protection similar to the T-34 - 50 mm. But everything else was protected much worse - the sides and rear of the “four” had only 30 mm protection without rational angles of inclination. On the T-IVH, the sides of the hull and (less often) the turret were shielded, but the thickness of the shields was only 5 mm. They were intended exclusively for protection against cumulative ammunition, and provided virtually no increase in armor resistance against other types of projectiles.

"Attack and Defense"

And now - the most interesting part.
In general, the following can be said about the protection of the T-IVH: in the frontal projection it was not much superior to the T-34, but from the sides and stern it was very much inferior to it. I foresee angry remarks from supporters of German armored vehicles, saying, how can you compare the 80 mm “front” of the T-IVH and the inclined 45 mm armor plates of the T-34? But allow me a few facts. M. Baryatinsky pointed out that “repeated shelling tests of tank hulls at the NIBT Test Site showed that the upper frontal plate, which had a thickness of 45 mm and an inclination angle of 60 degrees, was equivalent in terms of projectile resistance to a vertically located armor plate with a thickness of 75–80 mm.” And one more thing - the tabular armor penetration of the Pak 40 was, according to German data, about 80 mm per 1000 m. It penetrated the frontal armor of the T-34 turret at a distance of 1000 m, but the nose armor plate - only at a distance of up to 500 m, as evidenced by including this memo for calculating Pak 40

Of course, the T-IVH had a more powerful gun, but what advantages did this give it? If we consider the confrontation head-on, then at a distance of 500 to 1000 m the German tank only penetrated the frontal parts of the T-34 turret. But the tabulated values ​​of the F-34’s armor penetration guaranteed the same result for the 50 mm armor plates on the nose of the T-IVH turret, and in practice it worked out that way, at least with the use of solid metal shells that did not contain explosives. Another thing is distances of up to 500 m, at which the frontal projection of the T-34 was penetrated anywhere, but the frontal armored parts of the T-IVH were penetrated only by sub-caliber shells. The author, unfortunately, did not find the results of firing 20 or 25 mm T-IVH armor plate connecting two 80 mm armor parts. Did this armor withstand the impacts of domestic 76.2 mm armor-piercing caliber shells?

However, it is worth noting other points of view. For example, the same M. Baryatinsky cites an excerpt from a report made on the basis of the experience of the 23rd Panzer Division of the Wehrmacht that “the T-34 is hit at any angle in any projection if fire is fired from a distance of no more than 1.2 km” , and, oddly enough, we are not even talking about the KwK.40 L/48, but about the KwK.40 L/43. But this could be the result of an erroneous observation, yet the experience of one division may not be entirely indicative. Observations from our military indicated that the forehead of the T-34 hull could be pierced by a KwK.40 L/48 projectile at a distance of up to 800 m - and we are not talking about a guaranteed defeat, but that there were no recorded cases when the forehead of the T-34 hull -34 made his way from a greater distance. Thus, it is possible that at impact angles close to optimal, the forehead of the T-34 hull could be penetrated from a distance slightly greater than 500 m, but, most likely, a reliable hit was achieved precisely from 500 m.

As for the sides and rear, everything is simple - both the T-34 and T-IVH confidently hit each other in these projections at any imaginable artillery combat distance.

And so we come to a rather strange, at first glance, conclusion. Yes, the T-IVH had 80 mm armor (in some places!) and a very powerful 75 mm cannon, but, in fact, this did not give it an overwhelming advantage over the T-34 mod. 1943. The armor scheme of the German tank gave it superiority, and not absolute, only at a distance of up to 500 m or a little more when firing head-on. But in all other respects, the T-IVH’s defense was completely inferior to the T-34.

We must never forget that tanks do not fight against each other in a spherical vacuum, but on the battlefield with the entire range of enemy firepower. And for medium tanks of the WWII era, fighting enemy tanks, oddly enough, was not the main combat mission at all, although, of course, they had to always be ready for this.

The T-34 with its anti-ballistic armor forced the Germans to evolve towards increasing the caliber of anti-tank guns to 75 mm. Such guns successfully fought the T-34, but at the same time “successfully” limited the capabilities of the Wehrmacht. The author came across information that the batteries of towed Pak 40 could not carry out all-round defense - after just a few shots, the coulters were buried so deep into the ground that pulling them out to deploy the gun became a completely non-trivial task, which, as a rule, could not be solved in battle. That is, after entering the battle, it was almost impossible to turn the guns in the other direction! And in the same way, the Pak 40 did not allow crews to move across the battlefield.

But the T-IVH, which had comparable armor to the T-34 only in the frontal projection, could never have caused such a reaction - its 30 mm sides were confidently hit not only by the 57 mm ZiS-2, but also by the good old “forty-fives” . In fact, tanks of this type were very dangerous to use against a properly organized defense with overlapping sectors of flank anti-tank fire, even if it was fired by mobile and mobile small-caliber guns. We will illustrate all of the above using the example of damage to the T-34 according to the analysis of the Central Research Institute No. 48, carried out in 1942 based on the study of damaged T-34s. So, according to this analysis, the hits were distributed like this:

1. Hull sides – 50.5% of all hits;

2. Body forehead – 22.65%;

3. Tower -19.14%;

4. Feed, etc. – 7.71%

It is possible that for the T-IVH, whose crew had significantly better visibility than the T-34 crew of the 1942 model, this ratio was better, because the Germans probably allowed them to enter the sides less often. But even if for the T-IVH such hits to the nose and sides of the hull were distributed approximately equally, then even then at least 36.5% of all shells that hit it should have hit its sides! In general, side projection protection is not at all a whim of the tank creators, and the sides of the T-IVH were “cardboard” and could not withstand a blow at all.

T-IVH with screens removed

It can be stated that the T-IVH had certain dueling advantages over the T-34, but at the same time it was much more vulnerable on the battlefield. At the same time, the more powerful T-IVH gun did not give it any advantages in the fight against field fortifications, machine gun nests, artillery and unarmored vehicles compared to the T-34.

Surveillance equipment

Here, oddly enough, it is difficult to determine the winner.
The undeniable advantage of the T-IVH was the fifth crew member, as a result of which the responsibilities of the tank commander and gunner were divided. But the crew of the T-34-76 was much better equipped with technical surveillance equipment. The T-IVH commander had at his disposal a commander's cupola with its 5 sighting slits, but that, in essence, was all. It, of course, gave a good overview of the battlefield, but on the T-34 mod. In 1943, the commander received the same one, and the MK-4 and PT4-7, which had magnification, allowed him to see the threatened direction much better and identify the target. To do this, the German commander had to get out of the hatch and take out binoculars...

MK-4

In the T-IVH crew, only one tank commander had a 360-degree view. But in the T-34, both the commander and the loader had MK-4 devices. That is, in case of extreme need (for example, fire was opened on a tank), the T-34 crew had, perhaps, a better chance of quickly finding out where and who was actually shooting.

It must be said that in previous modifications of the T-IV, the visibility of the crew was better - the same loader in the T-IVH was completely “blind”, but in the T-IVG, for example, he had 4 sighting slits at his disposal, into which he could not look only he, but also the gunner. But screens were installed on the T-IVH, and these sighting slits had to be abandoned. Thus, the gunner’s only instrument was a tank sight, and for all its advantages, it was not suitable for viewing the terrain.

The driver mechanics of the T-34 and T-IVH were approximately equal in capabilities - the German tanker had a good periscope device and a sighting slot, ours had 2 periscope devices and a driver's hatch, which in general was, perhaps, more convenient than the slot. The only losing member of the Soviet crew was the gunner-radio operator - although he had a diopter sight, his viewing angle was too small, and the 2 sighting slits of his German “colleague” provided a slightly better view.

In general, perhaps, it can be argued that the T-34 crew came very close to the T-IVH in terms of awareness; if there was a difference, it was not too significant. And, by the way, it is no longer a fact that it is in favor of the German tank.

Ergonomics

On the one hand, the German crew had certain advantages - a wider turret shoulder strap (but it also accommodated not 2 people, but 3), better conditions for the loader. But on the other hand, the Germans were already forced to save on the T-IVH. In their memoirs, a number of Soviet tank crews expressed complaints about the operation of the electric motor that turned the tank's turret. Well, on some T-IVHs, mechanical means of rotation were generally considered an unnecessary excess, so the turret was rotated entirely manually. Has anyone complained about the optics of the T-34 driver (the complaints, by the way, mainly related to the “thirty-four” models of 1941-42)? Thus, some T-IVHs did not have a periscope observation device at all, and the driver only had a sighting slit. In general, on the T-IVH unit the only optical devices were the gunner's sight and the tank commander's binoculars. Undoubtedly, the T-IVH was more convenient to operate, but on the T-34 the situation in this regard has improved dramatically. On average, perhaps, the German tank was still superior to the T-34 in terms of convenience, but, apparently, it could no longer be said that ergonomics significantly reduced the potential of the T-34.

Chassis

Of course, the German transmission was more advanced and of higher quality.
But the T-IVH, having a mass of 25.7 tons, was driven by a gasoline engine with a power of 300 hp, that is, the specific power of the tank was 11.7 hp. per ton. A T-34-76 mod. 1943, with a weight of 30.9 tons, had a 500-horsepower diesel engine, respectively, its specific power was 16.2 hp/t, that is, by this indicator it was more than 38% superior to its German “opponent”. The specific ground pressure of the German tank reached 0.89 kg/sq.cm, and that of the T-34 – 0.79 kg/sq.cm. In other words, the mobility and maneuverability of the T-34 left the T-IVH far behind. The T-IVH's highway range was 210 km, the T-34's was 300 km, and, unlike the T-34s of previous years, the T-34 mod. 1943 could actually cover such a distance.

As for fire hazards, this is a very difficult question. On the one hand, gasoline, of course, is more flammable, but the T-IVH’s fuel tanks were located very low, under the fighting compartment, where they were threatened only by mine explosions. At the same time, the T-34 had fuel located on the sides of the fighting compartment. As you know, diesel fuel does not burn very well, but its vapors could well cause detonation. True, judging by the available data, such a detonation could have been caused by no less than a 75-mm shell exploding inside the tank if there was little fuel in the tank. The consequences of such a detonation were, of course, terrible, but... Would it be much worse if the T-34 tanks were located in a different place? The detonation of a 75 mm projectile in the fighting compartment practically guaranteed the death of the crew.

We can probably say this: the use of a diesel engine was an advantage of the Soviet tank, but the location of its fuel tanks was a disadvantage. But in general, there is no doubt that each tank had its own advantages and disadvantages in terms of engine and transmission, and it is difficult to choose an undisputed leader, but the T-34 may well claim first place.

Combat potential

In general, it can be stated that T-IVH and T-34 arr. 1943 were vehicles approximately equal in their combat qualities. The T-IVH was slightly better in tank combat, the T-34 in the fight against infantry, artillery and other unarmored targets. Interestingly, both tanks fully met the requirements of the moment. For the Germans, the time of the blitzkrieg was irrevocably gone; for them, the tasks of confronting Soviet tank wedges that had broken through the defenses and burst into operational space came to the fore, and the T-IVH coped with this task better than the T-34. At the same time, the era of deep operations was coming for the Red Army, in which they needed an unpretentious and reliable tank, capable of long-distance raids and focused on the rapid defeat and suppression of rear structures, troops on the march, field artillery in positions and other similar targets in the depths of enemy defenses. . This is a T-34-76 mod. 1943 “knew” how to make the T-IVH better.

Manufacturability

In this parameter, the T-IVH miserably lost to the T-34.
While the T-34 hulls were formed using automatic welding machines, the operators of which did not require high skill, and the turrets were made either the same way or were cast, the hulls of German tanks were a real work of art. The armor plates had special fastenings; they were inserted into each other (on keys), and then welded by hand, which required a lot of time and highly qualified workers. But what was the point in all this if all these efforts did not ultimately lead to any noticeable superiority of the T-IVH in protection over the T-34? And the same could be said about any other unit. As a result, the Germans spent a lot of effort and time on creating a combat vehicle... which had no visible superiority over the much simpler and easier to produce T-34-76 mod. 1943

To be continued…

Technical characteristics of the T-34 76 in comparison with analogues

Of course, the main opponents of the T-34 76 on the battlefield were German tanks. The most massive of them are the medium T-III and T-IV. The American Sherman is considered very similar to the Soviet tank, but with a number of its own solutions.

Both domestic and foreign experts consider the main trump card of the T-34 to be a successful gun, which was distinguished by an optimal combination of reliability, penetrating power and rate of fire.

Also, the Soviet vehicle had favorable dimensions and less armor than its analogues, which is why it remained maneuverable on the battlefield. The engine deserved good words, which, due to its efficiency and traction, allowed it to reach high speeds.

Armament of the T-34 tank

Since the original L-11 cannon was quickly replaced by the F-34, we will focus on the characteristics of the F-34.

Weight of gun, kg – About 1700 Ammunition, st. — 77 Initial flight speed of an armor-piercing projectile, m/s, — 662 Initial flight speed of a sub-caliber projectile, m/s, — 950 Initial flight speed of Oskol.-High-explosive. projectile, m/s, - 680 Sighting range, m, - 1500 Vertical aiming angles, degrees: -5° +28° Armor penetration: Degrees of inclination are measured in relation to a horizontal surface. Armor-piercing, At a distance of 500 m, mm/deg. — 84/90° Armor-piercing, At a distance of 1.5 km, mm/deg. — 69/90° Sub-caliber, At a distance of 500 m, mm/deg. — 100+/90° Rate of fire, rds/min – up to 5 Additional weapons: Two DT machine guns. One is paired with a gun, the second is a course gun.

Modifications and combat use

T-34-76 were produced until 1944. A total of 35,330 vehicles of the 1940 model were assembled. Self-propelled artillery units SU-122 and SU-85 were also made on their basis.

Of course, the main use of the T-34 unfolded during the Great Patriotic War. At the time of the outbreak of hostilities, there were 1,225 units in the army. During the war, production was reoriented to Chelyabinsk and Sverdlovsk (now Yekaterinburg). One of the most important achievements of the Soviet Union, which may have played a key role in the victory, was the mass production of the T-34 76.

The tank fought its main battle at the Kursk Bulge, where about 6,000 tanks took part on both sides.

The machine became legendary because it met the basic requirements of the time and was not distinguished by its design complexity. However, the tank itself without a crew is a piece of iron. The dedication of our tank crews who used the technical characteristics of the T-34-76 made it one of the symbols of mankind’s most terrible war.

Modifications and vehicles created on the basis of the T-34

T-34M - Began to be created due to comparison with the German tank Pz III Ausf.G, which was superior to the 34 in some respects. To improve the smoothness of the ride, a new engine was developed, but the power remained the same. After reworking the arrangement of internal components, the weight and length of the vehicle were reduced, and the ammunition load was increased to 100 rounds. The tank was put into service on May 5, 1941 to replace the standard T-34 model 1940, which was then in service. However, production could not be organized due to the outbreak of the war.

T-34-57 — A new 57 mm ZiS-4 cannon has been installed. It had better characteristics than the F-34. The tank was positioned as a “Tank Destroyer”. Officially, the tank was not accepted for service due to the excessive power of the gun (for 41-42). In 1943, 85-mm guns of greater power appeared. However, only 50 were produced.

T-34-57 undergoing testing

T-34-76 model 1941 - New turret with 52 mm thick walls and two hatches on the turret roof. But one of the most important innovations is the installation of a new 76-mm F-34 cannon.

T-34-76 mod 1941 - first on the right

T-34-76 model 1942 - A new turret shape has been developed. Thanks to the new turret, the ammunition capacity has increased to 100 rounds, and the projectile resistance has also increased.

T-34-76 model 1942

T-34-76 model 1943 - New air cleaners for the engine. New shock absorbers. New caterpillars. New gearbox. For the first time, a commander's cupola from the KV-1S was installed on the tank. The tank is also supplemented with all sorts of little things to “improve the quality of the vehicle.” Entered service on June 15, 1943.

T-34-76 model 1943

PT-34 - PT-3 mine trawl installed on the T-34.

PT-34

T-34-85 - See main article.

T-34-100 - Installed 100 mm D-10T gun. A 100-mm LB-1 cannon was also developed specifically for the T-34. By increasing the caliber of the gun, the turret was enlarged and the chassis was slightly redesigned. Not accepted for service due to the start of work on a more advanced T-54.

T-34-100 in winter 1945

Other equipment based on the T-34:

OT-34 - Flamethrower tank. The crew has been reduced to 3 people. The radio operator gunner has been removed. Entered service in 1942.

OT-34 looked little different from the serial T-34

SU-122 - Self-propelled artillery unit. The self-propelled gun is equipped with a 122-mm M-30S howitzer. Entered service at the end of 1942.

SU-122 with troops near Kharkov. August, 1943

T-43 - See main article.

SU-85 - Tank destroyer. 85 mm caliber gun D-5S. Entered service in August 1943.

SU-85M column in East Prussia. January, 1945.

SU-100 - Tank destroyer. 100 mm D-10S gun. Entered service on July 3, 1944.

SU-100 near Berlin. In the background is a T-34-85. April 30, 1945.

SU-101 and SU-102 - Tank destroyers. Designed to replace the SU-100. The SU-101 was equipped with a 100 mm D-10S gun, and the SU-102 was equipped with a 122 mm D-25-44S gun. They differed from the SU-100 in having stronger armor. Not accepted for service due to severe cramping inside the vehicle and the war having already ended.

SU-101 at the training ground. Autumn, 1942.

T-34T - Tractor . Entered service in 1942.

SPK-5 - Self-propelled slewing crane. Adopted into service in 1952.

TM-34 - Bridgelayer. Entered service in 1942.

T-100 - Egyptian modernization of the T-34 tank. Converted into a tank destroyer with a 100 mm BS-3 gun. Adopted into service in 1967.

T-100 in the Egyptian Museum.

Type 65 (Not exactly) - air defense installation. Equipped with two 37 mm cannons. Nothing is known about adoption.

Type 65