What types of tanks are there? Generations of tanks
History tells that the names of tanks appeared depending on the events that took place. Some received the name due to their characteristics, others - the surnames of commanders. As you know, the Second World War became a catalyst for the development of tank building. Therefore, these machines began to be widely produced in Germany and the Soviet Union.
Historical foundation
Before we figure out what names of tanks existed, let's look at history. Tracked vehicles first appeared during the First World War. Now they are little recognizable and have only indirect features with modern designs. The very concept of “tank” has English roots. It means "cistern". Appeared during British counterintelligence. When England decided to send the first cars to the front, it needed to hide this fact. Then intelligence started a rumor that the railway was occupied by tanks sent by the Russian government. So the British hid their armored vehicles with a warning sign and sent them down the rails.
The prototype of the tank first appeared in the Middle Ages, and there were many variations on this theme. Various designs (on wheels, with shields and crossbows) were used in the field during the battle. The first armored vehicles appeared at the beginning of the 20th century and became something taken for granted. Therefore, the Germans, French and British were ready to create combat transport based on them. Already in 1915, a decision was made simultaneously to construct tanks in several countries at once.
First attempts
Together with the French and British, Russia also began to design a tracked vehicle. The son of the world famous Dmitry Mendeleev was the founder of this business. Vasily Dmitrievich developed a project for a ground combat vehicle. The next attempt was interesting designs. The names of Russian tanks of this time were particularly original: “Russian all-terrain vehicle” and “Tsar Tank”. These machines appeared in only one copy, as they were somewhat unsuccessful attempts. The government tried to track the projects of other countries in order to create its own, more advanced, military transport.
In addition to unsuccessful decisions, since 1917 they began to produce better cars from the Rybinsk plant. In most cases, the names of Soviet tanks began to appear thanks to the founders of the vehicles. So, Gulkevich’s armored tractor was released. In order not to slow down the process of improving the army, Russia decided to ask for help from France, from which it acquired several combat vehicles.
Legendary light tank
Over time, the names of tanks began to change to shorter ones. Thus, the first combat vehicle, which began to be widely distributed, was called MS-1. This abbreviation stood for “small escort tank.” It was first heard in the late 20s of the 20th century. In total, this LT numbered 960 copies. Appeared in battle in 1929. Then the tank managed to scare away all the Chinese infantry. There is a possibility that the MS-1 served the army during the Great Patriotic War.
Fast as lightning
Another, no less legendary, tank is the BT-7. This is also an abbreviation. It means "fast tank". He made his debut on the battlefield against Japan in 1938. He gained fame and success a year later in Mongolia. Then, in the steppe, the BT-7 was able to fully express itself, and its speed played into the hands of the soldiers. Until 1942, this machine was not inferior to its opponents and was used in the war. From that moment on, the armored tank began to be used much less, as stronger models appeared.
Mass production
The names of World War II tanks were not particularly imaginative, especially when it comes to Soviet vehicles. So, in 1940, the T-34, probably the most popular option, began to be used. Its combat effectiveness was used until 1942, when opponents began to field stronger tanks on the battlefield. Therefore, the following year the T-34 was modernized, the armor was improved and space was added for one more crew member. The gun was also changed. In history, this tank became one of the most famous. And although it was not powerful enough, it was still very simple in design and operation.
Fear for the Germans
But the names of the KV series tanks were associated with the famous ones who became famous for their political activities. In 1941, the KV-1 became a real monster for the German troops. He held off the division for two days, and documents found indicated that the vehicle received 14 direct hits from a 50-mm gun. However, no damage was found on it - only small dents. And yet, two days later, the Nazis used cunning to damage the armored vehicle and destroy the KV-1. Their number during World War II was not large due to the fact that the state could not find funds for fuel and repairs.
Combat "Joseph Stalin"
The world knows another victorious, powerful series of tracked vehicles. The names of Russian IS tanks were dedicated to Joseph Stalin. TTs were created specifically to break through enemy positions. Therefore, everyone coped with the task. IS-2 was the most popular among all ISs. In a couple of days, he was able to defeat 17 enemy vehicles and successfully broke through the defenses to Konigsberg and Berlin. The tracked vehicle served Russian weapons until 1995.
Modern exhibits
After World War II, designers analyzed the experience of combat operations and began to develop even more powerful and durable vehicles. The first of these attempts was the T-54. He served already in the second half of the 20th century. And a few years later it was upgraded to version 55. This tracked vehicle was so popular that it served until the beginning of the 21st century.
The names of Russian tanks have never had any special variants. Each of them had only a serial number. The T-72 was a later project. The tank was designed in 1973 and began to be actively used 10 years later. He served in Lebanon and the Middle East, and in 2008 he conducted a successful operation in Tskhinvali. In the early 90s it was improved - the T-90 was released.
German experience
The names have always been distinguished by bright and memorable names. Thus, during the Second World War, Germany had the Panther and Tiger, the most popular tracked vehicles, in service. They appeared in 1943, and a little later they were joined by the modified King Tiger tank. In general, the Germans initially gave very long names to their armored vehicles. But in practice they simplified them. For example, Pz.Kpfw. is an abbreviation of the word Panzerkampfwagen, which could be translated as “tank” or “armored fighting vehicle.” Ausf is Ausfuhrung, translated from German as “modification”. Such long names were usually accompanied by the letter designations of the prototypes. In addition to the “Panther” and “Tiger”, the “Lion” and “Leopard-1” were in German service.
During World War II, the world saw the first ones, which were called “Goliaths.” They were produced in an edition of more than 2,500 pieces. They were used to pass through and destroy protective structures. The legendary “Mouse”, which was supposed to demolish everything in its path, deserves special mention. Its armor protection was maximum, and according to Hitler’s plans it was a “breakthrough tank” project. In 1944, two prototypes were created that could serve in combat. But Hitler suspended production due to lack of funds. The car was never destined to take part in a real battle.
"Mouse" didn't look like a mouse at all. It was a 180-ton monster that could not cross bridges, but easily moved along the river bottom. When the Red Army began its offensive, the Germans were unable to quickly evacuate the two prototypes and destroyed them. One was assembled from parts of destroyed tracked vehicles and sent to Kubinka. Here he remained forever - in the Military History Museum.
Original names
The names of tanks during and after World War II were interesting. They usually popularized military leaders and other famous personalities. The American M4 Sherman has become the most popular in the United States and its allies. He glorified the famous General William Sherman. But in England, the Comet tank was considered famous, which effectively fought German vehicles and had many similarities with the Sherman and Firefly.
The post-war period introduced us to improved Americans: the M26 Pershing, named after General John Pershing, and the M46 Patton, also called General Patton. The British presented a medium tank with the original name "Centurion". This tracked vehicle was replaced in 1960 by the “Chieftain” (translated from English as “leader”).
Over time, designers began to try to make each tank specialized. Therefore, one of the reconnaissance vehicles was the M41 Walker Bulldog, also named after the general. It was designed after the war to replace the famous “Chaffee” or “General Chaffee”. As practice shows, in most cases, tanks during the Second World War and after it were named after great generals and those who made a huge contribution to the fighting. This trend was especially popular among the British.
In this short article we will look at what the “Tank Generation” is.
Here it must be said right away that “tank science” is for the most part a branch of such a science as “history”. And in historical science it is almost never possible to say where one era ended and another began. Same with tanks. There is no specific date that clearly divides into “before” and “after”. This is mostly an evaluative question. However, there are several criteria that help us say something more or less clearly. We divide all armored vehicles into eight generations. Five of them can now be found on the site (the rest - later).
Why exactly eight and what are they? Let's see:
Tanks of the First World War 1916-1920.
In 1916, the world's first combat-ready tank was built. The history of tank building began. Since no one knew then what a “tank” was or what it should be, almost everything that could move across the battlefield and shoot was called a tank. Therefore, during this period there were only two classes of equipment - tanks and armored tractors (for more details, see the article “classification of tanks”).
An attentive reader will say, “But excuse me! The Great War ended in 1918!” and he will be right. But tanks, projects and ideas from that war continued to be implemented in 19 and 20.
A typical representative of this period is the English Mark I.
Tanks of the interwar period 1921-1938.
Time between two wars. The military and designers have already roughly understood what they need. But very approximately. The experience of the First World War has been learned and rethought. Technology is evolving rapidly. The interwar period was the time of romantic dieselpunk. There are no clear concepts, and therefore engineers sometimes allow flights of fancy that even futurologists have never dreamed of.
The main characteristics of tanks of this period: Science made it possible to achieve speed from tanks. Now tanks are not only breakthrough vehicles. They should become a replacement (or help) for the cavalry, bursting into enemy lines and destroying everything there. In many countries, tanks are divided into cavalry and infantry, although some countries realized the fallacy of this approach by the end of the 30s. There is still no developed anti-tank artillery in the world, and therefore 30mm is considered quite normal armor. A more or less clear classification of armored vehicles appears. The self-propelled gun class sprouts from tanks.
Typical representatives of this period are and.
Tanks of the beginning of World War II 1939-1943.
The dividing line into “before” and “after” was not the beginning of the Second World War, but the civil war in Spain. It was there that everyone realized that tanks needed armor. Also, by this period it finally became clear that only one tower was needed.
The main characteristics of tanks of this period: A sharp thickening of the armor. All the tanks of the 1930s suddenly become obsolete, because all the armies of the world are bristling with thousands of anti-tank guns of various types. It also becomes clear that the division into “cavalry” and “infantry” tanks is not correct. The tank must be universal, and the Germans were the first to understand this. But they did not create the classic tank of this period.
Tanks of the end of World War II 1944-1945.
The development of technology during these years was so rapid that tanks actually became obsolete within six months. Tank evolution proceeded at incredible speed. The tank could be developed, put into service, several thousand copies built, modernized, and then discontinued as obsolete. And all this within one year! The tanks of 1941 had to be radically modernized in 1942, so that at least it would not be a shame to roll them out onto the battlefield.
The main characteristics of tanks of this period: a sharp increase in the thickness of armor, the power of guns, and a general improvement in all characteristics. Often World War II tanks are lumped together, simply called “military generation tanks,” but the armored vehicles of ’44 are MANY times more powerful than tanks, say 42. Even, in fact, the pinnacle of German tank building of the previous generation, the Tiger tank cannot be compared with the IS -3 or, God forbid, IS-4.
A typical representative of this period is.
The first post-war generation 1946-1961.
Humanity exhaled deeply. The most terrible war is over. Tank building has SHARPLY slowed down. What used to be done in a year is now done in ten.
The main characteristics of tanks of this period: Light tanks fade into the background. Self-propelled guns are also sent there. No, both are still being built, but now these are not general-arms vehicles, but special ones. A significant part of their functions are taken over by heavy and, for the most part, medium tanks. Self-propelled guns and light tanks remain in special roles, such as amphibious or landing vehicles. The tank gun, on the contrary, comes to the fore. Now everything revolves around him. It allows the tank to take on a bunch of functions. It should now be long and very powerful. The power of the guns is increasing so much that NATO countries are, in fact, abandoning armor altogether, based on the concept that they will penetrate anyway, as long as it protects them from large bullets and shrapnel.
A typical representative of this period is Leopard-1.
Second post-war generation 1962-1970s.
Heavy and medium tanks have evolved into one new class - the main battle tank. All countries agreed that the country essentially needed one tank. But good. Only the approaches differed. For example, in the USA, heavy tanks became the main battle tanks (and are now gradually approaching the 70-ton mark), and in the USSR, medium tanks took the place of the main tanks, equaling the armor and gun power of heavy tanks, but maintaining the “average” weight.
The main characteristics of tanks of this period: a smooth-bore (and therefore more powerful) gun and the replacement of other classes with the main battle tank. Replacement of light tanks with vehicles similar in characteristics, but different in classification.
A typical representative of this period is the T-72.
Third generation 1980s – 2015.
Rockets rule the roost. Someone even began to talk seriously about the death of tanks as a class of combat vehicles. However, it is wrong.
The main characteristics of tanks of this period: Further improvement of all characteristics. Widespread use of electronics in the tank. Guided projectiles and widespread use of active protection.
Typical representatives of this period are the T-90 and M1 Abrams.
Fourth generation 2015 - ...
The tank is now a semi-robotic system. The crew is hidden in an armored capsule. The fact is that previously the crew “lived” in the tank along with the gun and ammunition. And tanks often exploded precisely because of damage and the subsequent detonation of their own ammunition. But now there is the T-14 Armata, the first tank of the fourth generation.
The main characteristic of tanks of this period: automation and robotization. The classic layout is outdated after 100 years of use. Now the crew is excluded from the fighting compartment and is present only in the isolated control compartment.
The only representative of the generation is the T-14 Armata.
One more important fact should be remembered: You can count generations by tanks, for example the T-34 tank of the beginning of World War II generation, and the Chinese tank Type-79 tank is a tank of the first post-war generation. Or maybe by year. It often happens that a country produces a tank that is essentially from the previous generation in a new era. For example, China in the 60s and 70s and the same Type-79. This is a tank of the first post-war generation, released in the era of the third generation. We proceed from the classification by dates. Because if a 1st generation tank is made when others have 3rd generation tanks, this means only one thing - it will compete with 3rd generation tanks. And it is necessary to compare it with his peers, even if he is far behind them. After all, the lag is not the problem of other tanks, but the problem of this one.
Thus, any tank released within the time frame of a generation will be considered a tank of that generation, and valued accordingly. Did they produce outdated tanks? Get bad grades!
Breakthrough of defensive lines. Tanks were distributed by weight, armament or purpose.
Types of tanks
Tanks of the First World War
Tanks 1930-1945
At the end of the First World War, tank builders and the military did not receive the experience necessary to develop a strategy for using armored vehicles. The designs of tanks gradually became more complex, their purpose and variety increased. New classes of tanks appeared, and the limits of the combat weight of light and medium tanks, which continued to constantly grow, were repeatedly revised and changed.
Linear (general purpose) tanks according to the classification adopted in:
Wedge heel (small tank)
Small tanks included tanks weighing up to 5 tons and armed with one or more machine guns. The small tank was intended for reconnaissance in the interests of combined arms and tank units and formations, and was also used as a means of communication and transportation. Most small tanks were designed to be amphibious and therefore could be used when crossing water obstacles. Small tanks included T-22, and others.
Light tank
Light tanks included tanks that had a combat weight of up to 15 tons and were armed with and or machine guns. Light tanks were the main means of reinforcing infantry or in all types of combined arms combat. Light tanks included T-18, all models, T-60, T-70, T-80, Mk IV, M24 Chaffee, PzKpfw I, PzKpfw II LT-38, LT-35 and others.
Medium tank
Medium tanks included tanks with a combat weight of up to 30 tons and armed with a large-caliber cannon and machine guns. Medium tanks were intended to reinforce infantry when breaking through a heavily fortified enemy defensive line. Medium tanks included the M4 Sherman, PzKpfw III, and others.
Heavy tank
Heavy tanks included tanks that had a combat weight of over 30 tons and were armed with several guns of different calibers and machine guns. Heavy tanks were intended to strengthen combined arms formations when breaking through heavily fortified enemy defenses and attacking their fortified areas. Heavy tanks included all modifications of the tank, PzKpfw V "Panther", PzKpfw VI "Tiger", "Royal Tiger" and others.
Special tanks:
Special tanks included:
- Artillery tanks, to support linear tanks, had more powerful weapons compared to them.
- tanks armed with flamethrowers or equipped with smoke emission devices were intended for flame-throwing at enemy personnel and firing points, as well as for setting up smoke screens, infecting and degassing the area.
- Engineering tanks were used to overcome various engineering obstacles and natural obstacles.
- The radio tanks were equipped with equipment for organizing radio communications between the command of tank units and formations with higher headquarters.
- Transporter tanks were intended to supply line tanks with ammunition and fuel and lubricants during battle, transport infantry to the battlefield and evacuate the wounded.
In Great Britain and France, the strategy of fighting with the help of armored vehicles involved the participation of two groups of tanks:
Infantry tank
Infantry tanks include tanks that directly support infantry during the assault on fortified positions. Its low speed allows it to carry much more powerful armor than a medium tank. Its main goal is to suppress or destroy fortified firing points, destroy enemy soldiers, protect infantry from counterattacks, and overcome defensive fortifications. Infantry tanks include the English Matilda II and Churchill. According to the Soviet classification, infantry tanks could be classified as medium or heavy tanks.
Cruiser tank
Cruiser tanks are fast tanks with light armor and small guns, designed to quickly penetrate enemy lines and cause damage through surprise attacks. In practice, in World War II these tanks turned out to be ineffective. A typical example of a cruising tank is the American Crusader. According to the Soviet classification, cruising tanks could be classified as light and medium tanks.
Tanks of the second half of the 20th century
Gave a strong impetus to the development of tank building. We have accumulated a wealth of experience in warfare involving armored vehicles. New large-caliber guns, new types of armor have been developed, and protection from radiation and
From the well-known work Panzer Tracts N3-1 "Panzerkampfwagen III Ausf.A, B, C and D", by an equally well-known author.
It turns out that the PzKpfw VI and PzKpfw VIB tanks are average.
There are statements in publications that the PzKpfw IV was heavy according to the German classification until 42-43 and became medium only after the appearance of the PzKpfw V and PzKpfw VI. But this goes against KStN 1175(Sd) 09/01/39, KStN 1175(Sd) 02/01/1941, where the PzKpfw IV is average, and KStN 1175(a) 11/01/1943, where it continues to be average. And it is very likely that the classification of tanks in the Reich for the period 42-43 did not officially change, despite the new staffing of the formations.
Who thinks about this?
Erljager 06-02-2013 13:33
Until the summer of 1943, tanks were divided into light/medium/heavy by caliber, and after that - by combat weight.
spy der 07-02-2013 11:45
quote: Originally posted by Erljager:
Until the summer of 1943, tanks were divided into light/medium/heavy by caliber, and after that - by combat weight.
I came across similar information but without reference to documents. And details of the “weight” classification.
The states from 1944 do not seem to fully confirm this; the division of companies seems to be based on the caliber of the guns. So, for example, PzKpfw IV and PzKpfw V in medium companies, PzKpfw VI in heavy companies, Jagdpanther companies also go like shver...
Duster 08-02-2013 08:36
Did the triplets L and N belong to different classes? Both of them until 1943.
Horst88 08-02-2013 14:00
If you divide it into classes by weapon, then yes. N seems to be the only modification of the triple with a 75 mm cannon (short).
spy der 08-02-2013 18:48
quote: Originally posted by Duster:
Did the triplets L and N belong to different classes? Both of them until 1943.
b4now 08-02-2013 19:16
But everything turned out differently.
spy der 09-02-2013 02:33
The Pz.IV was initially considered heavy, since the only one at that time had a short-barreled 7.5cm cannon - the KwK 37 L/24, for which initially there was not even an armor-piercing projectile - only land mines, since the Pz.IV was intended to support infantry, and the role of a tank destroyer ( as conceived by the staff doctrinaires) to carry out a “medium” Pz.III with a 50mm KwK 39 cannon.
But everything turned out differently.
Once again - the PzKpfw IV, and not the "armor 4", was NEVER heavy, either in design or in operation. Just like JagdPz IV, StuG IV, StuG III - they were all considered average.
b4now 10-02-2013 06:44
Who were they “considered” to be?
they were all considered average.
For what year?
Eh, it’s a thankless task to educate on forums...
At least even according to the design weight of 18 tons (although, as has already been correctly mentioned, the “heaviness” of tanks was then calculated not by weight, but by armament)
Which tank had a 75mm cannon in 1936-37?
Pz.IV was called by living people everywhere, except in documents, in two simple words - panzer vier.
But if it’s more convenient for you, you can call it whatever you want, even Sonderkraftfarzug 161/2, unless someone prohibits it.
b4now 11-02-2013 06:32
According to German pre-war "standards" - yes, these are heavy tanks, according to their purpose and the caliber of the gun.
If it’s difficult to understand, I’ll emphasize again: for the short-barreled L/24 cannon, which the Pz.4 was originally equipped with, an armor-piercing projectile was not even developed - only a landmine.
German pre-war doctrine viewed the tank as a means of supporting infantry, nothing more.
The Soviet pre-war staff fantasy classified tanks as a means of supporting cavalry - which is why such attention was paid to the wheeled-tracked propulsion unit.
As practice has shown, both concepts turned out to be erroneous.
There was simply nowhere for a full-fledged HEAVY tank to appear in such “spherical-vacuum” conditions.
Well, as a postscript:
what do pediviktors write
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2-26%D0%90
T-26A
Combat weight: 16t
Armament
Caliber and brand of gun 76 mm gun KT-28
Barrel length, caliber 16.5
Quantity issued: 7 pcs.
A very necessary tank, yes.
BT-7A
Combat weight: 16t
Armament
The caliber and brand of the gun is 76 mm. KT gun
Barrel length, caliber 16
Quantity released: 155 pcs.
The armor of both tanks is bulletproof, which also seems to give some thought.
Erljager 11-02-2013 06:41
quote: Originally posted by b4now:
...
Ok, name a _heavier_ tank for 1936 - in any of the world armies?
...
b4now 11-02-2013 07:10
I remembered about the French B1 (of which, by the way, quite a significant number were built) even when I asked the question. And the B1’s armor was also not anti-joke, because the B1 is closest to modern views on what a heavy tank is (of course, with a discount for past years).
In addition, the 75mm howitzer on the B1 makes it look like an assault tank like the Germans initially saw in their Pz.IV
flipper-s 11-02-2013 21:26
quote: Originally posted by Costas:
T-26A and BT-7A had a 76 mm cannon. Are they heavy tanks?
But tank destroyers have never been divided into classes.
spy der 12-02-2013 10:44
quote: Originally posted by flipper-s:
In essence, these are self-propelled guns. Support vehicles.
But tank destroyers have never been divided into classes.
They shared with the Germans. Distributed into a heap among companies. I wrote above about the JagdPanther company.
quote: Originally posted by b4now:
Who were they “considered” to be?
For what year?The Germans rightly considered the Pz.IV to be heavy, although not for long.
OKH, from the 38th to the 45th.
Provide a document in which they were considered heavy. At least the staff of a heavy company where the four are the main tank.
b4now 12-02-2013 11:44
Yes, there were no heavy mouths then. There was not even the idea of using, or even the very appearance of, purely tank companies. According to the original plan, tanks were to be attached to infantry units, and not act as an independent tactical unit.
spy der 12-02-2013 12:37
quote: Originally posted by b4now:
Yes, there were no heavy mouths then. There was not even the idea of using, or even the very appearance of, purely tank companies. According to the original plan, tanks were to be attached to infantry units, and not act as an independent tactical unit.A more or less real picture of the use of tanks appeared during the most “protracted” (as much as 40 days!) - the French campaign, almost the only episode in Europe where some kind of comparable armored vehicles were present on both opposing sides.
According to the documents, I’m not strong, unfortunately.
Seriously? Those. KStN 37-40, to which the authors refer, never existed?
quote: Originally posted by b4now:
The Pz.IV was initially considered heavy, since the only one at that time had a short-barreled 7.5cm cannon - the KwK 37 L/24, for which initially there was not even an armor-piercing projectile - only landmines
Maybe the 7.5 cm KwK 37 also didn’t have cumulative shells, back in ’39? Like K.Gr.rot.Pz..
b4now 13-02-2013 16:50
“Never” and “always” are absolutely not my categories of storytelling.
Firstly, during the French campaign I was absent from the scene for good reasons, so I am retelling what I read in other sources. And according to the information gleaned, it was the French campaign that was the first real “tank school” of the Wehrmacht. Based on the experience gained, adjustments were made to the tactical methods of using tank forces and units.
Secondly, at the beginning of operations on the eastern front, the Pz.IV was considered a heavy (assault) tank. Whether these tanks were formed by this time and whether they were used in the “schwer abteilung” or whether the tanks continued to be used as part of infantry units, as company mortars or machine guns, I do not know.
Cumulatives appeared in 1942, as far as I know.
If you are so fluent in the topic of the nomenclature of ammunition for tank guns, it would be interesting to get involved. There is still no particular clarity on this topic and, apparently, it will not appear soon.
For example, in Russian-language sources I was never able to find a clear and intelligible answer as to why Soviet tank guns and ammunition for them were such crap.
spy der 13-02-2013 20:29
quote: Originally posted by b4now:
b4now
You probably live in a parallel universe...
spy der 14-02-2013 14:16
quote: Originally posted by spy der:According to the state, they were included only in light companies, regardless of modification.
I'll get better. They were also part of the heavy company KStN 1176 (a) from the 42nd year, in the manner of the PzKpfw II in the middle ones, the situation partially remained until August 43rd.
spy der 14-02-2013 21:32
By mouth formation:
Leichte Panzerkompanie KStN 1171(v) 01.10.37 -
Leichte Panzerkompanie KStN 1175(a) 01.10.37 -
Leichte Panzerkompanie KStN 1171(Sd) 09/01/39 - 17 PzKpfw III, 5 PzKpfw II
Mittlere Panzerkompanie KStN 1175(Sd) 09/01/39 - 14 PzKpfw IV, 5 PzKpfw II
Leichte Panzerkompanie KStN 1171(Sd) 02/01/40 - 7 PzKpfw III, 5 PzKpfw II, 2 PzKpfw I
Mittlere Panzerkompanie KStN 1175(Sd) 02/01/40 - 8 PzKpfw IV, 1 PzKpfw II, 1 PzKpfw I
Samson67 25-02-2013 22:45
Isn't it easier to read Guderian? He probably knew better how the Germans classified their videos.
And there is no point in comparing different countries: they all had their own concepts and their own classification. For example, T-34 and KV: medium and heavy, respectively, although the gun is of the same caliber - 76 mm. BT has always been a light tank.
b4now 26-02-2013 13:52
As for the wheeled-tracked propulsion system, this has nothing to do with cavalry. The resource of the tracks was simply too small. But according to the instructions, BTs went into battle exclusively on tracks.
Alemine logic.
Or was he declared fit for non-combatant duty?
Samson67 27-02-2013 21:23
quote: Originally posted by b4now:
Alemine logic.
And what happened after the tracks wore out? Was the tank being written off?
Or was he declared fit for non-combatant duty?
The tracks have changed, if it's not clear. But it was prescribed to save their resource and travel long distances on roads on wheels. Until the British came up with manganese steel. Before that, the same British rolled up rollers or trailers for their tanks, the Germans also rolled up trailers, and some built wheeled and tracked ones like ours. If you look at the manual on the BT, it clearly says that the tank goes into battle on tracks.
Tracks in armored troops are consumables, like toner in a printer.)))
b4now 27-02-2013 23:09
quote: Originally posted by Samson67:
instructions on BT - it clearly states that the tank goes into battle on tracks.
Agree.
quote: Originally posted by Samson67:
Until the British came up with manganese steel.
...
Trucks in Ank troops are consumables
Why were there no such bold experiments on wheeled-tracked propulsion anywhere in the world except the USA and the USSR?
Samson67 03-03-2013 22:06
quote: Originally posted by b4now:
Excuse me, but did the British come up with manganese steel for each nation separately?
For example, in 1929 The British invented manganese steel for the Germans, and in 1936 this British invention was already available to Russian metallurgists.
Why were there no such bold experiments on wheeled-tracked propulsion anywhere in the world except the USA and the USSR?The explanation for the appearance of the CG propulsion device to reduce the “consumption of tracks” and save them is more than untenable.
In 1929, the Germans weren’t building much tanks yet: Versailles, however.
As for steel, it’s not enough to know the composition, you need to learn how to weld such steel and make tracks from it. And in large numbers.
I'm too lazy to list the models, Google will help you. Of course, the resource of the tracks was not the only reason; the speed was also low. It was for this reason that in those years the armies had many armored vehicles.
The British mastered the use of “Gatfield steel” for the manufacture of tracks in 1926, although this alloy itself was created in 1882. In the USSR, the production of this steel was mastered just in 1936, our grade is 110G13L.
The use of this steel increased the service life of the tracks to 3-4 thousand km, i.e. more than an order of magnitude.
And the very idea of a wheeled-tracked tank did not belong to Christie, but to the Austro-Hungarian officer Günter Burshtyn. He introduced this idea in 1911.
george_gl 03-03-2013 23:43
quote: Originally posted by Samson67:The service life of tracks in the 20s and early 30s was no more than 100 km. Everywhere. For this reason, Czechoslovakia, Sweden, France, England, and Poland were then engaged in wheeled-tracked tanks. By the way, for the Swedes, the tank was built by a German.
and what kind of track resource did Vickers have? 6 tons? (being mischievous)
and they wrote it so interestingly.
b4now 03-03-2013 23:54
quote: Originally posted by Samson67:
Wheel-tracked tanks were then produced by Czechoslovakia, Sweden, France, England, and Poland. By the way, for the Swedes, the tank was built by a German.
“were engaged” and “were interested” are not synonymous words.
If you really have some information, please share what kind of wheeled-tracked tanks Poland was “developing” in 1940?
And by year, models of wheeled-tracked tanks for other countries, at least as a keepsake, if it doesn’t bother you?
quote: Originally posted by Samson67:
He introduced this idea in 1911.
Davinci, too, invented the helicopter, so what?
Samson67 04-03-2013 02:55
quote: Originally posted by b4now:
Nobody talked about Christie's priority. But for some reason, it was Christie who became famous thanks to the wheel-hooks, and not some other person there.
Davinci, too, invented the helicopter, so what?
Well, by year it’s just the mid-to-late 20s. The French - Saint-Chamon, the British - the same Vickers-26, one copy, the Czechs built it in series, Google will tell you the brand. The last such device that I personally read about was in New Zealand in 1940-1941. Here, in general, different approaches can be traced: some used lowered/rollable fences, some made wheeled and tracked ones, some tried to use platforms/trucks. But by the end of the 30s, everyone gave up with these experiments, because... they sniffed out and mastered Haftling steel - and, having obtained an acceptable service life of the goosenecks, they significantly simplified the design of the tanks.
The record resource for goslings in WWII was, if my memory serves me correctly, 480 km. For Vickers (T-26) - and no more until 1926, it depended on the soil and the regime.
As for Christie’s fame, two parameters were at work here:
1. Tanks of the BT series - were known in the world under the name “Russian Christie”
2. At the Bauman Moscow Higher Technical School there is a department of tracked vehicles named after Christie. And this same Christy, whose name the department was named after, wrote in all the questionnaires about his brother - who disappeared in the Civil War.
george_gl 04-03-2013 12:19
quote: Originally posted by Samson67:
[B]The record resource for goslings in WWII was, if my memory serves me correctly, 480 km. For Christie (t-26) - but no more until 1926, it depended on the soil and the regime.
B]
Correct Christy on Vickers, you probably typed the wrong thing automatically.
I was intrigued by the Vickers 6t mileage because in the Murzilka http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/BeforeWWII/tm4_80/ it was written up to 4800 km. Even if you cut the sturgeon in half, you get a lot. Or they simply added an extra 0. but seemingly respected people wrote.
Samson67 04-03-2013 14:14
Vickers is to blame, of course...
“Its fine-linked manganese steel caterpillar could withstand a mileage of up to 4800 km” - here everything is correct, just 26-29 years, an increase in service life by an order of magnitude. This is model B.
By the way, they tried to put the first model of this device on wheels. But then we mastered normal tracks - and the issue went away by itself.
The French, for example, not having steel for tracks, tried to increase the mileage of their WWII-era Renaults (we know them as MS-1) by replacing steel tracks with rubber ones. The idea didn’t go well - and dancing began with Saint-Chamon and retractable wheels.
Well, a little about the BT, while we're on the subject... On wheels, it could only move well on hard roads: it was heavy, and the pressure on the ground was very high.
As for the Poles that a colleague asked about, it was a WB10, its wheels rose from the sides. Here is a link to some models on the armored site, this is the magazine Technique for Youth: http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/BeforeWWII/tm10_79/
b4now 04-03-2013 18:20
quote: Originally posted by Samson67:Did you just “look at the pictures” there?
it was a WB10, its wheels lifted off the sides.
quote: An unsuccessful attempt to create a wheeled-tracked tank was made in 1926-1927 by Polish military specialists. The vehicle, designated WB10, was equipped with wheels that were raised by engine power on both sides of the tracks.The main difference from the Kunstkamera you mentioned with single experimental tanks is in the USSR, wheeled-tracked tanks were produced en masse and were in service.We have described a number of machines created in different countries over almost 20 years. All these were just isolated experimental samples. Attempts to create a wheeled-tracked tank did not lead to positive results, primarily due to the complexity and vulnerability of the propulsion system and the variable speed system. The operation and repair of machines also became more complicated. Despite the obvious advantages of these vehicles (increased speed and range on roads, the service life of the tank as a whole and the safety of roads), experiments with them remained experiments.
The tank is being put into service - to save money? Or because it fits into the doctrine of military operations and combat exploitation?
Samson67 04-03-2013 22:03
If you read the works of Tukhachevsky and become more familiar with his ideas, you can only be glad that they produced the BT, and not the T-26. Which he proposed to do
one hundred fifty thousand.
Now about serialization and other things. The French made theirs in series, the Czechs and Swedes too. Until a certain point. The British mainly built trucks and trailers, the Germans also focused on transportation by road. But they also have much smaller territories. So for the USSR this option was the most acceptable, especially considering the embryonic state of the automobile industry. At that time, the Americans didn’t need Christie’s ideas at all, just like the tank troops themselves: where could they use them? For us, several factors coincided at once: the opportunity to buy a fairly modern model with documentation, the presence of an M-17 engine mastered by industry, the availability of production by the then industry, and the ideas of Tukhachevsky and his like-minded people. But then they still came to a fully tracked vehicle, just at the end of the 30s.
PAN horunj 04-03-2013 22:09
quote: Did the British come up with manganese steel for each nation separately?
If you look at the same BTs from different years and models, you can see everything.
Samson67 04-03-2013 22:29
It's not so much about the steel as it is about the design of the tracks themselves.
If you look at the same BTs from different years and models, you can see everything.
Just in steel. And mastering the technique of fairly precise casting/forging from this steel: it cannot be processed with a cutting tool in practice. In England they made prison bars from it, which cannot be sawed through.)))
The design is the same everywhere: tracks connected by fingers. The shape of the tracks is only different, but this is no longer related to resource, but to cross-country ability.
PAN horunj 05-03-2013 20:29
quote: The shape of the tracks is only different, but this is no longer related to resource, but to cross-country ability.
So the problem was solved by developing special steel, but not for the tracks, but for the fingers. But in general, I won’t argue about why or what exactly.
Samson67 05-03-2013 22:04
quote: Originally posted by PAN horunj:
HM, that is, in your opinion, the shape of the tracks does not affect the resource in any way.
I remember in the USSR there was a problem with excavator tracks.
So the problem was solved by developing special steel, but not for the tracks, but for the fingers. But in general, I won’t argue about why or what exactly.
Not by developing, but by allocating funds for steels and technologies used in tank building (borodizing of fingers, for example). An entire department at 150 research institutes, headed by a professor, has been working on this topic since the 50s.
There, the main problem is in the track-finger pair, reducing mutual and abrasive wear. Plus, for a tank there is still an acute problem of quick replacement, which is not so important for an excavator.
PAN horunj 06-03-2013 08:27
In wartime, taking into account the life of the tank, it is still possible to allow some replacement of materials and an emphasis on design. But I feel like a metallurgical technologist, so I can’t argue with you.
Samson67 06-03-2013 10:25
quote: Originally posted by PAN horunj:
That is, the task is still complex, both materials and design.
In wartime, taking into account the life of the tank, it is still possible to allow some replacement of materials and an emphasis on design. But I feel like a metallurgical technologist, so I can’t argue with you.
I am by no means a metallurgist, just an ordinary technician.
The design of the caterpillar is very simple, but choosing the most durable rubbing pair of track pins, learning how to cast or stamp alloy steel with very specific properties with sufficient accuracy is very difficult. Even industrially developed England was able to master this only in the late 20s, although Hatfield steel had been used since the end of the 19th century: turnouts and prison bars were made from it (that is, products that do not require special precision).
And simplification in this area will lead to the fact that the tank crew will have to swing a sledgehammer more often. The consequences of a caterpillar rupture in battle - I think there is no need to explain?
Scarecrow wise 06-03-2013 11:00
But didn’t the Germans divide their tanks by gun caliber?
The machine gun, 20 mm, 37 mm and 50 mm cannon are light.
75 mm gun - medium.
88 mm gun - heavy.
PZ-III is light, but PZ-IV with the same weight is already average, like the Panther (with a two-fold difference in weight). By the way, there was a modification of the PZ-III with a 75-mm short-barreled gun - what was it considered, medium or light?
Hiding an object, especially something as large as a tank, in the surrounding landscape is quite difficult. Although painting a combat vehicle in a certain color does not completely hide it, it does make it difficult for the enemy to recognize it.
Using specially selected coloring, you can disorient the enemy regarding the size of the object and its range. This ultimately provides a fairly significant advantage in combat conditions.
Camouflage coloring can be: a) protective; b) camouflage.
The protective coloring is usually fairly uniform (olive, khaki, dirty gray or dark green). This is exactly the color that military equipment comes off the assembly line, and only then, if necessary, is it given a color that matches the type of terrain. Protective paint is universal; it does not require precise knowledge of the landscape, while camouflage requires the commander to have a clear understanding of the dependence of the color of the terrain on the time of day, weather, natural formations existing along the path of military equipment, etc.
Recognizing and distinguishing a military object from the environment is complicated by the use of distorting camouflage. It can also be called large-spotted, since the color spots (3-5 different colors) are very large, about 10-20% of each plane. This coloring distorts the contours of the military vehicle.
The shape of spots on equipment can be round or broken - it depends on the nature of the surrounding area. For example, in mountainous areas, sharp transitions from light to shadow predominate, so the angular shape of the spots is predominantly used.
Camouflage coloring can also be crushing. It involves applying small spots that contrast sharply with each other. This type of camouflage is used mainly on stationary or sedentary types of military equipment, including tanks. Crushed stains over a long distance blend into an indeterminate color to match the environment.
According to military experts, it is impossible to make a universal camouflage pattern - after all, weather and natural conditions are so different that it is impossible to “adapt” to all of them.
What tank colors are used by Russian troops?
Read also: | |
---|---|
In the USSR, special colors under code names were used for camouflage. At first it was “Bhutan”, in different versions it imitated a forest belt and desert-steppe terrain. Then, already in the Russian troops, the “Flora” coloring was used, it was also nicknamed “watermelon” camouflage, while it was ineffective in mountainous areas, but was well suited for combat in the forest belt.
It was replaced by a pixelated digital camouflage called “Dark”. It is called pixel because it is similar to the pixels on a monitor screen. This camouflage color, unlike its predecessor, is more universal and is suitable for both open and mountainous areas.
In central Russia, green-brown is used as the main camouflage color. Additional colors can be light green, yellow-gray, light and dark gray, khaki, black. The spots are usually rounded, “creeping” from one plane to another.
There are a number of other colors used depending on the area: khaki, drab (dirty yellow-brown color), yellow-gray, bluish-gray, blue-gray, olive. At the same time, dullness, dullness, and uniformity of color vary.
For winter seasons, tanks can be painted to match the snow, that is, white. Moreover, there are various identifications of snow colors: “clean, freshly fallen snow,” “clean old snow,” “dirty snow,” etc.
How are tanks camouflaged abroad?
A little history. The first type of camouflage paint in the world was used by the British during the Anglo-Boer War of 1899-1902. The English soldiers suffered significant losses due to the fact that their red uniforms stood out well against the background of the swampy terrain. Then it was decided to dress them in khaki uniforms.
During World War II, Germany already had about 30 different types of camouflage colors in service. Their developments were later used in the Soviet Army.
Camouflage shades in general can be divided into several large groups, characteristic of a particular continent:
- "Forest" (mainly Europe and America);
- “Desert” (North Africa, Central Asia);
- "Jungle" (Southeast Asia, South America);
- “Winter” (Northern regions, according to the season in Europe);
- "Bush" (South Africa, rarely used).
Currently, military departments of different countries are trying to “digitize” their combat units and, accordingly, their combat vehicles. In other words, nothing more effective than coloring based on a combination of different colored pixels on uniforms and equipment has yet to be invented. However, this invention is being actively improved. For example, at the end of 2012, the American company ADS announced its new development of digital camouflage US4CES for the US military. Similar developments are underway in other countries of the world.
- Agibalov Mikhail Pavlovich - biography
- Greeks, WWII veterans, heroes of the Soviet Union From the biography of a hero
- Marshal L. A. Govorov. Liberator of Leningrad. Your heroes, Leningrad Govorov short biography
- Coats of arms of the provinces of the Russian Empire Coats of arms of cities of the Russian Empire with a description