Top ten tanks of the second world war. The best tanks of the second world war Ranking of tanks of the second world war
The tanks of World War II were a leap in the development of armored vehicles, showing how important its role is on the battlefield. German generals were the first to understand the power of quick strikes, crushing infantry and enemy fortifications. Guderian and Manstein managed to defeat the Polish army in a couple of weeks using combat vehicles, after which it was the turn of the French. The Anglo-French troops held out for more than a month, but could not oppose anything to the German tanks and were pressed against Dunker, from where they were able to evacuate.
The history of World War II tanks began in 1939, when the outcome of battles was often decided by cutting blows from light and medium tanks, their breakthrough and the destruction of the rear. In the period up to 1941, there were practically no anti-tank weapons and experience in combating armored vehicles. Later, heavy tanks with anti-ballistic armor began to appear, for example, the Soviet KV-1, which was almost invulnerable to German guns, but unreliable and with poor cross-country ability. Germany in 1942 applied one of the most powerful tanks World War II - the Tiger, which has powerful armor and a magnificent gun.
Soviet response
Despite the appearance of multi-ton monsters, medium tanks were still in demand. It was they who performed the role of workhorses, making daring breakthroughs on the flanks, hastily transferred to dangerous sectors of the front, destroying enemy columns on the march. The best tank of World War II, the T-34, was a medium one, weighing about 30 tons, with thin sloping armor, a medium-caliber cannon and a speed of over 50 km/h. The Americans classified their Pershing as heavy, although it was average in performance. Of course, it is worth mentioning the Wehrmacht, which in 1943 threw the Panther into battle, which became one of the most massive and dangerous German military vehicles, thanks to a combination of mobility, armor and firepower.
For many years, there was a kind of rivalry between the USSR and Germany for the creation of the most advanced machine. The Germans relied on technology and performance, trying to make it possible to destroy any enemy from afar and withstand any retaliatory shot. The disadvantages of this approach were the complexity and cost of production. Soviet engineers relied on manufacturability and mass production, even when creating the legendary thirty-four. This approach paid off during bloody tank battles, and later, when Germany began to experience a shortage of resources, Soviet tanks finally won.
Other countries
The armored vehicles of other countries lagged far behind in development. Japanese tanks did not have serious protection and weapons, like Italian and French ones, and looked like guests from the past.
Great Britain, in addition to Churchill, who distinguished himself with excellent armor, but poor mobility and reliability, also produced other vehicles. The massive Cromwell was distinguished by good mobility, a powerful gun, and could withstand the Panthers. The comet, which appeared at the end of the war as a result of Cromwell's modification, was even more successful and successfully combined the necessary characteristics.
The US created 49,234 medium Shermans, which left a noticeable mark in World War II. Not distinguished by protection or firepower, the tank became the most massive after the T-34 due to its successful design and ease of production.
interesting experimental tanks World War II, like the built Maus, which became the largest tank of World War II, or the giant Ratte, which remained on the drawings.
During the war years, a huge number of armored vehicles were produced, some of which are little known and are in the shadow of history.
On this page you will find a list of tanks from the Second World War with photos, names and descriptions that is in no way inferior to an encyclopedia and helps to find out interesting details and not get confused in the variety of combat vehicles.
Story armored forces begins at the beginning of the twentieth century, when the first models of self-propelled armored vehicles, more like matchboxes on tracks, nevertheless showed themselves perfectly on the battlefield.
The high cross-country ability of the fire fortresses gave them a huge advantage in a positional war. A truly successful combat vehicle had to easily overcome trenches, barbed wire and a landscape of front lines dug up by artillery preparation, inflict good fire damage, support the “queen of the fields” (infantry) and never break. It is not surprising that the most influential powers in the world immediately joined the "tank race".
The dawn of the tank era
The laurels for the creation of the first tank rightfully belong to the British, who designed and successfully used their “Tank. Model 1” in 1916 at the Battle of the Somme, completely demoralizing the enemy infantry. However, there were still decades of painstaking work on armor, rate of fire, cross-country ability, it was necessary to change the weak carburetor engine to a more powerful diesel engine, come up with a rotating turret, solve problems with heat dissipation and the quality of movement and transmission. The world was waiting for tank duels and anti-tank mines, round-the-clock operation of steel mills, crazy projects of multi-tower monsters and, finally, the silhouette of a modern tank, carved in the fire and fury of the wars of the twentieth century, now familiar to anyone.
Calm before the storm
In the 1930s, England, Germany, the USA and the Soviet Union, anticipating big war, racing created and improved their tank lines. Design engineers of heavy armored vehicles were poached and bought from each other by hook or by crook. For example, in 1930, the German engineer E. Grote worked at the Bolshevik plant, who created a number of interesting developments, which later formed the basis of later models of tanks.
Germany hastily forged the ranks of the Panzerwaffe, the British created the Royal Tank Corps, the USA - the Armored Force. By the beginning of the war, the tank forces of the USSR already had two legendary vehicles that did a lot for victory - the KV-1 and T-34.
By the beginning of World War II, the competition to each other was mainly the USSR and Germany. The Americans also produced an impressive amount of armored vehicles, giving only 80 thousand under lend-lease to the allies, but their vehicles did not gain such fame as the Tigers, Panthers and T-34s. The British, because of the disagreements that existed before the war, in which direction to develop the tank industry, gave up the palm and used mainly American M3 and M5 tanks on the battlefields.
Legendary tanks of World War II
"Tiger" - a heavy German breakthrough tank, was created at the factories of Henschel und Sohn. For the first time he showed himself in a battle near Leningrad in 1942. It weighed 56 tons, was armed with an 88 mm cannon and two machine guns, and was protected by 100 mm armour. Carried five crew members. Could dive under water to 3.5 meters. Among the shortcomings are the complexity of the design, the high cost (the production of one "Tiger" cost the treasury, like the cost of two medium tanks "Panther"), incredibly high fuel consumption, problems with the chassis in winter conditions.
The T-34 was developed at the design bureau of the Kharkov Locomotive Plant under the leadership of Mikhail Koshkin just before the war. It was a manoeuvrable, well-protected tank equipped with a powerful diesel engine and a long-barreled 76mm gun. The reports, however, mentioned problems with optics, visibility, cramped fighting compartment, lack of radios. Due to the lack of space for a full-fledged crew, the commander had to act as a gunner.
M4 Sherman - the main American tank of that period - was produced at the factories of Detroit. The third (after T-34 and T-54) the most massive tank in the world. It has medium armor, is equipped with a 75-millimeter gun, has successfully shown itself in battles against German tanks in Africa. Cheap, easy to use, maintainable. Among the shortcomings: it easily overturns due to the high center of gravity.
"Panther" is a German tank of medium armor, the main competitor of Sherman and T-34 on the battlefields. Armed with a 75 mm tank gun and two machine guns, the thickness of the armor is up to 80 mm. First used in the Battle of Kursk.
The well-known tanks of the Second World War also include the German fast and light T-3, the Soviet heavily armored Joseph Stalin, which performed well during the storming of cities, and the founder of the single-turret heavy tanks KV-1 Klim Voroshilov.
Bad start
In 1941, the Soviet tank troops suffered crushing losses, since the German Panzerwaffe, having weaker light-armored T-4 tanks, were significantly superior to the Russians in their tactical skills, in the coherence of the work of crews and command. T-4, for example, initially had good overview, the presence of a commander's cupola and Zeiss optics, and the T-34 received these improvements only in 1943.
The rapid German strikes were skillfully reinforced by self-propelled guns, anti-tank guns and air raids, which made it possible to inflict massive damage. “It seemed to us that the Russians had created a tool that they would never learn to use,” wrote one of the German generals.
tank winner
After the completion of the T-34-85, with its “survivability”, it could seriously compete even with heavily armored, but clumsy German “Tigers”. Possessing incredible firepower and thick frontal armor, the "Tigers" could not compete with the "thirty-fours" in terms of speed and maneuverability, bogged down and drowned in difficult areas of the landscape. They required tankers and special rail vehicles for transportation. The Panther tank, with its high technical characteristics, like the Tiger, was capricious in operation, was expensive to manufacture.
During the war, the “thirty-four” was finalized, the crew compartment was expanded, equipped with intercoms, and even more powerful cannon. Heavy armor easily withstood a 37mm gun. And most importantly, Soviet tankers mastered the methods of communication and interaction of tank brigades on the battlefield, learned to use the speed, power and maneuverability of the new T-34-85, delivered swift blows to the rear of the enemy, destroying communications and fortifications. The machine began to brilliantly perform the tasks for which it was originally intended. Soviet industry has established a streaming production of improved, well-balanced models. It is especially worth noting the simplicity of the design and the possibility of quick cheap repairs, because it is important for a tank not only to effectively perform combat missions, but also to quickly return to service after damage or breakdown.
You can find a model of that time that surpasses the T-34 in terms of individual characteristics, but it is precisely in terms of the combination of performance characteristics that this tank can rightfully be called the best and most effective tank of the Second World War.
The Soviet T-34 tank is well known to anyone interested in the history of World War II. Books, articles, documentaries, etc. present it as an all-conquering "Victory tank". It outclassed all German tanks, had sloping armor, unparalleled mobility, and was one of the main reasons why the USSR won on the Eastern Front.
How realistic are these claims? Was the T-34 the tank that really won the war? What is it compared to the German and American tanks? If we try to answer these questions, the usual opinions begin to change. Instead of a mechanical miracle, we get a poorly designed and manufactured tank that suffered horrendous losses in relation to the "weaker" German tanks.
The revolutionary design of the T-34
The T-34 is considered by many to be the first tank to have sloped armor. This means that the protection of the tank has been significantly improved compared to conventional armor at right angles. However French tanks of that time, such as the S-35 and Renault R-35 also had sloped armor.
Sloped armor also has disadvantages. For example, it seriously reduces the interior space. Limited space not only affects the work of the crew, but also turns the T-34 literally into a steel coffin. An American study of the Korean War (analyzing the T-34/85, which were more spacious than the T-34/76) concluded that due to the limited internal space, penetration of the tank's armor, as a rule, led to the destruction of the tank and the loss of the crew with 75% chance. For Sherman, this figure was only 18%.
German tanks Pz.III and Pz.IV as a whole had the usual hull design, only partially using the slope in the middle part of the frontal armor. The new Panther tank was the first German tank to feature fully sloped front and side armor, but interior space was not as limited as in the T-34.
The T-34 turret also suffered from a lack of space. American experts who examined the T-34 at the Aberdeen training ground in 1942 noted:
“Its main weakness is that it is very cramped. The Americans could not understand how our tankers could fit inside in winter time wearing coats."
Fuel tanks in the fighting compartment
Due to the limited internal space, the fuel tanks were located in the engine compartment and along the sides. The presence of fuel tanks inside the tank made any penetration fatal.
"Sloped armor paints only part of the picture of tank protection. A significant role in the vulnerability of the tank is played by the internal location of the fuel tanks. The T-34-85 is a clear example of a compromise between the advantages and disadvantages of sloped armor. Although such armor reduced the likelihood of penetration of the tank, it also led to reduce the internal volume of the hull. In the event of a penetration of the T-34, the projectile had a high probability of causing catastrophic damage to the tank by hitting the fuel tanks and ammunition stored in such a small space. "
In addition to the limited internal space, the T-34 also had a serious design flaw in the form of a double tower, as a result of which the commander was also forced to act as a gunner. This severely limited the combat effectiveness of the tank, since the commander could not concentrate on commanding the tank, instead he had to fire. The triple turret was introduced on the T-34/85 in March 1944.
Armor spalls
The T-34 armor had a high Brinell rating. This means that it was effective in neutralizing anti-tank shells, but had a tendency to flake off. Combined with manufacturing defects in the design of the tank, this meant that the T-34 crew was in danger even if the tank was hit by shells that did not penetrate the armor.
The "Review of Soviet ordnance metallurgy" on pp. 3-5 reports:
"The armor of the T-34 tank, with a few exceptions, was heat treated to a very high hardness (430-500 Brinell), probably an attempt to provide maximum protection against armor-piercing projectiles, even at the expense of breaking the structural integrity of the armor. Some parts of the armor have surprisingly high strength given the very high hardness, but many areas of the armor are very brittle.Very high hardness is found in most Soviet tanks and its creation is a consequence of the assertion that the high hardness of the armor has a high resistance to penetration."
For projectiles whose caliber is equal to or less than the thickness of the armor, an increase in hardness leads to an increase in the speed required to penetrate or to a decrease in the distance. If the caliber of the projectile exceeds the thickness of the armor, then the greater its hardness, the less projectile speed or more distance is required.
Technical shortcomings
Pendant Christie
The Christie suspension used on the T-34 had the advantage that the tank could reach high speeds on the roads. Among the shortcomings, it is worth noting that it occupied a lot of internal space, and had poor cross-country ability.
German trials at Kummersdorf (1 km of hilly track) showed that the T-34 performed poorly compared to the Pz. IV, "Tiger", "Sherman" and "Panther".
According to the study "Engineering analysis of the Russian T34 / 85 tank", main problem There were no shock absorbers.
Christie's suspension was a technological dead end and the Aberdeen Proving Ground report says: "Christy's pendant was tested many years ago and was rejected outright."
Transmission
Another major problem was the bulky gearbox. It had low reliability and required excessive effort to shift gears, which led to driver fatigue. The study "Engineering analysis of the Russian T34/85 tank" reports:
"Difficulties in shifting gears (which did not have synchronizers) and a multi-plate dry clutch undoubtedly made driving this tank a very difficult and tiring affair."
The initially powerful V-2 engine (500 hp) could not be used to its full potential due to the 4-speed gearbox. Shifting gears required excessive effort from the driver. On the T-34, it was possible to use 4th gear only on an asphalt road, thus maximum speed on a crossroad, theoretically amounting to 25 km / h, in practice it reached only 15 km / h, because superhuman strength was required to switch from 2nd to 3rd gear.
On later modifications, there was a 5-speed gearbox, which made it possible to increase the speed over rough terrain to 30 km / h. However, even tanks built at the end of the war did not guarantee that they would have a new 5-speed gearbox. The tanks handed over to the Polish People's Army in late 1944/early 1945 and the tanks used by the North Korean army in 1950 had the old 4-speed gearbox.
Powerful gun?
The T-34 was armed with a large caliber gun. Initially, he was armed with a 76-millimeter L-11 cannon. It was soon replaced by the F-34 76 mm 42 caliber, and the T34/85 was armed with the 85 mm S-53 ZIS 54.6 caliber.
The numbers look impressive. After all, the main German tank of 1941-1943 Pz.III had a 50-mm cannon, and Pz.IV only in 1943-1945 received a satisfactory 75mm gun. However, Soviet tank guns suffered from low speed, which led to poor penetration and accuracy at long ranges.
For example, the muzzle velocity (in m/s) for Soviet guns was: L-11 - 612 m/s, F-34 - 655 m/s (and when using German Pzgr39 shells - 625 m/s), ZIS S-53 - 792 m/s. Muzzle velocity for German shells: KwK 38 L/42 - 685, KwK 39 L/60 - 835 m/s, KwK 40 L/43 - 740 m/s, KwK 40 L/48 - 790 m/s, KwK 42 - 925 m/s.
Thus, the 75mm KwK 40, used for Pz.IVs and StuGs since mid-1942, had much better penetration and accuracy than the F-34, and the Panther's KwK 42 gun also outperformed the S-53 ZIS in the same areas.
No radio
Initially, only the unit commander had a radio in his tank. As the war progressed, radio was used more widely, but even in 1944, many tanks lacked walkie-talkies. The lack of communication meant that the Soviet tank units were operating with insufficient coordination.
Visibility issues
German reports show that the T-34s had serious difficulties in navigating the terrain. This problem was partially solved during the war. The T-34 version of 1941 lacked the surveillance devices that were installed everywhere on German tanks. Such equipment allowed the commander to conduct a 360-degree view. The T-34's optics were also of poor quality.
The T-34 of the 1943 version was equipped with a new larger turret and a new commander's turret, which had observation slots along the perimeter and an MK-4 observation device in the rotating cover leaf.
However, the quality of Soviet optics, combined with limited visibility, still left much to be desired. A report compiled by a German unit using the 1943 version of the T-34 read:
"The quality of sights in Russian tanks is significantly inferior to German designs. German crews have to get used to Russian sights for a long time. The possibility of an accurate hit through such a sight is very limited.
In Russian tanks, it is difficult to command a tank, and even more so a group of them, and at the same time act as a gunner, so it is hardly possible to effectively control the fire of a group of tanks, as a result of which the firepower of the group is reduced. The commander's cupola on the T 43 simplifies tank command and firing; however, the view is limited to five very small and narrow slits.
Safe driving of the T-43 and SU-85 cannot occur with closed hatches. We base this statement on our experience - on the first day of the battle at the Yassky bridgehead, four captured tanks of the division got stuck in a trench and could not free themselves, which led to the destruction of weapons placed in the trenches during an attempt to extract them. The same thing happened on the second day."
Reliability issues
The T-34 was supposed to be a simple and reliable tank that rarely broke down. A lot of people like to compare it with more complex German tanks, which allegedly often broke down. The concept of the T-34 as a reliable tank is another World War II myth.
Most of the tanks in 1941 were lost due to their technical failure. The same reliability problems continued in the period 1942 - 1944. The evacuation and relocation of industrial facilities, combined with the loss of qualified personnel, only led to a drop in reliability.
In 1941, thirty-fours often had to carry spare parts for gearboxes with them. In 1942 the situation worsened as many tanks could cover short distances before failing. In the summer of 1942, Stalin issued an order:
"Our tank troops often suffer more losses due to mechanical breakdowns than in battle. For example, on the Stalingrad front in six days, twelve of our tank brigades lost 326 out of 400 tanks. Of these, about 260 were lost due to mechanical breakdowns. Many tanks were thrown onto the battlefield.Similar cases can be observed on other fronts.Such a high level of mechanical failures is implausible and, the Supreme Headquarters sees in it hidden sabotage and sabotage by certain elements in tank crews who try to exploit small mechanical issues to avoid battle. From now on, every tank left on the battlefield due to alleged mechanical failures, and if the crew is suspected of sabotage, its members must be "degraded to the infantry ..."
Constant complaints from the front forced the authorities to investigate problems with the production of the T-34. In September 1942, a meeting was held at the Ural Tank Plant. The meeting was headed by Major General Kotin, People's Commissar of the Tank Industry of the USSR and chief designer heavy tank "Kliment Voroshilov". In his speech he said:
"... Having considered the problems of an engineering and technological nature, I would like to discuss one more issue that is directly related to production shortcomings. They include: negligence and inaccuracy in the production process of tanks at factories, poor quality control. As a result, during combat use, our tanks fail sometimes before reaching the front line, or the crew is forced to leave tanks in enemy territory due to some trifle ... we must make sure that as a result of this meeting, all shortcomings will be identified and corrected in as soon as possible...
Recently, Comrade Morozov and I visited Comrade Stalin. Comrade Stalin drew our attention to the fact that enemy tanks have freely passed many kilometers of our lands, and although our machines are better, they have a serious drawback: after 50 to 80 kilometers they need to be repaired. This is due to the shortcomings of the chassis and also, as Comrade Stalin said, due to the drive, comparing the T-34 with the German Pz.III, which is in service with the German army, which is inferior in armor protection and other important characteristics, in the crew , and does not have such an excellent engine as the T-34, and the Pz.III engine is gasoline, not diesel.
Comrade Stalin gave instructions to the engineers, Comrade Comrade Zaltsman, and plant managers and ordered them to correct all defects as soon as possible. A special order was issued by the State Defense Committee, as well as directives from the People's Commissariat of the tank industry. Despite all these adopted government resolutions, despite the repeated instructions of the army and the main directorate of the tank troops, nevertheless, all these shortcomings have not yet been eliminated ... we must identify all the shortcomings, voice proposals for their elimination and eliminate them as soon as possible, as well as to make proposals for modifying the components of the tank, which will make it better and faster ... "
The situation still remained problematic even in 1943-1944. The T-34 had constant problems with the gearbox and air cleaners. Aberdeen Proving Ground experts noted:
"On the T-34, the transmission is also very bad. During its operation, the teeth on all gears completely crumbled on it. A chemical analysis of the gear teeth showed that their heat treatment is very poor and does not meet any American standards for such parts of mechanisms. The disadvantages of a diesel engine are criminal bad air purifier on the T-34 tank. The Americans believe that only a saboteur could create such a device"
The same problems were identified in the T-34/85 built in 1945. "Engineering analysis of the Russian T34/85 tank" notes:
"As a result of a completely unsatisfactory performance of engine air cleaners, this can be expected to cause early engine failure due to excess dust and abrasion. After a few hundred miles, engine performance is likely to be reduced as a result."
A German unit that used a 1943 T-34/76 noted:
"Whether our experience is limited, we can state with certainty that Russian tanks are not suitable for long marches on roads and driving at high speed. It turned out that the highest speed that can be achieved is from 10 to 12 km / hour It is also necessary on the march, every half an hour to make stops for at least 15 - 20 minutes, allowing the tank to cool down. the unit must frequently change direction, within a short time the onboard clutches overheat and become covered with oil ... "
Soviet tests of newly built T-34s showed that in April 1943 only 10.1% of the tanks could cover 330 km, in June 1943 this figure dropped to 7.7%. The percentage remained below 50% until October 1943, when it was able to reach 78%, after which next month it fell to 57%, and in the period from December 1943 to February 1944, it averaged 82%.
A preliminary inspection of tanks manufactured at the Ural Tank Plant No. 183 (a major manufacturer of T-34s) showed that in 1942 only 7% of the tanks had no defects, in 1943 14%, and in 1944 29.4%. In 1943, the main problem was damaged teeth.
The engine also had serious reliability problems. Depending on the manufacturer in 1941 average duration engine operation averaged 100 hours. This figure was reduced in 1942, so some T-34s could not travel more than 30-35 km.
T-34s that were tested at the Aberdeen Proving Ground were built at the best Soviet factory, materials were used to the maximum good quality, but his engine stopped working after 72.5 hours. This was not due to American interference - a Soviet mechanic (engineer Matveev) was seconded from Moscow with the tanks, who was in charge of operation. The quality of these tanks was much better than that of conventional tanks, as it covered a distance of 343 km. According to Fedorenko, head of the Armored Directorate of the Red Army, the average mileage of the T-34 before overhaul during the war did not exceed 200 kilometers. This distance was considered sufficient, since the life of the T-34 at the front was much shorter. For example, in 1942 it was only 66 km. In this sense, the T-34 was indeed "reliable" because it was destroyed before it had a chance to break down.
T-34s went out of action in the middle and even towards the end of the war. Fifth Guards tank army in 1943 she lost 31.5% of her tanks during the march to Prokhorovka. In August 1943, the 1st Panzer Army lost 50% of its tanks due to mechanical failures. At the end of 1944 tank units sought to replace engines with more than 30 hours of service before the attack.
Production and losses during the war
The specialists of the American Military History Museum have chosen the 10 best tanks of the Second World War. It is noteworthy that in the foreign rating there is not only a tank that did not fight, but also a self-propelled gun.
Heavy tank "Joseph Stalin"
See all photos in the gallery
The heavy tank "Joseph Stalin", better known as the IS-2, was named after the leader of the USSR and at the time of its appearance was the strongest in the world. His armor successfully withstood German fire. anti-tank artillery, and after modernization, when the “stepped” upper frontal part was replaced with its straightened configuration, it could hold shells of the most powerful 88-mm anti-tank gun at close range Pak guns 43. The tank itself was armed with a 122-mm cannon, the shells of which pierced tanks such as the PzKpfw IV Ausf H, PzKpfw.VI Tiger and PzKpfw V Panther tanks.
JagdPanther
According to the German classification, the JagdPanther is a tank destroyer. This machine is considered one of the best self-propelled guns of the Second World War. Having fought on the Western and Eastern fronts, the JagdPanther proved to be a dangerous enemy, its Pak.43 L/71 (88 mm, 71 caliber) cannon pierced the armor of almost any Allied tank from 1000 meters.
M4 Sherman
The most massive tank of the American army during World War II, about 50 thousand of these vehicles were produced in total.
The simple and reliable M4 Sherman was loved by tank crews. Its 75-mm gun, equipped with a Westinghouse gyroscopic stabilizer, made it possible to fire quite accurately even on the move. However, with the advent of the PzKpfw.VI "Tiger" and PzKpfw V "Panther", its armor penetration was not enough, and subsequently the tank was equipped with a more powerful gun. The main drawbacks of the tank were the high silhouette and weak armor, and the tank often caught fire when a projectile hit it. The Germans even nicknamed the M4 Sherman as the "Burning Cauldron" or "Soldier's Cauldron".
PzKpfw V "Panther"
This tank was created as a response to the Soviet T-34 and was subsequently supposed to replace the Panzer III and IV. Due to the technological complexity of production, this was not possible, as well as to bring the design of the tank to mind - the PzKpfw V "Panther" suffered from childhood illnesses throughout the war. Nevertheless, armed with a long-barreled 75-mm KWK-42 cannon with a length of 70 calibers, this tank was a formidable opponent. So, in one battle, “Panther” of SS Hauptscharführer Franz Faumer in Normandy destroyed 9 M4 Sherman and 4 more were captured absolutely serviceable. No wonder the Panther is considered by some experts to be the best tank of the Second World War.
PzKpfw IV
The main workhorse of the German armored forces throughout the war. The tank had a large reserve for modernization, thanks to which it was constantly improved and could withstand all its opponents on the battlefield. By the end of the war, when Germany's resources were depleted, the design of the PzKpfw IV was greatly simplified. For example, on the Ausf.J version, the turret electric drive and the auxiliary carburetor engine were removed, and in 1944 the road wheels had to be reduced and the zimmerite coating was abandoned. But the tank soldier, as the “four” is also called, continued to fight.
Sherman Firefly
The British Sherman variant, armed with a magnificent 17-pounder, could withstand the German PzKpfw.VI Tiger and PzKpfw V "Panther". Moreover, the English gun had not only excellent armor penetration, but also fit into a standard tank turret.
The long and thin barrel of the gun required careful attitude: in the stowed position, the Sherman Firefly turret turned 180 degrees and the gun barrel was fixed on a special bracket mounted on the roof of the engine compartment.
In total, 699 tanks were converted: the crew of the vehicle was reduced to 4 people, in addition, the course machine gun was removed to accommodate part of the ammunition.
Adopted on December 19, 1941, the tank became a real nightmare for German tankers on the battlefield. Fast, agile and invulnerable to most Wehrmacht tank and anti-tank guns, the T-34 dominated the battlefield for the first two years of the war.
Not surprisingly, further developments of German anti-tank weapons were aimed primarily at fighting the terrible Soviet tank.
The T-34 was repeatedly modernized throughout the war, the most significant improvement was the installation of a new turret with an 85-mm cannon, which made it possible to fight the German "cats": PzKpfw.VI "Tiger" and PzKpfw V "Panther". By the way, due to their simplicity and efficiency, these tanks are still used in some countries of the world.
Even more advanced than the T-34-85, the T-44 medium tank was put into service in 1944, but never took part in the war. Before the end of World War II, only 190 cars were built. The T-44 became the predecessor of the most massive tank in history, the T-54/55. By the way, on the battlefield, 44 still lit up, but, however, in the cinema and in the role of German tanks Pz VI "Tiger" in the film "Liberation".
PzKpfw.VI "Tiger"
The best means of fighting the T-34 and KV tanks were 88 mm anti-aircraft guns, and the Germans rightly decided that if such weapons were adapted for installation on a tank chassis, then the tank superiority of the USSR could be neutralized.
A total of 1358 PzKpfw.VI "Tiger" tanks were built. Armed with the 88mm Kwk L56 cannon, these vehicles wreaked havoc on the enemy ranks.
Tank ace Michael Wittmann, who fought on the PzKpfw.VI "Tiger", destroyed 138 enemy tanks and 132 anti-tank guns. For the Americans and their allies, aviation became the only means of combating the Tigers. Thick frontal armor reliably protected the Pz VI from enemy gun fire. So, there is a case when the tank received 227 hits, but, despite the fact that the tracks and rollers were damaged, it was able to go another 65 kilometers until it was safe.
"Tiger II"
"Tiger II", aka "King Tiger", appeared at the final stage of the war. This is the heaviest and most armored tank of the Wehrmacht. The 88 mm KwK.43 L/71 cannon was used as armament, which almost divided the turret in half. In fact, it was modified for installation on a tank and improved anti-aircraft gun Flak 37. Its projectile, at a meeting angle of 90 degrees, pierced armor 180 mm thick at a distance of one kilometer.
A downed tank was officially recorded at a distance of about 4 km. True, despite the thick armor, the tank was not invulnerable: by the end of the war, the Germans had lost deposits of alloying metals, and the armor of the "Tiger II" became fragile. And the constant bombing of factories did not allow the production of these machines in the required quantities.
During the Second World War, tanks played a decisive role in battles and operations, it is very difficult to single out the top ten from many tanks, for this reason, the order in the list is rather arbitrary and the place of the tank is tied to the time of its active participation in battles and significance for that period.
10. Tank Panzerkampfwagen III (PzKpfw III)
PzKpfw III, better known as T-III - light tank with a 37 mm gun. Booking from all angles - 30 mm. The main quality is Speed (40 km / h on the highway). Thanks to the perfect Carl Zeiss optics, ergonomic crew jobs and the presence of a radio station, the “troikas” could successfully fight with much heavier vehicles. But with the advent of new opponents, the shortcomings of the T-III manifested themselves more clearly. The Germans replaced the 37 mm guns with 50 mm guns and covered the tank with hinged screens - temporary measures gave their results, the T-III fought for several more years. By 1943, the release of the T-III was discontinued due to the complete exhaustion of its resource for modernization. In total, German industry produced 5,000 triples.
9. Tank Panzerkampfwagen IV (PzKpfw IV)
The PzKpfw IV, which became the most massive Panzerwaffe tank, looked much more serious - the Germans managed to build 8700 vehicles. Combining all the advantages of the lighter T-III, the "four" had a high firepower and security - the thickness of the frontal plate was gradually increased to 80 mm, and the shells of its 75 mm long-barreled gun pierced the armor of enemy tanks like foil (by the way, 1133 early modifications with a short-barreled gun were fired).
The weak points of the machine are too thin sides and feed (only 30 mm on the first modifications), the designers neglected the slope of the armor plates for the sake of manufacturability and the convenience of the crew.
Panzer IV - the only German tank that was in serial production throughout the Second World War and became the most massive tank of the Wehrmacht. Its popularity among German tankers was comparable to the popularity of the T-34 among ours and the Sherman among the Americans. Well-designed and extremely reliable in operation, this combat vehicle was in the full sense of the word the “workhorse” of the Panzerwaffe.
8. Tank KV-1 (Klim Voroshilov)
“... from three sides we fired at the iron monsters of the Russians, but everything was in vain. Russian giants came closer and closer. One of them approached our tank, hopelessly bogged down in a swampy pond, and without any hesitation drove over it, pressing its tracks into the mud ... "
- General Reinhard, commander of the 41st tank corps of the Wehrmacht.
In the summer of 1941, the KV tank smashed the elite units of the Wehrmacht with impunity as if it had rolled out onto the Borodino field in 1812. Invincible, invincible and extremely powerful. Until the end of 1941, in all the armies of the world, there was generally no weapon capable of stopping the Russian 45-ton monster. KV was 2 times heavier than the big tank Wehrmacht.
Bronya KV is a wonderful song of steel and technology. 75 millimeters of steel firmament from all angles! The frontal armor plates had an optimal angle of inclination, which further increased the projectile resistance of the KV armor - German 37 mm anti-tank guns they didn’t take it even at close range, and 50 mm guns - no further than 500 meters. At the same time, the long-barreled 76 mm F-34 (ZIS-5) gun made it possible to hit any German tank of that period from a distance of 1.5 kilometers from any direction.
The crews of the KV were staffed exclusively by officers, only driver-mechanics could be foremen. The level of their training was much higher than the level of the crews who fought on tanks of other types. They fought more skillfully, and therefore the Germans remembered ...
7. Tank T-34 (thirty-four)
“... There is nothing worse than tank battle against overwhelming enemy forces. Not in terms of numbers - it was not important for us, we were used to it. But against more good cars- it's terrible... Russian tanks are so nimble, at close range they will climb a slope or cross a swamp faster than you can turn the turret. And through the noise and roar, you hear the clang of shells on the armor all the time. When they hit our tank, you often hear a deafening explosion and the roar of burning fuel, too loud to hear the death cries of the crew ... "
- the opinion of a German tanker from the 4th Panzer Division, destroyed by T-34 tanks in the battle near Mtsensk on October 11, 1941.
Obviously, the Russian monster had no analogues in 1941: a 500-horsepower diesel engine, unique armor, a 76 mm F-34 gun (generally similar to the KV tank) and wide tracks - all these technical solutions provided the T-34 with the optimal balance of mobility, firepower and security. Even individually, these parameters for the T-34 were higher than for any Panzerwaffe tank.
When the Wehrmacht soldiers first met the T-34s on the battlefield, they were, to put it mildly, shocked. The cross-country ability of our vehicle was impressive - where the German tanks did not even think to meddle, the T-34s passed without much difficulty. The Germans even nicknamed their 37mm anti-tank gun“knock-knock mallet”, because when her shells hit the “thirty-four”, they just hit her and bounced off.
The main thing is that the Soviet designers managed to create the tank exactly the way the Red Army needed it. The T-34 was ideally suited to the conditions of the Eastern Front. The extreme simplicity and manufacturability of the design made it possible to establish mass production of these combat vehicles as soon as possible, as a result, the T-34s were easy to operate, numerous and ubiquitous.
6. Tank Panzerkampfwagen VI "Tiger I" Ausf E, "Tiger"
“... we went around through the beam and ran into the Tiger. Having lost several T-34s, our battalion returned back ... "
- a frequent description of meetings with PzKPfw VI from the memoirs of tankers.
According to a number of Western historians, the main task of the Tiger tank was to fight enemy tanks, and its design corresponded to the solution of this particular problem:
If in initial period WWII german military doctrine had mainly an offensive orientation, then later, when the strategic situation changed to the opposite, tanks began to play the role of a means of eliminating German defense breakthroughs.
Thus, the Tiger tank was conceived primarily as a means of fighting enemy tanks, whether in defense or offensive. Accounting for this fact is necessary to understand the design features and tactics of using the "Tigers".
July 21, 1943 the commander of the 3rd Panzer Corps Herman Bright, published following instruction on the combat use of the Tiger-I tank:
... Taking into account the strength of the armor and the strength of the weapon, the "Tiger" should be used mainly against enemy tanks and anti-tank weapons, and only secondarily - as an exception - against infantry units.
As battle experience has shown, the Tiger's weapons allow it to fight enemy tanks at distances of 2000 meters or more, which especially affects enemy morale. Strong armor allows the "Tiger" to move closer to the enemy without the risk of serious damage from hits. However, you should try to start a battle with enemy tanks at distances of more than 1000 meters.
5. Tank "Panther" (PzKpfw V "Panther")
Realizing that the "Tiger" is a rare and exotic weapon for professionals, German tank builders created a simpler and cheaper tank, with the intention of turning it into a mass-produced Wehrmacht medium tank.
Panzerkampfwagen V "Panther" is still the subject of heated debate. The technical capabilities of the car do not cause any complaints - with a mass of 44 tons, the Panther was superior in mobility to the T-34, developing 55-60 km / h on a good highway. The tank was armed with a 75 mm KwK 42 cannon with a barrel length of 70 calibers! armor-piercing sub-caliber projectile, fired from its infernal vent, flew 1 kilometer in the first second - with such performance characteristics, the Panther's cannon could pierce any Allied tank at a distance of over 2 kilometers. Reservation "Panther" by most sources is also recognized as worthy - the thickness of the forehead varied from 60 to 80 mm, while the angles of the armor reached 55 °. The board was weaker protected - at the level of the T-34, so it was easily hit by Soviet anti-tank weapons. lower part the sides were additionally protected by two rows of rollers on each side.
4. Tank IS-2 (Joseph Stalin)
IS-2 was the most powerful and most heavily armored of the Soviet production tanks during the war, and one of the strongest tanks at that time in the world. Tanks of this type played a big role in the battles of 1944-1945, especially distinguishing themselves during the storming of cities.
The armor thickness of the IS-2 reached 120 mm. One of the main achievements of Soviet engineers is the cost-effectiveness and low metal consumption of the IS-2 design. With a mass comparable to the mass of the Panther, the Soviet tank was much more seriously protected. But too tight layout required the placement of fuel tanks in the control compartment - when the armor was broken, the crew of the Is-2 had little chance of surviving. The driver, who did not have his own hatch, was especially at risk.
Storms of cities:
Together with self-propelled guns based on it, the IS-2 was actively used for assault actions fortified cities such as Budapest, Breslau, Berlin. The tactics of actions in such conditions provided for the actions of the OGvTTP assault groups from 1-2 tanks, accompanied by an infantry squad of several submachine gunners, a sniper or a well-aimed rifle shooter and sometimes a knapsack flamethrower. In the event of weak resistance, tanks with assault groups planted on them at full speed broke through along the streets to squares, squares, parks, where it was possible to take up all-round defense.
3. Tank M4 Sherman (Sherman)
Sherman is the pinnacle of rationality and pragmatism. It is all the more surprising that the United States, which had 50 tanks at the beginning of the war, managed to create such a balanced combat vehicle and to rivet by 1945 49,000 Shermans of various modifications. For example, the Sherman with a gasoline engine was used in the ground forces, and the M4A2 modification equipped with a diesel engine entered the Marine Corps. American engineers rightly believed that this would greatly simplify the operation of tanks - diesel fuel could be easily found among sailors, unlike high-octane gasoline. By the way, it was this modification of the M4A2 that entered the Soviet Union.
Why did the Emcha (as our soldiers called the M4) so pleased the command of the Red Army that they were completely transferred to elite units, for example, the 1st Guards Mechanized Corps and the 9th Guards Tank Corps? The answer is simple: "Sherman" had the optimal ratio of armor, firepower, mobility and ... reliability. In addition, the Sherman was the first tank with a hydraulic turret drive (this provided special aiming accuracy) and a gun stabilizer in a vertical plane - the tankers admitted that in a duel situation their shot was always the first.
Combat use:
After landing in Normandy, the Allies had to come close to the German tank divisions that were thrown into the defense of Fortress Europe, and it turned out that the Allies underestimated the degree of saturation of the German troops with heavy types of armored vehicles, especially Panther tanks. In direct clashes with the German heavy tanks The Shermans had very little chance. The British, to a certain extent, could count on their Sherman Firefly, whose excellent gun made a great impression on the Germans (so much so that the crews of German tanks tried to hit the Firefly first of all, and then deal with the rest). The Americans, who were counting on their new gun, quickly found out that the power of its armor-piercing shells was still not enough to confidently defeat the Panther in the forehead.
2. Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausf. B "Tiger II", "Tiger II"
The combat debut of the Royal Tigers took place on July 18, 1944 in Normandy, where the 503rd heavy tank battalion managed to knock out 12 Sherman tanks in the first battle.
And already on August 12, the Tiger II appeared on the Eastern Front: the 501st heavy tank battalion tried to interfere with the Lvov-Sandomierz offensive operation. The bridgehead was an uneven semicircle, resting at the ends against the Vistula. Approximately in the middle of this semicircle, covering the direction to Staszow, the 53rd Guards Tank Brigade was defending.
At 07:00 on August 13, the enemy, under cover of fog, went on the offensive with the forces of the 16th Panzer Division, with the participation of 14 King Tigers of the 501st Heavy Tank Battalion. But as soon as the new Tigers crawled out to their original positions, three of them were shot from an ambush by the crew of the T-34-85 tank under the command of junior lieutenant Alexander Oskin, which, in addition to Oskin himself, included the driver Stetsenko, gun commander Merkhaydarov, radio operator Grushin and loader Khalychev . In total, the tankers of the brigade knocked out 11 tanks, and the remaining three, abandoned by the crews, were captured in good condition. One of these tanks, number 502, is still in Kubinka.
Currently, the Royal Tigers are on display at Saumur Musee des Blindes in France, RAC Tank Museum Bovington (the only surviving copy with a Porsche turret) and the Royal Military College of Science Shrivenham in the UK, Munster Lager Kampftruppen Schule in Germany (transferred by the Americans in 1961) , Ordnance Museum Aberdeen Proving Ground in the USA, Switzerlands Panzer Museum Thun in Switzerland and the Military Historical Museum of armored weapons and equipment in Kubinka near Moscow.
1. Tank T-34-85
The medium tank T-34-85, in essence, is a major modernization of the T-34 tank, as a result of which a very important drawback of the latter was eliminated - the tightness of the fighting compartment and the impossibility of a complete division of labor of the crew members associated with it. This was achieved by increasing the diameter of the turret ring, as well as by installing a new triple turret much larger than that of the T-34. At the same time, the design of the hull and the layout of components and assemblies in it did not undergo any significant changes. Consequently, there were also disadvantages inherent in machines with aft engine and transmission.
As you know, the most widespread in tank building are two layout schemes with a bow and aft transmission. Moreover, the disadvantages of one scheme are the advantages of another.
The disadvantage of the layout with the aft location of the transmission is the increased length of the tank due to the placement in its hull of four compartments that are not aligned along the length or the reduction in the volume of the fighting compartment with a constant length of the vehicle. Due to the large length of the engine and transmission compartments, the combat with a heavy turret shifts to the nose, overloading the front rollers, leaving no room on the turret sheet for the central and even lateral placement of the driver's hatch. There is a danger of "sticking" the protruding gun into the ground when the tank moves through natural and artificial obstacles. The control drive is becoming more complicated, connecting the driver with the transmission located in the stern.
The layout of the tank T-34-85
There are two ways out of this situation: either increase the length of the control compartment (or combat), which will inevitably lead to an increase in the overall length of the tank and a deterioration in its maneuverability due to an increase in the ratio L / B - the length of the supporting surface to the track width (for the T-34 - 85, it is close to optimal - 1.5), or radically change the layout of the engine and transmission compartments. What this could lead to can be judged by the results of the work of Soviet designers in the design of new medium tanks T-44 and T-54, created during the war years and put into service, respectively, in 1944 and 1945.
On these combat vehicles, a layout was used with a transverse (and not with a longitudinal, as in the T-34-85) placement of a 12-cylinder V-2 diesel engine (in the V-44 and V-54 variants) and a combined significantly shortened (by 650 mm ) engine compartment. This made it possible to lengthen the fighting compartment up to 30% of the hull length (24.3% for the T-34-85), increase the turret ring diameter by almost 250 mm, and install a powerful 100-mm cannon on the T-54 medium tank. At the same time, it was possible to shift the turret to the stern, allocating space on the turret plate for the driver's hatch. The exclusion of the fifth crew member (shooter from the course machine gun), the removal of the ammunition rack from the floor of the fighting compartment, the transfer of the fan from the engine crankshaft to the stern bracket and the reduction in the overall height of the engine ensured a decrease in the height of the T-54 tank hull (compared to the T-34- tank hull). 85) by about 200 mm, as well as a reduction in the booked volume by about 2 cubic meters. and increased armor protection by more than two times (with an increase in mass by only 12%).
Such a radical re-arrangement of the T-34 tank was not done during the war, and, probably, it was right decision. At the same time, the diameter of the turret ring, while maintaining the same shape of the hull, was almost limiting for the T-34-85, which did not allow placing a larger-caliber artillery system in the turret. The possibilities of upgrading the tank in terms of armament were completely exhausted, unlike, for example, the American Sherman and the German Pz.lV.
By the way, the problem of increasing the caliber of the main armament of the tank was of paramount importance. Sometimes you can hear the question: why did you need to switch to an 85-mm cannon, could it be possible to improve the ballistic characteristics of the F-34 by increasing the barrel length? After all, the Germans did the same with their 75-mm gun on the Pz.lV.
The fact is that German guns traditionally distinguished by the best internal ballistics(ours is just as traditional-external). The Germans achieved high armor penetration by increasing the initial speed and better work ammunition. We could adequately answer only by increasing the caliber. Although the S-53 cannon significantly improved the firing capabilities of the T-34-85, but, as Yu.E. Maksarev noted: “In the future, the T-34 could no longer directly, duel hit new German tanks.” All attempts to create 85-mm guns with initial speed over 1000 m / s, the so-called high-power guns ended in failure due to rapid wear and destruction of the barrel even at the testing stage. For the "duel" defeat of German tanks, a transition to 100-mm caliber was required, which was carried out only in the T-54 tank with a turret ring diameter of 1815 mm. But in the battles of the Second World War, this combat vehicle did not take part.
As for the placement of the driver's hatch in the frontal hull sheet, one could try to follow the path of the Americans. Recall that on the Sherman, the driver's and machine gunner's hatches, originally also made in an inclined front hull plate, were subsequently transferred to the turret plate. This was achieved by reducing the angle of inclination of the front plate from 56° to 47° to the vertical. The T-34-85 had a 60° frontal hull plate. By reducing this angle also to 47 ° and compensating for this by some increase in the thickness of the frontal armor, it would be possible to increase the area of the turret sheet and place the driver's hatch on it. This would not require a radical redesign of the hull design and would not entail a significant increase in the mass of the tank.
The suspension has not changed for the T-34-85 either. And if the use of better quality steel for the manufacture of springs helped to avoid their rapid subsidence and, as a result, a decrease in clearance, then it was not possible to get rid of significant longitudinal vibrations of the tank hull in motion. It was an organic defect of the spring suspension. The location of the habitable compartments in front of the tank only exacerbated the negative impact of these fluctuations on the crew and weapons.
A consequence of the layout scheme of the T-34-85 was the absence of a rotating tower poly in the fighting compartment. In battle, the loader worked, standing on the covers of the cassette boxes with shells laid on the bottom of the tank. When turning the tower, he had to move after the breech, while he was prevented spent cartridges that fell right there on the floor. When conducting intense fire, the accumulated cartridge cases also made it difficult to access the shots placed in the ammunition rack on the bottom.
Summarizing all these points, we can conclude that, unlike the same "Sherman", the possibilities for upgrading the hull and suspension of the T-34-85 were not fully used.
Considering the advantages and disadvantages of the T-34-85, one more very important circumstance must be taken into account. The crew of any tank, as a rule, in everyday reality does not care at all at what angle of inclination the frontal or any other sheet of the hull or turret is located. It is much more important that the tank as a machine, that is, as a combination of mechanical and electrical mechanisms, works accurately, reliably and does not create problems during operation. Including problems associated with the repair or replacement of any parts, assemblies and assemblies. Here, the T-34-85 (like the T-34) was all right. The tank was exceptionally maintainable! It is paradoxical, but true - and the layout is “to blame” for this!
There is a rule: to arrange not to ensure convenient installation - dismantling of units, but based on the fact that the units do not need to be repaired until they completely fail. The required high reliability and non-failure operation are achieved when designing a tank based on ready-made, structurally proven units. Since, when creating the T-34, practically none of the tank units met this requirement, its layout was also carried out contrary to the rule. The roof of the engine compartment was easily removable, the aft hull hinged, which made it possible to dismantle such large units as the engine and gearbox in the field. All this was of tremendous importance in the first half of the war, when, due to technical malfunctions, more tanks than from the impact of the enemy (on April 1, 1942, for example, in the active army there were 1642 serviceable and 2409 defective tanks of all types, while our combat losses in March amounted to 467 tanks). As the quality of the units improved, which reached the highest level for the T-34-85, the value of the maintainable layout decreased, but the language does not dare to call this a disadvantage. Moreover, good maintainability turned out to be very useful during the post-war operation of the tank abroad, primarily in Asia and Africa, sometimes in extreme climatic conditions and with personnel who had a very mediocre, if not more, level of training.
Despite all the shortcomings in the design of the "thirty-four", a certain balance of compromises was observed, which favorably distinguished this combat vehicle from other tanks of the Second World War. Simplicity, ease of operation and maintenance, combined with good armor protection, maneuverability and powerful enough weapons, became the reason for the success and popularity of the T-34-85 among tankers.