Best tank in WW2?

Một bài về việc người Mỹ thử nghiệm và nhận xét về T34, KV (không nói rõ nhưng có lẽ là KV-1):
--------------------
EVALUATION OF THE T-34 AND KV TANKS BY ENGINEERS OF THE ABERDEEN PROVING GROUNDS, SUBMITTED BY FIRMS, OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS RESPONSIBLE FOR TESTING TANKS
T-34-76 that was delivered in USA for evaluation
The tanks were given to the U.S. by the Soviets at the end of 1942 for familiarization.
The con***ion of the tanks
The T-34 medium tank after driving 343 km, became completely disabled and that could not be fixed. The reason: owing to the extremely poor air filter system on the diesel, a large quantity of dirt got into the engine and a breakdown occurred, as a result of which the pistons and cylinders were damaged *****ch a degree that they were impossible to fix. The tank was withdrawn from tests and was to be shelled by the KV and American 3" gun of the M-10 tank (M10 "Wolverine" SP antitank gun - Valera). After that, it would be sent to Aberdeen, where it would be analyzed and kept as an exhibit.
The heavy tank KV-1 is still functional. Tests were continued, although it had many mechanical defects.
T-34-76 that was delivered in USA for evaluation
The silhouette/configuration of the tanks
Everyone, without exception, approves of the shape of the hull of our tanks. The T-34''s is particularly good. All are of the opinion that the shape of the T-34''s hull is better than that of any American tank. The KV''s is worse than on any current American tank.
Armor
A chemical analysis of the armor showed that on both tanks the armor plating has a shallow surface tempering, whereas the main mass of the armored plating is made of soft steel.
In this regard the Americans consider that by changing the technology used to temper the armored plating, it would be possible to significantly reduce its thickness while preserving its protective ability (the situation with American armor was even worse. Engineers in Aberdeen have criticized their armor on Shermans. Soviet engineers have agreed with them because during the comparative trials Soviet ZIS-3 gun could penetrate Sherman''s galcis from 1100 metres - Valera). As a result the weight of the tank could be decreased by 8-10%, with all the resulting benefits (an increase in speed, reduction in ground pressure, etc.)
T-34-76 that was delivered in USA for evaluation
Hull
The main deficiency is the permeability to water of the lower hull during a water crossings, as well as the upper hull during a rain. In a heavy rain lots of water flows through chinks/cracks, which leads to the disabling of the electrical equipment and even the ammunition.
The Americans liked how the ammunition is stowed.
Turret
The main weakness is that it is very tight. The Americans couldn''t understand how our tankers could fit inside during a winter, when they wear sheepskin jackets (Americans tested the T-34 with a two-men turret - Valera). The electrical mechanism for rotating the turret is very bad. The motor is weak, very overloaded and sparks horribly, as a result of which the device regulating the speed of the rotation burns out, and the teeth of the cogwheels break into pieces. They recommend replace it with a hydraulic or simply manual system.
T-34-76 that was delivered in USA for evaluation
Armament
The F-34 gun is a very good. It is simple, very reliable and easy to service. Its weakness is that the muzzle velocity of AP round is significantly inferior to the American 3" gun (3200 feet versus 5700 feet per second).
Optic
The general opinion: the best construction (please notice - the best construction doesn''t mean the best at all - Valera) in the world. Incomparable with any existing tanks or any under development.
Tracks
The Americans like very much the idea of a steel tracks. But they believe that until they receive the results of the comparative performance of steel vs rubber tracks on American tanks in Tunis and other active fronts, there is no reason for changing from the American solution of rubber bushings and pads.
The deficiencies in our tracks from their viewpoint results from the lightness of their construction. They can easily be damaged by small-calibre and mortar rounds. The pins are extremely poorly tempered and made of a poor steel. As a result, they quickly wear and the track often breaks. The idea of having loose track pins that are held in place by a cam welded to the side of the hull, at first was greatly liked by the Americans. But when in use under certain operating con***ions, the pins would become bent which often resulted in the track rupturing. The Americans consider that if the armour is reduced in thickness the resultant weight saving can be used to make the tracks heavier and more reliable.
Suspension
On the T-34, it is poor. The Christie''s suspension was tested long time ago by the Americans, and uncon***ionally rejected (American "Shermans" and "General Lees" had very poor suspension as well. At the same time the British used Christie''s suspension and were quite satisfied - Valera). On our tanks, as a result of the poor steel on the springs, it very quickly (unclear word) and as a result clearance is noticeably reduced. On the KV the suspension is very good.
Engine
The diesel is good and light. The idea of using diesel engines on tanks is shared in full by American specialists and military personnel. Unfortunately, diesel engines produced in U.S. factories are used by the navy and, therefore, the army is deprived of the possibility of installing diesels in its tanks.
The deficiency of our diesels is the criminally poor air cleaners on the T-34. The Americans consider that only a saboteur could have constructed such a device. They also don''t understand why in our manuals it is called oil-bath. Their tests in a laboratory showed that:
* the air cleaner doesn''t clean at all the air which is drawn into the motor;
* its capacity does not allow for the flow of the necessary quantity of air, even when the motor is idling. As a result, the motor does not achieve its full capacity. Dirt getting into the cylinders leads them to quickly wear out, compression drops, and the engine loses even more power. In ad***ion, the filter was manufactured, from a mechanical point of view, extremely primitively: in places the spot-welding of the electric welding has burned through the metal, leading to leakage of oil etc (that claim was accepted, and later T-34 variants received the new, better, "Cyclon" filter - Valera). On the KV the filter is better manufactured, but it does not secure the flow in sufficient quantity of normal cleaned air. On both motors the starters are poor, being weak and of unreliable construction.
Transmission
Without a doubt, poor. An interesting thing happened. Those working on the transmission of the KV were struck that it was very much like those transmissions on which they had worked 12-15 years ago. The firm was questioned. The firm sent the blueprints of their transmission type A-23. To everyone''s surprise, the blueprints of our transmission turned out to be a copy of those sent. The Americans were surprised not that we were copying their design, but that we were copying a design that they had rejected 15-20 years ago. The Americans consider that, from the point of view of the designer, installing such a transmission in the tank would create an inhuman harshness for the driver (hard to work). On the T-34 the transmission is also very poor. When it was being operated, the cogs completely fell to pieces (on all the cogwheels). A chemical analysis of the cogs on the cogwheels showed that their thermal treatment is very poor and does not in any way meet American standards for such mechanisms.
Side friction clutches
Out of a doubt, very poor. In USA, they rejected the installation of friction clutches, even on tractors (never mind tanks), several years ago. In ad***ion to the fallaciousness of the very principle, our friction clutches are extremely carelessly machined from low-quality steel, which quickly causes wear and tear, accelerates the penetration of dirt into the drum and in no way ensures reliable functioning.
General comments
From the American point of view, our tanks are slow (Americans got the T-34 with a 4-speed gearbox. With a such gearbox, T-34 could use the 4th speed on a firm and even surface - i.e. on roads. Thus, the max speed on the cross-country was 25.6 km/h. On later modifications there was a 5-speed gearbox to be installed. This gearbox allowed to drive with a 30.5 km/h. - Valera). Both our tanks can climb an incline better than any American tank. The welding of the armor plating is extremely crude and careless. The radio sets in laboratory tests turned out to be not bad. However, because of poor shielding and poor protection, after installation in the tanks the sets did not manage to establish normal communications at distances greater than 10 miles. The compactness of the radio sets and their intelligent placement in the tanks was pleasing. The machining of equipment components and parts was, with few exceptions, very poor. In particular, the Americans were troubled by the disgraceful design and extremely poor work on the transmission links on the T-34. After much torment they made a new ones and replaced ours. All the tanks mechanisms demand very frequent fine-tuning.
Conclusions, suggestions
1. On both tanks, quickly replace the air cleaners with models with greater capacity capable of actually cleaning the air.
2. The technology for tempering the armor plating should be changed. This would increase the protectiveness of the armor, either by using an equivalent thickness or, by reducing the thickness, lowering the weight and, accordingly, the use of metal.
3. Make the tracks thicker.
4. Replace the existing transmission of outdated design with the American "Final Drive," which would significantly increase the tanks manoeuvrability.
5. Abandon the use of friction clutches.
6. Simplify the construction of small components, increase their reliability and decrease to the maximum extent possible the need to constantly make adjustments.
7. Comparing American and Russian tanks, it is clear that driving Russian tanks is much harder. A virtuosity is demanded of Russian drivers in changing gear on the move, special experience in using friction clutches, great experience as a mechanic, and the ability to keep tanks in working con***ion (adjustments and repairs of components, which are constantly becoming disabled). This greatly complicates the training of tankers and drivers.
8. Judging by samples, Russians when producing tanks pay little attention to careful machining or the finishing and technology of small parts and components, which leads to the loss of the advantage what would otherwise accrue from what on the whole are well designed tanks.
9. Despite the advantages of the use of diesel, the good contours of the tanks, thick armor, good and reliable armaments, the successful design of the tracks etc., Russian tanks are significantly inferior to American tanks in their simplicity of driving, manoeuvrability, the strength of firing (reference to muzzle velocity), speed, the reliability of mechanical construction and the ease of keeping them running.
The head of the 2nd Department
of the Main Intelligence Department of the Red Army,
major-general Khlopov
--------------------
Một chiếc T-34-85 bị quân Đức bắn hạ:

Le Van Le

Thế bác có tài liệu nào so sánh kiểu tương tự trên giửa dòng KV hay T34 với mấy chú Tiger bên Đức không bác.

With these advanced weapon the WW3 will be fought ,but in the WW4 they will fight with sticks and stones (Albert Einstein)

Rất tiếc là tôi không có nhưng lâu lâu rồi có đọc một tài liệu về thử nghiệm súng của T-34 và IS-2 bắn vào Tiger (hoặc Panther) do quân Nga thu được. Nếu tìm thấy thì sẽ post lên phục vụ các bác.

Le Van Le

Sẵn ké chủ đê tank tí :
14.07.2003 - 36 ku Leclerc - mỗi thằng nặng 52 tấn cày nát đại lộ đẹp nhất của kinh đô ánh sáng , vì nóng quá và sức nặng , thông thường mọi năm duyệt binh ngày quôc khánh 14.07 chỉ có chừng chục chiếc, năm nay chơi kiểu này chỉ khổ cho dân paris đóng thuế tiếp cho nhà nước để sửa đứòng cho năm sau phá tiếp

Leclerc là tên của Thống chế Leclerc - khi giải phóng Paris vào năm 1944 - Leclerc chỉ huy sư đoàn thiết giáp số 2 gồm các tank mỹ - anh - , sau chiến tranh ^TG2, Leclerc đổ bộ tái chiếm SG cùng sư đoàn của mình và 1 phần lính anh , lúc đó là tướng 4 sao (không phải trung tướng mà cũng không là đại tướng , vì cấp tướng của tây 3 sao là trung, 5 sao là đại tướng, nên tính theo cấp tướng thì là thượng tướng theo kiểu XHCN) ;
Leclerc chủ định thương thuyết cùng Hồ Chí Minh , công nhận nền độc lập của VNDCCH, trái ngược lại với mong muốn của toàn quyền khi đó là đô đốc Argenlieu . Khi De gaulle từ chức , Argenlieu phải quay về pháp để ra mắt chính phủ mới , thì tại VN, Leclerc gặp gỡ Hồ Chí Minh để thương thuyết - lúc này quân pháp đã làm chủ từ cà mau đến đà lạt .
Nếu không có Argenlieu , có lẽ sẽ không xảy ra kháng chiến 9 năm , vì theo chủ ý của Leclerc, ý định hoà giải, công nhận nước VN độc lập mà Hồ Chí Minh nắm quyền , quân pháp sẽ vào thế chổ cho quân tàu đang đóng sau vĩ tuyến 16 , pháp vừa khỏi mất mặt, vừa bảo vệ được các nguồn lợi của mình - sau đó sẽ rút quân.
Nhưng ý định này sau khi thực hiện đã bị Argenlieu phá hôi, dẫn đến kháng chiến 9 năm, Leclerc bị triệu hồi về pháp sau khi được lên 5 sao (đại tướng) , sau đó tử nạn khi máy bay bị rớt vào năm 1947 tại algeria , phong thống chế sau đó vào năm 1952

cháu tưởng khi đi duyệt binh thì người ta bọc cao su vào xích xe tăng để tránh làm hỏng đường chứ nhỉ!

Thực ra bánh xích thời nay đều có bọc cao su hết cả nhưng mục đích chính không phải để tránh hỏng đường mà cao su sẻ giúp tăng độ bám đường giúp chiếc xe tank di chuyển cơ động hơn nhanh hơn và tiết kiệm nhiên liệu hơn còn đường bị hỏng chủ yếu là do áp suất quá lớn của bánh xích đè lên đường .Người ta bảo xe tải bị lún sình còn xe tank ít bị hơn vì diện tích tiếp xúc nó cao nhưng chủ yếu là vì khi xe tank vào sình toàn bộ bánh nó tiếp xúc với sình còn xe tải thì chỉ có 1 hay 2 cái bánh nên nó bị lún ở cái bánh đó,còn khi chạy trên đường xa lộ thì áp suất bánh xích xe tank đè lên sình rất lớn con quái vật 60 tấn nặng hơn xe tải lại có diện tích tiếp xúc tổng cộng với mặt đường thấp hơn thì hỏng đường là phải.

With these advanced weapon the WW3 will be fought ,but in the WW4 they will fight with sticks and stones (Albert Einstein)

So sánh giữa IS-2 và tăng Đức đây:
The Panther as an Adversary of the JS-2
The weight of both tanks was the same. The JS-2 had better penetration ability, it could penetrate the Panther''s frontal armor from 1100-1200 metres, while the Panther could penetrate the JS-2''s armor from only 600-700 metres. In ad***ion, the 122 mm gun had greater HE ability which is extremely important for combat with anti-tank guns and infantry (the weight of a 122 mm fragmentation shell was 25 kg, while the German - only 4.7 kg). One of the main drawbacks of the JS-2 was a small magazine - only 28 shells (the Panther had 81 rounds). The JS-2 had multi-part loading shots which slowed reloading and, as a result, resulted in a low rate of fire.
Today, most tank enthusiasts are interested in the AP ability of tank guns, forgetting the HE ability. However, that is ridiculous and stupid! The JS-2 was a heavy breakthrough tank, i.e. a tank intended for breaking through the enemy''s lines of defense. In other words, the main targets of this tank were infantry and artillery. Thus, a tank with a large gun with great HE capability was needed. History showed that the JS-2 used about 70% of its HE ammunition and only 30% of its AP ammunition. That''s why the HE ability was considered more important.
Also, the JS-2 had much better armor protection than the Panther, but heavy armoring constrained by low weight dictated less internal space for the JS-2''s crew and ammunition (this was the main reason for the small ammo magazine). Moreover, the Panther had better specific power - 15 hp/ton, while the JS-2 - only 11.3 hp/ton, which was also very important.
The Tiger as an Adversary of the JS-2
Compared with the Tiger, the JS-2 was slightly better protected even though it was ten tons lighter.. The 88 mm and 122 mm guns had more or less the same AP ability, but again, German gun had less HE ability. Both tanks could penetrate each other''s frontal armor from ~1000 metres. At greater distances success highly depended on experience of the crew and battle con***ions.
The JS-2 had thicker armor, thus it had a better chance at distances over 1500 metres. On the other hand, the Tiger had better optics and thus had a better chance of hitting the JS-2. The main drawback of the Tiger was the slow angular velocity of the turret. However, the Tiger had an excellent length/width ratio (almost 1:1) which made it extremely maneuverable. And if the Tiger could not traverse its turret fast enough, the whole tank could swivel to bring the gun to bear.
The King Tiger as an Adversary of the JS-2
In August 1944, new German tanks appeared on the Eastern Front: King (Koenig) Tigers. Weighing 68 tons, this tank was larger and much heavier than the JS-2.
The first engagement of Soviet tanks with King Tigers did not favor the Germans; on August 13 of 1944 a company of JS-2 tanks (the 3rd Battalion of the 71st Guards Heavy Tank Regiment) commanded 1st Lieutenant Klimenkov engaged in close combat with German tanks, knocked out one King Tiger and burnt another King Tiger. About at the same time, a single JS-2 of the 1st Lieutenant Udalov ambushed 7 King Tigers, knocked out one of them and burnt another one. Survived five German tanks attempted to retreat but Udalov made a maneuver and destroyed third King Tiger. Four other tanks flee in panic. Anyway, engagements between JS-2''s and King Tigers were rare because the Germans seldom used them on the Eastern Front. On 12 November 1944, not far from Budapest, a skirmish occurred between JS-2''s and King Tigers of the 503rd PzAbt. Both sides lost several tanks. On January 12, 1945, a column of King Tigers of the 524th PzAbt engaged in close combat with JS-2''s (near Lisuv). In the fierce battle both sides had heavy losses.
It is not fair to compare the JS-2 and King Tiger because of the large disparity in weight - more than 20 tons! It would be better to classify the King Tiger as a super-heavy tank. It had thicker armor and its 88 KwK gun was slightly superior in AP ability, though inferior in HE ability.
Many times I noticed some individuals tried to compare armor penetration values of the 8,8-cm KwK 43 and the 122-mm D-25T. Unfortunately, these individuals paid no attention on different nature of those values: they were calculated by different methods. In short, the difference of calculation was about 25%. Therefore, it would be better to either increase Soviet figures on 25% or decrease German figures. Of course, the result would be very approximate, but it is much better then direct comparison.
The reliability of the King Tiger was poor, especially of first series. The rate of fire of the King Tiger was definitely higher, ammo load was also larger. From the other side, the mobility of the JS-2 was much better. Further, the JS-2 was much cheaper than the King Tiger, which is also a very important consideration.

 
 
INFANTRY 2003

Tăng Đức đây!

Stug III
Gun don t kill people
People kill people

Marder II
Cái này không biết gọi là tank hay là pháo tự hành nữa!]
Gun don t kill people
People kill people

con này bọc thép ghê quá!
Gun don t kill people
People kill people