PALUBA
October 17, 2021, 07:38:01 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Prilikom registracije unesite ispravnu e-mail adresu jer na toj adresi dobijate mail za aktivaciju Vašeg naloga. Proverite obavezno i neželjenu poštu...
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Za eventualne probleme prilikom registracije, obratite se na e-mail adresu broker824@gmail.com ili webmaster@paluba.info Na forumu PalubaInfo novoregistrovane članove odobravamo ručno, to može potrajati najviše do 24 h.
Del.icio.us Digg FURL FaceBook Stumble Upon Reddit SlashDot

Pages:  [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 13   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Tenkovi Drugog svetskog rata  (Read 72694 times)
 
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ACHTUNG
vodnik
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 441



WWW
« on: November 25, 2007, 01:29:39 pm »

Izbor je suzen na najznacajnije tenkove tog vremena (mada se to ne moze bas reci za M26, ali je on opet ucestvovao u ww2 kao saveznicki heavy tenk).

Takodje, nisam navodio verzije Panthera, T34, Shermana,... Zbog cega? Zato sto se gleda ucestvovanje jednog tenka u ww2 kao i njegov razvitak. Zbog toga je, po meni, Sherman bolji od T-34.

Ipak, ja se odlucujem za Panzer V Panthera. Prvi Main Battle Tank ikada napravljen. Svi ce reci - nije bio pouzdan. Sure, bilo je toga ali ima i razlog zbog cega - nedostatak alata za pravljenje strelastih zupacanika.

Takodje, ne treba analizirati drzavne strategije vojne produkcije (po cemu bi T-34 bio ubedljivo najbolji), vec same tenkove i njihovu upotrebu.

Ko god glasa, neka i objasni zasto je tako glasao. Smiley

Pozdrav
« Last Edit: November 25, 2007, 01:37:22 pm by !ACHTUNG! » Logged
Preki
Moderator
zastavnik
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1 323



« Reply #1 on: November 25, 2007, 01:39:44 pm »

Нисам неки стручњак за тенкове а ни за други светски рат. Мој глас иде иза Пантера.
Иначе (иако сам русофил) сматрам да т34 уопште није био толико добар као што се прича. Рецимо везано за  фаму о закошеном оклопу. Е па погледајте слике којег год оћете тенка из тог периода - 80% их је имало закошен предњи оклоп (па и Пантер).

[ Attachment: You are not allowed to view attachments ]


* 1.jpg (108.5 KB, 800x532 - viewed 373 times.)
« Last Edit: July 25, 2010, 06:55:17 pm by Broker, Reason: ubačena slika u atačment » Logged
Preki
Moderator
zastavnik
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1 323



« Reply #2 on: November 25, 2007, 01:40:49 pm »

Још једна ствар, ја колико знам тенк се гађа у куполу. Купола Т34 је огромна, ко мисли супротно нек иде на калемегдан па нек сам види.
Logged
dejina81
desetar
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 139



« Reply #3 on: November 25, 2007, 02:20:25 pm »

nisam glasao niti zelim... ali mislim da je Panther bio najbolji, a odmah iza njega bi stavio Shermana. obrazlozenje jer je prvi i pored pocetnih tehnickih problema, ipak pokazao svoju snagu, a ksnije bio i jedno vreme u francuskim oruzanim snagama. drugi, zato sto je bio odlicna platforma za nadogradnju... od tenka, do bacaca raketa, samohotka 105mm, samohotka 155mm...
toliko do mene!
Logged
Preki
Moderator
zastavnik
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1 323



« Reply #4 on: November 25, 2007, 06:14:38 pm »

Чини ми се да сам негде видео и да су јеше 'буџиле' шермане и да су их баш дуго користили
Logged
ACHTUNG
vodnik
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 441



WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 25, 2007, 08:02:14 pm »

wasp, mogu da te zamolim nesto? Izbegavaj pogrdne izraze ("jeshe"). Vrlo je verovatno da ih niko ne simpatise, ali moramo se drzati nekih pravila, jer se greska na gresku nadovezuje. Smiley

Nisam hteo sada da ti menjam poruku, cisto da znas za ubuduce. Wink

To sto si pomenuo jeste Super Sherman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M50_Super_Sherman

Inace, pored T-34 koji je jos tenk imao zakosen oklop u to vreme? Niti jedan. Sherman, kada se pojavio u pustinji, je imao oklop pod 60 stepeni, sto opet nije isto. Fora sa zakosenim T-34 oklopom jeste i u njegovoj tvrdoci koja je bila izuzetna! Zato i nije cudo sto su se penetracione granate sa PIII i ranijih Pz. IV tenkova jednostavno rikosetirale. Kasnije, kada je dosao na delo 75 mm top za Pz IV F2, penetracija istog, supertvrdog oklopa, je dovodila do izrazite fragmentacije istog. Po srpski: smrt za posadu.
Logged
Brok
Administrator
kapetan bojnog broda
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 16 121


Jednakost, Bratsvo, Sloboda


WWW
« Reply #6 on: November 25, 2007, 08:56:15 pm »

Још једна ствар, ја колико знам тенк се гађа у куполу. Купола Т34 је огромна, ко мисли супротно нек иде на калемегдан па нек сам види.

Tenk možeš da gađaš gde god hoćeš, pitanje je gde ćeš ga pogoditi a da on bude izbačen iz stroja. Po svim statistikama to mesto je spoj kupole i tela tenka. I dan danas je to mesto gde su tenkovi najranjiviji.
Otprilike wasp ti bi gađao tenk tamo gde mu je oklop najdeblji i zaštita najefikasnija Smiley.

Glasao sam za T-34, nedavno 92, 93, 94 i 95 u BiH tenk T-34 se pokaozao kao jako dobro defanzivno sredstvo. Malo se dublje ukopa, i praktično nemože da se promaši iz tridesetčetvorke. Pošto unutar tenka T-34 ima toliko prostora, nišandžija ili punilac naravno dok ne napuni top, nacilja kroz cev topa ono šta treba da gađa, i pogodak je zagarantovan, ta metoda je praktično nepogrešiva kada je u pitanju gađanje iz topa.
Sigurno da u današnje vreme ima mnogo sredstava da se veoma lako neutrališe ovaj tenk, ali ja pišem o njegovim nedavnim aktivnostima, te da iako toliko mator ipak je nešto mogao da odradi, njegovo vreme je bilo WW II kada je on po meni dominirao, a i kasnije još dugi niz godina je bio tenk broj 1.

Inače dok su tenkovi T-34 bili još u operativnoj upotrebi pri tadašnjoj VJ negde 94 god, sa tenkovima M-84 gađali smo na jednom poligonu Šermane. Samo hoću da istaknem tu činjenicu da su Šermani bili već uveliko otpisani za staro gvožđe i služili nama kao mete, dok su tenkovi T-43 bili još operativni.

[ Attachment: You are not allowed to view attachments ]
T-34 uništen u Bosni, okolina Drvara, 1994. god.


* 2.jpg (26.67 KB, 450x360 - viewed 399 times.)
« Last Edit: July 25, 2010, 06:56:04 pm by Broker » Logged
ACHTUNG
vodnik
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 441



WWW
« Reply #7 on: March 07, 2008, 07:10:29 pm »


Inače dok su tenkovi T-34 bili još u operativnoj upotrebi pri tadašnjoj VJ negde 94 god, sa tenkovima M-84 gađali smo na jednom poligonu Šermane. Samo hoću da istaknem tu činjenicu da su Šermani bili već uveliko otpisani za staro gvožđe i služili nama kao mete, dok su tenkovi T-43 bili još operativni.

Mislim da ce to pre biti iz razloga zato sto smo i mi proizvodili T-34 pa smo tako imali i rezervne delove, mehanicare i svu ostalu podrsku. Isto tako, mi smo, sto se tice naoruzanja, bili pod sovjetskim uticajem a danas ruskim.

Sherman bi isto tako mogao da obavlja defenzivne zadatke. Posebno zbog toga sto je imao deblji oklop (verzije sa kraja WW2), bolju zastitu municije,... Jos ako je u pitanju Firefly verzija ili neka izraelska modifikacija (Super Sherman), onda se taj "tenkic" mogao jako lepo koristiti. I da - imao je vertikalnu stabilizaciju, a svi znamo koliko je to vazno za gadjanje u pokretu...
Logged
FF
zastavnik I klase
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1 926


« Reply #8 on: March 07, 2008, 08:08:10 pm »

Quote
Mislim da ce to pre biti iz razloga zato sto smo i mi proizvodili T-34

Mi (SFRJ) nikada nismo proizvodili T-34. Svi T-34 korišteni sve do završetka građanskog rata u Jugoslaviji bili su zdelano v SSSR.

Jedini tenk koji se pokušao (bezuspešno) proizvoditi u Jugoslaviji do pojave M-84 bio je "Tip-A", koji je proizveden 1950. u svega 5 primeraka, i iako vizuelno podseća na T-34, to je jedina sličnost. Pošto je odluka o konstruisanju i gradnji jugoslovenskog tenka bila iznuđena pogoršanjem odnosa sa SSSR-om s kojim je SFRJ bila na ivici rata 1948/49, a jedini ozbiljan tenk u naoružanju JA koji je bio dostupan, bio je upravo T-34, ova prototipska partija napravljena je pokušajem kopiranja sovjetskog uzora. Pošto nikakva dokumentacija nije postojala, to se svodilo na grubo preslikavanje, bez ikakvog dimenzionisanja i proračuna, tako da je tenk koji je napravljen više bio plod zanatske nego industrijske delatnosti, sa gomilom tehničkih nedostataka. Ali to nije bila pepreka da se 1950. pojave na prvomajskoj paradi i pokažu svetu. Nakon toga, trupna ispitivanja su pokazala niz problema, prouzrokovanih nepreciznom izradom i neadekvatnim tolerancijama u sklopovima, tako da se ubrzo odustalo od serijske proizvodnje, jer u međuvremenu, počela je da stiže američka vojna pomoć, i ubrzo je gomila Shermana, rame uz rame s preinformibirovskim T-34, činilo jezgro oklopnih jedinica JNA - sve do ponovne normalizacije odnosa s SSSR-om i pristizanja T-55. Jedini sačuvani primerak od 5 prototipova "Tipa A" je na Kalemegdanu. Tačno naspram njega, pored Kaćuše je T-34. Ako se malo bolje zagledate, primetićete brojne razlike. Činjenica je da su T-34 u JNA proživeli duplo duži radni vek od vršnjaka Šermana. Dobra strana 34-ke nije ni vatrena moć, ni oklop. Donekle jeste pokretljivost, ali ono što je taj tenak učinilo najboljim (moj stav), jeste što ga je svaki priučeni seljak, radnik, proleter, mogao održavati, popraviti i koristiti, u svim mogućim uslovima. Panter je u svoje vreme bio zver o stroja - čudo tehnike. Ali u svom debiju na Kurskoj izbočini, jedan po jedan kvario se u stepskom blatu, a popravka u poljskim uslovima nije bila opcija koju su konstruktori predvideli. T-34 su ih pregazili kao žuti mravi.
Logged
ACHTUNG
vodnik
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 441



WWW
« Reply #9 on: March 07, 2008, 08:20:59 pm »

Hvala ti na objasnjenju vezanom za Tip-A. Redovno ga obilazim na Kalemegdanu. Tamo sam i procitao da je nase proizvodnje, a posto ne najdoh vise podataka, logicno mi je bilo da je proizvodnja bila masovnija... Kad sam ga gledao, sve mi je izgledalo bas neprecizno i ofrlje uradjeno.


Sto se tice Pantera - tih prvih 250 (D1 verzija) je izgubljeno zbog problema sa motorima. Svi sledeci su dobijali (od D2 pa na dalje) Maybachov HL 230 P 30 700KS motor, tako da je to ubrzo nestalo.

Glavni problem Pantera je bio, verovali ili ne - zupcanik. Tacnije transmisija. Nemci u to vreme su poceli da imaju velike probleme zbog saveznickog bombardovanja. Jednostavno nisu mogli da proizvode strelaste zupcanike, vec najobicnije, sa pravim zupcima. A svi znamo da oni nikako nisu dobri za vece "napore". Zato je i popravljanje istih bilo tesko. Trajanje istih je bilo, mislim, tek malo jace od 200 Km.

Nesto vise o Panteru mozete procitati, na srpskom: http://www.drugisvetskirat.org/panter.html

Amerikanci su, na primer, koristili strelaste u Shermanima, tako da se ovima transmisija nije nikada kvarila.

T-34 i jeste mogao da vozi svaki seljak, zato im je takva statistika...
Logged
FF
zastavnik I klase
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1 926


« Reply #10 on: March 07, 2008, 08:50:31 pm »

Ne znam šta si hteo reći ovim zadnjim?

Da malo pojasnim - zašto je T-34 No.1 svoje epohe. Zato šta je gotovo svaki pogon, fabrika ili radionica mogla proizvoditi sklopove tog tenka, što su delovi toliko unificirani i standardizovani, montaža i servis pojednostavljeni, da je eksploatacija istog bila najobičnija rutina i da su svi, od radnika u proizvodnoj hali, do posade u njemu  na bojnom polju, mogli biti sigurni koliko taj tenk može da pruži. I najprosečniji tenk je bolji od svakog high-tech koji leži pokvaren u nekoj jarugi, i koga treba vratiti nazad u fabriku da bi se ponovo osposobio. T-34 je pružio najbolji balans između onih najbitnijih karakteristika - vatrena moć, oklop, pokretljivost, pouzdanost. U ove prve dve stvari bio je prosečan. U druge dve bio je natprosečan. Kad se sve sabere i oduzme, bio je bolji od drugih. Zato je i dobio rat. Skor u duelima "1 na 1" tu ne igra baš bitnu ulogu. Bitan je krajnji ishod. Nadživeo je sve svoje "vršnjake" i dobio mnoge ratove.
Logged
Sailor
stariji vodnik
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 755



« Reply #11 on: March 08, 2008, 01:07:03 pm »

Ево један Т-34, израња из муља послије скоро 56 година.Заробљен је од стране Њемаца и кориштен у бици код Нарве у сјевероисточном дијелу бивше совјетске републике Естоније.У тој великој бици погинуло је око 100 000 људи док 300 000 рањено.
              
[ Attachment: You are not allowed to view attachments ]
[ Attachment: You are not allowed to view attachments ]

            Тенк је извађен у септембру 2000.Планира се да се комплетно рестаурира и пошаље у ратни музеј , са њемачким ознакама под којима је пронађен.


* 3.jpg (90.18 KB, 640x480 - viewed 336 times.)

* 4.jpg (86.97 KB, 640x480 - viewed 327 times.)
« Last Edit: July 25, 2010, 06:57:14 pm by Broker, Reason: ubačene slike u atačment » Logged
ACHTUNG
vodnik
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 441



WWW
« Reply #12 on: March 08, 2008, 01:21:14 pm »

Postovacu nekoliko cinjenica, na koje se jako cesto zaboravlja. Neke ce biti i na engleskom, pa ako zatreba, prevescemo.

A)

Posebno njegova "modifikacija" T-34-85 se na sav glas proglasava za najbolji saveznicki tenk WW2 (ili jos bolje najbolji uopste). Ovaj tenk je izuzetno precenjen, razlog je pre svega vreme kada se javio. Ali, podjimo redom.
       Prva verzija ovog tenka, T-34/76 u poslednjim fazama operacije Barbarosa, kasne 1941. godine. U to vreme, debljina njegovog oklopa jednostavno nije bila rezervisana za medium tenkove. Ono sto je jos vaznije jeste nagib tog oklopa, koji je za to vreme nacinio ovaj tenk gotovo neunistivim (vecina AP granata se naprosto rikosetirala od njegovog prednjeg oklopa). Pz. III i Pz. IV jednostavno nisu imali resenja za ovo, a 76.2mm top ove tadasnje "zveri" ih je mogao izbaciti iz sluzbe sa velikih distanci. Zahvaljujuci svojoj doktrini i vernom Flaku 88, Nemci su uspevali da rese ovaj problem (isti slucaj je i sa KV1 tenkovima i sa Matildom II).
        Tadasnja prakticno "neunistivost" je povukla za sobom mit koji se i danas vuce. Iako to nije bio prvi tenk koji je mogao da dobije okrsaj sa panzerima (Matilda na primer, francuski Somua ili ruski KV1), on je ipak bio do pocetka 1942. bio najbolji srednji tenk bilo gde na bojistu. Vec tokom 1942. se stvari menjaju. Javljaju se verzije Pz IV sa duzim topom, kao i novi M4 Sherman. Oba ova tenka su bila mnogo prijatnija za svoju posadu, pozudanije i imala bolju nisansku opremu. Dok su se novi tenkovi razvijali, T34 je tapkao u mestu.
        Jedino pravo poboljsanje jeste ugradnja novog 85mm topa. Sada da predjemo na konkretne cinjenice:

1. Novi 85mm top nije imao bolje karakteristike od nemackog Kwk L/48 75mm topa. Dobijene su razornije HE granate uz manji broj istih za skladistenje (vise mesta su zauzimale).

2. Prednji oklop tela tenka je do kraja rata ostao isti - 45mm. Ovo, priznacete, uopste nije zadovoljavajuce, posebno kako se krene ka kraju rata i sve mocnijim nemackim tenkovima i AT opremi. Vecina nemackih topova je pred kraj rata mogla da probije duplo deblji oklop na 900 metara. Uz sve to, oklop je bio od previse tvrdog materijala - penetracija istog je pravila previse fragmenata unutar tenka, a svi znamo kako se to odrazava na posadu.

3. Tenk je bio uzasan za posadu (verovatno su vam vec poznate price sa T55). Vrlo lose ergonomije (ovo ima veliki odraz na posadu) i uz to vrlo bucan. Nikakvi iznenadni ili stealth napadi nisu mogli biti izvodjeni sa ovim "avionom".


4. Tenk je bio produkt masovne produkcije - nije se niti malo vodilo racuna o dizajnu, trpani se sta se stiglo, motor je bio nepouzdan a sama boja sa tenka je znala da otpadne!

         Kako se sada moze videti, tenk nije ni prineti svom mitu. Sure, on je koristio svojoj nameni odlicno, ali po kojoj ceni? Da li je on stvarno bolji od toliko potcenjenog i ismevanog Shermana? Sveukupno, tenk je bio najbolji za ruski nacin ratovanja. Ali, ako ga stavimo u pojedinacno poredjenje sa drugim tenkovima WW2, on nikako ne bi bio na prvom mestu.
Logged
ACHTUNG
vodnik
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 441



WWW
« Reply #13 on: March 08, 2008, 01:23:35 pm »

B)

Citat ruskih inzenjera:


Moreover, in summer 1940 the clouds were gathering over the T-34. The point is that two Pz-IIIs were bought in Germany and delivered to Kubinka for comparative tests. Soviet documentation does not clarify the exact modification of the Pz-III, in all cases it was named as "German T-III". The results were unfavourable for the Soviet T-34.

The T-34 was superior in terms of protection and firepower, but that's all. The Pz-III had a cosy three-man turret with a commander's cupola. Each crewman had an internal communication device at his service. In contrast, the T-34 had a very cramped two-man turret without a commander's cupola. Only the tank
 commander and the driver had internal communication.

Soviet engineers were surprised by Pz-III's maximum speed. It was far superior and could run up to 69.7 km/h whereas the T-34's best result was 48.2 km/h. The BT-7, which was used as a standard model, could run on wheels at only 68.1 km/h. The report of those tests indicates that the Pz-III had better suspension, a high quality of German optics, a handy layout of ammunition and radio, and a reliable engine and transmission.

The German tank had a very smooth motion and wasn't as noisy as the T-34: moving with maximum speed the Pz-III could be heard from 150-200 metres while the T-34 could be heard from 450-500 metres.

Ovo nikada (ili skoro nikada) nije ispravljeno zbog rata. Vrsene su neke prepravke na kupoli, ali je sve ostalo vrlo skuceno cak i za ruske standarde.
Logged
ACHTUNG
vodnik
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 441



WWW
« Reply #14 on: March 08, 2008, 01:26:44 pm »

Intervju ruskog tenkiste, koji uporedjuje Shermana i T-34:

Sto se tice Shermana i toga da su ruski tenkisti vise birali T34, iako nije bilo to prakticno moguce, evo jednog teksta, gde ruski tenkista uporedjuje dva tenka:

- On Shermans. We called them «Emchas», from M4 [in Russian, em chetyrye]. Initially they had the short main gun, and later they began to arrive with the long gun and muzzle brake. On the front slope armor there was a travel lock for securing the barrel during road marches. The main gun was quite long. Overall, this was a good vehicle but, as with any tank, it had its pluses and minuses. When someone says to me that this was a bad tank, I respond, «Excuse me!» One cannot say that this was a bad tank. Bad as compared to what?

------

On the one hand this rubber-coated track was a big plus. In the first place, this track had a service life approximately twice that of steel track. I might be mistaken, but I believe that the service life of the T-34 track was 2500 kilometers. The service life of the Sherman track was in excess of 5000 kilometers. Secondly, The Sherman drove like a car on hard surfaces, and our T-34 made so much noise that only the devil knows how many kilometers away it could be heard.What was the bad side of the Sherman track? In my book, Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks, there is a chapter entitled «Barefooted». There I wrote about an incident that occurred in August 1944 in Romania, during the Jassy-Kishinev Operation. The heat was fearsome, somewhere around 30° C. We had driven approximately 100 km along a highway in a single day. The rubber linings on our support rollers got so hot that the rubber separated and peeled off in long pieces. Our corps paused not far from Bucharest. The rubber was flying around, the rollers had begun to jam up, the noise was terrible, and in the end we had been stopped. This was immediately reported to Moscow. Was this some kind of joke, an entire corps had halted? To our surprise, they brought new support rollers to us quickly and we spent three days installing them. I still don't know where they found so many support rollers in such a short time. There was yet another minus of rubber track. Even on a slightly icy surface the tank slid around like a fat cow. When this happened we had to tie barbed wire around the track or make grousers out of chains or bolts, anything to give us traction. But this was with the first shipment of tanks. Having seen this, the American representative reported to his company and the next shipment of tanks was accompanied by additional track blocks with grousers and spikes. If I recall, there were up to seven blocks for each track, for a total of fourteen per tank. We carried them in our parts bin. In general the American representative worked efficiently. Any deficiency that he observed and reported was quickly and effectively corrected.

------

One shortcoming of the Sherman was the construction of the driver's hatch. The hatch on the first shipment of Shermans was located in the roof of the hull and simply opened upward. Frequently the driver-mechanic opened it and raised his head in order to see better. There were several occasions when during the rotation of the turret the main gun struck this hatch and knocked it into the driver's head. We had this happen once or twice in my own unit. Later the Americans corrected this deficiency. Now the hatch rose up and simply moved to the side, like on modern tanks.
Still one great plus of the Sherman was in the charging of its batteries. On our T-34 it was necessary to run the engine, all 500 horsepower of it, in order to charge batteries. In the crew compartment of the Sherman was an auxiliary gasoline engine, small like a motorcycle's one. Start it up and it charged the batteries. This was a big deal to us!

------

For a long time after the war I sought an answer to one question. If a T-34 started burning, we tried to get as far away from it as possible, even though this was forbidden. The on-board ammunition exploded. For a brief period of time, perhaps six weeks, I fought on a T-34 around Smolensk. The commander of one of our companies was hit in his tank. The crew jumped out of the tank but were unable to run away from it because the Germans were pinning them down with machine gun fire. They lay there in the wheat field as the tank burned and blew up. By evening, when the battle had waned, we went to them. I found the company commander lying on the ground with a large piece of armor sticking out of his head. When a Sherman burned, the main gun ammunition did not explode. Why was this?

Such a case occurred once in Ukraine. Our tank was hit. We jumped out of it but the Germans were dropping mortar rounds around us. We lay under the tank as it burned. We laid there a long time with nowhere to go. The Germans were covering the empty field around the tank with machine gun and mortar fires. We lay there. The uniform on my back was beginning heating up from the burning tank. We thought we were finished! We would hear a big bang and it would all be over! A brother's grave! We heard many loud thumps coming from the turret. This was the armor-piercing rounds being blown out of their cases. Next the fire would reach the high explosive rounds and all hell would break loose! But nothing happened. Why not? Because our high explosive rounds detonated and the American rounds did not? In the end it was because the American ammunition had more refined explosives. Ours was some kind of component that increased the force of the explosion one and one-half times, at the same time increasing the risk of detonation of the ammunition.

 It is considered noteworthy that the Sherman was very well appointed on the inside. Was this true?


It was true. These are not just words! They were beautiful! For us then this was something. As they say now, «Euro-repair»! This was some kind of European picture! In the first place, it was painted beautifully. Secondly, the seats were comfortable, covered with some kind of remarkable special artificial leather. If a tank was knocked out or damaged, then if it was left unguarded literally for just several minutes the infantry would strip out all this upholstery. It made excellent boots! Simply beautiful!

-----

The Sherman had an antiaircraft machine gun Browning M2.50 caliber. Did you use it often?

I don't know why, but one shipment of tanks arrived with machine guns, and another without them. We used this machine gun against both aircraft and ground targets. We used it less frequently against air targets because the Germans were not fools. They bombed either from altitude or from a steep dive. The machine gun was good to 400–600 meters in the vertical. The Germans would drop their bombs from say, 800 meters or higher. He dropped his bomb and departed quickly. Try to shoot the bastard down! So yes, we used it, but it was not very effective. We even used our main gun against aircraft. We placed the tank on the upslope of a hill and fired. But our general impression of the machine gun was good. These machine guns were of great use to us in the war with Japan, against kamikazes. We fired them so much that they got red hot and began to cook off. To this day I have a piece of shrapnel in my head from an antiaircraft machine gun.

------
Logged
Pages:  [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 13   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Oglasi za poslove na Jooble.org
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Simple Audio Video Embedder

SMFAds for Free Forums
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.027 seconds with 23 queries.