Comments by "Horatio82" (@horatio8213) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
@RussianThunderrr Ahh Zukhov as a great commander. He was responsiable for defet of Red Army at the first months of Barbaossa more then Stalin. He preper with his staff all plans, offensive and deffensive. How it goes for Red Army under his command?
What with operation "Mars" when Stalingrad was succses, he with larger forces get slaugthered. Mass defat whitout any succsess. Operation that cos Red Army great numbers in equipment and soldiers.
A liitle catch, nowhere in documents is no evidence that he preper plans for Stalingrad or Kursk battle. He just pinpoint on himself as a USSR saviror in his own eyes.
At last his final battle to captured Berlin and disaster on Seelowe Hights. He won because in this moment Germans didn't have any reservs. But he lose whitout any good reason thousends of soldiers. There was one reason, he want to be first in Berlin.
Tujachevske died because he knew that Stalin was responssiable for defet in 1920 with war with Poland. He also was knew that Trotsky was responissable for succsess of first moths of revolution, not Stalin! Third reason Stalin don't need him anymore, hi wasn't usefull any more. He was a treat for Stalin's power.
I do not say that soviet scientist vere not behind T-34 succsess. But all things you mention were well knowed in 1930's. Shipbuilders and tank designers were aware of all advantages of different armor scheme. About metalurgy and material craftsmen. All that knowledge was there. But building tank with sloped armor, welded or casted was very costly in 1930's. That why only France and USSR build before WW2 tanks like that. Other countries prefer cheaper technology, but when war starts, cost lose with speed of production and in the end welding became cheaper even casting.
I always hear that T-34 was great tank, yes it was good combination of many things. But in overall in 1941 it was true, but in 1942/43 this was long past. And its falws then cause that from one of the best tanks it became mediocer. Much thanks from soviet industry. This story is very similar with story of LaGG fighters, great prototypes and failed plane in war. Nothing of this problems was seen in M4. Yes it wasn't perfect tank, but other side without flaws that was in T-34 project and production.
And about speed of T-34 and Panzer III in soviet trials. That is the biggest problem that was soviet trials and how you gonna spin this, that was SOVIET TRAIL. Then bias was to be more into soviet construction. You now the letter (primary source) then you have to bring evidence that that trials never get to this conclusion. The same is with conclusion from testing firepower of M4 with 75 and 76mm against T34/76 and T34/85. Soviet documentation don't agree with you about conclusion about "greatness" of T-34. I don't have to belive you i belive soviet trails.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RussianThunderrr Oh you still claim that only soviets can design tanks with modern technology. I wrote you many times what was the biggest flaws of T-34. As a design and production features. You will claim othervise.
"T-34 was getting progressively better throughout the war. Things improved for T-34 as the war progressed. "
Maybe late 1943 and into T-34/85 that was good tank, but earlier quality production kill that values. That is fact.
"Oh, hello! After Simen Lavochkin put Shetsov's radial air cooled engine on that plain, it(La series fighters) produced most of Allied highest scoring aces in WWII, 5 out of 10 top scoring Allied aces flew better part of the war Lavochkin's fighters. Its just a fact! "
Yes nicer half-truth, because we wrote about two different planes. LaGG 3
was dissaster. La-5 was better. Engine and much more better quality of production, But still that wasn't in line with moder fighters from both sides. Still the best soviet fighter was La 5 not LaGG 3.
Pilkots called LaGG 3 "guaranteed lacquered grave". Worst soviet fighter of WW2.
"" You now the letter (primary source) then you have to bring evidence that that trials never get to this conclusion. " -- What "letter", what are you talking about?"
Letter form Yakov Nikolayevich Fedorenko to Voroshylov.
" Изучение последних образцов иностранного танкостроения показывает, что наиболее удачным среди них является немецкий средний танк “Даймлер-Бенц- Т-ЗГ”. Он обладает наиболее удачным сочетанием подвижности и броневой защиты при небольшой боевой массе — ок. 20 т . Это говорит, что указанный танк при сравнимой с Т-34 броневой защите, с более просторным боевым отделением, прекрасной подвижностью, несомненно более дешевый, чем Т-34, и потому может выпускаться большой серией.
Согласно особому мнению тт. Гинзбург, Гаврута и Троянова, главным недостатком указанного типа танка является его вооружение из 37-мм пушки. Но согласно сент. с.г. разведобзора, эти танки уже модернизируются путем усиления брони до 45-52 мм и вооружения 47-мм или даже 55-мм пушкой.
Считаю, что немецкая армия в лице указанного танка имеет сегодня наиболее удачное сочетание подвижности, огневой мощи и броневой защиты, подкрепленное хорошим обзором с рабочих мест членов экипажа...
Необходимо не медля ни минуты продолжить работы по танку “126” с целью доведения всех его характеристик до уровня немецкой машины (или превосходящих ее), а также внести в конструкцию других наших новых танков наиболее удачные решения немецкого танка, как то:
1. конструкция эвакуационных люков;
2. схема охлаждения двигателя;
3. конструкция КПП;
4 схема питания с размещением двигателя и топливного
бака за герметичной выгородкой от команды;
5. командирской наблюдательной башенки;
6. размещение радиостанции в корпусе.
Прошу принять решение по проведению доработки конструкции новых танков в виду вновь открывшихся обстоятельств...
Федоренко 13/1Х-40”
https://www.e-reading.club/book.php?book=99552
"Soviet documentation don't agree with you about conclusion about "greatness" of T-34. I don't have to belive you i belive soviet trails." -- Again what trails are you referring to? Do you got any links to the trails you are talking about?"
Kubinka trial of capturerd Tiger II. Firepower of both T-34/76 and T-34/85 were in AT role worse than M4 with 75mm and 76mm in comparition.
Just look on documentation about trails in Kubinka on captured Tiger II. I read long articules with documentation.
Report with designation: CAMD RF 38-11377-129 report.
"But you can put that turret on the same hull. Not like in T-34." Can you quote me please, so I can see what are you talking about? T-34-85 went on the same hull, with only one difference of enlarged turret ring. "
To put new turret they change turret ring for bigger! You can't put turret from T-34/85 no unchanged hull of T-34/76. Not that simple modification if take 3 years( sarcasm). Really that was possiable but you have to modify hull. And little photo for you:
https://www.google.pl/search?biw=1491&bih=925&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=mafFXPDkC9LrxgPA_abACg&q=m4+with+m26+turret&oq=m4+with+m26+turret&gs_l=img.3...437922.445254..445590...0.0..1.127.1126.17j1......2....1..gws-wiz-img.....0..35i39j0i67j0j0i30j0i19j0i8i30i19j0i5i30i19.nfNax2aI8-s#imgrc=t_WqYdrEfue4tM:
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RussianThunderrr "And you really don't read what iI wrote! I wrote about LaGG 3 you mention La! That is two different planes in reality." -- Quite contrary, and I gave you measured answer, which you have a hard time figuring out."
LaGG 3 use liquid cooled engine, La 5 use air cooled. La 5 get so many changes in construcion and internal design that there were very similar plane but not the same. That was like Ki-61 and Ki-100, in theory one construcion but with changes two different planes.
""And when i wrote about some models i think about contemporary models: Like early La 5 vs P-51 B or early model D." -- So, how does that work per your theory does P-51 models A and B is the same aircraft as model D? Or since Spitfire Mk-XII use different engine, should it be called something else? How about air cooled FW-190 A, and liquid cooled FW-190"Dora" is that the same aircraft or different aircraft in reality? "
Really? I set boundries to contemporary! That mean use in the same time! Which model of Mustang you mean D, razorback or with bubble canopy? A,B and D were different planes, but still with bettter performance as CONTEMPORARY MODELS of La 5. Do I claim that LaGG 3 nad La 5 are the same plane or you?
AND I STILL WAS TALKING ABOUT PERFORMANCE OF LaGG 3! You try to spin it with "proof" that La 5 ios the same plane!
Plus some hint about JAK's, the had very weak integral construction. And had many operational losses (officialy unkown cause, but in reality planes killed more pilots than Germans). That why Jakovlew aftrer war was kicked from his position in soviet government.
"There is a "story" proliferated by Russian trolls, that top Soviet ace Ivan Kozhedub in his La-7 shut down two P-51D, that attacked him, when mistaken for FW-190. I don't believe this story since it was not from Ivan Kozhedub himself, and a lots of facts just don't make sense, but its out there..."
That story never get confirmation in any allied documentation. Kozhebub is known for inflatiing his score. Ther is not that much evidence that he shoot that much planes. Soviet aieforce were inacurate in confirming that scores. Lot of claims of soviet aces in 1990's was disproof by comapration of documents in soviet archives. This story is one of this "claims".
"here were shortages of aluminum thought WWII in Soviet Union," About that. W2 engine was build from? Yes from aluminium, you need lots of it to build thousend of them. Thats why aluminium was shortage exist in USSR.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RussianThunderrr You don't belive me then read this:
"Needless to say, this was not a simple task. For one thing, the Shvetsov engine was a full 18 inches (46 centimeters) wider than the Klimov. Moreover, the M-82 was 550 pounds (250 kg) heavier than the M-105, meaning that the new engine would significantly shift the aircraft’s center of gravity forward. Nevertheless, Alekseyev’s team was able to make the necessary adjustments to the LaGG-3’s airframe to allow for the large radial engine to be installed on the narrow fuselage. In order to attach the M-82 to the airframe, Alekseyev’s team bonded plywood skirting to the outer forward fuselage, which helped ease the cumbersome radial engine’s transition onto the LaGG’s airframe. Two variable cooling flaps were installed on both sides of the fuselage, which allowed the 20 mm ShVAK cannons to be mounted above the M-82 (however, this later led to significant problems with the aircraft overheating, since the top cylinders frequently did not benefit from the cooling flaps). Work on the prototype was completed in February 1942 at Plant No. 21 in Gorky, and its inaugural flight of the new aircraft, designated the LaGG-3 M-82, was made the following month. "
"Nevertheless, the aircraft’s operational performance, in general, left much to be desired, prompting Semyon Lavochkin to search for ways to increase the LaGG-3’s power. Indeed, the aircraft’s poor service record in the summer of 1941 caused Lavochkin to fall out of favor with the Soviet leadership, and in the fall, factories that had previously been assigned to LaGG-3 production were turned over to building Yakovlev Yak-1s and Yak-7s. In December, Deputy Commissar of Aviation Industry Pyotr Dementyev told Semyon Lavochkin, “the storm is coming down on you. Your days are numbered. Now you must take extraordinary steps to completely change the attitude of the military and the government toward the LaGG-3.”
https://vvsairwar.com/2016/08/18/the-development-of-the-lavochkin-la-5/
Then how about this 15 days?
1
-
1
-
@RussianThunderrr Still you not see difference between development from year 1940/1941 to 15 days? Todays sources are more reailble becausethey work with a lot more materials than older one. When you compare our knowledge about WW2 to knowledge from 1970 there is stagering difference. I understand you don't want to admit to mistake. Modern sources show that road from LaGG to La starts between 1940 to 1941. Lavochkin and Gutkov take different ways to reach the same point, change of engine. Lavochkin after moths of work on modifing LaGG, turn to engine change and chabges in construcion of plane in case of this modernization. You will sick with 15 days, ok that is the legend. Facts show something else. You probaly don't grasp that development of this plane was done earlier and 15 days is just time when prototype was completed and tested. That is not he same like R&D process.
"Semyon Lavochkin, desperate to get the LaGG-3 flying right, focused on re-engining the type. He initially tried the improved Klimov M-107 vee-12 engine, but engine overheating proved a chronic problem; every flight of the test aircraft resulted in an emergency landing. However, engine designer Akady Shvetsov had come with a new, powerful 14-cylinder two-row air-cooled radial engine, the "M-82" -- a derivative of the US-made Wright R-1820 Cyclone -- with aircraft designers investigating the powerplant to see what it could do for them. Re-engining the MiG-3 and Yak-7 with the M-82 provided no real improvement, leaving Shvetsov with no demand for the engine.
Lavochkin was having an analogous problem in early 1942, being faced with phase-out of LaGG-3 production; he focused on the M-82 as a potential salvation. Gudkov had tinkered with fitting the new powerplant to the LaGG-3, but had been sidetracked to other tasks, so the Lavochkin design team was starting from scratch. Adapting the LaGG-3 to the new powerplant was not trivial, since it was wider and heavier than the M-105P inline; it also had no provision for a motorcannon, meaning the armament scheme had to be rethought. The engineers threw themselves into the task, designing a mounting scheme for the engine, and fitting twin 20 millimeter ShVAK cannon in the upper cowling. "
https://www.airvectors.net/avlagg.html#m2
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RussianThunderrr Well, I guess now you don't claim that La 5 is a new design, but you did before, right? Maybe qoute? I wrote many times that LaGG 3 and La 5 are different plane in performance not in basic project! La 5 was redesign of fuselage used to produce LaGG 3. That mean that was modification for new engine and new instalation! Not just engine swap!
"Needless to say, this was not a simple task. For one thing, the Shvetsov engine was a full 18 inches (46 centimeters) wider than the Klimov. Moreover, the M-82 was 550 pounds (250 kg) heavier than the M-105, meaning that the new engine would significantly shift the aircraft’s center of gravity forward. Nevertheless, Alekseyev’s team was able to make the necessary adjustments to the LaGG-3’s airframe to allow for the large radial engine to be installed on the narrow fuselage. In order to attach the M-82 to the airframe, Alekseyev’s team bonded plywood skirting to the outer forward fuselage, which helped ease the cumbersome radial engine’s transition onto the LaGG’s airframe. Two variable cooling flaps were installed on both sides of the fuselage, which allowed the 20 mm ShVAK cannons to be mounted above the M-82 (however, this later led to significant problems with the aircraft overheating, since the top cylinders frequently did not benefit from the cooling flaps). Work on the prototype was completed in February 1942 at Plant No. 21 in Gorky, and its inaugural flight of the new aircraft, designated the LaGG-3 M-82, was made the following month. "
You just concetrate on final product of modification. Then time was from 7 December 1941 to February 1942. That was final work done by Lavochkin. But there is a catch...
"Interestingly, the installation of an M-82 to an LaGG-3 had already been attempted by Mikhail Gudkov, one of the LaGG-3’s original designers, in the summer of 1941. Gudkov took the nose section of a Sukhoi Su-2 light bomber, which also housed an M-82, and attached it to the airframe of an LaGG-3. The resulting aircraft, which was known as the Gu-82, made its first flight in September, and reached a top speed of 360 mph (580 km/h). Though the aircraft did have a number of issues, specifically regarding its stability, initial flight tests showed promise, and it was certainly an improvement over the LaGG-3. In October 1941, Gudkov wrote to Soviet leader Josef Stalin, “Currently, I am carrying out complex developments that give me reason to believe that I will be able to increase the speed of my machine to 600 km/h, without taking into account the elimination of defects in the mass production [of LaGG-3s]… after staying at the front, I distinctly imagine that we need to have an airplane with an air-cooled engine since the use of fighters with liquid-cooled engines in air battles and especially in ground attack against the enemy brings a great percentage of losses in pilots and material, because of the great vulnerability of the water system of the engine… proceeding from these considerations, I ask you, in order to gain time, without waiting for the end of flight testing, to allow me to introduce my aircraft with the M-82 at one of the production plants that produce the LaGG aircraft.” However, Gudkov did not immediately receive a response, and by the time he did, the LaGG-3 M-82 project was already underway, and the Gu-82 was not further pursued. While it is unclear why, exactly, the LaGG-3 M-82 project was chosen instead of the Gu-82, especially since the latter was several months ahead of the former, historians believe that it was due to Lavochkin’s close relationship with members of the Soviet leadership. "
Hmm, two designers that create LaGG 1 and 3 try in the same time put the same engine on the same plane. But wait Lavochkin do it in only few weeks, what a genius. Something that Gutkov start doing 6 moths earlier. And that is why I think that wasn't true. Works was done with other trials to modify LaGG, Lavochkin just benefit from both desings and thats why officially he created his plane so fast. Because him and Gutkov were working about that from start when LaGG was produced. Nopthing new in design and plane production.
But I'm sure that your version is closer to truth because that is claim of official soviet sources (yes that is sarcasm).
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RussianThunderrr "T-34 was a lot better off road, because it had bigger wheel(so it goes better over large obstacles), and long travel suspension, on top of that wider tracks and lower center of gravity"
Really? When in the most cases T-34 drivers can use only one gearbox setting! Even when in T-34/85 they fix more of this problems, still drivers very fast were tired because of great force need to operate gearbox, they even have to use hammer to change gearbox setting!
How you can praise whole tank if only engine was good element there (in any competition best tank engine in WW2).Try to go stop and fast start in war production T-34 and you just destroy gearbox! Thats why for the most time soviet tankers even didn't try to do it with T-34. Whole transmision and suspention was obselete and poorly made. Christie suspension was big and very noisy. Didn't work very well for crew and tank. This tank was known for problems with suspention, that is one of most common named disadvantage of this tank! Thats why after T-34 in USSR they resign from Christy suspension. IS or T-44 use torsion bar suspention because of T-34 problems! If you claim are true, then why in Korea and Arab-Israeli wars Shermans in anyway shown this disadvatage? Also test done by Soviets, Germans and Americans show that difference on paper don't match real performance. T-34 on paper was better but in reality, suspension and gearbox killed that "advantage".
About quality. Evacuation was done in summer of 1941. When the tanks produced in 1940 and before Barbarossa were dying in great numbers from mechanical faliures. Big portion of T-34 was lost in 1941 because of it! Not just from enemy fire!
That mean that production standards wasn't so great from start! M4 never had this problems, from start of production it was easy to produce and maintain tank, not like T-34. Yes after war T-34/85 get great modification program, but tha was after the war! If that was so food tank before, why USSR done this basicly after the war!
Yes 85mm was better as a soft target killer, but for that M4 with 75mm or 105mm was keep in fight. And tank warfare is not one tank versus one! Soviet adress that building assalute guns like SU-76, SU/ISU122 and 152. Also 75mm from M4 was very good AT gun. Only german tanks that was protected from front against it was Tiger, Elefant and Panther family. Up to distance of 1000 meters this gun can destroy from front tanks like Pz IV and T-34 whithout any problems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/75_mm_Gun_M2/M3/M6
You forget that in 1941 was one more model of T-34, T-34/57 because Soviet decide build tank with better AT gun than F-32 gun! Then they just did the same as Americans, whole your argument is false that way.They resign because Germans didn't get better armored tanks in Barbarossa.
Shermans 76mm M1 gun was better in destroying hard targets, look again to Kubinka's report about gun and ammunition performance against Tiger II tank. Soviets admit that M1 was better than 85mm tank gun.
Sorry but still your claims miss the point that paper performace is not the same like real life action.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RussianThunderrr Diesle or not when transmission and gearbox are not designed or not produced in proper way, you not gonna use this power. That is case of T-34. Gearbox and transsmition were from start very heavy to operate, plus easy to break. That why drivers use only one settig and push engine to maximum when they can. Which cause problems with overloading the engine. The same problems was seen in KW series for the most time. Transsmision and gerabox was one of weakest points of T-34 design. Aberdeen trails state that T-34 was equiped in obselete and very fragile gearbox and transmission which can't use properly whole power of engine.
All claims about that transmission and gearbox in T-34 were reaible are just false. Transmission and gearbox were first part of this tank which were modernise in war production vehicles. From 1942 Soviets start producing never models with new gearbox, but still that was far behinde transmission and gerboxes of M4, which also was modernize.
I see that you to undermine your opponent arguments you put comparison that way, that you compare the newest T-34/85 to older models of M4 or Pz IV. You use this rhetoric to undermine arguments. When i talk about comaprision of ealry M4 to T-34/76, you jump to T-34/85 and just "forget" what about was argument and disscussion.
The same was with LaGG 3 and La 5. I said that LaGG 3 was bad plane in many ways. You jump nad "shout" but La 5 was good. When my point was that the without proper standars of production that plane from prototype to production plane change into worst soviet fighter. Argument show that when project of T-34 in many ways was good, but need modernisation of many parts of it. Like cramp turret. Transsmition and gearbox. Suspenssion from Christy Type to torssion bars. Whole that argument you cover "shouting" "but La 5 was greate". That is not the point of this argument.
About M3 and F-34 guns, muzzle velocity and weight of ammunition, that is important part of penetration problem, but also you should remeber that type of shell and materials are very important. You can't just throw away argument like velocity and mass are only two parts of penetration.
Simple example HEAT or HESH rounds use tottaly diffrent approach to penetration. In case of this two types is better use slower shell.
Plus if you wrote about ammunition you should mention that when they test T-34 in Aberdeen Americans noticed that muzzle velocity is lower then catalog values. Soviets claim that is not true but documents claim othervise. Next you have test in Kubinka when Soviets shoot to Tiger II using all guns they use and guns from vehicles from Lend Lease. They observe that F-34 was worse than M3. That is in CAMD RF 38-11377-129 report which is made after trails. The two independent sources, which are tank institutes claim tha F-34 was worse in anti-tank firepower then M3. What can I say.
About comaprision I made, when i made them I use models from the same time.
M4A1 vs Pz IV F2 or G vs T-34/76 model 1941 or 1942.
M4A1 (76)W or M4M4A3E8/M4A3(76)W HVSS vs Pz IV H or J vs T-34/85.
That is proper way to compare this tanks.
Next your trick is changing subject when you can't respond.
What with CAMD RF 38-11377-129 report or other reporth that claim that T-34 wasn't in any way superior to other tanks from era, rather othervise. Good in elements but as a whole design much more prone to mechanical faliure.
What with problems in quality of soviet production?
Evacuation is not only reason that it happened, that was one of the vices of communism.
About soviet tankers on M4:
Loza talk much about this tank and praise it. Talk about weakness and strong point, he even said that in comparision when M4 burn he observe that ammo didnt explode and lot of crews survive this. But when T-34 start burning they always try to run far away because when it's start burning ammo explode.
Praise M4 for internal space, mechanical efficency. Things that T-34 tanks were lacking.
https://iremember.ru/en/memoirs/tankers/dmitriy-loza/
You ponit my mistakes but you can't admit to yours.
That is not really honest disscution. You turn disscusiom from points that you can't respond and point to other way. Yes I made mistakes but I can correct them. You can't.
Simple example you claim that frontal plate of T-34 was in any way weaken by driver's hatch. But that is not true, every specialist will tell you that if you made a huge cut in structure you make it weaker.
You claim that Kwk 37 7.5 cm L/24 couldn't penetrate frontal armor of T-34, when with HEAT round it could!
https://panzerworld.com/7-5-cm-kw-k-l-24
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1