Engine t 34 specifications. Military review and politics. The publication

This is the title of the chapter about the T-34 tank in the book by Zefirov and Degtev "Everything for the Front".
In it, researchers tell how the "legendary T-34" was actually created and what it was like.

Like almost everything in the USSR in the first half of the 20th century, this tank consisted of "improved" Western technologies and parts.

“It happened like this: at first, the industry got some kind of German or American engine, then it was difficult to master it in production, as they could “modernize” and “improve”.
The V-2 diesel engine was developed for the new T-34 and KV-1 tanks. It was created on the basis of an Austrian Maybach engine and an American tractor engine.
In turn, Soviet tractors at the Stalingradskolm and Chelyabinsk plants built by the Americans borrowed a lot from American tanks. It is no accident, for example, that the suspension of the Soviet STZ-5 tractor was made on the basis of the American Sherman M4A3E8 tank.

However, the serial diesel for the T-34 did not work out, and it was decided to use the M-17 aircraft engine on the tank. But he had a significant "flaw". "He was adapted to work in conditions of strong blowing with cold and clean air, which is not in the tank. Here, on the contrary, there is heat and dust, which causes overheating of the oil, increased wear" (from a note by the head of the 3rd department of the armored department of the GABTU RKKA, military engineer 1- rank Afonin).
In addition, this engine ran on AI-92 high-octane gasoline, and it was sorely lacking. Therefore, even kerosene and industrial alcohol were poured into gas tanks.

In the end, the designers of the T-34 settled on a "reworked" German BMW-VI engine.

As usual, there were many defects in production. For example, in a letter dated November 1942 from the BTU of the GABTU of the Red Army to plant No. 112, it was said that in 39% of cases the armor was defective ("did not fall into the analysis"). Perhaps it is precisely the high defect rate that explains the fact that German sub-caliber shells easily pierced the armor of the T-34 from 400-500 meters at an angle of 20 degrees, and 75-mm cumulative shells that began to enter the Wehrmacht in early 1942 - passed through 120- mm armor T-34 from 1000 meters.

According to repair services The Red Army in the summer of 1943, 76% of the combat losses of the T-34 were generally from 50-mm Pak38 anti-tank guns and similar guns of Pz.III tanks. "This once again debunks the myth that it was difficult for German tankers to fight thirty-fours."

Gearboxes, optics, etc. were also defective and useless on the T-34.

The poor technical and tactical characteristics of the T-34 forced the Soviet leadership to turn to the Americans for help. In December 1941, the T-34 and KV-1 tanks were handed over to the Americans for comprehensive analysis and development of recommendations and technologies for eliminating defects in them.

Further, Zefirov and Dyogtev give dry excerpts from the analysis of the Americans.
“Soviet tanks showed extremely low reliability of the chassis and engine during tests. The T-34 failed and could not be repaired after 343 km of run.

Due to the extremely poor air cleaner on a diesel engine, a lot of dirt got into the engine. As a result, the pistons and cylinders have collapsed to the point where they cannot be repaired. The tank was removed from the test and it is planned to shoot it with the KV gun and its "3" - from the M-10 tank, after which it will be sent to Aberdeen (Great Britain), where it will be dismantled and left as an exhibit.

The chemical analysis of the armor showed that on both tanks the armor plates were shallowly hardened, while the rest of the armor was mild steel. In connection with this, we believe that by changing the hardening technology, it is possible to reduce its thickness, leaving the same penetration resistance. This will lighten the weight of the T-34 by 8-10%.

The quality of the welding turned out to be worthless. The T-34 has increased water permeability of both the lower part when overcoming water barriers, and the upper part during rain. A lot of water flows into the crack, which leads to the failure of electrical equipment and ammunition.

The F-34 gun has a low initial speed - 385 m/s compared to the 75 mm M-3 gun of our Sherman (560 m/s).

Very bad tower design. The main disadvantage is that it is very tight. We cannot understand how tankers can fit in it in the winter when they wear sheepskin coats. Very poor electromechanism for turning the turret. The motor is weak, overloaded and sparks strongly, as a result, resistances and adjustments of turning speeds burn out, gear teeth crumble.

Checking caterpillars. I really liked the idea of ​​a steel track. But we believe that until feedback is received on the comparative results of the use of steel and rubber tracks on American tanks in Tunisia, there is no reason to abandon our idea - rubber.

The fingers on the tracks of the T-34 turned out to be poorly hardened and made of poor steel, as a result of which they quickly wear out and the caterpillar often breaks. We believe that the tracks should be made heavier.

The T-34 suspension was borrowed from the American Christie tank. On our tank, due to poor steel on the springs, it sags very quickly and therefore the clearance decreases.

Checked the air cleaner. Only a saboteur could construct such a device.
From a mechanical point of view, the filter is made extremely primitively: in the places of electric spot welding, the metal is burned through, which leads to oil leakage.

Low quality starters - low-power and unreliable design.

Transmission. The technician who worked with her was amazed that she was very similar to those she worked with 12-15 years ago. A firm was requested and sent drawings of their A-23 transmission. To everyone's surprise, the transmission drawings turned out to be an exact copy of those sent. What struck us was not that it was copied from our designs, but that we abandoned it 15 years ago as obsolete.

We believe that on the part of the Russian designer who put it in the tank, inhuman cruelty was shown towards the drivers (it is difficult to work).
During operation, the pins on the gears completely crumbled on it. Them chemical analysis showed that the teric processing is very poor and does not meet any American standards.

The cars were very quiet. Both the T-34 and KV-1 climbed slopes worse than any American tank.

Very revolting bad job gearboxes. It can only be switched by 2 people. We will send our gearbox to Russian designers to replace the regular ones on the T-34.

As a result, the Americans sent a lot of their own technologies to the USSR, which were replaced by the Russians.

“It is not surprising that the German light tanks PZ.II covered an average of 11,500 km, and the medium Pz.IV - 11,000 km. The average mileage of the T-34 before complete failure was no more than 1,000 km.

The T-34 was a "hodgepodge" of components and assemblies assembled around the world: the chassis from the American Christie tank, the engine from German aircraft, many units from the Austrians and Italians, etc. Moreover, almost all of these components and assemblies were from prototypes of the late 20s - early 30s, such as the BMW-VI engine, which was installed on biplanes back in the mid-20s.

* The Germans nicknamed the T-34 "Mickey Mouse" because the upper turret hatches, which had a round shape, were not closed by Soviet trunk crews in combat conditions - in order to improve ventilation and fear of jamming.

In the shadow of the T-34 tank, the engine of this machine remained, which is so successful that - attention - is still being produced. Tank diesel V-2 began to be produced on the day the Second World War began - September 1, 1939. But the elegance of its design is still amazing.

50 years ahead of its time...

It will sound strange, but initially the V-2 12-cylinder diesel engine was developed for heavy bombers, although it did not take root in aviation: the engineers failed to squeeze the required number of “horses” out of it. However, the aviation heritage remained, for example, in the “cast iron era” of engine building, the engine received an aluminum cylinder block and a large number of light alloy parts. The result: a very high power density per unit mass.

The design itself was incredibly progressive. Strictly speaking, the V-2 diesel differs from modern superdiesels for passenger cars, mainly in the absence of electronics. For example, fuel injection was carried out by high-pressure plunger pumps, and not by the now fashionable Common Rail system. But it had four valves per cylinder, like most of today's engines, and overhead camshafts, while many engines of the time still made do with lower camshafts, and sometimes a pair of lower valves per cylinder. The V-2 received direct fuel injection, which is the norm for modern diesels, but in the 1930s pre-chamber or swirl-chamber mixing was more commonly used. In short, the V-2 diesel was 50 years ahead of its time.

Battle of Concepts

And yes, it was a diesel. In fact, the T-34 was by no means the first tank with a diesel engine, especially in the pre-war years, diesels were used by Japanese tank builders. But the T-34 is considered the first tank designed specifically for a diesel power plant, which allowed him to "capitalize" its advantages as much as possible.

But German tanks remained faithful to multi-cylinder carburetor (gasoline) engines for a very long time, and there were many reasons for this, for example, a lack of non-ferrous metals, and later a shortage of diesel fuel.

Soviet engineers have relied on diesel. By the way, the V-2 engine made its debut on the BT-5 tank even before the start of the Great Patriotic War, but acquired the main glory, of course, in the engine compartment of the "thirty-four".

The diesel had several advantages. Less fire hazard is one of them, but far from the only one. Equally important was fuel efficiency, which affects the autonomy of the tank, that is, its ability to devour kilometers without refueling. Say, the T-34 could drive about 400 km along the highway, the German Pz IV - about 300 km, and the Soviet tank was one and a half times more powerful and almost as fast.

The diesel created less interference for radio electronics (there is no ignition system), and it could also run on any fuel, including gasoline and aviation kerosenes. In war conditions, this was an important advantage: roughly speaking, having found a barrel with some kind of liquid hydrocarbon of the required viscosity, the soldiers could use it as fuel by adjusting the fuel pump rail. The operation of a diesel engine on gasoline is harmful to the engine, but in critical situations, the ability to move the tank from its place is a priority over resource issues.

Over time, the diesel concept won out, and today the use of heavy fuel for tanks is the norm.

The secret of longevity

The V-2 diesel engine is associated with the T-34 tank, although already during the war it was used on many other combat units, for example, another victorious tank, the heavy IS-2.

Over time, the power and designations of the motor changed. So, the classic V-2-34 engine for the "thirty-fours" developed 500 hp, the version for the IS-2 was called the V-2IS and produced 520 hp, for the KV-2 tank the same engine was boosted to 600 hp. With.

Even during the war, attempts were made to increase power, including through supercharging, for example, a prototype V-2SN with a centrifugal supercharger developed 850 hp.

But seriously forcing the motor took after the war. So, the T-72 tank received a naturally aspirated version of the V-46 with a power of 700 hp, and modern T-90 tanks have a turbo version of the V-2 engine with a power of 1000 hp. (for example, B-92 series engines).

Even during the war, the V-2 engine was used on self-propelled guns, tractors and other equipment, and after that it was actively used for peaceful purposes. For example, the DET-250 diesel-electric tractor received the V-31 modification.

In addition to the classic V-shape with 12 cylinders, a line of engines with a different number and arrangement of cylinders spun off from the B-2 family, including for use on ships. For the BMP, "flat" six-cylinder versions of the V-2 with a large camber angle were developed.

Of course, the V-2 engine and its modifications had many "competitors" who tried to force the T-34 engine out of the engine compartments of later tanks. You can remember one of the most incredible tank engines 5TDF for the T-64 and T-72. The two-stroke five-cylinder diesel engine with ten pistons, two crankshafts and double supercharging amazed the imagination with the sophisticated design, and yet the descendants of the B-2 engine won the evolutionary race.

Why was he so resilient? Its creators "guessed" the basic parameters and layout, which ensured the efficiency of the design and a large margin "for growth". Perhaps this is how technical genius manifests itself: to fulfill not only momentary requirements, but also to think about the next steps.

humble heroes

And now is the time to pay tribute to the people who created and developed the V-2 engine family. Its development was carried out in the 1930s at the Kharkov Locomotive Plant under the guidance of Konstantin Chelpan, and in later stages Timofey Chupakhin. Participated in the creation of V-2 Ivan Trashutin, who later became the chief engine engineer of "Tankograd" - the tank production of Chelyabinsk.

The V-2 engine began to be produced in Kharkov, then in Stalingrad and Sverdlovsk, but the main part of the engines was produced by the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant, which arose after the evacuation of several tank industries to the rear. It was at ChTZ that the lion's share of V-2 engines was assembled during the war, and the same plant was engaged in the development of the concept in the post-war period, including under the guidance of a well-known designer Valentina Chudakova.

When they talk about advanced weapons, they first of all mean the power of weapons capable of inflicting a crushing defeat on the enemy. The legendary T-34 tank became the epitome of victory Soviet Union in World War II. But there are less significant components, for example, the V-2 tank engine, without which the legend could not exist.

Military equipment works in the most difficult conditions. Motors are designed to use low-quality fuel, minimal maintenance, but at the same time they must retain their original characteristics for many years. It was this approach that was embodied in the creation of the diesel engine of the T-34 tank.

Prototype engine

In 1931, the Soviet government set out to improve military equipment. At the same time, the Kharkov Locomotive Plant named after. Comintern received the task of developing a new diesel engine for tanks and aircraft.

The novelty of the development was to be in fundamentally new characteristics of the motor. The nominal speed of the crankshaft of diesel engines of that time was 260 rpm. Then, as in the assignment, it was agreed that the new engine should produce 300 hp at a speed of 1600 rpm. And this already made completely different requirements for the methods of developing components and assemblies. Technologies that would allow the creation of such an engine in the Soviet Union did not exist.

The design bureau was renamed Diesel, and work began. After discussion options designs, settled on a V-shaped 6 cylinders in each row. It was supposed to be started from an electric starter. At that time there was no fuel equipment, which could provide fuel for such an engine. Therefore, it was decided to install a high-pressure fuel pump from Bosch, which was subsequently planned to be replaced with a pump of our own production.

Two years passed before the creation of the first test sample. Since the engine was planned to be used not only in Soviet tank building, but also in aircraft building on heavy bombers, then the light weight of the motor was specially stipulated.

Motor refinement

They tried to create an engine from materials that had not previously been used to build diesel engines. For example, the cylinder block was made of aluminum, and it, unable to withstand the tests on the stand, constantly cracked. The high power caused the light, unbalanced motor to vibrate violently.

The BT-5 tank, on which the diesel was tested, never reached the test site under its own power. Troubleshooting of the motor showed that the crankcase block, crankshaft bearings were destroyed. In order for the design embodied in paper to migrate to life, new materials were needed. The equipment on which the parts were made was also not good. Lacked a class of manufacturing accuracy.

In 1935, the Kharkov Locomotive Plant was replenished with experimental workshops for the production of diesel engines. Having eliminated a certain number of flaws, the BD-2A engine was installed on the R-5 aircraft. The bomber took to the air, but the low reliability of the engine did not allow it to be used for its intended purpose. Moreover, by that time more acceptable variants of aircraft engines had arrived.

The preparation of the diesel engine for installation on the tank was difficult. admission committee I was not satisfied with the high smokiness, which was a strong unmasking factor. In addition, high fuel and oil consumption was unacceptable for military equipment, which should be distinguished by a large power reserve without refueling.

The main difficulties behind

In 1937, the team of designers was understaffed with military engineers. At the same time, the diesel engine was given the name V-2, under which it went down in history. However, the improvement work was not completed. Part of the technical tasks were delegated to the Ukrainian Institute of Aircraft Engine Building. The team of designers was supplemented by employees of the Central Institute of Aviation Motors.

In 1938, state tests of the second generation of V-2 diesel engines were carried out. Three motors were presented. None passed the test. The first had a jammed piston, the second had a cracked cylinder block, and the third had a crankcase. In addition, the high pressure plunger pump did not create sufficient performance. He lacked manufacturing precision.

In 1939, the motor was finalized and tested.

Subsequently, the V-2 engine was installed on the T-34 tank in this form. The diesel department was reformed into a plant for the production of tank engines, the goal of which was to produce 10,000 units per year.

final version

At the beginning of World War II, the plant was urgently evacuated to Chelyabinsk. ChTZ already had production base for the production of tank engines.

Some time before the evacuation, the diesel was tested on a heavy KV tank.

For a long time, the B-2 was subjected to upgrades and improvements. Disadvantages were also reduced. The advantages of the engine of the T-34 tank made it possible to judge it as an unsurpassed example of design thought. Even military experts believed that the replacement of the V-2 with new diesel engines in the 60-70s was due to the fact that the engine was outdated only from a moral point of view. In many technical parameters, it surpassed the novelties.

You can compare some of the characteristics of the B-2 with modern engines to understand how progressive it was for that time. The launch was provided in two ways: from a receiver with compressed air and an electric starter, which ensured increased “survivability” of the T-34 tank engine. Four valves per cylinder increased the efficiency of the gas distribution mechanism. The cylinder block and crankcase were made of aluminum alloy.

The ultralight motor was produced in three versions, differing in power: 375, 500, 600 hp, for equipment of various weights. The change in power was achieved by forcing - reducing the combustion chamber and increasing the compression ratio of the fuel mixture. Even an 850 hp engine was released. With. It was turbocharged from the AM-38 aircraft engine, after which the diesel engine was tested on the KV-3 heavy tank.

Already at that time, there was a trend towards the development of military engines operating on any hydrocarbon fuel, which in war conditions simplifies the supply of equipment. The engine of the T-34 tank could run both on diesel fuel and on kerosene.

Unreliable diesel

Despite the requirement of People's Commissar V. A. Malyshev, the diesel engine did not become reliable. Most likely, it was not a matter of design flaws, but that the production evacuated to ChTZ in Chelyabinsk had to be deployed in a huge hurry. The materials required by the specifications were missing.

Two tanks with B-2 engines were sent to the United States to study the causes of premature failure. After carrying out annual tests of the T-34 and KV-1, it was concluded that the air filters do not retain dust particles at all, and they penetrate into the engine, leading to wear of the piston group. Due to a flaw in the technology, the oil contained in the filter leaked out through resistance welding in the housing. Dust, instead of settling in the oil, freely penetrated into the combustion chamber.

Throughout the war, work on the reliability of the T-34 tank engine was carried out constantly. In 1941, the 4th generation engines could barely work out 150 hours, while 300 were required. By 1945, the engine life could be increased by 4 times, and the number of malfunctions was reduced from 26 to 9 for every thousand kilometers.

The production capacity of ChTZ "Uraltrak" was not enough for the military industry. Therefore, it was decided to build factories for the production of engines in Barnaul and Sverdlovsk. They produced the same V-2 and its modifications for installation not only on tanks, but also on self-propelled vehicles.

ChTZ "Uraltrak" also produced engines for a variety of vehicles: heavy tanks of the KV series, light tanks BT-7, heavy artillery tractors "Voroshilovets".

Tank engine in civilian life

The career of the T-34 tank engine did not end with the end of the war. The design work continued. It formed the basis for many modifications of tank V-shaped diesel engines. B-45, B-46, B-54, B-55, etc. - they all became direct descendants of the B-2. They had the same V-shaped, 12-cylinder concept. Various hydrocarbon mixtures could serve as their fuel. The body was made of aluminum alloys and was lightweight.

In addition, the V-2 served as a prototype for many other engines that were not related to military equipment.

The civilian ships "Moscow" and "Moskvich" received the same engine as the one on the T-34 tank, with minor changes. This modification was called D12. In addition, diesel engines were produced for river transport, which were 6-cylinder halves of the V-2.

Diesel 1D6 was equipped with shunting locomotives TGK-2, TGM-1, TGM-23. In total, over 10 thousand units of these units were produced.

Mining dump trucks MAZ received diesel 1D12. The engine power was 400 liters. With. at a speed of 1600 rpm.

Interestingly, after the modifications, the potential of the engine has increased significantly. Now the assigned motor resource before the overhaul was 22 thousand hours.

Characteristics and design of the T-34 tank engine

The high-speed, compressorless V-2 diesel engine was water-cooled. The cylinder blocks were located in relation to each other at an angle of 60 degrees.

The operation of the motor was carried out as follows:

1. During the intake stroke, atmospheric air is drawn in through the open intake valves.
2. The valves close and the compression stroke occurs. The air pressure increases to 35 atm, and the temperature rises to 600 °C.
3. At the end of the compression stroke, the fuel pump delivers fuel at a pressure of 200 atm through the nozzle, which ignites at high temperature.
4. The gases begin to expand sharply, increasing the pressure to 90 atm. The engine is running.
5. Exhaust valves open and exhaust gases are expelled into the exhaust system. The pressure inside the combustion chamber drops to 3-4 atm.

Then the cycle repeats.

trigger mechanism

The way to start a tank engine was different from a civilian one. In addition to the electric starter with a capacity of 15 hp. c, was a pneumatic system consisting of compressed air cylinders. During the operation of the tank, the diesel pumped up pressure of 150 atm. Then, when it was necessary to start, air through the distributor entered directly into the combustion chambers, causing the crankshaft to rotate. Such a system ensured starting even with a missing battery.

Lubrication system

The motor was lubricated with MK aviation oil. The lubrication system had 2 oil tanks. The diesel had a dry sump. This was done so that at the moment of a strong roll of the tank on rough terrain, the engine would not go into oil starvation. The working pressure in the system was 6 - 9 atm.

Cooling system

The power unit of the tank was cooled using two radiators, the temperature of which reached 105-107 ° C. The fan was powered by a centrifugal pump powered by an engine flywheel.

Fuel system features

The NK-1 high-pressure fuel pump initially had a 2-mode regulator, which was subsequently replaced with an all-mode regulator. The injection pump created a fuel pressure of 200 atm. Coarse and fine filters ensured the removal of mechanical impurities contained in the fuel. The nozzles were closed type.

About the oil consumption of the V-2 diesel engine and its numerous descendants (V-6 / V-6A / V-6B, V-46, A-650G, A-401, V-54T / A-712), installed on equipment as military (BTR-50, PT-76, T-72, ZSU Shilka), so economic (GT-T, ATS-59G, Vityaz DT-30, etc.) purpose and how to fight it is written in note .

When you stand near the T-34 tank, no matter where and in what condition it is, shiny with paint or, like ours, shabby and cut with a cutter, you want to take off your hat. Looking inside, in my thoughts I see here my grandfather Misha, the gunner-radio operator. I remember his story, how he crawled out of the car, enveloped in flames, near Vienna. This is the history of my people, the pride of my country. And the technical thought is still alive.

Technical thoughts led me with my GT-T to him, namely to his V-2-34 engine. More precisely, this is the SU-100 self-propelled gun, judging by the shape of the remains of the top of the hull cut off during the conversion of the combat vehicle into a transport vehicle.

Developed in the 30s, V-2 diesel engines are still characterized by high specific parameters, their specific gravity is only 2.05 kg / hp, and the specific fuel consumption is 165 g / hp * h. But the age of the design causes disadvantages, the main of which are: inefficient operation of oil scraper rings of an outdated design and, as a result, high oil consumption for waste - 20 g / hp * h; rapid wear of the valve guides and even greater consumption of oil that enters the cylinders after lubrication of the cylinder head camshafts.

The design of the GT-T tractor conveyor used the power plant of the PT-76 amphibious tank based on single-row diesel engines of the V-6 family, derived from the double-row V-2.

Many parts and assemblies of this type of motors are unified. Including the head of the main (left) cylinder block assembly, blocks with liners (silumin and cast iron) and pistons. On my B-6A, the wear of the valve bushings over 33 years of moderate operation has developed so much that with the manifold removed, the process of oil passage and combustion is observed at the valves with the naked eye. I had to change the cylinder head assembly.

The emergence of new materials and technologies makes it relatively easy to eliminate the above disadvantages. Nevertheless, over the long years of serial production of V-2, D12, A-650 and M-401 diesel engines, their design has remained practically unchanged. Yes, and in the engine compartments of modern Ural tanks, the original forms of the V-2 tank diesel engine are easily guessed.

At the end of the thirties, we created a unique tank engine that stepped over into the 21st century. To understand what we are dealing with and again admire the design idea, look into history.

In the early 30s of the twentieth century, not only we did not have special tank engines. Thoughts that we were the first to put diesel on tanks are not entirely true. The first diesel engine was used on serial tanks in 1932 by the Poles, followed by the Japanese. These were automobile diesel engines of small power. And the tanks were relatively light. In the first half of the 30s. Soviet tanks were equipped with exhausted aviation gasoline engines. The operating conditions of a tank engine are sudden changes in the operating mode, load fluctuations, difficult cooling conditions, air intake, etc. A tank engine must be more powerful than a car engine. For medium tanks, an easy-to-use, durable and trouble-free engine with a capacity of 300-400 hp was needed, with good adaptability to significant overloads. As German General G. Guderian wrote after the war, a tank engine should be considered the same weapon as a cannon.

In the early 1930s, against the background of the absence of special tank engines in the world, in general, in our country, they began to create a special tank diesel engine. It was a bold undertaking. The best design personnel were thrown into its implementation. Despite the lack of experience, the designers began work on creating a diesel engine capable of developing crankshaft speeds up to 2000 rpm. They decided to design it as universal, ie. suitable for installation on tanks, aircraft and tracked tractors. It was necessary to obtain the following indicators: power - 400-500 hp. at 1700/1800 rpm, specific gravity no more than 0.6 kgf/hp In the 1930s, diesel engines were worked on not only at the NAMI Automobile Institute, but also at the Central Institute of Aviation Motors. They were developed for installation on aircraft and airships. The AN-1 heavy fuel aircraft engine created by CIAM was highly economical and served as the basis for a number of many high-speed engines that are still in use today, the basis, and not a prototype, including the future tank engine.

By May 1, 1933, the BD-2 high-speed diesel engine was assembled and tested. But tests revealed so many defects in it that it was out of the question to put it on a tank. For example, a two-valve engine head would not deliver the intended power due to the low cylinder filling ratio. The exhaust was so smoky and caustic that it interfered with the work of the crews of experienced BT-5 tanks. The construction of the crankcase and crankshaft turned out to be insufficiently rigid. And yet, by the end of 1937, a new model of a four-valve diesel engine, which by that time had received the name B-2, was installed on the test bench. In the summer of 1939, the first serial V-2 diesel engines installed on tanks, artillery tractors and on test benches were subjected to the most stringent examination.

In 1939 began large-scale production the world's first 500-horsepower high-speed V-2 tank diesel engines, put into production by the same order of the Defense Committee, which adopted the T-34 and KV. The engine was born along with the tank. It had no analogues in world tank building. had amazing versatility.

Before the start of the Great Patriotic War, V-2 tank diesel engines were produced only by plant No. 75 in Kharkov. The pre-war developments of the Design Bureau of Plant No. 75 include the creation of a 6-cylinder V-4 tank diesel engine with a capacity of 300 hp. at 1800 rpm, designed for installation in a light tank T-50. Their production was to be organized at one plant near Moscow. The war prevented this. But plant No. 75 managed to produce several dozen of these engines. Other pre-war developments are V-5 and V-6 diesels (supercharged), created in "metal". Experimental diesel engines were also made: boosted in terms of speed up to 700 hp. V-2sf and 850 hp supercharged V-2sn. The outbreak of war forced them to stop this work and focus on improving the main V-2 diesel engine. With the outbreak of war, V-2 began to produce STZ, and a little later, plant No. 76 in Sverdlovsk and Chelyabinsk Kirovsky (ChKZ). The first diesels in Chelyabinsk began to be produced in December 1941. I. Ya. Trashutin (all engines of post-war Ural tanks) became the chief designer of ChKZ for diesel engines. But there weren't enough motors. And in 1942, diesel plant No. 77 was urgently built in Barnaul (the first ten diesel engines were produced in November 1942). In total, these plants produced 17211 in 1942, 22974 in 1943 and 28136 in 1944. T-34 tanks and self-propelled units based on it were equipped with a V-2-34 diesel model (BT tanks had a V-2 diesel engine, and heavy KBs had its 640-horsepower version of the V-2K). It is a 4-stroke, 12-cylinder, V-shaped, high-speed, naturally aspirated, water-cooled, fuel-spray diesel engine. The cylinders are located at an angle of 60″ to each other. Rated engine power 450 hp at 1750 rpm of the crankshaft. Operating power at 1700 rpm - 500 hp The number of revolutions of the crankshaft at idle is 600 rpm. Specific fuel consumption - 160-170 g / hp. Cylinder diameter - 150 mm, displacement - 38.8 liters, compression ratio - 14-15. The dry weight of the engine is 874 kg.

In the post-war years, the following modifications of the V-2 and V-6 engines were used at armored vehicles: V-55, V-55V, V-54B, V-54, V-54G, V-54K-IS, V-54K-IST , V-105B, V-105V, V-34-M11, V-2-34KR, V-2-34T, V12-5B, V-12-6V, V-6B, V-6, V-6PG, V -6PV, V-6PVG, V-6M, V-6R, V-6R-1 and V-6M-1. B-2 was also adapted to the most diverse needs of the national economy with the birth of a large number of modifications. The designer's great success was the B-404C engine for the Kharkivchanka Antarctic snowmobile.

In the 1960s, the Trashutin Design Bureau created the V-46 turbo-piston diesel engines for the T-72 tanks and subsequent generations of combat vehicles. Further development was the latest modifications of the V-82 and V-92, which at the turn of the century reached the parameters started by the designers of the V-2 in the 30s - specific gravity 1 - 0.7 kg / hp, power more than 1000 hp. at 2000 rpm. Equipped with a gas turbine pressurization, advanced fuel equipment and a cylinder-piston group, the V-92S2 diesel engine is at the level of the best world models, and surpasses the majority in terms of economy and specific weight and size indicators. The mass of the V-92С2 engine is only 1020 kg, which is more than 2 times less than the mass of the AVDS-1790 (USA), C12V (England), UDV-12-1100 (France) engines. In terms of overall power, the V-92S2 surpasses them by 1.5 - 4.5 times, in terms of fuel efficiency - by 5-25%. has a torque reserve - 25-30%. Such a reserve greatly facilitates the control of the machine, increases maneuverability and average speed. Tank T-90 - one of the best serial images of armored military vehicles in the world due to the highest combat effectiveness, reasonable cost and amazing reliability.

Let's go back to our life in the Polar Mountains. Being engaged in geological research, I again found myself at the site where the SU-100 self-propelled tractor has been growing into the tundra for half a century. She, like three similarly reconstructed self-propelled guns-76 in other places, was left in the early 60s of the last century under open sky uranium geologists. To assess the condition of the insides of the V-2-34 diesel engine, I habitually opened the nozzle hatch in the head cover of the left cylinder block. What I saw amazed me. Shiny mirrors on the camshaft cams, everything is coated with a thin layer of oil.

As if the engine was stopped recently, and not 50 years ago. All fuel pumps (TNVD and BNK), as well as the air start distributor, were obviously borrowed at one time by passing AT-S-chiks. Loose right intake manifold. Removed starter and alternator. Everything else was in place and not very rusty.

After a short sledgehammer consumption, the control rods came to life, passing along the bottom of the hull from the driver's seat to the main and onboard clutches and brakes. The main one was turned off by pressing the pedal, but the engine did not want to turn over the flywheel, it was a stake. Those. In any case, without a bulkhead, it is not suitable for work. Having estimated the amount of work, the necessary equipment and strength, I returned to my geological camp.

Taking advantage of the non-working wet weather for the geologist, the next day, with a group of students, he began dismantling the cylinder head of the left collapse of V-2-34. Absolutely all the nuts were unscrewed without problems, even the nuts of the main anchor studs.

When lifting the cylinder head, the latter stuck with the gasket and did not want to separate from the surface of the block. As it turned out later, it was necessary to pick up the head with a shirt and cartridge cases. But this became clear much later, when disassembling the GT-T diesel engine, which at that time was standing right there, next to the “tank”. After the cylinder block, dressed on anchor studs, remained in place of the left camber, and the cylinder head assembly was taken to the side, another miracle appeared. All rubber seals, both of the anchor shafts and of the overflow tubes made of honey-coloured natural rubber, remained elastic.

My overgrown face was reflected in the mirrors of the cylinder liners. The fingers automatically ran along the upper edges of the mirrors - the wear on the sleeves was almost not felt. But there was no time to dismantle the pistons. At that time, I was not going to change the cylinder-piston group on my B-6A. Nevertheless, diesel fuel with used oil was poured into the cylinders, and the mirrors were additionally coated with grease. The entire left camber was covered with oiled tarpaulins for the winter.

Some time later, at the base, due to the age of the car, the main clutch jammed so that one of the rods from the shutdown leash was thrown out through the ejector into the street. In parallel with the replacement of the clutch, he began to prepare the replacement of the diesel cylinder head with one brought from the "tank", relatively new in terms of wear and at the same time old in age. By the way, my head was no longer native.

I changed it to the head of the main camber of the A-650 diesel engine, which was left over from the AT-C (product 712) and was stored in my reserve complete with a block and pistons. Then I did not change the piston because of the decent output on the sleeves of this block. When I removed the cylinder head from my engine, I was upset and puzzled by the very poor condition of the mirrors.

In addition to natural wear and decent wear, there were ring scratches on the liners, similar to piston ring sticking marks or cracks. This really could be. In history, there was a case of movement without water in a system of 300 meters, after it was dumped through a torn pipe. Then I changed the cylinder head along with the gasket and rubber seals of the bypass pipes. Here I had to regret the piston left on the "tank"!

The winter passed behind various other matters and worries at the base. My tractor was disassembled. Already in the summer I asked a friend for a GAZ-34039 to go for spare parts for a piston.

We went to GAZ to pick up a piston.

When we drove up to our lonely self-propelled gun, it turned out that someone curious, most likely a reindeer herder, scattered my packaging at the beginning of summer. There was water in the cylinders. The appearance of the cylinders was no longer so ideal. I regretted not taking everything at once. But, as it turned out, I still could not do this without disassembling the right camber. We pulled off the left block of cylinders. But to remove the pistons from the connecting rods, it is necessary to gradually turn the crankshaft.

Cylinder blocks B-2-34 removed. Motor rotates freely

And he did not turn - he stood like glued. The engine began to crank only after removing the nuts of the stitching and anchor studs of the right camber. The pistons went up along with the entire block and head. It became clear, and after removing the cylinder head, it is clear that the pistons in two cylinders with open valves simply rusted. It took a little fiddling before the cylinder block was lifted off the pistons and set aside.

The engine without cylinders rotated easily and we proceeded to dismantle the pistons, which, as you know, should be changed in pairs with sleeves. Field technology - the piston is gently warmed up with a blowtorch and beaten at the end of the piston pin with a non-ferrous metal punch. After reaching a sufficient temperature, the pin extends freely until the piston is released from the connecting rod and remains in the seat until it cools.

Since the left camber cylinders still suffered during the premature depreservation carried out by an unknown attacker, it was decided to take all the pistons so that there was plenty to choose a kit for the in-line B-6A. For 2 revolutions of the crankshaft for the fan wheel, all pistons with fingers were packed into boxes. It remained to load into the lawn and pack the extracted two cylinder blocks, removed fasteners and tubes. In the evening we set off on our way back. With a self-propelled tractor, my sense of duty remained ...

The preparation of the piston and the assembly of the engine took place already in late autumn. According to the plan, it was supposed to disassemble the native cylinder block V-6A GT-T and press liners from V-2-34 into it.

But it turned out that the sleeves that had worked for 33 years in the silumin jacket of the block did not want to leave it either with a sledgehammer or with a puller. Puller bar was bent. It was possible to advance the sleeve by 3 mm with a sledgehammer through a bar of copper. Obviously, it was necessary to heat the entire jacket of the block before extracting the sleeves.

But I remembered the stored aluminum alloy block from the A-650. Then I still didn’t want to make the car heavier with a cast-iron block from V-2-34, it is much heavier. But after the jacket of the block from AT-S was unsleeved and thoroughly washed, I saw cracks in it between the cylinder seats.

It is clear that such a head is suitable only for scrap or as a visual aid. There was nothing left but to assemble a block in a cast-iron jacket. When washing and cleaning the disassembled cylinder blocks B-6A, A-650 and B-2-34, I was struck by the strict conformity of the casting, despite the difference in years of manufacture and materials (silumin and cast iron), as well as the perfect elasticity and the fresh smell of rubber emanating from the sealing rings removed from the sleeves. They were brown rubber. The sleeve opening of the V-2-34 block, as well as the block from the A-650, was easily carried out with a screw puller.

The sleeves, which are in good condition, and the pistons from them were soaked in a barrel of diesel fuel and washed. Most of the piston rings are stuck in their grooves.

The rings of pistons removed from V-2-34 in comparison with the rings of worn pistons of the GT-T diesel engine, after cleaning, move without play in the grooves. My old pistons were no longer fit for work due to broken grooves. In preparation for assembling the engine, the piston rings were fixed with cotton thread. The only visual difference between the B-6A and B-2-34 pistons is that the bottom of the B-6 piston is smooth cup-shaped inside, and the bottom of the piston from the "tank" is made in the form of a grid of heat-removing ribs. The pistons from the B-2-34 were installed without any difficulty on the connecting rods of my B-6A in the same way that they were removed.

The assembly of the block, like all preparation work, was carried out on a table in warmth and good light. Sealing rubber rings of liners, together with seals and a gasket under the cylinder head, were purchased in advance from Neva-diesel LLC, St. Petersburg. In the end, it turned out that the B-2-34 cylinder block was re-assembled in a cast-iron jacket with 6 liners selected from 12. For control, the block ready for installation was subjected to hydraulic tests. During the day, it was filled with diesel fuel on the plane of the installation of the cylinder head mirror.

In terms of its tactical and technical data and manufacturability, the T-34 turned out to be the most successful tank of the Second World War. In many ways, it was the thoughtful design of this tank and its mass production that allowed the USSR to tip the scales of armed confrontation with the Third Reich in its favor. During the pre-war and war years, the receivers received 35,333 copies of the T-34 from Soviet enterprises, and the "thirty-four" became the most massive tank of the Second World War

In the history of tank building there is a machine that will forever remain an example of success. In terms of its tactical and technical data and manufacturability, the T-34 turned out to be the most successful tank of World War II (hereinafter referred to as WWII). In many ways, it was the thoughtful design of this tank and its mass production that allowed the USSR to tip the scales of armed confrontation with the Third Reich in its favor.

At the beginning of glorious deeds

The appearance of the tank was not accidental - it was preceded by a whole decade of painstaking work of Soviet designers, creative searches, human tragedies, bitter defeats and delightful victories. It all started with the fact that in 1927 at the Kharkov Locomotive Plant (hereinafter - KhPZ) a special design group was formed, which was entrusted with designing the first medium Soviet tank T-1-12. Its development resulted in the creation of more perfect model T-24, but it was released only in an experimental series of 25 vehicles. However, soon, instead of a tank of their own design, KhPZ was obliged to put on stream the M1931 tank purchased in the USA, designed by John Walter Christie. The American car used a unique candle suspension patented by Christie, which later became one of the T-34's signature features.

John Walter Christie demonstrates his M1931 tank to foreign representatives. The suspension installed on it will soon “migrate” to the design of the T-34
Source - valka.cz

The transition to the production of an imported model of the tank caused a conflict between the KhPZ designers, whose labor efficiency was called into question by military functionaries from the Department of Motorization and Mechanization of the Red Army (hereinafter - UMM). The head of the design bureau (hereinafter referred to as the design bureau) of the T2K plant (in which a special design group grew up) I.N. Aleksenko quit with a scandal, and the director of the enterprise I.P. Bondarenko expressed his displeasure to the management, but continued to work.

Instead of Aleksenko, a new head of the design bureau, A. O. Firsov, was sent to Kharkov. A hereditary nobleman, he worked as the general designer of the Leningrad plant "Russian Diesel" since pre-revolutionary times. Here in 1930 he was arrested for "participation in a wrecking group." However, on September 18, 1931, the remaining term was replaced by work as the chief designer of the T2K KhPZ design bureau. Under the leadership of Firsov, on the basis of the American M1931, the Kharkovites created a tank with a turret of their own design, called the BT-2 (“fast tank”) and mastered its mass production. Next came the upgraded BT-5 with a more advanced turret and the BT-7, in which the designers made more serious changes to the hull, engine, transmission and chassis. In fact, starting from the appearance of Firsov at KhPZ, the plant began work on units and design solutions that would later organically enter the layout of the T-34.

The team of KB T2K KhPZ them. Comintern together with its leader from 1931 to 1936, A. O. Firsov (center). Far left in the top row - A. A. Morozov
Source - museum-t-34.ru

Creating a diesel "heart"

Almost simultaneously with the launch of the production of BT tanks, the leadership of the USSR initiated work on the creation of aircraft and tank diesel engines at a number of Soviet enterprises and research institutes. KhPZ also joined the work, where since 1912 there was a corresponding department, and since 1914 - a thermal shop for the production of diesel engines. In the 1920s, the designers of the plant created the first tractor diesel engine in the USSR for the German tractor Ganomag WD-50, produced at KhPZ under license, which received a new name in Kharkov - Kommunar.

By the beginning of 1932, the customer determined the main parameters of the future "heart" of Soviet tanks and the materials for its manufacture. It was required to design a 12-cylinder diesel engine with a capacity of 400 hp. With. at 1700 rpm with a specific fuel consumption of 180–190 g/l. With. per hour in tank and aviation versions. It was supposed to use progressive solutions in its design: direct fuel injection, stamped light-alloy pistons, four valves per cylinder, bearing power studs, and a cast aluminum head. The engine was going to be made from domestic materials and components, with the exception of Bosch fuel pumps and injectors, which were planned to be manufactured in the USSR later.

In Kharkov, work on the project, originally called BD-2 ("high-speed diesel engine"), began in October 1932, and was completed by February 1933. One of the creators of this engine, designer K.F. Chelpan, recalled that Firsov made a significant contribution to its development. The engine project was not approved by the UMM and the Scientific and Tank Committee of the People's Commissariat of Defense, but top management closely followed the progress of work - for example, the head of the UMM commander I. A. Khalepsky specially came to the KhPZ to look at a promising diesel engine, and Stalin called the director of the plant I. P. Bondarenko to Moscow to report on the progress of work on the prototype.

Tank diesel engine V-2-34
Source - fotoham.ru

Kharkiv residents showed the first BD-2 to the country's leadership at the end of 1934, for which the plant was awarded the Order of Lenin on March 27, 1935. The same order was awarded to I. P. Bondarenko, K. F. Chelpan, chief designer of the KhPZ for mechanical engineering, and Ya. E. Vikhman, head of the diesel engine design bureau.

In the second half of 1936, the KhPZ named after the Comintern was renamed Plant No. 183. Inside the enterprise, digital indexing of services was introduced, and the T2K tank design bureau was assigned the KB-190 index.

During this period of time, the chief tank designer of KhPZ Firsov began to think about creating a radically new tank. One of the creators of the T-34, designer V.N. Vasiliev recalled: " ... the basis for the creation of the T-34, its primary technical appearance, the main combat characteristics were laid down under Firsov. Already at the end of 1935, elaborate sketches of a fundamentally new tank lay on the table of the chief designer: anti-ballistic armor with large angles of inclination, a long-barreled 76.2-mm gun, and a V-2 diesel engine(index subsequently assigned to BD-2 - author's note) , weight up to 30 tons ... ".

However, the designer-prisoner was not destined to bring these ideas to life. Following the awards, KhPZ was subjected to repressions. Large military maneuvers in the summer-autumn of 1936 revealed the poor quality of the tanks that entered service with the Red Army - for example, on several hundred of the first BT-7 delivered to the troops, gearboxes (hereinafter referred to as the checkpoint) began to fail. At that time, a civil war began in Spain, and the leadership of the USSR rightly believed that it was a prelude to a world war. At such a crucial moment, it turned out that the Land of the Soviets had serious problems in tank building. In order to urgently correct the situation, the bloody repressive machine began to work in full force.

Firsov was the first to suffer. In the summer of 1936, he was removed from the leadership of the design bureau - designer M.I. Koshkin was transferred to this position from the Leningrad plant No. 185 named after Kirov. He was a relatively young thirty-seven-year-old man who, throughout the 1910s and 1920s, was thrown into the trenches of the First World War and into the infantry lines of the Civil War. After the end of hostilities, he landed at the desk of the Communist University named after Ya. M. Sverdlov, where he listened to lectures by Lenin, Stalin and Voroshilov. After the distribution, Koshkin ended up in the position of director of the Vyatka confectionery factory, then he changed several chairs, holding various party positions. In 1929, on the personal orders of S. M. Kirov (Koshkin for some time held leading positions in the Vyatka province, where Kirov was from), he was enrolled as a student in the Leningrad Machine-Building Institute as an enterprising worker among the “party thousand members”. The country needed a lot of engineers, and by order of order, several thousand commanders of the Red Army and party workers began their studies at engineering universities.

Second left - M. I. Koshkin
Source - ruskline.ru

While still a student, Koshkin began working at the Leningrad Experimental Machine Building Plant No. 185 named after S. M. Kirov (OKMO of the Bolshevik plant) as a designer. Here Mikhail Ilyich participated in the development of an experimental medium tank T-29, designed to replace, but never replaced the serial three-turret T-28. Then, as deputy general designer, Koshkin was involved in the creation of an experimental T-46-5 / T-111 tank with anti-cannon armor, for which he was awarded the Order of the Red Star.

Meanwhile, the “crackdown” at KhPZ was not limited to Firsov's dismissal. To finalize the BD-2 engine in 1937, a special commission was sent to the plant from Moscow. She also had to determine the reasons for the appearance of low-quality products. According to the results of the work of the commission, a whole group of “dieselists” arrived in Kharkov from Moscow a little later. Visiting experts found in the design of the engine an uneven distribution of the load on the crankshaft bearings, which led to increased body vibration and a quick failure of the power plant. In addition, the quality of the components in the metal was extremely low - inside the broken BD-2, scuffs were found in the cylinders and on the parts, as well as metal shavings. As a result, the motor resource of the engines turned out to be very small, and some instances failed after only 10–15 hours of operation.

With the help of Moscow and Leningrad specialists, the DB-2 (the index was changed to B-2) was finalized, making up to two thousand different changes to it. At the same time, Chelpan was removed from work on the engine. In the middle of 1937, the NKVD arrested Firsov for the second time, after which he was shot (according to some reports, six years after his arrest, according to others - in the same year). In December 1937, Chelpan, who was arrested on a fabricated "Greek case", was behind bars - he was sentenced to "the highest measure" and the sentence was carried out on March 11, 1938 in a Kharkov prison.

K. F. Chelpan
Source - old-mariupol.com.ua

Together with the leaders, the NKVD bodies also arrested ordinary "diesel" designers: Chelpan's deputy I. Ya. Trashutin (who managed to avoid death - he was released in February 1939), G. I. Aptekman, M. B. Levitan, Z. B Gurtovoy (these specialists were shot), the chief engineer of the KhPZ F. I. Lyashch, the chief metallurgist A. M. Metantsev and many others. On May 25, 1938, the director of the KhPZ I.P. Bondarenko was shot, and Yu.E. Maksarev took over the management of the enterprise. Against the background of these arrests, the total demoralization of the plant's engineers, denunciations, mutual suspicions, the process of developing a new tank was going on.

To strengthen and replenish the design staff of plant No. 183 in June 1937, an adjunct of the Moscow Military Academy of Mechanization and Motorization (VAMM) named after Stalin, military engineer 3rd rank A. Ya. Dik, was sent to its design bureau in June 1937. Some of the engineers were subordinated to him, and dual power reigned in the bureau, which could not end in anything good. During this period, the designers worked on making changes to the design of the BT-7 (model BT-7-2000), on its modernized version of the BT-7-B-IS, and developed a radically new tank BT-9. The latter was supposed to differ from the BT-7 by the presence of six driving wheels, a diesel engine, a conical turret with a 45- or 76-mm gun and sloped armor. Koshkin and Dick accused each other of wrong engineering decisions, disruption, and sometimes outright sabotage of work. The number of mutual claims among the designers grew, but the work did not move forward.

Sketch of the BT-9 tank
Source - alternathistory.org.ua

In the end, the Moscow leadership was tired of these conflicts, and on September 28, 1937, the director of plant No. 183 was ordered to divide the tank KB-190 into two. A separate design bureau (hereinafter referred to as OKB), subordinate directly to the chief engineer of the plant, was ordered to replenish thirty VAMM graduates from October 5, and twenty more from December 1. Not later than September 30, its departments were to be headed by eight of the most experienced and talented designers of the plant. As the chief military consultant, the most famous tank tester of that time, Captain E. A. Kulchitsky, who became famous for his famous jumps on tanks of the BT series, was attracted. A. Ya. Dik was appointed head of the Design Bureau, engineer P. N. Goryun was appointed his assistant, and V. M. Doroshenko (control), M. I. Tarshinov (hull), Gorbenko (motor), A. A. Morozov (transmission), P. P. Vasiliev (chassis).

Koshkin remained the head of KB-190, which was supposed to deal exclusively with the development of modernized versions of the BT-7: the artillery BT-7A, armed with a 76-mm cannon, and the diesel BT-7M. Thus, the conflicting designers were "littered in different corners." For service series production at the plant there was a separate design bureau KB-35, headed by I. S. Ber.

Forerunners from the BT series

On October 13, 1937, the leaders of the Main Armored Directorate of the Red Army (hereinafter - GABTU), which replaced the UMM, informed Dick, who arrived in Moscow, and the heads of the groups of his bureau, the tactical and technical requirements of the new BT-20 tank:

• Type - wheeled-caterpillar, with a 6-wheel drive type Christie.
• Combat weight - 13-14 tons.
• Armament - 1 × 45 mm, 3 diesel engines, a flamethrower for self-defense or 1 × 76 mm, 3 diesel engines, a flamethrower. Every 5th tank must have an anti-aircraft gun.
• Ammunition - 130-150 × 45 mm or 50 × 76 mm, 2500 - 3000 rounds.
• Reservations: forehead - 25, conical tower - 20, side, feed - 16, roof and bottom - 10 mm. The armor is all inclined, with a minimum angle of inclination of the armor plates of the hull and turret of 18 °.
• Speed ​​- the same on tracks and wheels: max. 70 km/h, min. 7 km/h
• Crew - 3 people.
• Power reserve - 300-400 km.
• Engine - BD-2 with a power of 400-600 hp.
• Transmission - according to the type of wheeled-tracked tank BT-IS (power take-off for wheel travel after the onboard clutches).
• Suspension - individual, it is desirable to use torsion springs as springs.
• Install the Orion shot stabilizer and the horizontal stabilizer of the Povalov system turret, install headlights for night shooting with a range of up to 1000 m

A tough, and based on what happened later, cruel schedule for the work was established:

• by February 1, 1938 - submit preliminary design and layout BT-20;
• by May 1, 1938 - submit a working draft of the vehicle according to two approved options with bulletproof and anti-ballistic armor;
• by September 1, 1938 - to make prototypes;
• by December 1, 1938 - to test prototypes and eliminate defects;
• by May 1, 1939 - launch the selected tank into series.

However, already in the first quarter of 1938, it became clear that the OKB was breaking the deadlines. On March 27, 1938, acting chief engineer of the Defense Committee under the Council of People's Commissars commander V.N. Sokolov sent to the Chairman of the USSR Defense Committee V.M. Molotov memorandum containing the following lines:

“The government decree obliging plant No. 183 to create new types of BT and T-35 tanks in 1938, to ensure their transition to production from January 1, 1939, was disrupted by the plant. The preliminary design of the BT drawn up so far is at odds with the government's data. Weight instead of 13-14 tons is designed 16 tons, the thickness of the frontal armor instead of 25 mm - 16-20 mm. Armament - instead of 2 diesel engines - 3 diesel engines, installation of a flamethrower is not provided ... (18 people are working on the project).

What happened at the plant number 183? Why did only eighteen designers work on the project instead of the planned fifty VAMM graduates and the old engineering staff of the enterprise? For what reason was the sketch submitted for approval to the GABTU almost two months later than the deadline? The author does not have answers to these questions. It is only known that as a result, the head of the Design Bureau, adjunct of VAMM A.Ya., was found guilty. Dick. In April 1938, the day after he submitted his dissertation for defense, he was arrested and sentenced to ten years in the camps, which he served "from start to finish" (after being released from the camp, Dick lived for another seventeen years in exile in Altai).

In parallel with the Design Bureau of Plant No. 183, a group of military men headed by military technician 2nd rank N.F. Tsyganov. This team created the prototypes BT-2-IS, BT-5-IS, BT-SV and BT-SV-2 that did not go into series. The last vehicle, the high-speed Stalin-Voroshilov tank (which had the unofficial nickname "Turtle"), was armored on all four sides with armor plates located at rational angles of inclination (for the anti-shell version, the armor thickness reached 40-55 mm). When designing the BT-7-B-IS and BT-9, the Design Bureau used Tsyganov's suspension design and other solutions found by his group. Unfortunately, this talented military inventor repeated the fate of many engineers of that period. In early 1938, he was arrested, after which work on the BT-SV-2 (which is sometimes mistakenly called one of the T-34 prototypes) stopped. Later, Tsyganov was rehabilitated and returned to the army, he participated in the hostilities and died of wounds in January 1945.

Prototype BT-SV-2 "Turtle"
Source - topwar.ru

Birth of a legend

Before the arrest of A.Ya. Dika KB-190, headed by Koshkin, was engaged in the modernization of the BT-7 tank. For him, they designed a new conical tower with inclined walls, improved the three-speed gearbox (before the modernization it was four-speed) and strengthened the suspension. On September 1, 1937, the new car was put into service. Koshkin was already engaged in launching the “product” into mass production, when it turned out that the Design Bureau was being disbanded, he was appointed general designer of plant No. 183, and responsibility for the creation of new tanks now falls on him.

Instead of the OKB, the plant formed KB-24, which included the best specialists from Dick's bureau, as well as from KB-190 and KB-35. General leadership and linking decisions on new tanks was carried out by A.A. Koshkin’s deputy. Morozov, engineer M.I. Tarshinov, the tower and the installation of weapons in it - A.A. Moloshtanov, transmission - Ya.I. Baran, management - P.P. Vasiliev, running gear - V.G. Matyukhin.

Work on the engine was carried out in a separate design bureau. Just during this period, from April 19 to April 26, 1938, state tests of three V-2 engines took place at the plant's stand. The first diesel engine worked for only 72 hours, the second one ran out of oil after a hundred hours of continuous operation, a smoky exhaust appeared, and the cylinder head cracked, and the crankcase of the third one burst. Based on such disappointing test results, the commission did not accept the engine, but, nevertheless, it was ordered to assemble 5 in May, 10 in June, and 25 copies in July.

On April 28, 1938, at a meeting of the People's Commissariat of Defense (hereinafter referred to as the NPO), Koshkin presented sketches of not one, but two tanks at once: the ordered BT-20 (factory index - A-20) and its exclusively tracked version A-20G. Who was the initiator and author of the latter is not known for certain today. Official historiography attributes its creation to M.I. Koshkin, and given that he once led the development of the T-46-5 / T-111 tank, there are good reasons to consider this version plausible. However, in recent decades there have been suggestions that the draft design of this tank could have been created by A.Ya. Wild. In a memorandum dated August 20, 1937, compiled by the district engineer of the GABTU of the Red Army, military engineer of the 2nd rank Saprygin, there are these words:

«… [Koshkin, designer Morozov and others - approx. author] completely refused to introduce the following improvements[suggested by Dick - approx. author]:

1. five speed gearbox[implemented on the T-34 in 1942 - approx. author] ;

2. installation of 5 pairs of wheels, which gives significant advantages for the tank (there is no need to widen and weight the wheels and caterpillar);

…

6. set the slope of the armor, at least the top side[implemented on the A-32 - approx. author] ;

7. make a hatch in the bottom[implemented on the A-32 - approx. author] …»

Be that as it may, at the end of April 1938, the Kharkovites submitted projects for two tanks for consideration by military customers. The caterpillar version really liked the head of the GABTU, the hero of Spain, commander D.G. Pavlov. Back in February, he sent the People's Commissar of Defense of the USSR K.E. Voroshilov's report, which, among other things, pointed out the need to develop a future replacement for BT tanks in two versions: wheeled-tracked and tracked. At that time, a final consensus on the preferred type of propulsion (tracked or wheeled-tracked) for future light and medium tanks had not yet been developed among the high tank command. The first ones were cheaper, had higher reserves of mass increase and cross-country ability. The second one is different high speed on flat areas. Pavlov leaned more towards the first option: “Upon receipt of the undercarriage (including the caterpillar) of a purely tracked tank operating for at least 3000 km, it will be possible to abandon the wheeled-tracked tank type.” Thus, it is quite possible that the creation of the caterpillar project was a joint initiative of functionaries from the GABTU and Kharkov designers.

Sketch of the A-20 tank
Source - armor.kiev.ua

On May 4, 1938, an expanded meeting of the NPO was held, which was attended by the country's top leadership: I.V. Stalin, V.M. Molotov, K.E. Voroshilov and other members of the Politburo. They collectively listened to the opinion of tank functionaries (many of whom personally took part in the battles in Spain) about how they see the future main tank of the Red Army. Komkor Pavlov, although leaning towards the caterpillar version, did not dare to argue with Stalin, who, like the entire Politburo, favored the wheeled-caterpillar mover. Fortunately, the Kharkov tank builders were rescued by the hero of Spain, military engineer of the 3rd rank A.A. Vetrov, who categorically advocated the need to create a tracked tank. During a break in the meeting, Stalin personally clarified the opinion of the military engineer and decided to order the development of two prototypes at once from plant No. 183.

In October 1938, the enterprise provided the GABTU with drawings and models of the A-20 and A-20G, which were considered by the Main Military Council of the Red Army on December 9-10. At a meeting of the USSR Defense Committee on February 27, 1939, Stalin, in the presence of M.I. Koshkin and Deputy Commissar of Defense G.I. Kulyka discussed the question of which prototype to order for Kharkovites. Both Stalin and military functionaries were still leaning towards the wheeled-tracked version, and those present who had a different opinion did not dare to voice it. The exception was chief designer plant number 183. Koshkin insisted that in order to make a final decision, it is necessary to compare prototypes with two types of propellers. In response, Stalin said famous phrase: “There is no need to hamper the initiative of the plant, I believe the factory workers. Let them build both tanks."

In Kharkov, work began to boil, the tracked tank was assigned the factory index A-32 and included in the production program. It was decided to increase the thickness of his armor by 5-10 mm, using the weight of the “lighter” chassis. A 45-mm cannon was installed on the A-20, and the A-32 was armed with a 76-mm L-10 gun manufactured by the Leningrad Kirov Plant (hereinafter - LKZ). At the beginning of 1939, three tank design bureaus (KB-190, KB-35 and KB-24) of plant No. 183 were merged into one unit, which was given a secret name - “department 520”. Organizational changes were carried out in connection with an increase in the volume of work and the need for a constant transfer of design personnel from one “burning” areas to others. The new design bureau was headed by Koshkin, and Morozov became the deputy chief designer.

Prototype A-20
Source - aviarmor.net

The A-20 and A-32 prototypes were made by May 1939, and over the next three months they went through a full cycle of state tests. By this time, the diesel section was finally separated from plant No. 183 into an independent diesel plant No. 75 of the People's Commissariat of the Aviation Industry. In June, the V-2 finally successfully passed state tests, and on September 5 it was recommended for mass production.

Meanwhile, WWII began on September 1, 1939, and there was no point in dragging on with the start of the mass production of the new main medium tank. At the end of September, K.E. Voroshilov appointed demonstration tests at the Kubinka training ground. The tanks were watched by Stalin, Voroshilov, as well as other members of the NPO and the government. At the training ground, Soviet tank builders demonstrated six vehicles at once: experimental heavy SMK and KV, light modernized T-26 and BT-7M, as well as A-20 and A-32. The A-32 tank showed excellent cross-country ability, in addition, unlike the A-20, its weight could be significantly increased. Koshkin told the country's leadership that the Design Bureau was working to increase the thickness of tank armor to 45 mm and considered this a completely justified decision in the event that the V-2 diesel engine was finalized by Plant No. 75.

After the tests, Stalin changed his mind about tanks with caterpillar propellers. It was decided to continue testing the undercarriage of the A-32 tank with ballast and prepare two prototypes with more powerful anti-ballistic armor. At the same time, the A-20 model was not abandoned - the possibility of parallel production of this vehicle together with the A-32 and its use as a cavalry tank was considered.

Prototype A-32 on field tests
Source - 3v-soft.clan.su

On December 19, 1939, at a meeting of the Defense Committee, based on the results of the A-32 tests, Resolution No. 443ss was adopted, which ordered the adoption of the T-32 tracked tank, manufactured by Plant No. 183, into service. Previously, Kharkovites were obliged to make changes to its design: increase the thickness of the main armor plates to 45 mm, improve visibility from the tank, install a 76-mm F-32 cannon paired with a 7.62-mm DT machine gun instead of the L-10 gun, and also provide for the installation course, separate and anti-aircraft machine guns of the same caliber. The new tank was assigned the T-34 index.

Fatal tank run

The assembly of the first A-34 No. 1 (A - factory index) was completed in January 1940, A-34 No. 2 - in February. In intra-factory correspondence, the cars received the unofficial nickname "twins". The tanks immediately began to undergo a full cycle of tests at the factory test site, but by March, when it was planned to organize a demonstration of new vehicles to Stalin, it became clear that the "thirty-fours" would not have time to gain the required mileage of 2000 km. Then Koshkin made the legendary decision to overtake the tanks on their own along the route Kharkov-Belgorod-Oryol-Moscow and back, so that they would cover the distance provided for by the test program, and show the new vehicles to the "Leader of the Peoples" right in the Kremlin. Despite the fact that Mikhail Ilyich had caught a bad cold the day before, he decided to go to Moscow with his tanks.

On the night of March 5-6, the "twins" left the walls of the plant. They were accompanied by two tractors, one of which towed a trailer loaded with spare parts, and the second - a portable cabin for shift crews, repairmen and Koshkin himself. Cars made marches, mainly at night, bypassing cities and busy highways.

Breakdowns began when the tanks had not yet had time to drive far from Kharkov - the first happened in the Belgorod region. Here is how Yu.E. wrote about it in his memoirs. Maksarev: "The representative of the GABTU, sitting down at the levers, forced the car to turn around in the snow at full speed and disabled the main clutch." Koshkin decided not to waste time, but to continue moving (for the broken “thirty-four”, a repair team was called from the factory). Another unpleasant episode occurred near Orel - the second tank slid into the lake, and the designer helped to pull it out, standing in icy water.

On March 12, in Serpukhov, the convoy was met by the Deputy People's Commissar for Medium Machine Building A.A. Goreglyad. He escorted the tank and tractors to Cherkizovo near Moscow, where at that time another tank-building enterprise was located - plant No. 37, which produced T-40 light tanks. Here the crew of the lagging A-34 caught up with the main group. The repairmen were preparing the cars for the government display, and Koshkin, who had fallen seriously ill, met the leaders who came to Cherkizovo from various military and civilian administrative departments.

M.I. Koshkin with factory test mechanics, 1938
Source - mancurty.com

Despite all the difficulties, in the early morning of March 17, both tanks arrived at the Kremlin's Ivanovskaya Square. The guards searched all the participants of the run before letting them into the main government complex of the country, and one NKVD officer was placed in each tank instead of a gunner-radio operator. During the report to Stalin, Koshkin sneezed and coughed all the time, which caused displeasure of the head of the USSR. Stalin inquired about the health of the designer and demanded from his superiors that they take care of his recovery.

After the report and inspection of the tanks, the drivers synchronously moved their cars from their seats. They, effectively striking sparks from the pavement, rushed: one - to the Spassky, the other - to the Trinity Gates. Here, the multi-ton colossus famously turned around and rushed back towards each other. Having done several circles with turns in different directions, the tanks, on command, froze in the same place.

Stalin liked the cars, despite the fact that Marshal G.I. Kulik and General D.G. Pavlov pointed out to him a lot of flaws that the tank really had. Pavlov directly told Stalin: “We will pay dearly for the production of insufficiently combat-ready vehicles.” However, the just ended war with Finland showed that the light tanks that were in service with the Red Army did not meet the requirements of modern combat. Stalin ordered that the T-34 complete the test cycle and begin mass production of the machine, while improving its design. He ordered Plant No. 183 to provide all necessary assistance.

After the show, the tanks were transferred to the Kubinka training ground, where they were subjected to sea trials, shelling tests, the hull tightness was checked (one of the vehicles was thrown with Molotov cocktails), etc. As a result, a list of comments to the T-34 appeared, consisting of eighty-six points . In April, tanks and tractors went to their native plant along the route Moscow-Minsk-Kyiv-Kharkov. Despite an untreated cold, Koshkin again went with the tanks and returned home with a severe form of pneumonia. Perhaps he would have been cured, but he constantly ran away from the hospital to the factory, where work was in full swing to launch the T-34 in a series. Doctors were forced to remove one lung from him, but this did not save the designer. On September 26, 1940, he died in the Lipki sanatorium near Kharkov at the forty-second year of his life. Instead, his deputy A.A. became the general designer of plant No. 183. Morozov.

A.A. Morozov
Source - morozov.com.ua

The publication

The designers finalized the tank, eliminating the identified shortcomings one by one. At the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant (hereinafter - ChTZ), they mastered the production of fuel equipment for the V-2 (previously it had to be purchased from the German company Bosch, and high-pressure fuel pipes from Italy and Sweden). Now a special workshop for fuel equipment has been built in Kharkov. The motor resource of diesel engines gradually increased, but the main problem - increasing the reliability of the main clutch and gearbox of tanks - did not have time to solve before the war. This was largely due to the insufficient gear-cutting machine park and the shortage of a significant part of the wear-resistant materials used in the production of friction clutches.

An interesting situation has developed with the F-34 cannon, designed specifically for the T-34 in the design bureau of the Gorky plant No. 92, which was led by the legendary designer V.G. Grabin. Initially, the Gorky people created the F-32 tank gun (the KV-1 tank was armed with it), designed to replace the 76-mm development of the L-11 artillery design bureau LKZ I.A. Makhanov. When designing it, Grabin used the muzzle of a regimental 76-mm F-22 cannon of his own design, and his designers developed a completely new bolt. The F-32 won the competition from the L-11, which turned out to be a tragedy for Makhanov. In June 1939, he and almost the entire leadership of the Design Bureau LKZ were arrested and shot.

In 1938, when work on the F-32 was still ongoing, the GABTU issued to the Gorky residents the tactical and technical requirements for a new anti-tank tank gun with the ballistics of a 40-caliber gun (that is, not as mounted as the L-11 and F-32) . Grabin Design Bureau prepared a new "product" with the F-34 index by November 1940, but Marshal Kulik refused to conduct military tests and accept the artillery system for service. Ignoring Kulik's opinion, Factory No. 92 and military receivers began mass production of this gun and its shipment to tank enterprises in Kharkov and Stalingrad, believing that the F-34 was more suitable for the needs of the army than the F-32 or L-11. As a result of all these events in the summer of 1941, a paradoxical situation developed - the gun fought on T-34 tanks, received flattering reviews from Soviet tankers, but was not accepted into service. When this became known to Stalin, he demanded that the prescribed military tests be carried out and retroactively take the gun into service.

Production of T-34-76 tanks. In the foreground are 76.2 mm F-34 guns of the 1940 model. Workshop of the Chelyabinsk Kirov Plant, 1943
Source - waralbum.ru

In addition to the 76-mm cannon, by July 1941 Grabin Design Bureau developed the 57-mm ZiS-4 tank gun for the T-34, the ballistics of which corresponded to the legendary ZiS-2 anti-tank gun. However, a meager number of these guns were installed on the tanks - only about thirty pieces. The reason for this was the excessive armor-piercing power of this artillery system - there were cases when the T-34-57 armor-piercing shells pierced enemy tanks through and through without causing them much damage. Shells fired at a lower muzzle velocity from the 76mm F-34 were more likely to disable the target if they penetrated the target's armor. In addition, high-explosive 57-mm shells had insufficient destructive power, which reduced their effectiveness in the fight against enemy infantry. The final cross on the ZiS-4 in 1941 was put by their high cost compared to the F-34.

Tests of the German tank Pz.Kpfw.III, received by the USSR in the summer of 1940 as part of the Soviet-German cooperation, showed that, winning in terms of armor and power of weapons, the T-34 loses to its main German counterparts in terms of the reliability of the chassis and transmission, and as well as engine life. In addition, the issue of observation devices and the spaciousness of the turret was solved worse for the Soviet tank. In the cramped double turret of the T-34, the tank commander constantly had to be distracted from command, loading the gun, and in the event of a rapid development of events, he might not have time to make the decision necessary for the survival of the crew. The day of June 22, 1941, the T-34 met with these unresolved problems.

When clouds gathered over the Motherland

In the very first battles, the shortcomings of the new tanks manifested themselves in full. Decisions hastily made by the command of the General Staff of the Red Army and the fronts led to mechanized corps (hereinafter - MK) "winding" hundreds of kilometers of marches, on which more than half of the tanks had to be abandoned due to breakdowns and lack of fuel. Another part of the tanks, their crews, left without shells and fuel, were abandoned or destroyed when leaving the encirclement. A significant part of the MK vehicles was lost in hasty and poorly prepared attacks on well-fortified enemy positions. The German crews had a hard time when their tanks came close to the better armored and armed Soviet T-34s. But the tankers of the Wehrmacht tried to avoid such situations, preferring to operate from ambushes or even provide an opportunity to deal with the enemy to the calculations of anti-tank guns, anti-aircraft guns or infantry.

As a result, most of the pre-war thirty-fours, along with the rest of the armored forces, were lost back in the summer of 1941. By autumn, the situation had become catastrophic. On September 14, 1941, in Ukraine, most of the troops of the Southwestern Front were surrounded in the territories of the Kyiv, Poltava, Chernihiv and Sumy regions, and the enemy approached Kharkov.

Stuck and abandoned Soviet tanks KV and T-34
Source - topwar.ru

On September 17, 1941, the State Defense Committee (GKO) decided to evacuate factories No. 183 and No. 75 to the Urals (the first to Nizhny Tagil at the Uralvagonzavod site, the second to Chelyabinsk, where the legendary " Tankograd"). Until October 25, ChTZ, renamed the Chelyabinsk Kirov Plant (hereinafter - ChKZ), was obliged to begin production of the first V-2 engines. In September, the development of the production of these power plants began at the Stalingrad Tractor Plant ("thirty-four" he began to produce in the summer of 1940). Later, in the summer of 1942, the construction of a motor plant in Barnaul began.

In addition to factories No. 183 in Nizhny Tagil and STZ in Stalingrad, ChKZ, the Leningrad plant No. 174 evacuated to Omsk, the Sverdlovsk Uralmash and the Gorky plant No. 112 Krasnoe Sormovo were obliged to master the production of T-34 in 1942. But the main manufacturer of the T-34 was still plant No. 183, which frustrated all the deadlines for launching mass production of tanks at a new location. The company failed to evacuate a lot of machine tools, railway station wagons with equipment for the production of towers were lost, there were no tank diesel engines, and when the “thirty-fours” assembled already in Nizhny Tagil installed everything that could be evacuated from Kharkov, production stopped.

Leaden clouds hung over the director of the plant Maksarev, Stalin was going to put him on trial - in those cruel times it meant certain death. To remedy the situation, the head of the USSR sent to Nizhny Tagil the Deputy People's Commissar for Tank Building and part-time director of ChKZ I.M. Zaltsman, who solved similar problems in Chelyabinsk quickly and efficiently. In order for Saltzman to have time to resolve all issues both in Nizhny Tagil and at ChKZ, he was given a personal Li-2 transport aircraft.

In a new place, Saltzman began to act with his usual methods. At the nearest major junction station in Sverdlovsk, crammed with wagons with equipment from evacuated enterprises, Isaac Moiseevich, where using his power, and where threatening with a gun, seized and sent the necessary machines to plant No. 183. In addition, several cars with M-17 aviation carburetor engines went to the wrong destination, which fit perfectly into the engine compartment of the T-34 and were suitable in terms of power. The plant started working, and Maksarev Saltsman defended before Stalin, proving that in the current situation he was not to blame. Maksarev worked as Zaltsman's deputy in Nizhny Tagil until he took the plant back in 1943.

THEM. Saltzman
Source - uralpolit.ru

After a frank "robbery" on the roads performed by the Deputy Tank People's Commissar, which led to failures in the production of aircraft, Stalin received several angry claims from the People's Commissar of the USSR aviation industry A.I. Shakhurin, but the "leader" of the tank builders did not punish and let the conflict "on the brakes."

The tank grows up, the tank changes

The Morozov Design Bureau was also evacuated from Kharkov to Nizhny Tagil. It worked in two directions at once, the first of which was the refinement of the design of the T-34 in order to increase its reliability and manufacturability, as well as reduce labor intensity. The design bureau of plant No. 75, taken to Chelyabinsk and headed by I.Ya., who returned from the camps, was guided by the same goals. Trashutin. Thanks to these efforts, during the war, the labor intensity of manufacturing one tank was reduced by 2.4 times (including armored hulls by 5 times, diesel engines by 2.5 times), and the cost by almost half (from 270,000 to 142,000 rubles) .

A significant reduction in the labor intensity of manufacturing the hull was influenced by the introduction at Soviet tank-building plants of an innovative technology for automatic submerged arc welding of armor plates, developed at the Kiev Institute of Electric Welding by E.O. Paton. It turned out to be extremely useful because it did not require welders to highly qualified and experience. While high-class German welders spent a lot of precious time assembling the hulls of "triples", "fours", "tigers" and "panthers", in the USSR recent schoolchildren and schoolgirls performed similar work. In addition, after testing the welds by shelling, it turned out that their strength was higher than that of the armor sheets connected by them.

Welding the sides of the T-34 tank hull with an automatic welding machine at plant No. 183 in Nizhny Tagil
Source - waralbum.ru

Another, no less important area of ​​work of the Morozov Design Bureau was to improve the combat qualities of the tank, the requirements for which from the military increased every month.

In February 1942, the designers were required to create a new five-speed gearbox. They completed this task by the summer, designing a more reliable gearbox with movable clutches and gears of constant meshing instead of the movable gears used on the previous four-speed gearbox. At the same time, the overall and connecting dimensions of the gearbox did not change, which means that it was not necessary to make changes to the tank hull, and the replacement of the gearbox did not affect the speed of production of tanks.

The tank turret has also evolved. The towers of the first series were produced both cast and welded - casting was less durable, but more technologically advanced. On the first cast turrets, the armor of the onboard observation devices was carried out together with the turret, but soon this innovation was abandoned, unifying these elements with the welded turret. Then, the all-round viewing device was removed from the hatch cover (the hole in the hatch in this case was welded with a round plug). A special hatch was located in the aft part of the tower, through which the dismantled gun barrel with a knurler and a recoil brake was removed and installed. The cradle was removed through the turret hatch, which was made large for this purpose, abandoning separate hatches for the commander and gunner, as was the case on the BT-7 tanks.

German soldiers next to the T-34 tank. Machine release March-April 1941
Source - waralbum.ru

In the spring of 1941, the drawings of a new turret were approved, the shoulder strap of which increased from 1400 to 1420 mm. In the last months of the work of plant No. 183 in Kharkov, only one observation device was installed on the towers, and a cutout for the all-round viewing device was not made. These changes have come into full force at the STZ, which is short term, while Kharkov capacities were evacuated to the Urals, became the main manufacturer of "thirty-fours" in the country.

Until the autumn of 1941, the configuration of the towers did not change. In September 1941, the STZ began to develop a new method for cutting armor plates (which excluded the bending of the rear of the turret side plates), which was mastered by the end of the year. It was approved on September 17, 1941, and from December STZ began producing tanks in a new design.

The next stage of development, begun in Stalingrad, was the use of spiked connections in the tower structure. By April 1942, a new version of the front of the turret was developed - the so-called scarves appeared, which excluded the ricochet of shells into the shoulder area.

At the Sormovo plant, powerful casting production made it possible to quickly establish the production of towers of their own shape, which had more rational contours of the front (they were more pointed). On March 1, 1942, the Gorky team abandoned the aft hatch in the turret, which reduced its cost. Instead, the head of the weapons sector of the Sormovo plant A.S. Okunev developed a technology for replacing tank guns (including in the field) through shoulder straps. This method is still used by tank crews of all countries of the former USSR.

However, the T-34 turret received more and more complaints every month. It was not very technological, cramped. In addition, after the participation of the tank in the battles, it turned out that the turret hatch was extremely inconvenient for emergency evacuation of crews, and the designers were asked to change it. As a result, at the end of winter and early spring of 1942, factory #183 began designing a new, six-sided turret, better known as the “nut”. Instead of one large hatch, two separate, smaller ones, as well as a commander's cupola, were constructed on it. By 1943, all T-34 manufacturers gradually began to install just such turrets on tanks.

Assembly of the T-34 at a tank factory (possibly ChKZ or factory #174 in Omsk). The vehicle has a "nut" turret with a commander's turret
Source - waralbum.ru

From bitter defeats to bitter victories

Along with the improvement of the design of the T-34, their use on the fronts also became more thoughtful and conscious. Until the end of 1942, tanks were sent to units with a minimum delay. In the days of the defense of Stalingrad, the "thirty-fours" went into battle directly from the workshops, since there were only a few kilometers to the front line, and in the last days of the defense of the STZ - hundreds of meters. As the factories mastered automatic welding, technological optimization of the tank design and development of all processes, the monthly production of T-34 tanks grew steadily. By the end of 1942, this figure exceeded 1,000 vehicles, and by the end of 1943 - 1,400. This allowed the command of the Red Army to form a number of tank corps (hereinafter - TK) by November 1942, thanks to which, from November 1942 to February 1943, the Red Army carried out several successful offensive operations.

On November 19, 1942, Soviet troops launched Operation Uranus, having more than a twofold advantage in tanks - 1463 vehicles (of which the majority were T-34s) against 675 German ones. Already on November 23, the troops of the 4th TK of the South-Western Front and the 4th MK of the Stalingrad Front met in the area of ​​\u200b\u200bthe Sovetsky farm, enclosing the Stalingrad grouping of the enemy in the interfluve of the Volga and Don. More blows followed. During Operation Small Saturn, four TKs thwarted an attempt by the Wehrmacht to unblock Stalingrad, cut off air supplies to the 6th German Army, and also cleared the territories in the middle reaches of the Don from enemy troops. "Thirty-four" of the 24th TC Major General V.M. Badanov broke into the German airfield in the village of Tatsinskaya and destroyed most of the aircraft flying from here to Stalingrad. The forces of the 6th and 11th tank divisions of the Wehrmacht came to the rescue and were able to surround and force Badanov's forces to retreat. As a result, the 24th TK lost most of the tanks (the shells for the tank guns ran out), but it fulfilled its task of disrupting the supply of the 6th Army by the Germans.

Preparation of the train with the T-34 to be sent to the front. The crews were waiting for their tanks right at the factories, simultaneously mastering their design
Source - waralbum.ru

The tankers of the 17th and 18th TCs on their “thirty-fours” literally mixed the retreating columns of the 8th Italian army with the ground, and the 4th TC helped the 38th, 40th and 60th armies to push the enemy back from Voronezh and soon liberate Kursk. If in the first months of the war the Stalinist commanders had tank (mechanized) corps at their disposal, now they operated tank armies, and the credit for this belongs exclusively to Soviet tank builders, who monthly produced twice as many tanks as their German counterparts. Of course, the quality of Soviet tanks was lame, and the number of engine hours they passed without breakdowns was relatively small. But work on improving the reliability of the "thirty-fours" did not stop throughout the war. From March 1943 to April 1947, warranty tests of serial T-34s were constantly carried out at the Kubinka training ground. They showed that during this period the motor resource of cars increased from 300-400 to 1200-1500 km. In addition, the "thirty-fours" surpassed the German tanks in terms of maneuverability, armor and maintainability.

The situation changed dramatically by the summer of 1943, when Wehrmacht units appeared on the Eastern Front, armed with new German medium (according to the Soviet classification - heavy) tanks Pz.Kpfw.V "Panther" and heavy Pz.Kpfw.VI "Tiger". The 76-mm F-34 cannon could penetrate the frontal armor of the "tigers" and "panthers" only at distances less than 400 meters, while German tank guns "pierced" the forehead of the T-34 from one and a half kilometers. Such a significant advantage of the new German tanks manifested itself during large-scale tank battles on the Kursk Bulge in July-August 1943. The Soviet troops won, but suffered huge losses in armored vehicles, the bulk of which were all the same "thirty-fours". The situation needed to be rectified urgently.

Thirty-fours shot down near Belgorod from the tank column "For Soviet Ukraine". Photo by Franz Grasser
Source - belgorod.doguran.ru

The designers remembered the 57 mm Grabin tank gun. In May 1943, the T-34-57, “fighter tanks”, armed with modernized 57-mm ZIS-4M guns, which differed from the ZIS-4 in a number of simplifications, were again adopted by the Red Army. However, this decision was only a half measure.

In the arena - T-34-85

Since the summer of 1942, the Morozov Design Bureau has been working on the creation of a radically new T-43 tank based on the T-34. Christie's suspension, which took up a significant amount of armored space, was replaced with a torsion bar, and the thickness of the frontal armor, designed to withstand hits from new German guns, reached 75 mm. For the T-43, a new convenient three-man turret was developed, in which an 85-mm D-5-T85 cannon was installed, created in the Design Bureau of the Sverdlovsk Artillery Plant No. 9 under the leadership of F.F. Petrov and already successfully used on the KV-85, IS-1 and SU-85 tanks.

For a number of reasons, the launch of a new car in a series was considered irrational. However, in order to equip the T-34 with weapons adequate to confront the "tigers" and "panthers", they decided to create a new tower for the T-34 based on the tower designed for the T-43. Her frontal armor has doubled - from 45 to 90 mm. The weight of the tank also increased and reached 32.2 tons. On the tower, finally, a commander's cupola and hatches were constructed, convenient for the evacuation of the crew. This is how the new T-34-85 tank designed by Morozov Design Bureau appeared, appearance which is well known to almost all residents of the countries of the former USSR through films, photographs and monuments.

T-34-76 (left) and T-43 (right)
Source - morozov.com.ua

The hull of the tank and the chassis did not undergo significant changes, except that the diameter of the turret shoulder strap increased from 1420 to 1600 mm. The thickness of the hull armor still reached 45 mm, the Christie suspension was used. The rear layout of the transmission and the V-2-34 diesel engine upgraded during the war (rated power of 450 hp at 1750 rpm) predetermined the rear-wheel drive of the car. An economical power plant gave the tank a fuel range of 370-420 km. The undercarriage of the machine consisted of five road wheels, the large diameter of which made it possible to do without support rollers. The track width of the T-34 initially reached 550 mm, however, even before its evacuation from Kharkov, Plant No. 183 supplied some of the tanks with tracks 500 and even 450 mm wide. In the spring and summer of 1942, instead of a smooth 550-mm track, the service of the chief designer of the People's Commissariat of the tank industry under the leadership of S.A. Ginzburga developed a new 500 mm corrugated cast track, which turned out to be lighter and stronger than the previous one. From such trucks, the caterpillars of the Soviet "thirty-fours" were recruited until the end of the war.

The 85-mm D-5-T85 cannon was soon replaced by a more compact gun of the same caliber ZiS-S-53, developed at the Central Artillery Design Bureau (TsAKB), which was transformed into Grabin's Design Bureau. In addition, it turned out that the cost of the new artillery system is significantly lower than the previous 76-mm F-34 cannon and, especially, the D-5-T85 guns.

Since January 1944, the new tank began to be produced in small batches by the Sormovo plant No. 112. Since March of the same year, plant No. 183 in Nizhny Tagil also began to assemble the T-34-85. By the summer, all enterprises involved in the production of "thirty-fours" replaced the T-34-76 with a new model. In the spring of 1944, the T-34-85 began to enter the troops and passed almost unchanged The final stage war against the Third Reich, and then participated in the battles against Japan.

The most massive tank and its creator

In total, during the pre-war and war years, the receivers received 35,333 T-34 tanks from Soviet enterprises. Starting from 1944, factories in the USSR, and in the post-war years also enterprises in Poland and Czechoslovakia, produced more than 35,000 T-34-85 vehicles. As a result, the "thirty-four" became the most massive tank of the WWII era.

M.I. Koshkin, officially recognized as the creator of the T-34, did not see the triumph of his offspring. In 1942, together with A.A. Morozov and N.A. Kucherenko was posthumously awarded the Stalin Prize of the 1st degree, and on October 4, 1990, by decree of the President of the USSR M.S. Gorbachev - was awarded the title of Hero of Socialist Labor. However, some researchers of Soviet tank building, including B.M. Baryatinsky, whose works were used in writing this article, cast doubt on his authorship. The closest colleagues of the famous engineer also had their own opinion on this issue. Here is what L.N. Kartsev, who in 1953 replaced A.A. Morozov as General Designer of Plant No. 183: “It seems to me that Morozov was tormented by one circumstance all his life: he did not want to share the glory of creating the T-34 tank with the former chief designer M.I. Koshkin. And here's what I can give in support of this. After ... letters[with Kartsev's request to perpetuate the memory of Koshkin - approx. author] a correspondent of Komsomolskaya Pravda came to Nizhny Tagil ... and interviewed all the former Kharkovites. ... After Nizhny Tagil, the correspondent went to Kharkov. When he came to Morozov, he told him: "Neither I nor any of my employees can tell anything about Koshkin."

Who did not dispute Koshkin's authorship was Adolf Hitler, who posthumously included him in the list of his personal enemies. In 1941, the First City Cemetery of the city of Kharkov, where the designer was buried, was purposefully bombarded, as a result of which the grave of Mikhail Ilyich disappeared (the tombstone was not subsequently restored). But throughout the territory of the former USSR, the T-34 stands on pedestals - the most massive tank monument, reminiscent of its creators, in the forefront of which M.I. Koshkin.

One of the many monuments "with the participation" of the T-34
Source - www.aramgurum.ru