View allAll Photos Tagged M46
Approaching Heathrow Central Bus Station working route 111 was London Buses MCW Metrobus M46 (WYW 46T)
Der M48 Patton ist ein Kampfpanzer der Zeit des Kalten Krieges aus US-amerikanischer Produktion. In verschiedenen Versionen wird er noch heute in einigen Staaten des westlichen Einflussbereiches verwendet. Die offizielle Bezeichnung des Army Department war: „M48 Medium Tank – 90 mm Gun“. Benannt ist das Fahrzeug nach General George S. Patton, dem Kommandeur der Third United States Army während des Zweiten Weltkriegs und auf alliierter Seite einem der ersten Befürworter von massiven Panzereinsätzen.
In der US Army wurden die M48A5 als letzte Ausführung dieses Modells durch den M60 ersetzt; seit Mitte der 1990er Jahre sind die M48 in den Vereinigten Staaten nicht mehr im Dienst. Die zuletzt bei der Heimatschutztruppe der Bundeswehr eingesetzten M48A2C wurden ersatzlos ausgemustert, die M48A2GA2 durch den Leopard 2 ersetzt.
Bereits im Jahre 1947 forderte das US-Militär eine längerfristige Lösung für die Beschaffung eines Kampfpanzers der 30-Tonnen-Klasse mit einer 90-mm-Kanone. Die seit 1944/45 im Einsatz stehenden Kampfpanzer M26 Pershing sowie das Nachfolgemodell M46 entsprachen wegen ihrer geringen Motorleistung und ihrer sonstigen Schwächen nicht mehr den Anforderungen. Die seit 1951 hergestellten Kampfpanzer vom Typ M47 waren von Anfang an nur als Zwischenlösung betrachtet worden. Unmittelbar nach dem Produktionsbeginn für den M47 begannen bereits im Oktober 1951 im Arsenal von Detroit die Entwicklungsarbeiten für einen Nachfolger. Im Dezember des gleichen Jahres erhielt Chrysler den Auftrag zum Bau von sechs Prototypen mit der Bezeichnung T48. Noch bevor Chrysler die Prototypen fertig hatte, erging bereits der Auftrag für die ersten Baulose (zunächst ebenfalls an Chrysler), dem im Jahr darauf weitere Aufträge an die Firmen Ford Motor Company und Fisher Body Division (eine Tochter von General Motors) folgten. Die Auslieferung des nunmehr M48 genannten Fahrzeugs begann im Jahre 1952.
1954 erfolgte die Vergabe eines weiteren Bauloses an Chrysler.
Den Bauauftrag für den M48A2 erhielt im Jahre 1955 das Unternehmen „Alco Products“ in Schenectady (New York). Der Stückpreis betrug zu diesem Zeitpunkt 250.000 US-Dollar, womit er um 35.000 US-Dollar teurer war als sein Nachfolger M60 fünfzehn Jahre später.
1960 bemängelte eine Kontrollkommission inzwischen festgestellte gravierende Fehler an dem Fahrzeug, die nicht erkannt worden waren, da kein Truppenversuch stattgefunden hatte.
1975 wurde mit der Kampfwertsteigerung von 500 M48A3 zu M48A5 begonnen. Diese Fahrzeuge waren ausschließlich für die Nationalgarde bestimmt und wurden auch nur dort eingesetzt. Insgesamt wurden 2067 Panzer zur Version A5 umgerüstet. Diese Aktion war 1980 beendet.
Von 1952 bis 1959 (nach anderen Angaben in den Jahren 1952 bis 1960) wurden fast 12.000 Stück aller Varianten gebaut. Die Modelle M48 / M48A1 / M48C / M48A2 / M48A2C verwendeten einen Benzinmotor, dessen ausgesprochen hoher Kraftstoffverbrauch (im günstigsten Fall 6 Liter pro Kilometer) für einen nicht zufriedenstellenden Fahrbereich sorgte. Bereits 1959 begann die Entwicklung eines Dieselmotors, der ab 1963 in die M48A3-Modelle (Umbauten verschiedener älterer M48-Typen) eingebaut wurde.
Eine Vielzahl von Staaten bestellten die Fahrzeuge für ihre Panzertruppen, darunter auch Deutschland (ab 1956), Israel, Pakistan, Spanien, Taiwan und die Türkei.
Quelle: Wikipedia
Target Tanks at Cape Pyla. Military graveyard in Kato Pyla , near Xylofagou village.
Xylofagou is a sprawling Greek-Cypriot village situated close to the A3 Motorway between Dhekelia and Paralimni. It lies on the northern flank of a hill, on the edge of an area of a group of several similar villages known as the "Kokkinochoria", known for growing vegetables, especially potatoes, in red soil.
OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA
- Zoo, Hardenbergplatz -
Am Samstag, den 24. Mai 2014, wurden diese Aufnahmen von der zum 25-jahrigen Bestehen stattfindende Traditionsfahrt des ATB (= Arbeitsgemeinschaft Traditionsbus Berlin) gemacht.
Aus diesem Anlaß wurde die ehemaligen Linie 73 - jetzige OL M46 sowie vormalige Buslinie 146 als befahrene Linie auserkoren, den die Verbindung Zoo – Britz blickt auf eine 115 jährige Geschichte zurück. Am 24. Mai 2014 waren die ATB-Busse 70 (ex LVG), 237, 1629, 1658, 1666, 1957, 2100, 2208, 2329, 2437, 2556 + 2626 sowie der BVG-Bus 3233 (mit Folienbeklebung für den ATB) unterwegs. Desweiteren wurden einige weitere aktuelle BVG-Busse sowie ehemalige BVG-Busse aufgenommen, die heute als Stadtrundfahren-Busse unterwegs sind.
Einige noch zusätzlich mit dem Fotoapparat aufgenommenen Videos werden aufgrund der schlechten Qualität von mir nicht eingestellt, sodass es hierdurch keine bildliche Dokumentation vom 237 + 1957 gibt.
Weitere Hinweise gibt es auf der ATB-Homepage www.traditionsbus.de/index.htm
On Fire . My friend Stathis Papaefstathiou taking pictures of me , during a visit to Military graveyard in Kato Pyla , near Xylofagou village.
Gun crew of the 58th Field Artillery Battalion, Battery B, in a fire mission supporting Outpost Harry in the Iron Triangle. Note the camouflage netting. My brother-in-law, Jerry Hartman (closest to me in the photo) is holding an artillery round preparing to load the 105 howitzer.
I took this photo of the 58th Field Artillery Battalion, Battery B, 3rd Division, gun crew in action getting ready to fire their M101 105mm Howitzer in March 1953 while supporting Outpost Harry in the Iron Triangle. This unit played a fundamental role in helping to prevent Outpost Harry from being overrun by Chinese Communist Forces during the great battle for possession of the outpost in June 1953.
This March 1953 photo of the author was taken on the ridge immediately in front of the 58th Field Artillery Battalion, Battery B, position when it was supporting Outpost Harry in the Iron Triangle. The snow-capped mountain in the background is Papasan Mountain, a Chinese Communist Forces (CCF) stronghold. The smaller mountain just this side of Papasan was the UN held outpost known as Boomerang. My brother-in-law, Jerry Hartman, of the 58th FAB took the photo.
Gun crew of the 58th Field Artillery Battalion, Battery B, in action supporting Outpost Harry in the Iron Triangle. Outpost Harry was clearly visible from the top of the ridge in front of the 58th FAB position.
This photo is of my brother-in-law, Jerry Hartman, taken in the Iron Triangle of Korea during the Korean War. This sandbag bunker which was his home at the time was just about as primitive inside as it was on the outside. I took this photo in March 1953 at which time Jerry had been in Korea about one month.
One I wouldn't have probably bothered with had I not seen the original front plate as it came towards me. A very nice example that's been with the same owner since 1997!
Target Tanks at Cape Pyla. Military graveyard in Kato Pyla , near Xylofagou village.Xylofagou is a sprawling Greek-Cypriot village situated close to the A3 Motorway between Dhekelia and Paralimni. It lies on the northern flank of a hill, on the edge of an area of a group of several similar villages known as the "Kokkinochoria", known for growing vegetables, especially potatoes, in red soil.
vines are trying to swallow up this silo in rural Michigan on M46
print available at: pixels.com/featured/black-and-white-barn-tom-clark.html?n...
215c 8 - _TAC6696 - B&W - ps-WM
The T-34 is a Soviet medium tank from World War II. When introduced, its 76.2 mm (3 in) tank gun was more powerful than its contemporaries, and its 60-degree sloped armour provided good protection against anti-tank weapons. The T-34 had a profound effect on the conflict on the Eastern Front, and had a long-lasting impact on tank design. The tank was praised by multiple German generals when encountered during Operation Barbarossa, although its armour and armament were surpassed later in the war. Though, its main strength was its cost and production time, meaning that German panzer forces would often fight against Soviet tank forces several times their size. The T-34 is also a critical part of the mechanized divisions that form the backbone of the Deep Battle Strategy.
The T-34 was the mainstay of the Soviet Red Army armoured forces throughout the war. Its general specifications remained nearly unchanged until early 1944, when it received a firepower upgrade with the introduction of the greatly improved T-34-85 variant. Its production method was continuously refined and rationalized to meet the needs of the Eastern Front, making the T-34 quicker and cheaper to produce. The Soviets ultimately built over 80,000 T-34s of all variants, allowing steadily greater numbers to be fielded despite the loss of tens of thousands in combat against the German Wehrmacht.
Replacing many light and medium tanks in Red Army service, it was the most-produced tank of the war, as well as the second most-produced tank of all time (after its successor, the T-54/T-55 series). With 44,900 lost during the war, it also suffered the most tank losses ever. Its development led directly to the T-44, then the T-54 and T-55 series of tanks, which in turn evolved into the later T-62, that form the armoured core of many modern armies. T-34 variants were widely exported after World War II, and as recently as 2010 more than 130 were still in service.
Development and production
Origins
In 1939, the most numerous Soviet tank models were the T-26 infantry tank and the BT series of fast tanks. The T-26 was slow-moving, designed to keep pace with infantry on the ground. The BT tanks were cavalry tanks: fast-moving and light, designed for manoeuver warfare. Both were Soviet developments of foreign designs from the early 1930s: the T-26 was based on the British Vickers 6-Ton, and the BT tanks were based on a design from American engineer J. Walter Christie.
In 1937, the Red Army had assigned engineer Mikhail Koshkin to lead a new team to design a replacement for the BT tanks at the Kharkiv Komintern Locomotive Plant (KhPZ). The prototype tank, designated A-20, had a modified BA-20 engine and was specified with 20 mm (0.8 in) of armour, a 45 mm (1.77 in) gun, the production model used a Model V-2-34 engine, a less-flammable diesel fuel in a V12 configuration designed by Konstantin Chelpan. It also had an 8×6-wheel convertible drive similar to the BT tank's 8×2, which allowed it to run on wheels without caterpillar tracks. This feature had greatly saved on maintenance and repair of the unreliable tank tracks of the early 1930s, and allowed tanks to exceed 85 kilometres per hour (53 mph) on roads, but gave no advantage in combat and its complexity made it difficult to maintain. By 1937–38, track design had improved and the designers considered it a waste of space, weight, and maintenance resources, despite the road speed advantage. The A-20 also incorporated previous research (BT-IS and BT-SW-2 projects) into sloped armour: its all-round sloped armour plates were more likely to deflect rounds than perpendicular armour.
During the Battle of Lake Khasan in July 1938 and the Battles of Khalkhin Gol in 1939, an undeclared border war with Japan on the frontier with occupied Manchuria, the Soviets deployed numerous tanks against the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA). Although the IJA Type 95 Ha-Go light tanks had diesel engines, the Red Army's T-26 and BT tanks used petrol engines which, while common in tank designs of the time, often burst into flames when hit by IJA tank-killer teams using Molotov cocktails. Poor-quality welds in the Soviet armour plates left small gaps between them, and flaming petrol from the Molotov cocktails easily seeped into the fighting and engine compartment; portions of the armour plating that had been assembled with rivets also proved to be vulnerable. The Soviet tanks were also easily destroyed by the Japanese Type 95 tank's 37 mm gunfire, despite the low velocity of that gun, or "at any other slightest provocation". The use of riveted armour led to a problem whereby the impact of enemy shells, even if they failed to disable the tank or kill the crew on their own, would cause the rivets to break off and become projectiles inside the tank.
After these battles, Koshkin convinced Soviet leader Joseph Stalin to let him develop a second prototype, a more heavily armed and armoured "universal tank" that reflected the lessons learned and could replace both the T-26 and the BT tanks. Koshkin named the second prototype A-32, after its 32 mm (1.3 in) of frontal armour. It had an L-10 76.2 mm (3 in) gun, and the same Model V-2-34 diesel. Both were tested in field trials at Kubinka in 1939, with the heavier A-32 proving to be as mobile as the A-20. A still heavier version of the A-32, with 45 mm (1.77 in) of front armour, wider tracks, and a newer L-11 76.2 mm gun, was approved for production as the T-34. Koshkin chose the name after the year 1934, when he began to formulate his ideas about the new tank, and to commemorate that year's decree expanding the armoured force and appointing Sergo Ordzhonikidze to head tank production.
Valuable lessons from Lake Khasan and Khalkhin Gol regarding armour protection, mobility, quality welding, and main guns were incorporated into the new T-34 tank, which represented a substantial improvement over the BT and T-26 tanks in all four areas. Koshkin's team completed two prototype T-34s in January 1940. In April and May, they underwent a grueling 2,000-kilometre (1,200 mi) drive from Kharkiv to Moscow for a demonstration for the Kremlin leaders, to the Mannerheim Line in Finland, and back to Kharkiv via Minsk and Kiev. Some drivetrain shortcomings were identified and corrected.
Initial production
Resistance from the military command and concerns about high production cost were finally overcome by anxieties about the poor performance of Soviet tanks in the Winter War in Finland, and the effectiveness of German tanks during the Battle of France. The first production T-34s were completed in September 1940, completely replacing the production of the T-26, the BT series and the multi-turreted T-28 medium tank at the KhPZ plant. Koshkin died of pneumonia (exacerbated by the drive from Kharkiv to Moscow) at the end of that month, and the T-34's drivetrain developer, Alexander Morozov, was appointed Chief Designer.
The T-34 posed new challenges for the Soviet industry. It had heavier armour than any medium tank produced to date, and there were problems with defective armour plates. Only company commanders' tanks could be fitted with radios (originally the 71-TK-3 radio set), due to their expense and short supply – the rest of the tank crews in each company signalled with flags. The L-11 gun did not live up to expectations, so the Grabin Design Bureau at Gorky Factory N.92 designed the superior 76.2 mm F-34 gun. No bureaucrat would approve production of the new gun, but Gorky and KhPZ started producing it anyway; official permission came from the State Defense Committee only after troops praised the weapon's performance in combat against the Germans.
Production of this first T-34 series – the Model 1940 – totalled only about 400, before production was switched to the Model 1941, with the F-34 gun, 9-RS radio set (also installed on the SU-100), and even thicker armour.
Mass production
Subassemblies for the T-34 originated at several plants: Kharkiv Diesel Factory N.75 supplied the model V-2-34 engine, Leningrad Kirovsky Factory (formerly the Putilov works) made the original L-11 gun, and the Dinamo Factory in Moscow produced electrical components. Tanks were initially built at Plant N.183, in early 1941 at the Stalingrad Tractor Factory (STZ), and starting in July at Krasnoye Sormovo Factory N.112 in Gorky.
Total Soviet tank production
TypeNumber
Light tanks14,508
T-3435,119
T-34-8529,430
KV and KV-854,581
IS-3,854
SU-7612,671
SU-852,050
SU-1001,675
SU-1221,148
SU-1524,779
After Germany's surprise invasion of the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941 (Operation Barbarossa), the Wehrmacht's rapid advances forced the evacuation and relocation of Soviet tank factories eastwards to the Ural Mountains, an undertaking of immense scale and haste that presented enormous logistic difficulties and was extremely punishing to the workers involved. Alexander Morozov personally supervised the evacuation of all skilled engineers and laborers, machinery and stock from KhPZ to re-establish the factory at the site of the Dzerzhinsky Ural Railcar Factory in Nizhny Tagil, renamed Stalin Ural Tank Factory N.183. The Kirovsky Factory, evacuated just weeks before the Germans surrounded Leningrad, moved with the Kharkiv Diesel Factory to the Stalin Tractor Factory in Chelyabinsk, soon to be nicknamed Tankograd ("Tank City"). The workers and machinery from Leningrad's Voroshilov Tank Factory N.174 were incorporated into the Ural Factory and the new Omsk Factory N.174. The Ordzhonikidze Ural Heavy Machine Tool Works (UZTM) in Sverdlovsk absorbed workers and machines from several small machine shops in the path of German forces.
While these factories were being rapidly moved, the industrial complex surrounding the Dzerzhinsky Tractor Factory in Stalingrad continued to work double shifts throughout the period of withdrawal (September 1941 to September 1942) to make up for production lost, and produced 40% of all T-34s during the period. As the factory became surrounded by heavy fighting in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942, the situation there grew desperate: manufacturing innovations were necessitated by material shortages, and stories persist of unpainted T-34 tanks driven out of the factory directly to the battlefields around it. Stalingrad kept up production until September 1942.
Soviet designers were aware of design deficiencies in the tank, but most of the desired remedies would have slowed tank production and so were not implemented: the only changes allowed on the production lines through to 1944 were those to make production simpler and cheaper. New methods were developed for automated welding and hardening the armour plate, including innovations by Prof. Evgeny Paton. The design of the 76.2 mm F-34 gun Model 1941 was reduced from an initial 861 parts to 614. The initial narrow, cramped turrets, both the cast one and the one welded of rolled armour plates bent to shape, were since 1942 gradually replaced with the somewhat less cramped hexagonal one; as it was mostly cast with only a few, simple flat armour plates welded in (roof etc.), this turret was actually faster to produce. Limited rubber supplies led to the adoption of all-steel, internally sprung road wheels, and a new clutch was added to an improved five-speed transmission and engine, improving reliability.
Over two years, the unit production cost of the T-34 was reduced from 269,500 Rbls in 1941, to 193,000 Rbls, and then to 135,000 Rbls.
In 1943, T-34 production had reached an average of 1,300 per month; this was the equivalent of three full-strength tank divisions. By the end of 1945, over 57,300 T-34s had been built: 34,780 T-34 tanks in multiple variants with 76.2 mm guns in 1940–44, and another 22,609 of the revised T-34-85 model in 1944–45. The single largest producer was Factory N.183 (UTZ), building 28,952 T-34s and T-34-85s from 1941 to 1945. The second-largest was Krasnoye Sormovo Factory N.112 in Gorky, with 12,604 in the same period.
At the start of the German-Soviet war, T-34s comprised about four percent of the Soviet tank arsenal, but by the end it made up at least 55% of tank production (based on figures from; Zheltov lists even larger numbers.
Following the end of the war, a further 2,701 T-34s were built prior to the end of Soviet production. Under licence, production was restarted in Poland (1951–55) and Czechoslovakia (1951–58), where 1,380 and 3,185 T-34-85s were made, respectively, by 1956. Altogether, as many as 84,070 T-34s are thought to have been built, plus 13,170 self-propelled guns built on T-34 chassis. It was the most-produced tank of the Second World War, and the second most-produced tank of all time, after its successor, the T-54/55 series.
Design
The T-34 had well-sloped armour, a relatively powerful engine and wide tracks. The initial T-34 version had a powerful 76.2 mm gun, and is often called the T-34/76 (originally a World War II German designation, never used by the Red Army). In 1944, a second major version began production, the T-34-85, with a larger 85 mm gun intended to deal with newer German tanks.
Comparisons can be drawn between the T-34 and the U.S. M4 Sherman tank. Both tanks were the backbone of the armoured units in their respective armies, both nations distributed these tanks to their allies, who also used them as the mainstay of their own armoured formations, and both were upgraded extensively and fitted with more powerful guns. Both were designed for mobility and ease of manufacture and maintenance, sacrificing some performance for these goals. Both chassis were used as the foundation for a variety of support vehicles, such as armour recovery vehicles, tank destroyers, and self-propelled artillery. Both were an approximately even match for the standard German medium tank, the Panzer IV, though each of these three tanks had particular advantages and weaknesses compared with the other two. Neither the T-34 nor the M4 was a match for Germany's heavier tanks, the Panther (technically a medium tank) or the Tiger I; the Soviets used the IS-2 heavy tank and the U.S. used the M26 Pershing as the heavy tanks of their forces instead.
Armour
The heavily sloped armour design made the tank better protected than the armour thickness alone would indicate. The shape also saved weight by reducing the thickness required to achieve equal protection. A few tanks also had appliqué armour of varying thickness welded onto the hull and turret. Tanks thus modified were called s ekranami (Russian: с экранами, "with screens").
The USSR donated two combat-used Model 1941 T-34s to the United States for testing purposes in late 1942. The examinations, performed at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, revealed problems with overall armour build quality, especially of the plate joins and welds, as well as the use of soft steel combined with shallow surface tempering. Leak issues were noted: "In a heavy rain lots of water flows through chinks/cracks, which leads to the disabling of the electrical equipment and even the ammunition". Earlier models of the T-34, until the Model 1942, had cast turrets whose armour was softer than that of the other parts of the tank, and offered poor resistance even to 37 mm anti-aircraft shells. Early T-34s also suffered from poor quality welds, leading to instances of shells which would not have penetrated the tank under normal circumstances to penetrate anyway. They also suffered from rushed manufacturing, leading to inconsistent protection.
In addition, close examination of the T-34 at the Aberdeen Testing Ground showed that a variety of alloys were used in different portions of the armour on the T-34. "Mn-Si-Mo steels were employed for the thinner rolled armour sections, Cr-Mo steels for the thicker rolled armour sections, Mn-Si-Ni-Cr-Mo steels were employed for both rolled and cast steel components from 2" to 5" in thickness, and Ni-Cr-Mo steels were employed for some of the moderately thick cast armour sections". The armour was heat-treated in order to prevent penetration by armour-piercing shells, but this also caused it to be structurally weak, as the armor was very hard and thus brittle, resulting in strikes by high explosive shells causing spalling.
Despite these deficiencies, the T-34's armour proved problematic for the Germans in the initial stages of the war on the Eastern Front. In one wartime account, a single T-34 came under heavy fire upon encountering one of the most common German anti-tank guns at that stage of the war: "Remarkably enough, one determined 37 mm gun crew reported firing 23 times against a single T-34 tank, only managing to jam the tank’s turret ring." Similarly, a German report of May 1942 noted the ineffectiveness of their 50 mm gun as well, noting that "Combating the T-34 with the 5 cm KwK tank gun is possible only at short ranges from the flank or rear, where it is important to achieve a hit as perpendicular to the surface as possible." However, a Military Commissariat Report of the 10th Tank Division, dated 2 August 1941 reported that within 300–400 m the 37 mm Pak 36's armour-piercing shot could defeat the frontal armour. According to an examination of damaged T-34 tanks in several repair workshops in August to September 1942, collected by the People's Commissariat for Tank Industry in January 1943, 54.3% of all T-34 losses were caused by the German long-barreled 5 cm KwK 39 gun.
As the war went on, the T-34 gradually lost some of its initial advantages. The Germans responded to the T-34 by fielding large numbers of improved anti-tank weapons such as the towed 7.5 cm Pak 40 anti-tank gun, while hits from 88 mm-armed Tigers, anti-aircraft guns and 8.8 cm Pak 43 anti-tank guns usually proved lethal. In 1942 the German Panzer IVs were refitted with the 7.5 cm KwK 40 due to the inadequate anti-tank performance of previous German tank designs against the T-34. The upgunned Panzer IV posed a serious threat to the T-34-76, being able to penetrate the frontal turret of a T-34-76 at a range of 1,200 m (3,900 ft) at any angle.
A Wa Pruef 1 report estimated that, with the target angled 30° sideward, a Panther tank could penetrate the turret of a T-34-85 from the front at ranges up to 2000 m, the mantlet at 1200 m, and the frontal hull armour at 300 m. According to the Pantherfibel (the Panther tank manual for its crew), the T-34's glacis could be penetrated from 800 m and the mantlet from 1500 m at 30° sideward angle.
A Waffenamt-Prüfwesen 1 report estimated that with the T-34 angled 30 degrees sidewards and APCBC round, the Tiger I's 8.8 cm KwK 36 L/56 would have to close in to 100 m (110 yd) to achieve a penetration in the T-34's glacis, and could penetrate the frontal turret of a T-34-85 at 1,400 m, the mantlet at 400 m, and the nose at 300 m Ground trials by employees of NIBT Polygon in May 1943 reported that the 88 mm KwK 36 gun could pierce the T-34 frontal hull from 1,500 meters at 90 degrees and cause a disastrous burst effect inside the tank. The examined hull showed cracks, spalling, and delamination due to the poor quality of the armour. It was recommended to increase and improve the quality of welds and armour.
Analysis of destroyed T-34 tanks in the Korean War found that the 76 and 90 mm armour-piercing rounds of the M41 Walker Bulldog and M46 Patton could penetrate the T-34 at most angles from 800 yd (730 m). The maximum range at which the tanks could penetrate the T-34 could not be determined due to a lack of data at higher combat ranges.
In late 1950 a T-34-85 tank was captured by the UN security force in the Korean War. An evaluation of the tank was conducted by the USA which found that the sloped armour of the T-34 was desirable for deflecting shells. They also concluded that the armour was deemed as satisfactory as armour strength was comparable to US armour of similar hardness and that the quality of the material used was "high-grade". Similarly, casting was seen as high quality although casting defects were found in the side armour of the tank that negatively affected armour strength. The abundance of gaps in the joints of the armour was seen as an undesirable feature of the tank due to the risk of injury from "entry of bullet splash and shell fragments".
Firepower
The 76.2 mm (3.00 in) F-34 gun, fitted on the vast majority of T-34s produced through to the beginning of 1944, was able to penetrate any early German tank's armour at normal combat ranges. When firing APCR shells, it could pierce 92 mm (3.6 in) at 500 m (1,600 ft) and 60 mm (2.4 in) of armour at 1,000 m (3,300 ft) The best German tanks of 1941, the Panzer III and Panzer IV, had no more than 50 or 60 mm (2.0 or 2.4 in) of flat frontal armour. However by 1942 the Germans had increased the hull armour on the Panzer IV to 80 mm (3.1 in) which provided good protection at normal combat distances. The F-34 also fired an adequate high explosive round.
The gun sights and range finding for the F-34 main gun (either the TMFD-7 or the PT4-7) were rather crude, especially compared to those of their German adversaries, affecting accuracy and the ability to engage at long ranges.[68] As a result of the T-34's two-man turret, weak optics and poor vision devices, the Germans noted:
T-34s operated in a disorganized fashion with little coordination or else tended to clump together like a hen with its chicks. Individual tank commanders lacked situational awareness due to the poor provision of vision devices and preoccupation with gunnery duties. A tank platoon would seldom be capable of engaging three separate targets but would tend to focus on a single target selected by the platoon leader. As a result, T-34 platoons lost the greater firepower of three independently operating tanks.
The Germans also noted that the T-34 was very slow to find and engage targets, while their own tanks could typically get off three rounds for every one fired by the T-34. As the war progressed the Germans created heavier tank designs like the Tiger I or Panther which were both immune to the 76mm gun of the T-34 when fired upon from the front. This meant that they could only be penetrated from the sides at ranges of a few hundred metres. Due to low anti-tank performance, the T-34 was upgraded to the T-34-85 model. This model, with its 85 mm (3.35 in) ZiS gun, provided greatly increased firepower compared to the previous T-34's 76.2mm gun. The 85 mm gun could penetrate the turret front of a Tiger I tank from 500 m (550 yd) and the driver's front plate from 300 m (330 yd) at the side angle of 30 degrees, and the larger turret enabled the addition of another crew member, allowing the roles of commander and gunner to be separated and increasing the rate of fire and overall effectiveness. The D-5T was capable of penetrating the Tiger I's upper hull armour at 1,000 metres. When firing on the frontal armour of the Panther at an angle of 30 degrees sidewards, the T-34-85 could not penetrate its turret at 500 m (550 yd). This meant that the T-34 would have to resort to using tungsten rounds or firing on the weaker sides of the Panther to destroy it.
The greater length of the 85 mm gun barrel – 4.645 m (15 ft 2.9 in) – made it necessary for crews to be careful not to plough it into the ground on bumpy roads or in combat. Tank commander A.K. Rodkin commented: "the tank could have dug the ground with it in the smallest ditch [filling the barrel with dirt]. If you fired it after that, the barrel would open up at the end like the petals of a flower", destroying the barrel. Standard practice when moving the T-34-85 cross-country in non-combat situations was to fully elevate the gun, or reverse the turret.
During the Korean War, the USA captured a T-34-85. US engineering analysis and testing concluded that the T-34-85 could penetrate 4.1 in (100 mm) at 1,000 yd (910 m), performing similarly to the HVAP rounds of the M41. The Americans also concluded the maximum range of the gun was 2–3 km (1.2–1.9 mi), but the effective range was only up to 1,900 m (1.2 mi).
Mobility
The T-34 was powered by a Model V-2-34 38.8 L V12 Diesel engine of 500 hp (370 kW),[d] giving a top speed of 53 km/h (33 mph). It used the coil-spring Christie suspension of the earlier BT-series tanks, using a "slack track" tread system with a rear-mounted drive sprocket and no system of return rollers for the upper run of track, but dispensed with the heavy and ineffective convertible drive. T-34 tanks equipped with the 4-speed gearbox could only use 4th gear on road, being limited to 3rd on terrain. In the first batch of T-34s, shifting from 2nd to 3rd required a force of 46-112 kg. In September 1941, however, changes were made which lowered the effort to under 31 kg by changing the 3rd gear ratio, which lowered top speed in 3rd gear from 29 km/h to 25 km/h, but made shifting easier. Using the 5-speed gearbox allowed the T-34 to use 4th gear on terrain, with which it could reach 30 km/h.
The T-34-76's ground pressure was around 0.72 kg/cm². Its wide tracks allowed for superior performance on dirt roads and off-road when compared to contemporary tanks. There were, however, still examples of T-34s getting stuck in mud. For example, in 1944 February 4, the 21st Guards Tank Brigade with 32 T-34, was ordered to proceed by road to Tolstoye Rogi, a journey of approximately 80 kilometers. Of the 32 tanks, no less than 19 got stuck in the mud or suffered mechanical breakdowns.
Ergonomics
The original 76mm armed T-34 suffered from the unsatisfactory ergonomic layout of its crew compartment compared to the later 85mm variant. The two-man turret crew arrangement required the commander to aim and fire the gun, an arrangement common to most Soviet tanks of the day. The two-man turret was "cramped and inefficient" and was inferior to the three-man (commander, gunner, and loader) turret crews of German Panzer III and Panzer IV tanks. The Germans noted the T-34 was very slow to find and engage targets while the Panzers could typically get off three rounds for every one fired by the T-34.
Early in the war, the commander fought at a further disadvantage; the forward-opening hatch and the lack of a turret cupola forced him to observe the battlefield through a single vision slit and traversable periscope.[81] German commanders liked to fight "heads-up", with their seat raised and having a full field of view – in the T-34 this was impossible. Soviet veterans condemned the turret hatches of the early models. Nicknamed pirozhok ("stuffed bun") because of its characteristic shape, it was heavy and hard to open. The complaints of the crews urged the design group led by Alexander Morozov to switch in August 1942 to using two hatches in the turret.
The loader also had a difficult job due to the lack of a turret basket (a rotating floor that moves as the turret turns); the same fault was present on all German tanks prior to the Panzer IV. The floor under the T-34's turret was made up of ammunition stored in small metal boxes, covered by a rubber mat. There were nine ready rounds of ammunition stowed in racks on the sides of the fighting compartment. Once these rounds had been used, the crew had to pull additional ammunition out of the floor boxes, leaving the floor littered with open bins and matting and reducing their performance.
The main weakness [of the two-man turret of a T-34 Model 1941] is that it is very tight. The Americans couldn't understand how our tankers could fit inside during a winter when they wear sheepskin jackets. The electrical mechanism for rotating the turret is very bad. The motor is weak, very overloaded and sparks horribly, as a result of which the device regulating the speed of the rotation burns out, and the teeth of the cogwheels break into pieces. They recommend replacing it with a hydraulic or simply manual system. Due to not having a turret basket the crew was [sic] could be injured by getting caught in the drive mechanism, this could leave them out of combat for a while, the lack of a turret basket also caused general discomfort to the crew, having to manually turn.
Most of the problems created by the cramped T-34/76 turret, known before the war, were corrected with the provision of a bigger cast three-man turret[86] on the T-34-85 in 1944.
General reliability
The T-34's wide track and good suspension gave it excellent cross-country performance. Early in the tank's life, however, this advantage was greatly reduced by the numerous teething troubles the design displayed: a long road trip could be a lethal exercise for a T-34 tank at the start of the war. When in June 1941, the 8th Mechanised Corps under Dmitry Ryabyshev marched 500 km towards Dubno, the corps lost half of its vehicles. A.V. Bodnar, who was in combat in 1941–42, recalled:
From the point of view of operating them, the German armoured machines were almost perfect, they broke down less often. For the Germans, covering 200 km was nothing, but with T-34s something would have been lost, something would have broken down. The technological equipment of their machines was better, the combat gear was worse.
The T-34 gearbox had four forward and one reverse gear, replaced by a five-speed box on the last of the 1943 model of the T-34.
The tracks of early models were the most frequently repaired part. A.V. Maryevski later remembered:
The caterpillars used to break apart even without a bullet or shell hits. When earth got stuck between the road wheels, the caterpillar, especially during a turn – strained to such an extent that the pins and tracks themselves couldn't hold out.
The USSR donated two combat-used Model 1941 T-34s to the United States for testing purposes in late 1942. The examinations, performed at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, highlighted these early faults, which were in turn acknowledged in a 1942 Soviet report on the results of the testing:
The Christie's suspension was tested a long time ago by the Americans and unconditionally rejected. On our tanks, as a result of the poor steel on the springs, it very quickly fatigues and as a result clearance is noticeably reduced. The deficiencies in our tracks from their viewpoint result from the lightness of their construction. They can easily be damaged by small-caliber and mortar rounds. The pins are extremely poorly tempered and made of poor steel. As a result, they quickly wear and the track often breaks.
Testing at Aberdeen also revealed that engines could grind to a halt from dust and sand ingestion, as the original "Pomon" air filter was almost totally ineffective and had an insufficient air-inflow capacity, starving the combustion chambers of oxygen, lowering compression, and thereby restricting the engine from operating at full capacity. The air filter issue was later remedied by the addition of "Cyclone" filters on the Model 1943, and even more efficient "Multi-Cyclone" filters on the T-34-85.
The testing at Aberdeen revealed other problems as well. The turret drive also suffered from poor reliability. The use of poorly machined, low quality steel side friction clutches and the T-34's outdated and poorly manufactured transmission meant frequent mechanical failure occurred and that they "create an inhuman harshness for the driver". A lack of properly installed and shielded radios – if they existed at all – restricted their operational range to under 16 km (9.9 mi).
Judging by samples, Russians when producing tanks pay little attention to careful machining or the finishing and technology of small parts and components, which leads to the loss of the advantage what would otherwise accrue from what on the whole are well-designed tanks. Despite the advantages of the use of diesel, the good contours of the tanks, thick armor, good and reliable armaments, the successful design of the tracks etc., Russian tanks are significantly inferior to American tanks in their simplicity of driving, manoeuvrability, the strength of firing (reference to muzzle velocity), speed, the reliability of mechanical construction and the ease of keeping them running.
Soviet tests on newly built T-34’s showed that in April 1943 only 10.1% could complete a 330 km trial and in June ’43 this went down to 7.7%. The percentage stayed below 50% till October 1943 when it rose to 78%, in the next month it dropped to 57% and in the period December ’43 – January ’44 the average was 82%. During February 1944 tests, 79% of tanks reached 300 kilometers, and of the test batches 33% reached 1,000 kilometers. This became immediately apparent to the tank troops. The deputy commander of the 1st Guards Tank Army, P. G. Dyner, commented that tanks in 1943 would reach only 75 percent of their guaranteed life span in engine hours and mileage, but in 1944 they reached 150 percent.
In 1944 June, a report written by the 2. Panzerjäger-Abteilung Company 128 (23. PzDiv.) described experiences acquired during operations with its Beutepanzer SU-85 and T-34:
Despite not having much experience yet, it can be said that the Russian battle tank is not suitable for carrying out long marches as well as high-speed marches. A maximum driving speed of 10–12 km / h has become convenient. During the marches and in order to allow the engines to cool down, it is absolutely necessary to make a stop every half hour for a minimum duration of between fifteen and twenty minutes.
Steering gears have caused problems and breakdowns on all new battle tanks. In difficult terrain, during the gears or also during the course of attacks where many changes of direction are made, the steering clutch heats up and covers with oil quickly: consequently the clutch does not engage and it is impossible to maneuver the vehicle. Once it has cooled down, the clutch should be cleaned with copious amounts of fuel.
In relation to the armament and based on the experiences acquired so far, it can be affirmed that the power of the 7.62 cm cannon is good. If the barrel is adjusted correctly it has good precision even at great distances. The same can be said of the rest of the automatic weapons of the battle tank. The weapons have good precision and reliability, although a slow rate of fire.
The Company has had the same positive experiences with the 8.5 cm assault gun. Regarding the true power of fire compared to the 7.62 cm gun, the Company is not yet able to give details. The effect of explosive projectiles ( Sprenggranaten ) at great distances and its precision is much higher than that of the 7.62 cm cannon.
The optical systems of the Russian battle tank are, in comparison with the Germans, much inferior. The German gunner has to get used to the Russian telescopic sight. Observing the impact or the trajectory of the projectile through the telescopic sight is only partially possible. The gunner of the Russian T-43 [sic] battle tank has only a panoramic optic, located in the upper left area, in front of the telescopic sight. In order for the loader to be able to observe the trajectory of the projectile in any case, the Company has additionally incorporated a second panoramic optics for this member of the crew.
In the Russian tank it is very difficult to steer the vehicle or a unit and shoot simultaneously. Coordinating fire within a company is only partially possible.
On January 29, 1945, the State Defense Committee approved a decree that extended the service life guarantee of the T-34's V-2-34 engine from 200 hours to 250 hours. A report by the 2nd Guards Tank Army in February 1945 revealed that the average engine service life of a T-34 was lower than the official warranty at 185–190 hours. For comparison, the US M4 Sherman had an average engine service life of 195–205 hours.
Operational history
Operation Barbarossa (1941)
Germany launched Operation Barbarossa, its invasion of the Soviet Union, on 22 June 1941. At the start of hostilities, the Red Army had 967 T-34 tanks and 508 KV tanks concentrated in five of their twenty-nine mechanized corps. The existence of the T-34 and KV heavy tanks proved a psychological shock to German soldiers, who had expected to face an inferior enemy. The T-34 was superior to any tank the Germans then had in service. The diary of Alfred Jodl seems to express surprise at the appearance of the T-34 in Riga, noting "the surprise at this new and thus unknown wunder-armament being unleashed against the German assault divisions". Paul Ludwig Ewald von Kleist, called it "the finest tank in the world" and Heinz Guderian affirmed the T-34's "vast superiority" over German tanks.
Initially, the Wehrmacht had great difficulty destroying T-34s in combat, as standard German anti-tank weaponry proved ineffective against its heavy, sloped armour. In one of the first known encounters, a T-34 crushed a 3.7 cm PaK 36, destroyed two Panzer IIs, and left a 14-kilometre (8.7 mi) long swathe of destruction in its wake before a howitzer destroyed it at close range. In another incident, a single Soviet T-34 was hit more than 30 times by a battalion-sized contingent of German 37mm and 50mm anti-tank guns, yet survived intact and drove back to its own lines a few hours later. The inability to penetrate the T-34's armour led to the Germans' standard anti-tank gun, the 37 mm PaK 36, being dubbed the Panzeranklopfgerät ("tank door knocker") because the PaK 36 crew simply revealed their presence and wasted their shells without damaging the T-34's armour. Anti-tank gunners began aiming at tank tracks, or vulnerable margins on the turret ring and gun mantlet, rather than the bow and turret armour. The Germans were forced to deploy 105 mm field guns and 88 mm anti-aircraft guns in a direct fire role to stop them.
Despite this, the Soviet corps equipped with these new tanks lost most of them within weeks. The combat statistics for 1941 show that the Soviets lost an average of over seven tanks for every German tank lost. The Soviets lost a total of 20,500 tanks in 1941 (approximately 2,300 of them T-34s, as well as over 900 heavy tanks, mostly KVs). The destruction of the Soviet tank force was accomplished not only by the glaring disparity in the tactical and operational skills of the opponents, but also by mechanical defects that afflicted Soviet armour. Besides the poor state of older tanks, the new T-34s and KVs suffered from initial mechanical and design problems, particularly with regard to clutches and transmissions. Mechanical breakdowns accounted for at least 50 percent of the tank losses in the summer fighting, and recovery or repair equipment was not to be found. The shortage of repair equipment and recovery vehicles led the early T-34 crews to enter combat carrying a spare transmission on the engine deck.
Other key factors diminishing the initial impact of T-34s on the battlefield were the poor state of leadership, tank tactics, initial lack of radios in tanks, and crew training; these factors were partially consequences of Stalin's purge of the Soviet officer corps in 1937, reducing the army's efficiency and morale. This was aggravated as the campaign progressed by the loss of many of the properly trained personnel during the Red Army's disastrous defeats early in the invasion. Typical crews went into combat with only basic military training plus 72 hours of classroom instruction; according to historian Steven Zaloga:
The weakness of mechanized corps lay not in the design of their equipment, but rather in its poor mechanical state, the inadequate training of their crews, and the abysmal quality of Soviet military leadership in the first month of the war.
Further action (1942–1943)
As the invasion progressed, German infantry began receiving increasing numbers of the 7.5 cm Pak 40 anti-tank guns, which were capable of penetrating the T-34's armour at long range. Larger numbers of the 88 mm Flak guns also arrived, which could easily defeat a T-34 at very long ranges, though their size and general unwieldiness meant that they were often difficult to move into position in the rough Soviet terrain.
At the same time, the Soviets incrementally upgraded the T-34. The Model 1942 featured increased armour on the turret and many simplified components. The Model 1943 (confusingly also introduced in 1942) had yet more armour, as well as increased fuel capacity and more ammunition storage. Also added were an improved engine air filter and a new clutch mated to an improved and more reliable five-speed transmission. Finally, the Model 1943 also had a new, slightly roomier (but still two-man) turret of a distinctive hexagonal shape that was easier to manufacture, derived from the abandoned T-34M project.
The T-34 was essential in resisting the German summer offensive in 1942, and executing the double encirclement manoeuvre that cut off the German Sixth Army at Stalingrad in December 1942. The Sixth Army was surrounded, and eventually surrendered in February 1943, a campaign widely regarded as the turning point of the war on the Eastern Front.
In 1943, the Soviets formed Polish and Czechoslovak armies-in-exile, and these started to receive the T-34 Model 1943 with a hexagonal turret. Like the Soviet forces themselves, the Polish and Czechoslovak tank crews were sent into action quickly with little training, and suffered high casualties.
In July 1943, the Germans launched Operation Citadel, in the region around Kursk, their last major offensive on the Eastern Front in the Second World War. It was the debut of the German Panther tank, although the numbers employed at the resulting Battle of Kursk were small and the brunt of the burden was carried by the Panzer III, StuG III, and Panzer IV. The campaign featured the largest tank battles in history. The high-water mark of the battle was the massive armour engagement at Prokhorovka, which began on 12 July, though the vast majority of armour losses on both sides were caused by artillery and mines, rather than tanks. Over 6,000 fully tracked armoured vehicles, 4,000 combat aircraft, and 2 million men are believed to have participated in these battles.
The Soviet high command's decision to focus on one cost-effective design, cutting costs and simplifying production wherever possible while only allowing relatively minor improvements, had proven to be an astute choice for the first two years of the war. However, the battles in the summer of 1943 demonstrated that the 76.2 mm gun of the T-34 was no longer as effective as it was in 1941. Soviet tank crews struggled at longer ranges with the additional frontal armour applied to the later variants of the Panzer III and Panzer IV, and were unable to penetrate the frontal armour of the new German Panther or Tiger I tank at standard combat ranges without tungsten rounds, and had to rely on tactical skill through flanking manoeuvres and combined arms.
T-34-85
After improved German Panzer IVs with the high-velocity 7.5cm (2.95 in) KwK 40 gun were encountered in combat in 1942, a project to design an entirely new Soviet tank was begun, with the goals of increasing armour adding modern features like a torsion-bar suspension and a three-man turret. The new tank, the T-43, was intended to be a universal model to replace both the T-34 and the KV-1 heavy tank. However, the T-43 prototype's armour, though heavier, was not capable against German 88 mm guns, while its mobility was found to be inferior to the T-34. Finally, although the T-43 shared over 70% of its components with the T-34, manufacturing it would still have required a significant slow-down in production. Consequently, the T-43 was cancelled.
Not only were the weapons of German tanks improving, so was their armour. Soviet firing tests against a captured Tiger I heavy tank in April 1943 showed that the T-34's 76 mm gun could not penetrate the front of the Tiger I at all, and the side only at very close range. A Soviet 85 mm anti-aircraft gun, the M1939 (52-K), was found capable of doing the job, and so derivatives of it were developed for tanks. One of the resulting guns used on the original T-34 85 model (the D-5T) was capable of penetrating the Tiger I's upper hull armour at 1,000 metres. It was still not enough to match the Tiger, which could destroy the T-34 from a distance of 1,500 to 2,000 m (4,900 to 6,600 ft), but it was a noticeable improvement.
With the T-43 canceled, the Soviet command made the decision to retool the factories to produce an improved version of the T-34. Its turret ring was enlarged from 1,425 mm (56 in) to 1,600 mm (63 in), allowing a larger turret to be fitted supporting the larger 85 mm gun. The prototype T-43's turret design was hurriedly adopted by Vyacheslav Kerichev at the Krasnoye Sormovo Factory to fit the T-34. This was a larger three-man turret, with radio (previously in the hull) and observation cupola in the roof. Now the tank commander needed only to command (aided by cupola and radio systems), leaving the operation of the gun to the gunner and the loader. The turret was bigger and less sloped than the original T-34 turret, making it a bigger target (due to the three-man crew and bigger gun), but with thicker 90 mm armour, making it more resistant to enemy fire. The shells were 50% heavier (9 kg) and were much better in the anti-armour role, and reasonable in a general purpose role, though only 55–60 could be carried, instead of 90–100 of the earlier shells. The resulting new tank, the T-34-85, was seen as a compromise between advocates for the T-43 and others who wanted to continue to build as many 76 mm-armed T-34s as possible without interruption.
Production of the T-34-85 began in January 1944 at Factory No. 112, first using the D-5T 85 mm gun. Parallel to the production of the T-34-85 with the D-5T gun, production of the T-34-85 using the S-53 gun (later to be modified and redesignated as the ZIS-S-53 gun) began in February 1944 at Factory No. 112. The improved T-34-85 became the standard Soviet medium tank, with an uninterrupted production run until the end of the war. A T-34-85 initially cost about 30 percent more to produce than a Model 1943, at 164,000 Rbls; by 1945 this had been reduced to 142,000 Rbls during the course of World War II the cost of a T-34 tank had almost halved, from 270,000 Rbls in 1941, while its top speed remained about the same, and its main gun's armour penetration and turret frontal armour thickness both nearly doubled.
The T-34-85 gave the Red Army a tank with better armour and mobility than the German Panzer IV tank and StuG III assault gun. While it could not match the armour or weapons of the heavier Panther and Tiger tanks, its improved firepower made it much more effective than earlier models, and overall it was more cost-effective than the heaviest German tanks. In comparison with the T-34-85 program, the Germans instead chose an upgrade path based on the introduction of completely new, expensive, heavier, and more complex tanks, greatly slowing the growth of their tank production and helping the Soviets to maintain a substantial numerical superiority in tanks. By May 1944, T-34-85 production had reached 1,200 tanks per month. In the entire war, production figures for all Panther types reached no more than 6,557, and for all Tiger types (including the Tiger I and Tiger II) 2,027. Production figures for the T-34-85 alone reached 22,559.
On 12 January 1945, a column of Tiger IIs and other tanks from 424th Heavy Panzer Battalion were involved in a short-range engagement with T-34-85 tanks near the village of Lisow. Forty T-34-85 tanks commanded by Colonel N. Zhukov were attacked by the 424th Heavy Panzer battalion, which had been reinforced by 13 Panthers. The Germans permanently lost five Tiger IIs, seven Tiger Is and five Panthers for the loss of four T-34-85 tanks burnt out.
German use of T-34s
The German army often employed as much captured materiel as possible and T-34s were not an exception. Large numbers of T-34s were captured in fighting on the Eastern Front though few were T-34-85s. These were designated by the Germans as Panzerkampfwagen T-34 747. From late 1941, captured T-34s were transported to a German workshop for repairs and modification to German requirements. In 1943 a local tank factory in Kharkiv was used for this purpose. These were sometimes modified to German standards by the installation of a German commander's cupola and radio equipment.
The first captured T-34s entered German service during the summer of 1941. In order to prevent recognition mistakes, large-dimension crosses or even swastikas were painted on the tanks, including on top of the turret, in order to prevent attack by Axis aircraft. Badly damaged tanks were either dug in as pillboxes or were used for testing and training purposes.
After the end of World War II, East Germany continued to utilize the T-34.
Manchurian campaign (August 1945)
Just after midnight on 9 August 1945, though the terrain was believed by the Japanese to be impassable by armoured formations, the Soviet Union invaded Japanese-occupied Manchuria. Red Army combined-arms forces achieved complete surprise and used a powerful, deep-penetrating attack in a classic double encirclement pattern, spearheaded by the T-34-85. The opposing Japanese forces had been reduced as elite units had been drawn off to other fronts and the remaining forces were in the middle of a redeployment. The Japanese tanks remaining to face them were all held in the rear and not used in combat; the Japanese had weak support from IJAAF forces, engineering, and communications. Japanese forces were overwhelmed, though some put up resistance. The Japanese emperor transmitted a surrender order on 14 August, but the Kwantung Army was not given a formal cease-fire until 17 August.
Korean War (1950–1953)
A full North Korean People's Army (KPA) brigade equipped with about 120 Soviet-supplied T-34-85s spearheaded the invasion of South Korea in June 1950. The WWII-era 2.36-inch bazookas initially used by the US troops in South Korea were useless against the KPA's T-34 tanks, as were the 75 mm main guns of the M24 Chaffee light tank. However, following the introduction of heavier and more capable armour into the war by US and UN forces, such as the American M4 Sherman, M26 Pershing and M46 Patton tanks, as well as the British Comet and Centurion tanks, the KPA began to suffer more T-34 tank losses in combat from enemy armour, aside from further losses due to numerous US/UN airstrikes and increasingly-effective anti-tank firepower for US/UN infantry on the ground, such as the then-new 3.5-inch M20 "Super Bazooka" (replacing the earlier 2.36-inch model). By the time the NKPA were forced to withdraw from the south, about 239 T-34s and 74 SU-76 assault guns had been lost or abandoned. After October 1950, NKPA armour was rarely encountered. Despite China's entry into the conflict in the following month, no major armour deployments were carried out by them, as the Chinese focus was on massed infantry attacks rather than large-scale armour assaults. Several T-34-85s and a few IS-2 tanks were fielded, primarily dispersed amongst their infantry, thus making armoured engagements with US and UN forces rare from then on.
A Chinese T-34 tank No. 215 from 4th Tank Regiment, 2nd Tank Division, allegedly destroyed four enemy tanks and damaged another M46 Patton tank during its fight from 6 to 8 July 1953. It also destroyed 26 bunkers,9 artillery pieces, and a truck. That tank is now preserved in the Military Museum of the Chinese People's Revolution.
In summary, a 1954 US military survey concluded that there were, in all, 119 tanks vs. tank actions involving US Army and US Marine units against North Korean and Chinese forces during the Korean War, with 97 T-34-85 tanks knocked out and another 18 considered probable. American losses were somewhat greater.
Angolan Civil War (1975–1988)
One of the last modern conflicts which saw the extensive combat deployment of the T-34-85 was the Angolan Civil War. In 1975, the Soviet Union shipped eighty T-34-85s to Angola as part of its support for the ongoing Cuban military intervention there. Cuban crewmen instructed FAPLA personnel in their operation; other FAPLA drivers and gunners accompanied Cuban crews in an apprentice role.
FAPLA began deploying T-34-85s against the UNITA and FNLA forces on June 9, 1975. The appearance of FAPLA and Cuban tanks prompted South Africa to reinforce UNITA with a single squadron of Eland-90 armoured cars.
Other regions and countries
In early 1991, the Yugoslav People's Army possessed 250 T-34-85s, none of which were in active service. During the breakup of Yugoslavia, the T-34-85s were inherited by the national armies of Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Serbia and Montenegro and continued to see action during the Yugoslav Wars. Some were also acquired from Yugoslav reserve stocks by Serbian separatist armies, namely the Army of the Republic of Serb Krajina (SVK) and the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS). Most of these tanks were in poor condition at the beginning of the conflict and some were soon rendered unserviceable, likely through inadequate maintenance and lack of spares.
On 3 May 1995, a VRS T-34-85 attacked an UNPROFOR outpost manned by the 21st Regiment of the Royal Engineers in Maglaj, Bosnia, injuring six British peacekeepers, with at least one of them sustaining a permanent disability. A number of T-34s being stored by the VRS at a base in Zvornik were temporarily confiscated by UNPROFOR as part of a local disarmament programme the following year.
Middle East
Czechoslovak-produced T-34-85s were used by Egypt in the Arab-Israeli Wars of 1956 and 1967 (Six-Day War) in the Sinai Peninsula. Egypt went on to build the T-34-100, a local and unique conversion that was made up of a Soviet BS-3 100 mm heavy field-artillery gun mounted within a heavily modified turret, as well as the T-34-122 mounting the D-30 gun. In 1956, they were used as regular tanks to support Egyptian infantry, the tank was still in use by the Yom Kippur War in October 1973.
The Syrian Army also received T-34-85s from the Soviet Union and they took part in the many artillery duels with Israeli tanks in November 1964 and in the Six-Day War of 1967.
Warsaw Pact
T-34-85s equipped many of the armies of Eastern European countries (later forming the Warsaw Pact) and the armies of other Soviet client-states elsewhere. East German, Hungarian and Soviet T-34-85s served in the suppression of the East German uprising of 17 June 1953 as well as the Hungarian Revolution of 1956.
Afghanistan
T-34-85s were sporadically available in Afghanistan. During the Soviet–Afghan War, most of the T-34s were fielded by the Sarandoy internal security forces. Some were also kept in service with the Army of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan.
China
After the formation of the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1949, the Soviet Union sent many T-34-85s to the PRC's People's Liberation Army (PLA). Factory 617 had the ability to produce every part of the T-34-85, and during decades of service many modifications were made that visibly distinguish the PRC T-34-85 from the original specification, but no T-34-85 was actually made in China. The production plan of the T-34-85 in China was ended soon after the PRC received T-54A main battle tanks from the Soviet Union and began to build the Type 59 tank, a licensed production version of the T-54A.
Cuba
Cuba received 150 T-34-85 tanks as military aid from the Soviet Union in 1960. The T-34-85 was the first Soviet tank to enter service with the Cuban Revolutionary Armed Forces (FAR), along with the IS-2. Many T-34-85 tanks first saw action in April 1961 during the Bay of Pigs Invasion with an unknown number destroyed or knocked out during the battle. In 1975, many T-34-85s were also donated by the USSR to the FAR to support its lengthy intervention in the Angolan Civil War.
A platoon of five Cuban T-34-85s saw combat in Angola against South African troops during the Battle of Cassinga. The tanks were based along with a company of Cuban mechanized infantry equipped with BTR-152 armoured personnel carriers. In May 1978, South Africa launched a major airborne raid on Cassinga with the objective of destroying a SWAPO (South West African People's Organisation) base there. The Cuban forces were mobilised to stop them. As they approached Cassinga they were strafed by South African aircraft, which destroyed most of the BTR-152s and three of the T-34-85s; a fourth T-34-85 was disabled by an anti-tank mine buried in the road. The remaining tank continued to engage the withdrawing South African paratroops from a hull down position until the battle was over.
Over a hundred Cuban T-34-85s and their respective crews remained in Angola as of the mid 1980s. In September 1986, Cuban president Fidel Castro complained to General Konstantin Kurochkin, head of the Soviet military delegation to Angola, that his men could no longer be expected to fight South African armour with T-34s of "World War II vintage"; Castro insisted that the Soviets furbish the Cuban forces with a larger quantity of T-55s. By 1987 Castro's request appeared to have been granted, as Cuban tank battalions were able to deploy substantial numbers of T-54Bs, T-55s, and T-62s; the T-34-85 was no longer in service.
Cyprus
Cypriot National Guard forces equipped with some 35 T-34-85 tanks helped to support a coup by the Greek junta against President Archbishop Makarios on 15 July 1974. They also saw extensive action against Turkish forces during the Turkish invasion in July and August 1974, with two major actions at Kioneli and at Kyrenia on 20 July 1974.
Namibia
In 1984, the South West African People's Organisation (SWAPO) made a concerted attempt to establish its own conventional armoured battalion through its armed wing, the People's Liberation Army of Namibia (PLAN). As part of this effort, SWAPO diplomatic representatives in Europe approached the German Democratic Republic with a request for ten T-34 tanks, which were delivered. PLAN T-34s were never deployed during offensive operations against the South African military, being confined to the role of protecting strategic bases inside northern Angola.
By 1988 the PLAN T-34-85s had been stationed near Luanda, where their crews received training from Cuban instructors. In March 1989, the PLAN tanks were mobilised and moved south towards the Namibian border. South Africa accused PLAN of planning a major offensive to influence Namibia's pending general elections, but the tank crews did not cross the border and refrained from intervening in a series of renewed clashes later that year. Between 1990 and 1991, SWAPO ordered the PLAN tanks in Angola repatriated to Namibia at its own expense. Four later entered service with the new Namibian Army.
Finland
The Soviet and Finnish armies used T-34s until the 1960s; the former included the 76.2 mm-armed versions until at least 1968, when they were used in filming the sequel to the movie The Alive and the Dead. The Finnish tanks were captured directly from the Soviets or purchased from Germany's captured stocks. Many of the Т-34-85s were enhanced with Finnish or Western equipment, such as improved optics.
Vietnam
During the Vietnam War, the North Vietnamese Army was equipped with many Soviet T-34-85 and these were used in the Operation Lam Son 719, the 1972 Easter Offensive and the 1975 Spring Offensive. They were later used during the Vietnamese invasion of Kampuchea and the Sino-Vietnamese War. A small number are currently being used as trainers. The rest are in storage and no longer serve as active duty battle tanks.
Yemen
In 2015, both T-34-85 Model 1969 tanks and SU-100 self-propelled guns were photographed being used in Houthi takeover in Yemen. Some were even being fitted with anti-tank guided missiles.
Current active service
In 2018, there were nine countries that maintained T-34s in the inventories of their national armed forces: Cuba, Yemen, the Republic of the Congo, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Namibia, North Korea, Laos, and Vietnam. Of these operators, Vietnam possessed the largest known surviving fleet of T-34 series tanks, with 45. Yemen possessed 30, Guinea 30, Guinea-Bissau 10, Mali 21, and Laos 30. It was unclear how many Cuban and North Korean T-34s remained in service. All the Congolese, Namibian and Malian tanks were believed to be in reserve storage or inoperable. The Laotian Army retired its T-34s in early 2019 and sold them to Russia, to be used for public displays and museum exhibits.
Successors
In 1944, pre-war development of a more advanced T-34 tank was resumed, leading to the T-44. The new tank had a turret design based on the T-34-85's, but featured a new hull with torsion-bar suspension and transversely mounted engine; it had a lower profile than the T-34-85 and was simpler to manufacture. Between 150 and 200 of these tanks were built before the end of the war. With substantial drivetrain changes, a new turret, and 100 mm gun, it became the T-54, starting production in 1947
A 2nd shot from a quick lunch break move sees a second class 70 in less than 30 minutes along the Erewash Valley line. A move to Trowell was needed to avoid the ever-increasing shadows on the main line to catch 70006 passing over the junction with the 6M46 12:54 Alwarke to Crewe Basford Hall empty scrap train. At this point 'M46 was running over 20 minutes early, which was just as well as the light collapsed minutes later. Not a bad lunchbreak for a day that started off full dull!
Photo by BwPfotography (bwpfotography.com)
Driving down Sandusky (M46) near Sandusky MI and came across this beauty..
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
Towards the end of WWII, the Swedish Army's main tank was the Stridsvagen 42. It was a medium tank, modern in design and it was also well protected and mobile. It fielded a 75 mm L/34 gun, the first of its size in a Swedish tank and entered service with the Swedish army in November 1941. As a neutral nation in World War II Sweden did not engage in combat; thus its tanks had no battlefield record. Between April 1943 to January 1945, 282 Strv 42s were delivered.
After WWII, the Strv 42 was kept in service, but it was soon clear that it would not have enough firepower to defend Sweden against heavier tanks. The benchmark was the Soviet T-34/85 and the Soviet Union regarded as a major threat in the context of the rising tensions between Eastern and Western Blocs after WWII. The smoldering Korean conflict stirred this fear even more. The Soviet threat seemed even more real to Sweden, which - although still neutral - tightened its relations with the West and NATO, even though the country never joined the Atlantic organization.
This neutrality was especially hard to maintain with such proximity to the USSR borders, especially in the Baltic. In fact it would have been nearly impossible to Sweden to not take sides in case of an open war between the two super powers due to this strategic and geographic position.
The Swedish military was therefore more cautious to elaborate on scenarios of a Soviet invasion to model its combined ground, air and naval assets, even though this position was more nuanced on the political side and these realist ties were maintained on a high secrecy level.
Anyway, the armed forces needed modernization and therefore the Swedish Army decided in 1948 to develop and introduce a modernized or even new battle tank, which primarily incorporated a heavier cannon than the Strv 42, coupled with a more effective armor and high mobility.
In 1949 the Swedish government was secretly provided with the option of purchasing the American M46 Patton, but this offer was rejected as the tank was, with more than 45 tons, considered to be too heavy and too bulky for the local terrain and the Swedish Army’s tactical requirements. The same argument also initially turned down an offer for the British Centurion tank during that time. Consequently, the decision was made in the same year to develop a whole new tank around the Swedish Army's specifications.
The original requirements were:
- In order to effectively use a small number of tanks to cover up a large area, the size and weight of the tank had to be light enough for trains or special trucks to carry and to move on soggy ground.
- Due to the above target, the weight of the armor was limited around 25 tons, yet as heavily armored as possible.
- Main cannon had to be bigger than 75mm.
The Strv 42's chassis turned out to be too narrow for a bigger turret that could accommodate the bigger gun, a crew (of three) and a decent ammunition store.
Its armor concept with many vertical surfaces was also outdated, so that the development of a totally new chassis was started.
The new vehicle was aptly designated Strv 50.
The weight was the main concern since if this first constraint was met, the tank could also be transported by a specially modified truck through most major highways. The second constraint couldn't be met due to the mock up development team finding out that the armor would be too thin to protect the vehicle, even if anything was done to slope the surfaces and increase the armor’s effectiveness. As a result, the armor weight constraint was raised to 35 tons for a while.
However, this weight penalty led to delays in the production of the planned Volvo diesel engine, because the tank did not have enough power to attain good mobility with the overall weight raised by 40%.
The Strv 50 was of conventional layout, with a central turret and the engine located at the rear of the hull. The tank had a crew of four: a commander, driver, gunner and loader. A co-driver/radio operator who'd potentially operate a bow machine gun was omitted in order to save weight and internal space.
The hull was welded steel, with a cast steel turret. The maximum armor thickness was 64 mm.
The driver sat at the front right of the hull, with a hatch immediately above him, and three vision periscopes covering the forward arc. To the drivers left was the transmission, which could easily be accessed for servicing by removing a large panel on the front of the hull.
The track was driven from the front and had six rubber road wheels on each side along with three return rollers - inspired by American designs like the M24 or M26. The suspension was a torsion bar system with the first, second and sixth road wheel fitted with hydraulic shock absorbers.
The commander and gunner sat in the turret, with the commander on the right side provided with a large domed cupola with a hatch on the rear of it. The cupola had four vision blocks and a one-meter base stereoscopic rangefinder with x7 magnification. A further 8 mm machine gun could be mounted on the cupola for manual anti-aircraft use.
The gunner did not have a separate hatch and was seated in front of the commander. The gunner had a x6 magnification periscope, as well as a x6 magnification sight. The loader was provided with a hatch.
The main gun was the British 20 pounder cannon with 84 millimeter (3.3 in) caliber, outfitted with a horizontal sliding breach block and a 4.60 m (15 ft) barrel, 55 calibers in length. This weapon's APCBC projectile had a muzzle velocity of 1,020 meters per second and could penetrate 21 cm (8.3 in) of rolled homogeneous armor (RHA), and the alternative armor-piercing discarding sabot projectile even had a muzzle velocity of 1,465 m/s (4,810 ft/s) and could penetrate 30 cm (12 in) of RHA.
The 20-pounder could also fire high-explosive and canister shot. Storage was provided for 18 rounds in the bustle at the rear of the tank, with additional rounds being distributed in various positions inside the tank for a total of 58 rounds.
In the Strv 50 the gun was fitted with a muzzle brake that diverted firing gases sideways and reduced the amount of dust kicked up by firing. The main gun was not stabilized, so firing on the move was impractical, and the vehicle was not fitted with an NBC protection system or deep wading equipment. Three smoke grenade launchers were mounted on each side of the turret.
The tank was originally to be powered by a the proven VL 420 engine from the post-war 42 versions, but the increased total weight called for a more powerful engine. The result was a 570 horsepower Volvo VL 570 turbocharged V-8 engine. The engine was mounted at the rear of the hull and exhausting through pipes on either side of the rear of the hull. It was coupled with a manual electromagnetic ZF 6-speed transmission system.
Tests in 1952 and 1953 were successful, even though the prototypes had to be powered by the old VL 420 engine, the VL 570 only became available towards the end of the trials.
Nevertheless, the tank's modern suspension and good handling were major improvements compared to the 42, as well as the much more effective armor. In December 1953 the Strv 50 was cleared for production and the delivery of the first tanks started in late 1954. In service, the Strv 50 started to replace the WWII 42 in the heavy tank companies of the armored brigades.
However, just as production was turning up, the Soviet T-54/55 appeared on the scene and rendered the Strv 50 in its intended role as a main battle tank almost obsolete. The 20 pounder cannon was still adequate, but the rather lightly armored Strv 50 would not have been a true adversary for the new generation of Soviet tanks - a more heavily armored MBT was needed for the Swedish Army.
Since the Strv 50 did not offer the potential for an effective upgrade towards what was needed, the Swedish government eventually ordered the British Centurion tank as Stridsvagn 81. In consequence, the Strv 50 was relegated to reconnaissance and infantry support roles (much like the light American M41 Walker Bulldog tank) and the planned production of 250 vehicles was drastically cut back to just 80 which were delivered until 1959.
In the 1960s the Swedish ground forces could count on a small, well-equipped professional core and a large conscript army. However, many tanks and armored cars still dated back then from WW2. Some, like the Terrängbil 42D troop transport, were maintained into service until the 1990s while other old models were recycled or modernized. Even the Strv 42 soldiered on and was finally updated in 1958 to the Stridsvagn 74 standard as a supplement to the newly bought Stridsvagn 101 (a more modern Centurion variant with a 105 mm L7 cannon).
The Strv 50 served on until 1984, when it was phased out together with the Strv 74 and superseded by the Strv 103, the famous and unique, turret-less Swedish “S” tank.
Specifications:
Crew Four (commander, gunner, loader, driver)
Weight 35 tonnes
Length 6.03 metres (23 ft in) (hull only)
8,36 metres (27 ft 5 in) with gun forward
Width 2,95 metres (9 ft 6 in)
Height 2.49 metres (8 ft 1 1/2 in) w/o AA machine gun
Suspension: torsion-bar
Ground clearance: 495 to 510 mm (1 ft 7.5 in to 1 ft 8.1 in)
Fuel capacity: 820 l (180 imp gal; 220 US gal)
Armor:
10–64 mm (0.8 – 2.5 in)
Performance:
Speed:
- Maximum, road: 46 km/h (28.5 mph)
- Sustained, road: 40 km/h (25 mph)
- Cross country: 15 to 25 km/h (9.3 to 15.5 mph)
Operational range: 200 km (125 mi)
Power/weight: 17.14 hp/t
Engine:
VL 570 turbocharged V-8 diesel engine with 570 PS (420 kW)
Transmission:
ZF electromagnetic (6 forward and 2 reverse)
Armament:
1× 90 mm kanon strv 50 L55 with 58 rounds
1× co-axial 8mm ksp m/39 strv machine gun with 3.000 rounds
Optional, but rarely used, another 8mm ksp m/39 strv machine gun anti aircraft machine gun
The kit and its assembly:
Another entry for the “Cold War” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com, and, as a shocker, it’s not a fictional aircraft but a tank! I came across Sweden as an operator because the country tested some German tanks (bought from France) after WWII, including the Panzer V ‘Panther’. While I considered a Swedish Army Panther I eventually went for an indigenous design for the late 50ies – the Strv 50 was born.
The basis is a JGSDF Type 61 tank (Trumpeter kit), more or less the whole body and chassis were taken over. The turret is different/new, a mix of a late WWII M4 Sherman (‘Jumbo’) turret from Wee Friends (resin and white metal) coupled with a white metal gun barrel and some implants from the Type 61 tank like the commander’s cupola or the gun mantle.
The result is a rather generic tank with some retro appeal – like a big brother to the M24 Chaffee or M41 Walker Bulldog, or like a dramatically modernized M4 Sherman?
Painting and markings:
Benchmark were pictures of Swedish post-WWII 42 tanks, painted in a disruptive 3 color scheme of grayish green, black and a light, reddish tan. I used FS 34096, RAL 7021 and French Earth Brown (all Modelmaster enamels) as basic tones. In order to give the vehicle a post WWII look I painted the small wheel hub covers in bright red – a decorative detail inspired by British Army vehicles.
Later the surface received a dark brown wash and some dry-brushing with ochre and grey. After decals were applied (all from the scarp box: the Swedish flags come from a H0 scale Roco Minitanks UN units sheet, the numbers are actually German WWII font), the kits was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.
Finally, the tank was treated with grey and brown artist pigments, simulating dust especially around the lower chassis.
Messier 46 (M46 or NGC 2437) is a bright open cluster approximately 5,500 light-years away in Puppis.
NGC 2438 is the planetary nebula right above M46. It is located approximately, 3,000 light-years away. It is illuminated by an estimated 17.7 magnitude central star.
Luminance – 12x600s – 120 minutes – binned 1x1
RGB – 8x300s – 40 minutes each – binned 2x2
240 minutes total exposure – 4 hours
Imaged March 12th, 13th, 24th and 25th, 2016 from Rancho Hidalgo (Animas, New Mexico) with a SBIG STF-8300M on an Astro-Tech AT12RCT at f/8 2432mm.
See my refractor image here - www.flickr.com/photos/dcrowson/16657216397/sizes/l.
OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA
Am Samstag, den 24. Mai 2014, wurden diese Aufnahmen von der zum 25-jahrigen Bestehen stattfindende Traditionsfahrt des ATB (= Arbeitsgemeinschaft Traditionsbus Berlin) gemacht.
Aus diesem Anlaß wurde die ehemaligen Linie 73 - jetzige OL M46 sowie vormalige Buslinie 146 als befahrene Linie auserkoren, den die Verbindung Zoo – Britz blickt auf eine 115 jährige Geschichte zurück. Am 24. Mai 2014 waren die ATB-Busse 70 (ex LVG), 237, 1629, 1658, 1666, 1957, 2100, 2208, 2329, 2437, 2556 + 2626 sowie der BVG-Bus 3233 (mit Folienbeklebung für den ATB) unterwegs. Desweiteren wurden einige weitere aktuelle BVG-Busse sowie ehemalige BVG-Busse aufgenommen, die heute als Stadtrundfahren-Busse unterwegs sind.
Einige noch zusätzlich mit dem Fotoapparat aufgenommenen Videos werden aufgrund der schlechten Qualität von mir nicht, sodass es hierdurch keine bildliche Dokumentation vom 237 + 1957 gibt.
Weitere Hinweise gibt es auf der ATB-Homepage www.traditionsbus.de/index.htm
21ème RALLYE INTERNATIONAL DU PAYS DE FOUGERES, organisé par l’APPF, ETAPE de BEUVRON EN AUGE , NORMANDIE.
Der Brückenlegepanzer M48 war (bis zur Einführung des Brückenlegepanzers Biber) der aus US-amerikanischer Produktion stammende standardmäßige Brückenleger der Bundeswehr. Bei den Pionieren der U.S. Army wurde er durch den M60A1 AVLB ersetzt.
Erste Truppenversuche mit einer 12-Meter-Brücke auf dem für den Kampfpanzereinsatz unbrauchbar gewordenen Fahrgestell des M46 begannen 1958. Da sich diese Variante als unbefriedigend erwiesen hatte (die 12-Meter-Brücke war zu kurz und auch die Fahrleistung des M46-Fahrgestells entsprach dafür nicht den Anforderungen), entschied man sich letztendlich für das bereits im Gebrauch stehende Fahrgestell des Kpz M48 mit einer um acht Meter verlängerten Faltbrücke. Diese Kombination erwies sich als äußerst erfolgreich, nicht zuletzt wegen der sehr einfach zu bedienenden und wartungsarmen Brückenhydraulik und auch wegen der damals noch keine Rolle spielenden Kraftstoffkosten; der Benzinverbrauch des Fahrzeuges betrug bei Geländefahrt 500 bis 700 Liter auf 100 km. Es war dies das schwerste und einzige Fahrzeug der Bundeswehr, das nur mit einem Führerschein der Klasse F 4 gefahren werden durfte.
Die Basis war die Panzerwanne des M48 mit sechs Laufrollen, drei Stützrollen und gummigepolsterter Verbinderkette. Die zwei Kraftstofftanks fassten zusammen etwa 1300 Liter Benzin. Das Fahrzeug war mit einem, auch von Hand zu startenden, 250-cm³-Hilfsmotor für Batterieladung und Heizungsbetrieb ausgestattet. (Durch den Hilfsmotor konnte die Anzahl der Batterien auf vier beschränkt werden). Dort, wo sich ursprünglich der Turm befunden hatte, wurde eine Platte über die Öffnung gelegt und links und rechts je eine Kuppel für den Fahrer (links) und den Kommandanten angebracht. Die Kuppeln waren mit den sogenannten Kinonblöcken (Sehschlitze mit Panzerglas) und nicht mit Winkelspiegeln ausgestattet. Durch den Ablagebock war dem Fahrer die Sicht nach rechts vorn genommen; dadurch war er bei Fahrzeugbewegungen völlig auf die Aufmerksamkeit und Unterstützung seines Kommandanten angewiesen. Der Panzer führte keine Bewaffnung.
1980 begann das Ordnance Corps mit Versuchen einer 31 Meter langen Brücke (Modell 80), das aber nicht realisiert wurde. Das Fahrzeug war hier bereits mit einem Dieselmotor ausgestattet.
Die knapp 20 Meter lange Faltbrücke wurde mit insgesamt vier Hydraulikzylindern verlegt bzw. aufgenommen. Nacheinander wurden der Aufrichtzylinder und der Ablegezylinder sowie parallel zum Absenken und Ablegen (bzw. Aufnehmen und Einklappen) der Faltzylinder der Brücke betätigt (der Abstoßzylinder wurde nur in schwierigem Gelände benötigt). Nach dem Ablegen der Brücke wurde diese entriegelt, die beiden Hydraulikanschlüsse wurden durch Rückwärtsfahren automatisch getrennt. Ein Nachteil gegenüber dem Biber war, dass beim Aufnehmen der Brücke ein Mann das Fahrzeug verlassen musste, um die Hydraulikanschlüsse anzukuppeln. Die Brücke konnte bis zu 19 % aufwärts und abwärts sowie mit einer Querneigung von bis zu 8 % verlegt werden. Zum Bahntransport und auch zum Transport auf dem Tiefladeanhänger (15 t) konnte die Brücke komplett gefaltet abgelegt werden (für den Verteidigungsfall sollten jedem Brückenleger zwei zusätzliche Brücken auf Anhänger nachgeführt werden). Die vorgeschriebene Überfahrgeschwindigkeit über die Brücke betrug etwa 4 km/h, bis zu 20 km/h waren in der Praxis jedoch möglich; dies hing von der Erfahrung und Geschicklichkeit des jeweiligen Fahrers ab.
Quelle: Wikipedia
OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA
- Britz, Gradestraße -
Am Samstag, den 24. Mai 2014, wurden diese Aufnahmen von der zum 25-jahrigen Bestehen stattfindende Traditionsfahrt des ATB (= Arbeitsgemeinschaft Traditionsbus Berlin) gemacht.
Aus diesem Anlaß wurde die ehemaligen Linie 73 - jetzige OL M46 sowie vormalige Buslinie 146 als befahrene Linie auserkoren, den die Verbindung Zoo – Britz blickt auf eine 115 jährige Geschichte zurück. Am 24. Mai 2014 waren die ATB-Busse 70 (ex LVG), 237, 1629, 1658, 1666, 1957, 2100, 2208, 2329, 2437, 2556 + 2626 sowie der BVG-Bus 3233 (mit Folienbeklebung für den ATB) unterwegs. Desweiteren wurden einige weitere aktuelle BVG-Busse sowie ehemalige BVG-Busse aufgenommen, die heute als Stadtrundfahren-Busse unterwegs sind.
Einige noch zusätzlich mit dem Fotoapparat aufgenommenen Videos werden aufgrund der schlechten Qualität von mir nicht eingestellt, sodass es hierdurch keine bildliche Dokumentation vom 237 + 1957 gibt.
Weitere Hinweise gibt es auf der ATB-Homepage
traffiQ Lokale Nahverkehrsgesellschaft Frankfurt am Main mbH (operated by In-der-City-Bus GmbH): the bus number 517 (MAN A21 Lion's City NL283, registration F IC 8517, put into service in 2018) at the terminus of city line M46, located next to the Frankfurt central railway station.
I recently completed this model. Atlantis models acquired the old Aurora mold and made some changes. They added some texture on the cast armor surfaces, changed the turret mount for the 50-caliber machine gun, and added antennas. It seems that the mold must have been damaged at one time, because Atlantis has deleted the louver detail on four panels of the engine deck. Smoothing out those surfaces of the mold must have been more economical than having to accurately restore that part of the mold. Compare to my original Aurora kit here www.flickr.com/photos/22948295@N02/35994098750/in/photoli... . The vacuform base is an original 70s vintage Aurora, with an Atlantis decal. This model is not an accurate depiction of an M-46 Patton and has many fit issues which require filling and sanding to correct. If you love nostalgia building like I do, then you might consider getting one. If you are looking for accuracy and easy building, this kit is not for you.
OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA
Am Samstag, den 24. Mai 2014, wurden diese Aufnahmen von der zum 25-jahrigen Bestehen stattfindende Traditionsfahrt des ATB (= Arbeitsgemeinschaft Traditionsbus Berlin) gemacht.
Aus diesem Anlaß wurde die ehemaligen Linie 73 - jetzige OL M46 sowie vormalige Buslinie 146 als befahrene Linie auserkoren, den die Verbindung Zoo – Britz blickt auf eine 115 jährige Geschichte zurück. Am 24. Mai 2014 waren die ATB-Busse 70 (ex LVG), 237, 1629, 1658, 1666, 1957, 2100, 2208, 2329, 2437, 2556 + 2626 sowie der BVG-Bus 3233 (mit Folienbeklebung für den ATB) unterwegs. Desweiteren wurden einige weitere aktuelle BVG-Busse sowie ehemalige BVG-Busse aufgenommen, die heute als Stadtrundfahren-Busse unterwegs sind.
Einige noch zusätzlich mit dem Fotoapparat aufgenommenen Videos werden aufgrund der schlechten Qualität von mir nicht eingestellt, sodass es hierdurch keine bildliche Dokumentation vom 237 + 1957 gibt.
Weitere Hinweise gibt es auf der ATB-Homepage www.traditionsbus.de/index.htm