Medium tank T-IV Panzerkampfwagen IV (PzKpfw IV, also Pz. IV), Sd.Kfz.161. T-IV H - review of the new product from Zvezda Description of the PzKpfw IV tank

The German army entered World War II with a rather strange situation in the tank weapons system. The Pz.Kpfw.III medium tank, which was created as the main tank, actually turned out to be the smallest in the Wehrmacht at that time. As for the other medium tank, the Pz.Kpfw.IV, it was designed as a support vehicle, but at the same time there were almost four times more such vehicles in the army than the Pz.Kpfw.III. German industry was able to equalize the number of tanks of these two types in the army only at the very end of 1939. By this time, a new version of the support tank, the Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.D, had already entered production, and in a sense it was a return to the original concept.

Return of the forward machine gun

The spring of 1938 turned out to be decisive for future fate Pz.Kpfw.IV. The fact is that the 6th Department of the Armament Directorate is seriously thinking about removing the brainchild of the Krupp concern from the production program. Instead of the Pz.Kpfw.IV, it was planned to create a support tank based on the Pz.Kpfw.III, thus unifying both medium tanks in their main components and assemblies.

On the one hand, the idea was sound. However, it should be taken into account that the Pz.Kpfw.III at that time was far from experiencing better times. But the production of the Pz.Kpfw.IV was not without problems, but it still went on, and Krupp designers got into the weight category specified by the customers the first time.

Thus, when Erich Wolfert, Krupp's leading engineer, sharply criticized the idea of ​​combining two tanks on one platform on May 2, 1938, victory was on his side. The 6th Department of the Armament Directorate was forced to give in, because Wolfert had not only an industrial giant behind him, but also common sense.

The lesson, however, did not work out well, and the 6th Department of the Armament Directorate continued to struggle with the idea of ​​a single chassis for two types of tanks throughout the war. This impulse, one of the initiators of which was Heinrich Ernst Kniepkamp, ​​with enviable consistency turned into a rake race, and each time the proper conclusions were not drawn from what had happened earlier.

Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.D in its original configuration. In metal the car looked a little different

Meanwhile, the requirements for a support tank continued to grow. At the beginning of January 1938, discussions began on the characteristics of the fourth modification of the tank, designated 4.Serie/B.W.

One of the first items on the agenda was the return of the machine gun to its place. Someone at the top finally realized that you couldn't even shoot much from the pistol port, let alone hit anything. It was decided to use the Kugelblende 30 installation, developed for the Z.W.38 (future Pz.Kpfw.III Ausf.E). It had much better protection than the PzIV Ausf.A ball mount. In connection with the return of the course machine gun, the front plate of the turret box again received a characteristic step.

On March 10, 1938, a meeting was held in Berlin, where employees of the Krupp concern and the 6th Department of the Armament Directorate discussed the possibility of strengthening the armor of the tank. The thickness of the side armor of the hull, turret box and turret, amounting to 14.5 mm, was considered insufficient. It was necessary to increase it to 20 mm so that at long distances the tank would not be hit by fire from 20 mm automatic cannons. In addition, the military asked to increase the thickness of the bottom from 8 to 10 mm.

The response to the new demands came on April 12. According to engineers' calculations, increasing the thickness of the armor increased the tank's combat weight by 1256 kg, to almost 20 tons. This led to changes in individual elements of the body. The hatches in the area of ​​the support rollers received a different shape, and the air intakes of the engine compartment were changed. At the end of April, tracks with larger teeth were developed, and the number of suspension travel stops was increased to five per side (one each for the three front bogies and two for the rear).

Certain changes were also made to the design of the tower. First of all, the armor of the gun system was redesigned. The fact is that the previously used design turned out to be very vulnerable to enemy fire. A bullet or shell fragment falling into the gap between the armor elements could easily jam the gun in a vertical plane. At the end of May 1938, development of a new protection for the gun began. The new system armor was located on the outside of the tower and did its job much better. The thickness of the armor was increased to 35 mm.

In addition, the viewing devices on the side hatches and sides of the turret were replaced.

When, on July 4, 1938, a contract was finally signed with the Krupp concern for the production of tanks of the 4.Serie/B.W. modification, the vehicle was quite transformed. According to the contract, the factories of Grusonwerk, one of the divisions of Krupp, were to produce 200 tanks of this series. In October the contract was extended. The SS troops ordered 48 tanks, which were designated 5.Serie/B.W.. In fact, they were no different from 4.Serie/B.W. By the way, in the end, these vehicles never made it to the SS unit, since it was decided to order the StuG III assault self-propelled guns instead.

Tanks of the 4th and 5th series were designated Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.D. The vehicles were assigned serial numbers in the range 80501–80748.

Based on the experience of the first two campaigns

Serial production of the Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.D began in October 1939. Unlike the Pz.Kpfw.III, the production of which was forced by manufacturers, there were no special breakthroughs in the production of support tanks. By the end of 1939, 45 tanks had been assembled; subsequently, volumes averaged 20–25 vehicles per month. In total, by May 1, 1940, 129 vehicles of this modification were manufactured.

Meanwhile, back in March 1939, it was decided that in the future the Wehrmacht would continue to order these tanks, and the 6th series (6.Serie/B.W.) vehicles would henceforth be designated as Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.E. A new contract for the production of 223 tanks of this type was signed in July 1939. In general, this tank was supposed to repeat its predecessor, but already in May some changes began to appear.

To begin with, it was decided to change the driver's viewing device, which had not changed from the Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.B, to the Fahrersehklappe 30. This device was distinguished by the fact that instead of massive parts going up and down, it used a thick “eyelash” 30 mm. It covered the viewing slot covered with glass block much more reliably, and its design turned out to be much simpler.

The rather large ventilation hatch from the roof of the tower also disappeared, and a fan appeared in its place. The hatch for signal flags was moved to the place of the periscope device. The shape of the commander's cupola has also changed.

The fact that the Ausf.E in its planned form will definitely not go into production, and that the Ausf.D will face certain changes, became clear after the Polish campaign of September 1939. The fact is that Polish troops massively used 37-mm Armata przeciwpancerna 37 mm wz anti-tank guns against German tanks. 36 Bofors. Even though the Polish shells turned out to be not the most best quality, they confidently punched through German vehicles in all projections. Strengthening the frontal part to 30 mm didn’t really help here either.

In the fall of 1939, research began to be carried out to identify the possibility of additionally loading the Pz.Kpfw.IV with another one and a half tons of armor and increasing its combat weight to 21.4 tons. Tests have shown that the tank can easily tolerate such an increase in mass.

On December 18, 1939, the 6th Department of the Armament Directorate adjusted the assignment for 4.Serie/B.W. and 5.Serie/B.W. The last 68 tanks were to receive hulls with frontal plates reinforced to 50 mm. But by the start of the campaign in France, which began on May 10, 1940, the PzIV Ausf.D was still in production with a 30 mm thick front plate.

The very first battles showed that such slowness was extremely reckless. Of course, 37-mm short-barreled guns, which were placed in a row French tanks, including FCM 36 and Renault R 35, could not penetrate 30 mm thick frontal armor. But they were not at all the main opponents of German tanks. The French were doing well with anti-tank artillery, and for it, armor 30 mm thick was by no means something prohibitive. Even worse for the Germans was that a number of French tanks had 47 mm guns as their main armament.

PzIV losses in France were even higher than in September 1939 in Poland. Of the 279 Pz.Kpfw.IVs available in units on May 10, 1939, 97, that is, more than a third, were irretrievably lost. The battles of May-June 1940 also showed that the 75-mm short-barreled gun was almost powerless against tanks with shell-proof armor.

It became clear that the problem had to be solved, and solved quickly. Back on May 15, the Krupp concern reported that shielding for the hull and turret box had been manufactured and tested. The forehead of the turret box received additional sheets 30 mm thick, due to which their total thickness increased to 60 mm. The sides were reinforced with 20 mm thick screens. Later, in addition to these screens, reinforcement was made for the frontal sheet of the hull, and corners were added at the top and bottom for additional reinforcement.

However, until the end of the French campaign, the troops did not receive a single set of shielding. Deliveries began only on June 25, when they were, in general, not really needed. Since July 1940, tanks began to be equipped with screens as standard. At the same time, the thickness of the frontal plate of the hull, turret and gun mantlet armor increased to 50 mm.

Another serious metamorphosis with the PzIV Ausf.D occurred in August 1940. According to the decision made on June 3 of the same year, the last 68 tanks 4.Serie/B.W. and 5.Serie/B.W. were manufactured with turrets and turret boxes 6.Serie/B.W. The last such vehicles were delivered to the troops in October 1940, after which tanks of the Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.E modification went into production.

Cars in this series received serial numbers 80801–81006. They can be distinguished from the last 68 Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.Ds only if the serial number of the vehicle is known. Additional confusion into what is happening is brought by the fact that not all Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.E, not to mention the Ausf.D, received screens on the frontal part of the turret box.

At the beginning of 1941, some tank units tried to do shielding themselves, but an order came from above to stop this activity. However, another modification was born, also known as the Vorpanzer. It differed in that quite massive screens were attached to the front of the tower. They were installed on tanks of modifications Ausf.D, E and F. Apparently, Vorpanzers were used exclusively by the Greater Germany (Großdeutschland) tank division. It is believed that the division used them only for exercises, but there are also front-line photographs that refute such claims.

For crossings and other purposes

Orders for Pz.Kpfw.IV tanks of the 4th, 5th and 6th series were not fulfilled in full. Some of the total number of PzIV Ausf.Ds ordered went to other purposes. 16 chassis produced in March-April 1940 were used for the production of bridge tanks Brückenleger IV b. These vehicles were included in the engineering battalions assigned to tank divisions. They were used by units that fought during the May-June 1940 campaign in France.

Meanwhile, in the summer of 1940, Krupp produced 16 sets of turret boxes and towers. Later, three bridge tanks with numbers 80685, 80686 and 80687 were converted into regular PzIV Ausf.D. According to a report from May 1941, of the 29 PzIVs produced, 13 were 4.Serie/B.W. Thus, 247 vehicles of the Ausf.D modification still went to the troops as regular tanks. The last, 248th car with serial number 80625 was used as a test chassis.

The situation was slightly different with the PzIV Ausf.E. Instead of the 223 tanks that were originally planned to be built, 206 vehicles were produced in one form or another, of which 200 were as regular tanks. In January 1941, 4 chassis 6.Serie/B.W. was sent to Magirus, where they were used to build the Brückenleger IV c. Like the vehicles of the previous series, they went to the 39th Tank Engineering Battalion, attached to the 3rd Tank Division. In this form they took part in battles on the Eastern Front in the summer of 1941.

The fate of the last two tanks of the 6th series, numbers 81005 and 81006, turned out to be even more interesting. On December 14, 1940, the 6th Department of the Armament Directorate gave the green light to the Krupp concern to develop a new chassis. Its main difference was that the diameter of the road wheels increased to 700 mm, and in order for them all to fit, they had to be placed in a checkerboard pattern. The width of the tracks increased to 422 mm. During 1941–42, these vehicles were actively tested, and then tank 81005 ended up in training center Wünsdorf. Also, at least one tank was converted into an ammunition carrier for the heavy self-propelled mortar Gerät 040 (“Karl”).

Finally, some of the production tanks were converted into very specific special vehicles. In August-July 1940, 48 Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.D were converted into Tauchpanzer IV, a tank for crossing rivers along the bottom. Mounts for special sealed covers were installed on the tank, and covers were also placed on the air intakes. In addition, a special hose with a float was used, through which air was supplied to the machine. A number of Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.Es produced in January-March 1940 were similarly converted. Similar vehicles were used in June 1941 as part of the 18th Panzer Division.

Blitzkrieg support vehicle

In April 1941, production began of the 7.Serie/B.W., also known as the Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.F. This tank was created taking into account the experience of the campaigns of the first two years of the war. But it became the main support tank of the German army only in the fall of 1941. Of the 441 Pz.Kpfw.IV, which by June 22, 1941 were concentrated on the border with the USSR, they were a minority. The basis was the Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.D and Ausf.E.

By that time, the tanks of these modifications had changed somewhat. On February 14, 1941, the first German tanks arrived in Tripoli, and on the 16th the Afrika Korps was formed. In this regard, at the beginning of February, a “tropical” set for the ventilation system was developed.

Since March, tanks have been equipped with a turret box for personal belongings. Because it was originally developed for the Afrika Korps, it was nicknamed the "Rommel Box". It was not installed on all tanks. On many tanks, boxes on the turrets were not installed at all, and instead, an analogue was placed on the side of the hull. And in some units they developed their own “Rommel Box”, which differed in shape from the standard one.

And this was just the beginning of all sorts of alterations that were introduced at the level of tank divisions, and sometimes even at the battalion level. The “body kit” itself, which the Pz.Kpfw.IV received only in 1941, is a topic for a separate large article.

The PzIVs that arrived in Africa found themselves, figuratively speaking, in hothouse conditions. In February 1941, 20 tanks were sent there, 3 of which were lost on the way; another 20 arrived in April. The only truly dangerous enemy for them was the Matildas, which was primarily due to the thick armor of these British tanks. 2-pounder (40 mm) guns mounted on English cars, could only penetrate the shielded forehead of a PzIV at point-blank range, and such cases were rare.

Quite different conditions turned out to be on the Eastern Front. During the battles at the end of June 1941, only 15 Pz.Kpfw.IV were irretrievably lost. This is largely due to the fact that their opponents were T-26 and BT, which competed in a completely different weight category. The atmosphere of complete confusion in the first weeks of the Great Patriotic War also contributed. However, already in July, 109 tanks, that is, a quarter of the original number, were scrapped. In August, another 68 vehicles were added to them. In total, in 1941, the Germans lost 348 Pz.Kpfw.IV on the Eastern Front, that is, more than 3/4 of their original number.

The German tank crews could quite rightly blame the 6th Department of the Armament Directorate for such significant losses, which approached the issue of strengthening the armor very frivolously. In fact, the shielding installed on the tanks corresponded to the experience of the September 1939 campaign. At the same time, attention was paid to the fact that the French already had 47-mm tank and anti-tank guns. And this was done completely in vain: even the 47-mm SA 35 tank gun with a 32-caliber barrel, as tests in the USSR showed, easily penetrated the 50 mm armor of German tanks at a distance of 400 meters.

The characteristics of the 47 mm looked even more depressing for the Germans. anti-tank gun Canon de 47 Mle.1937, which had a barrel length of 50 calibers. At a distance of a kilometer, it penetrated armor 57 mm thick. The Germans could quite reasonably assume that the French were not the only ones who had more powerful anti-tank artillery and tank guns than the Poles.

Ultimately, the Wehrmacht had to pay for the miscalculations of the military leadership in assessing the enemy’s weapons with tanks and their crews. While the main opponents of the Pz.Kpfw.IV were the T-26 and BT, everything turned out relatively well for the German tankers. Later, more and more often they had to deal with T-34 and KV-1, armed with 76-mm cannons. In addition, some of the tanks turned out to have only partially thickened armor, which significantly reduced the chances of surviving even under fire from 45-mm tank and anti-tank guns.

KV-2 heavy tanks also made a certain contribution. His 152-mm projectile hit german tank turned it into a pile of scrap metal. However, penetration by other shells did not bring anything good. Cases of ammunition explosions were quite common for Pz.Kpfw.IV. It is worth noting that German tanks were almost powerless against the T-34 and KV-1. Standard armor-piercing shells had almost no effect against new Soviet tanks, while those developed and in service as early as April 1941 cumulative shells 7.5 cm Gr.Patr.38 Kw.K. Hitler allowed its use only in February 1942.

Already in August 1941, the captured Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.E from the 20th Tank Division was delivered to the training ground of the Scientific Research Testing Institute of Armored Vehicles (NIIBT Polygon) in Kubinka. The car was quite badly damaged: there were several hits in the frontal part of the hull, and the shielding in the area of ​​the driver's viewing device was partially knocked down. The Polygon staff compiled a brief description of, according to which the combat weight of a tank designated as “Medium T-IV tank produced in 1939–40,” was estimated at 24 tons, and maximum speed- at 50 km/h. After preliminary calculations, the following conclusions were made:

.« Armor protection tank T-IV can be hit by artillery of all calibers.

The tank turret, inspection hatches, and the ball mount of the radio operator’s machine gun are hit by large-caliber small arms.”

Captured PzIVs have become quite common since the end of 1941. However, the Polygon was not involved in bringing the tank captured in the summer of 1941 back into working condition or trying to get the NIIBT running trophy.

This is largely due to the fact that the Soviet military did not show much interest in the tank. It seems that they considered it as an addition to the PzIII, despite the fact that the combat weight and engine of the two medium tanks were similar. For approximately the same reasons, the StuG III Ausf.B was not restored to running condition. More important task studying the driving characteristics of captured Pz.Kpfw.III and Pz.Kpfw.38(t) was considered, and wasting time on secondary vehicles was considered a pointless exercise.

In September 1942, tests took place, during which fire from various weapons was fired at the captured tank. First of all, he was fired upon from DShK machine gun. It turned out that the side of the DShK turret cannot be penetrated even from a distance of 50 meters, but at a distance of 100 meters it was possible to penetrate the side and stern of the hull.

Much more interesting were the tests fired from a 45-mm cannon installed in the T-70 tank. At a distance of 50 meters, the frontal hull sheet, 50 mm thick, was pierced. It is worth noting that the same gun did not penetrate the captured StuG III self-propelled gun. The 40 mm thick sides (20+20 mm) were penetrated at a distance of 400 meters.

The final verdict on the German tank was shelling from the 76-mm F-34 cannon installed in the T-34 medium tank. The frontal plate was pierced at a distance of 500 meters (the entrance diameter of the through hole was 90 mm, the exit diameter was 100 mm). The next shot, fired from a distance of 800 meters, split the sheet into two parts. When fired from a distance of 800 meters into the side of the hull, the shell penetrated 40 mm armor on the right side, exploded inside and came out on the left side. When firing a high-explosive shell into the side, the first hit tore off the side turret hatch, the second shell tore off the commander's cupola, and the hit on the side of the engine compartment (20 mm thick) led to the appearance of a hole measuring 130x350 mm. It was decided not to fire from long distances - and so everything was clear.

In addition to the shelling, NII-48 specialists studied the design of the hull and turret.

In July 1942, the few Ausf.D and Ausf.E tanks remaining in service were modernized. Instead of a standard gun, they were equipped with a long-barreled 7.5 cm KwK 40 gun. In addition, from May 1943, side screens began to be installed on the hull and turret. By that time, these vehicles had been withdrawn from the first line and transferred to training units, including NSKK (National Socialist Mechanized Corps) institutions.

Such tanks were also available in tank units stationed in France. One of them (Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.D, serial number 80732, released in July 1940) was captured by the British in the summer of 1944. It is now on display at the Bovington Tank Museum.

The Germans themselves did not have a high opinion of the fighting qualities of the Pz.lV. Here is what Major General von Mellenthin writes about this in his memoirs (in 1941, with the rank of major, he served on Rommel’s headquarters): “The T-IV tank gained a reputation among the British as a formidable enemy mainly because it was armed with a 75-mm cannon However, this gun had a low muzzle velocity and weak penetration, and although we used the T-IV in tank battles, they were much more useful as a means of fire support for infantry." The Pz.lV began to play a more significant role in all theaters of war only after acquiring the "long arm" - the 75-mm KwK 40 cannon (F2 series). On the Eastern Front, the Pz. The lV Ausf.F2 also appeared in the summer of 1942 and took part in the attack on Stalingrad and the North Caucasus. After production of the Pz.ll "four" ceased in 1943, it gradually became the main German tank in all theaters of combat. However, due to the start of production It was planned to stop production of the "Panther" and the Pz.lV, however, thanks to the tough position of the Panzerwaffe Inspector General General G. Guderian, this did not happen. Subsequent events showed that he was right..

Increased sharply combat characteristics Pz.IV after installing a long-barreled gun. Not inferior to enemy tanks in all other respects, the “four” turned out to be capable of hitting Soviet and American tanks out of range of their guns. We are not talking about English cars - for four years of the war the British were marking time. Until the end of 1943, the combat characteristics of the T-34 remained virtually unchanged, with the Pz.IV taking first place among medium tanks. Since 1942 performance characteristics Pz.IV did not change (except for the thickness of the armor) and during two years of the war remained unsurpassed by anyone! Only in 1944, having installed a 76-mm long-barreled gun on the Sherman, did the Americans catch up with the Pz.IV, and we, having launched the T-34-85 into production, overtook it. The Germans no longer had any time or opportunity left for a worthy response. Comparing the characteristics of WWII tanks, we can conclude that the Germans, before others, began to consider the tank as the main and most effective anti-tank weapon, and this is main trend post-war tank building.

In general, it can be argued that of all the German tanks of the Second World War, the Pz.IV was the most balanced and versatile. In this car, various characteristics were harmoniously combined and complemented each other. The "Tiger" and "Panther", for example, had a clear bias towards protection, which led to their overweight and deterioration in dynamic characteristics. The Pz.III, with many other characteristics being equal to the Pz.IV, did not match it in armament and, having no reserves for modernization, left the stage. The Pz.IV, with a similar Pz.III, but a slightly more thoughtful layout, had such reserves in full least. This is the only wartime tank with a 75 mm cannon, whose main armament was significantly strengthened without changing the turret. The turret of the T-34-85 and Sherman had to be replaced, and, by and large, these were almost new vehicles. The British went their own way and, like a fashionista, changed not the towers, but the tanks! But “Cromwell,” which appeared in 1944, never reached the “four,” as did “Comet,” released in 1945. Only the post-war Centurion was able to bypass the German tank, created in 1937.

From the above, of course, it does not follow that the Pz.IV was an ideal tank. Let's say it had insufficient engine power and a rather rigid and outdated suspension, which negatively affected its maneuverability. To some extent, the latter was compensated for by the lowest L/B ratio of 1.43 among all medium tanks. The equipping of the Pz.lV (as well as other tanks) with anti-cumulative screens cannot be considered a successful move by German designers. In droves cumulative ammunition were rarely used, the screens increased the dimensions of the vehicle, making it difficult to move in narrow passages, blocked most surveillance devices, and made it difficult for the crew to board and disembark.
However, an even more pointless and rather expensive measure was coating the tanks with Zimmerit (anti-magnetic painting, against magnetic mines). But perhaps the biggest mistake the Germans made was trying to switch to new type medium tank - "Panther". It did not take place as the latter, joining the Tiger in the class of heavy vehicles, but it played a fatal role in the fate of the Pz.lV. Having concentrated all their efforts on creating new tanks in 1942, the Germans stopped seriously modernizing the old ones. Let's try to imagine what would have happened if not for the Panther? The project of installing a “Panther” turret on the Pz.lV is well known, both standard and “close” (Schmall-turm). The project is quite realistic in size - the clear diameter of the turret ring for the Panther is 1650 mm, for the Pz.lV it is 1600 mm. The tower stood up without expanding the turret box. The situation with the weight characteristics was somewhat worse - due to the long reach of the gun barrel, the center of gravity shifted forward and the load on the front road wheels increased by 1.5 tons. However, it could be compensated for by strengthening their suspension. In addition, it must be taken into account that the KwK 42 cannon was created for the Panther, and not for the Pz.IV. For the "four" it was possible to limit ourselves to a gun with smaller weight and dimensions, with a barrel length of, say, not 70, but 55 or 60 calibers. Even if such a weapon would require replacing the turret, it would still make it possible to get by with a lighter design than the Panther one. The inevitably increasing (by the way, even without such a hypothetical rearmament) weight of the tank required replacing the Engine. For comparison: the dimensions of the HL 120TKRM engine installed on the Pz.IV were 1220x680x830 mm, and the Panther HL 230P30 - 1280x960x1090 mm. The clear dimensions of the engine compartments were almost identical for these two tanks. The Panther's was 480 mm longer, mainly due to the inclination of the rear hull plate. Consequently, equipping the Pz.lV with a higher power engine was not an insurmountable design task. The results of this, of course, far from complete, list of possible modernization measures would be very sad, since they would nullify the work on creating the T-34-85 for us and the Sherman with a 76-mm cannon for the Americans. In 1943-1945, the industry of the Third Reich produced about 6 thousand “Panthers” and almost 7 thousand Pz.IV. If we take into account that the labor intensity of manufacturing the Panther was almost twice that of the Pz.lV, then we can assume that during the same time German factories could produce an additional 10-12 thousand modernized "fours" that would be delivered to the soldiers anti-Hitler coalition much more trouble than the Panthers.

Modern battle tanks Russia and the world photos, videos, pictures watch online. This article gives an idea of ​​the modern tank fleet. It is based on the principle of classification used in the most authoritative reference book to date, but in a slightly modified and improved form. And if the last one is in his original form can still be found in the armies of a number of countries, others have already become museum pieces. And just for 10 years! The authors considered it unfair to follow in the footsteps of the Jane’s reference book and not consider this combat vehicle (very interesting in design and fiercely discussed in its time), which formed the basis of the tank fleet of the last quarter of the 20th century.

Films about tanks where there is still no alternative to this type of weapon ground forces. The tank was and will probably remain a modern weapon for a long time due to its ability to combine such seemingly contradictory qualities as high mobility, powerful weapons and reliable crew protection. These unique qualities of tanks continue to be constantly improved, and the experience and technology accumulated over decades predetermine new frontiers in combat properties and achievements of the military-technical level. In the eternal confrontation between “projectile and armor”, as practice shows, protection against projectiles is increasingly being improved, acquiring new qualities: activity, multi-layeredness, self-defense. At the same time, the projectile becomes more accurate and powerful.

Russian tanks are specific in that they allow you to destroy the enemy from a safe distance, have the ability to make quick maneuvers on off-road, contaminated terrain, can “walk” through territory occupied by the enemy, seize a decisive bridgehead, cause panic in the rear and suppress the enemy with fire and tracks . The war of 1939-1945 became the most ordeal for all humanity, since almost all countries of the world were involved in it. It was a clash of the titans - the most unique period that theorists debated in the early 1930s and during which tanks were used in large numbers by almost all belligerents. At this time, a “lice test” and a deep reform of the first theories of the use of tank forces took place. And it is the Soviet tank forces that are most affected by all this.

Tanks in battle have become a symbol of the past war, the backbone of the Soviet armored forces? Who created them and under what conditions? How did the USSR, which had lost most of its European territories and had difficulty recruiting tanks for the defense of Moscow, was able to release powerful tank formations onto the battlefields already in 1943? This book is intended to answer these questions, telling about the development of Soviet tanks “during the testing days ", from 1937 to the beginning of 1943. When writing the book, materials from Russian archives and private collections of tank builders were used. There was a period in our history that remained in my memory with some kind of depressing feeling. It began with the return of our first military advisers from Spain, and only stopped at the beginning of forty-three,” said former general designer of self-propelled guns L. Gorlitsky, “some kind of pre-storm state was felt.

Tanks of the Second World War It was M. Koshkin, almost underground (but, of course, with the support of “the wisest of the wise leaders of all nations”), who was able to create the tank that a few years later would shock the German tank generals. And not only that, he not only created it, the designer managed to prove to these military fools that it was his T-34 that they needed, and not just another wheeled-tracked "motor vehicle." The author is in slightly different positions, which formed in him after meeting the pre-war documents of the RGVA and RGEA. Therefore, working on this segment of the history of the Soviet tank, the author will inevitably contradict something “generally accepted.” This work describes the history of Soviet tank building in the most difficult years - from the beginning of a radical restructuring of the entire activity of design bureaus and people's commissariats in general, during the frantic race to equip new tank formations of the Red Army, transfer industry to wartime rails and evacuation.

Tanks Wikipedia, the author would like to express his special gratitude to M. Kolomiets for his assistance in selecting and processing materials, and also thank A. Solyankin, I. Zheltov and M. Pavlov, the authors of the reference publication “Domestic armored vehicles. XX century. 1905 - 1941” , since this book helped to understand the fate of some projects that was previously unclear. I would also like to remember with gratitude those conversations with Lev Izraelevich Gorlitsky, the former chief designer of UZTM, which helped to take a fresh look at the entire history of the Soviet tank during the Great Patriotic War Soviet Union. For some reason today it is common for us to talk about 1937-1938. only from the point of view of repression, but few people remember that it was during this period that those tanks were born that became legends of the wartime...” From the memoirs of L.I. Gorlinky.

Soviet tanks, a detailed assessment of them at that time was heard from many lips. Many old people recalled that it was from the events in Spain that it became clear to everyone that the war was getting closer and closer to the threshold and it was Hitler who would have to fight. In 1937, mass purges and repressions began in the USSR and against the backdrop of these difficult events soviet tank began to transform from “mechanized cavalry” (in which one of its fighting qualities was emphasized at the expense of others) into a balanced fighting machine, possessing at the same time powerful weapons, sufficient to suppress most targets, good maneuverability and mobility with armor protection, capable of maintaining its combat effectiveness when fired by the most widespread anti-tank weapons probable enemy.

It was recommended that large tanks be supplemented with only special tanks - amphibious tanks, chemical tanks. The brigade now had 4 separate battalions of 54 tanks each and was strengthened by moving from three-tank platoons to five-tank ones. In addition, D. Pavlov justified the refusal to form three additional mechanized corps in addition to the four existing mechanized corps in 1938, believing that these formations were immobile and difficult to control, and most importantly, they required a different rear organization. The tactical and technical requirements for promising tanks, as expected, were adjusted. In particular, in a letter dated December 23 to the head of the design bureau of plant No. 185 named after. CM. Kirov new boss demanded that the armor of new tanks be strengthened so that at a distance of 600-800 meters (effective range).

The newest tanks in the world, when designing new tanks, it is necessary to provide for the possibility of increasing the level of armor protection during modernization by at least one stage...” This problem could be solved in two ways: Firstly, by increasing the thickness of the armor plates and, secondly, by “using increased armor resistance." It is not difficult to guess that the second way was considered more promising, since the use of specially strengthened armor plates, or even two-layer armor, could, while maintaining the same thickness (and the mass of the tank as a whole), increase its durability by 1.2-1.5 It was this path (the use of especially hardened armor) that was chosen at that moment to create new types of tanks.

Tanks of the USSR at the dawn of tank production, armor was most widely used, the properties of which were identical in all areas. Such armor was called homogeneous (homogeneous), and from the very beginning of armor making, craftsmen sought to create just such armor, because homogeneity ensured stability of characteristics and simplified processing. However, at the end of the 19th century, it was noticed that when the surface of an armor plate was saturated (to a depth of several tenths to several millimeters) with carbon and silicon, its surface strength increased sharply, while the rest of the plate remained viscous. This is how heterogeneous (non-uniform) armor came into use.

For military tanks, the use of heterogeneous armor was very important, since an increase in the hardness of the entire thickness of the armor plate led to a decrease in its elasticity and (as a consequence) to an increase in fragility. Thus, the most durable armor, with other equal conditions It turned out to be very fragile and often pricked even from the explosions of high-explosive fragmentation shells. Therefore, at the dawn of armor production, when producing homogeneous sheets, the task of the metallurgist was to achieve the maximum possible hardness of the armor, but at the same time not to lose its elasticity. Surface-hardened armor with carbon and silicon saturation was called cemented (cemented) and was considered at that time a panacea for many ills. But cementation is a complex, harmful process (for example, treating a hot plate with a jet of illuminating gas) and relatively expensive, and therefore its development in a series required large expenses and improved production standards.

Wartime tanks, even in operation, these hulls were less successful than homogeneous ones, since for no apparent reason cracks formed in them (mainly in loaded seams), and it was very difficult to put patches on holes in cemented slabs during repairs. But it was still expected that a tank protected by 15-20 mm cemented armor would be equivalent in level of protection to the same one, but covered with 22-30 mm sheets, without a significant increase in weight.
Also, by the mid-1930s, tank building had learned to harden the surface of relatively thin armor plates by uneven hardening, known since the end of the 19th century in shipbuilding as the “Krupp method.” Surface hardening led to a significant increase in the hardness of the front side of the sheet, leaving the main thickness of the armor viscous.

How tanks fire video up to half the thickness of the slab, which was, of course, worse than cementation, since while the hardness of the surface layer was higher than with cementation, the elasticity of the hull sheets was significantly reduced. So the “Krupp method” in tank building made it possible to increase the strength of armor even slightly more than cementation. But the hardening technology that was used for thick naval armor was no longer suitable for relatively thin tank armor. Before the war, this method was almost not used in our serial tank building due to technological difficulties and relatively high cost.

Combat use of tanks The most proven tank gun was the 45-mm tank gun model 1932/34. (20K), and before the event in Spain it was believed that its power was quite sufficient to perform most tank tasks. But the battles in Spain showed that a 45-mm gun can only satisfy the task of fighting enemy tanks, since even shelling of manpower in the mountains and forests turned out to be ineffective, and it was only possible to disable a dug-in enemy firing point in the event of a direct hit . Firing at shelters and bunkers was ineffective due to the low high-explosive effect of a projectile weighing only about two kg.

Types of tanks photos so that even one shell hit can reliably disable an anti-tank gun or machine gun; and thirdly, to increase the penetrating effect of a tank gun on the armor of a potential enemy, since using the example of French tanks (which already had an armor thickness of about 40-42 mm), it became clear that the armor protection of foreign combat vehicles tends to be significantly strengthened. There was a sure way for this - increasing the caliber of tank guns and simultaneously increasing the length of their barrel, since a long gun of a larger caliber fires heavier shells with greater force. initial speed to a greater distance without correcting the aiming.

The best tanks in the world had a large-caliber cannon, and also had big sizes breech, significantly more weight and increased recoil response. And this required an increase in the mass of the entire tank as a whole. In addition, placing large-sized rounds in a closed tank volume led to a decrease in transportable ammunition.
The situation was aggravated by the fact that at the beginning of 1938 it suddenly turned out that there was simply no one to give the order for the design of a new, more powerful tank gun. P. Syachintov and his entire design team were repressed, as well as the core of the Bolshevik design bureau under the leadership of G. Magdesiev. Only the group of S. Makhanov remained in the wild, who, since the beginning of 1935, had been trying to develop his new 76.2-mm semi-automatic single gun L-10, and the staff of plant No. 8 was slowly finishing the “forty-five”.

Photos of tanks with names The number of developments is large, but mass production in the period 1933-1937. not a single one has been accepted..." In fact, none of the five air-cooled tank diesel engines, work on which was carried out in 1933-1937 in the engine department of plant No. 185, was brought to series. Moreover, despite the decisions the highest levels about the transition in tank building exclusively to diesel engines, this process was constrained by a number of factors. Of course, diesel had significant efficiency. It consumed less fuel per unit of power per hour. Diesel fuel was less susceptible to fire, since the flash point of its vapor was very high.

New tanks video, even the most advanced of them, the MT-5 tank engine, required a reorganization of engine production for serial production, which was expressed in the construction of new workshops, the supply of advanced foreign equipment (they did not yet have their own machines of the required accuracy), financial investments and strengthening of personnel. It was planned that in 1939 this diesel would produce 180 hp. will go to production tanks and artillery tractors, but due to investigative work to determine the causes of tank engine failures, which lasted from April to November 1938, these plans were not implemented. The development of a slightly increased six-cylinder gasoline engine No. 745 with a power of 130-150 hp was also started.

Brands of tanks had specific indicators that suited tank builders quite well. The tanks were tested according to new technique, specially developed at the insistence of the new head of ABTU D. Pavlov in relation to combat service in war time. The basis of the tests was a run of 3-4 days (at least 10-12 hours of daily non-stop movement) with a one-day break for technical inspection and restoration work. Moreover, repairs were allowed to be carried out only by field workshops without the involvement of factory specialists. This was followed by a “platform” with obstacles, “swimming” in water with an additional load that simulated an infantry landing, after which the tank was sent for inspection.

Super tanks online, after improvement work, seemed to remove all claims from the tanks. And the general progress of the tests confirmed the fundamental correctness of the main design changes - an increase in displacement by 450-600 kg, the use of the GAZ-M1 engine, as well as the Komsomolets transmission and suspension. But during testing, numerous minor defects again appeared in the tanks. Chief designer N. Astrov was suspended from work and was in custody and under investigation for several months. In addition, the tank received a new turret with improved protection. The modified layout made it possible to place on the tank more ammunition for a machine gun and two small fire extinguishers (previously there were no fire extinguishers on small tanks of the Red Army).

US tanks as part of modernization work, on one production model of the tank in 1938-1939. The torsion bar suspension developed by the designer of the design bureau of plant No. 185 V. Kulikov was tested. It was distinguished by the design of a composite short coaxial torsion bar (long monotorsion bars could not be used coaxially). However, such a short torsion bar did not show good enough results in tests, and therefore the torsion bar suspension did not immediately pave the way for itself in the course of further work. Obstacles to overcome: climbs of at least 40 degrees, vertical wall 0.7 m, covered ditch 2-2.5 m."

YouTube about tanks, manufacturing work prototypes engines D-180 and D-200 for reconnaissance tanks are not being carried out, jeopardizing the production of prototypes." Justifying his choice, N. Astrov said that a wheeled-tracked non-floating reconnaissance aircraft (factory designation 101 or 10-1), as well as a variant of an amphibious tank (factory designation 102 or 10-1 2), are a compromise solution, since it is not possible to fully satisfy the requirements of the ABTU. Option 101 was a tank weighing 7.5 tons with a hull-like hull, but with vertical side sheets of cemented armor 10-13 mm thick, since : “The inclined sides, causing serious weighting of the suspension and hull, require a significant (up to 300 mm) widening of the hull, not to mention the complication of the tank.

Video reviews of tanks in which the tank’s power unit was planned to be based on the 250-horsepower MG-31F aircraft engine, which was being developed by industry for agricultural aircraft and gyroplanes. 1st grade gasoline was placed in a tank under the floor fighting compartment and in additional onboard gas tanks. The armament fully corresponded to the task and consisted of coaxial machine guns DK 12.7 mm caliber and DT (in the second version of the project even ShKAS is listed) 7.62 mm caliber. Combat weight tank with torsion bar suspension was 5.2 tons, with spring suspension - 5.26 tons. Tests took place from July 9 to August 21 according to the methodology approved in 1938, with special attention paid to tanks.

“Panzerkampfwagen IV” (“PzKpfw IV”, also “Pz. IV”; in the USSR it was also known as “T‑IV”) - medium tank armored forces of the Wehrmacht during the Second World War. There is a version that the Pz IV was originally classified by the Germans as a heavy tank, but it is not documented.

The most popular tank of the Wehrmacht: 8,686 vehicles were produced; It was mass-produced from 1937 to 1945 in several modifications. The constantly increasing armament and armor of the tank in most cases allowed the PzKpfw IV to effectively resist tanks of a similar class. French tanker Pierre Danois wrote about the PzKpfw IV (in modification, at that time, with a short-barreled 75-mm cannon): “This medium tank was superior to our B1 and B1 bis in all respects, including armament and, to some extent, armor "

History of creation

Under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, Germany, defeated in World War I, was prohibited from having armored forces, with the exception of a small number of armored vehicles for police use. But despite this, already since 1925, the Reichswehr Armament Directorate had been secretly working on the creation of tanks. Until the early 1930s, these developments did not go beyond the construction of prototypes, both because of the insufficient characteristics of the latter and because of the weakness of German industry of that period. However, by mid-1933, German designers managed to create their first serial tank- Pz.Kpfw.I and begin its mass production during 1933-1934. The Pz.Kpfw.I, with its machine gun armament and two-man crew, was considered only as a transitional model on the way to the construction of more advanced tanks. The development of two of them began back in 1933 - a more powerful “transitional” tank, the future Pz.Kpfw.II, and a full-fledged battle tank, the future Pz.Kpfw.III, armed with a 37-mm cannon, intended mainly to combat other armored vehicles.

Due to the initial limitations of the Pz.Kpfw.III's armament, it was decided to create a fire support tank in addition to it, with a longer-range gun with a powerful fragmentation projectile, capable of hitting anti-tank defenses beyond the range of other tanks. In January 1934, the Armament Directorate organized a competition of projects to create a vehicle of this class, whose mass would not exceed 24 tons. Since work on armored vehicles in Germany at that time was still carried out in secret, the new project, like the others, was given the code name “support vehicle” (German: Begleitwagen, usually shortened to B.W.; a number of sources give incorrect names in German: Bataillonwagen and German: Bataillonfuehrerwagen). From the very beginning, the companies Rheinmetall and Krupp began developing projects for the competition, later joined by Daimler-Benz and M.A.N. Over the next 18 months, all companies presented their developments, and the Rheinmetall project under the designation VK 2001 (Rh) was even manufactured in metal as a prototype in 1934-1935.

Tank Pz.Kpfw. IV Ausf. J (Armored Vehicle Museum - Latrun, Israel)

All presented projects had a chassis with a staggered arrangement of large-diameter road wheels and the absence of support rollers, with the exception of the same VK 2001(Rh), which generally inherited the chassis with small-diameter road wheels interlocked in pairs and side screens from the experimental Nb heavy tank. Fz. The best of them was eventually recognized as the Krupp project - VK 2001 (K), but the Armament Directorate was not satisfied with its leaf spring suspension, which they demanded to replace with a more advanced torsion bar. However, Krupp insisted on using a chassis with medium-diameter rollers interlocked in pairs on a spring suspension, borrowed from the rejected Pz.Kpfw.III prototype of its own design. In order to avoid the inevitable delays in reworking the project for torsion bar suspension in the start of production of the tank, which was urgently needed by the army, the Armament Directorate was forced to agree to Krupp’s proposal. After further refinement of the project, Krupp received an order for the production of a pre-production batch of a new tank, which by that time had received the designation “armored vehicle with a 75-mm gun” (German: 7.5 cm Geschütz-Panzerwagen) or, according to the end-to-end designation system adopted at that time, "experimental sample 618" (German: Versuchskraftfahrzeug 618 or Vs.Kfz.618). Since April 1936, the tank acquired its final designation - Panzerkampfwagen IV or Pz.Kpfw.IV. In addition, it was assigned the index Vs.Kfz.222, which previously belonged to the Pz.Kpfw.II.

Tank PzKpfw IV Ausf G. Armored Museum in Kubinka.

Mass production

Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf.A - Ausf.F1

The first few Pz.Kpfw.IV "zero" series were manufactured in 1936-1937 at the Krupp plant in Essen. Serial production of the first series, 1.Serie/B.W., began in October 1937 at the Krupp-Gruson plant in Magdeburg. A total of 35 tanks of this modification, designated Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausführung A (Ausf.A - “model A”), were produced until March 1938. According to the unified designation system for German armored vehicles, the tank received the index Sd.Kfz.161. Ausf.A tanks were in many ways still pre-production vehicles and carried bulletproof armor that did not exceed 15-20 mm and poorly protected surveillance devices, especially in the commander's cupola. At the same time, the main design features of the Pz.Kpfw.IV had already been determined at Ausf.A, and although the tank was subsequently subjected to modernization many times, the changes mainly came down to the installation of more powerful armor and weapons, or to unprincipled alterations of individual components.

Immediately after the end of production of the first series, Krupp began production of an improved one - 2.Serie/B.W. or Ausf.B. The most noticeable external difference between the tanks of this modification was the straight upper frontal plate, without a prominent “cabinet” for the driver and with the elimination of the course machine gun, which was replaced by a viewing device and a hatch for firing from personal weapons. The design of the viewing devices was also improved, primarily the commander's cupola, which received armored flaps, and the driver's viewing device. According to other sources, the new commander's cupola was introduced already during the production process, so that some Ausf.B tanks carried the old type commander's cupola. Minor changes affected the landing hatches and various hatches. The frontal armor on the new modification was increased to 30 mm. The tank also received a more powerful engine and a new 6-speed gearbox, which significantly increased its maximum speed, and its range also increased. At the same time, the Ausf.B's ammunition load was reduced to 80 gun rounds and 2,700 machine-gun rounds, instead of 120 and 3,000, respectively, on the Ausf.A. Krupp was given an order for the production of 45 Ausf.B tanks, but due to a shortage of components, only 42 vehicles of this modification were actually produced from April to September 1938.

Tank Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.A on parade, 1938.

The first relatively widespread modification was 3.Serie/B.W. or Ausf.C. Compared to the Ausf.B, the changes in it were minor - outwardly, both modifications are distinguishable only by the presence of an armored casing for the barrel of the coaxial machine gun. The remaining changes consisted of replacing the HL 120TR engine with an HL 120TRM of the same power, as well as installing a bumper under the gun barrel on some of the tanks to bend the antenna located on the hull when the turret is rotated. A total of 300 tanks of this modification were ordered, but already in March 1938 the order was reduced to 140 units, as a result of which from September 1938 to August 1939, according to various sources, 140 or 134 tanks were produced, while 6 chassis were transferred for conversion into bridge laying machines.

Museum Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.D with additional armor

The next modification, Ausf.D, was produced in two series - 4.Serie/B.W. and 5.Serie/B.W. The most noticeable external change was the return to the broken upper frontal plate of the hull and the forward machine gun, which received enhanced protection. The internal mantlet of the gun, which proved vulnerable to lead splashes from bullet hits, was replaced with an external one. The thickness of the side and rear armor of the hull and turret was increased to 20 mm. In January 1938, Krupp received an order for the production of 200 4.Serie/B.W. and 48 5.Serie/B.W., but during production, from October 1939 to May 1941, only 229 of them were completed as tanks, while the remaining 19 were allocated for the construction of specialized variants. Some of the later Ausf.D tanks were produced in a “tropical” version (German tropen or Tp.), with additional ventilation holes in the engine compartment. A number of sources speak of armor reinforcement carried out in units or during repairs in 1940-1941, which was carried out by bolting additional 20-mm sheets onto the upper side and front plates of the tank. According to other sources, later production vehicles were standardly equipped with additional 20 mm side and 30 mm frontal armor plates of the Ausf.E type. Several Ausf.Ds were re-equipped with long-barreled KwK 40 L/48 guns in 1943, but these converted tanks were used only as training tanks.

Tank Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.B or Ausf.C during exercises. November 1943.

The appearance of a new modification, 6.Serie/B.W. or Ausf.E, was caused primarily by the insufficient armor protection of early series vehicles, demonstrated during the Polish campaign. On the Ausf.E, the thickness of the lower frontal plate was increased to 50 mm; in addition, the installation of additional 30 mm plates above the upper front and 20 mm above the side plates became standard, although on a small part of early production tanks additional 30 mm plates were not were installed. The armor protection of the turret, however, remained the same - 30 mm for the front plate, 20 mm for the side and rear plates and 35 mm for the gun mantlet. A new commander's cupola was introduced, with vertical armor thickness from 50 to 95 mm. The slope of the rear wall of the turret was also reduced, which was now made of a single sheet, without a “swell” for the turret, and on late-production vehicles an unarmored box for equipment began to be attached to the rear of the turret. In addition, the Ausf.E tanks were distinguished by a number of less noticeable changes - a new driver's viewing device, simplified drive and guide wheels, an improved design of various hatches and inspection hatches, and the introduction of a turret fan. The order for the sixth series of Pz.Kpfw.IV amounted to 225 units and was completed in full between September 1940 and April 1941, in parallel with the production of Ausf.D tanks.

Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.F. Finland, 1941.

Shielding with additional armor (on average 10-12 mm), used on previous modifications, was irrational and was considered only as a temporary solution, which was the reason for the appearance of the next modification, 7.Serie/B.W. or Ausf.F. Instead of using mounted armor, the thickness of the frontal upper plate of the hull, the frontal plate of the turret and the gun mantlet was increased to 50 mm, and the thickness of the sides of the hull and the sides and rear of the turret was increased to 30 mm. The broken upper front plate of the hull was again replaced with a straight one, but this time with the preservation of the forward-facing machine gun, and the side hatches of the turret received double doors. Due to the fact that the mass of the tank after the changes increased by 22.5% compared to the Ausf.A, wider tracks were introduced to reduce the specific ground pressure. Other, less noticeable changes included the introduction of ventilation air intakes in the middle frontal plate to cool the brakes, a different location of mufflers and slightly modified viewing devices due to the thickening of the armor and the installation of a directional machine gun. With the Ausf.F modification, companies other than Krupp joined the production of the Pz.Kpfw.IV for the first time. The latter received the first order for 500 vehicles of the seventh series; later orders for 100 and 25 units were received by Womag and Nibelungenwerke. Of this quantity, from April 1941 to March 1942, before production switched to the Ausf.F2 modification, 462 Ausf.F tanks were produced, 25 of which were converted to Ausf.F2 at the factory.

Tank Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.E. Yugoslavia, 1941.

Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf.F2 - Ausf.J

Although the main purpose of the 75-mm Pz.Kpfw.IV cannon was to destroy unarmored or lightly armored targets, the presence of an armor-piercing projectile in its ammunition allowed the tank to successfully fight armored vehicles protected by bulletproof or light anti-ballistic armor. But against tanks with powerful anti-ballistic armor, such as the British Matilda or the Soviet KV and T-34, it turned out to be completely ineffective. Back in 1940 - early 1941, the successful combat use of the Matilda intensified work to re-equip the PzIV with a weapon with better anti-tank capabilities. On February 19, 1941, by personal order of A. Hitler, work began on arming the tank with a 50-mm Kw.K.38 L/42 cannon, which was also installed on the Pz.Kpfw.III, and subsequently work began on strengthening the Pz.Kpfw's armament. IV also advanced under his control. In April, one Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.D was re-equipped with the newer, more powerful, 50 mm Kw.K.39 L/60 cannon for demonstration to Hitler for his birthday, April 20. It was even planned to produce a series of 80 tanks with such weapons from August 1941, but by that time the interest of the Armament Directorate (Heereswaffenamt) had shifted to the 75 mm long-barreled gun and these plans were abandoned.

Since the Kw.K.39 had already been approved as armament for the Pz.Kpfw.III, it was decided to choose an even more powerful gun for the Pz.Kpfw.IV, which could not be installed on the Pz.Kpfw.III with its smaller turret ring diameter . Since March 1941, Krupp, as an alternative to the 50-mm cannon, has been considering a new 75-mm cannon with a barrel length of 40 calibers, intended for re-equipping the StuG.III assault guns. At a distance of 400 meters, it penetrated 70 mm armor at an angle of 60°, but since the Armament Directorate required that the gun barrel not protrude beyond the dimensions of the tank hull, its length was reduced to 33 calibers, which resulted in a decrease in armor penetration to 59 mm under the same conditions. It was also planned to develop a sub-caliber armor-piercing projectile with a separating pan, which would penetrate 86 mm armor under the same conditions. Work to re-equip the Pz.Kpfw.IV with a new gun progressed successfully, and in December 1941 the first prototype with a 7.5 cm Kw.K gun was built. L/34.5.

Tank Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.F2. France, July 1942.

Meanwhile, the invasion of the USSR began, during which German troops encountered T-34 and KV tanks, which were low-vulnerable to the main tank and anti-tank guns of the Wehrmacht and at the same time carried a 76-mm cannon that pierced the frontal armor of German tanks, which were then practically in service with the Panzerwaffe. at any real combat distances. The Special Tank Commission, sent to the front in November 1941 to study this issue, recommended the rearmament of German tanks with a weapon that would allow them to hit Soviet vehicles from long distances, while remaining outside the radius of the latter's effective fire. On November 18, 1941, the development of a tank gun was initiated, similar in its capabilities to the new 75-mm anti-tank gun Pak 40. Such a gun, initially designated Kw.K.44, was developed jointly by Krupp and Rheinmetall. The trunk passed to him from anti-tank gun no changes, but since the latter's shots were too long for use in a tank, a shorter and thicker cartridge case was developed for the tank gun, which entailed reworking the breech of the gun and reducing the total barrel length to 43 calibers. The Kw.K.44 also received a single-chamber spherical muzzle brake, which differed from the anti-tank gun. In this form, the gun was adopted as the 7.5 cm Kw.K.40 L/43.

Pz.Kpfw.IVs with the new gun were initially designated as "converted" (German: 7.Serie/B.W.-Umbau or Ausf.F-Umbau), but soon received the designation Ausf.F2, while the Ausf.F vehicles with the old ones The guns began to be called Ausf.F1 to avoid confusion. The designation of the tank according to the unified system changed to Sd.Kfz.161/1. With the exception of a different gun and associated minor changes, such as the installation of a new sight, new firing positions and slightly modified armor for the gun's recoil devices, the early Ausf.F2s were identical to the Ausf.F1 tanks. After a month's break associated with the transition to a new modification, production of the Ausf.F2 began in March 1942 and continued until July of the same year. A total of 175 tanks of this variant were produced and another 25 were converted from Ausf.F1.

Tank Pz.Kpfw. IV Ausf. G (tail number 727) of the 1st Panzergrenadier Division "Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler". The vehicle was hit by artillerymen of the 4th battery of the 595th anti-tank artillery regiment in the area of ​​the street. Sumskaya in Kharkov, on the night of March 11-12, 1943. On the frontal armor plate, almost in the center, two entrance holes from 76-mm shells are visible.

The appearance of the next modification of the Pz.Kpfw.IV was not initially caused by any changes in the design of the tank. In June - July 1942, by orders of the Armament Directorate, the designation of Pz.Kpfw.IV with long-barreled guns was changed to 8.Serie/B.W. or Ausf.G, and in October the designation Ausf.F2 was finally abolished for previously produced tanks of this modification. The first tanks, released as Ausf.G, were thus identical to their predecessors, but as production continued, more and more changes were made to the tank's design. Ausf.G of early releases still carried the index Sd.Kfz.161/1 according to the end-to-end designation system, which was replaced by Sd.Kfz.161/2 on vehicles of later releases. The first changes made already in the summer of 1942 included a new two-chamber pear-shaped muzzle brake, the elimination of viewing devices in the front side plates of the turret and the loader's inspection hatch in its frontal plate, the transfer of smoke grenade launchers from the rear of the hull to the sides of the turret, and a system for facilitating launch in winter conditions. .

Since the 50 mm frontal armor of the Pz.Kpfw.IV was still insufficient, not providing adequate protection against 57 mm and 76 mm guns, it was again reinforced by welding or, on later production vehicles, bolting additional 30-mm mm of plates above the upper and lower frontal plates of the hull. The thickness of the front plate of the turret and gun mantlet, however, was still 50 mm and did not increase during further modernization of the tank. The introduction of additional armor began with the Ausf.F2, when 8 tanks with increased armor thickness were produced in May 1942, but progress was slow. By November, only about half of the vehicles were produced with reinforced armor, and only from January 1943 did it become standard for all new tanks. To others significant change, introduced on the Ausf.G in the spring of 1943, was the replacement of the Kw.K.40 L/43 cannon with the Kw.K.40 L/48 with a barrel length of 48 calibers, which had slightly higher armor penetration. Production of the Ausf.G continued until June 1943; a total of 1,687 tanks of this modification were produced. Of this number, about 700 tanks received reinforced armor and 412 received the Kw.K.40 L/48 gun.

Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.H with side screens and zimmerit coating. USSR, July 1944.

The next modification, Ausf.H, became the most widespread. The first tanks under this designation, which rolled off the assembly line in April 1943, differed from the last Ausf.G only in the thickening of the front turret roof sheet to 16 mm and the rear one to 25 mm, as well as reinforced final drives with cast drive wheels, but the first 30 tanks Ausf.H, due to delays in the supply of new components, received only a thicker roof. Since the summer of the same year, instead of additional 30 mm hull armor, solid-rolled 80 mm plates were introduced to simplify production. In addition, hinged anti-cumulative screens made of 5 mm sheets were introduced, installed on most Ausf.H. In this regard, viewing devices on the sides of the hull and turret were eliminated as unnecessary. Since September, tanks have been coated with vertical armor with Zimmerit to protect them from magnetic mines.

Ausf.H tanks of later production received a turret mount for the MG-42 machine gun at the commander's cupola hatch, as well as a vertical rear plate instead of the inclined one that was present on all previous modifications of the tanks. During production, various changes were also introduced to make production cheaper and easier, such as the introduction of non-rubber support rollers and the elimination of the driver's periscopic viewing device. From December 1943, the frontal hull plates began to be connected to the side joints in a “tenon” manner to enhance resistance to shell hits. Production of the Ausf.H continued until July 1944. Data on the number of tanks of this modification produced, given in various sources, vary somewhat, from 3,935 chassis, of which 3,774 were completed as tanks, to 3,960 chassis and 3,839 tanks.

The German medium tank Pz.Kpfw destroyed on the Eastern Front. IV lying upside down on the side of the road. Part of the caterpillar in contact with the ground is missing, in the same place there are no rollers with a fragment of the lower part of the hull, a bottom sheet is torn off, and the second caterpillar is torn off. The upper part of the car, as far as one can judge, does not suffer such fatal damage. A typical picture of a landmine explosion.

The appearance of the Ausf.J modification on assembly lines in June 1944 was associated with the desire to reduce the cost and simplify the production of the tank as much as possible in the conditions of Germany's deteriorating strategic position. The only, but significant, change that distinguished the first Ausf.J from the last Ausf.H was the elimination of the electric drive for turning the turret and the associated auxiliary carburetor engine with a generator. Soon after the start of production of the new modification, the pistol ports in the stern and sides of the turret, which were useless due to the screens, were eliminated, and the design of other hatches was simplified. Since July, an additional fuel tank with a capacity of 200 liters began to be installed in place of the liquidated auxiliary engine, but the fight against its leakage dragged on until September 1944. In addition, the 12-mm hull roof began to be reinforced by welding additional 16-mm sheets. All subsequent changes were aimed at further simplifying the design, the most notable among them being the abandonment of the Zimmerit coating in September and the reduction in the number of support rollers to three per side in December 1944. Production of tanks of the Ausf.J modification continued almost until the very end of the war, until March 1945, but a decrease in production rates associated with the weakening of German industry and difficulties with the supply of raw materials led to the fact that only 1,758 tanks of this modification were produced.

Production volumes of the T-4 tank

Design

The Pz.Kpfw.IV had a layout with a combined transmission and control compartment located in the front, an engine compartment in the rear, and a fighting compartment in the middle part of the vehicle. The tank's crew consisted of five people: a driver and gunner-radio operator, located in the control compartment, and a gunner, loader and tank commander, located in a three-man turret.

Armored hull and turret

Tower tank PzKpfw IV made it possible to modernize the tank's gun. Inside the turret there was a commander, gunner and loader. The commander's position was located directly under the commander's cupola, the gunner was located to the left of the breech of the gun, and the loader was located to the right. Additional protection provided anti-cumulative screens, which were also installed on the sides. The commander's cupola at the rear of the turret gave the tank good visibility. The tower had an electric drive for rotation.

Soviet soldiers examine a broken German Pz.Kpfw tank. IV Ausf. H (single-leaf hatch and absence of three-barrel grenade launchers on the turret). The tank is painted in three-color camouflage. Oryol-Kursk direction.

Means of observation and communication

In non-combat conditions, the tank commander, as a rule, conducted observation while standing in the hatch of the commander's cupola. In battle, to view the area, he had five wide viewing slits around the perimeter of the commander's cupola, giving him an all-round view. The commander's viewing slits, like those of all other crew members, were equipped with a protective triplex glass block with inside. On the Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.A the viewing slots did not have any additional cover, but on the Ausf.B the slots were equipped with sliding armor flaps; in this form, the commander’s viewing devices remained unchanged on all subsequent modifications. In addition, on tanks of early modifications, the commander's cupola had a mechanical device for determining the target's heading angle, with the help of which the commander could carry out precise target designation to the gunner, who had a similar device. However, due to excessive complexity, this system was eliminated, starting with the Ausf.F2 modification. The gunner's and loader's viewing devices on Ausf.A - Ausf.F consisted of, for each of them: a viewing hatch with an armored cover without viewing slots, in the front plate of the turret on the sides of the gun mantlet; an inspection hatch with a slot in the front side sheets and an inspection slot in the turret side hatch cover. Starting with the Ausf.G, as well as on some of the Ausf.F2 of late production, the inspection devices in the front side plates and the loader's inspection hatch in the front plate were eliminated. On some tanks of the Ausf.H and Ausf.J modifications, due to the installation of anti-cumulative screens, the viewing devices on the sides of the turret were completely eliminated.

The main means of observation for the driver of the Pz.Kpfw.IV was a wide viewing slot in the front hull plate. On the inside, the gap was protected by a triplex glass block; on the outside, on the Ausf.A it could be closed with a simple folding armor flap; on the Ausf.B and subsequent modifications, it could be closed with a Sehklappe 30 or 50 sliding flap, which was also used on the Pz.Kpfw.III. A periscope binocular viewing device K.F.F.1 was located above the viewing slit on Ausf.A, but it was eliminated on Ausf.B - Ausf.D. On Ausf.E - Ausf.G the viewing device appeared in the form of an improved K.F.F.2, but starting with Ausf.H it was abandoned again. The device was brought out into two holes in the front plate of the body and, if there was no need for it, was moved to the right. The radio operator-gunner on most modifications did not have any means of viewing the frontal sector, in addition to the sight of the forward machine gun, but on Ausf.B, Ausf.C and parts of Ausf.D, in place of the machine gun there was a hatch with a viewing slot in it. Similar hatches were located in the side plates on most Pz.Kpfw.IVs, being eliminated only on Ausf.Js due to the installation of anti-cumulative shields. In addition, the driver had a turret position indicator, one of two lights warned about the turret turning to one side or another in order to avoid damage to the gun when driving in cramped conditions.

For external communications, Pz.Kpfw.IV platoon commanders and above were equipped with a Fu 5 model VHF radio station and a Fu 2 receiver. Line tanks were equipped only with a Fu 2 receiver. FuG5 had a transmitter power of 10 W and provided a communication range of 9.4 km in telegraph and 6.4 km in telephone mode. For internal communications, all Pz.Kpfw.IVs were equipped with a tank intercom for four crew members, with the exception of the loader.

A new product from Stars- model of a German medium tank Pz.IV ausf.H(T-4N). Manufacturer's own development under number 3620 , scale 1\35.

Packaging and equipment.

Everything is standard here latest models Stars - a colorful cardboard box with photographs of the finished model on back side. The kit includes yellow plastic sprues plus a board with transparent parts, the lower part of the body as a separate part, a sheet with decals, and instructions.

Workmanship, detailing, advantages of the set.

In principle, there are no complaints about the quality of the castings; the technological features of casting are hidden almost (almost!) everywhere on the inner sides of the parts. Minimal flash was found in a couple of places, but this is not critical.

Let's say right away - the level of detail was very pleasing! Judge for yourself.

Excellent detailing of the bottom, suspension and even the inside of the fenders. Technological inscriptions are visible on the suspension bogies and tires of the rollers. Welds are simulated in the right places. A mass of well-drained rivets and bolt heads, which also different types and size. The bolts recessed into the armor also turned out great (look at the photo, everything is clearly visible there). The rest of the little things also came out well, everything was done neatly and is easy to “read” on the surface.

There is a very rich interior of the turret - the breech of the cannon and machine guns, the internal mounting of the gun to the mantlet, the sight, all three crew seats and even the floor. Not bad, not bad! Of course, there is an imitation of the inside of the turret and hull hatches.

The zimmerit on the screens turned out well, not too thick and not entirely clumsy. In any case, when assembled out of the box, it is quite possible to install such screens.

The entrenching tool and its fastenings turned out, let’s say, “standard”, neither bad nor good.

Semi-assembled tracks are a plus and a minus, it depends on the specific modeler. But they are cast without a single hint of traces from the pushers.

The barrel is given in ONE piece, which is very atypical for this manufacturer.

Well, probably the most interesting and unexpected thing in the set is the variability in the assembly of some of the model’s components.

For example, you can make THREE variants of the muzzle brake, two variants of the hub covers of the road wheels, two variants of flangings for the hatches of the driver and radio operator, two types of support rollers (with and without rubber), hatches in the turret screens can be assembled in the open and closed position, periscopes in the turret they can also be made in two versions; the rear guard lamp is of two types.

The kit also includes mortars for smoke exhaust, which are not used during assembly. In general, this kind of equipment suggests that the manufacturer has other modifications of the “four” (at least an early one) in the plans.

The instructions are clearly printed and understandable, and are in book format! Finally, Zvezda realized that their long “foot wraps” were absolutely uncomfortable.

Disadvantages of the set, that it can be improved.

We were very surprised by the fact that on some parts there are traces of pushers on the outside. For example, on the rear armor plate, right in the middle, there is a clearly visible “stump”. Well, this is somehow unacceptable by modern standards, it seems to us.

The division of details is surprising in places. It is not clear why, for example, the return hinges of the transmission access hatches should be made as separate parts, but the stops of the hinged screens should be cast immediately together with the fenders... I also didn’t like the springs of the mud flaps; they need to be replaced immediately.

The manufacturer's tow rope didn't work out at all. It is too thick and very soapy, so it’s definitely worth changing.

Whatever one may say, the holders of the hanging screens are still a bit thick. It's tolerable for assembly out of the box, but those who want to get confused should take photo-etched ones.

I didn’t like the implementation of periscopes in the turret. And there are, in principle, very few transparent details. The open hatches of the gunner and loader just beg for transparent triplexes, but they are given in ordinary plastic...

There is also a question for the leading stars. Experts, of course, will sort this out in more detail on specialized forums, but the width of the outer rim with teeth seems too wide to us.

The star produces tracks with a hollow flange and without chevrons, which is more typical for early cars. It is clear that it could have been different, but for a more “classic” look of this “four” it would still be better to make the tracks with chevrons.

Zimmerit is ONLY present on screens, which is very strange. In theory, the tank should be more “rolled” into it (the entire frontal projection, mud flaps). The manufacturer decided to abandon the option of adding separate sprues with screens without an antimagnetic coating to the box. Apparently, this is where the “legs” of the voiced problem “grow.”

The rest is minor stuff - you can replace the antenna, handrails, wiring.

Conclusions and comparison with analogues.

For the price, the set is simply excellent. Of course, there are a lot of competitors from other manufacturers, but in this price category the model should firmly occupy its niche. Of course, we were very disappointed by some of the “jambs” that such a long-term project should not have. But at the same time, the advantages of this “quartet” are obvious and it is difficult to challenge them. And it's not necessary. Having made this whale, Star showed once again (after “Panther”) that she can make interesting models in terms of detail. In general, the kit is suitable for assembly without modifications without significant reservations. Those who want to chase copies will also find something to work on here.

Our set rating: 4.5 out of 5.