Luckily today is a silent day, with few news, allowing me to post the stuff I had been gathering for whole days. And what better thing to start with than an historical article translated by Vlad! (PS: you will see better pictures than the first one)
http://static-ptl-ru.gcdn.co/dcont/fb/image/air_glisser.jpg
In the winter of 1941, warm clothes were collected for the German Wehrmacht soldiers on the Eastern Front, including women’s pelts and mulls. At the same time near Moscow, Tula, Mzensk the pinnacles of German engineering were freezing, stalling and breaking. “General Winter”, however, didn’t fight Germans only, the soldiers of the Red Army also suffered from his fangs. But the Soviet troops had greater experience fighting in winter conditions compared to the Germans. This is shown at least by the fact that Soviet successes in the first half of the Great Patriotic War were achieved during winter.
Inventions of military equipment suited for fighting during cold periods received much attention. This direction received a solid boost from the experiences in the Winter War in 1939-40. As a result, many interesting and bizarre projects appeared during the ’40s.
From moto-skis to snowgliders
In May 1941 Kharkov plumber H. Slepzov sent a letter addressed to commisar S. Timoshenko of the people’s commissariat of defense. He proposed to build a vehicle with three skis: steered by a frontal one and with two at the back. Propulsion would be provided by a motorcycle engine connected by a chain to a studded driving wheel. At the frontal fork of the moto-skis, the armament should be placed – two Maxim machineguns.
The text was written with pencil on fragments of writing paper, the author’s spelling was lacking: “The driving speed of the moto-skis is equal to a motorcycle” (TN: I will omit the mistakes for ease of translation). Nevertheless, the military redirected the project to the research institute of engineering technology of the Red Army, from there – to the inventions department of the GABTU, where it was thoroughly analyzed by specialists. After receiving a reasoned rejection with the description of all deficiencies, Slepzov remained unsatisfied. One single day before the start of the Great Patriotic War he wrote a second letter. The inventor asked for the project to progress and to be invited to Moscow for leading the work. Despite the hard conditions of the early period of the war, the GABTU specialists did pay attention to his message. But of course, Slepzov didn’t achieve approval anyway.
In July 1941 a proposal by engineer A. Grandilevsky was called the “winter raider”. The author invented a machine which was able to make jumps after accumulating speed and camouflage itself with a snow veil similar to a smoke one. The “raider” would be equipped with auxiliary rocket engines and a flare device. “I came to the conclusion that in winter conditions during combat in the lake region (northern regions and Finland) detachments of my machines would be able to crush the enemy” – Grandilevsky wrote.
http://static-ptl-ru.gcdn.co/dcont/fb/image/3_lkljhlkjghj.jpg
Continue reading “Bizarre armor projects of the '40s. Combat sleigh of "General Winter"” →

http://static-ptl-ru.gcdn.co/dcont/fb/image/1unversalp.jpg
3rd rank military engineer A.I. Pavlov didn’t consider himself a conceited man. Sending his project to the department of inventions in 1943, he wrote: “Completeness and perfection of qualities and properties of technical inventions werenever achieved by their first inventor”. But the idea alone impressed with its scope: Pavlov proposed a vehicle with a wide spectrum of combat tasks which could, in his opinion, replace most of existing land military equipment.
Cabin analysis
“The form of the UCV-1 resembles a train and as such provides passability over wide (up to 9m) trenches” – Pavlov wrote.
The body should consist of seven cabins connected by hollow armored segments. Inside of these were hatches used by the crew to move between the cabins. At the same time they should be flexible enough so that the UCV-1 could cross very rough terrain. To lengthen the service life of the machine, transport over longer distances should be completed by train, with the cabins disconnected.
Each cabin has a distinct role. The head one housed the driver and commander and handled the steering of the UCV-1. “The frontal and upper sides of the cabin are armored and the rest represent a waterproof body, capable of submerging into water to the wheel’s axis” – Pavlov explained.
Cabins No. 2 and 6 were crowned by cylindrical turrets. Their roofs consisted of half-discs movable to the side. In these cabins, the author proposed the installation of high-caliber machineguns. Moreover, each cabin should contain up to 500kg of explosives which were to be tossed outside in packets through a special hatch. The crew of both cabins consisted of two men. Cabins No. 3 and 5 carried two artillery turrets each. Inside the cabins up to 2.5 tonnes of lubricant material were stored.
Cabin No. 4 of the “universal combat vehicle” was considered by the author as the most spacious one. Pavlov proposed to install two diesel engines with power generators and store 11 tonnes of fuel there. The armament of this cabin consisted of two flamethrowers and a pair of 7.62mm machineguns with a wide field of fire. Dealing with this arsenal was up to four crewmen. “In the ceiling part, the cooling system for the diesels and air suction are to be placed” – the author elaborated.
Finally, cabin No. 7 resembled the first one, but was supplied with additional armor and a deminer. During marches, the UCV-1 should move with the cabin No. 1 at the front to provide maximum passability and maneuvrability. In combat, it should turn with the rear towards the enemy.
Wheeled-floating beast
The inventor thought of a new chassis for his vehicle. “This project represents a new daring move in this field in form of a new propulsion system… wheeled-floating drive”. Each cabin was equipped with a pair of high-diameter wheels, whereas cabin No. 4 had even four of them. Continue reading “Bizarre armor projects of the '40s. Universal combat vehicle” →

http://static-ptl-ru.gcdn.co/dcont/fb/image/1atlantis.jpg
Ancient Greek philosopher Plato wrote about a grand and powerful kingdom whose inhabitans were descendants of the God of the sea, Poseidon. This kingdom was located to the west of the Pillars of Hercules’ strait (TN: Gibraltar), on the big island of Atlantis. The Atlantians tried to conquer Greece, but Athens’ warriors crushed them, and after that, a huge earthquake followed by a flood happened which sunk Atlantis. The fantasy writers of the 19th-20th centuries developed the thought that not only the Atlantians survived, but also built an advanced civilization underwater.
If this would be true and in the middle of the last century, an army of Atlantians ascended from the ocean ashore, what would their technology look like? This opens a vast scope for fantasy. But if you take some projects by Soviet wartime inventors and study them, it could appear that they were drawn in Atlantis itself.
Botvinko’s “Flittering amphibian”
In February 1943 a project arrived at the State Defense Commitee of the USSR by engineer Botvinko. He proposed to create a “Amphibious destroyer tank”. His idea was unlike anything seen before, judging by the author’s descriptions: “Speed – in a wide range of up to 500-600 km/h. Movement method – flittering and detachment from the ground. Terrain passability – through deep snow, swamp, water…”
Although Botvinko admittedly did not know well enough about jet propulsion, he proposed an outstanding idea by equipping a tank with jet nozzles with electrical ignition. They should be attached to a streamlined body of light metal (the author probably meant aluminium). The armor was placed on all of the tank except the front, where Botvinko installed a windshield with reinforced bars. Additional protection was provided by a shield which was to be lowered during battle. The inventor also provided a periscope.
“At the front and rear of the body, spherical wheels are to be placed which support the apparatus in every position” – Botvinko wrote, continuing his description of his invention’s movement. The body was encircled by nozzles whose jets should lift it from the ground. “The change of direction is provided by slight rotation of the nozzles” – the engineer informed. Braking was also to be handled by jets.
The driver had to turn single nozzles on and off to ensure controllability of the vehicle. Speed was regulated by disabling fuel flow to the engines. Among other devices in the design of the “Amphibious destroyer tank” were also an altimeter and compass, which made the task of steering the vehicle quite difficult.
http://static-ptl-ru.gcdn.co/dcont/fb/image/2atlantis.jpg
Continue reading “Bizarre armor projects of the '40s. Tanks from Atlantis” →

Time for another historical article translated by Vlad.
http://static-ptl-ru.gcdn.co/dcont/fb/image/3_sig.jpg
The history of constructing a one-man combat vehicle has it’s roots at the end of the 19th century. In the years between the World Wars, it was picked up by tankettes which were fancied by all somewhat developed armies. But the popularity of compact one- or two-man vehicles vanished quickly, since their combat capabilities left much to be desired.
But the inventors didn’t stop. And even during the years of WWII, projects of one-man mobile emplacements kept arriving at the department of inventions. One of these was the tank destroyer “SIG” authored by engineer S.I. Galperin from Votkinsk.
The arrangement of the destroyer
Compared to other whimsical and oftentimes unrealizable projects, Galperin’s vehicle, which arrived at the GABTU in December 1942, had a high level of detail.
The “SIG Tank destroyer” should represent a sphere with a frontal armor thickness of 40mm, side and rear armor of 20mm and bottom armor of 16mm. Galperin assumed that this would provide defense of his machine against bullets and shrapnel of every caliber and also against anti-tank guns of up to 37mm at a distance of 100m.

EDIT (FORGOT TO ADD):

Galperin considered that his machine would be highly mobile. Thus, the maximum speed even on muddy ground would be up to 120 km/h provided by an engine with 200 HP, installed on spring absorbers in a special recess on the bottom. The height of obstacles to be overcomed by the “destroyer” was 0.6m at an elevation angle of 50°.

The chassis of the “SIG” looked like a huge wheel with the diameter of 1.75m whose rim symmetrically split the body. A small pair of wheels at the rear part was meant to turn the vehicle. Galperin used the system of the “Tsar Tank” of 30 years ago without knowing it himself. The latter had a similar system with rear wheels used for turning attached to the main body.
Armed to the teeth
http://static-ptl-ru.gcdn.co/dcont/fb/image/1_sig.jpg
Continue reading “Bizarre armor projects of the '40s. SIG Tank Destroyer” →

Time for a new historical article translated by Vlad.
http://static-ptl-ru.gcdn.co/dcont/fb/image/1_harv.jpg
The inventors of the last century boldly pushed the borders of possibilities farther and farther. They were not frightened by the fact that their projects probably would remain in history as sketches and drawings. You just can’t combine thick armor with high speed or – to add more guns – place more turrets of laughable size on the tank. Many projects landed in a technological deadlock because of this.
Buchinskij’s tank “beyond borders”
S.E. Buchinskij, an engineer of around 27 years, was working in the machine-building industry and obtained the rank of captain. In September 1939 he was placed into the task of chief of automotive-tank services in the Mogilev-Yampolsky fortified area. After servicing for 11 months, Buchinskij got inspired to a technical creation of unseen dimensions. In May 1940, a package with the results of his work arrived on the table of the people’s commisariat of Defense chief S.K. Timoshenko.
The inventor completed the work of a whole project organization alone. He didn’t just describe but also drew a whole bunch of armament and vehicles: from an armored Maxim machinegun to an armored train, and also a tank. He wrote: “…I find the creation of such type of heavy tank necessary, which has a multitude of weapons, a strong invulnerable armor and whose big dimensions would not prevent it from crossing difficult terrain”.
Buchinskij didn’t withhold on firepower – it consisted of seven 45mm anti-tank guns mod. 1937, an anti-aircraft gun, six Maxim machineguns, 4 Degtyarev machineguns and even a flamethrower!
A solid base for the impressive arsenal! The engineer also took care of that. “The body represents a rectangle with missing parts on the sides, a bit wider that the width of the tracks. Such form of the body allows a favorable placement of combat compartments, ammunition, and the emplacement of an electric device”. One turret should be at the front and rear, a third in the middle, on top of which a anti-air turret was placed. The whole length of the tank was to be about 16m, width – 4.2m, height – 5.7m with an overall mass of 110 tonnes.
http://static-ptl-ru.gcdn.co/dcont/fb/image/2_harv.jpg
Buchinskij invented a composite turret for his tank long before it was implemented in reality. “The body it thought to be built of layered armor / main armor thickness of 20mm on all sides / layer of rubber and cork and then layer of armor with 10mm thickness. Frontal armor has a thickness of 60mm” – he wrote. The machine would be moved by a diesel engine paired with a DC generator. Maximum speed was assumed to be 25km/h.
The crew had to consist of 30 people. The driver was lucky because he had a separate compartment in the front part of the tank, the rest had to crowd themselves somewhere in the tank, which the engineer did not specify.
Combine of death
Was the “armor visionary” I.M. Pletnyov a technical specialist? Probably not. But the desire to help the home country was honest and burning hot. He wrote: “The fascist scum hadn’t had nuff’ fire, it seems… I propose to turn a tank into a armored death combine!” (sic).
http://static-ptl-ru.gcdn.co/dcont/fb/image/4_harv.jpg
The concept reminded of a bridge-laying tank; however, the beams should hold turrets with guns. The beams (called “platforms”) should be able to rotate by 360° horizontally along the body. It is not accidental that one of the drawings shows them in a position similar to a butterfly knife. Continue reading “Bizarre armor projects of the '40s. Harvesters of death” →

Translated by Vlad.
The development of tank destroyers, which was about to stop at the end of the ’30s, gained momentum in the beginning of 1940. Firstly, SPG’s were designed which should destroy enemy fortifications, but already in mid-1940, the development branched out in other directions. Among the vehicles were tank destroyers based on the T-34. And the main feature of these became a gun mounted into a rotating turret.
Tank destroyer on a medium basis
It was in June 1940 when the question of a SPG on a medium tank basis came up. In discussions about the armament the proposal of the 85mm anti-aircraft gun mod. 1939 (52-K) came up. Based on calculations, the gun should be able to penetrate up to 88mm of armor at a distance of 1km. With one reservation however – there were no AP shells developed for this gun at that time.
According to the journal on tank, SPG and anti-tank systems pending development, the 85mm gun was first proposed to be installed on the KV tank with the small turret (KV-1). In this document, dated on the 21st July 1940, this system was featured as the third point. Even more interesting however is the point No. 7 of this journal. It is stated as “85mm self-propelled gun on T-34 chassis”. This SPG should weigh 26 tonnes and accelerate up to 40km/h. The horizontal firing arc should be 360°.
http://warspot-asset.s3.amazonaws.com/articles/pictures/000/021/142/original/u20s01-364a12ca839c211a4c7dcdd74d560bed.jpg
Self-propelled gun U-20, factory sketch
The 85mm gun system, indexed F-30, was developed by a collective from the factory No. 92 under the guidance of V.G. Grabin. In September 1940 the system was tested on the T-28 tank on which it displayed satisfactory results. However, the F-30 was unable to be mounted into the KV-1 turret, so the Kirov factory started development of a bigger turret, which was later on installed on the KV-220. As for the tank destroyer on the T-34 chassis, its’ development was handled by a collective of the factory No. 8 in Kaliningrad (city near Moscow). Two T-34 chassis without turrets were delivered from factory No. 183 which should be used as bases for prototype vehicles of these tank destroyers. However, the case did not move further from this task.
The idea of an SPG on T-34 basis returned in the spring of 1941. On the background of intelligence about the German development of heavy tanks, work on the creation of domestic heavy tanks and tank destroyers started. On the 27th May 1941, technical characteristics for a 85mm SPG were outlined. In this case it was not quite about a SPG on T-34 basis – the artillery tractor A-42 was chosen, which was developed on basis of the T-34. The gun system, protected by a shield, was planned to be mounted in the rear part of the vehicle. The construction somewhat resembled the German Sd.Kfz. 8/1, based on the halftrack Sd.Kfz. 8.
A vehicle with similar armament was planned to be developed on basis of the artillery tractor “Voroshilovets”, but this idea was scrapped. It was assumed that the tank destroyer on the A-42 chassis, indexed as A-46, would be developed at the factory No. 183 with due date for the first prototype on 1st October 1941. The gun system was to be developed by factory No. 8. Production of the A-46 should be handled by the Kolomensk machine-building plant. For 1942, it was expected to produce about 1500 such vehicles. However, the story of tank destroyers on the A-42 chassis did not move farther because of a simple reason: the development of the artillery tractor itself stopped in the prototype phase.
http://warspot-asset.s3.amazonaws.com/articles/pictures/000/021/143/original/u20s02-9f3f2bb6a643360d0c9beb37f883a818.jpg
85mm divisional gun U-10, which was the proposed armament for the U-20
Another fact in the development of the SPG on T-34 chassis is worth mentioning: on 17th June 1941, technical characteristics for a SU-34 SPG were specified. According to these, the vehicle should have 23.5-24 tonnes of mass. The mass reduction was achieved by reducing the armor to about 25-30mm. Also, analogous requirements were made for a vehicle on basis of the modernized T-34-M (A-43). Its mass should be 19-20 tonnes.
Continue reading “U-20: Soviet tank destroyers with circular firing arc” →