Ms 1 tank strengths and weaknesses
Developer: KB OAT
Year of commencement of work: 1926
Year of manufacture of the first prototype: 1927
T-18 tanks were on the armament of the Red Army until 1942. Partially converted into armored firing points.
The barely begun tests of the "small" T-16 tank, which was supposed to replace the captured FT-17 Renault and their domestic counterparts, immediately revealed several major shortcomings, with the presence of which this combat vehicle could not be adopted by the Red Army. First of all, the problems concerned the operation of the power plant and transmission, which most often failed. In addition, the driving characteristics of the T-16 were much lower than expected - the tank with difficulty overcame a trench 1.5 meters wide, and at a slightly higher speed had comparable maneuverability in the FT-17. This absolutely did not suit the leadership of the Red Army, who wanted to get a more reliable and modern car.
In the meantime, the Design Bureau of the OAT developed a draft of an improved version of the tank, called T-18to which the index has also been added MS-1 (“Small escort type 1”). The design of this machine was as follows.
The chassis, compared to the T-16, was lengthened by one track roller with independent vertical spring suspension. Now, on one side there were 7 road wheels, 3 supporting rollers with sheet cushioning, a front guide wheel and a rear drive wheel. The small-tracked caterpillar, consisting of 49-53 tracks with a width of 300 mm, switched from the T-16. They were prefabricated and consisted of a cast base with eyelets and a comb for coupling with the drive wheel. From the outside, a steel sole with side vents was riveted on them to increase the bearing surface when moving on loose soil. A spur was also riveted on top of the sole to improve traction. The trucks mated with a tubular steel finger. From falling out, the finger was held on both sides by bronze bushings secured with cotter pins.
The power plant of the tank consisted of a single-row carbureted carbureted engine type MS air-cooled, designed and modified by the famous Russian engineer Mikulin. The motor had 4 vertically arranged cylinders and developed a maximum power of up to 35 hp. engine start could be carried out both with the help of an electric starter and with the help of magneto. An interesting feature of the MS was the combination of the engine in one unit with the gearbox, which, in turn, was associated with a friction clutch and satellite, which provided different track speeds when turning the tank. KKP was 5-speed (4 gears forward and 1 reverse) with the transmission of torque to the drive wheel with a turn brake.
Electrical equipment included a 6-volt battery, magneto and dynamo magneto, which fed the headlamp, an audible signal, a taillight, a distribution light and two portable lamps. The electrical wiring was carried out according to the Begerman system of tubes, but later it was abandoned, going to armored cables. Later, from cars of the second series, air heating was introduced into the power system.
The hull of the tank underwent purely “cosmetic” changes that did not affect its appearance. Sheets of cathodic armored steel with a thickness of 3 to 16 mm were connected by riveting on the frame. In the front of the hull was a tricuspid hatch, two sections of which were tilted to the sides and one up. In the open position, the shutters were fixed. In the middle part, above the fighting compartment, there was a round neckline under the tower. On both sides of it were made necks for refueling tanks, closed by armor caps. The engine-transmission compartment, which was located at the rear, was equipped with a removable armored cap, and holes were made in the rear armor plate through which air entered the engine. This approach to cooling the power plant significantly improved its security, but for the same reason, the engine often overheated. Like all light tanks of the time, the T-18 was equipped with a special device called the “tail”, which was attached to the aft armor plate. This design came into fashion from the time of the First World War and consisted of two triangular trusses, between which a steel sheet was attached - a small tank equipped with a “tail” could overcome ditches and trenches half a meter wider. In the stowed position, the same “tail” was used as a “body” for transporting one or two soldiers.
The tower installed on the T-18 was structurally reminiscent of a faceted tower from the FT-17, which was not surprising, given the similarity of both machines. It was assembled from six armor plates 8 mm thick, mounted at a slight angle. A hole was made in the roof for the observation tower with viewing slits, which was closed on top by a mushroom-shaped cap. The armor plates of the hull and turret had a thickness of 16, and the roof and bottom 3 mm. An emergency exit hatch was located at the bottom. For ventilation, a small hatch was placed in the side of the tower, closed by a round or rectangular (on tanks of 1930 model) lid.
The armament of the tank remained standard for that time. In the left front face of the turret was installed a short-barreled 37-mm gun of the Hotchkiss type in an armored mask, which made it possible to aim the gun within 35 ° horizontally and from + 30 ° to -8 ° vertically. The sight was quite simple and consisted of a diopter and a fly. The gun was guided by the gunner using the shoulder rest. Although the Hotchkiss was finalized in 1929 by the engineers of the Obukhov plant, this artillery system still had a number of major drawbacks. For example, the “inheritance” from the French original got a low initial velocity of the projectile, which gave little chance of defeating enemy tanks. In addition, the lack of an optical sight virtually eliminated shooting from the move. However, the gun had a rate of fire of the order of 10-12 rounds per minute, and fragmentation shells made it possible to effectively combat manpower and enemy fortifications at close range.
In the right front face was a 6.5-mm double-barreled machine gun developed by designers V. Fedorov, D. Ivanov and G. Shpagin. Two machine gun barrels were located in a single receiver located in a ball joint. Its locking device on tanks of the 1927 model allowed, if necessary, to carry a machine gun in the left rear edge of the tower. It was powered from two stores with a capacity of 25 rounds each. The machine gun was equipped with a shoulder rest, a pistol grip and a diopter sight. The ball bearing made it possible to aim the machine gun within 64 ° horizontally and from + 30 ° to -8 ° vertically. The total ammunition consisted of 104 rounds (including fragmentation grenades with cast iron and steel shells) and 2016 rounds.
Later, when modernizing the tank, the Fedorov machine gun was replaced with a 7.62 mm DT machine gun with a round magazine for 63 rounds. From the usual DP, it differed only in the absence of a casing on the barrel and a retractable metal butt. The diopter sight used allowed for targeted fire at distances of 400, 600, 800 and 1000 meters.
The only observation device used on the T-18 was a monocular-type periscope (“armor eye”), which was located in the hinged shield of the driver’s hatch and closed on top with an armored hull and a lid. Most often, environmental monitoring was carried out through viewing slots in the hull, tower and commander’s dome.
The chassis of the T-18, applied to one side, consisted of 6 road wheels with rubber bandages, locked in three carts on a spring shock absorber with a roller, one tension roller mounted on an inclined shock absorber, three support rollers, a front guide wheel and a rear drive wheel. The tension of the tracks was carried out by a guide wheel mounted on a crank with a rotary spacer rod with a rod. The tank’s caterpillar remained small-sized, with a track width of 300 mm, which ensured a specific ground pressure of 0.37 km / cm 2 on average.
In this form, the Bolshevik plant presented the tank to the customer. The demonstration of the new car took place in mid-May 1927, but it did not arrive at the military tests immediately. To begin with, minor flaws were eliminated on the tank, although it was not possible to get full-fledged weapons. In addition, they immediately wanted to paint the tank with standard green paint, but a categorical order was issued from the OAT: “paint the tank only after putting into service ...”, so that the car remained covered only with light brown soil, which later became the norm for all other experimental vehicles. Apparently, this was not without superstition - after all, the painted T-16 turned out to be too "raw."
Presumably, on May 20-25, the tank passed field tests at one of the landfills near Moscow, while on the way the tank was transported by railroad car and platform, in the back of a truck, on a trailer and under its own power - in all cases the results were positive. Shortly before this, the machine was given the designation "Small tank escort mod. 1927 MS-1 (T-18) ".
To test the tank, a special commission was formed, which included representatives of the Mobile Administration of the Supreme Economic Council, the OAT, the Bolshevik plant, the Art Administration, and the Headquarters of the Red Army. The tests were carried out June 11-17, 1927 in the area of \u200b\u200bthe village. Romashkovo - Art. Nemchinovka (Moscow region) mileage over rough terrain. The tank was still “armed” only with a mock-up of a 37-mm gun, since no weapons were delivered in a timely manner. In tests to overcome obstacles, the T-18 did not behave in the best way - the biggest problem for him was a trench or ditch more than 2 meters wide and about 1.2 meters deep. When trying to overcome it, the car got stuck tightly and it was possible to pull it out only with the help of another tank or tractor, which in combat conditions was impossible to do. On the other hand, the T-18 turned out to be more “nimble” than the FT-17 and FIAT 3000, developing a maximum speed on the highway to 18 km / h. In addition, in comparison with foreign counterparts, the Soviet tank had better armor and a slightly larger power reserve. In terms of the totality of the characteristics shown, the T-18 made a better impression than its older “brother” T-16, which made it possible to recommend it for arming armored units of the Red Army.
after the next stage of refinement, on February 1, 1928, an order was issued for the assembly of 108 tanks, of which 30 were to be delivered by autumn. Their assembly was carried out at the Bolshevik plant, and OSOAVIAHIM allocated funds for the manufacture of military vehicles. The established plan was not completed on time, so the first 30 tanks were received only in 1929 and on November 7 they took part in a military parade in Moscow and Leningrad.
Since the production rate of the T-18 (due to objective reasons - lack of equipment and qualified personnel) at the Bolshevik remained small in April 1929, they decided to connect the Motovilikhinsky Machine-Building Plant (the Former Perm Artillery) to the assembly of tanks. As planned by the customer, the capacity of the two enterprises was enough, therefore, the plan for 1929-1930. increased to 300 cars, which was clearly an "unbearable" figure. Thus, in 1929, both plants were to hand over 133 tanks, but only 96 were released. The assembly and acceptance of the rest of the tanks was postponed until next year.
Meanwhile, another “round” of sea trials took place near Moscow - this time they were looking for ways to improve its driving performance. Since the tank was not able to overcome the 2-meter trapezoidal ditch, the need was ripened for a radical refinement of the chassis, in the direction of its lengthening. It was not possible to do this as soon as possible, and then, at the suggestion of M. Vasiliev and by order of the head of the Bronesil district of the Leningrad district S. Kokhansky, one of the serial T-18s was equipped with an additional “tail”, which was installed in front of the tank. The car immediately received the nicknames “rhino” and “pull-push” for its characteristic appearance, but this step did not give big advantages. The tank really could now overcome the ditches up to 1.8 meters wide, but at the same time the visibility from the driver's seat had deteriorated and had to refuse such an improvement. In a letter from the Commander of Kokhansky to the leadership of the Red Army, “... the desirability of providing for the MS-1 tanks the possibility of attaching a directing boom with wheels for ... raising wires, barriers and improving the patency of ditches” is noted. The project of such a “nose wheel extension” for the T-18 was made by M. Vasilkov, but it is not known whether it was made “in metal”.
Before they had time to take the T-18 into service with the Red Army, in the summer of 1929 the tank was almost recognized obsolete. Indeed, the performance of serial “small escort tanks” did not differ much from the same FT-17 or FIAT 3000, surpassing them in essence only in mobility. According to the Tank-Tractor-Auto-Armor-Weapon System adopted on July 18, the T-18 tank was considered not meeting the requirements of modern combat operations. Over the next 2-3 years, it was planned to completely replace it with the T-19 “main escort tank”, the development of which was entrusted to the design team of S. A. Ginzburg, and new foreign-made vehicles. However, until this time, no one was going to write off the T-18. In one of the paragraphs of the decision of the PBC of the USSR, the following was noted:
“Until the design of the new tank, allow the MS-1 tank in the arsenal of the Red Army. AU US RKKA take all measures to increase the speed of the tank to 25 km / h. "
So at the Bolshevik plant, they started the first stage of modernization of the T-18, installing a more powerful (40 hp) engine, a 4-speed gearbox, introduced the 4th support roller, eagle claw track chains and dirt protection ice rinks. On later tanks, a new cast drive wheel with external gearing appeared.
The tower was redesigned, eliminating the rear machine gun installation and installing a rectangular aft niche in which it was planned to install a radio station (in fact, it was never installed). In addition, on the modernized tanks, an airborne tower ventilation hatch with a rectangular cover was used. It was also planned to strengthen artillery weapons by installing a new 37-mm B-3 gun, but in the end they left the old Hotchkiss.
In this form, the tank received the designation “MS-1 (T-18) model 1930” and was accepted for serial production. However, these innovations did not bring any special improvements. Quite the contrary - the tank’s mass only increased and naturally it was not possible to achieve the required speed of 25 km \\ h. A new version of the “escort tank” was also developed, which took place under the designations T-20 and T-18 “improved”, but it also did not become a serial one.
Another attempt to upgrade the T-18 was made in 1933. By this time, the T-26 light tank was being built in large lots in the USSR, the suspension of which was very successful for a light combat vehicle. So the idea arose to create a “hybrid” serial T-18 with elements of the undercarriage of the T-26. Three trolleys with 6 track rollers and plate cushioning were borrowed from the “twenty-sixth”, a new enlarged drive wheel was installed, and instead of 4 standard supporting rollers, they put 3 larger diameters. The rest of the experimental T-18 corresponded to the serial tank of the 1930 model.
A prototype of such a tank entered testing on May 19, 1933, but the effect was rather negative. Due to the uneven load on the track rollers, the car “crouched” when moving away and “nodded” when braking - this led to premature suspension wear. In terms of driving performance, the updated T-18 turned out to be even worse than serial cars. When trying to move in third gear, the engine was stalled, and a rise of 30 ° turned out to be insurmountable for the tank.
More seriously, the issue of modernization was approached in 1937. As Spanish events showed, lightly armored vehicles turned out to be too vulnerable for anti-tank artillery, which was gaining strength, therefore an active program was launched in the USSR for the construction of tanks with anti-ballistic armor, including light types. However, more than 1000 pieces of obsolete equipment continued to remain on the balance sheet of the Red Army, the lion's share of which were “small escort tanks” of various options. By this time, not all of them were in operation - due to the strong wear of the chassis and the engine-transmission system, these machines were either transferred to warehouses or were in the territory of military units in a partially understaffed form and it was not possible to use them in a combat situation . However, they did not dare to send over 800 T-18 tanks for re-melting. Instead, the leadership of the GABTU set the task to modernize these combat vehicles. It was supposed to equip the T-18 with a GAZ-M1 engine and gearbox from the floating T-38 tank model 1936, which entailed the alteration of the engine-transmission compartment. The chassis also changed: new guides and driving wheels were installed, instead of 4 supporting rollers only 2 were left. The tower was also modernized - the aft niche (as unnecessary) was eliminated, and a carbon steel conical cover appeared on the roof instead of a mushroom-shaped hood, which allowed to slightly reduce the mass.
Once again, the issue of enhancing armaments was considered, but then the optimal solution was not found, and so it remained with the 37 mm Hotchkiss and one 7.62 mm DT machine gun. A prototype tank, called the T-18M, was built at the factory number 37 named after Ordzhonikidze. For this, the serial T-18 was used, which was subjected to the above listed improvements. True, they refused to give out a new engine and had to use a "well-worn", removed from the T-38.
The tests took place in March 1938 and did not bring the desired results. Instead of the maximum speed of 30-35 km / h laid down in the project, it was possible to develop only 24.3 km / h, while the old engine could not work in 4th gear. A more serious problem was the center of gravity that had shifted back. Now the tank "yuzil" when braking on a wet highway and with difficulty overcame even a slight slope.
Comparing the obtained indicators, the State Academic Bolshoi Technical University decided that the idea of \u200b\u200ba full-fledged modernization of the T-18 had completely outlived itself, and the existing tanks would need to be used for other purposes ...
The total production of the T-18, despite its obsolescence, turned out to be quite large. By November 1930, the Bolshevik plant had surrendered 259 tanks, and by the time production was completed at the end of 1931, their number had reached 959 units. After that, the plant was transferred to the production of light tanks T-26.
Not having achieved significant improvements on the T-18 model of 1930, a new stage of modernization of the tank was carried out. In particular, on a new machine, designated as (sometimes the name “T-18 improved”), it was supposed to do the following:
- increase engine power up to 60 hp;
- If possible, improve cannon weapons;
- increase the ammunition of the machine gun;
- increase the capacity of the fuel tank from 110 to 160 l;
- reduce the weight of an empty tank (for which it was allowed to reduce the thickness of the armor protection to 15-7 mm);
- unify the rollers of the tank with rollers T-19;
- simplify the process of controlling the tank;
- reduce the number of imported parts.
Other changes included the elimination of the cast extension in the bow and the front “idler” roller, the change in the location of the suspension carriages, and the simplification of the shape of the hull and the fenders. This would allow the installation of more capacious fuel tanks and improve the distribution of the mass of the tank on the tracks.
Another characteristic feature of the T-20 was the welded body - the riveted structure was already considered unnecessarily time-consuming, expensive and complicating the design of the tank, therefore, under the leadership of the head of the experimental workshop of the Bolshevik plant I. Shumilin and engineer N. I. Dyrenkov at the Izhora plant in the middle In 1930, several welded hulls were built. In fire tests, they withstood shelling from a range of 37 mm tank guns, but when fired with 45 mm shells, numerous cracks appeared in the hulls in the joints and the destruction of the armored plates themselves. Although the advantages of the welded structure were obvious, in mass production this method became widespread only a few years later. Reservation of the case remains the same.
The power plant for the T-20, which received the designation MS-1F, was filed on October 14, 1930. Instead of the planned 60 hp the engine managed to develop a maximum power of only 56 hp at 2350 rpm., however, the cost-effectiveness of the MS-1F was slightly higher than stated. Like its predecessor, this engine had 4 cylinders and used gasoline of the 2nd grade.
Unlike the production T-18s, the new tank was supposed to get a turret from the planned T-19 infantry escort tank, but its prototype was not yet made and therefore decided to confine itself to a serial turret with a standard weapon set.
Modernized surveillance devices. Instead of a monocular periscope, an embrasure was installed, covered by a yellowish bullet-proof simplex-triplex glass. They also introduced an “aviation” control column instead of levers, which they later intended to replace with an automobile-type steering wheel.
Without waiting for the start of the T-20 tests, the leadership of the Red Army prepared a plan for the release of 350 new tanks at once, but failed to fulfill it.
The construction of the prototype T-20 and 15 pre-production tanks was supposed to be completed by November 7, 1930, but even in the spring of 1931 the prototype was in a “semi-assembled” state. Completion of work was hindered by political cleansing and dismantling at the enterprise, as well as workload by orders. In addition, in 1931, it was decided to start mass production of BT-2 and T-26 tanks, so there was no longer any need for an improved T-18.
Then the T-20 was completely abandoned, and the unfinished car was turned over for conversion into the “60-strong medium tractor of the Red Army”.
They tried to adapt T-18s not only for use as an “escort tank”, but also for various experiments.
One of the first, in March 1930, was tested version of the remote control tank. It is now unknown whether Soviet engineers were familiar with the work of the Japanese major Nagayama, who a year earlier had presented a prototype of a remotely controlled tracked combat vehicle, the basis for which was the Fordson tractor. But in any case, the Soviet remotely controlled tank turned out to be more advanced, if only because its creation used a serial tank chassis and weapons.
While maintaining standard controls, the experimental T-18 was equipped with special Bridge-1 equipment, with which the tank could execute commands “turn left”, “turn right” and “stop”. Tests of the prototype began on March 23 and were considered successful. At a speed of 2.5-4 km \\ h, the tank was confidently controlled by the operator, which convinced Soviet specialists of the correctness of the direction of the work they carried out.
It took more than two years to finalize, so the second prototype appeared only in 1933 (a year later it received the designation TT-18). This time, all regular controls were dismantled from the tank, a fixed wheelhouse appeared instead of the tower, and a new 16-command control equipment developed in 1932 was placed in the driver’s place. Now the tank could carry out much more complex commands: to make various turns, change the speed of movement, start-turn off the engine, undermine the charge of explosives carried on board, carry out smoke and disperse poisonous substances. As you can see, the “teletanks” had much greater functionality than serial machines, but they also had significant disadvantages.
On January 8, 1933, 5 out of 7 manufactured TT-18s were put at the disposal of special detachment No. 4 of the Leningrad Military District, where they were to undergo joint tests with similar vehicles based on T-27 tankettes and T-26 light tanks, model 1931. After 10 days of enhanced tests, the following results were obtained:
- The maximum control range of the TT-18 is from 500 to 1000 meters in the presence of clear weather;
- at long distances and on rough terrain, control of the tank becomes impossible, since the operator practically does not see the situation in front of the car;
- the tank moves with difficulty in a straight line, because with a high silhouette and a narrow rut, from shocks and bumps, it constantly turns to the sides;
- fire tests were not carried out, as the TT-18 had no weapons.
At the same time, the T-18 remote-controlled tank showed quite acceptable cross-country ability and lightness when executing commands. It should be noted that the Teletank T-27 also showed not the best characteristics, and the T-26 was selected for the further work by the totality of characteristics. True, a draft radio tank for controlling mechanized units was still developed, but a detailed description of this machine was not preserved.
Experiments on the use of chemical weapons were not spared by the T-18. In December 1930, one of the tanks was equipped with a complex for the dispersion of organic matter and the installation of smoke screens. The complex consisted of a cylinder with a capacity of 60.5 liters, in which under the pressure of 16 atmospheres there was a liquid chemical warfare substance, or, for setting a smoke curtain, a smoke-forming mixture. The equipment weighed 152 kg and was mounted on the "tail" of the tank. The operation time of the complex with one cylinder was 8-8.5 minutes, which allowed the tank to move at a speed of 10-12 km / h to infect or "smoke" a 1.6-1.7 km stretch of terrain.
Tests of the “chemical” T-18 continued until the beginning of 1934 and were discontinued in favor of the more reliable and advanced HT-26, which was put into service. However, on the basis of the T-18, the project of the flamethrower tank OT-1 was developed. On it, a tank with a flammable mixture was placed on the “tail” of the tank, and the hose was replaced by a 37 mm gun. The fate of this project remains unclear - according to some reports, one prototype was built in 1931.
There was also a project of an “assault sapper tank”, which was equipped with a wooden bridge for transporting cars and small tanks through streams and anti-tank ditches up to 4 meters wide, a special drill for making pits and a mechanical saw for wood. Before the implementation in metal, this version of the T-18 did not reach.
TACTICAL AND TECHNICAL DATA
OF THE LIGHT TANK OF THE SUPPORT OF INFANTRY MS-1 arr. 1927
| BATTLE WEIGHT | 5300 kg |
| CREW, people | 2 |
| DIMENSIONS | |
| Length mm | 4400 (with a "tail") 3470 (without a "tail") |
| Width mm | 1180 |
| Height mm | 1370 |
| Clearance mm | 315 |
| WEAPONS | one 37 mm cannon (Hotchkiss, Hotchkiss type 3 ″ \\ 2K or PS-1) and one double-barreled 6.5 mm Fedorov machine gun in the tower |
| Ammunition | 96 rounds and 1800 rounds |
| AIMING INSTRUMENTS | diopter sight for a gun and a mechanical sight for a machine gun |
| RESERVATION | body forehead - 16 mm hull side - 16 mm housing feed - 16 mm tower forehead - 16 mm the side of the tower - 16 mm tower feed - 16 mm case roof - 8 mm tower roof - 8 mm bottom - 8 mm |
| ENGINE | MS, carbureted, 4-cylinder, liquid-cooled, 35 hp at 3500 rpm |
| TRANSMISSION | mechanical type: 4-speed gearbox (3 gears forward and 1 reverse), main and side clutches |
| CHASSIS | (on one side) 6 track rollers with vertical spring cushioning, one tension roller, 3 support rollers, front guide and rear drive wheel |
| SPEED | 14.7 km \\ h (on the highway) 8 km \\ h (technical) |
| STOCK ON THE HIGHWAY | 120 km on the highway |
| OVERCOMING OBSTACLES | |
| Ascent angle, hail. | 36-40 ° |
| Wall height, m | 0,50 |
| Ford Depth, m | 0,80 |
| The width of the moat, m | 1,70 |
| MEANS OF COMMUNICATION | were absent |
T-18 (MS-1) what is it - the Soviet light infantry tank of the 1920s. It was created in 1925-1927. He became the first Soviet-designed tank. Serially produced from 1928 to 1931, only a few versions produced 959 tanks of this type, not counting the prototype. In the late 1920s - early 1930s, the T-18 formed the basis of the tank army of the Red Army, but was quickly replaced by a more advanced T-26.
Tank T-18 (MS-1) - video
It was used in combat in the conflict on the CER, but in 1938-1939, the obsolete and extremely wear-out T-18s were mostly withdrawn from service or used as fixed firing points. In insignificant quantities, these tanks still remained in the fighting state by the beginning of World War II and were used at its initial stage.
History of creation
The first produced in the USSR was Tank M (Krasnoe Sormovo, Renault-Russian), based on the French Renault FT-17, several copies of which were captured by the Red Army in 1919. To start mass production in France, a license and equipment were purchased.
The captured Renault FT-17 tank was provided to the Krasnoye Sormovo plant, which was instructed to set up serial production with the release of the first batch of 15 units by the end of 1920. But this car was more like a pile of metal, as the hereditary worker and builder of the tank, Ivan Ilyich Volkov, recalls, it lacked a motor, transmission and many other elements. The designers of the plant had to solve the most important task: to restore all the components of the combat vehicle in the drawings. A group of engineers, led by N. I. Khrulev and P. I. Saltanov, energetically took up the matter, Petrograd designers from the Izhora plant came to help the Sormovo workers, and workers from the AMO plant also took part.
Despite many difficulties, the plant managed to assemble its first tank by August 1920, and soon the remaining 14 ordered vehicles could be manufactured. However, due to economic and political difficulties of that period, further production of the tank was not conducted. Later created the T-16 and T-17. The digital index of these tanks is taken from the Renault FT-17.
They practically returned to the issue of tank production in 1926, when a three-year tank building program was adopted. It provided for, as a minimum plan, the organization of one tank battalion and training company equipped with infantry tanks, as well as one battalion and company equipped with tankettes. According to calculations, this required the production of 112 machines of each type. In September, a meeting of the command of the Red Army, the leadership of the GUVP and the Arms and Arsenal Trust (OAT) was held, devoted to issues of tank construction and the choice of tank for the upcoming mass production. The FT-17 was deemed overly heavy, inactive, and lightly armed. And the cost of one “Tank M” (Renault-Russian) was 36 thousand rubles, which did not meet the requirements of the three-year program, which provided for a total cost of 5 million rubles for its implementation at a cost of one infantry tank at the level of 18 thousand rubles.
Work on the creation of a more advanced tank in the USSR was already underway. In 1924, the Tank Engineering Commission developed the TTT for the infantry escort tank, approved at the end of that year. In accordance with them, it was supposed to create a tank weighing 3 tons, with weapons from a 37 mm cannon or machine gun, 16 mm armor and a maximum speed of 12 km / h. At the same time, from 1924, for taking over foreign experience, for two years there was a study of captured foreign tanks, of which the Italian Fiat 3000, which was an improved version of the FT-17, made the most favorable impression. One damaged copy of this tank, apparently captured during the Soviet-Polish war, was handed over to the bureau in early 1925. In accordance with the requirements of the commission, the Tank Bureau developed a tank design that received the designation T-16. In the spring of 1925, after considering the project at the headquarters of the Red Army, the TTTs were adjusted: the permissible tank weight was increased to 5 tons to ensure the placement of a more powerful engine and the simultaneous installation of a gun and machine gun.
To speed up the work, the Bolshevik plant was allocated for the manufacture of a prototype tank, which had at that time the best production capacities. By March 1927 the prototype T-16 was completed. With a general resemblance to the FT-17, the new tank, due to its better layout, had a significantly shorter hull length and, as a result, less weight and better mobility; its cost was significantly lower than that of Renault-Russian. However, the T-16 tests revealed many shortcomings, mainly in the power plant and chassis. The second prototype, during the construction of which these comments were taken into account, was completed by May of that year and received the designation T-18. On June 11-17, the tank was subjected to state tests, which in general was successful, and as a result of which it was adopted on July 6 under the designation "small tracking tank mod. 1927 "(MS-1) or T-18.
Mass production
On February 1, 1928, the Bolshevik plant was given the first order for the production of 108 serial T-18s during 1928-1929. The first 30 of them, which were built at the expense of Osoaviahim, had to be put in place before the fall of 1928 and the plant successfully coped with this task. Since April 1929, the Motovilikhinsky machine-building plant was connected to the tank, which was the understudy for the production of the T-18, but production development on it went slower, especially since it depended on the Bolshevik plant in the supply of engine, transmission, tracks and armor. The plan for the production of the tank for 1929 was not fulfilled, but since the new tank was nevertheless gradually mastered in production, in 1929-1930 the production plan was already increased to 300 units. According to other sources, under the program "System of Tank-Tractor-Auto-Armor Arms of the Red Army", developed under the leadership of the Red Army chief of staff, the plan for the production of T-18 for 1929-1930 amounted to 325 units.
Meanwhile, the obsolete 6.5 mm twin machine gun of the Fedorov system was replaced in the tank with a single new 7.62 mm DT-29, which since 1930 became the standard Soviet tank machine gun. Such a modernized tank received the designation MS-1 (T-18) arr. 1929 and differed from the early modification also in increasing the ammunition for the gun from 96 to 104 rounds and minor changes in the design of the frontal part of the hull.
By 1929, the T-18 did not meet the increased requirements of the Red Army for tanks and had to be replaced by a new T-19, however, the development and deployment of the latter took time. Therefore, at the last meeting of the PBC on July 17–18, at which a new system of armored weapons was adopted, which made the T-18 obsolete, it was simultaneously decided to keep the T-18 in service until the replacement, along with measures to increase its speed to 25 km / h As a result, the T-18 has undergone significant modernization. The armament of the T-18 was planned to be strengthened by installing a long-barreled “high power”, according to the terminology of that time — a 37 mm cannon, and to balance the turret, which would then become heavier in the frontal part, it was equipped with a developed aft niche, which was also planned to be used for radio station installation. But in reality, neither the new gun, nor the tank radio station on the T-18 did not hit. The power plant has undergone changes, engine power has been increased from 35 to 40 liters. with., and in the transmission were introduced four-speed gearbox and a new multi-plate clutch. A number of other, less significant, changes were introduced in other parts of the machine. Such a modernized tank was adopted under the designation MS-1 (T-18) arr. 1930 year
Production of the T-18 continued until the end of 1931, when it was replaced by a new infantry escort tank, the T-26. Some of the cars produced in 1931 were accepted by military acceptance only at the beginning of 1932, so some sources say that the production of the T-18 was completed only this year. In total, over four years of production, in four production series, 959 serial T-18 tanks of all modifications were manufactured; in some sources there is also a figure of 962 tanks, but it also includes prototypes (T-16, reference T-18 and T-19).
Further development
Tanks to replace the T-18
At a meeting of the PBC on July 17-18, 1929, together with the recognition of the T-18 as obsolete, a demand was put forward to create a new infantry support tank to replace it. The development of the project, which received the designation T-19, was entrusted to the main design bureau of the Gun-Arsenal Trust. The new tank received a suspension similar to the French NC-27, which, like the T-18, was a further development of the FT-17. The T-19 was significantly longer than the T-18, which allowed to improve patency and reduce tank oscillations on the go. The armament of the T-19 was to consist of a 37-mm BS-3 cannon and a machine gun in a single turret being created for the T-18, in addition, a shooter with a DT-29 course machine gun was introduced into the crew. To increase the armor resistance of the body, its sheets were supposed to be placed at large angles of inclination.
Since the creation of the T-19, which was supposed to be completed by January 15, 1930, was delayed, in addition to continuing the production of the T-18, it was decided to carry out its overhaul. The project received the designation "T-18 improved" or T-20, and its development was carried out in winter and spring of the same year. It eliminated some of the shortcomings resulting from the creation of the T-18 from the T-16. The main changes in the tank concerned the hull, which received a more rational design, which made it possible to simplify and lighten it, as well as increase the volume of the fenders and the fuel tanks placed in them. A single track roller was removed from the T-20 chassis and the location of the others, both support and support, was changed, and a sloth was lifted. The first armored body T-20 was made in May 1930. It was also planned to install a new engine with a capacity of 60 liters on the tank. s., but he was ready only by October of that year and on testing developed a capacity of only 57 liters. from. In October, experimental welded armored hulls for the T-20 were also made, but despite their promise and good results from firing tests, the use of welding in serial production at that time seemed problematic.
Work on the T-20 was also delayed. According to the plans, the first 15 tanks were to be ready before November 7, 1930, another 350 units were ordered for 1931-1932, but the first prototype was not completely finished in 1931. Comparative tests of the prototypes T-20 (almost completed by their time) and T-26, conducted in January 1931, showed the advantage of the latter, which led to the cessation of further work on the T-20. Work on the T-19 continued and its first prototype was basically completed in June - August 1931. This did not concern the tower, instead of which the serial T-18 tower was installed. The characteristics of the T-19 were worse than planned and inferior to the T-26, which in addition was much cheaper. As a result, work on the T-19 was curtailed in favor of the T-26, which in the same year replaced the T-18 on assembly lines.
Attempts to modernize the T-18
One of the directions of modernization of the T-18 in the early years was to increase cross-country ability, primarily in terms of overcoming ditches. In 1929, one tank was experimentally equipped with a second “tail” in front, shot from another T-18. Due to its characteristic appearance, the converted tank received the nicknames “rhino” and “push-push”. Although the width of the ditch to be overcome in this case increased, the review for the driver was sharply worsened, as a result of which such a modification did not go into the series. A project was also proposed to install a rotary boom on T-18 with wheels dropping into the moat, after which the tank could overcome an obstacle along them. In addition, the wheels could be used to lift wire barriers. There is no information about whether this project was implemented in metal, although later similar devices in the USSR were already developed for more modern tanks.
In 1933, in the design bureau of the Bolshevik plant, a tank modernization project was developed, received the designation MS-1a with a modified chassis, which included a new drive wheel with a diameter of 660 mm, and elements of the chassis of the T-26 tank (one and a half bogies with an elastic element in in the form of leaf springs and supporting rollers). It was assumed that with the help of this it will be possible to increase the resource of the running gear and the speed of movement, as well as reduce the longitudinal vibrations of the tank on the go. However, tests of the prototype, which began on May 19, 1933, showed that its mobility even worsened and further work on the MS-1a was discontinued.
When in 1937 the task of modernizing the obsolete armored vehicles remaining in service was set before the Armored Directorate, one of the first candidates for it was the T-18. The modernization project, designated T-18M, was developed in 1938 at the design bureau of Plant No. 37 under the leadership of N. A. Astrov. The main change was the replacement of a worn-out power plant with a 50-liter GAZ M-1 engine. with. also installed on a small tank T-38 and the installation of the gearbox taken from it, the drive wheels and the turning mechanism of the type of side clutches. In this regard, the shape of the hull was also slightly changed, which also lost the “tail”. The chassis was also refined, and the turret was made easier by eliminating the aft niche and changing the shape of the commander’s turret. A 37-mm gun B-3 or 45-mm 20-K was installed on the tank, by then it had already been mass-produced for several years. The only prototype T-18M was built, tested in March 1938. According to their results, it was noted that despite a clear increase in the characteristics of the tank, modernization created some new problems. In general, it was concluded that the combat value of the T-18M does not justify the cost of upgrading the existing tank fleet, and therefore further work in this direction was stopped.
Design
The T-18 had a classic layout with the engine-transmission compartment in the aft of the tank, and the combined control and combat compartment in the frontal. The crew of the tank consisted of two people - the driver and the commander, who also served as a shooter.
Armored Corps and Tower
The T-18 had equal strength bulletproof armor protection. The armored hull and turret of the tank were assembled from rolled sheets of armor steel 8 mm thick for horizontal surfaces and 16 mm for vertical. The assembly of the armor structures was carried out on the frame, mainly with rivets, while the aft sheets were removable and fastened with bolts. On the first tanks, the 8-mm armor plates were made of two-layer armor, and the 16-mm armor plates were made of three-layer armor manufactured according to the method of A. Rozhkov, but on subsequent machines to reduce the cost of production, they switched to regular homogeneous armor.
The shape of the hull is with a stepped frontal part and developed fenestrated niches; the installation of armor plates is mainly vertical or with slight tilt angles. Inside the case was divided by a partition between the engine and fighting compartments. A round hatch in the tower roof served as the commander for landing and landing, and the driver had a three-wing hatch in the front of the hull. The sash in the upper frontal leaf opened upward, and the other two in the middle frontal leaf reclined to the sides. Access to the engine and transmission units was through the folding aft sheet and the roof of the engine compartment, another two-wing hatch was available in the engine partition to access the power plant from inside the tank. Early-production tanks also had a hatch in the engine compartment under the engine crankcase, but it was discontinued on 1930 tanks. In the bottom of the fighting compartment there was a hatch for ejecting spent cartridges and removing water that got into the hull. Air entered the engine through an armored air intake in the roof of the engine compartment, and heated air was discharged through an opening in the stern.
T-18 tower arr. 1927 had a plan shape close to the regular hexagon, with a slight slope of the vertical armor. There was a commander’s cupola on the roof of the tower, which was closed by a folding mushroom-shaped cap that served as the cover of the commander’s hatch. The armament was located in the two front faces of the tower, the gun in the left, and the machine gun in the right, but if necessary on the T-18 mod. 1927 he could be transferred to an additional embrasure in the left rear face, on tanks arr. 1930 abolished. For ventilation, the tower had ventilation openings at the base of the commander’s turret, which could be closed by an annular armored shutter, as well as a ventilation window in the starboard side; no means of forced ventilation. The tower was mounted on a turret sheet on a ball support and rotated manually using the backrest. A suspension belt served as the commander’s seat. On the T-18 mod. 1930 the tower received a well-developed fodder niche designed to install a radio station. However, due to the lack of radio stations, the tower’s aft niche was usually used to house the ammunition.
Armament
The main armament of the T-18 was the 37-mm tank gun of the Hotchkiss system on tanks of early releases and the Hotchkiss-PS model - on the main part of the vehicles. The Hotchkiss cannon was created on the basis of a sea gun, differing from it in a different shutter design. The gun had a barrel length of 20 calibers / 740 mm, a wedge bolt, a hydraulic brake compressor and a spring knurling. Since 1928, it was supposed to be replaced by the PS-1 cannon designed by P. Syachint, which is an improved version of the Hotchkiss cannon. Its design differences from the prototype were a longer barrel with a muzzle brake, the use of a more powerful shot, changes in the trigger mechanism and a number of other details. However, the development of a new shot was considered impractical, and the PS-1 was not produced in its original form, instead a “hybrid” gun went into production, which was the imposition of the barrel of the Hotchkiss gun on the PS-1 gun mechanisms. This gun is known as "Hotchkiss-PS", "Hotchkiss type 3" or under the factory index 2K.
The gun was located on the left side of the turret on horizontal trunnions, aiming the gun in the vertical plane was carried out by swinging it using the shoulder rest, in the horizontal plane by turning the turret. Guidance on most of the produced tanks was carried out using a simple diopter sight, but telescopic sights manufactured by the Motovilikhinsky Machine-Building Plant were installed on some tanks manufactured in 1930-1931, providing a magnification of 2.45 and a field of view of 14 ° 20 ′.
Both guns used the same assortment of ammunition, the ammunition consisted of 96 on the T-18 mod. 1927, or 104 on the T-18 arr. 1929 and 1930, unitary shots with (armor-piercing) and fragmentation shells and buckshot. Shots were placed in canvas bags in the fighting compartment in the tank.
In addition to the cannon, the T-18s were armed with a twin 6.5-mm Fedorov machine gun, located in a ball mount on the right in the frontal part of the tower, its ammunition load was 1800 rounds in box-shaped magazines of 25 rounds each. On the T-18 mod. In 1929, it was replaced by the DT-29 machine gun, adopted at that time as a single tank 7.62 mm machine gun, which had an ammunition load of 2016 rounds in 32 disk magazines of 63 rounds each.
Means of observation and communication
In a non-combat environment, the driver kept an eye on the terrain through his open landing and landing hatch. For observation in combat conditions, he had a periscopic viewing device located on the right in the upper hatch of the hatch, as well as three viewing slots in the cheekbones of the hull and on the left side of the hatch. Slots had no protective glasses, but could be closed from the inside by armored shutters. The tank commander monitored the terrain from the commander’s turret, along the perimeter of which there were five viewing slots of a similar design, or through weapon sights.
The only means of external communication was flag signaling; it was planned to install a radio station on the T-18 mod. 1930, but in reality this was not done. Part of the tanks was carried out in the commander’s version, differing from linear vehicles only in the installation of a mast for hanging flags, which gave them better visibility. There were no special means of internal communication on the T-18.
Engine and transmission
The T-18 was equipped with an in-line 4-cylinder four-stroke carbureted air-cooled engine designed by A. Mikulin. The power of the power plant on tanks of early releases was 35 liters. from. at 1800 rpm, on the T-18 arr. 1930 it was increased to 40 liters. from. The engine was placed transversely in the engine-transmission compartment, which significantly reduced the length of the latter. Two fuel tanks with a total volume of 110 liters were located in the fenders. A significant role in the creation, serial support, refinement and modernization of the power plant of the T-18 tank belonged to the designer of the engine-building design bureau of the Bolshevik plant, Baroness Lily-Maria Yalmarovna Palmen.
With the exception of final drives, the T-18 transmission was combined in a single unit with the engine, its composition on tanks of early releases included:
Single disc main friction clutch;
- mechanical three-speed gearbox;
- the mechanism of rotation as a conical differential;
- two tape brakes, which served both for turning and for braking the tank;
- Two single-row final drives built in hubs of driving wheels.
T-18 arr. The 1930s differed from the tanks of earlier releases by the installation of a multi-disc main clutch with friction of the working surfaces in oil (steel on steel) and a four-speed gearbox, as well as modified electric equipment of the engine.
Chassis
The chassis of the T-18 of the first series with respect to each side consisted of a sloth, a drive wheel, seven rubberized double support rollers of small diameter and three rubberized double support rollers. On the tanks of the late release, the fourth supporting skating rink was introduced. The six rear track rollers were interlocked, two each on balancers, suspended on vertical coil springs covered with protective covers. The front track roller was mounted on a separate lever connected to the front suspension carriage and was sprung by a separate inclined spring. Two or three front support rollers had their depreciation in the form of leaf springs depending on the time of the tank’s release. Caterpillars T-18 - steel, crest engagement, large-sized. According to the instructions, each track consisted of 51 tracks with a width of 300 mm, but in reality their number ranged from 49 to 53. On the tanks of the early releases, the tracks had a complex structure of several parts connected by riveting, but since 1930 the tanks began to be equipped with a new track made of solid trucks with better traction compared to the previous version.
Electrical equipment
The electric equipment was single-wire with an on-board network voltage of 12 V. A direct current generator and a 12-volt starter battery with a capacity of 100 Ah were used as sources of electrical energy. Magneto ignition system. The engine was started by an electric starter or a starting handle.
Cars based on T-18
Having become the first serial tank base in the USSR, the T-18 was used in many early projects of special vehicles. But, both because of the small size of the base tank, and due to the fact that by 1929 it was considered obsolete, the vast majority of these developments did not go beyond the design stage, and even the few that were still embodied in metal were adopted were not.
Teletanks
Of the special development of all special vehicles based on the T-18 received teletanks. In 1927, the Central Laboratory of Wired Communications developed an experimental radio control equipment for the tank. The four-command control system "Bridge-1" installed on the T-18 ensured the rotation of the tank, switching on and off the main clutch (that is, the movement / stop of the tank). The later developed improved version of the equipment made it possible to control simultaneously the movement of three tanks. Tests of the prototype teletanke, which began on March 23, 1930, together with similar experiments a year earlier using the Renault-Russian base, showed the fundamental correctness of the idea.
In 1933, a tank was manufactured equipped with improved sixteen-command control equipment and received the designation TT-18 in 1934. New equipment allowed the tank to additionally change the speed and direction of movement, turn off and start the engine, and also use special equipment on board - explosive charge and chemical devices. The maximum control range was 1,500 meters, real - 500-1000 meters. According to various sources, from five to at least seven TT-18s were manufactured, which were controlled from a radio tank based on the T-26. Five TT-18s in January - February and October 1933 passed tests that showed that, due to its small mass and dimensions, the teletank was practically unable to move in a straight line, since it was constantly diverted to the side on uneven terrain. In connection with the termination of production of the T-18, further work in this direction was focused on the use of the T-26 as a base.
Self-propelled artillery mounts
The development of a complex of self-propelled artillery mounts (self-propelled guns) on the T-18 chassis was launched in December 1927 by the Scientific Research Bureau of the Russian Academy of Sciences in the framework of the Basic Technical Requirements for the Weapon System. The list of options proposed for development included self-propelled guns with a 76.2 mm regiment gun for direct infantry support, a 45 mm gun for the role of a tank destroyer and two ZSUs, with a 7.62 mm machine gun and a twin 37 mm automatic gun. However, only the project of the 76-mm self-propelled gun SU-18 was really fully worked out. The gun was mounted in a completely closed armored wheelhouse, located above the fighting compartment and hanging over the frontal part of the tank, leaning the frame on the middle frontal sheet. Already at the design stage, it became obvious that it was impossible to achieve a satisfactory placement of a 76-mm gun based on the T-18 without its major overhaul, therefore, although on June 11, 1930 a decision was made to build a prototype self-propelled guns until October 10 of the same year, later it was canceled and further developments in this direction were transferred to the base of the larger T-19.
In 1931-1932, the possibility of using the T-18 for the transportation of 122-mm or 152-mm howitzers was studied. However, when testing a tank loaded with ballast equal to the weight of a 152 mm howitzer, it turned out that it could not move at all on soft ground, so work in this direction was also stopped.
Conveyors
In addition, an ammunition carrier was developed - a “supply tank” in the then terminology — designed to be supplied in combat conditions by self-propelled guns based on the T-18 and T-19. The conveyor did not have a tower or fenders of the hull, the fuel tanks of which were transferred to the fighting compartment. Instead, on the fenders, a container of 5-7 mm armor was placed, inside of which up to 50 76.2 mm rounds in 10 boxes, 192 45 mm rounds in 16 trays or the number of boxes equivalent in weight with 7, could be transported. 62 mm rounds. The project received approval, but was not even built as a prototype.
In 1930, the chief design bureau of GAU developed a project of an armored tractor based on the T-18, and in April 1931 its prototype was built. The armored tractor differed from the tank in an open top hull, over which an awning could be pulled to protect it from bad weather, as well as a slightly modified chassis. In addition to the driver, the tractor could carry three more people in the hull. In June 1931, the tractor passed field tests, which revealed its unsuitability for towing cargoes, as well as design complexity and unreliable operation, and therefore further work on it was stopped.
Chemical (flamethrower) tanks
In 1932, the HT-18 chemical tank was created on the basis of the T-18. It differed from the linear tank of the 1930 model only in its open installation on the “tail” of the TDP-3 chemical device, which could be used for spraying poisonous substances, degassing the terrain, or installing a smoke screen. The tank passed tests in the summer of 1932 at the KhKUKS RKKA NIHP, however, it was not accepted into service, although experiments with it continued until 1934. The project of the OT-1 flamethrower tank with the installation of the flamethrower on the "tail", for defense against enemy infantry, was also being worked out. Later, a project of a flamethrower tank was also developed with the installation of flamethrower equipment in the tower at the gun site, with limited horizontal aiming angles in order to avoid twisting the hoses for supplying the fire mixture from the fighting compartment. Further work in this direction was stopped, since by that time chemical (flamethrower) tanks were already being developed on the more advanced T-26 chassis.
Engineering machines
After the adoption in 1929 of the program "System of Tank-Tractor-Auto-Armor Arms of the Red Army", which provided for the creation of mechanized transfer means, the first project of a self-propelled bridge was developed on the basis of the T-18. The project, designated as an “assault sapper tank”, provided for the installation of a retractable wooden double-track bridge on a tankless tower, which provided crossings over rivers or ditches up to 4 meters wide for cars, wedges and small tanks. In addition, the machine was equipped with a drill for drilling pits and a mechanical saw on wood. Like other vehicles based on the T-18, the assault sapper tank did not go beyond the project stage.
Coloring, tactical and identification marks
In accordance with an order issued in the spring of 1927, which standardized the color of armored vehicles, the T-18s were initially completely painted in a light green “grass” color. The tactical mark, indicating the belonging of the tank inside the regiment, was applied on the fenders and the front edge of the commander’s turret, and on commander’s vehicles - also on the rear of the turret. An early version of the tactical mark consisted of a triangle, circle, square, and Roman numeral successively inscribed in each other, designating, respectively, a battalion, a company in a battalion, a platoon in a company, and the number of a specific machine in a platoon. The first three of them were expressed by the color of the figure - red for the first, white for the second and black for the third. Spare tanks in the battalion carried only a contour triangle corresponding to the color of the battalion.
A new, more elaborate coloring and notation system was introduced in 1929. The general coloration was replaced by dark green, as less noticeable against the background of foliage and pine needles. The tactical sign also changed, it now included: an Arabic numeral 30 cm high, indicating the number of the vehicle in the platoon, command vehicles were indicated by the absence of this number; the color ring located to the right of it, indicating the number of the battalion and the vertical fraction inscribed in the ring, in the numerator of which the company number was indicated, and in the denominator - the platoon. In the color coding system, black, as inconspicuous against a dark green background, was replaced by yellow. In the future, before the start of the Great Patriotic War, the coloring and designation system changed several times, but the T-18, which was practically withdrawn from service, did not affect much.
Organizational structure
In the Red Army, the T-18 entered service with tank battalions, which were included in the mechanized units. The tank battalion included control and recovery platoons (staff and repair), an artillery battery with two 76-mm field guns and two or three tank companies, each of which consisted of three platoons of three tanks and one staff tank. Since 1929, the T-18 entered the mechanized regiments, with one two-armed tank battalion in each, thus counting only 20 tanks per regiment. Since 1930, the formation of mechanized brigades began, which included a tank regiment with two T-18 battalions of three-troop composition. In total, thus, in the mechanized brigade, there were 60 T-18s.
Operation and combat use
The first T-18s began to enter the army in 1928, and by the next year they took the place of the main tank in service with the Red Army. Of the total number of tanks of this type released, 103 vehicles were immediately transferred to Osoaviakhim and other military technical educational institutions, 4 were transferred to the OGPU, 2 to the Fourth Directorate and 1 to the Military Chemical Directorate of the Red Army, the rest went into service with various armored units. T-18s were actively used for combat training of both armored units and other types of troops practicing anti-tank defense tactics. At this early stage, the T-18 played an important role in developing the interaction of tanks with infantry.
Conflict on the CER
For the first time, T-18s were used in combat during the conflict on the CER in November 1929. In the fall, the Trans-Baikal Group of the Special Far Eastern Army (TAR) was given a company of 10 tanks, one of which was badly damaged during transportation and was taken apart for repair of the nine remaining tanks, which took part in the Mishanfus offensive operation on November 17-19.
The tanks began to advance to their original positions late in the evening of November 16, while they were not completely fueled and had almost no ammunition for the guns, and the three vehicles were not equipped with machine guns. During the night march, without even a map of the area, the tanks lost each other and only four of them arrived at the intended point. Here they were refueled and received 40 shells per gun, after which the morning of November 17 quite successfully proved themselves during the assault on Chinese positions. Two of the lagging tanks went to the location of other Soviet units, where, without shells, they still managed to support the infantry attack of the 106th Rifle Regiment, which used them to cover from enemy fire. By the middle of the day, these two tanks nevertheless joined the others and the company, already consisting of six vehicles, made an attempt to storm the Chinese fortifications, but was stopped by an anti-tank ditch. The company did not suffer combat losses during the day, but two tanks went down for technical reasons, although one of them was repaired on the same day. In the evening, two more lagging tanks arrived, wandering the steppe after losing the detachment until they ran out of fuel, while the third gearbox failed.
The next day, a company of seven tanks again supported the infantry during the assault on the fortified positions of the Chinese, but they managed to achieve any result only after the anti-tank moat was partially destroyed. The tanks did not suffer losses again, only one car was damaged by grenades. Another tank was damaged by grenades on the next day of fighting, another vehicle was damaged due to the discharge of a track, but none of the crew members died during the fighting. In general, the activity of tanks during the conflict was assessed by the command as satisfactory - despite the extremely poor crew training and poor organization of their operations, the T-18 performed well with the support of the infantry. The battles showed the extremely low efficiency of the fragmentation shell of the 37 mm cannon; the Red Army also expressed wishes for improving the maneuverability, speed and armoring of the tank.
Late years and World War II
By the beginning of 1938, the T-18s still in service had reached an extreme degree of wear. By that time, 862 tanks remained in service, including 160 handed over in 1934-1937 to the disposal of fortified areas (hereinafter, the fortified area, UR) of the Leningrad Military District for the construction of bunkers. The remaining cars have already been sent for scrap. But even the formally remaining tanks were mostly in malfunctioning condition, and many were also disarmed (from the T-18 unit the guns transferred for arming the T-26 tanks were dismantled). The situation was aggravated by the lack of spare parts, which in parts were obtained only by dismantling some tanks to repair others. In connection with this decree of the People’s Commissar of Arms on March 2, T-18s were withdrawn from service and 700 of them were transferred to the disposal of the fortified areas of military districts, as well as to the People’s Commissariat of the Navy.
The tanks transferred to the fortified areas were subject to rearmament on the tandem of machine guns DT, DA-2 or on 45-mm guns arr. 1932 Engines and transmissions were dismantled from faulty tanks, and armored hulls were buried on the tower in the ground or simply installed as BOT (armored firing points) at bridges, intersections of roads and in other places convenient for defense. The tanks that retained the ability to move on their own were transferred to the garrisons of the fortified areas for use as mobile firing points. By the beginning of World War II, the troops still had about 450 armored corps and 160 tanks. The T-18s turned into bunkers were mainly concentrated on the western borders of the USSR, some of them were also installed in the fortification system in the area of \u200b\u200bLake Hassan, where battles with Japan took place in 1938.
Information about the combat use of the T-18 in the Great Patriotic War is mostly fragmentary. For the most part, tanks concentrated on the western borders of the USSR were destroyed or captured in the first days or weeks of the war, although a few copies were used for a little longer. The T-18 and BOT tanks based on them fought with the enemy in the fortified areas - in particular, it is known about the battles with their participation in the Osovets, Vladimir-Volynsky and Minsk UR. Several T-18s were transferred to the 9th Mechanized Corps, which suffered heavy losses during a tank battle in the Lutsk-Rivne area; On June 29, the corps received 14 of these tanks, of which only two vehicles remained on July 2, of which one was out of order. The last known combat use of the T-18 relates to the battle for Moscow, in which in the winter of 1941-1942 9 T-18s from the 150th tank brigade were used, which according to the documents were in service until February, when the brigade still had three such tanks . Located in the area of \u200b\u200bLake Khasan in the form of fortifications T-18 were in service until the early 1950s, when they were excluded from the fortification system and abandoned.
Project Evaluation
Design
Although the design of the T-18 was created on the basis of the FT-17, a number of original solutions were used in it. For the first time in the history of tank construction, the T-18 used the transverse arrangement of the engine and its structural integration in one unit with a gearbox and friction clutch. This technical solution allowed to significantly reduce the length of the engine compartment. As a result, from the FT-17, in which the engine was located longitudinally, and the engine and transmission compartment occupied half the length of the hull, the T-18 favorably differed by the shorter hull length and the reserved volume. But the short hull of the tank and the small supporting surface of the tracks had their negative sides, for example, increased rocking of the tank on the go and a decrease in the ability to overcome ditches. In the late 1920s and early 1930s, considerable attention was paid to the latter and this characteristic of the T-18 was considered unsatisfactory, despite the use of the “tail”.
Armament, security and mobility
In terms of armament, the T-18 exceeded most of its contemporaries in the light tank class due to the installation of both a gun and a machine gun in a car, while foreign models were equipped with only one of these fire weapons. However, the separate installation of a machine gun and a gun on the T-18 reduced the effectiveness of their use, and the simplest diopter sight on most tanks did not contribute to high accuracy of guidance. According to the experience of using the T-18 in the conflict on the CER, the effective shooting distance was estimated no further than 750-800 meters. In addition, the simple guidance of the gun using the shoulder rest negated the effectiveness of firing on the go. The 37-mm guns mounted on the T-18 had a relatively high rate of fire and made it possible to fight lightly armored vehicles at close range, but the experience of the conflict on the CER showed that even against field fortifications light fragmentation shells containing only 40 grams of explosive proved to be completely ineffective.
The T-18 armor met the requirements of its time, reliably protecting it from rifle-caliber weapons, and at certain distances from the fire of heavy machine guns, although the open viewing slots created a risk of the crew being hit by splinters or lead splashes. Specialized anti-tank guns appeared in the troops after the removal of the T-18 from production and became widespread only by the mid-1930s. The speed and range of the tank, especially after modernization in 1930, were considered satisfactory for infantry support tasks, and the specific pressure of the T-18 on the ground, even despite the relatively short supporting surface of the tracks, was extremely low by tank standards, which increased its cross-country ability.
Analogs
At the time of its creation, the counterparts of the T-18 in the class of light tanks of direct infantry support were the French FT-17, its foreign variants - the American M1917 and the Italian Fiat 3000, as well as the small-scale French NC 27, which was a further development of the FT-17 . Comparison of the T-18 with the FT-17 developed almost a decade earlier is not entirely legitimate, but in general the T-18 was significantly superior to its French progenitor. The most pronounced advantage of the T-18 over the FT-17 in terms of mobility, despite only a slightly higher specific power of the Soviet machine. The American version of the FT-17, which appeared at the very end of World War I, the M1917, only slightly outperformed the prototype in speed and was also significantly inferior to the T-18.
Created in 1920-1921, the Italian Fiat 3000 was a seriously revised version of the FT-17. The design of the Italian car eliminated many of the shortcomings of the French prototype due to the haste of creation and lack of experience in the design of tanks. Also, the Fiat 3000 received a significantly more powerful engine, which provided it with better power density relative to the later T-18, but retained the outdated “semi-rigid” FT-17 suspension. Although the maximum speed of the tank increased to 21 km / h, its mobility was still generally assessed as unsatisfactory. In practice, the developed maximum speed in off-road conditions, determined primarily by the suspension, could even be lower than that of the T-18. In armaments similar to the FT-17, the Italian tank was inferior to the T-18.
The French NC 27, designed in the mid-1920s, roughly corresponded to the T-18 and was also the result of a deep modernization of the FT-17. With the general similarity of the design to the base tank and identical weapons, the NC 27 became larger, received vertical armor reinforced up to 30 mm and a more modern suspension. To compensate for the increased mass, a more powerful engine was installed on the tank compared to the FT-17. All this allowed the NC 27 to provide mobility at the T-18 level with weaker weapons, but better armor.
However, the development of military and design thought in world tank building did not stand still in the USSR. If at the time of its launch in production the T-18 was at the level of foreign models, then by 1930, samples appeared in the class of infantry tanks that were as much superior to the Soviet tank as it was the FT-17. The first of these was the British Vickers-Six-ton \u200b\u200b(Mk.E), setting a new standard in the class. Being larger and heavier than the tanks of the FT-17 family, the Mk.E had a more modern design of those years, developed speeds of up to 37 km / h, carried weapons from two machine-gun turrets, or one double with a 37-mm cannon and machine gun, and also had a large development potential.
Another model, the French D1, was a further development of the NC 27 and retained similar mobility with a significantly increased mass, but received a 35-mm anti-ballistic armor and a 47-mm cannon in a double turret. Closely watching the new trends in tank building, the Soviet military leadership was able to compare the first mass-produced Russian tanks with advanced models of foreign equipment. The small T-18 escort tank, as well as the "maneuverable" T-24, were recognized as having no prospects, and Soviet tank building embarked on the path of licensed production of foreign models, or imitation of them in case of refusal to purchase a license.
Surviving instances
Immediately after the use of T-18 in the troops was not completed, the museums did not enter the museum, as a result of which all of the known surviving samples were restored from abandoned vehicles installed as fixed firing points of fortified areas in the Far East. Due to errors made during restoration, or sometimes conscious simplifications, all restored samples have significant differences from the original. In particular, although all the samples belong to the 1930 modification, some of them are imitating the coaxial Fedorov machine gun (and on the tank in Vladivostok there is even a model of the Maxim machine gun), the chassis is more or less inaccurate on all machines. At least seven surviving T-18s are known only in the Far East of Russia, all of which are in museums or installed as monuments in Russia. Another instance of the tank is located on the open site of the Museum “Battle Glory of the Urals” in the city of Verkhnyaya Pyshma, Sverdlovsk Region.
The performance characteristics of the T-18 (MS-1)
Crew, pers .: 2
Layout: classic
Years of production: 1928-1931
Years of operation: 1928-1942
Number of issued, pcs .: 959
Weight of the T-18 (MS-1)
The dimensions of the tank T-18 (MS-1)
Case length, mm: 3500, 4380 with a "tail"
- housing width, mm: 1760
- Height, mm: 2120
- Ground clearance, mm: 315
Armor of the T-18 (MS-1)
Armor Type: Rolled Steel
- housing forehead, mm / city .: 16
- hull side, mm / city .: 16
- housing feed, mm / city .: 16
- Bottom, mm: 8
- Case roof, mm: 8
- tower forehead, mm / city .: 16
- board towers, mm / city .: 16
- tower feed, mm / city .: 16
- The roof of the tower, mm: 8
- Active Defense: 18
The armament of the T-18 (MS-1)
Caliber and brand of gun: 37 mm Hotchkiss
- gun type: rifled
- barrel length, calibres: 20
- gun ammunition: 104
- Sights: diopter
- Machine guns: 2 × 6.5 mm Fedorova
The engine of the tank T-18 (MS-1)
Engine type: in-line 4 ‑ cylinder air-cooled carburetor
- Engine power, l. p.: 35
The speed of the T-18 (MS-1)
Speed \u200b\u200bon the highway, km / h: 16
- Cross country speed, km / h: 6.5
Cruising on the highway, km: 100
- Specific power, l. s / t: 6.6
- Suspension type: pairwise interlocked, on vertical springs
- Specific ground pressure, kg / cm²: 0.37
- Gradeability, city .: 36 °
- The overcome wall, m: 0,5
- The overcome ditch, m: 1,85
- fording, m: 0.8
Photo of the T-18 (MS-1) tank
Modern battle tanks of Russia and the world photo, video, pictures watch online. This article gives an idea of \u200b\u200bthe modern tank fleet. It is based on the classification principle used in the most authoritative reference book to date, but in a slightly modified and improved form. And if the latter in its original form can still be found in the armies of a number of countries, then others have already become a museum exhibit. And just for 10 years! To follow in the footsteps of the Jane’s directory and not to consider this fighting vehicle (quite incidentally curious in design and fiercely discussed at the time), which formed the basis of the tank fleet of the last quarter of the 20th century, the authors considered it unfair.
Films about tanks where there is still no alternative to this type of ground forces weapons. The tank was and probably will remain a modern weapon for a long time due to the 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 technologies accumulated over decades predetermine new frontiers in combat properties and achievements in the military-technical level. In the eternal confrontation “shell - armor", as practice shows, protection against a shell is being improved more and more, acquiring new qualities: activity, multi-layer, self-defense. At the same time, the shell becomes more accurate and powerful.
Russian tanks are specific in that they allow you to destroy the enemy from a safe distance for yourself, have the ability to make quick maneuvers on off-road, contaminated terrain, can “walk” through the territory occupied by the enemy, capture a decisive bridgehead, panic in the rear and suppress the enemy with fire and tracks . The war of 1939-1945 was the most difficult test for all of humanity, since almost all countries of the world were involved in it. It was a battle of the titans - they were the most unique period that theorists argued about in the early 1930s and during which tanks were used in large quantities by almost all warring parties. At this time, a "lice test" and a deep reform of the first theories of the use of tank troops took place. And it was the Soviet tank troops that were affected most of all.
Tanks in battle that became a symbol of the past war, the backbone of the Soviet armored forces? Who and under what conditions created them? How did the USSR, having lost most of its European territories and having difficulty gaining tanks for the defense of Moscow, already be able to launch powerful tank formations on the battlefields in 1943? This book, which tells about the development of Soviet tanks in the days of testing, is called upon to answer these questions. ", from 1937 to the beginning of 1943. When writing the book, materials from the archives of Russia and private collections of tank builders were used. In our history there was a period that was deposited in my memory with some kind of oppressive feeling. It began with the return of our first military advisers from Spain, and stopped only at the beginning of the forty-third, - said the former General Designer of the self-propelled guns L. Gorlitsky, - there was some kind of pre-storm condition.
The 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”), he was able to create the tank that a few years later would shock German tank generals. And not only that, he did not just create it, the designer managed to prove to these fools-military that they needed his T-34, and not just another wheeled-tracked motorway. The author is in several other positions that he formed after meeting with the pre-war documents of the RSEA and the RSAE. 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 construction in the most difficult years - from the beginning of a radical restructuring of the whole deed elnosti design offices and commissariats as a whole, during the frenzied race to equip the new tank units of the Red Army, the translation industry to a war and evacuation.
Tanks Wikipedia, the author wants to express his special gratitude to M. Kolomyets for help in the selection and processing of materials, as well as to 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, previously unclear. I would also like to recall with gratitude those conversations with Lev Izraelevich Gorlitsky, the former Chief Designer of UZTM, who helped to take a fresh look at the entire history of the Soviet tank during the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union. Today, for some reason, it is customary for us to talk about 1937-1938. only from the point of view of repression, but few people recall that it was during this period that those tanks were born that became the legends of the war ... "From the memoirs of L.I. Gorlinky.
Soviet tanks detailed assessment of them at that time sounded 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 to the threshold and that it was Hitler who had to fight. In 1937, mass purges and repressions began in the USSR and against the backdrop of these difficult events, the Soviet tank began to turn from a “mechanized cavalry” (in which one of its fighting qualities was protruded by lowering the others) into a balanced combat vehicle, which possessed simultaneously powerful weapons, sufficient to suppress most targets, good maneuverability and mobility with armor protection, able to maintain its combat effectiveness when fired by the most massive anti-tank weapons of a potential enemy.
Large tanks were recommended to be added to the composition only additional special tanks - amphibious, chemical. The brigade now had 4 separate battalions of 54 tanks each and was strengthened by the transition from three-tank platoons to five-tank ones. In addition, D. Pavlov substantiated the refusal from the formation in 1938 to the four available mechanized corps of three more additionally, believing that these compounds are immobile and difficult to control, and most importantly - they require 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, the new chief demanded to strengthen the reservation of new tanks so that at a distance of 600-800 meters (effective range).
When designing new tanks of the world, it is necessary to provide for the possibility of increasing the level of armor protection during modernization by at least one step ... "This problem could be solved in two ways. Firstly, by increasing the thickness of the armor plates and, secondly," using increased armor resistance. "It is easy to guess that the second path was considered more promising, since the use of specially strengthened armor plates, or even two-layer armor, could, while maintaining the same thickness (and tank weight in general) to increase its durability by 1.2-1.5 times, and it was this path (the use of especially hardened armor) that was chosen at that moment to create new types of tanks.
Soviet tanks at the dawn of tank production the most widely used armor, the properties of which in all directions were identical. Such armor was called homogeneous (homogeneous), and from the very beginning of armor cases, the masters strove to create just such armor, because uniformity ensured the stability of characteristics and simplified processing. However, at the end of the 19th century, it was noticed that when the surface of the armor plate was saturated (to a depth of several tenths to several millimeters) with carbon and silicon, its surface strength sharply increased, while the rest of the plate remained viscous. So, heterogeneous (heterogeneous) armor came into use.
The use of heterogeneous armor in military tanks 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 result) to an increase in fragility. Thus, the most durable armor, all other things being equal, turned out to be very fragile and often pierced even from explosions of high-explosive fragmentation shells. Therefore, at the dawn of armor production in the manufacture of homogeneous sheets, the metallurgist's task was to achieve the maximum possible hardness of the armor, but not to lose its elasticity. Surface-hardened by saturation with carbon and silicon, the armor was called cemented (cemented) and was considered at that time a panacea for many ills. But cementation is a complex, harmful process (for example, processing a hot plate with a jet of light gas) and relatively expensive, and therefore its development in a series required high costs and increased production culture.
During the war years, even in operation, these hulls were less successful than homogeneous ones, since for no apparent reason cracks formed in them (mainly in loaded joints), and it was very difficult to put patches on holes in cemented slabs during the repair. But still it was expected that the tank, protected by 15-20 mm cemented armor, would be equivalent in level of protection to the same, but covered with 22-30 mm sheets, without a significant increase in weight.
Also, by the mid-1930s, in tank building, they had learned to harden the surface of relatively thin armor plates with uneven hardening, known since the late 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 shoot video to half the thickness of the plate, which, of course, was worse than cementation, since while the hardness of the surface layer was higher than during 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 the armor even slightly more than cementation. But the hardening technology that was used for large thickness marine armor was no longer suitable for relatively thin tank armor. Before the war, this method was almost never used in our serial tank construction due to technological difficulties and relatively high cost.
The combat use of tanks most developed for tanks was the 45-mm tank gun mod 1932/34. (20K), and before the event in Spain, it was believed that its capacity was enough to carry out 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 manpower in the conditions of mountains and forests proved to be ineffective, and it was possible to disable an entrenched enemy firing point only in case of a direct hit . Shooting at shelters and bunkers was ineffective due to the small high-explosive action of a shell weighing only about two kg.
Types of tanks photo so that even one hit of a shell reliably incapacitates an anti-tank gun or machine gun; and thirdly, in order to increase the penetration effect of a tank gun on the armor of a likely enemy, since it became clear on the example of French tanks (already having an armor thickness of the order of 40-42 mm) that the armor protection of foreign combat vehicles tends to be significantly strengthened. There was a right way for this - an increase in the caliber of tank guns and a simultaneous increase in the length of their barrel, since a longer gun of a larger caliber fires with heavier shells at a higher initial speed over a greater distance without correcting the aiming.
The best tanks of the world had a large-caliber cannon, also has large breech sizes, significantly more weight and an increased recoil reaction. And this required an increase in the mass of the entire tank as a whole. In addition, the placement of large-sized rounds in a closed tank led to a decrease in the ammunition load.
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 an 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 at large, who, since the beginning of 1935, had been trying to bring his new 76.2-mm semi-automatic single gun L-10, and the staff of the plant number 8 was slowly bringing the "forty-five-foot".
Photos of tanks with names the number of developments is large, but in serial production in the period 1933-1937. not a single one was adopted ... ". In fact, none of the five air-cooled tank diesel engines that were worked on in the engine department of Plant No. 185 in 1933-1937 was brought to the series. Moreover, despite decisions on at the highest levels about switching exclusively to diesel engines in tank building, this process was restrained by a number of factors. Of course, diesel had considerable economy. It consumed less fuel per unit of power per hour. Diesel fuel is less prone to ignition, since the flash point of vapor has been very high.
Even the most advanced of them, the MT-5 tank engine, required the serial production of reorganization of the engine production, which was expressed in the construction of new workshops, the supply of advanced foreign equipment (there were no necessary precision machines yet), financial investments, and staff strengthening. It was planned that in 1939 this diesel engine rated at 180 hp will go to production tanks and artillery tractors, but because of investigative work to determine the causes of tank engine accidents, which lasted from April to November 1938, these plans were not fulfilled. 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 with specific indicators that completely satisfied tank builders. Tests of tanks were carried out according to a new technique, specially developed at the insistence of the new head of ABTU D. Pavlov as applied to military service in wartime. 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 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 the water with an additional load, simulating an infantry landing, after which the tank went for examination.
Super tanks online, after work to improve, seemed to remove all claims from the tanks. And the general course of testing confirmed the fundamental correctness of the basic design changes - an increase in displacement of 450-600 kg, the use of the GAZ-M1 engine, as well as Komsomolets transmissions and suspensions. But during the tests in the tanks, numerous minor defects appeared again. The chief designer N. Astrov was suspended from work and for several months was in custody and the investigation. In addition, the tank received a new tower of improved protection. The changed layout made it possible to place a larger ammunition load on the tank for the machine gun and two small fire extinguishers (before there were no fire extinguishers on small tanks of the Red Army).
US tanks in the framework of modernization, on one serial model of the tank in 1938-1939. The torsion bar suspension developed by the designer of design bureau of plant No. 185 V. Kulikov was tested. It was distinguished by the design of the composite short coaxial torsion bar (long monotorsions could not be used coaxially). However, such a short torsion bar on the tests showed not good results, and therefore the torsion bar in the course of further work did not immediately make its way. Overcoming obstacles: rises of at least 40 degrees, a vertical wall of 0.7 m, a covered moat of 2-2.5 m. "
YouTube has no work on the production of prototypes of D-180 and D-200 engines for reconnaissance tanks, jeopardizing the production of prototypes. "Justifying his choice, N. Astrov said that the wheeled-tracked non-floating reconnaissance (factory designation 101 or 10-1), as well as the version of the amphibious tank (factory designation 102 or 10-2), is a compromise solution, since it is not possible to fully meet the requirements of ABTU. Option 101 was a tank weighing 7.5 tons with a hull by type of body, but vertically steel side sheets of cemented armor with a thickness of 10-13 mm, because: "The inclined sides, causing serious weighting of the suspension and the hull, require significant (up to 300 mm) broadening of the hull, not to mention the complexity of the tank.
Video reviews of tanks in which the power unit of the tank was planned to be performed on the basis of the 250-horsepower aircraft engine MG-31F, which was mastered by the industry for agricultural aircraft and gyroplanes. 1st grade gasoline was located in the tank under the floor of the fighting compartment and in additional onboard gas tanks. The armament fully met the task and consisted of coaxial machine guns of a DC of 12.7 mm caliber and DT (in the second version of the project even ShKAS was listed) of a caliber of 7.62 mm. The combat weight of the tank with a torsion bar suspension was 5.2 tons, with a spring - 5.26 tons. Tests were carried out from July 9 to August 21 according to the methodology approved in 1938, with special attention being paid to tanks.
Tank T-18 or MS-1 ("Small escort") is the first serial Soviet tank designed to escort and fire support the advancing infantry. The combat vehicle was equipped with a short-barreled 37-mm gun and machine gun. Development was conducted from 1925 to 1927. Serial production was carried out for three years (1928 - 1931). For all time, a little less than a thousand cars were produced.
Over the entire production period, the MS-1 underwent a number of improvements and upgrades, but despite this, over time, the car began to be replaced with a more modern T-26.
History of creation
In 1920, the creation of the first Soviet non-serial tanks Renault-Russian or Tank M began. The basis of the car lay trophy Renault FT-17. One of the captured French tanks was delivered to the Krasnoye Sormovo plant. On the spot, the tank underwent a thorough study: the car was disassembled into cogs, everything was measured. However, the task ahead was difficult, the workers and designers lacked experience and the production process dragged on.
The task to manufacture 15 tanks was only completed by the end of 1920. The resulting tanks did not directly participate in the battles. Parades became their destiny, and subsequently assistance in agriculture (as tractors).
Military equipment has a property - it is becoming obsolete.
Renault-Russian was no exception to this rule, and by 1924 it became clear that actual replacement was required. The Tank Construction Commission put forward TTT (Tactical and Technical Requirements) for a new, more modern, machine. The document was prepared within a year.
The following requirements and preferences were put forward in the assignment:
- Creation of a light escort tank weighing no more than 3 tons;
- As weapons should be used a 37-mm gun or machine gun, rifle caliber;
- The thickness of the armored hull should be 16 mm;
- Travel speed - 16 km / h.
In addition, it was recommended to use the experience of foreign colleagues. In particular, the command offered to adopt a number of design solutions from the Italian Fiat 3000 tank. The proposed project was given the name T-16.
In the spring of 1925, the T-16 project, sent for consideration to the headquarters of the Red Army, made a number of additions: the permissible mass of the tank was increased to 5 tons. Such a solution made it possible to establish a more powerful power plant, as well as to strengthen the armament of the tank, by simultaneously installing a gun and a machine gun to the tower. To implement the project, the command chose the Bolshevik plant.
Despite the ongoing research in the field of tank building, the Soviet command returned to the issue of production of a serial tank only in 1926. At this time, they adopted an armored vehicle release program for the next three years.
According to it, it was required to create a number of military units, training and combat, equipped with tanks and wedges of 112 pieces of each type of equipment.
On this occasion, a special meeting was held between the command of the Red Army, the authorities of the Gun-Arsenal Trust and the GUVP. The council decided the question of which tank to use. The choice was small: the outdated Renault FT-17 or the expensive Tank M. The latter had a price of 36,000 rubles and did not fit into the budget of 5 million rubles.
Therefore, the high authorities turned their eyes to new machines being developed new in design bureaus. In particular, on the T-16.
In March 1927, the construction of the first working prototype of the T-16 tank took place. Outwardly, the car resembled the same Renault FT-17, but differed in the internal arrangement of the units. In particular, the engine was placed across the body, and not along. All this led to a decrease in the length of the tank, which positively affected the mobility and mass of the T-16.
There was one more indisputable advantage - low cost in comparison with Renault-Russian. However, tests also revealed shortcomings: problems with the power plant and chassis components.
In May of the same year, a second prototype was built, which took into account all the problems of the previous machine. The new tank received an index - T-18.
After which the prototype was sent for state testing. They were held from June 11 to June 17, 1927. According to the results of all tests, the commission recommended the tank for adoption by the Red Army. What happened already on July 6, under the designation "small escort tank of the 1927 model" (abbreviated MS-1 or T-18).
From 1928 to 1931 there was an active production of the T-18. For all the time, 959 cars were produced. Initially, production was carried out at the Bolshevik plant, but later a second plant was connected - Motovilikhilinsky Machine-Building Plant.
At the last production output was slower. Dependence on the main enterprise in the supply of components (engines, armor plates, etc.) affected.
Attempts to improve the tank
Despite acceptable driving performance, the T-18 began to undergo modernization from the moment of its serial production. The aim of the work was to improve the tank's ability to overcome ditches and trenches. As an experimental option, a second “tail” was installed on the bow (an element that allows better passage of trenches, etc.).
The resulting design really led to an increase in cross-country ability. However, a drawback of such a solution was a decrease in driver visibility and this option did not go into series.
There was another version of the MS-1 with increased cross-country ability. A swinging arrow with wheels was mounted on it. It was planned to lay them in a trench, after which the tank on them would overcome the obstacle. Such a modification did not go into the series.
In 1933, at the Bolshevik plant, they proposed the option of upgrading the T-18 (the modified machine was given the name MS-1a). For these purposes, it was supposed to install a part of the chassis from the T-26 tank and a drive wheel increased to 660 mm.
The modified chassis should have a positive impact on the patency of the car, but the result was negative.
In 1938, an attempt was made to update the T-18. The modification received the name MS-1m and was developed in the design bureau of plant No. 37, under the guidance of N. Astrov. It was planned to replace the old, exhausted engines, engines with newer and more powerful ones. The power plant Gaz-M1, a four-speed gearbox and part of the suspension was taken from the T-38.
To install new elements had to change the shape of the case. Also, the tower underwent modifications (changed the commander’s turret, removed the aft niche) and installed a new gun (37 mm B-3 or 45 mm 20-K).
The only MC-1m prototype was built, but it turned out to be unprofitable to mass-modify the outdated tank and the project was abandoned.
The performance characteristics
Parameters of the MS-1 tank (for clarity, the parameters of the FT-17 are given, as the machine on the basis of which the T-18 was created):
Based on the table it can be seen that the MS-1 has no advantages in booking and even inferior in the number of transported shells.
However, it is worth considering that the T-18 is much faster, has less weight and a greater range.
In addition, a Renault machine gun or a cannon was installed. While the MS-1 was equipped with both.
Design description
MS-1 (T-18) has a classic design with a motor-transmission compartment located in the stern and combined with a fighting compartment and a control compartment. The gun was located in a tower of circular rotation. The tank was assembled from sheets of armor fastened to the frame base with rivets.
The aft had a flap for access for technicians to the units of the power plant and transmission.
The thickness of all vertical planes of the tank hull was 16 mm. The horizontal planes consisted of 8 mm steel plates. The T-18 armor passed as bulletproof and saved little from cannon shells.
The bow of the tank was stepped. It provided a hatch for boarding and alighting the driver.
The second, and last, crew member was stationed in the fighting compartment. He served as commander and gunner. For landing in the BO there was a hatch on the roof of the tower and at the same time served as the commander’s turret.
He covered himself with a lid that resembled a mushroom hat.
The MC-1 tower had the shape of a hexagon. In the front two faces established weapons of the machine. In the back left side was an embrasure. There it was possible to transfer a regular machine gun. In the tower arr. 1930, this element of the tower was removed, in order to simplify the design.
Armament
The T-18 was equipped with a Hotchkiss gun and a Fedorov machine gun. Armament was located in the tower. The main argument on the battlefield was considered a 37-mm gun with a length of 20 calibers (740 mm).
This gun was installed on the distant ancestor of the MS-1 - Renault. Therefore, in the future it was planned to replace the gun with a modern PS-1, which had a more powerful shot, increased barrel length and a muzzle brake.
However, PS-1 was not installed on MS-1 like that. The reason was just in a more powerful shot - it was too unprofitable to start producing a new type of ammunition. The PS-1 installation project was turned off and a hybrid version, Hotchkiss-PS, began to be installed on the tanks. The gun was located on horizontal pins.
To aim the gun in a vertical plane, the gunner used shoulder rests. Horizon guidance was carried out by turning the tower. Moreover, the mechanism of its rotation is extremely simple - the gunner himself turned the tower, due to his muscular strength.
For aiming, a diopter sight was used. But on a number of machines manufactured in recent years of production, telescopic sights were installed. The multiplicity of the latter reached x2.45.
Both guns mounted on the MS-1 (Hotchkiss and Hotchkiss-PS) used the same shots. In total there were three options for shells: high-explosive fragmentation, armor-piercing and shrapnel.
According to the results of the conflict on the CER, the leadership of the Red Army came to the conclusion that the capacity of the 37 mm OFS is not enough for the realities of the battlefield.
The tank's ammunition amounted to 104 unitary loading shells stored in canvas bags inside the fighting compartment. By the way, the commander’s seat was a suspended cradle attached to the tower.
In addition to the cannon, machine guns were installed on the MS-1. On the right front face there was a ball installation for this. On the machines of the first series, two Fedorov machine guns with a caliber of 6.5 mm were installed in it.
Ammunition was carried out at the expense of box stores (each with 25 rounds). Full ammunition amounted to 1800 rounds. On the T-18 mod. In 1929, they began to install a 7.62 mm DT-29, which had disk ammunition (63 rounds). Despite the increase in the used caliber, the total stock of cartridges increased to 2016 pcs.
Monitoring and communication devices
In a peaceful environment, the driver kept an eye on the surrounding terrain through the open landing hatch. At the beginning of hostilities, the hatch was closed, the driver began to use a periscope survey device mounted in the right part of the hatch to monitor the situation.
In addition, there were viewing gaps: on the left side of the manhole cover and on the lateral cheekbones. The slots did not have bulletproof glass, but could be closed from the inside by shutters.
The commander watched the terrain through the viewing slots in the commander’s turret. These devices were similar in design to that of the driver. In addition, it was possible to use a gun’s sight for viewing. The commander was also responsible for communication with other vehicles.
For these purposes, a flag system was used installed on the MS-1 part (mainly on command vehicles). It was originally planned to establish a full-fledged radio station. For this, there was a niche at the rear of the tower. However, these plans failed to materialize.
Engine, transmission and chassis
A single-row 4-cylinder air-cooled engine was installed on the MS-1. The power unit was carbureted, four-stroke. Its power reached 35 hp. at 1800 rpm. Later, the engine was boosted to 40 hp. An important design decision was the method of placing the engine.
He was placed in the MTO perpendicular to the movement of the tank, which allowed to reduce the length of the machine. Fuel tanks were placed in the niches of the fenders. The total capacity of the tanks is 110 liters.
The transmission was a single unit with an engine, except for on-board friction clutches. Initially, it had three steps and a single-disk clutch.
Subsequently, in the 1930 model, work was done to modernize the transmission. The number of gears increased to 4, and the main clutch became multi-disc and worked on the steel-to-steel system.
The chassis relative to one side consisted of:
- sloth
- seven road wheels of small diameter;
- four rubberized support rollers;
- drive wheel.
Track rollers are grouped in pairs, except for the first (it was attached to the base of the front trolley, but was removed). The suspension was independent, with a vertical spring arrangement. The spring was closed with a metal casing (to protect against damage).
Caterpillars for the MS-1 were made of steel. Possessed one-ridge method of engagement and large links. According to the standard, there were 51 links in each track. But in practice, the number constantly varied from 49 to 53. The width of the tracks was 30 cm. In 1930, solid tracks began to be used, which positively affected the manufacturability of the machine.
Combat use
At first, the T-18 tank arrived not only in the linear army unit, but also in various training organizations. Moreover, the machines were used not only for training tank crews, but also for testing the interaction of armored vehicles and infantry.
At MS-1, training was carried out for units trained to combat enemy armored vehicles.
The baptism of fire MS-1 received during the conflict on the Chinese Eastern Railway (CER). To strengthen the Special Far Eastern Army, a tank company was sent, consisting of ten T-18s.
The company suffered the first non-combat losses while transporting vehicles. One of the tanks was damaged. The car could not be repaired and had to be disassembled into spare parts.
If you do not go into details, the T-18 performed well on the battlefield. For the entire time of the battle, combat losses were not recorded. Only three cars were damaged by grenades.
Part of the tanks failed for technical reasons. It was during the conflict on the CER that certain shortcomings of the tank were revealed: low passability, weak high-explosive impact of the 37 mm OFS and low speed. Also, the Red Army expressed a desire to strengthen the armor of the tank.
By 1938, most of the MS-1 was in poor condition. The engine and transmission resource was finally exhausted, a number of vehicles lacked weapons (the guns were rearranged on the t-26). The armor of the "Small Maintenance - 1" did not correspond to the realities either.
Therefore, the Soviet command decided to use the T-18 as BOTs (armored firing points). All internal units were removed from the car, and an empty case was buried on the tower in the ground.
Basically, such points were located on the western borders of the Soviet Union. Only a small number were located in the Far East. The overwhelming mass of BOTs was lost in the first weeks of World War II.
As for the remnants of the T-18, which did not go to BOTS, most of them were also lost in the first weeks of the war.
However, there are reliable facts that the MS-1 was used during the defense of Moscow. And the last cars, according to the documentation, were used in February 1942.
Although the history of the T-18 is not full of combat battles, the machine remains a major milestone in the national tank construction. It was on it that a lot of technologies and innovative design solutions were rolled in, subsequently used on more advanced models of armored vehicles.
- The number of cars built reached 1000 units, which at that time (1928 - 1931) was one of the largest indicators in the world;
- A double-barreled machine gun was mounted on the T-18 tank. In fact, it was a spark of two Fedorov machine guns. Everyone had their own ammunition. Subsequently, this option was abandoned in favor of the DT-29;
- TT-18. Few people know, but in the Soviet Union in the early 1930s there was a program for the creation of radio-controlled tanks.
The project was called Teletank. During the survey, a complex system of a radio module and mechanisms connected to the controls of the machine was installed on the T-18.
Unfortunately, the program was curtailed for technical reasons: the driving range did not exceed 1 km in clear weather, it was necessary to keep the car in sight, and the price was considerable. However, during World War II, similar vehicles were used for mine clearance.
An interesting fact is the presence of the MS-1 (T-18) tank in the WorldofTanks computer game from the Belarusian company Wargaming. The machine is located on the first level of the technological tree of the Soviet Union.
Total
The T-18 tank did not appear at the easiest time for the Soviet Union. Recently, a civil war died out, and the country's industrialization was just beginning.
Constantly lacked production capacity. But still, the designers managed to develop the ideas of the French FT-17 and create the first Soviet tank on its basis.
And although most of the MS-1 ended its existence in the form of armored firing points, this machine has earned its place in history.
Now T-18 can be found in various museums in the country, however, most of the tanks have non-original parts. A couple of years ago, the MS-1 was held during the Victory Day parade.
Video
The creation of an armored vehicle, which became the starting point in the history of Russian tank construction
After the command of the Red Army in 1924 tasked the newly created Tank Bureau with the task of developing a tank weighing 3 tons, capable of speeds up to 12 km / h and carrying 16 mm armor, a 37 mm cannon and machine gun, history began in the USSR designing your own tanks. But from this moment until the creation of the first prototype of the first Soviet large-scale tank MS-1, aka T-18, another three years passed - and they were not wasted.
MS-1 tanks from the first series of 30 vehicles during the November parade in Moscow in 1929. Photo from the site http://forum.guns.ru
Tank program - in three years!
Pretty quickly it became clear that given the requirements for armoring and arming the tank, he would need a fairly powerful engine that would inevitably increase the total mass of the car. So by September 1926, when a joint meeting of the Red Army command, the leadership of the Main Directorate of the All-Union Council of National Economy (VSNH) and the Arsenal-Arsenal Trust of the Supreme Economic Council on the issues of equipping the Red Army with new weapons systems and vehicles, primarily tanks, was opened, a lot of future T -18 it was decided to increase to 5 tons. The remaining requirements remained unchanged - it was quite possible to fulfill them.
True, at the same time it was necessary to keep within the other framework - monetary. According to the works of the fathers of communist ideology, over time, advanced society had to get rid of this remnant of capitalism, but so far had to put up with it. So, three months before the “tank” meeting in Moscow, on June 2, 1926, the military command and leadership of the GUVP developed and adopted a three-year tank building program. Recall: only two years have passed since the moment the country was preoccupied with the development of tanks, and here - the whole program at once! But the fact is that Soviet military intelligence at that time confidently predicted the beginning of the next Soviet-Polish war in the coming years, and the USSR needed to strengthen its armed forces as quickly as possible. And since Poland, based on the best practices of one of the leading tank powers of that time - Great Britain - was hastily creating its tank industry, the Soviet Union could not keep up with it.
The adopted three-year tank building program provided for the creation and production during this time of 112 tanks and the same number of tankettes, and the total cost of its implementation reached 5 million rubles. It followed that each tank should have cost no more than 18 thousand rubles, and a wedge was three times cheaper. And therefore, although the "Red Sormov" actually had a finished project of its own tank, it was decided to abandon it: its price was almost two and a half times higher than the price set in the program - 36 thousand rubles.
As you know, it is possible to reduce the cost of serial production in several ways, including by simplifying the design and using more modern components, as well as by unifying nodes and elements. The creators of the first Soviet large-scale tank MS-1 followed this path, having managed to create a completely successful design of the Soviet armored vehicle based on the best light tank of the First World War. But they did not succeed in achieving this suddenly.
T-18 tanks in a column of armored vehicles during the parade on Uritsky Square in Leningrad in November 1933. In addition to the MC-1, T-27 wedges are visible in the upper left, in the foreground in the center are two D-12 armored cars and the D-8 armored car (between them), the D-13 armored car on the right, and the BA-3 armored car in the lower left. Photo from the site http://tanki-v-boju.ru
We must start with the fact that there was not a single person in the structure of the Tank Bureau of the Main Directorate of Military Economic Council of Sovnarkhoz who had experience in designing and building tanks. However, there were virtually no such people in the whole country, except for the engineers of Krasnoye Sormov, who had the opportunity to adapt the incomplete FT-17 to production at their plant in the early 1920s, simply because Russia did not manage to become a tank power in years of the First World War. So it was necessary to create the first domestic tank by trial and error, which are inevitable even when it comes to adaptation of a machine already built by others. Therefore, engineers of the Petrograd State Gun, Optical and Steel Plant “Bolshevik” (plant No. 232), which since October 26, 1926 were subordinate to the Arsenal-Arsenal Trust of the Supreme Economic Council of the USSR, were also allocated to help the specialists of the Tank Bureau.
T-16 turns into T-18
The joint efforts of the specialists of the two structures quite quickly paid off: by September 1926, by the very “tank” meeting in Moscow, the design of the tank, which received the T-16 index, was ready. Moreover, unique specialists participated in its creation. So, the design of the engine for the tank was dealt with by Alexander Mikulin, the future academician and Hero of Socialist Labor, who became famous for the development of aircraft engines. The design of the transmission was answered by Vladimir Zaslavsky, the future author of the first Soviet training manual on the design and calculation of tanks and the first head of the tank and tractor department of the Red Army Military Academy of Mechanization and Motorization (later - Military Academy of Armored Forces). And the design of the chassis of the tank was worked by Nikolai Magdesiev, who since 1915 led the design bureau of the Obukhov plant, later renamed the "Bolshevik".
A prototype tank MS-1 during testing in Nemchinovka near Moscow. Photo from the site https://www.snariad.ru
And yet, no matter how brilliant engineers and designers were the creators of the T-16, the lack of experience inevitably affected the characteristics of their first creation. The prototype of the tank, which went to factory tests in March 1927, did not achieve the specified tactical and technical characteristics: it turned out to be insufficiently fast and maneuverable, and the engine constantly failed. However, nothing else could be expected from him. As Alexander Mikulin recalled much later, he was shocked to find out that the Bolshevik workers managed to assemble such a complex unit without many of the necessary control tools, including an air thermometer and a hygrometer. Not too successful was the design of the suspension, which did not differ much from the suspension of the French and Italian variants and had not the best springs.
As a result, it was decided not to spend time on fine-tuning and eliminating the found shortcomings of the T-16, but to direct forces towards improving the design of the suspension and engine, actually creating a new car on the basis of the “sixteenth”. It took two months, during which Nikolay Magdesiev managed to radically redo the chassis of the tank, adding another roller to it and changing the design of the suspension springs. At the same time, Alexander Mikulin managed to deal with the causes of frequent engine failures and improve its design, thanks to which the engine resource has grown significantly, as well as reliability.
As a result, the modified tank turned out a little due to the lengthening of the chassis longer than the T-16, but still significantly shorter than its ancestors. Suffice it to say that it was 60 cm shorter than the FT-17 and 10 cm shorter than the Fiat-3000. This was achieved by not just placing the engine transversely, but also performing it at the same time with the transmission (in the general crankcase), which complicated the design, but allowed to win in size. The domestic tank also won in terms of height, being two centimeters lower than the "Frenchman" and seven - "Italians".
At the same time, the Soviet machine was wider than Italian and French in width, and given that, unlike them, it had an armored hull hanging over the tracks, it is clear that the fighting compartment was more spacious than theirs. At the same time, the armament of the tank was enviable: in addition to the 37 mm Gochkis gun, modified by Pavel Syachintov, the designer and inventor of artillery guns who worked at the Kirov Plant, and received the PS-1 index, his tower also housed the coaxial 6.5 mm machine gun designed by Vladimir Fedorov (creator of the world's first machine gun).
The MS-1 tank without armament and armored vehicles BA-20 (left and center) and the Fiat Izhora model of 1917 (in the background) during large maneuvers near Bobruisk in 1929. Photo from the site https://www.aviarmor.net
In this form, the second prototype of the joint development of the Tank Bureau and Design Bureau of the Bolshevik plant, which received the T-18 index, went to the tests, which were held from June 11 to June 17, 1927 in Nemchinovka, Moscow Region. Unlike the T-16, the new machine proved to be much better during the test runs and exercises, and according to their results on July 6, it was adopted by the Red Army under the name "MS-1 (T-18) small tracking tank of the 1927 model", or MS-1, retaining the T-18 index as well.
“And now we have it!”
I must admit that during the tests near Moscow, the MS-1 proved to be in some ways not the best way. The biggest problem for the first domestic large-scale tank was a two-meter-wide ditch with a depth of a little more than a meter. The car could not cope with this obstacle, in spite of even the “tail” - a special device for overcoming trenches, inherited from Renault and Fiat. Faced with such a trench, the MS-1 was firmly stuck in it and could not get out on its own, but only with the help of another tank or tractor. It was clear that under combat conditions such a nuisance would definitely lead to damage or death of a tank, or even two, if the crew of the second decided to help comrades.
Oil refueling of tanks MS-1 of the first modifications in combat units. Photo from the site http://voenchel.ru
And yet, even taking into account such an unpleasant inability to overcome trenches, the MS-1 proved to be a tank quite suitable for combat work. It was obviously more maneuverable than the Renault FT-17 and Fiat-3000, the speed on the paved highway developed quite solid - up to 15 km / h, and the armament allowed the new product to quite successfully fulfill its main task of escorting the advancing infantry. Some researchers point out that a 37 mm cannon with a low initial projectile speed was clearly not enough for the MS-1 to fight enemy tanks. But this is an obvious stretch, because until the mid-1930s, if not longer, the prevailing doctrine of the use of tanks provided that "tanks do not fight tanks." Suffice it to say that until that time there was no talk of specialized anti-tank artillery: its real danger was revealed only by the results of the use of tanks during the Civil War in Spain in 1936-39. So, complaints about the unsuitability of the MC-1 gun for fighting other tanks simply have no basis. But for other tasks, this gun was enough: its high-explosive and fragmentation shells completely ensured the defeat of the enemy’s manpower at a distance of up to half a kilometer.
The Bolshevik workers dealt with this task on time: by November 1928, the three dozen first MS-1 tanks had left the gates of the assembly shop. It was these machines that took part in the May Day parade on Red Square in 1929, becoming the visible embodiment of the poetic slogan “Push imperialism to a hyena, a powerful working class!” Only Chamberlain had tanks yesterday, and now we have! ” And immediately before this parade, the second enterprise, Motovilikhinsky Machine-Building Plant, joined the release of MS-1. True, since the Perm enterprise in almost all respects, from the transmission and the engine to the tracks, depended on supplies from the Bolshevik (which, incidentally, itself received armored hulls for the T-18 from the Izhora plant), and it was difficult for the Leningrad plant coped with the implementation of the military order, the pace of supplies of tanks to the army could not be maintained. It is enough to say that in 1929 both enterprises were supposed to hand over 133 vehicles, and they handed over only 96. But this was much better than nothing - after all, until now the Red Army simply did not receive tanks of domestic production.
Loading of T-18 tanks on railway platforms for delivery to the duty station. Photo from the site https://www.aviarmor.net
Small but first
Despite the fact that the mass production of the MS-1 did not last long - only four years, during this time it was already released 959 pieces. The Soviet Union still did not know such a large-scale production of tanks. And without any exaggeration, we can say that the creation and development of the T-18 in production was a real breakthrough for Soviet tank construction, the actual point of reference for its existence. And not every country can boast of such a massive start!
Yes, this tank was created on the basis of the other two, but in many ways it was a completely original development, and not just a copy or adaptation of someone else's invention. Yes, by the end of 1929 the MS-1 was actually outdated, and by 1931, when the legendary T-26 and BT-2 tanks were launched into production (also, by the way, created on the basis of foreign developments: the English Vickers Mk.E and American "tractor Christie" M.1931), completely lost its combat value. But in the history of Russian tank building and in the history of the Soviet T-18 tank troops, a special role belongs - the role of a pioneer.
It was the MS-1 that had the difficult honor of becoming the first serial tank in the history of the Red Army - a participant in the hostilities. In 1929, one MS-1 company in the amount of 10 vehicles was sent to the Far East to support the actions of Soviet infantry opposing the Chinese troops occupying the Chinese Eastern Railway. Nine vehicles took part in the battles (one tank was lost as a result of improper unloading and became a source of spare parts for the rest), three of them were knocked out, but managed their role as MC-1. The appearance of armored vehicles in the ranks of the Soviet troops was a surprise even for our infantry, not to mention the Chinese soldiers, and in many respects the success of the use of armored forces in this conflict was the result of strong moral pressure on the enemy. However, it was exactly the same during the First World War, and during the Civil War, and indeed to achieve a psychological victory over an enemy is sometimes much more important than a military one.
Tanks MC-1 of the latest modification, with a stern niche of the tower, during maneuvers in the late 1930s. Photo from the site http://oruzhie.info
After the conflict on the CER, the first Soviet large-scale tanks quickly left parts of the first line, turning into training ones. The T-18s began to turn into “caterpillar desks” in the very beginning of the 1930s, when 103 vehicles were placed at the disposal of Osoaviahim and military-technical schools. But most cars of this model had a different fate.
Numerous attempts to upgrade the MS-1 in order to extend the possible terms of their combat use, in fact, ended in failure. Alas, the tank, built on the basis of the best machine of the First World War, already 10 years after its end was rapidly obsolete: despite becoming a classic layout, it simply could not fulfill the tasks that were set before the tanks on the eve of the Second World War. And neither the increase in engine power, nor the modernization of the gun, nor the replacement of Fedorov’s double-barreled machine gun with a 7.62 mm Degtyarev tank machine gun could help him in this. But the T-18 could still serve its country - and served, turning into armored firing points. In March 1938, it was decided to use 700 tanks of this model in the construction of fortified areas along the Soviet borders. They were re-equipped with new 45 mm cannons, the chassis was dismantled, and they were buried in the ground along the tower.
Turned into an armored firing point, the MS-1 tank with a 45 mm cannon in one of the western military districts. Photo from the site https://www.aviarmor.net
As such, part of the MC-1 managed to take part in the conflict near Lake Hassan, and most of them met the beginning of World War II in the western military districts. At the same time, the few complete MS-1s, which ended up in the same place, went into their last battles: in the most difficult days of June-July 1941, anyone was suitable for resistance to the German invasion. Apparently, the last T-18s participated in battles with the Germans in July 1941 near Rivne, although some researchers speak of tanks of this model that participated in the battle of Moscow.
But even if the combat history of the MS-1 ended in July 1941, it was still a long and glorious service to their country. The first Soviet large-scale tank, it not only became a kind of “school desk” for domestic tank builders, but also the first machine in the fate of many famous Soviet tank crews, and a symbol of Soviet tank troops during the difficult period of mechanization of the Red Army. And we can justifiably say that all the other legendary Soviet tanks — the T-26s and BTs that fought in Spain, bearing the main burden of the T-34 war on their armor and serving as the symbol of the Soviet Army T-55, passing Afghanistan and Chechnya T- 72 and the latest “Armata” - all of them are the heirs of the MS-1. Small, but first.
