Small and daring. Small and daring Proverb small and daring

Small and brave. The spool is small, but expensive (weighty). The spool is small, but it weighs gold; The camel is great and carries water. Wed. Petite cloche, grand son. Wed. Klein, aber fein. Wed. Corporis exigui vires contemnere noli: Ingenio pollet, cui vim natura... ...

The spool is small, but expensive (weighty). The spool is small, but it weighs gold; The camel is great and carries water. Wed. Petite cloche, grand son. Wed. Klein, aber fein. Wed. Corporis exigui vires contemnere noli: Ingenio pollet, cui vim natura negavit. Don't despise strength...

- (bath and clothes broom). See YARD HOUSE HOUSEHOLD...

Big, but poor, and small, but smart. The matting is wide, but it is worthless. Wed. Fedora is great and a fool, but Ivan is small and brave: they would have waited until he entered the narrow palace gates and captured him from behind, but they, without looking at the calendar, yes... ... Michelson's Large Explanatory and Phraseological Dictionary

Fedora is great, but a fool: and Ivan is small, but daring. He's big, but poor, and small, but smart. The matting is wide, but it is worthless. Wed. Fedora is great and a fool, and Ivan is small and brave: they should have waited until he entered the narrow gates... ... Michelson's Large Explanatory and Phraseological Dictionary (original spelling)

Fedora is great and stupid, and Ivan is small and daring. See A LOT A LITTLE... IN AND. Dahl. Proverbs of the Russian people

See Velikonek and Dikonek... IN AND. Dahl. Proverbs of the Russian people

See Small, but remote... IN AND. Dahl. Proverbs of the Russian people

Rarely, but accurately. Once, yes much. There is a parable shorter than a bird's nose (and a good one). And one eye, but a keen one, you don’t need forty. And one cow, and it’s healthy to eat. The river is shallow, but the banks are steep. The flow is not wide, but it holds. Not big, but the caftan is wide and short... ... IN AND. Dahl. Proverbs of the Russian people

SMALL, compare: smaller, superior: smallest. zap. greatest, sev. fading; small, not large; short, low; narrow, cramped; young, undergrown; unfit for its shortness; b.h. used small. Small children, small child; small herd... ... Dahl's Explanatory Dictionary

Books

Kind words, Vladimir Goldfeld. V. Goldfeld is a famous Soviet playwright. He works a lot and fruitfully in one of the most difficult types of drama - in the field of fairy tales. For many years, his plays have been used unchanged...
Fairytale meadow. Russian folk tales. The book contains twenty-three Russian folk tales in modern literary adaptations for children of preschool and primary school age, richly illustrated with numerous...

Small and smart

The spool is small, but expensive (weighty).

The spool is small, but it weighs gold; The camel is great and carries water.

Wed. Petite cloche, grand son.

Wed. Klein, aber fein.

Wed. Corporis exigui vires contemnere noli:

Ingenio pollet, cui vim natura negavit.

Do not despise the strength (bodily) of a little man,

He takes with his mind those to whom nature has denied strength.

Cato. 2, 9.

Cm. Fedora is great and stupid .

Russian thought and speech. Yours and someone else's. Experience of Russian phraseology. Collection of figurative words and parables. T.T. 1-2. Walking and apt words. A collection of Russian and foreign quotes, proverbs, sayings, proverbial expressions and individual words. St. Petersburg, type. Ak. Sci.. M. I. Mikhelson. 1896-1912.

See what “small and daring” is in other dictionaries:

- (bath and clothes broom). See YARD HOUSE HOUSEHOLD... IN AND. Dahl. Proverbs of the Russian people

Fedora is great and stupid, and Ivan is small and daring. See A LOT A LITTLE... IN AND. Dahl. Proverbs of the Russian people

See Velikonek and Dikonek... IN AND. Dahl. Proverbs of the Russian people

See Small, but remote... IN AND. Dahl. Proverbs of the Russian people

Books

Kind words, Vladimir Goldfeld. V. Goldfeld is a famous Soviet playwright. He works a lot and fruitfully in one of the most difficult types of drama - in the field of fairy tales. For many years, his plays have been used unchanged...
Fairytale meadow. Russian folk tales. The book contains twenty-three Russian folk tales in modern literary adaptations for children of preschool and primary school age, richly illustrated with numerous...

SMALL, YES REMOTE

Parallel to the noisy and elegant Shabolovka and the more modest Donskaya streets, almost along the western borders of the capital's Southern Administrative District, along Leninsky Prospekt stretches a narrow, quiet street, where not only rumbling and burning cars are rare, but also ordinary passers-by. Malaya Kaluzhskaya street. And probably not every resident of the area knows how wonderful and interesting this modest corner of old Moscow is, which once remained even beyond its main borders...
The rear boundaries of the Bolshaya Kaluzhskaya plots, which began to be actively developed in the second half of the 19th century, overlook the right side of Mal. Kaluzhskaya Street. Previously, there was a large field here that reached the walls of the Donskoy Monastery and was nicknamed “black” by local residents because After the construction of a foundry nearby in 1880, slag, fumes and other factory waste were transported here. For the workers of the surrounding factories, this field was “a canteen, a club, and a place for drinking, fighting and card games...”
Left side of Mal. Kaluzhskaya street. The Textile Institute, which has been located here since the 1920s, begins. Built by the architect G. Tsytovich, his buildings were repeatedly mercilessly criticized by colleagues for “unsuccessful proportions and divisions, sketchy composition...”.
On the site of the site occupied today by houses 19-21 there was once a spacious, more than three and a half hectares, estate of A.E. Engeld, which was rented by S.N. Turgenev in 1833. “I was sixteen years old then. It happened in Moscow,” his son, Ivan Sergeevich, later wrote. “I was living in Moscow with my parents at the time. They rented a dacha near the Kaluga outpost opposite the Neskuchny Garden...” One of the events that happened here is described by I.S. Turgenev in the story “First Love”. “There is only one story I always re-read with pleasure - this is “First Love.” It's probably my favorite piece. As for the rest, everything is at least a little fictitious, but in “First Love” what really happened is described without the slightest embellishment, and when I reread it, the characters appear as if alive in front of me.” The prototype of the story was Princess Ekaterina Shakhovskaya, whose mother’s house was located next to the estate occupied by the Turgenevs. The estate had a one-story house with a mezzanine, “decorated with a six-column portico; behind the house there was a garden or, rather, a park with a grotto and various undertakings; “... I had the habit of wandering around our garden every evening,” says the hero of the story. Describing the estate, Turgenev also recalls a small wallpaper factory in the outbuilding: “I went there more than once to watch how a dozen thin and disheveled boys in greasy robes and with worn-out faces every now and then jumped up on the wooden levers that pressed the quadrangular stumps of the press, and Thus, with the weight of their frail bodies, they squeezed out the colorful patterns of the wallpaper.” According to surviving documents, the outbuildings of the Engeld estate were indeed surrendered “for the establishment of oilcloth and wallpaper craftsmanship.”
Malaya Kaduzhskaya Street is connected to Donskaya by Mal Kaluzhsky (Bakhmetyevsky - after the name of one of the former homeowners) lane. At the intersection of the street and alley of the same name, the site of the former Bromley brothers' plant, which later became the Krasny Proletary machine-tool plant, begins. Half-empty buildings of the plant, rented out for various kinds of offices, offices and warehouses, stand here today. But it was in their place, long before the Bromleys’ enterprise, that the picturesque estate of the Wizard family was located. In this house of twenty-eight-year-old poet Apollon Grigoriev, already burdened with marriage, for the first time saw young Leonida Vizard, the daughter of the owners of the estate, who was not even sixteen at the time. For seven long years he unsuccessfully sought reciprocity from her, and after her very dubious marriage and departure to the province, until his last days he suffered from unrequited, perhaps the only true love in his life. A direct witness to this unhappy affair was a young medical student, the future world luminary Sechenov. A large cycle of magnificent poems was dedicated to Leonida Vizard, including such masterpieces as “The Gypsy Hungarian” (“Two guitars, ringing, whined pitifully...”) and “Oh, at least talk to me, seven-string friend!..”
Brothers Fyodor and Eduard Bromley began business in 1857 with a repair shop, initially located on Shchipka, and then transferred to Kaluzhskaya Street. Here their production quickly began to expand and soon, by the end of the 19th century, it became the largest in Moscow, producing steam engines, boilers, pumps, diesel engines and machine tools. The products of the Bromley plant have repeatedly received prestigious awards at the largest exhibitions. Thus, in 1882, the company of the Bromley brothers received the honorable right to put the state coat of arms on their products “... for the broad and independent development of mechanical engineering with the exclusive use in production of the forces of Russian craftsmen and engineers who received technical education in Russian educational institutions.” After the revolution, the Bromley plant was nationalized and began to specialize exclusively in the production of machine tools, with the limitation of the range instantly losing its significance, its scope and originality.
Between the buildings of the plant, without penetrating into its territory, you can see peculiar “terems”, with a porch with funny “pot-bellied” columns and pointed roofs. The tower stands on the territory of an estate (which became part of the factory site in Soviet times), which once belonged to the Sherwood family, Russified immigrants from England. The Sherwoods became known in Russia “thanks” to the activities of Ivan Vasilyevich, one of the sons of the first of the Russian branch of the Sherwoods, who actively collaborated with the Tsarist secret police and repeatedly denounced his fellow Decembrists. After another, this time false, denunciation, he was removed from service and, in turn, he himself was placed under police supervision. But the Sherwoods left a much more significant mark on Russian art. The descendants of another son of Vasily Yakov-levich, Joseph (Osip): architect and artist Vladimir Sherwood, author of the building of the Historical Museum on Red Square, the monument to Pirogov and the Heroes of Plevna, and his grandchildren: architect Vladimir Sherwood and sculptor Lev Sherwood. The estate near Kaluzhskaya Street was acquired by the Sherwoods in 1816. Almost a hundred years later, in 1911, on the site of an old wooden house, that same wonderful “teremok” was built, “where all its details taken from the arsenal of ancient Russian architecture seem exaggerated, and even grotesque.” The architects of the fairy-tale house were N. D. Butusov. Now it will house one serious financial and commercial organization.
This is a far from complete story of a modest and inconspicuous street, lost in the depths of the Donskoy district between its large and noisy neighbors: Leninsky Prospekt, Donskaya Street and Shabolovka.

One of the characteristic features of German tank building during the Second World War was the desire to maximize the use of resources, even outdated equipment. This was especially true for vehicles that at some point formed the basis of German tank forces. If a tank was outdated, in Germany this did not mean that it would necessarily be melted down. Some vehicles were sent to training units, others underwent modernization. Obsolete tanks, especially light ones, were often converted into self-propelled artillery mounts and special vehicles. This fate did not pass andPz.Kpfw.I, the first-born of German tank building, which became obsolete by the beginning of World War II.

Small mechanization of infantry artillery

By the end of the 1930s, German infantry units were armed with a wide range of different artillery. In addition to anti-tank guns and mortars, they had at their disposal howitzers and so-called “infantry guns” (Infanteriegeschütz). In a number of parameters (barrel length, high maximum elevation angles), these guns were close to howitzers, and formally belonged to regimental artillery.

The German infantry used two types of infantry guns - the light 7.5 cm leIG 18 and the heavy 15 cm sIG 33. The heavy gun was especially interesting: there was nothing like it in service with other armies in the world. In some characteristics it is close to mortars, which is not surprising. The main task of sIG 33 was to fight enemy fortifications. The gun was originally designed to be transported by horse-drawn vehicles, but a version later appeared that was hauled by artillery tractors. It is easy to distinguish by its wheels: the “motorized” version has rubber tires, thanks to which the permissible transportation speed has increased.

Captured 15 cm sIG 33 field gun undergoing testing. USSR, 1942

The sIG 33 coped with its tasks quite successfully. The main disadvantage of the system was the very high weight for an infantry gun - 1786 kilograms in firing position. This was partly compensated for by the use of tractors, including half-tracks. Another thing is that in combat conditions the enemy is unlikely to allow the tractor to drive freely across the battlefield. It was difficult for seven crew members to drag this weapon across the field by hand. Meanwhile, heavy infantry guns often had to fire almost point blank. The first such experience was gained during the fighting in Poland in the fall of 1939.

A completely logical solution, which matured by the beginning of 1940, was the mechanization of the sIG 33. To be fair, this was not the first attempt to convert this weapon into self-propelled artillery. The fact is that sIG 33 was produced for some time in the USSR under the designation NM. It was in the Soviet Union that the idea of using this weapon as a weapon for a self-propelled artillery unit first arose. The swinging part of the NM was installed on the SU-5, self-propelled guns using units of the T-26 light tank. The resulting vehicle had the index SU-5–3. For a number of reasons, it was never put into mass production.

In Germany, this story had a completely different development.

15 cm sIG 33 (mot S) auf Pz.Kpfw.I Ausf.B without cutting sheets. You can clearly see how the gun is mounted on reinforcements welded to the wings. In addition, it is clearly visible that the gun hangs over the driver.

At the very beginning of 1940, the Alkett (Altmärkische Kettenfabrik) company from Spandau received the task of developing a self-propelled gun based on the Pz.Kpfw.I Ausf.B. The choice of this company was not at all accidental: Alkett was a subsidiary of the Rheinmetall-Borsig AG concern, the developer and manufacturer of the sIG 33 gun.

The choice of Pz.Kpfw.I Ausf.B as a base also seems quite logical. Firstly, after the Polish campaign there was a fairly large number of repair chassis of these vehicles. Secondly, during the same campaign it became finally clear that a tank armed with only machine gun armament was unsuitable for modern warfare. Thirdly, a more powerful engine and a longer base than the Pz.Kpfw.I Ausf.A made it possible to make self-propelled guns based on the Pz.Kpfw.I Ausf.B. As for the Pz.Kpfw.I Ausf.A, the Germans used them to make ammunition carriers (a total of 51 were built). Also in 1941, 24 Pz.Kpfw.I Ausf.A tanks were converted into the 2 cm Flak 38 auf Pz.Kpfw.I Ausf.A self-propelled gun. These vehicles, built at the Stöwer plant in Stettin, proved to be quite controversial in design and combat capabilities.

The crew of this self-propelled gun seriously modified their vehicle. An improvised cartridge case collector is clearly visible, and a radio station has appeared in the control room

The self-propelled gun developed by Alkett also turned out to be very controversial in design, which received the simple and unpretentious designation 15 cm sIG 33 (mot S) auf Pz.Kpfw.I Ausf.B (“15 cm motorized gun sIG 33 based on the Pz.Kpfw.I Ausf .B"). It is often called Sturmpanzer I or Bison, but these names have nothing to do with reality.

The unusual technical assignment received by Alkett was the reason that the local designers produced a very extraordinary machine. The turret box was removed from the tank, and this basically ended the manufacturing of the chassis. A completely logical solution would be to install a swinging part of the gun in the vehicle, but the technical specifications required complete preservation of its original design. The gun was simply rolled onto the Pz.Kpfw.I Ausf.B chassis without a turret and secured. The track width of the sIG 33 was such that it rolled over the wings. Since they were clearly not designed for such a mass, special reinforcements were welded onto the wings, to which the gun wheels were attached.

To protect against small fire from the front and partly from the sides, the gun received a shield cover. The total height of the vehicle reached 2.7 meters, and the combat weight was 8 tons. At the time of its creation, it was the tallest tracked combat vehicle of the Wehrmacht. Its crew consisted of seven people, three of whom rode behind on the Sd.Kfz.10 half-track tractor, which acted as an ammunition carrier. There were only a few shots (2-3) in the car itself. She didn't have a radio station either. The communication problem was solved through the use of portable radio stations.

The fifth vehicle from s.IG.Kp(Mot.S) 703, June 1940. Judging by the inscription on the gun shield, one serviceman from the self-propelled gun crew died on May 24 of the same year

Such an extraordinary design did not bother the German command. Despite a number of obvious disadvantages, it had one significant advantage: the sIG 33 became more mobile on the battlefield, which is what the customer required. In February 1940, a batch of 38 self-propelled guns was manufactured. The word “manufactured”, however, in this case is quite arbitrary: the Alkett company itself, the correspondence court, did not do this. We are probably talking about conversions using army workshops.

A new type of unit was created specifically for the new self-propelled guns - a battery of motorized heavy infantry guns (s.IG.Kp (Mot.S)). According to the state, each battery was hit by 6 self-propelled guns. The battery consisted of three platoons of 2 self-propelled guns and 4 Sd.Kfz.10 tractors each. In total, 6 such batteries were formed in the spring of 1940, which were distributed as follows:

s.IG.Kp(Mot.S) 701 – 9th Panzer Division
s.IG.Kp(Mot.S) 702 – 1st Panzer Division
s.IG.Kp(Mot.S) 703 – 2nd Panzer Division
s.IG.Kp(Mot.S) 704 – 5th Panzer Division
s.IG.Kp(Mot.S) 705 – 7th Panzer Division
s.IG.Kp(Mot.S) 706 – 10th Panzer Division

All six batteries were ready for the start of the active phase of the campaign in France. The results of combat use turned out to be very contradictory. On the one hand, the gun's firepower was impressive. One hit from one shell could destroy a house. On the other hand, this machine had many shortcomings. The large dimensions made the 15 cm sIG 33 (mot S) auf Pz.Kpfw.I Ausf.B a good target. The new self-propelled guns were saved from heavy losses only by the transience of the campaign.

An equally serious problem was that the Pz.Kpfw.I Ausf.B chassis was overloaded. Breakdowns were quite common on marches. Oddly enough, in this case the awkward-looking design of the vehicle helped: the heavy weapon could be removed from the chassis and attached to the rear. In this configuration, the load on the chassis was significantly less. It is possible that it was then that the idea of the Waffenträger, that is, a self-propelled chassis with the ability to install a conventional towed gun on it, was born in the minds of the German military.

Destroyed Alter Fritz vehicle, the first self-propelled gun of the 703rd battery. Surprisingly, judging by the documents, she continues to be listed in the unit in the spring of 1941

During the invasion of Yugoslavia, three batteries were used - the 701st, 703rd and 704th. A month later, all self-propelled guns were used in the attack on the Soviet Union. Here the 15 cm sIG 33 (mot S) auf Pz.Kpfw.I Ausf.B was often used in an unusual role as a tank destroyer. They were clearly not intended for this, although their calculations managed to achieve some success. For example, the 705th battery credited 2 tanks, and several more Soviet vehicles were credited to the self-propelled guns of the 702nd battery. As in France, much of the time the sIG 33 guns were not located inside the vehicles, but were towed behind them.

The fifth vehicle of one of the batteries crosses the pontoon crossing. Eastern Front, summer 1941

Although the war with the Soviet Union was very different from the war with France, the losses of self-propelled gun batteries were not as severe as one might assume. The worst thing happened to the 706th battery, which had to be disbanded by the beginning of 1942. The 705th battery lasted a little longer - it disappeared in May 1942. Other batteries fought much longer: the 702nd battery was disbanded in December 1942, and the rest in July 1943. At the end of this month, the 5th Panzer Division still had one self-propelled gun 15 cm sIG 33 (mot S) auf Pz.Kpfw.I Ausf.B.

The Voroshilovets tractor is towing a captured self-propelled gun from the 705th battery to the rear. Winter 1942

A number of shortcomings inherent in this self-propelled gun did not deter the German military. Moreover, for an almost homemade vehicle, the 15 cm sIG 33 (mot S) auf Pz.Kpfw.I Ausf.B turned out to be quite good, as evidenced by its rather long career. At the same time, experience in combat use has shown that the Pz.Kpfw.I chassis is poorly suited for such tasks. This light tank became a much better basis for another self-propelled gun.

A mixture of Rhine and Bohemian

The idea of a light self-propelled gun designed to fight enemy tanks appeared in Germany back in the mid-20s. The result was the appearance of prototypes of the Rheinmetall Leichttraktor Selbstfahrlafette and leichte Selbstfahrkanone. The lack of perfection of the design and other reasons led to the fact that this topic did not receive further development. Later, attempts followed to create a tank destroyer on a half-track chassis. Prototypes were built, but work in this direction did not progress far.

47-mm PUV vz.36 guns in service with the German army, 1941

The Germans again remembered light tank destroyers at a tank base at the very beginning of 1940. The reason turned out to be prosaic: suddenly the German military discovered that their arsenal of anti-tank weapons capable of fighting the Char B1 bis was extremely limited. The German 3.7 cm Pak was not suitable for this due to insufficient armor penetration, and the 88 mm Flak 18 anti-aircraft gun had not at all outstanding mobility on the battlefield. Therefore, the 47-mm PUV vz.36 anti-tank guns, produced by the Škoda plant, became an extremely successful acquisition. These guns went to the Germans in the spring of 1939 after the occupation of the Czech Republic.

At a distance of a kilometer, the PUV vz.36 armor-piercing projectile penetrated 55 mm thick armor placed at an angle of 60 degrees. This was quite enough to confidently fight the Char B1 bis at medium distances. The gun also had disadvantages - it had a larger combat weight than the 3.7 cm Pak, as well as wooden wheels, which limited the speed of transportation. The gun was adopted by the Wehrmacht under the designation 4.7 cm PaK 36(t). Its production continued; in 1939, Škoda delivered 200 guns to the new customer. These guns, like later systems of this type for the Czechoslovak army, were equipped with different wheels - with steel rims and pneumatic tires.

One of 132 Panzerjäger Is produced in the spring of 1940

The order for the development of a self-propelled anti-tank gun based on the Pz.Kpfw.I Ausf.B was received by the same company Alkett. The prototype, which Hitler personally examined, was ready by February 10, 1940. They didn’t look for complicated routes to Spandau. The roof and stern sheet were cut off from the turret box, and instead a deckhouse was installed, open at the top, rear and partially at the sides. Unlike the 15 cm sIG 33 (mot S) auf Pz.Kpfw.I Ausf.B, where the deckhouse was assembled with rivets, the tank destroyer's plates were welded together. Inside the wheelhouse, a PUV vz.36 swinging part was installed along with a converted gun shield.

The crew of the vehicle increased to three people, while in the fighting compartment there was room for both a radio station and 84 shots for the gun (including 74 armor-piercing ones). The combat weight increased slightly - to 6.4 tons, thanks to which the mobility of the self-propelled guns remained at the level of the Pz.Kpfw.I Ausf.B. The vehicle received a designation no less simple than 15 cm sIG 33 (mot S) auf Pz.Kpfw.I Ausf.B, designation - 4.7 cm Pak (t) (Sfl) auf Pz.Kpfw.I (Sd.Kfz.101 ) ohne Turm, that is, “47-mm self-propelled anti-tank gun on the Pz.Kpfw.I Ausf.B without a turret.”

Unlike the assault self-propelled gun, the tank destroyer turned out to be much more successful in design

Even before the first example of a self-propelled gun was ready, a struggle broke out within the German military leadership. On the one hand, tank crews claimed these vehicles, since the vehicle was made at a tank base. On the other hand, the infantry also wanted a highly mobile anti-tank weapon. At first, the tankers won: on February 9, the day before the self-propelled guns were demonstrated to Hitler, out of 132 ordered vehicles, only 10 were intended for infantry. Everything changed the next day: it was decided that all self-propelled guns would end up in units formed from infantry anti-tank battalions.

It is clear that these plans had opponents. Guderian indicated on February 20 that infantry units may have problems supplying these vehicles with spare parts and repairs. In his opinion, it would be logical to give fighters to tank units, and supply the infantry with anti-tank guns with tractors.

By the way, during these debates the car was repeatedly called Panzerjäger or Panzerjäger Pz.IB. Later this designation was transformed into Panzerjäger I, which became official.

The fighting compartment of the Panzerjäger I. It cannot be called spacious, but taking into account the base available to the designers, it turned out to be quite tolerable

Production of the Panzerjäger I was organized at Alkett. According to plans, 40 vehicles were converted from Pz.Kpfw.I Ausf.B in March 1940, another 60 in April and 30 in May. The Krupp concern was involved in the production, which was entrusted with the task of producing 60 cuttings. In Krupp correspondence these vehicles were designated La.S.47. Another 72 logs were produced at the Deutsche Edelstahlwerke AG (DEW) plant in Hannover. Škoda was not left idle either. The Pilsen plant received an order to produce guns for a tank destroyer.

The crew of the tank destroyer consisted of three people. Cases where self-propelled gunners were in tank uniforms, and the commander in infantry uniforms are far from uncommon

According to the plans of the Armament Directorate dated March 20, 1940, 132 Panzerjäger I were supposed to be distributed as follows. One vehicle each was sent to the Wa.Prüf 1 and Wa.Prüf 4 departments, which were responsible for ammunition and artillery, respectively. By April 1, 36 vehicles were needed to complete six batteries for two battalions of tank destroyers. Then, by May 1, 54 self-propelled guns were supposed to be sent to recruit three other battalions, and by June 1, another 36 vehicles were supposed to go to the troops. 6 self-propelled guns remained in reserve.

In fact, only the 521st tank destroyer battalion received six vehicles in each of the three batteries. It was reorganized by April 2, 1940 from a unit armed with towed anti-tank guns. The remaining battalions had a different structure. The 616th, 634th and 670th battalions received three batteries with nine self-propelled guns each. By May 31, another battalion with 18 vehicles began to form, one self-propelled gun was in reserve. In reality, the last two cars built remained at Alkett for a long time. The fact is that Škoda traditionally thwarted the plan to produce guns. The penultimate Panzerjäger I was delivered in September 1940, and the last even later, in July 1941.

Self-propelled guns in ambush. The relatively low silhouette was noted in their reports by the commanders of the battalions with which the Panzerjäger I was equipped

Self-propelled anti-tank battalions were formed in a hurry. This did not allow the crews to fully master the machines. However, in the campaign of May-June 1940, Panzerjäger I performed quite well. The vehicle was quite low, and breakdowns did not plague it as often as happened with the 15 cm sIG 33 (mot S) auf Pz.Kpfw.I Ausf.B. There were some problems with the supply of spare parts, but they were resolved quite quickly. The Panzerjäger I self-propelled gun proved to be an effective means of combating French tanks and gun emplacements.

A self-propelled gun crosses a bridge. France, spring 1940

Of course, the self-propelled gun consisted of far more than just advantages. The crews complained about poor visibility and a cramped fighting compartment. The composition of the ammunition was considered unsuccessful, it was proposed to increase the share of high-explosive fragmentation shells to 50%. The reservation of a self-propelled gun was considered completely insufficient. However, despite all the existing shortcomings, the Panzerjäger I was recognized as a much more effective weapon than conventional anti-tank guns.

Panzerjäger I of the second production series from the 605th Fighter Battalion. A vehicle from this battalion with tail number 32 has survived to this day.

Such results served as the basis for thinking about the release of an additional series of self-propelled guns. On September 19, 1940, a contract was signed with Krupp to produce a batch of 70 logs. The vehicles of the second series were distinguished by the shape of the cabin, which received additional side sheets.

It was initially assumed that Alkett would be involved in converting the Pz.Kpfw.I Ausf.B into the Panzerjäger I, but plans changed on October 15th. The fact is that the Alkett company was busy manufacturing self-propelled guns StuG III Ausf.B. As a result, only 10 cars were converted to Spandau. The Klöckner-Humboldt-Deutz company was identified as a replacement production site. This company, which included Magirus, is better known for trucks. However, it was here that 60 tanks were converted into Panzerjäger I from December 1940 to February 1941.

The manufactured installations were used to equip the 529th and 605th battalions, 27 units each. Another recipient was the SS division Leibstandarte, for which a battery of nine Panzerjäger Is was allocated. The remaining vehicles went to the 900th Training Brigade. It was, however, only a training unit in name: already in July 1941, the brigade took part in hostilities against the USSR.

This installation was lost in 1941. Judging by the patch on the front sheet, it was not the first time it was disabled

All units armed with the Panzerjäger I were used in combat on the Eastern Front, except the 605th Destroyer Battalion. Here they often had to deal with completely unusual tasks. For example, the 529th Battalion was drawn into a role normally filled by the StuG III. Not having the same armor as an assault self-propelled gun, the anti-tank self-propelled gun turned out to be more vulnerable, which led to heavy losses. The Panzerjäger I was also plagued by mechanical problems. First of all, this concerned the road wheels, which often could not withstand long marches.

Captured Panzerjäger I of the first production series at an exhibition in Moscow. Summer 1943

The capabilities of the 47-mm gun were quite enough to fight Soviet T-34 tanks. In addition, in 1941, production of Pz.Gr.40 sub-caliber shells began, which made it possible to confidently fight the KV-1. However, 140 Panzerjäger Is were lost in 1941. But the self-propelled guns that remained in service continued to fight until the beginning of 1943. They lasted the longest as part of the 521st Destroyer Battalion, which shared the fate of the 6th Army at Stalingrad.

Separately, it is worth mentioning the fate of the 605th fighter battalion. In March 1941 he was sent to Libya, where he became subordinate to the 5th Light Division. During 1941, the battalion lost 13 vehicles. This mainly happened in November 1941, when the British carried out Operation Crusader. One of the opponents of the German tank destroyers turned out to be the British Matilda infantry tanks. At a distance of 600–800 meters, armor-piercing shells did not penetrate the English vehicle, although secondary fragments formed from inside, which maimed the crews. Matilda confidently penetrated only with sub-caliber shells. The crews of German anti-tank self-propelled guns complained that there were few such shells.

Taking into account the replacements, by October 1942, when the Battle of El Alamein began, the 605th Fighter Battalion still had 11 Panzerjäger Is. During this battle, the British were able to capture three self-propelled guns. They handed over one of them, with tail number 32, to the Americans. For a long time this car was at the Aberdeen Proving Ground. In the early 80s, the car was returned to Germany, where it was restored. Currently, this is the only surviving Panzerjäger I in the world.

Unlike the 15 cm sIG 33 (mot S) auf Pz.Kpfw.I Ausf.B, the first mass-produced German tank destroyer turned out to be a completely successful machine. Despite a number of shortcomings, largely related to the base, Panzerjäger I generally lived up to the expectations placed on it. In addition, when criticizing the Pz.Kpfw.I base, one should not forget that it was far from the worst. Suffice it to recall, for example, the self-propelled gun 4.7 cm Pak(t) (Sfl) auf Fgst.Pz.Kpfw.35 R 731(f), similar in concept, whose combat career in the summer of 1941 lasted less than two weeks.

Self-propelled gun based on Panzerjäger I abandoned on the march. Berlin, May 1945

Finally, it is worth mentioning another self-propelled gun, which was converted from a Panzerjäger I. During the battles for Berlin in April 1945, the Germans used a vehicle in which a 75-mm StuK 40 L/48 gun was installed. It is unknown who built this self-propelled gun and when. What is known is that this machine was used in Berlin, and that the Germans abandoned it.

Sources and literature:

Materials from TsAMO RF
Materials of RGAKFD
Panzer Tracts 7–1 Panzerjaeger 3.7cm Tak to Pz.Sfl.Ic development and employment from 1927 to 1941, Thomas L. Jentz, Hilary Louis Doyle, 2004, ISBN 0–9744862–3-X
Panzer Tracts No.10 Artillerie Selbstfahrlafetten, Thomas L. Jentz, Hilary L. Doyle, 2002, ISBN 0–9708407–5–6
NUTS & BOLTS 07 Panzerjäger I 4.7 cm Pak(T) Auf Pz.I Ausf.B (Sd.Kfz. 101), Heiner F Duske, Tony Greenland, Frank Schulz, NUTS & BOLTS GrB, 1997
NUTS & BOLTS 19 15cm sIG33 (Sf) auf PzKpfw 1 Ausf B & 15cm sIG33 towed, Jürgen Wilhelm, NUTS & BOLTS GrB, 2005
Photo archive of the author

Small towns felt the least protected during the post-Soviet transformations of the past two and a half decades. At this time, mass migration of the population to large cities increased, and deep infrastructural decline intensified. In many cases, the cause-and-effect relationship between these processes and the disappearance of distinctive regional industries is very obvious. However, despite all the difficulties, small towns survived and are gradually beginning to develop. There are separate municipal programs aimed at developing territories, and there are examples of talented enthusiasts with their successfully implemented entrepreneurial projects that should be replicated.

In these conditions, the decision of Russian President Vladimir Putin to provide additional funds for the development of small towns and historical settlements, announced at the Forum of Small Towns and Historical Settlements in Kolomna, as well as in the President’s Address to the Federal Assembly, is a positive shift in solving many problems.

As part of the project for the development of territories during 2018–2020, 25 billion rubles will be allocated annually from the federal budget to solve priority problems in housing and communal services, development of the social sphere, and creation of a comfortable living environment. The large-scale program of spatial development of Russia, including the development of human settlements, mentioned in the President's message to the Federal Assembly, assumes doubling expenditures for these purposes in the next six years.

In Kazan, Vladivostok, and Sochi, we can observe successful experience in renovating the urban environment and infrastructure, improving the quality of life of citizens. However, it should be noted that the development of these cities was carried out within the framework of federal projects. And the difficulties in the development of small towns and, in particular, historical cities, are systemic in nature. The most painful aspect in small towns is the lack of opportunities for rapid economic growth. In fact, entire economic systems need to be created from scratch, and this can only be done with an integrated approach to the problem.

You can spend huge amounts of money on satisfying the social needs of local residents, introducing advanced technologies in construction, transport and utilities, but do not forget that business is the locomotive of territorial development. Often, small and medium-sized businesses in the regions practically do not develop. This happens both due to the underdevelopment of the market and for many other reasons, ranging from administrative barriers at the local level to the lack of qualified personnel.

The President's message speaks of the need to disperse active and dynamic life from large metropolitan areas throughout the country. The problem of depopulation, migration of the young population and indifference of residents to the development of their cities is associated not only with the availability of work and wages, but also with socio-cultural life. Residents of large cities are accustomed to the fact that dozens of cultural events are held in cities every day, ranging from cinema and theater to fairs and thematic festivals. Most small towns lack this. To correct the situation, it is necessary to develop comprehensive socio-cultural initiatives through the mechanisms of the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Education.

It is obvious that each region, including small towns, and especially historical settlements, has its own competitive advantages - the “highlights” mentioned by the president. They are often built around the service sector - primarily tourism, art, and folk crafts. However, here we are faced with, so to speak, a “chicken and egg problem.” Let's say the city has a rich history, some valuable architectural monuments, or even preserved historical buildings; Nearby there is a picturesque landscape, clean air. However, tourists do not go to the city due to the fact that the city has one decent hotel and that one is on the outskirts, two normal restaurants and a canteen in the city center. It would seem that investors could invest in the development of tourism infrastructure, but... the tourist flow is too small. That is, no infrastructure - no tourism; no tourism - no infrastructure.

A way out of the situation could be comprehensive development programs for small towns and historical settlements, taking into account all the features of the functioning of such territories as socio-economic systems. In particular, the Ministry of Culture is currently preparing for the implementation of the Concept for the development of historical settlements, support and popularization of cultural and tourist opportunities, and development of the economy of cultural heritage. This concept aims to improve the sustainability of urban development and socio-economic growth of small historical settlements through the integrated development of their territory and infrastructure. Its key feature was the wide attraction of third-party investors through the mechanism of municipal-private partnership, which will allow carrying out not only work to restore the historical and urban environment, but also landscaping, repairing utilities, and so on.

Now my university colleagues and I are forming both an economic model for the implementation of these concepts and special educational programs. Indeed, to successfully solve the problem of developing small towns, it is necessary to train a large number of professionals in the field of urban planning, cost-effective management of cultural resources and historical heritage. And finally, we need active popularization of these settlements as centers of culture and tourism - often we ourselves don’t know what amazing things are hidden right next to us!

Books

See what “small and daring” is in other dictionaries:

Books

Small mechanization of infantry artillery

A mixture of Rhine and Bohemian

Read also