In the thirties of the last century, against the background of the active development of armored combat vehicles, the issue of combating such equipment became especially urgent. A variety of proposals were proposed and worked out, some of which justified themselves and found application in practice. Other ideas were rejected due to the lack of real prospects. For example, the Soviet inventor Bogdanenko proposed an original design for an "anti-tank trap".
Initiative from below
The history of a specific project began and ended in the spring of 1941. The Main Armored Directorate of the Red Army received a letter from a certain gr. Bogdanenko, in which a new version of the fight against enemy tanks was proposed. The enthusiast suggested placing special metal traps in the path of enemy armored vehicles. When a caterpillar hit, the trap had to fold and close on it. Bogdanenko believed that metal brackets in the undercarriage could lead to jamming or dropping of the caterpillar.
Perhaps the proposed idea did not look very good. In addition, it should be remembered that at that time, the People's Commissariat of Defense regularly received letters from concerned citizens, in which they proposed the most daring ideas in the field of weapons and equipment - mostly completely useless. However, this time the GABTU found the "proposal from below" interesting and decided to test it in practice. The corresponding order was received by the GABTU Research Range.
To the letter to Comrade Bogdanenko included drawings of two versions of an anti-tank trap. One design involved the use of a pair of main parts and one hinge. The second trap was large and had two hinges for moving parts. According to the author's idea, the two traps were supposed to differ from each other in fighting qualities.
The simplest design
Experimental traps made for testing had a fairly simple design. They were made from a steel tube with a square section measuring 25x25 mm, as well as a metal sheet and other parts. Both straight and curved parts were used in the design of the products. Perhaps the most challenging design elements were the hinges and clutch hooks.
The single-hinged trap was structurally divided into two C-shaped parts of an asymmetric shape. One end of the bent pipe received reinforcement and a hole for the hinge axis. The second was carried out in the form of a hook. When closing the trap, two hooks of two parts had to interlock. On the central part of the curved parts, metal plates were welded, with the help of which the trap was supposed to stand on the ground in an open position.
This version of the trap weighed 15.7 kg. The width of the "entrance" to the trap was 900 mm. The height of the product in the open state is 670 mm, and the hinge was raised 380 mm above the ground. As conceived by Comrade Bogdanenko, the track of the tank was supposed to run over the raised hinge and push it down. At the same time, the curved parts of the trap had to turn and connect with hooks, forming a metal loop around the caterpillar.
The double-hinged trap also had a pair of curved side pieces, but they differed in shape and proportions, although they retained the hooks for grip. They were hingedly mounted on the lower part, which increased the overall width of the structure and, therefore, the likelihood of a tank collision. In the case of a double-hinged trap, the target armored vehicle had to run over the raised middle part. Dropping down, she made the side ones turn and put on the caterpillar.
This version of the trap weighed only 13.2 kg. The width of the entrance was 620 mm, the height of the “run-on” was 150 mm. When open, the double-hinged trap had a height of 500 mm. Thus, the presence of two hinges made it possible to reduce the dimensions of the product.
Together with two life-size traps, the testers made a pair of smaller specimens. By their design, they corresponded to the project of gr. Bogdanenko, but their dimensions corresponded to the requirements of one of the armored vehicles involved in the tests.
Failed tests
Three serial armored vehicles were involved in testing at the NIP GABTU. It was planned to test the traps on light tanks of the T-40, T-26 and BT-7 types. Full-size anti-tank weapons were to be tested on the T-26 and BT-7 tanks. The undercarriage of the light T-40 was distinguished by smaller units, which is why smaller traps were intended for this machine. Dirt and cobblestone roads became the test site.
Before testing on tanks, the traps were checked manually. Parts moved under load, the hinges performed their functions, and the locks were closed. It was possible to proceed to experiments on technology.
The first to be tested was a reduced single-hinged trap, which was to immobilize the T-40 tank. Due to its small size, the trap had to be placed directly in front of the track, after which the tank ran over it. The structure successfully folded and closed, and then the front support roller drove up to the top of the trap. He successfully continued on the track and moved over the obstacle; the rest of the rollers did the same. Together with the caterpillar, the trap was pulled onto the stern steering wheel. At the same time, he caught on the stern of the tank hull, could not withstand the load and collapsed. The tank itself did not receive any damage and could continue to move.
Then, on the T-40, a double-hinged trap of reduced size was tested. This product closed successfully, after which all the side rollers drove over it. The hit on the sloth and contact with the aft armor of the tank also ended fatally - the second prototype collapsed. The tank remained intact again.
Further, tests began on a full-size single-hinged trap with a T-26 tank. The trap was placed directly in front of the track, after which the tank began to move. The caterpillar immediately tilted the trap, and one of its ends rested against the lower frontal sheet. The trap could not close: its ends stuck into the drive wheel and the armor of the final drive. Hinge pressure and end blocking caused the main parts of the trap to buckle. After that, the caterpillar knocked down the trap and simply drove over it. Only the anti-tank weapon was damaged.
Tests of the BT-7 trap had the same results. The only significant difference is that when a caterpillar hit, the trap turned away from the tank. After that, its ends rested against the details of the armored vehicle, and the pressure on the hinge deformed the entire structure. BT-7 drove over the trap without damage.
The double-hinged trap in the fight against the T-26 proved to be no better. The tank immediately knocked down the trap, and various parts of the chassis damaged its ends. The trap could not close and remained under the caterpillar. The tank escaped with light scratches on the paint again. BT-7 also overcame the double-hinged trap without any problems.
An additional experiment was carried out. The double-pivot device was put on the front of the track, between the drive wheel and the front road roller, and “artificially locked”. The T-26 tank began to move and knocked down the trap, trapping it between the road and the rollers. After that, the rollers straightened the ends of the trap - the tank again freely went forward.
Resolution: refuse
Based on the test results, NIP GABTU made three main conclusions. The first pointed out that the trap does not close when hitting a caterpillar and cannot in any way affect the movement of the tank. It was also noted that large anti-tank traps would be difficult to locate and camouflage. Finally, the testers noted that the production of traps is associated with a high consumption of high-quality metal - 15-16 kg per piece.
On May 12, 1941, a report on the testing of traps designed by Bogdanenko was approved. In the conclusion of the document, it was noted the absence of real results and a noticeable effect of traps on the chassis of the tank. As a result, such a tool could not be recommended for use in the troops.
This is where the story of this curious project ended. The specialists of the People's Commissariat of Defense studied the enthusiast's bold proposal, tested it using prototypes on real armored vehicles and made an obvious decision. Damaged anti-tank traps were to be handed over for recycling, and the documentation on them was to be archived. More to these ideas did not return.
Checking the technical proposal comrade. Bogdanenko confirmed a number of well-known theses. So, an original and seemingly promising development does not always turn out to be like that. The actual working qualities of the invention may be much more modest than expected. At the same time, Bogdanenko's anti-tank traps are one example of how initiative citizens of our country tried to help the army during a difficult period. Even if such proposals failed to prove their usefulness, the motivation of their authors is commendable.
