Military Review

Spit of victory

29
Before 1914, analysts believed that the impending war would be short-lived. Its character was defined as maneuverable and purely field - accordingly, the artillery must first of all be tactically mobile. In a field battle, its main goal is manpower, there are no serious fortifications. Therefore, the bulk of the field artillery of the opponents was represented by light guns of the 75 – 77 caliber, whose main projectile was shrapnel. Russian three-inch took a prominent place in this series.


A field 76-mm (three-inch) gun with its significant initial projectile speed was able to solve all the tasks faced by artillery in a field battle. For example, when flank fire in one and a half minutes, the Russian light battery when shooting with shrapnel easily covered with fire 600 – 800 square meters with a depth of over 100 meters in width.

This gave great value to light field guns in the destruction of manpower. By the beginning of World War I, the Russian 32-battalion army corps had 108 guns, including 96 field 76-mm guns.

Unlike enemy artillery, our artillery could fire from any positions - open, half-closed and closed. The very first battles in Galicia and East Prussia in 1914 showed the ability of the Russian gunners to act from closed positions. The duels of the batteries, which opened fire from open positions, were also won mainly by Russian artillerymen.

An eyewitness wrote: “It was evident that the offensive units of the 42 division and the exploding shells of both ours and the enemy .... Very soon our batteries silenced some of the enemy’s batteries. Subsequently, the captured Austrian officers said that they were amazed at the accuracy of firing the Russian battery at their covered batteries. ” These characteristics of the superiority of our gunners are full of memories of war veterans.

The main objective in 1914 was infantry.

An eyewitness described the picture of the battle in the following way: “The work of our artillery was visible everywhere on the field ..... all visible wounds of the Austrians were exclusively from artillery fire. Here along the highway leading to Peremyshlyany, there is a row of charging boxes with dead harnesses. Against our 2 battery, there are a whole chain of dead people in 200 and many took it for real. ”

In the course of the Battle of Galicia, Russian artillery, in contrast to the Austrian, actively helped the infantry and often became the main factor of victory. When, in the 47 Infantry Division, a series of strong enemy attacks began at two o'clock in the afternoon on August 10, aimed mainly along the eastern left part of the position occupied by the 13 Infantry Kara Regiment, our batteries inflicted substantial damage on the Austrians, killing people killed and wounded and significantly slowing the attack.

Spit of victoryA participant in the fighting in East Prussia recalled: “The batteries opened fire. The German infantry advanced to us. Here and there, between clouds of tears of shrapnel, one could see groups of shooters rising from the ground and quickly moving forward ... The Germans were beaten off ... Slowly more smoke was melting from the breaks, gradually clearing the gaps between the bushes. And there are the bodies of those killed and crawling like worms, wounded. How many can be seen between the bushes, there are a lot of them ... The whole edge of the forest is littered with wounded Germans, 300 – 400 people seem to their eyes. ”

Even with a relatively small amount of artillery, which the Russian army had in 1914, it had enough power to achieve victory. The number of fire weapons that we had in the Battle of Rotten Lipa in Galicia did not exceed 10 – 15 guns, 12 – 16 machine guns and two thousand rifles per kilometer of the front. But it turned out to be sufficient to achieve fire superiority. After all, one gap of a three-inch projectile covered the area of ​​15 meters along the front. Regularly firing two shots per minute, the field gun was able to destroy all life on the surface of the ground in this area during the whole battle. And since each gave six shots per minute, it is obvious that the 18 guns of the infantry division will destroy everything in the square up to a kilometer. Even entrenched machine-gunners led to silence. Suffice it to recall the destruction of the German 35 Infantry Division by the fire of the 27 Artillery Brigade at Gumbinen, the 87 Brigade of the 17 Army Corps by the 25 Infantry Division at Sodenen, and so on.

The action of Russian three-inch shrapnel on openly located or moving targets was terrifying. A single eight-gun light battery could destroy a whole battalion of infantry or a cavalry regiment in a few minutes. The artillery officer conveyed his impressions of what he saw in May 1915: “The combined Austro-German forces are conducting desperate attacks on the entire front, especially pushing our positions near the village of Radymno. Their infantry lays down in rows, as if under the edge of a scythe, from our fire, concentrated at Radymno artillery, a continuous layer of steel covers the entire visible space, tearing trenches, instantly changing the entire area under fire. Columns of black smoke all grow in quantity and, finally merged, clouded a completely visible world. Like a black blanket thrown over our positions, in which bright flashes seem to roll the lights of gaps. The air trembles from the mass of all sorts of sounds, merged into one continuous hum ... "It is not surprising that the enemy called the Russian three-inch" oblique death. "

The field 76-mm gun was armed, except for shrapnel, and a high-explosive grenade. People who accidentally fell into the area of ​​its operation, turned literally into a sieve, most of the residential buildings, not excluding stone, made their way with a three-inch grenade, but it turned out to be rather weak to destroy earthen shelters.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/articles/33170
29 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. parusnik
    parusnik 30 October 2016 16: 10
    +6
    The three-inch production continued until 1937 and was discontinued due to the adoption of the 76 mm F-1936 divisional cannon. The Russian three-inch modernized in 22 proved to be a very effective means of combating light German tanks Pz.I Pz.I - the first tank of the Wehrmacht and Pz.II Pz.II - the second tank of the Wehrmacht, as well as with Czech tanks LT-1930 Czech tank LT- 35 and LT-35 Czech tank T-38, many of which were in German service. Moreover, in view of the absence of an armor-piercing shell in the ammunition, shrapnel was used as such. The kinetic energy of such a projectile was enough to break through tank armor. The fuse was put on strike and fired when the shell touched the armor of the tank. As a result, the head fairing cover flew into the hole, followed by 38 260-mm lead-antimony balls, leaving no chance for any member of the German crew to survive. Russian three-inch was in service with the armies of Mongolia, China and republican Spain. During the Second World War, about 12,7 captured guns came to equip Wehrmacht artillery units under the name 110 sm FK7,62 (r), another 295 guns were used in the Finnish army until the mid-103s.
    1. faiver
      faiver 30 October 2016 17: 48
      +3
      in 41, the three-inch was not effective against light tanks of the Wehrmacht, but against any German tanks ...
      1. rjxtufh
        rjxtufh 30 October 2016 22: 33
        +1
        Quote: faiver
        in 41, the three-inch was not effective against light tanks of the Wehrmacht, but against any German tanks ...

        In the presence of armor-piercing shells. Which was in short supply.
        1. faiver
          faiver 31 October 2016 18: 46
          0
          What is the effect of getting 76mm OFS in Pz.III or Pz.IV? I think it’s not weak, I don’t break the Kanesh tower like in a movie, but I think the shell shock to the crew is guaranteed ..., plus damage to everything that’s outside - antennas, machine gun, guns, etc.
          1. rjxtufh
            rjxtufh 31 October 2016 21: 48
            +2
            Quote: faiver
            but I think the shell concussion is guaranteed ..., plus damage to everything that is outside - antennas, machine gun, guns, etc.

            Is not a fact. Moreover, far away.
            If everything was so simple, the Germans would not have advanced beyond the Neman.
            1. faiver
              faiver 1 November 2016 18: 58
              0
              No, 50 at 50, but the question of the advancement of the Germans in the organization, interaction of the arms and rear, than the Red Army in 41 could not boast about ...
      2. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer 1 November 2016 09: 37
        +3
        Quote: faiver
        in 41, the three-inch was not effective against light tanks of the Wehrmacht, but against any German tanks ...


        Let's not forget that this is a divisional cannon and is designed for firing from closed positions (indirect fire), if it is rolled out for direct fire or for an ambush action, then its effectiveness will be limited to a few aimed shots before its suppression.
        In terms of evaluating the three-inch, as the PTO, it loses much to the 45 mm anti-tank gun (forty-five), which has smaller dimensions and, as a result, noticeability and a high rate of fire.
        However, in the absence of VET - any gun is better than its absence ...
    2. rjxtufh
      rjxtufh 30 October 2016 22: 32
      +5
      Quote: parusnik
      Three-inch production continued until 1937

      In fact, the old 30-gauge three-inch was discontinued in 1931. They were replaced at the same time by a 40 gauge three-inch arr. 02/30 g. And already this gun was produced until 1937.
      At the same time in 1931. A small number of upgraded 30-caliber three-inch F-10 guns were produced.
      Quote: parusnik
      and was discontinued in connection with the adoption of the 76 mm division gun model 1936 F-22

      Actually, the F-22 is also a three-inch one. Only 50 gauge. And the gun arr. 1939, this is also a three-inch. 40 gauge. Exactly the same as the ZIS-3 mod. 1942 With the three-inch USSR struck up only after the Second World War.
      Quote: parusnik
      The kinetic energy of such a projectile was enough to break through tank armor

      Do not exaggerate. It all depended on the distance and type of tank. Very often, such a projectile was not enough.
      1. Niccola Mack
        Niccola Mack 31 October 2016 10: 51
        0
        Actually, the F-22 is also a three-inch one. Only 50 gauge. And the gun arr. 1939, this is also a three-inch. 40 gauge. Exactly the same as the ZIS-3 mod. 1942


        Well, you suffered!
        Well then, let's remember:
        - regimental "bobby" 76 mm model 43 (OB-25)
        - mountain 76 mm sample 38
        - anti-aircraft gun 76 mm arr. 38
        As well as tank and caponier ones.
        All three inches.
        1. rjxtufh
          rjxtufh 31 October 2016 21: 50
          0
          Quote: Nikkola Mac
          Well then, let's remember:

          What for? We recall the guns on a well-defined cartridge.
          But if only all three-inches are not interesting to us. What do they have in common with guns in 1902? and further in the evolutionary chain, except for the numbers of the caliber?
          And so I listed everything. Field.
          1. Niccola Mack
            Niccola Mack 1 November 2016 07: 34
            0
            The expression "field" - means - for use in "field".
            Unlike siege and serf (we do not take the fleet, respectively).
            This classification is outdated in the WWI.
            And then went a gradual separation of other characteristics.
            The most, incidentally, a harmonious system developed in the Red Army.
            There, artillery was divided either by state (battalion, regiment, artillery of the RVGK, etc.)
            Or as intended (anti-tank, anti-aircraft, and more). Sometimes systems overlap.
            A definite cartridge ("shot") is an extremely incomprehensible thing (and for howitzers it is often generally meaningless), because cannon artillery finished its ballistic development back in WWI (except, perhaps, "conical" barrels and all kinds of exoticism). Further, only the caliber, barrel length (thread pitch) and powder charge varied.
            And everyone got almost the same artillery systems. Ballistics of all "three-inch" and then equalized in all countries.
            But actively aiming systems, the design of carriages and mechanisms, shells, technology.

            Your "three-inch line" doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

            Take ZiS3, strengthen the barrel, increase the powder charge 2,5 times - you get the armor penetration of PaK40.
            What is the difference between the two? - ZiS3 - station wagon (a wide range of ammunition, the ability to fire from a closed position, lighter weight), PAK40 - a specialized anti-tank gun to the detriment of the rest. These are the characteristics dictated by the purpose, but the tendency of the PaK40 to dig into the ground is already a drawback.
            You can go the other way - obzhobyvat sleeve ZiS3 by 57 mm and lengthen the barrel. We get a specialized anti-tank ZiS2 (although in fact it was the other way around), which was able to punch Pzkpf VI in the forehead. But as a division, it was clearly not suitable.
            1. rjxtufh
              rjxtufh 1 November 2016 11: 28
              0
              Quote: Nikkola Mac
              The most, incidentally, a harmonious system developed in the Red Army.

              And pink elephants were found there. And the sun every day rose pramo over the head of the mustachioed Joe.
              In the USSR, by the time the Second World War began and almost throughout its entire length, there was extremely backward and sloppy artillery of the level of the 19th century. Suitable only for WW1. Here are all these three-inches and forty-fives, this is all the 19th century. And they simply could not do a good one, there was no equipment. Because all this "Soviet industrialization", it was all a linden.
              + There was no mind to this. That was also.
              Quote: Nikkola Mac
              And everyone got almost the same artillery systems.

              Those. German universal field 75-mm gun mod. 1940. had something in common with the Soviet "divisional" (in fact, universal field) 76,2-mm guns Model 1939 and 1942?
              Just don’t make me funny. Heaven and earth.
              Quote: Nikkola Mac
              Ballistics of all "three-inch" and then equalized in all countries.

              You should not write on topics that you are not aware of.
              The ballistics of the German field 75-mm gun was not closer to the Soviet three-inch field gun, but to the Soviet anti-aircraft 76,2 mm gun 3/51-K.
              DE Soviet field 40-klb. three inches - 1380 kJ.
              DE German field 75-mm gun L46 - 2016 kJ. Later on L48 models became 2122 kJ.
              DE Soviet anti-aircraft three-inch - 2164 kJ.
              What are the field guns "equal" And with what?
              Quote: Nikkola Mac
              Your "three-inch line" doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

              Duc, where to me.
              Quote: Nikkola Mac
              Take ZiS3, strengthen the barrel, increase the powder charge 2,5 times - you get the armor penetration of PaK40.

              Those. a new cartridge (there was no longer any place in the old one), a new receiver group, new recoil devices ...
              Question - why then take the ZIS-3? What will be from her? Isn’t it easier to make a new gun?
              By the way, 2,5 times, it's super cool. Even in the Soviet 85-mm cartridges were less.
              Quote: Nikkola Mac
              ZiS3 - station wagon

              ZIS-3 is not a station wagon. ZIS-3 bespontovka. Vintage sucks.
              The charge in the OFS is small - 621g. against 680g. at the PaK40 shell.
              Penetration even to compare is ridiculous.
              Quote: Nikkola Mac
              PAK40 - a specialized anti-tank gun to the detriment of the rest.

              Who told you that there was some "damage"? Subtracted on "smart sites"? Oh well.
              There was an excellent (and extremely cheap in the L46 variant) universal field gun. The best that was during the 2MB in this caliber.
              Quote: Nikkola Mac
              But the tendency of PaK40 to dig into the ground is already a drawback.

              This is a fairy tale runet, and not a flaw. Change the recoil device for the Germans was just a spit.
              Quote: Nikkola Mac
              and lengthen the barrel

              Will not work. The USSR received deep and precise drilling machines from the USA only during the war. The consequence of this was the appearance of an 85 mm and an increase in the production of 122 mm tank guns. And the release of 57 mm guns.
              Before the war, everything was limited to 100-104 inches. Pre-revolutionary machine tools inherited from "damned tsarism".
              Quote: Nikkola Mac
              We get a specialized anti-tank ZiS2 (although in fact it was the other way around), which was able to punch Pzkpf VI in the forehead

              On the "divisional" sleeve will not pierce. However, and the real one did not break through. In addition, the real ZIS-2 had an original sleeve. Longer.
              1. Niccola Mack
                Niccola Mack 1 November 2016 15: 27
                +1
                As for the "pink elephants" - we have already discussed their migration from Russia to Germany and vice versa.

                And now the facts and sources:

                And they simply could not do good, there was no equipment.


                Will not work. The USSR received deep and precise drilling machines from the USA only during the war.


                Read carefully.

                So, what exactly was purchased by us in Germany on the eve of World War II?
                Firstly, unique industrial equipment. Soviet specialists ordered dozens and even hundreds of the most modern machines. So, the firm "A. Wirth ”received an order for multi-cutters GSAB 2, ... .. RD III MS machines - for boring products from 320 to 500 mm, boring length 1000–1200 mm. Unique gun boring machines were obtained from Germanyprocessing large propeller shafts for naval vessels. (Zhuravel V. A. The Third Reich Technologies in the Service of the USSR // History of Science and Technology. 2002, No. 5. P. 60–61).


                According to German statistics, in 1940–1941, Germany supplied the USSR with 6430 metal-cutting machines for 85,4 million German marks. For comparison: in 1939, the total number of metal-cutting machine tools imported by the Soviet Union from all countries amounted to 3458 pieces. (Foreign trade of the USSR for 1918-1940 ... P.368).


                For example, I don’t think that the experimental 80 klb. the barrel for ZiS-2 was drilled with a rotary collar.
                And for this I must say thanks to Comrade Hitler.

                Those. German universal field 75-mm gun mod. 1940g


                The Germans so called it Pak40 - Panzerjägerkanone (even my no German is enough for the words tank, hunter, gun)

                Question - why then take the ZIS-3?


                And nobody took anything - how the “division” arranged ZIS 3, but the Pak38 didn’t suit Germans (and the captured F-22 and USV too).

                Those. a new cartridge (there was no longer any place in the old one), a new receiver group, new anti-recoil devices.

                By the way, 2,5 times, it's super cool. Even in the Soviet 85-mm cartridges were less.


                TTX ZiS 3 and Pak40

                Barrel length - 40/46 klb.
                The weight of the powder in the sleeve is 1,0 / 2,7 kg.
                Combat weight - 1200/1425 kg - on the issue of increased recoil and strength of the receiver group.
                Elevation angle -37/22 degrees. - This is the question of "specialization."

                On the "divisional" sleeve will not pierce. However, and the real one did not break through. In addition, the real ZIS-2 had an original sleeve. Longer.

                Look at this opinion of the Germans in the second quote (the forehead of the "Tiger" is 100 mm).
                At the same time, the issue with the shot was resolved - a standard cartridge from a 76-mm divisional gun with re-compression of the cartridge barrel to a caliber of 57 mm was adopted as its cartridge. Such a solution simplified the production of ammunition, and also in the future made it possible to use the ZIS-2 bolt almost without changes when creating a new 76-mm divisional gun ZIS-3 (Shirokorad A. B. Genius of Soviet artillery: Triumph and tragedy of V. Grabin.).

                Even in comparison with the heavier gun - the German 75-mm anti-tank gun Cancer 40 - ZIS-2 also has advantages in armor penetration, calculated both by the Soviet and German methods. In the service of the Wehrmacht, the ZIS-2 was designated as 5,7-cm Panzerabwehrkanone 208 (r) and its penetration properties when fired by a BR-271M projectile were estimated as 140 mm of homogeneous armor when hit normally at a distance of 500 meters (IV Hogg. Allied Artillery of World War Two).


                In general, the question with the arguments is clear - only facts and documents.
                1. rjxtufh
                  rjxtufh 1 November 2016 19: 28
                  0
                  Quote: Niccola Mack
                  Read carefully.

                  Why read? I know perfectly well what and where in the USSR it was produced.
                  One long barrel plant (German) was located in Podlipki. They made anti-aircraft guns. 76, and then 85 mm.
                  The second factory, still royal, in Perm.
                  All. There were no more plants in the USSR. Whatever Juravel and others wrote to you.
                  Quote: Niccola Mack
                  For example, I don’t think that the experimental 80 klb. the barrel for ZiS-2 was drilled with a rotary collar.

                  73 gauge, but this, again, is an absolutely amateurish approach. The length of the threaded portion of the ZIS-2 guns was 3444 mm or 135,6 inches. And this figure is really extremely important. And the barrel length figure in calibers, no.
                  Then you have a traditional mistake, you confuse experimental and serial production. That's just at the pilot production in 1941. ZIS-2 trunks could drill. But on the serial, no. Therefore, all trunks arr. 1941, they are from pilot production. Gold, in fact.
                  Quote: Niccola Mack
                  The Germans called it Pak40 - Panzerjägerkanone

                  So what? The Germans of medium-caliber anti-tank guns played the role of universal. And they had no other similar ones.
                  For example, they stood on StuG assault guns, but in a variation of self-propelled assault guns (StuK40). And they stood in tanks, but already in the form of tank guns (KwK40).
                  Quote: Niccola Mack
                  how the “division” arranged ZIS 3, but the Pak38 Germans did not suit

                  Why did you write this? To the rain?
                  Quote: Niccola Mack
                  Barrel length - 40/46 klb.

                  I repeat to you for the hundredth time, the cost of producing cannon trunks is measured by the length of their threaded portion. And you measure disparate quantities. Inflating cheeks.
                  The length of the rifled part of the PaK40 barrel is exactly the same as that of the "super-cheap and super-technological" ZIS-3. This means that their trunks have the same cost and level of manufacturability.
                  Quote: Niccola Mack
                  The weight of the powder in the sleeve is 1,0 / 2,7 kg.

                  Those. the fact that they had different gunpowder, you also do not know. It’s sad.
                  Quote: Niccola Mack
                  Combat weight - 1200/1425 kg - on the issue of increased recoil and strength of the receiver

                  I recommend that you compare PaK40 not with the cheap-ersatz ZIS-3, but with a full-fledged pre-war 40-caliber F-22USV product. Which weighed 1485kg.
                  Those. more PaK40. Despite the fact that PaK40 issued DE 2016 kJ. A F-22USV (and ZIS-3) 1380 kJ.
                  So which design is more successful?
                  Quote: Niccola Mack
                  Elevation angle -37/22 degrees. - This is the question of "specialization."

                  Do not make up. Most of the ZIS-3 military release was made with a lifting angle of 23 (I write the number from memory, maybe 25) degrees.
                  Quote: Niccola Mack
                  as its cartridge case, a standard cartridge case from a 76-mm divisional gun with re-compression of the cartridge barrel to a caliber of 57 mm was adopted.

                  Well, why are you laying out all sorts of dull shnyag to me? Well, some Shirokorad wrote, well, now we need to repeat it?
                  The length of the "divisional" sleeve was 385 mm. The length of the 57 mm gun case is 480 mm. What kind of "re-compression of the neck" can be here?
                  The ZIS-2 cartridges were equipped with original cartridges.
                  Quote: Niccola Mack
                  the BR-271M projectile was rated as 140 mm of homogeneous armor when hit normally at a distance of 500 meters

                  I do not want to upset you, but these numbers are filkin letters. Here, the most natural (see below).
                  I am not going to educate you about the methods of measuring armor penetration now. Now I will not tell you that "homogeneous armor" is information about anything.
                  I’ll just draw your attention to the fact that the BR-271M shell, it is pointed and post-war. Moreover, far after the war. Something between a caliber and a sub-caliber projectile.
                  And during the war, simple shells were used. Caliber and dull-headed (not even immediately post-war acute-headed). From this, the real armor penetration during the war was significantly less than you indicated.
                  Quote: Niccola Mack
                  In general, the question with the arguments is clear - only facts and documents.

                  Well yes. A set of filkin certificates (see above). These are what you call "facts and arguments."
                  1. Niccola Mack
                    Niccola Mack 2 November 2016 16: 21
                    +1
                    Already the facts and documents have passed into the category of “phylactic letters”.
                    By the way, I have not seen one from you yet.
                    In general, everything is clear!
                    At "Krupp" and "Rheinmetall" worked "no" designers.
                    The "Land Forces Arms Department (HWaA)" served as "no" officers - even a cannon is not able to correctly name.
                    About our designers and GAU you can not remember at all.
                    All writers on artillery topics - complete yap.
                    And only you have a “portal” with true information.

                    There is nothing more to talk about.

                    I want only at the end to give my version of a question that really cuts my eyes and correct one of my mistakes (more precisely, a typo).

                    Why read? I know perfectly well what and where in the USSR it was produced.
                    One long barrel plant (German) was located in Podlipki. They made anti-aircraft guns. 76, and then 85 mm.
                    The second factory, still royal, in Perm. All. There were no more plants in the USSR.


                    Your “Perm factory” is probably Motovilikha - “Motovilikhinsky factories” (aka “Perm Cannon factories”, aka “Plant named after Lenin”, aka plant number 172).

                    I don’t understand how, in the context of “divisions” and “long barrels,” one can not know about the existence of the Novoye (Krasnoye) Sormovo plant in Nizhny Novgorod (Gorky) - he is ZiS, aka Gorky Machine-Building Plant, aka Plant No. 92. By the way, there were still factories.

                    It was from 1934 that the ideas of KB Grabin were embodied in metal here, it was here that “conical” trunks were drilled, bored and cut first, and then trunks for the “ZiS-2 line”.

                    For example, I don’t think that the experimental 80 klb. the barrel for ZiS-2 was drilled with a rotary collar.


                    73 gauge, but this, again, is an absolutely amateurish approach.


                    Here I made a mistake (more precisely, a typo) - 86 calibers - the barrel for the upgraded ZiS 2 (which is not entirely true), the gun should have been called the ZiS-1KV and did not pass the test, but the unique barrel was drilled, bored and cut.

                    Because the hardest thing to make a long barrel is in calibers (the ratio of the cross-section of the tool to the length).

                    The length of the threaded portion of the ZIS-2 guns was 3444 mm or 135,6 inches. And this figure is really extremely important. And the barrel length figure in calibers, no.


                    With this approach, forget about equipping factories in Podlipki, Perm and Gorky.
                    Go straight to Stalingrad (Volgograd).
                    There, before the war, from the tsarist times, the Barricades factory (Tsaritsyno gun factory) worked.
                    It was his equipment that made it possible to make barrels almost 21 meters long (more precisely 20 720 mm) for the MP-10 gun mount before the war. This is the largest weapon of the USSR (and with the longest barrel), which took part in the war.
                    But to compare it (the main caliber of the battleship) with “anti-aircraft guns” or “divisions” is like an elephant with a mouse.
                    On the same "Barricades" before the war, A-19s were produced (5650 mm barrel, but only 46 calibers)

                    In the end, I would like to say your famous “And you did not know. It’s regrettable, ”but somehow it makes no sense.
                    1. rjxtufh
                      rjxtufh 2 November 2016 17: 20
                      0
                      Quote: Nikkola Mac
                      Already the facts and documents have passed into the category of “phylactic letters”.

                      Of course. How can a shell fired already after a decent time after the end of the war be credited to wartime ammunition? Those. the shell was not even post-war, but after the post-war generation. Looks like juggling.
                      Quote: Nikkola Mac
                      I don’t understand how, in the context of “divisions” and “long barrels,” one can not know about the existence of the Novoye (Krasnoye) Sormovo plant in Nizhny Novgorod (Gorky) - it’s ZiS, it’s also the Gorky Machine-Building Plant, it’s plant number 92.

                      And what does this plant have to do with the production of long barrels? He could not do long barrels. And precisely for this reason, for the year (1941) I could not master serial production of ZIS-2. After which it was discontinued. The equipment did not allow.
                      Quote: Nikkola Mac
                      the gun was supposed to be called ZiS-1KV and did not pass the test, but the unique barrel was drilled, bored and cut.

                      And I’ll repeat for the 100th time, do not confuse pilot production with serial production.
                      Quote: Nikkola Mac
                      Because the hardest thing to make a long barrel is in calibers (the ratio of the cross-section of the tool to the length).

                      This is nonsense, of course. The drill doesn’t care what the relation is and where. But the length (depth) of drilling (in absolute numbers) matters.
                      Quote: Nikkola Mac
                      With this approach, forget about equipping factories in Podlipki, Perm and Gorky.

                      In Gorky about this throughout 1941. forgot. And at the end of the year they forgot.
                      But the rest of the production was occupied by more important products. There were no free capacities.
                      Quote: Nikkola Mac
                      There, before the war, from the tsarist times, the Barricades factory (Tsaritsyno gun factory) worked.

                      It was precisely the equipment of the tsarist times that he had. That allowed him to massively drill three-inch (102 "), but did not allow him to massively drill long-barrels.
                      Quote: Nikkola Mac
                      On the same "Barricades" before the war, A-19s were produced (5650 mm barrel, but only 46 calibers)

                      I understood. What is small-scale production (actually a variation of the experimental), you are also not up to date.
                      Quote: Nikkola Mac
                      In the end, I would like to say your famous “And you did not know. It’s regrettable, ”but somehow it makes no sense.

                      You will not succeed. For traditionally you do not know.
    3. Vend
      Vend 31 October 2016 09: 58
      0
      The great glory of Russian weapons.
  2. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 30 October 2016 17: 02
    +8
    "Scythe of Victory"

    There was a braid, but the victory did not work.

    Because German large-caliber artillery mowed down
    several times farther away.
    Including, mowing and three-inch batteries. sad
    1. Region-25.rus
      Region-25.rus 30 October 2016 22: 22
      +3
      and also from mediocre or in some cases treacherous leadership! And .... revolutionary agitation of all kinds of Trotsky, Bronstein, Shamizons ... and the liberals supporting them. What contributed to the breakdown of discipline (which was despite the situation in Russia in those years! And many other factors ... It is not known what more influenced. I suspect that the latter is more likely.
      1. Signore Tomato
        Signore Tomato 2 January 2017 09: 41
        0
        Quote: Region-25.rus
        and also from mediocre or in some cases treacherous leadership! And .... revolutionary agitation of all kinds of Trotsky, Bronstein, Shamizons ... and the liberals supporting them. What contributed to the breakdown of discipline (which was despite the situation in Russia in those years! And many other factors ... It is not known what more influenced. I suspect that the latter is more likely.


        Exactly! As soon as all sorts of Berezovskys started yelling about a "truce" so immediately surrounded by chichi got the opportunity to escape from complete destruction! Kagtavye and betrayal - they are one person.
  3. Molot1979
    Molot1979 31 October 2016 05: 36
    +4
    With field artillery, everything was fine, even wonderful, but only wars with field guns alone could not be won. And with the heavy in the Russian army was a real disaster, and even the shells were not enough.
    1. rjxtufh
      rjxtufh 31 October 2016 10: 33
      0
      Quote: Molot1979
      Everything was fine with field artillery

      In times of 1MB, maybe. But the fact that the same gun remained the main one during WW2 was already a disaster. Because by then it was already old.
      It became especially clear in the second half of the Second World War. But there was no replacement, I had to finish IT.
      1. Niccola Mack
        Niccola Mack 31 October 2016 11: 16
        +1
        Interestingly, what should we replace the ZiS-3 with as a divisional gun?
        1. rjxtufh
          rjxtufh 31 October 2016 21: 56
          0
          Quote: Nikkola Mac
          Interestingly, what should we replace the ZiS-3 with as a divisional gun?

          There were plenty of options. But this is empty, I had to fight at the end of the 19th century.
          Let me remind you, Russian three-inch model. 1902, this is a remake of the Russian three-inch model. 1900 This cannon is a rehash of the French 75mm field cannon mod. 1897 Only greatly deteriorated (in Russia and the USSR it was called "technological"). Those. you have to understand, when you see some kind of Soviet "very technological product", you have to understand right away, in terms of performance characteristics this is most likely complete sucks.
          1. Niccola Mack
            Niccola Mack 1 November 2016 07: 54
            +1
            Those. you have to understand, when you see some kind of Soviet "very technological product", you have to understand right away, in terms of performance characteristics this is most likely complete sucks.


            It’s on your conscience, I don’t even want to argue (I'm tired).

            But this is empty, I had to fight at the end of the 19th century.


            I said about ballistics above, but what about the examples of "non-standing" of the late 30s among the Germans, the British, the French, the Americans - only the "divisional" class.
            1. rjxtufh
              rjxtufh 1 November 2016 11: 30
              0
              Quote: Nikkola Mac
              But what about the examples of the "non-standing" of the late 30s among the Germans, the British, the French, the Americans - only the "divisional" class.

              So they did not have divisions. Except the French. This format has outlived itself to 2MB.
              And the Soviet "divisions" in the reality of the Second World War were not divisional guns, but anti-tank guns. Others were really anti-tank ones until 1943. practically none.
              Because the pre-war "anti-tank forty-five" with the beginning of the war rather briskly degraded to the level of something like a battalion cannon.
              1. Niccola Mack
                Niccola Mack 1 November 2016 16: 11
                +2
                This format has outlived itself to 2MB.

                But the Germans, when faced with the T-34 and KV in their own skin, felt the lack of an outdated format of “divisions” - with their super Pak36. And they had to put up against them howitzers, corps artillery and the famous "eight-eight" - a gun from another kind of troops (Luftwaffe).
                Urgently had to collect everything anti-tank from everywhere - F22 (7,62 cm Pak 36 (r)), SPM (7,62 cm FK297 (r)), etc.
                Other really anti-tank until 1943. practically was not.


                Forty-five (including the modernized one) quite adequately fought armored vehicles until the middle of 43.
                It is a fact that the ZiS 2 was removed from service in 41 “because of excess power”.
                Because the pre-war "anti-tank forty-five" with the beginning of the war rather briskly degraded to the level of something like a battalion cannon.


                Forty-five even before the war was in service with the staff of infantry battalions.
                If we give an example of degradation with the outbreak of war, then this is the 37 mm Pak36 - the “mother of forty”, although Soviet tankers noted damage to these guns even in the Berlin operation.
                1. rjxtufh
                  rjxtufh 1 November 2016 19: 45
                  0
                  Quote: Nikkola Mac
                  here the Germans, when faced with the T-34 and KV in their own skin, felt the lack of an outdated format of “divisions” - with their super Pak36. And they had to put up against them howitzers, corps artillery and the famous "eight-eight" - a gun from a different kind of troops (Luftwaffe).
                  Urgently had to collect everything anti-tank from everywhere - F22 (7,62 cm Pak 36 (r)), SPM (7,62 cm FK297 (r)), etc.

                  All this is untrue.
                  In addition to PaK36, the Germans still had more armor-piercing:
                  Pak 36 (p) (Beaufors)
                  Pak 35/36 (ö)
                  Pak M37 (t)
                  Pak 36 (t)
                  Pak 181 (f)
                  Pak 38
                  In addition, the Germans launched an urgent release of Pak 97/38. This is a French 75-mm field gun (trophy), the grandmother of the Soviet three-inch, on a carriage of an anti-tank gun arr. 1938
                  Therefore, they had no problems with HF, and even more so with the T-34 (Pak36 easily fought on board).
                  Quote: Nikkola Mac
                  Forty-five (including the modernized one) quite adequately fought armored vehicles until the middle of 43.

                  Apparently that is why she was nicknamed "goodbye, Motherland."
                  Quote: Nikkola Mac
                  It is a fact that the ZiS 2 was removed from service in 41 “because of excess power”.

                  Gee-gee. It's like "quit because of too much salary."
                  Will you continue to tell tales?
                  Quote: Nikkola Mac
                  Forty-five even before the war was in service with the staff of infantry battalions.

                  Those. you do not understand the difference between a "battalion" and an anti-tank gun in a battalion's staff. It's sad.
                  Quote: Nikkola Mac
                  then this is 37 mm Pak36 - “mother of forty”

                  In fact, the "mother of the forty-five" was the 47-mm naval gun Hotchkiss mod. 1885 Their production was mastered in Russia before WW1. But the SHIELD, yes, was taken from the 37-mm anti-tank gun 5-K mod. 1930 Which is, in fact, the sister of the German Pak36, tk. they have a common ancestor, Pak29 arr. 1929
                  So what's in the Pak36 besides the shield? Where did the "mother" come from?
  4. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 1 November 2016 09: 16
    +3
    And since each gave six rounds per minute, it is obvious that 18 guns of the infantry division will destroy everything in an area of ​​up to a kilometer. Even entrenched machine gunners led to silence.


    Very little is written - superficially. Three-inch deserves a more detailed narrative - the background of creation.
    It can be written that the main problem of Russian artillery in WWI was not the quality of the artillery and the training of the artillerymen, but the lack of ammunition, which had to be ordered from France, since the Russian industry could provide the army with only 1/100 of the required ammunition. The "shell hunger" led to the fact that for 1 Russian shell - 5 Austrian or 10 German ones flew in ...