Soviet SAU of times of war (part 1) - Su-76

21
The Red Army entered World War II, without having in the army a single production version of self-propelled guns that could be used both to support infantry in the offensive and to combat tanks the enemy. Armed in the late 1930s, self-propelled guns SU-5, created on the basis of the T-26 light tank, were released in a very insignificant series and were used only occasionally during a campaign in Poland. In the summer of 1941, the question of the need for self-propelled guns arose so sharply that by the end of the year a surrogate self-propelled gun ZIS-30 was created, created on the basis of the Komsomolets artillery tractor. This machine had a small power reserve, was unstable and heavily weighted, although it could at the same time quite successfully hit almost all Wehrmacht armored vehicles.

An attempt to develop a fully armored self-propelled gun armed with an 76-mm cannon, the Gorky Automobile Plant, on its own initiative, launched the 1941 of the year in the fall. At the same time the company mastered the production of a light tank T-60 and were engaged in designing a more advanced machine - T-70. Using the elements of the transmission and the undercarriage of these tanks, the designers created an SU-71 self-propelled artillery gun with two parallelly arranged automobile 6-cylinder engines GAZ-202. Along with it, there were works on a unified SU-72 anti-aircraft installation with a 37-mm automatic cannon in a rotating turret. However, in the end, none of the machines in the series did not go.

The situation changed only in the spring of 1942, when a turn came in the USSR in increasing the production of armored vehicles and the task of creating an ACS rose with a new force. It was quite obvious that in the present conditions of war, infantry, cavalry and tanks should be supported by self-propelled artillery, which could easily maneuver on the ground, move closer to the enemy and be protected from its machine-gun fire. SAUs could effectively and without long preparation destroy enemy tanks and their firing points with direct fire, as well as from closed positions.

Soviet SAU of times of war (part 1) - Su-76

By July 1942, the first model of the self-propelled gun OCU-76 was built, created on the basis of the T-60 tank, but equipped with a cheaper M-1 automobile engine in production. This vehicle turned out to be unstable when firing because of its rather short base, and its armor protection was too weak. In fact, to create a fully-fledged, mobile, sufficiently protected self-propelled divisional gun of limited mass (up to 10 tons), which the light tank chassis would withstand, was a nontrivial task.

Realizing the need for self-propelled guns for the front, the State Defense Committee (GKO) by 1 December 1942, commissions to create a new self-propelled unit. This time they took as a basis the chassis of the T-70 tank, which was well mastered by industry. The combat compartment of the SAU was located in the rear so that the barrel of the ZIS-3 gun did not extend beyond the dimensions of the vehicle. The power plant included 2 in parallel operating the engine GAZ-202 with a total capacity of 140 HP. Exactly the same engine (in one copy) was used on the T-60 tank.

First of all, designers were attracted by the possibility of moving the ACS on one engine when another fails, as well as the unification of the machine with used units and the ease of replacement. The design for some reason did not take into account the experience of the unsuccessful use of blocks of two parallel motors that would work on the 1 output shaft. The creators ignored the serial connection of the engines in line, which was already used on the T-70 tank. Be that as it may, the self-propelled gun was tested and put into service under the designation SU-76. Its mass production began in January 1943, and at the end of the month the first regiment 2 armed with ACS data left for the Volkhov front. Here the car and "showered." A congenital defect of such an engine connection has been felt - when operating, resonant torsional vibrations arose, which very soon led to the failure of the transmission.


In March, 1943, the production of ACS was stopped (about 170 machines were released). The car had to get rid of all the shortcomings in the shortest possible time. As a result, by May 1943, a new version, called SU-76M, was put on the conveyor. The car was quickly reworked for installing the engine from the T-70 tank, the roof was removed from the crew compartment, which interfered with the guidance of the gun and the calculation, simplified transmission and control, and the weight of the car decreased from 11,2 to 10,5 tons. Already in July, 1943, the new self-propelled gun received a baptism of fire during the battle of Kursk.

Description of construction

SU-76 is a half-open SAU with rear combat compartment. In front of the armored hull housed the driver's seat, the propulsion system and transmission, gas tanks. The engine was located to the right of the centerline of the self-propelled gun. The gun, ammunition and the places of the rest of the crew members were located in the rear part of the military cabin, which was open above and behind.

The fighting compartment was a cabin, which was defended by two side and front armor plates. Reservations were differentiated bulletproof. Frontal sheet of the cabin body thickness of 35 mm. was located at an angle of 60 degrees to the normal, the side walls of the cabin had a thickness of 10 mm. and located at an angle of 25 degrees. Booking self-propelled guns protected the crew of 4 people from small fire weapons and large fragments. The rear wall of the cabin was lower than the sides and had a special door. For protection from the weather on the self-propelled, a canvas awning was used, which served as a roof. The SAU commander was located to the right of the gun, the gunner to the left, and the loader from behind. All SU-76 machines were equipped with receiving and transmitting radio stations and a tank intercom.


SAU SU-76 was equipped with a power plant, which consisted of two 4-stroke inline six-cylinder carburetor engines GAZ-202 with a total power of 140 hp. ACS of the later series of release were equipped with the forced to 85 HP. engines. Self-propelled suspension was torsional, individual for each of the 6 small-diameter support rollers (on each side). The drive wheels were in front, while the sloths were identical to the road wheels.

On the highway, the self-propelled gun could accelerate to 41-45 km / h, the speed on the ground was lower and was 25 km / h. Cruising on the highway was equal to 250 km., Over rough terrain - 190 km. Su-76 could overcome a trench up to 2 meters wide, climb a mountain with a slope of 30 degrees and overcome a ford to a depth of 0,9 meters. Due to the low ground pressure (total 0,545 kgf / cm.kv.), The Su-76 could move quite easily in a wooded and marshy area, supporting the infantry where the medium tanks and other SPGs could not help. The developed cooling system and the availability of a fail-safe engine preheater made it possible to operate the machine at any time of the year throughout the Soviet-German front from the northern regions of Karelia to the Crimea. Automotive 6-cylinder engines, which were mastered in production shortly before the outbreak of the war, successfully worked in a tight tank mode. Unusual installation of engines in the "back of the head" to each other anywhere in the world is no longer used.

The main weapon of the self-propelled gun was the ZIS-3 universal divisional weapon. A sub-caliber projectile of this gun at a distance of half a kilometer was able to penetrate armor up to 91 mm thick. That is, the gun could hit any part of the hull of German medium tanks, as well as the board of the "Tigers" and "Panthers". Additionally, the self-propelled guns had a portable DT machine gun for self-defense, for the same purpose the crew could use PPS and PPSh submachine guns, as well as several F-1 hand grenades.


The ZIS-3 gun had a barrel length of 40 calibers, a wedge vertical shutter and a semiautomatic mechanism. The armor-piercing projectile of this gun weighed 6,3 kg, high-explosive fragmentation - 6,2 kg. The initial velocity of the armor-piercing projectile was equal to 662 m / s. The gun was mounted on the machine for the armor shield felling. The recoil mechanisms were enclosed in an armored casing. Sighting equipment consisted of a regular panoramic sight. The corners of the vertical pickup ranged from -5 to + 15 degrees, the angles of the horizontal pickup were equal to 15 degrees (in each direction). Ammunition self-propelled guns included 60 unitary shots, among which could be armor-piercing, high-explosive and cumulative. Sufficiently trained calculation could achieve rate of fire at the level of 8-10 shots per minute.

The small metal consumption of the ACS SU-76, as well as the use in its design of well-developed automobile components and assemblies by the Soviet industry, determined its mass production. Which in turn made it possible in the shortest possible time to strengthen and compact the artillery orders of infantry, which quickly fell in love and appreciated these machines. A total of 1943 to 1945 year was produced 14 292 similar SAU. It was SU-76 that became the second in terms of output after the T-34 tank an armored vehicle of the Red Army.

Combat application

SU-76 was intended for infantry support on the battlefield and was used as a light assault gun or PT-ACS. It completely replaced the light tanks of the immediate support of the infantry, which were common in the Red Army. In this case, the evaluation of the car was quite controversial. The SAU SU-76 infantrymen liked it, since its firepower was superior to the T-70 tank, and the open wheelhouse made it possible to work closely with the crew, especially in urban battles. At the same time, the self-propelled guns themselves often noted the weak points of the machine, which included, in particular, weak bullet-proof reservations, an increased fire hazard from the gasoline engine and an open wheelhouse, which did not protect against fire from above. At the same time, the open wheelhouse was convenient for the crew’s work, and also removed the problem of gas pollution in the crew compartment during firing, and also allowed, if necessary, to quickly leave the ACS. Also the positive sides of the car were - reliability, ease of maintenance, low noise, high traffic.


As a PT-SAU, the SU-76 could quite successfully deal with all types of light and medium Wehrmacht tanks, as well as with equivalent German SAUs. Self-propelled gun had a chance to win even against the "Panther", punching its thin side armor. At the same time against the "Tiger" and heavier vehicles, it was ineffective. When meeting with heavy tanks, the crew could fire on the undercarriage or try to damage the barrel, as well as hit the side from close range. The introduction of sub-caliber and cumulative shells into ammunition somewhat simplified the fight against well-armored targets, but did not completely solve the problem.

Proper use of terrain and camouflage while maneuvering from one shelter dug in to the ground to another allowed experienced SAU crews to successfully repel German tank attacks. Sometimes SU-76 was used to fire from closed positions. The elevation angle of its gun was the highest among all Soviet self-propelled guns, and the maximum firing range was 17 km. At the final stage of the war, self-propelled guns were often used as ersatz-armored personnel carriers, vehicles for evacuating the wounded, and also as a machine of advanced artillery observers.

Performance characteristics: SU-76
Mass: 10,5 t.
Dimensions:
Length 5 m., Width 2,74 m., Height 2,2 m.
Crew: 4 people.
Reservations: from 7 to 35 mm.
Armament: 76,2-mm gun ZIS-3
Ammunition: 60 shells
Engine: two 6-cylinder petrol engines GAZ 202, hp power 70 each.
Maximum speed: on the highway - 44 km / h, over rough terrain - 25 km / hour
Power reserve: on the highway - 250 km., Over rough terrain - 190 km.
21 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. J_silver
    0
    27 January 2012 08: 21
    The main advantage is simple and cheap, the rest is a frankly weak machine, but better than none at all ...
    1. grizzlir
      +9
      27 January 2012 08: 35
      The machine is not weak, it was not created to fight tanks, but to support infantry, primarily the suppression of firing points, although it could show teeth to many tanks. Agree that when gunners attack, it’s not so nice to roll 76mm or forty fighters in chains attacking manually as move for armor.
      1. +4
        27 January 2012 14: 46
        I fully support it. The vehicle was originally positioned as a mobile, artillery support platform for infantry and not as a tank destroyer, and as a counter-tank, in general. not inherent to her function. As for the insufficient armor protection, and in particular the absence of a fully enclosed armored jacket, and there were claims from the front-line soldiers, it was not for nothing that this self-propelled gun was jokingly called "a naked ferdinand". But sometimes it was the absence of a closed armored chamber that allowed the crew to survive. Once upon a time I heard the recollections of a veteran who fought on a Su-76, I don't remember the details, but the point is that after a shell hit the car. the crew was simply thrown out of the fighting compartment, everyone received concussions, bruises and wounds of varying degrees, but they survived.
        1. J_silver
          0
          27 January 2012 14: 49
          My grandfather said - already in East Prussia such an entire division had gone by someone’s not-so-smart order to directly support the infantry in the offensive, so everyone remained on the field in a row!
          And not very many were thrown out, you know ...
          1. Kibb
            0
            27 January 2012 14: 55
            Do you think the armor would save at the same time? They didn’t scout the enemy’s weapons, they didn’t suppress them accordingly ... IS would have remained in a row exactly under such conditions
          2. +2
            27 January 2012 15: 05
            Quote: J_Silver
            And not very many were thrown out, you know ...

            Well, you understand that this is a special case. In general, of course, they died, given the scale and fierce fighting, it is stupid to count on a different outcome.
            Quote: J_Silver
            by someone else’s not very smart order

            You yourself have indicated the reason. The most advanced technology can be placed in such conditions that its lot will only pass into the category of "burnt iron". There are plenty of examples ...
      2. +3
        27 January 2012 21: 16
        Quote: grizzlir
        The machine is not weak, it was not created to fight tanks, but to support infantry, primarily the suppression of firing points, although it could show teeth to many tanks.


        Victor, I support - the introduction of sub-caliber and cumulative shells simplified the fight against heavily armored targets.
        1. Kibb
          +1
          27 January 2012 22: 47
          Not as much as we would like, for example, the Tiger ZiS3 forehead like F34 did not even take cumulative, and if only the Tiger ...
          But here we must take into account that the problem of combating heavily armored GERMAN targets was a common problem for the Allies
          As you know, "tanks do not fight with tanks, tanks are at war, excuse me with the infantry" ... all the more so for the self-propelled guns of direct support of the regimental-divisional link
  2. Old prdun
    +4
    27 January 2012 08: 44
    Why not? Su-85, Su-100. I immediately remembered ml. l-that Maleshkina. from the film "In War, As In War". And this dryer still sticks out in service with the Skorea Army.
    1. Kibb
      +3
      27 January 2012 22: 43
      Quote: Old prdun
      "In war, as in war."

      Here IMHO this film shows the place and role of self-propelled guns well in that war, the film is wonderful ... The truth is there about the PT though ... The role of the SU85 was played by the SU100, but still - the movie is excellent
  3. grizzlir
    +2
    27 January 2012 08: 57
    The Su-85 and Su-100 have slightly different destinations, and if I was not mistaken, they were created a little later. And the Su-76 is a machine designed to support infantry, moved in the ranks of attackers during the offensive, and supported fire from closed positions and more often on direct fire in defense. Compare Su-85 with Su -76, the same as comparing a light tank and medium. Both types of tanks are needed, each tank has its own task.
  4. +6
    27 January 2012 11: 30
    Great memories of her front-line soldiers as self-propelled gunners and infantrymen whom they supported ... fire and caterpillars ..

    Negative reviews come from tankers transferred to self-propelled guns, and if used improperly .... by tank ..
    1. +3
      28 January 2012 11: 57
      Unfortunately, many commanders (company-battalion) of the Red Army (I’m not talking about fighters) considered the tank destroyers as a tank. There is a gun, there are tracks, there is armor - TANK! From here follows the wrong application.
      1. Odesit
        0
        28 January 2012 12: 12
        Absolutely true DEAR Andrey 77!
        Do not add, do not turn it down!
  5. Kibb
    +3
    27 January 2012 12: 41
    Self-propelled guns support infantry, i.e. just ZiS 3 on the tracks, no one else demanded anything from her when issuing a design assignment, as they used this is another question ... smiled max range 17 km)))
  6. 755962
    +2
    27 January 2012 14: 11
    Despite some weaknesses in the combat properties of the SU-76 (bulletproof armor, gasoline engines), vehicles of this type, complementing other types of tanks with self-propelled guns, were widely used in hostilities. Having in the ammunition different types of ammunition, the SU-76 could hit manpower, artillery and armored targets of the enemy. A caliber projectile from a distance of 500 m pierced armor up to 100 mm thick. Self-propelled installation had good cross-country ability, allowing it to accompany the infantry with both fire and wheels.
    1. Kibb
      +1
      27 January 2012 14: 20
      But there were practically no sub-caliber and cumulative shells in the ammunition tank, and with the ZiS 3 disc it was weak. However, this is not a PT gun or a tank destroyer.
  7. 0
    27 January 2012 18: 37
    By the way. There is a documentary film "Armor of Russia". The development of armored vehicles in the USSR (Russia) is shown quite well (although in a journalistic way). Now I'm looking. Didn't watch it completely on TV, you can download it at rutracker.org.
    On this topic. SU-76 were created as a light self-propelled guns with the possibility of an assault gun. Miracles do not happen, but the SU-76 fought until the 90s (and maybe still shoot somewhere) fellow
  8. Odesit
    +1
    28 January 2012 12: 26
    A difficult question to discuss.
    On the one hand, it is not much inferior to more than half of the German "ersatz", on the other hand, frankly weak booking and a gasoline engine-lighter.
    The authors of the comments are right that this is not a tank destroyer or even an anti-tank gun on a self-propelled gun carriage. This is an infantry escort weapon. And as Alexei 77 correctly said, it must be carefully applied on the battlefield.
    In many ways I agree with KARS! He still knows the performance characteristics of armored vehicles!
    In the end, it was the SU-76 that entered Berlin, not the Jagdpanther in Moscow!
    1. grizzlir
      -1
      28 January 2012 12: 35
      Gasoline engines were all over German armored vehicles and also burned well. Maybe I'm wrong and the Germans had diesel engines on some samples, who knows the right thing. As for the Su 76, reading the memories of the soldiers who fought on this self-propelled gun, we can conclude that the shell hit most often led to the destruction of the fuel tank and a fire. It seems to me all because the self-propelled gun is too compact, all nodes are nearby and the armor is not against shells.
      1. -2
        28 January 2012 13: 43
        Hit the projectile in the usual (on the carriage) ZIS-3 - khan calculation. What we are talking about?
        1. grizzlir
          -1
          28 January 2012 13: 52
          The hit of a fragmentation shell near the ZIS-3 knocked out the calculation, so that the self-propelled gun was at least somehow protected.
          1. -3
            28 January 2012 13: 56
            The forum member "grizzlir" is not in the know. He has a fire phobia.
  9. 0
    28 January 2012 14: 04
    Quote: Odess
    frankly weak booking

    Well, you can always make a ferdinand, but in reality there is no big difference between 35mm and 60 mm, but there is a drop in maneuverability and load on the chassis.

    That roof is really a difficult question, and there is no definite answer to regret, and both have disadvantages and advantages.
    Quote: grizzlir
    led to the destruction of the fuel tank and fire

    Not so often --- but it only matters for the repair crews after the battle, the only thing that the tanks could accommodate all the same is slightly different.

    To avoid special disputes and who are interested, I recommend reading
    1. +1
      28 January 2012 15: 41
      There is still a rather interesting book of memoirs of a veteran who fought at the 76 SU
  10. +1
    28 January 2012 14: 16
    My grandfather told (he was a tanker, starting from Yelnya), he read it himself - the troops called the SU-76 "bitch", but they loved it. It was a normal car, only the mechanic drive, when hit, burned alive, because it was sitting between the gas tank and the engine.
    That was, in his opinion, the worst of her.
    And about the characteristics .. and application - a lot of the war goes strictly according to the performance characteristics and charters?
  11. Odesit
    0
    28 January 2012 15: 10
    I read somewhere that a number of SU -76s were assembled on the chassis of the captured T-3 and T-4.
    KARSU
    By and large, any armored vehicles is the mass grave of the crew. What we have, what the Fritz, what the Americans.
    When the ammunition explodes, it’s not up to ideology.
  12. +1
    28 January 2012 15: 39
    Quote: Odess
    By and large, any armored vehicles is a mass grave of the crew


    It’s true --- but the main question is how much they will be able to kill the enemy before. And to save their own - and how much resources will be spent on their creation
    In this regard, the 76 SU is a great car.
    Quote: Odess
    SU -76-th were assembled on the chassis of the captured T-3 and T-4.


    They were called SU 76I
    1. grizzlir
      +1
      28 January 2012 19: 19
      It’s difficult to judge from the photograph, but it seems that instead of the ZiS-3 gun, an F-34 tank gun was installed in the wheelhouse. Such self-propelled guns were made in a tractor factory in Stalingrad, armored pilothouse and guns from Soviet wrecked tanks were not recoverable.
      1. Odesit
        0
        28 January 2012 19: 35
        Indeed, it seems to be similar to the F-34.
        1. Kibb
          0
          30 January 2012 15: 31
          Namely F34 and put
  13. Odesit
    0
    28 January 2012 16: 53
    Thank you for the data, I will save the photo in my archive.
    Just a question? How did the troika chassis withstand a fully armored wheelhouse and a heavier art system? Or is the deckhouse as open as on SU 76? not visible in this photo.
    1. +1
      28 January 2012 17: 04
      A fully branded wheelhouse, but it is not particularly strong and armored, and the triple chassis has its own tower which is not much easier to carry.

      If you want to find out more (I also know exactly that much) find a book
      there a whole chapter is devoted to self-propelled guns on trophy chassis
      1. Odesit
        0
        28 January 2012 18: 58
        Welcome to read.
  14. grizzlir
    0
    29 January 2012 10: 09
    Quote: Andrey77
    The forum member "grizzlir" is not in the know. He has a fire phobia.

    I’m all the same a respected tanker, and thank God it didn’t burn in the tank, but I can imagine what a fire is in a box. Here is a very good site, and most importantly, first-hand memories. They all also know fire-phobia, although they compare the lives of these I don’t even try people with ours, I don’t want to survive this http://iremember.ru/samokhodchiki/blog.html
    1. 0
      1 February 2012 13: 33
      I didn’t sit in the tank (and especially did not fight in the tank), I’m a rocket launcher. Everyone has their own cockroaches in their heads. When I’m traveling by train, I listen to the chassis ... don’t we’ll be sure ... It’s clear that the train is not a BZHRK, but the reflexes have already been developed. We had a similar composition. But objectively - this is a phobia. And do not argue.