Soviet SAU of times of war (part 2) - Su-122

17
SU-122 is the average Soviet mass self-propelled gun of the class of assault guns (with minor restrictions, it could serve as a self-propelled howitzer). This machine was one of the first self-propelled guns that were taken into large-scale production in the USSR. The stimulus for the creation of self-propelled guns was the need for maximum simplification of the design tank T-34 in difficult conditions for the country in the middle of 1942 and the need to give the tank and mechanized units a highly mobile and powerful means of fire support.

The Plenum of the GAU Artillery Committee, held on April 15, in which representatives from the military, industry, and the People’s Commissariat of Arms took part, determined the development directions of the Soviet self-propelled artillery. The Red Army was to have an infantry assault-assault-assault-assault-assault infantry support system armed with a ZIS-1942 divisional gun, an X-NUMX-mm howitzer M-76 and a self-propelled do-bomber fighter, armed with an 3-mm howitzer ML-122 cannon. In general, the decisions of the plenum were reduced to the creation of such a self-propelled artillery system that could provide support and support for the advancing infantry and tanks with their fire, were able to follow the advancing forces and open fire at any moment. The decisions taken at the plenary session were approved by the State Defense Committee.

In the shortest possible time, by the 30 of November 1942, the design work was completed at the Ural Heavy Machinery Plant (UZTM, Uralmash) and the first prototype of the SU-122 was manufactured. Due to the lack of self-propelled artillery, the ACS SU-122 was launched into mass production in December, during which the machine was constantly subjected to numerous modifications related to the hasty launch of the series and an insignificant testing period. The ACS was produced from December 1942 of the year to August of the 1943 year, in total, the 638 self-propelled guns of this series were released. The release of the SU-122 was discontinued due to the transition to the production of the SU-85 tank destroyer, which was created on its base.
Soviet SAU of times of war (part 2) - Su-122

Design features

The SU-122 SAU had the same layout as all other serial Soviet self-propelled guns, with the exception of the SU-76. The fully armored hull was divided into 2 units. In the anterior there was an armored cabin, which housed the crew, gun and ammunition - it combined in itself a command and control unit and a combat unit. In the stern of the car were the engine and transmission. The crew of SAU consisted of 5 people. Three crew members were located to the left of the gun: the driver was the first, the gunner was behind him, the loader was behind them. Another 2 person was right from the gun - the commander of self-propelled gun and castle. The fuel tanks were located along the sides between the shafts of the individual spring suspension units, including in the manned compartment of the vehicle. Such an arrangement adversely affected the crew’s survival rate and explosion safety in case of a self-propelled self-propelled gun.

A relatively large self-propelled crew (5 man) was needed, since the 122-mm gun had separate loading, a piston gate and a guidance mechanism spread on both sides of the gun. To the right was the flywheel of the sector lifting mechanism, and to the left was the flywheel of the screw turning mechanism.

The armored hull and cabin of the ACS were made of rolled armor plates with thickness 45, 40, 20 and 15 mm. by welding, booking self-propelled guns was counterdischarged. Armor plates of the forehead of the cabin and the body of the ACS had rational angles of inclination. On the prototype and the first versions of the ACS, the frontal part of the cabin was assembled from 2-x armor plates installed at different angles of inclination, but later it was replaced with a single piece, which was installed at an angle of 50 degrees to the normal.

For ease of maintenance and repair, the overmotor armor plates were made removable, and the upper stern detail was hinged. In the roof of the armored jacket there were 2 large openings - for installation of the observation turret of the panoramic sight and the landing hatch / disembarking hatch. This hatch (with the exception of the emergency at the bottom of the hull) was the only means of the crew to leave the SAU. The driver's hatch in the frontal armor plate of the cabin was used only to observe the road. Due to howitzer armored recoil devices it could not be opened completely. All this in aggregate significantly complicated the evacuation of the crew from the wrecked car.

The main armament of the ACS was the slightly modified howitzer M-30С, created on the basis of a threaded 122-mm howitzer M-30 of model 1938 of the year. The differences between the swinging parts of the towed and self-propelled variants were insignificant and were mainly associated with the need to mount the gun in the tight space of the armored shell. From the M-30 howitzer, the gun retained the controls for the guidance mechanisms separated on both sides of the barrel, which required the presence of two gunners in the SAU crew. The M-30S howitzer had a barrel of 22,7 caliber in length, the range of direct fire was 3,6 km., The maximum firing range was 8 km. The range of elevation angles ranged from -3 to + 20 degrees. The horizontal guidance sector was limited to 20 degrees. The rotary mechanism of the gun was screw-type and was located to the left of the barrel, it was serviced by the gunner. The lifting mechanism of the gun was on the right, it had to be serviced by the SAU commander. Howitzer had a mechanical manual descent.

Ammunition howitzer consisted of 40 shots of separate-cartridge loading. Most of the ammunition was high-explosive fragmentation shots. In some cases, to fight the enemy tanks, at a distance of up to 1000 meters, cumulative projectiles were used, which, with a weight of 13,4 kg., Were able to penetrate 100 mm of armor. The mass of high-explosive fragmentation projectiles was 21,7 kg. For self-defense, the crew of the SA-122 used the 2 submachine gun PPSh (20 disks on 1420 ammunition), as well as the 20 hand grenades F-1.

The SU-122 ACS was set in motion by a four-stroke V-shaped twelve-cylinder diesel engine B-2-34, which was liquid-cooled. Maximum power in 500 HP diesel engine developed at 1800 rpm. The operating power was 400 hp, which was achieved at 1700 rpm. The engine was started either using the CT-700 starter with an 15 horsepower or with compressed air from 2 cylinders. The total capacity of the fuel tanks was 500 liters. This fuel reserve was enough for 400 km. march on the highway.

Chassis ACS almost completely repeated the base tank T-34. On each side, there were 5 large-diameter gable rollers with rubber bandage, sloth, and drive wheels. There were no supporting rollers in the undercarriage, the upper part of the track was supported by self-propelled roller support rollers. Sloths with a crawler tension mechanism were located in the front, and the drive wheels of the cogging gear in the rear. To improve the cross-country ability, the tracks could be equipped with special lugs of various designs, which were bolted to every fourth or sixth track.

Combat application

December 28 1942 of the year at the factory site UZTM passed tests of the control machine from the installation of the December party. SAU passed 50 km. run and fired 40 shots. Tests of the machine were completed successfully, and the entire installation batch of SU-122 was transferred to the Red Army. All 25 machines produced by this time were transferred to the self-propelled artillery training center. At the same time, at the end of December, the 1942 first self-propelled artillery regiments (2 SAP and 1433 SAP) began to form, which were used on the Volkhov front. Each regiment consisted of two four-gun batteries, armed with SU-1434, as well as 122 SAU SU-16, two light tanks or armored vehicles, trucks and cars, and 76 tractors.

The first battles of the formed units conducted 14-15 in February 1943 of the year as part of the private offensive operation of the 54-th army in the Smerdyn region. During the fights that lasted 4-6 days, self-propelled artillery regiments proved their effectiveness by destroying 47 bunkers, destroying 14 anti-tank guns, from 19 to 28 cars, crushing mortar batteries with 5 and destroying enemy 4 with their fire. Fully justified and the proposed tactics of using self-propelled guns. The SAU SU-122 moved at a distance in 400-600 meters behind the attacking tanks, suppressing the firing points detected by the fire, mainly firing from the stops. If necessary, self-propelled guns could be used to repel enemy counterattacks, acting as traditional howitzer artillery.

However, it was not always possible to adhere to this tactic. So already in the battle on the Kursk Bulge, vehicles were often used in the first line of the offensive, often replacing conventional tanks in attacks. As a result, vehicles unsuitable for fighting in the first line (insufficient booking, lack of machine guns, a narrow sector of shelling) suffered unnecessarily large losses. In the course of the Battle of Kursk, the Soviet command placed great hopes on the SU-122 as an effective means of fighting the Wehrmacht’s armored vehicles, but the real successes of the self-propelled guns in the fight against the tanks were very modest and the losses were significant.

SU-122 participated in the 1446 SAP and in the infamous counterattack near Prokhorovka. As a result of the misuse of 20, the 11 machines participating in the counterattack were burned, and 6 was also destroyed. At the same time, an important role in the defensive actions of units armed with self-propelled guns SU-122 was played by counterpreparation — shooting from closed positions at remote targets — clusters of enemy equipment and infantry. One way or another, the Battle of Kursk became the site of their most massive use. Already in August, the new SU-1943 vehicles, which belonged to the tank destroyer class, began to be introduced to replace 85.

Performance characteristics: SU-122
Mass: 29,6 t.
Dimensions:
Length 6,95 m., Width 3,0 m., Height 2,15 m.
Crew: 5 people.
Reservations: from 15 to 45 mm.
Armament: X-NUMX-mm howitzer M-122C
Ammunition: 40 shells
Engine: a twelve-cylinder V-shaped diesel engine B-2-34 horsepower 500.
Maximum speed: on the highway - 55 km / h, over rough terrain - 20 km / hour
Power reserve: on the highway - 400 km.
17 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. grizzlir
    +3
    31 January 2012 08: 56
    Of course, the design is not perfect, the lack of a machine gun and the crew’s difficult exit is a big minus. If a driver and gunner had a chance to escape inside the fighting compartment, there were very few chances to save, but keep in mind that the machine was created at an accelerated pace to compensate for the lack of self-propelled artillery in the troops. the gun’s good characteristics, where the SU-122 was used for its intended purpose, it paid off, but in reality it was often necessary to plug holes at the front with what was at hand, and therefore suffered such great losses. I liked the article.
  2. J_silver
    +5
    31 January 2012 09: 40
    In my opinion - a potentially good car, which was fundamentally incorrectly tried to use! Trying to use a howitzer to fight tanks is an extreme degree of brainlessness, and to send an attack is generally prohibitive ...
    It would be used only to support the infantry - yes wisely ...
    1. +3
      31 January 2012 20: 20
      Quote: J_Silver
      Trying to use a howitzer to fight tanks - an extreme degree of brainlessness

      In 1942, the country had not fully recovered from evacuation on the lack of fish and a bra belt, and even with a direct hit of a 122 mm shell in a German tank, the latter had no chance
  3. schta
    +1
    31 January 2012 10: 33
    Why so? In the same Kursk, towed howitzers A-19 and ML-20 were used very successfully against German tanks. In my opinion, a 122mm gun’s fire from an ambush of this self-propelled gun would be deadly for attacking German tanks.

    Again, we must take into account the actions of German aviation, frantically hunting even for a separate battery of 45mm beater. Needless to say about tanks and self-propelled guns.

    The German is not a fool either. The massive use by the Germans of the updated "fours" with bulwarks and a long 75mm gun significantly complicated the tasks of our anti-tank defense system. Not to mention "Fedyah" and "Tigers" with "Panthers".
    1. Kibb
      +3
      31 January 2012 13: 36
      A19 cannon, ML 20 howitzer - cannon, with completely different balichistic capabilities. Try to get from a divisional lip into a tank, then write ... however, I apologize for the harshness of the comment, but nevertheless there is a mess in the head of many here, you see the caliber and that's all - "BEAST", sorry winked
  4. J_silver
    +2
    31 January 2012 10: 41
    Isn't the A-19 a cannon cannon? Is the ML-20 not a howitzer gun? The main word here is the gun! So it was possible to shoot from a 180 mm ship’s gun on a railway platform - the result would be even more guaranteed!
    It is clear that it wasn’t all used from a good life - the Germans also beat on the HF at the beginning of the war from everything that was at hand ...
    A more or less successful use of howitzers was described by Penezhko, but there they shot at light tanks, and even then - is this true? The slope was an exaggerated author ...
    1. Kibb
      -1
      31 January 2012 15: 11
      Duc and shot, and not only from 180 mm. Battery No. 15 of the Black Sea Fleet (4x1 203 mm Ochakov), for example, fired at "white light as a penny" for 20 km at mythical accumulations of German tanks
      1. Kibb
        0
        1 February 2012 23: 29
        Before minuscule read the documents, look really at the theater, I was on the 15th, and on the 22nd on Mayskoye, I was in Lyubimovka, and on the forts of Sevastopol and Kronstadt, and I read real documents and not the Internet, I like heavy artillery
  5. +2
    31 January 2012 11: 23
    The machine needed in the troops, the main thing is to use it correctly.
    The M-30 towed howitzer was more respected by the infantry than the Zis 3 after the 122 howitzer was processing the enemy’s front edge, there were very few unsuppressed firing points.
    it’s a pity that they were released so few.
    1. Kibb
      0
      31 January 2012 13: 57
      And what exactly is needed? Self-propelled guns - a typical ersatz, but became the basis for the SU-85 - that's another conversation
      1. +1
        31 January 2012 14: 09
        And why is the Su-85 not ersatz?
        And in principle, it’s not necessary just like that, you can remove the ballistic reservation and increase the angles of vertical guidance ----- until the roof is removed.

        The USSR did not understand or did not want to understand the concept of mobile, self-propelled field artillery.
        1. J_silver
          +1
          31 January 2012 14: 25
          In principle, I agree - they did not understand ...
        2. Kibb
          +1
          31 January 2012 14: 36
          Here I can not disagree, but the SU85 has a more logical tactical niche. Although the question is still complicated, they did what the Front wanted, and the result was what can be done at the moment ....
          1. +3
            31 January 2012 17: 53
            To be more precise, the basis for both the 122 SU and the SU-85 is the T-34 serial tank
            and just SU 85 was made as an answer to the new tanks of Germany, and instantly lost its niche with the entry into operation of the T-34-85. But SU 122 was relevant until the end of the war.
            Even though we could immediately jump to the 100 mm caliber for Fri sau, then we would get one of the best Fri sau a year earlier.
            1. Kibb
              +1
              1 February 2012 11: 28
              However, they could not jump directly to 100mm. The armor-piercing shot had to be worked out, but the Front did not wait
              1. +1
                1 February 2012 14: 02
                But what are sea shells not considered? 100 mm is not from scratch - but an adaptation of the gun fleets used.
                1. Kibb
                  +1
                  1 February 2012 19: 29
                  Is that the logic? What for armor-piercing shell 100 mm marine gun?
      2. +1
        31 January 2012 16: 53
        And what exactly is needed?
        --
        and which one do you need to suppress bunkers? A 122mm HE projectile projectile is more than 85mm. And it didn’t work much for fighting tanks. You’re trying to compare an assault gun with a tank destroyer.
        1. Kibb
          -1
          1 February 2012 11: 12
          If you carefully read my comments, I didn’t compare the tank destroyer with an assault gun, I asked about why I need an assault howitzer that should fire at these same bunkers from 500 meters with an armor of 45 mm. Why do I need a howitzer in PT ? I do not dispute the need for an assault self-propelled gun, but if the lightweight SU76 had the right to exist, then SU ​​122 naturally turned into SU85, and the role of assault howitzers quite naturally moved to SU152 \ ISU 152
          1. +1
            1 February 2012 14: 08
            Quote: Kibb
            an assault howitzer which should shoot at these very pillboxes from 500 meters when armored in 45 mm ?.

            Did the Germans persecute the demon with their 105 mm Shtugs? And Sorry, but the 45 mm in the 1942 year is not special and the armor, only the T-34 could afford it.
            Quote: Kibb
            Why do I need a howitzer in the PT?

            Are there any foundations for classifying the constructive PT?
            Quote: Kibb
            then SU ​​122 in a natural way of selection turned into SU85

            absolutely no natural selection --- Su-122 and Su 85 different sau for their intended purpose.

            And the 76 SU had the right to exist because it was cheap, used automotive components and did not change the number of production of linear tanks with its release.
            1. Kibb
              0
              1 February 2012 19: 40
              Are you just killing me, are you arguing just out of pleasure?
              1Yes
              2Is
              3Yes
              1. +1
                1 February 2012 19: 46
                Quote: Kibb
                1Yes

                paradoxical opinion
                Quote: Kibb
                2Is

                and what are they?
                Quote: Kibb
                3Yes

                at least something pleases

  6. +2
    1 February 2012 19: 47
    and what doesn’t suit you?
    1. Kibb
      -1
      1 February 2012 22: 47
      Everything suits, only now
      1.ShtuG3 plavnenko has grown into a tank destroyer this time
      2.Armor StuG3 didn’t really make it out of the standard 45mm gun in the forehead, unlike the Su122 and PaX40
      3. Do you understand the difference between a gun and a howitzer?
      4. I am quite happy with the 152 ISU and the 122 ISU from a passing article
      5. I DO NOT consider Soviet designers to be idiots, just a specific self-propelled gun was an intermediate link
  7. 0
    1 February 2012 23: 26
    Quote: Kibb
    ShtuG3 plavnenko so turned into a tank destroyer this time

    Are you claiming that the 105 mm guns turned into a tank destroyer? Or is it about the 75 mm assault guns?
    Quote: Kibb
    2.Armor StuG3 didn’t really make it out of the standard 45mm gun in the forehead, unlike the Su122 and PaX40

    you generally offered to refuse it
    Quote: Kibb
    Why do we need an assault howitzer that should shoot at these very pillboxes from 500 meters when armor is 45 mm? Why do I need an howitzer howitzer in the PT structure?

    Quote: Kibb
    3. Do you understand the difference between a gun and a howitzer?

    And where does it come when the 105 STACK is discussed? It's 42 and SU 122 - does any of them have a gun?
    Quote: Kibb
    4. I am quite happy with the 152 ISU and the 122 ISU from a passing article

    And the year of their production also suits you?
    Quote: Kibb
    . I DO NOT consider Soviet designers to be idiots, just a specific self-propelled gun was an intermediate link

    It was a separate response that they did not bother to develop - and for which our infantry paid a lot of blood. The howitzer with its hinged trajectory suppresses field fortifications much better and its 122 mm projectile is much more effective and 76 mm and 85 mm OFS
    1. Kibb
      -1
      2 February 2012 00: 09
      A light self-propelled assault gun in the troops is very, very necessary, and in the absence of it the infantry pays with blood, but where does the SU122?
  8. Kibb
    0
    1 February 2012 23: 41
    Of all that you wrote, I liked only the phrase about the mounted trajectory - here and tell us about the mounted trajectory su122 at 25 ", there they write in the comments about the murderousness of 122 mm for tanks ... great, only here A19 and M30 are quite different systems, no?
    Yes, the HE shell is much more effective, but it’s a howitzer - and its effectiveness in a mounted fire
    I did not suggest giving up the armor, just M30 on tracks with splinterproof armor and an angle of 45 "would be more effective
    What are SU152 and SU122 different years of adoption?
  9. +1
    2 February 2012 00: 34
    Quote: Kibb
    Light self-propelled assault gun

    Easy assault? And what is it? Give an example?
    Quote: Kibb
    -here and tell me about the hinged trajectory of su122 with 25

    Does separate charging say something to you? Or is ballistics just an angle of elevation? Can the initial speed also matter?
    Quote: Kibb
    killing 122 mm for tanks ... excellent, but AxNUMX and M19 are quite different systems, no?

    What do I have to do with this?
    Quote: Kibb
    just m30 on tracks with splinterproof armor and an angle of 45 "would be more effective

    this is a separate option - called self-propelled artillery mount
    Vespa analogue ---- we would also need it.

    Quote: Kibb
    What are SU152 and SU122 different years of adoption?

    and where does it?
    Quote: Kibb
    4. I am quite happy with the 152 ISU and the 122 ISU from a passing article

    Isu 122 and Su 122 seem to be different cars? Yes, and artillery systems too?
    1. Kibb
      0
      2 February 2012 12: 15
      You yourself show the photo ... that’s how it should be a self-propelled howitzer, I’ve even talked about it ...
      1. 0
        2 February 2012 13: 50
        это не
        Quote: Kibb
        Light self-propelled assault gun