Odyssey of "Three-Inch"

99
In the 80-s of the XIX century, many armies began to re-equip with rapid-fire weapons. As a rule, these samples had a caliber of 75 – 77 mm and weighed around 1,5 – 2 t. This combination provided, on the one hand, a fairly high mobility and ability to transport by means of a six-horse team. On the other hand, 6 – 7 kg shells were capable of effectively striking manpower and destroying light field fortifications.


The French 75-mm gun of the firm "Schneider" of the model 1897 of the year in the exposition of the Verdunsky museum.



The “trendsetter” at the time was the French Schneider 75-mm cannon of the 1897 model of the year. For the first time in the world, a hydropneumatic recoil brake was used in the construction of the gun. Now the carriage did not move after each shot, and the gunners could start reloading immediately after the barrel returned to its original position.

In Russia, they also developed their tactical and technical requirements for the rapid-fire field gun. It was assumed that this would be a three-inch caliber gun (76,2 mm) and with a mass in the stowed position of no more than 1900 kg.

According to the test results, the gun of the Putilov factory was recognized as the best. Despite the fact that it was a big step forward in comparison with the field gun of the 1877 model of the year in service, the carriage retained its outdated design, since the barrel did not roll back along the canal axis (as in the French cannon), but parallel to the frame. She received her baptism of fire in the 1900 year, when one battery armed with guns of this type went to China to suppress the boxing rebellion.


76-mm gun model 1900 of the year in the exposition of the Artillery Museum of Finland in Hämeenlinna

Operation of the artillery system in the army revealed the need to change the design of the gun carriage. Under the guidance of an outstanding artillery scientist Nikolai Zabudsky, an improved version of the gun was developed. First time in stories Russian land artillery recoil occurred along the axis of the barrel. After the military tests, the artillery system was adopted under the name "3-inch field gun model 1902 of the year."

Mass production has unfolded since 1903. The experience of the Russo-Japanese War demanded the installation of a shield to protect the gunsmiths. Another consequence was the introduction of a high-explosive grenade into the ammunition, while previously the main ammunition of the artillery system was shrapnel stuffed with 260 bullets. Shooting this type of ammunition, the 8 three-inch gun battery could destroy the infantry battalion or cavalry regiment “in an area of ​​up to two kilometers along the front and no more than 1000 steps deep” in minutes. However, shrapnel was completely impotent against the enemy, protected by even the lightest shelters.

During the First World War, the 3-inch gun of the 1902 model of the year was the main tool of the Russian field artillery. Already in the first months of hostilities, the consumption of shells repeatedly exceeded all pre-war calculations. In 1915, a "shell hunger" broke out. Although by 1916, an increase in production at Russian factories in combination with active purchases abroad led to the fact that the reserves of shells began to significantly exceed the needs of the front. Therefore, part of the ammunition for the "three-inch" was stored for long-term storage and then used even during the Great Patriotic War.

Odyssey of "Three-Inch"

76-mm gun model 1900 of the year in service with one of the batteries of the Terek Cossack Army, 1914 year

The First World War rather quickly acquired a positional character when the troops burrowed into the ground "from sea to sea." In the current situation, the importance of the “three-inch”, mainly intended for the tabletop fire, has decreased - howitzers took the first roles. But the outbreak of the Civil War was extremely maneuverable, which again made the 76-mm cannon of the 1902 model of the year “the queen of the battlefield”. It was actively used by all warring parties.

Still to the middle. The 1920-s gun did not meet the requirements of the time, especially in relation to the firing range. There was an acute question of modernization. The most logical way to increase the firing range was an increase in the caliber and weight of the projectile. In particular, the distinguished designer of artillery weapons, Rostislav Durlyakhov, in 1923, offered to switch to 85-mm divisional guns. But the economic arguments prevailed over the technical ones. Despite the recently decimated Civil War, huge stocks of 76-mm shells of pre-revolutionary production remained in the warehouses. Therefore, the designers were required to create a gun capable of firing the available ammunition.


Nikolai Aleksandrovich Zabudsky

At the first stage, the modest possibilities of the then domestic industry made it necessary to confine themselves only to the modernization of the existing tools. We stopped at the version proposed by the design bureau of the Motovilikhinsky plant under the leadership of Vladimir Sidorenko. Its distinctive feature is the ability to use both the old model (30-long in caliber) and the new 40-caliber. The new artillery system received the name "76-mm divisional gun model 1902 / 30's." The guns with the 30-caliber barrel were produced only in the 1931 year, then switched to the 40-caliber guns. As a result, the firing range increased to 13 km.

Unfortunately, the modernized cannon has retained most of the shortcomings of the old artillery system, the main of which should be considered as a single-bar carriage limiting the horizontal guidance angles and the unshaft wheel drive. Although the production of the 76-mm 1902 / 30 model guns was completed in the 1937 year, the artillery system remained in service for a considerable time. At the time of the start of World War II, 4475 guns of this type were in Soviet units.


Battery 76-mm guns sample 1902 year on one of the fronts of the First World War

Despite improved performance, the 76-mm 1930 model gun of the year did not satisfy the military leadership. Its range continued to be considered insufficient, and a small angle of elevation of the barrel did not allow firing at the infantry located behind the shelters. Mikhail Tukhachevsky, who was appointed to the post of Chief of Armaments of the Red Army in 1931, wanted to get a universal (capable of firing like a cannon and howitzer) 76 – 102 mm gun. It should be noted that such an idea was inherently deeply flawed, since the design of the 76-mm unitary ammunition available in the warehouses simply did not allow the variable charge needed for firing at the "howitzer". Although at that time in some countries they were fascinated by the “gaubization” of field guns, it is perhaps only the creation of the 75-mm gun FK 16 nA in Germany that can relate to relatively successful experiments. But the Germans, firstly, did not use unitary, but separate-sleeve loading, secondly, they considered their gun as “ersatz” for reserve formations, while first-line units initially planned to arm 105-mm howitzers. However, such arguments did not stop Mikhail Tukhachevsky, who was prone to various adventurous decisions, and, as subsequent events showed, he could well claim to be the “evil genius” of the Soviet artillery of the interwar period.

In carrying out the task, under the guidance of the previously mentioned Vladimir Sidorenko, an 76-mm barrel with a length of 50 gauges was laid on the carriage of the 122-mm howitzer of the 1910 / 30 model. As a result, the firing range in comparison with the 1902 / 30 model cannon increased quite insignificantly - to 13,58 km, and these changes were achieved at the cost of an increase in the 300 kg weight of the gun in combat position. Nevertheless, the head of the Red Army’s arms ordered the artillery system to be adopted under the name “76-mm divisional gun of the 1933 model of the year” and to launch mass production.


76-mm gun model 1902 / 30 of the year in the exposition of the Artillery Museum of Finland in Hämeenlinna

And Tukhachevsky's fantasy continued to hit the key. He demanded to develop tactical and technical requirements for a universal cannon with a circular fire and semi-universal without a circular fire. In this case, “universality” was understood as the ability to fire not only at ground targets, but also at air targets. A peculiar attempt to get a tool that combines the functions of a hammer and sledge hammer!

The first sample 76-mm universal gun developed at the factory "Red Putilovets". The desire to fulfill the frankly delusional requirements led to an increase in the mass in the combat position to 3470 kg - the value is simply unacceptable for the divisional gun. Further work stopped. A similar fate befell other projects.


Broken 76-mm divisional gun model 1933 year with the dead calculation, 1941 year. Photos from the site "War Album" (waralbum.ru)

The fate of the GKB-38 development was somewhat different. They designed two guns: the universal A-52 and the semi-universal A-51, and the factories No. 8 and No. 92 produced one prototype each. In 1933, the GKB-38 was liquidated, and the premises and equipment were transferred to the developers of recoilless guns. After all, by that time, Mikhail Tukhachevsky was rushing with his new fantasy - to re-equip all artillery with dynamo-active (recoilless) guns. Moreover, he was not embarrassed by the fact that not one of the numerous “no-hit” projects was brought to the “mind”, and the incoming 76-mm dynamo-active cannons designed by Leonid Kurchevsky quickly showed their extremely low combat qualities.

In January, 1934 of the employees of the liquidated GKB-38 formed the design bureau of the plant No. 92 "New Sormovo". The team leader appointed a young and novice designer Vasily Grabin. At the first stage, they began to refine the semi-universal A-51 cannon, which received the new F-20 index. But it soon became clear that it was unlikely that a good artillery system would turn out from the F-20, and at the same time they began to develop a new F-22 cannon. 14 June showed a demonstration of guns to the top leadership of the USSR, headed by Joseph Stalin. And there was a sensation! Bypassing the numerous developments of venerable designers, the F-22, designed by the then little-known Vasily Grabin, turned out to be the best cannon, and besides, on his own initiative. By 22 on April 1936, the military trials were completed, and the F-22 was put into service under the name "76-mm divisional gun of the 1936 model of the year." Gross production was organized at once in three factories.


Vasily Gavrilovich Grabin


The 76-mm divisional gun of the 1936 model of the year (F-22) in the exposition of the Military History Museum of Artillery, Engineering Troops and Communication Troops in St. Petersburg. Photo Saiga20K

After the arrest of Tukhachevsky, the idea of ​​divisional artillery universalism died of its own accord. And during the operation of the F-22 in the army, such a design flaw as a greater weight compared to the 1902 / 30 model gun came out on top. In reality, the military needed a modern cannon with the ballistics of an 40-caliber gun of the 1902 / 30 type with a mass in combat position not more than 1500 kg. On an emergency basis, Grabin set about designing a new artillery system, which he assigned to the factory index F-22 SPM, trying to emphasize with this that he was just improving F-22. In fact, SPV was a completely different sample. And again, the talented designer went around all the competitors. The gun was adopted under the name "76-mm divisional gun model 1939 of the year" and launched mass production, but after the manufacture of 1150 copies in the beginning. The 1941 of the year was discontinued, as it was planned to switch to divisional guns of a larger caliber - 107 mm.


Battery 76-mm divisional guns sample 1939 year (SPV) before leaving for combat positions, 1942 year. Photos from the site "War Album" (waralbum.ru)


76-mm divisional gun model 1942 of the year (ZIS-3)

However, Vasily Grabin understood that the 107-mm gun would be too heavy for the divisional level. Therefore, at the end of 1940, he began to implement perhaps his most remarkable idea - the imposition of an 76-mm barrel with a length of 40 gauges on the carriage of an 57-mm anti-tank gun ZIS-2. Such a solution immediately gave a lot of positive results: the reliability of the artillery system increased, the work of calculation was facilitated, the production was considerably simplified and cheapened, the conditions for the production of guns were created for the first time in the history of artillery production.

The prototype was ready in June 1941 of the year, and a month later it passed field testing. 22 July, it was demonstrated to Marshal Grigory Kulik. Despite the excellent results of the show, he said that the army did not need a new weapon. The logic of the marshal in this case defies any reasonable explanation — after all, the catastrophic losses of the Red Army artillery park were already known due to the unsuccessful start of the Great Patriotic War for the USSR.


Calculation ZIS-3 firing at the approaches to Berlin, 1945 year


Serbian Colonel Vinko Pandurevich shows a ZIS-3 gun to the inspecting American officers IFOR, February 1996 of the year

In this situation, Vasily Grabin and plant manager No. 92 Amo Elyan went to an unprecedentedly bold decision - they voluntarily launched mass production. It is not known how events could develop further, but August 10 Joseph Stalin personally called the plant. For such an unusual step, he had good reasons - the situation on the fronts continued to be very difficult, the guns for the army were taken away even from museums. The Supreme requested a sharp increase in the number of guns produced, while agreeing on a decline in quality. And here the new gun turned out to be most welcome. This allowed the plant to increase the number of guns produced by 1941 by the end of 5,5. Until the end of the war, the domestic industry produced about 48 thousand guns of this type, which received the name "76-mm divisional gun of the 1942 model of the year (ZIS-3)".


The coffin with the body of President of Poland Lech Kaczynski on the carriage ZIS-3, 2010 year. Photo by Krakowska Studencka Agencja Fotograficzna AGH

But the decline in quality, which for the sake of mass production was ready to go, Stalin, while this did not happen. The gun has proven itself in battles not only as a divisional, but also as an anti-tank weapon. The Germans nicknamed ZIS-3 “ratsh-boom”, because the projectile hit the target before the sound of the shot reached, and the chief engineer of the Krupp corporation artillery department, Professor Wolf, was forced to recognize it as the best weapon of the Second World War.

In our time, ZIS-3 can be seen not only on pedestals in honor of the heroes-gunners. Part of the guns of this type continues to be in service with several countries.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

99 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    19 March 2017 05: 56
    For WWII, this tool has become obsolete. In a good way, it was necessary in 1930 to abandon arming divisions with guns of this caliber, and arm artillery regiments with only 122-mm howitzers. The uniform composition of artillery divisions would facilitate and simplify the supply and training of artillerymen. Not without reason after the Second World War these guns were removed from service and sent for storage. Until 1939, 45 mm guns were quite suitable as anti-tank guns, since 1940 it was possible to produce anti-tank guns with caliber and ballistics of 85 mm anti-aircraft guns.
    1. +11
      19 March 2017 06: 21
      Quote: Comrade_Stalin
      with the 1940 g it was possible to produce anti-aircraft guns with the caliber and ballistics of 85-mm anti-aircraft guns.

      Why in the 1941 year was needed the 85-mm PTO to give them to the Germans? wassat For them, until the end of the 1942 year, there were simply no worthy goals. And this despite the fact that for the 76-mm guns there were not enough tractors, horse harnesses were not used for a good life.
      As for the publication itself, I didn’t put it on the “C grade”, plus the topic is not very well disclosed and there are a number of controversial issues.
      For example:
      Gun fine established itself in battles not only as divisional, but also as anti tank gun.
      ZIS-3 in the VET was used forcefully, it did not penetrate the frontal armor of heavy German tanks. At least for this indicator, it was no better than the much more compact and cheap 45-mm M-42. In contrast to the three-inch gun, after 1943, mass production of sub-caliber shells was launched with normal penetration from a distance of 500 meters - 80 mm of homogeneous armor.
      1. +2
        19 March 2017 06: 31
        In fact, the ZIS-3 pierced the frontal armor of three rubles, fours and Shtugov only from a distance of 500 m and closer. Whereas the 85-mm gun would allow to shoot these targets as far as the 1500 m, which would give the guns calculations much more time to hit the targets and be in relative safety.
        1. +5
          19 March 2017 06: 36
          Quote: Comrade_Stalin
          In fact, the ZIS-3 pierced the frontal armor of three rubles, fours and Shtugov only from a distance of 500 m and closer. Whereas the 85-mm gun would allow to shoot these targets as far as the 1500 m, which would give the guns calculations much more time to hit the targets and be in relative safety.

          And the mass and cost of the gun? And what do you suggest transporting them to? They even shot at the tanks from this:

          A historical fact, by the way.
          For that matter, what prevented the creation of a high-ballistic anti-aircraft missile under the 76-mm anti-aircraft gun? Ask when the 85-mm PTO D-44 went into the series and why.
          1. +1
            19 March 2017 06: 47
            An 76-mm ballistic projectile was already there. This is the anti-aircraft 76-mm gun of the 1931 g model, but it was quickly replaced by the 85-mm gun, so it is more rational to immediately switch to this caliber, as they did in 1943, arming the SU with the 85-mm gun.
            1. +6
              19 March 2017 06: 59
              Quote: Comrade_Stalin
              An 76-mm ballistic projectile was already there. This is the anti-aircraft 76-mm gun of the 1931 g model, but it was quickly replaced by the 85-mm gun, so it is more rational to immediately switch to this caliber, as they did in 1943, arming the SU with the 85-mm gun.

              Do not confuse the effectiveness of the 85-mm fragmentation grenade and the 76-mm "crowbar." The shells of the 76-mm and 85-mm anti-aircraft guns had close armor penetration. We're talking about VET, aren't we? Or do you want to say that there is no difference in the cost and mass of the guns in caliber 76 and 85-mm? No. One way or another, the 45-mm M-42 was produced before the 1946 year, precisely due to the fact that this gun was cheap, easily transported and masked.
              1. +1
                19 March 2017 07: 10
                Come on. If you believe the sources on the Internet, the initial speed of the 76-mm anti-aircraft projectile is 815 m / s, while the 85-mm speed is 800 m / s. Do you think that these 15 m / s play something fundamental? But on the other hand, the 85-mm projectile weighs one and a half times more than the 76-mm projectile, which is also important for the VET.
                1. +4
                  19 March 2017 07: 28
                  Quote: Comrade_Stalin
                  Come on. If you believe the sources on the Internet, the initial speed of the 76-mm anti-aircraft projectile is 815 m / s, while the 85-mm speed is 800 m / s. Do you think that these 15 m / s play something fundamental? But on the other hand, the 85-mm projectile weighs one and a half times more than the 76-mm projectile, which is also important for the VET.

                  For VET, armor penetration at real combat distances is important, not the weight of the projectile. If you talk like that, then the 57-mm ZIS-2 shell was generally no good. So the armor-piercing projectile BR-361, fired from the 3-K anti-aircraft gun at a distance of 1000 meters, pierced the 85-mm armor. In the initial period of the war, this was more than enough to destroy any German tank. Despite the fact that they opened fire on tanks from 500 meters. At the same time, the 85-mm armor-piercing projectile 53-UBR-365К, at a distance of 1000 meters, normally pierced 100 mm armor. Those. the difference is not big, despite the fact that the 85-mm anti-tank gun would have been much harder and more expensive. What I can agree with you is that the 9 kg fragmentation grenade of the 85-mm gun when used as a divisional gun was much more effective than the 76-mm gun. But then again, when traveling in a horse cart, the mobility of such guns would be much worse.
                  1. +1
                    19 March 2017 08: 10
                    If the ZIS-2 is so good, why was the 34-mm gun installed on the T-85, and not the swinging part of the ZIS-2?
                    1. +6
                      19 March 2017 08: 26
                      Quote: Comrade_Stalin
                      If the ZIS-2 is so good, why was the 34-mm gun installed on the T-85, and not the swinging part of the ZIS-2?

                      And you do not know that the T-34 57-mm guns put? request
                      stop Why are you always trying to replace concepts and contrast anti-tank artillery guns for other purposes and compare the incomparable? sad
                      The advantage of 85 mm tank guns over 57-mm with comparable armor penetration there was a greater weight of fragmentation grenades, which is very important in offensive operations.
                      But anti tank the gun, which by and large was a consumable, was supposed to be light and cheap.
                      1. +3
                        19 March 2017 09: 05
                        Quote: Bongo
                        Quote: Comrade_Stalin
                        If the ZIS-2 is so good, why was the 34-mm gun installed on the T-85, and not the swinging part of the ZIS-2?

                        ...
                        The advantage of 85 mm tank guns over 57-mm with comparable armor penetration there was a greater weight of fragmentation grenades, which is very important in offensive operations.
                        But anti tank the gun, which by and large was a consumable, was supposed to be light and cheap.

                        I’ll outline a couple of points.
                        1. Dryn 57 mm were very expensive and for 41-43 years they had a large percentage of marriage. A little broadened the problem by the middle of the 43rd only with the purchase of drill bits from amers. For us, it was a high-tech, whose shaft we could not provide.
                        2. Larger calibers on tanks and self-propelled guns in the Red Army, apparently, are also due to the weaker potential of transported artillery in the TK and MK than in the German TD. Mechtyagi lacked the entire war. They tried to smooth this matter.
                      2. +2
                        19 March 2017 10: 08
                        Well, I know that in 1941 a certain number of T-34s was armed with a 57-mm cannon, but it was not popular with tankers, since the armor penetration of a 76-mm shell in 1941 was quite sufficient
                        (this later, when modernizing in 1943, the T-4 increased their frontal armor to 80 mm, and for the three-wheeler - to 70 mm, which the 76-mm shell penetrated only at point-blank range and normal), and the RP had a 76-mm effect twice as powerful, in addition, tankers often complained about the fissure of the 57-mm shells HE since the fuses to them were unfinished.
                    2. Alf
                      +1
                      19 March 2017 22: 52
                      Quote: Comrade_Stalin
                      If the ZIS-2 is so good, why was the 34-mm gun installed on the T-85, and not the swinging part of the ZIS-2?

                      Read my comment below.
                    3. +2
                      19 March 2017 23: 21
                      Because the high-explosive fragmentation effect of 76 mm shells is much more effective than that of 57 mm for defeating light field fortifications, towed artillery positions, openly located enemy infantry, etc., because the fight against enemy armored vehicles is not the only and, probably, even not the most important task of tanks.
                2. Alf
                  +2
                  19 March 2017 22: 51
                  Quote: Comrade_Stalin
                  Come on. If you believe the sources on the Internet, the initial speed of the 76-mm anti-aircraft projectile is 815 m / s, while the 85-mm speed is 800 m / s. Do you think that these 15 m / s play something fundamental? But on the other hand, the 85-mm projectile weighs one and a half times more than the 76-mm projectile, which is also important for the VET.

                  The difference in the mass of the projectile for these guns is not fundamental, remember that the energy E = mc2, i.e. armor penetration depends more on the velocity of the projectile than on mass. The choice of an 85-mm gun against a 76-mm 3K was determined by the larger mass of the HE shell. I also dare to recall that 34 of the 85 rounds in the tank of the T-53-30 tank were OF.
                  1. +1
                    19 March 2017 23: 05
                    In fact, muzzle energy is calculated by the formula: E = mVV / 2, where V is the initial velocity in m / s and m is the mass in kg.
                    OK. Let's calculate: 76 mm projectile has an energy of 2,26 MJ, an 85-mm projectile has 2,98 MJ of energy. As you can see, despite the fact that the 76 mm has a high speed, due to the larger mass, the 85 mm has 1,32 times more muzzle energy.
                  2. 0
                    22 March 2017 22: 39
                    Well, about "E = mc2" in artillery - this is a new word! laughing
            2. +4
              19 March 2017 07: 11
              It would be a little more rational not to spend time and energy in general on the development of birds, but to switch to birds at the beginning of the war. One must think one step ahead)
              1. +7
                19 March 2017 07: 29
                Quote: karelia-molot
                It would be a little more rational not to spend time and energy in general on the development of birds, but to switch to birds at the beginning of the war. One must think one step ahead)

                Are you joking?
              2. Alf
                +2
                19 March 2017 22: 54
                Quote: karelia-molot
                It would be a little more rational not to spend time and energy in general on the development of birds, but to switch to birds at the beginning of the war. One must think one step ahead)

                And where to get guidance systems? Open a temporary portal?
              3. +3
                19 March 2017 23: 25
                Quote: karelia-molot
                It would be a little more rational not to spend time and energy in general on the development of birds, but to switch to birds at the beginning of the war. One must think one step ahead)

                And do not be shy to use nuclear tactical weapons in the accursed fascist hordes, which is so trifling only on ATGM systems.
            3. +7
              19 March 2017 08: 08
              Quote: Comrade_Stalin
              A 6 mm projectile with high ballistics was already there. This is an anti-aircraft 76 mm gun of the 1931 sample, but it was quickly replaced by an 85 mm gun,

              There were at least a dime a dozen shells for divisional cannons in warehouses. They were shot until the mid 50-ies of the twentieth century. Shells of an anti-aircraft gun of a sample of 1931 always were not enough, as well as 85-mm shells. In the USSR, before the war, there was a strong shortage of copper. During the Second World War, this shortcoming was covered by the supply of Chilean copper. This is another reason why Grabin had to redo the breech under the shell of a divisional cannon. Initially, according to the memoirs of V.G. Grabina, on the A-51 and F-20, an anti-aircraft gun projectile of 1931 was planned. An 85 mm cartridge was obtained by re-pressing the barrel of an anti-aircraft gun cartridge case of 1931 and at the beginning of the war there was also a lack of these shells.
              1. 0
                19 March 2017 08: 10
                Interesting. And why then was the shelling famine in the WWII at the Russian artillery, if the shells were not to shoot?
                1. +4
                  19 March 2017 08: 28
                  Quote: Comrade_Stalin
                  Interesting. And why then was the shelling famine in the WWII at the Russian artillery, if the shells were not to shoot?

                  If there was shell hunger, it was with larger caliber guns. There were no shortages of 76 mm shells.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                  2. +1
                    19 March 2017 12: 49
                    Quote: Bongo
                    If there was shell hunger, it was with larger caliber guns. There were no shortages of 76 mm shells.

                    Not at all. For example, the South-Western Front in 3 weeks managed to shoot as many 76 mm rounds as it was planned for a year of hostilities.
                    Therefore, the shell hunger was the worst.
                    1. +3
                      19 March 2017 13: 15
                      Quote: Spade
                      Therefore, the shell hunger was the worst.

                      If 76-mm shells were not at the front, this does not mean that they were not in stock. request
                      1. +1
                        19 March 2017 14: 23
                        And there weren’t in the warehouses. I wrote that they managed to shoot for three weeks as much as was planned for a year of hostilities. As far as I remember, 1000 to 76 mm gun, 1200 to 76 mm mountain.
                        And in general, they managed to enter the battle with one of the portable BCs. That is, the troops were only filled with shell piling, everything else was in the warehouses.
                        Well, then the dances with tambourines began. Shells and elements of shots for the 76-mm caliber of Russian artillery were fired from France starting and ending with Japan.
                2. +5
                  19 March 2017 09: 03
                  Quote: Comrade_Stalin
                  Interesting. And why then there was shell hunger in the WWI
                  Quote from the book of V.G. Grabina The weapon of victory.
                  “We decided to study the spent cartridges and cartridges. It turned out that these were French cartridges; they were delivered to Russia in 1915 and lay in warehouses for 22 years. The shelf life was long, but in artillery the duration of storage of ammunition was set to 25 years, and even after this period, they should serve without fail. ”Therefore, the brass from which the shells are made is bad, it has lost its plastic properties, which is why the shells are torn when fired.

                  I reported to Voronova: the cartridges are substandard, they do not allow to objectively judge the operation of a semi-automatic shutter. It is necessary to replace the French cartridges with normal, air-conditioned.

                  “But there are so many French ammunition in the army that they can’t be used up in training firing,” Voronov answered. No, guns need to be tested with these cartridges. "
                  1. +1
                    19 March 2017 12: 51
                    Good book I have !!
                3. The comment was deleted.
                4. Alf
                  +1
                  19 March 2017 22: 56
                  Quote: Comrade_Stalin
                  Interesting. And why then was the shelling famine in the WWII at the Russian artillery, if the shells were not to shoot?

                  Counter-Question: And why in 1916 the rear depots were bursting with shells, but at the front they were wildly lacking?
                  1. +2
                    19 March 2017 23: 07
                    Because there was no order. Under Stalin, such rear guards would be shot in batches, and then everything would be in order with the delivery of shells to the front line.
                  2. +1
                    20 March 2017 09: 50
                    Sabotage, however. The Orange Revolution was being prepared.
                  3. +1
                    30 March 2017 16: 37
                    In 1916, the shell hunger was already overcome, the same offensive operations in 1916 were supported by artillery very well. And the shell hunger was spring-winter 1915, when stocks were shot, and the industry had not yet switched to military rails, releasing shells from pre-war calculations - there were problems not only in shells, rifles with cartridges, and those were not enough.
          2. +2
            19 March 2017 11: 31
            Quote: Bongo
            They even shot at the tanks from this:
            Sergey, I’m just supplementing you.
            And a 30 armored turret battery, a coastal battery near Sevastopol, damaged and destroyed 17 tanks, but it is not considered anti-tank.

            https://topwar.ru/89927-bronebashennaya-batareya-
            30-simvol-defense-sevastopolya.html
          3. 0
            19 March 2017 23: 10
            On the Kursk Bulge hit the "FERDINAND"!
          4. 0
            10 January 2018 17: 54
            Quote: Bongo
            If anything, what prevented the creation of a high-ballistic anti-aircraft projectile for a 76-mm anti-aircraft gun?
            an order from Moscow interfered. Back in the 40s, Grabin proposed creating a new TVET to fight future strands (they erroneously waited from day to day). He proposed at the first stage to use shells in service and a new sleeve of increased diameter. The barrel is to take the design from the ZIS-2, and at the initial stage just redo the "chamber" on the F-22 (I’m sorry, but I don’t remember how the breech of the gun is called correctly). Forbidden even a prototype to do. And the Germans altered in this way the captured F-22 put on a war Fri ...
        2. Alf
          +1
          19 March 2017 22: 45
          Quote: Comrade_Stalin
          In fact, the ZIS-3 pierced the frontal armor of three rubles, fours and Shtugov only from a distance of 500 m and closer. Whereas the 85-mm gun would allow to shoot these targets as far as the 1500 m, which would give the guns calculations much more time to hit the targets and be in relative safety.

          The German PAK-44 gun penetrated ALL ALL tanks at any distance, but the German command was not going to replace all the PT guns with this gun.
          1. +2
            19 March 2017 23: 09
            In fact, it is strange to compare a 128-mm fool weighing 10 tons with an 85-mm gun. For example, the D-44 weighed only 1725 kg, only one and a half times heavier than the ZIS-3.
      2. +5
        19 March 2017 09: 58
        And this despite the fact that there were not enough tractors for the 76 mm guns, horse harnesses were not used for a good life.

        Every time I hear and wonder - but you do not know how the Germans dragged all the artillery in infantry divisions (including heavy howitzers)? - and this is 80-85% of the number of NE.
        And this is the state - only the PTA and ZA were motorized.
        ZIS-3 in the VET was used forcefully, it did not penetrate the frontal armor of heavy German tanks.

        Again, the standard set of German tanks - Pz 6+ Pz 5. This is not so - all the few heavy tanks were concentrated as a means of reinforcement in heavy tank battalions (full-time "tiger" companies were only at TD SS and Grossdeutchland), and Panther and did not become a workhorse.
        And although the use of ZiS-3 in IPTAPs looks like a palliative, she had enough goals.
        Yes, of course, an ideal anti-tank regiment would look like 53K + ZiS2 + BS3 - but this never happened in the Second World War.
        So ZiS-3 is still a “division” - VET is not the main thing for it.
        1. +3
          19 March 2017 10: 18
          Quote: Nikkola Mac
          Every time I hear and wonder - but you do not know how the Germans dragged all the artillery in infantry divisions (including heavy howitzers)? - and this is 80-85% of the number of NE.

          I will help you a little, if you do not mind.
          1. +2
            19 March 2017 10: 30
            Wehrmacht infantry division staff -1941:
            The number of horses in the artillery regiment - 2249 goals - for 2696 people. l / s
            The total number of horses in the division is 6000 heads - for 16 people. l / s
            The total number of horses in the Wehrmacht is more than 1 million head.
            1. 0
              19 March 2017 18: 19
              Yes Yes. You are absolutely right. When I was presented with the book “Victory Army against the Wehrmacht”, I was, to put it mildly, very surprised to read about it. Then I saw on the Internet a German chronicle of the 41-42 years.
            2. 0
              19 March 2017 23: 03
              Thus, by September 1939, the staff of the artillery regiment of the infantry division provided for the presence of three light divisions and one heavy howitzer divisions, and a total of 48 guns (36 105-mm leFH 18 and 12 150-mm sFH 18). All artillery was horse-drawn only - even the developed automobile industry in Germany could not keep up with the needs of the Wehrmacht, which were growing, like leaps and bounds. The battery of 105-mm howitzers on horse drawn traction totaled 171 people. personnel (four officers, 30 non-commissioned officers, 137 privates), There were 153 horses and 16 wagons. Oddly enough, the battery of 150 mm howitzers was smaller in composition - 163 people. personnel (three officers, 29 non-commissioned officers, 131 privates), 125 horses, 26 wagons, and in addition - two more cars. It should be noted that the mass introduction of the new 105-mm howitzers leFH 18 began only in 1937, and before that the basis of the division artillery was the old howitzers leFH 16: in 1934 there were 496, and in 1937 - already 980.
            3. 0
              19 March 2017 23: 10
              "ARTILERIA VERMAHTA"
              Kharuk Andrey Ivanovich
        2. +2
          19 March 2017 11: 24
          Quote: Nikkola Mac
          Every time I hear and wonder - but you do not know how the Germans dragged all the artillery in the infantry divisions

          Imagine in the know. But we kind of talked about PTA, or not? what
          Quote: Nikkola Mac
          Yes, of course, an ideal anti-tank regiment would look like 53K + ZiS2 + BS3

          The funny thing is that Grabin BS-3 himself did not consider PTO No.
          Quote: Nikkola Mac
          So ZiS-3 is still a “division” - VET is not the main thing for it.

          Not important, but nevertheless there was a special “anti-tank” modification of the ZIS-3 designed for anti-tank units. The troops received three varieties of 76-mm guns, which differed in elevation angles, riveted or welded frames, bolt and sights. Guns sent to anti-tank artillery , equipped with direct-sight sights PP1-2 or OP2-1.
          1. 0
            19 March 2017 12: 48
            But we kind of talked about PTA, or not?

            I - about the division, because as already mentioned that in the Wehrmacht's PD, the anti-tank division was motorized, as was our SD. And hereinafter a very interesting point - the Germans carried horses all over the artillery (by state), and only the artillery in the cannon regiment dragged us around the state of the horse, all howitzers had to be moved with equipment.
            And if the Germans moved horses even heavy howitzers, then why should we move light (relatively) ZIS-3, USV, F-22 (plus battalion 53K and "regiments") tractors?
            Of course, this does not apply to the PTA - the horse’s tank is not a "mob" for mobility.
            So that:
            And this despite the fact that for the 76-mm guns there weren’t enough tractors,

            According to the state in SD, the main “consumer of divisions”, it should not have been.

            The funny thing is that Grabin BS-3 himself did not consider PTO

            It may be so, but in fact a powerful low-silo gun of small caliber for hull artillery looks like a specialized anti-tank gun - even though it was called a "field". And despite a 45 degree lift, it looks very pale in smuggling compared to the same A19.
            The Germans did not grimace in the names of their guns - Pak.

            Not important, but nevertheless there was a special "anti-tank" modification of the ZIS-3 designed for anti-tank units

            All this absolutely did not affect ballistics and was the removal of "excess" for specialized applications.
            But if mass production of “long-caliber” barrels of 57 mm had been established and placed on the same carriage, they would have got an almost perfect gun for IPTAPs - although of course the BS3 was definitely needed there too.
          2. Alf
            0
            19 March 2017 22: 58
            Quote: Bongo
            Not important, but nevertheless there was a special “anti-tank” modification of the ZIS-3 designed for anti-tank units. The troops received three varieties of 76-mm guns, which differed in elevation angles, riveted or welded frames, bolt and sights. Guns sent to anti-tank artillery , equipped with direct-sight sights PP1-2 or OP2-1.

            But ballistics didn’t change from this ...
    2. +3
      19 March 2017 08: 34
      Quote: Comrade_Stalin
      ... In a good way, it was necessary in 1930 to abandon arming divisions with guns of this caliber, and equip artillery regiments with only 122 mm howitzers. The uniform composition of artillery divisions would facilitate and simplify the supply and training of artillerymen ...

      It is good to be rich and healthy, and bad to be poor and sick.
      You proceed in your proposal from a false premise about the inexhaustibility of the resources available in the country.
      1. Using 76 mm in div. The arte was primarily due to the multimillion reserves of unitaries of this caliber. Where are they for re-melting?
      2. 122 mm, as the minimum caliber artillery regiment - is excessive. Weapons are more expensive + the need to provide a shaft of shells, which are also more expensive.
      3. Tactical maneuverability lower. Opportunities for camouflage at the forefront are worse. In the first year and a half of the war, when the Germans still carried out high-speed maneuvering operations, the percentage of abandoned-abandoned guns would be significantly higher than the ZIS-2, F-22USV.
      4. How will you supply? The carrying capacity of the German PD was almost 2 times higher than the Soviet SD until the end of the war.
      1. +1
        19 March 2017 12: 41
        Not so simple...
        Quote: BigRiver
        Using 76 mm in div. The arte was primarily due to the multimillion reserves of unitaries of this caliber. Where are they for re-melting?

        And where did these "multi-million reserves" come from? That's right, this is the result of errors in assessing the needs of artillery. A similar picture was in the First World War. The greatest "shell hunger" was experienced by howitzer artillery, and throughout the entire range of calibers. Starting with 122 mm light howitzers.

        Quote: BigRiver
        122 mm, as the minimum caliber artillery regiment - redundant. Weapons are more expensive + the need to provide a shaft of shells, which are also more expensive.

        Is not a fact. Rather, the opposite.
        Weapons are cheaper. If you use light 122 mm howitzers
        "Shaft of shells" ... 122-mm grenades when firing at openly located manpower, it is necessary 2.25 times less, for covered w / s 2.5 times, for enemy artillery - 2.26 times.
        Shells capable of leveling the flaws inherent in 76-mm cannons - OF with a remote fuse and shrapnel were much more expensive than shots for 122-mm howitzers.
        In addition, 122 mm howitzer grenades, unlike the 76 mm push. shells were effective against armored vehicles when firing with PDO.
        In addition, do not forget that the barrels of 76-mm guns were shot much faster for the banal reason of the lack of the possibility of choosing a charge.
        So, the use of 122-mm light howitzers was economically more profitable than 76-mm guns.

        Quote: BigRiver
        Tactical maneuverability is lower. Opportunities for camouflage at the forefront are worse.

        On the contrary. 122 mm light howitzers were lighter and smaller than the ZiS-3 divisional cannon

        Quote: BigRiver
        How will you supply? The carrying capacity of the German PD was almost 2 times higher than the Soviet SD until the end of the war.

        Supply problems at first glance are great. A 122 mm shot weighed 3.5 times more than a 76 mm shell. But at the same time, do not forget that they needed 2 times less.
        So not everything is as scary as it seems.
        1. +3
          19 March 2017 13: 55
          Quote: Spade
          On the contrary. 122 mm light howitzers were lighter and smaller than the ZiS-3 divisional cannon

          Kind of weird...
          The 122 mm M-30 howitzer weighed about 3000 kg in the marching, 2500 kg in the combat
          76,2 mm ZIS-3 gun in the marching - about 2000 kg, in the combat - 1500 kg ...
          Something is the other way around.
          1. +4
            19 March 2017 14: 44
            Quote: svp67
            The 122 mm M-30 howitzer weighed about 3000 kg in the marching, 2500 kg in the combat

            Hehe ...
            By the beginning of the war and up to 43 years old, the main 122-mm howitzer in the troops was a 122-mm model of 1910/30, modernized by Schneider of the First World War. And she weighed 1466 kg in combat (i.e. without a front end)

            They were produced from 37 to 41 by 3395 units

            "Kulak sawed-off" M-30 thing is generally interesting. Short-barreled divisional howitzer, which fired farther than the ZiS-3 divisional cannon.
            That is, it turned out that the only advantage of the gun over the howitzer was even absent.
            1. +1
              19 March 2017 14: 47
              Quote: Spade
              That is, it turned out that the only advantage of the gun over the howitzer was even absent.

              What about the speed of the projectile?
              Quote: Spade
              "Kulak sawed-off" M-30 thing is generally interesting.

              To be honest, I myself am a supporter of howitzers in the division link, moreover, I believe that there should be one howitzer division, one cannon in the regiment, and this does not include PTA.
              And, although I recognize the merits of Grabin, in the field of ability to push through my designs using the Leader’s personal good relations, I also see that he interfered with the normal development of artillery. Although his guilt in this is less than that of the Shalnikov, who at that time directed her.
              1. +3
                19 March 2017 15: 13
                Quote: svp67
                What about the speed of the projectile?

                And why the high initial velocity of the 76-mm shell? It is necessary to break the floor walls of bunkers with a much larger caliber.

                Quote: svp67
                To be honest, I myself am a supporter of howitzers in the division link, not only that, I believe that there should also be one howitzer division, one cannon in the regiment

                I mean now? Strictly speaking, modern long-barreled howitzers combine the properties of both guns and howitzers.

                Quote: svp67
                And, although I recognize the merits of Grabin, in the field of ability to push through my designs using the Leader’s personal good relations, I also see that he interfered with the normal development of artillery. Although his guilt in this is less than that of the Wallets

                It's not about Grabin. It all started with Tukhachevsky, who from some budun decided to recreate the disastrous French concept of the eve of the First World War. As a result, an excess of 76 mm cannon cartridges in warehouses.

                As a result, the huge production volumes of 76 mm divisions. We should have stopped by 1943, but for some reason this did not happen. Most likely, the fault of Stalin.
                1. +2
                  19 March 2017 15: 31
                  Quote: Spade
                  I mean now?

                  I mean in the 40s.
                  Quote: Spade
                  As a result, an excess of 76 mm cannon cartridges in warehouses.

                  As far as I know, at that time there were a lot of shells from the "French order" of the Tsar-Emperor. In Grabin, in his recollections of them he is well described.
                  Quote: Spade
                  We should have stopped by 1943, but for some reason this did not happen. Most likely, the fault of Stalin.

                  Stalin's fault was only in the fact that he demanded that the troops be provided with the proper amount of weapons. So they drove the shaft of what was already on the stream.
                  You are not surprised that the basis of our PTA ALL war was a 45-mm gun? After all, already from the middle of the war it was not an effective weapon for conducting anti-tank defense
                  1. 0
                    19 March 2017 21: 47
                    You are not surprised that the basis of our PTA ALL war was a 45-mm gun? After all, already from the middle of the war it was not an effective weapon for conducting anti-tank defense

                    In fact, the basis of the PTA in the Red Army was precisely the 76-mm gun ZIS-3. In total, during the war years, 24747 of these guns were sent to the PTA. For comparison, the 45-mm M-42 during the war produced about 10 thousand pieces, the 45-mm 53-K was produced during the war years about 20 thousand pieces. The Soviet leadership was aware of the weakness of the 45-mm guns, so half of all produced ZIS-3 were sent to the PTA.
                    1. +1
                      19 March 2017 23: 32
                      Quote: Comrade_Stalin
                      For comparison ... 45 mm 53-K ...
                      From 1937 to 1943, 37354 guns were produced.
                      Quote: Comrade_Stalin
                      For comparison, the 45 mm M-42 during the war was produced
                      ... 10 843 guns arr. 1942 year.
                      1. +1
                        19 March 2017 23: 35
                        And I thought it was released during the war. On June 1, 1941, the army had almost 17 thousand 45-mm guns, and almost all of them were lost in the summer-autumn battles. So these 17 thousand can not be considered. And from the number of M-42 it is necessary to subtract the ones produced from April 1945 to 1946, since these guns did not manage to get to the front.
                    2. 0
                      10 January 2018 18: 11
                      Quote: Comrade_Stalin
                      In fact, the basis of the PTA in the Red Army was precisely the 76-mm gun ZIS-3. In total, during the war years, 24747 of these guns were sent to the PTA. For comparison, the 45 mm M-42 during the war produced about 10 thousand pieces, the 45 mm 53-K was produced during the war years about 20 thousand pieces

                      You learn to write what you write. Even from your words it turns out that the 45-current was released 30 thousand against 24 tons. ZIS-3 ....
                      And for some reason such "strategists" go to the generals ...
            2. Alf
              0
              19 March 2017 23: 01
              Quote: Spade
              it turned out that the only advantage of the gun over the howitzer was even absent.

              The advantage of a howitzer over a cannon is the persistence of fire.
              1. 0
                19 March 2017 23: 31
                Well you give! The advantage of howitzers is that they can shoot with mounted fire.
                1. Alf
                  0
                  20 March 2017 00: 08
                  Quote: Comrade_Stalin
                  Well you give! The advantage of howitzers is that they can shoot with mounted fire.

                  A smart person will understand that I made a reservation. But only smart.
                  1. 0
                    20 March 2017 00: 10
                    Quote: Alf
                    A smart person will understand that I made a reservation

                    - You do not remember the joke about "water boils at 90 degrees", an hour? wink
              2. 0
                10 January 2018 18: 24
                Quote: Alf
                The advantage of a howitzer over a cannon is the persistence of fire.
                and much less accurate shooting at moving targets (even if you are moving from a distance of more than 500 meters, you’ve been hit less often than from the ZIS-3, there’s nothing even to compare about the ZIS-2), and even when shooting from closed positions .
                At the same time, you forget to mention that during the frontal confrontation, five t-4s rolled out the M-30 battery and usually without losses. torn tracks in a pair of tanks do not count.
        2. +4
          19 March 2017 15: 19
          Quote: Spade
          ... And where did these "multi-million reserves" come from? That's right, this is the result of errors in assessing the needs of artillery. ...

          The overwhelming majority of stocks of shrapnel and pomegranates 76 mm is the royal inheritance. In any case, both Shirokorad and Grabin write about this.
          Quote: Spade
          ... weapons are cheaper. If you use light 122 mm howitzers ...

          What kind? Arr. 1910/30 with a single-beam carriage?
          Quote: Spade
          "Shaft of shells" ... 122-mm grenades when firing at openly located manpower, it is necessary 2.25 times less, for covered w / s 2.5 times, for enemy artillery, 2.26 times ....
          In addition, 122 mm howitzer grenades, unlike the 76 mm push. shells were effective against armored vehicles when firing with PDO.
          So, the use of 122-mm light howitzers was economically more profitable than 76-mm guns.

          If this is so obvious, why didn’t they make 122 the minimum divisional caliber immediately after the war?
          Quote: Spade
          ... 122-mm light howitzers were lighter and smaller than the ZiS-3 divisional cannon ...

          The lightest available and massive until 1942, the mentioned sample. 1910/30 - 600 kg heavier and 40 cm higher.
          1. +2
            19 March 2017 15: 33
            Quote: BigRiver
            If this is so obvious, why didn’t they make 122 the minimum divisional caliber immediately after the war?

            This is exactly what we did after the war, we just went on. 122 mm was made a regimental caliber, and 152 mm was adopted for the division.
            1. +1
              19 March 2017 16: 03
              Quote: svp67
              Quote: BigRiver
              If this is so obvious, why didn’t they make 122 the minimum divisional caliber right after the war?

              This is exactly what we did after the war, we just went on. 122 mm was made a regimental caliber, and 152 mm was adopted for the division.

              Is it in the second half of the 50s?
              Where, interestingly, almost 11 thousand D-44 have disappeared? feel Which were adopted in 1946, and finished production in 54th.
              Mechanized division staff, mid-1945-53
              ... 245 tanks, 24 self-propelled artillery mounts, 195 armored personnel carriers, 8 anti-aircraft self-propelled guns ZSU-37, 13 57-mm, 10 76 mm, 13 85 mm guns, 37 122-mm howitzers, 2 recoilless guns, 13 120-mm and 13 160-mm mortars, 6 large-caliber machine guns DShK, 4 anti-aircraft machine-gun mounts ZPU-1, 3 ZPU-2, 4 ZPU-4, 8 25 mm, 25 37 mm and 9 85 mm anti-aircraft guns
              1. 0
                19 March 2017 17: 16
                Quote: BigRiver
                .245 tanks, 24 self-propelled artillery mounts, 195 armored personnel carriers, 8 anti-aircraft self-propelled guns ZSU-37, 13 57-mm, 10 76-mm, 13 85-mm guns, 37 122-mm howitzers, 2 recoilless guns, 13 120- mm and 13 160 mm mortars, 6 large-caliber machine guns DShK, 4 anti-aircraft machine guns ZPU-1, 3 ZPU-2, 4 ZPU-4, 8 25 mm, 25 37 mm and 9 85 mm anti-aircraft guns

                What they could, they produced it. The State simply didn’t have enough money for everything, you remember that at that moment was the height of the “nuclear project”.
          2. +1
            19 March 2017 16: 04
            Quote: BigRiver
            The overwhelming majority of stocks of shrapnel and pomegranates 76 mm is the royal inheritance. In any case, both Shirokorad and Grabin write about this.

            I'm afraid this is not entirely true. And about shrapnel ... degradation of gunpowder. I think, by the beginning of the war, shrapnel from the First World War was, to put it mildly, ineffective. In addition, the lion's share of the cost of shrapnel ammunition is made up of remote tubes, and they certainly were of a later production.

            Quote: BigRiver
            What kind? Arr. 1910/30 with a single-beam carriage?

            Well yes. They still had modernization potential.

            Quote: BigRiver
            If this is so obvious, why didn’t they make 122 the minimum divisional caliber immediately after the war?

            I do not know. Probably again carried away by experiments. For example, D-44. Which they decided to make a "universal" - both divisional and anti-tank.

            Quote: BigRiver
            The lightest available and massive until 1942, the mentioned sample. 1910/30 - 600 kg heavier and 40 cm higher.

            Strictly speaking, not 600 kg, but 266 kg. In a fighting position. And if you compare with non-modernized, then 140 kg.
            Everything is simple here, the gun carriages and front end of the howitzer and guns, to put it mildly, of different generations.
            1. +1
              19 March 2017 16: 28
              Quote: Spade
              ... Arr. 1910/30 g ... Well, yes. They still had modernization potential.

              I’m never an artilleryman, although I wore Pushkar buttonholes.
              The source from the memoir, of course, is so-so ... I once read on the Iremember memoir of the artilleryman who fought for a couple of years with this howitzer. According to him, with the advent of tanks, to survive the calculation of this "layba" - zero point, hell of a tenth. With the complete impossibility of at least one tank to get.
              Firstly, the rate of fire, and secondly, maneuver by fire along the front.
              Quote: BigRiver
              If this is so obvious, why didn’t they make 122 the minimum divisional caliber immediately after the war?

              Quote: Spade
              I do not know. Probably again carried away by experiments. For example, D-44. Which they decided to make a "universal" - both divisional and anti-tank.

              Tearing at the British flag is not ready. But, I am inclined to believe that the Red Army in the 30-40s was beyond the power of this basic caliber due to weak motorization.
              Caliber extension div. Art from the second half of the 50s clearly correlates with the explosive growth of this process.
              1. +1
                19 March 2017 17: 40
                Quote: BigRiver
                Tearing at the British flag is not ready. But, I am inclined to believe that the Red Army in the 30-40s was beyond the power of this basic caliber due to weak motorization.

                It's not about motoring.
                Unsuccessful strategic decisions, the activities of Tukhachevsky, which hit the artillery very much (by the way, at the same time the military air defense, and when the backlash lobbied by him was transferred to the category of “enemies of the people” - this also hit the ultra-light artillery and light anti-tank systems very hard ), then Stalin's activities in the production of excess ZiS-3.
            2. 0
              19 March 2017 16: 49
              Quote: Spade
              ... They still had modernization potential.

              Speaking of rate of fire.
              76 mm - about 130 kg of iron / minute
              122 mm - about 100 kg.
              Somewhere like that?
              1. +1
                19 March 2017 17: 44
                Quote: BigRiver
                Speaking of rate of fire.
                76 mm - about 130 kg of iron / minute
                122 mm - about 100 kg.

                And there should have been 225 and 100, in order to at least roughly equalize the damaging effect in terms of open manpower.

                But the ficus picus is that the cannon beyond the folds of the terrain cannot even hit openly located infantry with conventional ammunition. You need either a remote fuse or shrapnel, and there the rate of fire is already at the level of 122 mm howitzers.
    3. +2
      19 March 2017 13: 49
      Quote: Comrade_Stalin
      For WWII, this tool has become obsolete. In a good way, it was necessary in 1930 to abandon arming divisions with guns of this caliber, and arm artillery regiments with only 122-mm howitzers.

      Yes, it would also be good to put it on a self-propelled base, but did the USSR have such an opportunity?
      Quote: Comrade_Stalin
      with the 1940 g it was possible to produce anti-aircraft guns with the caliber and ballistics of 85-mm anti-aircraft guns.

      Yes, yes ... but were there worthy targets for such guns? For 1940 and up to 1942, the 45-mm cannon completely coped with all the enemy’s armored targets ... To have, yes, but not to let out as a design reserve ... Since this would have moved the enemy to produce tactics capable of withstanding this gun.
      1. +1
        19 March 2017 21: 57
        Yes, it would also be good to put it on a self-propelled base, but did the USSR have such an opportunity?
        The 122-mm howitzer of 1910 was mastered by industry, shells were fired, gunners were also familiar with this gun. So what prevented the curtailment of the release of 76-mm guns and focus on the release of howitzers? I believe that the blame for this lies entirely with Tukhach, who raved with universal 76-mm guns, which would be three in one: both as a divisional gun, and as an anti-aircraft gun, and as anti-aircraft artillery. By the way, it was because of Tukhach that the anti-aircraft defense systems did not develop. DShK machine guns, 37-mm machine guns began to be produced only in 1939, two years after the removal of Tukhach. But it was precisely air defense that was our weakness, in the troops there were only four Maxims, which had extremely low efficiency due to their small caliber. Yes, and those were not enough.
        Yes, yes ... but were there worthy targets for such guns? For 1940 and up to 1942, the 45-mm cannon completely coped with all the enemy’s armored targets ... To have, yes, but not to let out as a design reserve ... Since this would have moved the enemy to produce tactics capable of withstanding this gun.

        What would you like: to hit from 85-mm guns on German tanks from a distance of 1500 m while being relatively safe, or to let tanks down to 500 m to hit them from 45-mm little guns? The tank, by the way, traveling at a speed of 15 km / h, will pass these 500 m in 2 minutes.
        1. +1
          19 March 2017 23: 50
          Quote: Comrade_Stalin
          What would you like: to hit from 85-mm guns on German tanks from a distance of 1500 m while being relatively safe, or to let tanks down to 500 m to hit them from 45-mm little guns?

          Most of all I would like to look at other people's tanks sitting on a bench in a movie theater.
          But seriously, for some time, but not big, you would really hit German tanks at a distance of 1500 km, but the fact of the matter is that the Germans very quickly found a way to break into the enemy’s anti-tank missile and for this they successfully used combined tank actions , artillery, infantry. Could and aviation support. They tried to open fire not from maximum distances, but so that they could have time to hit the enemy and not immediately fall under artillery fire. It was very difficult to survive in this PTA meat grinder, for good reason they were called "Farewell to the Motherland". Although the meaning of the appearance of exactly 85 mm anti-aircraft guns is, with the simultaneous appearance of the SU-85 and T-34/85, it would be possible to shorten the range of ammunition. Yes, the trouble is, it soon became clear that our 85-mm tank gun hardly hit the new German tanks, at ranges of 700 meters, apparently decided not to risk it and immediately switch to 100-mm, which would be a margin.
    4. Alf
      0
      19 March 2017 22: 42
      Quote: Comrade_Stalin
      The uniform composition of artillery divisions would facilitate and simplify the supply and training of artillerymen.

      So Tukhachevsky talked about this exactly when he pushed his freak-universal cannon, which can do anything.
      Estimate the difference in weight of the ZIS-3 and M-30, as well as the difference in dimensions. And think about whether such a howitzer is needed when shooting direct fire at 300-500 meters? But the complexity and cost of such tools vary significantly.
      1. 0
        19 March 2017 23: 14
        M-30 weighed 2,5 tons, not so much. But on the other hand, the M-30 fired shells weighing 22 kg, and the ZIS-3 shells weighing only 6,8 kg. In addition, thanks to a larger elevation angle and the possibility of changing the charge, the M-30 had much greater flexibility of use. ZIS-3, however, could not hit targets behind a ramp, in a ravine, etc.
        And think about whether such a howitzer is needed when shooting direct fire at 300-500 meters?

        In fact, divisional artillery should not shoot at such scanty distances, for this there is regimental and battalion artillery.
        But the complexity and cost of such tools vary significantly.

        I don’t think that they differ much. After all, the lion's share of the cost of the gun includes the barrel. Judge for yourself what is easier and easier to do: a 122 mm barrel 23 gauge long, or a 76 mm barrel 40 gauge long?
        1. 0
          20 March 2017 08: 36
          But the complexity and cost of such tools vary significantly.

          Quote: Comrade_Stalin
          I don’t think that they differ much. After all, the lion's share of the cost of the gun includes the barrel. Judge for yourself what is easier and easier to do: a 122 mm barrel 23 gauge long, or a 76 mm barrel 40 gauge long?

          Theoretical ... But in practice it’s more difficult. Much depends on the manufacturability of the product laid down by the designers and the capabilities of the production base.
          For example:
          ZIS-3 was 3 (!!!) times cheaper than the F-22 SPM. Caliber and barrel length - one.
          ZIS-S-53 (85 mm) was cheaper than the F-34 (76 mm).
  2. +1
    19 March 2017 07: 14
    "... Under the leadership of the prominent artillery scientist Nikolai Zabudsky, an improved version of the gun was developed. For the first time in the history of Russian land artillery, rollback occurred along the axis of the bore. After military tests, the artillery system was adopted under the name" 3 inch field gun of the 1902 model of the year. " ... "

    But the author forgot to indicate that the outstanding scientist Zabudsky Nikolai Alexandrovich was killed during the February unrest of February 27 on February 1917 in Petrograd! The centennial of these events, which led the Empire to collapse, has been widely celebrated by many media ...
    1. +4
      19 March 2017 17: 18
      Quote: moskowit
      That's just the author forgot to indicate

      The fact is certainly regrettable, but honestly what does it have to do with it? Was he killed for his invention? Or are there other reasons?
  3. +2
    19 March 2017 07: 27
    ZIS-3 in the military service of the DRA. (80s)
    1. 0
      19 March 2017 16: 50
      Quote: bionik
      ZIS-3 in the military service of the DRA. (80s)

      And here is the 2016 parade of the Nicaraguan army, who are interested to see in full, who has no patience, go to 34 minutes 10 seconds ...
  4. +2
    19 March 2017 07: 41
    It’s strange. ZiS-3 by all the "experts" obkhaetsya, but is still used.
    People forget that the main task of this gun is to support infantry fire. Fighting tanks is a secondary task with which these guns more or less cope.
    85-107-122-152mm, I wonder how their calculation would be dragged on hands across the battlefield? The main transport in the USSR, a half-truck could carry larger guns?
    1. 0
      19 March 2017 14: 51
      Quote: demiurg
      I wonder how their calculation would be carried on hands across the battlefield?

      We dragged ZiS-3. I would not say that it is easier than the same D-44 (post-war 85-mm division). Even more likely the opposite. Longer than a trunk - a person hanging on it better "unloads the beds"
      1. 0
        10 January 2018 18: 40
        Quote: Spade
        We dragged ZiS-3. I would not say that it is easier than the same D-44 (post-war 85-mm division). Even more likely the opposite. Longer than a trunk - a person hanging on it better "unloads the beds"
        you watch a newsreel of street battles and figure out how many gunners would have died, with such a drag of the gun. This is not a training ground for you. Sometimes it is necessary not only to apply hands, but also the head.
    2. +3
      19 March 2017 17: 06
      Quote: demiurg
      It’s strange. ZiS-3 by all the "experts" obkhaetsya, but is still used.

      Most of it was given as a GIFT, or rather assistance to countries with a socialist orientation and in small quantities.
      1. +2
        19 March 2017 17: 47
        Quote: svp67
        Most of it was given as a GIFT, or rather assistance to countries with a socialist orientation and in small quantities.

        Plus replacement gun
        So not all ZiSs in modern photographs are full-time combat units.
  5. +9
    19 March 2017 07: 46
    Quote: karelia-molot
    It would be a little more rational not to spend time and energy in general on the development of birds, but to switch to birds at the beginning of the war. One must think one step ahead)

    You think the campaign is only a half step away.) I would have taken combat blasters as far back as 38m! fellow
  6. 0
    19 March 2017 12: 49
    Entot Kulik to the detriment of harm brought the Red Army as head of the GAU of the Red Army !! In 1942 he was demoted from the marshal to lieutenant. But he was not shot, but it's a pity, because. was in favor with the Generalissimo since the Civil War, together Tsaritsyn and Voroshilov defended with them!
    1. +3
      19 March 2017 14: 46
      It's not about Kulik. It all started with Tukhachevsky.
  7. +1
    20 March 2017 02: 23
    But the "three-inch" was used in the "Afghanistan" ... (76-mm mountain gun GP (M-99)). Interesting ... did they still remain "in the troops"?
    1. +1
      20 March 2017 08: 27
      They didn’t stay, although the cannabis would very, very fit into a place in the same Chechnya. There were problems with the firepower of units in the mountains.
      But she is a gun only in name.
      1. +1
        20 March 2017 09: 00
        Quote: Spade
        But she is a gun only in name.

        Well, that's right ... anyway, sorry ...
        1. +3
          20 March 2017 10: 35
          It's not about whether it is a pity or not a pity, it is really needed in the troops.
          In the Second Chechen Shamans throughout the West group gathered semi-operators of portable Fagots. Half-operators because none of them had real launch experience, at least we had it. Just before the departure, two rockets were launched, and that’s all.
          And they sent them to strengthen the group that held the border with Georgia.
          Of course it was a palliative, the “Bassoon” only cumulative ammunition. But at least something ...

          Communicated with a classmate, with whom he studied together, the real situation. A fragment of the path along the ledge was visible from their GP. Militants began to seep through it. He has only mortars, 82 on a half-line, 120 with a PDO. Accordingly, they can’t get on the cornice, because of the dispersion of the mine or over the crest fly away, or fall down.
          The weather is non-flying, very low cloud cover. That is, even the "Facets", if they had them, could not be applied.
          But a thing like 2A2 would be able to close the path tightly.
          1. +1
            20 March 2017 11: 16
            So I say, Sorry! Here, not only in the “cannon” is the “essence” (nevertheless, the 21 century! Maybe the barrage of munitions of company use is better suited wink ) ... the question is "wider"! Do you need a weapon with this kind of "functionality" at the moment? And if necessary, then why not.?!
            1. 0
              20 March 2017 17: 12
              Quote: Nikolaevich I
              Here, not only in the “cannon” is the “essence” (it’s still the 21st century! Maybe the company’s barricading ammunition is better suited

              It is not always possible to use it in the mountains. Weather. And installing on such good IR cameras is painful. Yes, and, for example, combing fire with such ammunition is very expensive.

              It is better to take the "classics" and bring it to mind with electronics. The mountain cannon, of course, is a very heavy thing, but it can possibly be replaced, for example, by a heavy AGS with highly effective grenades. Or LNG with a variable charge and fragmentation munitions, preferably with remote detonation. While working in the air, they again in the mountains / forest / settlements will be more effective.
              Perhaps something like doped up to the mind and with normal electronics LShO-57 (aka AGS-57)
              1. 0
                20 March 2017 19: 56
                The mountain cannon, of course, is a very heavy thing, but it can possibly be replaced, for example, by a heavy AGS with highly effective grenades. Or LNG with a variable charge and fragmentation munitions, preferably with remote detonation. While working in the air, they again in the mountains / forest / settlements will be more effective.

                Such a replacement has existed since 1971. and it is called 2B9 "Cornflower".
                1. +1
                  20 March 2017 20: 09
                  He does not understand. Consequently, it is very, very difficult to drag him into the mountain.
              2. +1
                21 March 2017 00: 16
                Perhaps the AGS-57 is better suited as a mining tool. By the way, after transferring the grenade launcher to the tests in the Airborne Forces, nothing has been heard about it recently.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"