Military Review

Self-propelled artillery installation "Object 120"

37
In the mid-fifties, the Soviet defense industry temporarily stopped the development of new self-propelled artillery systems. The reasons for this decision were associated with numerous technical problems of recent projects, as well as a change in the concept of development of the ground forces. Nevertheless, literally a couple of years later, the opinion of the command changed, as a result of which a new project for the development of a promising ACS was launched. This model of armored vehicles became known under the name "Object 120" and "Ram".


By the mid-fifties, Soviet scientists and engineers had worked out the issue of equipment tanks and other combat vehicles with missile weapons. Missile systems had a very high potential, and therefore from a certain time they were considered as a means of completely replacing existing artillery anti-tank systems. Nevertheless, such projects were highly complex, which is why their development could be delayed. In this regard, as an aid to missile tanks, it was decided to create a new artillery self-propelled gun with a high-powered gun.


"120 Object" in the Kubinka Museum. Photo of Wikimedia Commons


In May 1957, the USSR Council of Ministers issued two decrees, according to which the defense industry was to create several new types of equipment. It is curious that the decision to develop an armored vehicle with artillery armament came out a few weeks earlier than a similar document requiring the creation of a rocket tank. New research work in the field of self-propelled artillery received the code "Taran".

The head developer of the promising ACS was assigned to the OKB-3 of the Sverdlovsk Uralmashzavod. GS was to supervise the work. Yefimov. The creation of the artillery unit was commissioned by the Perm plant No.172. These enterprises already had a lot of experience in creating self-propelled artillery and various weapons, which made it possible to successfully solve all the tasks.

The project of perspective self-propelled guns received the working designation “Object 120”, which was used in parallel with the name of the topic. In addition, in some sources the car is designated as SU-152, but this name can lead to confusion, since during the years of the Great Patriotic War, the model of the same name was already produced and was in service.

Until the end of 1957, the necessary studies were carried out, the purpose of which was to select the optimal caliber of the gun for the Taran. Taking into account the current progress in the field of tank armor and armaments, it was decided that the systems 130 and 152 mm have the greatest prospects. Two M-68 (130 mm) and M-69 (152 mm) guns projects were developed. In the near future it was supposed to produce prototypes of such systems and determine their real capabilities in the conditions of the landfill.

Self-propelled artillery installation "Object 120"
Layout SAU. Photo Russianarms.ru


In 1958, Plant No. 172 manufactured experimental trunks, with the help of which it was planned to conduct a new stage of testing. Comparative tests have shown that, despite the significant difference in calibers, guns are superior to one another in some indicators and lose in others. So, 152-mm gun used a heavier armor-piercing projectile, but it accelerates to lower speeds. M-68, in turn, was ahead of the heavier armor penetration system at zero meeting angles, whereas with increasing angle it showed less high performance. In general, from the point of view of technical characteristics, the two guns were equivalent.

The most important advantage of the X-NUMX-mm M-152 cannon has become the proposed range of ammunition. Unlike a smaller system, it could use cumulative projectiles. The high power, the gain in some characteristics and the presence of a cumulative shot resulted in the fact that M-69 was recommended for use on the “69 Object”. Thus, the caliber 120 mm was finally chosen.

In parallel with the choice of weapons was the issue of the chassis. Since the end of the forties, Uralmashzavod has been working on three promising self-propelled guns, built on the basis of a unified chassis. The latter was based on a number of original ideas and used some new solutions for domestic technology. Nevertheless, the novelty had a negative impact on the course of the project, because of which, even after several years of refining, the chassis retained a number of serious flaws. By the time Nira Taran was launched, two projects out of three were closed, and the development of the SU-100P self-propelled gun was still ongoing, but in order to create a new chassis. It was a modified version of an existing armored vehicle that was proposed to be used in a new project.

The proposed 152-mm cannon was large and made appropriate demands on the fighting compartment. In this regard, it was decided not to use the SU-100P chassis, but its modified version, based on the basic ideas of the closed SU-152П project. In this case, the problem of dimensions was solved by lengthening the body and adding a pair of road wheels. Thus, the new “120 Object” was supposed to be based on a refined and improved 7k chassis.


Projections of "Taran". Figure Russianarms.ru


The corps retained the overall architecture and layout, but now some reinforcement of armor protection and a certain change in the shape of the aggregates were proposed. To increase the level of protection, the thickness of the front sheets was increased to 30 mm. Other hull elements were 8 mm thick. Bronelists were connected by welding. Riveted connections in the new project were not used. In the frontal part of the hull, transmission units were still located, behind which were the control compartment (left) and the engine compartment. The aft part of the hull stood out under the fighting compartment with a full-fledged swivel tower.

Despite some design changes, the body of the 120 Object externally looked like an existing design. The frontal projection was protected by several inclined sheets placed at different angles to the vertical. The front of the case had a sloping roof, equipped with hatches for the driver and for access to the engine compartment. Behind the engine compartment was a horizontal roof with a shoulder strap for installing the tower. The hull retained vertical sides, on which, however, boxes for property appeared. An interesting feature of the updated hull was the ledge at the top of the stern.

The armament of the self-propelled gun was to be placed in a full-turn turret, providing protection for the crew and ammunition from all threats. The use of a cast tower of a relatively complex shape was suggested. The frontal and central part of the tower had a shape that was close to hemispherical. Behind on the main unit was mounted a large feed niche, necessary for placing piles. On the roof of the tower, at its left side, there was a commander's turret. There were also hatches and openings for viewing devices or sighting devices.

Self-propelled gun "Taran" retained the power plant and transmission, developed in the framework of the project SU-100П. In the engine compartment fit diesel engine B-105 400 horsepower. The engine mated with a mechanical transmission. It consisted of a main friction clutch for dry friction, a two-stream gear and turning mechanism, as well as two single-stage side-mounted gearboxes. Due to the small size of all the transmission units were placed in the engine compartment and the front of the case.


Self-propelled feed: you can consider improvements to the base chassis. Photo Russianarms.ru


The undercarriage was based on the developments of the SU-152P project, but it was refined based on the experience of the further development of the unified chassis. On each side, with the help of an individual torsion suspension, seven double rubberized road wheels were placed. The front and rear pairs of rollers were amplified by hydraulic shock absorbers. In front of the hull were driving wheels, in the stern - guides. Support rollers were installed above the support rollers: four such parts were placed at unequal intervals between them. A characteristic feature of the “120 Object”, as well as its predecessors, was the use of a caterpillar with a rubber-metal hinge. However, by the end of the fifties, this was no longer an innovation, since the industry had managed to master the production of several samples of equipment with such tracks.

The main weapons The ram was supposed to be an X-NUMX-mm M-152 rifled gun. This gun had a barrel length 69 caliber with a muzzle-type muzzle brake and an ejector. Used semi-automatic wedge gate. The cannon assembly was completed with hydropneumatic recoil devices, which made it possible to obtain a rollback length of the entire 59,5 mm. Horizontal guidance was performed by turning the entire tower with the help of mechanical drives. Hydraulics was responsible for the vertical tip. There was the possibility of firing targets in any direction at the corners of the vertical pickup from -300 ° to + 5 °. The gunner’s workplace had a TS-15 day sight and a night periscope system that needed to be illuminated. The spotlight was placed next to the gun mask.

The gun M-69 used a separate-sleeve loading and could use several types of ammunition. For the destruction of manpower and fortifications, high-explosive fragmentation shells with a mass of 43,5 kg, used with missile charges with a weight of 10,7 and 3,5 kg, were intended. It was proposed to fight with armored vehicles with the help of cumulative and sabot projectiles. The latter had a mass of 11,5 kg and shot 9,8-kg propellant charge. Having an initial speed of 1720 m / s, such ammunition at a distance of 3500 m could penetrate up to 295 mm of armor. With 1000 m at an angle of encounter 60 ° 179 mm were penetrated. Self-propelled gun "Object 120" took on board only 22 shot separate loading. Ammunition was transported in aft laying tower. In order to simplify the work of the crew, a mechanical rammer was used, and after the shot, the gun automatically returned to the loading angle.

An additional weapon of the new self-propelled gun could be a heavy machine gun KPV. This weapon could be placed on the turret of one of the hatches in the roof of the tower. In addition, for self-defense crew could use personal small arms and hand grenades.


Renovation of the 120 Object. Figure Dogswar.ru


The crew was to consist of four people. In front of the hull, in the management department, there was a driver. His workplace kept all the funds foreseen by previous projects. Get into the control compartment followed through the hatch in the roof. For driving in a combat situation, the driver had a couple of periscope instruments. The commander, gunner and loader were placed in the tower. The place of the commander was to the right of the gun, the gunner - to the left. The charger was behind them. Access to the fighting compartment was provided by a pair of roof hatches. The crew had an intercom and a radio station P-113.

Self-propelled artillery installation of a new type has turned out quite large. The hull length reached 6,9 m, the length with the cannon was about 10 m. The width was 3,1 m, the height was slightly more than 2,8 m. The combat weight was determined in 27 t. With these parameters, the Taran armored car could reach speeds of more than 60 km / h and overcome at one refueling 280 km. Ensured a fairly high cross on rough terrain. Water barriers should be overcome by fords.

The development of the project “Object 120” / “Taran” was completed in 1959, after which Uralmashzavod began assembling a prototype. At the very beginning of next year, the Perm gunsmiths manufactured two M-69 experimental guns and sent them to Sverdlovsk. After mounting the guns, the built prototype was ready for testing. In the near future it was planned to test the armored vehicles at the factory site, which was necessary for the subsequent refinement and improvement of the equipment.

It is known that the experienced "Ram" repeatedly went to the track of the landfill and walked a considerable distance along it. In addition, as part of the factory tests, several shots were fired at targets. Such checks allowed us to determine the scope of further work and begin to improve the existing design.


Self-propelled gun (highlighted in green) in the museum hall. You can estimate the proportions of the gun without the muzzle brake. Photo Strangernn.livejournal.com


However, the refinement of the experimental technology did not last too long. Already 30 May 1960, the USSR Council of Ministers decided to stop the research work "Taran". This decision was justified by the progress in the artillery and missile areas. By the early sixties, more sophisticated anti-tank missile systems were created, and in addition, ideas and solutions emerged that made it possible to create smooth-bore guns with high characteristics. For example, based on new technologies, the 125-mm tank gun 2А26 was soon created, which had certain advantages over the existing M-69. Further development of the 2А26 product led to the emergence of the 2А46 family systems, which are still in service. There is also a version according to which the abandonment of the “Taran” project was associated with pressure from supporters of rocket weapons. Previously, they managed to get rid of three projects of ACS, and the new project could also become their “victim”.

Anyway, at the very end of spring 1960, the work on the topic “Ram” was stopped. New prototypes were not built and tested. The unique and interesting machine remained in a single copy. The no longer needed prototype of the ACS “Object 120” was later transferred to the Kubinka Armored Museum, where it remains to this day. The use of long-barreled tools led to interesting consequences. Even after dismantling the large muzzle brake, the self-propelled gun does not fit into the existing exhibition hall very well: the barrel of the “shortened” barrel reaches the opposite equipment.

In 1957, two projects of promising anti-tank equipment were launched, one of which involved the construction of an artillery self-propelled gun, and the second a rocket tank. As a result, the “120 Object” was constantly compared to the “150 Object” / IT-1 machine. Each of the two samples exceeded its competitor in some characteristics, while in the others it was inferior to it. Nevertheless, in the end, the missile tank was considered more perfect and successful, as a result of which it entered service and was produced in a small series. The project "Ram", in turn, was closed.

However, the developments on the "120 Object" did not disappear. A few years after the closure of this project, work began on new self-propelled artillery installations for various purposes. When creating them, already known and proven solutions borrowed from closed projects were used in the most active way. Thus, the "Object 120" / "Taran" ACS and previous designs, which were abandoned at the time, were still able to help further the development of Russian self-propelled artillery.


On the materials of the sites:
http://dogswar.ru/
http://russianarms.ru/
http://bastion-karpenko.narod.ru/
http://shushpanzer-ru.livejournal.com/
http://strangernn.livejournal.com/
Author:
37 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 1 August 2017 07: 38
    +1
    The barrel looks like an MSTA-S gun ... If you shoot from a PDO, then 40 km, you can probably shoot ...
    1. Arakius
      Arakius 2 August 2017 22: 50
      0
      Will not work. Elevation angle of only 15 gr.
  2. chenia
    chenia 1 August 2017 08: 59
    0
    I must say that it would have turned out to be a cool IT, but it is too noticeable-dimensional.
    The absence of a MOH did not allow the system to be re-arranged.

    If we were to combine the control department with the combat (aft), i.e. remove the mechanical water supply, move the gun to the stern. Place an ammunition compartment behind the engine (you can already have a 152 mm unitar), with the supply of the selected type of projectile to the combat compartment, and from there through the hatch to the gun. In this case, there is no need for a tower (a small elevation. And the gun separately above it does not need an ejector. Anti-rollback devices, observation devices, a mechanical rammer of the shot. And the extraction mechanism are covered by armor.

    The feed-nasal swaps., So that the driver’s visibility is even higher, and the entry and exit hatches are not from above, but in the frontal part. On the march and in battle, the cannon turned to the stern (what was bow). A 60-gauge gun doesn’t “scoop” the soil.
    Add reinforcement of the upper part reservation, blade (for self-digging) and variable clearance. Well, the crew can have two people (commander and gunner-operator) with the capabilities of each to be a mechanic.

    In the unit, have a department (b / c and technical services) to assist the crew in servicing equipment and engineering equipment positions.

    Well, something like this.
  3. Lganhi
    Lganhi 1 August 2017 09: 45
    +1
    By the beginning of the sixties, more advanced anti-tank missile systems were created, and in addition, ideas and solutions appeared that made it possible to create high-performance smooth-bore guns. For example, on the basis of new technologies, a 125-mm 2A26 tank gun was soon created, which had certain advantages over the existing M-69

    This is a self-propelled gun, not a tank am ! Why is the self-propelled guns a smoothbore gun, in which the accuracy when firing from closed positions at long ranges is less than the accuracy of the rifled gun by an order of magnitude? !!! So, a pretty machine, based on the experience of its creation, seems to have created Acacia later.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 1 August 2017 10: 24
      +1
      Quote: Lgankhi
      This is a self-propelled gun, not a tank! Why self-propelled guns smoothbore gun

      Self-propelled anti-tank guns also belong to the category of self-propelled guns.
      1. Lganhi
        Lganhi 1 August 2017 10: 53
        +1
        Self-propelled VET in peacetime is not needed. They were made in World War II under conditions of a total war of attrition, since they are cheaper than tanks, and they can be done more and faster. For example, Shtug-3 was 20 percent cheaper than the T-4, and Hetzer was generally two times cheaper. The USSR also began to make the SU-85 instead of the SU-122, when the Tigers and Panthers appeared, since it was easier and faster to make them than the T-34-85, for which it was necessary to make a new tower. The Yankees, too, having succumbed to the example of the USSR and Germany, made a small production of tank destroyers, about 10 thousand, but their number is insignificant compared to the production of Sherman and Lee, as combat experience has shown that they are no better than tanks, despite the rotating turret of American fighters tanks.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 1 August 2017 11: 23
          +6
          Quote: Lgankhi
          Self-propelled VET in peacetime is not needed.

          You will laugh, but in peacetime you do not need any self-propelled guns 8)))
          In general, a lot of self-propelled anti-tank guns / tank destroyers appeared during the Cold War. And they continue to appear now. Both tracked and wheeled.

          If we talk about the "Taran", then at about the same time in Germany created their "duplex" of self-propelled anti-tank guns and self-propelled anti-tank systems.
          1. igordok
            igordok 1 August 2017 13: 31
            +1
            Quote: Spade
            In general, a lot of self-propelled anti-tank guns / tank destroyers appeared during the Cold War.

            Someone considers the Strv-103 tank, someone IT.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 1 August 2017 14: 10
              +4
              Quote: igordok
              Someone considers the Strv-103 tank, someone IT.

              Including the Swedish half-tank ...
              or the first Merkavs, which were essentially a hybrid of tank destroyers and armored personnel carriers. Without stabilized weapons, they had to work from the deployment line.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 1 August 2017 13: 16
          +2
          Quote: Lgankhi
          The Yankees, too, having succumbed to the example of the USSR and Germany, made a small production of tank destroyers, about 10 thousand, but their number is insignificant compared to the production of Sherman and Lee, as combat experience has shown that they are no better than tanks, despite the rotating turret of American fighters tanks.

          Actually, the tank destroyers were the basis of the anti-tank defense of the American armored forces - because the US tanks (as, indeed, ours) were sharpened to combat infantry and soft targets. It is from here, by the way, that the roots of rejection by the American tank generals “firefly” and, in general, 76-mm guns on the “Sherman” grow - the increase in the initial speed reduced the power of the OFS.
          Actually, theoretically they were right - with the statutory use of armored forces (tanks do not get involved in battle with enemy tanks - this is the task of the tank destroyers attached and operating together with them), the German bronzverinets understood quite quickly even with the usual Shermans.
          As for the volumes of production, the doctrine-based PT-SAU battalions were subunits of the corps and army subordination, intended to strengthen the formations in the band of which the presence of German armor was assumed, or to counter German strikes. So the issue was determined by the states.
          1. Lganhi
            Lganhi 1 August 2017 14: 41
            0
            Interestingly, why is Vulverin with an open turret and lightweight armor better than Sherman with the same 76 mm cannon?
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 1 August 2017 18: 58
              0
              Quote: Lgankhi
              Interestingly, why is Vulverin with an open turret and lightweight armor better than Sherman with the same 76 mm cannon?

              The fact that the M10 is a tank destroyer. For her, the power of the OFS is unimportant, since her goals are hard targets (tanks and other armored vehicles).
              But for the “Sherman” the OFS was the priority - since its target was soft targets (infantry, field fortifications, open artillery positions). And with the OFS, the 76-mm gun was much worse than the usual 75-mm gun (the reverse side of the higher initial speed and increased armor penetration - ours noted similar on the "pantherina" 75 / L70).
              Being a dedicated anti-tank gun, the 76 mm had a much weaker high explosive shell than the existing 75 mm, and was not initially accepted by various US armored division commanders, even though many had already been produced and were available.

              Actually, we had the same picture: the tanks were imprisoned for "anti-personnel" (see the composition of the BC), and the anti-tank vehicles had to fight with the enemy tanks.
              Tanks do not fulfill their main task of destroying enemy infantry, but are distracted by the battle with enemy tanks and artillery. The established practice of opposing our enemy’s tank attacks and getting involved in tank battles is wrong and harmful.

              The corps should not get involved in tank battles with enemy tanks, unless there is a clear superiority over the enemy. In the event of encountering large enemy tank units, the corps detaches anti-tank artillery and part of the tanks against the enemy tanks, the infantry, in turn, puts forward its anti-tank artillery, and the corps, obscured by all these means, bypasses the enemy tanks with its main forces and hits the enemy infantry with the aim of tear it from enemy tanks and paralyze the actions of enemy tanks. The main task of the tank corps is the destruction of enemy infantry.
              © Order of the People's Commissar of Defense of the USSR # 325. October 16, 1942
              1. Lganhi
                Lganhi 1 August 2017 23: 59
                0
                Yes? And how much less does a 76 mm shell have explosives compared to a 75 mm shell? 10 percent? Does this play a critical role?
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 2 August 2017 08: 26
                  0
                  Do not forget about the initial speed.
                  An HE shell with a high V0 is only good for firing at vertical walls; for infantry in the trenches, dispersion in range will be gigantic ...
                  1. Lganhi
                    Lganhi 2 August 2017 09: 47
                    0
                    Aha ha ha ha :))))!
                    Quote: Spade
                    according to infantry in the trenches, the dispersion in range will be gigantic ...

                    Sherman, a divisional gun or a howitzer shooting at 6-8 km? Moreover, the maximum angle of vertical guidance at Sherman is only 25 degrees. And just the opposite, at the same distance the accuracy of the 76-mm gun will be much higher than that of the 75-mm gun, since the initial velocity of the 76-mm shell is much higher, and as you know, the higher the initial velocity, the greater the accuracy at other conditions being equal. For example, in the USSR they wanted to put a 152-mm howitzer with an initial speed of 500 m / s on the IS-2, believing that the cumulative projectile would be effective against heavy tanks, and a 40-kg howitzer HE shell would be much more effective than a 25-kg 122-mm cannon shell. But as the shooting experience showed, with 15 shots at a distance of 500 m at a fixed target the size of a tank, there was not a single hit.
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 2 August 2017 09: 50
                      0
                      Quote: Lgankhi
                      Sherman, a divisional gun or a howitzer shooting at 6-8 km?

                      Who cares? It’s not even ballistics, simple geometry. The higher the speed, the higher the dispersion in range with equal dispersion in height.
                    2. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 2 August 2017 10: 09
                      0
                      A simple example:
                      122 mm D25T tank gun with an initial projectile speed of 795 m / s. At a distance of 1km, dispersion in range Vd = 37m
                      The 122-mm howitzer D-30 on the fourth charge at the initial 276 m / s for the same range Vd = 7.2 m
                      1. Lganhi
                        Lganhi 2 August 2017 10: 24
                        0
                        Well then, why from a 152-mm howitzer of 15 rounds they couldn’t reach a target the size of a tank at a distance of 500 m? While the 45-mm gun with an initial speed of 780 m / s falls perfectly into it. For example, it was noted that from a regiment with an initial speed of 380 m / s, it is also useless to fire due to the large dispersion of the projectile.
                    3. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 2 August 2017 10: 38
                      0
                      Quote: Lgankhi
                      Well then, why from a 152-mm howitzer of 15 rounds they couldn’t reach a target the size of a tank at a distance of 500 m?

                      How do I know? Maybe the gunner is bad, maybe the sighting ones haven’t verified ...
                      Or maybe it's just a "city legend" ...

                      152 mm howitzer arr. 43 years. Cumulative projectile BP-540, range 500 meters. Bb = 0.1 m, Bb = 0.2 meters.
                      That is, 50% of the shells will fit in an ellipse with half shafts of 20 cm by 40 cm. And 100% of the shells are 0.8 m in height and 1.6 m in width.
                      Will definitely get into the tank ...
                      1. stalkerwalker
                        stalkerwalker 2 August 2017 10: 45
                        +2
                        Quote: Spade
                        How do I know? Maybe the gunner is bad, maybe the sighting ones haven’t verified ...
                        Or maybe it's just a "city legend" ...

                        In one of his books, A. Shirokorad noted that sometimes gun mounts with heavily worn tables were sometimes used in tests at the Gorokhovets training ground. Not a fact, of course ...
          2. chenia
            chenia 1 August 2017 18: 27
            +1
            Quote: Alexey RA
            (tanks do not get involved in battle with enemy tanks - this is the task of the tank destroyers attached and operating together with them)


            Here we have to catch one moment. While the tanks had relatively modest calibers, it was necessary to resort to anti-tank self-propelled guns to repel an enemy tank attack, and during their attack to self-propelled guns (assault guns) with a large caliber to suppress enemy fortifications and anti-tank weapons.

            With the advent of 115-125 mm guns, the tank division did not have a PT division, and the tank regiment had a PT battery (in TP, in fact, until the end of the 70s there was not even a simple ADN, it was then self-propelled).

            And IT is a tool that is used when the enemy has already passed (at the breakout site) the first echelon of the regiment (well, and further on, depending on the purpose of the PT reserve).

            The effectiveness of ATGMs (especially after the 1973 war) seems to have forever buried barrel IT.
            But now you can’t get to the tank without complex ATGM processing.
            And the PT rez just works on fresh tanks, with no KAZ downed (after breaking through the first position, entering the second echelon).
            So that may and will have to remember about IT.
    2. Arakius
      Arakius 2 August 2017 22: 53
      0
      The elevation angle is only 15 degrees. From this it can already be seen that it was designed for direct fire, and not from closed positions
  4. Curious
    Curious 1 August 2017 17: 23
    +2
    "In the mid-fifties, the Soviet defense industry temporarily stopped developing new self-propelled artillery installations."
    Probably too categorical statement.

    In 1955, the Soviet Union began the development of powerful artillery systems designed to fire both conventional and nuclear munitions at a range of up to 50 km. The design was carried out by two teams - TsKB-34 was engaged in a 406-mm gun, and Kolomenskoye engineering bureau -420 mm mortar. In the documents, the systems were referred to as “Condenser-2P” (2AZ) and “Oka” (2B1), respectively. They had trunks nearly 20 meters long!
    The chassis for the installation of these monsters was developed by the design bureau of the Leningrad Kirov Plant under the leadership of J.Ya. Kotina. For them, elements of the chassis, suspension, engine and transmission of the T-10 heavy tank were used. The chassis for the "Capacitor" was called "object 271", and for the "Oka" - "object 273". In 1957, the Kirov Plant in Leningrad assembled four units of each type. They were shown at the parade in Moscow on November 7 of the same year, making a great impression on those present.
    Tests of artillery systems continued until 1960, but their results were disappointing - when firing the chassis experienced such a significant load that the elements of the undercarriage flew off and other units broke off the mount. With the advent of the Soviet Army tactical missiles, the need for these machines disappeared.
    1. Alf
      Alf 1 August 2017 20: 20
      0
      Quote: Curious
      Probably too categorical statement.

      Not sure.
      As I think, this refers to the development of MASS SPGs, and the Oka and Condenser are rather piece-wise special items for individual purposes.
      1. Curious
        Curious 2 August 2017 00: 16
        +2

        Object 268. The first prototype was to be completed in the first quarter of 1956. In fact, by the fall of 1956.
        In addition, just in the mid-50s, the ISU-152 modernization program began, which significantly extended the life of these machines.
        1. Alf
          Alf 2 August 2017 17: 36
          0
          Quote: Curious
          Object 268. The first prototype was to be completed in the first quarter of 1956. In fact, by the fall of 1956.

          But she did not go into the series.
          Quote: Curious
          In addition, just in the mid-50s, the ISU-152 modernization program began, which significantly extended the life of these machines

          So modernization, not the creation of new designs.
          1. Curious
            Curious 2 August 2017 17: 56
            +1
            Let's go back to the beginning, i.e. phrase from an article I wrote a comment on.
            "In the mid-fifties, the Soviet defense industry temporarily stopped developing new self-propelled artillery installations."
            I gave examples of DEVELOPMENT IN THE MIDDLE OF FIFTY YEARS. About the series, etc. it did not go.
  5. Evgeny Strygin
    Evgeny Strygin 2 August 2017 08: 30
    0
    yes now a terrifying thing. Having learned at one time, the performance characteristics were in shock.
  6. Lopatov
    Lopatov 2 August 2017 10: 53
    0
    Quote: stalkerwalker
    In one of his books, A. Shirokorad noted that sometimes gun mounts with heavily worn tables were sometimes used in tests at the Gorokhovets training ground. Not a fact, of course ...

    A worn barrel for an artillery gun does not mean an increase in dispersion, but a drop in initial velocity. Which is quite taken into account.
    1. stalkerwalker
      stalkerwalker 2 August 2017 11: 01
      +2
      Quote: Spade
      A worn barrel for an artillery gun does not mean an increase in dispersion, but a drop in initial velocity. Which is quite taken into account.

      Come on.....
      A deterioration in ballistics for any effect on hit accuracy.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 2 August 2017 11: 19
        +1
        I’m afraid when the firing of the gun begins to affect accuracy, the shells will just spit out
        1. stalkerwalker
          stalkerwalker 2 August 2017 11: 21
          +3
          Quote: Spade
          I’m afraid when the firing of the gun begins to affect accuracy, the shells will just spit out

          The barrel of mortars on your avatar is clearly cooler than that of my IS-3 ....
          laughing
        2. badens1111
          badens1111 2 August 2017 11: 36
          +4
          Quote: Spade
          I’m afraid when the firing of the gun begins to affect accuracy, the shells will just spit out

          Exactly at St. Achkhoy, as a result of intense shooting, the KPVT barrels Wore TO such a degree that the bullets, when flying out of the barrel, started to tumbling through 150-200 m. With a noticeable drop in the range of the shot.
          Only by replacing them can we talk about accuracy and more.
          Apparently some do not understand what rifling, shooting the trunk and other things ..
    2. Lganhi
      Lganhi 2 August 2017 11: 20
      +1
      Quote: Spade
      "Worn barrel" for an artillery gun does not mean an increase in dispersion, but a drop in initial velocity

      Hand face wassat
      Apparently, then the ancient smoothbore guns accuracy was just a second at 100 meters due to the low initial speed laughing
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 2 August 2017 11: 36
        +1
        Quote: Lgankhi
        Hand face

        Google "ballistic training in artillery"
        After which there will be a desire to make "Rukalitsa" in front of a mirror ...

        Quote: Lgankhi
        then the ancient smoothbore guns

        Ancient smoothbore: stone or cast-iron shell on a bronze or cast-iron barrel channel
        Modern tools - copper, copper-nickel or special ceramics leading belt along the steel channel of the barrel ...
        Are you sure that one can be equated to another?
        Hand face...

        ps Try at your leisure to scratch the glass with a copper coin 8)))))))))))))
  7. chenia
    chenia 2 August 2017 20: 16
    0
    We decided to recreate IT (trunk) already in the late 80s (when anti-tank systems appeared) SPRUT-SV. Sorry did not happen. I wonder how the operating time would be used (first of all, a long barrel, a large caliber)?
  8. podgornovea
    podgornovea 5 March 2018 20: 46
    0
    "With an initial speed of 1720 m / s, such an ammunition at a distance of 3500 m could penetrate up to 295 mm of armor. With 1000 m at an angle of encounter of 60 °, 179 mm was pierced."
    Not understood? What is it like? Or a different meeting angle? Or bullshit author fluktuhivaet?