Stories about weapons. "Shelves". 76 mm 1927 and 1943 model regimental guns

145


This article will focus on the regimental guns of the 1927 and 1943 models of the year, the hard work of which fell to the front edge of more than one conflict and World War II. It was these guns that took on all the burden as the main weapon for supporting infantry.



76-mm regimental gun model 1927 year.



Soviet light regimental gun caliber 76,2 mm direct support for infantry and cavalry. "Shelf", "snub-nosed", "Bobby".

The first Soviet large-scale artillery gun. The gun mass (everything was made more than 18 thousands of guns) was produced from 1928 to 1943, took part in hostilities in Hasan, Khalkhin-Gol, the Polish campaign 1939 of the year, the Soviet-Finnish and World War II.



The main task of the gun, which was in the combat order of the infantry, was the operational suppression of enemy firing points both in the defense and in the offensive, following the advancing ones.

The gun served as a prototype for the creation of the first domestic serial tank ("76-mm tank gun model 1927/32" on the T-28 tank) and medium-caliber self-propelled guns (SAU SU-12).

Stories about weapons. "Shelves". 76 mm 1927 and 1943 model regimental guns



The gun was rather conservative in design, unnecessarily heavy, lacked a sector of horizontal guidance and armor penetration (before the introduction of a cumulative projectile). Affected by the creation of guns on the basis of not the new models.

When it was decided to create a regimental cannon in 1924, the 76-mm gun of the 1902 model was in service



The main drawbacks of the 1902 model gun of the year were the excessive weight (1350 kg in the combat position and 2380 kg in the traveling one) and low mobility.

Considering the engineering difficulties in the Soviet Union of that time, it was decided to abandon the design of the gun from scratch, creating a gun based on existing samples.

Several models were considered as prototypes, but the 76-mm gun of the 1913 model of the year, the so-called “short three-inch” was taken as a point of reference.



The design of the cannon was completed by the end of 1925 of the year, at the beginning of 1926 of the year a prototype of the gun was made, at the beginning of 1928 of the year the gun was adopted by the Red Army under the official name of “76-mm regimental gun mod. 1927.

All work was assigned to the Artillery Technical Office (ATK) of the Putilov factory, at which mass production of guns was begun.

From 1929 to 1934, the gun was constantly modified. Their goal was to simplify the design and improve the manufacturability of production, as well as improving the tactical and technical characteristics. Works on the modernization of the guns were carried out in the ATK of the Putilov factory under the direction of A. A. Monakov and I. A. Makhanov.

In 1929, some changes and simplifications were introduced into the design of the bolt, in 1930, the fastened barrel was replaced with a monoblock; in the same year, a new metal wheel with rubber tires was developed for the gun, which allowed the gun to reach the maximum speed of 25 km / h . However, it was possible to completely replace the old version with wooden wheels in production only by 1934.



76-mm regimental gun obr. 1927 had a number of drawbacks, including a small angle of vertical guidance and low armor penetration. Despite the fact that at that time most of the tanks defended with anti-bullet armor 10 — 20 mm thick, the low initial velocity of the projectile did not allow to successfully combat the armored vehicles.

The armor of German tanks in 30 mm (forehead light and medium board) was at the limit of the possibility of a gun to break through even at short distances.

The situation was somewhat corrected by the adoption of the 1942-mm cumulative projectile in 76, but by that time it became clear that a radical modernization was required, if not the creation of a new weapon.



The calculation of the gun consisted of 7 people: gun commander, gunner, loader, castle, governing (the calculation fighter who turned the gun in accordance with the gunner's instructions) and two boxers (podnoschiki).

The gun fumbled with four horses, another four was needed to haul the charging box. Also could be used mechanical traction - tractors "Pioneer", "Komsomolets", cars.

But in the conditions of military operations with the transportation of guns often had to cope with the calculation.



For the transport used the front of the gun. In each of the front frames fit six trays of an 4 shot. The charging box consisted of forward and reverse gears. Forward travel was generally similar to a front end and also placed 6 trays over the 4 shot. The backing was somewhat larger and placed 8 trays on an 4 shot. Thus, portable ammunition was 80 shots (24 in the front end, 24 + 32 in the forward and reverse travels of the charging box).

In 1943, the gun was discontinued, but until the end of the war it continued to be one of the main artillery systems of the Red Army. An interesting feature of the gun was its aerotransportability, which turned out to be demanded in practice - in besieged Leningrad at the end of 1941, 457 units of 76-mm regimental guns, which were delivered under Moscow by aircraft and provided substantial assistance to the Soviet troops in the battle for Moscow, were manufactured.



76-mm regimental gun obr. 1927 was intended for the following tasks:

for direct support and maintenance of infantry;
to combat armored vehicles and tanks;
for the suppression and destruction of enemy infantry fire weapons, located openly and behind light field shelters;
to suppress and prohibit all types of fire from a bunker with a direct fire on embrasures;
for making passages in wire obstacles and passages in the banks for their tanks.

The gun was intended almost exclusively for direct fire. In the offensive, the regimental guns had to be moved by the calculation in the battle formations of the advancing infantry and quickly suppress enemy fire weapons that impede advancement — machine-gun nests, artillery guns and mortars, and various firing points.

In defense, the guns also had to be in the combat order of the infantry, firing at the enemy’s advancing infantry, and, if necessary, at the tanks and armored vehicles.

The specificity of the actions of regimental guns led to great losses both in the material part and in the calculations, but at the same time, along with the battalion artillery (45-mm guns) and mortars, the regimental guns were the only artillery systems that were directly in battle formations and had the maximum promptly hit the identified targets.

Due to the relatively small size and weight, regimental guns were actively used in forcing rivers, conducting amphibious operations, in urban battles.



Features:

Caliber, mm: 76,2
Calculation, persons: 7
Rate of fire, rds / min: 10-12
Speed ​​on the highway, km / h: 25
The height of the line of fire, mm: 945

Weight in the stowed position, kg: 1620 (with chuck and servant)
Weight in the fighting position, kg: kg (740-780 (on wooden wheels), kg (903-920) (on metal wheels)

Firing angles
Vertical guidance angle, degrees: from −5,6 to + 24,5 °
Horizontal guidance angle, degrees: 5,5 °

A small maximum angle of elevation of the gun severely limited the firing range. However, the firing tables indicate the maximum range at an elevation angle of 40 ° - for firing at such an elevation angle, it was necessary to tear off a special ditch under the trunk part of the machine, which required considerable time to prepare the firing position and made it difficult to fire at remote targets.

Another feature of the "regiment" was a very impressive set of ammunition.

Armor-piercing shells: UBR-353А, UBR-353В, UBR-353SP. Firing range up to 4 000 m.
Cumulative shells: UBP-253A (from 1943 g.), UBP-353M (from 1944 g.). Firing range up to 1 000 m.
High-explosive shells: УОФ-353А, УОФ-353АМ, УОФ-353М. Firing range up to 8 500 m.
High-explosive old-style grenades: UV-353, UV-353M, UV-353F. Firing range up to 6 700 m.


76-mm regimental gun model 1943 year.



Developed in 1942-1943 under the direction of M. Yu. Tsirulnikova. This gun replaced the 76-mm regimental cannon model 1927, and was actively used at the final stage of the Great Patriotic War.

In total, 1943 1946 guns of this type were built in the 5192-50, which were in service with the Soviet Army in the post-war period until the end of the XNUMX-s, when they were replaced by more modern systems.

Tsirulnikov proposed to impose an 76-mm barrel of an 1927 model of the year on the 45-gun carriage of an X-NUMX-model X-NUMX anti-tank gun. This solution made it possible to obtain a fairly light artillery system using elements well developed in production.



The new system turned out to be almost a third lighter than the 1927 model cannon, the horizontal pickup angle increased significantly, the overall dimensions decreased, but the armor penetration, maximum firing range and rate of fire remained the same.

Initially, the commissions were accepted by the commissions without enthusiasm, however, with the advent of cumulative projectiles in 1943, which did not care much about the initial velocity of the projectile and guarantee penetration of armor up to 70-mm thick at medium distances, Tsirulnikov was recalled about the development. Moreover, compared with other existing projects, it was almost complete and finished product. So the gun was put into service under the symbol OB-25.


Features:

Caliber, mm: 76,2
Calculation, persons: 6
Rate of fire, rds / min: 12
Speed ​​on the highway, km / h: up to 35
Weight in the stowed position, kg: 1300 (with front end)
Weight in the fighting position, kg: 600
HV angle, degrees: −8 to + 25 °
Angle GN, degrees: 60 °



Compared to the 76-mm 1927 Regimental Regiment Cannon, the OB-25 assortment of ammunition was not rich and included only 4 projectiles. For firing at manpower, fire weapons and enemy fortifications, high-explosive fragmentation shells of RP-350 and fragmentation shells of O-350А were used.

Cumulative shells were of two types: steel BP-350М (armor penetration up to 100 mm) and steel cast iron BP-353А (armor penetration about 70 mm). Both projectiles were completed with instant-action BM fuze.

Armor-piercing shells for Ob-25 not produced.



Compared to its predecessor, the 76-mm regimental gun of the 1927 model, OB-25 significantly gains in mobility (lower gun weight and higher speed) and horizontal guidance angle (which gives the best opportunities for maneuvering fire and fighting tanks) but inferior in maximum range and accuracy of fire.

True, many experts, making comparisons, noted that a large firing range for a regimental gun, intended primarily for firing at targets that are in the line of sight of the calculation, is not a significant advantage.



Despite the shortcomings inherited from her ancestor, the OB-25 gun had one incomparable advantage - a very small mass for its caliber. This allowed both direct support of infantry on the battlefield, and operational switching to the suppression of field fortifications, as well as effectively fighting enemy light / medium tanks using cumulative ammunition.



In general, the "regiments" played a very significant role in the Great Patriotic War. Together with 82-mm and 120-mm mortars and 45-mm anti-tank gun, these guns were the main infantry assistants on the front edge.

Today, these guns can be found in our country as exhibits, although they are not as common as the 76-mm divisional gun. But this does not diminish their huge contribution to the Victory.

The guns in the pictures belong to the museum of military stories in Padikovo Moscow region.
Our news channels

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

145 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    22 September 2017 15: 15
    Rather, not stories, but brief technical references. I have nothing against it, just in my understanding a "story about weapons" is a story of creation and use.
    1. +1
      23 September 2017 19: 20
      I agree with you. Sufficiently superficial and brief, for the review will go, but I would like a more detailed article. hi I wish the author success in this field. I hope that my comment looks like constructive criticism, let’s say so wishes for the material. Threat. I forgot to add, + the author for the backup of photographic materials.
  2. +6
    22 September 2017 16: 15
    Great article. It doesn’t draw on a monograph, but as a historical reference, that’s it.
  3. +4
    22 September 2017 16: 39
    In Leonid Sobolev's collection "Sea Soul" there was a story about the indestructible "Cannon without a fly." Obviously, either this model, or, rather, the predecessor of arr. 1902
    1. +10
      22 September 2017 22: 03
      "A gun without a fly"
      Somewhere in Yevpatoria, either in the port or in the scrap metal warehouse, Colonel Zhidilov stumbled upon four guns in the fall. These were quite decent guns - each on two solid wheels, each with a barrel and even a lock. Their most valuable quality, which attracted the attention of the colonel, was that they were perfectly approached by 76-mm anti-aircraft gun shells, which in the brigade were even a dime a dozen. Their drawback was a certain obsolescence of the design (1900 model) and the lack of sights.

      3 1900-inch gun with upgraded gun mount
      These tools are described in the story you mentioned!
      1. +1
        23 September 2017 12: 02
        It's weird. The 76-mm anti-aircraft guns had shells with an extended sleeve. I was sure that such cartridges appeared specifically under this weapon. Are Lender anti-aircraft guns already?
        1. +3
          23 September 2017 17: 11
          Most likely, it was Lender’s anti-aircraft gun -
          76 mm anti-aircraft gun arr. 1914/15 (3 ″ anti-aircraft gun of Lender or Tarnovsky-Lender, also 8-K) - the first in Russia special 76,2 mm caliber gun designed to fire at air targets.
          They were also used in World War II!
        2. +1
          23 September 2017 23: 25
          Quote: samoletil18
          Are Lender anti-aircraft guns already?

          Lender anti-aircraft gun could use the whole range of shots for the guns model 1902. which were created on the basis of the sleeve for the gun mod. 1900. Therefore, the fact that the shells from the "anti-aircraft guns" came to the gun of 1900 was not to surprise the "seasoned"))) colonel.
    2. +2
      25 September 2017 06: 10
      this is an arr gun, 1900, 6 pieces were found for the marine corps, their application is given in more detail in the old book of general Zhidilov. We defended Sevastopol
  4. +2
    22 September 2017 16: 41
    Good article, thanks. WarNoob But what didn’t suit you is that there is a history of creation, but the application is the everyday life of war.
  5. +1
    22 September 2017 17: 46
    Quote: Knizhnik
    In Leonid Sobolev's collection "Sea Soul" there was a story about the indestructible "Cannon without a fly." Obviously, either this model, or, rather, the predecessor of arr. 1902

    It was absolutely true that it was 76 mm vol. 1902. And the cannon arr. 1927 was already a commit and had some kind of sights, and the ancestress was pointing through the barrel
    1. +5
      22 September 2017 21: 04
      Quote: Monarchist
      It was absolutely true that it was 76 mm vol. 1902. And the cannon arr. 1927 was already a commit and had some kind of sights, and the ancestress was pointing through the barrel

      Do not write nonsense, on 3 "sample. 1902 there was a normal such arc sight sample. 1904)))
      The form of the servants in the background implies a period not later than PMV.
      1. +2
        22 September 2017 22: 08

        The story mentions that the gun was a 1900 SAMPLE!
        1. +4
          23 September 2017 11: 36
          Quote: hohol95

          The story mentions that the gun was a 1900 SAMPLE!

          Which with the fly and the whole is also okay wink
          1. +2
            23 September 2017 17: 14
            Read the story itself -
            ... Somewhere in Yevpatoria, either in the port or in the scrap metal warehouse, Colonel Zhidilov stumbled upon four guns in the fall. These were quite decent guns - each on two solid wheels, each with a barrel and even a lock.
            Their most valuable quality, which attracted the attention of the colonel, was that they were perfectly approached by 76-mm anti-aircraft gun shells, which in the brigade were even a dime a dozen. Their drawback was a certain obsolescence of the design (1900 model) and the lack of sights.
            1. The comment was deleted.
    2. +2
      22 September 2017 22: 05
      3 1900-inch gun with upgraded gun mount

      The heroine of the story "A gun without a fly" -
      "Their drawback was a certain obsolescence of the structure (1900 model) and the lack of sights."
      1. +9
        23 September 2017 14: 57
        There were no sights on the specific four guns found - that is, it was shot, I don’t understand what the argument is about
  6. +4
    22 September 2017 17: 56
    The armor of German tanks in 30 mm (forehead light and medium board) was at the limit of the possibility of a gun to break through even at short distances.

    and that, it’s not PTO, it has other tasks, if it’s a half-tank on tanks, then wait for a furry animal

    the cannon had one nimus - big maasa, 2 times more classmates, which actually fought in 43.
    all
    1. +2
      22 September 2017 19: 16
      Quote: super.ufu
      the cannon had one minus - a large mass, 2 times more classmates, which actually fought in 43.

      You are confusing something. She is by no means heavier than her "classmates" twice. The German regiment was only 5 kg lighter.
      Probably confused with the Soviet regiment of 1927, which did not have classmates at all because of its high initial speed and, as a consequence, a steady trajectory. Which in the offensive is very beneficial. No wonder the SU-76 were so common despite a lot of criticism.
      1. +6
        22 September 2017 20: 09
        Quote: Spade
        Probably confused with the Soviet regiment of 1927,

        Quote: Spade
        No wonder the SU-76 were so common despite a lot of criticism.

        But were the SU-76s not ZiS-3 armed? So she is a 76 mm divisional cannon of the 1942 model.
        1. +8
          22 September 2017 20: 33
          Quote: verner1967
          But were the SU-76s not ZiS-3 armed? So she is a 76 mm divisional cannon of the 1942 model.

          Exactly. Very "high-speed" gun of division submission. Limited as anti-tank. Well, for direct fire at the stage of artillery preparation.

          With these trajectories in general a lot of "troubles". Let’s imagine, for example, a machine-gun bunker. A very and very common goal. Picking it with mounted fire when properly built is a very long story if it is a 76 mm shell. The most effective is direct aiming on embrasures / floor walls.
          And take two "regiments", arr. 1927 and arr. 1943. The latter is lower speed, therefore, requires a smaller distance from the bunker when firing direct fire, which is very unsafe.
          But there is another side to the coin - the lower the initial speed, and as a result, the more hinged the trajectory, the easier it is to hit direct targets at targets that do not have a pronounced vertical dimension, for example, a machine gun in the trench.
          Maybe the Germans were not so wrong, choosing separate charging and a variable charge for leIG 18, which allows “playing” with trajectories in a wider spectrum. Although this reduced the rate of fire
          1. 0
            22 September 2017 22: 05
            Not reduced. The rate of fire was no less than that of a bobik.
            1. +3
              22 September 2017 22: 41
              Separate-shell ALWAYS slower than unitary loading. Even without picking a charge before firing
              1. 0
                23 September 2017 08: 30
                And there it was all a little trickier. Read.
                1. +2
                  23 September 2017 08: 34
                  Like the Americans with a 105 mm howitzer. Before loading the shell shoved into the sleeve. I know. But this actually does not change anything.
                  1. +1
                    23 September 2017 16: 25
                    It actually changes everything. Unitaries are prepared separately and can be sent on the road at any speed. Therefore, the actual rate of fire at the bobik level.
                    1. +4
                      23 September 2017 16: 46
                      Quote: Ken71
                      Therefore, the actual rate of fire at the bobik level.

                      Only if in the calculation of Nostradamus, and there is an opportunity in advance to have information from the future regarding what charges will be used
                      1. 0
                        23 September 2017 20: 14
                        You have already gored with the grounds for your wrong. You're not right. And that's the point. The Germans gave a rate of fire no less than a bob. And the preparation of shells lies on the calculation. Defines the commander according to the task.
                    2. +4
                      23 September 2017 20: 40
                      Quote: Ken71
                      You have already gored with the grounds for your wrong.

                      You are gored by your advertising.
                      Really, you need to go there, to deceive the burdock-consumers.

                      It takes time to complete the charge. Dot.
                      Throwing this time out of rate of fire, you are engaged in a lie. Dot.
                      Throwing time to install the fuse, you are engaged in a lie. Dot.
                      Throwing out time for restoration of a tip you are engaged in a lie. Dot.
                      And then the deceived artillerymen get together and beat you in the face, because your "rate of fire" and the real rate of fire are two huge differences.

                      Quote: Ken71
                      The Germans gave a rate of not less than bobik

                      Are you responsible for these words of yours? Or are you based on purely speculative information?
                      The Soviet "regiment" is 10-12 rounds per minute (depending on the fuse.). German - 12 rounds per minute. Ironlessly without time to complete a charge

                      12 is not equal to 10. Point.
          2. ogi
            0
            23 September 2017 22: 41
            Quote: Spade
            The most effective is direct aiming on embrasures / floor walls.

            You have little idea of ​​the correct design of the bunker. And in vain do you think that their builders did not realize that they could conduct direct fire on them.
            Watch Soviet movies less.
            1. +5
              24 September 2017 08: 14
              Quote: ogi
              You have little idea of ​​the correct design of the bunker.

              And you?
              Double wall with backing, on top of a log in two knurling and dirt filling
              This is me about the German bunker of the sample of 42 years ...
              My friend, it seems to me very much that you have trivially mixed up the bunker with the bunker. And these are different things.

              The only protection of the bunker against fire in its embrasure is to position it so that it can only conduct flanking fire. But it’s not in vain that we discuss this on the page dedicated to the guns that were carried in the infantry chain
          3. +1
            26 September 2017 11: 41
            Quote: Spade
            Maybe the Germans were not so wrong, choosing separate charging and a variable charge for leIG 18, which allows “playing” with trajectories in a wider spectrum. Although this reduced the rate of fire

            The Germans understood very well, in this case, what they were doing and why. We lost in rate of fire, yes. But they won in the time of the execution of the fire mission.
      2. +1
        22 September 2017 21: 31
        You are confusing something. She is by no means heavier than her "classmates" twice. The German regiment was only 5 kg lighter.

        and what did I confuse?
        7,5 cm leichtes Infanteriegeschütz 18 weighed 400 kg in a combat position
        bobik-76 mm regimental gun of the 1927 model (GAU index - 52-P-353)
        740-780 kg (on wooden wheels);
        903-920 kg (on metal wheels)
        1. 0
          22 September 2017 22: 39
          Quote: super.ufu
          7,5 cm leichtes Infanteriegeschütz 18 weighed 400 kg in a combat position

          And never was a "classmate" of the colonel of 27 years. The shell of the German gun was actually half the initial velocity at approximately equal weight.
          1. +1
            22 September 2017 23: 18
            And I’ve never been a “classmate” of Colonel 27

            hello, gun regimental level, equal in caliber, mass unitary charge and purpose-NPP fire and wheels

            if you deign for the ZIG33 then its analogue of the 152-mm mortar arr. 1931 (NM) is in the section "Division guns" especially with its separate loading
            1. +1
              23 September 2017 07: 03
              Quote: super.ufu
              mass of unitary charge

              I wonder how they managed to change the charge in unitary shot ... Unprotected in the field? 8)))
              1. +1
                23 September 2017 09: 10
                judging by leaving aside, I was right
                1. +2
                  23 September 2017 09: 39
                  Which side, damn it ???
                  - Unitary loading does not provide for a change in charge, a fact.
                  - The German gun, unlike the Soviet one, is not a cannon - fact
                  - The German gun had a regular membership of a battalion regiment, in contrast to a purely regimental gun.
                  From which budun you write down different instruments, devices, accessible trajectories and devices in your "classmates" ???

                  Quote: super.ufu
                  designation-NPP fire and wheels

                  You are still used to directly support the infantry fire direct fire BM-13 in the "classmates" write. Together with SU-76 and the Sturmtigra

                  Based on your criteria, the BM 18 mortar and its variations were the “classmate” for leIG 37, moreover, cheaper and lighter.
                  The same subordination: battalion regiment, almost the same available trajectories, almost the same opportunity to directly accompany and support the infantry.
                  1. 0
                    23 September 2017 13: 47
                    Are you out of your mind? How can you compare mortar and howitzer? Maybe you will still compare the 122-mm howitzer M-30 and 120-mm mortar? The Germans had their own battalion mortar 8-cm sGW34.
                    1. +3
                      23 September 2017 16: 48
                      Quote: Lgankhi
                      Are you out of your mind? How can you compare mortar and howitzer?

                      But howitzer and gun are one and the same? Or rather, not even a howitzer, for her it was too short
                      1. +1
                        23 September 2017 17: 14
                        Why is leIG 18 not a howitzer? Lift angle 75 degrees, separate loading, barrel 12 gauges. Or is it a gun for you?
                    2. +3
                      23 September 2017 17: 40
                      Quote: Lgankhi
                      Or is it a gun for you?

                      You, besides howitzers and guns, no longer know any types of guns? But what about mortars?
                      1. 0
                        23 September 2017 18: 32
                        Mortars have a barrel length of less than 10 calibers.
                    3. +2
                      23 September 2017 19: 56
                      Quote: Lgankhi
                      Mortars have a barrel length of less than 10 calibers.

                      Well, yes, the German woman is three centimeters longer than a mortar of this caliber. The objection is withdrawn 8)))))))))))))))))))))))))
                      Do not forget, the barrel length was taken into account without a charging chamber and without a muzzle brake. For leIG18 7.82m
                      1. ogi
                        +1
                        24 September 2017 09: 50
                        Quote: Spade
                        No, it is not.

                        Even your picture confirms that it is. And the howitzer, it’s essentially a long-range mortar. Rival mortar competitor. And the howitzer is alive today only because of its relative cheapness.
                        Quote: Spade
                        Modern howitzers with barrel extension were able to block the "cannon" sector.

                        They blocked this sector even without lengthening the trunk. It's just that the sector has lengthened over time. Which required lengthening and barrel howitzers.

                        I have already written many times about the conceptual stupidity of the “divisional gun” (the name does not matter) before WW2. The last in the world from guns of this concept since the beginning of 1941. refused the USSR. And despite the name "divisional gun", ZIS-3 arr. 1942 was the ersatz of the VET gun. However, due to the simply ridiculous anti-tank capabilities, it retained the name "divisional gun." For disguise.
                        But the Germans did not dissemble. And their anti-tank gun PaK 97/38 arr. 1941, the tracing paper with which the ZIS-3 became, was called, as it is, PaK - anti-tank gun.
                        What am I doing? In addition, the guns still firmly occupied the niche of specialized artillery before the 2MV. Anti-tank and anti-aircraft.
                        But in the niche of field or infantry artillery, they no longer had a place. Therefore, all these "regiments" and "divisions", this does not sew the mare’s tail. Moreover, in essence, the “division” arr. 1942 and "regiment" arr. 1943 were ersatz anti-tank guns. But for disguise, because of the weak anti-tank capabilities, they were mischievously called differently.

                        Something the answer didn’t fit there. Well, okay, do not rewrite it.
                      2. ogi
                        0
                        24 September 2017 17: 45
                        Quote: Spade
                        Knife - cutlery. But the soup is not very convenient for them.

                        Is it necessary to distort?
                        Quote: Spade
                        There is such a thing as time. In the war, very, very important. Choosing not optimal methods of hitting a target, you lose this time.

                        Was it apparently written to rain? Are you trying to hide the lack of arguments behind verbiage?
                        Quote: Spade
                        And all for what? For the sake of the very “universalism” with which the French were tackled in the First World War?

                        Congratulations, you lie.
                        In fact, all the tools, to one degree or another, were to one extent or another universal and unified. The exceptions were the ZIS-2 and KwK 40. But if the KwK 40 field analogue was not particularly needed, then the ZIS-2 was simply not suitable for installation in tanks due to the weakness of its OS.
                        Quote: Spade
                        The mortar does not fire rockets. Moreover, mortar mines do not have systems that give them rotation. The missile is closer to the cannon shell along its path

                        Do you at least read what you write?
                        I wrote about mortar mines, and you write about some mortar shells.
                        In addition, you do not know that only the "legendary Katyushas" until almost the end of the war had mines without rotation devices. The remaining mines were already spinning.
                        And then, where does the trajectory come when it comes to the type of ammunition? Can you distinguish a mine from a fragmentation shell and a grenade? I’m somehow not sure.
                        Quote: Spade
                        Doesn’t this all suit you?

                        I am not comfortable with the fact that when you talk about field artillery, you begin to switch arrows to specialized. Those. distort, in other words.
                    4. ogi
                      +1
                      23 September 2017 22: 46
                      Quote: Lgankhi
                      Are you out of your mind? How can you compare mortar and howitzer?

                      Simply and easily. In fact, the howitzer is a long-range mortar. Yes, the design is completely different, somewhat reminiscent of a gun. But in essence it is precisely a long-range mortar. After 2MB, howitzers became an anachronism. It is not clear why they were needed after the development of mass production of jet mortars.
                      1. 0
                        23 September 2017 23: 04
                        Quote: ogi
                        In fact, the M-30 problem was in the firing range. Why they had to move closer to the front edge. Where they were hit, even light field artillery. And they died. Guns and people.
                        Quote: ogi
                        1. She was heavy. Those. did not fit into the weight parameters of the six horses. And it was a huge problem until the middle of the war, until Studerers appeared in sufficient numbers. The caliber 122 mm for howitzers in Russia was originally chosen incorrectly. The rest of the countries made divisional guns in caliber 105 mm for almost every universal.
                        2. She had a low rate of fire. Because of its archaic structure.
                        3. The ratio of the type of cutting its barrel and n / s of its shells led to the fact that these shells were flying very inaccurately. Those. it was impossible to beat the squares from it. And not enough for a divisional weapon far.
                        Quote: ogi
                        But in reality it was a typical VET cannon. And its single-sector lifting mechanism allowed the trunk to be raised a maximum of 27 degrees.
                        Your PEARLS
                        You do not push when you do not know any tactics. There is no understanding of the use of artillery for this or that formation.
                        I didn't pass the test. Two. To relocate.
                        Quote: ogi
                        I'm sad. And how now with all this live on?
                        To carry out "simple children's calculations," you need to know the numbers. Numbers you do not zante and can not know. Because only "Goskomstat data" is available. Those. numbers for lohasty people. And the closed numbers (ie, reliable), they become available gradually.
                        What, the owners shouted lured, - "the population is not enough" and concoct a piece of paper. The truth now is to change the population of RI. the numbers do not hit.
                        In 1946, we should have been (an increase of about 3 million) - 207-208 million
                        In was 1946-170mln.
                        Hence 37 млн. WWII losses - 27 million loss of real people
                        25-23 million died 2-4 million. - emigration, 11 million unborn
                        And this is if we assume that the birth rate has fallen by half, and if by three (which is more likely) then the loss of specific people is 20 million (the official Khrushchov figure.)
                        And the fact that you offer both informally and LODGE,
                        Stalin subjected to reprisals (like you claimed), extras for low census figures, and ordered (from the same sources)
                        change upwards. Do not push natural mortality into losses


                        Quote: ogi
                        After 2MB, howitzers became an anachronism. It is not clear why they were needed after the development of mass production of jet mortars.


                        And this is another PEARL.
                        What are you talking about a shoemaker and a pastry maker? look in the mirror will understand.
                      2. ogi
                        0
                        23 September 2017 23: 32
                        Quote: chenia
                        Your PEARLS

                        My. I shouldn't flatter me so much and call my words "pearls." It could be somehow more modest, at least "gold placers".
                        By the way, the last "gold placer, it is about the ZIS-3, and not about the M-30.
                        So, congratulations to you, lie.
                        Quote: chenia
                        In 1946, we should have been (an increase of about 3 million) - 207-208 million.
                        In the years 1946-170mln.

                        Who told you that? Goskomstat?
                        Do you have trouble understanding?
                        Quote: chenia
                        From here 37 million. The loss of the Second World War - 27 million. The loss of real people.

                        The Goskomstat of the USSR gives the top leadership of the USSR closed data on direct losses of the USSR in 2MB to 42 million people. And another 11 million indirect losses. These data were declassified and officially presented in February 2017. in the State Duma of the Russian Federation. But there will always be people who "know everything better than anyone." Type of you.
                        Quote: chenia
                        look in the mirror will understand.

                        I looked. And your "sarcasm" did not understand.
                      3. 0
                        24 September 2017 01: 43
                        Quote: ogi
                        Simply and easily. In fact, the howitzer is a long-range mortar.

                        Well, developing your idea, we can assume that the gun is a long-range howitzer. Therefore, the gun and the mortar are one and the same! Ingenious!
                      4. +3
                        24 September 2017 08: 25
                        Quote: ogi
                        After 2MB, howitzers became an anachronism.

                        Quite the opposite. Howitzers turned into the main armament of artillery, finally displacing guns
                        Quote: ogi
                        It is not clear why they were needed after the development of mass production of jet mortars.

                        Mortars are a niche weapon. Expensive ammunition, huge problems with firing at short ranges, the inability to use on point targets, and, most importantly, the inability to conduct methodological fire from them. That is, neither the NZO and PZO in defense, nor the artillery support of the attack in any way, nor the combing of fire in local wars - all this MLRS is not available
                      5. +2
                        24 September 2017 09: 24
                        Quote: ogi
                        Simply and easily. In fact, the howitzer is a long-range mortar.

                        No, it is not. There is a mortar, there is a howitzer, there is a gun. There is a certain “sheaf of trajectories” that are available to them.

                        They overlap each other only partially.
                        Modern howitzers with barrel extension were able to block the "cannon" sector. However, they could not block the mortar. It is expensive, technically difficult, and not necessary.
                      6. +2
                        24 September 2017 11: 15
                        Quote: ogi
                        Even your picture confirms that it is. And the howitzer, it’s essentially a long-range mortar.

                        No way. The "upper" sector of the mortar is inaccessible to the howitzer, that is, the minimum range of mortar fire for it is very limited. For example, the "kulak sawn-off shotgun" of the sample of 38 years could not shoot mortar closer than 2800 meters.
                        Mortars can not shoot with elevation angles less than 45 degrees

                        Quote: ogi
                        Rival mortar competitor.

                        A mortar mortar is a mortar only in name. On accessible trajectories it is more like a jet gun. True, the name was taken 8))). Otherwise, you would not have to dance with tambourines called "big brake ring" and "small brake ring"

                        Quote: ogi
                        They blocked this sector even without lengthening the trunk.

                        Is it?
                        The maximum range of the "genocide" with an ordinary projectile 30 with a penny km, the maximum range of a "short" howitzer D-20 with an ordinary projectile 17 with a penny km.
                      7. ogi
                        0
                        24 September 2017 11: 38
                        Quote: Spade
                        No way

                        You will continue to argue with the obvious things. Go on. But without me.
                        Some angles and other technical details. And what are the design features, if we are talking about the final result?
                        Quote: Spade
                        A mortar mortar is a mortar only in name.

                        A jet mortar is called a mortar in the form of its ammunition.
                        Learn how a fragmentation shell differs from a fragmentation mine and a fragmentation grenade.
                        Quote: Spade
                        The maximum range of "genocide" with an ordinary shell of 30 with a penny km

                        Let’s somehow manage without expensive and specialized long-range artillery.
                      8. 0
                        24 September 2017 16: 00
                        Quote: ogi
                        Some angles and other technical details. And what are the design features, if we are talking about the final result?

                        Yeah. "technical details are not important" ... 8))) The knife is a cutlery. But the soup is not very convenient for them 8)))
                        There is such a thing as time. In the war, very, very important. Choosing not optimal methods of hitting a target, you lose this time.
                        There is such a thing as money. In war it is also very important. Choosing a non-optimal solution, you lose this money.
                        And all for what? For the sake of the very “universalism” with which the French were tackled in the First World War?

                        Quote: ogi
                        A jet mortar is called a mortar in the form of its ammunition.

                        The mortar does not fire rockets. Moreover, mortar mines do not have systems that give them rotation. The missile is closer to the cannon shell along its path

                        Quote: ogi
                        Let’s somehow manage without expensive and specialized long-range artillery.

                        Because it is cheaper than all other methods? Because she has the shortest possible reaction time? Because long-range barrel artillery round-the-clock and all-weather? Doesn’t this all suit you?
                      9. 0
                        24 September 2017 18: 36
                        The answer is below.
                      10. +1
                        25 September 2017 22: 27
                        Quote: ogi
                        ogi September 23, 2017 22:46 p.m. ↑
                        Quote: Lgankhi
                        Are you out of your mind? How can you compare mortar and howitzer?

                        Simply and easily. In fact, the howitzer is a long-range mortar. Yes, the design is completely different, somewhat reminiscent of a gun. But in essence it is precisely a long-range mortar. After 2MB, howitzers became an anachronism. It is not clear why they were needed after the development of mass production of jet mortars.

                        Howitzer anachronism? Not at all. Anachronism gun. Dying everywhere like mammoths. And replaced by howitzers. In almost all armies.
                    5. ogi
                      0
                      24 September 2017 02: 22
                      Quote: Lgankhi
                      Well, developing your idea, we can assume that the gun is a long-range howitzer. Therefore, the gun and the mortar are one and the same!

                      I see no reason to answer your fantasies.
                      1. +1
                        24 September 2017 02: 36
                        No, having said “A”, please say “B” too! So the gun and the mortar, in your opinion, are one and the same?
                  2. +1
                    23 September 2017 17: 02
                    Compared to the masses.
                    Both Bobik and the 75th Infantry were classmates, were in the same places and performed the same role as a unitary shell.

                    On the sim, I end the argument with you, you are no longer interested in me if you are not able to admit a mistake
                    1. +2
                      23 September 2017 17: 53
                      Quote: super.ufu
                      Both Bobik and the 75th Infantry were classmates, were in the same places and performed the same role as a unitary shell.

                      Of course "classmates." Initially not designed to combat armored vehicles, the German was a half-mortar half-howitzer. And originally designed including to combat armor with caliber armor-piercing gun.
                      Of course, "classmates", because I want it so much. I’ll hint that in the future you should include trench and mountain guns in your “classmates”. In this case, Soviet engineers will look even more helpless

                      Embrasure of the bunker. Range of 600 meters. The Soviet cannon could hit her, the German gun, no
                      And you are trying to write these two guns into "classmates" ...

                      Quote: super.ufu
                      On the sim, I finish the argument with you, you are not interested

                      The drain is counted.
          2. 0
            23 September 2017 14: 58
            And which German "regiment" was 5kg lighter than a bob?
            1. 0
              23 September 2017 16: 52
              7,5 cm Infanteriegeschütz 42 was 5 kg lighter than the OB-25 of the 43-year-old
              1. 0
                23 September 2017 18: 13
                Yeah, only it was about "Bobby":
                Quote: super.ufu
                the gun had one nimus - big msa, 2 times more than classmates, with what actually fought in 43.
                all

                Ie it was said about arr 27 and not about OB-25.
                IG -42 595 kg, Sample 27 920 kg on iron disks
                1. 0
                  23 September 2017 18: 30
                  Quote: Kibb
                  Ie it was said about arr 27 and not about OB-25.

                  And the cannon of 1927 is not even close to being a "classmate" of 7,5 cm leichtes Infanteriegeschütz 18, with which it was compared. For she is not even a cannon with all the consequences.
                  1. 0
                    23 September 2017 18: 40
                    This Shirokorad pulled by the ears. Although it fires direct fire, and the classification can be according to different parameters - in this case, both guns are designed to support infantry with “fire and wheels,” there’s just a different approach to solving the problem, although naturally they are not classmates
                    1. +1
                      23 September 2017 20: 12
                      Quote: Kibb
                      just a different approach to solving the problem

                      Even so, they do not intersect.
                      They are designed to hit different targets with different ammunition.
                      Soviet shot at armored targets (armored vehicles and armored elements of fortifications) with calibrated armor-piercing, field light fort. high-explosive fragmentation, infantry-shrapnel structures. Everything is laid out.
                      “A German is absolutely for other tasks. Mounted fire, hitting targets behind a crest of a shelter, in trenches, etc. Before the appearance of“ armor-burning ”it didn’t work on armor. On field fortifications, it’s practically useless because of the large angle of incidence of the projectile. close to.
                      1. 0
                        23 September 2017 20: 36
                        The German shot both mounted and flat fire
                    2. +1
                      23 September 2017 21: 08
                      Quote: Kibb
                      The German shot both mounted and flat fire

                      The range of a direct shot at a target of 2.7 on the fifth charge is about 350 meters. At 600 meters, the height of the trajectory is 7.6 meters

                      This is anything but a flat trajectory
                      1. 0
                        23 September 2017 21: 59
                        But it’s not howitzer. When the elevation angle on the fifth charge is 8,5 degrees, the angle of incidence is about 9 degrees - a range of 1300 meters. To destroy a machine gun in direct visibility - with the head.
                        It’s clear that her ballistics are flawed, and what did you want with such a mass, but you know that our regiment didn’t have a fountain, but a decent mass
                  2. 0
                    23 September 2017 23: 54
                    Quote: Spade
                    Quote: Kibb
                    Ie it was said about arr 27 and not about OB-25.

                    And the cannon of 1927 is not even close to being a "classmate" of 7,5 cm leichtes Infanteriegeschütz 18, with which it was compared. For she is not even a cannon with all the consequences.

                    Alas, this is not so.
                    For exactly what is.
  7. 0
    22 September 2017 19: 34
    Thanks, I liked it.
  8. +1
    23 September 2017 09: 45
    The article is so-so, the main task of supporting the infantry was coping worse than the light infantry gun 7,5 cm leIG 18, and what is the progress? The same three-inch only view from the side.
  9. +1
    23 September 2017 13: 11
    Unsuccessful gun too heavy for its class. ZIS-3 for example, weighed 1200 kg, but the angle of the barrel was 37 degrees, and the initial velocity of the projectile was 662 m / s. The analogue of the regiment, the German 7,5 cm le.IG.18, shot 6-kg shells at an angle of elevation of the barrel to 75 degrees, and weighed only 400 kg! This despite the fact that the Soviet regiment weighed as much as 920 kg! Yes, the ballistics of the German gun was much worse, the initial speed of 212 m / s and the firing range of 3480 m, but this was enough for a regimental gun intended to shoot exclusively with direct fire to support the infantry. I doubt that during the war the Soviet regiment was fired at its maximum range of 7200 m. This gun is not intended for counter-battery fire or for artillery preparation before an attack, when the firing range is very important.
    1. +2
      23 September 2017 17: 31
      Horses, people, "analogues" shifted into a heap ...
      The 27-year-old regiment was also designed to destroy tanks with an armor-piercing caliber projectile. Therefore, it had a sufficient initial velocity for the projectile because the weight was higher. However, despite its relatively high weight, it could normally be moved around the battlefield, partially covered with a shield. a short trunk, relatively light beds) With the ZiS-3 this could not be done, it was verified empirically.
      This regiment weighed "920kg!" only after a really unsuccessful decision to install metal wheels for the sake of cheapness and increased resource. Initially, its weight was 740 kg
      1. +1
        23 September 2017 18: 37
        Quote: Spade
        The 27-year-old regiment was also designed to destroy tanks with an armor-piercing caliber projectile

        What is the point of this if the GN angle was only 5,5 degrees? Tanks actually move along the battlefield, and such a tiny angle of GN will not be enough to correct for the movement of the tank. You’ll have to rearrange the beds all the time, and when the bed is rearranged, you cannot shoot. If they had made sliding beds, then there would have been a sense of high ballistics for the regiment. And so this is a half-hearted decision, which only in the most harmful way affected the weight of the gun.
        1. +2
          23 September 2017 20: 21
          Quote: Lgankhi
          What is the point of this if the GN angle was only 5,5 degrees?

          Right left. At a distance of 600 meters, this is 115 meters of the front without moving the bed. She herself is quite light, it is quite possible to pull it out by the forces of one person. Unless on wet loam, this can be a problem.

          Sliding beds are a rather large mass. For example, in order to carry ZiS-3, we had to hang some kind of slack-gun on the trunk in order to “unload” the beds. After that, it was possible to move the five of them (two on the beds, two on wheels, plus one on the trunk)
          The 27-year-old half-way on the asphalt-lawns-curbs was quite normally carried by the three of us.
          1. +3
            23 September 2017 20: 26
            Quote: Spade
            The 27-year-old half-way on the asphalt-lawns-curbs was quite normally carried by the three of us.

            Shovels. And you did not study in TAKAKU?
            1. +2
              23 September 2017 20: 43
              Kolomna.
              And what, too, after the "golden night" had to take the guns to their places? 8)))
              1. +3
                23 September 2017 20: 53
                Quote: Spade
                Kolomna.
                And what, too, after the "golden night" had to take the guns to their places? 8)))

                No, I'm an conscript. Just have a friend from Tula. As he gets drunk, he begins about ballistics ... crying No offense ...
                1. +1
                  23 September 2017 21: 15
                  It’s not ballistics, there’s talk of dragging. Well, about your friend, in theory, he should talk about other ballistics, about the internal. The school seems to be assigned to the GRAU. Techies released.
      2. ogi
        +1
        23 September 2017 23: 19
        Quote: Spade
        The 27-year-old regiment was also designed to destroy tanks with an armor-piercing caliber projectile.

        Khe khe. Remind you when the first 76 mm BBS was adopted in the USSR?
        In 1933 It was called "projectile devil. No. 2-02840" and was produced from 1936 to 1938. Weighed 6,51 kg. Further, approximately in the middle of 1938. it was replaced by BBS under the name BR-350, later renamed the BR-350A weighing 6,3 kg. With this shell and began to fight in 1941.
        A total 02.06.1941g. in the Red Army there were 192,7 thousand shells of both drawings. Mostly BR-350.
  10. ogi
    +1
    23 September 2017 22: 56
    Quote: Roman Skomorokhov
    "Polkovushki". 76-mm regimental guns of the sample of 1927 and 1943

    Colonel arr. 1927 outlived its century at the same time as the widespread use of mortars in the troops. Those. in the late 30s. Since anti-tank guns were widespread in the Red Army even earlier.
    "Colonel" arr. 1943, this weapon is primarily anti-tank. Since the main was her cumulative ammunition. And it was based on the same concept that the Germans abandoned back in 1942, "a short barrel of a cheap gun + cumulative ammunition." The Germans then replaced this concept with the concept of "long barrel and caliber BBS."
    That is, the Germans back in 1942. everything fell into place. And the USSR continued to "experiment." Forced, of course. There was no normal anti-tank gun until the end of the war.
    1. 0
      24 September 2017 01: 47
      Quote: ogi
      The Germans then replaced this concept with the concept of "long barrel and caliber BBS."
      That is, the Germans back in 1942. everything fell into place

      But men don’t even know that on modern tanks a third of the ammunition is made up of cumulative shells! Even in the Abrams and the Merkavas.
      Quote: ogi
      And the USSR continued to "experiment." Forced, of course. There was no normal anti-tank gun until the end of the war.

      And ZIS-2 and BS-3? Are these "abnormal" anti-tank guns?
      1. ogi
        0
        24 September 2017 02: 20
        Quote: Lgankhi
        that on modern tanks a third of the ammunition is cumulative shells! Even in the Abrams and the Merkavas.

        Apparently you do not understand the difference between modern tanks and 2MV tanks.
        And also between modern cumulative shots and cumulative shells from the time of 2MB.
        Quote: Lgankhi
        And ZIS-2 and BS-3? Are these "abnormal" anti-tank guns?

        Are they normal?
        1. 0
          24 September 2017 02: 41
          Quote: ogi
          And also between modern cumulative shots and cumulative shells from the time of 2MB.

          The principle of operation is the same, except that modern tanks have smoothbore guns, so the projectile does not rotate, which has a positive effect on the formation of a cumulative stream.
          Quote: ogi
          Are they normal?

          Normal. Or for you, a British six-pound weighing 1215 kg and a British 17-pound weighing 3000 kg for you abnormal guns? The British very successfully used both the artillery system and were pleased. ZIS-2 is an analog of six-pounders, and BS-3 is an analog of QF 17 pounder.
          1. ogi
            0
            24 September 2017 09: 31
            Quote: Lgankhi
            The principle of operation is the same

            So with the T-34 and T-72, the principle of action is common. However, the technique is different.
            Quote: Lgankhi
            Normal

            And what are normal?
            Do you even understand what cannons are? What can you say about the cutting of the ZIS-2 and the speed of its BBS? And what about the length of its threaded part in calibers?
            I understand that you can’t say anything. Because you don’t understand cannons.
            Quote: Lgankhi
            British 17 pounds weighing 3000 kg

            Conceptually, the OQF 17-pounder is the same weird gun as the ZIS-2. Only in the version ZIS-2 light. Those. stocks there are clearly less. Simple, much. But the conceptual strangeness is preserved.
            If you are interested in a really outstanding 76 mm gun, then this is the British 77 mm HV.
            Quote: Lgankhi
            British six-pound weighing 1215 kg

            Very normal, constructively, was a gun. The caliber is slightly incorrect, which made it difficult to use as a tank. And so, it was very competently designed. In the generation of Mk IV and Mk V, i.e. since 1943
            Quote: Lgankhi
            ZIS-2 is an analog of six-pound

            In which place? Is the caliber the same? So at the regiment and the division he is also the same. These are analogues, just called differently?
            Quote: Lgankhi
            and BS-3 is an analogue of QF 17 pounder.

            Well, and here you find something in common?
            1. 0
              24 September 2017 09: 56
              Quote: ogi
              So with the T-34 and T-72, the principle of action is common. However, the technique is different.

              Yeah, Renault FT17 also has the same operating principle. By your logic, Abrams is a copy of FT17 wassat .
              Quote: ogi
              And what are normal?
              Do you even understand what cannons are? What can you say about the cutting of the ZIS-2 and the speed of its BBS? And what about the length of its threaded part in calibers?
              I understand that you can’t say anything. Because you don’t understand cannons.

              All this can be obtained on the Internet. You are not the only one so smart, sit surrounded by guides.
              Quote: ogi
              Conceptually, the OQF 17-pounder is the same weird gun as the ZIS-2. Only in the version ZIS-2 light. Those. stocks there are clearly less. Simple, much. But the conceptual strangeness is preserved.
              If you are interested in a really outstanding 76 mm gun, then this is the British 77 mm HV.

              Oh my God! So 77 mm HV this is the same 17-pound, only with a shell from the anti-aircraft gun! Maybe you will begin to argue that the PaK40 and KwK40 are fundamentally different guns only on the basis that the cartridge case is thin and long, and the tank gun is short and thick?
              Quote: ogi
              In which place? Is the caliber the same? So at the regiment and the division he is also the same. These are analogues, just called differently?

              Have you heard about such a word as "muzzle velocity of a projectile"? How can you compare regiments and divisions? Maybe we’ll start comparing PPSh and AK? After all, they have the same caliber!
              Quote: ogi
              Well, and here you find something in common?

              QF-17 and BS-3 have similar weight (3000 and 3600 kg, respectively), similar armor penetration (about 140 mm at a distance of 500 yards at an angle of 30 degrees), similar tactical and operational use (used in separate fighter units). Or do you want to say that the QF-17 is an analogue of the regiment? In your opinion, the caliber is the same.
              1. ogi
                0
                24 September 2017 12: 09
                Quote: Lgankhi
                According to your logic

                You constantly attribute to me some kind of “my logic” that was born in your head. Which for your idea, for some reason, I must defend.
                Are you adequate in general?
                Quote: Lgankhi
                So 77 mm HV this is the same 17-pound, only with a shell from the anti-aircraft gun!

                You are also incompetent immensely. The word ballistics is unfamiliar to you as I look.
                QF 17 pounder and 77 mm HV, these are completely different guns. The only thing that unites them is some types of shells (projectile parts of artillery cartridges), which they had the same. They had nothing more in common.
                Quote: Lgankhi
                Maybe you’ll start to argue

                Again some fantasies that I have to confirm.
                But this time I agree, despite the fact that the shells of these guns were the same, and their external ballistics was the same, their internal ballistics was different. And the propellant charge was different. Therefore, in general, these were NOT the same guns.
                Quote: Lgankhi
                Maybe we’ll start comparing PPSh and AK? After all, they have the same caliber!

                This is your method. You called ZIS-2 and OQF 6-pounder analogues.
                Quote: Lgankhi
                QF-17 and BS-3 have a similar weight (3000 and 3600 kg, respectively)

                Ah, there it is. It turns out that in fragile minds the guns mingle on their weight.
                This is like a well-known anecdote of Runet that the Germans classified their tanks according to the caliber of their guns.
                Quote: Lgankhi
                similar armor penetration (about 140 mm at a distance of 500 yards at an angle of 30 degrees)

                In fact, BS-3 is 20% more.
                Quote: Lgankhi
                similar tactical and operational use (used in separate fighter units)

                Another nonsense.
                BS-3 in 1944 (they were not released before) 240 pieces were made.
                OQF 17-pounder from 1942 to 1944 was done:
                for self-propelled guns - 5642 pcs.
                in the transportable version - 5898 pcs.
                in the tank version - 4050 pcs.
                Total 15590 pcs. Did you notice any difference in the saturation of the troops with these types of weapons?
                At the same time in 1944. made 7290 OQF 17-pounder of all kinds and, for example, 2525 ZIS-2. The armor penetration of the ZIS-2 was approximately 65% ​​of the OQF level of 17-pounder.
                1. 0
                  24 September 2017 12: 34
                  Quote: ogi
                  BS-3 in 1944 (they were not released before) 240 pieces were made.
                  OQF 17-pounder from 1942 to 1944 was done:
                  for self-propelled guns - 5642 pcs.
                  in the transportable version - 5898 pcs.
                  in the tank version - 4050 pcs.
                  Total 15590 pcs. Did you notice any difference in the saturation of the troops with these types of weapons?

                  What are you so modestly silent about the SU-100, which in April 1945 did 1350 pieces?
                  Quote: ogi
                  Another nonsense.

                  That is, in your opinion, the QF-17 was part of the divisional artillery?
                  1. ogi
                    0
                    24 September 2017 17: 49
                    Quote: Lgankhi
                    What are you so modestly silent about the SU-100, which in April 1945 did 1350 pieces?

                    And were they armed with BS-3?
                    In addition, in 1944. they were made about 500 pcs.
                    Quote: Lgankhi
                    That is, in your opinion, the QF-17 was part of the divisional artillery?

                    Quote: Lgankhi
                    Oh, do you think the QF-17s were part of the divisional artillery?

                    Internet to help you. Self-educate.
                    1. 0
                      24 September 2017 23: 43
                      Quote: ogi
                      And were they armed with BS-3?

                      Oh my God!!! Yes, the swinging part in the SU-100 is the same as in the BS-3 !!! Or, in your opinion, if the DS-10 did not have a shield, bed and wheels, then this is not the swinging part of the BS-3, but some unknown crap with unknown ballistics and shooting unknown shells?
                      1. ogi
                        0
                        25 September 2017 01: 22
                        Quote: Lgankhi
                        Yes, the swinging part in the SU-100 is the same as in the BS-3 !!!

                        So what? It was about BS-3.
      2. +2
        24 September 2017 10: 48
        Quote: Lgankhi
        And ZIS-2 and BS-3? Are these "abnormal" anti-tank guns?

        There were few of them. Largely because of the high cost. As a result, even in the anti-tank regiments and brigades of the RGK in 1945 the divisional ZiS-3 reigned.

        As of January 1 1945 years in the composition of the fighter-anti-tank artillery of the RVGK were:
        - 56 iptabr. including: 1 as part of three regiments of 76 mm cannons (72 guns). 16 as a part of two regiments of 76 mm guns and one regiment of 57 mm guns (24 guns per regiment), 6 as a part of one regiment of 7b-mm guns and two regiments of 57 mm guns (24 guns per regiment), 5 in the regiment includes 76 mm cannons, a regiment of 57 mm cannons (24 guns per regiment), a regiment of 100 mm cannons (16 guns). 2 and the composition of two regiments of 76 mm guns (48 guns), a shelf of 57 mm guns (24 guns), a regiment SU-85 (21 self-propelled guns), 6 as a part of a regiment of 76 mm guns (24 guns), two regiments 57- mm cannons (48 guns), SU-85 regiment (21 self-propelled guns), 2 as part of three regiments of 76 mm cannons (60 guns), 11 as part of two regiments of 76 mm cannons, 57 mm cannon regiment (20 guns per regiments and 7 as part of two regiments of 76 mm (40 guns), a regiment of 100 mm guns (16 guns);
        - 97 iptap. including. 93 - 76 mm cannons (24 guns each). 1 - 57 mm cannons (20 guns). 2 - 45 mm cannons (20 guns each), 1 - consisting of three divisions of 76 mm guns (36 guns) and one division of 45 mm guns (18 guns).

        Total: 4452 76-mm guns, 1368 units. 57-mm guns, 192 units. 100 mm guns, 58 units 45 mm guns and 168 units. 85 mm tank destroyer
        1. ogi
          0
          24 September 2017 12: 21
          Quote: Spade
          There were few of them.

          In 1943 made 1855 ZIS-2. And in 1944. 2525 more
          In 1944 made 240 pcs. BS-3.
    2. +5
      24 September 2017 10: 03
      Quote: ogi
      Colonel arr. 1927 outlived its century at the same time as the widespread use of mortars in the troops.

      Everything is exactly the opposite. Back in World War I, it was noted that light field guns and light field howitzers complement each other perfectly, allowing you to hit any targets on the battlefield within their reach. A mortar is more a replacement for a light howitzer. Much cheaper (both the mortar itself and the ammunition) The mortar couldn’t completely cover the tasks of the guns, but dodge it.

      Quote: ogi
      And the USSR continued to "experiment." Forced, of course.

      Well, yes, the 43-year-old “cannon” was a rather strange decision. Apparently, it was precisely with its appearance that the “forty-five” survived until the end of the war, and their rather weak fragmentation projectile was very, very actively used.
      But there really is an economy. Shrapnel shells for regiments were practically abandoned for economic reasons, as well as card-based. But these were the most effective "anti-personnel" for regimental level guns. The shell for the regiment is 43 years old, as far as I remember, cast iron, that is, there is a high probability of its destruction even before the explosion at a high final speed
      1. ogi
        0
        24 September 2017 12: 29
        Quote: Spade
        Back in World War I, it was noted that light field guns and light field howitzers complement each other perfectly,

        WW1 ended in 1918. And 2MV on the territory of the USSR began on September 24.09.1941, XNUMX. Not enough at once. Therefore, by that time mortars and anti-tank guns had already occupied this niche.
        Quote: Spade
        A mortar is more a replacement for a light howitzer.

        Do you read yourself? You have one sentence contrary to another.
        Quote: Spade
        The mortar could not completely block the tasks of the guns, but dodge.

        Mortar is not a competitor to guns at all. This howitzer is essentially a long-range mortar.
        Quote: Spade
        Shrapnel shells for regiments were practically abandoned for economic reasons, as well as card-based.

        They were abandoned because the Germans did not attack with a "dense infantry formation." And cavalry, too.
        Quote: Spade
        The shell for the regiment is 43 years old, as far as I remember, cast iron, that is, there is a high probability of its destruction even before the explosion at a high final speed

        Nothing prevented manning with a shell from the ZIS-3. Her shells n / s had even more.
        1. 0
          24 September 2017 16: 21
          Quote: ogi
          WW1 ended in 1918

          Then some laws of physics were canceled?

          Quote: ogi
          Do you read yourself? You have one sentence contrary to another.

          No. If you read carefully. I have not in vain applied the word "easy"

          Quote: ogi
          Mortar is not a competitor to guns at all.

          As this is consistent with your own phrase, "Colonel model 1927 has outlived its time at the same time as the widespread use of mortars in the troops."
          You yourself will figure it out, the mortar is a competitor, otherwise it’s starting to "dig" under the gun, then under the howitzer. Depending on what you are trying to prove at this time.

          Quote: ogi
          They were abandoned because the Germans did not attack with a "dense infantry formation"

          3Sh1, 3Sh2. Shrapnel shells Created after the war. Probably, the Americans switched to "dense infantry systems" 8)))))))))))))))))))
          And, by the way, the increase in the volume of field fortification operations at times during the First World War was probably due to the fact that the warring parties were engaged in movements in them in "dense infantry systems"
          Ricochet shooting, expensive remote fuses, even more expensive radio fuses - all this is a sign of the enemy returning to "dense infantry systems"

          Quote: ogi
          Nothing interfered with the ZIS-3 shell

          Nothing but finance. After all, it was not for nothing that it was precisely during the Second World War that cast iron shells of calibers from 152 mm to 45 mm were so widely used
          1. ogi
            0
            24 September 2017 17: 59
            Quote: Spade
            Then some laws of physics were canceled?

            And where are the laws of physics?
            Quote: Spade
            As this is consistent with your own phrase, "Colonel model 1927 has outlived its time at the same time as the widespread use of mortars in the troops."

            You have not finished reading. I further wrote there about anti-tank guns.
            As for the regiments, they tried to play the role of mortars in the period when they were not yet. And the functions of the trench guns.
            With the advent of anti-tank guns and mortars, the need for them disappeared. So understandable?
            Quote: Spade
            3Sh1, 3Sh2. Shrapnel shells Created after the war. Probably the Americans switched to "dense infantry systems"

            USSR after WWII fought with the United States? Where and when?
            In addition, in the USSR a lot of funny things were "created". Yet there was a draw around.
            1. +1
              24 September 2017 19: 31
              Quote: ogi
              And where are the laws of physics?

              Despite the fact that even after the First World Shell, he did not learn how to fly along a hinged path and suddenly turn around and fly parallel to the ground. Conversely, a projectile flying along a flat trajectory did not learn how to make a “slide” or “peck” in order to hit targets on the reverse slopes of heights, behind cover, and so on.
              Therefore, even after the First World War, the need remained for a “duplex” capable of hitting targets on the battlefield with both mounted and lay fire.

              Quote: ogi
              You have not finished reading. I further wrote there about anti-tank guns.

              Here, damn it ... Yes, and here anti-tank guns ???? What, tanks or other armored vehicles are the only possible targets on the battlefield that should be hit by artillery?
              Mortar ... You definitely never shot a mortar with a mortar, a half-direct fire. (He, unfortunately, does not know how to direct fire). Even now, having laser rangefinders, this is a rather difficult task, requiring high training for both the commander and the gunner. And it requires shooting, that is, in the best case, only the third mine will fly.
              And when firing from a field cannon at a point target, even a peasant with three classes of education can be trained to mark in a funnel in a couple of days, and hit the target with a second shell.

              Quote: ogi
              USSR after WWII fought with the United States? Where and when?

              Getting ready.

              Quote: ogi
              In addition, in the USSR a lot of funny things were "created". Yet there was a draw around.

              Are you sure that only in the USSR?
              1. ogi
                0
                24 September 2017 21: 20
                Quote: Spade
                Despite the fact that even after the First World Shell, he did not learn how to fly along a hinged path and suddenly turn around and fly parallel to the ground.

                Your fantasies cross the boundaries of the rational.
                You yourself are inventing something and you are convicting it yourself. Attributing it to me.
                Quote: Spade
                Therefore, even after the First World War, the need remained for a “duplex” capable of hitting targets on the battlefield with both mounted and lay fire.

                The ending in the "hurt" style. From a famous Soviet joke.
                Quote: Spade
                Yes, and here anti-tank guns ????

                Yes, despite the fact that anti-tank guns were supposed to solve the problem of penetration. In total, not only tanks and BTTs.
                Then came some uninteresting thoughts on extraneous topics.
                Quote: Spade
                Getting ready.

                In your imagination. In fact, he could not even cope with Afghanistan.
                Quote: Spade
                Are you sure that only in the USSR?

                And where is it?
                1. 0
                  24 September 2017 21: 42
                  Quote: ogi
                  In your imagination. In fact, he could not even cope with Afghanistan.


                  It's you about the United States, I just can’t imagine what would be the troops of the United States and the Western coalition when China, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Russia (with the capabilities of the USSR) suddenly began to help with weapons and prepare specialists for the Taliban .. They can do it now cannot with them.

                  What is the conclusion?
                2. 0
                  25 September 2017 07: 23
                  Quote: ogi
                  Your fantasies cross the boundaries of the rational.
                  You yourself are inventing something and you are convicting it yourself. Attributing it to me.

                  Hello ... It turns out that the phrase "Colonel model 1927 has outlived its time at the same time as the widespread use of mortars in the troops." not yours? Has someone used your account?

                  Quote: ogi
                  Yes, despite the fact that anti-tank guns were supposed to solve the problem of penetration.

                  No way. Anti-tank units never performed the task of directly supporting infantry with direct fire. And if this happened, it was connected either with the illiteracy of the commanders, or with a special need. Moreover, both the 45-mm anti-tank and 57-mm anti-tank vehicles had very, very limited capabilities in terms of combating infantry and light field fortifications.

                  Quote: ogi
                  In your imagination.

                  Well, that’s a lot of overkill. After 500 years, such a deliberately false statement may have passed, but not now.

                  Quote: ogi
                  And where is it?

                  Well, the Americans created a shrapnel shell. They also found those who “attacked” with the dense infantry formation. "And the cavalry, too."?
                  Or did you find such a projectile effective against infantry?
                  1. ogi
                    0
                    25 September 2017 10: 09
                    Quote: Spade
                    It turns out that the phrase "Colonel model 1927 has outlived its time simultaneously with the widespread use of mortars in the troops." not yours?

                    And what does this phrase have to do with your further fabrications and verbiage?
                    Quote: Spade
                    Anti-tank units never performed the task of directly supporting infantry with direct fire.

                    Those. did the platoon squadron in the battalion during the attacks just smoke bamboo?
                    Quote: Spade
                    Moreover, both the 45-mm anti-tank and 57-mm anti-tank vehicles had very, very limited capabilities in terms of combating infantry and light field fortifications.

                    With facilities, much more opportunities than your regiments. And with the infantry, I already wrote to you 100 times about mortars.
                    Quote: Spade
                    Well, the Americans created a shrapnel shell. They also found those who "attacked" with a dense infantry formation. "

                    Ask the Americans.
                    1. 0
                      25 September 2017 12: 13
                      Quote: ogi
                      And what does this phrase have to do with your further fabrications and verbiage?

                      That is, the phrase is yours. And without verbiage, you can explain how the “widespread mortar” led to the regimental a gun arr. 1927 "outlived its century"

                      Quote: ogi
                      Those. did the platoon squadron in the battalion during the attacks just smoke bamboo?

                      Exactly! How did you guess?
                      He could have been attracted to direct target fire at the stage of artillery preparation for the attack. After which it was necessary to put together a heap, replenish ammunition, and in the future they had to make up the reserve reserve of the battalion commander in case of counterattacks and other force majeure. So must it was to be. However, sometimes the need, sometimes the stupidity, forced the platoon to be torn apart, passing it forty-five to the infantry units as an ersatz support weapon. As a result, the commander lost his virtually unique trump card

                      Quote: ogi
                      With facilities, much more opportunities than your regiments.

                      So I imagine the enchanting process of removing soil dust from the floor wall of the flanking machine-gun bunker with a 45-mm fragmentation projectile. In a couple of hours, maybe they could have done it ...
                      It’s the same with making passages in wire fences, the same with the destruction of grooves, the same with the destruction of escarp ... a picker
                      "Bigger opportunities" in what terms? More time and more shells need to be spent?

                      About mortars and do not remember
                      1. ogi
                        0
                        25 September 2017 13: 19
                        Quote: Spade
                        That is, the phrase is yours

                        My phrase. And verbiage underneath is yours.
                        Here is a picture for elementary educational program:

                        Quote: Spade
                        You can explain how the "widespread mortar" led to the regimental gun arr. 1927 "outlived its century"

                        He explained immediately after the phrase. If you do not understand, this is not my problem.
                        Quote: Spade
                        handing him forty-five to the infantry units as an ersatz support weapon. As a result, the commander lost his virtually unique trump card

                        Those. VET guns, if they already shoot at the bunkers, then they can no longer shoot at the tanks, if they appear?
                        Enchanting.
                        Quote: Spade
                        So I imagine the enchanting process of removing soil dust from the floor wall of the flanking machine-gun bunker with a 45-mm fragmentation projectile.

                        Yeah. And you can pick this dusting with a fork. Or a 76 mm shell shell.
                        The effect will be approximately the same. Because the explosiveness of the OFS regiment was nonsense. More than the high explosiveness of 45 OFS, but still pretty.
                        Quote: Spade
                        It’s the same with making passages in wire fences, the same with the destruction of grooves, the same with the destruction of escarp ... a picker

                        What gun are you writing about? I am writing about a wretched colonel with OFS containing 621 g of ammatol. What are you talking about?
                        Compare this explosive content with the explosive content in a 120 mm mine regimental mortar. And calm down at last.
                        If you forgot, then I remind you that the high-explosive 120 mm mine F-843 weighing 16,2 kg contained 3,9 kg of explosives. 6,3 times the size of your super colonel.
                    2. +1
                      25 September 2017 17: 12
                      Quote: ogi
                      He explained immediately after the phrase. If you do not understand, this is not my problem.

                      I should have understood that a two-kilogram fragmentation shell could perfectly replace a six-kilogram high-explosive fragmentation shell? That is, my problem is the lack of imagination you have? Together with math limping on both legs ... It seems to me that two cannot be equal, no more than six. Your imagination apparently admits this.

                      Quote: ogi
                      Those. VET guns, if they already shoot at the bunkers, then they can no longer shoot at the tanks, if they appear?

                      They can. But only in one case. If the enemy is so amiable that he will not massage in time and space the impact of his tanks. It will supply them one at a time, and immediately to the sector of each weapon, so that it is convenient for the anti-tankers to destroy them.

                      Quote: ogi
                      Yeah. And you can pick this dusting with a fork. Or a 76 mm shell shell.
                      The effect will be approximately the same. Because the explosiveness of the OFS regiment was nonsense.

                      That's where the dog rummaged ... But I think ... The thing, it turns out, is that you have never seen the gap of this six-kilogram high-explosive fragmentation ...
                      And we ZiS-3 were substitute guns, and therefore I saw it. Many many times. And I’m sorry, I just can’t say anything about a weak high-explosive effect. Yes, and the practice of using 76-mm guns to open the floor walls of bunkers in the Finnish clearly indicates this ...


                      Quote: ogi
                      What gun are you writing about? I am writing about a wretched colonel with OFS containing 621 g of ammatol. What are you talking about?
                      Compare this explosive content with the explosive content in a 120 mm mine regimental mortar. And calm down at last.
                      If you forgot, then I remind you that the high-explosive 120 mm mine F-843 weighing 16,2 kg contained 3,9 kg of explosives. 6,3 times the size of your super colonel.

                      Trim sturgeon. 8))) Steel high-explosive mine was, well, a very rare beast in the army. Therefore, the main ones have always been high-explosive high-explosive cast iron OF-842 A and B. C, respectively, 1.58 and 1.4 of the very AT-80. That is, ammatola. Rather, judging by the tsiferke-ammonite. Used in industry because of its high explosiveness
                      1. ogi
                        0
                        25 September 2017 17: 41
                        Quote: Spade
                        I should have understood that a two-kilogram fragmentation shell could perfectly replace a six-kilogram high-explosive fragmentation shell?

                        Yeah It seems useless to explain anything.
                        Quote: Spade
                        And I’m sorry, I just can’t say anything about a weak high-explosive effect.

                        This is from incompetence.
                        Quote: Spade
                        the very AT-80. That is, ammatola. Rather, judging by the tsiferke-ammonite.

                        AT / 80 is an ammatol with a TNT stopper.
                      2. +1
                        25 September 2017 22: 01
                        Quote: Spade
                        That's where the dog rummaged ... But I think ... The thing, it turns out, is that you have never seen the gap of this six-kilogram high-explosive fragmentation ...

                        At the test site, I watched as two 76mm and 122mm batteries fired OFS for the same purposes. From a distance of 3-5 km to distinguish a gap of 76mm from 122mm is not at all easy
                    3. 0
                      25 September 2017 18: 25
                      Quote: ogi
                      Yeah It seems useless to explain anything.

                      Explain to me that two are actually more than six? Definitely useless ...

                      Quote: ogi
                      This is from incompetence.

                      "Let's argue about the taste of oysters and coconuts with those who ate them, until hoarseness, before a fight ..." (c)
                      Do you suggest me not to believe my eyes, but to believe your theoretical calculations?

                      Quote: ogi
                      AT / 80 is an ammatol with a TNT stopper.

                      Oh, really, my jamb. AT / 80 (aka AT 20/80) is 20 percent nitrate and 80 TNT. In ammonite, on the contrary, 80/20

                      Well, the "TNT jam" is from another opera. For example, in 120 mm mines the same AT / 80 without any traffic jams
                      1. ogi
                        0
                        25 September 2017 18: 49
                        Quote: Spade
                        Do you suggest me not to believe my eyes, but to believe your theoretical calculations?

                        What calculations?
                        You were told that 3,9 kg of ammatol is more than 621 g of ammatol. But for some reason you do not agree with this. As they disagree with the fact that 1,58 and 1,4 ammatol, this is more than all the same 621 g. This is some kind of direct standard for you.
                        Quote: Spade
                        Well, the "TNT jam" is from another opera. For example, in 120 mm mines the same AT / 80 without any traffic jams

                        This, too, I must explain to you.
                        AT / 80 means that this explosive contains 80% nitrate and 20% TNT. 20% of TNT and are called TNT cork. Ammatol without TNT is marked as “A”.

                        Quote: Spade
                        In ammonite, on the contrary, 80/20

                        What nonsense. Nitrate with TNT "in one bottle" is called ammatol.
                        Ammonite is called saltpeter "in one bottle" with nitro compounds.
                        And I'm still silent about Ammonale.

                        You don’t know elementary things. And take to teach, "chew."
        2. +2
          24 September 2017 17: 18
          And 2MV in the USSR began 24.09.1941g.

          And from 22.06.1941 to 24.09.1941 of the second world war on whose territory was conducted?
          Another comrade from a parallel universe?
          1. ogi
            0
            24 September 2017 17: 52
            Quote: faiver
            And from 22.06.1941 to 24.09.1941 of the second world war on whose territory was conducted?

            From June 22.06 to September 24.09.1941, 2 the Soviet-German war took place. It was carried out of the framework of 24.09.1941MB. And only 2. The USSR entered WWXNUMX on the side of the Anglo-Saxons. I hope you don’t need to indicate motives?
            Learn the story. At least its basics.
            Quote: faiver
            Another comrade from a parallel universe?

            Are you hinting at yourself?
            1. +2
              24 September 2017 18: 15
              I don’t hint, but I’m writing right about you, you’re wandering from your parallel universe into ours with your “historical theories” - go back and do not fool people ... hi
              1. ogi
                0
                24 September 2017 21: 09
                Quote: faiver
                I don’t hint, but I’m writing about you directly

                And you should write about yourself. You don’t know the story.
                Quote: faiver
                from their parallel universe in our wandered with their "historical theories"

                No, it’s you from us. Somewhere to him on 22.06.1941/2/24.09.1941. the entry of the USSR into 24.09.1941 MVs was a dream. But nothing that the Atlantic Charter of the USSR was signed only on 2, thereby joining the Anti-Hitler Coalition? Until that moment, Britain and the USSR were no allies. And they were not opponents. Those. until XNUMX USSR in WWXNUMX did not participate. And one on one fought with the Axis. Without any allies.
                Learn the story.
                1. 0
                  24 September 2017 23: 47
                  Well, actually you are wrong. World War II began on December 6, 1941, when the United States entered the war. Before that, it was a purely European showdown between Germany and its satellites on the one hand, and between the USSR and Britain on the other. But Japan and China fought in the Far East on their own, and this war was in no way connected with the European theater of war. hi
                  1. ogi
                    0
                    25 September 2017 01: 38
                    Quote: Lgankhi
                    World War II began on December 6, 1941, when the United States entered the war.

                    2MB (in Europe) began when the main international gendarme at the time, Britain, entered the war. Britain (with dominions, i.e. globally) attacked Germany on 03.09.1941/2/XNUMX. On this day, XNUMXMB in Europe began. The United States was still too weak to define such things.
                    And the fact that the German-Polish war that began on 01.09.1941/17.09.1941/XNUMX was not at all a world war, but just a local conflict, most eloquently speaks of the fact that Britain attacked Germany (supposedly for Poland), but the USSR (which also attacked Poland XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX), no, did not attack. Consequently, Britain pursued the aim of a war with Germany, and not the defense of Poland. And the local German-Polish war was just an excuse for the British attack on Germany.
                    1. 0
                      25 September 2017 11: 51
                      Quote: ogi
                      Britain (with dominions, i.e. globally) attacked Germany on 03.09.1941/XNUMX/XNUMX. On this day, 2MB in Europe began

                      This is pearl wassat . To all the pearls laughing ! That is, for you, the European war = world war? But nothing, that Germany had no colonies and therefore the war between Britain and Germany simply physically could not be World? The war between these countries was localized only in Europe, and nowhere else. Following your logic, the 1982 British-Argentine War for the Malvins is World War III. Well, or the Boer War is the First World War wassat
                      1. 0
                        25 September 2017 13: 26
                        I’ll save a screenshot and will give you as an argument when you will bring your supposed facts laughing
                      2. ogi
                        0
                        25 September 2017 13: 41
                        Quote: Lgankhi
                        But nothing, that Germany had no colonies and therefore the war between Britain and Germany simply physically could not be World?

                        Germany had allies. And these allies opposed Britain.
                        Quote: Lgankhi
                        Following your logic

                        No need to follow your invented logic. Which suddenly for some reason becomes like mine.
                      3. 0
                        25 September 2017 23: 23
                        According to your words, the First World War began in 1899! After all, this year
                        Britain (with dominions, i.e. globally) attacked
                        Boer Republic! wassat lol laughing . or can we start the countdown of World Wars with the Crimean War? After all, then Britain with France and Turkey attacked Russia, and the fighting then went from Cola to Crimea and Kamchatka.
                    2. +1
                      25 September 2017 21: 39
                      Quote: ogi
                      The German-Polish war, which began on 01.09.1941/17.09.1941/XNUMX, was not at all a world war, but simply a local conflict, most eloquently testified by the fact that Britain attacked Germany (supposedly for Poland), and the USSR (which also attacked Poland on September XNUMX. XNUMX), no, I didn’t attack.

                      Britain and France planned an attack on the USSR in 1940. To begin with, they intended to bomb Baku, Grozny, Batumi, Maykop and Poti ...
                      If Hitler postponed the attack on France for a couple of months, the Second World War could go in a completely different scenario.
                      1. ogi
                        0
                        25 September 2017 23: 55
                        Quote: Captain Pushkin
                        Britain and France planned an attack on the USSR in 1940.

                        Yes, yes, I know. Everyone always planned to attack the USSR. And only Hitler attacked with friends. And once. But the USSR for its short century managed to whom only not to attack. On some, even several times.
                2. 0
                  25 September 2017 18: 27
                  ear, it’s on the principle of advertising - didn’t post it means it wasn’t? or if you don’t see the gopher, then it doesn’t exist? would you go to your parallel reality :) hi
  11. 0
    24 September 2017 10: 02
    I explain.
    chenia,
    Quote: chenia
    In fact, the M-30 problem was in the firing range. Why they had to move closer to the front edge. Where they were hit, even light field artillery. And they died. Guns and people.


    Yes, the range is small, but the OP area was located from the contact line, at the same distance as for the D-30 (but this is another time) .. And only solid artillery could get them (counter-battery fight). In the offensive, the pace made it possible not to change the OP (and if there were more, the defense was flimsy, then the corps and the attached ZIS-3 and the like could do it. — High pace, the density of defense drops sharply ..).

    Quote: chenia
    1. She was heavy.


    And someone did not expect to drag mares, the system for the future was created for tractors. By the way, I regretted that they did not create a light 107 mm howitzer, just in view of the fact that the AP of that time would not have pulled the M-30 division.
    Well, then my 6-gun (M-30 then D-30) battery (40 people L / S and 8 ZIL-131) completely coped. For example, a German 4-gun 105 mm had 170 people.


    Quote: chenia
    The caliber of 122 mm for howitzers in Russia was initially chosen incorrectly


    Selected very well. Power 1,5 higher than 105 mm, you can work with the projectile indefinitely, (from 152 mm the steam from the backside will go after the first OH).

    Quote: chenia
    2. She had a low rate of fire. Because of its archaic structure.


    When firing from a PDO in OH, the rate of fire corresponds to the same D-30. A direct fire is YES, but this is a forced situation for the M-30 (if they didn’t manage to wash off during a breakthrough).

    Quote: chenia
    Those. it was impossible to hit on squares from it. And not enough for a divisional weapon.

    Well this is nonsense, I will not comment.

    Quote: chenia
    But in reality it was a typical VET cannon. And its single-sector lifting mechanism allowed the trunk to be raised a maximum of 27 degrees.


    (ZIS-3) Well, firstly not 27, but 37 with a range of up to 13 km - which is why it was HOME the system of our artillery (don’t explain to Lopatov - let it torment you) and there you will understand why it is a field .. As for ZIS-2, you can throw a stone into the Grabina garden, it is not designed as a PT system (except for the trunk).

    Quote: ogi
    The Goskomstat of the USSR gives the top leadership of the USSR closed data on direct losses of the USSR in 2MB to 42 million people. And another 11 million indirect losses. These data were declassified and officially presented in February 2017. in the State Duma of the Russian Federation. But there will always be people who "know everything better than anyone." Type of you.


    It cannot be. I especially did not trust official data earlier. But when I hit the balance I saw how the liberals were lying. New data, (such as just found, during the perestroika in the archives, everyone was lazy, they were not there).
    "Found"- since it was stupid to talk about huge losses that are not related to the number of people.
    But this FALSE since she does not beat with RI statistics.
    And in 1956 we restored the pre-war strength, the Germans only in 1970, and the Austrians did not reach it at all. Why?

    Quote: chenia
    After 2MB, howitzers became an anachronism. It is not clear why they were needed after the development of mass production of jet mortars.

    Another nonsense. Lopatov already answered why.
    1. +2
      24 September 2017 10: 14
      This, in my opinion, is the next reincarnation of the Carabiner cartridge.
    2. 0
      24 September 2017 17: 14
      What the hell? I oppose OGI And it turns out as to himself.
    3. +1
      25 September 2017 21: 47
      Quote: chenia
      Well, then my 6-gun (M-30 then D-30) battery (40 people L / S and 8 ZIL-131) completely coped. For example, a German 4-gun 105 mm had 170 people.

      171 is if horse drawn, if by truck, then 119 people l / s.
    4. +1
      26 September 2017 11: 12
      Quote: chenia
      Quote: chenia
      Those. it was impossible to hit on squares from it. And not enough for a divisional weapon.

      Well this is nonsense, I will not comment.

      I won’t, either, but I’m interested. Was it impossible to shoot accurately or was it impossible to shoot in squares? And why so?
      1. 0
        26 September 2017 13: 51
        Quote: Captain Pushkin
        I won’t, either, but I’m interested.


        This is not my PERL. For some reason, the first six footnotes (see above) issued like mine. Well, I could not argue with myself.
        So what do you find out from OGI. these are his masterpieces.
        1. +1
          26 September 2017 18: 26
          Quote: chenia
          Quote: Captain Pushkin
          I won’t, either, but I’m interested.


          This is not my PERL. For some reason, the first six footnotes (see above) issued like mine. Well, I could not argue with myself.
          So what do you ask OGI. these are his masterpieces.

          You are absolutely right, I'm sorry, I was not going to offend you with an indirect allusion to the authorship of this wonderful phrase. Just got the quote wrong.
    5. ogi
      0
      27 September 2017 00: 11
      Quote: chenia
      And in 1956, we restored the pre-war strength.

      In the data of the Soviet CSB for a shaggy people there could be anything. To this end, he existed on one side. And the data of its second side open little by little and somehow with a big delay. But they can already be trusted.
  12. +1
    24 September 2017 19: 04
    Quote: ogi
    Is it necessary to distort?

    Mandatory. Each work has its own tool. You can hammer nails with an adjustable wrench, but it is more convenient to do this with a hammer. Any station wagon is worse than a special tool. It is convenient to turn nuts with an adjustable wrench, but it is even more convenient to use a spanner

    Quote: ogi
    Was it apparently written to rain? Are you trying to hide the lack of arguments behind verbiage?

    Back in Finnish, it was proved that DOT is much better to hit with wall fire on the floor wall. Defeat mounted on combat coverage is much less effective.
    And now you, according to your own suggestions, do not have a tool that allows you to conduct a lay fire. Only hinged. Saved.
    What are the consequences of this "savings"? More shells (i.e. loss of money), more time to hit this target (i.e. loss of time).
    Hence, this is not my verbiage, this is your ignorance.

    Quote: ogi
    Congratulations, you lie.
    In fact, all the tools, to one degree or another, were to one extent or another universal and unified.

    8)))))))))))))))))))))))))))
    First, do not confuse unification and universalization. The artillery duplexes and triplexes of those times are a vivid example of unification and the simultaneous rejection of universalization.
    Because for any work there is a tool.

    Quote: ogi
    Do you at least read what you write?
    I wrote about mortar mines, and you write about some mortar shells.

    No need to cut a fool. In "jet mortars" there is nothing like mortars. Generally. Neither in accessible trajectories, nor in the device of rockets, nor in the device of launchers. How there is nothing in tanks from tanks

    Quote: ogi
    I am not comfortable with the fact that when you talk about field artillery, you begin to switch arrows to specialized.

    Hello, we arrived. Specialized artillery ordered a long life back during the First World War, at least in the Ground Forces. She is ALL field.
    1. ogi
      0
      24 September 2017 21: 31
      Quote: Spade
      that the bunker is much better to hit with wall fire on the floor wall. Defeat mounted on combat coverage is much less effective.

      Again verbiage?
      Quote: Spade
      And now you, according to your own suggestions, do not have a tool that allows you to conduct a lay fire.

      The appearance in the army in the early 30s of anti-tank guns apparently passed you. And the functions of this class of guns are not familiar to you either. My condolences.
      Quote: Spade
      First, do not confuse unification and universalization.

      And I just quite clearly share these concepts. But from myself I’ll add that one follows from the other. Is always.
      Quote: Spade
      duplexes and triplexes

      That's about nonsense is not necessary, okay?
      Quote: Spade
      In "jet mortars" there is nothing like mortars. Generally.

      Once again you need to be informed that jet mortars fire mines. Fragmentation mines, this is such an ammunition that differs from fragmentation shells and grenades.
      Quote: Spade
      Specialized artillery ordered a long life back during the First World War, at least in the Ground Forces.

      Those. artillery reserve RGK times 2MB, this is my fantasy. But the 203-mm howitzer B-4, 152 mm, 210 mm guns, 280 mm mortars, 203 mm and 305 mm howitzers, where was it? In platoons and companies?
      Quote: Spade
      She is ALL field.

      Even corps artillery during WW2 was no longer considered field.
      1. +1
        25 September 2017 08: 24
        Quote: ogi
        Again verbiage?


        Do not know again?

        Quote: ogi
        And I just quite clearly share these concepts. But from myself I’ll add that one follows from the other. Is always.

        Gee ... The phrase about "leakage" is just pearl.
        88 mm anti-aircraft, anti-tank Pak 43/41 and Pak 43, self-propelled Nashorn, Ferdinand, Yagdpanther, tank Kw.K. 43
        Unification? Of course. But "leaky universalization" is by no means observed, rather the opposite.
        Quote: ogi
        Once again you need to be informed that jet mortars fire mines.

        Why "once again" tell me your fantasies? "Mortars" fired rockets.
        Quote: ogi
        Those. artillery reserve RGK times 2MB, this is my fantasy.

        No, your fantasy is that it is a “specialized” RGK artillery is not a “specialization” but a subordination.
        Well, the specialized "siege" along with the "serf" ordered a long life during the First World War. Partly "specialized" can be called anti-tank artillery. But the final demarcation occurred only after the Great Patriotic War, with the introduction of ATGMs and with the creation of the T-12 / MT-12
        By the way, PTP MT-12 is a great example. She remained specialized regardless of the level of subordination. Starting with the division OPTADN, and ending with the front-line anti-tank brigades.

        Or, for example, ZiS-3. Division gun. Which, in your opinion, when arming into fighter anti-tank brigades and regiments of the RGK, suddenly turns into a "specialized, never field"? With a flick of the wrist (c) 8)))))))))))))))))))))))))

        Quote: ogi
        Even corps artillery during WW2 was no longer considered field.

        By whom? You?
        1. ogi
          0
          25 September 2017 10: 25
          Quote: Spade
          Do not know again?

          You decided to dump everything directly, what do you know? What does this have to do with the topic of conversation?
          Quote: Spade
          88 mm anti-aircraft, anti-tank Pak 43/41 and Pak 43, self-propelled Nashorn, Ferdinand, Yagdpanther, tank Kw.K. 43
          Unification? Of course. But "leaky universalization" is by no means observed, rather the opposite.

          Those. You yourself did not even notice that Pak 43 and KwK 43, this is already universalization.
          Universalization was also the use of FlaK 36 and Kwk 36.
          But OQF 77mm HV and OQF 17-pounder, this is universalization based on partial unification.
          And only ZIS-2 was an expensive ugly duckling in this company. Since it was not universal and was not unified with anyone. Those. The road was immeasurable.
          Quote: Spade
          "Mortars" fired rockets.

          But fragmentation shells by their type are divided into mines, grenades and various kinds of shells proper. Are you aware of this? For example, there was a fragmentation grenade in the ammunition of the forty-five. Although officially it was called a shell. And in the ammunition of the regiment there was a fragmentation shell, and there was a fragmentation grenade. Although both of these ammunition were called fragmentation shells.
          Quote: Spade
          Or, for example, ZiS-3. Division gun. Which, in your opinion, when arming into fighter anti-tank brigades and regiments of the RGK, suddenly turns into a "specialized, never field"?

          Distort again.
          I gave you specific examples - a 203-mm howitzer B-4, 152 mm, 210 mm guns, 280 mm mortars, 203 mm and 305 mm howitzers.
          Quote: Spade
          By whom?

          Grandpa Fir.
          1. +1
            25 September 2017 11: 22
            Quote: ogi
            You decided to dump everything directly, what do you know? What does this have to do with the topic of conversation?

            I'm trying to educate. But apparently in vain.
            I practically chewed it and put it in my mouth, but you still didn’t notice the simplest fact: the use of an improper tool leads to an increase in time to hit the target and the expenditure of shells, and hence money.

            Quote: ogi
            Those. You yourself did not even notice that Pak 43 and KwK 43, this is already universalization.

            Did they know how to work on air targets? I somehow missed this moment. Or was he gone?
            Unification - in stock. The "flowing universalization" is only in your fantasies.

            Quote: ogi
            But fragmentation shells by their type are divided into mines, grenades and various kinds of shells proper. Are you aware of this?

            In the know, so what? Does this prove that rocket mortars fired mines?
            Here you are from the textbook 49 years.

            Do I have something with vision? Or did the compilers have the audacity not to find out from you what Soviet MLRS fired at?

            Quote: ogi
            For example, there was a fragmentation grenade in the ammunition of the forty-five. Although officially it was called a shell.

            Everything is exactly the opposite. Officially, it was called a grenade. And in the Shooting Tables it takes place exactly like "O-240 fragmentation steel grenade" and "O-240A cast iron fragmentation grenade"

            Quote: ogi
            Distort again.
            I gave you specific examples - a 203-mm howitzer B-4, 152 mm, 210 mm guns, 280 mm mortars, 203 mm and 305 mm howitzers.

            Would you like examples from this range? Yes please
            The famous 152 mm GP ML-20. It was created for the corps level, but was present right up to the RGC. According to your classification, "specialized". But 1943 happened, the D-1 howitzer happened, and the GP went into service art. regiments of combined arms armies. Thus, "losing" this "specialization". 8))))))))))))))
            Brad, in short.
            Specialization is one thing. The subordination of artillery units, units and formations is another. And they do not intersect with each other in any way.
            Otherwise, it turns out sheer nonsense. About simultaneously "specialized" ML-20 in push. brigades RGVK and "field" ML-20 in an art. brigades of guard armies.
            1. ogi
              0
              25 September 2017 14: 25
              Quote: Spade
              I'm trying to educate.

              You do not have qualifications for this.
              Quote: Spade
              I practically chewed it and put it in my mouth, but you never “noticed” the simplest fact: the use of an inadequate tool leads to an increase in the time it takes to hit the target and consume shells, which means money.

              You put yourself. Because it was just your beloved regiments that were the very “inappropriate tool."
              Quote: Spade
              Did they know how to work on air targets?

              They also did not know how to play the balalaika. But nonetheless, they were universal. Two areas of application, this is versatility.
              Quote: Spade
              Here you are from the textbook 49 years.

              You need to develop understanding. This is such an organ in the body.
              Quote: Spade
              Officially, it was called a grenade.

              Like a grenade? Can not be! After all, guns, howitzers and even rocket mortars, following your instructions, shoot exclusively with shells. Outrage.
              Quote: Spade
              Would you like examples from this range? Yes please
              The famous 152 mm GP ML-20.

              Oooooh, how's it going.
              It turns out that you can’t tell a 152 mm gun from a 152 mm gun-howitzer. And from the howitzer? Can you?
              Quote: Spade
              to the RGC. According to your classification, "specialized".

              I already wrote about the understanding? I wrote. So develop. With this, you are all very bad. You absolutely do not understand what they write to you.
              But you are fine with imagination. “Inventing” you for your opponent is all very famously. And only then all that you have conceived, you also very dashingly refute. Well done. The question remains, why do you actually need this very opponent? You can easily manage without it. If I’m not mistaken, this phenomenon has a special name among doctors.
              1. 0
                25 September 2017 17: 50
                Quote: ogi
                You do not have qualifications for this.

                Am I not a science fiction writer?

                Quote: ogi
                Like a grenade? Can not be! After all, guns, howitzers and even rocket mortars, following your instructions, shoot exclusively with shells.

                eight))))))))))))))))))))
                This is all, of course, interesting, but how does this prove that the compilers of the textbook were wrong, and the Soviet MLRS actually fired mines?
                eight)))))))))))))))))))

                By the way, the "rocket mortars" fired not with "shells" but with "rockets"; these are different types of ammunition. And during the war, the Germans used, in addition to rockets, also “turbo-rockets”. According to our classification. That is, rockets spun in flight by the flow of gases through inclined nozzles.


                Quote: ogi
                Oooooh, how's it going.
                It turns out that you can’t tell a 152 mm gun from a 152 mm gun-howitzer. And from the howitzer? Can you?

                You can distinguish it. It's hard to find. How many were there, 28 pieces at the end of the war?

                Oh well. 152 mm Br-2 gun ... Rare, unique and unique ... Until the appearance of 2A36.
                What did she "specialize" in? Only clearly. without spreading. How her "specialization" specifically differed from the same ML-20
    2. +1
      26 September 2017 18: 18
      Quote: Spade
      Quote: ogi
      I am not comfortable with the fact that when you talk about field artillery, you begin to switch arrows to specialized.

      Hello, we arrived. Specialized artillery ordered a long life back during the First World War, at least in the Ground Forces. She is ALL field.

      But what about coastal artillery or, for example, siege artillery (of special power) during the 2nd World War? Or railway?
      This, after all, is definitely not field artillery?
  13. +1
    25 September 2017 06: 20
    Yevgeny Monyushko’s memoirs contain an episode - his ZiS-3 battery had to cover the self-propelled guns with the PDO, which was located in the attic of a 3-story building, BUT- on one installation of the sight the gaps went far, and when the sight was reduced by 1 division, they fell to the roofs of houses, then they took shells from the regiments, which on the descending branch had a steeper trajectory
  14. +1
    25 September 2017 21: 50
    Quote: Captain Pushkin
    Quote: ogi
    The German-Polish war, which began on 01.09.1941/17.09.1941/XNUMX, was not at all a world war, but simply a local conflict, most eloquently testified by the fact that Britain attacked Germany (supposedly for Poland), and the USSR (which also attacked Poland on September XNUMX. XNUMX), no, I didn’t attack.

    Britain and France planned an attack on the USSR in 1940. To begin with, they intended to bomb Baku, Grozny, Batumi, Maykop and Poti ...
    If Hitler postponed the attack on France for a couple of months, the Second World War could go in a completely different scenario.



    And then ........ how would they attack !!! ... how and where would they attack by the way? .... and why did they have plans for bombing the USSR?
    1. +1
      26 September 2017 11: 29
      Quote: Gransasso
      Britain and France planned an attack on the USSR in 1940. To begin with, they intended to bomb Baku, Grozny, Batumi, Maykop and Poti ...
      If Hitler postponed the attack on France for a couple of months, the Second World War could go in a completely different scenario.



      And then ........ how would they attack !!! ... how and where would they attack by the way? .... and why did they have plans for bombing the USSR?

      On February 11, 1940, an economic agreement between the USSR and Germany was signed in Moscow. This agreement essentially deprived Germany and France of a partial blockade of Germany. Under the terms of the memorandum on German-Soviet trade agreements, Advisor Schnurre noted that

      “This agreement means a wide open door to the East. If we succeed, then the effect of the English blockade will be significantly weakened by the future influx of raw materials. "


      These negotiations and agreements became very worrying for the Anglo-French official circles. Things went so far that the governments of England and France did not rule out the outbreak of war against the USSR in this situation. However, some strategists in these countries came to the conclusion that before declaring war and starting a war with the USSR, it was necessary, unexpectedly, without warning, to launch air strikes with bombing at the USSR’s most important strategic targets, especially in the oil regions of the South Caucasus.

      In October 1939, US Ambassador to France W. Billit telegraphed to Washington that "the possibility of bombing and destroying Baku is being discussed in Paris." April 3 - 5, 1940 at a meeting of the Committee of Representatives of the military command of England and France specially created to coordinate efforts to prepare and conduct an invasion of the USSR, it was decided to bomb not only Baku, Batumi, but Poti, where the Baku oil terminals were located.
      The commander of the British Air Force in the Middle East, General Mitchell, in late April 1940 received instructions from London to prepare an operation related to the bombing of Baku and Batumi.

      In developing a detailed bombing plan for Baku, the headquarters of the British Air Force believed that three squadrons of bombers, operating for 6 weeks to 3 months, could disable all available oil fields.

      On April 17, 1940, General Weygand (Commander of the French forces in the Middle East) reported to the French Government and Commander-in-Chief that: "The preparations for the bombing of the Caucasian oil fields have advanced so much that we can calculate the time during which this operation can be completed." He even suggested the exact time of the raid - the end of June - the beginning of July 1940.
      French Defense Minister General Gamelen in one of the notes to the head of the French government Reynaud wrote:

      "Military action against the oil regions of the Caucasus should be directed at vulnerable points in this region."

      Such vulnerable points were Baku, Grozny, Maykop and Batumi. However, the situation was complicated by the fact that Grozny and Maykop were located on the northern slope of the Caucasus Range and were too far from the main military bases of the British and French in the Middle East. Therefore, the closest points of bombing remained Baku and Batumi.

      Knowing that Baku is separating 500 km from the Turkish border and being worried about this problem, Gomelen wrote:

      “Ground operations of the ground forces are possible only from the territory of northwestern Iran. But they will require Iran’s consent. On the other hand, transportation to the starting positions of a significant number of allied forces, since the forces that Iran has in this area, are completely insufficient for the planned operation. In view of these difficulties with respect to ground operations, air attacks on Baku should be planned. Aviation operations against Baku should be based either in Turkey, in the Diyarbekir-Van-Erzurum region, or in Iran, or in Syria, or in Iraq. ”
      On March 2, 1940, the commander of the British Air Force in the Middle East region, Marshal Mitchell, while in Beirut, informed the commander of the French army in Syria, General M. Weigen, that he already had specific instructions for preparing an operation to bombard the oil regions of Baku. Based on this, he, first of all, should have obtained permission from the Turkish commander in chief Marshal Chakman to conduct reconnaissance of the areas of Diyarbekir, Erzurum, Kars and Lake Van in order to identify airfields for intermediate landings of aircraft.

      The development of this operation was entrusted to the best specialists in the field of air intelligence S. Cotton and F. Winterbotman.

      On March 23, a Lockheed 12A civilian aircraft with a registration number G-AGAR, piloted by Haig MacLane, flew off and headed south-east of Heston. After an intermediate landing in Malta and Cairo, the aircraft reached the English military base in Baghdad. The next day, early in the morning, with two photographers, the plane took off and flew over the Iranian highlands and within an hour reached the sky over Baku.
      For an hour, unnoticed by anyone, the plane circled over the city at an altitude of 7000 meters and took pictures. Upon returning to the base, the results of intelligence surveys were presented to the MI-6 intelligence center and to the military intelligence of the British Air Force.

      After discussing the results of intelligence, two similar in character plans were developed under the code names - English “Ma-6” and French “RIP”. These plans provided for the following tactics.
      For example, it was planned to use 90-100 aircraft for bombing Baku, of which 5 were American-made Glen Martin groups and 44 British Blenheim bombers.
      As for the bombing itself, it had to be carried out both day and night from various heights. As a result of such raids, it was planned to destroy Baku in 15 days, Grozny in 12, and Batumi in 1,5 days.
      Discussing these issues, the Allies came to the conclusion that after 6 days of raids, one third of the planned targets can be destroyed. Nine squadrons of bombers were to take part in the raid on Baku and Batumi, which were to raze 9 oil refineries and oil refineries within 35 days. The British Air Force was supposed to start from the Iraqi city of Mosul. For the duration of the flight, additional fuel tanks were attached to some aircraft.
      Next, google yourself. You will find dozens of articles on the topic “Plan of bombing of Baku”.
  15. +2
    26 September 2017 18: 37
    Quote: ogi
    ogi Yesterday, 23:55 p.m. ↑
    Quote: Captain Pushkin
    Britain and France planned an attack on the USSR in 1940.

    Yes, yes, I know. Everyone always planned to attack the USSR. And only Hitler attacked with friends. And once. But the USSR for its short century managed to whom only not to attack. On some, even several times.

    Well, if you know, I’ll write for others. After the occupation of Czechoslovakia, Hitler negotiated with the Poles. There were two main points: a corridor to Danzig and East Prussia, as well as a joint war with the USSR. Fortunately for us, the Poles showed all their stupidity (rejected all Germans' claims) and greed (they wished Ukraine and Belarus under their occupation). As a result, Hitler decided that Ukraine and Belarus were more needed than Germany, and the Governor-General (Poland as a girl) would also be useful.
    1. 0
      26 September 2017 19: 07
      Moreover, this is the British scenario (they fed Hitler for this), they also persuaded the Franks (at first the Franks were not very agree- they had no straits with the Germans).

      But the Germans also understood that they would get involved (with the Poles) - before the front the Russians, on the flank of the Poles, in the rear Franks with shaving.
      Not comfortable however.
      Although, of course, Britain achieved its goal (the war of Germany against the USSR), but it struck not weakly and according to another plan. As a result, she lost influence as a great power (appeared on the sidelines) after the war.
      And the British understood this - they threw Churchill (like a winner) from the premiership right after the war.

"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)

“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; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"