Military Review

Another "Degtyar"

37
In the prewar years and during World War II, the main machine guns of the Red Army were two machine guns - a manual DP-27 and an Maxim machine gun. All Russian armored vehicles were also equipped with modifications of the Degtyarev handbrake. However, these proven designs also had competitors that, under certain circumstances, could also become widespread. One of such samples is the Degtyarev DS-39 machine gun, on the basis of which they were also developed and tested tank modifications.


prehistory

Already after the end of the Civil War, it became obvious to the leadership of the Red Army that the Maxim machine gun that was in service had a number of shortcomings and was not quite suitable for the needs of the army - the Germans came to the same conclusions about their MG 08 a little earlier. As a result, a family of machine guns of a design by V.A. Degtyareva: the light machine gun of the 1927 model DP-27 ("Degtyarev Infantry") was followed by YES for arming aircraft ("Degtyarev Aviation") And DT-29 for installation in all types of armored vehicles (" Degtyarev Tank ").



The tank version of the DS-39 machine gun with a butt in a fighting position (above) and with established bipods (below)
The creation of a new easel machine gun, which met the requirements of the military, was greatly delayed. After long tests and improvements of various 22 samples of September 1939 of the year, the 7,62-mm machine gun of the 1939 model of the year, or DS-39, of the design of the same Degtyarev, was adopted by the Red Army. Launched the gross production of a new machine gun at the Tula Arms Plant.

The production of "Maximov" was curtailed, and the DS-39 went to the troops. During the actual operation of the machine gun received ambiguous evaluation. Despite the fact that it was relatively simple and easily assimilated by the Red Army, after a while, complaints about frequent failures and the work of automation began to come in massively. The most critical drawback was the spreading - when the bullet was sent from the tape, a bullet was pulled out of the sleeve.

Degtyarev originally designed a new machine gun for a metal tape with the supply of ammunition, similar to the large-bore DShK, but then had to be redone weapon under the cloth tape. This required major changes and adversely affected the characteristics of the machine gun.

It was the military who insisted on the use of the cloth tape, justifying their demands by unifying the ammunition with the “Maxim”. Alas, the cloth tape was very sensitive to moisture, which inevitably manifested itself in the field, and the design of automatic removal of the cartridge from it was quite complicated. All this caused disruptions in the operation of weapons, especially new models. The Red Army Air Force realized this before the army men, and in the aviation armament they used either store food or a more practical metal tape. However, the ground forces were in no hurry to switch to a more expensive ribbon in production, and until the middle of the Great Patriotic War the model of an infantry machine gun was not accepted for it. Modernization of the "Maximov" under the metal ribbon was massively carried out after the war.

In 1941, the production of DS-39 had to be stopped and urgently restarted the production of Maksimov. According to various sources, it is now generally accepted that just a little more than 10 000 pieces of DS-39 were manufactured. After the end of the production of the troops they were not removed and continued to use.


Tank version of the DS-39 machine gun in a configuration for fighting outside the tank, front view from the 3 / 4 perspective

From a report to the Chief of the Main Command Agencies Directorate (Chief Artillery Directorate of the Red Army), Colonel-General Artillery N. D. Yakovlev follows that on the 1 of May 1943 of the year in the army there were 1765 machine guns DS-39. Moreover, the use of better-quality cartridges from the ShKAS aviation machine gun with double crimping of a bullet in a liner cartridge has improved the reliability of the weapon, eliminating the loss of a bullet and breaking the cartridge in the receiver.

Tank version of the DS-39

For armament of tanks in the Armored Vehicle Directorate (ABTU, from 26 June 1940 of the year - Main Armored Directorate Directorate, GABTU) considered an alternative to DT-29 - for example, installing an aviation SHKAS in T-37А. One of the reasons for the search was an increase in portable ammunition, firepower and the duration of continuous fire. To achieve this, it was possible in various ways, including abandoning store supply in favor of the tape. Adoption of the DS-39 could not pass by the attention of the tankers, and immediately followed by attempts to adapt the new machine gun for armored vehicles. This is how the DS-39 tank version appeared, which is called differently in the GAU and ABTU documents, with a difference in the year: “7,62-mm tank gun of 1939 model of the year” or “7,62-mm tank gun of 1940 model of the year”.


Tank version of the machine gun DS-39, butt folded in the position of "hiking"

The tank version of the Tula Central Design Bureau No. XXUMX of the People's Commissariat of Arms (TsKB-14 NKV) developed the tank variant. The work began in the 14 year, ending a year later - whence came the discrepancies in the title. The tank machine gun was a little modified according to the shooting conditions of the DS-1939 tank:

a gas translator has been removed on the barrel, a gas chamber plug has been replaced instead;
on the back of the pad removed the handle and the trigger; instead, a shoulder strap appeared, and for descent - a control stick and a trigger;
for new parts, the trigger box has been changed;
for use outside the tank, the machine gun is equipped with removable bipods by analogy with DT-29, which were stored separately in the tank. The bipods were fastened with a collar in the grooves near the muzzle of the barrel; on the base of the bipods there was a front sight for shooting with an open infantry sight;
the muzzle and front sight of the trunk are replaced with a special tank flame arrester.

The machine gun was shot and adjusted to the rate of fire of 850-900 shots per minute.


The appearance of the machine gun in the turret of the tank T-38

Under the tank version, two installations were developed: one to replace the DT machine gun that was paired with the gun, and the second allowed the DS-39 to be installed in the turret of the light tank as the main armament. In addition, an anti-aircraft installation was designed, which was to be mounted on the roof of the tower. All installations were developed in TsKB-14 in collaboration with the plant number 174 them. Voroshilov.

The machine gun coupled with a gun

Work on the paired installation was conducted in parallel with the development of the tank version of the DS-39 and were completed by January 1940. The installation was designed for the T-26 tank, but because of the unification of the units it would not cause difficulties when installed in other types of tanks used by the Red Army.

Installation was mounted in the mask of the turret of the tank, along with a 45-mm gun. The fire from it was carried out with the help of an optical sight TOP or a diopter sight at a distance of up to 1000 meters. Cartridges were fed from a magazine with a ribbon on 250 cartridges. Targeting was carried out either together with the cannon - in this case, the TOP sight, the regular gun pointing mechanisms and the gunner’s foot descent were used - or separately. In this case, the control was carried out by the pistol grip, and the guidance was carried out through the sight.


Coupled with a gun installation development engineer Kurenkov

The new machine gun was installed instead of DT-29 with disk feed. There were no changes in the method of zeroing, the location of the bores of the machine gun and the cannon, the height of the aiming line and other parameters did not change. All angles of vertical and horizontal pickup remained the same - as with a DT machine gun. The installation consisted of:

detachable ball with machine gun mounting tray;
detachable holder;
clamping ring;
two limiters of sectors of rotation of the ball;
two machine gun mounting cones;
crackers rear mounting machine gun, which was bolted to the tray.

The store was an ordinary box for 250 tape for cartridges from Maxim's machine gun. The box was inserted into the bracket attached to the wall of the tower with bolts, and they didn’t weld the new cables and used those that were left from the laying of DT disks and one shell installation.


Combat variants and feed in the turret of the T-26 tank

To the machine gun in the tank relied laying - a number of boxes and fasteners, in which were located boxes with ribbons, spare parts for machine guns and bipods. The piling was designed for the T-26 tank. Bipods kept in a spring laying on the right wall of the tower. On the right side of the hull, behind the driver, was stacked on six boxes with ribbons, there was also a spare parts kit for the machine gun. In the front and rear left corners of the fighting compartment were placed laying on two boxes with tapes each. On the floor of the fighting compartment, in the front and the right part, two more boxes for the boxes with ribbons were installed. The one to the left was divided into two compartments, each of which had its own lid with constipation and contained four boxes with ribbons. Right, closer to the driver, consisted of two parts - the top and bottom. The tool and the various tank spare parts were stored in the bottom, and six boxes for the tapes in the top. These boxes were fastened to the same places with the same screws as the old laying of DT disks. The total number of cartridges in the tank reached 6250, despite the fact that the old styling at the same places and dimensions contained 47 discs on 3008 cartridges.

Installation as a tower and course machine gun

In addition to the machine gun installation version coupled with a gun, in Soviet tanks it could be installed in a separate turret, and later as a course one. For such an arrangement for DT-29 there was a special ball mount - accordingly, the need for a similar one arose for the new tank machine gun. The installation was ready by July 1940.

In the new tank unit combined optical sight and ball swivel mask. At failure of an optical sight, a DT type sight could be used. Tests of the ball mount were carried out in the T-38 tank turret, the following indicators were recorded: vertical shelling angles from −15 ° to + 20 °, horizontal shelling with a fixed tower could be carried out either left or right on 15 °. With the same occupied volumes, the ammunition was 3250 cartridges - on 1738 more than in the disks DT.


Tower machine-gun installation engineer Polyubina with the "apple" hinge assembly

When installing a new installation did not require any changes, the new ball and styling rose to their former places. The only change was the different position of the store in relation to the position of the ball mount, which depended on the type of combat vehicle. The installation was as follows:

ball head;
ball head holder;
sleeve catcher;
headrest sight;
two sets of ammunition;
score;
diopter sight;
laying sights and spare barrel machine guns;
tape support;
laying bipods;
laying machine gun spare parts;
armor machine-gun window.

The ball head, or "apple", united a machine gun and a sight for joint movement when aiming at a target, for this purpose the head was mounted in a holder-cage attached to the armor plates of the tank. On the inner side of the ball there was a bracket on which a machine gun was mounted, a sight, fastenings of a tape-receiver and a guide sleeve holder. At the furthest end of the bracket, there was a support collar for maintaining and a device for mechanical alignment of the sight, the head rest was attached to the collar.


Placement of machine-gun in the turret of the light tank T-38

On the outer side of the ball was an armored jacket, which protected the vulnerable points of the machine gun, there was also an armored shutter of the aiming hole, the opening and closing of the valve was carried out from the inside by a lever.

Ammunition was placed in two types of packs: one was placed on the bottom of the tank, and the second on the walls of the fighting compartment. The first was a frame on 10 boxes on 250 cartridges, like the machine gun Maxim; the frame was divided by partitions, and the top was covered with a canvas cover. The second type of ammunition is the shelves where cartridges were placed and fastened with metal ribbons with a clasp.


Laying of spare barrels and replaceable sights in the fighting compartment of the T-38 tank

The spare part of the machine gun and optical sight was stored in a wooden box placed in a special slot on the wall of the tank. In the same place in two bags the tool and accessories of a machine gun were stored. The laying of spare barrels and sights was located near the shooter (in the T-38 - below to the right of it). It was a frame with four pairs of nests: the lower two pairs were intended for spare trunks, followed by them for a diopter sight, and the last upper one was for an optical one.

In general, the shooting of the ball installation of a new tank machine gun did not differ from the shooting of the DT. The rules of shooting were identical to the rules of shooting from the DS-39, only it was necessary to follow and send the diverting tape with the left hand downwards.

Anti-aircraft installation

It was equally important to consider using the new machine gun as an anti-aircraft gun. Old DT could be installed on the turret P-40, so the designers of the TsKB-14 provided a new hatch anti-aircraft gun. Ready for June, the 1940 of the year, it was to be mounted on the roof of the T-26 turret, could fire both at the zenith, with the aid of a circular sight, and at ground targets with the help of a front sight and a sighting bar.


Detailing anti-aircraft installation of the machine gun and set in position for firing at air targets

Power was provided out of the box on 250 cartridges, similar to that used with Maxim's machine gun. Fire control was carried out manually. To install the tower, it was necessary to cut through a new manhole of a manhole with a diameter of 630 mm, drill six mounting holes with a diameter of 10,5 mm and lower the right traverse of the right turret shell to 7-8 mm.


Anti-aircraft gun in position for firing at ground targets

The difference from the P-40 was that the machine gun was mounted not on the bracket outside the tank, but on the inside of the hatch, which in the open form served as a bracket and at the same time an arm-guard. The installation consisted of the following parts:

circle mounted on the roof of the tower;
manhole cover;
head;
sector mechanism.

Conclusion

From all the information available today, we can conclude that the further development of the DS-39 machine gun was the introduction of a metal tape, the alteration of the infantry box modeled on a tank machine gun with a pistol grip and butt, and equipment with bipods. All this would lead to the appearance in the Red Army of a universal machine gun, similar to the MG 34 in the Wehrmacht. Alas, the assumptions remain only assumptions.


Finnish version of the ball mount with a machine gun DS-39

In reality, most of the DS-39 was lost in the first two years of the war, some were captured by the Germans and Finns. The latter tried to use the DS-39 for installation in the bunkers and created their own ball mounts for them. It is worth noting that in the USSR the installation of the DS-39 tank variant was considered as a weapon for long-term firing points of the DOT-4 type.

The tank version of the DS-39 machine gun has not been launched into mass production, although it has already been assigned the GAU 56-П-423Т index. Also, there are no reliable confirmations of the installation of the developed installations on tanks of other types, except those indicated in the article, despite a number of turbid photos of a battered BT with a machine gun different from DT-29.
Author:
Originator:
http://warspot.ru/8159-drugoy-degtyaryov
37 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. andrewkor
    andrewkor 21 January 2018 07: 33
    +4
    Very interesting, comprehensive information. The military in the pre-war USSR underestimated a lot of things, for example, submachine guns, a single Il-2 without a shooter, powerful tank and anti-tank guns, anti-tank guns!
    1. Spez
      Spez 21 January 2018 09: 10
      +3
      Please specify about IL-2.
      1. ICT
        ICT 21 January 2018 10: 31
        +4
        Quote: Spez
        Please specify about IL-2.

        everything is clear
        find the full version
        1980 movie mission
        1. Spez
          Spez 21 January 2018 11: 10
          +2
          I watched this movie at school. Where does it say about the underestimation of the single-seat option?
          1. ICT
            ICT 21 January 2018 11: 25
            +4
            Quote: Spez
            about underestimation

            you take into account that comments are not words spoken (sometimes the printed text does not agree with the message of thought), as I understand it, comrade underestimation concerned machine guns, but in the same vein, an incorrect assessment
            1. Spez
              Spez 21 January 2018 11: 34
              +6
              I read the article, understood, appreciated it. I understand you. Your thought is expressed in an accessible and competent way. However, the first commentator, no matter how he tried to understand, no matter how he rearranged punctuation marks, could not understand. Neither about the IL-2, nor about the PP. nor about powerful and non-powerful artillery ... As before the underground, I was able to "rise" with such and such abilities for presentation)))
        2. sibiryouk
          sibiryouk 21 January 2018 14: 11
          +3
          In the feature films nothing is said about Ilyushin’s problems with the performance of the military technical specifications (tactical and technical requirements), which is why IL-2 (back centering and much more) had to be made single!
          1. Aviator_
            Aviator_ 21 January 2018 16: 22
            +4
            That's right, in order to keep within the TTT I had to remove the arrow and change the layout of the armor capsule. When the shooter was added, he was already sitting outside the capsule, which did not greatly increase his safety. Again, inside the armor the shooter was only in the IL-10
      2. andrewkor
        andrewkor 21 January 2018 14: 39
        +3
        It is well known that Ilyushin presented the IL-2 variant in a two-seater version with a shooter to the admission committee, but his military comrades rejected him and forced him to increase his range and combat load, proudly promising to tightly cover the attack aircraft with fighters. See Shavrov, “The history of aircraft designs in the USSR.”
        1. Spez
          Spez 21 January 2018 19: 07
          +3
          And here is Shavrov, when in your first comment you wrote the exact opposite of what you are issuing now?
    2. avt
      avt 21 January 2018 11: 02
      +8
      Quote: andrewkor
      The military in the pre-war USSR underestimated a lot of things, for example, machine guns,

      bully And how much, they “underestimated” those who don’t even read articles on the site on this topic! And they just spread their thoughts, with which they get rich, spread them.
      Quote: andrewkor
      powerful tank and anti-tank guns,

      Powerfully pushed back! I award the Order of Koekaker of the third degree, wear a daraga! bully Yes! to get another different degree, do not read archival documents of that time, especially in the presentation in the printed works of Misha Svirin
      1. andrewkor
        andrewkor 21 January 2018 14: 41
        0
        Who is your Svirin I have no idea, I read Grabin.
        1. avt
          avt 21 January 2018 15: 59
          +3
          Quote: andrewkor
          Who is your Svirin I have no idea

          bully I BELIEVE!
        2. Aviator_
          Aviator_ 21 January 2018 16: 25
          +2
          Mikhail Svirin has a series of books on armored vehicles, very informative. Recommend.
          1. andrewkor
            andrewkor 22 January 2018 05: 53
            0
            Thank you, I’ll look for Svirin. So much information has been opened that you just don’t have time to track! A good cycle on otvaga2004.
  2. Cat
    Cat 21 January 2018 07: 43
    +3
    Thanks to the author for the article.
    I think it was complemented quite well by a comparative analysis of the technical characteristics with the Maxim machine gun. As well as the history of competitions during the Great Patriotic War, where the brainchild of Degtyarev invariably lost to other models of easel machine guns.
    Although we must pay tribute to the designer Degtyarev, who, according to his memoirs at a meeting of the commission, directly told Stalin that Goryunov's machine gun is better.
    1. Kot_Kuzya
      Kot_Kuzya 21 January 2018 09: 19
      +4
      Any normal person would say so. When the Homeland is fighting to the death with an enemy who intends to destroy the entire population of your Homeland, there is no time for intrigue and letter-writing.
      1. Aviator_
        Aviator_ 22 January 2018 20: 48
        0
        So it's normal. And even at that time there were others who pushed their unsuccessful options. What is the post-war Chelomean epic worth pushing through its unsuccessful missiles with a PURVRD.
  3. Kot_Kuzya
    Kot_Kuzya 21 January 2018 08: 51
    +1
    It is strange that this machine gun was generally adopted. In the USSR, any weapon passed the most severe tests, first at the training ground, and then in the troops, and only after positive feedback from the troops, weapons were adopted. The same DP and DC / DSHK in the troops did not cause any complaints, and fought the whole war by faith and truth. And here it seems that the DS-39 passed only field tests, and it was adopted without military tests.
    1. Train
      Train 21 January 2018 11: 17
      +1
      A large-caliber DShK — and how many chronicles you don’t see — there was little of it — only on ships and anti-aircraft mounts — but they fought the whole war with Maxim! —The machine gun was pulled by poor fellow soldiers. How many models were not developed, but they all returned to the maxims ..
    2. gross kaput
      gross kaput 21 January 2018 11: 43
      +6
      Oh how! And why did DC turn into a DShK? Just like that, with nothing to do, Shpagin worked out a new receiver for the recreation center, the factories decided - and why should we re-establish the technical process for a long time? Yes, as two fingers on the asphalt took and changed the already developed serial design.
      The “most severe tests” began to be carried out only after the war, or rather the tests were quite severe before, only the allowable percentage of delays and failures was quite high.
      Often, armament samples were taken in advance; jambs got out during the tests, but they decided that the problems were not significant and would be solved in serial samples - the DS-39 is a vivid example of this. It happened that a sample licked by experienced locksmiths was presented for testing, but in the series the problems started. And only after the war, analyzing her lessons, they came to the conclusion that the model would not have any excellent performance characteristics, if the soldier is not 100% sure of his reliability, he will try not to go on the attack and change his weapon - for example, SVT - the rifle is light, pleasant in shooting but very demanding on the operator. It was then that there were repeatedly overstated requirements for reliability to new samples, and often one drags the other - increasing reliability reduces other characteristics - weight - increasing the margin of safety of parts due to "meat", accuracy - increasing the momentum of the mobile system we get increased vibration, oak descent - increasing the stiffness of the springs to prevent misfires and not trigger the trigger when contaminated, etc. .
      1. Kot_Kuzya
        Kot_Kuzya 21 January 2018 16: 47
        0
        DP, DC / DShK showed themselves only from the best side.
    3. avt
      avt 21 January 2018 13: 14
      +1
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      The same DP and DC / DShK in the troops did not cause any complaints,

      Are you soooooooo ?! And here it’s weak for us to paint about how DC became DShK and, most importantly, why? wassat
      Quote: gross kaput
      Just like that, with nothing to do, Shpagin worked out a new receiver for the recreation center, the factories decided - and why should we re-establish the technical process for a long time? Yes, as two fingers on the asphalt took and changed the already developed serial design.

      bully
      1. Kot_Kuzya
        Kot_Kuzya 21 January 2018 22: 36
        +1
        The recreation center had store food, for the anti-aircraft machine gun belt food was required to increase the practical rate of fire, so as not to change the store every 30 shots. That is why the DC was remade into a DShK, and not entirely because the DC was unreliable. Is it clear now?
        1. gross kaput
          gross kaput 23 January 2018 19: 35
          -1
          Quote: Kot_Kuzya
          DK had store food,

          And why? Wikipedia has no answer to this question? :) Then I will tell you - in 1929 a decision was made to create a large-caliber machine gun - the main purpose of the near air defense, it was already clear that one of the main requirements for an anti-aircraft machine gun was high density of fire and therefore TTZ provided for a high rate of fire and the use of tape - but it didn’t work, very characteristic conclusions from the results of comparative tests in 1931. Degtyarev machine guns on the Sokolov machine tool and the Dreise machine gun on the Prilutsky machine tool - “it is supposed to order 1931 machine guns of the Degtyarev system in 50, as being lighter and easier to manufacture and allowing further tape production”.
          So the Palace of Culture is just the same typical example of adopting a sample in advance, in the hope that the problem of the tape will be solved in the process of serial production, and then in 1933 the serial production begins with parallel attempts to remake it under the tape, in general as a result of torment in 1935 The production of recreation centers was curtailed. Until 1938, they tried to reanimate its design; as a result, a DShK was born, to which Shpagin had already made a receiver, the pace was raised from 350 to 550-600 - and this is not only about installing a buffer, as they say on Wikipedia - it was also necessary to strengthen the design so so that she could withstand such a pace and at the same time not get very heavy, besides this, the machine gun received a new machine since the Sokolov machine was not successful. But what about the DC itself? - and nothing - they never got into the troops as anti-aircraft guns - because they did not reach the TTX, so the machine guns they tried to attach to armored vehicles - but did not grow together and eventually transferred them to the Navy where they were put on boats. Something like this - they made a universal large-caliber machine gun - anti-aircraft, but if necessary allowing fire on lightly armored ground targets, as a result, they launched into the series something that, although it fired, was not suitable for the purposes for which it was created.
          DP - is there probably nothing to do during the war when they launched the PDM series? PDM is the only domestic "modernized" sample in which the layout was changed - the cause is the banal overheating of the return spring during intensive shooting with the loss of its elasticity. And sho did not know about this before? they knew, but at first they hoped that the DP would "unload" the arrows from the SVT, then they hoped that a new handbrake would appear, a competition for which was announced in the summer of 1942, but they couldn’t solve this problem in a hurry, so they had to hurry to treat the existing DP.
  4. polpot
    polpot 21 January 2018 08: 55
    +1
    Thank you for the article on DS, a little-known machine gun brother in misfortune SVT
    1. Kot_Kuzya
      Kot_Kuzya 21 January 2018 09: 03
      +5
      Rather, a brother in misfortune with ABC. SVT produced about 1,8 million units, which is quite an impressive series. A DS-39 was released only 10 thousand pieces. For comparison, AP alone in the infantry version was released almost 800 thousand units. Plus about 200 thousand DT and several tens of thousands of YES.
  5. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 21 January 2018 09: 07
    +7
    If you "consider" the DS-39 for a bit longer, it would be nice to note that the DS-39 in infantry units should be used not only as an easel (group infantry weapon, but also anti-aircraft. For this, an anti-aircraft tripod was attached. In the "anti-aircraft" version "DS-39 had a rate of fire at 1200 / min. (In the infantry version-600 / min.) When using metal tape and" new "cartridges (in a steel sleeve), the DS-39" worked "stably .. with fabric tapes and “old” cartridges (in a brass sleeve) - “roll.” Some of the DS-39 was used as azematnyh machine gun installations ... About the "tank" options do not know (!), so the author of thanks for the enlightenment!
    If you continue to "talk" about the "other Degtyarev", then there is something to say ... After the war, was adopted by the RP-46 (machine gun) .... the same DP-27, but with a tape. But the fact is that attempts to "transfer" the DP-27 to the tape were made earlier, but something (somewhere) did not grow together ... and not only "to the tape" ... the bunker was also considered Kubynov's receivers (rifle clips / “analog” Type 11 (Japan), and sectorial (horn) stores (30patrons / DPM-36 / “analogue” Type96 (99) (Japan) ....
    So ... "the other Degtyarev" was not one .... wink
  6. Fotoceva62
    Fotoceva62 21 January 2018 10: 30
    +4
    Normal machine gun. I met somewhere. that the love of cloth tapes was forced, the shortage of steel of special brands was the main reason for this. Difficulty for the ordinary fighter was also the product itself with a gas regulator and variable rate of fire. In the photo DS_32 with a casing of the Lewis type.
  7. Forever so
    Forever so 21 January 2018 10: 54
    +1
    Thank!! Pts interesting.
  8. Operator
    Operator 21 January 2018 11: 52
    +3
    Machine gun "Maxim" had a complicated design with a crank mechanism for supplying cartridges and ejection of spent cartridges (with zero speed of movement of movable elements at extreme points) precisely because of the use of cloth cartridge belt. Therefore, any machine gun without a KShM, using a cloth tape, was clearly inoperative. It is strange that Degtyarev did not understand this.

    Another thing is that the DS-39 with a bang lost to its competitors like the Goryunov machine gun in weight, simplicity and reliability of the design, but this is already a question for the design level of Degtyarev.
  9. moskowit
    moskowit 21 January 2018 12: 17
    +6
    Serious, professionally prepared material ... Thank you ...
    Let me add a little about the combat use of DS-39
    Combat use of DS-39




    Despite the fact that the Red Army abandoned the DS-39, the enemy willingly used it ...



    ... and partisans

    The operation of the DS-39 in the troops (including during the Soviet-Finnish war of the 1939-1940 years) caused numerous complaints related to the unreliable operation of the machine gun in dusty and low temperatures, the low survivability of the main parts, and cases of cartridge rupture in the receiver. In addition, an important drawback that could not be eliminated without a radical design change was the inability to use similar cartridges with a brass sleeve instead of cartridges with a steel or bimetallic sleeve (new type), large stocks of which were in stock, which could lead to difficulties during military operations with ammunition.
    As a result, despite its simplicity in operation, lower weight and greater firepower, in June 1941 (shortly before the start of World War II) DS-39 were discontinued, and TOZ resumed the production of reliable and undemanding machine guns for the Maxim system.

    The western districts were quite densely saturated with DS-39 machine guns. However, the tragedy of the first days of the war led to the fact that most of the machine guns were in the zone of occupation. Therefore, the main operators of the machine gun were the Germans and partisans. After being discontinued, Maxims began to arrive instead of DS-39. Therefore, by the end of the 1941 year, he practically disappeared on all fronts. The only place where the DS-39 was used for quite some time was the Leningrad Front. This was facilitated by the isolated position of this front. A certain number of DS-39 fell into the Far East, and therefore the Soviet-Japanese war became the last case of the combat use of this machine gun.

  10. NF68
    NF68 21 January 2018 16: 19
    0
    + + + + + + + + + +
  11. Curious
    Curious 21 January 2018 17: 39
    +1
    Alas, without blunders for some reason. "The most critical drawback was the unloading - when sending a cartridge out of the tape, the bullet was pulled out of the sleeve. "
    So who can imagine how a bullet can be pulled out when a cartridge is dispensed, if both the cartridge and the bullet move in the same direction during dispatch?
    In fact, there was an inertial dismantling of a cartridge with a heavy bullet, which occurred at a time when the bolt in the rollback vigorously pulled out another cartridge from the tape. Due to the action of inertia forces, a heavy bullet could jump out of the barrel of the barrel, which led to a delay in firing.
  12. Sasha75
    Sasha75 21 January 2018 20: 50
    0
    Their trunks vomited in the middle, why the HZ found them on the battlefield. In museums, too, in half, the torn whole was never seen.
    1. Mihail28
      Mihail28 April 23 2018 19: 29
      0
      The answer to your question suggests itself.
      Because you find the ragged trunks in places of battle that the machine guns were not thrown. And with a torn barrel there is no point in carrying a machine gun with you.
  13. Catfish
    Catfish 23 January 2018 23: 37
    +2
    Thank you for the article. Little was known about this machine gun (at least to me), and even more so about the tank version. There are some doubts about its manufacturability and metal production. Compare the barrels DS-36 and SGMT, which is simpler and cheaper to manufacture. And so it’s difficult to compare if you were dealing with only one. We had Goryunov standing at 54-55-62 x, there were troubles too. For example, an almost regular breakage of the sleeve, and this is when shooting at the TST with a far from incomplete tape.