Military Review

Stories about weapons. F-22. Dispelling a pancake myth

138



In a previous article I compared history making almost any weapon of the beginning of the 20 century with a detective story. Now it will not be just a detective, I intend to treat my favorite artillery fans something more. Honestly, I don’t even know how to properly name this story. But go on the road slowly and calmly.

So, the 76-mm F-22 gun. The copy, which is in the photo, is in the UMMC Museum in the town of Verkhnyaya Pyshma and feels just fine. What can not be said about the history of guns.



If you look at the main majority of sources, then F-22 looks like the first pancake that came out lumpy. My main task is to dispel this frankly stupid myth. The gun (like all designed by the great Grabin) was canceled.

But - in order. And if so, then return to the year 1931.

At that time, the spirit of Tukhachevsky was not in the dark over the Red Army. Frankly stupid and not very healthy on the head of a man, but endowed with the highest trust. During his short career, glory to Stalin, he caused such damage to the army and finances that the wall to which the marshal was placed could be made of platinum.

Since 1931, Tukhachevsky has served as the chief of armaments of the Red Army, and in 1934, he became Deputy People's Commissar of Defense of the USSR for armaments and ammunition.

In these positions he had all the opportunities for development tanks and artillery, but for some reason Tukhachevsky threw all his strength into producing completely useless freaks.

Here are huge and useless T-35 tanks and equally useless, but tiny T-27 wedges. But the champions for the extermination of money were the famous Kurchevsky dynamo-cannons. You can add here the same work on polygonal shells, also rather meaningless.

But I mean another masterpiece of Tukhachevsky’s inflamed imagination, namely the project to create a universal anti-aircraft divisional gun.

To create this miracle, and in fact, the monster, thousands of people were thrown into virtually all the artillery design bureaus. Design Bureau of the plant “Krasny Putilovets”, Design Bureau of the Plant No. 8, GKB-38, Design Bureau of the Plant No. 92. Everyone began to create freaks at the behest of the marshal. And who would try to argue?

I tried to argue Grabin. The man of the old school, Vasily Gavrilovich, frankly protested against the creation of a universal one, do not understand what should fight with tanks, pillboxes, and also barrage on planes.

Stories about weapons. F-22. Dispelling a pancake myth


But Grabin was an expert with a capital letter ... Therefore he did not seek adventure, but created an outspoken freak, an F-20 (A-51) cannon, which was not universal, and (only in those years such wording could exist) “semi-universal!

It was a monster weighing almost a ton of 2, almost a 700 kg heavier than the divisional cannon of the 1902 / 1930 model that was then in service.

Plus, the genius of Tukhachevsky insisted that the cannon necessarily had a supporting tray, for firing upwards, when firing, connecting the cannon with the ground. During the carriage of the gun, the pallet should have been under the bed. When moving from a marching position to a combat one, it must be quickly removed, lowered onto the ground, rolled into the cannon, and only after that you can shoot.

Masterpiece, right? Considering the condition and availability of roads at that time, it would be safe to say that after the first transportation the gun will cease to be even semi-universal, since it will come to a position without a pallet, that is, in fact, unable to shoot.

We are silent about the cost, because we don’t know it, but we suspect that F-20 should have cost as three divisions. But when such trifles confused Tukhachevsky?

The cost of a semi-universal gun promised to be much higher than the special one. The advantages that her tactical and technical requirements prescribed for her did not at all redeem her obvious shortcomings.

In short, smart people in the Grabin Design Bureau understood the complete inferiority of the semi-universal cannon. Therefore, they created the project, reported, forgotten and engaged in the real business.

Grabin associates on the initiative developed their own version of the divisional gun. The project turned out to be very promising, but the idiots of Tukhachevsky arrived and forced Grabin to make a field gun and at the same time anti-aircraft gun, that is, the idea of ​​semi-universality triumphantly triumphed again.



The elevation angle brought to 75 °. Initially, the F-22 was equipped with a muzzle brake, a new 76-mm projectile with a more powerful powder charge was developed for it, and the chamber was enlarged.

Grabin believed (and who are we to disbelieve his calculations?) That the gun had a good reserve in armor penetration of the existing tanks of foreign countries and even had a certain prospect for the future.

When it came to the Smotrin, a miracle happened. Stalin, with the filing of Voroshilov and Budyonny, ordered Tukhachevsky and Yegorov to calm down in terms of universality and ordered Grabin to engage in divisional guns, and Makhanov - anti-aircraft guns.

Gritting his teeth in malice, Tukhachevsky and the company took the gun to the test. Then they were lucky, the tests failed, as Tukhachevsky happily reported to the Kremlin. But Stalin ordered Grabin to continue working on the cannon, because, obviously, he understood better than his minister the value of a cannon for the army.

As a result, the troops F-22 went, but in what form! The muzzle brake was removed, the chamber was replaced with the old one, from the division, they abandoned the new projectile in favor of the old 76-mm sample 1902 / 30. And, most importantly, they were not allowed to reduce the angle of elevation from 75 to 45 degrees, which would simplify the design of the gun.



With such an instrument, Tukhachevsky did much good to the Red Army. This was the first Soviet gun, not copied from an imported sample, which had no basis in the form of an instrument of pre-revolutionary release. The first Soviet cannon.



Say, it was possible to finish the F-22, as usual, “in progress”? Yes you can. If Grabin had been given such an opportunity, surely the result would have been. But Grabin was either fired, then sent to work at another plant, as a result, Vasily Gavrilovich could not stand it and ended up in a hospital with a heart attack.

Stalin intervened again, roaring "kick back!", And finally fell behind Grabin. But health was already undermined, and the nerves are not steel.

In fact, it was a time given to our opponents. If it were not for the struggle for health, the lighter version of the F-22 SPM would have appeared much earlier, and not in the 1940 year. And many improvements Grabin would be more useful at the beginning of the war. But - we have what we have.



On 22 June 1941, the Red Army had 3041 divisional F-22. Yes, the ones who enjoyed the reputation of unreliable and inconvenient.

And then there was a war and a new portion of miracles.



In the initial period of the war, the Germans captured about X-NUMX-1300 F-1500 guns. Since the guys were completely pragmatic in the Wehrmacht, the guns went to Kummersdorf, to the Wehrmacht artpolygon.

And while the bulk of the guns, known as 7,62 cm FK 296 (r), fought on all fronts, work was underway on the ground. As a result, German engineers came to the conclusion that it was possible to convert the F-22 into a more powerful anti-tank gun, with which the Germans had problems. That is, there were problems with the T-34 and KV, but there were no guns.



And the German engineers did this:

- Move the handles of the hover actuators to one side with a sight.
- Reduced the angle of elevation from 75 to 18 degrees (that is, what Grabin shouted about!).
- Removed the mechanism of variable rollback, absolutely not needed now.
- Installed a new shield cover reduced height.
- squandered the chamber for firing a more powerful charge. The Soviet sleeve had a length of 385,3 mm and a diameter of the flange 90 mm, the new German sleeve had a length of 715 mm with a diameter of the flange 100 mm. The amount of propellant charge increased 2,4 times.
- Returned to the barrel muzzle brake.
- Established the release of ammunition.

For the gun was designed a new ammunition, which included both conventional armor-piercing and sub-caliber and cumulative shells.



The gun was called Pak 39 (r) and Pak 36 (r). Alterations went on until 1944, when the Germans simply ended up with F-22. Total 1454 guns were redone, including for installation on ACS (Pak 36 (r)).

It turned out that the gun is just gorgeous. Pak 36 (r) was used throughout the war as an anti-tank gun. The intensity of use is indicated by the numbers of consumed armor-piercing ammunition.

In 1942 year: 49 000 pcs. armor piercing and 8 170 pcs. piercing shells.
In 1943 year: 151 390 pcs. armor piercing shells.

For comparison: “own” Pak 40 (75-mm) spent 1942 in 42, 430 13 units. armor piercing and 380 1943 pcs. cumulative shells, in 401 year - 100 374 pcs. armor piercing and 000 XNUMX pcs. cumulative shells). Comparable.

The guns were used on the Eastern Front and in North Africa. By March, the Wehrmacht 1945 still had 165 Pak 36 (r) and Pak 39 (r) guns



Pak 36 (r) can be considered one of the best anti-tank guns of World War II. Its power allowed to confidently hit all types of medium and heavy tanks of the time at real combat distances. The Soviet soldiers called this weapon "cobra" or "viper."

Only at the end of the war, the IS-2 tanks in some cases (especially on the forehead) were not affected by this weapon.

Yes, Pak 36 (r) was inferior to Pak 40, because it had a slightly lower armor penetration and large dimensions and weight. However, the creation of Pak 36 (r) was certainly justified, since the cost of reworking was an order of magnitude cheaper than the cost of a new tool.

Speaking about the installation of the gun on the ACS, it is worth saying that it was not only the Germans who did it. In general, the Germans for the sake of installing the modified F-22 on the ACS simply took and constructed a new self-propelled gun. We wrote that Marder II, created for this weapon, except for the name, had almost nothing to do with Marder I.





Romanians also did not stand aside, having received the F-22, created their self-propelled gun based on the Soviet light tank T-60, under the name SAU TACAM T-60.



In general, the practice of application showed that the Germans showed more common sense than the whole artillery department of the Red Army, headed by Tukhachevsky. Glory to Comrade Stalin, who did not let Tukhachevsky “gobble up” Grabin, glory to Grabin, who in the shortest time possible created a new magnificent tool that we know as ZiS-3.

It is a pity, of course, that F-22 remained in our history as the unsuccessful work of Grabin. Meanwhile, the work was not just successful. For without the F-22 there would be no modernized FV-22 SPM, and as a result - the appearance of the masterpiece ZiS-3.

So, F-22, although it became the first Soviet cannon, it is impossible to call it “lumpy first pancake”. Genius - he is also a genius in Africa. And Vasily Gavrilovich Grabin was a genius and he couldn’t create anyhow. By definition.

It is a pity, of course, that F-22, brought to mind, demonstrated its best, shooting at Soviet and British tanks. Genuinely a pity.

TTX 76,2-mm divisional gun F-22 model 1936 year:



Caliber, mm: 76,2.
Instances: 2 932.
Calculation, people: 6.

Rate of fire, rds / min: 17-21 (with correction of pickup 6-12).



Speed ​​on the highway, km / h: up to 30.
The height of the line of fire, mm: 1027.

Mass in the stowed position, kg: 2820.
Dimensions in the traveling position.
Length, mm: 7120.
Width, mm: 1926.
Height, mm: 1712.
Ground clearance, mm: 320.

Shooting angles:
HV angle, degrees: −5 to + 75 °.
Angle GN, degrees: 60 °.

The gun and the front are exhibited at the Museum of military equipment of the UMMC in the city of Verkhnyaya Pyshma of the Sverdlovsk region.
Author:
138 comments
Ad

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

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. The comment was deleted.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  2. Conductor
    Conductor 8 September 2018 06: 02
    +1
    By the way, the Germans, who didn’t notice the creation of multi-tower monsters, I don’t remember, anyway. Mouse does not count - this Teutonic genius is completely confused.
    1. The leader of the Redskins
      The leader of the Redskins 8 September 2018 06: 48
      +7
      "Rheinmetall".
      1. Conductor
        Conductor 8 September 2018 07: 04
        -1
        What is rheinmetal? Monster By the way, why the Germans on cannons have such small shields, or not at all?
        1. CTABEP
          CTABEP 8 September 2018 09: 02
          +12
          Because for an anti-tank gun, the main thing is camouflage, not protection from small fragments from the front. In general, in this regard, the Red Army for some reason held on to outdated dogmas - shields and wheels on machine guns, bulky shields on artillery. Only after the Second World War, probably after all, did they abandon all this, because maneuvering, mass and camouflage were more important than theoretical defense from the front (except, perhaps, anti-tank guns, but there were small shields on them).
          1. venik
            venik 8 September 2018 15: 13
            +7
            Quote: CTABEP
            Because for an anti-tank gun, the main thing is camouflage, not protection from small fragments from the front.

            ============
            good
            Quote: CTABEP
            In general, in this regard, the Red Army for some reason held on to outdated dogmas.

            ========
            And here you are not quite right !!! In fact, in the period preceding the Second World War, discussions about the need for "shields" on field guns took place in many armies ...
            By the way, such a concept as "inertia of thinking" was peculiar to Not only Soviet designers ...
            For example, the British 6-pound (57 mm) anti-tank gun mod. 1941 Mk-II (began to enter the troops only in the 43rd (!!)

            But this is an even later modification - Mk-IV

            As you can see, both shields are "not frail" !!!
            Soviet designers also came to the feasibility of reducing the height of anti-tank guns, by reducing the geometric dimensions of the shield. And here is the well-known T-12 "Rapier" (model 1955)

            The photo clearly shows that the gun is not only low, but the shield can only cover a person sitting on his knee !!!
          2. svp67
            svp67 8 September 2018 19: 15
            +4
            Quote: CTABEP
            machine gun shields and wheels

            Have you tried to carry these machine guns without them? In the Red Army there was also a DS-39 machine gun, which had no shields, no wheels. Since they were much lighter than the "maxims"
            1. Alf
              Alf 8 September 2018 20: 09
              +2
              Quote: svp67
              In the Red Army was also a machine gun DS-39, which had no shields, no wheels.

              On the other hand, the DS-39 without a shield on a tripod weighed 33 kg, and the SG-43 with a shield on a tripod weighed 28 kg.
            2. CTABEP
              CTABEP 9 September 2018 07: 28
              0
              The SG-43 weighs 27,7 kg on a tripod. Cliff - 41. And nothing, drag. If with Maxim it is still possible to understand (although the same "Vickers" was carried on a tripod - 35,4 kg) - old technologies, then SG-43 and DShK are already clearly the inertia of thinking. Wheels and a guard add weight, increase size, and you still have to drag on a hump through mud and bumps.
              At the same time, I agree with the previous speaker - in artillery, in fact, almost everyone held on to large shields, but in machine guns, most countries refused to use the Second World War.
        2. AsmyppoL
          AsmyppoL 8 September 2018 13: 53
          +8
          The considered instrument at that stage was not considered as a fri-weapon. And for a divisional weapon the height of the shield is not so important.
          The shield of the day of the PT-gun 45-mm could be folded and was small. Also a small shield of the regimental 76-mm gun model 1927 of the year. The dimensions are determined by the purpose of the instrument.
    2. avt
      avt 8 September 2018 07: 08
      +2
      Quote: Conductor
      anyway. Mouse doesn't count

      As well as the ability to stupidly use the search engine BEFORE writing an imperishable
      Quote: Conductor
      By the way, the Germans are those who were not seen in the creation of multi-tower monsters
      1. Conductor
        Conductor 8 September 2018 08: 39
        +2
        That's it - stupidly, this tank was experimental and did not go into series, unlike the T 35. You do not judge about the German tank troops by our propaganda brands, pliz. And even so, some say that he was in battle.
        1. avt
          avt 8 September 2018 14: 27
          +4
          Quote: Conductor
          .You do not judge by the brands of our propaganda about German tank troops, pliz

          bully Mighty and well-known Russian! bully Without any
          Quote: Conductor
          pliz.

          Reread your non-perishable
          Quote: Conductor
          By the way, the Germans are those who were not seen in the creation of multi-tower monsters,

          Then bounce off your merging
          Quote: Conductor
          That's it - stupidly
          about
          Quote: Conductor
          this tank was experimental and did not go into the series, unlike the T 35

          Do not have to.
        2. John22
          John22 25 November 2018 12: 38
          0
          Three tower Neubaufahrzeug Nb.Fz. were built in small series - 5 pcs. combat and 2 pcs. demonstrative.
    3. Oden280
      Oden280 8 September 2018 16: 48
      +1
      Refresh your memory and look at "Grosstraktor"
    4. Alex_You
      Alex_You 9 September 2018 13: 45
      0
      Neubaufahrzeug was a 3 tower miracle.
      1. CentDo
        CentDo 10 September 2018 10: 28
        +1
        It was not mass-produced. Only 5 cars, and two of them were generally without armor.
    5. Sanichsan
      Sanichsan 10 September 2018 17: 36
      +1
      exactly at the same time, the Germans suffered exactly the same, but because of the pretty broken-up industry, the scale was not large. read about the Panzerkampfwagen Neubaufahrzeug. soldier
    6. Yuriy_999
      Yuriy_999 16 November 2018 15: 31
      0
      Because when everyone created multi-tower monsters (early to mid-30s), Germans could not even book tractors.
  3. Ales
    Ales 8 September 2018 06: 25
    +8
    Good article, I look forward to continuing
    Itself was in a museum and it is interesting to re-read about museum exhibits in more detail
    All previous articles are also cool!
    1. AsmyppoL
      AsmyppoL 8 September 2018 13: 53
      +5
      Good article - I liked it
  4. Nitochkin
    Nitochkin 8 September 2018 08: 07
    +1
    Tukhlochevsky got things done. And what is the worst thing, his business survived, mutated and became more sophisticated, spreading from the military to the economic field.
    1. AsmyppoL
      AsmyppoL 8 September 2018 13: 49
      +4
      For example, howitzer D-30. What is bad? The concept of semi-universal weapons. At that time, no one knew that the planes would fly at a speed of 600-700 km per hour. You do not think that the generals have adopted the indicated weapon as sillier than Tukhachevsky? Just that idea was not for the time.
      There below about dynamoreactive systems speak. But multiple launch rocket systems are in essence a modified same idea. Well, other fundamental ideas are used.
      1. Nitochkin
        Nitochkin 8 September 2018 15: 38
        +1
        Don't talk nonsense. D-30 is a clean howitzer. The features of its gun carriage do not make it "semi-universal".
        Z.Y. The word that they found is semi-universal. What you want, you can stick.
        1. AsmyppoL
          AsmyppoL 8 September 2018 17: 28
          +4
          According to the terminology of that time, the universal gun is a divisional anti-aircraft gun with a sector of shelling horizontally 360 hail and vertically up to 75 hail. For this proposed pallet. The scheme of the three pillars was not yet thought of.
          Semi-universal - limited angle horizontally.
          The D-30 cannon has the same horizontal angle 360 hail, and the vertical vertical angle is up to 70 hail.
          If this gun were to fall at that time, then providing it with guidance tools for anti-aircraft fire - it would be suitable for a universal gun in the ideas of that time. The speed of the bombers at that time was low, and they went in dense orders.
          The problem is that nobody has ever thought about radio detonators for anti-aircraft shots ...
          1. Nitochkin
            Nitochkin 8 September 2018 19: 06
            +2
            D-30 howitzer and she is supposed to have a large vertical angle.
            ZY What else do you propose to "teleport" in time to the past? Maybe a modern tank? Or a plane? Oh, Su-25, he will be your fighter, bomber and attack aircraft. Well, a purely universal plane.
          2. Potter
            Potter 11 September 2018 20: 51
            0
            D-30 is a howitzer with improved capabilities for anti-tank defense.
            Even in 1941, using it as an anti-aircraft gun would not allow the aiming speed.
            Well, if we talk about universality, then those were the German 88mm and our 85mm anti-aircraft guns, which throughout the war were also used as anti-tank guns. But these were guns with full-fledged anti-aircraft functions, and not allowing only barrage fire, like the same F-22.
        2. Vladimir 5
          Vladimir 5 8 September 2018 19: 07
          -5
          The mother of M. Tukhachevsky, the author, as was customary after his execution, but only the rare ones appreciate and understand the visionary ideas of the marshal on dynamo-jet weapons - these are Katyusha and Faustpatrons, and Nursa I-16 and Il-2, and Flak 88 - personification universal weapons, then continued the Oerlikons of 20 mm, after which the development of the large-caliber UNIVERSAL machine guns began in the Red Army .... They shot the marshal, and the ideas were already finalized by others, and much later, the author does not understand, he has an old song for a new reassignment .... And when 1941-2, the ground troops of the Red Army suffered terrible losses from the ruling Luftfaffe, universal guns would have been very helpful and corrected the situation, and the Yu-67 would have disappeared quickly from the sky., and without meeting resistance, it would have inflicted huge losses for a long time .. ..Author advice, more think with your own head, not stamps, then articles of a completely different level ... For the F-22 cannon, a good cannon, but with a bad command, since thousands of serviceable ones fell into the hands of the Germans ...
          1. Kot_Kuzya
            Kot_Kuzya 8 September 2018 20: 31
            +6
            Here ....! Some swear words!
            Quote: Vladimir 5
            Katyusha

            Do not confuse, my dear, volley fire systems with kami Kurchevsky and Tukhach.
            Quote: Vladimir 5
            Faustpatrons

            Here give me at least one example of a portable weapon like Faustpatron, developed by Kurchevsky, and even with a cumulative grenade!
            Quote: Vladimir 5
            Nurses I-16 and IL-2

            Do not confuse NURSY and KDP of Kurchevsky! Oh god What stupid and ignorant apologists Tukhach is!
            Quote: Vladimir 5
            Flac 88, - the personification of universal weapons

            I almost fell off a chair! According to your logic, the 45th cannon of 1932 is an apologist for universalism, since it was placed both on the tank and on the ships, and was a PTO, and was a battalion cannon.
            Quote: Vladimir 5
            further Oerlikons 20 mm

            Comparing 88-mm and 20-mm guns is, to put it mildly, strange. And yes, the 20-mm guns, except for anti-aircraft guns, did not show themselves in any way, because they were redundant against the infantry, and rather weak against the tanks.
            Quote: Vladimir 5
            in the Red Army began the development of large-caliber machine guns UNIVERSAL ...

            Another proof of the ignorance of Tukhach's apologists. It was precisely after the resignation of the "genius" that the assignments were given for the development of large-caliber machine guns and anti-aircraft guns. The DShK was adopted in 1939 (there is no need to poke the DC, it was stopped in 1935 precisely because of Tukhach's ravings about universal anti-aircraft guns), the 37-mm gun was also adopted in 1939, the 25-mm gun in 1940 d. If not for your "genius" Tukhach, then all these systems would have been adopted and would have started to be produced back in 1935, and by June 1941 the army would have been fully equipped with anti-aircraft weapons.
            1. Vladimir 5
              Vladimir 5 8 September 2018 23: 24
              -6
              Your statement, as an example of not understanding the subject and showing your ignorance in different comparisons. Take an interest in using recoilless guns in other armies (Wehrmacht, USA, during WWII, not to mention the latest developments) ..., By recoilless gun principles, Kurchevsky is not a discoverer. I just tried to improve it, but for obvious reasons I didn’t bring it to the right level ... I won’t continue further, because your confident tone determines the limitations, with all the consequences that expire ......
              1. Aqela
                Aqela 9 September 2018 00: 57
                +3
                Yeah. Given that Kurchevsky proposed to do recoilless for any tasks facing artillery and any calibers, up to 6 inches, and even tank, and air guns to also be recoilless ... It would be better if this money was sent to develop new gunpowders, explosives and cumulative ammunition .
                1. RuSFr
                  RuSFr 9 September 2018 09: 57
                  +3
                  The problem is that in order to allocate money for new developments, the military must understand that this is necessary. Well, why the cumulative ammunition about which our designers still did not suspect that they could be made if there were no armored tanks inaccessible to the 45 mm cannon? The same applies to gunpowder and explosives. If satisfied, then it will. There was no extra money in the USSR, unfortunately
            2. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 10 September 2018 14: 15
              +1
              Quote: Kot_Kuzya
              Another proof of the ignorance of Tukhach's apologists. It was precisely after the resignation of the "genius" that the assignments were given for the development of large-caliber machine guns and anti-aircraft guns.

              Ahem ... Are you serious?
              The question of creating a domestic heavy machine gun was raised by the USSR Revolutionary Military Council on October 27, 1925

              © Bolotin
              And in the same year, the development of the CCP began under the patronage of Vickers.
              And in 1928, comrades Kulik and Shaposhnikov signed a toggle, according to which the Red Army needed a machine gun for battalions, artillery divisions, etc., weighing no more than 100 kg, without a shield, food - a metal tape of 50 rounds, armor penetration per kilometer - up to 15 mm at an angle 30 degrees, or 20-22 mm normal. Caliber - about 14 mm.
              Quote: Kot_Kuzya
              The DShK was adopted in 1939 (there is no need to poke a recreation center here, it was stopped producing in 1935 precisely because of Tukhach’s ravings about universal anti-aircraft guns),

              It’s very easy to blame all the shoals of industry and designers on an evil genius. DK-32 was originally adopted raw in the arsenal - and 8 years after that it was finalized. And his release was stopped because the army could no longer take not what she ordered, but what industry gave her.
              Moreover, the DShK inherited part of the shortcomings from its predecessor, primarily the difficulty in production. It is noteworthy that before the war and in the course of it, only 9000 air defense missiles were issued - an order of magnitude less than the theoretically more complex UB aviation machine guns under the same cartridge.
              Quote: Kot_Kuzya
              The 37 mm cannon was also adopted in 1939,

              Because plant # 8 was finally able to creatively rework Bofors. And before that, the same plant sequentially filled up the production of 20-mm "Rheinmetal" and 37-mm MZA Shpitalny.
              Quote: Kot_Kuzya
              If not for your "genius" Tukhach, then all these systems would have been adopted and produced back in 1935,

              Blessed is he who believes. ©
              Let me remind you that an industrial giant named the United States has been making MZA for the fleet for 10 (ten!) Years. And, having done it, he practically threw it into the trash - having made a decision to switch to "bofors" (which brought it to mind for two more years - with the involvement of the capacities of the Chrysler company and allied partners).
              In the first half of the 30s, our industry was not able to launch even a 122-mm howitzer and a 152-mm mortar. Having them a complete set of documentation.
          2. RuSFr
            RuSFr 9 September 2018 08: 05
            +3
            I completely agree with you. This is a stereotype of thinking. They scold in books, it means correctly and people agree with the stated opinion. But thinking is too hard
            Nobody scolds the developers of the English tank: what did you do stupid idiots? Dawn so should the tank look like? Here the French fellows made the right Renault tank.
            Basically, the thoughts of Tukhachevsky were embodied in the first half of the 30s. What military experience did the military have at that time? World War I, civilian, ten years of peaceful training with an extremely small budget, still the CER where the tanks proved unreliable. We also read articles from foreign armies. And it's all
            That's right there comrade wrote. The D-30 howitzer is practically the universal of that time for divisional artillery gun-howitzer-anti-aircraft gun. Only the task of anti-aircraft guns she is not posed. and so could have done with the appropriate retrofitting and developed a special shot. Only medium-caliber and large-caliber anti-aircraft guns are not needed now - everyone has replaced missiles and universal naval guns combined with detection and guidance systems. But in the early 30s they still did not know about anti-aircraft guided missiles. The level of mechanization was extremely small.
            Rockets. If our designers had not spied the principle of spinning the shell from the Germans, then when would our military have got rockets without stabilizers? Unknown
            1. RuSFr
              RuSFr 9 September 2018 08: 25
              +1
              They blame Tukhachevsky for dynamo-jet guns. and if you think what kind of system it is? Thin (relatively light) barrel, projectile, metal charge, nozzle to compensate for recoil. Lightweight mobile artillery system. problems with a combustible sleeve, low accuracy and visibility when fired. The problem is noticeability, but easel grenade launchers are in service - even now they have come to terms with this problem and have learned to tactically use this system.
              Low accuracy. Even now, no one requires a single shell from the Tornado system to get into a freestanding tank without a guidance system at a distance of, for example, 10 km. Any salvo system is a system for firing on areas. In the early thirties no one knew this.
              And now let's look again at the rocket from this system Tornado in one guide of the installation package. A thin pipe, a projectile that combines the projectile itself (in the ideas of that time), a sleeve and a nozzle. Our military and designers did not think of this before the start of the war. I mean, not everything that is being broadcast on Tukhachevsky is bad, if you look from now on.
              The wedges are also blamed. Yes, there was a fashion. There were no motorized infantry at the armored personnel carrier or infantry fighting vehicle at that time. They didn’t think at that time even before that. Even cars in the USSR and in the army in the early thirties were very few. No one has been transported on tanks, nor on armored cars. They did not know that it was possible to fight like that. Replaced with wedges, which could conduct reconnaissance and accompany foot infantry. Remember about the lack of money, material resources for full tanks. Remember the first tank battle of tanks in the 30s in Spain. Our cannon tanks and German-Italian machine gun tanks. Nobody writes that the Germans and Italians were stupid arming tanks with machine guns only !? It was a generally accepted concept of the time. Even at the end of 1941 and in 1942, far after the execution of Tukhachevsky, the Soviet military, with the consent of Stalin, equipped tank brigades with light tanks - essentially tankettes (T-40 and T-30). They are not blamed for stupidity ....
              Yes, I riveted many T-26 tanks to accompany infantry. But at that time they were still not very afraid of anti-tank artillery. The problem began with the shooting of our light tanks in Spain - the first battlefield, where we worked out our skills, tactics, tested equipment.
              The problem of introducing light tanks into battle for fortified defense was known long before the war. They should even have been introduced only as part of the third tier, but how did the command threw them mediocre on the forehead? The experience of tank ambushes with the withdrawal appeared a little later. It is not a matter of technology, but how it should be correctly applied and the tactics of using this technology should be changed from the conditions of the development of enemy weapons. This was not done on the eve of the war. Zhukov immediately wrote down about 15 thousand tanks to tanks of an obsolete type, and then he took responsibility for the fact that they did not break the initial period of the war. is it so, think ...
              before scolding a person, it seems to me that one should think, and not quote beaten and often not quite correct quotes
  5. Dzafdet
    Dzafdet 8 September 2018 08: 10
    0
    It is a pity the author did not disclose the role of Kulik in this disgrace, the same was a gaddy figure ...
    1. AsmyppoL
      AsmyppoL 8 September 2018 13: 42
      +4
      Specifically, what are his mistakes? Can you name them without using standard error stamps?
    2. nedgen
      nedgen 8 September 2018 22: 15
      +2
      I don’t know how it really was, but in his book Grabin says that Kulik did not want to adopt the F-22 just because he considered its power to be excessive. The gun could not use the old three-inch shots. In general, Kulik was right from his point of view. After all, in those years (mid-30s) there were practically no tanks with anti-shell armor. And the economic component is actually not the work of designers, namely people like Kulik. In addition, no one in those years thought about (probably excluding people like Grabin) that divisions would have to be used as TVET. So at that time (without looking at the future) Kulik was absolutely right. Even with an old charge of three inches but with a BPS, even the ZiS-3 could fight with the Tigers, although not more than 500 meters. But if all the F-22 divisions were transferred to a new shot, then probably in the beginning of the Second World War such a shell hunger that mom do not cry. (between, however, due to the loss of huge reserves in Ukraine and Belarus, it arose anyway, but there were still reserves within the country), All the same, Kulik was a pragmatist, although he could not see much in the future. After all, all the generals are preparing for the previous war laughing
      1. Alf
        Alf 8 September 2018 23: 06
        0
        Quote: nedgen
        The gun could not use the old three-inch shots.

        In fact, the F-22 was calculated just for the ammunition of the 1902/1930 gun.
        Gun shots were completed in the form of a unitary cartridge. In order to be able to use the large amount of previously stored ammunition of the F-22 chamber, it was left the same as the previous divisional cannon of the 1902/30 model.
        A brass or steel sleeve of a unitary cartridge of a 1900 sample weighing 1,55 or 1,45 kg, respectively, had a length of 385,3 mm and a flange diameter of 90 mm. The charge 54-Zh-354 [36] consisted of 1,08 kg of gunpowder grades 4/1 or 9/7. For old grenades and some shrapnel, a charge of 54-Zh-354A was used, weighing 0,9 kg of gunpowder grade 7/7. Caliber and cumulative shells were also used with their own special charges. Also, the gun could shoot the entire range of shots to the 76-mm regimental cannon mod. 1927 - the charge of these shots was considered to be a regular reduced for divisional guns.
        1. nedgen
          nedgen 8 September 2018 23: 33
          +1
          I meant that Grabin was forced to rework the F-22 so that he could use three-inch shots. In the first version, she had her own shot developed for her. hi
      2. Ales
        Ales 9 September 2018 06: 43
        +3
        I would only add that the old shells had a shorter range and therefore the weight of the system would be less.
        But firing at a range of over 13 km for a low-powered 76-mm OFS is clearly an unnecessary requirement
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 10 September 2018 13: 02
      +3
      Quote: Dzafdet
      It is a pity the author did not disclose the role of Kulik in this disgrace, the same was a gaddy figure ...

      And don’t talk. Kulik, such a bastard, dared to demand from the design bureau to eliminate all the shortcomings of their products before adopting and mandatory military tests of the products. laughing
      To Kulik, we have a KB of moths to allow themselves to bring an already adopted large-caliber machine gun for 8 years. Or 4 years to bring a divisional cannon, which was structurally unable to shoot shots fired by wartime technology - and finally make a new gun. Or 5 years to bring to mind the tank already in service.
      The problem is that we know about Kulik mainly from the memories of designers and production workers. For whom he was like a bone in his throat.
  6. CTABEP
    CTABEP 8 September 2018 09: 03
    +7
    The gun turned out to be as good as possible with a curve TK, but from this it was a masterpiece, like the same ZIS-3 did not. But about the details about the alterations by the Germans, thanks, I somehow did not meet with information about alterations into anti-tank ones for the Wehrmacht, but even with the expense of shells and alteration details - thanks!
    1. Alf
      Alf 8 September 2018 20: 18
      +1
      Quote: CTABEP
      But about the details about the alterations by the Germans, thanks, I somehow did not meet with information about alterations into anti-tank ones for the Wehrmacht, but even with the expense of shells and alteration details - thanks!

      Shirokorad God of War of the Third Reich. Perhaps the best work on German artillery 2MB.
      1. CTABEP
        CTABEP 9 September 2018 07: 28
        0
        Thanks for the tip, I read.
        1. Alf
          Alf 9 September 2018 14: 44
          0
          Quote: CTABEP
          Thanks for the tip, I read.

          You're welcome.
          There is also an Encyclopedia of domestic artillery. Also worthy work.
  7. Curious
    Curious 8 September 2018 09: 06
    +7
    If we follow the logic of the authors, then Tukhachevsky was the chief of arms of not only the Red Army, but also the armed forces of most European states, which also developed multi-turret tanks, wedges, and dynamo-guns.


    The A1E1 "Independent" is an experienced British five-turret heavy tank, built by Vickers in 1926.
    1. Curious
      Curious 8 September 2018 09: 08
      +5

      Panzerkampfwagen Neubaufahrzeug is a German experimental mid-turret tank of the 30s, which took a limited part in the fighting of the Second World War.
      1. Curious
        Curious 8 September 2018 09: 20
        +5
        At the same time, many were "sick" with tankettes, the Italians pushed flamethrower tankettes into the series, the Poles - with 20-mm cannons and experimented with turrets, in Czechoslovakia they built self-propelled guns.
        Dynamo-reactive (recoilless) systems during the Second World War were used by both Germans and Americans.
        1. Kot_Kuzya
          Kot_Kuzya 8 September 2018 10: 54
          +4
          For your information, the British did not accept these Independents. Whereas in the USSR, at the suggestion of Tukhach, they were accepted, and made 65 T-35 and 503 T-28. At the same time, the T-35, as shown by Finnish and WWII, was an absolutely useless tank. Moreover, these multi-turret "dragons" were many times more expensive than their single-turret counterparts. The T-28 was more or less, with competent management and command, it showed itself well. But if you remove the two machine-gun turrets, this would reduce the length of the tank by 1,5 meters (the length of the T-28 hull is 7,4 meters, the length of the T-34 hull is 5,9 meters), this would have an extremely favorable effect on the tank's maneuverability due to a decrease in the ratio of the length of the tank to the width, it would reduce the weight of the tank by 6 tons of commercials, and these saved tons could be used to thicken the armor. Such obvious things could not reach Tukhach? !!! Even a purely civilian Stalin, when showing him the layout of the SMK tank, removed the rear turret and asked how many tons he lightened the tank?
          Quote: Curious
          Dynamo-reactive (recoilless) systems during the Second World War were used by both Germans and Americans.

          And how successful? Just do not here give an example of Bazook and Faust. In the USSR, under Tukhach, VETs were going to be made dynamo-reactive without cumulative shells. Shooting a tank from recoilless systems with blanks is the height of stupidity! The energy of such discs is enough to break through the maximum bulletproof armor!
          1. mark1
            mark1 8 September 2018 12: 56
            +2
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            In the USSR, under Tukhach, VETs were going to be made dynamo-reactive without cumulative shells.

            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            But if you remove the two machine-gun turrets, this would reduce the length of the tank by 1,5 meters (the length of the T-28 hull is 7,4 meters, the length of the T-34 hull is 5,9 meters), this would be extremely beneficial for the maneuverability of the tank due to a decrease in the ratio of the length of the tank to the width, it would reduce the weight of the tank by 6 tons of commercials, and these saved tons could be used to thicken the armor. Such obvious things could not reach Tukhach? !!!

            The first impression is that you would make an excellent hitter, everyone would be taught, everyone would be saved, everyone would be prevented ... But most likely (I think so) you would be put up against the wall right after "Tukhach" (Tukhachevsky)
            1. Kot_Kuzya
              Kot_Kuzya 8 September 2018 18: 24
              -2
              And you would have been shot right away, since you would have gone over to Hitler, and would have started to whisper your thoughts to his ears.
              1. mark1
                mark1 8 September 2018 18: 56
                +5
                Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                And you would have been shot right away, since you would have gone over to Hitler, and would have started to whisper your thoughts to his ears.

                Cat! You seem to know only how to spoil slippers.
                Bad! bad cat Kuzma!
            2. RuSFr
              RuSFr 9 September 2018 09: 54
              +2
              good answer
          2. AsmyppoL
            AsmyppoL 8 September 2018 13: 41
            +4
            Only until 1937 of the year (as you write under Tukhachevsky) there were no tanks with anti-booking. At that time, only the concept of the future use of tanks appeared. There were no opponents for fr artillery. Germans only T-1 were armed
          3. Curious
            Curious 8 September 2018 16: 09
            +3
            "And how successful? Just don't give an example of Bazookas and Fausts here."

            10,5 cm Leichtgeschütz 42
            1. Curious
              Curious 8 September 2018 16: 12
              +3

              7,5 cm Leichtgeschütz 40
          4. hohol95
            hohol95 9 September 2018 11: 56
            0
            Do you have evidence of T-35 involvement in the Winter War?
      2. Conductor
        Conductor 8 September 2018 11: 11
        +2
        In Norway, this kind of thing lit up! But in Norway, tanks were limited by the Germans, not the theater. but I’ve never heard of such use of these tanks. All the same, a prototype, and m and IP 3, allegedly were used during the assault on Berlin. Only no one knows where)))
        1. avt
          avt 8 September 2018 14: 30
          +5
          Quote: Conductor
          and t and IP 3 allegedly used during the assault on Berlin. Only no one knows where)))

          Hamsters may not know, but anyone who is capable of working as a search engine knows that they were used in a joint parade with the allies.
          1. Conductor
            Conductor 8 September 2018 16: 19
            0
            Yes, you cho !!! You can’t tell a combat application from a parade?
          2. Conductor
            Conductor 8 September 2018 16: 29
            -1
            You also look at the parades with our 420 mm mortars, there are parades but not in the troops. Or praises of Yak 38, he is there, but he was not needed.
            1. RuSFr
              RuSFr 8 September 2018 18: 06
              +2
              At the time of development, this was the only means (420 mm system) of tactical nuclear weapons of the ground forces
    2. Turist1996
      Turist1996 8 September 2018 18: 17
      +1
      So then they are experienced, not serial. Our multi-tower even participated in parades. Certainly not experienced, but was serial!
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 10 September 2018 18: 19
        +1
        Quote: Turist1996
        So then they are experienced, not serial. Our multi-tower even participated in parades. Certainly not experienced, but was serial!

        Well, here's a serial foreign multi-tower tank - the British Mk.I Cruiser Tank:
    3. Alf
      Alf 8 September 2018 20: 21
      +2
      Quote: Curious
      If you follow the logic of the authors,

      Colleague Winner! I think you are not quite right. Yes, then there were massive troubles in the concepts of weapons, but this is not a reason to live by the principle-Everyone ran and I ran.
      1. Curious
        Curious 8 September 2018 20: 50
        +5
        You see, after a hundred years it’s certainly easy to judge whether it was worth running for everyone, or whether it was not worth blaming everything on Tukhachevsky.
        Namely, at the moment when you receive information that a potential adversary "ran" somewhere, you have a recipe for a precise definition, whether you need to run or not? But here you can be late. And there are also many such examples, when they did not run on time, and then they had to catch up with great sacrifices. In the history of any army one can find examples of decisions, to put it mildly, unjustified.
        Therefore, the topic is not simple, and stamping here is not worth it.
        1. Alf
          Alf 8 September 2018 21: 08
          +1
          I agree, and yet Yes, the price of error in design and production is too high, usually a loss of war.
    4. karabas86
      karabas86 8 September 2018 21: 27
      0
      And how much is built winked
  8. Paranoid50
    Paranoid50 8 September 2018 10: 26
    +4
    Here, in fact, Marder II and Marder III (38) c Pak36 (r)

  9. Curious
    Curious 8 September 2018 10: 26
    +6
    Let's move on to the gun. When writing, the shadow of Shirokorada hovered over the authors.
    "But I mean another masterpiece of Tukhachevsky's inflamed imagination, namely the project to create a universal anti-aircraft divisional gun."
    Since the mid-twenties in many countries, work has begun on the creation of artillery systems that can with the same effectiveness be both field, and anti-tank, and anti-aircraft. Then they called ground-based anti-aircraft guns. It is evident that Tukhachevsky was also present there.
    In addition, systems were created with two barrels for mounted and laid fire, bicaliber systems, when another is inserted into one barrel, systems with interchangeable barrels, etc.

    Bofors 75/47-mm infantry gun-howitzer with false trunks: at the top - 47-mm gun, below - 75-mm howitzer.
    Those who wish can read about it in the book Nikolaev A.V. Battalion artillery. - M.: Military Publishing House of the NPO of the USSR, 1937.
    On the development of universal systems in the USSR an interesting article http://bastion-karpenko.narod.ru/Univer_KZ.pdf.
    Recently, the authors of the site have some unhealthy trend. Everyone is striving to make some kind of global conclusions in areas where, to put it mildly, they are poorly oriented.
    1. Kot_Kuzya
      Kot_Kuzya 8 September 2018 10: 58
      +6
      I repeat once again: nowhere, in no country in the world, have UNIVERSAL DIVISION guns been adopted for service! Not in Britain, not in France, not in the USA, not in Poland, and even less so in Germany. Do you not understand the difference between testing prototypes and between adopting such defective models for service? You can test anything you want, for this tests are carried out, since it is practice that is the criterion of truth. And as tests by the British and Americans have shown, universal guns are bullshit! And your "genius" Tukhach adopted everything without military tests, and began to spend millions of rubles on their production and development.
      1. Conductor
        Conductor 8 September 2018 11: 13
        +1
        To a point, although German aht aht, can be considered a universal tool.
        1. Paranoid50
          Paranoid50 8 September 2018 11: 26
          +6
          Quote: Conductor
          German aht aht can be considered a universal tool

          It turns out like this. Is that, in fairness, it should be noted that the versatility of the "eight-eight" was "revealed" already in the process of hostilities, and not from a good life (strained with p / t means capable of fighting the same HF).
        2. AsmyppoL
          AsmyppoL 8 September 2018 14: 05
          +6
          Yes, universal. Could fight with our tanks at a distance of 2 km. Only in 1937, no one thought to fight with tanks at such distances ...
          Universal gun height 2,1 meter - minisaray ...
          1. Conductor
            Conductor 8 September 2018 16: 25
            0
            So in application everything is known. Look, they were proud of the BT 7 - flying tank, and in the battle, its flights were not needed.
            1. Alf
              Alf 8 September 2018 20: 30
              -2
              Quote: Conductor
              So in application everything is known. Look, they were proud of the BT 7 - flying tank, and in the battle, its flights were not needed.

              True, that's just the jumping ability of BT tanks and gave the T-34 a very reliable suspension.
              1. Vladimir 5
                Vladimir 5 11 September 2018 22: 11
                -4
                And they got a high-quality suspension at the expense of a thousand "goodbye Motherland" - BT crews, although the command made them the first, launching head-on attacks on the fortified and unexplored positions of the Germans .... and T-45, T-26, and others on the PTO ... The main reason for such a strange destruction of armored vehicles comes out. - the main thing was the fear of command in front of the authorities (and the tribunal, which G. Zhukov and others used so often), the repressions in the 38-37 year in the officer corps did not stop, and from this followed fear and reinsurance, it is better to ditch all subordinates, directing them into continuous attacks , but I will remain beyond suspicion ... And after all, the regiments were not responsible for ditched in senseless attacks, they were responsible if they kept the troops but did not carry out the senseless and murderous orders of the Zhukovs ...
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 12 September 2018 11: 18
                  +1
                  Quote: Vladimir 5
                  Climb out the main reason for such a strange destruction of armored vehicles. - the main thing was the fear of the command before the bosses (and the tribunal that G. Zhukov and the like used so often), the repressions of 37-40 years in the officer corps did not stop, and this led to fear and reinsurance, it would be better to kill all subordinates, directing them to continuous attacks ,, but I will remain beyond suspicion ...

                  What does the fear have to do with it? The reason for the enormous losses of the BTT is that neither the tank nor infantry commanders knew the Charter and did not know how to fight according to the Charter. Intelligence service? No. Interaction? No. Artillery preparation? Half an hour across the squares - at best.
                  As a result, the commander issues an order that, in theory, can be executed in cash - if you act according to the Charter. And then the circus begins with the concepts, when everyone who receives the order interprets it to the best of their knowledge. The chaos is added by the fact that infantry commanders intervene in the actions of tankers, who, as it turned out after the Special Forces, know the Charter at best only in terms of infantry actions, while the rest are not studied at all. The only thing these commanders know about tanks is that they are indestructible vehicles capable of anything. smile
                  A classic example: an attack on a settlement. According to the plan, the restraining group of tanks should simulate a head-on attack, and the main forces should go around and attack from the flanks. Along the way, the flank attack group stumbles upon the "general of infantry", who from the entire Charter knows only a head-on attack and orders an immediate attack, no detours. The end is a bit predictable - the tanks suffered significant losses.
                  Quote: Vladimir 5
                  And after all, for the regiments ditched in senseless attacks, they did not bear responsibility, they were responsible if they retained the troops but did not fulfill the senseless and murderous orders of the beetles ....

                  Yes, yes, yes ... a familiar song - bloody butcher and humanist subordinates. But if you look at Zhukov’s orders and their execution on the ground, it is very often the perpetrators who changed everything that they were ordered to bear responsibility for the losses. A classic example is the defeat of the mechanized corps of the SWF, when the front command first canceled the order of the NHS, arranging a leapfrog with the transfer and reassignment of the mechanized corps, and a couple of days later it began to be carried out, despite the changing situation. The end is a bit predictable - where, upon hitting Zhukov’s plan, there would have been only a weak cover for the flanks of 1 TGr, the German infantry had already taken up defense in a couple of days.
                  1. Vladimir 5
                    Vladimir 5 16 September 2018 21: 21
                    -2
                    And who made the leapfrog on the South-Western Front, since June 23, the NGSh Zhukov was present there and personally ordered, then com. the front duplicated the orders of the NGSH, and so G. Zhukov destroyed 5 tank corps, the main shock fist of the Red Army ... Why was G. Zhukov present at the SWF NGSh, the best and most armed tank corps were assembled there to "defeat" the Germans, a complete defeat was only G. Zhukova ... Go deep into the facts, then the conclusions will become closer to reality, and you will not be outraged by the statements ...
                    1. Alexey RA
                      Alexey RA 17 September 2018 18: 43
                      0
                      Quote: Vladimir 5
                      And who made a leapfrog in the SWF, from June 23, there was an NGS Zhukov there and personally ordered

                      Right. And as soon as he left the headquarters for the troops - and the headquarters of the SWF immediately began to tailor a new plan of counterattack.
                      Quote: Vladimir 5
                      further com. front duplicated the orders of the NGS

                      Where did he duplicate them? The commander and headquarters of the South-Western Front actually canceled the orders of the NGSH and began to plan their counterstrike, changing the direction of the attacks and reassigning the mechanized corps. That is why the "southern" mechanized corps began to wind hundreds of kilometers of marches.
                      Understand you, finally - there was no subordination and compulsory fulfillment of orders in the 1941 Red Army. The front commander could cancel the order of the NGS. The army commander could cancel the order of the front commander (see Muzychenko’s actions to keep 4 MK and take 8 MK away or Zhukov’s unsuccessful attempts to scratch out the 1st building from Karelia).
        3. Alf
          Alf 8 September 2018 20: 29
          +1
          Quote: Conductor
          To a point, although German aht aht, can be considered a universal tool.

          And what was its versatility? It fought well with tanks, but the dimensions, mass and COST of such a weapon are, to put it mildly, great. And with aviation, at least on the Eastern Front, it showed itself not so hot, because the main enemy of the German troops were attack aircraft, and the best way to deal with them were not medium-caliber guns, but anti-aircraft guns.
      2. Curious
        Curious 8 September 2018 12: 35
        +2
        Kuzya, and where does it say that "adopted UNIVERSAL DIVISIONAL guns?"
        In my commentary, I meant that similar work was carried out in different countries and the idea was by no means Tukhachevsky. And to what extent the work has been brought up - another conversation. The same goes for tanks. So your whole steam is a whistle. Read the comment carefully.
        1. Kot_Kuzya
          Kot_Kuzya 8 September 2018 18: 30
          0
          Well, yes, otmazyvatsya these "where it is written" is very convenient.
          And to what extent the work has been brought up - another conversation
          Only in the USSR were universal divisional weapons adopted in service, they were not adopted anywhere else. And "thank" your Ukrainian pet Tukhach for this.
          1. Potter
            Potter 11 September 2018 21: 10
            0
            It was not an F-22 universal cannon! This is a divisional weapon, despite the elevation angle of 75 grams! Universal gun must have full anti-aircraft functions! Therefore, once again - universal can be called with a certain stretch anti-aircraft guns 88mm, German and our 85mm, actively used as anti-tank.
            And look at the naval guns - they fired at the aircraft from 15 dm cannons (obstacles from torpedo bombers), but only installations with a full-fledged anti-aircraft function are called universal. We have for 1941 - only 100mm B-34.
      3. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 10 September 2018 18: 24
        +1
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        I repeat once again: nowhere, in any country in the world, did they adopt the UNIVERSAL DIVISION guns! Neither in Britain, nor in France, nor in the USA, nor in Poland, much less in Germany.

        Do you know why? wink
        Because these countries had normal army anti-aircraft guns. And not a three-inch on Ivanov’s machine.
        The universal F-22 went into a series from poverty and from the fact that no one, even Tukhachevsky, could predict which art system our industry would make and which one it would fail. Plant No. 8 will be able to give the army a sufficient amount of 3-K - honor and praise to him. Will not be able - and what then, and defend with three inches?
    2. Turist1996
      Turist1996 8 September 2018 18: 24
      +1
      Again, you can experiment as much as you like - there are separate items of expenditure in the budget .. But putting in series and for arming is a completely different article! And the responsibility is different!
      This is precisely what Tukhachevsky is credited with - and quite reasonably!
      And according to the concepts of those times, he received the bullet quite legally.
      Well deservedly - it is for sure!
      For the pest was real !!
      1. mark1
        mark1 8 September 2018 19: 12
        +1
        Quote: Turist1996
        he got the bullet quite legitimately.
        Well deservedly - it is for sure!

        So right and deserved? A T-26 and BT. and I-16 and SB, or maybe there wasn’t enough artillery in the Red Army or there was a shortage of small arms, and a mechanized corps? The one who does not work is not mistaken. In those days, such as Tukhachevsky was 2/3 of the officer corps. For another they removed him.
        1. Kot_Kuzya
          Kot_Kuzya 8 September 2018 20: 37
          -3
          BT and T-26 are useless trash with cardboard armor, because of which tens of thousands of tankers died - the color of the army and the people, the most technically trained personnel. And for this it is necessary to "thank" just Tukhach.
          1. mark1
            mark1 8 September 2018 22: 11
            +9
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            BT and T-26 is useless trash with cardboard armor, which killed tens of thousands of tankers - the color of the army and people, the most technically trained personnel.

            BT and T-26 (especially considering their number) are not useless trash (what then is the T-60?) And they fought with dignity until 45. And "tens of thousands of tankers" perished at the same rate in old and new tanks, the reason here, alas, is different. And in the mid-30s, the T-26 and BT were among the best in the world.
            And please - I’m not a fool in slippers. If you want to discuss something, essentially
            1. stalkerwalker
              stalkerwalker 8 September 2018 22: 28
              +2
              Quote: mark1
              BT and T-26 (especially considering their number) are not useless stuff (what is T-60 then?) And they worthily fought before the 45 of the year

              Well .... Let's just say - the last BT and T-26 on the Soviet-German front were all knocked out by the spring of 1942. In 1945, the last remaining in the Far East took part in the defeat of the Kwantung Army. In the first 2-3 days, everyone was left on the roads on the outskirts of Khingan due to the failure of both the undercarriage and the transmission. One of the BTs remained at the pass in the form of a monument.
              The problem of "an amateur to play the violin between state affairs" was his incompetence as deputy commissar for armaments of the Red Army. With his submission, tens of thousands of so-called. "one of the best in the world" tanks, completely forgetting about spare parts for them. And about accounting for the notorious "the best in the world in the mid-30s T-26 and BT" is directly stated in Tymoshenko's report on the reception by the Red Army leadership - thousands of tanks were listed on the balance sheet as combat-ready, although they required at least medium repairs (trucks, engines). Dozens of tanks were just listed on paper. As a result, when "especially liberal historians" began to count the number of tanks on 22.06.41/5/50, at least XNUMX thousand items fell into the "dead souls", which could not leave the parks on alarm. And from the rest, no more than XNUMX% made it to the battlefield.
              1. Curious
                Curious 8 September 2018 22: 59
                +3
                "Well .... Let's face it - the last BT and T-26 on the Soviet-German front were all knocked out by the spring of 1942."
                It’s not working right. You get crooked.

                This is a reference to the serial numbers of the tanks of the 204th OTP of the Lenfront, as of November 1, 1943.
                As you can see, in the ranks are three BT-7 and twenty BT-5.
                On the Oranienbaum bridgehead, the individual surviving BT-7 tanks as part of the 98th OTP took part in the general offensive of the Soviet Army in January 1944.
                "In the first 2-3 days, everyone was left on the roads on the outskirts of Khingan due to the failure of both the chassis and transmission."
                By the beginning of the operation, the troops of the 1st Far Eastern Front had 474 BT-7 tanks, of which 377 were in good condition. At that time, the troops of the Transbaikal Front had 49 BT-5 tanks and 422 BT-7 tanks of various modifications. All of them were part of the second regiments and second battalions of tank divisions and tank brigades (the first battalions were equipped with T-34).
                During the fighting to liberate Manchuria and Korea, only 10 BT-7 tanks were irretrievably lost. The main part of the tanks failed for technical reasons (154 BT-5 and BT-7). Another 35 BT-7 tanks were hit by artillery fire.
                1. stalkerwalker
                  stalkerwalker 8 September 2018 23: 08
                  +1
                  Quote: Curious
                  As you can see, in the ranks are three BT-7 and twenty BT-5.

                  If we also count in the form of armored vehicles the "tanks" of NI that fought in the defense of Odessa ...
                  You can talk a lot and for a long time about the b / t of the "bear corner" of the Soviet-German front, where the front line was static for many months, and the delivery of the T-34 was "unprofitable", tk. factories of Leningrad and produced and repaired KV-1 and KV-1S.
                  1. Curious
                    Curious 8 September 2018 23: 18
                    +3
                    "... the last BT and T-26 on the Soviet-German front were all knocked out by the spring of 1942. " - Your phrase?
                    Leningrad to the Soviet-German fronts did not belong?
                    " In the first 2-3 days all were left on the roads on the outskirts of Khingan due to the failure of both chassis and transmission. " - Your phrase?
                    There were no clarifying points that would have allowed your comment to be credible.
                    1. stalkerwalker
                      stalkerwalker 8 September 2018 23: 20
                      0
                      Quote: Curious
                      "... the last BT and T-26 tanks on the Soviet-German front were all knocked out by the spring of 1942." - Your phrase?
                      Leningrad to the Soviet-German fronts did not belong?

                      Do you really want to look smarter than others? - Yes, as much as you like!
                      1. Curious
                        Curious 8 September 2018 23: 24
                        +5
                        Can you essentially write something? Or have you lost the skills of normal discussion as a field marshal in the "News" section?
            2. Kot_Kuzya
              Kot_Kuzya 8 September 2018 22: 29
              -8
              Quote: mark1
              nor worthy fought before the age of 45

              This is where they "fought" until 1945? On the Japanese front? In fact, the front-line soldiers who fought with Germany, the front-line soldiers who fought with Japan, were not considered equal, and were perceived as an insult when they were equal.
              1. Nikolaevich I
                Nikolaevich I 9 September 2018 03: 36
                +5
                Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                In fact, the war veterans who fought with Germany and the war veterans who fought with Japan were not considered equal, and were perceived as an insult when they were equated.

                Interesting cat drifts: the tail will raise and tremble! speak nonsense without knowing the story? request Well, this is "wa-a-shche"! Firstly: the troops transferred from Germany fought with the Kwantung Army, in the Kuril landing operation, and in the Sakhalin land operation ... secondly: Soviet soldiers in battles with the Japanese performed the same feats (also, often posthumously ... ), as the soldiers in battles with the Germans! 308 thousand soldiers were awarded orders and medals ... 87 Heroes of the Soviet Union! And again: for the first time I "hear" that there was "division" among the front-line soldiers!
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 10 September 2018 18: 40
            +2
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            BT and T-26 are useless trash with cardboard armor, because of which tens of thousands of tankers died - the color of the army and the people, the most technically trained personnel. And for this it is necessary to "thank" just Tukhach.

            Ahem ... that is. Is it Tukhachevsky threw into battle in 1941 the development tanks of the early 30s?
            Or in the early 30s we had a large selection of tanks, but the evil genius ordered only useless trash with cardboard armor? wink
        2. Alf
          Alf 8 September 2018 20: 45
          +2
          Quote: mark1
          I-16 and SB,

          And how do they relate to Tukhachevsky?
          Quote: mark1
          and the mechanized corps?

          But what can be called a structure in which there are 500 cars and 200 guns for 20 tanks? Stillborn monster.
          1. mark1
            mark1 8 September 2018 21: 59
            +1
            Quote: Alf
            But what can be called a structure in which there are 500 cars and 200 guns for 20 tanks? Stillborn monster.

            Well, let's put not 200 cars but almost 1,5 thousand. (Germans, by the way, liked our mechanized corps) And they (the mechanized corps) became a monster in 1940 according to the new staffing
            Quote: Alf
            +1
            Quote: mark1
            I-16 and SB,
            And how do they relate to Tukhachevsky?

            And you think - nothing to do with? By the way, as early as 1932, "Tukhach", as your associates call it, achieved the beginning of work on liquid-propellant rocket engines. And you are cheating him with an unfortunate cannon, the reason for failures in 1941 is not in the cannon. request
            1. Alf
              Alf 8 September 2018 23: 00
              0
              Quote: mark1
              And you think - nothing to do with?

              Once again, what relation do I-16s and SB have to Tukhachevsky? Do not shirk the question.
              Quote: mark1
              Well, let's put not 200 cars but almost 1,5 thousand.

              200 is the state of 1932.
              For the mechanized corps have 20 (!) Guns - for this, Tukhachevsky must be shot twice. In the mechanized corps, designed to break through the defense, in fact there is no means to "soften" this defense.
              1. mark1
                mark1 9 September 2018 07: 31
                +3
                Quote: Alf
                Once again, what relation do I-16s and SB have to Tukhachevsky? Do not shirk the question.

                God forbid! Certainly not direct. The merit of Tukhachevsky is that his theory of the mechanization of war fell into the doctrine of the development of the Red Army and this guiding "pivot" and determined the development of the Armed Forces in the 30s.
                Quote: Alf
                To have 20 (!) Guns per mechanized corps, Tukhachevsky must be shot twice for this. In the mechanized corps, designed to break through the defense, in fact there is no means to "soften" this defense

                Which of us is perfect? Of course 20 guns are not enough. But you will carefully study the staffing table, the task of the mechanized corps mod. 1935 was not a breakthrough of the Maginot and Mannerheim lines, but the development of the offensive after breaking them, driving the enemy "conditionally" to Berlin and not giving time to create any stable defense.
                And the Zhukov mechanized corps arr. 1940 were better? There is another extreme here - a mishmash of different types of equipment is difficult to control even in theory, but you are not going to shoot him for it.
                There was no need to try to find the extreme and blame him for everything in the 30s, there were many "handsome men" in the commanding staff of the Red Army;
              2. Potter
                Potter 11 September 2018 21: 18
                0
                The mechanized corps is not a means of breaking through the defense! Infantry with infantry escort tanks, artillery shells of the RGK and air strikes should break through the defense. The Mechkorpus is a means of developing success, a means of deep operation to exit behind enemy lines. Why would he drag on himself the artillery of the RGK! There were 1500 cars in the pre-war MK. And there were self-propelled guns. And there were brigades of paratroopers to interact with MK.
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 12 September 2018 11: 31
                  0
                  Quote: Potter
                  The Mechkorpus is a means of developing success, a means of deep operation to exit behind enemy lines. Why would he drag on himself the artillery of the RGK!

                  Ahem ... and who spoke about the artillery of the RGK in the mechanized corps?
                  The mechanized corps needs artillery that can deal with field fortifications occupied by enemy reserves - in the event that a detour is not possible. Otherwise, a conventional PTP battery at positions with flanking fire could put a tank battalion, whose tanks simply could not suppress it.
                  According to the experience of the first year of the Second World War, the commanders of tank corps demanded the introduction of at least the M-30 howitzer division into the corps. For direct fire was not always effective.
                  Quote: Potter
                  There were 1500 cars in the pre-war MK.

                  At 45 MK in 1937 there were 347 lorries, 57 cars and pickups and 98 tank trucks.
                  Quote: Potter
                  And there were self-propelled guns.

                  By state. That is, theoretically, because in practice the pre-war USSR was not able to self-propelled guns, limiting itself to artillery tanks.
      2. RuSFr
        RuSFr 9 September 2018 09: 52
        +3
        Has anyone been punished for putting into service a raw DS-39 machine gun? Tukhachevsky was gone.
        And for the mass production of light tanks to equip tank brigades that did not live long?
        And six years passed and the military did not grow wiser ......
  10. venik
    venik 8 September 2018 13: 01
    +2
    The article is frankly WEAK !!! Honestly, I did not expect this from Roman Skomorokhov !!! In fact, this is nothing more than Variations on a theme that Mikhail Svirin has already sufficiently well disclosed in a much more detailed and meaningful article article "From F-22 to" Viper "", published here - on the site "VO" April 9, 2013 (https://topwar.ru/26559-iz-zhizni-gadyuki.html) ...
    Nothing new - except for "literary discourse" about "stupid and illiterate Tukhachevsky" and "clever and far-sighted comrade Stalin" ... personal opinion the author - and no more .... To be honest, BOTH these personalities were classic "children of their time" - that is, personalities are extremely MIXED !!!
    Still, the rest about the evolution of the F-22 can be found at the link indicated above, and who is interested in more details - in Vasily Grabin's memoirs "The Weapon of Victory" (Moscow, Publishing House of Political Literature (1989)
    1. Curious
      Curious 8 September 2018 14: 41
      +3
      "The article is frankly WEAK !!! Honestly, I did not expect this from Roman Skomorokhov !!!"
      And can you give examples of powerful articles about the weapons of this author? If we leave aside journalism, then as soon as it comes to technology - a complete failure. Articles are replete with technical mistakes and all sorts of Internet absurdities, for example, the previous article.
      But many readers piously believe what is written. For example, the fact that "For the gun (meaning the 7,62 cm FK 36 (g) and Pak 36 (g)), a new ammunition load was designed, which included both conventional armor-piercing and subcaliber and cumulative shells." , although no one designed the ammunition for these guns, they simply drilled Pak 40 under ammunition. And so on. Therefore, your surprise is amazing.
      1. Cat
        Cat 8 September 2018 17: 06
        +3
        I join Viktor Nikolaevich.
        I am a man far from artillery - "I am sick of guns", but somehow I don’t write articles about them, as I think professionals should write about them. Unfortunately, the multi-site nature is uniqueness, and alas, the sadness of the readers. Moreover, if a number of Authors, considering a wide range of topics, knowingly leave a gap for advanced VO commentators, which by the end of the day makes it possible to fully and sufficiently comprehend the article material and gain new knowledge. Alas, the articles of the esteemed Author and Mr. Staver do not have such a margin of safety. Seriously guys - it's sad. If you honestly start small, clean up the "about article slogans" about goats and cabbage. Seriously, I'm confused about who ...... and whose skis don't go. In the previous article "Stalin was to blame for everything" today "Tukhachevsky"! And the feeling that both were standing over the designer with a candle!
        By the way, if you started writing about the UMMC museum, then you should start with the history of each exhibit, but better than the person who pulled them out of the marshes, training grounds and military units will not tell you. You will find the opportunity to chat with I. Bugrovin.
        Sincerely, Kitty!
      2. John22
        John22 25 November 2018 16: 02
        0
        How can I drill 76,2 mm to 75 mm?
  11. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 8 September 2018 15: 46
    0
    I absolutely disagree with the author! F 22, indeed, an unsuccessful tool! This was recognized by both Soviet and modern technology historians.
    What is it that costs management on both sides! The Germans, they proved that candy can be made from this raw material. And in the form in which she met the war ... Alas! And here you can’t hide behind rariotism. With such success, you can poke into a steel blank and debunk the myth that this is just a blank. Indeed, if a master puts her hands to it, then a pipe, a baluster, and a shell can come out of it!
  12. vladcub
    vladcub 8 September 2018 16: 38
    -2
    The novel is right in the assessments of Tukhachevsky and Grabin: one was MEDILY, and the other a talent.
    Regarding the DRC of Kurchevsky, not everything is clear. Kurchevsky and Drg (Shirokorad lists in detail all who worked on the topic) overtook their time: in fact, the DRP is a modern recoilless gun. And Shirokorada also talks about this.
    I confess: I have read Grabin for a long time and I may be mistaken, but in my opinion Grabin himself, to a certain extent, defended the idea of ​​a universal tool. It's not about the idea, but how it was brought to the point of absurdity. Strictly in accordance with popular wisdom: outposts: * pray to God, he will crush the good one "
    1. avt
      avt 8 September 2018 17: 10
      +2
      Quote: vladcub
      Kurchevsky and Drg (Shirokorad lists in detail all who worked on the topic) ahead of their time:

      bully Yeah! 305mm high-speed dynamo-jet weapon for destroyers. bully bringing
      Quote: vladcub
      to the point of absurdity. Strictly in accordance with popular wisdom: outposts: * pray to God, he will crush the good one "
      satisfied with the filing of Marshal Misha this
      Quote: vladcub
      outposts: * pray to God, he will smash the good one "

      at public expense. Remind me how much and most importantly WHAT kind of work did the country get money and power for this
      Quote: vladcub
      brought to the point of absurdity.
      ??
      1. Cat
        Cat 8 September 2018 20: 45
        +4
        Dear Aut, many Germans (Mouse, Dora), British (Matilda the first), Americans (Little David and T95) brought the matter to an absurdity. Examples of the sea. Regarding universal artillery, the idea is essentially not a bad idea, but at that time it was possible to realize it only partially because of the lack of specialized guns. For example, the Germans used 88mm anti-aircraft guns against tanks, like ours when defending Moscow and Leningrad 85mm, but two-meter-high guns did not become anti-tank.
        Sincerely, Kitty!
        1. avt
          avt 9 September 2018 08: 24
          +1
          Quote: Kotischa
          to the absurdity, many Germans brought the matter (Mouse, Dora),
          hi
          request Of course, anything happened. BUT the scale! Look how much effort, money, material was lost on these toys, which in fact were scrapped. Marshal Misha really played with the same Kurchevsky and many other projects. Yes, even with the same T-27, which in the inflamed brain of the marshal were supposed to replace the cavalry and riveted them not even in hundreds! His famous statement can be found about the benefits of two-turret tanks, which, passing through the trenches, will be poured with lead in different directions. As a result, the professional Ginzburg was pushed in and the T-26 appeared en masse. The car had practically no reserve for modernization. And if the T-34 came out of the BT platform, then the Vickers was in fact a disposable design, not bad, but for a short time and by the time of war it was hopelessly outdated.
          At that time, the spirit of Tukhachevsky was not in the dark over the Red Army. Frankly stupid and not very healthy on the head of a man, but endowed with the highest trust. During his short career, glory to Stalin, he caused such damage to the army and finances that the wall to which the marshal was placed could be made of platinum.
          from the author I do not agree on one thing - he was not STUPID! He was a TALENTED Adventurer, but completely untrained. A typical intellectual -
          They don’t know anything, they don’t know anything, but they judge everything and do not accept dissent at all
  13. stalkerwalker
    stalkerwalker 8 September 2018 23: 29
    0
    Curious,
    A question the answer.
    Are you envious of my epaulets? Can also inform the size of the salary?
    1. Curious
      Curious 8 September 2018 23: 36
      +2
      All the best, Ilyich. Your flood is not interesting to anyone.
  14. RuSFr
    RuSFr 9 September 2018 09: 27
    +2
    Quote: Nitochkin
    Do not carry nonsense. D-30 pure howitzer

    What is the difference between a F-22 gun and a clean howitzer? Your opinion is interesting.
    Can you imagine an example of a "clean howitzer" during the war, which would have a traverse angle of 360 degrees?
    1. Nitochkin
      Nitochkin 9 September 2018 14: 13
      0
      Quote: RuSFr
      Quote: Nitochkin
      Do not carry nonsense. D-30 pure howitzer

      What is the difference between a F-22 gun and a clean howitzer? Your opinion is interesting.
      Can you imagine an example of a "clean howitzer" during the war, which would have a traverse angle of 360 degrees?

      If you do not know the difference between a gun and a howitzer, then what to talk about with you?
      You were confused by the word "clean", apparently, well, calm down, a clean howitzer is just a howitzer, unlike, for example, a howitzer-gun.
      Your question about the example is not correct, even vile, and you know that.
    2. Alf
      Alf 9 September 2018 14: 52
      +1
      Quote: RuSFr
      What is the difference between a F-22 gun and a clean howitzer? Your opinion is interesting.

      The presence-absence of separate loading and, accordingly, the ability-inability to fire at targets in shelters.
  15. RuSFr
    RuSFr 9 September 2018 09: 46
    +5
    Quote: avt
    Of course everything happened. BUT scale! Look at how many forces, means, material were spent on these toys, which in fact went to waste. Marshal Misha really played with the same Kurchevsky and many other projects. Yes, even with the same T-27, which in the inflamed brain of the marshal had to replace the cavalry and riveted them not even hundreds! His famous statement can be found about the benefits of double-turret tanks, which, when driving through trenches, will be poured with lead in different directions. The result - a professional Ginsburg was retracted, and the T-26 appeared in large numbers. The machine did not have almost any reserve for modernization.

    Can you name the promising Soviet tanks at the end of 1929, the serial production of which could have been established since 1931? I think you can’t. What was the real alternative to the T-26 in 1929?
    Wedge heel T-27. anochromism of the late thirties. And at the end of 1929? the question was: either nothing or such a wedge. Infantry in those days was advancing on a clear field. and if there is no support tanks? At least an armored mobile machine gun nest can suppress an enemy machine gun in a trench. At the end of 1929, in principle, there were almost no tanks in the Red Army. Two-tower T-26 is already the next level compared to the T-27 wedge. It already has two turret towers, and not one stationary machine gun. The question is not what was done, but how to use it. The Germans used Sd.Kfz.250 / 1 armored personnel carriers with a machine gun placed above the hull and a crew of up to 5 people for reconnaissance, but no one considers them fools. Why is the machine gun T-26 bad in the reconnaissance group with an armored car, for example, Ba-10?
    To criticize the actions, I think you should read about that time. The country could not give large material resources for the army. The territory of the USSR is huge, there are many districts, and at least everyone needed armored vehicles for 1931-32. To strengthen the power of the districts, to train people and units, to gain experience in using armored units and much more. at that time didn’t know much just
    1. Nitochkin
      Nitochkin 9 September 2018 14: 16
      0
      Quote: RuSFr
      Quote: avt
      Of course everything happened. BUT scale! Look at how many forces, means, material were spent on these toys, which in fact went to waste. Marshal Misha really played with the same Kurchevsky and many other projects. Yes, even with the same T-27, which in the inflamed brain of the marshal had to replace the cavalry and riveted them not even hundreds! His famous statement can be found about the benefits of double-turret tanks, which, when driving through trenches, will be poured with lead in different directions. The result - a professional Ginsburg was retracted, and the T-26 appeared in large numbers. The machine did not have almost any reserve for modernization.

      To criticize the actions, I think you should read about that time. The country could not give large material resources for the army. The territory of the USSR is huge, there are many districts, and at least everyone needed armored vehicles for 1931-32. To strengthen the power of the districts, to train people and units, to gain experience in using armored units and much more. at that time didn’t know much just

      You're contradicting yourself. I could not? So where did the funds for the hordes of T-27 come from? Are they papier-mâché molded?
      1. Alf
        Alf 9 September 2018 14: 55
        +1
        Quote: Nitochkin
        You're contradicting yourself. I could not? So where did the funds for the hordes of T-27 come from? Are they papier-mâché molded?

        Make the T-27 and T-34 are completely different things. For example, the Leningrad plant was never able to master the production of the T-50 due to its complexity and the lack of the necessary machine base.
        1. Nitochkin
          Nitochkin 9 September 2018 19: 49
          0
          Quote: Alf
          Quote: Nitochkin
          You're contradicting yourself. I could not? So where did the funds for the hordes of T-27 come from? Are they papier-mâché molded?

          Make the T-27 and T-34 are completely different things. For example, the Leningrad plant was never able to master the production of the T-50 due to its complexity and the lack of the necessary machine base.

          The question is about resources: finances, materials, fixed assets, etc. Technology then begins.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 10 September 2018 13: 38
        +1
        Quote: Nitochkin
        You're contradicting yourself. I could not? So where did the funds for the hordes of T-27 come from? Are they papier-mâché molded?

        They were molded from automobile units already mastered in production. The most terrible knot for Soviet industry - the engine + transmission - from the T-27 was taken from a lorry. It was these tankettes that were valuable to the USSR.
  16. RuSFr
    RuSFr 9 September 2018 10: 19
    +3
    Quote: Kot_Kuzya
    For your information, the British did not accept these Independents. Whereas in the USSR, with the submission of Tukhach, they were accepted and made 65 T-35 and 503 T-28. At the same time, the T-35, as Finnish and WWII showed, was an absolutely useless tank.

    Why did they do it? That Tukhachevsky wanted and began to do? someone wrote the justification, at meetings discussed with the participation of the People's Commissar and his deputies? Are you all fools? Or are you frivolously throwing words?
    Weapons should go on the platform-machine gun nests, T-26 to accompany the infantry. What is the gun of the T-26? 45 mm, and the OFS action of this caliber is small - like a grenade. And if the fortified point appeared on the battlefield? A 45 mm shell cannot hit her, and the self-propelled guns for supporting infantry and escort tanks have not yet been invented. They did not know that they were needed anywhere else in the world. How to be something? So the medium T-28 appeared with a short gun (only for direct fire), but the gun is already 76,2 mm. This, in fact, is a mobile self-propelled gun for destroying targets on the battlefield that cannot hit the T-27 and T-26. Yes, of course, machine gun turrets are superfluous. You did not read how many messages on the sites about stupid Fritz not equipped with machine guns Ferdinanta? By the way, they were not on the Soviet self-propelled guns. And on the T-28 there are already two machine guns in the turret. What is the terminator-2 tank support machine currently being blamed for? For a small number of surveillance channels (compared to the analogue) and for a small number of independent weapon systems to engage targets. and on the T-28 there are already two machine guns to cover the enemy from infantry and can fire in two directions in a large area of ​​fire. Do not get excited, it's 1929-1930. Nobody knows how tanks will fight. No one and no one real experience.
    As for the T-35, this is of course too much. Someone had the idea, and if the tank breaks deep into the enemy’s defense and can be fired into a circle with many armed systems. But you must admit, they didn’t do much of them - they quickly thought better of it
    Even when Tukhachevsky died, other people created and the military considered adopting the Kirov and T-100 tanks. Just theorists who do not know how to fight in tanks have not yet settled out. This is like sofa experts. Everyone knows, everyone understands, everyone advises, but does not bear any responsibility .....
  17. Forever so
    Forever so 9 September 2018 12: 19
    +1
    It is a pity that Kurchevsky was not stopped on wearable recoilless !!! You look RPG would have appeared before the war.
    1. Nitochkin
      Nitochkin 9 September 2018 14: 19
      0
      Quote: Forever so
      It is a pity that Kurchevsky was not stopped on wearable recoilless !!! You look RPG would have appeared before the war.

      "Strike the iron on the spot!" People saddled the idea, got carte blanche and got carried away.
    2. Alf
      Alf 9 September 2018 14: 59
      0
      Quote: Forever so
      It is a pity that Kurchevsky was not stopped on wearable recoilless !!! You look RPG would have appeared before the war.

      I think that the problem is in Tukhachevsky, but in the absence of high-energy gunpowders. Even the Germans, for which they had already developed chemistry, even they could not make RPGs with a high range, and in the USSR this was even worse.
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 10 September 2018 13: 57
      0
      Quote: Forever so
      It is a pity that Kurchevsky was not stopped on wearable recoilless !!! You look RPG would have appeared before the war.

      And what to do with it - without a cumulative shot? For the work on the cumulative projectile carried out since 1939 by the leading research institutes of the Army, the People’s Commissariat of Ammunition and the NKVD, at the beginning of 1942 no results (quote from the official report). The captured German shells corrected the situation, but not by much - in the first half of 1942, our godfather pierced a little more than half of its caliber.
  18. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 10 September 2018 13: 54
    +1
    The author tactfully circumvents the main question - and with what, in fact, did Tukhachevsky give the task of a universal divisional weapon? Upon reading the article there is such an impression. that the RKKA infantry divisions had no problems with air defense, and the tyrant-marshal with a big hangover decided to make the army happy with this weapon.
    Meet - this is the main air defense weapon of our army somewhere until the second half of the 30s:

    Yes, this is an ordinary three-inch field on Ivanov’s machine. Specialized 3-K anti-aircraft guns were barely enough for the country's air defense, so the army team was forced to continue to use the improvised anti-aircraft guns of the PMV model. Compared with this design, a universal cannon with circular shelling from a pallet looks much more attractive. Especially considering the pace of production and the cost of 3-K.
    And the second question, which the author delicately avoids, is the extraction of cartridges in the F-22. The cannon was good for everyone, except for one thing - it could not fire projectiles produced using simplified wartime technology (the so-called "French" technology and "French" shells). That is, she could shoot ... only the sleeve after that regularly had to be knocked out from the muzzle. Taking into account the fact that in a big war, the release of shells would go on this technology, this drawback for the F-22 was critical. Especially if you remember that divisional guns are statutorily involved in the anti-tank defense of the division. Knocking out a sleeve through the barrel in front of an approaching tank is too epic even for the Japanese. smile
  19. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 10 September 2018 16: 06
    +1
    The division gun 76 mm - from the poverty of the Red Army.
    F-22 F-22 USV ZIS-3 is perfectly adapted to repel an infantry attack (against unprotected infantry), but the completely insufficient high-explosive action of 76 mm grenades, for action on field fortification - i.e. they are practically useless during the offensive, with the exception of the assault on cities when rolling out for direct fire (which was expensive for the calculations).

    In the divisions in the state of 1940, there were 32 pieces of M-30 howitzers. (By the end of 1941, their number was reduced to 8 pieces (!). + One 122 mm howitzer division. Therefore, without divisional cannons (from 20 pieces per division, up to 24 pieces per guard division) - our rifle divisions would simply not have artillery In addition, the 76 mm divisional guns were assigned the functions of anti-tank systems, which the guns dealt with at the beginning of the war.

    For comparison, during the war, each infantry division, according to the British model of the organizational structure, had 72 pieces (!) Of 25-pound howitzer guns (87,6 mm).
    By the way, a 25-pound had a pallet that somehow did not get lost when traveling over rough terrain, but provided an excellent fire maneuver from closed positions :))

    And that did not prevent this weapon from serving in the army until 1976 (removed from service in connection with the transition to the NATO caliber).

    Unfortunately, the large number of the Red Army did not allow sufficient supply of heavy and expensive M-30 howitzers, so the divisional 76 mm guns were a necessary, albeit weak, but cheap option to complement the artillery fleet of the Soviet rifle divisions.
    And even so, the total number of artillery barrels of all calibers in the Soviet rifle division did not exceed 28-48 (not taking into account the anti-tank forces), which is much less than in the division according to the British organizational state.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 10 September 2018 17: 13
      +2
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      The division gun 76 mm - from the poverty of the Red Army.

      From twice poverty. The point is not only the high cost of 122-mm howitzers, but also the availability of a well-established manufacturing process and sufficient mobilization of 76-mm rounds. Moreover, these shots for the USSR were extremely economical in terms of the copper required for them.
      Any question about changing the caliber of divisional guns, even in the late 30s, instantly ran into two questions: how much time is required to make a mobilized stock of new caliber shells and how much resources are needed. For example, an 85-mm anti-aircraft gun 52-K received only 1 ammunition per barrel for a year and a half of shots. Moreover, on the barrel, released by industry, and not on the barrel, formally available according to the OSh (the difference between these two figures was a multiple). At the same time, each sleeve of an 85-mm shot required, EMNIP, three more copper than 76-mm.
      1. mark1
        mark1 10 September 2018 21: 30
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        At the same time, each sleeve of an 85-mm shot required, EMNIP, three more copper than 76-mm.

        A small clarification - more copper than for a 3 "mod 1900 case. The 85mm case originates from the 76mm 3-K anti-aircraft gun case. In other matters, like the 85 mm 52 K anti-aircraft gun itself, the problem was more in the shells themselves.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 11 September 2018 10: 26
          +2
          Quote: mark1
          The 85mm sleeve comes from the shell of the 76mm 3-K anti-aircraft gun.

          EMNIP, the 85-mm liner is not just derived from the 76-mm 3-K projectile, but is a "large" version of the shell of this projectile, proposed to us by the Germans in the early 30s. It was just then that this option was considered redundant and too expensive - and the gun with such a shot did not go into production. But the documentation on it remained - and in the late 30s, when switching to the 85-mm caliber, this sleeve was used.
          Quote: mark1
          A small clarification - more copper than a 3 "case, mod 1900.

          Right. Here are the shell masses of the 3 "division, 3" anti-aircraft guns and 85-mm anti-aircraft guns:
          Sleeve 76mm guns arr. 1902/1930 (as well as subsequent divisions of this caliber) weighed 830-850 grams.
          But the anti-aircraft gun sleeve of the 1931 3-K model weighed 2 kg 760 grams already.
          Those. 3,1 times more copper.
          The 85mm anti-aircraft gun barrel weighed 2,85-2,92kg and was slightly thicker, but in geometric terms it was almost identical to the 1931 3-K gun barrel.
          1. mark1
            mark1 11 September 2018 14: 02
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Right. Here are the shell masses of the 3 "division, 3" anti-aircraft guns and 85-mm anti-aircraft guns:
            Sleeve 76mm guns arr. 1902/1930 (as well as subsequent divisions of this caliber) weighed 830-850 grams.
            But the anti-aircraft gun sleeve of the 1931 3-K model weighed 2 kg 760 grams already.
            Those. 3,1 times more copper.
            The 85mm anti-aircraft gun barrel weighed 2,85-2,92kg and was slightly thicker, but in geometric terms it was almost identical to the 1931 3-K gun barrel.

            it is superfluous - I did not doubt your competence for a minute. Here you go + hi
      2. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer 11 September 2018 10: 28
        +2
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Any question about changing the caliber of divisional guns, even in the late 30s, instantly ran into two questions: how much time is required to make a mobilized stock of new caliber shells and how much resources are needed.


        Well, the question is the mobile stock of BC, it is so on the surface in all sources, therefore, did not mention.

        But attempts to switch to a more effective caliber deserve more attention.
        The fundamental decision to design divisional artillery guns with a caliber larger than 76 mm was made in the second half of 1937.
        The history of projects for 95 mm and 107 mm calibers is interesting.
        Moreover, the validity of the choice of 107 mm caliber, to the available ammunition and production facilities.
        The same divisional M-60 (107-mm universal divisional cannon of high power, model 1940)
        But there is already insufficient mechanization of the troops for such a heavy gun (4000/4300 kg).

        But what is surprising is that the British with a 25-pound hit the mark - a compact, 1800 kg gun, with a good rate of fire, a good high-explosive impact, a moderate price.
        Even the archaic base plate made it possible to save on the mass of sliding beds, making them not sliding.

        Just imagine - the staff of 24 guns QF 25 pounder for each regiment! The rate of fire of 6-8 rounds of mines - tremendous firepower - the fire support of each battalion with its battery in attack or defense!
        About this, our soldiers in the Second World War could only dream of.

        As Mikhin writes in his memoirs "Artillerymen, Stalin gave an order" - when a rifle division, due to losses, was brought to a battalion, then they got an individual art. battery support of 122 mm howitzers and it was a real happiness for them.
  20. 123456789
    123456789 17 September 2018 15: 42
    0
    Generals always prepare for last war
  21. Murrr 27
    Murrr 27 11 July 2020 19: 32
    0
    Although I do not consider myself in any way an expert on these issues, I was very little interested in him, and therefore it is surprising to me that at half of the posts (sorry, I was tired of the unarmed srach further) I did not find a reference to the book by Vasily Gavrilovich itself, "The Weapon of Victory" ( http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/grabin/index.html). How much she is combed .... I will not undertake to judge, but somehow I believe what is stated - although it is understandable, not everything is stated, rather a small part ..... It seems that Ustinov and the man were normal - and Grabin did get sick.
    Now - what came across in the subject of the quest:
    1. Memories of Vasily Gavrilovich, how, after a series of unsuccessful tests, "Take" came to him, but then the phone rang ... "Who says - an elephant ... oh no, just Poskrebyshev." So the "Capture Group" was sent by Iosif Vissarionovich himself. (Interestingly, to the street endured or right on the stairs portrayed bears ????)
    2. About the second reading on the topic F 22, the question immediately arose: What was the shot? Relatively recently, the answer came (sorry, if it was saved, then on the computer that is not on the move now): a shot from a 76-mm anti-aircraft gun of the 1931 model (3-k) was used. Perhaps, there was a revision of the projectile / charge - I did not find the data here, as well as the ballistic data of the original F 22. At the same time, there was data on German anti-tank shots - I was amused by their very considerable variety, involuntarily Sergeev remember: "And such, and such, and more , and here is a long one, as if he had swallowed a stick. And here is a bald one, well, neither give or take Khrushchev. But the dark-haired one, as if someone smoked him. "(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HqZw9gnMPA 1.25) There were data on German shells / charges, etc. That is, in contrast to the Germans, the F 22 was designed for an existing shot that was somehow mastered by the industry.
    3. About Kulik’s demands to use the French shells of 1915 made according to military specifications, why they vomited in the breech, and how Grabin came up with a new particularly vicious system of security, which got any shells - everyone heard less. But I didn’t see any mention of the lack of ZIS-3 as a DIVISION GUN .... This is too good ballistics, good in anti-tank use, poor in divisional: you can’t handle the closed hillside. Therefore, Kulik demanded to return to the ballistics of the OBR gun of 1930, to cut the trunk.
    AND BY THE WAY - "WEAPON OF VICTORY" THIS IS THE FIRST BOOK WHERE I READ KIND WORDS ABOUT MARSHAL KULIK: "... Power and intolerance did not exhaust Kulik's character ... Was not afraid to take responsibility for the cause" (C) (Quote from memory ; I can only vouch for the meaning).
    4. About Tukhachevsky - politpop. Unfortunately, after the death of a friend, his library perished, but there was a complete collection of Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin, and a collection (three volumes, like) Tukhachevsky. Who has forgotten or not in the know - I remind you about his idea in the 30th year to release 100000 tanks .... well, 4 people are definitely needed for a tank - at least two crews and 2 repairs, servants, security, warehouses, canteens. Don't forget about families either. From the jolly would it be, if they did such a "charm", how much effort / means / money the dog (Tuachevsky) would go under the tail b.
    So who protects him - his opuses are quite accessible, I think you can even find it on paper if you wish. Read, and protect in a whim ... if you want after reading.