Stories about weapons. Wolverine Achilles

54 998 60
War often violates our notions of formal logic. Agree, even the most incredible things that simply can not be, in war is quite an ordinary thing.

Artillery a crew that held the road with one gun all day long and didn't let anyone through tank enemy column. A pilot who, in the very first sortie, crashes an enemy plane. A group of snipers who do not allow the enemy battalion to rise. There are many examples.



Something like this is the case with our heroine today. This car for us is a famous stranger. On the one hand, our army had two regiments of similar ACS (1239 and 1223), and on the other hand, they were similar, but still other machines. So it turns out, we know this self-propelled gun or do not know? Which series of materials should I include?

We felt that since the heroine is still different from the machines that we received under the Lend-Lease, then the place to her is in this series. Our heroine today is the light anti-tank SAU Mk IC "Achilles" (Achilles).



Typically, this ACS does not cause interest among the inhabitants. Another modification of the tank "Sherman" for the majority. English modification of the American ACS M10 "Wolverine" (Wolverine) for connoisseurs. What could be interesting in the modification?

Meanwhile, the car should be "felt" more carefully. At least in order to understand that this is still a self-propelled artillery gun, and an anti-tank artillery self-propelled gun, a tank destroyer, and not a tank.

Let's start with the first American anti-tank self-propelled gun using the tank chassis of the M10 ACS. More precisely, the 3 3 gun carriage (10-inch Gun Motor Carriadge) МХNUMX. It was so (literally) that the anti-tank SAX М10 was standardized in the US Army in June 1942.



The machine is really created on the basis of the chassis "Sherman". Moreover, it really resembles this tank. But if you put "Sherman" and "Wolverine" next, the differences become noticeable even to a non-specialist.





First of all, we note: "Wolverine" less "growth". As befits the person "female" sex. And from here a few other "figure." Unlike the male squareness of the Sherman, the Wolverine has sloping sides, allowing to reduce the thickness of the reservation while maintaining the necessary protective properties of armor. The body is welded.

In addition, the "Wolverine" has a different head-tower. This is not a rounded cast Sherman, but a welded pentahedral tower with an open top. Such towers are more suitable for anti-aircraft installations. By the way, it is based on them.



The gun mounted in the turret, standard 76,2-mm M7. With a barrel length 50 calibers. Armor-piercing shells, with an initial speed of 793 m / s. Ammunition 54 projectile. In addition, the anti-aircraft machine gun 12,7-mm Browning M2HB is located on the stern of the turret. Ammunition 1000 machine gun ammunition.









Many amateurs and experts in military technology during the Second World War doubt the need for such weapons for self-propelled guns. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine the number of the calculation in a tank battle, which waters the enemy’s positions with a machine gun when the rest of the crew smashes tanks.

We consider it necessary to answer this question. We will not answer the arguments, logic or reasoning. We did not begin to talk in vain with arguments about the war. The best answer is just one episode of the war. An episode in which the Soviet soldiers participated.

So, the 1 th Belarusian Front. 30 July 1944 of the year. Already mentioned above, the 1239 th self-propelled artillery regiment from the 16 th tank corps of the 2 th Panzer Army is being advanced in the direction of Aleksandruva from Deblin. The task is to help tankers in the attack on Aleksandrov. To reinforce the regiment, they gave Su-85 from the adjacent 1441 regiment.

Hide the movement of a sufficiently large number of self-propelled guns from the enemy aviation failed. The German reconnaissance aircraft saw the pillars of dust and even the machines themselves in motion. Naturally, the regiment underwent several raids by German aircraft. As a result, several cars were disabled.

But characteristically, the German pilots damaged and destroyed the Soviet Su-85! And not a single "Wolverine"! Moreover, during one of the raids, gunner M10, foreman Lendovsky from a Browning M2HB machine gun shot down a Ju-88 bomber. I cooled the zeal of the Germans in the performance of the task.

Probably, this is enough (well, we think so) to ensure that questions about the need for an anti-aircraft machine gun on an ACS no longer arise. The ability of the machine to conduct battle with enemy aircraft is not a whim of designers, but the harsh necessity of that war. However, as well as the conduct of the battle with the weapons of the enemy infantry in cases where the withdrawal of the machine from the position is impossible for some reason.

But back to the M10. The M10 tower is very similar to the tower of another American ACS - Hellcat (М18 Hellcat). The answer is simple. The Wolverine Tower was simply used to create the Kota.



The power plant consisted of two six-cylinder in-line diesel engines, liquid-cooled GMC 6046 G71 manufactured by General Motors, arranged in parallel and connected in one unit: torque was transmitted from both to one drive shaft. Each of the diesel engines developed power 375 l. with. at 2100 rpm

The difference of cars, "Sherman" and "Wolverine" is visible in the "muscle mass" - booking. As befits a "girl", "Wolverine" has a significantly smaller booking. The thickness of the armor on the forehead is 50,8 mm, on the sides and stern - 25,4 mm, the bottom - 12,7 mm, the top of the case - from 9,5 to 19 mm.

Such characteristics were quite normal, if we take into account the American concept of combat SAU, "hit and run". Leap-and-go, or, if you really go into the translation, "hit-and-run." Such tactics implied for SAU high speed of movement on the battlefield. Reducing the reservation "Wolverine" was made precisely in order to accelerate the machine. However, for some reason this did not bring the desired result. The speeds of Sherman and Wolverine turned out to be almost equal - 48 km / h.

There are two important points for any ACS. Crew and power reserve. It's simple. The crew of the machine is traditional for American SAU - 5 people. Power reserve is slightly larger than the "Sherman". But he achieved a simple increase in the capacity of fuel tanks. And is 320 km versus tank 290.

We, in order to understand the further narrative, are interested only in two versions of the M10. Actually, the M10 itself, based on the M4-2 and M10-1 tank on the M4-3 chassis. They are interested because stories "Achilles" they are labeled differently. On the basis of the M10 "Achilles" was called Mk IC, and on the basis of the M10А1 - Mk IIC.

As you understood, we got to Britain. It was there that the main stream "Wolverine" was sent. Lend-Lease acted for Britain. The M10 was a machine with a fairly satisfactory ballistic profile and a relatively low silhouette. The British took it with pleasure.



However, it was clear that in the modern war archaic, created back in 1918, the M7 cannon is completely useless as an anti-tank weapon. And the British had created a beautiful 17-pound (76,2 mm) anti-tank gun (Ordnance QF 17-pounde) by that time.

The decision was made and from February 1944 of the Year “Wolverines” began to equip the Mark V versions with these very tools. And the car began to play with new facets.



It was the installation of the new instrument that turned the dangerous animal into an ancient hero, "the lord of the land of the Scythian," as the ancient poet said. Now the "Achilles" could cope with any German tank. If we compare the effectiveness of М10 and Мk-IC, then “Achilles” exceeds “Wolverine” in all respects.

17-pound was well balanced. It had a light barrel and a heavy, but compact breech, which allowed it to be installed in the trunnions of the old gun practically without rework.

Two types of armor-piercing shells were used for shooting. One of which was an armor-piercing with a ballistic tip and an initial velocity of 908 m / s. This ensured the penetrability of the armor plate with a thickness of 130 mm at an angle of 30 degrees over a distance of 900 meters.

The appearance in August of the 1944 of the sub-caliber SVDS or APDS shells in general made the Achilles gun the most powerful self-propelled anti-tank weapons. 3,5 kg and 2,5-kilogram tungsten core projectiles with an initial speed of 1200 m / s on the same 900 meters of distance were already pierced with 193-mm armored plates!

The only tank that could boast a more powerful gun was the German "Royal Tiger". Its 88-mm KwK 43 gun was significantly superior to the British 17-gun.

"Achilles" were actively used by the British and were even offered to the Americans. But American snobbery defeated American practicality. The United States refused to install the “Ordnance QF 17-pounde” on machines intended for itself. Although later used the British developments in their own guns.



Paradoxically, but not М10, namely “Achilles” were actively used in Europe. So during the landing in Normandy, as many as 11 regiments of Achilles participated. Moreover, under the leadership of Marshal Montgomery were part of not only the British army (8 regiments Mk-I (II) C), but also the Canadian army (2 regiment) and the Polish army (1 regiment).

The best machine from the "Achilles" is the Mk-IIC. ACS based on the tank M4А3. This is what led to the preservation of just such machines in service for quite a long time. The Achilles, on the basis of М4А2, were disarmed immediately after the war, deprived of towers and turned into artillery tractors. One machine was even used as a self-propelled plow mine trawl.











Well, the traditional tactical and technical data of the hero:

Mass: 29,5 t.
Dimensions:
- length 6,828 m;
- width 3,05 m;
- height 2,896 m.

Crew: 5 people.

Reservations: from 19 to 57 mm.

Armament:
- 76,2-mm rifled gun Ordnance QF 17-pounde Mark V;
- 12,7-mm machine gun.

Ammunition: 50 shells, 1000 ammunition.

Engine: two-row 12 cylinder diesel liquid cooling hp power 375

Maximum speed: on the highway - 48 km / h
Power reserve: on the highway - 320 km.
60 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +12
    9 March 2019 07: 24
    5 points article hi
    But American snobbery defeated American practicality. The United States refused to install the Ordnance QF 17-pounde on machines designed for itself.

    They put a 90 mm anti-aircraft gun on the Wolverine. This is how the Slugger M36 ACS was created. It is also a very good tank destroyer with a more powerful high-explosive shell. Therefore, they did not need the Achilles.
    1. +7
      9 March 2019 12: 44
      Quote: Sergey Mikhailovich Karasev
      Therefore, they did not need the Achilles.

      They got a slugger in December of the 44th, and for the most part by the spring of the 45th. In the summer of the 44th on the site of Achilles was a useless M10.
      Achilles, however, was also useless. Both that and another - Sherman (76mm and Firefly) without a roof and side armor.

      By the way.
      Today
      However, it was clear that in the modern war the archaic M1918 gun, created back in 7, is completely useless as an anti-tank weapon

      Yesterday
      Moreover, the gun turned out well, a miracle, how good!

      This is the same gun. Spring has a strange effect on authors.
      1. 0
        9 March 2019 13: 37
        The Slugger was put into service in June 1944. They just rocked with serial production for a long time.
        By the way, it is not clear why Angles needed Achilles when they already had a Sherman Firefly with the same gun. Achilles has all the advantage only in better visibility and lower height. There are more disadvantages.
        1. +2
          9 March 2019 14: 11
          Quote: Sergey Mikhailovich Karasev
          The Slugger was put into service in June 1944.

          This is talk in favor of the poor. If the OGvTTP were formed, trained, and entered the battle on time - in the summer of the 44th, then the Slugger battles with a significant number appeared only behind the Rhine, the first two - by November 44th, when the Allied offensive had long since drowned.
          Quote: Sergey Mikhailovich Karasev
          By the way, it is not clear why Angles needed Achilles

          Tactics. The British and Americans formed PT-reinforcement battalions from these vehicles, which were to instantly — piu-piu — rush to the place where the enemy tanks broke through and quickly shoot everyone. It would be rather stupid if this special forces unit was armed worse than linear vehicles. So what you want, if you don’t want, the tool must be changed.

          What is funny, when exactly did you need to do this - in the Ardennes - it turned out a) racing at a speed of 80 km / h on mountain roads in winter is fraught with b) when the tank police crawls, finally, to Jagdtigra Hetzera, it may not turn out as beautiful as I dreamed.
          1. 0
            9 March 2019 14: 28
            This is talk in favor of the poor. If the OGvTTP were formed, trained, and entered the battle on time - in the summer of the 44th, then the Slugger battles with a significant number appeared only behind the Rhine, the first two - by November 44th, when the Allied offensive had long since drowned.

            So I wrote: they swayed for a long time with mass production.
            Tactics. The British and Americans formed PT-reinforcement battalions from these vehicles, which were to instantly — piu-piu — rush to the place where the enemy tanks broke through and quickly shoot everyone. It would be rather stupid if this special forces unit was armed worse than linear vehicles. So what you want, if you don’t want, the tool must be changed.

            The "Achilles" and "Firefly" had the same guns, the same mobility. But the Firefly was much better protected. What prevented them from completing the PT battalions?
            I suspect it's about the price. "Achilles" was significantly cheaper, so the Angles considered the armament of the PT battalions "Fireflies" wasteful.
            1. +1
              9 March 2019 14: 41
              Quote: Sergey Mikhailovich Karasev
              So I wrote: they swayed for a long time with mass production.

              Dumb.
              Quote: Sergey Mikhailovich Karasev
              I suspect it’s the price.

              LL Sherman and LL Wolverin cost the British equally not at all.
              Quote: Sergey Mikhailovich Karasev
              What prevented them from completing PT battalions?

              You repeat Patton's thought. What kind of garbage are these your battalions, he wrote in the 45th, what prevents us from giving ordinary tank battalions to the infantry?

              You think politically. PT command - these are generals, positions, budget, spitting in the direction of the tank. And then, dear people in the cold? Maybe they should ask for tankers, to humiliate themselves?

              What's worse, change the charters? But two years ago, charters were written incorrectly? And who wrote them?

              No, it’s better that self-propelled gunners die from sniper and mortar fire, women still give birth.
              1. +3
                9 March 2019 17: 14
                PT battalions and PT command do not need to be abolished, it is enough to simply replace the materiel with a better armored one. And it doesn’t matter that this is not a self-propelled gun, but a linear tank.
                A self-propelled PT has always differed from a base tank in that it has enhanced armament, even at the expense of weakened armor and the absence of a rotating turret. Otherwise, it would simply be a worse base tank. Which is what we have in the example of the Firefly and Achilles.
                By the way, the Angles, besides "Achilles", also had "Archer". The same Ordnance QF 17-pounde Mark V, but based on the "Valentine" and with the barrel back. Thanks to its layout, it was better suited to the "hit and run" tactics, because, having detached itself, it could immediately stall at full speed, without turning.
                1. +1
                  9 March 2019 20: 24
                  Quote: Sergey Mikhailovich Karasev
                  By the way, the English, in addition to "Achilles", also had "Archer"

                  Yeah. Very reasonable car. English, not American.
                  Quote: Sergey Mikhailovich Karasev
                  based on "Valentine"

                  We exchanged Valentine’s tower (fire mobility) for a cannon from Firefly, which Vali and Achera are 2+ times heavier. This is a meaningful decision, in contrast to the nonsense that the Americans with the Volverin have dreamed about.
                  Quote: Sergey Mikhailovich Karasev
                  The self-propelled anti-tank gun from the base tank was always distinguished by enhanced weapons, even if due to the weakening of the armor and the absence of a rotating turret.

                  This was the case with the British, Germans and the USSR (the Germans after Naskhorn also had dull armor, the USSR was able to dodge it relative to the base only on the Su-100). Americans don’t, Americans are the smartest. As they themselves thought.
                  Quote: Sergey Mikhailovich Karasev
                  it doesn’t matter that this is not a self-propelled gun, but a linear tank.

                  It doesn’t matter to you. And people answer questions why they still have not been dispersed, what kind of separate command is it for 30 tank battalions. Patton in the Ardennes in general handed out rifles to these beauties and sent them to the infantry, in the infantry the lack of staff as always.

                  With people, you need to follow. And look at the questions - wider.
                  1. 0
                    10 March 2019 07: 02
                    Or perhaps the point was that all the plans for deliveries of armored vehicles from the States had already been agreed upon and approved, orders in the States had been distributed, and the money had been paid. The Brits would have been happy to give up the Wolverines in favor of the Shermans, but it was too late. So they had to rearm and send to the troops what they had sent. That's how the Achilles appeared.
                    PS. This is IMHO.
                    1. 0
                      10 March 2019 11: 26
                      Quote: Sergey Mikhailovich Karasev
                      The Britons would be happy to give up the Wolverines in favor of the Shermans, but it's too late. So I had to re-equip and send what they sent to the troops. This is how the "Achilles" appeared.

                      There was no shortage of Shermans, their release in the 44th to the 43rd was halved, because it was no longer necessary. Wolverin cost about the same $ 50k (Absolutely inadequate price. Marauders scored as quartermaster).
                      Achilles was used instead of the Shermans solely because of the garbage that was written in the charters.
                      1. +1
                        10 March 2019 11: 35
                        In short, the army will always have a place for a fool winked
                      2. 0
                        10 March 2019 11: 46
                        Quote: Sergey Mikhailovich Karasev
                        there will always be a place for a fool in the army

                        Specifically, during this period, it was not a question of stupidity, but of total comprehensive incompetence. People who have grown to a division formed the strategy and technical appearance of the armed forces.
                      3. 0
                        10 March 2019 13: 41
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Quote: Sergey Mikhailovich Karasev
                        there will always be a place for a fool in the army

                        Specifically, during this period, it was not a question of stupidity, but of total comprehensive incompetence. People who have grown to a division formed the strategy and technical appearance of the armed forces.

                        The result for the army is still the same. The difference is that incompetence due to lack of experience is treated by getting this experience itself, and incompetence due to lack of gray matter, alas, is not treated by anything. No.
                        Yet. It seems that the staffers had problems with the development and production of ground guns with a high muzzle velocity or armor-piercing shells for them (as we have with the 100 mm D-10). And the reason for the delays in the release of "Sluggers" is the lack of a 90 mm AP round.
                      4. +2
                        10 March 2019 15: 16
                        Quote: Sergey Mikhailovich Karasev
                        It looks like the staff had problems

                        The staff had brain problems. I think I already said that. 1. American 73clb gun was available, T15 90-mm L / 73. The motherland was not too lazy to bring this drin near Cologne, just to rub the lips of its tankers. "The American Pak43 is there, but you hell won't get it." 2. The British did not make a 73kb gun, they took 55kb and poured more gunpowder. 3. The USSR did not make the 73klb cannon, they made the largest possible caliber. The bourgeoisies had their own unitary of an old naval gun 4 "/ 50 30 kg in weight (884 m / s for a 15 kg projectile), an English unitary 4.5" / 45 40 kg in weight (746 m / s for a 25 kg projectile) and 120 mm M1 gun ( unitar, then converted to separate loading on M103), 945 m / s. If we switch to separate loading, then our own marine 5 "/ 54 (12.7 cm) Mark 16, 32 kg, 808 m / s is available.

                        For reference, ISU-122s, 25 kg, 800 m / s. Su-100, 16 kg, 897 m / s.

                        The Americans did not make guns stronger than the first tiger because they did not consider it necessary. If there was a desire, not only A-19, but also BL-9 would be found. And in the series.
                        Quote: Sergey Mikhailovich Karasev
                        And the reason for the delays in the release of "Sluggers" is the lack of a 90 mm AP round.

                        This is a very strange hypothesis, given that the transportable variant of this gun - 90 – mm M2 - was adopted in May of the 43rd year.
                      5. 0
                        10 March 2019 17: 36
                        [quote] [The transportable variant of this gun - 90 – mm M2 - was adopted in May 43. / quote]
                        But this I did not know. He suggested by analogy with the D-10. There were just problems with the lack of an AP shell. And the original state anti-aircraft gun, too, it was not originally from.
                      6. 0
                        10 March 2019 18: 28
                        Quote: Sergey Mikhailovich Karasev
                        transportable version of this gun

                        Not accurately formulated. M2 - not a PTO, it remained an anti-aircraft gun, but the angle of inclination of the gun down was increased to -10% in view of the possible use against tanks.
                        Both the English 94mm and the German 88mm anti-aircraft guns initially had anti-aircraft capabilities, unlike the M1. Still, the Americans didn’t let the bubbles go, this jamb was fixed promptly.
      2. 0
        10 March 2019 09: 35
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        This is the same gun.

        The Americans used the 17-gf to create another PT gun. Not the M7 No.
        1. 0
          10 March 2019 11: 27
          Quote: domokl
          17 pounds to create another PT gun. Not M7

          The quotes are about Volverin and Hellcat's gun.
      3. 0
        12 March 2019 01: 41
        Dear Sir! You are confusing something here! You are declaiming here - "They got the Slugger in December 44, and for the most part by the spring of 45"... And how then, pardon me, could they have been entering the troops since September 1944, and in October already taking part (and successfully) in battles in the European theater... ...???! And by January in Europe there were 6 battalions completely re-equipped with "Sluggers"! You seem to have dragged in here the story of the M26 Pershing tank (having the same M3 gun), which was indeed born by the end of 1944, and the first samples (not battalions) in its original version of the nickname T26E1 appeared in the war by the spring of 1945.
        1. -1
          12 March 2019 06: 13
          Quote: militarist63
          And how then, sorry, they could enter the army from September 1944

          I'm not interested in when they appeared in America, but when units appeared on the theater — in this case, battalions — armed with this machine.
          Quote: militarist63
          in October already to take (and successfully) participate in the battles at the European theater .. ... ???!

          Separate cars. The success was that at least something.
          Quote: militarist63
          And by January in Europe there were 6 battalions completely rearmed with "Sleggers"!

          I came across much more restrained estimates. Do not remember where you got this?
          Quote: militarist63
          You, along the way, dragged here the story of the M26 Pershing tank

          No. 2 companies of Pershings on the theater of operations - a separate sad conversation.
    2. +1
      9 March 2019 23: 45
      Here are just the tales of propagandists that the American 90mm cannon is steeper than the German 88mm and broke off immediately upon meeting these SPGs with the Tier 2.
      In the memoirs of one veteran who fought in such an SPG, only TWO "Royal Tigers" were mentioned, knocked out by his 628th SPG battalion!
      1. +1
        10 March 2019 03: 59
        Quote: hohol95
        90mm gun steeper than the German 88mm

        Short 88, the first Tiger.
        1. 0
          10 March 2019 22: 31
          And "Tiger 1" was not a serious opponent for the M36? The Germans did not distinguish between all models of American armored vehicles in 1944. Once at the Sherman base, it means Sherman. And do not care that these are different there M10 or M36! Sherman and the DOT!
          Perhaps with the "short" 88th amer propagandists and compared the M36 cannon!
          1. 0
            10 March 2019 23: 05
            Quote: hohol95
            And "Tiger 1" was not a serious opponent for the M36?

            For the M36, the German BTTs were divided into square and oblique. I punched a square, oblique - no.
            Quote: hohol95
            The Germans did not distinguish all models of American armored vehicles in 1944

            The problem with the Sherman tanks in the 44th was not that they were pierced by the Tiger, but that they were pierced by everything, starting with the Faustpatrons and 47mm French guns. In fact, Sherman became a light tank with extra armor.
            Quote: hohol95
            Once at the base of "Sherman" means "Sherman"

            At the base of Sherman was Jumbo from any building practically from the IS-2 and the tower was much stronger (the tower at the IS-2 was a weak point). Another thing is that 1. They did not make the weather, they were not only few, but they were also applied in an unorganized manner. 2.Americans, in order not to accidentally make a good tank, put a 75mm gun on Jumbo that didn’t pierce anything. They put at least a 105mm howitzer - there WOULD already be good at least in the short, the howitzer had a cumulative.
            In the Fisher arsenal, the end of the 44th plan was to make Jumbo with a tower from Pershing, but he was poher, as there will be a Pershing type now. But with Pershing, too, did not grow together.
            Quote: hohol95
            Perhaps with the "short" 88th amer propagandists and compared the M36 cannon!

            And there’s nothing more. American self-propaganda worked until the summer of 44th. In the spring of the 44th, however, lousy calls came from Italy - Fedya and Nashorn were used there - but they were considered right to ignore.
            In the summer of the 44th, almost immediately the Americans met both CT and Yagdpanther. Propaganda stuck his tongue in w ... - the time is not easy, the guys are hot, they could have shot. Talk about the cannon from CT was carried out only in relation to Superpersing with those 5-10 people who were related to it.
            1. +1
              10 March 2019 23: 10
              The problem with the Sherman tanks was not that they were punched by the Tiger, but that they were punched by everything, starting with the Faustpatrons and 47mm French guns. In fact, Sherman became a light tank with extra armor.

              The Germans did not see any problems - they saw only "Shermans" and did not consider it necessary to classify them by type and model!
              1. -1
                10 March 2019 23: 13
                Quote: hohol95
                The Germans did not see any problems - they saw only "Shermans" and did not consider it necessary to classify them by type and model!

                Do not tell. When they saw Sherman with a gun too long - Firefly - they tried to knock him out first. Limes specially painted the gun so that it was less evident.

                And yes, it was difficult to instill tank fear in Germans of the 44th year with the help of Sherman.
                1. 0
                  10 March 2019 23: 22
                  But was the Amer 76mm M1 gun much shorter than the British 17 pound? The same 55 calibers!
                  It is clear that in the first time after the landing on the beaches of France, the Sherians with M3 guns prevailed among the allies. And against their background "Fireflies" stood out noticeably.
                  1. 0
                    11 March 2019 00: 47
                    Quote: hohol95
                    But was the Amer 76mm M1 gun much shorter than the British 17 pound? The same 55 calibers!

                    The British gave +100 m / s to a heavier BB. Her shot is completely horse-drawn, 9 pounds against 3,75 for an 76mm American. Therefore, the firefly - gunpowder did not have time to burn out and gave a strong flash.
                    Even Panther had less gunpowder.
      2. 0
        10 March 2019 07: 25
        90mm gun steeper than the German 88mm

        They have not encountered the 128 mm KwK44 yet ("Jagdtiger").
        1. +1
          10 March 2019 11: 36
          Quote: Sergey Mikhailovich Karasev
          they have not encountered 128 mm KwK44 yet

          Faced. NF was used in two large notches, the Ruhr and Balaton, in the amount of 1 battalion each. Did not play any role.

          But after the war, the Americans had a long throwing with guns. We arrived at the same thing in general. Jagdtiger, caliber BB 28,3 kg, 950 m / s, M 103, 53rd year - 23 kg, 1067 m / s, separate loading.
          1. 0
            10 March 2019 11: 47
            The nuclear forces did not reach the eastern front. He only lit up in the Ruhr, and really did not play a special role.
            And if that veteran, about whom Alexey writes, collided with nuclear weapons, he would necessarily mentioned it.
            1. 0
              10 March 2019 11: 59
              Quote: Sergey Mikhailovich Karasev
              Nuclear weapons did not reach the eastern front

              You are right, I got carried away. The 653rd TPT battalion was hanging out in the spring of the 45th in Austria, but it did not seem to crawl before the party.
  2. +6
    9 March 2019 07: 39
    With the tower, of course, the designers were smart. Think it's junk boxes? Not! These are the balances! 1600 kg useless load ...
    I wonder what kind of scoop near the exhaust pipes? Who knows?
    1. +5
      9 March 2019 10: 51
      This is not a "scoop", it is the release of hot air from the engine compartment. On M10A1 it is closed with a grill.
      1. +2
        9 March 2019 11: 01
        Thank. Came across a photo without him or with a casing

  3. +4
    9 March 2019 08: 09
    Thanks to the Author for another interesting article! It is interesting to write articles - you have to "know how" to do it! I know from my own experience... I have some ideas for articles, some "material"... there were attempts to "write"... wink It turned out that to do this, one must have a certain degree of perseverance, persistence, hard work, "self-denial" from other "plans" during this period... Yes In general, I "quieted down" ... request By the way, you need to know the computer better ... there are different programs ... for editing ... "publishing" ... feel
  4. +4
    9 March 2019 09: 49
    When I read this article, I remembered the movie "In War as in War" about Soviet self-propelled guns, where 76 mm cannons also appeared. It turns out interesting: 76 mm cannons were developed at the dawn of the 20th century and have not become obsolete for more than a hundred years. Each time technologies change, ballistics change and the weapon does not become obsolete
    1. +5
      9 March 2019 11: 08
      I will correct it. The author of the book, Viktor Kurochkin, fought on the SU-85, with the 85-mm D-5C gun. As one of the veterans wrote, before the T-34-85, tankers really appreciated this self-propelled gun. And the film starred SU-100.
      1. +1
        9 March 2019 12: 59
        I know that the SU-100 was filmed in the movie, I once read in a tear-off calendar and it said that the SU-100 "played" the role of the SU-76. I think the article was called "Iron actors"
        1. BAI
          +4
          9 March 2019 14: 25
          that the SU-100 "played" the role of the SU-76.

          It cannot be. SU-76 and SU-100 are completely different in appearance of the machine. You can only confuse SU 100 and SU 85.

          SU-76 without comment compared to SU 85, 100

          SU - 100

          SU-85 - pay attention to the absence of the commander’s turret
          1. 0
            9 March 2019 15: 28
            Su 76 was called the nude ferdinant.
      2. +1
        9 March 2019 14: 07
        Quote: tasha
        The author of the book Victor Kurochkin fought on the SU-85

        Quote: tasha
        And in the film were shot SU-100.

        That's right! good
    2. +1
      9 March 2019 11: 34
      Quote: vladcub
      I remembered the film "In War as in War" about Soviet self-propelled guns, 76 mm cannons also appeared there.

      Let me ask you: where were the 76-mm cannons "present" in the movie you mentioned? what
      1. qw3
        -1
        10 March 2019 12: 46
        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        Let me ask you: where were the 76-mm cannons "present" in the movie you mentioned?

        They were meant. There, the role of T-34/76 was played by T-34/85.
        1. +1
          10 March 2019 16: 40
          So we are talking about self-propelled guns ...
          1. 0
            11 March 2019 10: 44
            Nikolaevich hi Well, since we are talking about self-propelled guns, then take an interest in Operation Vulture. This is where in real life the German Panthers played the role of American Wolves. However, even there the Germans came across a sergeant who first shoots, then thinks. And the whole plan went head over heels.
  5. +2
    9 March 2019 10: 53
    Thank you for another interesting article. Pleases a large number of photos, and their own, as I understand it, and not pumped from the Internet.
  6. +6
    9 March 2019 11: 35
    On the one hand, thanks for the article. On the other hand, the authors did not check the material and copy-paste the error walking in many publications. The power of the twin GMC 6046 G 71 diesel engine is only 375 hp, and not 2 375 hp each, as indicated in the text part of the article. Moreover, in the performance characteristics of self-propelled guns, the power is indicated correctly. Please check the materials - in this case, this error walks on the Internet and print media, do not duplicate it!
  7. 0
    9 March 2019 11: 46
    And what would a Sherman look like with an Achilles-type hull with armor matching the tank?
    The "Alternative" is something to start!
    1. 0
      9 March 2019 14: 34
      it was a relatively sane modernization of the Sherman, and the armor, they probably all the same profiled as a counterweight
  8. 0
    9 March 2019 14: 54
    Thanks to the authors hi and for the article and, as always, brilliant photographic material.
  9. +4
    9 March 2019 18: 40
    Indeed, it is difficult to imagine in a tank battle the calculation number that watered the enemy’s positions from a machine gun when the rest of the crew was smashing tanks.
    Everything is somewhat simpler, since this PTSAU had to work from behind its tanks, and those, together with the infantry, would have to deal with every "trifle", but she definitely needed a memory.
    By the way, here is a photo of the M-10 in the Red Army ...

    And a few black ones ...

  10. Alf
    +1
    9 March 2019 18: 54
    that this is an SPG, and an anti-tank SPG, a tank destroyer, not a tank.

    It is written interestingly, but!
    The author! Anti-tank self-propelled guns and tank destroyers are different classes of self-propelled guns.
    Tank destroyers is the SU-100, Yagdpanther.
    Anti-tank self-propelled guns-Hellket, Nashorn.
    1. +2
      10 March 2019 00: 00
      I doubt that in the Red Army there was a division of self-propelled guns into various classes except, by weight!
      It was the Germans who invented everything and played with the names - assault, destroyer, artillery tanks (self-propelled guns "Brumbar" and StuIG33B) and their other "... panzers"!
      Americans all self-propelled guns armed with guns (not howitzers) up to 100mm were simply called tank destroyers! And that’s it.
  11. +2
    9 March 2019 23: 43
    A little post-war history of "Achilles": in Denmark these machines were in service until the 80s (and maybe in the early 90s were in service). Their crews were trained not only in the fight against tanks, but also in anti-amphibious defense (Denmark is a country of the Straits and a NATO member; in the event of a big mess, Soviet, Polish and East German landings were expected there). After the "Achilles" were replaced by "Leopards-2", this tradition has been preserved. Denmark is perhaps the only country where shooting at sea targets is included in the combat training program for tankers. (The experience of the DPR tankers, who destroyed a Ukrainian boat on the Sea of ​​Azov on August 31.08.2014, XNUMX, indicates that this is not a fantastic scenario at all).
    1. +2
      10 March 2019 01: 23
      Yes ... a tank unit from the DPR took part in the destruction of the boat, but they knocked out the boat, according to "my" version, with anti-tank missiles ...
      1. +1
        10 March 2019 14: 50
        I support. Taking into account the distance from the coast, most likely the Cobra ATGM was hit. ATGMs are not installed on NATO tanks (including Danish ones), so it is more difficult for them.
    2. +1
      10 March 2019 12: 32
      [quote] [Denmark is probably the only country where shooting at sea targets is included in the tank training program. / quote]
      And also Sweden.
  12. 0
    11 March 2019 10: 46
    a machine with a very satisfactory ballistic profile and relatively low silhouette

    Is 2,9 meters considered a "relatively low silhouette"? Relative to what, if it's not a secret?
  13. 0
    11 March 2019 11: 42
    Many amateurs and experts in military technology during the Second World War doubt the need for such weapons for self-propelled guns. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine the number of the calculation in a tank battle, which waters the enemy’s positions with a machine gun when the rest of the crew smashes tanks.

    Just amateurs and experts in military equipment do not doubt the need for Ma Deuce on the tower - for they remember the achievement of Odi Murphy. wink