Stories about weapons. Combat "Sexton:" self-propelled guns "Sexton Mk-I (II)"

41
We have repeatedly written that war simply teems with miracles and actions that sometimes change the outcome of a battle, battle, war in general. And sometimes war changes well-known proverbs. Something like this happened in the life of our next hero.

Remember the classic "if the mountain does not go to Mohammed ..."? Then any child will say the correct continuation of the actions of this very Mahomet. But not the case with history the creation of the famous SAU "Ponomar". No, Mohammed, in our case in the face of British officers, I still went to the mountain. But to the other!



In the previous article, we mentioned a British request in 1942 to install an English howitzer on the M7 ACS. The reason for this desire was clear. On the eve of the beginning of the Second World War, the British adopted a very good 25-pound cannon-howitzer Ordnance QF 25 pounder (Royal Ordnance Quick Firing 25-pounder).

Already from the first fights, the gun-howitzer showed excellent results. Looking ahead, she, according to artillery specialists, entered the list of the best guns of the Second World War.

In short, it was the 25-pounder (87,6 mm caliber) that very quickly became the main howitzer of the British field artillery.

But if the towed gun-howitzer "had time" for the infantry, then catch up tank units for her was problematic. Based on the experience of fighting in North Africa, the command of the British army thought about increasing the mobility of the guns and the speed of use in maneuver warfare.



During this period, the British and some countries of the British Commonwealth were actively working with the light infantry tank "Valentine". It was this car that they decided to use as a chassis for the new ACS. But realizing that the possibilities of industry are not limitless, the British command began negotiations with the Americans. The British asked to explore the possibility of rearming the M7 on the 25-pound. The United States had the opportunity to increase the production of the M3 "Lee" chassis.

The popularity and need of the army and allies in "Valentine", as well as the inability of British industry to increase the production of the chassis played a cruel joke with the plans of British officers. From the ACS with this chassis, the British were forced to temporarily abandon.

However, the cars on the chassis "Valentine" still saw the light in the middle of the year 1942. Self-propelled gun called "Archer". "Archer" did not shoot ...

Stories about weapons. Combat "Sexton:" self-propelled guns "Sexton Mk-I (II)"


The second attempt. Limited edition. Total 149 units, but they were. This problem machine is known to specialists under the official name of Ordnance QF 25-pdr on Carrier Valentine 25-pdr Mk 1. Or even more famous name - Bishop ("Bishop"). Used chassis "Valentine II". In general, the car failed.



But the Americans have collected a very decent car. True, in a single copy. In July, 1942, a prototype ACS under the symbol Т51 was sent to the Aberdeen artillery range for testing. Naturally, the machine with a howitzer of a smaller caliber than the Priest’s M7, was tested with a bang.

But the Americans refused to re-equip the already tested "Priest". There were several reasons. The real reason for failure was the same industry opportunity. In the United States simply did not have enough factories to produce another car. Serial production in America was impossible to organize, at least for now.

And then the British remembered Canada. This country is formally under the control of the UK, as part of the British Commonwealth. Why Canada? The fact is that the Americans (oh, this business acumen) transferred the license for the production of "General Lee" to its northern neighbors. Naturally, the Canadians on the basis of the M3 created "their" tank "Ram". Actually a copy of the M3 "Lee."



Only during the time that Canada created production facilities for serial production of the "Rema", the United States began mass production of the M4 Sherman. In fact, reducing Canada’s efforts to zero, because “Rem” is outdated immediately after the start of mass production. That is why this tank and not among the participants of the Second World War.

But the chassis were! They decided to use the British. Then began what always brings a smile to specialists. Readers who are familiar with the history of the creation of the "Priest" will understand us.

So, the British General Staff has developed requirements for a new car. If you write correctly, the requirements are very similar to the requirements for the American machine M7. So to speak, it was felt the American influence.

The development of the new machine led two companies at once. Design and design service of the Canadian Army Equipment and Supply Office and, attention, design bureau of the Montreal Locomotive Works (Canadian branch of the American Locomotive Company). Canadian railway workers, following the example of their southern neighbors, were engaged in the production of tanks and self-propelled guns. Unsuccessfully and effectively.

In April, the 1943 of the year arrived at the Petawawa army base for testing in the 19 regiment of the Canadian field artillery. A few more cars were sent to England for testing and testing of all components and assemblies. And according to the results - to address the issue of serial production of ACS.

SAU adopted on 6 September 1943 of the year. The official designation: SP 25pdr Gun Mk I Sexton (self-propelled 25-pounder gun brand one "sonar").



Here it is necessary to slightly move away from the main topic and answer one frequently encountered question.

Why do the British love the church so much? Why the "Priest" (M7), "Bishop" (Ordnance QF 25-pdr on Carrier Valentine 25-pdr Mk 1)? Now here is the "Ponomar".

There is no single answer to this question.

Therefore, we can only put forward our own version of such a strange commitment of the British artillery to the church. Most likely, this is a commitment to tradition. Church titles in the British army extended to most self-propelled "general support" guns. Approximately the same as our modern artillery "flower garden".

Go to our favorite activity. Watch, feel and pull.

The car in its layout is similar to the American M7. Ahead of the transmission, office management.



In the middle of the body - fighting compartment. In the stern engine compartment. The fundamental difference between this car and the "Priest", precisely in terms of its layout, is the shift of the artillery installation to the left of the tank's longitudinal axis.



This is because left-hand traffic is taken in the UK. Therefore, the Department of Management (driver), the British military decided to move to the right. Yes, and the department itself is actually combined with the fighting.


The place of the driver’s mechanic is to the right below the implement.






The gun was installed in the welded battle house. Moreover, the cabin could be covered with a canvas awning during bad weather. Gun howitzer cartridge loading. Manual wedge bolt.

By the way, we rarely do it, but this time just recommend not to go past the video. We were very lucky, and the removed copy of the “Ponomar” from the collection of the UMMC Military Equipment Museum in Verkhnyaya Pyshma turned out to be with a fully working howitzer mechanism. In addition to the trunk, of course. So we tried to show everything as it was.



The barrel is another sign by which it is easy to distinguish the Priest from the Sexton. In the Canadian car, the barrel is equipped with a dual-chamber muzzle brake. On the breech guns mounted counterweight, which served to balance the barrel. In the cradle under the barrel installed recoil device hydropneumatic type. Place gunner guns on the left, hence the location of the flywheels.











Another difference between the "Sexton" and the "Priest" is that in the Canadian car the artillery unit is mounted on a machine specially designed for this machine. Moreover, the installation itself is made in relation to the front sheet. Reserving the embrasure as it bulges forward.

Canadians have taken into account the shortage of the Prista - a small angle of vertical elevation. The recoil devices are specially modified to provide a constant rollback length. Moreover, the difference between the towed and self-propelled howitzer in this respect is decent. 508-915 mm for a towed howitzer and 305 for self-propelled!

The fact that the gun was upgraded specifically for this cabin, provided the ability to fire at maximum elevation angles and the sector of horizontal shelling in 40 degrees!

In the very name of the gun laid the presence of two sights. For shooting direct fire on the "Sexton" was used periscope optical sight type. In the transition to howitzer shooting from closed positions used artillery panorama.

Along the sides of the conning tower was located ammunition gun-howitzers. The 25-shot shots were composed of a powder charge in the cartridge case and a projectile. And they were transported separately from each other. In total, 87 high-explosive shots and 18 armor-piercing relied on the car.

Shells were of different types, depending on the destination. The main ones are high-explosive frag grenades with a head fuse. Anti-tank - armor piercing tracer shells. Moreover, if in the initial period of use the armor-piercing shells were solid, then with the advent of cemented armor they received a soft armor-piercing tip.

In addition to the main shots, other shells were developed for this gun. There were smoke, propaganda and lighting. But they were used only as needed.

The design of the powder charge was also interesting. In accordance with the projectile used, the charge could also be varied. The charge itself consisted of three multi-colored packages. The charge of the first number included a red packet. The charge of the second number already consisted of red and white packages. The third number was already multi-colored - red, white and blue.

In addition, the ACS had the opportunity to conduct shooting and increased charge. When one more was added to the three packets. For this purpose, the breech and the howitzer cannon were specially reinforced. In practice, anti-tank shooting was almost always carried out with an increased charge. The speed of the armor-piercing projectile in this case was up to 609,5 m / s. And armor penetration to 70 mm at a distance of 365 meters.

Auxiliary armament was traditional: 12,7-mm anti-aircraft machine gun М2НВ "Browning" on a swivel installation. But there was also a zest. The fact is that the conning tower made it possible not only to comfortably accommodate the calculation, but also to carry a pair of additional “Bren” machine guns of 7,71 mm caliber. Yes, and to 50 stores to these machine guns. That is, the gunners were, if that, than to dismiss the particularly annoying infantrymen of the enemy.

On the chassis "Sexton" also had its own development. But they touched caterpillars. The machine used the tracks of the Canadian design width 394 mm. It seems to be nonsense. However, Canadian caterpillars are not only easier to produce and cheaper, but also surpass those of the United States in terms of durability and traction.







On machines of the second modification, the American 420-mm tracks from the Sherman М4 were used.

The fate of the "Ponomar" repeated the fate of the "Priest" in the sense of modification. As the Canadian railroad workers switched to the release of the next "own" Grizzly tank, the Sexton moved to a new chassis. Already from the Canadian bear. "Grizzly" - a clone of the American "Sherman". The new "Ponomar" became the Mk II.

The Mk II had several differences from the Mk I. Everything is clear from the chassis. Already described many times. Let's talk about what you can touch.





First of all, the second series increased the ammunition. But this amount of ammunition was not enough for the British. Because at the stern appeared a device for towing a trailer with shots.

An additional generator appeared in the stern of the machine. The need for this was dictated by the appearance of the crew of the British radio station "№19", which worked in the ultrashort and short ranges, as well as a tank intercom and loudspeaker "Tanna".

Since the end of 1943, the unarmed "Sextons" were quite often encountered. More precisely, the machine without the gun-howitzers. This is a commander car. More precisely, the GPO (Gun Position Officer) is the car of the senior battery commander. It was equipped approximately in the same way as the similar machines M7.

There was a third version of this ACS. "Sexton" Mk III. This is practically the second series of machines, but instead of a howitzer cannon, an 105-mm howitzer was installed on it.

The baptism of battle "Sextons" received in the autumn of 1943 year in Italy. The ACS received regiments of field artillery of armored and mechanized divisions of the British Army 8. Moreover, the gunners liked the machines so much that already in 1944, they completely replaced the Priest M7, which was originally in service with the armament.



These SAUs also participated in the landing of troops in Normandy. Yes, and in all subsequent battles. "Sextons" fought in Belgium, Holland, Germany. Moreover, during the landing in Normandy they were even tried to make them floating like a Japanese tank. But the idea remained an idea.

But shooting from the landing ponds during the disembarkation was really performed by the Ponomarias. They began to cover the infantry "afloat." True, the effectiveness of such shooting was minimal. But more important, perhaps, is the moral incentive for the Marines.

The car was loved for high rate of fire and long range. For the opportunity to work in almost any mode, and anti-tank guns, and howitzers with the same success. It was really an artillery installation of infantry fire support. By the way, the armor of the car withstood not only the fire of small weapons, but also fragments of artillery shells.



The service of these SAUs also ended in its own scenario. They did not leave because the armies became outdated or became unnecessary. They left because of the standardization of calibers within the NATO bloc. In our opinion, these machines, with some modernization. could serve even today. and serve with dignity.

Well, the traditional tactical and technical characteristics of the hero of the material of the second, improved series (Mk-II):

Dimensions:
- body length: 6120 mm
- housing width: 2720 mm
- height: mm 2440
- clearance: 435 mm.

Combat weight: 25,9 t.

Reservations: from 13 to 107 mm.

Armament:
- British gun howitzer Ordnance QF 25 pounder (87.6 mm) Mk II
- machine gun 12,7-mm М2НВ «Browning»
- machine gun 7,7-mm "Bren" - 2.

Ammunition: 117 rounds, 300 machine guns for 12,7-mm ammunition, 1500 for 7,7-mm ammunition.

Powerplant: radial carburetor 9-cylinder engine air-cooled Continental R-975 horsepower 400.

Maximum speed: up to 40 km / h (on the highway).
Power reserve: 200 km (on the highway).

Crew: 6 people.
41 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +6
    16 March 2019 05: 24
    The service of these SAUs also ended in its own scenario. They did not leave because the armies became outdated or became unnecessary. They left because of the standardization of calibers within the NATO bloc. In our opinion, these machines, with some modernization. could serve even today. and serve with dignity.
    Thank you authors, I liked your description of the "Holy" series. Still, the chassis of the M-3 medium tank turned out to be successful.
    1. +7
      16 March 2019 08: 02
      Quote: Amurets
      Still, the chassis of the M-3 medium tank was successful.

      Well, yes, even self-propelled
      1. +3
        16 March 2019 14: 17
        Quote: svp67
        Well, yes, even self-propelled

        And Sherman M-4, before modification E
        Sherman M-4
        Sherman M-4 A3 E8
        In parallel with the work on the M3, the development of another tank began, which was supposed to be armed with one 75-mm cannon, located in a circular rotation tower. It was planned to use the chassis of the M3 tank in its design, its chassis, suspension, transmission and engine, that is, almost the entire lower part of the combat vehicle. The prototype of the future "Sherman" was ready on September 2, 1941 and received the designation T6. It had side doors and a commander’s cupola, which were eliminated after showing the prototype to the military leadership. There were other minor comments, after refinement, the tank was adopted.
  2. +3
    16 March 2019 08: 01
    Ordnance QF 25-pdr on Carrier Valentine 25-pdr Mk 1. or Bishop (“Bishop”)
    In comparison, even our KV-2 does not look so frightening anymore ...
    Why do the British love the church so much?
    And why did the Soviet love flowers so much?
    1. +1
      20 March 2019 10: 45
      Church mention in a self-propelled gun appeared due to sponsorship with a machine gun. It looks like a pulpit in a Catholic church (a structure for communication with parishioners), the soldier looked like a priest leading a sermon. And then just imitation and development of the topic.
  3. +3
    16 March 2019 10: 46
    how can a 87mm howitzer be gorgeous, but it has a miserable high-explosive effect
    1. +2
      16 March 2019 11: 49
      Quote: rayruav
      how can a 87mm howitzer be great

      And why should the gun with the weight and range of the ZiS-3 and a projectile almost twice as heavy (of course, no laminated cast iron and surrogate explosives) not be excellent with proper use? For the pillboxes, the Allies had other weapons.
      1. kiu
        -2
        19 March 2019 15: 39
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        Only the anti-aircraft shell made it possible to provide the necessary charge on the F-22 barrel.

        How would you explain it shorter? I'm afraid it won't work out very shortly.
        F-22, this is one of the stages of Soviet delirium, under the general name "modernization of the three-inch."
        Here is a chain of eccentricities of Soviet strategists in the field of divisional guns in the 30s.
        At the end of the 20s, the three-inch gun model 1902 no longer penetrated the entire depth of the enemy division's defense. Due to motorization, it became "thicker".
        There was only one reasonable way out, to increase the caliber of the divisional cannon, and with it the range of the guns. At the same time, without losing the fragmentation of the OFS. But the Soviet strategists had their own view on the solution of this problem.
        In 1930, they make a three-inch length of 40 klb, instead of 30 klb, with an enhanced charge of 1,08 kg. and long-range OFS (OF-350).
        The projectile flies to the distance they wanted. Stumble? Figwam.
        Too strong direct flame. The artillery position at any time, except for a sunny day, is unmasked and it is not difficult to suppress such artifacts.
        Make 50 klb. gun arr. 1933, and after it that same 50 klb. F-22 arr. 1936
        The trunks are long, they no longer "sparkle". Get out? Figwam.
        Trunks of this length in the USSR can not be inexpensively and massively made.
        But this is the USSR. 3 plants are connected and 3 times a little something already turns out. But insanely expensive.
        In 1936-37, captured shells were brought from Spain, they were disassembled and flame suppressors were discovered. Later, 76 mm artillery cartridges were made with flame suppressors. And in 1938-39, 76 mm USV with a 40 caliber barrel were made for these cartridges. Syachentov was shot along the way. And Tagunov, he was also shot as a result of the Spanish trophies. Grabin somehow got out of it, but Makhanov was also shot (but for a slightly different reason).
        Get out. And then they still wonder why the T-34 was "completed" (after Adolf Dick) by an experienced party functionary Koshkin, and not by an experienced tank designer.
        The USV does not "sparkle", the barrel is relatively technologically advanced and the projectiles fly at the range that they planned. Get out? Figwam.
        The weight of gunpowder became larger, the pressure in the barrel became greater (at the very beginning, in 1930), so the walls of the long-range OF-350 became thicker than they were with the F-354. Explosives in the OFS has become less.
        The Bolsheviks, who were not “disfigured” by experience and knowledge, came up with (as far back as 1930) a “clever way out” of equipping the OF-350 with pure TNT. Indeed, when equipped with pure TNT (621 g), there are no problems.
        But where to get TNT during the war? Where to get steel for the shell of such a projectile?
        During the war, the long-range O-350A was in use. 490 g. BB (usually Ammatol A-90, rarely A-80, with TNT cork), cast iron instead of steel. Power 44-45% of the level of the pre-war OF-350. They can shoot far across squares, but there is no point. Revenge, not OS. Slightly weaker than the British 57 mm (!!!) HE VIT from OQF 6-pounder. Full aless kaput.
        The question is what the GAU did all the 30s, if the ancient tsar’s still three-inch arr. 1902 with the F-354 (815 BB, the case is still the same steel cast iron as the O-350A), as a division, which is much cooler (and much cheaper, the barrel is 30 kb.) Than the super-legendary UG ZIS -3 arr. 1942 with O-350A? With the same filling composition (Ammatol A-90 with TNT stopper) F-354 had a power of 176-177% of the level of O-350A. The shell of the shell, I already wrote about this above, was from the same cheap steel cast iron. These are the real results of the Soviet “three-inch modernization” of the 30s.
        Yes, three-inch arr. 1902 could not shoot very far. But from the ZIS-3 to shoot the O-350A far in the areas there was no sense. Although she could theoretically do this (at first, then the second lifting sector at the ZIS-3 was removed as unnecessary, and could no longer).
        Something like this briefly about the three-inch. For O-350A tanks, instead of OF-350 they were a real disaster. And instead of the F-354 (they were used by CT and L-10), too. Their power was simply insignificant for such a caliber. FIG that calculation of the enemy’s anti-terrorist operation will be destroyed by such a gait. I think a lot of them were burned from this.
        Really T-34 with 40 klb. three-inch and O-350A with success could be used only as tanks for the development of success (cruising and cavalry in other countries). More than their guns, and they themselves in the aggregate TTX were not really suitable for anything else. But in the USSR T-34/76 from 1942 became MBT. And it was a tragedy that entailed enormous sacrifices.
        And all why? Because the caliber of the divisional gun was not changed in time. And if in 1930 it was still necessary to somehow guess and calculate (about the jambs of 76 mm anti-aircraft guns then no one knew anything), then in 1938 it was not even necessary to guess it, 85 mm, like the new anti-aircraft gun 52 -TO. Only "field" ballistics was needed, not "anti-aircraft". And another artillery cartridge, of course. Partially unified in projectiles with an 85 mm anti-aircraft gun.
        But no. With some fright, they decided to make new field and tank guns in 95 mm caliber. What ultimately meant a way to a standstill. I wrote more about this above, I will not repeat myself.
        --------------
        As you can see, the anti-aircraft sleeve has nothing to do with the F-22. No one ever intended to make the F-22 chamber for an anti-aircraft artillery cartridge. These are the tales of some "wide-ass geniuses". Who simply could not calculate the thickness of the barrels and chamber of their guns. They did not know resistance to materials. And then in the memoirs they got out as best they could.
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        We are talking about a mass light weapon of the divisional level.

        I already wrote to you 100 times that I have nothing against such a field tool. And even against the more steep, with the ballistics of the "field gun" (630-640 m / s), even more so.
        I am against howitzer lotions. Because I consider them useless and expensive.
        OFS of this level of fragmentation, this is not a howitzer segment, this is a mortar segment. A mortar is cheap. About his (OFS QF 25-pounder) power, I do not even stutter. There is nothing to stutter.
        Those. a simple 84-88 mm cannon with "field" ballistics + a simple 107 mm mortar, this is a much cooler art than the cunningly twisted 88 mm howitzer QF 25-pounder. And I even suspect that for the price, two simple things will be approximately equal to one difficult one.
        Yes, such a “bundle of two simple things” is completely devoid of the power that is, as it were, in the OFS. But the fact of the matter is that the power of 88 mm OFS weighing 25 pounds, it is absolutely toy. It is, as it were, but there is nothing to use there. This is how to shoot a 76 mm O-350A at a range of 11 km over areas. How to do it was possible (the first time, until the design of the ZIS-3 was simplified), but there was no point in this. The same story goes with the toy power of 88 mm 25 pound OFS.
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        They searched and, as they consider, found the optimal caliber and configuration of the field gun.

        They had an 84 mm cannon from the time of the 1MB 18-pounder. It had to be somehow modernized. There were 2 options:
        1. Make a normal modern gun based on the QF 18-pounder + make a normal mortar with a caliber of approximately 107 mm.
        2. Do not do a mortar, but make a unified artillery system (gun-howitzer) in a comparable caliber.
        In my opinion, the first method would be correct. This way was basically all.
        In the eyes of the British, the second way. From the second method, QF 25-pounder grew up. The piece is as if universal (at first glance), but with very modest armor penetration of the BBS, the power and fragmentation of the OFS.
        To solve any one of these three tasks, the QF 25-pounder was bad. In fact, this is the older sister of a stupid (even for her time) and “very simple” Soviet 76 mm “colonel”. More precisely, the sensible (for its time) German 7,5 cm leIG 18. By the time of 2MB, they were all outdated.
        The laughter is that the QF 25-pounder could not cope with its task as a howitzer (destruction of protective structures from above). Her OFS was too easy. For the same reason, the fragmentation of its OFS was also funny. The British still had to make a 107 mm mortar (Ordnance ML 4.2-inch mortar) to compensate for this jamb. Therefore QF 25-pounder, this is simply a mistake. Only British. A “clean” gun in about the same caliber would be much more appropriate instead. And they had a 107 mm mortar.
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        USM 76-mm battalion when shooting tsarist times with 53-F-354 grenades.

        Soviet 40 klb. three-inch could not shoot cartridges with OF-354.
  4. +2
    16 March 2019 11: 30
    The article is technically interesting. And, according to the level of language, as they say now, shkolota. And, the normal review due to this "school-going" goes into the negative.
  5. BAI
    +2
    16 March 2019 14: 06
    And how did you get to the USSR? In which battles did she note herself as recommended by the reviews of Soviet artillerymen?
    1. +2
      16 March 2019 14: 39
      Quote: BAI
      And how did you get to the USSR? In which battles did she note herself as recommended by the reviews of Soviet artillerymen?

      + How much was delivered?

      Article good
    2. 0
      17 March 2019 12: 13
      Quote: BAI
      And how did you get to the USSR?

      In the USSR they were not supplied. And this is a copy of those that were given to the test. Most likely. In Pyzhma, they don’t know exactly where the car comes from
  6. +4
    16 March 2019 14: 48
    But the Americans have collected a very decent car. True, in a single copy. In July, 1942, a prototype ACS under the symbol Т51 was sent to the Aberdeen artillery range for testing. Naturally, the machine with a howitzer of a smaller caliber than the Priest’s M7, was tested with a bang.
    In general, it is difficult to name the test results "with a bang". Not only were they accompanied by constant delays due to breakdowns, but the gun also exploded.
  7. 0
    16 March 2019 20: 01
    very interesting stuff!
  8. Alf
    0
    16 March 2019 21: 53
    Moreover, while in the initial period of use the armor-piercing shells were continuous, then with the advent of cemented armor they received a soft armor-piercing tip.

    And where does the continuous shells and soft tip? Solid is an explosive-free projectile. And because there is a tip on it or not on it, it will not cease to be continuous.
  9. +1
    17 March 2019 19: 27
    Only a hopeless optimist can call a howitzer with a caliber of 87 mm a good weapon :) Well, only the British can mount this fart on the tank chassis. With their colossal supply of snobbery and conceit. Let me remind you that a system similar in terms of firepower, a 82 mm mortar, is carried by three soldiers from the calculation. It is not surprising that they were not purchased in the USSR. Even the 105 mm Priesta is generally rather weak, while the British perversion is generally almost useless.
    1. +1
      18 March 2019 02: 59
      Quote: Saxahorse
      Let me remind you that a system similar in terms of firepower, 82 mm mortar,

      At first they showed us a canyon, something like a gorge. Kovrigin, who got in touch with us, looked and said:
      - Under Melitopol such canyons to hell! We drove on. We examined an agricultural farm: residential buildings, a granary, and a stable.


      Kovrigin said displeasedly:
      - Our horses are three times bigger!
      “It's a pony,” Mr. Higgins said.
      “I don't envy them.”
      “Naturally,” Higgins remarked, “that might seem strange.”


      Then we visited Fort Romper. We got acquainted with some historical mortar. Kovrigin looked into her cold trunk and minted:
      - Whether it’s our anti-aircraft artillery!


      The British battalion mortar ML 3 inch Mark II was a rather controversial weapon - a very heavy mine, but a relatively small range relative to other samples of the same caliber (mainly an alteration of the French Brandt mortar of the 27th year, including BM). Using it in division artillery is certainly a promising idea. Unfortunately, the Red Army did not appreciate it, and most of the war used 42 mm guns (76 pcs) and 20 mm howitzers (122 pcs) in the infantry division of the 12nd state.

      The British infantry division had 72 25-pound guns, which produced a salvo 2,5 times heavier than the Soviet one (828 kg versus 335,52 kg) with an exceptionally high fire output of the British system.

      In the Wehrmacht - 36 105 mm and 12 150 mm. The Americans have the same staff as the Germans, with tremendous qualitative superiority: each of the 4 artillery 12-guns battalions American infantry the division was aviation - 2 spotter aircraft, not to mention communications, tractors and more.

      Only a person who is not at all in the topic of the situation with the art of that period can boast of Soviet divisional artillery. The Soviet division of the infernal state of the 41st year was approximately equivalent in terms of firepower to the American division of the 43rd year without artillery regiment - in the infantry regiments of the American division there were 3 companies of 6 105 mm howitzers, which were three times superior in power to a land mine and almost inferior in range to the 76-mm USM division when firing imperial times with 53-F-354 grenades. In the Soviet division of the state of August of the 41st year there were 16 such guns + 8 122-mm howitzers.

      The 42nd Soviet state artillery division roughly corresponded to the English regiment.
      1. 0
        18 March 2019 03: 22
        PS
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        against 335,52 kg

        385,12 kg.
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        approximately corresponded to the English regiment.

        The British have art not at the divisional, but at the regimental level, 3x8 in each regiment.
        1. 0
          18 March 2019 11: 22
          Since I began to compare the number of guns per division, so compare the OSH of the divisions.
          1. 0
            18 March 2019 13: 11
            And what's interesting? The largest among the Germans, almost 17 thousand, the Anglo-Saxons 14 + thousand each, the Red Army 12 785 in the state of the 42nd year.

            If you want the good of the Red Army, you do not need to push to the divisional level of art.
            1. 0
              18 March 2019 16: 28
              Well, maybe, when comparing, it is also worth considering the years and the number? And then the Red Army divisions at 10 thousand hours were the norm at one time. And the Americans have 15 thousand. The division was called deserted.
              1. 0
                18 March 2019 16: 56
                Quote: maximghost
                the Red Army divisions at 10 thousand hours were the norm at one time

                The Red Army in the division of 5 thousand were the norm in fact, and in the 45th year. But not for OSH. OSH at least 41 years old - 11. You will decide what we are looking at, the OSH or the actual number.

                What are you leading to? Compare the division with the Soviet corps? So I will add.
                We also finally decided that we ourselves will decide what kind of ammunition we need, as well as how and how much to shoot; in addition to everything, from now on we were allowed to save ammunition and use what we saved on our own understanding. We also decided that from now on the release of ammunition would be based on one gun per day, and not in firing units, because at least because so far no one could say with certainty what is meant by a firing unit. At that time, we were convinced that sixty shells for 105 mm caliber guns and forty for heavy artillery were the minimum daily allowance. All these calculations meant that if the supplymen were able to multiply the number of shells by the number of guns and by the number of days, the army would be able to save the necessary amount of ammunition, so that during hot battles, calculations of 105 mm guns had the opportunity give three hundred and fifty to four hundred volleys per day.

                A similar situation developed in the 2nd and 3rd Ukrainian fronts involved in the Iasi-Kishinev operation. Before the start of the offensive, two to three ammunition rounds were concentrated directly in the troops. But during the breakthrough of the enemy’s defense, they were not completely used up. The troops quickly moved forward and took with them only the ammunition that their motor vehicles could pick up. A significant amount of ammunition remained in the division warehouses on the right and left banks of the Dniester. Due to the great length of the military routes, their supply stopped two days later, and five to six days after the start of the offensive, the troops began to feel a great need for ammunition, despite their low consumption. After the decisive intervention of the military councils and the rear services of the fronts, all vehicles were mobilized, and soon the situation was rectified. This allowed the successful completion of the Iasi-Chisinau operation.

                BK Soviet 107mm and 122mm guns - 80pcs. 152mm - 60 pcs. That is, the ammunition consumption that was laid for the Yasso-Kishenev operation, Patton demanded twice a week, every week, regardless of the situationto spend, if necessary five BC per day.
                1. 0
                  18 March 2019 17: 43
                  Patton served in the country's army, which robustly raised the already sufficiently powerful industrial production on military orders and Lend-Lease. While the USSR evacuated a significant part of the industry a couple of years before ... At the same time, the scale of the fighting on the western front was less than on the eastern.
                  1. 0
                    18 March 2019 18: 22
                    Quote: maximghost
                    Patton served in the army,

                    But I don’t argue that the Americans had a different situation. I just reminded Saxahorse that he was not only in vain comparing the battalion art with the division art, but also hitting the weakest spot of the Soviet division.
                    I’ll say more, the Red Army has learned to partially compensate for the failure in the regiment / division / corps artillery due to the artillery shells of the breakthrough above and mortars below the OSh. Not America, naturally (America exhibited 4 barrels of special power for one Soviet), but somehow they lived.
                    Quote: maximghost
                    the scale of the fighting on the western front was less than on the eastern.

                    You remembered it in vain. In the second half of the 44th year, the Allies threw more EMNIP shells than the USSR and Germany over the same period on the Eastern Front taken together.
                    No one argues that the Red Army and industry did what they could. But you do not need to invent fables - art was not a strong point of the Soviet infantry.
                    1. 0
                      18 March 2019 21: 01
                      The number of shells per unit area is not always a multiple of the db tension. In the east, the scale of the battles was greater.

                      Well, I still would not compare head-to-head divisions of combinations, squadrons and geomania.
                      It is a matter of both the size of the divisions themselves and the availability of weapons.

                      The USSR and the Germans had regiments. The British had no analogue. The British had problems with HE mines on tanks. The Americans did not have a heavy tank and heavy assault guns, which acted as a ram.
                      The USSR anti-tank artillery was represented to a large extent by the same ZIS-3.
                      Also, if it was secure, the Soviet troops could get a sack from 76 anti-aircraft guns and 85mm.
                      1. 0
                        18 March 2019 21: 30
                        Quote: maximghost
                        In the east, the scale of the battles was greater.

                        The scale is smaller, the fire density is larger, and more by an order of magnitude.
                        Quote: maximghost
                        I would not compare the forehead of the division

                        Why not compare it with divisional artillery?
                        Quote: maximghost
                        The USSR and the Germans had regiments

                        Just 12 regiments per division with mortars are quite comparable.
                        Quote: maximghost
                        The British had problems with HE mines on tanks.

                        They had no problems with landmines on tanks. They had some misunderstanding of the tank concept. Understood, made howitzer versions.
                        Quote: maximghost
                        Americans did not have

                        Yes, the Americans had conceptual problems with BTT. There was some misunderstanding, because the infantry tank became armored, and as a result the infantry was left without its own tank.
                        Quote: maximghost
                        The USSR anti-tank artillery was represented to a large extent by the same ZIS-3.

                        And what is it for? I mean, did the PTs compensate for the weakness of the artillery regiment?
                      2. 0
                        19 March 2019 01: 03
                        The scale is smaller, the fire density is larger, and more by an order of magnitude.

                        Fire density is not higher. It’s just that Americans could afford to handle not too priority goals. Well, plus they had to take the defensive line.

                        Just 12 regiments per division with mortars are quite comparable.

                        Yes, I would not say. The regiment is still a weapon of a completely different class.
                        The firing range is higher, the mass of the shell is greater, there is the possibility of fighting tanks.

                        Understood, made howitzer versions.

                        There were not so many of them. Despite the fact that any Soviet or German tank or self-propelled gun had normal high-explosive shells, there were also assault guns with large calibers, which could be released more than all British high-explosive tanks combined.

                        Yes, the Americans had conceptual problems with BTT.

                        Normally, they had everything with the concept, just their first heavy tank was the UG.

                        And what is it for? I mean, did the PTs compensate for the weakness of the artillery regiment?

                        In most cases, the ATs had the same ZIS-3, in which the ammunition was biased towards armor-piercing shells, including cumulative and sub-caliber. But they also had landmines.
                      3. 0
                        19 March 2019 07: 05
                        Quote: maximghost
                        Fire density is not higher.

                        In fact, a much greater consumption of shells at a much lower theater of war means precisely increased fire density. That ammunition consumption, which in the USSR was made during artillery preparation, was the everyday norm among the Americans.
                        Quote: maximghost
                        they had to take defensive lines.

                        Patton's quote has nothing to do with defensive lines. For defensive lines there was a 203 / 240mm duplex.
                        Quote: maximghost
                        The regiment is still a weapon of a completely different class.

                        Another, but what you list below is irrelevant. With mortars, the USSR was just fine, for the 41st year there was 120mm.
                        Quote: maximghost
                        There were not so many

                        How much is needed?
                        Quote: maximghost
                        there were also assault guns with large calibers, which could have been released more than all British high-explosive tanks combined.

                        If you are talking about Shtug / things then yes, a good idea, if you are talking about the USSR, then no, the infantry tank in the USSR was introduced Su-76. Heavier self-propelled guns with infantry practically did not interact.
                        Quote: maximghost
                        Normally, they had everything with the concept, just their first heavy tank was the UG.

                        Their TT was normal, but the cavalrymen did not need a TT. In addition to cavalrymen on tank issues, no one spoke out. Plus Eisenhower did not think that war in the conditions of enemy positional defense requires some kind of technique. He generally, frankly, was thinking about something else.
                        Quote: maximghost
                        In most cases, the ATs had the same ZIS-3, in which the ammunition was biased towards armor-piercing shells, including cumulative and sub-caliber. But they also had landmines.

                        Well, about the Soviet subcaliber, and especially the 53-BP-350M, you screwed inappropriately, but the question was different.
                        Do you have any information that divisional combat vehicles were regularly used as divisional artifacts?
                      4. 0
                        19 March 2019 12: 10
                        1.) Not necessarily. Considering the better radio communication in WW2, the Americans could have provided artillery support to smaller units. At the same time, the shells were spent on low-priority targets. That is, the artillery support might not have been very powerful, but it was called for every suspicious bush.
                        2.) for high-explosive tanks - high-explosive kentasvrov was something about a quarter of all built.
                        While every 34, every Sherman and every four had a decent land mine.
                        3.) due to the interaction of self-propelled guns with infantry - it seems like I have cases where even the Su-85s took an airborne assault, but where it was I did not understand at least kill.
                        4.) According to M6. If he was good-looking, so why did he do so much and was not even brought to war?
                        5.) I met this in my memoirs, and the line is so-so, but still a source. Kmk, such cases are hardly particularly noted. Well, you can recall the Crimean campaign, where the Germans had tanks with tanks. He wrote about sub-calibers only in the context of the fact that they were only given to ipt batteries, and not divisional artillery.
                      5. 0
                        19 March 2019 13: 12
                        Quote: maximghost
                        there were something about a quarter of all the high-explosive centaurs.

                        And the rest are rearmed from 57 to 75 mm.
                        Quote: maximghost
                        like every 34, every sherman and every four had a decent landmine.

                        These cars became standard in the 43rd year, when the British also got better. In the 40th year, what did the Germans have? What did the USSR have?
                        Quote: maximghost
                        even the su-85 took the landing

                        So there’s nothing to go on, here at least ISU-152 with their muzzle brake took the landing.
                        However, they were not attached to the rifle divisions on an ongoing basis, therefore, they could not develop the interaction of infantry and armor.
                        Quote: maximghost
                        By M6. If he was good-looking, so why did he do so much and was not even brought to war?

                        They did it for three years, and did not take it to war because cavalrymen like Patton saddled the tanks. They do not need a heavy tank, they need cars for raid operations. Understanding that an infantry and cruising tank should different, and if you make a universal tank - then another, not Sherman, the Americans did not have enough. There was no understanding of the specifics of the assault on fortified bands, it was thought that the cavalry maneuver would solve everything.
                        The Americans had an infantry tank - the Churchill, which was produced by GM. But the Americans did not know what it was needed for. The idea of ​​removing the turret and sticking 95 mm behind the slanted armor instead of 155 mm in the front, unfortunately, did not arise.
                        Quote: maximghost
                        I met this in my memoirs, and a bit so-so, but still a source.

                        One-time - no question, 6lb and even 37mm were also used to support the infantry. Was there a systemic decision to use 3 "as a division, with the regulations / orders of the Supreme Command? I did not come across, but you never know, suddenly I don't know what.
                      6. kiu
                        -1
                        19 March 2019 16: 25
                        Quote: maximghost
                        The USSR and the Germans had regiments.

                        Actually, it was quite different art. Quite quite.
                        In addition, it is completely incomprehensible why they were needed in 2MB.
                        Quote: maximghost
                        The British had no analogue.

                        They had a QF 6-pounder + mortars. Very correct and modern in those days.
                        Quote: maximghost
                        The British had problems with HE mines on tanks.

                        And why are tanks of high explosive strength of the OFS? The Soviet 85 mm and American 76 mm guns on the BTT OFS did not exist at all. OS only.
                        In addition, with the explosiveness of the British tanks, everything was OK. 75 mm tank guns had quite powerful (for its caliber) OFS. Yes, and 88 mm, too.
                        Quote: maximghost
                        The Americans did not have a heavy tank and heavy assault guns, which acted as a ram.

                        Only the Germans had such tanks. And partially (Churchill) among the British.
                        The rest did without them.
                        True, the USSR in 1941 tried to surprise everyone with the KV-1. But it didn’t work out.
                        Assault guns used as a battering ram are mostly absent. An assault gun, this BTT is NOT the FIRST line.
                        But, again, the Germans are an exception here. They built their self-propelled guns according to the "crazy tanks" scheme. Therefore, they could well have used them in the first line too.
                        Quote: maximghost
                        Soviet troops could get support from anti-aircraft 76 and 85mm guns

                        76 mm will tell a lie. They were gradually removed to the rear (completely rear, for example, in Gorky) air defense. Where they portrayed as "defenders of the sky." In fact, knocking down something with these fart was extremely difficult.
                        Quote: maximghost
                        there is the possibility of fighting tanks.

                        You joked?
                        Quote: maximghost
                        Despite the fact that any Soviet or German tank or self-propelled gun had normal high-explosive shells

                        1. BTT with performance characteristics of the "tank" category in the USSR from 1941 to the 60s was not produced. Until the middle of the war, these were "breakthrough tanks". Later, heavy (less often medium) tanks. The mattechbase of the world's most advanced state did not allow it. I had to make do with "Soviet tanks". In appearance they were somewhat similar to the real ones, but in fact, they were not.
                        2. Where does this explosiveness come from, if the Soviet OFS and OS were quite officially equipped with A-90 ammatol, less often A-80, with a TNT plug?
                        The problem with modern scholars is that they often do not take into account the fact that Soviet munitions had two states, peaceful and military. All tables in the press are usually given on the basis of peacetime equipment. But in fact, they fought ammunition in wartime.
                        For example, 76 mm OFS OF-350 in peacetime gave an effective damage area of ​​about 40 square meters. m. A OS O-350A wartime (substitute) gave from 16,5 to 18,0 square meters. m. effective damage, depending on what it was started with (A-80 or A-90 with a stopper).
                        Quote: maximghost
                        But they also had landmines.

                        Did not have. There were "splinters".
                        Quote: maximghost
                        While every 34, every Sherman and every four had a decent land mine.

                        Decent landmines had all German tanks, including Panther.
                        A decent land mine was Sherman (75).
                        Sherman (76) and "Soviet tanks" (see above) had no landmines during the war.
                        Quote: maximghost
                        At the same time, the scale of the fighting on the western front was less than on the eastern.

                        How to say?
                        Yes, the Germans lost 2/3 of their manpower on the Eastern Front. But the "score" here for the Anglo-Saxons is not at all devastating.
                        The Germans also lost about 70% of their BTT on the Eastern Front.
                        But 72% of their combat aircraft, they lost just NOT on the Eastern Front.
                        And almost all the losses of the Navy were NOT on the Eastern Front.
                      7. 0
                        19 March 2019 17: 14
                        Lol, here I look at every second one their own opinion on the development and classification of technology.
                      8. 0
                        19 March 2019 17: 30
                        Hmm.
                        Quote: kiu
                        In addition, it is completely incomprehensible why they were needed in 2MB.

                        The Germans had it by the way. But they demanded above-average training of artillerymen at the grassroots level.
                        Quote: kiu
                        there is the possibility of fighting tanks.

                        LT vz. 38
                      9. kiu
                        -1
                        19 March 2019 18: 46
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        The Germans had it by the way.

                        Yes, about the same stupidity as the QF 25-pounder. Only because of the antiquity of the design is much worse.
                        Soviet regiment arr. 1927, for all its absurdity, is not much worse than the "German". Although much simpler and cheaper.
                        In general, it was rare UG. You’ll look at what they “armed” with the Red Army during the war years, you will startle. And you will begin to understand where such huge losses come from.
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        LT vz. 38

                        Pz. 38 (t) in 1941 was a German tank for the development of success. Therefore, it was as if he had nowhere to meet with the regiments.
                        But in this case, the Pz.38 (t) of the E model and further (since 1940) had 50 mm of cemented armor in the forehead. Translated to the Soviet cementless armor it is approximately 67-69 mm. To the regiments of arr. 1927 there was especially nothing to do there. They were purely theoretically left sides and the old German and Czech BTT (release until 1940 onwards).
                        In general, these, of course, were anti-personnel weapons. Only with small anti-personnel capabilities.
                        Since 1942, the Pz.KpfW.III Ausf became the German success development tank. J2 / L / M. This one was even better armored.
                        Quote: maximghost
                        here I look at every second one their own view on the development and classification of technology.

                        The BTT classification is always more or less the same. But the USSR rarely adhered to it. Although the terms used are usually just from this classification.
                        This often causes confusion.
                        For example, "heavy tank IS-2." There are no tanks on the SPG platform and with guns from SPGs. None, neither light, nor heavy, nor welterweight.
                        Or "T-34 medium tank."
                        Which T-34? T-34/76 or T-34/85?
                        T-34/76 during the TTX war more than a tank of success development (it’s cavalry, it’s also cruising, fake tanks, died out in 1943) did not pull. Although at the end of his design, he was remade from a success development tank into a motorized infantry escort tank. But the 76 mm F-34 cannon during the war on TTX did not even pull out on the “short” QF 6-pounder. There are no real tanks with such guns. And the tanks of the motorized infantry escort (fake tanks, in 1943 were mainly replaced by self-propelled guns), too.
                        As for the T-34/85, during the war it was not a tank, but a turret tank destroyer (very weak). TTX 85 mm guns do not allow to call the T-34/85 tank. And without a tank gun, what kind of tank is it?
                        Thus, we can only talk about "Soviet tanks." Medium, heavy, etc.
                        But these are not real tanks. Although similar in appearance.
                      10. 0
                        20 March 2019 08: 48
                        Quote: kiu
                        Yes, about the same stupidity as the QF 25-pounder

                        Neither the 25pdr nor the German infantry guns were stupid, of course. The 25pdr is an exceptionally successful gun. Infantry guns are good when there is someone to use their capabilities. If there are not enough artillerymen, then there is little use from them, the mortar is better in everything.
                        Quote: kiu
                        This one was even better armored.

                        What is rich - so happy.
                      11. kiu
                        -1
                        20 March 2019 11: 08
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Neither 25pdr nor German infantry guns were stupidity, of course.

                        The German product, of course, is not. Due to its antiquity.
                        British, of course, is. Why, see above.
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        The infantry guns are good

                        And once again, in the 101st, I repeat, no one would mind a field gun. But 25 pounds, this is a howitzer gun. And this is a jamb. Belching of antiquity.
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        mortar is better in everything.

                        Mortar is better in the segment where shell explosiveness is not needed. The HE shells in caliber are less than 100 mm, as a rule, they are not needed. Due to its insignificance (the projectile is too small and light).
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        What is rich - so happy.

                        Yes, no, the Germans were doing well with the tanks. Better than others. Moreover, much better.
                        It was bad with their quantity. In terms of industrial potentials and industrial production, the Axis against the AK countries did not pull at all.
                        Actually, this was understandable as early as September 01.09.1939, XNUMX. Therefore, the allies of Germany, except Italy, Japan and Hungary, were not quite real. Rather, fellow travelers.
                      12. 0
                        20 March 2019 11: 56
                        Quote: kiu
                        Why, see above.

                        Stories about insufficient HE? A small-caliber howitzer is used against field defense and breakdown of attack, not pillboxes. Against bunkers, lime had a lot more. Whether it is necessary to put something else into the division, or is it possible higher, is a moot point. But 25 pounds in the division was a lot, twice as much as 105mm for the Germans and Americans.
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        What is rich - so happy.

                        This is about the regimental gun and its BB.
                      13. kiu
                        -1
                        20 March 2019 12: 46
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        A small-caliber howitzer is used against field defense and disruption, not pillboxes.

                        Small-caliber howitzersFox to disrupt attacks during the times of 1MB. In the time of WW2, these were already engaged in mortars and machine guns.
                        Times have changed. That is why 25 pounds for its time and is bad, which is conceptually outdated. She would be good for 1MB.
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        But 25 pounds in the division was a lot, twice as much as 105mm for the Germans and Americans.

                        A machine gun will not replace a gun. Never.
                        So 25 pounds does not replace a 105 mm howitzer. Never.
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        This is about the regimental gun and its BB.

                        Well, let's just say that the USSR fought in general with the only method available to it, the bulk method. And for this method, any "weapon" will do. And this is even a fairly effective method.
                        The main thing in it is not to be surprised at the losses.
                        An absolutely medieval approach to the problem, its solution and consequences. Complete game. However, knowing the structure of the USSR, this is not surprising.
                        The country will never recover from that war. With this level of losses (20% of direct losses of the country's pre-war population over 4 years), it simply cannot recover from this.
                      14. 0
                        20 March 2019 14: 42
                        Quote: kiu
                        already engaged in mortars and machine guns.

                        Not only. Defense from artillery is quite a progressive thing. Those Germans used it.
                        Quote: kiu
                        25 pounds will not replace a 105 mm howitzer.

                        Actually, this 105mm replaced 25 pounds. And replaced by force.
                      15. kiu
                        -1
                        20 March 2019 15: 49
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Defense from artillery is quite a progressive thing.

                        For 1MV in anti-personnel defense. For 2MB regressive, since expensive.
                        Machine guns and mortars, it is cheaper than artillery.
                        Unless we are talking about VET 2MB. It was impossible to do without artillery here.
                        But howitzers, this is not from this opera.
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Those Germans used it.

                        The Germans, who completely replaced the divisional guns in the Wehrmacht with anti-tank guns, did not look like active artillery users in anti-personnel defense.
                        However, in case of emergency, they could use everything that was for defense. But an extreme need is atypical behavior.
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Actually, this 105mm replaced 25 pounds.

                        Do you mean the Lend-Lease 105 mm howitzers?
                        I am not very familiar with the processes of arming the British infantry. Maybe replaced. That would be logical and correct. But whether it was during the war, I do not know.
                      16. 0
                        20 March 2019 16: 37
                        Quote: kiu
                        The Germans, who completely replaced the divisional guns in the Wehrmacht with anti-tank guns, did not look like active artillery users in anti-personnel defense.

                        Nonetheless. This is not about buckshot direct fire.
                        Quote: kiu
                        For 2MB regressive, since expensive.

                        Yeah. Teach the Germans to fight.
                        Quote: kiu
                        But whether it was during the war, I do not know.

                        No, I mean the post-war unification of calibers. The British were sharply against the transition to 105. Throughout the war they went with 25lbs.
                      17. The comment was deleted.