Stories about weapons. SU-122: unfairly in the shadow of descendants
Continuing the theme of self-propelled installations sample 1942, while taking into account that this material will be released on the eve of Victory Day, we decided to talk about the car, which most of our readers know. About the machine, which was developed in parallel with the SG-122 ACS we have already described. About the car, which was a direct competitor of SG-122.
So, our heroine today is SU-122. Self-propelled gun, which was designed specifically for support and maintenance tanks. And, accordingly, it was created on the basis of the most massive T-34 tank.
Very often, talking about the weapons of the initial period of the war, about the work of designers in 1941-42, we are faced with the opinion that the shortcomings of these weapons are caused by the speed of the creation of the machines themselves. An example of the SG-122 and SU-76 ACS seems to be proving exactly this conclusion. In the same way as the example of the SU-122. However, we think we should still talk about it. The point, in fact, is much more complicated.
Most of the readers formed their attitude towards the ACS after watching Victor Tregubovich’s film “At War as in War” (1968). Remember, "I liked the tank self-propelled, I took her for a walk in the forest ..."? By the way, many do not know, but this is really a part of the Great Patriotic War times. Truly soldierly creativity. It was first performed in the movie by Nikolay Kryuchkov ("Star", 1949). Only in the original version of the ACS was a wedge.
The full text looked like this:
Tank wedgies loved,
In the woods walk her drove,
From such a novel
The whole grove is broken.
So much burning and fire
It was in their appearance
What is left is not even a stump
Ten versts in circumference!
Why tankers needed self-propelled guns? It is tankers! And the commanders of tank brigades and regiments "fought" for each such support vehicle rigidly. Until hoarse. They asked the command to give at least a couple of cars to attack. And it really was necessary. The life of tankers really depended on it! And it began long before the war.
The fact is that the tanks of the prewar and first military period, with all the visible power of this weapon, had a rather serious drawback. Effective fire on the enemy tanks could lead at fairly short distances - 600-900 meters. It is caused by the design of the machines. Quite limited review and the lack of a stabilizer gun. Either fire on the move "for good luck" from a long distance, or under the enemy's anti-tank guns, for a short distance. It is clear that anti-tank guns had a huge advantage in this version.
It was then, and included in the work of ACS. Machines with larger caliber guns that fired from the advancing tanks (not necessarily direct fire) and overwhelming the enemy's anti-tank batteries with fire just in that short period of time that tanks need to reach their effective weapons.
In the period when the tanks were inactive, it was possible to use field artillery to suppress the TCP. It was then that the requirements for tools for the rapid transfer from the marching position to the combat position and vice versa appeared. But the tanks "went." And drove fast. It was then that the need arose for artillery, which could keep up with mobile tank units.
Remember the era of artillery tractors? This was precisely the attempt to increase the mobility of field artillery. In principle, it is possible to create a tractor capable of keeping up with tank units. Just as you can create a chassis for guns that would withstand such movements. But the idea of efficient operation of batteries that start firing without intelligence and artillery gunners on the front line looks completely unreal. And the management of such batteries looks more than problematic.
Thus, the mass appearance of various self-propelled guns in the Red Army, as in other warring countries, precisely during the 1942-43 period, is a general trend in the development of armored vehicles. The development of tanks led to the development of artillery support for these machines. Not support infantry, namely support tanks. And this direction is developing in the present tense.
Returning to our heroine, it is necessary to say that this machine is a logical continuation of all those developments that existed in Soviet industry both in the pre-war and in the war periods. That's why our cars of that time look like brothers (or sisters). Not twins of course, but brothers for sure.
Sometimes they raise questions about the tools that were used. Today, from the future, we can already assess the effectiveness of the tools of that time fairly objectively. However, at that time there was no such possibility. The advantages and disadvantages of guns were often identified already in use. Therefore, decisions were made based on the assessment of cannons and howitzers by specialists. The calibers and even the instruments themselves, which should be used in ACS, were determined very specifically.
15 April 1942, the plenum of the Artillery Committee of the Red Army GAU. Not only members of the committee were invited, but also representatives of military units, plant managers and design bureaus, specialists from the Arms Commissariat (NKV). It is believed that it was at this plenum that specific tasks were set for the creation of full-fledged Soviet self-propelled guns. There were also identified and tools that are proposed to use for new cars.
For self-propelled artillery the following systems were identified.
To support the infantry, it was proposed to install an 76,2-mm gun ZiS-3 or 122-mm howitzer M-30, model 1938 of the year.
It is proposed to use the ML-152,4 howitzer, model 20, for the destruction of heavily fortified positions, engineering structures and defensive lines.
SU-122 was developed precisely with these recommendations in mind. And considering that the car was developed almost in parallel with SG-122, this self-propelled gun is generally a record holder in speed of creation. Well, imagine the speed of work. In October, the GKO 1942 of the year decided to start the development of the machine based on the T-34 (October 19, the GKO decree No. 2429cc). October 29 special design group UZTM L.I. Gorlitsky (N.V. Kurin, G.F. Ksyunin, A.D. Neklyudov, K.N. Il'in and I.I. Emanuilov) presented the project of the object U-35.
November 30 1942 began factory testing. From 5 to 19 December, the designers of UZTM and Plant No.592 are already conducting state tests at the Gorokhovetsky testing ground. And in December, 1942, the machine has already passed the test, adopted for service and recommended for serial production. The first pre-production vehicles went to the troops (10 units of the old (U-35) felling). Serial cars went in January 1943. Machines armed with self-propelled artillery regiments of medium SU. By 16 installations per shelf.
Briefly consider the car itself more attentively. The installation was mounted on the base of the T-34 tank (T-34-76). The conning tower is installed in the front of the hull. The cabin is welded, from armor rolled sheets of various thickness - 15, 20, 40 and 45 mm. Counter-action increased by rational angles of armor. The forehead was composite and had different angles of inclination - 57 and 50 degrees. To protect the enemy’s infantry and additional review, the crew had holes in the armor plates, closed by armored plugs around the entire circumference of the vehicle.
On the roof of the cabin there were two turrets. Commander and viewing (at the gunner) to install the panorama Hertz.
For the landing-disembarkation of the crew, a rectangular hatch with an armored lid was equipped on the cabin roof. Interestingly, the mechanic's hatch, which was inherited from the T-34, was not used to fit the mechanic. This is a pure access hatch.
Observation of the battlefield was carried out with the help of special mirror viewing devices. The devices were located in three places. On the forehead of the car, on the starboard side and in the stern.
Armed with the U-35 was the standard M-30 howitzer with a piston gate. The gun was mounted on a special pedestal mounted on the bottom. The pickup angles were: vertically from -3 to + 25, horizontally in the sector 20 degrees (+/- 10 degrees). Tool homing is performed according to the Hertz panorama. The howitzer, due to the design features, had a rather small rate of fire - 2-5 shots per minute. Ammunition 36 shots separate loading.
In the fighting compartment were also two regular submachine gun PPSh and 20 disks with cartridges (1420 pcs).
Communication was provided through the radio station P-9. For internal communication, the TPU-3F tank intercom was used.
The power compartment remained virtually unchanged and was of the same type with the T-34. But the chassis had to be strengthened from the front. Due to the obvious overload of the front of the car, the front suspension nodes of the tank could not withstand the loads.
In general, the car caused a lot of complaints. Most studies treat these deficiencies as minor. But, on the other hand, most of the materials only mention the subject being tested in parallel with SG-2 of Mytishchi plant No. 592. He is understandable. Otherwise, it will be necessary to clarify the beginning of the release of these SU almost immediately after the test. Let's try to figure out what really happened in Sverdlovsk.
It is clear that the U (or SU, as in the documents of UZTM) -35 sea trials passed with a bang. Considering that by this time the T-34 tanks were assembled at UZTM. More or less successful can be called and shooting. But for the rest ... The fact is that the state commission made an entirely undesirable conclusion for UZTM. The conning tower on Y (SS) -35 did not just fail. She was dangerous for the crew.
But there is another question. If Mytishchi Plant No. 592 made such a good car on the same base, why did they accept the UZTM variant? The answer is simple and incredible. SG-2 failed ... sea trials! It was the chassis SG-2, tank chassis T-34, could not stand the load. And the reason was not in some overload of the chassis or deficiencies of the SG design in general. The reason is in the tank T-34. It was the tank itself, on the basis of which the prototype SG-2 was created, turned out to be defective. So ended story SG-2.
There is no talk about sabotage or the machinations of dishonest designers. Just because Mytishchi plant in general could not entrust the production of SU. The plant already then, before the start of testing, was intended for the production of light tanks. The release of SU-122 was already planned for UZTM for December 1942 of the year (25 units) by the decree of the State Defense Committee No. 2559 "On organizing the production of artillery installations at Uralmashzavod and the plant No. 38".
So, what kind of chopping became serial in SU-122? The answer is again standard. Own! Not Y (SU) -35 and not SG-2.
Here is a list of changes that were made to the wheelhouse in December on the initiative of the head of the project group N.V. Kurin (Gorlitsky was on the test), Deputy Commissar of the USSR Tank Industry, Chief Designer of the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant Z.Ya. Kotin, Chief Designer of the Plant No.9 F.F. Petrov, his deputy A.N. Bulashev, chief designer of UZTM N. D. Werner and military representatives led by G.Z. Zuherom.
Instead of a commander's turret, a cap with three inspection hatches for a periscope sight appeared on the roof. The commander now used a periscope PTK device. Sunroof cabin (although single-door, unlike SG-2). Changed the placement of BC. It actually repeated the decision of the Mytishchi plant design bureau.
Installing the periscope made it possible to move the commander’s seat forward. This increased the amount of felling. And the commander now began to fulfill his duties as a radio operator and a gunner vertically. Not the best option, but we spoke more than once about the overload of the commanders of Soviet tanks.
The same place has undergone and gunner. Inspection gaps were removed. Instead, they installed the same periscope viewing instruments. The left fuel tank was removed, which was just above the gunner. Thus, in this sector, the volume of logging has been increased.
For the first time took care of charging. Now for them were provided folding seats. When moving, the loaders had their regular places, and in battle the seats did not interfere with the work.
Changed and forehead installation. It has become more simple. The step has disappeared. Thus, we can say that the concept of maximum use of the T-34 chassis was abandoned. Corps decided to remake. In booking eliminated the slots and holes.
To say that the SU-122 released a small series, stupid. 638 units are quite a lot. However, to say that the car was successful, is also difficult. Sometimes it seems that the car was made for 1941. Or at the beginning of 1942. Frontal armor in 45 mm at the time when the Germans had the PAK-40, when the first "Tigers" were already in combat (autumn 42-th, Sinyavino), when the German "fours" and "stuff" got their "long arm" that is, the long-barreled 75-mm gun ...
Of course, you can argue about what this instrument is intended for. Assault gun. However, this weapon should work directly in the second echelon. But as soon as the SU-122 reached the visual range (1000 meters), it immediately got defeated by the German T-4 and “stuff”. About the "Tigers" in such a situation and talk scary. The forehead of the Soviet machine was clearly unaffected. An example of the Germans and their ACS is not a decree. "Buried" this car Kursk battle. It was there that cars burned all and sundry.
The transition after Kursk to SU-85 and the rejection of SU-122, as we think, was also a mistake. The machine could perfectly perform the duties of the assault gun and beyond. But as part of the tank brigades. Battery SU-85 and battery SU-122. Everyone would just do their job. The 85 guns, which in fact were anti-tank, would have hit the tanks, and the 122 howitzers would have destroyed everything else: DOTS, DZOTY, infantry. But what happened happened.
By the way, the Germans, who captured several SU-122 as trophies, used them with great benefit for themselves. The machines even didn’t change the name - StuG SU122 (r).
Already in 1944, SU-122 became a rarity. In the shelves where they were, they tried not to send these cars for repairs, but to repair them on the spot. Otherwise, the car will be replaced by SU-85. But in Berlin 1945-th these cars were. Little, but there were.
Today, the only SU-122 that has been preserved in its original form is the vehicle (tail number 138) of Lieutenant VS Prinorov number 305320. Unfortunately, the combat path of the machine is little known. The machine is from the 4 th battery of the 1418 th SAP of the 15 th tank corps of the 3 Guards Tank Army. 24 July 1943 was hit in the battle for the village of Nikolskoye, Sverdlovsk district, Oryol region. The car commander and mechanic were injured. Gunner and castle killed. Machine sent for repair.
In total, according to our information, in Russian museums today there are 4 machines of this type.
Well, the traditional performance characteristics of the heroine of the material, SU-122:
Combat weight - 29,6 t.
Crew - 5 man.
The number of issued - 638 pieces.
Dimensions:
Body length - 6950 mm.
Case width - 3000 mm.
Height - 2235 mm.
Ground clearance - 400 mm.
Booking:
The forehead of the body is 45 / 50 ° mm / deg.
Housing side - 45 / 40 ° mm / deg.
Body Feed - 40 / 48 ° mm / deg.
Bottom - 15 mm.
Housing roof - 20 mm.
Forehead felling - 45 / 50 ° mm / deg.
Tool Mask - 45 mm.
The cabin deck is 45 / 20 ° mm / deg.
Feeding chow - 45 / 10 ° mm / deg.
Armament:
The caliber and mark of the gun are the 122-mm howitzer M-30C.
Gun ammunition - 40.
Road performance:
Engine power - 500 HP
Speed on the highway - 55 km / h.
Speed over rough terrain - 15-20 km / h.
Cruising on the highway - 600 km.
Gradeability is 33 °.
Breakable wall - 0,73 m.
Overcoming ditch - 2,5 m.
Overcoming ford - 1,3 m.
So, our heroine today is SU-122. Self-propelled gun, which was designed specifically for support and maintenance tanks. And, accordingly, it was created on the basis of the most massive T-34 tank.
Very often, talking about the weapons of the initial period of the war, about the work of designers in 1941-42, we are faced with the opinion that the shortcomings of these weapons are caused by the speed of the creation of the machines themselves. An example of the SG-122 and SU-76 ACS seems to be proving exactly this conclusion. In the same way as the example of the SU-122. However, we think we should still talk about it. The point, in fact, is much more complicated.
The background of the appearance of ACS
Most of the readers formed their attitude towards the ACS after watching Victor Tregubovich’s film “At War as in War” (1968). Remember, "I liked the tank self-propelled, I took her for a walk in the forest ..."? By the way, many do not know, but this is really a part of the Great Patriotic War times. Truly soldierly creativity. It was first performed in the movie by Nikolay Kryuchkov ("Star", 1949). Only in the original version of the ACS was a wedge.
The full text looked like this:
Tank wedgies loved,
In the woods walk her drove,
From such a novel
The whole grove is broken.
So much burning and fire
It was in their appearance
What is left is not even a stump
Ten versts in circumference!
Why tankers needed self-propelled guns? It is tankers! And the commanders of tank brigades and regiments "fought" for each such support vehicle rigidly. Until hoarse. They asked the command to give at least a couple of cars to attack. And it really was necessary. The life of tankers really depended on it! And it began long before the war.
The fact is that the tanks of the prewar and first military period, with all the visible power of this weapon, had a rather serious drawback. Effective fire on the enemy tanks could lead at fairly short distances - 600-900 meters. It is caused by the design of the machines. Quite limited review and the lack of a stabilizer gun. Either fire on the move "for good luck" from a long distance, or under the enemy's anti-tank guns, for a short distance. It is clear that anti-tank guns had a huge advantage in this version.
It was then, and included in the work of ACS. Machines with larger caliber guns that fired from the advancing tanks (not necessarily direct fire) and overwhelming the enemy's anti-tank batteries with fire just in that short period of time that tanks need to reach their effective weapons.
In the period when the tanks were inactive, it was possible to use field artillery to suppress the TCP. It was then that the requirements for tools for the rapid transfer from the marching position to the combat position and vice versa appeared. But the tanks "went." And drove fast. It was then that the need arose for artillery, which could keep up with mobile tank units.
Remember the era of artillery tractors? This was precisely the attempt to increase the mobility of field artillery. In principle, it is possible to create a tractor capable of keeping up with tank units. Just as you can create a chassis for guns that would withstand such movements. But the idea of efficient operation of batteries that start firing without intelligence and artillery gunners on the front line looks completely unreal. And the management of such batteries looks more than problematic.
Thus, the mass appearance of various self-propelled guns in the Red Army, as in other warring countries, precisely during the 1942-43 period, is a general trend in the development of armored vehicles. The development of tanks led to the development of artillery support for these machines. Not support infantry, namely support tanks. And this direction is developing in the present tense.
About the ACS itself
Returning to our heroine, it is necessary to say that this machine is a logical continuation of all those developments that existed in Soviet industry both in the pre-war and in the war periods. That's why our cars of that time look like brothers (or sisters). Not twins of course, but brothers for sure.
Sometimes they raise questions about the tools that were used. Today, from the future, we can already assess the effectiveness of the tools of that time fairly objectively. However, at that time there was no such possibility. The advantages and disadvantages of guns were often identified already in use. Therefore, decisions were made based on the assessment of cannons and howitzers by specialists. The calibers and even the instruments themselves, which should be used in ACS, were determined very specifically.
15 April 1942, the plenum of the Artillery Committee of the Red Army GAU. Not only members of the committee were invited, but also representatives of military units, plant managers and design bureaus, specialists from the Arms Commissariat (NKV). It is believed that it was at this plenum that specific tasks were set for the creation of full-fledged Soviet self-propelled guns. There were also identified and tools that are proposed to use for new cars.
For self-propelled artillery the following systems were identified.
To support the infantry, it was proposed to install an 76,2-mm gun ZiS-3 or 122-mm howitzer M-30, model 1938 of the year.
It is proposed to use the ML-152,4 howitzer, model 20, for the destruction of heavily fortified positions, engineering structures and defensive lines.
SU-122 was developed precisely with these recommendations in mind. And considering that the car was developed almost in parallel with SG-122, this self-propelled gun is generally a record holder in speed of creation. Well, imagine the speed of work. In October, the GKO 1942 of the year decided to start the development of the machine based on the T-34 (October 19, the GKO decree No. 2429cc). October 29 special design group UZTM L.I. Gorlitsky (N.V. Kurin, G.F. Ksyunin, A.D. Neklyudov, K.N. Il'in and I.I. Emanuilov) presented the project of the object U-35.
November 30 1942 began factory testing. From 5 to 19 December, the designers of UZTM and Plant No.592 are already conducting state tests at the Gorokhovetsky testing ground. And in December, 1942, the machine has already passed the test, adopted for service and recommended for serial production. The first pre-production vehicles went to the troops (10 units of the old (U-35) felling). Serial cars went in January 1943. Machines armed with self-propelled artillery regiments of medium SU. By 16 installations per shelf.
Briefly consider the car itself more attentively. The installation was mounted on the base of the T-34 tank (T-34-76). The conning tower is installed in the front of the hull. The cabin is welded, from armor rolled sheets of various thickness - 15, 20, 40 and 45 mm. Counter-action increased by rational angles of armor. The forehead was composite and had different angles of inclination - 57 and 50 degrees. To protect the enemy’s infantry and additional review, the crew had holes in the armor plates, closed by armored plugs around the entire circumference of the vehicle.
On the roof of the cabin there were two turrets. Commander and viewing (at the gunner) to install the panorama Hertz.
For the landing-disembarkation of the crew, a rectangular hatch with an armored lid was equipped on the cabin roof. Interestingly, the mechanic's hatch, which was inherited from the T-34, was not used to fit the mechanic. This is a pure access hatch.
Observation of the battlefield was carried out with the help of special mirror viewing devices. The devices were located in three places. On the forehead of the car, on the starboard side and in the stern.
Armed with the U-35 was the standard M-30 howitzer with a piston gate. The gun was mounted on a special pedestal mounted on the bottom. The pickup angles were: vertically from -3 to + 25, horizontally in the sector 20 degrees (+/- 10 degrees). Tool homing is performed according to the Hertz panorama. The howitzer, due to the design features, had a rather small rate of fire - 2-5 shots per minute. Ammunition 36 shots separate loading.
In the fighting compartment were also two regular submachine gun PPSh and 20 disks with cartridges (1420 pcs).
Communication was provided through the radio station P-9. For internal communication, the TPU-3F tank intercom was used.
The power compartment remained virtually unchanged and was of the same type with the T-34. But the chassis had to be strengthened from the front. Due to the obvious overload of the front of the car, the front suspension nodes of the tank could not withstand the loads.
Path to the front
In general, the car caused a lot of complaints. Most studies treat these deficiencies as minor. But, on the other hand, most of the materials only mention the subject being tested in parallel with SG-2 of Mytishchi plant No. 592. He is understandable. Otherwise, it will be necessary to clarify the beginning of the release of these SU almost immediately after the test. Let's try to figure out what really happened in Sverdlovsk.
It is clear that the U (or SU, as in the documents of UZTM) -35 sea trials passed with a bang. Considering that by this time the T-34 tanks were assembled at UZTM. More or less successful can be called and shooting. But for the rest ... The fact is that the state commission made an entirely undesirable conclusion for UZTM. The conning tower on Y (SS) -35 did not just fail. She was dangerous for the crew.
"The Commission considers it necessary to instruct the Uralmash Plant NKTP to finalize the model of the self-propelled 122-mm howitzer, taking as a basis the layout of the fighting compartment of the tested self-propelled 122-mm howitzer of plant No. 592 and eliminating the flaws outlined in this report. decisions on the introduction of artillery of the Red Army. "
But there is another question. If Mytishchi Plant No. 592 made such a good car on the same base, why did they accept the UZTM variant? The answer is simple and incredible. SG-2 failed ... sea trials! It was the chassis SG-2, tank chassis T-34, could not stand the load. And the reason was not in some overload of the chassis or deficiencies of the SG design in general. The reason is in the tank T-34. It was the tank itself, on the basis of which the prototype SG-2 was created, turned out to be defective. So ended story SG-2.
There is no talk about sabotage or the machinations of dishonest designers. Just because Mytishchi plant in general could not entrust the production of SU. The plant already then, before the start of testing, was intended for the production of light tanks. The release of SU-122 was already planned for UZTM for December 1942 of the year (25 units) by the decree of the State Defense Committee No. 2559 "On organizing the production of artillery installations at Uralmashzavod and the plant No. 38".
So, what kind of chopping became serial in SU-122? The answer is again standard. Own! Not Y (SU) -35 and not SG-2.
Here is a list of changes that were made to the wheelhouse in December on the initiative of the head of the project group N.V. Kurin (Gorlitsky was on the test), Deputy Commissar of the USSR Tank Industry, Chief Designer of the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant Z.Ya. Kotin, Chief Designer of the Plant No.9 F.F. Petrov, his deputy A.N. Bulashev, chief designer of UZTM N. D. Werner and military representatives led by G.Z. Zuherom.
Instead of a commander's turret, a cap with three inspection hatches for a periscope sight appeared on the roof. The commander now used a periscope PTK device. Sunroof cabin (although single-door, unlike SG-2). Changed the placement of BC. It actually repeated the decision of the Mytishchi plant design bureau.
Installing the periscope made it possible to move the commander’s seat forward. This increased the amount of felling. And the commander now began to fulfill his duties as a radio operator and a gunner vertically. Not the best option, but we spoke more than once about the overload of the commanders of Soviet tanks.
The same place has undergone and gunner. Inspection gaps were removed. Instead, they installed the same periscope viewing instruments. The left fuel tank was removed, which was just above the gunner. Thus, in this sector, the volume of logging has been increased.
For the first time took care of charging. Now for them were provided folding seats. When moving, the loaders had their regular places, and in battle the seats did not interfere with the work.
Changed and forehead installation. It has become more simple. The step has disappeared. Thus, we can say that the concept of maximum use of the T-34 chassis was abandoned. Corps decided to remake. In booking eliminated the slots and holes.
Combat application
To say that the SU-122 released a small series, stupid. 638 units are quite a lot. However, to say that the car was successful, is also difficult. Sometimes it seems that the car was made for 1941. Or at the beginning of 1942. Frontal armor in 45 mm at the time when the Germans had the PAK-40, when the first "Tigers" were already in combat (autumn 42-th, Sinyavino), when the German "fours" and "stuff" got their "long arm" that is, the long-barreled 75-mm gun ...
Of course, you can argue about what this instrument is intended for. Assault gun. However, this weapon should work directly in the second echelon. But as soon as the SU-122 reached the visual range (1000 meters), it immediately got defeated by the German T-4 and “stuff”. About the "Tigers" in such a situation and talk scary. The forehead of the Soviet machine was clearly unaffected. An example of the Germans and their ACS is not a decree. "Buried" this car Kursk battle. It was there that cars burned all and sundry.
The transition after Kursk to SU-85 and the rejection of SU-122, as we think, was also a mistake. The machine could perfectly perform the duties of the assault gun and beyond. But as part of the tank brigades. Battery SU-85 and battery SU-122. Everyone would just do their job. The 85 guns, which in fact were anti-tank, would have hit the tanks, and the 122 howitzers would have destroyed everything else: DOTS, DZOTY, infantry. But what happened happened.
By the way, the Germans, who captured several SU-122 as trophies, used them with great benefit for themselves. The machines even didn’t change the name - StuG SU122 (r).
Already in 1944, SU-122 became a rarity. In the shelves where they were, they tried not to send these cars for repairs, but to repair them on the spot. Otherwise, the car will be replaced by SU-85. But in Berlin 1945-th these cars were. Little, but there were.
Today, the only SU-122 that has been preserved in its original form is the vehicle (tail number 138) of Lieutenant VS Prinorov number 305320. Unfortunately, the combat path of the machine is little known. The machine is from the 4 th battery of the 1418 th SAP of the 15 th tank corps of the 3 Guards Tank Army. 24 July 1943 was hit in the battle for the village of Nikolskoye, Sverdlovsk district, Oryol region. The car commander and mechanic were injured. Gunner and castle killed. Machine sent for repair.
In total, according to our information, in Russian museums today there are 4 machines of this type.
Well, the traditional performance characteristics of the heroine of the material, SU-122:
Combat weight - 29,6 t.
Crew - 5 man.
The number of issued - 638 pieces.
Dimensions:
Body length - 6950 mm.
Case width - 3000 mm.
Height - 2235 mm.
Ground clearance - 400 mm.
Booking:
The forehead of the body is 45 / 50 ° mm / deg.
Housing side - 45 / 40 ° mm / deg.
Body Feed - 40 / 48 ° mm / deg.
Bottom - 15 mm.
Housing roof - 20 mm.
Forehead felling - 45 / 50 ° mm / deg.
Tool Mask - 45 mm.
The cabin deck is 45 / 20 ° mm / deg.
Feeding chow - 45 / 10 ° mm / deg.
Armament:
The caliber and mark of the gun are the 122-mm howitzer M-30C.
Gun ammunition - 40.
Road performance:
Engine power - 500 HP
Speed on the highway - 55 km / h.
Speed over rough terrain - 15-20 km / h.
Cruising on the highway - 600 km.
Gradeability is 33 °.
Breakable wall - 0,73 m.
Overcoming ditch - 2,5 m.
Overcoming ford - 1,3 m.
Information