Stories about weapons. ISU-122: the difficult path of a front-line soldier

84
Today we decided to talk about a car that cannot boast of participation in defensive battles. About the car, which thanks to the "new technology historians from Wikipedia" is often perceived as a simple assistant tank. A sort of ersatz tank created for some reason. But the car that took Berlin! Although some features of the machine made its use in cities problematic.





So, the heroine today is ISU-122. The ACS, which is often at museum expositions, stands next to the ISU-152 and the IS-2 tanks. And, let's be honest with ourselves, unfairly produces a less frightening impression than neighbors. The impression is complemented by the fact that the ISU-122 looks like the ISU-152, and the gun is exactly the same as on the IS-2 tank. Well, the natural question is: why bother with a machine that, by firepower, does not exceed the power of a prototype tank?

In principle, in most of the previously described self-propelled guns of the USSR and Germany, this is exactly what happened. ACS almost always equipped with a more powerful tool. It was this that provided artillery support for tank attacks. Self-propelled vehicles allowed tankmen to reach the frontiers of the effective work of their own guns. On a direct lead. To slip through that very area of ​​inaccessibility of the enemy without significant losses.

Let's try to deal with this decision of designers SAU.

But you need to start from afar. From the distant 1942 year. It was in 1942-m military experts of the Soviet Union, the leading designers of armored vehicles were tasked to think over the development trends of the enemy tanks for subsequent years. At the end of 1942, a special commission was even created at the Central Research Institute-48.

Conclusions on the development of German armored vehicles were unequivocal. It is enough to quote a phrase from the report of the Commission of the TsNII-48 Commission (headed by professor, doctor of technical sciences A. S. Zavyalov):

Stories about weapons. ISU-122: the difficult path of a front-line soldier


"During the war, we can expect the enemy to have new types of tanks, although the Germans, in all appearances, are in every way avoiding production complications associated with the transfer of industry to new models and affecting the mass production of weapons.
If such new samples appear, we will hardly meet with the fact that the armor is significantly thickened.
Most likely, in accordance with the whole course of development of types of German tanks, we should expect strengthening of tank artillery, on the one hand, and an increase in tank maneuverability in off-road conditions and powerful snow cover, on the other hand. "


There is a fact that for some reason passed unnoticed by the Soviet command, but which could turn a design idea into a completely different plane. Experimental Tigers began to appear on the Soviet-German front in the autumn-winter of 1942.

Famous historical the fact of the capture of a Henschel-type tank No. 250004. The decryption of the waybill of this tank on January 25, 1943 (translator Bresker) proves that this vehicle made its first raid on September 21, 1942 (reconnaissance at 10:30 in the vicinity of p. Mga-Mountains). Why this has gone unnoticed by the Soviet command is still unclear.

We specifically focused on what ideas were central to the beginning of 1943. This will help to understand the logic of the appearance of MIS-122.



So, 1943 year. Tank builders are actively engaged in the development of a new heavy tank EC-1. In parallel, developed and two ACS. The decision was classic. Tank with 85 mm caliber gun (D-5T), tank fire support system (tank destroyer) with 122 mm gun (A-19) based on KV-14 and SAU with 152 mm howitzer gun (ML-20С) on the same base.

The creation of the tank was completed in November 1943. And already on the basis of the EC-1 was built ISU-152 (241 object). Next in line was an 242 object with a 122 mm cannon. The prototype was built a month after the 241 object.



And here the military intervened. The fact is that the EC-1, for all its merits, no longer suited the artillerymen with its weapon. The 85-mm gun was obviously not enough for a heavy tank. The machine did not have the advantage in battle over other tanks. This gun more suited the average T-34, which is what happened.

The gun intended for the ACS was installed on a new tank design - an 240 object (EC-2). It so happened that the 240 object (EC-2) was released even earlier than the 241 object (ICS-152) for testing. The 242 object is no longer needed in this way. It is because of the same type of gun with a tank. In the series went ISU-152. In practice, from December 1943 to April 1944, ChTZ produced only ISU-152.

And again the case helped. More precisely, the labor feats of workers CTZ. The plant produced armored hulls for ACS in large quantities. By April it turned out that for the production of ACS IMS-152 there simply are not enough guns ML-20С. And at the same time, a sufficient number of tank A-19 had accumulated in the warehouses (from the start of production, the EC-2 was named D-25T).

The Chelyabinsk tractor began to produce two self-propelled guns at once: ISU-152 and ISU-122. But this is not the end of the history of this car. It was a good continuation! And this continuation we can also see today. This is ISU-122C. This is not a whim restless designers of self-propelled guns, but a necessity.

No one has canceled the tasks that the SAU should perform even with the same guns as the tanks. At SU-122, the designers were able to achieve a slight increase in the rate of fire (from 2 to 3 rounds per minute) due to a more free-wheeling and fifth crew member. But the gun itself could not give more. Mixed piston valve.

Artillery designers took up the improvement of the gate. And at the end of the 1943 gun received semi-automatic wedge bolt. The gun was named D-25C. It almost immediately began to install on the EC-2. For ISU-122 there were no such guns.

But in the second half of 1944, the designers still managed to create a new prototype - an 249 object. The car even externally differed from ISU-122. The new gun was equipped with a muzzle brake. The mask has become more compact due to the reduction of the recoil devices of the gun. By the way, this reduction made it possible to increase the angle of the horizontal pickup of the gun.



I liked the car. I liked it so much that since September, CTZ began to produce three serial machines at once! ISU-1944, ISU-152 and ISU-122С!

We proceed to inspect the car in detail. First of all, it must be said that this is a classic Soviet machine of the time. Department of management and combat department are located in front. Transmission and engine compartment in the back.

The armor case was made of rolled armor of various thickness: 90, 75, 60, 30 and 20 mm. Bronelists were installed at rational angles of inclination. In general, such a reservation provided a good counter-shear protection. The foreheads of machines of different production times were booked in different ways. The first cars had cast armor. Later - welded forehead.

The gun is not located along the centerline of the hull, but slightly shifted to the right from the axis of the machine. Installed on the installation of frame type, almost identical to ISU-152. The wheel chocks are protected by a fixed cast casing and a movable cast mask. By the way, the mask, besides the main function, performs the role of a balancing device.



The crew was placed as follows. The driver in front of the left. Behind him, to the left of the gun, was the gunner. To the right of the gun - the commander. For gunner place loader. For the commander of the place of the castle. Sometimes the crews were formed from 4-x people. In this case, the castle also performed the duties of the loader.

On the roof of the cabin there were two hatches. But for landing and disembarking intended only right. The left hatch is designed to display an extension of the panoramic sight. The main landing hatch for the crew was a rectangular double hatch at the junction of the roof and rear sheets of the armored wheelhouse.



Provided in the ISU and emergency hatch for the evacuation of the crew. Located in the bottom of the car. The remaining hatches are intended for access to the units and assemblies of the machine, refueling fuel and ammunition.

A-122C guns were used on ISU-19. And the guns were different. The first cars are equipped with a 122-mm cannon arr. 1931 / 37 Modification C dealt with the transfer of controls to one side of the instrument for ease of targeting, equipping its bureaucracy with a receiving tray for easy loading and installation of the electric trigger. Piston slide, identical with the towed gun.

Since May, 1944, at the SAU installed 122-mm self-propelled gun mod. 1931 / 44 The barrel of this gun was already different from A-19.



The following types of ammunition are used for firing A-19 or D-25С guns:

- high-explosive fragmentation grenade OF-471Н with screw head;
- high-explosive frag whole-body short gun grenade OF-471Н;
- high-explosive fragmentation solid-body long gun grenade OF-471;
- high-explosive steel howitzer grenade OF-462;
- armor-piercing tracer sharp-headed projectile BR-471;
- armor-piercing tracer with a ballistic tip BR-471B;
- Concrete gun cannon G-471.

For firing at an ACS, two devices were installed at once: the Hertz panorama and the CT-18 telescopic sight (for direct fire).

However, it should be said that the device CT-18 somewhat reduced the firing range. The fact is that the calibration of the device was calculated only for 1500 meters. Therefore, it was impossible to use it for longer distances. Saved panorama Hertz.

The crew, besides the aiming instruments, had enough observation instruments. All landing / landing hatches were equipped with Mk IV periscopes.

Now, according to the logic of the material, it is necessary to talk about the chassis, engine compartment, chassis. However, today we decided not to. Just because they described all this in sufficient detail in the materials on the EC-2 tank.







Therefore, the next part will be about the combat use of the machine. Let's start with one fairly well-known interview given to the front correspondent by the commander of the 309 SAP, Lieutenant Colonel Kobrin. Just quote a passage from this material:

"... You imagine such a picture ... As I remember now: the height of the 559,6. Commander Rybalko is with us. The Klimenkov self-propelled unit is right there in the guard of the headquarters. There is a business conversation. And suddenly there are German tanks on the left. Eighteen pieces! .. What will happen?
Rybalko has changed a little in the face - jaws set on his cheeks. Commanded by Klymenkov, who stood nearby: "Prohibit the way German tanks fire!" - "There is a ban!" - answers Klimenkov and - to the car.
And what do you think? The first projectile from a thousand and eight hundred meters lit the lead tank, the second began to creep out because of it — he hit it, the third climbed — he broke it, and then the fourth ... He stopped the Nazis, they backed off, thinking that whole battery
Incredible? Meet Rybalko, ask him how it was, he will confirm. Then right there, on the battlefield, Klimenkov was screwed to the jumpsuit by an order of the Patriotic War of the first degree ... "


Now there will definitely be a skeptic who will speak about personal courage and preparedness of the crew. Is this an indicator of the quality of the car? Let's say right away - yes, this is an indicator of the quality of the car.

ISU-122 at the beginning of their use in the troops had almost the same task as ISU-152. The tactics of combat use was identical. But what is good on paper does not at all mean good in life.

Remember the soldier's nickname "Hypericum", which received ACS ISU-152? Received deserved. The fascists did not have machines that could withstand a missile hit from the ML-20. But the problem was not the power of the gun, but the very possibility of hitting the tank. A short barrel did not give a guaranteed hit.

ISU-122 also had a gun with a longer barrel. And the number of shells in this ACS was one and a half times more. Even enough, compared to 152-mm, a light projectile with a corresponding initial shot speed, had not only a piercing, but also a huge stopping effect.



Even "Elephanta" stopped by the impact of the ISU-122 projectile! They didn’t stop at armor penetration, this, alas, 122-mm guns could not, but because the suspension, transmission or engine broke after the impact. By the way, for fans of statistics. The data given in various sources on the reservation of German heavy vehicles at the end of the war do not take into account one important detail. German armor in 45 and 43 were very different in quality.

But back to Lieutenant Klimenkov. Klymenkov offered nothing new in the tactics of the battle. The actions of JSU-122 from ambushes at a long distance were provided for by the establishing documents of the Red Army. Another thing is that the car worked on the panorama of Hertz, judging by the distance.

To be objective, at that time, the EC-2 and ISU-122 were the only machines equivalent to the Germans. Only they could destroy German heavy tanks and self-propelled guns on the battlefield.

Do you remember the dispute between the commander of the SU-85 and the tank colonel from the film “In war as in war”? About the place of SAU in the combat order of the attackers? 200-300 meters behind the tanks. The same applies to MIS-122. Machines simply shot enemy tanks from short stops.

It is quite another thing when the attack choked and the tanks began to retreat. It was here that the heroism of the gunners was manifested. The ACS became just long-range weapons, which directly destroyed the advancing tanks or those objects that made further progress difficult. The withdrawal (or continuation of the offensive) in this case was carried out after the danger of losing the tanks had passed.



I want to talk about another episode of the war. More precisely, about a small war of one tank regiment. Yes, yes, it is tank! 81-th separate Guards heavy tank regiment. The war that came together in 12 days in March 1945 ... We have written many times about miracles in the war. Today, the miracle of instant retraining.

8 March 81 OGvTTP received an 20 ISU-122 of four marching batteries (at that time there was an 1 operational tank EC-2) and entered into battle with the enemy in the area south-west of Königsberg. During the 12 days of fighting, the regiment lost the killed 7 officers and 8 soldiers, the wounded 11 officers and the 13 soldiers and sergeants. During the battles, 10 ISU-122 burned down and 5 were damaged.

Tankers, having re-trained as self-propelled guns, captured the settlements of Eisenberg, Waltersdorf, Birknau, Grünau and reached the coast of the Baltic Sea. The regiment destroyed 5 tanks, 3 assault guns, 65 anti-tank guns, 8 BTR, 9 tractors and captured serviceable 18 guns and one “Panther”. The regiment while remained tank!

And one more fight of the Hero of the Soviet Union V. Guschina, who fought as a part of 387 SAP about the fight of 20 in January of 1945. And again just quoting. It’s better not to write:

"The first city, Inoros, was especially strongly fortified. Our attempts to break into the city did not lead to success. We had to retreat. The regiment commander gave an order to my car and another car to approach the city’s approaches and break into the city. Having received this order, we felt a big joy and pride in the responsibility entrusted to us.
Started to perform. At that time there was a strong fog, therefore the visibility was very poor. Our battalion commander and crew members had to open hatches to get a better look at where the enemy is. When approaching the city was a small farm. When we reached the hamlet, the enemy suddenly opened fire on us, as a result of which the battalion commander of the head vehicle was killed, and the second vehicle was damaged.
After that, take command. I order to make several shots at this fortified farm, after which, having made sure that the enemy was destroyed, I decided to break into the city.
Approaching, I saw that German tanks were coming to the right and left ... I take the immediate decision - to withdraw to the shelter, and then join the battle with the enemy. The second car also took with him.
I put the first car in which I was on the left, in the direction of the enemy. And put the second car on the right side. Not having been in this position for hours, I saw that German tanks were on the road for about two hundred meters. At that moment I opened fire on them. The first shell hit the front of the tank. The tank did not catch fire. Letting him go to 100 meters, again opened fire on him. From the second shell the tank caught fire. The Germans began to run out of the tank and scatter in different directions.
Without losing time, I transferred the fire to other tanks. They followed each other. The second tank also caught fire, then the third one. The fourth tank noticed us and began to direct fire on me. I immediately give the order: "Full gas, to the side!" And as soon as I had time to drive off, they started shooting at the place where I stood. I, using this time, immediately put fire on the next tank and burn it. And in the same way, I hit the German tanks 8 ... "


Well, the traditional performance characteristics of the heroine, ISU-122:



Combat weight, t: 46,0.
Length with gun, mm: 9850.
Width, mm: 3070.
Height, mm: 2480.
Ground clearance, mm: 470.

Engine: B-2-IC, 4-stroke diesel, 12 cylinders.
Power, hp: 520.

Fuel capacity, l:
- main tank: 500;
- additional tanks: 360.

Speed, km / h:
- maximum: 35 — 37;
- average country road: 16.

Power reserve, km: 145 — 220.



Obstacle obstacles:
- rise, degrees: 32;
- roll, degrees: 30;
- ditch, m: 2,5;
- wall, m: 1,0;
- ford, m: 1,3.

Reservations, mm (angle, degrees):
- forehead hull upper: 90 (60);
- hull board: 90 (0);
- body feed: 60 (41, 49);
- forehead felling: 90 (30);
- wheelhouse: 60 (15);
- feed chopping: 60 (0);
- mask: 120;
- Roof: 30 (90);
- bottom: 20 (90).

Crew, people: 5.



Artillery armament: 1 A-19С gun (Д-25С).
Caliber, mm: 121.92.
Type of loading: separate-sleeve.

Shooting range, m:
- maximum: 14300 (14700);
- direct fire: 5000;
- direct shot: 975.

Projectile weight, kg: 25.
Ammunition, shots: 30.



Additional armament:
- anti-aircraft machine gun 12,7-mm DShK with 250 ammunition rounds;
- PPSh submachine guns (2 pcs) ammunition 420 cartridges.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

84 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +11
    10 May 2019 09: 24
    direct shot range 975m

    This is a very, very good indicator, almost a sniper gun. To aim from such a gun was a nice thing. In general, they are similar in this to the Tiger - the one also had excellent gun retention - up to 1 km, where you aimed, you get there, preemption was not required.
    In general, I would additionally strengthen the ISU frontal reservation, to the detriment of the side, there would be less damage.
    The high-explosive action of the 122mm projectile was simply excellent, these guns were very much appreciated for the high explosive. Especially in the city - to take for example one building - they could also put a company of soldiers, with the ISU everything was much easier - pulled up and laid down a couple of shells in the corners of the first floor and the building was getting smoother, and our infantry was intact. For example, the Su-85 simply had none land mines, and infantry could not help much.
    Well, the article noted the stopping effect of a 122mm projectile - one hit on the forehead was enough to disable even Ferdinand, who had 200mm frontal armor.
    Good article, thanks to the author.
    1. +1
      10 May 2019 09: 41
      Vasily, I agree, many thanks to the authors. But explain how 122 mm could not penetrate the armor?
      1. -3
        10 May 2019 10: 05
        There were no cumulative shells. And the power of was not enough to destroy the tank with a blast wave. This is now at the rupture of the in the immediate vicinity of the tank, blasting the tower demolishes.
        1. 0
          10 May 2019 10: 09
          Bob, tell me ... Did 122 mm have only RP?
          1. +1
            10 May 2019 15: 06
            Quote: sabakina
            how 122 mm could not penetrate the armor?

            What confuses you here? Fedy forehead 2x100 mm full (and not the 45th year) armor. The first sheet of 122mm punched, the second is not.
            Quote: Pivot
            cumulative shells

            The spinning godfather of those years punched well if its caliber. The USSR did not stick with this at all.
            Quote: Pivot
            This is now at the rupture of the in the immediate vicinity of the tank, blasting the tower demolishes.

            The T-90? Which game?
            1. +4
              11 May 2019 16: 12
              At T55 at the ISC artillery range.
              1. 0
                14 May 2019 13: 16
                And what a land mine ?!
          2. +2
            11 May 2019 12: 46
            Quote: sabakina
            Did 122 mm have only RP?

            no. There were two types of shells: armor-piercing tracer and high-explosive fragmentation grenade.
            Armor-piercing had a penetration (projectile BR-471) at 1 km - 142 mm at a meeting angle of 90 degrees. Of course, heavily armored objects could not be pierced like that. So the self-propelled guns were created not as anti-tank, but as a means of cracking the defense.
        2. +2
          11 May 2019 12: 48
          Quote: Pivot
          This is now at the rupture of the in the immediate vicinity of the tank, blasting the tower demolishes.

          What caliber PF should be? Meter 2 - 3?)))
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. +1
      10 May 2019 10: 55
      c
  2. +1
    10 May 2019 09: 28
    At first I wanted to swear ...
    and the gun is exactly the same as on the IS-2 tank.
    The IS-2 has a gun with a muzzle brake!

    Scrolling below, I see the ISU-122 with a muzzle brake. Then there are photos with a muzzle, then without a muzzle brake. Authors, could you at least specify the history of the ISU-122 gun?
    1. +7
      10 May 2019 10: 07
      Isu 122 without a muzzle brake and Isu 122s with a muzzle brake
      1. +1
        10 May 2019 10: 13
        Volodya. thanks for the answer. And then I remember everything BL-10 from the famous game, where this weapon is the top of the branch ...
      2. +3
        11 May 2019 12: 40
        Quote: Vladimir Teplov
        Isu 122s with a muzzle brake

        The letter "C" means "rapid-fire", because a gun rammer was installed.

        The main armament of the ISU-122s was the D-25S gun, and the ISU-122 - the A-19C gun. Different guns stood, one with a muzzle brake, the other without.
        The D-25S was equipped with a two-chamber muzzle brake, which allowed to reduce shock loads on recoil devices and reduce their weight and dimensions, which favorably affected the ergonomics of the fighting compartment.
        1. 0
          11 May 2019 21: 03
          Quote: Gregory_45
          The main armament of the ISU-122 is the gun D-25С, and the ISU-122 is the gun А-19С

          А-19С when installed on ISU-122 began to be called D-25Т
          1. +1
            11 May 2019 21: 34
            Quote: domokl
            А-19С when installed on ISU-122 began to be called D-25Т

            You're wrong. D-25C inherited from A-19 only part of the details of the receiver group. The armament of the ISU-122 was the A-19C gun. Only the ammunition used was identical.
            A-19 with a piston lock, D-25C - with a wedge. Etc...
            1. 0
              14 May 2019 10: 40
              Quote: Gregory_45
              D-25 inherited from A-19 only part of the details of the receiver group

              But who says about D-25С? D-25Т this is A-19, there even the trunk can be changed. And the D-25 is a completely different weapon. And the barrel, and the bolt and more.
    2. 0
      21 May 2019 13: 36
      "Authors, could you at least concretize the history of the ISU-122 gun?" I've learned about the difference and the history of these guns just from the article.
  3. +5
    10 May 2019 09: 39
    Remember the dispute between the commander of the SU-85 and the tank colonel from the movie "In War as in War"?

    There the Su-100 was ...
    1. +12
      10 May 2019 09: 52
      In the book - it is SU-85. And in the movie they shot the SU-100, for lack of 85 matches ...
      1. +5
        10 May 2019 10: 08
        Quote: kov123
        In the book - it is SU-85. And in the movie they shot the SU-100, for lack of 85 matches ...

        Well, in the book, everything happened in winter, and it was not the gunner Domeshek who died, but Jr. Maleshkin himself, when a stray shell exploded during lunch and a stray splinter cut his throat ... But the article contains a "quote" from film ...
        1. +1
          10 May 2019 10: 18
          We live, Sasha. In the book there is one thing, in the film it is different ... I watched a movie, I didn’t read the book. It's a shame, of course, I've always loved to read. But, as they usually wrote, "the film is based on a novel like this" .... Therefore, they believed, especially then the films were consulted by the military, who actually fought in the Second World War ...
          1. +2
            10 May 2019 10: 39
            Quote: sabakina
            One thing in the book, another in the movie ...

            The author of the story himself was the author of the idea of ​​creating this film. I had a book published in 1979. I confess, I was a sinner in 1985 in the military library, I stole it, though I had it, so in 2005 someone "read" it ...
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. 0
      11 June 2019 19: 09
      That's right. On the SU-85, the crew fought in the book when there was no T-34-85 yet. And in the film they fought on the U-100
  4. +1
    10 May 2019 09: 40
    Then there are photos with a muzzle, then without a muzzle brake. Authors, could you at least specify the history of the ISU-122 gun?

    It is written
    But in the second half of 1944, designers still managed to create a new prototype - object 249. The machine even externally differed from the ISU-122. The new gun was equipped with a muzzle brake.
    1. -2
      10 May 2019 10: 04
      Vitaly, it is difficult to oppose on the morning of May 10 after the disastrous Victory Parade. But I'll try. Of the 11 photos showing the cannon, only two have a muzzle brake. Secondly, what are all the gunners on the site? Do the 12zh-2011 figures tell you anything? Or 5pr-2009? ... Maybe they should learn from the Wings of Russia studio how to present information to the public about Armor of Russia?
      1. 0
        10 May 2019 14: 02
        Why a failed parade?
        1. 0
          11 May 2019 22: 31
          Also interesting.
      2. +3
        10 May 2019 17: 13
        Quote: sabakina
        Of the 11 photos where the gun is visible, only two have a muzzle brake.

        In general, this gun has quite a few modifications. The top is a post-war gun with an ejector, a rammer and an electric trigger
        But at the same time, the ballistics of the guns were almost the same.
  5. -1
    10 May 2019 10: 23
    Quote: sabakina
    tell me ... did 122 mm only have OF?

    The point is the concept itself. The Germans, after meeting with our KV-1, made the absolutely correct conclusion - explosives in armor-piercing shells are not needed. And they made a blank shell (like a bullet), completely without explosives, but with prohibitive armor penetration. Such a projectile pierced armor well, the crew secreted fragments, but the tank itself remained intact (the T-34 was restored up to 5 times, the patch on the hole was put into battle).
    In our armor-piercing projectile, there were a lot of explosives, but because of it the smallest armor penetration of all AP shells in World War II. But if our shell did penetrate the armor, then this tank was no longer subject to restoration, I’m generally silent about the crew.
    Due to this approach, our armor-piercing shells had the smallest armor penetration of all.
    1. +2
      10 May 2019 12: 14
      Quote: lucul
      The Germans, after meeting with our KV-1, made the absolutely correct conclusion - explosives in armor-piercing shells are not needed.

      All this is strange), the main German BR shell is armor-piercing chamber PzGr shell. 39 ...
    2. Alf
      +2
      10 May 2019 12: 56
      Quote: lucul
      In our armor-piercing projectile, there were a lot of explosives,

      For 25 kg of shell weight 156 grams of explosives is a lot?
    3. 0
      10 May 2019 13: 38
      Yes, somewhere it was already mentioned that our armor-piercing steel was not very
    4. 0
      10 May 2019 15: 11
      Quote: lucul
      had minimal armor penetration of all.

      They had a minimum penetration due to steel, hardening and low ballistics of the guns.
    5. +1
      11 May 2019 12: 51
      Quote: lucul
      The Germans, after meeting with our KV-1, made the absolutely correct conclusion - explosives in armor-piercing shells are not needed.

      Fat to you minus)
      Everything is exactly the opposite - just the domestic explosive bombs did not have (were blanks), the Germans also used chamber (with explosives). And also used cumulative.
      1. Alf
        0
        11 May 2019 13: 44
        Quote: Gregory_45
        Everything is exactly the opposite - just the domestic BB-shells of the explosives didn’t (were blanks),

        Well, then Vika is lying.
        1. +3
          11 May 2019 15: 23
          Quote: Alf
          Well, then Vika is lying.

          no, wiki doesn't lie. But does not speak about the necessary nuances. You look at the paper - and on paper, the nominally chamber armor-piercing projectiles really do exist. But really - they were not. From the word almost completely. For many reasons, including the fact that a solid blank is easier to manufacture, there were a lot of shells, especially in the light of industrial evacuation.
          The Germans, on the other hand, often used chamber BR shells - for example, the Tiger's armor-piercing shell PzGr. 39 - chamber. The 75-mm BR round of the Panther is the same, the "fours" - again) Even in the BC of the anti-tank "mallet" there were only two types of armor-piercing rounds - the chamber 3,7 cm Pzgr. and subcaliber
          1. Alf
            -1
            11 May 2019 23: 03
            Quote: Gregory_45
            You look at the paper - and on paper, the nominally chamber armor-piercing projectiles really do exist. But really - they were not. From the word almost completely.

            To confirm your words, give the number of armor-piercing shells fired by type.
            1. -1
              12 May 2019 08: 10
              Quote: Alf
              To confirm your words, give the number of armor-piercing shells fired by type.

              what prevents you from doing it yourself? You lead the discussion, not for its own sake, but for the sake of truth? So look for information, since it is so interested.
              Once upon a time I was interested in this topic, and made the conclusions outlined in the commentary. At first there was an evacuation and an acute shortage of armor-piercing shells (in fairness it should be said that their shortage was felt even before the war), then - German tanks built up their skin, and making chamber 76-mm (and even more so 45-mm) armor-piercing shells became simply no reason ( in addition, this would entail a shift in production). By the way, in the tank T-34-85 tank armor-piercing chamber was not at all.
              1. Alf
                -1
                12 May 2019 09: 59
                Quote: Gregory_45
                what prevents you from doing it yourself? You lead the discussion, not for its own sake, but for the sake of truth? So look for information, since it is so interested.

                I did not find, try to confirm your words yourself. I’ll be happy to draw a cross.
                And why are you discussing? If you start a dialogue, confirm your words, and do not push the opponent.
                1. -1
                  12 May 2019 12: 17
                  Quote: Alf
                  I did not find

                  then where did you get the information that almost all of the armored battles in the red army were chamberlain? Where did you get this? Come up with?

                  Quote: Alf
                  If you start a dialogue, confirm your words

                  If we begin to confirm every word .. In general, I’m not going to prove anything to you. Of course, you can search for statistics. But he always believed that if a person is really interested in understanding the question, how is it really, he himself will use his strength)

                  I will add one remark. The situation with armor-piercing at the beginning of the war was such that artillerymen and tankers were often forced to fire high-explosive fragmentation at enemy tanks. Probably, this was from an overabundance of specialized shells ... The situation was almost catastrophic - almost because the situation was corrected a bit by the fact that the chances were pushed into the USSR almost on cans ...
                  1. Alf
                    -2
                    12 May 2019 19: 57
                    Quote: Gregory_45
                    In general, I’m not going to prove anything to you.

                    That is, there is nothing to prove to you. By the style of your communication, it was clear from the very beginning that you were not going to prove your words.
                    1. 0
                      13 May 2019 22: 19
                      Quote: Alf
                      By the style of your communication it was clear

                      according to your style - that you do not need the truth, but the argument itself. There is a huge difference between us. I am conducting a discussion for the sake of knowing something tone (or correcting the known), you are for a different reason .. Whoever is happy to study is studying himself, and not looking for teachers
                    2. 0
                      21 May 2019 14: 00
                      Forgive me for interfering in the conversation of two adult uncles, well, since I got it right 1: from the school bench I know about the catastrophic shortage of armor-piercing in the Red Army, I know that there was no explosive there (which was a sin to conceal and at the end of the war there were problems with caliber and cumulative )
                      Well, in principle, the main thing:
                      2: since you are so zealously demanding proof from your opponent and you think that everyone here is obliged to confirm their words, then I ask for your proof (it’s not considered a wiki, any user can edit it in essence)
                      PS Do not accept my comment as hostile, you just said things that seemed to contradict my foundations about the Second World War, and I could sit and figure it out, but again you yourself say that the applicant must confirm his words.
                2. 0
                  12 May 2019 12: 33
                  Quote: Alf
                  I did not find

                  check out at least this:
                  http://gunm.ru/kto-ukral-u-stalina-snaryady/
                  http://www.battlefield.ru/soviet-tank-quality-1941/stranitsa-3.html
                3. 0
                  12 May 2019 12: 36
                  And more:
                  https://yablor.ru/blogs/kak-pered-vov-sorvali-gosoboronzaka/4732883
                  https://vpk-news.ru/articles/7856
    6. +1
      11 May 2019 15: 34
      Quote: lucul
      explosives in armor-piercing shells are not needed. And they made a blank shell (like a bullet), completely without explosives, but with prohibitive armor penetration. Such a projectile pierced armor well, the crew secreted fragments, but the tank itself remained intact (the T-34 was restored up to 5 times, the patch on the hole was put into battle).
      In our armor-piercing projectile, there were a lot of explosives, but because of it, the smallest armor penetration of all AP shells in World War II. But if our shell did penetrate the armor, then this tank was no longer subject to restoration

      Sorry, sheer mess in my head. For whoever had what shells, they already wrote.

      Now, with regards to the armored action and penetration. Penetration, by itself, will be higher in a continuous blanca - because she has more mass. The absorptive effect of the disc is approximately the same as the chamber one, but less pronounced (the presence of explosives in the shell gave a larger fragmentation field) But the damaging factors in both shells are the same - shell fragments and pieces of armor. It is they who cripple the crew, destroy equipment, break through tanks, and incandescent fragments - set fire to fuel, oil and powder charges.

      On the issue of tank restoration. German cars were restored in rembats five or more times. It’s yours that they supposedly could not be restored at all. In general, whether or not to be restored after it is defeated does not depend on the type of projectile that hit it, but what exactly is affected inside. There are many examples - at least for cumulative grenades. There is a sufficient number of photos of the seemingly intact tank after hitting a cumulative (just a neat hole in the armor), exactly like the armored vehicles completely disintegrated by an internal explosion. Draw conclusions ...
      1. -3
        11 May 2019 20: 21
        Sorry, complete mess in my head

        I read the porridge in my head at the heels of the commentators above.
        "Blank" - this is a sub-caliber if that. A subcaliber is also an armor-piercing projectile, it is called an armor-piercing subcaliber projectile. And the Germans began to use subcalibers en masse, after meeting with the KV-1, when it became clear that the caliber chamber projectile simply did not take it.
        The same Tiger - the basic caliber chamber shell had 150mm armor penetration at a distance of 500m, i.e. when meeting with the IS-2, the Tiger could only rely on the projectile at an angle of 90g, any deviation and the projectile could no longer penetrate the IS-2 . Another thing is the caliber - armor penetration of more than 200mm, and the gunner could not particularly worry.
        And our gunsmiths almost didn’t release sub-caliber shells.
        Why did the Germans correctly determine the direction of the development of shells? Yes, because even now all modern tanks have a caliber projectile as the main anti-tank weapon.
        1. Alf
          -1
          11 May 2019 23: 24
          Quote: lucul
          The same Tiger - the basic caliber chamber shell had 150mm armor penetration at a distance of 500m, i.e. when meeting with the IS-2, the Tiger could only rely on the projectile at an angle of 90g, any deviation and the projectile could no longer penetrate the IS-2 . Another thing is the caliber - armor penetration of more than 200mm, and the gunner could not particularly worry.


          Where is 150? Where is 200?
          The gunner was worried only about the absence of these same sub-caliber shells.

          The 1354 Tiger for the entire time of the war accounted for 8 thousand shells, some of which were shot at firing ranges and some were given away for KWK-36 army guns. So to have such a shell in the Tiger BC was for happiness.
          1. -1
            12 May 2019 08: 30


            Where is 150? Where is 200?
            The gunner was worried only about the absence of these same sub-caliber shells.

            And now we pass to the most interesting)).
            We look at the reservation scheme of the tank IS2

            We see that the IS2's upper frontal part has 120mm of armor and is at an angle of 20-30 degrees, which gives 130mm of armor in the given figure. (The lower part of the "step" of the VLD of 60 mm thickness and at an angle of 70 g did not break through at all - 100% rebound).
            The lower frontal part in 100 mm of reservation and at an angle of 30 g give a reduction in 110-115 mm of armor.
            The armor of the tower is 100mm, and at wild tilt angles - it bounced well.
            And now we are looking at our official version of the IS2 tank's protection against the KwK36 "the upper part of the 'stepped nose' was pierced by caliber armor-piercing shells of the 88-mm KwK 36 cannon from 1000-1200 m".
            This statement is found almost everywhere. But, according to your table, the armor penetration of a caliber bb projectile at a distance of 1000 m was 100 mm of armor penetration, that is, in fact, from such a distance KwK36, the basic caliber projectile could not penetrate the IS2's forehead at all.
            Who will we trust? )))
            1. +1
              12 May 2019 09: 22
              Quote: lucul
              And now we pass to the most interesting)).
              We look at the reservation scheme of the tank IS2

              the point is that they lay in real conditions. The armored vehicle is not on the range, not static in relation to the gun. It moves, including over irregularities, tilts relative to the projectile's flight path. It is quite possible that the sloped armor relative to the projectile will become vertical from the inclined) And there is no longer the effect of the sloped armor ... In addition, some types of projectiles are prone to so-called normalization - after biting the tip in the armor plate, the projectile tries to turn towards the normal in relation to sheet. Armor tilt is not a panacea and not an obvious boon ... a lot of nuances. Therefore, nowadays many topics simply do not bother, making the body "square", with only beveled frontal part - in the hope of creating conditions for a ricochet
              1. 0
                12 May 2019 09: 37
                It is quite possible that the inclined armor relative to the projectile from the inclined becomes vertical) And there is no longer the effect of the inclined armor ..

                The reverse case is quite possible))
                In general - this is the statement that KwK 36 hits IS2 with 1000m, rather it should refer to the IS, which is the first. But we have what we have.
                Not in vain did the Hans not recommend not dueling against IS2.
                Interestingly, shells with KwK 43 did the KwK 36 fit? )))
                1. 0
                  12 May 2019 09: 56
                  Quote: lucul
                  In general - this is the statement that KwK 36 hits IS2 with 1000m

                  only BTS Pzgr. 40/43. The usual armor-piercing (Pzgr. 39/43) cannot penetrate the forehead from such a distance.

                  But KwK 43 is a more powerful system. Due to the greater initial velocity of the projectile

                  Quote: lucul
                  Interestingly, shells with KwK 43 did the KwK 36 fit?

                  I guess not
                2. Alf
                  -1
                  12 May 2019 09: 58
                  Quote: lucul
                  Interestingly, shells with KwK 43 did the KwK 36 fit? )))

                  Absolutely not, the length of the sleeve is different.
            2. Alf
              -1
              12 May 2019 09: 57
              Quote: lucul
              This statement is found almost everywhere. But, according to your table, the armor penetration of a caliber bb projectile at a distance of 1000 m was 100 mm of armor penetration, that is, in fact, from such a distance of KwKado 36, a basic caliber projectile could not penetrate the IS2's forehead at all.
              Who will we trust? )))

              No need to misinterpret my words. I wrote that the armor penetration figures you quoted are incorrect. In the same BC, it is indicated that KWK36 did not pierce the forehead of IS even at point blank range.
              And here
              Quote: lucul
              Who will we trust?

              But the PC shells in fact in the Tigers BC did not exist, so piece samples. Otherwise, why would the Germans begin to crank up the really magnificent KWK-43/71 into the Royal Tiger?
              1. 0
                12 May 2019 10: 02
                But the PC shells in fact in the Tigers BC did not exist, so piece samples.

                Everywhere data - that pierced with a 1000m caliber projectile. See for yourself .
                really gorgeous KWK-43/71?

                Yes, the main "splendor" is the barrel length in L71))
                And the DT-25 remained the most powerful tank gun until the end of the 50s.
                1. Alf
                  -1
                  12 May 2019 10: 08
                  Quote: lucul
                  Everywhere data - that pierced with a 1000m caliber projectile.

                  Give the numbers that struck with 1000. Your arguments are true only for the IS-2 of the first series, after a straight forehead was introduced on the IS, the penetration stopped. Generally.
        2. +1
          12 May 2019 08: 04
          Quote: lucul
          "Blank" - this is a sub-caliber if that

          whit) The blank was originally called a caliber armor-piercing projectile.

          As for the rest (for BPS), I did not argue, did not even speak. You insisted that:
          Quote: lucul
          The Germans, after meeting with our KV-1, made the absolutely correct conclusion - explosives in armor-piercing shells are not needed. And they made a blank shell (like a bullet), completely without explosives, but with prohibitive armor penetration. Such a projectile pierced armor well, the crew secreted fragments, but the tank itself remained intact (the T-34 was restored up to 5 times, the patch on the hole was put into battle).
          In our armor-piercing projectile, there were a lot of explosives, but because of it, the smallest armor penetration of all AP shells in World War II. But if our shell did penetrate the armor, then this tank was no longer subject to restoration

          For BPS - not a word. All the same, literate people, talking about armor-piercing shells, explain which one they mean (because of their variety) - solid gauge, gauge with a core, subcaliber, subcaliber feathered (BOPS), cumulative (it is also armor-piercing). You reasoned simply - about solid armor-piercing solid (as is clear from the context) and continuous armor-piercing solid chamber
        3. +2
          12 May 2019 08: 27
          Quote: lucul
          "Blank" - this is a sub-caliber if that. And a subcaliber is also an armor-piercing projectile.

          but there are no sub-caliber chamber shells)) The penetration is due to the carbide core, in which, of course, there is no chamber for explosives)) The striking factors in the BPS are the same as in the solid caliber (fragments of the shell itself and fragments of armor). It breaks through high speed (remember the formula from the school curriculum, energy is proportional to the mass and square of the speed)
          1. -1
            12 May 2019 08: 33
            but there are no sub-caliber chamber shells)) The penetration is due to the carbide core, in which, of course, there is no chamber for explosives)) The striking factors in the BPS are the same as in the solid caliber (fragments of the shell itself and fragments of armor). It breaks through high speed (remember the formula from the school curriculum, energy is proportional to the mass and square of the speed)

            So it is, and the chances of being the very first to use them en masse, even during the war. With us they appeared only in 1945.
            1. +2
              12 May 2019 09: 09
              Quote: lucul
              their chances were the very first to be massively used, even during the war. With us they appeared only in 1945.


              Work on the creation of sub-caliber projectiles began in our country at the end of 1918, the first domestic BPS were manufactured in Petrograd at the beginning of 1919, they were intended for 356-mm guns of the Izmail-class battle cruisers.
              Work was carried out in Soviet times.
              If closer to our topic (tank infantry fighting vehicles and shells for field artillery), then they were - both in caliber of 45 mm and 76 mm.
              The coil to the forty-five was made at the beginning of the 42nd. BPS for the F-34 - in the spring of the 43rd. Another thing is that there were a meager amount of such shells in the units.
              1. 0
                12 May 2019 09: 11
                Another thing is that such shells in parts were scanty

                Yes, the same sub-caliber, but on the T34-76 could save many lives of our tankers.
      2. Alf
        -1
        11 May 2019 23: 09
        Quote: Gregory_45
        German cars were restored in rembats five or more times. It’s yours that they supposedly could not be restored at all.


        From 2 and a half thousand to collect a hundred is not five times.
        1. 0
          12 May 2019 08: 21
          He doesn’t say anything. You better take the labor to enlighten for the activities of the German evacuation and repair services since the Second World War ...
          1. Alf
            -1
            12 May 2019 10: 01
            Quote: Gregory_45
            He doesn’t say anything. You better take the labor to enlighten for the activities of the German evacuation and repair services since the Second World War ...

            So give the numbers, and do not skip off the topic and do not behave like Carbine.
  6. -1
    10 May 2019 12: 50

    Interested in such a moment. Photos of the interior of the ISU-122 almost none. However, the authors did not give a single photo. There are two reasons. Either the self-propelled gun inside is in such a condition that it cannot be shown, or the authors in the museum have bird rights.
    1. +1
      10 May 2019 23: 46
      laughing The authors from the museum in 2000 km are located ...
      1. 0
        10 May 2019 23: 50
        Do you think that with modern means of communication this is a problem?
        1. +4
          11 May 2019 07: 59
          I believe that the best communication is personal communication. And in order to love it, or vice versa, you need to personally feel the spleen. And then we have a lot of theorists, especially from the "dancers" who just need to look at the photo and understand everything
          1. 0
            11 May 2019 08: 15
            This meant the use of communications for taking photographs, and not for love. There are also targeted and creative business trips - for those who like to feel the spleen and personally communicate.
            1. 0
              14 May 2019 10: 41
              Quote: Undecim
              It was meant to use communications for photographs,

              Alas, but to find photographers in museums, paradoxically as it sounds, is almost impossible. They remove common species.
              1. 0
                14 May 2019 10: 47
                Would the museum administration refuse a photo report for an article on military equipment to the VO site, all the more - is it also an advertisement for the museum?
  7. +1
    10 May 2019 17: 35
    But the problem was not the power of the gun, but the very possibility of getting into the tank. A short barrel did not give a guaranteed hit.

    e .... Unless only when the target moves to self-propelled guns. Those. with frontal movement. This is due to the installation on the fact that the affected area should be more than 50 meters, which allowed not to take into account the movement of the tank during the flight time of the projectile.

    By the way, in this case, from a 122 mm gun, direct fire at a range of more than 1500 was considered inappropriate (Shooting Rules)

    However, it should be said that the device CT-18 somewhat reduced the firing range. The fact is that the calibration of the device was calculated only for 1500 meters. Therefore, it was impossible to use it for longer distances. Saved panorama Hertz.

    Direct aiming in no way limits the firing range. Why the scope scale was limited to 1500 meters - indicated above.
  8. +1
    10 May 2019 20: 16
    The cycle continues to delight stories about technology. Thanks to the authors.
  9. +12
    11 May 2019 01: 13

    Bottom left (in a headset with glasses) is my father, the mechanical driver of this beauty.
    Photo taken at 1945 in Hungary.
  10. 0
    11 May 2019 12: 19
    387 glanders, if this is an art regiment, then why are there battalions in it, and not batteries?
    1. 0
      11 May 2019 16: 09
      In the self-propelled regiments there were exactly batteries, since 4 (I write from memory) the batteries of the regiment were made up.
  11. +1
    11 May 2019 22: 52
    A little messy article turned out, but still not bad. Thanks to the authors!

    Probably it was necessary to once again point out the difference in the armament of these two, well-known self-propelled guns. ISU-152 is made on the basis of the howitzer, but ISU-122 and ISU-122s are made on the basis of the A-19, long-range gun! The difference in energy, a 6-inch howitzer breaks through due to the large weight of the projectile, and A-19 concrete-piercing shells due to the high initial speed. And of course, the long-barrel A-19 is an order of magnitude more accurate when firing direct fire. And her penetration is certainly higher, that for concrete and that for tanks :)
  12. 0
    12 May 2019 23: 33
    And at the same time, a sufficient number of tank A-19s accumulated in the warehouses (from the beginning of production, the IS-2 was called D-25T).

    Well, AUTHORS YOU and bent ...
    A-19 suddenly became D-25S ...
    Strong! No, of course I know that the guns of the D-25 family were born thanks to the A-19! But nevertheless they were not identical in design!
    Therefore, in order not to slow down the formation of heavy self-propelled artillery regiments, the People’s Commissariat of the tank industry should was to begin in 1944 the production of heavy ISU-152, armed with a 122-mm cannon gun A-19 in the installation of the ML-20S. It is interesting that the appearance on the front of the ISU-122 caused the formation of mixed tank self-propelled breakthrough regiments, since the unity of the ammunition and the base of the IS-2 tank and self-propelled guns simplified the supply and was the best match for the preparation of the regiments for hostilities.
    But these self-propelled guns required a crew of 5 people. Therefore, in the spring of 1944, due to a shortage of personnel, the technical department of the NKTP put forward a design bureau of plant No. 100 to improve the design of the ISU-122 in order to exclude the castle from the crew.
    But Plant No. 9, loaded with a large order for the production of 100-mm D-10 guns for self-propelled guns SU-100 and 122-mm guns D-25T for IS-122 tanks, could not significantly increase the production of 122-mm guns D-25S for equipment ISU-122. Therefore, the production of ISU-122 was preserved, and the production of ISU-122S went in parallel in small series.
    1. 0
      13 May 2019 07: 36
      "And at the same time, a sufficient number of tank A-19s have accumulated in the warehouses (since the start of production of the IS-2, it was named D-25T).

      Well, AUTHORS YOU and bent ...
      A-19 suddenly became D-25S .. "
      That's for sure. Especially when you consider that the authors (they probably did not notice, and you did a good job lol ) we are talking about the D-25T. One letter changes a lot in the name. "T" and "C" are two very different tools.
      It says for those who are especially literate that the D-25S were primarily created specifically for tanks. The appearance of these guns on the self-propelled guns was literally "scratched out" by production workers after the success of the ISU-122. And the cars turned out to be completely different from each other.
      Maybe you should read and not browse, so as not to look like esperdom? .
      1. 0
        13 May 2019 18: 57
        The impression is complemented by the fact that the ISU-122 looks like the ISU-152, and the gun is exactly the same as on the IS-2 tank.

        This is also not an "inaccuracy"? So the IS-2 and ISU-122 guns are structurally identical?
        ISU-122 early release (until May 1944) were armed with a slightly modified 122-mm gun mod. 1931/37 The changes concerned the transfer of gun controls on one side for ease of guidance, equipping its breech with a receiver tray for ease of loading and installing an electric trigger. Piston lock identical with towed implement. A gun modified in this way was designated as A-19C.
        ISU-122 of release of May 1944 and further were equipped with a modified to a greater extent 122 mm gun, which no longer had interchangeability with A-19 and A-19C barrels. This version of the gun was called "122-mm self-propelled gun mod. 1931/44 years. " The shutter did not undergo significant changes and remained piston.

        And where did the AUTHORS get the following information -
        [Quote] A gun designed for self-propelled guns was installed on a new development of the tank - object 240 (IS-2). It so happened that the object 240 (IS-2) came out for testing even earlier than the object 241 (ISU-152). Object 242 thus became unnecessary. It is because of the same type of gun with a tank. The series went ISU-152. In fact, from December 1943 to April 1944, ChTZ produced only ISU-152. [/ quote]
        1. 0
          14 May 2019 10: 47
          Before the appearance of the D-2S, the IS-25 tanks were equipped with the D-25T guns. The same ones that were used with the ISU-122. You are comparing the IS-2 with the "C" gun and the SPG with the "T" gun
          And the question will give an answer to the archive of the CTZ. He is freely available.
          There, quite seriously with the documents, you can trace the evolution of ISU-122. .
  13. 0
    14 May 2019 20: 57
    ZVOF81 projectile
  14. 0
    10 July 2019 14: 11
    Quote: lucul
    no lead was required.

    You do not understand what a lead is? When shooting at a target moving not strictly at the arrow, preemption is always required, even for a direct shot.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"