Military Review

M-69 gun. Anti-tank "ram" caliber 152 mm

34
By the mid-fifties, the potential of missile weapons in the context of combating tanks, however, anti-tank guns were still in no hurry to go back in time. Another attempt was made to create a promising anti-tank self-propelled artillery mount with a high-powered gun. As part of the research work "Taran" was created self-propelled guns "Object 120" and 152-mm gun M-69 for her. Both models exceeded all developments of their time in their combat characteristics.



"Object 120" in the museum. The barrel of the 152-mm gun M-69 barely fits into the frame. Wikimedia Commons Photos


R&D "Taran"


In May 1957, several resolutions of the Council of Ministers of the USSR set a course for the development of armored vehicles to combat enemy tanks. The industry was given the task of developing several armored vehicles with guided missile weapons, as well as an artillery installation with a high-powered gun. The creation of self-propelled guns was carried out as part of the research work "Taran".

According to the terms of reference, the new self-propelled gun was supposed to have a mass of not more than 30 t and carry protection from small and medium-caliber shells. For self-propelled guns it was necessary to create a large-caliber gun weighing no more than 4,5 t with a range of direct shot at a target like a "tank" in 3 km. At such a distance, the gun was supposed to pierce 300 mm of homogeneous armor at a meeting angle of 30 °.

The main contractor for Taran was OKB-3 of the Sverdlovsk Uralmashzavod, headed by G.S. Efimov. The design of the guns was entrusted to the Perm SKB-172 chief designer M.Yu. Tsirulnikova. Shots were fired at the Moscow Research Institute-24 under the direction of V.S. Kreneva and V.V. Yavorsky. Several other organizations were involved in research as developers and suppliers of individual components and components.

Two guns


During the same 1957, a number of organizations, headed by SKB-172, were looking for the optimal appearance of the gun for the future self-propelled guns. Calculations showed that the required ratio of fire characteristics and mass can have a caliber system 130 and 152,4 mm. By the end of the year, SKB-172 completed preliminary projects of two such guns. Product caliber 130 mm received the working designation M-68. 152-mm gun designated as M-69.

The M-68 project offered an 130-mm rifled gun with a barrel length of 10405 mm (80 calibers) for a shot of a separate-shell loading. The estimated initial velocity of the projectile reached 1800 m / s. The mass of the gun on the installation was 3800 kg - 700 kg less than the maximum permissible technical specification. It was proposed to attack the armored objects with the help of a specially designed armor-piercing projectile with a mass of 9 kg. Its penetration characteristics corresponded to the wishes of the customer. Also provided for a high-explosive fragmentation projectile with a variable propellant charge.

In the project M-69 worked 152-mm gun with a smooth barrel of the same dimensions. Relative barrel length - 68,5 calibres. The mass of the product has reached the maximum permissible 4500 kg. The estimated maximum projectile speed was 1700 m / s. Against the tanks, the gun was supposed to use 11,5-kg armor-piercing projectile or cumulative ammunition. Fortifications and manpower could be attacked by a high-explosive fragmentation shell.

M-69 gun. Anti-tank "ram" caliber 152 mm
Layout of self-propelled guns "Taran". Photo Russianarms.ru


In February 1958, at a meeting in the State Committee for Defense Technology, taking into account the results of the research, the terms of reference were changed. In particular, the range of a direct shot at a target with a height of 3 m was reduced to 2,5 km. Other requirements remained the same. Now enterprises had to manufacture and test the experimental cannons of two types.

The manufacture and subsequent shooting of the M-68 and M-69 products took about a year. The stem groups were manufactured by Plant No. 172. Ammunition received from related enterprises. The tests were carried out at the factory’s test site using the M36-BU-3 ballistic installation. During the test firing, it was possible to confirm the main tactical and technical characteristics of the guns.

In March of the 1959, a new meeting was held, at which the final shape of the future self-propelled guns "Taran" or "Object 120" was determined. When choosing a gun for self-propelled guns, the nomenclature of ammunition became a decisive factor. The X-NUMX-mm M-130 cannon could only hit tanks with a sub-projectile, while the M-68 had cumulative ammunition. Due to the greater flexibility of their application for further development and use on the "Taran" recommended smooth-bore 69-mm gun.

At the very beginning of the next 1960, Uralmashzavod received two experimental M-69 guns for installation on the “120 Object”. Soon, the only prototype self-propelled guns with such weapons went to factory tests.

Technical features


The finished product M-69 used as part of the self-propelled gun "Taran" was a smoothbore gun with a caliber of 152,4 mm with a barrel length of 9,045 m, using a separate-shell loading. The breech of the gun was equipped with a semi-automatic wedge bolt. An ejector was placed next to the muzzle. To partially compensate for recoil, a slotted muzzle brake was used with 20 holes on each side.

The gun mount had hydropneumatic recoil devices with a resistance force of 47 tf. Due to the use of such devices and an effective muzzle brake, the maximum rollback length was only 300 mm.


Scheme "Object 120" with a gun M-69. Figure Russianarms.ru


The vertical guidance of the swinging part with the gun was carried out by hydraulic or manual drive. Pickup angles - from -5 ° to + 15 °. As part of the installation, there was a mechanism that, after each shot, automatically returned the barrel to the loading angle. The gun mount was located in a tower of circular rotation, which provided firing in any direction.

"Object 120" was transporting ammunition from 22 rounds of separate loading. For faster feed into the cannon shells and shells were placed in the drum. Due to this, the gun could perform 2 shots in 20 seconds.

For M-69 developed several shots for various purposes. To combat manpower and fortifications was intended 152-mm high-explosive fragmentation shell weighing 43,5 kg with a propelling charge of 3,5 kg (reduced) or 10,7 kg (full). The fight against armored vehicles was provided by cumulative and subcaliber shells weighing 11,5 kg. Together with them used shells with 9,8-kg charges.

The initial velocity of the projectile is 1710 m / s. The range of a direct shot at a target with a height of 2 m is 2,5 km. The pressure in the bore reached 4 thousand kgf / sq. Cm. Muzzle energy - more than 19,65 MJ. Effective firing range reached several kilometers.

At a distance of 3,5 km with a direct hit on the target, the projectile pierced 295 mm of homogeneous armor. At a meeting angle of 60 °, penetration was reduced to 150 mm. At a distance of 2 km, the gun could penetrate 340 mm (angle 0 °) or 167 mm (angle 60 °). At a distance of 1 km, the maximum tabular value of penetration reached 370 mm.

Thus, the latest SPG “Object 120” with the M-69 cannon could successfully hit any existing armored vehicles of a potential enemy at ranges of up to several kilometers. It should be noted that according to some characteristics, the 152-mm gun from the beginning of the sixties can be compared with modern samples.


The layout of the 120 Object. You can evaluate the features of the placement of the gun. Figure Btvt.info


However, there were some notable flaws. First of all, the mobility of self-propelled guns suffered, since a longer barrel length increased the overall overall size of the armored vehicle. Despite the aft placement of the fighting compartment, the muzzle of the barrel a few meters out of the hull. When driving over rough terrain, this threatened to poke the trunk into the ground with unpleasant consequences.

The end of "Taran"


Tests of the “Object 120” self-propelled gun with the M-69 gun started at the beginning of 1960 and lasted only a few months. Already on 30 in May, the Council of Ministers decided to stop work on the subject of "Ram" in view of the expected obsolescence. At the same time, the industry received assignments for the development of a new 125-mm tank gun with enhanced characteristics. The result of this project was the smoothbore gun 2A26 / D-81. In parallel with it, new anti-tank missile systems were developed.

The more unnecessary experienced “120 Object” was sent for storage. Later he got to the museum of armored vehicles in Kubinka, where now everyone can see him. This self-propelled guns immediately attracts attention with a long barrel hanging over the tracks for visitors. Even without a muzzle brake, the M-69 gun almost reaches the opposite row of armored vehicles.

With the closure of the Taran research work, work on the 152-mm smoothbore guns for fighting tanks ceased for a long time. New projects of such weapons appeared only in the eighties, when there was a need to increase the firepower of the main tanks. However, this direction still has not yielded real results and has not affected the rearmament of troops.

The 152-mm smoothbore gun M-69 developed by SKB-172 was one of the most powerful guns of its time and could guaranteedly solve the assigned tasks. However, even before the completion of testing of its carrier, it was decided to abandon large calibers in favor of more compact systems. Nevertheless, the M-69 gun and the “120 Object” self-propelled guns during the tests were able to show the highest characteristics, thanks to which they occupied an important place in stories domestic weapons and military equipment.
Author:
34 comments
Ad

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

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Thrifty
    Thrifty 18 August 2019 05: 39
    +3
    Kirill, for the sake of completeness, you had to give the characteristics of this "product" - length, width, weight. ..
  2. AsmyppoL
    AsmyppoL 18 August 2019 05: 43
    +2
    Thanks for the interesting stuff!
  3. Popov Konstantin Ivanovich
    Popov Konstantin Ivanovich 18 August 2019 06: 30
    +1
    The car of course YES! somehow passed by my attention, did not know. In battle, I wouldn’t burrow a barrel into the ground, but what about the rate of fire in real conditions, well, or at a training ground in a situation as close as possible? With what modern guns does the author compare the M-69, with anti-tank, with howitzers? What sights and surveillance devices were. The range of defeat of moving armored vehicles in battle conditions, firing, is also several kilometers? Somehow it does not fit very well with a maneuvering war, or is it a weapon of the last day. Yes, there was money in the USSR for the implementation of almost any military-technical ideas, including military-technical errors.
  4. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 18 August 2019 06: 40
    +9
    This is a "product" !!! Dimensions - okay, but POWER! It is difficult to imagine the effect of such a projectile on the then tanks of the "probable enemy" ... The word "all-crushing" spins on the tongue ... laughing
    Thanks to the author.
    1. chenia
      chenia 18 August 2019 10: 04
      0
      It is not strange, but now it is a more correct direction for the PT res. regiment and above, taking into account the development of anti-tank anti-tank systems .. Tank destroyer.

      Exclude the turret, cover with armor only the gun and automatic loader, and move to the stern (as far as possible).
      In the stern do the department management. combined with combat, hence the movement on the march is carried out as if aft forward (now it will be the bow) with the trunk back, hence the problems of sticking the barrel will go away. And in the fighting position, stern (what was the bow) forward, and behind the engine a compartment with laying ammunition (it will be a little more difficult for the machine to pull shells into a rotating turret).
      Further, the variable clearance, built-in camouflage elements and a blade for self-digging.

      Well, the crew is two people: a gunner-mechanic and a commander (naturally, there will still be people in the unit who will help maintain the system). And with such a crew, the location of the fighting compartment would not be the desire of individual commanders to use a tank destroyer as a tank.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 18 August 2019 12: 42
        +4
        Quote: chenia
        It is not strange, but now it is a more correct direction for the PT res. regiment and above, taking into account the development of anti-tank anti-tank systems .. Tank destroyer.

        Why is it true?
        The ideal composition of the ATGM regiment is an ATGM battery for long-range operation; "extra" tank company of the regimental tank battalion for work on medium and small, as well as a motorized rifle platoon from the second echelon battalion to cover it all from the infantry in the slightest degree.
        And command all this to place the commander of a tank battalion.

        The default tank is better than tank destroyers.
        1. garri-lin
          garri-lin 18 August 2019 12: 54
          +1
          Agree, but some modern tanks are more like tank destroyers. Such as Abrams and Leopard. Facets are erased.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 18 August 2019 13: 22
            +3
            Quote: garri-lin
            Agree, but some modern tanks are more like tank destroyers. Such as Abrams and Leopard. Facets are erased.

            I do not agree.
            Yes, they are used in modern local conflicts as a means of direct fire support, but this does not stop being tanks.
            1. garri-lin
              garri-lin 18 August 2019 15: 51
              -1
              Well, at close proximity, the same Abrams will be considered in the original version, well, it very much resembles exactly the tank destroyer. Deferred reservation. Accurate and penetrative gun with poor ability to work on fortifications and dispersed infantry. Demanding on roads. With Leo, this is weaker.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 18 August 2019 16: 31
                +4
                By and large, the difference between a tank and self-propelled guns is the possibility of placing a tank BEFORE the attacking infantry.

                The ability to shoot on the move and sufficient protection within the angles of safe maneuvering.

                If you hammer a nail with a gun, it does not become a hammer but remains a gun, right?
                1. garri-lin
                  garri-lin 18 August 2019 17: 24
                  0
                  The name defines the true nature and purpose. The gun remains a pistol, microscope microscope. Misuse or from hopelessness or from stupidity.
                2. Potter
                  Potter 18 August 2019 22: 33
                  +2
                  I want to remind you of the existence of a construction gun with which dowels are driven into concrete. Highly successful. So what is right about the microscope.
        2. chenia
          chenia 18 August 2019 13: 29
          +1
          Quote: Spade
          The default tank is better than tank destroyers.


          Well, it doesn’t happen, the station wagon always loses to the specialized one.
          Only ATGMs (and in the IT company there may be a platoon complex of ATGMs of the Chrysanthemum type) have no way out, reasons. I have already indicated.
          Where did the T-12 go (and instead of them, SPRUT-B)) - and are these modern AT systems?
          PT cut regiment works together with REF, usually one, and the main task is to gain time. For regrouping the second echelon or counterattack (here tanks are useful in the active phase of defense).
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 18 August 2019 14: 47
            +2
            Quote: chenia
            Well, it doesn’t happen, the station wagon always loses to the specialized one.

            Here is a completely different story. Nedotank will always lose to the tank

            Quote: chenia
            Where did the T-12 go (and instead of them, SPRUT-B)) - and are these modern AT systems?

            As far as I know, the MT-12 is being actively removed from the troops, and the Sprut-B never entered the troops

            Quote: chenia
            PT cut shelf works with REF, usually one

            Well, yes.
            That's just the PT cut it is not necessarily just the PT battery / OPTADn.
            How is it in the Charter? "Included in or is"
            1. chenia
              chenia 19 August 2019 21: 36
              0
              Quote: Spade
              Nedotank will always lose to the tank


              So an ambush works. Recall the tactics (in defense) of a line of defense as a rule behind the first position, which means the enemy has broken the first echelon. can by the way advance not only in the battle line, but also in the pre-battle line and most importantly, introduced a second echelon (tanks with a non-destroyed KAZ).

              The need to delay the enemy, for the activities indicated above (regrouping or counterattack). I think the IT department will do better. Artillery (leftovers) by the way and will be preparing for these events. So, in addition to the POS, there will be no special help (well, a maximum of infantry platoon - and then for the wooded area, to repel the dismounted enemy infantry advancing from tank inaccessible directions.

              In (offensive), covering the flanks of the second echelon of the regiment (which is 4-6 km from the first line), moving irregularly to the waiting areas in front of the PT border, and sometimes directly to the planned (or indicated) TD lines, to repel enemy counterattacks. Also fresh tanks (without a downed KAZ), the truth in this case is there is an advantage in artillery, which can already help (yes, the superiority of IT is not so obvious).
          2. Captain Pushkin
            Captain Pushkin 18 August 2019 14: 52
            -1
            Quote: chenia
            where T-12 didn’t get to (and instead of them SPRUT-B)) - and is it a modern PT systems?

            Their place is in storage, in case there is suddenly nothing left at all. In a battle with tanks, this is a kamikaze.
      2. your1970
        your1970 25 August 2019 11: 04
        0
        everything was long ago - "Archer" was called. I drove backwards, I was not particularly famous ...
    2. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 19 August 2019 05: 40
      0
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      This is a "product" !!! Dimensions - okay, but POWER!

      A lot of excellent equipment was created in the 50s to the mid 60s, but "Nikita Kukuruznik" broke the army and the military-industrial complex over the knee. I remember well how in the spring of 1964 the entire issue of the V.I. Frunze was sent to the reserve the next day after the banquet.
  5. 113262a
    113262a 18 August 2019 09: 53
    +1
    Alas, for modern combat, such monsters are not needed! Without armor, and even with such dimensions it will be discovered and destroyed even in the trench. That long — not a hindrance — recall Hyacinth. Rides and does not stop.
  6. garri-lin
    garri-lin 18 August 2019 10: 56
    +3
    Why is this monster still not in Tanchiki ??? Rusish Babahen !!!!! Urgently enter. Thanks to the author for the article. Reminded of a good technique.
    1. Mikhail Zhukov
      Mikhail Zhukov 18 August 2019 13: 08
      +1
      It depends on which tanks)
      1. garri-lin
        garri-lin 18 August 2019 13: 29
        0
        Well, the tanks seem to be alone. Wartander is a little different.
        1. Mikhail Zhukov
          Mikhail Zhukov 18 August 2019 13: 32
          0
          Well, there are tanks with tanks too. There seems to be 120
          1. garri-lin
            garri-lin 18 August 2019 15: 46
            +1
            I didn’t notice it. In Kubinka, there are several copies that you need to popularize at least through games. The same sting. And a few more. People need to know.
            1. Mikhail Zhukov
              Mikhail Zhukov 18 August 2019 15: 51
              0
              The sting in the Armata Project is, in my opinion. On YouTube, it seemed like a review of her once
              1. garri-lin
                garri-lin 18 August 2019 16: 08
                0
                I did not encounter armature. I drive a bit in this. I like the popularization of information about the history of tanks and the history of the Great War. And the children have something to tell and show.
  7. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 18 August 2019 13: 00
    +3
    Interesting movie! To be honest, I didn't know about the smoothbore 152mm M-69 (I can't remember that ...)! I thought that the "history" of the 152-mm "smoothbore" was limited to the "152-mm 2A83 cannon! So thank you very much to the Author!" fellow
  8. NF68
    NF68 18 August 2019 15: 22
    0
    This would be a very powerful "argument" for any tanks of potential opponents.
  9. prodi
    prodi 18 August 2019 19: 02
    0
    10 m rifled barrel at 1800 m / s initial speed, of course impressive. It would be interesting if we could make the barrel composite: an external pipe on conventional recoil chambers, inside of which a rifled barrel is accelerated along straight guides, in which the projectile accelerates ... On the one hand, the charge will be required to accelerate the additional barrel - on the other, it will accelerate with acceleration projectile, reducing the load on the rifling, and its mass compensating for the absence of a muzzle brake.
    The only thing to use as a damper between the trunks is water or oil displaced under pressure and rolling ...
  10. Deathmaker
    Deathmaker 18 August 2019 21: 12
    0
    I did not understand how "obsolescence" was expressed.
    1. g1washntwn
      g1washntwn 19 August 2019 08: 06
      0
      Missiles, sub-caliber, cumulative, AZ / KAZ, etc. ... here the monstrous tank destroyers began to lose the same MBT.
      Although, even a pig iron to groan with 152mm, the ringing will be that one.
  11. torp
    torp 30 August 2019 00: 53
    0
    Serious gun
  12. vadimtt
    vadimtt 11 September 2019 07: 09
    0
    And why are large caliber?
    After all, a shell of 200-300 grams can give energy of 20-30 MJ.
    And the speeds will be just fashionable hypersonic bully
    I understand that the problem is in the materials? For there are no special problems with gunpowder in electrochemical tools.
    I wonder how viable the idea of ​​a barrel with a tungsten liner and Kevlar winding?
  13. UA3QHP
    UA3QHP 19 September 2019 21: 57
    0
    Quote: vadimtt
    After all, a shell of 200-300 grams can give energy of 20-30 MJ.

    It is possible if you accelerate it to 14 km / s, i.e. a little more than the second space one.