Military Review

“Armored Institute”. Soviet Union learns to make armor

42

T-34 are sent to the front. Plant number 183. Source: t34inform.ru


Central Research Institute-48


The key role in the appearance of protivosnaryadnoy armor in the Soviet tanks played by the Central Research Institute of Structural Materials, or Central Research Institute-48 “Armored Institute”. At a time when the production of tanks was forced to transfer to the Urals and the tank crisis of 1941-1942 broke out, it was the experts of the Armored Institute that coordinated efforts to resolve it. Consider history the emergence of this outstanding institution.

Andrey Zavyalov, one of the main creators of the legendary T-48 tank armor, became the ideological inspirer of the appearance of TsNII-34 on the basis of the Izhora Central Armored Laboratory. The young engineer began his career back in 1930 at the All-Union Scientific Research Institute of Metals, and two years later he was appointed head of the Central Plant Laboratory of the Izhora Plant.


Andrey Sergeevich Zavyalov. Source: youtube.com

It was here that Zavyalov came up with the largely revolutionary idea of ​​equipping tanks with ballistic armor, which was strengthened after testing the T-26 armor with a 37-mm cannon firing. It turned out that the light tank is not pierced right through by the most powerful shells. Then the light tank was made of chromium-silicon-manganese steel grade PI 15 mm thickness. This, incidentally, was bypassing the main technology, requiring 10- and 13-mm cemented armor, which, unfortunately, they could not do with quality either in Mariupol or at the Izhora plant. As a result, the T-26 was heavily loaded by 800 kilograms, and even did not hold small-caliber shells - this was largely due to the high proportion of marriage (up to 50%) in tank corps. Zavyalov sounded the alarm in 1935 (recall that he was one of the first in the world with such an initiative), but in the end he was almost dismissed as a "troublemaker." The Council of Labor and Defense, held in May 1936, helped Zavyalov convey his idea to Zhdanov and Stalin. As a result, the Main Directorate for the production of armor appeared, which was transferred to the Izhora and Mariupol factories, and their laboratories were renamed to armor. You should not think that Andrey Zavyalov only took care of tanks in this way - in the educated laboratories, they worked, among other things, on booking destroyers and battleships, and later on IL-2 attack aircraft.


The Central Research Institute-48 team in the pre-war period (1938), in the center of A.S. Zavyalov is the first director of the institute. Source: Crism-prometey.ru


Andrey Sergeevich Zavyalov. Source: Crism-prometey.ru

Since 1938, when the Central Research Institute-48 was formed under the leadership of A.S. Zavyalov, the institute was closely engaged in the development of new types of armored steel for medium and heavy tanks. Steel was cooked in 10-30-ton electric furnaces and 30-40-ton open-hearth furnaces with exact observance of all the nuances of armor production. The highest technological discipline required clean materials and containers, as well as the precise dosing of alloying materials: manganese, chromium, nickel, silicon and molybdenum. One of the first brands of homogeneous armor at the Armor Institute was 2P steel, designed for sections of the hull not subject to high impact loads. However, the true glory of TsNII-48 was brought by the 8C armor, which is distinguished by high hardness and intended for the manufacture of rolled and cast armor parts. That 8C will become a little later the basis of the armor power of medium tanks T-34.

The scale of the research work at the Armored Institute is evidenced by the fact that more than 900 armored plates of various composition and thickness were shot during the search for the optimal recipe. At first glance, the new solid armor had only pluses - it was perfectly welded, confidently held the majority of anti-tank shells with a caliber of up to 50 mm and in terms of its qualities surpassed its German counterparts. However, 8C showed such remarkable properties only with strict adherence to the production technological cycle, which was possible only at the Izhora plant and in Mariupol. So, if in a high-hardness armor the carbon content is increased to 0,36%, then the defect in the cracks in the details increased to 90%! How cracks in the hulls became the real scourge of T-34 medium tanks in the first half of the war was described in the article “Cracks in the armor. Defective T-34 for the front ".


Source: Crism-prometey.ru

In fairness, it should be noted that the first medium tanks with cracks appeared in the Red Army not during the war, but in 1940 on the T-34 of the first series, the armored corps of which were made with violations. At the same time, it is important to know that KV heavy tanks did not suffer from such an ailment due to the different composition of the armor. The thing is in the theoretical calculations and practical experiments of the Central Research Institute-48 of the late 30s, during which it was revealed the susceptibility of 8C with armor-piercing ammunition with a caliber of more than 75 mm. And here, in all its glory, the negative sides of high hardness alloys were manifested - they did not just break through, but split into fragments of various sizes. A simple increase in thickness did not bring much effect - the compression wave even without breaking through caused a very dangerous fragmentation field inside the tank. Therefore, for HF, the “Armor Institute” welded a homogeneous armor plate of medium hardness, capable of withstanding shells with a caliber of more than 75 mm. But here there were some nuances. It turned out that homogeneous armor is worse than multilayer armor with sharp-headed projectiles, which can be fraught with a tank defeat along the normal. A couple of cases were even recorded during the Soviet-Finnish war, when the harmless 37-mm spear shells hit the HF very successfully and entered the armor by 68 mm, that is, they nearly pierced the tank. Then the alarm began to be sounded by the head of the special technical bureau N. A. Rudakov, proposing to introduce an expensive procedure for cementing armor, but things did not go further than experiments at the Izhora plant. In the course of experimental work, it turned out that the advantage of cemented armor over a homogeneous one is manifested only with a thickness of more than 150 mm, which, of course, was not entirely possible to implement in the series. Actually, this determined the appearance of medium and heavy tanks of the Soviet Union, welded from homogeneous armor of high and medium hardness, perfectly opposing blunt-headed shells, but often grazing in front of pointed-headed shells that fit the target at angles close to normal. In other cases, the rational corners of the corps were an excellent panacea for most German artillery (at least in the initial period of the war). Returning to the problem of crack formation in the T-34 hulls, it is worth saying that they appeared on the HF, but were not critical and did not reduce the projectile resistance.

"Armor Institute" in the war


Already in July 48, specialists of the Central Research Institute-1941 worked on the reconstruction of the 14 largest enterprises in the Soviet Union under the new military needs. Among them are Magnitogorsk, Kuznetsk, Novo-Tagil and Chusovskoy metallurgical plants, as well as the famous Uralmash and Gorky "Red Sormovo". Among the many works of the Armored Institute, only by the beginning of 1942 the following projects were put forward for the Stalin Prize (as they say now): “Development and implementation of the production of cast KV towers”, “Development of a substitute steel grade and the process of production of armored steel for heavy KV tanks in the main open-hearth furnaces of large capacity "," Development and implementation of the process of welding heavy tanks ", as well as" A new type of protivosnaryadnaya tank armor of high hardness with a thickness of 20, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50 and 60 mm made of silicon chromo-n ikel-manganese-molybdenum steel grade M3-2. " In February 1942, at the Verkhne-Isetsky Plant, TsNII-48 specialists developed and introduced the technology of casting towers for T-60 light tanks, which significantly reduced energy consumption and resource.


Martin of the Magnitogorsk Iron and Steel Works. 1942 year. Source: m.gubernator74.ru


The technology for the production of shells was also in the field of interest of the Armored Institute. Source: Crism-prometey.ru

In general, the situation with the Magnitogorsk Iron and Steel Works was close to disaster - at the beginning of the war, an order was issued to organize the production of armored steels for tanks. And before that, the company produced exclusively “peaceful” steel, there were no specific “acidic” open-hearth furnaces in the workshops, and, naturally, there was not a single specialist in casting such complex compositions. As a result, the TsNII-48 experts, who were the first in the world to invent smelting armor in the main furnaces, decided the question - read above the full name of the corresponding design work. This allowed two months ahead of schedule to carry out the first issue of armor from 150-, 185- and 300-ton open-hearth furnaces. And on July 28, 1941 it was also the first time in the world that it was possible to roll an armor plate on civil blooming not intended for this purpose. As a result, every second Soviet tank was made of Magnitogorsk armor. And such a scenario was repeated with varying degrees of success at other enterprises of the ferrous metallurgy of the Soviet Union. But such swiftness, of course, has a downside.

In the book “Tank Industry of the USSR during World War II,” candidate of historical sciences Nikita Melnikov writes that, according to the standards, until 1941 mm the T-45 side armor had to withstand the direct hit of a 34 mm anti-tank shell from a distance of 45 meters. But already in 350, at the height of the emergency production of tanks at the Ural enterprises, the standard for armor resistance was seriously reduced - just such ammunition should not have pierced the side of the tank from 1942 meters.


The spectrum of the Central Research Institute-48 during the war. Source: Crism-prometey.ru

The Armored Institute can be ranked with an indisputable merit by introducing the production technology of cast towers of KV tanks by the summer of 1942. This innovation, which has become largely compelled, among other things, reduced the volume of mechanical processing of towers by 40%, reduced the consumption of scarce rolled armor by 20%, and reduced press-bending work at tank plants by 50%. And the use of casting in the manufacture of T-34 towers (also using the TsNII-48 technology) made it possible to get rid of the notorious cracks at least on this part of the tank.

In addition to purely technological work at tank production facilities, TsNII-48 specialists were also engaged in statistical research on the battlefields. In the future, this became the basis for the development of tactics for using domestic armored vehicles and recommendations for the destruction of enemy ones.


One of the products of the Central Research Institute-48. Source: Crism-prometey.ru

Given the shortage of alloying additives to the armor in 1943, a new brand of armor, 48L, was created at the Central Research Institute-183 together with the Ural Tank Plant No. 68. It was adopted as an inexpensive substitute for 8C, since for 1000 tanks this alloy saved 21 tons of nickel and 35 tons of ferromanganese.

The Soviet Union emerged victorious from World War II, and the small collective TsNII-48 played a significant role in this, which became a real forge of armor steels for the front, whose work was accompanied by real triumphs and forced failures.
Author:
42 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. svp67
    svp67 26 February 2020 05: 39 New
    +9
    In fairness, it is worth noting that the first medium tanks with cracks appeared in the Red Army not during the war, but in 1940 on the T-34 of the first series, the armored corps of which were made with violations. At the same time, it is important to know that KV heavy tanks did not suffer from such an ailment due to the different composition of the armored steel.
    In the manufacture of the first T-34 hulls, it turned out that the Kharkovites did not have the skills to weld such armor plates. Specialists welders came from Nikolaev and Leningrad, from shipyards and conducted, as they would say now: "master classes" in high-quality welding, using special fluxes and electrodes. And the situation was corrected. But during the evacuation, most of the welders were not evacuated to Nizhny Tagil ... Why and how, this issue is still waiting to be covered ...
    Given the shortage of alloying additives to the armor in 1943, a new brand of armor, 48L, was created at the Central Research Institute-183 together with the Ural Tank Plant No. 68. It was adopted as an inexpensive substitute for 8C, since for 1000 tanks this alloy saved 21 tons of nickel and 35 tons of ferromanganese.
    Not only. 68L armored steel was better suited for casting armored parts, which allowed us to create, and most importantly, mass-produce cast turret tanks T-34/85, and then appeared 71L and 74L, which made it possible to produce large armored cast parts for heavy tanks, same cast nose IS-2
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 26 February 2020 11: 32 New
      +3
      As far as I understand - the tower is deployed?
      1. svp67
        svp67 26 February 2020 19: 55 New
        +3
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        As far as I understand - the tower is deployed?

        No, part of the gun’s mask is visible ...
    2. hohol95
      hohol95 26 February 2020 11: 44 New
      +2
      I read that in the first ISs, they tried to increase the armor resistance of the hull by hardening the armor to high hardness. But this only brought disaster with the formation of a large mass of secondary fragments without breaking through the armor. CRI-48 is related to these events?
      1. svp67
        svp67 26 February 2020 20: 00 New
        +1
        Quote: hohol95
        I read that in the first ISs, they tried to increase the armor resistance of the hull by hardening the armor to high hardness.

        Well, the serial hardness was average, there was a thickness of 12 cm ... and such hardening accelerated production and had less defective output. That's where the surface hardening of the armor was of high hardness, it was on the T-44 tank, but they were released a little during the war years, in comparison with others
        1. hohol95
          hohol95 26 February 2020 22: 59 New
          +1
          ... When firing at an IS tank firing range of March 1944 from a 76-mm ZIS-Z cannon from a distance of 500 - 600 m, its armor broke through from all sides, and the bulk of the armor-piercing shells did not penetrate the armor, but caused the formation of large masses of secondary fragments. This fact also largely explains the significant losses of the IS-85 and IS-122 tanks in the battles of winter - spring 1944.

          All the same, serial tanks had such an "armor" drawback.
          1. svp67
            svp67 27 February 2020 03: 32 New
            +1
            Quote: hohol95
            All the same, serial tanks had such an "armor" drawback.

            At that moment, the IS did not have a straightened nose, I was "stepped" or "broken", as on KV
            and it was precisely to enhance the armor resistance
            1. hohol95
              hohol95 27 February 2020 10: 52 New
              0
              This is all clear. The situation with hardening the armor to a higher hardness is not clear. Who suggested this "ratsuha"?
              1. svp67
                svp67 27 February 2020 13: 37 New
                +1
                Quote: hohol95
                This is all clear. The situation with hardening the armor to a higher hardness is not clear. Who suggested this "ratsuha"?

                I can say for sure who approved ... the "owner" of Tankograd - I.M. Zaltsman
  2. Slavutich
    Slavutich 26 February 2020 06: 12 New
    +4
    Thank you for the article! Very interesting.
    Here's how to work.
    1. Ros 56
      Ros 56 26 February 2020 08: 39 New
      +4
      You advise this to our government, especially in the economic bloc.
    2. lucul
      lucul 26 February 2020 08: 43 New
      +3
      Thank you for the article! Very interesting.
      Here's how to work.

      10 highly qualified engineers will create more exhaust (effect) than 10 engineers with a "purchased" diploma, as we have all over the country ...
      As shown by this CRI-48
  3. Olgovich
    Olgovich 26 February 2020 07: 23 New
    +8
    In the context of a shortage of alloying additives to the armor in 1943 in Central Research Institute-48

    CRI -48 had a long and glorious history:
    Key dates and periods of development:

    1879 - Creation of the first chemical laboratory at Izhora plants.

    On August 22 (old style), the Order for Izhora Plants No. 1879 was issued in 52, which stated: “By the will of His Imperial Highness, Admiral General Konstantin Nikolayevich at Izhora Plants, a laboratory should be set up for chemical analysis of metals.”

    1893 - re-equipment and development of the laboratory due to the need to improve armored production at the Izhora plants.

    1897 - separation of the laboratory into an independent unit with direct subordination to the plant manager.


    1904 - Creation of a mechanical and metallographic laboratory for in-depth study of the internal structure of metals and the beginning of the creation of new steel grades.

    “... Meanwhile, the newly established production of basic steel, as well as the correct supply steel-nickel armor production required a well-organized production of chemical and mechanical tests of metal; both are the guiding light in steel production ”(F.Kh. Gross, Head of Izhora Plants from 1895 to 1908)

    1934-1935 - the laboratory developed new armored steels - IZ steel for tanks and steel FD-7954, which were used to book the cruisers Kirov and Maxim Gorky.

    A.S. Zavyalov (Head of the Central Laboratory from 1932 to 1938) wrote about FD-7954 armor steel: “... subsequently we had the opportunity to make sure that she was the best in the world. "

    1936 - Organization of four research and development and technological sectors in the CLZ and reorganization of the CLZ into TsBL-1 (Central Armored Laboratory No. 1). The laboratory already represented a large organization of about 250 people and had to solve not only internal problems, but also tasks of national importance.

    1938 - CBL-1 of 1956 people became the largest laboratory in the country, its research sector focused on creating new steel grades and types of ship and tank armor and mastering its production not only at Izhora factories, but also at a number of other plants in the country.

    1939 - separation from the CBL-1 of the research sector for the creation in Leningrad nresearch institute NII-48 (subsequently CRI KM "Prometey"), the first director of which was the former head of the factory laboratory Zavyalov
    http://www.omz-izlab.ru/about/istoriya.php
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 26 February 2020 11: 31 New
      +7
      Olegovich, where are you messing up again? If you even for this harmless comment sculpt minuses !!!
      Regards, Kote!
      1. Olgovich
        Olgovich 26 February 2020 14: 44 New
        +1
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        Olegovich, where are you messing up again? If you even for this harmless comment sculpt minuses !!!

        Duc, minusyary, say someone "disagreeing" - I want, but ... I can't!request recourse

        A finger can! yes

        Yours faithfully, hi
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 26 February 2020 18: 34 New
        +4
        Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
        Olegovich, where are you messing up again? If you even for this harmless comment sculpt minuses !!!

        But not here passport text pass, but by nick. sad
        1. 3x3zsave
          3x3zsave 26 February 2020 19: 05 New
          +2
          So it turns out that exactly according to the "passport"
  4. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 26 February 2020 08: 06 New
    +3
    The problems of creating armor and new types of armored steel under evacuation are well described in the dilogy of the novels: "Steel and Slag", "Steel Boiled". Awarded with the Stalin Prize.
  5. BAI
    BAI 26 February 2020 09: 41 New
    +5
    There are many such images of Panthers and there are (very few) similar to ours, but there are many such images of HF.

    1. hohol95
      hohol95 26 February 2020 12: 05 New
      +4

      The BT-5 tank (an early-release tower with a small aft niche) of the 11th tank brigade, shot down on July 3 near Mount Bain-Tsagan. The side of the tower, pierced by a 37 mm anti-tank gun shell, cracked due to the high fragility of the armor. The photo was taken after the end of the fighting on the Khalkhin-Gol River (ASKM).

      BT-5 with a riveted tower with a small niche, developed by the Ilyich Mariupol Metallurgical Plant. Such towers were made of 230 pieces.
    2. Undecim
      Undecim 26 February 2020 12: 31 New
      +2
      There are a lot of such Panther shots and there are (very few) similar to ours
      1. BAI
        BAI 26 February 2020 14: 39 New
        +3
        And I did not say that they are not at all. But there are more of them.
        1. hohol95
          hohol95 28 February 2020 15: 47 New
          0
          warspot.ru
          Alexander Volgin 21 January '20
          Thick skin of a German menagerie
          Quote from the article:
          "Explored German armor from four captured tanks has a great variety in chemical composition and steel grades.
          Armor of the same thickness in the tanks of the same name has a different chemical composition ....
      2. Undecim
        Undecim 26 February 2020 21: 14 New
        +1
        At this moment, the logic of the minus is interesting. What are they trying to prove by minus?
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. Bormanxnumx
        Bormanxnumx 27 February 2020 08: 01 New
        +1
        Quote: Undecim
        There are a lot of such Panther shots and there are (very few) similar to ours

        Oh, dear Zaporozhye!
        The hole in the photo looks quite "neat", but in life everything is "worse".
    3. Graduate engineer
      Graduate engineer 26 February 2020 13: 42 New
      +3
      Panther in the field, HF at the polygon in statics.
      1. BAI
        BAI 26 February 2020 14: 32 New
        +2
        This is the tank of Z. Kolobanov when he left (on his own) from a battle in which he destroyed 22 German tanks.
        1. Graduate engineer
          Graduate engineer 28 February 2020 13: 38 New
          0
          If this is about HF, then the shelling was carried out at the firing range on a stationary machine. Shelling at a heading angle of 30 °.
  6. Operator
    Operator 26 February 2020 12: 26 New
    +1
    All steel dances with tambourines of the 1940s are in the USSR, in Germany - from the lack of nickel, which provides the armor with the desired set of properties.

    The armor of American tanks was made of nickel steel and had no problems with piercing with pointed shells, or breaking off fragments from the inner surface when struck with blunt shells, or with loss of strength after hull welding.
    1. Andrey VOV
      Andrey VOV 26 February 2020 15: 01 New
      0
      I don’t remember whether I was reading, or someone was telling me that inside the Sherman’s tower they were covered in dermantine or something tarpaulin, which did not allow fragments to fly inside
      1. Operator
        Operator 26 February 2020 15: 05 New
        +2
        No tarpaulin / dermantine is able to slow down the fragments of the armor - if the projectile did not penetrate the nickel armor of the Shermans, it would get stuck in it like in plasticine, so after the battle American tanks looked like hedgehogs.
    2. hohol95
      hohol95 26 February 2020 15: 27 New
      +3
      Mikhail Baryatinsky - Lend-Lease tanks in battle.
      ... According to reviews from the troops, when shelling tanks even with fragmentation ammunition, small fragments of fragments from the inside of the armor took place. This did not happen on all machines, but the Americans were nevertheless notified of this defect in April - May 1943. Almost immediately after this, the shipment of M4A2 to the USSR was suspended, and the vehicles arriving from November 1943 had the best quality armor.

      The Americans also had problems with the armor, but they quickly eliminated them!
      1. Operator
        Operator 26 February 2020 15: 29 New
        -3
        Nickel was not added to the lendalization armor laughing
        1. hohol95
          hohol95 26 February 2020 15: 33 New
          0
          Oh how ... Myself left? And in the armor of tanks for Britain did they also spare nickel?
          1. Operator
            Operator 26 February 2020 15: 40 New
            -2
            Nickel has always been in short supply, and even more so in the United States - Americans in WWII, in addition to tanks, were sculpting battleships, cruisers and destroyers at an accelerated pace.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 26 February 2020 18: 32 New
              +2
              Quote: Operator
              Nickel has always been in short supply, and even more so in the United States - Americans in WWII, in addition to tanks, were sculpting battleships, cruisers and destroyers at an accelerated pace.

              Judging by the results of shooting Tigers, the Americans did not spare alloying additives even for shells. In the report on the first "Tiger" it was emphasized that the hulls of the American AP shells were weakly deformed after penetrating the armor.
              1. Operator
                Operator 26 February 2020 18: 54 New
                +1
                Nickel in large doses is suitable for the manufacture of armor steel - in order to increase its viscosity.

                Armor-piercing shells require hardness, so the Americans in WWII used other non-ferrous metals to alloy them - chromium, molybdenum, vanadium and, in small doses, nickel (for the strength of the alloy).

                Now, instead of monolithic homogeneous armor, multilayer structures consisting of a set of solid screens (steel, ceramic) separated by layers of rubber are used as armor protection. Thin-walled steel screens are made hard by heat treatment and hardening of the high frequency current. Such armor is more resistant (both against kinetic and cumulative shells), but more voluminous.

                And as the material of the armor-piercing cores of shells, solid steel, cermets, uranium and tungsten alloys are used.
                1. hohol95
                  hohol95 26 February 2020 22: 57 New
                  +1
                  ... However, since the fall of 1944, the question of increasing the armor penetration of shells has disappeared by itself. The D-25T cannon suddenly began to hit German tanks perfectly. In the reports from the units, there were descriptions of cases when a 122-mm BR-471 projectile, fired from a distance of more than 2500 m, ricocheting off the Panther's frontal armor, left huge gaps in it. This was due to the fact that since the summer of 1944 the Germans, in view of the acute shortage of manganese, began to use high-carbon armor alloyed with nickel and characterized by increased fragility, especially in places of welds.

                  Maybe manganese is preferable to nickel?
                  1. Operator
                    Operator 26 February 2020 23: 36 New
                    -2
                    Quite the opposite, although manganese is also an alloying additive, at a certain point it was also exhausted by the Germans.

                    It is necessary to weld nickel steel with the corresponding electrodes, if they are not available, then the welds will be a weak point, of course.
                  2. hohol95
                    hohol95 27 February 2020 10: 49 New
                    0
                    A possible mistake is not manganese, but molybdenum. It was replaced by vanadium and silicon with nickel.
                  3. Polymer
                    Polymer 7 March 2020 23: 19 New
                    +1
                    Quote: hohol95
                    Maybe manganese is preferable to nickel?

                    In some cases, definitely yes. Hadfield Steel, for example. True, she has big problems with machining, since her hardness increases with any mechanical action.
  7. Undecim
    Undecim 26 February 2020 13: 01 New
    +1
    One of the first brands of homogeneous armor at the Armor Institute was 2P steel, designed for sections of the hull not subject to high shock loads. However, the 48N armored steel, which is distinguished by high hardness and intended for the manufacture of rolled and cast armor parts, brought true fame to TsNII-8. That 8C will become a little later the basis of the armor power of medium tanks T-34.
    The research armor institute under the authority of 7GU NKOP was created in accordance with the government decree No. 197ss of 7.08.1938/379/9. and by order No. 28.09.1938c dated 1/485/31.12.1938. based on the research part of CBL-48 of the Izhora plant. Order No. 3 dated 27.01.1939/02.1939/7 The Regulation on the State Research Institute-48 was approved. In accordance with the order of the NKSP No. 3 dated 2059/11.09.1941/2 (This date is considered the birthday of the Institute) Institute in 312. transferred from 13.09.1941GU NKOP to NKSP; in the same year it was renamed the Institute of Ship Armor NII-3, run by 61GU NKSP. Fast. SNK No. 07.1942 of September 48, XNUMX. on Ave NKTP / NKSP No. XNUMX / XNUMXs from XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX. transferred from NKSP to XNUMXGU NKTP.XNUMX On XNUMX. converted to Central Research Institute-XNUMX.
    Both armor 2P and armor 8C were created before the formation of TsNII-48.