Military Review

Soviet self-propelled guns against German tanks in the initial period of the war

164

In the 1930s, attempts were made in the Soviet Union to create self-propelled artillery mounts for various purposes, a number of samples were put into service and produced in a small series.


SU-12 self-propelled artillery mount


The first Soviet serial self-propelled gun was the SU-12, first demonstrated at a military parade in 1934. The machine was armed with a modified 76,2 mm regimental cannon arr. 1927, mounted on a pedestal. The chassis was originally used by the three-axle American truck Moreland TX6 with two drive axles, and since 1935, the domestic GAZ-AAA.

Soviet self-propelled guns against German tanks in the initial period of the war

The installation of guns on the truck platform made it possible to quickly and inexpensively create an impromptu self-propelled guns. The first SU-12s did not have any armor protection at all, however, shortly after the start of mass production, a 4 mm steel shield was installed to protect the crew from bullets and light fragments. The ammunition of the gun was 36 shrapnel and fragmentation grenades, armor-piercing shells were not originally provided. Rate of Fire: 10-12 rds / min.


The calculation of the SU-12 fires from a gun

The shelling sector was 270 °, fire from the guns could be fired both backward and on board. Theoretically, it was possible to fire on the go, but the accuracy of the shooting fell sharply, and the calculation of the "self-propelled cargo" was very difficult to load and direct the gun in motion. The mobility of the SU-12 when driving on the highway was significantly higher than that of the 76,2-mm regimental mounted horse-drawn guns, but the artillery installation on the cargo chassis was not the best solution. The three-axle truck could confidently move only on good roads and, in terms of cross-country ability on soft soils, was seriously inferior to horse carts. Given the high silhouette of the SU-12, the vulnerability of artillery calculation, partially covered by an armor shield, was very high when firing direct fire. In this regard, it was decided to build self-propelled guns on tracked chassis. The last cars were delivered to the customer in 1936, in total 99 self-propelled guns SU-12 were produced.


In the 1920s and 1930s, the creation of self-propelled guns based on trucks was a worldwide trend, and this experience in the USSR proved to be useful. Operation of self-propelled artillery installations SU-12 has demonstrated that placing a gun designed for direct fire on a truck chassis is a dead end solution.

Self-propelled artillery installation SU-5-2


In the period from 1935 to 1936, the Leningrad Experimental Engineering Plant No. 185 built 31 self-propelled artillery mount SU-5-2 on a light chassis tank T-26. SPG SU-5-2 was armed with a 122-mm howitzer mod. 1910/1930 The horizontal pointing angles are 30 °, and the vertical angles are from 0 to + 60 °. The maximum initial velocity of the fragmentation shell is 335 m / s, the maximum firing range is 7680 m, and the rate of fire is up to 5 rds / min. Carried ammunition: 4 shells and 6 charges.


SU-5-2 at the parade in Khabarovsk

The calculation of the gun was covered with armor in front and partially on the sides. The thickness of the frontal armor was 15 mm, sides and stern - 10 mm. Curb weight and mobility of the SU-5-2 were at the level of late modifications of the T-26.

It should be understood that the self-propelled guns SU-12 and SU-5-2 were intended to provide direct fire support to the infantry, and their anti-tank capabilities were very modest. The dull-headed 76-mm armor-piercing projectile BR-350A had an initial speed of 370 m / s and at a range of 500 meters normal it could penetrate 30 mm armor, which allowed it to fight only with light tanks and armored vehicles. In the ammunition of the 122-mm howitzer there were no armor-piercing shells, but in 1941 the 53-OF-462 high-explosive fragmentation shell weighing 21,76 kg, containing 3,67 kg of TNT, was guaranteed to destroy or permanently disable any German tank in the event of a direct hit . When the shell bursts, heavy fragments were formed that could penetrate armor up to 20 mm thick at a distance of 2-3 meters. However, due to the short range of the direct shot, the relatively low rate of fire and modest ammunition, the calculation of the self-propelled guns SU-5-2 could hope for success in a direct collision with enemy tanks only if it was ambushed from a distance of up to 300 m. All self-propelled artillery installations SU-12 and SU-5-2 were lost in the initial period of the war and, due to their small numbers and low combat characteristics, did not affect the course of hostilities.

KV-2 heavy assault tank


Based on the experience of using tanks on the Karelian Isthmus, in February 1940 the KV-2 heavy assault tank was adopted by the Red Army. Formally, this machine, due to the presence of a rotating tower, belonged to tanks, but according to many signs it is actually self-propelled guns.


KB-2

The thickness of the front and side armor of the KV-2 was 75 mm, and the thickness of the gun’s armor mask was 110 mm. This made him less vulnerable to 37-50 mm anti-tank guns. However, high security was often depreciated by low technical reliability and poor off-road patency. With a diesel engine power of V-2K 500 hp The 52-ton car during the tests on the highway was able to accelerate to 34 km / h. On the march, the speed of movement along a good road did not exceed 20 km / h. On rough terrain, the tank moved at a pedestrian speed of 5-7 km / h. The KV-2's penetration through soft soils was not very good, and it was not easy to get a tank stuck in the mud, so it was necessary to carefully select the route. Also, not every bridge was able to withstand the KV-2.

KV-2 was armed with a 152-mm tank howitzer mod. 1938/40 (M-10T). The gun had angles of vertical guidance: from −3 to + 18 °. When the tower was stationary, the howitzer could be induced in a small sector of horizontal aiming, which was typical for self-propelled guns. Ammunition was 36 rounds of separate shell loading. Practical rate of fire with the refinement of aiming - 1-1,5 rds / min.

As of June 22, 1941, the KV-2 ammunition contained only HE-530 high-explosive fragmentation grenades weighing 40 kg, containing about 6 kg of TNT. During the fighting, due to the impossibility of manning with standard ammunition for firing, all shells of the towed M-10 howitzer were used. They used concrete-piercing shells, cast-iron fragmentation howitzer grenades, incendiary shells and even shrapnel shells that were put on strike. A direct hit of a 152-mm projectile was guaranteed to destroy or disable any German tank. The close explosions of powerful fragmentation and high-explosive fragmentation shells also posed a serious danger to armored vehicles.

Despite the high destructive power of the shells, in practice, the KV-2 did not prove to be an effective anti-tank self-propelled gun. The M-10T gun had a whole range of shortcomings that made its effectiveness on the battlefield devalued. If when shooting at enemy’s stationary firing points and fortifications, the low combat rate of fire was not decisive, but in order to deal with rapidly moving enemy tanks, a higher rate of fire was required.


Due to the imbalance of the tower, the standard electric drive turned the tower in the horizontal plane very slowly. Even with a small angle of inclination of the tank, it was often impossible to turn the tower at all. Due to excessive recoil, it was possible to shoot a gun only when the tank was completely stopped. When firing on the go, there was a high probability of failure of the rotation mechanism of the tower and the motor-transmission group, and this despite the fact that full-charge shooting was categorically prohibited from the M-10T tank. Naturally, the inability to obtain the maximum initial speed reduced the range of a direct shot. Due to all this, the combat effectiveness of the machine, designed for offensive military operations and the destruction of enemy fortifications, was not high when firing direct fire from a distance of several hundred meters.


Apparently, the main part of the KV-2 was not lost due to enemy fire, but because of the lack of fuel, engine breakdowns, transmission and chassis. A lot of cars stuck in the mud were abandoned due to the fact that there were no tractors at hand that could tow them off-road. Shortly after the outbreak of war, the production of the KV-2 was curtailed. In total, from January 1940 to July 1941, 204 cars were built at the LKZ.

Improvised self-propelled guns on the chassis of the T-26 light tank


Thus, it can be stated that on June 22, 1941 in the Red Army, despite a fairly large fleet of armored vehicles, there were no specialized anti-tank self-propelled guns that could be very useful in the initial period of the war. A light tank destroyer could quickly be created on the chassis of light tanks T-26 early release. A significant number of such machines requiring repair were available in the troops in the prewar period. It seemed logical to alter anti-tank self-propelled guns of hopelessly outdated twin-turret tanks with pure machine gun weapons or with a 37 mm cannon in one of the towers. The self-propelled guns, created on the basis of the T-26, could be equipped with a 76,2 mm divisional or anti-aircraft gun, which would make such a self-propelled gun relevant until at least mid-1942. It is clear that the tank destroyer with bulletproof armor was not intended for a head-on collision with enemy tanks, but it could be quite effective in ambush operations. In any case, the 13-15 mm thick armor provided protection to the crew from bullets and fragments, and the self-propelled gun’s mobility was higher than that of the towed anti-tank and divisional guns of 45-76,2 mm caliber.

The relevance of the tank destroyer based on the T-26 is confirmed by the fact that in the summer and autumn of 1941, a number of light tanks that received damage to the turret or weapons were equipped with 45 mm anti-tank guns with armor shields in tank repair workshops. The improvised self-propelled guns did not exceed the T-26 tanks with a 45-mm gun in terms of firepower, they were inferior in crew protection. But the advantage of such vehicles was a much better view of the battlefield, and even in the conditions of catastrophic losses in the first months of the war, any combat-ready armored vehicles were worth its weight in gold. With proper tactics of use, such self-propelled guns in 1941 could quite successfully deal with enemy tanks.

In the period from August 1941 to February 1942 at the plant to them. Kirov in Leningrad using the chassis of damaged T-26 tanks, two series of self-propelled guns with a total number of 17 units were produced. Self-propelled guns equipped with a 76-mm regimental cannon arr. 1927. The gun had a circular shelling, the calculation in front was covered with armored shield. On the sides of the gun there were loopholes for two 7,62 mm machine guns DT-29.


Production of self-propelled guns SU-76P at the Kirov plant

In the process of conversion, the turret box was cut. At the place of the fighting compartment, a box-shaped beam was installed, which served as a support for the platform with a curbstone of the rotating part of the 76-mm gun. Two hatches erupted in the platform flooring to access the shell cellar underneath. Cars released in 1942 also had armor protection on the sides.

In different sources, self-propelled guns were designated differently: T-26-SU, SU-26, but most often SU-76P. Due to the low ballistic characteristics of the regimental gun, the anti-tank potential of these self-propelled guns was very weak. They were mainly used for artillery support of tanks and infantry.


SU-76P, built in 1941, arrived in the 122nd, 123rd, 124th and 125th tank brigades, and production of 1942 - in the 220th tank brigade. Typically, four self-propelled guns were reduced to a self-propelled artillery battery. At least one SU-76P survived until the blockade broke.

Anti-tank self-propelled guns ZIS-30


The first anti-tank self-propelled artillery system, adopted by the Red Army, was the ZIS-30, armed with a 57-mm anti-tank gun mod. 1941 By the standards of 1941, this gun was very powerful, and in the initial period of the war at the actual shooting distances it pierced the frontal armor of any German tank. Very often, a 57 mm anti-tank gun mod. 1941 is called ZIS-2, but this is not entirely correct. From the PTO ZIS-2, the production of which began in 1943, the 57-mm gun mod. 1941 was distinguished by a number of details, although in general the design was the same.


ZIS-30 in combat position

Self-propelled gun ZIS-30 was an ersatz wartime, created in a hurry, which affected the combat and operational performance. By means of minimal design changes, the swinging part of the 20-mm anti-tank gun was installed in the middle upper part of the body of the T-57 Komsomolets light tractor. The vertical pickup angles ranged from -5 to + 25 °, and horizontally in the 30 ° sector. Practical rate of fire reached 20 rds / min. For the convenience of the calculation, there were hinged panels that increased the area of ​​the working platform. From bullets and fragments calculation of 5 people in battle was protected only by a gun shield. Fire from the gun could only be conducted from a place. Due to the high center of gravity and strong recoil, the coulters located in the rear of the machine had to be tilted to avoid tipping over. For self-defense in the frontal part of the hull there was a 7,62-mm machine gun DT-29, inherited from the Komsomolets tractor.

The thickness of the frontal armor of the body of the T-20 Komsomolets tractor was 10 mm, the sides and stern were 7 mm. The mass of the ZIS-30 in the combat position was a little more than 4 tons. The carbureted engine with a capacity of 50 hp could accelerate the car on the highway to 50 km / h. Speed ​​on the march - no more than 30 km / h.

Serial production of the ZIS-30 began in September 1941 at the Gorky Artillery Plant No. 92. According to archival data, 101 tank destroyers with a 57-mm gun were built. These vehicles were equipped with anti-tank batteries in tank brigades of the Western and South-Western fronts (a total of 16 tank brigades). However, ZIS-30 were available in other parts. For example, in the fall of 1941, four self-propelled guns entered the 38th separate motorcycle regiment.

Production of the ZIS-30 did not last long and was completed in early October 1941. According to the official version, this was due to the lack of Komsomolets tractors, but even so, it was possible to put 57 mm guns that were very effective in anti-tank systems on the chassis of light tanks. The most likely reason for curtailing the construction of the 57-mm tank destroyer was most likely the difficulty with the production of gun barrels. The percentage of defects in the manufacture of trunks was excessively large, which was completely unacceptable in wartime. This, and not the “excess capacity” of the 57-mm anti-tank guns, explains their insignificant production volumes in 1941 and the subsequent rejection of serial construction. Plant staff No. 92 and V. G. Grabin himself, based on the design of a 57-mm gun mod. 1941, it turned out to be easier to establish the production of the divisional 76-mm gun, which became widely known as the ZIS-3. The 76 mm divisional cannon of the 1942 model (ZIS-3) at the time of creation had quite acceptable armor penetration, while possessing a much more powerful high-explosive fragmentation shell. This gun was widespread and was popular among the troops. ZIS-3 was in service not only in divisional artillery, specially modified guns entered the service of fighter-anti-tank units and were installed on self-propelled gun mounts. The production of the 57-mm anti-tank gun after making some design changes under the name ZIS-2 was resumed in 1943. This became possible after receiving the perfect machine park from the USA, which allowed us to solve the problem with the manufacture of trunks.

Despite the shortcomings, the ZIS-30 received a positive assessment in the troops. The main advantages of self-propelled guns were its excellent armor penetration and long-range direct shot. In late 1941 - early 1942, a 57-mm BR-271 projectile weighing 3,19 kg, leaving the barrel at an initial speed of 990 m / s, could penetrate the frontal armor of the German “triples” and “fours” at a distance of up to 2 km. With proper use of the 57-mm self-propelled guns, they proved to be quite good not only in defense, but also in the offensive, accompanying Soviet tanks. At the same time, their goal was not only enemy armored vehicles, but also firing points.


However, there were substantial claims to the car. The main problem with the 57 mm gun was its recoil device. As for the caterpillar base, the engine was quite expectedly criticized here. In snowy off-road conditions, its power was often not enough. In addition, among the shortcomings was indicated a very weak reservation of the base chassis and a high calculation vulnerability during artillery and mortar shelling. The bulk of the ZIS-30 was lost by mid-1942, but the operation of individual machines continued until the beginning of 1944.


Although our troops in the initial period of the war were in dire need of tank destroyers, the ZIS-30 was the only Soviet tank destroyer brought to the stage of mass production in 1941. In a number of design bureaus, work was underway on the installation of a 76,2 mm USV divisional gun on the chassis of the T-60 light tank and an 85-mm 52-K anti-aircraft gun on the chassis of the Voroshilovets heavy artillery tractor. The project of the PT SAU U-20 on the chassis of the T-34 medium tank with an 85-mm cannon mounted in a rotating triple turret open from above looked very promising. Unfortunately, for a number of reasons, our troops received a fairly effective anti-tank self-propelled gun SU-85 only in the autumn of 1943. This and other Soviet self-propelled guns used during the Second World War will be discussed in the second part of the review.

To be continued ...
Author:
164 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. polpot
    polpot 9 June 2020 18: 27 New
    16
    Thank you for the article, very necessary in 1941 and a very late weapon.
    1. svp67
      svp67 9 June 2020 21: 33 New
      16
      Quote: polpot
      very necessary in 1941 and very late weapons.

      Although in the 30s we developed and produced in small series such a machine - AT-1 (the first artillery tank)

      Don’t stop that project, we would have in the 41st our analogue of the German “third thing”

      And there was still a very interesting version of the self-propelled gun ZIS-41, based on the all-terrain vehicle ZIS-22M
      1. Boratsagdiev
        Boratsagdiev 9 June 2020 21: 54 New
        +9
        ZIS-41 had only two prototypes and they were rejected at the test stage.
        For the driver, there was hell in them.
        1. svp67
          svp67 9 June 2020 21: 57 New
          +5
          Quote: BoratSagdiev
          ZIS-41 had only two prototypes and they were rejected at the test stage.
          For the driver, there was hell in them.

          ZIS-30 was even worse and nonetheless ...
          “ZIS-30, of course, the car is weak, but there is nothing else, and the front is waiting! Recommended! ”
          Marshal Kulik
          1. Boratsagdiev
            Boratsagdiev 9 June 2020 22: 00 New
            +3
            Nevertheless, she didn’t go into the series (did the marshal himself sit in it?).
            There was a normal commission which did not approve.
            1. svp67
              svp67 9 June 2020 22: 08 New
              +2
              Quote: BoratSagdiev
              There was a normal commission which did not approve.

              I have other information. The reason is the evacuation of the Moscow ZiS plant and the discontinuation of the ZiS-22M, as well as the discontinuation of the gun
              1. Boratsagdiev
                Boratsagdiev 9 June 2020 22: 12 New
                +3
                The gun is secondary, there was a whole "heap" of problems.
                Starting from the "advantage" (it came out a ton more) and ending with "nowhere to store the BC"
                Further on this platform that just did not try to deliver. All due to the lack of normal trucks.
      2. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 9 June 2020 23: 24 New
        +7
        And what about the fact that a number of T-26 and BT tanks with 76 mm guns were produced? Given that the "standard" caliber of the tank gun of the T-26 and BT tanks was 45 mm (we do not "remember" 37 mm ...), to some extent such armored vehicles could serve as a "prototype" of the self-propelled guns ... Well, T -26A a few pieces were released ... they didn’t go into series (although who knows? Maybe they fought a bit near Moscow at 41m ...) But about BT-7A, a slightly different picture ... They were produced in series .. They were produced in a hundred! By appointment, the BT-7A was, in fact, self-propelled guns! True, they did not charge him with the fight against tanks, but who in the 41st, what did he “charge” to whom? Whoever came across who shot at that!
        1. svp67
          svp67 10 June 2020 05: 47 New
          +6
          Quote: Nikolaevich I
          Well, a few T-26A were released ... they didn’t go into the series .... And as for the BT-7A, a slightly different picture ...
          Yes, a great example, as they completely forgot about them, but they were let down by weak armor protection and low gun power, since they were going to use them together with linear tanks ...
          The situation could be corrected by installing the F-34 and F-32 in this tank, but they were already lacking on the T-34 and KV
          1. Pane Kohanku
            Pane Kohanku 10 June 2020 10: 26 New
            +8
            since they were going to be used together with linear tanks ...

            Sergey, it seems that the task of BT-7A was to combat entrenched infantry and light field fortifications. In this case, Soviet designers followed the path of Tsarist General Nikolai Filatov. It was he who, at the end of 1914, proposed to put a three-inch anti-storm gun in the Garford armored car. And before that, Nikolai Mikhailovich “went through” several types of guns - the 37-mm automatic, 47-mm and 57-mm systems, and focused on this, as having the highest explosive impact. soldier
            Here is a very interesting replica of the "Garford" from the retro car museum in Zelenogorsk:

            In fact, all 76-mm domestic tank weapons (BT-7A, T-28, T-35, etc.) until the second half of the 30s repeated the idea of ​​Filatov, and was intended for "infantry work." This gun was enough to fight the then tanks - until the second half of the 30s. hi
            Sergey, I’m not a tanker, but I think that even if the AT-1 went into production, the development potential of the T-26 would quickly become obsolete. request I needed a new base car. And our analogue “thing” already during the war were self-propelled guns based on the T-34 (although with the priority of fighting tanks, but the “shtug” was already overgrown with a long gun). what
            Colleagues, have a nice day! To the author - I bow! drinks
          2. Jager
            Jager 16 June 2020 18: 38 New
            0
            Curiously, the KT-28 was quite enough for the average T-28. In general, I think this car is the best for the summer of the 41st. The T-34s were frankly raw, and the T-28 was quite reliable and comfortable.
            BT-7A is a support vehicle and no more.
      3. LastPS
        LastPS 10 June 2020 20: 57 New
        +1
        A funny analogue would turn out with bulletproof armor.
        1. svp67
          svp67 11 June 2020 06: 50 New
          0
          Quote: LastPS
          A funny analogue would turn out with bulletproof armor.

          Shielding with additional sheets of armor, such an AT would not be a big problem.
          1. LastPS
            LastPS 11 June 2020 07: 05 New
            +1
            I can’t judge, nevertheless, the T-26 is a light tank with a very low-power engine and the running ability is also in question. On the other hand, under Zis-2 it would be more logical to adapt it.
            1. svp67
              svp67 11 June 2020 08: 48 New
              +2
              Quote: LastPS
              I can’t judge, nevertheless, the T-26 is a light tank with a very low-power engine and the running ability is also in question.

              In the prewar years and during the war they were screened

              Shielded tank T-26 spring 1940. The tank is screened according to the scheme developed by plant No. 174 during the Soviet-Finnish war.
          2. Jager
            Jager 16 June 2020 18: 40 New
            0
            The T-26 chassis was already at the limit of possibilities ...
          3. Stas57
            Stas57 5 August 2020 15: 01 New
            0
            no, you can't, the T-26 has not been modernized in terms of weight
  2. Undecim
    Undecim 9 June 2020 18: 31 New
    +8
    Thus, it can be stated that on June 22, 1941 in the Red Army, despite a fairly large fleet of armored vehicles, there were no specialized anti-tank self-propelled guns that could be very useful in the initial period of the war.
    In fairness, it is worth noting that there were none in the other armies, with the exception of the Wehrmacht.
    1. Hydrogen
      Hydrogen 9 June 2020 20: 05 New
      -1
      In the USA. Nobody had such diversity as theirs.
      1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
        Kote Pan Kokhanka 9 June 2020 20: 19 New
        +7
        We are talking about the initial stage of World War II.
        Regards, Kote!
        1. Hydrogen
          Hydrogen 9 June 2020 20: 27 New
          +1
          Priest self-propelled guns, M-4, M-6, M-8, M-10 and this is at the beginning of the war, not all.
          1. hohol95
            hohol95 9 June 2020 20: 51 New
            +7
            And what about the self-propelled guns "Priest" created in 1942? And while not anti-tank?
            Undecim wrote -
            In fairness, it is worth noting that there were none in the other armies, with the exception of the Wehrmacht.

            Apparently, he meant specialized self-propelled guns and self-propelled guns at the beginning of World War II!
            1. Hydrogen
              Hydrogen 9 June 2020 22: 11 New
              -5
              And 1942, do you consider the end of the war?
              1. hohol95
                hohol95 10 June 2020 07: 57 New
                +3
                But obviously not September 1939!
          2. Potter
            Potter 9 June 2020 21: 24 New
            0
            These are machines developed and started by production in 1942-43. The article was about the middle of 1941, the beginning of the Second World War.
      2. Potter
        Potter 9 June 2020 20: 27 New
        +7
        In 1941, there was no self-propelled artillery in the United States, and indeed armored forces as such. And anti-tank self-propelled guns even by 1945 they had the least, relative to other types of self-propelled guns (howitzers or ZSU). But by 1945, Germany had the most variety of different types of self-propelled guns. Many chassis and many options for mounted guns. In the USSR, where they produced 25000 self-propelled guns, everything was very simple - light infantry support, medium - anti-tank, and heavy breakthroughs and anti-tank.
        1. Hydrogen
          Hydrogen 9 June 2020 22: 10 New
          -1
          M-10, anti-tank self-propelled guns, 1942-1943, produced 6700 pieces.
        2. Octopus
          Octopus 9 June 2020 22: 34 New
          +2
          Quote: Potter
          In 1941, there was no self-propelled artillery in the USA,

          The first self-propelled gun, half-track M3, was delivered in the 41st year, they even managed to get them in the Philippines.
          Quote: Potter
          Yes, and the armored forces are actually as such.

          In the 41st year of the USSR produced about 6 thousand tanks (including light), the United States - about 4 thousand.
          Quote: Potter
          And even by 1945 they had the least anti-tank self-propelled guns, relative to other types of self-propelled guns (howitzers or ZSU)

          The largest American self-propelled guns are the M10 tank destroyer.
          Quote: Potter
          certainly in Germany. Many chassis and many options for mounted guns

          In terms of nomenclature, yes, in terms of number, no.
      3. Undecim
        Undecim 9 June 2020 21: 32 New
        +7
        Please list the American diversity of 1941.
    2. hohol95
      hohol95 9 June 2020 20: 48 New
      +6
      Not certainly in that way!
      Belgian army - self-propelled guns T.13V3.
      Yugoslav Army - Škoda Š-Id \ T-32 lightweight self-propelled gun.
    3. Lekz
      Lekz 9 June 2020 22: 59 New
      0
      At the beginning of WWII and WWII, no one was going to fight tanks against tanks. Neither the Germans, nor the French, nor we. For intended artillery infantry. Based on the experience of the war in France, we came to the realization of the need for specialized anti-tank weapons and separate anti-tank brigades began to be created. Nobody thought about tanks and did not even deliver armored shells for the KV and T-34. Rare tank battles of the initial WWII period are pure impromptu, associated with a small number of anti-tank units and their low mobility. Guderian reached almost Smolensk without meeting the Soviet tank units. Accordingly, the presented samples are more likely exotic, experiments, and suddenly something worthwhile will come out.
    4. Bongo
      10 June 2020 01: 54 New
      +9
      Quote: Undecim
      In fairness, it is worth noting that there were none in the other armies, with the exception of the Wehrmacht.

      Not certainly in that way. no

      47 mm anti-tank self-propelled guns were available in Belgium.

      In France, approximately 60 Canon antichar de 47 mm modèle 1937 guns were used to arm the Laffly W15 TCC self-propelled guns, which were Laffly W15 trucks lined with anti-shatter armor.
    5. Dr. Frankenstucker
      Dr. Frankenstucker 10 June 2020 11: 20 New
      +8
      Quote: Undecim
      that June 22, 1941 ..... there were none in the other armies, with the exception of the Wehrmacht.


      oh well ... If we are talking about the middle of the 41st, then the Italians already had a “sevente”, which was run in Libya. This is probably the most successful creation of the FIAT-Ansaldo designers.
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 10 June 2020 11: 47 New
        +7
        I may have set it a little incorrectly, but it was meant that the vast majority of the countries that participated in World War II started the hostilities without armed with anti-tank self-propelled guns.
    6. Pane Kohanku
      Pane Kohanku 10 June 2020 12: 25 New
      +5
      In fairness, it is worth noting that there were none in the other armies, with the exception of the Wehrmacht.

      in fact, you are right, Viktor Nikolaevich. drinks But in 1940, the French tried to experiment with an “anti-tank cart” based on the Luffley truck. True, it didn’t help. hi

      Sorry, I did not see the comment of the esteemed Bongo associates, therefore I wrote independently of them. drinks
      1. Dr. Frankenstucker
        Dr. Frankenstucker 10 June 2020 13: 10 New
        +2
        Quote: Pan Kohanku
        the French tried to experiment


        As far back as 1931, the Belgians tried to pile an 76mm infantry cannon on the Carden Lloyd. But, for obvious reasons, limited to 47mm. True, in a series of these tank destroyers did not go.

    7. Stas57
      Stas57 5 August 2020 15: 02 New
      0
      and the amers did not even have a BTV!
  3. storm
    storm 9 June 2020 18: 47 New
    -7
    SPG SU-5-2 was armed with a 122-mm howitzer mod. 1910/1930 The horizontal pointing angles are 30 °, and the vertical angles are from 0 to + 60 °. The maximum initial velocity of the fragmentation shell is 335 m / s, the maximum firing range is 7680 m, and the rate of fire is up to 5 rds / min. Carried ammunition: 4 shells and 6 charges.

    this development is an open sabotage, a heavy howitzer to be installed on a light, low-power tank, and who needs self-propelled guns practically without ammunition, but with armor protection ......
    not in vain in the 37th "purge" was arranged ...
    1. igordok
      igordok 9 June 2020 19: 27 New
      15
      Quote: assault
      this development is an open sabotage, a heavy howitzer to be installed on a light, low-power tank, and who needs self-propelled guns practically without ammunition, but with armor protection ......


      1. Jager
        Jager 16 June 2020 18: 48 New
        +1
        Note! On the SiG-33, the chassis is just a cart for an infantry gun. The howitzer was mounted on the tank directly with the wheels in the kit.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 9 June 2020 20: 12 New
      11
      Quote: assault
      this development is an open sabotage, a heavy howitzer installed on a light low-powered tank

      No others. Nobody will give you the T-28 chassis - there aren’t enough of them for tanks.
      And for the proposal to use the artillery tractor’s chassis for self-propelled guns, the heretic will burn the heretic at the stake. For, the PMSM, in the USSR, self-propelled guns were made in order to get a gun capable of moving faster than an agricultural tractor (the main traction of towed artillery) without the use of scarce specialized tractors. smile
      1. Zeev
        Zeev zeev 9 June 2020 20: 20 New
        +6
        Well, if we are already engaged in alternative protection, then the old T-26s (and it was possible to do much less alterations than in reality), and the same old BT-2/5/7 (the Finns could make from captured tanks BT-42 self-propelled howitzer). Moreover, a BT-122 howitzer would have entered the BT on a fixed cabin
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 9 June 2020 20: 31 New
          +9
          Quote: ZeevZeev
          Well, if we are already engaged in alternative politics, then the old T-26s were quite suitable as a base for self-propelled guns

          Colonel, no more.
          Quote: ZeevZeev
          and the same old BT-2/5/7 (the Finns were able to make BT-42 self-propelled howitzer from captured tanks)

          Säkkijärven polkka! smile
          The Finns were famous junkers - for lack of anything better, their crazy hands tried to modernize everything they had. Having piled up a 114-mm howitzer on the BT chassis, the Finns received the “armless KV-2,” which had all the shortcomings of the KV, but did not have its advantages (armor). Unreliable chassis and engine, close fighting compartment, poor location of the BC (and what to do - there are no other places). Is it necessary for the Red Army?
          In the USSR, BT (unlike the T-26) were found unsuitable for modernization and re-equipment - operate until complete wear.
          1. Zeev
            Zeev zeev 9 June 2020 20: 49 New
            +4
            For the initial period of the war, and a regiment (or a mountain cannon, or a casemate) based on the T-26 is a perfectly suitable topic. Especially if you use it as an assault.
            As for Finnish homemade products, in my opinion, the main mistake was to put a howitzer in a rotating tower instead of making a much more spacious cabin, possibly even open from above. Then it would be possible to add armor, at least the frontal, and more ammunition. And to make the profile of the machine below, and to increase the stability when shooting, so that directly Silmien Valliin
          2. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I 9 June 2020 23: 51 New
            +5
            Quote: Alexey RA
            The Finns were famous junkers - for lack of anything better, their crazy hands tried to modernize everything that they had.

            There is evidence that the Germans, based on the captured T-26s, fired a number of self-propelled guns, equipping them with French 75-mm guns ...
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 10 June 2020 10: 19 New
              +4
              Quote: Nikolaevich I
              There is evidence that the Germans, based on the captured T-26s, fired a number of self-propelled guns, equipping them with French 75-mm guns ...

              They put Pak 97/38 with a 35-caliber barrel and an initial projectile speed of 450-570 m / s.
              The main projectile is Kuma with 450 m / s.
              So this weapon can be considered a "big regiment." smile
        2. hohol95
          hohol95 9 June 2020 20: 59 New
          10
          If you use a chassis from BT, then you should go along the Japanese path!
          And create self-propelled guns like the Japanese ones from the Ho-Ni SPG family.

          The Japanese put guns and howitzers on them!
          Finnish VT-42 because of the narrow turret and 114 mm howitzers were "to put it mildly narrowish" for the crew.
          1. Jager
            Jager 16 June 2020 18: 50 New
            0
            Then you need to take into account the Panzerjager I.
            1. hohol95
              hohol95 16 June 2020 21: 48 New
              0
              Justify?
              The first groove is clearly smaller than BT!
              And to put on the BT chassis 45 mm is not rational!
              Tanks were already with 45 mm!
              And to support 76 mm in the form of regimental or divisional weapons!
              1. Jager
                Jager 17 June 2020 00: 19 New
                0
                So I do not see any problems installing the KT-28 in the BT tower. And we get the very BT-7A. In any case, this is not much better than the ersatians of wartime. That SiG 33, that all sorts of Nashhorns with Marders or ZiS-30 are a good weapon plus bulletproof armor. The Germans created anti-tank self-propelled guns with bulletproof armor - this is generally a dream of reason, "disposable" vehicles. A couple of shots and run, because any forty-foot blank will flash through your bucket. Like the unfortunate T-26 and BT, like Pz. I, II, early III, LT. These vehicles suffered the heaviest losses and quickly burned down in the fire of war, literally in half a year almost the entire pre-war fleet was knocked out on both sides.
                1. hohol95
                  hohol95 17 June 2020 08: 13 New
                  0
                  The delay in the work on artillery tanks in the USSR on the basis of the T-26 and BT was beaten connected with guns and towers. Damage and defects led to the fact that the military was disappointed in such vehicles on the chassis of light tanks.
                  But at the same time they wanted a car with a tower. And they did not perceive a motionless open cabin. But it was a different time and other people ...
        3. Revolver
          Revolver 10 June 2020 08: 44 New
          +2
          The Germans put the captured Soviet 76mm divisional cannon on the Pz 38 (t) chassis, which is not much bigger and better than the T-26, and the Marder self-propelled guns turned out quite wow against tanks and to accompany infantry. Production ended when the supply of captured guns taken in border battles ran out.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 10 June 2020 09: 50 New
            +3
            Quote: Nagan
            The Germans put the captured Soviet 76mm divisional cannon on the Pz 38 (t) chassis, which, well, is not much bigger and better than the T-26, and the Marder self-propelled guns turned out

            LT vz. 38 is a light tank of the next generation and the next class (9-10 t). Even its predecessor LT vz.35 was better than the T-26 - it was not for nothing that they were considered in the USSR as one of the options for replacing the "twenty-sixth".
            On the "native" chassis of the T-26 it was not even possible to make an arttank - the suspension and the engine were not given.
            1. Revolver
              Revolver 11 June 2020 01: 02 New
              0
              Of course, cram the full-sized 76mm into the T-26 and BT towers clearly from the "cram un-edged" series. But if the Komsomolets could carry 57mm, then the T-26 could handle it, even if not in the tower, but in a stationary installation, such as SU-76, open from the back and top. Moreover, if it were possible to lengthen the barrel of a forty-five by at least a dozen calibers with a corresponding charge enhancement, its penetration would probably be enough if not on the foreheads of the Tigers and Panthers, but on the Pz IV completely.
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 11 June 2020 15: 29 New
                +1
                Quote: Nagan
                But if the Komsomolets could carry 57mm, then the T-26 could handle it, even if not in the tower, but in a stationary installation, such as SU-76, open from the back and top.

                There is one subtlety. ZIS-30 - is an ersatz of wartime, when you take a lot to shut your eyes when receiving it. The main thing is that the self-propelled guns could somehow ride and shoot.
                In peacetime, the ZIS-30 would have been wrapped up in factory tests:
                The machine is unstable, the chassis is overloaded, especially the rear bogies, the power reserve and ammunition are small, the dimensions are large, the motor group is poorly protected, and the crew is not provided with a connection. Shooting is often carried out with open coulters, as there is no time for deployment, and there have been cases of rollovers

                If you make a hypothetical self-propelled guns based on the T-26 in wartime - there are no questions, the SU-26 is an example of this. In peacetime, the GABTU and GAU will immediately come out with their requirements for the transportation of settlement, the cost of the ammunition, patency, reliability, etc.
                Quote: Nagan
                Moreover, if it were possible to lengthen the barrel of a forty-five by at least a dozen calibers with a corresponding charge enhancement, its penetration would probably be enough if not on the foreheads of the Tigers and Panthers, but on the Pz IV completely.

                So they lengthened - by 1942. The problem is that it took time - TK for the "forty-five-lang" was issued even before the war, at the same time as the TK for the 57-mm anti-tank gun.
            2. Jager
              Jager 16 June 2020 18: 55 New
              0
              I fundamentally disagree. The complicated and unreliable running LT-35 and even with a twisted 12-speed gearbox with pneumatic servos (hello, winter) made it impossible in principle to operate it in the Red Army.
      2. Kote Pan Kokhanka
        Kote Pan Kokhanka 9 June 2020 20: 32 New
        12
        I agree with Alexei and Igor!
        I'd add the T-26 on my own, as the BT-5 had good 45mm anti-tank guns!
        At the same time, they constantly tried to put a 76mm gun on both of them! In the BT lineup, the BT-7A with the 76mm short-barreled weapon was the top of evolution! On the T-26 to put the regimental gun failed.
        Not without reason, one thing can be said, the T-34 was precisely the limit of universality. Possessing the powerful F-32 and F-34 theoretically, he should bend any tank and any pillbox!
        By the way, the first version of the KV had two guns in the tower (76 mm and 45 mm)!
        1. Malyuta
          Malyuta 9 June 2020 20: 47 New
          +6
          Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
          By the way, the first version of the KV had two guns in the tower (76 mm and 45 mm)!

          You mean QMS (Sergey Mironovich Kirov)

          In fact, the HF was a 2-roller reduction variant of the QMS. hi
          1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
            Kote Pan Kokhanka 9 June 2020 20: 57 New
            10
            There is no QMS. 45 and 76mm guns in one tower!
            Unfortunately infringed on the rights to upload photos !!!
            Regards, Vlad!
            1. Alf
              Alf 9 June 2020 21: 24 New
              12
              Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
              45 and 76mm guns in one tower!
              Unfortunately infringed on the rights to upload photos !!!

              I will help.
              1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
                Kote Pan Kokhanka 9 June 2020 21: 30 New
                +6
                Thank you very much!
                1. Alf
                  Alf 9 June 2020 21: 33 New
                  +6
                  Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
                  Thank you very much!

                  Big nothing! How could he helped.
                  1. Lexus
                    Lexus 10 June 2020 02: 49 New
                    11
                    Vasily, welcome!
                    An unpleasant surprise for the Nazis was the KV-2, which, in fairness, was still more self-propelled guns than a tank. The Germans appreciated its qualities, therefore it was considered a welcome trophy and even underwent extensive modernization by them. By the way, on the Internet there are even more military photos of serviceable cars already with a swastika than in the service of the Red Army.
                    1. Alf
                      Alf 10 June 2020 19: 19 New
                      +2
                      Quote: lexus
                      Vasily, welcome!

                      Ave, Caesar! Just German smartphones (remember who they are?) Turned out to be faster.
                      1. Lexus
                        Lexus 10 June 2020 20: 23 New
                        +1
                        Ave, Alfus Centaurus!
                        StuG III?
                      2. Alf
                        Alf 10 June 2020 20: 49 New
                        +1
                        Quote: lexus
                        more military photos of serviceable cars already with a swastika than in the service of the Red Army.

                        Smartphones are scientific slaves who make drawings

                        Quirits at the Forum have long been saying that Ataualf the Crazy something went wrong, since he decided not to move his iron legions to Brittany.
                      3. Lexus
                        Lexus 10 June 2020 20: 52 New
                        +2
                        Ahh ... Damn, I didn’t go to them for a long time, everything was somehow tense over time. soldier
            2. Malyuta
              Malyuta 9 June 2020 22: 08 New
              +9
              Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
              Thank you very much!

              Even later there was such an option. Instead of a tower, a fixed cabin was installed with a more powerful 76 mm F-34 gun and two 45 mm 20-K cannons - self-propelled guns KV-7

              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 10 June 2020 09: 59 New
                +5
                Quote: Malyuta
                Even later there was such an option. Instead of a tower, a fixed cabin was installed with a more powerful 76 mm F-34 gun and two 45 mm 20-K cannons - self-propelled guns KV-7

                Option with the installation of the U-13. On testing, the installation proved to be not the best way:
                During firing from a place only from the third volley, it was possible to achieve a simultaneous shot from three barrels at once, while the accuracy at a distance of 400 meters was quite low. Tests on the rate of fire from a place gave a result at a level of 20 to 24 rounds per minute. Separately, the rate of fire from each gun was approximately at the level of conventional tanks, and the idea of ​​volley fire itself was called into question. If the 76-mm gun F-34 managed to make 34 shots in 3 seconds, then the 45-mm tank guns - 5 shots each.

                © Y. Pasholok
                Therefore, the U-14 was developed - instead of the three trunks, the 45 mm and 76 mm delivered a pair of ZIS-5.
                In the series of KV-7 did not go. But the need to use the reserve for the installation batch of his armored shells initiated work on self-propelled guns with a 152-mm gun.
                "2) DOT fighters - 152-mm BR-2 cannon on a special chassis from the units of the KV tank.
                To entrust work to the Kirov Plant (NKTP) with the involvement of Plant No. 221 (NKV). In view of the fact that getting a chassis for this self-propelled gun is very difficult, it is considered advisable to limit ourselves to receiving a draft of this self-propelled gun in the near future.
                Temporarily limited to installing a 152-mm howitzer gun mod. 1937 in the hull of the KV-7 tank. To entrust work to the Kirov Plant (NKTP) and Plant No. 172 (NKV). ”

                However, during the development process, the idea of ​​shoving the 152-mm AC into the KV-7 case was gradually moved away - and as a result, the SU-152 was received.
        2. Malyuta
          Malyuta 9 June 2020 21: 59 New
          10
          Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
          There is no QMS. 45 and 76mm guns in one tower!
          Unfortunately infringed on the rights to upload photos !!!

          The second option is he?
  • Alf
    Alf 9 June 2020 21: 17 New
    10
    Quote: assault
    this development is an open sabotage, a heavy howitzer installed on a light low-powered tank

    And then there were other tanks? By the way, the T-35 also made heavy self-propelled guns.
    1. Krasnodar
      Krasnodar 10 June 2020 20: 35 New
      +1
      Quote: Alf
      Quote: assault
      this development is an open sabotage, a heavy howitzer installed on a light low-powered tank

      And then there were other tanks? By the way, the T-35 also made heavy self-propelled guns.

      8-9-10 WOT))
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 9 June 2020 19: 04 New
    +9
    KV-2 was armed with a 152-mm tank howitzer mod. 1938/40 (M-10T). The gun had angles of vertical guidance: from −3 to + 18 °. When the tower was stationary, the howitzer could be induced in a small sector of horizontal aiming, which was typical for self-propelled guns. Ammunition was 36 rounds of separate shell loading. Practical rate of fire with the refinement of aiming - 1-1,5 rds / min.

    The real rate of fire on the tests - 1 shot in 3,5 minutes.
    ... during special tests at the NIBT tank firing range in combat conditions ("... an almost straight road was laid along the firing range, on both sides of which, within the course angle of 10-30 degrees, within a direct shot (400-600 m) were various goals were set - from the “machine gun” to the “heavy tank" (5 goals in total). The race began when the tank reached the hill and opened all targets, and ended only when all the targets were hit "- M.N.Svirin) 1941 KV-2 showed a rate of fire of 1 shot in 3.5 minutes, which was due, in particular, to the fact that it was impossible to charge the KV-2 gun, to load the KV-2 gun it was necessary to give a special loading angle, and took part in loading and the gunner.
    © D. Shein
    The self-propelled guns, created on the basis of the T-26, could be equipped with a 76,2 mm divisional or anti-aircraft gun, which would make such a self-propelled gun relevant until at least mid-1942.

    Too much rework. Look what had to be done with the T-26 chassis when creating the SU-5 or SU-6.
    1. Jager
      Jager 16 June 2020 19: 01 New
      0
      Such alterations were quite within the power of the army workshop. Welding and cutter, MTO did not touch.
  • The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 9 June 2020 19: 04 New
    10
    Thank. Well-developed article.
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 9 June 2020 20: 35 New
      +7
      I am joining! Sergey pleased!
      True, the non-serial highlights of AT-1, SU-130, etc. fell out, but I hope the author will please us with a separate cycle !!!
      Regards, Vlad!
  • Gippo
    Gippo 9 June 2020 19: 51 New
    -2
    Conclusion: practically until 1943, anti-tank self-propelled guns of the Red Army in sufficient quantities did not have.
    Artillery self-propelled guns for firing from closed positions was not at all. SU-122 generally incomprehensible unit-like a howitzer could not be used.
    Is not it so?
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 9 June 2020 19: 59 New
      +6
      Quote: Gippo
      There were no artillery self-propelled guns at all.

      ?
      In the sense of "having the main purpose of firing with closed OP"?
      They could not afford the warring Soviet Union.
      On shells and mines had to save ...
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 9 June 2020 20: 22 New
        12
        Quote: Spade
        In the sense of "having the main purpose of firing with closed OP"?
        They could not afford the warring Soviet Union.

        As the uv. M. Svirin, alone artSAU alone does not make sense. What is the use if the battery crawled to positions faster than towed artillery - if after that the deployment of wire communications, the expulsion of foot spotters and the expectation of stuck trucks with ammunition (for the consumption of shells at typical targets when shooting with PDOs are measured in tens and hundreds).
        Without mechanized artillery correctors, without normal radio communications, without normal ammunition carriers, without rear and repair (how is it with the repair of armored vehicles in the artillery units of the Second World War? wink ) we get something that does not differ from towed artillery, but at times more expensive. And they will most likely use it. in the role of assault SAU - direct fire. Purely for saving ammunition. smile
        1. strannik1985
          strannik1985 9 June 2020 20: 29 New
          0
          As the uv. M. Svirin, alone artSAU alone does not make sense.

          This is when there is a towed gun of comparable caliber, if with a 76-mm cannon and a 120-mm mortar (standard artillery TK / MK arr. 1943-1945) the benefits are quite noticeable.
        2. Lopatov
          Lopatov 9 June 2020 20: 36 New
          +4
          Quote: Alexey RA
          What is the use if the battery crawls to positions faster than towed artillery

          I have very big doubts that the then towed artillery greatly lost in the mobility of the hypothetical self-propelled.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 10 June 2020 10: 13 New
            +4
            Quote: Spade
            I have very big doubts that the then towed artillery greatly lost in the mobility of the hypothetical self-propelled.

            The speed of the march of towed artillery is 3-5 km / h. For the main "tractor" of artillery is the S-65 and other agricultural tractors.
            With special-purpose tractors, the situation is no better:
            The howitzer regiment is equipped with STZ-5 tractors. These tractors are low-power and slow-moving. When moving uphill, one implement has to be towed by two or three tractors.

            However, nothing surprising:
            Since there was no tractor in the Red Army for divisional artillery, in spite of the fact that the STZ-5 tractor did not pass a single polygon test, it was necessary to use this tractor in the Red Army as a temporary measure until a new tractor appeared, fully meeting the new requirements of NPOs.

            There is a unique number of shortcomings on all your transport vehicles ... The maximum speed of this car is 8 km / h, but it usually does 6 km / h ... the car does not pull itself at 4th speed ... if I got into a fighting position, and then I need a position change immediately, and I need 40 minutes to just start the tractor ...
            © Ulanov / Shein
            In 1941, the GABTU had only two tractors that could be used to tow artillery of the mechanized formations - Komsomolets and Voroshilovets. Taking into account the number of the latter, we can say that MK had no high-speed artillery tractors larger than 45 mm.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 10 June 2020 11: 37 New
              +2
              Quote: Alexey RA
              For the main "tractor" of artillery is the S-65 and other agricultural tractors.

              And not a horse?

              Quote: Alexey RA
              In 1941, the GABTU had only two tractors that could be used to tow artillery of mechanical connections

              ??
              Horse traction, cars.
            2. hohol95
              hohol95 10 June 2020 14: 13 New
              +1
              In 1941, the GABTU had only two tractors that could be used to tow artillery of the mechanized formations - Komsomolets and Voroshilovets.

              So "Stalin S-2" and "Comintern" also does not count?
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 9 June 2020 20: 14 New
      +6
      Quote: Gippo
      SU-122 generally incomprehensible unit-like a howitzer could not be used.

      Heavy assault self-propelled guns for direct fire, created on the principle of "as soon as possible."
    3. strannik1985
      strannik1985 9 June 2020 20: 16 New
      +2
      Artillery self-propelled guns for firing from closed positions was not at all.

      The only more or less suitable base is the T-34.
      SU-122 generally incomprehensible unit

      Technically, only shells can be transported separately.
      1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
        Kote Pan Kokhanka 9 June 2020 20: 45 New
        +6
        Not only! HF and IS also served as the basis for self-propelled guns!
    4. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 9 June 2020 21: 01 New
      +5
      Quote: Gippo
      Conclusion: practically until 1943, anti-tank self-propelled guns of the Red Army in sufficient quantities did not have.
      Artillery self-propelled guns for firing from closed positions was not at all. SU-122 generally incomprehensible unit-like a howitzer could not be used.
      Is not it so?

      At least one 203mm was. SU-14, based on the T-35!
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 10 June 2020 01: 35 New
        +5
        Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
        At least one 203mm was. SU-14, based on the T-35!

        Isn't it two? In my memory, for some reason, “Two pieces” lingered ... There, there should be a 130-mm self-propelled guns next to it ...
        1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
          Kote Pan Kokhanka 10 June 2020 05: 55 New
          +5
          The uniqueness of the 203mm self-propelled guns based on the T-35 was that they first issued the SU-14-1, then they altered it into the SU-14-2!
  • Undecim
    Undecim 9 June 2020 19: 53 New
    10
    It is clear that the tank destroyer with bulletproof armor was not intended for a head-on collision with enemy tanks, but it could be quite effective in ambush operations.

    Polish platform sole TKS. After the German attack on Poland, the Poles managed to install a 24 mm Nkm wz.25 FK gun on 20 wedges instead of the Ckm wz.38 machine gun. One of these wedges, under the command of Roman Orlik, knocked out 13 German tanks in a week of fighting, including the PzKpfw IV Ausf B, commanded by Prince Victor IV Albrecht von Ratibor, who died.
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 9 June 2020 20: 41 New
      +5
      We had ersatz T-18 (MS-1) with a 45mm gun!
      At least two tanks on the go, it didn’t help!
      1. Pane Kohanku
        Pane Kohanku 10 June 2020 12: 44 New
        +6
        We had ersatz T-18 (MS-1) with a 45mm gun!
        At least two tanks on the go, it didn’t help!

        Vladislav, you had these in mind. drinks

        as I understand it, there were more, though. Not the fact that they were on the go!

        here is a selection of photos. It seems that the Germans captured some of our warehouse ... what
        https://zen.yandex.ru/media/starcom68/tanki-ms1-s-45mm-orudiem-i-redkii-bot-na-baze-t46-5bc8a7b8aa47c600aa60f29f
        1. Selevc
          Selevc 10 June 2020 13: 55 New
          +3
          It seems that the Germans captured some of our warehouse ... what
          And all the junk was abandoned in the warehouse ... Tanks look more like French Renaults from the 1st World War !!! These photos speak mainly of two points - 1) How quickly tank building developed in the world and in the USSR especially in the prewar years, so quickly that de facto tanks from different generations could quietly coexist nearby ... 2) that far from all that was listed in the warehouse as such was actually a tank. - well, in the outback in warehouses they could store different exotic ...
          1. Pane Kohanku
            Pane Kohanku 10 June 2020 14: 25 New
            +5
            Tanks in appearance are more reminiscent of the French Renault of the 1st World War !!!

            The T-18, in principle, was made on the model of the Renault FT-17. hi
            that far from everything that was listed in the warehouse as a tank was in fact

            in addition, progress was made in such steps that light tanks of the early 30s were already deeply obsolete.
            Specifically, these machines may have been intended to arm fortified areas. We used similar ones near Leningrad in Kingisep UR. soldier
            The rapidly growing importance of tank troops in the mid-1930s. forced to look at the absence of any anti-tank defense of the first Soviet URs as a significant drawback. For his compensation in 1934-1937. The Leningrad Military District transferred 160 decommissioned T-18 (MS-1) tanks armed with either two machine guns or the 37 mm gun of the Hotchkiss system to their URs. Thus, according to the program for strengthening the URs until 1939, at least 33 armored firing points (BOTs) were built near Kingisepp. As far as it is known, they were part of the Kingisepp fortification, and only one - in the southwestern point of Ust-Luga. Where there were not enough machine guns, they put tanks with machine-gun towers, and on tank-dangerous directions with cannon towers. These BOTs belonged to the category of tank or tank turret firing points (TOTs), as such structures began to be called during the war. The tank firing point was a T-18 tank with the engine, chassis and aft sheets of armor removed, embedded in a powerful concrete base in such a way that only its tower towered above the ground. Entrance to the point was through the stern of the tank, for which a mine was arranged in the rear of the concrete base. The battle crew consisted of two people who lived in a dugout nearby. Tank turret firing points differed from tank firing points in that in this case only a turret mount was mounted on a concrete base, on which the tank turret was placed. The garrison room in this case was entirely concrete, but also completely underground with a mine entrance. Sometimes the entrance was cranked, that is, the mine was not arranged along the axis of the firing point. The TOTov shelling sector, of course, was circular. It is not known what kind of tank towers, except for the T-18, were used at KingUR, but there is an assumption about the existence of at least one TOT with the turret of the experimental T-46 tank (45 mm gun) and one with the T-28 turret (76,2 -mm gun) or a T-26 conical tower (45-mm gun).
            here is info:
            https://www.forum.aroundspb.ru/index.php?t=tree&th=13615&goto=139845
            The Germans made such fortifications two-story, and proudly called "tobruk". Even here in St. Petersburg, these are still preserved on the former contact line along the Ivanovka River drinks .
          2. Jager
            Jager 16 June 2020 19: 07 New
            0
            As now) God forbid, next to Armata and T-55 covered with moss will go from the warehouses.
        2. Bongo
          10 June 2020 14: 17 New
          +6
          Quote: Pan Kohanku
          as I understand it, there were more, though. Not the fact that they were on the go!

          These vehicles armed with 45 mm cannons were planned to be used as moving firing points in fortified areas.
          1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
            Kote Pan Kokhanka 10 June 2020 14: 47 New
            +4
            Quote: Bongo
            Quote: Pan Kohanku
            as I understand it, there were more, though. Not the fact that they were on the go!

            These vehicles armed with 45 mm cannons were planned to be used as moving firing points in fortified areas.

            So our "Minimaus"! For good reason!
          2. Pane Kohanku
            Pane Kohanku 10 June 2020 14: 47 New
            +3
            These vehicles armed with 45 mm cannons were planned to be used as moving firing points in fortified areas.

            Well, here's something like that I expected. yes Thank you, Sergey! hi
            1. Bongo
              10 June 2020 14: 51 New
              +4
              Quote: Pan Kohanku
              Well, here's something like that I expected. yes Sergey, thanks!

              It would be nice if someone undertook to cover the combat use of the modernized T-18s in the initial period of the war. According to some reports, we even had such tanks near Moscow.
              1. Pane Kohanku
                Pane Kohanku 10 June 2020 14: 53 New
                +4
                According to some reports, we even had such tanks near Moscow.

                hmm .. it seems like something was read somewhere .. what Yes, it would be very good! Sorry, Svirin is no more ..
                Kolomiyets wrote that other "peers-rarities" - BA-27M - went into battle near Moscow. At least one of them was destroyed in battle.

                here, by the way, the Germans are posing against this background. Still smoking ...

                https://waralbum.ru/267252/
          3. Pane Kohanku
            Pane Kohanku 10 June 2020 15: 33 New
            +3
            These vehicles armed with 45 mm cannons were planned to be used as moving firing points in fortified areas.

            Sergei, a little off topic, but the topic of fortifications. hi
            This is not a sewer well! laughing these are the remains of tobruk. In St. Petersburg, on the left, western, bank of the Ivanovka River. Right next to the footbridge and walkway.

            These tobruks were part of the second defensive line of the Germans, 800-1500 m from the first (wiki).
            Above was either a machine gun, or a mortar, or the observer was. There are three of them. There are good photos of them in Wikimapia, but I posted this offhand.
            http://palmernw.ru/mir-piter/ivanovka/ivanovka_mosty.html
        3. Kote Pan Kokhanka
          Kote Pan Kokhanka 10 June 2020 14: 45 New
          +3
          Hi Nikolay!
          The photo is different. You can see the engine compartment. So on the go.
          Thanks for the selection, now at least five (six) redone MS-1s.
          Regards, Vlad!
          1. Pane Kohanku
            Pane Kohanku 10 June 2020 14: 54 New
            +3
            The photo is different.

            ahh, but it seemed to me that this is the most famous of their photos! The top two. drinks
      2. hohol95
        hohol95 10 June 2020 14: 27 New
        +5
        T-18: serial response to Chamberlain
        Yuri Pasholok April 23 '18
        warspot.ru
        By the beginning of 1938, 862 T-18 remained, worn out and finally outdated. Of these, 160 were used in the Leningrad Military District as fixed firing points. On August 1, 1938, a resolution of the Defense Committee under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR No. 180ss "On the use of non-serial old types of tanks available in the Red Army" was adopted. According to him, 2 T-18s went to the museum at the NIBT Test Site, the rest were intended for use as firing points. 70 of these tanks were rearmament and received 45 mm tank guns.
        Part of the T-18 remained in working condition even by the summer of 1941. At least, such cars are found in German photographs. Alas, to this day, not a single tank with a complete chassis, and even more so with an engine, has not been preserved.
  • Reserve buildbat
    Reserve buildbat 9 June 2020 19: 54 New
    0
    There are two questions:
    1. According to some archival data of the 57 mm PTO, a total of 101 pieces were produced. subject to test. Of these, approximately 12 went to equipping T-34-57 tanks, the rest went to ZIS-30. So this question is rather dark)
    2. The main reasons for curtailing the production of the 57-mm anti-tank missile, as far as I remember, was not "excess power", but INSUFFICIENT HE projectile capacity and the high cost of manufacturing both the gun itself and armor-piercing shells for it, if I am not mistaken.
    1. Potter
      Potter 9 June 2020 20: 36 New
      +5
      Absolutely all sources in 1941 produced 369 towed 57-mm anti-tank guns mod. 1941 It is incomprehensible only to the end, this, taking into account the 30 guns installed on the ZIS-101, or the ZIS-30 goes additionally.
      The 57-mm ZIS-4 tank guns were a separate score, in addition to those installed on the T-34-57, there were several dozen barrels left, which they tried to use in 1943, when the second experimental series of 3 tanks was launched.
  • Tuzik
    Tuzik 9 June 2020 20: 30 New
    +4
    Halder June 24th:
    "A new type of Russian heavy tank appeared on the front of Army Groups South and North, which apparently has a gun of 80 mm caliber, according to the report of the headquarters of Army Group North, even 150 mm, which, however, is unlikely."
    He probably told them on the phone: "What are you talking about heresy ?!" smile
  • Alf
    Alf 9 June 2020 21: 38 New
    +8
    The most likely reason for curtailing the construction of the 57-mm tank destroyer was most likely the difficulty with the production of gun barrels. The percentage of defects in the manufacture of trunks was excessively large, which was completely unacceptable in wartime.

    In the manufacture of guns 88/71 of the five forgings, four went into marriage and the Germans did not consider this unacceptable.
    1. Stas57
      Stas57 5 August 2020 15: 03 New
      0
      the Germans could count whatever they wanted, that's why they missed
  • bubalik
    bubalik 9 June 2020 22: 07 New
    10
    It was a wartime ersatz, created in a hurry, which affected the combat and service-operational characteristics. By means of minimal design changes in the middle upper part of the body of the T-20 Komsomolets light tractor

    ,,, the Germans also used the Komsomolets tractor.

    1. bubalik
      bubalik 9 June 2020 22: 30 New
      10
      ,, based on t-26


      1. Dr. Frankenstucker
        Dr. Frankenstucker 10 June 2020 09: 38 New
        +6
        Quote: bubalik
        based on t-26


        with a sign)

  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 9 June 2020 23: 01 New
    +4
    Good article, all on the topic.
  • Alien From
    Alien From 10 June 2020 00: 00 New
    +4
    Thanks to the author!) I always read with pleasure!
  • Graz
    Graz 10 June 2020 06: 18 New
    +3
    kv-2 had to be put on the railway platform, the sense of them would be more like an impromptu armored train than in the initial period of the war
  • +5
    +5 10 June 2020 09: 15 New
    +3
    the main part of the KV-2 was not lost due to enemy fire, but because of the lack of fuel, engine breakdowns, transmission and chassis.

    Actually, like the Tigers ...
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 13 June 2020 18: 27 New
    +1
    To come to the structures of the SU-100 and ISU - 152, the designers and the military had to go through "surrogates" similar to those from the guns screwed to the chassis of tractors and tractors.