Military Review

Antitank capabilities of Soviet 76,2 mm self-propelled artillery mounts

266
Antitank capabilities of Soviet 76,2 mm self-propelled artillery mounts

During the war, the tasks of providing fire support to the infantry units of the Red Army were mainly assigned to 76,2 mm regimental and division guns. After stabilization of the front line and the start of offensive operations, it became clear that, due to the shortage of tractors, artillery towed by horse carts often didn’t have time to change their firing position on time, and it was very difficult to roll out the guns with calculation forces following the advancing infantry over rough terrain. In addition, the calculations of guns firing direct fire at enemy firing points suffered heavy losses from bullets and fragments. It became obvious that Soviet troops needed self-propelled artillery mountings capable of taking on some of the functions of divisional artillery. From the very beginning, it was envisaged that such self-propelled guns should not directly participate in the attack. Moving at a distance of 500-600 meters from the advancing troops, they could suppress firing points with the fire of their guns, destroy fortifications and destroy enemy infantry. That is, a typical “art-storm” was required, if we use the terminology of the enemy. This presented different requirements for self-propelled guns compared to tanks. The protection of self-propelled guns could be less, but it was preferable to increase the caliber of the guns and, as a result, the power of the shells.


Although a self-propelled gun armed with a 76,2-mm divisional gun could have been created much earlier, work on the design of such self-propelled guns at plant No. 38 in the city of Kirov began only a year after the outbreak of war, and the assembly of the first vehicles was completed in the late autumn of 1942.

The SU-76 self-propelled artillery mount was created on the basis of the T-70 light tank using a number of automotive units and is armed with a 76 mm ZIS-ZSh gun (W - assault), a specially developed version of the divisional gun for the self-propelled guns. The angles of vertical guidance ranged from -3 to + 25 °, in the horizontal plane - 15 °. The vertical aiming angle made it possible to reach the firing range of the ZIS-3 divisional guns, that is 13 km, and while conducting military operations in the city, to fire at the upper floors of buildings. When shooting direct fire, the standard ZIS-12 gun sight was used, while shooting from closed firing positions, a panoramic sight was used. The combat rate of fire did not exceed 60 rds / min. Ammunition - XNUMX shells.

SU-76 self-propelled artillery mount


Due to the need to place a rather large gun in the combat vehicle, the T-70 tank hull had to be lengthened, and after it the chassis also lengthened. SU-76 had an individual torsion bar suspension for each of the 6 road wheels of small diameter on each side. Driving wheels were located in front, and sloths were identical to basic skating rinks. The propulsion system, transmission and fuel tank were located in front of the armored vehicle. The SU-76 was driven by a power plant of two 4-stroke in-line 6-cylinder GAZ-202 carburetor engines with a total capacity of 140 liters. with. The capacity of the fuel tanks was 320 liters, the range of the car on the highway reached 250 km. The maximum speed on the highway was 41 km / h. In the field - up to 25 km / h. The mass in combat position is 11,2 tons.

Frontal armor 26-35 mm thick, side and aft 10-15 mm thick provided protection for the crew (4 people) from small arms and fragments. On the first production version there was also an armored 6 mm roof. Initially, the self-propelled gun was supposed to have a wheelhouse open on top, but Stalin personally ordered the roof to be equipped with self-propelled guns.


SU-76

The first serial SU-76 in the amount of 25 units at the beginning of 1943 were sent to the training self-propelled artillery regiment. In February, the first two self-propelled artillery regiments (SAP) \, equipped with SU-76, went to the Volkhov Front and took part in breaking through the blockade of Leningrad. Initially, the SU-76 was sent to the SAP, which also had the SU-122, but subsequently, to facilitate material and technical supply and repair, each regiment was equipped with one type of self-propelled guns.


Sending SU-76 to the Volkhov Front, February 1943

During the fighting, self-propelled guns showed good mobility and patency. The firepower of the guns made it possible to effectively destroy light field fortifications, to destroy the accumulation of manpower and to fight the enemy’s armored vehicles.


SU-76, view from the stern

Having a high cross-country ability and a relatively small mass, the SU-76 was able to operate where heavier vehicles could not be used at all or were used inefficiently: in mountainous and wooded areas. Thanks to the elevation angle of the gun, which was significant for self-propelled guns, the installation could also fire from closed positions.

But, unfortunately, with all its advantages and relevance, the first production SU-76s in difficult front-line conditions demonstrated unsatisfactory technical reliability. In combat units there was a massive failure of transmission elements and engines. This happened due to erroneous technical solutions laid down during the design and due to the unsatisfactory quality of engine and transmission manufacturing. To eliminate the main problems that led to mass breakdowns, batch production was stopped, and qualified factory teams were sent to the front-line workshops involved in the restoration of the SU-76.

Before stopping mass production, 608 SU-76s were built. A number of repaired self-propelled guns survived until the summer of 1943. So, on the Kursk Bulge, as part of the 45th and 193rd tank regiments, 11 SU-76s fought. Another 5 self-propelled guns of this type were in the 1440th SAP. In the summer heat, the temperature in the fighting compartment inside the closed cabin often exceeded 40 ° C. Due to poor ventilation during firing, there was a high gas contamination and the working conditions of the crew were very difficult. In this regard, the SU-76 received the nickname "gas chamber".

Self-propelled artillery mount SU-76M


After taking rather strict disciplinary measures, the SU-76 was modernized. In addition to improving the quality of mass-produced cars, in order to increase reliability and increase motor resources, changes were made to the design of the motor-transmission and chassis. Self-propelled installation with a motor-transmission group, borrowed from a light tank T-70B, received the designation SU-76M. Subsequently, the power of the twin propulsion system was increased to 170 hp. Two elastic couplings were installed between the engines and gearboxes, and a friction slip clutch between the two main gears on a common shaft. Thanks to this, it was possible to increase the reliability of the motor-transmission part to an acceptable level.


SU-76M

The thickness of the frontal armor, sides and stern remained the same as that of the SU-76, but there was a rejection of the armored roof of the fighting compartment. This allowed to reduce weight from 11,2 to 10,5 tons, which reduced the load on the engine and chassis. The transition to a combat compartment open at the top solved the problem of poor ventilation and improved the visibility of the battlefield.


The calculation of the SU-76M fires from the guns during the battle in the village

The installation could overcome a trench up to 2 m wide and a rise of up to 30 °. Also, the SU-76M was able to force the ford to a depth of 0,9 m. The undoubted advantages of the installation could be attributed to its small size and low specific ground pressure, which was 0,545 kgf / cm². Self-propelled guns could move through wooded and swampy areas. It was possible to accompany the infantry in those places where medium tanks could not move. The range of self-propelled guns on the highway was 320 km, on a dirt road - 200 km.


Self-propelled guns SU-76M support infantry attack

In the stowed position, to protect against road dust and precipitation, the fighting compartment was covered with a tarp. For self-defense against enemy infantry, a DT-29 machine gun appeared in the armament.


Self-propelled guns SU-76 and SU-76M during the war years were equipped with several dozen self-propelled artillery regiments. At the beginning of 1944, the formation of self-propelled artillery divisions began (each consisted of at first 12, and later 16, SU-76M). They replaced several dozens of rifle divisions with individual anti-tank divisions. Then they started the formation of light self-propelled artillery brigades RVGK. In these formations there were 60 SU-76M units, five T-70 tanks and three American M3A1 Scout Car armored vehicles. In total, four such brigades were formed in the Red Army. Before the end of World War II, more than 11000 SU-76Ms entered the troops.


Initially, many commanders of tank and combined arms units, having no idea about the tactics of self-propelled artillery, often sent lightly armored self-propelled guns to frontal suicide attacks along with medium and heavy tanks.


Incorrect use, as well as the fact that at first the crews of self-propelled guns were equipped with former tankers, led to a high level of losses. Of the crew members, the driver was most at risk, whose workplace was located next to the gas tank, and if a shell hit it, it could burn alive. As a result, at the first stage of combat use, light self-propelled guns were not popular among personnel and earned many unflattering nicknames. But with the correct use of the SU-76M, it fully justified itself and was a very good alternative to the towed divisional cannon ZIS-3. With the accumulation of experience, the effectiveness of self-propelled guns armed with a 76,2 mm gun has seriously increased.


SU-76M with additional side logging, which were also used for self-pulling

At the time of its appearance, the SU-76 could quite successfully deal with German tanks. However, by mid-1943, after a sharp increase in the protection and firepower of German tanks, the 76,2 mm gun was not so effective. For example, the most popular modification of the German “four” (more than 3800 vehicles were built), the medium tank Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.H, which began production in April 1943, had frontal armor of the hull with a thickness of 80 mm and was armed with a very effective 75 mm gun KwK.40 L / 48 with a barrel length of 48 calibers.


Medium German tank Pz.IV Ausf.H

The firepower and protection of the heavy German tanks PzKpfw V Panther and Pz.Kpfw Tiger was even higher, which made fighting them a very difficult task. According to the reference data, the 53-BR-350A blunt-headed armor-piercing projectile, which was part of the ZIS-3 gun’s ammunition, could penetrate 300 mm armor at a range of 73 m normal, at an angle of 60 ° at the same distance, armor penetration was 60 mm. Thus, the 76,2-mm gun mounted on the SU-76M could confidently penetrate only the onboard armor of the “fours” and “Panthers”. At the same time, the firing of cumulative shells used in regimental cannons was strictly forbidden due to the unreliable operation of fuses and the risk of rupture in the barrel when firing from 76,2 mm divisional and tank guns. Information that cumulative shells appeared in the ZIS-3 ammunition at the end of 1944 does not correspond to reality.

In the second half of 1943, the production of 76,2 mm 53-BR-354P projectile shells began. This projectile weighing 3,02 kg had an initial speed of 950 m / s and at a distance of 300 m, normally it was able to overcome 102-mm armor. At a range of 500 m, armor penetration was 87 mm. Thus, acting from an ambush with a minimum firing range in the presence of submunitions of ammunition in the ammunition, the SU-76M crew had good chances to hit a German heavy tank. Another issue is that sub-caliber shells were primarily sent to anti-tank fighter divisions. If they were in the SU-76M ammunition, then in a very limited quantity, and were on special account.

However, in the fight against enemy armored vehicles, a lot depended on the technical condition of the vehicle, the level of training of the crew and the tactical literacy of the commander. The use of such strong qualities of the SU-76M as good mobility and high passability on soft soils, camouflage taking into account the terrain, as well as maneuvering from one shelter in the ground to another, often made it possible to achieve victory even over heavy enemy tanks. Since the second half of 1944, the importance of the SU-76M as an anti-tank weapon has decreased. By that time, our troops were already quite saturated with specialized anti-tank guns and tank destroyers, and enemy tanks became a rarity. During this period, the SU-76M was used exclusively for its intended purpose, as well as for transporting infantry, evacuating the wounded and as vehicles of advanced artillery observers.

Self-propelled artillery mount SU-76I


Talking about Soviet self-propelled artillery installations armed with a 76,2 mm gun, one cannot but mention self-propelled guns built on the basis of captured German Pz tanks. Kpfw III and SPG StuG III. Although not many were produced, at a certain stage they played a prominent role in the course of hostilities. By mid-1942, Soviet troops captured more than 300 serviceable or reconditionable Pz tanks. Kpfw III and SPG StuG III. Since the standard armament of these vehicles for a number of reasons did not satisfy the Soviet command, it was decided to use the trophy chassis to create a 76,2 mm self-propelled gun.

During the design, the self-propelled guns received the designation SU-76 (T-III), then SU-76 (S-1) and finally - SU-76I. The installation was officially adopted on March 20, 1943, and in May the first SU-76I entered the Moscow training center for self-propelled artillery. In the formation of units equipped with new self-propelled guns, the same standard procedure was used as for the SU-76, but instead of the commander T-34s, they initially used captured Pz. Kpfw III, which was then replaced by the SU-76I in the commander’s version. The release of self-propelled guns on a trophy chassis continued until November 1943, inclusive. In total, they managed to assemble 201 SU-76I, of which more than 20 in the commander's version.


SU-76 AND

Machine created on the basis of Pz. Kpfw III, in a number of parameters, looked more preferable than the SU-76 and SU-76M. First of all, the SU-76I won in terms of security and reliability of the motor-transmission group.

The self-propelled gun had a reservation of the frontal part of the hull with a thickness of 30-50 mm, the hull side - 30 mm, the cutting forehead - 35 mm, the cabin side - 25 mm, the feed - 25 mm, the roof - 16 mm The cabin had the shape of a truncated pyramid with rational angles of inclination of the armor plates, which increased the armor resistance. Such armor protection, which provided invulnerability from 20 mm and partly from 37 mm shells, would have looked nice in June 1941, but in mid-1943 it could no longer protect against 50 and 75 mm German guns.


Commander SU-76I

Some of the vehicles intended for use as commander’s vehicles were equipped with a powerful radio station and a commander’s turret with an access hatch from Pz. Kpfw III. When creating the SU-76I, designers paid special attention to the review of the combat vehicle. In this regard, this self-propelled gun outperformed most Soviet tanks and self-propelled guns manufactured in the same time period.

Initially, the SU-76I was planned to be equipped with a 76,2 mm ZIS-3Sh gun. But in this case, reliable protection of the gun’s embrasure from bullets and fragments was not provided, since cracks formed in the shield when lifting and turning the gun. As a result, the designers opted for the 76,2 mm S-1 gun. It was created on the basis of the tank F-34, especially for light experienced self-propelled guns of the Gorky Automobile Plant. Angles of vertical guidance: from -5 to 15 °, horizontally - in the sector ± 10 °. The practical rate of fire of the gun was up to 6 rds / min. According to the characteristics of armor penetration, the S-1 gun was completely identical to the F-34 tank. Ammunition amounted to 98 shells. For firing, the whole range of artillery rounds of 76,2 mm tank and division guns could be used. On command vehicles due to the use of a more powerful and bulky radio station, the ammunition load was reduced.

Cases of successful use of the SU-76I against German Pz tanks have been documented. Kpfw III and Pz.KpfW.IV. But in the summer of 1943, when the self-propelled guns went into battle for the first time, their firepower was no longer enough for a confident fight with all the German armored vehicles. Nevertheless, the SU-76I was popular with crews, who noted a higher reliability, ease of control and an abundance of observation devices compared to the SU-76. In addition, the self-propelled gun was practically inferior to the T-34 tanks in terms of mobility on rough terrain, surpassing them in speed on good roads. Despite the presence of an armored roof, self-propelled gunners liked the relative spaciousness inside the fighting compartment. Compared with other domestic self-propelled guns, the commander, gunner and loader in the conning tower were not too constrained. As a significant drawback, the difficulty of starting the engine at low temperatures was noted.


Self-propelled guns SU-76I fought until the summer of 1944. After that, the few surviving vehicles were decommissioned due to running out of resources for the undercarriage, engine and transmission. In the training units, separate self-propelled guns served until the end of the war. Currently, the only surviving original SU-76I is installed in the city of Sarny, Rivne region (Ukraine).


SU-76I installed in the form of a monument in the city of Sarny

During the war, this car fell from a bridge into the Sluch River and lay at the bottom for almost 30 years. Subsequently, the car was lifted, restored and became a monument. Self-propelled guns SU-76I, installed in Moscow on Poklonnaya Hill and in the UMMC Museum in the city of Verkhnyaya Pyshma, Sverdlovsk Region, are remodels created using the Pz chassis. Kpfw III.

To be continued ...
Author:
Articles from this series:
Soviet self-propelled guns against German tanks in the initial period of the war
266 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. NF68
    NF68 11 June 2020 18: 13 New
    +2
    Weak 76,2 mm. the guns of these self-propelled guns were by 1943. Here it would be necessary at least 85 mm.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 11 June 2020 19: 10 New
      23
      Quote: NF68
      Weak 76,2 mm. the guns of these self-propelled guns were by 1943.

      Against tanks, maybe.
      And for its intended purpose, it is quite normal
    2. Baron pardus
      Baron pardus 11 June 2020 19: 30 New
      -12
      These guns were "weak" not in 1943, but initially. What ammunition were they made for? Right under the PMV ammunition, about the same as the American 75mm, the ammunition of the French PMV cannon was made (described by Omar Bradley). PAK40 ZIS-3 wing in terms of armor penetration and civilization like a turtle god, just instead of making a gun for the ammunition "which remained in the warehouses from the king of the priest" and thus make a gun for the NEXT war, you need to make a gun for the NEXT war. Well, these are already schools of generals and of Tukhaschevsky. They either need universal guns, Divisionally Anti-aircraft (well, it’s not anti-submarine), then the ZIS 2 has “excess power”, then long tank guns will “shut down”, then the gun must be made under old ammunition because there are “millions” of them in warehouses. In short, it seems that the pests were half the General Staff. PAK40, by the way, began to be developed in the 1939th year. Although the ammunition for the old guns, they also had enough. By the way, the American M5 was even heavier, 600 kilograms, but had better armor penetration, due to a slightly heavier projectile 7 kg versus 6.8 kg on the PAK-40 and better core quality. Just do not FIG do guns for ammunition 30+ summer range. However, the Americans stepped on the same rake. Bradley has it well described.
      1. ser56
        ser56 11 June 2020 19: 58 New
        15
        Quote: Baron Pardus
        not in 1943, but initially.

        what a nonsense ... recourse
        Quote: Baron Pardus
        AK40 wing ZIS-3 for armor penetration and permeability

        ZIS-3 is not a VET, but a division - its goals are a machine gun / bunker / infantry group ... why the extra expense of gunpowder?
        Quote: Baron Pardus
        because there are "millions" of them in warehouses. TO

        be surprised, but the shots cost a lot, and the tsar’s were enough for the whole war ..... request
        1. garri-lin
          garri-lin 11 June 2020 20: 16 New
          +6
          Never interested in tight. What really was enough for the whole war? Or is it a joke?
          1. ser56
            ser56 11 June 2020 20: 32 New
            +9
            Quote: garri-lin
            What really was enough for the whole war? Or is it a joke?

            what a joke - they shot after AFTER WWII ... request
            1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
              Kote Pan Kokhanka 11 June 2020 20: 39 New
              12
              Quote: ser56
              Quote: garri-lin
              What really was enough for the whole war? Or is it a joke?

              what a joke - they shot after AFTER WWII ... request

              With 9, 10 and 12 inch shrapnel shells of armadillos and coastal batteries, Tsarist Russia even had to bother with disposal !!!
            2. garri-lin
              garri-lin 11 June 2020 20: 51 New
              +1
              Thanks for the info. I did not know did not know.
            3. Aag
              Aag 11 June 2020 21: 54 New
              +1
              That's awesome!
              Quote: ser56
              Quote: garri-lin
              What really was enough for the whole war? Or is it a joke?

              what a joke - they shot after AFTER WWII ... request
          2. Lopatov
            Lopatov 11 June 2020 21: 05 New
            +8
            Quote: garri-lin
            What really was enough for the whole war?

            Of course not.
            Quite quickly, a correction appeared on the tables for the non-coloring of the projectile ...

            For example, in the 2nd quarter of 42 years, for divisions alone, industry delivered 2.7 million HE shells according to plan
            1. garri-lin
              garri-lin 11 June 2020 22: 20 New
              +1
              The Internet in its repertoire. Opinions are many facts even more. It turns out stocks from warehouses allowed the most difficult times to last, and then the plants picked up the output and this allowed not to save much? Or were the initial stocks not so large?
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 12 June 2020 06: 58 New
                +9
                Quote: garri-lin
                It turns out stocks from warehouses allowed the most difficult times to last, and then the plants picked up the output and this allowed not to save much? Or were the initial stocks not so large?

                Initial reserves fell in love with the initial period of the war. At best, destroying, at worst, giving the Germans as trophies
                At the same time, a significant part of enterprises manufacturing gunpowder, explosives and shell shells, as well as equipment factories, have come to love. And restored these resources from scratch heroically and scary. With fatalities, heart attacks, and fainting teenagers

                So no "enough for the whole war." And since the time of the “shell hunger” of the First World War, none of the adequate ones would have expected to create a stock of shells for the whole war in peacetime.
                1. garri-lin
                  garri-lin 12 June 2020 10: 14 New
                  +1
                  Now I understand. Thanks for the clarification.
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 12 June 2020 10: 40 New
                    +6
                    As for the “correction for unpaintedness”, the shells of military production were often not painted, because they believed that they would not have time to rust. A less smooth surface caused the projectile to fly closer. And the shooting tables were amended
                    1. garri-lin
                      garri-lin 12 June 2020 10: 50 New
                      +1
                      Well, I know that. A few years ago, here on the site, this was discussed in comments.
        2. Lopatov
          Lopatov 11 June 2020 21: 00 New
          +5
          Quote: ser56
          and the tsar's enough for the whole war.

          ??
          Not enough at all.
          I even had to make ersatz from cast iron.
          1. ser56
            ser56 11 June 2020 22: 46 New
            +2
            Quote: Spade
            I even had to make ersatz from cast iron.

            you still about armor-piercing ... under the king shrapnel did mainly ...
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 12 June 2020 06: 41 New
              +5
              Quote: ser56
              you still about armor-piercing ... under the king shrapnel did mainly ...

              And here is armor-piercing and shrapnel?
              Cases of cast iron, shells are not "high-explosive" but "fragmentation". For when you try to shoot at a high-explosive action, or even more so with a slowdown, with a high probability there was a destruction of the shell of the shell before undermining.
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 12 June 2020 10: 16 New
                11
                Quote: Spade
                And here is armor-piercing and shrapnel?

                EMNIP, the picture with the ammunition was the following: shrapnel was considered the main projectile 3 "before the PMV. It was produced in epic quantities. And even when during the WWI after the front stabilized, the need to switch to the OFS was revealed, the plants continued to drive the shrapnel that had been mastered in the series for a couple of years. for which there were very few goals at the front. As a result, the Soviet state "inherited" got a large number of shrapnel shots - complete and incomplete. PMSM, it was them who "shot through" the next quarter century.
                Well, do not forget about the wonderful army depots, on which, according to rumors, you can find storage units produced one and a half centuries ago. smile
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 12 June 2020 10: 36 New
                  +4
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  As a result, the Soviet state inherited a large number of shrapnel shots — complete and incomplete. PMSM, it was them who "shot" the next quarter century.

                  This is possible.
                  In plus, the use of shrapnel requires highly skilled artillerymen. Especially in the absence of rangefinders
                  And in conditions of war, not everyone could use it
                  1. hohol95
                    hohol95 12 June 2020 13: 41 New
                    +3
                    Good afternoon!
                    I read from someone about complaints about the formation of young artillerymen in the second half of the war. They did not know how to correctly use shrapnel shells, which led to overuse of HE shells. From shrapnel shells the youth brushed aside the devil from incense!
                    At the same time, many regretted the absence of shrapnel shells from the artillerymen during the containment of the Germans in different boilers of 1944-1945!
                    1. ser56
                      ser56 12 June 2020 13: 49 New
                      +2
                      Quote: hohol95
                      during the containment of the Germans in different boilers

                      shrapnel on the not entrenched infantry - this is the most ... hi
                      1. hohol95
                        hohol95 12 June 2020 14: 14 New
                        +4
                        Especially going for a breakthrough! And artillery can oppose only OFS! And the lack of shells that can be put on the buckshot near the enemy infantry!
                      2. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 13 June 2020 07: 27 New
                        +7
                        Quote: hohol95
                        And artillery can oppose only OFS!

                        If shooting is conducted by OFS at ricochets, then in efficiency it is comparable to shrapnel

                        But the problem is that surrogate fragmentation shells from steel cast iron did not survive the rebound, the shells cracked upon impact
                      3. hohol95
                        hohol95 13 June 2020 11: 53 New
                        +1
                        With such a shooting, does the soil properties really matter?
                        And the presence of snow.
                      4. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 13 June 2020 12: 01 New
                        +7
                        Quote: hohol95
                        With such a shooting, does the soil properties really matter?
                        And the presence of snow.

                        Not really. Snow cover does not exactly affect, verified.
                        Ricochet even from water is possible.

                        Just if the ricochets are less than half, they proceed to install the fuse on the "splinter"
                      5. hohol95
                        hohol95 13 June 2020 12: 07 New
                        +2
                        hi Clear! Thanks for clarifying!
                        But I don’t think that such tricks were taught during the refined training of gunners in 1941-1943!
                        Although judging by the film "Tender Age" in 1983, the main characters received thorough training before being sent to the front.
                  2. Train
                    Train 14 June 2020 12: 28 New
                    +2
                    So far from all could shoot, it was considered skill.
                  3. Vlad Gutu
                    Vlad Gutu 18 June 2020 19: 59 New
                    0
                    Mikhin in his memoirs told the case of how he was shot by "ricochets."
            2. Lopatov
              Lopatov 12 June 2020 15: 03 New
              +7
              Quote: hohol95
              I read from someone about complaints about the formation of young artillerymen in the second half of the war.

              It's not about the level of education.
              It is very difficult to assess the gap. No theoretical training will help, only practical experience
              1. hohol95
                hohol95 12 June 2020 20: 26 New
                +3
                No theoretical training will help, only practical experience

                Which was only for those who passed the FDA and Civil.
                And I think there weren’t a lot of those by June 22, 1941 in the army itself! Then it got even smaller.
      2. ser56
        ser56 12 June 2020 13: 48 New
        0
        Quote: Spade
        And here is armor-piercing and shrapnel?

        This is a joke - for armor-piercing in 1MV there were no goals, but everyone said about shrapnel below ... request
  • NF68
    NF68 12 June 2020 16: 31 New
    +1
    Quote: ser56
    ZIS-3 is not a VET, but a division - its goals are a machine gun / bunker / infantry group ... why the extra expense of gunpowder?


    Why then out of the 48 issued ZIS-000 almost 3 were sent to the anti-tank units? Is it because the Zis-25 in 000 did not cope badly with enemy tanks? In any case, obviously better than 2 mm. anti-tank guns.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 12 June 2020 22: 10 New
      +6
      Quote: NF68
      Why then out of the 48 issued ZIS-000 almost 3 were sent to the anti-tank units?

      Because there was nothing else. Soviet industry could not produce parallel divisional guns in the quantities required by the army and anti-tank missiles of a new type in the first years of the war. Therefore, they decided to release something without which it was definitely impossible to fight - guns for division artillery regiments.
      However, there was nothing to blame on industry - none of the responsible comrades before the war and in a terrible dream could dream that by the end of 1941 the army would lose the entire pre-war stock of 45-mm anti-tank vehicles and three-quarters of the pre-war divisional cannons. And also - that it will be necessary to form new rifle divisions with a pace of 70-80 divisions per month (not provided for by any mobplan).
      1. NF68
        NF68 14 June 2020 16: 56 New
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Because there was nothing else. Soviet industry could not produce parallel divisional guns in the quantities required by the army and anti-tank missiles of a new type in the first years of the war. Therefore, they decided to release something without which it was definitely impossible to fight - guns for division artillery regiments.


        I totally agree.
    2. boris epstein
      boris epstein 13 June 2020 09: 29 New
      0
      The ZiS-2 anti-tank gun with a caliber of 57 mm was discontinued “for excess power” in 1941 (B 271 shells pierced German tanks through the stern from 1941 through the forehead) because of the weak fragmentation effect of the O 271 shell. 369 pieces produced, lost in battles-34. Serial production was resumed on June 15, 1943. Adapted from the book In G Grabin "Weapons of Victory".
      1. Train
        Train 14 June 2020 12: 31 New
        +5
        Don’t write nonsense. There were other reasons. The trunks and shells could not be mastered. The trunks reached 50 percent. The Americans put machine tools, guns went. And they didn’t have time to Kursk
        1. boris epstein
          boris epstein 14 June 2020 12: 48 New
          0
          Read Grabin and do not write nonsense. Grabin himself wrote that at first the steepness of the grooves was incorrectly calculated. Therefore, the trunks failed. This was manifested in the tests. The steepness of the rifling was recounted and the guns went to the conveyor. If in 1941 369 were produced, and 34 were lost in the battles, then the trunks were in order AFTER recalculation of the rifling. Turn on the logic and read V G Grabin. Do not argue with me, but with the great artillery designer.
          1. Train
            Train 14 June 2020 13: 03 New
            0
            Read more Grabin. We could have done it, they would have already gone by the fall of 42. By the spring of 42 near Kerch it was already clear that more powerful guns were needed. However, even by July 43 they couldn’t give them
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 15 June 2020 11: 43 New
            +3
            Quote: boris epstein
            Read Grabin and do not write nonsense.

            Ummm ... of the same Grabin, in whose memoirs several hundred ZIS-6 went into re-melting? Despite the fact that according to the documents at the time the production was stopped, only 5 serial guns were made.
            Or whose pre-war 85-mm tank gun in the memoirs successfully passed the test? But in reality, the T-220, when sent to the troops, had to rearm on the turret from the KV, because there was no armament for the standard turret: the Hrabi 85-mm guns did not pass the test - the breech cracked at the first gun, the second was unbalanced.
        2. boris epstein
          boris epstein 14 June 2020 13: 08 New
          0
          "Back in 1940, the designers developed the 57-mm anti-tank gun ZiS-2. The main components were developed by KK Renne, VD Meshchaninov, AP Shishkin, FF Kaleganov and others. The general layout was carried out by VI Sapozhnikov. The gun was adopted by 1941. At the beginning of the war more than 320 of these guns were made. However, further production was stopped for a number of reasons, mainly due to excess shot power in the absence of corresponding targets. In 1942, the question arose of resuming its production (by that time it had already been created ZiS-3 cannon) .The barrel of the ZiS-2 cannon of the 1941 model with a single semi-automatic shutter was placed on the gun carriage of the ZiS-3 cannon, so the 57-mm anti-tank gun ZiS-2 of the 1943 model appeared, which was widely used by the Red Army in the Battle of Kursk. "
          The book "Weapons of Victory", Moscow, ed. Engineering, 1987. page 48.
          1. Train
            Train 14 June 2020 13: 09 New
            +2
            It was not near Kursk. In commodity quantities. In general.
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 15 June 2020 11: 23 New
            +1
            Quote: boris epstein
            However, further production for several reasons was discontinued mainly due to excess shot power in the absence of appropriate targets.

            Well, yes, yes ... that is, the 57-mm anti-tank gun has excess power and is being discontinued. But at the same time, they continue to produce 85-mm anti-tank guns (simplified 52-K) with even greater power. smile
            It was not a matter of excess power. Especially against the background of the fact that in 1941 a 45-mm anti-tank projectile with a serial projectile until November 1941 pierced only 40 mm from 150-200 m, and a divisional 76 mm - 30 mm from 300 m (for the only mass 3 "BBS - this is shrapnel).
            The fact was that at the facilities for the production of 57-mm anti-tank vehicles, the release of much more needed armies of the 76-mm division guns could be arranged. And in three to four times large quantities. than PTP (because the production of large elongated trunks was a long, complex process and went with a large share of marriage).
            At this time, new divisions were massively formed and reorganized that could not be sent to the front without division artillery regiments. GAU stocks had already been used up, and artillery losses blocked all pre-war calculations - by September 1941, the Red Army had lost 3094 of the 8513 divisional guns available at the beginning of the war.
            As a result, an expensive and complex highly specialized anti-tank gun was exchanged for a more or less universal divisional weapon.
            But since writing about the low-tech 57-mm anti-tank guns (well, Grabin can’t have low-tech guns smile ) and the weaknesses of Soviet industry, Soviet historians could not, it was necessary to invent a legend about "excess power".
            1. ser56
              ser56 15 June 2020 11: 39 New
              +1
              Quote: Alexey RA
              (Well, Grabin cannot have low-tech guns smile)

              In vain you ernch - trunks of 70 cal can not be easy to manufacture! hi as well as duplex request ZiS-2/3 is very technological ... hi The rest you said very correctly, this is described by Grabin in his memoirs when he launched the ZiS-3 into production ...
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 16 June 2020 18: 43 New
                0
                Quote: ser56
                this is what Grabin described in his memoirs when he launched the ZiS-3 into production ...

                Judging by what SW wrote. M. Svirin, Grabin’s memoirs regarding ZIS-3 also have little in common with history. Kulik didn’t like the gun, not because of congenital shortsightedness, but because the presented sample had too small aerial forces inherited along with a carriage from a 57-mm anti-tank gun. Nevertheless, Kulik ordered to eliminate the shortcomings and make two divisions of guns for military tests (the first division disappeared somewhere near Moscow and had to be completed with the second). And after passing them, the gun went into production.
                Yes, and the supposedly clandestine production of the ZIS-3 looks at least strange - taking into account the fact that not only the muzzle brake gave out a new gun, but also a new gun mount from the ZIS-2.
                1. ser56
                  ser56 16 June 2020 21: 00 New
                  0
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  Grabin’s memoirs regarding ZIS-3 also have little to do with history

                  all authors are sinful, but historians are even more - they are according to the documents, and they lie even worse in them ... request
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  but because the presented sample had too low a UVN,

                  1) Grabin in the memoir answers (I write from memory) that they lost roughly 1 km, but at this range the projectile gap is not visible ... this is how they increased the length of the barrel 3 dm in 30 g, with the same effect, complicated and made heavier ... request
                  2) Grabin created a duplex and sharply increased production in the same areas due to manufacturability ...

                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  Yes, and supposedly clandestine production of ZIS-3 looks at least strange

                  Grabin described everything in detail - I see no reason not to believe him ... hi
          3. Vikxnumx
            Vikxnumx 15 June 2020 12: 04 New
            0
            At the beginning of the war, more than 320 of these guns were made. However, further production was stopped for a number of reasons, mainly due to excess shot power in the absence of appropriate targets.

            The main reason - a defect in the manufacture of the barrel! From 50 percent ...
            The technology was debugged for a long time.
            And for readers, the “lack of goals” will go! And new gunners will be born ...
    3. Yarhann
      Yarhann 13 June 2020 16: 28 New
      +1
      The Zis-3s were cheaper than the Zis-2s, while the OFS 76mm was much more powerful, the Zis-3s quite successfully destroyed mass tanks of the 3/4 45/42 time-out - so why not use it as a PTO. The XNUMXmm MXNUMX was also quite successfully used as a PTO; it had its advantages: low weight of guns and ammunition.
  • phair
    phair 12 June 2020 18: 41 New
    0
    For guns of battleships of the Poltava type, there was enough sales for the cold ... The last commander of the Vorovshilov battery only did not raise the guard (when the charges were drowned, but then they did not obey him).
  • boris epstein
    boris epstein 13 June 2020 09: 05 New
    +4
    There were shells not only in Russian factories, but also in British and American ones. With the beginning of the WWI, the Russian Empire ordered weapons and ammunition in the United States and financed the advance payments. But it turned out that in the USA there were few factories for their production and with Russian money they only began to build them in 1914. Real deliveries from the United States went at the end of 1916 and continued until the withdrawal of American and British troops from the Russian North and American from the Far East. They were mainly stored and were taken by the Red Army near Arkhangelsk, Murmansk and Vladivostok.
  • Kote Pan Kokhanka
    Kote Pan Kokhanka 11 June 2020 20: 08 New
    12
    To know where to fall - put the straw!
    What trifle with 76,2mm guns "king of peas"? Immediately it was necessary to sculpt 100mm BS-3 on self-propelled guns !!! Although better than 203mm or 210mm howitzers !!! In would be a child prodigy! To the B-4 to put the engine from Voroshilovtsa or to attach pedals in general !!! Play Word of Tanks - song !!! fellow
    Now seriously.
    Call me a tank of the Wehrmacht or its satellites at the initial stage of World War II, which could hold a 76,2 mm projectile from a three-inch? Maybe it was not without reason that the Nazis sculpted similar French cannons on the chassis of their tanks?
    In the 41st, what could stand at a distance of 500 meters from a direct hit from the F-32 or F-34?
    Those de Germans used their "88" against French, British and Soviet tanks not from a good life, however, like the "barn gate" 10,5 cm howitzers!
    So if they put a 70 mm cannon on the little T-76,2, it was very good! 85mm guns, our serial tanks did not pull! Yes, corny compare the sizes of the T-70 and T-34 !!! The time of lungs T-70, T-80 with 45mm guns has passed, the SU-76M hour has come. Machines by the way non-tank purposes, and infantry support. For which, according to the Charter, she had to move at a distance no closer than half a kilometer !!! And hammering a pillbox, bunker or a firing point on the third floor of a building is not necessary for a gun of increased ballistics with a long sleeve!
    Well, the last one! We were beggars, we saved on shells and ammunition !!! Given that Shirokorad, for example, described the appearance of a 45mm caliber in anti-tank artillery, due to the cut of cuts from 47mm naval guns! So it is not surprising that our GRAU did not dare to change the 7,62mm wound cartridge and the 76,2 mm three-inch projectile !!!
    Well, the last one! On the basis of the T-34, we went to the series SU-122, SU-85 and SU-100. The Kirov citizens of the tank city gave us on the basis of KV and IS SU-152, ISU-152 and ISU-122 !!!
    By the way! There is a military axiom “tanks do not fight tanks” !!!
    Regards, Kote!
    1. Baron pardus
      Baron pardus 11 June 2020 20: 15 New
      +5
      Sorry, but what does it have to do with 100mm or more. Talk about specific tools. STUG was also self-propelled support, and what was the gun on it? What is the initial velocity of the projectile? And we’re not talking about a 24mm caliber stumbler. And KVK40, with an initial speed of 750m / s. And in bunkers and machine-gun points, such a gun works well, no worse than Zis-3, moreover, it will also work in tanks. I just think that a gun like KVK40, or PAK40 can work in both bunkers and tanks, but the ZIS-3 had problems with working in tanks (especially when the quality of BBs was low). Again, not one stepped on this rake. The Americans also made guns for old shells.
      1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
        Kote Pan Kokhanka 11 June 2020 20: 22 New
        +2
        The Americans also made guns for old shells.

        But they did not experience problems with ammunition in Africa !!!
        1. Baron pardus
          Baron pardus 12 June 2020 01: 45 New
          +3
          You are absolutely right. Omar Bradley described in his memoirs how they captured the French garrison using French 75mm ammunition. He had an officer, a gunsmith engineer who knew that the American 75mm was developed on the basis of the French 75mm and the ammunition "should fit" so they came up. True, the tanks did not work better.
          1. hohol95
            hohol95 12 June 2020 14: 03 New
            +1
            True, the tanks did not work better.

            Do not tell me the designation of the shells with which the Bradley tankers fired at German tanks?
            The French did not have armor-piercing shells for the Mle gun. 1897!
            The Germans did only cumulative shells for them! Polish BB Germans were not impressed!
            Only the Americans themselves made armor-piercing shells for their 75 mm guns!
            1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
              Kote Pan Kokhanka 12 June 2020 19: 30 New
              +1
              Andrey, good evening!
              I dare to assume that the Americans fired at Rommel’s tanks with US Maden’s armor-piercing shells, but on the pillboxes, bunkers and other disgrace, everything from shrapnel attacked could be used!
              Stanley wrote that the French shells were approaching the M3 Grand guns, but I don’t know how much they were used! And were they used on tanks? On the other hand, given that half or more of the armored vehicles in North Africa were Italian tanks. Then I think they had enough of eating a high-explosive shell of a 75mm gun!
              1. Octopus
                Octopus 12 June 2020 20: 54 New
                +3
                Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
                French shells approached the M3 Grand guns,

                In the Red Army, French shots were also used, still delivering PMV (among all others). This is the same cannon in general, the French one of 1897.
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 12 June 2020 22: 29 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Octopus
                  In the Red Army, French shots were also used, still delivering PMV (among all others).

                  EMNIP, French shots are often confused with “French type” shots made in Russia using French wartime technology with a maximum of simplifications for the sake of quantity and often called “French”.
                  It was these "wartime shots" that at one time set up the F-22 bandwagon, indicating the need to refine the extraction mechanism. Whatever Grabin wrote about the intrigues of the army, he really made a "peacetime" cannon, unable to fire wartime shells. smile
                  1. Octopus
                    Octopus 12 June 2020 22: 53 New
                    +2
                    Yes, I was referring to just the Robe incident. I did not know about the French type, I will clarify.
              2. hohol95
                hohol95 12 June 2020 20: 59 New
                +3
                On the other hand, given that half or more of the armored vehicles in North Africa were Italian tanks. Then I think they had enough of eating a high-explosive shell of a 75mm gun!

                If 25 mm board - probably enough.
                42-45 mm forehead for vertical installation and rivets. Probably.
                1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
                  Kote Pan Kokhanka 12 June 2020 21: 54 New
                  +3
                  Too lazy to raise directories! Rommel had only three divisions in Africa. 15 and 21 tank and 90th light! Of the Italian, the most combat-ready was the Ariete tank division!
                  For example, at the beginning of the operation “Crusader” the tank group “Africa” had about 400 tanks against 770 among the British! More than half (154) were Italian.
                  The most armored Italian was the M-14/41 (45mm forehead of the hull and turret). I do not think that there were many in North Africa. Given that the generals of Mussolini grabbed French armored vehicles with arms and legs, but they were not delivered to the theater on the theater on the islands of the metropolis: Sicily and Sardinia!
                  And the Germans, the total number of modern Pz-III and Pz-IV was a little more than half. The remaining holes were covered by the Pz-II and Italian cars.
                  So for 75mm guns, targets there was a sea, even without armor-piercing shells !!!
                  1. hohol95
                    hohol95 12 June 2020 22: 16 New
                    +3
                    “Battlelex” (“Halberd”). For its implementation, the 13th corps of Lieutenant General Beresford-Pers was involved, consisting of the 7th Panzer and 4th Indian Infantry Divisions. The 7th division organizationally included the 4th (4th Armored Brigade) and the 7th (7th Armored Brigade) tank brigades. The regiments of the first (4. RTR and 7. RTR) were equipped with Matilda infantry tanks, and the second (2. RTR and 6. RTR) were equipped with A9, A10, A13 cruising tanks and the latest Cruzader tanks.
                    The forces of the 13th Corps were opposed by the part of the 15th Panzer Division of the African Corps, which had just been transferred to North Africa, which included about 100 Pz.III and Pz.IV. In addition, the Germans had at their disposal the Pz.Jag.Abt.33 anti-tank battalion with 21 37-mm and 12 50-mm anti-tank guns and the FlakAbt.33 anti-aircraft battalion, which had 13 88-mm anti-aircraft guns.

                    The operation of the British failed ...
                    During the Cruzeider operation, for example, in November 1941, the British attacked with 748 tanks, including 213 Matild and Valentine, 220 Cruiser, 150 older cruising tanks and 165 American Stuarts production.
                    The African corps could oppose them only 249 German and 146 Italian tanks. At the same time, the armament and armor protection of most British combat vehicles were similar, and sometimes surpassed the German ones. As a result of two-month battles, British troops missed 278 tanks. The losses of the Italo-German troops were comparable - 292 tanks.

                    The British could only push back Rommel's troops, but they could not inflict a decisive defeat!
                    The Germans were saved by their own tactics and the British lag in the same tactics!
                    After everything has returned to normal -
                    On January 5, 1942, a convoy arrived in Tripoli, delivering 117 German and 79 Italian tanks. Having received this reinforcement, Rommel launched a decisive attack on January 21. In two days the Germans advanced eastward for 120–130 km, and the British rapidly retreated.

                    The British did not have their "Desert Fox"!
                    Excerpts from the book "The Great Tank War of 1939 - 1945"
                    Baryatinsky M. B.
      2. Revolver
        Revolver 12 June 2020 02: 30 New
        +4
        Quote: Baron Pardus
        a gun like KVK40, or PAK40 can work on both bunkers and tanks, but the ZIS-3 had problems with working on tanks (especially with low quality BBshek).

        I don’t know what the weight of the explosives in the German shell was, there’s no mood to look for, but I’m sure that it’s less than in the tsar’s. The higher the velocity of the projectile, the greater the load on the walls when it goes in the barrel, the thicker they have to be done, the less space is left for the filling. And the task of self-propelled guns is primarily to support infantry; TSNK of course, too, but only if life forces. A powerful HE shell was more important, and armor-piercing so, just in case.
        1. Octopus
          Octopus 12 June 2020 21: 00 New
          +2
          Quote: Nagan
          what was the weight of the explosives in the German shell, there is no mood to look for, but I’m sure that it’s less than in the tsar’s

          You are sure wrong, about 600 grams both there and there. With a better amatole and shell of the Germans.

          The Germans made a multi-speed land mine, in such a shot there was a reduced charge relative to the BB. And other ballistics, which is inconvenient, but I had to agree.

          The English high-explosive 17 lb with its speeds was also not inferior to the Soviet. Only Americans with a 76mm gun stood out for the worse.
    2. Baron pardus
      Baron pardus 11 June 2020 20: 27 New
      +1
      And how do you like the PAK36R on the unmodified chassis of the Pazik 2? Even the chassis has not been modified. Just removed the tower, set the swinging part. As for "which tank could hold the shell from the ZIS-2," I read that due to problems with the quality of the BBs, even 30mm armor did not always penetrate with a 76mm gun from a distance of over 300m. The truth is I do not know how this corresponds to the truth. I NEVER said that they say you need to put on the T-70 85mm. Although the shaves on Valentine stuffed 17 pounds (he is still a monster) It just seems to me, naturally, to be a back mind. What it was necessary to do the F-22 as it was seen by Grabin. That is what the Germans did. EMNIP we still had a 76mm anti-aircraft gun M1931, EMNIP which used other ammunition, not the ones in the ZIS-3, but new ones, well, the ballistics was different. So there were other 76mm ammunition. What is uneconomical is to produce TWO different types of 76mm ammunition.
      Well, the fact that tanks do not fight tanks, of course, “everyone knows”, only this is a spherical horse in a vacuum. As all wars in the BV have shown, it is the tanks that fight the tanks, unless of course both sides have tanks. Naturally fighting SYSTEMS: aviation, air defense, turntables, artillery, etc. etc. But it is tanks and tanks that are fighting. This was shown by both the soldiers of Israel and Iran. The Iraq war. Of course, you can roll out the enemy with aviation, turntables and tomahawks, as the Americans did in Iraq, and clean up the tanks and infantry. But far from always you will have such superiority in aviation.
      1. ser56
        ser56 11 June 2020 20: 38 New
        +2
        Quote: Baron Pardus
        What is uneconomical is to produce TWO different types of 76mm ammunition.

        On the contrary - for ZA and VET there was a special and more expensive shot - the consumption of which is much less than YES!
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 12 June 2020 10: 51 New
        +3
        Quote: Baron Pardus
        It just seems to me, naturally, to be a backward mind. What was necessary to make the F-22 the way that Grabin saw it. That is what the Germans did.

        There is no copper. After all, if you go to the F-22 and other guns with its ballistics, then for new ACs you will have to release 14 million new shots with a new heavy cartridge case.
        We even chose for the relatively small-series 3-K the shot option that was the least “brass-consuming”.
        Quote: Baron Pardus
        Well, the fact that tanks do not fight tanks, of course, “everyone knows”, only this is a spherical horse in a vacuum.

        Not quite so - this is a particular rule that applies only to WWII times.
    3. ser56
      ser56 11 June 2020 20: 35 New
      +2
      Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Although better than 203mm or 210mm howitzers!

      in vain you laugh - they set ... bully
      1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
        Kote Pan Kokhanka 11 June 2020 20: 52 New
        +4
        Quote: ser56
        Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
        Although better than 203mm or 210mm howitzers!

        in vain you laugh - they set ... bully

        And how many tanks destroyed our self-propelled guns based on the T-35 (SU-14-1 and SU-14br-2)?
        Though? On the Kursk Bulge, the fact of getting a 203mm B-4 howitzer suitcase into a tiger (if I’m not mistaken) was recorded, the tower was demolished by the tail !!! But could a 203mm gun be anti-tank?
        Seriously, the tracked B-4s were able to put on wheels only after the war !!! And the main reason was getting mobility !!! Yes, not self-propelled with gusli, but towed tow wheels !!! This is precisely what was needed to obtain the artillery mobility of the reserve of the main command!
        1. ser56
          ser56 11 June 2020 20: 58 New
          -1
          Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
          And how many tanks killed our self-propelled guns based on the T-35

          so this is nonsense a priori ... request
          Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
          after the war they were able to put on wheels !!!

          I know, with the letter M ... request
        2. albert
          albert 12 June 2020 20: 49 New
          +1
          Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
          On the Kursk Bulge, the fact of getting a 203mm B-4 howitzer suitcase into a tiger (if I'm not mistaken) was recorded that the tower was demolished by a cat

          No, this incident happened to Ferdinand, as Isaev mentions.
    4. Nehist
      Nehist 11 June 2020 22: 30 New
      +2
      Yes, you forget this axiom about tanks do not fight tanks. It was after WWII that we frantically developed a smooth-bore tank gun in which the main anti-tank shot was cumulative. Since the problem with gunpowder has not disappeared, and the initial speed is not important for the camouflage.
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 12 June 2020 18: 17 New
        +3
        Quote: Nehist
        we frantically developed a smooth-bore tank gun in which the main anti-tank shot is a cumulative one.

        The shell of a smoothbore gun, all other things being equal, has a much greater energy. That is, the main projectile for which the smooth-bore gun was developed was a sub-caliber. For cumulative projectile velocity is not important. The rotation of the projectile reduces its penetrative properties, so this is solved by a small complication of the projectile (rotating rings).
    5. Undecim
      Undecim 11 June 2020 22: 58 New
      +6
      Given that Shirokorad, for example, described the appearance of a 45mm caliber in anti-tank artillery, due to the cut of cuts from 47mm naval guns!
      "Cutting rifling" can only increase the caliber, but not reduce it. Therefore, 45 mm to 47 mm can be bored, but on the contrary - no way. Because someone here was mistaken.
      1. Liam
        Liam 11 June 2020 23: 08 New
        +3
        It seems the opposite was the case. 47 mm shells "ground" up to 45 mm
      2. Kote Pan Kokhanka
        Kote Pan Kokhanka 12 June 2020 07: 17 New
        +4
        VikNick You are right, I thought one thing, paws tapped another!
        Sliced ​​from 47mm anti-mine projectile shells!
        Thank you!
    6. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 12 June 2020 10: 43 New
      +2
      Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Call me a tank of the Wehrmacht or its satellites at the initial stage of World War II, which could hold a 76,2 mm projectile from a three-inch?

      Here are the results of the pre-war shooting at the ANIOP:
      76 mm gun arr. 02/30 with a barrel of 30 calibers, 76-mm tank gun L-11 and F-32 penetrate:
      - armor with K = 2500 50 mm thick with only 300 m.
      76 mm gun arr. 02/30 with a barrel of 40 calibers, 76-mm gun mod. 39 g. And 76-mm tank gun F-34 penetrate:
      - armor with K = 2500 50 mm thick with 800 m;
      - armor with K = 2450 60 mm thick with 300 m.
      And the conclusion:
      From the foregoing, it follows that:
      45 mm tank and anti-tank gun and 76 mm guns mod. 02/30, L-11, F-32 and F-34 can not successfully combat medium and heavy tanks with armor more than 50 mm. The fight with such tanks can lead a 76-mm anti-aircraft gun 31 g., 107-mm gun M-60, 152-mm howitzer arr. 38 g., 122-mm gun arr. 31 g. And 152-mm gun-howitzer arr. .37 g.

      Head of the armament department of land artillery GAU
      1st rank military engineer Lipin.

      Let me remind you that for German armor K = 2600, so that there is even less armor penetration, and the likelihood of splitting the BR-350A body is higher.

      And the main fifth point is that the BR-350A in the troops in the summer of 1941 is practically absent. There were very few of them in the summer of 1942 too. So what? That's right - the main armor-piercing shell of the Red Army in caliber 3 "in the first year of the war was shrapnel to strike: 30 mm from 300 m.
    7. ANB
      ANB 12 June 2020 15: 30 New
      0
      . Given that Shirokorad, for example, described the appearance of a 45mm caliber in anti-tank artillery, due to the cut of cuts from 47mm naval guns!

      And can this piece be a little more detailed, otherwise it is not clear?
  • Peter is not the first
    Peter is not the first 11 June 2020 20: 53 New
    +4
    I will say more, not only under the ammunition of the WWII, but also under the sleeve of 1900.
    But if, at the end of the thirties, the task were not to design a new gun, but to design a new MASS gun 76,2 and new shots for it, then in 1941 our troops would have been completely without ammunition. Our grandfathers had a minimal choice, either a completely outdated three-inch car of the beginning of the century with shells, or modern guns, with a scanty supply of ammunition that they would only begin to produce before the war. Then, the limit would be not on sub-caliber ammunition, but on all types.
    1. Aag
      Aag 11 June 2020 22: 02 New
      +2
      I was embarrassed to meet the dispute of specialists. You practically voiced the idea for me: you proceeded from what we can (will), and not from what we need, I would like ....
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 12 June 2020 10: 30 New
    +3
    Quote: Baron Pardus
    just instead of making a gun for the ammunition "which remained from the tsar’s king’s warehouses" and thus making a gun for the PREVIOUS war, you need to make a gun for the NEXT war.

    Necessary. If you have copper to create from scratch the mob stock of shells.
    If you make a more powerful gun, you need a more powerful shot. A more powerful shot is a large sleeve. And then the fifth point begins:
    Sleeve 76mm guns arr. 1902/1930 (as well as subsequent divisions of this caliber) weighed 830-850 grams.
    But the anti-aircraft gun sleeve of the 1931 3-K model weighed 2 kg 760 grams already.
    Those. 3,1 times more copper.
    The 85mm anti-aircraft gun barrel weighed 2,85-2,92kg and was slightly thicker, but in geometric terms it was almost identical to the 1931 3-K gun barrel.
    (...)
    Of course, it is possible for a divisional gun of 85 mm caliber that a sleeve of the same strength as for an anti-aircraft gun was not required, but unfortunately, however, not by much.
    Such a sleeve cannot weigh less than 2-2,3 kg.
    (...)
    Before the war, copper was sorely lacking.
    Why did we so cling to the cap loading of large guns - for large shells there was simply no copper.

    Let me remind you that even before the war, all GAU attempts to switch to 85-95 mm caliber artillery divisions were unsuccessful precisely because of the impossibility of producing ammunition stockpiles - there is no copper.
    Quote: Baron Pardus
    Well, these are already schools of generals and of Tukhaschevsky. Then they need universal guns, Divisionally Anti-aircraft (well, that is not anti-submarine)

    At the time of issuing the mission for the universal divisional cannon, the main anti-aircraft gun of the ground forces was a 3 "field on Ivanov’s machine tool. It is with it that the F-22 should be compared.
    And there were no guarantees that the 3-K would go into production and be produced in quantities that would be enough for the army.
    Quote: Baron Pardus
    then ZIS 2 has "excess power"

    These are memoirs. The main reason for the discontinuation of the ZIS-2 was that instead it was possible to make 3-4 division guns, without which the newly formed and reorganized divisions could not be sent into battle.
  • Octopus
    Octopus 12 June 2020 13: 13 New
    +2
    Quote: Baron Pardus
    Bradley is well described.

    It seems that you read the first memoirs of your life.
    Quote: Baron Pardus
    The American M5 was even heavier, 600 kilograms, but had better armor penetration, due to a slightly heavier projectile 7 kg versus 6.8 kg on the PAK-40 and better core quality.

    The American M5 is the PMV anti-aircraft gun barrel, laid on a 105mm howitzer carriage of the 40th model year. It differs primarily in the amount of gunpowder in the sleeve. I could be wrong, but it seems that in the region of 2 kg versus 0.6 kg for the division.
    So your reasoning about the cannon of the next war is not a little about it.
    Quote: Baron Pardus
    and this is the jambs of the generals and of Tukhaschevsky

    You are right, throwing a customer never leads to anything good.
    Quote: Baron Pardus
    about the same as the American 75mm was made sweat ammunition of the French PMV gun (described by Omar Bradley)

    It is unlikely that you understood Bradley correctly. The divisional weapon that the Americans put on the M3 was a bold, innovative idea. The tanks of that time, except for the unknown T-34, had small-caliber anti-tank guns, like the M3 on top.
  • NF68
    NF68 12 June 2020 16: 28 New
    +1
    Quote: Baron Pardus
    These guns were "weak" not in 1943, but initially.


    Before the Tigers and Panthers, 76,2 mm. the Zis-3 cannon coped well with all German tanks and self-propelled guns. Not for nothing that out of about 10 Zis-000s released in 1942, approximately 3 of them were sent to anti-tank units. The same applies to previously released F-8s and SPMs.
  • Jager
    Jager 13 June 2020 20: 34 New
    0
    Horses mixed up in a heap, people ... ZiS-3 divisional weapon. Pak-40 anti-tank. Plus harder.
    You, my friend, completely forgot that Stug. III was originally equipped with 75-mm “cigarette butts” and did not experience problems for its intended purpose. Large ammunition plus ease of loading plus a pretty good caliber to deal with manpower and bunkers. But further, the Stings were equipped with a more serious weapon specifically for fighting tanks.
    1. NF68
      NF68 17 June 2020 16: 30 New
      0
      Quote: Jager
      Horses mixed up in a heap, people ... ZiS-3 divisional weapon. Pak-40 anti-tank. Plus harder.


      That did not stop the Germans from using the Cancer-40 as a field weapon and to produce large quantities of fragmentation shells for it.
      1. Jager
        Jager 22 June 2020 09: 30 New
        0
        The fact of the matter is that Pak was designed as an ANTI-TANK gun, and ZIS as a divisional one and it’s silly to compare them, how to compare the T-34 and the Tiger
  • your1970
    your1970 18 June 2020 21: 05 New
    -5
    Quote: Baron Pardus
    PAK40, by the way, began to be developed in the 1939th year. Although the ammunition for the old guns, they also had enough.
    - I am embarrassed to recall that under the terms of Versailles, Germany had everything with artillery belay
    "Thus, in artillery regiments there were 204 gun. The authorized ammunition was 1000 shells per barrel (for mountain anti-aircraft guns - only 400 shells per barrel). Reichswehr was forbidden to have heavy artillery. "
    So we are not talking about any "old" stocks of shells in the 3rd Reich - they simply did not exist, in general ...
  • Alexandra
    Alexandra 12 June 2020 10: 39 New
    +5
    SU-85B:



    But she did not have time for the war. And they doubted that it was needed, and for a long time they brought up the option with an 85 mm gun. On the first option, the SU-85A, put a 85 mm gun without a muzzle brake. The recoil when fired for such a light chassis was too great.

    https://warspot.ru/12623-lyogkie-sau-s-bolshimi-pushkami

    “While the SU-76M and SU-85 were practically not demolished when shooting in the longitudinal plane, the SU-85A had an irreversible retreat back of 380–457 mm with braked tracks. The amplitude of vertical vibrations was significant. When fired, the car turned slightly Accuracy was satisfactory, and the aiming rate was six rounds per minute, that is, at the level of SU-85.

    It turned out that shooting at moving targets at a distance of 1,5 kilometers, although possible, was not effective because of the difficulties the commander of the machine had when adjusting the fire. There were also problems with the strength of the system: Belleville springs after a run of 200-300 kilometers were deformed. Because of this, the load on the flywheels of the pickup increased to 12-15 kilograms. The problem with backlash of the guidance mechanisms remained. When shelling the protection of the movable armor from the MG 42 machine gun, the spray from the bullets fell into the fighting compartment. "
  • Yarhann
    Yarhann 13 June 2020 16: 18 New
    +3
    But what is the weakness? OFS projectile quite successfully mowed down the infantry and collapsed fortifications, if necessary, the BB successfully cut light and medium tanks. This was an excellent infantry support vehicle - these are not tank destroyers like the Su85, Su100, ISU122. This is how to compare the Zis-2 purest anti-tank missile which from the very beginning of the war and to the end pierced all tanks except the Fed and T2 in the forehead and the Zis-3 - which was a universal cannon applicable including the anti-tank gun. Enough of everything in a bunch.
    1. Octopus
      Octopus 13 June 2020 18: 05 New
      +1
      Quote: Yarhann
      BB if necessary successfully cut light and medium tanks

      )))
      Of course not.
      At the beginning of the war, problematic and scarce Soviet warheads, or even shrapnel to strike, did not give guarantees even against treshki. At 43, the reinforced four confidently made its way only when shooting in weakened areas, for example, in a tower.
      Quote: Yarhann
      VET which from the very beginning of the war to the end pierced all tanks except Fed and T2 in the forehead

      Of course not.

      The limit for the ZiS-2 was the tiger's forehead, this with an optimal angle of impact and a good projectile. Cars with corners, even the late Shtug, she tried uncertainly. Later cars, from Hetzer and above, including, of course, Panther, she did not penetrate into the frontal projection in general.

      There are no miracles. Need a Panther - drag A-19 under 8 tons in weight.
      1. Yarhann
        Yarhann 13 June 2020 18: 09 New
        0
        Well, you know better you see a participant in the fighting of that time))))
      2. Jager
        Jager 22 June 2020 10: 05 New
        -1
        Who doesn’t the ZiS-2 penetrate, Hetzer? laughing
        The pieces were cardboard on the sides, and remained. The late frontal reservation at the later was supplemented with CONCRETE! And where are the squeals about the armor and polymers that are so stupidly lost?
        And you better tell fairy tales about “poor-quality Soviet shells” to German generals, all of whose pre-war tanks were knocked out after half a year of hostilities. However, like ours.
        1. Octopus
          Octopus 22 June 2020 10: 37 New
          0
          Quote: Jager
          ZiS-2 does not penetrate, Hetzer?

          Him too.
          Quote: Jager
          The late frontal reservation at the later was supplemented with CONCRETE!

          And 80 mm with a slight angle.
          Quote: Jager
          all pre-war tanks which were knocked out after half a year of hostilities.

          Poor generals.

          On Barbarossa, they were required to reach the Dnieper-Dvina line.
  • Kote Pan Kokhanka
    Kote Pan Kokhanka 11 June 2020 18: 20 New
    11
    Sergey THANKS HUGE! Recently, under the heading Armament, such works are rarely found. Substantial, on a subject and with chic illustrations!
    Sincerely, Respect and respect to all tank amateurs! Drop in! We will "wash the bones, tofu ..: nuts, cogs and bolts" !!!
    Sincerely Your Cat !!!
    1. 3x3zsave
      3x3zsave 11 June 2020 19: 43 New
      +6
      I agree, the article is good!
      tofu - This is a kind of cottage cheese.
      Attention, the cry of the soul! I don’t want about tanks, I want about flambergs !!!
      1. bubalik
        bubalik 11 June 2020 20: 06 New
        +5
        cry of the soul!

        ,,, white sand, escudo ringing to the roar of dice and Luis, bringing the cup laughing
        1. 3x3zsave
          3x3zsave 11 June 2020 20: 13 New
          +6
          "And the" feather "entered it, like a tender" tofu ",
          At Igarka, or at Nagasaki,
          Nice guy, a sailor in flared indigo flares,
          By chance died in a port brawl "(C)
      2. Kote Pan Kokhanka
        Kote Pan Kokhanka 11 June 2020 20: 20 New
        +4
        Quote: 3x3zsave
        I agree, the article is good!
        tofu - This is a kind of cottage cheese.
        Attention, the cry of the soul! I don’t want about tanks, I want about flambergs !!!

        Come on Anton!
        Today was a sad morning on the branches of History and Armament, by 20:00 the evening was a success!
        And tomorrow, again, at VO about flambergs, clemors and carolings !!!
        Respectfully my friend - patience, patience and patience again !!!
        1. 3x3zsave
          3x3zsave 11 June 2020 20: 25 New
          +6
          Tired of enduring! I am looking for a suitable front door. laughing
          1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
            Kote Pan Kokhanka 11 June 2020 20: 56 New
            +3
            I hope Sergey will look at the light! Your Anton reads the comment, imbued and writes about the "entrance" .... just kidding !!! About flambergs, saxes and espadons !!!
            With sincere respect, Vlad!
            1. 3x3zsave
              3x3zsave 11 June 2020 21: 04 New
              +4
              Yeah! And also about, "border", "tent", "shawarma" and "grilled chicken" laughing
            2. Bongo
              12 June 2020 02: 47 New
              12
              Hello!
              Guys, reading your comments, I remember VO, as it was before the famous "Ukrainian" events. Unfortunately, mass hysteria overwhelmed the domestic media and affected this resource I respect. Nevertheless, in the sections "History" and "Armament", the most adequate and competent readers are still gathered.drinks
              1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
                Kote Pan Kokhanka 12 June 2020 04: 28 New
                +5
                Quote: Bongo
                Hello!
                Guys, reading your comments, I remember VO, as it was before the famous "Ukrainian" events. Unfortunately, mass hysteria overwhelmed the domestic media and affected this resource I respect. Nevertheless, in the sections "History" and "Armament", the most adequate and competent readers are still gathered.drinks

                My respect, Sergey! In 2013, I could still use VO materials for MPP classes! Today, even thinking about it is scary !!!
                Regards, Vlad!
              2. Octopus
                Octopus 12 June 2020 14: 03 New
                +2
                Hello, Sergey. I did not expect to see you here again. Especially with such a strange armored theme for you.

                You, like, used to be about planes and how to deal with them.
                1. Bongo
                  13 June 2020 10: 00 New
                  +4
                  Quote: Octopus
                  Hello, Sergey. I did not expect to see you here again. Especially with such a strange armored theme for you.

                  You, like, used to be about planes and how to deal with them.

                  Hello! Although I’m a signalman, I began my service in air defense, and this is like first love! repeat
                  As for the “armored topic”, I proceed from the principle “I don’t fly and don’t give it to others”, I’m not indifferent to anti-tank weapons. Perhaps this is due to the indelible impressions that the first and only independent shot left at the landfill with an inert grenade from RPG-7. belay
                  1. Octopus
                    Octopus 13 June 2020 12: 15 New
                    +4
                    Quote: Bongo
                    based on the principle of "I don’t fly and don’t give it to others", I’m not indifferent to anti-tank weapons

                    )))
                    Well, if your credo is "You crawled!" - then the choice of the SU-76 is strange. There were two tank destroyers in the Red Army, NNZ, ZiS-30, and basically half a T48 with 6 pounds.

                    The Soviet Union mainly preferred relatively large-caliber universal guns, which in its circumstances is quite reasonable. And the Su-76 is not at all about that.
                    1. Bongo
                      13 June 2020 13: 01 New
                      +5
                      Quote: Octopus
                      Well, if your credo is "You crawled!" - then the choice of the SU-76 is strange.

                      The fact is that this publication is part of a series of anti-tank capabilities. all domestic self-propelled guns participating in the Second World War. In the next part, we will talk about self-propelled guns armed with 122-mm artillery systems. You must admit that the anti-tank capabilities of the SU-122 armed with the D-30 howitzer also leave much to be desired. Here, by the way, a comparison with the ISU-122 will be very revealing.
                      1. Octopus
                        Octopus 13 June 2020 13: 44 New
                        +3
                        Quote: Bongo
                        In the next part, we will talk about self-propelled guns armed with 122-mm artillery systems. You must admit that the anti-tank capabilities of the SU-122 armed with the D-30 howitzer also leave much to be desired. Here, by the way, a comparison with the ISU-122 will be very revealing.

                        Something you are already scaring me. To compare the Soviet medium self-propelled howitzer made with a quick whip and the Soviet heavy shtug (late shtug with a long gun, with a rebalance in the PT. The Soviet thing, the assault gun, in turn, was SU / ISU-152).

                        It makes sense to consider the Su-122 in conjunction with the Su-85, it seems to me.
                      2. Bongo
                        13 June 2020 14: 02 New
                        +5
                        Quote: Octopus
                        Something you are already scaring me. To compare the Soviet medium self-propelled howitzer made with a quick whip and the Soviet heavy shtug (late shtug with a long gun, with a rebalance in the PT. The Soviet thing, the assault gun, in turn, was SU / ISU-152).

                        It makes sense to consider the Su-122 in conjunction with the Su-85, it seems to me.

                        In many ways you are right. yes But since we are talking about the SU-122 and SG-122, it seems to me that it will be appropriate to compare their capabilities with the ISU-122. About the SU / ISU-152, I plan to tell in the final part, devoted to what Soviet self-propelled guns were real "St. John's wort".
                        On good, the whole cycle could be done in a week. Understanding what to write about. But "writing" is not my main area of ​​activity. This "pampering" for the soul and partly the possibility of self-realization. In addition to the main work, I try to spend time with children. Today, my son went fishing well.
                      3. Octopus
                        Octopus 13 June 2020 15: 05 New
                        +3
                        Quote: Bongo
                        SU-122 and SG-122, it seems to me that it will be appropriate to compare their PT capabilities specifically with ISU-122.

                        It will be somewhat similar to comparing the PT capabilities of the StuH 42 not even with a lion, but with a yagdpanther, a machine of a different class.

                        However, you know better.
                      4. Octopus
                        Octopus 13 June 2020 15: 37 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Octopus
                        with a lion

                        Shtugom, AutoCorrect
                2. maximghost
                  maximghost 14 June 2020 14: 51 New
                  0
                  howitzer D-30

                  Howitzer M-30. D-30 is from the 60s.
                  also leave much to be desired.

                  For the assault guns, the capabilities of the SU-122 are very good. Even with high-explosive shells, she could incapacitate a tiger. For light and medium tanks, there were also enough land mines. It was possible to use cumulative shells at close range.
                  For a sau, the main purpose of which was NOT to destroy enemy armored vehicles at all (similar to Unit 3 with a 75mm short-barreled gun or 105mm unit), these are perfectly acceptable anti-tank capabilities. And it is clear that it cannot be compared with specialized tank destroyers (such as the Su-85).
                  Here, by the way, a comparison with the ISU-122 will be very revealing.

                  To compare a self-propelled gun on the basis of a medium tank armed with a howitzer with a self-propelled gun on the basis of a heavy tank armed with a gun, which, out of the total, only has a caliber art system, is not worth it. There is nothing indicative of this.
  • 3x3zsave
    3x3zsave 11 June 2020 20: 51 New
    +7
    My respect, Vlad! It's not about the tanks and flambergs, the fact is that over the past three days on the site published material that does not make me sick.
    1. Aag
      Aag 11 June 2020 22: 19 New
      +5
      Gentlemen, I’ve been here recently. Sorry to interrupt. I sincerely, kindly envy your friendly fellowship, but, come on ... I understand that it’s difficult to prescribe all situations “legislatively” (maybe it’s not worth it), but many forums have a section, such as "communal", "smoking room" ... With respect to the luminaries! hi
      1. 3x3zsave
        3x3zsave 11 June 2020 22: 39 New
        +4
        My respect, dear! hi (sorry, but the mobile version does not reflect the names). This resource also has a smoking room, but, fortunately for me, it does not interest people I respect.
        1. Aag
          Aag 11 June 2020 23: 12 New
          +3
          Mutually hi
          "This resource also has a smoking room, but, fortunately for me, it does not interest people I respect."
          So what? Without sarcasm. Historically?
          I’ll explain my position: I am interested in the topic of weapons (from the sword to ICBMs). Ash stump (sorry for the bad manners) - you can’t embrace the immensity. Forum participants, according to my observations (rudely), - 2/3 of the people serving. Third, the officer composition.Some part, civilians forging a sword at the enterprises of the military-industrial complex.
          1. Aag
            Aag 11 June 2020 23: 17 New
            +3
            To them, separate gratitude. Responsibility, risks, employment, Everything is growing (except for salary) ..
          2. 3x3zsave
            3x3zsave 11 June 2020 23: 28 New
            +6
            Somewhat wrong. 99% of those who served on the forum, and not only among the troops, and not only the USSR / Russia. Active employees, about 5%
            Personally, I am primarily interested in the "History" section, on "Armament" I am also a frequent visitor, for, a note buffoon of the company.
            Welcome!
            1. Aag
              Aag 12 June 2020 00: 02 New
              +2
              I leave the "history" for a sweet treat ... Of the employees, I think I hope there are more "observers," reading, non-registered ...
              I also noticed a strong stratification by gender, type of aircraft. (At least, according to the activity of representatives). By the way, is a painful topic, is interaction: we know little about the neighbor on the right, on the left. About his tasks, opportunities
              1. dzvero
                dzvero 12 June 2020 10: 37 New
                +2
                Ha, tankers, infantry and artillery haut each other, and all together - aviation smile the fleet on the sidelines with popcorn, and the signalmen, grinning, waved a banhammer smile Around the world, why the VO forum should be different smile
  • bubalik
    bubalik 11 June 2020 18: 32 New
    11
    Thanks, interesting good
    Sergey, in the penultimate photo of SU-76I, which again hit the Germans like a trophy. recourse

    128 Pz.Jg.Abt. 23 Pz Div. December 1943
    1. 3x3zsave
      3x3zsave 11 June 2020 19: 11 New
      +6
      Bliiin! Sergey, where do you get this from ??? I envy enormously! Bravo!!!!
      1. bubalik
        bubalik 11 June 2020 19: 14 New
        +8
        Internet yes everything is available smile,,, means where is VikNick. takes stuff you don't envy laughing
        1. 3x3zsave
          3x3zsave 11 June 2020 19: 30 New
          +7
          In the case of WikNick, I don’t envy, I bow! WikNick is a scholar and an encyclopedist with extensive personal experience! However, I have more than once butted him, on the subject of the intricacies of the scientific and technological revolution of mankind, and the prospects of this scientific and technological revolution.
  • Tuzik
    Tuzik 11 June 2020 18: 52 New
    +1
    Interesting. Thank. Only I did not understand, the roof was forced to remove? ("This made it possible to reduce the weight from 11,2 to 10,5 tons, which reduced the load on the engine and chassis.") Or at the request of the troops? ("The gas chamber"). And yet, what is a sloth?
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 11 June 2020 19: 04 New
      +6
      Quote: Tuzik
      And yet, what is a sloth?

      Steering wheel. The opposite of the lead.
      1. Tuzik
        Tuzik 11 June 2020 19: 10 New
        +1
        Thank. I assumed so, but in the SU-76 photo, after the phrase: “sloths were identical to the road wheels,” it looks smaller!
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 11 June 2020 19: 18 New
          +5
          Quote: Tuzik
          Thank. I just assumed, in the SU-76 photo, after the phrase: “sloths were identical to the road wheels” it looks smaller!

          Yes, it’s the same, just the rubber rim is much smaller
  • bubalik
    bubalik 11 June 2020 19: 01 New
    +9
    As a result, at the first stage of combat use, light self-propelled guns were not popular among personnel

    Improper use

    They met the fourth battery with a whistle.
    - Slavs, look! Self-propelled guns dragged.
    - What?
    -- For support.
    - What kind of support? Shtaniv? Ha ha ha!

    V.A. Kurochkin. In war as in war.
  • Undecim
    Undecim 11 June 2020 19: 08 New
    14
    As a significant drawback (SU-76I), the difficulty of starting the engine at low temperatures was noted.
    According to the maintenance manual for the SU-76 and T-70, ten sequential operations had to be performed to start the engines at low temperatures:
    - open the engine hatch;
    - get a blowtorch and light it;
    - open the hatch cover of the boiler;
    - cover the engines with a tarp;
    - pour water into the boiler-heater;
    - insert a burning lamp into the hatch of the boiler-heater;
    - heat the water in the boiler to 40-50 degrees;
    - upon reaching the specified temperature, crank the engines several times manually, then start with a starter;
    - when the engine operation becomes stable, pour water into the radiator, remove the tarp, put out the lamp, close the inspection hatch;
    - adjust the temperature of the engine with the duct shields.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. 3x3zsave
      3x3zsave 11 June 2020 19: 55 New
      +8
      Paragraph!!! There did not stand the first paragraph, "shoot himself with a service weapon"?
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 11 June 2020 20: 13 New
        +9

        When you read such manuals here, the question arises, when did the crews generally sleep, eat, and relax.
        1. 3x3zsave
          3x3zsave 11 June 2020 20: 22 New
          +8
          We slept in the attributed technique; ate what we had to, rested ... Viktor Niikolaevich, you will remember yourself at the age of 17-25! I slept for 3 hours, and then in a hurry to live !!! And this is in peacetime!
          1. Undecim
            Undecim 11 June 2020 20: 40 New
            +4
            It is understood that the adaptive capabilities of the human body, especially in extreme conditions. big enough.
            But I didn’t mean it. Just when you compare the manual of domestic and Lend-Lease technology, you see that the difference is clearly not in our favor.
            1. 3x3zsave
              3x3zsave 11 June 2020 20: 46 New
              +5
              I think the Germans were no better.
              1. Liam
                Liam 11 June 2020 20: 50 New
                +3
                In vain think so. It was better
                1. 3x3zsave
                  3x3zsave 11 June 2020 20: 54 New
                  +3
                  My respect, colleague! Do you read German?
                  1. Liam
                    Liam 11 June 2020 21: 01 New
                    +4
                    Greetings. No. But there are fundamental things like a technological level.
                    1. 3x3zsave
                      3x3zsave 11 June 2020 21: 07 New
                      +5
                      Became interesting! Let's be more specific? This topic is very interesting to me.
                      1. Undecim
                        Undecim 11 June 2020 21: 28 New
                        +5
                        Language skills help a lot, but not all polyglots, I have nothing to do with German, although I worked a lot with the Germans. However, with regard to technical documentation, in understanding the issue today there are solutions.
                        I have both Soviet and German. and English manuals. I venture to get under the fire of local turbopatriots, but also to the Germans. it was easier for both Americans and British.

                        Cover for the Tiger crew manual.
                      2. 3x3zsave
                        3x3zsave 11 June 2020 21: 41 New
                        +6
                        Viktor Nikolaevich, you know my opinion about the "trumpet patriots" ...
                        In this case, as always, little things interest me.
                      3. Undecim
                        Undecim 11 June 2020 22: 09 New
                        +6
                        By the way, this is also a topic for the cycle, though it is very interesting.
                      4. 3x3zsave
                        3x3zsave 11 June 2020 22: 55 New
                        +5
                        No one will write about it. For the average "trumpet patriot" doesn’t care that the average mechanized driver Hans Krause was more comfortable at war than Vasya Petrov.
                      5. Undecim
                        Undecim 11 June 2020 23: 14 New
                        +6
                        Yes, on the site and the authors, whoever clearly presented such a topic, practically did not remain. Prosperity flourishes.
                      6. 3x3zsave
                        3x3zsave 11 June 2020 23: 36 New
                        +7
                        Here, Viktor Nikolaevich, we all together, one and a half years ago spat on P. Zhukov. But in comparison with Kharaluzhny, there was a very good "niche" author.
                      7. Undecim
                        Undecim 11 June 2020 23: 56 New
                        +5
                        Everything is relative.
            2. Revolver
              Revolver 12 June 2020 06: 11 New
              +4
              The famous Panther Fibel included 120 pages.
          2. Liam
            Liam 11 June 2020 22: 39 New
            +5
            Such ephemeral concepts as spirit and tempering are unknown to technology). And the level of German engineers, designers, the technological level, the equipment of the plants, the qualifications of the workers were much higher than in the USSR. By the way, BAM was built on German / Japanese excavators, dump trucks, etc. It turned out to be much more adapted to severe Siberian winters than domestic equipment.
          3. Revolver
            Revolver 12 June 2020 06: 18 New
            +6
            Quote: Liam
            BAM was built on German / Japanese excavators, dump trucks, etc. It turned out to be much more adapted to severe Siberian winters than domestic equipment.

            And the Panzer turned out to be much less adapted to winter than the clumsy made Teshki. So either the gloomy Teutonic genius miscalculated, assigning the width of the tracks and the viscosity of the fuel, or the Germans tried their stupidity and are now trying to blame it on General Moroz, they say he wasn’t, we would have given them that!
          4. Octopus
            Octopus 12 June 2020 14: 08 New
            +2
            Quote: Nagan
            either the Germans tried their stupidity and are now trying to blame it on General Moroz, they say he’s not the one, we would give them that!

            Is this news for you?
        2. Jager
          Jager 22 June 2020 10: 26 New
          0
          Only for some reason, the Japanese and Germans could not overpower and even at the stage of consideration of the project refused to build the Severomuisk tunnel, because the USSR did not have experience in such complex projects. But - they built it.
          Nonsense is everything, only a PART of the technique was Japanese and German. BUT Magiruses with CATO were very good, that's a fact. My roots are with BAM.
  • Oprichnik
    Oprichnik 16 June 2020 21: 35 New
    +1
    Greetings to caring people. In the 70s in the library. Lenin in Minsk read the maintenance instructions for the tanks Matilda, Valentine and Churchill. I was shocked by the fact that it was prescribed there to carry out DAILY up to 160 - 230 lubrication operations with 6-8 grades of lubricating oils and adjustments. Front-line tankers didn’t tell anything like that about leaving the T-34. I have the honor
    1. Undecim
      Undecim 16 June 2020 22: 22 New
      -1
      German tanks were discussed. British technology is a separate article. However, Valentine’s lubrication map has 37 points. If you considered everything - inspection before the start of the movement, inspection at stops and at the end of the movement, then maybe it will be typed. But then look at the T-34 manual and count in the same way.
  • Aag
    Aag 11 June 2020 22: 27 New
    +5
    IMHO: war, is, first of all, sweat, tears, lack of sleep. The more this is, the less blood will be (other things being equal) ...
    1. 3x3zsave
      3x3zsave 11 June 2020 22: 59 New
      +6
      I agree. And yet, "war is the work of the moldy"
      1. Aag
        Aag 11 June 2020 23: 47 New
        +7
        Well ... ideally.
        If you run, shoot, drag ...))) And if you "slowly go down and ____ everything is a herd ..".? Surely there are several ways, methods for solving the problem, for every high-security reserve. At a lower cost, with greater efficiency.
        The article, in part, says the same thing: the correct application (intended use), training l / s.
      2. Revolver
        Revolver 12 June 2020 06: 28 New
        +3
        Quote: 3x3zsave
        I agree. And yet, "war is the work of the moldy"

        Old rich men start wars, and young poor guys die.
  • Jager
    Jager 22 June 2020 10: 37 New
    0
    In fact, these actions were performed when starting any engine at low temperatures at that time. What is gasoline, what is diesel, what is German, what is Soviet. The properties and quality of fuel and lubricants at that time did not allow starting the engine without heating. And now starting a diesel engine without a prestart heater is extremely difficult.
    And then the role of Webasto was played by Private Ivanov / Schutsche Fischer with a blowtorch.
  • Alien From
    Alien From 11 June 2020 19: 21 New
    +3
    Thanks to the author, informative and interesting), but there are a number of grammatical errors ..)
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 11 June 2020 19: 28 New
      +6
      Quote: Alien From
      Thanks to the author, informative and interesting), but there are a number of grammatical errors ..)

      Well, to hell with them !!!
      1. Alien From
        Alien From 11 June 2020 19: 38 New
        +4
        Definitely !!) the article is just excellent !!!!
    2. Bongo
      12 June 2020 02: 54 New
      11
      Sorry! recourse
      After my other half (I cannot legally) was busy with business, there was no one to edit my writings and catch grammatical errors. Olya is a teacher by her first education and often ridiculed my literacy rate. repeat
      1. Nehist
        Nehist 12 June 2020 04: 07 New
        +7
        Do not worry, this is some nit-picking ... In the army, in general, everything is in non-printed terms and everyone understands everything!)))
  • ser56
    ser56 11 June 2020 19: 59 New
    +1
    Not bad, but Svirin has better written ... request
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 11 June 2020 20: 12 New
      +6
      Not that format! Take a look at the requirements of the article on the site and everything will fall into place!
  • irontom
    irontom 11 June 2020 20: 43 New
    +2
    Alas Pashilok, the topic of the creation and development of the Su-76 was described in more detail and documented.
  • bubalik
    bubalik 11 June 2020 20: 47 New
    +8
    on tactics of self-propelled artillery

    ,,, maybe someone will be interested.


    1. 3x3zsave
      3x3zsave 11 June 2020 21: 23 New
      +4
      Get lost instruction! Mehlis, however ...
      1. bubalik
        bubalik 11 June 2020 21: 32 New
        +5
        ,,, here above Vlad wrote about B-4, began to look, I can not help but lay out. Such drawings good




      2. Lopatov
        Lopatov 11 June 2020 22: 06 New
        +6
        Quote: 3x3zsave
        Get lost instruction! Mehlis, however ...

        Very and very adequate.
        1. Nehist
          Nehist 11 June 2020 22: 39 New
          +6
          Mehlis was generally adequate. That would not write about him so only one nasty things. But in fact, a very adequate person, it’s good that now slowly open archives. But we won’t soon find out about the Mehlis, party archives especially about the Party Control Comet, which the Mehlis headed most likely never at all.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 12 June 2020 11: 16 New
            +2
            Quote: Nehist
            Mehlis was generally adequate. That would not write about him so only one nasty things.

            Comrade Mehlis was adequate within the framework of the current general line of the party. If the party decided something, he rushed with all his fervor to do it. Comrade Stalin criticized the preparation of the army and commanders of the Civil War at a meeting on the results of the Socialist War — and Mehlis immediately rushed to eradicate the shortcomings that he would have beaten on the spot before (for example, for criticizing the experience of the Civil War). However, responsible for ideology cannot be otherwise - party discipline (now called corporate ethics smile ) in those days was not an empty phrase.
            On the other hand, we must pay tribute to him - in identifying documented Mehlis was not allowed to identify deficiencies. It is documented - since in his work Mehlis did not rely on prevailing practice and not on personal relationships, but only on the current state and party documents. For which he was unloved.
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 12 June 2020 11: 17 New
            +2
            For example, at a meeting on ideological work in the army and navy on May 13, 1940, Lev Zakharovich trampled down immediately on the corns of party political officers and on corns of the highest command staff.
            But the active, offensive nature of the operational tactical doctrine of the Red Army does not at all preclude the possibility and expediency of defense, but even a temporary retreat - in cases where the latter is necessary and expedient. It is necessary to take into account the specific situation, and when necessary, be able to retreat, and when to advance.
            (...)
            Strategies and tactics are virtually neglected by these laws. Organized retreat, organized retreat in certain areas began to be considered a shame. The infantry combat charter directly directs the commanders to meaningless casualties, indicating that "no casualties can force the company to stop performing the combat mission, even if only a few people remain in it"
            Obviously, the theory of indiscriminate offensives must be resolutely and quickly put to an end, because it leads to arrogance, cap-hatred and one-sidedness in the preparation of the army.

            The thesis about the invincibility of our Red Army was widely propagated in our country, but history does not know invincible armies.
            (...)
            War is an equation with many unknowns; this alone refutes the thesis of invincibility. The army, of course, needs to be educated so that it is confident in its abilities. The army needs to instill a spirit of confidence in its power, but not in the sense of boasting. Bragging about invincibility harms the army. Meanwhile, in the conditions of the Red Army and in the entire system of propaganda and agitation, a false understanding of the invincibility of the Red Army was most widely reflected. So, the draft field Charter of 1939 directly indicates that the Red Army "... exists as an invincible, all-destructive force. It is such, it will always be like that"

            The harmful prejudice was deeply rooted that the supposedly population of the countries entering the war with the USSR would inevitably, almost without exception, rise and go over to the side of the Red Army, that the workers and peasants would meet us with flowers. This false belief arises from ignorance of the actual situation in neighboring countries. The war in Finland showed that we did not conduct political intelligence in the northern regions and therefore did not know with what slogans to go to this population and how to conduct work among them. We often treated peasants as a working class, but it turns out that this peasant is a big fist, a Shutskorovets, and he reacts in his own way. Collision with reality demagnetizes our fighter and commander, who is used to viewing the population of foreign countries from a general - superficial point of view. We need to know what the population of this or that country lives and is interested in.
            1. Nehist
              Nehist 12 June 2020 13: 01 New
              +2
              And what am I wrong in? Not only did man ideologically set the base, he was also competent in many matters. Where did the Party Control archives go? Still not declassified !!! In general, many of the activists of that era were bawling for nothing. You yourself gave examples. In order to prepare such a report and trample on corns, you need to have knowledge. Lev Zakharych himself didn’t have such knowledge, but he picked up an excellent team of specialists !! And all his theses were correct !!! I hope you will not deny this? !!
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 12 June 2020 21: 39 New
                +1
                Quote: Nehist
                And what am I wrong in?

                And I wrote somewhere that you were wrong? what
                I only specified that the adequacy of Comrade Mehlis was restrained by the rigid framework of the party’s general line. And most of his “jumps” are just an attempt to follow the current line.
            2. Octopus
              Octopus 12 June 2020 14: 17 New
              +2
              Wah, what an intelligent Lev Zakharovich. Whatever the word is gold.

              For what it was removed from the army commissars - it is not clear. Apparently, also a victim of repression and the cult of personality.
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 12 June 2020 21: 46 New
                +2
                Quote: Octopus
                Wah, what an intelligent Lev Zakharovich. Whatever the word is gold.

                Duc ... allowed telling the truth is easy and pleasant. smile
                And that part of his report, which is devoted to commanders who are stuck in Civil, is almost a complete citation of the well-known concluding remarks of one comrade at a well-known meeting.
                Quote: Octopus
                For what it was removed from the army commissars - it is not clear.

                Because
                Now people need to be softer, and look at questions broader
                ©
                Lev Zakharovich with his integrity ruined relations with too many. And when the opportunity arose, everything bad was dumped on him (even the jambs of the army, including the direct failure to comply with the orders of the Mehlis), at the same time forgetting a lot of good. smile
                1. Octopus
                  Octopus 12 June 2020 21: 53 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  Lev Zakharovich with his integrity ruined relations with too many

                  God, and this one suffered for the truth. It was not easy for an honest man to live.
      3. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 12 June 2020 11: 00 New
        +6
        Quote: 3x3zsave
        Get lost instruction! Mehlis, however ...

        An absolutely correct instruction, in which infantry commanders directly and unequivocally say: SU-76 is not a tank, but a caterpillar self-propelled divisional cannon. And it must be used as the infantry uses its divisional guns, adjusted for greater mobility.
  • bubalik
    bubalik 11 June 2020 23: 51 New
    +6
    ,,, and then all the tankers recourse , they say little about self-propelled guns.

    Kolesnikov Vladimir Alekseevich, commander of SU-76,
    On August 16, 1944, during the battles in the area of ​​the village of Zhvirzhdzhaychay in the Shakiai region, Kolesnikov destroyed 10 tanks belay , 2 assault guns, 7 armored personnel carriers and about 370 enemy soldiers and officers. soldier
    1. bubalik
      bubalik 12 June 2020 00: 01 New
      +7
      Commander SU-76M
      Junior lieutenant ZUSMANOVSKY, Zinovy ​​Abramovich entered the battle, with superior enemy forces, as a result of these actions, by the fire of a self-propelled gun, the enemy suffered the following losses:

      and). 2 tigers burned

      b) 4 Panthers knocked down

      at). A column of vehicles with ammunition, fuel and other military equipment, in an amount of up to 50, was broken.

      d). 4 anti-tank guns were destroyed and calculations were destroyed.

      e). Destroyed, up to 200, soldiers and officers.

      e). Suppressed 24 machine gun points.

      What ensured the advancement of our infantry units forward. soldier
      1. bubalik
        bubalik 12 June 2020 00: 07 New
        +4
        Sorokin Sergey Dmitrievich,
        14 - 17.08.1944/4/3 destroyed 5 tanks (including the Tiger), 14 armored personnel carriers, 23 vehicles, 24.06.1944 guns. 2-1 destroyed 7 self-propelled guns, XNUMX gun, XNUMX machine guns soldier
      2. Liam
        Liam 12 June 2020 00: 23 New
        +5
        Nowhere do they lie like hunting and war
        1. bubalik
          bubalik 12 June 2020 00: 41 New
          +5
          Nowhere do they lie like that

          ,,, well, so all the ace pilots and tankers, and Soviet and German in the "hunters" to write?
          ,,, data from award sheets request
          1. Octopus
            Octopus 12 June 2020 14: 18 New
            +2
            Quote: bubalik
            Well, so all the ace pilots and tankers, and Soviet and German in the "hunters" to write?

            Конечно.
  • Revolver
    Revolver 12 June 2020 02: 13 New
    +4
    at the first stage of combat use light self-propelled gun was not popular among personnel and earned many unflattering nicknames
    The author, out of modesty, did not call the clicker SU-76 in the army. Or maybe moderation did not miss, because the article is not related to dog breeding. In general, the feminine gender with the diminutive suffix "hk".
    1. Bongo
      12 June 2020 02: 59 New
      +6
      Quote: Nagan
      The author, out of modesty, did not call the clicker SU-76 in the army.

      Hello! SU-76 had many unflattering clicks. And it's not my modesty no I deliberately did not initiate “patriots,” and it was not a fact that the editors would have missed it.
      1. Octopus
        Octopus 12 June 2020 14: 19 New
        +2
        It seemed to come across that this very nickname was invented and used by tankers, not self-propelled guns. In the order, so to speak, of the military friendship of the combat arms.
    2. bk0010
      bk0010 12 June 2020 12: 07 New
      0
      Quote: Nagan
      In general, the feminine gender with the diminutive suffix "hk".
      Yes? In addition to Columbine and Naked Ferdinand, I have not heard ...
  • Ros 56
    Ros 56 12 June 2020 07: 09 New
    +2
    An interesting article in my life I have not heard about the Su-76I, apparently in Soviet times did not dare to write in such detail.
  • Slippery
    Slippery 12 June 2020 11: 31 New
    +4
    Quote: Nagan
    the second, out of modesty, did not call the clicher SU-76 in the army. Or maybe moderation did not miss, because the article is not related to dog breeding. In general, the feminine gender with the diminutive suffix "hk".

    You know, not for the sake of sake, but for the sake of curiosity, you have some recollections of war veterans who served on the SU-76, where this nickname skips. Columbine constantly, but soo ***? . I understand the censorship was. Rusk still skipped.
    Add author. The problem was still with the same track tension. They tried to develop a back tank and keep the front full. There were problems with the evacuation of damaged cars. Problems with ventilation on the SU-76, it seems like after the adoption of the SU-76M, it was possible to cut the roof in the field, but this information is only from my memoirs. And what is interesting by statistics is the lowest rate of crew losses per one crashed car. 1,8 or 1,6 has long been interested in this topic, the memory of numbers is not my thing))).
  • Tests
    Tests 12 June 2020 13: 23 New
    +2
    3x3zsave (anton), dear, I will argue with you a little that the Great Patriotic War is "the war is the work of the young." In my opinion, it is important where and in what position to use a fighter.
    One of my grandfather fought from 01.08.41/06.08.41/527 to 118/1/32 a sapper in the 1941 rifle regiment of the 47 rifle division (21.02 formation) in the north of the ESSR. He was seriously wounded in both legs and left arm; at 1944, in 14 a disabled war veteran came home. Not quite young, right? And another grandfather at 5 years old died on February 47, XNUMX under the Great Luke. There are different positions in the funeral and notice of re-storage: driving and wagon. His grandfather rests in a huge mass grave in the village of Myakotino, Peresleginsky volost, Velikoluksky district, Pskov region, XNUMX stella with surnames XNUMX line on top. Although Grandfather had the experience of his grandfather, at XNUMX years old he went on the attack with a rifle, of course, and the river is not the same, and the strength and endurance, but with horses - that's it ...
    Isakogorsky District Military Commissariat of Arkhangelsk, which called for both of my grandfathers, in May 1942, as historians of the NArFU say, made the biggest call of the girls of the Arkhangelsk region. So, together with a friend, she went to the Air Force in one part - the head aviation depot No. 1950, the future wife of one of her grandmother's brothers - Tamara Drozdova, born in 1923. First, the Karelian Front, then 2 - the Baltic, Leningrad. The girls received spare parts for airplanes, released them and loaded bombs on trucks, which from the warehouse to the airfields made 6 flights a day, 100 km each in the Latvian SSR, when in the spring of 1945 the pilots of the 15th Air Army finished off the German Zemland group ... Drivers in that warehouse were over 35 years old, and the guard's arrows over 40 years, if younger, after several injuries or shell shocks. Properly used personnel? In my opinion correctly ...
  • Viktor Sergeev
    Viktor Sergeev 12 June 2020 16: 36 New
    +3
    Su76 was not anti-tank, and to use it as such can be regarded as stupidity, unless of course act out of ambush.
    1. Octopus
      Octopus 12 June 2020 18: 02 New
      +3
      Quote: Victor Sergeev
      Unless, of course, act out of ambush.

      Naturally from ambushes. Like the Marders, Noshorn, Acher, Americans, any poorly armored vehicles. As amended, of course, that all of the above foreigners had anti-tank guns of a different class, which the Soviet side did not have, except 100mm at the end of the war.
      1. Viktor Sergeev
        Viktor Sergeev 13 June 2020 13: 16 New
        0
        That is, we did not have 57, 85mm?
        1. Bongo
          13 June 2020 13: 24 New
          +2
          Quote: Victor Sergeev
          That is, we did not have 57, 85mm?

          Quote from publication:
          At the beginning of 1944, the formation of self-propelled artillery divisions began (each consisted of at first 12, and later 16, SU-76M). They replaced several dozen rifle divisions anti-tank divisions.

          Those. fought with what was at hand. Agree, the ZIS-3 was also not an optimal weapon for arming fighter-anti-tank divisions. Nevertheless, a significant part of the specially modified 76,2 mm guns went exactly there.
  • Tima62
    Tima62 13 June 2020 14: 43 New
    0
    But, unfortunately, with all its advantages and relevance, the first production SU-76s in difficult front-line conditions demonstrated unsatisfactory technical reliability. In combat units there was a massive failure of transmission elements and engines. This happened due to erroneous technical solutions laid down during the design and due to the unsatisfactory quality of engine and transmission manufacturing.

    Maybe enough to write the same stamps about some kind of erroneous decision, and write more specifically about the design of the chassis? After all, what you write about the T 70 and SU 76 M
    Self-propelled installation with a motor-transmission group, borrowed from a light tank T-70B, received the designation SU-76M. Subsequently, the power of the twin propulsion system was increased to 170 hp. Two elastic couplings were installed between the engines and gearboxes, and a friction slip clutch between the two main gears on a common shaft.

    just refers to the previous version of SU 76 with two GAZ power units installed in parallel and working on a common shaft of the drive wheels. And the main breakdowns occurred when, due to the slackness of the gear shifting mechanism, 4th gear was engaged on one gearbox and 2nd, or 1st and 3rd gears on the other.
    At T 70 and SU 76M, GAZ engines stood in series, the rear end of the front engine crankshaft is connected to the front end of the rear engine crankshaft, behind the rear engine there is a more powerful ZIS 5 gearbox and ONE main gear. The power unit is on the right side of the tank or self-propelled.
    I would like to read about these more specific changes in the article, and not about some general measures.
  • Grossvater
    Grossvater 15 June 2020 10: 27 New
    -2
    The title of the article and the text are very little related. In general, some set of well-known commonplace.
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 17 June 2020 10: 19 New
    -1
    The 76 mm divisional gun is not a first-order weapon. it very effectively suppresses and destroys other goals.
    In addition, the horizontal armor of the vast majority of German tanks (less than 20 mm) is very vulnerable to 76 mm guns when firing at a long distance of about 8-10 km.
    1. Bongo
      17 June 2020 14: 04 New
      +2
      Quote: Kostadinov
      In addition, the horizontal armor of the vast majority of German tanks (less than 20 mm) is very vulnerable to 76 mm guns when firing at a long distance of about 8-10 km.

      Excuse me, what is the likelihood of a 76,2 mm gun getting into the tank at a distance of 8 km, and how thick is the OFS containing 700 g of TNT capable of breaking through?
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 17 June 2020 14: 16 New
    -2
    Quote: Bongo
    Quote: Kostadinov
    In addition, the horizontal armor of the vast majority of German tanks (less than 20 mm) is very vulnerable to 76 mm guns when firing at a long distance of about 8-10 km.

    Excuse me, what is the likelihood of a 76,2 mm gun getting into the tank at a distance of 8 km, and how thick is the OFS containing 700 g of TNT capable of breaking through?

    1. For the probability of hitting a fixed target during artillery fire, there is information in all artillery textbooks. The horizontal projection of the tank is not a small target, and the median deviation of the 76 mm gun per 8 km is not so big - so I think that it’s enough for 30-40 shots on average for a direct hit.
    2. 76 mm OFS must break through 18-20 mm of armor, break shrapnel into impact and approximately 30 mm, and a common armor-piercing projectile at an appropriate angle of incidence can hit and break even more than 30 mm.
    1. strannik1985
      strannik1985 17 June 2020 14: 54 New
      +3
      The tabular consumption of 76-mm shells for a separate, unobservable, not armored target (with full preparation or shooting) is 900 pcs., If the target is observed a quarter less, it makes no sense to shoot at a separate tank, it will go out of fire before it is hit.
  • Alexey Gorshkov
    Alexey Gorshkov 18 June 2020 15: 02 New
    0
    Everything interests me: the SU-76M was armed with a 76,2 ZiS-3 gun, while the ZiS-2 anti-tank gun was very similar to the latter, although it was of a smaller caliber (57 mm.), But much more powerful - why not make the SU-57 (not to be confused with a modern airplane)? And yet - during the war, we had absolutely NO anti-aircraft self-propelled guns, although it is obvious that there was a need for them - anti-aircraft weapons were massively put on flatbed trucks before the war (classic - quad "Maxim" on GAZ-AA) - after the war, such ZSU appeared, and it was on the basis of the SU-76M (I saw the photos)!
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 19 June 2020 10: 05 New
    -1
    Quote: strannik1985
    The tabular consumption of 76-mm shells for a separate, unobservable, not armored target (with full preparation or shooting) is 900 pcs., If the target is observed a quarter less, it makes no sense to shoot at a separate tank, it will go out of fire before it is hit.

    Look at what purpose and at what range the speech is.
    There is no sense in a separate tank, but against many tanks there is a sense before an attack or defense.
    1. strannik1985
      strannik1985 19 June 2020 10: 36 New
      +1
      Look at what purpose and how far the speech is.

      The suppression (30% loss) of concealed manpower and firepower, tanks in the area of ​​concentration - 450 76 mm shells per hectare (100x100 meters), observed - a quarter less, destruction - three times more.
  • Oleg_p
    Oleg_p 25 June 2020 16: 13 New
    0
    And the T-4 had an “Achilles heel” right in the frontal sheet of the tower. Due to technological difficulties there, the armor remained at 41m and at 90 degrees to the horizon. Ours and beat these tanks of 76,2mm guns in this place. There are front-line photos, you can search.