Military Review

Antitank capabilities of Soviet 122 mm self-propelled artillery mounts

109
Antitank capabilities of Soviet 122 mm self-propelled artillery mounts

In the initial period of the war, the number of trophies of the Red Army was several dozen 75-mm self-propelled guns Sturmgeschütz III (StuG III). For lack of their own self-propelled guns, captured StuG IIIs were actively used in the Red Army under the designation SU-75. The German "artillery assaults" had good combat and operational-operational characteristics, had good protection in the frontal projection, were equipped with excellent optics and a very satisfactory gun.


The first report on the use of StuG III by Soviet troops dates back to July 1941. Then the Red Army during the Kiev defensive operation managed to capture two serviceable self-propelled guns.


Trophy self-propelled gun StuG III with the words "Avenger". Western Front, March 1942

Subsequently, part of the captured “artillery assaults” requiring factory repair was converted into the self-propelled guns SU-76I, and serviceable vehicles were used in their original form. Some self-propelled guns modifications StuG III Ausf. F and StuG III Ausf. G, armed with long-barreled 75-mm guns and protected by 80-mm frontal armor, were operated in the Red Army until the end of the war as fighters tanks.

By the middle of 1942, the Soviet command had accumulated some experience with the use of trophy self-propelled guns and had an idea of ​​what an “artillery assault” should be like, intended for firing at visually observable targets. Specialists came to the conclusion that high-explosive fragmentation shells of 75-76,2 mm are suitable for providing infantry fire support, they have good fragmentation effect on the enemy’s uncovered manpower and can be effectively used to destroy light field fortifications. But against capital fortifications and brick buildings turned into long-term firing points, self-propelled guns equipped with larger caliber guns were required. Compared to a 76,2 mm shell, a 122 mm howitzer high-explosive fragmentation shell had a significantly greater destructive effect. The 122-mm shell, weighing 21,76 kg, contained 3,67 kg of explosives versus 6,2 kg of a three-inch shell with 710 g of explosive. With a single shot of a 122 mm gun, more could be achieved than with a few three-inch shots.

Self-propelled artillery mount SG-122


Considering the fact that in the Soviet warehouses of captured armored vehicles there was a significant amount of StuG III self-propelled guns, it was decided at the first stage to create self-propelled guns based on them, armed with a 122 mm M-30 howitzer.


Trophy assault guns StuG III in the courtyard of the Moscow factory "Lift", April 1942

However, to accommodate the 122 mm M-30 howitzer, the StuG III was too tight and had to re-design a new cabin of a larger volume. The Soviet-made fighting compartment, which housed 4 crew members, became significantly higher, its frontal part had anti-ballistic armor. The thickness of the frontal armor of the wheelhouse is 45 mm, the sides are 35 mm, the stern is 25 mm, the roof is 20 mm. For alteration used StuG III Ausf assault guns. C or Ausf. D with 50 mm frontal armor of the hull, the thickness of the side armor was 30 mm. Thus, the protection of self-propelled guns in the frontal projection approximately corresponded to the T-34 medium tank.


SG-122

Self-propelled gun received the designation SG-122, also sometimes found SG-122A ("Artsturm"). Serial production of self-propelled guns on the StuG III chassis began in the late autumn of 1942 at the unevacuated capacities of Mytishchi Carriage Works No. 592. In the period from October 1942 to January 1943, 21 self-propelled guns were handed over to military acceptance.


Part of the SG-122 was sent to training centers for self-propelled artillery, one machine was intended for testing at the Gorokhovets training ground. In February 1943, the 1435th self-propelled artillery regiment, which had 9 SU-76 and 12 SG-122, was transferred to the 9th Panzer Corps of the 10th Army of the Western Front. There is little information about the combat use of the SG-122. It is known that during the period from March 6 to March 15, the 1435th SAP, participating in battles, lost all the material part from enemy fire and breakdowns and was sent for reformation. During the battles, about 400 76,2 mm and more than 700 122 mm shells were used up. The actions of the 1435th SAP contributed to the capture of the villages of Lower Akimovka, Upper Akimovka and Yasenok. At the same time, in addition to firing points and anti-tank guns, several enemy tanks were destroyed.

Apparently, the combat debut of the SG-122A was not very successful. In addition to poor training of personnel, the effectiveness of self-propelled guns was adversely affected by the lack of good sights and observation devices. Due to poor ventilation during firing, there was a strong gas contamination of the conning tower. Due to the constraint, the working conditions of the commander, two gunners and the loader were difficult. Specialists also noted the excessive congestion of the front rollers, which affected the reliability of the chassis.


To date, not a single original self-propelled guns SG-122 has been preserved. The instance installed in Verkhnyaya Pyshma is a layout.

SU-122 self-propelled artillery mount


In connection with the revealed shortcomings of the SG-122 and the limited number of StuG III chassis, the 122-mm self-propelled artillery installation was decided to be built on the basis of the T-34 tank. Self-propelled gun SU-122 did not appear from scratch. At the end of 1941, in order to increase the production of tanks, a design of a reckless T-34 was developed with a 76,2-mm cannon installed in the wheelhouse. Due to the abandonment of the rotating turret, such a tank should have been easier to manufacture and had thicker armor in the frontal projection. In the future, these developments were used to create a 122-mm self-propelled guns.


SU-122

In terms of protection, the SU-122 practically did not differ from the T-34. The crew was 5 people. Self-propelled gun was armed with a "self-propelled" modification of the 122-mm howitzer mod. 1938 - M-30S, while maintaining a number of features of the towed gun. So, the placement of controls for the aiming mechanisms on opposite sides of the barrel required the presence of two gunners in the crew, which, of course, did not add free space inside the fighting compartment. The range of elevation angles ranged from −3 ° to + 25 °, the horizontal firing sector ± 10 °. The maximum firing range is 8000 meters. Combat rate of fire - up to 2 rounds / min. Ammunition from 32 to 40 rounds of separate shell loading, depending on the series of release. Mostly these were high-explosive shells.


Field tests of the prototype SU-122 were completed in December 1942. Until the end of 1942, 25 self-propelled guns were manufactured. At the end of January 1943, the first two mixed-propelled artillery regiments of mixed composition arrived at the front near Leningrad. The SAP included 4 batteries of light self-propelled guns SU-76 (17 vehicles) and two batteries SU-122 (8 vehicles). In March 1943, two more self-propelled artillery regiments were formed and staffed. These regiments came at the disposal of the commanders of the armies and fronts and were used during offensive operations. Subsequently, separate formation of regiments equipped with 76,2- and 122-mm self-propelled guns began to be carried out. According to the staff of the SAP on the SU-122 had 16 self-propelled guns (4 batteries) and one commander T-34.


In parts of the army, the SU-122 was met better than the SU-76. Self-propelled gun, armed with a powerful 122-mm howitzer, had higher security and proved to be more reliable in operation.


During the hostilities, the use of the SU-122 to support the advancing infantry and tanks when they were 400-600 meters behind them was recognized as the most successful application. During the breakthrough of the enemy’s defense, self-propelled guns by the fire of their guns suppressed enemy firing points, destroyed obstacles and barriers, and also repelled counterattacks.

The anti-tank capabilities of the SU-122 were not high. Even the presence in the ammunition of a cumulative projectile BP-460A with armor penetration along the normal to 160 mm did not make it possible to fight tanks on equal terms. The cumulative projectile weighing 13,4 kg had an initial speed of 335 m / s, and therefore the effective range of the direct shot was a little more than 300 m.In addition, firing at quickly moving targets was very difficult and required well-coordinated crew work. Three people took part in aiming the gun at the target. The driver carried out an approximate aiming of the tracks with the help of a simple sighting device in the form of two plates. Further, gunners serving the mechanisms of vertical and horizontal guidance entered work. With a low rate of howitzer with a separate-shell loading for each aimed shot of the SU-122, an enemy tank could respond with 2-3 shots. The frontal 45-mm armor of the Soviet self-propelled gun was easily penetrated by 75- and 88-mm armor-piercing shells, and direct collisions of the SU-122 with German tanks were contraindicated. This is confirmed by the experience of military operations: in those cases when the SU-122 participated in frontal attacks along with linear tanks, they invariably suffered heavy losses.


At the same time, with the right tactics of use, the 122 mm high-explosive fragmentation shells against enemy armored vehicles were repeatedly shown to have good results. According to reports of German tankers who participated in the battle of Kursk, they repeatedly recorded cases of serious damage to heavy Pz tanks. VI Tiger as a result of shelling with 122 mm howitzer shells.

Production of the SU-122 was completed in August 1943. Military representatives took 636 cars. SU-122 actively participated in the battles of the second half of 1943 and the first months of 1944. As their numbers decrease due to a relatively small number of troops, the cessation of mass production and various kinds of losses, they were withdrawn from the SAP, which were rearmament on the SU-76M and SU-85. Already in April 1944, the SU-122 became rare vehicles in the Soviet fleet of armored vehicles, and individual self-propelled guns of this type survived until the end of the war.

The cessation of serial production of the SU-122 is primarily due to the fact that this self-propelled gun was armed with a 122-mm howitzer, which was not well suited for self-propelled guns primarily intended for firing at visually observed targets. The M-122 divisional 30 mm howitzer was a very successful artillery system, still in service in a number of countries. But in the case of arming her self-propelled guns, created on the chassis of the T-34, revealed a number of negative points. As already mentioned, the direct shot range from the M-30S adapted for self-propelled guns was relatively small, and the SU-122 did not fire from closed positions when all the advantages of a howitzer could manifest themselves. Due to the design features of the 122-mm howitzer, two gunners had to be introduced into the crew of the self-propelled guns. The gun took up too much space in the fighting compartment, creating significant inconvenience to the crew. The large forward flight of the recoil devices and their reservation made it difficult to see from the driver's seat and did not allow a full hatch to be placed on the windshield. In addition, the 122-mm howitzer for the undercarriage of the T-34 was quite heavy, which, in combination with the removal of the guns forward, excessively loaded the front rollers.

Self-propelled artillery mount ISU-122


In this situation, by analogy with the SU-152, it was logical to create a heavy self-propelled guns on the chassis of the KV-1C tank, arming it with a 122-mm gun A-19. However in real stories this did not happen, and the creation of the self-propelled gun ISU-122 on the chassis of the heavy tank IS-2 was largely due to the shortage of 152 mm ML-20S guns. In addition, a need emerged for well-protected tank destroyers, which in terms of effective firing range would be superior to German heavy tanks equipped with 88-mm guns. Since our troops, which switched to offensive operations, urgently needed heavy self-propelled guns, it was decided to use the 122-mm A-19 guns, which were in abundance in the warehouses of artillery weapons. In this place, as part of the story about Soviet 122-mm self-propelled guns, we will move away from the chronology of the development of domestic self-propelled guns and take a closer look at the ISU-122, which appeared later than the 152 mm SU-152 and ISU-152.


ISU-122

The 122-mm case gun of the 1931/37 model (A-19) had very good characteristics for its time. An armor-piercing projectile 53-BR-471 weighing 25 kg was accelerated in the barrel length 5650 mm up to 800 m / s, at a distance of 1000 m normal punched 130 mm armor. At an angle of meeting with armor of 60 °, at the same range, armor penetration was 108 mm. High-explosive fragmentation projectile 53-OF-471 weighing 25 kg, containing 3,6 kg of TNT, also showed good performance when firing at armored vehicles. Repeatedly, there were cases when, as a result of the 122-mm OFS getting into the frontal part of the Tigers and Panther, the tanks received heavy damage, and the crew was damaged by the internal chips of the armor. Thus, the self-propelled artillery mount ISU-122 was able to deal with all serial German tanks at real combat distances.

For installation in self-propelled guns was developed "self-propelled" modification A-19C. The differences between this option and the towed one consisted in transferring the gun guidance to one side, equipping the breech with a receiver tray for easy loading and introducing an electric trigger. In the second half of 1944, mass production of an improved modification of the gun intended for arming the self-propelled guns began. The upgraded version received the designation "122-mm self-propelled gun mod. 1931/44 gg. ”, And in this version, in addition to the type of trunk with a free pipe, monoblock trunks were used. The design of the mechanisms of vertical and horizontal interference made changes aimed at increasing reliability and reducing inertial load. Both guns had a piston lock. The angles of vertical guidance ranged from -3 to + 22 °, horizontally - in the sector of 10 °. The range of a direct shot at a target with a height of 2,5–3 m was 1000–1200 m, the effective firing range for armored vehicles was 2500 m, and the maximum was 14300 m. Rate of fire was 1,5–2 shots / min. The ISU-122 ammunition included 30 separate-shell loading rounds.

Serial production of the ISU-122 began in April 1944. Self-propelled guns of the first series had solid frontal armor of the hull. ISU-122, produced since the fall of 1944, had frontal armor of the hull, welded from two rolled armor plates. This version of the self-propelled gun was distinguished by an increased thickness of the gun’s mask and more capacious fuel tanks.


Since October 1944, in the area of ​​the right hatch, an anti-aircraft installation of a 12,7 mm DShK machine gun was mounted. A large-caliber anti-aircraft machine gun DShK was in great demand during the storming of cities, when it was necessary to destroy the enemy infantry that was hiding among the ruins or on the upper floors and attics of buildings.


The thickness of the frontal and side armor of the hull was 90 mm, the stern of the hull - 60 mm. Gun mask - 100-120 mm. The logging forehead was covered with 90 mm armor, the logging board and feed were 60 mm. Roof - 30 mm, bottom - 20 mm.

The mass of the installation in the combat position was 46 tons. A diesel engine with a capacity of 520 hp could drive the car along the highway to 37 km / h. The maximum speed along the lane is 25 km / h. Cruising on the highway - up to 220 km. Crew - 5 people.

Since May 1944, some heavy self-propelled artillery regiments, previously armed with heavy self-propelled guns SU-152, began to switch to ISU-122. When transferring regiments to new states, they were awarded the rank of guards. In total, until the end of the war, 56 such regiments were formed with 21 self-propelled guns ISU-152 or ISU-122 in each (part of the regiments had a mixed composition). In March 1945, the 66th Guards Heavy Self-propelled Artillery Brigade was formed (65 ISU-122 and 3 SU-76). Self-propelled guns were actively used at the final stage of the war. According to archival documents, in 1944, 945 ISU-122s were built, of which 169 vehicles were lost in hostilities.


Unlike tanks and self-propelled guns produced in the initial period of the war, self-propelled guns ISU-122 was quite advanced and quite reliable. This was largely due to the fact that the main "children's sores" of the motor-transmission group and chassis were identified and eliminated on the IS-2 and ISU-152 tanks. Self-propelled gun ISU-122 is fully consistent with its purpose. It could be successfully used to destroy long-term fortifications and destroy heavy enemy tanks. So during tests at the training ground, the frontal armor of the German tank PzKpfw V Panther was pierced by a 122-mm armor-piercing shell fired from a distance of 2,5 km. At the same time, the A-19C gun had a significant drawback - a low rate of fire, which was limited to a manually open piston-type shutter. The introduction of the 5th member, the castle, into the crew not only did not solve the problem of low rate of fire, but also created additional crampedness in the fighting compartment.

Self-propelled artillery mount ISU-122S


In August 1944, the production of self-propelled guns ISU-122S began. This self-propelled gun was armed with a 122 mm D-25C gun with a wedge semi-automatic shutter and a muzzle brake. This gun was created on the basis of the D-25 gun, which was installed in the turret of the heavy tank IS-2.


ISU-122С

The installation of a new gun led to changes in the design of recoil devices, cradles and a number of other elements. The D-25C gun was equipped with a two-chamber muzzle brake, which was absent from the A-19C gun. A new cast mask was created with a thickness of 120-150 mm. The sights of the gun remained the same: the telescopic TSh-17 and the panorama of Hertz. The crew of self-propelled guns was reduced to 4 people, excluding the castle. The convenient location of the crew in the fighting compartment and the semi-automatic shutter of the gun contributed to an increase in the combat rate of fire up to 3-4 rds / min. There have been cases when a well-coordinated crew could do 5 rounds / min. The vacated space was used to place additional ammunition. Although the power of the guns of the self-propelled guns ISU-122 did not exceed the tank IS-2, in practice, the actual combat rate of self-propelled guns was higher. This is primarily due to the fact that the self-propelled gun had a more spacious fighting compartment and better working conditions for the loader and gunner.


The increase in rate of fire, which was achieved on the ISU-122S, positively affected the anti-tank capabilities of self-propelled guns. However, the ISU-122S was not able to supplant the ISU-122 with a 122-mm gun mod. 1931/1944, which was associated with a shortage of D-25 guns, which also armed the IS-2 tanks.


Self-propelled guns ISU-122S, actively used at the final stage of the war, were a very powerful anti-tank weapon. But they were not able to reveal themselves in this capacity to the full. By the time the ISU-122S mass production began, German tanks were rarely used for counterattacks and were mainly used in defensive battles as an anti-tank reserve, operating from ambushes.


The use of ISU-122 / ISU-122S in woodland and urban battles was difficult due to the long gun. Maneuvering in narrow streets with a long gun sticking a few meters ahead from the self-propelled guns with the front location of the fighting compartment was not easy. In addition, the driver had to be very careful on the slopes. Otherwise, there was a high probability of "scooping up" the soil with a gun.


The mobility and patency of self-propelled guns ISU-122 / ISU-122S was at the level of the heavy tank IS-2. In the conditions of the mud, they often did not keep pace with the T-34 medium tanks, as well as the tank destroyers SU-85 and SU-100.


In total, military representatives adopted 1735 ISU-122 (1335 until the end of April 1945) and 675 ISU-122S (425 until the end of April 1945). Serial production of self-propelled guns of this type was completed in August 1945. In the postwar period, ISU-122 / ISU-122S were modernized and operated until the mid-1960s.

To be continued ...
Author:
Articles from this series:
Soviet self-propelled guns against German tanks in the initial period of the war
Antitank capabilities of Soviet 76,2 mm self-propelled artillery mounts
109 comments
Ad

The editorial board of Voenniy Obozreniye urgently needs a proofreader. Requirements: impeccable knowledge of the Russian language, diligence, discipline. Contact: [email protected]

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. IImonolitII
    IImonolitII 18 June 2020 18: 34 New
    18
    Great stuff, thanks!
  2. Alf
    Alf 18 June 2020 19: 15 New
    +1
    The accuracy of the gun was not inferior to the famous 88/71.
    1. Ryaruav
      Ryaruav 18 June 2020 20: 51 New
      -20
      at the Baratynsky’s monograph about tiger-1, read at the end about the meeting of is-2 and tiger-1, not to mention kwk 88-71 on tiger-2 and yagdpanther, our optics were much inferior both in heaven and in the sea and on earth, therefore your statements have no historical truth
      1. Alf
        Alf 18 June 2020 21: 34 New
        14
        Quote: Ryaruav
        have no historical truth

        What is the truth? What was our gun accurate?
      2. Yarhann
        Yarhann 18 June 2020 23: 21 New
        +8
        and you take an interest in what that optics gave at a time when there were no ballistic calculators and SLAs like in modern tanks))) tank battles started in the 800m area - because not only do you get the hell out of it, but you’ll get the hell out of it and it affected Soviet and German tanks.
        And ambush gatherings and 2km bullets are fun for shkolota, because these are isolated cases that do not affect the course of battles. Although firing at infantry from such a distance of the OFS is especially large, it’s clear that it was effective
        1. The comment was deleted.
      3. The comment was deleted.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 19 June 2020 12: 03 New
          +5
          Quote: Victor Sergeev
          Americans evaluating the T34 at the Aberdino training ground recognized our sights as the best in the world.

          EMNIP, structurally good, but poor in workmanship. However, there is nothing surprising - the Izyumsky Optical Glass Plant in the fall of 1941 left for evacuation and started producing high-quality glass in evacuation only in 1943.
          1. Viktor Sergeev
            Viktor Sergeev 19 June 2020 17: 36 New
            +2
            But haven't I written about this? It was from 1943 that excellent sights went again and it was they who stood on the IS2 and self-propelled guns at its base.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 19 June 2020 18: 48 New
              +1
              Quote: Victor Sergeev
              But haven't I written about this?

              You have not specified in which area the best. And then in the "Aberdeen Report" there are two, at first glance, opposite assessments - "good construction" and "disgusting quality".
              1. Viktor Sergeev
                Viktor Sergeev 19 June 2020 19: 10 New
                0
                What I found: the sight of the general opinion is the best in the world. Incomparable to any existing (known here) or being developed in America. I said that since 1943, beautiful sights went generally, after the evacuation of the plant and the establishment of production.
                Here I found an estimate of the Finns of the T34-85 sight: Surveillance devices: the sight significantly exceeds the sight of the T-34 tank of the 1942-1943 model. The accuracy of the sight is at the level of the German 75-mm gun of the 1940 model. The field of view increased by 15%.
                Yes, the Tigers and Panthers had better sights, but not much and this did not give super advantages when meeting with the IS2 and self-propelled guns at its base, since the Tiger could not penetrate them at a great distance.
      4. smel
        smel 19 June 2020 14: 07 New
        +7
        It is necessary to explain to a comrade who Baratynsky is
      5. Mister X
        Mister X 19 June 2020 21: 18 New
        +5
        Quote: Ryaruav
        you read at Baratynsky's monograph about tiger-1

        Did you spell his last name correctly?
        Baratynsky found only Evgeny Abramovich.
        19th century poet.
        What could he write about WWII tanks?
      6. hohol95
        hohol95 19 June 2020 22: 36 New
        +1
        Is Baratynsky who is Evgeny Abramovich?
        19th century poet?
      7. saigon
        saigon 21 June 2020 15: 00 New
        +1
        Nice person, the author of the book you are specifying is still BaratInsky and is written with a capital letter of the surname in Russian.
        1. Mister X
          Mister X 23 June 2020 19: 38 New
          +1
          Quote: saigon
          BaratInsky and in Russian are written with a capital letter of the surname.

          hi
          Interestingly, the commentator is only limping in grammar, or is he not friends with facts either?
  3. rocket757
    rocket757 18 June 2020 19: 19 New
    +9
    The war dictated its conditions, the need! It is glorious that Soviet designers were able to answer most of her challenges!
  4. FORCE 38GB
    FORCE 38GB 18 June 2020 19: 27 New
    +7
    Excellent article! good Thanks to the author! Not so long ago I read about the 76th sau on the site in one go.
  5. Lopatov
    Lopatov 18 June 2020 19: 27 New
    13
    The M-122 divisional 30 mm howitzer was a very successful artillery system, still in service in a number of countries.

    Including RF. As a "substitute" tool. Therefore, in fact, they appeared in Syria in such quantities - they are in warehouses. As well as the trunks to them.
    1. CTABEP
      CTABEP 18 June 2020 20: 22 New
      +5
      No, well, for her time she was very successful. And the fact that after more than half a century someone is fighting with her is no longer a good life.
      1. Ryaruav
        Ryaruav 18 June 2020 20: 57 New
        +3
        in Africa where and mr-40 and pps-41 are used but it's not about that
        1. seagull
          seagull 20 June 2020 14: 28 New
          0
          In the early 90s, in person, in the RAV part warehouse I rearranged boxes with PPSh .... in my opinion, they have not been removed from armament yet ....
  6. businessv
    businessv 18 June 2020 21: 39 New
    10
    To be continued ...
    Sergey, thank you very much for the interesting material! We look forward to continuing! soldier
  7. Octopus
    Octopus 19 June 2020 01: 08 New
    +2
    Sergey, a number of details of your review are doubtful.
    and the creation of the ISU-122 self-propelled gun on the chassis of the IS-2 heavy tank was largely due to a shortage of 152 mm ML-20S guns

    Posholok
    https://warspot.ru/14162-tyazhyolyy-istrebitel-tankov
    He writes the opposite.
    The second, almost more significant problem was the output of the A-19 guns. You can often hear the theory that the ISU-122 allegedly appeared due to the lack of ML-20s systems, but you can only smile at it. In May, that is, already in the second month of ISU-122 production, the first interruptions occurred with the A-19. As a result, instead of 100 cars, they passed 90, and ISU-152 turned in 135 pieces instead of 125.


    And the reason for the priority of ISU-122 is no secret to anyone. The USSR of the 44th year had a huge shortage of anti-tank weapons, adequate to German armored vehicles, and 122mm was suitable for this more than 152mm. Although, of course, the A-19 is still a VET.
    The cessation of serial production of the SU-122 is primarily due to the fact that this self-propelled gun was armed with a 122-mm howitzer, which was not well suited for self-propelled guns primarily intended for firing at visually observed targets

    It is formulated not quite successfully. The Germans did put an infantry mortar on the Sturpanzer 15cm, but other countries also had infantry support vehicles with howitzer guns. Steep projectiles help better from entrenched infantry.

    The problems of the SU-122 are different; you partially write about them:
    1.SSSR tried on any technique for the role of a tank destroyer. It is in this role that the howitzer is, to put it mildly, not optimal.
    2. The SU-122 did not have a plus thing with a navigator - powerful frontal armor. The navigator’s forehead cabin is even stronger than the ISU. Therefore, the SU-122 was not suitable for assault guns. ISU, too, frankly, is not a stormtrooper, but even so.
    3. The Red Army was poorly skilled in mounted fire in general, and this machine in particular. Plus, the SU-122 were formed in the regiments of the RGK, and not to reinforce tank corps with mounted fire.

    Total - it is widely known that self-propelled howitzers were a hole in the tank and mechanized parts of the Red Army, but the only Soviet self-propelled howitzer (I do not think of artillery and KV-2) did not enter.
    1. Bongo
      19 June 2020 09: 24 New
      +8
      Hello! Thanks for the detailed comment, but I would like to emphasize. The article is devoted specifically to anti-tank capabilities, and not to the combat use of the 122 mm self-propelled guns in general.

      I do not presume to judge the presence of the A-19 after the launch of the ISU-122 in a series, but a number of sources say that in the beginning of 1944 there were a certain number of unclaimed 122 mm barrels in the warehouses.

      One can argue about the purely anti-tank orientation of the ISU-122, it is unlikely that the designers and command of the Red Army did not understand that the piston-locked gun could not compete in the fast-firing with the German tank 75-88-mm guns. In my purely amateurish opinion, the ISU-122 was originally intended to solve a wide range of problems. A sufficiently powerful OFS allowed to destroy long-term fortifications, and the presence of special sights - to fire from closed positions.

      In my opinion, instead of the SU-122 on the T-34 chassis, in 1942 it was worth creating an ACS armed with the 122-mm A-19 gun based on the KV. This machine would have more adequate security and firepower. As for conducting mounted fire, as far as I know at SU-122, this possibility was not considered initially. However, even those domestic self-propelled guns on which there were sights allowing firing from closed positions, did this extremely rarely. In the next part I will try to consider why this happened.

      Py.sy. I apologize for the crumpled answer. I am writing from the phone. Get to the computer today will not work. hi
      1. strannik1985
        strannik1985 19 June 2020 11: 39 New
        +1
        Regarding firing

        Technically, the SU-122 can shoot from the PDO - Hertz panorama, UVN up to +25 degrees, a range of up to 8 km allows. In practice, they shoot a lot and often with PDO, i.e. a large transportable b / c and / or the ability to supply shells from the ground, preferably a half-open BO (gas contamination), UVN like the "Pope" M-30, "artillery" staff.
        1. Octopus
          Octopus 19 June 2020 12: 20 New
          +2
          Yes. Therefore, the American Priest / Sexton, which seems to be a hefty barn with a small gun for such a size, is considered extremely successful self-propelled guns. Or a barn, or ground feed. This is the only way to ensure a full artillery raid.

          Quote: strannik1985
          In theory, the SU-122 are good as self-propelled guns in mobile connections

          Not good, that's the point. Look at the Shturpanzer, the forehead is 100mm at an angle, and that is. The problem with the layout of the T-34 was the inability to load the forehead.
          Quote: strannik1985
          the T-34 base is well suited for an ACS modeled on the Vespe or M7 Priest.

          Also so-so. Most of the proposals for Soviet self-propelled guns rested on too large, by the standards of Soviet industry, work on modifying the chassis. Theoretically, Grill could become the SU-76, but there is another misfortune: the Soviet 122 mm is much heavier than the German 105. So, apart from the ZiS-3 in the SPG format, there was nothing to offer a little more than 10 tons.
          1. strannik1985
            strannik1985 19 June 2020 13: 27 New
            +1
            Not good, that's just the point.

            At the T-34 level and much better than the SU-76 (one of the SAP in the TK / MK was easy, at the 76th). A thick forehead is the base of a heavy tank.
            Also so-so.

            It can be argued if experimental work was carried out in this direction. There is no problem to remake the BO to meet the above requirements on the model of the SU-122 or "deploy" like the SU-76. In fact, the role of the self-propelled guns was limited by the NPP, and for firing with the PDO, the LAP with 76-mm cannons and the mines with 120-mm mortars were introduced into the TC.
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 19 June 2020 17: 22 New
            +3
            Quote: Octopus
            In theory, Grille could have become the SU-76, but there’s another misfortune: the Soviet 122 mm is much heavier than the German 105. So, apart from the ZiS-3 in the SPG format, a little more than 10 tons was nothing to offer.

            As an option - a shotgun: 122 mm arr. 1910/30 or 152 mm arr. 1910/37.
            And get again SU-5but on a more adequate chassis. smile
            1. strannik1985
              strannik1985 19 June 2020 19: 26 New
              0
              As an option - a short barrel: 122 mm arr. 1910/30 or

              https://warspot.ru/12623-lyogkie-sau-s-bolshimi-pushkami
              Late, the test design of the installation of the 122-mm howitzer in the SU-76M chassis in terms of the work of the 3rd department of the USA GBTU KA for April - May 1944.
            2. Octopus
              Octopus 19 June 2020 19: 43 New
              +3
              Quote: Alexey RA
              again SU-5, but on a more adequate chassis

              I do not know what to say about the more adequate chassis. The USSR in a large series had a chassis for cars weighing 10 tons (T-26) and 15 tons (Kharkov) of the chassis. Translated into foreign money, these are both Hetzer, and grillers with grill and Vespe, and, say, Acher. What is Acher, it's Semovente da 75/18.

              But the Soviet Union was not so rich that it was wise to use cheap things. This returns to our long-standing conversation about the world in which the Soviet regime lived.

              Hello from Universal Carrier
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 19 June 2020 19: 57 New
                +3
                Quote: Octopus
                I do not know what to say about the more adequate chassis. The USSR in a large series had a chassis for cars weighing 10 tons (T-26) and 15 tons (Kharkov) of the chassis.

                T-26 is an adequate chassis for a machine weighing 6 tons. 10 tons is already overcoming. Remember the torment with the SU-5 - but they were made on an additionally reinforced chassis.
                The Kharkov chassis is 10-11 tons. But then immediately layout problems come out - candles, tanks, guitars. Plus the motor. BT-7A is the maximum adequate at this base. BT-42 - better left to the girls from Jatkosota. smile
                Quote: Octopus
                But the Soviet Union was not so rich that it was wise to use cheap things. This returns to our long-standing conversation about the world in which the Soviet regime lived.

                Just factories of the USSR could do only one thing. Or we redo the T-26 and BT - and then forget about the T-50 and T-34. Or we make T-50 and T-34, but at the same time we use areas, equipment and people from the T-26 and T-34 lines.
                Even the LKZ could not simultaneously capitalize with the T-28 shielding and produce KV: it came to the cancellation of the T-28 disassembled for the kapitalka because of the impossibility of reassembling them due to the lack of new parts in return recognized as defective.
                Transferring the production of spare parts for old tanks to Glavtraktorodetal and upgrading to repair plants did not give any result: the tractor drivers failed miserably, and repair plants without spare parts could not massively make tractors out of the T-26.
                1. Octopus
                  Octopus 19 June 2020 22: 15 New
                  -1
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  adequate chassis for a machine weighing 6 tons

                  Do you think the name "Vickers 6-ton" should hint at something?))
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  Just factories of the USSR could do only one thing. Or we redo the T-26 and BT - and then forget about the T-50 and T-34.

                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  Transferring the production of spare parts for old tanks to Glavtraktorodetal and upgrading to repair plants did not give any result: the tractor drivers failed miserably, and repair plants without spare parts could not massively make tractors out of the T-26.

                  And then it suddenly turns out that the effectively managed Soviet industry is not able to equip such a logistical complex mechanism as a tank division. That is, it can still rivet 100 thousand tanks, but equip all necessary even one division - no.

                  The tank division is the mechanized corps (not to be confused with the tank corps) of the 43rd year.
                  1. hohol95
                    hohol95 19 June 2020 22: 47 New
                    +2
                    That is, it can still rivet 100 thousand tanks, but to equip everything with at least one division - no.

                    How many automobile factories were there in the USSR?
                    And could they in their capacities provide at least the army not only with trucks, but also with special machines based on them?
                    Are trucks unnecessary for the civilian sector?
                    Oh yes, I completely forgot that before the October Revolution in RI hundreds of thousands of cars were produced for the needs of the country and the army at factories built in Moscow, Yaroslavl, Nizhny Novgorod, Minsk, Bryansk and somewhere else ...
                    And the evil Bolsheviks ruined everything. Herods!
                    And in the WWII army, the country supplied 100% with everything necessary.
                    From rifles to airplanes! From boots to armored cars!
                    1. Octopus
                      Octopus 20 June 2020 08: 35 New
                      -1
                      Quote: hohol95
                      Oh yes, I completely forgot that in the Republic of Ingushetia, before the October Revolution, hundreds of thousands of cars were produced for the needs of the country and the army

                      What are you doing? The idler Nikolai did not provide the Red Army with traction and aviation?
                      Quote: hohol95
                      And in the WWII army, the country supplied 100% with everything necessary.

                      Are you sure you are aware of the situation with the PMV army? 16th, for example, of the year?
                      1. hohol95
                        hohol95 20 June 2020 13: 57 New
                        +1
                        In 1916 there were only a lot of RI army, and in 1917 the army was simply tired of fighting ...
                        Do not forget about the presence and quantity of various plants in the USSR after the Civil and the availability of technical specialists and highly skilled workers.
                        Which in these factories could produce what was needed for the army.
                        And so, as with the workers, engineers, and most importantly the state of the factories was bad, and the army did not receive its own "Wishlist", but what the industry could really master.
                        And the choice between a tractor or a tank was made in favor of the tank.
                      2. Octopus
                        Octopus 20 June 2020 14: 10 New
                        0
                        Quote: hohol95
                        the choice between a tractor or a tank was made in favor of the tank.

                        Why do you need tanks without tractors? So that they reach the enemy without their artillery and infantry? And this with the famous review on the T-34?

                        Well, OK, go ahead.
                      3. hohol95
                        hohol95 21 June 2020 19: 07 New
                        0
                        And why did the People's Commissariat of Aircraft Industry need to take away a new engine production workshop from GAZ?
                        No engines - no all-wheel drive tractors!
              2. strannik1985
                strannik1985 20 June 2020 11: 31 New
                0
                And then suddenly it turns out

                These are different things:
                1. Could, in 1939 there were 4 mobile units (mechanized, and then tank corps), until they gained experience in more, they did not see the need.
                2. Technically, everything necessary to equip the movable joint on the model of the TC model 1943-1945 was, except for all-wheel drive vehicles and self-propelled guns. Could even do better, have not thought of.
                1. Octopus
                  Octopus 20 June 2020 13: 21 New
                  +2
                  Quote: strannik1985
                  mobile units in 1939 there were 4 pieces

                  On paper.
                  Quote: strannik1985
                  until they gained experience in more they did not see the need.

                  Are you talking about 29 state mechanized corps of the 41st year? Firstly, this is not a division at all, but an absurdly devastated tank brigade.
                  Secondly, these 29 mechanized corps were imaginary. Experience has shown that fighting the Wehrmacht with imaginary formations is not a good idea.

                  Quote: strannik1985
                  Technically, everything necessary to equip the movable joint on the model of the TC model 1943-1945 was, except for all-wheel drive vehicles and self-propelled guns.

                  Besides.

                  I have already written that the 43rd-year Soviet military corps was not a tank division, but a tank brigade close in staff to the pre-war ones. The 43rd year became the tank division, where finally the number of tank, rifle battalions and artillery was relatively balanced.

                  And for MK, the industry of the USSR could not give technology. This applies primarily to armored personnel carriers, mechanized artillery, as well as a bunch of auxiliary equipment.
                  1. strannik1985
                    strannik1985 20 June 2020 14: 49 New
                    0
                    On paper

                    Real, they participated in the battles of Khalkhin-Gol, the Polish campaign and the Special Forces.
                    Are you talking about 29 state mechanized corps of the 41st year?

                    If Hitler had planned to form 30 AKs (mot) instead of 10, he would have the same problems. Does this mean that German industry was weak?
                    6 motorized divisions - 6 MK - 8 MK and 2 separate TDs. They managed to equip and train them by the summer of 1941.
                    But

                    Then arr. 1942.
                    http://tankfront.ru/ussr/doc/gko/gko_2791ss.html
                    The TC of the GKO Decree of January 28, 1943 is a normal connection, differs from MK in the ratio of TBr / MSBr.
                    And for MK, the industry of the USSR could not give technology.

                    German TDs successfully attacked with 1 company of motorized infantry on armored personnel carriers, EMNIP 2 divisions in the summer of 1941 each had a battalion. Soviet MK / TK, again successfully attacked with 20-30 armored personnel carriers on the entire connection.
                    Mechanical artillery - 82/120-mm mortars and 76-mm guns (real, in a 3-corps TA by November 1944 on a staff of 242 82-mm, 140 120-mm mortars, 194 76-mm guns) or sprung and put wheels from F-22 to 122 mm howitzer arr. 1910/30.
                    Auxiliary equipment was enough to provide 6-8 MK, as originally wanted.
                  2. Octopus
                    Octopus 20 June 2020 15: 14 New
                    +1
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    Real, they participated in the battles of Khalkhin-Gol, the Polish campaign and the Special Forces.

                    A long conversation, as they showed themselves there. And as the commanders of the Red Army, including Tymoshenko and Zhukov, showed themselves regarding the use of tanks.
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    If Hitler had planned to form 30 AKs (mot) instead of 10, he would have the same problems.

                    Yes.
                    Problems with adequacy.
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    Does this mean that German industry was weak?

                    German industry certainly had its problems, is this news?
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    8 MK and 2 separate APs. They managed to equip and train them by the summer of 1941.

                    As you know, this is an alternative story.
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    differs from MK in the ratio of TBr / MSBr.

                    Yes. Therefore, the mk of the 43rd year is overdone, it is too tank. Panzer Division - a compound capable of independently to conduct hostilities in the depths of the enemy’s defense - he is not. Less than 10 thousand people for 200+ cars is a team.

                    Still a brigade. 43rd year.
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    Then arr. 1942.

                    By reference, the document of the 43rd year, it seems.
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    Soviet MK / TK, again successfully attacked with 20-30 armored personnel carriers on the entire connection.
                    Mechanical artillery - 82/120-mm mortars and 76-mm guns (real, in a 3-corps TA by November 1944 on a staff of 242 82-mm, 140 120-mm mortars, 194 76-mm guns) or sprung and put wheels from F-22 to 122 mm howitzer arr. 1910/30.

                    Are you fantasizing or describing real events?

                    In real life in the 43rd year, an armored personnel carrier is usually a Scout, or even a truck at all, and the mech hitch of everything that is heavier than the ZiS-3 is a half-man. By the way, you didn’t notice that the artillery you listed is not a little corps, or even divisional by the standards of WWII? The Soviet hull duplex is the A-19 / ML-20, I recall.
                  3. strannik1985
                    strannik1985 20 June 2020 15: 44 New
                    0
                    A long conversation, as they showed themselves there.

                    Not relevant to the topic - they were.
                    German industry certainly had its problems, is this news?

                    No, everyone had a problem.
                    As you know, this is an alternative story.

                    https://paul-atrydes.livejournal.com/139869.html
                    Less than 10 thousand people for 200+ cars - this is a team.

                    TK arr. 1945 - 11 788 people, 207 medium tanks, 21 heavy tanks, 42 self-propelled guns.
                    Are you fantasizing or describing real events?

                    76 mm cannons and mortars are real, the howitzer 1910/30 has a weight of 1460 kg in combat position, i.e. it will calmly carry away the regular Zis-5. The problem is not in industry, but in the brain.
                    By the way, you noticed that the artillery you listed

                    Of course, there is no mass medium-caliber artillery high-speed tractor in the spacecraft, therefore the quality was compensated by the quantity, not counting 20 BS-3 in the TA LABR (Y-12 or M2).
                    Yes, the industry does not allow direct copying of Wehrmacht TDs, but there are solutions, they must be reached.
                  4. Octopus
                    Octopus 20 June 2020 16: 32 New
                    +1
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    they were.

                    What were they? Above, I called the brigade of shopping mall, where 200 tanks for 10 almost thousand people. In MK 35, there are 400 cars, there are less than 9 thousand people.

                    Enlarged team.
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    https://paul-atrydes.livejournal.com/139869.html

                    Yeah. But in real life they broke what was, and outlined some kind of game.
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    TK arr. 1945 - 11 788 people, 207 medium tanks, 21 heavy tanks, 42 self-propelled guns.

                    You wrote about the 43rd year. Naturally, the whole war was overgrown with meat. But no matter how much this brigade feeds, it will not become a division.
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    76 mm cannons and mortars are real, the howitzer 1910/30 has a weight of 1460 kg in combat position, i.e. it will calmly carry away the regular Zis-5. The problem is not in industry, but in the brain.

                    That's it. Instead of real you offer some ersatz-solutions that now seem right to you.
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    not counting 20 BS-3

                    So when was it already? By the way, I remind you that in the world where the command of the Red Army of the 41st lived, the divisions were M-30 and even M-10, and not ZiS-3 at all. This is the German format of the division art, which the Americans have taken. Not the most successful, in my opinion.
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    Yes, the industry does not allow direct copying of Wehrmacht TDs, but there are solutions, they must be reached.

                    They didn’t get to the exits.

                    We got to the point of abandoning mechanical connections for deep operations and did not go back to the brigades that actually propped up the infantry. NPP tanks.

                    To create truly mechanized compounds, it was required to plug holes in the Lend-Lease nomenclature. And then, this is not immediately understood.
                  5. strannik1985
                    strannik1985 20 June 2020 17: 06 New
                    0
                    What were they?

                    Compounds since consisted of brigades, with t.z. industry - staffed with what the military requested.
                    You wrote about the 43rd year.

                    "Meat" was expressed in the rejection of LT, the addition of two SAP (one was later replaced by OTP) and one LAP.
                    That's it.

                    This is what industry can do.
                    Oh yes, another 122 mm artillery system - self-propelled guns on the T-34 chassis.
                    So this is when it was.

                    LABR was introduced into the TA from September 1944.
                    They didn’t get to the exits.

                    Namely, experience (which was not) or theoretical experience is needed. LL did not give anything fundamentally new.
                  6. Octopus
                    Octopus 20 June 2020 17: 30 New
                    0
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    Compounds since consisted of brigades, with t.z. industry - staffed with what the military requested.

                    I think you understand my idea.
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    "Meat" was expressed in the rejection of LT, the addition of two SAP (one was later replaced by OTP) and one LAP.

                    The meat was expressed in an increase in number from 9,6 to 11,8 thousand people.
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    Oh yes, another 122 mm artillery system - self-propelled guns on the T-34 chassis.

                    Actually, this is discussed in the text under discussion. Art SPGs entered the regiments of the RGK. Not in the enclosure.
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    LABR was introduced into the TA from September 1944.

                    Ugums.
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    Namely, experience (which was not) or theoretical experience is needed. LL did not give anything fundamentally new.

                    Ugums. And the equipment for these "theoretical developments", those classes that were produced in the USSR since 50, appeared at the behest of a pike.
                  7. strannik1985
                    strannik1985 20 June 2020 18: 01 New
                    0
                    I think you understand my idea.

                    I understood and did not understand, I do not understand the qualitative boundary of the transition from brigade to division.
                    The meat was expressed in the growth of numbers

                    The number of combat battalions remained unchanged - 9/7 (including motorcycle).
                    Art SPGs entered the regiments of the RGK.

                    I'm not about those.
                    https://numer140466.livejournal.com/51809.html
                    Howitzer self-propelled gun mount SU-122.
                    Ugums. And the technique for these "technical developments", those classes that in the USSR

                    Trucks 6x6, 6x4? There is Gas-AAA and Zis-6, and the dry, hot summer of 1941 is not a problem.
                  8. Octopus
                    Octopus 20 June 2020 18: 38 New
                    +1
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    I understood and did not understand, I do not understand the qualitative boundary of the transition from brigade to division.

                    The division should move armor, artillery and infantry in a coordinated manner. Next is the formation of military commands, but this is not at all about the Red Army.
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    The number of combat battalions remained unchanged.

                    OK, I won’t argue. So, the mk did not come close to the format of the division.
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    https://numer140466.livejournal.com/51809.html
                    Howitzer self-propelled gun mount SU-122.

                    So she is gone. What we are talking about?
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    Trucks 6x6, 6x4?

                    BTR and half geese.
                  9. strannik1985
                    strannik1985 20 June 2020 19: 09 New
                    0
                    The division should move armor, artillery and infantry in a coordinated manner.

                    It seems to me that you confuse the qualitative and quantitative characteristics, the TK could do all this, but for example, it had few field artillery (with a battery of 76 mm cannons and 122 mm howitzers), infantry was better (7 tank battalions for 5 rifle and rifle - machine guns ), but there are a lot of tanks (490-463) for the supply service with trucks with a carrying capacity of 1,5-2,5 tons (in the Customs Code of 1945, there were 270 armored objects, but 182 different artillery barrels).
                    OK, I won’t argue.

                    Everyone has the right to their own personal opinion.
                    So she is gone.

                    About the possibilities of industry.
                    Armored personnel carrier and half geese

                    Armored personnel carriers are optional (see Polish and French companies of the Wehrmacht), half geese - tractors are replaced by Zis-6 / Gas-AAA, Zis-5.
                  10. Octopus
                    Octopus 20 June 2020 19: 18 New
                    +1
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    It seems to me that you confuse the qualitative and quantitative characteristics,

                    Take OSH American or German td.
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    About the possibilities of industry.

                    What is the thesis? My thesis was that the Soviet industry of the 40s could not provide tank divisions with an adequate range of equipment. Not could, but in fact did not provide.
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    Armored personnel carriers are optional

                    As you say.
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    Tractors are replaced by ZIS-6 / Gas-AAA, ZIS-5.

                    Do you know which trucks were in the Wehrmacht 40?
                    And your ZiS-5 will have the ML-20 off-road pull? Oh well.
                  11. strannik1985
                    strannik1985 20 June 2020 19: 37 New
                    0
                    Take OSH American or German td.

                    To directly copy, you need to have German or American industry, it is not, but there is a TK / MK arr. 1944-1945.
                    What is the thesis?

                    It cannot because the request is inadequate to the capabilities of the industry. This does not mean the impossibility of creating a mobile connection in the 30s.
                    As you say.

                    In the standard rifle brigade TD Wehrmacht exactly 19 armored personnel carriers. Amendment - the state armored rifle regiment had 118 armored personnel carriers, but there were exactly 3 - 1st and 113th in 1 AP and 69th in 10 AP.
                    And your ZiS-5 will have the ML-20 off-road pull?

                    And why do you need the ML-20?
                  12. Octopus
                    Octopus 20 June 2020 19: 41 New
                    +1
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    you need to have German or American industry, it is not

                    Uh-huh.
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    there is TK / MK arr. 1944-1945.

                    Yeah. After the appearance of massLL.
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    And why do you need the ML-20?

                    And what does the USSR have from art? ZiS-3?
                  13. strannik1985
                    strannik1985 20 June 2020 19: 51 New
                    -1
                    Yeah. After the appearance of mass

                    Can you tell me where GAZ-AA and Zis-5 went?
                    And what does the USSR have from art? Zis-3?

                    USV, mortars, during modernization (the simplest is suspension and main battery wheels) cannon model 02/30, howitzers 10/30 and 09/37. And the funny thing is that there is a heavy tractor in the Red Army - "Voroshilovets".
                  14. Octopus
                    Octopus 20 June 2020 19: 57 New
                    +1
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    And the funny thing is that there is a heavy tractor in the Red Army - "Voroshilovets".

                    Unfortunately, serious shortcomings were noted, confirmed by the subsequent operation of the Voroshilovites in the troops. The caterpillar design turned out to be unsuccessful - in addition to its low coupling capabilities, when wet snow got into the nests of the leading stars, it often fell. Failure of the main clutch could happen after 200 - 300 hours of work. There were frequent, especially on tractors of the first series, breakdown of driven shafts and gears of the second group of multipliers. After 300 - 400 hours of operation, wear of bearings of the leading gears of final drives was noted. The seals of the units leaked (a traditional defect of the KhPZ machines), pipelines burst from vibrations initiated by a powerful diesel engine. When creating a large pulling force, there were cases of extension of the rear trailer hook, and when driving on hard bumps, the lower frame trim often bent and broke, which exacerbated the already poor protection of the tractor from below. According to drivers, the winch was inconvenient to use. The intractable task was the cold start of the V-2V diesel engine at low (-20 ° C and lower) temperatures. The procedure with its multiple heating and pouring water and oil often dragged on for 3 to 4 hours. At the same time, electric starters almost didn’t “pull”, and the use of an air start sometimes had the opposite effect, since the compressed air supplied to the cylinders was supercooled during expansion (up to frost) and did not allow to reach a temperature of 550 - 600 ° C, sufficient for self-ignition of the fuel. The inevitable and rapid wear of the hinges of the undercarriage, especially the bushings of the suspension axles, was the result of insufficient lubrication and poor dirt protection. Particularly unreliable were the primitive labyrinth seals of the bearings of the support rollers, supporting rollers and guide wheels. In particular, in order to reduce wear and prevent breakdowns of the roller bearings of the track rollers when driving on liquid and deep mud, into which they were sometimes completely submerged, they had to be disassembled, washed and copiously lubricated almost every day, which not only sharply increased the complexity of servicing the tractor in field conditions, but also did not allow to make this operation qualitatively. Surprisingly, at the KhPZ, little attention was paid to the sealing of bearing assemblies - a tradition that has also switched to the T-34 tank (on the principle of “and so it will do”). All these shortcomings of the Voroshilovets tractor were compounded by the almost complete inaccessibility of the mechanisms for servicing and repairing directly in the troops, however, then the exploiters somehow learned to get out of the situation. By the way, in connection with these shortcomings, the production of Voroshilov’s workers, which was interrupted by evacuation and war, did not resume further.
                    At the end of 1939, production began (bench assembly) of Voroshilovites, which averaged up to one and a half cars a day. By the end of August 1941, before the evacuation of the plant in Nizhny Tagil, 1123 of them were released (on June 22 there were 800 vehicles in the army, but by July 1 this number had increased due to mobilization to 975), and since July, the assembly rate has increased significantly - up to 3-4 cars per day.

                    Quote: strannik1985
                    Where did Gas-AA and Zis-5 go?

                    Nowhere, they are useless. This is not even an Opel Blitz.
                  15. strannik1985
                    strannik1985 20 June 2020 20: 23 New
                    0
                    Machines without flaws do not happen in principle.
                    Nowhere, they are useless.

                    Will you argue?
                  16. Octopus
                    Octopus 20 June 2020 20: 46 New
                    +2
                    And what is there to argue? No, they are better than horse-drawn traction, I will not argue. But here it is

                    ZiS-5.

                    Accustomed to this technique, Soviet people believed that this

                    Good army truck. In fact, this is nothing more than a simplified commercial vehicle.

                    I emphasize that an army truck of special construction of the early 40s looks like this.


                    Diesel, four-wheel drive, single-wheel drive, independent suspension.

                    This is very far from what the USSR could afford
                  17. strannik1985
                    strannik1985 20 June 2020 21: 41 New
                    +1
                    This is very far from what the USSR could afford.

                    What army are you taking as an example now?
                    For example, in the supply service of the Wehrmacht TD there are practically no cars with four-wheel drive or two-wheel drive, the usual 4x2 mobilization.
                    6x4 / 6x6 is already a base for special chassis. This is 1.
                    2. There is no such problem in the summer of 1941.
                  18. Octopus
                    Octopus 20 June 2020 21: 59 New
                    +2
                    Specifically, the bottom car is the Swiss, Saurer M8 of the 44th year.

                    As for the Wehrmacht, then in the 41st year their army truck -

                    But also SdKfz 251

                    It is made since the 39th year.
                  19. strannik1985
                    strannik1985 21 June 2020 10: 32 New
                    0
                    It is made since the 39th year.

                    AND? This will be a problem in the fall, but not in the summer of 1941 or 1939.
                  20. Octopus
                    Octopus 21 June 2020 13: 16 New
                    +1
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    This will be a problem in the fall, but not in the summer of 1941 or 1939.

                    What can you do, the summer of the 41st is too short. More importantly, the depth of the blitzkrieg cannot be more than 500 km. Confident users of the ruler and arithmometer from Halder’s headquarters knew this beforehand, at the planning stage of Gelba and Barbarossa, Marshall’s employees who did not have such intellectual capabilities found out experimentally during the autumn crisis of '44.
                  21. strannik1985
                    strannik1985 21 June 2020 16: 01 New
                    0
                    What can you do, the summer of '41 is too short.

                    In real life, in the fall and winter of 1941, they fought on the same technique, only as part of various consolidated, impromptu groups.
                    More importantly, the depth of the blitzkrieg cannot be more than 500 km.

                    The Germans (Wisla Oder) and the Japanese (Manchu operations) do not agree with you. Depends on the enemy, more precisely on his forces and organization.
                  22. Octopus
                    Octopus 21 June 2020 17: 11 New
                    0
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    Germans (Wisla Oder)

                    That's just that.
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    Manchurian operations

                    There was no such operation, it is fiction.
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    In real life, in the fall - winter of 1941 they fought on the same equipment,

                    You have not forgotten what we are arguing about?
                  23. strannik1985
                    strannik1985 21 June 2020 18: 24 New
                    0
                    That's just that.

                    1 TA - 610 km, 2 TA - 705, 3 TA - 480, 4 TA - 400 km.
                    There was no such operation

                    The depth of the operation, which was not 820 km.
                    You have not forgotten what we are arguing about?

                    I have not forgotten, can you tell me in what operations of the fall - winter of 1941 the factor of insufficient patency of Soviet equipment played a decisive, negative role?
                  24. Octopus
                    Octopus 21 June 2020 20: 22 New
                    0
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    The depth of the operation, which was not 820 km.

                    Although 1800. On the 10th, Japan announced the adoption of the Potsdam Declaration, on the 14th there was a decree of the Emperor.
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    1 TA - 610 km, 2 TA - 705

                    This refers to the length of the supply arm a / t.
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    did the factor of insufficient patency of soviet technology play any decisive, negative role?

                    The meaning of the dispute is lost.
                    hi
                  25. strannik1985
                    strannik1985 22 June 2020 11: 19 New
                    0
                    At least 1800.

                    At least 10 decrees, he should reach the troops, Otoda gave his order on the 16th and then not all surrendered, the battles continued until the 19th, and most importantly - the KVA did not have large reserves left to somehow seriously affect 6 TA.
                    This refers to the length of the supply arm a / t.

                    This distance is in a straight line, for example, the rear of 3 TA in the Wisło - Oder operation is 350 km behind, but the army itself changed the direction of the attack three times
                    The meaning of the dispute is lost.

                    And then it suddenly turns out that the effectively managed Soviet industry is not capable of equipping such a logistically complex mechanism as a tank division.
                    From what?
                  26. Octopus
                    Octopus 22 June 2020 12: 31 New
                    0
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    From what?

                    From what you prove "it is not strong and you need this mechanization."
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    the army itself changed direction three times

                    This is clear. Like the rest.
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    battles continued until the 19th

                    Scattered fights.

                    If you read Vine, then you are aware of the situation of KVA of the sample of August 45th, from materiel to general situation. And I mean the episode of anti-tank kamikaze.
                  27. strannik1985
                    strannik1985 22 June 2020 12: 54 New
                    0
                    From what you prove "it is not strong and you need this mechanization."

                    Well, why juggle? Not mechanization, but patency.
                    1. Even the Germans in 1941 were unable to land combat and TD control units on all-terrain vehicles (at least a la US 6).
                    2. The patency factor in the summer of 1941 is not relevant.
                    3. It’s not my fault that you cannot indicate how much the cross-country ability of the equipment affected the road course in the fall and winter of 1941.
                    And I mean the episode of anti-tank kamikaze.

                    He wrote - it depends on the enemy.
  8. Yellow bubble
    Yellow bubble 24 July 2020 22: 09 New
    0
    Studer fully soldier commercial cab only.
  9. Octopus
    Octopus 25 July 2020 14: 03 New
    0
    Actually, I've attached pictures. By the way, the Englishman looked like this


    I see that even pictures do not help.

    In the N1 automobile power during WWII, full-fledged army trucks were not produced. For an elementary reason: people with a sufficient technical outlook to formulate a TTZ for an army truck could not get into a leadership job in the American Army even by accident.

    The main American truck, the GMC CCKW, is the American version of the compromise vehicle, ideologically analogous to the Opel Blitz. What is a real army truck - google the same Saurer or Einheitsdiesel.
  10. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 21 June 2020 00: 27 New
    +1
    Quote: strannik1985
    And the funny thing is that there is a heavy tractor in the Red Army - "Voroshilovets".

    In theory.
    In practice, however:
    Peacetime Need:
    Voroshilovets ST-2 and the Comintern - 16635
    ChTZ-60, 65 and STZ-3-5 - 28661
    Komsomolets - 4256
    Total: 49552

    Availability on 15.06.41/XNUMX/XNUMX:
    Voroshilovets ST-2 and the Comintern - 2601

    ChTZ-60, 65 and STZ-3-5 - 33658
    Komsomolets - 6672
    Total: 42931

    Lack of wartime on 15.06.41/XNUMX/XNUMX:
    Voroshilovets ST-2 and the Comintern - 25436
    ChTZ-60, 65 and STZ-3-5 - 27120
    Komsomolets - +903
    Total: 51653

    Lack of peacetime on 15.06.41/XNUMX/XNUMX:
    Voroshilovets ST-2 and the Comintern - 14034
    ChTZ-60, 65 and STZ-3-5 - +4997
    Komsomolets - +2416
    Total: 6621
    © Fedorenko
    As a result, the Voroshilovtsev GABTU was only enough for the first 8 MK. And this is not for everyone - from some of the "autumn" MKs, only corps repair parts received them, and divisional ones were left with dashes in the "availability" column. For in addition to the GABTU "Voroshilovtsy", GAU was also required.
  11. Octopus
    Octopus 21 June 2020 01: 59 New
    +2
    Quote: Alexey RA
    As a result - GABTU "Voroshilovtsev" was enough only for the first 8 MK

    The well-known Mr. Isaev, who, when enlisted in the grub of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, handed over remnants of conscience to the first department for signature, once claimed that the Red Army before LL was fully provided with traction. In the form of STZ-5

    Details
    “We have in the artillery of the STZ-5 tractor, which delay movement. Our artillery, armed with these tractors, has little mobility and lags behind wheeled vehicles and tank units. (From the Presidium: 30 km per hour). M. G. Khatskilevich: theoretically this is so, but practically he does not give such speed. (From the Presidium: He does not pull this system.) M. G. Khatskilevich: “Yes, he does not pull this system”


    Alexey Valerievich did not load.
  12. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 21 June 2020 12: 03 New
    +1
    Quote: Octopus
    The well-known Mr. Isaev, who, when enlisted in the grub of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, handed over remnants of conscience to the first department for signature, once claimed that the Red Army before LL was fully provided with traction. In the form of STZ-5

    STZ-5? Mwa ha ha!
    Deputy Head of the Main Artillery Directorate of the Red Army
    Colonel-General of Artillery Comrade Voronova
    9th of June 1941

    It was assumed that the STZ-5 tractor will be a universal type of tractor that meets both the requirements of agriculture and transport, as well as the requirements for an artillery tractor.
    On the very first samples of the tractor, the plant was convinced that the created machine does not meet any of the listed requirements.
    Since there was no tractor in the Red Army for divisional artillery, in spite of the fact that the STZ-5 tractor did not pass a single polygon test, it was necessary to use this tractor in the Red Army as a temporary measure until a new tractor appeared, fully meeting the new requirements of NPOs.
    The STZ-5 tractor, neither in terms of its dynamic qualities, nor in the convenience of its service, nor in its reliability, meets the requirements for the divisional artillery tractor in any way and urgently requires a large number of changes covering the entire tractor structure ...
    Division artillery does not have an appropriate tractor that meets its tactical and technical data and requirements.

    © Deputy. Major Ivanov
    And this is also a censorship version of what the "end users" thought about STZ-5.
    The uncut version "was spoken in person to the representatives of the STZ at a meeting of designers with representatives of the army at the STZ in April 1941:
    ... take this tractor and try to work with the gun: it does not pull the required weight of the gun, the power as a military machine is small ... slow motion, barbaric conditions for the driver in the cab completely depreciate this tractor. And if this car is left as a transport and as a means of transporting goods, then it also does not fit the load capacity ... The army needs three-ton machines, and if it is a one and a half ton, then the army will not work either ... There is a unique number of shortcomings on all your transport vehicles ... The maximum speed of this car is 8 km / h, but it usually does 6 km / h ... the car does not pull itself at 4th speed ... if I got into a fighting position, and then I need a position change immediately, and I need 40 minutes to just start the tractor ...

    Dedicated - this is the question of the use of triaxial GAS. No one and a half army.
  13. Octopus
    Octopus 21 June 2020 13: 31 New
    +1
    Quote: Alexey RA
    The maximum speed of this car is 8 km / h, but usually it does 6 km / h ... the car itself does not pull at 4th speed

    How so!!!??

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%A2%D0%97-5-%D0%9D%D0%90%D0%A2%D0%98

    Written 22 km / h

    (crying).


    Seriously, you need to work with sources on WWII very carefully, even with the primary, not to mention memoirs. On the one hand, Soviet industry and its features are known to us, the elderly, in general terms. In the 40s, obviously, everything was still much worse, the difficult legacy of tsarism, that's all.


    On the other hand, there is Rotmistrov, a professor of tank science, who brought the wrong tanks to Prokhorovka. So it’s not easy. Not only none of our things Manstein liked to talk about lost victories.
  14. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 21 June 2020 12: 17 New
    +1
    Yes, I almost forgot. All quotes are from Ulanov A.A., Shein D.V. Order in tank troops.
    What would we do without kris-reid and litl-bro ... smile
  15. strannik1985
    strannik1985 21 June 2020 11: 03 New
    0
    As a result, the Voroshilovtsev GABTU was only enough for the first 8 MK.

    As far as I know, Voroshilovtsev (40 and 4 T-20 in TD) were not used as artillery tractors, for this there were STZ-5 (39 in the state, in MD 39 Cominterns, 27 T-20 and 68 STZ-5 ).
    We return to the requests of the military, no one could form ~ 90 mobile units in a short time.
  16. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 21 June 2020 12: 14 New
    +1
    Quote: strannik1985
    As far as I know, Voroshilovtsev (40 and 4 T-20 in TD) were not used as artillery tractors, for this there were STZ-5 (39 in the state, in MD 39 Cominterns, 27 T-20 and 68 STZ-5 ).

    So I did not write about the MK artillery. The "Voroshilovtsy" were badly needed by MK for something else - in the repair divisions they were used for collecting for SPAM and towing slow-moving heavy tanks at the railway station.
    Without "Voroshilovtsev", repairmen with slow-moving HFs began the hellish Kama Sutra - one of them, for example, dragged nine S-65s for a whole day at a distance of 30 km to the nearest station.
    Quote: strannik1985
    We return to the requests of the military, no one could form ~ 90 mobile units in a short time.

    So we now know about the short time. And in 1941, all sources insisted that the Reich would first deal with Britain, and only then pay attention to the USSR - so that the USSR has one or two peaceful years, and MK can be trained and coordinated, gradually saturating them with technology and reducing staff (teachings September 1941).
  17. strannik1985
    strannik1985 21 June 2020 15: 27 New
    0
    So I did not write about MK artillery.

    The nuance is that the HF, and the T-34 in the summer of 1941, are still not suitable for mobile connections.
    A TD modeled on model 1944-1945 just does not need so many heavy tractors.
    So we now know about the short time.

    Even then they knew about the timing of the formation, it was not for nothing that the supply of equipment to the corps until 1943 inclusive was scheduled. In the presence of "their own", long-run structure (which will show itself well at Khalkhin Gol and in the Polish campaign), it is unlikely that they will begin to copy the German or "stamp" the 29 MK from February 1941.
  18. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 21 June 2020 00: 21 New
    +1
    Quote: strannik1985
    Trucks 6x6, 6x4? There is Gas-AAA and Zis-6, and the dry, hot summer of 1941 is not a problem.

    In theory. And as it comes to real history, it turns out right away:
    - industry can produce for the most part only one and a half;
    - Three-axle trucks are not enough even for severely deficient PARMs and other special vehicles.
    The release of NCOs of motor vehicles, and in particular, cargo VMS, has so far been insufficient. With an annual application of NPOs in 93450 vehicles, of which GAZ - 40785, ZIS - 43205, others - 9550 or 66,5% of the total production - 140000 cars per year.
    For five months, delivered: 27633 vehicles or 29,5% of the annual application of NPOs.
    The shortage of vehicles at the request of the NPO did not make it possible to provide motorized events organized by the Army.
    The supply of the Red Army with special vehicles is limited, on the one hand, by a shortage of special equipment (machines, tools, etc.), and on the other hand, by 3-axle vehicles, on which about 50% of all types of special vehicles are mounted.
    The planned transfer of a number of special vehicles to trailers today is not provided with the necessary release of the corresponding types of trailers.
    Existing terrain vehicles on the army’s supply do not meet modern requirements, it is necessary:
    1. Organize mass production of passenger cars and off-road trucks with 2 and 3 drive axles.
    2. To work in the rear of the army for the delivery of goods, some cars should be produced with a carrying capacity of 6-10 tons.
    3. To increase the supply of ZIS trucks to 70-80% of the total number of trucks delivered by NPOs, since the shortage in the Red Army is mainly due to this type of vehicles, the replacement of which by GAZ trucks is impractical due to an increase in the driving force and rear military units.
    © Head of the Main Armored Directorate of the Red Army, Lieutenant General of Tank Troops Fedorenko. June 1941

    Moreover, despite the last paragraph of the quote, the State Academic Technical University still had to replace ZIS with GAZ 1: 1 - because the production of ZISs did not increase the industry. And ZIS-6, a few months after the outbreak of war, was generally discontinued.
  19. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 21 June 2020 00: 13 New
    +1
    Quote: strannik1985
    Real, they participated in the battles of Khalkhin-Gol, the Polish campaign and the Special Forces.

    In the Polish campaign, the MK of the 30s proved itself in all its glory, causing, perhaps, more damage to the rear of its troops than to the enemy. At first, the building scored all the roads with equipment, and then stood up without fuel.
    I had to transport fuel for 5 microns in the air in Belarus (Comrade Kovalev knows). It’s good that there was no one to fight with. On the roads from Novogrudok to Volkovysk, 75 percent of the tanks were due to fuel. The commander said that he can send fuel only on airplanes, and who will organize?
    © Budyonny
  20. strannik1985
    strannik1985 21 June 2020 11: 24 New
    0
    In the Polish campaign MK 30s showed themselves in all its glory

    Because the MK of the 30s was approximately equivalent in capabilities to a tank division, and the tasks of the corps were hung on it, not guessing to give the army group an automobile brigade, MK could organize transportation for ~ 100 km on its own, and then they got up, so we had to carry fuel and lubricants by air / collect trophy fuel / create consolidated battle groups on the remains of fuel. A similar situation was with 6 Guards TA in 1945, only the scope of the operation was different.
    In TA arr. 1944-1945 for these purposes there were up to 4 separate auto battalions or an automobile regiment, in AK (mot) the headquarters of the supply service, and in TGr up to 7-8 separate transport battalions / companies.
    https://imf.forum24.ru/?1-6-0-00000009-000-20-1
  • maximghost
    maximghost 22 June 2020 18: 52 New
    0
    2. The SU-122 did not have a plus thing with a navigator - powerful frontal armor. The navigator’s forehead cabin is even stronger than the ISU. Therefore, the SU-122 was not suitable for assault guns. ISU, too, frankly, is not a stormtrooper, but even so.

    Not good, that's the point. Look at the Sturpanzer, forehead 100mm at an angle

    I would like to ask that you poke everywhere with this navigator, is he your relative?
    To begin with, it would be nice to say that a stunspanner means a brumbar. He is the Sturpunzer IV. Because besides him, there were also navigators I and II.
    Secondly - this very navigator is not the most common car. And even more so, not the most trouble-free.
    2. The SU-122 did not have a plus thing with a navigator - powerful frontal armor. The navigator’s forehead cabin is even stronger than the ISU. Therefore, the SU-122 was not suitable for assault guns. ISU, too, frankly, is not a stormtrooper, but even so.

    The front armor of the Su-122 is comparable to the armor of the T-34 (get a slightly smaller privenka from around the corner).
    And it is larger (according to the given value) of the armor of short-barreled pieces and a little less than the pron-thing and long-barreled pieces.

    Your arguments are especially interesting against the background of the fact that the Su-76 was actually used (and very successfully) as a light, but assault gun.
    1. Octopus
      Octopus 22 June 2020 19: 41 New
      0
      Quote: maximghost
      what do you poke everywhere with this navigator, is he your relative?

      My dad is Studebaker. Not Loren-Dietrich, please do not confuse.
      Quote: maximghost
      the navigator is not the most common car. And even more so, not the most trouble-free.

      Of course, 28 tons for a 3/4 chassis is a bit much. And I poke them because this is the idea of ​​an assault gun, raised to the absolute. And on the instrument, and on the armor of the forehead.
      Quote: maximghost
      The front armor of the Su-122 is comparable to the armor of the T-34 (get a slightly smaller privenka from around the corner).

      That is, anti-fragmentation according to the realities of the 43rd year.
      Quote: maximghost
      it is larger (according to the given value) than the armor of short-barreled pieces and a little less than pronichi thing and long-barreled pieces.

      Uh-huh.

      But instead of this long wording, it is enough to write "German assault guns of the year 43". The meaning will change a little, won't it?

      In addition, there is one nuance. There in PTO Pak-40 and Pak 36 (p), and here in PTZ ZiS-3 the most difficult. This is not the same thing.
      Quote: maximghost
      The su-76 was actually used (and very successfully) as a light, but assault gun.

      Extremely NOT successfully it was used as an assault gun. But better than the T-70 and the same ZiS-3 on manual traction, of course.
      1. maximghost
        maximghost 22 June 2020 20: 09 New
        0
        But instead of this long wording, it is enough to write "German assault guns of the year 43". The meaning will change a little, won't it?

        Maybe so) Just a long wording immediately cuts off part of the debate, kmk.
        That is, anti-fragmentation according to the realities of the 43rd year.

        Strong exaggeration. for more information - see below.
        In addition, there is one nuance. There in PTO Pak-40 and Pak 36 (p), and here in PTZ ZiS-3 the most difficult. This is not the same thing.

        Pak-40, in 42 years, it was made all the order of one and a half thousand pieces, which is not so much for the scale of the eastern front, and therefore it was not omnipresent. In addition to pack 40, at the front there were many pack 36 (beater) and pack 38. In addition to them there were also trophies from previous campaigns (the same former French guns). In addition to all this, infantry guns could act as anti-tank equipment. Well, the Wehrmacht had allies who were armed significantly worse than him.
        Very unsuccessfully, it was used as an assault gun

        Judging by the monographs, as soon as the su-76s ceased to be sent to enemy guns in the forehead, ahead of the infantry, the number of losses fell sharply and the drying won love and adoration of the infantry. So, kmk, the use of their role as a light assault gun was very successful.

        And I poke them because this is the idea of ​​an assault gun, raised to the absolute. And on the instrument, and on the armor of the forehead.

        But, at the same time, kmk, the navigator 4 is less successful as an assault gun than shtug and stuff. Although the role of him, kmk, is somewhat different.
        1. Octopus
          Octopus 22 June 2020 22: 21 New
          0
          Quote: maximghost
          Just a long wording cuts off some of the controversy right away

          The guns of the 43rd year you will not fit the early Shtug.
          Quote: maximghost
          at the front there were many Pak 36 (beater) and Pak 38. In addition to them, there were also trophies from previous campaigns (the same former French guns). In addition to all this, infantry guns could act as anti-tank equipment.

          All this armor is "comparable to the armor of the T-34 (it turns out a little less" it penetrates, except for the beater. The 7,5 cm leIG 18 infantry gun also penetrates, it has a godfather.
          Quote: maximghost
          Well, the Wehrmacht had allies who were armed significantly worse than him.

          You are talking about a rare machine regiments RGK.
          Quote: maximghost
          as soon as the su-76 ceased to send on enemy guns in the forehead,

          That is, they stopped using it as an assault gun.
          Quote: maximghost
          So, kmk, using their role as a light assault gun

          In the role of a mechanized gun. An assault gun works with armor too.
          Quote: maximghost
          guns were very successful.

          Yes, a successful car for the USSR, it is a pity that it is so late.
          Quote: maximghost
          the navigator 4 is less successful as an assault gun than shtug and pieces.

          Little and late + overweight.

          In addition, at this stage of the war, a refined assault gun is not necessary, but a yagdpanzer is very necessary. This is evident in terms of output.
          1. maximghost
            maximghost 23 June 2020 00: 32 New
            0
            All this armor is "comparable to the armor of the T-34 (it turns out a little less" it penetrates, except for the beater. The 7,5 cm leIG 18 infantry gun also penetrates, it has a godfather.

            The cumulative for the IG-18 penetrates the armor of the su-122 only at right angles. In addition, it is extremely difficult to shoot them at a great distance due to the low initial velocity of the projectile. Former French Pak-97/38, too, penetrate normally only with a cumulative, and he is still uncomfortable. Pak-38 penetrates reliably only with a sub-caliber projectile - penetration with a standard BB shell - only at short range and not very reliable.

            You are talking about a rare machine regiments RGK.

            There are 640 of them. More than the first Isovs and KV-85 combined. In addition, during his career, the Su-122 shone under Leningrad and in the Yasko-Kishinev operation and Bagration, Finnish Romanian and Hungarian troops took part in the same operations, respectively.
            That is, they stopped using it as an assault gun.

            The assault gun should not go head-on to the enemy catching all of its shells. Its task is to support its troops and suppress / destroy defense nodes.

            In the role of a mechanized gun. An assault gun works with armor too.

            Here is the definition, albeit from the wiki (just too lazy to look).
            Assault guns - a specialized armored self-propelled artillery installation (SPG) on a tank base, for direct support of advancing infantry and tanks.

            During the Second World War, they were primarily infantry escort weapons from a distance of about 300 meters, although they could be used for other purposes as well for urgent operational tasks.

            They were mainly used for direct fire to suppress machine guns and other firing points of the enemy. During the defense, assault gun units were used to support infantry counterattacks, usually in the decisive direction. The main difference between an attack of a tank battle group and an infantry attack with assault guns is that it is very difficult to change the direction of the launched attack supported by assault guns


            Here it is like with tank destroyers - thick armor is desirable for them, but not required - a vivid example is the marder.
            1. Octopus
              Octopus 23 June 2020 06: 24 New
              -1
              Quote: maximghost
              Here it is like with tank destroyers - thick armor is desirable for them, but not required - a vivid example is the marder.

              What is it?

              25t chassis.

              The tank is a four.
              Assault gun, minus the tower plus armor and a wide low-ballistic gun - dad brumbar.

              Tank destroyer, minus the turret plus armor and high-velocity rapid-fire gun - Jagdpanzer

              Tank destroyer, minus armor, turret, all weight on the Uber PT cannon - Nashorn (ambush or large distancing).

              Art self-propelled guns minus armor, a tower, all the weight on a serious gun for mounted fire - Hummel.

              Keep this template in mind, and you will not have the desire to call the SU-76 without armor an assault gun. This is the Soviet Marder, not the Shtug.
              Quote: maximghost
              should not go head-on to the enemy catching all his shells.

              And who should do this? Mobilization infantry?
              Quote: maximghost
              There are 640 of them. More than the first Isovs and KV-85 combined. In addition, during his career, the Su-122 shone under Leningrad and in the Yasko-Kishinev operation and Bagration,

              You are talking about a relatively rare machine regiments RGK.
              Quote: maximghost
              only at short range and not very reliable.

              All this excludes the possibility of using such equipment as an assault gun.

              Another thing is that the Germans' vocational training is much more serious than that of the Soviets. To go for a drive on the Pak40, you need a late Churchill or Jumbo with a 150-200mm muzzle.
              1. maximghost
                maximghost 23 June 2020 11: 56 New
                0

                The tank is a four.
                Assault gun, minus the tower plus armor and a wide low-ballistic gun - dad brumbar.

                Tank destroyer, minus the turret plus armor and high-velocity rapid-fire gun - Jagdpanzer

                Tank destroyer, minus armor, turret, all weight on the Uber PT cannon - Nashorn (ambush or large distancing).

                Art self-propelled guns minus armor, a tower, all the weight on a serious gun for mounted fire - Hummel.

                Keep this pattern in mind

                This is all very controversial:
                1.) The very separation of tank destroyers and tank destroyers.
                2.) The Geschutzwagen III / IV chassis was on nashhorn and hummel, and not purely quadruple.
                3.) So successfully everything turned out to be expanded with only four. But there are two nuances:
                -a.) There are a bunch of cars that do not meet this classification:
                M9 Scott - chassis from a Stuart without reinforcing armor, gun - 75mm howitzer.
                T30 - chassis from armored personnel carriers - implements similar to cattle
                Both that and another - assault guns.
                leFH 18/3 (Sf) B2 (f) is a German self-propelled howitzer, but the armor is similar to the original tank
                M10 vulvarina - does not fit either the above parameters of a tank destroyer, or a tank destroyer, even without taking into account their separation. Armor reduced compared to base Sherman, but not significantly. Those. we do not see any "minus armor" of the IT option, nor the "plus armor" of the PT sau in your interpretation.
                10.5cm leFH 18 (Sf.) Auf Geschützwagen 39H (f) - also an assault gun (it was used in this role) without armor.
                -b.) Many sau can walk from class to class.
                The earliest example is Shtug 3, which in the early versions is a clean assault gun, in later versions it is a tank destroyer according to your classification. Soviet SG-122, SU-122, SU-152; ISU-152, although assault guns, can be used as self-propelled howitzers and even sometimes acted in this role.
                Su-76, suddenly, in general multi-station - there could be a PT sau (again I take only your terminology) and a self-propelled regimental gun (fire from a closed position).

                And who should do this? Mobilization infantry?

                Including yes.
                You are talking about a relatively rare machine regiments RGK.

                So what? In this role, she could not face the allies of Germany? I already wrote that the su-122 acted on the fronts where it was quite possible. And such clashes were most likely.
                All this excludes the possibility of using such equipment as an assault gun.

                Does not exclude. Otherwise, this would exclude the possibility of using tanks.
                do not care for Pak40 need late Churchill or Jumbo with a face 150-200mm privenki.

                Assault guns should not go to do not care for anti-tank artillery. It must support its infantry and tanks with direct fire and suppress enemy firing points.
              2. Octopus
                Octopus 23 June 2020 13: 55 New
                +1
                Quote: maximghost
                Separation into tank destroyers and tank destroyers

                The yagdpanzer has a muzzle from Panther and a cannon from Panther. That is, a tank of a class higher. Nashhorn has a gun from tiger B, no armor at all. In my opinion, the difference in balance is quite obvious.
                Quote: maximghost
                Geschutzwagen III / IV,

                These are the troubles of the hunger, the consequences of the pre-war mistake with the unification of 3/4. Four mass.
                Quote: maximghost
                So successfully everything turned out to be expanded with only four.

                Yes. Only on the four and only the Germans were able and managed to make a full gamut of technology. Others had no brains, no opportunities, no time.
                Quote: maximghost
                M9 Scott

                Arttank, an analogue of BT-7A, but not English CS (no armor). It is precisely because it is not rebalanced relative to the original tank that the PT cannon has only been replaced by a howitzer. As follows, the Americans realized the idea of ​​a light self-propelled guns on the chassis already Chaffee.
                Quote: maximghost
                T30 - chassis from BTR

                It is written, a motor vehicle for a howitzer. According to the scheme above - Hummel.
                Quote: maximghost
                B2 (f)

                Quote: maximghost
                39H (f)

                Are you kidding me? This is the disposal of freebie chassis, not special-purpose vehicles.
                Quote: maximghost
                M10 vulvarine - does not fit either of the above fighter parameters

                This is exactly what the fighter, mechanized PT5 MXNUMX gun. An analog of Marders.

                The peculiarity of the Americans is that they had no brains at all, but there were many LOTS of 30 ton chassis for any purpose. Even those where 10 tons are enough.
                Quote: maximghost
                Shtug 3, which in the early versions is a clean assault gun, in later versions - tank destroyer according to your classification

                Exactly. Like the four with a long gun, it moved from artillery tanks to tanks.
                Quote: maximghost
                Soviet SG-122, SU-122, SU-152; ISU-152

                It Soviet assault guns. They lacked armor, even ISUs, so they worked as support vehicles, not in the first line. Our conversation began with this.
                Quote: maximghost
                Su-76, suddenly, generally multi-station

                SU-76 is a combination of Nashorn and Hummel, which clearly shows the real level of Soviet technology precisely on this example.
                Quote: maximghost
                In this role, she could not

                She was not made for this.
                Quote: maximghost
                Including yes

                Do women give birth to new ones?
                Quote: maximghost
                excluded the possibility of using tanks.

                Sure. A full-fledged RPE car must have armor. Stug, Churchill, Matilda. If there is no such equipment, then support for infantry from the second line is obtained. With the corresponding losses of infantry, which everything strikes, and you cannot get the same mortars from the second line, the machine gun is also, by and large, if the machine gunner has a head.
                Quote: maximghost
                Assault guns should not go to do not care for anti-tank artillery

                The assault gun is the answer of poor Germans to Matilda. That is what should go forward to the guns, to collect fire on yourself.
              3. maximghost
                maximghost 23 June 2020 17: 58 New
                0
                Arttank, an analogue of BT-7A, but not English CS (no armor).

                English cops are the direct reference for booking. Especially the tetrarchs of the Constitutional Court. But the cromwell of KS was also distinguished by a thickened forehead.
                The yagdpanzer has a muzzle from Panther and a cannon from Panther.

                Initially, in the Yang Pantser 4, the gun is not from the Panther. The panther gun was delivered only on the upgraded version. At the same time, about 1000 pieces were brought up of long agpanzers, against 750 pieces of ordinary yagpanzers, with an old gun.
                T30 - chassis from BTR

                It is written, a motor vehicle for a howitzer. According to the scheme above - Hummel.
                Quote: maximghost

                Which often shot direct fire?
              4. Octopus
                Octopus 23 June 2020 18: 21 New
                -1
                Quote: maximghost
                Which often shot direct fire?

                You will not want to live like that.

                English cop yes, the standard of booking. No, not a tetrarch, this is not an infantry tank.

                Still have questions?
              5. maximghost
                maximghost 23 June 2020 20: 09 New
                0
                Still have questions?

                A whole bunch, but I do not think that further debate makes sense.
              6. Octopus
                Octopus 23 June 2020 21: 47 New
                0
                If the questions are of the same plan, what should be attributed to what this is - it really is not worth it. As I already wrote, only the Germans, and only on the Quartet, realized this idea completely. The same Americans, for example, did not have a task at all to make self-propelled guns. The task was for anti-tankers to make a self-propelled gun, which they had previously used in the towed version. Naturally, the designers did the simplest thing - they stuck it in Sherman, since the shoulder strap allowed. Well, there are some nonsense of nonsense with side armor, completely meaningless.

                The idea that a much more serious system can be made at this weight, for example, the analogue of the ISU-122s with a 5/38 sea gun, did not occur to them. Despite the fact that the 5/38 is a much more massive gun than the A-19, and it initially has a wedge bolt and a rammer.
  • vahpus
    vahpus 25 July 2020 14: 21 New
    0
    Quote: maximghost
    Sturmpanzer IV. Because besides him there were also Sturmpanzers I and II.

    The Germans did not have any stormpanzers.
    The ACS included assault (Sturmgeshütz (StuG) and Sturmhaubitze (StuH 42)) and Jagdpanzer (tank destroyers).
    There were also self-propelled guns (not self-propelled guns). But this is somewhat different.
    Quote: maximghost
    and get a little less stuff

    That was the analogue of the StuH 42 SU-122.
    Quote: maximghost
    The su-76 was actually used (and very successfully) as a light, but assault gun.

    You can't argue about the assault gun, that was it. But about SUCCESSFULLY, it is very doubtful. There was nothing to storm.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 19 June 2020 12: 10 New
    +2
    Quote: Bongo
    In my opinion, instead of the SU-122 on the T-34 chassis, in 1942 it was worth creating an ACS armed with the 122-mm A-19 gun based on the KV.

    Not take off. ©
    The KV chassis in 1942 was considered as a base for self-propelled guns with a 152 mm (and 203 mm) gun. Moreover, the army team demanded a gun with ballistic BR-2 - and with great creak agreed to the ML-20.
    And most importantly - these chassis are few. And each self-propelled gun with a 122-mm gun is an unreleased self-propelled gun with a 152-mm gun.
    Quote: Bongo
    However, even those domestic self-propelled guns on which there were sights allowing firing from closed positions, did this extremely rarely.

    So ... who will prepare the data for them? There are no such specialists in TSAP.
  • Octopus
    Octopus 19 June 2020 18: 57 New
    0
    Quote: Bongo
    instead of the SU-122 on the T-34 chassis, in 1942 it was worth creating an ACS armed with the 122-mm A-19 gun based on the KV

    Why "instead of"? They do not overlap in anything.
    Quote: Bongo
    Self-propelled guns armed with a 122-mm gun A-19 based on KV

    Work on such a machine went, as far as I remember Svirin, the same alteration of the SU-152, but did not have time to switch to the IS chassis.
    Quote: Bongo
    allowing firing from closed positions, this was extremely rare

    Yes. While vrazhin, especially the so-called partners, even tanks participate in the artillery preparation.
    Quote: Bongo
    It is unlikely that the designers and command of the Red Army did not understand that a piston-locked gun would not be able to compete in fast-firing with German 75-88-mm tank guns

    They understood very well, therefore, they worked on a wedge shutter and on a 100mm unitary gun.

    Only all this time. And you need another day before yesterday.

    .
    Quote: Bongo
    ISU-122 was originally intended to solve a wide range of problems. A sufficiently powerful OFS allowed to destroy long-term fortifications, and the presence of special sights - to fire from closed positions.

    No.
    After Kursk, Soviet power, including Petrov, was preoccupied with seeking funds against cats. The experience of both testing and Kursk showed that of the options that are in production right now, the A-19 is best suited.
    The remaining capabilities of the ISU-122 gun are a consequence of the choice made according to this specific criterion. By the way, the IS-2 also applies.

    Speaking about Soviet technology, you need to remember that here you are not in England, where you can attach a 4,5-inch anti-aircraft gun sleeve to a 3.7-inch barrel and you get 32pdr, which will accelerate the caliber with detachable pallets to 1500 m / s. Here people are easier.

    Heaviness is good! Heaviness is reliable! Even if it doesn’t break through, it can give kinetic damage well.

    And separately - you need a serial gun, there is no possibility in wartime to invent new calibers one after another.
    1. hohol95
      hohol95 19 June 2020 19: 15 New
      +1
      Yes. While vrazhin, especially the so-called partners, even tanks participate in the artillery preparation.

      Who prepared the data for such shooting at the enemy, allies and in the Red Army?
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 19 June 2020 19: 44 New
      +3
      Quote: Octopus
      They understood very well, therefore, they worked on a wedge shutter and on a 100mm unitary gun.

      And they got the expected result: either we expand the epaulet, or the rate of fire with the unitary will be at the level of separate loading. smile
      Quote: Octopus
      Heaviness is good! Heaviness is reliable! Even if it doesn’t break through, it can give kinetic damage well.

      Yeah ... because if you rely on speed, then either the barrels are enough for only one ammo, or the shells fly where they do not hit, and if they do, they crumble on the armor. So there is only one way out: "And sprinkle it, Alyoshenka, with chalk ..." smile
      Quote: Octopus
      And separately - you need a serial gun, there is no possibility in wartime to invent new calibers one after another.

      But there was a problem with serial guns: there is a gun with an initial projectile speed of 900 m / s, but there is no armor-piercing projectile to it. And the already issued tank destroyers are waiting two months for the serial BBS to go into the series.
      1. Octopus
        Octopus 19 June 2020 20: 02 New
        -1
        Quote: Alexey RA
        either we expand the epaulet, or the rate of fire with the unitary will be at the level of separate loading

        With regard to the IS-2 epaulette was enough. But in reality, cars with this gun appeared almost a year later, even in the wheelhouse.
        Quote: Alexey RA
        or shells fly where they don’t hit, and if they hit, they scatter on the armor

        Yes, BB has a huge plus in the form of reliability. Golda of that time, that koumiss, that of sub-caliber, has problems primarily with accuracy, is the ultimate solution for neighbor distances.

        On the other hand, grandfathers with armor penetration are very sad. Again, IS-3 enthusiasts usually forget that partners who have not penetrated D-25T machines have been crawling since the 44th year in the series, this is Jumbo and, first of all, Churchill 7. To reckon on the breaks in English and American armor is a thought.
        Quote: Alexey RA
        But there was a problem with serial guns: there is a gun with an initial projectile speed of 900 m / s, but there is no armor-piercing projectile to it.

        SU-100? Annoying nuisance.

        Much less annoying than exactly the same situation with the BR-350 at the beginning of the war. You are many, but I am alone, said the invincible and legendary Red Army, the invincible and legendary Soviet industry.
  • Romka47
    Romka47 19 June 2020 15: 50 New
    0
    the creation of the ISU-122 self-propelled gun on the chassis of the heavy tank IS-2 was largely due to a shortage of 152 mm ML-20S guns
    The second, almost more significant problem was the output of the A-19 guns. You can often hear the theory that the ISU-122 allegedly appeared due to the lack of ML-20s systems, but you can only smile at it. In May, that is, already in the second month of ISU-122 production, the first interruptions occurred with the A-19. As a result, instead of 100 cars, they passed 90, and ISU-152 turned in 135 pieces instead of 125.
    Ahead of me, I won’t continue further, I agree +
  • strannik1985
    strannik1985 19 June 2020 10: 19 New
    +2
    In theory, SU-122s are as good as self-propelled guns in mobile formations (taking into account their traditional poverty in terms of field artillery), the design would be brought to mind.
    Moreover, the T-34 base is well suited for an SPG modeled on the Vespe or M7 Priest.
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 20 June 2020 18: 04 New
    +2
    The tank builders of the USSR used every month the available stocks of art systems to saturate the tank regiments with good "hybrids". And the tasks were often nearly impossible. The current "managers" would probably find dozens of reasons why the task should NOT be completed by the deadline. And in the 40s they did business!
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 22 June 2020 09: 29 New
      0
      Just read how the plans were actually implemented, even in wartime. And in 1940, out of 1000 planned T-34s, only 150 were made.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 22 June 2020 09: 27 New
    -1
    and the creation of the ISU-122 self-propelled gun on the chassis of the IS-2 heavy tank was largely due to a shortage of 152 mm ML-20S guns


    This is not so, just 152 mm guns were even in abundance.