Antitank capabilities of the Soviet self-propelled artillery mount SU-85


In the initial period of the war, the Soviet Tanks new types had an advantage in security and firepower. However, the positive qualities of the KV and T-34 were largely depreciated by the unreliable motor-transmission part, poor sights and observation devices. Nevertheless, despite serious design and manufacturing defects, with proper preparation, our tankers often emerged victorious in battles with the German Pz.Kpfw.III, PzKpfw.IV and Pz.Kpfw.38 (t).


However, already in the first half of 1943, reports began to arrive from the front that spoke of the loss of the qualitative superiority of Soviet tanks over enemy armored vehicles. It was not even a matter of the heavy Tigers, which, due to their small numbers, did not have a decisive influence on the course of hostilities. Back in March 1942, the production of the medium tank Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.F2, armed with a 75 mm gun 7,5 cm Kw.K.40 L / 43 and protected in frontal projection with 50 mm armor, began. An armor-piercing blunt-headed projectile Pzgr 39 weighing 6,8 kg, leaving the barrel at an initial speed of 750 m / s, at a distance of 1000 m normal could penetrate 78-mm armor.

Antitank capabilities of the Soviet self-propelled artillery mount SU-85

German medium tank Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.F2

The medium tank Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.G, which had 80 mm frontal armor, began to arm itself with the Kw.K.1943 L / 40 cannon in the spring of 48. The armor-piercing 75 mm shell of the Kw.K.40 L / 48 gun had an initial speed of 790 m / s and was capable of penetrating 1000 mm armor per 85 m. In addition to tanks, long-barreled 75-mm guns received StuG.III and StuG.IV. Soviet 76,2-mm guns F-32, F-34 and ZIS-5 mounted on the KV and T-34 tanks, when fired with an armor-piercing blunt-headed projectile BR-350B, could penetrate the frontal armor of the German "four", released in 1943, at a distance of 300 m


German tank destroyer StuG.IV

Thus, the modernized German medium tanks Pz.KpfW.IV and tank destroyers at their base by mid-1943 in terms of armor penetration of their guns had a significant superiority over Soviet tanks, and in terms of protection in the frontal projection they approached heavy tanks. In the second half of 1942, the Wehrmacht anti-tank units began to receive towed 75 mm guns of 7,5 cm Pak 40 in noticeable volumes, and 50 cm Pak guns in the 5 mm gun ammunition. 38 introduced the PzGr 40 sub-caliber projectile. Soviet heavy and medium tanks began to suffer heavy losses.

To compensate for the apparent qualitative superiority of the enemy in tanks, along with other measures, in August 1943, the SU-85 anti-tank self-propelled artillery installation was launched. Due to the urgent need for tank destroyers, this machine displaced SAU SU-122 at the production facilities of the Ural Heavy Machine Building Plant (UZTM) in Sverdlovsk. Having much in common with the SU-122 armed with the 122-mm M-30S howitzer, the SU-85 self-propelled gun carried a pronounced anti-tank orientation.

The crew of the self-propelled guns included 4 people. At the same time, the control department and the fighting compartment were combined. Based on the experience of the combat use of Soviet tanks and self-propelled guns when creating the SU-85, special attention was paid to ensuring the proper level of visibility and command controllability. To the right on the roof of the wheelhouse was a commander’s turret without an access hatch, which was used by the commander of the self-propelled guns to monitor the terrain and adjust the fire.


SU-85

The self-propelled guns SU-85 were equipped with an 85-mm D-5S gun with 53-K anti-aircraft gun ballistics The length of the barrel of the D-5C gun was 48,8 caliber, direct-fire range reached 3,8 km. The maximum range of a fragmentation grenade is 12,7 km. The angles of vertical guidance from −5 ° to + 25 °, the sector of horizontal fire was ± 10 °. Combat rate of fire - 5-6 rds / min, maximum - up to 8 rds / min. The ammunition of 48 unitary shots, in addition to fragmentation shells, included armor-piercing caliber: 53-BR-365 (blunt-headed) and BR-365K (pointed-headed) weighing 9,2 kg, as well as a sub-caliber coil type 53-BR-365P weighing 5 kg. According to reference data, the 53-BR-365 armor-piercing projectile with an initial speed of 792 m / s at a distance of 1000 m could penetrate the 102-mm armor plate in the normal direction. The AP-53-BR-365P projectile with an initial speed of 1050 m / s at a distance of 500 m when hit at right angles pierced 140 mm thick armor. Submunitions, which were specially registered, were effective at relatively short distances, with an increase in the range of their armor penetration characteristics dropped sharply. Thus, the SU-85 was able to effectively deal with medium tanks of the enemy at distances of more than a kilometer, and at smaller distances to penetrate the frontal armor of heavy tanks.


In the process of mass production, the self-propelled gun was equipped with two non-interchangeable types of 85-mm guns: D-5S-85 and D-5S-85A. These options were distinguished by the barrel manufacturing method and the shutter design, as well as the mass of their swinging parts: 1230 kg for the D-5S-85 and 1370 kg for the D-5S-85A. Self-propelled guns armed with D-5S-85A guns received the designation SU-85A.

According to the characteristics of mobility and protection, the SU-85, which weighed 29,6 tons in combat position, remained at the SU-122 level. The maximum speed on the highway is 47 km / h. Cruising on the highway - 400 km. The thickness of the frontal armor, inclined at an angle of 50 °, was 45 mm. The thickness of the gun mask armor is 60 mm. Compared with the SU-122 self-propelled guns armed with a short-barreled howitzer, the long table of 85-mm guns required special attention from the driver of the SU-85 when driving in the city and in wooded areas. As with other anti-tank self-propelled guns with the front location of the fighting compartment, the SU-85 had a great risk of scooping up the ground with a barrel on a steep descent.


Since the SU-85 used components and assemblies well-developed on the T-34 and SAU-122 self-propelled guns, the reliability of the machine was quite satisfactory. Self-propelled guns of the first batch had a number of manufacturing defects, but after the mass began to assemble, there were no particular complaints about the workmanship. In 1944, the front rollers were reinforced and thus managed to eliminate the "sore" inherited from the SU-122.

SU-85 were sent to form medium self-propelled artillery regiments. According to the state of 1943, there were 4 batteries in the SAP, 4 SU-85 in each. The control platoon had 1 T-34 tank and 1 light armored car BA-64. In February 1944, all regiments were transferred to the new state. According to the new staff, the SAP consisted of 21 vehicles: 4 batteries of 5 installations and 1 vehicle of the regiment commander. Additionally, the regiment received a company of machine gunners and a platoon of sappers. SAPs were introduced into the tank, mechanized, cavalry corps and served as a fire reinforcement of the compound. Self-propelled guns were also used as part of the fighter anti-tank artillery brigades as a mobile reserve.


Self-propelled artillery SU-85 received a positive rating in the troops. They entered the battle in the fall of 1943 and showed themselves well in the battles for Left-Bank Ukraine. But in fairness it is worth saying that the tank destroyer SU-85 was at least six months late. The use of these machines in the Battle of Kursk could have a serious impact on the course of hostilities.

As for the anti-tank capabilities of the self-propelled gun, much depended on the skills and coordinated actions of the crew. The horizontal guidance sector of the gun was small, in the process of aiming the installation at the target, the driver mechanic was directly involved. The working conditions in the fighting compartment of the SU-85 were better than in the turret of the T-34-85, which was also armed with an 85-mm cannon. The presence of a more spacious cabin and convenient access to the combat station had a positive effect on the practical rate of fire and accuracy of firing. At the same time, self-propelled crews complained that prolonged firing at the maximum pace was difficult due to the excessive contamination of the fighting compartment.

By the standards of the second half of 1943, the 45-mm armor of the hull and the SU-85 felling did not provide adequate protection against 75-mm enemy tank guns. In a duel situation with the German Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.G at a distance of up to 1500 m, opponents confidently pierced the frontal armor of the enemy’s corps. However, under equal conditions it was more difficult to get into a more squat self-propelled gun than into a tank. As for the confrontation with the Tigers and Panthers, in this case, the crew of the Soviet 85-mm self-propelled guns had a chance of success in operations from an ambush. In the course of real clashes with German heavy tanks, it was found that an 85-mm gun pierces the frontal armor of the Tiger tank from a distance of 600-800 m, and its side - from 1000-1200 m. Thus, the SU-85 self-propelled artillery was able to successfully deal with medium German tanks Pz.KpfW.IV of all modifications and self-propelled guns based on them. Destruction of the PzKpfw.V and Pz.Kpfw.VI tanks was also possible, but using the right tactics.

The level of losses in the SAP equipped with SU-85 directly depended on the tactical literacy of the command. Often given to rifle units to strengthen the anti-tank capabilities of self-propelled guns, infantry commanders used them as linear tanks, throwing them into head-on attacks on the well-fortified German defenses.


After in late autumn of 1944, self-propelled guns equipped with SU-85 suffered heavy losses, the Headquarters prepared orders that contained a ban on the use of self-propelled guns as tanks. In addition, it was forbidden to use self-propelled artillery regiments, which were part of the anti-tank brigades, to escort tanks and infantry in isolation from the rest of the brigade. These regiments were supposed to serve as anti-tank reserves in case of breakthrough of enemy tanks.

A typical example of the successful use of self-propelled guns as part of such a reserve was the actions of the 1021st self-propelled guns of the 14th anti-tank brigade during the Šiauliai offensive operation in July 1944 in the area of ​​Devindoni settlement. By decision of the army commander, the regiment was focused on the tank direction behind the battle formations of the 747th anti-tank artillery regiment (57 mm ZIS-2 gun). A large group of German tanks of up to 100 vehicles, accompanied by motorized infantry in armored personnel carriers, launched a counterattack. After a stubborn battle, the enemy tanks broke through the battle formations of our advanced units. To prevent further advancement of the Germans, self-propelled guns SU-85 took up firing positions in ambushes along the path of enemy tanks. Having let the tanks down to a distance of 500 m, self-propelled guns, together with field artillery guns, fell upon them with sudden fire, destroyed and knocked out 19 vehicles, and the rest forced them to stop and return to their original position.

Along with positive feedback from the army, designers also received information about the need to improve self-propelled guns. So, the commander of the 7th mechanized corps, Colonel Katkov, evaluating the car, said:

Self-propelled gun SU-85 is currently the most effective means of combating enemy heavy tanks. With cross-country ability and maneuverability not inferior to the T-34 tank, and with an 85-mm cannon, the self-propelled gun showed itself well in combat. But, using the fire and armor of their Tiger, Panther and self-propelled Ferdinand tanks, the enemy imposes a modern battle at long distances - 1500-2000 m. Under these conditions, the fire power and frontal protection of the SU-85 are already insufficient. It is required to strengthen the frontal armor of the self-propelled gun and, most importantly, equip it with a gun with increased armor-piercing force, capable of hitting heavy Tiger tanks from a distance of at least 1500 m.

It became obvious that for a confident fight with all enemy tanks at a distance of more than 1000 m, a new self-propelled gun was required, equipped with a more powerful gun, and having better protection in the frontal projection.

At the final stage of the war, German tanks were mainly used as a mobile anti-tank reserve, and the Soviet cutting edge was rarely attacked. In this regard, the SU-85 began to be used to provide direct artillery support to advancing tanks and infantry. If the effect of 85-mm fragmentation projectile 53-O-365 with a mass of 9,54 kg was satisfactory in field engineering structures and enemy manpower, then its power was often not enough to destroy long-term firing points. The effect of the use of the SU-85 as part of the assault groups was noticeably lower than that of the SU-122 or heavy self-propelled guns. So, in October 1944, when the troops of the 3rd Belorussian Front broke through the defensive line of the Germans on the river. Narva, some assault groups, having only SU-85 in their composition, were unable to complete the tasks of destroying the pillboxes, since the high-explosive action of 85-mm shells was insufficient. This problem was solved as a result of increasing the output of heavy self-propelled guns with 122-152-mm guns, as well as after the arrival of the new SU-100 with a much more powerful high-explosive fragmentation projectile than the SU-85.

Self-propelled guns SU-85 was in serial production for exactly a year. During this period, military representatives took 2335 vehicles. Self-propelled guns of this type actively fought until the end of hostilities. In the next post-war decade, all SU-85 were decommissioned or converted into tractors. This was due to the fact that there were a large number of T-34-85 tanks and self-propelled guns SU-100.

The ending should ...
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. The leader of the Redskins 27 June 2020 05: 26 New
    • 42
    • 4
    +38
    I immediately remembered the film "In the war, as in the war."
    Thanks for the interesting article.
    1. Phil77 27 June 2020 05: 49 New
      • 25
      • 0
      +25
      Good morning! Exactly! Both the film is magnificent and the book by Kurochkin is excellent! The writer himself fought on a self-propelled gun, so he knew what he was writing about. hi
      1. Alexey RA 30 June 2020 11: 07 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: Phil77
        Good morning! Exactly! Both the film is magnificent and the book by Kurochkin is excellent! The writer himself fought on a self-propelled gun, so he knew what he was writing about. hi

        Not just fought - namely, in those very places where the main character of his book is. Actually, the NKNV is largely autobiographical - including the battle of the SU-85 with the Tigers.
        T. Kurochkin skillfully and fearlessly leads his crew. In the battle with the German invaders for the liberation of the Antopol-Boyark point, he took the battle with two German Tigers. By skillful maneuver, going down from the flank, he destroyed one German tank of the Tiger type, with his crew counting, and before the enemy’s manpower platoon. His ability to lead the crew in battle kept the milestone reached and kept his car in spite of the strong enemy fire. For all the time of the battles in the operation, the car of Lieutenant Kurochkin did not have forced stops and breakdowns.
        Awarded the government award Order of the Red Banner.
        Commander of the 1893th Fastovsky Self-Propelled Artillery Regiment
        Lieutenant Colonel Basov January 8, 1943

        By the way, in the book Kurochkin made Basov a colonel.
        On the twenty-fourth of December one thousand nine hundred and forty-three, the First Ukrainian Front went on the offensive. On the Radomyshl - Brusilov section, the 3rd Guards Tank Army broke through the German defenses. The first three days, the self-propelled regiment of Colonel Basov was in the reserve of the chief of artillery of the 6th Guards Tank Corps.
        © NVKNV
    2. zyablik.olga 27 June 2020 06: 41 New
      • 14
      • 0
      +14
      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
      I immediately remembered the film "In the war, as in the war."
      Thanks for the interesting article.

      The movie is wonderful! Then, while traveling on a train, I read a book. She even felt a little sad, there in the finale the main character died. crying
    3. Bongo 27 June 2020 07: 10 New
      • 30
      • 0
      +30
      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
      I immediately remembered the film "In the war, as in the war."

      But there the SU-100 starred in the “leading role”; in the late 60s, the SU-85 remained on the move was gone.
      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
      Thanks for the interesting article.

      drinks
      1. Phil77 27 June 2020 08: 05 New
        • 7
        • 0
        +7
        The SU-100 generally has a good connection with the cinema. Even the French in the * Battle of Algeria * lit up! hi
        1. Bongo 27 June 2020 08: 12 New
          • 16
          • 0
          +16
          Quote: Phil77
          The SU-100 generally has a good connection with the cinema. Even the French in the * Battle of Algeria * lit up! hi

          In the Far East, the SU-100 was “in storage” back in 1993. But self-propelled longevity surpassed the IS-3. From the fortified area located on the islands donated to China, such tanks were exported in the early 2000s. Some went their own way.
          1. Phil77 27 June 2020 08: 17 New
            • 7
            • 0
            +7
            And they still fought in Yemen! Beginning in 2014.
            1. Bongo 27 June 2020 08: 27 New
              • 11
              • 0
              +11
              Quote: Phil77
              And they still fought in Yemen! Beginning in 2014.

              Aha yes But there and T-34-85 met until recently.
          2. Phil77 27 June 2020 08: 26 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Sergey! Do you have any plans for an article about the SU-152? hi
            1. Bongo 27 June 2020 08: 32 New
              • 18
              • 0
              +18
              Quote: Phil77
              Sergey! Do you have any plans for an article about the SU-152? hi

              Just at the moment I’m working on an article dedicated to what our self-propelled guns were a real "St. John's wort". Naturally, SU-152 and ISU-152 will be considered. hi
              1. Phil77 27 June 2020 08: 34 New
                • 5
                • 0
                +5
                Yeah! Great! Read! good
                1. Bongo 27 June 2020 08: 36 New
                  • 9
                  • 0
                  +9
                  Quote: Phil77
                  Yeah! Great! Read!

                  Hopefully coming out next week. Huge plans, but there is absolutely not enough time for everything! request
              2. Phil77 27 June 2020 08: 40 New
                • 5
                • 0
                +5
                I read that the ISU-152 were used in the aftermath of the Chernobyl accident.
              3. tima_ga 28 June 2020 16: 58 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                We look forward to your presentation of the material is very interesting.
      2. svp67 27 June 2020 14: 30 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: Bongo
        But there in the "leading role" was shot SU-100,

        In the film, yes, but in the book he fought on the Su-85 ... hi
        1. not main 28 June 2020 00: 24 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: svp67
          Quote: Bongo
          But there in the "leading role" was shot SU-100,

          In the film, yes, but in the book he fought on the Su-85 ... hi

          But we remember the movie more! I don’t remember how many times I watched it, and I will look again and with pleasure!
  2. riwas 27 June 2020 05: 57 New
    • 16
    • 1
    +15
    The trunks of German guns were longer, but this is not the main thing. German shells were the accomplishment of ours — better manufacture and most essential — the presence of an armor-piercing (protective) tip of the shell (at the moment of meeting with the armor it collapses, but also destroys the upper layer of the armor, "preparing" it for penetration by the main shell). Ours managed to make such shells only after the war on the basis of German captured shells. Although the armor-piercing tip was proposed by the famous Russian admiral S.O. Makarov.

    1. Narak-zempo 27 June 2020 09: 55 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      Quote: riwas
      Although the armor-piercing tip was proposed by the famous Russian admiral S.O. Makarov

      Everything rested on the technology of reliable fastening of the “Makarovsky” cap on the projectile.
    2. Non-fighter 27 June 2020 10: 41 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      Actually, I thought that was not so. At the end of the XNUMXth century, the technology of cementing armor, that is, surface hardening, appeared. A thin layer of hard metal on a soft substrate, and shells cracked on this hard layer. According to legend, during the tests of one of these plates, it was installed incorrectly, with the soft side to shell, and the shell normally pierced it. Idea: we make an overlay of soft metal on the projectile, and, being deformed, it does not allow the projectile to crack when overcoming the cemented layer. This is the “Makarov cap”.
      1. Igoresha 28 June 2020 16: 45 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        we need an article explaining why the Panther’s 75 mm cannon shell pierced everything and everything, and our tank builders had to constantly increase the gun’s caliber for the same purposes
        1. EvilLion 29 June 2020 09: 31 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Probably because to make a 75-76 mm cannon in the realities of WWII, capable of punching anything and everything, it is possible, the same British 17-pounder, the only questions are how much such a gun will weigh (17 pounds for 3 tons), how difficult will produce such a long and strong barrel, and how disgusting will be the high-explosive action of a projectile with such a small mass and such thick walls. Well, in the presence of existing anti-aircraft guns, which could be adapted to the tank. At the same time, the Germans didn’t put a 75 mm gun from the Panther on the tiger, because 88 mm is more effective against pillboxes. If they had the opportunity, they would have set 100 mm.

          The same “Sherman” IMHO's main mistake was that until the end of the war it remained either at the T-34-76 level in armament, or a powerful 76 mm cannon was placed on it, getting rather an anti-tank self-propelled gun that was much inferior to the T-34-85 in the possibilities of combating other goals. It’s like the mass of the shells correlate approximately like cubes of calibers, and the mass difference between 75/76 and 85 is very significant.
          1. Octopus 29 June 2020 10: 52 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Quote: EvilLion
            how difficult it will be to make such a long and strong barrel, and how disgusting the explosive action of a projectile with such a small mass and such thick walls will be

            You are right in weight, the rest is not. A 17-pound mine and a panther cannon roughly correspond to a ZiS-3 shell due to a reduced initial velocity.
            17 pounds by the way is not long, she took a huge powder charge.
            Quote: EvilLion
            At the same time, the Germans didn’t put a 75 mm gun from the Panther on the “tiger”, because 88 mm is more effective against pillboxes

            The antiaircraft gun was conceived on a tiger initially, then there was no ground gun.
            Quote: EvilLion
            If they had the opportunity, they would have set 100 mm.

            They had such an opportunity, but there was no need. They put 105 and even 150 mm on the assault guns. A unitary shot of this caliber becomes too heavy, and the rate of fire drops significantly.
            Quote: EvilLion
            the same "Sherman" IMHO, the main mistake was that until the end of the war he remained either at the T-34-76 level in armament, or a powerful 76 mm cannon was placed on him, getting rather an anti-tank self-propelled gun, much inferior to the T-34-85 in opportunities to deal with other goals

            You are right, the Americans have ruined the modernization of the 44th year. Sherman 76 was significantly worse than Sherman 75, primarily due to an unsuccessful gun.
            Quote: EvilLion
            It’s like the mass of the shells correlate approximately like cubes of calibers, and the mass difference between 75/76 and 85 is very significant.

            The mass of shells has nothing to do with it, the 85mm HE shell did not differ in explosive weight from the Panther HE HE and 34-76. The more powerful anti-aircraft ballistics and the refusal of the Red Army from the idea of ​​a multi-speed HE shell required more iron in the shell, respectively, less explosive.

            But the 76mm gun was conceived as a specialized PT cannon; a landmine was never needed for it. There were more than enough normal howitzers in the American division. Therefore, such a projectile was made to get loose, which when installed on a tank turned out to be very sideways.

            However, the Americans did work on the bugs. They put a kilogram of RDX into the Pershing mine, which was twice as high as the OFS T-34/85 with its amatol. Good to be rich.
            1. EvilLion 29 June 2020 11: 19 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              A 17-pound mine and a panther cannon roughly correspond to a ZiS-3 shell due to a reduced initial velocity.
              17 pounds by the way is not long, she took a huge powder charge.


              ZiS-3 is a much lighter and cheaper weapon. Which, if necessary, you can hit the tank at least on board. And gunpowder, for a minute, one of the 3-4 resources for which Lend-Lease supplies were critical, along with airplanes, gasoline and trucks, in order to increase its Razik consumption by 4 to deliver the same 600-700 g. Of explosives.

              The mass of shells has nothing to do with it, the 85mm HE shell did not differ in explosive weight from the Panther HE HE and 34-76. The more powerful anti-aircraft ballistics and the refusal of the Red Army from the idea of ​​a multi-speed HE shell required more iron in the shell, respectively, less explosive.


              In fact, a high-explosive grenade with a lower charge in the ammunition appears. Another question is that with the same panther cannon the wiki gives a mass of 1.9 kg, compared to the PAK-40 it’s not impressive. Well, they would have made an even more penetrating gun, how many explosives would there be left at all? Hence the American reluctance to put 76 mm guns on the Sherman. So, switching to 85-100 mm was inevitable. "Pershing" appeared late.

              They had such an opportunity, but there was no need. They put 105 and even 150 mm on the assault guns.


              According to 2 prototypes of 105 mm, it is a pity that our one was remelted. Yeah, very funny. I won’t say anything about Brummber, because I don’t really understand if it was a functionally analogue of the SU-152 or just art, but the Red Army seemed to have no questions about the usefulness of 122 and 152 mm guns. Moreover, for the most part, whatever the German tanks, which with such units simply exterminated along the way. It’s just a Russian man’s dream to blow up a two-story house with all the Germans in it with one shot.

              But the 76mm gun was conceived as a specialized PT cannon; a landmine was never needed for it.


              Even a 45 mm cannon in the BC had 2/3 HE, even if this HE mine weighs less than 1.5 kg. And if the tank constantly calls for artillery, then why is it needed at all?

              Well, the Red Army had approximate quantitative parity in tanks with the Germans somewhere from the end of the 41st, beginning of the 42nd year, and when massively different iron seals appeared, the Germans had already begun to merge globally and all these heavy. tank battalions did not require any special means for their destruction in the form of special. anti-tank units with ultra-armor-piercing guns.
              1. Octopus 29 June 2020 12: 18 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Quote: EvilLion
                Even a 45 mm cannon in the BC had 2/3 HE, even if this HE mine weighs less than 1.5 kg. And if the tank constantly calls for artillery, then why is it needed at all?

                Again. The 76mm M5 gun is a weapon of the PT divisions. The Americans did not need to be interested in its capabilities as a universal weapon, because they had many, MANY normal artillery.

                But the installation of this gun on the tank came out very sideways.
                Quote: EvilLion
                if the tank constantly calls for artillery, then why is it needed at all?

                This is not a tank gun. I think you are aware of the English cars that started the war without land mines in general.
                Quote: EvilLion
                Well, the Red Army had approximate quantitative parity in tanks with the Germans somewhere from the end of the 41st, beginning of the 42nd year,

                There was never a parity for tanks; the Red Army had a multiple advantage in tanks. Especially huge in the summer of the 41st.
                Quote: EvilLion
                some special means for their destruction in the form of specials. anti-tank units with ultra-armor-piercing guns.

                Yes Yes. That is why the USSR at any cost vykoryat already housing cannon with a piston shutter and separate loading.
                Quote: EvilLion
                It’s just a Russian man’s dream to blow up a two-story house with all the Germans in it with one shot.

                The Germans produced about 6 thousand guns with 1.5 "guns, the USSR - about 3.5 thousand. Unlike the USSR, the 15 cm gun was in the staff of the Wehrmacht’s divisional and even regimental artillery. So the Germans had the opportunity to realize such dreams more often.
                Quote: EvilLion
                2 prototypes 105 mm

                There were no prototypes just about anything.
                Quote: EvilLion
                a wiki gives a charge mass of 1.9 kg,

                You confuse the amount of explosives in the projectile and the amount of gunpowder. Explosive in the shell of about 600 grams for memory.
                Quote: EvilLion
                Hence the American reluctance to put 76 mm guns on the Sherman.

                The American reluctance to put this gun on the Sherman is due to the fact that this is not a tank gun, but a VET. 17ft and Panther had full-fledged land mines.
                Quote: EvilLion
                So, switching to 85-100 mm was inevitable. "Pershing" appeared late.

                At Pershing was a cannon of the 40th year of the model. The Americans refused to put it on the tank, because it would do so, they put 75mm in 1897 and 76mm in 1918.
                The penetration of this gun by wartime shells is significantly higher than D-10, OFS has the same power due to the use of a mixture of RDX / TNT instead of amatol.
                Quote: EvilLion
                gunpowder, for a minute, one of the 3-4 Lend-Lease supplies that were critical, along with airplanes, gasoline and trucks, in order to increase its Razik consumption by 4 to deliver the same 600-700 g. of explosives.

                You see. War is not an expensive thing.
                1. EvilLion 29 June 2020 13: 48 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  You confuse the amount of explosives in the projectile and the amount of gunpowder. Explosive in the shell of about 600 grams for memory.


                  Throwing charge. Which the ZiS-3 has 1 kg, while the PAK-40 generally has 3.4 kg. I don’t know about 17 pounds, but probably close. Compare the cost of shipping 600-700 g of explosives. At the same time, of course, it is good to be rich and healthy, but you cannot even deploy PAK-40 for a 17-pounder tire without a tractor.

                  The Americans refused to put it on the tank, because it would do so, they set 75mm in 1897 and 76mm in 1918.


                  There is a very big difference between “they thought it would do,” and what turned out to be real. But in real life it turned out that the Germans had more powerful tanks.

                  The Germans machines with 6 "guns were issued about 1.5 thousand


                  Hummel is a self-propelled howitzer, not an assault gun. As for the towed guns, the ML-20 has not been canceled. Solving every problem by calling the artillery of a regiment, or even a division, is simply absurd. Not to mention the need to adjust her fire.

                  Yes Yes. That is why the USSR at any cost vykoryat already housing cannon with a piston shutter and separate loading.


                  I understand that it doesn’t reach, but the USSR simply did not suffer from nonsense, and made a tank that can perfectly destroy the fortifications, without waiting for their howitzers to gouge, and land the crew of any enemy tank through the rear armor plate with the engine from one and a half kilometers. The fact that the Americans with their engineering school could not give rise to anything other than a “Sherman” and bad guns for him is their problem. Well now they are making films, like, "Fury", where one "tiger" for a platoon of "Sherman" turns into an unkillable dragon.

                  Discussions about mythical German miraculous sights and the mythical obliquity of the Soviet 122 mm destructor, as well as the theoretically large rate of fire of the “tigers”, have very little relation to the reality and tactics of using tanks.

                  Although for you the “scoops are stupid”, and when they solve the problem radically, maybe even with an overkill, this is a “necessary measure”, and when the Americans got a normal tank only in March 45th, it “they don’t need, they have a hull artillery is. "

                  Well, the A-19 was already there, but the S-34 was never done. And in general, an IS with a 100 mm gun did not even show an increase in ammunition, except for +1 shell.

                  By the way, the French received “Panthers” after WWII and quickly got out of them.

                  I think you are aware of the English cars that started the war without land mines in general.


                  And what did they show with these 47 mm slingshots? What do not do this? We did it on the contrary, we drilled a 37 mm gun up to 45 mm so that at least some landmine would fit into it.
                  1. Octopus 29 June 2020 15: 01 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: EvilLion
                    And what they showed with these 47 mm slingshots

                    57mm.
                    They showed that the tank was not equipped with a universal tank gun, but with a clean tank without OFS. Unfortunately, while the British wiser between 41 and 44, the Americans were stupid.
                    Quote: EvilLion
                    I understand that it doesn’t reach, but the USSR simply did not suffer from nonsense, and made a tank that can perfectly destroy the fortifications

                    You see, it mostly doesn’t reach you here. Following the results of Kursk, the Soviet Union fired on new German equipment and began to attach tracks to those guns that turned out to be the most effective. That was a perfectly reasonable decision.
                    Quote: EvilLion
                    Americans with their engineering school could not generate anything but a "Sherman" and bad guns to it, these are their problems

                    Americans with their engineering school and access to English engineering could produce anything. Unfortunately, they did not take the Wehrmacht problem seriously, all too easily in the 43rd year.

                    And Sherman is an American not T-34, but T-70, blinded from what it was. Yes, it's nice to be Americans and make a T-70 weighing 30 tons.
                    Quote: EvilLion
                    now they make films, like, "Fury", where one "tiger" for a platoon of "Sherman" turns into an unkillable dragon.

                    It was necessary to show overcoming. Just the Tiger 76mm pierced confidently, the problem was with the Panther.
                    Quote: EvilLion
                    theoretically, the great rate of fire of the “tigers” has very little relation to the reality and tactics of using tanks.

                    Belarusian tanker can be seen immediately.
                    Quote: EvilLion
                    Although for you

                    For you.

                    Dumb Americans for me, and scoops are primarily poor. Therefore, they did not have the opportunity to go into the guns with a high projectile speed, they had to put heavier systems.

                    Quote: EvilLion
                    the tank appeared only in March 45th, it is "they don’t need, they have corps artillery."

                    Division artillery. It does not replace tanks, of course, although it partially compensates for their shortcomings.

                    It’s just that I spoke much more sharply than you about American tanks when a conversation came about this. And not because the Americans could not, but because they could and did not, this is much more shameful.

                    Quote: EvilLion
                    S-34 never did

                    Did D-10.
                    But then I was in the 43rd, the choice of the really existing A-19 instead of the potential remade of the sea gun was certainly correct. As experience has shown, the alteration continued until the end of 44 years, and especially the development of an AP of a projectile that was not supposed to be a naval gun.
                    Quote: EvilLion
                    after the WWII, the French “panthers” got out of them very quickly.

                    The French in tanks are masters, of course.
                    Quote: EvilLion
                    Hummel is a self-propelled howitzer, not an assault gun

                    Your two-story home does not matter.
                    Quote: EvilLion
                    Solving every problem by calling the artillery of a regiment, or even a division, is simply absurd. Not to mention the need to adjust her fire.

                    This sounds rather ridiculous, given the fact that the CS / ISU belonged to parts of the RGCs. Regimental artillery is a pity, it is necessary.
                    Quote: EvilLion
                    ML-20 has not been canceled

                    ML-20 divisions do not rely.
                    By the way, they are also few.
                    Quote: EvilLion
                    But in real life it turned out that the Germans had more powerful tanks

                    Yes. But the Americans despised strategic intelligence. Dumbness can be very expensive. If only it were limited to tanks!
                    Quote: EvilLion
                    Which the ZiS-3 has 1 kg, while the PAK-40 generally has 3.4 kg. I don’t know about 17 pounds, but probably close

                    Charge Pak 40 2.7 kg. 17 lbs. 3.7 kg, this is a record for such a caliber.
                    Quote: EvilLion
                    Compare the cost of shipping 600-700 g of explosives

                    This powder was not spent on delivering explosives, but on penetrating armor. At S-53 with the same 660 grams of amatol in the OFS, the powder charge is the same 2.6 kg
              2. Jager 30 June 2020 19: 56 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                But what about Matilda with a 40-mm gun with ammunition without HE?
        2. 5-9
          5-9 29 June 2020 13: 46 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Because he could not do anything except pierce armor (and he did it even better than the 88-mm Tiger) ... the high-explosive action was insignificant.
          If you have complexes - then you should know that we had a similar 57-mm gun (ZiS-2), the armor penetration of which was higher than that of the 85-mm ... it only cost a lot more than the 76-mm ZiS-3 and nothing but how she couldn’t penetrate armor and therefore didn’t put it in the T-34 ... The tank is a universal weapon, and among the Germans they degenerated into purely anti-tank in the person of the same Panther ...
      2. volodimer 28 June 2020 17: 50 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Yes, it was such an explanation that I read in my childhood, either in the Book of Future Admirals or in TM, it was still there that Stepan Osipovich, because of the simplicity of his soul and because of the obviousness of the solution, did not even patent this solution.
  3. Sergey M. Karasev 27 June 2020 06: 10 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    R. Narva

    Probably, referring to p. Narew in eastern Poland.
  4. Octopus 27 June 2020 06: 11 New
    • 3
    • 4
    -1
    )))
    But in fairness it is worth saying that the tank destroyer SU-85 was at least six months late. The use of these machines in the Battle of Kursk could have a serious impact on the course of hostilities.

    Something also incurred you in altistory, Sergey.

    Appearing earlier Kursk this car was quite difficult, because it was Kursk (and caught a little earlier in pit swamp Tiger) forced the Red Army a little bit to take care of the PT defense. Prior to Kursk, the technology developed according to pre-war patterns (by the way, quite reasonable), according to which something was supposed to be for the tank howitzer-artillery - BT-7A, KV-2, SU-122, SU-152.

    Not only that, you rightly write that this car was not very far from the Soviet jagdpanther, either by cannon or especially by armor. So, quite possibly, it was a mistake - a tank destroyer could be built on a lighter base, the same SU-76 with ZiS-4.
    1. Bongo 27 June 2020 07: 15 New
      • 13
      • 0
      +13
      Quote: Octopus
      Something also incurred you in altistory, Sergey.

      Hello! I do not see anything impossible in the fact that the SU-85 could appear six months earlier, and be produced in parallel with the SU-122. EMNIP with "Tiger" our troops first encountered in September 1942
      1. Octopus 27 June 2020 07: 35 New
        • 3
        • 4
        -1
        Quote: Bongo
        EMNIP with "Tiger" our troops first encountered in September 1942

        Yes.
        But to make a new car in such a period, starting with the TTZ, is impossible. As you, I hope, know, TTZ on Panther appeared almost a year earlier, despite the fact that even from it to Kursk there was more harm than good.

        For such a development of events, you need to alternatively head someone, and order already in the 42nd year, regardless of the Tiger, a heavy anti-tank defense and its mechanized version. But in the USSR, the ZIS-2 was considered to be a heavy anti-tank gun, and not some 17 pounds, so the SU-85 does not appear in any way. With ZiS-2 you will receive the Soviet Marder, which, in principle, as an ambush PT is much more adequate than the SU-85, and is not suitable for oncoming combat in the same way.

        That is, first you need to alter the new PTO: either an 85mm anti-aircraft gun on the PT gun, or the Soviet Pak36 (p) on the old anti-aircraft cartridge, or even the old anti-aircraft gun, the Soviet M5. Then the mechanized weapon, like the Germans and the Americans. As you know, such a development did not correspond at all to the realities of the 42nd year.

        In order to make a self-propelled self-propelled gun from the T-34, it must be "turned" backwards to the rear-pipe scheme. As we know, Soviet industry was not able to do this.
        1. Andy 27 June 2020 10: 31 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          Quote: Octopus
          But to make a new car in such a period, starting with the TTZ, is impossible. As you, I hope, know, TTZ on Panther appeared almost a year earlier, despite the fact that even from it to Kursk there was more harm than good.

          the basis is already there, su122, the gun too. they must be "connected." in wartime, on the fly did not do such projects. Unless, of course, not be distracted by all sorts of rubbish like an experimental square with three guns in one tower. and this is during the war! but you are right, what prevented the creation of a light fighter based on, say, a T70 with a 57mm gun? here it’s true, I’m unsure whether the “diseases” of the gun itself had been overcome by this time. and in fact, in less than six months T60, T70 were created.
          1. Octopus 27 June 2020 10: 38 New
            • 1
            • 2
            -1
            Quote: Andy
            the basis is already there - su122

            December 42.
            Quote: Andy
            gun too

            To do this, you need to realize the need to strengthen the PT, first of all. A single Tiger will not make such changes in the head.
            Quote: Andy
            but you’re right, what prevented the creation of a light fighter based on, say, a T70 with a 57mm gun

            I don’t remember whether the author wrote about this in previous articles, but the T-26 and T-60 chassis were not suitable for this weapon, and thank God it is not all with the weapon itself. If even before the war there was a decision to make it self-propelled - then it is possible, but in the 42nd it was not so obvious.
            1. Andy 27 June 2020 10: 40 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              T60 I gave an example of the speed of creation. in August they started, in September they released them. and this is during the evacuation and confusion.
              1. AllBiBek 27 June 2020 17: 10 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Sorry, but to simplify what you have learned in a given direction and create a new one on the basis of the existing one - it's still a little different.
                It’s one thing - a simplified military vehicle and a half, and another - a valuable armored car on the chassis of this one and a half.
        2. svp67 27 June 2020 14: 39 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Bongo
          EMNIP with "Tiger" our troops first encountered in September 1942

          Quote: Octopus
          As you, I hope, know, TTZ on Panther appeared almost a year earlier, despite the fact that even from it to Kursk there was more harm than good.

          You all miss the main point, although the author mentioned it at the beginning of the article, namely, that already in the 42nd year, the “workhorse” of the “Panzervaff” Pz-IV increased both its firepower and armor protection, which is standard 76,2, 34 mm TP KV and T punched only at short distances. So, the appearance of such a self-propelled gun was already dictated then.
          Quote: Octopus
          In order to make a self-propelled self-propelled gun from the T-34, it must be "turned" backwards to the rear-pipe scheme. As we know, Soviet industry was not able to do this.

          Why so? The Uralmash self-propelled guns with 100 and 122-mm guns were created and brought to the state of launch in the series, just at that moment they thought that such self-propelled guns should not have a fixed cabin, but a full-fledged turret. But Kharkovites could not bring such a self-propelled gun to mind, there were too many new things in it. But in other matters, recently there was an article on VO about her hi
          1. Octopus 27 June 2020 15: 09 New
            • 1
            • 2
            -1
            Quote: svp67
            You all miss the point

            I do not miss.

            The author really wrote about this, but I am not aware that the growth of the four's armor brought some kind of chuckler. But according to the results of Kursk, yes, there was a big debriefing and, fortunately, basically everyone understood it right.

            As for the four and especially the late Shtug3, they also appeared in large numbers in the 43rd year, so the problem arose in the complex.

            In a complex with Pak40.
            Quote: svp67
            Why so? Tank destroyer Uralmash with 100 and 122 mm

            There were none. And from the Soviet "almost made" cars, you can collect the Death Star. However, not only Soviet.
            1. svp67 27 June 2020 17: 58 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: Octopus
              As for the four and especially the late Shtug3, they also appeared in large numbers in the 43rd year, so the problem arose in the complex.

              Alas, no. It was thanks to these tanks that went into the forces from March 42nd and Pz-III of armed 50 mm TP that the Germans managed to win near Kerch when they managed to destroy our KVs, which for a long time held back the Germans' offensive impulse, also won near Kharkov and the first stage of the battle of Stalingrad and the battle for the Caucasus won thanks to them
              1. Octopus 27 June 2020 20: 50 New
                • 2
                • 2
                0
                Quote: svp67
                It is thanks to these tanks that went into the troops from March 42nd and Pz-III armed 50 mm TP

                I wrote about fours and things with a muzzle 80. Reinforced triples yes, 42nd year. But I never saw indications that the reinforced troika affected the rearmament at 85.
                1. svp67 27 June 2020 22: 12 New
                  • 3
                  • 0
                  +3
                  Quote: Octopus
                  But I never saw indications that the reinforced troika affected the rearmament at 85.

                  I didn’t see the same thing, moreover, I read the report of our Scientific Research Institute of BTV, where at the end of the 42nd and the beginning of the 43rd year our experts predicted the emergence of new tanks from the Germans with moderate armor, but with improved passability and speed.
                  At the expense of the appearance of self-propelled guns with a 85-mm anti-tank system, I expressed my opinion purely.
        3. EvilLion 29 June 2020 09: 44 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          SU-100 looks with surprise at its unsuitability.
      2. EvilLion 29 June 2020 09: 50 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Our "tigers" even knocked out and did not notice. The fact of the presence of a "tiger" was recorded only in January 43rd, when the car was captured. And what could or could not appear there is a separate issue. There were about a hundred “tigers” near the Kursk EMNIP, although he attracted attention, unlike almost 200 “panthers,” who, due to the use of the curve in general, managed to do so, and the Red Army analysts did not pay them special attention.
    2. EvilLion 29 June 2020 09: 39 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      "Jagdpanther" is a fundamentally different class, including at a price. SU-76, whatever it was, for its price gave the infantry a 76 mm gun on a mobile installation. If an expensive and scarce ZiS-4 were stuck on it, then they would get a car suitable only for shooting tanks from ambushes. The Germans had “nashhorn” here, but not too many were built, which already speaks of the niche nature of such weapons. SU-85 was no tank destroyer, its task was to follow the attackers in the second echelon and shoot at everything that hindered, to move forward, it is obvious that 85 mm land mine, much more effective than 57 mm firecrackers.
      1. Octopus 29 June 2020 11: 04 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: EvilLion
        SU-76, whatever it was, for its price gave the infantry a 76 mm gun on a mobile installation. If an expensive and scarce ZiS-4 were stuck on it, we would get a car

        It does not interfere.
        Quote: EvilLion
        SU-85 was no tank destroyer, its task is to follow the attackers in the second echelon and shoot at everything that hinders, move forward,

        This is the task of SU-122, which was abandoned for the sake of SU-85.
        Quote: EvilLion
        SU-100 looks with surprise at its unsuitability

        Firstly, the problems of the SU-100 with the front roller are well known. Secondly, in a combination of armor and armor penetration, this machine corresponds to Hetzer. Already the yagdpanzer has good chances against her due to fire performance, the yagdpanther even more so.
  5. strannik1985 27 June 2020 10: 27 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The use of these machines in the Battle of Kursk could have a serious impact on the course of hostilities.

    According to the descriptions of the battles, the towed artillery had a greater influence on the German side, in particular, they wrote that the TA artillery commander needed his own control battery, because during Prokhorovka, the beginner simply could not control ADD fire (66 ~ 76 barrels with a caliber of 122 mm, including 12 B-4, 18 ML-20 and 36 A-19).
  6. Looking for 27 June 2020 14: 47 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Recalls the "fighter abilities of a fighter." Or the "diving capabilities of a submarine."
  7. Tests 27 June 2020 15: 00 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Great, Sergey, you wrote: "The level of losses in the SAP equipped with the SU-85 depended directly on the tactical literacy of the command." Spring of 1944, the Germans from Leningrad in the forests and swamps were driven away, including several regiments of self-propelled guns with Su-85. And all their fathers-commanders used in different ways.
    401 guards SAP in the 67 Army: February 21 in the ranks of 9 SU-85; On March 9-12, the battle near the village of POGOSTISHCHE, the village of ZUIEVO, the village of LEKHINO, the loss of 8 SU-85, 6 people were killed, 5 people were injured .; March 15 in service 3 SU-85; March 28, in the formation of 8 SU-85, received 5 SU-122 (most likely equipment from 1434 glanders); March 31 in the ranks of 9 SU-85 and 3 SU-122 battle at the village STREMUTKA; April 1-3 fight at the village of YAVANOVO, losses 3 SU-85 and 2 SU-122, in the ranks of 6 SU-85, 1 SU-122; April 5-7, the battle at the village of PODBORIE, the village of TOROZHENKA; April 8 in service 6 SU-85 and 3 SU-122; April 11, 6 SU-85 and 4 SU-122, obtained from 31 Guards of military operations 4 SU-152; April 13 received from repair 1 T-34; April 14 - 15, the battle near the village of YAVANOVO, losses 4 SU-85, 4 SU-122, 4 SU-152; April 16 in service 2 SU-85, 1 T-34; April 29, in the ranks of 3 SU-85 and 1 T-34, the entire materiel was transferred to 33 Guards. In May 1944, the regiment was withdrawn from the Leningrad Front and sent to the rear for restoration.
    In March, as part of the 42 Army, 2 SA regiments were torn from the north to Pskov:
    750 SAP: March 16, introduced into the 42nd Army; In the formation of 9 Su-85 on March 17, the battle near the village of BOGDANOVO was not a loss in equipment. Until 01.06.1944/XNUMX/XNUMX did not conduct military operations.
    1294 SAP: on March 7, in the formation of 12 SU-85, 1 T-34, firefight at the village of SOMRY BOR and height 55,6 (the Germans had 4 2 amphibious machine-gun bunkers at the height, the height passed from hand to hand ); March 8 - 12 and March 17 the battle at the village of BOGDANOVO there are no losses in equipment. Until 01.06.1944/XNUMX/XNUMX did not conduct military operations.
    At that time, in the 42 armies there were 13 T-26s and 45 Ba-10s in reserve, it seems that by the beginning of 1944 it was completely useless equipment, but it flew. The Germans tried to get around the light T-60 and T-70 on ice, but the ice of Lake Pskov was thin (the distance between the tanks during reconnaissance was 100-200 m), and hummocks prevented the passage of tanks from the shore ...
    1495 SAP: According to the list of 16 SU-85 and 1 T-34, on February 1 it was included in the 2nd Shock Army; February 17, crossed to the bridgehead south of the city of NARVA; February 17-22, the battle of d. SURRESORU and d. AUVER; February 23, withdrawn from the bridgehead to the army reserve; March 9-11, the battle near the village of LILIENBACHI and the village of POPOVKA; March 19-26, a fire battle near the village of LILIENBACHI and the village of POPOVKA; Lost in February-March at least 12 SU-85 and 1 T-34; Until 01.06.1944/XNUMX/XNUMX did not conduct military operations.
    In Ukraine, with its fields, with German optics on new tanks, the Su-85 in 1944, of course, could operate only from ambushes. And in the swampy-wooded area of ​​the Leningrad and Novgorod, later Pskov regions, in the Republic of the Soviet Baltic States, in East Prussia, with proper use, SU-85 proved to be not bad.
  8. WapentakeLokki 27 June 2020 17: 46 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Bongo
    Quote: Octopus
    Something also incurred you in altistory, Sergey.

    Hello! I do not see anything impossible in the fact that the SU-85 could appear six months earlier, and be produced in parallel with the SU-122. EMNIP with "Tiger" our troops first encountered in September 1942

    ..a even earlier our KV-1 cord came out with a cannon as on an average T-34..but after all it could (which was realized during the war) have the same 85 mm anti-aircraft gun ... but the strange logician of Leningraders armed the heavy 76.5 mm ..
  9. bubalik 27 June 2020 19: 56 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Report on the use and use of self-propelled artillery SU-85




    1. bubalik 27 June 2020 20: 07 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      ,,, well, the enemy also used it.



  10. Dr. Frankenstucker 28 June 2020 15: 08 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    In the next post-war decade, all SU-85 were decommissioned or converted into tractors.


    well, not quite in the near future - the NNA converted its 46 SU-85 into ARVs only in 1961
    1. Bongo 29 June 2020 04: 26 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: Dr. Frankenstucker
      In the next post-war decade, all SU-85 were decommissioned or converted into tractors.


      well, not quite in the near future - the NNA converted its 46 SU-85 into ARVs only in 1961

      It was about the Soviet army. In the late 50s, we no longer had the SU-85. no
      1. Dr. Frankenstucker 29 June 2020 12: 18 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Quote: Bongo
        It was about the Soviet army.


        understood sorry.
  11. Ngauro 29 June 2020 12: 03 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    observation devices are bad yes, but it was the SIGHTS on our tanks that were always good
  12. Kostadinov 29 June 2020 13: 47 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: riwas
    The trunks of German guns were longer, but this is not the main thing. German shells were the accomplishment of ours — better manufacture and most essential — the presence of an armor-piercing (protective) tip of the shell (at the moment of meeting with the armor it collapses, but also destroys the upper layer of the armor, "preparing" it for penetration by the main shell). Ours managed to make such shells only after the war on the basis of German captured shells. Although the armor-piercing tip was proposed by the famous Russian admiral S.O. Makarov.

    In Russia and the USSR could and did shells with armor-piercing tips for fleet artillery even before the First World War.
    They didn’t do such things for field artillery in the Great Patriotic War because they didn’t “succeed”, but because they were expensive and could not cope with the tips.
    And the SU-85 is a demonstration that even without a rotating turret, a very cheap and effective armored vehicle is obtained.
    1. Alexey RA 30 June 2020 14: 51 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Kostadinov
      They didn’t do such things for field artillery in the Great Patriotic War because they didn’t “succeed”, but because they were expensive and could not cope with the tips.

      Not. For field artillery, normal BBSs were needed tolike air like bread ©. But in the USSR they made BB shells for it with uneven hardening of the body and a mushroom tip
      That is, we take a solid cast, grind out a mushroom-shaped head and subject the case to uneven hardening so that the head is solid and breaks through the armor (collapsing at the same time), and the less hard, but less fragile chamber part ensures the passage of a burst charge beyond the armor. Here is such a difficult happiness of the technologist, which in the event of war will require millions of copies.

      And all this is only because the industry of the USSR was not able to use other technologies. Before the war, we could not make a welding head - the only solution available to us was copper soldering, which cut the release of shells by orders of magnitude. The American way of over-alloying the shells of AP shells (as a result of which the 75-mm American BBB in domestic tests passed through the side armor of the Tiger without serious deformation of the hull) was even more impossible for us - we did not have so many additives.
      1. Jager 30 June 2020 20: 13 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        It is a miracle that, having lost all of the industry of the USSR, something could be released at all.
        1. Octopus 30 June 2020 20: 57 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Jager
          It is a miracle that, having lost all of the industry of the USSR, something could be released at all.

          Yes, but no.

          Shrapnel to strike instead of BB, including for tank guns - these are the realities of the summer of the 41st year. First of all, this is just 3 "concerns.
        2. Alexey RA 2 July 2020 10: 02 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Jager
          It is a miracle that, having lost all of the industry of the USSR, something could be released at all.

          CCCP could not produce AP shells of the "German" and "American" type even before the war, with the whole industry.
          A 76,2 mm AP of shells with uneven hardening of the NKBP body for 1939-1941. released a total of 149300 pieces instead of 550000 ordered. The 1939 plan was completely disrupted - 3300 BBS instead of 200000. The 1940 plan was completely disrupted: 28000 BBS instead of 150000. The 1941 plan breaks down: 118000 BBS as of June 1941 instead of at least 200000 (400000 for the whole of 1941).
          And to catch up a plan even without a war would still fail:
          NKB Plant No. 73, director of Comrade KAKUNIN, had a mission for May for 21 shells and 000 for June. The plant did not deliver a single shell in May and also disrupts the mission for June. At the same time, this plant is provided with metal and equipment, has experience in the production of 47 mm armor-piercing shells since 000, and is in the most favorable conditions in terms of production compared to all other plants.
          © Kulik
          Result:
          6th MK on 30.04.1941/XNUMX/XNUMX:
          The sheet for military unit 9090 for April 30, 1941, in the column "76 mm armor-piercing tracer" - 33084 is assigned, 33084 is lacking, the percentage of security is 0.

          3th MK on 25.04.1941/XNUMX/XNUMX:
          KV 79 tanks, T-34 tanks - 50, 17948 armor-piercing 76-mm shells are laid on a time sheet, there is zero.

          Two "autumn" MK KOVO:
          He reports on the provision of weapons and ammunition as of May 1, 1941. The 4th mechanized corps of Major General Andrei Andreyevich Vlasov (the very future commander of the 37th, 20th, 2nd shock and Russian liberation armies): The KV corps has 72 tanks, the T-34 tanks have 242 tanks, it is supposed to have 76 artillery shots for 66964-mm tank guns, of which zero is available. All types - at least armor-piercing, at least high-explosive fragmentation - are still zero. But in the 8th mechanized corps of Lieutenant General Dmitry Ivanovich Ryabyshev, there are some armor-piercing shells for tank guns of the latest types: as of June 10, the corps has 71 KV tanks, 100 T-34s, it is supposed to have 8163 armor-piercing 76 mm shell, there is 2350.
          © Ulanov / Shein
  13. Grossvater 30 June 2020 09: 39 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    It seems like the D5S had a barrel length of 55 calibers?
  14. Kostadinov 30 June 2020 17: 08 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: Alexey RA
    And all this is only because the industry of the USSR was not able to use other technologies. Before the war, we could not make a welding head - the only solution available to us was copper soldering, which cut the release of shells by orders of magnitude. The American way of over-alloying the shells of AP shells (as a result of which the 75-mm American BBB in domestic tests passed through the side armor of the Tiger without serious deformation of the hull) was even more impossible for us - we did not have so many additives.

    Thanks for confirming my words. The USSR (before Russia, Russia) produced shells with armor-piercing tips for the fleet for 305, 254, 203, 180, 152 mm guns. I think that with 130 mm guns such a projectile hit (half-armor-piercing but with a tip). So that they could and didn’t do them just because these shells were very expensive. As you write, you needed a soldering beat and it cut the start-up by orders of magnitude. At the same time, pointed and blunt-headed armor-piercing shells without an armored tip and even HE shells very well drove all types of German armored vehicles so that expensive shells with soldering were not necessary. In other words, Soviet artillery beat German tanks without "air and bread."
    The issue is economic efficiency, not technological capabilities.
    1. Octopus 30 June 2020 21: 00 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Kostadinov
      armor-piercing shells without an armored tip and even HE shells drove all types of German armored vehicles very well, so there was no need for expensive shells with soldering.

      You have some kind of alternative reality there. No, OFS from ZiS-3 did not break the three, these are fairy tales. Even worse, with BB it was not all clear.
    2. Alexey RA 2 July 2020 10: 19 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Kostadinov
      At the same time, withead and dullhead armor-piercing shells without an armored tip and even HE shells very well drove all types of German armored vehicles

      The normal BBS by 3 "appeared only in 1943. Prior to this, the standard BR-350A (the same one with uneven hardening) was regularly cracked on the armor - the armor-piercing" fungus "instead of destroying the surface-hardened layer of armor was simply broken off, after which the shell of the shell cracked on the armor without breaking through.
      By the way, even before the war, the GAU conducted armor shootings with different K coefficients with all armor-piercing and concrete-slaughter shells that existed in the Red Army. The conclusion was depressing:
      45 mm tank and anti-tank gun and 76 mm guns mod. 02/30, L-11, F-32 and F-34 can not successfully combat medium and heavy tanks with armor more than 50 mm.

      And about the OFS ... here the problem is that the only somehow effective when shooting at the OFS tanks was a grenade with a steel body of the pre-war release.
      2. High-explosive fragmentation steel grenade. It can be used when firing at light (in some cases medium) tanks during their oblique movement on the sides, or in the turret ring, which leads to the destruction of side sheets, or to their detachment from the mounts, as well as jamming of the tower and damage to tower mechanisms, including optical sights and observation devices ... In a number of cases, there was a cessation of the turret’s rotation ability, and in the case of howitzers firing, and a light tank’s tower being disengaged from the mounts ...
      (...)
      5. A high-explosive steel grenade is most effective in case of firing on the sides of the tank during its oblique movement ...

      But with the outbreak of war, the OFS corps began to be made of steel cast iron.
      6. Fragmentation grenade of steel cast iron can only be used when firing at the tank’s tower "to blind" ...
      © From the report “Defeat of the armor of German tanks”. July 1942 NII-48.
  15. Jager 30 June 2020 20: 11 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Correct the author. The photo from the self-propelled guns shows Stug. III Ausf. G
  16. Kostadinov 1 July 2020 09: 57 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Octopus
    Quote: Kostadinov
    armor-piercing shells without an armored tip and even HE shells drove all types of German armored vehicles very well, so there was no need for expensive shells with soldering.

    You have some kind of alternative reality there. No, OFS from ZiS-3 did not break the three, these are fairy tales. Even worse, with BB it was not all clear.

    I don’t have the real reality of World War II. Although the OFS from Zis-3 did not pierce the love armor of the T-3, it often inflicted such damage that the tank drove out of order.
    1. Alexey RA 2 July 2020 10: 20 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Kostadinov
      Although the OFS from Zis-3 did not pierce the love armor of the T-3, it often inflicted such damage that the tank drove out of order.

      If in the BC ZIS-3, by some miracle, the OFS turned out to be with the steel body of the pre-war release.
      And if it was a wartime grenade, then when hit, it would demolish the armored parts of observation devices to the maximum.
  17. Kostadinov 2 July 2020 10: 03 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Octopus
    You have some kind of alternative reality there. No, OFS from ZiS-3 did not break the three, these are fairy tales. Even worse, with BB it was not all clear.

    I got to the report on tests in October 1942 "the results of the shelling of a German T-3 tank from a 76 mm F-34 gun, 76 mm RP steel grenade:
    ! Hit on the left side of the turret box of the case, the thickness of the armor is 30 mm, the sheet is broken on the length of one meter, over the entire neck and is crushed into pieces. Inside the tank, everything is damaged by fragments.
    2. Hit on the right side of the tower, thickness 30 mm, tearing the hatch door in the tower. Break the upper and lower shoulder straps of the tower, With fragments of a shell and armor, everything in the tower is damaged.
    This is how the 76 mm OFS “didn’t penetrate the three”, but the German tankmen felt better about it.
  18. Kostadinov 2 July 2020 10: 39 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    By the way, even before the war, the GAU conducted armor shootings with different K coefficients with all armor-piercing and concrete-slaughter shells that existed in the Red Army. The conclusion was depressing:
    45 mm tank and anti-tank gun and 76 mm guns mod. 02/30, L-11, F-32 and F-34 can not successfully combat medium and heavy tanks with armor more than 50 mm.

    I quote quotations in October 1942 "The results of shelling a German T-3 tank from a 76 mm F-34 gun," 76 mm armor-piercing projectile:
    900 meters distance the frontal plate of the hull with a 60 mm screen (30 + 30), the through hole in the first and second sheet of armor, the gearbox is damaged inside the tank.
    And about the OFS ... here the problem is that the only somehow effective when shooting at the OFS tanks was a grenade with a steel body of the pre-war release.

    The stock of these grenades (with the steel body of the pre-war launch) hit big (until the end of 1942 there were enough of them) and I have no information that these OFSs ceased to produce at all during the war. Stalistigo cast iron grenade is only fragmentation and not OF. Do you claim that they ceased to produce steel OF grenades after the start of the war?
  19. Alien From Yesterday, 13: 05 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Thanks to the author, I always read with interest)!