Military Review

What Soviet self-propelled guns were "St. John's wort"? Analysis of anti-tank capabilities of domestic self-propelled guns

115

The first Soviet self-propelled gun with a pronounced anti-tank orientation was the SU-85. This machine is built on the basis of medium tank T-34, as a whole, was quite consistent with its purpose. But in the second half of the war, the SU-85 armor no longer provided the necessary protection, and the 85-mm gun could provide confident penetration of the frontal armor of heavy German tanks at a distance of no more than 800 m. In this connection, the question arose of creating a self-propelled artillery mount capable of equal to resist all existing and promising enemy tanks.


The results of the shelling at the range of captured German heavy tanks showed that to significantly increase armor penetration, it is necessary to increase the initial velocity of an 85-mm caliber armor-piercing projectile to 1050 m / s or to use subcaliber shells with carbide core. However, the creation of a new shot with an increased weight of the powder charge in wartime was considered impossible, and the mass production of sub-caliber shells required an increased consumption of scarce cobalt and tungsten. Tests showed that for the confident destruction of heavy German tanks and self-propelled guns, a gun of at least 100 mm caliber was required. By that time, the 107-mm tank gun ZIS-6 (based on the M-60 divisional cannon) was created in the USSR. But the ZIS-6, like the M-60, had a separate-shell loading, which limited the rate of fire. In addition, the production of the M-60 was stopped in 1941, and the tank version was still not finalized. Therefore, for a new anti-tank self-propelled gun, it was decided to design a gun using unitary shots of a 100-mm B-34 sea universal gun. The marine system initially had unitary loading, and the B-34 shell had a higher initial velocity. The difference between armor-piercing shells for the B-34 and M-60 turned out to be less than two kilograms. However, the creation of a tank 100-mm guns with acceptable overall dimensions proved to be a daunting task. In early 1944, under the leadership of F.F. Petrov, a new 10-mm gun D-100S was created on the basis of the D-10 sea anti-aircraft gun. The D-10S gun was lighter than its competitors and could be placed on the chassis of the T-34 medium tank without significant changes and unnecessary weight increase.

SU-100 self-propelled artillery mount


In February 1944, tests of the self-propelled artillery mount SU-100 began, during which 1040 rounds were fired and 864 km were completed. When creating the SU-100, the designers of Uralmashzavod used the achievements of the modernized SU-85, created at the end of 1943. The crew of the SU-100 compared to the SU-85 has not changed, but many significant improvements have been made, of which the appearance of the commander’s turret was the most noticeable. However, when developing a new tank destroyer, the caliber of the gun was not only increased. To provide protection against the most common German 75 mm Pak 40 and Kw.K.40 L / 48 guns, the thickness of the upper frontal sheet and the driver’s hatch increased to 75 mm at an angle of inclination of 50 °. The thickness of the side armor remained the same - 45 mm. The thickness of the gun’s mask was 100 mm. The double-leaf hatch for the panorama in the roof of the hull has changed a lot, also the MK-IV periscope device has appeared in its left wing. Inspection periscope devices around the cabin were removed, but an exhaust fan returned to the roof. They refused to tilt the stern leaf, which increased the volume of the fighting compartment. The overall design of the gun installation was similar to the SU-85. Also, the left front fuel tank was removed from the fighting compartment, and the suspension of the front track rollers was strengthened. Ammunition compared to the SU-85 decreased by almost a third, to 33 rounds. The gun was mounted in the front plate of the wheelhouse in a cast frame on double trunnions, allowing its guidance in the vertical plane in the range from −3 to + 20 ° and in the horizontal ± 8 °. When shooting direct fire, guidance on the target was carried out using the telescopic articulated sight TSh-19, and from closed positions - using the Hertz panorama and side level. During the tests, a rate of fire of up to 8 rds / min was obtained. The practical rate of fire of the gun was 4-6 rds / min.


The first prototype SU-100 and serial SU-85

A 100-hp V-2-34 diesel engine was installed on the SU-500, thanks to which the self-propelled guns weighing 31,6 tons could reach speeds of up to 50 km / h on the highway. Speed ​​on a march along a dirt road usually did not exceed 25 km / h. The capacity of the internal fuel tanks was 400 liters, which provided the car with a cruising range of 310 km on the highway. Cruising cross country - 140 km.

The standard for the serial SU-100 was the second prototype, on which the main shortcomings identified during the tests were eliminated. Instead of perforated track rollers, continuous bandages with greater survivability began to be used. Two smoke bombs were fastened to the upper stern sheet of the hull. Also on the roof of the wheelhouse, to the right of the hatch under the panorama, a cap appeared on which a new gun stop was attached in a marching manner. The thickness of the armor of the commander’s turret was brought to 90 mm.

What Soviet self-propelled guns were "St. John's wort"? Analysis of anti-tank capabilities of domestic self-propelled guns

SU-100 self-propelled artillery mount

On July 3, 1944, GKO Decree No. 6131 was issued on the adoption of the SU-100 for service. The first batch of 40 cars was delivered to the military in September 1944.


During the front-line tests, the self-propelled gun was highly appreciated, but deliveries to self-propelled artillery regiments had to be postponed for several months due to the lack of mass production of 100-mm armor-piercing shells. By the way, the same problem was encountered during the combat use of the BS-3 field guns. At first, in their ammunition there were only unitary shots with high-explosive fragmentation grenades. In connection with the forced delay in the production of the SU-100, the transitional installation, the SU-85M, went into the series. This car was produced from September to November 1944 and was a “hybrid” of the SU-100 chassis and the SU-85A weapons.

Since the development of the production of armor-piercing projectile BR-412B was delayed until October 1944, the first self-propelled guns entered training centers. Only in November regiments equipped with the SU-100 were formed and sent to the front. The staffing of the SAP was the same as the regiments that had SU-85. The regiment totaled 318 people and had 21 self-propelled guns (20 vehicles in 5 batteries and 1 self-propelled gun of the regiment commander). At the end of the year, the first self-propelled artillery brigades (SABR) were formed on the basis of individual tank brigades: 207th Leningradskaya, 208th Dvinskaya and 209th. The main reasons for the formation of the SABR were difficulties with the management and organization of supply of EPS, the number of which by the end of 1944 exceeded two hundred. The brigade had 65 SU-100 and 3 SU-76M.


For the first time, the SU-100 was massively used in battle in January 1945 during the Budapest operation. Given the fact that the Red Army by the beginning of 1945 was sufficiently saturated with anti-tank artillery, new T-34-85 and IS-2 tanks, as well as self-propelled guns SU-85, ISU-122 and ISU-152, very effective in anti-tank the new SU-100 self-propelled guns did not have much impact on the course of hostilities. In addition, the normal operation of the SU-100 at first was prevented by a number of design and manufacturing defects. On some machines, cracks appeared in the welds of the hull and there was a destruction of the details of the gun mount during firing. Despite the fact that, based on the operating experience of the SU-122 and SU-85, the road wheels strengthened and also made improvements to the suspension design, there was increased wear on the first pair of road wheels. Not only the bandages were destroyed, but also cracks in the disks were found. As a result, it was necessary to simultaneously supply the parts with new track rollers and develop a reinforced front track roller and its balancer.

New self-propelled guns really showed themselves on January 11, when German tanks of up to 100 units, supported by infantry, launched a counterattack. On that day, the forces of the 1453th and 1821st SAPs burned 20 enemy tanks. At the same time, along with high anti-tank qualities, it was revealed that the SU-100 is more vulnerable to anti-tank infantry means than tanks. This was due to the fact that the self-propelled guns initially did not have machine gun weapons, and pointing the gun at close targets required turning the hull. Due to the fact that the barrel length of the D-10C gun exceeded 5 meters, maneuvering in the wooded area and on city streets was difficult. In early January, the 382nd GvSAP, even without engaging in battle with enemy armored vehicles, lost half of its self-propelled guns as a result of an attack by enemy infantry, which turned out to be nothing to fight back.


In order to reduce losses from infantry armed with Faustpatrons, some of the vehicles were additionally equipped with light machine guns. To destroy the fortifications in the settlements, it was decided to use the ISU-152 and tanks.

The most widely used SU-100s were used during the Balaton operation on March 6–16, 1945, when they repelled the counterattacks of the 6th SS Panzer Army. At the same time, the 207th, 208th and 209th self-propelled artillery brigades were involved, as well as several separate self-propelled artillery regiments. During the operation, the SU-100 played a significant role in repelling German tank attacks and proved to be a highly effective means in the fight against German heavy armored vehicles, including PzKpfw VI Ausf heavy tanks. B Tiger II. As a result of the operation, the SU-100 deserved an extremely high rating.


At the final stage of the war, German tanks rarely appeared on the battlefield, and the SU-100 crews mainly spent high-explosive shells. However, in conditions where it was possible to precisely aim the gun, the 100-mm high-explosive fragmentation shell UOF-412 showed good effectiveness against field fortifications, enemy manpower and lightly armored vehicles, significantly surpassing the high-explosive and fragmentation effect of the 85-mm grenade UO-367 . Cases were recorded when German medium tanks PzKpfw.IV were shot down with 100 mm fragmentation grenades when firing at ranges up to 4000 m. Apparently, we are talking about damage to the chassis with a close gap of a powerful projectile weighing 15,6 kg, containing 1,46 kg of explosives. However, with a direct hit on board, a relatively thin 30 mm “four” side armor could also be pierced.


As for the armor-piercing ability of the D-10S gun when firing an armor-piercing-tracing projectile BR-412, it turned out to be quite satisfactory. The projectile weighing 15,88 kg had an initial speed of 897 m / s and at a distance of 1500 m it pierced 115 mm armor normally. At a distance of 1000 m, when meeting at a right angle, a 100-mm shell pierced a 135-mm armor plate. The shelling of captured tanks at the training ground showed that a 100-mm cannon pierces the frontal armor of the Tiger and Panther at a distance of up to 1500 meters. The side armor of the heaviest serial German tanks, not exceeding 82 mm, as well as the frontal armor of the main mass medium PzKpfw.IV tanks and StuG.III / IV self-propelled guns, made their way from a distance of 2000 meters or more. Thus, the armor penetration of D-10S at real combat distances allowed it to confidently hit the frontal armor of most German tanks and self-propelled guns.


German heavy tank PzKpfw VI Ausf. B. Tiger II

Formally, protection against 100-mm armor-piercing shells at a distance of more than 500 m was provided by the frontal armor of the PzKpfw VI Ausf heavy tank. B. Tiger II, as well as heavy tank destroyers Panzerjäger Tiger Ausf. B and Sturmkanone mit 8,8 cm StuK 43. But due to the acute shortage of alloying metals, the Germans were forced to use high-hardness armored steel in the second half of the war, and the armor of the Tiger-II and self-propelled guns “Yagdtigr” cracked and gave internal chips affecting crew and equipment. Due to the small number of built specimens, the heavy self-propelled guns Ferdinand self-propelled guns did not significantly affect the course of hostilities and, if they appeared on the battlefield, were destroyed by concentrated artillery fire.

Self-propelled artillery SU-100 appeared too late and could not fully demonstrate its high anti-tank potential on the fields of the Second World War. By April 1945, inclusive, the industry handed over 1139 self-propelled guns. But their use was largely constrained by manufacturing defects and problems with the chassis. In the spring of 1945, it was possible to cure most of the "children's ills," but the war in Europe soon ended.

Serial production of the SU-100 continued in the postwar period. In addition to Sverdlovsk, the SU-100 was produced in Omsk, until the beginning of 1948 a total of 3241 cars were built. In the post-war period, Czechoslovakia received a license for the SU-100, where in the period from 1953 to 1956 another 770 self-propelled guns of this type were produced. Self-propelled guns SU-100 were actively exported and participated in a number of local conflicts.


In our country, the SU-100 was actively operated until the second half of the 1970s, after which it was stored until the second half of the 1990s. The longest service of anti-tank self-propelled guns lasted in the Red Banner Far Eastern Military District. Machines built on the T-34 chassis showed better cross-country ability on soft soils than the T-55 and T-62 tanks, which was important in a vast territory with numerous swampy floodplains and taiga gauze.


The SU-100 was also noted in the cinema. In the film “At War as at War”, shot in 1968 according to the novel of the same name by Viktor Kurochkin, this self-propelled gun depicted SU-85, which in the late 1960s was no longer in good condition in the USSR.

Analysis of anti-tank capabilities of Soviet self-propelled guns


In the final part of the cycle devoted to the anti-tank capabilities of self-propelled artillery, we will try to find out which Soviet self-propelled guns were best suited for the role of a tank destroyer. As already mentioned in a previous publication on the SU-152 and ISU-152, these machines are most often called "St. John's wort". Another question: how fair is this?

It is clear that the hit of a 152-mm armor-piercing or even high-explosive fragmentation shell usually ended fatally for any serial object of German armored vehicles. However, in practice, the duel situation with the Tiger or Panther was conceived not in favor of the crew of the Soviet self-propelled guns. A heavy self-propelled gun equipped with an ML-20S gun, which was a tank version of the 152-mm howitzer-gun mod. 1937, primarily intended for the destruction of long-term fortifications and fire support of tanks and infantry. With the powerful striking effect of the shell, the "howitzer" origin made itself felt. The range of a direct shot at a target with a height of 3 m was 800 m, and the separate-shell loading in combat conditions did not allow more than 2 shots per minute.

The ISU-152, armed with a 122-mm D-122S gun, had a much greater firing range compared to the ISU-25. In this artillery system, the direct range of a target with a height of 3 m was 1200 m, and the effective range of armored vehicles was up to 2500 m. At a distance of 1000 m, a 122-mm armor-piercing projectile 53-BR-471 when shot at an angle of 60 ° pierced 108- mm armor, which made it possible to confidently destroy enemy heavy tanks. Due to the deterioration of the quality of German armor at the final stage of the war, 122-mm shells showed higher efficiency. There have been cases when the Panthers failed after hitting the frontal projection at a distance of up to 2500 m. However, for the tank destroyer the self-propelled guns ISU-122 had an insufficiently high rate of fire - 1,5-2 rounds / min. The problem of increasing the rate of fire was partially solved after installing the D-122C gun with a dual-chamber muzzle brake on a modernized self-propelled gun ISU-25C. A more convenient crew location in the fighting compartment and the use of a semi-automatic gun shutter contributed to an increase in the combat rate of fire up to 3-4 rounds / min, which, however, was still less than that of German tanks and anti-tank guns armed with 75-88-mm long-barreled guns.

In this regard, against the background of the ISU-122/152, the SU-100 looked more advantageous, the gun of which could make up to 6 aimed shots. Although the 122-152-mm self-propelled guns had some advantage in armor penetration, in practice, the effective range of heavy tanks from 1400-1500 m with an armor-piercing shell fired from the D-10S was quite enough.

A fairly indicative criterion is the fire performance of the Soviet 85-152-mm self-propelled guns used at the final stage of the war. The SU-85, armed with an 85-mm D-5C cannon, could launch up to 8 armor-piercing shells with a total mass of 76,3 kg per minute at the enemy. The SU-100, having fired 6 rounds per minute, rained down on the enemy 95,28 kg of hot metal and explosives. SU-122 per minute could release 2 armor-piercing shells with a total mass of 50 kg. ISU-122S, equipped with a more rapid-fire gun D-25S, per minute fired up to 4 shells with a total weight of 100 kg. ISU-152, armed with an ML-20S howitzer, giving an average rate of fire of 1,5 rounds / min, while firing armor-piercing shells - 73,2 kg. Thus, the fire-performance champions are the SU-100 and ISU-122S, and the worst results are demonstrated by the SU-122 and ISU-152, armed with piston-locked guns. Against the background of the 122-152-mm self-propelled guns, the SU-85 with a relatively low-powered gun looks very worthy.

It should also be noted that the SU-100, created on the basis of the T-34, was much cheaper to manufacture than heavy self-propelled guns built on the chassis of the IS-85 tank. Formally, the security of the ISU-122/152, covered in front by 60-90 mm armor, was higher than that of the SU-100, protected in front by 75 mm armor. However, in reality, the difference in security was not so obvious. The slope of the frontal 90-mm armor of the ISU-122/152 wheelhouse was 30 °, and on the SU-100 the frontal armor was tilted at an angle of 50 °, which in terms of projectile resistance gave approximately the same 90 mm. Such armor at a distance of more than 500 m well protected from Pzgr 39 armor-piercing shells fired from a 75-mm gun 7,5 cm KwK 40 L / 48, which was installed on the modernized “four”. At the same time, the German 75-mm tank gun 7,5 cm KwK 42, which was mounted on the Panther, with the Pzgr 39/42 armor-piercing tracer, could penetrate the ISU-122/152 armor at a range of up to 1500 m. German 75-mm rate of fire tank guns was 5-8 rds / min. In the event of a direct collision with heavy German tanks at real battle distances, speed and mobility were more important than protection. It was more difficult to get into the more maneuverable SU-100, since it was 122 mm lower than the ISU-235, and the difference in height of the SU-100 with the ISU-152 was 625 mm.

It can be stated that the SU-100, well adapted for mass production, was the most optimal anti-tank self-propelled gun, which had a high rate of fire and decent data on penetration of armor with satisfactory security and good mobility. At the same time, we can conclude that the anti-tank capabilities of the D-10S gun during the war were not fully realized due to the lack of armor-piercing shells that were modern by the standards of it. Tungsten carbide-tipped shells for Soviet tank and anti-tank guns were developed only in the post-war period.

No matter how offensive it may be, it should be recognized that our designers and industry in terms of the creation of tank destroyers did not keep pace with the needs of the army. This fully applies to the SU-85, SU-100 and ISU-122S. By the summer of 1943, due to the increased security and firepower of German medium tanks and self-propelled guns based on them, the Red Army experienced an urgent need for a self-propelled gun armed with an 85-mm anti-aircraft gun. Given the fact that the SU-85 was created on the basis of the SU-122, launched into serial production at the end of 1942, this machine could appear much earlier. It was the SU-85 that actually became the main Soviet tank destroyer, which destroyed much more German tanks than more advanced self-propelled guns. By the time the SU-100 and ISU-122C appeared in noticeable numbers in the Red Army, the Panzerwaffe ridge was actually broken, and these vehicles did not have a significant impact on the course of the war.
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
Antitank capabilities of Soviet 122 mm self-propelled artillery mounts
Antitank capabilities of the Soviet self-propelled artillery mount SU-85
Anti-tank capabilities of the Soviet self-propelled artillery systems SU-152 and ISU-152
115 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Phil77
    Phil77 14 July 2020 18: 07 New
    28
    Great article, great cycle! Thank you very much Sergey!
    Is that all? hi
    1. Bongo
      15 July 2020 01: 55 New
      24
      Quote: Phil77
      Great article, great loop!

      Thank you for your kind words, but unfortunately, due to lack of time, there were some jambs. request
      Quote: Phil77
      Thank you very much Sergey!

      Thanks also to my co-author.

      All the while I was typing on the keyboard, this chocolate girl sat next to the monitor and looked at me in love with her eyes, periodically touching her hand with my paw.
      Quote: Phil77
      Is that all?

      Everything on this topic. hi
      1. avia12005
        avia12005 15 July 2020 05: 49 New
        +9

        The reader rated it "excellent."
        1. Bongo
          15 July 2020 12: 54 New
          0
          Quote: avia12005
          The reader rated it "excellent."

          Cornish?
      2. Mister X
        Mister X 15 July 2020 17: 48 New
        +1
        hi
        Great cycle!
        Thank you!
        ... the periscope instrument MK-IV appeared in its left wing.
        Author: Linnik Sergey

        This refers to the periscope of Rudolf Gundlach?
  2. polpot
    polpot 14 July 2020 18: 15 New
    20
    SU 100 is a very good self-propelled gun, sorry for a couple of years late, thanks for the article. Eternal memory to the fallen soldiers.
  3. demiurg
    demiurg 14 July 2020 18: 36 New
    +2
    Measure the PT properties of self-propelled guns in kg / min of iron, well, like niochin.
    And they could not solve 100-200 self-propelled guns at the end of the war.
    The reality is that it was cheap-angry and anti-tank ZiS-30. It is a pity that the idea of ​​the development of mobile artillery did not receive. Then at one time was the SU-85. Everything else is from the evil one.
    SU-76 is not a tank destroyer, from the word at all. SU / ISU-122/152 is not against tanks, it is to demolish low-rise and not very low-rise buildings.
    1. lucul
      lucul 14 July 2020 23: 01 New
      +2
      Measure the PT properties of self-propelled guns in kg / min of iron, well, like niochin.

      It is quite normal, but in fact, such a factor took place in the effectiveness of fire.
      For SU-152 / ISU-152
      Range of a direct shot at a target 3 m high was 800

      For ISU-122
      The ISU-152, armed with a 122-mm D-122S gun, had a much greater firing range compared to the ISU-25. For this artillery system, the range of a direct shot at a target with a height of 3 m was 1200 m,

      An extremely important indicator in battle, I’ll only recall that the Tiger had a direct shot range of 2m. It was a very comfortable gun for the gunner.
      1. DesToeR
        DesToeR 15 July 2020 12: 25 New
        0
        Quote: lucul
        An extremely important indicator in battle, I’ll only recall that the Tiger had a direct shot range of 2m

        Which Tiger? EMNIP at Tiger 1 range of a direct shot was about 800 ... 1000m. The "second" will have more, but it is doubtful that 2000m, because the projectile weighed 10 kg at 1000 m / s and quickly lost its initial speed.
  4. Thrifty
    Thrifty 14 July 2020 18: 43 New
    +6
    Sergei hi you have kosyachki in the text, such as "a shell weighing 15,6 kg contained 1460 kg explosives" !!! Please correct, otherwise it is scary to read! !!!
    1. Bongo
      15 July 2020 02: 01 New
      10
      Thank you for noticing! hi Not enough comma after unit. Already sent a notification to the moderator to fix it. Unfortunately, such typos are inevitable. request Even multiple checking of the text does not help, the eyes "blur". recourse
  5. Krasnoyarsk
    Krasnoyarsk 14 July 2020 18: 53 New
    +8
    Thanks to the author for the article.
  6. fa2998
    fa2998 14 July 2020 19: 07 New
    +3
    The data on armor penetration is given, but you still have to get it! It was the long-barreled systems that had accuracy. To shoot at a tank from a 152 mm howitzer. This is not to infantry chains. I think our Su-85 and 100 mm were preferable.
    A couple more problems. Optics. Ours was worse than the German one from Zeiss. And shells. Here and alloys and hardening. At the beginning of the war, our shells were destroyed when we met with armor. The whole war solved the problem, and new guns came, the caliber grew again and again to a new one.
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 14 July 2020 21: 50 New
      +3
      Quote: fa2998
      The data on armor penetration is given, but you still have to get it! It was the long-barreled systems that had accuracy. To shoot at a tank from a 152 mm howitzer. This is not to infantry chains. I think our Su-85 and 100 mm were preferable.
      A couple more problems. Optics. Ours was worse than the German one from Zeiss. And shells. Here and alloys and hardening. At the beginning of the war, our shells were destroyed when we met with armor. The whole war solved the problem, and new guns came, the caliber grew again and again to a new one.

      On the shells! The Germans at the beginning of the war likewise had the quality of not ice! For example, one of the types of anti-tank shells for the 37mm “thresher” had a capsule with “chloropicrin” in the bottom for smoking the crew, and now remember from the memoirs many-volume whom the Germans could have smoked with this murder! Our "34" resembled porcupines but fought. By the end of the war, quality was even worse! The same German guns with variable caliber killed the tungsten deficit.
      1. Bongo
        15 July 2020 02: 03 New
        +7
        Vladislav, hello! In fairness, it is worth recognizing that the quality of German armor-piercing shells was still higher than ours.
        1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
          Kote Pan Kokhanka 15 July 2020 03: 36 New
          +6
          Good morning! I do not deny this. Both sides had problems.
          But behind the Germans, a greater degree of constructive superiority.
  7. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 14 July 2020 19: 13 New
    +5
    The difference between armor-piercing shells for the B-34 and M-60 turned out to be less than two kilograms.

    Did the B-34 have an armor-piercing shell? belay
    B-24 and B-34 are the same submarine guns, SKR, TSCh and anti-aircraft guns of "big pots". They initially do not need BBS: cruisers and above have a BK with BBS, and the little things ... if they meet a target that requires BBS, then the carrier’s “hundred” does not have long to live.
    Sailors for the “hundred” were a landmine, a remote grenade (anti-aircraft), diving and lighting shells. And that’s it.
    And the main problem that delayed the introduction of the SU-100, was just the need to develop and organize serial production of BBS - it only got into production in November 1944.
    1. Bongo
      15 July 2020 02: 06 New
      +3
      Quote: Alexey RA
      Did the B-34 have an armor-piercing shell?

      Formally, you are right, in the standard back-end set on the ships it was not neededyes But I dare to assume that when evaluating the effectiveness of a 100-mm unitary shot, armor-piercing shells fired at the firing range. hi
  8. Alien From
    Alien From 14 July 2020 19: 23 New
    +3
    Thanks to the author! Read this article series with great pleasure! Do not stop)!
  9. Potter
    Potter 14 July 2020 19: 37 New
    +4
    Article plus. Interesting, like the whole cycle.
    But, a small amendment - there wasn’t
    sea ​​anti-aircraft guns D-10
    , was a universal naval gun B-34, standing on cruisers such as Kirov, watchtowers, base and squadron minesweepers. It was produced until the end of the 1950s, and was put mainly on SKR pr. 68, which were being built in a large series (50 pieces).
    In my opinion, the best anti-tank self-propelled guns created in wartime was the SU-101 Uralmash-1, with the rear location of the fighting compartment, created on the nodes of the T-44 tank. This self-propelled guns successfully passed the tests and could be put into service. Uralmash-1 was in every way superior to the Su-100, and its production after the war in the presence of a better machine is not clear. But there was a version of the SU-102 with the 122nd gun!
    Also, there was a version of the Su-100 with a 122-mm gun, SU-122P. The machine was also successfully tested, recommended for adoption, but did not go into the series. The opponent of the SU-122P was J. Kotin - it was a direct competitor to his native heavy ISU, and Kotin was the deputy commissar of the NKTP.
    1. Bongo
      15 July 2020 02: 10 New
      +1
      Quote: Potter
      But, a small amendment - there wasn’t
      sea ​​anti-aircraft guns D-10

      100-mm guns D-10S and D-10T did not arise from scratch. According to my information, initially the D-10 was developed as a marine universal.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 15 July 2020 09: 28 New
      +2
      Quote: Potter
      was a B-34 universal naval gun, mounted on cruisers of the Kirov type, guard watch, base and squadron minesweepers.

      But didn’t the B-24BM stand on the surface “trifle”? The same barrel, but without versatility - UVN of only 45 degrees.
  10. Pavel57
    Pavel57 14 July 2020 21: 03 New
    0
    Su-122 also had to continue to release for fighting in the settlements.
  11. Octopus
    Octopus 14 July 2020 21: 11 New
    -3
    The author's considerations are reasonably reasonable, but there may be a different view on this subject.

    The USSR did not have tank destroyers. He had heavy assault guns. From this point of view, the ISU-122S / ISU-152 was the best chopping machine. For amplification, of course 122C. SU-100 is less universal, less armored, it is difficult to single out any advantages, except for economic ones.

    As for the Su-85, it generally has no advantages, only disadvantages compared to the T-34-85. Except, of course, the time of appearance.
    1. Octopus
      Octopus 14 July 2020 21: 48 New
      -1
      Yes, I am aware of your AI ideas about armor, thanks. I already sent you to the states of the Soviet shopping mall.
    2. Bongo
      15 July 2020 03: 52 New
      +1
      Quote: Octopus
      For amplification, of course 122C. SU-100 is less universal, less armored, it is difficult to single out any advantages, except for economic ones.

      You forgot that with close protection with the ISU-122C in the frontal projection of the SU-100, in addition to lower cost, it was much more mobile in rough terrain, had a lower silhouette and better crossability on soft soils.
      Quote: Octopus
      As for the Su-85, it generally has no advantages, only disadvantages compared to the T-34-85. Except, of course, the time of appearance.

      Further development of the SU-85 concept has just become the SU-100. These self-propelled guns were an anti-tank reserve, it is not correct to compare them with tanks. In the post-war period, the S-100 was operated for a long time in parallel with the T-54/55 tanks, which were also armed with a 100-mm gun.
      1. Octopus
        Octopus 15 July 2020 03: 56 New
        0
        Quote: Bongo
        had a lower silhouette and better passability on soft soils.

        And problems with the chassis for the same reason - an easier base.
        Quote: Bongo
        These self-propelled guns were an anti-tank reserve, it is not correct to compare them with tanks

        And why is that?
        Quote: Bongo
        For a long time it was operated in parallel with the T-54/55 tanks, which were also armed with a 100-mm gun.

        And what is rational in this, apart from bloating the states?
        1. Bongo
          15 July 2020 04: 04 New
          +3
          Quote: Octopus
          And problems with the chassis for the same reason - an easier base.

          Those. You want to say that the SU-100 had a defective chassis throughout its entire life? You can also recall the children's sores T-54 ...
          Quote: Octopus
          And why is that?

          Different tasks ... It seems to me that I have examined this in sufficient detail in the previous parts of the cycle and do not want to return to this.
          Quote: Octopus
          And what is rational in this, apart from bloating the states?

          In terms of firepower, as a tank destroyer, the SU-100 was relevant for at least three post-war decades. Compared to the T-54/55/62, patency of self-propelled guns was much higher. They were easier to disguise at the firing position. The machine in terms of a set of characteristics turned out to be very successful, what are you so hungry against the SU-100?
          1. Octopus
            Octopus 15 July 2020 09: 01 New
            +1
            Quote: Bongo
            rubble running gear throughout the entire service life?

            You know very well about UKN.
            Quote: Bongo
            You can also recall the children's sores T-54

            Not in the 50s and beyond.
            Quote: Bongo
            Different tasks ...

            Not in cases where the tank and tank destroyers have the same weapon.
            Quote: Bongo
            why are you so hungry against the SU-100?

            The loss of fire maneuverability should be offset by other pluses. The SU-100 has advantages relative to the T-34, but not the T-54. When the T-54 ceased to be in short supply, questions arose for the SU-100.
          2. DesToeR
            DesToeR 15 July 2020 12: 31 New
            +1
            Quote: Bongo
            The machine in terms of a set of characteristics turned out to be very successful, what are you so hungry against the SU-100?

            But how to belittle the role of the USSR in "that war"? You need to choose the most iconic victories and the most successful models of technology, and then ... continue to lie, coming up with all kinds of arguments for your "harmonious theory".
  12. borys
    borys 14 July 2020 21: 24 New
    +1
    For chan.
    Typically, a cartridge is called a caliber of less than 20 mm.
    100 mm is a shell! It’s not for you to get into the discussion of issues,
    related to artillery. Also in many others.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 14 July 2020 21: 27 New
      +6
      Quote: borys
      100 mm is a shell!

      Rather, a "shot"
  13. faterdom
    faterdom 14 July 2020 22: 48 New
    0
    Apparently, we are talking about damage to the chassis with a close gap of a powerful projectile weighing 15,6 kg, containing 1460 kg of explosives. However, with a direct hit on board, a relatively thin 30 mm “four” side armor could also be pierced.

    A little eye-catching in this beautiful article. All the same, neither shells, nor air bombs, nor even, in my opinion, torpedoes contained explosives in kilotons.
    Only John the Terrible during the assault on Kazan, except that "forty barrels rolled up" to bang as it should.
    1. Bongo
      15 July 2020 02: 13 New
      +1
      Quote: faterdom
      A little eye-catching in this beautiful article. All the same, neither shells, nor air bombs, nor even, in my opinion, torpedoes contained explosives in kilotons.
      Only John the Terrible during the assault on Kazan, except that "forty barrels rolled up" to bang as it should.

      Thank you for your comment! Already sent a notice to correct this annoying typo. hi
  14. Sahalinets
    Sahalinets 15 July 2020 05: 03 New
    +1
    The shells were a disaster for all of our anti-tank artillery! When normal shells appeared after the war, the same BS-3 began to penetrate 185 mm from 1000 meters! And this is a caliber projectile.
  15. Hagen
    Hagen 15 July 2020 07: 41 New
    +3
    By that time, the 107-mm tank gun ZIS-6 (based on the M-60 divisional cannon) was created in the USSR. But the ZIS-6, like the M-60, had a separate-shell loading, which limited the rate of fire. In addition, the production of the M-60 was stopped in 1941, and the tank version was still not finalized.

    Somehow you contradict yourself. The tank gun has already been designed and tested for the KV-2. Moreover, according to Grabin, they were made several hundred copies, which, however, modern historians did not find in the documents. What was the matter in 1940, long before Kursk. It seems to me that in terms of the failure of anti-tank self-propelled artillery, our leaders made a mistake when they underestimated the experience of the first years of using Wehrmacht assault gun mounts and did not develop their self-propelled artillery, and a plus to this in the GAU leadership (in my opinion) appeared at the end of 1942 Germany’s BTT development forecast, where increased armor protection of tanks was predicted unlikely. And when they received the Pz-VI sample at their disposal in January 1943, they chewed it for too long, and the decision about the need to develop an antidote was born only in April 1943. As a result, the summer-autumn 1943 campaign took place against the background of a sharp lag in our anti-tank capabilities from the level of defense of the enemy. This is if very briefly. hi
    1. hohol95
      hohol95 15 July 2020 08: 12 New
      0
      It turns out that the latest models III and IV did not impress anyone in the Red Army, the Bolshoi State Technical University and the GAU?
      1. Hagen
        Hagen 15 July 2020 10: 26 New
        +1
        Quote: hohol95
        It turns out that the latest models III and IV did not impress anyone in the Red Army, the Bolshoi State Technical University and the GAU?

        I myself was surprised when I read, but it seems that they were not impressed. request
    2. DesToeR
      DesToeR 15 July 2020 12: 54 New
      -2
      Quote: Hagen
      and a plus to this in the GAU leadership (in my opinion) at the end of 1942 there was a forecast for the development of German armored vehicles, where increased armor protection of tanks was predicted unlikely.

      Quite a sensible conclusion by the way. It was just that Soviet analysts could not imagine that in a highly maneuverable war, the Germans would bet on a tank weighing ... 45 tons! with a ridiculous cruising range and low operational reliability. But the Germans, they are so Germans!
      Quote: Hagen
      And when they received the Pz-VI sample at their disposal in January 1943, they took too much time for it, and the decision about the need to develop an antidote was born only in April 1943.

      Why was it in a hurry? For any designer who was fluent in the design of the Tiger, it was obvious that this was clearly not a mass machine. Maybe the "grandfathers" were wrong? So after all, tigers were “built” only 1500 pieces, and together with the second - 2000 pieces (roughly!). Some ISs were built more than both Tigers combined, and if you “drop” KV tanks here, then everything is bad for the Nazis. Well, with all the Uber capabilities of the Tiger, one should not forget that by the end of 1942 the Germans only REPEATed the main characteristics of Soviet tanks of the KV series of the 1939 model. Both in terms of armor thickness, power density, and artillery caliber. And for some they could not surpass. And in the USSR it was quite clear to themselves how they realized exactly which caliber "will take" 100 mm of armor. No wonder the promising KV-3 was laid with armor without additional screens in 110 ... 120mm "in a circle" and artillery system in 106mm.
  16. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 15 July 2020 10: 07 New
    0
    Cases were recorded when German medium tanks PzKpfw.IV were shot down with 100 mm fragmentation grenades when firing at ranges up to 4000 m. Apparently, we are talking about damage to the chassis with a close gap of a powerful projectile weighing 15,6 kg, containing 1,46 kg of explosives. However, with a direct hit on board, a relatively thin 30 mm “four” side armor could also be pierced.

    30 mm could pierce (more precisely, break) and 76 mm and 85 mm RP steel facets. Here we can talk about 100 mm fragmentation grenade made of steel cast iron which can beat the same 30 mm armor broke.
    But apart from the side, it was even easier to break the upper horizontal projection of almost all German armored vehicles (in medium tanks it is less than 20 mm, and in the Tiger 1 - 28 mm if I am not mistaken). In addition, at such a distance, a common armor-piercing shell could penetrate krisha.
    1. Bongo
      15 July 2020 13: 42 New
      +1
      Quote: Kostadinov
      30 mm could penetrate (more precisely break) and 76 mm

      Do you have a report from the firing range on the armor of the “four” 76,2 mm OFS?
  17. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 15 July 2020 10: 15 New
    -1
    And again I read about some 6, 8 or more shots per minute.
    The real rate of fire on the battlefield did not exceed 3-4 shots per minute for all tank guns except automatic small-caliber ones.
    1. Bongo
      15 July 2020 13: 40 New
      +1
      Quote: Kostadinov
      And again I read about some 6, 8 or more shots per minute.

      And you will read again, since the D-10S gun had the technical ability to make 6 aimed shots per minute.
  18. BAI
    BAI 15 July 2020 13: 22 New
    +1
    Any Soviet self-propelled gun could survive in the fight against German tanks only if it hit the target first. Self-propelled guns did not have a second chance.
    1. Bongo
      15 July 2020 13: 38 New
      +1
      Quote: BAI
      Any Soviet self-propelled gun could survive in the fight against German tanks only if it hit the target first. Self-propelled guns did not have a second chance.

      It depends on what German tank they encountered. The frontal armor of the SU-100, as well as the ISU-122/152 at a distance of more than 500 m, was kept by a projectile fired from a 75-mm “four” gun.
  19. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 15 July 2020 13: 45 New
    0
    Quote: Bongo
    Quote: Kostadinov
    And again I read about some 6, 8 or more shots per minute.

    And you will read again, since the D-10S gun had the technical ability to make 6 aimed shots per minute.

    Technically, it can also hit 8 vistrels on one fixed and all the time visible target. But such people on the battlefield are very rarely hit.
    1. Bongo
      15 July 2020 13: 53 New
      +3
      Quote: Kostadinov
      But such people rarely hit the battlefield.

      Let's not confuse the average rate of fire during prolonged firing and the maximum possible number of aimed shots. Calculation of the SU-100 could sightingly release 6 shells per minute, and there is nothing to argue about.
      By the way, in Bulgaria, the SU-100 served the longest, among countries in the past included in the ATS.
  20. A1845
    A1845 15 July 2020 15: 03 New
    +2
    Good day, Sergey!
    gladly read the whole series hi
    Regarding the findings - it is a pity that Vasily Grabin failed ZIS-23 soldier
  21. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 15 July 2020 16: 30 New
    0
    Quote: Bongo
    Quote: Kostadinov
    But such people rarely hit the battlefield.

    Let's not confuse the average rate of fire during prolonged firing and the maximum possible number of aimed shots. Calculation of the SU-100 could sightingly release 6 shells per minute, and there is nothing to argue about.
    By the way, in Bulgaria, the SU-100 served the longest, among countries in the past included in the ATS.

    Let's not be confused. The average rate of fire of a prolonged fire is a completely different matter. It also depends on the gas supply of the fighting compartment, the thermal regime of the gun and the like.
    The maximum number of sighting vistrels is at a range on a fixed target.
    The maximum number of sighting vistrels on the battlefield for one moving target that periodically bend your own and enemy’s shaves, dim, fire and so on is the same thing.
  22. avia12005
    avia12005 15 July 2020 16: 31 New
    +2
    Quote: Bongo
    Quote: avia12005
    The reader rated it "excellent."

    Cornish?

    A mix of Don and Canadian smile
    1. zyablik.olga
      zyablik.olga 16 July 2020 05: 35 New
      +1
      Quote: avia12005
      A mix of Don and Canadian

      This is a practically new breed. lol
      1. avia12005
        avia12005 16 July 2020 08: 50 New
        +1
        Well, yes, healthy, many dogs are shocked by such a miracle
  23. And Makarov
    And Makarov 16 July 2020 06: 56 New
    11
    Thank. The average caliber is the most anti-tank.
  24. KKND
    KKND 16 July 2020 11: 18 New
    +2
    Hi, hello! A great article, as always, but I’m embarrassed to ask, what did you do in physics class in ninth grade? Stare at the newly grown breasts of classmates? wassat Just kidding. It’s just that if you were solving problems, there wouldn’t be such a pearl.
    Formally, the security of the ISU-122/152, covered in front with 60-90 mm armor, was higher than that of the SU-100, protected in front with 75 mm armor. However, in reality, the difference in security was not so obvious. The slope of the frontal 90 mm armor of the ISU-122/152 wheelhouse was 30 °, and on the SU-100 the frontal armor was tilted at an angle of 50 °, which in terms of projectile resistance gave approximately the same 90 mm. Such armor at a distance of more than 500 m well protected from Pzgr 39 armor-piercing shells fired from a 75-mm gun 7,5 cm KwK 40 L / 48, which was installed on the modernized “fours”. At the same time, the German 75-mm tank gun 7,5 cm KwK 42, which was mounted on the Panther, with the Pzgr 39/42 armor-piercing tracer, could penetrate the ISU-122/152 armor at a range of up to 1500 m.

    So the security of the SU-100 was much higher than the ISU-122 \ 152 due to the fact that the slope does not increase the thickness of the armor, although this also affects, but sharply reduces the force of impact. For example, with a slope of 30 degrees, the impact force taken for 1 at 0 degrees should be multiplied by a cosine of 30 degrees, which is equal to 0,866, and with a slope of 50 degrees it should be multiplied by cosine 50, which is equal to 0,643 of the original force. In reality, everything is more complicated since the blow is not completely elastic and with fully elastic it is necessary to multiply the initial force by 2, but this is not a more detailed consideration. Feel the difference? Now it’s clear why, with the same armor thickness of 90 mm, with a direct shot the SU-100 is more protected? It is strange that little is known about this on the Internet, even on the wiki nothing is written about this.
    An analogy from everyday life: the blow went on a tangent.
    Ricochet at large angles is precisely due to the fact that the reaction force of the armor is enough to only slightly change the direction of the velocity of the projectile. At 0 degrees of encounter and not penetration of armor and elastic impact, the reaction force should rotate the velocity vector by 180 degrees, i.e. the projectile should fly back.
    In the event of a direct collision with heavy German tanks at real battle distances, speed and mobility were more important than protection.

    Well, the security of the SU-100 is higher.
    Why honestly I don’t know why all tanks and self-propelled guns do not have super-large tilt angles, I’m not kicking my teeth in the design business, but this is most likely due to the difficulty of obtaining normal armor volume with a reasonable weight of the structure.
    PS You have a beautiful cat, she probably extorts food from you like mine did mine when I was sitting at my computer, it's a pity she flew out the window and crashed .... crying
    1. Bongo
      16 July 2020 14: 16 New
      +2
      Quote: KKND
      Sergey, hello!

      Hello! I'm glad to see you! drinks
      Quote: KKND
      Well, the security of the SU-100 is higher.

      But this is against what. Much depends on the caliber and mass of the projectile. Let's calculate according to your method, what equivalent will a 45 mm armor set at an angle of 45 degrees have, relative to armor placed at a right angle?
      Quote: KKND
      Why not make all tanks and self-propelled guns very large angles of inclination I honestly don’t know

      Dramatically reduced internal volume.
      Quote: KKND
      PS Your cat is beautiful, she probably extorts food from you, mine did it when I was sitting at my computer, it’s a pity she flew out the window and crashed ...

      My cat is not only beautiful, but also very smart.

      There is also a cat, this is her brother from another, later litter. The cat is certainly not a genius, but very affectionate. Your cat is very sorry.
      1. KKND
        KKND 16 July 2020 22: 08 New
        +2
        But this is against what. Much depends on the caliber and mass of the projectile. Let's calculate according to your method, what equivalent will a 45 mm armor set at an angle of 45 degrees have, relative to armor placed at a right angle?

        45 mm need to be divided into cosine 45 we get the thickness of the armor. Then the impact force or momentum is multiplied by cosine 45 and we get how the impact was weakened. It is clear that the initial impulse of a 100 mm projectile is larger than for example 45 mm. There are still a bunch of factors that affect armor penetration, but here weakening of the strength decides. With cosine 70, the attenuation is already almost 3 times. At 90, the projectile already flies in parallel.
        Formally, the security of the ISU-122/152, covered in front by 60-90 mm armor, was higher than that of the SU-100, protected in front by 75 mm armor. However, in reality, the difference in security was not so obvious. The slope of the frontal 90 mm armor of the ISU-122/152 wheelhouse was 30 °, and on the SU-100 the frontal armor was tilted at an angle of 50 °, which in terms of projectile resistance gave approximately the same 90 mm.

        By the way, 75mm of Su-100 armor, which is indicated in the article when dividing by cosine 50, is not 90mm, but 116 mm, not a joint somewhere.
        Sergey, all the literature, including seemingly serious, is full of numbers from the ceiling, without knowledge of physics and still preferably in engineering, we will stick like blind kittens into them.
        I don’t want to talk about propaganda or subjective opinion.
        There is also a cat, this is her brother from another, later litter. The cat is certainly not a genius, but very affectionate.

        I have a subjective feeling that cats are smarter than cats, although according to the laws of biology it should be the other way around.
        I didn’t comment on your articles since I was banned for 2 years, I was somehow upset when you wrote that you were leaving soon and so successfully cheered patriots that Moder gave me 5 warnings right away and deprived me of voting rights for 30 days, but for some reason forever , but then it became boring without me, the money was dripping worse and I was unban.
        But here it’s fun without me. It’s good that you still write.
        I missed your articles without cleverness, but I won’t troll you.
  25. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 16 July 2020 17: 09 New
    +2
    Quote: KKND
    Well, the security of the SU-100 is higher.

    Of great importance is the ratio of the caliber of the projectile to the thickness of the armor.
    75 mm and 88 mm projectile to 45 mm of armor partially reduces the effect of tilting the armor.
    1. KKND
      KKND 16 July 2020 22: 25 New
      +2
      Quote: Kostadinov
      Of great importance is the ratio of the caliber of the projectile to the thickness of the armor.
      75 mm and 88 mm projectile to 45 mm of armor partially reduces the effect of tilting the armor.

      Can I describe the physics of the process, otherwise I don’t get it?
      1. Bongo
        17 July 2020 10: 27 New
        +2
        Quote: KKND
        Can I describe the physics of the process, otherwise I don’t get it?

        If you do not climb into the wilds, then the angle of inclination of the armor plays a significant role if the caliber of the projectile is not higher than the thickness of the armor. In addition, to reduce the likelihood of a rebound in the manufacture of armor-piercing shells, they went to different tricks. For example, a carbide tip was welded onto the head, which was "bitten" into the armor. In addition, the probability of a ricochet of a sub-caliber projectile is much less.
  26. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 17 July 2020 10: 33 New
    0
    Quote: KKND
    Quote: Kostadinov
    Of great importance is the ratio of the caliber of the projectile to the thickness of the armor.
    75 mm and 88 mm projectile to 45 mm of armor partially reduces the effect of tilting the armor.

    Can I describe the physics of the process, otherwise I don’t get it?

    Physics is not easy to paint here. As far as I know, the process includes the reflection of shock waves from the end of the armor plates.
    1. KKND
      KKND 17 July 2020 16: 14 New
      0
      Quote: Kostadinov
      As far as I know, the process includes the reflection of shock waves from the end of the armor plates.

      If the reflection of the shock waves from the ends of the armor plates were more intense then this would only lead to a decrease in armor penetration. Reverse shock waves would interfere with the dispersal of the particles of the armor under the action of forces from the side of the projectile. And indeed the factor is doubtful.
  27. Kuz
    Kuz 18 July 2020 23: 39 New
    +7
    Thank. Interesting topic.
  28. Murrr 27
    Murrr 27 15 August 2020 00: 21 New
    0
    Your co-author is good, correct - but for a hundred parts for the T-54/55 were produced until the early 60s ONLY caliber armor piercing. Who is to blame - I do not know.
  29. Murrr 27
    Murrr 27 15 August 2020 00: 51 New
    0
    And Krysov preferred self-propelled guns - lighter = more mobile, lower.
  30. Crabong
    Crabong 17 August 2020 15: 11 New
    0
    SS against tanks is an easy target in most cases. For the confrontation with tanks on such equipment, a qualified, non-standard and proactive crew is required.