Military Review

The most long-range Soviet guns of the Great Patriotic War

39

Br-2 at the Artillery Museum, St. Petersburg. Photo: Wikipedia



The Soviet Union has always paid special attention to the development of artillery. And he did not miscalculate: during the Great Patriotic War, long-range guns of Soviet artillery played an important role in many battles. For example, in 1944, it was the powerful work of artillery guns that in many ways was of decisive importance in the release of Leningrad.

B-37


Perhaps the most powerful Soviet weapon of the Second World War is the 406 mm B-37 naval gun. The product of the design bureau of the Barrikady and Bolshevik factories, the B-37 cannon was originally developed for the Sovetsky Soyuz battleship. But the battleship was never built. As a result, the gun was mounted on a stationary MP-10 installation.


Cannon B-37 in the workshop of the Novokramatorsk plant, 1939

What kind of gun it was can be judged by the number of gun crews - 100 people. True, the legendary German "Dora" was served by a crew with a staff of 500 people. The maximum firing range of the B-37 was 45 670 meters. In total, during the period of the most fierce battles, from August 29, 1941 to June 10, 1944, 37 shots were fired from the B-81 gun.

Br-17 and Br-18


The powerful Br-17 howitzer was developed shortly before the start of World War II, in the second half of the 1930s. Soviet military engineers, seeking to maximize the power of artillery guns, turned to the best practices of other countries, including the experience of the Skoda corporation. As a result, the production of 210-mm cannons, which had a maximum firing range of 28,65 km, and 305-mm howitzers Br-18, which had a firing range of up to 16,58 km, began.

By the beginning of 1941, the Red Army was armed with 3 210-mm cannons and 3 305-mm Br-18 guns, then 6 more 210-mm cannons were fired. By May 1945, the Red Army included 4 heavy cannon regiments, which were armed with, among other things, howitzers Br-17.

Br-2


Since 1935, the USSR began production of a series of heavy artillery pieces Br-2 - 152-mm cannons with a firing range of up to 25 km. The mass production of such cannons was a very correct decision, since during the Second World War, the Br-2 cannons inflicted great harm on enemy troops, firing at command posts, warehouses, airfields and railway stations, troop concentrations, and enemy artillery batteries. In total, 1935 Br-1940 guns were produced at the Barricades plant from 39 to 2, with which the 1st, 2nd, 18th and 20th cannon regiments of special power were armed.


B-4


The B-203 4 mm howitzer was developed back in 1931 and from 1937 to 1941. was in serial production. The effective range of such a howitzer was 17 meters. By the beginning of the Second World War, howitzers of this type were in service with high-power howitzer artillery regiments. A total of 890 B-1011 howitzers were produced, which successfully destroyed enemy fortifications and armored vehicles. By the way, the Germans appreciated the characteristics of the Soviet long-range gun: several dozen howitzers fell into the hands of the enemy during the war and were converted for the needs of the Wehrmacht under the designation 4-cm N.20,3 (r).


ML-20


The 152-mm howitzer-gun of the 1937 model was produced serially from 1937 to 1946. The maximum firing range of such a gun was 20,5 km, the effective firing range was 17,5 km. Self-propelled guns SU-152 and ISU-152 were armed with this particular howitzer. ML-20 was in service with artillery regiments of combined arms armies, cannon regiments of the Supreme Command reserve.

According to many experts, the ML-20 was one of the most successful guns during the Second World War, as it had an advantage over classic howitzers in the form of a longer firing range, but at the same time it differed from long-barreled guns of special power in a lower mass and, accordingly, greater mobility. This made it possible to have the ML-20 in service with the artillery regiments of the armies, and up to a certain point - and the corps of the Red Army.
Author:
Photos used:
Wikipedia / http://www.nimap.spb.ru, Wikipedia / Hanna Zelenko, http://wio.ru/
39 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Tugarin
    Tugarin 1 November 2020 14: 05 New
    30
    B-4 was also called "Stalin's sledgehammer". Yes ... The grandfathers fought, a deep bow to them.
    1. Aviator_
      Aviator_ 1 November 2020 15: 45 New
      10
      B-4 was also called "Stalin's sledgehammer".

      And the "Karelian sculptor" based on the results of work on the pillboxes of the Mannerheim line.
  2. denis obuckov
    denis obuckov 1 November 2020 14: 06 New
    +3
    With the advent of aviation with more or less acceptable characteristics, superguns faded into the background and later "died". But! The heavy artillery of the aviation could not be canceled.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 1 November 2020 15: 08 New
      +4
      Quote: denis obuckov
      With the advent of aviation with more or less acceptable characteristics - superguns faded into the background and later "died".

      Controversial.
      Supercannons appeared as an alternative to aerial bombardment and never came to the fore.
      Well, they bent with the advent of missiles.
  3. sergo1914
    sergo1914 1 November 2020 14: 11 New
    +6
    Creative - B-4.
    Efficiency - ML-20.
    PS B-4 is in the assembly queue. But time ... There is no time left for a hobby. The Italian railway has been in the stop for two years with wheelsets and the first platform.
  4. Alien From
    Alien From 1 November 2020 14: 30 New
    +8
    The topic has not been disclosed.
    1. Konnick
      Konnick 2 November 2020 13: 41 New
      +2
      I agree, after all, not only during the unblocking of Leningrad, this artillery showed itself, but also about the defense of Leningrad, allowing you to quickly transfer fire from one dangerous sector of the front to another without changing position. And the defense of Sevastopol, the legendary 35 battery. In the assault on Konigsberg, the main merit in the rapid capture of the fortress was played by powerful long-range artillery. And in many places long-range artillery showed itself. 80% of the losses of Hitler's troops are losses from our artillery. One could also mention this.
  5. faiver
    faiver 1 November 2020 14: 43 New
    +8
    why did you forget TM-1-180?
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. sgapich
      sgapich 1 November 2020 17: 36 New
      +6
      Quote: faiver
      why did you forget TM-1-180?



      Installed on Poklonnaya Hill in Moscow. (my photo)
      1. faiver
        faiver 1 November 2020 17: 41 New
        +5
        Well, this is not it, but from the same series of railway guns - in the photo there is a 305mm gun TM-3-12
        1. sgapich
          sgapich 1 November 2020 18: 32 New
          +3
          Yes, I was wrong. So I just didn’t photograph TM-1-180. They are both installed there.
  6. mr.ZinGer
    mr.ZinGer 1 November 2020 15: 38 New
    +6
    The article is not about anything.
    If we raise this topic, then where is the railway artillery.
    The BS-3 anti-tank gun had a range of 20 km.
  7. The comment was deleted.
  8. Misak Hananyan
    Misak Hananyan 1 November 2020 17: 24 New
    +1


    Made in Czech Republic
    1. faiver
      faiver 1 November 2020 17: 53 New
      +5
      Well, firstly, not in the Czech Republic, but in Czechoslovakia, and secondly, it was not done, but developed, but it was already done with us, it is no secret to anyone that the USSR before the Second World War bought a variety of weapons abroad, production licenses, and so on. and so on, by the way, even after the war, they did not hesitate - the jet engines on the MIG-15 are English engines produced by us under license, the Cold War did not interfere ...
      1. Alf
        Alf 1 November 2020 19: 19 New
        +4
        Quote: faiver
        Well, firstly, not in the Czech Republic, but in Czechoslovakia, and secondly, it has not been done, but developed, but we have already done it,

        So the author had to honestly write that they were created in Czechoslovakia, licenses were bought for them and issued from us, and not smartly bypass this moment.
        And I could be mistaken, but, it seems, this happened - They gave us a license for guns, we gave them a SB.
        1. serg.shishkov2015
          serg.shishkov2015 2 November 2020 13: 11 New
          0
          Our SB was called V, 71 by the Czechs, I don’t remember the number of those let in now, the machine guns were 7,92, the Czechs were not very happy with them, although they themselves did not come up with anything similar
      2. Revolver
        Revolver 1 November 2020 20: 40 New
        +2
        Quote: faiver
        jet engines on MIG-15 are English engines produced by us under license

        Unlicensed copy. Rolls Royce tried to get money back then, but was sent on an intimate walking tour. And after perestroika, respectively, the time for lawsuits has run out.
        1. kapitan92
          kapitan92 2 November 2020 00: 05 New
          +2
          Quote: Nagan
          Unlicensed copy. Rolls Royce tried to get money back then, but was sent on an intimate walking tour.

          I’ll clarify a bit.
          Design Bureau of the USSR created the center sections of their aircraft for reliable and powerful jet engines Rolls-Royce Nene-I and Derwent-V, several dozen of which were inadvertently sold by the British Labor government in September-October 1946... These engines were immediately launched into serial production under the brands RD-45 and RD-500... Their power - 2720 kg, turned out to be much higher than that of the German engines installed on the first MiG models. hi
      3. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 2 November 2020 09: 41 New
        +2
        Quote: faiver
        jet engines on MIG-15 are English engines produced by us under license,

        )))
        Only the license was not there, it was a scratch.

        Accepted, so to speak, as a gift from the English people.
    2. mat-vey
      mat-vey 2 November 2020 11: 12 New
      0
      Quote: Misak Khananyan
      Made in Czech Republic

      I have only one very little question - what about the B-4 (shown in the video)?
  9. nonsense
    nonsense 1 November 2020 17: 27 New
    +1
    what and what? what is this misunderstanding? - riddles in the darkness ... Moreover, the author constantly confuses the concepts of "long-range" and "heavy" guns ...
    And the truth of life is this:
    1. The USSR was much inferior in terms of heavy artillery to Germany. Qualitatively and quantitatively.
    2. Even those heavy artillery systems that were mass-produced (B-4 and ML-20) of the Red Army, in fact there was nothing to carry... Because there were several times fewer tractors (Comintern, Voroshilovets, S-2) capable of moving these fools (see above) than guns. Therefore, the B-4 harnessed by a train of "Kommunars" pulling at the speed of a pedestrian - here is a true portrait of Soviet artillery with little maneuverability during the war.
    3. In terms of exactly range Soviet artillery systems were losing to their German analogs... And those that were at the level (Br-2, Br-17) were released in single copies and did not make the weather ...
    Having such a state of affairs before the war, it would seem that something had to be done. For example, not to rivet armored trains, but railway batteries with long-range and powerful cannons. (Since there are problems with the means of traction) Or create corps / army artillery suitable for towing by horses. Or ... But no, they didn’t even try to implement any of this ... For which they paid in blood ...
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Oleg Bykov
      Oleg Bykov 1 November 2020 18: 21 New
      +2
      Something you have only slogans ... Analytics to match the article.
      1. nonsense
        nonsense 1 November 2020 19: 20 New
        0
        reluctance to strain and give all the layouts = "analytics".
    3. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 2 November 2020 14: 41 New
      +2
      Quote: nespich
      And the truth of life is this:

      )))
      You are right, Soviet artillery was first of all poor artillery. So the famous tens of thousands of barrels were collected with mortars and 3 "PMA guns, which other countries have long abandoned. It is customary to be proud of the concentration of artillery power, all sorts of artillery corps, but, unfortunately, these corps for a few days of breakthrough in a narrow sector of the front provided those costs shells that the Americans had every day in every division.
  10. Observer2014
    Observer2014 1 November 2020 18: 18 New
    +4
    95 heavy howitzer artillery brigade of the Supreme Command. ML-20 of my grandfather, weapon of victory! soldier
    1. mat-vey
      mat-vey 2 November 2020 13: 03 New
      +2
      117 GABR BM 10 ADP RGK 28 army - B-4 my ..
  11. mvg
    mvg 1 November 2020 19: 48 New
    +3
    As usual, nothing. Maybe an article for Buzova, no matter how 22 million subscribers. And the level allows, which cannot be said for the VO topics
  12. Undecim
    Undecim 1 November 2020 20: 10 New
    11
    The article is a hastily concocted hack. To begin with, the author needs to decide which weapons he writes about - the most long-range or the most powerful.
    If we talk about long-range ones, the most long-range Soviet artillery system that participated in the Great Patriotic War is a 1-inch naval type 14 transporter (TM-1-14) equipped with 356-mm guns intended for Ismail-class battle cruisers. The firing range is 48 meters.
  13. Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine 2 November 2020 11: 06 New
    +7
    I agree with the previous speakers. Murzilka, Yandex-Zen. The author does not understand what he is writing at all.

    Long-range artillery of WWII.

    1. Hand-made and wunderwaffe. They are Germans. Gustov, Dora, all this chton. Some successes, but in general, taking into account the resources, anti-fascism. Fortunately, the USSR did not do that.

    2. Marine battleship (cruising) systems. These are B-38 and TMs. Benefit - from zero to minimal. You can do a separate work, it seems that there was even something on the site on this topic. Shooting with such systems required well-adjusted aviation adjustments and the expenditure of shells (and barrels), which was fully provided only by the American fleet, no one else.

    3. Heavy implements requiring excavation and foundation installation. Br-17 / Br-18. In the USSR there were 12 of them (3-9) and they did not play any role. For reference, the Americans have made 454 similar systems. The Germans had about 100 of this stuff, mostly the legacy of the WWII. Given the foundations, guns of this class were used against fortifications when there was nowhere to rush. The range of the guns in such a situation was not particularly important.

    4. Field systems. For educational reasons, speaking of range guns with a high muzzle velocity should be considered. That is, guns, who would have thought. There are not many of them.
    a) Br-2
    b) A-19
    c) M-60
    d) royal 152 and 107mm systems
    e) BS-3
    f) 52K

    Br-2. An extremely problematic weapon. Carriage, barrel, production volumes. It did not play any role, 39 pieces were produced. The Germans have about 500 15cm and 17cm guns in this class, the Americans have about 2 thousand.

    The B-2 is usually fastened to the Br-4, as the author did. A useful thing, the only relatively massive heavy Soviet system. Corresponded in number to the German (21 cm Mörser 18) and American (M115 203 mm howitzer) counterparts, all three were produced about a thousand (the Germans are less than others, about 700). But the short-barreled (25klb) system did not differ in range, although, in view of the caliber, the range was rather large.

    A-19. Quite a successful and relatively widespread system. A direct analogue was the British and American 4,5-point systems, primarily the English one, which was used at the hull level as part of the 5,5-point duplex, the British ML-20. These systems were less massive than the A-19, which, however, was compensated for at other levels of artillery. The German coped quite successfully with 10,5 and 15cm systems.

    The author threw out A-19, but for some reason entered ML-20. ML-20, having a relatively short barrel, has never been and was not planned to be a champion in range. In fact, the ML-20 replaced German and American divisional howitzers in the Red Army at the corps level, it was released 5 times more than the M-30. The analogue of the ML-20 was the British 5,5-point gun - the British also concentrated such systems at the corps level and above, leaving only lighter 25 lb. guns in the divisions (but there were many of these guns). The production volumes of the BL 5.5-inch medium gun are quite consistent with the ML-20, about 5 thousand pieces, the characteristics of the shells are also similar, despite the slightly smaller caliber of the Englishwoman.

    M-60, old systems - did not play any role.

    BS-3 - arrived late, and no one was eager to retrain anti-tank crews for counter-battery firing (and the range is in demand mainly for this task). The anti-tank crews already had enough work, even in the 45th year.

    52K - heavy anti-aircraft guns were massive and long-range weapons due to their high energy. But the 52K here did not differ from its counterparts for the better, and the Red Army, as far as I know, was not eager to use such guns as field artillery. So again, beyond the scope of this review.

    So, the most long-range Soviet weapons of the Great Patriotic War.

    A-19. All.
    1. mr.ZinGer
      mr.ZinGer 2 November 2020 14: 18 New
      +2
      Briefly and clearly.
      Brevity is the sister of talent but the enemy of fees.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 2 November 2020 15: 52 New
      +1
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      2. Marine battleship (cruising) systems. These are B-38 and TMs. Benefit - from zero to minimal.

      The funny thing is that the naval railway artillery had practically no success when used for its intended purpose. But she worked relatively well in someone else's niche - as a front-line long-range artillery to defeat targets far from the front line (TM-1-180 were noted at the airfield in Gatchina) and counter-battery warfare (suppression fire).
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      Shooting with such systems required well-adjusted aviation adjustments and the expenditure of shells (and barrels), which was fully provided only by the American fleet, no one else.

      I could also have a KBF - but only in Leningrad, with its rangefinders with bases several kilometers in size, operational stereo photography, searching for optimal spectral regions for shooting flashes in the SMU, etc.
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      Given the foundations, guns of this class were used against fortifications when there was nowhere to rush. The range of the guns in such a situation was not particularly important.

      This is important: the closer to the front line, the more enemy systems will reach the firing ones and, accordingly, the more enemy batteries will have to be pressed to ensure the operation of their stationary guns. And the fact that the weapon is stationary makes the enemy's work even easier.
      Plus, with the approach of the gunmen to the front line, it becomes much easier for the enemy to spot the positions on the shot.
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      In fact, the ML-20 replaced German and American divisional howitzers in the Red Army at the corps level, it was released 5 times more than the M-30.

      Rather, it did not replace, but supplemented divisional howitzers at the corps level. For 6 "howitzer at the divisional level in the Red Army before the war was -" 152-mm divisional howitzer mod. 1938. "But with the beginning of the war, it suddenly turned out that this system is heavy for the division (in all senses - 4,5 tons of weight, plus the third caliber in the artillery regiment), and for the industry it is difficult, and even competes in production with the division M-30. Taking into account the reduction of artillery regiments of divisions, the M-30 eventually gobbled up the M-10.
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 2 November 2020 16: 28 New
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        The funny thing is that the naval railway artillery had practically no success when used for its intended purpose.

        yep
        Quote: Alexey RA
        But it worked relatively well in someone else's niche - as a front-line long-range artillery to defeat targets remote from the front line

        It's more of a circus. As well as the German successes of this plan.
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Could also KBF - but only in Leningrad

        I am with some skepticism about the Soviet fleet and its successes.
        Quote: Alexey RA
        And the fact that the weapon is stationary makes it even easier for the enemy to work.

        To some extent, yes. But the same BL 9.2-inch howitzer worked quite well with the range of the ZiS-3.
        Quote: Alexey RA
        For 6 "howitzer at the divisional level in the Red Army before the war was

        In theory. In practice, the Soviet bullshit faced a harsh reality. The Soviet division was supposed to have German artillery with the replacement of 4 "by 5". In reality, there were 3 "in place 4" and 5 "in place 6". M-10 disappeared from the OShS in August 41 and never appeared again. D-1 returned to the hull level.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 2 November 2020 17: 00 New
          +1
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          It's more of a circus. As well as the German successes of this plan.

          With a well-established system and experienced staff, this circus turned into work more and more. Fortunately, the Germans preferred to cluster their artillery OM and BM in the same areas.
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          I am with some skepticism about the Soviet fleet and its successes.

          Well, there is material confirmation of these successes - the buildings of Leningrad for the most part have been preserved. Despite the constant shelling of the city.
          Counter-battery warfare and its technical means were well described in the "Blue Collection" - "KBF in the Second World War. 1941-1945". In short, already in 1942, 10-20% of the guns were directly engaged in work on targets from both sides, the rest provided their work. The same TM-1-180 batteries worked at the target with only one gun, the rest either covered the shooter or distracted the enemy. Plus, army men worked to provide them, creating a sound background and crushing those enemy counter-batteries that were within their reach. Even so, it was impossible to fire from one position for more than 10 minutes.
          In turn, the counter-battery struggle of the Red Banner Baltic Fleet led to the fact that the enemy had to build his own pyramid of support, support and counteraction, at the top of which, as a result, there was a battery or a pair of guns, actually doing work on the target, and for a limited time. And the effectiveness of counter-battery warfare was expressed in the number of enemy guns diverted from firing at the city to counter-counter-battery warfare, and in reducing the time the enemy fired from one position. Simply put, the more the German artillery fought with ours, the less they fired at the city. smile So even despite the small number of disabled enemy guns, the counter-battery fight had an effect.
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          To some extent, yes. But the same BL 9.2-inch howitzer worked quite well with the range of the ZiS-3.

          Well, it is still a little smaller than the BR-18 or 12 "howitzer of the 1915 model. smile
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          M-10 disappeared from the OShS in August 41 and did not appear again. D-1 returned to the hull level.

          Duc ... the two main issues of Soviet artillery are traction and personnel. If you introduce a 6 "howitzer to the divisional level, then the GAU immediately runs into the need to have a tractor capable of towing a 4,55-ton howitzer, while transporting its crew and ammunition in the back. And in quantities sufficient to equip them with howitzer artillery regiments of all rifle , tank and motorized divisions.
          Before the war, all this was traditionally attributed to 1942-1943, when, perhaps, industry by magic will overwhelm the army with what the given army asks for - and not with what the industry can do. smile
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 3 November 2020 00: 05 New
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            for 1942-1943, when, perhaps, industry, at the behest of a pike, will overwhelm the army with what the given army asks for - and not with what this industry can do.

            Uh-huh.

            The funniest thing is that this is exactly what happened, the half-geese got. Hello to all those who did not need LL in 44.
    3. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 3 November 2020 02: 34 New
      0
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      it was released 5 times more than the M-30

      Mistake. I meant the M-10, of course.
  14. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 2 November 2020 11: 56 New
    +1
    Hit a long-range HE shell for a 305 mm railway gun with a range of 44 km.
  15. DWG1905
    DWG1905 2 November 2020 13: 50 New
    0
    A question for experts in artillery. The Italians had a one-to-one cannon like the B-4, did we buy it from the Italians?
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 2 November 2020 14: 11 New
      +1
      What other cannon? If you are talking about the Obice da 210/22 howitzer, then no, I have not heard of any connection with the B-4, and I would not say that they are similar. However, I am not an artillery expert either.
    2. mat-vey
      mat-vey 3 November 2020 05: 25 New
      0
      Quote: DWG1905
      A question for experts in artillery. The Italians had a one-to-one cannon like the B-4, did we buy it from the Italians?

      AHA, using a time machine ... B-4 1931 for Italians 1938 ... what kind of trolls went, even they are too lazy to use the Internet, just shit ...