Airborne Forces - B-11 recoilless gun

The recoilless gun B-11 caliber 107mm is intended for:
- defeat / destruction tanksenemy armored and unarmored ground equipment;
- defeat / destruction of enemy personnel and weapons, both in shelters and outside shelters;
- defeat / destruction of various types of DOS / DZOS direct fire;
- creating aisles for their own infantry units in wire-type obstacles.

The development of the recoilless 107mm gun began at the end of the 1940-s under the direction of B.Shavyrin in SKB-4. The work was carried out on the basis of the B-10 gun, a similar design and principle of operation was used, which greatly simplified further mass production. The gun entered the troops in 1954 year as a recoilless gun B-11 caliber 107mm. The main manufacturer of the Tula machine-building plant. It was in service with the airborne and subdivisions. Delivered abroad in the Warsaw Pact states, China, Egypt, Cambodia and Vietnam.

Device and construction
Gun B-11 consists of a barrel, bolt, bed and aiming mechanisms. The barrel is made without autofretching, has a smooth channel with an end thread for the transport hook. The hook is connected to the truck during transportation, and special handles are made to manually roll it on the hook. In the middle of the barrel positioned holder for mounting the frame front location and sheet pile for mounting the frame and sight. The breech section has a charging chamber with a breech, connected shutter, valves and parts of the trigger mechanism. The gate valves serve to prevent the ammunition that is placed in the rear chamber from falling out when the barrel of the weapon for firing is raised at a large vertical angle.

The shutter consists of:
- impact mechanism;
- trigger mechanism;
- extractor;
- replaceable ring.

The extractor serves to eject the charging system after the shot is made, the replaceable ring with 2 holes serves to form a nozzle throat. When firing a shot, some of the gases pass through the nozzle orifice in the opposite direction of movement of the munition along the barrel, thus providing a recoilless shooting effect. The opening of the jam occurs on the left side, for which you must first press on the handle of the mechanism for unlocking / locking the shutter.

The barrel is located on the tripod frame and is connected to it by a hinge. Both rear supports of a fixed version and a front movable support, a wheel axle with 2 wheels (wheels are located on rotary rollers with springs) and guiding mechanisms are attached to the frame of the bed. The handle of the turning mechanism is located on the left side of the gun, the handle of the lifting mechanism is located directly under the barrel.

Used sighting device - PBO-4. Attached is lighting equipment. As an additional (emergency) sighting device, a mechanical frame sight is used, which makes it possible to conduct aimed fire at a distance of up to 1.2 kilometers. The sight of the PBO-4 is provided with 2.5-fold magnification from the field of view to 9 degrees, shooting direct fire - a threefold increase from the field of view to 18 degrees.

For destruction of equipment and structures used cumulative ammunition BK-883 (MK-11), with an effective range up to 1.4 kilometer with armor penetration to 381mm. For the destruction of the personnel of enemy units used high-explosive ordnance O-883A (MO-11) with a maximum range of 6.6 kilometers. The shells are drop-shaped and equipped with a GK-2 fuse, charging system with a centered disc, main charge, primer and additional charge.

Due to the applied recoilless shooting method, when fired, the powder gases are ejected away from the gun at 90 degrees and this creates a hazardous area with a length of up to 40 meters. Recoilless gun B-11 can be transported at speeds up to 60 km / h, carry out transportation manually. The gun is transferred in parts - the trunk, the frame and the wheel part.

Main characteristics of the B-11:
- maximum length up to 3.5 meters;
- maximum width up to 1.45 meter;
- height - 0.9 meters;
- combat weight - 305 kilogram;
- line of fire - from 710 to 1200mm;
- ground clearance - 32 centimeter;
- wheel travel - 1.25 meter;
- direct fire shooting (cumulative projectile) - 450 meters;
- The maximum range of fire - 6.65 kilometers;
- the initial speed of CS / OFS is 400 / 375 m / s;
- weight characteristics: barrel / frame / wheel travel - 128 / 101 / 37 kilograms;
- weight characteristics of ammunition KS / OFS - 7.5 / 8.5 kilogram;
- The mass of the charging system - 5 kilogram;
- pointing angles vertical / horizontal to 45 / 35 degrees;
- translation into combat / marching position - 60 / 60 seconds;
- firing speed up to 5 vyst / minutes;
- weight PBO-4 - 2.3 kilogram;
- calculation - commander, gunner, shells carriers and loader (5 people).

Information sources:
http://russianarms.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=993
http://cris9.narod.ru/rva_b11.htm
http://zw-observer.narod.ru/books/cannon/107-mm_recoil_gun_B_11.html

Comments

[grizzlir]

The biggest minus of the recoillessness is their unmasking after the first shot. There may not be a second one. For the airborne forces, in general, a normal airmobile system, with its advantages and disadvantages inherent in all recoilless guns.

[DIMS]

For local conflicts, it’s a very common weapon. It would be put on the little car so that a larger elevation angle could be attached.
Of the minuses, ammunition. It is not known how many of them remain, and it is painfully expensive to resume small-scale production.

[igor67]

Quote: DIMS

She would put on a little car

it's all right?

[DIMS]

Something like. But the machine is somewhat outdated.

[Civil]

The biggest minus bezkatkah their unmasking after the first shot

with modern technology, unmasking will be the first shot of any art. guns

[curious]

I watched a video from Afghanistan: how famously the Mujahideen are managing with Chinese recoilless, and the old ammunition is very good. Clearly successful guerrilla solution

[Poppy]

lightness at sufficient power is compensated

[Volkh]

After many bites, the second round may or may not have to be bitten again.
Oh, how Tukhachevsky was criticized for these guns, and after all, he was then engaged in them precisely for the landing.

[DIMS]

So what? They outlived their own back in the 50s and 70s. There is nothing to say about the present; antiretractable ones have been developing very rapidly lately.

http://topwar.ru/8728-legkaya-105-mm-gaubica-hawkeye-s-tehnologiey-ponizhennoy-o
tdachi.html

[Kars]

Quote: WOLF

Oh, how Tukhachevsky was criticized for these guns, and after all, he was then engaged in them precisely for the landing

can remember 305 mm recoilless from Tukhachevsky? Or maybe automatic?

Recoilless guns have their own niche, and Tukhachevsky was going to make recoilless artillery, and stuck a lot of work - which caused a lag behind the Fritz in almost all types of artillery, from anti-tank and heavy to anti-aircraft.

[Jipo]

Quote: WOLF

Oh, how Tukhachevsky was criticized for these guns, and after all, he was then engaged in them precisely for the landing.

I think if he planned to use them only for landing, he would not deserve a claim to himself, but to try to equip literally everything with such tools, from planes to tanks, is stupid. Perestroika propaganda said that he was not a stupid person, then that if it was not treason. At the same time, other promising projects were practically curtailed and all money and forces, in artillery, were thrown on recoilless guns. It is scary to think if such a person remained in power for another couple of years.

[bairat]

Something like a grenade launcher.

[wasjasibirjac]

so this is the easel grenade launcher, only the caliber 107 mm., and the SPG-9 - 90

[Volkh]

Quote: Kars

can we recall a 305 mm recoilless recoil from Tukhachevsky? Or can it be automatic? recoilless guns have their own niche, and Tukhachevsky was going to make recoilless artillery, and stuck a lot of work - which caused a lag behind the Fritz in almost all types of artillery, starting from anti-tank and heavy, ending with anti-aircraft

Did you come up with this nonsense yourself, or read it where?

[Kars]

Quote: WOLF

Did you come up with this nonsense yourself, or read it where?

You didn’t know? So then you are posting nonsense?

In all his recoilless (dynamo-reactive) guns, Kurchevsky used only one scheme - a loaded barrel. For the first samples, Kurchevsky simply took some ordinary gun, cut off the breech, and instead inserted a Laval nozzle (funnel). At the same time, the internal structure of the barrel remained unchanged. The disadvantages of the loaded barrel were high weight and high cost. By the way, after 1945, no country in the world adopted a recoilless gun with a loaded barrel. Kurchevsky also developed a system for loading recoilless guns. In non-automatic guns (MIC, SPK, KPK, etc.), manual loading was carried out from the treasury, the shutter had through holes and shifted when loading at the same time as the funnel. The sleeve was a standard brass from an ordinary gun of the same caliber, but with two holes in the bottom for the exit of gases into the funnel and on the side to ignite the charge.

All automatic guns (aviation, tank, 152 mm sea, etc.) were arranged in the same way. Charging was carried out from the barrel with unitary cartridges with nitrotissue liners. The cartridges moved to the muzzle along a cylindrical magazine located above the barrel, and then fell into the tray in front of the muzzle, from there they were sent to the barrel channel with a special device. All operations were carried out by a pneumatic drive, compressed air was supplied from a special cylinder. It is clear that such automation could not provide a high rate of fire.

According to the project, the sleeve made of ititrotk fabric was to burn completely, but she didn’t want to do this, and she was also torn in the store when serving. As a result, systematic failures occurred during delivery and trunk ruptures. By the way, the problem of creating completely burning shells has not yet been fully resolved.

.

[Kars]

In early 1934, specially for Kurchevsky, the Office of the Commissioner for Special Works was organized. He created several dozens of types of dynamo-reactive cannons (DRP) with a caliber from 37 to 420 mm, including a 76-mm battalion gun (BOD), an aircraft dynamo-reactive cannon, and others. Tests of many of these samples were carried out at the Kuntsevo training ground near Moscow. Kurchevsky sought to cover the entire spectrum of artillery weapons: in addition to field artillery, a special fighter was built, armed with 76-mm recoilless guns, a 305-mm howitzer was mounted on a car, a 305-mm DRP was mounted on a destroyer, 152-mm on a torpedo boat, etc. He enjoyed the great support of the head of armaments of the Red Army M.N. Tukhachevsky, People's Commissar of Heavy Industry and member of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU (B.) Sergo Ordzhonikidze, which he used to promote his projects

[Volkh]

Quote: WOLF

which led to the lag behind the Fritz in almost all types of artillery, from anti-tank and heavy, to anti-aircraft.

specifically, I’m talking about this.

[Kars]

Quote: WOLF

specifically, I’m talking about this.

In anti-aircraft
In heavy
In the anti-tank
In the infantry (we didn’t have it at all)
In recoilless
In ammunition for art systems
In engineering artillery intelligence

We can say one ZIS-3 was pulling the whole war, while not being able to hit the enemy on the reverse ramps and having a bunch of dead zones
This is personally thanks for the universalization.

[DIMS]

Here you are somewhat wrong. The problems of the outbreak of war with artillery were more likely connected with the activities of Marshal Kulik, Stalin's acquaintance in defense of Tsaritsin

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

the activities of Marshal Kulik

This is also taught at a military school?

Or maybe it was Kulik trying to get Grabin to make dynamo-reactive guns and SPM universal?

[Jipo]

Quote: DIMS

The problems of the outbreak of war with artillery were more likely related to the activities of Marshal Kulik

Was it not under Kulik that Grabin's cannons and rocket launchers were adopted and a 76 mm gun was installed in the T-34? I think it's time to stop quoting the tales about Kulik, which were composed during the time of "The Corn".

[Alf]

[quote = Volkhov] Oh, how Tukhachevsky was criticized for these guns, and after all, he was then engaged in them precisely for the landing [/ quot
Tukhachevsky actually wanted to transfer ALL artillery to the DRP. Kurchevsky under his roof what kind of guns he did not design, and ship and aviation and motorcycle and tank. They did the right thing, that both were multiplied by zero. He would have reigned longer and would have met the war without beautiful divisors, howitzers and mortars.

[Volkh]

Quote: Alf

Tukhachevsky actually wanted to transfer ALL artillery to the DRP. Kurchevsky under his roof what kind of guns he did not design, and ship and aviation and motorcycle and tank. They did the right thing, that both were multiplied by zero. He would have reigned longer and would have met the war without beautiful divisors, howitzers and mortars.

One idiot wrote this somewhere, and everyone picked it up. Tell me then about Trotsky, that he allegedly moved Tukhachevsky, and about 100500 million tanks and about tambovs and Kronstadt. Sorry, but a little here I saw smart people here, here to take Kars pretends to be smart, but alas, really.
NEVER Tukhachevsky did not want to translate artillery to dynamoreactive.

[Kars]

Quote: WOLF

but few here on the forum saw smart people

Well, if you judge by yourself, then there really are such .. clever .. (in quotation marks) here are few.

Maybe at least tell me what you read, where do you get your genetics?
The list of literature on which you, for example, is trying to artillery something .. to deflect ..?
Memories of Grabin for example read?

On this day, Tukhachevsky invited Magdaseev, the head of the design bureau of one artillery factory, to drive to Moscow in his car. On the way, Tukhachevsky asked me the question of how I regard dynamo-artillery artillery, in other words, recoilless guns.

I answered approximately like this: recoilless guns have the advantage that, with the same power, they are lighter than classic guns. But they also have a number of shortcomings, while significant, which completely exclude the possibility of creating all artillery on this principle. The dynamo-reactive principle is not suitable for tank guns, casemate, semi-automatic and automatic anti-aircraft, because when fired, the gun crew must go into cover - a specially dug ditch. For the same reason, the dynamo-reactive principle is not suitable for divisional guns: they will not be able to accompany infantry with fire and wheels. Recoilless guns can and should find wide application, but only as special-purpose guns.

.

[Kars]

Tukhachevsky did not speak immediately, apparently, he was reflecting on my words, which were contrary to his views.

After some time, he asked:

“But are you not mistaken?”

- I thought about this issue many times and always came to the same conclusion.

- You only understand what enormous advantages the dynamo-reactive principle gives! - spoke with fervor Tukhachevsky. - Artillery will gain greater maneuverability on marches and on the battlefield, and besides, such guns are much more economical to manufacture. This must be understood and appreciated!

- I agree that the lower weight of the gun increases its mobility, I also strive for this and I believe that the use of muzzle brakes can greatly help the designer. As for efficiency, the charge of a dynamoreactive gun is approximately three to four times greater - this is firstly. Secondly, the accuracy of the battle of the recoilless gun is much lower than that of the classic gun. Therefore, to solve the same problem recoilless gun will require much more time and shells than the classic. So the recoilless gun is at odds with the economy. Not to mention the fact that the rate of recoilless guns is much lower. And the accuracy of targeting is less.

The conversation became sharper and sharper. I could not agree with the arguments of Tukhachevsky, they were weakly reasoned. But my arguments, apparently, did not convince him. After much debate, Mikhail Nikolaevich said:

“You are a young designer with high expectations, but you do not notice that you are hampering the development of artillery.” I would advise you to more thoroughly analyze the issue of the widespread use of the dynamoreactive principle, change your views and take up the creation of recoilless guns.

As a military man, obliged to observe subordination, I had to end the debate.
Of course, my arguments displeased Tukhachevsky.

In artillery, the effective destruction of the enemy’s target was always considered the main thing. Nobody needs a gun that was easily delivered to a firing position, but unable to solve a combat mission in a short time.

[Kars]

I emphasize again: we have never argued that recoilless guns are not needed. It required a reasonable combination of those and other tools, and not a sweeping exclusion of the classic.

The car rolled forward, and our conversation no longer stuck.

In silence we reached the cottage of Tukhachevsky in Pokrovsko-Streshnev. Mikhail Nikolaevich invited us for a cup of coffee. He was unusually hospitable. At his house, we quickly found common themes, and the longer we sat, the more lively the conversation became, but we didn’t touch the artillery. And so it went with him: we were in excellent relations until we touched artillery. As soon as it came to artillery, they occupied different positions and became opponents. By tacit agreement, we both tried not to touch on this topic. Late at night, Magdaseev and I left Pokrovsko-Streshnev. Saying goodbye, Tukhachevsky advised me to think again about recoilless guns. I did not repeat that this question is clear enough for me. On the way to the hotel, and having come to my room, I thought about something else: of course, starting a conversation, he did not expect to meet with my serious objections. Apparently, sincerely convinced of his innocence, he could not prove it, but, a keen, hot man, he did not consider it possible for him to retreat.

As I understand it, so far, not only has no one objected to his idea of ​​transferring all artillery to a dynamo-reactive principle, but even assented. The survivals of the past are still strong in people: not everyone decides to tell the truth to the authorities, especially if they know that this truth will be unpleasant to the authorities. I, as a specialist, could not, had no right not to mind him

[Volkh]

The memories of Grabin, these are the memories of Grabin, he is a subjective person. His words are not truth, he speaks as he perceived.
In fact, in KB at this time, weapons were being developed that eventually entered service in the 38-39-40s.
There was a planned economy, all of you can run poisonous drooling here towards the executed military leadership, but all that came off the assembly lines in 39-42. it was laid in the papers precisely by the enemies of the people. And RS and KV and t34, il2 ... and so on, all these were the fruits of the demands of the participants of the military-Trotskyist cell.
What you pour mud is an era, an era of collective farmers and workers, they made up the majority, because there was no modern agglomeration then. And the fact that the whole system was scrolling, is not the fault of military experts and military traitors. The low level of absolutely all sectors of the country is exactly what influenced the course of history.
I stand for justice, I don’t want to stick out the dignity of some and the mistakes of others, but Tutia noticed that it’s just pressing guilt on specific people.
At least Kars, you would recognize the real combat path of M. Tukhachevsky, I. Yakir, and the rest, and analyze it you would imagine on June 22.06.1941, 9. What would it be? Are there really open borders and unprotected populated areas? Troops with past GOS tests with recoilless guns, armada tanks BT35 with XNUMXmm armor? Did Tukhachevsky directly push it into the arsenal? No, if you are not too lazy and delve into the reading rooms, then you can not without pleasure find a lot of new things (I will give an example below.)
It is unrealistic to push idiocy so openly, no, this is just a test of the new, analysis, if you believe Grabin’s memoirs about Tukhachevsky, then can you read Korolev’s memories of the Marshal? Or did Korolev intentionally write a lie about a person, and Grabin truth?

PS

There is a very specific, paper-based historical document - negotiations dated January 1920 on a direct wire between Stalin (the PWS of the South-Western Front) and Voroshilov (the PWC of the First Horse). It’s not a secret at all, lying around in a completely non-secret RGASPI in Voroshilov’s foundation, read - I don’t want to. The background to the issue is “Batayskaya jam”, the front throws 1KA in the forehead at Bataysk, 1KA cannot take it. Voroshilov and Stalin communicate with each other and Voroshilov almost cries - Koba, dear, help, Shorin will kill us all here. And he answers him, they say, do not twitch, I made an appointment instead of Shorin Tukhachevsky and Ordzhonikidze, now they will come and razrulit, and I will send this freak (Shorin) to the tribunal. The appearance of this document in the context of the thesis that Trotsky was involved in the appointment of Tukhachevsky to the Caucasus Front can be explained in a unique way - Lev Davydovich somehow (we probably never know how) joined the wire between the two headquarters and broadcast Voroshilova on behalf of Stalin, giving out yourself for Joseph Vissarionovich.

[Kars]

Quote: WOLF

At least Kars, would you know the real military way of M. Tukhachevsky

Many words and specifics 0
YOU just asked

Quote: Kars

Maybe at least tell me what you read, where do you get your genetics?
The list of literature on which you, for example, is trying to artillery something .. to deflect ..?

Somehow you demanded some kind of evidence from me, something else - so answer at least these simple questions.

Quote: WOLF

read the memoirs of Korolev about the marshal?

I worked hard and made quotes from Grabin. Make quotes from Korolev about what Tukhachevsky was going to do with artillery and about the future of dtnamo-jet guns.

[Volkh]

Quote: Kars

Somehow you demanded some kind of evidence from me, something else - so answer at least these simple questions.

answered earlier.

[Kars]

Quote: WOLF

posted earlier

Simply put, you can’t help but provide a quote from Korolev’s memoirs that Tukhachevsky planned dynamo-rocket guns only for landing. And he was going to develop the barrel artillery ---

just do not want to tell what kind of literature you read on the topic of artillery to draw any conclusions about it --- not only in Soviet but also in German.

[Volkh]

PPP
Moreover, not only Voroshilov did not suspect anything, but Stalin didn’t raise the haya when this was revealed ... or he was silent all his life (I wonder why). More interesting. Okay, they put the sucker to the front, but then you have to do the job. Therefore, in order to provide the sucker with the desired result, that is, the defeat of the remnants of the All-Union Union of Young People's Forces, Trotsky somehow (we probably will never know how) persuaded (or I don’t know what he did) the All-Russian Union of Lenin's Forces command to clear the Rostov Region and the Kuban and go to the Crimea, pretending (for the purpose of conspiracy, so that no one would suspect a conspiracy) that they resist ...
I wonder why all the "conspiracy" versions always smell like bullshit?

[Kars]

This comment does not bear any relation to the topic of artillery.

[Volkh]

How tight you are

[Kars]

Quote: WOLF

How tight you are

No one was forcing you to write this comment

Quote: WOLF

Volkhov (1) August 14, 2012 16:09 ↓ -4
Quote: Kars
can
Did you come up with this nonsense yourself, or read it where?

[Volkh]

Do not rush to criticize information that you may not understand. Assume that there is something - that you may not know about.
Nothing more to say, and our argument is about the same.

[Kars]

Quote: WOLF

Do not rush to criticize information that you may not understand

I keep arguing

Kars (3) August 14, 2012 11:35 ↑ ↓ 4 Quote: WOLF
Oh, how Tukhachevsky was criticized for these guns, and after all, he was then engaged in them precisely for the landing
can remember 305 mm recoilless from Tukhachevsky? Or maybe automatic?

Recoilless guns have their own niche, and Tukhachevsky was going to make recoilless artillery, and stuck a lot of work - which caused a lag behind the Fritz in almost all types of artillery, from anti-tank and heavy to anti-aircraft.

There are NO disproving data, as well as your knowledge in artillery.
So this is not an argument.

Quote: WOLF

Assume that there is something - that you may not know about

I admit, but I’m only talking about what I know, but maybe there are aliens too.

[Volkh]

Quote: Kars

There is NO disproving data, as well as your knowledge of artillery. So this is not a dispute.

I just do not consider it necessary to report on my knowledge to every person I meet. I just see your relative acquaintance about the achievements of the 30s and that’s all.

[Kars]

Quote: WOLF

I just do not consider it necessary to report on my knowledge to every person I meet. I just see your relative acquaintance about the achievements of the 30s and that's it

Do you think you need to write such comments?

Quote: WOLF

Did you come up with this nonsense yourself, or read it where?

Do you need to answer for your words?

Quote: WOLF

. I just see your relative acquaintance about the achievements of the 30s and that's it.

And you can’t see anything at all. Like the achievements of the 30s
The brainchild of Tukhachevsky is the T-35. And even the ditching of artillery, so when the Germans captured the F-22, they had to do complex alterations to bring them to their senses.

[Volkh]

Quote: Kars

And do you think it necessary to write such comments? Quote: Volkhs, did you come up with this nonsense? Or did you read it where? Do you need to answer for your words?

Yes, just your criticism of Tukhachevsky is a lying misinformation.
I’m for the truth, so far without arguments - what would you yourself think what you write, and from what sources

[Kars]

Quote: WOLF

Yes, just your criticism of Tukhachevsky is a lying disinformation

It sounds strange from a person who has not provided a single fact or quote.

Quote: WOLF

I’m for the truth, so far without arguments - what would you yourself think what you write, and from what sources

Are you for the truth? You look like a mentally inferior person who is stuck on the idea of ​​fix.

And the facts are on the face. In the metal and blood of Soviet soldiers.

[Kars]

In the early 1930s, among the Red Army command staff, rumors began to circulate about some kind of super-powerful weapon undergoing tests. What was told about the dynamo-reactive systems “K” was more than fantastic and would have caused laughter in a different situation if the storytellers themselves hadn’t seen a huge 305-mm howitzer fired from a truck, from a pre-revolutionary destroyer with a displacement of 1400 tons 305 mm cannons were fired (Linkor’s caliber), wooden biplanes fired in bursts of 76 mm and 100 mm automatic cannons.

In 1937, rumors of miracle weapons somehow disappeared on their own. It was such a time that it was not that about the K system, about the disappeared neighbor, they did not dare to ask. Then war broke out.

From 1924 to 1929, several dozen types of recoilless guns with a caliber of 37–107 mm were tested (most of the guns had a caliber of 76,2 mm). So, in 1925, at the NIAP, 7 different DRP systems were tested, in 1926 - 5 systems, in 1927 - 11 systems, in 1928 - 13 systems and in 1929 - 13 systems
Everyone was afraid to object to the development of such a powerful weapon, from commission members at the training grounds to directors of artillery plants who received telegrams from Ordzhonikidze like: "... if factory No. 7 doesn’t… master the production of Kurchevsky’s guns, the director will be removed from work." And what followed, we now know.

Kurchevsky was granted almost dictatorial powers and unlimited funds. In 1932, at the request of Kurchevsky, a Special Design Bureau No. 1 of the Red Army Art Administration was created for him. A few months later, Plant No. 38 in Podlipki near Moscow, which had previously fulfilled the orders of KB-2, which was led by the engineers of Rheinmetall, was transferred to his full disposal.

In the years 1932-1935. Almost all the country's artillery factories worked on Kurchevsky. His orders were carried out by plant number 8 (named after Kalinin, in Podlipki), the plant named after Frunze (former Petersburg Arsenal), Leningrad Metal Plant (LMZ), Bolshevik Plant (former Obukhov), Krasny Putilovets Plant (former Putilovsky), etc.

In the years 1931-1935. Kurchevsky’s guns accounted for 30 to 50% of orders to plants. However, most of these orders were never completed. Kurchevsky constantly changed drawings, often refused a gun already launched in a series and offered a new one. The percentage of marriage sharply increased

[Kars]

In total, in 1931 – 1935. factories produced over 5000 land, sea and aviation guns of Kurchchevsky, that is, from 30 to 50% of the number ordered. Military envoys received from the industry no more than 2000 guns, and only about 1000 fell into the troops. However, the tools that entered the service were quickly written off or transferred to the training category. By November 1 1936, the army had 563 Kurchevsky guns (BOD, SPK and RK), and in the fleet there were several dozen 76-mm CPC boat guns.

As a result, by the 22 of June 1941, there were not a single Kurchevsky gun in the troops. And this despite the fact that before the war, our gunners tried to save everything that could be. For example, the fortified areas were armed with hundreds of guns of the 1877 type.

[Volkh]

Quote: Kars

F-22, in order to bring them to their senses, they had to deal with complex alterations.

and where is the wine of Tukhachevsky? Actually, the designer was too lazy, and the little fluffy herself was very good.
Just needed to be modernized.

Quote: Kars

It sounds strange from a person who has not provided a single fact or quote.

What arguments are you all talking about?
I affirm only one thing - you are slandering Tukhachevsky, nothing more.

[Kars]

Quote: WOLF

and where is the wine of Tukhachevsky?

Direct --- its universalism.

Quote: WOLF

Just needed a modernization

Simply put, you don’t even know what I'm writing about.

[mechanic driver]

I just needed to be modernized. I don’t remember who developed the f22, but the designer offered a more powerful throwing charge and the gun was made with the expectation of boring under a larger sleeve, which the Germans used

[Volkh]

Quote: Kars

ditching the artillery so that the Germans when they captured the F-22, then in order to bring them to life they had to deal with complex alterations.

what should I understand from this and what conclusions do you think?

[Kars]

Quote: WOLF

what should I understand from this and what conclusions do you think?

YOU position yourself as a connoisseur of artillery, consider your level of knowledge to confirm or designate above your swan dignity.
For a person interested in artillery, everything is pretty clear.
so call it.

and to indicate a discussion --- your words

Quote: WOLF

Oh, how Tukhachevsky was criticized for these guns, and after all, he was then engaged in them precisely for the landing

I provided information and quotes that Tukhachevsky wanted to replace the DRO with all (or most of it) of artillery. There is evidence of tank, aviation, naval, anti-tank DROs which completely refutes your allegations.
But the water is water, and your idea is fixed.

[Volkh]

Quote: Kars

YOU position yourself as a connoisseur of artillery, consider your level of knowledge higher or higher than your swan dignity. For a person interested in artillery, everything is pretty clear. So, call me.

Do you want to see the digits in the messages? TTX? Why? Waving these digits, can I communicate with you according to your stereotype on equal terms? But what I say about the trunk is not considered knowledge? So you hail f22, but I say that it is good for modernization , you as a connoisseur guess that I mean amateur?

[Kars]

Quote: WOLF

I say that it is good at modernization

Because ours didn’t modernize it.

And do not deviate from the topic

Quote: Kars

and to indicate a discussion --- your words
Quote: WOLF
Oh, how Tukhachevsky was criticized for these guns, and after all, he was then engaged in them precisely for the landing
I provided information and quotes that Tukhachevsky wanted to replace the DRO with all (or most of it) of artillery. There is evidence of tank, aviation, naval, anti-tank DROs which completely refutes your allegations.
But the water is water, and your idea is fixed.

[Volkh]

I will add an article for you at your leisure with links and quotes.

[Kars]

Quote: WOLF

Sprinkle

Good approach, already getting scary.

And can I even quote - an announcement?

[Volkh]

Quote: Kars

Because ours didn’t modernize it.

it doesn’t change anything. It’s not the point, the Germans or Russians did it.

[Kars]

Quote: WOLF

it doesn’t change anything. It’s not the point, the Germans or Russians did it.

One more proof that you are a complete zero.

[Volkh]

Where is the evidence then?

[Kars]

Quote: WOLF

Where is the evidence then?

In your words - along the way you generally can not understand what it is about.

[Volkh]

Bredyatin write.

[Kars]

Quote: WOLF

Bredyatin write.

Only a statement of facts that you were not interested in artillery as such.

Quote: WOLF

? Actually, the designers were too lazy, and the little fluffy herself was very good.
Just needed a modernization

This pearl just wonderful showed your level of knowledge.

[Volkh]

what, I say, are you talking nonsense.

[Kars]

Well, everything is clear with you already. Our cool little fluffy little dog --- wasn’t released after the start of the war, the Germans didn’t have to modernize it at least somehow, but redo it --- and just do all the Tukhachev’s .. ideas .. throw it away nafig - such as an elevation angle of 75 degrees. And the F-22 was just under the influence and pressure of Tukhachevsky, which was also in her tests.
But you are just a chatterbox.

Quote: Kars

and to indicate a discussion --- your words
Quote: WOLF
Oh, how Tukhachevsky was criticized for these guns, and after all, he was then engaged in them precisely for the landing
I provided information and quotes that Tukhachevsky wanted to replace the DRO with all (or most of it) of artillery. There is evidence of tank, aviation, naval, anti-tank DROs which completely refutes your allegations.
But the water is water, and your idea is fixed.

[Volkh]

What is the elevation angle of 75 *? I’ll take a look at the encyclopedias;

[Kars]

Quote: WOLF

What is the elevation angle of 75 *?

And what not?
I have an Encyclopedia of Russian Artillery Shirokorad
There is a gorgeous article there
Another fantasy of Tukhachevsky is a universal divisional cannon. Read at your leisure.

[Volkh]

C'mon, Shirokorad is not an authority for me even because of this - ..http: //nvo.ng.ru/history/2007-02-16/5_tuman.html

do not be lazy and read.
Especially at the end of this article, your Shirokorad has turned around how.

[Kars]

Quote: WOLF

..http: //nvo.ng.ru/history/2007-02-16/5_tuman.html

Excellent article, I would have to post it here. Thank you for the tip. Did you almost choke on your saliva?

[Volkh]

Quote: Kars

Recoilless guns have their own niche, and Tukhachevsky was going to make recoilless artillery, and stuck a lot of work - which caused a lag behind the Fritz in almost all types of artillery, from anti-tank and heavy to anti-aircraft.

But still, where did you see anything on this issue? Did you pull from some documents or from books of flies, shirokorads, cutters?

[Kars]

Quote: WOLF

This question you pulled from some documents

So what’s not enough for you? So, bring me a document saying that there wasn’t such a thing, that there was no development of tank DROs, aviation, or large-caliber missiles. And if Shirokorad is not your authority, then you will tell me all the more that you are modifying this without proving it --- YOU lying, while not confirming his words with nothing.

[DIMS]

This of course is all good. But please confirm your phrase

We can say one ZIS-3 was pulling the whole war, while not being able to hit the enemy on the reverse ramps and having a bunch of dead zones

You can links from Shirokograd

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

But please confirm your phrase

Yes, I can even from Wikipedia))))))
This vai not rhino rearm

ZIS-3 became the most massive Soviet artillery gun, produced during the Great Patriotic War

Also Mukhina

If we take our 76-mm gun ZIS-3, the German light field 105-mm howitzer and put them close, it turns out that their firing range is about the same (13,2 and 12,3 km), that is, they can fire around it is about the same area. But the German howitzer (a tool specifically designed for shooting on a steep path) in this area will not have a single point where she could not send her shell weighing 14,8 kg. And the ZIS-3 cannon will have many “dead” zones (behind the forest, houses, on slopes, in beams, etc.) where it will not be able to send its 6,2 kg shell.

Guns with a high initial velocity of the projectile are indispensable when firing at open rapidly moving targets (tanks, planes, etc.) and when firing at very long distances. But in the divisions for tanks and aircraft, specialized artillery fires - anti-tank and anti-aircraft. And for distant purposes, divisional artillery simply does not shoot - for this there is corps artillery and artillery of the reserve of the main command (RGK).

And further. The greater the power of the gun, the harder it must be and, therefore, it is more difficult to move it from place to place, and therefore deliver it to where it can quickly and effectively hit the enemy. The merit of Grabin is that he managed to make a 76-mm ZIS-3 gun with a projectile speed of 680 m / s weighing only 1180 kg. (Three-inch of 1902 weighed 1100 kg, with a projectile speed of only 387 m / s). But the German infantry 75-mm gun, firing a projectile almost the same in weight as the ZIS-3, had a weight of only 400 kg. This weight provided a maximum projectile speed of 221 m / s. A German heavy infantry gun of 150 mm caliber had a weight of only 1750 kg, but fired a projectile weighing 38 kg, with an initial speed of 240 m / s. Both German guns had an acceptable firing range: 3,5 and 4,7 km. The Germans were armed with regimental artillery with these guns.

And by the way, do you have an opinion on dynamoreactive guns and Tukhachevsky?

[DIMS]

Yes, I can even from Wikipedia))))))

You can also from Wikipedia. If you find there confirmation of "pulling the whole war" Mass production is not an indicator.

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

Mass production is not an indicator.

Naturally, the war was pulled by single instances of the Kurchchevsky dynamo-reactive weapons))))))))))))) Turn on logic, or was it knocked out in a military school?

[DIMS]

Naturally, the war was pulled by single instances of the Kurchchevsky dynamo-reactive weapons))))))))))))) Turn on logic, or was it knocked out in a military school?

Are you again stupidly trying to ascribe to me what I did not say?

The war drew out mortars, with which the troops were quite densely saturated, from 60 mm to 160 mm, and a variety of different artillery pieces, for example, such massive ones as M-30, ML-20. You also forgot about the anti-tank "magpies" and the ZIS-2

So let's get a reference to "the war was pulled out by the ZIS-3"

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

Are you again stupidly trying to ascribe to me what I did not say?

Why is it stupid? If you are so uplifted it means sharp.

Quote: DIMS

So let's get a reference to "the war was pulled out by the ZIS-3"

Give a link that the war was pulled by the mortars.
If you already generalize how you - the minarets - and not the specific one, then I can generally say that the infantry won the war.

But we are talking specifically about artillery ----- there what if

Officially ZIS-3 was adopted by February 12 1942 year. By that time, about a thousand ZIS-3 had successfully fought at the front. In total, a record number of ZIS-3 48 016 pieces were released, more than any other gun in the history of mankind.

You are not enough, then these are your personal problems.

[DIMS]

If you already generalize how you - the minarets - and not the specific one, then I can generally say that the infantry won the war.

We didn’t win, but pulled out, again, my friend, you have problems reading.

But we are talking specifically about artillery ----- there what if

But from now on, it’s very detailed so that there are no discrepancies: Do mortars belong to artillery?

In total, a record number of ZIS-3 copies were produced, 48 016 units, more than any other gun in the history of mankind.

And in total during the Great Patriotic War, 482,2 thousand guns and 351,8 thousand mortars were produced. Somehow, the ZIS-3 does not roll on a weapon that "prolonged the war" even taking into account its production records.

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

Not won, but pulled out

This is basically the same in context.

Quote: DIMS

But from now on, in great detail

The theme is recoilless guns on the dynamoreactive principle, with which the tukhachny wanted to replace the barrel artillery. And so I would separate artillery and minamets. And in the directories they go separately.

Quote: DIMS

482,2 thousand guns and 351,8 thousand mortars

Can you divide by type?
And ZIS-3 because of the failure in the artillery of the USSR before the war, pulled on itself the whole war, being used as an anti-tank, divisional, regimental.

Quote: Kars

We can say one ZIS-3 was pulling the whole war, while not being able to hit the enemy on the reverse ramps and having a bunch of dead zones

So I consider this phrase to be completely viable.
Although you do not understand this, they are rather weak in logic.

[DIMS]

This is basically the same in context.

With you, no contexts

And so I would separate artillery and minamets. And in the directories they go separately.

Without feint ears, are mortars artillery?
And please, in what directories artillery separately, and mortars separately. Desirable link.
But just do not have to offer those in which they are located separately from each other artillery guns and mortars

Can you divide by type?

What for? I'm not an expert enough to indicate specific weapons as "pulling out the whole war"

because of the failure in the artillery of the USSR before the war

More details here. Soviet artillery before the war, taking into account the deployment, was provided with guns by 92.4% I do not think that this can be called a "failure"

used as an anti-tank

You won’t believe it, because you don’t read the governing documents, but with us all artillery guns were and are being used as anti-tank guns. This is established both in the Combat Charter, in the RBF, and in the Shooting Rules.

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

With you, no contexts

personally your problems, then you will begin to seek out spelling mistakes from impotence.

Quote: DIMS

Without feint ears, are mortars artillery?

Artillery is one of the three oldest branches of the armed forces (the term earlier, arms), the armed forces, the main striking force of the ground forces of the modern Armed Forces. Artillery has a diverse classification according to its combat mission, types of weapons systems, and organizational structure (see. Artillery gun). Artillery of 105 mm caliber and larger has the ability to use chemical and biological ammunition, and starting with a caliber of 152-155 mm tactical nuclear ammunition becomes available for artillery. Includes guns, howitzers, mortars, recoilless guns, combat vehicles (BM) (launchers - launchers) of anti-tank guided missiles (missiles) (ATGM, ATGM) and rocket artillery; artillery and rifle ammunition; artillery vehicles - wheeled and tracked tractors and others; fire control devices (PUO); reconnaissance and firing support equipment; all types of small arms, grenade launchers.

In addition, the name "artillery" is used to designate the type of troops, as well as the science of the device, design, production and operation of artillery weapons, its combat properties, methods of firing and combat use.

what to ask such a question would be better if you read it, otherwise I’m tired of teaching you.

Quote: DIMS

And please, in what directories artillery separately, and mortars separately. Link preferable

In specialized
http://mirageswar.com/2007/11/04/jenciklopedija_artillerii_osobojj_moshhnosti.

[Kars]

html

Quote: DIMS

But why?

Then what will we find out the percentage of the total number of each type, first subtract the lost in 1941 and then we'll see.

Quote: DIMS

to indicate specific weapons as "pulling the whole war"

You are not, and your favorite Soviet sources do it at times --- T-34, Katyusha, ZIS-3

Quote: DIMS

Soviet artillery before the war, taking into account imagery, was provided with guns by 92.4%

The main thing is not the number, but the quality - but you can’t understand, the above is the commentary on comparing the ZIS-3 and the Germans. I can also recommend you doing something unusual for you - read - http: //flibusta.net/b/120728/read

Quote: DIMS

but we have all the artillery guns used and are used as anti-tank

Yes, I remember about the caliber projectile for the D-30
I don’t argue that it’s possible to shoot at tanks out of everything, but to do it effectively is another matter --- but again you don’t understand this, otherwise why did specialized anti-tank guns. Think at your leisure.

[Kars]

I forgot to add a photo for color

and how about going back to measuring tank heights? I hope I realized that they’re not measured by antennas?

[DIMS]

personally your problems, then you will begin to seek out spelling mistakes from impotence.

Of course mine, I don’t want you to bustle later. No contexts.
And you look for spelling errors, an ungrateful job: the error on the error sits and drives the error.

what to ask such a question would be better if you read it, otherwise I’m tired of teaching you.

You’d better answer it. It's that simple, yes / no.
By the way, in connection with your statement about "T-34, Katyusha, ZIS-3" the second question arises: Does BM-13 belong to artillery? Well no.

Then what will we find out the percentage of the total number of each type, first subtract the lost in 1941 and then we'll see.

What for? I believe that the war was "pulled" by all the artillery in the complex, and not some separate sample of artillery weapons. You undertook to prove such nonsense, prove
By the way, I cited data on production only, 47877 guns that were in the troops at the beginning of the war did not count in them.

The main thing is not the number, but the quality - but you can not understand

I then understand, this is your problem.
For example, by the beginning of the war, the anti-tank specialized anti-tank artillery was provided by 93,5%, regiment by 95,8%, mountain by 190,5%, divisional 133,6%, corps 111,8%, and large and special-armed guns 95%
The "failures" were in the provision of 152-mm howitzers for 77,6% of the need and in anti-aircraft artillery for 63,1%. But the ZIS-3 could not replace them if it wanted to.

I don’t argue that it’s possible to shoot at tanks out of everything, but to do it effectively is another matter --- but again you don’t understand this, otherwise why did specialized anti-tank guns. Think at your leisure.

Not possible, but proper. Think about it at your leisure. As for the anti-tank guns - see above, 93,5% of the need

So your thesis about "failure" needs additional clarifications

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

Of course mine, I don’t want you to bustle later. No contexts

Once your learn to read normally.
Who are you to set conditions for me? You can’t understand your problems.

Quote: DIMS

You’d better answer it. It's that simple, yes / no

Why does artillery include too much, and the unfamiliar context of discussion does not cost you flattery.

Quote: DIMS

By the way, I cited only production data, 47877 guns that were in the army at the beginning of the war did not take into account

I don’t know you can’t believe it, you often lie --- and you couldn’t read what is lost is lost in 1941. Even so, the percentage will be about 10.

Quote: DIMS

For example, specialized anti-tank artillery

We also had more than 20 tanks, and where was the Red Army by December 000?

Quote: DIMS

As for the anti-tank guns - see above, 93,5% of the need

Aha 45 mm with defective ammunition, and even created on the basis of a German gun, was so staffed that it was urgently necessary to expand the production of anti-tank rifles.

Quote: DIMS

Your thesis about "failure" needs additional clarification

I gave you a book to read.

[Kars]

began to check your words about

Quote: DIMS

taking into account immobilization, it was provided with tools by 92.4% I don't think it can be called a "failure"

I immediately got a tablet
Provision of artillery ammunition for the outbreak of war
and the final figure is 54% and this is without regard to quality.
and anti-aircraft art ---- 47%

[DIMS]

But this is closer to the topic. But we are still discussing tools. To understand whether Tukhachevsky was the culprit of the alleged failure. So far, it turns out that by the beginning of the war the consequences of his activities were eliminated.
In turn, the lack of ammunition as well as their poor quality is the direct fault of the chief of the GAU of the Red Army, Marshal Kulik.

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

that by the beginning of the war the consequences of his activities were eliminated.

How is it? If the concept is completely failed and time is lost that cannot be returned.
Anti-aircraft guns failed.
Own anti-aircraft guns no --- all Nepets alterations.
Division guns - it is not clear what, and I had to use it --- in general, read the book. From your comments it is clear that you think too narrowly and cannot even understand contexts.

[DIMS]

But our developers were the most powerful, only Shavyrin and Grabin what are they worth.
About anti-aircraft guns, not in the know, not my topic.

There were many division guns. And guns, and howitzers, and mortars. And even a mortar, though not very common.
And ZIS-3 was used this way solely because of its low howitzer.

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

But our developers were the most powerful, some Shavyrin and Grabin what are they

nobody argues with this ---- but the concept of artillery of the Red Army was unsuccessful, the only thing that really costs mortars.
If you take them into a common cut, then I will agree on an approximately equal contribution of 76 mm and mortars 82-120. But they are not discussed here.
And the fact that in 1945 45 mm guns were used - in May-April only 5 army spent more than 25 shots - this is a failure.

Quote: DIMS

About anti-aircraft guns

Things until 1945 inclusive bombed our columns ---- there were no self-propelled anti-aircraft guns at all - only Lend-Lease and few.

[DIMS]

And the fact that in 1945 45 mm guns were used - in May-April only 5 army spent more than 25 shots - this is a failure.

Which ones? Shrapnel? Or sabot? They say they punched 42 mm of armor at 66 m distances from a 500-year cannon. "Panther", yes on board ...

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

Or sub-caliber?

amused thanks.

[DIMS]

What amused? With a caliber shot 53-BR-240P?

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

With a caliber shot 53-BR-240P?

yes no, the assumption that out of the total number of spent 25 000 mm shells there were many sub-caliber.
By the way, how many of them were produced?

[DIMS]

I think so, most are still fragmentation. Direct fire from the front edge of the firing points, bunkers and so on. The gun is light, the rate of fire is high.
Well, plus everything the Germans had not only "tigers"

Victim of the Magpie:

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

I think so, most are still fragmentation. Direct fire from the front edge of the firing points, bunkers, etc.

Now think about how many people died performing such heroic actions, using such a weak weapon.

And by the way, 45 mm just did what would increase mainly the explosiveness--
for the beloved Tukh. = kim universalization.

Hummel was just unlucky. He would have died better from the fragments of the 152 mm infantry gun from a closed position.

[DIMS]

Now think how many people died performing such heroic actions, using such a weak weapon

And how many ZIS-3 calculations perished, performing such heroic actions? They also loved to use it so much, maybe that's why they had to release so many of them. Have you ever dragged her, even on the asphalt?

And by the way, 45 mm just did what would increase mainly the explosiveness--
for the beloved Tukh. = kim universalization.

And they increased mainly the initial speed. Well, armor penetration.

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

And how many ZIS-3 calculations died,

You still do not understand the context ----- I believe that the ZIS-3 is a bad gun (as a division gun), and because of the influence of Tukhachevsky it has become, and its massive use is a necessary measure.

And I think it’s all the same less - because you so favorite range of a direct shot more.

Quote: DIMS

And they increased mainly the initial speed

Really?
37 PTN 1930 SPEED-820
45-mm anti-tank gun mod. 1937 of the year --760
Or am I wrong?

[DIMS]

You still do not understand the context ----- I believe that the ZIS-3 is a bad gun (as a division gun), and because of the influence of Tukhachevsky it has become, and its massive use is a necessary measure.

Oh no, a normal gun. It's just that too much has been produced to the detriment of other systems. Therefore, they used it for unusual functions, even installed on the ramp to give a greater elevation angle.
And there was no influence of Tukhachevsky, she was simply cheap and technologically advanced - a war instrument. And the ammunition is the same.

Really?
37 PTN 1930 SPEED-820
45-mm anti-tank gun mod. 1937 of the year --760
Or am I wrong?

Are right. But one more thing remains: the weight of the shell

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

Oh no, normal gun

Quote: Kars

If we take our 76-mm gun ZIS-3, the German light field 105-mm howitzer and put them close, it turns out that their firing range is about the same (13,2 and 12,3 km), that is, they can fire around it is about the same area. But the German howitzer (a tool specifically designed for shooting on a steep path) in this area will not have a single point where she could not send her shell weighing 14,8 kg. And the ZIS-3 cannon will have many “dead” zones (behind the forest, houses, on slopes, in beams, etc.) where it will not be able to send its 6,2 kg shell.

Guns with a high initial velocity of the projectile are indispensable when firing at open rapidly moving targets (tanks, planes, etc.) and when firing at very long distances. But in the divisions for tanks and aircraft, specialized artillery fires - anti-tank and anti-aircraft. And for distant purposes, divisional artillery simply does not shoot - for this there is corps artillery and artillery of the reserve of the main command (RGK).

And further. The greater the power of the gun, the harder it must be and, therefore, it is more difficult to move it from place to place, and therefore deliver it to where it can quickly and effectively hit the enemy. The merit of Grabin is that he managed to make a 76-mm ZIS-3 gun with a projectile speed of 680 m / s weighing only 1180 kg. (Three-inch of 1902 weighed 1100 kg, with a projectile speed of only 387 m / s). But the German infantry 75-mm gun, firing a projectile almost the same in weight as the ZIS-3, had a weight of only 400 kg. This weight provided a maximum projectile speed of 221 m / s. A German heavy infantry gun of 150 mm caliber had a weight of only 1750 kg, but fired a projectile weighing 38 kg, with an initial speed of 240 m / s. Both German guns had an acceptable firing range: 3,5 and 4,7 km. The Germans were armed with regimental artillery with these guns.

Quote: DIMS

And no influence of Tukhachevsky

She is the heiress of the F-22 and universalization is visible with a naked eye.

Quote: DIMS

Are right. But one more thing remains: the weight of the shell

You didn’t mention him, you said only about speed --- and the weight of the projectile in a greater way affected the explosiveness --- and the armor penetration of 45 ki did not surpass the German 37 mm

[DIMS]

Once your learn to read normally.
Who are you to set conditions for me? Can't understand your problems

I know that these are my problems, I just insure myself. And then you very often do feints with your ears like with "Hyacinth" You did not directly call it a howitzer, but in the context it looked like that. And then you got into an insulted pose and demanded the exact phrase in which you call him that. You are slippery, as it is, and therefore there are no more contexts with you, only precise and unambiguous phrases.

Why does artillery include too much, and the unfamiliar context of discussion does not cost you flattery.

Is it really difficult: to answer, do mortars and BM-13 relate to artillery, or not?

I don’t know you can’t believe it, you often lie --- and you couldn’t read what is lost is lost in 1941. Even so, the percentage will be about 10.

Yes, at least 40. In any case, the number of BM, guns and mortars by the end of 1941 increased relative to the beginning of the war, and not decreased. At the same time, the quality composition was improving. For example, forty-five specimen of 1937 became larger in relation to the tools arr. 1932.

We also had more than 20 tanks, and where was the Red Army by December 000?

At Moscow. But does this mean that the tanks were very bad? Or were there shortcomings in command?

Aha 45 mm with defective ammunition, and even created on the basis of a German gun, was so staffed that it was urgently necessary to expand the production of anti-tank rifles.

This is the first time I hear that "created on the basis of German" is a disadvantage. Is the carriage bad for the Germans? Or a shield cover?
And anti-tank guns are not an indicator. For example, the Germans also had a very rich infantry fighting vehicle, ranging from anti-tank rifles, mortars and grenade launchers (in the old sense of the word, for example, GzB-39) and ending with an 88-mm anti-tank gun. But this does not mean the backwardness of their anti-tank artillery

I gave you a book to read.

I do not need books, I need facts.

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

then you very often do feints with your ears like with "Hyacinth" You did not call it a howitzer directly, but in the context it looked like this

Yes, you really are a brake --- if I said that modern long-range howitzers differ from long-range cannons in elevation angle, and if Hyacinth is converted to an elevation angle of 75 or higher, it will be a howitzer. So you just lied.

Quote: DIMS

You are slippery, as it were, and therefore there are no more contexts with you, only precise and unambiguous phrases

Well, bring about hyacinth, at least show the path of your logic with context))))

Quote: DIMS

Is it really difficult: to answer, do mortars and BM-13 relate to artillery, or not?

Reread the definition once again everything is written there. But I’ll explain to you what the classic barrel artillery means in this context, without minamets and MLRS - guns, howitzers.

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

"based on German" is a disadvantage

This is an indicator of how Tukhachevsky took care of the artillery

45 mm anti-tank gun mod. 1937 was received at the Design Bureau of the N8 plant in Podlipki under the leadership of Loginov M.N. by applying a 45-mm barrel to the carriage of a 37-mm anti-tank gun mod. 1931, which was built according to the documentation purchased from the German company Rheinmetall. The basis for choosing this caliber was a solid pre-revolutionary stock of 47-mm shells, the modernization of which consisted in grinding off excess obturation belts (a total of 2 mm in diameter).

Quote: DIMS

And anti-tank guns are not an indicator. For example, among the Germans, the infantry was also very saturated with TCP, starting from anti-tank rifles, mortars and grenade launchers

As you yourself confirmed - I had to catch up, because the Germans had it all in addition to the tens of thousands of classic anti-tank guns

Quote: DIMS

88 mm anti-tank gun

This is not 1941, even if it had not been for Tukhachev’s searchlights, this would have entered the arsenal of the Red Army.

Quote: DIMS

I do not need books, I need facts.

So read, read - reading enrichment of the horizons and saturation with facts take place, and if I take it out of context you are unbearable, and too long comments will be received.

[DIMS]

This is an indicator of how Tukhachevsky took care of the artillery

Do not meddle in anything without the slightest idea. 37 mm 1-K sample 1930 years was made in the USSR from 30 to 32 years, and the decision on its purchase was made even when Tukhachevsky was the commander of LenVO. And then, based on it, 45 mm guns of the 1932 model were created, then 1937 (Tukhachevsky was already arrested), then 1942. What is your strange situation? Did you have to reinvent the wheel?
Moreover, the "legacy" - tubular guides and a form of shield cover were used even in the post-war period.

As you yourself confirmed - I had to catch up, because the Germans had it all in addition to the tens of thousands of classic anti-tank guns

Yah? By the beginning of the war, there were only 38 modern Pak 1047s. The rest of the "tens of thousands" - 37-mm Pak 35/36 with the apt name "door knocker"

This is not 1941, even if it had not been for Tukhachev’s searchlights, this would have entered the arsenal of the Red Army.

Who knows who knows. The Germans also had recoilless, which were carried out to failure from large-scale landing operations. Maybe if the work on such weapons continued, would there be fewer paratroopers under Rzhev killed?

So read, read - in reading, enrichment of the horizons and saturation with facts take place.

Perfectly. But instead of facts it will not pull.

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

Do not meddle in anything without the slightest idea. The 37-mm 1-K model of 1930 was produced in the USSR from 30 to 32 years old, and

stupid again, ---- Look, I’ll explain how it is for the mentally retarded--
they took a 37 mm cannon, built ---- while there was Tukhachevsky — there was no development — even though there was a Spanish war — they removed Tukhachevsky did at least something — and even that is weak — the military are very conservative and retrograde.

Quote: DIMS

Yah? By the beginning of the war, there were only 38 modern Pak 1047s. The rest of the "tens of thousands" - 37-mm Pak 35/36 with the apt name "door knocker"

Oh well? And the USSR did not have thousands of T-26 / BT?
And German 37 with its high-quality ammunition did not differ much from ours 45 mm ----- an angle of 60 degrees 500 m - 34-40 mm for a German and 40 mm for a Soviet one. It is strange that I need to poke you with its nose.

Quote: DIMS

The Germans also had recoilless

Write them to clarify the year

Quote: DIMS

Maybe if the work on such weapons continued, would there be fewer paratroopers under Rzhev killed?

Well, say thank you to Tukhachevsky that the DRO was descried.

Quote: DIMS

. But instead of facts it will not pull

Well, what can I do if you are lazy. Do not want as you want.

[DIMS]

stupid again, ---- Look, I’ll explain how it is for the mentally retarded--
took a 37 mm gun, built ---- while Tukhachevsky was

Wow, and who's stupid here? Under Tukhachevsky, 1-K was replaced by 19-K, it was upgraded to 1934 and the development of 53-K started, but it turns out that there is no development.

Oh well? And the USSR did not have thousands of T-26 / BT?
And German 37 with its high-quality ammunition did not differ much from ours 45 mm ----- an angle of 60 degrees 500 m - 34-40 mm for the German, and 40 mm for the Soviet.

So, did the Soviet anti-tank vehicles still exist at the German level? And at the beginning of the war there were 14900 of them.

Write them to clarify the year

74 mm LG 40-1937; 105 mm LG 40-1940 and its cheaper but heavier version of LG 42 of the same caliber. And they were produced until the beginning of 1944.

Well, say thanks to Tukhachevsky that the DRO was

And what is "DRO"?

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

Under Tukhachevsky, 1-K was replaced with 19-K, it was modernized in 1934 and the development of 53-K began, but it turns out that there is no development

learn the mat part, it’s not movement but trampling on the spot. They couldn’t even make a normal carriage,

Quote: DIMS

So, did the Soviet anti-tank vehicles still exist at the German level? And at the beginning of the war there were 14900 pieces.

No, not at the level ---- if our 45 ka barely barely corresponded to the German 37 mm

Quote: DIMS

And what is "DRO"?

Dynamo rocket gun

[DIMS]

learn the mat part, it’s not movement but trampling on the spot. They couldn’t even make a normal carriage,

Did you have to invent your own bike? Stomping on the spot, accompanied by an increase in the initial speed I personally like

No, not at the level ---- if our 45 ka barely barely corresponded to the German 37 mm

In what sense? In the percentage of armor objects available for destruction? I don’t think so.

Dynamo rocket gun

Then it is clear. The Kurchevsky’s gun was nevertheless produced in a small series after his release, and it was precisely this that discredited

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

Stomping on the spot, accompanied by an increase in the initial speed I personally like

Really? And how much was in the beginning and how much was in the end (only do not attribute 42) And then it changed - the wheels, the sub-axle.

Quote: DIMS

In what sense? In the percentage of armor objects available for destruction? I don’t think so.

And why think if I brought the numbers--

Quote: Kars

our 45 mm ----- the angle is 60 degrees 500 m - 34-40 mm for the German, and 40 mm for the Soviet.

And this is without taking into account the latest German ammunition and mines.

Quote: DIMS

The Kurchevsky’s gun was nevertheless produced in a small series after his release, and it was precisely this that discredited

Quote: Kars

From 1924 to 1929, several dozen types of recoilless guns with a caliber of 37–107 mm were tested (most of the guns had a caliber of 76,2 mm). So, in 1925, at the NIAP, 7 different DRP systems were tested, in 1926 - 5 systems, in 1927 - 11 systems, in 1928 - 13 systems and in 1929 - 13 systems

Quote: Kars

In total, in 1931 – 1935. factories produced over 5000 land, sea and aviation guns of Kurchchevsky, that is, from 30 to 50% of the number ordered. Military envoys received from the industry no more than 2000 guns, and only about 1000 fell into the troops. However, the tools that entered the service were quickly written off or transferred to the training category. By November 1 1936, the army had 563 Kurchevsky guns (BOD, SPK and RK), and in the fleet there were several dozen 76-mm CPC boat guns.

As a result, by June 22, 1941, there was not a single Kurchevsky gun in the troops. And this despite the fact that before the war, our gunners tried to save everything that could be. For example, hundreds of guns of the 1877 model were in service with the fortified areas.

[DIMS]

Really? And how much was in the beginning and how much was in the end (only do not attribute 42) And then it changed - the wheels, the sub-axle.

And besides the beginning. speed increased from 731 m / s to 760

And why think if I brought the numbers--

The numbers of what? The percentage of armored objects? Indeed, in fact, German tanks had weaker armor than Soviet tanks.

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

And besides the beginning. speed increased from 731 m / s to 760

As many as 29 meters in how many years? And where is it written by the way?

Quote: DIMS

The percentage of armored objects? Indeed, in fact, German tanks had weaker armor than Soviet tanks

It's ridiculous. The Soviet T-34s and KVs were better armored, but how many are they in percent of the USSR tank fleet in 1941?
And 45 did not always cope with the T-3 and T-4 forehead, especially with a substandard projectile.

[Kars]

Honestly, I'm tired of the transfusion from empty to empty ---- your knowledge on the topic is slightly below average. And you will not say anything new.
The development of German 50 and 75 mm anti-tank guns began in 1936 --- our 57 mm gun began in 1940 --- thanks to this hitch in the Second World War, 45 remained our main anti-tank guns. And the Germans put into operation 88 and 128 mm anti-tank guns.
This is all inhibition in 1935-1940 (the inertia of the military is simply enormous,)

Therefore, it bored me - let's better measure tanks--

[DIMS]

Dear, how long did it take you to find out that mortars also relate to artillery? You can see the time of posts.
But the funny thing is that even in this case you were wrong

I just realized that Ykspert of you is none.

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

that mortars also belong to artillery?

Actually, I had to educate you using the definition of artillery.

Quote: DIMS

But the funny thing is that even in this case you were wrong

You then threw the lulz, even the unknown speed of 45 and 37 mm guns claimed something.

Quote: DIMS

I just realized that Ykspert of you, no

Better than you for sure, probably four or five times.

[DIMS]

Actually, I had to educate you using the definition of artillery.

So they enlightened incorrectly. Not all mortars of that period belonged to artillery.

You then threw the lulz, even the unknown speed of 45 and 37 mm guns claimed something.

Give my specific phrase where I don't know. Otherwise, these "luzly" are usually born in your brain.
For it is enough to compare the armor penetration of K-1 (20 mm by 500 m at an angle of 60 °) and 19-K (40 mm — twice as much under the same conditions) to understand that this time you have made a mistake. Forgot that the weight of the shell matters?

Better than you for sure, probably four or five times.

And then.
"The pernicious influence of Tukhachevsky" - not proven
"ZIS-3 pulled out the whole war" - not proven.
"Catastrophic failure in artillery before the war" - in part. Only with regard to ammunition, but Tukhachevsky is not to blame for this.

So, there is no expert from you.

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

So they enlightened incorrectly. Not all mortars of that period belonged to artillery

God be with them, the topic here is not about mortars. I heard that Tukhachevsky wanted to mine the dynamo-reactive guns of the mortar.

Quote: DIMS

Give my specific phrase where I do not know.

Quote: Kars

Quote: DIMS
And they increased mainly the initial speed
Really?
37 PTN 1930 SPEED-820
45-mm anti-tank gun mod. 1937 of the year --760
Or am I wrong?

Quote: DIMS

"The pernicious influence of Tukhachevsky" - not proven

Proven

Quote: DIMS

"ZIS-3 pulled out the whole war" - not proven.

Proven

Quote: DIMS

"Catastrophic failure in artillery before the war" - in part. Only with regard to ammunition, but Tukhachevsky is not to blame for this.

It is proved, especially in anti-aircraft, heavy. In Fri artillery, even if on parity 37 / 45 - but the Germans are lighter, more diverse ammunition and have 1000 50 mm PT guns, 47 mm Czech guns, and a bunch of trophies))))))

[DIMS]

Well, as proven, if all your arguments are completely shattered?

Especially in anti-aircraft, heavy. In Fri artillery

And where does the anti-aircraft artillery? It refers to air defense, and there prove the harmful influence.

About heavy- full heresy

As for the anti-tank, you unknowingly did not indicate the beautiful Hrabin ZIS-2, ready for production by the end of 1940. They simply did not begin to mass release it. Is Tukhachevsky to blame?

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

all your arguments are completely shattered?

You? Don’t make people laugh, you are less than zero - and this is clearly visible.

Quote: DIMS

And where does the anti-aircraft artillery

Oh, another non-frail pearl --- it was not under the jurisdiction of Tukhachevsky?, Or is it artillery?, Barrel.

Quote: DIMS

About heavy- full heresy

And you try to prove it ---- at least by comparing the list of Soviet large-series artillery and German.

Quote: DIMS

You unknowingly did not indicate the beautiful Hrabin ZIS-2, ready for production by the end of the 1940 of the year. They just did not begin to mass release

Am I unknowingly? Are you really a brake and what else--

Quote: Kars

our xnumx mm started at xnumx

And so I also did not indicate the German conical guns --- there were few of them, and now what? The USSR failed in them at all.
but what about speed, then you’re silent? where did you put your tongue on --- show me where I didn’t know - showed it - and so on.
By this, you once again proved that you flew in full and solemnly omitted in the comments)))))))) with which I congratulate you.

[DIMS]

You? Don’t make people laugh, you are less than zero - and this is clearly visible.

That's it, these are all your arguments. And nothing more

Oh, another non-frail pearl --- it was not under the jurisdiction of Tukhachevsky?, Or is it artillery?, Barrel.

Have you just found out that air defense does not apply to artillery? You are trying to limit everything exclusively to barrel artillery, then you are trying to embrace the immense. Do not flint with your ears.

And you try to prove it ---- at least by comparing the list of Soviet large-series artillery and German.

I don't understand your very professional language. What is "high-volume artillery"?

our xnumx mm started at xnumx

And who is the brake here? Where the hell is the lag if you yourself wrote about ZIS-2?

but what about speed, then you’re silent? where did you put your tongue on --- show me where I didn’t know - showed it - and so on.

What are the "speeds"? Those where you compare the initial velocities of shells of different calibers, and try to pass it off as the pernicious influence of Tukhachevsky?

By this, you once again proved that you flew in full and solemnly omitted in the comments)))))))) with which I congratulate you.

Yeah, in your dreams. And so - one nonsense, confirmed by the enchanting "read the book"

By the way, how did such an expert forget about German recoillessness?

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

And nothing more

I already crushed you with arguments --- poking my nose like a kitten when you got out with mobilization equipment to a lack of ammunition - and so a lot of times.

Quote: DIMS

Have you just found out that air defense does not apply to artillery? You are trying to limit everything exclusively to barrel artillery, then you are trying to embrace the immense. Do not flint with your ears.

You stupidly fucked rubbish)))))))) anti-aircraft artillery - this is artillery and it was under the command of Tukhachevsky like the rest of the weapons --- and you stupidly wink your ears --- just so stupidly that it’s not even funny.

Anti-aircraft gun (also jarg. Anti-aircraft gun, obsolete. Anti-air gun) - a specialized artillery gun on a gun carriage,

fucking you clown.

Quote: DIMS

What are the "speeds"? Those where you compare the initial speeds of projectiles of different calibers,

I compare? It was you who the clown claimed that the transition from 37 mm to 45 mm increased the initial speed))))))

Quote: Kars

And by the way, 45 mm just did what would increase mainly the explosiveness--
for the beloved Tukh. = kim universalization

Quote: DIMS

And by the way, 45 mm just did what would increase mainly the explosiveness--
for the beloved Tukh. = kim universalization.
And they increased mainly the initial speed

Quote: Kars

Quote: DIMS
And they increased mainly the initial speed
Really?
37 PTN 1930 SPEED-820
45-mm anti-tank gun mod. 1937 of the year --760
Or am I wrong?

Quote: DIMS

Are right

Quote: DIMS

Yeah in your dreams

They came true.

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

By the way, how did such an expert forget about German recoillessness?

and what to mention them. I’m not lying as you read carefully. As an anti-tank weapon until the appearance of cumulative shells, they were little of themselves.

[DIMS]

I got that impression. Especially when you asked "Write them to clear up the year." Just don't say that they decided to check me.

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

"Write them to clarify the year

The term 88 mm anti-tank gun is usually referred to as Omnor ---
therefore, I asked to understand what you mean - and then suddenly the same number as with the howitzer for the howitzer

I recommend reading a book - although you don’t like it - it can be enriched with facts - do not pay attention to the name --- here you can say about the whole Fri system in Germany, and a little about the faunas themselves.

[DIMS]

Dear, you do not know the difference between anti-tank missiles with devices for launching them and recoilless guns?

Yermin 88 mm anti-tank gun usually referred to as Omnor

"Ofenrohr", subsequently, after minor modernization - "Panzerschreck" is a simple thing. I wrote about the RWrf 43 "Pueppchen" with greater aiming range and greater accuracy. But this reactive anti-tank rifle is not a recoilless weapon either.

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

Dear, you do not know the difference between anti-tank missiles with devices for launching them and recoilless guns?

You clown better explain what is according to YOUR

Quote: DIMS

ending with 88-mm anti-tank rifle

Quote: Kars

Quote: DIMS
88 mm anti-tank gun

This is not 1941

As you see, I was absolutely right.

And for your information

Quote: DIMS

I wrote about the RWrf 43 "Pueppchen"

not a gun))))))

8,8 cm Raketenwerfer 43 "Puppchen" (German Puppchen - doll) - German anti-tank gun firing rockets. Created in the 1943 year, the gun was delivered to some German units in Normandy. In total, more than 3 of thousands of such guns were released. The gun was in service with the Wehrmacht until the end of the war.

Dash a link where it is considered a gun?

[DIMS]

You clown better explain what is according to YOUR

Find the clown, he will explain. Because you do not seem to understand much about this.
And recoilless weapons are tricky things. One "Karl-Gustav, for some reason listed for grenade launchers is worth something."

As you see, I was absolutely right.

In what

8,8 cm Raketenwerfer 43 "Puppchen" (German Puppchen - doll) - German anti-tank gun firing rockets. Created in the 1943 year, the gun was delivered to some German units in Normandy. In total, more than 3 of thousands of such guns were released. The gun was in service with the Wehrmacht until the end of the war.

You don't know how to use search. Otherwise, I would have known that behind the terrible rocket "shells" this "weapon" was firing - somewhat modified rocket-propelled grenades "Panzershrek". Why is it not a tool, but a gun? Because it was converted from a heavy anti-tank rifle s.Pz.B. 41

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

Find a clown, he will explain

and you are a clown.
Pupchen is considered an easel grenade launcher.
So I'm waiting for the link where it is called a gun.

Quote: DIMS

In what

The fact that speaking of the 88 rifle you did not speak for 1941 year.

Quote: DIMS

slightly modified Panzershrek rocket-propelled grenades.

therefore, he is combed with an easel grenade launcher.

Quote: DIMS

Why is it not a gun, but a gun? Yes, because it is redone from a heavy anti-tank rifle s.Pz.B. Xnumx

CLOWN ----- redone ??????? Maybe one hundred and taken - from the gun carriage and then a trifle ---- drive the link. Otherwise I’ll burst with laughter.

[Kars]

Classification In the Wehrmacht, the 2,8 cm s.Pz.B.41 was officially classified as a heavy anti-tank rifle. At the same time, in official publications issued by the Main Artillery Directorate of the Red Army [16] [11] [17], official American editions of the war [18], as well as in modern sources [2] [5], including German [19 ], it is classified as an artillery gun.

The system has the following design features of an artillery gun:

large enough caliber (28 mm);
the use of ammunition classified (including in the Wehrmacht itself) as shells (rather than bullets) [2] [20];
the presence of leading belts (more precisely, centering conical protrusions) on the projectile [21] [17];
the presence of a carriage with sliding beds, wheels, shield cover;
the presence of recoil devices;
significant (for anti-tank rifle) mass, which does not allow transferring the system without disassembly by calculation;
calculation from 3 — 5 numbers (calculation of an anti-tank rifle usually consists of two people);
With an anti-tank rifle, the system is related only by the absence of vertical and horizontal aiming mechanisms, which was carried out directly by swinging the barrel and turning the rotating part of the gun by the gunner. At the same time, this kind of guidance method is also characteristic of some small-caliber artillery pieces, in particular for cannons mounted on the [22] pedestal mounts. Modification of the gun, intended for installation on armored vehicles, was officially classified as a tank gun - 2,8 / 2 cm KwK 42 [2].

[DIMS]

and you are a clown.

No, I'm a man who knows what a recoilless weapon is.

Pupchen is considered an easel grenade launcher.

By whom? And then I just read about the fact that "Doll" is

German anti-tank gun firing rockets

The fact that speaking of the 88 rifle you did not speak for 1941 year.

Actually, I talked about the saturation of German infantry with anti-tank weapons on the eve of and during World War II.

redone ??????? One hundred and it’s taken - from the gun carriage and then a trifle

On the contrary. Instead of the barrel, they put a pipe covered with a heat-insulating casing with a bell and replaced the sights. And everything else is from the original anti-tank rifle. Links? I have a book on Wehrmacht anti-tank weapons. I can and search.

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

No, I'm a man who knows what a recoilless gun is

no you are a clown.

Quote: DIMS

By whom?

Shunkov V.N.
Rocket weapon
Poppuri Minsk 2001

Quote: DIMS

Actually, I talked about the saturation of German infantry with anti-tank weapons on the eve of and during World War II.

Quote: DIMS

And anti-tank guns are not an indicator. For example, the Germans also had very rich infantry PTS, ranging from anti-tank rifles, mortars and grenade launchers (in the old sense of the word, for example, GzB-39) and ending with an 88-mm anti-tank gun.

In the context of the outbreak of war. I'm sorry - past the money.

Quote: DIMS

. Instead of the barrel, they put a pipe covered with a heat-insulating casing with a bell and replaced the sights. And everything else is from the original anti-tank rifle

From the source as you say ----- there is nothing there. Even the gun carriage is not double-walled, but one.

[Kars]

Smooth barrel anti-tank guns

8,8-cm rocket-propelled anti-tank grenade launcher mod. 43 "Puppchen" (8,8 cm Raketenwerfer 43 "Puppchen")
Device 8,8-cm rocket launcher mod. Xnumx
The barrel consisted of a monoblock pipe, a flame arrester and a breech. The bore is smooth. The shot is unitary. Charging was carried out from the breech. Shutter horizontal type shutter. The shutter was assembled safety, shock and locking mechanisms. The trunnion trunnions were placed in the upper trunnion trunnions. There were no recoil devices, lifting and turning mechanisms. The guidance of the gun was carried out manually. A shield with curved inwards edges and an aiming window was attached to the upper machine.
The lower machine is single-bar. Metal wheels with rubber tire. If necessary, the gun could be mounted on skids, in which case it would be able to conduct circular fire. As sighting devices, a front sight and an open sight with a notch from 180 to 700 m were used.
Table 39
Data 8,8-cm rocket launcher mod. Xnumx
Caliber, mm 88
Barrel length, mm / klb 1750 / 19,9
Channel length, mm / klb 1600 / 18,2
HV angle from –20 ° to + 25 °
GN angle 60 ° (on 360 ° slide)
Shield thickness, mm 3
Gun weight, kg 152
Calculation, pers. Xnumx
The ammunition of the gun included a cumulative grenade R. Pzgr.4312 weighing 2,7 ― 3,0 kg and length 490 mm. Grenade stabilization in flight was carried out using a tail stabilizer. The device of the grenade is similar to the device of the 8,8-cm grenade R.Pz.B.Gr.4322 from the Ofenor grenade launcher and differed from it only in length and in that it was launched not by an electric charge, but by a shock mechanism that ignites the propellant capsule.
In fact, the R.Pzgr.4312 grenade can be considered a rocket, since its engine continued to work even after taking off from the barrel.
The maximum speed of the grenade 110 m / s (according to other sources, 200 m / s). Penetration at an angle of 30 ° to the normal 160 mm. Effective firing range 200 ― 250 m. When firing at a distance of 250 m, 1% grenades hit a target with an area of ​​1X50 m

Shirokorad God of War of the Third Reich.

[DIMS]

Shunkov V.N.
Rocket weapon

So he is a specialist like you.

In the context of the outbreak of war. I'm sorry - past the money.

And what has to do with the "context of the beginning of the war"? This is already your own speculation

From the source as you say ----- there is nothing there. Even the gun carriage is not double-walled, but one.

I didn't say that? I forgot. Double beds could not be used there. On some more, the standard shield was removed and replaced with a light shield. For weight loss. But the rest of the carriage, including guidance systems, leveling, wheel travel, support pads, sleds, are all from the original gun. And since it also fired ammunition from "Panzershrek", it was called a rocket-propelled gun.

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

So he is a specialist like you

then there are already four of us --- Ya. Shirokorad. shunkov and Wikipedia --- against one clown of dims)))))))))))

Quote: DIMS

And what has to do with the "context of the beginning of the war"? This is already your own speculation

God be with you --- still lied about 88

Quote: DIMS

. On some, they removed the standard shield and replaced it with a light shield. For weight loss. But the rest of the carriages, including guidance systems, leveling, wheel drive, support blocks, skids, everything from the original gun

and why is it rustling then? if it doesn’t shoot with bullets

An anti-tank rifle (PTR) is a hand-held firearm characterized by a large muzzle energy of a bullet and intended to destroy enemy armored vehicles. As a rule, it has a caliber larger than that of conventional small arms (for PTRD and PTRS - 14,5 mm) and a longer barrel. Penetration of anti-tank rifles (up to 30 mm of armor) allowed them to fight against lightly armored targets. Some types of weapons classified as PTRs were relatively heavy and, in fact, were constructively small-caliber anti-tank guns (in particular, the German PTR 2,8 / 2 cm s.Pz.B.41 from the Second World War period).

shosh here your ruzhzho naupchen did not bring?
In general, the clown - what to talk with you - you just post nonsense - I tried to give a link and a plate --- so I stuck it on the tomatoes myself. Try again to give a link to an article. A book - where Pupchen goes like a gun? Or a coward and will you fall on the frost?

[DIMS]

I already crushed you with arguments --- poking my nose like a kitten when you got out with mobilization equipment to a lack of ammunition - and so a lot of times.

Where did you poke me? Thought I won’t find a table?
95% of security for 45-mm anti-tank guns, 94% for medium-caliber guns, 66% for guns of large and special power, and lack of ammunition for 210-mm cannons and 203-mm howitzers, which are used not in defense, but when breaking through strongly fortified positions.
Minus one "victory"?
And by the way, where is

total 54%

Sovramshi?

You stupidly porish nonsense))))))))) anti-aircraft artillery - this is artillery

Dear, you yourself have found and posted the definition of artillery. It starts with "Artillery - one of the three oldest branches of the army." Find something about anti-aircraft guns there.

It was you the clown who claimed that the transition from 37 mm to 45 mm gave an increase in initial speed))))))

Sovramshi ... Your words:

And how much was in the beginning and how much was in the end (only 42 do not ascribe)And then it changed - the wheels.

Since the 37 mm 1-K is clearly not included in this series (the caliber has changed, wow "And then the wheels, the springs have changed"), it means that the initial speeds of the 45-mm 19-K 1932, its modernized version 1934 and 53- By 1937. Is there an increase in initial speed? Yes. Is there an increase in armor penetration? Yes.

It’s just you, my friend, not being able to read, and not following your own words, ascribe to yourself imaginary victories.

So ZERO

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

Thought I won’t find a table?

naturally you will not find
--45 mm ---- 47%
and further down the list.))))))))))

Quote: DIMS

Minus one "victory"?

plus one more catching you on a lie))))))))

Quote: DIMS

Sovramshi?

Where did you dig out what nonsense?
My table st 546
artillery in the great patriotic.
shirokorad
AST 2010

Quote: DIMS

Dear, you yourself have found and posted the definition of artillery. It starts with "Artillery - one of the three oldest branches of the army." Find something about anti-aircraft guns there

Yes, I do not care from this anti-aircraft gun does not cease to be artillery.
And if you are a clown peering a little lower then you will see ---

Contents [remove]
1 Etymology
2 Artillery Types
2.1 Field Artillery
2.2 Serf Artillery
2.3 Jet Artillery
2.4 anti-aircraft artillery
2.5 anti-tank artillery

Well it is necessary so to show their superficial knowledge))))))))

Quote: DIMS

It was you the clown who claimed that the transition from 37 mm to 45 mm gave an increase in initial speed))))))
Sovramshi ... Your words:

Really? And how much was in the beginning and how much was in the end (only do not attribute 42) And then it changed - the wheels, the sub-axle.

You are not in kind a brake --- we have two branches of comments ---
This question was about the speed difference between the 1930 / 19к and 53к.

Quote: DIMS

learn the mat part, it’s not movement but trampling on the spot. They couldn’t even make a normal carriage,
Did you have to invent your own bike? Stomping on the spot, accompanied by an increase in the initial speed I personally like

and by the way you did not confirm your words.

[Kars]

Quote: Kars

And by the way, 45 mm just did what would increase mainly the explosiveness--
for the beloved Tukh. = kim universalization.

And so on or you will argue that they are of different caliber

Quote: DIMS

So ZERO

Exactly about you

[DIMS]

naturally you will not find
--45 mm ---- 47%
and further down the list.))))))))))

Link. I have a table with completely different data.
"Artillery supply in the Great Patriotic War 1941-45", Moscow-Tula, GAU publishing house
And let's see who "lied"

Yes, I do not care from this anti-aircraft gun does not cease to be artillery.
And if you are a clown peering a little lower you will see

Dear, Serf artillery rested in the Bose at about the same time that the anti-aircraft detached, after the First World War. We are considering a clearly different period. Anti-aircraft artillery did not obey the governing bodies of artillery, but had its own superiors. A completely different agency

You are not in kind a brake --- we have two branches of comments ---
This question was about the speed difference between the 1930 / 19к and 53к.

Are you okay with eyesight? And then you miss something phrases.

Wow, and who's stupid here? Under Tukhachevsky, 1-K was replaced by 19-K, it was upgraded to 1934 and the development of 53-K started, but it turns out that there is no development.

learn the mat part, it’s not movement but trampling on the spot. They couldn’t even make a normal carriage,

Did you have to invent your own bike? Stomping on the spot, accompanied by an increase in the initial speed I personally like

And how much was in the beginning and how much was in the end (only 42 do not ascribe)And then it changed - the wheels.

And besides the beginning. speed increased from 731 m / s to 760

Try to refute these figures.

Table

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

Link. I have a table with completely different data.
"Artillery supply in the Great Patriotic War 1941-45", Moscow-Tula, GAU publishing house
And let's see who "lied

Brake, you have a table on the AVAILABILITY of guns, not ammunition ---

THIS IS + 150)))))))))))) for such a number.

Quote: DIMS

Anti-aircraft artillery did not obey the artillery controls

She did not cease to be a clown from this artillery.

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%80%D0
% B8% D1% 8F

Do you even read Wikipedia, but you can quote that anti-aircraft artillery is not artillery))))))))))))))

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

Wow, and who's stupid here? Under Tukhachevsky, 1-K was replaced by 19-K, it was upgraded to 1934 and the development of 53-K started, but it turns out that there is no development.
learn the mat part, it’s not movement but trampling on the spot. They couldn’t even make a normal carriage,

I confirm the treading on the spot. There was a German 37 mm gun, the Tukhachevsky wanted more explosiveness (the Germans didn’t get more armor-piercing - it was in their gun, and not our 1K that they got the same armor penetration, but with new ammunition and more on 500 mm) that would make 45 mm use the old 47 mm OFS to use, then until 37, they were tormented, then they would change the wheels from the wooden ones, then they would stop the wedge until they got access to the new German carriage - and that’s it.
Learn the mat part.

[DIMS]

I confirm treading on the spot. There was a German 37 mm gun, Tukhachevsky wanted more explosiveness (the Germans didn’t get more armor-piercing - it was in their gun, and not our 1K, that they achieved the same penetration

That is, both ours and the Germans achieved equal armor penetration, but ours also increased the HE? And what's wrong with that?
Oh yes, the chances of defeating manpower have increased. This is a clear diversion of Tukhachevsky.

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

That is, both ours and the Germans achieved equal armor penetration,

Should have had more. With our larger caliber

Quote: DIMS

This is a clear diversion of Tukhachevsky

it's just his stupidity. they saved on matches, paid with Soviet blood. But you won’t understand, too much ...

[DIMS]

Yes, my mistake, I'm sorry. But in any case, the direct blame for this is on the head of GAU Kulik.

Wikipedia is a very peculiar source.

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

Yes, my mistake, I'm sorry.

I don’t forgive such mistakes ---- this is elementary carelessness and negligence - I didn’t even read the title of the article.
What then can we say about everything else?
And where does Wikipedia ------ you have a table, and the letters in it --- READ.

[DIMS]

I do not forgive such mistakes

It's from megalomania
Well, from the fact that you could not prove anything.

I never saw a single argument in favor of the fact that Tukhachevsky's activities led to a "failure" in artillery during the Great Patriotic War. So far, there are some pluses.

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

Tukhachevsky's activities led to a "failure" in artillery in the Great Patriotic War. So far, there are some pluses.

You didn’t doubt that ... like Tukhachevsky.

The indefatigable Tukhachevsky gave vent to his fantasies and brought our artillery literally to the pen
And so Tukhachevsky decided to create a universal anti-aircraft field (divisional) gun. The best artillery design bureaus and the 4 artillery factory of almost 4 of the year worked on a universal cannon. Several dozen prototypes were tested, but they all went to metal. Tukhachevsky did not pay attention to anti-aircraft guns, and the breeders of plant No. 8 (named after Kalinin) were unable to set up serial production even of 20-mm and 37-mm machine guns of Rheinmetall company. Although the production technology, prototypes and semi-finished products for several systems were presented to them on a silver platter. True, this cost the Soviet Union 5 million dollars. As a result, by the beginning of World War II, units of the Red Army had 7,62-mm machine guns as the only means of air defense
At the end of 1932, with the submission of Tukhachevsky, work on the creation of towed guns of special power was stopped

In long-range guns, the Wehrmacht had absolute superiority over the Red Army throughout the war. So, the 15-cm German guns K. 18 and K.39 with a projectile weight of 43 kg had a firing range of 24 740 m, the 17-cm gun K. Mrs. Laf with the weight of a projectile 68 kg fired at 29,5 km, the 21-cm gun K .38 and K.52 with a projectile weight of 135 kg had a range of 33,9 km, etc. I note that all these guns fired with conventional shells

And so on, it’s too lazy to look for acceleration by Tukhachev’s art KB, you still won’t catch up.

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

Are you okay with eyesight? And then you miss something phrases.

I am not missing anything.

Quote: Kars

Kars (3) Yesterday, 19: 47 ↑ ↓ 0 Quote: DIMS
I think so, most are still fragmentation. Direct fire from the front edge of the firing points, bunkers, etc.
Now think about how many people died performing such heroic actions, using such a weak weapon.

And by the way, 45 mm just did what would increase mainly the explosiveness--
for the beloved Tukh. = kim universalization.

Hummel was just unlucky. He would have died better from the fragments of the 152 mm infantry gun from a closed position.

Quote: DIMS

DIMS Yesterday, 19: 59 ↑ ↓ 0 And ​​now think how many people died performing such heroic actions, using such a weak weapon
And how many ZIS-3 calculations perished, performing such heroic actions? They also loved to use it so much, maybe that's why they had to release so many of them. Have you ever dragged her, even on the asphalt?

And by the way, 45 mm just did what would increase mainly the explosiveness--
for the beloved Tukh. = kim universalization.
And they increased mainly the initial speed. Well, armor penetration.

Quote: Kars

Kars (3) Yesterday, 20: 10 ↑ ↓ 0 Quote: DIMS
And how many ZIS-3 calculations died,
You still do not understand the context ----- I believe that the ZIS-3 is a bad gun (as a division gun), and because of the influence of Tukhachevsky it has become, and its massive use is a necessary measure.

And I think it’s all the same less - because you so favorite range of a direct shot more. Quote: DIMS
And they increased mainly the initial speed
Really?
37 PTN 1930 SPEED-820
45-mm anti-tank gun mod. 1937 of the year --760
Or am I wrong?

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

DIMS Yesterday, 20: 35 ↑ ↓ 0 You still did not understand the context ----- I believe that the ZIS-3 is a bad gun (as a divisional one), and because of the influence of Tukhachevsky it has become, and its massive use is a necessary measure.
Oh no, a normal gun. It's just that too much has been produced to the detriment of other systems. Therefore, they used it for unusual functions, even installed on the ramp to give a greater elevation angle.
And there was no influence of Tukhachevsky, she was simply cheap and technologically advanced - a war instrument. And the ammunition is the same.

Really?
37 PTN 1930 SPEED-820
45-mm anti-tank gun mod. 1937 of the year --760
Or am I wrong?
Are right. But one more thing remains: the weight of the shell

Go and check they go in a row.
Liar-sh ..... ka

[DIMS]

Well, and what do you want to say? What shoved your post into the wrong branch, since all of the above does not apply to the initial speeds of the 37 and 45 mm guns? It happens.

[Kars]

Four posts in a row, connected by a common word ---- Open your eyes a clown, you went to the full program.

[DIMS]

Yeah you really brake

Dear, I'm talking to you quite normally. What, no more arguments?

Reread the definition once again everything is written there. But I’ll explain to you what the classic barrel artillery means in this context, without minamets and MLRS - guns, howitzers.

Well no

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

What, no more arguments?

by Geocint --- what arguments can I have - if you present something. At least you can’t provide either my quotes or anything in confirmation.

Quote: DIMS

I'm talking to you quite normally

hard to answer stupid things.

Quote: DIMS

Well no

))))))))))

[DIMS]

Okay, learn the materiel. I'll be back from check-out, I’ll check
That there were no more mistakes.

You learned a lot today. The fact that the Germans had recoilless guns, and they did not include the Panzershreks and other rocket-propelled guns and grenade launchers, That the Red Army artillery had other guns besides the ZIS-3, and during the war they produced 10 times more than ZISov that despite Tukhachevsky's sabotage activities, we approached the war with a completely satisfactory weaponry. And a lot more. But I'm tired of doing educational programs, Great Specialist. You will have to educate yourself.
And when I arrive, I will try to read the headlines more carefully so that such mistakes no longer make you puff with pride. After all, they are clearly a trifle compared to your ocean of ignorance.

ps As for recoilless guns, compare RPGs and "Karl-Gustav", you will understand a lot and stop confusing grenade launchers with BO

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

I'll be back from check out

Is it too small for you how I lowered you? Are you a masochist? Or are you just catching up?

Quote: DIMS

But I'm sick of doing educational program, Great Specialist

Urgently to the doctor))))))))))))

Quote: DIMS

After all, they are clearly a trifle compared to your ocean of ignorance.

And it says a man who says that anti-aircraft guns are not artillery

Quote: DIMS

About recoilless guns - compare RPGs and Karl-Gustav

Well, you are a clown --- you are required to make up an 88 mm anti-tank rifle, which I invented, I have already forgiven you by mentioning Omnor some people called him that, out of ignorance - well, how are you.

[DIMS]

And it says a man who says that anti-aircraft guns are not artillery

Ask any gunner

Well you are a clown ---

Jammed? Or do you realize the whole depth of your ignorance, and insults are a defensive reaction?

the 88 mm anti-tank rifle invented by you, I already forgave you having mentioned Offernor, some people called him that, out of ignorance - well, how are you.

And why did you decide that "unknowingly", Ykspert? Absolutely correct, R.Pz.B.54 "Ofenror" stands for "Raketenpanzerbüchse 54" - that is, literally anti-tank rifle. Do not substitute like that, showing your ignorance.
Since you are so scrupulous, call "Doll" in German "Raketenwerfer" - a rocket launcher. But personally I do not like this name, it is misleading.

We will finish this foreign lesson.

[Kars]

And so I yelled from you.

Quote: DIMS

Jammed?

Well, you don’t like it when I call you a jackal
.

Quote: DIMS

, R.Pz.B.54 "Ofenror" stands for "Raketenpanzerbüchse 54" - that is, literally a rocket-propelled anti-tank rifle. Do not put yourself in such a position, showing your ignorance

This is out of ignorance --- but you yourself again confirmed that I was right to mention Offernor, and you stupidly laughed when you started pushing Pupchen with a mockery.
+ 150 more to me.

Quote: DIMS

R.Pz.B.54 "Ofenror"

Ofenoror (German: "chimney") - German manual anti-tank grenade launcher (RPG) 8,8cm R.Pz.B.54 (German "Raketenpanzerbüchse 54"). It was replaced by the Panzer Shrek.

Quote: DIMS

We will finish this foreign lesson.

Hrenty sh..clown jump off --- you already froze, and this after your threat to become my personal error finder ,,,,,,,

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

Ask any gunner

ask yourself if not ashamed.

52-K (GAU Index - 52-П-365) is a Soviet anti-aircraft gun of the caliber 85 mm. The full official name of the gun is the 85-mm anti-aircraft gun of the 1939 model of the year.

Explain why this is not an artillery gun.

Flak
type of artillery designed to destroy air targets. Organizationally part of the units and units of the Ground Forces, as well as the Air Defense Forces of the country. Development Z. a. associated with the emergence of the air force. First appeared before the 1 World War 1914 — 18 (see. Anti-aircraft gun). In Russia, the first battery Z. a. (also called anti-aircraft artillery) was formed and sent to the front in 1915. In the USSR, the formation of units of Z. a. started at 1918, anti-aircraft artillery regiments at 1924; in 30 — 40's adopted 25-, 37-, 76- and 85-mm anti-aircraft guns. In the anti-aircraft units established a single organizational structure - battery, division, regiment (brigade). In the 2 World War 1939 — 45 Z. a. became an important means of combating an air enemy, and was also used to fight tanks and shoot at other targets. Together with fighter aircraft, it was used for air defense troops, as well as vital centers of states. In many countries, arming Z. a. guns of large (more than 100-mm), medium (from 60 to 100-mm) and small (from 20 to 60-mm) calibers, shells with mechanical and radio fuses, artillery anti-aircraft fire control devices (PUOZO), radar reconnaissance and target designation, as well as gun guidance stations. During the Great Patriotic War 1941 — 45 in the USSR, anti-aircraft artillery divisions were formed (end of 1942).
In the post-war period, the modernization of the West. allowed to significantly increase firing efficiency and automate firing. At the end of the 40's. in the USSR, the 57-, 100-, and 130-mm anti-aircraft guns came into service (together with the POISO and gun guidance stations they were anti-aircraft artillery systems (see. Anti-aircraft artillery complex)), in the 1950-ies. - anti-aircraft missile systems (See. Anti-aircraft missile system). The ground forces began to use multi-barreled high-speed anti-aircraft artillery mounts, mainly on self-propelled chassis, equipped with autonomous radars and counting and decisive devices, providing the ability to conduct effective fire in all weather conditions, both from place and in movement.
A.I. Chervonooky.