Military Review

Use of captured German anti-tank guns

70
Use of captured German anti-tank guns

As you know, the main enemy tanks anti-tank artillery was on the battlefield during the Second World War. By the time Nazi Germany attacked the Soviet Union, the Wehrmacht's infantry units in quantitative terms had a sufficient number of anti-tank guns. Another thing is that the 37-50-mm guns available in the troops could successfully fight armored vehicles with bulletproof armor. And they turned out to be ineffective against the modernized T-28E medium tanks (with shielded armor), the new T-34 medium tanks and the KV-1 heavy ones.


37 mm anti-tank gun 3,7 cm Pak. 35/36


37-mm cannon Rak. 35/36 was the main anti-tank weapon with which Germany entered the war with the USSR. The first modification of the anti-tank gun, known as the Tak. 28 (German Tankabwehrkanone 28), was created by Rheinmetall-Borsig AG in 1928. After field trials, a modified 37 mm Tak cannon appeared. 29, which went into mass production.

The Reichswehr adopted this weapon in 1932, receiving a total of 264 units. Tak cannon. 29 had a 45 caliber barrel with a horizontal wedge gate, which provided a rate of fire of up to 20 rds / min. The carriage with sliding tubular beds provided a large horizontal guidance angle - 60 °, but the chassis with wooden wheels was designed only for horse traction.

In the late 1920s, this weapon was the best in its class, far ahead of developments in other countries. It was exported to about a dozen countries. 12 of these guns were delivered to the USSR, and another 499 were manufactured under license in the early 1930s. It was accepted into service under the name: 37 mm anti-tank gun mod. 1930 The famous Soviet 45-mm anti-tank gun model 1932 - traces its ancestry to the German Tak. 29.

But this gun, due to the impossibility of towing it with mechanical traction, did not fully satisfy the German military. In 1934, a modernized version appeared, with wheels equipped with pneumatic tires that can be towed by a car, an improved carriage and an improved sight. Under the designation 3,7 cm Pak. 35/36 (German Panzerabwehrkanone 35/36) was adopted by the Wehrmacht as the main anti-tank weapon.


Calculation of the 37 mm anti-tank gun 3,7 cm Pak. 35/36 in a firing position.

The presence of a wedge-type automatic shutter closing mechanism provided a rate of fire of 12-15 rounds per minute. The sector of the horizontal shelling of the gun was 60 °, the maximum elevation angle of the barrel was 25 °. The mass of the gun in the combat position is 480 kg, which made it possible to roll it by the crew of 5 people.


Ammunition for each gun was 250 rounds. The main shot was considered to be with an armor-piercing projectile of 3,7 cm Pzgr. 36 (120 rounds in ammunition), there were also shots with reel-type sub-caliber projectiles 3,7 cm Pzgr. 40 (30 shots) and 100 shots with a fragmentation projectile 3,7 cm Sprg. 40.

An armor-piercing 37-mm projectile weighing 0,685 kg left the barrel at a speed of 745 m / s, and at a distance of 300 m at a meeting angle of 60 ° it could penetrate 30-mm armor. A sub-caliber projectile weighing 0,355 kg with an initial speed of 1020 m / s under the same conditions pierced 40 mm armor.

The shrapnel shell weighed 0,62 kg and contained 44 g of explosives. In addition, for the cannon Rak. 35/36, a special over-caliber cumulative ammunition Stiel.Gr. 41 weighing 9,15 kg was developed, containing 2,3 kg of explosives and fired with a blank powder charge. The armor penetration of a cumulative mine with a maximum firing range of 300 m, along the normal was 180 mm.


Anti-tank gun 3,7 cm Pak. 35/36 with over-caliber cumulative mine Stiel.Gr. 41

In the Wehrmacht, each infantry division of the first line according to the states of 1940 was supposed to have 75 Pak guns. 35/36.

As of September 1, 1939, the German armed forces had 11 Cancer cannons. 250/35. By June 36, 22, this number increased to a record 1941 units, but subsequently steadily declined. On March 15, 515, the Wehrmacht and the SS troops still had 1 Cancers. 1945/216, and 35 of these guns were stored in warehouses. In total, about 36 thousand Rak guns were fired. 670/16.

Most of the infantry divisions switched to more powerful guns in 1943, but they remained in the parachute and mountain divisions until 1944, and in the fortified areas, occupation units and formations of the second line until the end of the war. Due to their compactness and low weight, 37-mm anti-tank guns in some cases performed well in street battles at the final stage of hostilities.

Taking into account the fact that the 37-mm cannon Cancer. 35/36 were very widespread in the armed forces of Nazi Germany, they often became trophies of the Red Army.


The first cases of the use of captured 37-mm guns were noted in July 1941. But regularly cannons Cancer. 35/36 were used against enemy armored vehicles in the fall of 1941.


Formally, when using standard armor-piercing shells, the 37-mm anti-tank gun Cancer. The 35/36 was inferior to the Soviet 45 mm anti-tank gun of the 1937 model.

So, according to the declared characteristics, an armor-piercing 45-mm projectile B-240, when meeting at a right angle at a distance of 500 m, pierced 43-mm armor. At the same distance, when hit at a right angle, a German armor-piercing shell pierced 25 mm armor. However, in the initial period of the war, the armor penetration of the 37-mm German and 45-mm Soviet anti-tank guns was approximately the same.

This is due to the fact that Soviet armor-piercing shells in 1941 did not meet the declared characteristics. Due to a violation of production technology, when colliding with armor plates, 45-mm shells split, which greatly reduced armor penetration. A number of sources say that the real penetration of a 45-mm projectile was only 20-22 mm at 500 m.

At the same time, a 45-mm O-240 fragmentation grenade weighing 2,14 kg contained 118 g of TNT. And in terms of fragmentation, it more than doubled the 37-mm German fragmentation projectile. 45-mm grenade O-240 when bursting gave about 100 fragments, retaining lethal force when flying along the front by 11-13 m and in depth by 5-7 m.

Soviet troops in late 1941 - early 1942, in the course of counterattacks near Tikhvin and Moscow, captured several dozen serviceable Rak guns. 35/36. This made it possible to arm a number of newly formed anti-tank battalions with captured guns.


In addition, German-made light 37-mm cannons were very often used as a freelance anti-tank weapon for rifle units. Since 3,7 cm Cancer. 35/36 and 45-mm cannon mod. 1937 of the year were structurally very close, with the development and use of 37-mm captured anti-tank guns there were no special problems.


Soviet crew fires a captured German 37-mm anti-tank gun

Combat characteristics Cancer. 35/36 tanks in the initial period of the war made it possible to successfully fight early modifications of the German medium tanks Pz.Kpfw.III and Pz.Kpfw.IV, as well as light Pz.Kpfw.II, PzKpfw. 35 (t) and PzKpfw. 38 (t ).

However, as the protection of German armored vehicles grew and the anti-tank units of the Red Army were saturated with effective domestic 45, 57 and 76-mm guns, the use of 37-mm captured anti-tank guns stopped.

47 mm anti-tank gun 4,7 cm Pak 36 (t)


In the initial period of the war on the Eastern Front, the Wehrmacht was in dire need of more powerful anti-tank guns. As a temporary measure, the 47-mm Czechoslovak-made 4,7 cm kanon PUV cannons were widely used. vz. 36, which in the German armed forces received the designation 4,7 cm Pak 36 (t). In terms of armor penetration, the Czechoslovak-made gun was only slightly inferior to the German 50-mm 5 cm Pak gun. 38. Similar guns captured in Yugoslavia were designated 4,7 cm Pak 179 (j).


Anti-tank gun 4,7 cm kanon PUV. vz. 36

Anti-tank gun 4,7 cm kanon PUV. vz. 36 was developed by Škoda in 1936 as a further development of the 37 mm 3,7 cm kanon PUV.vz.34 gun. Externally, the gun is 4,7 cm kanon PUV. vz. 36 was similar to the 3,7 cm kanon PUV.vz. 34, differing in a larger caliber, overall dimensions and weight, which increased to 595 kg. For ease of transportation, both frames of the 47-mm cannon were folded and turned 180 ° and attached to the barrel.


47-mm anti-tank gun 4.7 cm kanon PUV. vz. 36 in transport position

As of 1939, the 47 mm Czechoslovakian gun was one of the most powerful in the world. With a barrel length of 2219 mm, the muzzle velocity of 1,65 kg of the armor-piercing projectile was 775 m / s. At a distance of 1000 m at a right angle, the projectile pierced 55 mm armor. A well trained crew could make 15 rds / min.

In 1940, the 47 cm Pzgr. 4,7 cm Pzgr. 40 with tungsten carbide core. A projectile weighing 0,8 kg with an initial speed of 1080 m / s at a distance of up to 500 m confidently pierced the frontal armor of a medium Soviet T-34 tank. In addition, there was a round with a fragmentation projectile weighing 2,3 kg, which contained 253 g of TNT.

Before the occupation of Czechoslovakia in March 1939, 775 47 mm guns were fired. Most of them went to the Germans. Production of 47 mm guns continued until 1942. More than 1200 examples were built in total. The 47 mm anti-tank guns 4,7 cm Pak 36 (t) were actively used until early 1943, when the German anti-tank divisions received a sufficient number of 50 and 75 mm guns.

In addition to being used in a towed version, some of the 4,7 cm Pak 36 (t) guns were sent to arm anti-tank self-propelled guns. From March 1940, Czech 47-mm cannons began to be installed on the chassis of the Pz.Kpfw.I Ausf B light tank, and from May 1941 on the chassis of a captured French R-35 tank. A total of 376 light tank destroyers were manufactured. Self-propelled guns, designated Panzerjager I and Panzerjäger 35 R (f), respectively, entered service with tank destroyer divisions.

47 mm anti-tank gun 4,7 Pak. 35/36 (ö)


In addition to the 47-mm guns of Czech production, the Wehrmacht had guns of a similar caliber, obtained after the Anschluss of Austria. In 1935, the Austrian company Böhler created the original 47 mm Böhler M35 gun, which could be used as anti-tank, mountain and light infantry. Depending on the purpose, the 47 mm gun had different barrel lengths and could be equipped with a muzzle brake.

A collapsible modification was also mass-produced, suitable for transportation in packs. A common feature of all models was a large elevation angle, the absence of a splinter shield, as well as the ability to separate the wheel travel, and install directly on the ground, which reduced the silhouette in the firing position. To reduce the mass in the transport position, some of the late-production guns were equipped with wheels with light-alloy wheels.


47-mm anti-tank gun Böhler M35

Although the design of the gun had a number of controversial solutions due to the requirements of versatility, it was quite effective in the role of an anti-tank gun. The modification with a barrel length of 1680 mm in the transport position weighed 315 kg, in combat, after separation of the wheel travel - 277 kg. Combat rate of fire 10–12 rds / min.

The ammunition contained fragmentation and armor-piercing shells. A fragmentation projectile weighing 2,37 kg had an initial velocity of 320 m / s and a firing range of 7000 m. An armor-piercing tracer projectile weighing 1,44 kg left the barrel at a speed of 630 m / s. At a distance of 100 m along the normal, it could penetrate a 58-mm armor plate, at 500 m - 43-mm, at 1000 m - 36-mm. A modification with a barrel length of 1880 mm at a distance of 100 m was capable of penetrating 70 mm armor.

Thus, the 47-mm Böhler M35 gun, with acceptable weight and size characteristics at all distances, could successfully fight armored vehicles protected by bulletproof armor, at short range - with medium tanks with anti-shell armor.

The Wehrmacht received 330 guns from the Austrian army, and about 150 more guns were collected from the existing stock before the end of 1940. Austrian 47-mm guns were adopted under the designation 4,7 Pak. 35/36 (ö). Taking into account the fact that the Böhler M35 guns were actively exported, Germany got the Dutch guns, which received the name 4,7 Pak. 187 (h), and the former Lithuanians captured in the warehouses of the Red Army - designated 4,7 Pak. 196 (r).

The guns, manufactured in Italy under license, were designated Cannone da 47/32 Mod. 35. After Italy's withdrawal from the war, the Italian guns that were trapped by the Germans were called 4,7 Pak. 177 (i). Part of the 47-mm Böhler M35 cannons was used to arm improvised tank destroyers.


In June 1941, the Wehrmacht had at its disposal about 500 47-mm Austrian-made guns. Until mid-1942, they actively fought on the Eastern Front. Subsequently, the guns that survived and captured in Italy were transferred to Finland, Croatia and Romania.


Soviet gun crew at a position near Sevastopol firing from a 47-mm Austrian-made gun, spring 1942

In Soviet documents, captured 47-mm anti-tank guns of Czechoslovak and Austrian production appeared as 47-mm guns of the Skoda system and the Bohler system.


Soldiers of the Red Army inspect a 47-mm gun of Austrian production, captured in the vicinity of Stalingrad, December 1942

Now it is impossible to say for sure how many of these guns were captured by the Red Army, but it can be confidently asserted that in the presence of ammunition, they were used against the former owners.

50 mm anti-tank gun 5 cm Pak. 38


Anti-tank 50 mm gun 5 cm Pak. 38 was created by Rheinmetall-Borsig AG in 1938 and was intended to replace the 37 mm Pak cannon. 35/36. However, due to organizational inconsistencies and technical difficulties, the first 50-mm cannons entered the army only at the beginning of 1940.

Large-scale production began only at the end of 1940. As of June 1, 1941, the troops had 1047 guns. Release of 5 cm Pak. 38 was completed in 1943, a total of 9568 50 mm anti-tank guns were produced.


50 mm anti-tank gun 5 cm Pak. 38 with the expectation of a firing position

At the time of its appearance, the 50-mm German anti-tank gun had very good armor penetration characteristics, but for this caliber it was overweight. Its mass in the combat position was 930 kg (the much more powerful Soviet 57-mm ZiS-2 in the combat position weighed 1040 kg).

An armor-piercing projectile 5 cm Pzgr. 39 weighing 2,05 kg, having accelerated in a barrel with a length of 60 calibers to a speed of 823 m / s, at a distance of 500 m along the normal penetrated 70-mm armor. At a distance of 100 m, 95 mm armor could be pierced. The 5 cm Pzgr. 40 sabot projectile weighing 0,9 kg had an initial velocity of 1180 m / s. And under the same conditions, it could penetrate 100 mm armor. The ammunition load also included shots with a 5 cm Sprgr. 38 fragmentation grenade weighing 1,81 kg, which contained 175 g of explosives.

When firing with armor-piercing shells, the Pak anti-tank gun. 38 most likely penetrated the side armor of the T-34 medium tank from 500 m. The T-300's frontal armor penetrated at a distance of less than 50 m. For subcaliber 34-mm shells, the Soviet T-700 medium tank was vulnerable at a distance of up to 1942 m, but due to the shortage of tungsten, after XNUMX, shots with sub-caliber shells became rare in the ammunition of German anti-tank guns.


For the first time, a significant number of 5 cm Pak guns. 38 with a stock of shells, our troops captured near Moscow. Even more 50-mm anti-tank guns were among the trophies of the Red Army after the defeat of the Germans at Stalingrad.


In 1943, captured 50 mm 5 cm Pak cannons. 38 firmly settled in the Soviet anti-tank artillery. They entered service with individual anti-tank divisions. And they were used in conjunction with domestic 45, 57 and 76,2 mm guns.


According to the ability to combat enemy armored vehicles Pak. 38 was close to the Soviet 76-mm ZiS-3 gun, which was used in divisional and anti-tank artillery.


For towing 50-mm guns of German production in the Red Army, horse teams were used, as well as trophy tractors and transporters obtained under Lend-Lease.


After the seizure of the strategic initiative by the Red Army and the transition to large-scale offensive operations, our troops received many German anti-tank guns. Captured 50-mm guns provided fire support to the Soviet infantry and covered tank-dangerous areas until the last days of the war.

It is known that in the framework of the rearmament program of the Bulgarian army ("Barbara plan"), in 1943 the Germans supplied 404 50-mm anti-tank guns.


Bulgarian soldiers inspect the Pak 50mm anti-tank gun. 38

After Bulgaria declared war on Germany in September 1944, these guns were used against German troops. Part of the Bulgarian anti-tank artillery was lost in the battle. As of January 1, 1945, there were 362 Pak in stock. 38.


50mm Pak anti-tank guns. 38 next to 76-mm Soviet divisional guns ZiS-3 in the Bulgarian National Military History Museum

During the hostilities, units of the Bulgarian People's Army were able to recapture several dozen Pak guns from the enemy. 38, thus restoring their original numbers. In the late 1940s, almost all Pak available. 38 were stationed in a fortified area on the border with Turkey. German 50-mm cannons were in service with the Bulgarian army until the mid-1960s.

The first German 50-mm anti-tank guns appeared in the People's Liberation Army of Yugoslavia (NOAJ) in early 1943, when the soldiers of the 1st Proletarian Division captured several 5 cm Pak. 38 and successfully used them in March 1943 in the battles on the Neretva.


A NOAU soldier at a column of captured 50 mm Pak anti-tank guns. 38

After the liberation of the country's territory from the Nazis, the Yugoslavs got several dozen 50-mm guns, and they were operated in the combat units of the NOAJ until the early 1950s.

On July 1, 1945, there were more than 400 Pak anti-tank guns suitable for further use in the artillery units of the Red Army and at the collection points of weapons. 38. In the post-war period, captured 50-mm guns were used for practice shooting.


50 mm anti-tank gun 5 cm Pak. 38 on display at the War Museum of the Chinese Revolution

After China sent people's volunteers to participate in the Korean War, the Soviet government handed over to Beijing a large batch of captured German weapons and ammunition. In addition to rifles, machine guns, howitzers and mortars, 50 mm 5 cm Pak anti-tank guns were supplied. 38, which subsequently fought in Korea along with the 45 mm M-42, 57 mm ZiS-2 and 76,2 mm ZiS-3.

75 mm anti-tank gun 7,5 cm Pak. 40


In terms of the range of service, operational, combat characteristics and taking into account the cost of production, the 7,5 cm Pak can be considered the best German anti-tank gun. 40. This cannon was designed by Rheinmetall-Borsig AG on the basis of a 5 cm Pak. 38. Externally 7,5 cm Pak. 40 is very similar to the 5 cm Pak. 38, and are often confused in photographs.


75 mm anti-tank gun 7,5 cm Pak. 40 in firing position

In the late autumn of 1941, it became clear to German generals that the blitzkrieg had not taken place, and the number of Soviet tanks with anti-cannon armor on all fronts began to steadily increase. Taking into account the fact that the existing 37-50-mm anti-tank guns for fighting them were officially recognized as insufficient, in November 1941, the 75-mm Pak gun entered service. 40.

The Wehrmacht received the first 15 guns only in February 1942. Until March 1945, more than 20 guns were produced, some of them were used to arm the tank destroyers. On March 000, 1, the troops had 1945 towed 4695-mm Pak 75 anti-tank guns.

Due to the acute shortage of anti-tank weapons capable of fighting the new medium and heavy Soviet tanks, at the first stage in each infantry division fighting on the Eastern Front, in the anti-tank battalion, it was supposed to replace one platoon of 37-mm guns with a platoon of 7,5 cm Pak. 40, which was supposed to contain only two guns. According to the staffing table, approved in February 1943, the infantry division was supposed to have 39 guns. For towing a 7,5 cm Pak. 40, it was required to use only mechanized traction, with a shortage of standard traction, using captured tractors.

The mass of the gun in combat position was 1425 kg. Barrel length - 3450 mm (46 calibers). Rate of fire - up to 15 rds / min. Armor-piercing shell 7,5 cm Pzgr. 39 weighing 6,8 kg left the barrel with an initial speed of 792 m / s. At a distance of 500 m along the normal, it could penetrate 125 mm armor, at 1000 m - 100 mm.

An APCR shell 7,5 cm Pzgr. 40 with a mass of 4,1 kg with an initial speed of 933 m / s, from 500 m along the normal it pierced 150 mm armor. Cumulative 7,5 cm Gr. 38 Hl / B weighing 4,4 kg, from any distance, at right angles, could penetrate 85 mm armor. Also in the ammunition load there were shots with high-explosive fragmentation grenades 7,5 cm Sprgr. 34. This grenade weighed 5,74 kg and contained 680 g of explosives.

After the appearance of the 7,5 cm Pak guns on the Soviet-German front. 40 anti-tank artillery of the Wehrmacht got the opportunity to fight against Soviet tanks at almost all distances of real combat. The exception was the IS-2 of the late series, their foreheads confidently kept the hits of 75-mm armor-piercing shells. After 1943, shots with subcaliber shells from the ammunition load of German 75-mm anti-tank guns disappeared.


Even after the start of mass production of 75-mm guns, the troops always lacked them. German industry was unable to supply the troops with the required number of anti-tank guns. Most of the 7,5 cm Pak. 40, who fought on the Eastern Front, were lost on the battlefield, up to 500 guns were captured by the Red Army.


Soviet artillerymen appreciated the capabilities of the 7,5 cm Pak. 40. The German 75-mm gun could confidently fight medium and heavy tanks at a distance of up to 1 km. The Soviet 76,2 mm ZiS-3 cannon had the ability to hit 80 mm Tiger side armor with an armor-piercing projectile at a distance of less than 300 m. At the same time Pak. 40, when fired, the openers "buried" more strongly in the ground, as a result of which the ZiS-3 was far behind in the ability to quickly change position or transfer fire.


Captured guns 7,5 cm Pak. 40 in the Red Army were considered as an anti-tank reserve and were actively used to combat enemy armored vehicles. As with the 5 cm Pak. 38, 75-mm anti-tank guns were sent to manning individual anti-tank battalions or were used as a means of reinforcing units armed with artillery guns of domestic production.

Pak anti-tank guns. 40 Germany supplied Hungary, Slovakia, Finland, Romania and Bulgaria. With the transition of the last three in 1944 to the anti-Hitler coalition Pak. 40, available in the armed forces of these countries, were used against the Germans.

75mm Pak gun. 40 were in service with a number of European armies after the end of World War II. So, in Czechoslovakia and in France, the production of 75-mm shells was established. Operation of captured Pak guns. 40 in these countries lasted until the first half of the 1960s.


75mm Pak. 40 at the parade in Hanoi

In 1959, the Soviet Union handed over the stored 7,5 cm Pak guns to the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. 40. Initially, the 75-mm cannon was considered as an anti-tank weapon and was intended to repel possible aggression from the south. However, they subsequently served in coastal defense until the early 1980s.

76 mm anti-tank gun 7,62 cm Pak. 36 (r)


Very interesting история 76,2 mm anti-tank gun 7,62 cm Pak. 36 (r).

This gun was converted from the Soviet F-22 divisional gun, which the Germans captured about 1000 units in the initial period of the war.

In September 1941, the captured Soviet F-22 division was adopted by the Wehrmacht under the designation 7,62 cm FK 296 (r). Since it was not possible to capture a significant number of 76,2-mm armor-piercing shells, German enterprises began to produce an armor-piercing shell 7,62 cm Pzgr. 39, which had better armor penetration than the Soviet UBR-354A. In November, a sub-caliber shell 7,62 cm Pzgr was introduced into the ammunition load. 40. With new anti-tank rounds, the FK 296 (r) guns were used on the Eastern Front and in North Africa.

However, even taking into account the successful use of captured F-22 in North Africa and on the Soviet-German front, these guns were not optimal for use in anti-tank defense. German calculations complained about inconvenient guidance organs located on different sides of the shutter. A lot of complaints also caused a sight. In addition, the power of the gun was still not enough to confidently break through the frontal armor of the heavy Soviet KV-1 tanks and British heavy infantry tanks Churchill Mk IV.

Since the F-22 gun was originally designed for a much more powerful ammunition and had a large margin of safety, by the end of 1941 a project was developed to modernize the F-22 into the 7,62 cm Pak anti-tank gun. 36 (r). The captured guns mod. 1936, the chamber was bored, which made it possible to use a sleeve with a large internal volume.

The Soviet sleeve had a length of 385,3 mm and a flange diameter of 90 mm. The new German sleeve was 715 mm long with a flange diameter of 100 mm. Thanks to this, the powder charge was increased by 2,4 times. Due to the increased recoil, a muzzle brake was installed. In fact, German engineers returned to the fact that V.G. Grabin proposed in 1935.

The transfer of the handles of the gun guidance drives to one side with a sight made it possible to improve the working conditions of the gunner. The maximum vertical angle was reduced from 75 ° to 18 °. In order to reduce weight and visibility at the position of the gun received a new armor shield of reduced height.


76,2 mm anti-tank gun 7,62 cm Pak. 36 (r)

Thanks to the increased muzzle energy, it was possible to significantly increase the armor penetration. German armor-piercing tracer with a ballistic tip 7,62 cm Pzgr. 39 weighing 7,6 kg had an initial speed of 740 m / s and at a distance of 500 m along the normal could penetrate 108 mm armor.

In smaller numbers, shots were fired with the 7,62 cm Pzgr.40 APCR shell. At an initial speed of 990 m / s, a projectile weighing 3,9 kg at a distance of 500 m at right angles pierced 140 mm armor. The ammunition load could also include cumulative shells 7,62 cm Gr. 38 Hl / B and 7,62 cm Gr. 38 Hl / C with a mass of 4,62 and 5,05 kg, which (regardless of range) normally provided penetration of 85-90 mm of armor. And high-explosive shells.

In terms of armor penetration, the 7,62 cm Pak. 36 (r) was very close to the German 7,5 cm Pak. 40, which was the best mass-produced in Germany during the war years in terms of cost, a complex of service, operational and combat characteristics.

It can be stated that both guns confidently ensured the defeat of medium tanks at real firing ranges. But at the same time, the 7,5 cm Pak. 40 is lighter than the 7,62 cm Pak. 36 (r) approx. 100 kg. Conversion of the Soviet F-22 divisional gun into the 7,62 cm Pak anti-tank gun. 36 (r) was, of course, justified, since the cost of rework was many times cheaper than the cost of a new gun.

Before mass production of the 7,5 cm Pak. 40 anti-tank gun 7,62 cm Pak. 36 (r), converted from the Soviet F-22 "division," was the most powerful German anti-tank artillery system. Taking into account the high armor penetration and the fact that the total production of 7,62 cm Pak. 36 (r) exceeded 500 units, they are in 1942-1943. had a significant impact on the course of hostilities.

Our troops captured several dozen 7,62 cm Pak 36 (r) after the defeat of the Germans at Stalingrad. After assessing the potential of the "double captured" guns, they were included in the anti-tank destroyer divisions. These guns were also used to shell enemy positions with high-explosive fragmentation shells - that is, they performed the tasks of divisional artillery. However, the active combat use of the 7,62 cm Pak 36 (r) in the Red Army lasted only a few months. Captured guns fought as long as there was ammunition for them.


At the beginning of 1943, based on the experience of using the 7,62 cm Pak 36 (r), the Soviet command proposed V.G. Grabin to create a similar weapon for a shot from a 76,2-mm anti-aircraft gun mod. 1931 year. However, taking into account the fact that the production of the F-22 divisional guns was stopped, and there were few previously fired guns in the troops, such a decision was considered not rational.

88 mm anti-tank gun 8,8 cm Pak. 43


Considering the excellent anti-tank capabilities of the 88-mm anti-aircraft guns, the famous "aht-aht", the German military leadership decided to create a specialized anti-tank gun in this caliber. The need for a very powerful anti-tank gun was dictated by the predicted increase in the protection of Soviet heavy tanks and self-propelled guns. Another stimulus was the lack of tungsten, which was then used as a material for the cores of the sub-caliber projectiles of the 75 mm Pak cannon. 40. The construction of a more powerful weapon opened up the possibility of effectively hitting heavily armored targets with conventional steel armor-piercing shells.

In 1943, the Krupp company (using parts of the anti-aircraft Flak. 41) created the 8,8 cm Pak anti-tank gun. 43, which demonstrated outstanding armor penetration performance. It could hit the frontal armor of tanks at a distance of up to 2,5 km. Armor-piercing tracer shell 8,8 cm Pzgr. 39/43 weighing 10,2 kg left a barrel 71 caliber long with an initial speed of 1000 m / s. At a distance of 1000 m at a meeting angle of 60 °, he pierced 167 mm armor. At a distance of 2000 m, 135 mm armor pierced under the same conditions.

An APCR shell 8,8 cm Pzgr. 40/43 weighing 7,3 kg with an initial speed of 1130 m / s at a distance of 1000 m at a meeting angle of 60 ° pierced a 190-mm armor plate. The ammunition load also included shots with a cumulative grenade 8,8 cm Gr. 38/43 HI with 110 mm normal armor penetration and with a 9,4-kg 8,8 cm Sprgr high-explosive fragmentation grenade. 43, containing 1 kg of TNT.

A gun with a rate of fire of up to 10 rounds per minute could confidently fight any tanks that took part in the battles of World War II. At the same time, the excessive weight of the 8,8 cm Pak anti-tank gun. 43 limited her mobility.

The weapon known as the Pak. 43/41, mounted on the carriage of the 105-mm leFH field howitzer. 18, similar to the carriage of the 75mm Pak anti-tank gun. 40. The mass of the artillery system in the combat position was 4400 kg, in the stowed position - 4950 kg. For transporting Pak. 43 required a sufficiently powerful tracked tractor.

The cross-country ability of the tractor-implement hitch on soft soils was unsatisfactory. The tractor and the gun it towed were vulnerable on the march and when deployed to a combat position. In addition, in the event of a flank attack by the enemy, it was difficult to turn the Pak gun. 43/41 in the threatened direction.

A variant was also produced on a specialized cruciform carriage, inherited from an anti-aircraft gun. But such carriages were not enough, they were complicated and expensive to manufacture.


88 mm Pak anti-tank gun. 43/41 in firing position

The 88 mm anti-tank gun made its debut on the battlefield in the second half of 1943, and its production continued until 1945. The first to receive this gun were specialized anti-tank divisions. At the end of 1944, the guns began to enter service with the artillery corps. Due to the complexity of production, high metal consumption and cost, only 3502 of these guns were produced.

Almost from the very beginning of the Pak. 43 suffered heavy losses. Taking into account the fact that the 88-mm anti-tank guns could not quickly leave the firing position, in the event of a flanking bypass by the enemy, it was impossible to quickly evacuate them. Due to their high silhouette and bulkiness, these weapons were difficult to camouflage on the ground.

It is now impossible to say how many 88-mm anti-tank guns were captured by the Red Army. But taking into account the fact that they were released a little, we can talk about several dozen.

Penetration characteristics of Pak guns. 43 allowed them to successfully fight all types of heavy German tanks and self-propelled artillery installations. But at the final stage of the war, German armored vehicles were used mainly in defense, and did not often appear in front of our artillery positions.


In addition, the calculations of captured 88-mm anti-tank guns very soon became convinced that their transportation and changing positions were very difficult. Even powerful tracked tractors were not always able to tow these guns off-road.


Although the Pak cannon. 43 was developed to combat armored vehicles, it had good capabilities to destroy targets deep in enemy defenses.

The firing range of an 88-mm high-explosive fragmentation grenade exceeded 15 km, and most often captured heavy anti-tank guns were involved in counter-battery combat or fired harassing fire at targets in the rear of the Germans.

In the post-war period, several 8,8 cm Pak guns. 43 were taken to training grounds, where they were used to test the security of new Soviet tanks.

To be continued ...
Author:
Articles from this series:
Use of captured German pistols in the USSR
The use of German captured submachine guns in the USSR
The use of captured German rifles and machine guns in the USSR
The use of captured German machine guns in the USSR
The use of captured German tanks and self-propelled guns in the initial period of the Great Patriotic War
Use of captured "Panthers" and "Tigers" at the final stage of the Great Patriotic War
The use of captured German self-propelled guns in the Red Army at the final stage of World War II
The use of German armored vehicles in the postwar period
The use of captured German mortars and multiple launch rocket systems
70 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Thrifty
    Thrifty 25 February 2021 18: 20
    +6
    Sergei hi Thank you for the article! I remember from my school days we had meetings with war veterans. So, one tanker constantly said that they were hit 5 times in one year, and the reason is simple - the German anti-tank guns were lower than ours and were easier to camouflage. And it was often not a pleasure to spot an ambush until they opened fire. And our tactics were also not the best, the company was crowded, one tank blocked the view of the other, in the event of shelling it was simply impossible to understand where the fire was coming from!
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. The comment was deleted.
  2. Thrifty
    Thrifty 25 February 2021 18: 31
    +12
    Sergey, you know how to present the material in such a way that you regret it, when you reach the end of the article, I look forward to a continuation! hi good
  3. Niko
    Niko 25 February 2021 18: 36
    +4
    Interesting story Pak 36 (r), we and ourselves at the beginning of the war, such a weapon would not hurt (to put it mildly). In general, the Germans were able to take advantage of all the best that came across, it is not surprising that these "trophy trophies" were also used in the Red Army.
  4. Aaron Zawi
    Aaron Zawi 25 February 2021 18: 48
    +8
    Great article.
  5. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 25 February 2021 18: 57
    +4
    This is due to the fact that Soviet armor-piercing shells in 1941 did not meet the declared characteristics. Due to a violation of production technology, when colliding with armor plates, 45-mm shells split, which greatly reduced armor penetration. A number of sources say that the real penetration of a 45-mm projectile was only 20-22 mm at 500 m.

    It's not a violation of production technology. The problem was constructive - the design of the projectile was not designed to work on cemented armor. Even a high-quality 45-mm BBS in 1940 tests pierced 40 mm of armor with K = 2600 from only 150 m (the angle from the normal is 30 degrees).
    1. Mister X
      Mister X 25 February 2021 22: 18
      +7
      Quote: Alexey RA
      The problem was constructive

      hi
      And I already wanted to look for someone punished for sabotage ...

      Everything is modernized, but quickly - during the war.
      In March 1942, the first Soviet 45 mm reel-to-reel projectile was developed. The development was carried out by a group of engineers led by I.S. Burmistrov and V.N. Konstantinov.

      Found an interesting document
      Didn't know that tungsten was bought in China in thousands of tons

      1. Undecim
        Undecim 26 February 2021 00: 00
        +5
        It was not tungsten that was purchased in China, but wolframite, a raw material for the production of tungsten. It contains a maximum of 3% tungsten trioxide.
        1. Mister X
          Mister X 26 February 2021 08: 49
          +5
          Quote: Undecim
          China did not buy tungsten, but wolframite

          Hopefully the term "tungsten ore" will suit everyone.
          I wrote it briefly, because I was exhausted by the long treatment.
          Although the readers hardly thought that we were talking about finished alloys wink

          I have refreshed my humble knowledge.
          I decided to post what I learned here, maybe someone else will benefit.
          Wolframite - Wolf Rahm, "wolf cream".
          He is also Gübnerit - named after the German mining engineer Adolf Gübner.


          Ammunition is not mentioned, but this is a civilian reference.

          Modern deposits
          Russia: Far East (Lermontovskoe), Buryatia (Dzhidinskoe, Inkurskoe), North Caucasus (Kabardino-Balkaria, Tyrnyauz), Transbaikalia (Bom-gorkhonskoe, Belukha, Bukuka), Krasnoyarsk Territory.
          Foreign: South China (Yunnan and Jiangxi provinces), USA (Colorado, South Dakota, Nevada), Portugal, Spain, southern regions of Burma, Ukraine (Zhytomyr region), northern Vietnam, Denmark, Germany, Poland, Great Britain, Australia, etc.

          A sample of raw materials from China, which may have been purchased by the USSR for military purposes.

          Wolframite with quartz, sample 12x7x8cm. China (Yaogangxiang mine, Yizhang county, Hunan prov., China)
          Photo: V.V. Levitsky, site "Russian Minerals" (mining, processing, and sale).
          * I hope you have no objection to the spelling of the Chinese province wink
          1. Undecim
            Undecim 26 February 2021 09: 07
            +4
            I sincerely wish you a speedy recovery!
            1. Mister X
              Mister X 26 February 2021 09: 08
              +6
              Quote: Undecim
              I sincerely wish you a speedy recovery!

              Thank you
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 26 February 2021 10: 48
        +2
        Quote: Mister X
        And I already wanted to look for someone punished for sabotage ...

        Everything is modernized, but quickly - during the war.
        In March 1942, the first Soviet 45 mm reel-to-reel projectile was developed. The development was carried out by a group of engineers led by I.S. Burmistrov and V.N. Konstantinov.

        It golda a sub-caliber projectile is an extremely expensive thing and requires an extremely scarce tungsten. Just for example - this is what happened to tungsten in the USSR in the fall of 1941 (we are talking about a 76-mm sub-caliber, but the situation was similar with a 45-mm one):
        1) we do not have tungsten reserves and therefore, even if favorable results are obtained, such shells will not have further practical introduction into production;
        2) the manufacture of such cores can only be carried out on grinding wheels, i.e. on equipment that is available in a few factories.

        However, the head of the special laboratory of the Institute, Comrade Raskin V.Ya. at the same time he explained at what price the alloy would be obtained. And the price is that. The production of just one core for a 76-mm APCR projectile requires such an amount of alloy that will simultaneously deprive 30 machine tools of the aviation industry for the entire service life of these cutters!
        © Director of NII-24 Averchenko, Chief Designer of NII-24 Matyushkin
        The purchases of raw materials in China that you mentioned saved the situation - but sub-calibers still remained piece goods.

        The solution to the problem of low armor penetration of the most common chamber 45-mm BBS for German armor was issued in the fall of 1941 - Hartz undercuts / localizers.

        Since November 1941, the shells of the new design went into series.
        1. Alf
          Alf 26 February 2021 21: 46
          +4
          Quote: Alexey RA
          The purchases of raw materials in China that you mentioned saved the situation - but subcalibers still remained a piece of goods.

      3. Alf
        Alf 26 February 2021 21: 42
        +5
        Quote: Mister X
        Found an interesting document

        Thank you, very rare and valuable information.
        1. Mister X
          Mister X 27 February 2021 10: 53
          +3
          Quote: Alf
          Thank you, very rare and valuable information.

          Please. Found it can be said by accident
          1. Alf
            Alf 27 February 2021 16: 20
            +4
            Quote: Mister X
            Quote: Alf
            Thank you, very rare and valuable information.

            Please. Found it can be said by accident

            Life experience shows that it is precisely such random finds that clarify a lot.
            1. Mister X
              Mister X 27 February 2021 19: 11
              +3
              Quote: Alf
              accidental finds clarify a lot.

              How is the scientific poke method? wink
              1. Alf
                Alf 27 February 2021 19: 12
                +3
                Quote: Mister X
                Quote: Alf
                accidental finds clarify a lot.

                How is the scientific poke method? wink

                In general, Yes. laughing
                1. Mister X
                  Mister X 27 February 2021 19: 23
                  +2
                  Quote: Alf
                  In general, Yes.

                  Gave a search and got an article.
                  It starts like this:
                  The scientific poke method (aka the Cauchy Method, aka the Method of Creeping Empiricism, aka Combinatorial Search for an Extremum for a Nonsmooth Objective Function) is a rather old everyday meme that has come to us since Soviet times.
            2. Mister X
              Mister X 28 February 2021 14: 49
              +3
              Quote: Alf
              accidental finds clarify a lot.

              Another find, this time for captured guns.
              Including 7,5 cm PaK 41


              PaK 41 was captured as a result of the First Rzhev-Sychev operation.
              They also managed to capture shots with armor-piercing shells.
              Some of the shells were sent for study, and 6, along with the cannon, went to the training ground.

              The state of the gun is unknown, especially with regard to barrel wear, but it is known that the standard panoramic sight was missing (Sfl.ZF.1).
              Since the Pak 41 does not have a sight loophole, the testers had to aim through the bore.



    2. Bongo
      26 February 2021 05: 48
      +5
      Quote: Alexey RA
      It's not a violation of production technology. The problem was constructive - the design of the projectile was not designed to work on cemented armor. Even a high-quality 45-mm BBS in 1940 tests pierced 40 mm of armor

      You are partly right, but still there was a massive violation of the heat treatment technology in the manufacture of 45-mm armor-piercing shells, which naturally had an extremely negative effect on their armor penetration.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 26 February 2021 10: 36
        +2
        Quote: Bongo
        You are partly right, but still there was a massive violation of the heat treatment technology in the manufacture of 45-mm armor-piercing shells, which naturally had an extremely negative effect on their armor penetration.

        I don’t argue with that. EMNIP, in 1940 GAU demanded to finally withdraw the defective 45-mm BBS of 1937-1938 release, which, despite all the instructions, are still in the army.
        But the fact that the conditioned 45-mm BBS did not provide the armor penetration required from the divisional anti-tank system, nevertheless remains. Moreover, according to the results of the 1940 shootings, the GAU made an even more depressing conclusion:
        45-mm tank and anti-tank gun and 76-mm cannon mod. 02/30, L-11, F-32 and F-34 cannot successfully fight medium and heavy tanks with more than 50 mm armor
        1. vetal1942
          vetal1942 26 February 2021 21: 11
          0
          All of you here amicably quoting Svirin, although his theory: with poor 45s, cemented German armor is very controversial and implausible. Look, for example, in the reports of the Research Institute 48 "Study of the penetrating action of German captured shells" and "Study of the armor protection of German army tanks" for 42 years. There are completely different conclusions and figures.
      2. hohol95
        hohol95 27 February 2021 09: 41
        0
        In 1942, the captured "Shtug 3" was "shot" with shells produced in 1938. They naturally did not take the 50mm forehead, but they punched the sides with a bang!
        Probably the testers "got high-quality" shells?
    3. hohol95
      hohol95 27 February 2021 09: 38
      +1
      Or maybe it was the number of the guns themselves in the units and the shells for them?
      The Germans from their 37 mm shot T-34s at the sides, and the Soviet artillerymen, after the Germans had "processed" the front edge with all the forces of fire, had no time for maneuvering on the battlefield and firing at the sides of the German "panzers"!
      The problem of anti-tank defense defense in 1941-1942 was complex.
  6. PilotS37
    PilotS37 25 February 2021 19: 07
    +4
    Thank you, Sergey! Very interesting stuff!
  7. maximghost
    maximghost 25 February 2021 19: 12
    +1
    But what about the Pak 97/38 based on the French gun and the conical PaK 41? They were also trophies.
    1. Bongo
      26 February 2021 06: 12
      +3
      Quote: maximghost
      But what about the Pak 97/38 based on the French gun and the conical PaK 41? They were also trophies.

      7,5 cm Pak. 41 fired not so many, and given the fact that the Germans experienced an acute shortage of tungsten shells for them were always not enough. It is known that in the fall of 1942, the Red Army captured one gun with a small supply of shells. But this gun was not used in battle.
      As for the 7,5 cm PaK 97/38, I cannot call this weapon "anti-tank". Actually, in the Wehrmacht, it was used mainly as a regimental gun. Taking into account the relatively low speed of the cumulative projectile (450 m / s), the effective firing range did not exceed 500 m, and the frontal armor of the T-34 did not always penetrate.
      1. maximghost
        maximghost 26 February 2021 09: 51
        0
        the effective firing range did not exceed 500 m, and at the same time, the frontal armor of the T-34 did not always penetrate.

        So the pak 38 did not always penetrate the frontal armor of 34, not to mention the 47 and 37mm cannons)
        And with the rearrangement to a new carriage and the installation of a muzzle brake, the Germans got confused to use this weapon as an anti-tank gun. In addition, it had a conventional AP round that could fight less armored tanks. Also, with the use was built 10 PT self-propelled guns on the basis of the T-26.
      2. Mister X
        Mister X 28 February 2021 11: 45
        +3
        Quote: Bongo
        As for the 7,5 cm PaK 97/38 ...
        ... in the Wehrmacht, it was used mainly as a regimental gun.

        hi
        There is evidence that a small number of Pak 97/38 were in service with the Finnish army.


        Finnish crew of the 7,5 cm Pak 97/38 gun
        Battle of Tali-Ihantala (northeast of Vyborg)
        30th of June 1944
        They write that a burning T-34 can be seen in the distance.
  8. Baron pardus
    Baron pardus 25 February 2021 19: 18
    +4
    The PAK40, with a weight of 200 kg more than the ZIS-3, had much better armor penetration with less strength, which is not surprising, because the ZIS-3 was made for WWI ammunition, of which there were many in warehouses. The Americans stepped on the same rake with their 75mm cannon, which used shells ... of the French 75mm PMV cannon (Omar Bradley writes about this) ... Grabin was right. Making a new cannon for shells 30 years ago is idiocy. And then they say that there was no conspiracy in the army, there were no saboteurs, and that Stalin "destroyed the color of the red army." yeah, shas. These are about the same quality "experts" were like the tsarist admiral who wanted to put on submarines not French electric spark plugs (because they were expensive), but "put Russian, stearic ones" ..

    Any more or less powerful cannon will be "buried under the bipod". The Germans used French 47mm cannons, wondering whether ours captured them as trophies. It would be very interesting to compare the ballistics and weight of Czech 47mm vz48, German 50mm PAK38, French 47mm APH, Belgian 47mm and our 45mm (pre-war production). If the weight of these guns can be found, then it is difficult to find exact data on ballistics / armor penetration. It would be interesting to compare who made the best cannon in this caliber (45-50mm).

    By the way, the author writes that the PAK43 was heavy, 3600kg. Was. The VS-3, which occupied a similar niche in the Soviet army, was of the same weight and LOST PAK43 in armor penetration, surpassing it in HE action. 85mm D44, which was TWO times lighter, EMNIP did not have time for the Great Patriotic War.
    1. Bongo
      26 February 2021 06: 20
      +5
      Quote: Baron Pardus
      The Germans used French 47mm cannons, wondering whether ours captured them as trophies.

      I could not find information about their use on the Eastern Front.
      Quote: Baron Pardus
      It would be very interesting to compare the ballistics and weight of the Czech 47mm vz48, German 50mm PAK38, French 47mm APH, Belgian 47mm and our 45mm (pre-war production). If the weight of these guns can be found, then it is difficult to find exact data on ballistics / armor penetration. It would be interesting to compare who made the best cannon in this caliber (45-50mm).

      It is necessary to write a separate article on this topic.
      Quote: Baron Pardus
      By the way, the author writes that the PAK43 was heavy, 3600kg. Was. VS-3, which occupied a similar niche in the Soviet army, was of the same weight

      In the Red Army, BS-3 was not officially considered an anti-tank gun, but was designated as a "field gun".
      As a divisional 100 mm gun, it was too heavy. And as an anti-tank one, it did not satisfy a number of conditions of that time. Moreover, the creator of this weapon V.G. Grabin never considered BS-3 an anti-tank system, which, apparently, was reflected in the name.
      The role of this weapon in the fight against enemy tanks is greatly exaggerated. The BS-3 was released during the war in small quantities and could not play a significant role. In addition, most of the guns supplied to the troops, as a rule, were located far from the "forward edge", since there were no armor-piercing shells for them. Moreover, the guns of the first release had only sighting devices for shooting from closed positions - the S-71A-5 panorama. Optical sight OP1-5 for direct fire began to be mounted only a couple of months after the start of mass production of guns.
      During the fighting at the final stage of the war, the BS-3 was used mainly as a cannon for firing from closed positions and for the counter-battery struggle due to its high range of fire.
      1. Mister X
        Mister X 27 February 2021 11: 33
        +2
        Quote: Bongo
        I could not find information about their use on the Eastern Front.

        hi
        It looks like the 4.7 cm Pak 181 (f) gun, and it seems that the houses are not European.
        Maybe Ukraine?
        1. Bongo
          1 March 2021 14: 54
          +3
          Quote: Mister X
          It looks like the 4.7 cm Pak 181 (f) gun, and it seems that the houses are not European.
          Maybe Ukraine?


          47 mm Pak 181 (f) anti-tank gun in a firing position. Autumn 1941, Soviet-German front.
          Pak 181 (f) guns were used on the Eastern Front, albeit to a limited extent. our troops most likely used them, but there is no information about the combat use of French 47-mm anti-tank guns in the Red Army.
          1. Mister X
            Mister X 1 March 2021 15: 28
            +1
            Quote: Bongo
            Pak 181 (f) guns were used on the Eastern Front, albeit to a limited extent.

            I found the following phrase in tyrnet:
            Approximately three hundred 47-mm guns entered service in 1941 with tank destroyer divisions of a number of infantry divisions operating on the Soviet-German front.
            1. Bongo
              1 March 2021 15: 32
              +2
              Quote: Mister X
              I found the following phrase in tyrnet:
              Approximately three hundred 47-mm guns entered service in 1941 with tank destroyer divisions of a number of infantry divisions operating on the Soviet-German front.

              Found it here?

              Trophy Belgian, British and French anti-tank guns in the German Armed Forces in World War II

              https://topwar.ru/165068-trofejnye-belgijskie-britanskie-i-francuzskie-protivotankovye-orudija-v-vs-germanii-vo-vtoruju-mirovuju.html
              1. Mister X
                Mister X 1 March 2021 17: 31
                +2
                Quote: Bongo
                Found it here?

                No, foreign source
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 26 February 2021 11: 03
      +3
      Quote: Baron Pardus
      The PAK40, with a weight of 200 kg more than the ZIS-3, had much better armor penetration with less strength, which is not surprising, because the ZIS-3 was made for WWI ammunition, of which there were many in warehouses.

      The ZIS-3, like its predecessors, was made for the capabilities of the Soviet economy and industry. For which, even in 1940, the mass production of shells with a sleeve larger than the "three-inch" sleeve was a pipe dream - there is no copper.
      Sleeve 76mm guns arr. 1902/1930 (as well as subsequent divisions of this caliber) weighed 830-850 grams.
      But the anti-aircraft gun sleeve of the 1931 3-K model weighed 2 kg 760 grams already.
      Those. 3,1 times more copper.
      The 85mm anti-aircraft gun barrel weighed 2,85-2,92kg and was slightly thicker, but in geometric terms it was almost identical to the 1931 3-K gun barrel.

      Quote: Baron Pardus
      The Americans stepped on the same rake with their 75mm cannon, which used shells ... of the French 75mm PMV cannon (Omar Bradley writes about this) ...

      Only in the United States, back in the late 30s, they realized the wretchedness of the 75-mm caliber in field artillery and began replacing the 75-mm with 105-mm.
      As for the tank guns, the "antipersonnel lobby" played the role here, for which the tank was a means of fighting exclusively against soft targets (infantry, artillery in open positions, light field fortifications), and anti-tank defenses had to fight against enemy tanks. In short, tanks do not fight tanks or the American version of Order No. 325 dated 16.10.1942.
      In theory, 75 mm was sufficient for such an application. And unorganized shouts from places like "what to do in the offensive, when the PTO lagged behind / knocked out, the panzers from the "fire brigade" are ahead, but it is necessary to advance"theorists brushed aside as isolated cases and non-statutory fighting. smile
      1. hohol95
        hohol95 27 February 2021 09: 48
        +1
        The French were "let down" by large stocks of PMA shells, since until the mid-30s they did not try to create guns larger than 75 mm?
        It would be hard for the Japanese to roll 105 mm guns by hand and they also used 75 mm (based on French design).
        And the Italians with their 75 mm cannons / howitzers fought all "their" part of the WWII.
        Only in the United States, back in the late 30s, they realized the wretchedness of the 75-mm caliber in field artillery and began replacing the 75-mm with 105-mm.

        And did they not try to "shove" 105 mm into the turrets of their then tanks?
        Not many even 75/76 mm could be installed in a tank turret at that time.
    3. DesToeR
      DesToeR 26 February 2021 15: 55
      +2
      Quote: Baron Pardus
      PAK40, with a weight of 200 kg more than the ZIS-3, had much better armor penetration with less strength

      The PAK40 weighing 500 kg less than the 10,5 cm leFH 18 howitzer had much better armor penetration with a smaller silhouette. Which is not surprising since The 10,5cm leFH 18 is a divisional gun, not an anti-tank gun ... but like the ZIS-3.

      Quote: Baron Pardus
      Grabin was right. Making a new cannon for shells 30 years ago is idiocy.

      And comrade Grabin did not say what to do with the millions of quite suitable 76mm shells in the warehouses?
    4. Mister X
      Mister X 27 February 2021 11: 36
      +3
      Quote: Baron Pardus
      The Germans used French 47mm cannons

      hi
      I read somewhere that the French had the Puteaux gun 47mm SA mle 1937 and the upgraded 47mm SA mle 1939.
      The Germans received the designations 4.7 cm Pak 181 (f) and, accordingly, 4.7 cm Pak 183 (f).
  9. Undecim
    Undecim 25 February 2021 19: 20
    +6
    Another thing is that the 37-50-mm guns available in the troops could successfully fight armored vehicles with bulletproof booking. And they turned out to be ineffective against the modernized T-28E medium tanks (with shielded armor), the new T-34 medium tanks and the KV-1 heavy ones.
    Yet the author has included 5 cm Pak 38 in this phrase in vain. Even the usual 5 cm Pzgr. at a meeting angle of 30 degrees, it pierced 500-mm armor at 57 m.
    Release of 5 cm Pak. 38 was completed in 1943, a total of 9568 50-mm anti-tank guns were produced.
    Here the author was mistaken. The latest data on the production of 5 cm Pak 38 cannons dates from October 1944.
    1. Bongo
      26 February 2021 06: 26
      +3
      Quote: Undecim
      Yet the author has included 5 cm Pak 38 in this phrase in vain. Even the usual 5 cm Pzgr. at a meeting angle of 30 degrees, it pierced 500-mm armor at 57 m.

      Those. do you disagree with what the publication says?
      When firing with armor-piercing shells, the Pak anti-tank gun. 38 most likely penetrated the side armor of the T-34 medium tank from 500 m. The T-300's frontal armor penetrated at a distance of less than XNUMX m.

      In my opinion, the confident penetration of the frontal armor of a medium tank at a distance of less than 300 m is "not gut". In addition, the paragraph you mentioned also deals with 37-47-mm guns and KV-1 heavy tanks.
      Quote: Undecim
      Here the author was mistaken. The latest data on the production of 5 cm Pak 38 cannons dates from October 1944.

      I would be very grateful if you thought it possible to provide the chronology of the serial production of the 5 cm Pak 38.
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 26 February 2021 07: 31
        +2
        I would be very grateful if you thought it possible to provide the chronology of the serial production of the 5 cm Pak 38.
        1. Undecim
          Undecim 26 February 2021 07: 36
          +4
          Read more.
          1. demiurg
            demiurg 26 February 2021 17: 31
            +1
            Most likely, 50mm was used for the most part like our 45mm.
            Due to the ability to roll it by the forces of calculation, it was used as a large sniper rifle.
            As a PT, it was already outdated in 43. But the infantry sometimes needs to open the dugout, shoot shrapnel at the advancing ones.
            1. Undecim
              Undecim 26 February 2021 17: 36
              0
              There were no shrapnel for this cannon.
              1. Alf
                Alf 26 February 2021 21: 59
                +4
                Quote: Undecim
                There were no shrapnel for this cannon.

      2. Alf
        Alf 26 February 2021 21: 55
        +3
        Quote: Bongo
        I would be very grateful if you thought it possible to provide the chronology of the serial production of the 5 cm Pak 38.

        Shirokorad God of War of the Third Reich. Page 19.
    2. Alf
      Alf 26 February 2021 21: 52
      +4
      Quote: Undecim
      Even the usual 5 cm Pzgr. at a meeting angle of 30 degrees, it pierced 500-mm armor at 57 m.

      And the possibility of a ricochet? The tank never moves strictly perpendicular to the gun. And it turns out that the frontal armor is at its own angle, and even at the course angle.
  10. Hunter 2
    Hunter 2 25 February 2021 19: 53
    +8
    Sergey Linnik hi Excellent article good , or rather, the continuation of the cycle on the use of captured weapons! We examined small arms, tanks, pto ... there were probably cars, artillery and aviation. We look forward to continuing with interest!
  11. ccsr
    ccsr 25 February 2021 20: 34
    +5
    Very interesting and high-quality material - useful to everyone who studies our military history.
  12. Catfish
    Catfish 25 February 2021 20: 45
    +5
    Good evening, Sergey hi , thanks for the article, it is as good as all the previous ones. smile

    This is due to the fact that the Soviet armor-piercing shells in 1941 did not meet the declared characteristics.


    Even during the war in Spain, German specialists reported to Berlin about the low quality of Soviet 45-mm armor-piercing shells. Oddly enough, in spite of this, no measures were taken in the Union and the Red Army entered the war with unusable ammunition for anti-tank artillery.



    A funny photo - like, "a chicken pecks by the grain", but ... all for the good of the case. smile
    1. Bongo
      26 February 2021 06: 29
      +4
      Quote: Sea Cat
      Good evening, Sergey

      Konstantin, good afternoon! This publication came out when I was already watching the seventh dream.
      Quote: Sea Cat
      she is as good as all the previous ones

      drinks
      Quote: Sea Cat
      A funny photo - like, "a chicken pecks by the grain", but ... all for the good of the case.

      Quite a lot of photos of German 5 cm Pak have survived. 38 and 7,5 cm Pak. 40 in the Red Army. But this is unique in its own way. yes
      1. Catfish
        Catfish 26 February 2021 06: 43
        +2
        But this is unique in its own way. yes


        Yes, about the uniqueness - for sure! smile

        Somehow I immediately remembered: "The uniform is English, the shoulder strap is Russian ..." Although it is completely out of place. drinks
    2. hohol95
      hohol95 27 February 2021 09: 50
      +1
      And what kind of armored vehicles from the army of General Franco and his Italian-German allies were unable to cope with the Soviet tank and battalion 45 mm guns? belay
      1. Catfish
        Catfish 27 February 2021 10: 07
        +2
        Alexey, and you read the report presented in the Oberkomando of the Wehrmacht, it is on the net and can be found if desired, but I, unfortunately, do not have links. But in general there was ridiculously, in the Frankist tank battalion one of the companies was armed with captured Soviet T-26s, so they couldn't knock out the Republican T-26s and vice versa, the Republicans fired with the same effect laughing , the shells shattered ..
        1. hohol95
          hohol95 28 February 2021 21: 02
          +1
          I'll try to find it, but it's hard to believe in this. They pierced Italian and German armor. If only the reserve action was small. On Khalkhin Gol, one T-26 received 5 hits from a 37mm gun. But due to the insignificant armor-piercing action of the Japanese armor-piercing shells, the tank did not catch fire and the crew on it drove to the repairmen! The loss in the crew is not specified.
          1. Catfish
            Catfish 28 February 2021 21: 10
            +1
            ... but this is hard to believe.

            Believe me, I am not composing, this was the report. As for the Italian and German tankettes (the T-I can hardly be called a tank if you wanted to), their armor was bulletproof and it was not even a problem to penetrate it with defective shells.
            1. hohol95
              hohol95 28 February 2021 21: 25
              +1
              So the "first groove" has armor of 13 mm, and the T-26 model of 1933 - 15 mm! The difference is not great.
              In 1941, the future "Tiger Hero" Karius fought on the 38th "Czech groove" and his tank was knocked out by a "magpie". All survived. But the radio operator had his left arm torn off. At the same time, the shell only broke through a piece of armor, and all other damage was caused by fragments of an armor plate, rivets and bolts of their own tank. It's a pity it wasn't a 76 mm armor-piercing projectile ...
              1. Catfish
                Catfish 28 February 2021 21: 30
                +1
                Yes, I read his mumuars, because different severity of injuries were inflicted on the crew members even if the armor of the tank was not penetrated, what we have, what they have.
                1. hohol95
                  hohol95 28 February 2021 21: 39
                  +1
                  This is clear. Spalls, broken armor plugs, elements and mechanisms flying off from the impact. But he then indicates a breakthrough. There was a penetration, but there was no shell explosion! That suggests a competent article about Soviet armor-piercing shells during the Great Patriotic War, with a summary of their design features.
                  The 37mm Bofors shells also had a weak armor effect, but they don't complain about them!
                  1. Catfish
                    Catfish 28 February 2021 21: 47
                    0
                    The 37mm Bofors shells also had a weak armor effect, but they don't complain about them!

                    So this is "Bofors"! Capitalists should not allow complaints about their products, but we have a "shaft". request
                    So a competent article suggests itself ...

                    So I would write smile to the delight of the entire public. drinks
                    1. hohol95
                      hohol95 28 February 2021 22: 01
                      +1
                      Eh, if only yes if yes with a snout and in a Kalash row ... crying
                2. hohol95
                  hohol95 28 February 2021 21: 46
                  +1
                  Of the 4 types of armor-piercing shells for British 2-pounder guns, only ONE was equipped with 19,5 g of explosives! The other 3 were just steel blanks. However, no one claims to the British designers and manufacturers of claims on this. Including with us. But weren't British tanks used in the Red Army? Used ...
                  1. Catfish
                    Catfish 28 February 2021 21: 50
                    +1
                    I don't remember who wrote that the British tankers in Africa simply threw these blanks away, and the vacant space in the ammunition rack was occupied by high-explosive fragmentation, although there was no point in such a land mine, but without fish ...
                    1. hohol95
                      hohol95 28 February 2021 22: 00
                      +1
                      The question is - where did the British tankers get these PF shells?
                      The British themselves did not produce them until the end of 1942!
                      1. Catfish
                        Catfish 28 February 2021 22: 16
                        +1
                        And fig knows what I read about, and I write about that, but how it was actually known only to those who fought there.

                      2. hohol95
                        hohol95 28 February 2021 22: 53
                        +1
                        So that's 25 pounds. 87,6 mm howitzer-gun. It had HE and armor-piercing shells included. Weighing 9 kg. The second type had a ballistic tip (they write that they were more powerful than the first BS). Cumulative were not used. Their development was discontinued.
                      3. Catfish
                        Catfish 28 February 2021 23: 09
                        +1
                        So that's 25 pounds.

                        It's understandable, although I'm not very good at all those pounds. smile
                        I just inserted a picture with the African landscape, since this theater was discussed.
  • Alien From
    Alien From 25 February 2021 23: 05
    +3
    Thanks to the author! Very informative. Photos are great. I look forward to the continuation of these wonderful articles! hi