Armored vehicles of Germany in the Second World War. Self-propelled installation Wespe Sd. Kfz. Xnumx

Panzer II was removed from the existing units and transferred to service and rear units in early 1942. This step made it possible to use the chassis of this machine to create self-propelled guns Marder II and Wespe. The latter was developed by Alkett in the middle of 1942, and it was the prototype of this company that was put into serial production. At the same time, prototypes based on tanks Panzer III and Panzer IV, developed by other companies, were not accepted. Wespe (Wasp) was armed with a 105 mm light field howitzer and was mounted on a modified Panzerkampfwagen II Ausf F. chassis.

The German 105-mm VESP (Sd.Kfz.124 Wespe) self-propelled gun from the 74 th regiment of the self-propelled 2 Panzer Wehrmacht division passes by the abandoned Soviet 76-mm ZIS-3 gun near the town of Orel. German offensive operation "Citadel"

According to the creators, this car was supposed to give assault and fire support to infantry troops. First of all, Wespe was intended to complete art. batteries of tank divisions - Panzerartillerie, each of which had 6 SAU Wespe and 2 Munitionsschlepper Wespe (tractors for the transport of ammunition). Wespe participated in battles on all fronts, being part of each tank division in the period from 1943 to 1945.

The body of the Panzer II is slightly lengthened, the engine is moved forward, the reinforced suspension had to withstand the force of the recoil. The howitzer was installed inside the armored hull, which had no roof. The cabin was protected by the crew. Also around the cab was installed 32 projectile in a circle. The gun could rotate horizontally in both directions by 17 degrees. Howitzer 105mm leFH 18 had the opportunity to fire armor-piercing, cumulative and high-explosive shells. The maximum firing range was 8,4 thousand. M. Inside the machine was placed 7,92-mm MG34 machine gun and was used as needed. During the production of Wespe driver's seat changed somewhat. Thus, two variants of the car appeared. For the early model, the standard Panzer II Ausf chassis was used. F, later models - on the same chassis, extended by 220 millimeters. For the timely delivery of ammunition to the position of Wespe, developed an unarmed tractor Munitions Sf auf Fgst PzKpfw II, capable of transporting 90 shells at a time. The crew of the car consisted of three people. A total of 159 such tractors were produced. If necessary, howitzers were re-installed on the tractors.

German self-propelled guns and self-propelled howitzer Wespe. In the background, an inverted M4 Sherman tank can be seen. Eastern front

Wespe was developed by the designers of Alkett, and the production was carried out by the companies Vereinigte Maschinenwerke (Warsaw) and Famo (Breslau). The initial order included 1000 machines, but by the end of 1943, the order was reduced to 835 machines, including ammunition carriers. From February 1943 to August 1944 produced 676 ACS Wespe and 159 Munitions Sf auf Fgst PzKpfw II. For the first time, Wespe ACS was used in July on the 1943 on the Kursk Bulge, where it proved to be an effective weapon and subsequently used until the end of hostilities. By March 1945, the 307 Wespe remained in service.

Performance characteristics of the Wespe self-propelled unit:
Weight - 11 thousand kg
Engine - 6-cylinder Maybach HL 62 TRM, 140l.s power;
Length - 4,81 m;
Width - 2,28 m;
Height - 2,30 m;
Armor - 5-30 mm;
Armament:
early versions - 105 millimeter leFH 18 / 2 L / 26 and 7,92 millimeter MG34 machine gun,
later versions - 105 millimeter leFH 18 / 2 L / 28 and 7,92 millimeter MG34 machine gun;
Ammunition - 32 shot;
Speed ​​- 40 km / h;
Cruising on the road - 220 km;
Crew - 5 man.

Self-propelled howitzer "Wespe" from the 116-th tank division of the Wehrmacht, padded 12 August 1944, in the area of ​​the French city of Mortre by tanks 5-th armored division of the US Army

The Vespe and Hummel SAU (in the background) destroyed by the troops of the 1 of the Belorussian Front on the territory of Brandenburg in Germany in 1945

SAU "Vespe" after hitting a large-caliber projectile. The number of the Soviet trophy team "256". Hungary, Lake Velence

Tank Museum in Saumur (Musee des blindes, Saumur), Saumur, France

Museum of armored weapons and equipment, Kubinka, Odintsovo District, Moscow Region, Russia

Comments

[sdf344esdf]

Have you heard the news? A personal information search site has appeared. Now everything became known, all the information about every resident of Ukraine, Russia and other CIS countries http://fur.ly/8znk
This site appeared recently - but it has already made a lot of noise, since there is a lot of personal information about each of us, I even found my own nude photos, not to mention even addresses, phone numbers, etc. It's good that the "hide from everyone" button is still working - I advise everyone to do it and quickly

[Kars]

Such a machine of the USSR was sorely lacking.

[Kars]

Quote: Kars

Such a machine of the USSR was sorely lacking.

[DIMS]

If not for the great losses in the initial period of the war, there would have been such.
Collected the same SU-26 in the amount of 12 copies

[Kars]

It is not SU-26 from what I read that it is not entirely appropriate to compare Vespe, more with Shtug.
Our analogue would be the M-30 howitzer on a self-propelled chassis, But not the SU-122 with low elevation angles

[Kibb]

Quote: Kars

But not SU-122 with low elevation angles

Yeah, I still waited, although then I probably myself incorrectly explained my point of view

[Kars]

Quote: Kibb

although then I probably myself incorrectly explained my point of view

That was a long time ago.

[DIMS]

This is understandable, I'm talking about the principle itself - installing a howitzer on the chassis of an old tank is not a big problem. And when you consider that with fur. the craving we had for the outbreak of war was agrarian problems, this would be done.

But ... That which could be established was left behind the front line, or destroyed.

As a self-propelled gun for direct support of the infantry, only the SU-76, SU-152 and ISU-152 were used, the rest were pure "St.

By the way, there was also a BM-8-24. Pay attention to the caterpillar.

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

Self-propelled guns direct infantry support

And I’m talking about mobile field artillery, which we basically didn’t have. And involving the SU and ISU-152 in artillery preparation is too fat.

A photo illustration that without a sloth you can ride, unlike the host.

[DIMS]

Not greasy, there were a lot of ML-20s in the troops, they were even used as anti-tank tanks in case of the threat of the Germans using heavy tanks.
It’s just that there is no elevation angle, but when breaking through a defense, howitzer trajectories are preferable, cannon ones only on ricochets. The infantry is at the bottom of the trenches and in the dugouts

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

Just no elevation angle

It’s also pretty hard to replenish ammunition.
my grandfather ended the war on ISU-122.

so, in my opinion, fully armored self-propelled guns are still not the best replacement for the ML-20. Then they’ll go into battle later.

[DIMS]

But this is true, on the ML-20 it was easier with that.
I talked somehow with a veteran who fought on it. "... And in the evening before the offensive, they brought us one and a half wagons of shells per gun, sorted it all night and laid them out according to fire raids ..."

[loft79]

Argue about different cars. Vespe refers to "Field artillery systems on a self-propelled gun carriage" (according to German classification), and the su-122 to assault guns. They have different tasks. In my opinion, it is incorrect to compare.

[Stas57]

what I was talking about)

[Kars]

Quote: Stas57

what I was talking about)

Where? And who compared?

[Stas57]

Such a machine of the USSR was sorely lacking.

such a machine must be provided with a real volume of shells, and the Germans had more of them all over the war

[Kars]

And what about the USSR M-30 howitzers without ammunition?

Ammunition supply to the troops in 1942

122 mm howitzer shots 4571 ---- 9163

thousand pieces / wagons
and of course, the great specialist said his word --- just did not think that the self-propelled guns shoot the same ammunition as the field artillery, only self-propelled guns will be more flexible in responding to the situation.

Quote: Stas57

such a car

))))))))))

[Stas57]

and of course, the great specialist said his word --- just did not think that the self-propelled guns shoot the same ammunition as the field artillery, only self-propelled guns will be more flexible in responding to the situation.

Of course, such a specialist as you know, the volume of shells in tons or wagons for a front-line operation.
probably a specialist like you can refute my words
bring the volume of the fleet and the consumption of shells

- I just didn’t think that the self-propelled guns shoot the subject with the same ammunition as the field artillery,

oh God, oh oh, you know how to read one ..
))))))))))
))))))))

[Kars]

Quote: Stas57

, the volume of shells in tons or wagons at the front line

I brought you annual supplies.

Quote: Stas57

probably a specialist like you can refute my words

You wrote nonsense. No difference, they will fire M-30 from carriages, or SU-122 on a self-propelled base. Therefore, your nonsense about shells is just nonsense.

Quote: Stas57

bring the volume of the fleet and the consumption of shells

Why?

Quote: Kars

122 mm howitzer shots 4571 ---- 9163

This means that the Soviet 122 mm self-propelled guns have something to shoot. It is not even necessary to increase the number of M-30 art systems manufactured, but to put ready-made or planned ones on the chassis.

So the specialist is free. You said nonsense, burst and you can go to rest.

[Stas57]

I brought you annual supplies.
not to mention that you absolutely did not understand what it was about, Sau in the troops with 43go, you brought 42y, well, let's still 39y, you have a very good google)))
You are our expert sit Google


You wrote nonsense. No difference, they will fire M-30 from carriages, or SU-122 on a self-propelled base. Therefore, your nonsense about shells is just nonsense.
while you write nonsense, for self-propelled artillery a different logistics support,
it requires a large supply of available shots, the availability of a fleet in abundance, etc., and it’s not a shame to explain such basics to you,

Why?

then, to refute my words, while everything is in the water
there’s nothing yet, while we’ll move on to the regular structure of the regiments, here you pull

This means that the Soviet 122 mm self-propelled guns have something to shoot. It is not even necessary to increase the number of M-30 art systems manufactured, but to put ready-made or planned ones on the chassis.

Well, how many shots on the gun do we and the Germans have?
or a comparison in numbers of shots 105 and 122 on 43 and 45m ??

So the specialist is free. You said nonsense, burst and you can go to rest.

while only your shoals climb, it's not you pictures with a smart look google

add, missed right away

You wrote nonsense. No difference, they will fire M-30 from carriages, or SU-122 on a self-propelled base.

This means that the Soviet 122 mm self-propelled guns have something to shoot. It is not even necessary to increase the number of M-30 art systems manufactured, but to put ready-made or planned ones on the chassis.

Do you compare Vespe and Su122?

[DIMS]

while you write nonsense, for self-propelled artillery a different logistics support,
it requires a large supply of available shots, the availability of a fleet in abundance, etc., and it’s not a shame to explain such basics to you,

No other logistics, just like with towed guns. From the prepared OP they shoot from the ground, the transported BC is used for firing from the march and in other urgent cases.

[Stas57]

No other logistics, just like with towed guns.
SU122 towed gun, always shoots only from closed positions?

[Kars]

Quote: Stas57

always shoots only from closed positions?

Well, when do you learn to just READ.))

Quote: DIMS

BC used when shooting from a march and in other urgent cases

But if you prove that it is impossible to replenish the transported BC from the same sources (warehouses, trucks, carts, manual carrying, and TD), then you may be re-flying.

Quote: Stas57

SU122 towed gun

Is it one or two or two objects?

[DIMS]

It just seems that there is a misunderstanding of the subject of the dispute.

"Wespe" was originally designed as a self-propelled gun intended for firing from a closed firing position. It was no different from the towed one, except for higher mobility and a slightly more secure crew.

[loft79]

I do not agree with you a little.

Quote: DIMS

but

Here is the key. No wonder the "Munitionsschlepper Wespe (ammunition tractors)"

[Stas57]

namely, that we had to fence it, with a general shortage of everything

[Kars]

Quote: Stas57

that we had to fence him

Not necessarily. Moreover, the Germans' fleet of armored ammunition carriers was not particularly large. Trucks are the answer, not even talking about the fact that the supply was carried by railway, and then by road. And 600 SU-122 (based on the T-34) like supply turned out.
And the general lack of everything ---- somehow allowed to build

Total in the Soviet Union was released 112.472 tank and self-propelled guns.

[Stas57]

I already answered you that the tanks and the sau do not live on my own, there are a lot of people behind them, and the tankers themselves should not be put in tanks, but in the sau.

Total in the Soviet Union was released 112.472 tank and self-propelled guns.

again you confused the assault sau and the tank,

[Kars]

I didn’t confuse anything --- you wrote about the lack of everything, and I gave that the USSR could build with this shortage.

Quote: Stas57

and the tankers themselves should not be put in tanks, but in a sau.

Was there anyone to plant in SU-76 (14 thousand)? And the best option is 8-9 thousand SU-76 and the rest is SU-122 (not based on the T-34).

And this is not talking about the fact that the losses of the same T-34 would have decreased significantly if the Soviet forces suppressed the German defenses not mainly 76 mm, but using 122 mm howitzers, especially mobile howitzers that can accompany tanks.

Quote: Stas57

again you confused the assault sau and the tank,

)))))))))))) Well, what a clown.
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1
%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE_%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%85%D0%BD%D0%
B8%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%B2_%D0%A1%D0%A1%D0%A1%D0%A0_%D0%B2%D0%BE_%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D
0%BC%D1%8F_%D0%92%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D
0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9%D0%BD%D1%8B

[Stas57]

And this is not talking about the fact that the losses of the same T-34 would have decreased significantly if the Soviet forces suppressed the German defenses not mainly 76 mm, but using 122 mm howitzers, especially mobile howitzers that can accompany tanks.

Kars, it's bad when the entire Soviet leadership is stupid and "without imagination" (c)
one you know how it should have been.
and I didn’t see a reasonable layout from you

I didn’t confuse anything --- you wrote about the lack of everything, and I gave that the USSR could build with this shortage.

we have already discussed this

[Kars]

Quote: Stas57

Kars, it's bad when the entire Soviet leadership is stupid and "without imagination" (c)

Professionalism forgot. And let someone try to argue that the military of the USSR did not make mistakes and were always right.

Quote: Stas57

one you know how it was

Naturally, I live decades after WWII and have more information.

Quote: Stas57

and I didn’t see a reasonable layout from you

What exactly do you want to see.? Because I see your weak level and the banalities that you bear.

Quote: Stas57

we have already discussed this

With you? When is it? Even then you messed up, unless of course you prove that the SU-76 assault SPG.

[Stas57]

Is it one or two or two objects?

-

Well, when do you learn to just READ.))

But if you prove that it is impossible to replenish the transported BC from the same sources (warehouses, trucks, carts, manual carrying, and TD), then you may be re-flying.

)))
ear
if you prove that you understand at least something, I’ll still think about how to talk to you further)

[Kars]

Quote: Stas57

I’ll think about how to talk further with you)

And this is written by a person who regularly tries to prove something to me. He will come to quote himself.

Quote: Kars

Of course, I understand that I’ve been dishonored more than once in disputes with bloodshot eyes trying to find a typo, or an idiot to my words --- but not this time, you again made a mistake.

[DIMS]

SU122 towed gun, always shoots only from closed positions?

Did the M-30 "Kulatsky Sawed-Off" always shoot with a closed one? It was never allocated for direct fire, how was it not used as an anti-tank one, was it not included in the assault detachments?

In addition, where does the SU-122, a pure self-propelled gun for direct infantry support? It has an elevation angle of cannon 25 degrees, unlike 63 in M-30

[Stas57]

Did the M-30 "Kulatsky Sawed-Off" always shoot with a closed one? It was never allocated for direct fire, how was it not used as an anti-tank one, was it not included in the assault detachments?

privately erected in common?
that is, this is a common practice for howitzers, why is it specially designed?

In addition, where does the SU-122, a pure self-propelled gun for direct infantry support? It has an elevation angle of cannon 25 degrees, unlike 63 in M-30
I don’t know Kars ask why he dragged it

[Kars]

Quote: Stas57

I don’t know Kars ask why he dragged it

I? I didn’t know that someone read Polenitsa before starting to crap

Quote: Kars

Our analogue would be the M-30 howitzer on a self-propelled chassis, But not the SU-122 with low elevation angles

Quote: Kars

howitzer M-30 on a self-propelled chassis

I called it self-propelled gun 122 what is there.

[Stas57]

I don’t know Kars ask why he dragged it

I? I didn’t know that someone read Polenitsa before starting to crap

something happened to your memory?
enjoy

Kars (3) Today, 16: 33 ↑ You wrote nonsense. No difference, they will fire M-30 from carriages, or SU-122 on a self-propelled base. Therefore, your nonsense about shells is just nonsense.

[Kars]

Quote: Stas57

SU-122 on a self-propelled base.

The self-propelled base didn’t bother you? Do you think I wouldn’t just write the SU-122? Or at worst the SU-122 based on the T-34 chassis

Quote: Stas57

Quote: Kars
howitzer M-30 on a self-propelled chassis
I called it self-propelled gun 122 what is there.

so you fucked
Though, by the way, could the USSR manage to supply the SU-122 (I mean the one based on the T-34) with ammunition, or could it not?
Well, that again came in.

[Kars]

Quote: Stas57

Sau in the troops from the 43rd,

Reread the topic. And understand that the talk is not about real self-propelled guns of the USSR, but those that it could have)))))

Quote: Stas57

for self-propelled artillery, other logistics support,

other trucks or carriers of ammunition? and because of some principles it is impossible to use means of transportation of field artillery?

Quote: Stas57

for a large supply of available shots

for towed artillery YOURS need a LITTLE STOCK))) said))))

Quote: Stas57

at the same time we’ll move on to the regular structure of regiments

Who does not give you, as soon as you prove that the USSR had a complete analogue of Vespe)))) with its elevation angles

Quote: Stas57

or a comparison in numbers of shots 105 and 122 on 43 and 45m ??

44 will it fit?

Comparison of ammunition resources and their consumption
in the army in 1944

Ammunition Delivery in 1944 Consumption in 1944
76 mm division shots 29614000 24825000
122 mm howitzer shots 8538000 7610000

You’ll bother the Germans yourself, but not for me to do for you.

Quote: Stas57

Do you compare Vespe and Su122?

Quote: Kars

Our analogue would be the M-30 howitzer on a self-propelled chassis, But not the SU-122 with low elevation angles

Of course, I understand that I’ve been dishonored more than once in disputes with bloodshot eyes trying to find a typo, or an idiot to my words --- but not this time, you again made a mistake.

[Stas57]

read the topic. and understand that the talk is not about real self-propelled guns of the USSR, but those that it could have)))))

It's about Vespe, and this is 43 and more, back to the topic

other trucks or carriers of ammunition? and because of some principles it is impossible to use means of transportation of field artillery?

the presence of us and them, this is a question

for towed artillery YOURS need a LITTLE STOCK))) said))))

Complement your meaning to my words?
as a keepsake, one transporter held 90 shots, the ammunition on the Vespa was 32 shots, where will you put 32 shots on the 105mm leFH 18?
there as a keepsake in the transporter to howitzers ideal 60 shots, the difference is half.
you can check, kick at your leisure)))

Who does not give you, as soon as you prove that the USSR had a complete analogue of Vespe)))) with its elevation angles

Do you make up questions for yourself?

You’ll bother the Germans yourself, but not for me to do for you.

I already know them, all the same 43-5,4 million. 122-mm howitzer rounds against 26 million. 105-mm rounds of light howitzers.

Of course, I understand that I’ve been dishonored more than once in disputes with bloodshot eyes trying to find a typo, or an idiot to my words --- but not this time, you again made a mistake.

you will not praise yourself, nobody will praise?
Well, in general, I see you leaked on all issues, as expected)))

[Kars]

Quote: Kars

Of course, I understand that I’ve been dishonored more than once in disputes with bloodshot eyes trying to find a typo, or an idiot to my words --- but not this time, you again made a mistake.

Quote: Stas57

Speech about Vespe

))))))))

Quote: Kars

Such a machine of the USSR was sorely lacking.

Quote: Stas57

the presence of us and them, this is a question

Why did it happen?

Quote: Stas57

such a machine must be provided with a real volume of shells, and the Germans had more of them all over the war

And as we see the real volumes of ammunition were.

Quote: Stas57

90 rounds fit in one conveyor

Are truck shells not kosher?

Quote: Stas57

you can check, kick at your leisure)))

Why? You write bonalschina, which you will see in this article if you deign to read.

Quote: Stas57

Do you make up questions for yourself?

strange. clearly written YOU))))))

Quote: Stas57

-all the same 43

strange I brought you 44. where it is clearly visible that not all 122 mm howitzer shells were shot, and you are trying to prove something --- only by the way there is no faith in you, so a quote, a table - even if it does not matter.

Quote: Stas57

Well, in general, I see you leaked on all issues, as expected)))

self-hypnosis? Well, you don’t worry about the main thing, you shouldn’t soak for the first time such rings that everyone fucks up with you.

[Stas57]

Oh, I see. Do you always lose the thread of conversation?

other trucks or carriers of ammunition? and because of some principles it is impossible to use means of transportation of field artillery?

Quote: Stas57
the presence of us and them, this is a question

why did you put it in?

Quote: Kars
Such a machine of the USSR was sorely lacking.

Quote: Stas57
such a machine must be provided with a real volume of shells, and the Germans had more of them all over the war

And as we see the real volumes of ammunition were.

but shot in 5 times more.
ktsati, and what is real volume

Why? You write bonalschina, which you will see in this article if you deign to read.

to push pictures in each post a sign of selectivity?

strange I brought you 44. where it is clearly visible that not all 122 mm howitzer shells were shot, and you are trying to prove something --- only by the way there is no faith in you, so a quote, a table - even if it does not matter.

Do you know the reasons?

self-hypnosis? Well, you don’t worry about the main thing, you shouldn’t soak for the first time such rings that everyone fucks up with you.

from your seaweed about a powerful gun, and about the fact that the charters for idiots too
go awry

[Kars]

Quote: Stas57

such a machine must be provided with a real volume of shells, and the Germans had more of them all over the war

And to sort that snowstorm that you write I really lose a thread of conversation.

all you need to prove is that the USSR did not have 122 mm shells for a howitzer mounted on a tracked chassis.
And how they let you in - you hit the logistics, transporters and got burned again - telling what is already written - the drain is not counted. Let's still)))))))))

[Stas57]

this is your usual practice, when you merge, change concepts, jump and jump, continue the usual clowning.

And to sort that snowstorm that you write I really lose a thread of conversation.

and you have it, apparently you greatly exaggerate)))

all you need to prove is that the USSR did not have 122 mm shells for a howitzer mounted on a tracked chassis.

Come on, break through, prove to me)
ы

hit the logistics, transporters and burned again

Well, for you there is no difference between supplying su122 and M30 - I'm not to blame

[Kars]

Quote: Stas57

when did you leaked

Quote: Kars

Such a machine of the USSR was sorely lacking.

What is the drain? Have you been able to prove something? USSR similar machines were unnecessary?

Quote: Stas57

come on, break through, prove to me

Strange I already proved that 122 mm were available.

Quote: Stas57

between the supply of su122 and M30 I am not to blame

The main armament of the SU-122 was a modification of the M-30C rifled 122-mm divisional howitzer arr. 1938 (M-30). The differences between the swinging parts of the self-propelled and towed options were small, caused by the need to fit the guns for installation in a cramped fighting compartment of the self-propelled gun. In particular, from the M-30 field howitzer, the placement of controls for aiming mechanisms spaced apart on different sides of the barrel was preserved, which required the presence of two gunners in the crew. The gun was mounted on a pedestal installation, reinforced by a transverse beam to the right of the plane of longitudinal symmetry of the machine. The M-30S howitzer had a 22,7-gauge barrel, direct fire range reached 3,6 km, the maximum possible - 8 km. The range of elevation angles ranged from −3 ° to + 25 °, the horizontal firing sector was limited to 20 °. The rotary mechanism of the screw-type gun, its flywheel was located to the left of the barrel and was serviced by the gunner. The lifting mechanism - sector type with a flywheel to the right of the barrel, was serviced by the commander of self-propelled guns. Manual howitzer descent [15].

The ammunition of the gun was 40 (32-35 for the early versions) rounds of separate shell loading. Shells and propelling charges in shells were stacked along the sides and rear wall of the fighting compartment of a self-propelled gun. The rate of fire of the gun is 2-3 rounds per minute. The ammunition could include almost all 122-mm howitzer shells, but in practice, in the vast majority of cases, only high-explosive fragmentation and cumulative shells were used

can you refute this?

[Stas57]

between the supply of su122 and M30 I am not to blame

can you refute this?

try
Ammunition Nomenclature [2]
Type GAU index Projectile weight, kg Explosive weight, kg Muzzle velocity, m/s (when fully charged) Table range, m
Cumulative shells
Cumulative (in service since May 1943) 53-BP-460A 335 (on charge No. 4) 2000
High-explosive shells
High-explosive steel fragmentation grenade 53-OF-462 21,76 3,67 515 11 720
53-O-462A 21,7 458 10 800 shrapnel of steel cast iron with screw head
53-O-460A shrapnel of steel cast iron
Old grenade 53-F-460
Old grenade 53-F-460N
Old grenade 53-F-460U
Old grenade 53-F-460K
Shrapnel
Shrapnel with a tube 45 sec. 53-W-460
Shrapnel with a tube T-6 53-Sh-460T
Lighting shells
Lighting 53-C-462 - 479 8500
Propaganda shells
Propaganda 53-A-462 431 8000
Smoke projectiles
Smoke steel 53-D-462 22,3 515 11 800
Smoke of cast iron 53-D-462A 515 11 800
Chemical shells
Fragmentation-chemical 53-OH-462 515 11 800
Chemical 53-X-462 21,8 -
Chemical 53-X-460 -

like this

The ammunition could include almost all 122-mm howitzer shells, but in practice, in the vast majority of cases only high-explosive and cumulative

[Kars]

Quote: Stas57

like this

what is it? The ammunition boxes listed by you could not be used in the M-30 or SU-122?
what did you refute?

Quote: Stas57

but in practice, in the vast majority of cases, only high-explosive and cumulative high-explosive

You are not stressed
It should be so

Quote: Kars

The composition of the ammunition could include almost all 122 mm howitzer shells, but in practice, in the vast majority of cases, only high-explosive and cumulative

[Stas57]

no
u]could enter[and [u] but in practice, in the vast majority of cases, only high-explosive and cumulative high-explosive
everything is clear, what is not clear?

[Kars]

Quote: Stas57

u] could enter [and but in practice, in the vast majority of cases, only high-explosive and cumulative high-explosive
everything is clear, what is not clear?

I just feel sorry for you. In order to prove your wild theory you need to prove that some shells did not fit the M-30 or SU-122 you cannot prove it.
I told you that the gun part didn’t differ until the shells were NOT interchangeable. It’s easier to say which shells from the range of 122 mm howitzer shells will bring the subject they can shoot. And the type of shell is chosen according to the combat mission.

[Karlsonn]

Quote: Stas57

You are our expert Google Google

maybe you should not insult

Quote: Stas57

you absolutely did not understand what it was about, Sau in the troops with 43go, you brought 42y, well, let's still 39

Yes you
BM-8-24 - this is the lightest in mass Soviet self-propelled artillery mount (ACS) of the class of multiple launch rocket systems. Machines of this brand were mass-produced at the Moscow Compressor plant by dismantling the tower and installing a package of guides for the 24 unguided missiles M-8 caliber 82 mm with launch equipment on light tanks of the T-40 and T-60 types. After the T-60 tank was discontinued, the release of the BM-8-24 self-propelled guns was also discontinued, the artillery unit was mounted on trucks.

Released vehicles participated in the battles of 1942-43. and were well received in the army due to better security and patency compared to the Katyushas based on trucks.
1 July 1941 of the year was the date of the baptism of fire of new weapons - the battery of Captain I.A. Flerov wiped off the railway junction of Orsha with German trains with manpower, military equipment and ammunition from the face of the earth.

[Kars]

Quote: Karlsonn

maybe you should not insult

Come on, we won’t deprive a person of joy, he himself is guilty of this)

and to sweeten a person’s pill is his favorite photo
July 1941

[Karlsonn]

All the same, you should not afigev in the attack, by the way HELLO from the Den .

[Kars]

NKVD forever. Konigsberg steers.
about the attack --- well, right then the quotes are inserted normally, the pictures are impossible to hold.

[Kibb]

Quote: Karlsonn

it is a light-weight Soviet self-propelled artillery mount (ACS) of the multiple launch rocket systems class

So self-propelled guns or multiple launch rocket launchers, such as barrel artillery and MLRS are two different things

Quote: Karlsonn

Released vehicles participated in the battles of 1942-43. and were well received in the army due to better security and patency compared to the Katyushas based on trucks.

But they had specific problems with dispersal - there is no shutting off the coulters not off, but with patency and security the hedgehog understands - anyway, there are no tracks or armor
In general, the RS was put on anything - from an armored boat, to a machine from a maxim, and so what? Barrel self-propelled guns and NURSs are not at all the same thing

[Karlsonn]

A man twisting his hat over his lip, that look Kars wrote that self-propelled guns appeared in 42, and they entered the battlefield in 43, which means he does not understand the topic, I just pointed out the fact of the existence of two samples and their application in 41 and 42, I defined them, qualifications, pros and cons .

[Kibb]

Quote: Karlsonn

A man, breaking his hat, is slipping through his lip, so look

Well, Kars loves it, nothing excelling
On the whole, after rereading the whole argument, I did not understand what he was wrong with?

[Kars]

Quote: Kibb

On the whole, after rereading the whole argument, I did not understand what he was wrong with?

Who?

[Kibb]

Kars, Kars is right - you reread everything written
Andrey, calm down, I don’t understand what he wants from you

[Kars]

Thank you.

Quote: Kibb

I don’t understand what he wants from you

Offended, but let's not talk about sad things.

Just one more self-propelled guns which we didn’t have.

[Karlsonn]

Quote: Kibb

Well, Kars loves it, nothing excelling

if you correct me, maybe it’s just for me - the skis slide badly on asphalt, I wrote about his opponent.

Quote: Kibb

On the whole, after rereading the whole argument, I did not understand what he was wrong with?

I join the question - who?

[loft79]

IMHO. Both are wrong. From the discussion, the argument went into trolling. Su-122 and Vespa can not be compared. Kars got involved in vain (About the delivery of ammunition).

[Kars]

Quote: loft79

su-122 and vespe can not be compared

Really?

Quote: Kars

Our analogue would be the M-30 howitzer on a self-propelled chassis, But not the SU-122 with low elevation angles

More questions?

[DIMS]

BM-8-24 - this is the lightest in mass Soviet self-propelled artillery mount (ACS) of the class of multiple launch rocket systems

This is not an SPG, no matter what they say. This is the MLRS. Well, or "guards mortar" in the then terminology.
Otherwise, things like this

[Karlsonn]

The definition was not given by me.
RZSO is part of the artillery or not?
Then they classified it that way - self-propelled artillery mount (ACS) of the multiple launch rocket systems class.

[Kibb]

Quote: Karlsonn

RZSO is part of the artillery or not?

And if the definitions weren’t given by you, then it’s not worth it to assert anything, try to support the company that is fighting from the MLRS and then you will understand the difference

[Karlsonn]

Quote: Kibb

And if you didn’t give the definitions then it’s not worth it to assert anything

Once again, slowly:
I decided that stas57 spoke out that there were no Soviet troops in the 42 self-propelled guns and gave two examples;
now to the point:
Self-propelled guns are self-propelled artillery, BM-8-24 are self-propelled guns (my definition is: since it’s self-propelled, a self-propelled gun is a part of artillery, therefore this definition also appears as -

Quote: Karlsonn

BM-8-24 - this is the lightest in mass Soviet self-propelled artillery mount (ACS) of the class of multiple launch rocket systems

; and this is the installation) and yes the example you provided is also an ACS.

Quote: Kibb

try to support the company that is fighting from the MLRS and then you will understand the difference

and this is what?

Correct if I am mistaken, I will be grateful .

[Kibb]

Quote: Karlsonn

Correct if I am mistaken, I will be grateful

The problem is that the NURS has the maximum QUO at minimum distances, and so far the missile artillery cannot replace the receiver artillery. If a company or a battalion fights in direct fire contact, and it is impossible to tear away an anti-aircraft artillery from yourself, then this is usually about 150 - 500 meters, if you cover this square with, say, Grad, you will cover everyone, both your own and others. Here you need either a receiver or a helicopter with the same NURSAMI

[Karlsonn]

but this does not negate the fact that this is a self-propelled gun,

Quote: Kibb

The problem is that NURS has a maximum CVO at minimum distances

I agree, but here we’re already leaving for the tactics of use.

Quote: Kibb

Here you need either a receiver or a helicopter with the same NURSAMI

Fig is trifling - tactical nuclear weapons - the choice of the masters!

[Kibb]

Quote: Karlsonn

Fig is trifling - tactical nuclear weapons - the choice of the masters!

Yeah, just do not care for the infantry, at least destroy the island with the City, at least let the YAB, at least shoot down the enemy in the sky in thousands. The infantry must take the next high-rise and hold it (or vice versa - hold it and not let it take it) - and I want to return home

[Karlsonn]

Confused answer, don't you think so?

[Kibb]

Quote: Karlsonn

Confused answer, don't you think so?

No

[loft79]

All is correct. Do not care for infantry

[DIMS]

It just happened historically. According to the drum, which base, the common and only name for all is the MLRS.
This is in the barrel artillery lay out everything on the shelves

[Stas57]

Yes you

Yes, since what year is Vespa?

maybe you should not insult

bring you that I need a kars, google picture wrote to me in a previous topic ?, I'm still loving

[Karlsonn]

Well then, let's have a general squabble with mats, what is it there.
If you are offended this is no reason to give out plumes to the right and to the left.

[Stas57]

I am very sweet and loving, I will not use expressions like "done".

[loft79]

The people are more constructive. Waving to read your dialogs). In the best traditions of the web Mahacha)

[borisst64]

Quote: Kars

there is no difference that they will fire M-30 from carriages, or SU-122 on a self-propelled base

If about ammunition, then there is no difference, but the accuracy of shooting from the carriage will be better.

[DIMS]

Absolutely no difference.

[Kostyanich]

Wespe was developed by Alkett designers, and production was carried out by Vereinigte Maschinenwerke (Warsaw)
I didn’t understand that the Poles fought so hard for independence?

[Voin sveta82]

they were forced under machine guns ...

[Karlsonn]

Quote: Stas57

that you absolutely did not understand what it was about, Sau in the troops with 43go, you brought 42y, well, let's have 39y,

Soviet self-propelled guns ZIS-30 and its calculation at a firing position in the suburbs.
In total, by December 1941, about 100 Komsomol members had been re-equipped, which took part in the final stage of the battle for Moscow. Despite all their shortcomings, they were liked in parts due to their mobility, better protection of the materiel compared to the towed version and the high efficiency of the ZiS-2 cannon, which sometimes pierced German tanks of that period through and through.

[DIMS]

This is again not the case.
Roughly self-propelled guns of those times can be divided into three categories:
1. Tank destroyers
2. Assault guns (direct infantry support tools)
3. Self-propelled guns for firing from a closed firing position.

ZIS-30 is the cleanest tank destroyer. But self-propelled guns of the 3rd category in the USSR began to be released only after the war.

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

But the 3rd category self-propelled guns in the USSR began to be released only after the war

Quote: Kars

Such a machine of the USSR was sorely lacking.

and how many conversations--
unfortunately before the war in the USSR, they did not think about this.
Although there were self-propelled guns with 76 mm on the truck, and titanic weapons were ejected on the SU-14 (a similar machine by the way, the Fritz was mated to appear, but not fate)

[Karlsonn]

Quote: DIMS

This is again not the case.

What's wrong? I demonstrated self-propelled guns fought in 1941.
is this a self-propelled gun? so what is the question? I wrote somewhere that the ZiS-30 self-propelled guns are in the same class as Vespa?

[loft79]

Talk about Vespa. Which supports tank corps. The main specialty is shooting from closed positions. Mobile version of the motto artillery. If I am not mistaken.

[Stas57]

that you absolutely did not understand what it was about, Sau in the troops with 43go, you brought 42y, well, let's have 39y,

It's about Vespe,

[Kars]

Quote: Stas57

It's about Vespe,

it's about

Quote: DIMS

3. Self-propelled guns for firing from a closed firing position.

SUCH, and not just VESPE.TAKAYA)))))) Well this is to be so near.

For the 57th THIS IS NOT WESPES in the photo.

[Stas57]

it's about
Quote: DIMS
3. Self-propelled guns for firing from a closed firing position.

Armored vehicles of Germany in the Second World War. Self-propelled installation Wespe Sd. Kfz. Xnumx
what dim sum?, what self-propelled gun for firing from a closed firing position?
favorite selective quoting, or someone does not know how to read?
trying to get off?

[Kars]

Quote: Stas57

Self-propelled Wespe Sd. Kfz. 124

Vespe (German: Wespe - “wasp”) is a lightweight German self-propelled artillery mount (ACS) of the class of self-propelled howitzers from the Second World War. It was made on the basis of the chassis of the light tank T-II Ausf F

prove that in the USSR they were the same large-scale, maybe you won’t look obedient.

[Stas57]

as always with myself?

[Zmitcer]

Quote: Kars

For the 57th THIS IS NOT WESPES in the photo.

what Vespe. This is a 150 mm gun, based on a French tractor.

[Kars]

Quote: Kars

THIS IS NOT WESP in the photo

We state the facts?

[Zmitcer]

Quote: Kars

We state the facts?

Are you still in doubt? Compare the Vespe chassis in the picture and this one. here is one of the links. http://forum.worldoftanks.ru/index.php?/topic/351165-%D0%BE%D0%BF%D1%8B%D1%82%D0
%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5-150-%D0%BC%D0%BC-%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B
D%D1%8B%D0%B5-%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%86%D1%8B-sfh-%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D1%88
%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8-%D1%84%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%86%D1%83/ да поможет вам Google.

[Kars]

Quote: Zmitcer

Are you still in doubt?

Can't you read?
I --- attention I posted a PHOTO and wrote that it is not WESPE? Do you have a claim? Am I right or wrong when I write WHAT on PHOTO is not WESPE?

[Karlsonn]

Got it, although your argument with Kars is rather strange.

[Stas57]

this is not a dispute, you should not get into it, this is the answer to Karsov’s rudeness on a daily basis in a personal and online when he merged the t-34’s more powerful gun.
it’s better not to get into it,))

[Karlsonn]

Got it.
I’m leaving, I’ll get it wrong in the face and I won’t complete my feat.
dogs - but what about the constructiveness of the dialogue? Well, for mutual understanding .

[Gazprom]

Constructive, yes, both participants have certain good luggage, in case of combining it would be an excellent tandem.
I propose to reconcile them, because they themselves will not go for it, considering it a loss.
We will all be better.

[Karlsonn]

According to my modest experience in communication in the grid, I’ll say:
This is no longer possible.

[Gazprom]

Look at the recent topic about HF, though the legs grow a little earlier)
As a result, today Stas57 provoked Karsa with an ambiguous phrase, resulting in a "friendly dispute" without any specifics.
Both sides made a number of mistakes, and went into a skirmish.
The result is a draw or a general drain, someone like.
In short, you can delete everything)

[Kars]

Quote: Gazprom

number of misses

Can I see mine? For the story.

[loft79]

I agree. competently said.

[Gazprom]

By the way, yes, a large amount of available shells on the front, this is a plus for the artillery mobility — less shoulder transport, more options to change position painlessly and far enough from the starting point. But this is in a normal situation. With a large-scale offensive, this is no longer important, all roles are scheduled, ammunition stocked up.

[DIMS]

Something in particular, the argument has gone.

What we have? The phrase Kars, with which everything actually began:

Quote: Kars

Such a machine the USSR was sorely lacking

Is he right? I think I'm right. The level of mechanization of the Red Army at the beginning of the war was quite low, and after that it was completely disastrous. And this problem was very difficult to solve, it’s enough to recall almost half a million trucks received under the Lend-Lease.
The installation of howitzers and howitzers-cannons on the base of obsolete tanks while maintaining their combat capabilities (maximum elevation angle) could solve this problem.

The question of ammunition immediately pops up - how to transport them, in an artillery launcher, in theory, fewer shells fit in than an ammunition shell of a similar towed one. And the answer is simple - it gets into the body of the towing vehicle’s towing vehicle about the same amount, and the calculation needs to be put in the same place.
The fact is that there is a mounted BC on the gun, which depends on the caliber of the ammunition, and there is a transportable carrier (including towed ones), which depends on the technical capabilities of the tractor or self-propelled guns.
And the difference is transported in specially designed trucks included in the state of art. batteries.

Further, during the war, many tank units and formations appeared. The issue with the infantry for their support was solved simply - they were put on armor. But there were problems with the support of artillery. The towed vehicle is mobile, but less passable. This means that analogs of the German Vespa were needed to support them.

Could ours have done this in principle?
Of course, yes, as evidenced by many samples, for example the same ZIS-30.

Could ours really do this?
No.
Firstly, due to the lack of a sufficient number of obsolete tanks. The reason for this, I think, is clear to everyone.
Secondly, due to the high load on the industry, as a result of which more urgent tasks were carried out

That's somewhere so as not to be distracted by whether the M-30 fired direct fire or not.

[Kars]

In principle, everything is correct.

Disagree with only one

Quote: DIMS

Could ours really do this?
No.

In context, I understand that we are talking specifically about the period of the war 1941-1945
But you can consider the vets from an earlier period. Did you make the T-34 and KV in the USSR? Did you do it, and with a deeper development of the concept of tank and mechanized connections, there were proposals for self-propelled guns. And not necessarily on obsolete tanks, but instead of thousands of BT and T- 26.

Quote: DIMS

The question on ammunition immediately pops up - how to transport them

Actually, this went on later, at first it was the AMOUNT of ammunition--

Quote: Stas57

such a machine must be provided with a real volume of shells, and the Germans had more of them all over the war

Volumes, shooting --- clearly indicates the amount of ammunition, and the fact that AS if they are not enough.
And transportation (installed ammunition is a separate topic) of ammunition on trucks and carts. The Germans also had armored ammunition carriers on different chassis, including trophy ones. But doesn’t this really matter to the topic?

[DIMS]

But vet can consider an earlier period

Well, that is a completely different matter. A lot of what happened before the war was taxed. The same M-30 could well be placed openly on the basis of BT. It would be a wonderful thing.

But vet this is not particularly relevant?

Absolutely not applicable.

In general, this went on later, at first it was the NUMBER of ammunition-

I honestly did not understand this moment. The consumption of shells for the target depends on the caliber and power of the ammunition, and not on what kind of gun is being towed or self-propelled.

[loft79]

Quote: DIMS

M-30

And the chassis could stand it? I doubt it. What do you think?. I do not have theoretical calculations, so IMHO.

[Karlsonn]

Question to the experts (without sarcasm) KV-2 can formally be considered self-propelled guns or not?

[Kars]

Quote: Karlsonn

KV-2 can be formally considered as self-propelled guns

Even the T-34 can be formally regarded as self-propelled guns. Self-propelled, there is an artillery gun.
KV-2 I personally prefer to call the Assault Tank.

[Skavron]

KV-2 to overcome fortified positions and long-term firing points.

[Karlsonn]

Quote: Skavron

KV-2 to overcome fortified positions and long-term firing points.

Question without a catch:
what weapon was the KV-2 armed with, what ammunition was used, what purpose was it designed for?
Based on the answers, is it possible to qualify the KV-2 as self-propelled guns?
Thanks in advance for your reply.
Regards Karlsonn.

[Skavron]

I think yes. Again, it is KV-2 and again - this is my personal opinion.

[Karlsonn]

Skavron
I firmly shake my hand, the KV-2 with the anti-ballistic shells is a poor entry into the niche of tanks, especially when you consider which gun it was armed with.

[Skavron]

Therefore, I clarified)

[DIMS]

Personally, I think so. By all indications, this is an assault gun.

[Karlsonn]

(also without sarcasm - I'm really not very good in technology, apart from GA):
Reading the history of the creation of Vespa, I drew attention to the number of tank chassis made as carriers of shells on the battlefield, with the possibility of installing guns on them, and so the dispute began because of shells and their transportation, we did not go the way of the Germans, but as the operation Bagration showed "and the elimination of the Manchurian grouping, even in difficult terrain, our army could provide ammunition replenishment, albeit with enormous difficulties, and so my question is - I correctly understood the stas position57, he considers the lack of an automobile supply of ammunition, as well as a small ammunition transportable on ACS? plus difficulties with infantry support?
I will be grateful to everyone.
Regards Karlsonn.

[DIMS]

Quote: Karlsonn

reading the story of the creation of Vespa, I drew attention to the number of tank chassis made as transporters of shells on the battlefield

They just tried to secure the delivery of ammunition to the battlefield, otherwise the delivery system was similar. Maybe because of their pedantry, the Germans did it more efficiently.

Quote: Karlsonn

so my question is, I correctly understood the position of stas57, he considers the lack of automobile transportation of ammunition, as well as small ammunition carried on self-propelled guns to be a brake on the development of Soviet self-propelled guns?

Honestly, I also did not understand what he meant. It was, in principle, about replacing some of the towed guns with self-propelled guns while maintaining their ability to fire from a closed firing position. No difference in ammunition and infantry support would have arisen. Does it matter if the gun is fixed on a wheeled carriage or on a tracked base

[Karlsonn]

DIMS
let me shake hands, the argument from stas57 (with all due respect), after reading the whole thread, I accepted it as pointless fuss with settling accounts, constructive - zero, but frustration with phrases is more than enough.

[Stas57]

understand))
I wrote for a long time, the answer is below)

[Karlsonn]

May I question the amateur What is the difference between an assault gun and self-propelled guns?
I, as an amateur, consider the KV-2 this self-propelled gun, that is, a mobile weapon protected by armor and self-propelled - tactical use, which is to overcome the enemy’s defenses ...
If I’m wrong, I will be very grateful to those who point out a mistake to me.
Regards Karlsonn.

[DIMS]

Nothing. Assault gun is one of the varieties of self-propelled guns

[loft79]

Quote: DIMS

Could ours have done this in principle?
Of course, yes, as many samples testify to, for example, the same ZIS-30

You with ZIS-30 are probably kidding? We collected all the possible Komsomol members and redid it. This is called Abral. Here, the competent creation of self-propelled guns does not smell.

[Stas57]

so, I write to everyone right awaywhat are the shells for.
yes, sometimes srach interferes
as I quoted above the difference expense almost 5 times, and not in our favor.
I’ll further clarify how important the expense is, because it’s actually used, spent, and therefore available, I must add to this that I understand many that there should still be something left.
The phrase "there was no target", in my opinion, is incorrect, the Germans sowed artillery fire on everything, up to the machine gun, the targets were larger by themselves.
I propose the maximum - those that were shot were available and they could be "freely spent", not 41 of course, but I repeat, we were lagging behind. Take 1943, summer

so, a figure from the sky, the Germans have 1000 shells on the battery, we have 200,
at the same time, in the frontline zone in the warehouses equal proportions, say + 3000 for them and 600 for us, the numbers and proportions, I’ll repeat the conditional. There is no dirt.

the situation, the Germans
The artillery regiment with Vespa is urgently removed from its homes (it is not uncommon to derail a division), and moves to another area, in reserve "on the hump" 32 in Vespa and +90 in the escort truck = 120; 6 (you can like what you like, you can according to the state)
Vespa arriving in the area (with a crowd of art correctors, art observers, signalmen, etc.)
and without digging in, take targets, get ready, and begin to "smack". (photo from unprepared positions in abundance, Kars will help you :) Sd.Kfz. 6 drops 90 shells and rushes to the nearest warehouse of the nearest artillery regiment where he is given another 90 pieces (of course they can be deployed, but with such a saturation of shells, they will most likely be given.) And so on as needed. at the same time, I will repeat 120 shells already in stock.
With the usual 105 howitzer, about the same, well, just a little more problems with parsing and collecting.

situation we
The artillery division with M30 breaks off to another section, harness the horses, start the STZ-5 and, with the speed of whose snows they move to the right place, stretching out as usual behind the column and breaking into the place where they had 30 shells, if not behind, and then not with a gun, STZ is possible without a front end, well let it be,
and so she is in place with 30 shells, and a half-truck rushed to the warehouse, where they tell her, here’s your brother 30 and move it yourself, no. Or you have 53-BP-460A, but for me on the pillboxes! and there are no others. Yes, and a lot of 1.5 tons will take away, unlike 5 tonnik?
it is clear that with saturation in 600 there are more such chances.
oh yes, we have self-propelled artillery, M30 on the chassis of some kind of tank N (let us leave this dispute, on which, it is not important yet)
Well, she’ll come, and even let her bring 32 shells with her, and the train there, in the car and a half, and on horses, but no drivers, but on broken roads with overload, I lagged behind.
so tell me, what the hell goat, what will give us self-propelled 122 art in this place, when you need to change not only the art itself, but the entire materiel of the regiment?

sorry, for the moner of exposition, I exaggerate and pull of course strongly, but here is my vision

[Stas57]

Ready for a constructive dialogue, in the case of reasoned evidence of my wrong, I will change my mind.

[Karlsonn]

As a professional in freight and passenger transportation, I will immediately point out the principle - the brick on the top of the mountain is golden

Quote: Stas57

So, the figure from the sky, the Germans have 1000 shells on the battery, we have 200

where does this figure come from and to which sector of the front is it applicable?

Quote: Stas57

at the same time, in the frontline zone in warehouses equal proportions, let's say + 3000 for them and 600 for us, the numbers and proportions, I’ll repeat the conditional

You are familiar with - as you like to put it - logistics, the question is:
- What kind of ammunition did both sides have before the battle on the Kursk Bulge?
- What transportation opportunities did both sides have?

Quote: Stas57

the artillery component with Vespe is urgently removed from its habitat (it’s not uncommon to pull the division), and moves to another area,

- how did this affect the counterattack struggle ?;
- defense preparation was at the level and the arguments were typical -

Quote: Stas57

and rushes to the nearest warehouse of the nearest artillery regiment where he is given another 90 pieces,

does not pass;
-

Quote: Stas57

, where they say to her, here’s your brother 30 and move it yourself, no. Or you have 53-BP-460A, but for me on the pillboxes! and there are no others. Yes, and a lot of 1.5 tons will take away, unlike 5 tonnik?
it is clear that with saturation in 600 there are more such chances.

“You can finally talk about the Battle of Kursk - where did you get this?”

[Stas57]

where does this figure come from and to which sector of the front is it applicable?

Cited below
is taken from the annual PSU consumption for 1943. we have a consumption of 122mm in 5 times smaller than the German 105, see lower but also on the fronts, the coefficient decreases, if I am not mistaken before 3, depending on the front, by the end of the year our flow will sink, due to the fact that we are a little to Kursk undermined.
For cannon ammunition (107 + 122 mm vs. 10-cm), we have 840 thousand against 1,9 million from the Germans = 2.26 times the Germans have more stock, rounded up to 3

- logistics, the question is:
- What kind of ammunition did both sides have before the battle on the Kursk Bulge?
- What transportation opportunities did both sides have?

the main ammunition on both sides of the HE shells, not propaganda shells))

- how did this affect the counterattack struggle ?;
- defense preparation was at the level and the arguments were typical -

I myself can ask such questions 20, however-
Who has a better chance of falling down?
Vespe or M30?
who needs to get started, and who has the tractor in 500 meters?

and rushes to the nearest warehouse of the nearest artillery regiment where he is given another 90 pieces,
does not pass;

why? please justify.

[Karlsonn]

LYING. full and you know it.

[Stas57]

and you are one of those people who have the whole preponderance of the whole war? Well then, they would immediately say, I wouldn’t waste time

LYING. full and you know it.

you will excuse me, dear carlson, but this is your drain. (Or night fatigue?) I was still waiting for more serious answers.
while there is no reasonable argument against. from you personally.

[loft79]

Karlsonn

Something you quickly slipped to:

Quote: Karlsonn

You finally can about the Battle of Kursk

somehow not beautiful)

[loft79]

Well done you about

Quote: Stas57

in the case of reasoned evidence of my wrong, I will change my mind

Regarding your position, I agree (ammunition). But they spoke a lot in vain.

[Kars]

Quote: loft79

I agree (ammunition).

There were no 122 mm howitzer ammunition in the USSR; what was the M-30 fired with?

[loft79]

I meant the supply of ammunition. It was not for nothing that the Germans made Munitionspanzer's made of Vespa, hummels, sau on the basis of the 38s.

[Kars]

Ammunition and special vehicles are described in this article.

until August 1944, 676 Wespe self-propelled guns and 159 Munitions Sf auf Fgst PzKpfw towers were produced

even here, my appander was ostrastovosilos.on 1 transport car accounted for more than 4 installations.
but this is not discussed again.

So now answer the question --- would it be useful and would an artillery mount with the same characteristics and purpose be needed in the Soviet army? Yes or no.

[loft79]

Complex issue.
If everything is organized and delivery is normal, then yes. You yourself wrote about cumbersome tank formations. How many SPGs were needed? If you want a direct answer. Then yes. But we need a working organization. We had problems with ogre. the number of tanks, without proper organization (I repeat again))))


About:
"No wonder the Germans did the Munitionspanzer 's did"

Do you disagree? If so, why?

[Kars]

Quote: loft79

Yes

This is the main thing.

Quote: loft79

But we need a working organization. We had problems with ogre. the number of tanks, without proper organization (I repeat again)))

I never said that an organization is not needed, but how will it be without machines? And how do we see the structure of mech joints constantly improved.

Quote: loft79

No wonder the Germans did the Munitionspanzer 's did "

The Germans did little in vain. And according to reviews in parts there was a lack of specialized carriers. And if ours had more professionalism, we would have armored carriers as well.

[loft79]

Quote: Kars

The Germans did little in vain. And according to reviews in parts there was a lack of specialized carriers. And if ours had more professionalism, we would have armored carriers as well.

I agree. But I'm not sure that at that time, and in that situation, we would not have such problems as with tanks. When trained on the T-34 on the old T-26 (saving a resource), the problem with ammunition, fuel. Etc. Reformation of various kinds.

[Stas57]

even here my appander has gotten hairy. Xnumx transport car accounted for more xnumx installations.

yes ph fig you-three installations on 1 Munitions
2 on 6 Vespe.
moreover, I was talking about the "escort truck", the state allowed to select both cars and Sd Kfz, some models of which could still have a trailer.
so who else has goofed

[Kars]

Quote: Stas57

at 1 Munitions
2 on 6 Vespe.

Quote: Kars

676 Wespe self-propelled guns and 159 Munitions Sf auf Fgst PzKpfw tractors

Complicated Math

676 divided by 159 = 4.25

Quote: Stas57

I'm talking about the "escort truck"

But what did you say so directly? But the USSR didn’t have trucks? Here's how you prove that the USSR had nothing to deliver shells without the BPB and you’ll become right.

And teach math. Even if you have 2/6 in the state, I will remind you that the German units rarely had a full staff.
))))))))) Well, why are you stinging)))

Quote: Stas57

I’m taking my leave from a branch in the far south,

[Stas57]

Regarding your position, I agree (ammunition). But they spoke a lot in vain.

perhaps, possibly))

[Stas57]

Ready for a constructive dialogue, in the case of reasoned evidence of my wrong, I will change my mind.
Above, perhaps in some places it behaved ugly, I admit

[DIMS]

By flow? The casket opens extremely simply. You brought data on 43? Soviet infantry division: 122 mm howitzers 12 units, German: 105 mm howitzers 36 units. Our 122-mm guns were trite less. The main expense fell on 120 mm mines, then 76 mm shells, then 152 mm and only then 122 mm.
It is not a matter of transportation or underproduction.

[Stas57]

Yes, of course, I agree, our data is supplemented by the divisional 7-62, but we are talking about a specific weapon and its closest analogue.

Our 122-mm guns were trite less

I agree, but there are essentially fewer shells, so what is easier and cheaper - to set up the release of the M30, or "some sau with an incomprehensible purpose"?
the Germans at their saturation, Vespe is a new category of quality, do we have problems with new equipment in addition to our saturation and the quality of the rolling stock of the division?

[DIMS]

Simpler and cheaper is the same self-propelled guns based on obsolete tanks. Carriages are not needed, front end, car-tractor. But after 41-42, we simply did not have them in the required quantities.
And M-30s were produced, from 41 to 45 their number in the infantry division increased from 8 to 20. From two batteries to five.

[Stas57]

Simpler and cheaper is the same self-propelled guns based on obsolete tanks. Carriages are not needed, front end, car-tractor.

yeah, but a mechanic, a driver, etc. are still needed, the same rolls, only a profile, just to retrain.
why the hell, there is debugged production for years, and it’s still not known whether it will be cheaper, it will come out

[Kars]

Quote: Stas57

to launch the release of the M30, or "some sau with an incomprehensible purpose"?

Vespe class self-propelled guns have an incomprehensible goal ---- this is the number.
In terms of responsiveness, self-propelled guns could replace several guns.

Quote: Stas57

with new equipment in addition?

an old gun and an old chassis --- what kind of problems might there be?

Quote: DIMS

I agree, but there are less natural shells

Comparison of ammunition resources and their consumption in the Red Army in 1944
Ammunition Industry in 1944 Expended by the front in 1944. Sent Total consumption in 1944. Balance
122 mm howitzer shots 8538 7610 612 19 60 8301 + 237

Quote: Stas57

why the hell, there is debugged production for a year, and it’s still not known whether it will be cheaper, it will come out in the end

Something the Germans were making the self-propelled guns of which they could.

[Stas57]

Vespe class self-propelled guns have an incomprehensible goal ---- this is the number.
In terms of responsiveness, self-propelled guns could replace several guns.

while having all the same 1.1 BK? and then why bother?

an old gun and an old chassis --- what kind of problems might there be?

old problems, wear + maintenance.
+ instead of a riding "peasant" - a mechanic drive, or rather two for a gun and for a carrier.
why when is it easier not to fence a garden with a change in the staff structure

Something the Germans were making from the ACS from which they could

and that ours is not fated? I didn’t hear your version
Comparison of ammunition resources and their consumption in the Red Army in 1944

Ammunition Industry in 1944 Expended by the front in 1944. Sent Total consumption in 1944. Balance
122 mm howitzer shots 8538 7610 612 19 60 8301 + 237

1944 Shot
122 mm howb. 7 610,1
10-cm leFH18 and leFH18 / 40 31 105
Wehrmacht is 4 times larger

[Kars]

Quote: Stas57

while having all the same 1.1 BK? and then why bother?

Are you really that short of ammunition? I definitely don’t know how many there were. But your 1.1 should be used efficiently.

Quote: Stas57

wear + service

But didn’t the Germans come across this? Or did you think that you were in a fairy tale?

Quote: Stas57

and that ours is not fated?

They didn’t have fantasies. Professionalism --- they put the cannon on the KV 76,2 mm gun. And they could not make the anti-aircraft self-propelled guns --- but they drove the T-34

[DIMS]

Quote: Kars

And they could not make anti-aircraft self-propelled guns

Developed. 85-mm anti-aircraft self-propelled gun based on the Voroshilovets tractor. They even experienced it. But they did not produce - the troops had an acute shortage of art. tractors.

Plus 25 mm anti-aircraft guns in the back of GAZ-MM. In Kolomna did.

Well, ZSU-37, which, however, developed for a very long time for wartime and built little, only 70 until the end of the war. They didn’t take part in the battles; apparently they saved for possible chances with England-USA.

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

Plus 25mm anti-aircraft guns

The machine is not too successful.

Quote: DIMS

Well, ZSU-37

but they took part in the parade. and our columns until 1945 bombed the Stucks with their antediluvian speed.

[DIMS]

They tried to put a 37-mm automatic into the GAZ-AAA body. The car did not pull.

Quote: Kars

but they took part in the parade. and our columns until 1945 bombed the Stucks with their antediluvian speed

By this time they had been changed to the FW-190, the Stukas were re-qualified as night bombers.

[Kars]

Well, I won’t be responsible for the Stucks. Rudel read for a long time --- but in my opinion there were references to daytime bombing.

[DIMS]

Now I looked, Rudel from September 1944 periodically flew to 190th.

In general, on January 1, 1945, there were 65 units in the arsenal of day attack aircraft. Hs-129, 185 pts. Ju-87 and 1077 units. FW-190.

I recommend Zefirov "Luftwaffe assault aircraft". The book is compiled as a reference, nothing more.

[Stas57]

Are you really that short of ammunition? I definitely don’t know how many there were. But your 1.1 should be used efficiently.

when you speak foolish, I see that you are nervous))))))))))
1.1 can also be shot from M30, why spend huge resources on self-propelled guns?
I did not hear the answer
But didn’t the Germans come across this? Or did you think that you were in a fairy tale?
Germans had illiteracy, how did the Katuki complain?
low-skilled mechanical drivers, weak mechanics, etc.?

They didn’t have fantasies. Professionalism --- they put the cannon on the KV 76,2 mm gun. And they could not make the anti-aircraft self-propelled guns --- but they drove the T-34

oh this is the problem, the fantasy is bad,
Well then, it is clear.
you see no other answer

[Kars]

Quote: Stas57

1.1 can also be shot from M30, why spend huge resources on self-propelled guns?

Or you can just burn it. Why spend resources on a gun. The main thing is not to shoot --- but to get where the infantry asks, and for the shortest possible time.

Quote: Stas57

I did not hear the answer

Can you tell me why self-propelled artillery?

Quote: Stas57

Germans had illiteracy, how did the Katuki complain?
low-skilled mechanical drivers, weak mechanics, etc.?

What they were, they won, and with self-propelled guns victory would have been less blood.

Quote: Stas57

oh that's the thing, the fantasy is bad

It’s strange, but I missed the word professionalism.

Quote: Stas57

you see no other answer

do you need them? you don’t know how to think, and my answers go beyond the bounds of your mental abilities.

[DIMS]

Quote: Stas57

while having all the same 1.1 BK? and then why bother?

We drove closer, or rather shoot. This is true for guns operating with closed fire. More precisely, you shoot, less expense.
And don’t forget about the counter-battery struggle actively pursued by both sides.

Quote: Stas57

and that ours is not fated? I didn’t hear your version

And what was the fence made of? There were "Komsomolets" - made tank destroyers out of them

[Stas57]

We drove closer, or rather shoot. This is true for guns operating with closed fire. More precisely, you shoot, less expense.
And don’t forget about the counter-battery struggle actively pursued by both sides.

good point.
but counterbats also need a number of factors — intelligence, observation, and camouflage, and a good trained, well-coordinated calculation.
and so the "plug" is ready, but of course, here the ACS is a plus, no doubt about it.
it would be suitable for smuggling divisions, but these are all the same "snipers" and 152 caliber is desirable

And what was the fence made of? There were "Komsomolets" - made tank destroyers out of them

with fat or hunger?
By the way, the armored Komsomolets will drag the M30 on itself with the crew and the BC?
I doubt

[Kars]

Quote: Stas57

but for the counter battles, a number of factors are also needed

You mean that not self-propelled M-30 would be easier?

Quote: Stas57

and caliber 152 is desirable

The Fritz was Hummel and we have nothing of his class.

Quote: Stas57

Will the armored Komsomolets carry off the M30 with crew and ammunition?

laughed from the armored --- why?
and you don’t have to hang everything on a Komsomol member --- and for some reason no one suggested putting M-30 on them, but simply mentioned the 57 mm tank destroyer.

[Stas57]

You mean that not self-propelled M-30 would be easier?

I already answered, in the same paragraph.
but all the same, why fence the garden when the available funds can handle it, the 43 is too bold, the self-propelled counter-battery division

The Fritz was Hummel and we have nothing of his class.

nothing and problems

laughed from the armored --- why?
and you don’t have to hang everything on a Komsomol member --- and for some reason no one suggested putting M-30 on them, but simply mentioned the 57 mm tank destroyer.

then why is it mentioned?

Threat I did not see your reasoned justification

[DIMS]

Quote: Stas57

43 too fat, self-propelled counter-battery division

Counter-battery combat is usually the "big uncle" of corps and army subordination. Caliber 152 mm.
Self-propulsion is needed in order to leave fire faster

[Stas57]

Counter-battery combat is usually the "big uncle" of corps and army subordination. Caliber 152 mm.
Self-propulsion is needed in order to leave fire faster

about 152, I wrote about it above, I agree, but again, the problem is that the DD groups were recruited from existing artillery regiments as necessary, and by the volume of tasks, and if necessary, disbanded.
Well, here you already have to dance from the regular structure

[Kars]

Quote: Stas57

when the available funds will cope

)))))))))))) but you are not careful of the Soviet wars, but what to take from you

Quote: Stas57

nothing and problems

but there were more than enough problems, but you showed your level.

Quote: Stas57

then why is it mentioned?

then what our self-propelled guns did.

Quote: Stas57

PS, I have not seen your reasoned justification

Reread carefully You can write down for memory. Others saw.

Quote: Kibb

Kars, Kars is right - you re-read everything written
Andrey, calm down, I don’t understand what he wants from you

So I congratulate you on your next loss, maybe you will learn and stop building yourself out of yourself.

[Stas57]

)))))))))))) but you are not careful of the Soviet wars, but what to take from you

attempt to drain?

but there were more than enough problems, but you showed your level.

and you no

then what our self-propelled guns did.

there were enough fantasies, but you do not like Soviet designers and management

Reread carefully You can write down for memory. Others saw.

that's all, went to drain, you have nothing to answer, your own literate version except "Fantasy did not suffice"

So I congratulate you on your next loss, maybe you will learn and stop building yourself out of yourself.

Yes, everything is fine, I realized that you need to save face. have a rest.

[Kars]

Quote: Stas57

and you no

Your words mean nothing. Yes, in other participants. So free.
You couldn’t prove that the USSR did not have 122 mm howitzer shells. You couldn’t prove that the field and self-propelled artillery (in particular the M-30 and SU-122) were supplied with different ammunition and they were transported differently, and you couldn’t interchangeably use them.

Quote: Stas57

Yes, everything is fine, I realized that you need to save face. have a rest

))))))))))))))

Quote: Kibb

Kars, Kars is right - you re-read everything written
Andrey, calm down, I don’t understand what he wants from you

Let this phrase protect your face))))

[Stas57]

] You could not prove that the USSR did not have 122 mm howitzer shells.

Wow, he himself came up with an argument.

As I couldn’t prove that the field and self-propelled artillery (in particular M-30 and SU-122) are supplied with different ammunition and transported by different vehicles, and they couldn’t be interchangeable, you couldn’t]

you yourself crap, already forgot? By the way, you’ve thought of different vehicles,
I remind

KarsPro Su 122
The ammunition could include almost all 122-mm howitzer shells, but in practice, overwhelming majority cases were used only high-explosive and cumulative

my answer

try
Ammunition nomenclature M30 [2]
Type GAU index Projectile weight, kg Explosive weight, kg Muzzle velocity, m/s (when fully charged) Table range, m
Cumulative shells
Cumulative (in service since May 1943) 53-BP-460A 335 (on charge No. 4) 2000
High-explosive shells
High-explosive steel fragmentation grenade 53-OF-462 21,76 3,67 515 11 720
53-O-462A 21,7 458 10 800 shrapnel of steel cast iron with screw head
53-O-460A shrapnel of steel cast iron
Old grenade 53-F-460
Old grenade 53-F-460N
Old grenade 53-F-460U
Old grenade 53-F-460K
Shrapnel
Shrapnel with a tube 45 sec. 53-W-460
Shrapnel with a tube T-6 53-Sh-460T
Lighting shells
Lighting 53-C-462 - 479 8500
Propaganda shells
Propaganda 53-A-462 431 8000
Smoke projectiles
Smoke steel 53-D-462 22,3 515 11 800
Smoke of cast iron 53-D-462A 515 11 800
Chemical shells
Fragmentation-chemical 53-OH-462 515 11 800
Chemical 53-X-462 21,8 -
Chemical 53-X-460 -

here is your drain, or provide a flow sheet of all the 122 shells I have indicated
how does drain water murmur?
Have a rest, wash yourself

[Kars]

Quote: Stas57

] You could not prove that the USSR did not have 122 mm howitzer shells.
uhahaa, he invented himself, an argument

I’m you bursting))))))))

Quote: Stas57

such a machine must be provided with a real volume of shells

Quote: Stas57

KarsPro Su 122
The composition of the ammunition could

enter almost all 122 mm howitzer shells

, but in practice, in the vast majority of cases, only high-explosive and cumulative

You again stressed something wrong)))))))))))))
The main thing is practically everything.

Quote: Stas57

Old grenade 53-F-460
Old grenade 53-F-460N
Old grenade 53-F-460U
Old grenade 53-F-460K
Shrapnel
Shrapnel with a tube 45 sec. 53-W-460
Shrapnel with a tube T-6 53-Sh-460T
Lighting shells
Lighting 53-C-462 - 479 8500
Propaganda shells
Propaganda 53-A-462 431 8000
Smoke projectiles
Smoke steel 53-D-462 22,3 515 11 800
Smoke of cast iron 53-D-462A 515 11 800
Chemical shells
Fragmentation-chemical 53-OH-462 515 11 800
Chemical 53-X-462 21,8 -
Chemical 53-X-460 -

Why statements? Expenses?
YOU prove that both systems couldn’t shoot them. Which of these list could only shoot M-30? what only SU-122 (on the T-34 chassis)

Quote: Stas57

Ammunition nomenclature M30 [2

The main weapon of the SU-122 was a modification of the M-30S

You can prove that the M30 ammunition did not fit the M-30 S
Drain not counted

Quote: Kibb

Kars, Kars is right - you re-read everything written
Andrey, calm down, I don’t understand what he wants from you

[Stas57]

Kars, Kars is right - you re-read everything written
Andrey, calm down, I don’t understand what he wants from you

help of a friend, has he already weakened in his legs?

include almost all 122 mm howitzer shells,

and read your chosen quote again
РјРѕРіР »Ryo include almost all 122 mm howitzer shells,
Could come in - it means they didn’t.

but in practice overwhelming in most cases, only high-explosive and cumulative
Explain to you the meaning of "most cases" "were used" and so on?
or is there a photo of shooting a su122 propaganda shell?
here is your clear sound of the toilet, relax, until we meet again, otherwise you’ll start to throw obscene letters in my PM and spam it,
and remember, the T-34 initially had no more powerful weapon
uhahaha

[Kars]

Quote: Stas57

Kars, Kars is right - you re-read everything written
Andrey, calm down, I don’t understand what he wants from you

You should be pleased to read this.

Quote: Stas57

almost all 122 mm howitzer shells could go in,
Could come in - it means they didn’t.

And that they couldn’t)))))))))))

Quote: Stas57

Cumulative shells
Cumulative (in service since May 1943) 53-BP-460A 335 (on charge No. 4) 2000
High-explosive shells
High-explosive steel fragmentation grenade 53-OF-462 21,76 3,67 515 11 720
53-O-462A 21,7 458 10 800 shrapnel of steel cast iron with screw head
53-O-460A shrapnel of steel cast iron
Old grenade 53-F-460
Old grenade 53-F-460N
Old grenade 53-F-460U
Old grenade 53-F-460K
Shrapnel
Shrapnel with a tube 45 sec. 53-W-460
Shrapnel with a tube T-6 53-Sh-460T Lighting shells
Lighting 53-C-462 - 479 8500
Propaganda shells
Propaganda 53-A-462 431 8000
Smoke projectiles
Smoke steel 53-D-462 22,3 515 11 800
Smoke of cast iron 53-D-462A 515 11 800
Chemical shells
Fragmentation-chemical 53-OH-462 515 11 800
Chemical 53-X-462 21,8 -
Chemical 53-X-460 -

You even burst here - the main shells were here as a fach of the General Pharmacopoeia Monograph and cumulative. Shrapnel SU-122 quite often fired.
Smoke, lighting, and propaganda are AUXILIARY shells, but even both systems could shoot them.

Quote: Stas57

in most cases, only high-explosive and cumulative
explain to you the meaning of "most cases", "used" and so on

You want to say that the M-30 in most cases fired smoke and lighting, unlike the SU-122 which OFS and KS -------))))) you are just pathetic.

Quote: Stas57

or is there a photo of shooting a su122 propaganda shell?

Nagugli that she CANNOT shoot agitation.)

Quote: Stas57

Remember, the T-34 wasn’t more powerful at first.

It has been exhaustive since the rearmament on the F-34 on the T-34 and the F-32 on the KV-1

[Stas57]

It has been exhaustive since the rearmament on the F-34 on the T-34 and the F-32 on the KV-1
bogaga, move on

Nagugli that she CANNOT shoot agitation.)

could at least cutlets, yes I didn’t shoot in practice, will you find that you shot? look for
means different logistics

Smoke, lighting, and propaganda are AUXILIARY shells, but even both systems could shoot them.

could, but they didn’t shoot, don’t turn around, who would take a propaganda projectile to the BC instead of the PF or godfathers, “we don’t mind our soldiers”?

You even burst here - the main shells are here as a common federal district and cumulative. SHrapnel SU-122 often shot.

Is there a statement of consumption for the projectiles released for the 122 su, or did you come up with it from the pillar?
By the way, didn’t you highlight the rest with red? Did they shoot 122 with them too?
examples?

And that they couldn’t)))))))))))

did you forget the difference of words could and did?

You should be pleased to read this.

it is perpendicular to me

[Kars]

Quote: Stas57

on F-34 on T-34 and F-32 on KV-1
bogaga, move on

You say that the F-32 is more powerful than the F-34?

Quote: Stas57

could even cutlets, but in practice did not shoot, you will find that shot? look for
means different logistics

Logistics will become different as soon as you prove that Propaganda, smoke had other dimensions and conditions of transportation.
And the logistics are the same --- Factory - Warehouse-Railway road - Front-line warehouse ---
and what shells they ordered and will bring. So the logistics are the same. Even the carriage and truck include the same number of ammunition.

Quote: Stas57

Is there a statement of consumption for the projectiles released for the 122 su, or did you come up with it from the pillar?
By the way, didn’t you highlight the rest with red? Did they shoot 122 with them too?

for the foolish person like you, I singled out basic shells. But if you say that the M-30 for the most part shot shells that I didn’t single out, then I feel even more sorry for you.

Quote: Stas57

did you forget the difference of words could and did?

So they could or could not, but what they did was not logistics, but combat missions

Quote: Stas57

it is perpendicular to me

The loser said that on this thread several times already said goodbye))))))

Quote: Stas57

Until we meet again

and returns and returns - a masahist))))

[DIMS]

Quote: Stas57

but for counterbattles, a number of other factors are also needed — intelligence, surveillance, and disguise

All this was, in fact, since WWII, nothing except ARSOM radar has appeared in this area.

Quote: Stas57

with fat or hunger?

With hunger. Critically needed a tank destroyer. Therefore, the ZIS-30 went into series despite numerous shortcomings.

[DIMS]

Nothing changes. In general, ours have developed many models of self-propelled guns based on tanks, artillery tractors and even on the basis of half-tracked vehicles.

SPG ZIS-41

And no special problems arose.

[Stas57]

but a lot of what went into the army, why is your version?

[loft79]

Unfortunately arose. Unstable. when firing from the side (course angle 90), unsatisfied. engine cooling, lack of styling for shells. Then ZIS-2 was discontinued. a problem with the release of the chassis itself.

[Kars]

Quote: Stas57

sorry, for the moner of exposition, I exaggerate and pull of course strongly, but here is my vision

Why are you doing this? What are you trying to prove?

Quote: Stas57

what will self-propelled 122 art give us at this place, when it is necessary to change not only the art itself

Even by exaggerating --- she will give 32 shells in the right place at the right time. And this is the LIFE of Soviet soldiers. in the right place than 32 in the warehouse. But such a limited person will not understand.

[Stas57]

Why are you doing this? What are you trying to prove?

I bring one of the arguments, you can consider the second one, which chassis and what problems of production support.
no idiots were at the top and really appreciated the prospects of using such a technique

REPEAT, It’s exaggerating, because I don’t see the reasons why it was impossible to make auxiliary machines from BT shekels, like Germans from one) BETTER 32 shells in the right place than 100 in the warehouse. But such a limited person will not understand this.

not all geniuses google pictures.
wrote above, I repeat.
fucking BT we need people, mechanics, spare parts, etc., all this was collected for tank units,
You can shoot 32 shells and M30 shells if they have shells, and if I repeat, you’ve arrived mobile and there’s zero in the warehouse, no one will give you 32 to charge, you’ll hit the shell, and why then is this supermobility?

[Kars]

It’s bad - everything you write only confirms the advantages of mobile artillery ..

Quote: Stas57

the second is what kind of chassis and what are the problems of production-supply.

Yes, at least SU-76 which were released 14 000 pieces.

Quote: Stas57

ensure

What? If ammunition, then everything is the same as ordinary field artillery. And do not focus on a lorry, there were Len-Liz trucks

[Stas57]

Yes, at least SU-76 which were released 14 000 pieces.

but for fun, for the same 43
Shot 21 million. 76,2-mm shells of division artillery.

What? If ammunition, then everything is the same as ordinary field artillery. And do not focus on a lorry, there were Len-Liz trucks

providing everyone, spare parts, mechanical water, transport, otherwise mobility is lost
I agree about the landlise, but do not forget to take the 43 for now, and the saturation is not 44 yet, and I repeat, they also need drivers, not sled drivers.

[DIMS]

Quote: Stas57

but for fun, for the same 43
Shot 21 million. 76,2-mm shells of division artillery.

The fact is that the ZIS-3 gun was rather unsuccessful, especially in the offensive - low howitzer did not allow to carry out fire tasks effectively. But it was produced in huge quantities.

Quote: Stas57

but do not forget to take ser43 for now, and the saturation is not yet 44, and I repeat, they also need drivers, not sled drivers.

You do not pay much attention to the presence of the front end; the M-30 on horse-drawn traction moved only in hopeless circumstances. A staff truck or art. tractors.

[Stas57]

The fact is that the ZIS-3 gun was rather unsuccessful, especially in the offensive - low howitzer did not allow to carry out fire tasks effectively. But it was produced in huge quantities.

and I will note ammunition "with a slide"

You do not pay much attention to the presence of the front end; the M-30 on horse-drawn traction moved only in hopeless circumstances. A staff truck or art. tractors.

I won’t like to throw Kars pictures of M30 in Berlin on horse drawn.))
staffing of cars on the Kursk Bulge in the "delivery service"
Parts of transportation were equipped with vehicles on average by 69 percent, their coefficient of technical readiness was brought to 0,8.
but in general you need to look at specific acts on the availability of transport for M30, and this is a lot of work and a lot of data, which I don’t ask you, either))

[DIMS]

Quote: Stas57

and I will note ammunition "with a slide"

Less efficiency - more consumption. Axiom.

Quote: Stas57

I won’t like to throw Kars pictures of M30 in Berlin on horse drawn.))

Give it a try. Just remember, horses must be at least 8

Quote: Stas57

Parts of transportation were equipped with vehicles on average by 69 percent, their coefficient of technical readiness was brought to 0,8.

Artillery batteries are not part of the supply, this is a completely different logistics department.

[Stas57]

Give it a try. Just remember, horses must be at least 8

Duc and not 6?

Artillery batteries are not part of the supply, this is a completely different logistics department.

rear lines, I repeat, should be provided not with horses, but with cars with good cross-country capacity

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

ZIS-3 gun was rather unsuccessful

In my opinion, I wrote somewhere similar. The truth, point blank, forgot about mortars. Tukhachevsky did not seem to spread rot on them.

[DIMS]

Tukhachevsky spread rot anti-aircraft artillery. The ZIS-3 originates from its "generalists". However, if the large elevation angles inherent in its ancestors were preserved, the weapon would have turned out to be more effective.

[Kars]

Quote: Stas57

shot at 21 million. 76,2 mm shell artillery shells

And what's the catch? ZIS-3 was a lot, T-34 was a lot.
And I personally think that the ZIS-3 was not very effective, (I will not argue, I'm tired of you)

Quote: Stas57

providing everyone, spare parts, mechanical water, transport, otherwise mobility is lost

This is also necessary for towed artillery, so I don’t see any features. For example, the calculation of the M-30 is 8 people. The shells are transported by vehicles as one and the other. The SU-122 (based on the T-34) was successfully supplied.

Quote: Stas57

but don’t forget to take it while ser43

Why did you even get the date? There is no binding to a date in this thread. A light self-propelled howitzer should have been in the state of the Red Army until 1941.

[DIMS]

Quote: Kars

Light self-propelled howitzer should have been in the state of the Red Army until 1941.

Then the situation was generally awful, Baryatinsky on "Echo" it "rolled out" in sufficient detail http://www.echo.msk.ru/programs/victory/925364-echo/

Tanks were needed to form 9 mechanized corps in the amount of 9279 pieces. Plus tractors, trucks and other fittings.
It turned out as in the saying, "the best is the enemy of the good"

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

Then the situation was generally awful

It was awful in the head. Only this can explain the pace of production of BT and T-26 after the war in Spain.

Quote: DIMS

9 mechanized corps in the amount of 9279 pieces

The fur of the corps is generally pure horror. Our normal structure of tank and mechanized connections came out only by 1944.
In general, this is another topic. And I'm talking about more digestible tank divisions.

[Karlsonn]

Trojan horse spherical horse.

Quote: Stas57

so, a figure from the sky, the Germans have 1000 shells on the battery, we have 200,

I, as a professional carrier, I guess, so the Soviet troops 10 000 on 1 000 German, no, not so the Soviet troops 10 000 000 on 1 000 German - the drain is not protected - write escho .
Regards Karlsonn.

[Stas57]

I, as a professional carrier, assume that the Soviet troops 10 000 on 1 000 German, the Soviet troops 10 000 000 on 1 000 German - the drain is not protected - write escho.
Regards Karlsonn.

I don’t know what horses you have in logistics, I asked for reasonable comments.
so
GAU statements on the consumption of ammunition by the Red Army in 1943
5,4 million 122 mm howitzer rounds
against 26,034mln 10,5-cm light howitzers leFH18.
total Germans in 5 times more consumption, from which I took the coefficient.
The bulk, respectively, fell on the Summer Company, respectively, which is clearly seen from the table of expenses of German artillery

if you take along the fronts - there of course there is a difference which front and in which month, so your Soviet troops 10 000 000 at 1 000 German this is a horse on an owl (C)

[Karlsonn]

That is, your argument rests against this table originally

[Stas57]

the whole argument is presented by 3 posts with numbers, including on the consumption of PSUs, but what do you have in return, what can you refute?
or are you talking about yours about your sink mean? but minus shoved not forgotten))))))

[Kars]

But how is it clear from this table that the USSR was contraindicated in self-propelled guns?

[Stas57]

did I say that somewhere?
such a need for mobile self-propelled guns must be supported by something - equipment, supplies, people, shells

[Kars]

Quote: Stas57

did I say that somewhere?

Quote: Stas57

32 shells can be pulled and M30,

Quote: Stas57

1.1 can also be shot from M30, why spend huge resources on self-propelled guns?

As you can see, he said. And for your information, for example, on July 1, 1941, 122 mm howitzer shells were 10 b / c

[Karlsonn]

Drain, with all due respect to you - not protected ...

[Stas57]

very reasoned of course

[Stas57]

Karlsonn and here are the horses — ponies, although he requested a serious approach.
Here's the front.
from 5 to 19 July, only AG "Kempf" shot about 14710 tons or 919 wagons, excluding 4 TA
from 5 to 12 on July, the entire Voronezh Front fired (on Antipenko 417 wagons,) the main one left 5,6 and 12 on July, despite Kempf’s replenishment of 19.7.43, only 6376 tons of ammunition remained.
Moreover, the advantage for us is clearly not in 122mm, but the Germans have just 105mm

You finally about the Battle of Kursk - where did you get this?

from there.
here is a simple example, In the operation of the Bryansk Front (July 1943), the ammunition consumption on the first day of the battle did not exceed the 1,1 ammunition, and it was planned from 1,1 to 2,0 ammunition. From the second to the fifth day of the operation, the ammunition consumption in the above operation was: on the first day of battles, 1 ammunition, on the next 5 days 1 ammunition and on the next 5 days, 0,5 ammunition. 12), had a margin, for the evening 9 - only 61 bk, a lot of things there who will give?

[Karlsonn]

Question: how much ammunition was consumed in Operation Bagration?

[Stas57]

Wow you have requests, and even the daily allowance, and even 44, and even the bagration, we like 43, and then we can even do the whole war for you, daily for all calibres, on all fronts.
no, let’s stay as they first said at 43, summer.

[Karlsonn]

daily allowance? I am interested in daily allowance.

[Karlsonn]

you and me will answer Kars!

[Kars]

C'mon, what the hell. He climbed into the jungle without any need. And the fact that the Germans had more shells is not a secret.
Only this further enhances the importance of self-propelled guns. Since they can more effectively and more quickly respond to changes in the situation.

[Stas57]

Quote: Karlsonn

you and me will answer Kars!

Quote: Kars

Kars

Until we meet again

[DIMS]

Really wilds.
By the way, are you aware that the shell used in the M-30 and SU-122 is still used? OF-462. True, now it is called OF-462Zh, since the lead belt is made of iron-ceramic, so as to suffer less with copper plating of the barrel, but otherwise it is absolutely similar. And the old OF-462 is fired at the same shooting tables.
And this means that the M-30 shell is suitable not only for the SU-122, but also for the D-30 and 2C1

[Kars]

We didn’t have 122 mm. But I saw a 152 mm 1943 release, there was a stack of boxes in the warehouse.
and of course I heard - only in the subtleties did not particularly delve into.

[Stas57]

no wandering in the wilds is one of the facets of the problem

[Stas57]

so
so, I hardly heard any reasonable and clear-cut objections (except for Dims and Loft, and who may have forgotten someone, sorry)

add
we considered one of the issues of the problem, the issue of sufficient provision with everything necessary for increased mobility, not only with shells, but also with machines / specialists (mechanized drivers, who at that time were collected "by random order" in all tank units "a classic example" White Tiger ", yes and the documentary base is available)
to this question we add \ specify a few more that were indirectly affected here.

1 base, on what to fence, from what to scrape free tanks (which are free, and not needed as tanks first of all) that are capable of calculating on a hump + a gun + ammunition + armor, + a supply squad as a vespe, and the base must be specifically prepared,

2 organizational staffing, remembering the Germans, where? in tank units, and how many tank units were howitzers? , in the infantry, expand the staff towards mechanization? army level for DD ,? then 152mm


in any case, as a result, it was an expensive and not the easiest decision for our leadership in 43, at that time and not "lack of fantasy"as some have noticed here

I apologize to most of the participants for the possibly incorrect form of the conversation on my part
I bow to this from the branch to the far south, because the presence of one subject who loves to write obscene messages in a personal makes me fall off the "heap-mala", which I really miss on vacation))))

[Kars]

Quote: Stas57

I apologize to most of the participants for the possibly incorrect form of the conversation on my part
I bow to this from the branch to the far south, because the presence of one subject who loves to write obscene messages in a personal makes me fall off the "heap-mala", which I really miss on vacation))))

Come on, don’t cry, everyone has already understood everything and even your logistics,

Quote: Stas57

for self-propelled artillery, other logistics support,
it requires a large supply of available shots, the availability of a fleet in abundance, etc., and it’s not a shame to explain such basics to you,

Quote: DIMS

No other logistics, just like with towed guns. From the prepared OP they shoot from the ground, the transported BC is used for firing from the march and in other urgent cases.

and this was told to you by the artilleryman, and also my frequent opponent, with whom it came to such rudeness that I communicate with you as a little.

Quote: Stas57

so, I hardly heard any reasonable and clear objections

And what did you prove that there were no shells in the USSR?

Quote: Stas57

such a machine must be provided with a real volume of shells, and the Germans had more of them all over the war

[Stas57]

and this was told to you by the artilleryman, and also my frequent opponent, with whom it came to such rudeness that I communicate with you as a little.

so are you still not with me one boor?
this is an indicator

And what did you prove that there were no shells in the USSR?

but you never learned to read, and you confuse the words,
"lack" and "was not" have slightly different meanings
and as always, the transition to personality, in the complete absence of everlasting facts, google pictures further

[Kars]

Quote: Stas57

this is an indicator

As a video player and after disagreement people don’t turn away from me)

Quote: Stas57

"lack" and "was not" have slightly different meanings

Trying to merge?

Quote: Kars

Quote: Stas57
such a machine must be provided with a real volume of shells, and the Germans had more of them all over the war

why did you write it then? and what other facts if you simply burst, and when you were pulled and the place indicated (not by the window) began to carry well-known facts that are even indicated in the article.

And what time do you say goodbye? Vacation is not a pity?
I’m from a person who denies or belittles Kolobanov’s feat I won’t leave behind))) so wait for the photo in PM.

Quote: Stas57

on a sim I take off from a branch to the far south

))))))))))))))) this is a sign of your defeat.

[Stas57]

I’m from a person who denies or belittles Kolobanov’s feat I won’t leave behind))) so wait for the photo in PM.

oh that's what
I’ll add, and the orphan myth, and katuki with 133 tanks myth.
)))))
can you prove the pictures? google

)))))))))))))) this is a sign of your defeat.

sign of defeat your jerking with a PM.

And what time do you say goodbye? Vacation is not a pity?

he’ll only have time to catch tomorrow

Trying to merge?

you merge, constantly giving out your words for mine

As a video player and after disagreement people don’t turn away from me)

how kind they are

why did you write it then? and what other facts if you simply burst, and when you were pulled and the place indicated (not by the window) began to carry well-known facts that are even indicated in the article.

I clearly laid out the whole problem on the shelves, and so I did not see your competent answer, only hysteria, and rudeness, and rudeness is a sign of a drain)))

[Kars]

Quote: Stas57

I’ll add, and the orphan myth, and the Katuki with 133 tanks myth

Add your problems, as you confirm the entire military way of Wittmann according to Soviet documents, you will begin to tell something)))

Quote: Stas57

sign of defeat your jerking with a PM

I just send you a photo where the Germans do not follow the columns in accordance with the charter. At the same time, I write that I don’t need an answer. And you immediately start whining,))

Quote: Stas57

he’ll only have time to catch tomorrow

come on, come on shame on you with mathematics you just disgraced yourself, like the holy faith in the German regular formations))))))

Quote: Stas57

so did not see your competent answer

Why? You never put on the shelves the absence of the USSR 122 mm shells to supply self-propelled guns.

Quote: Stas57

rudeness a sign of discharge)))

It’s just such stupid and wounded people that it’s unrealistic to explain without the use of epithets and comparisons, but you’re lying, and you’re playing a bagpipe. And I’m not a teacher, I don’t differ in patience)))))

Quote: Stas57

Such a machine of the USSR was sorely lacking.

such a machine must be provided with a real volume of shells,

He drove away, and began to carry nonsense.

[ADGH122]

This is a very good tank in the USSR.