Reasons for the failure: Soviet designs for extra-large caliber guns

108
Reasons for the failure: Soviet designs for extra-large caliber guns
The surviving prototype of the 2A3 "Kondensator-2P" self-propelled gun. Photo by Wikimedia Commons


For a long time, one of the main ways to improve the tactical and technical characteristics of an artillery gun was to increase its caliber to use larger and heavier projectiles. In the middle of the XX century. this concept has led to a number of unique extra-large caliber systems with special characteristics. A number of such projects were created in our country, but all of them were not developed due to objective limitations and shortcomings.



Cannon and mortar


In the mid-fifties, the Soviet army came to the conclusion that it was necessary to create new high-power guns with an extra-large caliber. The accumulated experience showed that the systems of the main calibers do not always cope with the destruction of enemy fortifications, and also have limitations on the firing range. Increasing the caliber to values ​​uncharacteristic of ground artillery made it possible to solve these problems. In addition, it became possible to create and introduce special shells with a nuclear warhead.

In November 1955, a decree was signed by the USSR Council of Ministers on the development of two new artillery systems of special power - a cannon and a self-propelled mortar. The 406 mm caliber gun received the index 2A3 and the code "Condenser-2P", and the mortar was designated as 2B1 "Oka". The development of the chassis for two products was entrusted to the Leningrad Kirov Plant. The artillery unit of the 2A3 self-propelled guns was created by the Leningrad TsKB-34 (now the Special Engineering Design Bureau), and the 2B1 mortar was designed by the Kolomna Design Bureau of Mechanical Engineering (now the KBM).

In 1957, LKZ, with the participation of other enterprises, built four experimental machines of each type. Soon they entered the field tests, and on November 7, the experimental products "Condenser-2P" and "Oka" were included in the mechanized column of the parade on Red Square.


Experienced mortar 2B1 "Oka". Photo by Wikimedia Commons

During the tests, self-propelled guns confirmed the main firing characteristics, but showed limited running capabilities, low reliability, etc. For several years, fine-tuning and testing of structures continued, and most of the problems were solved. During the testing period, the 2A3 and 2B1 products were involved in army exercises to test new tactics.

However, over the course of several years, the command managed to become disillusioned with the concept of super-large-caliber "nuclear" weapons. In 1960, work on both projects was stopped due to lack of prospects. In the future, the bulk of unnecessary prototypes were dismantled, but one car was saved for museums.

Technical features


2A3 "Condenser-2P" and 2B1 "Oka" differed in armament, but used a common architecture. Both machines were built on the basis of a tracked chassis, on which a swinging artillery unit and related units were mounted. In the stowed position, self-propelled guns had a length of approx. 20 m, due to the design of weapons. The combat weight of the "Condenser" reached 64 tons, while the "Oka" weighed only 55 tons. Both samples were served by a crew of 7 people and needed the help of an ammunition transporter.

The 2A3 product was built on the Object 271 chassis, and the unified Object 2 was used in the 1B273 project. Both chassis were built on the basis of a heavy tank T-10M with the preservation of part of the structures of the hull, power plant and chassis. The chassis was equipped with V-12-6B diesel engines with a power of 750 hp. and mechanical transmission. Chassis had eight road wheels on board. Suspension - individual on beam torsion bars with additional shock absorbers on part of the balancers. The speed on the highway did not exceed 30 km / h.


In the stowed position, "Oka" and "Condenser" lowered the barrel back. Photo by Wikimedia Commons

In the center of the hull of both chassis, a place was provided for mounting an artillery mount. The 2A3 self-propelled guns received a specially designed 406-mm SM-54 gun with a rifled barrel 31,4 klb long. It used separate loading shots with a propellant charge in the cap. The supply of ammunition to the breech was carried out using a special crane. At the same time, preparation for the shot took several minutes.

The SM-54 gun used several types of 406-mm projectiles. Depending on the task, it was proposed to use high-explosive, concrete-piercing or nuclear. The mass of shells reached 570 kg. The maximum firing range with a full charge is 25,6 km.

The gun mount, on which the barrel was mounted, had recoil devices and hydraulic vertical guidance drives. There were no means for horizontal guidance - this task was solved by turning the entire machine. On board the self-propelled guns there were several sights for direct fire and from closed positions.

The 2B1 self-propelled gun based on the "Object 273" received an artillery system of a different design based on the 2B2 mortar. It was a smooth-bore breech-loading gun of 420 mm caliber with a barrel length of 47,5 klb. The barrel was placed on a support-frame with the ability to move in a vertical plane. For reloading and in the stowed position, the mortar descended at a small angle. Before shooting - rose back.

The design of the installation provided firing with elevation angles from + 50 ° to + 75 °. As in the case of the "Condenser", "Oka" did not have horizontal aiming devices - this function was performed by the chassis. In addition, the mortar did not have a base plate, and the entire recoil momentum was transmitted to the ground through a chassis with reinforced suspension.


Model of the D-80 gun based on a semi-trailer. Photo Ovaga2004.narod.ru

For the 2B2 product, special 420-mm mines with a high-explosive and special charge were developed. The reloading of the mine from the carrier was carried out by a regular crane. It took approx. 5 minutes. Firing range - from 800 m to 45 km.

Project D-80


Despite the failure of projects 2A3 and 2B1, the theoretical study of the topic of extra-large caliber continued. In the first half of the sixties, the Design Bureau of the Sverdlovsk Plant No. 9 proposed an original design for the 535-mm D-80 gun. In addition, we worked out the possibility of installing such a product on a wheeled semi-trailer and tracked chassis of various types.

Work on the D-80 continued for some time and gave a very interesting result. In theory, such a weapon in terms of firing range and projectile power could compete with early tactical missile systems. However, by the mid-sixties, the missiles had noticeably improved their performance, and cannon artillery was hopelessly behind them. The D-80 project was sent to the archive as unnecessary.

The D-80 project proposed the manufacture of a 535-mm rifled gun with a medium-length barrel. A multi-chamber muzzle brake was provided on the barrel. The gun was proposed to be mounted on a semi-trailer with a base plate. The later version of the project called for the creation of a kind of mortar with a barrel length of 15 klb and a muzzle brake in the form of a set of holes in the walls of the barrel. It was planned to put such a mortar on a tracked chassis. The barrel was fixed on the machine with a frame and a hemispherical plate. The latter provided the connection between the gun and the body of the carrier, and also served as a shutter.


D-80 in the form of a mortar on a modified MT-LB vehicle. Graphics Gurkhan.blogspot.ru

For the D-80, they developed original active-rocket projectiles of 535 mm caliber. They were up to. 4 m and weight up to 905 kg. A propellant charge was attached to the projectile in a sleeve of the appropriate size. The sleeve for the late "mortar" was distinguished by a curved bottom shape - to interact with a hemispherical shutter. The projectile could carry 420 kg of explosive or a special high-power charge. It was also equipped with a solid propellant engine. The initial speed of the projectile, according to calculations, was to reach 425 m / s, the range - up to 60 km.

Due to excessive technical courage, lack of advantages over missiles, etc. the D-80 project and its versions were not developed. Three variants of self-propelled guns with such a gun were made only in the form of mock-ups.

Common problems


Interesting and ambitious guns of super-large calibers SM-54 / 2A3, 2B2 / 2B1 and D-80 did not suit the customer, as a result of which they did not receive development and did not reach the service in the army. The maximum calibers in our ground artillery remained 152 and 203 mm. The reasons for the refusal to further increase the calibers of guns and mortars were quite simple - these products had a number of disadvantages, and their advantages were not decisive.

One of the main problems of unusual self-propelled guns was excessive technical complexity and high cost. First of all, this concerned the development and production of barrels of large caliber and length, capable of withstanding design loads. Serial production of such products and self-propelled guns as a whole would be unacceptably expensive and slow for a full-fledged re-equipment of artillery units of special power.

Finished samples were difficult to operate. For example, the large overhang of the Oka or Capacitor barrel in the stowed position limited the overall maneuverability of the combat vehicle and even led to the risk of damage. In addition, the reliability of the design left much to be desired. So, at the 2A3 "Condenser-2P" gun, during tests, internal units and the chassis broke from excessive recoil.


Complexes 9K52 "Luna" are the progenitors of modern Iskanders. Photo Missilery.info

With all this, ultra-large caliber guns faced competition in the form of missiles that already showed similar or higher performance. So, the tactical complex 9K52 "Luna" with the help of missiles of the 9M21 series could attack targets at a distance of up to 70 km. The unguided rocket had limited accuracy, but delivered warheads weighing 200 kg to the target. Thus, in terms of firing range and operational characteristics, the Luna complex was superior to the 2B2 and D-80 mortars.

In the early sixties, it was clear that new fuel dispensers with improved characteristics would soon appear. They will once again bypass cannon artillery in terms of firing range, and will also show improved accuracy and will be able to carry heavier warheads. With the beginning of the development of new fuel dispensers, such as the future Tochka, the meaning of the existence of the Oka or the Capacitor completely disappeared.

Useful experience


Thus, in the fifties and sixties, the Soviet defense industry found and studied the limits of the development of self-propelled ground artillery. At the level of theory and practice, it was possible to reach calibers of 406, 420 and 535 mm and obtain the maximum possible characteristics for barrel systems of that time.

However, the resulting artillery systems for the ground forces had not only advantages, but also disadvantages. Their further development was considered unpromising and inexpedient. In this regard, it was decided to continue the development of new missile systems that had already shown their capabilities and had much greater potential. As shown by subsequent events, the consequences of which are observed even now, the army made the right choice.
108 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +7
    5 August 2023 03: 41
    Today, NATO guns are successfully firing at 40 km.
    And the Russian ones are limited to a range of less than 30.

    It was expensive and difficult for us to make Sverzdalnoboi, but it was cheap and easy to sign the "Memorandum on Ballistics" in the 90s. laughing
    1. +1
      5 August 2023 16: 05
      For ultra-long-range, you just need to make shells a little more complex in shape. But this means that you need to change tables, train soldiers, change something, and this is a headache for fellow generals. By the way, this is not a joke, such a story was told by one young head of some powder factories with a very famous surname, when some chemists offered him a new explosive for high-powered shells.
      1. 0
        6 August 2023 14: 06
        And why are guided missiles so little used?
        Here both the range and the accuracy are at the level.
        Of course, they are more expensive than usual ones, but after all, one projectile will do what fifty unguided ones would take, not to mention the fact that it has a longer range.
        In addition, it is not so prohibitively difficult to add a small jet engine to Krasnopol.
      2. 0
        6 August 2023 21: 49
        ACS MST-M shoots at the same range with old projectiles as Western self-propelled guns. It's not about the shells, but about the length of the barrel.
        1. 0
          7 August 2023 01: 11
          The length of the barrel itself does not solve anything, you need slow-burning gunpowder, a larger volume of the chamber, new recoils, etc.
          Well, accuracy at a greater distance will only get worse, which means that without guided projectiles, no way
    2. +1
      6 August 2023 21: 42
      MST-S M shoots at 41 km, the coalition at 70 km. If you didn't know. .
  2. +18
    5 August 2023 05: 17
    "In the mid-fifties, the Soviet army came to the conclusion that it was necessary to create new high-power guns with an extra-large caliber."

    "In addition, it became possible to create and introduce special shells with a nuclear warhead"

    The author of the article is clearly wrong. All these systems were originally created for the delivery of nuclear ammunition, since at that time there were no effective tactical nuclear missiles. In the sense that the KVO of those same missiles was significantly larger than that of artillery systems. Everything is easier.
  3. 0
    5 August 2023 05: 34
    And if you read how many amers had projects of military equipment that did not go into series, but remained in a single copy ... The main thing here is not to get all this "analogue out of the closet."
    1. +2
      5 August 2023 17: 57
      These amers were given to you, at any convenient and inconvenient occasion you drag them in. It would be better to look at the specks in their eyes
      1. +1
        6 August 2023 08: 49
        It is always better to avoid the mistakes of others, but it is better to make sure that the opponent is engaged in all advanced research - after all, he has money like a fool candy wrappers.
    2. Alf
      +9
      5 August 2023 20: 26
      Quote: Vladimir80
      And if you read how many amers had projects of military equipment that did not go into series, but remained in a single copy ...

      Here. "Atomic Annie". They built 20 pieces, adopted them in 1960, removed them in 63, the reasons are absolutely the same.

      Although the caliber is more modest, only 280 mm.
      1. -1
        6 August 2023 16: 05
        as shown by SVO,
        KVO conventional land mines 122, 152 mm with a fuse from KB Compass is 1 meter
        even 203-mm shells have a CEP of up to 5 meters, 240-mm mines have a CEP of up to 10 meters
        there is no point in larger caliber guns
        as an option, put a Compass fuse (50 kopecks) on a 203-mm mine, and the CVO will be 1 meter - although even so, shooting is carried out simultaneously with a volley of 2-3 guns - and so redundant
        + counter-battery fight
        a battery of 2 peonies 203 mm will fire 3 shots = 6 and change position
        but 1 SAO 406-mm only 1 shot, and the next one only after 2-3 minutes
        1. 0
          7 August 2023 01: 13
          Some kind of magical technology. What about the Americans, the course corrector costs 20 thousand dollars, and we have 50 kopecks. Well done kulibins
    3. +1
      6 August 2023 21: 58
      Quote: Vladimir80
      And if you read how many amers had projects of military equipment that did not go into series, ...

      The latest serial samples of self-propelled guns M110 cal. 203,2 mm, planned, at one time, for nuclear weapons with a capacity of 5 and 10 Kt, which are currently in service with Japan, are living out their last days, both due to barrel wear and due to general trends in the use of smaller calibers in self-propelled and towed artillery. The rapid wear of the barrel, by the way, is one of the reasons why the Americans removed them from service.
      By the way, the Americans had a caliber of 155 mm at one time with a neutron ammunition with a capacity of 0,08 and 2 Kt. Now you don’t hear about them, I think because of the high cost and short existence of a nuclear fuse, but this is a typical offensive weapon. Lethal doses of tank crews with armor without "lining" with boron-containing polyethylene can be observed within a radius of up to 2 km. There is practically no radioactive contamination of the area, but certain problems are created by induced activity in some alloys, especially those containing manganese (EMNIP tank tracks). In general, it is an ideal weapon for breaking through defense, in my opinion. Although it is obvious that the concept of a limited nuclear strike, as always, will be considered unacceptable by our leadership, I think it should be remembered that such "toys" can hypothetically be used.
  4. +10
    5 August 2023 05: 44
    Thus, in the fifties and sixties, the Soviet defense industry found and studied the limits of the development of self-propelled ground artillery.

    I can say for sure that the Soviet defense industry created EVERYTHING in order to provide a proper response to blocs and simple adversaries.
    Unfortunately, the political situation has changed, and the likely aggressor is standing right next to the borders, while the Russian military-industrial complex continues to amaze the world with fake concepts.
    * * *
    As for rocket artillery and missiles, cannon artillery cannot provide the entire range of tasks, but missiles can. The tale about the "Coalition-SV" was told and shown, but in life MSTA-S turned out to be more useful and practical.
    * * *
    I'm just ashamed that in the third millennium we still have "one pair of boots", and NATO guns can shoot further.
    stop But ... Given that we have not yet started and spice it all up with the promises of Mr. Medvedev, then you can live in peace ... True, not everywhere ... request
    1. +5
      5 August 2023 16: 01
      Quote: ROSS 42
      The tale about the "Coalition-SV" was told and shown, but in life MSTA-S turned out to be more useful and practical.

      What's wrong with the coalition, besides the price? If the Ministry of Defense does not buy almost anything because it is expensive and somehow agrees to upgrade howitzers from storage, this does not mean that the gun is bad. And journalists tell us about analogues after talking with developers who hope that they will be noticed at least this way
    2. +5
      5 August 2023 22: 40
      Quote: ROSS 42
      The tale about the "Coalition-SV" was told and shown, but in life MSTA-S turned out to be more useful and practical.
      * * *
      I'm just ashamed that in the third millennium we still have "one pair of boots", and NATO guns can shoot further.

      Msta-S in caliber 155mm with NATO ammunition has a firing range of 40km.
      Those. 40 km is feasible for our howitzers, only you have to pay for it by a multiple decrease in the barrel resource.
      Or, to put it simply, you can shoot far, but not for long. And after that, sit and wait for a tool from the overhaul.
      What really manifested itself in NATO guns in the battles of the NWO.
      1. +3
        5 August 2023 23: 39
        What prevents you from making a quick-change barrel tube, like on a tank gun?
      2. 0
        6 August 2023 09: 53
        Practice has shown that Ukrainians with these low-resource barrels are quite competitive at war with our artillery. The real question is, which is better? To make a lunar landscape, landing hundreds of shells past the target, or, according to intelligence, using modern means, two or three shots to hit where you need to?
    3. +2
      6 August 2023 09: 47
      The most important thing is not to forget to call the former Komsomol scammers gentlemen more often.
    4. 0
      6 August 2023 14: 23
      Quote: ROSS 42
      you can live in peace ... True, not everywhere ...

      And not for long .... Unfortunately.
  5. 0
    5 August 2023 05: 59
    Interesting monsters.
    Five minutes per shot is probably too much even for those times?
    1. +1
      5 August 2023 11: 09
      Quote from Fangaro
      Interesting monsters.
      Five minutes per shot is probably too much even for those times?

      No, not much. What difference does it make if there's only one? laughing
      I won’t say for Oka, I’m too lazy to dig into the net, but I’ll try about the Capacitor from memory, I read it before.
      When it came to testing, this weapon fired ONE shot at half charge. As a result, the complete destruction of the installation chassis. The hull simply burst at the seams and was not subject to repair. As a result, the topic was quickly closed.
      So this weapon is more informational, like the "Coalition" laughing . At parades with the presence of foreign observers, they looked intimidating). Something like this hi
      1. +4
        5 August 2023 12: 35
        The gun itself, as they say, showed good results, but that the chassis was damaged - so the folding supports are not noticeable on it. Was it really planned to be able to fire on the move? (haha). I think that if they hadn’t decided to abandon the idea itself almost immediately, then installing these supports would solve the problem, albeit slightly increasing the preparation time for the shot, especially if you take into account horizontal aiming by turning the hull. The capacitor ruined the development of rocket weapons.
      2. +2
        5 August 2023 18: 24
        I heard that only the shock absorbers broke.
      3. +2
        5 August 2023 20: 27
        When it came to testing, this weapon fired ONE shot at half charge.
        I wonder if anyone has seen a newsreel with a test shot of the Capacitor and Oka. I think it would be a most curious sight.
        As for the design, it is strange that they did not do it like on the "Peony" - the barrel breech rests on a plate, which lowers behind the chassis base. At the same time, the plate would balance the huge reach of the barrel (in the photo and newsreel you can see how the barrel outweighs). In addition, the damping of recoil would not be the case, but into the ground. Well, or they would make a second bottom - a lowered plate. Or adjustable clearance, with lowering to the bottom before firing.
        1. +3
          5 August 2023 23: 42
          Pion has normal recoil devices, the barrel does not rest on the coulter.
          In addition to the coulter, sloths also descend to the ground.
          1. +1
            11 August 2023 12: 28
            So I'm talking about the same. Why didn’t they do this on these guns ...
    2. 0
      5 August 2023 22: 43
      Quote from Fangaro
      Five minutes per shot is probably too much even for those times?

      Not at all. Quite normal.
      It was generally supposed to change position there after one shot (They were created for nuclear weapons. Well, at that time our physicists could not push a nuclear charge into 152mm)
  6. 0
    5 August 2023 06: 16
    "Made by human" system 406 mm. had a projectile weighing over a ton. Here only 570 kg. Half as much. They probably added a lightweight barrel. hi
    1. +5
      5 August 2023 06: 58
      Quote: fa2998
      Made humanly "the 406 mm system had a projectile weighing more than a ton. Here it is only 570 kg. Half as much. They probably added a lightweight barrel.

      In a "humanly made" system with a 1 ton projectile and a range of 30 km, only one gun barrel will weigh more than 100 tons.
      1. +9
        5 August 2023 08: 10
        Then just nuclear charges were large. We just needed a large thickness of the projectile (caliber). And given the progress in this matter, when the nuclear charge began to be placed in 203, and then in 152 mm, there was no point in such calibers.
        Although, in the current war, such a gun (howitzer?) at a new technical level with a guided projectile would fit perfectly. She used to be overweight. That's how much the tank weighs now. And the projectile is cheaper than Iskander. But nothing will save from such a projectile. A sort of Big Bertha at the minimum.
        1. 0
          5 August 2023 09: 52
          While she will slowly drag herself to the front, she will no longer be. The world of war has changed. As in the second world cavalry of Budyonny and Voroshilov is no longer a channel in 95% of cases.
          1. +5
            5 August 2023 10: 44
            You are a direct master of criticizing what did not go into series 60 years ago ....
            Any prototype should be a step towards increasing combat power ....
            Praise to those people who did this, Mr. "wise guy of the 21st century."
          2. +4
            5 August 2023 21: 31
            Just the cavalry was actively used in the Second World War. And, despite the reduction in the pre-war years, during the war, both we and the Germans increased their numbers. The cavalry had the greatest mobility and range in isolation from the main army.
            I read, when the Germans were surrounded near Stalingrad, while the cavalry distracted the Germans and suffered heavy losses, the rest of the divisions were able to enter positions and dig in.
          3. +6
            6 August 2023 10: 47
            Quote: Oleg Ogorod
            . As in the second world cavalry of Budyonny and Voroshilov is no longer a channel in 95% of cases.

            The Soviet cavalry corps, once in the German encirclement, remained combat-ready for several months, and even after breaking through the ring, they left this encirclement. During the counter-offensive in the Battle of Kursk, Kryukov's cavalry corps advanced in the offensive much further than the tank army. Sandalov noted in his memoirs that during the offensive in the Rzhev region, the cavalry corps was able to capture territory in an area 2 times larger than the tank corps. Moreover, the corps commander considered it possible for himself to break through the German defenses at that time and enter the German rear, but believed that the front was not capable of preventing a German counterattack on the encirclement of the corps. Sandalov, remembering the heavy battles of Efremov's army and Belov's cavalry corps, encircled near Vyazma in early 1942, did not plan such a suicidal strike. In the battles near Laitiau, the PRC cavalry wedged into the defense of the VNA for 50 km, and the Chinese mechanized troops near Langshon only for 20-30 km.
        2. -3
          5 August 2023 22: 48
          Quote: mmaxx
          And the projectile is cheaper than Iskander. But nothing will save from such a projectile.

          If you build this Big Berta with Iskander's firing range, then the cost of one shot will exceed the cost of Iskander by 10 times or more.
          1. +2
            6 August 2023 05: 50
            The Iskander range is not needed. Now something is clearly needed less than 100 km. 70 with an active projectile is enough. The problem is fortifications, warehouses and buildings. Etc. durable and disguised. Spending Iskanders on this is not very smart. Then they will actually end.
            1. 0
              6 August 2023 13: 39
              If you don’t need the range of Iskander from a cannon, then you need to compare the price not with Iskander, but with missiles of comparable range and warhead weight.
              At a range of 70-120 km, there are MLRS with UR in caliber 300mm.
              In terms of combat power, guided projectiles are much superior to 152-203mm. Comparable in terms of production cost. (I'm not talking about the price. The price we have is highly dependent on the corruption component)
              Why the Iskanders shoot instead of them is a mystery to me. Perhaps they did not master mass production.
              1. +1
                6 August 2023 15: 52
                Look at Iskander's homing in the final section. Traps. And dive speed. Compare with MLRS.
            2. 0
              27 November 2023 18: 15
              mmaxx
              Iskander's range is not needed

              Ukrainians and NATO would be happy if the Iskanders were cancelled. And our soldiers at the front would not be happy at all
        3. 0
          27 November 2023 18: 17
          max
          A good air defense system will completely save you from your mega-projectile
  7. -6
    5 August 2023 06: 31
    In principle, guns over large calibers can be revived at the modern level. They can be useful as stationary coastal batteries. Automatic charging and firing with computers and electronics. Where can you install them? And where before they stood under the tsar and in Soviet times. Crimea, Far East, Kaliningrad region, Kronstadt, forts around Kronstadt, around naval bases. Especially if the price of a shot is several times less than the price of missiles for a distance, for example, up to 100 km. soldier
    1. +10
      5 August 2023 06: 50
      Sounds like an easy target for a cruise missile or guided bomb
      1. -11
        5 August 2023 07: 04
        You are definitely an amateur, read about the work of the air defense of the Russian army in the NVO, and then the batteries will be properly armored. soldier
    2. +16
      5 August 2023 06: 53
      I can offer an almost finished project
      1. +4
        5 August 2023 08: 16
        Ya-ya! Naturlikh!
        We are always FOR!
      2. 0
        6 August 2023 13: 47
        For some reason, this project did not go well at that time.
        Tactical and technical characteristics of the gun "Dora". Caliber - 807 mm. Barrel length - 32 meters. The weight of a concrete-piercing projectile is 7100 kilograms, a high-explosive one is 4800. The minimum firing range is 25 kilometers, the maximum, depending on the type of projectile, is 38–48 kilometers. Rate of fire - 1 shot in 20 minutes. The total length of the gun is 50 meters. Height with a lowered trunk - 11 meters, with a maximum elevation of the trunk - 35. Total weight - 1448 tons. The commander of the gun is a major general.
        Calculation - 4139 soldiers, officers and civilians.
        For the engineering preparation of the position, 1000 sappers and 1500 workers were allocated. After the preparatory work was completed, the main parts of the gun were submitted to the position, and its assembly began, which lasted a week. When assembling, two cranes with diesel engines with a capacity of 1000 horsepower were used.
        During the siege of Sevastopol, less than 50 shells were fired.
    3. +1
      5 August 2023 09: 58
      Do you think making such a gun is a cheap pleasure? The Bereg art complexes have already been practically abandoned. There are mobile bastions, balls with accurate missiles. The distance is an order of magnitude higher. And to make a launch complex is not at all difficult. Everything has been done for a long time. But to make a new gun ... there are no designers and technologists. It is enough to understand this from the history of the SV coalition.
      1. +3
        5 August 2023 11: 58
        Quote: Oleg Ogorod
        The Bereg art complexes have already been practically abandoned. There are mobile bastions, balls with accurate missiles.
        They have different tasks: The coast must crush the landing.
    4. -4
      5 August 2023 10: 21
      Quote: V.
      Especially if the price of a shot is several times less than the price of missiles for a distance, for example, up to 100 km.


      Rather, simple and cheap light-gas space guns are now relevant.
      We really need the same cheap and simple space small target designator or communication satellites, since there are few satellites and you need to be able to launch several of them a day in any situation. It may even be cheaper to use projectiles thrown into the stratosphere for a short time. This is a good alternative to rocket technology in expanding the satellite constellation.
    5. 0
      27 November 2023 18: 12
      Soldatov V.

      Your coastal gun will survive to the first, maximum to the third cruise missile
  8. +3
    5 August 2023 06: 48
    The author contradicts himself.
    Title:
    Reasons for the failure: Soviet designs for extra-large caliber guns

    Conclusion
    As shown by subsequent events, the consequences of which are observed even now, the army made the right choice.

    So failure or "the right choice"?
    1. +3
      5 August 2023 10: 48
      The author of the hot-tsa poop this way and that ...... He probably has the "right choice" - this is the signing of the "Joint Memorandum on Ballistics" in the 90s. This choice limited Russian artillery to a range of 28 km.
  9. -2
    5 August 2023 07: 36
    I think that Oka and Capacitor did not go into the series because of their unsuccessful design. Many parts and assemblies of these self-propelled units simply broke from too much recoil when fired. Their designers stupidly did not guess to install a powerful muzzle brake on their barrels, which could compensate for up to 90% of the recoil force. And the D-80 had a too small angle of inclination of the barrel, and the plate could not compensate for the recoil.
    1. +3
      5 August 2023 08: 14
      They didn't bring them up. Perhaps they would have brought it to mind.
    2. 0
      5 August 2023 11: 32
      Quote: geniy
      Many parts and assemblies of these self-propelled units simply broke from too much recoil when fired.

      They didn't just break. See my post above hi
    3. +3
      5 August 2023 15: 21
      The fact is that on the trunks of large caliber, the Muzzle Brake is rarely installed at all. It simply does not exist on battleships or on coastal defense guns. Even on tanks, it is practically not used.
      1. +2
        5 August 2023 20: 44
        The fact is that on the trunks of large caliber, the Muzzle Brake is rarely installed at all. It simply does not exist on battleships or on coastal defense guns.
        Can you imagine what will happen to the sides and especially the equipment on the deck when fired. The more intense shooting. There, even without it, the blow is such that it is deadly on the deck.
        Even on tanks, it is practically not used.
        And on tanks, muzzle brakes were used. But they refused. Because in the tank, and so on the combat nothing is visible. And if you deliberately raise clouds of dust around when you fire, you will generally remain blind. To the delight of the anti-tank crews of the enemy. And so, when fired, the "exhaust" flies away from the tank.
    4. -2
      5 August 2023 20: 38
      There were no means for horizontal guidance - this task was solved by turning the entire machine. On board the self-propelled guns there were several sights for direct fire and from closed positions.
      I imagine a direct fire shot of such a "fool". Conditionally, from the position of the trunk "on the march". The projectile in one direction, the chassis in the other. In full accordance with Newton's laws. Without compensators and recoil dampers.
      belay
      1. 0
        27 November 2023 18: 08
        abrakadabre
        I can imagine a direct fire shot from such a “fool”

        And so it was. The guns didn’t fire at 90 degrees upwards! At the very first shots they rolled back several meters, the rollers came off, the torsion bars broke, the tracks tore
    5. Alf
      +1
      5 August 2023 20: 44
      Quote: geniy
      Their designers stupidly did not guess to install a powerful muzzle brake on their trunks,

      Damn, that's what I love about local connoisseurs, that they all know how to do it. Do you really think that the then designers were dumber than you?
  10. +3
    5 August 2023 09: 05
    In the mid-fifties, the Soviet army came to the conclusion that it was necessary to create new high-power guns with an extra-large caliber.
    In the mid 50s? Oh well ! And how do you like "anto"?

    As for the "super-large" guns of the "50s", then the guns, as such, can only be called "Condenser" and "Oka" ...! Later, in the USSR, they worked with installations that would be more correctly called "guns-launchers" or "launcher with a "deaf" pipe"! They should shoot only with active rockets! (Such as the German 380-mm "JagdTigr" ...) In addition to the "large-caliber" gun-launchers (RAK, D-80 ...), they also worked with less "caliber" "guns". ! Even with "multi-barrel"! (There are references to 280-mm "mounting guns" up to 4 barrels!)
    If we talk about the 240-mm mortars "Tulip", then sometimes you "regret" the 300-mm mortar ... For example, in Finland, a towed 300-mm mortar was developed in the forties, which was not only smooth-bore, but also muzzle-loading! In the "notorious 50s" in the USSR, a towed 305-mm mortar was developed ... smooth-bore, but breech-loading! Alas! Towed artillery systems turned out to be "not comme il faut"! But if you think about self-propelled ... with MZ (loading mechanisms), then ...........
    1. 0
      27 November 2023 18: 05
      Nikolaevich I
      Now imagine this “super mortar” in the Ukrainian mud...
  11. +1
    5 August 2023 09: 18
    The complexes themselves were good and successful, just by the time they appeared, missile weapons gave greater range and power, and they learned how to create tactical nuclear weapons in a smaller caliber ...
    In general, before that, artillery of this caliber was created either for the fleet or for huge railway guns, and Soviet engineers made a huge leap forward, creating such equipment.
    1. -1
      5 August 2023 11: 34
      Quote: Georgy Sviridov
      The complexes themselves were good and successful.

      Well, yes, yes ... laughing
      And the rest is true, plus rocket technology has "entered".
      1. 0
        5 August 2023 15: 26
        Yes, that's right, against the background of large-caliber artillery from the times of WWII FDA, these are very perfect. Just taking into account the general technical progress, they are no longer needed.
  12. +4
    5 August 2023 10: 31
    The main problem with art is range. You can’t decide on its increase in the long barrel, you need to develop gunpowder! It is the composition of the powders that allows some foreign samples to throw shells under 70 km, and the Chinese "plz 90" already throws under 90 km. Plus active-reactive shells. We have a new barrel and new shells specifically for it (ak-reak), I think the propellant charge is new, and immediately the range stepped under 50. We need new powder mixtures!!!
    1. -2
      5 August 2023 12: 58
      The coalition uses conventional 152mm shells, of which there are many different ones. But unlike other howitzers, it does not have a shell charge, but a type-setting shellless, sort of pills. That allows you to automatically dial the necessary power of the shot when loading. This is a step forward in modern art, which many countries have long made.
      Another thing is that the idea is one thing, and the embodiment of the idea in life is another. It was smooth on paper. But in fact, we cannot make a long barrel with high quality, and there is no really working chassis, either on wheels or on tracks. The KAMAZ chassis is barely visible, like the T-72/90 chassis, and the Armata chassis has its own problems. Riding in a parade on Red Square and effectively participating in hostilities are completely different.
      So the time of large art calibers is a thing of the past, as a not very successful experience.
      1. +1
        5 August 2023 17: 59
        Quote: Oleg Ogorod
        But unlike other howitzers, it does not have a shell charge, but a type-setting shellless, sort of pills.

        This "type-setting shellless, with such tablets" has an "official" name ...: MM-charges (MMZ) ...
      2. Alf
        +1
        5 August 2023 20: 52
        Quote: Oleg Ogorod
        type-setting unsheathed,

        Actually, this method of loading is called "cartridge" ...
        Quote: Oleg Ogorod
        That allows you to automatically dial the necessary power of the shot when loading

        Can't this be achieved with sleeve loading?
        1. +1
          5 August 2023 21: 06
          Quote: Alf
          Quote: Oleg Ogorod
          That allows you to automatically dial the necessary power of the shot when loading

          Can't this be achieved with sleeve loading?

          Probably you can. As well as making an eyeliner to an apartment from a platform with a copper eight, it is also possible.

          Not quite, however, it is clear why it is necessary to be so perverted.
      3. 0
        5 August 2023 22: 56
        Quote: Oleg Ogorod
        So the time of large art calibers is a thing of the past, as a not very successful experience.

        The Americans had self-propelled guns M107 and M108 in calibers 175mm and 203mm
        But they were removed from service.
      4. 0
        27 November 2023 18: 02
        Oleg Ogorod
        What kind of problems does the Armata chassis have? Regular chassis! There are other problems there. Firstly, the engine is not finished. Secondly, the equipment is damp and poorly protected from fire. Thirdly, the tank is too expensive. And finally, the concept of its combat use is not very clear. Well, definitely not a head-to-head fight.
    2. Alf
      +2
      5 August 2023 20: 48
      Quote: Vadim S
      It is the composition of the powders that allows some foreign models to throw shells under 70 km,

      For example, the famous Panzerhaubitz 2000 fires a projectile as far as 70 km. True, such a projectile has a dispersion of 1 KM ... but this is such a "trifle" ...
      Quote: Vadim S
      We need new powder mixtures!!!

      At such ranges, not so much new gunpowder is needed as a guided projectile.
      1. +1
        5 August 2023 22: 58
        Quote: Alf
        Quote: Vadim S
        We need new powder mixtures!!!

        At such ranges, not so much new gunpowder is needed as a guided projectile.

        Which immediately makes such a projectile more expensive than a guided missile of comparable range and warhead.
        1. Alf
          0
          5 August 2023 23: 00
          Quote: Captain Pushkin
          Quote: Alf
          Quote: Vadim S
          We need new powder mixtures!!!

          At such ranges, not so much new gunpowder is needed as a guided projectile.

          Which immediately makes such a projectile more expensive than a guided missile of comparable range and warhead.

          What and speech.
        2. 0
          27 November 2023 17: 56
          Captain Pushkin
          What immediately makes such a projectile more expensive than a guided missile of comparable range and warhead

          Well, the shell won’t be much more expensive. For a small fish, it is more difficult to make guidance equipment for it (it must withstand overloads when flying out of the barrel). In essence, an active-missile projectile is a rocket fired from a barrel. There, most likely, the weapon will be wildly more complicated and more expensive than a missile launcher
  13. 0
    5 August 2023 10: 50
    The question is - why was it necessary to sculpt such calibers in the fifties, if alternative methods of delivering ammunition to the target had already appeared?
    1. +1
      5 August 2023 14: 24
      Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
      The question is - why was it necessary to sculpt such calibers in the fifties, if alternative methods of delivering ammunition to the target had already appeared?

      Why do we need conventional artillery if there is nuclear weapons? Khrushchev argued in this way.
      1. +1
        5 August 2023 23: 21
        Why do we need conventional artillery if there is nuclear weapons? Khrushchev argued in this way.


        Doesn’t such a simple idea that rockets made super-large-caliber artillery pointless come to your mind?
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. 0
        27 November 2023 17: 50
        ivan2022
        The author lied - these guns were made only for nuclear shells. They were just big back then. They were not supposed to fire “ordinary” shells
    2. 0
      27 November 2023 17: 53
      vovochkarzhevsky
      So that not only the missilemen and aviation can throw vigorous loaves of bread, but also ordinary troops, without waiting for the missilemen and aviation to serve them
  14. +3
    5 August 2023 11: 56
    In the mid-fifties, the Soviet army came to the conclusion that it was necessary to create new high-power guns with an extra-large caliber.
    In the mid-fifties, the Soviet army came to the conclusion that it was necessary to create means for delivering nuclear weapons to the battlefield. They learned how to rivet rockets - they scored on extra-large calibers. And then they finalized the charge so that it could fit into a 6 "shell.
  15. 0
    5 August 2023 12: 54
    At the moment, the most effective non-nuclear means in terms of price / damage ratio are planning bombs. In conditions of total air supremacy, I think this is the best option for demilitarizing the enemy. Range up to 60 km (from the moment of reset) decently exceeds cannon artillery (Peony, Malka, Tulip). Eliminates the danger of storing ammo in the front line. The cost of consumables is much cheaper than advanced MLRS (Hurricane-Smerch). Of the minuses - the rental of bombers with a serving airfield infrastructure and the danger of sabotage groups with MANPADS.
    But for their launch (in the conditions of a specific conflict), even turboprop aircraft can be used, because the speed of the carrier is not very important.
    So ground-based "wunderwaffles" of huge caliber really do not fit into the modern confrontation of artillery systems, although piece samples can help solve non-standard combat missions.
    1. Alf
      +3
      5 August 2023 20: 54
      Quote: FreeDIM
      bomber rental

      Powerfully said ... And from whom is the Russian army renting bombers now?
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. 0
        6 August 2023 17: 56
        The state of the USSR and they will soon run out, like Ruslans and Sharks and Orlans.
    2. 0
      27 November 2023 17: 48
      Freedim
      You have very interesting knowledge about artillery and aviation. Khrushchev also once “buried” artillery, and not only he, and not only in the USSR
  16. +3
    5 August 2023 17: 29
    An interesting article on an unknown topic. Thanks to the author hi
    1. -1
      6 August 2023 21: 54
      On a topic unknown to YOU. There is a lot of information on this topic on the net. There is a good documentary.
  17. +2
    5 August 2023 19: 24
    Good evening everyone! I specially left the article to read under a cup of evening tea with lemon before a walk.
    И
    For a long time, one of the main ways to improve the tactical and technical characteristics of an artillery gun was to increase its caliber to use larger and heavier projectiles.

    The author is deeply mistaken.
    The artillery of three oases changed qualitatively due to changes in the composition of the propellant (gunpowder), the shape and materials of the shells, as well as the inner part of the barrels. In all cases, there was a decrease in caliber.
    1. 0
      27 November 2023 17: 44
      Kote Pan Kokhanka
      For some reason I didn’t manage to upvote you, so I’ll write a comment. You are absolutely right about the decrease in calibers of guns as their effectiveness increases. These weapons were originally made only for nuclear charges, and then they were large. By this time, it was already very well known about the problems associated with super-large-caliber guns, especially tracked ones. But I wanted to fire a nuclear charge from a cannon, especially since the Americans not only tested their “Atomic Annie”, but also brought a bunch of them to Germany. Nuclear artillery became possible later, when it was possible to push nuclear charges first into 203, and then into 152 mm
  18. +1
    5 August 2023 21: 35
    Strange. The gun is shorter in calibers than the mortar.
    Yes, and the "short" barrel of 31,4 caliber seems to be howitzer.
  19. +1
    5 August 2023 22: 16
    Quote: Oleg Ogorod
    in the second world cavalry of Budyonny and Voroshilov is no longer a channel in 95% of cases.

    Also like a channel. Mobile infantry canal now.
    1. +2
      6 August 2023 05: 53
      I also remember Strelkov's interview about the Chechen wars. So he said that there is nothing better than a donkey or a horse in the mountains. Mobility increases dramatically. And with cars there somehow it doesn’t work out so well. Everything has its niche.
  20. 0
    6 August 2023 14: 41
    150 and 200 mm shells are needed, they were used just in the war. Then for some reason they refused.
    After the war, I think they went the wrong way. We decided to unify everything, but there was one tank that succeeded from many others
    Indeed, before the war of 1941, there were many different tanks, and they came out on the T-34 precisely by embodying their ideas in metal, and after the war, consider the same tank
    The same applies to shells, someone decided that more than 122 tanks are not needed
    Self-propelled guns, which essentially performed the functions of field artillery, were also not needed
  21. +1
    6 August 2023 14: 52
    The maximum calibers in our ground artillery remained 152 and 203 mm

    I'm embarrassed to ask, how can there be two maximum numbers from one row at once? This is something new in mathematics.
  22. 0
    6 August 2023 20: 15
    Failure is when you idiotically gouged your own country in peacetime. And then "return the land." And what is described by the author is the search for new technical solutions.
  23. -1
    6 August 2023 20: 47
    I think the main reason for stopping the further improvement of these systems is the voluntaristic decisions of Khrushchev, who had high hopes for missile weapons, which he was going to produce at the speed of producing sausages. Artillery then suffered a huge decline in its development. Yes, such that then it was necessary to catch up .. .How many projects did this warty then ,, hack to death ,,
  24. 0
    7 August 2023 00: 09
    This is such a frankly failed project of the USSR military-industrial complex that I would not be at all surprised if they suddenly decide to resurrect it again.
    And why not?
    Now, it seems, the fashion has gone to get out of the trash long-discarded Soviet projects such as "Poseidon" or "Petrel".
    1. 0
      7 August 2023 13: 47
      Maybe because they fail only in your brain and your liberal homies?
  25. 0
    7 August 2023 09: 31
    But aren’t such systems (maybe not 400mm, but larger than 203mm for sure) not relevant now? Missiles turn out to be expensive, aviation is expensive and the enemy’s air defense is also expensive. And artillery, since the PMV repeat, is just relevant.
    1. -1
      8 August 2023 13: 42
      On the topic of extra-large caliber guns, a bombard (essentially a single barrel) made in the early 15th century is stored in the Vienna Military History Museum in Austria
      Weight, ≈ 8 t
      Length, 2590mm
      Barrel length, mm 1440
      Projectile 690-kg stone balls
      Projectile diameter, 800 mm
      Sighting range, ~ 600 m.
      Barrel diameter 760-880 mm
      Before entering the museum, the gun fought for three centuries, the barrel was assembled from iron boards (forged strips) in two layers, reinforced with rings from the outside, the exhibit is still in good condition. Today, nothing prevents laser-cut parts from steel sheets and assembling similar barrels from them to storm strongholds in high-rise buildings, and it doesn’t matter that they take a long time to reload, with such calibers one hit is enough.
      1. 0
        27 November 2023 17: 28
        agond
        There were mortars and bombards of enormous caliber both before and after your example. And they were in the Russian army too. And why do you think that not a single army in the world, since the end of World War II, has guns with a caliber larger than 203 mm? And there aren’t that many of them? The same question: why were no more than 50 German Sturmtigers (and this is your concept, only with armor protection) made? Why were only 650 "Karl" mortars with a 4 mm caliber made? And how successful was their application?
    2. 0
      27 November 2023 17: 35

      Sergey Zhikharev
      Aren’t such systems relevant now?

      During WWI, aviation was weak and there were no missiles. Artillery in WWII worked, in fact, like MLRS now. Now evaluate the accuracy of the artillery. And it has long been proven that several shells or bombs of a smaller caliber will cause more damage than a huge shell or bomb of comparable mass. And also, with the presence of drones and satellite reconnaissance, God grant that your monstrous weapon manages to fire at least one shot before its crew and then the weapon itself are destroyed. And guided missiles will be much more effective than your giant “suitcases”
      1. +1
        April 15 2024 23: 19
        The French thought exactly the same way in the First World War. Thinking that a 75 mm rapid fire cannon would be enough for them. As a result, the Germans are already near Verdun, not far from Paris.
        Have you forgotten that the French army was forced to saw all decommissioned naval guns into howitzers? In fact, the entire brunt of the fighting fell on the heavy railway batteries. Before they started producing 370 mm Batignolle howitzers, 194 mm self-propelled guns, 168 mm guns, 280 mm mortars. And of course the best French howitzer Saint Chamon 400 mm. Only the 520 mm Schneider howitzer is steeper than it, but the barrel burst at the first shot. There were also 220 mm Schneider S17 guns, which were the best heavy French field guns. But by 1939, railway installations had become rare specimens. The Germans produced 280 mm K5, as well as 240 mm guns, and there were also 210 mm ones. But they were one-off specimens. The Germans in the First and Second World Wars correctly understood the trend in the development of artillery. Both Liege and Namur, and Osovets clearly showed that it was impossible to ignore heavy howitzers and mortars larger than 280 mm. If in the Finnish War they had managed to produce at least 6 450 mm howitzers, this defense would have been breached in two weeks. But they did not have time to produce them.
  26. 0
    27 November 2023 17: 11
    Am I the only one who thinks that this article, with all the pictures, was copied from somewhere? I have the impression that a year or two ago I read something like this elsewhere. The author, as always, omitted important details. Firstly, these self-propelled guns were originally created specifically for firing nuclear shells, after successful tests of the American Atomic Annie. We simply didn’t have small charges then, so we made monstrous guns. Secondly, an even larger S-53 gun of 460 mm caliber was built on the same topic, which exploded at the first shot
    1. 0
      27 November 2023 17: 22
      This was an attempt to give the troops their own nuclear artillery - then everyone was keen on nuclear weapons, and planned to use them on the battlefield. It was no secret to anyone in those years that such large guns would entail a lot of problems. Therefore, it was not intended to fire non-nuclear shells from them. Full-fledged nuclear artillery became possible later, after the creation of charges that could fit into the 203 mm caliber. And later they managed to squeeze a nuclear charge into a 152-mm one. Actually, the “Peony” gun was also originally designed to fire nuclear shells. And 152-mm caliber “nukes” were included in the ammunition of the corresponding guns.