Did the “magpie” really destroy German tanks without problems at the beginning of the Great Patriotic War?

56
Did the “magpie” really destroy German tanks without problems at the beginning of the Great Patriotic War?

There is an opinion that the Soviet 53-K cannon, which is better known as the “forty-five,” was almost the most formidable weapons, which destroyed the Germans without any problems Tanks at the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, in 1941. However, if you look at it, this is not entirely true.
It is enough to consider the penetrating ability of a cannon shell and the armor of the most popular Wehrmacht tanks.

So, the 53-BR-240 projectile penetrated 500 and 90 mm of armor at a distance of 60 meters and at an angle of 43 and 40 degrees, respectively. There was also a sub-caliber 53UBR243P. But its production began in April 1942.



In turn, at the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, the most popular Wehrmacht tank was the Panzerkampfwagen III. Initially, the German medium tank had extremely weak armor, which was penetrated even by a French 20-mm cannon. However, just after the campaign in France, Nazi Germany began to strengthen the protection of its tanks, and already in December 1940, the “troikas” returned to the factories and were equipped with additional 30-mm armor plate on the front of the hull and turret box.

Together with the existing armor, the result was 60 mm. The forehead of the turret remained 30 mm.

The majority of Panzerkampfwagen III underwent the above-mentioned modernization. In March 1941, production of the “troika” version with a 50-mm cannon and the same turret armor, as well as the front of the hull, began in Germany.

However, even if we do not take into account the latest modernization, it turns out that the main tank of the Wehrmacht, which was widely used in 1941, did not penetrate the hull at all from a distance of 500 meters, and did not penetrate the turret from 700 meters.

Now about the Panzerkampfwagen IV, of which in 1941 the Germans did not have as many as “triples”. However, already at the end of 1942 and until the end of the war, it will be the main medium tank of the Wehrmacht.

The most advanced version of the PzKpfw IV was the F, which had 50 mm of armor in the frontal part of the hull, turret box and turret. Its release began just before the attack of the fascist invaders on the USSR.

Meanwhile, there were earlier “fours”. Some of them had 30 mm armor. However, it is worth noting here that after the battles in France, the protection of the PzKpfw IV was improved in the same way as in the Panzerkampfwagen III. Thus, the Germans attacked our country with tanks equipped with additional protection.

In particular, the most popular “four” version D had 30 mm armor protection in the forehead. The gun's armor was 35 mm. However, after installing additional protection, the armor in the frontal projection of the tank was already about 60 mm.

It is worth noting here that shielded tanks still suffered from 53-K. However, this was due to the fact that after several hits the additional protective screen was simply torn off, and the Wehrmacht combat vehicle became vulnerable.

However, it also cannot be said that the “magpie” was useless against medium tanks of the Wehrmacht. The frontal projection of these machines was discussed above, however, both the “troika” and the “four” had weaknesses in other parts. Thus, although not without problems, the Soviet gun still coped with German tanks in 1941.

56 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +6
    16 January 2024 10: 53
    Well-prepared, experienced commanders knew how to exploit the enemy’s weaknesses as needed.
    Flank ambush tactics, other tactics...
    In general, it was different, both for us and for the enemy.
    1. +9
      16 January 2024 11: 05
      Why did the author focus specifically on the distance of 500 meters? The casket opens simply, and the penetration rate of the “forty-five” rapidly increases from 500 meters and closer. And so it turned out to be another sensational film. And the author should note that in an anti-tank ambush, from 500 meters onwards, only the luring gun fired.
      1. -2
        16 January 2024 22: 10
        Because this is usually indicated in armor penetration tables. A 45 mm cannon could not be guaranteed to penetrate 50 mm German armor even at point blank range. After the descriptions of the shelling of a captured StuG III with 50 mm armor, there is no sensation in this topic.
  2. 0
    16 January 2024 10: 53
    Well-prepared, experienced commanders knew how to exploit the enemy’s weaknesses as needed.
    Flank ambush tactics, other tactics...
    In general, it was different, both for us and for the enemy.
  3. +2
    16 January 2024 10: 53
    That's why they were used from ambushes - bushes, forests. They will let the German tanks get closer so that they will definitely hit you. And this tactic worked quite successfully.
    In the modern film Panfilov's Men, just such a tactic was shown - from the forest, first along the chassis so as not to crawl - not to dodge, and then into the side and amen to Hitler's tank. What the artillerymen did not have time to finish off, the infantry burned with grenades and Molotov bottles.
  4. +2
    16 January 2024 10: 54
    Yesterday on TK Zvezda they showed a film that described the tactics of the Red Army in fighting German tanks. We used a fire bag, which was the final chord in the whole combination. And it all started with competent mining, after which the enemy fell into the firing zone and was calmly hit on the side!
    They also used four rows of barbed wire, one of which was electrified. For this purpose, energy specialists were involved. By the way, thanks to these barriers it was possible to defend one of the areas on the outskirts of Moscow; the Germans were unable to pass it.
  5. +6
    16 January 2024 11: 02
    I watched a newsreel about Podolsk cadets - they were talking about Pz II. The ones that were easy. In my opinion, they even showed photos of those who were shot down. I could easily take such 45mm ones. Otherwise, along the hens or in the stern...
  6. +1
    16 January 2024 11: 02
    I watched a newsreel about Podolsk cadets - they were talking about Pz II. The ones that were easy. In my opinion, they even showed photos of those who were shot down. I could easily take such 45mm ones. Otherwise, along the hens or in the stern...
  7. +3
    16 January 2024 11: 15
    Cloth language and the claim to discover new knowledge.
  8. 0
    16 January 2024 11: 24
    So what is the article about? Namely, the crews of 45 mm guns fought and very successfully with Wehrmacht tanks. Ambushes, use of the terrain, and tactical techniques were especially important. The main thing at the beginning of the war was to stop the tank units. Hence the tactics of immobilizing, immobilizing and, if possible, destroying.
    1. 0
      31 January 2024 22: 24
      tactics of application
      .
      Is this about mining? Or tactics of application?
  9. +3
    16 January 2024 11: 29
    About fire bags, ambushes with luring weapons, this is all true, all correct.
    Only in 1941, in many places where we could, we managed to create a competent defense.
    Until the winter of 1941, the Germans imposed a highly maneuverable war on us, and total air superiority led to disasters over and over again. I read somewhere that in the first months of the war we lost up to a third of our strength while moving.
  10. +3
    16 January 2024 11: 46
    The main problem with this gun is not 1941.
    Crews were thrown against tanks even after the Kursk Bulge. Even if it is in the form of M 42, the difference is not fundamental, the barrel is slightly longer.
    And now many experts are explaining how to use it to hit a Panther. Yeah, on board, point-blank, running...
    If in 1941 I came across statistics for 1 damaged tank - 4 destroyed 53k crews, then what happened in 1943?...
    In 1941 The very wise generals from the artillery discontinued the production of the ZiS2 and until the Kursk Bulge sat on their butts, calmly watching how the Germans strengthened the armor of their tanks.
    1. +4
      16 January 2024 12: 16
      The very wise generals from the artillery discontinued the production of the ZiS2 and sat on their butts until the Kursk Bulge

      If only it had reached Kursk... Serial production of the ZIS-2 was organized only by October-November 1943. Everything in this world repeats itself ☹️
      Doesn't this remind you of the organization of mass production of UAVs in our time? Also, at the beginning, the generals insisted that we have enough UAVs and that in general they are an unnecessary toy!!!
      1. +4
        16 January 2024 12: 36
        If only we could get to Kursk...

        My dad was drafted in January 1943. We were sent to the forty-five crew training school in Slagovishchi (this is the southeast of the Kaluga region).
        And July 20, 1943 sent to the northern front of the Kursk Bulge. With the expected sad result.
        After the hospitals, they didn’t return me to the forty-five (not everyone was sadists), they sent me to retrain for the 37 mm anti-aircraft gun. Which is also not a gift. Direct cover of troops is still a quest. During air raids, for example at crossings, fighters leave the equipment and take cover in ditches. But these unfortunate anti-aircraft guns, clearly, should shoot, because that’s what they were installed for.
        However, at least he made it to Berlin and Prague alive. On the forty-five it would hardly have been possible.
        And forty-fives in the form of M42 were produced right up to 1946. They were also used in the Korean War. Well, the design has been finalized, the technical process has been streamlined. No problem, rivet yourself...
        1. 0
          16 January 2024 12: 49
          Yes, the Red Army was in trouble with small-caliber anti-aircraft guns... The Yu-87 Laptezhniki did what they wanted... ☹️
        2. -2
          18 January 2024 02: 11
          . But these unfortunate anti-aircraft guns, clearly in full view, should shoot, because that’s what they were installed for

          But those unfortunate pilots, what did they set up for, bomb the crossing, or duel with anti-aircraft guns? And they flew straight at them? Were you mowed down with machine guns?
          1. +2
            19 January 2024 11: 02
            The normal tactics for attacking objects such as an airfield or a ferry crossing is that some of the planes are engaged in work on the object, and some are only working on air defense, in order to give the rest the opportunity to bomb and shoot back.
            And they flew straight at them? Were you mowed down with machine guns?

            And they flew straight to the air defense, mowed down them with machine guns/cannons, and threw bombs at them.
          2. +3
            19 January 2024 11: 31
            It also happened when the Germans started having problems with aviation, they sent mobile groups of infantry in armored personnel carriers to fight the batteries on the western bank of the crossings.
            This is a real case. In April 1945 When crossing the Oder, dad had to deal with such a group along the way. He was the gun commander. There is a representation in the memory of the people, an entry in the ZhBD.
      2. 0
        16 January 2024 13: 58
        Serial production of the ZIS-2 was organized only by October-November 1943.

        The problem with the ZiS-2 was that it was technologically complex for industry and in 43-44 it was produced in scanty quantities for the front - 1850 and 2500 pieces, respectively. With a huge front, it was a drop in the bucket. For comparison, the British produced their similar anti-tank six-pounder Ordnance Quick Firing 6-pounder 7cwt in 1942-1943 in the amount of 34,5 thousand guns.
        1. 0
          19 January 2024 11: 17
          The problems were not technological, but organizational. When ZiS2 was discontinued, the capacity was immediately occupied by other products. We had to wait for new production facilities and lend-lease equipment.
          In addition, ZiS2 was relevant until 1943. including when she was not there. And by 1943 Tigers and Panthers appeared, which even ZiS2 could not always cope with. During this time, the problem was solved in other ways.
          The SU-85 appeared, then the SU-100.
          The SU-152 had already arrived in small numbers by the Battle of Kursk.
          The BS-3, a 100 mm anti-tank gun, appeared.
          And before that, the fighters were regaled with stories about how to fight the Tigers with a forty-five.
          1. 0
            19 January 2024 21: 39
            The problems were not technological, but organizational.

            You can say that. The complexity of production did not make it possible to organize mass production.
            As for the SU and BS-3, each weapon has its own niche. Only 3 BS-3800s were produced, a small figure for the entire front; SUs were produced in approximately the same volumes, and they had their own tasks. You can't saturate an army with expensive weapons alone. It is also necessary on a massive scale, especially since the Germans had not only the Royal Tigers.
            The British, for example, produced tens of thousands of six-pounders, then seventeen-pounders were added to them against the new German tanks.
      3. 0
        15 February 2024 00: 41
        The giraffe is big, he knows better! laughing
    2. 0
      16 January 2024 16: 05
      They wrote that with the ZiS-2 in 41 there was a big problem in its production. A lot of trunks went to waste. In addition, there was an urgent need for regimental ZiS-3s, of which several could be produced instead of one ZiS-2. So they sacrificed a universal anti-tank gun (especially since there were plenty of targets for the regimental artillery, in addition to tanks).
      I recently read the memoirs of one self-propelled gun, so the Su-76 fought with the ZiS-3 even in Berlin. Its survival lay in only one thing - speed and maneuverability, but it did not survive long.
      1. 0
        19 January 2024 10: 20
        In addition, there was an urgent need for regimental ZiS-3,

        ZIS-3 is not regimental, but divisional
    3. +1
      19 January 2024 10: 48
      As far as I remember, everything looked a little more complicated.

      At the beginning of the war, the ZIS-2 often penetrated through any German tanks, that is, it had excessive characteristics. Our strategists, having the T-34 and KV, thought that the potential enemy also had something similar, but the Germans did not have this and the Germans themselves often had a 37 mm anti-tank caliber.

      At the same time, the production of the ZIS-2 was much more difficult, since the long 57 mm barrel was difficult to make, not with any equipment, and there were defects. The 57 mm shells themselves were produced in smaller quantities, while the 45 mm shells did not need to be produced for a long time.

      As far as I remember, 45 mm is a non-standard caliber, it is not classified as a “line”, a huge number of imported “naval” 47 mm shells “with a rim” remained from the First World War, which, after grinding off the rim, became 45 mm, hence the 45 mm gun .

      After the loss of significant territories and production base, it was necessary to choose more carefully what to produce.

      I’m writing from memory, I apologize for possible inaccuracies, I want to say that our strategists in 1941 had reasons to abandon the ZIS-2.
      1. 0
        19 January 2024 11: 22
        The first Tiger fell into our hands in the fall of 1942. So it was necessary to quickly restore production. Otherwise, it was restored when there was no longer any special need for the ZiS-2.
        SU-85, SU-152, SU-100, BS-3 (100 mm anti-tank gun) appeared.
    4. 0
      19 January 2024 19: 35
      Apparently, unlike you, the wise ones didn’t know that guns are needed not only and not even so much against tanks!
      Including those shuffled by the forces of calculation! A machine gun point, a bunker, a brick house.... Not a target, in your opinion?
  11. 0
    16 January 2024 13: 42
    Now about the Panzerkampfwagen IV, of which in 1941 the Germans did not have as many as “triples”.

    Pz Kpfw III - 1573, Pz Kpfw IV - 609
  12. 0
    16 January 2024 17: 58
    There is an opinion...
    Another opinion is better known - “Farewell, Motherland!” hi
    https://topwar.ru/15793-45-millimetrovaya-protivotankovaya-pushka-obrazca-1937-goda-53-k.html
  13. +3
    17 January 2024 07: 51
    Quote: boriz
    In 1941 The very wise generals from the artillery discontinued the production of the ZiS2 and until the Kursk Bulge sat on their butts, calmly watching how the Germans strengthened the armor of their tanks.

    Excuse me, have you tried to read anything on the topic? Instead of the ZiS-2, the troops received the ZiS-3 en masse, which had more than enough armor penetration in 41 and 42, but the manufacturing technology was much simpler. The ZiS-2 was returned to production immediately after the Tiger was captured near Leningrad, but there was nowhere to make 78-caliber barrels after the loss of the Stalingrad factories.
    It’s a very bad habit to consider your ancestors fools!
  14. +2
    17 January 2024 07: 54
    Quote from shikin
    regimental ZiS-3

    And since when did the ZiS-3 become a regiment? Wow! And I, naive, considered the ZiS-3 to be a weapon of DIVISION artillery.
  15. 0
    17 January 2024 07: 55
    Quote from solar
    similar anti-tank six-pounder Ordnance Quick Firing 6-pounder 7cwt

    A “similar” English gun was inferior to the ZiS-2 in muzzle energy by a factor of one and a half.
  16. 0
    17 January 2024 07: 58
    There is another ambush that few people remember. The quality of the shells, unfortunately, we couldn’t make good armor-piercing shells either before the war, or even more so during the war. Heat treatment technologies did not allow it.
  17. 0
    17 January 2024 14: 33
    Somehow I came across statistics on these “magpies”. On average, for every enemy tank destroyed, 1 of our guns were destroyed. But just before the war, our generals, those in charge of the artillery, abandoned the excellent ZIS-5 anti-tank gun. And then they grabbed their heads.........
    1. +1
      18 January 2024 02: 15
      How many cars, armored vehicles, machine guns did the 45 destroy? Or does it not count? Only tanks? A tank is generally a rare target. Does not appear before every calculation. Accordingly, who destroyed these 5 guns. Just tanks?
    2. Eug
      0
      20 January 2024 19: 29
      45s were destroyed not only by tanks, but mainly by German howitzer artillery.
  18. +1
    17 January 2024 19: 59
    Quote from shikin
    urgent need for regimental ZiS-3

    ZiS-3 divisional gun. The artillery battery of the rifle regiment used 76,2 mm regimental guns of the 1927 model (initial armor-piercing projectile speed 370 m/s, armor penetration 25 mm at a distance of 500 meters). Replaced with regimental guns of the 1943 model, where a 76,2 mm barrel with a length of 19,4 calibers is mounted on a forty-five carriage.
  19. +2
    17 January 2024 20: 12
    Quote from shikin
    Its survival lay in only one thing - speed and maneuverability, but it did not survive long.

    A few words in defense of the SU-76. It was a light self-propelled gun for infantry support. The problems of the SU-76 began when they tried to use it as a tank destroyer and threw it into battle against “Panthers” and “Tigers”. For this role, the Soviet army had other performers: SU-85, SU-100 and ISU-152.
    1. 0
      15 February 2024 00: 45
      However, the SU-76 was mothballed back in the 80s. To my question about the expediency of this junk, a familiar engineer - colonel of tank forces calmly answered: “Whatever it is, it’s a combat unit!”
  20. 0
    18 January 2024 12: 08
    Quote: Alex
    76,2 mm regimental guns of the 1927 model (initial speed of an armor-piercing projectile 370 m/s,

    Yes, the shots for the regiments differed in the diameter of the cartridge flange. So as not to accidentally load the battalion's shot into the regiment. The shot from the regiment to the divisions seemed to fit. Although different sources say differently. The shells are the same.
    1. 0
      19 January 2024 11: 41
      I have long been interested in the question: did the ZIS-3 shell fit the T-34 76 gun?
  21. 0
    18 January 2024 12: 09
    Quote: Alex
    It was a light self-propelled gun for infantry support.

    Yes, an ordinary division car, but it drives itself.
  22. 0
    18 January 2024 12: 09
    Quote: Alex
    It was a light self-propelled gun for infantry support.

    Yes, an ordinary division car, but it drives itself.
  23. 0
    18 January 2024 20: 09
    It turns out “...everything was without problems...”. The formulation of the question is crazy. People over there used to wield an axe, but this did not become a trend.
  24. +1
    18 January 2024 21: 29
    At the beginning of the Second World War, most of the German tanks were light with armor no thicker than 30 mm, and the “magpie” coped with them normally. And I coped with the average ones if they were on board (the same 30 mm).
    And if you count how many of these “forty-fives” we had (as anti-tank vehicles, on light tanks, on cannon armored vehicles) - it’s amazing how the Germans were not left without tanks in the very first months of the war. I am simplifying on purpose, of course - you cannot operate only with “bare numbers”.
  25. +1
    19 January 2024 11: 21
    Quote: boriz
    .....
    In 1941 The very wise generals from the artillery discontinued the production of the ZiS2 and until the Kursk Bulge sat on their butts, calmly watching how the Germans strengthened the armor of their tanks.


    The main problem of the 57mm ZiS-2 is a large manufacturing defect. Everything else is secondary. When we received the equipment through Lend-Lease, production resumed.
  26. +1
    19 January 2024 11: 35
    To the author - before writing about something, study the issue, and do not use your own conjectures. For your information, the "magpie" was the main weapon of anti-tank divisions during the Battle of Kursk. This gun reached Berlin and is considered a masterpiece along with the ZIS-3.
    And in terms of armor penetration:
    Armor-piercing projectile BR-240
    The initial velocity of the projectile is 750-770 m/s.
    Shell weight 1,43 kg.
    meeting angle 90 ° from the tangent plane to the armor (normal)
    at a distance of 100 m: 82 mm
    meeting angle 60 ° from the tangent plane to the armor
    at a distance of 500 m: 40 mm

    Armor-piercing projectile BR-240P
    The initial velocity of the projectile is 1070 m / s.
    Shell weight 0,85 kg.
    meeting angle 90 ° from the tangent plane to the armor (normal)
    at a distance of 350 m: 82 mm
    at a distance of 500 m: 62 mm
    1. +2
      19 January 2024 19: 25
      What is a "tangent plane to the armor"??? A tangent can be to a circle or an arc.
  27. 0
    19 January 2024 13: 11
    Guys, there are a lot of specialists gathering here and my question is for you, experts in military equipment.
    Great-grandfather finished WWII as captain of an artillery battery. Is it possible now to find out what guns his battery used? I want to show my son these guns, but I don’t even know.

    1 battery of the 1st division of the 931st artillery regiment of the 373rd rifle Mirgorod Red Banner horde of Suvorov Kutuzov division.

    I would sincerely appreciate any information on this issue.
  28. 0
    19 January 2024 22: 16
    Quote: Nexcom
    That's why they were used from ambushes - bushes, forests. They will let the German tanks get closer so that they will definitely hit you. And this tactic worked quite successfully.
    In the modern film Panfilov's Men, just such a tactic was shown - from the forest, first along the chassis so as not to crawl - not to dodge, and then into the side and amen to Hitler's tank. What the artillerymen did not have time to finish off, the infantry burned with grenades and Molotov bottles.

    My grandfather said that Panfilov’s men were excellently trained, and they were former white officers. He lived through the entire war from Moscow, taught at a military school, and Khrushchev’s re-tubing was also beautifully watered, just like Khrushchev’s.
  29. +1
    20 January 2024 14: 09
    She shot well; she hit a lot of 3s and 4s. But this gun also had a bonus: it was light and even without traction, it was carried “by hand” to the battlefield. The 57 mm long-barreled ZiS-2 became a nightmare for German tanks, but that’s another story...
  30. +1
    29 February 2024 14: 20
    The material is nothing. “Did the “magpie” really destroy German tanks without problems at the beginning of the Great Patriotic War? Destroyed. If used correctly, no problem. And if you were illiterate, even a larger caliber could be useless. And why did the author rely on the frontal armor of T3 and T4? To criticize 45? Did the Germans not have T1 and T2? And at the same time, armored personnel carriers, against which 45 were a match. And with nothing else to do, probably, the USSR hastily developed and launched production of 14mm (not 45!!!) anti-tank rifles.
  31. 0
    3 March 2024 22: 37
    In 41, the Wehrmacht had only about 300 triples on the eastern front, the bulk were twos and thousands of captured Czech and French light tanks, armored personnel carriers and wedges, so our 45 mm guns had something to shoot at effectively.
    The main problem of the artillery of 41 was extremely low mobility and the lack of anti-aircraft cover..
  32. 0
    3 March 2024 22: 46
    Until 43, the Nazis' main anti-tank gun was the 37 mm "beater", which the Germans gave this name for their inability to hit the new Soviet T-34 and KV...
  33. 0
    6 March 2024 14: 52
    With a caliber anti-tank shell, a 45-mm cannon of the 1937 model penetrated 100 mm of armor with - 82 m,
    With a sub-caliber projectile, which, however, began to be produced in 1942, the forty-five could penetrate up to - 82 mm already from 350 m, which by those standards was not bad. The penetration rates of the 45 mm gun of the 1942 model were slightly higher (61 mm armor-piercing from 500 m). In any case, 45 mm guns had more than enough targets until the end of the war: T-3, T-4 (and their self-propelled modifications), not to mention light tanks and armored personnel carriers. Well, the M-42 even penetrated the Tiger's armor. Before the war, it was necessary not to huddle, but to start producing sub-caliber shells for these guns (during the Second World War, in immeasurably worse conditions, tungsten was found for this). https://dzen.ru/a/Xsmr9OKFD3frKCA8