The evolution of anti-tank artillery of the Red Army

23
The evolution of anti-tank artillery of the Red Army

Almost 80 years after the Soviet Union's victory in the Great Patriotic War, there are still people who argue that the USSR was far behind in terms of anti-tank artillery. However, in reality this is not the case.

Anti-tank weapons in the Red Army were actively improved and evolved during the war. Moreover, this process continued after 1945.



It’s worth starting with the fact that until 1942, the main anti-tank weapon of the Red Army was the 53-K anti-tank gun of the 1937 model, which quite successfully coped with the armor of the German guns that existed at that time. tanks.

However, with the advent of the Tigers by the Wehrmacht in 1942, Soviet designers were faced with the task of introducing into the troops a weapon that could cope with the armor of this tank.

During the tests, which consisted of firing at a captured German tank from the weapons available to the Red Army, an acceptable result was shown by the 85-mm 52-K anti-aircraft gun, which pierced the front plate of the Tiger with an armor-piercing shell from a distance of 100 km with an armor-piercing shell. The hull-mounted 1 mm A-122 also coped with the task.

In turn, the Soviet anti-tank ZIS-2, as well as British 52-mm cannons, only penetrated the sides of a German tank from a distance of 1 km.

Based on the above-mentioned tests, in May 1943, the State Defense Committee issued a decree on the development of new tank guns to combat the Tiger.

As a result, already in August 1943, the SU-85 self-propelled guns, as well as the KV-85 tank, and in October the IS-1, equipped with an 85-mm cannon while maintaining the ballistics of an anti-aircraft gun, went into production.

Later, the 1944-mm BS-100 field gun entered the infantry from mid-3, and the SU-1944 from September 100. Both guns were used successfully by the army, although not in large numbers.

23 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    April 23 2024 21: 28
    “Until 1942, the main anti-tank weapon of the Red Army was the 53-K anti-tank gun of the 1937 model, which quite successfully coped with the armor of the German tanks that existed at that time” - why then was it replaced with the M-42? And the next step was from the M-42, and not from the 53-K.
  2. +6
    April 23 2024 21: 49
    Some kind of set of proposals.
    The topic has not been disclosed.
    1. +4
      April 23 2024 22: 23
      Graphomania, and without a signature. Such a serious topic should be presented in 9 paragraphs and a 15-minute video? Yeah...
  3. The comment was deleted.
  4. +6
    April 23 2024 22: 25
    There are still people who claim that the USSR was far behind in terms of anti-tank artillery.

    And I even know who they are! These are people who know the subject, or at least are interested in the subject.
    45 mm guns, even standard shells, penetrated the 50 mm frontal armor of German and Czech tanks with great effort, God forbid, at a distance of 500 m. The 76 mm divisions looked much better in this regard, but, firstly, they were only in the divisional level, and secondly, again shells whose quality was not very good.
    Remembering the 52K and A-19 as anti-tank should probably be regarded as an inappropriate joke; it’s strange that the author forgot about the ML-20. And that 7-ton monster pulled by a tractor is exactly what is needed for technical maintenance.
    The M-42, unfortunately, was about a year and a half late, and its production, just like the magnificent ZiS-2, was very difficult due to its long barrel.
    In fact, of the specialized anti-tank guns at the level of requirements (most likely even higher than the requirements of the time) were only the already mentioned ZiS-2 and, of course, the BS-3, which appeared at the very end of the war.
    Why the author needed to belittle the courage and skill of our anti-tank soldiers, who managed to successfully fight the very strong equipment of the Third Reich with unsuitable guns, I honestly don’t understand.
    1. +1
      April 23 2024 22: 38
      “The opinion that the ZIS-3 is the best 76-mm gun of World War II is absolutely justified. One can say without any exaggeration that this is one of the most ingenious designs in the history of cannon artillery,” Hitler’s former artillery consultant, Professor Wolf, was forced to summarize.

      https://www.5-tv.ru/tabloid/126576/pat-resenij-sovetskih-konstruktorov-kotorye-pomogli-pobedit-vvov/
      1. 0
        April 24 2024 08: 11
        And?
        The design is very, very good. but due to the requirements for anti-tank guns and the chosen shot, it turned out to be a little heavy for the NPP, rather weak for the anti-tank gun, but a howitzer is better as a division.
    2. +1
      April 23 2024 22: 49
      You can also find the film “Weapons of Victory: Artillery (2010)” on the Internet.
  5. +1
    April 23 2024 22: 27
    https://topwar.ru/75430-orudiya-pobedy.html
  6. +1
    April 23 2024 22: 36
    Later, the 1944-mm BS-100 field gun entered the infantry from mid-3, and the SU-1944 from September 100. Both guns were used successfully by the army, although not in large numbers.

    Hm! You should read, it seems like the D-10S appeared first, since it was the addition of a new barrel to the D-5 cradle. BS-3 was a completely new design.
    In addition, they went into battle only at the very end of 44. BrB shells of this caliber simply did not exist. Actually, not at all. While we are developing it, while we are starting production...
  7. -1
    April 23 2024 22: 37
    Quote: Nikolai Ivanov_5
    https://topwar.ru/75430-orudiya-pobedy.html

    The link does not open, unfortunately. But in general there is a lot of literature on this topic.
    1. 0
      April 23 2024 23: 05
      Copy and paste the link into any search engine. I tried it in the Yandex system and everything worked out for me.
  8. 0
    April 23 2024 22: 38
    Once again.
    First read, a lot, only then write.
  9. +1
    April 23 2024 23: 42
    Quote: Nikolay Ivanov_5
    “The opinion that the ZIS-3 is the best 76-mm gun of World War II is absolutely justified.

    As a universal gun, of course yes. Especially considering its low weight and simplicity of design. As an anti-tank weapon, it was, alas, inferior to the German 7,5 cm PAK-40. The quality of the metal used to make the barrel did not allow increasing the pressure in the barrel and increasing the initial velocity of the projectile.
    Unfortunately, all metal utilization ratios cannot knock out a tank. Plus, the misfortune of the Soviet industry during the war years was primitive heat treatment, which sharply reduced the quality of BrB shells.
    The OFS divisions did not seem to be more powerful than the OZS 85 mm guns. By the way, this is precisely why the surviving T-34 and KV were highly valued and fought until the end of the war.
    There is another factor that explains the significant difference in the effectiveness of the Soviet and German PTA - the presence of targets.
    The German tank, especially in the second half of the war, was a very dangerous, but still rare beast.
    I advise you to read Svirin, “Artillery armament of Soviet tanks.” The place where the composition of the ammunition is described. There are very few BrB and BrP shells there.
    1. 0
      April 24 2024 00: 03
      The Achilles heel of German artillery guns was the complexity and high cost of designs
  10. 0
    April 23 2024 23: 44
    Quote: Nikolay Ivanov_5
    Copy

    I’ll definitely try, but I’m not ready to start talking to you yet. Let's still stick to traditional forms of communication.
  11. 0
    April 24 2024 07: 33
    Quote: Nikolai Ivanov_5
    The Achilles heel of German artillery guns was the complexity and high cost of designs

    You will laugh, but at the same time, Germany’s massive field guns were also very heavy.
    A classic example, PAK 38 and ZiS-2. 900 and 1150 kg with a difference in muzzle energy of TWO times. Perhaps the only bright spot is the best, in my opinion, PT gun of the Second World War RAK 40.
    But there is a nuance here: has anyone thought about the complete identity of the performance characteristics of this gun and the Grabin F-22 in its original form?
  12. 0
    April 24 2024 07: 40
    In general, this is of course my personal opinion; when assessing the design of any equipment, one should take into account the conditions in which this equipment was produced.
    In this parameter, Soviet designers were ahead of the rest.
    What Soviet designers could design under normal conditions is shown by the magnificent D-48. This wonderful creation of Fedor Fedorovich Petrov, with the same power as the RAK 43, was TWO times lighter!
    1. 0
      April 24 2024 09: 08
      As for me, the howitzers were good and in the M-30, D-1, ML-20 stream.
      IMHO, maybe 122 would have been appropriate in place 105, but the M-30 was successful.
  13. 0
    April 24 2024 10: 32
    Quote: george.old
    As for me, the howitzers were good and in the M-30, D-1, ML-20 stream.
    IMHO, maybe 122 would have been appropriate in place 105, but the M-30 was successful.

    Not just good, excellent. The ML 20, however, is a larger gun. Development of the gun in 1910, or something.
    By the way, the 48 lines of 1909 and 1910 also fought the entire war. While inferior to the M-30 in fire maneuvers, they were superior to it in maneuverability on the battlefield.
    It’s just that anti-tank guns and their ammunition were much more demanding in terms of manufacturing technology.
  14. 0
    April 24 2024 19: 06
    Quote: george.old
    and a howitzer is better as a division.

    Uh... Well, I don't know. Each hut has its own toys. For the first half of the war, the armor-piercing qualities of the ZiS-3 projectile were more than sufficient. The ability to fire flat fire in battle was also in demand, and the niche of light howitzers was largely covered by 120 mm mortars.
    In general, this theory appeared relatively recently and I still cannot determine where its legs come from.
    1. 0
      April 25 2024 08: 00
      Each hut has its own toys. For the first half of the war, the armor-piercing qualities of the ZiS-3 projectile were more than sufficient.
      As for me, they are minimally sufficient, I would like a confident defeat from 800-1000 m 50 mm at an angle (but there are still questions about the projectile).
      The ability to shoot flat fire in battle is also in demand

      I agree, but here it is a bit heavy
      and the niche of light howitzers was largely blocked by 120 mm mortars

      I also agree.
      but range? fire maneuver. Here we still come down to reconnaissance, correction, and preparation of data.
      In general, this theory appeared relatively recently and I still cannot determine where its legs come from.
      about the howubization of divisional and corps artillery? and not since WWII?
      In the pre-war USSR, resources seemed to be strained.
  15. 0
    April 25 2024 08: 02
    Quote: george.old
    about the howubization of divisional and corps artillery? and not since WWII?

    I apologize, I expressed myself incorrectly. I'm talking about the theory that everything would be bad with our artillery.
  16. 0
    April 25 2024 08: 04
    Quote: george.old
    In the pre-war USSR, resources seemed to be strained.

    Yes, you read Emelyanov and Novikov, your hair will stand on end!