D-74 Guns in Special Operations

44 669 104
D-74 Guns in Special Operations
D-74 cannon in a protected camouflaged position, October 2024.


During the special operation, Russian artillery The units use the entire range of barrel systems in service. In addition, a number of older guns that had been in reserve for a long time were returned to service. Recently, it became known that another similar model had returned to service. In one of the units, a D-74 corps gun, developed in the middle of the last century, was spotted.



Back in action


On October 8, the Russian Ministry of Defense released a new short video dedicated to the combat work of our artillerymen. The main characters of the video are the gun crews who are fighting in the South Donetsk direction, in the area of ​​the city of Ugledar. Now their task is to defeat the enemy formations trying to leave the city and its environs.

Of particular interest is the equipment of the artillery battery shown. The unit is equipped with 122-mm D-74 corps guns, which were accepted into service in the mid-fifties. Despite their considerable age, these guns have returned to service and are successfully performing their combat missions.

The Defense Ministry's report shows the process of preparing the D-74 cannon for firing and firing at the enemy. The video also includes footage from unmanned aerial vehicles, which were used for reconnaissance, adjustment, and monitoring of the firing results.

Gun crews successfully hit distant targets using aerial reconnaissance data. In the episodes shown, the gunners work on enemy formations trying to hide in forest plantations. The shells fall among the trees, and probably cause losses to the enemy.


Fresh materials from the Ministry of Defense indicate that artillerymen in the combat zone now have another type of 122-mm gun at their disposal. However, it is still unknown how many D-74 guns were sent to the front, how long they have been used in battle, what units they belong to, etc.

However, even without this information, it is obvious that we are talking about an additional expansion of the artillery systems park at the front. This should lead to an increase in the quantitative and qualitative indicators of artillery as a whole, and also have a positive effect on the overall process of demilitarization of Ukraine.

A gun with history


In the late 9s, the Sverdlovsk OKB-9 (now Plant No. 122, part of the Uralvagonzavod Scientific and Production Corporation) began work on a new artillery "duplex". A team of engineers led by F.F. Petrov developed a 74-mm cannon with the index D-72 and a similar design to it, the D-152 cannon-howitzer of XNUMX mm caliber.

The 122 mm D-74 cannon was created for use in the corps artillery of the ground forces of the Soviet Army. It was planned to replace the aging A-19 cannons mod. 1931/37 with its help in the future.

The development of the two guns was completed in the first half of the 1955s. In 74, the D-74 corps gun went into serial production, and soon the army was given the first batch of such products. Production of the guns quickly reached the required rate, and within a few years, the D-19 products completely replaced the existing A-XNUMXs.


The gunner uses a panoramic sight.

According to available data, the D-74 guns were produced until the mid-sixties. The exact number of guns assembled is unknown, but it can be assumed that the Soviet army received thousands of such systems. In the late fifties, the license for the production of the D-74 was transferred to China. There, the gun was produced under the designation "Type 59".

Active use of the D-74 in our army ended no later than the seventies and eighties, when a new generation of 122-mm barrel systems appeared. The guns in service were sent to storage or transferred to friendly countries. China also exported its Type 59 guns in the original or modified versions.

It was recently discovered that a number of D-74 guns were kept in reserve, and a decision was recently made to return them to service. After de-preservation and other procedures, they were sent to the combat zone. They are currently being used in the forced demilitarization of Ukraine.

Design features


The D-74 is a 122mm towed gun designed for use on a hull. It was developed using technologies and materials available at the turn of the XNUMXs and XNUMXs, which determined its technical appearance and combat capabilities.

The design of the gun is traditional for such systems. It is based on a barrel group, which is mounted on a gun carriage with a shield cover and a wheeled chassis. The total length of the gun in the marching position does not exceed 8,7 m, and its weight reaches 5,5 tons. Transferring to the combat position takes only a few minutes.


A 74 mm rifled barrel with a length of 122 m (6,45 calibers) was created for the D-53. A two-chamber muzzle brake with increased efficiency is installed on its muzzle. The breech of the gun contains a vertical wedge breech. The chamber is designed for separate-case loading shots, borrowed from tank 2A17 guns.

The D-74 carriage is also a typical design for its time. It consists of two sliding frames, a sprung wheeled chassis and a rotating part with a cradle and other units. The carriage design provides horizontal aiming within 29° to the right and left, and vertical aiming from -5° to +45°. Standard for such a weapons telescopic and panoramic sight.

The gun had high firing characteristics for its time. A trained crew could fire at a rate of up to 6-7 rounds/min. The maximum firing range, with an optimal combination of projectile, propellant charge and elevation angle, reached 23,9 km. A wide range of projectiles for various purposes was developed for the D-74 gun - high-explosive fragmentation, armor-piercing and practical.

Questions of relevance


The D-74 cannon itself is not new, both in terms of development time and production time. Signs of obsolescence can also be seen: the old cannon is inferior to newer developments in some respects. However, the correct approach to operation and combat use allows all its shortcomings to be leveled out.

The D-74 gun has a number of important and useful characteristics. First of all, these are high ballistic and fire indicators. Thanks to the use of shots with an increased charge, borrowed from a tank gun, high energy characteristics are achieved and an increased firing range is ensured.


Target hit

For comparison, the newer and more widespread D-30 howitzer has a range of only 15,3 km when using a conventional projectile. Even an active-rocket projectile does not allow it to reach the D-74's performance. At the same time, the 122 mm D-74 cannon's firing range is comparable to modern 152 mm guns.

The D-74 has a fairly high accuracy for its class. At the same time, the effectiveness of fire from a closed position largely depends on reconnaissance, target designation and adjustment. Modern artillery actively uses Drones of different classes and types for collecting and transmitting information about targets in real time. Drones can remain in the target area for a long time, providing a continuous flow of data. Practice has shown that the D-74, like other systems, can show very high results with the support of UAVs.

In terms of mobility, the D-74 is no different from other towed systems. Using a standard tractor, the gun and ammunition are delivered to the selected position, and deployment takes only a few minutes. Long-term positions with the necessary camouflage are often used, which hides the gun and crew from enemy air reconnaissance.

Old but not outdated


Thus, despite its age, the D-74 corps gun continues to be an effective weapon. In terms of range characteristics and other parameters, it surpasses other 122 mm caliber systems and approaches more powerful models.

Competent organization of combat use and the use of additional means allow us to maximize the potential of even old guns, such as the D-74. As a result, our army gets the opportunity to increase the quantitative and qualitative indicators of artillery due to reserves accumulated in the past and to obtain the desired practical result.
104 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -2
    11 October 2024 05: 12
    In 1955, the D-74 corps gun went into serial production.
    A little younger than Putin! But still wow! Yes
    1. 10+
      11 October 2024 13: 56
      Oh! Another article from the series about: "our old, but good quality and still wow, how it gives a "light"! Unlike similar, but Western production, which is long outdated, ineffective, just an extra goal, etc. (underline as necessary)"...
  2. 40+
    11 October 2024 05: 21
    And how many new weapons exactly were developed, accepted into service and sent to the troops during 30 years of bourgeois rule? That now, no matter how you look at it, you have to get antiques almost from museums, while gritting your teeth and saying - oh, what good guns those damned communists once made... Don't try to pass off poverty as virtue.
    1. 11+
      11 October 2024 07: 56
      This article reminded me of Ostap Bender's description of Rio de Janeiro in *12 chairs* I don't even know why the analogies are somehow elusive
    2. 0
      11 October 2024 23: 44
      And how many new weapons were developed, accepted into service and sent to the troops?

      The other side of the question: If the old ones are in position, then where are the ones that were? It looks like they were either knocked out or the barrel resource has expired. We will finish off the reserves, and the shells may be Korean.
      1. -1
        12 October 2024 11: 29
        They handed it over to the scrap yard. The steel is good. So the price is higher, but that's not enough for the command. They even started using foot wraps...
    3. -2
      13 October 2024 02: 27
      So what? The new is the well-forgotten old!
  3. +2
    11 October 2024 05: 46
    Everything is correct, there are reserves of both guns and shells, they need to be used. Much use at the moment. But later there will be no need to destroy them. During this time, the Coalition will establish mass production.
    1. +8
      12 October 2024 08: 01
      Indeed, why should they gather dust and rust in warehouses?
  4. +2
    11 October 2024 06: 43
    And how many of these guns are left and how long will the remaining resource of the barrels last?
    1. BAI
      +5
      11 October 2024 06: 50
      It doesn't matter. They'll be written off anyway. They'll serve their purpose and go into scrap metal. Of course, something should be left for museums.
      1. -6
        11 October 2024 17: 46
        Should I write off the calculations too? How much can I win with these antiques?
    2. 2al
      +1
      11 October 2024 11: 16
      The DPRK has plenty of these guns, and there are variants of the M1981 SPG based on the ATS-59 and the M1991 based on the T-62. Moreover, the latter variant has a rotating turret and is now written to have an automatic firearm and a crew of 3 fighters; this variant is noticeably better than the Gvozdika in terms of characteristics and protection.
      1. -1
        11 October 2024 17: 50
        That's right - self-propelled and armored. Even if you didn't manage to escape from your position, there's a chance to survive under counter-battery fire. And here "just a few minutes" to bring it from combat to marching condition and maybe you'll be able to get out in an unarmored truck
      2. 0
        12 October 2024 20: 56
        Does it float or not?
    3. +3
      11 October 2024 18: 37
      And how many of these guns are left and how long will the remaining resource of the barrels last?
      So the resource is spent by the systems that are fighting, and the weapons in the warehouses still have unspent resources.
    4. 0
      7 February 2025 10: 58
      They have normal resources. After all, this is their first war.
  5. 31+
    11 October 2024 06: 48
    We need to make 2 exhibitions: one with coalition, derivation, armata, kurganets, su57, robots, excitement and all that stuff, and the second with baofengs, discord, loaf, d20, generators and nails from volunteers. Separate them with a screen.
    1. +7
      11 October 2024 09: 50
      Even better - put on one side "galoshes" from the Soviet legacy, and on the other - what the bourgeoisie was able to cobble together from scratch. Only put - only what is actually being fought with now.
      1. +6
        11 October 2024 16: 49
        There should also be photos of ministers and their deputies. This was done under Zhukov, this under Ustanov, this under Shoigu
  6. +8
    11 October 2024 07: 14
    If the A-19s are still alive, then their turn will soon come. It's good that the Koreans make the necessary ammunition.
  7. 11+
    11 October 2024 07: 27
    How can you compare the D-30 howitzer and the D-74 cannon? They have different tasks.
    1. IVZ
      +2
      11 October 2024 07: 44
      Now they solve essentially the same tasks - they are used in the same way. And from this point of view, a longer-range gun is even preferable to a howitzer. In general, observing the development of artillery systems, I conclude that classic howitzers are no longer relevant. The focus is on range and high-tech ammunition, and trajectory maneuvers are used to simultaneously fly shells to the target.
      1. +1
        11 October 2024 23: 48
        Now they actually solve the same problems - they are used in the same way.

        Here, tankers also began to use tanks as artillery. It would be interesting to know how they aim at a target from a closed position.
        1. IVZ
          +1
          12 October 2024 06: 36
          In T-54, 55 there was such a simple device - a side level. It simply allowed to give the gun a calculated (tabular) angle of elevation. And how it is done now, I have no idea.
        2. +1
          13 October 2024 20: 33
          On "Military Acceptance" there was a video about the production of the BMP-3 with a new combat module "Sinitsa" instead of "Bakhcha", where it was directly stated that the sight allows for high-angle fire from a closed position. It is unlikely that the issue is less well-developed on tanks.
      2. +5
        12 October 2024 21: 00
        D30 is a subject for the Airborne Forces - small and light. And D74 weighs almost 2 times more and has a higher range and a long barrel, essentially it's like M46.
        But since it is in the warehouse, why not use it? What is it stored there for, if not for war?
    2. +7
      11 October 2024 07: 57
      How can you compare the D-30 howitzer and the D-74 cannon? They have different tasks.
      If the author doesn't know the difference between a cannon and a howitzer, then he can.
    3. +1
      11 October 2024 17: 08
      Can someone explain to me why they first made such long-range and fairly accurate D-74 and M-46 in 122-130 mm caliber, that the current (our) 152 mm ones can't reach them? It looks like some technologies were lost with the arrival of Khrushchev.
      Just don't talk about the goals of corps-divisions-regiments, I think it's unlikely that any regiment would refuse to replace a carnation with a conventional self-propelled gun with an M-46, and no one will forbid the corps commander from assigning someone more powerful to help the regiment
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. -1
        12 October 2024 20: 10
        Do you seriously think that no one will forbid the corps commander? There are at least a dozen superiors above him who not only can refuse to give him reinforcements, but can also forbid him from going to the toilet.
      3. -2
        12 October 2024 22: 03
        Do you feel any difference in the weight of explosives in 122/130mm and 152mm calibers?

        Khrushchev generally closed all work on artillery, because he was a rocket maniac.

        The bigger question here is - why was it necessary to make almost identical D74 and M46... given that M46 is clearly better - probably because of the habit of 122mm. And on top of that, D20 on a short barrel.
        All this strongly resembles tank madness, but of course the maximum madness is the smoothbore gun Rapier 100mm for shooting a couple of kilometers - such a twist in the brain could only be invented here in the Brezhnev era.

        Regarding technologies and their loss, Geocint has the same range characteristics as the M46 - approximately the same 28 km, but the projectile is more destructive - 152 mm and not 130 mm, although the weight of the gun is greater - 10 tons versus 7 tons.
        The Msta weighs as much as the M46 - 7 tons, has a range of 25 km (less than the M28's 46 km) and a howitzer-like elevation angle, but the Msta's 152 mm shell is almost twice as powerful as the M2's 130 mm shell. That is, the Msta is more powerful, but has a shorter range than the M46.
        Geocint 152mm is as powerful as 152mm Msta, and as long-range as 130mm M46, but weighs 3 tons more - 10 versus 7.
        D30 is a light airborne vehicle - 3 tons in weight and 15 km range + howitzer trajectory like Msta.
        The D20 is from the same era as the M46, only the caliber is 152 mm, the weight is 5,5 tons and the range is 18 km. That is, the caliber is larger than the M46, but the projectile is more powerful and the barrel is shorter, and everything is smaller. As for me, this is not a very good solution - outdated. But what else did we have in the 152 mm caliber at that time - only the gun from the ISU152?

        The D74 is a 122mm small-bore rifle of the classic Russian caliber, on a D20 carriage, so it is similar in many ways, both in weight and in elevation angles. The only difference is a longer barrel and a smaller caliber - that's why the range is higher - 24 km. Why the D20 had such a short barrel is a question. But apparently there was a reason. But America also had a short barrel - the M114, essentially an analogue of the D20, and all this was transferred to our Akatsiya and their M109 Paladin.


        What we see as a result:

        D20, like Akatsiya, is obsolete junk, if you look at the range and angles. But they exist and there are many of them. In fact, it's like Paladin. But Ukraine has a bunch of the same guns. Msta is clearly better against their background. Giatsint is better than all of them, but it has non-standard shells and is very heavy - 10 tons, the angle is less than Msta, but more than D20, not bad in a self-propelled version.

        D30 - light 122mm airborne small-bore gun, but there are many of them. It was removed from service, so I think the shells were purchased.
        M46 is a rare 130mm caliber, good range - 28 km, but less powerful than 152mm, weighs as much as Msta. The shells here are obviously purchased.
        D74 - weighs like 152mm D20, but smaller caliber 122mm, while much longer range than D20, 24 km versus 15 km. Shells are also purchased, like for D30.

        Of course, you can laugh like they got out the old stuff and so on, but the gun does not deteriorate as much as a tank and can be stored for a long time and is simply brought to a combat condition. At the same time, from the characteristics it is clear that the M46 and D74 guns are not inferior to the newer D20 and D30 guns, and in some ways even surpass them. Therefore, it is good that they are put into action! This is why they were stored!

        Msta doesn't look bad, but Msta lacks range, which I think can be fixed with a longer barrel, aerodynamic shells and a little fine-tuning, which can increase Msta's range to 28-30 km, which will bring it to the level of Giotsint or Caesar. At the same time, it needs to be produced on a self-propelled chassis.
        1. +1
          13 October 2024 10: 33
          and what does the phrase mean - a 152 mm shell is twice as powerful as a 122 mm or 130 mm shell? :-))) by the weight of the shell itself? 130 mm shell - 33 kg, 122 mm - 25 kg. 152 mm - 45 kg ... by the weight of the explosive in the shell? 7-8 kg in 152 mm versus 4 kg in 122 mm - it seems to be really 2 times ... but this is only with a direct hit ... and in terms of the shock wave from the explosion, 122 mm and 130 mm shells are approximately 75% of 152 mm shells ... in terms of covering the area with their fragments? so the ratio is approximately 1,5 to 1,0 in favor of 152 mm ...
          1. +1
            13 October 2024 18: 35
            I think I wrote that the difference is in the amount of explosives. Take for example the American guns (I will call them all that) M110 - there too, the larger the caliber, the shorter the range and the shorter the barrel.
            M110- 203mm -18 600m
            M107- 175mm - 32m

            It is logical that a lighter warhead is easier to launch further. If you do not take into account the volume of the chamber. In missiles, everything is similar, so cruise missiles fly far, but carry little - their entire power is approximately at the level of FAB 500-1000, so they will always lose to bombs in destructiveness, and the price is hellish.


            In general, there is no particular sense in chasing range without increasing accuracy. The same Caesar has a shell spread of hundreds of meters at a range of 25 km - where can you hit it? That is why the Malka needs a guided missile, but it does not have one - and without it, where can you hit from the Malka?

            At long distances over 20 km, the weather has a strong influence on accuracy - the same wind, so the projectile needs correction.

            To launch the projectile further, you need to not only lengthen the barrel, create an aerodynamic shape for the projectile, but also increase the speed and pressure - and this is not only the volume of the chamber, but also an increase in the power of the powder with additives. And this leads to increased wear and tear and increases the quality requirements, which is immediately reflected in the price. And you will have to shoot with a full charge, which is not recommended at all. There will be no accuracy, but there will be an increased price and wear.

            So think about it - is it necessary to increase the range for unguided projectiles too much?
            1. 0
              13 October 2024 20: 20
              if the projectile has a gas generator, and not a jet one, then the accuracy is almost not affected - but a special aerodynamic shape of the projectile is needed...
              1. 0
                13 October 2024 21: 30
                In any case, this is area shooting or suppressive fire, not fire to kill.
              2. +1
                13 October 2024 22: 12
                ERFB (short for Extended Range Full Bore) is an artillery shell with an extended range.

                Compared to the 155 mm M107 projectile, the ERFB projectiles have significantly better aerodynamics. While conventional 155 mm projectiles have a ballistic coefficient of 0,47-0,52, for ERFB projectiles this value is significantly lower and ranges from 0,28-0,38. ERFB projectiles also have a significantly longer length (900-980 mm) and a more pointed and streamlined profile, and the ogive tapers towards the nose of the projectile and runs almost along its entire length. The projectile has a conical hollow base with a cone angle of 2-5

                With ERFB rounds, it is possible to increase the range by approximately 30% compared to conventional artillery rounds.

                Like conventional artillery shells, ERFB shells experience increased dispersion as their range increases.

                Modern ERFB projectiles fired from equally modern guns have a target deviation (under optimal conditions) of 0,35-0,4% at range and about 0,1% at azimuth. Extended-range ERFB-BB projectiles have a dispersion of 0,48-0,5% at . These values ​​apply to 75% of the maximum firing range - the optimal firing range for artillery.

                The ERFB-BB projectile has a range deviation of about 30 m and an azimuth deviation of about 000 m at a firing range of 144 m.

                1. -1
                  13 October 2024 22: 18
                  The price of the projectile is now about $2,000.
                2. +2
                  14 October 2024 10: 56
                  i.e. at 30 km the dispersion is 144 m Vd = 1/416... and is this a deviation or dispersion?
                  The accuracy of the shell battle is influenced by many factors, the main ones are: - change in atmospheric pressure, - change in air temperature, - spread in initial projectile velocities, - spread in charge temperature, - spread in projectile weights, - influence of longitudinal and lateral wind, - deviation of the geometric parameters of the projectile, - deviation of the center of mass of the projectile. And when firing at maximum range, the projectile loses angular velocity of rotation and, therefore, gyroscopic stability. The accuracy of the shell battle is characterized by the value of Bd and Bb - probable deviations in range and lateral. Bb is not considered, it is an order of magnitude less than Bd. The value of Bd is 25% of projectile hits from a group of shots directly in front of the target and 25% of projectile hits immediately after the target - the so-called best half of hits. The remaining 50% of hits outside the best half are not taken into account. The accuracy of the shell battle on the terrain is usually estimated by the ratio of Bd and X, where X is the firing range.
                  Based on the results of practical firing from the 130 mm M-46 gun at a range of X = 27000 m, the gun has an accuracy of Vd = 1/267. This is good accuracy. Substituting the values, we get Vd = 27000:267 = 101 m. Having fired 10 shells at a target, we get that 5 shells will explode with a spread of 200 m. (100 m to the target and 100 m behind the target), the other 5 with a spread of more than 200 m. There is data for the 130 mm M46 gun - that at a range of 15 km the dispersion ellipse has the following axes: lateral - 20 m, by range - 120 m (deviation - 60 m.) Vd = 15000:60 = 1/250. There is data for M46 - at full charge and elevation angle of 45 degrees Vd = 1/310, at 4th charge and elevation angle of 15 degrees Vd = 1/343. See, what a tricky number. :-) This is so that the enemies of the people in the West go crazy faster ... :-))
                  With a conventional active-reactive projectile at a distance of 30 km for the 155-mm howitzer M777 the dispersion reaches 200 m. (deviation - 100 m.), Vd = 30000:100 = 1/300. Thus, the howitzer G5 and its version - the wheeled self-propelled gun G6 (produced by South Africa) have Vd: with a conventional projectile 1/294 at 30,3 km., deviation - 103 m., with a projectile with a bottom gas generator 1/270 at 39 km. (deviation - 144 m.). The G5 itself is a deep modernization of the Canadian howitzer GC-45.
                  For comparison: a 120 mm mortar from WWII had a range deviation of up to 70 m at a firing distance of 6 km. The modern domestic 120 mm mortar 2S12 has a value of Vd = 1/250, then at a distance of 7-9 km the range deviation is 28-36 m. And the 122 mm howitzer M-30 from WWII had a range dispersion of up to 9 m at a distance of 60 km, a deviation of 30 meters, Vd = 1/300. The modern 122 mm howitzer D-30 at a distance of 9 km has Vd = 529-530. (For example, in WWII: the standard for a 10 mm artillery battery to hit a dug-in tank at a distance of 152 km was 50 shells. The modern standard for hitting a 6-8 gun artillery battery at a firing distance of 27 km is 600-800 shells.) Our post-war 122 mm howitzer D-30 (2A18) was distinguished by good accuracy and grouping. Vd = 1/325, if this is true, then at maximum firing distances the range deviation is 46 m at 15 km, and the dispersion is 92 m.
                  1. 0
                    14 October 2024 19: 01
                    This is not shooting to kill. Although on paper it will be considered that the target is hit, as usual - they just fire a tabular number of shells towards the target. The result - lunar fields.
                    But in fact, the same Caesar will already be gone, but on paper it will be that we defeated him today, or at least suppressed him. But tomorrow he will come again.

                    When storming cities, again - everything within a radius of several hundred meters will be destroyed, but the target will not be destroyed in the same basement or dugout. For shooting at civilians, for example, for shelling Donetsk, this is all good, of course, but to destroy military infrastructure, shells need to be delivered in trains for such shooting.

                    Now they just make a few prepared positions and move the gun around them, waiting for the response underground, because they know that it is almost impossible to hit the gun accurately, even with a D20 or a Caesar. But the self-propelled gun can move away because it withstands shrapnel. That is the difference.

                    The danger for guns is drones and Krasnopol-type projectiles, because they fly right to the target. For what purposes would it be necessary to shoot an unguided projectile at 40 km, to shoot at Kyiv for destruction? It seems to me easier to use MLRS here - it also has a longer range.
                  2. 0
                    14 October 2024 21: 01
                    I am not an artilleryman at all. But you tell it so interestingly and clearly! Thank you!
  8. Owl
    +7
    11 October 2024 07: 37
    Using a weapon with a longer firing range, compared to the D-30 and 2S1 Gvozdika systems, in counter-battery combat conditions and with the possibility of placing the weapons in pre-prepared protected firing positions is a worthy use of existing reserves.
  9. 10+
    11 October 2024 07: 44
    Here everything can be expressed in one phrase - poverty and splendor
    1. +9
      11 October 2024 08: 34
      Quote: T-100
      poverty and splendor

      You can look at everything much more simply! Now in the SVO the following often "happens": fire once, twice, three times... and in 5 minutes run away! If you don't have time - you're dead... with a high probability! And there is a "temptation" (one could say, a necessity!): if you don't have time to pack up in 5 minutes - you run away yourself, and leave the gun... for a while or as it happens! So it is much more expedient to leave the old (decommissioned...) gun! In this way, you can reduce the losses of more "valuable" (modern) guns!
      1. +2
        11 October 2024 10: 39
        I remembered Sobolev's story "A Cannon Without a Front Bead" from the "Sea Soul" series.
  10. +2
    11 October 2024 07: 51
    Now it's the turn of the Tsar Cannon! wink
  11. 0
    11 October 2024 08: 15
    Who made the dugout for the gun??? What kind of fabulous arm-buttock chuchmeki are these... It's clear that the five-walled structure is from the realm of fantasy, but the box could have been made.
    And in the photo, a pile of firewood is secured with staples - the nearest explosion and grave for 100% accuracy.
    1. +9
      11 October 2024 09: 26
      Quote: Roman_
      Who made the dugout for the gun??? What kind of fabulous arm-buttock chuchmeki are these... It's clear that the five-walled structure is from the realm of fantasy, but the box could have been made.
      And in the photo, a pile of firewood is secured with staples - the nearest explosion and grave for 100% accuracy.


      Apparently as gifted as those who returned this scrap metal to the army. We've lived to see it - we're buying shells from North Korea! All that's left is to start buying the guns themselves, machine guns and assault rifles!
      Just like in the First World War - the Great Tsarist Russian Empire, in a frenzy and "soap", bought rifles, machine guns, cartridges, airplanes... all over the world - in Japan, America, England...
      1. 0
        30 October 2024 20: 36
        Nikolasha did not draw the necessary conclusions from the defeat by the Japanese. Neither the army nor the military-industrial complex were reformed properly until 1914. Which later turned out to be a bad thing.
    2. -1
      11 October 2024 23: 53
      Judging by what war correspondents show, when shelling occurs, the crew runs to a nearby shelter, and the gun is protected by firewood, it is clear that only from shrapnel, which is what mainly disables the gun.
  12. +4
    11 October 2024 09: 21
    By using shots with an increased charge, borrowed from a tank gun, high energy characteristics are achieved and an increased firing range is ensured.

    It is worth clarifying that the firing range of the D-74 gun is about 24 km.
    Why the author wrote about the performance characteristics of the D-30, but omitted information about the hero of this article remains a mystery to me!
  13. +1
    11 October 2024 09: 24
    Wah!
    Reminds me of how they praised CAST IRON at the beginning of the SVO.
    They say that our Chuguny is the best! And the Ukrainians can’t do anything against him!

    And then for some reason they stopped praising their cast iron
    1. +3
      11 October 2024 09: 59
      And who exactly praised cast iron? "Experts" on Channel 1? You shouldn't blame them, they need to make diagnoses, it's better to ask yourself - why did I listen to THIS and why was I so stupid that I believed THIS.
      1. +2
        11 October 2024 21: 44
        Yes, there were articles right here. And not just one.
        I saw it in my daughter, the Reporter, too.
        And if you want to ask yourself - ask. Who can forbid that?
  14. +3
    11 October 2024 09: 34
    this is a sentence to our General Staff and Ministry of Defense with the Garant.... Stalin's 122-mm D-74 and 130-mm M-46 guns turned out to be on par with the 152-mm Giatsint in terms of range and better than the 152-mm Msta
    1. +3
      11 October 2024 12: 33
      Stalin's 122 mm D-74 and 130 mm M-46 cannons turned out to be on par with the 152 mm Giatsint and better than the 152 mm Msta in terms of range

      Giatsint and Msta are Soviet weapons and have nothing to do with our guarantor.
      1. 0
        11 October 2024 16: 36
        it is common knowledge :-))) the last Soviet-designed gun 152 mm Pat-B did not go into production
  15. +9
    11 October 2024 09: 53
    The D-30 has a 38-caliber barrel, while the D-74 has a 53-caliber barrel. That's the whole secret. In the conditions of the predominantly flat terrain in Ukraine, the role of the howitzer and the gun are comparable. For me, a much bigger secret is why the old 2S5 Giatsint has a maximum firing range of 30 km and 33 km with an AR shell, while the newer 2S19 Msta-s howitzer has 24,7 km and 29 km, respectively, with the same barrel length of 47 calibers.
    1. +6
      11 October 2024 10: 19
      Different charge weight for higher pressure and generally different shells - not interchangeable. Just look at the size and weight of Giatsint. And the main thing - Giatsint is a cannon, and Masta is a howitzer.
      Msta is a good thing in general, but it needs to be mounted on a chassis and the barrel lengthened + a new aerodynamic projectile. This will make it equal to Caesar, etc.
      1. 0
        11 October 2024 17: 15
        So the question is, why did the designers go in the direction of reducing the range? Everyone always wanted to shoot further and more powerfully, but we have the opposite - shorter barrels, lower pressure, smaller chamber. Did they decide to save on barrels and gunpowder? In exchange, there is no gain in rate of fire or accuracy. sad
        1. +2
          11 October 2024 17: 19
          I think this is not a question for the designers, but for the military customers. The designers and manufacturers worked according to the military's technical specifications.
        2. +1
          12 October 2024 01: 36
          NATO standardized barrel length in the 1990s, and the Msta is a weapon from the 1980s. For us, it was a period of decline, not new standards. The export Msta with a 155mm caliber and NATO barrel length shows characteristics similar to the Caesar.

          D20 and Acacia are +- Paladin, Msta is much better.

          In the 2000s, they started thinking about the Coalition, but its problem is that it has round charges like a tablet and other such jokes. This is the reason for all the difficulties in launching it into series. I would rather develop the Coalition on the Armamt chassis, not the T90, because the T90 is too small for the Coalition. And I would rather launch an updated Msta into series production on a longer barrel and new aerodynamic shells (they said they wanted to launch them into series production) and then this new Msta could be put on the BAZ-Malva chassis and essentially get a Caesar at once and on standardized shells.

          A long barrel is good when the gun is on a chassis, towed guns with a long barrel are very clumsy when transported by trucks. For example, the M777 - there the barrel is very short, so it is no better in range than the Msta, only lighter due to expensive materials.
          1. -1
            12 October 2024 04: 59
            You don't seem to have any idea what we're talking about. The discussion here was about why guns created under Stalin fired further than those created under Brezhnev. Obvious stories about NATO shells are neither here nor there.
            1. -1
              12 October 2024 16: 58
              What specific guns do you mean? The D20, for example, was developed under Stalin... but it's hard to understand the minds of those who know.
              1. -2
                12 October 2024 18: 00
                It feels like you randomly open an article and start being smart under a random comment that is completely out of place. What weapon is the title of the article about? When was it created?
                1. +3
                  12 October 2024 18: 56
                  You are the only one trying to be clever here, others are not interested in these games. A person asked - he was answered. It was you who later butted in here with your special opinion about your genius. Before asking me a question - first answer the question I asked you earlier.. why are you pretending to be a Jew here? You can tell your psychologist about your feelings.
    2. +4
      11 October 2024 16: 39
      Giatsint has a loading chamber capacity of 27 liters (approximately) ... and Msta has a capacity of 18 liters (if I'm not mistaken) ... NATO artillery has had a standard since 1988: loading chamber capacity of 23 liters
  16. +3
    11 October 2024 12: 44
    The D-30 howitzer has a range of only 15,3 km when using a conventional projectile. Even an active-rocket projectile does not allow it to reach the D-74's performance.

    Comparing the D-74 GUN with the D-30 HOWITZER in terms of firing range is simply indecent. Because these are different types of weapons. The author would do well to inquire about the difference between a gun and a howitzer.
    1. +1
      11 October 2024 17: 31
      Quote: Amateur
      The author would do well to inquire about the difference between a cannon and a howitzer.

      Reading the comments, I remembered Lem's story, where Jon Tichy wanted to know what "sepúlyki" were. Everyone talks about it, but no one explains it.
      1. +2
        12 October 2024 01: 20
        No, why not? After all, it is clear to everyone that a tank, a panzer and a fighter have a cannon. But why the D-20 with an elevation angle of maximum 45 degrees is a howitzer cannon, and the Giatsint-B with an angle of 57 degrees is a cannon - you can't figure it out even with half a liter. Probably like in the joke - if it runs, it's a hare, and if it runs, it's a female hare.
        1. 0
          12 October 2024 01: 41
          Msta has more, it can even lift it up.
          1. +3
            12 October 2024 05: 09
            Nona and Vienna have even more, and if you weld a cornflower to a motorized vehicle, you can generally send mines vertically upwards, and if you really want, you can even shoot them backwards
            1. 0
              12 October 2024 16: 56
              You can even turn it back
              1. 0
                12 October 2024 18: 01
                You can even shoot vertically downwards, what did you want to say?
                1. 0
                  12 October 2024 19: 06
                  Ask yourself why you brought a mortar into this, and even more so you suggest shooting vertically upwards - they are probably shooting at themselves. I suggested bringing the situation to an even greater absurdity - increasing the angle even more - by turning the mortar back. Although, of course, you can also turn the mortar upside down and shoot at the ground below you.
        2. +1
          12 October 2024 19: 17
          These are all Soviet games in terms of Stalin's times. But they did not appear out of nowhere, but on the basis of older guns with a smaller elevation angle... compared to them, the D20 is a howitzer gun... compared to the Msta, the D20 is more of a gun.

          Again, the old howitzers had shorter barrels than the cannons and the cannons were used to fire at flatter trajectories.
          D20 is just a child of the transition period, that's why it has such a strange designation "gun-howitzer". Well, nobody will change the documentation.
    2. +1
      11 October 2024 17: 33
      These types were very different a couple of hundred years ago, when some fired directly at infantry, while others threw gifts over the walls. Now the differences are only in the gun carriage, how much the gun can be raised up
      1. 0
        11 October 2024 18: 09
        Now the only difference is in the gun carriage,

        Both now and a couple of hundred years ago, cannons differed from howitzers in the length of the barrel, usually displayed in calibers.
        1. +1
          11 October 2024 18: 21
          What are you talking about?! I thought it was elevation angles, if it can't be raised above 50 degrees then it's a cannon, and if it can be raised higher then it's a howitzer, and if it can't be fired below 50 degrees then it's a mortar. I looked it up on the internet and there's a definition like that.
          And tell me, according to your definitions, what is a cannon and what is a howitzer - a coalition of the SV with a gun with a barrel length of 52 calibers and a T-72 tank with a 2A46 gun with a barrel length of 48 calibers? Which of them is which?
          1. +1
            12 October 2024 01: 52
            The tank always fires at full charge.
  17. +6
    11 October 2024 13: 23
    As I understand it, this article is a response to a post in TG Osveditel, where they mentioned this system and honestly wrote that need forced them to pull out really exotic antiques from God knows where, because in 89, D-74s did not appear in any documents in the European part of the country.
    1. 0
      11 October 2024 21: 49
      Perhaps it is a need, or perhaps there are stockpiles of shells in warehouses, after all, it is a cannon, not a howitzer. Plus, the Ukrainian Armed Forces now have less ammunition, less likelihood of counter-battery combat.
      1. 0
        13 October 2024 20: 55
        There is rather a misunderstanding here of why the 152 mm caliber is needed (155 for NATO), and why the 122 mm caliber was abandoned.
        In the US there is this understanding, but here it seems there is no understanding.
        In the 155 mm caliber, they produced very effective cluster munitions, including remote-detonation cassettes. We switched to a larger caliber, but did not establish mass production of cluster munitions.
        And if you use conventional high-explosive fragmentation ammunition, then the 122 mm caliber is more convenient, since the shots are lighter and the efficiency is sufficient.
    2. 0
      14 October 2024 15: 03
      Because they were already in warehouses somewhere in/beyond the Urals...
  18. +3
    11 October 2024 17: 11
    I remember in 22 we laughed at the old weapons of the Ukrainians,
    And now it turns out that both sides are actively using the same weapons.
    BMP 1, BMP 2, T 54/55, T 62, T 64, D 20, BMD 1, etc.
  19. +4
    11 October 2024 17: 15
    A gun is just a gun, they were put into storage at one time, so that they could be re-extracted and used at the right time. Especially since its cost was paid by our parents and grandfathers, and is now symbolic. With fairly tolerable performance characteristics. In maintenance, the crew will hardly notice the difference after the D-20, and after the 2A36 - it will seem like a feather.
    The whole question is ammunition. Apparently, some of our own, original, in a usable condition still remains in some quantity, and for the Korean ones, an incoming inspection with grouping by weight and powder is definitely necessary. In the rear units, by the same conscripts
    1. 0
      12 October 2024 00: 07
      In the early 80s, I spoke with a front-line artilleryman who began his service before the war. According to his stories, at the end of 41, he had to shoot from a 3-inch gun on wooden wheels, from the Tsarist era. As for the quality of the stored shells, during an urgent service in the 70s, just before demobilization, he was sent to an army artillery depot for an inspection of the stored shells, which was carried out there regularly. So an inspection of Korean shells is normal.
  20. 10+
    11 October 2024 22: 40
    The country lives solely thanks to the "ineffective" Soviet legacy. The wretched capitalism of the last 30 years has not been able to create anything even to protect what was stolen.
    1. +1
      14 October 2024 15: 05
      So, what was being “protected” just happened to be abroad...
  21. +1
    12 October 2024 10: 06
    "Old but not useless" (C),
    what else can be said here, well, we can once again laugh at the "old stuff" of the Khkhlovs.
  22. +2
    12 October 2024 14: 53
    Another two-faced opus, from the series: their old age and scrap metal, our time-tested classic. What would Putin and his oligarch friends do if it weren't for the Soviet legacy, they can't create anything massive, they can only postpone deadlines. Ugh, shame
  23. +1
    12 October 2024 18: 22
    Chariant 1, there are not enough replacement barrels for such horse use, spare ones for the D30, option 2 - To create a greater density of fire, we put everything we have on the desired area. Option 3 - we use old guns where it is not so hot. Option 4 - for mainly working on all sorts of mraps and other lightly armored armored personnel carriers, and the old guns are enough so that they do not lie closer. Everything is understandable, everything is in use and for the purpose.
  24. 0
    12 October 2024 20: 31
    There are also excellent ML-20, B-4, ISU-152 - we are waiting for new and exciting analyses!
    1. 0
      14 October 2024 15: 07
      A shot from the ISU-152 will make the Leopard feel no less sick than its ancestor, the Tiger.
      1. 0
        16 October 2024 19: 44
        While ISU makes one shot, "Leopard" makes five. With much greater accuracy.
      2. 0
        30 October 2024 20: 54
        The ISU-152 is not an anti-tank weapon, it is an assault gun. Slashing pillboxes, bunkers and other fortifications on the front line - that was its strong point.
    2. 0
      16 October 2024 19: 43
      There are probably still three-inchers in the warehouses... Why let good things go to waste...
  25. +3
    12 October 2024 22: 48
    The logic of using such guns is clear. There are large stocks of 122 mm shells in warehouses, and the production of new 152 mm shells in large quantities in modern conditions is quite an expensive pleasure. If the work of the D-74 gun on targets at a distance of 20 km or more is quite effective, then its use is fully justified, the costs are the achieved result. The length of the gun barrel corresponds to modern trends of approximately 52 calibers, the firing range is up to 24 km. In cases where it is not advisable to use a powerful 152 mm shell, the D-74 gun is a popular weapon for its purposes.
  26. +2
    14 October 2024 11: 24
    The ISU-152 would be a good fit for the attack aircraft right now. Just cover it with sheets of tin like the Tsar Tank and into battle.
    1. PXL
      -1
      3 December 2025 18: 44
      Let's just cover you in sheets of tin and send you to the front lines. It'll be more useful than the ISU-152.
      1. 0
        4 December 2025 22: 56
        Let's get down to business, sir, and not get personal. Do you have any substantive objections to the ISU-152?
  27. 0
    16 October 2024 18: 05
    The story was on TV, there was a D-1 model 1945 in a firing position.
    Considering that M-46, M-47, D-74 are in use, will we see M-30 and ZiS-3? Or maybe ML-20 will show up...
    1. 0
      12 December 2025 19: 35
      A soldier on the front line, by and large, doesn't care what kind of shell hits him
  28. +1
    16 October 2024 18: 06
    Quote from: d.zacharith
    The ISU-152 would be a good fit for the attack aircraft right now. Just cover it with sheets of tin like the Tsar Tank and into battle.

    That's right.
  29. PXL
    0
    3 December 2025 18: 41
    A purely historical question. Name at least one Soviet Army unit that used the D-74!
    Another little-known weapon is the 152mm M-47 gun. However, only 122 were ever produced. However, there are reports that one GSVG artillery brigade was armed with the M-47. As for the D-74, there's no word on it at all, except that they all ended up in storage in the Far East, as mentioned in one of the posts above.