Military Review

Experienced anti-tank gun M-75 107-mm

37
According to the Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR and the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) of 172 in May, 14, No. ПХNUMX / 1941, produced a prototype of an anti-tank cannon of caliber 32 mm. In the manufacture of used carriage 116-millimeter howitzer gun model 107 year.


In the spring of 1941, the Perm designers under the leadership of S. Dernova. was designed anti-tank gun M-75. They designed a wedge semi-automatic shutter. The calculated penetrability at a distance of 1000 m at an angle of 30 degrees was 165 mm. At the beginning of the Second World War, plant No. XXUMX produced two prototypes of the M-172, which were then tested at the factory site.





In the period from November 29 1941 to January 12, 1942, the ground testing of the gun and its ammunition was carried out at the Tagil test site.

During the tests, the ballistics specified by the tactical and technical requirements were achieved. The initial velocity of the projectile was 1020 meters per second. However, armor penetration (specified in 160 mm) was not provided due to the fragility of the shell of the shell.

The X-NUMX-millimeter anti-tank gun M-107, according to the conclusion of the Artillery Committee of the KAU, of the ground tests, did not withstand the unsatisfactory performance and durability of the actions of the semiautomatic and the valve, the insufficient pipe durability and the insufficient strength of the cradle.

According to the Deputy People’s Commissar of Defense of the USSR, Colonel-General of Artillery Voronov, since the experience of modern warfare did not confirm the need to use such weapons to combat tanks enemy, the further development of the anti-tank gun "M-75", as well as the ammunition to it in order to eliminate the identified shortcomings was inappropriate.

It was in connection with this that Voronov asked Stalin for permission to stop work on the X-NUMX-millimeter anti-gun M-107. In addition, he requested to stop similar work on the 75- and 85-millimeter cannons "ZIS-107" and "ZIS-23" at the State Order of Lenin Plant No. 24 named after Stalin.

Experienced anti-tank gun M-75 107-mm
Verification of the obtained actual data of the prototype 107-mm anti-tank gun M-75 with the specified parameters Tactical and Technical Requirements (TTT) 1938 g. Parameters (test report)




Letter (April 1942) Deputy. People's Commissar of Defense N.N. Voronova to the Chairman of the State Defense Committee I.V. Stalin for a petition to stop work on the X-NUMX-mm anti-tank gun M-107, as well as the grab 75-mm and 85-mm anti-tank ZIS-107, ZIS-23


Specifications:
Caliber - 107 mm.
Projectile weight - 18,8 kg.
The initial velocity of the projectile - 1020 m / s.
Penetration - 160 mm.
The angle of vertical guidance is from –2 to + 45 degrees.
Horizontal guidance angle - 58 degrees
Weight in the fighting position - 7500 kg.







Author:
Photos used:
http://russianarms.mybb.ru/
37 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Stas57
    Stas57 25 December 2013 09: 36
    +1
    scans from TsAMO Jura Pasholok?
  2. svp67
    svp67 25 December 2013 10: 37
    +7
    According to the Deputy People’s Commissar of Defense of the USSR Colonel-General Artillery Voronov, since the experience of modern war did not confirm the need to use such weapons to fight enemy tanks, further refinement of the M-75 anti-tank cannon, as well as ammunition for it, to eliminate the identified deficiencies was inappropriate.

    It was in connection with this that Voronov asked Stalin for permission to stop work on the X-NUMX-millimeter anti-gun M-107. In addition, he requested to stop similar work on the 75- and 85-millimeter cannons "ZIS-107" and "ZIS-23" at the State Order of Lenin Plant No. 24 named after Stalin.

    How wrong you were, Comrade Future Marshal .... I think in '43 you understood this .... Oh, how would such systems be useful both as a fire protection system and for installation on self-propelled guns and tanks ... Conclusion - no matter how it was hard for the country, we must always think about the future ...
    1. Papakiko
      Papakiko 25 December 2013 10: 44
      +4
      Quote: svp67
      I think in '43 you understood this .... Oh, how would such systems be useful then

      Yes comrade, right.
      Has come back with many hundreds of lives.
    2. Basileus
      Basileus 25 December 2013 12: 23
      +3
      The freed up resources went to the hundreds of tools needed then. So the decision still had a considerable positive role. I think that in the year 41, such decisions largely influenced the current situation, and were the only correct ones. On the other hand, as soon as the situation at the front leveled out, it was necessary to unfreeze high-power gun projects.
  3. Stas57
    Stas57 25 December 2013 11: 35
    +7
    Papakiko
    svp67

    Dododo, it's easy to argue from the couch in 2013 that someone is wrong there.
    and nothing
    -that there are no goals for her and the tiger didn’t even lie on the neutral,
    - that it is worth a lot to load the industry at this time, and invest in it.
    -that after a shot it’s only to be pulled by a Komsomol member (remember who else had it?), and the dimensions nullify the mask
    -You can pump up the caliber and ZIS-2
    Well, cool, spend a lot of money, money and time to have a gun that penetrates 163 mm at 1 km, it looks like a shed, while the armor of 4 is half (if not a third), and this despite the fact that commonplace BBs to F22 crumbled from poor quality of hardening, although like 45 they should have punched up to 1 km, and there were no sub-calibers and godfathers in nature, although they should be stamped according to plans.
    You can still do Kruchevsky’s cannon, the time and money in the country in 42 was in bulk ...
    how such systems would then come in handy as both anti-tank systems and for installation on self-propelled guns and tanks.

    what kind of sau do you offer this fool?
    Which tank? Do you want to steal the mouse from the Germans?
    and what was bad D-5? ZIS-2? D-25T? ML-20?

    Conclusion - no matter how difficult the country is, one should always think for the future ...

    thought otherwise we would not have
    SU-85 SU-122 SU-152 ISU-152 · ISU-122, IS-1 · IS-2, T-34-57, T-34-85
    1. Andy
      Andy 25 December 2013 11: 55
      +2
      "What was wrong with the D-5? Zis-2? D-25T? ML-20S?"

      and which one is an adequate response to a tiger cannon?
      d-5 is weak.
      3 from a small thing + short-lived trunk. Do you need to explain that 57mm land mine can never be compared with 88mm in power?
      D25 inferior in rate of fire, although the projectile is more powerful
      ml20 is not anti-tank at all. its pillboxes to destroy and all

      so at the end of the war began experiments with 100mm guns for the t44. I don’t remember there were attempts for the 34-k (there was no place)
      1. Stas57
        Stas57 25 December 2013 12: 29
        0
        why did the M-75 107-mm fit?
        agaga
        3 from a small thing + short-lived trunk. Do you need to explain that 57mm land mine can never be compared with 88mm in power?

        since when has the main criterion for evaluating the anti-tank gun become its comparison with the enemy’s tank gun?
        In general, the armor and iptap were engaged in this.
        well let’s down, let's put them on the self-propelled guns
        Then, why did you decide that the 107-mm gun is suitable?
        if she never hit a tiger from 7 shells? But he won’t wait in life

        ml20 is not anti-tank at all. its pillboxes to destroy and all

        true, but the Pasans didn’t know ...
        HE shells of the ML20 cannon, when hit in the wall, destroys the welds of the frontal part of the tank and destroys the transmission.
        The ML20 VL gun’s BB shell doesn’t penetrate; when hit in an NLL, it makes a hole less than a caliber and breaches the armor
        Description of the shelling of Tiger B at the GABTU training range October 1944

        you know, his native gun didn’t break through)))
        1. Andy
          Andy 25 December 2013 16: 00
          +1
          since when has the main criterion for evaluating the anti-tank gun become its comparison with the enemy’s tank gun?
          ---
          ogogo. in general, the guns are connected, an example based on the anti-aircraft guns of the tiger guns and t34-85. ml20 put on a self-propelled gun. as well as is2 and isu122 with its source ...

          so directly there seems to be no connection, but ... it is clearly traceable. recall su100 based on a sea cannon ... so that there was no one to fight with the tiger either (pto) and there was also nothing to transmit to the tank — convulsive searches. time delay - spilled blood at the front.
          the automatic machine, too, the sandpiper said unnecessary. and zis3 unnecessary! but in the end?
          1. Stas57
            Stas57 25 December 2013 16: 45
            +1
            since when has the main criterion for evaluating the anti-tank gun become its comparison with the enemy’s tank gun?
            ---

            so directly there seems to be no connection, but ... it is clearly traceable. recall su100 based on a sea cannon ... so that there was no one to fight with the tiger either (pto) and there was also nothing to transmit to the tank — convulsive searches. time delay - spilled blood at the front.
            the automatic machine, too, the sandpiper said unnecessary. and zis3 unnecessary! but in the end?

            Well, what's the connection? I didn’t catch it.
            I understand the divisions, or the concept of universalism, where else it didn’t go.

            but for a gun, it doesn’t matter what’s on the enemy’s tank, 5 cm kwk or 8 cm kwk, the Iptapovets’s defense mother is cheese, his earth, ingenuity and speed of reaction, stealth, rate of fire, the lower the better, and so on.
            It is not for nothing that I remembered Heinz's phrase about "barn gates", look at all the pto, low, light, to change the position, quickly deploy, etc.
            and look at Pak 43, here's an example of what could be with m75

            m75 is a PTO 1-2 shots, and then, "the barrel is thick, life is short" ...
            1. Andy
              Andy 25 December 2013 17: 22
              0
              how such systems would then come in handy as both anti-tank systems and for installation on self-propelled guns and tanks.
              what kind of sau do you offer this fool?
              Which tank? Do you want to steal the mouse from the Germans?
              and what was bad about the D-5?

              This is a quote from your comment. that’s the connection you don’t understand. you touched on the topic of tank guns, I compared you with a tiger ruin. all the more (in the 100-th time I say) the tank was created on the basis of anti-aircraft / anti-aircraft guns or sea guns!
              1. Stas57
                Stas57 25 December 2013 18: 47
                0
                This is a quote from your comment. that’s the connection you don’t understand. you touched on the topic of tank guns, I compared you with a tiger ruin. all the more (in the 100-th time I say) the tank was created on the basis of anti-aircraft / anti-aircraft guns or sea guns!

                if you were careful, but noticed that it wasn’t I who suggested,
                Well, let the sau, once again, the question is emptiness, why do not the existing art systems eliminate you, and the same a19? at the same time, the created, debugged production scheme, and successfully inserted into the sau when it was necessary to bung D-25 again.
                there was nothing right there, no shells, no solved problems, no production, nothing, but it had to be dealt with only because you know about the Tiger, and at the same time you are proposing to use not a separately invented weapon on the sau, but a triple alteration from the PTO.
                do you give a guarantee that something would come out efficient from m75?
                do you, a person living in 42 promise by the summer of 43 a super-gun for a tank, with well-established production, with shells, etc.?
        2. Andy
          Andy 25 December 2013 16: 04
          +1
          ml20 is not anti-tank at all. its pillboxes to destroy and all
          true, but the Pasans didn’t know ...
          HE shells of the ML20 cannon, when hit in the wall, destroys the welds of the frontal part of the tank and destroys the transmission.
          ---
          an adult, and licks like a clown! you hit first. not at the training ground, but in battle. when maneuvering, when shooting back. here to you and persistence here to you and rate of fire. ml20 has neither one nor the other. and since I got it, yes, your prize. but again ml20 is not a tool pto !!!
          1. Stas57
            Stas57 25 December 2013 16: 27
            0
            an adult, and licks like a clown! you hit first. not at the training ground, but in battle. when maneuvering, when shooting back. here to you and persistence here to you and rate of fire. ml20 has neither one nor the other. and since I got it, yes, your prize. but again ml20 is not a tool pto !!!

            yeah, the above 107 mm gun didn’t hit the tiger from 7 shots ever. Coverage is equal to ML20, only she will have to shoot on a direct fire, well, this is a trifle, right?
            once again, 7 shots-hits = 0.
            But this does not bother you in any way.
            while the manual clearly writes, shoot, from 107 and 152 only a group of 3-4 guns.
            but mlNXX is not a weapon

            why do you think that the M75 will be a worthy tool for vocational training? just because 163 mm at 1 km and that's it?
            1. Andy
              Andy 25 December 2013 17: 14
              0
              it’s not that exactly the M75 and the point are just NEEDED TO WORK. Moreover, the tendency is towards heavy tanks. Before the war, our military were sure that the Nazis would have it. But they didn’t bring the gun to mind. That the results are not so hot, it is treated by eliminating the shortcomings, and not by stopping the tests. as a result, towards the end of the war, they again began to look at 100mm
              1. Stas57
                Stas57 25 December 2013 18: 35
                0
                it’s not that exactly the M75 and the point are just NEEDED TO WORK. Moreover, the tendency is towards heavy tanks. Before the war, our military were sure that the Nazis would have it. But they didn’t bring the gun to mind. That the results are not so hot, it is treated by eliminating the shortcomings, and not by stopping the tests. as a result, towards the end of the war, they again began to look at 100mm

                Well ? the operating time was discarded as hemorrhoids, what is the problem? what moan that ravens and co were short-sighted fools?
                would be promising, erase dust from the folder and go
    2. svp67
      svp67 25 December 2013 12: 22
      +1
      Quote: Stas57
      dododo, it's easy to argue from the couch in 2013 that someone is wrong there. and nothing

      The loud voice of the people ..... Just what you say is POPULISM. And nothing more. I don’t remember that I would suggest setting up their release in 1941. I was opposed to the fact that Voronov proposed NOT TO FIND TESTING AND DEVELOPING ALREADY READY WEAPONS ... As a result, when we needed it, we had to do it ... and our army received weapons capable of fighting with enemy tanks only in 1944, although already On August 29, 1942, at the Mga station near Leningrad, our troops had experience, UNSUCCESSFUL fighting with the Tiger tank, and as you said there ..
      that there are no goals for her and the tiger didn’t even lie on the neutral,
      since 1942, the Tiger has been lying around ...
      And our "specialists", even at the beginning of 1943, did not expect the Germans to have heavily armored tanks, assuming that the Germans would follow the path of our T34, which they guessed of, of course, but not in the MAIN. And the main thing that I wanted to say ... is
      Conclusion - no matter how difficult the country is, one should always think for the future ...

      But you are engaged in pure populism ...
      Quote: Stas57
      and what was bad D-5? ZIS-2? D-25T? ML-20?

      D-5, in that:
      - appeared only in JUNE 1943 of the year
      - It was not technologically advanced and due to its relatively large size, high complexity and cost, the D-5T gun received limited use and was produced in small batches. As a result, it was replaced very soon
      Zis-2 - the gun is quite normal, and its history just shows that if you TAKE CARE OF THE DESIGN more or less in time, then you can get the gun very quickly, then when it is very necessary ...
      D25T - bad VERY low rate of fire
      ML20 is bad in that since 1943 of the year ML-20 has been used in artillery regiments of a larger organizational and staff unit - the combined arms army.
      1. Stas57
        Stas57 25 December 2013 12: 37
        0
        although already on 29 of August 1942 of the year near the Mga station near Leningrad, our troops had experience, UNSUCCESSFUL fighting with the Tiger tank, and as you said there

        ohog, but nothing that he was pulled fired at the end of winter 43 ?, and 29 of August 1942 of the year at the Mga station no one knew what kind of tank it was, and now remind you when the 107mm gun was being developed ?, almost a year before the first tiger was shot at the training ground
        But you are engaged in pure populism ...

        and you do afterlife

        D-5, in that:
        - appeared only in JUNE 1943 of the year
        - was not technological and due to the relatively large size, high complexity and cost of the gun D-5T

        not, but M75 was perfect, you are messing, the one that is golf and you guarantee that
        unsatisfactory performance and durability of semi-automatic and shutter actions, insufficient pipe survivability and insufficient cradle strength.
        would be fixed?

        Zis-2 - the gun is quite normal, and its history just shows that if you TAKE CARE OF THE DESIGN more or less in time, then you can get the gun very quickly, then when it is very necessary ...
        D25T - bad VERY low rate of fire
        ML20 is bad in that since 1943 of the year ML-20 has been used in artillery regiments of a larger organizational and staff unit - the combined arms army.

        A19 - excellent results on the firing of all German tanks and?
        Why is it not pleasing? And then I told you that the M75 was significantly faster? significantly more penetrable and much more mobile?
        but it was necessary to bring the 1 system with unpredictable results, and for unknown purposes, and this is the spring of 42, although yes, I populist ...
        but to use these "barn gates" (S. Heinz G.) in the spring of 42 is it normal?
      2. Vladimirets
        Vladimirets 25 December 2013 12: 44
        0
        Well, you are a little cunning about
        Quote: svp67
        On August 29, 1942, at the Mga station near Leningrad, our troops had experience, UNSUCCESSFUL fighting with the Tiger tank, and as you said there ..

        When all the cars, mainly due to technical reasons, were disabled and didn’t particularly help the Nazis. In addition, the Red Army immediately received at its disposal a sample of the latest German tank, respectively, how can it be that
        Quote: svp67
        our "specialists", even at the beginning of 1943, did not expect the Germans to have heavily armored tanks

        if just at the beginning of 1943 they got an intact Tiger?
        The M-75 in 1941 really did not have worthy opponents, as already mentioned above, it had a bunch of shortcomings and shortcomings, despite the already finished instance.
      3. Bigriver
        Bigriver 26 December 2013 08: 02
        0
        Quote: svp67
        ... and our army received weapons capable of fighting enemy tanks only in 1944, ..

        It's not just about trunks.
        The 45, 76 and 85 mm systems had untapped potential until the end of the war as an armor-piercing manufacture.
        Efficiency (armor penetration) of them could, according to various estimates, increase from 17 to 25%.
        By 1944, we had gained the experience of units in the fight against tank breakthroughs. Without this practice, the fate of any child prodigy drina to be thrown either on the position or on the approach to it.
    3. svp67
      svp67 25 December 2013 12: 23
      +2
      Quote: Stas57
      thought otherwise we would not have
      SU-85 SU-122 SU-152 ISU-152 · ISU-122, IS-1 · IS-2, T-34-57, T-34-85

      All these combat vehicles are the result of impromptu ...
      Work for the future - T44 ...
    4. svp67
      svp67 25 December 2013 12: 40
      +3
      Quote: Stas57
      what kind of sau do you offer this fool?
      Which tank? Do you want to steal the mouse from the Germans?

      Well, they found how to adapt such a "fool"

      to fight tanks

      there would be a desire and a well-developed and finished barrel design ...
      1. Stas57
        Stas57 25 December 2013 12: 50
        0
        Well, they found how to adapt such a "fool"

        nothing that BS-3 did not penetrate "Tiger B" in vll from 500 m, at best, fragments, nll from 1 km does not pierce, from 100 m it makes a break
        where is the guarantee that xNUMX will be better? but how much effort will be spent.

        there would be a desire and a well-developed and finished barrel design ...

        Wow, only one thing, brought to war, and not in 42
        By the way, I remind you that B-34 returned three times for revision
      2. Volkhov
        Volkhov 25 December 2013 12: 59
        +2
        At Grabin, the factory produced 800 F-42s (107 mm tank guns) and in 42, they remelted them in open-hearth because of this piece of paper.
  4. TRex
    TRex 25 December 2013 12: 30
    +2
    107 mm - an ancient "sea" caliber, there was no sensible ammunition for it - and that was destroyed. And the weight under 8 tons - where with this fool on the battlefield for direct fire? Where are the armored tractors? It's right that they crushed ...
    1. svp67
      svp67 25 December 2013 21: 26
      0
      Quote: TRex
      Where are the armored tractors?

      And for what? That would be enough

      Voroshilovets, by August 1941 there were 1123 units in the troops ...
      Or here is the STZ-5

      And I wonder what the armor is for? It’s easier then "SPG - hunter" to do ...
      In this case, the main speed and maneuverability for the tractor is the same as in such cases


      Two cross-country vehicles tow a 45 mm gun. Ahead, probably, "Willis", behind - GAZ-64.
      1. Bigriver
        Bigriver 26 December 2013 08: 10
        0
        Quote: svp67
        ...And for what? That would be enough.
        Voroshilovets, by August 1941 there were 1123 units in the troops ...
        Or here is the STZ-5 ...

        Under the 107 mm system were oriented C2, of which the army in the fall of 41 was about 1000 pieces. That is, in fact, there were NO EXTRA. Moreover, they also stopped releasing them at the beginning of the 42nd.
        "Voroshilovtsy", of course, you can carry 107 mm smile
        Only due to the reduction of dragging MORE heavy and existing systems.
        In fact, do you propose to abandon some 122-152 mm case system in favor of a 107 mm PTA with SEPARATE GUIDANCE? winked
  5. Stas57
    Stas57 25 December 2013 12: 55
    0
    TRex
    Vladimirets
    Basileus

    exactly,
    but we are told that Voronov was wrong, that KB had to be distracted by this, and with an unknown result.
    I repeat, discard the afterlife, dear svp67, look around, you have 42 spring, and think about what to do, how to act, how to spend strength and resources
    1. Andy
      Andy 25 December 2013 15: 46
      0
      I want to remind you that the equipment is being created in the future, we created a square (name the tank equal to it in 1940), the Germans gave the mission to the tiger ... in 1940 or 1941. used near Kursk. occasional break-ins do not count. so it went fine-tuning. and having received the tiger with a trophy near Mgoy, our people understood that there was NOTHING to beat it with Ml20, but 19- not anti-tank guns. It’s 2-weak. How much time did it take to get acquainted with the tiger until the T34-85 and Is2 appeared? parts? because there was no groundwork and there was nothing to set. near Kursk anti-aircraft guns were used as ptos! and remember, you won’t create a technique without testing.
      1. Stas57
        Stas57 25 December 2013 16: 35
        +2
        and remember, you won’t create a technique without testing.

        True, they tested and understood, in the archive, and intensely engaged in the production of not a wunderwaffle, but a deed,
        for example, the production of cumulative shells, and in the end we achieved that the 45ka showed very good results in both the Tigers and CT.
        it’s not always necessary to go with a blunt increase in the mass of the shell and its caliber.
        I don’t understand, why are you all trying to prove that it was a good thing?
        8 tonne, 2 meter crap with a rate of 5 rounds per minute?
      2. Vladimirets
        Vladimirets 25 December 2013 16: 53
        +1
        Quote: Andy
        near Kursk anti-aircraft guns were used as ptos!

        The Germans used anti-aircraft guns to fight HF already in the 41st, although they knew that we had such tanks, is that not a miscalculation? What kind of perspective was this among the Nazis that they did not have effective means of struggle against existing tanks?
        1. Andy
          Andy 25 December 2013 17: 27
          0
          did not know. the troops and kv and txnumx were an unpleasant surprise. and then they gave out xnumxmm long barrels for txnumx in xnumx.
          1. Stas57
            Stas57 25 December 2013 18: 39
            0
            did not know. the troops and kv and txnumx were an unpleasant surprise. and then they gave out xnumxmm long barrels for txnumx in xnumx.

            so unpleasant that at least one pair of 88 was introduced into each campho group at the tip of the breakthrough, and the staff etc. introduced 10 cm guns?
            apart from the fact that regular means T34 quite amazed himself.

            near Kursk anti-aircraft guns were used as ptos!

            in Belarus, 41, Under Stalingrad, 85 was used as a tanker! under Tula and near Moscow, so what?
    2. svp67
      svp67 25 December 2013 21: 37
      0
      Quote: Stas57
      and think about what to do, how to act, how to spend energy and resources

      So, it was from 1942, from its beginning, ALL test pilots, engineers and designers of defense enterprises responded from the fronts, the USSR ATOMIC project began to gain momentum ... That is, the country began to work for the future, no matter what ... , here it is ...
  6. alone
    alone 25 December 2013 19: 10
    0
    In 1941, no one in the world had tanks that even came close to the T-34-76 and KV-1. Let's say they would have adopted the M75. To hit the T-3 and T-4, the 76mm caliber anti-aircraft missile was enough. That's when the Germans appeared tigers and panthers. Here then the country made the corresponding conclusions in this direction. I don’t think that Voronov was so stupid that Stalin assigned him the rank of Marshal of artillery. And we don’t need to discuss marshals and their decisions.
    1. svp67
      svp67 27 December 2013 12: 41
      0
      Quote: lonely
      And it’s not for us to discuss marshals and their decisions.

      Then maybe yes. But now it is NECESSARY. Since there is NOTHING TO DO GODS from SINNY PEOPLE ...
  7. Stas57
    Stas57 25 December 2013 19: 50
    +2
    so, to summarize and sleep)
    So, we mean the project of a powerful cannon, made in six months and tested
    what is-

    - as the PTX M75 was completely nonexistent, heavy, high, slow, with 6 speeds / min, but 163 mm per 1 km (which is not a fact, usually in the series the copies were worse than the experienced ones, and the penetration in the series fell, wartime all the same)
    - from a technological point of view, a crude, unfinished product with a bunch of jambs, such as the survivability of the M-75 barrel, which turned out to be extremely low due to the strong height of the barrel channel (hi armor penetration).
    - from a production point of view - a complete zero, in the spring of 42 it was necessary not only to put on production a new type of gun, fix its jambs, but also to restart the interrupted production of 107 shells (as already noted above are already correctly noted), especially since there weren’t even the necessary gunpowder and phlegmatizers have been created.
    and all this is not only not in the easiest period for the country, when the tiger has not yet arrived at the neutral, and the Germans had no burdens,

    and Voronov sayswhy goat slaughter to the archive,
    How wrong you were, Comrade Future Marshal .... as they say here.

    it would seem yes, of course, people were excited about 163 mm at 1km, the end to ferdinand, but ...
    I think in the 43 year you understood this, remembered, and ....

    According to the documents, the M-75 was pulled out of the naphthalene again in September 1943. The reason is simple - something was needed to fight “Ferdinand”. True, they quickly removed it there, this time forever.
    "4. In view of the fact that the 107 mm M-75 cannon with an initial speed of 1020 m / s is completely unfinished, and there is no production of ammunition for it, it is more profitable to work on a more powerful 122-mm gun with an initial speed
    spine of 1000 m / sec. "

    point

    but time itself confirmed that Voronov was right; they didn’t even get this system anymore.
    Well, what about Has come back with many hundreds of lives. it is not known how jumping from one artillery system to another, fine-tuning the supergun, setting up production "for the future", at a time when the country needs now, today needs what it needs, not crude projects and unclear prospects.
    I note, until the end of the war, more developed weapons systems did not go into the series, if at least they broke or reduced production.

    Thank you all, the report is finished))
  8. Alf
    Alf 25 December 2013 23: 33
    +4
    Not only is the projectile discontinued, it is also SEPARATE loading, which is unacceptable for a PT gun. In addition, with a mass of 7500 kg, penetration of 160 mm. Compare with the BS-3 penetration the same ammunition unitar weighing 3650 kg. Do not forget about the dimensions.
    Imagine, in the 41st they put it on a series, the war began, the question immediately arises, What tanks should I shoot from it? If they were going to shorten the barrel of the ZIS-2 due to the excess power and weight of 1050 kg, then what to do with this monster of 7,5 tons? And instead of 107-mm, you can make 12 (!) 41-mm guns arr. 45, which are more necessary in 37. And it would have turned out like the 44-45-tuev Hans have a lot of guns in development, and, apart from 88, there are no other AT guns, and the designers are busy, "working for the future, creating masterpieces." Let's start production in 45 or 46, and Russian tanks are already washing tracks in the Oder.
    1. Bigriver
      Bigriver 26 December 2013 08: 24
      +1
      Quote: Alf
      Not only is the shell removed from production, but also SEPARATE loadingthat for the PT guns is unacceptable ...

      ... and SEPARATE guidance by two gunners belay
      It is a pity that neither the article nor the discussion mentioned the place of this system in the troops. Here the fun begins smile
  9. Impich
    Impich 27 December 2013 15: 16
    0
    natural fool .. what kind of German tank in the 41st year they wanted to hit from it? two, three or four .. maybe Czech sucks ??? crazy chamber of the Reds apparently was .. well at least still thought better of it ... if only then ZIS 2 did not stop releasing .. this was the level .. and not this sucks ..
  10. Prohor
    Prohor 30 December 2013 20: 08
    0
    The devil knows ... On the one hand, they could have received a cannon back in 1941, which for another 30 years could easily herach all tanks in the world. On the other hand - 7,5 tons for 107 mm - an overkill ...