Military Review

SAU 212 Object

34
Heavy self-propelled artillery installation "Object 212".




Shortly before the outbreak of war, the heavy chassis tank KV served as the basis for the development of self-propelled guns, which had an index of Object 212. The work was carried out in SKB-4 LKZ under the general supervision of J.Ya. Kotin, Ts.N. Golburt was appointed lead designer. The project, submitted to the ABTU at the end of 1940, was developed under the clear influence of the Soviet-Finnish war.

Overcoming the long-term fortifications of the “Mannerheim Line” proved to be much more difficult than it seemed to the General Staff of the Red Army, and it was simply impossible to solve it without the help of heavy artillery. In a number of cases, heavy cannon fired at Finnish bunkers with direct fire, which was not always possible in conditions of strong fire resistance. The problem could be solved by adopting the self-propelled guns equipped with large-caliber guns, but such machines were put to the test only at the beginning of February 1940, when the enemy’s defense was already broken. Since the urgent need for this kind of self-propelled guns disappeared projects T-100-Y and SU-14-1 preferred to close in favor of the tank breakthrough KV-2. Taking advantage of this, Kotin decided to independently develop the topic of heavy self-propelled guns, which could be used for strikes at the enemy’s immediate rear or at its leading edge of defense.

For the future self-propelled gun was selected gun Br-2 caliber 152,4-mm, previously installed on the SU-14 model 1937 of the year. This artillery system, created by the Barrikady design bureau in 1931, was initially rejected at comparative tests with the B-30 gun, but then, for reasons that were not quite clear, it was adopted. The choice in favor of the Br-2 was not the most optimal, since the gun had several design flaws, and its prototype was almost destroyed due to rupture of the barrel. However, during the 1937-1940 biennium, 37 guns were launched, which later became part of the heavy cannon regiment of the Reserve of the High Main Command.

Nevertheless, with all its shortcomings (low mobility, laboriousness in manufacturing, low barrel survivability) Br-2 had high power. The Br-2 ammunition nomenclature consisted of two types of ammunition: high-explosive fragmentation 53-OF-551 weighing 48,9 kg and concrete-breaking 53-G-551 weighing 49 kg. The initial velocity of the 53-OF-551 projectile was 880 m / s, the maximum range of the shot was 25 km (for small-rifled guns, this figure was 27 km). In the case of hitting any of these projectiles in a tank or armored vehicle, the result was their complete destruction. Structurally, the Br-2 gun consisted of a barrel (47,2 long caliber), piston-type shutter, gun carriage, hydraulic recoil brake and hydropneumatic knurler. The loading of the gun was a cap-type, but to facilitate the delivery of projectiles from the ground there was a special crane with a winch. In order to place this artillery system on the base of the KV, it was necessary to significantly modify the undercarriage. The number of track rollers was increased from 6 to 7, with the distance between them being reduced at the rear, and increased at the middle (less loaded). The supporting rollers remained 4, however, in view of the change in the layout, the drive wheel was moved forward. The guide wheel with a screw track tensioning mechanism is now located at the rear. The suspension of the self-propelled gun remained independent torsion bar. The self-propelled caterpillar was small-grained with a 660 track width mm. Changes to the chassis design were made due to a complete redesign of the layout. The fighting compartment was located behind and, in part, in the middle part of the body. The department of management in which there were places of the driver and the gunner-radio operator, was located between the transmission and engine compartment. The hull was welded and assembled from rolled 20, 30, 50 and 60 mm thick armor plates.



Gun Br-2 was installed in the wheelhouse and equipped with a telescopic sight. The pointing angles were quite modest and ranged from -3 to + 15 vertically and - \ + 8 horizontally. Despite the fact that the shells were now literally “at hand”, the actions of the loader were strongly limited to their mass. In order to facilitate the loading process, it was planned to install a special tray, like the M-10 howitzer in a KV-2 heavy tank. An armor-piercing projectile weighing 51,07 kg, which had an initial speed of 860 m / s, was introduced into the nomenclature of ammunition to the gun, and at the 5000 distance of meters could penetrate an 40-mm armor sheet.
For protection against infantry, SAU was equipped with three DT machine guns of caliber 7,62-mm. One of them was installed in the front hull sheet, the second - in the aft part of the combat compartment, the third was anti-aircraft and had to be mounted on the turret on the roof of the combat compartment.

Ammunition for the gun Br-2 was 47 shot separate loading and 3000 cartridges for machine guns DT. For comparison, the KV-2 tank was completed with 36 shots and 3087 cartridges.

Since the estimated mass of the 212A Object was close to 65 tons, it needed a heavy duty engine. As the main option, a forced B-2 with a centrifugal-driven supercharger was chosen, which was supposed to develop maximum horsepower 850. This would allow a maximum speed of up to 35 km / h and a range on the highway of the order of 200 km.

External communication was provided by the 71-TK-3М radio station with a whip antenna, internal communication (most likely) between crew members - an intercom system such as TPU-3 or TPU-3bis-F.



Although heavy self-propelled guns have lost their previous priority, the 212A Object project was approved by ABTU and was accepted for implementation. The construction of the SAU was to be carried out at the LKZ, where in December 1940 of the year a set of working drawings was sent for the manufacture of the hull. However, at this time, the company was heavily loaded with orders for the release of KV-1 and KV-2, for which the main forces of the Kirov design bureau were thrown. In addition, in April 1941, preparatory work began on the production of KV-3 tanks (the first version, with an elongated chassis and 76,2-mm cannon), so there was no longer any force left on the ACS.

The final assembly of the corps was delayed until June of the 1941 year, and after the start of the war, it was not up to an experienced “assault” self-propelled gun. Perhaps it would have been possible to bring the case to sea trials, but the LKZ did not manage to deliver the chassis for the SAU. As a result, self-propelled installation Object 212A was dismantled on the metal.

TACTICAL-TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF HEAVY SAU
Object 212A sample 1940 g.
Developer: KB LKZ
Started: 1940
Year of construction of the first prototype: 1941 (built only body)
The reason for the completion of the work: the beginning of the war and the unavailability of the prototype.
COMBAT WEIGHT - 63000 kg
CREW, people - 7

ARMAMENT
152,4-mm gun Br-2 and three 7,62-mm machine guns DT

BOECOMPLEKT
47 shots and 3000 ammo

HANGING APPLIANCES
telescopic sight

BOOKING
forehead felling - 60 mm
body shell - 60 mm
board - 50 mm
Roof - 30 mm
bottom - 20 mm
feed - 60 mm

ENGINE
В-2СН, diesel, 12-cylinder, 4-stroke, hp 850 power

TRANSMISSION
multidisk main and side friction clutches of dry friction, 5-speed gearbox

CHASSIS
(on one side) 7 dual main rollers, 4 supporting rollers, front drive and rear guide wheels

SPEED
30 km \ h

STOCK ON THE HIGHWAY
200 km

OVERCOME OBSTACLES
Wall height, m ​​- 1,00
The width of the pit, m - 2,50
Wade depth, m - 1,30

MEANS OF COMMUNICATION
radio station 71-TK-3
34 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Dovmont
    Dovmont 6 July 2013 07: 00
    -1
    Oh, if such self-propelled guns would we have at the beginning of the war !! Damage to the Nazis would have done much more!
    1. omsbon
      omsbon 6 July 2013 09: 54
      +9
      With such a mass of 63 tons and low maneuverability, these self-propelled guns would go to the Germans in the form of trophies. They were created for the offensive, not for defense!
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 6 July 2013 10: 01
        0
        These self-propelled guns were not designed for direct fire.
        1. Denis
          Denis 6 July 2013 12: 25
          +1
          Quote: Spade
          These self-propelled guns were not designed for direct fire
          But what about the terms of reference?
          In a number of cases, firing from heavy guns was conducted on Finnish bunkers with direct fire, which was not always possible in conditions of strong fire resistance. The problem could be solved by adopting self-propelled guns equipped with large-caliber guns
          Direct fire implies that;
          Kotin decided to independently develop the theme of heavy self-propelled guns that could be used to strike at the enemy’s near rear, or at its front edge
          For the same clashes at a distance of a direct shot, the armament included
          To protect against infantry, the self-propelled guns were equipped with three machine guns DT caliber 7,62-mm. One of them was installed in the frontal sheet of the hull, the second in the aft of the fighting compartment, the third was anti-aircraft and had to be mounted on turrets on the roof of the fighting compartment
          With anti-aircraft it’s clear, but two others, obviously they weren’t going to shoot from closed positions
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 6 July 2013 14: 32
            0
            Quote: Denis
            Direct fire implies that;
            Kotin decided to independently develop the theme of heavy self-propelled guns that could be used to strike at the enemy’s near rear, or at its front edge

            This can also be accomplished by firing from closed targets.
            You look at the original BR-2, it was disassembled for movement, moved on roads with speeds not exceeding 30 km / h. The transfer time from marching to combat is about 10 minutes.

            Yes, according to the experience of fighting in Finland, our commanders began to pay undeservedly high attention to direct fire. During the Second World War, they managed to roll onto it what was originally not intended for this, for example, the ML-20 or the installation of rocket mortars. But this was associated more with poor training of commanders than with military necessity.

            So the main purpose of this self-propelled guns was still shooting from closed OP.
            1. Hudo
              Hudo 6 July 2013 20: 23
              +1
              Quote: Spade
              So the main purpose of this self-propelled guns was still shooting from closed OP.


              Opposing you, I would like to draw your attention to the performance characteristics
              BOOKING
              forehead felling - 60 mm
              body shell - 60 mm
              board - 50 mm
              Roof - 30 mm
              bottom - 20 mm
              feed - 60 mm

              For firing from closed OPs, it is enough to use anti-sabotage booking from bullets and fragments. There was no need to fence a garden with enhanced booking and, as a result, with an engine. Yes, and pointing angles from -3 to +15 vertically do not speak in favor of firing from closed openings. hi
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 6 July 2013 21: 20
                0
                Quote: Hudo
                For firing from closed OPs, it is enough to use anti-sabotage booking from bullets and fragments. There was no need to fence a garden with enhanced booking and, as a result, with an engine.

                Exactly. They created a monster that could not act as an assault self-propelled guns or as self-propelled guns for firing from closed fire. Because some fishermen decided that such tools needed to be rolled out on a direct fire.
                1. Hudo
                  Hudo 6 July 2013 21: 45
                  +1
                  Hmm, but for example ISU-152 with aiming angles - 3-5 and + 18-20 that, were they very often used for firing from closed OP with their "speed"? The same as about the 212 SPG, which was used either as an assault or anti-tank, by the way, quite successfully.
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 6 July 2013 21: 49
                    0
                    Infrequently. But not because of elevation angles, but because of the small BK, which was also hemorrhagic to replenish.
                    1. Hudo
                      Hudo 6 July 2013 22: 42
                      0
                      Quote: Spade
                      due to small CD, which was also hemorrhagic to replenish

                      Not only. In view of the extremely low rate of fire, there is not much use for such firing. And to massage 40 kg shells in cramped conditions - pleasure is below average.
                      1. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 6 July 2013 22: 53
                        0
                        Quote: Hudo
                        In view of the extremely low rate of fire, there is not much use for such firing.

                        The ISU-152 rate of 2-3 rpm. In the towed version, ML-20 3-4 rpm. The difference is small. And the latter not only made almost 7 thousand pieces, but it is still in service with the RA. Until the collapse of the USSR, they were heavily labore brigades armed.
                      2. Hudo
                        Hudo 6 July 2013 23: 03
                        0
                        Quote: Spade

                        The ISU-152 rate of 2-3 rpm.

                        And how long could the zakidny, in your opinion, be able to withstand such a pace and not get it right by hitting a fuse or dropping a shell? At the towed gun - put aside and everything, in the cabin of the self-propelled guns.
                      3. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 6 July 2013 23: 11
                        0
                        Quote: Hudo
                        And how long could the zakidny, in your opinion, be able to withstand such a pace and not get it right by hitting a fuse or dropping a shell?

                        From 7 to 10 minutes. Then the shells ended.
  2. svp67
    svp67 6 July 2013 20: 27
    0
    Quote: omsbon
    With such a mass of 63 tons and low maneuverability, these self-propelled guns would go to the Germans in the form of trophies. They were created for the offensive, not for defense!

    I think you are right. In that war, the fate of this "monster" would not have been enviable ...
  • Denis
    Denis 6 July 2013 07: 39
    +2
    As the estimated mass of the 212A Object was approaching 65 tons, it needed an extra powerful engine.
    the right car, but it ruined it, especially according to current advertising, the main source of evil is overweight. Most of the bridges would be impassable and it would be difficult to transport by rail
  • pensioner
    pensioner 6 July 2013 14: 09
    +7
    When I read such materials, I still think: how quickly our designers of armored vehicles reached the forefront in the world. after all, they started in a devastated country with ridiculous copies of "Cardin - Loyds", and at the end of 30 they already achieved incredible success! Tank Christie - perfected, heavy tanks were designed, so much so that for many years to come design solutions were useful! T-34 is a separate story. Self-propelled guns developed during the won times were in service until the end of the 60s. But most of these designers were very young people! And in many ways their successes are the product of SOVIET TECHNICAL EDUCATION !! What to invent with education reforms !! After all, everything was!
  • pensioner
    pensioner 6 July 2013 14: 11
    +2
    When I read such materials, I still think: how quickly our designers of armored vehicles reached the forefront in the world. after all, they started in a devastated country with ridiculous copies of "Cardin - Loyds", and at the end of 30 they already achieved incredible success! Tank Christie - perfected, heavy tanks were designed, so much so that for many years to come design solutions were useful! T-34 is a separate story. Self-propelled guns developed during the won times were in service until the end of the 60s. But most of these designers were very young people! And in many ways their successes are the product of SOVIET TECHNICAL EDUCATION !! What to invent with education reforms !! After all, everything was!
  • Taoist
    Taoist 6 July 2013 14: 14
    0
    Yes, as practice has shown, we have in vain developed specialized artillery systems. The Germans throughout the war, one might say, sculpted "ersatz" on all chassis available at hand and quite successfully. By and large, an SPG does not need to be booked above the "splinterproof" - but ours seem to have been greatly frightened by the experience of the Finnish war. And to take into account that the second "Mannerheim line" is not expected anywhere else in the district, apparently they could not. So they sculpted virtually motionless firing points. But you could just re-equip the old T-26 with old howitzers, and there would be much more sense. The Germans with the bison did not bother at all - they even left the wheel drive to the cannon ... But they got operational mobility and the ability to maneuver with fire with the support of infantry both in the offensive and in defense.
    1. Kars
      Kars 6 July 2013 14: 45
      +3
      Quote: Taoist
      By and large, an SPG does not need to be booked above the "splinterproof" - but ours seem to have been greatly frightened by the experience of the Finnish war.

      SAU SAU strife. And the Germans sculpted with both bulletproof and anti-ballistic shells. Our bored people did them Grills. And you can remember the Storm tiger.
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 6 July 2013 17: 13
        +2
        Anti-cannon armor is a tank destroyer - they need it, because direct aim. But what for is anti-cannon armor for a 6 "-8" inch caliber gun which, by definition, fires 99% of the time from closed positions?
        1. svp67
          svp67 6 July 2013 17: 16
          0
          Quote: Taoist
          But what for is anti-cannon armor for a 6 "-8" inch caliber gun which, by definition, fires 99% of the time from closed positions
          So she is not needed, enough anti-fragmentation, but after all, an ACS with such a caliber of a gun was needed as an "assault ACS", so anti-cannon armor is useful for her
        2. Kars
          Kars 6 July 2013 20: 42
          +2
          Quote: Taoist
          But what for cannon-proof armor for a 6 "-8" inch caliber gun

          Well, here it’s clearly an assault self-propelled guns looming. And it’s easier without any armor at all --- one of the biggest shortcomings of the Soviet corps / heavy artillery is the lack of a normal wheel drive in the B-4

          Charles
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 6 July 2013 21: 21
            -1
            For the assault self-propelled guns, the gun is clearly redundant.
            1. Kars
              Kars 6 July 2013 21: 32
              +1
              Quote: Spade
              For the assault self-propelled guns, the gun is clearly redundant.

              Excessive power does not happen. One can say it is too expensive, and so during the storming of Germany rolling out the B-4 for direct fire was not uncommon.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 6 July 2013 21: 58
                -1
                It happens. Well, there is no purpose for such a weapon at the forefront, if you use it as an assault. B-4 wasn’t rolled out with great minds on PN. There was a very big problem - commanders who gained their knowledge during the battles had little idea of ​​the capabilities of artillery. That's why they tried to apply art. guns as analogues of tanks. Which often led to their damage or destruction.
                Most often ZiS-3 was rolled out on PN, and how many of them had to be riveted during the war?
                1. Kars
                  Kars 6 July 2013 22: 03
                  +2
                  Quote: Spade
                  It happens

                  can not be
                  Quote: Spade
                  . Well, there’s no purpose for such a weapon at the forefront,

                  any goal will come down if the gun is already there.
                  Quote: Spade
                  -4 not out of a great mind on PN rolled out.

                  But rolled out. Under enemy fire, without any protection.
                  Quote: Spade
                  That's why they tried to apply art. guns as analogues of tanks. Which often led to their damage or destruction.
                  Moreover, this is an example during the Sturm of Berlin when the thickness of the walls of the houses turned into supporting glasses was more than a meter.
                  Quote: Spade
                  Most often ZiS-3 was rolled out on PN, and how many of them had to be riveted during the war?

                  And why then not 45 ku? There are also a lot of them, but the effectiveness of the shells isn’t so hot for one that one.
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 6 July 2013 22: 43
                    -1
                    Quote: Kars
                    any goal will come down if the gun is already there.

                    He is not there. It’s still necessary to roll it to the front edge. And it can work much more effectively with a closed OP, striking targets from the front edge, and to the entire depth of the enemy’s defense.

                    Quote: Kars
                    But rolled out. Under enemy fire, without any protection.

                    Exactly. Moreover, using them is absolutely ineffective.

                    Quote: Kars
                    Moreover, this is an example during the Sturm of Berlin when the thickness of the walls of the houses turned into supporting glasses was more than a meter.

                    This is a city where tanks and self-propelled guns would be enough for the eyes.

                    Quote: Kars
                    And why then not 45 ku? There are also a lot of them, but the effectiveness of the shells isn’t so hot for one that one.

                    And in your opinion they should have stopped. And pull on the B-4 exclusively
                    1. Kars
                      Kars 6 July 2013 22: 55
                      +1
                      Quote: Spade
                      The secret does not exist.

                      There is no court.
                      Quote: Spade
                      It’s still necessary to roll it to the front edge

                      People tried to make it come.
                      Quote: Spade
                      And it can work much more effectively with a closed OP, striking targets from the front edge, and to the entire depth of the enemy’s defense.

                      Yes, no matter, for this and self-propelled guns do not need to sculpt a person.
                      Quote: Spade
                      Exactly. Moreover, using them is absolutely ineffective.

                      Those for whom 100 kg of piglets flew did not agree with you. But efficiency still needs to be calculated. But there is a fact, and there is no escape from it.
                      Quote: Spade
                      This is a city where tanks and self-propelled guns would be enough for the eyes.

                      That was why it wasn’t enough, although I didn’t have any complaints about the lack of tanks in the Berlin operation. And the talk on the way is about self-propelled guns.
                      Quote: Spade
                      And in your opinion they should have stopped. And pull on the B-4 exclusively

                      I thought you had a richer fantasy.
                2. svp67
                  svp67 6 July 2013 22: 03
                  +1
                  Quote: Spade
                  There was a very big problem - commanders who gained their knowledge during the battles had little idea of ​​the capabilities of artillery

                  And are you talking about the commanders triumphantly ending the war?
                  And the problem is when shells of smaller calibers not only do not pierce, but simply bounce off the walls of Berlin houses, don't you consider? It was not because of the good life that these guns were put on the PN, but thanks to them, after three shots, the building "folded" and the issue of moving forward was resolved somehow more quickly ...
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 6 July 2013 22: 34
                    -1
                    Quote: svp67
                    And are you talking about the commanders triumphantly ending the war?

                    Yes. Or "the winners are not judged"?

                    Quote: svp67
                    But the problem is - when shells of smaller caliber do not penetrate, but simply bounce off the walls of Berlin houses, do not you consider?

                    Do they penetrate tank armor? It’s strange. And why did BM-13 roll out for direct fire, does it have rocket shells having a concrete-breaking effect?

                    Quote: svp67
                    but thanks to them, after three shots, the building "folded" and the issue of moving forward was resolved somehow more quickly ...

                    First it had to be rolled up. So it's not worth talking about speed. Then ensure the safety of the calculation. Something tells me that absolutely empty houses were "taking shape".
                    1. svp67
                      svp67 6 July 2013 22: 47
                      +1
                      Quote: Spade
                      Yes. Or "the winners are not judged"?
                      Well, why, but I think that this is not the case, or rather, there is only one court verdict - they are innocent ...
                      Quote: Spade
                      Do they penetrate tank armor? It’s strange. And why did BM-13 roll out for direct fire, does it have rocket shells having a concrete-breaking effect?

                      1,5mm walls of houses are still somewhat different from the armor of a tank, although the ZiS3 did not always penetrate it ... and I can explain the use of the "Katyusha" in the first place - by the strongest moral effect, do not forget that a lot of folksturm fought on the part of the Germans, and secondly, by one property of the MLRS - "the imposition of a blast wave", as a result of which all the defenders could be qualitatively incapacitated ...
                      Quote: Spade
                      At first it had to be rolled up. So it's not worth talking about speed.

                      Well, imagine, very slowly it was rolled up to the crossroads and after three shots, removing the frontal obstacle, it opens the way for infantry and tanks to capture the quarter, and you don’t even need to talk about covering the Spree force, the concentrated fire of a fire platoon on buildings on the enemy shore, reliably deprived the enemy of the desire to resist ...
                      1. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 6 July 2013 23: 19
                        0
                        Quote: svp67
                        Well why, but I think that this is not the case

                        This is exactly the case. And if you don’t discuss the mistakes of the winners, especially gifted ones will surely appear, who, having two tank companies, for some reason drive out 2C3 for direct fire.
                3. Kars
                  Kars 6 July 2013 22: 07
                  +1
                  By the way, the Fritz probably also didn’t understand anything, since they tried to work on such miracles as Bar.
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 6 July 2013 22: 35
                    0
                    Fritz created a lot of interesting and inapplicable things.
                    1. Kars
                      Kars 6 July 2013 22: 49
                      +1
                      I think the residents of Warsaw who have joined Warsaw will not agree with you. But at the same time, the very fact of the work, especially that intensified after Stalingrad, speaks for itself.
                      Quote: Spade
                      Do they penetrate tank armor? Weird

                      It depends on how thick you want to put the tank armor in the protective obsalu? The walls have 50-70 mm more armor that the Zis-3 has broken down. At the same time, it’s unlikely to rely on the big effect of the blank for the ones that are seated at the reference point.
                      Quote: Spade
                      First it had to be rolled up. So it's not worth talking about speed. Then ensure the safety of the calculation. Something tells me that absolutely empty houses were "taking shape".

                      it may well be that they are empty, but the abandonment of the strengthening of the vet did not come from the holy spirit? but from the sight of the 8-inch howitzer coming forward.
    2. svp67
      svp67 6 July 2013 15: 01
      0
      Quote: Taoist
      Yes, as practice has shown, we in vain developed specialized artSAU.

      Oh, how interesting ... that is, that during the war there was a clear separation of self-propelled guns into anti-tank, assault and general-purpose, this is not a fact for you ...
      Quote: Taoist
      But you could just rearm the old T-26 with old howitzers, and there would be much more sense.

      as a general-purpose self-propelled gun, that is, just a self-propelled gun, such an option would fit, but to create an "assault" self-propelled gun, there is no such vehicle, since such a vehicle had to have not only strong armament, but also the appropriate booking to approach the target as close , but the T26 chassis could not provide this. Would simply not be able to withstand such an increased load
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 6 July 2013 17: 11
        0
        you misunderstood me ... I'm just for "specialization" - for it has long been known that "fighter-bomber" is a worthless fighter and the same bomber.

        It was about the fact that having riveted a bunch of samples of unique super-heavy "breakthrough self-propelled guns", at the same time, we did not have a simple and cheap "infantry support" in the production of self-propelled guns, similar to the same Bison or "Stug" ... "all at once" did not lead to anything good. I am not a fan of the "gloomy Teutonic genius" but I have to admit that in the field of self-propelled guns the Germans turned out to be more rational and practical than us.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 6 July 2013 21: 24
          0
          Quote: Taoist
          did not have a simple and cheap self-propelled guns in the production of "infantry support" similar to the same Bison or "Stug"

          Our infantry support self-propelled guns, simple and cheap, is the Su-76.
          1. Taoist
            Taoist 6 July 2013 22: 18
            0
            Uh-huh ... remind in what year did we launch their mass production? History, of course, does not have a subjunctive mood, but the same Fritzes, having captured our own guns, turned them into self-propelled guns much faster ... And we riveted dofig of the same T-26x and guns without mechanics ... they did not guess to cross these in the end the same Germans and got ... No, the object is a machine of course interesting and powerful ... but more like a curiosity. Like a "coastal defense tank" - there was such a thing ...
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 6 July 2013 23: 06
              0
              Quote: Taoist
              but the same Fritz captured our own guns much faster turned them into self-propelled guns ...

              And ours also tried so. Have you heard about the Su-76? And about the SG-122?


              However, we decided that the game was not worth the candle.
              1. Taoist
                Taoist 7 July 2013 00: 46
                0
                Actually, I’m in the know.
                But I'm not talking about "adapting captured equipment" (and it was not enough at the beginning of the war, and at the end it was not needed). I mean that having an excess of tank chassis, we went down the wrong path - not redoing the existing artillery guns, but trying to develop from "0". Until it came, until they began to remake "BM2" into a "naked Ferdinand" ... how much wasted the technique.
  • mithridate
    mithridate 6 July 2013 20: 57
    +1
    the history of technological development is always interesting and instructive
  • PValery53
    PValery53 6 July 2013 23: 52
    0
    The culmination of the design exercises at the end of the war were the SU-152 and ISU-152 - "hunters", reliably "demolishing" all tank-hazardous directions of the Germans at the end of the war.
    1. Corsair
      Corsair 7 July 2013 05: 25
      0
      Quote: PValery53
      The culmination of the design exercises at the end of the war were the SU-152 and ISU-152 - "hunters", reliably "demolishing" all tank-hazardous directions of the Germans at the end of the war.

      I would like to add to the listed legendary SU-100 ...