British anti-tank artillery in World War II

40
British anti-tank artillery in World War II


By the beginning of hostilities in Europe, the main weapon of British anti-tank units was the 2-pound 40-mm anti-tank gun.


2-pound anti-tank gun in a combat position


The prototype 2-pound cannon QF 2 pounder was developed by Vikers-Armstrong in the 1934 year. By design, it was a perfect tool for its time. In combat, the two-pounder rested on a low base in the form of a tripod, thereby providing a horizontal angle of 360 °, and the wheels broke off from the ground and were fixed on the side of the gun barrel. After the transition to a combat position, the gun could easily turn to any point, allowing firing at moving armored vehicles in any direction. A strong grip with a cruciform base increased the shooting efficiency, since the gun did not “walk” after each shot, retaining its tip. The accuracy of the fire was very high also due to the presence of a telescopic sight. The calculation was defended by a high armor shield, on the back of which a box with shells was attached.



At the time of the appearance, the “two-pounder” was perhaps the best weapon in its class, surpassing the 37-mm German anti-tank gun 3,7 cm Pak 35 / 36 in a number of parameters. At the same time, in comparison with many guns of that time, the design of the 2-pound cannon was rather complicated, moreover, it was much heavier than other anti-tank guns, the weight of the gun in the combat position was equal to 814 kg. The gun's rate of fire reached 22 rds / min.

Conceptually, the gun differed from that used in most European armies. There the anti-tank guns were to accompany the advancing infantry, and the 2-pound guns were intended for firing from a fixed defensive position.

In 1937, this weapon was adopted by the Belgian, and in 1938, by the British army. According to the British classification, the gun belonged to the rapid-fire (hence the letters QF in the title - Quick Firing). It took some time during the revision of the first samples to fully comply with army standards, in 1939, the gun version of the Mk3 was finally approved for the gun.

For the first time, the anti-tank "two-pounder" was used by the Belgian army in an attempt to counter the German invasion of the Netherlands and Belgium and subsequently by the British army during the French campaign.



A significant number of "two-pounders" (more than 500 units) were abandoned by the British army in France during the evacuation from Dunkirk. The two-pound cannons captured in Dunkirk were used by the Germans (including on the Eastern Front) under the designation 4,0 cm Pak 192 (e).

The events of 1940 showed that the 2-pound gun was out of date. 40 mm anti-tank guns did not have enough power to penetrate 50 mm German armor tanks. Their shells were too light to cause significant damage to the tank’s mechanisms, even if armor was pierced.

An 1,08-kg armor-piercing projectile that left the gun at a speed of 850 m / s (enhanced charge), at a distance of 457 m penetrated 50-mm homogeneous armor. The reinforced-charge armor-piercing projectiles were introduced when it became clear that standard projectiles with an initial speed of 790 m / s, which had armor penetration on 457 meters 43 mm, were not effective enough.

For some reason, two-pound ammunition as a rule did not include fragmentation shells that could allow these guns to hit unarmored targets (despite the fact that such shells were fired in the UK for the needs of anti-aircraft artillery and fleet).

To enhance the armor penetration of 40-mm anti-tank guns, a Lipgljohn transitional device was designed, worn on the barrel and allowing you to shoot sabot projectiles with a special “skirt”. The sabber 0,57-kg armor-piercing Mk II projectile in combination with the Lippleon extension adapter accelerated to 1143 m / s. However, the light sub-caliber projectile was relatively effective only at “suicidal” close distances.

Until 1942, British manufacturing capacity was not enough for the production of modern anti-tank guns. Therefore, the release of 2-pounders QF 2 pounder continued, despite their hopeless obsolescence.



As a result, in the North African campaign 1941-1942, 2-pound cannons proved to be insufficiently effective against German tanks. In this campaign, the British began to mount them on all-terrain trucks to increase the mobility of the two-pounders. Of course, such an improvised PT SAU was very vulnerable on the battlefield.



On the chassis of all-wheel drive Morris trucks were also installed 40-mm anti-aircraft guns "Bofors", the license issue of which was established in the UK.


40-mm ZSU on the chassis of a Morris truck


During the fighting in North Africa, in addition to its direct destination, the British 40-mm ZSU provided fire support to the infantry and fought with German armored vehicles. In this role, they were much better than two-pounders. However, not surprisingly, the anti-aircraft gun had a longer barrel, the automatic weapon was several times superior to the anti-tank in speed of fire, and the presence in the ammunition set of fragmentation shells allowed the enemy infantry to be kept outside the effective range of the machine-gun fire.

The two-pound gun was used on British and Canadian tanks (including those supplied to the USSR during the Great Patriotic War under the Lend-Lease program). But due to the apparent weakness of the gun as a tank, it was not used for long. Unlike tanks on armored cars, the “two-pounder” was used throughout the war.



After 1942, the 2-pound cannons were removed from anti-tank artillery units and transferred to infantry to protect against tanks in melee combat. These guns were used quite successfully in the Far East against weakly armored Japanese tanks, remaining in service until the end of hostilities.

In addition to the 40-mm "two-pounders", at the beginning of the war there was a certain amount of X-NUMX-mm anti-tank cannons "Bofors" in the British anti-tank artillery units.



In 1938, 250 guns were ordered in Sweden, of which no more than 100 was delivered before the start of the war. In Britain, the gun had the designation Ordnance QF 37 mm Mk I.

The design of the gun was perfect enough for its time. The monoblock barrel, equipped with a semi-automatic horizontal wedge bolt and a small muzzle brake, was mounted on a carriage with sliding beds. The gun had a suspension and metal wheels with rubber tires. The calculation was defended by a bent shield shield 5 mm thick, and its lower part could be hinged back. It was one of the best anti-tank guns of the late 30-s, which was popular in different countries.

37-mm "Bofors" on the characteristics of armor penetration almost did not concede 40-mm "two-pounder". Combat rate reached 20 rds / min. At the same time, the weapon weighed only 380 kg, i.e. more than half the size of the QF 2 2-pound cannon. Low weight and good mobility made 37-mm Swedish guns popular among British gunners. However, after the appearance of tanks with anti-missile armor, both guns became obsolete.

Even before the outbreak of hostilities in 1938, realizing the weakness of 40-mm anti-tank guns, the British military initiated the development of a new 57-mm anti-tank gun. Work on the new anti-tank gun was completed in the 1941 year, but due to the lack of production capacity, its mass flow into the troops was delayed. Deliveries began only in May 1942, the gun was given the name Ordnance QF 6-pounder 7 cwt (or simply “six-pound”).
The design of the 6-pound gun was much simpler than that of the 2-pound. The forked bed provided an angle of horizontal pickup 90 °. There were two models in the 6-pounder gun series: the Mk II and the Mk IV (the latter had a slightly longer barrel than the 50 caliber, unlike the 43 caliber of the Mk II). The design of the frame model Mk III was adapted for placement in the landing gliders. The weight of the gun in the combat position of the modification of the Mk II was 1140 kg.


Mk II


At that time, the "six-pounder" easily dealt with any enemy tanks. An armor-piercing 57-mm projectile weighing 2,85 kg at a distance of 500 m confidently punched 76-mm armor at an angle 60 °.


Mk IV


But next year the Germans had heavy tanks Pz.Kpfw.VI "Tiger" and PzKpfw V "Panther". Whose frontal armor turned out to be too tough for 57-mm guns. Already after its adoption, the power of the “six-pounder” was enhanced by the introduction of improved types of armor-piercing ammunition (this significantly extended the service life of the weapon). The first of these was an armor-piercing sabot projectile with a metal-ceramic core. In 1944, he was followed by an armored-piercing piercing projectile with a separating tray, which sharply increased the penetration capacity of the weapon. There was also a high-explosive fragmentation projectile for hitting unarmored targets.



For the first time 6-pound cannons were used in North Africa, where they received a rather high rating. The 57-mm guns successfully combined good armor penetration, low silhouette and relatively low weight. On the battlefield, she could roll the forces of the gun, and as a tractor on solid ground could use army jeeps. From the end of 1943, the guns began to be gradually removed from the artillery units and transferred to the infantry anti-tank calculations.



In total, more than 1942 1945-pounders were produced from 15000 to 6, 400 guns were supplied to the USSR. Comparing this anti-tank gun with the Soviet 57-mm gun ZiS-2, it can be noted that the British gun was significantly inferior in terms of the most important indicator - armor penetration. It was harder and harder, had almost twice the worst utilization of metal in production.


South Korean gun crew with 57-mm anti-tank gun Mk II, 1950 year


After the war, the 6-pound cannon remained in service with the British army until the end of the 50-x. Widely supplied to the Allies and participated in many local conflicts.

Obvious during the war, the tendency to strengthen armor protection of tanks led British military analysts to realize that the armor of new tanks 6-pound guns would not be able to cope soon. It was decided to start the development of the next generation of anti-tank guns caliber 3 inch (76,2 mm), firing projectiles weighing at least 17 pounds (7,65 kg).

The first samples of the 17-pound cannon were ready in August 1942, but the launch of the guns in the series took a long time. In particular, difficulties arose with the production of a carriage. However, the need for a powerful new anti-tank gun was very acute, British intelligence became aware of the German intention to transfer heavy tanks Pz.Kpfw.VI Tiger to North Africa. In order to give the troops at least some heavy weapon to fight them, 100 guns were flown to North Africa by transport aircraft. There they were urgently installed on beds from field 25-pounder howitzers, forming a hybrid 17 / 25-pound cannon. This gun system became known as the 17 / 25-pounder, or Pheasant.


17 / 25-pounder


The gun was cumbersome enough for its caliber, but it successfully coped with the task. For firing were used armor-piercing shells with a ballistic tip, which had an initial speed of 884 m / s. At a distance of 450 meters, the gun pierced 148-mm armor at the meeting angle 90 °. Well-prepared calculations could produce at least 10 shells per minute. These “surrogate” guns continued service until 1943, until 17-pound cannons appeared that were called Ordnance QF 17-pounder. Arrived 17-pound guns had a low silhouette and were easy to maintain.


17-pound anti-tank gun Ordnance QF 17-pounder


The bed was forked, with long legs and a double armored shield. Long barrel guns supplied with a muzzle brake. The calculation consisted of 7 people. The combat weight of the gun reached 3000 kg. Since August, 1944, the ammunition of guns began to be included, however, in limited quantities, new sabot shells SVDS or APDS. The mass of such a projectile was 3,588 kg, the mass of a tungsten core - 2,495 kg. The shell left the barrel at a speed of 1200 m / s and from the distance 500 m punched 190-mm armor plate, located at a right angle. The initial version of the high-explosive fragmentation projectile, used in the "seventeen-pound", was unsuccessful. Due to the powerful propellant charge in the sleeve, it was necessary to increase the thickness of the projectile walls, in order to avoid its destruction from loads when moving in the barrel when fired. As a result, the coefficient of filling the projectile with an explosive was also small. Subsequently, the reduction of the propellant charge in a unitary shot with a high-explosive fragmentation projectile made it possible to make the walls of the projectile thinner and place more explosives in it.



As you know, disadvantages - the continuation of the merits. The 17-pound cannon was a much heavier and larger tool than its 6-pound predecessor. She demanded a special tractor for her transportation and could not roll over the forces on the battlefield. For towing on "weak" ground was used artillery tractor on the basis of the tank "Kruseyder".

By 1945, the 17-pound gun became standard weapons parts of the royal artillery and anti-tank batteries, where he continued to serve until the 50-s, a lot of guns were transferred to the allied armies.



"Seventeen pound" was a very successful weapon for armament PT SAU and tanks. Initially, the gun was installed on the launched in a small series of cruiser fighter tanks "Challenger" A30. This tank was built on the elongated chassis of the Cromwell tank in 1942 and, being armed with the most powerful at the time British anti-tank gun QF 17 pounder, was intended for fire support and combat armored vehicles at long distances.


Tank "Challenger" A30


On the chassis of the tank "Valentine" in 1943 year released PT SAU "Archer" (eng. Archer - Archer). Designers "Vikkers" installed 17-pounder gun barrel in the stern. The top-mounted armor house with an inclined installation of the frontal sheets was lined up around the habitable volume of the vehicle, and the long-barreled gun was sent back. The result was a very successful compact tank destroyer with a low silhouette.


PT SAU "Archer"


The "looking back" gun was not a disadvantage, as the Archer usually fired from a prepared position, which he could immediately leave if necessary.

But the most well-known machine, where this weapon was used, became the tank SXMNXX Sherman Firefly (eng. Firefly - "Firefly"). The 4-pounder gun was mounted on British Sherman tanks, models М17А4 and М1А4.


A paratrooper of the US 101 Division examines holes in the frontal sheet of a wounded British Sherman Fairfly tank


When re-equipping the tank, the gun and mask were replaced, the radio was taken out into an external box mounted on the back of the tower, the driver’s assistant was replaced (part of the ammunition was placed in its place) and a machine gun. In addition, due to the large length of the relatively thin barrel, the marching fixation system of the cannon was changing, the Sherman Firefly tower in the stowed position was unfolded 180 degrees, and the barrel of the cannon was mounted on a bracket mounted on the roof of the engine compartment. In total, 699 tanks were reworked, which entered the British, Polish, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand units.

At the end of the war, a powerful 76,2-mm anti-tank cannon with anti-aircraft gun 17-Inch QF AA was developed to replace the 94-mm QF 3.7 pounder. But given the fact that the new weapon turned out to be very heavy and expensive, and the war was nearing completion, the 120-mm recoilless BAT tool (L1 BAT) was preferred.


120 mm L1 BAT


Launched into production after the end of the war, the “bezotkatka” resembled a conventional artillery gun with a lightweight wheel carriage with a large shield cover, and had a rifled barrel with a bolt, the nozzle was screwed into its rear end. A tray is attached to the top of the nozzle for easy loading. At the muzzle of the trunk there is a special device for towing the gun by car or tracked tractor.

Shooting from BAT was carried out with unitary loading shots with armor-piercing high-explosive tracer shells equipped with plastic explosives with 250-300 armor penetration mm. The length of the shot is about 1 m, the weight of the projectile is 12,84 kg, the effective firing range for armored targets is 1000 m.

Unlike the Germans, the British practically did not use medium-caliber anti-aircraft guns to fight tanks, despite the fact that their powerful 94-mm 3.7-Inch QF AA gun could destroy any German tank.



Apparently, the reason was the excessive weight of the gun and the considerable time required for deployment and relocation.

The production volumes of anti-tank guns in the UK were several times less than in the USSR or Germany. British anti-tank guns played a prominent role during the campaign in North Africa. In Europe, they were on the “pickup”, the main burden of the struggle in the ground units with relatively few “Panzervaffe” forces were carried by more mobile PTs SAU and tanks. Anti-tank guns, as a rule, were attached to infantry units, where they, apart from firing at armored vehicles, provided fire support in the offensive.

Very often, an Ordnance QF 25 pounder 25-pound howitzer fired at the tanks. This lightweight 87,6-mm howitzer is rightfully one of the best guns of World War II due to its high rate of fire, good mobility and excellent striking qualities of its projectiles. Given that these guns were more numerous than the 6-pound and 17-pound cannons, and the howitzer weighed half as much as the "seventeen pound", there were more chances for these guns on the battlefield.


25-pound howitzers on position


The gun was equipped with a periscope sight to combat armored vehicles and other targets when firing direct fire. The ammunition guns included 20-pound (9,1 kg) armor-piercing shells with an initial speed of 530 m / s. The rate of fire in direct fire was 8 shots / min.

The main means of fighting German tanks after the Allied landings in Normandy became aviation. Having suffered serious losses in the oncoming battles with German tanks: PzKpfw IV, Pz.Kpfw.VI Tiger and PzKpfw V Panther and self-propelled guns based on them, the British made the following conclusions: the primary task was to destroy the fighter-bomber squadrons - to destroy German tanks.

British pilots of Typhoon fighter-bombers used 60-pound 152-mm armor-piercing high-explosive missiles to fight armored vehicles. The warhead weighing 27,3 kg had an armor-piercing tip of hardened steel and was able to penetrate armor up to 200 mm in thickness at a distance of 1 km.


60-pound armor-piercing high-explosive missiles "60lb SAP No2 Mk.I" under the wing of a fighter


The 60lb SAP No60 Mk.I 2-pound rocket hit the front armor of a heavy tank, if it did not destroy it, it caused heavy damage and incapacitated the crew. It is assumed that the cause of the death of the most productive tank ace of the 3-th Reich Michael Wittman together with his crew was getting into the aft part of his "Tiger" 60-pound rocket from the Typhoon.



In fairness it should be said that we must be critical of the statements of British pilots about the hundreds of destroyed "Tigers". Much more effective were the actions of fighter-bombers on the German transport communications. Possessing dominance in the air, the Allies were able to paralyze the supply of fuel and ammunition, thus minimizing the combat capability of the German tank units.

Based on:
http://www.militaryfactory.com
http://jaegerplatoon.net
http://lesffi.vraiforum.com
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

40 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +9
    16 October 2014 10: 35
    It seems like a "forge of the world", but when you look at their products, especially tanks, you even feel ashamed ...
    And our guns with the same (and even better) characteristics were lighter, more compact and more maneuverable. That's what the sea nation means))))
    1. ramsi
      +2
      16 October 2014 11: 06
      purely practical, the idea of ​​ammunition behind the shield is very not bad
      1. +5
        16 October 2014 11: 23
        I don’t think so. There is little point in this. shields there are anti-fragmentation. But the weight of the gun is increasing, which is bad for mobility.
        1. ramsi
          +1
          16 October 2014 11: 26
          40mm caliber, in critical cases the crew is two, complete autonomy, (do not forget about the removed wheels - a controversial decision). No, against the background of classmates not bad
          1. +5
            16 October 2014 13: 00
            Quote: ramsi
            do not forget about the removed wheels - a controversial decision

            They did not act, they were hung out. For the sake of providing a round fire. For a VET of this caliber is really debatable.

            For ammunition, special boxes were used for German "door knockers" and for Soviet magpies, which was a more adequate solution
            1. ramsi
              +2
              16 October 2014 15: 08
              Well, for me, even in modern anti-tank artillery systems, the possibility of "stash" for a couple of shots at hand would not interfere; Moreover, its use would be better not prescribed by the charter, but left to the discretion of the fighters
              1. +2
                16 October 2014 19: 22
                And she already is, nest egg. As soon as 3/4 of the BK is shot, it is formally considered that the ammunition is over.
    2. +3
      16 October 2014 14: 09
      Quote: Trapper7
      And our guns with the same (and even better) characteristics were lighter, more compact and more maneuverable. That's what the sea nation means))))

      The Soviet anti-tank 57-mm ZiS-2 gun was valid in most respects more successfully than the British 6-pound gun. At the same time, the 76,2-mm ZiS-3 division, which was very often used as an anti-tank, was inferior to the 17-pound one in terms of the most important armor penetration parameter for an anti-tank gun.
      1. +2
        16 October 2014 16: 43
        You still compare the howitzer, ZIS-3 was created for firing from closed positions and with a large resource. What kind of resource was there at the 17-pound barrel? How much did she weigh?
        It is also permissible to compare PAK-36 (r), created on the basis of the ZIS-3 with a 17-pound, such a German PT-ersatz based on it quite competed with the Englishwoman. And do not compare tungsten core shells with conventional armor-piercing shells.
        1. +2
          17 October 2014 05: 33
          Quote: goose
          You still compare the howitzer, ZIS-3 was created for firing from closed positions and with a large resource.

          You can compare it with a howitzer, why not? British 25-pound howitzers, as stated in the publication, very often fired on tanks, especially in North Africa. As for our division ZiS-3, after 1943, it became the main anti-tank weapon of the Red Army.
          Quote: goose
          It is also permissible to compare PAK-36 (r), created on the basis of ZIS-3

          Here you are mistaken PAK-36 (r) is created on the basis of the division F-22.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. 0
        16 October 2014 16: 47
        Quote: Bongo
        Quote: Trapper7
        And our guns with the same (and even better) characteristics were lighter, more compact and more maneuverable. That's what the sea nation means))))

        The Soviet anti-tank 57-mm ZiS-2 gun was valid in most respects more successfully than the British 6-pound gun. At the same time, the 76,2-mm ZiS-3 division, which was very often used as an anti-tank, was inferior to the 17-pound one in terms of the most important armor penetration parameter for an anti-tank gun.

        It was much easier. But the F-22 was more powerful, but it was also more mobile. By the way, even more powerful 100 mm guns were more mobile than the British 76,2 mm.
        1. +4
          17 October 2014 05: 41
          Quote: Trapper7
          But the F-22 was more powerful, but it was also more mobile.

          The Soviet 76,2-mm divisional cannon F-22 used the same shell as the ZiS-3, so it could not be more powerful. The Germans captured a significant amount of F-22, having drilled a chamber, they used another bottle-shaped shell in it, this gun is known as PAK-36 (r).
          Quote: Trapper7
          By the way, even more powerful 100 mm guns were more mobile than the British 76,2 mm.

          Here you are also mistaken, the Hrabian 100-mm BS-3 was about half a ton heavier.
          1. 0
            17 October 2014 10: 02
            Quote: Bongo

            The Soviet 76,2-mm divisional cannon F-22 used the same shell as the ZiS-3, so it could not be more powerful. The Germans captured a significant amount of F-22, having drilled a chamber, they used another bottle-shaped shell in it, this gun is known as PAK-36 (r).

            Yes, but with ZIS-3 this trick has not been done. And initially the muzzle energy of f-22 was higher. And the fact that the quality of the shells we had was not the best - so where does the gun? And the fact that the Germans managed to increase the power of the guns speaks only in favor of our gun. IMHO of course, but it still turns out that our gun was more powerful (or possessed such a potential that the Wehrmacht revealed), but at the same time it was more mobile the British.
            1. +3
              17 October 2014 14: 07
              Quote: Trapper7
              And initially the muzzle energy of f-22 was higher.

              Why do you think so? both guns used a shell from a 76mm divisional gun of the 1902 model. Another question is that when developing the F-22 V.G. Grabin laid a large margin of safety in it; it was originally designed for a powerful projectile with a bottle sleeve. But the military insisted on the old ammunition, because huge stocks of shells for the "three-inch" were accumulated in warehouses, which was of course a mistake. And the "quality" of the shells has absolutely nothing to do with it.
              1. 0
                17 October 2014 14: 27
                Quote: Bongo
                Why do you think so? both guns used a shell from a 76mm divisional gun of the 1902 model. Another question is that when developing the F-22 V.G. Grabin laid a large margin of safety in it; it was originally designed for a powerful projectile with a bottle sleeve. But the military insisted on the old ammunition, because huge stocks of shells for the "three-inch" were accumulated in warehouses, which was of course a mistake. And the "quality" of the shells has absolutely nothing to do with it.

                True, I do not want to argue, because I do not consider myself a super expert in artillery, but I proceed from the fact that the f-22 was planned to be used including like an anti-aircraft gun, the barrel length was slightly longer than that of the ZIS-3, the initial velocity of the projectile was slightly higher and armor penetration, too. Slightly, but still.
                ZIS-3 was easier and cheaper to manufacture and operate. This is its undoubted advantage.
                1. +3
                  17 October 2014 15: 06
                  Quote: Trapper7
                  what f-22 planned to use including like an anti-aircraft gun, the barrel length was slightly longer than that of the ZIS-3, the initial velocity of the projectile was slightly higher and armor penetration, too.

                  The F-22 was born as a result of the vicious concept of the "universal weapon" that Tukhachevsky instilled. V.G. Grabin opposed this, but eventually gave up. The gun turned out to be frankly unsuccessful and overweight. In practice, the effectiveness of firing an armor-piercing projectile from the F-22 and ZiS-3 were practically the same. If you come across a book by A.B. Shirokorada "The Genius of Soviet Artillery", I highly recommend.
              2. 0
                17 October 2014 14: 46
                Quote: Bongo
                And the "quality" of the shells has absolutely nothing to do with it.

                It’s strange. Is armor penetration independent of the quality of the shells?
                1. +5
                  17 October 2014 15: 01
                  Quote: Trapper7
                  Is armor penetration independent of the quality of the shells?

                  As you rightly noted, it certainly depends. But in this case, it was not about the quality of heat treatment of armor-piercing shells, but about the amount of artillery powder in a bottle and cylindrical sleeve. What directly depends on the initial speed and muzzle energy.
          2. 0
            17 October 2014 10: 04
            Quote: Bongo
            Here you are also mistaken, the Hrabian 100-mm BS-3 was about half a ton heavier.

            And I do not write, which is easier. I write about mobility. As far as I know, in the field the BS-3 could be replaced by artillery calculation forces (at least, as they wrote in one of the reviews on the cannon). But with a British cannon such a trick no longer succeeded.
            1. +3
              17 October 2014 14: 16
              Quote: Trapper7
              And I do not write, which is easier. I write about mobility. As far as I know, in the field the BS-3 could be replaced by artillery calculation forces (at least, as they wrote in one of the reviews on the cannon). But with a British cannon such a trick no longer succeeded.

              Well, if we assume that the weight of the gun has nothing to do with its "mobility", then you are probably right. In 1988, I somehow watched a crew deploy a 100-mm MT-12 gun, its weight roughly corresponds to a "seventeen-pounder". It is difficult to imagine that the calculation would roll her over to change the position. what And the BS-3 is much more massive and heavier, in addition, it has twin wheels, which are more difficult to roll. By the way, BS-3 was never called anti-tank.
    3. +1
      16 October 2014 16: 54
      I agree. The British and Americans do not sting the material.
    4. +2
      16 October 2014 19: 55
      That's just ZiS-2 was so technologically complex that it went into the series only in 43 and they were missing the whole War.
      1. +1
        16 October 2014 20: 46
        Actually, the reason was not at all. And in the excessive passion for the production of ZiS-3 and other divisional guns. "Technological complexity" has nothing to do with it.

        By the way, in the year 41 about 500 ZiS-2 / ZiS-30 were produced
        1. +2
          17 October 2014 05: 44
          Quote: Spade
          "Technological complexity" has nothing to do with it.

          Unfortunately, "moreover," the mass production of the ZiS-2 with an acceptable number of barrels that had gone to waste, became possible only after the receipt of machine tools from the USA under Lend-Lease.
  2. avt
    +5
    16 October 2014 10: 56
    Good review! good
  3. pinecone
    +1
    16 October 2014 11: 41
    Quote: Trapper7
    It seems like a "forge of the world", but when you look at their products, especially tanks, you even feel ashamed ...
    And our guns with the same (and even better) characteristics were lighter, more compact and more maneuverable. That's what the sea nation means))))


    In the 19th century, England was called the "workshop of the world".
  4. +5
    16 October 2014 12: 16
    As I understand it, now there will be a series of articles on anti-tank artillery, we will wait to continue. Thanks to the author.
    1. +5
      16 October 2014 13: 52
      Quote: Hiking
      As I understand it, now there will be a series of articles on anti-tank artillery, we will wait to continue. Thanks to the author.

      You are welcome! hi
      Publications about the Soviet and German PTA have already been:
      http://topwar.ru/33705-protivotankovaya-artilleriya-rkka-chast-1-ya.html
      http://topwar.ru/33071-nemeckaya-protivotankovaya-artilleriya-vo-vtoroy-mirovoy-
      voyne-chast-1-ya.html
      In the near future, a review of the American anti-tank guns is planned.
      1. +3
        16 October 2014 17: 13
        Thanks, already read.
        1. +2
          17 October 2014 20: 53
          Quote: Hiking
          In the near future, a review of the American anti-tank guns is planned.

          hi
          You turns out to be an expert not only on anti-aircraft guns and coastal defenses,
          but also on anti-tank !!!
          Respect!
          1. +2
            18 October 2014 15: 36
            Quote: Mister X
            Respect!

            Thank you Michael, glad you liked it! hi It's just that this topic is interesting to me, so I'm trying to cover it with my modest powers. Unfortunately, there are not so many objective publications without urea-patriotic hops, including on technical issues. When will you please again with your article?
  5. +2
    16 October 2014 14: 42
    The article does not mention the experimental Fri gun, William H. Smith, firing while lying on its side. winked
    http://warfiles.ru/31366-proschay-rodina-po-britanski.html



    1. +4
      16 October 2014 14: 45
      Quote: igordok
      The article does not mention the experimental Fri gun, William H. Smith, shooting lying on its side

      And there was no such goal, the publication is called: "British anti-tank artillery in World War II" hi
      1. +3
        16 October 2014 15: 04
        There are no claims to the article, it’s great. Just learning about this gun could not resist.
        This gun was supposed to be used in the initial WWII period, in the case of the Wehrmacht landing on the islands, when there were not enough normal guns. I'm pinning if the Britons used these guns. soldier
        1. +3
          16 October 2014 15: 13
          Quote: igordok
          Just learning about this gun could not resist. This gun was supposed to be used in the initial WWII period, in the case of the Wehrmacht landing on the islands, when there were not enough normal guns. I'm pinning if the Britons used these guns.

          Honestly, I have not heard about this weapon before, in general, the British, in anticipation of the German invasion, mounted quite a few different ersatz and improvisations, and also removed a lot of junk from the warehouses.
          1. +4
            16 October 2014 15: 38
            Quote: Bongo
            Honestly, I have not heard about this weapon before, in general, the British, in anticipation of the German invasion, mounted quite a few different ersatz and improvisations, and also removed a lot of junk from the warehouses.

            I read (looked through more) the British manual on the fight against German tanks, laughed for a long time. But leaving a laugh, he thought. If I had been at that time, I would have been no laughing matter. I would be glad to ALL.
            1. +3
              16 October 2014 18: 05
              Quote: igordok
              I would be glad to ALL.

              Becker Bombard?

              http://www.nevingtonwarmuseum.com/home-guard-equipment---blacker-bombard.html

              1. +6
                16 October 2014 18: 14
                By the way, this anti-tank monster had a little son - PIAT
  6. 0
    31 October 2014 16: 52
    whatever you say, and our anti-tank artillery was an order of magnitude superior to the British. as she fought, giving out all the power that designers and developers put into it.
    1. +1
      1 November 2014 06: 16
      Quote: Prager
      whatever you say, and our anti-tank artillery was an order of magnitude superior to the British. as it fought, giving out all the power that the designers-developers laid in it

      By the number of guns released, you are certainly right. As for the quality characteristics, it is not so simple, especially considering that the main fleet of our anti-tank guns was the 45-mm anti-tank and 76-mm division.
      And yet, the order of magnitude is the number of digits in the number minus 1. Two quantities are said to be of the same order if the ratio of the larger to the smaller of them is less than 10. Thus, an expression that is an order of magnitude greater (or less) means approximately 10 times more (or less), an expression two orders of magnitude means approximately 100 times more ... So be careful with the "orders".
  7. The comment was deleted.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"