100-mm field gun model 1944 of the year (BS-3)

81
100-mm field gun model 1944 of the year (BS-3)


In the spring of 1943, the VG In his memorandum addressed to Stalin, Grabin proposed, along with the resumption of production of the 57-mm anti-tank ZIS-2, to begin designing the 100-mm cannon with a unitary shot, which was used in the B-34 naval guns.



Interestingly, the "ancestor" of the Soviet naval and land guns caliber 100-mm was the Italian naval universal artillery system Minizini.


100-mm AU Minizini of the cruiser "Red Caucasus"


In the middle of the USSR 30-s for armament of Svetlana-type cruisers: Red Caucasus, Red Crimea and Chervona Ukraine, 10 100-mm double-barreled rifles were developed by engineer-general Eugenio Minizini in Italy.

The need to create a 100-mm towed gun was motivated by the appearance of heavy Germans in 1942 tanks Panzerkampfwagen VI "Tiger I" Ausf E, with a frontal armor thickness of 100 mm, as well as the possible emergence of even more protected tanks and self-propelled guns.

In addition to anti-tank missions, such a weapon was essential for the destruction of field fortifications and counter-battery firing when the Red Army proceeded to offensive operations. Since the existing 107-mm divisional gun of the 1940 model of the year (M-60) was discontinued, and the 122-mm 1931 / 37 model cannon (A-19) was too heavy and had a low rate of fire.

In September 1943, the first prototype was sent to the test site. Preliminary tests have shown that the new 100-mm gun does not meet the requirements of reliability and is unsafe in operation. After making a number of improvements and changes in April 1944, military tests of four guns began. They ended on May 2, the admissions committee recommended adopting the weapon into service, subject to the elimination of a number of flaws.


100 mm BS-3 cannon


By decree of the State Defense Committee of 7 in May 1944, the gun was put into service under the name “100-mm field gun mod. 1944 g. ”, Its factory index was BS-3. It was under this designation that this instrument became widely known.

The phrase "field gun" appeared for the first time in the designation of the instrument created in the Soviet era. The officers of the Main Artillery Directorate for a long time decided how to name the new gun. As a divisional 100-mm gun was too heavy. And as an anti-tank, it did not satisfy a number of conditions at that time. Moreover, the creator of this instrument, VG Grabin never considered the BS-3 anti-tank system, which, apparently, was reflected in the name.

When creating a BS-3, the designers of the design bureau under the direction of VG Grabin widely used their experience in creating field and anti-tank guns, and also introduced a number of new technical solutions.

For the sake of high power, weight reduction, compactness and high rate of fire, for the first time, a wedge semi-automatic shutter and a two-chamber muzzle brake with 60% efficiency were used for the first time.



The wheel problem was originally solved; for lighter guns, wheels from GAZ-AA or ZIS-5 were usually used. But for the new gun they did not fit. The wheels of the five-ton YAZ were too heavy and large. Then the Spark wheel was taken from GAZ-AA, which allowed it to fit into the specified weight and dimensions. The wheels from the GAZ-AA truck had a reinforced rubber tire and a special wheel hub. Equipped with such wheels, the guns could be transported by mechanical ping at fairly high speeds.

In the spring of 1944, BS-3 was put into mass production. But the pace of production in connection with the workload of factories were not high. Until the end of World War II, the industry supplied the Red Army with only about 400 guns.

Due to the presence of a wedge gate with a vertically moving wedge with semi-automatic, the location of the mechanisms of vertical and horizontal pickup on one side of the gun, as well as the use of unitary shots, the firing rate of the gun is 8-10 shots per minute. Shooting from a cannon was carried out with unitary shots with armor-piercing tracer shells and high-explosive fragmentation grenades.

Technical characteristics of BS-100 3 mm field gun:
The mass of the gun in the combat position - 3650 kg.
Barrel caliber - 100 mm.
Barrel length - 5960 mm / 59,6 calibers.
The height of the line of fire - 1010 mm.
The number of grooves - 40.
Gun dimensions in the stowed position:
- length - 9370 mm;
- height - 1500 mm;
- width - 2150 mm;
Firing range:
- OF-412 and OFS - 20 thousand m;
- RP-32 - 20,6 thousand m;
- direct shot - 1080 m.
The rate of fire is up to 10 shots per minute.
The angle of horizontal guidance - 58 degrees.
The angle of vertical guidance is from -5 to + 45 degrees.
Ammunition - BS, DS, OS, OFS.
Charging - unitary.
Sights:
- OP1-5 - optical sight;
- С71А-5 - mechanical sight (panorama).
The maximum towing speed is 50 km / h.
Calculation - 6 people.

The 100-mm BS-3 proved to be a very effective anti-tank weapon, as demonstrated by shooting at the landfill on the captured Tiger and Panther tanks. For excellent armor penetration, ensuring the defeat of any enemy tank, soldiers, front-line soldiers named it "St. John's Wort".

An armor-piercing tracer with an initial speed of 895 m / s at a distance of 500 m at a meeting angle of 90 ° pierced armor with a thickness of 160 mm. Direct shot range was 1080 m.

However, the role of this weapon in the fight against enemy tanks is greatly exaggerated. By the time it appeared, the Germans practically did not use masses of tanks. Released BS-3 during the war was in small quantities and could not play a significant role. In addition, most of the guns delivered to the troops were usually located far from the “front line”, being a “special anti-tank reserve” in case of the breakthrough of large groups of enemy heavy tanks. Moreover, the guns of the first release had only aiming devices for firing from closed positions - the panorama C-71А-5. Optical sight OP1-5 for direct fire began to be mounted only a couple of months after the start of mass production of guns. However, soon all the guns were equipped with “direct fire” sights.

At the final stage of the war, the 98 BS-3 were attached as a means of strengthening five tank armies. The gun was in service with light artillery brigades 3-x regimental composition (forty-eight 76-mm and twenty 100-mm guns).

The RVGK artillery as of 1 in January 1945 had 87 BS-3 guns. At the beginning of the 1945 of the year, in the 9 of the Guards Army, as part of three rifle corps, one cannon artillery regiment of BS-20 3 was formed.

For comparison, PT SAU SU-100 with a gun of the same caliber D-10С was released in wartime in an amount of about 2000. Naturally, the SU-100 operating on the battlefield in the same order of battle with tanks, the chances of meeting enemy tanks were much higher and these self-propelled guns made a much greater contribution to the fight against enemy tanks.

The BS-3 had a number of flaws that hampered its use as an anti-tank. When firing, the gun jumped heavily, which made the gunner’s work unsafe and knocked down the aiming installations, which, in turn, led to a decrease in the practical rate of aimed fire — qualities for a very important anti-tank gun.

The presence of a powerful muzzle brake with a small height of the line of fire and flat trajectories characteristic of shooting at bronzelem, led to the formation of a significant smoke-dust cloud that unmasked the position and blinded the calculation.

The mobility of a weapon with a mass over 3500 kg left much to be desired, transportation by the forces of calculation on the battlefield was almost impossible.



If towing 45-mm, 57-mm and 76-mm guns was carried out by horse teams, cars GAZ-64, GAZ-67, GAZ-AA, GAZ-AAA, ZIS-5 or Dodge WC cars delivered from the middle of the war on lend-lease. -51 ("Dodge 3 / 4"), then towing BS-3 required tracked tractor, in extreme cases, all-wheel drive trucks Studebaker US6.

During the fighting at the final stage of the war, the BS-3 was used mainly as a cannon for firing from closed positions and for the counter-battery struggle due to its high range of fire.

Sometimes she fired direct fire at the enemy fortifications. Cases of the use of BS-100 3-mm guns against armored vehicles were very rare.



To give an unambiguous assessment of this tool is quite difficult. On the one hand, the BS-3 confidently hit any heavy German tank, and was quite effective when firing from closed positions. On the other hand, the need for such a tool was not obvious. By the time the BS-3 was adopted, the Pancervafe ridge was broken, the Red Army already had sufficiently effective 57-mm anti-tank guns ZIS-2, SAU SU-100 and T-34-85 tanks. In extreme cases, 122-mm A-19 cannons and 152-mm howitzer ML-20 cannons, as well as heavy ACS IMS-122 and IMS-152, could be used to deal with the enemy's few heavy tanks.

A more popular 85-mm anti-tank gun that could roll onto the battlefield by the forces of calculation would be more compact, simpler and cheaper to manufacture. And in the case of the use of an armor-piercing sabot projectile, according to the characteristics of armor penetration, it was not inferior to 100-mm BS-3.


85 mm D-44 cannon


But the development of such a tool was delayed, and it entered service after the war. It was created under the direction of chief designer F. F. Petrov X-NUMX-mm gun D-85, adopted in 44 year. Subsequently, it was decided to use the 1946-mm D-85 as a divisional to replace the ZIS-44, and the fight against the tanks assigned to more powerful artillery systems and ATGM.



In this capacity, the D-44 gun was used in many conflicts, including in the CIS. The last case of combat use was noted in the North Caucasus, during the “counter-terrorist operation”. In the military, the D-44 experienced a lot of BS-3. Yielding to the latter in terms of the power of the projectile and the firing range, the 85-mm gun was more than 2 times lighter, easier to maintain and more convenient.

Prior to the cessation of production in 1951, industry had delivered 3816 BS-3 guns to the troops.

In the post-war years, the BS-3 cannon was subjected to a small modernization, which primarily concerned ammunition and sights.

In the first post-war years, an AT-L tractor and a ZIS-151 vehicle were usually used to tow a gun. In the middle of the 50's, the light semi-armored tracked artillery tractor AT-P became the main means of thrust. The MT-LB was also used as a tractor.

Prior to the start of the 1960, the BS-3 guns could fight any Western tanks. However, the situation changed later: the BS-3 cannon-piercing shells were unable to penetrate the frontal armor of the turret, as well as the upper frontal armor of the British Chieftain tanks and the American M-48А2 and М-60. Therefore, urgently developed cumulative and sub-caliber shells were developed and adopted. Sub-caliber shells were able to pierce any armor of the M-48-2 tank, as well as the towers of the Chieftain and M-60 tanks, but did not penetrate the upper frontal armor of these tanks. Cumulative shells were able to penetrate any armor of all three tanks.



However, after the appearance of new anti-tank guns: 85-mm D-48 and 100-mm smooth-bore T-12 and MT-12, the BS-3 cannon was gradually withdrawn from the troops and transferred to “storage”. A significant number of BS-3 was delivered abroad, where they were popular due to the unification of ammunition with the guns of widespread Soviet T-54 / T-55 tanks.

Ammunition 100-mm guns BS-3 included the following ammunition:
High-explosive fragmentation shell OF-412:
Shots - 3UOX412 / 3UOX412U.
Projectile weight - 15,6 kg.
The mass of explosive - 1,46 kg.
Initial speed - 900 m / s.
Direct shot range - 1100 m.
The maximum firing range - 20 th. M.


100-mm unitary shots with high-explosive fragmentation projectiles RP-412: a - with a full charge; b - with a reduced charge

Fragment grenade O-412:
Shot - WQ-412.
Projectile weight - 15,94 kg.
Initial speed - 898 m / s.
The maximum firing range - 21,36 th. M.
Direct shot range - 1,2 th. M.

Armor-piercing shells of BR-412, BR-412B, BR-412D:
Выстрелы — УБР-412/3УБР3/3УБР412Д.
Projectile weight - 15,088 kg.
Explosive weight - 0,06 kg.
Initial speed - 895 m / s.
Direct shot range - 1040 / 1070 m.
The maximum firing range - 4 th. M.


100-mm unitary shots with armor-piercing-tracer shells: a - with a BR-412D projectile with an armor-piercing and ballistic tip, b - with a BR-412B projectile with a ballistic tip

Armor-piercing piercing projectiles 3BM25 and 3BM8:
Shot - 3UBM11 and 3UBM6.
Projectile weight - 5,7 kg.

Cumulative armor-piercing shells 3БК17, 3БК5:
Shot - 3UBK9 and 3UBK4.

High-explosive fragmentation shell OF-32 (1980-s):
Shot - 3UOF10 / 3UOFXNNUMX.
Projectile weight - 15,6 kg.
The mass of explosive is 1,7kg.
Direct shot firing range - 1100 m.
The maximum firing range - 20600 m.

Controlled anti-tank missile 9М117 complex "Bastion":
Shot - 3UBK10-1.
Firing range - 100-4000 meters.
Penetration: under 60 degrees - 275 mm, at an angle 90 degrees - 550 mm.

In the 80-ies the gun passed the last, in my opinion, completely unjustified for this clearly hopelessly outdated artillery system by that time. The BS-100 3-millimeter cannon received a guided anti-tank 9М117 (Bastion missile system), its effective firing range left to 4000 meters and penetrated the normal 550-mm armor. But by the time the troops of the BS-3 guns had already remained a bit, and it can be said that the funds for the experimental design work on the modernization were wasted.

Currently, the 100-mm guns of the BS-3 in most countries where they were delivered, have already been withdrawn from the armament of the combatant units. In Russia, the BS-3 guns, as of 2011, consisted of coastal defense weapons in service with the 18 machine-gun and artillery division deployed in the Kuril Islands, and some were stored.

Based on:
http://www.militaryfactory.com
Shirokorad A. B. The genius of the Soviet artillery. Triumph and tragedy of V. Grabin. M .: AST, 2003.
81 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +29
    17 February 2015 06: 41
    Father, blessed memory of him, fought on BS-3. He told me that already in East Prussia the Tigers had somehow been guarded for several days. He burned our tanks due to the railway embankment. The gunner killed him with his first shot as soon as he decided to flee and crawled out into the open ..
    1. xan
      +12
      17 February 2015 11: 56
      on the site "I remember" I read the recollection of one gunner, and also about the battle in Germany. A German tank blocked the road from a kilometer away behind a swamp. PT guns at such a distance did not take, and there was nothing else suitable, it was not corps artillery to deploy for direct fire in full view of the Germans. They shot down the tank with a BS-3 gun with one shot, the commander of the gun, the lieutenant, through his optics confirmed that the hit was 100%, and that the bobby was dead. Then they ran back and forth along the road, and the tank stood like a monument. The artilleryman was always lamenting that he didn’t have such a gun on the Kursk Bulge, “how many people would have survived”.
  2. +10
    17 February 2015 07: 37
    Here is the technique, and it still fights
    Were able to do
  3. avt
    +7
    17 February 2015 10: 00
    Good article . good only I do not agree with this ------ ,, It is rather difficult to give an unambiguous assessment of this weapon. On the one hand, BS-3 confidently struck any heavy German tank, and was quite effective when firing from closed positions. On the other hand, the need for such a tool was not obvious. By the time the BS-3 was adopted, the Panzerwaffe ridge was broken, the Red Army already had quite effective 57-mm anti-tank guns ZIS-2, ACS SU-100 and T-34-85 tanks. As a last resort, 122-mm A-19 cannons and 152-mm ML-20 howitzer-cannons, as well as heavy self-propelled guns ISU-122 and ISU-152, could be used to combat the few heavy enemy tanks. "----- Just read the telephone message from Ustinov to Stalin and everything will fall into place --- ,, .... suggests that the onboard armor of the Tiger tank WILL BE PENETRATED by 57-mm anti-tank guns. 41 g .... from a distance of 400-600 meters ... " request This gun was needed, 57 mm was not a panacea for all ills and didn’t take the armor to the 88mm range of the German canon. That’s why the self-propelled guns 100 replaced the 85s, and to attract the 122e and 152e as a VET, well, this is from the hopelessness.
    1. +6
      17 February 2015 13: 29
      Quote: avt
      I needed this gun

      Of course, it is needed, but much earlier ... BS-3 managed to fight "under the curtain" when there was no particular need for it. In addition, do not forget that this weapon was very heavy, and there was always a tenseness with tractors in the Red Army. Although the Germans had the more monstrous 12,8 cm PaK 44. At the same time, the British and Americans abandoned the mass production of anti-tank equipment with a caliber of more than 76 mm. making a bet on more mobile tank destroyers.
      1. avt
        +1
        17 February 2015 17: 37
        Quote: Bongo
        that this gun was very heavy, and with tractors in the Red Army there was always tension.

        This tension is quite understandable - problems with the quality of armor-piercing shells. Where the Germans cost 75-88 mm, almost the entire war, we had to get from 76 to 85-100 mm, well, for simple reasons. There are no guns without shells, but with gunpowder, high-quality armor-piercing shells, we had trouble before the war, Yes, with the same 45mm that before the war, selective tests from the warehouse did not pass, Vannikov not just flew under repression, although the Atets returned it, but they really pulled it.
    2. +7
      17 February 2015 13: 32
      The author tried to correctly, as far as possible, state his thought. The RKKA was simply not ready for the appearance of such a weapon. At that time we did not have transport resources capable of providing the proper level of mobility - "Studebaker" is rather weak, tractors are slow-moving. For this reason, this system took its place in the corps artillery. The military initially understood this, so they did not rush to launch production. In my opinion, this seems to be a rational decision, we did not step on the "German rake", focusing on the production of anti-tank self-propelled guns.
      1. +5
        17 February 2015 13: 38
        Quote: Argon
        The author, trying to correctly, as far as possible, express his idea. RKKA was simply not ready for the appearance of such a weapon

        Thank you! hi
      2. avt
        0
        17 February 2015 17: 52
        Quote: Argon
        A. In my opinion, this seems to be a rational decision, we did not step on the "German rake", focusing on the release of anti-tank self-propelled guns.

        No. I read it from Svirin, and he really owns material from Gorlitsky, so according to his recollections, the tank destroyers launched mass production, not because we and the Germans made it so cunningly because of the lack of tanks, but the result is that we got the Germans quite satisfactory.
        Quote: Bongo
        caliber over 76 mm. by betting on more mobile tank destroyers.

        what No. Come on ! There, from 76mm to 90mm, we only reached when they actually sniffed that there is a "Tiger", well, if it is a tank destroyer to consider, "hellish cats" there are different rossom.
        1. +4
          18 February 2015 11: 11
          Quote: avt
          Come on ! There, from 76mm to 90mm, we only reached when they actually sniffed that there is a "Tiger", well, if it is a tank destroyer to consider, "hellish cats" there are different rossom.


          The 76-mm anti-tank missiles of the Allies could adequately fight the German heavy tanks. The American 76,2-mm anti-tank gun M5 at a distance of 900 with an armor-piercing projectile normally pierced 80-mm armor. Naturally, the armor penetration of the sub-caliber was higher.
          In the 1943 year, the 90-mm T-8 anti-tank gun (pictured) entered the test. At a distance of 900 m she penetrated armor-piercing 150-mm armor. But due to the excessive weight and the non-obviousness of the need for a towed version, the anti-tank 90-mm gun did not go into a large series. The tank version of the gun was used on the tank destroyer M36 and tank M26.
  4. +1
    17 February 2015 10: 15
    Quote: avt
    What's so difficult then? Just read the telephone message from Ustinov to Stalin and everything will fall into place --- ,, .... suggests that the side armor of the tank "Tiger" WILL BE PASSED by shells of 57-mm anti-tank guns. 41 g .... from a distance of 400-600 meters ... "This gun was needed, 57 mm is not a panacea for all troubles and did not take an armored car at the distance of the German canon 88mm

    after that, tigers of all types fired a dozen times and found out everything, including the range of penetration 57mm guns
  5. +7
    17 February 2015 10: 46
    I happened to shoot from BS-3 on an urgent (gunner) - the impressions are indescribable!
    (Far East, Primorsky Territory, 15th UR, 1985)
    Heavy (carried on ZIL-131) - while deploying, you can tear.
    When fired, it jumps up half a meter upwards, and itself, it stalls (a week in your ears it rings).
    But with a successful hit - easily demolishes the tower from the T-34 target tank; breaks up a concrete firing point at a time ...
  6. +3
    17 February 2015 10: 48
    Quote: avt
    this gun was not so good, 57 mm was not a panacea for all ills and didn’t take the armor to the range of the German canon 88mm. That’s why the self-propelled guns 100 replaced 85, but to attract 122e and 152e as anti-tank missiles, well, this is from the hopelessness.

    The author is right: this gun was unnecessary. The 57mm anti-tank gun "took" the Tiger tank to the side from 1000m, and to the forehead with a sub-caliber projectile from 500m. For a PT cannon it is quite normal.
    As a divisional system, the BS-3 lost to the M-30 howitzer by the power of HE shells. The advantage in the firing range of the BS-3 over the M-30 is also controversial, as fire adjustment was carried out by the sound of explosions of their own shells. The Germans, who used their 105mm howitzers, noted that the 122mm Russian shells were better heard and the firing of batteries armed with M-30 howitzers was easier to correct.
    And for the hull artillery, the BS-3 was clearly weak - the 122mm gun A-19 was better.
    1. +3
      17 February 2015 12: 16
      Quote: DesToeR
      The author is right: this gun was unnecessary.

      It remains only to tell this to our anti-tankers, who greatly appreciated the BS3 for the fact that it could hit any German tank at a distance not accessible to other guns and this saved many of the lives of our soldiers. So you can’t say that. Yes, as a divisional cannon, of course, it was not needed, but as a VET, as part of a divisional or corps kit, it would be quite suitable.
      1. +4
        17 February 2015 13: 31
        Quote: svp67
        It remains only to tell this to our anti-tankers, who greatly appreciated the BS3 for the fact that it could hit any German tank at a distance not accessible to other guns and this saved many of the lives of our soldiers.

        But how many actually, and not in the memoirs, did the BS-3 destroy German tanks? The number of these tools in the army, as well as how they were used in the publication is available.
        1. +1
          17 February 2015 13: 43
          Quote: Bongo
          But how many actually, and not in the memoirs, did the BS-3 destroy German tanks? The number of these tools in the army, as well as how they were used in the publication is available.

          It is necessary to know the units and subunits armed by them and to request archives in order to view the "Logs of Combat Actions" - the most truthful and objective information, in the last year of the war, they often attached photos there ...
        2. +3
          18 February 2015 12: 55
          Quote: Bongo
          But how many actually, and not in the memoirs, did the BS-3 destroy German tanks? The number of these tools in the army, as well as how they were used in the publication is available.

          If the author is not lying, and most likely he is not lying:
          At the final stage of the war, the 98 BS-3 were attached as a means of strengthening five tank armies. The gun was in service with light artillery brigades 3-x regimental composition (forty-eight 76-mm and twenty 100-mm guns).

          The RVGK artillery as of 1 in January 1945 had 87 BS-3 guns. At the beginning of the 1945 of the year, in the 9 of the Guards Army, as part of three rifle corps, one cannon artillery regiment of BS-20 3 was formed.

          In total, in the 1945 year, we get a little more 200 guns in the army.
          Even with the high efficiency of the guns, such a quantity could not have much effect on the course of the war. So, apparently the author is right in asserting that the role of this weapon in the war is greatly exaggerated.
    2. +3
      17 February 2015 13: 36
      Quote: DesToeR


      As a divisional system, the BS-3 lost to the M-30 howitzer by the power of HE shells. The advantage in the firing range of the BS-3 over the M-30 is also controversial, as fire adjustment was carried out by the sound of explosions of their own shells. The Germans, who used their 105mm howitzers, noted that the 122mm Russian shells were better heard and the firing of batteries armed with M-30 howitzers was easier to correct.
      And for the hull artillery, the BS-3 was clearly weak - the 122mm gun A-19 was better.

      Bozheshtyma, but the Pasans did not know ....
      excellent tool ptx xnumx mm howitzer, yeah
      1. +3
        17 February 2015 23: 40
        Quote: Stas57
        122mm a gun A-19 is an excellent tool

        PTO 122 mm howitzeryeah

        A-19, well, never mind a howitzer, this is a gun, even three, the first two on different gun mounts, and the third tank, which was put on the IS-122, and which later, after remaking her bolt, was called D-25
        1. +1
          18 February 2015 00: 24
          And where does a19, if we are talking about comparing M30 and BS3?
          1. 0
            18 February 2015 22: 48
            Quote: Stas57
            And where does a19, if we are talking about comparing M30 and BS3?

            It is about the A-19.
            Conclusion from
            And for the hull artillery BS-3 was clearly weak - 122mm gun A-19 was better

            comment
            divinePasans didn’t know ....
            an excellent PTO 122 mm howitzer
            aha

            amendment
            A-19, well, not a fig is a howitzer, it's a gun
      2. xan
        +2
        18 February 2015 11: 58
        Quote: Stas57
        excellent tool ptx xnumx mm howitzer, yeah

        The first tiger beneath Mgoy was dismantled precisely by a 122 mm howitzer.
    3. +1
      17 February 2015 15: 19
      Yeah, that's just the barrels for the ZIS-2 it was impossible to produce massively on existing equipment. Accordingly, completeness on them will never be achieved. It was better to redo the breech at ZIS-3, as the Germans did. There was a problem with ammunition - equipment for this caliber was not developed.
      It would have turned out to be a normal PT gun, which is more universal than the ZIS-2, and which has already been released in large quantities.
      It must be admitted that the ZIS-2 against infantry and other artillery was slightly more than zero and worse than 45 matches.
  7. +6
    17 February 2015 11: 41
    Unambiguous assessment of this tool is quite difficult. On the one hand BS-3 ...
    It is worth remembering that the ZIS2, at the time of its appearance, was "very controversial" and "too difficult to manufacture and excessively powerful." As a result, it was removed from production, but new German tanks appeared and it was in great demand. And now, knowing what and how it was in the war, you can discuss for a long time on how justified the appearance of the BS-3 is, but somehow it is forgotten that the Germans worked very hard on series "E" tanks and these appeared on the battlefield, too would BS3 be "superfluous"?
    And only thanks to her, the famous "Rapier" was so quickly designed and delivered in service with the USSR Armed Forces.
    Yes, and the 85 mm creation of the Petrov Design Bureau to me, and many more remembered it in this form ... with such a muzzle brake-like flame arrester, for which in the troops, they were nicknamed - "whistle"
    1. +4
      17 February 2015 11: 54
      But the "old woman" BS-3 as part of the militia column is moving forward to defend Lugansk from the punitive forces of the Kiev regime:

      So, despite her age, she managed to fight in 2014 (in fact, after 70 years !!!)
      1. +1
        17 February 2015 13: 21
        You are mistaken, this is not BS-3, but 85-mm D-44. In the publication she is mentioned.
        1. +3
          17 February 2015 15: 30
          You are mistaken. This is what neither is BS-3. Twin wheels, the length of the tool "on the marching" ... Learn materiel, dear.
        2. +1
          17 February 2015 20: 37
          Quote: Bongo

          You are mistaken, this is not BS-3, but 85-mm D-44. In the publication she is mentioned.

          As you said above, look at the twin wheels.
          Well, if you don’t see them, look at the recoil device under the gun barrel, the D-44 definitely doesn’t.
          1. +2
            18 February 2015 10: 55
            Quote: quilted jacket
            As you said above, look at the twin wheels.

            Yes, for sure, on a small screen I did not consider the phone. request
    2. +2
      17 February 2015 14: 06
      ZiS-2 was too difficult to manufacture only because of its barrel of large elongation. The technology was not really worked out and there was a very high percentage of defects in the manufacture of trunks. And with the director of the plants on the threshold of the great war (in the vicinity of which then there were few doubts among the country's leaders and the military that they would not talk about this and write now) they demanded the supply of as many artillery pieces as possible (His Majesty Val), and for the failure to fulfill plans it was possible not only to thunder in Magadan - time was like that. In addition, the ZiS-2 was considered excessively powerful, which in principle was true for 1941 - the first half of 1942 - it could quite successfully cope with the main Nazi tanks (at least according to passport data) and the 45-mm 53-K PTO, and then the M-42. If it weren’t for one big BUT - poor-quality armor-piercing shells (until now they used Harz stress locators and shells of a new generation - armor-piercing-sub-caliber, which were piece goods). The conservatism of the military should not be underestimated - the 57 mm caliber in Soviet field artillery was not there before the ZiS-2, just like the 100 mm caliber, until the BS-3. By the way, the latter had one more drawback, not mentioned in the article, which greatly interfered with its application in the VET system - after two or three shots, the BS-3 coulters were so hammered into the ground (especially if the ground was soft), which quickly turned it to a larger the angle of horizontal aiming (in particular, to throw fire in the flank direction or even completely to the rear - which is not uncommon when repelling a tank attack) was impossible - at first it was necessary to dig openers.
      1. 0
        17 February 2015 14: 21
        By the way, the latter had one more drawback, not mentioned in the article, which greatly interfered with its application in the VET system - after two or three shots, the BS-3 coulters were so clogged into the ground (especially if the ground was soft) that it quickly turned to a larger the angle of horizontal aiming (in particular, to throw fire in the flank direction or even completely to the rear - which is not uncommon when repelling a tank attack) was impossible - at first it was necessary to dig openers.

        this is the problem of all heavy weapons pto-pak43 the same "rake"
      2. Alf
        +1
        17 February 2015 22: 44
        Quote: Alexander72
        there was a very high percentage of defects in the manufacture of trunks.

        In the manufacture of 88-mm guns from 5 billets were made only 1 barrel, the rest were rejected.
        and shells of a new generation - armor-piercing-subcaliber, which were piece goods).

        The caliber shells for 88-mm guns during the war years were released 5700 pieces, 88-mm guns of all types-5897 pieces. Therefore, when they say that there was a PC shell in the tank of German tanks and guns, then this is theoretically.
    3. PXL
      0
      11 December 2016 03: 51
      This is an 85-mm anti-tank gun D-48.
  8. +2
    17 February 2015 12: 35
    The muzzle brake of the BS3 is almost exactly the same as that of the Tiger. It seems ours licked him at the Germans. The first time I see such plagiarism on DT with us ...
    1. +5
      17 February 2015 13: 25
      Quote: Johnny
      The muzzle brake of the BS3 is almost exactly the same as that of the Tiger.

      The so-called "German type", so what? Normal borrowing.
      The IS2 was also originally planned with a similar muzzle brake,
      until he scattered during the tests and nearly killed and crippled the members of the state commission, as a result of which he was quickly replaced by the one that is now
      1. 0
        17 February 2015 14: 27
        Quote: svp67
        so what? Conventional borrowing.

        Never mind. Just stating a fact. And on the account of the fact that this was a common thing, I would not say that.
      2. +6
        17 February 2015 22: 17
        Quote: svp67
        IS2 was also originally planned with a similar muzzle brake, until during the tests it scattered and nearly killed and crippled the members of the state commission, as a result of which it was quickly replaced by the one that is now
        And unless the one that flew apart was not "T" -shaped? I'm not saying, I just seem to remember that?
        1. +2
          17 February 2015 23: 12
          Quote: Alex
          And unless the one that flew apart was not "T" -shaped?

          It was the T-shaped, and nearly killed Comrade. Voroshilov. Because of this, it was changed to a twin-chamber, German type, which later migrated from A-19 to D-25, and at the last it was replaced by the final version, TsAKB design
          1. 0
            18 February 2015 23: 53
            Quote: perepilka
            It was the T-shaped, and nearly killed Comrade. Voroshilov. Because of this, he was changed to a double-chamber,

            belay Oh, more careful with the words you need what It turned out that something comrade Voroshilov was changed to the German type, or the T-swatch. Well, the buttons do not convey emotions, and the emoticons here are clearly a shortage. Admins! Nicht Schissen! I can do it myself, well, so feel
    2. 0
      17 February 2015 13: 43
      DT so-called "German type" was also installed on the first IS-2 with D-25
    3. Alf
      -1
      17 February 2015 22: 48
      Quote: Johnny
      The muzzle brake of the BS3 is almost exactly the same as that of the Tiger. It seems ours licked him at the Germans. The first time I see such plagiarism on DT with us ...

      Yeah, the Kalashnikov assault rifle was ripped off from the SG-44, the PE-2 was also copied from the ME-110 ... Bastardly, start over ...
      1. +2
        18 February 2015 08: 28
        Quote: Alf
        Yeah, the Kalashnikov assault rifle was ripped off from the SG-44, the PE-2 was also copied from the ME-110 ... Bastardly, start over ...

        Did insanity grow stronger? Did I say something about AK or PE-2?
        If you do not see the obvious, then these are your problems ...
        1. Alf
          +1
          18 February 2015 21: 25
          It seems ours licked him at the Germans.

          Who would talk about insanity. It's just that such "experts" love to shout that we are copying everything from the Germans.
          1. +2
            18 February 2015 23: 11
            Quote: Alf
            Who would talk about insanity. It's just that such "experts" love to shout that we are copying everything from the Germans.

            I could tell a lot now, about what we copied from the Germans, really copied, moreover, what we copied before, the Germans copied from us. Well, there is no prophet in our Fatherland, well, we have such a psyche, we give out what we can, and we can prove and bring it to the end, neither strength, and most importantly, no finances, and whoever has finances, they are concerned about the return of fabers, the withdrawal of chelsea into champions and construction of yachts, cruiser class 1 rank
  9. +5
    17 February 2015 12: 43
    “As a divisional 100-mm gun, it turned out to be too heavy. But as an anti-tank gun, it did not satisfy a number of conditions of that time. Moreover, the creator of this gun, V.G. Grabin, never considered the BS-3 an anti-tank system, which, apparently, was reflected in the name."
    You read these pearls and take your breath away. How does the author know what Grabin considered or did not? Clearly anti-tank silhouette, 59 caliber tube, at maximum relief, designed to improve AT defense, what is it? Guess three times !!!! Probably a fishing rod :-)))). Italian roots - where? And for this she was nicknamed "St. John's wort".
    Article "minus". It only takes place.
    1. +3
      17 February 2015 13: 36
      Quote: ARES623
      As a divisional 100 mm gun, it was too heavy. And as an anti-tank one, it did not satisfy a number of conditions of that time. Moreover, the creator of this weapon V.G. Grabin never considered BS-3 an anti-tank system, which, apparently, was reflected in the name. “You read these pearls and it takes your breath away. How does the author know what Grabin thought or did not?

      Sources of information at the end of the publication are indicated.
      Quote: ARES623
      Italian roots - where?

      In Karaganda .... the impression is that some are only looking at pictures. And that the BS-3 and the marine 100-mm Minisini installation do not bother you with the general ammunition. And please, if you quote, quote verbatim. The publication does not say about "roots", the wording is different.
      1. +1
        17 February 2015 15: 42
        Bongo! A single ammunition does not mean that the gun has the same roots. Compare the "Italian" and BS-3 constructively and everything will fall into place. By the way, take an interest in the 45 mm ammunition of the Soviet anti-tank equipment 53K - these are converted shells from the 47 mm Hotchkiss naval cannons that have been stored in warehouses since the Russo-Japanese War. As a result, there were problems with armor penetration. So, should it follow from this that 53-K has roots from Hotchkiss? Or is it from Pak 35/36 ???
        1. +3
          18 February 2015 10: 46
          Quote: REZMovec
          A single ammunition does not mean that the gun has the same roots.

          Please find in the publication a place where it is said about "common roots" No. .
          And the following is said there:
          The "ancestor" of Soviet naval and land guns of the caliber 100-mm was the Italian naval universal artillery system Minisini.

          That is exactly how it is, until the advent of the 100-mm Minisini gun mounts in the USSR there were no guns of this caliber. Yes It was for the ammunition used in the Minisini guns that the 100-mm were subsequently developed: B-34, D-10 and BS-3.
      2. 0
        18 February 2015 19: 48
        Dear Bongo! In those old days, as sometimes in the present, new weapon systems were developed for serial munitions. Therefore, to perceive the kinship of systems on this basis is somewhat incorrect. It’s about like brothers in Christ. Thus, according to your logic, the F-22 and PaK-36r have nothing in common, and the AKM and SCS are twin brothers. And you, in general, to which side of artillery? And you should read the cited sources, on the issues raised by me there is nothing at all. It seems to me that you are just a specialist in pictures.
        1. +3
          19 February 2015 02: 56
          Quote: ARES623
          In those old days, as sometimes in the present, new weapon systems were developed for serial munitions. Therefore, to perceive the kinship of systems on this basis is somewhat incorrect.

          And where is the article about kinship? I don’t know what kind of brothers you have in Christ, but my publication says:
          Interestingly, the "ancestor" of the Soviet naval and land guns caliber 100-mm was the Italian naval universal artillery system Minizini.
          I will repeat again for the "stubborn" - "ancestor" by ammunition. Before Minisini guns of this caliber in the USSR DID NOT HAVE.
          1. +1
            20 February 2015 06: 03
            Firstly, rudeness has not adorned anyone yet, and secondly, is your ancestor not a relative? Strange ... But, by the way, it makes no difference to me what illusions you live in. Your grades, thank God, will not bring me harm ...
            1. +3
              20 February 2015 13: 28
              Quote: ARES623
              Firstly, rudeness has not adorned anyone yet, and secondly, is your ancestor not a relative? Strange ... But, by the way, it makes no difference to me what illusions you live in. Your grades, thank God, will not bring me harm ...

              Who are you rude dear? As the saying goes: "as it comes around, it will respond." Don't be happy ...
    2. 0
      17 February 2015 15: 24
      The minisini doesn’t even smell there, it’s more like a sea gun of exactly the same length that was put on Novik in the First World War.
      1. +4
        18 February 2015 10: 53
        Quote: goose
        The minisini doesn’t even smell there, it’s more like a sea gun of exactly the same length that was put on Novik in the First World War.

        The Noviks used 102-mm cannons (4-inches) from the Obukhov plant. However, what is the significance of any extra 2-mm and a sleeve of a different shape and length, isn't it? The main thing is that Minisini does not smell there. laughing
        1. xan
          0
          18 February 2015 12: 11
          Quote: Bongo
          The main thing is that Minisini doesn't smell there

          if 100 mm, then Minisini, stunned.
          1. +4
            18 February 2015 12: 15
            Quote: xan
            if 100 mm, then Minisini, stunned.

            You bastard, I do not mind ... you carefully read the publication? Before the advent of the 100-mm Minisini, there was no such caliber in our country.
            1. xan
              0
              18 February 2015 12: 19
              Quote: Bongo
              Before the appearance of the 100 mm Minisini, there was no such caliber in our country.

              Clear. It is precisely this circumstance that suggests that the "ancestor" is Minisini.
              Brad.
              1. +2
                18 February 2015 12: 22
                Quote: xan
                Delirium

                Please choose an expression dear am It is the "ancestor" ammunition. Or did we have other 100-mm guns before that?
                1. +2
                  19 February 2015 10: 44
                  Guys! Do not argue! Bongo is right that before the appearance of 100mm. art Minisini system as naval universal artillery systems ... in the Red Army such a caliber did not exist!
                  Yes there were 102mm. guns on "Noviks" (and not only). Yes there were 107mm. corus cannons. But the caliber is exactly 100mm. appeared ... but see above hi
  10. The comment was deleted.
  11. +2
    17 February 2015 18: 08
    Quote: svp67
    It remains only to tell this to our anti-tankers

    It remains only to listen to these same anti-tankers. Calculation BS-3 loaded the cannon, aimed it at a moving tank, then retreated to the caponier and shot through the rope. Accuracy was appropriate ...
    Quote: Stas57
    Bozheshtyma, but the Pasans did not know ....
    excellent tool ptx xnumx mm howitzer, yeah

    Yes, excellent when an artillery attack was carried out on accumulations of tanks or we barricade the attackers. And it is not at all necessary to shoot with direct fire. The BS-3 cannon did not allow continuous fire at a moving tank, because the recoil and sound wave were huge to calculate. Moreover, the muzzle brake-compensator immediately unmasked the position of the gunners. And how to deploy, in which case, buried in the ground after a couple of shots "colossus" weighing 3,5 tons? BS-3 was expensive for anti-tank functions, heavy for divisional artillery and low-power for corps.
    1. Alf
      -1
      17 February 2015 22: 55
      Quote: DesToeR
      The BS-3 cannon did not allow continuous fire at a moving tank, because the recoil and sound wave were huge to calculate. Moreover, the muzzle brake-compensator immediately unmasked the position of the gunners. And how to deploy, in which case, buried in the ground after a couple of shots "colossus" weighing 3,5 tons?

      But the 88-mm PaK-43/41 was the most.
      1. xan
        0
        18 February 2015 12: 10
        huge cannon, do not hide it
  12. +2
    17 February 2015 19: 28
    Quote: DesToeR
    Yes, excellent when an artillery attack was carried out on accumulations of tanks or we barricade the attackers. And it is not at all necessary to shoot with direct fire. The BS-3 cannon did not allow continuous fire at a moving tank, because the recoil and sound wave were huge to calculate. Moreover, the muzzle brake-compensator immediately unmasked the position of the gunners. And how to deploy, in which case, buried in the ground after a couple of shots "colossus" weighing 3,5 tons? BS-3 was expensive for anti-tank functions, heavy for divisional artillery and low-power for corps.

    firstly, the guns in the packfront are not placed strictly ahead, but in a semicircle; for guns of such power, a long line is clearly assumed
    secondly, if tanks broke through, then at close range they are shot by ZIS 3-the main weapons of the divisions.
    thirdly, they were already trying to shoot at heavy tanks from howitzers, but it wasn’t good, otherwise they would have transferred everything to 122, and tanks wouldn’t even fire 122 mm howitzers from the year’s 44 at the firing ranges - they spat on this empty lesson to shoot OFS at heavy tanks, it’s more likely force majeure than practice
  13. +3
    17 February 2015 20: 55
    The Novik had a 102mm caliber and a barrel length of 60 calibers, and in my opinion there was no muzzle brake.
  14. 0
    17 February 2015 22: 02
    Quote: REZMovec
    You are mistaken. This is what neither is BS-3. Twin wheels, the length of the tool "on the marching" ... Learn materiel, dear.

    Yes sir! soldier
  15. +1
    18 February 2015 09: 16
    Quote: Stas57
    firstly, the guns in the packfront are not placed strictly ahead, but in a semicircle; for guns of such power, a long line is clearly assumed

    And how to hit a moving tank from a long distance if the crew cannot be located near the gun when fired when fired? How to make adjustments in the aiming if the calculation during firing was engaged in a "shuttle" run from the gun to the trench? Instead of the BS-3 super cannon, they used a 57mm PT cannon or a 76mm battalion, changed tactics and everything became OK. From a distance of 500m, any of these guns could knock a German tank into the side.
    Quote: Stas57
    third, howitzers have already tried to shoot at heavy tanks

    They tried to fire a direct fire with a cumulative projectile, naturally a gun with a low initial velocity of the projectile even with 500 m gave a large dispersion of shells.
    Quote: Stas57
    and at the same time, tanks have not even fired 122 mm howitzers from the age of 44 on the firing ranges; they spat on this empty lesson to shoot OFS at heavy tanks, it’s more like force majeure than practice

    Mounted firing of M-30 HE shells gave a good result. The fragments from the OFS, even with an indirect hit, knocked down the tracks, leaked the barrel of the tank gun, cut off the antennas of the radio stations - i.e. the tank was destroyed, with a direct hit, the tank usually caught fire.
    1. xan
      0
      18 February 2015 12: 16
      Quote: DesToeR
      How to make adjustments in the aiming if the calculation during firing was engaged in a "shuttle" run from the gun to the trench? AT

      Why run to the trench? Because someone wrote nonsense?
    2. Alf
      +1
      18 February 2015 21: 31
      Quote: DesToeR
      From a distance of 500m, any of these guns could knock a German tank aboard.

      Unfortunately, German tanks during an attack usually approached forward with their foreheads, unless they fell into a "fire bag".
  16. LMaksim
    +1
    18 February 2015 10: 46
    So, it is remembered that on the shelling of the captured Tiger 100mm gun proved to be better than 85mm. Further, there was such an experienced T-34 tank with a 100mm gun, there was an article about it on the site. So the 85mm guns didn’t fight so well with the German menagerie.
    1. +4
      18 February 2015 11: 19
      Quote: LMaksim
      So, it is remembered that the shelling of the captured Tiger 100mm proved to be better than the 85mm.

      And the 122-mm A-19 hull gun had higher armor penetration than the 100-mm gun, and what follows from this? In the battles near Kursk, there was a case of the destruction of the Ferdinand self-propelled guns by a 203-mm shell, but this does not mean that the B-4 howitzer was an effective anti-tank weapon.
    2. Alf
      0
      18 February 2015 21: 36
      Quote: LMaksim
      So the 85mm guns didn’t fight so well with the German menagerie.

      Not from a good life began to conduct experiments with an 85-mm high-power gun. Due to the nozzle on the barrel with a regular shot, it was expected to get a high initial velocity of the projectile in order to do without a projectile PC. But it didn’t work out. They could not achieve stabilization of the projectile on the trajectory and received very low barrel survivability. It's a pity.
      1. +1
        19 February 2015 03: 00
        Quote: Alf
        Not from a good life began to conduct experiments with the 85-mm high-power gun.

        It was in wartime useless delights. It was enough to create and launch the 85 mm caliber in a series of anti-tank guns. A gun of this caliber with BPS would be quite capable.
  17. 0
    19 February 2015 02: 16
    I don’t understand, if the 107 mm cannon was discontinued, then wouldn't it have been easier to start producing it again than to start developing a new gun for an unusual 100 mm ammunition? In general, if my sclerosis does not change me, not only the "pre-revolutionary" 47-mm shells from Hotchkiss were used, but also the caliber 76,2-mm, 152,4-mm ...
    1. +1
      19 February 2015 02: 41
      Quote: Aqela
      I don’t understand, if the gun of the 107 mm caliber was discontinued, would it not be easier to start releasing it again than to begin developing a new gun for the unusual 100 mm ammunition?

      The fact is that not only the 107 mm M-60 gun was discontinued, but the production of shells was stopped, although some of these guns were at the front even in 1943. At the same time, the 100 mm shells were actively used in naval guns, and also in the tank gun D-10.
      Quote: Aqela
      if my sclerosis does not change me, not only the "pre-revolutionary" 47-mm shells from Hotchkiss were used,

      Apparently changing, used 45-mm shells. Although they were created on the basis of Hotchkiss.
  18. Alf
    0
    19 February 2015 21: 46
    Quote: Bongo
    Quote: Alf
    Not from a good life began to conduct experiments with the 85-mm high-power gun.
    It was in wartime useless delights. It was enough to create and launch the 85 mm caliber in a series of anti-tank guns. A gun of this caliber with BPS would be quite capable.

    Do you understand what you said?
    There is no need to conduct experiments with the 85 mm cannon, but it is necessary to launch the 85 mm cannon in a series.
    What to launch? ZIS-53 wheeled? There was no other. So it was she who barely coped with the German tanks. In addition, the experiments began when the Royal Tigers went to the front, and intelligence reported on the work on the creation of Panther 2. In addition, the BPS was a "piece" product that we have, that of the Hans, that the allies had very small circulation of the BPS. 88mm-5800 pieces throughout the war.
    1. +1
      20 February 2015 05: 45
      Quote: Alf
      You yourself understood what you said? Experiments with the 85-mm gun do not need to be carried out, but you need to launch the 85-mm gun in the series.

      I understood perfectly well, by "high-power weapon" you obviously meant a weapon with any delights (tapered barrel, nozzle, or atypical ammunition), in general - "wunderwaflu".
      Quote: Alf
      What to launch something? ZIS-53 in a wheeled version? There was no other.

      Until 1944, fighter anti-tank divisions actively used 85-mm anti-aircraft guns, which, however, was quite ruinous. I believe that instead of BS-3 it was necessary to develop the 85-mm anti-tank missile for a standard projectile. And to do this back in the 1941, however, such work was carried out, but they were not going so fast - not in a roll ... A good alternative could be a TVET for the projectile of the 76-mm anti-aircraft gun of the 1931 model of the year (3-K).
      Quote: Alf
      In addition, the BPS was a "piece" product, what we have, what the Hans, what the allies

      The Germans experienced a chronic deficiency of tungsten, in our country, and even more so among the allies, BPS ceased to be a deficiency by the year 1944.
  19. Alf
    0
    20 February 2015 23: 18
    Quote: Bongo
    I believe that instead of BS-3 it was necessary to develop an 85-mm anti-tank missile for a standard projectile. And to do this back in 1941.

    And why was such a VET weapon needed in 41? The 57-mm was discontinued in the 41-m for precisely the same reason, why such a powerful weapon, if simpler, lighter and cheaper magpies could handle German tanks.
    Quote: Bongo
    . I believe that instead of BS-3 it was necessary to develop an 85-mm anti-tank missile for a standard projectile.

    I say that a new 85 mm gun was being developed. You say that it was done in vain and say that it was necessary to develop a new tool. What is the difference?
    Quote: Bongo
    in our country, and even more so among the allies, the BPS ceased to be a deficit by 1944.

    Series "Panzer History". Sherman edition. After the Allies landed in France, the Sherman BC had 2-3 PC shells. It was considered a fortune to have 5 PCs.
    Quote: Bongo
    A good alternative could be a VET under the shell of a 76-mm anti-aircraft gun of the 1931 model (3-K).

    Was the shell for 3K for the 43 year in the series?
    1. +1
      21 February 2015 13: 45
      Quote: Alf
      And why was such a VET weapon needed in 41? The 57-mm was discontinued in the 41-m for precisely the same reason, why such a powerful weapon, if simpler, lighter and cheaper magpies could handle German tanks.

      And for the future? After all, development and production are a bit different, don’t you?
      Quote: Alf
      I say that a new 85 mm gun was being developed. You say that it was done in vain and say that it was necessary to develop a new tool. What is the difference?

      Isn't that what you wrote:
      Quote: Alf
      Not from a good life began to conduct experiments with the 85-mm high-power gun. Due to the nozzle on the barrel with a regular shot, it was expected to get a high initial velocity of the projectile in order to do without a projectile PC. But failed

      I am convinced that these "delights" were unnecessary. During the Second World War, an 85-mm anti-tank gun of the classical scheme, similar to the D-44, was urgently needed.
      Quote: Alf
      After the allies landed in France in the Sherman BC, there was an 2-3 projectile PC. It was considered fortunate to have an 5 PC.

      The British did not experience a shortage of PCs, moreover, after that, these shells were actively "shared" with the Americans.
      Quote: Alf
      Was the shell for 3K for the 43 year in the series?

      I can’t say for sure, but the 76-mm anti-aircraft guns were in service with the whole war.
      I think that launching the projectile is not such a problem. It was for such a projectile that the Grabin F-22 and other weapons that did not go into series were originally developed. Unfortunately, the military preferred the guns for the old 76-mm shells, of which huge stocks were accumulated.
  20. Alf
    0
    21 February 2015 18: 54
    Quote: Bongo
    Quote: Alf
    After the allies landed in France in the Sherman BC, there was an 2-3 projectile PC. It was considered fortunate to have an 5 PC.
    The British did not experience a shortage of PCs, moreover, after that, these shells were actively "shared" with the Americans.

    What shells did the Britons share with the Americans?
    Quote: Bongo
    Quote: Alf
    And why was such a VET weapon needed in 41? The 57-mm was discontinued in the 41-m for precisely the same reason, why such a powerful weapon, if simpler, lighter and cheaper magpies could handle German tanks.
    And for the future? After all, development and production are a bit different, don’t you?

    In 41, it was time to work for the future. It was urgent to transport the plants across half the country and urgently launch the production of already created systems.
    1. +1
      22 February 2015 02: 55
      Quote: Alf
      What shells did the Britons share with the Americans?

      For example 57 mm. Some time ago, I was preparing a series of publications about VET allies. You can take a look here:
      http://topwar.ru/60461-britanskaya-protivotankovaya-artilleriya-vo-vtoroy-mirovo
      y-voyne.html
      http://topwar.ru/60915-amerikanskaya-protivotankovaya-artilleriya-vo-vtoroy-miro
      voy-voyne.html
      Quote: Alf
      In 41, it was time to work for the future. It was urgent to transport the plants across half the country and urgently launch the production of already created systems.

      Those. you want to say that design bureaus were only busy with serial production of existing systems? No.
      Shirokorad has a very interesting book: "The genius of Soviet artillery. The triumph and tragedy of V. Grabin." - I recommend.
  21. 0
    24 February 2015 17: 11
    Quote: Stas57
    By the way, the latter had one more drawback, not mentioned in the article, which greatly interfered with its application in the VET system - after two or three shots, the BS-3 coulters were so clogged into the ground (especially if the ground was soft) that it quickly turned to a larger the angle of horizontal aiming (in particular, to throw fire in the flank direction or even completely to the rear - which is not uncommon when repelling a tank attack) was impossible - at first it was necessary to dig openers.

    this is the problem of all heavy weapons pto-pak43 the same "rake"

    At the PT-T-12 and MT-12 coulters do not dig deep into the ground. This is not a VET problem, but a weapon that was supposed to be universal - both VET and guns for counter-battery combat and the destruction of fortifications.
  22. PXL
    0
    11 December 2016 03: 47
    Question to the respected author of the article. Have you ever come across data on which enterprise during the overhaul upgraded the BS-3 gun in the BS-3N for use with a night sight?
  23. 0
    11 August 2020 00: 36
    Probably yes, it would be better to make sub-caliber and cumulative weapons ... but for the T-54/55 until the beginning of the 60s, only caliber armor-piercing was produced. What was the reason - I'm sorry, I don't know. But it was necessary to force the guns to increase the armor penetration, and probably there was a reason for the absence of the PBS and KBS. And even before the war, there was a fucking shortage of even caliber armor-piercing (everyone probably knows about forty-five). So - it was a decision, maybe not the best - but it was.