Military Review

Divisional gun ZIS-3: the biography of the record holder

46
Divisional gun ZIS-3: the biography of the record holder



As a designer, Vasily Grabin managed to create a weapon that became the most massive in stories world artillery

The Soviet soldiers, first of all the artillery of the divisional and anti-tank artillery regiments, for simplicity, obedience and reliability called her affectionately - “Zosya”. In other parts, for the rate of fire and high combat characteristics, she was known by the popular version of the abbreviation in the name - “Volley of Stalin”. It was often called her simply “Grabin’s cannon” - and no one needed to explain what particular instrument was in question. And the soldiers of the Wehrmacht, among whom it was difficult to find one who would not know this gun by the sound of a shot and a gap and would not be afraid of its rate of fire, this weapon was called “Ratsch-Bumm” - “Ratchet”.

In official documents, this weapon was called "76-mm divisional gun model 1942 of the year." It was this gun that was the largest in the Red Army, and, perhaps, the only one that was equally used in divisional and anti-tank artillery. And it was also the first artillery piece in the world, the production of which was put on the conveyor. Due to this, it became the most massive cannon in the history of world artillery. In total, 48 016 guns were launched in the USSR as a divisional gun and 18 601 as a modification of the SU-76 and SU-76 self-propelled guns. Never again, neither before nor after, have there been so many units of the same gun in the world.

This gun - ZIS-3, got its name from the place of its birth and production, to the plant named after Stalin (aka plant No. 92, aka "New Sormovo") in Gorky. She became one of the most recognizable symbols of the Great Patriotic War. Her silhouette is so famous that any Russian who barely saw him will immediately understand which era he is talking about. This gun more often than any other Soviet artillery guns is found as a monument to the heroes of the Great Patriotic War. But this could not have happened if it were not for the stubbornness and belief in the rightness of the creator of ZIS-3 artillery designer Vasily Grabin.

“Your guns are not needed!”


ZIS-3 rightly called the legendary - including because the history of its creation is fanned by many legends. One of them states that the first copy of the ZIS-3 went out of the gate of the plant number 92 the day the war began, 22 June 1941 of the year. But, unfortunately, it was not possible to find documentary evidence of this. And it’s quite surprising that Vasily Grabin himself does not say a word about such a symbolic coincidence in the fate of his most famous weapon. In the book of memories "Weapon victories, ”he writes that on the day the war began, he was in Moscow, where he learned from Molotov’s radio address the tragic news. And not a word that something significant happened on the same day in the fate of the ZIS-3 cannon. But the exit of the first gun outside the factory gates is not an event that could have occurred secretly from the chief designer.


Vasily Grabin. Photo: RIA News

But it is absolutely certain that exactly one month after the German attack, 22 July 1941, the ZIS-3 division gun was presented in the courtyard of the People's Commissariat of Defense to the Deputy Commissar, the former head of the Main Artillery Directorate, Marshal Grigori Kulik. And it was he who almost put an end to the fate of a future legend.

This is what Vasily Grabin himself recalled about this show: “Considering that putting each new gun on gross production and re-equipping the Red Army is a difficult, time-consuming and expensive process, I stressed that everything is simple and fast with regard to ZIS-3, because it is a 76-millimeter barrel superimposed on the gun carriage of the 57-millimeter anti-tank gun ZIS-2, which we have on gross production. Therefore, putting on the production of ZIS-3 will not only not burden the plant, but, on the contrary, will facilitate the fact that instead of two guns F-22 USV and ZIS-2 will go into production alone, but with two different tubes of the barrel. In addition, the ZIS-3 will cost the plant three times cheaper than the F-22 SPM. All this taken together will allow the plant to immediately increase the production of divisional guns, which will be not only easier to manufacture, but easier to maintain and more reliable. In concluding, I suggested adopting the ZIS-3 divisional gun instead of the FV X-NUMX divisional gun.

Marshal Kulik wanted to see the ZIS-3 in action. Gorshkov gave the command: "Calculation, to the gun!". People quickly took their places. Various new teams followed. They were performed just as clearly and quickly. Kulik ordered the gun to be rolled out to an open position and the conditional “firing at tanks". In a matter of minutes, the cannon was ready for battle. Kulik indicated the appearance of tanks from different directions. Gorshkov’s teams sounded (Ivan Gorshkov - one of the leading designers of the Grabinsky Design Bureau in Gorky. - RP): “Tanks on the left ... front”, “Tanks on the right ... back”. The gun crew worked as a well-functioning mechanism. I thought: “Gorshkov’s work paid off.”

Marshal praised the calculation for clarity and speed. Gorshkov gave the command: “Hang up!”, ZIS-3 was installed at the initial position. After that, many generals and officers approached the gun, took over the flywheels of the guidance mechanisms and worked with them, turning the barrel in different directions in azimuth and in a vertical plane. ”

All the more surprising, for the designer, Marshal Kulik’s reaction to the demonstration results turned out to be more impossible. Although it could probably have been predicted, bearing in mind that even in March of the same year, the very same Kulik, when Grabin carefully probed the ground over the possibility of starting production of ZIS-3, strongly stated that the Red Army did not need new or additional divisional the guns. But the beginning of the war, apparently, wiped out the March conversation. And here in the marshal's office the next scene takes place, which Vasily Grabin literally cites in his book of memoirs “The Weapon of Victory”:

“Kulik rose. He smiled slightly, looked around the audience and stopped him at me. I appreciated this as a positive sign. Kulik was silent for a while, preparing to state his decision, and expressed:

“You want a plant of an easy life, while blood is shed on the front.” Your guns are not needed.

He fell silent. It seemed to me that I mishear or he made a reservation. I only managed to pronounce:

- How?

- And so, not needed! Go to the factory and give more of those guns that are in production.

Marshal continued to stand with the same victorious look.

I got up from the table and went to the exit. No one stopped me, no one told me anything. ”

Six years and one night


Probably, everything would be much simpler if the ZIS-3 were a tool developed by the Grubin KB on the instructions of the military. But this gun was created as an initiative from the bottom. And the main reason for its appearance, as far as can be judged, was Vasily Grabin’s categorical opinion that the Red Army lacks quality divisional guns, convenient and easy to manufacture and use. Opinion, which was fully confirmed in the first months of the war.

Like all ingenious, ZIS-3 was born, one might say, simply. “Some artist (this phrase is attributed to the English painter William Turner. - RP) to the question how long he painted the picture, replied:“ All my life and another two hours, ”wrote Vasily Grabin later. “Similarly, we could say that the ZIS-3 cannon had been working for six years (since the establishment of our design bureau) and one more night.”


Production of ZiS-3 at a military factory. Photo: TASS photo chronicle


The night, about which Grabin writes, was the night of the first tests of the new gun at the factory site. Figuratively speaking, it was assembled, as a designer, from parts of other guns already produced by the Gorky plant. Flounder - from 57-millimeter anti-tank gun ZIS-2, adopted in March 1941. The barrel is from the divisional gun F-22 SPM that is in service: the semi-finished product was modified for new tasks. Only the muzzle brake was brand new, which was developed from scratch in a few days by the designer of the design bureau Ivan Griban. During the evening, all these parts were assembled together, the gun was shot out at the test site - and the factory workers unanimously decided that the new tool that the factory ZIS-3 index had been!

After this fateful decision in the design bureau, they began to refine the novelty: it was necessary to turn a set of dissimilar parts into a single organism, and then develop documentation for the production of the instrument. This process stretched until the summer of 1941. And then the war said its word in favor of the release of a new gun.

Knocking on Stalin


Until the end of 1941, the Red Army lost almost 36,5 thousand field guns in fights with the Wehrmacht, of which the sixth part - 6463 units - made 76-mm divisional guns of all models. "More guns, more guns!" - Demanded the Commissariat of Defense, the General Staff and the Kremlin. The situation was becoming disastrous. On the one hand, the plant named after Stalin, the same number 92, could not provide a sharp increase in the production of guns already in service - it was very labor-intensive and difficult. On the other hand, the ZIS-3 was technologically simple and suitable for mass production, but the military leadership did not even want to hear about the launch of a new gun instead of the ones already produced.

It requires a small digression devoted to the personality of Vasily Grabin himself. The son of an artilleryman of the Russian Imperial Army, a graduate-excellent student of the Military Technical Academy of the Red Army in Leningrad, at the end of 1933, he headed the design bureau, created on his initiative on the basis of the Gorky plant No. 92 "New Sormovo". It was this bureau in the pre-war years that developed several unique tools — both field and tank ones — that were adopted. Among them was the anti-tank gun ZIS-2, tank guns F-34, standing on the T-34-76, C-50, which was armed with tanks T-34-85, and many other systems.

The word “multitude” is key here: the grab community of Design Bureau, like no other, developed new tools in terms ten times smaller than it was then accepted: three months instead of thirty! The reason for everything was the principle of unification and reduction of the number of parts and assemblies of guns - the one that most vividly embodied in the legendary ZIS-3. Vasiliy Grabin himself formulated this approach in the following way: “Our thesis was this: the gun, including each of its units and mechanisms, should have a low link, should consist of the smallest number of parts, but not due to their complication, but due to the most rational constructive scheme , providing simplicity and the lowest labor intensity during machining and assembly. The design of the parts should be so simple that they can be processed with the help of simple tools and simple tools. And one more condition: the mechanisms and units must be assembled individually and consist of nodes, in turn, each assembled independently. The main factor in all the work was the economic requirements with the unconditional preservation of service and operational qualities of the gun. "

The unique capabilities of the Grabinsky Design Bureau, coupled with Grabin’s stubbornness (his rivals, whom he had enough, called it stubbornness) in asserting their position, allowed the designer to quickly gain confidence in the highest echelons of power. Grabin himself recalled that Stalin had addressed him directly several times, attracting him as chief adviser on complex artillery issues. Detractors of Grabin, however, argued that he simply knew how to submit the necessary remarks to the “father of nations” in time - that’s the whole reason for Stalin’s love.

One way or another, but as far as is known, he used special relations with the all-powerful General Secretary Grabin not to satisfy his own ambitions, but to give the army those guns that he was convinced she really needed. And in the fate of the legendary ZIS-3 is persistence, or stubbornness, Grabin and his relationship with Stalin played a decisive role.

"We will take your gun"


4 January 1942, at a meeting of the State Committee for Defense Grabin, was waiting for a real defeat. All his arguments in favor of replacing the pre-war 76-millimeter divisional guns with the new ZIS-3 by the general secretary were abruptly and unconditionally. It got to the point that, as the designer recalled, Stalin grabbed a chair behind the back and slammed his legs on the floor: “You have a design itch, you all want to change and change! Work as you did before! ” And the next day, the chairman of the State Defense Committee called Grabin with the words: “You are right ... What you did is not immediately understood and appreciated. Moreover, will they understand you soon? After all, what you have done is a revolution in technology. Central Committee, T-bills and I highly appreciate your achievements. Quietly finish the job started. ” And then the designer who had gained arrogance once again told Stalin about the new gun and asked for permission to show him the gun. Grabin recalled, reluctantly, but he agreed.

The show took place the next day in the Kremlin. Vasily Grabin himself best of all spoke about how he was happening in his book “The Weapon of Victory”:

“Stalin, Molotov, Voroshilov and other members of the State Defense Committee came to inspect, accompanied by marshals, generals, responsible officers of the People's Commissariat of Defense and the People's Commissariat of Weapons. All were dressed warmly, except for Stalin. He went out light - in his cap, overcoats and boots. And the day was extremely frosty. It worried me: in the bitter cold, in such light clothes it is impossible to carefully read the new gun.

They reported about the gun everything except me. I just made sure that someone did not mess up. Time passed, and there was no end to the explanations. But Stalin departed from the rest and stopped at the cannon shield. I approached him, but did not have time to utter a word, as he asked Voronov (Colonel General Nikolai Voronov, head of the Red Army artillery. - RP) to work on guidance mechanisms. Voronov took the flywheel handles and began to diligently rotate them. The top of his papakhi was visible above the shield. “Yes, the shield is not for the growth of Voronov,” I thought. At this time, Stalin raised his hand with outstretched fingers, except for the big and little finger, which were pressed to the palm, and turned to me:

- Comrade Grabin, the life of the fighters must be protected. Increase the height of the shield.

He did not have time to say how much to increase, as a “good adviser” was immediately found:

- At forty centimeters.

- No, just with three fingers, Grabin sees it well himself.

Having finished the inspection, which lasted several hours - during this time, everyone became acquainted not only with the mechanisms, but even with some details - Stalin said:

- This gun is a masterpiece in the design of artillery systems. Why did you not give such a beautiful gun before?

“We have not yet been prepared to deal with constructive issues like this,” I replied.

- Yes, that's right ... We will accept your gun, let the military test it.

Many of those present knew well that there were at least a thousand ZIS-3 cannons on the front and that the army appreciated them highly, but no one had said that. I kept silence too.

Soviet triumph


After such a triumph and an unequivocally expressed will of the leader, the tests turned into a simple formality. A month later, 12 February, ZIS-3 adopted. Formally, it was from that day that her front-line service began. But it was not by chance that Grabin recalled “a thousand ZIS-3 cannons”, which had already fought by then. These guns were collected, one might say, by smuggling: that few people in the assembly were not serial samples, but something new, at factory No. 92. The only "traitorous" detail - the muzzle brake, which other manufactured guns did not have - was made in the experimental workshop, which did not surprise anyone. And on ready-made barrels, which differed almost nothing from the barrels to other guns and lying on the carriages from the ZIS-2, they were placed late in the evening, with a minimum number of witnesses.

But when the gun was officially put into service, it was necessary to fulfill the promise made by the management of the design bureau and the plant: to increase the production of guns 18 times! And, oddly enough to hear it today, the designer and director of the plant kept their word. Already in 1942, the release of guns increased 15 times and continued to grow. This is best judged by the dry numbers of statistics. In 1942, the Stalin plant produced 10 139 cannons ZIS-3, in 1943-m - 12 269, in 1944-m - 13 215, and in the victorious 1945-m - 6005 guns.


ZIS-3 during the battle on the territory of the factory "Red October" in Stalingrad. Photo: TASS photo chronicle

The fact that such a production miracle turned out to be possible can be judged by two episodes. Each of them very vividly demonstrates the capabilities and enthusiasm of the employees of the design bureau and the plant.

As Grabin recalled, one of the most difficult operations in the production of the ZIS-3 was cutting the window under the wedge of the shutter - there was a more high-speed wedge lock on the gun. This was done on slotting machines by workers of the highest qualification, as a rule, with golden-haired masters golden hands, which already had no marriage fixed. But there were not enough machines and craftsmen to increase the output of the gun. And then it was decided to replace the slotting with a broach, and the broaching machines at the factory developed themselves and as soon as possible. “For the drawing machine, a third-level worker began to prepare, in the recent past, a housewife,” Vasiliy Grabin later recalled. - The preparation was purely theoretical, because the machine itself was not yet operational. The old slotters, while the machine was debugged and mastered, looked at him ironically and chuckled secretly. But they did not have long to laugh. As soon as the first fit breeders were received, they were alarmed in earnest. And when the former housewife began to give out one breech after another, and without marriage, it finally shocked them. They doubled the production, but still could not keep up with the broach. The old dabblers looked with admiration at the broach, despite the fact that she had “eaten” them. ”

And the second episode concerns the brand distinction of the ZIS-3 - the characteristic muzzle brake. Traditionally, this detail, experiencing enormous loads at the moment of the shot, was done like this: the workpiece was forged, and then highly skilled workers processed it during 30 (!) Hours. But in the autumn of 1942 of the year, the newly appointed deputy director of the plant number 92 for metallurgical production, Professor Mikhail Struseba, suggested casting the muzzle brake blank using a metal mold, a drop-down, reusable shape. The processing of such a casting took only 30 minutes - 60 times less time! In Germany, this method was never mastered by the end of the war, continuing to forge the muzzle brakes in the old manner.

Forever in the ranks


In the Russian military museums there are more than a dozen copies of the legendary ZIS-3 cannon. On account of some of them - 6 – 9 thousands of kilometers traveled along the roads of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Europe, dozens of destroyed tanks and dots, hundreds of Wehrmacht soldiers and officers. And this is absolutely not surprising, given the reliability and simplicity of these guns.


Padded gun ZIS-3. Photo: dishmodels.ru

And more about the role of the 76-mm ZIS-3 divisional gun in the Great Patriotic War. In 1943, this gun became the main one both in divisional artillery and in anti-tank artillery fighter regiments, where it was a regular gun. Suffice it to say that in 1942 and 1943 the 8143 and 8993 guns were delivered to the anti-tank artillery, and the 2005 and 4931 guns to the divisional artillery respectively, and the ratio becomes approximately equal only in 1944.

The post-war fate of the ZIS-3 was surprisingly long. Its release was stopped immediately after the Victory, and a year later the X-NUMX-mm divisional gun D-85, which came to replace it, was adopted. But, despite the appearance of a new cannon, the Zosya, which has proved itself on the fronts of the Great Patriotic War, has been in service for more than a decade, but not in their homeland, but beyond its borders. A large part of these guns was handed over to the armies of the “fraternal socialist countries”, which used them themselves (for example, in Yugoslavia, this weapon fought until the end of the Balkan wars of the new time) and sold to third countries that needed cheap but reliable weapons. So even today in the videotape of the fighting somewhere in Asia or Africa, you can no-no, and notice the characteristic silhouette of the ZIS-44. But for Russia this gun was and will remain one of the main symbols of the Victory. Victory, inherited by the price of unprecedented exertion of strength and courage both at the front and in the rear, where the weapons of the victors were forged.
Author:
Originator:
http://rusplt.ru/sdelano-russkimi/divizionnaya-pushka-zis3-biografiya-rekordsmena-17988.html
46 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Igor39
    Igor39 25 July 2015 06: 12
    +8
    Grabin in military science more than some generals understood.
    1. mirag2
      mirag2 25 July 2015 12: 56
      +4
      Article +, it is only a pity that there are no drawings of this weapon in it.
    2. Sasha 19871987
      Sasha 19871987 25 July 2015 13: 56
      +4
      the best 76 mm gun of World War 2 ... there’s nothing more to say ... great people in a great time, led by Grabin, made this miracle of Russian thought ...
      1. onli-ne
        onli-ne 25 July 2015 14: 53
        16 th
        the best 76 mm gun of World War 2
        Can you tell me what she was the best?
        In fact, 76,2 mm guns (except anti-aircraft) during the 2MV were exactly two. It:
        1. 76,2 mm M1 gun of the Sherman tank with a muzzle energy of 2195 J.
        2. 76,2 mm tank F-34 and field (supposedly divisional, but actually anti-tank) ZIS-3 gun. Ballistics they had the same, muzzle energy, also 1380 J.
        What is tank F-34 better than tank M1?
        Farther. There were no more field guns. Therefore, here she is, by definition, the best. And the only one.
        But already a 75 mm Pak 40 gun had a muzzle energy of 2016 J.
        How long can an ancient dead ballistic cannon from WW1 be passed off as the best in the world? Yes, there was no other in the USSR. This is how it should be written, we fought what it was. But why about "the best in the world." This is an artillery analogue of the Mosinka. Yes, a crappy rifle. But there was no other. So it is with the ZIS-3.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Mordvin 3
          Mordvin 3 25 July 2015 17: 02
          10
          "Mosinka is a trashy rifle". Uh-huh. Of course, Mauser is much better. Name 10 differences for the better.
          1. onli-ne
            onli-ne 25 July 2015 17: 28
            13 th
            Let's start with the rate of fire, which means with the density of fire. In an era when automatic weapons were only in the form of submachine guns and just machine guns, this was a very important indicator.
            1. Mauser 15 rounds per minute.
            2. Russian three-line rifle (in tsarist times the "Mosin rifle" did not exist, because in fact it was a Nagant rifle adapted to the Russian production base. The general management of such work was carried out technologist Captain Mosin) 10 rounds per minute.
            Further I will write a little about "horrors". But a little, so as not to scare too much. The shooting of the Russian rifle took place ONLY with a bayonet. If the fighter during the fighting bayonet is slightly bent or broken, the rifle required a new sighting. Those. with another bayonet, her ballistics changed.
            Enough for now?
            By the way, the Mauser rifle was also not a fountain. The Germans in general with weapons were bad enough. I would say poorly.
            British Lee-Enfield under .303 British, this is the thing. Of those that are not semi-automatic. And from semi-automatic, of course, M1 Garand. There were no others.
            1. Cat man null
              Cat man null 25 July 2015 17: 35
              +7
              Quote: onli-ne
              The sighting of the Russian rifle took place ONLY with a bayonet. If a fighter during the fighting, the bayonet was slightly bent or broken, the rifle required a new sighting. Those. with another bayonet, her ballistics changed.

              Physics of the process of "changing the ballistics of a rifle from bending a bayonet" - do not clarify?

              That's true - the cognitive dissonance is continuous ..
              1. onli-ne
                onli-ne 25 July 2015 17: 40
                -1
                What for? Search the internet yourself. And in general, before you write nonsense in "smart words", find out the question. And why did this "horror" surprise you? Don't you know that the "Mosinka" was fired only with an attached bayonet?
              2. The comment was deleted.
                1. Cat man null
                  Cat man null 25 July 2015 17: 45
                  +4
                  Quote: onli-ne
                  What for? Search the internet yourself. And in general, before you write nonsense in "smart words", find out the question.

                  Searched before writing.

                  Is there no mention of the need for shooting with a bayonet (sided, I suppose)?

                  Quote: onli-ne
                  Search the web yourself

                  This is rudeness. If I give some kind of info, I am ready to confirm it. Most on this forum do the same.

                  Quote: onli-ne
                  And in general, before you write nonsense in "smart words", find out the question.

                  This is also rudeness. Without explanation laughing

                  The question remained: what is the physics of the process of "changing the ballistics of the rifle" from the bending of the bayonet on this rifle?

                  PS: I started seriously shooting at 10 years old. And so what to shoot a rifle - I know well, you’ll forgive me .. and what it affects, doesn’t affect it, too.

                  Somehow request
                  1. Mordvin 3
                    Mordvin 3 25 July 2015 18: 03
                    +5
                    So I do not understand about the change in ballistics from replacing the bayonet. Maybe there are smart people here, let them enlighten. laughing
                    1. onli-ne
                      onli-ne 25 July 2015 18: 21
                      -4
                      Well, how so! A foolish bullet, she’s following a well-received bayonet. What if the fellow is crooked? Where will she go, fool?
                      1. Mordvin 3
                        Mordvin 3 25 July 2015 19: 33
                        +5
                        That is, according to your logic, if the bayonet of the curve then the bullet goes randomly, but if the fellow is curve ... Damn it, I'm completely confused. I apologize a little bit. drinks
                      2. onli-ne
                        onli-ne 25 July 2015 20: 04
                        0
                        Yes, I'm joking!
                        I thought it was clear. Well, what kind of a crooked bayonet might be? And the foolish bullet behind him? belay
                        I apologize a little bit
                        Today is possible. And it may even be necessary. laughing
                  2. The comment was deleted.
                  3. Alex
                    Alex 26 July 2015 15: 36
                    +4
                    Quote: Mordvin 3
                    So I do not understand about the change in ballistics from replacing the bayonet.

                    Ballistics can be internal and external. Internal envy of the cartridge (type, caliber, weight and type of powder, etc.) and the barrel. External ballistics begins from the moment the bullet leaves the barrel, while at the initial stage of independent flight, the propellant gases continue to act on the bullet (the area of ​​the aftereffect of the propellant gases), which affects its flight. When fired with a bayonet, these gases are reflected several times from its surface, "pushing" the bullet slightly upward, which somewhat improves its flight characteristics. Usually, "mosinki" did indeed shoot with a bayonet, but this was not a mandatory requirement and did not carry fatal consequences in a real battle.

                    I am not a great specialist in the field of small arms, I remember from memory from lectures at the military department, so I do not claim to be absolutely true. On YouTub I once met a series of programs (EMNIP, "Weapon of Victory"), there was a comparison of Mosin and Mauser rifles, they also talked about the role of the bayonet in accuracy and accuracy of fire. Quite clearly interesting, look, maybe you missed it.
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                    2. onli-ne
                      onli-ne 26 July 2015 16: 04
                      0
                      When fired with a bayonet, these gases are reflected several times from its surface, "pushing" the bullet slightly upward, which somewhat improves its flight characteristics. Usually "mosinki" really did shoot with a bayonet, but this was not a mandatory requirement and did not carry fatal consequences in a real battle.
                      All this concerns the Mosin carbine arr. 1944 The Mosin rifle is not concerned, there the design of the bayonet was different. At the bottom of the branch, I laid out the pages from the Manual on sighting (Chapter V, p. 101, p. 72).
                      there was a comparison of Mosin and Mauser rifles, they also spoke about the role of the bayonet in the accuracy and accuracy of shooting. Interestingly enough,
                      It can be clearly. Only wrong.
                      By the way, the bayonet in the mosquito is on the side, not the bottom.
                2. onli-ne
                  onli-ne 25 July 2015 18: 12
                  +1
                  Is there no mention of the need for shooting with a bayonet (sided, I suppose)?
                  You believe correctly. I say, "horror". Internet.
                  If I give some kind of info, I am ready to confirm it.
                  And I'm ready. Infu. And "horror" is not ready.
                  This is also rudeness. Without explanation
                  Why write "smart words"? Like, cognitive dissonance? I am afraid of such words. Suddenly, obscene? laughing
                  1. Cat man null
                    Cat man null 25 July 2015 18: 15
                    +1
                    Quote: onli-ne
                    You believe correctly. I say, "horror". Internet.
                    If I give some kind of info, I am ready to confirm it.
                    And I'm ready. Infu. And "horror" is not ready.

                    Mdya .. I don’t understand you .. okay, I understood about the bayonet, my soul became somehow calmer ..

                    Quote: onli-ne
                    Why write "smart words"? Like, cognitive dissonance? I am afraid of such words. Suddenly, obscene?

                    That's about dissonas, just - the Internet is full .. but about sighting with a bayonet - no .. pichalka what
                    1. onli-ne
                      onli-ne 25 July 2015 18: 23
                      0
                      about sighting with a bayonet - no .. pichalka
                      No? And how is it asked after that to live? bully
                    2. The comment was deleted.
                3. oldkap22
                  oldkap22 25 July 2015 19: 55
                  +4
                  I confirm that the Mossinka was shooting with a bayonet ... (but it was believed that in battle the main type of battle would be with a bayonet ...)
                4. wk
                  wk 26 July 2015 05: 04
                  0
                  Quote: Cat Man Null
                  Is there no mention of the need for shooting with a bayonet (sided, I suppose)?

                  The documentary film of the Zvezda TV channel "Small arms of the Second World War" clearly shows how the propellant gases, overtaking the bullet, are reflected from the bayonet and change the trajectory of the bullet! .... the bayonet of the mosinka mod 30g was on the side.
                  1. onli-ne
                    onli-ne 26 July 2015 10: 25
                    0
                    the documentary film of the TV channel star "small arms of the second world war" clearly shows how the propellant gases overtaking the bullet are reflected from the bayonet and change the trajectory of the bullet
                    Zvezda TV channel, it's great. A Manual of a rifle and a carbine is healthy. There it is clearly written (Chapter V, item 101, p. 72) that the rifle can be brought into action as you please. A carbine mod. 1944 brought to battle ONLY with an attached bayonet. Apparently this happens because their bayonets are different.
                  2. The comment was deleted.
                5. The comment was deleted.
          2. Argon
            Argon 25 July 2015 18: 02
            +6
            Dear onli-ne, do not confuse you with a fucking finger here. The conditions of the competition were "to create a" shop "based on the Berdan rifle" - (which in itself is comparable to the task of remaking the PPSh chambered for 7,62x39). As a result, The design proposed by the Tula was quite original, its some, external "similarity" to the "Berdan" is explained by the adoption of technologies for the production capacity of the plant - no more. The Mauser rifle is a more perfect unit.
            1. onli-ne
              onli-ne 25 July 2015 18: 17
              -1
              As a result, the design proposed by the Tula was quite original, its some, external "similarity" to the "ber
            2. The comment was deleted.
            3. onli-ne
              onli-ne 25 July 2015 18: 53
              0
              The conditions of the competition were "to create a" shop "based on the Berdan rifle"
              Actually Lebel.
              As a result, the design proposed by the Tula was quite original, its some, external "similarity" to the "Berdan" is explained by the adoption of technologies for the production capacity of the plant - no more.
              It is a pity that she did not go into the series, but the Nagan rifle went. But adapted by Mosin.
              1. Mordvin 3
                Mordvin 3 25 July 2015 19: 39
                +4
                In my opinion, Mosin and Nagan rifles were simultaneously at the competition. Correct if I am wrong.
                1. onli-ne
                  onli-ne 25 July 2015 19: 56
                  +1
                  In my opinion, Mosin and Nagan rifles were simultaneously at the competition.
                  No, the Mosin rifle with the wording "deserves full attention" was rejected at the initial stage.
                  Somehow everyone forgets that the barrel was from a Lebel rifle, rearranged into a 3 ".
                  But the shutter was Mosin. Therefore, it would be more correct to call the Russian three-line rifle the Lebel-Nagant-Mosin rifle. There was a little bit of everyone. But in the end they called it a compromise "Russian 3-line rifle model 1891". And already under the USSR, when it became clear that everything in the world was invented in Russia, it was renamed the "Mosin rifle".
            4. The comment was deleted.
          3. Alf
            Alf 25 July 2015 18: 27
            +2
            Quote: onli-ne
            British Lee-Enfield under .303 British, this is the thing.

            What is it "thing"? An ordinary rifle, no worse or better than others.
            Quote: onli-ne
            And from semi-automatic,

            In fact, there were never semi-automatic rifles, they were self-loading.
            Quote: onli-ne
            And from semi-automatic, of course, M1 Garand. There were no others.

            SVT-40. Did not hear ?
            1. svp67
              svp67 25 July 2015 18: 42
              0
              Quote: Alf
              In fact, there were never semi-automatic rifles, they were self-loading.

              But there were automatic ...



              1. onli-ne
                onli-ne 25 July 2015 19: 00
                -5
                But there were automatic ...
                You somehow always want to make me laugh. This is your semi-automatic (self-loading) rifle with the ability to conduct automatic fire.
                But since we're talking about automatic rifles, they were there too. Not the same as in your photo. The real ones looked like this. In the USSR, they were mistakenly called the word "machine gun".
              2. The comment was deleted.
            2. onli-ne
              onli-ne 25 July 2015 18: 56
              -3
              An ordinary rifle, no worse and no better than others.
              You know better. Probably.
              there were never semi-automatic rifles; they were self-loading.
              It is the same.
              SVT-40. Did not hear ?
              Do not make me laugh.
              1. Aleksandr72
                Aleksandr72 25 July 2015 19: 28
                +8
                In addition to the SVT-40 and its initial version SVT-38, which, by the way, were very highly appreciated by both the Germans and the Finns, and the American "Garanad" M1, originally adopted in service in 1936 and undergoing revision right up to 1940, when it finally then he went into a large series, there were also the following self-loading or, if you like, semi-automatic rifles: German G-41 (M) (your favorite Mauser - by the way, D.E.R.mo-rifle), G-41 (W) ( this is Walter), G-43 and its modification K-43 (this is also Walter, in many ways similar to SVT), Danish-Swedish Madsen-Lyngman model 1942 (after the war, the Egyptian rifle Hakim was created on its basis), there were also the Czechoslovak ZH-29 and its modification ZH-32, the Iatlian Scotti and Beretta mod. 1931 (small-scale, essentially experimental) and Breda arr. 1935 (similar), another American - Johnson arr. 1941 (limited standard). By the way, on the basis of the SVT-40, with the borrowing of the design of a number of units and parts, the post-war Belgian self-loading rifles M49 and the famous rifle - the defender of the free world FN FAL were created (though this is already an assault (automatic) rifle chambered for 7,62x51 NATO (which is misunderstood as intermediate , although according to the characteristics it is an ordinary rifle and machine gun cartridge). And the usual SVT-40 at one time was one of the most bought rifles in the United States, used as a hunting or for reconnaissance shooting. Confirmation of all of the above is easy to find, Google and Yandex will help you ...
                I have the honor.
                1. onli-ne
                  onli-ne 25 July 2015 19: 40
                  -4
                  which by the way were very highly rated by both Germans and Finns
                  Did the Germans and the Finns tell you this? Why didn’t they take it, so good, into service? And until recently tried to finish your bad rifles? Why are you telling tales?
                  your favorite Mauser - by the way
                  Who told you that Mauser is loved by me? Do you fantasize yourself and refute it? What else do you do with yourself?
                  Why did you write such a "sheet"? Are you demonstrating your erudition? So demonstrate to the topic. It was about magazine rifles.
                  By the way, on the basis of the SVT-40 with the borrowing of the design of a number of components and parts, post-war Belgian M49 self-loading rifles and the famous rifle - the defender of the free world FN FAL were created
                  Glue sniffed today?
                  Yes, and the usual SVT-40 at one time was one of the most bought rifles in the US, used as hunting or for recreational shooting. Confirmation of all the above is easy to find, Google and Yandex to help you.
                  Yes Yes. I understood. There are no rifles in the USA. Only CBT. Although, of course, if you sell at the price of garbage ...
                  1. oldkap22
                    oldkap22 26 July 2015 07: 36
                    0
                    The Germans took the captured SVT (and ABC) into service ...
                    1. onli-ne
                      onli-ne 26 July 2015 10: 27
                      0
                      All the trophy was adopted. Why does good disappear?
                    2. onli-ne
                      onli-ne 26 July 2015 10: 27
                      0
                      All the trophy was adopted. Why does good disappear? The cost of operating the SVT for them, in contrast to the Red Army, was 0.
                2. The comment was deleted.
                  1. Aleksandr72
                    Aleksandr72 25 July 2015 21: 14
                    +7
                    You are a disrespectful boor and.
                    Germans - captured SVTs in large numbers were in service with the Wehrmacht and separate "eastern" units under the names Selbstladegewehr 258 (r) (SVT-38) and Selbstladegewehr 259 (r) (SVT-40). Finns - captured SVT were in service with the Finnish army from 1939 to 1958. On the basis of the SVT-38 in Finland, an experimental self-loading rifle TaRaKo was created, named after the names of the developers - N. Talvenheimo, O. Paronen and N. Koivula. Serially not produced.
                    There were no objections on your part about Italian, Swedish and Czechoslovak rifles - apparently you are hearing about them for the first time.
                    Glue sniff yourself, this is probably your usual breakfast, and maybe lunch.
                    Regarding the popularity of the SVT hunting option in the States - I already wrote - Google will help you.
                    I have the honor.
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                    2. Raider
                      Raider 25 July 2015 22: 40
                      +5
                      Do not argue with onli-ne - there are three fingers armor, theorist, what can I say about him. After reading the article, he did not understand the main thing: to establish a tool in production in conditions of war with low cost, low requirements for production personnel and better quality characteristics than those that are in service and not inferior to their foreign counterparts, simple to operate - that is what the best gun in the world means . What do you compare with the weapons of the United States or Germany, some did not have a war for almost 100 years on the territory, others worked all of Europe, and we transported factories. Tell me, online, the history of at least one country where this happened ????? So that children and women collect weapons? In England? The women who hid behind the English Channel certainly worked, but how many hours a day ???? Weapons are considered the best not by one attribute, but by a complex of characteristics, which gives in sum - the best.
                    3. onli-ne
                      onli-ne 25 July 2015 23: 21
                      -8
                      he did not understand the main thing, that to establish a tool in production in conditions of war with low cost, low requirements for production personnel and better quality characteristics than those that are in service and not inferior to their foreign counterparts, simple to operate - that is what the best gun in the world means.
                      What you write in simple Russian is called nonsense. It doesn't work that way. To eat a fish and ... sit down. The fact that the three-inch was a low-grade cheap, I quite believe it. But the fact that this cheap stuff had "better quality characteristics than those in service and not inferior to foreign counterparts" is the imagination of the scoops. To be convinced of this, even a great mind is not needed. You just need to compare the ballistics of this gun, in fact, of the early 20th century, with modern analogues of WW2. And understand that it was artillery sucks. Which was produced only because there was nothing else to fight in the USSR. The alternative was a wooden club to make it clearer.
                      for others, all of Europe worked
                      Worked part of continental Europe.
                      and we transported the plants
                      In the USSR, after Stalin surrendered the Soviet people to the Anglo-Sakas for cannon fodder, the rest of the world worked.
                      So that children and women collect weapons?
                      Is this a reason for pride? Is there anything human left in you? Now you will begin to be proud that people were dying of hunger.
                      Weapons are considered the best not by one attribute, but by a complex of characteristics, which gives in sum - the best.
                      So apply this formula to the Soviet pre-war scrap metal called weapons. The very best in the world, of course. The communists didn't even bother to arm the country. Why, there were enough for executions and revolvers. Damn gorlopans. They didn't care, "Russian women are still giving birth."
                    4. The comment was deleted.
                    5. Raider
                      Raider 25 July 2015 23: 37
                      +3
                      As everything is running I look, armor is probably more.
                      Quote: onli-ne
                      So that children and women collect weapons? Is this a reason for pride? Is there anything human left in you? Now you will begin to be proud that people were dying of hunger.

                      This is a reason for pride! How my country won, from child to soldier. And I am proud of it every day, and especially May 9 !!! Therefore, this is a national holiday, and the WAR is DOMESTIC, and for you consumer goods is only 2 world wars, there wasn’t even a human in you, judging by what was written. And the best weapon that won.
                      Quote: onli-ne
                      In the USSR, after Stalin surrendered the Soviet people to the Anglo-Sakas for cannon fodder, the rest of the world worked.

                      Do you understand what you wrote? wassat Reread it. "Blue" or what? Sorry if not. But this is the best in your excuse.
                      By the way, did you serve at all - an expert? Probably an artilleryman or spotter, since such a ballistic? Nope - a sniper, SVD with an attached bayonet knife, that would not get off. Guessed right laughing
                    6. onli-ne
                      onli-ne 25 July 2015 23: 58
                      -2
                      This is a reason for pride!
                      What exactly? In the quote one thing, in the commentary, another.
                      Do you understand what you wrote?
                      It is important that you understand. Read who worked for the Axis countries and who worked for the coalition. On the Internet it is. In detail.
                      But this is the best in your excuse.
                      Am I supposed to make excuses for something?
                    7. Raider
                      Raider 26 July 2015 01: 16
                      +3
                      So where did he serve? Question? In the Internet? On the Internet, you can write Testament-2 dear, without communication with the outside world, where you send me and others all the time. Do you think one is smart, do you know the story? Who worked for whom and fought during the 2 MV? Believe me - you are not alone.
                      Quote: onli-ne
                      In the USSR, after Stalin surrendered the Soviet people to the Anglo-Sakas for cannon fodder, the rest of the world worked.

                      Translate me stupid, what did you want to write or say? You won’t believe it, but I don’t understand. Maybe it is written in Esperanto ????
                      Yes, I completely forgot, from the far depths of the Internet:
                      "The first military experience of operating the 7,5 cm Pak 40 boiled down to the following: the gun must be transported to the firing positions by a tractor, manual rolling is possible only over a distance of ten meters ....",

                      "Of the shortcomings, first of all, it was noted that the aiming mechanism of the gun is sufficiently dirty and dusty. When the gears become clogged, the latter quickly break down. Automatic ejection of the sleeve did not always work. The 7,5 cm Pak 40 gun has a relatively high silhouette, which makes camouflage difficult and presents a visible target "

                      "Compared to the German anti-tank gun ZIS-3, due to a less durable barrel group, a lower propellant charge and a poorer quality of shells, it significantly loses in armor penetration, but due to the lower recoil and a different design of the openers, the Soviet gun has one serious advantage in anti-tank use - it does not bury itself in the ground when firing.When firing, the Pak 40 buried itself in the ground so strongly that it was impossible to turn in a given direction if necessary, it was only possible to pull out a gun stuck in the ground with a powerful tractor. The lower mass of the ZIS-3 also favored wheel support for its infantry, which was much more difficult for the Pak 40. A number of sources also point to a slightly better high-explosive fragmentation effect of the 76-mm ZIS-3 shells compared to the 75-mm German shells. Almost the same can be said about the Pak 40 equal in power and more heavier 76 mm American M5 anti-tank gun. It is noteworthy here that this gun, despite the highest armor-piercing capabilities among other American towed guns, was unsatisfactorily assessed by the representatives of the US Army because of the impossibility of rolling it over by the crew. "
                      NOTHING PERSONAL - INTERNET.
                    8. onli-ne
                      onli-ne 26 July 2015 02: 21
                      0
                      Translate me stupid, what did you want to write or say? You won’t believe it, but I don’t understand.
                      I will not believe. Everything is written very clearly.
                      The first army experience of operating the 7,5 cm Pak 40 was as follows: the gun should be transported to the firing positions by the tractor
                      Lies. The weight of Pak-40 in the stowed position is 1500 kg, ZIS-3 1850 kg. Perfectly ZIS-3 dragged horses. And Pak-40, especially.
                      Among the shortcomings, first of all, it was noted that the gun’s aiming mechanism is sufficiently dirt and dust. With clogged gears, the latter break quickly. Automatic ejection of the sleeve did not always work.
                      Well, this is from the series "la-la-la, three rubles."
                      The 7,5 cm Pak 40 cannon has a relatively high silhouette, which makes camouflage difficult and presents a noticeable target
                      The height of the Pak-40 is 1245 mm. The height of the ZIS-3 is 1375 mm. Guess which is more noticeable.
                      it does not burrow into the ground when firing. When firing, the Pak 40 buried itself into the ground so hard that it was impossible to turn it in the desired direction if necessary by the forces of calculation, to pull out a gun stuck in the ground could only be a powerful tractor.
                      I already wrote about the "advantages" invented by the Bolsheviks. The ZIS-3 was even more pleasant in color. Yeah.
                      The smaller mass of ZIS-3 also favored the support of its infantry with wheels, which was much more difficult for the Pak 40.
                      Supporting your infantry with wheels (anti-tank gun) is nonsense invented by uneducated Soviet theoreticians. An anti-tank gun should not support anyone or anything. This is not a self-propelled gun. And if there is no self-propelled gun, then you have to sit in the trench on the priest exactly, and not die in millions. Because for the anti-tank ZIS-3, some fools have come up with some kind of "wheel support".
                      somewhat better high-explosive fragmentation effect of 76 mm ZIS-3 shells compared to 75 mm German
                      Enough. And both guns it was enough.
                      Practically the same thing can be said about the equal Pak 40 in power and the even heavier 76 mm M5 American anti-tank gun
                      Practically the same thing can be said about the equal Pak 40 in power and the even heavier 76 mm M5 American anti-tank gun
                      The M5 in the towed version was almost never produced. In self-propelled or on Sharman (M1).
                      You somehow did not write anything about the main thing. About power. And more and more somehow in terms of the fourth degree of importance went through.
                      The muzzle energy of the Soviet three-inch was 1380 J, the German Pak-40 2016 J, the American M1 2195 J. And this I do not mention 75 mm German tank guns. Which were generally freaky. The Panther’s 75 mm cannon, and then the T-4, produced 3150 J. How could they be compared with the wretched by 1943. F-34 and ZIS-5? In terms of armor penetration, they were 12% superior to the Soviet 85 mm S-53 guns, which were mounted on the T-34/85. This is not my data, this is data from Soviet Top Secret Handbook for 1944
                      And after that, the Bolsheviks had the audacity to declare that the Soviet three-inch was "the best that was in the 76 mm caliber." The audacity is simply amazing. Just enchanting.
                    9. Raider
                      Raider 26 July 2015 22: 30
                      +3
                      Personally, I put you +, for your minus to me. You will learn to discuss and answer specifically to the questions posed, hopefully we will talk later on the site. No one argues with you in terms of power, but in terms of the totality of the gun's performance. But you don't hear anyone but yourself. What is the expression "Bolsheviks" ??? Are you a "White Guard" yourself ??? Hasn't he returned from civilian? Good luck! Health to you and your loved ones!
                    10. onli-ne
                      onli-ne 26 July 2015 22: 56
                      0
                      What is the expression "Bolsheviks"
                      Who? Until 1952 in the USSR, the Bolsheviks were in power. Members of the CPSU (b). This is (b) and means "Bolsheviks". And not at all an obscene word, which would be much more appropriate here.
                      In 1952 she was renamed the Communist Party. At the same time, the Bolsheviks were renamed Communists.
                  2. Raider
                    Raider 26 July 2015 22: 30
                    0
                    Personally, I put you +, for your minus to me. You will learn to discuss and answer specifically to the questions posed, hopefully we will talk later on the site. No one argues with you in terms of power, but in terms of the totality of the gun's performance. But you don't hear anyone but yourself. What is the expression "Bolsheviks" ??? Are you a "White Guard" yourself ??? Hasn't he returned from civilian? Good luck! Health to you and your loved ones!
                3. Nehist
                  Nehist 28 July 2015 09: 13
                  0
                  By the way, it is not necessary to compare the German VET gun with the ZIS-3 DIVISION, their tasks are generally different, so the zis was a universal gun that, to the best of its ability, coped with the tasks assigned to it. That's exactly how the divisional gun, it was not up to the mark unfortunately.
          4. The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • generatorbred
    generatorbred 25 July 2015 23: 27
    +4
    yeah and the Germans took trophy zis-3 into service out of contempt for zis-3.
    no one what
    The Pak 40 was used in the overwhelming majority of cases as an anti-tank gun, firing direct fire at its targets. In terms of armor-piercing action, the Pak 40 was superior to the similar Soviet 76,2 mm ZIS-3 gun, this was caused by a more powerful powder charge in the Pak 40 shot - 2,7 kg (for the ZIS-3 shot - 1 kg). However, the Pak 40 had less effective rollback suppression systems, as a result of which, when fired, the openers were "buried" in the ground more strongly, as a result of which the ZiS-3 was far behind in the ability to quickly change position or transfer fire.
    1. onli-ne
      onli-ne 26 July 2015 00: 07
      0
      ha and the Germans took trophy ZIS-3 into service out of contempt for ZIS-3
      And what to throw, or what? Free came to hand, of course you need to use. This is a common world practice. Contempt / respect is not appropriate here.
      The Pak 40 was used in the vast majority of cases as an anti-tank gun
      Pak and translates as anti-tank gun. And ZIS-3 was also an anti-tank gun. Only, as was customary in the USSR, was not called by its name. The Bolsheviks were all so. They even managed to fight the Nazis when the whole world was at war with the Nazis.
      this was caused by a more powerful powder charge in the Pak 40 shot - 2,7 kg (in the ZIS-3 shot - 1 kg)
      What difference does it make? the result is important. And he at the Pak-40 was impressive.
      However, the Pak 40 had less effective recoil damping systems, as a result of which, when fired, the openers were "buried" in the ground more strongly, as a result of which the ZiS-3 was far behind in the ability to quickly change position or transfer fire.
      The Bolsheviks are terrible visionaries. Come up with "advantages" out of the blue. Now the bipod was not the same. And the color of the ZIS-3 was more pleasant. More pleasing to the eye. And the wheels were more rounded. And the fact that from the middle of 1943. It was impossible to penetrate anything with this anti-tank gun, and there was horror near Kursk, this is nonsense. It does not matter.
      1. Panzerjäger
        Panzerjäger 2 March 2019 16: 35
        0
        Online
        So, the ZIS-3 - "76,2-mm DIVISIONAL gun of the 1942 model", was used as an anti-tank gun during the war, when it became clear that the 45-mm cannon was rather weak.
        By the way, why did the 88-mm German ones have the designation Flak - "flugtsoygabwerkanone", if the tanks were mostly fired at?
        Now from openers. You know, for an anti-tank gun and its calculation, linking the openers when the calculation is not able to pull them out of the ground, in 90% of cases is fatal. The tank will not wait when you push the tractor, pull out the bed of the guns from the ground, deploy the gun. He will simply crush both the gun and the track count.

        Now about the horror at Kursk. You know, it's bad not to know and forget. At Kursk, the German Pz.III, Pz.IV and Pz.V had side armor of 30-40 mm. And her forty-fives punched, not like the ZIS-3. And in the "fire bags" it was not that the Pz.IV burned, the "Ferdinands" managed to shoot. The report of the 19 Panzer Division on the actions near Kursk states that by July 10, it had about 30 tanks remaining combat-ready. Where else have fifty cars gone? Have you broken yourself? Are these super reliable "threes" and "setters"? Or were they ZIS-3 knocked out? And until the end of the war, anti-tank crews beat mainly on the sides, and not like stupid players of computer games - in the forehead.
        I have already written, I repeat, under the Balaton they investigated the wrecked German tanks - 85-88% of the holes were in the side and aft projections. The holes of 76,2 mm shells accounted for 55% of all holes in German tanks.
        Near Šiauliai in 1944, 3/4 of all wrecked tanks were hit on board. Until the end of the war, they had a reservation of not more than 50 mm at Pz.IV and Pz.V and were tough on the ZIS-3 from a range of 700-800 meters.
  • Alex652002
    Alex652002 26 July 2015 16: 17
    +1
    you have to be a complete idiot if you say such a Mosin rifle the standard for all new developments in the world of sniper weapons.
    1. onli-ne
      onli-ne 26 July 2015 16: 29
      0
      Mosin rifle is the standard for all new developments in the world of sniper weapons.
      Wow. Where do such "revelations" come from? Is it okay that the SVD, a specially designed, and not adapted sniper rifle, with the same cartridge, ballistically resembles Mosinka (as a standard)? Did the pests work?
      If you really need "your own standard", then take a closer look at the DP-27 automatic rifle (in the USSR it was mistakenly called a machine gun, although if we proceed from the performance characteristics it is a heavy multi-charge automatic rifle on a bipod. To become a machine gun, this rifle did not have enough fire density). Ballistically, the SVD is closer to the DP-27 than to the mosinka.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • Panzerjäger
    Panzerjäger 2 March 2019 16: 17
    0
    It's very bad not to know and forget. Are you swinging muzzle energy here? Sumptuously! Can you tell me how much the PaK40 weighed in combat position? Do not know? The answer is 1425 kg. ZIS-3 - 1192 kg. The difference is 233 kilograms. But this is so, flowers. Only 30 "extra" kg per crew number, if you had to turn the gun manually. By the way, the British 17-pounder (76-mm anti-tank gun) weighed OVER 2 TONS.
    By the way, ZIS-3, even when wooden decks were driven in under her coulters so that she would jump less when firing from closed OPs, even in winter the calculations turned the beds for 6-8 minutes. This is verified by personal experience, in shooting.
    When firing, the PaK40 sank so that it was only possible to pull its coulters out of the ground with the help of a tractor.
    Further. The complexity of manufacturing the ZIS-3 was (without the laboriousness of manufacturing optical parts and wheels) less than 1500 man-hours. On the German PaK40 (without optics and wheels), about 6000 man-hours were spent. Feel the difference. The ZIS-3 didn’t have ANY part that required manual fitting, on the PaK40, about 30% of the parts were “finished with a file”. It's about manufacturability.
    The survivability of the barrel in ZIS-3 was THREE higher than that of PaK40. Many guns went from beginning to end their combat path without having shot the resource of the barrel, but fired at the same time six to seven thousand shells at the enemy.
    The metal utilization rate at ZIS-3 was about 75%, i.e. 75% of the metal from the billets was part of the parts of the gun, the Germans and the British did not exceed the utilization of metal 50%. Those. half or more of the metal went to their chips and waste, against 25% from Grabin.
    Now, with regards to the ancient dead cannon. The Germans, for example, used the resources of the 76-mm gun mod. 1936 F-22 to increase the initial speed. As it was laid in the design by Grabin. It was only after the increase in muzzle energy that the Germans were faced with the fact that the wear of the barrel bore became such that the gun could not make more than 1500 shots. For comparison, their 75mm PaK38 / 97 anti-tank gun (a hybrid of PaK38 and a French gun from 1897) had a barrel life of 5000 rounds. Therefore, unlike the "hybrid", all the guns converted from the F-22 had a ban on firing except at tanks, only thanks to this, 165 of them "survived" until the end of the war, although in 1945 the wear of their barrels was appalling.
    Now let's compare: F-22, focused on more powerful ballistics, weighed 1700 kg in a combat position, half a ton more than the ZIS-3. Calculations could barely roll it manually, which is especially important for cannons fighting tanks.
    Well, the last. Five times less production space was used on the ZIS-3 than on the PaK-40, the ZIS-3 was maximally unified with the ZIS-5 (KV tank) and F-34 (T-34 tank), and its the carriage in 1943 became at the same time the carriage of the 57-mm gun ZIS-2. Neither PaK40 nor the Americans had anything similar. And unification and manufacturability in wartime are very expensive. Much higher than muzzle energy.
    Now about the muzzle energy. The ZIS-3 had enough of it to make holes in the sides of Pz.IV and Panthers, for example, at Balaton, 85% of all holes in German tanks were on the sides or in the stern.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • avia12005
    avia12005 25 July 2015 06: 22
    10
    What time, such and heroes. Time gives birth to personalities, not Chubais.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Duke
      Duke 25 July 2015 07: 23
      +6
      During the Great Patriotic War, there were more cannons of the design of Vasily Gavrilovich Grabin on the fronts than guns of other types of Soviet and pre-revolutionary production. German and American designers and military historians unanimously recognize the ZIS-Z as the best divisional cannon of World War II. By 1941, the 76-mm F-34 tank gun had become the world's strongest tank gun, and it was not for nothing that the vast majority of our medium tanks, armored trains and armored vehicles were armed with it. The 100-mm anti-tank gun BS-3 pierced through the armor of the vaunted German Tigers and Panthers.
      Towards the end of World War II, the forty-five-year-old Grabin became a colonel general, doctor of technical sciences, professor, Hero of Socialist Labor; he led the most powerful design bureau in the field of artillery weapons.
      Stalin addressed him directly, bypassing his assistants and ministers.
      Our official historians were simply forced to write about all this, albeit with numerous omissions and errors. But after victorious May 1945, the strictest taboo was imposed on information about the further work of Grabin. What happened? Why over the next fourteen years, only one S-60 horned anti-aircraft gun came into mass production?
      In fact, Grabin created a whole arsenal of guns from 23 to 650 mm caliber, among which were anti-tank, field, self-propelled, tank, sea and aviation systems. Among them, of particular interest is
      They are still not surpassed by weapons of great and special power, some of which could fire nuclear weapons.
      But the successes of Grabin, his proximity to Stalin, and, to be honest, the inanimate and aggressive nature created many enemies for him. Among them were almost all the chief designers of artillery design bureaus, a number of heads of the Ministry of Defense and the Main Artillery Directorate. The main detractor of Grabin was the permanent head of the People’s Commissariat, and then the Ministry of Defense Industry D.F. Ustinov.
      In 1946-1953 the adoption of the Grabin’s guns was actually blocked, and after the death of Stalin, Ustinov almost every year made attempts to defeat the Grabin Design Bureau. They managed to do this only in 1959. The Honored Designer was literally thrown out into the street. His guns went for re-melting, and the technical documentation was destroyed or scattered in secret archives.
      1. onli-ne
        onli-ne 25 July 2015 10: 30
        -3
        But after victorious May 1945, the strictest taboo was imposed on information about the further work of Grabin.
        Really?
        Why over the next fourteen years, only one S-60 horned anti-aircraft gun came into mass production?
        Actually Loktevskaya. Grabin himself, as a designer, did not deal with anti-aircraft guns.
        In fact, Grabin created a whole arsenal of guns from 23 to 650 mm caliber, among which were anti-tank, field, self-propelled, tank, sea and aviation systems.
        A project is not a gun. Grabin made three-inch variations and 57 mm ZIS-2. All.
        1. Alf
          Alf 25 July 2015 18: 34
          +2
          Quote: onli-ne
          Grabin made three-inch variations and 57 mm ZIS-2. All.

          infantry guns: 76-mm guns of the 1936 model (F-22), 1939 (SPM) and the divisional gun of the 1942 model ZIS-3, 57-mm gun of the 1941 model (ZIS-2), 100-mm field gun sample of 1944 (BS-3).
          tank guns: 76,2-mm tank guns F-32, F-34, ZIS-5 for arming the medium tank T-34-76 and heavy tank KB-1, self-propelled gun ZIS-30 with a 57-mm gun ZIS-2 (ZIS-4), as well as the 76,2-mm gun ZIS-3, which was installed on light self-propelled guns SU-76 and SU-76M. Prototypes of tank guns were developed and tested: 37-mm guns ZIS-19, 76,2-mm guns S-54, 85-mm guns S-18, S-31, S-50, S-53, ZIS-S -53, 100-mm S-34 guns, 107-mm ZIS-6 guns, 130-mm S-26 guns, 122-mm S-41 howitzers.
          In the 1950s, interest in artillery systems plummeted. As a result, only one gun developed by Grabin was adopted - the S-60 anti-aircraft gun. In part, the S-23 was adopted, but later, when an urgent need arose in it and a small series. However, the team under his leadership developed several artillery weapon systems:
          "Triplex" in the composition of the 180-mm gun S-23, 210-mm howitzers S-33 and 280-mm mortars S-43. The gun was adopted, but the howitzer and mortar did not go into production.
          "Duplex" in the composition of the 210-mm gun S-72 and 305-mm howitzer S-73 [2]
          Conical gun S-40, having an initial projectile speed of more than 1330 m / s and breaking through at a distance of 500 m more than 28 cm of armor.
          The gun for the IS-7 S-70 tank based on the ship’s 130 mm.
          1. onli-ne
            onli-ne 25 July 2015 18: 48
            -3
            76-mm guns of the 1936 model (F-22), of the 1939 model (USV) and the divisional gun of the 1942 model ZIS-3, 76,2-mm tank guns F-32, F-34, ZIS-5 for medium weapons T-34-76 tank and KB-1 heavy tank, 76,2 mm ZIS-3 gun, which was installed on light self-propelled guns SU-76 and SU-76M
            This is "Variations on a three-inch theme". There is only one gun, only from different angles. I mentioned this.
            57-mm gun of 1941 model (ZIS-2), self-propelled gun ZIS-30 with 57-mm gun ZIS-2 (ZIS-4)
            It "variations on a 57 mm cannon". I mentioned this.
            100-mm field gun model 1944 of the year (BS-3)
            This is a B-34 sea gun on a field carriage. Those. nothing of its own was created.
            As a result, only one gun developed by Grabin was adopted - the S-60 anti-aircraft gun
            This gun is the development of Loktev.
            37 mm guns ZIS-19, 76,2 mm guns S-54, 85 mm guns S-18, S-31, S-50, S-53, ZIS-S-53, 100 mm guns S- 34, 107-mm guns ZIS-6, 130-mm guns S-26, 122-mm howitzers S-41.
            This is from the tra la la series. Well, there is everything from this series.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  • Andryukha G
    Andryukha G 25 July 2015 06: 27
    +7
    On pedestals in the form of monuments of guns ZiS-3 no less than the legendary T-34.
    1. igordok
      igordok 25 July 2015 06: 46
      +7
      Quote: Andryukha G
      On pedestals in the form of monuments of guns ZiS-3 no less than the legendary T-34.

      I’ll fix it a bit - T-34-85. T-34 on the pedestals is very small.

      Monument to paratroopers in Bezhanitsy Psk.obl.
  • timyr
    timyr 25 July 2015 07: 11
    +3
    These are the oaks in our GAU served. No wonder Kulik was put to the wall after the war. You can still remember how the GAU did not want to take new explosives into service before the AIX-9 war.
    1. sergey72
      sergey72 25 July 2015 09: 04
      +7
      Quote: timyr
      These are the oaks in our GAU served.

      I had heard from artillery veterans about the weakness of the divisional gun’s shot ... Now, if she were guided by shots from the anti-aircraft 3-K, then with ZiS-3 it would be better with armor penetration .... IMHO
      1. onli-ne
        onli-ne 25 July 2015 09: 50
        +4
        Now, if she were guided by shots from the anti-aircraft 3-K, then with armor penetration the ZiS-3 would be better
        She could focus on anything. But the trunks in the USSR could be massively done only with a rifled portion of not more than 100 inches. In addition to one plant purchased from the Germans (in Podlipki), which produces anti-aircraft guns. And only in the second half of 1943. came the American equipment for the production of long barrels.
        And each barrel has its own ammunition.
        1. oldkap22
          oldkap22 25 July 2015 20: 14
          0
          ZiS-3 was created when its capacity was more than enough ...
          1. onli-ne
            onli-ne 25 July 2015 20: 27
            +1
            ZiS-3 was created when its capacity was more than enough ...
            How to say. It depends on the distance. Also, do not forget about its dimensions. It was a small thing, visible from afar. Yes, and the "tank" cartridges puffed with thick clouds of smoke when fired. Which also strongly unmasked them.
      2. oldkap22
        oldkap22 25 July 2015 20: 11
        0
        when designing, the requirement was set to use shells with a geometry of 1mv (accumulated in warehouses ... used until the end of 2mv ...), the Hrabi guns had the strength to allow the use of more powerful shells when regraining the chamber ... (what the Germans did ... on captured ones .. .)
        1. onli-ne
          onli-ne 25 July 2015 20: 34
          +1
          use shells with 1mv geometry
          The geometry of these shells was the same, less power. Gunpowder in the sleeve was 0,9 kg, and in the new 1,08 kg.
          Grabin guns had the strength to allow the use of more powerful shells when regraining the chamber ...
          This was a common mistake. Not even in the calculations, I think Grabin did not count anything. He simply took as a basis the parameters of Tagunov's 3-K and "danced" from his numbers. Then it turned out that Tagunov's numbers were wrong. And the Grabinsky, as a result, too.
          In the USSR, no guns were ever sharpened in life. Even 3-K and 51-K, with exactly the same "strength", were not re-sharpened into caliber 85 mm.
          And the Germans 3-K and 51-K were actively transferring 88 mm in their caliber. And the F-22 was retrained under their cartridges.
    2. onli-ne
      onli-ne 25 July 2015 09: 23
      -1
      These are the oaks in our GAU served
      In the Red Army. GAU was no exception to the overall system.
      1. mirag2
        mirag2 25 July 2015 13: 03
        +1
        And why did "oaks" come from?
        Due to the lack of professionals killed by the Central Committee (Sverdlov, Trotsky, etc.), instead of them people came from the street, like in Dill now, one to one. Moreover, mainly the protégés of these same Sverdlovs, who were then successfully removed from the "cage" "Joseph Vissarionovich.
        1. onli-ne
          onli-ne 25 July 2015 13: 25
          0
          And why did "oaks" come from?
          To begin with, I would oppose the term "oaks". They were not oak trees. They were just people with little education. Smart and not at all stupid. But they lacked education. And there was nowhere to take it. Soviet "professors" and "academicians", at least until the 60s of the 20th century, were also poorly educated people. But with pieces of paper.
          due to the lack of professionals killed by the Central Committee (Sverdlov, Trotsky, etc.)
          Yes, the level of professionals has dropped dramatically. But there were no professionals in tsarist Russia either. Yes, their level was higher than the level of Dorezhnev's time. But they were also ignorant and inept. Just look at what ships they "designed" and built. You can't watch it without tears.
          And the overall level of production was higher for one simple reason. They (before the USSR) did nothing from scratch. All redid. And redoing someone else's and good, sometimes received goods of more or less tolerable quality. This applies to the three-line (like Mosin, but in fact Nagan). This applies to the French Canon de 75 mle 1897 field cannon. A modified version of which was called the "Russian three-inch". Etc. etc.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Mordvin 3
            Mordvin 3 25 July 2015 17: 20
            +4
            Aha a mustache slammed. "Ilya Muromets" can not you tell me where they rested?
            1. onli-ne
              onli-ne 25 July 2015 17: 30
              0
              I don’t know from whom. I do not understand aviation.
              Was the plane good? Or brilliant?
              1. Alf
                Alf 25 July 2015 18: 37
                +3
                Quote: onli-ne
                I don’t know from whom. I do not understand aviation.

                I'll tell you "a secret" from Sikorsky. laughing
                Was the plane good? Or brilliant?

                Also "in secret" - the world's first four-engine heavy bomber.
                1. onli-ne
                  onli-ne 25 July 2015 20: 55
                  +1
                  I'll tell you "a secret" from Sikorsky
                  Sikorsky at Sikorsky? That's cool. Even cooler than a pig’s tail.
                  Also "in secret" - the world's first four-engine heavy bomber.
                  So I wondered if it was good or not. And "the first in the world" is rather bad than good. No experience, no experience.
                  1. Alf
                    Alf 25 July 2015 23: 52
                    +1
                    Quote: onli-ne
                    No experience, no developments.

                    Svyatogor.
            2. wk
              wk 26 July 2015 05: 29
              0
              Quote: Mordvin 3
              Aha a mustache slammed. "Ilya Muromets" can not you tell me where they rested?

              Muromets had a domestic glider only .... imported power units ... more powerful twin-engine less powerful four ... in general, an interesting design ... now they would call a modular .... he himself is not an expert on aviation but saw this (photo) only on Muromets ... and only recently, before, only four-engine saw.
          3. Nagaibak
            Nagaibak 25 July 2015 20: 56
            0
            onli-ne "due to the lack of professionals killed by the Central Committee (Sverdlov, Trotsky"
            And what are they professionals in?
            1. onli-ne
              onli-ne 25 July 2015 21: 03
              +3
              onli-ne "due to the lack of professionals killed by the Central Committee (Sverdlov, Trotsky"
              You are slightly mistaken with the author of the quote. This is what I quoted mirag2.
            2. The comment was deleted.
  • La-5
    La-5 25 July 2015 07: 31
    13
    In the last photo, the padded ZiS-3 is a rare sample from the first series with an original muzzle brake.
    1. igordok
      igordok 25 July 2015 08: 23
      +5
      Quote: La-5
      In the last photo, the padded ZiS-3 is a rare sample from the first series with an original muzzle brake.

      Thanks. And then I also thought about the "strange" non-standard muzzle brake.
    2. onli-ne
      onli-ne 25 July 2015 10: 19
      +2
      ZiS-3 is a rare sample from the first series with the original muzzle brake
      This is not ZIS-3. This is the F-22USV on the ZIS-2 carriage.
      The photo of this model is really, very rare.
      1. La-5
        La-5 25 July 2015 11: 19
        +2
        Quote: onli-ne
        ZiS-3 is a rare sample from the first series with the original muzzle brake
        This is not ZIS-3. This is the F-22USV on the ZIS-2 carriage.
        The photo of this model is really, very rare.

        You are aware that the ZiS-3 was assembled from those parts that were used in mass-produced guns, which by the way is indicated in the article. The ZiS-3 has a barrel from the F-22, and the carriage from the ZiS-2.
        1. onli-ne
          onli-ne 25 July 2015 11: 42
          +3
          You are aware that the ZiS-3 was assembled from those parts that were used in mass-produced guns, which by the way is indicated in the article
          The article contains a lot of "interesting" things.
          ZiS-3 has a barrel from F-22
          ZIS-3 has a barrel from ZIS-3. The F-22USV has a barrel from the F-22USV. The F-22 has a barrel from the F-22.
          These are guns, not a child's construction set. Everything everywhere stood its own, "native". And the differences were quite serious.
          and the carriage from ZiS-2
          The carriage from the ZIS-2/41 stood on the ZIS-2/41. At the ZIS-3 there was a gun carriage made on the basis of carriage ZIS-2/41. He was even different in weight.
          But on the ZIS-2/43 the carriage stood on the ZIS-3, this is true. Therefore, the guns ZIS-2/41 and ZIS-2/43 were not the same.
      2. onli-ne
        onli-ne 25 July 2015 13: 37
        +4
        By the way, in the article where the broken gun is, there is also an F-22USV on a ZIS-2 gun carriage. The ZIS-3 had its own carriage, "native". But made on the basis of the carriage ZIS-2 arr. 1941
      3. The comment was deleted.
    3. The comment was deleted.
  • fomkin
    fomkin 25 July 2015 08: 09
    +3
    Thanks to the author. My father fought with this gun. Therefore, for me she is like a native.
  • lilian
    lilian 25 July 2015 08: 22
    +1
    ZIS-3 - the legendary gun, a weapon of victory.
    It is interesting that the legendary T-34, too, did not want to initially adopt, and also thanks to the intervention of Stalin, he became a weapon of victory.
    1. onli-ne
      onli-ne 25 July 2015 10: 22
      +2
      Actually, the T-34 was pushing Voroshilov.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Bosk
        Bosk 25 July 2015 12: 25
        +1
        Actually, the T-34 (at least 45mm armor-caterpillar-76mm cannon) it was an order of the military and this myth that it was Koshkin who promoted this project ... did he just happen to come from our cinema? I remembered that the first three tanks at the plant were called "limousines" due to the fact that they were made with such high quality ... all surface joints and so on, so on and so on were so fitted and polished ... if I could learn the history of these tanks ...
        1. onli-ne
          onli-ne 25 July 2015 12: 49
          -2
          Koshkin also promoted. Like an author. The fact is that the T-34 was not quite what the military wanted. He was whipped up from a light cruising (cavalry, in each country had its own name) tank A-20 (through A-32). Which was done to replace the BT-7. And like any other redone product was not successful. Therefore, the military put the question in such a way that the T-34 is not needed, but a good tank must be made right away. And Koshkin and his "patron" Voroshilov promoted a variant, first this one and then a good one.
          Stalin supported the second option. Today this is seen as a “wise decision”. Not necessary at all. Quite the opposite, I think. If the first point of view had won, most likely the Red Army would have received a normal tank instead of the T-34 before the war.
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. onli-ne
              onli-ne 25 July 2015 13: 33
              +2
              but at the expense of the "fast hand" it was also somehow doubtful
              Why is it doubtful? See the timing of the conversion of the A-20 (light tank for success development) into the T-34 (medium infantry support tank).
              were not boiled but "bent"
              On the exhibition samples could be anything. On serial samples, they were not boiled or bent. There was a connecting beam. Of non-armored (!!!) become.
              there were projects and it’s better, but it’s like how everything rested on the engine?
              On time. Everything rested on time.
              The engine rested on the T-50. But you can’t name it better than the T-34. In addition, these were tanks for various purposes. The T-34 began to be produced as an infantry support tank (later the SU-76 was produced for this), and the T-50 was planned as a success development tank, instead of the BT-7. T-50 almost never released. They did it right.
              1. Alex
                Alex 25 July 2015 19: 32
                +1
                Tank infantry support T-50 was to replace the T-26 and become the most massive. But they could not master its serial production, because it was incomparably more complicated than the T-26 (including the engine) and in terms of complexity was approaching the average T-34.
                1. onli-ne
                  onli-ne 25 July 2015 20: 01
                  -1
                  Tank escort infantry T-50
                  The T-50 was not an infantry escort tank. He was a success development tank (cavalry, cruising). Instead of BT-7.
                  had to replace the T-26
                  To replace the T-26 came not the T-50, but the T-34.
                  1. Paranoid50
                    Paranoid50 25 July 2015 23: 16
                    +2
                    Quote: onli-ne
                    To replace the T-26 came not the T-50, but the T-34.

                    Yes, the T-50, went into production before the war itself, and it was not possible to deploy its mass production. In addition, the T-50 was quite an expensive machine, at a price comparable to 34ka, and it would be the height of the squandering to produce a light tank at an average price.
                    1. onli-ne
                      onli-ne 25 July 2015 23: 25
                      0
                      I already wrote, it is very good that it did not work. A tank would be completely useless. And the concept of "success development tanks" (protected by armor of cavalrymen leaving for a breakthrough, behind enemy lines) turned out to be erroneous. Such "departures" ended in encirclements and cauldrons.
            2. The comment was deleted.
          2. Bosk
            Bosk 25 July 2015 13: 19
            +1
            Well, I don’t know, I don’t know ..., I’m reluctant now to "dig" through the books to throw off the link, but at the expense of the "ambulance" it was also somehow doubtful, because if I remember correctly, the first three tanks have hulls (frontal armor parts ) were not boiled, but "bent", and since this technology was ... let's say it was worked out "damp", then there were several attempts for each tank while it was possible to reduce the joints ... And at the expense of the best version of the tank ..., there were projects and better, but there it seems like it all depends on the engine?
          3. Alf
            Alf 25 July 2015 18: 54
            +1
            Quote: onli-ne
            If the first point of view had won, most likely the Red Army before the war would have received a normal tank instead of the T-34.

            Which one ? T-126 or T-34M? The T-126 did not go into production due to the high cost and complexity. T-126 did not have the possibility of development. By the way, the 45-mm gun on the T-126 as an instrument of the infantry support tank does not look serious.
            By T-34M.
            The T-34M project in January 1941 was approved by the Defense Committee under the SNK of the USSR. In March, began the production of two reference samples of the tank. At the same time, subcontractors mastered the production of components and assemblies for this machine. A stamped-welded tower with a wall thickness of 45 mm was developed at the Mariupol Metallurgical Plant under the leadership of V. S. Nitsenko. In May 1941, the plant not only manufactured the first five towers for the T-34M, but also prepared for their mass production (during the evacuation in the fall of 1941, 50 almost completed towers were taken out of Mariupol).
            For serial production of the T-34M, almost everything was already ready at plant No. 183. By April 17, three armored hulls were manufactured here, by the end of the month torsion bars, rollers and other elements of the chassis were assembled from the Kharkov Tractor Plant. However, the V-5 engine intended for this tank was never ready either by May 1 or by the beginning of the war ... "

            April-May of the 41st! Only the beginning of production, still without refinement according to army comments! Imagine what would happen if by June the release of the T-34 ceased, and the production of the T-34M would have just begun. The troops would simply be left without tanks.
            By the way, the old aircraft design wisdom (it is quite applicable to tank builders) —no engine — no aircraft (in this case, a tank). A 5-speed gearbox, standard for the T-34M, could only be created in the 43rd year.
            1. onli-ne
              onli-ne 25 July 2015 19: 16
              0
              Which one ? T-126 or T-34M?
              This is for your grandmother Vanga and grandfather Nostradamus. They will give you an absolutely accurate answer.
              By the way, the 45-mm gun on the T-126 as a weapon of the infantry support tank does not look serious
              So they replayed everything, why about it? The infantry received its three-inch on the T-34.
              April-May of the 41st!
              Yeah. Only this in the second option. When at first everyone made the T-34 for a long time and tediously, and then, after putting it into production, the T-34M was already made. Without the T-34, according to the first option, the timing would have been different.
              what would happen if by June the production of the T-34 had ceased, and the production of the T-34M would have just begun.
              And who suggested this option?
  • The comment was deleted.
  • onli-ne
    onli-ne 25 July 2015 09: 31
    -2
    [quote = onli-ne]But it is absolutely known that exactly one month after the German attack, on July 22, 1941, the ZIS-3 divisional cannon was presented in the courtyard of the People’s Commissariat of Defense to the deputy people's commissar, former head of the Main Artillery Directorate Marshal Grigory Kulik.
    What nonsense. In 1941 Grabin sculpted IS-1. This, like the ZIS-2, only with a trimmed barrel. Anyway, ZIS-3, it is a sample of 1942.
    (aka Plant No. 92, aka “New Sormovo”) in Gorky
    Krasnoe Sormovo and plant number 92, these are 2 different plants in the same city.
    But none of this could have happened if it were not for stubbornness and faith in the own rightness of the creator of the ZIS-3 artillery designer Vasily Grabin.
    "The ingenious design of comrade Grabin" in 1941. the Germans did not create it at all. They have it modestly, but honestly, it was called the 7,5 cm Panzerjägerkanone 97/38 mod. 1941 Or shortly PaK 97/38. Which means "97/38 anti-tank gun". To do this, they took a trophy swinging part of the French Canon de 75 mle 1897 field gun and hoisted it all on the carriage of their 5 cm Panzerjägerkanone 38 or PaK 38 anti-tank gun. ... The result is a gray design with mediocre performance characteristics. But quite acceptable. The last such cannon was built by the Germans in early 1943.
    Having seen this German "miracle of technology" in a trophy form, Comrade. Grabin took the swinging part from the Russian three-inch gun, and it was just molded in the image and likeness of the French Canon de 75 mle 1897, and put it all on the carriage of the failed anti-tank ZIS-2. And even the muzzle brake was attached to the German type, tk. Soviet type was only suitable for anti-aircraft guns. And he called this krakozyabrik "divisional gun ZIS-3". Although in fact it was not a divisional, but an anti-tank gun. After all, there was no other anti-tank weapon left in the Red Army by the beginning of the war, the ZIS-2 could not be made, and the forty-five was outdated. This is how the "unique", "brilliant", "legendary", etc. were born. In fact, just plagiarism. But it should be noted that until the very beginning of 1944. there was simply nothing else at all. Here is either a dead forty-five or this. And that's all.
    In the book of memoirs “Weapons of victory”
    Yes, an amusing murzilka. It is especially interesting to read like Comrade Grabin eversed in the case of their mistakes and miscalculations.
    And the main reason for her appearance, as far as one can judge, was the categorical opinion of Vasily Grabin
    Opinion Comrade Grabin at that time in the Red Army did not interest anyone.
    In the same way, we could say that they worked on the ZIS-3 gun for six years.
    Yes, Grabin spent a very long time on the topic of the division. I fed on it for a very long time. And he ended up with plagiarism. But "brilliant and legendary."
    The Hrabin Design Bureau, like no other, was developing new tools in a time ten times less than was then accepted: three months instead of thirty!
    Do not confuse the issuance of projections and the development of a new tool.
    used not to satisfy their own ambitions
    Really?
    as the designer recalled, Stalin grabbed a chair by the back and slammed his legs on the floor: “You have a design itch, you all want to change and change! Work as you did before! ”
    I already wrote above, murzilka, not memories. You can "recall" anything you want, if necessary.
    - This gun is a masterpiece in the design of artillery systems. Why did you not give such a beautiful gun before?
    And how could she not become a "genius" after that? The godfather gave a clear order.
    But Grabin did not accidentally recall the “thousand guns of ZIS-3,” which had already fought by then
    No, well, I already wrote about Murzilka. In the next kgugu, I won’t.
  • parusnik
    parusnik 25 July 2015 09: 33
    +1
    Ndaaaa ... the "specialists" worked so hard on our artillery ... from the 20s to 1941 ... that they were almost left without artillery ...
    1. onli-ne
      onli-ne 25 July 2015 10: 01
      -3
      Well, why not. French naval Hotchkiss on a German field gun carriage (in the USSR it was called "forty-five") for its time was not bad at all. Yes, it had flaws, because "Gentlemen Bolsheviks" poorly altered naval ammunition into land munitions. The specifics were not taken into account. But in general, the design was quite good. But the trouble is, already in the second half of the 30s, the forty-five began to pass. And by the beginning of the war she had already passed it completely.
      This was understood in GAU. And they were going to replace her. Late in 1941, but wanted to. But than (!!!). Vandervafley them. comrade Sandpiper ZIS-2. Of course, with its production in 1941. nothing happened and could not. I had to restore the production of three inches. They stopped releasing in the same 1941.
      With this fit product and knocked out German tanks. She had a lot of flaws. Above the roof. But there was nothing else.
    2. parusnik
      parusnik 25 July 2015 14: 43
      +5
      Ie .. the activities of the marshals Tukhachevsky and Kulik, those who put minuses to me can be called positive?
      1. onli-ne
        onli-ne 25 July 2015 14: 59
        +1
        Never mind, they don't care. They reacted to the remark that something was wrong. For them, everything is so. These are "leavened patriots". Useless non-constructive gray mass. It is important not to be confused here, such "figures" have nothing in common with patriots.
  • Bongo
    Bongo 25 July 2015 09: 42
    +3
    And also about the role of the 76-millimeter divisional gun ZIS-3 in the Great Patriotic War. In the 1943 year, this gun became the main one both in the divisional artillery and in the fighter-anti-tank artillery regiments, where it was a standard cannon.

    The guns sent to the divisional and fighter anti-tank artillery were structurally distinguished by elevation angles, riveted or welded beds and a bolt. The guns sent to the anti-tank artillery were equipped with PPNNXX-1 or OP2-2 direct-fire sights.
    Quote: sergey72
    I had heard from artillery veterans about the weakness of the divisional gun’s shot ... Now, if she were guided by shots from the anti-aircraft 3-K, then with ZiS-3 it would be better with armor penetration .... IMHO

    ZiS-3 inherited ammunition from the division F-22 and SPM. When they were developed by the Main Artillery Directorate (GAU), it was not ready to switch to another cartridge case (or another caliber) of divisional guns, since very large stocks of 76 mm rounds with a cartridge case of sample 1900 remained in the warehouses
    In general, by the end of 1942, the penetration of 76 mm divisional guns was already insufficient. But it was not possible to increase it for the ZiS-3 by introducing a 76 mm projectile from the 3-K anti-aircraft gun due to strength considerations. This was originally envisaged in the "universal" F-22 (pictured).

    But F-22 turned out to be frankly unsuccessful (it had very large dimensions and weight per ton more than ZIS-3, it was difficult to manufacture and capricious in operation).
    1. onli-ne
      onli-ne 25 July 2015 10: 13
      -4
      ZiS-3 inherited ammunition from the division F-22 and USV
      The ZIS-3 inherited the F-34 ammunition. And the USV fired the same ammunition. F-22 fired other ammunition, "field", but could also fire "tank". USV, ZIS-3 and tank guns could shoot "field" ammunition, but only in a quarter-automatic mode. "Field" ammunition was removed from production even before the war.
      This was originally envisaged in the "universal" F-22 (pictured).
      Nope. Because it does not happen. Any products, not just guns, are not made like this. This is comrade Grabin screwed up. Ranged the thickness of the barrel at Comrade. Tagunova. But comrade Tagunova for this in 1938. they shot for it. And comrade Grabina, no. And all because the Hrabin mistake with the trunk was revealed only after the outbreak of war. And then they didn’t shoot for it. But, I think, from 1938 to 1941, comrade Grabin lived very sadly.
      By the way, Tagunovsky 3-K and 51-K, after the error was opened, no one in the 85 mm caliber was also re-sharpened.
      But the F-22 turned out to be frankly unsuccessful (it had very large dimensions and weight per ton more than ZIS-3
      Its trunk was "gold". If we talk about cost, then the word "golden" should be written without quotation marks.
      1. zyablik.olga
        zyablik.olga 25 July 2015 10: 39
        +4
        Quote: onli-ne
        ZIS-3 inherited F-34 ammunition.

        Is this how a divisional weapon could inherit a tank ammunition? fool especially given the fact that earlier under this caliber was developed a lot of other guns: L-10, L-11, F-32, F-22, SPM ...
        Quote: onli-ne
        This is com. Grabin screwed up. Fetch the thickness of the barrel in Comrade. Tagunova. But Comrade Tagunova for it in 1938g. for that shot.

        Who is comrade. Tagunov? what Maybe Taubin?
        1. onli-ne
          onli-ne 25 July 2015 10: 48
          0
          Is this how a divisional weapon could inherit a tank ammunition?
          Easy. The "field" cartridges did not have a flame arrester, but the "tank" cartridges did. The F-22 was made for "field" cartridges, but they could not master the mass production of the barrel. Therefore, we switched to F-22USV and "tank" cartridges. They had serious drawbacks for field artillery compared to "field" cartridges. Therefore, in 1941. the field three-inch model was discontinued. For disrepair. But the war began and the gun, which was basically unfit for field artillery (due to the useless cartridge, this is a completely fair pre-war opinion of the GAU), became what it became.
          Who is comrade. Tagunov?
          This is the main 3-K anti-aircraft gun.
          1. Bongo
            Bongo 25 July 2015 12: 29
            +3
            Quote: onli-ne
            Is this how a divisional weapon could inherit a tank ammunition?
            Easy. The "field" cartridges did not have a flame arrester, but the "tank" cartridges did. The F-22 was made for "field" cartridges, but they could not master the mass production of the barrel. Therefore, we switched to F-22USV and "tank" cartridges.

            Ie ZiS-3 or F-34 76 mm shells mod. 1900 r could not fire? wassat

            In general, in order not to enter into polemics and not comment on outright absurdities, I recommend that you familiarize yourself with the book by A.B. Shirokorada "The genius of Soviet artillery. Triumph and tragedy of V. Grabin".
            1. onli-ne
              onli-ne 25 July 2015 12: 55
              +3
              .e ZiS-3 or F-34 76 mm shells mod. 1900 could not fire?
              Read my comment today at 10:13. First paragraph tongue
              book by A.B. Shirokorada "The genius of Soviet artillery. Triumph and tragedy of V. Grabin"
              Why do I need this? You read these books. You still advise me to read Grabin’s memoirs. But, in fairness, Shirokorad has a lot of good background information. But only exclusively in the form of primary.
              1. Bongo
                Bongo 25 July 2015 12: 57
                +3
                Quote: onli-ne
                Why do I need this?

                Quote: Bongo
                so as not to engage in polemics or comment on outright absurdities
                1. onli-ne
                  onli-ne 25 July 2015 13: 01
                  -4
                  You leave your "qualified opinion" to yourself. If you don't understand, keep quiet and absorb. It will come in handy. So then do not engage in polemics or expound overt absurdities
                  Moreover, Shirokorad in your book you mentioned did not write anything about this at all. You need to see information in a book, not ...
                  1. onli-ne
                    onli-ne 25 July 2015 13: 06
                    0
                    Tell Bongo, why did the F-22? What did the GAU not like the 40 gauge three-inch? Such a small test for knowledge in this area, if you will.
              2. Alf
                Alf 25 July 2015 19: 03
                +3
                Quote: onli-ne
                Why do I need this? You read these books. You still advise me to read Grabin’s memoirs.

                What books do you read?
                1. onli-ne
                  onli-ne 25 July 2015 21: 00
                  -1
                  What books do you read?
                  So "the Chukchi is not a reader, the Chukchi is a writer." laughing
        2. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • timyr
    timyr 25 July 2015 11: 27
    0
    One of the main reasons for the German victories in 41-42 years, the lack of anti-tank shells. To 45tk shells were redirected. They didn’t penetrate armor from 50-150 meters. By the 76mm caliber, the industry fulfilled the plan by 10-20% in 41 years. So there was nothing to shoot at the Germans
  • pogis
    pogis 25 July 2015 11: 49
    +4
    In the 80 I shot her at SVAKU, direct fire in Rzhishchev, and from the same position from the closed positions, but already serving in the 750 TUTs (village of the Robin of the Ukrainian SSR). In the latter case, he handed over the bullpen in the winter exercises. All other officers they fired from ML-20, and a political worker from ZIS-3, alien to artillery science! Whoever was at this training ground knows from the 3 NP km and the Dnieper, and there are Kiev beaches! The shooting went, Bumvvvv ... 600 to the right minus! SOB, a little worried, passes the correction (shot) to the battery (calculation), a shot, we hear the rustling of the shell-BUMmmmm! Fuck and cut, 400 to the left! ON-t tbsp Ishchenko immediately picks up the phone and the TA-58 KV2 calls and says,
    -Your pid ... did you fix the panorama?
    The answer was to hit the target with a third shot in 10 minutes!
    January 1988
  • Zigmars
    Zigmars 25 July 2015 18: 49
    +5
    Quote: onli-ne
    in tsarist times the "Mosin rifle" did not exist; in fact, it was a Nagant rifle adapted to the Russian production base. The general management of such works was carried out technologist Captain Mosin)

    Have you at least heard something about what a "cutoff-reflector" is and how much was it offered to Sergei Ivanovich Mosin to sell this invention? I advise you to read something worthwhile on the topic so that next time you do not come out with such wild delirium.
    1. onli-ne
      onli-ne 25 July 2015 19: 10
      -1
      and for how much did Sergei Ivanovich Mosin be offered to sell this invention?
      Do not write nonsense. For the adaptation of the Nagan rifle, he received 30.000 rubles, the Great Mikhailovsky Prize, the rank of colonel, the Order of St. Anne, and was appointed head of the Sestroretsk arms factory, which subsequently allowed him to receive the rank of major general.
      200.000 rubles were paid to Nagan for his rifle. He did not receive orders, prizes or posts.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • unknown
    unknown 25 July 2015 22: 34
    +1
    It is incorrect to compare only 76,2mm guns. 75mm is also three inches. Grabinskaya gun, or guns, if we talk about the family, in this list will not be worse. Not the best, but what kind of weapon or model of equipment of our army in that war was the best? Most importantly, it was massive. In the era of total war, millions of armies, it was mass, in the presence of, albeit medium, but acceptable, minimally acceptable, characteristics that allowed to win victories. And this cannot be taken away from the ZIS-3.
    1. onli-ne
      onli-ne 25 July 2015 23: 51
      +1
      It is incorrect to compare only 76,2mm guns. 75mm is also three inches. Grabinskaya gun, or guns, if we talk about the family, in this list will not be worse
      Curious which one will be worse? Is that PaK 97/38. But it is incorrect to compare it, it was based on the "mother" of the Russian three-inch model, the French Canon de 75 mle 1897. And the PaK 97/38 was produced only from the end of 1941. before the beginning of 1943. Only a year and a half.
      but what weapon, or model of equipment of our army in that war was the best
      If you look objectively, then no. If you listen to the communists, that's all.
      In the era of total war, millions of armies, it was mass, in the presence of, albeit medium, but acceptable, minimally acceptable, characteristics that allowed to win
      I disagree. There is no dissonance between the concepts of "mass" and "good". It's just that all the production of the USSR was below average. According to their performance characteristics. Therefore, the emphasis was on mass character.
      The Germans had another problem. They fought with the USSR about a third of their resources (not manpower). Especially at the first stage. The rest went to war with the Anglo-Saxons. Therefore, there were noticeable problems with the quantity. With quite acceptable quality. For example, in the first 2,5 months of the war, the Wehrmacht received in the form of replenishment of 89 (!!!) tanks. And half of them were light Czech Pz-38 (t).
      And this cannot be taken away from the ZIS-3.
      Why not take it away? Cheapness and disgusting performance characteristics?
      Search the internet for my article on 1930-inch shells. It is about the "mouse fuss" that the illiterate Bolsheviks staged in 1940, and which ended with the removal in XNUMX. field three-inch with weapons. Approximately with the words "Fuck you ...". This is how much money was thrown into the wind, just to make sure that their heads are empty. Everyone would have forgotten about this horror, if not for the war. I had to get this "there should be a matry word" from the barn and put it back into production. There was nothing else. Well, since everything Soviet was the most excellent, the three-inch model also became the most excellent and brilliant.
      TTX rubbish? So what? It is not important. Most importantly, it was cheap. And the point. And what is this cheapness to that artilleryman? He needed good performance characteristics. But this was not.
    2. onli-ne
      onli-ne 25 July 2015 23: 51
      0
      It is incorrect to compare only 76,2mm guns. 75mm is also three inches. Grabinskaya gun, or guns, if we talk about the family, in this list will not be worse
      Curious which one will be worse? Is that PaK 97/38. But it is incorrect to compare it, it was based on the "mother" of the Russian three-inch model, the French Canon de 75 mle 1897. And the PaK 97/38 was produced only from the end of 1941. before the beginning of 1943. Only a year and a half.
      but what weapon, or model of equipment of our army in that war was the best
      If you look objectively, then no. If you listen to the communists, that's all.
      In the era of total war, millions of armies, it was mass, in the presence of, albeit medium, but acceptable, minimally acceptable, characteristics that allowed to win
      I disagree. There is no dissonance between the concepts of "mass" and "good". It's just that all the production of the USSR was below average. According to their performance characteristics. Therefore, the emphasis was on mass character.
      The Germans had another problem. They fought with the USSR about a third of their resources (not manpower). Especially at the first stage. The rest went to war with the Anglo-Saxons. Therefore, there were noticeable problems with the quantity. With quite acceptable quality. For example, in the first 2,5 months of the war, the Wehrmacht received in the form of replenishment of 89 (!!!) tanks. And half of them were light Czech Pz-38 (t).
      And this cannot be taken away from the ZIS-3.
      Why not take it away? Cheapness and disgusting performance characteristics?
      Search the internet for my article on 1930-inch shells. It is about the "mouse fuss" that the illiterate Bolsheviks staged in 1940, and which ended with the removal in XNUMX. field three-inch with weapons. Approximately with the words "Fuck you ...". This is how much money was thrown into the wind, just to make sure that their heads are empty. Everyone would have forgotten about this horror, if not for the war. I had to get this "there should be a matry word" from the barn and put it back into production. There was nothing else. Well, since everything Soviet was the most excellent, the three-inch model also became the most excellent and brilliant.
      TTX rubbish? So what? It is not important. Most importantly, it was cheap. And the point. And what is this cheapness to that artilleryman? He needed good performance characteristics. But this was not.
  • aversun
    aversun 26 July 2015 01: 59
    0
    Why compare M1 and F34? M1 was put on the Sherman only in 1944, when the T34 already had 85 mm guns, and before that there was 75 mm M3 with an initial projectile speed of 620 m / s versus 662 m / s for the F34.
    The Pak 40 was immediately recognized as an anti-tank gun with a high initial projectile velocity and a maximum elevation angle of 22 degrees, i.e. she couldn’t shoot from closed positions, moreover, the effect of her HE shell was weaker. ZIS-3 lost in armor-piercing characteristics, but won in mass in a combat position of 200 kg, could shoot from closed positions (37 degrees) and had a larger powerful HE projectile and mounted fire. With the advent of sub-caliber shells, the armor-piercing characteristics of the gun also increased.

    Regarding the Mosin rifle, she did shoot with an attached bayonet, when removing the bayonet the balance was disturbed and a new shooting was required.

    Concerning the priorities: V.E. Markevich "Hand-held firearms" p. 333
    ---------
    When the question arose of how to name the adopted rifle, disputes arose in the commission: some members of the commission believed that if not all parts of the rifle were designed personally by one author, then the system cannot be called by his name. This formulation of the question shows how little the members of the weapons commission were competent. In the arms world, it has long been considered that the system is named after the author who developed the main parts of the system - the shutter and firing mechanisms. When the "controversial issue" was reported to the Minister of War, gene. Vannovsky, the latter demanded that the commission determine exactly who and what parts of the rifle adopted by the army had been designed, improved, etc. -reflector, magazine cover latch, detachable magazine cover and fastening of the swivel on the magazine, finally, the magazine box and the trigger mechanism have been improved.

    Parts designed by Nagan: placing the feed mechanism on the opening lid of the store box and clip.
    The remaining parts, according to the statement of the commission, were worked out by the commission with the participation of Mosin. 1
    The Minister of War said in his report to the king:]
    "The main and essential parts in the sample of the 1891 rifle were developed exclusively by Captain Mosin" (Report dated 9.VI.1891, No. 9460). 1
    Mosin was awarded a promotion and received money of 30 thousand rubles. Nagan for the parts borrowed from his system, and for all the rifles made for the experiments, demanded and received 200 thousand rubles.
    -----------
    * Nagan requested 200 thousand rubles. as for all his rifle. To the remark that only the feeding mechanism, the magazine and the clip were taken from his system, he stated that he had not come to Russia to sell his system in parts. If they take at least one screw of its design, let them pay for the entire system. Although it was possible to do without the details of Nagan (it was necessary to reconstruct the mentioned parts), however, in order not to delay the rearmament of the army with alteration of the rifle, new tests, etc., the commission preferred to pay the required fee.

    It can be seen from the foregoing that the main parts of the rifle were developed by Mosin.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. onli-ne
      onli-ne 26 July 2015 02: 57
      0
      Why compare M1 and F34? M1 was put on the Sherman only in 1944, when the T34 already had 85 mm guns, and before that there was 75 mm M3 with an initial projectile speed of 620 m / s versus 662 m / s in the F34
      You forgot that the American shell weighed 6,8 kg, and the Soviet 6,3 kg. So the guns were roughly equal. But it is not important. Because The main anti-tank weapons in the British and American army were then 57 mm guns. Tanks for VET tasks were not planned.
      She could shoot from closed positions (37 degrees) and had a larger powerful HE shell and mounted fire.
      Well, what is the power of the OFS? What are the closed positions? Well, for heaven's sake, don't make up "facts". The OF-350 projectile, when the fuse was installed on a fragmentation action at a rupture, created 600-800 lethal fragments (weighing more than 1 g), creating an area of ​​continuous destruction of 8 × 5 m (90% of targets were hit) and an actual defeat - 30 × 15 m ( 50% of targets are hit). When the fuse was set to delayed action, a funnel was created with a depth of 30-50 cm and a diameter of 70-100 cm. The projectile left a hole 30 cm deep when the fuse was set to fragmentation action and 50 cm when set to high-explosive action.
      Is this the power of the OFS? This is the misery of OFS.
      Regarding the Mosin rifle, she did shoot with an attached bayonet, when removing the bayonet the balance was disturbed and a new shooting was required.
      Try to find something about it in her exhortation.

      I don’t know how to insert all the pages. There is nothing about the bayonet.
      VE Markevich "Hand firearms" p. 333
      And who is Markevich, so that I should believe him? I have my own sources of information. And they have a slightly different version.
      1. onli-ne
        onli-ne 26 July 2015 02: 59
        +1
        I will not spread everything, tired. You can take a word, there’s not a word about the bayonet.
        1. Cat man null
          Cat man null 26 July 2015 03: 19
          0
          Quote: onli-ne
          I will not spread everything, tired. You can take a word, there’s not a word about the bayonet.

          But what about this?

          101. The battle check is carried out at 100 m with an eye 3. Check the battle of carbines arr. 1944 produced in the bayonet's fighting position.


          Quote: A. B. Zhuk. Weapon. Revolvers, pistols, rifles, submachine guns, machine guns. M: Military publishing house, 1992. p. 499
          The latest rifle options became carbine arr. 1944, characterized by the presence of a fixed needle bayonet and simplified manufacturing technology. Simultaneously with its introduction, the rifle itself of the sample 1891/1930. was discontinued

          There the bayonet did not act in film, he leans back wink

          And they wrote about him - purely for uniformity, IMHO .. since the bayonet definitely does not affect the sighting.

          But a funny flame turned out, however laughing
          1. onli-ne
            onli-ne 26 July 2015 03: 48
            0
            Checking the battle of carbines arr. 1944 produced in a firing bayonet position
            No matter what the rifle was about. And their bayonets are different. A carbine shot with a bayonet. From this went a rumor about the rifle. But this is not so.
            There the bayonet did not act in film, he leans back
            And who are you discussing with? I did not post the quote of the Beetle.
            since the bayonet definitely does not affect the sighting
            The carabiner affects. Would not influence, the Manual would not mention a sighting with a bayonet in a fighting position.
            But the bayonet does not affect the rifle. This is not in the Manual.
            1. Cat man null
              Cat man null 26 July 2015 09: 54
              -1
              Quote: onli-ne
              The carabiner affects. Would not influence, the Manual would not mention a sighting with a bayonet in a fighting position.
              But the bayonet does not affect the rifle. This is not in the Manual.

              This is some kind of total Arctic fox ...

              Dear .. I declare you responsible - neither the rifle nor the carbine (which is the same rifle, only shortened) - the bayonet does not affect the sighting. From the word in any way.

              This, dear, pure physics .. or, if you want, elementary geometry laughing

              The position of the bayonet in the carbine, or the presence / absence of it in the rifle affects the balance of the weapon. But, since the adjustment is made from the bag (stop), or even completely from the machine - balancing the adjustment also does not affect.

              Do not drive the blizzard, plz No.
              1. onli-ne
                onli-ne 26 July 2015 10: 32
                -1
                I declare you responsible
                You know, from two sources of information, you and the Instruction, I choose the Instruction. And there it is clearly written (Chapter V, p. 101, p. 72) that the bayonet of a carbine arr. 1944 (but not rifles) affects the shooting.
                Do not drive the blizzard, plz
                Actually. This remark is for you. You somehow quite naively argue with document. And you want to believe you, not him. I do not think that you will succeed.
                1. Cat man null
                  Cat man null 26 July 2015 12: 55
                  0
                  Quote: onli-ne
                  You know, from two sources of information, you and the Instruction, I choose the Instruction.

                  And it is right! drinks

                  Quote: onli-ne
                  And there it is clearly written (Chapter V, p. 101, p. 72) that the bayonet of a carbine arr. 1944 (but not rifles) affects the shooting.

                  Nah .. it clearly says:

                  101. The battle check is carried out at 100 m with an eye 3. Check the battle of carbines arr. 1944 is made in the bayonet's combat position.

                  Which does not mean at all that it affects something there .. and that means exactly what so be done.. the word is army - it should be .. albeit ugly, but uniform wink

                  Quote: onli-ne
                  You somehow quite naively argue with the document.

                  I do not argue with the document laughing As it should be - we’ll do it yes

                  Quote: onli-ne
                  And you want to believe you, not him.

                  They didn’t try to think with brains? I don’t have to believe at all .. but to sketch the simplest diagram on paper, how to combine two straight lines -
                  (1) between your eye and the target, and
                  (2) a chamber and a muzzle end ..
                  - Well, quite simply if - weak? Challenge for a 4th grade student laughing

                  Alright enough. Live well, read the instructions. And if they suddenly write "kill yourself against the wall" - kill yourself, Cho is already there .. hi
                  1. onli-ne
                    onli-ne 26 July 2015 13: 01
                    -1
                    Do not verbally.
                    And learn to admit your wrong.
                    The topic is fully disclosed. And in the details. Further talk about this makes no sense.
  • aversun
    aversun 26 July 2015 03: 34
    0
    For M3, a projectile weighing 6.8 is M61 - solid armor-piercing, and the M46 RP weighs the same 6.3.
    For M1 6.8, this is M79 solid armor-piercing, and the M42A1 RP weighs 5.8, its effect was worse than for M3, because due to the greater wall thickness contained one third less explosives. But M1 already needs to compare the OF 85 mm ZIS-53 gun
    For Pak-40 6.8, this is also armor-piercing, and RP - 5.75 kg
    -----
    Well, if you don’t know who Markevich is, what do you know at all?
    Look at Wiki - V.E. Markevich
    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Маркевич_Владимир_Иеронимо
    HIV
    Sighting with a thing has been discussed more than once
    http://forum.guns.ru/forum_light_message/36/385274.html
    There are many articles on this subject, for example
    http://master-gun.com/poligon-borcova/pristrelyana-so-shtykom%E2%80%A6
    http://www.kalashnikov.ru/upload/medialibrary/4dc/14_22.pdf
    1. onli-ne
      onli-ne 26 July 2015 03: 56
      0
      and OF M46 weighs the same 6.3.
      OFS will not affect the armor penetration.
      Well, if you don’t know who Markevich is, then what do you know at all
      A lot of different interesting things. I do not understand why I should believe this Markevich? Who knows who writes.
      Sighting with a thing has been discussed more than once
      I posted the pages from the Manual there. From them it is clear that the rifle was shooting, as you like. The bayonet did not affect firing accuracy. A carbine 44g. only shot with a bayonet. There the bayonet influenced. The bayonets are different.
      An erroneous rumor about a rifle went from a carbine.
      There are many articles on this subject, for example
      Articles interest me a little. There is a document. It is called the Instruction. Nothing else matters.
  • aversun
    aversun 26 July 2015 03: 51
    0
    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Маркевич,_Владимир_Еронимович
    1. onli-ne
      onli-ne 26 July 2015 04: 01
      0
      Markevich, _Vladimir_Eronimovich
      Is this the new Jesus Christ? Why are you "wooing" him to me like that? In Stalin's times, he generally could write that Nagant stole all his products from Mosin. Together with Lebel we "worked". So, the price of his "books" is worthless. On such sensitive topics, of course.
      By the way, the Russian three-line "Mosin rifle" was called just in Stalin's times. So even the periods are the same.
  • aversun
    aversun 26 July 2015 08: 45
    0
    Quote: onli-ne
    Markevich, _Vladimir_Eronimovich
    Is this the new Jesus Christ? Why are you "wooing" him to me like that?

    Why should I woo it for you, for everyone who understands weapons, he is a fairly competent expert.
    In the manual to which you refer, we are talking about shooting a rifle. You can shoot it any way you want, with a bayonet or without a bayonet (by the way, in all pictures the rifle is with a bayonet), and even with a bored muzzle, in case of heavy shooting. It's about the fact that from the factory all rifles came shot with a bayonet and in the case of removing a bayonet, its loss or breaking, the rifle had to be shot again, because her fight was changing.
    1. onli-ne
      onli-ne 26 July 2015 10: 39
      +1
      he is a fairly competent expert
      This is more a matter of history, not technology. Also, have you ever heard the phrase "committed expert"? Markevich lived and wrote at a difficult time. Therefore, he could write different things. To clarify the question, you need to look for documents. This is a reliable source. And the opinion of the experts is just for fun.
      rifles came shot with a bayonet and in the case of removing a bayonet, its loss or breaking, the rifle had to be shot again, because her fight was changing
      I'm tired of already referring to the Manual on the rifle and carbine that I posted above. There it is clearly and unambiguously written (Chapter V, p. 101, p. 72) that the bayonet of a carbine arr. 1944 (but not rifles) affects the shooting. it official document. The rest is all speculation and fantasy.
  • sivuch
    sivuch 26 July 2015 11: 50
    +1
    I don’t consider myself a specialist, so I ask more. So, Pak-40 was just one-purpose, that is, anti-tank, that’s understandable. And about Zis-3 I just read that it was used both when shooting from closed positions and when accompanied by infantry on the offensive (delirium or not delirious, it was). So maybe it is worth comparing the masses in a fighting position? And the fact that the ability (or impossibility) to quickly deploy a gun is an insignificant advantage, I'm sorry, I won’t believe it
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 26 July 2015 11: 52
      0
      Quote: sivuch
      And about Zis-3, I just read that it was used when shooting from closed positions and when accompanied by infantry on the offensive (delirium or not delirious

      did not have! ZIS 3 was used throughout the warriors both in defense and in the offensive. Including the Kursk arch. Do not read crap!
    2. onli-ne
      onli-ne 26 July 2015 12: 10
      0
      And the fact that the ability (or impossibility) to quickly deploy a gun is an insignificant advantage, I'm sorry, I will not believe
      The "grounds" for arguing that the Pak-40 could not be quickly deployed are immaterial. People do not understand such things as "recoil impulse", "recoil", why cannons have anti-recoil mechanisms, how they work and why cannons have a muzzle brake.
      For example, the recoil impulse transmitted to the Pak-40 recoil mechanisms, despite the different power of the guns, taking into account the muzzle brake, was approximately equal to the same impulse for the F-22USV. Have you heard the same "passions" about the F-22USV? No? But the "grounds" are the same. And in the F-22 they are generally even more, the power of the gun is more. Then the recoil mechanisms themselves came into play. And they smeared this impulse in time. As a result, nothing hit the ground. These are the fantasies of the authors of the horror stories. They come from illiteracy. They don't understand how everything works at the cannon.
      So maybe it’s worth comparing the masses in a combat situation?
      What for? Are you also a supporter of "maneuvering the wheels" with the help of a transportable PTO cannon? Believe me, this is pure nonsense. Only additional casualties among the gunner, and nothing else.
  • Razvedchik
    Razvedchik 26 July 2015 22: 34
    +1
    Cool on-line argument - Germans used ZIS-3 because it’s free! Good, bad - do not care! The main thing is free!
    Why didn’t the Americans and the British ride Italian and Japanese tanks and use their artillery and planes? Free and cheap! And in the civilized world, this is the main thing, to understand fulle there lapotnym ?! There is only one conclusion after the comments of this passenger - a thousand-year-old gloom and everything is bad in Russia - always!
    Even if in some ways the former are all the same - because they have not been tested and tested in Europe. And the victory over Germany is also for him because the women worked at defense plants, and this is wildness! It was necessary to surrender to the Germans. But you are the most respectable bastard! And the most heinous kind of scum - with claims to education!
    And ZiS-3 in 2005 in the 6th Guards OMBR in Grodno was used even for the officers to carry out offsets and shooting of the MLRS division.
    1. onli-ne
      onli-ne 26 July 2015 22: 45
      0
      It was necessary to surrender to the Germans.
      It was necessary to deal with the defense of the country. And arming the army. Normal weapon. And not to look for "enemies" and to put someone without hitting the wall. Then the losses would have been several times less. And children with women could not hunchback in factories for 12 hours.
      In general, this is normal for villains. First, kill everything and everyone you can. And then, smearing snot and tears on unshaven faces, whine about "at what cost we were given the Victory." There would be no villains in red pants, and Victory would have been earlier and less blood.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • aversun
    aversun 27 July 2015 00: 41
    0
    Quote: onli-ne

    I'm tired of already referring to the Manual on the rifle and carbine that I posted above. There it is clearly and unambiguously written (Chapter V, p. 101, p. 72) that the bayonet of a carbine arr. 1944 (but not rifles) affects the shooting. it official document. The rest is all speculation and fantasy.

    You don't seem to understand what shooting is. The carbine bayonet is spoken of only because it cannot be taken from the weapon. The rifle can also be shot with a bayonet or without a bayonet. Therefore, your link does not prove anything at all. The question is that a rifle shot with a bayonet will not accurately shoot without it and vice versa.
    There is a good article in the magazine Master Gun (10, 2009) where this question was checked practical and fully confirmed the above.
    http://master-gun.com/poligon-borcova/pristrelyana-so-shtykom
    unfortunately here the article is given without pictures, but I still put one picture from the article here
    Firing accuracy with and without bayonet

    the picture is not very high quality, but in general the essence of the issue is clear.
    1. onli-ne
      onli-ne 27 July 2015 01: 21
      0
      You don't seem to understand what shooting is.
      I seem to understand. And you seem to be unable to understand and accept what is written in a document called the Manual.
      The carbine bayonet is spoken of only because it cannot be taken from the weapon.
      He leaned sideways. And if he had not influenced the battle, no one would have written about him. How nothing is written about the bayonet of a rifle.
      The question is that a rifle shot with a bayonet will not accurately shoot without it and vice versa.
      Are you a verbal balancer? Do you understand what you wrote?
      There is a good article in the magazine Master Gun
      I already wrote to you, read DOCUMENTS, and not all sorts of murzilka.
      the picture is not very high quality, but in general the essence of the issue is clear.
      The Manual also has this kind of picture. Study.
  • aversun
    aversun 27 July 2015 02: 49
    +1
    Yes, I read it more than once, and I have this edition. This is described by sighting, sighting and all. Therefore, the bayonet of a carbine is mentioned, because it is not removable. You shoot it with the bayonet folded, throw the bayonet down and stop hitting, and the rifle with the detachable bayonet can be shot like that, just remember that with the bayonet or without the bayonet the point of contact is shifted. And there is no fundamental difference between a bayonet and a rifle, both offset the balance of the weapon. And the bayonets are the same, both needle-shaped, tetrahedral.
    Actually, I’m writing this not for you, it’s useless, but for those who read this blog.
  • Nic1980
    Nic1980 4 March 2019 20: 03
    0
    I read comrade "onli-ne", it is believed that his main task is to "shine" with his mind and to make all those who disagree, and to belittle the very fact that the ZIS-3 is literally a WEAPON OF VICTORY.
    In contrast, much was said and correctly.
    Pros of ZIS-3 (basic):
    - manufacturability (labor costs, machine-tool hours, energy costs, metal "output" and much more);
    - the number of guns fired per unit of time (especially 41-42-43 years);
    - the universality of the guns (anti-tank, regimental, divisional, and including for good reason it was said that it could support fire when moving without horse or mechanized traction, and in many cases this means a lot);
    - low weight in combat position (not to be confused with the traveling position);
    Without these qualities, let’s say 10000,00 guns of the highest characteristics will not win the war (they will not be able to influence to the right extent).
    About the shortcomings of ballistics, ammunition, and other properties of 3-inch calibers comrade. Grabin knew not by hearsay, but "economy" decided everything:
    - spend reserves of shells produced since 1900 - necessary - necessary;
    - the amount of gunpowder with increasing liner is greater, the cost of the liner is more expensive, etc. and. etc .;
    - the development of a new caliber in the production of ammunition in those days can be compared with the launch of the satellite into space (it was not in vain that 57 mm was created by re-compressing a 76 mm sleeve);
    and you can paint for a long time and everything will be correct, but most importantly, the blitzkrieg did not take place, fascist Germany lost the war, Speer, as he did not try, was unable to provide the army with everything necessary, and we were able (tanks, planes, ammunition, small arms construction, and much more) thanks to perseverance: soldiers, workers of all sexes and ages, the mind of our engineers.
    Let everyone who goes in cycles only on technical (indicators) characteristics - does not sweep indicators which can be crucial in wartime.