Military Review

How to create a heavy tank EC-2

67
In the fall of 1943, Soviet engineers created a new heavy tank, the IS-2. In just a few months, experts managed to develop a project, conduct the necessary tests and start mass production of new equipment. Thanks to this, at the beginning of 1944 the latest heavy Tanks were able to take part in their first battles and contribute to the victory over the enemy. One of the most interesting features of the IS-2 project was the timing of its development. Despite the short duration of the design work, the process of creating a new tank was of great interest. Recall how Soviet engineers created a new heavy tank.


It is worth noting that 1943 year was very "fruitful" to create heavy tanks. Thus, in summer and autumn, armored vehicles of the types EC-1 and KV-85 were adopted and the EC-2 became the latest model of this class of equipment developed that year. In parallel with the creation of new technology, engineers were engaged in the development of weapons issues for promising heavy tanks. It was these works that ultimately led to the emergence of the EC-2 project.

In April, a test shelling of the captured Tiger tank was carried out using 43 using several domestic guns. The most effective in these tests showed anti-aircraft gun 52-K caliber 85 mm. According to the results of these checks, the Central Artillery Design Bureau and the Design Bureau of Plant No. XXUMX were assigned the task of developing new tank guns based on anti-aircraft 9-K ballistics.

The result of two new projects was the creation of C-31 and D-5T cannons. In the future, these guns were installed on prototype tanks used in the tests. According to the test results, the military chose two versions of the proposed equipment, which later entered into service under the names KV-85 and EC-85 (EC-1). In the fall of the 43, these machines went to the front, but it soon became clear that the used weapon does not allow you to effectively deal with the modern armored vehicles of the enemy, and the outcome of the battle depends primarily on the skills of the crew.


The "240 Object" is being tested. The first T-shaped muzzle brake is clearly visible. Photo Warspot.ru


Back at the end of the summer of 1943, Soviet specialists were actively engaged in analyzing the results of the Battle of Kursk. Director and Chief Designer of the Experimental Plant No.100 J.I. Kotin, as well as specialists of KB Plant No. XXUMX, almost simultaneously came to the same conclusions. They noticed that during the fighting on the Kursk Bulge, the most effective means of fighting the enemy Tigers, not to mention the previous models with less powerful defenses, were 9-mm guns of the 122 / 1931 type, also known as A.- 37. Soon, Plant No.19 developed the D-9 tank gun, which was supposed to have ballistics of the A-2 cannon on the gun of the M-19 howitzer. After some improvements, such a gun could become a weapon of promising heavy tanks and successfully fight with similar enemy equipment.

After some negotiations, the specialists of the two design offices came to the conclusion that it was possible in principle to use the D-2 cannon or a similar weapon as part of the weapons of a prospective heavy tank. It was decided to create a new version of the gun based on the A-19, in which the cradle and anti-recoil devices from the U-11 gun project should have been used. In addition, it was necessary to equip the barrel with a muzzle brake, which was supposed to reduce the load on the tank design. In the future, these ideas have undergone some changes, but still led to the appearance of promising tank guns.

After the transfer of the necessary documentation, the designers of Plant No. XXUMX under the supervision of F.F. Petrova prepared a draft design of the updated turret of the EC-9 tank with the new 85-mm gun. Soon Kotin presented a new draft to the leadership of the country and the tank industry. The project was approved, after which the experts began to prepare a complete set of design documentation.

According to reports, the completion of the project was to improve the design of the tower with weapons, as well as in some modifications of the existing building. As a basis for a promising heavy tank, it was decided to use the existing “237 Object”. Earlier, in the summer of the 43, this machine was used as a prototype for one of the variants of the new tank armed with an 85-mm cannon. In the course of creating the prototype "Object 237", the existing components and assemblies were actively used, and in addition, some new ideas were applied.


Schemes of reservation of the EC-2 tanks of the early and late series. Figure Wikimedia Commons


At the design stage of the version of the IS tank with an 85 mm caliber gun, it became clear that the existing hull design does not allow the use of such weapons. While maintaining the shoulder strap with a diameter of 1535 mm, the installation of 85-mm guns led to a sharp deterioration in the working conditions of the crew. For this reason, it was decided to increase the shoulder strap to 1800 mm, for which the body had to be lengthened. The length of the fighting compartment increased by 420 mm, which required adding an additional (sixth) pair of road wheels to the chassis. Also, the "237 Object" received an updated tower for an increased diameter of the shoulder strap. As a result of such modifications, the combat mass of the prototype grew to 44 t with negative consequences for mobility and some other characteristics.

To speed up the work on the new project of a heavy tank with an 122-mm gun, it was decided to build a prototype of this machine based on the “237 Object”. In the course of construction, the existing gun was dismantled from the prototype, in place of which a new one, designed by Plant No. XXUMX, was installed. In this configuration, the heavy tank received the factory designation "Object 9" and went to the test.

It is noteworthy that the tests of a promising heavy tank started only a few weeks after being put into service. Already on October 31, the State Defense Committee, having familiarized itself with the proposed project, decided to put into service the new heavy tank “IS” with the 122-mm gun. The same decree asked the development of a tank version of the A-19 gun, which should have been assembled by November 11 and passed to tests by the end of the month. The first version of the gun was supposed to have a piston valve. In 1944, the series planned to launch a new version of the gun with a wedge gate.

The construction of the new prototype was carried out at the experimental plant No. XXUMX. For the construction of the tank were made some new components. In addition, Plant No. XXNX specialists manufactured a prototype of a promising tank gun. The developers of the guns were a little out of date and completed the assembly of the “A-100 Tank” one day after the deadline. The transferred gun was soon installed on the updated fastenings of the existing tower.

How to create a heavy tank EC-2
Three versions of muzzle brakes used on the 240 Object / IS-2 tanks. Figure Armor.kiev.ua


The tank version of the A-19 cannon was created on the basis of the previously developed D-2 and D-5 guns. The trunk was borrowed from the first one, the guide part of which was ground to the required diameter. The D-5T gun, in turn, “shared” the cradle and wheel chocks. At the request of the developers of the tank, the new gun was to be equipped with a muzzle brake, reducing the load on the design of the shoulder strap and armored hull. This T-architecture product was borrowed from the existing version of the D-2 project. The finished gun was designated D-25T.

After minor modifications of the existing tower, the former “237 Object” received a new D-25T type gun. In this form, the new "Object 240" in October came to the test. The test car was delivered to the Chebarkul landfill, where running and fire tests were carried out. Test runs on the landfill allowed us to establish the exact characteristics of the new machine, as well as to identify the last remaining shortcomings. In this case, the first tests were passed without any problems, which was facilitated by the use of the already tested and tested chassis.

After testing at the test site near Chelyabinsk, an experienced "240 Object" was delivered to one of the test sites near Moscow, where additional tests were carried out. At this stage of testing, some tests were performed in the presence of military leaders. In particular, under Marshal K.E. Voroshilov an unpleasant incident occurred.

During the tests in the Moscow region, it turned out that the first version of the muzzle brake of the T-shaped structure was not strong enough. During one of the test shots, this device could not withstand the pressure of powder gases and exploded, scattering debris in different directions. According to some sources, during this incident, one of the fragments of the muzzle brake nearly killed Voroshilov, who was present at the shooting. However, in other sources and documents like история No mention is made of this, which makes it a rumor or legend


Serial IC-2 going to the front. Winter 1945 g. Photo by Wikimedia Commons


It should be noted that the shot that led to the destruction of the muzzle brake, however, ended with a successful defeat of the training target. As a target for these tests, the captured tank "Panther" was used, which had already managed to "catch" many shells of various calibers. The target tank turret was deployed to the right, due to which the 122-mm projectile hit had to be in the side sheet. An armor-piercing shell pierced the side of the tower and hit the opposite sheet, tearing it along the weld.

According to the results of these tests, the D-25T gun received a new so-called muzzle brake. German sample. It had an anteriorly expanding posterior chamber and a cylindrical anterior chamber. On the side walls of both chambers there were holes for discharge of powder gases. Muzzle brakes of a similar design were actively used by German designers, which was the reason for the appearance of the corresponding name. In the updated configuration with the German muzzle brake, the gun went into series and was released over the next few months.

In the fall of 1943, the Chelyabinsk Kirov Plant launched mass production of several new heavy tanks. So, in November, the first serial KV-85 came out of the enterprise’s workshops. The following month, the launch of tanks "Object 240", by which time received the designation of EC-2. In addition, during the first months this car was often referred to as the EC-122, according to the caliber of the gun.

The use of the new 122 mm tank guns provided high firepower and the ability to effectively defeat the enemy’s medium and heavy tanks. For this reason, the command ordered to increase the release of new EC-2, including through the construction of KV-85. Because of this, in January 1944 of the year in Chelyabinsk collected the last four dozen KV machines, after which their production was stopped. In the future, the army received only EC-2 / 122. In December, the 43 plant built 35 new tanks. The same number of armored vehicles released in the first month of 1944. In the future, production volumes grew steadily.


Tanks EC-2 in Germany, spring 1945. Photo Aviarmor.net


Despite the completion of the design work and the beginning of serial production, the designers continued to develop the tank and its weapons. So, already at the beginning of 1944, the first D-25T guns came off the conveyor with a new semi-automatic wedge gate, the development of which was given by the resolution of October 31. Introduced innovations allowed to slightly increase the rate of fire. A piston-bolt gun could fire no more than a 1-1,5 shot per minute, while a wedge one allowed this parameter to be adjusted to 1,5-2 shots per minute. In addition, the new guns received a two-chamber muzzle brake, developed by the Central Artillery Design Bureau.

The emergence of heavy tanks with 122 caliber guns mm has significantly increased the potential of armored forces. The new gun allowed the EC-2 vehicles to effectively deal with German heavy tanks at fairly long distances. However, shortly after the start of operation of the new technology, the first complaints began to be received by the troops. Tankers approved the use of a more powerful gun, but expressed complaints about the relatively low rate of fire. In addition, he left much to be desired ammunition: in the fighting compartment of the EC-122 only 28 was able to place separate loading shots.

There were also some problems with the power of the gun. In practice, the sharp-headed armor-piercing projectile BR-471 could penetrate the frontal armor of the Panther tank from a distance of no more than 700 m. It also turned out that the shelling of tanks with fragmentation grenades causes cracking of the welds or even the tearing of individual parts. Nevertheless, despite this, the military demanded to increase the firepower of the tank.

Already 27 December 1943, the State Committee of Defense issued a decree, which demanded to create new versions of the tank "IS" with reinforced weapons. In February of the following year, the development of the EC-3, EC-4 and EC-5 projects started (later on, these names were transferred to other tanks of post-war development).


Tankers and their armored vehicle. Photo http://www.tankm.ru


In the winter and spring of 1944, work was carried out to improve the armor protection of the EC-2 tank. During the fighting, it turned out that the frontal part of the body, consisting of three main parts, does not provide the required level of protection. To solve this problem was proposed so-called. straightened version of the forehead. It was suggested to abandon the narrow upper front sheets with a thickness of 120 mm, as well as change the angles of inclination of other parts. Due to these improvements, as well as through the introduction of new metal processing technologies, a significant increase in the level of protection has been achieved. For example, the German tank gun KwK 36 caliber 88 mm could not penetrate the top sheet of "straightened" armor, even at close range. The level of protection of a less thick and durable bottom sheet was later proposed to be increased with the help of the suspension of spare track tracks.

Production of the EC-2 / 122 tanks with the “straightened” frontal part of the hull began in the spring of the year 1944. In the summer, the production of a cast unit with the appropriate protection parameters was mastered. In mid-summer, a proposal appeared to place spare tracks on the lower frontal part. It is noteworthy that tanks with old and new hulls were produced in parallel for some time. The fact is that manufacturers had a certain stock of some parts, which was spent even after mastering the assembly of a new design.

Production of the heavy tank EC-2 continued until the very end of the war. The last fifteen hundred such machines were released in May 1945 of the year. During the 16 months, during which serial construction took place, 3390 X-2 tanks with various reservations and some other differences were released. This technique was actively used on all fronts of the Great Patriotic War and brought victory over the enemy closer. In addition, the EC-2 tanks had to take part in several post-war armed conflicts.

In the summer of 1944, the country appreciated the merits of tank engineer. 5 August 44-th for special achievements in the creation of self-propelled artillery systems and heavy tanks of the series "IS" plant number XXUMX awarded the Order of Lenin. For the production of tanks and self-propelled guns, as well as for the development of the production of tank diesel engines, the Chelyabinsk Kirov Plant was awarded the Order of the Red Star.

The “Object 240” or EC-2 project was an excellent demonstration of how quickly Soviet industry could work during the Great Patriotic War. The decision to create a new heavy tank with a caliber 122 mm was adopted at the beginning of the autumn 1943, and in December, the first production armored vehicles of the new type were built. Due to this, already at the beginning of 1944, the armored units of the Red Army received a new technique, which helped them to smash the enemy faster and better, bringing victory over him.


Based on:
http://armor.kiev.ua/
http://aviarmor.net/
http://warspot.ru/
http://pro-tank.ru/
Baryatinsky M. Heavy tank IS-2 / Armored collection. - 1998. - 3 number
I. Zheltov, I. Pavlov, M. Pavlov, A. Sergeev. Tanks IS / Tankomaster (special issue). - 2004
Author:
67 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Sakhalininsk
    Sakhalininsk 18 November 2015 06: 24 New
    14
    A decent heavy tank, the IS-2 cannot be called an ideal machine, but nevertheless, this machine fought worthy of the German tank menagerie.
    1. Kars
      Kars 18 November 2015 08: 50 New
      14
      An interesting video lecture.
  2. D-Master
    D-Master 18 November 2015 06: 38 New
    +8
    An excellent tank is a worthy response of our industry to the appearance of the Tiger and the promising royal Tiger. The IS-2 was the first production machine with an installed caliber larger than 100 mm. Modern takni use calibers 125 mm. Thanks to the author for the article. Ryabov Cyril gives on the mountain is always very suitable material. Thanks again.
    1. Spitfire
      Spitfire 18 November 2015 08: 49 New
      +9
      Quote: D-Master
      An excellent tank is a worthy response of our industry to the appearance of the Tiger and the promising royal Tiger. The IS-2 was the first production machine with an installed caliber larger than 100 mm. Modern takni use calibers 125 mm. Thanks to the author for the article. Ryabov Cyril gives on the mountain is always very suitable material. Thanks again.


      Your untruth, the first was KV-2.

      In February, the 1940 of the KV-2 was officially adopted by the Red Army and mass-produced at the LKZ before July of the 1941 year. The reason for the withdrawal from production was the outbreak of the Great Patriotic War. Total LKZ built 204 tank KV-2, which are actively used in hostilities 1941, and then almost all were lost.

      Let me remind you, the caliber is 152 mm.
      1. D-Master
        D-Master 18 November 2015 10: 08 New
        +3
        Sorry. I apologize. was on the KV-2 152 mm gun. But in fact, agree on the KB -2 with 152 graph paper and the IS-2 with its 122 mm gun specially created for it - all the same different machines.
        1. venaya
          venaya 18 November 2015 10: 52 New
          +4
          Quote: D-Master
          ... in fact, the KV-2 with 152 graph paper and the IS-2 with its 122 mm gun specially designed for it are still different machines.

          Cars always produce different, but our country's priority in creating a tank with a 152 mm turret gun, which is already significantly more than 100 mm guns, you should not forget and propagate it in every possible way. Actually for this, as I understand it, we are all here on this site.
        2. Spitfire
          Spitfire 19 November 2015 08: 20 New
          0
          Quote: D-Master
          Sorry. I apologize. was on the KV-2 152 mm gun. But in fact, agree on the KB -2 with 152 graph paper and the IS-2 with its 122 mm gun specially created for it - all the same different machines.


          Of course, different. The KV-2 is the KV-1 with a new turret and gun. But still serial. And with regard to the caliber, one can also recall the assault tiger - a heavy self-propelled gun, armed with a converted 380 mm rocket propelled anti-submarine bomb placed in a stationary armored cabin, not accepted for service by the kriegsmarine.
      2. complete zero
        complete zero 18 November 2015 23: 25 New
        0
        the absolute truth, although the KV-2 had a caliber of more than 100, yet it didn’t possess a full-fledged anti-tank gun; it was created to fight pillboxes (shot at point blank range))) .. and Is-2 was the first Soviet tank with such a caliber specifically with an anti-tank gun
        1. Spitfire
          Spitfire 19 November 2015 08: 27 New
          0
          Quote: full zero
          the absolute truth, although the KV-2 had a caliber of more than 100, yet it didn’t possess a full-fledged anti-tank gun; it was created to fight pillboxes (shot at point blank range))) .. and Is-2 was the first Soviet tank with such a caliber specifically with an anti-tank gun


          Tell about the defective 152 mm caliber tank gun to German tank crews who could not do anything with this tank, and it was guaranteed to disable any of their tanks in the 41st. By the way, the Finnish military was so satisfied with the capabilities of the captured M-10 that in the post-war period they did not remove it from service until 2000.
    2. podpolkovnik
      podpolkovnik 18 November 2015 11: 15 New
      +5
      Quote: D-Master
      An excellent tank is a worthy response of our industry to the appearance of the Tiger and the promising royal Tiger. The IS-2 was the first production machine with an installed caliber larger than 100 mm. Modern takni use calibers 125 mm. Thanks to the author for the article. Ryabov Cyril gives on the mountain is always very suitable material. Thanks again.

      I join thanks to Kirill Ryabov.
      He was photographed on vacation in his native city, a monument was opened this year, to the 70 anniversary of the Great Victory.
  3. roml
    roml 18 November 2015 07: 22 New
    +4
    Interesting. If you can about the EC-3 still tell.
  4. Volga Cossack
    Volga Cossack 18 November 2015 07: 28 New
    +1
    not a bad article. thank.
  5. ARES623
    ARES623 18 November 2015 07: 33 New
    +8
    "The Object 240 or IS-2 project was a great demonstration of how quickly Soviet industry could work during the years of World War II."
    All the same, the question arises, why didn’t they do with the F-34 what the Germans did with the F-22 or with the KwK-37? The fact that the Germans had a new tank with enhanced armoring was learned back in September 1942 near Leningrad. In January 1943, a sample was captured. And at the beginning of 1942, when armor was replaced on the Pz-IV, the gun was replaced, no corresponding changes were made to the T-34/76 design. In July 1943, near Kursk, we did not have an adequate anti-tank gun at all. And they say - the reaction rate of industry! Why is it not mentioned at the same time the defeat of 5gvTA near Prokhorovka and Rotmistrov’s letter? We must be more objective and acknowledge - the Is-2 and T-34/85 did quickly, but still did not have time.
    1. GRAY
      GRAY 18 November 2015 07: 54 New
      +3
      Quote: ARES623
      the design of the T-34/76 did not make the corresponding changes.

      Contributed. T-34-85 turned out.
    2. Ruslan
      Ruslan 18 November 2015 08: 14 New
      +2
      It seems to me because they found a cheaper option-cluster cumulative bombs. and therefore made a bet on them. I once read an article claiming that most of the tigers were damaged from above by them. and they were not specifically used before the Kursk arch, expecting that for the Germans betting on tigers, there would be a big surprise. also came across the memoirs of a pilot attack aircraft, describing their use. attacked a convoy of equipment, and immediately several dozen cars were killed, due to mass character. although in principle I agree that they delayed the installation of a new gun on the t-34.
    3. lilian
      lilian 18 November 2015 09: 02 New
      +8
      But there is not enough reason to explain this as simple sloppiness. The end of 42, the beginning of 43 is the most difficult time of the war. Maybe they did not begin to develop and introduce into production due to the extreme tension of forces at the front and in the rear, they stamped what had already been organized, the minds were engaged in the manufacturability of the production, and it seems that they accumulated material in the form of the future heavy tank.

      What the Germans did with the F-22 could not be done with other guns, it had an "extra" margin of safety, because after its manufacture, the customer wanted to adapt the chamber to the cap of the royal shells.

      I still can’t understand. In World War I there was a shell hunger, the arrival of a couple of dozen shells to the front was a great holiday for Russian soldiers. And after the revolution, the Bolsheviks got millions of shells from the tsar and the designers had to adapt their guns for them. If this is not a conspiracy and betrayal, then what is it?
      1. Mooh
        Mooh 18 November 2015 09: 27 New
        +4
        The shell hunger was at the beginning of the war, by the 17th year it was completely overcome. Again, the lack of ammunition mainly concerned large calibers.
      2. jogin
        jogin 25 November 2015 10: 19 New
        0
        Quote: lilian
        What the Germans did with the F-22 could not be done with other guns, it had an "extra" margin of safety, because after its manufacture, the customer wanted to adapt the chamber to the cap of the royal shells.

        What time! Yes, and after manufacturing! Apparently a compression method. Yes, and under the cap! You are a juggler. In words.
        Quote: lilian
        And after the revolution, the Bolsheviks got millions of shells from the tsar and the designers had to adapt their guns for them.

        Who told you this? The Bolsheviks themselves foolishly and riveted three-inch shells in unimaginable quantities. Yes, not that nomenclature. So I had to dispose of them after the Second World War. Some species, of course, not all.
    4. avt
      avt 18 November 2015 09: 49 New
      +5
      Quote: ARES623
      ! Why is it not mentioned at the same time the defeat of 5gvTA near Prokhorovka and the letter of Rotmistrov?

      And why then not mention the fighting of Katukov in the same period of time with the same material part? Romistrov, with all recognition of his merits and respect, was really scared of the consequences and scribbled this letter, stupidly deciding to pour the blame on the production workers. They did what they could and could not jump above their heads in the face of war.
      Quote: ARES623
      All the same, the question arises,

      There is an answer to this question in quite concrete documents. Yes - the only thing that was done on the tanks was to install 85 mm on the HF. Do you think everything was simple with the T-34? Need to just have a fun log and have fun ??
      Quote: ARES623
      In July 1943, near Kursk, we did not have an adequate anti-tank gun at all.

      But it doesn’t seem to me, I’m absolutely sure that you don’t have a clue who fought in that battle, and you don’t really want to hike, if you would like, but now there are a lot of documents to take the same Zamulin, Prokhorovka, then there’s no such childish question would ask and own glitches for reality did not give out.
      1. ARES623
        ARES623 18 November 2015 10: 49 New
        +4
        Quote: avt
        And why then not mention the fighting of Katukov in the same period of time with the same material part?

        About the actions of Katukov in the same Zamulin everything is spelled out. He did not dare to lag behind in the materiel to counterattack head-on against Pz-IV, V, but insisted on working from ambushes. And he did the right thing by which he reduced the losses in his army. Which is in no way at odds with my statement.
        Quote: avt
        There is an answer to this question in quite concrete documents. Yes - the only thing that was done on the tanks was to install 85 mm on the HF

        These answers do not suit me, if only for the reason that there is not a word about the modernization of the F-34, although one could try to bring the ballistics to the level of a 76-mm anti-aircraft gun. But Grabin crouched on his “ridge” - he put all his strength on a new gun.
        Quote: avt
        take the same Zamulin ,, Prokhorovka "

        That's just Zamulin and take it. I highly recommend it, especially his last book about the pogrom near Prokhorovka. Take the directories read the equipment IPTAPs. Even the fours were difficult to fight. Although the Germans from the F-22 did a good VET. Grabin himself admitted that he had laid reserves in it for modernization, but he did not use them. And then, compare the losses of the parties and it will be clear to you that the problems of VET in the spacecraft are clearly ripe. And yes, you are right, you did what you could. Only here they could not very much, I am not in production in this case, but about the work of designers to develop a new and modernize the old.
        1. avt
          avt 18 November 2015 11: 13 New
          +4
          Quote: ARES623
          l And then, compare the losses of the parties

          Well, since they read Zamulin, how did you get past the information about the use of 85mm in VET? And also the description of the errors in using individual parts of VET?
          Quote: ARES623
          . And then, compare the losses of the parties

          Nothing that the Germans in the beginning was the battlefield and our wrecked tanks, which they could not drag, or did not consider it necessary to spend resources on their restoration, destroyed? When ours went forward, it was exactly the same with the Germans - they abandoned unfilled tanks like we did in 1941. And you don’t want to refresh the summary of commissioning after repair to the tank corps and the same 5th tank from the same Zamulin?
          Quote: ARES623
          Only here they could not very much, I am not in production in this case, but about the work of designers to develop a new and modernize the old.

          Why not guess? Here about the development of the same tanks and prototypes do not want to see? And then, taking into account the time and production possibilities, which no one exempted from fulfilling the plan in connection with the course of current events at the fronts, and not Stalin’s tyranny, try to figure it out - But there was a real opportunity, like the Germans, to shovel VET and armored tanks troops? What actually the USSR managed to start doing only AFTER Kursk. Production, according to the pike and my desire, "is not being rebuilt at the same time. But there simply WASN’T TIME.
          1. ARES623
            ARES623 18 November 2015 15: 34 New
            +4
            Quote: avt
            information about the use of 85mm in PTO passed by you

            Sorry, but 52k in VET began to apply from poverty. And therefore they were not enough for the "native" application.
            Quote: avt

            Nothing that the battlefield in the beginning was for the Germans and our tanks were wrecked

            I do not mean the intermediate result. See the total. How many "chopped up" only LS AG 12.07. It is painful to talk about this, but the Prokhorovskaya Massacre is more like beating babies. According to Zamulin's material, the losses were 2,5 to 1 in favor of Germany.

            Quote: avt
            And was there a real opportunity, like the Germans, to shovel to a qualitatively new level of anti-tank missiles and armored troops?

            Quote: avt
            And there was simply NO TIME

            I do not believe that there was no opportunity and no time. I believe in the fact that there was no task and a concrete design idea for its solution. As an example, how much time and burned-down crews were required to prove to the GABTU KA the possibility and necessity of installing a muzzle brake on a tank gun. The question, it seems, is trifling, and because of it the installation of a high-power gun was slowed down. A limitation of the departure of the gun for the size of the machine is generally absurd, but it was. So, the impossible is quite possible, when cutting off the bossy arrogance and illiterate dope. I am not at all trying to throw mud at the leadership of the spacecraft, but specimens like Kulik left a bloody mark on her reputation. And if we see this today, then we may be able to prevent this from happening tomorrow.
            1. avt
              avt 18 November 2015 17: 15 New
              -2
              Quote: ARES623
              Sorry, but 52k in VET began to apply from poverty.

              Both on! No, I’m not sorry. It turns out interesting - like the German 88mm against the tanks and in general, it’s a very versatile weapon, like ours - a necessary measure, but such that eventually the 85 caliber switched to self-propelled guns and anti-tank guns.
              Quote: ARES623
              .By the material of Zamulin, the losses were 2,5 to 1 in favor of Germany.

              Well ? I what ? I bet? About Prokhorovka, or about the quality of German tanks? Or about how Vatutin and Khrushchev threw Rotmistrov’s tank army to the deployed battle formation of the SS Panzer Corps, and Rotmistrov, unlike Katukov, didn’t call Stalin directly? Only after the losses incurred by the army, it suddenly became apparent that the Germans were superior in quality and the hysterical letter denouncing the designers and production workers came up. It’s clear that if Atets really asked for such a high command, then Khrushch and Vatutin would be the last to go, but it would be him. ”Somehow or other, no matter how cool it looks in this situation.
              Quote: ARES623
              I do not believe that there was no opportunity and no time. I believe in the fact that there was no task and a concrete design idea for its solution.

              I believe, I don’t believe it, guess at the daisy. Well, if you are reluctant to understand specific samples of the same armored vehicles that remained in single, experimental samples of those times and for what specific reason did not go into series with the status of the production base at the same time .
              1. ARES623
                ARES623 18 November 2015 19: 52 New
                +3
                Quote: avt
                No, I’m not sorry. It turns out interesting - like the German 88mm against the tanks and in general, it’s a very versatile weapon, like ours - a necessary measure, but such that eventually the 85 caliber switched to self-propelled guns and anti-tank guns.

                Don’t excuse me - it’s violet for me, in the case - the use of anti-aircraft guns against tanks in any army in the world is like hammering nails with a crystal vase. Two shots - and hello to the crew, for the silhouette of the gun makes it a clear and bare target on the battlefield. Therefore, the regular units of the VET never received the armament of anti-aircraft equipment. It is also immensely expensive. And if the anti-aircraft gunners were tasked with tanks, then only as a last resort. As for the IPTAPs, they were armed exclusively with the 45-mm M-42 and ZiS-3, sometimes ZiS-2, who were lucky. Work on the armor of these guns, see the tables. At the same time, the adversary used PAK-40, PAK-36r (captured F-22 with a bore breech and our shell on an enlarged sleeve). Unfortunately, we, having production lines under F-22, did not reach this point. Compare the performance characteristics of the guns and see the essence of the differences. What additional production capacity is needed to kill a longer chamber in a serial pipe? The question is about ammunition, but there is no expense like the howitzers, Vannikov would have managed. And on other issues, let's get back to the topic. The article talks about the unique speed of developing a new type of weapon and launching it in a series, this is where the truth must be sought. And you about chamomiles, individual piece samples. Fly to Kubinka, there are a lot of interesting things in single quantities. The war is waged by serial samples. But on them in the summer of 1943 we did not have much. SU-152 also debuted, but there were a dozen of them 3 or 4 so that they did not make severe weather at that moment. And about faith, it's you in vain. Today, much has gone irrevocably, especially the fact that it is difficult to record human relations, the intrigues of the “creative intelligentsia”, and in many cases it is the human factor that influences the decision-making. Tupolev would not have remembered the name of Korolev in a timely manner, you see, the first cosmonaut would have a different name. To know all this today is impossible. You can conjecture facts, logical connectives, analyze and believe ....
            2. jogin
              jogin 25 November 2015 10: 48 New
              0
              Quote: ARES623
              The question, it seems, is trifling, and because of it the installation of a high-power gun was slowed down.

              Really? Are you sure about that? If yes, then in vain.
              DT in the Red Army did not set for a long time due to the inability to use buckshot. Before the war, an unimaginable amount was released. The enemy was expected to attack in dense, closed rows. And then there are "death braids" (by the way, the term of the 1st World War about buckshot). And they used the buckshot already after the war. So they didn’t shoot everything. The Germans did not want to attack in such rows.
          2. jogin
            jogin 25 November 2015 10: 42 New
            0
            Quote: avt
            And there was simply NO TIME.

            Two years, is this not enough time? Let me remind you, Kursk occurred 2 years after the start of the Second World War. More than half of the war has already passed. How long does it take to figure out, forty-five is out of date. A division can only be used temporarily.
            But they decided to win on a temporary basis. As a result, they had to rearm anyway. But after huge losses. Here he is the "visionary talent of the great leader."
        2. Alf
          Alf 18 November 2015 21: 44 New
          +1
          Quote: ARES623
          although one could try to bring ballistics to the level of a 76 mm anti-aircraft gun.

          You can bring it, but .. Where to get the shells for the 76 mm 3K? They ceased to be produced before the war.
          The penetration of 76 mm 3K is approximately equal to the penetration of the 85 mm ZIS-S-53, but the ZIS-S 53 has a more powerful HE shell.
          1. ARES623
            ARES623 19 November 2015 09: 43 New
            0
            Quote: Alf
            You can bring it, but .. Where to get the shells for the 76 mm 3K

            Where to get? To make. During the reprofiling of enterprises, to restore the production of ammunition of some type that they no longer produce, i.e. technologically advanced is not so expensive. Especially if the equipment was not allowed into the scrap metal. But at the same time it would be possible, and very much in demand. True, I would have to slightly “hang” the rollback and the muzzle brake, but this is easier than sawing a new cannon and a turret under it. And most importantly, it could be put in the process of the Kyrgyz Republic already manufactured tank. Thus, in half a year the whole park will be renewed. After all, even by the summer of 1942, production had largely coped with relocation.
          2. jogin
            jogin 25 November 2015 10: 56 New
            0
            Quote: Alf
            You can bring it, but .. Where to get the shells for the 76 mm 3K? They ceased to be produced before the war.

            Oops But what about those 3821 3-K guns and 750 51-K guns that were in the Red Army on 22.06.41/4,5/XNUMX? What then, they threw? All XNUMX thousand pieces?
            By the way, the Germans in trophy state bore them under their 88-mm shells. And no wonder, in fact, they were slightly modified German anti-aircraft guns.
            Quote: Alf
            The penetration of 76 mm 3K is approximately equal to the penetration of the 85 mm ZIS-S-53, but the ZIS-S 53 has a more powerful HE shell

            Well yes. The difference is just some kind of "funny" 10-20% depending on the distance in favor of 85 mm.
        3. jogin
          jogin 25 November 2015 10: 36 New
          0
          Quote: ARES623
          that there is not a word about the modernization of the F-34, although one could try to bring the ballistics to the level of a 76-mm anti-aircraft gun.

          You could try. It was impossible to bring.
          Quote: ARES623
          But Grabin crouched on his “ridge” - he put all his strength on a new gun.

          What they ordered, they did. He did not order music.
          Quote: ARES623
          Although the Germans from F-22 made a good anti-tank missile

          The “trick” was that the USSR could not repeat the release of the F-22 barrels. Cost was "golden." And the release in absolute numbers was scanty. A shaft was required.
          Quote: ARES623
          Rabin himself admitted that he had laid reserves in it for modernization, but he himself did not use them.

          This is nonsense. Brave "designers of the Soviet school" simply did not know how to count the barrel. So they "laid the reserves for modernization." Exactly for the same in the case of 3-K Tagunov was shot. But it was revealed BEFORE the war. Grabin’s illiteracy was revealed during the war. Therefore, he was not shot.
          No modernization and boring of guns in the USSR has ever happened. Therefore, it was never laid. The same 3-K and 51-K under 85 mm no one wasted. Although 52-K, it’s the same 51-K with a bore and DT. Well, and there’s something in the little things.
      2. miv110
        miv110 18 November 2015 11: 09 New
        +1
        Regarding the lack of an adequate anti-tank gun. "SU-152 - a heavy Soviet self-propelled artillery installation (ACS) during the Great Patriotic War, built on the basis of the heavy tank KV-1s and armed with a powerful 152-mm howitzer gun ML-20S. In its combat mission, the SU-152 was a heavy assault limited ability to perform the functions of a self-propelled howitzer.The construction of the first prototype SU-152 called Object 236 (also KV-14 or SU-14) was completed at the Chelyabinsk Kirov Plant (CHKZ) on January 24, 1943, and serial production began next month In connection with the decommissioning of the KV-1s SU-152 tank base in December 1943, the ISU-152, which was equivalent in armament and better armored, were replaced in production, 670 self-propelled artillery mounts of this type were built.
        The combat debut of the SU-152 took place in the summer of 1943 in the battle of Kursk, where it proved to be an effective fighter of new heavy German tanks and self-propelled guns (Wikipedia).
        1. ARES623
          ARES623 19 November 2015 09: 58 New
          0
          Quote: miv110
          The combat debut of the SU-152 took place in the summer of 1943 in the battle of Kursk, where it proved to be an effective fighter of new heavy German tanks and self-propelled guns (Wikipedia).

          And yet, for anti-tank defense is not quite what we need. Anti-tank guns are deployed in tank-dangerous directions, and therefore the fire of the tanks will be concentrated by these means. Looking at the reservation scheme, we can assume the short life of these, no doubt, successful cars in a duel with a tank of the second half of the war. For comparison, look at the booking scheme of the Jagdpancer or Jagdptater. And, characteristically, nothing particularly high-tech (if you do not take into account the traditionally high intra-ballistic characteristics of German guns and ammunition).
      3. jogin
        jogin 25 November 2015 10: 25 New
        0
        Quote: avt
        And why then not mention the fighting of Katukov in the same period of time with the same material part?

        What were they? Do not tell us? Anyway, what kind of sorcerer is this, the tank Katukov, is walking around the Internet? Somehow it looks a little like the present. He was with a beard, where did he periodically pull out one hair at a time? Whispering spells while doing this?
        Quote: avt
        But it doesn’t seem to me, I’m absolutely sure that you have no idea who and what they fought in that battle

        I don’t know either. Do not tell me more?
      4. The comment was deleted.
    5. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 18 November 2015 11: 04 New
      +5
      I read in the press that the main brake in this is the lack of lathes to increase the overhead of the tower. Before the war, we had machines for boring shoulder straps of a smaller diameter. In 1942-43, machines from America and England came under Lend Lease, and the process began.
    6. jogin
      jogin 25 November 2015 10: 14 New
      0
      Quote: ARES623
      We must be more objective and acknowledge - the Is-2 and T-34/85 did quickly, but still did not have time.

      T-34/85 and IS-2 are just the result of the Kursk battle. Until the thunder strikes, the peasant (Dzhugashvili) will not cross himself (he will not buy equipment from the Americans for the precise drilling of long trunks). This once again shows all the "wisdom" and "insight" of this ghoul.
      Quote: ARES623
      All the same, the question arises, why didn’t they do with the F-34 what the Germans did with the F-22

      And where to get the trunks? There was no equipment until the end of 1943.
      Quote: ARES623
      In July 1943, near Kursk, we did not have an adequate anti-tank gun at all.

      Yet it was. This is ZIS-2 arr. 1943. A very small amount, because mass production was launched in late autumn 1943 on Lend-Lease equipment.
  6. venaya
    venaya 18 November 2015 08: 28 New
    0
    The decision to create a new heavy tank with a gun of 122 mm caliber was made in early autumn 1943

    The awareness of the urgent need for the release of such equipment (with a 122 mm cannon) came immediately after the failures caused by the lack of mobile weapons for the heavy (and "medium" Panther) armored vehicles of the Wehrmacht, especially the heavy losses of our armored vehicles near Prokhorovka. The creation of IS-2 completed the debate about whose armored vehicle has an advantage on the battlefield during the 2nd MV, in any case, a line about the undesirability and inadmissibility of “duels” with the “Stalin” tank appeared in the instructions for the combat use of the Tiger tank called IS-2).
  7. Bosk
    Bosk 18 November 2015 08: 56 New
    0
    And why was the “107mm fluff" pushed back ?, I don’t understand that the new caliber in wartime is not easy to lead ... but on the other hand this caliber has a good penetration ..., high-explosive projectile action ... and finally reload Like how it should be better ...
    1. Insurgent LC
      Insurgent LC 18 November 2015 15: 27 New
      +5
      107 mm was moved away due to the fact that this was a sea gun and the supply of shells was limited, and it was not profitable to launch a new round of ammunition for this gun; at the end of the war, therefore, when deciding on the installation of 130 mm guns, it was based on the mass production of ammunition for the main work horses of the RKK 100 mm - field artillery, 122 mm - anti-aircraft artillery, 76 mm-division artillery
  8. pimen
    pimen 18 November 2015 10: 28 New
    0
    It's a shame that they did not consider the potential d10 then. And the completion of the armor-piercing projectile is probably still easier, in terms of the volume of work, than installing in the same box d25
    1. dvina71
      dvina71 18 November 2015 18: 43 New
      0
      D-10 is a recycled anti-aircraft gun. With everyone coming out. The speed of the projectile, flatness .. And it just came in handy for tank destroyers. Su-100.
      And for the tank needed a gun with a good high-explosive shell. D-25 turned out just.
      By the way .. in the article something is mentioned about the insufficient accuracy of the gun, this is strange. Because test firing showed that the D-25 is more accurate than the Panther Air Force.
      1. pimen
        pimen 18 November 2015 21: 51 New
        0
        if you look at the beginning of the article, the tigers and panthers are mentioned as the main problem, and this is somehow believed. In addition, to crack a well-fortified defense, we already had su122 and su152, and the tank, nevertheless, was a universal machine.
        At the expense of comparing the accuracy of KWK42 and d25 - where did the information come from?
      2. Alf
        Alf 18 November 2015 21: 53 New
        0
        Quote: dvina71
        By the way .. in the article something is mentioned about the insufficient accuracy of the gun, this is strange. Because test firing showed that the D-25 is more accurate than the Panther Air Force.

        The accuracy of the battle of the 122 mm D-25T gun was at least not inferior to foreign guns - the average deviation of the 122 mm armor-piercing projectile from the aiming point when firing from a standpoint at a distance of 1 km was 170 mm vertically and 270 mm horizontally. Soviet tests of the 88 mm KwK 43 gun under the same conditions yielded a deviation of 200 mm vertically and 180 mm horizontally.
      3. jogin
        jogin 25 November 2015 11: 15 New
        0
        Quote: dvina71
        And for the tank needed a gun with a good high-explosive shell

        Those. the high explosiveness of the 85 mm shell was sufficient, but the 100 mm shell, no? Oh well.
      4. The comment was deleted.
  9. creak
    creak 18 November 2015 10: 36 New
    +1
    To what I said in the article and in the comments, I think it should be added that for the fight against German tanks and direct escort of the IS-2 and T-34-85, in 1944 the production of the medium self-propelled gun SU-100, with a 100 mm D10S gun, was also established 56 caliber length (bk 34 shells).
    It was intended to replace the anti-tank SAU-85 used in the composition of the anti-tank brigades.
    The SU-100 was so successful that its release continued after the Second World War and it found its application in a number of local conflicts in the post-war period.
    In total, up to the end of the war, 2495 SU-100s were produced.
    1. Massik
      Massik 18 November 2015 11: 09 New
      0
      But why did ISs decide to equip 122mm guns, rather than 100mm?
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Bosk
        Bosk 18 November 2015 11: 25 New
        +3
        Here I think the high-explosive action of the projectile was of great importance, it seems like it turns out the IP was not thought of as a “clean” anti-tank like the same Tiger, namely, as a breakthrough tank and its gun it should work equally well not only against enemy tanks but also against fortifications, and against a 122mm shell, and not every bunker will stand ...
        1. Alf
          Alf 18 November 2015 21: 54 New
          0
          Quote: Bosk
          Here, I think the high-explosive action of the projectile was of great importance, it seems like it turns out the IP was not thought of as a "clean" anti-tank like the same Tiger, namely, as a breakthrough tank and its weapon should equally well "

          Soviet statutes considered the tank in the first place as an "infantry shield."
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. creak
        creak 18 November 2015 11: 43 New
        0
        Quote: Marssik

        But why did ISs decide to equip 122mm guns, rather than 100mm?


        This decision was made mainly due to the inability to establish the production of the required number of unitary armor-piercing shells of 100 mm caliber also for tanks. This gun was created on the basis of a sea gun of the same caliber.
        The production of 122 mm separate loading ammunition has been established for a long time and there were no problems with them ...
      5. homedition
        homedition 18 November 2015 11: 55 New
        +1
        I heard the version that 122 mm ammunition was more common in the ground forces, and therefore more suitable for a relatively massive heavy tank. A 100 mm, developed on the basis of the marine, installed on less numerical self-propelled guns.
      6. Insurgent LC
        Insurgent LC 18 November 2015 15: 36 New
        -1
        there wasn’t so much 100 mm ammunition for supplying the army in sufficient quantity and assortment plus reworking in the tank version of the gun it would take about 3-4 months for a 1800 mm shoulder strap; this is actually a new gun changing the cradle of the recoil brake of the shutter, etc. well, time tests and tank guns there was always a requirement. that they were without a muzzle brake so as not to unmask the position in general there are many nuances that had to be taken into account at that difficult time
        1. dvina71
          dvina71 18 November 2015 18: 50 New
          +1
          Quote: Insurgent LPR
          there were not so many 100 mm ammunition to supply the army

          What are you? belay And what for then BS-13 was designed? There are no shells ..
      7. family
        family tree 18 November 2015 20: 47 New
        0
        Quote: Marssik
        But why did ISs decide to equip 122mm guns, rather than 100mm?

        According to estimates, 100mm unitaries in Ise would fit even less than 122mm separate loading, due to the length of the projectile. Also, the convenience of loading, also, due to the large length of the unit. The SU-100 cabin is still more spacious than the IS-2 tower, designed for an 85mm gun. Maybe he missed, in the article, but D-25, stuck in the same tower, while the balance was violated.
    2. Alf
      Alf 19 November 2015 21: 34 New
      0
      Quote: ranger
      In total, up to the end of the war, 2495 SU-100s were produced.
  10. marinier
    marinier 18 November 2015 10: 40 New
    +1
    Menia vpe4atlila tolshina broni, kalibr pushki a takze dlino stvola.Slyshal
    budu4i naxodias v Rossii.4to eti tanki ispolzovalis v grazdanskoj vojne
    na Balkanax. 4to bez uslovno govorit ob uda4noj konstrukcii tanka.I ego
    aktualnosti v sovremenyx konfliktax.
    1. homedition
      homedition 18 November 2015 11: 57 New
      0
      At the expense of relevance, you certainly turned down, and used them for the lack of the best.
  11. Tatar
    Tatar 18 November 2015 11: 25 New
    +8
    for 16 months 3390 cars! Damn, what are we capable of? We are the generation that has tarnished our country It really hurts to read something ...
    1. tolancop
      tolancop 18 November 2015 13: 45 New
      0
      "..for 16 months 3390 cars ..". When actually working in a barracks position. Will you go to this mode of work now in peacetime?
      And make a correction for the fact that the weapon of PEACE time in a number of respects is noticeably different from the weapon of WAR time. When releasing weapons (and ammunition) of WAR time, we deliberately went to the deterioration of characteristics associated with durability, convenience, etc.
      Further ... Let's say there is an opportunity to rivet a bunch of modern tanks (guns, etc.). Sniff a bunch of resources. What's next? And then it turns out that when, after a dozen years (God forbid), the need comes to apply the fabricated one, it turns out that the sample has already become very old and most of the costs for its manufacture, storage and maintenance, etc. were in vain.
      1. Alex
        Alex 18 November 2015 20: 03 New
        +3
        I think, dear Tatar I was simply amazed at how the workers of the Urals managed to produce such an enormous amount of heavy and rather complex combat vehicles in such a short time. But the fact that such a breakthrough of military equipment in peacetime is not worth doing is an axiom simple and clear. Like the idea that I would not really like to test in practice our readiness to repeat such feats ...
      2. Starina_hank
        Starina_hank 18 November 2015 20: 10 New
        0
        It’s interesting, and who in our time will give us stamping hundreds of tanks in wartime ?!
  12. Dimon-chik-79
    Dimon-chik-79 18 November 2015 11: 39 New
    +5
    Yes, our tank builders managed to keep the championship in the Second World Glory and honor them for it!
  13. nimboris
    nimboris 18 November 2015 12: 11 New
    +2
    Vasily Grabin wanted to install his BS-2 3 mm on the IS-100, but they installed the Petrov F.F. -122 mm., Justifying precisely by the fact that the high-explosive action of the projectile in the final stage of the war is more important, since it was necessary to overcome the enemy’s fortified defense more than to fight with tanks. Although, in a number of the most important characteristics, the Hrabin gun was superior to the Peter. In particular, she had extremely high armor penetration characteristics and better rate of fire, plus an increase in the ammunition load of the tank itself.
    1. Alf
      Alf 18 November 2015 22: 31 New
      +1
      The installation of a 100 mm gun of plant No. 9 in an IS tank gives the following advantages compared to the 122 mm D-25 gun currently installed in an IS tank:
      1. Aiming rate of 100 mm guns from the IS tank reaches from 5 to 8 rounds per minute against 2-3 rounds of 122 mm guns D-25.
      2. Ammunition for the 100 mm cannon carried in the tank 29 pcs. shots against 28 pcs. for 122 mm gun D-25
      At the same time, the armor penetration of the 100 mm D-10T cannon at a distance of a tank battle (to 2000 met.) Is not only not inferior, but even gives some advantages over the 122 mm D-25 cannon.
      Comrade BERIA L.P.
      In accordance with your instructions regarding the installation of 100 mm D-10T guns on IS tanks, the design of NKV plant No. 9, I have to inform you of the following:
      1. Currently, IS tanks armed with a 122 mm cannon successfully repel counterattacks by enemy tanks of all types at all tank battle distances (ie, up to 1500 m).
      2. The arming of a part of IS tanks with a 100 mm D-10T gun will inevitably create difficulties with the supply of breakthrough tank regiments.
      3. Replacing X-NUMX mm tanks with D-122 cannons and 25 mm cannons will have a negative impact on the firepower of a heavy tank when fighting enemy manpower and long-term fortifications, since the fragmentation and high-explosive effect of the 100 mm gun is significantly reduced compared to 100 mm cannon D-122.
      4. The ammunition load of the 122 mm D-25 tank gun is 28 rounds, and the 100 mm D-10 gun is 29 rounds. Thus, a significant increase in ammunition will not occur.
      5. It is difficult for a charger in battle conditions to ensure fast loading of elongated cartridges of 100 mm caliber. In addition, when firing intensively from a large-caliber semi-automatic gun, the tank’s combat compartment will quickly become gas contaminated, which will require a temporary cease fire. So in this matter the real rate of fire of the D-10 gun will be significantly reduced in comparison with the landfill data.
      Telephonegram D.F. Ustinov on the issue of replacing the D-25 gun with the D-10T gun in the IS tank
      At your request, we report on the issue of replacing the D-25 gun with the D-10T gun in the IS tank:
      1. Given the high rate of fire of the D-10 compared to the D-25, mainly due to the unitary cartridge, replacement is advisable, but only if there is a spent armor-piercing projectile equivalent to the armor penetration rate of the D-25 projectile.
      2. Today we do not have data on the availability of such a shell in production.
      3. We consider it necessary to keep the D-25 cannon in the IS-2 heavy tank. Recent tests at ANIOP provided a rate of fire of 4-6 rounds per minute - the results are good.
      Report to the Chairman of the NKV Technical Council on the results of firing at the Panther German tanks, September 12, 1944
      Top Secret. CHAIRMAN OF THE TECHNICAL COUNCIL OF THE NKV
      REPORT NOTE
      As shown by the experimental shooting, the German Panther tanks, conducted at the Cuban test site of the GBTU, the tested guns, in order of the effectiveness of their shells on the front of the Panther tank, are located in the following order:
      1. 122mm tank gun "D-25" (Plant No. 9) having the same ballistics as the guns: 122mm A-19, 122mm D-2 of Plant No. 9 S-4 TsAKB, namely: initial speed v = 780-790 m / All with a shell of 25 kg. This gun pierces the Panther’s forehead confidently at a distance of 2500 mtr, and this is not the ultimate range
      2. 100 mm tank gun D-10, having the same ballistics as the gun 100 mm BS-3, namely: the initial speed v = 890-900 m / s. with a shell of 15,6 kg. This gun pierces the Panther’s forehead at a distance of up to 1500 mtr, and this is already the limit.
      These results are preliminary, because in the experiments were used guns of different deterioration: 100 mm D-10 made 400 shots, and 122 mm D-25 new. But the difference obtained is so significant that it is difficult to expect large corrections in the results. [/ Quote]
  14. DesToeR
    DesToeR 18 November 2015 13: 30 New
    +4
    Quote: ARES623
    We must be more objective and acknowledge - the Is-2 and T-34/85 did quickly, but still did not have time.

    Do not have time to what? We must be even more objective and admit that in the summer of 1943. in Panzerwaff there was a ridiculous amount of the latest tanks: 150 Tiger 1 tanks and about 350pcs. "Panther". For the whole war alone
    “latecomers” IS released one and a half times more than all the “successful” Tigers of both models.
    Quote: venaya
    Why did 107mm of the fluff be "pushed back"?

    The 107mm gun did not give any advantages over 122mm: the same separate loading, the same in terms of ammunition, comparable weight and occupied volume, but noticeably less power of the projectile on target. Plus 107mm shells in 1943. not produced.
    Quote: pimen
    It's a shame that they did not consider the potential d10 then.

    Why so? Considered. The reserved volume of the 100mm gun occupied a little less than 122mm. Ammunition due to unitary shells increased by only 1-3 shots, the rate of fire did not increase, plus the ability to charge the gun in motion was completely ruled out - a long unitary projectile was hit in everything that was possible.
    1. pimen
      pimen 18 November 2015 14: 22 New
      +1
      Quote: DesToeR
      Quote: pimen
      It's a shame that they did not consider the potential d10 then.

      Why so? Considered. The reserved volume of the 100mm gun occupied a little less than 122mm. Ammunition due to unitary shells increased by only 1-3 shots, the rate of fire did not increase, plus the ability to charge the gun in motion was completely ruled out - a long unitary projectile was hit in everything that was possible.

      And yet: there is less space in the reserved volume, more ammunition, rate of fire is higher (4-6 in the su100); at the expense of loading on the go - it's generally a dark matter. In addition, as we know, in the future, it was the 100mm gun that became the main one in our tanks before the introduction of the AZ
      1. Alf
        Alf 18 November 2015 22: 33 New
        0
        Quote: pimen
        rate of fire is higher (4-6 at su100);

        Compare the volume of the IS-2 and SU-100 turret. Where is it easier to wield such a long drina?
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. creak
          creak 19 November 2015 09: 55 New
          0
          Quote: Alf
          Compare the volume of the tower IS-2 and SU-100.


          I can not compare because the SU-100, like all self-propelled guns, did not have a tower ... lol
          1. Alf
            Alf 19 November 2015 21: 36 New
            +1
            Quote: ranger
            I can not compare because the SU-100, like all self-propelled guns, did not have a tower ...

            Do not cling to the words, you understand everything perfectly.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. creak
      creak 18 November 2015 14: 33 New
      -1
      Quote: DesToeR
      . Ammunition due to unitary shells increased by only 1-3 shots, the rate of fire did not increase, plus the ability to charge the gun in motion was completely ruled out - there was a sticking of a long unitary projectile loading into everything that was possible


      Why do you think so?

      1. The Su-100 ammunition was increased not by 1-2 rounds, but by 8 (the Su-100 bk was 36 shells, and the IS-2 only 28). And 8 extra shots in battle can be decisive ...


      2. Since when can separate loading on the go be possible, and loading with a unitary projectile completely ruled out? The situation is exactly the exact opposite and no poking in the T-34 for some reason happened ... But firing and, accordingly, loading were most often carried out from a stop due to the lack of gyroscopes and, accordingly, stabilization of the trunk. Shooting on the move in this case could only have a psychological effect ...

      3. Well, the fact that the rate of fire when using a unitary projectile did not increase in comparison with separate loading is completely too much and does not go into any gates ... hi
      1. Alf
        Alf 18 November 2015 22: 36 New
        0
        Quote: ranger
        3. Well, the fact that the rate of fire when using a unitary projectile did not increase in comparison with separate loading is completely too much and does not go into any gates ...

        Technical rate of fire increased, but the rate of fire, no.
    5. ARES623
      ARES623 18 November 2015 15: 03 New
      +3
      Quote: DesToeR
      Do not have time to what?

      So, they didn’t have time for the summer campaign of 1943. It doesn’t matter where and how this campaign took place. It is important that it was inevitable, that they knew about it in the winter in Stalingrad. And they knew about the reinforced armor of the fours and problems with the F-34 in the spring of 1942. That's what they did not have time for.
  15. complete zero
    complete zero 18 November 2015 23: 27 New
    0
    excellent tank, the best of our tanks of the second world ... sorry sorry for late in the series
  16. OPTR
    OPTR 18 November 2015 23: 27 New
    0
    could penetrate the frontal armor of the Panther tank from a distance of not more than 700 m. The less solid frontal protection of the Tiger made its way from 1000-1200 m

    Is the Tiger's frontal protection "less durable"? Isn't that a typo?
    1. vladkavkaz
      vladkavkaz 18 November 2015 23: 39 New
      0
      OPTR
      Even more accurate and complete comment Alpha, from 22:31
      Top Secret. CHAIRMAN OF THE TECHNICAL COUNCIL OF THE NKV
      REPORT NOTE
      As shown by the experimental shooting, the German Panther tanks, conducted at the Cuban test site of the GBTU, the tested guns, in order of the effectiveness of their shells on the front of the Panther tank, are located in the following order:
      1. 122mm tank gun "D-25" (Plant No. 9) having the same ballistics as the guns: 122mm A-19, 122mm D-2 of Plant No. 9 S-4 TsAKB, namely: initial speed v = 780-790 m / All with a shell of 25 kg. This gun pierces the Panther’s forehead confidently at a distance of 2500 mtr, and this is not the ultimate range
      2. 100 mm tank gun D-10, having the same ballistics as the gun 100 mm BS-3, namely: the initial speed v = 890-900 m / s. with a shell of 15,6 kg. This gun pierces the Panther’s forehead at a distance of up to 1500 mtr, and this is already the limit.
      1. Alf
        Alf 19 November 2015 21: 14 New
        0
        Quote: vladkavkaz
        Even more accurate and complete comment Alpha, from 22:31

        I indicated this, read carefully.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Alf
      Alf 19 November 2015 21: 11 New
      0
      Quote: OPTR
      Is the Tiger's frontal protection "less durable"? Isn't that a typo?

      Panther's frontal armor is inclined, so, according to geometry, the path traveled by the projectile increases. The tiger’s windshield is at right angles.
  17. sokudo
    sokudo 19 November 2015 03: 36 New
    0
    I read, at one time, complaints on the IS-2. In addition to separate loading, and regular failure of the front rollers, "poor visibility, and the inconvenience of control for the driver" was constantly mentioned.
    1. Alf
      Alf 19 November 2015 21: 15 New
      0
      Quote: sokudo
      constantly mentioned "poor visibility, and the inconvenience of control for the driver"

      What was the bad view and what was the inconvenient control of the tank? Name a tank that has a great view from the driver's seat.
  18. Bormanxnumx
    Bormanxnumx 19 November 2015 13: 55 New
    0
    Quote: OPTR
    could penetrate the frontal armor of the Panther tank from a distance of not more than 700 m. The less solid frontal protection of the Tiger made its way from 1000-1200 m

    Is the Tiger's frontal protection "less durable"? Isn't that a typo?

    The given thicknesses of the frontal armor are equal, but the inclined frontal armor of the panther contributed to the rebound of pointed-headed armor-piercing shells. The Panther’s forehead began to confidently break through from 2000m in the spring of 45, when a dull-headed armor-piercing projectile with a ballistic tip BR-471B entered the warheads.

    1. BV330
      BV330 6 December 2015 05: 06 New
      0
      Even as equal - the Panther 85mm at an angle of 55g are almost equal to 160mm at a right angle.
      And Tiger has the thickest of the three frontal parts 100mm at an angle of 10g. )))
  19. Dimaant
    Dimaant 5 December 2015 13: 37 New
    0
    I didn’t understand from the article - did they try to increase the viability of the guns, or somehow return the second loader?
    1. BV330
      BV330 6 December 2015 05: 11 New
      0
      Maybe a rate of fire? Then they tried, at the beginning the piston lock was changed to a wedge, somewhere around 0,5 shots / min the rate of fire increased. And then in the series only the skill of the loader was trained. ((
      And in experimental vehicles they tried to use 122mm unitaries, but they realized that Arnold would definitely not be enough for all tanks))).
      PS: in the tank tower 2 loaders would look cool)). drinks
      1. Dimaant
        Dimaant 12 December 2015 18: 05 New
        0
        Yes, rate of fire. It is necessary to disable the T9.