Military Review

Regimental 76-mm gun - "the regiment"

42
The 76-mm regimental cannon of the 1927 model of the year is not as well known today as the famous forty-crib or 76,2-mm ZIS-3 divisional cannon, however, along with them, it fought the entire Great Patriotic War. The regimental gun of the 1927 model of the year (GAU index - 52-П-353) was a 76,2-mm regimental weapon of direct support for infantry and cavalry. This gun was the first model of large-scale artillery equipment, which was created in the Soviet Union. A total of approximately 1928 thousand guns of this type were produced from 1943 to 18 year. They took part in all the military conflicts of the USSR of that period.


Almost all the time the regimental cannons were directly in the combat formations of the infantry or cavalry, directly supporting them in battle by fire and wheels. They were used to suppress enemy firing points and enjoyed the love and respect of ordinary Red Army men and calculations. In the soldiers' vocabulary, these guns were known as "regiments", they were also affectionately called "Bobby." It is worth noting that история This regimental gun began long before the 1927 year, and in 1943, it did not end at all.

At the beginning of the 20th century, the main artillery directorate of the tsarist army realized the necessity of having a light field gun in service, while the term “regimental” in relation to such guns had not yet been used. So in 1914, at the Putilov factory, the 3-inch short gun of the 1913 model of the year was launched (the 3-inch gun of the 1902 model of the year with the barrel length of 30 caliber was meant under the gun length). Constructively, the new weapon was created on the basis of the 76-mm mountain cannon of the 1909 model of the year, which, in turn, was a collapsible body of the Greek system, Colonel Dangliz, mounted on a mountain carriage of Schneider. In the 3-inch gun of the 1913 model of the year, the design of the wheels, wheel chocks, and the barrel were almost entirely taken from the mountain cannon, and the gun carriage was largely preserved.

76-mm short gun model 1913 of the year


After the end of the First World War and the Civil War, the process of rethinking the military experience gained began, which was expressed in the final design of the concept of the regimental gun. Already in 1924, the military leadership of the Red Army, after numerous discussions, made a decision in principle to develop a regimental cannon in the country. The military came to the conclusion that the 1922-mm gun of the 76 model of the year introduced into the regimental artillery in 1902 was of little use for this purpose. Among its main shortcomings were indicated: the excessive size of the gun, its bulkiness; the inability to roll the gun more than 50 meters by the forces of 6 people; lack of howitzers of the gun (the projectile had a gentle trajectory due to a rather high initial velocity); insufficient level of transportability (six horses were harnessed).

The task for the development of the draft of the new regimental weapon was issued by the Design Bureau of the Artillery and Artillery Trust (OAT), which was headed by S. P. Shukalov. The design of the gun was completed by the end of 1925 of the year, and already at the beginning of 1926, the first prototype was built. His tests were conducted at the Klementyevsky range of the Leningrad Military District and the Research Artillery range, they were held from January to June of the 1927 year. During the tests, a decision was made on the inexpediency of increasing the initial velocity of a projectile over 381 m / s (at higher speeds, the instability of the gun and a large scatter of shells were noted during firing). Also, the military expressed their wishes to increase the maximum angle of elevation of the gun and the maximum speed of the regimental gun.

After the implementation of all necessary improvements at the beginning of 1928, this tool was adopted by the Red Army. In doing so, it received the official name of the 76-mm regimental gun model 1927 of the year. All further work aimed at improving this artillery piece was transferred to ATK - the Artillery Technical Office of the Putilov Works, where it eventually began its mass production. The first serial regimental guns were transferred to the 22 army in December 1928.

76-mm Regimental Gun Model 1927 of the Year


The new regimental gun differed from the 76-mm short gun of the 1913 model of the year as follows: elongated chamber (334 mm instead of 203 mm); new combat axle; the presence of suspension (4-x screw springs); altered frontal part and the machine tool spatulas; new carriage wheel; changes in the shield and lifting mechanism; enhanced trunk part. After adopting the work to improve the gun did not stop. From 1929 to 1934, this regimental gun was subject to constant refinement.

The aim of the modifications carried out was to improve the manufacturability of the tool and simplify its design, as well as to improve the performance characteristics of the gun. Works on modernization were carried out in ATK under the leadership of I. A. Makhanov and A. A. Monakov. Thus, in the 1929, the plant introduced some simplifications and changes to the design of the bolt; in 1930, the fastened round gun barrel was replaced with a monoblock. In the same year, a new metal wheel with rubber weights was designed for the gun, this wheel allowed to bring the maximum speed of transportation of the regimental cannon to 25 km / h. At the same time, it was only in 1934 that we succeeded in completely replacing the old version of the "shelf" in production with wooden wheels.

The crew of the 76-mm regimental cannon of the 1927 model consisted of 7 people: the commander of the gun, the loader, the gunner, the lock, the right and two boxes. According to the staffing table in the regimental artillery batteries of the following units of the Red Army, there should have been: regiments of rifle divisions - 6 guns in the battery until July 1941, after - 4 guns; in the cavalry regiments - 4 guns; in motorized rifle regiments of mechanized and tank divisions - 4 guns; in the artillery division of rifle brigades - 4 guns. After the adoption in 1943 of the updated 76-mm regimental gun of the 1943 model, this staffing table did not change.

76-mm Regimental Gun Model 1927 of the Year


Already by the middle of the 1930-ies, that is, less than 10 years after being put into service, the regimental cannon of the 1927 model of the year passed into the category of obsolete artillery systems. The main drawbacks of the guns were the small angles of vertical and horizontal pickup, the low rate of fire due to the outdated piston bolt, and the low speed of the gun. It was criticized by the military and the relatively weak ballistics of a regimental gun, which limited the maximum range of its firing, as well as armor penetration. It is worth noting that at the time of the creation of the gun most of the tanks in the world possessed only anti-bullet armor - 10-20 mm, they were vulnerable to the shells of the regimental gun, and not only armor-piercing. However, the appearance of tanks with anti-missile armor abroad, which were resistant to the penetration of its 76-mm armor-piercing shells, high-explosive grenades and shrapnel, which were “hit”, exposed this problem.

The problem could be solved either by a deep modernization of the existing cannon, or the development of a completely new regimental cannon. At the same time in 1936, all work on the modernization of the existing guns were stopped. These attempts showed the impossibility of a qualitative increase in the characteristics of the regimental cannon while maintaining the existing mast, as a result, it was decided to create a new gun. However, it was possible to bring these works to a logical conclusion only in 1943, and not at the first attempt. At the same time, in 1942, in the USSR, cumulative shells of 76-mm caliber were developed and put into service, which provided armor penetration around 70-mm at all reasonable combat distances. This eliminated the need for a serious modernization of the gun itself and an increase in the initial velocity of its projectile.

Serial production of the 76-mm regimental gun of the 1927 model of the year continued from 1928 to 1943 a year, while up to 1941, the gun was manufactured at the Putilov (Kirov) plant in Leningrad. And in 1942-1943 in the factory number 172 in Perm. During this time around 18 thousands of such guns were released. From 1943 to 1946, the factory 172 produced the 76-mm regimental gun of the model 1943 of the year (GAU index - 52-П-344), which replaced the outdated tool of the 1927 model of the year. Such guns were collected 5192 pieces. They were in service with the Soviet Army in the postwar period, and even were supplied to the armies of other countries, in particular to China, Poland and the DPRK. This tool took part in the Korean War.

76-mm Regimental Gun Model 1927 of the Year


Structurally, the 76-mm regimental gun of the 1943 model of the year was a light weapon with weak ballistics on a sprung carriage with sliding beds. The gun carriage and anti-recoil devices were taken from the 45-mm anti-tank gun of the 1942 model of the year with minor changes, sights and bolts were taken from the regimental gun of the 1927 model of the year. The barrel for the new gun was redesigned. Compared with its predecessor, the "colonel" of the 1943 model of the year won significantly in mobility (the weight of the gun was less, and the speed of carriage was higher), as well as in the corners of horizontal guidance. The best angles allowed the calculation to more efficiently maneuver the fire and fight with enemy armored vehicles. At the same time, the new gun was inferior in range and accuracy. Although, as experts note, for a regimental gun, which is mainly intended for hitting targets that are within the line of sight of the calculation, this was not a serious disadvantage or advantage.

76-mm regimental guns of the 1927 model of the year were actively used in combat. They were used in all pre-war conflicts involving the Red Army: in battles with the Japanese at Lake Hassan and on the Khalkhin Gol River (14 cannons were lost in battles, 7 of them was irrevocable), in the Soviet-Finnish war of 1939-1940 (67 weapons were lost ), in the Polish campaign of the Red Army 1939 of the year. As of June 1941, the Red Army units contained 4708 regimental cannons of the 1927 model, including 2296 cannons as part of the troops of the Western military districts. In 1941-1942, these regimental weapons suffered very heavy losses, but they were able to compensate for them by releasing a significant amount of new tools of this model. Although the gun was discontinued in 1943, it was still used in the army until the end of the war. The interesting features of this gun attributed its aerotransportability, which turned out to be in demand in practice. At the end of 1941, in the besieged Leningrad, 457 of these guns was released, which were delivered by aircraft under Moscow, where they provided considerable assistance to the Soviet troops.

The regimental gun was intended almost exclusively for direct fire. During the offensive, such weapons by the forces of calculation had to follow right in the advancing orders of the infantry, in order to quickly suppress enemy fire weapons that impede the advancement of troops — artillery guns, mortars, machine-gun nests, and various firing points. During the defensive battles, the "regiments" were also in the combat formations of the infantry, firing at the advancing infantry of the enemy, and, if necessary, at armored targets. The specificity of the use of regimental guns led to significant losses in both calculations and the material part. At the same time, along with battalion artillery (45-mm cannons) and mortars, regimental cannons were the only artillery pieces that were located directly in combat formations and had the ability to quickly hit detected targets. Due to the relatively small mass and size, such artillery systems were actively used during amphibious operations, forcing rivers, during urban battles.

76-mm Regimental Gun Model 1943 of the Year


Tactical and technical characteristics of the 76-mm regimental gun mod. 1927 G .:

Caliber - 76,2 mm.
Barrel length - 16,5 calibers.
Rate of Fire - 10 rds / min
The maximum firing range - 8550 m.
The height of the line of fire - 945 mm.
Vertical guidance angles: from −5,6 to + 24,5 degrees.
Horizontal guidance angles: 4,5 degrees.
Weight in the fighting position - 903-920 kg (on metal wheels).
Weight in the stowed position - 1620 kg (with front end and servants).
The speed of carriage on the highway - 25 km / h.
Calculation - 7 people.

Information sources:
http://www.opoccuu.com/polkovushka.htm
http://www.battlefield.ru/76mm-model1927.html
http://operation-barbarossa.narod.ru/artelleria/76-mm-ob25.htm
http://technicamolodezhi.ru/rubriki_tm/artilleriyskie_sistemyi_velikoy_otechestvennoy_voynyi_1971_god/polkovushka_76-mm_polkovaya_pushka_obraztsa_1943_goda
Open source materials
Author:
42 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. bionik
    bionik 31 December 2015 07: 14
    12
    In the soldier’s vocabulary, these guns were known as “regiments”, they were also affectionately called “bobiks”.I heard another name "snub-nosed".
  2. APASUS
    APASUS 31 December 2015 12: 38
    11
    I was on an expedition to the Caucasus, there the defenders of the Marukh Pass dragged a similar gun into the mountains. But I still don’t understand. These are not just soldiers, but people with steel nerves and cast-iron muscles. We were young guys who did their best, and then the gun, the ammunition , personal weapons, cartridges ...............
    1. igordok
      igordok 31 December 2015 13: 57
      +5
      Quote: APASUS
      I was on an expedition to the Caucasus, there the defenders of the Marukh Pass dragged a similar gun into the mountains. But I still don’t understand. These are not just soldiers, but people with steel nerves and cast-iron muscles. We were young guys who did their best, and then the gun, the ammunition , personal weapons, cartridges ............

      Perhaps you saw the 76-mm mountain cannon of the 1938 model of the year, it is somewhat lighter than a regiment, but to drag it into the mountains and it will be difficult.
      1. anew
        anew 31 December 2015 15: 26
        +4
        Better it looks like this:
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. APASUS
        APASUS 1 January 2016 17: 54
        +1
        Quote: igordok
        Perhaps you saw the 76-mm mountain cannon of the 1938 model of the year, it is somewhat lighter than a regiment, but to drag it into the mountains and it will be difficult.

        Perhaps, but it doesn’t change the essence
  3. Leader
    Leader 31 December 2015 12: 52
    +2
    Talking about weapons systems, it is necessary to show ammunition.
    Any weapon is a device for activating ammunition. Which does all the "work"!
    1. igordok
      igordok 31 December 2015 13: 41
      +1
      Ammunition for 76mm guns of ground, tank and self-propelled artillery - https://yadi.sk/i/7foCecJJmcVht
      Ammunition 76mm Album (Appendix) .djv - https://yadi.sk/d/p4hUHO7rmcVk4
      Excerpt from the book.


    2. anew
      anew 8 January 2016 12: 23
      +1
      Quote: Leader
      Talking about weapons systems, it is necessary to show ammunition.

      Oooooooooooooooo.
      This is a great topic. Especially concerns ammunition for "divisional" guns. Poems can be written. In verse. And show the children. How not to do it.
      The epic is 11 (!!!) years long. It ended in complete failure. At the so-called. "Divisions" not only were ballistics sucks, they also had crappy ammunition.
      In general, it is amazing how the Bolsheviks armed the Red Army. Indeed, "the academies did not finish." This is me about the 30s, if that.
      In the late 30s, the GAU leadership realized this. And since 1941. "divisions" were to remain ONLY on tanks. A very correct decision, I must say. Because they were not at all suitable for field artillery. And since the early 30s. But the war began. And then agitprop did its job.
  4. moskowit
    moskowit 31 December 2015 13: 19
    12
    My father, a disabled person and a veteran of the Great War, an artilleryman, ended the war as the chief of intelligence of the division, in his stories he always mentioned this weapon. I, as a person, was inadequate in artillery systems at that time, believed that the Father meant ZIS-3, especially since they, like T-34, stood as monuments in many settlements, perpetuating the heroism of our people.
    Only later, having studied the artillery of the Red Army from books, I realized what weapon Father was telling me about ... And now I regret a lot that I have missed. After all, he could have learned in great detail, "firsthand" about the combat path of an excellent gun that remained in the "shadow" of the famous Grabin cannon ...
  5. anew
    anew 31 December 2015 14: 12
    +3
    Regimental 76-mm gun - "the regiment"

    Field artillery, like small arms, was not the forte of the Red Army. So this 76-mm regimental gun of the 1927 model was good according to the principle: "this is better than nothing." And she really could not support anything, neither the infantry nor the cavalry. The power of its fragmentation projectile was comparable to the power of the 82-mm Soviet battalion mortar. The penetration of its armor-piercing projectile was comparable to the penetration of the Soviet obsolete 37-mm anti-tank missile defense model 1930 1-K (in the tank version of the B-3 or 5-K). And there is nothing to compare the weight of artillery systems.
    But more about everything.
    After analyzing the experience of WW1, the leading countries of the world from the universal guns (76-mm to that a vivid example), which were bad in all specific areas of application, refused. Someone switched to specialized systems, i.e. to the bundles of anti-tank guns + mortar. Someone, such as the Germans, "perverted" with cumulative ammunition for the same universal guns. And this actually turning them into anti-tank. This approach was generally cheaper, despite the fact that the ammunition itself was more expensive.
    Not stayed away from these trends and the Red Army. A wide range of mortars was adopted. And since the beginning of 1941. all 76 mm field guns were discontinued. As unnecessary. In exchange for them, the anti-tank ZIS-2 mod. 1941 Those. there is a typical first path.
    In theory, everything is correct and hurt yourself. But it was smooth on paper ...
    ZIS-2 arr. 1941, as a mass gun, did not happen. For the reason that it could not have happened. In fact, this gun did not go beyond the scope of pilot production for production reasons. Therefore, they did it little and very expensive. And at the end of 1941. generally removed from production. To not interfere.
    And in exchange in the summer of 1941. restored and even expanded the production of 76-mm field wagons (regiment and division). In fact, there are few suitable products at the 1MV level. Again, this is better than nothing.
    And then began the search for a replacement for the ZIS-2 mod. 1941 They tried to close the problem not with one breakthrough design, but little by little from all sides.
    Here you can recall the new armor-piercing ammunition (45 and 76 mm) with Hartz locators.
    And ZIS-3 arr. 1942 As interesting in terms of manufacturability and cheaper production, as sloppy in terms of outdated ballistics of the 1МВ level.
    And the new 45-mm gun M-42 mod. 1942, which was made according to the "ultimate" scheme. Such a gun, and even with shells with localizers, would be entirely appropriate in 1941. And so, there was little sense, because the reservation of German tanks by that time had increased very much. And the M-42 gave an increase in armor penetration, but not a colossal one.
    Also in 1943. purchased equipment from the Americans and re-established the production of ZIS-2. It was slightly different from the old, so it was arr. 1943 These guns didn’t do the “weather” because production capacities were small.
    Here one cannot but recall the product of the second ("German") path. This is the "regiment" OB-25 arr. 1943 It was quite a good anti-tank gun. Especially with a BP-350M shell. But she began to enter the army only in 1944. In addition, shooting with cumulative shells has its own specifics.
    Well, in general, the S-53 should be recognized as the best anti-tank gun of the Red Army of the second half of the Second World War. This is the cannon of the T-34/85, if anyone does not know. The trouble here is that this gun went into the army also in 1944. Tanks do not fight tanks, say? Oh well.
    1. Alf
      Alf 31 December 2015 18: 06
      +6
      Quote: anew
      And since the beginning of 1941. all 76 mm field guns were discontinued. As unnecessary. In exchange for them, the anti-tank ZIS-2 mod. 1941 Those. there is a typical first path.

      Do not mix sour with square. Instead of guns arr. In 1927, in 1937, the divisional 76 mm F-22 gun was launched into production, in 1939 the F-22 was removed from the series with the replacement for the F-22USV. ANTI-TANK ZIS-2 went to replace the 45 mm anti-tank gun. How can an anti-tank gun replace a divisional one — can you explain?
      Quote: anew
      The power of her fragmentation shell was comparable to the power of 82-mm mines of the Soviet battalion mortar.

      That's just the gun could fire direct fire, and the mortar could not do this by definition.
      Quote: anew
      Well, in general, the S-53 should be recognized as the best anti-tank gun of the Red Army of the second half of the Second World War. This is the cannon of the T-34/85 tank, if anyone does not know. The trouble here is that this gun went into the army also in 1944.

      And where does the ZIS-S-53? This is a tank gun and could not go into artillery.
      1. anew
        anew 31 December 2015 18: 47
        -1
        Quote: Alf
        Do not mix sour with square.

        I do not have such a habit. And I do not advise you.
        Quote: Alf
        in 1939, the F-22 was withdrawn from the series with the replacement for the F-22USV.

        Take an interest in what year and when it was discontinued F-22USV. And after what event its production was restored.
        Quote: Alf
        ANTI-TANK ZIS-2 went to replace the 45 mm anti-tank gun

        And who is arguing?
        Quote: Alf
        How can an anti-tank gun replace a divisional one — can you explain?

        Read the text carefully. No divisional cannon since 1941. in the Red Army was no longer planned. As unnecessary. It was planned to "inform" the old, and the new from 1941. was no longer produced. The production of the ZIS-2 mod. 1941 It actually even started. But unsuccessfully, only within the limits of the pilot production.
        In fact, there was no divisional gun in the Red Army during the Second World War. What was officially called the "ZIS-3 divisional cannon" was actually used as a conventional anti-tank gun. Only very unimportant, because of its unimportant performance characteristics. Those. it was an unimportant and forced replacement of the ZIS-2 arr. 1941 Because of its performance characteristics (weight, dimensions, projectile n / a, etc.), the ZIS-3 remained "divisional". On the paper.
        By the way, the ZIS-3 mod. 1942 is, roughly speaking, the same as the German ersatz gun Pak 97/38 arr. 1941. Moreover, even in the smallest detail, even the diesel fuel of the ZIS-3 "German" type. Only among the Germans it was honestly called Panzerabwehrkanone (anti-tank), while in the Red Army it was slyly and in the old way called “divisional”. Their barrel group had the same roots, this is the French Canon de 75 mle 1897. And the functions were the same.
        Quote: Alf
        That's just the gun could fire direct fire, and the mortar could not do this by definition.

        Have you ever read my comment? And if you read, then you understand what is written there? And here is direct fire from a mortar? What kind of advantage is this odd for a regiment, if there is still a specialized anti-tank gun? Which is just should was to shoot direct fire. And power regimental mortar as an example? To be clear, it was approximately equal to a 152 mm howitzer shell. Is it clear to you what they planned to replace the "regiment"?
        You are nothing about the pre-war rejection of the "universal", ie. bad in all specific tasks, they did not understand the guns. The whole world understood, and even then, but you did not, and even now.
        Quote: Alf
        where does the ZIS-S-53?

        And despite the fact that the T-34 / 85 tank became the main means of the VET. So understandable?
        1. Alf
          Alf 31 December 2015 19: 02
          +4
          Quote: anew
          And since the beginning of 1941. all 76 mm field guns were discontinued. As unnecessary. In exchange for them, the anti-tank ZIS-2 mod. 1941 Those. there is a typical first path.

          Quote: anew
          Quote: Alf
          ANTI-TANK ZIS-2 went to replace the 45 mm anti-tank gun
          And who is arguing?

          It was you who wrote that the ZIS-2 anti-tank gun was replacing a field gun.
          Quote: anew
          Quote: Alf
          That's just the gun could fire direct fire, and the mortar could not do this by definition.
          Have you ever read my comment? And if you read, then you understand what is written there? And here is direct fire from a mortar? What kind of advantage is this odd for a regiment, if there is still a specialized anti-tank gun?

          I wrote that the regiment could not be a substitute for a mortar, even with the same HE shell, which is not true.
          The 76th OFS projectile had a mass of 6,1 kg and an explosive mass of 540 to 815 grams.
          82-mm OFS mine had a mass of 3,31 kg and was equipped with 400 grams of explosives. The power of which weapon is higher?
          Quote: anew
          Quote: Alf
          where does the ZIS-S-53?
          And despite the fact that the T-34 / 85 tank became the main means of the VET. So understandable?

          The charter clearly states that artillery, not tanks, should fight with tanks. ZIS-S-53 was not an anti-tank gun for the reason that it was in the arsenal of the tank, but not parts of the PTO.
          1. anew
            anew 31 December 2015 19: 54
            -1
            Quote: Alf
            It was you who wrote that the ZIS-2 anti-tank gun was replacing a field gun.

            The new anti-tank gun replaced both the field gun and the old anti-tank gun. So understandable?
            Quote: Alf
            I wrote that the regiment could not be a substitute for a mortar, even with the same HE shell,

            And I wrote that the old "universal" guns were planned to be replaced with a mortar + anti-tank gun. As a result, it gave a significant gain in the power of fire. The "regiment", if divided into functions, was equivalent to a battalion mortar + the old 37-mm cannon of the PTO 1-K. And the regiment was planned to be armed with a regimental mortar + 45-mm (and then 57-mm) anti-tank gun. Did you notice the difference?
            Quote: Alf
            even with the same HE shell, which is not true.
            The 76th OFS projectile had a mass of 6,1 kg and an explosive mass of 540 to 815 grams.
            82-mm OFS mine had a mass of 3,31 kg and was equipped with 400 grams of explosives. The power of which weapon is higher?

            Power is not measured by this. Power is measured by the area of ​​continuous and actual defeat by fragments weighing more than 1 g.
            82-mm fragmentation mines 0–832 and 0–832D gave 400–600 killer fragments weighing more than 1 g. The radius of their continuous defeat was 6 m, and the actual defeat was 18 m.
            When the fuse was placed on the fragmentation action, the OF-350 projectile produced 600-800 killer fragments (weighing more than 1 g), creating an area of ​​continuous damage of 8 × 5 m in size and a real damage of 30 × 15 m in size.
            As you can see, the numbers are about the same. But once again I repeat, 82-mm mine, it is a battalion. If you compare the 120 mm regimental mine, then you will understand the difference.
            Quote: Alf
            The charter clearly states that artillery, not tanks, should fight with tanks.

            What was written in the charter?
            Quote: Alf
            ZIS-S-53 was not an anti-tank gun for the reason that it was in the arsenal of the tank, but not parts of the PTO.

            So what? If the artillery of the VET was dead, then what was to be done? Watch German tanks iron trenches? Like, excuse me, is it not written in the charter?
        2. Alf
          Alf 31 December 2015 19: 06
          +4
          Quote: anew
          Take an interest in what year and when it was discontinued F-22USV. And after what event its production was restored.

          Serial production of SPM began in 1939 at Plant No. 92. That year 140 guns were produced, in 1940 - 1010. In early 1941, SPM was discontinued. There were two reasons for this decision: firstly, the mobilization plan for the divisional guns was fully implemented (the mobilization reserve as of June 1, 1941 was 5730 guns, but there were 8513 guns); secondly, it was planned to switch to larger-caliber divisional guns (the 107-mm divisional cannon of the 1940 model (M-60) was already put into mass production).
          However, this reserve was not sufficient. Shortly after the outbreak of war, the head of the Main Artillery Directorate (GAU), Marshal G.I. Kulik, reported that there were no divisional guns in the warehouses of the GAU and that they could only be obtained from weapons factories [source not specified 1628 days].
          With the outbreak of war, according to the mobilization plan, the SPM production was re-deployed at factories No. 92 and Barricades. In 1941, 2616 guns were fired, in 1942 - 6046 of these guns. The production of SPM was discontinued at the end of 1942 due to the adoption of the new ZIS-3 divisional gun, which has several advantages over SPM. It is worth noting that the displacement of the SPM from production took place gradually, in particular, Plant No. 92 continued to produce SPD in 1942 (706 guns were manufactured), although in the late summer of 1941 the ZIS-3 was already manufactured at this plant.
          1. anew
            anew 31 December 2015 19: 23
            -1
            Quote: Alf
            This decision was explained by two reasons: firstly, the mobilization plan for the division guns was fully implemented (the mobilization reserve as of June 1, 1941 was 5730 guns, but there were 8513 guns)

            And why was it spread? What does this confirm? Most importantly, the capacities for their production were reconfigured to produce another gun. That matters. And where there and what was, it doesn’t matter.
            Quote: Alf
            secondly, it was planned to switch to larger-caliber divisional guns (the 107-mm divisional cannon of the 1940 model (M-60) was already put into mass production).

            Yes? Really? And how many of these M-60s were produced? It was the same vandervaflya them. Marshal Kulik, as well as ZIS-2 arr. 1941 He was still a profitarian.
            By the way, clause 1 contradicts clause 2. You and the 76-mm guns were divisions. And 107 mm. Can you estimate the difference in the power of these shells? It is different at times. There cannot be such different "divisional guns". Doesn't happen in nature.
            Quote: Alf
            With the outbreak of war, according to the mobilization plan, the SPM production was re-deployed at factories No. 92 and Barricades.

            Of course. After all, ZIS-2 arr. 1941 it was never mastered by production. But something had to be fought. here they fought with weapons of the 1MV level.
            1. hohol95
              hohol95 1 January 2016 00: 30
              +1
              The answer about the chief specialist in the entire Soviet and world military-industrial complex to such a question - the British howitzer 95-mm infantry howitzer QF 3,7-in 1943 is better than the soviet cannon of 1927 adopted for service or the ZIS-3 battalion (yes, even the F-22; F- 22USV) or the inhabitants of the ISLANDS had "shoals" ???
              1. anew
                anew 1 January 2016 01: 00
                -1
                Quote: hohol95
                british howitzer 95 mm infantry howitzer QF 3,7-in 1943

                I don't know anything about such a howitzer. I'm afraid the rest, too.
                1. Alf
                  Alf 1 January 2016 14: 24
                  +3
                  Quote: anew
                  I don't know anything about such a howitzer. I'm afraid the rest, too.

                  In 1942, it was decided to develop a light howitzer for the British infantry battalions. However, at that time, the developers could not make a proper analysis of the tactical and technical characteristics of the infantry artillery in service with countries such as Germany and the USA. Therefore, when developing tools, the best technical solutions implemented in existing tools were used. Knots of various guns were used to create it, for example, the barrel was taken from a 94-mm (3,7-inch) anti-aircraft gun, the bolt mechanism from a 25-pound field gun, and the recoil system from a 6-pound anti-tank gun.
                  In order to simplify the design task, shells from an old 32-inch howitzer and some tank turret guns were to be used for firing from a new gun. This gun was named the light infantry 95 mm howitzer Mk II. This name was chosen to distinguish this gun from other 95-mm and 94-mm guns.
                  1. anew
                    anew 1 January 2016 14: 50
                    0
                    Quote: Alf
                    This gun was named the light infantry 95 mm howitzer Mk II.

                    This gun was not. They tried to do it, but he was not there. The military tests did not pass, fell asleep.
                    Quote: Alf
                    the barrel was taken from a 94-mm (3,7-inch) anti-aircraft gun

                    Do you know the barrel length of the anti-aircraft QF 3.7-inch AA? Do you know the differences between howitzers and guns? And especially anti-aircraft.
                    And they write anything on the Internet. There you can also find not such "weapon systems".
                    In addition, hohol95 proposed to compare this howitzer with the Soviet cannon arr. 1927 How can you compare a gun with a howitzer? It is like warm with soft comparing.
                  2. The comment was deleted.
              2. The comment was deleted.
        3. shasherin.pavel
          shasherin.pavel 31 December 2015 19: 32
          +2
          Quote: anew
          And despite the fact that the T-34 / 85 tank became the main means of the VET. So understandable?

          You have an interesting debate, but only now, the field guns, and not the T-34-85, can boast of the greatest victories over German tanks. And with Lavrinenko, all three T-34 1941 were with 57 mm gun. And how he was blasphemed because of too fast barrel wear ..
          Quote: anew
          The power of her fragmentation shell was comparable to the power of the 82-mm mine of the Soviet battalion mortar

          Which, in terms of impact against infantry, is put in second place after machine guns. It must be remembered that a three kilogram mine carried V.V. up to 1.2 kg and this is a little more than the mass of V.V. in anti-tank grenade.
          1. Alf
            Alf 31 December 2015 19: 39
            +2
            Quote: shasherin.pavel
            It must be remembered that a three kilogram mine carried up to 1.2 kg V.V.

            Can you prove about 1, 2 kg?
            1. hohol95
              hohol95 1 January 2016 00: 33
              +3
              From Wikipedia:
              For firing from an 82-mm mortar, high-explosive fragmentation shells, six-feather and ten-feather mines and six-feather smoke mines, as well as an agitation mine, were used.

              The 82-mm six-armed fragment fragmentation mine O-832 weighed 3,31 kg (equipped with additional charges - 3,4 kg) and carried 400 grams of explosives. A mine explosion gave 400-600 fragments, which ensured the defeat of manpower within a radius of sixty meters from the gap.
              The 82-mm ten-fifth fragmentation mine O-832D also weighed 3,31 kg (equipped with additional charges - 3,4 kg) and carried 400 grams of explosives.
              82-mm smoke six-armed mine D-832 weighed 3,67 kg.
              A 82-mm A-832 ​​propaganda mine weighed 4,6 kg.
              In practice, during the Great Patriotic War, not only regular 82-mm Soviet, but also captured 81-mm German, as well as 81-mm American mines supplied under the lend-lease were fired from a mortar (it was only necessary to compile tables with an amendment to the sight data ) [24].

              The case of 82-mm pre-war mortar mortars was cast from cast iron using model-rod equipment, however, after the start of World War II, there was a need to increase the production of mines and their production at non-specialized enterprises. In 1942, a technology was developed for additional machining of the head and tail parts of the cast body of an 82-mm mortar shell using copiers installed on multi-cutter machines [25].
              1. Alf
                Alf 1 January 2016 16: 14
                +3
                Quote: hohol95
                From Wikipedia:

                I wonder who minusanul colleague HOHOL and me about the weight of explosives in a mine? Probably the next troll. Apparently, there is nothing to object, but I want to suck on the principle.
          2. anew
            anew 31 December 2015 20: 28
            -1
            Quote: shasherin.pavel
            It’s the field guns, and not the T-34-85, that can boast the greatest results of victories over German tanks.

            Estimate how many of these same field weapons were, and how many were the T-34/85. And how many tanks they destroyed. The advantage of the T-34/85 will be complete.
            In addition, do not forget, the T-34/85 fought with German tanks arr. 1944 Those. not with those tins with which the Wehrmacht entered the war on 22.06.41/XNUMX/XNUMX.
            1. hohol95
              hohol95 1 January 2016 00: 34
              +2
              And how much was the T-34-85?
    2. Stilet
      Stilet 2 January 2016 20: 20
      0
      Forgive me, but you have some "strange" conclusions and statements of facts. Everyone knows that the F-22SV universal gun was replaced with the ZIS-3, because in production, the second was cheaper and, more importantly, less laborious in production. And the ZIS-2 was suspended in 1941 due to excessive armor penetration and low armor impact, because the initial projectile speed of over 1200 m / s made it possible to penetrate all existing types of Wehrmacht tanks in 1941. through. In 1943. its production was resumed in connection with the appearance of new modifications of the T-IY tanks and "tigers". As for the ballistics of the ZIS-3, you shouldn't have been - an excellent support weapon.
      1. anew
        anew 2 January 2016 22: 30
        +2
        Quote: Stilet
        Everyone knows that the universal F-22SV gun was replaced by the ZIS-3, because in production, the second was cheaper and, what is important, less labor-intensive in production.

        And who argues with this? F-22USV in 1942 was replaced by ZIS-3. This is undeniable. What bothers you? What for 1941. were there any other plans? There were. But did not happen.
        Quote: Stilet
        And the ZIS-2 was suspended in 1941 due to excessive armor penetration and small armor impact

        But these are the tales of sofa theorists. And "gunsmith historians." To be convinced of this, it is enough to read the explanations of Comrade Grabin to members of the State Defense Committee on why he cannot provide an increase in the production of ZIS-2. This was followed by a decision of this very GKO to withdraw the ZIS-2 from production.
        By the way, what’s, the armored action of a shell in 1943. and then somehow changed? No. All the same was the shell. So, this is a fairy tale.
        unnecessarily, the initial projectile speed of more than 1200 m / s allowed penetrating all existing types of Wehrmacht tanks in 1941. through.

        Directly everything, but only put in one row. And only plywood layouts. This is nonsense, about "through and through". Not even worth discussing.
        In fact, the speed of the armor-piercing projectile ZIS-2 was 990 m / s.
        In 1943. its production was resumed in connection with the appearance of new modifications of the T-IY tanks and "tigers".

        The side armor and forehead of the tower of the Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.F1 model (April 1941) did not differ at all from the side armor and the forehead of the tower of the Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.J model (last model, June 1944). A frontal reservation of the hull has not changed fundamentally, because 50 mm armor was cemented, and 80 mm was homogeneous.
        Tigers appeared in the summer of 1942. And ZIS-2 arr. 1943 appeared in the summer of 1943. Why not in the autumn of 1942, if it was in them and no extra. equipment to launch ZIS-2 in production was not required?
        Quote: Stilet
        And about the ZIS-3 ballistics, it’s for nothing that you are an excellent instrument of support.

        Can you confirm your words with something? In terms of numbers?
    3. 11 black
      11 black 8 January 2016 11: 55
      0
      Quote: anew
      And ZIS-3 arr. 1942 As interesting in terms of manufacturability and cheaper production, as sloppy in terms of outdated ballistics of the 1МВ level.

      In addition to the technology of reducing the cost of production, the ZIS-3 combined high rate of fire, excellent mobility of the gun (a small mass allowed the gun to be rolled onto the battlefield only by calculation forces), while the gun had sufficient high-explosive action to defeat infantry accumulations, sufficient accuracy and simply unsurpassed reliability.
      As for the anti-tank capabilities, before 43, any enemy tank could be knocked out of it from the 800 range (except for Shtug-3). To defeat tigers and panthers, the ZIS-3 was not a powerful weapon (it was impossible to hit the tiger in the forehead, Panther only with 300 meters) But by the beginning of 44, sub-caliber and cumulative shells had hit the troops, which made it possible to confidently hit Panther's armor.
      What kind of "slop" speech, what is called just to spit - minus.
    4. 11 black
      11 black 8 January 2016 11: 55
      -1
      Quote: anew
      And ZIS-3 arr. 1942 As interesting in terms of manufacturability and cheaper production, as sloppy in terms of outdated ballistics of the 1МВ level.

      In addition to the technology of reducing the cost of production, the ZIS-3 combined high rate of fire, excellent mobility of the gun (a small mass allowed the gun to be rolled onto the battlefield only by calculation forces), while the gun had sufficient high-explosive action to defeat infantry accumulations, sufficient accuracy and simply unsurpassed reliability.
      As for the anti-tank capabilities, before 43, any enemy tank could be knocked out of it from the 800 range (except for Shtug-3). To defeat tigers and panthers, the ZIS-3 was not a powerful weapon (it was impossible to hit the tiger in the forehead, Panther only with 300 meters) But by the beginning of 44, sub-caliber and cumulative shells had hit the troops, which made it possible to confidently hit Panther's armor.
      What kind of "slop" are we talking about, what do you mean by "outdated ballistics", what foreign weapon of the same production time has "outdated"? - what is called just to spit - minus.
      1. anew
        anew 8 January 2016 12: 56
        -1
        Quote: 11 black
        the small mass allowed the cannon to be rolled onto the battlefield only by calculation forces

        Well yes. Do not fantasize.
        Quote: 11 black
        at the same time, the gun had sufficient high-explosive action to defeat accumulations of infantry

        Weak At the level battalion mortar.
        Quote: 11 black
        and simply unrivaled reliability.

        What doesn't break in the first 15 minutes is called "unrivaled reliability"?
        Quote: 11 black
        As for the anti-tank capabilities, up to the age of 43, it was possible to knock any enemy tank from a distance of 800m into it from the forehead

        I completely agree with you. Only one hitch, for this it was necessary to have armor-piercing shells. And with this it was tight, divisions were not planned in anti-tank. And armor-piercing shells were issued, but not enough, only for tank guns.
        Therefore, they mainly shot shrapnel "on impact". German tanks of the first echelon (there were about 1300 units) did not penetrate this vanderwafle at all. Even point blank.
        Quote: 11 black
        But by the beginning of 44, subcaliber and cumulative shells hit the troops, which made it possible to confidently hit Panther's armor.

        Allowed. But usually no further than 500m. And the gun was large. Therefore, it was no longer anti-tank, but ambush artillery. And not every Panther was ambushed.
        Quote: 11 black
        What kind of "suck" we are talking about, what do you mean by "outdated ballistics"

        Think yourself, since such a minus signer. Think if you can.
        Quote: 11 black
        what foreign instrument of the same production time possesses an "outdated"

        Cool. It's cool to look for analogs, considering that there were no "divisions" in the normal armies of the world after WW1 at all. Finally.
        But the normal anti-tank guns, and the so-called. The "divisions" were in fact anti-tank guns, only they were called differently, I can remember. This is not a ZIS-2, no, by no means. These are the British 6-pdr Mk.II (1 half of the war) and Mk IV (the second half of the war) and the American M1. I would not call the German Pak 40 successful either. The cannon was strange. The Germans generally had a lot of strange weapons. Yet as gunsmiths, they have traditionally been on a fat ass. Well, they don't know how, what can you do?
        1. 11 black
          11 black 8 January 2016 13: 26
          0
          Quote: anew
          Well yes. Do not fantasize.


          Watch the video on 3 minutes 6 seconds, fantasize, yeah ...
          Quote: anew
          And armor-piercing shells were issued, but not enough, only for tank guns.

          That's what armor-piercing shells were enough in 43 year, it is far from 41 ...
          Quote: anew
          Therefore, they mainly shot shrapnel "on strike"

          Shrapnel belay on tanks fool "On blow" is how ??? How can you shoot shrapnel at a tank to strike)))) laughing laughing laughing I am under the table...

          Quote: anew
          Allowed. But usually no further than 500m.

          For cumulative ammunition, there is no difference in distance to the target
          Quote: anew
          This is the British 6-pdr Mk.II (1 half of the war) and Mk IV (second half of the war) and the American M1.

          You are comparing the caliber 57mm with 76mm, well, what a high-explosive action there can be more detailed ... well, so Zis-2 was no worse than these guns ...
          Quote: anew
          Think yourself, since such a minus signer. Think if you can.

          Since you affirm something, justify it - you cannot justify it, do not affirm it.
          Quote: anew
          Cool. It's cool to look for analogs, considering that there were no "divisions" in the normal armies of the world after WW1 at all.

          Normal armies of the world - well, this explains everything, normal armies of the world ... one fact - one of the strongest Japanese armies, the Kwantung, with the number of 800000 men, was defeated by far not the full strength of the USSR army in two weeks, the Red Army almost did not suffer any losses. And how many normal army of the world rode around the islands there?
          1. anew
            anew 8 January 2016 13: 57
            0
            Quote: 11 black
            Watch the video on 3 minutes 6 seconds, fantasize, yeah ...

            Stumble. Rolled over a dry, hard and even surface for 10 meters. How is the battlefield different from the rolled grader, do you know? What calculation of wartime from the calculation of military, in the know? Apparently, not even close to know. This is because you watch all sorts of cartoons about war.
            Quote: 11 black
            That's what armor-piercing shells were missing in 43

            The war began in 1943? You are directly reporting the news.
            Quote: 11 black
            Shrapnel belay on tanks fool "On strike" is it like ??? How can you shoot shrapnel at a tank to strike)))) laughing laughing laughing I'm under the table ...

            Here, under the table, and study the materiel, iksperd.
            Quote: 11 black
            For cumulative ammunition, there is no difference in distance to the target

            Rare iksperd. Do you know the speed of a cumulative projectile? Do not you know. So keep quiet.
            Quote: 11 black
            You compare the caliber 57mm with 76mm,

            And what else to compare if in fact there was only a three-inch anti-tank? By the way, as an anti-tank it was worse than 57 mm. Punched less.
            Quote: 11 black
            Well, what is there a high-explosive action in more detail.

            Iksperd, what the hell is the explosive action of an anti-tank gun? I read the historians, artillerymen, seen enough cartoons about war, and now you carry verbal diarrhea.
            Quote: 11 black
            so Zis-2 was no worse than these guns ...

            Did you see the speed of her shell? Does this not tell you anything? Nothing? Well then keep quiet then. You’ll start to understand ballistics, write. And look at the length of the barrel. Here, even ballistics are not necessary.
            Quote: 11 black
            Since you affirm something, justify it - you cannot justify it, do not affirm it.

            Yeah. Now pull up my pants. Politely need to ask. And then he puts a minus, and immediately asks a question. Figwam. Do not know how, do not get. Watch cartoons about guns.
            Quote: 11 black
            one fact - one of the strongest Japanese armies, Kwantung

            You’ll tell the boy that. About a strong Kwantung army.
            Anyway, it's better to keep silent about it. On violation of the USSR non-aggression pact with Japan. Violating the contract is somehow considered not very beautiful.
      2. BV330
        BV330 8 January 2016 17: 41
        0
        11 to Black.
        76mm USV and ZMS-3 were the main tools of the division artillery. Let's compare them with the main tool of the Germans - 105mm light howitzer.
        You greatly exaggerate in terms of pt capabilities - nominally the ZiS-3 pierced 69mm at 500 meters, and 61mm at 1km, in reality the conditions are not always ideal, and the performance is falling. The quality of the shells also happens to fail. So it turned out that in duels for 42 years the Germans on T-4F2 had superiority in the ratio of weapons-protection of the forehead.
        With Pantherina, it’s generally funny, she has an upper frontal sheet, according to our measurements, 85 mm thick, and even didn’t make her way through 85mm guns, not like 76mm with World Ballistics. And on the lower frontal 1mm should not be considered, because and rarely get into it when possible, and the terrain screen covers most often.
        PS: for reference, a 76mm sub-caliber at face value pierced 92mm at 500 meters, by 1km it was already worse than an armor piercing.
  6. saygon66
    saygon66 31 December 2015 14: 28
    0
    - It seemed there was a variant of a carriage on spoke wheels, like a motorcycle ...
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. saygon66
        saygon66 31 December 2015 15: 15
        0
        - Guilty! Refine: Cannon arr 43g., As in the last picture ...
        1. shasherin.pavel
          shasherin.pavel 31 December 2015 19: 35
          0
          Quote: saygon66
          as in the last picture ...

          where the carriage was made under license, copying the 37 mm anti-tank gun of the Wehrmacht.
  7. anew
    anew 31 December 2015 15: 22
    0
    Quote: saygon66
    It seemed to be a variant of a carriage on spoke wheels, like motorcycle ...

    Arr. 27g there were no motorcycles. At first it was with knitting needles. And then they began to make solid ones, it was believed that this strengthened the protection against fragments flying from the side.
  8. saygon66
    saygon66 31 December 2015 15: 25
    +4
    - That's about, such ...
    1. anew
      anew 31 December 2015 15: 30
      +3
      Quote: saygon66
      That's about, such ...

      This could be anything. The carriage was from forty-five. And that one had spoked wheels.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  9. 52
    52 31 December 2015 18: 46
    +1
    Normal tool for their tasks.
  10. hohol95
    hohol95 1 January 2016 00: 37
    +3
    German equivalent of our regimental
    75 mm infantry gun leIG. 18 1927

    After the end of World War I, the prevailing opinion among military experts was that the guns would be used primarily against tanks. To destroy enemy manpower, mortar installations were provided. But it quickly became clear that mortars were ineffective in battles against entrenched infantry, as well as long-barreled guns, which had a high initial velocity of the projectile.
    In Germany, this problem was solved by the development of the light anti-personnel gun leIG 18 of 75 mm caliber, which entered service with the Reichswehr in 1927. Before the outbreak of World War II, the Wehrmacht's infantry regiments included an artillery company armed with six 75 mm and two 150 mm cannons. Light LeIG 18 guns were also equipped with units of motorized and tank divisions. If necessary, the leIG 18 cannon could be used against enemy tanks and armored vehicles, but only at a distance of up to 300 m.

    leIG 18 was a short-barreled gun consisting of a barrel, a cradle with a recoil device, a single-beam sprung carriage, shield cover, wooden wheels, aiming mechanisms and sights. Since the gun did not have the usual shutter, its role was played by the breech of the slide, equipped with all the devices for firing a shot. When reloading, the breech of the barrel went up, the fired cartridge case was thrown out, a new one was driven, and after turning the crank the gun was ready to fire again. A single-beam carriage limited the horizontal aiming of the gun, not exceeding an angle of 6 °. The maximum elevation angle of the gun was 73,5 °. The leIG 18 ammunition included separate loading rounds, including high-explosive and high-explosive fragmentation shells. To combat the tanks, special cumulative shells were used, penetrating armor 300 mm thick at a distance of 90 m.

    The performance data of the 75-mm gun LeIG 18
    Caliber, mm: 75
    Weight in combat position, kg: 440
    Barrel length, calibres: 11,8
    Muzzle velocity (high-explosive fragmentation), m / s: 221
    Rate of fire, rds / min: 8-12
    Max. firing range, m: 3550
    Penetration with a cumulative projectile, mm: 75-90
    Weight of a high-explosive fragmentation projectile, kg: 5,5
    Data
    Country of origin Germany
    Designer
    Number of Issued
    Years of issue 1927
    1. anew
      anew 1 January 2016 01: 19
      -5
      Quote: hohol95
      German equivalent of our regimental
      75 mm infantry gun leIG. 18 1927

      And what do they have in common? Colonel, this is a cannon. And not even a howitzer. And not even a regimental gun, as it is written in its form. And judging by its mechanics, the anti-tank gun. But with bullshit anti-tank qualities. Because of the ballistics of the projectile. And bullshit shrapnel fire. Due to the mechanics of the gun carriage. Rubbish on all positions, in other words.
      German, this is a mortar gun. Ask what a mortar is. And how does it differ from a gun or howitzer.
      In addition, the leIG.18 was armed with a cumulative projectile. Ask how shells of this type "work". And why did the Soviet 76-mm anti-tank gun (listed as a regimental, but judging by the mechanics also have a "clean" anti-tank gun) mod. 1943 OB-25, also a short barrel. I hint that it, like leIG.18, also did not have an armor-piercing shell, but it had a cumulative one.
      Those. 7,5 cm leIG 18 has nothing to do with the regiment mod. 1927, neither with OB-25 had. These are diverse weapons systems. It’s the same as comparing a fighter with a helicopter.
  11. cdrt
    cdrt 2 January 2016 13: 35
    0
    You can understand why and how the German light cannon was used - rather close interaction with the assault groups, is fully integrated into their tactics - everything is clear.
    Ours - more like "so it was" - I have a clear gap in the tactics of the infantry, the ability to carry out mounted fire at short distances is limited. In principle, the niche is not clear.
  12. tokens3
    tokens3 2 January 2016 14: 01
    0
    Still, it should be noted that the Wehrmacht had weapons according to the time and "needs" on the battlefield.
    And what can I say ... everything is compared in terms of weight and dimensions, transported weapons. The Wehrmacht was clearly not going to spend extra "horsepower" on guns since the end of the First World War. Everything is in moderation. For disorganized infantry in a boiler, it is the most.
    The Soviet leadership, as always, swung at a ruble ... and even the "kopeck" could not motorize. So the forty-fives rolled to Moscow.
    In a rapidly changing environment at the fronts.
    But in conditions of sufficient inferiority of German tanks, this did not need a giant Stalinist fleet.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Alf
      Alf 2 January 2016 19: 29
      +4
      Quote: Lexi3
      . The Wehrmacht was clearly not going to spend extra "horsepower" on guns since the end of the First World War. Everything is in measure. For disorganized infantry in a boiler, it is the most.
      The Soviet leadership, as always, swung at a ruble ... and even the "kopeck" could not motorize. So the forty-fives rolled to Moscow.

      But the Wehrmacht was mechanized according to "I don't want to".
      1. tokens3
        tokens3 2 January 2016 19: 46
        0
        Alf
        But the Wehrmacht was mechanized according to "I don't want to".

        Yes. In the tank and motorized divisions of the Wehrmacht.

        WESTERN FRONT
        1. SECURITY OF MECHANIZED BODIES TO THE BEGINNING OF WAR
        Provision of the 5th, 6th, 7th, 11th, 13th, 14th, 17th and 20th mechanized corps with combat and auxiliary material parts, ammunition, fuels and lubricants and their deployment before entering the battle with the Nazis:
        a) Mechanized corps (excluding the first three) were equipped with combat and auxiliary material part by 15–20%. The artillery units that make up the mechanized corps, the artillery material and tractors were equipped with about 10-15%, did not have the required number of combat kits for both field artillery and tanks, immediately the mechanized corps began to feel a lack of armor-piercing shells for 76- and 45-mm guns. The combat material part, on the basis of which mechanized corps were deployed and with which they entered the battle, consisted mainly of [T] 26, BT-2, BT-5 and BT-7 with an average power reserve 75-100 hours.

        By the way, yes. The Wehrmacht also "galloped" the Red Army in horses on June 22, 1941.
        I hope this photo is the best proof: that Guderin’s tanks were not really such a formidable force.
        With the right approach, of course.
    3. Alf
      Alf 2 January 2016 19: 31
      0
      But the Wehrmacht was mechanized "I don't want to".
      1. tokens3
        tokens3 2 January 2016 19: 51
        +1
        Well, apparently you do not need to explain that this photo is not from 1941.
        1. anew
          anew 2 January 2016 21: 30
          0
          In addition to the well-known drawbacks and advantages of horse-drawn traction, for some reason, one more advantage is rarely recalled. Horse-drawn traction is dry on its own. Remember the memoirs of how unaccustomed horse meat was cooked and eaten in boilers. You won’t bite a tire from a jeep.
          1. Alf
            Alf 2 January 2016 21: 36
            +2
            Quote: anew
            In addition to the well-known drawbacks and advantages of horse-drawn traction, for some reason, one more advantage is rarely recalled.

            In addition, the cavalry has another plus. Under such a concept as "operational speed" the cavalry was not much inferior to the mechanized troops.
            And one more thing - horses don't need gasoline. And the horse will pass where the car or the tank will not pass. For example, in the mountains or in marshy areas. It is enough to recall the Polesskie swamps.
            1. shasherin.pavel
              shasherin.pavel 3 January 2016 09: 38
              +1
              Quote: Alf
              And the horse will pass where the car or the tank will not pass.

              And noiselessness! Some even see tanks as an advantage.
            2. tokens3
              tokens3 3 January 2016 11: 45
              -1
              In addition, the cavalry has another plus. Under such a concept as "operational speed" the cavalry was not much inferior to the mechanized troops.

              Let me disagree. In the direction of the main attack, operational speed is crucial.
              But for the Wehrmacht infantry divisions (your photo with a 105 mm horse-drawn howitzer) is yes. A person will not overtake a horse.
              Painfully, the Soviet government "did not like" the Cossacks of Russia. As you can see in vain. They caught up as soon as the enemy reached Moscow. This is worse than crime. This is treason.
              1. tokens3
                tokens3 3 January 2016 11: 48
                +1
                Well, to catch up on the motorization of the artillery fleet in the tank divisions of the Wehrmacht. They say that everything is horse drawn. No, of course
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. shasherin.pavel
          shasherin.pavel 3 January 2016 09: 36
          +1
          Have you tried to compare the caliber of the guns? You would have brought an 7-ton howitzer-a cannon to the horse traction ... And mind you, the rightmost trophy horse.
  13. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 2 January 2016 19: 49
    +2
    / anew /
    "Field artillery, like small arms, was not the forte of the Red Army." We had and still have the best field artillery in the world. That under the tsar-father, that under Putin. Small arms too, come and try.
    An article about the regimental gun. The cannon is modest, nondescript, probably not knocked out tigers, panthers too. Her task is to directly support the infantry. The question is, how did she fulfill her assignment? Not a single artillery system can cope with this task. The reason is weight. Anti-tank artillery is different, divisional too. Want to argue the need for a regimental, well, you are not Copenhagen! Interesting logic: a mortar cannon (you can hear the aspiration) 7,5 cm leIG 18, and the "regiment" is a cannon (except for "bullshit" there was nothing suitable in the dictionary) and these are different systems. The problem is big, in all directions. They were created for the same purpose, have similar parameters, but the ideas embedded in them received different executions. The Germans are good fellows, and a cannon, and a howitzer, and a mortar. Separate loading, different size of charges, to complete any task - please. And even a cumulative projectile ... Yes, we never dreamed of.
    Let's compare them. The German is easier, more universal and lost the competition. The Germans abandoned the versatility of the guns, alas, the preparation of a mortar gunner was in theory two fingers, and during the war ... And the regiment turned out to be more technological, cheaper. Well, we paid the weight and took the length of the barrel, and the Germans didn’t do much where they began to lengthen the barrel and increase the mass of the gun. Hello from Wikipedia, for starters. By the way, for defense, weight is not as critical as during the offensive.
    tokens3
    I agree, the most modern, had weapons according to the time and "needs" on the battlefield. Yes, bicycles, motorcycles, tanks with machine guns ... And we are tundra, we made KV, we thought a civilized army would come to us ... Stirlitz did not finalize, he reported about the planes, but did not have time about the tanks.
    By the way, in terms of dimensions, transported weapons, how are tigers and panthers?
    1. tokens3
      tokens3 2 January 2016 20: 50
      +1
      Mavrikiy
      By the way, for defense, weight is not as critical as during the offensive.
      tokens3

      What kind of defense are you talking about? In June 1941? In the absence of wartime staff in the divisions?
      The fact of the matter is that it was only possible to stop the Germans with an elastic defense. Throwing mobile reserves on the steel wedges of the Panzerwaffe for tens and hundreds of kilometers. And this with the complete domination of the Luftwaffe. Yes, any column "without end and edge" was subjected to a brutal raid.
      So DIMENSIONS laughing needed and in defense.
      I agree, the most modern, had weapons according to the time and "needs" on the battlefield. Yes, bicycles, motorcycles, tanks with machine guns ... And we are tundra, we made KV, we thought a civilized army would come to us ... Stirlitz did not finalize, he reported about the planes, but did not have time about the tanks.

      Kv and T-34 showed excellent performance.
      However, unfortunately that is the case.
      The whole motor transport of Europe, coupled with horses and bicycles, was carried out by this same Blitzkrieg.
      The point here is absolutely not the tanks. And the warring parties have transport capabilities on June 22.
      Shtirlitsa really needs to be hung. laughing
    2. anew
      anew 2 January 2016 22: 51
      0
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      We had and still have the best field artillery in the world.

      Of course. And pink elephants also come from the same places.
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      Small arms too, come try.

      Have you decided to pick up points from the schoolchildren on "patriotic propaganda"? I have always said that this point system is extremely harmful.
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      No artillery system can cope with this task.

      Apparently my words about the fact that everyone from such universal artillery systems except the Germans switched to specialized ones, passed you by.
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      (so the breath is heard)

      When something is heard, one must be baptized.
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      (except for "bullshit" nothing suitable was found in the dictionary)

      For her not found. I just can understand what the numbers in her TTX mean, and you do not. By the way, the Soviet military experts before the Second World War completely shared my opinion, before the Second World War the regiment was discontinued. The restoration of its production was later a forced measure. You will not argue that the restoration of the production of the mosquito was associated with its exceptional fighting qualities? Or will you too?
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      They are created for one purpose, have similar parameters,

      Surely for one. But the parameters have nothing in common. These are artillery systems of various designs.
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      German easier, more versatile and lost the competition

      Who?
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      And the regiment turned out to be more technologically advanced, cheaper.

      Why is it cheaper and why more technological? You did not confuse her with ZIS-3 for an hour?
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      and the Germans didn’t do much where they began to lengthen the barrel and increase the mass of the gun

      Yes? On which models? Confuse infantry guns with anti-tank?
      1. Mavrikiy
        Mavrikiy 3 January 2016 03: 12
        +1
        "And the pink elephants also come from the same places."
        Yes, mammoths from our places, but you did not know. And what color was their coat after 1000 years not visible.
        "Have you decided to pick up points from schoolchildren on patriotic propaganda?"
        Without me, they married me, okay. My decision to "pick up", as you put it, looks more worthy than spitting in a well.
        "Not a single artillery system can cope with this task.
        Apparently my words about the fact that from such universal artillery systems everyone, except perhaps the Germans, have switched to specialized ones, passed you by. "
        And how can they fail if you argue with evidence. There is a task of direct support for the infantry, melee artillery is required, the versatility of the gun in its ability to solve these problems, the enemy’s open, defended manpower, armored objects, down to tanks, firing points ... And we and the Germans fired them all the war! This weapon is the most compromise, what kind of ballistics. The guns modernized the entire war, and we and the Germans. The colonel reduced the weight to 600 kg, increased the angle of horizontal guidance, ammunition.
        "When you hear something, you need to be baptized." Offended, well, sorry.
        "(except for bullshit, nothing suitable was found in the dictionary) There was no one for her."
        Leopard change his spots.
        "I just can understand what the numbers in its performance characteristics mean, but you, no. By the way, Soviet military experts before the Second World War quite shared my opinion, before the Second World War the regon was removed from production. The restoration of its production was later a forced measure."
        Opinions are both for and against. No one said the tool was outstanding. But in its class, it takes its rightful place, in comparison with the German has the best ballistics losing weight.
        "You will not argue that the restoration of mosinka production was due to its exceptional fighting qualities? Or will you too?"
        We have an ancient mosquito, they have the latest Mauser with exceptional fighting qualities, so what?
        "Probably for one. But the parameters have nothing in common. These are artillery systems of different designs."
        How hard it is for you to live. All around do not understand anything. You can not compare PPSh with Schmeisser, TT with Walther, however the design. Weapons are compared according to the results of the tasks. And the regiments have one purpose, how the designer solved the tasks and the generals gave the task, affected the results.

        "The German is lighter, more versatile and lost the competition. To whom?"
        To myself. Although it was released before 1945, A REPLACEMENT LAUNCHED. 7,5 cm IG 42 (German: 7,5 cm infantry gun of 1942), long barrel, more weight.
        "And the regiment turned out to be more technologically advanced, cheaper. Why is it cheaper and why is it more technologically advanced? Did you confuse it with the ZIS-3 for an hour?"
        Well no. We are all more technologically advanced and cheaper. Have you not noticed? Take the Tiger and the IS. Oh yes, different designs, well, I don’t know how to help you.
        "and the Germans did not go anywhere and began to lengthen the barrel and increase the mass of the gun
        Yes? What models? Confusing infantry guns with anti-tank guns? "
        Yes, calm down you are already with your anti-tank. No sooner said than a compromise. In the second half of the war, the task of the regiment shifted to the greater side of the fight against tanks, and the barrel had to be extended.
        1. anew
          anew 3 January 2016 15: 27
          0
          After reading such a lengthy pamphlet, I came to the conclusion that the whole world, including and the leadership of the Red Army, was and is not keeping up. And one corporal Mavrikiy is keeping up.
          In addition, you have a break in the conceptual template. Justified criticism has not bothered anyone yet and has always gone and is only beneficial. And here unreasonable boasting about what’s HZ, but domestic, it’s just spitting in the well. Stupid and harmful.
          You don't have to go far for examples. The most vivid example is 1941. When the Red Army, which was supposedly armed with the most advanced doctrine and technology, suddenly suddenly found itself at the walls of the Kremlin. It would have ended up beyond the Volga, if not for the outright idiocy of the German "generals". Here is the result of the thoughtless boasting of everything Soviet.
          In Russian, there is even a special term for this, bragging... Here you are just doing outright bragging. When you try to compare a product that was forcedly returned to production, only by chance, with something interesting and usable enough. And you even have the courage to assert that this "random product" was supposedly better than the models in service for a reason.
          1. Mavrikiy
            Mavrikiy 3 January 2016 17: 31
            +1
            anew
            "After reading such a lengthy pamphlet, I came to the conclusion that the whole world, including the leadership of the Red Army, was and is not in step. And one corporal Mavrikiy was in step."
            1. The armies of the whole world had regimental guns and no one abandoned them.
            2. If Tukhachevsky is meant, then he is definitely not on the way.
            3. Yes, the "youngest" in the leg needs to be able to walk, maybe you can learn.
            "In addition, you have a break in the conceptual template. Reasonable criticism has not bothered anyone yet and has always been and is only beneficial. But unreasonable boast about anything but domestic, this is just spitting into the well. Stupid and harmful."
            1. "Breaking the conceptual template", well, yes, I do not understand, is it from medicine or a circle of cutting and sewing?
            2. Maybe you, deeply understanding the performance characteristics of the regimental guns of the countries of the world, compare them and evaluate the place of the "regiment" according to its merits, and will not bend it under your dubious theories.
            3. "Unreasonable bragging", but what about unreasonable muddying:
            "Of course. After all, the ZIS-2 arr. 1941 was never mastered by production. But it was necessary to fight with something. So they fought with weapons of WW1 level."
            a) ZIS-2 arr. 1941 released in 1941 - 371 pcs.
            b) ZIS-2 arr. 1941, 1943 in 1941-1945 - about 10 pcs.
            c) ZIS-2 was produced after the war.
            d) and where was it "not mastered by production" here?
            Quote: Alf
            "With the beginning of the war, according to the mobilization plan, the production of USV was again deployed at factories # 92 and Barricades."
            Your Answer
            "Of course. After all, the ZIS-2 arr. 1941 was never mastered by production. But it was necessary to fight with something. So they fought with weapons of WW1 level."
            This is a pearl of logic, knowledge of technical characteristics and the desire to prove the unprovable. Divisional artillery performs the tasks of technical and vocational education forced The reason for the withdrawal from production of the ZIS-2 was its excessive power, the Germans did not have suitable armor, and only with the advent of the Tigers did they return to the ZIS-2.
            "When you try to compare a product that was forced back into production, just by chance, with something interesting and usable enough."
            1) All armies were forced to release "regiments" that did not shine with performance characteristics?
            2) Where, when I compared, surround.
            "And you even have the courage to assert that this" random product "was supposedly better than the models in service for a reason."
            1) Where, when did I claim? It brings.
            2) I repeat, the tool at the level of its tasks is no worse than the tools of the armies of the world.
            3) Aplomb of the ignorant helps you out.
            1. anew
              anew 3 January 2016 18: 42
              -2
              Quote: Mavrikiy
              The armies of the whole world had regimental guns and no one abandoned them.

              And can you give examples of such armies? In addition to German, of course, I already wrote about it above.
              Quote: Mavrikiy
              If Tukhachevsky is meant, then he is definitely not on the way.

              Of course, Tukhachevsky. And who else could have made such a decision in 1940. Only Tukhachevsky. Learn the story, dear.
              Quote: Mavrikiy
              Yes, the "younger" in the leg needs to be able to walk, maybe you will learn.

              It’s like in a joke, if you are so smart, why don’t you keep up. I walked away. I do not need it anymore.
              Quote: Mavrikiy
              "Breaking the conceptual template", well, yes, I do not understand, is it from medicine or a circle of cutting and sewing?

              Go to medina and to courses of cutting and sewing. There you will gradually decide.
              Quote: Mavrikiy
              understanding the performance characteristics of regimental guns of the countries of the world,

              And can you give examples of such tools from the Second World War? Except German.
              Quote: Mavrikiy
              ZIS-2 arr. 1941 released in 1941 - 371 pcs.

              Those. 371 guns for the year of production, with the subsequent removal of it from production for the inability to do it in droves, you were not impressed. You have some of your own norms and concepts. Strange.
              Quote: Mavrikiy
              The reason for the withdrawal from production of the ZIS-2 was its excessive power, the Germans did not have suitable armor, and only with the advent of the Tigers did they return to the ZIS-2.

              It’s easier to explain something to the tree than to you. Reread my earlier answers to you. It says why the ZIS-2 was discontinued. And why put back.
              Quote: Mavrikiy
              All armies were forced to release "regiments" that do not shine with performance characteristics?

              What are these "all"? German, Romanian and Hungarian? So they had HEAT shells for them. I already wrote about this. But this is useless to you. Doesn't get it.
              Quote: Mavrikiy
              1) Where, when did I claim? It brings.
              2) I repeat, the tool at the level of its tasks is no worse than the tools of the armies of the world.
              3) Aplomb of the ignorant helps you out.

              I'm tired of you. You do not assimilate my comments. You give up yours.
              Quote: Mavrikiy
              We had and still have the best field artillery in the world.

              Blacklist you. I don’t see the point of explaining anything, because You don’t understand what they write to you. And I’m not ready to write the same thing 20 times, I’m not interested.
            2. The comment was deleted.
        2. The comment was deleted.
      2. Mavrikiy
        Mavrikiy 3 January 2016 03: 59
        +1
        "And the pink elephants also come from the same places."
        Yes, mammoths from our places, but you did not know. And what color was their coat after 1000 years not visible.
        "Have you decided to pick up points from schoolchildren on patriotic propaganda?"
        Without me, they married me, okay. My decision to "pick up", as you put it, looks more worthy than spitting in a well.
        "Not a single artillery system can cope with this task.
        Apparently my words about the fact that from such universal artillery systems everyone, except perhaps the Germans, have switched to specialized ones, passed you by. "
        And how can they fail if you argue with evidence. There is a task of direct support for the infantry, melee artillery is required, the versatility of the gun in its ability to solve these problems, the enemy’s open, defended manpower, armored objects, down to tanks, firing points ... And we and the Germans fired them all the war! This weapon is the most compromise, what kind of ballistics. The guns modernized the entire war, and we and the Germans. The colonel reduced the weight to 600 kg, increased the angle of horizontal guidance, ammunition.
        "When you hear something, you need to be baptized." Offended, well, sorry.
        "(except for bullshit, nothing suitable was found in the dictionary) There was no one for her."
        Leopard change his spots.
        "I just can understand what the numbers in its performance characteristics mean, but you, no. By the way, Soviet military experts before the Second World War quite shared my opinion, before the Second World War the regon was removed from production. The restoration of its production was later a forced measure."
        Opinions are both for and against. No one said the tool was outstanding. But in its class, it takes its rightful place, in comparison with the German has the best ballistics losing weight.
        "You will not argue that the restoration of mosinka production was due to its exceptional fighting qualities? Or will you too?"
        We have an ancient mosquito, they have the latest Mauser with exceptional fighting qualities, so what?
        "Probably for one. But the parameters have nothing in common. These are artillery systems of different designs."
        How hard it is for you to live. All around do not understand anything. You can not compare PPSh with Schmeisser, TT with Walther, however the design. Weapons are compared according to the results of the tasks. And the regiments have one purpose, how the designer solved the tasks and the generals gave the task, affected the results.

        "The German is lighter, more versatile and lost the competition. To whom?"
        To myself. Although it was released before 1945, A REPLACEMENT LAUNCHED. 7,5 cm IG 42 (German: 7,5 cm infantry gun of 1942), long barrel, more weight.
        "And the regiment turned out to be more technologically advanced, cheaper. Why is it cheaper and why is it more technologically advanced? Did you confuse it with the ZIS-3 for an hour?"
        Well no. We are all more technologically advanced and cheaper. Have you not noticed? Take the Tiger and the IS. Oh yes, different designs, well, I don’t know how to help you.
        "and the Germans did not go anywhere and began to lengthen the barrel and increase the mass of the gun
        Yes? What models? Confusing infantry guns with anti-tank guns? "
        Yes, calm down you are already with your anti-tank. No sooner said than a compromise. In the second half of the war, the task of the regiment shifted to the greater side of the fight against tanks, and the barrel had to be extended.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. BV330
      BV330 4 January 2016 16: 51
      0
      "... We had and still have the best field artillery in the world ..."
      The question is, however, why, with the best field, in the Red Army there was such a cruel lag in artillery saturation from the battalion to the divisional level, inclusive ??
      Battalion - 2 45s versus 4 37mm + 2x75mm howitzers or 2x120mm mortars by the Foshists;
      Regiment - 6 (4) 45-current + 4x 76mm regiments against 6x 37 or 50 mm anti-tank guns + 4x 75mm howitzers + 2x 150 mm mortars.
      The division is generally trash: 2 divisions of 3-inch cannons and 1 division of 122mm howitzers (more often also part-time) - against the Three divisions of 105mm howitzers and even the heavy 150mm howitzer division. From the second half of the war, 1-2 divisions of the Foshists were more often on self-propelled guns.
      1. anew
        anew 4 January 2016 17: 00
        0
        Quote: BV330
        generally trash:

        You can still count shots in shells and tons. There is generally a paragraph.
      2. Mavrikiy
        Mavrikiy 4 January 2016 18: 15
        +1
        And it could not be otherwise.
        Yes, we have developed excellent weapon designs, as Churchill asked to get acquainted with the ZIS-2, you know. It's ridiculous to argue with the amount of "severe lag" here. But you are missing the obvious thing. Saturation of the Wehrmacht with trophy weapons, for example, by capturing 1000-1500 pieces. of our relatives F-22, they used them for their intended purpose, and then, having modernized it, they received a PTO:
        "At the beginning of 1942, she became the best German anti-tank gun, with the ability to effectively also hit infantry targets on the battlefield with high-explosive fragmentation shells." About the fact that they fought in the T-34 and KV photos you saw.
        Before the Second World War, they had the opportunity to use artillery systems to saturate the Wehrmacht, all conquered countries. The Czech army alone was worth it. And 2 years of work of Skoda factories. And the other Swedes ... What are you, how small.
        1. BV330
          BV330 4 January 2016 19: 21
          0
          If you call the leadership of the Wehrmacht and the Red Army as flexibility against inertia, then I will support your thought. - ((
          PS: recall how many art trophies we took from the second half of the 43rd? And where were they in service?
          1. anew
            anew 4 January 2016 20: 28
            0
            Quote: BV330
            And where were they in service?

            A lot of where. And even the NSD on them were domestic.
            Only it was not customary to talk about it. Why do we, with our excellent weapons, suck them?
          2. Mavrikiy
            Mavrikiy 5 January 2016 03: 56
            +1
            We did not have it in the ranks. Why do we need trash. From the second half of 43 factories in the rear, the factories after evacuation exceeded the design capacity. Only small arms (machine guns, machine guns) and mortars seem to be battalion, met in memoirs, and then in violation of orders. If some battalion commander and rolls the 37 mm anti-tank, then again at your own peril and risk.
            But the Germans were confronted with something that, in nature, couldn’t be and took it with joy starting from the T-34 and ending with felt boots.
            Probably also ammunition. Captured along with the weapon, okay, but they are needed every day. The Germans will roll out the BZ lawn from the plane and wait for the next trophy. If it is fair, then with our slovenliness and we will not pull. Only the Germans, with their organization with such a mass of artillery systems, could establish security. Fortunately, we don't need this. "We are strong with gouges, hollows and ..." you know yourself.
            1. hohol95
              hohol95 10 January 2016 23: 32
              0
              You're not right! There were IPTAP regiments in whole or in part armed with German anti-tank guns of 50, 75 and 88 mm! The network has a lot of photos with these guns and Soviet gunners!
      3. Mavrikiy
        Mavrikiy 4 January 2016 19: 59
        +1
        "In 1937, the Defense Committee of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR decided to strengthen divisional artillery, switching to a two-regimental scheme. The formation of two artillery regiments began in the rifle division, which increased the number of guns to sixty (twenty cannons and forty howitzers)."
        Our data varies.
        By the way, look at the "RKKA rifle regiment" in April 1941.
        Mortars 50 mm Mortars 82 mm Mortars 120 mm Guns 45 mm Guns 76 mm
        Количество 27 18 4 12 6
        It seems to me not bad.
        1. BV330
          BV330 4 January 2016 20: 14
          0
          But thanks to ingenious planning and leadership, half of these reserves were lost by the fall of 41 years.
          And they came precisely to those crumbs that I cited above. I didn’t look at mortars, their number could increase during the war. But artillery in the lower links did not increase. Only in the year 45, began to replace the artillery regiment of 76-mm guns with the division on the Su-76M in terms of divisions.
          And according to yours - this all fits together: 45mm - a battery in a shelf = 6pcs + 2pcs in battalions;
          76mm - 6pcs per shelf. With the beginning of the war, reduced to 4 pieces. ((
          1. Mavrikiy
            Mavrikiy 5 January 2016 04: 32
            +1
            I didn’t look, it’s boring to watch, but I have a firm opinion “thanks to the ingenious planning and management” they lost not half, but much more. And what was left was squeezed into a fist and held until Moscow itself. SU is good, but someone has already written that we fought not only with the military machine of Germany, but also with the equipment and economy of Europe. All tanks, vehicles and factories of the captured countries went into action. look at wikipedia. They turned the captured tanks into self-propelled guns, at least 100 pieces, but into a system, fantastic organization. But I wonder if they could have evacuated such a mass of factories in such a time frame as we did and launch them. I doubt it very much.
            1. BV330
              BV330 8 January 2016 03: 35
              0
              But it’s interesting if they could evacuate such a mass of factories on such dates as we do and launch them. I doubt very much.
              They carried out a similar evacuation after the massive bombing. Only underground, in the mountains, and different bed workshops.
              Again, organization helped, as without her. Even the submarine sections came from different plants and immediately to the assembly.
              PS: according to the captured tanks, alas, but nothing better than the T-38 of Prague was not there. And they from falling even 76-mm discs almost crumbled into pieces, crippling the crew with their own rivets.
      4. anew
        anew 4 January 2016 20: 14
        +1
        Details to you about the composition and armament of the divisions at the beginning of the Second World War.
      5. Chtononibrator
        Chtononibrator 20 January 2016 21: 44
        0
        You compare the states and this is often just a theory. It is foolish to believe that at 44-45 the Germans were fattening infantry cannons / mortars and sau. Even more, they tried to make analogues of ZIS-3 and Bobby.
  14. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 4 January 2016 13: 43
    +3
    Dear website editor!
    Where did the comments of my supervisor expert ANEW go from the site?
    It seems that I had a conversation with the ghost, and only the memory remained.
    Please "return to the studio"!
  15. iAi
    iAi 19 March 2016 03: 17
    0
    What do you think, are such tools currently promising?
    I saw the opinion that no. Their niche is now occupied by much lighter mortars and grenade launchers.

    But I suppose that a shot from such a gun is more cost-effective than grenade launchers and mortars. In addition, regimental cannons can be mounted on "carts".

    Your opinion?

    Here is a photo of a Chinese special forces vehicle:
  16. Darnichanin
    Darnichanin 4 October 2019 16: 54
    0
    I wonder what does the weight "1620 kg. With a front end and a servant" mean? The weight of the gun is 920 kg. The weight of one soldier in winter ammunition and with weapons is about 100 kg. You mean two fighters on the front end?