Military Review

Project self-propelled artillery installation Heuschrecke (Germany)

37
The advantages of self-propelled artillery to towed became apparent even before the start of World War II. However, the appearance of promising self-propelled guns was not formed immediately. In the course of numerous disputes, specialists and military leaders offered a variety of options for such equipment, including rather strange ones. A good example of an interesting but ambiguous or even dubious concept of self-propelled artillery self-propelled guns is the German project Heuschrecke 10.


Since the end of the 1930s, Krupp has been working on projects of various armored vehicles, including self-propelled artillery mounts. One of the results of these works was the formation of the shape of the ACS with a full-turn turret, in which it was proposed to install an existing artillery gun. A similar concept was tested in the Sd.Kfz project. 165 / 1, which has come down to the construction of the pre-production lot and its military tests. The new SAU did not go into the series, but became the basis for the next project, in which it was proposed to use a non-standard original technical solution.

Unfortunately, there are no exact information about the prerequisites for the appearance of the original proposal. For some reasons, probably related to questions of mobility and tactics of use, it was decided to build not just a self-propelled gun, but an ACS with the function of an arms transporter. It was proposed to equip a promising machine with a rotating turret, as well as a special crane, with the help of which the turret could be quickly removed from the shoulder strap and installed on an appropriate base. In addition, it was proposed to provide towing of the removed tower with the help of the ACS hull or another tractor.


One of the experienced self-propelled guns


Such an appearance allowed the prospective self-propelled gun, depending on the tactical need, to fire at the enemy (including on the move), to bring ammunition, to work as a repair and recovery vehicle, etc. The tower removed from the hull, in turn, could turn into a stationary firing point with cannon armament. The proposed idea was extremely bold and even dubious, but still received approval from the leaders of the developer and customer.

Work on the new project started in 1942 year. The development received the symbol Heuschrecke ("Locust"). In the future, additional indexes were added to the name, denoting different versions of the project, different prototype machines, etc. In addition, the complex official designation 10.5 cm leFH 18 / 1 (Sf) auf Geschützwagen IVb - “105-mm lightweight howitzer on the Geschützwagen IVb chassis” was used. The project proposed the most active use of existing components and assemblies, which allowed to speed up development.

The Geschützwagen IVb chassis from Hummel self-propelled guns, built on the basis of the self-propelled gun, was chosen as the basis for the new self-propelled tanks PzKpfw III and PzKpfw IV. At the same time, the chassis of the basic self-propelled gun was finalized in connection with the peculiarities of the Locust layout. The fact is that when the Hummel self-propelled gun was created, German engineers were forced to rework the base tank chassis and move its engine to the middle of the hull, freeing up the space for the fighting compartment in the stern. The new Heuschrecke self-propelled gun was supposed to have a middle fighting compartment, which is why the engine returned to the stern.

Project self-propelled artillery installation Heuschrecke (Germany)
View of the stern. The wheels of the cart for the tower are mounted on mounts


The chassis body was welded from several rolled armor plates of various thickness. The frontal part of the body was formed by several sheets placed at an angle to each other. The maximum thickness of the frontal barrier was 30 mm. The side view and hull feeds were protected by 16-mm sheets. The roof and bottom were the thinnest elements of armor and were only 10 mm thick. The layout of the hull was standard for German tanks of the Second World War. In front of the station there were transmission units and a control compartment. The center housed the fighting compartment, under the floor of which the cardan shaft passed. Feed was given under the engine and part of the transmission.

The basis of the power plant was to be a Maybach gasoline engine. It was planned to equip prototypes of self-propelled guns with HL90 engines of 360 horsepower, while serial machines were supposed to be equipped with HL100 motors of HP 410 power. The mechanical transmission was unchanged borrowed from the base chassis.

The chassis of the used chassis was a development of the design of the PzKpfw IV tank with the introduction of some parts from the PzKpfw III. She had eight interconnected pairs of track rollers on each side. In the rear part of the hull there were guide wheels, in the front - relatively large leading ones. Due to certain circumstances, the drive wheels were borrowed from the tank PzKpfw III. Under the upper branch of the track there were four supporting rollers on each side.


The process of dismantling the tower


On the roof of the case there was a shoulder strap for installing a tower with weapons. The tower itself was an armored unit with a thickness of protection from 30 mm (forehead and mask) to 16 mm (sides and stern). The front part of the tower was formed by a frontal and two zygomatic leaves tilted inward. Behind them were two sides, behind which was provided feed, consisting of two parts. The roof of the tower was not used. An interesting feature of the Heuschrecke ACS tower was the use of sides and aft, consisting of two parts. The lower part of the sides and the stern was fixed rigidly, and the upper could recline. In this case, the bevelled parts of the sides were folded forward and down, and the aft "hatches" - only down. Due to this design of the sides it was possible to slightly increase the volumes available to the crew.

The main weapons The prospective self-propelled gun "Locust" was supposed to be a light field howitzer leFH18 / 1 caliber 105 mm with a barrel length 28 caliber and a muzzle brake. The gun was mounted in the frontal installation of the tower, which allowed to direct it within the vertical sector from 0 ° to + 68 °. The circular horizontal guidance was provided by turning the entire tower. The gun was completed with a slfZF2 telescopic sight. The characteristics of the gun made it possible to fire targets at ranges up to 10,6 km. Due to the possibility of firing with large elevation angles, the howitzer could fire direct fire or from closed positions, solving various combat missions. Ammunition consisted of 60 shells. All of these munitions were located in the styling of the crew compartment.

The crew of the new SAU was to consist of five people: the driver, radio operator, commander, gunner and loader. The driver and radio operator were in front of the hull, the rest of the crew had to work in the tower. When removing the tower or returning it to its place, the crew also had to perform the functions of crane operators, scaffold gear, etc. For landing, the crew had to use the hatches in the hull and the open top of the tower.

On the roof of the hull, on the sides of the tower and on the stern sheet, in the stowed position housed the most interesting equipment self-propelled guns - various means for working with the tower. The main element of this “complex” was a collapsible crane, actually consisting of two independent bridge-type cranes. In the central and aft part of the sides there were articulated fastenings for four swinging supports (two for each side). From above, two beams with rails for moving hoists were connected with supports. In order to avoid breakdown of the hoists, folding safety devices were provided at the ends of the rails. In the stowed position, the elements of the crane were folded forward and placed along the sides, without interfering with the work of the crew and turning the tower. To use the crane, it was necessary to raise the beams and install supports with a backward tilt.


The descent of the tower on the trolley frame


In preparation for the operation of the crane on the beams were installed two hoists with manual transmission. With their help, it was proposed to raise the tower from its place, move the beams along the rails and lower it to the ground or another support. To interact with the chains of hoists on the sides of the tower a set of hooks was provided. Due to the correct position, taking into account the balancing of the tower, the hooks made it possible to remove the tower without any problems or install it back.

The project Heuschrecke provided funds not only for lowering the tower on a support or for lifting back. If necessary, self-propelled guns or other machines could tow the removed tower to the right place. For this purpose, a special metal frame was developed with attachments for the wheels. In the stowed position, the frame was disassembled transported on the roof of the chassis engine compartment and on the sides, and the wheels were mounted on the stern sheet. If necessary, three parts were removed from their seats and assembled in a cart suitable for towing.

The proposed complex of special equipment allowed to solve a number of specific tasks. If necessary, the SAURA self-propelled gun could unload the turret on the prepared support and turn it into a stationary firing point. The released chassis could then be used as a carrier for ammunition, as well as perform other functions. In particular, the presence of a crane allowed the machine to participate in the repair of equipment.

According to calculations, the total length of the advanced self-propelled gun did not exceed 6 m, and the width and height (with the turret) were within 3 m. Despite the presence of a relatively heavy gun and large ammunition, the combat mass remained at the level of 23 t. machine show good characteristics of mobility, allowing its use in the troops.


Self-propelled truck with a trolley in tow, the crane in the working position


At the very beginning of 1943, Krupp built three prototypes of a new type of ACS. This technique received the designation Heuschrecke 10 or Heuschrecke IV. Until the end of winter, three prototypes managed to pass the necessary tests and show their potential. Driving performance remained at the level of tanks PzKpfw IV. Thus, the maximum speed on the highway reached 45 km / h, power reserve - up to 300 km. From the point of view of overcoming obstacles, self-propelled weapons did not differ much from the tanks available in the troops.

According to the test results, the development of an upgraded version of the Heuschrecke ACS with a new engine and another tool began. Due to the use of the engine Maybach HL100 410 HP and the 105-mm howitzer leFH43 proposed to increase mobility and firepower. In this case, it was planned to preserve the possibility of quickly dismantling the tower with installation on various supports. There is also information on the preliminary elaboration of similar projects based on newer tanks, such as the PzKpfw V Panther, etc. Due to the workload of the industry, all these developments have not reached practical implementation.

In the spring of 1943, a test report of three experimental self-propelled guns with removable turrets was presented to the leadership of the armored forces. Chief Inspector Pantservafe G. Guderian called the proposed SAU quite interesting. At the same time, the commander noted that the start of production of self-propelled guns can hit the construction of tanks. As a result, he came to the conclusion that the advantages of the new technology will not justify the reduction in the production of tanks associated with it. As a result, the Heuschrecke 10 ACS was not recommended for use.


The only surviving instance


According to others, the debate about the prospects of "Locust" lasted until the year 1944. Back in 42, Rheinmetall-Borsig began developing its own self-propelled gun project with an 105-mm howitzer similar to that used in the Krupp project. The prototype of this machine was built only in the spring of the year 1944. According to the test results, the military began to lean towards the development of Rheinmetall, however, they demanded to rework the chassis of the sample. At the end of 44, the command and industry tried to select the best model available and made plans for its serial construction. Such plans were not realized due to the problems of the final stage of the war.

Anyway, the three Heuschrecke 10 / IV prototype self-propelled guns, built at the start of the 1943, turned out to be the only machines of their type. Experienced self-propelled guns with more powerful engines and implements were not built or tested. After completing the tests, the three vehicles were returned to the factory, where they stayed until the end of the war. One of the experienced self-propelled guns of the Krupp company in the spring of 1945, became a trophy of the American troops. Like many other serial and prototypes found in German enterprises, this technique has undergone a thorough study. Self-propelled gun was taken to the United States, where they tested at the Aberdeen Proving Ground. Currently, the only copy of "Locust" is an exhibit of the artillery museum Fort-Sill (pcs. Oklahoma). The fate of the other two cars is unknown. They were probably destroyed during the fighting.

At the heart of the Heuschrecke project was an original and unusual idea: if necessary, the combat vehicle had to independently remove the gun tower and install it on a suitable support. The reasons for the emergence of such a proposal are not fully understood. In addition, there may be questions related to the promotion of such an original and unusual idea, as a result of which the project reached the construction stage of several prototypes with their subsequent tests. Checks confirmed the viability of the idea, but the need to reduce the production of tanks for the sake of producing new SAU put an end to a promising project.


On the materials of the sites:
http://achtungpanzer.com/
http://aviarmor.net/
http://serkoff.narod.ru/
http://williammaloney.com/
Author:
Photos used:
Wikimedia Commons, Aviarmor.net
37 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. spech
    spech 1 February 2016 08: 06
    +4
    Gloomy german genius wassat
  2. Volga Cossack
    Volga Cossack 1 February 2016 08: 07
    +4
    interesting project. Thank you for the article.
  3. Per se.
    Per se. 1 February 2016 08: 24
    +5
    For some reasons, probably related to mobility issues and tactics of application, it was decided to build not just self-propelled guns, but self-propelled guns with the function of an arms transporter.
    Fritz would do separate self-propelled guns and transporters, and it would be their happiness, no, it was necessary to deal with sadomasochism. Could we also get a good self-propelled gun, do KV-2 right away, as a light tower self-propelled gun, and not a heavy tank.
    1. Predator
      Predator 1 February 2016 10: 01
      +5
      So KV 2 was created as a heavily armored art platform for the destruction of pillboxes, and not as a tank and a limited series. I think after the Finns I was preparing to break through the defense in Prussia ....
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 1 February 2016 11: 57
        +2
        Quote: Predator
        So KV 2 and was created as a heavily armored art platform for the destruction of bunkers, and not as a tank and a limited series

        Actually, officially the KV-2 is an artillery tank. A mobile artillery mount on the chassis of a linear tank, designed to replace the constantly lagging towed artillery and solve the whole range of its tasks. And the destruction of the bunker for him was far from the main task.
        Artillery tanks are tanks that are fully or partially booked, the main weapon of which is a cannon, usually of a larger caliber, installed in a rotating turret, or without one ... A. T. are intended for artillery escort of tanks and fire at detected targets, mainly from a place, from closed or open positions from the line of attack

        That is, in fact, the arttank is a direct-fire assault SAU with the possibility of firing from a PDO (if there is prepared data). Its objectives are anti-tank missile defense, field fortifications, infantry accumulations, enemy artillery positions ... in short, those goals whose destruction for linear tanks is difficult or even impossible.
      2. Per se.
        Per se. 2 February 2016 07: 30
        0
        Quote: Predator
        So KV 2 and was created as a heavily armored art platform for the destruction of bunkers, and not as a tank and a limited series.
        In this capacity, the reckless artillery ship was more suitable, which SU-152 subsequently became.
  4. Amurets
    Amurets 1 February 2016 08: 25
    +1
    A multifunctional machine, fields are an interesting idea. But there is a lot of controversial and even ambiguous. It's bad that you can not understand the intent of the designers.
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 1 February 2016 08: 36
      0
      Quote: Amurets
      Multifunctional machine, the field is an interesting idea.
      Probably, this was one of the first desires to have a "platform", so that, "and a shvets, and a reaper, and a player on a pipe" ... The Germans, later on, turned out to be more realistic using the mastered tank chassis, under the same self-propelled guns.
  5. igordok
    igordok 1 February 2016 08: 28
    +1
    The Germans called tanks by the names of cats. Tiger Panther Luchs (Lynx). It seems to be scary.
    Why did the self-propelled guns come to be called Hummel, Vespe, Grille (Bumblebee Wasp Cricket) and Heuschrecke ("Locust") by the names of insects? It seems not very dangerous, you can crush. smile
    1. Predator
      Predator 1 February 2016 09: 32
      +2
      That's the thing - small, annoying and bite painfully ...
    2. igordok
      igordok 1 February 2016 13: 15
      +1
      The names are interesting. At VO for 2012, I found on 305-mm Bar-Bear.
      http://topwar.ru/9971-germanskaya-samohodnaya-artilleriyskaya-ustanovka-bar.html



      Not forgotten and PT SAU Elephant (Elephant) and Noshorn (Rhino)
  6. Polkovodetz
    Polkovodetz 1 February 2016 08: 41
    +1
    You can make a guess. "Grasshopper" arrives at the position and unloads the tower, while the car waits in the shelter at this time and, if necessary, provides ammunition supply. As a result, there is less dependence on logistics services.
    The wheeled cart will also fit in the "economy", to transport additional fuel or ammunition on the march.
    So maybe not such a gloomy German genius?)
    1. pimen
      pimen 1 February 2016 09: 02
      0
      such a name, probably because in the removed position the tower jumped like a grasshopper in return. And how did they aim at the sight? In height, even with the sides folded down and the stern all it should have been even lower than PAK36
    2. Predator
      Predator 1 February 2016 10: 09
      0
      However, something is tricky. The towed howitzer will turn around for battle many times faster and will collapse in the same way. And the tractor will bring no less ammunition to it and will hit the road to the warehouse, and will stand in cover .... that "Vespa" was worse?! Http: / /topwar.ru/uploads/images/2016/560/plrv735.jpg
      1. 2news
        2news 1 February 2016 11: 20
        0
        Quote: Predator
        that "Vespa" was worse ?!

        The Germans tried to attach the PzKpfw II chassis somewhere. So we played a little with this Vespe. But not for long. This is nonsense. The same nonsense as all other self-propelled protected howitzers in those days.
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 1 February 2016 12: 51
          0
          Given that the Red Army, even in the 45, didn’t have such equipment, it’s somehow not even funny.
          1. 2news
            2news 1 February 2016 14: 15
            +1
            Quote: EvilLion
            Given that the Red Army, even in the 45, didn’t have such equipment, it’s somehow not even funny.

            Of course I didn’t. We experimented with the SU-122, realized that they were mistaken, and closed the topic. As unnecessary. So the Germans Vespu released just as much as the chassis was touched. And then the topic was also covered. And also as unnecessary.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 1 February 2016 14: 42
          +2
          Quote: 2news
          This is nonsense. The same nonsense as all other self-propelled howitzers in those days

          This "nonsense" (coupled with normal communications and beobakhtungspanzers with trained spotters) allowed the Germans to have their own full-fledged heavy artillery in the mechanical units, keeping up with the march. What this means for a tank formation was well shown by the battle at Prokhorovka:
          The 2nd hell was equipped with 18 self-propelled gun mounts - 105-mm and 150-mm howitzers Hummel, Vespe and 12 self-propelled 150-mm howitzers Grizzlies. As a rule, during the offensive or during the transition to temporary defense (as it was near Prokhorovka) they were placed behind the tanks. By the morning of July 12, the division was deployed behind the anti-tank ditch southwest of the heights. 252.2.
          (c) Zamulin
          That is, the Germans who hastily moved from the offensive to the defense had the opportunity to put 15-cm howitzers behind the tanks.
          1. 2news
            2news 1 February 2016 14: 55
            -1
            Quote: Alexey RA
            What does this mean for a tank formation showed well the battle of Prokhorovka:

            Those. are you now seriously trying to tell the bike that self-propelled howitzers were very useful for tank combat? Oh well. Continue to be curious to listen.
            Quote: Alexey RA
            That is, the Germans who hastily moved from the offensive to the defense had the opportunity to put 15-cm howitzers behind the tanks.

            So what? What's up with that? Well, put it up. What have you achieved? What long-term enemy structures did they destroy with mounted fire? None? What clusters of infantry did they destroy in the depths of the enemy’s defense? None? And more such actions are not capable of any actions. Understand howitzer, this is not a gun. This is a specific type of weapon.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 1 February 2016 17: 01
              +3
              Quote: 2news
              So what? What's up with that? Well, put it up. What have you achieved? What long-term enemy structures did they destroy with mounted fire? None? What clusters of infantry did they destroy in the depths of the enemy’s defense? None? And more such actions are not capable of any actions. Understand howitzer, this is not a gun. This is a specific type of weapon.

              For starters, it was the German artillery that foiled the morning attack of our infantry from the 9th Airborne Forces - which, in fact, determined the defeat of 18 and 29 mk. The fact is that the objective of this attack was to push back the Germans and give the tank units a place to deploy before putting them into battle:
              the only place where the tank brigades of the 29th and 18th vehicles could deploy to launch an attack in the direction of the army. "October", was occupied by SS men

              After an unsuccessful attack, tank corps had to be brought into battle, not just brigade-wise, but battalion-wise - as the deployment area was freed.

              In addition, you forget about another task - cutting off and defeating the infantry accompanying tanks (without which the tank on the battlefield is just a target for the receiver and infantry anti-tank vehicles). And the German artillery coped with this, alas, well:
              The main losses were in motorized rifle brigades. The 53rd MSBR was in the lead in this mournful list, it lost more than 37% of all the personnel that was available before the battle (more than 60% of active bayonets), or 1122 people, including 393, were killed and died from wounds. High losses of the brigade are explained by the fact that its units were at the very epicenter of the battle. One of her battalions supported tankers who attacked the heights. 252.2, the second - TSW. "Stalin branch." And the 1/53rd infantry brigade, practically without tanks, wedged into the joint of the 1st and 2nd group of SS and, passing between the railway and ur. Watchdog 7 km, went into the area of ​​TSW. "Komsomolets". When attacking the state farm, companies moved along the corridor between the forest and the embankment 300 meters wide. There were no tanks in the battle formations of the battalion, except for the 15 T-34s of the 32nd tank regiment. Yes, and this handful of military vehicles was moving at high speed, the infantry did not have time for them. The enemy fired heavily on artillery and mortars. High-explosive shells shredded sandwiched between the forest and. The rifle chains were filled in bulk, and when the SS men determined that relatively small armored forces had leaked to the state farm, this area was plowed several times by artillery fire. It was not possible to withdraw the battalion in an organized manner, under pressure from a superior enemy. They came out as best they could.
              1. 2news
                2news 1 February 2016 18: 01
                -2
                Quote: Alexey RA
                cutting off and defeating the infantry accompanying the tanks (without which the tank on the battlefield is just a target for the receiver and infantry anti-tank missile). And the German artillery coped with this, alas, well

                I understood everything except one. I wrote to you that I do not understand the essence of howitzers under the protection of armor. What do your examples have to do with this topic? How does this confirm that the howitzer behind the armor is good?
                The fact that German artillery acted effectively on infantry, I realized. But where does the German armored self-propelled howitzers? What is their advantage over carriers? Did they go on the attack in front of the tanks?
                No need to replace concepts and topics.
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 1 February 2016 19: 24
                  +2
                  Quote: 2news
                  The fact that German artillery acted effectively on infantry, I realized. But where does the German armored self-propelled howitzers? What is their advantage over carriers? Did they go on the attack in front of the tanks?

                  The ability to turn closer to the front edge - protection of the calculation from fragments. And the possibility of a quick change of position, which is especially important for meso-connections both in the offensive and in defense, when repelling counter-attacks. In the latter case, it’s perhaps even more important - for there is no tidbit for enemy tanks than a folding howitzer battery or a marching battery.
                  1. 2news
                    2news 1 February 2016 19: 39
                    0
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    Ability to turn closer to the front edge

                    What for? The firing range of the M-30 is almost 12 km. Why is she closer to the front edge? This is divisional artillery. Not regimental.
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    And the possibility of a quick change of position, which is especially important for meso-connections both in the offensive and in defense, when repelling counter-attacks.

                    But is it impossible to hook a howitzer to a hook? Her move was sprung. On the highway up to 50 km / h. On a country road 35 km / h. Quite enough.
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    for there is no tidbit for enemy tanks than a folding howitzer battery

                    And how will they see her? Will the drone be sent? So then there were no drones.
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    or battery on the march

                    In this case, the armor will not help. They will be shot exactly like a howitzer.
                    1. Per se.
                      Per se. 2 February 2016 07: 57
                      +1
                      Quote: 2news
                      What for? The firing range of the M-30 is almost 12 km.
                      At MSTA-S, the firing range is 24,7 km (for OFS with a gas generator 28,5 km). World War II gave birth to self-propelled guns, and this was an urgent need, not a whim. You, as if, do not know about counter-battery fire, where enemy artillery is suppressed for many kilometers. Self-propelled artillery (with armored protection), today, has become dominant over towed.
                      1. 2news
                        2news 2 February 2016 09: 24
                        -1
                        Quote: Per se.
                        Self-propelled artillery (with armored protection), today, has become dominant over towed.

                        Actually, the conversation was about 2MB times.
                        Quote: Per se.
                        World War II gave birth to self-propelled guns, and this was an urgent need, not a whim.

                        For God's sake. But where does the howitzer?
                        Quote: Per se.
                        At MSTA-S firing range 24,7 km

                        MSTA-S is armed with a howitzer gun, not a howitzer.
                        Quote: Per se.
                        You, as if, don’t know about counter-battery fire, where enemy artillery is suppressed for many kilometers

                        Classic howitzers do not do this. Again, the person does not understand the difference between a howitzer gun and a howitzer.
                      2. Per se.
                        Per se. 2 February 2016 13: 55
                        +1
                        In general, the conversation was about self-propelled artillery on a tank chassis, and howitzers in particular. What is it "the same nonsense as all other self-propelled howitzers in those days", purely your conclusions. Even on towed guns, the armor shield itself is designed to increase the protection of the gun crew, and to make the protection even higher, plus give mobility, a completely natural evolution from wooden wheels and horse traction. The concept of self-propelled artillery installations (ACS) arose even during the First World War, and to give the self-propelled guns in addition to mobility and security, began to be implemented in World War II. About the MSTA-S, I said as an example, there are other self-propelled artillery systems, "Akatsiya" (self-propelled 152 mm divisional howitzer 2A33), "Carnation "(self-propelled 122 mm howitzer 2A31). Finally, MSTA-S is a self-propelled GAUBITS (2A65). They tried to make a cannon from it for the T-95 tank (152 mm 2A83). In addition to the MSTA-S (" S ", self-propelled), there is MSTA-B ("B" towed) howitzer. , and have been used for a long timein all armies of the world. The photo shows a towed version of a 152 mm howitzer (MSTA-B).
                      3. 2news
                        2news 2 February 2016 14: 05
                        -1
                        Quote: Per se.
                        In general, the conversation was about self-propelled artillery on a tank chassis, and howitzers in particular.

                        Actually, the conversation was about 2MB howitzers on an armored chassis. Here is an article about the same.
                        Quote: Per se.
                        purely your conclusions.

                        Whether mine is pure or mine is dirty, this is confirmed by the practice of that time. Howitzers on an armored chassis were not mass produced anywhere. They are not produced now. What self-propelled howitzers are armed with today was called "howitzer-cannon" during WW2. Even more like a "cannon-howitzer", tk. there is more cannon than howitzer. They should have been called that today, but since they almost supplanted the classic howitzers, today they are called for short, howitzers. Which, strictly speaking, is not true. This is a different type of weapon, not a classic howitzer (those that were during WW2).
                        Quote: Per se.
                        I said about the MSTA-S as an example, there are other self-propelled artillery systems, "Akatsia" (self-propelled 152 mm divisional howitzer 2A33), "Gvozdika" (self-propelled 122 mm howitzer 2A31)

                        Who is in the forest, and you are by firewood. Those. I'm on the topic, and you tell me something.
                        Thank you, I don’t have to.
                  2. The comment was deleted.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  • tacet
    tacet 1 February 2016 09: 56
    +2
    They also tried to put a 105mm howitzer on trophy platforms (apparently this gun was popular):
    After in March 1941. The Wehrmacht ordered the first 25 flamethrower tanks based on French B2 tanks, it was decided to build self-propelled guns for their fire support on the same base. In March 16 units were ordered with a 105 mm howitzer leFH18 / 3. On the chassis of the French tank B-1 bis, a 105-mm howitzer was installed instead of a tank turret with a cannon. The wheelhouse and the fighting compartment were made of armored plates located at a slight angle. Due to the lack of operational tanks B2 and their slow arrival for revision, the production of self-propelled guns began only at the end of 1941. 16 cars surrendered to the troops in 1942.

    The 10.5cm leFH18 B2 self-propelled guns were used in combat while in occupied France in 1942. They were mainly used to fight partisans. Later, they reflected the Allied invasion of northern France in 1944.
  • gla172
    gla172 1 February 2016 10: 58
    +2
    Our experimental SPG is also interesting in its own way.

    Caliber and brand of gun - 130-mm gun B-13-IIs;
    Type of gun - ship;
    Barrel length - 55 calibers;
    Gun ammunition - 30;
    Firing range - 25,5 km;

    And even fought a bit. In the summer of 1940, the self-propelled gun was transferred to Kubinka, and in 1941 she participated in the defense of Moscow along with the SU-14-1 and SU-14.
  • 2news
    2news 1 February 2016 11: 13
    -2
    Quote: Ryabov Kirill
    Three prototype self-propelled guns Heuschrecke 10 / IV, built in early 1943, were the only machines of their type. Experienced self-propelled guns with more powerful engines and guns were not built and not tested.

    A similar product, this is exactly the same nonsense and whim as the SU-122. Only the Germans were smart enough not to put them in a series.
    1. gla172
      gla172 1 February 2016 11: 25
      0
      But it seems to me a successful self-propelled gun was. Reliable howitzer M 30, 34 maneuverability and even sufficient armor beyond the German. Those tasks for which it was created performed completely.
      1. igordok
        igordok 1 February 2016 12: 56
        0
        Quote: gla172
        But it seems to me a successful self-propelled gun was. Reliable howitzer M 30, 34 maneuverability and even sufficient armor beyond the German. Those tasks for which it was created performed completely.

        If they hadn’t used the SU-122 as an anti-tank self-propelled gun (tank destroyer), then yes.
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 1 February 2016 14: 10
          0
          And they, suddenly, were not used, like Fri., this assault gun was used to destroy fortifications and against tanks only in extreme cases, however, for some Pz-IV thread, the impact energy of 122 mm high-explosive would hardly have passed without a trace. Large-caliber shells, even if the armor is not broken, are quite capable of causing a lot of internal damage.
          1. 2news
            2news 1 February 2016 14: 39
            0
            Quote: EvilLion
            this is an assault weapon to destroy fortifications

            Finally, the assault guns were armed with guns. In extreme cases, howitzer guns. And they never armed with howitzers.
            We are not talking about small-scale special equipment. Anything could be installed there.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 1 February 2016 14: 53
              0
              Quote: 2news
              Finally, the assault guns were armed with guns. In extreme cases, howitzer guns. And they never armed with howitzers.

              I will say more - the designers have repeatedly tried to create an assault howitzer or even a mortar. The history of the SU-152 and vehicles based on it are an example of this.
              And each time they were harassed by the GABTU and GAU, with almost the same arguments:
              - the short range of a direct shot (which required an epic reservation to protect against anti-theft protection when crawling to the target),
              - if you don’t crawl, then there is a large consumption of shells when firing at a range greater than a direct shot (gunfire, etc.) and more stringent requirements for crew training (artillery tankers),
              - less penetration in concrete (a 203-mm howitzer in the version for self-propelled guns was inferior to a 152-mm howitzer gun by this parameter).
              1. 2news
                2news 1 February 2016 14: 59
                -1
                Quote: Alexey RA
                The history of the SU-152 and vehicles based on it are an example of this.

                You can still recall the KV-2. As something small-scale, he had a right to exist. But it was easier to make a normal 100 mm gun based on the sea, in my opinion.
                1. Cap.Morgan
                  Cap.Morgan 1 February 2016 17: 50
                  0
                  ISU 152 at the training ground could not get into the Tiger.
                  Self-propelled gun was shifted by recoil force. This is not a tank destroyer. This is a machine for assaulting fortified areas.
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 1 February 2016 14: 48
            0
            Quote: EvilLion
            And they, suddenly, were not used, like Fri., this assault gun was used to destroy fortifications and against tanks only in extreme cases, however, for some Pz-IV thread, the impact energy of 122 mm HE was unlikely to go unnoticed.

            The main thing was to get there. But howitzer had big problems with this.
            In April 1943, tests were carried out by shelling from a 122 mm M-30 howitzer with ballistics close to the U-11 of the captured Tiger hull with a cumulative shell. And then the tank builders were waiting for the first disappointment. Of the 15 shots fired from a distance of 400-600 meters, not a single direct hit was noted even on a fixed target.
            1. 2news
              2news 1 February 2016 15: 00
              0
              Quote: Alexey RA
              The main thing was to get there. But howitzer had big problems with this.

              No wonder. After all, howitzers usually "work" from closed positions and across areas. Point targets (the same pillboxes) with direct fire are usually hit by cannons.
        2. gla172
          gla172 1 February 2016 15: 26
          0
          In some cases, to combat enemy tanks at ranges up to 1000 m, cumulative shells weighing 13,4 kg were used, capable of penetrating armor of 100-120 mm.
      2. 2news
        2news 1 February 2016 14: 32
        0
        Quote: gla172
        But I think a successful self-propelled gun was. Reliable howitzer M 30, 34 maneuverability

        The howitzer is designed for conducting mounted fire. Therefore, its firing positions are always closed and in the depths of defense. Therefore, security is useless to her.
        Those. wrong combination itself, howitzer + armor. Howitzer + motor trolley could still be.
        1. Alf
          Alf 1 February 2016 21: 32
          +1
          Quote: 2news
          The howitzer is designed for conducting mounted fire. Therefore, its firing positions are always closed and in the depths of defense. Therefore, security is useless to her.
          Those. wrong combination itself, howitzer + armor. Howitzer + motor trolley could still be.

          Well, okay, well, Russians are all fools, this is known to the whole civilized world.
          But here’s a misunderstanding, why then THIS?
          This is the best army in the world. And the same booking + howitzer.
          1. 2news
            2news 1 February 2016 22: 42
            0
            Quote: Alf
            Well, okay, well, Russians are all fools, this is known to the whole civilized world.

            I do not agree with your statement.
            Quote: Alf
            And the same booking + howitzer.

            Where is this howitzer? Did you see her trunk? It could still be a howitzer gun. But not a howitzer.
            1. Alf
              Alf 2 February 2016 21: 21
              +1
              Quote: 2news
              It could still be a howitzer gun. But not a howitzer.

              Learn the materiel. If you are too lazy to raise technical manuals, look at least at Wiki.
              Armament: 155 mm howitzer M126 (barrel length 23 klb),

              23 gauge is a pure howitzer.
          2. The comment was deleted.
      3. The comment was deleted.
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 1 February 2016 14: 06
      +1
      Of course, a powerful 122mm howitzer is nonsense. Otherwise, our sofa experts know everything, but the documents on the combat use of the SU-122, on the contrary, assert the high utility of these machines. Moreover, as an assault weapon, the subsequent SU-85 enjoyed much less respect and the infantry preferred the surviving SU-122. The 5 '' bunker projectile is like a much more serious argument than 85 mm.
      1. 2news
        2news 1 February 2016 14: 49
        0
        Quote: EvilLion
        Well, of course, a powerful 122 mm howitzer is rubbish.

        This is not bullshit. In the mobile version. And on a motor trolley, not nonsense. This is nonsense. serial howitzer covered with armor. In a small series, there could be options.
        Quote: EvilLion
        How else, our sofa experts know everything

        Why are you talking about yourself like that?
        Quote: EvilLion
        only documents on the combat use of the SU-122, on the contrary, confirm the high usefulness of these machines.

        And then. Only here are the treacherous enemies of the people, Vlasovites, most likely, after 7 months. production is a miracle of technology removed from production. And quite naturally replaced it with the SU-85.
        Quote: EvilLion
        enjoyed far less respect and the infantry preferred the surviving SU-122

        It is convenient to tell such stories to gullible boys of primary school age.
        Quote: EvilLion
        The 5 '' bunker projectile is like a much more serious argument than 85 mm.

        It seems that you do not at all taste the difference between the gun, especially the anti-aircraft gun and the anti-aircraft gun, and the howitzer. Everything is exactly the opposite, direct-fire bunkers are much more dangerous than a 85-mm anti-tank gun than a 122-mm howitzer.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 1 February 2016 14: 59
          0
          Quote: 2news
          Direct-fire bunkers are much more dangerous than an 85-mm anti-tank gun than a 122-mm howitzer.

          As practice has shown, bunkers are much more dangerous even direct-fire 76,2 mm L-11 than B-4 or even Br-5 at PDO. smile
          If everything was so chocolate with the accuracy of howitzer fire, we wouldn’t have our regular B-4s pulled out for direct fire.

          The Germans, Pomnitsa, the effectiveness of their 88-mm guns for DOS was also rated very highly. The main thing is to find an embrasure. smile
          1. 2news
            2news 1 February 2016 15: 06
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            As practice has shown, bunkers are much more dangerous even direct-fire 76,2 mm L-11 than B-4 or even Br-5 at PDO.

            Actually, before the war, according to the military doctrine, the T-34 with the L-11 on board was assigned such a "DOTolomatel". Then he was assigned to the role of MBT, and the elderly T-26 (and then T-60/70) were not suitable for this role. So they fussed, tried options. Then they made SU-76 with ZIS-3 on board and calmed down with the topic of field fortifications. In principle, the combination of the SU-76 + transportable 122mm howitzer was acceptable.
            1. Alf
              Alf 1 February 2016 21: 42
              0
              Quote: 2news
              Actually, before the war, according to the military doctrine, the T-34 with the L-11 on board was assigned such a "DOTolomatel".

              Please confirm at least something.
              Quote: 2news
              Then he was assigned to the role of MBT, and the elderly T-26 (and then T-60/70) were not suitable for this role.

              The concept of MBT appeared only after the war. The T-34 was a medium tank, the T-26 and T-60/70 were light.
              1. 2news
                2news 1 February 2016 22: 56
                0
                Quote: Alf
                Please confirm at least something.

                The report of the head of ABTU Pavlov to the drug addict Voroshilov, I hope you are satisfied?
                If it is not clear there, then the A-20 was later replaced by the T-50, and the T-32, by the T-34.
                Quote: Alf
                The concept of MBT appeared only after the war. The T-34 was a medium tank, the T-26 and T-60/70 were light.

                Before the war, there were no light and other tanks. There were infantry escort tanks and development success. Then, before the war, they made a breakthrough tank (KV-1).
                At the same time, during the Second World War the T-34 was actually an MBT, as if it were not then called. Although before the Second World War he was an infantry escort tank. For this, it was suitable, like MBT, no.
              2. The comment was deleted.
          2. Cap.Morgan
            Cap.Morgan 1 February 2016 18: 00
            0
            Embrasures during the war were often not directed towards the front, as in a movie.
            There were cases when embrasures were deployed to the flank and even to the rear. Therefore, a 76 mm cannon could not hit such an embrasure.
            Against fortified areas intended KV. Well, multi-tower.
            1. 2news
              2news 1 February 2016 18: 10
              +1
              Quote: Cap.Morgan
              During the war, the ceremonies were often not directed towards the front, as in a movie.
              There were cases when embrasures were deployed to the flank and even to the rear.

              As for the rear, I have not heard this. But about the flank, so the normal bunker is done. Only now, bunkers are not found often, mainly on pre-prepared defense lines. Tanks and self-propelled guns do not storm such lines.
              Bunkers usually have loopholes facing the enemy front. These are ordinary field fortifications. With them the usual three-inch did well.
              1. Cap.Morgan
                Cap.Morgan 1 February 2016 18: 21
                +1
                That's the thing, that if there is no embrasure in the direction of the front, then it is difficult to hit the bunker. There were several such traps on the Mannerheim Line. The infantry passes the lane and machine guns hit it in the rear. Bunkers poured fire on each other, you can lay a TNT mine from above, but how to get there. The terrain is rocky, air bombs just rolled down from the top. This is where a self-propelled large-caliber self-propelled gun would be useful, even with low accuracy. Clearly break the wall.
                1. 2news
                  2news 1 February 2016 18: 34
                  0
                  Quote: Cap.Morgan
                  This is where a self-propelled large-caliber self-propelled gun would be useful, even with low accuracy. Clearly break the wall.

                  Purely breaking through the wall (not breaking) is better with a gun. Punching something with a howitzer is problematic. And even break through. It is better to break something with a large-caliber gun.
                  A howitzer, it’s basically a mounted fire on squares. Long-range mortar, if absolutely rude. True, with the possibility of shooting in the horizontal plane.
                  Armored howitzer, this is nonsense. Curiosity. They tried, it didn’t work, they forgot.
                  1. Alf
                    Alf 1 February 2016 21: 44
                    0
                    Quote: 2news
                    Armored howitzer, this is nonsense. Curiosity. They tried, it didn’t work, they forgot.

                    So why are there armored howitzers in the armies of all the serious countries of the world?
                    1. 2news
                      2news 1 February 2016 23: 01
                      0
                      Quote: Alf
                      so why in the armies of all serious countries of the world there are self-propelled armored howitzers?

                      I already wrote to you somewhere in another comment, you confuse howitzers, howitzer guns and guns. Do not make armored howitzers. It can be small batches for special needs, nothing more.
                      1. Alf
                        Alf 2 February 2016 21: 13
                        0
                        Quote: 2news
                        I already wrote to you somewhere in another comment, you confuse howitzers, howitzer guns and guns. Do not make armored howitzers.

                        Self-propelled artillery on a tracked chassis with a rotating turret.
                        The hull and turret are made of rolled aluminum armor, which provides protection against small arms fire and fragments of field artillery shells.
                        Armament: 155 mm howitzer M126 (barrel length 23 klb),

                        Quote: 2news
                        May be in small batches

                        USA USA - 1569 M109A1 / M109A2 / M109A6 of which about 500 are in storage, as of 2013
                      2. 2news
                        2news 2 February 2016 21: 42
                        0
                        Quote: Alf
                        Armament: 155 mm howitzer M126 (barrel length 23 klb)

                        Do not distort. This is the original version of the M109 with the M126 gun. They were released a little. Starting with the next model M109A1, they were armed with howitzer guns (M126A1). And starting with the M109A2 model, they are armed with M185 howitzers-guns (barrel length 39 klb).
                        Quote: Alf
                        USA - 1569 M109A1 / M109A2 / M109A6 of which about 500 are in storage, as of 2013

                        See the previous paragraph. Everywhere there are not howitzers, but howitzers-guns. The classic howitzer M126 was only on the original model M109 (which without A).
                      3. The comment was deleted.
              2. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 1 February 2016 19: 37
                0
                Quote: Cap.Morgan
                This is where a self-propelled large-caliber self-propelled gun would be useful, even with low accuracy. Clearly break the wall.

                Normal intelligence would come in handy here. Which was supposed to indicate the embrasure of the bunker. After that, 76 mm would have been enough for her. Or a flamethrower tank.

                But breaking through a wall is a long business.

                ICH, in February 1940 the Line was broken through almost the same technique. which burned on it in December 1939. Just a tactic changed: reconnaissance, a map of the bunker and sectors, assault groups, blocking embrasures.
            2. 2news
              2news 1 February 2016 19: 50
              -1
              Quote: Cap.Morgan
              Against fortified areas intended KV.

              KV and T-28 were breakthrough tanks. Field defense, but not Ukrainian regions. Fortified areas do not storm tanks.
          3. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 1 February 2016 19: 33
            0
            Quote: Cap.Morgan
            Embrasures during the war were often not directed towards the front, as in a movie.
            There were cases when embrasures were deployed to the flank and even to the rear. Therefore, a 76 mm cannon could not hit such an embrasure.

            So what am I talking about? L-11 - this is just a tank gun. smile
            That is why it was more dangerous than the B-4 or Br-5: a howitzer or mortar could spend several days tearing the DOT sprinkling off with breakdowns of the General Pharmacopoeia and digging into its concrete part. The tank, however, could go into the bunker shelling sector and hit its embrasure with precision.
            At the same time, the direct range of the tank gun’s shot was higher, which made it possible not to crawl right up even to the bunker of the flank fire (and the PTP positions next to it), but to work from the flank from afar.
            Quote: Cap.Morgan
            Against fortified areas intended KV.

            Anti-missile defense was originally intended for ttbr, which had medium and heavy tanks (T-28 and T-35, to replace which T-34 and KV were to come). But then the concept changed, and the T-34 from the amplification tank became a linear tank, along with the one that never got into the T-50 series.
            1. 2news
              2news 1 February 2016 19: 47
              0
              Quote: Alexey RA
              T-28 and T-35, which T-34 and KV were to replace. But then the concept changed, and the T-34 from the amplification tank became a linear tank, along with the one that never got into the T-50 series.

              Instead of the T-28, the KV-1 got into service. Like a breakthrough tank.
              The T-35 from the very beginning had no concept. Often it is called a front tank.
              Instead of BT, the A-20 (T-20) was planned. But then it was redone in T-32, and then in T-34. As a result, the T-34 replaced the T-26 as an infantry support tank (aka infantry).
              And the T-50 was just supposed to replace the BT (success development tank, it’s also cavalry, it’s cruising). But there did not grow together. It is for the better.
      2. Alf
        Alf 1 February 2016 21: 38
        0
        Quote: 2news
        . Only here are the treacherous enemies of the people, Vlasovites, most likely, after 7 months. production is a miracle of technology removed from production. And quite naturally replaced it with the SU-85.

        And where, shy to ask, from the Vlasov SU-122, and even in production?
        Quote: 2news
        Direct-fire bunkers are much more dangerous than an 85-mm anti-tank gun than a 122-mm howitzer.

        This you tell those who took Koenigsberg and Berlin, where it turned out that the SU-85 as a means of supporting infantry compared to the ISU-122 and, especially, the ISU-152, does not roll at all. Especially in Germany, where even houses and chicken coops in the farms had stone walls 1,5-2 meters thick.
        1. 2news
          2news 1 February 2016 22: 46
          0
          Quote: Alf
          And where, shy to ask, from the Vlasov SU-122, and even in production?

          Reread what you wrote and try to understand what it is about.
          Quote: Alf
          that the SU-85 as a means of supporting infantry compared to the ISU-122

          You throw vain replicas on this subject. As I understand it, you do not understand the difference between a cannon, a howitzer gun and a howitzer. Why then write? Where does the howitzer on the ISU-122 come from if the A-19C gun was there?
          1. Alf
            Alf 2 February 2016 21: 17
            0
            Quote: 2news
            Reread what you wrote and try to understand what it is about.

            According to your text, I realized that the Vlasovites were armed with the SU-122 and, especially in production. Was something made specifically for the Vlasovites? Is not it ?
            1. 2news
              2news 2 February 2016 21: 21
              0
              Quote: Alf
              According to your text, I realized that the Vlasovites were armed with the SU-122 and, especially in production.

              I have long noticed that you have problems understanding what is written in Russian? Is he not your own? Remember bad?
        2. The comment was deleted.
  • goose
    goose 1 February 2016 14: 15
    0
    Quote: 2news
    A similar product, this is exactly the same nonsense and whim as the SU-122. Only the Germans were smart enough not to put them in a series.

    Well, yes, find a second one that will quickly dismantle the field fortification or the house from the first shell. There were none other than the Su-122 at the beginning of the war. The only competitor is StuH 42. Well, there’s 105 mm and the armor is simpler, it can’t be taken apart from the first shell.
    1. 2news
      2news 1 February 2016 14: 18
      0
      Quote: goose
      Well, yes, find a second one that will quickly dismantle the field fortification or the house from the first shell.

      You are welcome. SU-85. Much more efficient and versatile than the SU-122. Therefore, it replaced the SU-122.
      In general, fortifications and houses with howitzers are "dismantled" from closed positions. Howitzer, this is not a cannon. She has nothing to do at the front end. And to shoot from a howitzer with direct fire is also a sin. She has made a carriage specially for conducting an attached fire complex and therefore it is expensive.
      There were none other than the Su-122 at the beginning of the war.

      Full of. T-34, KV-1, T-28. For direct aiming a three-inch shell was enough. A T-34/76, he’s just specially for this before the war and was released. It was later, after the beginning of the Second World War, he was appointed to the role of MBT. And before the Second World War it was released as an "infantry" tank.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 1 February 2016 15: 01
      0
      Quote: goose
      Well, yes, find a second one that will quickly dismantle the field fortification or the house from the first shell.

      If it gets. And for this, the SU-122 had to either crawl 300-400 meters, or to use up the entire ammunition from a greater range (do you remember the norms for the consumption of shells for typical targets for indirect fire?).

      From 500 meters, the M-30 missed 15 times on a stationary tank.
    4. Cap.Morgan
      Cap.Morgan 1 February 2016 18: 10
      +1
      I will add that the Germans had such cars.
      There were self-propelled guns with 105, 150 mm guns. Hummel? Large, with high angular cuttings.
      There was an option with a launch tube for launching 380-mm turbo-jet (or even more?) Mines at the Tiger base, they made 20 pieces. They were used in particular near Warsaw.
      Brumber, a small-series self-propelled gun based on the Tiger with a large-caliber gun. So the Germans did not consider this direction as a dead end.
      1. 2news
        2news 1 February 2016 18: 38
        +1
        Quote: Cap.Morgan
        So the Germans did not consider this direction as a dead end.

        So the Germans in general in the field of armaments were never strong. You look at what they fought. This is a laugh.
        And then. Small-scale special equipment can be anything. But in a large series of howitzers on an armored platform they did not launch.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  • Cap.Morgan
    Cap.Morgan 1 February 2016 17: 55
    0
    I watched the movie Tanks here.
    American.
    Panegyric to Abramsu. All kinds of exercises, shooting.
    In the middle of the film, a decent piece of the jumping T-80 was inserted, without indicating what kind of car it was or whose. For a beer with chips, you would think that it was American.
    Flying Abrams was not shown.)))
    1. gla172
      gla172 1 February 2016 18: 00
      0
      Quote: Cap.Morgan
      Flying Abrams was not shown.)))

      ......)
  • Alf
    Alf 1 February 2016 21: 48
    +1
    I got such a picture.
  • gla172
    gla172 1 February 2016 21: 55
    0
    By the way, they also forgot about such self-propelled guns, on the Czech base t38.

    Grille (German cricket) - German self-propelled artillery mount of the class of self-propelled howitzers from the Second World War. Produced on the basis of the Czech tank Panzer 38 (t) Ausf. H and Ausf. M, with the German 150 mm heavy infantry gun sIG 33 mounted on it.

    From April to June 1943 and from October 1943 to September 1944, 282 self-propelled guns were released, as well as 120 carriers of ammunition.
  • Cap.Morgan
    Cap.Morgan 1 February 2016 22: 04
    0
    However, we had a few high-powered guns.
    Br 5 for example - only 47.
    There were also French Schneider from the First World War - 280 mm - 25 pieces, and 305 mm - 31 pieces, sparse.
    1. 2news
      2news 2 February 2016 17: 26
      0
      Quote: Cap.Morgan
      Br 5 for example - only 47.
      There were also French Schneider from the First World War - 280 mm - 25 pieces, and 305 mm - 31 pieces, sparse.

      305 mm howitzers were 34 pcs.
      And also, in addition to those that you indicated (280 mm mortars and 305 mm howitzers), there were:
      152 mm howitzer-gun ML-20 model 1937 - 2603
      152 mm Br-2 gun of the 1935 model - 38
      203-mm howitzers B-4 model 1931 - 871
      210 mm Br-17 gun of the 1939 model - 3
      This is all but the B-4, the gun or the howitzer gun. Believe me, very powerful things. Here they could break through, anything. And from great distances.