Military Review

The famous anti-aircraft gun "Eight-eight"

79
History One of the most famous artillery guns of the Second World War originates in 1928, when German gunsmiths from the Krupp concern, forced due to Germany’s restrictions on the Versailles Treaty to work in Sweden, developed a prototype anti-aircraft gun at the plants of the local Bofors company, which received the designation 8,8 cm FlaK18 (88-mm anti-aircraft gun model 1918 of the year). The last numbers in the title should have been confusing for British and French observers to observe the conditions of the Versailles Treaty, referring them to the fact that the anti-aircraft gun was created before the end of the First World War. From 1932, they began to openly manufacture guns in Germany, at the same time they began to enter into service with the anti-aircraft units of the Wehrmacht.


In 1936-1937, the modernization of this anti-aircraft gun was carried out in Germany, the following notable changes were made already during the Second World War, in 1939-1943. Due to the fact that anti-aircraft guns of various modifications had a high degree of unification among themselves, as a result, the gun, which received an unofficial nickname from its caliber “Acht-acht” (Eight-Eight), got the name 8,8 cm FlaK 18 / 36/37/41. In total for the entire production period, which was discontinued in March 1945, more than 21 thousand guns of all versions were manufactured. This anti-aircraft gun is rightfully considered one of the best guns of World War II, it also served as the basis for creating a tank gun for heavy tank PzKpfw VI "Tiger". These guns were widely used not only as anti-aircraft, but also as anti-tank and even field guns. Often it is the German "eight-eight" that is called the most famous weapon of the Second World War.

Already during the war, the Germans finally understood that the “Eight-eight” was also effective in fighting the enemy’s armored vehicles. The gun perfectly proved itself on the Soviet-German front and in North Africa. At these theaters of war the situation was similar for the Germans - they faced the overwhelming superiority of the Soviet and British troops in the number of tanks, which very often were very well armored. This superiority of the allies was multiplied by the lack of armor penetration of the main German anti-tank weapon - the 3,7 gun cm PaK 35 / 36. At the same time, the disadvantages of the "Eight-eight" also existed: the high cost of production, large mass and high silhouette. All these shortcomings were compensated by the advantages of the instrument. As a result, in many critical situations for the Germans, only the massive use of 88-mm anti-aircraft guns helped to rectify the situation and quickly brought glory to one of the most dangerous artillery systems on the battlefield to this anti-aircraft gun.



Semi-automatic large-caliber anti-aircraft guns (75-105 mm) were developed in Germany during the First World War. But the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles forbade the Germans to possess anti-aircraft artillery, and all the guns of the Reichswehr were destroyed. Again, the Germans engaged in their development secretly in the second half of the 1920-s, the work was carried out by German designers both in Germany and in Sweden, Holland and other countries. At the same time, all new anti-aircraft guns and field guns, which were designed in Germany in those years, received the number 18 (that is, the model 1918 of the year) in designation. In the case of requests from the governments of France or Great Britain, the Germans could always answer that these were not new tools, but old designs that were created during the war. Also for the purpose of conspiracy up to 1935, the anti-aircraft units were called "mobile battalions" (Fahrabteilung).

By 1928, the designers prepared several anti-aircraft guns of a caliber of 75 mm with a barrel length of 52-55 calibers and 88 mm with a barrel of 56 caliber length. In 1930, anticipating the development of high-altitude bomber aviation, German designers and generals decided to increase the caliber of his proposed 75-mm anti-aircraft gun m / 29, which was a joint development of the companies "Bofors" and "Krupp". At the same time, the 105-mm unitary shot was heavy enough for field conditions, the loader could not provide a high rate of fire. For this reason, the choice was stopped on an intermediate caliber - 88 mm. Since 1932, the Krupp factory in Essen began mass production of 88-mm anti-aircraft guns, dubbed 8,8 cm Flak 18.

The barrel of the gun consisted of a casing, a free pipe and a breech. A fairly high rate of fire, which reached the 15-20 rounds per minute, provided a semi-automatic horizontal-wedge type shutter. He provided for the extraction of spent cartridges and cocking the combat spring at the expense of recoil energy. To return the anti-aircraft gun to its original position, a pneumatic knurled rod was used, located above the barrel. Under the barrel of the gun in two special cylinders a spring balancing mechanism of a pulling type was mounted, which facilitated the vertical guidance of the gun to the target.



Anti-recoil devices anti-aircraft gun consisted of a hydraulic brake recoil spun type, as well as hydropneumatic knurling. The length of the recoil tool was variable. The base of the gun carriage was a crosspiece, in which the main longitudinal beam served as a wagon, and when the anti-aircraft gun was moved to the stowed position, the lateral beds went up. The base of the swivel mount was mounted to the base of the anti-aircraft gun carriage. Rotary and lifting devices had two speeds of targeting. The anti-aircraft gun was transported with the help of two moves (uniaxial trolley carts) Sd.Anh.201, which were disconnected when transferring the anti-aircraft guns from marching to combat position. The moves were non-interchangeable: front - with single wheels, rear - with dual wheels.

Already in 1936, a new, modernized Eight-Eight began to come into service, receiving the Flak 36 index. The changes made mainly affected the construction of the gun barrel, which received a detachable front part, which facilitated the process of its production. In this case, the ballistics and the internal structure remained the same as those of the Flak 18. Also, as part of the modernization, all brass parts were replaced with steel ones, which made it possible to reduce the cost of the tool. Modernized and carriage - front and rear beds have become interchangeable. For towing began to use new moves Sd.Anh.202 with dual wheels, which were now the same. Other minor changes were made, but structurally both instruments were identical.

A year later, a new modification was developed - Flak 37. This anti-aircraft gun was distinguished by an improved system of indication of the direction of shooting, which was connected by cable with a fire control device. At the same time, the FlaK / 36 / 37 anti-aircraft guns used Sonderanhänger 202 trolleys, which had a higher payload and a higher transport speed. But their main advantage was the ability to fire at ground targets "from the wheels", that is, directly from the carts. The fire from the marching position was carried out as follows: only the side stops of the cruciform stand of the gun were lowered to the ground, the anti-aircraft gun was leveled and stabilized with the help of steel piles, which the calculation hammered into the ground through the holes in the stops. In addition, the brakes were strung and blocked on wheelchairs. The second major improvement to the Flak 37 was the production of a barrel from several elements, which made it possible to replace worn-out fragments of the trunk directly in field conditions. At the same time, the main drawback of the cannon on the battlefield — its high silhouette, which was comparable in size to the tank, was never resolved.



In the 1940, both versions, like the earlier Flak 18, were equipped with an armored cover, which was designed to protect the crew from bullets and shell fragments. As a towing implement that weighed 7400 kg in the stowed position, the 8-ton semi-tracked tractor Sd.Kfz.7 manufactured by Kraus-Maffei was used. It had to be used because of the substantial weight of the anti-aircraft gun, it remained a standard tractor for this gun throughout the war.

The baptism of fire "Eight-eight" received already in 1936 year during the Spanish Civil War, where she fell as part of the German Legion "Condor". Even then, FlaK 18 demonstrated its amazing effectiveness in the fight against light-armored tanks of those years. At the same time, armor-piercing shells became standard ammunition for all German anti-aircraft batteries. It was the 88-mm anti-aircraft gun that became the most formidable weapons for Soviet T-34 and KV tanks and British and American vehicles in North Africa at the start of World War II. The key to success was not only the German tactic of using these guns, but also the high speed of its projectiles - 790 m / s for high-explosive fragmentation shot.

At the initial stage of World War II, this weapon could hit most Allied tanks, firing high-explosive fragmentation shells at them, and the use of armor-piercing ammunition made this gun just deadly for tanks. For example, the Pzgr 39 armor-piercing projectile pierced 100 mm armor at a distance of 128 meters, and 1,5 mm at a distance of 97 kilometers. An important advantage of these guns was the presence of a mechanism for the automatic ejection of liners, which allowed the prepared calculation to maintain the rate of fire up to 20 rounds per minute. However, in order to load an 3-kilogram shell anti-aircraft gun every 15 seconds, for every “Eight-Eight” it was necessary to have 11 people, of which 4 or 5 were engaged exclusively in the delivery of projectiles.

The famous anti-aircraft gun "Eight-eight"


In 1939, the company Rheinmetall-Borsig received a contract to develop a new anti-aircraft gun, which would have the best ballistic characteristics. Initially, the new gun was called Gerät 37 (37 device), but in 1941 the name was changed to 8,8 cm FlaK 41, then the first prototype of the gun was ready. The first serial guns (44 units) were sent in August 1942 to the African Corps, half of which were sunk by the Allies in the Mediterranean along with the transports carrying them. And the tests of the remaining samples allowed us to identify a number of complex design flaws of anti-aircraft guns. Only with 1943, these guns began to enter the Reich air defense system.

The 8,8 cm FlaK41 cannon was notable for its increased rate of fire - 22-25 shots per minute, and the initial velocity of the fragmentation projectile reached 1000 m / s. The anti-aircraft gun had a hinge-type carriage with four cross-shaped beds. The design of the gun carriage made it possible to fire at an angle of elevation up to 90 degrees. In the horizontal plane it was possible to conduct circular fire. To protect the calculation of the gun from bullets and shrapnel there was an armored shield. Zenitka received a new barrel length 74 caliber. Originally it consisted of a casing, a pipe and a breech. The automatic shutter of the gun was equipped with a hydropneumatic rammer, which made it possible to facilitate the work of the calculation and increase the rate of fire. For Flak 41 anti-aircraft guns, a new projectile was created, the powder charge in it was increased to 5,5 kg (for Flak 18 - 2,9 kg). For this, the liner had to increase the length (from 570-mm to 855 mm) and diameter (from 112,2 to 123,2 mm along the flange).

In total, five main types of shells were developed — two high-explosive fragmentation projectiles with different types of fuses and three armor-piercing shells. The height of the new weapon reach: the ballistic ceiling was 15000 meters, the height of the real fire - 10500 meters. An armor-piercing projectile weighing 10 kg with an initial speed of 980 m / s at a distance of 100 meters pierced armor up to 194 mm thick, at a distance of one kilometer - 159 mm. A smaller mass sub-caliber projectile (7,5 kg) with an initial flight speed of 1125 m / s at a distance of 100 meters pierced armor with a thickness of 237 mm, and from a distance of 1000 meters - 192 mm.

8,8 cm FlaK 41


Unlike 8,8 anti-aircraft guns, the FlaK18 / 36 / 37 anti-aircraft guns using two single-axle trucks did not provide a tool for proper maneuverability during transportation, for this reason, the gun was mounted on the chassis of the Panther medium tank, but this self-propelled anti-aircraft gun and has not been developed. The 8,8 cm FlaK 41 cannon were produced in very small batches before the 1945 of the year, a total of 556 of such guns was produced. For a more successful combat with tanks, the barrel's mounting design compared to FlaK18 / 36 / 37 was rotated almost 90 degrees, which made it possible to reduce the silhouette of the gun and the visibility on the battlefield. The best fight against tanks was also promoted by the large length of the gun barrel, which ensured a high speed of the armor-piercing projectile.

By the start of World War II, by September 1, the 1939 of the Luftwaffe’s anti-aircraft units contained 2459 Flak 18 / 36 / 37 guns, which were in service with both the Reich air defense forces. And it was in the composition of the army air defense that they distinguished themselves to the greatest extent. Already during the military campaign in France, it turned out that German 37-mm anti-tank guns were absolutely helpless against the armor of most of the French tanks. However, the 88-mm anti-aircraft guns that remained “unemployed” (air supremacy captured the Luftwaffe) easily finished with them. Even more anti-tank value "Eight-eight" acquired during the battles in North Africa and on the Eastern Front.

It was a strange thing, but on the one hand, the German anti-aircraft guns didn’t have absolutely outstanding fighting qualities. For example, the Soviet 85-mm anti-aircraft gun 52K was almost as good as its German counterpart, including in armor penetration, but it never became so famous. What was the matter, why did the German “Eight-eight” deserve such fame not only in the Wehrmacht, but also in the armies of the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition members? The reason for the popularity of this tool lies in the extraordinary tactics of its use.



While the British themselves limited the role of their powerful 3,7-inch anti-aircraft guns to combat aircraft during the fighting in North Africa, the Germans successfully used their 88-mm anti-aircraft guns to deal with aircraft and enemy tanks. In November, the 1941 of the year in all of Rommel's African corps there were only 35 guns of 88-mm caliber, however, moving along with the tanks, these guns simply caused huge losses to the English Valentine and Matilda. On the Eastern Front, 88-mm anti-aircraft guns were also located in the battle formations of tank units. When German tankers came up against new Soviet tanks KB and T-34, very often anti-aircraft guns entered the scene. This tactic was used by the Germans until the end of the Second World War.

It is worth noting that prior to the direct use of anti-aircraft guns to fight tanks, the British generals treated this with great skepticism. They could not predict the next step of Rommel, who began to use the "Eight-eight" and in the offensive. Before the attack, the Germans secretly pushed these guns to the front line of the defense and, during a tank attack, supported their vehicles with fire. In this case, the British tanks were destroyed from a distance that was unattainable for them, and seeing the advancing German tanks in front of them, they sometimes believed that their cars were driven by them. It seemed to the British that their tanks were much inferior to German, they lost faith in the power of their own weapons. So the effect of the use of 88-mm anti-aircraft guns by the Germans was also psychological. Also important was the fact that all 88-mm anti-aircraft gun batteries were motorized, that is, they could quickly turn around in new positions. In addition, the ability to fire directly from trucks, increased the mobility of these guns.

Naturally, as the units of the Wehrmacht were saturated with new anti-tank guns, the value of 88-mm anti-aircraft guns as an anti-tank weapon gradually decreased. Despite this, by the 1944, the 13 anti-tank artillery units of the Nazi army were equipped with just such anti-aircraft guns. As of August 1944, the troops still counted 10930 Flak18 / 36 / 37 guns, which were widely used on all fronts of the war, as well as in the Reich air defense system. 88-mm cannon was widely used in coastal artillery.



Information sources:
http://pvo.guns.ru/other/germany/flak88
http://toparmy.ru/armii-istorii/nemeckaya-armiya/vermaxt/88-mm-nemeckaya-zenitnaya-pushka-uzhasnaya-vosemdesyat-vosmaya-foto.html
http://warspot.ru/3531-vosem-vosem-panatseya-vermahta
http://zonwar.ru/artileru/tj_zenit_art/Flak41_88mm.html
Materials from open sources.
Author:
79 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 11 February 2016 07: 25
    34
    The famous weapon. Once again it is confirmed that "a German, a serious man." All the more honor is given to our country, which defeated such a powerful enemy.
    1. Civil
      Civil 13 February 2016 14: 02
      +1
      Ours also used in the field.
  2. bionik
    bionik 11 February 2016 07: 28
    19
    German 88-mm anti-aircraft gun FlaK 18/36 with victory marks on the destroyed enemy equipment on the shield. One of the sections of the Eastern Front.
    1. bionik
      bionik 11 February 2016 07: 34
      +6
      SdKfz 8 with 88 mm gun France 1940.
      1. bionik
        bionik 11 February 2016 07: 43
        +4
        8.8mm gun on the railway platform.
        1. bionik
          bionik 11 February 2016 07: 48
          +8
          German ferry artillery support "Siebel" at anchorage. The ferry is armed with four 88-mm Flak 36 anti-aircraft guns and two 20-mm FlaK 38 anti-aircraft guns.
          1. bionik
            bionik 11 February 2016 07: 51
            +6
            8,8 cm FlaK 18 L / 56 anti-aircraft gun assembly line at the Rheinmetall-Borsig factory.
          2. The comment was deleted.
            1. xan
              xan 11 February 2016 12: 52
              10
              Quote: BagnyukSelo
              and with such ferries the Germans drove our felt boots across the Black Sea as they wanted ... a disgrace ... they say it was almost impossible to sink them ...

              link will be?
              But there was an article about our battery near Sevastopol.
              1. Thunderbolt
                Thunderbolt 11 February 2016 14: 40
                10
                .....................................
            2. miv110
              miv110 14 February 2016 19: 38
              +2
              Driving them by definition, especially by sea, is not possible, but they can be used for local operations and not on a very steep wave. If I am not mistaken, they prepared to ensure a landing in Britain. And the most famous attempt at their combat use was on Ladoga, where they did not gain fame.
  3. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 11 February 2016 07: 44
    14
    Serious contraption. I remember in childhood, when I read books about the Great Patriotic War, words like these - "And then the Germans pulled up their anti-aircraft guns" - caused a feeling of hopelessness.
    And so if the system has superior characteristics and can perform not only its immediate functions, then it is a sin not to take full advantage of the capabilities of the tool.
    Our hornbeam ZIS-3 was also used as an anti-tank. The main thing is to use it skillfully. soldier
    1. novel66
      novel66 11 February 2016 09: 13
      10
      it’s more correct to write - Hrabinskaya, developed in KB Grabina V.G. based on the Hrabin division of 76 mm, by the way the Germans developed their Fri gun.
    2. Stas57
      Stas57 11 February 2016 09: 21
      +7
      Quote: Rurikovich
      so if the system has superior characteristics and can perform not only its immediate functions, then it’s a sin not to take full advantage of the tool’s capabilities.
      Our hornbeam ZIS-3 was also used as an anti-tank. The main thing is to use it skillfully.

      Zis 3 division, she has the appropriate tasks, AhtAkht anti-aircraft gun, was used due to the lack of anything better in PT
    3. xan
      xan 11 February 2016 13: 01
      +1
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Serious contraption. I remember in childhood, when I read books about the Great Patriotic War, words like these - "And then the Germans pulled up their anti-aircraft guns" - caused a feeling of hopelessness.

      How can I tighten anti-aircraft guns in a tank battle? Yes, and with such a silhouette? They can be hidden on the defensive, or carried behind advancing tanks and laid out in the event of an enemy counterattack, but how to put it in front of the enemy? I read about the standing HF in 41 years. The Germans could not dig him, because he was located so that to kill him, you had to put the gun on direct fire. And if the anti-tank gun can be rolled forward by calculation forces, then with this gun this is impossible. Here KV and destroyed their guns until they were installed.
      1. Stas57
        Stas57 11 February 2016 13: 06
        +5
        Q u Raseiniai 24 –25 June 1941
      2. goose
        goose 16 February 2016 16: 27
        0
        Quote: xan
        How can I tighten anti-aircraft guns in a tank battle?

        At a distance of 1-1,5 km it will be quite a modest size. If it has optics with a multiplicity for firing for altitudes of the order of 7-8 km, then this gun will have almost two-fold superiority in effective firing range. And if she is standing in tall grass, a grove or among houses, then finding her is quite difficult without infantry.
    4. Profan
      Profan 14 February 2016 09: 28
      0
      There was such a film: "At Your Threshold", as a child I watched, just about anti-aircraft gunners near Moscow.
    5. Kirill38
      Kirill38 13 August 2017 07: 36
      0
      ZIS-3 as an anti-tank is from hopelessness. There was no other option ...
  4. Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 11 February 2016 07: 44
    +9
    It was the competent organization, interaction, thorough preparation and study, as well as the saturation of all units and subunits with a variety of modern weapons and equipment at that time, that allowed the German army to first win victories, and then resist a much superior enemy for a long time. Unfortunately, all this was not in the Soviet army. Even at the end of the war, the Soviet army did not properly interact not only between the branches of the armed forces, but even among individual units, in addition, we could not avoid "distortions" in equipping and supplying our armies and "stereotypes" in their use, which led to unjustified, heavy losses.
    1. Monster_Fat
      Monster_Fat 11 February 2016 08: 15
      10
      Our heavy 85-mm anti-aircraft guns did not play any special role in anti-tank defense for the following reasons: 1) at first, the crews were not prepared at all for firing at mobile ground targets, the FCS did not even have a reticle for this. 2) when the modified sights were introduced into the ammunition load, only 15 armor-piercing shells were introduced, and even then they were constantly in short supply, they "forgot" to bring them up, then they were in a dash, where at the "ammunition supply" point were so unnecessary in most cases. 3) anti-aircraft guns were towed by inactive slow tractors of the "Komsomolets" and "ChTZ" type, which led to the inactivity of the gun and it was impossible at all to talk about some kind of rapid advancement of heavy anti-aircraft guns to a tank-hazardous direction, and even more so there was no question even of some kind of maneuverability on battlefield. 4) the guns themselves were located very far from the line of contact between the troops and the enemy, covering "important" nodes, covering them only from enemy aircraft, when the Germans broke through the defense, anti-aircraft guns were evacuated primarily due to their insufficient number and importance for air defense. 5) there was absolutely no interaction between air defense and field troops. Heavy anti-aircraft guns belonged almost to the GKO reserve and for their use and movement it was necessary to "draw up a bunch of papers" and were allowed to use them against tanks only in extreme cases and from "hopelessness". It is for these reasons that our heavy anti-aircraft guns did not play a special role in anti-tank battles during the Second World War.
      1. Predator
        Predator 11 February 2016 09: 40
        10
        And what was the need to use an 85 mm anti-aircraft gun as an anti-tank?! Until 1943, the Wehrmacht did not have a tank that could withstand a 57 mm anti-tank gun, which was cheaper to manufacture, was easily transported by horse-drawn traction, and even in combat, it was low silhouette, excellent rate of fire. After the appearance of the menagerie to the same 57 mm PTO included godmother. a projectile with a sub-caliber, and then developed a 100 mm PT.
        1. Aleksandr72
          Aleksandr72 11 February 2016 10: 00
          15
          The need for the use of 85-mm anti-aircraft gun mod. 1939 52-k was due to a number of reasons:
          1) our main anti-tank gun 45 mm 53 model. 1937 could not fight the Wehrmacht T-III and T-IV tanks: in terms of performance characteristics, a 45-mm armor-piercing projectile easily penetrated 30-mm armor of non-modernized tanks and thicker armor from a short distance. But - this is only in terms of performance characteristics, in practice, thanks to the "rationalization" of one engineer in order to increase the gross output of armor-piercing shells, the process of hardening these same blanks was reduced by one operation - the result of a 45-mm armor-piercing shell could reliably penetrate the armor of only light German panzers, with impact, even in the side projection of the same T-III and T-IV, the shell simply split, without causing harm to the tank.
          2) a very powerful Hrabin gun 57-mm ZiS-2 arr. 1941 was considered (and rightfully) excessively powerful for 1941. In addition, due to the barrel of very large elongation (extremely expensive to manufacture according to the technology of those years and also having a very small resource), the gun turned out to be very expensive to manufacture ( besides, there was a lot of marriage in the manufacture of barrels, and this automatically meant extremely low production rates of this VET). In addition, the military made claims about the low fragmentation of the 57-mm HE shell, with the high cost of manufacturing unitary cartridges for a gun. Therefore, ZiS-2 was released a little and in the battles of 1941 they did not play a special role.
          3) to our main divisional and tank 76-mm gun (F-32, F-34, F-22, F-22USV and others) there were very few armor-piercing shells, and even those were not of the best quality. All this was written in memoirs and in military-historical research, and in technical literature - especially recently.
          Given the presence of the Red Army General Staff on the use by the Germans of heavily armored tanks in a future war, and in the absence of powerful anti-tank missiles in the Red Army, it was decided to include the 85-mm anti-aircraft guns in the anti-tank brigades, the formation of which began before the war. And when the Germans already in the course of the battles used the modernized T-III and T-IV tanks with enhanced armor, only medium-caliber anti-aircraft guns could confidently fight them and be guaranteed to penetrate armor, including 85-mm 52-k, speaking in the role of anti-theft defense, which was initially unusual for them.
          I hope I answered your question. Less is not from me.
          I have the honor.
          1. Predator
            Predator 11 February 2016 20: 45
            +1
            Alexander, I agree with you, but take a look for yourself how our military had a logic-45 mm anti-tank missile did not suit them (but the issue did not stop the whole war riveting more than 40 thousand), we are waiting for the appearance of German tanks with increased armor protection and will be discontinued 57 mm anti-aircraft gun that can fight them (expensive and the PF doesn’t suit us) and how unnecessarily powerful .... But what about the 85 mm anti-aircraft gun ?! In total, on June 118, 57, 62 guns were fired (for the whole country!), I.e. even for air defense it’s not very, very much, and we want to equip the brigade with them. Quality, well, who is to blame again?! There is a lot of marriage?! So there were a lot of them in all areas. We took that batch of defective 22.06.1941 mm shells, accepted .. They didn’t think about 2680 mm armor-piercing shots until 45, and by June 76 they had as many as 1941 armor-piercing guns per 1941 mm gun. Who is to blame for this? There was talk about the production of special munitions of 16 and 1 mm caliber in 76, the military said no. A 45 mm anti-tank projectile took 76 mm of armor from 1939 meters .....
            In addition, any gun of 122 mm and higher could fight any Wehrmacht tank, and its mobility was not much worse than an anti-aircraft gun (and there were enough of them), the main thing is that they were at the right time and in the right place (and for this, generals are needed ), then anti-aircraft guns will do their own thing.
        2. Stas57
          Stas57 11 February 2016 10: 18
          -1
          And what was the need to use the 85 mm anti-aircraft gun as an anti-tank ?! Before the 1943, the Wehrmacht had no tank that could withstand the 57 mm anti-tank gun, which was cheaper to manufacture

          1, expensive and technologically capacious.
          2, lack of production of expensive shells
        3. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 11 February 2016 10: 44
          +6
          Quote: Predator
          And what was the need to use an 85 mm anti-aircraft gun as an anti-tank?! Until 1943, the Wehrmacht did not have a tank that could withstand a 57 mm anti-tank gun, which was cheaper to manufacture, was easily transported by horse-drawn traction, and even in combat, it was low silhouette, excellent rate of fire.

          Serial production of the 85 mm was already debugged, unlike the 57 mm. Moreover, due to problems caused by evacuation. the production of anti-aircraft guns exceeded the production of poise Therefore, since August 1941, part of the 85-mm guns was produced in the PTP-41 version - without POISO devices and with a shield.

          In addition, the production of 57-mm anti-tank guns "competed" with the production of 76-mm divisional guns. Instead of 1 ZIS-2, 5-6 simplified wartime USVs could be made. And these guns were badly needed. First, to make up for the losses: out of 8513 divisional guns available on 22.06.41/01.09.41/3094, 01.01.42 were lost on 6463/XNUMX/XNUMX, and XNUMX guns by XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX. And, secondly, for the formation of new divisions and brigades - after all, it is the divisional artillery that is the basis of the firepower of a rifle division.
          Therefore, they decided to donate the ZIS-2 in favor of the 76 mm.
          Quote: Predator
          After the appearance of the menagerie to the same 57 mm PTO included godmother. a projectile with a sub-caliber, and then developed a 100 mm PT.

          Did the 57-mm have a godfather? EMNIP, armor-piercing shells came from a caliber of 76 mm. And 45-57 mm anti-tank guns got along with "coils".
          By the way, due to the known problems with the fuse, the first "godfather" received regimental guns - as a result of which the Iptap appeared in the Red Army on OB-25.

          And the 100 mm was originally developed as a light hull gun, the heiress of the pre-war 107 mm guns. She became forced to take PTP and not immediately - she had BBS for her only in November 1944.
          1. Amurets
            Amurets 11 February 2016 13: 13
            +1
            Quote: Alexey RA

            And the 100 mm was originally developed as a light hull gun, the heiress of the pre-war 107 mm guns. She became forced to take PTP and not immediately - she had BBS for her only in November 1944.

            Question: Wasn’t a naval shell used on the BS-3? And then the ZiS-3 and ZiS-2 differed only in the caliber of the barrels, even the shell shell was the same, the difference was only in the barrel for the shell. And the ZiS-2 gun was removed from service due to excess power, since the German shell through the gun was piercing tanks without damaging them. At least that’s how I met them in publications, including those of Grabin. This refers to the 57-mm anti-tank gun ZiS-2.
            1. Nikolaevich I
              Nikolaevich I 11 February 2016 15: 05
              +3
              Quote: Amurets
              .A they removed the ZiS-2 gun from service due to excess power, since the cannon shell pierced German tanks through without damaging them. At least as I met in publications,

              request Yes, I had to meet these allegations that the ZIS-2 turned out to be "too" powerful for the "41st year" ... they say, for that period, "forty-five" was enough for the eyes. But believe that "a cannon shell I pierced German tanks through and through without causing damage (!) ... ??? !!! No. fool This was 41st year! The production of "magpies" was established long ago, but what about the "new" ZIS-2 when: retreating, leaving the territory, evacuating factories ...?
            2. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 11 February 2016 16: 55
              +3
              Quote: Amurets
              Question: Wasn’t a naval shell used on the BS-3?

              And the fleet for the 100 mm was not armor-piercing.
              The reason is simple: the 100-mm cannons B-24 and B-34 were the "main caliber" on small ships (SKR, TSC) and submarines, for which a meeting with a target is extremely contraindicated, for the destruction of which a 100-mm BBS (such as KRL and larger) - they won't even have time to scratch it.
              Or the B-34s were anti-aircraft caliber on large ships, which had larger calibers for artillery combat.
              So the fleet of 100 mm BBS was not needed - there was enough OFS.
              Quote: Amurets
              And then the ZiS-3 and ZiS-2 differed only in the caliber of the barrels, even the shell shell they had was the same, the difference was only in the barrel under the shell.

              Not only. The ZIS-2 had a large elongation barrel, which at that time could only be processed at one plant in the USSR - and this process was difficult and extremely "waste-producing". Actually, all the difference in the price of the ZIS-2 and the USV fell on the barrel.
              Quote: Amurets
              And the ZiS-2 cannon was removed from service due to excess power, since the cannon shell pierced through German tanks without damaging them, at least as I saw in publications, including from Grabin.

              Grabin’s memoirs have a lot of things that do not correspond to reality - moreover, they disagree even with documents that bear Grabin’s signature. smile
              In fact, the ZIS-2 was removed for 2 reasons: the front demanded a battalion + there was no normal fragmentation shell for the ZIS-2 (high initial speed + wartime steel cast iron = almost no room for explosives). But 2/3 of the ammunition consumption of small-caliber anti-tank missiles (37-45) was accounted for precisely by the OS.
        4. Bongo
          Bongo 11 February 2016 12: 01
          +6
          Quote: Predator
          After the appearance of the menagerie, the same 57 mm VET turned on godfather. shell with sub-caliber

          Cumulative shell for 57-mm ZIS-2? wassat We had no cumulative shells during the war, except for 122 mm howitzers and 76 mm regimental guns. The use of such shells in 76-mm tank and divisional guns was impeded by the imperfection of the fuses, in some cases there were cases of ruptures in the gun barrels.
          Quote: Predator
          and then developed 100 mm pt.

          Contrary to the common misconception 100mm field implements BS-3 did not play a special role in anti-tank defense during the Second World War. request
          The creator of this weapon V.G. Grabin never considered the BS-3 anti-tank system, which is reflected in the name. BS-3 had a number of drawbacks that made it difficult to use it as an anti-tank. When firing, the gun jumped heavily, which made the gunner’s work unsafe and knocked down aiming systems, which, in turn, led to a decrease in the practical rate of aimed shooting - the quality for a field anti-tank gun is very important.
          The presence of a powerful muzzle brake with a small height of the line of fire and flat trajectories characteristic of firing on armored targets led to the formation of a significant smoke and dust cloud, which unmasked the position and blinded the calculation. The mobility of the gun with a mass of more than 3500 kg left it to do much better, transportation by forces of calculation on the battlefield was almost impossible, for towing the BS-3 caterpillar tractors were required, in extreme cases, all-wheel drive Studebaker US6 trucks.

          At the final stage of the war, the 98 BS-3 were attached as a means of strengthening five tank armies. The gun was in service with light artillery brigades of the 3-regimental personnel (forty-eight 76-mm and twenty 100-mm cannons).
          The artillery of the RGCs as of 1 in January of 1945 had 87 BS-3 guns. At the beginning of the 1945 of the year, in the 9 of the Guards Army, as part of three rifle corps, one cannon artillery regiment of BS-20 3 was formed.

          Basically, thanks to the long range - 20650 m and a fairly effective high-explosive fragmentation grenade weighing 15,6 kg, the gun was used as a body cannon to fight enemy artillery and suppress long-range targets.
          1. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I 11 February 2016 14: 48
            +3
            Duc .... for 57-mm ZIS-2 ... cumulative projectile and after the war ... did not appear!
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 11 February 2016 16: 56
            0
            Quote: Bongo
            We had no cumulative shells during the war, except for 122 mm howitzers and 76 mm regimental guns. The use of such shells in 76-mm tank and divisional guns was impeded by the imperfection of the fuses, in some cases there were cases of ruptures in the gun barrels.

            EMNIP, the problem with "kuma" fuses for 76-mm divisional ballistics was solved in 1944 - and the godfather went for them too.
          3. goose
            goose 16 February 2016 16: 46
            +1
            Quote: Bongo
            Cumulative shell for 57-mm ZIS-2?

            Yeah, the same thing made me laugh. On the technologies of 1943, breaking through the 57-mm cumulative one even with the ZIS-2 would hardly have crossed 30-35 mm. I think he would not have mastered his own caliber.
        5. goose
          goose 16 February 2016 16: 34
          0
          Quote: Predator
          Until 1943, the Wehrmacht did not have a tank that could withstand a 57 mm anti-tank gun, which was cheaper to manufacture

          Sorry, just the impossibility in 1940-42 to technologically cheaply and massively produce barrels with such a length in calibers, and led to a caliber of 76 and 85 mm with moderate elongation, which made it possible to meet the budget, leave adequate OFS and maintain armor penetration at a moderate initial speed. On 1 barrel for the ZIS-2 it was possible to release 2 barrels of 85 mm 52-k, which fired with reasonable accuracy.

          Another thing in the years 1944-45, when much could be allowed on the updated machine park.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 11 February 2016 10: 29
        0
        Quote: Monster_Fat
        Our heavy anti-aircraft guns of 85 mm caliber did not play any special role in anti-tank defense for the following reasons:

        What about the PTP-41? wink
        1. The comment was deleted.
      3. Bongo
        Bongo 11 February 2016 11: 50
        +5
        Quote: Monster_Fat
        Our heavy anti-aircraft guns of 85 mm caliber did not play any special role in anti-tank defense for the following reasons ...

        Sorry, but with all due respect, I can’t agree with you. No. At the end of June 1941, it was decided to form separate anti-tank artillery regiments of the RGK. These regiments were armed with twenty 85-mm anti-aircraft guns. In July - August 1941, 35 such regiments were formed. In August - October, a second wave of formation of anti-tank regiments of the RGK followed. An important advantage of anti-aircraft guns was also a carriage, providing a circular rotation of the gun. To protect the calculation, anti-aircraft guns retrained as anti-tank guns were equipped with an anti-shatter shield. 85 mm anti-aircraft guns were used for this purpose for at least two more years. The Battle of Kursk was attended by 15 anti-tank artillery divisions of twelve 85-mm cannons. This measure, of course, was a necessary one, since the anti-aircraft guns were much more expensive, the mobility was less, and they were masked harder.
        1. Amurets
          Amurets 11 February 2016 12: 10
          +1
          Quote: Bongo
          This measure, of course, was a necessary one, since the anti-aircraft guns were much more expensive, the mobility was less, and they were masked harder.

          Sergei! Hi! This is all right, but in December we discussed with a man from St. Petersburg. A man was in the topic. So he talked and even gave a table in which it was noted that with shells for 85mm and 107mm in the USSR there was a pipe of 85mm shells that was simply not enough until mid-1943 .In that post, they were just arguing about tank weapons. Sorry, I don’t remember the date. Now I’m climbing into the settings to turn off updates, otherwise the 10 icon went out again, it will demolish the system again. I’ve got it already.
          1. Bongo
            Bongo 11 February 2016 12: 14
            +1
            Quote: Amurets
            Sergei! Hello!

            Hi, Nikolay!
            In my opinion, an anti-tank (tank) 76-mm gun with a shell and ballistics of a 76-mm 3-K anti-aircraft projectile would be very useful to us. Such a system would be relevant until the end of the war.
            1. Amurets
              Amurets 11 February 2016 12: 57
              0
              Quote: Bongo

              Hi, Nikolay!
              In my opinion, an anti-tank (tank) 76-mm gun with a shell and ballistics of a 76-mm 3-K anti-aircraft projectile would be very useful to us. Such a system would be relevant until the end of the war.

              Sergey! This is the first version of the F-22, but according to the memoirs of Grabin, he was forced to reduce the breech under the three-inch sleeve and remove the muzzle brake at the training ground.
              I wanted to copy the page from the book, my truncated program did not allow me to do it, but the Germans converted 560 F-22 guns into anti-tank ones.
              1. Bongo
                Bongo 11 February 2016 13: 02
                +3
                Quote: Amurets
                Sergey! This is the first version of the F-22, but according to the memoirs of Grabin, he was forced to reduce the breech under the three-inch sleeve and remove the muzzle brake at the training ground.
                I wanted to copy the page from the book, my truncated program did not allow me to do it, but the Germans converted 560 F-22 guns into anti-tank ones.

                Nikolay, in my opinion, it should be admitted that the concept of the "universal" F-22 is deeply flawed and the weapon itself had a lot of shortcomings. I meant a specialized anti-aircraft gun with the ballistics of an anti-aircraft 76-mm gun.
                1. Amurets
                  Amurets 11 February 2016 13: 26
                  +1
                  Quote: Bongo

                  Nikolay, in my opinion, it should be admitted that the concept of the "universal" F-22 is deeply flawed and the weapon itself had a lot of shortcomings. I meant a specialized anti-aircraft gun with the ballistics of an anti-aircraft 76-mm gun.

                  Sergei! You didn’t understand me? I meant that the gun in the original version with the increased giza could be used as a weapon of the PTO. Replacing the machine with the field one, as was done with the SPM, it was possible to get a fine PTO gun, but the breech of the SPM was already under the three-inch sleeve, then there is a reduced one.
                  1. Bongo
                    Bongo 11 February 2016 13: 37
                    +3
                    Quote: Amurets
                    Sergei! You did not understand me?

                    Got it yes
                    Quote: Amurets
                    I meant that the gun in the original version under the increased giza could be used as a weapon of the military technical organization. Replacing the machine with a field one, as was done with the SPM, it was possible to obtain a beautiful military technical weapon



                    Difficult question what Shirokorad writes that this gun had low reliability. The gun had a lot of flaws, was difficult to manufacture and capricious in operation .. request Perhaps it would be more rational to create a purely anti-tank system "from scratch."
                    Didn't you read this?
                    http://topwar.ru/33793-protivotankovaya-artilleriya-rkka-chast-2-ya.html
                    1. Amurets
                      Amurets 11 February 2016 14: 49
                      0
                      Quote: Bongo

                      The difficult question is what Shirokorad writes that this weapon was of low reliability. The gun had a lot of flaws, was difficult in production and capricious in operation .. request Perhaps it would be more rational to create a purely anti-tank system "from scratch".
                      Didn't you read this?
                      http://topwar.ru/33793-protivotankovaya-artilleriya-rkka-chast-2-ya.html

                      Yes! Read! Grabin had another conflict with the directors of the plant, most importantly with Ustinov. Before Stalin it came. There was such a Kulik activist. So, in Kulik’s opinion, we didn’t need anti-tank artillery larger than 45mm. And in 1941 they removed the 45mm gun from the plan and 76mm, because according to Kulik there was an overabundance of them. As a result, after the outbreak of the war, there was nothing to equip new units.
                      1. Alexey RA
                        Alexey RA 11 February 2016 17: 13
                        +2
                        Quote: Amurets
                        So, according to Kulik, we did not need anti-tank artillery larger than 45mm

                        And he was right - according to the test results of 1940, the 45-mm anti-tank gun was able to penetrate the side armor of a German tank with a high-quality BBS only from a distance of 150-200 m. The problem could be solved only in the fall of 1941 - "shells with undercuts" (which, according to the pre-war requirements for armor penetration , alas, did not pass - too much mass of the projectile remained in front of the armor). That is why they ordered the 57 mm.
                        Nevertheless, Kulik insured himself and ordered the development of a "long-barreled" 45-mm - the future M-42. good
                        In addition, as of June 22.06.41, 14900, the Red Army had 45 100-mm anti-tank guns - more than XNUMX% of the requirement for reversal.
                        Quote: Amurets
                        And for 1941, guns with a caliber of 45mm and 76mm were removed from the plan altogether, since according to Kulik there was an overabundance of them.

                        On June 22.06.41, 76, the 8513-mm divisional guns in the Red Army were 148 - or XNUMX% of the requirement for reversal.
                        In addition, in the late 30s, demands for increasing the caliber of divisional guns sounded louder, since the power of a 76-mm shell was recognized as insufficient.

                        In addition, Kulik didn’t from scratch gave rise to the requirements of the GAU. In addition to the depressing results of the shooting of the 45-mm anti-tank vehicles, there was also intelligence data. And the RU General Staff of the Red Army regularly pleased the GAU with reports of the development by the Germans of tanks with an armor thickness of 100-120 mm ... and even about German heavy tank divisions armed with serial heavy tanks, which produced in factories in occupied France and Czechoslovakia. belay
            2. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 11 February 2016 17: 03
              +5
              Quote: Bongo
              In my opinion, an anti-tank (tank) 76-mm gun with a shell and ballistics of a 76-mm 3-K anti-aircraft projectile would be very useful to us. Such a system would be relevant until the end of the war.

              That was how it was - S-54. It even fit into a standard "nut" with a small shoulder strap.

              But the S-54 lost in 1943 an 85-mm gun. The reason is simple - in addition to increasing the range of a direct shot (increasing the initial speed), tank crews needed to maintain the power of the General Pharmacopoeia. After all, the main purpose of the tank was soft taargets - field fortifications, infantry, anti-tank infantry fighting vehicles (see order No. 325 of 1942). This is even seen on the T-34 BC.
              But with an increase in the initial velocity, it was required to thicken the walls of the general physical structure - and its power fell. Or it was necessary to reduce the initial speed of the general physical fitness area - which destroyed the very idea of ​​increasing the direct shot range (which was required to deal with the ever-increasing number of 75-mm anti-tank vehicles operating from 600-800 m).
              Therefore, the principle of increasing the caliber, and not just the initial speed, won.
              1. Bongo
                Bongo 12 February 2016 05: 07
                +1
                Quote: Alexey RA
                But the S-54 lost in 1943 an 85-mm gun.

                Who would doubt that in the second half of the war the 85-mm gun would be more in demand. yes Another question, what prevented equipping our tanks with a 76-mm high-ballistic gun from the very beginning?
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 12 February 2016 10: 29
                  0
                  Quote: Bongo
                  Another question, what prevented equipping our tanks with a 76-mm high-ballistic gun from the very beginning?

                  And why is it for fighting infantry? smile
                  And against the F-34 tanks it was theoretically sufficient. The penetration of high-quality BR-350A was enough to deal with all German tanks. Another thing is that the NKBP thwarted all the release plans, and on 22.06.41/XNUMX/XNUMX these BBSs were not in any of the mechanized corps (instead of them, USh acted as armor-piercing).
                  And later these shells were not enough. In July 1942, the report "The defeat of the armor of German tanks" was published, which began with the phrase: "In view of the lack of the required number of kamor armor-piercing shells in artillery units, the shooting of German tanks from 76,2-mm divisional guns with projectiles of other types is common ...".
                  1. Bongo
                    Bongo 12 February 2016 14: 27
                    +1
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    And why is it for fighting infantry?

                    To combat infantry, a 76-mm projectile was enough, many thousands of 76-mm divisional guns confirm this. Another question is that an 85-mm grenade was much more effective in destroying field fortifications.
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    And against the F-34 tanks it was theoretically sufficient. The penetration of high-quality BR-350A was enough to deal with all German tanks.
                    In 1941, of course. yes
                    But already in the second half of 1942, the Germans appeared medium Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.F2 with enhanced armor and a long-barreled gun. The situation was further aggravated after the massive appearance of heavy German tanks and self-propelled guns against the frontal armor of which 76-mm T-34 and KV guns were ineffective.
  5. Volga Cossack
    Volga Cossack 11 February 2016 07: 47
    +5
    aht-aht - a kind of masterpiece ..... functional - from anti-aircraft guns to coastal guns ...... and anti-tank advantages are higher than praise ....... not for nothing and we introduced 85mm - anti-aircraft guns anti-tank units ...... by which it was even forbidden to shoot at planes. Thank you for the article!
    1. goose
      goose 16 February 2016 16: 55
      0
      Quote: Volga Cossack
      aht-aht - a kind of masterpiece ..... functional - from anti-aircraft guns to coastal guns ...... and anti-tank advantages are higher than praise ....... not for nothing and we introduced 85mm - anti-aircraft guns anti-tank units ...... by which it was even forbidden to shoot at planes. Thank you for the article!

      Some historians consider this gun one of Germany’s biggest mistakes, especially for the role of air defense, because guns were scattered throughout Germany, their number was at least 8 thousand. This is at least 100 thousand personnel + a huge military potential has been expended, which, given the limited resources, was fatal
  6. fa2998
    fa2998 11 February 2016 07: 53
    +3
    Good gun, and good use! Before the war, we fought with universal guns, seemingly noticeable on the field. But the Germans did not bother, they beat 1000-2000 meters from the rear. hi
    1. Stas57
      Stas57 11 February 2016 09: 26
      +1
      Quote: fa2998
      Good gun, and good use! Before the war, we fought with universal guns, seemingly noticeable on the field. But the Germans did not bother, they beat from the rear-1000-2000 meter

      so fought that before the war we stamped thousands of F22 and SPM
      yeah, they didn’t bother .. with 1000 m the average tanker T34 stacked the whole crew from one OFS
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 11 February 2016 10: 52
        +3
        Quote: Stas57
        yeah, they didn’t bother .. with 1000 m the average tanker T34 stacked the whole crew from one OFS

        The direct firing range for the anti-tank fire for the F-34 is about 500-600 m. To lay a projectile at a target from a kilometer is a lot of work.

        EMNIP, the whole story with the replacement of a 76-mm tank gun with an 85-mm one began precisely because it was necessary to increase the range of a direct shot while maintaining the power of the General Frontier Command - to combat the 75-mm anti-tank vehicles operating from 600-800 m. As a result range increased almost a half times.
        1. Stas57
          Stas57 11 February 2016 11: 42
          +1
          Quote: Alexey RA
          The direct firing range for the anti-tank fire for the F-34 is about 500-600 m. To lay a projectile at a target from a kilometer is a lot of work.

          Katukov and Guderian will not agree - two 8,8 from 34 at a distance of more than km
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 11 February 2016 17: 19
            0
            Quote: Stas57
            Katukov and Guderian will not agree - two 8,8 from 34 at a distance of more than km

            How many guns fired on the Germans? And what are Katukov’s losses?
    2. Forest
      Forest 11 February 2016 10: 06
      +5
      So 8,8 was not a universal tool. It could fire from closed positions, lay ballistics. She was an anti-aircraft gun - and she remained, only used in various versions. Our Berlin 203-mm was used for direct fire - but this does not make them universal. And weighting from 1,5 to 3-4 tons for a divisional cannon in a mobile war is like death.
  7. gla172
    gla172 11 February 2016 08: 30
    10
    Quote: bionik
    SdKfz 8 with 88 mm gun France 1940.


    But our ZIS 2 prada is not a zinit, but the chassis seems to be, and in principle, flasks as PTOs were often used.
    1. Thunderbolt
      Thunderbolt 11 February 2016 15: 00
      +3
      And here is our T-34 with the flask discussed here. Just interesting --- was it a single instance or a whole battery (at least) of such hybrids?
      1. igordok
        igordok 11 February 2016 17: 13
        0
        This is Photoshop in a single amount.
        On this "fotozhaba" they even began to make models.

        Although one of the authors of the model indicates
        Legend:
        8,8-cm FlaK-18 / 36 (Sf) auf Fahrgestell T-34 (r). The 8,8-cm self-propelled anti-tank gun on the chassis of the captured Soviet T-34 tank was used in April 1945 by the Kinfast battle group (Kampfgruppe Kienast) in Saxony.
      2. Bayonet
        Bayonet 11 February 2016 21: 25
        +4
        Quote: Thunderbolt
        .Only interesting --- was it a single instance or a whole battery (at least) of such hybrids?

        ZSU T-34-88 This version of the alteration, as far as is known, existed in a single copy. He was done by someone Ernest Albert, the chief mechanic of the 286th SS Infantry Regiment. As you can see, an 34 mm anti-aircraft gun was installed on the T-88 chassis, which was a formidable weapon in the fight against armored vehicles and aircraft. This vehicle was part of the 286th SS Infantry Regiment, and was captured in April 1945 near Frankfurt an der Oder.
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. Nexus 6
        Nexus 6 12 February 2016 00: 54
        +4
        "Find seven differences"))
      5. goose
        goose 16 February 2016 16: 58
        0
        I would see how it is being charged, I would cut myself off from such a circus.
  8. Aleksandr72
    Aleksandr72 11 February 2016 08: 45
    14
    The article is certainly interesting and informative. But in my opinion, the mention in this article of the Flak 41 anti-aircraft gun, with its inclusion in the famous family of "akht koma akht" with data from Wikipedia, was redundant. This is still a completely different gun, having almost nothing in common with the Flak 18/36/37 except for the 8,8 cm or 88 mm caliber and purpose. By the way, this gun served as the basis for the development of a new 88-mm PaK 43 anti-tank gun and its modification of the 88-mm PaK 43/41, which in the Wehrmacht were called "Scheunentor" - "barn gate" due to the large size of the shield, and also a whole series of tank guns, which were armed with self-propelled guns "Ferdinand" (aka "Elephant"), "Nashorn" (aka "Hornisse"), "Jagdpanther" and finally "Tiger-II" (better known as "Royal Tiger" Yes, I almost forgot - respect and undoubtedly to the author from me. hi
    Here is a photo of Flak 41:
  9. Amurets
    Amurets 11 February 2016 08: 52
    +7
    <<< The Germans began to secretly develop them again in the second half of the 1920s, the work was carried out by German designers both in Germany itself and in Sweden, Holland and other states. >>>
    According to the memoirs of V.G. Grabin, his design activity began in the joint Soviet-German artillery KB-2.
    << Before the war, we fought with universal guns, as if they were noticeable on the field. But the Germans did not bother, they beat from the rear, 1000-2000 meters. >>
    And according to the recollections of the same Grabin, Soviet designers, they were forced to engage in universal and semi-universal guns, as well as recoilless guns, and only the trial of Tukhachevsky removed these innovations. Link: Grabin "Weapon of Victory".
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 11 February 2016 11: 00
      +4
      Maybe I will express seditious thought, but at the beginning of the 30s the universal divisional gun for the USSR really made sense.
      Because the anti-aircraft guns of Lender are already outdated. And about the specialized 76-mm "German" 3K anti-aircraft guns at first there were great doubts that it would be possible to organize their production. When the series was set up, the release of these salaries was barely enough for the country's air defense.

      As a result, the basis of the air defense of the army units at the time of the development of the F-22 was the usual "three-inch" on the Ivanov machine:

      Compared to her, even the F-22 is a big step forward.
      1. Amurets
        Amurets 11 February 2016 12: 37
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA

        Compared to her, even the F-22 is a big step forward.

        And what does sedition have to do with it? You expressed a sensible idea, especially since the F-22 was created as a semi-universal cannon. And the fact that the Germans unraveled the secret of the F-22 I read from both Grabin and the Germans. The Germans, having captured a large number of F-22 cannons, squandered the breech under Larger shells increased the charge density and by putting a muzzle brake, we got an excellent anti-tank gun. All this can be found in Grabin's book "Weapons of Victory". Initially, the chamber for the cartridge case on the F-22 was larger.
        1. Bongo
          Bongo 11 February 2016 12: 42
          +3
          Quote: Amurets
          And what does sedition have to do with it? You expressed a sensible idea, especially since the F-22 was created as a semi-universal cannon. And the fact that the Germans unraveled the secret of the F-22 I read from both Grabin and the Germans. The Germans, having captured a large number of F-22 cannons, squandered the breech under Larger shells increased the charge density and by putting a muzzle brake, we got an excellent anti-tank gun. All this can be found in Grabin's book "Weapons of Victory". Initially, the chamber for the cartridge case on the F-22 was larger.


          Nikolay, this is described in much more detail at Shirokorad.
          1. Amurets
            Amurets 11 February 2016 13: 33
            -1
            Quote: Bongo

            Nikolay, this is described in much more detail at Shirokorad.

            Sergey! In addition to this, I have a book by Grabin himself "The Weapon of Victory" and a book "Grabin and the Cannon Masters".
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 February 2016 13: 47
            +2
            I don’t know much about artillery, but what I read at Shirokorad about ships ... let's say it makes me think about its competence. Thinking hard.
            1. Bongo
              Bongo 11 February 2016 13: 51
              +1
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              I don’t know much about artillery, but what I read at Shirokorad about ships ... let's say it makes me think about its competence. Thinking hard.

              Here I agree with you, but apparently he understands artillery.
          3. nimboris
            nimboris 12 February 2016 03: 25
            0
            Better read the memoirs of Vasily Grabin himself, "The Weapon of Victory"
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 11 February 2016 18: 56
          +2
          Quote: Amurets
          And the Germans figured out the secret of the F-22 I read from both Grabin and the Germans. The Germans, capturing a large number of F-22 guns, squandered the breech under a larger sleeve increased charge density and put a muzzle brake, got an excellent anti-tank gun.

          But Grabin writes off the demand of the military to use a standard three-inch shot (and not a reinforced version) in the F-22 exclusively on the military’s inertia.
          In fact, everything rested on copper. It was her lack that gave rise to the demands of the army, which at the present time seem absurd.
          For example - cartridge loading instead of a separate case. Or the adoption of the 76-mm anti-aircraft guns with the smallest of the cartridges offered by the Germans (the IHC version of the German sleeve for the 3K of the largest size was used after 8 years - a shot was made for the 85-mm anti-aircraft gun from it, saving on the development of the cartridge case and manufacturing technology).
          There was a shortage of copper even in the late 30s - it cut down all plans to switch to 95 mm and even 85 mm caliber in division artillery (an 85 mm sleeve required twice as much copper as 76 mm). What can we say about the beginning of the 30s - then the development of a new shot and the production from scratch of the ammunition stockpile for the second-mass gun (after 45 mm) with a large and metal-intensive sleeve could generally be considered wrecking.
          The bottleneck with copper was expanded only in the second half of the war, and not without the help of Lend-Lease with its Chilean copper. This was done on time - on the approach was the rearmament of the T-34 to 85 mm.
  10. Stas57
    Stas57 11 February 2016 09: 43
    +5
    An important advantage of these guns was the presence of an automatic cartridge ejection mechanism, which allowed the prepared calculation to maintain the rate of fire up to 20 rounds per minute. However, in order to charge an anti-aircraft gun every 3 seconds with an 15-kilogram projectile, for each “Eight-Eight” 11 people were needed, of which 4 or 5 were exclusively engaged in projectile delivery.


    No comments

    1. DimanC
      DimanC 11 February 2016 12: 32
      0
      Ai-ai, almost a single tank was fired like on an airplane. Well done, nothing to say. Rate of fire compensated aiming time
  11. Zeppelin ml.
    Zeppelin ml. 11 February 2016 09: 58
    +4
    Yes, "akht-komma-aht" is the same integral symbol of WWII as the T-34, "piece" or "Katyusha". Although, it seems, the Germans ran it in Spain, as part of the "Condor", EMNIP. Her shield appeared at the same time.
  12. fa2998
    fa2998 11 February 2016 10: 24
    +3
    Quote: Stas57
    with 1000 m the average tanker T34 stacked the entire crew from one OFS

    Everything is so simple with you! To surround a camouflaged gun for 1 km you need good optics and it is better to free the tank commander from affairs inside the turret and deal with management and equip a command turret. Alas, this was not the case in 1941 By the way, the French on heavy tanks ( on which 88 mm were "run in") - the same disease, a master of all hands. Often even at 500 meters, you won't notice everything, but "beyond the horizon" - sorry! yes hi
    1. Zeppelin ml.
      Zeppelin ml. 11 February 2016 11: 06
      +5
      Quote: fa2998
      with 1000 m the average tanker T34 stacked the entire crew from one OFS
      Everything is so simple for you!

      Duc! WoT School Detected.
      1. Stas57
        Stas57 11 February 2016 12: 18
        0
        Quote: Zeppelin ml.
        Quote: fa2998
        with 1000 m the average tanker T34 stacked the entire crew from one OFS
        Everything is so simple for you!

        Duc! WoT School Detected.

        so where am I to you, unable to even read the article above ...

        Quote: Zeppelin ml.
        Yes, "akht-komma-aht" is the same integral symbol of WWII as the T-34, "piece" or "Katyusha". Although, it seems, the Germans ran it in Spain, as part of the "Condor", EMNIP. Her shield appeared at the same time.

        .... like .... EMNIP .....
        The baptism of fire “Eight-Eight” was received already in 1936 during the Spanish Civil War, where it fell into the German Legion “Condor”. Even then, FlaK 18 demonstrated its amazing effectiveness in the fight against lightly armored tanks of those years. At the same time, armor-piercing shells became the standard ammunition for all German anti-aircraft batteries. It was the 88-mm anti-aircraft gun that became the most formidable weapon for Soviet T-34 and KV tanks and British and American vehicles in North Africa at the initial stage of World War II. The key to success was not only the German tactics of using these guns, but also the high flight speed of her shells - 790 m / s for high-explosive fragmentation.
        1. Zeppelin ml.
          Zeppelin ml. 11 February 2016 12: 41
          0
          Quote: Stas57
          so where am I to you, unable to even read the article above ...

          criticism fair, accept) Inattentive)
          I take the words back, colleague, do not be offended.
    2. Stas57
      Stas57 11 February 2016 11: 50
      +1
      Quote: fa2998
      Everything is so simple with you! To surround a camouflaged gun for 1 km you need good optics and it is better to free the tank commander from affairs inside the turret and deal with management and equip a command turret. Alas, this was not the case in 1941 By the way, the French on heavy tanks ( on which 88 mm were "run in") - the same disease, a master of all hands. Often even at 500 meters, you won't notice everything, but "beyond the horizon" - sorry!

      sorry
      hmm, we open Shein, Guderian, Katukov, Schekotikhin, a map, and we see that from their positions the tankers of the 4 brigade, in the battle of 6,10,41, destroyed the 2 anti-aircraft guns, apply the rulers and find a range of more than km.
      Well, refute it, tell me about optics, about shells, crooked trunks and more.
      1. goose
        goose 16 February 2016 17: 20
        0
        Quote: Stas57
        m, we open Shein, Guderian, Katukov, Schekotikhin, a map, and we see that from their positions the tank crews of 4 TBRs, in the battle of 6,10,41, destroyed 2 anti-aircraft guns

        Optics gunner T-34 was adequate for firing at 1 km. Let them not from the first shell, but from 3-4 they would have fallen at such a distance. Given the practical rate of fire - for a minute is complete. The main thing was to find anti-aircraft guns. I suspect that in the memoirs they shot at undisclosed guns without camouflage, which was also often encountered.
  13. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 February 2016 11: 22
    0
    One can only regret that we did not put this weapon into the series under license. If we had a first-class anti-aircraft gun, including for the fleet - instead of "hundred parts" of Kirov, akht-coma-akht asks for it. Moreover, it would be possible to put 8 guns on not 6 (they put on the Pacific 26-bis eight 85-mm each)
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 11 February 2016 19: 02
      +1
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      One can only regret that we did not put this weapon into the series under license. If we had a first-class anti-aircraft gun, including for the fleet - instead of "hundred parts" of Kirov, akht-coma-akht, it just asks.

      And what do you dislike about the 85 mm? smile
      At the beginning of the 30s, we would not have accepted the 88-mm anti-aircraft guns - there is nothing to carry and nothing to shoot. We have chosen the smallest of the cartridges offered by the Germans for 76 mm.
      And the next rearmament was only in the late 30s.

      By the way, an indicative moment: 52-K was adopted in 1939. And before the war they were only able to make 158 shells per barrel (1 BC) with difficulty. 10% of mob needs. And this is after the second industrialization of the late 30s.

      As for the fleet, there was not a problem with the trunks, but with the MPUASO. Without synchronous servo drives, that B-34, that aht-komma-aht - everything is one and filthy.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 February 2016 22: 06
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        And what do you dislike about the 85 mm?

        The German is more powerful.
        Quote: Alexey RA
        By the way, an indicative moment: 52-K was adopted in 1939. And before the war they were only able to make 158 shells per barrel (1 BC) with difficulty. 10% of mob needs. And this is after the second industrialization of the late 30s.

        So I say - it was necessary to build a plant under license, in the early 30s this could be done.
        And about "nothing to carry" - you are absolutely right, nothing. Maybe this would motivate us to build a little car capacity instead of 100500 tanks? :) Well, for my favorite fleet, the tractor is irrelevant :) drinks
        Quote: Alexey RA
        As for the fleet, there was not a problem with the trunks, but with the MPUASO. Without synchronous servo drives, that B-34, that aht-komma-aht - everything is one and filthy.

        The B-34 had a vile speed of manual vertical and horizontal guidance (aht-coma-aht - no, it was pointing normally with her hands) B-34 had problems setting the distance on anti-aircraft shells (the Germans didn’t) About the B-34 air expander just lazy.
        The British used their 102 mm without SSP quite normally (they put EMNIP into the war)
      2. Amurets
        Amurets 12 February 2016 01: 59
        -1
        Quote: Alexey RA

        As for the fleet, there was not a problem with the trunks, but with the MPUASO. Without synchronous servo drives, that B-34, that aht-komma-aht - everything is one and filthy.

        Then one more question, since you are on the subject. Before the revolution, the Geisler plant produced not only couplings, but also whole central guidance systems, why was the secret lost after the revolution?
  14. PKK
    PKK 11 February 2016 12: 00
    +1
    It’s a very respected gun and a tractor for it, suitable for bad roads. But it touches me that the calculation of the gun moved in the open body in winter, in any weather. Let the blizzard or rain even turn around after such cooling. Is it then the people were hardier that they didn’t bother with covered bodies, or knew how to bask. But ours in the trenches now suffer from pneumonia three times in the winter.
    1. Zeppelin ml.
      Zeppelin ml. 11 February 2016 12: 11
      0
      Quote: PKK
      But it touches me that the calculation of the gun moved in the winter in an open body, in any weather.

      horse traction and pedestrian calculations in "Hot Snow" are not particularly touching.
      Quote: PKK
      Whether then the people were more enduring

      but have doubts?)
    2. goose
      goose 16 February 2016 17: 23
      0
      Quote: PKK
      Either the people were more resilient, that they didn’t bother with covered bodies, or they knew how to bask. But ours in the trenches now have pneumonia three times in winter

      At that time in winter in German apartments and houses the temperature was 10-15 degrees. Not heated above. So they are used to freezing.
  15. fa2998
    fa2998 11 February 2016 12: 09
    0
    Quote: Stas57
    sorry
    hmm, we open Shein, Guderian, Katukov, Schekotikhin, a map, and we see that from their positions the tankers of the 4 brigade, in the battle of 6,10,41, destroyed the 2 anti-aircraft guns, apply the rulers and find a range of more than km.
    Well, refute

    Yes, I won’t refute it, it’s a matter of chance. Yes, and it is supposed to destroy tanks firing points. And, what Guderian and our commanders write, HOW MANY TANKS ARE REMOVED FROM THE STRUCTURE THE OTHER ANTIFLATURES, what are our losses? hi
    1. Stas57
      Stas57 11 February 2016 12: 29
      +1
      Quote: fa2998
      Yes, I won’t refute it, it’s a matter of chance. Yes, and it is supposed to destroy tanks firing points. And, what Guderian and our commanders write, HOW MANY TANKS ARE REMOVED FROM THE STRUCTURE THE OTHER ANTIFLATURES, what are our losses?


      Having risen to a height, German tanks fall under the fire of tanks 4 TBR. Artduel begins at a distance of 1-1,5 km, which from the very beginning is not in favor of the Germans, their guns can not cause harm. The Soviet side estimates the Germans in approximately 40 tanks, the Germans report on 15-25 enemy tanks *. The attack is repelled, one German tank is destroyed, and German positions are firing at Soviet tanks / 4 battalion company Lavrinenko /, which fall under the fire of deployed 8.8 cm Flak anti-aircraft guns. In response, Soviet tankers destroyed one anti-aircraft gun by direct hit, partly wounded, partly killed, the second 8.8 gun to the right of the road, disabled from the 3th shot.


      http://hranitel-slov.livejournal.com/39655.html
      here everything is described in detail, with a map and links
      1. DimanC
        DimanC 11 February 2016 12: 37
        0
        Yes, in war, as you know, anything happened. And the Germans covered ours, and our Germans. Suffice it to recall all these "flirting" and similar batteries. Each weapon is only as good as it is used.
      2. Zeppelin ml.
        Zeppelin ml. 11 February 2016 12: 53
        0
        Quote: Stas57
        In response, Soviet tankers destroyed one anti-aircraft gun by direct hit, partly wounded, partly killed, the second 8.8 gun to the right of the road, disabled from the 3rd shot.

        in the German reports on the work of these two Flaks, there is some vague - they hit Russian tanks, but how and how much and in general - whether they were destroyed - there is nothing. That is, it is difficult to judge the effectiveness of "8,8" in this battle.
        1. Stas57
          Stas57 11 February 2016 13: 04
          0
          I'm not talking about effectiveness in battle, I'm talking about ...
          In addition, these gigantic, like barn gates, unarmored guns constitute an oversized target and an easily reachable target.

          regarding vagueness, it was really difficult to understand what shots when firing at covered equipment.
          1. Zeppelin ml.
            Zeppelin ml. 11 February 2016 13: 29
            0
            Quote: Stas57
            regarding vagueness, it was really difficult to understand what shots when firing at covered equipment.

            and sometimes it was not necessary to talk about aimed shooting. "One Russian tank was destroyed by shells fired in the direction of the gun flash ...")
    2. Zeppelin ml.
      Zeppelin ml. 11 February 2016 12: 37
      +2
      Quote: fa2998
      .A, what further writes Guderian and our commanders, how many tanks removed the rest of the anti-aircraft guns from the system, what are our losses?

      after that memorable battle, Bystry Heinz hastily flew to Oryol and, I think, took back his words about 34 as an example of "backward Bolshevik technology") As for "8,8", Langemann, who commanded 4TD, was very skeptical about their use as a PTO in the Russian theater of operations. "Huge as a barn gate", difficult to mask and vulnerable. However, there are two 8,8s on the left flank, one on the right and a battery (6 guns) 11 Flak-Regiment in the center. And only two "8,8" were lost - the result is not so bad when compared with the 49 destroyed anti-tank guns (according to Soviet data)
  16. Litsvin
    Litsvin 12 February 2016 01: 19
    -4
    "Acht-acht" is not one of the best, but the BEST AND MOST FAMOUS WEAPON OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR. No offense to our famous Grabinovsky ZiS-2 and ZiS-3. Our cannons are GREAT, appreciated even by the Germans. But the series "88" is a MASTERPIECE. Versatile, "working by air, by land and even at sea", powerful, precise, easy to handle and VERY EFFICIENT.
    Such "88", even with a "castrated" (shortened) barrel, standing on the "Tiger-1", began guaranteed destruction of all anti-Hitler coalition tanks at distances of up to 2-2,5 km - both T-34s and Shermans, and "Matilda", etc. At a distance of up to 1-1,5 km. The T-34 made its way through the frontal projection right through - the projectile entered through the VLD and exited through the stern.
    Full-fledged variants "88", both in the classic "four-wheeled" towed form, and installed in the Tiger 2 tanks and the Ferdinand self-propelled guns had even greater armor penetration. A case has been documented when the "Tiger" cannon destroyed the "Sherman" tank at a distance of 5 km (!!!). Of course, they hit it by accident, but the result is still on the face. Vaunted, and not without reason EXACTLY as a tank for breaking through fortified areas (!!!), the IS-2 was also not an obstacle for "88". Of course, the distance of the real penetration of the frontal (not side) armor was reduced, but this did not help. To this add 8 aimed shots per minute for the Tiger-1 and first-class Zeiss optics, versus 3 shots per 2 minutes for our D-25T in the IS.
    My grandfather, a tanker, said that ours were most afraid of this 88mm cannon, because it caused huge damage to the tank and was almost guaranteed to kill and maim the crew. When a shell hit our tanks, due to its high energy, it produced a lot of secondary fragments in the armor-plated space, which caused all the problems. The rest of the German guns were more "humane".
    These "88" tankers were also afraid of the fact that the Germans, as a rule, placed them behind the front edge of their defenses at about 300-500 meters and dug them well. Noodles to the common man about "88 mm sheds" with huge protective shields are hanged from incompetence. Most of these guns were without shields. So, from the dug-in gun at the top there was only a barrel. The tactics of our tankers, according to which at maximum speed (and this is, in fact, no more than 15-20 km / h on a dry field), there was a movement towards the enemy, was suicidal, since they had to look for and try to suppress the anti-tank guns of the first line of defense in the heat of battle , as a rule PAK-38/40 with a low silhouette and also rooted to the spot. To conduct aimed fire, it was necessary to stop. And at that time both these PAK-38/40 and "88" were working on the tank from long distances. Our tankers suffered really big losses, because they simply did not have time to get there and press the German trenches. They took it in bulk - i.e. "in a crowd", when 3-4 cars from the company remained on the move, the rest burned out in the field. The last battle of my grandfather, the field of which he ended up in the hospital and met Victory already in a training tank unit near Smolensk, just according to this scenario took place not far from Krakow. Such "88" was his new, from the assembly line of T-34-85 and "sentenced". My grandfather told me that it was saved by the fact that the 88mm projectile hit the side diagonally closer to the engine compartment, the crew was only severely cut by fragments of armor, but everyone survived. This is what the Germans had "Acht-acht".
    1. goose
      goose 16 February 2016 17: 39
      0
      Literally at all points they were mistaken: not the best one, and the IS-2 did not make its way into the forehead, and it was not castrated on the Tiger, and the accuracy of the D-25 exceeded 8-8, and the German-Russian tactics were completely different, they did not fight in crowds in the war neither we nor Germans, maximum company. Of the wrecked T-34s, as a rule, 80% of tanks and people returned to duty. Losses of 30% were considered extremely high. Those. if there are 15 tanks in a company, then losing 5 in one battle - this was tantamount to a tribunal or, at a minimum, analysis by the authorities.
      The only thesis about optics and precisely on air defense guns was of some importance. Tiger optics did not exceed an order of magnitude, well, a maximum of 500 m further practically allowed to shoot. Binoculars were less tired, but few were released. At the same time, the commander did not have optics at all, except for binoculars. Soviet tanks had the commander’s optics. The rate of fire of the Is-2 is also not 1,5 rounds / minute, besides, in the battle the practical rate of fire was no more than 4 shots, at least put 20 mm. Sit in the tank, shoot, it will become clear, now it is quite affordable.

      Yes, and caliber 8-8 has never been used in battle formations, only as an operational reserve. It was too expensive to substitute for artillery raids and there were too few trunks, usually 8 pieces per division.
      1. The comment was deleted.
  17. cosmos132
    cosmos132 23 February 2016 21: 57
    0
    To your attention two legendary shells from anti-aircraft guns and "Royal Tiger" 8.8 cm Flak 41 and KwK 43