Military Review

7,5cm PaK 97 / 38 (f) auf Pz. 740 (r): SAU project based on the T-26 tank

42
Soon after the attack on the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany captured a mass of various vehicles as trophies. A significant part of these combat vehicles was soon adopted and used by German troops as a supplement for their own production machines. In some cases, there were upgrades of trophies in order to improve their characteristics or change the tactical role. One of the most interesting examples of reworking Soviet vehicles was the 7,5 cm Pak 97 / 38 (f) auf Pz.740 (r) self-propelled artillery system, created on the initiative of the army.


Among the trophies of the initial period of the war, a large number of lungs were present tanks T-26 in two versions, characterized by turrets and weapons. Lean Germans adopted this technique under the name Panzerkampfwagen T26 737 (r) and quite actively used "on the sidelines". Until a certain time, captured tanks were relatively effective. weaponsHowever, in the future, their characteristics have ceased to meet the existing requirements. As a result, both sides began to remove the T-26 from active operation and replace them with newer machines. At the same time, the German side decided not to write off the outdated equipment, but to give it a second life.

7,5cm PaK 97 / 38 (f) auf Pz. 740 (r): SAU project based on the T-26 tank
Self-propelled gun of the "first option", without logging sides. Drawing Forums.airbase.ru


As a light tank, the T26 737 (r) could no longer solve existing combat missions, but a large number of vehicles of this type had not yet developed a resource and could be used by the troops. In addition, by the second half of 1943, the situation on the fronts had seriously changed. The Soviet Union recovered after the first blows and restored industry, thanks to which the Red Army began to win victory after victory and inflict serious damage on the enemy. The result of these processes was a proposal to re-equip existing obsolete tanks into self-propelled artillery installations, the author of which was the military personnel of one of the army units.

The basis for the artillery part of the new self-propelled gun was also to become a trophy. During the capture of Poland and France, German troops took several thousand 75-mm divisional guns as trophies as trophies. 1897, produced by the French company Schneider. Initially, this weaponry was used in its current form, but later it was decided to equip the captured guns with muzzle brakes, and also to install them on the carriage of the PaK 38 gun. Such an instrument, designated PaK 97 / 38, differed from the basic version with some positive features and was of greater interest to the troops.


Light tank T-26. Photo Pomnite-nas.ru


When a proposal was made to modify the T-26 tanks in an ACS, it was decided to equip such combat vehicles with PaK 97 / 38 guns. Apparently, the characteristics of the guns, as well as their availability, affected the appearance of this decision. Probably, if there are other guns with higher characteristics, the authors of a promising project would use them, and not outdated French-made weapons.

The implementation of the proposal to build self-propelled guns was taken up by one of the military workshops, whose specialists removed all unnecessary from the base tanks and installed new parts on them. According to the available data, no significant processing of the design of tanks and guns (except for changes in the fighting compartment and gun carriage) was undertaken. Thus, the T-26 in the original configuration, repulsed by the Red Army in 1941 or 1942, remained the basis for the promising SPG.


SAU 7,5cm PaK 97 / 38 (f) auf Pz. 740 (r) in motion. Photo Forums.airbase.ru


Recall, the T-26 was one of the most popular Soviet light tanks and, depending on the modification, had a combat mass at the level of 8-10 t. weapons and shrapnel artillery shells. A curious feature of the tank was the layout of the internal units, which distinguished it from a number of previous and all subsequent domestic cars of this class. The T-15 engine was located in the stern, and in the front of the hull there was a transmission compartment connected to the engine using a long drive shaft.

The first modifications of the T-26 tank, adopted in service in the early thirties, had two turrets with weapons. In separate towers were placed two machine guns (in the first modification) or a machine gun and an 37-mm cannon (in later). The crew of such a tank consisted of three people: a driver, a gunner commander, and a second gunner. Soon a new version of the tank appeared, equipped with only one tower of a relatively large size. She was able to equip 45-mm cannon and coaxial machine gun. In view of the advantages in the basic characteristics, a single-turret tank eventually replaced the two-turbo predecessor almost completely.


Machine with a sign. Photo Beutepanzer.ru


T-26 tanks of all modifications were equipped with 90 hp carburetor engines, which allowed them to reach speeds (on the highway) to 30 km / h. Power reserve was 120 km. The tracked undercarriage of the tank had eight track rollers on each side. The rollers were completed interlocked: on each trolley with springs there were four rollers. Large drive wheels were mounted in front of the hull, guides in the stern. Also in the chassis included supporting rollers.

The PaK 97 / 38 cannon, which was a retrofit of an old French model, was an 75-mm towed anti-tank gun on a wheeled drive. The gun with a total weight of 1270 kg had an 75-mm barrel with a length of 34 caliber. In the course of the German modernization, it received a developed muzzle brake, which reduced the powerful recoil impulse and unloaded the recoil devices. The gun rack of the PaK 38 allowed to direct the gun within the horizontal sector 60 ° wide and set the elevation angle from -6 ° to + 18 °.


Machine on the railway platform. Photo Forums.airbase.ru


Together with the captured guns, the Germans got the high-explosive and armor-piercing shells of several types. In addition, over time, German experts have proposed 75-mm cumulative projectile. When firing high-explosive ordnance there was a possibility of hitting the target at ranges up to 10 km. Armor-piercing shells, depending on the type of target and ammunition, could be used at distances of no more than 1-1,5 km.

The base tanks T26 737 (r) had to undergo some changes for mounting the captured gun. They should have been removed from the tower, as well as recycle the structure of the roof of the hull. To install the new parts had to cut most of the leaf sheet. Also, the roof of the hull was equipped with new parts, such as gun mounting systems, and other products, for example, boxes for projectiles. According to some information, instead of having a roof on a podshashennoy box mounted some kind of floor fighting compartment, located at the roof of the engine compartment, which led to the emergence of a relatively large area accessible to the crew.


On repair. Photo Beutepanzer.ru


It is known that during the restructuring of the T-26 tanks in the ACS, two conditional projects were used, differing from each other in the design of the additional equipment of the base machine. The first option implied minimal modifications of tanks and cannons, while the second provided for the creation of a new original cabin for the placement of the instrument and its calculation. The self-propelled gun of both variants, on the whole, retained the details of the available turret box, which, however, was deprived of almost the entire roof and forage sheet.

In the first version of the modernization in the front of the fighting compartment housed a relatively high pedestal, used as the basis for the gun installation. On it, in turn, mounted a slightly modified gun carriage PaK 97 / 38. A gun-shaped shield was attached to the gun carriage. This detail was developed for the PaK 38, and during the modernization of the captured guns of the French production, it passed to them, having undergone some changes. Now, without any significant modifications, the shield has become an element of booking a new ACS.


Self-propelled gun 7,5cm PaK 97 / 38 (f) auf Pz. 740 (r) in one line with another technique. Photo Beutepanzer.ru


On the carriage, which retained the existing angles of vertical guidance (the horizontal sector was reduced), the 75-mm gun was located. Existing sights and guidance mechanisms were retained. In this way. when mounted on a self-propelled chassis, the mast parts in contact with devices for mounting were subjected to the biggest changes. Ammunition in the form of unitary shells of 75 caliber mm of various types was placed in the structures of the fighting compartment of the chassis.

The second version of the self-propelled gun was distinguished by the presence of almost full armored felling. As in the first version, the tank received a tumbovic installation of the gun, equipped with its own broneshmit. At the same time, two relatively high pentagonal armor plates with a beveled front edge were built up on the sides of the tank case. The height of such sides coincided with the height of the shield of the gun. Thus, on the chassis body there appeared a kind of cabin of conventional ACS, open from above and behind. In addition, depending on the angle of the horizontal focus, in this "wheelhouse" gaps could appear between the shield and the sides.

The T-26 tank modernization project was the initiative to develop one of the Wehrmacht units, which affected the production of new equipment. By the efforts of one of the military workshops, by the end of 1943, only 10 self-propelled guns based on T26 737 (r) and PaK 97 / 38 were built. All of these vehicles were transferred to the 3 th company of the 563 th anti-tank division, where it was operated for several months. In accordance with the German nomenclature of armaments and equipment, new self-propelled guns received the symbol 7,5cm PaK 97 / 38 (f) auf Pz. 740 (r) - 7,5-cm gun PaK 97 / 38 (French) based on the tank Pz. 740 (Russian).


The Red Army soldiers near the battered SPG on Fr. Saaremaa. Photo Beutepanzer.ru


Most sources mention that the new type of self-propelled guns were used only by the 3-th company of the 563-division and served only for several months. Already 1 March 1944, the 3-I company officially switched to Marder III combat vehicles. Nevertheless, according to some data, the self-propelled guns based on captured tanks still managed to take part in battles, although only one case of using such equipment in battles is known.

At the end of September 1944, the operation began to free the Moonsund Archipelago, successfully completed in late November. On the night of October 8 and 9, near the village of Tehumardi, the 307 th separate tank fighter division of the 249 Estonian Rifle Division encountered the 2 battalion of the 67 Potsdam Grenadier Regiment. During this battle, both sides suffered significant losses in manpower and equipment. In particular, the Soviet anti-tankists shot down one of the enemy self-propelled guns. Upon further study, it was established that it was an SAU based on a T-26 tank with a French-made gun. Thus, the fate of at least one self-propelled gun 7,5cm PaK 97 / 38 (f) auf Pz. 740 (r) can be traced clearly and clearly: she remained in service until the autumn of 1944, when she was fatally damaged and made further exploitation impossible.


A padded car from a different angle. Photo Forums.airbase.ru


The fate of nine other German-built self-propelled guns is unknown. According to the most common version, they were removed from service in early March 1944, after which there is no information about them. Judging by the chronicles of the battle on the Moonsund archipelago and the death of one of the self-propelled guns under Tehumardi, this technique could well be used in various battles and die in battle. However, it cannot be excluded that some part of 7,5cm is PaK 97 / 38 (f) auf Pz. 740 (r) was written off as unnecessary and went to the smelter. Anyway, information about self-propelled guns, preserved until the end of the war, is missing.

The self-propelled gun project based on the T-26 tank and the PaK 97 / 38 cannon was created on the initiative of army gunners, which led to some specific consequences. For example, build machines 7,5cm PaK 97 / 38 (f) auf Pz. 740 (r) accounted for in the existing army workshops, because of what managed to collect only ten self-propelled guns. At the same time, the initiative project demonstrated an important feature of the German production of military equipment: the combatant units did not always have enough production vehicles, which forced them to search for any available exits. Naturally, ten semi-hand-made self-propelled guns could not change the outcome of the war, but the full-scale mass production of other equipment, in view of the mass of accumulated problems, also could not save Nazi Germany from defeat.


On the materials of the sites:
http://beutepanzer.ru/
http://forums.airbase.ru/
http://shushpanzer-ru.livejournal.com/
http://mihalchuk-1974.livejournal.com/
Author:
42 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Bongo
    Bongo 22 March 2016 06: 37
    +15
    All the warring parties actively used the captured equipment. So in the USSR, on the basis of German PzKpfw III tanks, SU-76 and self-propelled guns with a 76-mm specially developed C-1 gun were built quite massively. It was designed based on the design of the F-34 tank gun.

    With the thickness of the armor of the forehead of the 50 — 60 mm hull and 30 mm side, the Su-76I was significantly stronger than the Soviet Su-76 in terms of protection. In total, more than 200 self-propelled guns SU-76I were built.
    1. cosmos111
      cosmos111 22 March 2016 07: 03
      +6
      Quote: Bongo
      All warring parties actively used trophy equipment

      But, as nations approached this issue, it has no analogues in world history.

      They (the nation) in general, everything that moved had caterpillars and armor, BUT it could not be a tank (in their understanding) was remade under self-propelled guns, ZSU, auxiliary armored vehicles.

      7.5 cm PaK.40 / 1 (Sf) auf Geschutzwagen FCM36 (f)
      GS.French light tanks Hotchkiss H39, FCM 36, transporter chassis Lorraine 37L.
    2. bionik
      bionik 22 March 2016 07: 11
      +7
      Quote: Bongo
      So in the USSR, on the basis of German PzKpfw III tanks, self-propelled guns SU-76I were massively built with a 76-mm specially developed S-1 gun. It was designed based on the design of the F-34 tank gun.

      SAU-76I at the Military Glory of the Urals Museum in Verkhnyaya Pyshma.
      1. hohol95
        hohol95 22 March 2016 13: 09
        0
        I wonder where they got it from? Svirin’s book says that the only original raised from the Sluch River stands on a pedestal in Sarny.
        1. Alf
          Alf 22 March 2016 18: 36
          +3
          Quote: hohol95
          I wonder where they got it from? Svirin’s book says that the only original raised from the Sluch River stands on a pedestal in Sarny.

          Is Svirin 100% authority and he can not be wrong?
        2. The comment was deleted.
      2. Bykov.
        Bykov. 23 March 2016 03: 21
        0
        Quote: bionik

        SAU-76I at the Military Glory of the Urals Museum in Verkhnyaya Pyshma.

        Isn't it SU-85 AND?
    3. bionik
      bionik 22 March 2016 07: 26
      +4
      Quote: Bongo
      All the warring parties actively used the captured equipment.

      German self-propelled artillery mount 4,7-cm Böhler auf Selbstfahrlafette Bren-Carrier (e). Self-propelled guns on the chassis of the captured British Universal Carrier armored personnel carrier (in the Wehrmacht - the gepanzerter MG Trager Br 731 (e), armed with the Austrian 47-mm Bochler anti-tank gun of the 1935 model (4.7 cm Pak 35/36 (ö) with a converted shield from the British 2-pound anti-tank gun (Ordnance QF 2-pounder). Self-propelled artillery mount is named "Johnny" (Jonny).
      1. Pinkie F.
        Pinkie F. 22 March 2016 08: 48
        +2
        Quote: bionik
        German self-propelled artillery mount 4,7-cm Böhler auf Selbstfahrlafette Bren-Carrier (e).

        she is with the original shield.
      2. Pinkie F.
        Pinkie F. 22 March 2016 08: 54
        +4
        more about the "station wagon" - a curious way of placing a trophy SA-L Mle. 1934.
        This, of course, is not a self-propelled gun, but in Africa 25mm was considered anti-tank)
    4. hohol95
      hohol95 22 March 2016 13: 04
      0
      Conning tower - 35 mm forehead; 20 or 15 mm side and feed! Manufactured 201 pcs. (about 20 commanders). After the battles on the Kursk Bulge, the roofs were removed from them.
  2. Good cat
    Good cat 22 March 2016 06: 45
    0
    And all the fascists of the fascists were waiting for the logical ending. (There in the photo)
  3. Volga Cossack
    Volga Cossack 22 March 2016 06: 52
    +11
    a good option for modernization and we made self-propelled guns based on t-26 In besieged Leningrad with 76 mm .......... the truth is only a few.
    1. cosmos111
      cosmos111 22 March 2016 08: 00
      +8
      Quote: Volga Cossack
      a good option for modernization and we made self-propelled guns based on t-26 In besieged Leningrad with 76 mm .......... the truth is only a few.

      SU-26 \ SU-76P, on the chassis of light tanks T-26.
      In besieged Leningrad was built 14 self-propelled guns.
      1. hohol95
        hohol95 22 March 2016 13: 12
        +2
        12 pcs with a 76,2 gun and 2 pieces with a 37 mm anti-aircraft machine gun.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  4. Volga Cossack
    Volga Cossack 22 March 2016 06: 54
    +3
    still her image .........
    1. cosmos111
      cosmos111 22 March 2016 08: 04
      +5
      BM-8-24 on the chassis of light tanks T-40 and T-60.
  5. Volga Cossack
    Volga Cossack 22 March 2016 06: 56
    +4
    Well, a little more massive
    1. avt
      avt 22 March 2016 09: 15
      +2
      Quote: Volga Cossack
      Well, a little more massive

      All of them have only one thing in common - the Vickers base is thin. The Angles, well, one might say, made the car end-to-end and its modernization potential is zero. In contrast to the same "troika"
      Quote: Bongo
      So in the USSR, on the basis of German PzKpfw III tanks, self-propelled guns SU-76I were massively built with a 76-mm specially developed S-1 gun.
      Well, the article is a plus.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 22 March 2016 10: 25
        +2
        Quote: avt
        All of them have only one thing in common - the Vickers base is thin. The Angles, well, one might say, made the car end-to-end and its modernization potential is zero. In contrast to the same "troika"

        Ahem ... and if you look carefully? wink
        The T-26 was originally a 6-ton machine-gun light tank. By 1939, the mass of the T-26 reached 10-11 tons, and it was already armed with a 45-mm cannon. So Vickers has 6 tons of modernization potential. was quite up to par.
        If the "three" had the same potential for upgrades, then by the latest models it would have to weigh 27-28 tons and have at least an 88-mm cannon in service. smile

        The main plug of the T-26 was in the engine - so it really was the limit (its power was raised by only 5 hp). And domestic replacements for him did not take off.
        1. avt
          avt 22 March 2016 12: 42
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          ... By 1939, the mass of the T-26 reached 10-11 tons, and it was already armed with a 45-mm cannon. So Vickers has 6 tons of modernization potential. was quite up to par.

          No. Look at what its chassis turned after it was modernized
          Quote: Alexey RA
          The main plug in the T-26 was in the engine

          And this is generally a separate song with its forcing.
          Quote: Alexey RA
          If "three" had the same potential for modernization

          "Treshka" is not ideal, BUT quite a balanced unit that ours, having received a sample and running it at the test site, quite imagined and, for a minute, went from 37mm to a completely satisfactory 50mm length, even ran with a 76 mm cigarette butt, but this ultimately worse. I do not idealize the "troika", but this is an order of magnitude more thought-out design for a completely competent concept of using tanks, rather than English gadgets about "infantry" tanks.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 22 March 2016 14: 05
            +1
            Quote: avt
            Look at what its chassis turned after it was modernized

            Problems with the chassis of the T-26 began, EMNIP, only in 1938, when the mass of the tank reached 9 tons. A T-26 mod. 1934 with a cylindrical tower was still quite normal.
            Quote: avt
            And this is generally a separate song with its forcing.

            Here the whole system must be changed! (C) smile
            Instead of forcing this air-cooled miracle, it would be better to throw the involved forces and means onto a new engine. Anyway, it would be useful for another light BTT, and for the modernization of the T-26 in armored personnel carriers and tractors.
            Quote: avt
            "Treshka" is not ideal, BUT quite a balanced unit that ours, having received a sample and running it at the test site, quite imagined and, for a minute, went from 37mm to a completely satisfactory 50mm length, even ran with a 76mm cigarette butt, but this ultimately worse.

            So "three" is a tank of the next generation and already of a different level.
            Vickers - 6 tons is an export product of the British design school of the late 20s.
        2. Stas57
          Stas57 22 March 2016 16: 18
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Ahem ... and if you look carefully?

          and if carefully, to 40, the dead end is already obvious, and the maximum is a technical or tractor, nothing decent to cram in
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 22 March 2016 16: 59
            +1
            Quote: Stas57
            and if carefully, to 40, the dead end is already obvious, and the maximum is a technical or tractor, nothing decent to cram in

            10 years in the ranks to obsolescence. For a tank, the development of the late 20s is pretty good.

            However, it was about comparing the modernization potential of the T-26 and the "three". If we count in relative terms, then they are quite comparable.
        3. Cap.Morgan
          Cap.Morgan 22 March 2016 18: 11
          0
          Weak engine - low fuel consumption. Cheapness in production and operation.
          Such a machine is designed to support infantry, it does not need high speed.
          1. Stas57
            Stas57 22 March 2016 18: 31
            0
            Quote: Cap.Morgan
            Weak engine - low fuel consumption.
            Such a machine is designed to support infantry, it does not need high speed.

            it's good that there were no such "geniuses" in the GABTU.
            weak engine and weak suspension is a sentence to the car
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 22 March 2016 18: 47
            0
            Quote: Cap.Morgan
            Weak engine - low fuel consumption. Cheapness in production and operation.

            Hehe hehe ... gasoline not lower than B-70 / KB-70 and not worse than Baku or Grozny - It somehow weakly combines with low cost of operation.

            The engine of the T-26, by the way, was not very easy to manufacture - they were made only 15% more than tanks.
  6. cosmos111
    cosmos111 22 March 2016 09: 30
    +2
    SU-6, on the modernized GSh T-26, armament-76-mm guns 3K model 1931 of the year.
  7. Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 22 March 2016 09: 36
    0
    Good article.
  8. hardrokc
    hardrokc 22 March 2016 10: 31
    0
    Quote: Ryabov Kirill
    75 mm division guns mod. 1897 produced by the French company Schneider. Initially, these weapons were used in their existing form, but in the future it was decided to equip the captured guns with muzzle brakes, and also install them on the gun mount of the PaK 38 gun. Such a gun, designated PaK 97/38, differed from the basic version in some positive ways and was of great interest for the troops.

    This is a story about scouts and spies. About underwater pirates and gallant submariners.
    This is a German product arr. 1941 (PaK 97/38) turns out to have "some positive features." And conceptually, exactly the same (to the smallest detail) Soviet craft (even the muzzle is not Soviet, but German) mod. 1942 (called ZIS-3) is called genius, outstanding and unique everywhere in the internet.
    Also genius, unique and unattainable (absurdity probably) in the internet it is customary to call tank three-inch farts with the ballistics of field guns of 1 MV (mostly like the F-34 and ZIS-5; F-32 and L-11 are mentioned less often).
    And the Germans removed the PaK 97/38 from production (they never even put it on tanks). Back in 1943. Has exhausted its capabilities, replaced by the more advanced PaK40. But the "legendary three-inch" made until the very end of the war. And the leadership of the USSR needed the Kursk massacre just to start scratching turnips on this topic.
    All this is sad. And stupid Internet legends are sad, but not funny at all.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. hardrokc
      hardrokc 22 March 2016 10: 54
      +3
      Romanian self-propelled guns TASAM T-60. F-22 gun on the T-60 chassis.
      Something like the SU-76, only the gun is slightly cooler.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 22 March 2016 14: 15
      0
      Quote: hardrokc
      This is a German product arr. 1941 (PaK 97/38) turns out to have "some positive features." And conceptually, exactly the same (to the smallest detail) Soviet craft (even the muzzle is not Soviet, but German) mod. 1942 (called ZIS-3) is called genius, outstanding and unique everywhere in the internet.

      Probably because the ZIS-3 was a full-fledged divisional gun.
      And the PaK 97/38 is a pure anti-tank gun with limited HPL and "kuma" as the main projectile. For the Pak-38 carriage turned out to be less durable than the ZIS-2 carriage.
      Quote: hardrokc
      Also genius, unique and unattainable (absurdity probably) in the internet it is customary to call tank three-inch farts with the ballistics of field guns of 1 MV (mostly like the F-34 and ZIS-5; F-32 and L-11 are mentioned less often).

      Read orders for the use of BTT - and you will be happy.
      Tanks do not fulfill their main task of destroying enemy infantry, but are distracted by the battle with enemy tanks and artillery. The established practice of opposing our enemy’s tank attacks and getting involved in tank battles is wrong and harmful.

      When enemy tanks appear on the battlefield, the main battle with them is artillery. Tanks engage in battle with enemy tanks only in the event of a clear superiority of forces and advantageous position.

      The corps should not get involved in tank battles with enemy tanks, unless there is a clear superiority over the enemy. In the event of encountering large enemy tank units, the corps detaches anti-tank artillery and part of the tanks against the enemy tanks, the infantry, in turn, puts forward its anti-tank artillery, and the corps, obscured by all these means, bypasses the enemy tanks with its main forces and hits the enemy infantry with the aim of tear it from enemy tanks and paralyze the actions of enemy tanks. The main task of the tank corps is the destruction of enemy infantry.

      Until 34, the F-1943 ruled against the infantry and field fortifications. With the appearance of a "long arm" in the form of a Pak-40, the enemy had to increase the range of a direct shot without deteriorating the power of the HE shell - as a result, they switched to 85-mm tank guns.

      By the way, other WWII winners - the Yankees - followed the same path: ST-"Shermans" with 75-mm cannons against infantry and field fortifications + PT-ACS to support ST in case of enemy tanks. "Tanks - against infantry, self-propelled guns - against tanks".
      1. hard rock
        hard rock 22 March 2016 16: 14
        -3
        Quote: Alexey RA
        ZIS-3 was a full-fledged divisional gun.

        Yes? And explain to me why during the 2nd MV "full-fledged divisional guns" were only in the Red Army?
        You are dissembling. And the "full-fledged divisional guns" were actually unsuitable anti-tank guns. They just "disguised themselves" like that. To hide prof. wretchedness.
        And PaK 97/38 is pure VET

        Why is verbiage? Both of these guns were actually VET guns.
        As for the German high-explosive fragmentation grenade arr. 34g. for PaK 97/38, the weight of the explosives in it was 680 g, and the weight of the explosives in the ZIS-3 (UOF-354M) OFB was 621 g. The explosive type is the same.
        Read orders for use

        Read the performance characteristics of tank guns. Whatever you like, you can start with at least 7.5 cm KwK 40.
        When enemy tanks appear on the battlefield, the main battle with them is artillery

        The main task of the tank corps is the destruction of enemy infantry.

        To write different orders, not to carry bags. It is much more difficult to equip your equipment with a normal gun. So that she could fight with tanks, and destroy infantry. At least like German guns.
        Against the infantry and field fortifications F-34 until 1943 completely taxied.

        Well, what are you writing about? She could steer only in her weakness. The specific energy of the three-inch was approximately 303 J / sq mm. And KwK40 is about 457 J / sq mm. About the number of explosives in the OFB, I already wrote above.
        The American M1 had approximately 482 J / sq mm.
        With the appearance of the enemy's "long arm" in the form of Pak-40

        as a result, switched to 85-mm tank guns.

        T-34/76 were produced until the end of 1 plg. 1944 And PaK40 have been mass-produced since February 1942. Why are you trying to connect these 2 events?
        Besides, what about "... the enemy's tanks are mainly fought by artillery"? What kind of artillery was supposed to fight German tanks if only tank artillery could?
        other WWII winners went the same way

        No. By the time they entered the ground war, they had ample M1 tanks. Therefore, art. WW1 level bullshit during WW2 only one country fought. True, it was "legendary and unique."
        And do not compare the T-34 with their armor of 40-45 mm with the Shermans since the Americans entered the ground operation (kopus forehead 102, side 65 mm; tower forehead with a mask 178, the rest 152 mm).
        ST- "Shermans" with 75-mm cannons against infantry and field fortifications

        In total, 250 M4A3E2 tanks with M3 guns were produced. But then they admitted their mistake and already in the course of hostilities in the troops, 100 of them received a powerful M1 cannon.
        Quote: Alexey RA
        one BT-42 with a 114 mm howitzer worth

        VT-43 is a tank gun. Did you mean the tank.
        1. Stas57
          Stas57 22 March 2016 16: 31
          0
          Quote: hardrock
          You are dissembling. And the "full-fledged divisional guns" were actually unsuitable anti-tank guns.

          oh yes, and the German divisions they are of course a full-fledged vocational school, but I had to ...
          1. hardrokk
            hardrokk 22 March 2016 18: 33
            -2
            Quote: Stas57
            and the German divisions they are of course a full-fledged vocational school, but I had to ...

            And what, can you even give examples of "German divisional guns"? Well, those who "had to ..."
            1. Stas57
              Stas57 22 March 2016 18: 41
              0
              Quote: hardrokk
              And what, can you even give examples of "German divisional guns"?

              yeah
              standard 10 cm were displayed on direct fire repeatedly
              1. hardrokk
                hardrokk 22 March 2016 19: 11
                0
                Quote: Stas57
                standard 10 cm were displayed on direct fire repeatedly

                Well, here is a common case. The man clearly does not understand the difference between a gun and a howitzer.
                "standard 10 cm" should be compared with Soviet 122-mm howitzers, okay?
                1. Stas57
                  Stas57 22 March 2016 19: 22
                  +1
                  Quote: hardrokk
                  Well, here is a common case. The man clearly does not understand the difference between a gun and a howitzer.
                  "standard 10 cm" should be compared with Soviet 122-mm howitzers, okay?

                  I agree, you have very poor knowledge of German stock and art, if you took to compare the 10 cm gun with the 122 mm lips
                  1. hardrokk
                    hardrokk 22 March 2016 19: 25
                    0
                    Quote: Stas57
                    if you undertook to compare a 10 cm gun

                    So what is the problem? Name what it was called. Or is it a secret name?
                    1. Stas57
                      Stas57 22 March 2016 19: 31
                      0
                      Quote: hardrokk
                      So what is the problem? Name what it was called. Or is it a secret name?

                      yes it was called 10 see the doorway to Canon 18
                      and you probably haven’t heard about this, but how much ambition ..
                      1. hardrokk
                        hardrokk 22 March 2016 19: 40
                        0
                        Quote: Stas57
                        yes it was called 10 see the doorway to Canon 18

                        Those. "standard 10 cm" are those that no one knows. Get out, good standards.
                        As for the 10 cm Kanone 17, 192 of them were produced. Therefore, calling them "standard" will not work either.
                      2. Stas57
                        Stas57 22 March 2016 19: 53
                        +1
                        Quote: hardrokk
                        Those. "standard 10 cm" are those that no one knows. Get out, good standards.


                        no one is our expert from google?
                        As for the 10 cm Kanone 17, 192 of them were produced. Therefore, calling them "standard" will not work either.

                        Yes, you are obviously a Wehrmacht artillery genius! 17 or 18 what's the difference, right?

                        I wrote in Russian -10 see the doorway of Canon 18
                        but google doesn’t know yes? and so? -10 cm schwere Kanone 18

                        I’ll tell you, a heavy 10 cm gun, it was in the states of the 1939 year, at least 1,5 thousand were produced, it worked as a PT34 and KV at least 88.
                        maybe you need to read a little literature on the topic?
                      3. hardrokk
                        hardrokk 22 March 2016 20: 13
                        0
                        Quote: Stas57
                        10 cm schwere Kanone 18

                        Well, finally I understood what it was about. And you want, right now, to tell me a scary story that the 10 cm schwere Kanone 18 was a "standard divisional gun"? Which was "brought to direct fire repeatedly"?
                        There were no guns in the German division, except for the Pak 35/36 and small-caliber anti-aircraft guns. There were only howitzers. And even more so, there were no heavy infantry guns 10 cm schwere Kanone 18 weighing 5,6 tons.
                        You, young man, learn materiel. And stop fantasizing.
                      4. Stas57
                        Stas57 22 March 2016 20: 53
                        0
                        ... And you want, right now, to tell me the scary story that the 10 cm schwere Kanone 18 was a "standard divisional gun"?

                        Yes.
                        Exactly so, 1 battery in the art regiment, etc., or so do we not count? like here we think, there’s not, but here we wrap the fish?

                        Which was "brought to direct fire repeatedly"?

                        I’ll tell you a secret, there are reports when they inspect Soviet tanks on the battlefield or factories, pieces like 534, and then describe what and where, well, at the same time and with what calibers.
                        there are also lesions from this type.
                        this is not to mention, for example, specific facts when it is known what it is about (a specific battle, a specific division against specific tanks).
                        and there are German wrestling manuals and there are 10 cm.

                        There were no guns in the German division, except for the Pak 35 / 36 and small-caliber anti-aircraft guns. There were only howitzers.

                        that’s what I love about for the professionals to come up with for themselves, to answer for themselves, but it was all about German divisional guns, or so no longer divisions, or a divisional artillery regiment is no longer an artillery regiment?

                        You, young man, learn materiel. And stop fantasizing.

                        but I advise you to read books.
                        and documents
                        chao


                      5. hardrokk
                        hardrokk 22 March 2016 21: 29
                        -1
                        Quote: Stas57
                        1 battery in the artillery regiment, etc., or so we do not count? like here we think, there’s not, but here we wrap the fish?

                        For a start, armored divisions are an atypical example. They basically did not hold the defense, so they didn’t roll out anything “repeatedly on direct fire”. They had something to hit the enemy and without extreme.
                        Secondly, the staff of the tank division included 150 mm heavy field howitzers. And only sometimes, in case of their shortage, they were replaced by 105-mm guns (the weight was the same).
                        Therefore, there is already a double distortion.
                        Quote: Stas57
                        and then they describe what and where, well, at the same time and with what calibers

                        You do not jump from the topic. It is already clear that since there were guns, it means that they also lost tanks. You write me a model "a standard 10 cm divisional cannon, which was repeatedly fired at direct fire".
                        I just substantively proved to you that this did not exist in nature. Such guns were in cases, such guns SOMETIMES were in tank divisions. I’m waiting for a long-promised model from you. STANDARD DIVISION guns.
                        Quote: Stas57
                        But it was about German divisional guns, or so on, no longer divisions

                        No, it was about "standard divisional guns". And the standard divisional gun in the TD was a 150mm heavy field howitzer, not a 105mm field gun.
                        Quote: Stas57
                        but I advise you to read books

                        Just read on this topic. And you are playing dirty. Give your fantasies a fact. What can I say? Learn the materiel.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 22 March 2016 17: 20
    +2
    Quote: hardrock
    Yes? And explain to me why during the 2nd MV "full-fledged divisional guns" were only in the Red Army?

    And in the US Army - before they were replaced by 105-mm howitzers.
    If you remember, the question of replacing the 76-mm divisions arose in the late 30s. Everything rested in the mob stock of shells and copper for shells.
    Quote: hardrock
    You are dissembling. And the "full-fledged divisional guns" were actually unsuitable anti-tank guns. They just "disguised themselves" like that. To hide prof. wretchedness.

    Yeah ... apparently, for the most concealment, they were weighed down by units of spotters and fire control and fired from closed fire. laughing
    Quote: hardrock
    To write different orders, not to carry bags. It is much more difficult to equip your equipment with a normal gun. So that she could fight with tanks, and destroy infantry. At least like German guns.

    Are you talking about the 75 / L70, whose fragmentation projectile was equal in strength to the domestic 45 mm? wink
    Quote: hardrock
    T-34/76 were produced until the end of 1 plg. 1944 And PaK40 have been mass-produced since February 1942. Why are you trying to connect these 2 events?

    Ahem ... Are you seriously trying to link the start of serial production of one gun to the end of a series of another?
    85-mm guns began to be developed (or rather, continued) at the end of 1942 - according to the results of the battles of the second half of 1942, in which ours noted the widespread use of Pak-40 by the Germans. However, until that time, the mass 85-mm tank gun of the USSR simply would not have pulled. Let me remind you that in one and a half pre-war years the NKBP with great difficulty made 1 (one) ammunition 85-mm shells on the barrel for anti-aircraft guns. In 1943, the situation was already better - went Chilean copper.
    Quote: hardrock
    Besides, what about "... the enemy's tanks are mainly fought by artillery"? What kind of artillery was supposed to fight German tanks if only tank artillery could?

    Anti-tank, what else. Which had specialized anti-tank missiles and sub-caliber shells.
    1. hardrokk
      hardrokk 22 March 2016 19: 07
      0
      Quote: Alexey RA
      And in the US Army - before they were replaced by 105-mm howitzers.

      But what about the name? I would like to know the name of this mythical "divisional gun".
      Quote: Alexey RA
      Everything rested in the mob stock of shells and copper for shells.

      Do not fantasize.
      Quote: Alexey RA
      If you remember, the question of replacing the 76-mm divisions arose in the late 30s.

      There was then no such question. You fantasize again. Based on the Internet gossip.
      Quote: Alexey RA
      they were weighed down by units of spotters and fire control and fired from closed fire

      So foolishly you can do all sorts of different things. Including fire 6,2 kg of shells with 621 g of explosives in them from closed positions. And you can open the beer with your eyes. And much more.
      Quote: Alexey RA
      Are you talking about the 75 / L70, whose fragmentation projectile was equal in strength to the domestic 45 mm?

      And where do you get these gossip from? Just wrote a couple of paragraphs, and all the Internet legends.
      75 mm high-explosive fragmentation grenade arr. 42 7.5 cm Sprgr. 42 equipped with 620 g of ammotol. The great and powerful Soviet 76-mm OFB OF-350 was equipped with BB 621 g of the same ammotol. Whatever you ask later, in 7.5 cm Sprgr. 34 (guns sample up to 42 g) was 680 g of ammotol.
      Quote: Alexey RA
      85-mm guns began to be developed (or rather, continued) at the end of 1942

      Why not 1924? Or not 1492? Fantasy again. In 1943 thought about their release in a tank version. Then they ordered equipment, then mastered the release.
      All that came before was "suffering". There was no place to make them anyway.
      Quote: Alexey RA
      Let me remind you that in one and a half pre-war years, the NKBP with great difficulty made 1 (one) ammunition 85-mm shells on the barrel for anti-aircraft guns.

      Why did the "great work" happen? In fact, everything is simpler, 52-K went into production only in 1940. Therefore, there were problems with the shells. The older 3-K and 51-K had 7,2 sets each. So the power was quite sufficient ...
      Quote: Alexey RA
      Anti-tank, what else. Which had specialized anti-tank missiles and sub-caliber shells.

      Is it possible to be more specific about 1943-45? What specific anti-tank vanderwafles did the Panthers and Tigers need to fight? And T-4 too, by the way.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 22 March 2016 17: 21
    +1
    Quote: hardrock

    No. By the time they entered the ground war, they had ample M1 tanks. Therefore, art. WW1 level bullshit during WW2 only one country fought. True, it was "legendary and unique."

    What are you saying? And what did the Americans fight in North Africa and Italy for the whole of 1943, if the Shermans with the M1 went into production only from January 1944? laughing
    Quote: hardrock
    In total, 250 M4A3E2 tanks with M3 guns were produced. But then they admitted their mistake and already in the course of hostilities in the troops, 100 of them received a powerful M1 cannon.

    And besides M4A3E2, there were no other variants of the "Sherman"?
    The M4A1 is the very first model to go into production, a tank with a cast body and a Continental R-975 engine, almost completely matching the original T6 prototype. A total of 9677 vehicles were produced, 6281 of them were armed with an M3 cannon, 3396 M4A1 (76) W received a new M1 gun. The tanks of the very first series had a 75-mm M2 cannon and two fixed course machine guns.
    M4A3 - had a welded body and a Ford GAA carburetor engine. It was produced by Fisher Tank Arsenal, Detroit Tank Arsenal from June 1942 to March 1945 in the amount of 11 424 pieces. 5015 had the M3 gun, 3039 M4A3 (105) 105-mm howitzer, 3370 M4A3 (76) W new gun M1. In June – July 1944, 254 pieces of the M4A3 with the M3 gun were converted into the M4A3E2.

    And why are you comparing the ersatz-TT "Jumbo" with the T-34?
    Quote: hardrock
    VT-43 is a tank gun. Did you mean the tank.

    I meant the Finnish BT-42 with the 114 H / 18 gun. "BeTe-42", written in Latin (what to do, the Finns write exactly in Latin). smile
    1. hardrokk
      hardrokk 22 March 2016 19: 36
      -2
      Quote: Alexey RA
      And what did the Americans fight in North Africa and Italy all of 1943

      Do you remember any large-scale military operations there? I do not remember.
      Quote: Alexey RA
      And besides M4A3E2, there were no other variants of the "Sherman"?

      The last with the M3 was not. And the penultimate leaked on lease-lease. Not only in the USSR.
      Quote: Alexey RA
      And why are you comparing the ersatz-TT "Jumbo" with the T-34?

      And with what to compare it?
      Quote: Alexey RA
      I meant the Finnish BT-42 with the 114 H / 18 gun. "BeTe-42"

      Yes, I understood where the dog rummaged.
  • hohol95
    hohol95 22 March 2016 22: 51
    +1
    hard rock
    No. By the time they entered the ground war, they had ample M1 tanks. Therefore, art. WW1 level bullshit during WW2 only one country fought. True, it was "legendary and unique."
    And do not compare the T-34 with their armor of 40-45 mm with the Shermans since the Americans entered the ground operation (kopus forehead 102, side 65 mm; tower forehead with a mask 178, the rest 152 mm).
    In total, 250 M4A3E2 tanks with M3 guns were produced. But then they admitted their mistake and already in the course of hostilities in the troops 100 of them received a powerful M1 cannon
    American tanks from M3 (Generals Lee / Grand) armed with 75 mm M2 and M3 guns with ballistics and shells identical to the 75 mm French gun of 1897! The latter was adopted by the American army in the First World War !!! On the M 4 "General Sherman" until 1944, the M3 gun was also installed! When upgrading with new 76 mm guns of the M1 family and 105 mm howitzers they were not upgraded, which means they were left with the 75 mm guns of the Sherman model - M4A4 and M4A6!
    So that not only in the USSR used ballistic parameters and
    ammunition inherited from the First World !!!
    1. hardrokk
      hardrokk 23 March 2016 00: 54
      0
      Quote: hohol95
      American tanks starting with the M3 (Generals Lee / Grand) were armed with 75 mm M2 and M3 guns with ballistics and shells identical to the 75 mm French gun of 1897! The latter was adopted by the American army in the first world war !!!

      Don't worry about the Americans. All these "miracles of technology" went on lend-lease to the allies. Not to Europe, but to the Chinese in Asia.
      Quote: hohol95
      On M 4 "General Sherman" until 1944, the M3 gun was also installed

      Read with me a little higher. For 100 of the 250 fired, this weapon was replaced by the M1.
      Quote: hohol95
      When upgrading with new 76 mm guns of the M1 family and 105 mm howitzers they were not upgraded, which means they were left with the 75 mm guns of the Sherman model - M4A4 and M4A6!

      And again, do not worry about the Americans. Of the 7574 issued, 7167 went to Britain, 2 to the USSR, and the rest are too lazy to look for.
      Quote: hohol95
      So that ballistic parameters were used not only in the USSR

      Well, more Chinese. And sometimes forced by the British. But for himself, almost no one did such a miracle.
      By the way, the Soviet three-inch designs were also disgusting. The Germans removed 22 J DE from the F-2100 with a "native" 1500 J. The Americans (read the report of the Aberdeen Proving Ground) claimed that almost 34 J DE could be removed from the F-2300 with a real 1400 J. What is it called?
      Quote: hohol95
      ammunition inherited from the First World !!!

      Yes, there was no "ammunition that came from WW1" in the USSR. Except buckshot (later renamed to shrapnel). Because of these shells in the USSR, three-inch guns were not made with diesel fuel. And after the beginning of the Second World War, they made the ZIS-3 from the hopelessness of the situation. But these shells still remained. They were disposed of after the Second World War.
    2. hard rock
      hard rock 25 March 2016 00: 16
      0
      Quote: hohol95
      armed with 75 mm M2 and M3 guns with ballistics and shells identical to the 75 mm French gun of 1897!

      No. They had the ballistics of Porthos' musket. Here I "like" such hysterical screamers. Knowledge, of course, no. But "revealing facts", a full carriage.
      At the French cannon 1897 the specific DE was ~ 229 J / mm3. And for the American "very, very sloppy" M368, this figure was ~ XNUMX J / sq.mm. Have you noticed any difference between these numbers?
      That very first (royal) three-inch model gave out ~ 232 J / sq.mm. Nothing surprising, just like the three-line, this is a converted and largely deteriorated Nagant rifle, and the three-inch, this is a limited and largely deteriorated French gun mod. 1897 (for example, the advanced French shutter is replaced by a sloppy one, "but very simple and technologically advanced").
      For the "great and terrible" ZIS-3 (F-34, these are "the same eggs") this figure is ~ 303 J / sq mm. The "greatest and most terrible, but very, very expensive" F-22 has ~ 326 J / sq mm. And this is the maximum, it was not possible to squeeze out more of the lucrative "divisional" cartridge. True, the price of the F-22 was prohibitive.
      The "funny and worthless" KwK40 L43 (stood on the PzKpfw IV since the spring of 1942) ~ 457 J / sq mm.
      The "funny and worthless" KwK40 L48 (stood on the PzKpfw IV since the spring of 1943) ~ 481 J / sq mm.
      The "good American" M1 has ~ 482 J / sq mm.
      The "slop German" KwK42 (stood on the PzKpfw V since the summer of 1943) ~ 659 J / sq mm.
      Just for the sake of comparison, I will give the data of the Soviet anti-aircraft guns 3-K and 51-K with ballistics arr. 1930 This is ~ 475 J / sq mm. This indicator in the 40s was even more or less bearable. And not at all boteksnuty three-inch pukals, rooted in the 19th century. And, apparently in view of their obvious weakness, they were called "legendary" by the soviet aritprom.
      True, all these 3-K and 51-K (and other light long-barrels of the 52-K type) in the USSR could be made in large quantities only at one plant, bought from the Germans just in the late 20s for the production of anti-aircraft guns. And 3-K, this is a German 88-mm anti-aircraft gun, from which part of the barrel is cut off, and a "hole" of a slightly smaller diameter. Later in the USSR, it was drilled more, up to 85 mm, and the barrel was made longer. And the Germans, during the war, simply drilled out any Soviet anti-aircraft guns for their 88 mm caliber, and put muzzles on the former 76-mm.
      Quote: hohol95
      On the M 4 "General Sherman" until 1944, the M3 gun was also installed! When upgrading with new 76 mm guns of the M1 family and 105 mm howitzers they were not upgraded, which means they were left with the 75 mm guns of the Sherman model - M4A4 and M4A6!

      I began to cry over unhappy Americans. And then, covered in snot and tears, he looked at the statistics. And what did I see? And just what I expected.
      Of the 7574 issued tanks, models M4A4 and M4A6, 7167 units. It was shipped under Lend-Lease to Britain and 2 to the USSR. The rest, if not mistaken, to China. Who would doubt that. Do not be upset for the Americans.
      As for "not modernized". For themselves, the Americans released 250 M4A3E2 (with armor of insane thickness) with M3 cannons. Later, this was recognized as a mistake, and in the field, for 100 of them, the guns were changed to M1.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Cap.Morgan
    Cap.Morgan 22 March 2016 18: 19
    +1
    Three-inch ZiS-3 - a tool combining a number of factors. Including simplicity, manufacturability, low cost with sufficient characteristics to solve most combat missions. There were 100 of them. This is an important factor.
    1. hardrokk
      hardrokk 22 March 2016 18: 30
      -3
      Quote: Cap.Morgan
      Three-inch ZiS-3 - a tool combining a number of factors.

      In addition to the large circulation and, according to rumors, the low cost of the ZIS-3 (only she had three inches), there were no more advantages. The three-inch tank did not have them at all. Although, perhaps, some elements of the ZIS-3 were used in them. But I do not know about them.
      Quote: Cap.Morgan
      with characteristics sufficient to solve most combat missions

      Three inches, and I have always noted this, were very welcome ONLY in the form of SU-76. And in the form of the original T-34, namely the SU-76 came to replace it as a "protected gun", they were also quite good. But as a cannon of a full-fledged tank, and the T-34 after the beginning of the Second World War became, as it were, an MBT, they were categorically not suitable. Well, just a saddle on a cow.
      Something like that.
      1. Stas57
        Stas57 22 March 2016 18: 44
        0
        In addition to the large circulation and, according to rumors, the low cost of the ZIS-3 (only she had three inches), there were no more advantages.

        "according to rumors", it had a well-established production of the entire range of 76mm shells, as opposed to 57mm for example
        1. hardrokk
          hardrokk 22 March 2016 19: 13
          -2
          Quote: Stas57
          she had an established production of the whole range of 76mm shells

          Inferior argument. I'm just amazed. There is simply nothing to argue.
          By the way, for slingshots and shells were not needed. Stones, they often lie under their feet. The perfect weapon, apparently.
          1. Stas57
            Stas57 22 March 2016 19: 24
            0
            Quote: hardrokk
            Inferior argument. I'm just amazed. There is simply nothing to argue.
            By the way, for slingshots and shells were not needed. Stones, they often lie under their feet. The perfect weapon, apparently.

            oh yes is this discovery for you? that in the USSR it would definitely be a green street for armament, if there had already been established production?
            Well, congratulations.
            1. hardrokk
              hardrokk 22 March 2016 19: 29
              0
              Quote: Stas57
              that in the USSR it would definitely be a green street for weapons

              So what? The production of shells for tank 37-mm and 45-mm guns was also established. Should these cannons be done until the end of the war? Do you think if they stopped doing, then this is a diversion?
              1. Stas57
                Stas57 22 March 2016 19: 43
                0
                Quote: hardrokk
                So what? The production of shells for tank 37-mm and 45-mm guns was also established. Should these cannons be done until the end of the war? Do you think if they stopped doing, then this is a diversion?

                but in general, 45 went through modernization, it became M-42 or 52-П-243С, while for 1942-45. USSR industry produced 10 843 of such guns, and was finally removed in the 1945 year.
                here is the discovery, huh?

                Production of shells for tank 37-mm

                ololo
                neither 1-K, nor PS-2, nor 5-K went into a large series in connection with the transition to 45, you, as a connoisseur, should know about it.
                1. hardrokk
                  hardrokk 22 March 2016 19: 54
                  -2
                  Quote: Stas57
                  here is the discovery, huh?

                  Actually, M-42 and 53-K (and others, there are several of them), these are somewhat different guns. And they have different ammunition. At the same time, it was possible to shoot old ammunition from new guns, but in a quarter-automatic mode. But with the new ammunition from the old cannons it was no longer possible to shoot. There was gunpowder on 30g more.
                  Discovery, huh?
                  Quote: Stas57
                  neither 1-K, nor PS-2, nor 5-K went into a large series in connection with the transition to 45, you, as a connoisseur, should know about it.

                  BS-3 still forgotten. However, this is 5-K.
                  So what? That was the production. So do you think it was necessary to continue?
                  However, they continued. They added 11 of gunpowder and replaced the shell. The result was a cartridge for the 61-K.
                  1. Stas57
                    Stas57 22 March 2016 21: 13
                    0
                    Actually, M-42 and 53-K (and others, there are several of them), these are somewhat different guns. And they have different ammunition. At the same time, it was possible to shoot old ammunition from new guns, but in a quarter-automatic mode. But with the new ammunition from the old cannons it was no longer possible to shoot. There was gunpowder on 30g more.
                    Discovery, huh?

                    what was so different that it was not allowed to be produced at the same plant without minimal modernization? and didn’t fit at all? like xnumx, xnumx and xnumx mm?
                    oh fit, oh you can, ah minimal upgrade ...


                    once again I am convinced that your knowledge does not have any system, if any.

                    Quote: hardrokk
                    BS-3 still forgotten. However, this is 5-K.
                    So what? That was the production. So do you think it was necessary to continue?
                    However, they continued. They added 11 of gunpowder and replaced the shell. The result was a cartridge for the 61-K.

                    and then, or for you the production of 400 pieces and 10 000 is odd? uuuuuu, well ok, special, yes.
                    1. hardrokk
                      hardrokk 22 March 2016 21: 43
                      -1
                      Quote: Stas57
                      oh fit, oh you can, ah minimal upgrade ...

                      Are you a clown Expelled from the arena? Why are you acting like that?
                      In addition, infa about various ammunition slipped past your brain, as I understand it.
                      Is there this brain? Maybe she didn’t slip, maybe flashed in empty space? Difficult question, difficult.
                      Quote: Stas57
                      once again I am convinced that your knowledge does not have any system, if any.

                      He is "convinced." Once again. And for some reason I FSUs. And again, too.
                      Quote: Stas57
                      and then, or for you the production of 400 pieces and 10 is monstrous?

                      This is what it was made of 400 pcs? Shells for 37 mm cannons? 01.06.41/208/2 in the state of the Red Army there were 37 BT-2s with XNUMX mm guns. What is it like? XNUMX shells per tank?
                      Quote: Stas57
                      oooo, well ok, special, yes

                      No, I'm not used to getting used to the stupid clowns of clowns. I prefer to communicate with serious and competent people, and not HZ with anyone. Therefore, I delete.
                    2. The comment was deleted.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 22 March 2016 18: 56
        +1
        Quote: hardrokk
        In addition to the large circulation and, according to rumors, the low cost of the ZIS-3 (only she had three inches), there were no more advantages. The three-inch tank did not have them at all.

        The F-34 had exactly the same advantages - manufacturability. No wonder that they made ZIS-5 on its base for HF.
        Plus the mobilization of shells, which is extremely important in war conditions. Remember - why didn’t the 76 mm S-54 and 107 mm guns take off in 1943?
        1. hardrokk
          hardrokk 22 March 2016 19: 23
          -2
          Quote: Alexey RA
          The F-34 had exactly the same advantages - manufacturability.

          Nope. These were different guns. The ammunition is the same, but the guns are different.
          Quote: Alexey RA
          No wonder that they made ZIS-5 on its base for HF.

          ZIS-5 was done because they could not do anything else. Although Kotin initially requested a 3-K ballistic gun. Then, F-22. But he received only UG.
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Plus the mobilization of shells, which is extremely important in war conditions.

          If we proceed from this, then it was necessary to do more pushing under the "anti-aircraft" cartridge. Or "mountain". Or "regimental". After all, there were most of them (in sets). And there were not many "divisional" cartridges. In this case, the "divisional" cartridges with complete charge, it was very small. Somehow like this. Contrary to your claims.
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Remember - why didn’t the 76 mm S-54 and 107 mm guns take off in 1943?

          I do not remember. Remind if not difficult.
        2. The comment was deleted.
  • Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 22 March 2016 15: 26
    +3
    A very good article, and describes quite rare things!

    The Germans were generally very famous flea marketers, they used trophies much more than all other countries - first of all, forcibly (because at the first stage of the war a lot of various equipment and weapons were seized, and their own was in great shortage). And I would say that one can learn from them precisely the process of competent use of all trophies in business.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 22 March 2016 15: 31
      +5
      Quote: Warrior2015
      The Germans were generally very famous flea marketers, they used trophies much more than all other countries

      Now you offended the Finns. laughing

      If anyone was the main WWII flea marketer, it was they. Moreover, these guys dragged everything to themselves - from the T-37 to the ISU-152. And they perverted over trophies notably - one BT-42 with a 114-mm howitzer is worth it.
      1. Cap.Morgan
        Cap.Morgan 22 March 2016 18: 28
        +2
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Quote: Warrior2015
        The Germans were generally very famous flea marketers, they used trophies much more than all other countries

        Now you offended the Finns. laughing

        If anyone was the main WWII flea marketer, it was they. Moreover, these guys dragged everything to themselves - from the T-37 to the ISU-152. And they perverted over trophies notably - one BT-42 with a 114-mm howitzer is worth it.

        Naturally. With the complete absence of its tank building. Here you will be glad to any trophy. It’s better to have at least some tank than none.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 22 March 2016 19: 06
          +1
          Quote: Cap.Morgan
          Naturally. With the complete absence of its tank building. Here you will be glad to any trophy. It’s better to have at least some tank than none.

          Understand what is the matter. Good to have some tank, when the enemy has few or no at all. And when you jva of the year make a BT-based assault self-propelled gun (assault self-propelled guns with 20 mm armor in the thickest place laughing ) or you’re necromancing over the T-26, then throwing them into battle - and the T-34-85 and ISU-152 ... PMSM are leaving for you, it would be better for the Finns if they put the expended efforts elsewhere - in that same VET.
          Look, the Romanians, having almost the same initial (and even worse), made quite suitable tank destroyers from trophies.

          However, the Finns are generally masters, to put it mildly, of non-standard solutions - just remember how they restored the battery to the last TM-3-12 to the last.
          About 305 working hours were spent on the repair of 100 mm conveyors. The salary took 000 million marks.
          Repair of electric motors, equipment, motor carriages, etc., the company "Stremberg" estimated at 1 marks.
          Repair of trolleys and special wagons made by Passila was valued at 1 marks.
          Thus, the total costs for the restoration of three 305-mm naval artillery rail installations TM-III-12 by the Finnish military and technical specialists amounted to about 5 million marks.

          And this is only for the guns, the repairs of which were completed in the summer of 1943. And then there was the repair of the remaining railroad cars. Moreover, since March 1943, the restoration of the battery went in parallel with peace talks with the USSR. smile
          1. hardrokk
            hardrokk 22 March 2016 19: 43
            -3
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Look, the Romanians, having almost the same initial (and even worse), made quite suitable tank destroyers from trophies.

            As far as I know, the guns were in the F-22 variant, not the Pak 36 (r). Therefore, the statement about "suitable ACS PTO" is somewhat exaggerated.
  • Earnest
    Earnest 22 March 2016 18: 08
    -1
    Quote: hardrokc
    This is a story about scouts and spies. About underwater pirates and brave submariners ... And the leadership of the USSR needed the Battle of Kursk to just start scratching turnips on this topic.
    All this is sad. And the Internet stupid legends are sad, but not at all funny.

    All this is sad. When brains refuse Russophobia ... Who won the Battle of Kursk (and for the Nazi nits - in the battle), is capable of answering, is your enemy the face? laughing And your fascists, I suppose, we specially lost the war to get rid of Hitler’s tyrannical power? Here are some advanced fellows who taught future Putin slaves to love the geyropa even more fool . Oh yes, they threw meat into it? Yes, they threw it ... Fascist, however
    1. hardrokk
      hardrokk 22 March 2016 18: 19
      -1
      Quote: Earnest
      When brains refuse from Russophobia ..

      Do your brains refuse Russophobia? I'm not sad about this. Even if something else refuses, I do not mind.
      Some kind of tantrum. Cross out just in case.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 22 March 2016 19: 35
    0
    Quote: Alexey RA
    Now you offended the Finns.

    First of all, the Finns were much inferior to the Germans quantitatively, it’s just that there weren’t such massive surrenders among them, unlike the Reich, which had France, England and the USSR among the leading suppliers. smile
    Well, in terms of heavy industry, Finland is simply incomparable with the capabilities of Germany, which even thought about the "Little Rat", and the "Myshat" already riveted as many as 3 pieces, not to mention Schwerer Gustav & Co.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 23 March 2016 10: 21
      0
      Quote: Warrior2015
      First of all, the Finns were much inferior to the Germans quantitatively, it’s just that there weren’t such massive surrenders among them, unlike the Reich, which had France, England and the USSR among the leading suppliers.

      That the Finns did not have mass surrenders? Yes, only from the Winter War did they get from the Soviet sd and tbr surrounded by north of Ladoga:
      29 small floating T-37,13 floating T-38, 10 two-tower light T-26 arr. 1931/32, 20 light T-26 arr. 1933, 4 light T-26 arr. 1937, 2 light T-26 arr. 1939, 4 flamethrower OT-130 and 2 flamethrower OT-26.

      In total, the Finns captured and repaired 42 small amphibious, 2 medium and 62 light tanks (however, as of June 1, 1941, only 42 light tanks were registered in the army).
      Until May 31, 1941, 27 repaired armored vehicles and one Landsverk-182 of their own were sent to the troops. Among the captured and repaired were: 1 light D-8, 11 light BA-20, BA-20M, 2 FAI-M, 7 heavy BA-10, 3 heavy BA-6 and 1 BA-27M.

      The Finns have few tanks left. Four Renault tanks were located (until 1942) in a tank school, in the same place there was a lightweight Vickers-Carden-Lloyd model of 1933. In combat units there were 26 (according to other sources 27 or 32) Vickers-Armstrong light tanks.

      That is, at the beginning continuation wars the number of captured tanks in the combat units of the Finnish BTV was about 60%. Not bad, huh?
      Further more. In 1941, the Finns got the equipment of Soviet units and formations pressed to the shores of the Gulf of Finland and Ladoga (our personnel were evacuated, but the equipment had to be abandoned).
      By the summer of 1942, the total number of its own and captured armored vehicles in the Finnish army increased to 250 units. For example, in Raulahti on August 13, 1941, at the place of evacuation in the skerries of Ladoga, the units of the 168th SD Finns got 40 guns, 310 vehicles, 8 tanks and other weapons. At the end of August, in the area of ​​Porlampi, south of Vyborg, during the retreat of parts of the 50th cc of the 23rd Army, 55 tanks were abandoned and got to the Finns, among other weapons.

      On July 1, 1942 the number of captured T-26 tanks, which were part of the Finnish armored brigade, increased significantly. T-26A double-turret became 12 (by the end of the year 17), T-26V arr. 1933 - 53 (by 1. 06. 1944 there were 63 of them, and the total number of these tanks during the war reached 65 vehicles), T-26S arr. 1937 and 1939 - 29 (as of July 1, 1943 there were already 32 of them).
      During the battles of 1941 - 1942 Of the captured T-28s captured, five more were managed to be repaired, of which one captured by the Finns in the Saamayärvi area was the most formidable modification of the T-28E (shielded). On the remaining T-28 arr. 1938 an additional reservation was mounted on the basis of the T-28E model by the forces of repair bases. All captured T-28s were included in the heavy armored platoon of the tank battalion.

      All quotes are from tankfront.ru
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 24 March 2016 19: 05
        0
        "Further - more. In 1941, the Finns got the equipment of Soviet
        parts and connections pressed to the shores of the Gulf of Finland "///

        And then even more ... The most amazing thing is that with
        his retreat in 1944 (and shortly before the complete exit from
        war) the Finns managed to recapture the upcoming (!) Red
        army with a dozen whole T-34 tanks, including T-34-85. belay
        And fire them to your rear!
  • cosmos132
    cosmos132 April 14 2016 21: 01
    0
    7.5 cm Pak 97 / 38