Military Review

Odyssey of "three-inch"

105
In the 80-s of the XIX century, many armies began to re-equip with rapid-fire weapons. As a rule, these samples had a caliber of 75 – 77 mm and weighed around 1,5 – 2 t. This combination provided, on the one hand, a fairly high mobility and ability to transport by means of a six-horse team. On the other hand, 6 – 7 kg shells were capable of effectively striking manpower and destroying light field fortifications.



The French 75-mm gun of the firm "Schneider" of the model 1897, in the exposition of the Verdunsky museum. Janmad Photos

The “trendsetter” at the time was the French Schneider 75-mm cannon of the 1897 model of the year. For the first time in the world, a hydropneumatic recoil brake was used in the construction of the gun. Now the carriage did not move after each shot, and the gunners could start reloading immediately after the barrel returned to its original position.

In Russia, they also developed their tactical and technical requirements for the rapid-fire field gun. It was assumed that this would be a three-inch caliber gun (76,2 mm) and with a mass in the stowed position of no more than 1900 kg.

According to the test results, the gun of the Putilov factory was recognized as the best. Despite the fact that it was a big step forward in comparison with the field gun of the 1877 model of the year in service, the carriage retained its outdated design, since the barrel did not roll back along the canal axis (as in the French cannon), but parallel to the frame. She received her baptism of fire in the 1900 year, when one battery armed with guns of this type went to China to suppress the boxing rebellion.


76-mm gun model 1900 of the year in the exposition of the Artillery Museum of Finland in Hämeenlinna

Operation of the artillery system in the army revealed the need to change the design of the gun carriage. Under the guidance of an outstanding artillery scientist Nikolai Zabudsky, an improved version of the gun was developed. First time in stories Russian land artillery recoil occurred along the axis of the barrel. After the military tests, the artillery system was adopted under the name "3-inch field gun model 1902 of the year."

Mass production has unfolded since 1903. The experience of the Russo-Japanese War demanded the installation of a shield to protect the gunsmiths. Another consequence was the introduction of a high-explosive grenade into the ammunition, while previously the main ammunition of the artillery system was shrapnel stuffed with 260 bullets. Shooting this type of ammunition, the 8 three-inch gun battery could destroy the infantry battalion or cavalry regiment “in an area of ​​up to two kilometers along the front and no more than 1000 steps deep” in minutes. However, shrapnel was completely impotent against the enemy, protected by even the lightest shelters.

During the First World War, the 3-inch gun of the 1902 model of the year became the main tool of the Russian field artillery. Already in the first months of hostilities, the consumption of shells repeatedly exceeded all pre-war calculations. In 1915, a "shell hunger" broke out. However, by 1916, an increase in production at Russian factories in combination with active purchases abroad led to the fact that the reserves of shells began to significantly exceed the needs of the front. Therefore, part of the ammunition for the "three-inch" was stored for long-term storage and then used even during the Great Patriotic War.

Odyssey of "three-inch"

76-mm gun model 1900 of the year in service with one of the batteries of the Terek Cossack Army, 1914 year

The First World War very quickly acquired a positional character when the troops burrowed into the ground "from sea to sea." In the current situation, the value of the “three-inch” ones intended for the flooring fire has decreased - howitzers began to take the lead. But the outbreak of the Civil War was extremely maneuverable, which again made the 76-mm cannon of the 1902 model of the year “the queen of the battlefield”. It was actively used by all belligerents.

Nevertheless, by the middle of the 1920-ies, the gun no longer met the requirements of time, especially with regard to the firing range. There was an acute question of modernization. The most logical way to increase the firing range was an increase in the caliber and weight of the projectile. In particular, the distinguished designer of artillery weapons, Rostislav Durlyakhov, in 1923, offered to switch to 85-mm divisional guns. However, the economic arguments prevailed over the technical ones. Despite the recently decimated Civil War, huge stocks of 76-mm shells of pre-revolutionary production remained in the warehouses. Therefore, the designers were required to create a cannon capable of firing the already existing ammunition.


Nikolai Aleksandrovich Zabudsky

At the first stage, the modest possibilities of the then domestic industry made it necessary to confine themselves only to the modernization of the existing tools. We stopped at the version proposed by the design bureau of the Motovilikhinsky plant under the leadership of Vladimir Sidorenko. Its distinctive feature is the ability to use both the old model (30-long in caliber) and the new 40-caliber. The new artillery system received the name "76-mm divisional gun model 1902 / 30's." The guns with the 30-caliber barrel were produced only in the 1931 year, then switched to the 40-caliber guns. As a result, the firing range increased to 13 km.

Unfortunately, the modernized cannon has retained most of the shortcomings of the old artillery system, the main of which should be considered as a single-bar carriage limiting the horizontal guidance angles and the unshaft wheel drive. Although the production of the 76-mm 1902 / 30 model guns was completed in the 1937 year, the artillery system continued to remain in service for a considerable time. At the time of the start of World War II, 4475 guns of this type were in Soviet units.


Battery 76-mm guns sample 1902 year on one of the fronts of the First World War

Despite improved performance, the 76-mm 1930 model gun of the year did not satisfy the military leadership. Its range continued to be considered insufficient, and a small angle of elevation of the barrel did not allow firing at the infantry located behind the shelters. Mikhail Tukhachevsky, who was appointed to the post of Chief of Armaments of the Red Army in 1931, wanted to get a universal (capable of firing like a cannon and howitzer) 76 – 102 mm gun. It should be noted that such an idea was inherently deeply flawed, since the design of the 76-mm unitary ammunition available in the warehouses simply did not allow the variable charge needed for firing at the "howitzer". Although at that time in some countries they were fascinated by the “gauging” of field guns, it is perhaps only the creation of the 75-mm FK 16 nA cannon in Germany that can relate to relatively successful experiments. But the Germans, first, initially used not unitary, but separate-sleeve loading, secondly, they considered their gun as “ersatz” for reserve formations, while the units of the first line immediately planned to arm 105-mm howitzers. However, such arguments did not stop M.N., who was prone to various adventurous decisions. Tukhachevsky, and, as subsequent events showed, he could well claim to be the “evil genius” of the Soviet artillery of the interwar period.

Carrying out the task, under the guidance of the previously mentioned V.N. Sidorenko produced an 76-mm barrel with a X-NUMX-long caliber overlap on the 50-mm howitzer of a 122 / 1910 howitzer. As a result, the firing range in comparison with the 30 / 1902 model cannon increased quite insignificantly - to 30 km, and these changes were purchased at the price of an increase in the 13,58 kg weight of the gun in combat position. Nevertheless, the head of the Red Army’s arms ordered the artillery system to be adopted under the name “300-mm divisional gun of the 76 model of the year” and to launch mass production.


76-mm gun model 1902 / 30 of the year in the exposition of the Artillery Museum of Finland in Hämeenlinna

A fantasy M.N. Tukhachevsky continued to beat the key. He demanded to develop tactical and technical requirements for a universal cannon with a circular fire and semi-universal without a circular fire. In this case, “universality” was understood as the ability to fire not only at ground targets, but also at air targets. A peculiar attempt to get a tool that simultaneously combines the functions of a hammer and a sledge hammer!
The first sample 76-mm universal gun developed at the factory "Red Putilovets". The desire to fulfill the frankly delusional requirements led to an increase in the mass in the combat position to 3470 kg - the value is simply unacceptable for the divisional gun. Further work stopped. A similar fate befell other projects.


Broken 76-mm divisional gun model 1933 year with the dead calculation, 1941 year. Photos from the site "War Album" (waralbum.ru)

The fate of the GKB-38 development was somewhat different. They designed two guns: the universal A-52 and the semi-universal A-51, and the factories No. 8 and No. 92 produced one prototype each. In 1933, the GKB-38 was liquidated, and the premises and equipment were transferred to the developers of recoilless guns. Indeed, by that time M.N. Tukhachevsky was running with his new fantasy - to re-equip the whole artillery with dynamo-active (recoil-free) guns, and he was not embarrassed by the fact that none of the numerous projects “recoilless” had brought it “to mind” The designs of Leonid Kurchevsky very quickly demonstrated their extremely low combat qualities.

In January, 1934 of the employees of the liquidated GKB-38 formed the design bureau of the plant No. 92 "New Sormovo". The team was assigned to the then young and novice designer Vasily Grabin. At the first stage, they began to refine the semi-universal A-51 cannon, which received the new F-20 index. But it soon became clear that it was unlikely that a good artillery system would turn out from the F-20, and at the same time they began to develop a new F-22 cannon. 14 June showed a demonstration of guns to the top leadership of the USSR, headed by Joseph Stalin. And there was a sensation! Bypassing the numerous developments of venerable designers, the F-22, designed by the then little-known VG, turned out to be the best gun. Grabin, and even on its own initiative. By 22 on April 1936, the military trials were completed, and the F-22 was put into service under the name "76-mm divisional gun of the 1936 model of the year." Gross production was organized at once in three factories.


Vasily Gavrilovich Grabin


The 76-mm divisional gun of the 1936 model of the year (F-22) in the exposition of the Military History Museum of Artillery, Engineering Troops and Communication Troops in St. Petersburg. Photo Saiga20K

After the arrest of M.N. Tukhachevsky's idea of ​​divisional artillery universalism died of its own accord. And during the operation of the F-22 in the army, such a design flaw as a greater weight compared to the 1902 / 30 model gun came out on top. In reality, the military needed a modern cannon with the ballistics of an 40-caliber gun of the 1902 / 30 type with a mass in combat position not more than 1500 kg. In an emergency order V.G. Grabin began to design a new artillery system, which he assigned to the factory index F-22 SPM, trying to emphasize this, that he was just improving F-22. In fact, SPV was a completely different sample. And again, the talented designer went around all the competitors. The gun was adopted under the name "76-mm divisional gun model 1939 of the year" and launched mass production, but after making 1150 copies at the beginning of 1941, the production was discontinued, since it was planned to switch to divisional guns of a larger caliber - 107 mm.


Battery 76-mm divisional guns sample 1939 year (SPV) before leaving for combat positions, 1942 year. Photos from the site "War Album" (waralbum.ru)


76-mm divisional gun model 1942 of the year (ZIS-3)

However, V.G. Grabin understood that the 107-mm gun would be very heavy for the divisional level. Therefore, at the end of 1940, he began to implement perhaps his most remarkable idea - the imposition of an 76-mm barrel with a length of 40 gauges on the carriage of an 57-mm anti-tank gun ZIS-2. Such a solution immediately gave a lot of positive results: the reliability of the artillery system increased, the work of calculation was facilitated, the production was considerably simplified and cheapened, the conditions for the production of guns were created for the first time in the history of artillery production.

The prototype was ready in June 1941 of the year, and a month later it passed field testing. 22 July, it was demonstrated to Marshal Grigory Kulik. Despite the excellent results of the show, he said that the army did not need a new weapon. The logic of the marshal in this case defies any reasonable explanation - after all then the catastrophic losses of the Red Army artillery park were known due to the start of the Great Patriotic War unsuccessful for the USSR.


Calculation ZIS-3 firing at the approaches to Berlin, 1945 year


Serbian Colonel Vinko Pandurevich shows a ZIS-3 gun to the inspecting American officers IFOR, February 1996 of the year

In this situation, Vasily Grabin and plant manager No. 92 Amo Elyan went to an unprecedentedly bold decision - they voluntarily launched mass production. It is not known how events could develop further, but on August 10 I.V. Stalin personally called the plant. For such an unusual step, he had weighty reasons - the situation on the fronts continued to be very difficult, the guns for the army were taken away even from museums. The Supreme requested a sharp increase in the number of guns produced, while agreeing on a decline in quality. And here the new gun turned out to be most welcome. This allowed the plant to increase the number of guns produced by 1941 by the end of 5,5. Until the end of the war, the domestic industry produced about 48 thousand guns of this type, which received the name "76-mm divisional gun of the 1942 model of the year (ZIS-3)".


The coffin with the body of President of Poland Lech Kaczynski on the carriage ZIS-3, 2010 year. Photo by Krakowska Studencka Agencja Fotograficzna AGH

But the reduction in quality, for which, for the sake of mass production, I.V. Stalin, while this did not happen. The gun has proven itself in battles not only as a divisional, but also as an anti-tank weapon. The Germans nicknamed ZIS-3 "ratsh-boom" because the projectile hit the target before the sound of the shot reached, and the chief engineer of the Krupp corporation artillery department Professor Wolf was forced to recognize it as the best weapon of the Second World War.

In our time, ZIS-3 can be seen not only on pedestals in honor of the heroes-gunners. Part of the guns of this type continues to be in service with several countries.
Author:
Originator:
http://историк.рф/special_posts/одиссея-трехдюймовки/
105 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Red_Hamer
    Red_Hamer April 3 2016 05: 08
    +2
    The Red Army did not disdain the use of weapons even during the Crimean War. I must say they used it very well, for example, in the defense of Moscow! The Germans thought it was a secret, super-powerful weapon of the Russians. An interesting movie on YouTube is "Rokossovsky's Secret Weapon" (The Searchers, 2015)
    1. Aleksandr72
      Aleksandr72 April 3 2016 07: 22
      +18
      I do not think that the word "disdained" is exactly the one that is used in this case.
      After the loss of artillery weapons in border battles and the ensuing "cauldrons" of 1941, any weapon would be useful for the Red Army - if only it could shoot at the enemy and destroy him, and there were enough shells for it - at least 1 BC was enough.
      And near Moscow in 1941, not the guns of the Crimean War were used, but the guns of the 1877 model - an old, but not entirely outdated artillery system, it’s enough to say that with 6-inch siege cannon shells weighing 200 pounds (so this system was adopted by the Russian army , this is a gun of 1877) it is quite possible to shoot even from a 152,4-mm case howitzer D-1 arr. 1943 - the design of the projectile allows this.
      On one of the sectors of the front, the decisive role was played by Russian guns manufactured at the Imperial Cannon Plant in Perm as early as 1877. And it was on the defense section of Solnechnogorsk - Krasnaya Polyana, where the 16th Army under the command of Konstantin Rokossovsky fought bloodless for long battles.

      Details were on the same site:
      http://topwar.ru/1547-pod-moskvoj-voevali-pushki-vremen-russko-tureckoj-vojny.ht
      ml
      Near Moscow, these guns were used:
      To combat the German medium tanks, they picked up old siege guns of caliber 6 inches, which were used during the liberation of Bulgaria from the Turkish yoke, and later in the Russian-Japanese war 1904-1905. After the end of it, due to the strong deterioration of the gun barrels, these were delivered to the Mytishchi arsenal, where they were stored in canned form. Shooting from them was not safe, but they could still withstand 5-7 shots.
      As for the shells, in the Sokolniki artillery depot there were a large number of captured British high-explosive fragmentation shells of the Vickers company in 6 inches and 100 pounds, that is, slightly more than 40 kilograms. There were also primers and powder charges, repulsed in the American Civil War. All this property was kept from 1919 year so carefully that it could well be used for its intended purpose.
      1. Red_Hamer
        Red_Hamer April 3 2016 08: 27
        +7
        The phrase from that article, the link to which you gave.
        An elderly man worked at the academy, who knew well the locations of artillery arsenals in Moscow and in the immediate vicinity of Moscow, where worn-out and very old artillery systems, shells and equipment were mothballed.
        I give a clarification on the "elderly person".
        Kozlovsky David Evstafievich, in the Russian army since 1889. Major General of the Russian Imperial Army since 1913. Since 1918, he taught at the Artillery Academy of the Red Army (in 1925-1932 - the Military Technical Academy of the Red Army, then - the Artillery Academy named after F. E. Dzerzhinsky). Doctor of Military Sciences, Professor. The foreman since 1936. The foreman since 1938. Artillery Major General since 1940. During the Second World War, a member of the Artillery Committee of the GAU. Corresponding Member of the Academy of Artillery Sciences (1946). He was buried in Moscow at the Novodevichy cemetery.
    2. ICT
      ICT April 3 2016 09: 33
      +1
      Quote: Red_Hamer
      Rudius even during the Crimean War.


      there is a "myth" about ours


      But the Finns have a photo
  2. AK64
    AK64 April 3 2016 05: 32
    -17%
    But the decline in quality that I.V. was ready to go for the sake of mass production Stalin, this did not happen.


    Naturally, it happened.

    The gun proved to be excellent in battles not only as a divisional, but also as an anti-tank weapon.


    And what is unusual here? The use of divisions as anti-tank guns was planned starting from the 20s.

    Professor Wolf, the chief engineer of the artillery department at Krupp Corporation, was forced to recognize it as the best weapon of World War II.


    Or lied, or flattered. In any case, I would like an exact quote in the original language.

    Zosia's dignity was suitability for "mass production" and low weight. In war, this is not the main quality. But for any quality one usually has to pay with other characteristics. They paid here too: by itself, like a weapon, the gun was very mediocre. Let's say the same SPM was much better. (but more expensive and heavier.)

    In general, e should not be believed in memoirs, and Grabin’s memoirs should not be believed at all.
    1. Duke
      Duke April 3 2016 06: 59
      +1
      Quote: AK64
      In general, e should not be believed in memoirs, and Grabin’s memoirs should not be believed at all.

      You would only blame the Soviet. You are a provocateur.
      1. Duke
        Duke April 3 2016 07: 13
        +5
        The ZIS - 3 divisional gun was the most massive weapon in our army. By the end of one thousand nine hundred and forty-three, it was "licked" in terms of the manufacturability of the design. There was not a single superfluous detail in the design of the ZIS - 3 divisional gun. Outwardly, she looked very harmonious. Probably for this reason it was more often than other weapons put on pedestals after the war. As for its combat use and distribution throughout the world, it is not much inferior to the Kalashnikov assault rifle. At least in Angola, she had to fight.
        The performance characteristics of the gun ZIS-3
        Chief Designer V.G. Grabine
        Battle crew 6 people
        Full combat weight 1116 kg
        Barrel length 3,455 m
        Total gun length in
        stowed position 6,095 m
        Implement width
        position 1,645 m
        Maximum firing range 13 290 m
        Muzzle velocity 680 m / s
        Shell weight 6.2 kg (RP)
        Maximum Declination Angle /
        elevations, hail. —5 / + 37
        Horizontal angle
        guidance, hail. Xnumx
        Rate of Fire, rds / min up to 25

        Since the ZIS-3 was the most widespread artillery system in the states of the Eastern bloc, over the years a high degree of standardization of ammunition was achieved, which has survived to this day. High-explosive high-explosive shells were produced in the largest quantities, but among other types there was an armor-piercing projectile, as well as a cumulative projectile that subsequently appeared, capable of penetrating armor with a thickness of 194 mm at a direct range. The maximum range of the shot is 13 290 meters.



        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov April 3 2016 09: 17
          +5
          Quote: Duke
          The ZIS - 3 divisional gun was the most massive weapon in our army.

          Unfortunately. For this mass was to the detriment of other art. systems.

          The same 122-mm "Kulatsky trimmed", which came out on top as a matter of necessity in the troops by 1943, when the main task was to break through the defense.

          ZiS-3 was good at the time and for its tasks. And Stalin did not notice when the need for it passed, continuing to demand prerogatives in its production.

          From that and strangeness in its combat use. It was used both as an anti-tank, and as a direct support weapon for infantry direct support. Why she didn’t fit very well ...
          1. AK64
            AK64 April 3 2016 09: 26
            +2
            Unfortunately. For this mass was to the detriment of other art. systems.


            Zosia is in the principle of "military ersatz" (that is, a forced simplification in wartime).
            In itself, this is neither good nor bad, and Zosia was quite good for an "ersatz". But making Zosia "the best of all times and peoples" is at least strange: USV and F-22 were better.

            In general, the very concept of the 3 "divisional gun by the beginning of WWII was ... very outdated: for this very reason, and not at all out of foolishness, Kulik spoke of the need to switch to a 107 mm gun.

            The same 122-mm "Kulatsky trimmed", which came out on top as a matter of necessity in the troops by 1943, when the main task was to break through the defense.


            It’s good for everyone, but in Soviet conditions it was not suitable as the basis for divisional artillery: thrust nema. Only as an addition to ...

            ZiS-3 was good at the time and for its tasks. And Stalin did not notice when the need for it passed, continuing to demand prerogatives in its production.


            And how do you know what "continued to demand"?

            From that and strangeness in its combat use. It was used both as an anti-tank, and as a direct support weapon for infantry direct support. Why she didn’t fit very well ...


            Well, yes: damned universalism in full growth. Universalism itself in this case is from poverty
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov April 3 2016 09: 43
              +5
              Quote: AK64
              SPM and F-22 were better.

              I don’t know ... Two gunners for this caliber are clearly redundant.

              Quote: AK64
              It’s good for everyone, but in Soviet conditions it was not suitable as the basis of divisional artillery: thrusts of NEM. Only as an addition to ...

              By 1943? Is not a fact.
              Besides


              Quote: AK64
              And how do you know what "continued to demand"?

              And you did not notice that there were 3 types of weapons, which were produced in incredible, often excessive quantities? ZiS-3, T-34 and IL-2 ... This can only be explained by the direct control of Stalin over their release.
              1. AK64
                AK64 April 3 2016 10: 14
                0
                I don’t know ... Two gunners for this caliber are clearly redundant.


                Hehe ....
                It just gets better easily.

                Two gunners - this is for firing at aircraft. If you realize that this is unnecessary, then transferring both handwheels to one side can be done literally in the collective farm forge.

                The Germans did just that: at F-22 (1) they cut off the vertical aiming sector (immediately improved ground clearance) and (2) transferred the handwheels to one side.

                As a result - an excellent "heavy anti-tank" gun. Very efficient, even the calculations loved her. Even the F-22's chamber for a German projectile was refined by the Germans. (And they resharpened at the IVDS.)

                But the Germans somehow didn’t get Zosia ... They didn’t collect it.

                Quote: AK64
                It’s good for everyone, but in Soviet conditions it was not suitable as the basis of divisional artillery: thrusts of NEM. Only as an addition to ...


                By 1943? Is not a fact.
                Besides


                It’s hard for me to count the horses, but the Germans only dragged their 105mm LFH with the Pershnerons.
                There was of course the 122m howitzer arr 1910: this one was definitely under horse traction.


                And you did not notice that there were 3 types of weapons, which were produced in incredible, often excessive quantities? ZiS-3, T-34 and IL-2 ... This can only be explained by the direct control of Stalin over their release.


                There could be (and in fact was) a "lobby of production workers" who did not want to rebuild themselves with new items. So, the completely legal requirements of the military, even for relatively small design changes, were banally ignored by the production workers.
              2. hardroc
                hardroc April 3 2016 12: 16
                0
                Quote: AK64
                SPM and F-22 were better.

                Well yes. In which place?
                Quote: Spade
                And you did not notice that there were 3 types of weapons, which were produced in incredible, often excessive quantities?

                I would add more PPSh and PPS. Also in the incredible and redundant.
              3. The comment was deleted.
              4. shasherin.pavel
                shasherin.pavel April 3 2016 13: 03
                +1
                Quote: Spade
                ZIS-3, T-34 and IL-2 ...

                PPSh, PPS, DP.
          2. Duke
            Duke April 3 2016 09: 33
            +1
            The main advantage of ZiS-3 was its manufacturability, which is extremely important in wartime conditions.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov April 3 2016 09: 51
              -1
              Quote: Duke
              The main advantage of ZiS-3 was its manufacturability, which is extremely important in wartime conditions.

              Technology to the detriment of combat effectiveness is unacceptable.
              1. AK64
                AK64 April 3 2016 10: 26
                0
                Technology to the detriment of combat effectiveness is unacceptable.


                In war, you have to compromise ....

                But you are right: by the beginning of the 44th, it would have been possible to stop driving the quantity to the detriment of quality: there were no longer any expected losses of guns as in the 41st, and the ZiS-3 was already in excess.
              2. shasherin.pavel
                shasherin.pavel April 3 2016 13: 20
                +4
                Quote: Spade
                Technology to the detriment of combat effectiveness

                Here you tell the Germans when their T-VIH (Tiger) cost three times more than Is-2 and five times more than T-34. I must inform you ... that the T-34-85 of the 1944 model of the year was twice cheaper than the T-34 with the L-11 gun of the 1939 year.
                1. AK64
                  AK64 April 3 2016 13: 29
                  +1
                  Here you tell the Germans when their T-VIH (Tiger) was three times more expensive than the Is-2 and five times more expensive than the T-34.


                  What could be funnier than comparing prices "on the moon" and "on Jupiter"?

                  I must inform you ... that the T-34-85 of the 1944 model cost half as much as the T-34 with the L-11 gun of the 1939 model.


                  (1) I would strongly advise you to tell strangers You
                  (2) how much the Americans did - how much he cost. But you will not understand this simple little thought ...
                  Only one detail: the Americans wouldn’t put roundabout machines for boring the tower shoulder straps on Lend-Lease - and the T-34-85 would not cost anything at all, due to the impossibility of producing it.

                  Shoulder straps - only a don from details.
                2. Lopatov
                  Lopatov April 3 2016 16: 31
                  0
                  Quote: shasherin.pavel
                  their T-VIH (Tiger) was three times more expensive than the Is-2 and five times more expensive than the T-34.

                  Why not at 12? Also a beautiful figure ...
            2. shasherin.pavel
              shasherin.pavel April 3 2016 13: 17
              +3
              Quote: Duke
              The main advantage of ZIS-3

              The only gun in the world standing on the conveyor, because the details of the gun fit together without adjustment. We are now accustomed to the assembly line, and then at most plants the parts were adjusted in place.
              1. AK64
                AK64 April 3 2016 13: 24
                +3
                The only gun in the world standing on the conveyor, because the details of the gun fit together without adjustment. We are now accustomed to the assembly line, and then at most plants the parts were adjusted in place.


                What to compose? ZiS-3 is the swinging parts of the SPM on the ZiS-2 carriage. Fundamentally new - muzzle brake.

                That is: there was no fit (and then not the fact that gate did not grind) not because "the constructor was so cleverly invented" but because the production has improved.
        2. hardroc
          hardroc April 3 2016 12: 05
          -1
          Quote: Duke
          The ZIS - 3 divisional gun was the most massive weapon in our army.

          And is this somehow characterizing her performance characteristics from the best side? Or did they somehow improve?
          Quote: Duke
          By the end of one thousand nine hundred and forty-three, it was "licked" in terms of the manufacturability of the design

          By the beginning, from the middle of this year, it should have been removed from production. As having exhausted its latest opportunities.
          Quote: Duke
          In the design of the division gun ZIS - 3 there was not a single extra detail.

          I’ll tell you a secret, this is normal for a normal thing. Those. this is not a virtue, this is a common thing.
          Quote: Duke
          it concerns its combat use and distribution throughout the world, it is not much inferior to the Kalashnikov assault rifle

          Of course. Both the USSR gave out to "friends" for kisses on the gums of "dear Leonid Ilyich". Why shouldn't they spread then? But this does not mean that it was a good weapon.
          Quote: Duke
          The maximum range of the shot is 13 meters.

          At this range, the gap is not visible. In addition, a dead bursting charge of 621g. Amotol. Full bullshit, in other words.
          Quote: Duke
          as well as a cumulative projectile that subsequently appeared, capable of penetrating 194 mm thick armor at a direct range.

          1. You try to hit somewhere with a cumulative projectile from afar (it was recommended to shoot no further than 500 m, and it was directly forbidden to shoot beyond 1000 m). And close up this "curbstone" was perfectly visible.
          2. To that were BP-350M (armor penetration up to 100 mm) and BP-353A (armor penetration about 70 mm). And about 194 mm, it's you dumb.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. The comment was deleted.
        3. 24hours
          24hours April 3 2016 22: 51
          0
          That's how people become sofa marshals. A couple of crazy phrases from one author. A couple of pictures from another. And voila, you already have a pair of glasses in your pocket.
          If it’s not clear what I’m talking about, then I REPORT that a 6,3 kg shell (manufactured before 1942) in the ZIS-3 barrel accelerated to 662 m / s. This is in the picture.
          In the text - a projectile weighing 6,2 kg was accelerated to a speed of about 667 m / s. Those. your "sources" never guessed.
      2. AK64
        AK64 April 3 2016 07: 30
        -15%
        You would only blame the Soviet. You are a provocateur.


        uti ways ...

        Well, read what the same Shirokorad, or, say, MI Svirin wrote about Grabin - there will be even more reasons for indignation. In general, I should say that only Grabin spoke well about Grabin ...

        In general, Soviet people live in the Matrix, and they are afraid of reality like fire.
        1. Duke
          Duke April 3 2016 07: 49
          +5
          Quote: AK64
          In general, I should say that only Grabin spoke well about Grabin ...

          You are not right.
          Stalin Prize of the first degree (1941) - for the development of new types of artillery weapons
          Stalin Prize of the first degree (1943) - for the development of new models of artillery weapons
          Stalin Prize of the first degree (1946) - for the creation of a new model of artillery
          Stalin Prize of the first degree (1950) - for work in the field of armaments
          Colonel General of the Technical Troops (1945)
          Doctor of Technical Sciences (1941)
          Professor (1951)
          Hero of Socialist Labor (1940)
          deputy of the USSR Armed Forces 2 — 3 convocations (1946 — 1954)
          four orders of Lenin
          Order of the October Revolution
          two orders of the Red Banner
          Order of Suvorov I and II degree
          Order of the Red Banner of Labor
          Order of the Red Star and Medals
          Honorary Citizen of Korolyov
          The name of Grabin is one of the streets of Korolev and the street in Krasnodar.
          In honor of Grabin the square in Nizhny Novgorod is named
          In honor of Grabin and workers of the Nizhny Novgorod Machine-Building Plant, a memorial was opened for the 70 anniversary of Victory.
          1. AK64
            AK64 April 3 2016 08: 12
            -9
            You are not right.


            Look at the list of awards of academician Lysenko - you will be even more surprised.

            You still take the time and read what exactly writes about Grabin, for example Shirokorod, and why he writes it.
            1. shasherin.pavel
              shasherin.pavel April 3 2016 13: 25
              +5
              Quote: AK64
              Look at the list of awards of academician Lysenko -

              You will be even more surprised when you learn that almost 40% of the grain created by Lysenko is used in agriculture to this day.
              1. AK64
                AK64 April 3 2016 13: 30
                +1
                You will be even more surprised when you learn that almost 40% of the grain created by Lysenko is used in agriculture to this day.


                list cereals

                / and aside / I was always amazed by the "history students" according to Mukhin. Lysenko (he was also a breeder) piled 2-3 varieties. Total. It is not enough. All varieties were made in a terrible rush, with all the consequences of haste.

                But "historians on mukhin" well, they just know everything ...
        2. cap
          cap April 3 2016 07: 53
          +10
          Quote: AK64
          You would only blame the Soviet. You are a provocateur.


          uti ways ...

          Well, read what the same Shirokorad, or, say, MI Svirin wrote about Grabin - there will be even more reasons for indignation. In general, I should say that only Grabin spoke well about Grabin ...

          In general, Soviet people live in the Matrix, and they are afraid of reality like fire.


          In the matrix were the defeated Nazi troops, and the Fuhrer who shot himself. Although I think he was helped by a much smaller caliber.
          What was it was. It is good to stir up history sitting on a sofa.
          They make history in the trenches, for those who don’t know. hi
          1. AK64
            AK64 April 3 2016 08: 10
            -15%
            In the matrix were the defeated Nazi troops, and the Fuhrer who shot himself.


            It's about the film "The Matrix".

            (And why does the Soviet have to chew everything?)
            1. Yarr_Arr
              Yarr_Arr April 3 2016 09: 44
              +8
              It is unpleasant, but in this case the "Soviet" brains look much preferable to the "non-Soviet" author. Fortunately, the habit of speaking "outliers" instead of arguments did not take root very strongly among the "Soviet" people. Unlike you
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov April 3 2016 09: 54
                0
                Quote: Yarr_Arr
                It is unpleasant, but in this case the "Soviet" brains look much preferable to the "non-Soviet" author.

                When praised, it always looks nicer.
                But flattery does not increase combat effectiveness.
                1. Yarr_Arr
                  Yarr_Arr April 3 2016 10: 00
                  +3
                  Speech in a specific case is not about performance characteristics, but about the mentoring of the author. "Facts in the studio" - then there is a conversation. And "the Soviets have to chew" ... Well, well
                  PS I'm talking about AK matches, not the author of the article, essno
                  1. AK64
                    AK64 April 3 2016 10: 28
                    -4
                    Yes, you would bring me to the emergency room and not be tormented!
                  2. hardroc
                    hardroc April 3 2016 12: 46
                    -2
                    Quote: Yarr_Arr
                    "Facts in the studio" - then there is a conversation.

                    The French gun of 1897. specific DE was ~ 229 J / sq. mm.
                    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").
                    The "great and terrible" ZIS-3 (tank F-34, these are "the same eggs") has this figure of ~ 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.
                    In the American "strongly, strongly and shamefully sucking" M3, this figure was ~ 368 J / sq.mm.
                    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.
                    Have you noticed any difference between these numbers?
                    Just for the sake of comparison, I will give the data of 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 the boteksnut three-inch pukals, rooted in the 19th century. And, apparently in view of their obvious weakness, they were called "legendary" by the soviet aritprom.
                    Do you want to "talk" about something further? About what? Do you have any facts other than "spells"?
                    1. vova1973
                      vova1973 April 3 2016 13: 19
                      +1
                      In order to realize muzzle energy embedded in a projectile, a barrel of appropriate length is needed. the longer the barrel, the more difficult it is to make and even more expensive.
                      1. hardroc
                        hardroc April 3 2016 13: 53
                        0
                        Quote: vova1973
                        In order to realize muzzle energy embedded in a projectile, a barrel of appropriate length is needed.

                        This is a complicated question. Highly. First of all, the barrel can be of any length. But with a short barrel, the problem of loading density will come out. Which will have to be solved somehow (there are several options).
                        Then the c / s shot matters.
                        Then, of course, the length of the barrel (the cost of the gun).
                        The three-inch models had a huge problem, the small volume of the sleeve. It did not match the caliber of the gun at all, even in the 30s. A normal sleeve for that time was already a sleeve from an "anti-aircraft" cartridge. In 30 it was necessary to give up this cartridge case, and not to start a "barrel lengthening". Or, keep the same case, but switch to a smaller caliber.
                        By the way, the "divisional" sleeve would have produced a good anti-tank gun instead of the 45-mm 19-K (53-K in 1937 should not have been done, it was a mistake).
                      2. The comment was deleted.
          2. hardroc
            hardroc April 3 2016 12: 26
            -1
            Quote: cap
            In the matrix were the defeated Nazi troops, and the Fuhrer who shot himself. Although I think he was helped by a much smaller caliber.

            Strange "argument". Does he somehow say that Soviet weapons were good? Why don't you take into account the level of losses? Do you know why soldiers are given equipment on the battlefield? To reduce the level of losses. Therefore, the most important factor in evaluating a silent driver is the level of losses. And he was catastrophically large in the Red Army. Right until the very last day. Moreover, the USSR began to experience problems with mobility resources due to the catastrophic level of losses since the fall of 1943. Even then, the army began to row everyone they could. and this is one of the consequences of poor weaponry.
            1. Wheel
              Wheel April 3 2016 15: 41
              -1
              Quote: hardroc
              Moreover, the USSR began to experience problems with mobresource due to the catastrophic level of losses since the fall of 1943. Even then everyone began to row into the army. and this is one of the consequences of poor weapons.

              No need la la. The last who took part in the hostilities was a call of 25 b.
              26 and 27 no longer fought.
              1. hardroc
                hardroc April 3 2016 16: 06
                0
                Quote: Wheel
                No need la la. The last who took part in the hostilities was a call of 25 b.
                26 and 27 no longer fought.

                PPC. They write, just to be noted. At least he asked what problems the Red Army had and who was proposed to be drafted into the army to cover the lack of people.
              2. The comment was deleted.
          3. The comment was deleted.
          4. Cap.Morgan
            Cap.Morgan April 3 2016 13: 05
            -1
            Quote: cap
            Quote: AK64
            You would only blame the Soviet. You are a provocateur.


            uti ways ...

            Well, read what the same Shirokorad, or, say, MI Svirin wrote about Grabin - there will be even more reasons for indignation. In general, I should say that only Grabin spoke well about Grabin ...

            In general, Soviet people live in the Matrix, and they are afraid of reality like fire.


            In the matrix were the defeated Nazi troops, and the Fuhrer who shot himself. Although I think he was helped by a much smaller caliber.
            What was it was. It is good to stir up history sitting on a sofa.
            They make history in the trenches, for those who don’t know. hi

            The only question is the price of victory.
            But as the song says, we won’t cost the price.
            But a number of strategic mistakes, failures and even crimes were committed that led to such a result.
            By the way, there is no evidence that the Fuhrer shot himself.
            Having stayed in Siberia 10 years after returning to the Federal Republic of Germany, the nurse refused to give her testimony, and to forge Hitler’s medical card with the Gestapo’s experience in such matters is such a thing that it’s ridiculous to talk about it.
        3. Duke
          Duke April 3 2016 08: 06
          +5
          Quote: AK64
          Well, read what the same Shirokorad, or, say, MI Svirin wrote about Grabin - there will be even more reasons for indignation. In general, I should say that only Grabin spoke well about Grabin ...

          The role of Vasily Grabin in the creation of artillery systems during the Great Patriotic War is well known. But he was not only a designer, but also an outstanding technologist and organizer of production. The famous Hrabin guns F-22, F-34, USV, ZIS-2, ZIS-3, BS-3 and others accounted for more than half of the guns produced by our industry in 1941-1945. They destroyed the vast majority of German tanks.
          Alexander Shirokorad
          1. AK64
            AK64 April 3 2016 08: 13
            -7
            That is, do not want to read? Well - lagged behind and brought in an emergency
            1. Wheel
              Wheel April 3 2016 15: 44
              +4
              Quote: AK64
              Well - lagged behind and brought in an emergency

              Emergency - a reliable method when there are no arguments. laughing
              1. AK64
                AK64 April 3 2016 15: 59
                -3
                Well, what could be the arguments in this case?

                Chel began with a statement that "I would only find fault with the Soviet" and that "I am a provocateur." He continued by making TWO comments to me in half an hour.
                Are you seriously suggesting that against such murderous arguments I would need to look for "arguments"?
          2. The comment was deleted.
        4. shasherin.pavel
          shasherin.pavel April 3 2016 08: 29
          +10
          Quote: AK64
          uti ways ...

          Among the designers, as well as among the generals, there is no principle: "for what he praises the cuckoo." Each constructor hats someone else's. But only here it is a detail that coincides with several designers: "Stalin, having bypassed all the guns prepared for testing, unexpectedly returned to the" yellow "Grabin cannon, which he almost forcefully pushed into one formation with other guns, Kulik allowed this gun to be put in a row with others, but forbade it to shoot. Stalin called Petrov and asked him: “What flaws do you see in this gun of Grabin?” Petrov was silent, examining the gun. “Comrade Grabin, what flaws do you see in Petrov’s gun?” They approached Petrov’s gun. and Grabin began to talk point by point about each node of the cannon, in which there were many nodes that showed themselves not on the best side on other guns.
          This episode is found in several designers in memoirs. Relying on the opinion of Shirokorad without studying the memoirs of other designers and commanders of artillery is a little professional and narrowly specialized. They all lie a little, but some criticize others more, but they praise themselves beloved absolutely and without any measure. And this must be taken into account.
          1. AK64
            AK64 April 3 2016 08: 57
            -7
            This episode is found in several designers in memoirs. Relying on the opinion of Shirokorad without studying the memoirs of other designers and commanders of artillery is a little professional and narrowly specialized. They all lie a little, but some criticize others more, but they praise themselves beloved absolutely and without any measure. And this must be taken into account.


            According to his memoirs, it’s not worth studying history at all: a memoir is a genre of bellistics, where GG is white and fluffy, he foresaw everything and warned everyone in advance.

            And in this sense, Grabin's memoir differs only in the number of "some exaggerations."

            So for example, if you believe Grabin, then he did almost all the developments "on an initiative basis."
            Let's leave aside the question "how is this even possible?" (and especially in the USSR - I must say frankly - this was impossible.)
            Svirin directly said that in each case where Grabin "proactively" "developed" something, there was THAT, and they were always up the beginning of the "initiative". (Shirokorod hinted that due to his connections, Grabin sometimes knew about this TO before he received it officially - but this does not change the matter, here are not visionary qualities, but simply connections.)

            In general, you read the last (namely the last) books of Shirokorad, what he writes about Grabin there - maybe, and enlightens in his head.

            On the whole, it would be necessary to say that Grabin did not invent anything fundamentally new in his life: neither a new lock design or the muzzle brake there, a new barrel design, nothing new at all. This is not a crime in itself: there are very, very few innovators in general. But the problem with Grabin is that he tried with all his might to prove his super-genius, while pushing others into the pit, and often those who were more talented than him.
            1. shasherin.pavel
              shasherin.pavel April 3 2016 13: 58
              +10
              Quote: AK64
              he did all the developments "on an initiative basis."

              You are very illiterate in this matter ... On an initiative basis Mikulin developed the AM-40 engine for the IL-10, also on an initiative basis, referring to a minor modernization of the Mi-4 helicopter, the Mi-8 was created, you probably see that the modernization it doesn't smell here, because instead of a piston engine there are two jet engines. The ZiS-3 was also adopted on its own initiative: only that there were already about 200 brand new ZiS-3s in the factory yard, the receiver signed an act of acceptance of the guns, since the weapon did not pass the tests. You can also remember the first automatic rifle Dektyarev chambered for the revolver "Nagant", which he collected in a barn at home, which surprised even his teacher, General Fedorov.
              Quote: AK64
              there was THAT, and they were always before the start of the "initiative"

              And here you look even dumber than the first time. The initiative is that the designer collects his own sample for the Customer’s Technical Requirements, that is, Army Acceptance, but without funding. The T-34 was also assembled according to the Terms of Reference, which included: armor in 45 mm, with an armor tilt up to 50 degrees, a B-2 diesel engine designed for aviation. Only the gun he delivered at the request of the customer after testing in 76 mm., Instead of 45-ty. The initiative is not that the designer does what he wants, but that he creates by order, but without funding.
              Quote: AK64
              Grabin invented nothing fundamentally new in his life

              Explain it to me ... seven notes, and on seven notes hundreds of thousands of musical works are written. That’s how it should be wise to create such a harmonious sound from such a small amount and not to invent a single note.
              1. hardroc
                hardroc April 3 2016 14: 15
                -1
                Quote: shasherin.pavel
                The ZiS-3 was also adopted on an initiative basis: only that about 200 brand-new ZiS-3s were already standing in the factory yard, the receiver signed an acceptance certificate for the guns, since the test instrument had not passed.

                What nonsense. It wasn’t that. It was the F-34 with the Soviet DT on the ZIS-2 carriage (see photo at the bottom). A batch of such guns, with permission from above, was released by the Grabin factory. Apparently this fact served as the basis for such rumors. But it was NOT ZIS-3.
                Quote: shasherin.pavel
                The initiative is that the designer collects his own sample for the Customer’s Technical Requirements, that is, Army Acceptance, but without funding.

                The fact is that without financing, the designer will not even spit on a workbench. Because he will not be allowed to this workbench. And if there is funding, then he will do what they order. And not every gag at the workplace and at the expense of the state.
                Quote: shasherin.pavel
                but what he creates by order, but without funding.

                My dear friend, where does he get the armor from? Where does he get the motor from? Where does he get the gun from? Where does the patch come from for him, his beloved, and for the workers? Write nonsense, and you "incriminate" others. Something else here has dragged the T-34.
                Quote: shasherin.pavel
                create a harmonious sound

                I'm embarrassed to ask, is this ZIS-3 "harmonious sounding"? And the fact that this "harmonious sound" from the very beginning could not do much, but since 1943. became almost incapacitated in general, how is that? The fact that his life should have ended in an amicable way in 30-gauge length and in 1930, how's that? No, well, "kvasniki", this is strange. No, to find really decent samples and admire them. They will find a worse fetish for themselves, and they "beat with their foreheads." Until the forehead is broken out of the blue. Amazing.
                1. Wheel
                  Wheel April 3 2016 15: 55
                  +4
                  Quote: hardroc
                  The fact is that without financing, the designer will not even spit on a workbench.

                  The current one - yes, it will not spit.
                  However, then the measurements were different and money was not at the forefront.
                  Well, you don’t understand ...
                  1. AK64
                    AK64 April 3 2016 16: 06
                    -3
                    The current one - yes, it will not spit.
                    However, then the measurements were different and money was not at the forefront.
                    Well, you don’t understand ...


                    You are not a constructor, you do not understand ...

                    That is, you think that the designer is: took a paper, drew a drawing --- and cut your coupons.
                    So this is not a constructor - this is a poet.

                    Somewhere in 91-92, I worked in a certain office where there was a certain task for drying milk. Good deed, right. Well, the desk was like horns and hooves, and after a week I quit. But the thought - to dry milk - it remained. I sat down, thought, and drew drawings of a mobile dryer on a piece of paper. So what next? And then, of course, we have to do it. Where are the details for her - I knew: there were stainless steel pipes. So what? They, of course, were lying around - but who will give them to ME, namely ME? I did not have an admin resource, I was offered to pay so much money for a bribe that I ... was very surprised.

                    So tell me, what exactly will the designer do without funding?

                    You are not a constructor; you live in fanabery. Hence the words
                  2. hardroc
                    hardroc April 3 2016 16: 20
                    -2
                    Quote: Wheel
                    Well, you don’t understand ...

                    Those. with an understanding written in Russian, as I understand it, you have big problems. I brought 100 arguments there, you did not understand a single one. Then maybe you quit this thing?
                  3. The comment was deleted.
              2. AK64
                AK64 April 3 2016 14: 21
                -2
                You are very illiterate in this matter ...


                Of course. Whether business is you!
                Have you ever lived in a union? And at what age?

                What is the development of such a product as a cannon, can you imagine? And how can you make a cannon (not a spoon, or a mug, but an engine or a cannon!) "On an initiative basis"?

                WHO will give out the salary to the team, and from what funds? Materials for the sample from which funds will be used? What will this "initiative sample" be made of? And the simplest thing: "initiative order" means that the team supposedly sits and does nothing - well, as is it possible?

                The pistol can be made "on an initiative basis", in free time - and even then they would be planted. And the cannon (or the engine ...)

                Then I didn’t even read your inventions.
                "Proactively" junior researcher the program can be made. Or subtract the multiplication table, to the 16th decimal place. To engage a whole design bureau "on its own" is to get hooked for 10 years.

                If you once again croak about my "illiteracy" - go to emergency situations, to the same boors.
                1. 97110
                  97110 April 3 2016 21: 24
                  +3
                  Quote: AK64
                  WHO will give the salary to the team, and from what funds?

                  Until 1987, the labor plan and the production plan were independent. Planned the number, and she was in the design bureau. And the payroll was on the strength. Believe me, in 1985 he became deputy early. PEO of the association of 12 thousand people. I remember how in 1987 they introduced a standard for the formation of a wage fund, collected it at the Ministry, chewed it up ... If you worked under the Soviet Union, you should remember the endless initiatives and initiatives of those times. How did they exist without "any funds."
                  1. AK64
                    AK64 April 3 2016 22: 08
                    -2
                    In fact, everything that happened after the 61st is not quite Stalinist. But that's not even the point: the "initiatives and initiatives" were about "how best to fulfill the plan."

                    "In the order of personal initiative" you can throw a maximum sketch on a piece of paper. Well, well, you can try to convince people that "there will be a technical assignment, there will be - and here we are with everything ready" and even do the drawing. This is maximum.

                    Yes, this is not the case: it can be considered sufficiently reliable that everything that Grabin did was TK.
                    1. 97110
                      97110 April 4 2016 10: 34
                      0
                      Quote: AK64
                      all that was after the 61st is not quite Stalinist

                      So nobody argues. As well as with the fact that by 1987 they also exposed Nikita the miracle worker, and publicly discussed whether to hand over the bronze board to scrap metal from the technical school in Dneprodzerzhinsk. But the fact that the number and payroll of the enterprise were considered from the achieved, and not from the volume of work, it was sacred. Until 1987! When we finished winemaking and bottling, then we swung at the holy.
          2. Andrey NM
            Andrey NM April 3 2016 12: 32
            +13
            And who is Shirokorad Alexander Borisovich at all? A man writes about everything: about the fleet, about aviation, about the history of the world ... On botany and physics it remains to write, on raising children and something on cooking. Sorry, but you can’t be a specialist in all areas. Try to find information on his education, duty stations and work, etc. You will not find. And he himself is somehow shy about writing about it. So what? Born in 1947 and immediately became a publicist ...
            1. AK64
              AK64 April 3 2016 12: 46
              -3
              And who is Shirokorad Alexander Borisovich at all?


              You are certainly right.
              However, the problem with the Soviet man is that he does not believe logic, but he believes currents to authorities. That is, of all the arguments, the Soviet people believe only one thing: the heroic one laid out on the table .....

              And so you are right: while Shirokorad is telling someone else’s so completely good, but at least a word from you, then at least take out the saints ...

              But this is not about Shirokorad but about a three-inch in general and Grabin in particular.

              So the three-inch gun as a divisional gun concept had already died by the end of WWI. It's a fact: see what the Europeans were doing. Why did they become attached to 3 in the USSR? Well, the article says: a sea of ​​tsarist shells + (more precisely, minus) 20 years of "creative search" by Tukhachevsky. And so-so sound voices about "maybe more hummingbirds, and maybe more "quite rejoiced.

              This is about 3 "" in general "- the concept was not very successful by the beginning of the 40s. And by the end of WWII, Zos did so much that they did not know where to put them: they handed out NEW, not used," younger brothers "from warehouses back in 70th (!!!)

              About Grabin in particular ....
              Well, what do you say here? Grabin made a reputation for himself with his memoirs, in which he "foresaw everything." But if it weren't for Memoirs, who would have known about him?

              I will give a similar case: Gene MacArthur is a person who "knew everything and warned everyone." True, for some reason he "knew everything" (and warned) AFTER the fact. That is, if something went wrong, then through journalists he made a stuffing in the press "and after all, MacArthur warned !!!" Well, the fact that no traces of the real "warned" can not be found - well, who knows about that?

              In a democratic society, such a policy allowed MacArthur to rise high. And this despite the fact that he was a general - even lower than three.
              1. Nagaibak
                Nagaibak April 3 2016 17: 57
                +4
                AK64 "However, the Soviet man has the same problem."
                The Soviet people had no problems. But judging by your comments, you have a problem with your head. Who are you? Have you achieved something?)))) People of your world outlook have achieved something?))) People of the Soviet generation are your father and mother Your grandfathers and grandmothers. Personally, yours ... They had problems with logic, or what?))) Tell your relatives about this more often.))) We don’t need it here.)))
                1. AK64
                  AK64 April 3 2016 18: 53
                  -5
                  brought in an hour.
                  For there is nothing to talk about
              2. Bredovich705
                Bredovich705 April 4 2016 12: 59
                +2
                If you add up your comments, you get the same self-raising memoirs! Only here the level is too small! Grabin the great gunsmith, and you are AK 64! You must be more modest! Yours faithfully!
                1. AK64
                  AK64 April 4 2016 15: 52
                  -1
                  Here ... At first I spat - but then added "with respect."

                  As for the "self-promotion": I haven't written a word about myself, and haven't even put my name on it. So what kind of "self-promotion" can we talk about?

                  And you yourself have made conclusions - and what you have made such and there are
                2. AK64
                  AK64 April 4 2016 15: 52
                  -2
                  Here ... At first I spat - but then added "with respect."

                  As for the "self-promotion": I haven't written a word about myself, and haven't even put my name on it. So what kind of "self-promotion" can we talk about?

                  And you yourself have made conclusions - and what you have made such and there are
        5. Yarr_Arr
          Yarr_Arr April 3 2016 09: 40
          +11
          And in many countries, thousands of suckers kept this squalor in service until the end of the twentieth. Uti ways?
          1. hardroc
            hardroc April 3 2016 13: 01
            -2
            Quote: Yarr_Arr
            And in many countries, thousands of suckers kept this squalor in service until the end of the twentieth. Uti ways?

            Ooty. And they hold AKM. Because there is no money, and I don't want to arm with spears. Therefore, a couple of times Leonid Ilyich in the gums chmki-mocky, and Soviet retired vanderwafli mow, take a bite. For promises of friendship. But this does not mean the high qualities of this "weapon".
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. Cap.Morgan
            Cap.Morgan April 3 2016 13: 09
            +1
            Quote: Yarr_Arr
            And in many countries, thousands of suckers kept this squalor in service until the end of the twentieth. Uti ways?

            List the countries
            Middle East, Cuba and Africa, I suspect.
        6. Alf
          Alf April 3 2016 19: 08
          +5
          Quote: AK64
          Well, read what the same Shirokorad, or, say, MI Svirin wrote about Grabin -

          Are Shirokorad and Svirin 100% authorities?
          1. AK64
            AK64 April 3 2016 19: 19
            -3
            Are Shirokorad and Svirin 100% authorities?


            You do not believe others. I already said: Soviet people do not believe the arguments, because they do not understand. Soviet people believe in authority. So Svirin certainly authority.

            I personally believe Svirin much more than all of Grabin: Svirin had no reason to invent.
            1. Alf
              Alf April 3 2016 21: 11
              +1
              Quote: AK64
              You do not believe others.

              Who is "different"? What are the names of those who should be read?
              1. AK64
                AK64 April 3 2016 22: 09
                -1
                What are the names of those to be read.


                I will not.
      3. hardroc
        hardroc April 3 2016 11: 46
        -6
        Quote: Duke
        You would only blame the Soviet.

        What is something to be proud of? We will be proud together.
        Quote: Duke
        You are a provocateur.

        And you are "kvassnik". In the circle of ferments, it is customary to consider all Soviet weapons to be beautiful, legendary and magnificent. And our ancestors, clinical de * il. Which could not even master the "legendary and beautiful SVT", which consisted of 3 parts. And in complexity it was at the level of the corner of the house.
        I don’t know, maybe your ancestors were like that, you know better. But mine were definitely not. And Soviet weapons were mostly crappy.
      4. The comment was deleted.
      5. Cap.Morgan
        Cap.Morgan April 3 2016 12: 31
        -3
        Quote: Duke
        Quote: AK64
        In general, e should not be believed in memoirs, and Grabin’s memoirs should not be believed at all.

        You would only blame the Soviet. You are a provocateur.

        What does it have to do with fault?
        Do you think that the ZIS-3 for example is better, for example, the German 88-mm anti-aircraft gun?
        Well, read on.
        Soviet is massive. Designed for untrained, uneducated recruits. And therefore very simple, primitive.
        Car engines deformed. There was no gas.
        Yes, and students often just zaparilsya. Could not repair, service.
        The SVT rifle is one of the best. But ... they could not collect - disassemble, clean. The rifle stuck. We returned to Mosinka.
        You are a storyteller who has changed faith in a brighter future into faith in a brighter past.
        1. Duke
          Duke April 3 2016 12: 56
          +5
          Quote: Cap.Morgan
          The SVT rifle is one of the best. But ... they could not collect - disassemble, clean. The rifle stuck. We returned to Mosinka.


          Tokarev self-loading rifle received its first combat use during the Soviet-Finnish War 1939-1940. Based on the experience of its combat use, as well as military and field tests, the Defense Committee of 13 on April 1940 adopted a resolution on the adoption of the modernized Tokarev rifle under the name “Toknar 7,62-mm self-loading rifle arr. 1940 g. (CBT-40). " In June 1940, the release of CBT-38 was discontinued.
          In the process of upgrading the rifle, some design and technological changes were made to it, improving its combat and operational qualities. However, it was not possible to get rid of a number of shortcomings that required a radical alteration to eliminate them. Such disadvantages were: inconvenience of gas regulation, the possibility of losing a weaning magazine, sensitivity to contamination, dust, grease, high and low temperatures.
          In 1940, the SVT-40 sniper rifle was developed and entered service; at the same time, production of store sniper rifles mod. 1891 / 30 gg. Especially for the SVT was developed optical sight PU arr. 1940 g. The sniper self-loading rifle differed from the main sample only in a bracket with an optical sight and more thorough processing of the barrel bore. She had a much greater dispersion than a sniper rifle mod. 1891 / 30, and all attempts to improve the accuracy of sniper SVT-40 showed that without a radical alteration of the system, this task cannot be completed. Therefore, at the beginning of 1942, the production of store sniper rifles mod. 1891 / 30, and from October 1 1942 the production of sniper SVT-40 was discontinued. The Tokarev automatic rifle was designed to perform the same tasks as the self-loading rifle, so the main form of its fire was single. Shooting in short bursts was allowed only with an insufficient number of light machine guns, and continuous fire - in exceptional cases at the time of the greatest tension of the battle. ABT-40 partially compensated for the shortage of light machine guns and submachine guns at the beginning of the war, but this was a temporary measure, since when creating the Tokarev rifle, it was not required to provide intensive automatic fire.
          Changing the fire regime led to a decrease in the survivability of rifle parts and an increase in the number of delays, including such serious ones as transverse tearing and non-retrieval of a spent cartridge case, under-shutter and misfire. The reason for such delays was the lack of rigidity of the barrel and the receiver and the unsuitability of the design of the trigger mechanism for automatic firing. By the accuracy of the battle, an automatic rifle when firing a single fire was inferior even to the rifle arr. 1938 g., And when firing in short bursts and continuous fire - Shpagin submachine guns arr. 1941 g. And Sudaev arr. 1943 g. In addition, she retained all the shortcomings inherent in a self-loading rifle. In reports from the fronts of World War II, it was noted that "both self-loading (SVT-40) and automatic (AVT-40) rifles are not used in combat conditions, which the troops explain by the complexity of the design, the lack of reliability and accuracy of self-loading and automatic rifles." In view of the noted shortcomings, the production of Tokarev self-loading rifles from the 1942 was sharply reduced.
        2. hardroc
          hardroc April 3 2016 13: 08
          +2
          Quote: Cap.Morgan
          The rifle stuck.

          The rifle stuck due to the detachment of the hat. And the hat was torn off due to untimely extraction at the time of the swelling of the sleeve.
          But this is the end. At first, there were just delays when shooting. Which turned the rifle into an ordinary magazine, because during the battle it was impossible to eliminate them. Or, the regulator was immediately set to the maximum, after which the shutter quickly broke the receiver with a quick backward stroke, and a chamber, moving forward.
        3. The comment was deleted.
        4. shasherin.pavel
          shasherin.pavel April 3 2016 14: 14
          +7
          Quote: Cap.Morgan
          Do you think that the ZIS-3 for example is better, for example, the German 88-mm anti-aircraft gun?

          Have you tried to compare the Mosinka with the 8.8 anti-aircraft gun? You actually did not come across complaints of rape of an elephant by a mosquito in this life?
          We have, for comparison, the 85-mm anti-aircraft gun, which, incidentally, was put up against the Tigers and Panthers on the Kursk Bulge, just like the Germans did against the T-34 in the 41 year.
          Quote: Cap.Morgan
          We returned to Mosinka.

          And here you are wrong: the SVT-40 rifle was produced before the 1945 of the year, it was only called the Tokarev Automatic Rifle, it can be seen at the security of the Yalta Conference, as well as in photographs of the 1945 of the year. They didn’t return to Mosinka ... it was always produced in parallel with SVT and AVT.
          1. hardroc
            hardroc April 3 2016 14: 41
            -1
            Quote: shasherin.pavel
            We have, for comparison, an anti-aircraft gun of 85 mm, which, incidentally, was also exhibited against the Tigers and Panthers on the Kursk Bulge

            So after all, there were almost no other means of destruction in the Red Army for them. The "wise Soviet leadership" was so keen on building up the output of "divisions" that the moment when they became almost completely incapacitated was missed. Therefore, they struck with anti-aircraft guns.
            Quote: shasherin.pavel
            like the Germans against the T-34 in the 41st year.

            The Germans had no need to use anti-aircraft guns to defeat the T-34. You confused them with KV tanks.
          2. Cap.Morgan
            Cap.Morgan April 3 2016 15: 42
            -2
            Quote: shasherin.pavel
            Quote: Cap.Morgan
            Do you think that the ZIS-3 for example is better, for example, the German 88-mm anti-aircraft gun?

            Have you tried to compare the Mosinka with the 8.8 anti-aircraft gun? You actually did not come across complaints of rape of an elephant by a mosquito in this life?
            We have, for comparison, the 85-mm anti-aircraft gun, which, incidentally, was put up against the Tigers and Panthers on the Kursk Bulge, just like the Germans did against the T-34 in the 41 year.
            Quote: Cap.Morgan
            We returned to Mosinka.

            And here you are wrong: the SVT-40 rifle was produced before the 1945 of the year, it was only called the Tokarev Automatic Rifle, it can be seen at the security of the Yalta Conference, as well as in photographs of the 1945 of the year. They didn’t return to Mosinka ... it was always produced in parallel with SVT and AVT.

            I compared the ZiS-3 and the German 88mm anti-aircraft gun as the two most common and well-known options. And as antipodes.
            One option is inexpensive and massive,
            The other is complex, high-quality, powerful.
            There were very few 85 mm anti-aircraft guns, all of them stood on alert duty around Moscow. What there could be pulled to Kursk I do not know.

            The Tokarev rifle with the outbreak of war was released in small quantities. The last batch is in the 43rd.
            The rifle was difficult to manufacture, significantly more expensive than a mosquito. The task was to give the Red Army at least some kind of weapon. And give in bulk. From this point of view, PPSh was ideally suited. When firing bursts, AVT was even inferior to PPSh.
            In the 42nd year, Tokarev rifles were released 5 times less than in the 41st
      6. The comment was deleted.
      7. 24hours
        24hours April 7 2016 11: 24
        0
        Quote: Duke
        You would only blame the Soviet

        "Soviet" figures. In order to understand what's what it is enough to look at the plate. And at least try to stop living in a world of illusions.
        I understand that when sclerosis has already begun to flow into senility, it is difficult. But it’s never too late to try to realize something and understand something.
        If you do not understand English, then armor penetration through homogeneous armor is reflected at an angle of attack of 30 degrees at various distances. Type of shell, armor-piercing, which one was.
        77 mm, this is a 76,2 mm British tank gun 77 mm HV.
        17 Pounder, this is a British 76,2 mm anti-tank gun. The British tank and anti-tank 76,2 mm guns were completely different, incl. different ammunition.
        The American M2 is quite old and took part only in the first stages of WW2, like the Soviet 30 klb. guns (they are not in the table). It is given only for comparison with the "legend" with which the Red Army fought until the very end of the war.
        The guns are sorted by armor penetration at a range of 1000 m.
    2. Yarr_Arr
      Yarr_Arr April 3 2016 09: 38
      +2
      You, of course, should be trusted. No facts were given, only "there are doubts." In the spirit of opposition (sorry for this comparison :))
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov April 3 2016 09: 57
        +1
        Quote: Yarr_Arr
        No facts were given, only "there are doubts."

        ?
        Sorry, but there are a lot of facts. Just for some reason you do not see them.
    3. V.ic
      V.ic April 3 2016 09: 44
      +4
      Quote: AK64
      In general, e should not be believed in memoirs, and Grabin’s memoirs should not be believed at all.

      What then weapon did our soldiers call "viper"? Whose gun works were they? And Grabin Vasily Gavrilovich did not deserve your "high" trust. Perhaps you are such a super-brilliant and super-secret specialist in artillery systems that no one knows at all?
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov April 3 2016 09: 49
        0
        Quote: V.ic
        What then weapon did our soldiers call "viper"?

        None.
        All these romantically dangerous nicknames of weapons are more a product of post-war agitprop than reality.
        1. AK64
          AK64 April 3 2016 10: 16
          0
          None.
          All these romantically dangerous nicknames of weapons are more a product of post-war agitprop than reality.


          Exactly so: 90% of romantic nicknames were invented retroactively by professional PR specialists.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov April 3 2016 10: 49
            -2
            As an example, IL-2. The Germans never called it "black death". "Concrete Plane" for high protection with relatively low maneuverability, "Iron Gustav", "Gustav" as a symbol of blunt obstinacy
            1. shasherin.pavel
              shasherin.pavel April 3 2016 14: 31
              0
              Quote: Spade
              The Germans never called it "black death".

              I won't look for where I got it, but in the memoirs of the attack aircraft there is a scene like this: "We stood on the German border and led a column of prisoners past the airfield. They sent BAO soldiers to negotiate with the guards and bring a dozen Germans for a short time, but we saw them all the time from the air. .. Those who saw the IL-2 at the airfield and bang a face into the ground at the edge of the airfield and are hysterical. "Schwarzen Tod! Schwarzen Tod! "Then we learned through an interpreter that they had been indoctrinated that Soviet commissars put only criminals sentenced to death on the Schwarzen Tod, that is why they fly like this and are not afraid of death. They are still under firing squad. among the books and the name of the pilot who told Isaev this.Each machine had its own jokes on each front, but they were at the front, and after the war the most sonorous ones remained, picked up by journalists and writers.
        2. V.ic
          V.ic April 3 2016 13: 44
          0
          Quote: Spade
          None.

          F-22USV / trophy /. The Germans bore chambers and used as anti-tank.
          1. AK64
            AK64 April 3 2016 13: 53
            +2
            F-22USV / trophy /. The Germans bore chambers and used as anti-tank.


            Camera boring was the last of the changes.
            And the Germans began by (1) cutting off half of the sector, and (2) carrying the flywheels of the tip on one side. The chamber was already re-trained THEN, in the last turn.

            Well, well, the F-22 has two gunners, you can understand - this is a "universal" with a potential (never reliably released) anti-aircraft fire capability. But why did your hero leave two gunners on USV, huh?

            Further, the Germans didn’t use Pak-36 (r) as a divisional cannon — only anti-tank.

            Draw a conclusion.

            PS: oh yes, we are talking about ZiS-3: the ZiS-3 (unlike the F-22 and the SPM) did not use German ammunition for the ammunition and didn’t use it widely. Draw a conclusion from this too
      2. AK64
        AK64 April 3 2016 10: 22
        -5
        And Grabin Vasily Gavrilovich did not deserve your "high" trust. Perhaps you are such a super-brilliant and super-secret specialist in artillery systems that no one knows at all?


        Do you think that you need to be a chicken to understand that the egg is rotten?

        Purely for example: what kind of artillery system developers can you personally name right away?

        And can you name only those who left the memoir, that is, Grabin and Petrov.

        In general, given the presence of 3 warnings already, I will not prove anything: find the last couple of Shirokorad books and read how he describes Grabina there. And look why he characterizes so. This, mind you, in the books. And face to face Alexander, I think, where would I use harsh terms.
        1. V.ic
          V.ic April 3 2016 18: 10
          +2
          Quote: AK64
          that (1) cut off half the sector, and (2) carried the flywheels of the tip on one side. The chamber was already re-trained THEN, in the last turn.

          Forgot to add about the muzzle brake.
          Quote: AK64
          Do you think that you need to be a chicken to understand that the egg is rotten?

          Grabin worked within the limits of what was permitted and prescribed, according to the statement of work for the product. Do not hang dogs on him!
          Quote: AK64
          And can you name only those who left the memoir, that is, Grabin and Petrov.

          Well, I read Grabinskiye memoirs back in the 80s, accidentally bought them in a village store, then in the 90s someone "attached her legs." I read Petrovskie's "From the Life of a Designer" by hand.
          Quote: AK64
          In general, given the presence of already 3 warnings, I will not prove something:

          For God's sake, I have six of them, you still have everything ahead.
          It was not only your beloved Shirokorad who criticized the tools of VG Grabin. The adage "death to the enemy -" zvizdets "calculation" is known to me from other books.
          You, in turn, do not read "Weapon of Victory" biased, check out the reduction of machine-tool hours per unit of production from type to type and the use of "standardized" / previously mastered in production on other types of tools / parts. Reducing "several times" the cost of producing tools and saving metal and machine-tool hours at the same time made it possible to produce more guns than in fascist Europe.
          1. AK64
            AK64 April 3 2016 19: 15
            -3
            Forgot to add about the muzzle brake.

            And this was generally from the latest changes, and not always done. You can also mention another shield - but this is not for everyone.
            But they began with a fundamentally important one: they cut off the sector (thereby sharply increasing ground clearance) and carried the handwheels.

            Grabin worked within the limits of what was permitted and prescribed, according to the statement of work for the product. Do not hang dogs on him!

            Here! Exactly! He worked in the framework of TK.

            But why did he write "as a personal initiative"?
            "Dogs" on Grabin not because he "created", but because he posed as "an unrecognized genius who foresaw everything."

            As we see, I did not foresee.

            For God's sake, I have six of them, you still have everything ahead.

            I thought after 4 kicked out ...

            It was not only your beloved Shirokorad who criticized the tools of VG Grabin. The adage "death to the enemy -" zvizdets "calculation" is known to me from other books.


            Shirokorad is hardly my "favorite": a couple of days ago there was his article - you can see what I wrote there about him. Well, that is, respect him as reference books I respect, but only exactly reference books.

            You, in turn, do not read "Weapon of Victory" biased, check out the reduction of machine-tool hours per unit of production from type to type and the use of "standardized" / previously mastered in production on other types of tools / parts. Reducing "several times" the cost of producing tools and saving metal and machine-tool hours at the same time made it possible to produce more guns than in fascist Europe.


            Firstly, it’s difficult for Grabin to believe even in small things: there are ... details.
            And secondly, take any type of weapon: you can say the same thing about almost any type of weapon: they reduced and reduced it several times, and released it many times more than that.
            And thirdly, you will not believe it, but this (t / e / reduced and reduced) was done by almost all the countries participating in the war. And let's say the Americans got to the point where ... transport ships (Liberty) ... were collected on the assembly line! Can you imagine? ship on the conveyor!

            That is, honor and praise to Grabin that he did this. But he did it along with and on a par with others --- who did the same. So why in his books does he personally pull the blanket over himself, at the expense of these others? Is it beautiful?

            The very method of "putting the barrel on another carriage" is not somehow super-unusual: for example, the aforementioned Petrov created the D-1 (152mm howitzer arr 1943) by placing the M-10 barrel on the M-30 carriage.
            And what happened, IMHO, was not only successful, but also extremely necessary, fundamentally necessary weapon of the Red Army.
            1. 97110
              97110 April 3 2016 21: 42
              0
              Quote: AK64
              Can you imagine? ship on the conveyor!

              There, the construction period for ships of the "Liberty" type was brought to a month. So that's the war. Now no one builds a 10-meter plant in a month.
    4. AK64
      AK64 April 3 2016 19: 44
      +1
      And here I spoke out unsuccessfully and correct myself

      Zosia's dignity was her suitability for "mass production" and low weight. In war, this is not the main quality.

      Here I have an unfortunate wording. It was necessary to write "during the war this [ie the ability of mass production] almost not the main quality. "

      Well, about the rest I’ll decrypt, otherwise I see people don’t understand.
      So it says:
      But for any quality you usually have to pay with other characteristics. They paid here too: in itself, like a weapon, the gun was very mediocre. Say the same SPM was pretty much better. (but more expensive and heavier.)

      So, any technical product is the result of a number of compromises: some qualities (say, weight, or size, or price) are bought at the expense of others: it is impossible to improve one thing without affecting the other, in a really good product. And if possible - it means the product is poorly designed.

      So, the source for the ZiS-3, that is, the SPM, as a tool, was actually pretty much better. But more expensive and heavier.
  3. Cartalon
    Cartalon April 3 2016 06: 01
    0
    Grabin is good - Tukhachevsky is bad, the rest of the text just takes up space.
  4. Volga Cossack
    Volga Cossack April 3 2016 07: 11
    +3
    the Germans in the First World Three-Inch - the Scythe of Death was called, and Ours - the Savior - so it’s all said! for the photo Cossacks separately - Thank you!
    1. AK64
      AK64 April 3 2016 07: 33
      -1
      Germans in the First World Three-inch - Spit of Death called-


      That's just what they called the Frenchwoman, 75mm Schneider (the one in the first photo). The Russian arr 1902 was not fast enough (due to the piston shutter)
      1. Aleksandr72
        Aleksandr72 April 3 2016 08: 33
        +14
        The technical rate of fire of the gun and the rate of fire, which the artillery system allows to support in real combat, are completely different concepts.
        At the range, they fire for a certain period of time (usually a minute) at the maximum possible rate, thereby determining the technical capabilities of the gun in the rate of firing. On the battlefield, one has to take into account the possibility of overheating of the barrel and recoil devices, the "blurring" of the rifling (you have to shoot for more than one minute, but often for hours), not to mention the need to correct the aiming and simply the fatigue of the calculation.
        French 75-mm cannon mod. 1897, the Schneider system, even in terms of its technical rate of fire with its valve gate, was not much superior to the Russian "three-inch" mod. 1902 with a piston bolt - 12-15 rounds per minute versus 10-12 rounds per minute without aiming correction in both cases. On the battlefield, the rate of fire of both guns was almost the same.
        Moreover, it is to the French that we owe the fact that the Russian generals from the artillery adopted the system "single caliber (3 inches) - single projectile (shrapnel) - one cannon" for the Russian artillery. But fortunately, the misfortune (the Russian-Japanese war) helped - in Russia they changed their minds in time and adopted heavier guns for field artillery: the 42-line (107-mm) cannon of the same Schneider model 1910 (although in fact this the system was developed by a Russian order), 48-line (122,4 mm) howitzers mod. 1909 (Krupp) and 1910 (again, Schneider) and finally 6-inch (152,4-mm) howitzers - serf arr. 1909 and field arr. 1910 - both Schneider systems. The truth is clearly insufficient for the soon unfolding of the 1st World War.
        "Death scythe" - this name was given by the German infantrymen to the Russian three-inch model already during the very first battles of 1914, when Russian artillerymen (still personnel of pre-war training) bombarded the tightly knocked chains of the advancing German and Austrian infantry with a barrage of shrapnel shells, mowing them down like a scythe.
        I have the honor.
        1. AK64
          AK64 April 3 2016 08: 45
          -8
          The technical rate of fire of the gun and the rate of fire, which the artillery system allows to support in real combat, are completely different concepts.


          This is such a discovery, such a discovery ....
          And why do people increase their rate of fire? Are they inventing all kinds of locks?

          So: the French had 4-gun batteries for the PMV, which completely mowed the German columns on the march. In the Russian army, the batteries were 8-guns. Guess why.
          And I'll tell you: but because in order to mow down the battalion, the four Russian three-inch-sized combat performance was not enough, and I had to compensate for it by increasing the number of guns.

          True, before WWII itself, the Russians reduced the battery to 6 guns. But at the same time, the combat performance necessary to "mow the battalion on the march" was provided only by over-trained calculations.

          (And evil tongues say that the decrease in the number of guns in the battery was aimed at a banal increase in the number of lieutenant colonel posts).

          I did not read the rest of what you wrote, excuse me: this is empty "theorizing".
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov April 3 2016 09: 07
            +3
            Quote: AK64
            (And evil tongues say that the decrease in the number of guns in the battery was aimed at a banal increase in the number of lieutenant colonel posts).

            Mobility.
            Longer column - more time for occupation OP
            Plus handling. Eight towed difficult to command. You can break the voice at once.
            1. AK64
              AK64 April 3 2016 09: 31
              -2
              Mobility.
              Longer column - more time for occupation OP
              Plus handling. Eight towed difficult to command. You can break the voice at once.


              The reasoning, it seems, was as follows:
              "8 guns per battery, like ours, kind of inconvenient already .... it would be nice to have 4 guns per battery, like the French. But the rate of fire does not allow ... Well, let's make at least 6 ...."

              That is, I wanted something like 4, but it was the lack of rate of fire that did not allow.

              By the way, the French woman, due to the softness and "slipperiness" of the shutter, seems to be that the sight did not go astray when loaded.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov April 3 2016 10: 05
                +3
                Quote: AK64
                By the way, the French woman, due to the softness and "slipperiness" of the shutter, seems to be that the sight did not go astray when loaded.

                It's not about "getting lost", the point is that when the shot is rammed, the barrel starts to swing. And when the vertical of the panorama and the bubble of the level "dance", the gunner does not really work. Only a rough tip can be restored.
                1. AK64
                  AK64 April 3 2016 10: 15
                  0
                  Exactly when sending? Not when the shutter hits when it closes?
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov April 3 2016 11: 01
                    +3
                    The trunk begins to swing exactly when it is sent. Especially on systems with a separate case, this is noticeable.

                    Everything "thanks" to the balancing mechanism
                    1. AK64
                      AK64 April 3 2016 11: 05
                      0
                      OK, I didn’t. I will know .... Century live a century study ...

                      I was always sure that this is a blow to the shutter (due to its weight and inertia).
                      1. Lopatov
                        Lopatov April 3 2016 11: 31
                        +3
                        By the way, an important point.
                        For example, it explains why the two-barreled "Coalition" was abandoned. If you compare the cycles, there is no particular increase in the rate of fire. But the price and complexity grow many times over. With a sharp reduction in the amount of ammunition transported, and so not at all large.

                        Quote: AK64
                        I was always sure that this is a blow to the shutter (due to its weight and inertia).

                        It is too. But the process of plunging when ramming the projectile also leads to oscillations. So the problem cannot be solved with a "delicate" shutter.
          2. shasherin.pavel
            shasherin.pavel April 3 2016 14: 54
            +3
            Now it remains to understand: why the German division had up to 30 people, and the Soviet only 000? Why are there no marshals in the American army, and how then can the generals of the two countries be compared? What happens if you count the amount of shrapnel in a glass? And what if the Russian shrapnel shell contains 8 more buckshot than the French one. There are many other nuances besides the rate of fire. And I'll give you one more fact: Rokosovsky, remembering that in the First World War, to increase the rate of fire, a second loader was placed on the "three-inch" tanks and applied this during artillery preparation by placing a second loader on the ZiS-000, thereby increasing the rate of fire to 20 shots.
            1. AK64
              AK64 April 3 2016 15: 19
              0
              Gospodi, what nonsense ...


              Now it remains to understand: why did the German division have up to 30 people, and the Soviet only 000?


              Can states where "German 30000" and where "Soviet 8000"?

              In principle, this is already enough to stop talking to you at all - because all you write is WRONG. Pork nonsense.

              Literally every word you write.
              And confirmation of this - you yourself have written.

              Go already from here, jump with the girls, drink some water. Such is your advice.
              Why are there no marshals in the American army, and how then to compare the generals of the two countries?

              Do you know what your problem is?
              Your problem is that you do not know that there is such a search engine - Google.
              Learn to use Google (do you want me to teach you?) - this will save you a lot of problems.

              I didn’t read the rest of the nonsense - excuse me.
              1. sibiryouk
                sibiryouk April 4 2016 07: 52
                0
                It is possible even without google - just read BOOKS, more magazines.
                1. AK64
                  AK64 April 4 2016 10: 57
                  -2
                  It is possible even without google - just read BOOKS, more magazines.


                  Yes, at least let Google learn how to use it, As a first step to a rational being.
        2. Lopatov
          Lopatov April 3 2016 08: 50
          +1
          Quote: Aleksandr72
          On the battlefield, the rate of fire of both guns was almost the same.

          Not really. Pushechki is painfully light, and correcting the tip is necessary only after loading.
          On the same ZiS-3, when you look at the panorama while loading, you can see that the gun is "shaking"

          So sht ... Charging time matters and time to restore the pickup is not compensated
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. hardroc
      hardroc April 3 2016 13: 30
      +1
      Quote: Volga Cossack
      the Germans in the First World Three-Inch - the Scythe of Death was called, and Ours - the Savior - by the way, I’m saying everything

      You probably noticed that 1MV was quite noticeably different from 2MV? And after all, which is characteristic, the scythe of death during WW2 was gone. Well, the cavalrymen did not go on the attack with lava. And the infantrymen in closed ranks did not go the same.
      Therefore, the three-inch during 2 MV had a right to exist. But in the form of a field and / or tank version of the 3-K / 51-K. Even the F-22, refined for the "anti-aircraft" cartridge, had a right to exist. But not real three-inch pukalki on the divpatron.
    4. The comment was deleted.
  5. parusnik
    parusnik April 3 2016 07: 23
    +4
    Nikolai Alexandrovich Zabudsky worked in the field of artillery technology - at first as a receiver of the new material part of the field artillery introduced at that time, and then - since 1879 - he was a member of the artillery committee. In this committee, in 1892, he took up the post of permanent member and was engaged in the development of ballistics issues, the design of artillery guns and shells, while he took an active part in various issues related to the improvement and development of the material part of artillery. Since 1902, Zabudsky was the chairman of the commission at the Main Artillery Directorate for testing new models of artillery guns. In 1912-1914. - Chairman of the economic-building committee for the construction of the central scientific and technical laboratory of the military department.
    He was killed in Petrograd on February 27, 1917 during the February Revolution.
    1. kalibr
      kalibr April 3 2016 07: 44
      +2
      Shirokorad wrote more interestingly about her "birth" ...
      1. AK64
        AK64 April 3 2016 08: 22
        +1
        Shirokorad wrote more interestingly about her "birth" ...


        About birth what exactly?

        In general, the article is somehow ... meaningless: the swing seems to be 100 rubles, but there is no result for 10 kopecks.

        Here two different things are mixed: the appearance of modern divisions (late 19th - early 20th century), and WWII divisions.

        The classic three-inch is precisely the division of the beginning of the 20th century. And the concept for it is shrapnel. She shrapnel, or rather all of them, of all countries and peoples, beat super-efficiently.

        However, already the Russian-Japanese showed that shrapnel does not rule, that is, the troops quickly learned to hide. The Russians began to introduce a high-explosive projectile, and (since the 3 "high-explosive is not powerful enough) howitzers under it. And the Germans began. But the" Smart "French, despite the advice of the Russians, refused (well, they have" special pride ") - and. .. sat in a puddle. (By the way, the British too): the troops dug in and the shrapnel quickly disappeared. Well, the British quickly "rebuilt", since their industry allowed, but the French sat in a puddle for a long time ...

        Well, after the PMV, it was clear to everyone that 3 inches is not enough for a high-explosive / fragmentation projectile. And the research began ...

        Then the story is long and instructive, you cannot tell in a short commentary. In the USSR, factors such as "the genius of the Red Marshals" (I mean Tukhochevsky, if anything, though not only him) intervened, which slowed down the Russian artillery for 20 years.

        But Grabin, his memoirs, should not be trusted: "it was not so."
        1. Duke
          Duke April 3 2016 08: 31
          +2
          Quote: AK64
          But Grabin, his memoirs, should not be trusted: "it was not so."

          You did not explain why? You can only scold.
        2. Lopatov
          Lopatov April 3 2016 09: 03
          +1
          Quote: AK64
          However, Russian-Japanese has already shown that shrapnel does not steer, that is, the troops quickly learned to hide.

          This is not quite so.
          They learned to hide. That's just on the defensive. And the protective measures were quite laborious in the device.
          But on the advancing enemy it was possible and necessary to use shrapnel. By the way, at the same time, the HE began firing shells on ricochets. "Shrapnel-like." If, of course, the strength of the projectile allowed.
          1. AK64
            AK64 April 3 2016 09: 18
            +2
            This is not quite so.
            They learned to hide. That's just on the defensive. And the protective measures were quite laborious in the device.
            But on the advancing enemy it was possible and necessary to use shrapnel. By the way, at the same time, the HE began firing shells on ricochets. "Shrapnel-like." If, of course, the strength of the projectile allowed.


            I write abstractly. That is, without details. If with details, then the book must be written.

            It's just 3 "- this is the standard of the division of the early 20th century - it was sculpted in all countries for shrapnel. For shrapnel, this caliber is in many ways ideal (the optimal balance of rate of fire and projectile power). But organizational measures were quickly found against shrapnel (in fact already in RYaV, although the French and the British did not manage to understand this), and had to think about a high-explosive fragmentation "bomb".

            But for a high-explosive fragmentation 3 "projectile is corny too small. Hence the refinement in all countries after WWI.

            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov April 3 2016 09: 28
              +2
              Quote: AK64
              But for a high-explosive fragmentation 3 "projectile is corny too small. Hence the refinement in all countries after WWI.

              It's not so simple.
              Shrapnel demanded a rate of fire (unitary shot) and a steady trajectory.
              The 76-mm HE projectile is by no means weak, just for its effective use it is necessary to increase the angle of incidence. That is, you need a gun with a large vertical angle and a variable charge of a canister / separate-case loading.
              1. AK64
                AK64 April 3 2016 09: 39
                +1
                The 76-mm HE projectile is by no means weak, just for its effective use it is necessary to increase the angle of incidence. That is, you need a gun with a large vertical angle and a variable charge of a canister / separate-case loading.


                Well, shall we argue? And the meaning?

                First of all, the problem is precisely in the insufficient power of the 76 mm high-explosive / fragmentation projectile. (It is perfect for shrapnel). It is possible to ensure the steepness of the trajectory with a 76 mm shell, this in itself is not a problem.

                The main reason for switching to howitzers in divisional artillery is the weight of the gun, and not the steepness of the howitzer trajectory: the howitzer with the same caliber is still several times lighter, and everyone had problems with the tax then, even the rich British, so I had to think about weight.

                There were, of course, considerations of steepness of the trajectory, but the basis is still weight. note that after the war, when tax was no longer a problem, they switched to 122 mm howitzer guns, and then to 152 howitzer guns. Pure howitzers somehow became irrelevant.
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov April 3 2016 10: 39
                  +3
                  Quote: AK64
                  First of all, the problem is precisely in the insufficient power of the 76 mm high-explosive / fragmentation projectile.

                  Controversial.
                  Consumption rates, manpower located openly, 1 ha.
                  76 mm 90 shells, 18 corks, 882 kg
                  122 mm 40 shells, 20 corks, 1600 kg
                  You see, not everything is as simple as it seems.

                  Quote: AK64
                  It is possible to ensure the steepness of the trajectory with a 76 mm shell, this in itself is not a problem.

                  This is a big problem. Requires the development of not only new guns, but also new shots for them.
                  1. AK64
                    AK64 April 3 2016 10: 57
                    +2
                    Controversial.
                    Consumption rates, manpower located openly, 1 ha.
                    76 mm 90 shells, 18 cappers, 882 kg
                    122 mm 40 shells, 20 cappers, 1600 kg
                    You see, not everything is as simple as it seems.


                    Well, right: you just took the case when 3 "is optimal (infantry in the open field).

                    It is clear that just for this task 3 ".

                    And if also their shrapnel, spawners! ...


                    This is a big problem. Requires the development of not only new guns, but also new shots for them.


                    Just shells, yes. It is the shells.

                    But the problem is solvable: the German 75mm infantry howitzer (or the same Grabin "battalion howitzer") is an example.

                    Of course, this example is not entirely correct because it is about howitzers. But even for divisional guns it would be entirely possible to pile howitzers-guns with variation of trajectories.

                    But it’s possible, but the question is, why should we do this, if we say the 105mm howitzer most of the tasks of divisional artillery (except for anti-tank defense and infantry shooting in the open) solve better?
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov April 3 2016 11: 16
                      +4
                      Quote: AK64
                      Well, right: you just took the case when 3 "is optimal (infantry in the open field).

                      Let's "not optimal"
                      Sheltered railways and rural areas, 1 ha
                      76 mm: 450 shells, 90 corks, 4.410 kg
                      122 mm: 180 shells, 90 corks, 7.200 kg

                      That is, the rejection of the 76-mm field artillery is not connected at all with the power of the HE shell's effect on target. This is a matter of time, for the sake of which you can even go for additional problems with the rear support.
                      1. AK64
                        AK64 April 3 2016 12: 15
                        +1
                        This is a matter of time, for the sake of which you can even go for additional problems with the rear support.


                        About time did not understand what time speech. Time to complete the task? Then it’s not clear: in principle, a 4-mm 76-gun battery is capable of releasing 450 shells in 10 minutes. A 122mm battery will take 12-15 minutes.
                      2. Lopatov
                        Lopatov April 3 2016 13: 08
                        +2
                        Quote: AK64
                        Then it’s not clear: in principle, a 4-mm 76-gun battery is capable of releasing 450 shells in 10 minutes.

                        The latter will already spit out. And the trunk is a replacement
                      3. AK64
                        AK64 April 3 2016 13: 18
                        0
                        And the trunk is a replacement


                        Liner? Or a trunk?

                        But in principle, you are right: 10 minutes of this pace is physically already beyond the limit, only for the best specially trained calculations. The usual calculation should withstand three minutes, many five
          2. hardroc
            hardroc April 3 2016 14: 01
            +1
            Quote: Spade
            The 76-mm HE projectile is by no means weak, just for its effective use it is necessary to increase the angle of incidence.

            If you increase the angle of incidence, then you need to use a more complex and expensive carriage.
            In addition, the range will decrease.
            All this leads to the conclusion that it is better to use a 82-mm mortar.
  • Yarr_Arr
    Yarr_Arr April 3 2016 09: 51
    +5
    Why AK64 is a polygraph ... Steeper than Tolstoy :). Wrote 2 times more than the text in the article. And he taught everything to everyone. Thanks to him ;)
    1. Stas57
      Stas57 April 3 2016 16: 44
      +2
      but I asked one question correctly - the source of this is interesting to me
      Professor Wolf, the chief engineer of the artillery department at Krupp Corporation, was forced to recognize it as the best weapon of World War II.
  • andrewkor
    andrewkor April 3 2016 10: 27
    0
    In three inches: Shirokorad "Encyclopedia of Russian artillery". Grabin: "Weapon of Victory".
  • hardroc
    hardroc April 3 2016 11: 16
    -2
    Quote: Andrey CHAPLYGIN
    Under the leadership of the prominent artillery scientist Nikolai Zabudsky, an improved version of the gun was developed.

    Quote: Andrey CHAPLYGIN
    In particular, the outstanding designer of artillery weapons Rostislav Durlyakhov

    There are somehow too many "outstanding designers". Although I can barely recall only 2 good guns, this is a 47-mm 45-K arr. 19 mm 1932-K converted by the Germans from the French 53-mm naval Hotchkiss commissioned by the USSR. XNUMX and not even the gun itself, but the carriage of the S-XNUMX tank. By a strange coincidence, the names of the authors of these guns are not widely known.
    Quote: Andrey CHAPLYGIN
    in 1923 he proposed switching to 85 mm divisional guns

    This is extremely dubious information. The 85 mm caliber appeared in the USSR quite by accident. And much later.
    Quote: Andrey CHAPLYGIN
    Despite the recently waning civil war, huge stockpiles of 76-mm shells of pre-revolutionary production remained in the warehouses.

    But what, religion does not allow you to see the pre-war summary of the availability of shells in shells? There was nothing there except buckshot (later called shrapnel).
    Quote: Andrey CHAPLYGIN
    Guns with a 30-caliber barrel were released only in 1931, then switched to 40-caliber. As a result, the firing range increased to 13 km.

    The main question here is "what for?" All the same, the Bolsheviks loved "doing activities", they did not feed them with bread.
    Quote: Andrey CHAPLYGIN
    But it soon became clear that it was unlikely that the F-20 would produce a good artillery system, and at the same time set about developing a new F-22 gun.

    No, apparently you still need to publish an article here on how and why the F-22 appeared. Otherwise, why not read it. Eyes wither.
    Quote: Andrey CHAPLYGIN
    Gross production was organized immediately at three plants.

    Not organized, but tried to organize. All 3 years. "Production" was carried out in 1937-39, you yourself understand what this meant for the manufacturers. Because full-fledged production was never organized. Because of the mass marriage, this shit was worth a lot of money. It was impossible to organize its production, the serial equipment did not allow this. Clean water set up. Moreover, not Grabin, but customers. Grabin himself did what he ordered. And it should be noted that before the ZIS-3 arr. 1942 he did it extremely badly. Even the ZIS-2 arr. 1941 extremely controversial (a lot of shortcomings), and what came before it is generally complete garbage.
    Quote: Andrey CHAPLYGIN
    In fact, SPM was a completely different model. And again, a talented designer outperformed all competitors.

    Do not make up. SPM, this is F-22 with a sawn off piece of the trunk. And a few other recoil mechanisms. Everything else remained in the form in which it was in F-22. Including all the flaws and miscalculations of Grabin.
    1. hardroc
      hardroc April 3 2016 11: 18
      0
      Quote: Andrey CHAPLYGIN
      but after the manufacture of 1150 copies in early 1941, production stopped

      No, the article still needs to be published.
      Quote: Andrey CHAPLYGIN
      since it was planned to switch to divisional guns of a larger caliber - 107 mm.

      There were no plans for a 107 mm divisional gun.
      In the prototypes for 1940-41 there was a 95-mm divisional gun with a projectile of 13,3 kg and n / s 630 m / s. There was also a 95 mm tank gun with a 680 m / s projectile. I wonder how and with what they were going to drag her, because her weight in the stowed position was 2800 (!!!) kg? And besides this, I wonder what they had in their head?
      However, there was still a 107 mm gun. But the cabinet. The projectile is 18,8 kg at n / s 730 m / s. Also, that one mastodon was planned.
      Quote: Andrey CHAPLYGIN
      However, V.G. Grabin understood.

      Wow, what an "understanding cricket."
      Quote: Andrey CHAPLYGIN
      Therefore, at the end of 1940, he began to realize perhaps his most remarkable idea - the application of a 76-mm barrel with a length of 40 calibers on the carriage of a 57-mm anti-tank gun ZIS-2.

      I want to remind the author that Grabin did not work in a private shop, but at a state-owned enterprise. And not a janitor, but the chief designer. And what he will do there, it was not he who decided, but the director of the plant and the plan, which was issued to the enterprise. Therefore, Grabin ZIS-3 started in August or September 1941 (I don’t remember exactly, but I’m too lazy to watch). After the direct instruction of Dzhugashvili in this regard.
      And in general, it is not necessary to retell the “passions” set forth by him in his memoirs. Memoirs, this is such a kind of fantastic story. And treat them the same way.
      In addition, he could not impose a 76-mm gun barrel on the ZIS-2 carriage. Before WWII, field guns with diesel engines were not made in the USSR. Firstly, there was no normal DT, so later I had to copy German. Secondly, DT did not allow firing with buckshot (shrapnel), which was a big bet in the USSR before the Second World War.
      Quote: Andrey CHAPLYGIN
      The prototype was already ready in June 1941, and a month later it passed field tests. July 22, he was shown to Marshal Gregory Kulik.

      the author is burning. When in late summer, early fall of 1941. Dzhugashvili was interested in Yelyan and Grabin with something that would increase the output of “divisions” (he was interested in the number, no matter which way), then Grabin did not remember something about such a gun (he “remembered” later in his memoirs, and certainly the beginning of 1941, so as not to be suspected of plagiarism on the German PaK40 arr. 1941.). Therefore, the plant was given the task of ensuring an increase in the production of guns in any way. In this way at the very end of 1941. was the development of ZIS-3 in the likeness of the German PaK40 arr. 1941
      1. hardroc
        hardroc April 3 2016 11: 20
        -3
        Quote: Andrey CHAPLYGIN
        In this situation, Vasily Grabin and Director of Plant No. 92 Amo Yelyan made an unprecedented bold decision - arbitrarily launched mass production.

        No, well, it's already impudence, to write this. The finished nonsense. the author does not understand that this is a guaranteed execution of those involved on the same day in the courtyard of the plant? What kind of self-righteousness in wartime? This is a diversion, if in Russian.
        There was nothing like this in principle, because there was nothing to release. And even for the batch of F-34s with DTs on the carriages that had accumulated in the courtyard of the plant from ZIS-2, permission was obtained from above (the exact number is unknown, but there were quite a lot of them, their photos are found, see one below).
        In addition, part of the ZIS-3 parts was produced not at the "native" plant, but at the subcontractors. Therefore, the author writes nonsense.
        Quote: Andrey CHAPLYGIN
        This allowed the plant to increase the number of manufactured guns 1941 times by the end of 5,5.

        In the end, the author generally slipped into 100% delirium. ZIS-3 was adopted and its release began in 1942. She and state tests took place in the same 1942.
        Quote: Andrey CHAPLYGIN
        The gun proved to be excellent in battles not only as a divisional, but also as an anti-tank weapon.

        So it was an anti-tank weapon, it was simply called a “divisional” one. Due to the lack of adequate artillery in the Red Army. Back in 1941 and even in 1942. she suited this role in half with sin (very badly, and in 1942 it was just disgusting). But then it was already a strange product of unknown purpose. That's right starting in 1943. (except that they could be left on the SU-76). But I had to fight this garbage to the very end, there was no other.
        Quote: Andrey CHAPLYGIN
        The Germans called the ZIS-3 “town boom” because the projectile hit the target before the sound of a shot reached, and the chief engineer of the artillery department of the Krupp corporation, Professor Wolf, was forced to recognize it as the best weapon of World War II.

        When “unwashed and unkempt aborigines” cite such “arguments” from “white people” as “evidence”, this is not even funny.
        You need to respect yourself a little. Do you understand, Andrey Chaplygin? And do not nod each time in the direction of the next foreign business, which will praise, stroke the head and give the cookie.
        In terms of performance characteristics, it sucked since WW1. And no matter what someone said, he remained so. It is a pity that our ancestors had to fight with THIS, and not with normal, full-fledged weapons, as the rest of the participants in that war did. However, the Bolsheviks did not confine themselves to artillery only.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. hardroc
          hardroc April 3 2016 14: 29
          0
          It was necessary to sign more clearly.
          So, in the photo not ZIS-3. The photo shows an F-34 barrel (although it could have been an USV) with a "Soviet-type" muzzle brake on a ZIS-2 gun carriage. A batch of such guns was released at the very end of 1941. by permission from above without state tests in Gorky, in order to attach the accumulated carriages from the ZIS-2 discontinued at the same time.
          Here it is in its entirety.
        3. The comment was deleted.
        4. shasherin.pavel
          shasherin.pavel April 3 2016 15: 18
          +1
          Quote: hardroc
          And even to the party F-34 with DT

          This is a tank gun for the T-34 and for the KV-1 s.What muzzle brake ?!
          Quote: hardroc
          Due to the lack of adequate artillery in the Red Army.

          But what about the 57 mm? But what about 45? Before the Tigers appeared, she completely smashed all the enemy tanks ...
          How much garbage in my head. Foreign agitation is immediately noticeable.
          1. hardroc
            hardroc April 3 2016 15: 38
            +1
            Quote: shasherin.pavel
            This is a tank gun for the T-34 and for the KV-1 s.What muzzle brake ?!

            Soviet, with a stupid circular release. See below, there I have posted 2 photos of such musk oxen.
            Quote: shasherin.pavel
            But what about the 57 mm?

            Until 1943, before the purchase of equipment in the United States it was not. There was no where to produce.
            Quote: shasherin.pavel
            But what about the 45th? Before the Tigers appeared, she completely smashed all the enemy tanks ...

            22.06.41/1300/15 in the invasion army there were 150 German tanks of the "first line" (that is, vehicles of a new type). At an angle of attack of 200 degrees, such vehicles hit with an armor-piercing projectile from XNUMX-XNUMX m. And this was with excellent German observation devices. Of course, therefore, the main defeat came from ambushes. But which guns are in fact not PTO guns, although they could be called whatever.
            Quote: shasherin.pavel
            How much garbage in my head.

            Yes, the Soviet propaganda garbage in your head is full.
            Quote: shasherin.pavel
            Foreign agitation is immediately noticeable.

            How predictable you are ... Everywhere you have enemies. Foreign. Or "for foreign cookies." And what to do, there are no arguments. And there was no command from above for another point of view. So they are rushing around in the pen. The team is waiting.
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. Stas57
            Stas57 April 3 2016 16: 51
            +2
            Quote: shasherin.pavel
            But what about the 57 mm? But what about 45? Before the Tigers appeared, she completely smashed all the enemy tanks ...

            why are you so self-critical then?))
            21 May 1941 r appeared such a document.
            I remind you that Pz.Kpfw.III Ausf.H had armor 30 + 30mm (from 1940 to 1941 308pcs)
            and PzKpfw III Ausf. J (from 1941 to 1942 1549pcs) 50mm
            1. hardroc
              hardroc April 3 2016 17: 19
              0
              Quote: Stas57
              30 + 30mm (from 1940 to 1941 308pcs)
              and PzKpfw III Ausf. J (c1941 to1942 1549pcs) 50mm

              Just in case, I want to recall that 50 mm of German cemented heterogeneous armor is approximately equal to 67-67,5 mm of Soviet surface-hardened homogeneous.
              And 30 mm, about 40-40,5 mm.
            2. The comment was deleted.
          4. Stas57
            Stas57 April 3 2016 16: 57
            +1
            and if you think that this was a mistake or the tank was worse than the gun monitor, don’t think so anymore.
            ps. yes, there as you noticed above 37 mm, about the same jelly

            PPS Well, of course, specialists understood that the three rubles are early, not shielded.
            and another photo. all of a sudden someone will continue to tell that the 45 has been convincingly destroyed, it smashes all tanks until the 43 of the year

            on the same treshka

    2. The comment was deleted.
  • Kostya Andreev
    Kostya Andreev April 3 2016 13: 33
    +2
    hardroc write an article, and we all read and appreciate,
    and it’s funny to read your opus in the style there is not so, there is not that, this one did wrong, but there it was necessary. they copied it from those, but they themselves didn’t come up with anything good.
    I do not want to offend you, but in my opinion you did not serve in the army.
    1. hardroc
      hardroc April 3 2016 13: 41
      +1
      Quote: Kostya Andreev
      and it’s funny to read your opus in the style there is not so, there is not that, this one did wrong, but there it was necessary. they copied it from those, but they themselves didn’t come up with anything good.

      In essence, is there a return? Or the next "couch patriotic propaganda"?
      Quote: Kostya Andreev
      but in my opinion you did not serve in the army.

      What is this for? To the rain?
      Quote: Kostya Andreev
      hardroc write an article, and we all read and appreciate,

      For a long time, everything has been written and published.
      1. Kostya Andreev
        Kostya Andreev April 3 2016 14: 37
        +3
        Quote: hardroc
        For a long time, everything has been written and published.

        Submit yours.
        Regarding the army, I said this to the fact that you have some (and there are many) statements that produce a purely civilian person. who used a lot of reference books, but did not encounter or use weapons.
        I will not object, because you use known data, just comment as you see fit. I will also use the same data and interpret it differently.
        Just write an article with your vision. give your opinion
        1. hardroc
          hardroc April 3 2016 14: 54
          0
          Quote: Kostya Andreev
          that you have some (and there are many) statements that issue a purely civilian person. who used a lot of reference books, but did not encounter or use weapons.

          Think what you want, I don't care. I personally see no reason to be somehow proud of this fact.
          Quote: Kostya Andreev
          Just write an article with your vision. give your opinion

          I already wrote to you, everything has been written and published for a long time.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • Droid
    Droid April 3 2016 14: 57
    0
    What does the article do in the section - Individual weapons? Request to the moderators to transfer to the artillery.
  • moskowit
    moskowit April 3 2016 16: 49
    +1
    As a result - an excellent "heavy anti-tank" gun. Very efficient, even the calculations loved her. Even the F-22's chamber for a German projectile was refined by the Germans. (And they resharpened at the IVDS.)

    Yes, there was such a fact. Let me correct you, my dear fellow. They didn’t sharpen, but BORED, which are completely different technical operations. Possible boring of the charging chamber on the IVDS was envisaged by the designer Grabin himself. You can read about this in his truthful and very interesting book "The Weapon of Victory"
    1. hardroc
      hardroc April 3 2016 17: 04
      -1
      Quote: moskowit
      Possible boring of the charging chamber on the IVDS was envisaged by the designer Grabin himself. You can read about this in his truthful and very interesting book "The Weapon of Victory"

      Oh yeah. A very true book about one ingenious designer who won everything. And he defeated everyone.
      In fact, until 1941, before the ZIS-3, the barrel in Comrade KB They didn’t know how to count Grabin. Therefore, they made it excessively thick and heavy. The Germans bore it under their own, much more powerful cartridge with a shell of 7,6 (!!!) kg. The Americans, testing the F-34 at the Aberdeen training ground, also claimed that more could be squeezed out of the F-34 if gunpowder was replaced.
      It had to be explained somehow. And Grabin came up with "his own secret, which the Germans figured out" (and, apparently, the Americans). Only he forgot to write WHY he put "his secret" into three-inch shoes. There is no intelligible (and indistinct) explanation for this and cannot be. Moreover, such "investing secrets" was extremely dangerous. Someone Tagunov, the receiver of 3-K from the Germans, was shot for such a "German secret" (including, apparently).
      So, stories are all Hrabian. Excuses.
    2. AK64
      AK64 April 3 2016 19: 35
      -2
      Let me, my dear, slightly correct.

      Dealt a mortal blow!
      The possible boring of the charging chamber on the SPM was provided by the designer Grabin himself.

      How, really for the Germans tried ??? O_o

      But you think: "brought in the opportunity" - means deliberately made a reserve. That is, he deliberately increased the weight of the product. This is a form of sabotage! And where was the NKVD looking?
      1. moskowit
        moskowit April 4 2016 18: 32
        0
        In order to use the gun as an anti-tank, it is necessary to increase the speed of the projectile. For this, an increased propellant charge is used, which fits into a larger sleeve. For this upgrade, you need a boring charging chamber.
        The Germans put our F-22s on the Marder-3 self-propelled guns. If you are interested, it is easy to find on the internet ...
        1. AK64
          AK64 April 4 2016 20: 40
          0
          In order to use the gun as an anti-tank, it is necessary to increase the speed of the projectile. For this, an increased propellant charge is used, which fits into a larger sleeve. For this upgrade, you need a boring charging chamber.


          Do not compose, the Germans lavish corny under a German shell, and nothing more. The conspirators did not deliver.
          And so, the N / S of the F-22 was already higher than that of all classmates, second only to the Cancer-40
  • SerB60
    SerB60 April 4 2016 04: 43
    +1
    Quote: AK64
    But the decline in quality that I.V. was ready to go for the sake of mass production Stalin, this did not happen.


    Naturally, it happened.

    The gun proved to be excellent in battles not only as a divisional, but also as an anti-tank weapon.


    And what is unusual here? The use of divisions as anti-tank guns was planned starting from the 20s.

    Professor Wolf, the chief engineer of the artillery department at Krupp Corporation, was forced to recognize it as the best weapon of World War II.


    Or lied, or flattered. In any case, I would like an exact quote in the original language.

    Zosia's dignity was suitability for "mass production" and low weight. In war, this is not the main quality. But for any quality one usually has to pay with other characteristics. They paid here too: by itself, like a weapon, the gun was very mediocre. Let's say the same SPM was much better. (but more expensive and heavier.)

    In general, e should not be believed in memoirs, and Grabin’s memoirs should not be believed at all.

    That's right. A cannon with a shell of 1 MV turned out to be deadborn. It's like touching the Nagan revolver, that he took part in the Patriotic War.