Military Review

Soviet SAU against German tanks. Part 1

67



This publication attempts to analyze the anti-tank capabilities of the Soviet self-propelled artillery mounts (SAU), which were available in the USSR during the Great Patriotic War. By the beginning of the hostilities in June 1941, there were practically no self-propelled artillery installations in the Red Army, although work to create them was carried out since the first half of the 30s. Brought into the USSR to the stage of mass production, SAUs were created on the basis of artillery systems with low ballistics and were considered as means of supporting infantry units. The 76-mm regimental guns of the 1927 model and the 122-mm howitzer of the 1910 / 30 model were used as weapons of the first Soviet self-propelled guns.

The first Soviet serial model of the ACS was the SU-12 on the chassis of a three-axle American truck "Morland" (Moreland TX6) with two driving axles. On the cargo platform "Morland" was mounted thumbs installation with 76-mm regimental gun. “Cargo self-propelled guns” entered service in the 1933 year and were first demonstrated at the parade in the 1934 year. Shortly after the start of serial production in the USSR of GAZ-AAA trucks on their basis, the assembly of SAU SU-1-12 began. According to archive data, a total of 99 ACS SU-12 / SU-1-12 was built. Of these, 48 based on the Moreland truck and 51 based on the Soviet truck GAZ-AAA.

Soviet SAU against German tanks. Part 1

SU-12 at the parade


Initially, the SU-SU-12 SAU did not have any kind of armor protection at all, but soon a U-shaped armor shield was installed to prevent the calculation from bullets and fragments. Gun ammunition was 36 shrapnel and fragmentation grenades, armor-piercing shells were not provided. The rate of fire was 10-12 rds / min. The installation of the gun on the platform of the truck made it possible to quickly and inexpensively create an improvised ACS. Tumb artillery system had a sector of shelling 270 degrees, the fire from the gun could be carried out both straight-back and on board. There was also a fundamental possibility of shooting on the move, but at the same time the accuracy was greatly reduced.



The mobility of the SU-12 when traveling on good roads was significantly higher than that of the 76-mm regimental guns mounted on horse-drawn trades. However, the shortcomings of the first Soviet self-propelled gun was a lot. The vulnerability of the artillery crew, partially covered with 4-mm steel shield, was very high in direct fire. The passability of the wheeled vehicle on weak grounds left much to be desired and was seriously inferior to the horse teams of the regimental and divisional artillery. To pull out the wheel self-propelled gun which has got stuck in dirt it was possible only a tractor. In this regard, it was decided to build self-propelled guns on tracked chassis, and the production of the SU-12 stopped in the 1935 year.

The first Soviet self-propelled guns were successfully used in combat operations in the Far East against the Japanese at the end of the 30s and in the Winter War with Finland. All SU-12, available in the western part of the country, were lost shortly after the German attack, without affecting the course of hostilities.

In 20-30, the creation of self-propelled guns based on trucks was a global trend, and this experience in the USSR turned out to be useful. But if the installation of anti-aircraft guns on trucks made sense, then for ACS operating in the immediate vicinity of the enemy, the use of an unprotected road chassis with limited cross-country ability was certainly a dead-end solution.

In the prewar period, a number of self-propelled guns were created in the Soviet Union based on light tanks. As carriers of the 45-mm anti-tank guns, the T-37A floating wedges were considered, but the matter was limited to the construction of two prototypes. It was possible to bring the self-propelled guns SU-5-2 to the stage of mass production with a 122-mm howitzer mod. 1910/30 based on the T-26 tank. SU-5-2 were produced in a small series from 1936 to 1937, a total of 31 cars were built.


SU-5-2


Ammunition 122-mm SAU SU-5-2 was 4 projectile and 6 charges. Horizontal pointing angles are 30 °, vertically from 0 ° to + 60 °. The maximum initial velocity of a fragmentation projectile is 335 m / s, the maximum firing range is 7680 m, the rate of fire of 5 — 6 shots / min. The thickness of the frontal armor - 15 mm, board and feed - 10 mm, that is, the armor was quite adequate to withstand bullets and shrapnel, but it was only in front and partly on the sides.

In general, the SU-5-2 for its time had good fighting qualities, which was confirmed during the fighting at Lake Hassan. The reports of the command of the Red Army 2 Mechanized Brigade noted:
"The 122-mm self-propelled guns provided great support to tanks and infantry, destroying enemy wire barriers and firing points."


Due to the small number of 76-mm SU-12 and 122-mm SU-5-2 did not have a significant impact on the course of hostilities in the initial period of the war. The anti-tank capabilities of the 76-mm SU-12 were low, with an increased vulnerability of both the SPG itself and the calculation for bullets and shrapnel. With an initial speed of 76-mm blunt-headed BR-350А - 370 m / s armored-piercing projectile at an angle of 500 °, he punched 90 mm armor, which allowed him to fight only with light German tanks and armored vehicles. Before the appearance in the ammunition of regimental guns of cumulative shells, their anti-tank capabilities were very modest.

Despite the fact that there were no armor-piercing shells in the 122-mm howitzer ammunition, the high-explosive fragmentation grenades were often quite effective. So, with the weight of the projectile 53-OF-462 - 21,76 kg, it contained 3,67 kg of TNT, which in the 1941 year, with a direct hit, guaranteed to hit any German tank. When the projectile was broken, heavy debris was formed that could penetrate armor with a thickness of up to 20 mm within a radius of 2-3 meters. This was quite enough to destroy the armor of armored personnel carriers and light tanks, as well as disabling the undercarriage, observation devices, sights and weapons. That is, with the correct tactics of use and the presence in the troops of a significant number of SU-5-2, these SAUs in the initial period of the war could fight not only with fortifications and infantry, but also with German tanks.

Before the war in the USSR, an SAU with a high anti-tank potential had already been created. In the 1936, the test was conducted by the SU-6, armed with an 76-mm anti-aircraft gun 3-K on the chassis of a light tank T-26. This machine was designed for anti-aircraft maintenance of mechanized columns. She did not arrange the military, since the entire calculation did not fit in an artillery installation, and the installer of the remote tubes was forced to move around in an escort vehicle.


SU-6


Not too successful as an anti-aircraft gun, the ACS SU-6 could become a very effective anti-tank weapon, operating from pre-arranged positions and ambushes. The BR-361 armor-piercing projectile, released from the 3-K gun at a distance of 1000 meters at a meeting angle of 90 °, pierced 82-mm armor. In 1941-1942, the capabilities of the 76-mm ACS SU-6 allowed her to successfully fight with any German tanks at actual shooting distances. When using sub-caliber shells, armor penetration rates would be much higher. Unfortunately, the SU-6 did not enter service as an anti-tank self-propelled artillery installation (PT SAU).

Many researchers refer to the heavy assault SAU tank KV-2. Formally, due to the presence of a rotating turret, the KV-2 is identified as a tank. But in fact, the combat vehicle, armed with a unique 152-mm tank howitzer arr. 1938 / 40 (M-10T), in many respects was the ACS. The M-10T howitzer was vertically induced in the range from −3 to + 18 °, with a fixed position of the tower it could be induced in a small sector of horizontal pickup, which was typical of self-propelled installations. Ammunition was 36 shots of separate-cartridge loading.

KV-2 was created based on the experience of dealing with Finnish pillboxes on the “Mannerheim Line”. The thickness of the frontal and side armor was 75 mm, and the thickness of the armor of the gun was 110 mm, which made it low-vulnerable for anti-tank guns of the 37-50-mm caliber. However, the high security of the KV-2 was often depreciated by low technical reliability and poor training of driver mechanics.

With a B-2K-500 hp diesel engine, the 52-ton car on the highway could theoretically accelerate to 34 km / h. In reality, the speed of a good road did not exceed 25 km / h. Cross-country tank moved with the speed of a pedestrian 5-7 km / h. Considering that the KV-2’s passability on weak soils was not very good, and it was not easy to pull a tank stuck in the mud, we had to choose the route of movement very carefully. Due to excessive weight and size, crossing over water barriers often became an insoluble task, bridges and crossings could not stand, and many KV-2s were simply abandoned during the retreat.


KV-2 captured by the enemy


22 June 1941 of the KV-2 ammunition unit had only high-explosive fragmentation grenades of the RP-530 weighing 40 kg, containing about 6 kg of trotyl. The hit of such a projectile in any German tank in 1941 inevitably turned it into a pile of burning scrap metal. In practice, in view of the impossibility of manning the ammunition with standard ammunition, all the shells of the M-10 towed howitzer were used for firing. In this case, the required number of beams of gunpowder was removed from the liner. Cast iron fragmentary howitzer grenades, incendiary projectiles, old high-explosive grenades and even shrapnel, delivered to blow, were used. When firing at German tanks, concrete-shells showed good results.

The M-10T had a whole range of flaws that devalued its effectiveness on the battlefield. Due to the imbalance of the tower, a regular electric motor could not always cope with its weight, which made the rotation of the tower a very difficult task. Even with a small angle of inclination of the tank, it was often impossible to turn the tower. Due to excessive recoil, the gun could only be fired during a full stop of the tank. The recoil of the gun could simply disable both the turret turning mechanism and the engine-transmission group, and this despite the fact that shooting at full charge was strictly forbidden from the M-10T tank. The practical rate of fire with the adjustment of aiming was 2 rounds per minute, which, in combination with a low turret rotation speed and a relatively small direct shot range, reduced anti-tank capabilities.

Because of all this, the combat effectiveness of the machine created for offensive operations and the destruction of enemy fortifications, when fired at direct fire from a distance of several hundred meters, turned out to be low. However, most of the KV-2 was lost not in duels with German tanks, but as a result of damage from German artillery fire, strikes from diving bombers, engine breakdowns, transmission and undercarriage, and lack of fuel and lubricants. Shortly after the start of the war, the production of the KV-2 was minimized. In total, from January 1940 to July 1941, the company managed to build 204 machines.

In the initial period of the war, a significant number of damaged and defective T-26 light tanks of various modifications accumulated at tank repair plants. Often, tanks had damage to the tower or weapons, which prevented their further use. Also, two-turreted tanks with machine-gun armament demonstrated their complete inconsistency. Under these conditions, it seemed logical to rework tanks with defective or outdated armament in SAU. It is known that a certain number of vehicles with dismantled turrets were reequipped with 37 and 45-mm anti-tank guns with armor shields. According to archival documents, such SAUs, for example, were available in October 1941 of the year in the 124-th tank brigade, but the images of the machines were not preserved. In firepower, the improvised self-propelled guns did not outperform T-26 tanks with 45-mm guns, inferior in crew security. But the advantage of such machines was a much better overview of the battlefield, and in the conditions of the catastrophic losses of the first months of the war, any combat-ready armor was worth its weight in gold. With proper tactics using 37 and 45-mm self-propelled guns in 1941, they could quite successfully fight with enemy tanks.

In the autumn of 1941, at the Kirov Leningrad Plant, self-propelled guns armed with 26-mm QD guns were manufactured on the repaired T-76 chassis. This gun was a tank version of the 76-mm regimental gun model 1927 g., With similar ballistics and ammunition. In different sources, the data self-propelled designated differently: T-26-SU, SU-T-26, but most often SU-76P or SU-26. The gun SU-26 had a circular attack, the calculation in front was covered with broneschit.


Padded SU-26


Later versions, built in 1942 year, also had armored protection on the sides. According to archival data, in Leningrad during the war years 14 ACS SU-26 was built, some of them survived to break the blockade. Of course, the anti-tank potential of these self-propelled guns was very weak, and they were used mainly for artillery support of tanks and infantry.

ZIS-30, armed with an 57-mm anti-tank gun, was the first Soviet specialized anti-tank gun. 1941 d. Very often this tool is called ZIS-2, but this is not quite correct. From VET ZIS-2, whose production was resumed in 1943 year, 57-mm gun arr. 1941 was different in a number of parts, although in general the design was the same. Anti-tank 57-mm guns had excellent armor penetration and at the beginning of the war guaranteed to penetrate the frontal armor of any German tank.


ZIS-30


PT SAU ZIS-30 was a lightweight anti-tank unit with an open weapon. The upper machine gun was mounted in the middle part of the body of the light tractor T-20 "Komsomolets". Vertical pickup angles ranged from -5 to + 25 °, along the horizon - in the 30 ° sector. Practical rate of fire reached 20 rds / min. From bullets and fragments, the calculation, consisting of a 5 man, in a battle was defended only by a gun shield. The fire from the gun could only be conducted from a place. Due to the high center of gravity and strong recoil, it was necessary to fold openers in the rear part of the ACS in order to avoid overturning. For self-defense self-propelled installation had a 7,62-mm machine gun DT, inherited from the tractor Komsomolets.

Serial production of ZIS-30 automatic control systems began at the end of September 1941 at the Nizhny Novgorod machine-building plant and lasted only about a month. During this time, managed to build a self-propelled 101. According to the official version, the production of ZIS-30 was discontinued due to the absence of Komsomolets tractors, but even if this is so, what prevented the installation of very anti-tank 57-mm guns on the chassis of light tanks?

The most likely reason for the collapse of the construction of 57-mm PT SAU, most likely, were difficulties with the production of gun barrels. The percentage of defects in the manufacture of trunks reached completely indecent values, and it was impossible to correct this situation on the existing machine park, despite the efforts of the workforce of the manufacturer. This, and not the "excess power" of 57-mm anti-tank guns, explains their insignificant production volumes in the 1941 year and the subsequent failure of serial construction. Gorky Artillery Plant number 92, and the very VG Grabin was easier, based on the design of 57-mm guns arr. 1941, to manufacture the divisional 76-mm gun, which became widely known as ZIS-3. The 76-mm divisional gun of the 1942 model of the year (ZIS-3) at the time of creation had quite acceptable armor penetration, while possessing a more powerful high-explosive fragmentation projectile. Subsequently, this weapon became widespread and was popular with the troops. ZIS-3 was in service not only in divisional artillery, specially modified weapons were used by fighter-anti-tank units and installed on self-propelled gun mounts. Subsequently, the production of 57-mm VET after making some changes in the design under the name ZIS-2 was resumed in 1943 year. This became possible after receiving a perfect machine park from the USA, which made it possible to solve the problem with the manufacture of barrels.

As for the ZIS-30 ACS, this self-propelled gun in the conditions of an acute shortage of anti-tank weapons initially proved itself well. The gunners, who had previously dealt with 45-mm anti-tank guns, especially liked the high armor penetration and direct shot range. During combat use in self-propelled guns revealed a number of serious shortcomings: overloaded chassis, insufficient power reserve, small ammunition and a tendency to overturn. However, all this was quite predictable, since the ZIS-30 self-propelled guns were a typical ersatz — a model of wartime created in a hurry from the available undercarriage chassis and artillery units. By the middle of 1942, almost all ZIS-30 were lost during the fighting. Nevertheless, they proved to be a very useful means of fighting German tanks. The ZIS-30 self-propelled guns were armed with anti-tank batteries of tank brigades of the Western and South-Western fronts and took an active part in the defense of Moscow.

After the stabilization of the situation on the front and a number of successful offensive operations of the Red Army, there was an urgent need for self-propelled guns with artillery support. Unlike tanks, self-propelled guns should not have been directly involved in the attack. Moving at a distance of 500-600 meters from the advancing troops, they used fire of their guns to suppress the firing points, destroyed the fortifications and destroyed the enemy infantry. That is, a typical "art shurm" was required, if you use the terminology of the enemy. This made different demands on the ACS compared to tanks. Security self-propelled guns could be less, but it was preferable to increase the caliber of guns, and, as a consequence, the power of the projectiles.

Late in the fall of 1942, the production of the SU-76 began. This self-propelled gun was created on the basis of light tanks T-60 and T-70 using a number of automotive units and armed with 76-mm gun ZIS-ZSh (Sh - assault) - specially developed for SAU version of the division gun. Vertical pickup angles ranged from -3 to + 25 °, along the horizon - in the 15 ° sector. The elevation angle of the gun made it possible to reach the firing range of the ZIS-3 divisional gun, that is, 13 km. Ammunition was 60 shells. The thickness of the frontal armor - 26-35 mm, onboard and stern -10-15 mm allowed to protect the crew (4 man) from small arms and debris. The first serial modification also had an armored 7 mm roof.

The power plant SU-76 was a pair of two automotive engines GAZ-202 with a total power of 140 hp. According to the designers, this was supposed to reduce the cost of production of ACS, but caused mass complaints from the army. The power plant was very difficult to control, asynchronous operation of the engines caused strong torsional vibrations, which led to a rapid failure of the transmission.


SU-76


The first 25 units made in SU-76 in January 1943 were sent to a training self-propelled artillery regiment. A month later, the first two self-propelled artillery regiments (SAP) formed on the SU-76 set off for the Volkhov front and took part in breaking through the blockade of Leningrad. During the fighting, self-propelled guns demonstrated good mobility and maneuverability. The firepower of the guns made it possible to effectively destroy light field fortifications and destroy the enemy's manpower. But at the same time there was a massive failure of the transmission elements and engines. This led to a halt in serial production after the release of 320 machines. Refinement of the engine compartment did not lead to a radical change in design. To increase reliability, it was decided to strengthen its elements in order to increase reliability and increase service life. Subsequently, the power of the twin engine was brought to 170 HP. In addition, they abandoned the armored roof of the crew compartment, which made it possible to reduce the mass from 11,2 to 10,5 t. And improved crew working conditions and visibility. In the stowed position to protect against road dust and precipitation, the fighting compartment was covered with a tarpaulin. This version of the ACS, which received the designation SU-76M, managed to take part in the Battle of Kursk. Understanding that the SAU is not a tank, to many commanders did not come immediately. Attempts to use SU-76М with anti-bullet armor in frontal attacks of well-fortified enemy positions inevitably led to heavy losses. It was then that this self-propelled gun deserved among the front-line soldiers unflattering nicknames: “bitch”, “naked ferdinand” and “fraternal grave of the crew”. However, with proper use of SU-76M showed themselves well. In defense, they repelled infantry attacks and were used as a protected mobile anti-tank reserve. In the offensive, self-propelled guns suppressed machine-gun nests, destroyed pillboxes and bunkers, made artillery fire with passes in wire barriers, and, if necessary, fought against counterattacking tanks.



In the second half of the war, the 76-mm armor-piercing projectile was no longer guaranteed to hit the German medium tanks Pz. IV late modifications and heavy Pz. V Panther and Pz. VI "Tiger", and shooting cumulative projectiles used in regimental guns, because of the unreliable operation of the fuses and the possibility of rupture in the barrel for divisional and tank guns was strictly prohibited. This problem was resolved after the introduction of the 53-UBR-354P shot with the 53-BR-350П sabot. A X-rayed projectile at a distance of 500 meters pierced the 90 mm normal armor, which made it possible to confidently hit the frontal armor of the German fours, as well as the side of the Tigers and Panthers. Of course, SU-76М was not suitable for duels with tanks and anti-tank self-propelled guns of the enemy, which, since 1943, were completely armed with long-barreled guns with high ballistics. But with actions from ambushes, various kinds of shelters and in street battles, the chances were quite good. Good mobility and high permeability on weak soils also played a role. Proper use of camouflage, taking into account the terrain, as well as maneuvering from one shelter to another, is often allowed to achieve victory even over the enemy’s heavy tanks. The demand for the SU-76М as a universal means of artillery escort of infantry and tank units is confirmed by the huge circulation - 14 292 built vehicles.

At the very end of the war, the role of the 76-mm self-propelled guns as a means of fighting the enemy’s armored vehicles was reduced. By the time our troops were already quite saturated with specialized anti-tank guns and anti-tank guns, and enemy tanks became rare. During this period, the SU-76M was used exclusively for its intended purpose, as well as an armored personnel carrier for the transport of infantry, the evacuation of the wounded, and as vehicles of advanced artillery observers.

At the beginning of 1943 of the year on the basis of captured German tanks Pz. Kpfw III and ACS StuG III began production of ACS SU-76I. In terms of security, with almost identical characteristics of weapons, they are significantly superior to the SU-76. The thickness of the frontal armor of captured machines, depending on the modification, was 30-60 mm. The forehead of the conning tower and sides were defended with 30 mm armor, the thickness of the roof - 10 mm. The cabin had the shape of a truncated pyramid with rational tilt angles of armor plates, which increased the armor resistance. Some of the vehicles intended for use as commanders were equipped with a powerful radio station and commander turrets with an access hatch from the Pz. Kpfw III.


Commander SU-76I


Initially, the SAU, created on the basis of trophies, was planned, by analogy with the SU-76, to arm the 76,2-mm cannon ZIS-3Sh. But in the case of the use of this tool, the embrasure of the tool was not reliably protected from bullets and shrapnel, since during lifting and turning of the tool in the shield there were always cracks. In this case, the special self-propelled 76,2-mm C-1 gun turned out to be an incident. Previously, it was created on the basis of the tank F-34, especially for light experienced SAUs of the Gorky Automobile Plant. The angles of vertical guidance of the gun from - 5 to 15 °, horizon - ± 10 ° in the sector. Ammunition was 98 shells. On commander vehicles, due to the use of a more cumbersome and powerful radio station, the ammunition was reduced.

Production of the car continued from March to November 1943. SU-76I, built in the amount of about 200 copies, despite the best security compared to SU-76, did not fit the role of light PT SAU. The practical rate of fire of the weapon was no more than 5 - 6 shots / min. And according to the characteristics of armor penetration, the C-1 gun was completely identical to the tank F-34. However, several cases of successful use of the SU-76I against medium-sized German tanks have been documented. The first cars began to arrive in the troops in May 1943, that is, several months later, SU-76, but unlike the Soviet self-propelled guns did not cause any complaints. They liked SU-76I troops, self-propelled guns noted high reliability, ease of operation and abundance of monitoring devices compared to SU-76. Moreover, in terms of mobility on rough terrain, the self-propelled gun was almost as good as the T-34 tanks, surpassing them in speed on good roads. Despite the presence of an armored roof, the crews liked the relative space inside the fighting compartment compared to other Soviet self-propelled artillery mounts, the commander, gunner, and loader in the conning tower were not too constrained. As a significant drawback was noted the difficulty of starting the engine in a severe frost.



Self-propelled artillery regiments armed with SU-76I received baptism of fire during the Battle of Kursk, where they generally performed well. In July 1943, according to the experience of combat use, on the mask of the Su-76I gun was installed an armored reflective shield to prevent the gun from jamming by bullets and shrapnel. To increase the power reserve, SU-76I began to be equipped with two external petrol tanks mounted on easy-release brackets along the stern.

SU-76I self-propelled units were actively used during the Belgorod-Kharkiv operation, while many vehicles that received combat damage were repaired several times. In the army SU-76I met until the middle of the 1944 year, after which the survivors of the fighting machines were written off due to the limiting wear and lack of spare parts.

In addition to 76-mm guns, they tried to place an X-NUMX-mm howitzer M-122 on the captured chassis. Known about the construction of several machines under the name SG-30 "Artsturm" or abbreviated SG-122A. This self-propelled gun was created on the basis of the assault gun StuG III Ausf. C or Ausf. D. It is known about the 122 SAU order in September 10 of the year, but information on whether this order has been completely fulfilled has not been preserved.


SG-122A


The 122-mm howitzer M-30 could not be installed in the standard German cabin. The conning tower of Soviet manufacture was significantly higher. The thickness of the frontal armor of the cabin is 45 mm, the sides are 35 mm, the stern is 25 mm, the roofs are 20 mm. The car was not too successful, experts noted excessive congestion of the front rollers and high gas content of the fighting compartment when firing. The ACS on the trophy chassis, after the Soviet-made armored car was installed, turned out to be cramped and had a weaker booking than the German StuG III. The absence at that time of good sighting devices and observation devices also adversely affected the combat characteristics of self-propelled guns. It can be noted that in addition to the alteration of trophies in the Red Army in 1942-1943, a lot of captured German armored vehicles were used unchanged. So, on the Kursk Bulge, trophy SU-34 (StuG III) and Marder III fought alongside the T-75.

Self-propelled SU-122, built on the chassis of the Soviet T-34 tank, turned out to be more viable. The total number of parts borrowed from the tank was 75%, the remaining parts were new, specially made for self-propelled installation. In many ways, the emergence of the SU-122 is associated with operating experience in the troops of captured German "artturm". The assault guns were much cheaper than tanks, the spacious logging allowed the installation of larger-caliber guns. Using the M-122 30 mm howitzer as a weapon promised a number of significant benefits. This weapon could be placed in the conning gear of the SAU, which was confirmed by the experience of creating the SG-122A. Compared with 76-mm projectile, howitzer 122-mm high-explosive fragmentation projectile had a significantly greater destructive effect. The 122-mm projectile, which weighed 21,76 kg, contained 3,67 explosives, versus 6,2 kg of the three-inch projectile with 710 gr. explosives. With a single shot of the 122-mm gun, more could be achieved than with a few shots of the 76-mm. The powerful high-explosive effect of the 122-mm projectile made it possible to destroy not only wooden-earthen fortifications, but also concrete bunkers or solid brick buildings. For the destruction of highly fortified cumulative shells could also be successfully used.


SU-122


The SU-122 ACS was not born from scratch, at the end of 1941, the concept of a turretless tank was proposed with full preservation of the T-34 undercarriage armed with an 76-mm cannon. The weight savings achieved as a result of the abandonment of the tower made it possible to increase the thickness of the frontal armor to 75 mm. The complexity of manufacturing was reduced by 25%. In the future, these developments were used to create 122-mm ACS.

In terms of security, SU-122 practically did not differ from T-34. The ACS was armed with a tank modification of a 122-mm divisional howitzer arr. 1938 g. - M-30С, with preservation of a number of features of the towed gun. Thus, the placement of control organs for the guidance mechanisms on opposite sides of the barrel required the presence of two gunners in the crew, which, of course, did not add free space in the self-propelled gun. The range of elevation angles ranged from −3 ° to + 25 °, the sector of horizontal shelling ± 10 °. The maximum range of shooting - 8000 meters. Rate of Fire - 2-3 rds / min. Ammunition from 32 to 40 shots of separate-cartridge loading, depending on the series of release. These were mainly high-explosive fragmentation projectiles.

The need for such machines at the front was enormous, despite a number of observations revealed during the tests, they adopted an armament. The first regiment of self-propelled guns SU-122 formed at the end of the year 1942. On the front 122-mm ACS appeared in February 1943, and were received with great enthusiasm. Combat tests of self-propelled guns with the aim of practicing tactics of application were held in early February 1943. The most successful option is to use the SU-122 to support the advancing infantry and tanks, being behind them at a distance of 400 — 600 meters. During the breakthrough of the enemy defense, self-propelled guns with fire from their guns carried out the suppression of enemy firing points, destroyed obstacles and barriers, and also reflected counterattacks.

When hit 122-mm high-explosive projectile in an average tank, as a rule, it was destroyed or incapacitated. According to reports of German tankers who took part in the battle of Kursk, they repeatedly recorded cases of serious damage to heavy tanks Pz. VI "Tiger" as a result of shelling 122-mm howitzer shells.

This is what Major Homille writes in this connection with Commander III. Abteilung / Panzer Regiment Tank Division Grossdeutschland:
"... Hauptmann von Willborn, the commander of the 10 Company, was seriously wounded during the battle. His Tiger received a total of eight hits of 122-mm projectiles from assault guns at the base of the T-34 tank. One projectile punched onboard armor Six shells hit the tower, three of which made only small dents in armor, two others cracked the armor and broke off small pieces of it. The sixth shell broke off a huge piece of armor (the size of two palms) that flew into the fighting compartment of the tank. building the electric circuit of the electric trigger gun, the device The sightings were broken or knocked out of the attachment points. The weld seam of the tower was dispersed, and a half-meter-high crack was formed, which could not be welded by the field repair brigade. "


In general, assessing the anti-tank capabilities of the SU-122, it can be stated that they were very weak. This, in fact, served as a result of one of the main reasons for the withdrawal of ACS from production. Despite the presence in the ammunition cumulative shells of BP-460A 13,4 kg mass, with 175 mm armor penetration, it was possible to get into a moving tank from the first shot only from an ambush or in combat conditions in the locality. A total of 638 machines were built, the production of ACS SU-122 was completed in the summer of 1943. However, several self-propelled guns of this type survived to the end of hostilities, taking part in the storming of Berlin.
Author:
67 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. svp67
    svp67 11 May 2016 06: 40 New
    +6
    Well informative, only the author for some reason forgot to mention BT-7, because he was the same as SAU
    1. Bayonet
      Bayonet 11 May 2016 07: 17 New
      11
      Quote: svp67
      BT-7A, because he was the same as SAU

      Not really. From 1936 to 1938, the 154 artillery tank BT-7А was launched with an oversized turret with a 76-mm QD-26 1927-1932 X gun and three DT machine guns, one of which was mounted in a ball mount to the right of the gun, the second in the door niches and the third - in the anti-aircraft installation P-40.
      1. bionik
        bionik 11 May 2016 09: 36 New
        +5
        A Soviet light tank BT-7A thrown in the snow not far from the road (i.e., with an 76-mm gun).
      2. faiver
        faiver 11 May 2016 10: 32 New
        +2
        why not quite so? that is exactly what the younger brother kv-2 is
      3. svp67
        svp67 11 May 2016 12: 47 New
        +1
        Quote: Bayonet
        Not quite

        What's "not really"? After all, even in the name it was indicated
        Quote: Bayonet
        artillery BT-XNUMHA tank
        "ARTILLERY" tank. He performed the tasks of fire support and fire support, all the tasks of the ACS.
      4. sibiryouk
        sibiryouk 11 May 2016 14: 51 New
        +4
        BT-7A is more of a support tank, similar vehicles were in the British Army at the Matilda base. A number of American Shermans also had howitzers.
    2. Bongo
      11 May 2016 10: 39 New
      +6
      Quote: svp67
      Well informative, only the author for some reason forgot to mention BT-7, because he was the same as SAU

      The author has not forgotten. No. According to the terminology adopted by the Red Army before the war, the BT-7A is an "artillery tank". In this case, it would be necessary to write here an average T-28 armed with a similar weapon.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 11 May 2016 11: 41 New
        +5
        Quote: Bongo
        The author has not forgotten. no According to the terminology adopted in the Red Army before the war, the BT-7A is an "artillery tank". In this case, it would be necessary to write here an average T-28 armed with a similar weapon.

        Uh-uh, no. The T-28 is the usual medium tank. He would have become an artillery if the 107-122 mm gun had been thrust into his tower.
        But the BT-7A is precisely an artillery tank: the chassis of a serial tank, armed with a gun system with increased (for the class of this tank) firepower. "Three-inch" on the LT chassis, 122-mm howitzer on the CT chassis, 152-mm howitzer on the TT chassis (or various perversions with multi-barreled 45-76 mm systems).
        1. Bongo
          11 May 2016 11: 55 New
          +4
          Quote: Alexey RA
          But the BT-7A is precisely an artillery tank: the chassis of a production tank, armed with a gun system that has increased (for the class of this tank) firepower.

          It is an artillery tank (although in my opinion this term is rather vague), but not an SPG. Subsequently, this class of "artillery tanks" disappeared, although, for example, the Pz. IV, which originally appeared in such a hypostasis, later became a very successful universal combat vehicle.
      2. svp67
        svp67 11 May 2016 12: 56 New
        -2
        Quote: Bongo
        According to the terminology adopted by the Red Army before the war, the BT-7A is an "artillery tank". In this case, it would be necessary to write here an average T-28 armed with a similar weapon.

        What does the weapon? Here the main tasks that were supposed to perform an artillery tank.
        1. Bongo
          11 May 2016 13: 04 New
          +5
          Quote: svp67
          What does the weapon? Here the main tasks that were supposed to perform an artillery tank.

          And many tasks performed artillery TANK BT-7A? How not cool - this is not the ACS. No.
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion 11 May 2016 16: 13 New
            0
            Any tank with cannon armament is a self-propelled artillery. The rest is just terminological games.
            1. Blackgrifon
              Blackgrifon 11 May 2016 20: 02 New
              +3
              Quote: EvilLion
              Any tank with cannon armament is a self-propelled artillery.

              And a lot of sense from SAU with 20 mm autocannon (Pz.2)? Art-tank - this is exactly the tank - the car of the front edge with a more powerful weapon.
          2. svp67
            svp67 11 May 2016 21: 12 New
            0
            Quote: Bongo
            How not cool - this is not the ACS

            They were created when the shape of the ACS was not yet clear, it was a "test of the pen". Indeed, to install a tower with a powerful cannon, it was necessary to redo it, in particular to strengthen the hull, otherwise it simply could not stand it.
            Quote: Bongo
            And many tasks performed artillery TANK BT-7A?

            "... the views that dominated at that time (in the 30s of the 20th century - my note, SVP67) in tank building, led to the fact that the high command of the Red Army decided that the artillery support of the troops, both in the offensive and in defense, will be able to carry out the so-called "artillery tanks", which are an analogue of a modern self-propelled guns with a turret placement of guns.
            It was assumed that, in contrast to a conventional tank, an artillery tank would be armed with a larger caliber cannon.
            The first full-fledged project of such a tank was born in the Soviet Union in the CIB UMM Red Army in the first months of the 1932 year. The works were supervised by N. I. Dyrenkov.
            The project was held under the symbol D-38 and represented the hull and chassis of the BT-2, a number of elements of which were the original nodes of the sample that was in the bureau (Christy tank) with a wooden tower model installed on it. It was assumed that the D-38 will be armed with a “Garford” cannon in caliber 76,2 mm, model 1910 of the year or a short gun 1913 of the year.
            The second weapon option under consideration was equipping the tank with two cannons: a 76,2 mm cannon was mounted in the hull, and a 37 mm cannon in the turret. "

            http://bronetechnikamira.ru/istorija-sozdanija/artilleriyskie-tanki-t-26a-t-26-4
    3. enot73
      enot73 11 May 2016 19: 59 New
      +2
      Quote: svp67
      Well informative, only the author for some reason forgot to mention BT-7, because he was the same as SAU
      In the Wehrmacht, for example, there were also tanks with similar weapons, but they were never considered self-propelled guns.
      1. svp67
        svp67 11 May 2016 21: 24 New
        +1
        Quote: enot73
        In the Wehrmacht, for example, there were also tanks with similar weapons, but they were never considered self-propelled guns.

        For your information, due to the relative weakness of the armament Pz.Kpfw.III, it was decided to create in addition to it fire support tank, with a more powerful fragmentation projectile, capable of striking anti-tank defenses beyond the reach of other tanks as a result, and Pz.Kpfw.IV appeared. And what is not an analogue of our artillery tank for you?
    4. avdkrd
      avdkrd 11 May 2016 22: 02 New
      0
      Quote: svp67
      Well informative, only the author for some reason forgot to mention BT-7, because he was the same as SAU

      You are right, but on the whole it is more important what place the car takes in the combat schedule. The author correctly mentioned that either because of a lack of tactical abilities, or because of the hopelessness of the SU-76, they were introduced into the battle like tanks. Tactics of application determines the real purpose of technology. SU-76 - a very bad tank, but as a self-propelled gun it is quite a nothing. BT-7A misunderstanding of the Soviet military-industrial complex. On the chassis intended for high-speed attack, to the detriment of armor and common sense, they pushed a short-barreled shaft from which you could not hit the support (the initial velocity of the 262 projectile, m / s). But the 45 (50) projectiles BC — with 15 / 20mm armor (forehead), detonation was a spectacular sight. The concept of the application was absent, thank God the series was small (133pcs).
      the Americans creating their Abrams called it a tank, although in fact it was a PT SAU. Initially, even the OFS as part of the BC was not, while there were all the classic features of the tank - the layout, the rotating turret, the machine gun ... In the event of a big war in 80, Abrams would have remained PT SAU, for how it was created and for more was able to. He became a tanker with the introduction of OFS in BC and then, as a tanker (former), I value him as a troika.
    5. shasherin.pavel
      shasherin.pavel 12 May 2016 19: 21 New
      +1
      The main difference between an SPG or SU from a tank is the "fine" aiming of the gun by turning the gun itself, without turning the turret. In this case, the gun is turned by turning the turret, which means it is a light tank with reinforced armament.
  2. inkass_98
    inkass_98 11 May 2016 08: 01 New
    +2
    Thank you so much.
  3. magician
    magician 11 May 2016 08: 42 New
    +4
    good article. author plus!
  4. kirgudu
    kirgudu 11 May 2016 08: 43 New
    +8
    In the next part we are waiting for ISU-152.
    1. yehat
      yehat 11 May 2016 10: 48 New
      +1
      It would be better described in detail about the line of the Sous-85 and Sous-100.
      on ergonomics and elaboration of the design, we had nothing better than the su-100.
      I would say that the sous-100 was close in working out the details to thing-3G.
      1. Bongo
        11 May 2016 10: 51 New
        +6
        Quote: yehat
        It would be better described in detail about the line of the Sous-85 and Sous-100.
        on ergonomics and elaboration of the design, we had nothing better than the su-100.
        I would say that the sous-100 was close in working out the details to thing-3G.

        Apparently you inattentively read the title of the article, it is called: “Soviet SPGs against German tanks. 1-I. "About the Su-85 and Su-100 will be in the second part. It is impossible to tell in one publication about all Soviet self-propelled guns, articles larger than 10 Word sheets are not accepted.
        1. yehat
          yehat 11 May 2016 13: 52 New
          0
          did not understand what was the matter? I'm waiting for h. N + 1
      2. 11 black
        11 black 11 May 2016 17: 59 New
        +1
        Quote: yehat
        I would say that the sous-100 was close in working out the details to thing-3G.

        Rather, then, too, to Yagdpantser, with whom, by the way, she could fight at least on equal terms - in general, the power of the gun was enough to knock out any German tank.

        But still, I would like to hear about the EC-2 with the D-25, a unique machine for its time, could both fight with any tanks, and perform the tasks of self-propelled guns.
        1. sau-t
          sau-t 13 May 2016 17: 40 New
          0
          Quote: 11 black
          The EC-2 with the D-25, a unique machine for its time, could both fight with any tanks and accomplish the tasks of self-propelled guns.

          This was SAU VET. Only tower. From the presence of the tower, this ACS tank did not. Although the so-called.
        2. The comment was deleted.
  5. Volga Cossack
    Volga Cossack 11 May 2016 08: 47 New
    +2
    Thank!!!! Good article!!!! I read it with pleasure !!!!
  6. bionik
    bionik 11 May 2016 09: 25 New
    +4
    Soviet heavy self-propelled artillery installation ISU-122С overcomes a water barrier ford.
  7. Vlad_N
    Vlad_N 11 May 2016 10: 02 New
    +8
    The film immediately came to mind about the "self-propelled gunners" - "In war as in war." The film shows the SU-100 self-propelled gun. Good article, I look forward to continuing.
    1. avt
      avt 11 May 2016 10: 19 New
      +5
      Quote: Vlad_N
      The film immediately came to mind about the "self-propelled gunners" - "In war as in war." The film shows the SU-100 self-propelled gun.

      While in the book Su-85. And the article ... yes - such a good review is informational, brief.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 11 May 2016 11: 56 New
        +6
        Quote: avt
        While in the book Su-85.

        So ... in real life, Lieutenant Kurochkin from 1893 sap in the battle of Antopol Boyarka was just Su-85.
        http://pobeda.elar.ru/images/karpaty/5-16.jpg

        True opponent in real life was different:
        A careful reading of the volume of Schneider also reveals that the scene "... They entered the battle suddenly, on the move for the village of Antopol-Boyarka ..." (c) is not a writer's fiction of uv. Victor Alexandrovich Kurochkin. As well as the 2 Tigers destroyed there on December 29, 1943. Only the "animals" in the village were not "Dead Head", as it is written in "NKNV", but "Adolf Hitler", and not with some nameless "Fritzs" on board, but with the participation of the crews of Wendorf and Wittmann, as well as their themselves.
      2. EvilLion
        EvilLion 11 May 2016 16: 18 New
        +3
        And in the book, Sanya Maleshkin dies from a random fragment. To distinguish on the screen SU-85 from SU-100 a non-expert will not be able to.
        1. shasherin.pavel
          shasherin.pavel 12 May 2016 19: 53 New
          +1
          In the book, Hero of the Soviet Union, Alexander Maleshkin, at the cinema, he was awarded an order, but according to the GSS book, but the presentation was posthumous.
  8. Yarik
    Yarik 11 May 2016 10: 20 New
    +1
    We have a school military commander (God rest his soul), he fought on the SU-76 and told me a lot about this thing. So, you don’t need to read any books about the Su-76. Very little good was said about her, because He burned in it very often. Because the engine and the tank with gasoline were practically unprotected from the front. Also, in his words, the crew was afraid to turn the car over on either side of the hill, or when entering the railway platform. During the coup, the fighting compartment turned into trash. And what I remember is what he called her - s_U_k_A.
    1. avt
      avt 11 May 2016 11: 04 New
      +9
      Quote: Yarik
      . Very little good was said about her, because He burned in it very often.

      One hundred pounds started on a tank and probably the tankman also commanded the battery.
      Quote: Yarik
      And what I remember is what he called her - s_U_k_A.

      What actually confirms. If the car would be trash - hell
      Quote: Yarik
      because He burned in it very often.
      jumped out of her for the first time.
      Quote: Yarik
      Also, in his words, the crew was afraid to turn the car over on either side of the hill, or when entering the railway platform.

      Well, I say - tankers who are accustomed to 34-ke to its mass, dimensions and diesel, by the way at the beginning of entering the 34-k troops, also managed to fill in gasoline instead of diesel fuel and flooded engines with words - it's a machine .. Germans for their self-propelled Initially, the crews were preparing and they did not consider themselves tankers, the gunners and everything.
      1. Bongo
        11 May 2016 11: 13 New
        +3
        Agree with you yes But this is not quite true:
        Quote: avt
        The Germans initially prepared their crews for their self-propelled vehicles, and they did not consider themselves tankers — cannoners and that was all.
        This statement is true in relation to the crews of "artillery attacks". In the second half of the war, after the Nazis switched to defense, self-propelled guns mainly carried out anti-tank defense tasks and were armed exclusively with long-barreled guns.

        So ACS StuG III later modifications have become very effective PT ACS.

        In 1944, the production of tank destroyers exceeded the production of tanks. These vehicles went to tank units and after a minimal retraining, tankers who had lost their "fours" in battles fought.
        1. avt
          avt 11 May 2016 11: 38 New
          +2
          Quote: Bongo
          In 1944, the production of tank destroyers exceeded the production of tanks. These vehicles went to tank units and after a minimal retraining, tankers who had lost their "fours" in battles fought.

          request The key is 1944, there’s nothing to argue about.
          Quote: Bongo
          In the second half of the war, after the Nazis went over to the defense, self-propelled guns mainly performed VET tasks and armed themselves with exclusively long-barreled guns.

          Well, it seems that one cigarette butt remained on the Brummbert, but it was listed as an assault.
          1. Bongo
            11 May 2016 11: 44 New
            +3
            Quote: avt
            The key is 1944, there’s nothing to argue about.

            yes
            Quote: avt
            Well, it seems that one cigarette butt remained on the Brummbert, but it was listed as an assault.

            The production of the Sturmpanzer IV "Brummbär" was discontinued in 1944.
        2. yehat
          yehat 11 May 2016 13: 57 New
          +1
          about minimal retraining - this is not quite true.
          The commander of the unit was considered by the Germans as the center of a tactical group and at times led a rather large attached force, and this required a different qualification than that of the tankman.
          In addition, the tank crews were taught to attack, and the units were mainly for defense.
          Therefore, additional training could not be small.
      2. Yarik
        Yarik 11 May 2016 11: 33 New
        +1
        he was not a tanker. He spent the whole war in artillery. There were no options to jump out from the driver. Others, too, were "not sweet" in the sudden fire.
        1. avt
          avt 11 May 2016 12: 20 New
          +3
          Quote: Yarik
          There were no options to jump at the mechanic - the driver.

          Mekhvod - yes, well, not a fountain, but as it is today on T-64 and 80.
          Quote: Yarik
          Others, too, were "not sweet" in the sudden fire.
          wassat
          See the photo under the heading of the article.
          Quote: Yarik
          The whole war was held in artillery.

          Well, since I fought on the Su-76, which others, for example, "Suvorochka" called, fought, then, like, yes, an artilleryman, but
          Quote: Yarik
          he was not a tanker

          I don’t believe a single gram - they taught to a tank and, as I said earlier
          Quote: avt
          One hundred pounds started on a tank and probably the tankman also commanded the battery.
          And fly off the platform
          Quote: Yarik
          Also, in his words, the crew was afraid to turn the car over on either side of the hill, or when entering the railway platform.

          a mechanic with 34, who crossed and didn’t chase it, could.
        2. shasherin.pavel
          shasherin.pavel 12 May 2016 20: 22 New
          0
          Apparently few people remember that gasoline of that time was not much more than solarium. I myself remember how I kindled fires with 52-m gasoline from a bottle - it would faint a little in the fire, lint from the bottle into firewood and quickly raise the main neck upwards. And once a man with a gasoline tank truck with a ten-liter canister cast for a pack of cigarettes, we asked for motics. But he warned that the gasoline 90-th aviation. The guy poured 90 into the bonfire and didn’t manage to pull his hand off as usual, the bottle in his hand caught fire, we were amazed .. never before had it happened that the flame got to the bottle, no, if you didn’t click the mitten.
    2. Forest
      Forest 11 May 2016 14: 47 New
      +3
      So they used the SU-76 not as a maneuverable divisional gun, but as a tank. Where it was necessary to give a shot and get out at full speed - they stood and continued to shoot, while their German VET did not cover them. This is how the BMP in Ukraine used the APU for a frontal attack on the Rapier position.
    3. sibiryouk
      sibiryouk 11 May 2016 15: 02 New
      +7
      This is all, as mentioned in the article from the misuse of SU-76. The commanders believed that if on the tracks and armored - then the tank and drove into the attack on a breakthrough! And SU-76 is a mobile protected divisional gun. And its tasks, like a field gun!
      1. Bosk
        Bosk 11 May 2016 20: 20 New
        +7
        Was the SU-76 good ?, you can say a lot about guns and self-propelled guns armor, but as one veteran told me (he fought in Karelia, the defense of Leningrad and ended the war by smashing the Kurland grouping), he said that this is the only "cannon on tracks" that fought ALL YEAR ROUND !, it was he who used it even when the famous T-34s got stuck in the mud ..., secondly, the guys are a self-propelled gun with bulletproof armor and a good cannon for its caliber and it is not the only one of its kind and enough to compare it with tanks).
    4. shasherin.pavel
      shasherin.pavel 12 May 2016 20: 06 New
      +2
      Quote: Yarik
      dviglo and gasoline tank were practically not protected from the front

      The T-54 and T-55 differed in front of the fuel tank, right behind the frontal armor, but on the side of the tracks were the tanks of the T-34. So it's not a fact to scold the car.
      Quote: Yarik
      In the coup

      Would you say that 15 mm sheets are crushed by the weight of the machine in 10 tons?
      I can judge by the stories of my uncle Savatiya Gorbunov, the commander of the reconnaissance platoon who reached Berlin and Prague (they do not lie) that it was the front-line soldiers who knew the least about the weapons performance characteristics they did not directly encounter. And yet, when loading onto platforms in a tank, there is no one except the driver. They really often fall. Yes, I remembered: the best fighter pilots in the rear are employees of the Airfield Service Battalion. That in no way diminishes their merits in the war.
  9. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 11 May 2016 11: 08 New
    +3
    With a B-2K-500 hp diesel engine, the 52-ton car on the highway could theoretically accelerate to 34 km / h. In reality, the speed of a good road did not exceed 25 km / h.

    More precisely, 24,3 km / h - for a conventional HF "with a small tower".
    During the summer tests of the tanks, it turned out that during prolonged driving in higher gears at an ambient temperature of +20 degrees, the temperature of the oil and water rises significantly and exceeds the permissible limit. This forced during the movement to shift to lower gears and reduce the speed of the machine. So, while driving on the highway, the U-7 tank reached a maximum speed of 24,3 km / h, and "the ability to get higher speeds and fully use the engine power was limited by the temperatures of water and oil in the cooling system, which reached 107 and 112 degrees, respectively. ".
    © Frontline illustration. Issue 5/2001. "History of the KV tank (part 1)."
    In general, assessing the anti-tank capabilities of the SU-122, it can be stated that they were very weak. This, in fact, served as a result of one of the main reasons for the withdrawal of ACS from production. Despite the presence in the ammunition cumulative shells of BP-460A 13,4 kg mass, with 175 mm armor penetration, it was possible to get into a moving tank from the first shot only from an ambush or in combat conditions in the locality.

    Hehehehe ... I remember the epic tests of M-30:
    In April, 1943 was tested by firing cumulative shells at the body of a captured Tiger from a SU-122 self-propelled gun. This self-propelled gun was armed with an X-NUMX-mm howitzer M-122 with ballistics close to the U-30 tank howitzer. But None of the 15 shots fired from the 400 distance were hit
    1. kov123
      kov123 11 May 2016 17: 29 New
      +3
      Something is wrong with the tests. If the sighting points are adjusted, plus the needles are soldered (who shot M-30 or D-1 will understand) - at such a range, as a rule, the 2-second projectile is on target.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 11 May 2016 17: 50 New
        +1
        Quote: kov123
        Something is wrong with the tests. If the sighting points are adjusted, plus the needles are soldered (who shot M-30 or D-1 will understand) - at such a range, as a rule, the 2-second projectile is on target.

        PMSM, keyword - cumulative shells. This is the very first godfather, who, hike, flew where she wanted.
  10. mvg
    mvg 11 May 2016 11: 31 New
    +4
    Serious professional article. A tremendous amount of work has been done .. Nice to read. It would be nice, in short, to compare it with German technology .. Those of them also had enough of such goodness with excess. There were very decent samples .. well, with our "allies", there were not so much fond of ACS
    1. Bongo
      11 May 2016 11: 37 New
      +5
      Quote: mvg
      Serious professional article. Made a huge amount of work .. Nice to read.

      Thank you! hi
      Quote: mvg
      It would be nice, in short, to compare it with German technology .. Those of them also had enough of such goodness with excess. There were very decent samples .. well, with our "allies", there were not so much fond of ACS

      Maxim, the idea is tempting, and I even thought about it. But alas ... lack of free time. Taking into account the fact that I am not a "full-time author" and this publication was written in my free time from my main work, I am afraid I cannot afford such work.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 11 May 2016 13: 35 New
      +4
      Quote: mvg
      well, with our "allies", they were not so fond of SPGs

      Not so much? belay
      The same Yankees SAU had quite a lot:
      Anti-tank - М3, М6, М10, М18, М36.
      ArtSAU - М7, М8, М12, М40, М43.
      ZSU - М13, М14, М15, М16, М17, М19.

      Ours had a "zest" in the form of enthusiasm for assault self-propelled guns in the complete absence of ArtSAU for firing with the PDO. The reason is simple - ArtSAU on their own, alone, did not give any advantage over the towed artillery. In order to take advantage of the advantages of such self-propelled guns, it was necessary to motorize the entire artillery regiment, create vehicles for advanced artillery spotters, provide artillery with reliable and stable communications and fast topographic location, and most importantly, prepare crews and provide rear and repair services. Moreover, the rear was extremely important: the consumption of shells when firing from the PDO is 2 orders of magnitude higher than when firing direct fire.
      So we decided that it would be better to make a sturmSAU, which will creep out on a direct lead and destroy the target of 3-5 with shells, than tra ... to suffer with the creation of an artillery complex that will spend on the same target of 200-300 shells.
      1. yehat
        yehat 11 May 2016 14: 03 New
        0
        about the fact that artSAU did not give advantages - it is you in vain. The main advantage - quickly make the legs after the shooting! And why we had almost no guns - the answer is simple. No sooner had before the war on the basis of serial guns to create an adequate design. Too heavy made the bed for artillery. In the warehouses there were hundreds of howitzers with an English lightened bed - these were the ones that made artSAU. In addition, the Red Army question sharply reduced the availability of Katyushas.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 11 May 2016 18: 21 New
          +5
          Quote: yehat
          about the fact that artSAU did not give advantages - it is you in vain. The main advantage - quickly make the legs after the shooting!

          I wrote about the lack of advantages in the "naked" artillery systems - if they simply replace the towed guns, without changing anything else in the OShS and the technical equipment of the artillery regiment.
          In your case, the ACS will leave. And managers, communications and other, rolling up their farm, just fall under attack.

          All the benefits of artSAU can be revealed only if the artillery regiment is completely mechanized. Otherwise, SAUs will arrive at the firing squad - and wait until the spotters get to the NP and deploy their equipment there, while the signalmen stretch the telephone network, while the top link binds the positions.

          Hiihks ... about the telephone network - Guadalcanal immediately came to mind. Signal workers of the first echelon there quickly launched a wired communication network - as in the exercise. Later landed artillery drove right through the wires. Also - as in the teachings. But in the exercises, the artillerymen had wheeled tractors, and on Guadalcanal they requisitioned tracked floating conveyors (regular tractors were at the very bottom of the holds). Caterpillars on the wire ... and repeatedly ... laughing
          Quote: yehat
          And why we had almost no guns - the answer is simple. No sooner had before the war on the basis of serial guns to create an adequate design.

          Yes, we had an adequate design. And experienced artsau were also. Simply without rear, target designation, communications and trained personnel (at the same time tank crews and gunners), these self-propelled guns were not needed by anyone.
          Tankers rightly believed that the towed art of infantry and reinforcement would help them to break through the front line. In the enemy’s rear, the full-fledged long-term defensive line is extremely unlikely to meet, and hastily occupied defensive lines can either be bypassed or broken through with the support of the TSAP available in tank formations at SturmSAU.
      2. maximghost
        maximghost 12 May 2016 03: 28 New
        +1
        But couldn’t assault sauces be able to shoot from closed positions?
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 12 May 2016 10: 44 New
          +2
          Quote: maximghost
          But couldn’t assault sauces be able to shoot from closed positions?

          Theoretically, yes. That's just shoot and hit are different things ©.
          Practically, the shooting of the sturmSAU with the PDO could only be carried out if there were a number of conventional artillery units on a similar materiel. For the OSHS Tsap was purely tank - to calculate the data for firing from the PDO, adjust the fire and organize the network of communication between the spotters, control and firing in them regularly there was simply no one and nothing.
          1. yehat
            yehat 12 May 2016 11: 21 New
            0
            one more thing - the Sturmsau often carries with them very meager ammunition
            under conditions that, from closed positions, the accuracy of shooting is lower, the power of the mean shelling still falls with the resultant.
  11. Arktidianets
    Arktidianets 11 May 2016 11: 55 New
    +2
    Respect the author, article plus! Waiting for the continuation.
  12. Stivpi
    Stivpi 11 May 2016 18: 17 New
    13
    Many thanks to the author for the article. I want to express, or rather tell the memories of my father, gv. sergeant, gunner (gun commander-so it was written in the letter of thanks of the command of the unit to the warrior's parents) SU-76M, holder of the Order of Glory 3 Art., Order of the Red Star, Order of the Republic of Yugoslavia (if memory does not change - Zverny Zvezda (very similar to our Order Red Star, only larger) - two orders were withdrawn from their father at the beginning of the 50s, as the orders of the country unfriendly to the USSR, the head of some department (the first?) At the institute where the father was trained) and many medals. So in that letter of thanks, it was said that among other things (the living force of the enemy, machine guns, etc., etc.) the enemy tank was destroyed. Of course I asked him about this fight. And according to the father, as anti-tank, his self-propelled gun - no. His self-propelled gun was in the battle guard of the division headquarters, winter, Hungary. A German tank came out to him, he did not notice. According to the description of the father, this is T-4. Distance meters 100-150. And it hits the caterpillar (T-4) into the ditch and begins to slip. The crew leaves the tank, gathers near it and begin to consult. At this moment, the father of a high-explosive fragmentation shell destroys the crew of a German tank, and then tries to set fire to a German tank. In his story, NEVER he failed to penetrate the tank armor, NEVER! Both armor-piercing and sub-caliber shells ricocheted. In his words, the sabots, like candles, went to the sky. The only thing he managed to do was to break the tracks and the undercarriage of the tank, and so, he says, I wanted to set it on fire - it was young! He came to the front from the summer of 1944, before that he was in the training unit for training SU-76m crews in the Kirov region, and in the 1944 year insisted that he be sent to the front, he wanted to liberate Belarus, but he went to Ukraine, then there was Hungary, he captured Yugoslavia, Avsiriyu and the war ended in the Alps. Was injured. Even in Ukraine, the commander of his self-propelled gun was wounded, and the rest of the time, until the end of the war, his father commanded the crew. He is now, thank God, alive, and recently celebrated Victory Day together! Sorry, a lot of letters.
    1. moskowit
      moskowit 11 May 2016 20: 05 New
      +5
      Good health to your Father-Hero! Meet in good health 80 years of Victory !!! hi soldier
    2. yehat
      yehat 12 May 2016 11: 29 New
      +3
      very strange story. So that the cannon of the sous-76m could not pierce the t4 into the board almost point-blank ???
      even if you take the most armored carcass t4h, it was nowhere on the side that it was thicker than 30 mm
      plus a tiny screen. The 76mm cannon should be able to penetrate that easily.
      Maybe it was just unlucky and the shells hit the places from where they went to the ricochet?
      Although the shape of the tank chopped as parcel box. There and nowhere ricocheting.
      Something is not right in this story!
      a similar gun pierced 80mm board the tiger from such a distance
      1. shasherin.pavel
        shasherin.pavel 12 May 2016 20: 41 New
        +1
        F -34, as one veteran wrote, from 100 meters forehead tiger stitched. He was rolling out of the house at the command of the shooter, standing around the corner of the house, and hit two Tigers in the forehead with two shells. It goes without saying that this is an exception, and not the rule, that not everyone succeeds in delivering an unexpected blow from 100 meters. This is about the length of a five-access house. A case is known when T-26 from an ambush to the side of the Tiger burned. So, after the first shot of the tank, the crew ran away, because they didn’t hope to fire the second time. Then they saw that the Tiger was on fire and returned. No one survived from the crew of the Tigris; a shell ricocheting from the inner sides turned the crew into a stew.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 15 May 2016 17: 17 New
          +1
          "and knocked out two Tigers in the forehead with two shells" ////

          Every veteran who knocked out two, and who three Tigra smile .
          From anything: from tanks, self-propelled guns, PT guns ...

          True, the Tigers of all fought in the East and the West somewhere 1300 pieces,
          to meet him was a rare luck (or failure).
      2. Stivpi
        Stivpi 13 May 2016 22: 18 New
        +4
        Good evening! I quoted (almost literally) the words of a person directly involved in that battle. I cannot doubt his words and opinions, I have known him for many years, a worthy man, an excellent specialist (this is to say, if you doubt his technical literacy. I want to say that he came to the front from the position of an instructor of a training regiment for training self-propelled gunners on SU- 76m, i.e. relatively well prepared, so maybe he fought successfully and survived). I can only assume, according to the description of the beginning of the battle, that the tank of the Nazis with one caterpillar hit the ditch, thus. tilted heavily and skidded, so the armor of the tank in relation to the SU-76 cannon was at a large slope, which is why a ricochet occurred. This is an option. In general, a lot of strange and inexplicable things happened during the war. Father returned from the war as an absolute and convinced fatalist, in the sense that if you are destined to perish, you will perish, if you are destined to live, as if someone would lead you away from death. From his battery, only his self-propelled gun survived to victory, with broken rollers, sides, but it reached, the rest all died. Here somewhere in the comments it sounded that the self-propelled guns did not like her, and so her father liked her very much, fast, agile, nimble, as he called her. He with a mechvod (Alexey Zharinov - died from "friendly fire" in March 1945 in the town of Patka, Hungary. Our night bombers were bombed, though at that time they were flying in the daytime, there were practically no fascist aircraft) improved, carried out a special alarm, which helped them a lot in battles. Last year I found the daughter of A. Zharinov, and we have already met twice last year and this year, here in Belarus, but that's another story.
  13. ivselim
    ivselim 12 May 2016 07: 37 New
    +4
    Excellent article, the author is a huge plus. We are waiting for ch2
  14. yehat
    yehat 12 May 2016 11: 32 New
    0
    But can you somehow bring together the listing of the problems of the Su-76?
    I read the comments, the article, but the slim picture somehow does not work.
    It is interesting, by the way, at what distances they usually fired from this car. How difficult was it to turn when changing goals.
    1. shasherin.pavel
      shasherin.pavel 12 May 2016 20: 49 New
      +3
      Quote: yehat
      enumeration of problems Su-76?

      There was only one problem with the SU-76: incorrect use of vehicles in combat. The SU-76's cross-country ability was the highest. By modern standards, like the T-25 "Vladimir", I could barely pass the DT-75 when the T-25 was overtaking me in the mud. 360 degree visibility. The rate of fire is the same as that of 76 mm guns, with an incorrectly selected gear at high elevation angles, the engine could be burned out. The engine was from the ZiS-5, and he could walk on anyone that burns. This is a ZiS-3 gun on tracks and that says it all.
  15. sau-t
    sau-t 13 May 2016 09: 45 New
    0
    The USSR before WW1 was a strange country. Huge ambitions were perfectly combined with sheer technical and technological backwardness. After all, the USSR was the "most advanced country in the world" only in the "party program documents." Those. only on paper.
    This applied to all areas of life. This also applied to military equipment, in particular, i.e. "SPG". After all, what is a "Soviet SPG"? It's like a "Soviet machine gun" (weapon). A vague term that can actually cover anything. Why is that? From backwardness. And the desire to veil it.
    As for the ACS. The USSR at that time (before WW2 and during it) was the largest manufacturer of self-propelled guns in the world. But again, in view of their backwardness, these self-propelled guns were proudly called the word "tanks". Although in fact they were just turret self-propelled guns.
    But tanks were also produced in the USSR before WW2. The KV-1 could have been quite good for its time, if not for its "convincing Soviet quality". But other classes of tanks in the USSR were not created then. Some are to be regretted (a medium tank that was not even in a mock state). Some projects are not worth such regret (T-50).
    But back to the SPG. A very unusual self-propelled gun for infantry support (artillery assault in German and AG-Assault Guns in English) was the T-34. However, for such musk oxen there was even a special term, "infantry tank". Those. it was advanced infantry support infantry with turret... Needless to say, it's convenient. Although the presence of a turret, as some "experts of specialized sites" believe, does not automatically transform an SPG into a tank. The T-34 did not turn into it either. However, the T-34 SPG had another oddity, the L-11 cannon. Why she needed it, it's hard to say, CT scan would be enough. But the fact remains, for some reason she stood there.
    How can you evaluate the T-34 as an infantry support self-propelled gun (in the "infantry tank" variant) in 1941? Very good. Very interesting for 1941. IN THIS ROLE would be a product. Unfortunately, just IN THIS ROLE The T-34 was practically never used. And it was used as a "main tank". Therefore, such "tanks" burned very often, just look at the number of losses during the war.
    It is impossible not to note the self-propelled guns of a more traditional type, which were mass-produced in the USSR. The nomenclature of their release was extremely limited, not all types were produced. But anti-tank ACS (TD-Tank Destroyers) in the USSR were produced (4329 units in 1943-44gg). This is SU-85 and SU-85M. These are ISU-122 and ISU-122C. And also SU-100. With 1944, this category was supplemented with anti-tank turret guns T-34 / 85 and EC-2 (12843 units in 1944). As we see, this category of armored personnel carriers was the main type of armored personnel carriers of the USSR at the final stage of the war.
    Also in the USSR were issued and artillery ships (SPA-Self-propelled Artillery). These are SU-152 and ISU-152. This should also include the pre-war tower artillery missile KV-2.
    And what about the tanks? Did tanks make in the USSR during 2MW? Did. But very few, very unimportant and short-lived (until January 1944). These are the KV-1, KV-1C, KV-85 and EC-1. The main reason for the refusal of the USSR to produce full-fledged tanks was, of course, the chronic absence of a normal tank gun. But not only that, there were other reasons.
    The rest of the "armor" type T-60, T-70 and replacing them SU-76 will not describe. These are absolutely not interesting objects that can be classified as “doing what I can” (about the technical and technological backwardness of the USSR it is written above). Of course, the army would have enjoyed using normal art shturms, but only supplying it with IT.