Anti-tank SAU of Germany during the war (part 3) - StuG III

54
In 1935, the then Wehrmacht colonel Erich von Manstein, who later became famous as commander of large armored formations, came up with the idea of ​​creating special mobile assault artillery in the troops. It was assumed that the installation will be based not tracked chassis and will be protected by armor. This proposal of the colonel found support, and already in 1936, the German command decided to create an armored self-propelled infantry support unit, which was planned to be equipped with an 75-mm cannon. Krupp was given an order for the production of the gun, and Daimler-Benz was assigned to develop the installation itself.

The first 5 experimental machines from the zero series left the factory floor a year later. As a base for their creation, a slightly modified middle base was used. tank PzKpfw III Ausf B. In the stationary, completely closed conning tower, the StuK 37 L / 24 short-barreled gun was mounted. The cannon was slightly shifted to the right relative to the longitudinal axis of the machine, so the driver’s position did not change, with the only difference being that he was now sitting in front of a fairly spacious fighting compartment, along the walls of which there was an ammunition of the gun, consisting of 44 shells. Initially, a machine gun for fighting the enemy infantry was not provided. For its time, the car was notable for good armor and low silhouette. Engine Maybach HL 108TR with a capacity of 250 hp allowed self-propelled guns to reach speeds of 20-25 km / h. For the combat vehicle, which was planned to be used as a means of supporting infantry, this speed was enough.

After making a number of changes to the design, in February 1940, the Daimler-Benz plant produced the first batch of assault guns, consisting of 30 combat vehicles, which differed from prototypes mainly by engine and chassis. The ACSs were manufactured on the basis of the PzKpfw III Ausf E / F tank and were equipped with the new Maybach HL 120TR engine, which has the 300 HP power. Frontal assault gun armor reached 50 mm. 28 March 1940, these assault guns were adopted by the Wehrmacht under the designation "7.5 cm Strumgeschutz III Ausf A (abbreviated - StuG III)". A little more than a month later 4 battery data SAU took part in the French campaign, the results of which earned the highest accolades from both the command and the crews of cars.

Anti-tank SAU of Germany during the war (part 3) - StuG III
"Stug" first episodes, battles in Kharkov, 1941 year


Soon, the production of self-propelled guns StuG III was transferred from the Daimler-Benz facilities overloaded with military orders to the Alkett enterprise, where the production of assault guns reached the level of 30 machines per month. Such production rates made it possible to commission the 1940 ACS StuG III in 184, and by the end of 1941, the number of these very necessary machines at the front reached 548.

As a result, the StuG III assault guns became the most massive tracked vehicle of the Wehrmacht during the Second World War. After in the 1942, the ACS received a new long-barreled 75-gun with good armor-piercing characteristics, this self-propelled gun became, in fact, the main anti-tank weapon of the Wehrmacht. At the same time, the function of the assault gun was transferred to the model StuH 42, armed with a short-barreled 105-mm howitzer, which has a much higher power high-explosive fragmentation shot. In total, from February 1940 to April 1945, German plants produced approximately 10 500 assault guns StuG III and assault howitzers StuH 42.

History modernization

Like all German armored vehicles, which were produced over a sufficiently long period of time, the StuG III was modernized several times during the production process. This was done both with the aim of improving the combat qualities of the self-propelled guns, and to reduce the cost and simplify the design. As a result of making most of the minor changes, 8 machine modifications (A, B, C, D, E, F, F / 8, and G) saw the light.

StuG III Ausf.F transferred to the Finns


The main thing to pay attention to is the issue of the evolution of weapons. The first assault guns received short-barreled guns with a barrel length in 24 caliber. This weapon was the main for models A, B, C, D and E. The task of providing fire support for infantry on the battlefield, this tool coped well, but to fight with tanks with his help was very problematic, they could only be hit with very short distances. It is also worth noting that defensive armament in the form of a machine gun appeared on the ACS only from model C.

The very first battles against the USSR showed that the effectiveness of the StuG III in the fight against enemy tanks was very low. Namely, in this role well armored self-propelled guns often had to appear. In fairness it should be noted that in the same position when meeting with the new Soviet medium and heavy tanks were all tanks and self-propelled guns of the Wehrmacht.

That is why already September 28 1941, Hitler signs a special order, which calls for an increase in the power of the guns with which tanks and assault guns are armed. According to this order, all tanks and self-propelled guns should be armed only with long-barreled guns. For weapons StuG III preference was given to the gun StuK 40 L / 43 company Rheinmetall-Borsig, which fits perfectly into his cabin. The length of the gun barrel was equal to 43 caliber (3473 mm), the weight of the gun was 670 kg.

Production of assault guns with a new gun was launched in March 1942. The car received the designation Sturmgeschutz 40 Ausf.F The main difference between the model was a new gun, which was equipped with an Sfl ZF 1 sight, the head of which was brought out through a special hole located in the wheelhouse roof. Also, the machine received a new welded gun mask, and an electric fan was placed on the roof of the wheelhouse.

StuG III Ausf.G on the Western Front


From June 1942, the body armor was reinforced with special 30-mm armor plates, which were attached to the main armor with bolts. The mass of the car increased by 450 kg, the maximum speed was reduced to 38 km / h. From August 1942, changes began to be made to the design of the frontal part of the ACS felling, in particular, the angle of inclination of the upper front sheets was reduced. Due to this, it was possible to remove the ledge, which is disadvantageous in terms of projectile resistance, located at the junction of the inclined and vertical frontal sheets of the hull. The assault gun in this version was produced from March to September 1942 of the year, in total 364 combat vehicles were produced.

In September of the same year, the workshops of the Alkett plant left the new version of Ausf.F / 8. Its main difference was in more manufacturable case. The thickness of the armor of the aft hull sheet was increased to 50 mm. All machines of this series were equipped with additional hinged armor in 30 mm in the frontal part of the cabin and the hull. From the beginning of 1943, they began to install a shield for the MG 34 machine gun on the roof of the conning tower, and since May 1943, the machines have received anti-cumulative screens. But the main feature was the new gun StuK 40 with a barrel length 48 caliber (3855 mm). The gun was equipped with a two-chamber muzzle brake and semi-automatic wedge gate, its weight was 750 kg. The direct shot range was equal to 800-1200 meters, the maximum firing range was 7 700 meters. The rate of fire was at the level of 10-15 rounds per minute, the gun ammunition consisted of 54 shells.

StuG III Ausf.G - the most popular PT-ACS of the Wehrmacht

At the very end of 1942, the latest and most massive modification, the StuG III Ausf.G, entered into service with the Wehrmacht. In this version, all the accumulated experience of combat use of self-propelled guns was embodied, and the latest design ideas were implemented. Until April, the 1945 of the Alkett plants produced the 5191 self-propelled gun in the Ausf.G version; in 1943, the company MIAG in Braunschweig also joined in their production. Here until March 1945, another 2643 of such machines was assembled. The total release of ACS StuG III Ausf.G amounted to 7834 units.

The main improvements touched the hull of the car, the armor for radio equipment on the sides of the hull were dismantled, due to which it was possible to expand the wheelhouse on the sides so that it began to act over the tracks. The rear part of the wheelhouse was slightly raised, an electric fan was installed in it, located above the gun gate. Later, the fan was moved to the rear vertical wall of the cabin. The car received a new commander's turret, including 8 viewing periscopes, which significantly improved the view from the car. In addition to this, the commander's hatch, which now consisted of 2 parts, underwent a change: the main one, which was attached to the rear part of the commander's turret, and the front part, which could be opened separately, in order to bring out the binocular surveillance device SF.14Z.



The commander's turret stood out noticeably above the cabin, while the thickness of its reservation was only 30 mm, which made it a rather vulnerable place. Since October, the 1943 of the year began to weld a special molded shield to the front of the turret and the roof of the wheelhouse, which contributed to the reflection of shrapnel and bullets.

The loader hatch was also bicuspid and consisted of the back and front flaps. In the open position, the front flap-shield was fixed with a special latch and used as a support for the machine gun. On later versions of the PT-ACS, the doors were rotated 90 degrees, so that they opened to the left and right of the gunner. Also on the roof in front of the gunner appeared a significant innovation - the MG 42 machine gun, controlled remotely. When the machine gun required reloading, the gunner protruded from his hatch. During this operation, he received relative protection, as the left and right doors were closed with an open hatch, and a small shield on the machine gun covered him from the front.

In May 1944 of the year to protect against the close-fitting enemy infantry StuG III Ausf.G began to arm a small mortar, which through a hole in the front of the roof could fire at 360 degrees with smoke or fragmentation grenades. A similar device was used on the German tanks Tiger and Panther. It is worth noting that most of the early versions of the StuG III Ausf.G were equipped with 90-mm NbK 39 grenade launchers, which were mounted to the left and right of the gun (total 6 pieces).

In November, the 1943 of the year or the beginning of the 1944 of the year, all self-propelled guns, instead of the old welded mask, began to be equipped with a new molded rounded mask, which was called the “pig nose” (German Saukopfblende). At the same time, models with an old mask were mass-produced. Over time, models with a welded mask even got an additional machine gun paired with a gun.



StuG III Ausf.G, destroyed near Lake Balaton. It is remarkable that the crew on the frontal cutting armor strengthened the concrete cushions, and also additionally booked all vertical surfaces with tracks from the T-34 tank.

During the production and operation of the StuG III Ausf.G, the developers decided to equip the self-propelled gun with onboard anti-cumulative screens. They were steel sheets 5 mm thick. At the same time, the shielded self-propelled guns became wider and could not be placed on the railway platform, therefore, during transportation, the mounted screens were removed from them. In addition, the screening brought another inconvenience. While driving, especially over rough terrain, screens clung to various obstacles and the ground. In order to get rid of this effect, already in the process of mass production, the lower corners of the front screens were simply cut off.

On the whole, the StuG III family should be recognized as a very successful self-propelled gun, which was used on all fronts of the Second World War and as a tank destroyer, both as an assault weapon, and as a defensive, and as an offensive weapon. All versions of the assault gun had a low silhouette, which made them a difficult target and a dangerous enemy for the enemy. The crews of the “things” were considered the elite of the armored forces of Germany and wore their own tank uniform of a gray-protective color. These self-propelled guns had a high rate of destroyed enemy tanks, by the spring of 1944, their number exceeded 20 000.

Specifications:
Performance characteristics of the StuG III Ausf G:
Mass: 23,4 t.
Dimensions:
Length 6,77 m., Width 2,88 m., Height 2,16 m.
Crew: 4 people.
Reservations: from 19 to 80 mm.
Armament: 75-mm gun StuK 40 L / 48, 7,92-mm MG-34 machine gun
Ammunition: 54 projectile, 900 ammo.
Engine: 12-cylinder gasoline liquid-cooled engine "Maybach" HL 120TRM power 300 hp
Maximum speed: on the highway - 38 km / h
Power reserve: on the highway - 155 km, over rough terrain - 95 km.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

54 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. J_silver
    +12
    7 January 2012 10: 28
    Too bad, the infection ...
  2. Lech e-mine
    +8
    7 January 2012 10: 36

    Soviet soldier inspects a wrecked German assault gun StuG III Ausf.F. A break in the armor allows you to look inside the self-propelled guns.
    Successful infection but still not immortal
  3. Tyumen
    +5
    7 January 2012 11: 04
    Far from these gantraks to St. John's Wort, ISU-152, whose shell was half a centner in weight, Tigers tore off the tower.
    1. J_silver
      +10
      7 January 2012 11: 14
      Nothing that these cars are of different classes? How can you compare them?
      1. Tyumen
        +4
        7 January 2012 11: 18
        Quote: J_Silver
        How can you compare them?

        By efficiency. A war after all. There is no time to sort by classes.
        1. pokermen
          -1
          7 January 2012 12: 33
          In fact, do not forget that our main Fri (ISU152, Su85, Su100) were adopted after Prokhorovka. Where the Germans were already present Ferdinand.
          1. Tyumen
            +4
            7 January 2012 13: 23
            You are mistaken. In the battle were SU-76, SU-85, su-122 and su-152.
            1. pokermen
              +4
              7 January 2012 14: 24
              Su 85 was not there, do not tell tales.
              Su122 - yes. su 152 was only 20pcs

              So the comparison of Fri late stage of the war with the Shtug is not appropriate
              1. Tyumen
                -1
                7 January 2012 16: 12
                It was not, it was. Decide.
                1. pokermen
                  0
                  8 January 2012 20: 06
                  If you do not understand the difference between self-propelled guns and tank destroyers, what else can you explain
              2. J_silver
                +4
                7 January 2012 16: 16
                SU-122 - howitzer, as an anti-tank gun can not be used ...
                Su-76 is really weak and cannot be compared either ...
                1. Odesit
                  -1
                  7 January 2012 17: 08
                  And still used! Under Lake Balaton for example!
                2. Tyumen
                  0
                  7 January 2012 17: 44
                  Quote: J_Silver
                  how an anti-tank gun cannot be used ...

                  Why? Does 152 mean, maybe?
                3. +2
                  7 January 2012 17: 54
                  Quote: J_Silver
                  SU-122 - howitzer, as an anti-tank gun can not be used ...

                  Her ammunition includes a cumulative projectile
                  1. J_silver
                    0
                    7 January 2012 21: 50
                    How is this a cumulative shell in a howitzer ammunition? You do not confuse? It is known that a high-explosive howitzer shell carried light tanks, if they managed to get into it ...
                4. guessed
                  +4
                  7 January 2012 19: 06
                  122 is just an anti-tank self-propelled gun. But 152 I didn’t even have armor-piercing shells. They shot at the tanks with blanks. The kinetics of which were enough to tear off the tower or turn the car over.
                  Su -76 is not weaker than the German ... in armament. The armor was rather weak ... However, the gasoline engine of German self-propelled guns and tanks greatly weakened their protection. Burned with a blue flame.
                  In fact, the SU-76 cannon with its own weight of 10 tons, the German weighed more than twice as much ... But as Rokosovsky noted
                  “... SU-76 self-propelled artillery mounts were especially fond of soldiers. These light mobile vehicles kept up everywhere to support and rescue the infantry with their fire and caterpillars, and the infantry, in turn, were ready to shield them from the fire of enemy armor-piercers and faustors ... "

                  This is me to the fact that Shtug and SU-76 is a completely different class of car
                  I propose to compare the Germans with the SU-85 ... they are identical in weight ... And how many German animals have suffered from them ... Where can I get Stugu ...
                  1. +2
                    7 January 2012 19: 31
                    Do not confuse SU-122 and Isa 122 (although it is also more assault)
                    1. guessed
                      +2
                      7 January 2012 23: 56
                      In general, yes .. The assault because it had a low rate of fire. When hit, of course, any Wehrmacht tank had a cord, but it was necessary to get isho ..
                      And I did not mean SU with D-30, but D-25 \ 25s. In this version, they were produced longer ...
                5. Setevik
                  +1
                  8 January 2012 20: 45
                  Therefore, the su-122 was removed from service and replaced
          2. Joker
            +3
            7 January 2012 13: 32
            Quote: pokermen
            Where the Germans were already present Ferdinand.


            - Ferdinands (after the installation of the machine gun was called Elephant), up to 100 pieces were produced. Their release is due to the fact that the chassis for one of the variants of the Tiger tank was put into production before the final approval of the tank and something had to be done with them (chassis), so the example is not entirely correct.
            1. Odesit
              0
              7 January 2012 14: 36
              Quite right, the Joker, this is Dr. Porsche’s development chassis, had an electromechanical transmission and was extremely expensive to manufacture and disastrously difficult to maintain in the field. Therefore, they did not return to him anymore. So they attached this chassis to Ferdinand aka Elephant, so that the good would not disappear!
          3. +2
            8 January 2012 18: 08
            Well. "Ferdinant" is a coffin. The losses of these machines were very large due to the lack of melee weapons, large dimensions and other "bochins". After the Battle of Kursk, these machines (what was left of them) were removed from the Eastern Front and sent to Italy, where they were modernized in order, but they did not reach the level of at least the SU-100. Their only + powerful 188 mm gun, which allowed firing at long distances.
            1. Odesit
              0
              9 January 2012 10: 29
              Correct Everything except the caliber, not 188mm. , and 88 mm! Well, plus the frontal armor, which allowed "shove" directly to the target.
          4. +2
            7 June 2014 23: 47
            Quote: pokermen
            Our main Fri (ISU152,
            ISU-152 was not a tank destroyer. Materiel to teach, ignoramus.
          5. +2
            19 October 2014 20: 03
            Quote: pokermen
            In fact, do not forget that our main Fri (ISU152, Su85, Su100) were adopted after Prokhorovka. Where the Germans were already present Ferdinand.

            In fact, before any nonsense to carry, you need to learn history. Ferdinands were mentioned more in the reports than appeared on the battlefield.
          6. +2
            19 October 2014 20: 03
            Quote: pokermen
            In fact, do not forget that our main Fri (ISU152, Su85, Su100) were adopted after Prokhorovka. Where the Germans were already present Ferdinand.

            In fact, before any nonsense to carry, you need to learn history. Ferdinands were mentioned more in the reports than appeared on the battlefield.
        2. +6
          7 January 2012 14: 35
          Quote: Tyumen 35
          By efficiency. A war after all. There is no time to sort by classes.


          the fact is that the main use of ISU-152 was fire support for advancing tanks and infantry because it used a 152,4 mm (6-inch) ML-20S howitzer gun, and the hunt for the Tigers was by no means systematic,
          1. Odesit
            +1
            7 January 2012 16: 23
            The only problem with the ML-20C is the separate cartose loading of the gun, which significantly reduced the rate of fire. But on the other hand, this is the problem of all guns of this caliber in all participating countries.
          2. Tyumen
            -2
            7 January 2012 17: 43
            I do not see a contradiction with my words.
        3. +1
          8 January 2012 14: 16
          As far as I remember, ISU-152 was launched at the end of 1943. and a German self-propelled gun in 1940.
      2. Setevik
        +1
        8 January 2012 20: 38
        Sorry to disagree: the "tank hunter" class. The only way. The fact that they were also used for shooting at buildings is a free functional addition.
    2. +3
      7 January 2012 12: 52
      StuG towers did not tear off, but withdrew our tanks from the battle confidently. Until the end of the war.
    3. WADIM
      +1
      8 January 2012 07: 39
      Compare the ISU-152 German Yagdtiger with him and compare ... And Shtug is a magnificent example in terms of cost-effectiveness ... Compare our T-34 ... They can be called legendary, successful ..
      1. pokermen
        0
        8 January 2012 20: 18
        You apparently replayed in Wot.
        ISU 152 - self-propelled guns, its main goal is to support the infantry, and the destruction of tanks is a secondary task.
        Jagdtiger - PTSAU pure water.

        If we compare, then ISU122 and Yagdpanther
        1. Odesit
          0
          9 January 2012 10: 39
          Jagdpanther - shit, its chassis could not withstand bad road conditions - the mud solidified between the rollers and did not allow the car to move forced the crew to spend time cleaning them (staggered arrangement of the rollers, before it went to dismantle the outer rollers to clean the inner ones) But in combat conditions ?! The engine could not cope with the "drag" of such a mass, and often overheated and failed, there were cases of fires! The transmission could not withstand the load and also "covered"! Is that a reliable car?
          1. pokermen
            +1
            9 January 2012 13: 26
            And the Germans had reliable cars ??? Panther, royal tiger ??? Everyone had problems with the chassis.
  4. Kostyan
    0
    7 January 2012 12: 25
    belonged to artillery ... no matter how Guderian wanted them to be attributed to the tank forces .. the decisive argument for Hitler was that self-propelled guns were the only way for an artillery officer to get an iron cross ... fate however ......
  5. +4
    7 January 2012 12: 44
    The Germans did a good tank destroyer. An inconspicuous gray mouse.
    1. +5
      7 January 2012 14: 45
      Andrey77, well, yes, and they also had a hatzer, something else
  6. +3
    7 January 2012 12: 53
    These kalatushki non-acid knocked out our tanks and artillery. By the way, Witman started on a kalushka and, together with a gunner and a mechanic, got over to a tiger.
    1. Odesit
      +3
      7 January 2012 15: 03
      Vitman started out in the company of light tanks T-2 of one of the tank divisions, and then moved to the StuG, and then to the Tiger in which he found his end. The poor fellow got under the simultaneous fire of 6 Canadian "Shermans - firefly" Preliminarily smashing to smithereens the head guard of the British Armor - a cavalry division in the French town of Villiers-Bocage, for which he received the Knight's Cross.
  7. +1
    7 January 2012 12: 57
    All the self-propelled guns from the time of the war were better with the USSR thanks to a well-thought-out layout and excellent guns (I write without specifics, if I can give information on all self-propelled guns)
    1. +5
      7 January 2012 13: 03
      AT artillery, in general, we had better. But this self-propelled gun has spoiled so much blood for us ... A good example of a weapon. "In total, from February 1940 to April 1945, approximately 10 StuG III assault guns and StuH 500 assault howitzers were manufactured at German factories."
      10000 (!) The Germans do not let garbage in such a series.
      1. Kostyan
        -5
        7 January 2012 15: 55
        all of our anti-tank artillery in my opinion sucks .. except for zis-2 ..... I think so .. well, at the end of the war they did 100 mm .. and those were gargar ....
        1. +3
          7 January 2012 16: 14
          53-K turned out to be a very successful weapon ("forty-five"). The semi-automatic system worked with a bang, the caliber was sufficient for the purposes of 41 ... The ZIS-2 is a great gun, but it was adopted already during the war.
        2. WADIM
          -5
          8 January 2012 07: 41
          THERE ARE GATHERS OF THE GAME OF THE WORLD OF TANKS HAVE GATHERED THERE;))) THE TANCOPEDIA HAS BEEN STARTED ,,,))) FUNNY ,,,,
    2. J_silver
      +1
      7 January 2012 16: 17
      Not at all like that, ours were not better, the guns weren’t a fountain either, but they managed with what industry could give at that moment ...
      1. +5
        7 January 2012 16: 26
        The arms industry of different countries, approximately, went on the same level. Maybe the Germans went ahead a bit at NIIR. We created a magnificent tank (T-34), the Germans created a magnificent tank destroyer (StuG III) ...
        However, the T-34 burned perfectly, and StuG III smoked no worse, if you talk about it.
      2. Odesit
        +2
        7 January 2012 16: 35
        Let's start with Dear, that "magpie" is a product of our 45mm barrel overlay. on the carriage of the German "RHEIN METAL" caliber 37 mm. The documentation for which was purchased not long before the war! But the PTO and divisional guns of the designer Grabin (the ZISOV family) are really great guns! Our Grabinskaya "ZIS Division" is recognized as the best divisional weapon of the SECOND WORLD in terms of price-quality and trunk pipe resource! And the famous "ZEROBOI" 57 mm and 100 mm. were much lighter and more mobile than the German 88 and were not inferior to her in armor penetration! I'm not even talking about the German anti-tank 128 mm. \ 55 caliber with its awkward almost 7-ton weight and dimensions, which left her no chance of survival in mobile combat! Of course, a direct hit from her shell is death to any tank of that time! But she was not allowed to fire more than one or two shots! Very expensive and ineffective!
        1. 0
          7 January 2012 16: 49
          All right. But until the guns of Grabin entered the troops, did the country have to defend something? In June of the 41st ZIS-2 only field tests passed, along with the design documentation. And the 53-K fought (as best she could, most were abandoned by firing ammunition).
          1. Odesit
            +2
            7 January 2012 17: 38
            Andrew! I in no way diminish the glory of Our "forty-five"! This weapon endured all the hardships of the initial period of the war and victoriously ended the war in Berlin in 1945 in the order of Our advancing troops! I'm just talking about that. that OUR ARTILLERY, DURING THE WAR, HAS BEEN FILLED WITH THE MOST POWERFUL AND PERFECT CONSTRUCTIONS, WHICH BY THEIR CHARACTERISTICS MUCH EXCEEDED ANALOGUES OF THE Opponent! I'm not talking about the allies with their wretched anti-tank fleet!
            1. -3
              7 January 2012 18: 06
              For anti-tank and tank guns, we did not compare and did not surpass
              And this must be recognized. It will only increase the significance of our victory.
              1. Odesit
                -1
                7 January 2012 18: 48
                Kars, give a concrete example of our backlog in the development and deployment of anti-tank guns in the troops after 1941? The conversation should be substantive.
                1. J_silver
                  -1
                  7 January 2012 21: 55
                  Your opponent is absolutely right - the German guns were better, not to mention the quality of the sights! And the Germans knew how to use them very well ...
                  Don't rush to minus right away - I'm not delighted with the "gloomy German genius", but for objectivity for the sake of ...
                  I already wrote somewhere that I had one grandfather was a tankman and from May 1942 received an eternal residence permit near Kharkov ...
                2. 0
                  9 January 2012 23: 00
                  Once objectively, then let's objectively --- name the USSR anti-tank gun of a caliber over 57 mm we will analyze.
                  And since in principle after the 1941 ptp was not implemented, either divisions were loaded, then hull. One ZNUMX ZIS but gross production did not work, and it was developed before 2. BS-1941 generally hooked the end of the war over the edge.
                  Tukhachev universalization was not in vain for the USSR.
          2. 0
            8 January 2012 14: 26
            For the loss or abandonment of weapons under martial law, they didn’t throw, but pulled out on their hands. The weight of 53-k is not big. And if they could not bear it, they destroyed it.
            1. +1
              8 January 2012 18: 14
              They threw, removing the sight. The sighting tube almost became a currency. And how do you personally destroy the gun in the field? Grenade (good if there is, but little use) Boot?
              1. Odesit
                0
                9 January 2012 10: 51
                Andrew! I support! 45 mm. They dragged themselves to the last opportunity! As correctly stated in the novel "THE LIVING AND THE DEAD" - from the encirclement near Brest to the Belarusian forests! AND THE LAST PROJECT AT THE ENEMY COLUMN! HEROES !!!!!
        2. J_silver
          0
          7 January 2012 16: 51
          In fact, if memory serves, then German 75 mm corresponded approximately to German 85 mm, so if 100 mm approximately corresponds to German 88 mm, then merit is not great. especially when you consider. that an anti-tank gun and an anti-aircraft gun are compared, which no one in their right mind has dragged and was not going to carry, and given that. that the Germans also had a 128 mm gun ...
          1. Odesit
            +3
            7 January 2012 17: 21
            Here I do not agree with you Silver! Our 85mm is the Grabin tank gun mounted on the T34-85 in order to increase its firepower. After 1943, the Wehrmacht used 88 as the main means of heavy anti-tank artillery and, as you put it, "dragged" them around all the battlefields! There were even complaints from the Luftwaffe leadership to the Fuehrer that more than 2/3 of the 88 produced were delivered to the Wehrmacht, and not to the air defense unit. And after 1944 - so 88 was practically a monopoly of the Wehrmacht! Look at the photographs from the battlefields of that war, every other time you come across destroyed 88 - EXACTLY IN A BATTLE ON THE GROUND, USED EXACTLY AS ANTI-TANK WEAPONS! And where did you get it. that Our caliber is 100mm. corresponds to German 88 !? The muzzle velocity of the projectile is 100 mm. higher than 88 mm. The gun is 128 mm. - as an anti-tank vehicle on a wheeled carriage appeared at the very end of the war. And it was an extremely necessary measure against a huge number of Soviet tanks! the generals of the Wehrmacht recognize this in their memoirs!
            1. -1
              7 January 2012 18: 26
              Quote: Odess
              . corresponds to the German 88 !? The initial velocity of the projectile in caliber 100 mm. higher than 88 mm

              BS-3 appeared at the end of 1944 processing of marine tools
              85 mm Grabin shell and anti-aircraft gun balistics
              You can simply compare 8.8cm KwK 36 L / 56 and 85 mm D-5
              or better with 7.5cm KwK 42 L / 70
              It also doesn’t matter how the German anti-aircraft guns were used, we also used our own ones - it shoots everything at tanks that can shoot at them.
              1. Odesit
                +1
                7 January 2012 19: 02
                CARSU! So after 1943, the German anti-aircraft artillery now and then lowered the barrels to the horizontal! The Luftwaffe complained, as I said, that almost 2/3 of the 88 mm produced. enter the anti-tank units of the Wehrmacht and infantry divisions as anti-tank reinforcement units! And in our country after 1943 it was of an episodic, accidentally forced nature. After 1943, the saturation of anti-tank equipment with guns was an order of magnitude higher than in the Wehrmacht! If you are interested, look through the comparative tables from the Major General of the Wehrmacht Müller-Gillebrant. And yet, QUOTE, - CARS - "85 mm Grabina projectile and anti-aircraft gun ballistics" And tell me dear, 88/56 caliber installed on the T-5 Tiger and 88/71 caliber installed on the T-6 Tiger -2, what kind of ballistics - isn't it anti-aircraft !?
                1. +1
                  7 January 2012 19: 26
                  [quote = Odessa] So after 1943, the German anti-aircraft artillery kept on dropping barrels horizontally [/ quote]
                  You won’t believe it before 1943, they were doing the same thing [quote = Odessa] [quote = Odessa] And after 1943 we had this episodic, accidentally forced character. [/ Quote]
                  We were advancing, they were defending --- and our anti-aircraft artillery lagged behind the advanced orders, unlike the German one. [Quote = Odessa] [quote = Odessa] T-5 Tiger [/ quote]
                  ? Can Panther? [quote = Odessite] for 88 \ 56 calibers installed on the T-5 Tiger and 88 \ 71 calibers installed on the T-6 Tiger -2, what ballistics - is it not anti-aircraft!? [/ quote]
                  the stump is clear that the anti-aircraft [quote = Odessa] Our 85 mm is the Grabin tank gun mounted on the T34-85 in order to increase its firepower. [/ quote] what is the difference that you focus on?

                  And I understand that you do not want to compare the characteristics?
                  1. Odesit
                    0
                    7 January 2012 20: 02
                    Dear CARS! Remove Latin letters from your comment text! I will answer you with pleasure - little is clear from what you wrote !! In any fire incident, I answer from what I’ve taken apart!
                    1. Arguments. The initial flight speed of the Nasha 57 mm projectile is 1150 meters per second with a projectile mass of 3.14 kilograms. The initial flight speed of the German caliber 88/56 projectile is 773 meters per second, and the 88/71 caliber is 1000 meters per second. German 128 mm. - 920 meters per second. A "ZEROBOY" Grabin caliber 100 mm. had an initial projectile speed of 1350 meters per second. Here are all my arguments until you decipher. what exactly did you write!
                    1. -1
                      7 January 2012 20: 10
                      these are glitches of quotes --- you had the same --- I somehow sorted
                      1. Odesit
                        -1
                        7 January 2012 22: 12
                        Sorry did not see this for yourself! I carefully read my comments! And in case of an error, I correct it right there.
                    2. J_silver
                      0
                      7 January 2012 21: 59
                      And you are in the know. What do you use fake data? For example, in the history of World War II, there is a very peculiar comparison of the performance characteristics, in fact, everything is a bit wrong ...
                2. oleg-sochi68
                  0
                  11 January 2012 17: 41
                  T 5 - Panther
            2. J_silver
              -1
              7 January 2012 21: 57
              You confuse everything, take a closer look at the sources ...
              1. Odesit
                0
                7 January 2012 22: 10
                Please give me an example of my "faked data"! And now the second. I certainly do not confuse, you seem to have problems with knowing the performance characteristics!
                1. J_silver
                  0
                  7 January 2012 22: 24
                  Have you not looked at what you have already written?
                  I called the data "singed" because very often either different shells or models are compared, or some very important parameters are not taken into account at all - after all, the one who provides any data pursues some own goal and seeks to prove his theses ...
                  Someone seeks to chock the German, someone Soviet - so that those and the others are shouting ...
                  1. Odesit
                    0
                    8 January 2012 12: 55
                    Silver! This is ridiculous! Well, of course! A veteran of two wars, GENERAL-MAJOR GENERAL STAFF VERMAHTA MULLER-GILEBRANT at the turn of the 50's, really wanted to elevate Russian technology and humiliate their manufacturers! Think what you write!
                    1. J_silver
                      +3
                      8 January 2012 13: 24
                      He had to justify why the war was drained ...
                      And you, by the way, are aware that everything published by us was subject to censorship and proofreading and did not always correspond to the original source?
                      The same memoirs of our and our non-military commanders - it is difficult to say where and what is written by their hand, and where by the editors ...
                      1. Odesit
                        -2
                        8 January 2012 15: 27
                        Based on your opinion, then refer to no one Silver! What to do, whom to refer to if authoritative sources are no longer a decree ?!
  8. Odesit
    +4
    7 January 2012 14: 47
    Whatever one may say, the StuG III together with the T-4 were the main workhorses of the Wehrmacht throughout the war. The design is really good - cheap and cheerful! The more I am interested in the history of tank building in Germany, the more I am convinced that if the Gansiks did not spray their forces and funds on gigantomania and the design and production of more and more "Heavyweight", and maximally increased the production of StuG III and T-4 (in long-barreled versions ) then the Wehrmacht at the end of the war did not experience such a tank hunger! (there is no question of SS tank divisions such as "Great Germany" and "Reich" - these were almost always staffed and even above the staffing table) Of course, Soviet tank destroyers were mostly superior to the StuG III, but one must take into account the time of their appearance - the middle - the end of the war and pay tribute to the StuG - one of the few successful cars of that War!
    1. +5
      7 January 2012 15: 15
      Greetings, Alexander! I heard a version that in German armor there were not enough nickel alloys since 1943, so they could not compensate for losses in the Kursk Bulge in the future.
      1. Odesit
        +3
        7 January 2012 16: 10
        Greetings Stanislav! HAPPY CHRIST, DEAR TO YOU AND ALL ORTHODOXY! You are completely right, Problems with the lack of nickel and molybdenum led to the fact that the armor of German technology after 1942 -1943 became. as the producers say "Brittle" having lost the so-called "viscosity". Those. when hit by a projectile, she could not let it pass through herself, but crack, which, if hit again, guaranteed the vehicle would be hit. Attempts to organize the delivery of nickel and molybdenum in sufficient quantities have not been successful. For the same reason, an exceptionally powerful 75 mm APCR projectile was not adopted. anti-tank, and then a tank gun with a tungsten core, which had the highest armor penetration at that time! The reason is the scanty reserves of tungsten in the Reich. Such a projectile would simply "eat" all these reserves.
        1. SAMEDOV SULEYMAN
          +5
          7 January 2012 16: 35
          Hello friends, HAPPY CHRISTMAS TO YOU AND ALL ORTHODOX! I already wrote that the problem for the Reich was in nickel alloys, it came down to the fact that German submarines were dragging Brazilian coins (they were made of pure nickel), This happened after one of them was intercepted by the British.
          1. Odesit
            -2
            7 January 2012 17: 24
            Dear Suleiman! Don't remember the U-bot number? Or at least when, where and by what ship of the British Navy she was captured? I would like to read about it!
  9. 755962
    0
    7 January 2012 15: 30
    Like it’s not cool, the Germans are excellent techies, and promptly enter the troops ... again.
    1. pokermen
      +5
      7 January 2012 15: 40
      Actually, it ruined them as a result. German technical thought was ahead of the technical means available at that time.
      1. 0
        8 January 2012 14: 34
        Plus lack of resources.
  10. +3
    7 January 2012 18: 02
    Excellent self-propelled gun.Although initially it was developed as a means of supporting infantry, and after rearmament with a long-barreled 75 mm gun at effective combat distances, it coped with the most massive Soviet T-34 tank and supported its infantry in battle, our analogue SU-76
  11. Odesit
    -1
    7 January 2012 20: 30
    Yes, with pleasure KARS! Just remove from your text the comments stated by you Above, Latin letter combinations. It is very difficult to make out what exactly you wanted to say! I can’t answer directly under your comment that something is happening to the network!
    Now about the arguments! For every fireman, if you can’t answer.
    The muzzle velocity of our projectile is 57 mm. -1150 meters per second with a projectile weight of 3.14 kilograms. The flight speed of the German 88/56 caliber projectile is 773 meters per second, the flight speed of the German 88/71 caliber projectile is 1000 meters per second, the flight speed of the German 128/55 caliber projectile is 920 meters per second. And the initial velocity of the projectile of the famous "ZVEROBOY" is 100mm, - generally 1350 meters per second. Here are my arguments. Until you decipher what you wanted to write, I cannot answer in more detail!
  12. 0
    7 January 2012 21: 36
    Quote: Odess
    The initial projectile speed of our 57 mm. -1150 meters per second with a projectile weight of 3.14 kilograms

    And why are you juggling with types of shells? Where do you indicate mass where not? If you picked up a subcaliber for one, take it for another
    8.8cm KwK 36 L / 56 - there is 773 and there are 928 and armor penetration 94 and 123 mm 1.5 km
    ZIS 4 57 mm 1 270 79 90 1.5
    D-5T BR-365P 85 / 118 (60 \ 90 degrees) distance 1000 m at 1.5 km no
    Quote: Odess
    And the muzzle velocity of the famous "ZVEROBOY" projectile is 100mm

    whence?


    Mark of a shot Type of a shell Mark of a shell Weight of a shot, kg Weight of a shell, kg Weight of explosives, g Mark of a fuse Muzzle velocity, m / s Range of a direct shot at a target with a height of 2 m Year of adoption
    Armor-piercing shells
    UBR-412 armor-piercing pointed head tracing BR-412 30,10 15,88 65 MD-8 897 1040 1944
    It’s just hard to blow capital tables like this

    Quote: Odess
    So after 1943, the German anti-aircraft artillery kept on dropping barrels horizontally!

    Do not believe it until 1943 they did the same
    Quote: Odess
    after 1943 of the year, it was of an episodic, accidentally forced character.

    We were advancing, they were defending --- and our anti-aircraft artillery lagged behind the advanced orders, unlike the German
    Quote: Odess
    T-5 Tiger

    Maybe 5 Ka is still a Panther
    Quote: Odess
    And tell me, dear, the 88 \ 56 caliber installed on the T-5 Tiger and the 88 \ 71 caliber installed on the T-6 Tiger -2, what ballistics - isn't it anti-aircraft !?

    Anti-aircraft stump is clear
    Quote: Odess
    Our 85 mm is a Grabin tank gun mounted on the T34-85 in order to increase its firepower.


    What then is the difference that you focus on?
    1. Odesit
      -2
      7 January 2012 22: 20
      Regarding the T-5, I just dialed it automatically! Yes T-5 is a Panther. The rest is right!
  13. 0
    7 January 2012 22: 48
    Quote: Odess
    . The rest is right!

    In what?
    What D-10 has a projectile with a speed of 1350 m / s?
    What D-5T is more powerful than KwK 36 L / 56

    I'm just wondering where do you get the data from? What are these directories?
  14. +3
    8 January 2012 13: 35
    I read almost all the comments and came to the conclusion that the confusion here is complete. Especially when they began to drag other types of self-propelled guns here. Wouldn't it be more competent to start with the particular evaluation criteria? For example, from the general criterion "comparison with Soviet machines at the beginning of the war," select such as:
    - the ability to fight with light tanks of the USSR;
    - the ability to fight with medium tanks of the USSR;
    - the ability to fight with heavy tanks of the USSR;
    - the effectiveness of an assault gun in assaulting the positions of Soviet troops;
    - the ability to withstand shells of Soviet guns.
    Next, take the following modification of the assault gun and the period corresponding to its appearance in the troops. And so on to infinity. All this should be considered first in polygon conditions, so to speak, i.e. without the conditions of tactics, history and statistics of warfare. As a result, you can more correctly evaluate the car. And conducting most of the discussions comes down to parrying the opponent’s answers.

    PS Comparison with such "animals" as ISU was especially impressed. belay
    1. +1
      8 January 2012 14: 09
      And if the machine is disassembled, the story of which is presented in this article is not an anti-tank self-propelled guns, but an assault-support infantry. By the way, that’s what its name is, the storm troopers.
      1. -1
        8 January 2012 19: 11
        The cleverest? Well done.
    2. Odesit
      -2
      9 January 2012 11: 15
      Right Dear!
  15. -1
    8 January 2012 19: 37
    Quote: Andrey77
    The cleverest? Well done.

    Have the opposite opinion?
    1. -1
      8 January 2012 19: 45
      In fact, the main article is written. If you didn’t read it carefully, your problems.
      1. 0
        8 January 2012 19: 53
        All versions of the assault guns had a low silhouette, which made them a difficult target and a dangerous enemy for the enemy.

        Do you mean this? Or do you have a separate opinion? And can you use almost everything as a tank destroyer, even Sturmtiger --- I hope there is no doubt that its 380 mm ammunition when it hits the tank will destroy it?
        1. Odesit
          -2
          9 January 2012 11: 05
          CARSU! On "STURMTIGRE" even FANATIC KIDS FROM THE SS DIVISION "FELDHERNHALA" did not want to fight. knowing full well that this little mobile "monster" with a scanty rate of fire and a scanty possibility of horizontal adjustment of fire will become THEIR GRAVE! What are you talking about?!
          1. 0
            9 January 2012 21: 41
            Quote: Odess
            Even the FANTASTIC KIDS FROM THE SS DIVISION "FELDHERNHALA" did not want to fight on "STURMTIGER"

            Based on what sources?
            there were only 14 of them, and somehow they fought in Warsaw, then on the western front. And everything from Pantser 1945 to King Tigers threw themselves at 4

            And all the same, I would like to continue on artillery.
            So why are you juggling with numbers?
            And how is the D 5T more powerful than the 88 mm Tiger 1?
            1. 0
              9 January 2012 22: 12
              And then you somehow do not answer questions.
              So it remains a mystery how Ferdinand / Elephant ended their days until the end of 1944.
  16. polukazak1
    +2
    8 January 2012 20: 04
    It turns out that by the beginning of the war we were "screwed" with the construction of our own ACS
    1. Odesit
      -2
      9 January 2012 11: 08
      Polo sign! Yes, they did not "screw up"! Such figures as Marshal Kulik and others like him interfered with! And the developments were back in the 30s! Not allowed to take into service!
  17. 0
    15 February 2020 20: 17
    Stug 3 as far as I could destroy square 1

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"