Stories about weapons. Anti-aircraft gun 3-K: Russified German

Stories about weapons. Anti-aircraft gun 3-K: Russified German

By the end of the 20s of the last century, the command of the Red Army came to the conclusion that it was necessary to create a new anti-aircraft gun.
Airplanes became more and more airplanes, and Lander's 76.2 mm anti-aircraft guns met less and less the requirements of modern times. In this regard, attempts were made to create a modern 76-mm anti-aircraft gun.

However, the reality was that in the late 20s - early 30s, the Soviet design school was still very weak, and the production base of artillery factories had only just begun to be updated due to the supply of imported machine tools (mainly from Germany).

And on August 28, 1930, the BYUTAST society (a front office) signed a secret contract for the supply to the USSR of four prototypes and manufacturing technology for 7.5 cm anti-aircraft guns (7.5 cm Flak L/59), which at that moment had not even been tested really testing. The Germans were watched very closely by their former opponents in the First World War in terms of compliance with the terms of the Treaty of Versailles.

So it was not because of a good life that the Germans shared their latest developments; they needed full-fledged tests.

The original samples, manufactured in Germany, were tested at the Scientific Research Artillery Range in February-April 1932. In the same year, the gun was put into service under the name “76-mm anti-aircraft gun mod. 1931 (3-K)." A new projectile with a bottle-shaped cartridge case was developed especially for it, which was used only in anti-aircraft guns.

Automation, or more precisely, semi-automaticity of the gun ensured the extraction of spent cartridges and closing of the bolt during firing. The shells were loaded and fired manually.

The presence of semi-automatic mechanisms ensured a high combat rate of fire for the gun - up to 20 rounds per minute. The lifting mechanism made it possible to fire in a range of vertical aiming angles from -3° to +82°. By the standards of the early 30s, the 1931 model anti-aircraft gun was quite modern and had good ballistic characteristics.

A carriage with four folding frames provided all-round fire, and with a projectile weight of 6.5 kg, the maximum height for hitting air targets was 9 km. A significant drawback of the gun was that transferring from traveling to combat position took a relatively long time (about 5 minutes) and was a rather labor-intensive operation. In addition, the two-wheeled cart was unstable when transported over rough terrain.

Several dozen guns (from 20 to 40) were installed on YAG-10 trucks. The “cargo” ZSU received the index 29-K. To install the anti-aircraft gun, the bottom of the car body was reinforced. The car was equipped with four jack-type folding stops. The body in the stowed position was supplemented with protective armored sides, which in the combat position folded horizontally, increasing the service area for the gun. In front of the cargo platform there were two charging boxes with 24 rounds each. On the folding sides there were places for four crew numbers.

On the basis of the 3-K gun, a 76-mm anti-aircraft gun of the 1938 model was developed. In order to reduce deployment time, the same weapon was mounted on a new, four-wheeled platform.

Thanks to the use of the new ZU-8 platform, the time for transferring the system from traveling to combat position was reduced from 5 minutes to 1.0-1.5 minutes, and the presence of independent wheel suspension on the platform made it possible to transport the gun at speeds of up to 50 km/h instead of 35 km/h.

Before the war, the troops managed to receive 750 76-mm anti-aircraft guns mod. 1938. It was the most numerous medium-caliber anti-aircraft gun in the USSR at the start of the war.

Thanks to the bottle-shaped case with an increased charge of gunpowder and a long barrel, the 76-mm anti-aircraft guns of 1931 and 1938 had excellent armor penetration. The BR-361 armor-piercing projectile, fired from a 3-K gun at a distance of 1000 meters at an impact angle of 90°, penetrated 85 mm armor. In the initial period of the war, this was more than enough to destroy any German tank.

In accordance with pre-war plans, the anti-aircraft division of each rifle division of the Red Army, along with two four-gun batteries of 37-mm anti-aircraft guns, was supposed to have a four-gun battery of 76-mm anti-aircraft guns. In addition, each corps included an anti-aircraft artillery division consisting of three six-gun batteries of 76-mm anti-aircraft guns. In total, taking into account the anti-aircraft artillery regiments of the country's air defense and the RGK and Air Force divisions, it was planned to have 4204 anti-aircraft guns with a caliber of 76 mm.

However, they did not manage to implement this program even partially. Literally a year after the 76-mm cannon mod. 1938, an even more powerful 85-mm anti-aircraft gun mod. 1939. It was this that took the place of the “three-inch” and, with minor changes, was produced by industry throughout the Great Patriotic War.

Despite the strong external similarity of both guns, it is almost impossible to confuse them if you know two characteristic details: the 85-mm anti-aircraft gun of the 1939 model is equipped with a muzzle brake and has a conical section in the middle part of the barrel. In contrast, the three-inch barrel is completely straight.

Nevertheless, the Russified German woman fought on both sides of the front. During the first months of the war, the Germans came into possession of a number of these guns. And since the Germans did not disdain anything captured, the gun was adopted by the Wehrmacht under the old name 7.5 cm Flak L/59 (r).

On our side, 3-K won both the Finnish and Great Patriotic Wars.

Performance characteristics: caliber: 76.2 mm; barrel length: 4.19 m; weight during movement: 4210 kg; weight in combat: 3050 kg; vertical aiming sector: from −3° to +82°; horizontal aiming angle: 360°; effective fire height: 9300 m; projectile weight: 6.61 kg; initial projectile speed: 815 m/s.

Sources: Museum of Military History, p. Padikovo, Moscow region. https://topwar.ru/102778-zenitki-protiv-tankov-chast-1-ya.html. https://armedman.ru/artilleriya/1937-1945-artilleriya/76-mm-zenitnaya-pushka-obr-1938-goda-sssr.html.

New in blogs

In the conditions when in the 30s Mikhail Tukhachevsky led the Red Army’s weapons complex, it is very difficult to correctly assess the positive and negative aspects of development.

If we talk about him as a person, Tukhachevsky is a typical revolutionary “product”.

If you compare it with the Soviet marshals of that period, then it’s quite on the level, a typical butcher-punisher, good in a civil war... but with another state, war is a different matter.

If you compare it with Soviet generals and marshals of the Second World War, then to put it mildly, it doesn’t hold a candle.

Tukhachevsky was a real visionary and sought to show off his incredible ideas.

It is believed that Tukhachevsky developed BT tanks... but in the late 20s he believed that there was no need to design your own tanks, but simply buy 50,000 ready-made Christies.

He seriously insisted on purchasing 50,000 of these tanks. The figure is absolutely fantastic. The enormous cost of such an order would be accompanied by colossal costs of maintaining machines that no one knows who could drive.

The same thing happened with other types of weapons.

Instead of implementing Tukhachevsky’s proposal, the Soviet leadership preferred to purchase samples of a truly advanced machine of that time by an American designer and, on its basis, create a series of BT tanks (BT-2, BT-5, BT-7M).

In the West they were called “Russian Christies”. And the money, instead of purchasing 50 thousand tanks, should be spent on building tractor (i.e. tank) factories.

QUESTION WITH ARTILLERY

From 1931 to May 1937, Mikhail Nikolaevich Deputy People's Commissar of Defense - Chief of Arms of the Red Army.

It cannot be said that nothing was created under him; a lot was created.

Here's what was designed under his leadership: 1. 76-mm anti-aircraft gun mod. 1931 3K

2. 45-mm anti-tank gun model 1932/37 19K/57K

3. 76-mm divisional gun mod. 1933 (aka F-19)

4. 76-mm divisional gun mod. 1936 (F-22)

5. 76-mm regimental gun mod. 1927/30/36

6. 122-mm gun A-19 mod. 1931 and arr. 1931/37

7. 152 mm howitzer gun mod. 1936/37 ML-20

8. 203-mm high-power howitzer mod. 1929/31 B-4

9. 45-mm universal deck gun mod. 1931/1932 21K

10.45 mm turret anti-aircraft gun model 1936/37 40K and 41K

11. 76-mm turret mount for armored boats mod. 1936

12. 76 mm universal deck installation of high power arr. 1936 34K

13. 100 mm minimini, also 100 mm B-24,

14. 130 mm deck and shore installation mod. 1932/35 B-13."

It would seem an impressive list, but not every weapon is his personal merit and not all of them turned out to be profitable

During this period, not a single light (or even light at all) divisional howitzer was adopted, developed, or issued technical specifications for the development.

The Red Army is also armed with tsarist 122-mm howitzers of the 1909/1910 model, modernized in 1930 (before Tukhachevsky) and in 1937 (after Tukhachevsky).

Created in 1934 by German specialists who worked in the USSR within the framework of existing cooperation (KB-2), the promising “122-mm howitzer mod. 1934." is not accepted for service and exists in 8 (eight) copies.

Instead, Tukhachevsky puts forward the idea of ​​creating a super weapon for all occasions...

TUKHACHEVSKY'S SUPERGUN

Tukhachevsky outlined his concept for the development of artillery back in the early 20s and it did not have any particular shortcomings.

But when it came to practice, everything was upside down.

So in 1927, at a training ground near Moscow, Tukhachevsky put forward a “brilliant” idea - to combine a 76-mm regimental gun mod. 1927 with anti-aircraft gun.

According to Tukhachevsky, the combination of two powerful weapons was supposed to create... well, just a super weapon.

He began to implement this idea in 1931. By that time, he planned to combine the two best weapons into one...

In fact, the ideal weapon for air defense on the battlefield was an anti-aircraft automatic gun of 20–37 mm caliber on two wheels.

And military rear areas, cities, factories, etc. had to be protected by both anti-aircraft guns and special anti-aircraft guns of 76 mm caliber and higher. Therefore, there was no need for universal guns either at the front or in the rear.

Nevertheless, tactical and technical requirements were urgently developed for a universal cannon with all-round fire and a semi-universal gun without all-round fire.

The latter was intended “for conducting defensive fire.” By orders of Tukhachevsky and Ordzhonikidze, all artillery design bureaus of the Soviet Union were engaged in the design of 76-mm universal cannons.

The design bureau developed the universal L-1 and L-2 guns and the semi-universal L-4. The design bureau of plant No. 8 designed semi-universal guns 25K, 31K and 32K, and also produced prototypes of them.

GBK AND SUPERGUN

In the period from 1931 to 1937, SKB “Kirovsky Universal” actively worked exclusively on universal cars

The universal 76.2-mm cannon was the basis of divisional artillery in accordance with the decree of March 22, 1934 of the Council of Labor and Defense of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR “On the artillery armament system of the Red Army for the second five-year plan.”

Gorky Design Bureau) was created in January 1934 under the leadership of V.G. Grabin and consisted of employees of the liquidated GKB-38.

At the first stage, the design bureau was engaged in refining the A-51 (F-20) cannon, but this weapon did not satisfy Grabin in its characteristics.

Grabin came into conflict with Tukhachevsky over the condition of the gun and began designing a new artillery system, which received the factory designation F-22.

However, this did not change the essence - the “universal” concept of the weapon was preserved

Plant director L. A. Radkevich opposed this, believing that the main task of the design bureau was to support production

Permission to create the weapon was obtained and sent to Grabin at the Main Military Mobilization Directorate, bypassing the plant director.

The design of the F-22 was completed by the beginning of 1935...

Three prototypes of the F-22 were manufactured at Plant No. 92 in April 1935, two of the guns had folding (breakable) frames, and one had conventional ones. All prototypes had a muzzle brake and an elongated chamber chambered for the new cartridge.

New projectiles weighing 7.1 kg were specially developed for the F-22, which it fired at an initial speed of 710 m/s to a maximum range of 14,060 m.

On May 8, 1935, factory tests began, and on June 9 of the same year, prototypes were delivered to the Sofrinsky training ground near Moscow.

On June 14, prototypes of the F-22, along with other samples of universal and semi-universal divisional guns, took part in the demonstration of artillery weapons to the country's top leadership, headed by I.V. Stalin.

The F-22 prototype with conventional frames made a good impression on Stalin and was sent to field tests, which ended on December 16, 1935.

At the beginning of July 1935, Plant No. 92 received an urgent government order to produce an experimental batch of F-22s of 10 guns within 4 months.

In March 1936, four guns entered military trials, which ended on April 22, 1936.

A number of shortcomings of the gun were identified, but despite this, on May 11 of the same year, the F-22 was put into service under the name “76-mm divisional gun mod. 1936" and put into mass production.

The F-22 divisional 76.2-mm “universal” gun was produced in quantities of about 3,000 units...

DISADVANTAGES OF F-22

The displays immediately revealed a number of shortcomings of the gun, but despite this, on May 11 of the same year, the F-22 was put into service under the name “76-mm divisional gun mod. 1936" and put into mass production.

The gun had very large dimensions (especially in length) and weight (a ton more than the ZIS-3). This greatly limited its mobility, in particular, the possibility of its movement by calculation forces.

All sorts of design modifications aimed at reducing the cost of production also added weight to the gun.

Thus, the introduction into the design of the “one and a half” and “second” stage guns of a cast lower machine instead of a riveted-welded one, strengthening the strength of the breech and strengthening the automation mechanism made the system heavier, according to documents, by 75 kg.

And some guns, according to the acceptance certificates, had a mass of even more than 1800 kg...

In serial guns, the muzzle brake was eliminated, this greatly unmasked the gun with the rising clouds of dust, and a chamber for the 1900 model cartridge case was also adopted.

As an anti-aircraft gun, the F-22 was absolutely flawed. It did not have all-round fire, which is unacceptable for an anti-aircraft gun, and a low initial speed of about 700 m/s.

In practice, this meant a short reach in height and less shooting accuracy. When firing at elevation angles greater than 60°, the automatic shutter refused to work, with corresponding consequences for the rate of fire.

In terms of firing range and armor penetration, the F-22 did not have major advantages over the older divisional gun model 1902/30.

The use of the F-22 as an anti-tank weapon was complicated by the fact that the sight and vertical guidance mechanism were located on opposite sides of the barrel, and accordingly, the gun could not be aimed only by the gunner. P

Created within the framework of the unjustified concept of a universal (anti-aircraft divisional) gun, the F-22 had a number of shortcomings, and therefore was withdrawn from mass production three years after its start.

As a result, it turned out to be a completely unprofitable weapon.

THE END OF THE “UNIVERSAL” IDEA

In 1938, they finally decided to put an end to “universal” guns.”

Artillery designer Vasily Grabin described in his memoirs the cessation of the useless “universal” idea:

“Stalin’s manner of speaking quietly, slowly, has already been described more than once. It seemed like he was mentally weighing every word and only then pronouncing it.

He said that we need to stop practicing universalism.

And he added:

"It is harmful".

He then added that a universal gun cannot solve all problems equally well. We need a special-purpose divisional gun. —

From now on, you, Comrade Grabin, take care of the divisional guns, and you, Comrade Makhanov, take care of the anti-aircraft guns.”

The decision turned out to be correct.

Tukhachevsky had many such utopian hobbies, which testified to anything but talent.

WEAPON OF NEW TIMES

The combat artillery was completely out of action... something had to be done.

The simplest solution in this situation was to create a new, modern weapon with the ballistics of a gun mod. 1902/30, which made it possible to use huge reserves of ammunition for this gun.

V.G. Grabin urgently began designing a new gun, to which, for some reason, he assigned the index F-22 USV.

In fact, structurally it was a completely new weapon—devoid of any “versatility” and having nothing in common with the F-22.

CONCLUSION

In the end, everything ended in failure again.

No “universal guns for all occasions” appeared in any army in the world, they retained prudence... and they didn’t have their own Tukhachevskys...

Instead of a super-gun, they received a low-capacity weapon that was extremely expensive, complex in design and did not withstand testing.

Huge amounts of money and most importantly time, precious time were lost.

Big gun for a small tower

In June 1940, the Main Armored Directorate of the Red Army (GABTU KA) began studying the issue of modernizing the KV-1 heavy tank. Serial production of this machine had not yet been properly organized, and the military had already begun to have complaints about it. However, this in itself is a completely normal phenomenon, especially taking into account the fact that with the beginning of World War II, the development of armored vehicles accelerated quite significantly. According to the leadership of the GABTU KA, the KV-1 tank should have increased armor, and most importantly, provided it with a more powerful weapon. It is difficult to argue with the latter, because an abnormal situation arose when the new medium and heavy tanks of the Red Army - T-34 and KV-1 - had the same guns.

ZIS-5: three systems with one name

The work, initiated by the resolution of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR and the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks No. 1288–495ss of July 17, 1940, went in two directions. In the first case, we were talking about a gun with the ballistics of a 76-mm 3-K anti-aircraft gun. This work later led to the appearance of the T-150 heavy tank. The second option involved the development of an 85 mm tank gun with the ballistics of an 85 mm 52-K anti-aircraft gun. It quickly became clear that a gun of this caliber would not fit into the KV-1 turret, which led to the transformation of the project, which turned into the T-220 heavy tank.

The report from Plant No. 92 on experimental work well illustrates the fact that the F-27 was by no means just a design weapon

Both tank guns were developed by the team at Plant No. 92, headed by V.G. Grabin. The F-34 system was chosen as the basis for the new gun with 3-K ballistics. This choice was not accidental. Initially, the KV-1 was put into service with the F-32 gun, but in general this gun had approximately the same penetration as the L-11, which was installed on tanks produced in 1940. For this reason, on the basis of the F-32, a more powerful F-34 gun was developed, which had the ballistics of the 76-mm USV divisional gun (also developed by the design bureau of plant No. 92). The assignment for it was received back in February 1938, simultaneously with the launch of the F-32 program. This gun was more suitable as a basis for the development of a new system, however, to install the F-34 it was necessary to rework the gun mantlet armor.

The theme of a tank gun based on the F-34 was given the designation F-27 at the factory. One should not be surprised by such “festivities” of indices in terms of numbering; such practice at plant No. 92 was normal. For example, a simultaneously launched program to develop an 85-mm tank gun received the index F-30; a 107-mm tank gun, later intended to arm the KV-3, KV-4 and KV-5, was called F-42. At the same time, the 57-mm anti-tank gun, known as the ZIS-2, was originally called the F-31, and it appeared a little later than the F-42.

KV-1 with the installation of a ZIS-22 gun, February 1941

Regarding the F-27 gun, there is a widespread myth that this gun was developed in early 1939, and its creation did not progress beyond design work. The rather hectic correspondence found in the archives convincingly proves that such statements are far from the truth. Design work on the F-27 and F-30 started simultaneously, their start dates back to June 1940. Regular reports on the status of tank and anti-tank weapons programs coming from Plant No. 92 clearly indicate that the F-27 was by no means a “paper” system. Moreover, work on the F-27 progressed faster than on the F-30. By July 23, working drawings of the system were sent to production. In the case of the F-30, a number of problems arose, the main one of which was that the gun did not fit in the “small turret,” that is, the usual KV-1 turret.

As of September 21, the F-27 was not only built, but also installed in the T-28 tank. It was tested on five shooting ranges, firing a total of 122 shots. The results were satisfactory. The F-30 had fired 68 rounds by that time, and as a result, flaws in its design were identified.

When the F-27 fired 60 rounds by September 26, problems were discovered in the operation of the recoil system. During November, the plant refined the discovered design flaws. As a result, the work was greatly delayed, and the F-32 system was installed in the T-150. In total, 260 thousand rubles were spent on work related to the F-27.

Armor for the ZIS-22 system, developed at the Kirov plant

This turn of events did not mean that work on the F-27 stopped. As of January 15, 1941, the first gun was finalized and prepared for shipment to the Artillery Scientific Testing Experimental Site (ANIOP). A second sample was also built and installed in the KV-1. After this, it turned out that the foot release did not work, and the system itself was unbalanced.

By that time, work on the F-30 had completely stalled, since Plant No. 92, on its own initiative, developed a 107 mm caliber system, designated F-42. The gun looked more promising than the F-30. As for the F-27, this designation disappeared from correspondence towards the end of the winter of 1941. The reason turned out to be prosaic - the gun was renamed. At plant No. 92, a new index system began to be introduced, which confused many researchers. The F-27 now became known as the ZIS-5. Such an index appeared for a reason, because the full name of plant No. 92 looked like “State Order of Lenin Plant No. 92 named after I.V. Stalin."

On February 19, 1941, Deputy People's Commissar of Defense Marshal Kulik signed an order to test various artillery systems in KV tanks. Item 4 stated the following:

“In the KV tank (a prototype with 90 mm armor and an extended base) at Plant No. 92, install a 76 mm ZIS-5 cannon (F-27 with anti-aircraft ballistics).

The Kirov plant needs to ship the turret of this tank to plant No. 92 by March 1, 1941.”

The “prototype with 90 mm armor and an extended base” meant the T-221 tank, which was still awaiting assembly. As for the turret, it was eventually sent to plant No. 92. True, already at that moment the question of rearmament hung in the air. On March 11, 1941, Soviet intelligence transmitted information “to the top” that the production of heavy tanks had been launched in Germany. As a result, the tank building program had to be adjusted. The T-150, an improved version of which was going to be mass-produced as the KV-3, was out of work. Work began on developing first the heavy tank "223", which also received the designation KV-3, and a little later - work on the even heavier KV-4 and KV-5.

Nevertheless, work on the ZIS-5 continued, albeit with some difficulties. Moreover, another tank appeared that could receive this system for service - the T-44 (A-44), which was developed at plant No. 183.

This type of armor was developed by the design bureau of plant No. 92. It turned out to be more reliable and technologically advanced

In its original form, the ZIS-5 gun remained out of use only in May 1941. Strange as it may sound, the 3-K anti-aircraft gun became the gravedigger of the system. The fact is that its production was stopped in June 1940 - it was replaced by the 85-mm 52-K anti-aircraft gun. The cartridges for the 3-K and F-34 were different, which would complicate the supply of tank units with ammunition. Another problem was that the penetration rates of the 3-K and the 57-mm ZIS-4 tank gun (tank version of the ZIS-2) turned out to be similar. As a result, by the end of May, work on this version of the ZIS-5 stopped.

KV-1 with ZIS-5 system, July 1941

However, this did not mean a complete curtailment of work on this topic. The fact is that the design bureau of plant No. 92 had a fully developed system of a similar caliber and with a very similar barrel length. It was called the F-22, and unlike the 3-K, it was “fed” with the same ammunition as the F-34.

In parallel with the work on the ZIS-5, a production drama was unfolding associated with the installation of the F-34 in the KV-1 turret. In Kulik’s order mentioned above, this work is the first item. The tank for installation of the F-34 was shipped to plant No. 92 on February 2, 1941. The redesigned system was designated ZIS-22. It had the most direct relation to the F-27: the designers added the F-34 barrel to the existing gun mount. On March 3, a test program was signed, although the tank itself arrived at the Kirov plant in April. Then things stalled. The fact is that the armor of the gun mantlet was made as a mock-up, that is, not made of armor steel.

Marshal Kulik also added fuel to the fire. In the spring of 1941, the KV-3, KV-4 and KV-5 were already on the agenda, so the answer to the letter from the Kirov plant about replacing the prototype mantlet with a similar unit made of armored steel was a short resolution:

“It’s gone, the ZIS-6 gun is coming.”

The Kirov plant did not agree with the armor design, but delayed work on its own design. At the same time, the rapidly dwindling stock of F-32 guns hung over the Kirov Plant, as well as over the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant (ChTZ), like a sword of Damocles. Drawings of the new armor were received by the GABTU KA only on July 17, 1941. The design of the armor itself turned out to be very specific.

The same tank during testing, late August 1941

The design bureau of plant No. 92 had to correct the situation, where, in agreement with the design bureau of the Kirov plant, the armor design was redone. The work clearly began earlier than July 17, since by July 20 the plant management reported to the top about the work done. There was, however, one significant nuance: the KV-1 was equipped with a system with the ballistics of the F-22 divisional gun. As stated in the accompanying letter, replacing the F-34 pipe with a pipe 51.5 calibers long ensured an initial projectile speed of 780 m/s. True, such a speed was possible with an increased charge. In other words, Grabin tried to “push through” the second iteration of the F-27.

The advantage of this option was that this gun used the same ammunition as the F-34. The armor developed by the design bureau of plant No. 92 turned out better, although in general its design turned out to be similar to that developed by the Kirov plant. The armor consisted of two parts, fastened together using bolted connections. Unlike the Leningrad armor, all parts of the Gorky design were cast. In addition, it had special grooves, which increased the resistance of the fastening in case of hits from the side.

Overall, the weapon turned out to be quite successful. The problem is that by that time the F-22 gun had not been produced for two years

Despite the fact that the installation, which inherited the ZIS-5 index from the F-27, was ready by the 20th of July, the KV-1 arrived for testing only on August 29. 2 days before, work was carried out at plant No. 92 to inspect and mark the system. This was due to the fact that the Gorokhovetsky ANIOP did not have the necessary equipment.

Designer I.M. was present at the tests from plant No. 92. Lependin, and from ChTZ - designer A.S. Shneidman. By the way, Shneidman previously worked at the Kirov plant and from the very beginning taught the topic of HF in terms of weapons, but by August 1941 he was transferred from Leningrad to Chelyabinsk. The gun had a barrel length of 50.8 calibers (3866 mm), and the initial projectile speed was 687 m/s. A total of 612 shots were fired, and the tank itself covered 170 kilometers.

The maximum declination angle of the gun, which was only 2 degrees, did not delight the military

In general, the ZIS-5 passed the tests, which was reflected in the conclusion. True, Grabin’s assertion that it is possible to achieve an initial projectile speed of 780 m/s using an enhanced charge raised doubts among the commission. The fact is that the force of resistance to rollback with an increased charge exceeded the calculated one by 2 times. The strength of the system was satisfactory.

At the same time, the forces on the handles of the vertical guidance mechanism have increased. This was due to the fact that the system was somewhat unbalanced. The commission also did not like the fact that the declination angle decreased from 5 to 2 degrees. The designers were required to eliminate these shortcomings.

The third, also serial, version of the ZIS-5

According to the journal of the Artillery Committee of the Main Artillery Directorate of the Red Army (GAU KA), the gun was adopted as a “76-mm tank gun model 1941”, GAU index 52-PT-354V. But the ZIS-5 gun with F-22 ballistics never went into mass production. The reason turned out to be purely production problems. F-22 production ceased back in 1939, and resuming production of barrels required time and, no less important, the diversion of resources from plant No. 92. At that moment, the F-34 and USV guns were needed for air, and the resumption of production of the F-22 barrels could be expensive. No less important is that ChTZ needed guns for tanks, and not in the foreseeable future, but right now. As of September 1, 1941, only 13 F-32s were available. It was these factors that caused the final death of the “long arm” of 76 mm caliber.

Production version of ZIS-5, rear view

A slightly different gun went into production. The stock of F-32 guns at ChTZ had dried up, and the issue of speedily launching the F-34 version for the KV-1 was very pressing. The problem was solved simply: instead of the barrel from the F-22, a barrel from the F-34 was inserted. The T-34 and KV-1 again turned out to be equivalent in firepower, but at that time there was simply no other option.

The last point remained - the mobile reservation of the system. Since the design bureau of plant No. 92 no longer met the requirements, the ChTZ design bureau got involved in the work. By mid-September, drawings of cast armor 90 mm thick were prepared. The authors abandoned the idea of ​​a composite structure. To service the rollback system, a special hatch was made in the armor. It was this kind of reservation that went into series. By the end of September, the issue of arming the KV-1 was finally resolved.

Mobile armor ZIS-5, developed at ChTZ in September 1941

In September, the first 17 ZIS-5s arrived, which in correspondence at the plant were initially designated as F-34s. They began to be designated as ZIS-5 only in November. Thus, the ZIS-5 symbol hides three different weapons, although they have the same base.

As for the armor from factory No. 92, it was later used when re-equipping the Matilda III tank. True, in this case, too, things did not go beyond experimental work.

And yet she fits in!

Such completion of the epic with the installation of a more powerful 76 mm cannon in the KV-1 turret did not mean that this would be the end of the matter. The fact is that until the fall of 1941, the KV-1 was considered a temporary solution; it was supposed to be replaced by the KV-3. It became clear only in the fall that this idea would have to be abandoned. It is noteworthy that the design bureau of plant No. 92 at the beginning of September 1941 designed a twin installation of a 107-mm ZIS-6 gun and a 45-mm cannon. It is unlikely that the designers did this on their own initiative - someone at the top clearly decided to “grow” the KV-3 into an analogue of the KV-4. When we had to come to terms with the lack of prospects for launching serial production of the KV-3 in Chelyabinsk, another idea appeared - to make a kind of analogue of the KV-3 from the KV-1. Of course, there was now no talk of the ZIS-6 cannon as a weapon, especially since its production was never launched. An 85 mm cannon loomed on the horizon again.

The baton for the development of such systems was for some time taken over by the design bureau of the Ural Heavy Engineering Plant (UZTM), where a number of enterprises were evacuated, including the Izhora plant, as well as plant No. 8. In connection with the move of the Izhora plant to Sverdlovsk, UZTM was even called the Izhora plant for some time, but on January 4, 1941, Stalin signed GKO decree No. 1107, which returned the old designation to the enterprise. Even earlier, on December 27, 1941, GKO decree No. 1077ss “On the construction of plant No. 8 NKV” was signed. However, even without this, the production of tank weapons gradually began to develop in Sverdlovsk.

Soon the production of ZIS-5 guns was launched in Sverdlovsk, which provided ChTZ (by 1942 ChKZ) with tank guns. New personnel were added to the existing design bureau team, including designer L.I. Gorlitsky. It was the duet of Gorlitsky and F.F. Petrova led the creation of advanced artillery systems for the KV-1.

Tank gun ZIK-1. This system, developed for the KV-1 and T-34, became the first development of the design bureau of plant No. 8 in Sverdlovsk

In December 1941, the factory design bureau began developing two systems intended for installation in slightly modified KV-1 turrets. The first of them received the designation U-11. It was a 122 mm caliber gun with the ballistics of an M-30 howitzer. In the context of this same article, the second system, U-12, looks much more interesting. This was the installation of an 85-mm gun with the ballistics of a 52-K anti-aircraft gun. A new recoil system was developed for it, which reduced the length compared to 52-K from 850 to 450 mm. Like the U-11, the U-12 required a slight redesign of the turret nose, as well as the development of a new gun mantlet.

According to the UZTM report during the war years, they not only developed the system, but also built a car with it. But such a tank does not appear in other documents, unlike, for example, the KV-9 with the U-11 gun. There is also a discrepancy in the composition of the designers. UZTM documents indicate that the U-12 was developed by V.N. Sidorenko, S.Yu. Rykovsky, A.D. Hare and others. In fact, he supervised the work of F.F. Petrov, and his deputy was L.I. Gorlitsky. However, such inconsistencies in the history of UZTM occur frequently, especially for the period 1941–42.

Pipe ZIK-1. It was slightly shorter than the 52-K and U-12 barrels, but in general the penetration characteristics were not expected to be much worse than those of these systems

Alas, graphic material on the U-12 has not yet been found. But they were preserved according to a different system, which was completely left out of the historical material on UZTM. We are talking about ZIK-1, a system that became the debut of the design bureau of plant No. 8. This design bureau was allocated in February 1942, F.F. became the head. Petrov. As for Gorlitsky, he headed the UZTM Design Bureau. This is how two design bureaus appeared, located on two floors of the same plant management building and actively competing with each other.

The abbreviation “ZIK” in the designation of the system stood for “Plant named after. Kalinin", this designation was given to plant No. 8 in its old location. Work on ZIK-1 began in March 1942 and reached the finish line by mid-April. This gun was an attempt to “fit” an 85 mm caliber pipe into the ZIS-5 installation as much as possible. For this purpose, the length of the pipe had to be reduced to 3400 mm (40 calibers). But even in this form, this system still remained significantly more powerful than the ZIS-5. In addition, its installation did not require altering the tower. Moreover, the ZIK-1 could also be installed in the T-34 turret. However, the system remained a project.

Project of the 85-mm ZIS-25 tank gun. As you can see, the 85-mm gun fits quite well into the standard KV-1 turret. But with certain nuances

A gun very similar in concept began to be developed at Factory No. 92 in October 1942. The leading engineer of the system, designated ZIS-25, was D.I. Schaeffer. Lependin, who previously oversaw the creation of the ZIS-5, also worked on it. The main idea of ​​the new project was the unification of the 85 mm caliber system with the ZIS-5 already in production. According to the project, only 47 new parts needed to be produced.

The barrel of the new gun, compared to the 52-K, was also shortened, which reduced the initial velocity of the projectile to 757 m/s. According to calculations, this was enough to penetrate 75 mm thick armor set at an angle of 30 degrees at a distance of a kilometer. For comparison, the ZIS-5 penetrated 49 mm thick armor at the same distance and at the same angle. Compared to the ZIS-5, the weight of the gun increased by 250 kg. As with the ZIK-1, the installation of this gun did not require any changes to the KV-1 turret or the gun mantlet armor.

The same system at the back

The ZIS-25 project was sent for consideration on November 5, 1942. The answer from GABTU KA turned out to be ambiguous. Having recognized the positive properties of the gun, its authors quite rightly pointed out that the rate of fire of the main armament of the KV-1 with such a gun would definitely decrease, and to an unacceptable level - 2 rounds per minute. The fact is that the turret no longer became larger, but the unitary 52-K cartridge had a length of 985 mm, which was as much as 336 mm longer than the ZIS-5 cartridge. Because of this, the loading process became much more complicated.

In principle, the GABTU KA was not against the production of the ZIS-25, but at the same time they demanded that measures be taken to increase the rate of fire to 5 rounds per minute.

The cannon was never built in metal. On November 5, 1942, by decree of the State Defense Committee No. 2477ss, the Central Artillery Design Bureau was organized. Work on the ZIS-25 stopped, but the concept of the gun itself did not end up in the basket. In the spring of 1943, developments on this weapon became the basis for the creation of a similar system under the symbol S-31. By the way, this weapon was plagued by the same problems. The TsAKB did not take into account past mistakes and decided to use the existing relatively small turret of the KV-1s tank for its installation.

The author thanks Sergei Ageev (Ekaterinburg) for his assistance in preparing this material.

Sources:

• RGVA materials;
• Materials of RGAE;
• Materials of TsAMO RF;
• Materials from the archive of Sergei Ageev

Anti-aircraft guns | USSR

20-mm anti-aircraft gun 2-K model 1930

The 20-mm gun was developed by Germany and delivered to the USSR in two copies with documentation for production. Later, on the basis of this gun, the German 2-cm Flak-30 installation was developed. The gun was put into service under the name “20-mm automatic anti-aircraft and anti-tank gun mod. 1930." According to the manufacturer's index, the gun was designated "2-K". It had a movable barrel with a muzzle brake. The gun was mounted on a tripod or on wheels. The gun sight was designed for firing at aircraft flying at speeds of up to 300 km/h. Production of the gun began in 1932 and by the end of 1936 there were 39 guns in service. TTX guns: caliber – 20 mm; trunk length – 1.4 m; installation weight – 172 kg; height of the firing line – 1 m; rate of fire - 135 rounds per minute; Ammunition supply – magazine for 20 rounds of ammunition.

Anti-aircraft gun 72-K

The 25-mm automatic anti-aircraft gun "72-K" was developed on the basis of the Swiss 20-mm gun "Oerlikon" in 1940. For firing, unitary cartridges with fragmentation-incendiary tracer grenades or armor-piercing tracer shells were used. Since 1943, the gun was produced with a shield cover. To transport the cannon, a four-wheeled cart was used with suspension for each wheel and tires filled with sponge rubber. The guns were installed on GAZ-AA and GAZ-MM trucks. They were also mounted on rotating platforms of armored trains. A total of 4.8 thousand guns were fired. TTX guns: caliber – 25 mm; length – 5.3 m; width – 1.7 m; height - 1.8 m; trunk length – 2 m; weight – 1.2 t; rate of fire – 240 rounds per minute; carriage speed on the highway – up to 60 km/h; ground clearance – 325 mm; initial projectile speed – 900 m/s; maximum firing range – 6 km; effective range – 2 km; armor penetration - 26 mm at a distance of 1,000 m at an impact angle of 90°; the time for transferring their traveling gun to the firing position is 1 minute; ammunition supply – magazine for 11 rounds of ammunition; calculation – 6 people.

25-mm anti-aircraft gun 84-KM on a patrol boat

In 1943, a ship modification of the “72-K” gun was created, which received the index “84-KM”. It was developed on the basis of the 72-K swinging part with some changes in the cradle, automatic transmission and butt plate. These guns were installed on various types of boats. In 1944-1945 330 guns were fired. The installation had manual guidance drives and a shield cover. Installation weight – 840 kg.

Anti-aircraft guns 94-KM on ZIS-14 vehicles

Anti-aircraft gun 94-KM

In addition to the basic gun "72-K" in 1944-1945. Its twin version “94-KM” was produced, which was a combination of two 25-mm anti-aircraft guns on a cart from a 37-mm “61-K” cannon using its own sight and horizontal guidance mechanisms. The rotating mechanism was borrowed from the 37-mm ship's machine gun "70-K". Twin 94-KM installations were used against low-flying and diving targets. Often 25-mm twin installations were installed on cars. A total of 237 guns were produced. TTX guns: caliber – 25 mm; weight in traveling position - 2.1 tons, in combat position - 1.2 tons; initial projectile speed – 900 m/s; projectile weight - 288 g; rate of fire - 480 rounds per minute; maximum firing range – 6 km, effective – 2 km; ammunition supply – magazine for 7 shots; crew - 6 people; the time it takes for the installation to move from traveling to combat position is 30 seconds.

Anti-aircraft gun 61-K

Anti-aircraft gun 61-K with shield cover

The 37-mm automatic anti-aircraft gun of the 1939 model “61-K” was developed on the basis of the 40-mm Swedish Bofors cannon. In addition to fighting attack aircraft and bombers, the cannon was also used as an anti-tank weapon. All actions necessary to fire a shot were performed automatically. Aiming, aiming the gun and supplying ammunition clips were carried out manually.

Due to the rapid wear of the barrel, it was possible to quickly change the barrel tube in the field by crew forces. Since 1943, a shield cover was installed on the guns. The sight ensured firing at ranges of up to 4000 m at target speeds from 1.6 to 140 m/s and a maximum dive or pitching angle of 70°. The cart was four-wheeled, sprung, and the wheels did not separate when moving into the firing position. The gun's ammunition mainly included fragmentation, sub-caliber armor-piercing and caliber armor-piercing shells. The cannon was also used to arm armored trains. In total, about 19.8 thousand guns were manufactured. TTX guns: caliber – 37 mm; length – 5.5 m; width – 1.7 m; height – 2.1 m; trunk length – 2.3 m; weight – 2.1 t; ground clearance - 360 mm; rate of fire - 120 rounds per minute; projectile weight – 750 g; firing range - 8.5 km; transportation speed on the highway – up to 60 km/h; armor penetration - 47 mm at a meeting angle of 90° at a distance of 500 m; the time for transferring the gun from the traveling position to the combat position is 1 minute, the ammunition supply is a magazine for 5 shots; initial speed – 870 m/s; calculation – 7 people.

70-K naval anti-aircraft gun

In 1938, on the basis of the 61-K, the shipborne automatic anti-aircraft gun 70-K was created. The swinging part of the gun was close to the “61-K”, the differences concerned only the gun carriage. The gun entered service in 1940. The machine was fed continuously, vertically, using 5-round clips. After 100 shots, the barrel either had to be replaced (which required at least 15 minutes), or wait for it to cool for about 1.5 hours. During the war, 3.1 thousand guns were manufactured. TTX guns: caliber – 37 mm; trunk length – 2.7 m; weight – 1.3 t; mass of fragmentation tracer ammunition - 1.4 kg, projectile - 732 g; initial projectile speed – 880 m/s; rate of fire - 150 rounds per minute; maximum firing range – 8.4 km; calculation – 6 people.

Anti-aircraft gun 21-KM

Anti-aircraft gun 21-K

Gun 21-K mounted on the submarine "Shch-214"

The 45-mm semi-automatic naval gun “21-K” was an adaptation of the 45-mm anti-tank gun of the 1932 model to a naval machine. The gun was installed on all classes of ships of the Soviet fleet - from patrol boats and submarines to cruisers and battleships. In 1944, a modernized gun, the “21-KM,” was put into production, which was distinguished by an increase in the rifled part of the barrel, the replacement of inertial automatics with a copying one, strengthening of the barrel and recoil devices, and the installation of a shield. A total of 4 thousand guns were manufactured. TTX guns: caliber – 45 mm; trunk length – 2 m; weight – 507 kg; height of the firing line – 1.2 m; armor-piercing projectile weight - 1.4 kg, fragmentation projectile - 2.1 kg; rate of fire - 25 rounds per minute; maximum firing range – 9.2 km; calculation – 3 people.

Anti-aircraft gun 3-K model 1931

The 76.2 mm semi-automatic gun was created on the basis of the German 7.5 cm gun. and put into service in 1932. A two-wheeled cart “ZU-29” was created for the cannon, and later a four-wheeled platform “ZU-8”. The gun was also mounted on armored trains. A total of 4 thousand guns were built. TTX guns: caliber - 76.2 mm; trunk length - 4 m; weight in combat position - 3 tons, in stowed position - 4.2 tons; firing range – 9 km; rate of fire - 20 shots per minute; projectile weight - 6.6 kg; initial speed - 816 m/s, transfer time from traveling to combat position - 5 minutes; transportation speed on the highway is up to 50 km/h.

Ship's anti-aircraft gun 34-K

The 76.2-mm anti-aircraft gun "34-K" was a naval version of the anti-aircraft gun "3-K". From 1936 to the end of 1941, 285 such installations were manufactured. Performance characteristics of the gun: caliber – 76.2 mm; length – 4.2 m; weight – 4.8 t; rate of fire - 15 rounds per minute; projectile weight - 11.5 kg; initial speed – 800 m/s; firing range – 9 km.

Twin anti-aircraft gun 81-K

The 76.2-mm twin mount was created for battleships (Paris Commune, October Revolution, Marat) based on the 34-K anti-aircraft guns. Some of the installations were permanently installed on the shore. Captured guns were used by German troops to arm armored trains.

76-mm anti-aircraft gun model 1938

76-mm anti-aircraft gun model 1938 - the result of modernization of the gun mod. 1931, mounted on a new four-wheeled bogie with suspension. When firing, the gun was hung on its frame. Guns of the 1938 model were produced in small series in 1938-1940. - about a thousand units. TTX guns: caliber - 76.2 mm; trunk length – 4.2 m; weight – 4.3 t; firing range - 14.6 km; rate of fire - 20 rounds per minute; initial speed - fragmentation projectile 813 m/s; armor-piercing - 816 m/s; gun weight - 4.3 tons; maximum firing range – 14.6 km; the time for transferring the gun from the traveling to the firing position is 5 minutes; transportation speed on the highway – 35 km/h; calculation of 7 people.

Anti-aircraft gun KS-12 (52-K)

The 85-mm anti-aircraft gun of the 1939 model (“KS-12”) was created as a result of the modernization of the 76-mm anti-aircraft gun of the 1938 model (by superimposing an 85-mm barrel on the carriage of the predecessor gun). The gun had an inertial semi-automatic bolt and a monoblock barrel. Since 1943, gun crews received target designators from the RUS-2 Redut, which made it possible to detect and identify targets at a range of up to 120 km. From the same year, guns began to be produced with shield cover. In 1944, the gun was modernized under the factory designation “KS-18”. The new modification differed from the previous modification by a longer barrel and an increased powder charge.

A new cradle, a balancing mechanism and a bolt with a semi-automatic copy type were developed for the gun. It had an automatic fuse installer, which made it possible to speed up the preparation of a shot. The guns successfully fought the tanks. The anti-aircraft guns captured by the Wehrmacht during the war were used under the designations “8.5-cm Flak-M.39(r)” and “8.5-cm Flak-M.44”. A total of 14.4 thousand guns were fired. The gun's ammunition consisted of unitary rounds with fragmentation, caliber and sub-caliber armor-piercing shells. TTX guns: caliber – 85 mm; length – 4.7 m; width – 2.1 m; height - 2.2 m; weight in combat position - 3 tons (KS-18 - 3.3 tons), in stowed position - 4.2 tons (KS-18 - 5 tons); trunk length – 4.6 m; firing range – 15.6 km, effective range – 7.6 km (KS-18 – 12 km); rate of fire - 20 rounds per minute; projectile weight - 9.2 kg; initial speed – 800 m/s (KS-18 – 870 m/s); crew of 7 people; armor penetration - 102 mm at a distance of 1000 m at an impact angle of 90°; transportation speed on the highway is 50 km/h.

90-K naval anti-aircraft gun in the MK-85 gun mount

The gun was created on the basis of a land 85-mm cannon.
It was not officially accepted into service until 1946, but since 1942 it has been produced by Sverdlovsk Plant No. 8. The gun was installed on light cruisers, destroyers, patrol ships, some gunboats and torpedo boats. About 200 guns were produced during the war. Performance characteristics of the gun: caliber – 85 mm; length – 4.4 m; weight of the barrel with bolt - 2.1 tons; installation weight – 8.8 t; ammunition weight - 56 kg; projectile weight - 9.2 kg; initial speed – 792 m/s; rate of fire - 18 rounds per minute; maximum firing range – 15.5 km; barrel survivability - 1600 shots; calculation – 9 people. Share to:

On August 28, 1930, the BYUTAST company signed a contract for the supply to the USSR of four prototypes and manufacturing technology for 7.5 cm anti-aircraft guns (7.5 cm Flak L/59)

, which at that moment were still undergoing testing. On June 7, the prototype was delivered to the Scientific Testing Artillery Range, and the very next day firing began in order to select a charge to achieve the specified initial projectile speed of 820-830 m/s.

Based on information received from

technology, Plant No. 8 produced prototypes of an anti-aircraft gun, which received the factory index 3-K. Working drawings were prepared by G.P. Tagunov and N. Gorokhov. The original samples, manufactured in Germany, were tested at the Research Anti-Aircraft Test Site in February-April 1932 together with samples manufactured at Plant No. 8. In the same year, the gun was put into service under the name “76-mm anti-aircraft gun mod. 1931."

By October 1, 1938, the design bureau of plant No. 8 had developed a synchronous tracking drive system of Academician M.P. Kostenko. In the same year, the 1938 model 76-mm anti-aircraft gun on a new four-wheeled carriage was adopted to replace the 3-K.

The gun was mounted

on a two-wheeled cart ZU-29 (with four folding support frames) produced by the Bryansk plant named after. Kirov, the problem of which was instability when driving over rough terrain. A batch of 20 (possibly 40) guns was mounted on the chassis of a YAG-10 truck. The ZSU received an index of 29K.

In addition, the gun was installed on the pedestal mounts of armored trains. Ship version - installations 34-K, 39-K and 81-K.

Gun arr. 1931

was a completely modern weapon with good ballistic characteristics. Its carriage with four folding frames ensured all-round firing, and with a projectile weight of 6.5 kg, the vertical firing range was 9 km. A significant drawback of the gun was that transferring it from a traveling position to a combat position took a relatively long time (more than 5 minutes) and was a rather labor-intensive operation.

Gun design

consists of the following main parts: a barrel with a bolt, a cradle with recoil devices, a swivel with aiming mechanisms, a balancing mechanism, sighting devices and a shield cover, as well as a stand and a platform with forward and reverse movement. The barrel with the bolt and the cradle with recoil devices make up the swinging part of the gun. The swinging part, together with the swivel and the mechanisms assembled on it, make up the rotating part of the gun. The fixed parts include a cabinet and a platform with front and rear passages.

76-mm anti-aircraft gun mod. 1931

is a semi-automatic gun, since opening the bolt, extracting spent cartridges and closing the bolt during firing are carried out automatically, and the feeding of cartridges into the chamber and firing are carried out manually. The presence of semi-automatic mechanisms ensures a high combat rate of fire for the gun - up to 20 rounds per minute. The lifting mechanism allows firing in the range of vertical aiming angles from -3° to +82°. In the horizontal plane, shooting can be carried out in any direction.

Performance characteristics:

Show/Hide text

caliber: 76.2 mm; barrel length: 4.19 m; weight during movement: 4210 kg; weight in combat: 3050 kg; vertical aiming sector: from?3° to +82°; horizontal aiming angle: 360°; effective fire height: 8500 m; projectile weight: 6.61 kg; initial projectile speed: 815 m/s.

The gun took part in the Soviet-Finnish and Great Patriotic Wars. In December 1939, the Estonian military delegation that arrived in the USSR ordered 12 anti-aircraft guns mod. 1931. After negotiations, the Soviet side sold Estonia 12 anti-aircraft guns mod. 1931 with lined barrels, 6 thousand shells for them, equipment for the anti-aircraft division (three rangefinders, three PUAZO devices with telephones and lighting, 9 commander's anti-aircraft pipes), reference and technical literature. The supplied guns, shells and equipment were handed over to the Estonian side in Tallinn from January 31 to February 8, 1940. In Germany

there were captured guns, most of the guns were converted with a change in caliber to 88 mm - for German ammunition for 8.8 cm Flak 18; 1 or 2 such guns were delivered to Finland.

There were also captured guns in Finland.

Some time after the war, they were transferred from the air defense system to coastal defense, and were finally removed from the reserve in the 1980s.

Where you can see: Russia - Museum of Russian Military History in the village of Padikovo

Istra district, Moscow region.
Russia - Museum of Military Equipment of the Ural Mining and Metallurgical Company,
Verkhnyaya Pyshma, Sverdlovsk Region (photo).
Estonia - in Tallinn
, in the second exhibition part of the Estonian Maritime Museum, located in the Seaplane Harbor (Lennusadam). Finland - various Finnish museums and natural pedestals.

Duet model 1937

In the pre-war years, in parallel with the production of 83.5 mm anti-aircraft guns vz. 22 for the Czechoslovak army, the Skoda concern developed designs for anti-aircraft guns of smaller calibers intended for export. When the Ministry of National Defense of Czechoslovakia needed new air defense systems, more mobile than the bulky “carts” vz. 22, the industry already had the corresponding developments. In 1937, the Czechoslovak Army adopted vz. anti-aircraft guns. 37

calibers 75 and 76.5 mm. Despite such a small difference in calibers, they differed significantly in their characteristics and had different purposes.

In the 20s, the Skoda concern developed several projects for anti-aircraft guns of 66, 75 and 76.5 mm calibers, implementing them in prototypes. The development of these guns was closely monitored by the military department of Czechoslovakia, which received a unique opportunity to compare the characteristics of various anti-aircraft guns without spending a single crown of government money - the development was carried out at the expense of Skoda.

In search of a light anti-aircraft gun

The Czechoslovak Army was not completely satisfied with the characteristics of the vz. gun, which had just been put into service and was in production. 22 - the weight and size characteristics of this anti-aircraft gun excluded its use for covering field troops. The army needed a lighter weapon. In favor of mobility, the military agreed to sacrifice ballistic characteristics. At first they paid attention to the 66-mm anti-aircraft gun, but its parameters were considered insufficient. Skoda specialists proposed a compromise by placing a new 76.5 mm barrel on the 66 mm gun carriage, but the latter turned out to be too weak. It became clear that a new carriage needed to be developed.

In November 1928, a meeting was held with the participation of representatives of the Military Technical Directorate and commanders of anti-aircraft divisions and regiments, which determined the future path of development of anti-aircraft artillery. One of its results was the decision on the need to motorize anti-aircraft artillery units intended for air defense of field troops. This made it possible to raise the gun weight limit from 2800 kg (the upper limit for horse-drawn traction) to 4000 kg. The new gun was supposed to have a caliber of 76.5 mm and provide an 8-kg projectile with an initial speed of 800 m/s. Skoda already had in its portfolio guns with similar characteristics, supplied to Argentina and Yugoslavia.

In March 1930, the Ministry of National Defense prepared detailed tactical and technical requirements for the new anti-aircraft gun. It was assumed that the mass of the gun would not exceed 4400 kg, and it could be towed by mechanical traction at a speed of at least 20 km/h. However, the customer stubbornly insisted on maintaining the ability to fire directly from the cart - without separating the wheel drives. It took Pilsen engineers a lot of time and nerves to prove to the military the impossibility of meeting this requirement while maintaining the declared ballistic and weight-size characteristics of the gun. As a result, the customer agreed with the designers’ arguments, refusing the possibility of firing “from wheels.” At the same time, the military specified the requirements for the gun, demanding the use of a lined barrel with a muzzle brake, a semi-automatic bolt, and the ability to fire according to external target designation data.

Anti-aircraft gun S in combat position palba.cz

In internal documentation, the 76.5-mm anti-aircraft gun received the designation S, which was associated with the possible sale of such guns to Yugoslavia (the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes). The anti-aircraft gun prototype was ready in September 1932, and in May 1933 it underwent its first firing tests at the Khlbok training ground. They basically confirmed the calculated characteristics. The only complaints were about the design of the muzzle brake, and the military agreed to abandon it. The modified gun underwent a second firing cycle in early November 1933, and in 1934-1935 it was tested at a training ground in Boka Kotorska (Yugoslavia). These tests showed excessive bore wear. The shortcoming was eliminated by modifying the leading belts of the projectiles, which also entailed a change in the charging chamber. The problem was solved only in 1936.

Anti-aircraft gun S in combat position palba.cz

The first tests of the S gun took place in 1933. At that time, multi-chamber Pirelli wheels were used - a kind of pneumatics, divided into many closed cavities filled with air. They provided the ability to tow a truck at speeds of up to 35 km/h, but when exceeding this figure they became too hot. Meanwhile, the Czechoslovak army began to receive new types of trucks capable of towing trailers at speeds of up to 60 km/h. To “keep up” with the tractors, the Pirelli system wheels of the S gun were replaced with conventional disc wheels with automobile-type pneumatics. This is how the anti-aircraft gun acquired its final appearance, and on January 6, 1937 it was put into service under the designation 8 cm kanon proti letadlum vz. 37.

75mm alternative

In parallel with the development of the 76.5 mm anti-aircraft gun, the design bureau of the Pilsen concern was working on a new 75 mm anti-aircraft gun. Its potential customer was Romania, so in the Skoda documentation this gun was designated R. The anti-aircraft gun was distinguished by a number of advanced solutions, the main one of which was a cross-shaped carriage of a welded design, which made the gun significantly lighter.

75 mm R3 anti-aircraft gun in combat position valka.cz

The prototype had been tested since 1932, and the following year the Czechoslovak military also became interested in the anti-aircraft gun. According to their requirements, the weapon was modified. Option R2 differed from the original one, first of all, in the presence of a device for receiving data from the anti-aircraft artillery fire control panel (PUAZO). In 1934, the R2 gun was tested at the test site in Khlbok, after which it underwent another round of modifications. In the R3 version, the gun was tested at the Boka Kotorska training ground simultaneously with the 76.5 mm S cannon. The 75 mm anti-aircraft gun fired a projectile that weighed one and a half kilograms less. The ballistic characteristics were worse: the altitude reach for the R3 was 9,200 m, and for the S - 11,000 m. However, this was quite enough for military air defense. The 75 mm gun weighed a ton less than the 76.5 mm. For comprehensive firing and carriage tests, the Ministry of National Defense ordered a four-gun battery of R3 cannons, manufactured in 1936. The test results completely satisfied the military, and in March 1937 the gun was put into service, renamed 7.5 cm kanon proti letadlum vz. 37. Now the 76.5-mm anti-aircraft gun was classified as an air defense system in the country, and its lighter 75-mm “sister” took a place in the promising structure of military air defense.

75-mm R3 anti-aircraft gun in stowed position vojsko.net

Production and service

Initially, the Czechoslovak military planned to order 96 76.5 mm anti-aircraft guns, but in March 1937 it was decided to reduce the order volume to 84 units. Skoda protested, citing the fact that it had already begun procuring materials and parts based on the expected volume of the order. As a result, the Ministry of National Defense backed down, placing an order for 96 guns, 34 spare liners and a corresponding amount of ammunition. 75-mm anti-aircraft guns were ordered in August 1937 in the amount of 108 units.

It was initially assumed that deliveries of 75-mm anti-aircraft guns would begin in the summer of 1938 and be completed by the end of the year. However, at that time Skoda was overloaded with orders from the Czechoslovak army and foreign clients. It was necessary to decide on priorities, and the Ministry of National Defense decided that the contract for 76.5 mm guns should be fulfilled first, and anti-aircraft guns for military air defense should be produced after the delivery of guns for the country's air defense was completed.

According to the original schedule, deliveries of 76.5 mm anti-aircraft guns were to begin in October 1937, at a rate of eight, and subsequently ten guns per month, and completed by July 1938. However, due to the workload of the Pilsen plant, the production of 76.5-mm anti-aircraft guns was transferred to a new plant in Dubnice nad Wagem, which took time. As a result, the first guns were accepted by the army only in January 1938. By the time of the Munich crisis, 68 guns had been handed over to the customer. They equipped 17 four-gun batteries, of which 15 were combat-ready, and two were completing the development of new equipment. The battery of 76.5 mm guns was fully motorized - according to the staff, it had 10 heavy and 6 light trucks, three cars and five motorcycles.

The shift in delivery dates for 76.5 mm guns inevitably affected the timing of contracts for 75 mm anti-aircraft guns. Now their deliveries were to take place in 1939-1940. During the Munich crisis, the army had the only experimental battery of such guns. The staff size of the 75-mm anti-aircraft gun battery was 112 people, and Skoda 6STP6L vehicles were used as tractors.

One of the 75-mm vz.37 anti-aircraft guns from the experimental battery. March 1939 vojsko.net

According to the peacetime organization, 76.5 mm cannons were supposed to equip the 1st and 2nd divisions of the 151st artillery regiment in Prague, the 1st and 2nd divisions of the 153rd regiment in Pestany, as well as the 2nd division of the 154th artillery regiment. 1st regiment in Pardubice. 75-mm cannons were to be equipped in two divisions each in the 153rd regiment and the newly formed 303rd Army Air Defense Regiment in Vysoké Myto, as well as one each in the 152nd (Olomouc) and 154th regiments. In wartime, batteries of 75-mm anti-aircraft guns were to be assigned to divisions.

76.5 mm anti-aircraft guns prepared for transfer to the Germans delostrelectvocsarmady1918-1939.estranky.cz

By the time of the occupation of the Czech Republic, the order for 96 76.5 mm guns was fully completed - all of them went to the Wehrmacht. The new owners gave the guns the designation 7.65 cm Flak M37(t). The Wehrmacht also received all 108 75-mm anti-aircraft guns of the Czechoslovak order, now designated 7.5 cm Flak M37(t), plus four guns from an experimental battery. It is interesting that the Wehrmacht, having adopted the older 83.5-mm anti-aircraft guns vz. 22, was not interested in more modern guns. 80 76.5 mm guns were sold to Yugoslavia in 1939-1940, complete with ammunition, tractors, PUAZO and other battery equipment. The remaining 16 7.65 cm Flak M37(t) were sold to Bulgaria in March 1941.

Abandoned Yugoslav S guns that became German trophies delostrelectvocsarmady1918-1939.estranky.cz

Most of the 7.5 cm Flak M37(t) also soon found new homes. The Netherlands bought 80 of these guns, but in November 1939-January 1940 they received only 12 anti-aircraft guns, after which deliveries stopped. Eight guns became German trophies in 1940. Another 40 guns were sold to Yugoslavia.

In June 1939, negotiations took place regarding the German debt to Italy, which amounted to about 300 million lire. The Italian side proposed to pay it off by supplying 50 batteries of 88-mm anti-aircraft guns. The Germans agreed in principle, but did not have the required number of free anti-aircraft guns. A compromise was reached: the Italians agreed that the debt would be repaid partly with 88 mm guns, and partly with 7.5 cm Flak M37(t) anti-aircraft guns. In Italian nomenclature they received the designation Cannone da 75/50. PUAZO T7 was also supplied with the guns. There is no consensus in Italian publications regarding the number of guns received. There are numbers 84 and “more than 100”

units. Czechoslovakian sources write about the delivery of only 36 anti-aircraft guns, and this number coincides with the volume of supplies to other countries. If we assume that the Italians were supplied with a larger number of guns, then, obviously, Skoda received an additional order already during the occupation.

Initially, Cannone da 75/50 were considered as stationary air defense systems for the country. In July 1940, the Italians formed four groups (divisions) armed with such anti-aircraft guns (41st to 44th), incorporating them into the air defense system of Rome, Bari and Durazzo (Durres in Albania). But at the end of 1940, the 43rd group (two batteries) was reorganized into a motorized one. She received old Pavesi wheeled tractors P4 mod. 26 and Lancia 3Ro trucks, which were used for transporting ammunition. The group was transferred to North Africa, attached to the 101st Motorized Division "Trieste". Anti-aircraft gunners of the 43rd group took part in the second battle of El Alamein, where they fired at ground targets. The Cannone da 75/50 guns, compared to the German 88 mm guns, had one advantage that was important in battles in the desert - a lower silhouette. At the same time, there was also a significant drawback - the long transfer time from the traveling position to the combat position and back. Therefore, the guns of the 42nd group, which arrived in Libya after the 43rd, were placed in stationary positions near Tripoli and Benghazi. The 41st group was transferred to Corinth (Greece). As of the beginning of 1943, Italian troops in Tunisia had 24 Cannone da 75/50 anti-aircraft guns. In June 1943, the Italian army had 64 foreign 75-mm anti-aircraft guns - this number, along with the Cannone da 75/50, also included a number of French 75 mm Mle 1932 guns. When Italy capitulated in September 1943, the Cannone da 75/50 became German trophies, again receiving the designation 7.5 cm Flak M37(t). The Germans handed over some of them to the Croats.

Anti-aircraft gun 75 ItK/37 SK of one of the Finnish batteries at the firing position sa-kuva.fi

Twenty 7.5 cm Flak M37(t) anti-aircraft guns, five PUAZOT T7 and 56,000 shells were sold by Germany to Finland in November 1940, where they were used to equip five heavy batteries. The Finns designated the guns 75 ItK/37 SK and used them very intensively. According to the Finnish military, the anti-aircraft gun was quite modern, but the PUAZO T7 was characterized by low performance, which is why it provided accurate data only for air targets moving at a speed of no more than 140 km/h. Finland began producing its own shells for Czechoslovak anti-aircraft guns: first fragmentation shells, and in December 1942, armor-piercing shells. Three of the five batteries armed with 75 ItK/37 SK took part in the Lapland War - combat operations against German troops in northern Finland that broke out after the country went over to the side of the anti-Hitler coalition.

Anti-aircraft gun 75 ItK/37 SK in the Finnish museum sa-kuva.fi

Former Yugoslav anti-aircraft guns were captured by the occupiers in April 1941. Five 75 mm guns became Italian trophies, and the same number of 76.5 mm guns became Bulgarian trophies. The majority went to the Croats - 55 76.5 mm anti-aircraft guns and 18 75 mm (28 and 8 of them were fully operational, respectively). Already in May 1941, Skoda specialists arrived in Sarajevo and Zagreb and began examining the guns. The repairs were carried out at the Pilsen plant. Until January 1945, it sent 56 repaired 76.5 mm anti-aircraft guns, 14 75 mm anti-aircraft guns, and 9 PUAZOs to Croatia.

It should be noted that back in April 1938, an agreement was signed to sell the Soviet Union a license for the production of the R3 cannon, which provided, in particular, for the supply of two samples of anti-aircraft guns for the Soviet caliber 76.2 mm, PUAZO T7 and ammunition. These samples were handed over to the customer in March 1939, however, as is known, the production of these guns in the USSR was abandoned in favor of 85 mm guns.

The 76.5 mm and 75 mm guns created by Skoda can easily be considered the best anti-aircraft guns of their time. The semi-automatic bolt ensured a high rate of fire, and the relatively small weight and modern design of the carriages provided satisfactory mobility. The guns were adapted to fire both direct fire and according to PUAZO data.

Brief technical description of the 8 cm kanon proti letadlum vz. 37

The gun has a monoblock barrel with a replaceable liner. The shutter is a vertical wedge, semi-automatic. The recoil brake is hydraulic, the knurling brake is pneumatic. There is a spring balancing device.

The DH sight is used for direct fire. The gun is adapted to fire according to PUAZO data and is equipped with a data receiver for horizontal, vertical aiming and fuse installation. The telephone serves as a backup means of receiving data.

The carriage is cross-shaped, with folding side frames and two detachable single-axle wheel tracks.
Automotive-style disc wheels with pneumatic tires enable towing speeds of up to 60 km/h. Tactical and technical characteristics of anti-aircraft guns vz. 37

Literature:

1. Cappellano F. Le artigliere del Regio Esercito nella Seconda Guerra Mondiale. — Parma: Albertelli Edizioni, 1998
2. Francev V. Československé zbraně ve světě. — Prague: Grada, 2015
3. Kralický V. Československé dělostřelecké zbraně. — Prague: Naše vojsko, 1975
4. delostrelectvocsarmady1918-1939.estranky.cz
5. forum.valka.cz
6. jaegarplatoon.net
7. palba.cz