Stories about weapons. F-22. Debunking the pancake myth

Combat use

For the first time, F-22s went into battle during the conflicts near Lake Khasan and on the Khalkhin Gol River. The cannon also took part in the Soviet-Finnish war. A number of F-22s were captured by the Finnish army, one of these guns in the Finnish artillery museum Hameenlinna serves as an illustration for this article. On June 1, 1941, the units had 2844 such guns. During 1941 - 1942. These guns suffered heavy losses, but were seen in small numbers until the end of the war. In particular, 2 artillery regiments armed with these guns (40 pieces) took part in the Battle of Kursk. The gun was mainly used as a divisional gun, less often as an anti-tank gun (naturally, having a higher initial speed, the F-22 had greater armor penetration than the ZIS-3) and never as an anti-aircraft gun.

Gun design

The 76-mm regimental gun of the 1927 model had two types of barrel: bonded and monoblock. The fastened barrel consisted of a pipe, a casing, a fastening ring and a muzzle. The casing is placed on the pipe while it is hot. The monoblock barrel was a pipe, all dimensions of which were equal to the dimensions of the fastened barrel. In appearance, the monoblock barrel differed from the bonded barrel only in the presence of a radius of curvature at the point of transition to the thickened part. The piston bolt is the same for both types of barrel.

The cradle was the base of the swinging part of the gun and served to place the sled with the barrel in it and to direct their movement during rollback. The sled was used to secure the barrel and place recoil devices.

The lifting mechanism had two gear sectors. The rotating mechanism is of a worm type, the rotation of the barrel was carried out by moving the frontal part of the machine along the combat axis.

The machine is single-beam, sprung by four helical coil springs, which are switched off when firing.

The combat axis is steel. Its middle part (blade) has an I-section. The blade in the horizontal plane is bent in an arc to facilitate the operation of the turning mechanism.

Carriage wheels are wooden or metal. The wooden wheel had a metal tire and a rubber weight attached to it. The KPM-76-27 metal disc wheel also had a rubber weight.

The shield consisted of movable and fixed shields. The upper and lower shields were hinged to the fixed shield.

The gun had limbers made in 1930, 1938 and 1942. The gun limber of the 1930 model had wooden wheels with weight tires. Suspension was carried out by four coil springs. The gun limber of the 1938 model had wooden wheels with weight tires or disk wheels KPM-76–27. Suspension was carried out by two leaf springs. The 1942 model gun limber had metal wheels. All three samples of limbers had the same number of trays (6 each) and cartridges (6 - 4 = 24).

The 76-mm regimental gun of the 1927 model had charging boxes of the 1930 model and the 1938 model. The charging box of the 1930 model had wooden wheels with weight tires. Suspension was carried out by coil springs. The charging box of the 1938 model had wooden or metal wheels (KPM-76-27). Both types of charging boxes had 6 trays and 24 rounds in the forward run, and 8 trays and 32 rounds in the rear. Total 58 rounds per box.

The 76-mm regimental gun of the 1927 model was outdated even before it was put into service.
The low elevation angle of +25° was an atavism of the 19th century, when the main projectile was shrapnel. In addition, the ballistic data of the 76-mm cannon of the 1927 model left much to be desired in terms of firing range, and most importantly, poor armor penetration. Before the advent of cumulative shells, the Model 1927 cannon could only fight light tanks. The horizontal guidance angle was also small. TTX GUNS REV. 1927

ARMOR PENETRATION OF THE BR-350A PROJECTILE.

AMMUNITION FOR 76-MM REGIMENTAL GUNNER MOD.1927

Excellent, comfortable accommodation is offered in Tyumen hotels, and the prices there are normal.

Literature on the topic:

A. Shirokorad “Artillery in the Great Patriotic War”

FirstPrev. page2Next pageLast

Rate this material:

(24 votes, average 4.58 out of 5)

Please register to be able to post comments.

Through the eyes of front-line soldiers: 76-mm regimental gun model 1943

By the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, the Red Army was armed with a 76-mm regimental gun of the 1927 model. Being developed on the basis of an old 3-inch gun of the 1913 model, at the time of its creation the Soviet “regimental gun” fully met the tasks facing the regimental artillery. Attempts to improve it or create a replacement were complicated by the fact that for a cannon accompanying infantry battle formations, perhaps the most critical factor was weight. According to available data, it was the large mass in combat position that became the reason for the abandonment of the new experimental regimental guns developed in the late 30s. However, with the outbreak of the war, it became clear that the 1927 model gun “does not meet modern requirements.” What was this, and were these problems resolved? A word to those who fought in the crews of the “regiments”.

"Bobik" changes carriage

Initially, the 76-mm regimental gun of the 1927 model caused criticism:

“As the experience of the Patriotic War has shown, the regimental gun of the 1927 model could not cope with the tasks of accompanying infantry with fire and wheels due to a number of design and tactical shortcomings, such as: heavy weight, large size, small sector of horizontal fire, complexity of the device of rolling guns, limited power armor-piercing shot, limited speed of movement by mechanical traction (15-25 km/h).”

Many old regiments of the 1927 model fought until the end of the war - like this one, the crew of which goes to the square of the town of Neisse in Silesia (now Polish Nysa) recaptured from the Germans.

“The carriage design is not convenient for firing at tanks and makes the gun clumsy.”

As part of the 1942 competition for a new regimental artillery system, several options were considered, including those with a longer barrel and increased muzzle velocity. However, with the advent of cumulative shells, the urgent need to increase the penetration of conventional armor-piercing shells disappeared. In these new conditions, the OKB-172 project, already mentioned in the history of the creation of the 45-mm anti-tank gun of the 1942 model M-42, turned out to be the most promising. In the case of the “regiment”, the designers also did not reinvent the wheel and proposed installing a 76-mm gun on the carriage of the already designed “forty-five”. After testing and eliminating the identified deficiencies, it was the OKB-172 variant that went into production as the 76-mm regimental gun of the 1943 model.

Considering that during this period and until the end of the war, the Red Army carried out large-scale offensive operations, during which heavier artillery regularly could not keep up with the infantry that had gone ahead, the light and maneuverable new “regiment” came in very handy:

“As a rule, the guns moved directly in infantry combat formations and fired only direct fire, where it should be noted that the weight data of these guns allows two or three people to roll them, regardless of the terrain, but at the same time, the system’s low clearance during slows down its rapid movement in many ways, especially in the forest and on soft soil. The low weight of the guns and well-designed lifting and turning mechanisms create proper maneuverability.”

The problem, as it turned out, was the rapid opening of fire from the march: “When moving the guns, the installations get knocked down, trays with shells are removed with great difficulty.”

. There were also complaints about the composition of the ammunition:

“At infantry and enemy fire targets, firing high-explosive fragmentation shells from a distance exceeding the distance of a direct shot is ineffective; the absence of shrapnel shells especially complicates actions when repelling enemy counterattacks.”

“For 76 mm regimental guns, smoke shells and remote high explosives should be added.”

It is interesting that in the reports about the “colonel” there are no complaints about the lack of the possibility of “mortar” mounted firing, by analogy with the German le.IG.18 infantry gun or the Japanese Type 92. Most likely, this is explained by the fact that Soviet commanders usually had at their disposal 82-mm battalion mortars capable of solving these problems, and for the “regiments” there was enough work to destroy targets with direct fire.

The crew of the horse-drawn 76-mm regimental gun of the 1927 model changes position

In general, the soldiers and commanders were satisfied with the work of the “regiment” or “bobik,” as this small cannon was sometimes called in the Red Army. In the offensive operations of the second half of the war, it was regimental artillery that was often the only means “here and now” to silence the German bunker. The maneuverability of the “regiments” made it possible to attach them to forward detachments pursuing the retreating enemy. At the same time, as noted in the reports, “the presence of artillery in infantry combat formations raised the morale of the soldiers, and most importantly, made it possible to fire directly at a distance of 200–300 meters.”

.

“We are incapable of fighting tanks and self-propelled guns”

A separate page in the history of 76-mm regimental guns is their use against tanks. From the first days of the war, the soldiers and commanders of the Red Army knew that when it comes to German tanks, there are never too many anti-tank weapons. Everything that could fire was regularly used to fire at armored vehicles, including 76-mm regimental guns. Of course, there was no talk of serious results - given the low initial speed of the projectile, for the “regiments” even the fact of hitting a moving target was an achievement. A successfully fired 76-mm high-explosive fragmentation projectile could cause problems for German light and even medium tanks, but this was clearly not enough to successfully combat enemy armored vehicles.

Teenagers assemble a 76-mm "polkovushka" model 1943 at a plant in Molotov (now Perm)

Work on studying the cumulative effect began in the USSR even before the war. Actually, there was nothing fundamentally new in this - the very principle of “concentration” of explosion energy, or the Munro effect, had been known since the 19th century. The method of enhancing the action of a charge thanks to the metal lining of the cone, discovered in Germany in the late 30s, also quickly became known in the USSR. However, despite the intensive work of several specialized scientific institutions at once, Soviet scientists were unable to move from an idea to practical implementation for quite some time. Perhaps it was a lack of necessary equipment - in Germany and the USA, pulsed X-ray photography helped to understand the details of the process.

Even after June 22, 1941, holes in the armor of Soviet tanks with melted edges were for some time mistaken for the action of certain incendiary shells filled with a substance with a high combustion temperature such as thermite. Measures were taken to search and capture these armor-piercing projectiles - by the way, for some time the first Soviet cumulative projectiles were called that way in documents. The result was the discovery of 75-mm cumulative shells in damaged tanks - for the German Pz.Kpfw.IV with their short cannon they significantly facilitated the fight against the T-34 and KV.

The crew of the 76-mm "regiment" model 1943 is preparing to open fire. East Prussia, area of ​​the town of Ragnit (now Neman, Kaliningrad region), winter 1945

However, even with a German model in front of my eyes, it was not possible to instantly solve all the problems. The first Soviet 76-mm cumulative shells could not penetrate even armor plates equal in thickness to the caliber of the projectile, leaving only shallow melted craters. HEAT shells went to the front in October 1942, and the first recipients were the crews of the “regiments.” For proper combat use, each box with shells included a reminder about firing armor-piercing shells, instructions for them, and firing tables. However, in May 1944, when representatives of the Main Artillery Directorate of the Red Army (GAU KA) visited one of the fronts, it was established:

“In the army, armor-piercing shells are poorly and insufficiently used, while in some artillery units they have no idea about this shell.”

Another document recalled that 76-mm armor-piercing (cumulative) shells can hit the frontal and side armor of Pz.Kpfw.III and Pz.Kpfw.IV tanks, the tracks of tanks of all types at a distance of up to 500 meters. It was stated that, due to a shortage of hexogen, shells are supplied to the army in limited quantities and should be used only on armored targets. Also, the GAU KA has insufficient information about the results of their use in combat. To eliminate this shortcoming, the troops were ordered to collect and report to the GAU KA information on typical cases of the use of these shells.

The crew of a 76-mm "regiment" model of 1943 from the 234th Infantry Division is fighting in city ruins

Apparently, the GAU KA did not receive a large number of reviews - by this time a large number of artillery systems that were much more suitable for fighting tanks were in service. In those cases when the crews of the “regiments” tried to fight armored targets, it did not work out well:

“The fire of the guns of this system against armored targets, especially moving ones, is ineffective due to the fact that the initial flight speed of the projectile is low, the horizontal roll of the barrel reaches 10 small divisions of the artillery inclinometer, when fired the gun is unstable, the rate of fire is low, the penetration ability is low - due to the presence of these shortcomings, a large dispersion, which especially affects the progress of the shooting.”

“From a distance of 800 meters, out of 12 fired shells, one hit was noted, and the shell did not penetrate the armor.”

“At a distance of 600 meters, an enemy self-propelled gun was spotted; The gun crew of the battery of the 132nd Infantry Regiment opened fire, and managed to fire two shells at it, while the self-propelled gun fired eight shells at it, and the crew of the gun was completely disabled.”

Soldiers and commanders of the 80th Guards Rifle Division at the 76-mm "regiment" of the 1943 model. Austria, spring-summer 1945

“War experience has shown that the 76-mm regimental guns of 1943, which are in service with rifle regiments, are only effective in shooting at manpower and dugouts with light ceilings, and are incapable of fighting tanks and self-propelled guns.”

“The 76-mm gun of the 1943 model is a good weapon only for accompanying infantry: light, mobile, trouble-free operation of the mechanisms. On the other hand, it is absolutely unsuitable for fighting tanks.”

It is characteristic that the weakness of the 76-mm cumulative projectile was fully realized by the leadership of the GAU KA. In particular, in the collection of thematic assignments for inventors for 1945 there was the following item:

“Develop a 76-mm armor-piercing (cumulative) projectile with increased power. When fired from a regimental gun of the 1943 model (with a rifling steepness of 15 calibers), the projectile must penetrate 100 mm of armor at an angle of 30 °
from the normal.”

As is known, in 1945 it was not possible to fulfill this requirement. However, until the advent of new recoilless systems, the regiments continued to remain in service.

Project evaluation

"Sorokapyatka", 45-mm anti-tank gun model 1937 (53-k)

Compared to the F-22, the new USV gun was certainly more balanced. However, created in haste, it still carried traces of universalism. Designed for an elevation angle of 75° (although later reduced to 45°), the USV gun had too large dimensions, especially in height. Its mass was also quite large, which negatively affected the mobility of the gun. The placement of the sight and guidance mechanisms on opposite sides of the barrel made it difficult to use the gun as an anti-tank weapon. The gun's shortcomings led to its replacement with the more successful and technologically advanced ZIS-3 gun.

Production

Soviet 45-mm anti-tank gun m-42 1942

Serial production of the USV began in 1939 at plant No. 92. That year, 140 guns were produced, in 1940 - 1010. At the beginning of 1941, the USV was discontinued. This decision was explained by two reasons: firstly, the mobilization plan for divisional guns was fully implemented (the mobilization reserve on June 1, 1941 was 5,730 guns, but 8,513 guns were available); secondly, it was planned to switch to divisional guns of a larger caliber (the 107-mm divisional gun of the 1940 model (M-60) had already been put into mass production).

However, this reserve was not sufficient. Soon after the start of the war, the head of the Main Artillery Directorate (GAU), Marshal G.I. Kulik, reported that there were no divisional guns in the GAU warehouses, and for the formation of new units they could only be obtained from weapons factories [ source not specified 2652 days

].

With the beginning of the war, according to the mobilization plan, the production of SPM was again expanded to. In 1941, 2616 guns were produced, in 1942 - 6046 of these guns. According to the State Defense Committee Resolution No. 955ss of November 23, 1941 “On the production plan for 45 mm anti-tank guns and 76 mm divisional guns (USV) for December 1941, January and February 1942” by the factories No. 221 and No. 92 in total should have been produced in December: 1150 units, in January: 1300 units, in February: 1650 units. Also, Plant No. 92 was allowed to use the existing reserves for the ZIS-2 cannon by placing no more than 1000 USV barrels on the ZIS-2 carriages. Production of the USV was discontinued at the end of 1942 due to the adoption of the new ZIS-3 divisional gun, which had a number of advantages over the USV. It is worth noting that the displacement of the USV from production occurred gradually, in particular, plant No. 92 continued to produce the USV in 1942 (706 guns were produced), although at the end of the summer of 1941 the ZIS-3 was already produced at this plant.

Cannon master

To characterize the significance of Grabin’s design work for the USSR during the war, it should be noted that the guns (including tanks) made according to the designs of his design bureau outnumbered all other guns used in the country (including guns produced according to the designs of other Soviet designers, obtained according to Lend-Lease or those preserved from pre-revolutionary times)

Working as the chief designer of the Soviet design bureau (hereinafter - KB) with a military focus in the 1930s and 40s was a very honorable and at the same time very risky occupation. The price of a mistake made in the work, or a carelessly spoken word, was too high. Many chief designers laid down their lives in the bloody meat grinder that unfolded in the country during this period. Others lost their freedom and, at best, continued to work in camp “sharashkas”, and at worst, they languished in the camps.

But there were also designers who, advocating for the country’s defense capability, were not afraid to take risks and boldly express their opinion, even if it ran counter to the opinion of the leadership, to defend it and prove that they were right not only in words, but also in deeds. It is this kind of constructor that will be discussed further.

From “out-of-towners” to designers

Vasily Gavrilovich Grabin was born in 1900 into the family of a retired fireworksman (the highest non-commissioned officer artillery rank in the Russian Imperial Army), who could hardly feed his eleven children. The family lived in the region of the Kuban Cossack army, but the Grabins did not come from Cossacks, but were “non-resident”. In the Cossack regions, this automatically meant second-class status. In practice, this situation was expressed in the fact that “out-of-towners” did not have their own land, and when looking for work they encountered additional complications. Children of “nonresidents” could not go to the same schools where Cossack children studied, and if Cossack children studied for five years, then children of “nonresidents” studied for 3 years. “Non-residents” were not allowed to attend the festivities of Cossack youth, the Cossacks were not related to them, etc. However, the revolution of 1917 and the subsequent Civil War radically changed the situation. Previously a simple worker, in June 1920 Grabin became a cadet of the joint command courses in Yekaterinodar.

Vasily Grabin at the age of fifteen Source – litmir.net

Among the best cadets, he was transferred to the Petrograd Command School of Field Heavy Artillery. Here Grabin acquired his first combat experience, participating in the suppression of the Kronstadt uprising in March 1921. In particular, the 152-mm howitzer battery in which he served fired at the rebellious fort Totleben. Soon after these events, Grabin was transferred to the Kolomenskoye (formerly Mikhailovskoye) Artillery School, from which he graduated in 1923.

Vasily Grabin (left) – cadet of the Petrograd artillery courses, 1921 Source – kau.su

After graduating from September 1923, Grabin served in the Red Army, but in August 1926 he was enrolled in the Dzerzhinsky Military Technical Academy of the Red Army. Grabin was lucky because the academy at that time was taught by luminaries of Russian artillery: the creator of the first serial Russian anti-aircraft gun F.F. Lender, the creator of fuses and hand grenades V.I. Rdultovsky, the designer of gun carriages and machine tools for guns R.A. Durlyakhov, author scientific work “Theory of shooting” P. A. Gelvikh and others. When developing a 152-mm mortar (his thesis), Grabin placed the gun's recoil brake under the barrel, and the knurling above the barrel. This became an innovation that Grabin later used to create many new artillery systems.

Teacher of the Military Technical Academy of the Red Army P. A. Gelvikh Source – kau.su

The academy graduates, who received versatile design and theoretical training, were distributed among various military and civilian organizations. Grabin was among the so-called “thousanders” - a thousand graduates of military academies who were sent to civilian design bureaus that developed various weapons.

In 1930, the young designer was assigned to. In this, Grabin was also very lucky - he got the opportunity to personally meet the people who provided Russia with first-class guns during the First World War. The Putilov plant was distinguished by its high production culture and long-standing factory traditions. So, at this plant, Grabin saw with his own eyes a master who, when cutting a barrel, was able to remove metal shavings, the thickness of which was measured in microns. Here he gained his first design experience, participating in the modernization of the anti-aircraft gun of his teacher, designer F. F. Lender, who had already passed away by that time.

76-mm anti-aircraft gun model 1914/15 Source – rusempire.ru

Understanding German Science

In 1931, Grabin was transferred to a very interesting design organization. The fact is that in order to accelerate the development of its industry, the Soviet Union attracted foreign experience in every way: foreign machines and technologies were purchased, contracts were concluded with foreign specialists. KB-2 of the All-Union gun-arsenal association "Narkomtyazhprom" was a joint Soviet-German project, where, according to the management, German designers were supposed to transfer their experience to their Soviet colleagues. Here, for the first time, Grabin’s unbending character was revealed. The fact is that German designers looked down on their “aboriginal” colleagues. They did not allow young Soviet designers to engage in responsible and creative work, in fact using them as simple draftsmen or copyers. The Germans explained this state of affairs by saying that the future designer must draw from three to five thousand parts before he can be allowed to design small components. With such a training program, the customer would receive trained designers no earlier than in 6–10 years. This state of affairs did not suit the young Soviet designers.

Grabin put the question bluntly, saying that he and his colleagues must do business in order to gain experience. The head of the German team at KB-2, Focht, did not agree with this and made a demarche by leaving for Germany. They wanted to quietly transfer Grabin to another place of work, but in search of the truth, he got to the deputy chief of armaments of the Red Army, corps commander N.A. Efimov, who ordered KB-2 to change its work style. Soon, the services of German designers were completely abandoned, but cooperation with them turned out to be useful - Soviet designers were able to get acquainted with the high culture of working drawings and introduce it into domestic design bureaus.

The design bureau of the All-Union Arms and Arsenal Association, into which KB-2 was reorganized after the merger with KB-1, in 1933 became the main KB-38 (hereinafter GKB-38) of the People's Commissariat of Heavy Industry. But it didn’t last long either.

122-mm howitzer, developed at KB-2 together with German designers and put into service in 1934 Source – coollib.com

In the first half of the 1930s, part of the Red Army command, led by Marshal M.N. Tukhachevsky, “fell ill” with the idea of ​​dynamo-rocket artillery, the predecessor of modern anti-tank grenade launchers. Deciding that this type of weaponry was the future, and that classical artillery was hopelessly outdated, many design bureaus that were working on the creation of artillery systems were liquidated. At the end of 1933, GKB-38 was included in their number.

To the city of Gorky for the “sweet” life

The initiative group of the bureau, led by Grabin, decided to continue the work begun in the city of Gorky, at plant No. 92 (now the Nizhny Novgorod Machine-Building Plant). Work was carried out on projects for the A-52 universal cannon and the A-51 semi-universal cannon (F-20).

Semi-universal gun A-51 (F-20), developed in GKB-38 and modified in the design bureau of plant No. 92 Source – alternathistory.org.ua

The second fixed idea of ​​the Soviet command, headed by the same Marshal Tukhachevsky, was a universal divisional gun. In the late 1920s, articles were published in various American magazines claiming that the United States was developing a line of artillery systems capable of firing both direct fire and indirect fire, as well as anti-aircraft fire. Despite the fact that the Soviet command did not have information about the adoption of such artillery systems, a number of design bureaus received orders to develop such a weapon.

Thanks to Grabin’s efforts, in addition to the universal and semi-universal guns, his design bureau proactively allowed the construction of a divisional gun capable of firing at angles up to +75°, which brought its properties closer to the first two, but at the same time made the gun much lighter and cheaper. Let us explain that usually the pointing angle of divisional guns was not made higher than +45°, which means that the load on the gun structure was less.

When choosing an index for naming future guns, young designers suggested that Grabin assign them the index “G”, based on the first letter of his last name. Grabin refused this, so the designers of the design bureau crossed out all the first letters of their surnames from the alphabet and chose the letter “F” from the remaining ones.

Grabin with his family while working at plant No. 92 Source – kommersant.ru

As a result of a large-scale display of the latest artillery developments held on June 14, 1935 for the country's top leadership, in which three guns from the design bureau of plant No. 92 took part, Stalin liked the Gorky divisional gun. On May 11, 1936, it was put into service as the main divisional gun of the Red Army under the designation F-22.

76-mm divisional gun F-22 model 1936, developed in the design bureau of plant No. 92 Source – rvsn.ruzhany.info

But KB did not stop there. It immediately began to improve its brainchild, increasing its reliability and making it more economical. Thus, the design bureau’s second production gun, the F-22 USV (improved), was born. For the first time, standard car wheels from a ZIS-5 truck were installed on the gun. In addition, the reliability of cartridge case extraction has been increased, even if they are deformed in the breech. At the same time, exactly 50% of the parts of the previous model, the F-22, were used in the new gun. In the future, to speed up the design and establish mass production of new guns, the Grabin Design Bureau tried to make maximum use of the successful developments of previous projects.

In July 1939, the F-22 cannon was discontinued and replaced by the F-22 (USV). However, at the beginning of 1941, production of the gun was stopped. This decision of the People's Commissariat of Defense was caused, firstly, by the implementation of the mobilization plan for divisional guns (the mobilization reserve on June 1, 1941 was 5,730 guns, but there were 8,513 guns in stock), in addition, work began on the design of 107-mm guns at various design bureaus divisional gun, which was planned to replace the 76-mm cannon in the future. In the near future, the outbreak of war will show the fallacy of this decision.

76-mm divisional gun F-22 (USV) model 1939, design bureau of plant No. 92 Source – ruzhany.info

In parallel with the F-22 (USV), other modernized versions of the F-22 were created - the F-35 anti-corrosion gun for arming submarines and its deck-mounted 76/51-mm version F-36 for arming civilian ships mobilized during the war. The development of both guns was completed in 1940, and they were recommended by the commissions for launch into production. However, they were never accepted for service, since the fleet customers abandoned these guns, despite the successful completion of the task they assigned to the designers. The only copy of the F-35 remained on the Shch-204 submarine on which it was tested. The F-25 howitzer, also developed by the Grabin Design Bureau, also did not go into production.

76-mm universal (experimental) artillery mount from the Shch-204 submarine, which was lost in November 1941. Weight – 791 kg Source – ic.pics.livejournal.com

At Grabin’s suggestion, plant No. 92 became the first enterprise to abandon temporary production technology. Military customers usually rushed factories to produce guns after they were accepted for service. Instead of allowing factories to spend several months creating the necessary equipment and developing gross technology, they were forced to immediately begin making guns using temporary technology, which led to semi-handicraft production with a huge percentage of defects and unstable quality of finished products. Grabin refused to engage in such emergency work, deliberately entering into conflict with the military when introducing gross production of M-30 howitzers at plant No. 92. As a result of this, the plant more than made up for the time lost on creating equipment, debugging technology and improving the design of the howitzer in the subsequent months of gross production. It should be noted that in those days, Plant No. 92 was self-supporting, so the well-being of its workers largely depended on the efficiency of the administration and designers. Thanks to Grabin’s innovation, employees of plant No. 92 constantly received bonuses, including for rationalization proposals to reduce production costs, as well as optimize the use of equipment and working hours.

122-mm howitzer model 1938 (M-30), modified in the design bureau of plant No. 92 and produced at the same plant using its own technology Source - fr.academic.ru

Among other things, plant No. 92 introduced an innovation that made it possible to speed up the process of acceptance of guns by state commissions. The factory testing program for new prototypes for shooting and carriage was made as extensive as the field tests. This allowed factory workers to send their “brainchildren” to any tests with complete confidence and guarantee their quality.

New manufacturer of tank guns

In the summer of 1937, while on vacation, Grabin met R. E. Sorkin, an employee of the Artillery Committee of the Main Artillery Directorate (hereinafter - GAU). He believed that the guns that were in service with Soviet tanks at that time were insufficiently powerful. Having heard about the advanced methods of work of the new design bureau, he suggested that Grabin “knock out” for him a government order for the development of a tank gun based on the F-22. Grabin agreed.

Reuben Evelevich Sorkin Source – starodub-sv.ru

Based on their own view of the development trends in world tank building, the designers decided not only to create 76-mm tank guns, but also to proactively develop an 85-mm tank gun.

The first 76-mm tank gun received the index F-32. The Main Armored Directorate (hereinafter referred to as GABTU) did not share the designers’ opinion about the need to arm tanks with such powerful guns, so the developers had difficulty getting at their disposal only the BT-7 light tank, armed with a 45-mm gun. The designers decided that if their gun fit into the small turret of a light tank, then it would fit into a medium tank even more so.

Tests of the F-32 cannon in the BT-7 tank at a heading angle of 90° and an elevation angle of 27°. Spring 1939 Source – historica.ru

For the new gun, a completely new bolt was created, easier to use and manufacture - subsequently the unified design of this bolt was used in all other developments of tank guns by the Grabin Design Bureau. The recoil length of the gun was reduced to 30 cm, and in the production of the gun barrel they decided to use high-alloy steel to reduce its weight and dimensions.

Now there was a need to convince the leadership of the GABTU to replace the 76-mm L-11 tank gun of the 1938 model designed by I. A. Makhanov (then chief designer of the Kirov plant) with a gun of their design. During tests initiated by Grabin and carried out in May 1939, the L-11 was found to have a defect common to all Makhanov-designed guns of the latest series. Grabin knew about this, since, on behalf of the head of the GAU, Marshal Kulik, he was already modifying the casemate 76-mm Makhanov L-17 gun of a similar design to the L-11. Obviously, this is why Grabin initiated these tests. The L-11 cannon was discontinued, and the entire leadership of the Makhanov Design Bureau was arrested and shot for sabotage in June 1939. However, in 1940, when mass production of KV-1 tanks began, they were equipped with both the F-32 Grabin gun and the modified L-11 Makhanov gun. Since a lot of the latter were produced and it was known how they needed to be modified, they decided not to abandon the already manufactured guns. By the beginning of the war, of the 386 KV-1 tanks in service with the Red Army, 148 vehicles were armed with the L-11 cannon and 238 with the F-32.

L-17 casemate gun, model 1940, designed by Makhanov, modified by Grabin Source – slovnik.com

In 1938, when work on the F-32 was in full swing, GABTU formulated new tactical and technical requirements for the gun, which was to be used on medium and heavy tanks under development. In particular, the requirements specified ballistics for a gun with a length of 40 calibers, that is, more flat than that of the F-32 being developed. This was explained by the anti-tank specialization of the new gun. Grabin Design Bureau began development, assigning the index F-34 to the new gun. Working drawings for the F-34 were completed by March 15, 1939. Initially, the F-34 was tested on the T-28 tank, for which it was intended, and in November 1940 it was tested on the new T-34 tank. As a result, the gun began to be installed on the T-34, but was not accepted for service. A paradoxical situation arose - at the beginning of the war, the cannon was installed on T-34 tanks, proved itself well in battle, but was not listed as accepted for service. The situation “came up” at one of the specialized meetings with Stalin. He gave the order to carry out the required tests after the fact and put the weapon into service, which was immediately carried out. In total, from 1940 to 1944, 38,580 F-34 guns were manufactured - this was the most popular tank gun of the Second World War.

Production of T-34-76 tanks. In the foreground are 76.2 mm F-34 cannons of the 1940 model. Workshop of the Chelyabinsk Kirov plant, 1943 Source – waralbum.ru

Almost in parallel with the design of the F-34 cannon, the design bureau begins to create 85-mm, 107-mm and 122-mm tank guns, using developments from previously created field guns. The costs of the plant's proactive scientific research were covered by the chief accountant of plant No. 92, V. I. Bukhvalov, who attributed “unauthorized” expenses to the cost of “authorized” projects.

Experimental heavy tank KV-3, armed with a 107-mm ZIS-6 tank gun from plant No. 92. Neither the tank nor the gun went into production Source – gamer.ru

The 85-mm F-30 cannon was tested on the T-28 tank due to the fact that the KV-1 was never given to the plant. In December 1940, the Kirov Plant produced an experimental KV-220 tank armed with this gun, but neither the tank nor the gun went into production.

Experimental heavy tank KV-220, armed with an 85-mm F-30 tank cannon from plant No. 92 Source – dev.theaces.ru

For installation in the KV-1 tank, the F-34 cannon was redesigned, resulting in the F-27 cannon, which later received the ZIS-5 designation. Plant No. 92 began to be called the plant named after. Stalin, so the index changed from “F” to “ZIS”. In December 1941, the design bureau carried out work to install the ZIS-5 cannon in the English Matilda tanks received under Lend-Lease, whose 40-mm guns did not suit the command of the Red Army. The new gun received the ZIS-96 index.

The crew on the armor of the Soviet heavy tank KV-1 with a cast turret and a ZIS-5 gun Source – waralbum.ru

British tank "Matilda II" with a ZIS-96 cannon Source - foto-transporta.ru

Anti-tank ZiS-2

In the second half of 1940, the legendary 57-mm anti-tank gun ZIS-2 was designed and manufactured in metal. Only 371 of these guns were produced in 1941, after which production stopped and the gun was not produced in 1942. However, when on January 18, 1943, Pz.VI Tiger tanks undergoing combat tests were captured on the Leningrad Front, the Soviet command was surprised to discover that of all the anti-tank guns of the Red Army, only the ZIS-2 penetrated its armor. Production of the ZIS-2 was immediately resumed.

57-mm anti-tank gun ZIS-2 model 1941 Source – gerodot.ru

Some of these guns were installed on the T-20 Komsomolets semi-armored tractor. The resulting open-type self-propelled gun received the ZIS-30 index. In total, about 100 units of this equipment were produced, which were used at the front in 1941–42.

Soviet light anti-tank self-propelled gun ZIS-30 Source – http1941-1945.at.ua

Since there were not enough tractors, at the beginning of October 1941 the ZIS-41 self-propelled gun was created - the ZIS-2 gun barrel was installed on the armored chassis of the ZIS-22M half-track vehicle. This self-propelled gun did not go into production, since the production of ZIS-22M vehicles was stopped.

Soviet experimental anti-tank self-propelled gun ZIS-41 Source – valka.cz

For installation on T-34 tanks, some of the ZIS-2 guns were manufactured in a tank version under the designation ZIS-4. Armored vehicles with such guns were considered specialized tank destroyers. Initially, about 30 guns were fired, after which its power was considered excessive. After the appearance of the German "Tigers" on the battlefield, production of these guns was resumed in the modernized version of the ZIS-4M. But by September 1943, their production was stopped again due to the progress of work on the creation of 85-mm S-53 and ZIS-S-53 tank guns.

Tank T-34-85 on a Berlin street in May 1945. Tank with a ZIS-S-53 cannon of late production in 1944 Source – waralbum.ru

New guns in a new place

In 1943, Grabin and the core of his design bureau moved to the Moscow region, to the city of Kaliningrad (modern Korolev) - the designer’s dream of creating the Central Artillery Design Bureau (hereinafter referred to as TsAKB) came true. In 1946, it was renamed the Central Research Institute TsNII-58. This design bureau created the famous 85-mm ZIS-S-53 tank gun, which was armed with the T-34-85 tank, the 100-mm BS-3 anti-tank gun and many other artillery systems. In 1943, Grabin, together with the design bureau staff, donated the Stalin Prize, awarded to him for the creation of tank and anti-tank guns, to the Defense Fund.

To characterize the significance of Grabin’s design work for the USSR during the war, it should be noted that the guns (including tanks) made according to the designs of his design bureau outnumbered all other guns used in the country (including guns produced according to the designs of other Soviet designers, obtained according to Lend-Lease or those preserved from pre-revolutionary times).

The most popular weapon of the Second World War, the most successful weapon in the world of that period, is rightfully considered the divisional 76-mm gun ZIS-3, created by the design bureau of plant No. 92 in 1940. It is one of the symbols of the Second World War along with the anti-tank hedgehog and the T-34 tank. The gun was developed on its own initiative, “clandestinely” (that is, without notifying the GAU) it was produced by the plant in 1941, although the military receivers were well aware that the plant was not delivering the F-22USV ordered from it, but more progressive, cheaper and simpler ones. ZIS-3 in circulation. When the situation became known to the country's top leadership, formal tests were carried out in February 1942, and the weapon, which had been fighting at the front for a long time, was put into service. In total, more than 103,000 ZIS-3 guns were produced, and about 13,300 more guns were installed on the SU-76 self-propelled guns of various modifications.

76-mm divisional gun model 1942 (ZIS-3) Source – wikimedia.org

The master who remained out of work

After Stalin's death, Grabin's star went down. During Khrushchev's time

Missile weapons became more popular, and of all the systems developed by the Grabinsky Design Bureau during this period, only the 180-mm S-23 cannon was adopted. The reason for this was largely the long-standing conflict between the designer and the Minister of Defense Industry of the USSR, and then the Chairman of the Commission of the Presidium of the USSR Council of Ministers on Military-Industrial Issues, Marshal D. F. Ustinov. In 1959, through his efforts, Grabin was removed from the post of chief designer, and TsNII-58 was merged into OKB-1, which was headed by S.P. Korolev. Of Grabin’s 5,000 employees, more than 4,000 remained in the new design bureau and subsequently worked on the creation of ballistic intercontinental missiles. Vasily Gavrilovich himself could not get a job for a long time until he was invited to teach at the Moscow Higher Technical School. Bauman. The outstanding designer died in 1980 at the age of eighty.

Colonel General V. G. Grabin Source – warheroes.ru

Description of design

The gun had a modern design at the time of its creation with sliding frames, suspension and metal wheels with rubber tires, borrowed from the ZIS-5 truck. It was equipped with a semi-automatic vertical wedge shutter, a hydraulic recoil brake, and a hydropneumatic knurler; The rollback length is variable. The cradle is trough-shaped, Bofors type. The sight and vertical guidance mechanism were located on different sides of the barrel. The chamber was designed for a standard cartridge case mod. 1900, accordingly, the gun could fire all ammunition for 76-mm divisional and regimental guns.

Characteristics and properties of ammunition

The ZiS-3 fires a full range of 76mm cannon shells, including a variety of old Russian and imported grenades. The gun can also use unitary rounds for the 76-mm regimental gun mod. 1927 with a smaller propellant charge.

The 53-OF-350 steel high-explosive fragmentation grenade, when the fuse is set to fragmentation action, creates about 870 lethal fragments when it explodes, the effective radius of destruction of manpower is about 15 m (data obtained using the Soviet measurement method of the mid-20th century). When the fuse is set to high-explosive action, a grenade at a distance of 7.5 km is capable of breaking through a brick wall 75 cm thick or an earthen embankment 2 m thick.

The 53-BR-354P sub-caliber projectile penetrates 105 mm armor at a range of 300 m, and 90 mm armor at a distance of 500 m. First of all, sub-caliber shells were supplied to anti-tank fighter units.

The 53-BP-350M cumulative projectile penetrates armor up to 75-90 mm thick at an angle of 45°. The target firing range for a moving tank is up to 400 m. Such shells have been supplied to the troops since the end of 1944, after the fuse was modified to prevent its premature firing in the gun barrel when fired.

Shrapnel has been used little since 1943.

Unitary 76-mm rounds for the ZiS-3 divisional gun mod 1942, Military Historical Museum of Artillery, St. Petersburg

Grabin Vasily Gavrilovich - brilliant designer of Soviet artillery (2)

On June 1, 1941, the Red Army had 1,170 USV guns at its disposal.
The gun was used as a divisional and anti-tank gun. It penetrated German tanks head-on without any problems, but never really had time to fight. Many guns were lost in the first two years of the war. By the way, the Germans appreciated the Soviet guns captured as trophies. They designated them 7.62 cm FK297(r) and used them until the end of World War II. In the Red Army, these guns were replaced by more successful and technologically advanced ZIS-3 systems. 1940
A prototype of the 85-mm cannon of the Volga Design Bureau fit perfectly into the turret of the T-28 tank and the KV-1 heavy tank. ZIS-2 57-mm anti-tank gun, model 1941

The next Grabin masterpiece was the 57-mm cannon of the 1941 model “ZiS-2”: the most advanced anti-tank weapon, which with its projectile penetrated through any tank of the German army - German, French or Czech production. And this property almost destroyed her. Excess power (there was no purpose for it in the whole world) led to a ban on the production of these weapons. The equipment for the production of ZiS-2 was ordered to be destroyed, and the finished barrels were melted down. But Grabin and the director of Gorky plant No. 92 A.S. Elyan did not obey (Amo Sergeevich was L.P. Beria’s brother-in-law and could take some liberties in relations with the leadership of the GAU): they sent the barrels to a warehouse and mothballed the equipment. And how useful these guns were when Hitler’s particularly “hard-headed” tanks like the “Royal Tiger” (Tiger-II) appeared on the battlefields! Grabin foresaw the development path of German armored vehicles and prepared a countermeasure for it ahead of time.

During the Great Patriotic War, at the request of the head of the British military mission in the USSR, the Soviet government transferred several ZIS-2 guns to the British army for familiarization. The Allies' interest in this weapon was not accidental, because combat experience showed that Soviet designers managed to create a 57-mm anti-tank gun, which was 1.6 times more powerful than the British 57-mm cannon.

The history of the creation of this weapon dates back to 1940, when a design team headed by Stalin Prize laureate, Doctor of Technical Sciences Vasily Grabin began designing a new anti-tank gun that met the tactical and technical requirements of the State Autonomous Army.

When designing a classic anti-tank gun, Grabin was faced with the problem of choosing the caliber of the gun. Calculations showed the futility of the 45-mm caliber from the point of view of a sharp increase in armor penetration. Various research organizations considered calibers of 55 and 60 mm, but in the end it was decided to settle on a caliber of 57 mm. Guns of this caliber were used in the tsarist army and navy (Nordenfeld and Hotchkiss guns), in addition, captured English Mark V tanks, which were in service with the Red Army, were armed with 57-mm Hotchkiss guns. However, by the beginning of the 1930s, all these guns had already been removed from service.

https://cont.ws/uploads/pic/2020/4/3%20%20%20%D0%97%D0%B8%D0%A1-2%20%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1% 80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D1%86%D0%B0%201943%20%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0.webp ZiS- 2 model 1943

The main feature of the new gun was the use of a long barrel of 73 calibers. At the same time, the issue with the shot was resolved - a standard cartridge case from a 76-mm divisional gun was adopted as its case, with the barrel of the case being re-compressed to a 57 mm caliber.

Designed to destroy enemy tanks and armored vehicles, to suppress and destroy infantry fire weapons, and to destroy enemy personnel located openly, this gun at a distance of 1000 m penetrated armor 90 mm thick with an armor-piercing projectile, and 105 mm with a sub-caliber projectile. At a distance of 500 m, these figures are 100 and 145 mm, respectively.

A prototype of the gun was manufactured in October 1940 and passed factory tests. And in March 1941, the gun was put into service under the official name “57-mm anti-tank gun mod. 1941" However, due to the plant’s unpreparedness for the production of a new complex weapon, the shipment of guns to the troops began only in the summer of 1941.

In November 1941, a decision was made to suspend serial production of the ZIS. A total of 371 guns were manufactured from June 1 to early December 1941.

However, 57-mm cannons from experimental batches took part in combat operations. When the Nazi tank armadas were rushing towards Moscow, the 57-mm anti-tank self-propelled guns mounted on the Komsomolets light tracked tractor had their say. It turned out that the armor of German tanks was not able to withstand the ZIS-2 projectile. There was even a proposal to shorten the barrel by 1.5 m to make the gun more convenient for camouflage by reducing power. Ultimately, a decision was made: the gun would not be put into full production in 1941.

“...All unfinished trunks in production should be collected, preserved and removed. All technological equipment and technical documentation must be preserved and put away in the appropriate place so that, if the need arises, we can immediately launch production of the 57-mm ZIS-2 cannon...” read the order for the plant. And when the Nazis threw heavy tanks into battle in 1943, the plant needed only three weeks to resume production of the weapon - the 57-mm anti-tank gun of the 1943 model ZIS-2.

True, this gun was not an exact copy of the 1941 gun, although the ballistics and firing tables were exactly the same. In 1941, by placing a new barrel on the carriage of a 57-mm gun, the famous 76-mm divisional gun ZIS-3 was obtained. The huge needs of the front for this weapon could be satisfied either by a significant increase in production space and equipment, or by increasing the efficiency of existing production. Having adopted the second path, the design bureau carried out a structural and technological modernization of the guns.

Here are just some numbers: the number of parts for the bolt was reduced from 103 to 51, the lower machine - from 349 to 157. For the entire gun as a whole, the number of parts decreased from 2080 to 1306, and the energy consumption for its manufacture decreased by 86%. As a result of modernization, the manufacturability of the design has increased and quality has improved. The most noticeable difference in the modernized carriage is the tubular frames instead of box frames. The ZIS-3 was produced in large quantities since 1942 and was well established in production. When the production of 57-mm anti-tank guns was resumed in 1943, it was considered advisable to conduct production on a single carriage. In order to move from the ZIS-3 to the production of the ZIS-2, it was only necessary to organize the production of barrel monoblocks. And this is the key to the record speed with which production of the ZIS-2 resumed.

During the Second World War, not a single army in the world had an anti-tank gun whose combat characteristics would exceed those of the ZIS-2

Legendary gun ZIS-3

The pinnacle of Vasily Grabin’s design ideas during the Great Patriotic War was the legendary ZiS-3 cannon. The dream of such a weapon, supporting the troops with “fire and wheels” (advancing along with the infantry) haunted the designer all his life. The epiphany occurred at the end of 1941. “The idea was born overnight,” recalled Vasily Gavrilovich. But its implementation did not take long to arrive. “Grabin’s genius lies in the fact that he combined in himself a designer, a ballistician, a technologist, and an organizer,” wrote the gunsmith’s biographer Sergei Khudyakov, “sublimating in this product everything that he was once taught, and embodying all his experience.”

He even involved a physiologist in the design, thereby anticipating the emergence of the science of the harmonious interaction between man and mechanism, called ergonomics. The rationalism of the product made it possible to significantly reduce, compared to previous models, the number of components and parts (F-22 - 2080 parts, ZIS-3 - only 719). Machines were strategically placed for production, which reduced the cost of moving components and parts. For the first time in the world, the conveyor method was used for assembly.

https://cont.ws/uploads/pic/2020/4/4%20%20%2076%2C2-%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BC %D0%B5%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B5%20%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B7 %D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5%20%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%B5 %20%D0%97%D0%B8%D0%A1-3%20%281%29.webp 76.2 mm ZiS-3 divisional gun

The gun barrel was a monoblock, with a breech and a muzzle brake (absorbing about 30% of the recoil energy). The shutter is vertical wedge, semi-automatic. Semi-automatic shutter of mechanical (copier) type. Push-button or lever release (on guns of various production series). The barrel life of guns in the first series is 5,000 rounds, and for most guns it is 2,000 rounds. When fired, anti-recoil devices roll back with the barrel and consist of a hydraulic recoil brake and a hydropneumatic knurler. The rollback is permanent. The lifting mechanism has two sectors. Screw type rotary mechanism. The handles for the lifting and rotating mechanisms are located to the left of the barrel, which greatly facilitates the gunner’s work when shooting at moving targets. The balancing mechanism is spring-type, pulling, and consists of two columns. The combat axis is straight. The gun had suspension, spring springs in the column. The wheels are metal, with rubber tires, close to those of the GAZ-AA car (they differed in a different hub shape). To protect the crew, the gun had a 5 mm thick shield. The gun was equipped with a panoramic sight (guns aimed at anti-tank artillery were equipped with direct-fire sights PP1-2 or OP2-1). To be moved by horse traction, the ZIS-3 was equipped with a standardized limber model 1942 for regimental and divisional guns.

https://cont.ws/uploads/pic/2020/4/%D0%A1%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0 %B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C%20%D0%B8%20%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%87 %D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C%20%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BB %D0%B0%20%D0%97%D0%98%D0%A1-3%20%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%80%D1%8F%D1%81%D0%B0 %D0%BB%D0%B0%20%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0 .webp The rate of fire and accuracy of the ZIS-3 shot shocked the enemy

The prototype ZIS-3 was completed in June, and in July 1941 it passed field tests. By launching a new product into production, Grabin and Elyan were at the same time able to increase the production of guns fivefold - as was promised by Vasily Gavrilovich in a telephone conversation with the Supreme Commander-in-Chief. And the ZiS-3, bypassing state tests, went to the front under the personal responsibility of the designer in the amount of a thousand guns - and only after receiving rave reviews from the soldiers it passed formal tests and was adopted by the Red Army under the name "76-mm divisional gun model 1942" of the year".

The launch of the ZIS-3 made it possible to organize the production of guns using the in-line method (for the first time in the world) with a sharp increase in productivity. On May 9, 1945, the Volga Plant reported to the party and government about the production of the 100,000th ZIS-3 cannon, increasing production capacity almost 20 times during the war years.

Thanks to its high manufacturability, the ZIS-3 became the first artillery gun in the world to be put into mass production and assembly line assembly. The main projectiles for firing from a cannon are a long-range high-explosive fragmentation grenade and an armor-piercing projectile. In accordance with the assigned tasks, shrapnel, sub-caliber, cumulative (armor-burning), incendiary, smoke and other projectiles can be used. The longest firing range of the OF-350 long-range high-explosive fragmentation grenade is 13290 m. The direct shot range when firing a long-range high-explosive fragmentation grenade and an armor-piercing projectile is 820 m (at a target height of 2 m). When a high-explosive fragmentation grenade exploded, 870 lethal fragments were formed with a continuous damage radius of 15 m (the German 75-mm high-explosive fragmentation projectile produced 765 fragments with a continuous damage radius of 11.5 m). At a range of 500 m at an impact angle of 90°, the cannon's armor-piercing projectile penetrated 70 mm thick armor. Fire maneuverability is ensured by a carriage with sliding frames, allowing a maximum elevation angle of 37°, a declination angle of 5°, and a horizontal firing angle of 54°. The gun's rate of fire, thanks to semi-automatic operation, reaches 25 rounds per minute. The weight of the gun in firing position is 1150 kg. With a trained crew, the cannon is transferred from the traveling position to the combat position and back in 30-40 seconds. The gun can be transported by mechanical and horse (six horses) traction. Trucks GAZ-AA, GAZ-AAA, ZIS-5 and others were used to transport the gun. It was allowed to transport the gun with mechanical traction at speeds: on the highway up to 50 km/h, on country roads up to 30 km/h, off-road up to 10 km/h. The cannon was transported by horse traction at a speed of 8-10 km/h. 76.2 mm divisional gun mod. 1942 (ZIS-3) was successfully used by units of the Red Army during the Great Patriotic War. This gun was rightfully assessed by experts, including German ones, as one of the most ingenious designs in the history of cannon artillery. In the post-war period, it was in service with the Soviet Army and the armies of many other countries of the world.

Soviet artillerymen fire from a ZiS-3 cannon at German positions

The soldiers affectionately called the ZIS-3 “Zosya” or “Valley named after Stalin.” “With fire and wheels” she made her way from Kursk to Berlin. Characteristic is the review of it by a representative of those same German gunsmiths who at one time did not want to teach their wisdom to the young Soviet engineer Grabin, artillery consultant to Adolf Hitler, head of the artillery research department of the Krupp company, Professor Wolf. He wrote: “... the opinion that the ZiS-3 is the best 76-mm gun of the Second World War is absolutely justified. We can say without any exaggeration that this is one of the most ingenious designs in the history of cannon artillery.”

T-34 tank with F-34 Grabin gun (left); The KV-1S were armed with ZiS-5 Grabin cannons.

Vasily Grabin invented dozens of other artillery systems, his guns were installed on T-34 tanks of various modifications and many self-propelled guns. But the ZiS-3 gun was truly special: it became the most popular weapon of World War II, a real weapon of Victory. Festive fireworks in Moscow and other hero cities are still accompanied by shots from it.

The ZiS-3 became the best divisional gun of the Second World War. On the streets of Vienna

This gun became the most popular artillery weapon of the Great Patriotic War - more than 100 thousand pieces were built during the war. For the creation of new guns in 1941, Grabin received his first of four Stalin Prizes, and in 1942 the Central Artillery Design Bureau (TsAKB) was created in Kaliningrad near Moscow.

1942 creation of TsKBA 38 in Kaliningrad

BS-3 gun

Vasily Grabin’s last gun was the 100-mm field gun BS-3, model 1944. This is a “land” adaptation of the B-34 naval gun, which was used to arm cruisers. The system showed itself with all its might at the final stage of the war - primarily in the fight against heavy tanks "Tiger" and "Tiger-2", as well as self-propelled guns "Ferdinand". The penetration of its shells was more than enough to confidently hit German monsters in any projection at any firing distance. However, the weapon was truly universal and was used for firing from closed positions at German infantry and field fortifications.

Crew BS-3 1944

https://cont.ws/uploads/pic/2020/4/5%20%20%20%20%20100-%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0 %BC%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%8F%20%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0 %B2%D0%B0%D1%8F%20%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%88%D0%BA%D0%B0%20%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0 %D0%B7%D1%86%D0%B0%201944%20%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0%20%D0%91%D0%A1-3.webp 100mm field gun model 1944 BS-3

After the war, the BS-3 remained in service with the Soviet army for many years and served as the basis for the creation of a family of new powerful anti-tank guns. About a dozen of these guns are still in the arsenal of the 18th Machine Gun Artillery Division, stationed on Iturup Island as a coastal defense system. BS-3s were exported to other countries and are still on duty in the armies of Vietnam, Kyrgyzstan, Mozambique, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Congo and Sudan.

The F-34 tank gun was also used to arm armored trains

The role of Vasily Grabin in the creation of artillery systems during the Great Patriotic War is well known. But he was not only a designer, but also an outstanding technologist and production organizer. The famous Grabin guns F-22, F-34, USV, ZIS-2, ZIS-3, BS-3 and others made up more than half of the guns produced by our industry in 1941-1945. They destroyed the vast majority of German tanks.

The article is dedicated to the 40th anniversary of the death of the glorious son of our people Vasily Gavrilovich Grabin and the anniversary of the death of my father, artillery major Nikolai Evteevich Milshin, who first told me about the role of an outstanding designer in the development of Soviet artillery. Bright Memory of millions of artillerymen, soldiers who laid down their lives on the altar of Defense of the Fatherland...

The second part of the article “Vasily Gavrilovich Grabin. Lost groundwork" https://cont.ws/@hodanov/16559…

LIST OF LINKS

1) Book Grabin V.G. “Weapons of Victory: (Memoirs of an Artillery Systems Designer)” / Lit. recording by M. D. Mikhalev, V. V. Levashov; Preface V. Levashova. - M.: Politizdat, 1989. - 544 p. — 200,000 copies. — ISBN 5-250-00408-3.

2) Shirokorad A. “The Decline of the Grabin Empire” mlhttps://nvo.ng.ru/history/200…

3) https://odnarodyna.org/content…

4)https://biography.wikireading….

Khodanov

***
Source
.

TOP
.

Literature

• A. B. Shirokorad.
  Encyclopedia of domestic artillery. - Mn.: Harvest, 2000. - 1156 p.: ill. With. — ISBN 985-433-703-0.
• A. B. Shirokorad.
  The genius of Soviet artillery: the triumph and tragedy of V. Grabin. - M.: AST, 2002. - 432 pp.: 24 l. ill. With. — ISBN 5-17-013066-X.
• A. B. Shirokorad.
  God of War of the Third Reich. - M.: AST, 2002. - 576 pp.: 32 l. ill. With. — ISBN 5-17-015302-3.
• A. Ivanov.
  USSR artillery in World War II. - St. Petersburg: Neva, 2003. - 64 p. — ISBN 5-7654-2731-6.
• Shunkov V.N.
  Weapons of the Red Army. - Mn.: Harvest, 1999. - 544 p. With. — ISBN 985-433-469-4.
• Artillery / under general ed. Marshal of Artillery M. N. Chistyakov. - M.: Military Publishing House of the USSR Ministry of Defense, 1953.
• Efimov M. G.
  Course of artillery shells. - M.-L.: Oborongiz NPO USSR, 1939.
• Kozlovsky D. E.
  Material part of artillery. - M.: Oborongiz NKO USSR, 1939.
• Collection of research and materials from the Artillery Historical Museum. Issue IV / ed. regiment. Ermoshina I.P. - L.: AIM, 1959.
• Nikolaev A. B.
  Battalion artillery. - M.: Oborongiz NKO USSR, 1937.
• Paulaharju Jyri.
  Itsenäisen Suomen Kenttätykit 1918-1995 (Field guns in Finland 1918-1995). - Helsinki: Sotamuseo, 1996. - 184 p. — ISBN 951-25-0811-7.
• Service manual for 76 mm gun mod. 1942

The appearance of the F-22 cannon.

Production of the new gun was organized, where it was named F-19-1. Production support was provided by the factory design bureau, headed by V. Grabin. In 1934, this design bureau proposed its own version of a universal weapon.

It should be noted that the concept of “universal” meant a howitzer gun, a gun that had “howitzer” properties. Anti-aircraft fire from guns of this class was not provided for. However, this requirement was included as mandatory in relation to divisional artillery guns, at the request of M. Tukhachevsky in 1934.

The gun was modified in accordance with the conditions for conducting anti-aircraft fire; the gun itself was already classified as universal with the function of anti-aircraft fire, or as semi-universal, in 1937. The first three experimental guns were required to be presented for testing in the thirty-fifth year. The factory index of the gun is F-22.

The AU requirements provided for the use of shots from a 76-mm anti-aircraft gun model 1931, as longer-range ones; in addition, a more powerful grenade was to be developed, weighing 7.4 kg. When using such powerful shots, a muzzle brake had to be installed on the gun table.

As planned, the first three experimental F-22 guns were sent for testing. One gun had a solid frame, the other two had folding “German type”. The first adjustments to the design were made by the customer during the testing phase in June-July 1935. The use of a muzzle brake was considered unacceptable, and the anti-aircraft shot had to be abandoned in favor of three-inch ammunition due to the impossibility of accumulating the necessary mob reserves in an acceptable time frame.

The issue with gun cartridges was quite confusing:

• The requirement for howubization of the F-22 gun assumed the presence of an alternating charge and separate loading.
• Separate loading was considered unacceptable due to the reduced rate of fire.

The transition to a three-inch shot made it possible to use a shot from a 76-mm regimental gun mod. 1927, as a "howitzer with a reduced charge." Of course, the howitzer capability was half-hearted at best, but the decision allowed us to “save face” and save some people in the spacecraft management from unnecessary trouble.

From F-22 to Viper

Late 1920s The USSR marked the recovery of industry, which had previously been in hibernation caused by the consequences of four years of civil strife and the global division of property of the former Russian Empire. In 1927-29, as part of the ongoing “industrial recovery” and industrialization of the country, new design teams were created to develop new weapons systems. And already in 1927, the Artillery Directorate [AU] of the Red Army gave orders to develop new artillery systems that “meet the conditions of waging war under new conditions.” Carrying out this order, a special commission of the Art Directorate, chaired by Grendal with the participation of Ordzhonikidze and Tukhachevsky, put forward requirements for “new type” artillery systems. According to the requirements put forward, first of all, the divisional gun model, which was in service with the Red Army, was declared obsolete. 1902

The reasons for the gun not meeting the new requirements were considered: 1. Insufficient firing range 2. Insufficient power of the 76-mm grenade against field fortifications 3. Inability to fire at large elevation angles necessary when hitting fortifications and destroying manpower located behind the closures. To overcome these shortcomings and equip the divisional artillery with modern equipment, it was proposed to adopt a modernized three-inch cannon with a barrel length of at least 40 calibers or a universal weapon - a howitzer gun with a caliber of 76-102 mm with a barrel length of 30-50 calibers.

To study the features of such a howitzer gun, in 1929 an “experimental gun” was made, which used a carriage from a 48-line howitzer and a cannon barrel from a “three-inch” gun with a length of 30 and 40 calibers. The gun underwent numerous tests, however, in the opinion of the Red Army mob administration, it was considered too expensive for mass production with insufficient combat characteristics. Despite the fact that the AU plans included the development of a new 85-mm barrel. work on it was stopped.

However, in 1930, information was received in the USSR through various channels that Germany, France and Czechoslovakia were planning to completely abandon 75-mm guns in divisional artillery and replace them with light howitzers and 83-caliber howitzer guns. or even 105 MP This fact once again aroused the interest of the mob administration in the creation of a domestic divisional howitzer gun. And soon the design bureau of the Perm plant brought to the attention of the Art Directorate a “universal” gun (howitzer gun) designed by V. Sidorenko. It differed from the previous one in that it received a longer barrel (30 calibers), again placed on the carriage of a 48-line howitzer mod. 1910. Despite the conclusion about the insufficient power of the 70.2-mm grenade and the requirements for increasing the caliber, this gun-howitzer, at the suggestion of M. Tukhachevsky, was put into service “as is” under the name “universal divisional gun mod. 1933" and was intended for firing ammunition from a cannon mod. 1902 with the subsequent development of a special “high-explosive shot of increased power” for it. However, this gun was put into service only temporarily “until the development of a new divisional universal long-range gun.” Serial production of the gun was to be carried out by Gorky, who, after some modifications, assigned it the index F-19-1.

Divisional gun mod. 1936 F-22 in the courtyard of Gorky All Plant No. 92. Summer 1939

State tests of the 76.2 mm F-22 cannon. The gun is in the maximum elevation position. Pay attention to the metal wheels with “German-type” weight tires.

The design group (better known as the bearing pomer 92] under the leadership of V. Grabin was engaged in the development of serial production of this gun and in 1934 proposed to the Mobupravleniya its project for a universal divisional gun. It should be noted that in those years the word “universal” referred specifically to guns -howitzers, as having the property of being “howitzer". At first they did not think about the possibility of anti-aircraft firing from divisional guns. However, in 1934, at the request of the AU and M. Tukhachevsky personally, this method of firing was included in the list of mandatory for divisional artillery and soon the latter required modification its design so that this gun could conduct defensive anti-aircraft fire. The gun in question now became known as “universal with the ability to conduct anti-aircraft fire,” and in 1937 it was reclassified as “semi-universal.” In March, 1935. had to present the first three guns for firing tests.

The gun had a revolutionary design for its time with a wedge breech, semi-automatic mechanical (later, copy-type] and sliding frames, allowing for quick fire maneuvers. According to the requirements of the AU, the gun was first designed to use “long-range” cartridges for an anti-aircraft gun “Rheinmetall type” mod. 1931 (ZK), for which the ammunition group had to develop, within no more than 3 months, a reinforced high-explosive fragmentation grenade weighing 7.4 kg. Moreover, to use cartridges model 1931, the gun required a muzzle brake.

In March 1935, three F-22 guns were ready for testing. Two of them had folding frames of the “German type”, and one was solid. Field tests of prototypes of the F-22 took place in June-July 1935. Already during the tests, the customer made adjustments to the specifications for the gun, whose agreement to use a muzzle brake was considered unacceptable. In addition, it was ordered to refuse to use cartridges from the gun mod. 1931 in favor of “three-inch” cartridges mod. 1902

In general, there were always some inconsistencies with cartridges for guns. The fact is that the requirement to howitz the cannon and turn it into a universal howitzer gun was fulfilled, but its use as a howitzer did not provide any special advantages. After all, the howitzer had separate loading, allowing you to vary the size of the charge and the steepness of the trajectory. In a unitary cannon shot, such a selection was practically excluded. And the rejection of unitary loading sharply reduced the rate of fire of the 76-mm artillery system, which was considered unacceptable for divisional artillery. However, with the decision to use the mod cartridge in the gun. 1900/1902 it became possible to use in the F-22 as a “howitzer with a reduced charge” a shot from a regimental gun mod. 1927, well mastered by the industry, which somewhat defused the situation and gave rise to a number of enthusiastic letters at various levels. Therefore, despite the fact that such “gaubization” became half-hearted, it suited the leadership of the Red Army, writing off some of the headaches without much expense.

At the end of the first stage of testing, on July 6, 1935, Plant No. 92 received an order for the production of a series of 10 guns, taking into account the wishes of the customer. The first battery of serial guns arrived at the test site in early March 1936. And on May 11, 1936, “76-mm universal improved divisional gun mod. 1936" was put into service, and according to government decree No. OK 110/ss already in 1936 it was planned to deliver at least 500 new artillery systems to the army. The Kirov Plant was also supposed to be involved in the production of cannons, and it was expected that they would soon fill the Red Army. However, the gun turned out to be quite difficult for both enterprises at that time, and for three years the plans for its production were consistently not fulfilled.

This was explained by many factors, including insufficient qualifications of designers, insufficient experience of technologists, a lack of metal-cutting machines, tools, electricity, and deficiencies in the organization of production. Caring for the gun in the army also turned out to be much more difficult than expected. And it was not very suitable for a horse harness with six horses, having a mass of more than one and a half tons.

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.

It is interesting that for a long time the gun was not tested at all as an anti-aircraft gun, since the POIZO was not developed for it until 1937. But at the end of 1937, the F-22 was sent to NIZenP, where it proved to be unsuitable for anti-aircraft fire, and therefore did not correspond to the class of “semi-universal ground-anti-aircraft divisional gun.”

F-22 guns at the May Day parade 1938

Lieutenant Strupynsky's battery fires at the Finns. Vyborg area, March 1940

Captured F-22 for testing in the Finnish army. Summer 1940

The cannon's service in the Red Army did not last long, as in 1940 it was considered "overly complex, heavy and technically unreliable for mass equipment of the army." Therefore, with the arrival of 76.2-mm divisional guns mod. 1939, their predecessors were to be handed over to military depots. This process began in the spring of 1940, at the end of the Soviet-Finnish war, where a number of F-22s were lost (which allowed the Finns to introduce 36 serviceable guns into their army by July 1940), and the guns again showed some shortcomings, caused mainly by their work at low temperatures.

However, the general delivery of F-22 guns to factories and warehouses was prevented by... the French campaign. The fact is that, according to intelligence data (as it turned out later, erroneous), during the French campaign the Germans used thick-armored tanks, “which are not afraid of modern anti-tank weapons of Britain and France.” Something had to be done urgently. Many artillery designers began developing a new generation of armor-piercing weapons, and commanders became concerned with the creation of special anti-tank formations.

F-22 at maximum elevation angle position. Rice. from the "Operating Manual", 1946

In the spring of 1941 In the USSR, the formation of 10 anti-tank artillery brigades began, each of which was supposed to include 48 F-22 guns. At the same time, the People's Commissariat of Ammunition received the task of testing an enhanced armor-piercing shot for a 76-mm anti-tank (that's what it was called in some documents) and anti-aircraft guns with a long barrel. At the same time, NII-13 (since OKB-92 was hastily developing the 57-mm anti-tank gun), as if remembering a well-forgotten old thing, proposed improving the F-22 to the level of a “high-power anti-tank gun.” The essence of the proposal was to return to the use of a 76-mm 3 K anti-aircraft gun shot and add a muzzle brake to the F-22 design, as well as lightening the carriage. This proposal was considered in May 1941 and a decision was made to manufacture a prototype of such a “reinforced F-22 anti-tank gun” in the third quarter and test it. But these plans were not fulfilled. The war has begun.

Soviet battery after an attack by German tanks. June, 1941

Trophies of the German army. Bottom left is the F-22 cannon.

PaK 36(r) cannon in the courtyard of the Leningrad Museum of Artillery, Engineering Troops and Signal Corps.

German artillerymen on rest between battles. Summer, 1942

According to district reports for June 1-15, 1941. the troops of the Western direction had 2,300 F-22 cannons, of which 131 units required major or major repairs in the conditions of an artillery factory (see table). The main problem for the use of these guns in the troops was the lack of means of traction; the STZ-3 "NATI" tractor and ZIS-6 trucks were still an acute shortage of that time in the divisional artillery.

It is sad to say that armor-piercing shells were no less in short supply in the Red Army in the summer-autumn of 1941, since on June 1, 1941, the Red Army AU had at its disposal only a little more than 24,000 rounds, or in fact 10 each. for every F-22. not to mention other guns of divisional, regimental, tank and anti-aircraft artillery, which used 76-mm rounds mod. 1902/30 and arr. 1931. This despite the fact that, according to pre-war standards, the mobilization stock of armor-piercing ammunition for non-specialized divisional guns should have been no 200 rounds per barrel (according to the estimates of the People's Commissariat of Ammunition - no less than 100 rounds per barrel), and for anti-tank guns - no less than 500 rounds per barrel .

A German column after an attack by a Soviet tank unit. On RSO trailers are anti-tank guns RaK 36(g) Volkhov Front, winter 1942/43.

The gun of Senior Sergeant Tursunkhodzhiev before the battles. Oryol direction, summer 1943

“Double trophy” - ex-F-22, ex-RaK 36(g) batteries cap. Hisnogo in battles. May, 1944

This largely explains the fact that the commanders of batteries placed in the PTO, often reporting about destroyed tanks, wrote something like this:

““... thus, in a daytime battle, the second battery knocked out 5 enemy tanks, which the enemy evacuated at nightfall... This result could have been different if we had armor-piercing shells...” (from the report of the battery commander, senior lieutenant Dudin, August 1941).

During the battles of the summer-autumn of 1941, almost all F-22 guns of the troops of the Western direction were lost in battles or during retreat. According to various sources, during the battles of the summer of 1941, the Germans got at least 1000 pieces. serviceable F-22s, some of which they began to use, as they say, without leaving the cash register.” Tests of captured guns carried out in August 1941 showed that the gun could be used as a powerful anti-tank weapon. Already in September 1941, they accepted the unconverted captured F-22 into service with a mod called 7.62-sm PaK 36 (r) and immediately began production of the new PzGr armor-piercing projectile, and a little later - the improved PzGr 39. In November, the PzGr 40 sub-caliber projectile was also added to the ammunition load of the RaK 36 (g). The shots with a high-explosive fragmentation grenade were originally Soviet. In this form, the ex-F-22s went to North Africa, where artillery systems were very much needed to fight British infantry tanks. However, the armor penetration of such a heavy weapon was still insufficient, according to German experts.

True, in October 1941, for the F-22, UVS and regimental gun mod. 1927 The Germans adopted several types of cumulative shells, but a major modernization of the F-22, as they say, was overdue. Research by specialists has shown that the design of the gun's breech and barrel makes it possible to more than double the powder charge in it, although the gun will have to be supplemented with a muzzle brake. A shot with a 716 mm long cartridge case (the same one that was used for the 75 mm RaK 40 gun) was developed specifically for the reinforced gun against the old ones, which had a length of only 385 mm. The gun's charging chamber was bored to the size of a new cartridge case and a two-chamber muzzle brake was installed. To facilitate aiming, the vertical aiming angle of the gun was reduced to 18 degrees, and the flywheel of the lifting mechanism was moved from the right side of the gun body to the left. Due to its uselessness, German designers blocked the mechanism with a variable rollback and cut the shield in height.

Artillerymen of the Wehrmacht African Corps fire from a 76-mm captured Soviet divisional gun F-22 (7.62-cm Feldkanone 296 (r)

German artillerymen at the FK 296 (r) gun at a position in Libya

Self-propelled gun Marder II with a captured Soviet cannon (full name 7.62 cm PaK(r) auf PzKpfw ll Ausf D Marder II (SdKfz 132)

Captured by the Allies in Africa, the German anti-tank self-propelled artillery unit Marder III (Sd.Kfz.139) on the chassis of the PzKpfw 38(t) tank with a 76.2 mm PaK 36(r) cannon (deep modernization of the captured Soviet F-22 divisional gun)

In this form, retaining the previous name 7.62-cm RaK 36 (g), the former Soviet F-22 went to the front in greater numbers. To avoid confusion, all non-converted F-22s received the F.K. index in the German army. 296-1 (g) or less commonly FK 36 [g],

In addition to towed guns, the Germans also developed the installation of the RaK 30(g) on ​​the chassis of their light tanks PzKpfw II ausf D and PzKpfw 38(1). Such installations received their own name “Marder” (marten), and the F-22 and the PzKpfw 11 chassis were christened as “Marder II”, and the PzKpfw 38(t) chassis as “Marder III”. It was in this version that the captured gun, which had undergone modifications and received a small addition to its name, RaK Zb(r) fur sfl (for self-propelled carriages), was given the highest priority.

The conversion of the Soviet divisional gun into an anti-tank gun was carried out mostly in 1942-43, but shipments to the army continued in 1944 (for repairs).

In addition to the already noted towed and self-propelled guns, the German army had at least five self-propelled mounts of F-22 guns, installed in the armored body of five-ton tractors and used in Africa.

Thus, starting in 1942, a significant part of the F-22s became involved in an active fight with their former owners. Despite some overload, the gun was successful and before the widespread release of the RaK 40, it was considered the most powerful German anti-tank gun. In the Soviet troops, the Germanized version of the gun was called “viper” or “cobra”. At the beginning of 1943, after Stalingrad, these guns, if they were captured, were recommended to be reduced to anti-tank batteries and high-power divisions. But sometimes they were also supplemented with ordinary artillery regiments of divisional artillery.

It is interesting to note that the evacuated plant. No. 8 by 1943 studied the issue of resuming serial production of the F-22, modified to use a high-power 76-mm ZK cannon shot, on a simplified carriage according to the TsAKB drawings, but the matter did not move further than studying the issue.

A battery of 76-mm divisional guns of the 1939 model (F-22 USV), towed by American-made International Harvester KR8 trucks, makes a march to change position. On the gun shield in the foreground there is an inscription: “The enemy will be defeated.”

Artillerymen of a battery of 76-mm divisional guns of the 1939 model F-22 USV, before leaving for combat positions

F-22 abroadEdit

In 1941 - 1942 The Germans captured a large number of these guns. Initially they were used as field guns, assigned the index FK296(r). At the end of 1941, German engineers, having studied the gun, found out that it had large safety margins. It was decided to convert captured F-22s into 7.62 cm Pak 36(r) anti-tank guns. The modernization included boring the chamber for a larger sleeve, installing a muzzle brake, moving the aiming mechanism to one side with the sight, reducing the elevation angle, and eliminating the variable recoil mechanism. A new ammunition load was designed for the gun. In this form, the F-22, which began to enter German troops in the spring of 1942, became the best anti-tank gun of the Wehrmacht at that time. A total of 560 guns were converted, which were used both in the towed version and mounted on the Marder II and Marder III anti-tank self-propelled guns. In addition, the Germans created 9 improvised self-propelled guns F.K.36(r) (Sd.Kfz.6 mit 7.62 cm FK 36(r)), installing the F-22 in its original version on the chassis of the Sd.Kfz.6 half-track tractor . The gun was placed in an armored cabin with a wall thickness of 10 mm. the weight of the self-propelled guns was 10.5 tons. These self-propelled guns were used in North Africa in 1942-1943.

In Romania, captured F-22s in their original form were installed on captured Soviet chassis of the T-60 tank. The result was a light self-propelled artillery mount of the TACAM surrogate type. A total of 30 such machines were produced in Romania.

Organization and service

Red Army

According to the 1939 organization, each rifle division had two artillery regiments: a light regiment with a battalion of 76 mm guns in three batteries of four guns and two mixed divisions with one battery of 76 mm guns and two batteries of 122 mm howitzers. , and a howitzer regiment of 20 75 mm guns. In June 1940, the 76-mm gun division was withdrawn, leaving 8 guns. In March 1942, a third mixed battalion (76 mm battery and 122 mm battery) was added, bringing the number of 76 mm guns to 12.

Since December 1942, the Guards Rifle Divisions had three artillery battalions (two batteries of 76 mm guns and one battery of 122 mm howitzers each), for a total of 24 76 mm guns. From December 1944 they were reorganized into an artillery brigade of three regiments, including a light regiment with 20 76mm guns. From June 1945, all rifle divisions were reorganized in the same way.

The motorized divisions had two mixed battalions (one battery of 76 mm guns, two batteries of 122 mm howitzers), for a total of 8 76 mm guns. Cavalry divisions also had 8 76-mm guns until August 1941, then their divisional artillery was removed and restored in the summer of 1942.

Since 1939, rifle brigades had 8 divisional 76-mm guns; There were 12 motorized and mechanized brigades each.

Since the end of 1942, the cavalry corps had an artillery division of 12 pieces. At the end of 1944, the tank and artillery corps received a light artillery regiment with 76 mm guns (24 pieces).

Also, USVs were used by artillery units of the reserve of the High Command, namely: anti-tank artillery brigades (24 units, since 1942 - tank destroyer brigades 16 units), light artillery brigades (60-72 units) and brigades. breakthrough artillery divisions (light brigade 72 units, since 1944 - 48 units).

By June 1, 1941, the Red Army had 1,070 American combat vehicles. Many of them were lost in battle, but some remained in service until the end of the Soviet-German war. It is unclear whether the gun saw action earlier in the Winter War.

Other operators

PaK 39(r). Pay attention to the muzzle brake.

In 1941–42 The Wehrmacht captured hundreds of USVs and adopted them as field guns, designated 7.62 cm FK297(r)

. By March 1944, 359 units were in service, including 295 in the West, 40 in Denmark and 24 in the East.

Some USVs in German service were converted into anti-tank guns, designated 7.62 cm PaK 39(r)

.
Modifications included upgrading to a larger cartridge, adding a muzzle brake, and elevation controls moved to the left side of the barrel where the sights were located. All of these guns were of pre-war production, since weapons produced during the war had a weaker breech. The exact number of converted pieces is unknown; according to some sources, there were up to 300 of them. Anti-tank characteristics are also difficult to determine. During testing in 1943, a shell from a captured gun penetrated the frontal armor of a KV tank (75 mm at 60°) from 600 m. As an interim solution, it was decided to use an anti-tank gun for the Marder III tank destroyer. [ citation needed
]

The Finns captured nine of these guns. They were given the designation 76 K 39

, military journals dated 01/12/1940 show that some of the guns were transferred to the 6th Battery in Lapland after the notorious 105 mm Bofors mountain guns failed due to extreme cold. [1]

The Romanian Army captured a number of these guns during Operation Barbarossa. They were later adopted by artillery units of infantry divisions to replace the lost 75 mm field guns. [2] Two F-22USVs are preserved in front of the Military Museum in Oradea.

History of creation

In 1937, the ideas of universalism were put to rest; their apologists lost their positions, and in some cases, their lives. The country's military leadership realized that the army, before the impending world war, did not have a satisfactory divisional gun, since the 76-mm divisional gun of the 1902/30 model was clearly outdated, and the new 76-mm divisional gun of the 1936 model (F-22) had a number of major shortcomings . 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.

USV rounds: 1 - with an armor-piercing projectile 53-BR-350A, 2 - with an armor-piercing projectile 53-BR-350B, 3 - with a sub-caliber projectile 53-BR-354P, 4 - with a high-explosive fragmentation projectile 53-OF-350, 5 - with shrapnel 53-Sh-354T, 6 - with smoke 53-D-350

In March 1937, new tactical and technical requirements (TTT) for a divisional gun were issued: the elevation angle was to be 45°, the weight of the gun in firing position was no more than 1,500 kg. Three artillery design bureaus began work on the new gun - the Kirov Plant under the leadership of I. A. Makhanov, Plant No. 92 under the leadership of V. G. Grabin, and OKB-43 (AU Design Bureau) under the leadership of M. N. Kondakov. In his memoirs “Weapon of Victory,” Grabin claims that he learned about the order for a new gun only in April 1938, which seems doubtful given his connections in the artillery department. Grabin urgently began designing a new gun, to which, for some reason, he assigned the index F-22-USV, meaning that the new gun was only a major modernization of the F-22 (he cites the same version in his memoirs). In fact, it was a completely new gun, although structurally it inherited 50% of the parts of the F-22 gun. The new USV gun turned out to be an order of magnitude better than its predecessor.

In April - May 1938, the L-12 gun from the Kirov plant entered field testing. It failed the test and was sent for revision. In August of the same year, the L-12 underwent repeated field tests, based on the results of which it was sent for military trials. The NDP OKB-43 gun entered field tests in April 1939, but failed. Factory tests of the IVDS began in August 1938 and were completed in March of the following year. In March - April 1939, the gun underwent field tests.

From June 5 to July 3, 1939, military tests of two four-gun batteries of L-12 and USV guns took place. Both guns passed military tests, and the USV was recommended for mass production as requiring much less design modifications; in particular, it experienced semi-automatic failures less often. Failures of the semi-automatic bolts of the L-12 guns during these tests amounted to more than 40 shots from every hundred shells that were fired from each L-12 gun, while the Grabinsky USV during the 6-hour shooting only 2 automatic failures, when the cartridge case was literally torn in the chamber. The main reason for such incidents with the guns during testing was that during the tests the guns were fired with French-made ammunition from the First World War, that is, the newest of these shells were produced in 1914, which was further aggravated by the low quality of the brass from which the cartridges were made these ammunition, supplied at that time to the Russian Empire.

Design stage.

Grabin immediately began designing a new gun, which he named F-22-USV, apparently wanting to pass off essentially a new gun as a modernization of the old one. According to the plan, the F-22 USV cannon should be significantly unified with the F-22; its design involved a significant reduction in the number of expensive parts, a reduction in the use of non-ferrous metals and alloy steels. The unification of the F-22USV with the previous one reached 50%, which would significantly simplify the development of the weapon in production.

The design work was carried out in a very short time, apparently out of Grabin’s fears of losing to the Makhanov Design Bureau. The design process, detailing and technological development were combined, and preliminary design was completely abandoned. The technical documentation, in general, was completed in August, and in November the workshops began producing experimental guns.

For the first time, the design provided for the extensive use of hollow parts; instead of special stamped wheels, cargo wheels from the ZIS-5 were installed. During shooting, the F-22 often experienced jamming of the cartridge case. Grabin explained this by using French ammunition from the WWI period. But, according to archival documents, the root cause is the poor quality of Soviet-made shots.

To prevent jamming, the bolt device included a mechanism for forced extraction of the cartridge case after firing. The first tests of 4 F-22USV guns and 4 guns from the Kirov plant took place in December 1938 in the Moscow region. Initially, the guns were tested by driving off-road behind a Komsomolets tractor, and then by artillery preparation in the amount of 600 rounds from a gun.

At the first stage of testing, one of the guns while being towed overturned and in this form the tractor dragged it for several meters. The F-22 USV gun received significant damage, but was subsequently restored and continued testing. At the second stage, the main advantage of the Grabin design manifested itself - forced removal of the cartridge case, as a result of which the F-22USV showed a higher rate of fire. Thanks to this, as well as the support of Stalin, the F-22 USV gun was supposed to replace the F-22.

Thus, the main difference between the USV gun and the F-22 was a significant reduction in weight, while other characteristics slightly deteriorated. However, the durability of the “lightweight” parts has become less.

Description of design

The F-22 was a semi-universal gun (that is, a weapon that combined the qualities of a divisional and partially anti-aircraft gun). The gun had a modern design at the time of its creation with sliding frames, suspension and metal wheels with rubber tires. It was equipped with a semi-automatic vertical wedge shutter, a hydraulic recoil brake, and a hydropneumatic knurler; The rollback length is variable. The sight and vertical guidance mechanism were located on different sides of the barrel. The chamber was designed for a standard cartridge case mod. Accordingly, the gun could fire all ammunition for 76-mm divisional and regimental guns.

Production

Serial production of the USV began in 1939 at plant No. 92. That year, 140 guns were produced, in 1940 - 1010. At the beginning of 1941, the USV was discontinued. This decision was explained by two reasons: firstly, the mobilization plan for divisional guns was fully implemented (the mobilization reserve on June 1, 1941 was 5,730 guns, but 8,513 guns were available); secondly, it was planned to switch to divisional guns of a larger caliber (the 107-mm divisional gun of the 1940 model (M-60) had already been put into mass production).

However, this reserve was not sufficient. Soon after the start of the war, the head of the Main Artillery Directorate (GAU), Marshal G.I. Kulik, reported that there were no divisional guns in the GAU warehouses, and for the formation of new units they could only be obtained from weapons factories [ source not specified 2652 days

].

With the beginning of the war, according to the mobilization plan, the production of SPM was again expanded to. In 1941, 2616 guns were produced, in 1942 - 6046 of these guns. According to the State Defense Committee Resolution No. 955ss of November 23, 1941 “On the production plan for 45 mm anti-tank guns and 76 mm divisional guns (USV) for December 1941, January and February 1942” by the factories No. 221 and No. 92 in total should have been produced in December: 1150 units, in January: 1300 units, in February: 1650 units. Also, Plant No. 92 was allowed to use the existing reserves for the ZIS-2 cannon by placing no more than 1000 USV barrels on the ZIS-2 carriages. Production of the USV was discontinued at the end of 1942 due to the adoption of the new ZIS-3 divisional gun, which had a number of advantages over the USV. It is worth noting that the displacement of the USV from production occurred gradually, in particular, plant No. 92 continued to produce the USV in 1942 (706 guns were produced), although at the end of the summer of 1941 the ZIS-3 was already produced at this plant.

History of development

USV at the Hämeenlinna Artillery Museum, Finland.
In 1937, the command of the Red Army (RKKA), dissatisfied with both the outdated 76-mm divisional gun M1902/30 and the new, but defective 76-mm divisional gun of the 1936 model (F-22), initiated the development of a new gun. The requirements, issued in March of the same year, called for an elevation angle of 45° and a combat weight of no more than 1,500 kg. The gun was to have the same ballistics as the M1902/30 and use the same ammunition.

Three design bureaus joined the program - KBZ

under the leadership of I.A.
Makhanov, OKB No. 92
under V.G.
Grabin and AKB-43 (KB AU) under the leadership of M.N. Kondakova. The L-12
Kirov Plant was the first to achieve ground tests (in April-May 1938), was returned for revision, tested again in August and given to the Red Army for further testing.
The Grabin pistol passed ground tests in March–April 1939 and was also transferred to the army. Although its designation— F-22 USV
or simply
USV
—suggested that the gun was merely an upgrade of the F-22, it was in fact an entirely new design.
A third competing design, OKB-43 PNR
, failed ground tests in April 1939. The Red Army tested the remaining samples from June 5 to July 3, 1939 and was generally pleased with both of them. USV was found to have fewer "childhood diseases" and was therefore recommended for production.

The USV entered production in 1939; By the end of the year, 140 units were built, and in 1940, another 1010 units. In 1941, production was stopped because the plan for divisional guns had already been completed. In addition, the Red Army was considering a transition to larger-caliber divisional guns, such as the 107-mm gun of the 1940 model (M-60)

. After the German invasion in 1941, production was resumed at Factory No. 92 and at Stalingrad; in 1941 it amounted to 2,616 pieces, in 1942 - 6,046. From the end of the summer of 1941, production gradually replaced the gun with another Grabin design - the ZiS-3, and by the end of 1942 the process was completed.

76 mm gun mod. 1902/30. Modernization and production.

Throughout the late 30s, the USSR developed many options for modernizing 76 mm divisional guns. As a result, the decision was made to focus on the option of modernizing the 76-mm gun mod. 1902, proposed by a group of designers from the Motovilikha plant, whose leader was V.N Sidorenko. The most significant differences in this modernization plan are the absence of a muzzle brake, a barrel balancing mechanism and the introduction of more significant changes to the carriage design than those of competitors. Which ultimately made it possible to attach barrels of both 30 and 40 calibers to the carriage.

The chosen plan for modernizing the dmvmsion gun was not only the most structurally complex, but also the most expensive. It had to cost the state no less than 6,640 rubles in 1931 prices, while the price of upgrading the three-inch gun according to the competitors’ plan was significantly lower - less than three thousand rubles. And nevertheless, it was the Sidorenko system that was adopted for service in 1931, as a 76-mm cannon mod. 1902/30. At different times, modernized guns were equipped with barrels with different relative elongations of both 40 and 30 calibers. Installation of 30 cal barrels was discontinued by 1932.

Performance characteristics of 76-mm divisional guns model 1902/30.

performance characteristics of guns with a barrel length of 30 and 40 calibers.

Movement of a cannon with a fixed shield.

Serial production of 76-mm gun mod. 1902/30 lasted until 1937. In 1930, Sidorenko proposed two projects for modernizing the three-inch gun. One of them provided for suspension of the carriage of a 76-mm gun mod. 1902/30. At the same time, the weight of the system increased to 1306 kg when installing a muzzle brake. The gun as a whole successfully passed field tests.

Despite the fact that the suspension plate sometimes burst, the gun was able to move for a long time on the hitch behind the T-26 tank. The muzzle brake made it possible to fire an experienced 7.1 kg projectile at a range of up to 13,400 km. And, nevertheless, it was clear that further modernization of the three-inch gun was unpromising and the Motovilikha plant stopped further work on it in 1934, producing 10 guns with carriages both with and without sprung in 1933.

In the early thirties, the main direction of modernization of the 76-mm gun mod. 1902/30 saw an increase in the survivability of the table and an improvement in the maneuverability of the gun. For this purpose, during 1930-33, several barrels with a relative elongation of 30 and 40 calibers, both lined and with a free tube, were tested. But, despite the resolution of the Council of Labor and Defense, which ordered the production of gun barrels only with a liner or a free tube, this was not done due to technical difficulties in production and the transition to the production of new models of divisional guns.

Table of unitary divisional artillery shots.

• Sheet 1
• Sheet 2
• Sheet 3
• Sheet 4

The transport speed of the 76-mm cannon model 1920/30 was slightly increased thanks to the use of metal disc wheels equipped with main battery tires, the order for which in 1937 amounted to 600 pieces. Since it was not possible to sprung the gun, they tried to increase its towing speed with the help of a sprung trolley - a solution that gained some popularity abroad. So the Grabin design bureau proposed the F-11 trolley. Such a trolley ensured that the gun was towed behind a car at a speed of about thirty forty kilometers along the highway

But due to the fact that things were important with mechanized traction in the Red Army, the cart and metal disc wheels were not particularly widespread, and in the divisional artillery 76-mm cannons model 1920/30 were driven as before under the Tsar-Father with six horses.

Unitary shot UO-354AM and UBr-354A

Unitary shot USH-354

SocButtons v1.5

Characteristics and properties of ammunition

The USV could use all ammunition of Russian divisional and regimental artillery since 1900. HEAT shells were used mainly in regimental artillery rounds (until the end of 1944, their use in divisional guns was prohibited due to the imperfection of the fuse and the risk of the shell exploding in the barrel). The penetration of a cumulative projectile is about 70 mm (according to other sources, 100 mm at an angle of 90° and 60 mm at an angle of 60°). Until 1942, due to a shortage of armor-piercing shells, it was recommended to use shrapnel placed “on impact” when firing at tanks. Armor penetration was about 30 mm.