76-mm ZIS-3 gun through the eyes of Soviet artillery officers

Prerequisites for the creation of the ZIS-3 gun.

It’s easy to guess that already at the stage of considering the preliminary design, the factory workers hoped for support from a possible customer. However, even then the performance characteristics of the guns designated F-24 underwent some adjustments. Thus, the vertical pointing angle of the gun was ordered to be increased to 60 degrees, and also to use a shot from a 76-mm regimental gun with a detachable G-36 cartridge case. These measures would make it possible to introduce separate loading of the gun to ensure the possibility of conducting overhead fire (ensuring the “howitzer” capability of the gun). It was also considered necessary to limit the mass of the gun to 950 kg.

These changes led to a reduction in the gun barrel length to 23.5 klb, since the use of a longer barrel lost its meaning when using regimental gun shots. To ensure a vertical guidance angle of sixty degrees, the height of the firing line had to be increased to 1070 mm, for which a crank landing of the wheels was used.

The revised draft design was presented to the Artillery Committee in the spring of 1939. After its consideration, the design bureau was ordered to replace the single-beam carriage with a carriage with sliding frames, abandon the crank suspension of the wheels, and also use an artillery shot and the bolt of a mountain gun model 1938. After changes and modifications were made, the F-24 project was again considered at a committee meeting in May 1939. and generally approved.

The first four-gun battery of the F-24 was tested at the ANIIOP in January 1940. The tests were unsuccessful. To correct the shortcomings, it was necessary to strengthen the gun frame, lighten the shield cover, and change the gun's suspension by replacing leaf springs with spiral ones.

At the beginning of 1940, work on the new gun was curtailed and postponed for three months due to the need to refine the 76-mm divisional gun mod. 1939 But in June, these plans had to be revised again. The design bureau of plant No. 96 received an order to urgently begin the design and production of a 57-mm heavy anti-tank gun, and work on the F-24 was finally postponed “for later.”

However, the work put into this weapon was not in vain. The carriage of the failed regimental gun was completely borrowed for the 57-mm anti-tank gun mod. 1941, which later received the index ZIS-2 and was put into production by plant No. 92.

Weapon of victory ZiS-3. Part 2.

Ending. Start: Weapon of victory ZiS-3. Part 1.

Successful tests of the 57-mm ZIS-2 anti-tank gun served as an impetus for the development of the ZIS-Z divisional gun. The compact carriage of the ZIS-2 was lightweight, reliable, and ensured high mobility of the gun: while firing and on the move. It, as well as the cradle, recoil devices, and guidance mechanisms, could be used without significant modifications for the new divisional gun. Therefore, after the first firing of the 57-mm ZIS-2 anti-tank gun in the design bureau of plant No. 92, a discussion took place in a narrow circle about the design of a new divisional gun. Vasily Gavrilovich Grabin shared his thoughts about the new weapon with his comrades D.I. Sheffer, K.K. Renne, V.D. Meshchaninov, I.A. Gorshkov and L.D. Kotov.

According to V.G. Grabin, there were the following reasons for the development of a new divisional gun.

Firstly, even a rough calculation showed that by the beginning of 1941 the Red Army would have fewer guns of this type than the Russian army before the First World War, and orders for the production of the F-22USV from the People's Commissariat of Defense were no longer expected. The scale of that war was more modest than the upcoming war, the inevitability of which no one doubted. Therefore, the possibility cannot be ruled out that in the event of war it will be necessary to resume production of the F-22USV, which he considered as a transitional model to a more advanced gun. Consequently, it would not hurt to have a new divisional gun in case of war, which would be superior in its characteristics to the F-22USV.

Secondly, the power and ballistic solutions of the F-22USV divisional gun, mastered in mass production, fully satisfied the requirements for the promising ZIS-Z divisional cannon. Therefore, it would be rational to superimpose the 76-mm barrel of the F-22USV onto the ZIS-2 carriage. Based on the practice that had developed by this time, initially the maximum elevation angle of 45 degrees was adopted for the new gun, as providing the maximum firing range. Shooting at high elevation angles will lead to a significant increase in the maximum loads on the carriage (for the ZIS-2 the elevation angle was 25 degrees); to reduce them, they decided to equip the ZIS-Z barrel with a muzzle brake, which would reduce the recoil energy by 30%.

V.G. Grabin’s proposals met with understanding and support from the meeting participants.

The development of the ZIS-Z barrel according to a design scheme similar to the ZIS-2 was entrusted to the designer I.S. Griban and the head of the department V.D. Meshchaninov. The 76-mm barrel tube had to be fitted into the casing of the anti-tank gun. Griban quickly developed a sketch for the pipe and sent it to production, and he himself began drawing up drawings for the barrel. After studying the designs of various muzzle brakes, the brake of the 122-mm A-19 hull gun of the 1931 model was chosen as a prototype for a new gun with variable recoil length. From the blank of the barrel for the F-22USV, according to the sketch of I.S. Griban, the barrel of an experimental gun was made, onto which a modified muzzle brake was installed. The barrel was installed in the ZIS-2 cradle and after the assembly of the gun was completed, the first firing was made from it at the factory range at night with reduced, normal and reinforced charges at zero elevation angle. In the morning, the gun delivered to the workshop was examined: no deformations or structural damage were found.

This made it possible to begin the second stage of work - a detailed study of the main components of the ZIS-Z divisional gun.

The general layout of the gun was entrusted to A.E. Khvorostin, an experienced designer who completed more than one layout of guns in various design bureaus. A.P. Shishkin took up the modification of the upper machine. The installation of the sight was entrusted to B.G. Pogosyants and Z.M. Minaeva. The most difficult task—the development of a variable recoil length mechanism—was entrusted to a recent graduate of the Leningrad Military Mechanical Institute, F.F. Kaleganov, who had previously taken part in the creation and debugging of ZIS-2 anti-recoil devices. After considering similar devices, he chose as a prototype the recoil brake design from the same A-19 gun, created under the leadership of V.N. Drozdov.

The task of creating a cannon was simplified by the fact that V.G. Grabin’s design bureau was the initiator of high-speed methods for designing artillery guns, providing for their widespread unification and work in close contact with factory technologists, when the designer, at an early stage of development, took into account the peculiarities of the technological processes mastered by the factory. The joint work of designer A.P. Shishkin with technologists: foundry worker G.I. Kopteby and machining specialist Gordeev made it possible to submit the upper machine for assembly ahead of schedule. There were no problems with installing the sight: designers B.G. Pogosyants and Z.M. Minaeva with the deputy head of the sighting shop Seliverstov promptly completed this work.

While testing the gun at the test site, the designers noticed that when fired, it behaved quite steadily. This prompted an idea: is it possible to completely abandon the brake with a variable rollback length? The idea was extremely tempting; in this case, there is almost no need to modify the ZIS-2 recoil devices for the ZIS-Z, the carriage of which had been tested many times by that time. It was necessary to check how this would affect the accuracy of fire. The accuracy assessment was checked by traditional shooting at shields with the brake set to a constant recoil length. The first counting group of shots was performed at a distance of 500 m. We obtained excellent results. Repeated firing did not produce any discrepancies and was not inferior to the accuracy of the F-22USV battle. Shooting at a distance of 1000 m showed no worse results. At the same time, when shooting at the maximum range with the selected recoil length, it was necessary either to increase the height of the upper machine, or to dig out a ditch under the cradle between the frames when shooting at the maximum range. At the same time, reducing the elevation angle from 45 to 37 degrees reduced the firing range of a high-explosive fragmentation projectile by 0.7 km (to 13.3 km). But even at this range it was difficult to adjust the firing of the 76-mm cannon.

Since the ZIS-Z was developed on a proactive basis, they decided to limit the maximum elevation angle to 37 degrees. This made it possible, while increasing the line of fire by only 50 mm, to maintain the compactness and stockiness characteristic of the anti-tank ZIS-2. The transition to a constant recoil length required a significant rearrangement of the gun, and A.E. Khvorostin did this job brilliantly. The modified gun successfully passed factory tests. The results of the work pleased the creators of the ZIS-Z. It, not inferior to the F-22USV in tactical characteristics, was 400 kg lighter, more compact and more technologically advanced in production and, most importantly, three times cheaper than its predecessor. The maximum rate of fire of the gun reached 25-30 rounds per minute. But ZIS-Z, created on an initiative basis, also had a big disadvantage - no one knew about it either in the State Autonomous Institution or in the People's Commissariat. It was necessary to choose a suitable occasion to present the gun to the leadership of the State Autonomous Agrarian University and bring the work to its logical conclusion—ground and military tests, and, if the results are positive, adoption and launch into full production.

Such an occasion soon presented itself. In March 1941, the head of the GAU, Marshal G.I. Kulik, came to Gorky, who supported V.G. Grabin a year ago in the creation of the ZIS-2. This time, the marshal was little concerned about the production and development of divisional guns, and he stopped the chief designer’s attempts to discuss this issue. And the gun remained covered in the experimental workshop to wait in the wings.

And this hour has come: on June 22, 1941, German troops crossed the Soviet border. The Great Patriotic War began:

The rapid advance of German troops, the encirclement and pockets in which the troops who entered the battle in the border districts found themselves, led to large losses in personnel and weapons. The evacuation of many enterprises from the European part to the east began. Under these conditions, those factories that were located outside the combat zone were required to sharply increase the production of weapons and military equipment. In accordance with mobilization plans, production of the F-22USV was to be launched at plant No. 92 named after. Stalin and. Moreover, due to the difficult situation at the front, production had to be increased by an order of magnitude compared to the volumes in which these artillery systems were produced in peacetime.

A month after the start of the war, the plant tripled its production of guns. But this was not enough. A construction team of several thousand people arrived at the enterprise. In less than a month, they erected a new building for the production of normals and recoil devices with an area of ​​10,000 m2. To help the plant equip production with horizontal milling, boring and surface grinding machines, the representative of the State Defense Committee G.I. Ivanovsky, former director of the country's largest Krivoy Rog Metallurgical Plant, and during the war, Deputy People's Commissar of State Control, arrived. Such equipment was available at the milling machine plant, but its director did not give it away, saying that production would suffer. The lesser of two evils was chosen—the machines were handed over to the artillerymen. In the evening, G.I. Ivanovsky told the director of this plant by telephone that the equipment must be handed over immediately. An hour later, cars with workers from plant No. 92 arrived at the enterprise, who not only dismantled and transported the machines, but also managed to install and launch them in a new place by morning.

On the first day of the war, Marshal of the Soviet Union G.I. Kulik was replaced as head of the GAU by General N.D. Yakovlev. As V.G. Grabin recalled, in July 1941, having received the consent of People's Commissar D.F. Ustinov, he turned to Deputy People's Commissar of Defense for Armaments G.I. Kulik with a request to familiarize himself with the new developments of the design bureau of plant No. 92 and make a decision on the feasibility their adoption. The show was scheduled for July 22 in the courtyard of the People's Commissariat of Defense. 57-mm self-propelled anti-tank guns were delivered from Gorky: ZIS-ZO on the chassis of the Komsomolets tracked armored tractor and ZIS-41 on the chassis of the GAZ-AAA vehicle, as well as the ZIS-Z cannon. Despite the good impression made by the work of the gun crews, the marshal's conclusion about the ZIS-Z was negative.

Since the plant was daily required to increase the production of F-22USV, F-34 and ZIS-2 guns, in contrast to pre-war times, when plant No. 92 produced one (sometimes two) type of guns, drastic measures were required to comply with the resolutions of the State Defense Committee . V.G. Grabin proposed the following solution to this problem to the plant director. It is necessary to launch the ZIS-Z into production, which will gradually replace the F-22USV in gross production. In order not to “tease the geese” ahead of time, they decided to make the muzzle brake in pilot production. Assembly of the ZIS-Z without a barrel was carried out simultaneously with the ZIS-2. The first batch of several ZIS-Zs was assembled during the night shift and presented to the customer in the morning, he refused and went to report to the senior military representative, engineer-colonel I.F. Teleshov, who reported this to the GAU. The answer did not come immediately, but the guns began to be accepted.

At the same time, the plant carried out measures to reduce the labor intensity of the guns produced. First of all, the design bureau decided to simplify the design of the gun by reducing the number of parts and their unification, without reducing their tactical characteristics. Before this, each Grabin gun had its own bolt, and there were five of them in production. For the F-22, before its modernization, it consisted of 116 parts, many of them quite complex. The simplest bolt was for the 57-mm ZIS-2 gun. It was taken as a base when creating a unified bolt, common for all guns. The new shutter had 57 parts. We organized a production line for its production. The shutter began to be made four times faster than before. Before modernization, ZIS-Z and ZIS-2 each had 2080 parts, and after modernization - 1306.

In December 1941, the production of guns increased five and a half times compared to pre-war. The plant fulfilled its obligations, but the front demanded more. The enterprise was visited by K.E. Voroshilov, who spent the whole day getting acquainted with the production and was pleased with what he saw.

At the beginning of 1942, V.G. Grabin was summoned to a meeting of the State Defense Committee, scheduled for January 4—this was a convenient opportunity to show the ZIS-Z to Stalin and get it adopted for service. V.G. Grabin shared his plans with D.F. Ustinov - and he allowed the cannon to be delivered to Moscow. The GKO meeting was convened at the direction of the military, who argued that the modernized guns would fall apart during artillery preparation and should be made according to old drawings.

At a meeting of the State Defense Committee, Stalin sharply criticized the work of V.G. Grabin, accusing him of design itch, because of which the country would be left without guns. In a depressed state, Vasily Gavrilovich went to the hotel. Early the next morning he had a telephone conversation with I.V. Stalin. The Supreme Commander-in-Chief approved the work done by the plant staff and V.G. Grabin. Taking advantage of the opportunity, Grabin told Stalin about the ZIS-Z and invited him to look at it.

ZIS-Z and F-22USV were delivered to the Kremlin. Stalin came to the inspection with members of the State Defense Committee and military leaders. Stalin liked the ZIS-Z, which meant that she would finally be able to get official registration in the troops.

After the ZIS-Z divisional gun was shown in the Kremlin, it passed official field tests. The field testing commission of six people was headed by Panikhin, who headed the Artillery Rifle-Tactical Committee of the Chief of Artillery of the Red Army.

In the test results report, the new divisional gun was recommended for adoption, and it was noted that it was not inferior to its predecessor, the F-22USV divisional gun, and had the following advantages over it:

— 420 kg lighter; — has greater ground clearance—360 mm (for the F-22USV—330 mm); - has a smaller height, which allows it to be better and faster to camouflage it in position; — placement of guidance mechanisms on one side made it more convenient for anti-tank defense; - it has fewer parts and they are easier to manufacture; — the production of one copy of the new gun requires 420 fewer machine hours, while saving 1400 kg of ferrous and 110 kg of non-ferrous metals.

Among the shortcomings identified by the commission during field tests of the gun and which must be eliminated by the design bureau together with the manufacturer before putting it into full production:

— eliminate the leak in the knurl; — provide a rollback length of 750 + 50 mm; —strengthen the sight bracket of the upper machine, strengthen the side level and the cross-swing mechanism of the sight.

By decree of the State Defense Committee of February 12, 1942, the 76-mm divisional gun was adopted for service. Plant No. 92 was given a target for the production of 76-mm divisional guns: in March—400 F-22USV and 200 ZIS-Z, in April—650 ZIS-Z and in May—700 ZIS-Z. In May, Plant No. 92 produced divisional and tank guns 13 times more than the pre-war level; in December this figure increased 16 times. In the first half of 1943, the production of guns increased and reached an 18-fold increase compared to the pre-war level. Factory No. 92 produced more guns than the entire German military industry.

In the multiple increase in the production of guns, an equally important role belongs to the plant’s technological service, which was constantly searching for reserves to increase production. 54 modernized machines and 50 multi-place attachments for them replaced 164 universal machines, which made it possible to free up 2,453 m2 of production space, transfer 247 workers to another job and save 23.9 million rubles. The labor intensity of the ZIS-Z was reduced from 1053 to 633 machine hours. The cost of the ZIS-Z after modernization was increased to 15 thousand rubles, while for its predecessors F-22 and F-22USV it was 120 and 60 thousand rubles, respectively.

The cutting of the hole in the breech for the bolt wedge was carried out on slotting machines by workers of the highest qualifications. Technologists suggested making this hole by broaching. Along with the slotting machines, a broaching machine made by the plant itself was installed on the production line. E.V. Uglova, who had only the third category, began to work on it. The first breech, submitted for inspection, turned out to be made better and faster than in the traditional way. Careful measurements have shown that the accuracy of making a hole and the cleanliness of its processing on a broaching machine is much higher, and many times less labor is spent.

To finish machining the barrel bore, which took about 12 hours using traditional technology (boring with floating cutters), they first used a broach on a machine designed by ENIMS, but the hydraulics did not work reliably on it. The machine tool design department under the leadership of K.I. Borodkin created 100-ton screw broaching machines, which were simpler and more reliable. Finish broaching began to take only 15 minutes. This department modernized over 200 machines of 66 types and created 20 types of new special machines.

At the suggestion of the head of the assembly shop, A. Kovalev, wooden chutes were made along which the carriages rolled, placed on wheels and assembled in the carriage shop. The carriages were installed by crane and connected to each other with a special coupling. The cannon moved along the conveyor using a mechanical winch. At the end of the technological chain, the guns were sent to the factory site; one gun was rolled into the back, the second was towed on a trailer.

The number of devices for making parts has tripled compared to pre-war. Deputy Director for Metallurgy, Professor M.M. Struselba, a specialist in shaped and centrifugal casting, made a great contribution to increasing labor productivity at the plant. At his suggestion, the barrel blank began to be produced by centrifugal casting. Factory metallurgists mastered chill casting of the muzzle brake. Previously, it was made from forgings. The forged version of the part required 30 hours of intense labor, but now only half an hour of machining was required. The Germans were unable to master this technology, although they tried.

They forged a muzzle brake for cannons until the end of the war.

In 1943, plant No. 235 in Votkinsk and plant No. 13 in Ust-Katav joined the production of ZIS-Z, which contributed to increasing the production volume of guns developed under the leadership of V.G. Grabin.

During the Great Patriotic War, the need to create self-propelled artillery became obvious. In the fall of 1942, under the leadership of the chief designer of plant No. 38 (Kirov), M.N. Shchukin, the SU-76 self-propelled artillery mount was developed based on the T-70 light tank. The production of this tank was carried out at several enterprises, including the Gorky Automobile Plant. The ZIS-Z cannon was used as the main weapon on this vehicle. The first SU-76s put into service were found to have serious defects in the power unit during operation at the front. It was significantly modified at the GAZ plant under the leadership of A.N. Astrov and launched into mass production under the designation SU-76M.

On the first self-propelled guns, the ZIS-Z gun was used without a frame and with a new armored cradle and recoil device. Subsequently, a modification of the ZIS-Z for the SU-76M was developed, taking into account its specific placement on the chassis: the upper mounting of the gun was attached to a channel installed across the fighting compartment, the maximum elevation angle was limited to 15 degrees, and a foot trigger was introduced. Subsequently, this modification occupied a significant share in the overall production of ZIS-Z, and the SU-76M became the most massive Soviet self-propelled gun manufactured during the war. A total of 13,732 SU-76M self-propelled guns were produced, of which 11,494 were produced during the Great Patriotic War. Production of the unit continued until 1946.

There is documentary evidence of the technical level of the ZIS-Z cannon from the head of the artillery structures department of the Krupp company, Professor Wolf. Comparing this gun with the German ones, he wrote: “For a 76-mm gun of the 1942 model, the ratio of muzzle energy to the weight of the gun in firing position is 131. This is a surprisingly high figure. The best German 75-mm gun 16 (obviously, we are talking about 7.5 cm Cancer 40. - Author's note) this parameter is 80.3... The given figures show the significant superiority of the Soviet system. It also manifests itself in the maximum firing range. The gun, which weighs 73 percent of the weight of a 75mm German gun, sends a projectile 1,000 meters further. Moreover, the projectile itself is 13 percent heavier than the German one... Therefore, the opinion that it is the best 76-mm gun of the Second World War is absolutely justified.”

Unlike many guns manufactured during the Great Patriotic War, it was not the last for the ZIS-Z: in footage chronicling armed conflicts in Africa or Afghanistan, you can sometimes see this gun today.

Tactical and technical characteristics of the ZIS-Z gun

Initial projectile speed, m/s: OF-350………………………………………………………………………………….680 BR-350A……………………… …………………………………662 Longest table firing range, km…………………..13.29 Gun rate of fire, rds/min: maximum…………………… ………………………………………………………25 sighting……………………………………………………………..15 Time of transfer from traveling to combat position, s…………………………………………………………..30 - 40 Maximum elevation angle, degrees……………………….37 Maximum declination angle, degrees… ………………………..-5 Angle of horizontal fire, degrees………………………54 Height of the line of fire (taking into account the draft of the tires), mm………875 Length of the gun with the frames folded, mm ………….6095 Width of the gun with the frames folded, mm………1645 Height of the gun along the shield, mm……………………………………1375 Weight of the gun in firing position, kg…………… ……..1200 76-mm divisional gun mod. 1942 ZIS-Z:

84—rotation mechanism stand; 87—right fork axis; 99—flywheel of the turning mechanism; 100—pin of the upper machine; 101—worm gear housing; 102—joint drive; 103 — bevel gear box; 149—tooth sector; 150—sight bracket; 151—bracket for aiming mechanisms; 152 - basting; 153—spacer tube; 154—base of the frontal box; 155—brass bushing; 156—needle bearing; 157—gears; \ 58—stopper body; 159—frame stopper; 160—pedal hook; 161—pressure pin; 162—spring pusher; 163 — pedal; 164—fork; 165—lead screw; 166—casing; 167—spherical bearing; 168—nut; 169—uterus; 170—adjusting nut; 171—bearing; 172—thrust washer; 173 — inner glass; 174 — spring; 175 — cover; 176—traction; c—hole for the bolt-fixator of the combat axis; g—hole for installing a rotating mechanism; d—barrel declination angle limiter; e—eyes for fastening the top shield; g—hole for the cradle axles; and - hole for mounting the sight; k—hole for installing bevel gear; l — cylinder of the balancing mechanism; m - boss for the pressure pin pusher; n—rotation limiter of the upper machine; p—protrusion limiting the spread of the beds; p—tide to limit the swing of the combat axis; c—tide of fastening the combat axis

Ammunition for the 76-mm divisional gun model 1942 ZIS-Z:

A—unitary cartridge UOF-354M with a full charge with a high-explosive long-range steel grenade OF-350; B—unitary cartridge UBR-354A with a full charge with an armor-piercing tracer projectile BR-350A; B - unitary cartridge USh354Sh with an incomplete charge with bullet shrapnel Sh-354T; G—unitary cartridge UBR-354P with a full charge with a sub-caliber armor-piercing tracer projectile BR-354T1; D - unitary cartridge UD-354 with an incomplete charge with a smoke steel projectile D-350: E unitary cartridge UBP-353M with a flameless full powder charge with a cumulative (armor-burning) steel projectile BP-350M; F......unitary cartridge UD-354 with a full charge with an incendiary long-range steel projectile 3-350; I—a training cartridge with a grenade; K......training cartridge with cooled spacer tube T-6; L blank shot with a charge of WMO 17/32 or WMO 17/16 gunpowder; M—blank shot with a charge of VTOD brand gunpowder; I—sleeve; 2.24 - powder charges; 3 — cardboard cover; 4 shutter; 5 leading belt made of red copper; 6 — body of a high-explosive fragmentation grenade; 7,13,31—explosive charges; X.— fuse KMT1 (KMTZ-1); 9—cardboard cylinder; 10 — KV4 capsule sleeve: 11 — body of the BR-350A armor-piercing tracer projectile; 12 — ballistic tip; 14—bottom fuse MD-8; 15 — tracer: 16 — bullet shrapnel body; 17—lead bullet; 18.42 - locking screws; 19.28 - screw heads; 20—double-action remote tube T-6; 21— central tube; 22 — expelling charge; 23 — powder charge in the cap; 25 — sub-caliber armor-piercing projectile; 26 - hard alloy core; 27 — smoke projectile body; 29—fuze KMT-2: 30..... ignition glass;

N. SOIKO (The article was prepared based on materials from the Korolev Historical Museum) “Model designer” No. 6'2007

The rebirth of the ZIS-3.

In April-May 1941, Grabin, on a personal initiative, worked on the issue of unifying 76-mm divisional and 57-mm anti-tank guns. Due to the fact that all the alterations amounted only to the imposition of the ZIS-2 table on the swinging part of the F-22-USV and the introduction of a two-chamber muzzle brake, the proposal to test such a weapon was supported by the head of the OGK plant. By June 5, 1941, on the initiative of the plant, two such guns as 76-mm anti-tank guns were produced. The use of a divisional cannon shot in this case promised certain advantages.

At the end of the month, one of them, which received the factory designation ZIS-3, was sent for display in Moscow. However, contrary to the expectations of the factory workers, it did not make much of an impression. The GAU agreed that the ZIS-3 could be useful for organizing and strengthening anti-tank weapons of units and formations and as an artillery weapon for cannon regiments of divisional artillery. However, the use of the ZIS-3 as an anti-tank weapon was considered inappropriate, because this gun had serious disadvantages:

• the use of a muzzle brake in an anti-tank gun is unacceptable, because it unmasks the weapon and contributes to its suppression;
• insufficient amount of penetration armor of the ZIS-3 (60-70 at a distance of 500 meters);
• insufficient direct shot range, not reaching a kilometer;
• small area of ​​shield closure.

While the ZIS-3, a weapon designed to equip divisional artillery, has the following disadvantages:

• small vertical guidance angle, only 20 degrees, which will lead to a short firing range and insufficient steepness of the projectile trajectory;
• the use of a muzzle brake will facilitate the unmasking of artillery positions from the air and will increase the visibility of ZIS-3 positions at dusk.

And since the USV gun, which was devoid of such shortcomings, was in service at that time, further work on fine-tuning the ZIS-3 was ordered to be stopped.

With the beginning of the war, according to mobilization plans, Plant No. 92 began production of F-22-USV divisional guns to compensate for losses. But the decline in cannons was so great that he joined in their production). However, this did not save the situation and there was an acute shortage of guns. To correct the situation, the guns stored there were transferred from the reserve to the active army. 1936, model 1933, model 1902/30. By the end of September, the situation had become so serious that it was necessary to at least double the production of 76-mm divisions, as they were the most versatile and easy to master.

To simplify the design, both factories introduced a monoblock barrel into the design and began to widely use shaped casting. Plant No. 92 developed and put into production tubular frames instead of riveted ones. The production of guns was increased by 2-2.5 times, and the cost was reduced by 35-40%.

According to the polar version, V. Grabin, on his own initiative, ordered the replacement of the F-22USV in production with the ZIS-3 cannon, but this version seems doubtful. In accordance with documents from plant No. 92, the customer’s representative at the plant informed his superiors about the plant’s proposal to replace the F-22USV in production with a ZIS-3 cannon. This would make it possible to increase the production of divisional guns by two to three times, and subject to the cessation of production of the ZIS-2, to increase the production of divisional guns by more than six times.

In mid-September 1941, the People's Commissar of Armaments ordered the production of a battery of ZIS-3 guns for front-line testing. During the battles of October, the ZIS-3 battery was lost at the front along with the members of the commission, and thus the tests were not completed. However, on December 5, 1941, production of the ZIS-2 was discontinued, and the backlog of tables was mothballed. The parts and components were to be used in the production of 76-mm ZIS-22USV guns, the testing program of which had been completed by that time.

After the cessation of production of the ZIS-2, the issue of production of the ZIS-3 became even more urgent. The ZIS-3 program promised an increase in the production of divisional guns in a short time, without reorganizing production. On October 6, the People's Commissar of Armaments ordered the start of gross production of the ZIS-3, starting in the third ten days of December.

Unlike the guns that arrived and were tested as part of experimental batteries, the new ZIS-3 guns had some differences:

• the shutter is borrowed from the ZIS-2, F-34 and USV;
• the gun barrel was replaced from a two-layer one with a monoblock;
• elevation angle increased from 22 to 27 degrees;
• the firing line is increased by 30 mm; a simplified lever release replaced the push-button one;

The upper machine, the balancing mechanism and the ZIS-3 shield also underwent changes.

At the end of the factory tests, the GAU strongly recommended increasing the vertical elevation angle further to the angle of greatest range (36-40 degrees). For this purpose, an experimental gun was manufactured with a line of fire increased by another 20 mm and a reduced recoil length. To achieve this, we had to make changes to the shape of the shield, increasing the pressure and volume of liquid in the knurl. This version of the ZIS-3 was tested in January 1942. however, it was accepted into the series only in the fall.

The gun that went into attack

The gun that went into attack

The first monument to this gun appeared at the factory where it was manufactured. The 100,000th gun was erected on a pedestal. The soldiers highly valued this gun, although its path to the front was difficult.

Let's imagine a not-so-ordinary show. Cannons that had been in the war were lined up in a long line. And only those called ZIS-3 or 76-mm divisional. As usual, the show will begin with a roll call.

— Gun No....

Installed near the Kremlin wall in Nizhny Novgorod on May 3, 1975 in gratitude for the services of the home front during the war.

The guide will add that this, the most massive cannon of the war, was produced in our rear city. Only one plant supplied the front with more than one hundred thousand of these guns.

The 100,000th ZIS-3 cannon became a monument.

Let's continue the roll call.

— Gun No. 135.

It was part of the 45th separate Guards anti-tank fighter Red Banner division of the 42nd Guards Rifle Priluki Order of Lenin, Red Banner, Order of Bogdan Khmelnitsky division. The gun was part of a fire platoon commanded by a female guard artilleryman, Lieutenant Tamara Aleksandrovna Sycheva.

The gun fought from the Dniester to Prague and took part in the liberation of Ukraine, Moldova, Romania, Hungary and Czechoslovakia.

— Gun No. 4785.

It is on display at the Central Museum of the Armed Forces. On the shield of the gun it says: “Fired the 1st shot at Berlin on April 21, 1945 at 18.00.” This gun covered 6,204 km supporting the advancing troops and fired 3,696 rounds at the enemy. The crew was permanently commanded by Guard Senior Sergeant I.M.

Rodionov.

— Gun No. 4910.

Installed on the observation deck of military equipment at the Central Museum of the Armed Forces in Moscow. It was part of the 783rd Artillery Regiment of the 260th Infantry Division. The crew was commanded by senior sergeant G.I. Gusev. She took part in the battles on the Bryansk Front, the crossing of the Sozh River, and the liberation of the city of Kovel. In just one battle near Warsaw, the gun crew destroyed five fascist tanks. The cannon celebrated Victory Day in Berlin. There are 6,940 kilometers of front-line roads left behind.

— Gun No. 7458.

Entered combat in July 1942. She took part in many battles. On August 5, 1943, with advanced units, its crew was the first to break into Orel. Twenty times the cannon fired directly at enemy tanks. In the spring of 1944, they decided to preserve the cannon for history and transferred it to the Military Historical Museum of Artillery, Engineering Troops and Communications in Leningrad.

In these places now there is little resemblance to war. The former Nazi tank testing ground near the small German town of Jüterbog has long been plowed up, and the expanded town has grabbed a fair share of its green recreation area. On weekends, the forest, lakes, and forest paths are crowded. Curious people wandering into the old part of the forest suddenly discover warped, rust-eaten rails sticking out of the ground, intertwining thick rods of reinforcement, and the concrete foundations of some former structures. Walking around the iron and stones overgrown with bushes in bewilderment, they go their own way, never having unraveled the mystery of what they saw.

Old German anti-fascists told us, the soldiers who served in these places, how the now infamous “tigers” were tested at the training ground. It was from here that they crawled to the Eastern Front. Anti-fascists imprisoned in the camp worked at the training ground and often died from the explosions of random shells or fell under the tracks of combat vehicles rushing at full speed.

After the war, while sorting through many kilometers of captured newsreels, our filmmakers came across a propaganda film about the “tigers.” It was filmed in the fall of 1942 at this very Jüterbog training ground.

The film was commissioned by Hitler. Even then, the Fuhrer, who suffered from gigantomania, saw the “tigers” in testing and was delighted. He immediately liked this tank. He inspired fear with just his appearance. When the 56-ton colossus walked, the earth shook. The barrel, firmly fixed on the target, smashed it to smithereens, and two machine guns covered the ground with deadly fire.

Medium-caliber artillery brought to the training ground fired at a prototype of the vehicle. It was all in vain. The shells split like fiery fireworks on the armor, leaving only dents on it. To heighten the effect, the director of the film drove the tank straight towards the firing guns and it crushed them with its tracks, twisted them, and crushed them into the sand of the training ground.

Twenty years after the war, the English television company ATV asked the Soviet film archive to film front-line chroniclers. Along with the footage of our cameramen, this film was given to her. After some time, the film “Tigers are Burning” was released on television screens in England. The title was borrowed from the title of an essay by Izvestia war correspondent Viktor Poltoratsky, published in July 1943. That is, just at the time when one of the main and decisive battles of the war was unfolding over a vast area from Kursk to Orel and further to Belgorod.

But why did English television suddenly become interested in the “tigers” burning throughout the offensive zone?

As it turned out, television directors decided to rid their average audience of fear in this way. Hitler threatened England with an armored fist and “tank phobia” became a heavy psychological burden even in the post-war years.

And the Soviet soldier saved the British from their fear of tanks.

In his military memoirs, the former minister of armaments of the Third Reich, Albert Speer, wrote: “As always, when new weapons appeared, Hitler expected a sensation from the Tigers. He colorfully described to us how the Soviet 76-mm cannons, which pierce through the frontal armor of T-IV tanks even at a great distance, will in vain send shell after shell, and how, finally, the “tigers” will crush the nest of anti-tank defense.”

The German press paid tribute to Ferdinand Porsche, the “Panzervater” (father of tanks). He was elevated to the rank of a national hero. And he, knowing his Fuhrer’s weakness for the clang of iron, in every possible way stimulated work on the creation of new armored vehicles. The menagerie multiplied: “Panthers”, “Ferdinands”, “Tigers”... Having once believed in the victorious doctrine of tank warfare and having become infected with the Fuhrer’s fanaticism, Porsche would serve Nazism until the end of his days.

He will even sacrifice his son, sending him with the new, already “royal tigers” to the separate 501st heavy tank battalion, thrown to repel Soviet troops on the Sandomierz bridgehead. Like-minded person and his father’s partner in the company, Ferry Porsche wanted to see tanks in battle. The belief in the indestructibility of the armor dulled his sense of danger. He himself volunteered to drive the lead tank. This was his first and last fight.

No miracle happened. The “royal tigers” were also on fire. It was the summer of 1944...

Now let's take you back to the cold January 1942 to one of our artillery ranges. Captain Tolkachev's crew received an order to carry out a fire raid from a new gun. It was bitterly cold, but the soldiers threw off their quilted jackets. They knew it would be hot now. At the signal, the loader fired the first shell into the chamber. Immediately a shot rang out and before the ejected cartridge had time to touch the ground, the next shell flew into the chamber while rolling up... Shot... Rollback... Shot... The gun thundered twenty-five times before the stopwatch hand finished running in a circle.

Captain Tolkachev bravely reported to the commission that the test of the 76-mm cannon for rate of fire had been completed.

The commission, as it should, carefully examined the weapon. Painted for show, it now stood black from burnt, peeling paint. But this did not bother the commission. After examining the weapon, she came to the conclusion that not a single part was destroyed.

Artillerymen fire at the enemy from the "division".

This gun underwent military tests in fierce battles. They didn't give her any discounts. She was in the ranks of the attackers and at the very forefront of the offensive. In many memoirs you can find descriptions of those battles. And they always contain a word about a new divisional gun.

Marshal of Artillery K. P. Kazakov:

“In the history of artillery, it played a role similar to the role of the T-34 tank in the history of tank forces. The weapon is the same excellent in all characteristics: light, maneuverable, powerful. It was designed by the Hero of Socialist Labor, Doctor of Technical Sciences Vasily Gavrilovich Grabin.”

Marshal of Artillery N.D. Yakovlev:

“It was destined to become the most popular weapon of our artillery for the entire period of the war.

This gun performed well in battles. And first of all in the fight against armored targets; Even her enemies praised her fighting qualities.”

Hero of the Soviet Union, Major General K. A. Nazarov, platoon commander in 1942:

“...The battery of senior lieutenant Alexander Ivanovich Bondar reached the crossing of the Don near the Bolshenabatovsky farm. The bridge was bombed by our pilots, and many German horse-drawn convoys, cars, and tanks accumulated on the shore. A field airfield was visible across the river - planes were parked there. Enemy sappers were swarming on the bridge. Bondar deployed the battery on a steep bank. One gun hit the airfield, the other three hit a concentration of manpower and equipment. The sudden fire caused panic.

Enemy soldiers rushed in all directions, many onto the thin ice.

The planes trying to take off were hit by artillery fire and burned at the airfield. We captured all military property both on this side and there, beyond the Don, including many serviceable tanks and vehicles, as well as twenty aircraft.

In this battle, four enemy tanks were burned by gunner Ivan Kust.”

On January 1, 1943, 60 percent of the anti-tank reserve of the Supreme High Command consisted of 76-mm divisional guns. But their meeting on the battlefield with the “tigers” was still ahead.

And what happened to the “tigers” at this time?

Just on that day when the encirclement ring at Stalingrad was firmly closed, excitement reigned at the Fuhrer's headquarters. Hitler summoned Speer and demanded that he urgently present an expanded tank production program. He signed it immediately. It was planned to release 500 “tigers” and “panthers” and 90 “elephants” by May 12, 1943. Hitler was preparing for revenge for Stalingrad. Tank armored revenge. Armored fortresses crawling onto the battlefield would be a surprise for the Soviet troops.

The 76-mm divisional gun had to attack...

...and cross rivers.

However, there will be no surprises. Hitler ordered the first six "tigers" - prototypes - to be thrown near Leningrad for a concentrated attack in the Mgi area. There they ran into 122 mm cannons and were defeated. This, apparently, did not stop Hitler and the next “tigers” also went to Leningrad.

In his memoirs, Marshal of the Soviet Union G.K. Zhukov cites the following episode:

“January 16 (1943 - Author.

) I was informed that between Workers' Villages No. 5 and No. 6, our artillerymen knocked out a tank, which in appearance was sharply different from the types of enemy combat vehicles known to us, and the Nazis made every possible attempt to evacuate it to their rear.

I became interested in this and ordered the creation of a special group consisting of a rifle platoon with four tanks, which was tasked with capturing a damaged enemy tank, towing it to the location of our troops, and then thoroughly examining it.

On the night of January 17, a group led by Senior Lieutenant Kosarev began carrying out a combat mission. The enemy kept this section of terrain under continuous fire. However, the enemy vehicle was delivered to our location.

As a result of studying the tank and the form picked up in the snow, we established that the Nazi command transferred an experimental sample of the new heavy Tiger tank number one to the Volkhov Front for testing. The tank was sent to a research site, where its vulnerabilities were experimentally determined.

Later, in the Battle of Kursk, the Nazi command used Tigers in large numbers. However, our warriors boldly entered into single combat with them, knowing their vulnerabilities.”

But all this is yet to come. There was more than a year left before the Battle of Kursk. And until its very beginning, Hitler believed in his “tigers”; it is no coincidence that on the eve of the decisive battles on the “arc of fire” he would say: “Until now, tanks have helped the Russians achieve this or that success. My soldiers! Finally you have better tanks than them."

Designer of artillery systems Vasily Gavrilovich Grabin.

— Gun No. 11076. Is on display at the Military Historical Museum of Artillery, Engineering Troops and Signal Corps in St. Petersburg. It was in service with the 5th Battery of the 1217th Light Artillery Regiment of the 31st Light Artillery Brigade. Taking part in the offensive battles for the Dnieper, the crew of this gun, led by Sergeant Kotelnikov, destroyed 12 enemy tanks, 4 self-propelled guns, 4 cannons, and a large number of enemy soldiers. In an unequal battle near Kirovograd on December 27, 1943, an enemy shell hit a gun, all the soldiers of the crew died, having fulfilled their military duty to the end.

— Gun No. 11512.

In the battles for the liberation of Soviet Latvia, the crew of this gun under the command of Hero of the Soviet Union, Senior Sergeant N.V. Sazonov, destroyed 8 fascist tanks on August 19, 1944 near the city of Siauliai. N.V. Sazonov walked with his gun along the roads of Belarus and the Baltic states over 2,200 kilometers. 10 tanks, 16 machine guns, and over 400 enemy soldiers and officers were destroyed.

— Gun No. 71586.

She received her baptism of fire near Stalingrad as part of the 1189th Anti-Tank Fighter Regiment of the 3rd Guards Brigade. The guard crew was commanded by Sergeant Pyotr Tovarovsky.

During the four days of the general offensive near Stalingrad, the cannon fought 170 kilometers to the Platonov farm. Here, in the battle, Tovarovsky’s crew knocked out four tanks and one armored personnel carrier.

The Nazis experienced the fire of this weapon near Kursk, Kharkov, Kiev...

57-mm anti-tank gun ZIS-2 on the roads of Europe.

In the battles for Kyiv, the commander and gunner remained from the artillery crew. They continued to fight. The gunner was killed, and only Pyotr Tovarovsky continued the battle.

By decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, Guard Sergeant Tovarovsky and Guard Private Ponomarev were posthumously awarded the title of Hero of the Soviet Union.

After this battle, the gun was repaired. Then it was commanded by Guard Sergeant Sidelnikov. The new crew continued the fighting. The cannon took part in the liberation of Poland, the storming of Berlin, and finished off the Nazis in Prague.

After the war, the cannon was taken to Stalingrad to perpetuate the memory of its first crew. Placed in a museum. There are seven stars on the barrel. So many tanks were destroyed by the crew of Guard Sergeant Tovarovsky near Stalingrad.

So what is a divisional gun? Each army where artillery weapons are developed has its own view of this gun. The Americans, for example, said that the gun should be universal, capable of hitting enemy personnel, fortifications, tanks and even aircraft.

The British were inclined towards a semi-universal gun, capable of performing ground missions and conducting only barrage fire on aircraft.

Soviet leading artillery weapons designers were in favor of a cannon that performed only ground combat missions. And the main thing is that she be a thunderstorm for tanks.

Back on July 15, 1929, the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks adopted a resolution “On the state of defense of the USSR,” which proposed to “intensify the pace of work to improve the equipment of the Red Army,” including artillery. To combat tanks, it was planned to create two guns - 37 mm and 45 mm.

They dealt with the first gun simply: they bought its documentation from a German one and a year later it was put into service. For the second cannon, only the barrel was developed and adapted to the carriage of the first cannon.

But it was immediately obvious that the life of these two guns would be short. By the beginning of the war, the 37-mm cannon was no longer in service, and our soldiers in the very first days of the war would call the “forty-five” “farewell, homeland.” She no longer took tank armor; she had to shoot at the tracks and at the less protected sides.

Although by this time an excellent anti-tank gun of 57 mm caliber was already ready, developed in the design bureau of Vasily Gavrilovich Grabin.

Artillery designer Vasily Gavrilovich Grabin dedicated his memoirs to the veterans of the Volga plant. There is no need to look for the city of Privolzhsk on the map. It's simply not there. Privolzhsk is the city of Gorky.

The new gun was called ZIS-2. ZIS is a plant named after Stalin.

The post-war generation of townspeople knows it as machine-building plant No. 92. It was not recommended to speak openly about the products it produced. “Regime” was in our minds, since almost all the factories in the city were military.

All the best guns of the war came from the workshops of the “ninety-second”. Now we can talk about this openly.

It would seem that before the war itself, one of the problems - the fight against tanks - was solved. The army received a good gun and it was adopted. She entered the combat units... But then the incredible happened. At the end of 1941, it was removed from production, but remained in service.

Why? The surviving recording of Grabin’s conversation with Stalin sheds light on this:

“Stalin: Comrade Grabin, is it possible to shorten the barrel of a 57-mm anti-tank gun by a meter and a half?

Grabin: What caused this, Comrade Stalin?

Stalin: This is due to the fact that the cannon is very powerful. There are no targets for it - no corresponding tanks. All German tanks for this gun are worthless. It pierces them right through, and the projectile goes further... and the accuracy of this gun is very high. N.N. Voronov said that he had to shoot at an individual enemy soldier at a distance of more than a thousand meters and there was no miss. The gun is very good.

Grabin: Who recommends shortening the barrel, Comrade Steshin?

Stalin: Govorov.

Grabin: He is mistaken, Comrade Stalin.

Stalin: No... he is a good artilleryman.

Grabin: It is irrational to shorten the cannon barrel, since it will lose its high combat qualities as an anti-tank weapon and in this case can be easily replaced by a 76-mm divisional cannon, and the shortened ZIS-2 will not replace the divisional cannon, since it has a very weak high-explosive projectile. This will only ruin the gun. Comrade Stalin, I am convinced that the army will still need such a gun. By shortening the gun, we will undermine the faith of the soldiers in it.

Stalin: So you don’t agree to shorten the cannon?

Grabin: Comrade Stalin, I consider this inappropriate.

Stalin: Then we will remove it from production.

Grabin: I agree, Comrade Stalin.

Stalin: Then we’ll remove it.”

The plant order prescribed:

“...All trunks unfinished in production should be collected, preserved and removed. All technological equipment and technical documentation must be preserved and put away in an appropriate place so that, if the need arises, we can immediately launch production of 57-mm ZIS-2 guns”...

The fate of the 76-mm ZIS-3 “division” was similar. Its first sample was ready a month after the start of the war. A cannon display took place immediately, which was attended by Marshal T.P. Kulik, Chairman of the State Planning Committee N.A. Voznesensky, Deputy Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars V.A. Malyshev and many other senior officials of the People's Commissariats of Arms and Defense.

This is how V.G. Grabin remembers this day:

“Kulik ordered to roll out the gun to an open position and begin a conditional “firing at tanks.” In a matter of minutes the cannon was ready for battle. Kulik indicated the appearance of tanks from different directions. Gorshkov's commands sounded (crew commander - Author.

): “Tanks on the left... in front”, “tanks on the right... behind”. The gun crew worked like a well-oiled machine.

I thought: “Gorshkov’s work has justified itself.”

The marshal praised the calculation for its clarity and speed. Gorshkov gave the command “release”, the ZIS-3 was installed in its original position. After this, many generals and officers approached the gun, took hold of the flywheels of the mechanisms of ignorance and worked, turning the barrel in different directions in azimuth and in the vertical plane...

After the inspection, the marshal suggested going to his office.

In the office I reported much more fully on the guns, production, and rearmament. Having finished, I waited for speeches and criticism from those present. But in vain I was preparing to record. Kulik stood up. He smiled slightly, looked around those present and stopped at me. I assessed this as a positive sign. Kulik was silent for a while, preparing to express his decision, and said:

“You want an easy life for the plant, while blood is shed at the front.” Your guns are not needed.

He fell silent. It seemed to me that I had misheard or that he had misspoken. I only managed to say:

- How?

- That’s it, no need! Go to the factory and give us more guns that are in production.

The marshal continued to stand with the same victorious look.

I got up from the table and walked towards the exit. No one stopped me, no one said anything to me.”

The ZIS-3 gun was launched secretly at the 92nd plant. The director of the plant, Amo Sergeevich Elyan, took a risk.

Amo Sergeevich Elyan.

“No one, except for a narrow circle of initiates, had any idea that a new gun had been launched. The only part that could arouse suspicion, the muzzle brake, was decided to be manufactured in an experimental workshop. You could do anything there without fear of disclosure. The information service, which was very sensibly and clearly led by Andrei Petrovich Khudyakov, reported daily on the completion of tasks. Everything went according to schedule. In the assembly shop they assembled anti-tank ZIS-2, only without barrel pipes. When the time came for general assembly, the pipes and muzzle brakes for the ZIS-3 were already ready. Late in the evening, both were delivered to the assembly shop. During the night, several guns were assembled and carefully checked, and in the morning they were presented to military acceptance ... "

Military representatives, naturally, said “no” to the new gun. They are forced people and have no right to initiative without a decision from higher authorities.

And here the most important thing happened: a bell rang in the office of the plant director. Stalin's voice was heard on the phone. He didn’t say anything specific, he only asked to increase the production of guns. The conversation strangely dragged on. Stalin did not interrupt him, as if he was waiting for something. It is very possible that one of those present at the ZIS-3 show reported to him about the new gun, and he was waiting to talk about it. The plant director and chief designer were silent.

But there was one phrase in the conversation that decided everything. Grabin resorted to a trick: “In a delicate manner, I asked Stalin to instruct the director to support the initiatives of the Chief Designer’s Department, without explaining in detail which ones.

“Tell him to do everything you consider necessary,” said Stalin.”

Another fact indicates that Stalin knew about the ZIS-3. As soon as Grabin reported to him about the creation of a new cannon, Stalin immediately ordered its delivery to the Kremlin.

“The entire staff of the State Defense Committee came to the review, accompanied by marshals, generals and other senior officials of the NKO and NKV. Everyone was dressed warmly, except V. Stalin. He went out lightly - in a cap, overcoat and boots. And the day was unusually frosty. I was worried that in the bitter cold it would be impossible to thoroughly familiarize myself with the new technology in such light clothing.”

The inspection of the new gun lasted as long as necessary. Stalin's summary was:

“—This gun is a masterpiece in the design of artillery systems. Why didn't you give me such a wonderful gun earlier?

“We are not so prepared to solve constructive issues in this way,” answered Grabin.

“Yes, that’s correct,” said Stalin. “We will accept your gun, let the military test it,” and immediately gave instructions for testing.”

Many of those present knew well that there were already over a thousand ZIS-3 guns at the front, but they remained silent.

In the memoirs of Vasily Gavrilovich Grabin there are lines that, it would seem, should not refer to weapons. But they are very important for the designer.

The front demanded shells, and teenagers stood at the machines.

“One more characteristic truth of the ZIS-3 should be noted: the gun was very beautiful. In those years, the sculptor Kikin worked in our design bureau. When he first saw the ZIS-3, he was amazed at the harmony of its design. At the same time, the gun did not have a single detail, not a single curve, added specifically “for beauty.”

This is confirmed by the conclusions of the People’s Commissariat commission that inspected the design bureau and the plant: “The designs of the plant’s guns harmoniously combine high service, operational, production, economic and aesthetic qualities. There is not a single line in the drawings that is subject to artistic requirements at the expense of service, operational and production-technological qualities."

But this is not enough. During the war, the ZIS-3 gun was continuously modernized and during this process it “lost” 704 parts.

The main test of the “divisions” was the Battle of Kursk. The crews of the 76-mm guns faced a huge combat load. In the first seven days of defensive battles alone, the divisional guns of the Central and Voronezh fronts fired more than 450 thousand shells - more than guns of all other calibers combined.

The outcome of the battle is widely known in military history. But what made our artillerymen happy there on the battlefield, what gave them courage and kindled the passion for battle?

The Tigers were on fire! They were burning, praised ones! Hitler's entire menagerie was burning. And now our cameramen were filming them burning, smoking black tarry smoke, helpless. Many years later, these shots will appear in an English film with footage filmed at the Jüterbog training ground.

When the enemy was rushing towards Moscow, mobile anti-tank systems were required. A special design group was created at plant No. 92. A 57-mm anti-tank gun was chosen as the main artillery system. It was hoisted onto the T-20 Komsomolets artillery tractor. The self-propelled gun was named ZIS-30.

In total, a little more than a hundred such installations were produced.

— Gun No. 256563.

“Komsomolskaya Pravda” wrote about it on July 16, 1944:

“She walked under her own power along the direct and side roads of the war, along highways and paths, through fields and swamps, through snow and grass, 12,280 kilometers. On its way from Stalingrad to Ternopol, it destroyed 10 German tanks, 5 armored personnel carriers, 5 self-propelled guns, 15 vehicles, 16 guns, 4 anti-tank guns, 7 mortars, 26 bunkers, and killed 5 Nazi battalions. She fired over 11 thousand shots (this is twice the norm).”

— Gun No. 268363.

It was part of the 192nd Guards Artillery Regiment of the 87th Guards Rifle Division of Priluki.

The gun crew fought from the banks of the Volga to Sevastopol. During the liberation of Crimea, in a battle on the Chatyrlyk River, gun commander D. Khodzhiev received 3 bullet wounds, but, bleeding, continued to command the gun. In this battle, 2 machine guns were destroyed, which ensured that the infantry crossed the river. Following in the infantry battle formations, the gun crew was one of the first to break into Sevastopol, where they destroyed enemy strongholds on the city streets.

The cannon is now on display at the Central Museum of the USSR Armed Forces.

Self-propelled gun ZIS-30 near Moscow.

The time has come for the letters that I have been keeping in my archive for a long time. At my request, they were written by former military artilleryman Viktor Mikhailovich Malkov. He sent them one after another, as he recalled one or another combat episode.

During the war, Viktor Mikhailovich commanded a battery of 76-mm divisional guns.

Our recourse to letters is not accidental.

When Vasily Gavrilovich Grabin was asked what the “highlight” of the design of his “division” was, why it was so loved by artillerymen, he replied: “It’s all about lightness, reliability, convenience of crew combat work, manufacturability and low cost.”

We already know how the cannon was created, with what difficulties it was introduced into the troops, but the letters of a front-line soldier will tell you what it was like in battle. Scattered, with the consent of the author, I only combined them into one narrative. Let's listen to the old artilleryman.

“I’ll start my story with July 12, 1943. The battle of Kursk is on the seventh day. I couldn’t even believe that these fields and light birch copses were once shrouded in silence. No, not in its peaceful sense; the shooting, of course, did not stop, but for an accustomed front-line soldier, silence without shooting is not silence. The shots seemed to relieve the anxiety from my heart.

We were waiting for the attack, preparing for it. Our batteries took up a position in a line, the guns were deeply buried, the barrels almost lying on the parapet.

In my battery, most of the soldiers came from rural areas, and you should have seen with what peasant melancholy they disturbed the field, digging in the ripe grain oozing grain. And to us, city boys, the melancholy was transmitted.

We did not yet know that in a few hours the fire would burn the ears of corn and we would be suffocated by bitter smoke that smelled of burnt bread. And on this burnt area the tanks stopped by artillery fire will stand motionless.

That day I was the senior officer at the battery. I was ordered not to move away from the guns.

The Germans began artillery preparation. The shells plowed the ground, but it became clear that the fire was not aimed, they did not see us. And yet we suffered losses - one of my guns was knocked out, and five people died in the crew. There was only one gunner left, Kapshikbaev.

I run up to the gun and see that the shield has been half demolished, the panorama of the sight has been completely cut off and a piece of rubber has been torn out of the left wheel.

When I reported the loss to headquarters, an order came from there to replace the gun with a serviceable one. As soon as we started to roll back the gun, a cry was heard: “Tanks!”

Black boxes, puffing out bluish smoke, walked towards our battery, and we, with a faulty gun, found ourselves behind a hill, let them pass by. They exposed their weak sides to us.

It was impossible to miss the moment. I ordered Kapshikbaev to bring a couple of shells. At first he didn’t understand what I was up to. But, seeing how I was turning the flywheel, he rushed to the car. I opened the bolt and aimed the gun down the barrel, catching the side of the tank in the round hole and turning it forward. Kapshikbaev pushed me away and loaded the gun. I immediately pressed the trigger.

I was suddenly thrown up and thrown over the bed. The gun turned around: we didn’t dig the coulters! Having risen from the ground, we saw that the tank had been hit.

For this only shot in that battle, Kapshikbaev and I received our first awards - medals “For Military Merit”. But the best praise came from the words of the regiment commander: “This is how you should shoot!” Our guns and patients bite!“

Self-propelled artillery system ZIS-41. Its tests were successful, but it did not go into production. This is the only copy.

Army regulations instruct the soldier to take care and love his weapon. But, I think, if these lines were not in the regulations, then the artillerymen would still treat the 76-mm divisional gun with special love.

Now we know that it was recognized as the best medium-caliber weapon of the last war, but then we all learned this in battle.

I remember with what warmth these guns were handed over to us in Gorky. Those few days spent in the rear city will not be forgotten. While we were waiting our turn to receive the guns, the Komsomol members of the plant even arranged for us to go to the drama theater. We watched the peaceful play “Mashenka”, sat (may the artists forgive us) in felt boots and quilted jackets.

Handing over the guns to us, the craftsmen from the factory, regardless of time, showed the features of the gun components. The artillerymen who came from the front told them what most often failed. Now they told us about it and advised us how to eliminate it. These tips were very useful to us...

And the gun was truly wonderful. Maneuverable, light, it quickly moved from place to place.

We even provided the power of fire during artillery preparation. Before the heavy guns fired once, we managed to send five shells.

If you need to hit a squirrel in the eye, we do it again.

The battle took place for the village of Cherny Bor on the North-Western Front. On a steep mountain stood a church with a bell tower. It felt like a spotter was sitting there.

Our infantry cannot raise their heads, let alone move forward. The scouts cannot get close to the bell tower; they are cut off by the fire of two machine guns.

An infantry officer came running to our battery and asked for help.

And then we stood in closed positions, from where we couldn’t even see the bell tower, and it was too far away. You need to push the gun closer, but there is impassable mud all around, the guns sink into the quagmire after firing. It is simply necessary to remove the spotter from the bell tower.

The infantrymen helped roll the cannon, and where it was impossible, they carried it in their arms. The gun commander, Sergeant Verkhovsky, himself became the gunner. The first shell hit him in the middle of the bell tower. And when the brick dust blinded the spotter, he managed to fire four more shots. Everything is right on target. The way was open for the infantry.

Believe it or not, our guns even had to participate in saving... the national values ​​of our people.

At the end of October 1943, our troops were preparing for the decisive assault on Kyiv. The Nazis, of course, knew about this and were in a hurry to remove all the most valuable things from the city. Ready to move, the trains stood on sidings. The front commander, Army General N.F. Vatutin, ordered the artillerymen to prevent the removal of valuables.

The order has been received, but how to fulfill it? We didn't have a railroad map. Let's fire a random volley across the square, but then we'll hit the carriages too. Jewelry shooting was necessary. But you can’t do without shooting, and then the enemy will guess and urgently begin to remove the cars under fire.

Through the Kyiv underground workers, the command obtained a map of the railway tracks. To adjust the fire, artillery reconnaissance was sent behind enemy lines. It was decided to carry out the shooting by “divisions”. They shot intermittently, simulating random fire.

Intelligence reported everything that was needed. They recalculated to a large caliber and then fired a salvo from all guns.

After the capture of Kyiv, the command went to look at the work of the artillerymen. The salvo was accurate, the shells smashed all the output arrows.

Our guns and human lives saved us.

One day, in front of the artillerymen, our Yak was shot down. The pilot left the burning plane, but the parachute began to drift towards the sea. The pilot landed a fair distance from the coast.

I saw through binoculars that the pilot was not injured and was trying to swim. But he can’t get to the shore without help. Then our intelligence officer Nikolai Namestnikov ran up to me and asked:

- Let me swim!

It turned out that he had already spotted a couple of logs tied with wire near the shore. He swam on them, paddling with a board that came to hand.

Meanwhile, a motor boat left the cape on which the enemy was entrenched and also moved towards the pilot. No, Nikolai won’t be able to swim, he won’t be able to make it in time!

The gun commander, an elderly Siberian sergeant Vasily Petrovich Korolev, approached me:

- However, we need to help with a light!

We rolled the gun to the very shore. I allow you to fire two shots, no more. The gunner took aim for a long time... Shot! It was a bit far, I was afraid to get into the raft. The second gap was exactly on the course of the boat and it, turning around on a steep wave, turned towards the cape.

Our scout swam to the pilot and helped him climb onto the raft.

You can talk a lot about our “division”, but any military memory does not bring joy. Behind every battle, even a successful one, are the deaths of comrades.

I don’t like watching films about war, my heart always hurts. But when they show our gun, I look. If you get caught up in household chores, your grandson shouts:

- Grandfather, they’re showing you your gun!

And we watch the movie together.

I don’t instill in him a love of weapons, but a love for the work of those who saved the life of his grandfather, and therefore gave life to him.”

Production of the 76-mm ZIS-3 cannon in the USSR was discontinued in 1945 and was never resumed. But the guns created during the war were in service with the Soviet Army for a long time and were exported to dozens of countries around the world.

ZIS-3 successfully participated in most local conflicts of the second half of the 20th century. Even in the early 90s, ZIS-3 guns took part in battles in Bosnia.

Evaluation of the ZIS-3 gun.

Among the assessments of the ZIS-3, the assessment given by V. Grabin, allegedly from the words of I. Stalin, prevails in which he calls it a masterpiece in design. However, it was fair to note that the ZIS-3 is inferior to the ZIS-22USV cannon in most respects, with the exception of cost and complexity of production. In the conditions prevailing by the end of 1941 - beginning of 1942, it was these indicators that outweighed all the other advantages of the previous divisional guns. It was precisely the fact that the cost of the proposed light divisional gun weighing 1250 kg was half that of what was in production, as well as the fact that the plant proposed to reduce the price by half again within a month apparently influenced the country’s leadership. And indeed, when mastering the production of the ZIS-3 (and ZIS-22), it was possible to save a significant amount of resources and time in standard hours.

The troops treated the ZIS-3 differently. Its relatively low weight was considered an undoubted advantage. On the other hand, the muzzle brake caused some trouble. Thus, in the winter of 1941, there were cases of injuries to gun commanders, who, out of habit, took a place in front of the ZIS-3 gun. The ZIS-3 muzzle brake unmasked the gun, especially in an ambush. German anti-tank guns also had this drawback, and perhaps that is why the muzzle brake was left in place.

The positive features of the ZIS-3 also include good maintainability, since it had many components unified with tank, self-propelled and divisional guns.

Production of 76-mm divisional guns mod. 1942

Shipment of 76 mm guns model 1942. into the active army.

TTX guns

Performance characteristics of the ZiS-3 gun

Over time, the ZIS-3 gun took root and became widely used. In addition to fighting infantry and tanks, the gun was sometimes used to fire at aircraft. For the characteristic sound of a shot and an explosion, German soldiers nicknamed it “ratsch-boom”, the Poles called it “panenka”, and in the 40th Army they nicknamed it “Zosya”.

Captured Soviet 76.2 mm guns: German experience in World War II

Captured anti-tank artillery in the German Armed Forces
. When talking about anti-tank guns used in the armed forces of Nazi Germany, one cannot fail to mention Soviet-made 76.2 mm divisional guns.

In the Red Army, divisional artillery was assigned the widest range of tasks. To combat openly located manpower, it was planned to use unitary loading shots with shrapnel grenades equipped with remote tubes. High-explosive 76.2-mm shells could be successfully used against infantry, unarmored vehicles, as well as for the destruction of light field fortifications and wire fences. The destruction of armored vehicles and pillbox embrasures during direct fire was ensured by armor-piercing shells. Also, divisional artillery could fire incendiary, smoke and chemical shells.

As of June 22, 1941, there were more than 10,500 divisional guns of 76.2 mm caliber in active units and in warehouses, including 76-mm divisional guns mod. 1902/30, modernized 76.2 mm guns with an extended barrel, produced after 1931, 76.2 mm guns mod. 1933, 76-mm F-22 guns mod. 1936 and 76-mm guns of the 1939 model, known as F-22USV. According to the pre-war states, in a rifle, cavalry and motorized division as part of a light artillery regiment, in addition to four 122 mm howitzers, there should have been eight 76.2 mm guns. The tank division had an artillery regiment: three light divisions of four 76.2 mm guns and eight 122 mm howitzers. After 1942, the number of 76.2 mm guns in artillery regiments increased to 20 units.

As you know, any artillery piece becomes anti-tank when enemy tanks are within its range. This fully applies to divisional guns, which, almost more often than specialized anti-tank guns, were involved in the fight against enemy armored vehicles. However, the capabilities of various Soviet divisional guns were not the same.

76-mm divisional gun mod. 1902/30

By June 1941, the 76-mm divisional gun of the 1902/30 model was morally and technically obsolete.
This artillery system was a modernized version of the 1902 model divisional gun. The gun, created in 1930 at the design bureau of the Motovilikha plant, differed from its predecessor by the introduction of a balancing mechanism and significant changes in the carriage. Red Army commanders next to the 76.2-mm divisional gun mod. 1902/30

Until 1931, a modification with a barrel length of 30 calibers was produced, until 1936 - with a barrel length of 40 calibers. The mass of the gun in firing position was 1350 kg (with a long barrel). Thanks to its relatively light weight, a crew of 7 people could roll the “division” over a short distance without using horse traction, but the lack of suspension and wooden wheels allowed transportation at a speed of no more than 7 km/h. The high-explosive fragmentation steel long-range grenade UOF-354 weighing 6.2 kg contained 710 g of explosives and left a barrel 3046 mm long with an initial speed of 680 m/s. The tabulated firing range was 13,000 m. Vertical aiming angles: from −3 to +37°. Horizontal – 5.7°. The piston bolt ensured a combat rate of fire: 10-12 rounds/min.

Despite the fact that the UBR-354A armor-piercing projectile weighing 6.3 kg had an initial speed of 655 m/s and could penetrate 70 mm of armor at a normal distance of 500 m, the anti-tank capabilities of the gun did not meet modern requirements. This was primarily due to the small sector of fire in the horizontal plane (5.7°), allowed by the single-beam carriage, and outdated sighting devices. However, well-prepared and well-coordinated crews in a number of cases successfully repelled attacks by enemy armored vehicles, inflicting heavy losses on the enemy.

Soviet artillerymen fire at the enemy from a 76.2-mm cannon mod. 1902/30

The use of obsolete divisional guns in anti-tank defense was also limited due to the shortage of 76.2 mm armor-piercing shells in the initial period of the war. In June 1941, there were just over 24,000 armor-piercing rounds in warehouses. Under the current conditions, German tanks were fired at with fragmentation and shrapnel grenades, with fuses set to strike with a delay. At a distance of up to 500 m, a fragmentation shell could break through armor 25 mm thick, and the armor penetration of a shrapnel grenade was 30 mm. In 1941, a significant part of German tanks had a frontal armor thickness of 50 mm, and when firing fragmentation and shrapnel shells, its penetration was not ensured. At the same time, a shrapnel grenade with a heavy head filled with lead bullets sometimes worked as a deformable armor-piercing high-explosive projectile filled with plastic explosives. When such a projectile encounters a solid barrier, it “spreads” over the surface. After the explosive charge is detonated, a compression wave is formed in the armor and the rear surface of the armor is destroyed with the formation of spalls that can damage the internal equipment of the vehicle or crew members. However, due to the fact that the shrapnel grenade contained only 86 g of black powder, its armor-plated damaging effect was small.

Before mass production ceased in 1936, the industry supplied more than 4,300 76-mm divisional guns mod. 1902/30, of which about 2,400 guns were located in the western military districts. More than 700 of these guns were captured by advancing German troops in the summer and fall of 1941.

76.2 mm gun mod. 1902/30 next to destroyed KV-1 tanks

Although the enemy did not highly value the capabilities of the outdated three-inch guns, they were adopted by the German army under the designations 7.62 cm FK295/1(r) and 7.62 cm FK295/2(r) (variants with barrel lengths of 30 and 40 calibers, respectively ). On some guns, wooden wheels were replaced with metal ones with rubber tires. These guns, approximately 100 in number, fought on the Eastern Front; several dozen guns were used to arm German armored trains. Limited use of 76.2 mm gun mod. 1902/30 may be due to the fact that Germany in Poland and France captured a large number of 75-mm divisional guns of the French production Canon de 75 mle 97/33, which in their characteristics were close to the Soviet 76.2-mm guns.

A significant number of 76.2 mm guns mod. 1902/30 was available in Finland, where they were designated 76 K/02-30 and 76 K/02-40. Some of the guns were captured by Finland during the Winter War and, apparently, the Germans shared their trophies received in 1941 with the Finns. A number of captured divisional guns were placed in stationary positions in fortified areas. Soviet divisional 76.2 mm guns mod. 1902/30 were installed on round concrete bases, and a wheel was attached under the opener, which made it possible to quickly deploy the gun in a horizontal plane. Although the three-inch tanks were hopelessly outdated by the early 1940s, if used correctly they could pose a threat to light and medium Soviet tanks.

76.2 mm universal cannon F-22 mod. 1936

Due to the fact that by the beginning of the 1930s the 76.2-mm gun mod. 1902/30 was considered obsolete, and a competition was announced in the USSR to create a new divisional gun. In 1934, at the request of the Deputy People's Commissar of Defense for Armaments M.N. Tukhachevsky’s list of mandatory requirements for divisional artillery included the ability to conduct defensive anti-aircraft fire. In March 1935, designer V.G. Grabin presented three 76.2-mm F-22 guns, designed to use shots from an anti-aircraft gun mod. 1931 (3-K). In order to reduce recoil when using anti-aircraft shells, the divisional gun was equipped with a muzzle brake.

76.2 mm F-22 cannon at maximum elevation angle. State tests

Already during the tests, the military made adjustments to the requirements for the weapon. The use of a muzzle brake was considered unacceptable. In addition, it was ordered to abandon the use of anti-aircraft ammunition with a high initial velocity of the gun’s projectile in favor of “three-inch” cartridges mod. 1902, of which a huge quantity was accumulated in warehouses. The transition to a new, more powerful shot, despite all the advantages it provided, was considered unacceptable for economic reasons. At the same time, the F-22, designed for more powerful ballistics, had a large margin of safety and, as a result, the potential ability to fire with a higher initial projectile velocity compared to standard ammunition.

In May 1936, a 76-mm universal divisional gun mod. 1936 was put into service, and by the end of the year it was planned to deliver at least 500 new artillery systems to the customer. However, due to the fact that the new gun compared to the 76.2 mm cannon mod. 1902/30 was much more complex and expensive; plans to supply “universal” divisional guns to the army failed. Before production ceased in 1939, 2932 model guns were delivered to the customer. 1936

The weight of the gun in firing position, depending on the different batches of production, was 1650 - 1780 kg. Combat rate of fire: 15 rounds/min. Vertical aiming angles: from −5 to +75°. Horizontal - 60°. Compared to the “divisions” arr. 1902/30 armor penetration of the gun mod. 1936 increased significantly. In a barrel with a length of 3895 mm, the UBR-354A armor-piercing projectile accelerated to 690 m/s and at a distance of 500 m, when hit at a right angle, could penetrate 75 mm of armor. The gun had suspension and metal wheels with rubber tires, which made it possible to tow it along the highway at a speed of 30 km/h. But since the mass of the gun in the transport position was 2820 kg, six horses, a tracked tractor or a ZIS-6 truck were required to transport it.

During operation, it became clear that the weapon was not very reliable and was overly heavy and bulky. The design of the gun and the location of the guidance elements were not optimal for use as an anti-tank weapon. The sight and vertical guidance mechanism were located on opposite sides of the barrel; accordingly, aiming the gun could not be carried out by the gunner alone. Although the gun arr. 1936 was created as a “universal” one with the ability to conduct defensive anti-aircraft fire; the troops did not have the appropriate control devices and sighting devices. Additional tests showed that when firing at elevation angles greater than 60°, the automatic shutter refused to work, with corresponding consequences for the rate of fire. The gun has a short reach in height and low firing accuracy. Hopes that the F-22, thanks to its larger elevation angle, would be able to have “howitzer” properties and have a significantly longer firing range were not justified. Even if a shot with a variable charge was introduced into the ammunition load, the 76.2-mm high-explosive fragmentation grenade for the howitzer was too low-power, and it was not possible to adjust the fire at a range of more than 8000 m due to the low visibility of shell explosions.

Due to the numerous shortcomings of the F-22, the leadership of the Red Army issued technical specifications for the development of a new “division”. However, the decision to withdraw the “universal” guns to the reserve coincided with the receipt of information about the creation in Germany of new heavy tanks with powerful shell-proof armor. Taking this into account, in the spring of 1941, the available guns mod. In 1936, it was decided to direct the formation of 10 anti-tank artillery brigades, each of which was to include up to 48 F-22 guns. At the same time, the People's Commissariat of Ammunition received the task of testing an enhanced armor-piercing shot with the ballistics of a 76-mm anti-aircraft 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 to lighten the carriage by eliminating the large elevation angle. Due to the outbreak of war, this proposal was not implemented.

According to reports as of June 1-15, 1941, there were 2,300 F-22 guns in military districts in the western direction. During the battles of the summer and autumn of 1941, almost all of these 76.2 mm guns were lost in battles or during retreat. At the same time, in 1941, the Germans received at least a thousand serviceable F-22s.

German soldiers inspect a captured 76.2 mm F-22 cannon

In September 1941, the captured F-22 was adopted by the Wehrmacht under the designation 7.62 cm FK296(r). Since it was not possible to capture a significant number of 76.2 mm armor-piercing shells, German enterprises began producing the PzGr armor-piercing shell. 39, which had better armor penetration than the Soviet UBR-354A. In November, the PzGr sub-caliber projectile was added to the ammunition load. 40. With new anti-tank rounds, the FK 296(r) guns were used on the Eastern Front and in North Africa.

76.2 mm FK 296 (r) gun with crew in position in Libya

In August 1941, the Afrika Korps command requested a mobile artillery unit capable of moving through the desert off roads and with the ability to fight British and American tanks protected by ballistic armor. For this purpose it was supposed to use the chassis of off-road trucks or half-track tractors. As a result, the choice fell on the Sd Kfz 6 half-track artillery tractor and the 76.2 mm FK296(r) cannon, which by the standards of 1941 had good armor penetration. To speed up the process of manufacturing an anti-tank self-propelled gun, its design was simplified as much as possible. The gun, along with the wheels, was installed on a prepared platform in the back of an Sd Kfz 6 tractor. To protect the crew from bullets and shrapnel, an armored cabin was assembled from 5 mm sheets. At the front, protection was provided by a standard gun shield.

Anti-tank self-propelled artillery mount 7.62 cm FK36(r) auf Panzerjäger Selbstfahrlafette Zugkraftwagen 5t “Diana”

The final assembly of nine vehicles was completed on December 13, 1941. In the Wehrmacht, the self-propelled gun was designated 7.62 cm FK36(r) auf Panzerjäger Selbstfahrlafette Zugkraftwagen 5t “Diana” or Selbstfahrlafette (Sd.Kfz.6/3). In January 1942, self-propelled guns arrived in North Africa. The vehicles were transferred to the 605th Anti-Tank Destroyer Battalion and took part in combat operations under the command of Rommel, starting on January 21, 1942. Although the tank destroyer "Diana" was created, as they say, "on the knee", was a wartime improvisation and had a number of significant shortcomings, it performed well against British armored vehicles. In their reports, the Selbstfahrlafette (Sd.Kfz.6/3) commanders noted that at a distance of up to 2000 m, armor-piercing shells confidently hit enemy light tanks and armored vehicles. At half the range, the guns penetrate the armor of Matilda Mk.II infantry tanks.

In this regard, the British soon began to avoid using tanks in areas where 76.2-mm self-propelled guns were spotted, and actively used heavy artillery and aircraft to destroy them. As a result of bombing attacks and artillery shelling, all Selbstfahrlafette tank destroyers (Sd.Kfz.6/3) were lost by the beginning of December 1942 during the battles for Tobruk and El Alamein. The last two vehicles took part in repelling the British offensive that began on October 23, 1942. Although no more such installations were officially built, there is reason to believe that other self-propelled guns were created using 76.2 cm FK296(r) guns in front-line tank repair shops using various chassis.

However, even taking into account the successful use of captured F-22s in North Africa and on the Soviet-German front, these guns were not optimal for use in anti-tank defense. German crews complained about inconvenient guidance controls located on different sides of the bolt. The sight also caused a lot of criticism. In addition, the power of the gun was still not enough to reliably penetrate the frontal armor of heavy Soviet KV-1 tanks and British Churchill Mk IV heavy infantry tanks.

Since the F-22 gun was initially designed for a much more powerful ammunition and had a large margin of safety, by the end of 1941 a project was developed to modernize the F-22 into a 7.62 cm Pak 36(r) anti-tank gun. Captured guns mod. In 1936, the chamber was bored out, which made it possible to use a sleeve with a large internal volume. The Soviet sleeve had a length of 385.3 mm and a flange diameter of 90 mm. The new German sleeve was 715 mm long with a flange diameter of 100 mm. Thanks to this, the powder charge was increased by 2.4 times. Due to the increased recoil, a muzzle brake was installed. In fact, German engineers returned to what V.G. Grabin proposed in 1935.

Moving the gun pointing drive handles to one side with the sight made it possible to improve the gunner's working conditions. The maximum elevation angle has been reduced from 75° to 18°. In order to reduce weight and visibility in position, the gun received a new armor shield of reduced height.

76.2 mm anti-tank gun 7.62 cm Pak 36(r)

Thanks to the increase in muzzle energy, it was possible to significantly increase armor penetration. German armor-piercing tracer projectile with a ballistic tip 7.62 cm Pzgr. 39 weighing 7.6 kg had an initial speed of 740 m/s, and at a normal range of 500 m it could penetrate 108 mm of armor. Shots with the 7.62 cm Pzgr.40 sub-caliber armor-piercing projectile were fired in smaller quantities. With an initial speed of 990 m/s, a projectile weighing 3.9 kg penetrated 140 mm of armor at a distance of 500 m at a right angle. The ammunition could also include 7.62 cm Gr. cumulative shells. 38 Hl/B and 7.62 cm Gr. 38 Hl/C weighing 4.62 and 5.05 kg, which, regardless of range, normally ensured penetration of 90 mm of armor. To complete the picture, it is appropriate to compare the 7.62 cm Pak 36(r) with the 75 mm anti-tank gun 7.5 cm Pak. 40, which in terms of cost, service, operational and combat characteristics can be considered the best of those mass-produced in Germany during the war. At a range of 500 m, a 75-mm armor-piercing projectile could normally penetrate 118 mm of armor. Under the same conditions, armor penetration with a sub-caliber projectile was 146 mm. Thus, it can be stated that the guns had almost equal armor penetration characteristics and confidently ensured the defeat of medium tanks at real firing distances. But at the same time 7.5 cm Pak. 40 was lighter than the 7.62 cm Pak 36(r) by about 100 kg. It is worth recognizing that the creation of the 7.62 cm Pak 36(r) was certainly justified, since the cost of the conversion was an order of magnitude cheaper than the cost of a new gun.

Before the start of mass production of 7.5 cm Pak. The 40 anti-tank gun 7.62 cm Pak 36(r), converted from the Soviet F-22 “division”, was the most powerful German anti-tank artillery system. Taking into account the high armor penetration and the fact that the total production of 7.62 cm Pak 36(r) guns exceeded 500 units, they were in 1942-1943. had a significant impact on the course of hostilities. The Germans successfully used converted 76.2 mm anti-tank guns in North Africa and on the Eastern Front. The frontal armor of Soviet medium tanks T-34 and American M3 Lee could be penetrated at a range of up to 2000 m. At shorter firing distances, German 76.2 mm armor-piercing shells 7.62 cm Pzgr. 39, the Soviet heavy tanks KV-1 and the well-protected British Matilda II and Churchill Mk IV were vulnerable. A widely known incident occurred on July 22, 1942, when the crew of grenadier G. Halm from the 104th Grenadier Regiment in the battle of El Alamein destroyed nine British tanks with Pak 36(r) fire within a few minutes. In the middle and second half of 1942, these guns inflicted very significant losses on Soviet tank units operating in the Kharkov and Stalingrad directions. Our tank crews called the 7.62 cm Pak 36(r) anti-tank gun a “viper.”

76.2 mm Pak 36(r) anti-tank gun captured by Soviet troops on the outskirts of Danzig

After the defeat of German troops at Stalingrad, the role of the 7.62 cm Pak 36(r) in anti-tank defense decreased. Our soldiers managed to capture approximately 30 guns back, and they entered service with several anti-tank divisions.

After testing the 76-mm Pak 36(r) cannon in the USSR, the issue of putting this weapon into production was considered. But V.G. Grabin refused, under the pretext that the release of more powerful systems was planned. To be fair, it is worth saying that apart from the 57-mm ZiS-2, during the war, our designers failed to launch another truly effective anti-tank weapon into production. The development of the 85-mm D-44 cannon, created under the leadership of chief designer F. F. Petrov, was delayed, and it entered service in the post-war period. BS-3 100-mm field gun, created by V.G. Grabin, at first it did not have a sight for direct fire and no armor-piercing shells in its ammunition. In addition, this powerful weapon was distinguished by its large mass and dimensions, and its transportation was possible only by mechanical traction. During the final period of the war, BS-3 guns were supplied to the corps and artillery of the RGK.

Although the number of converted 76.2 mm anti-tank guns was constantly decreasing due to combat losses and breakdowns, as of March 1945 the Wehrmacht had 165 Pak 36(r) guns.

Transportation of a 7.62 cm Pak 36(r) gun using a Renault UE tracked tractor

To transport these guns, captured Soviet tanks with dismantled turrets, or French Renault UE and Universal Carrier tracked tractors of French and British production were often used.

In addition to being used in a towed version, 7.62 cm Pak 36(r) guns were used to arm the Marder II (Sd.Kfz.132) and Marder III (Sd.Kfz.139) anti-tank self-propelled guns. The Marder II tank destroyer was a setup with an open rear deckhouse, on the chassis of the PzKpfw II Ausf.D light tank. In parallel with the construction of the 76.2 mm self-propelled gun, work was carried out to install the 75 mm 7.5 cm Pak gun. 40 on the Pz.Kpfw.II Ausf.F chassis. Moreover, both types of vehicles were designated as “Marder II”. In total, more than 600 Marder II self-propelled guns were built, of which 202 were equipped with 7.62 cm Pak 36(r) guns.

Tank destroyer Marder II

When creating the Marder III tank destroyer, the chassis of the Czech-made Pz Kpfw 38(t) light tank was used. In terms of their firing characteristics, both vehicles were equivalent.

Tank destroyer Marder III

"Marders" were actively used on the Eastern Front. Contrary to claims that the Germans only used their anti-tank self-propelled guns from prepared positions or behind the attack line, tank destroyers were often used to directly escort infantry, which led to heavy losses. Nevertheless, in general, the self-propelled gun justified itself. The most advantageous distance for hitting tanks was considered to be up to 1000 meters. For every destroyed T-34 or KV-1 tank there were 1-2 hits. The high intensity of hostilities led to the fact that tank destroyers with 76.2 mm guns disappeared on the Eastern Front in 1944.

76-mm divisional gun mod. 1939 (F-22USV)

After the command of the Red Army lost interest in the “universal” F-22 cannon, in the spring of 1937 a competition was announced for the creation of a new 76.2 mm divisional gun.
V.G. Grabin urgently began designing a new “division”, to which, for some reason, he assigned the index F-22USV, meaning that the new gun was only a modernization of the F-22. In fact, structurally it was a completely new weapon. In the summer of 1939, military tests of the gun were carried out, in the same year it was put into service under the name 76-mm gun of the 1939 model; in wartime documents the designation F-22USV was also used. The crew rolls the 76-mm F-22USV divisional gun

Compared to the F-22, the weight and dimensions of the new divisional gun were reduced. The mass in combat position was 1485 kg. The gun had a modern design at the time of its creation with sliding frames, suspension and metal wheels with rubber tires, which allowed transportation along the highway at a speed of 35 km/h. For towing, a horse-drawn team or ZIS-5 trucks were most often used.

The gun's combat rate of fire was 12-15 rounds/min. A well-trained crew could fire 20 shells per minute at the enemy without aiming correction. Armor penetration was lower than that of the F-22, but by the standards of 1941 it was considered good. With a barrel length of 3200 mm, the initial speed of the UBR-354A armor-piercing projectile was 662 m/s, and at a normal distance of 500 m it penetrated 70 mm of armor. Thus, in terms of its ability to penetrate the armor of enemy tanks, the F-22USV gun was at the level of the 76.2-mm divisional gun mod. 1902/30 g with a barrel length of 40 calibers.

At the beginning of 1941, due to the presence of a sufficient number of 76.2 mm guns in the troops and the planned transition of divisional artillery to 107 mm caliber, the production of guns mod. 1939 was discontinued. With the beginning of the war, according to the mobilization plan, production of the F-22USV was resumed. By the end of 1942, more than 9,800 guns had been delivered.

German soldiers inspect the 76.2 mm F-22USV divisional gun. Army Group South, July 1942

During the fighting, the enemy captured several hundred F-22USVs. The guns were initially used in their original form under the name 7.62 cm FK297(r).

However, taking into account the fact that the Germans constantly lacked specialized anti-tank guns, a significant part of the captured F-22USV was converted into a modification of the 7.62 cm FK 39. There are few details about this weapon; a number of sources say that approximately 300 76-mm guns mod. 1939 were converted to accept ammunition from 7.62 cm Pak 36(r), after which a muzzle brake was installed on the barrel. However, taking into account the fact that the strength of the USV artillery gun was lower than that of the F-22, this seems doubtful. The ballistic characteristics of the gun are also unknown; according to unconfirmed data, an armor-piercing projectile at a range of 500 m could penetrate the 75-mm front armor plate of the KV-1 tank.

76.2 mm 7.62 cm FK 39 cannon captured by the Americans in Normandy

The 7.62 cm FK 39 guns were used by the Wehrmacht until the last days of the war. But they did not receive such fame as the 7.62 cm Pak 36(r). Several converted 76.2 mm guns were captured by the Allies in France.

76-mm divisional gun mod. 1942 (ZiS-3)

Although the 76.2 mm divisional gun mod. 1939, compared to the “universal” gun, the F-22 was, of course, more balanced; for the “division” the USV was too high, which made it difficult to camouflage on the battlefield. Weight of gun mod. 1939 was also quite large, which had a negative impact on mobility. Placing the sight and guidance mechanisms on opposite sides of the barrel made it difficult to fire directly at fast-moving targets. The gun's shortcomings led to its replacement with a more successful and technologically advanced 76.2-mm divisional gun mod. 1942 (ZiS-3).

The crew fires from a 76.2 mm ZiS-3 divisional gun

Structurally, the ZiS-3 was created by superimposing the swinging part of the previous F-22USV model onto the carriage of the 57-mm ZiS-2 anti-tank gun, while maintaining the ballistics of the divisional gun mod. 1939. Since the ZiS-2 carriage was designed for a lower recoil force, a muzzle brake appeared on the ZiS-3 barrel, which was absent on the F-22USV. When designing the ZiS-3, an important drawback of the F-22USV was eliminated—the placement of the aiming handles on opposite sides of the gun barrel. This allowed the crew of four people (commander, gunner, loader, carrier) to perform only their functions. When creating a new weapon, much attention was paid to its manufacturability and cost reduction during mass production. Operations were simplified and shortened (in particular, high-quality casting of large parts was actively introduced), technological equipment and requirements for the machine park were thought through, requirements for materials were reduced, their savings were introduced, and unification and continuous production of components were provided for. All this made it possible to obtain a weapon that was almost three times cheaper than the F-22USV, but no less effective.

The development of the gun was started by V.G. Grabin in May 1941, without an official assignment from the GAU. Serial production of the ZiS-3 began at the end of 1941; at that time the gun was not accepted for service and was produced “illegally.” At the beginning of February 1942, official tests took place, which were actually a formality and lasted only five days. Based on their results, the ZiS-3 entered service on February 12, 1942. The order to accept the new 76.2 mm gun for service was signed after they began to be used in combat.

The troops received three types of 76-mm guns mod. 1942, differing in elevation angles, riveted or welded frames, push-button or lever trigger, bolt and sights. The guns sent to the anti-tank artillery were equipped with PP1-2 or OP2-1 direct fire sights. The gun could fire at targets in a horizontal plane in a sector of 54°; depending on the modification, the maximum aiming angle was 27° or 37°.

The mass of the gun was 1200 kg in the firing position, and 1850 kg with the gun limber in the stowed position. Towing was carried out by horse teams, GAZ-67, GAZ-AA, GAZ-AAA, ZiS-5 cars, as well as Studebaker US6 or Dodge WC-51 cars supplied from the middle of the war under Lend-Lease. Often, to transport the guns of divisions assigned to tank units, light tanks T-60 and T-70 were used, the security of which after 1943 did not leave them a chance to survive on the battlefield. The crews and boxes with shells were located on the armor.

Since 1944, due to a decrease in the effectiveness of the 45-mm M-42 guns and a shortage of 57-mm ZiS-2 guns, the ZiS-3 gun, despite its insufficient armor penetration for that time, became the main anti-tank gun of the Red Army.

The crew of the ZiS-3 rolls it across the battlefield, behind the gun is a burning German tank PzKpfW V

The armor-piercing 76.2-mm UBR-354A projectile could penetrate the frontal armor of the medium German tank Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.H from a distance of less than 300 m. The armor of the heavy tank PzKpfW VI was invulnerable to the ZiS-3 in the frontal projection and weakly vulnerable at distances closer than 300 m in side projection. The new German tank PzKpfW V was also weakly vulnerable in the frontal projection to the ZiS-3. At the same time, the ZiS-3 confidently hit the PzKpfW V and Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.H tanks on the side. The introduction of the 76.2 mm BR-354P sub-caliber projectile in 1943 improved the anti-tank capabilities of the ZiS-3, allowing it to confidently hit 80 mm armor at distances closer than 500 m, but 100 mm armor remained too much for it.

The relative weakness of the ZiS-3's anti-tank capabilities was recognized by the Soviet military leadership, but until the end of the war it was not possible to replace the 76.2 mm guns in anti-tank fighter units. 57-mm ZiS-2 anti-tank guns in 1943-1944 were produced in the amount of 4,375 units, and ZiS-3 during the same period - in the amount of 30,052 units, of which about half were sent to anti-tank fighter units. The insufficient armor penetration of the guns was partially compensated by tactics aimed at hitting the vulnerable spots of armored vehicles. The fight against German tanks at the final stage of the war was greatly facilitated by a decrease in the quality of armor steel. Due to a shortage of alloying additives, armor smelted in Germany since 1944 had increased hardness due to the increased carbon content and was brittle. When a shell hit, even without penetrating the armor, chips often occurred on the inside, which led to injury to crew members and damage to internal equipment.

During the Great Patriotic War, German troops managed to capture several hundred divisional guns model 1942. The enemy used the ZiS-3 under the designation 7.62 cm FK 298(r).

German soldiers next to a captured 76.2 mm ZiS-3 cannon
Since the ZiS-3 had an almost ideal design for a gun of this caliber, German engineers did not make any changes, and the cannon fought in its original form.

Photographs have been preserved showing that the Germans used captured T-70 light tanks with dismantled turrets to transport the captured 76.2 mm divisional guns. Unlike the 7.62 cm Pak 36(r), the 7.62 cm FK 298(r) guns did not gain such fame in the anti-tank role and, apparently, were used mainly to provide fire support and destroy field fortifications. Nevertheless, the ZiS-3s available in the Wehrmacht were purposefully supplied with armor-piercing shells and fought until the end of hostilities. In the initial period of the war, the enemy had at its disposal large reserves of 76.2 mm rounds with high-explosive fragmentation and shrapnel grenades. The source of armor-piercing shells was mainly unspent ammunition from destroyed Soviet T-34 and KV-1 tanks, with 76.2 mm F-34 and ZiS-5 cannons. Although the 7.62 cm FK 298(r) gun was much inferior in armor penetration to the main German 75-mm anti-tank gun 7.5 cm Pak. 40, from a distance of 500 m, a 76.2 mm armor-piercing projectile penetrated the frontal armor of the T-34 medium tank.

Infantry and field guns | USSR

76-mm field gun F-22 mod. 1936

"F-22" is a semi-universal weapon that combines field and anti-aircraft qualities. The gun had a carriage with two sliding box-type frames and suspension. On the basis of the F-22, the F-32 tank gun was created to arm the T-34-76 tank. About 560 guns captured by the Wehrmacht were converted into anti-tank guns "7.62-cm Pak-36 (r)", anti-tank self-propelled guns Marder-II and Marder-III, self-propelled guns FK-36 (r) and installed in their original form on a half-track chassis tractor "Sd.Kfz-6". A total of 2.9 thousand guns were manufactured. TTX guns: caliber – 76.2 mm; length – 7.1 m; width – 1.9 m; height – 1.7 m; ground clearance – 320 mm; trunk length – 3.8 m; weight in traveling position - 2.8 tons, in combat position 1.6 tons; projectile weight - 7.1 kg; initial speed – 710 m/s; rate of fire - 21 rounds per minute; firing range - 14 km; transportation speed on the highway – up to 30 km/h; height of the firing line – 1 m; armor penetration at a distance of 1000 m at an impact angle of 60 ° - 52 mm; calculation – 6 people.

76-mm divisional gun USV mod. 1939

USV divisional gun (F-22-USV) - according to the official version, a modernized F-22, half of which were used in the new gun. In fact, the gun was structurally new and entered the series in 1939. A total of 17.9 thousand guns were manufactured, of which the Wehrmacht captured at least 359 guns, designated “7.62-cm FK297(r)” or “ Pak 39(r)". TTX guns: caliber – 76.2 mm; length 5.9 m; width – 1.9 m; height – 1.7 m; ground clearance - 330 mm; trunk length – 3.2 m; weight in stowed position - 2.5 tons; in combat - 1.5 tons; projectile weight – from 3 to 7 kg depending on its type; explosive mass – from 119 to 815 g; initial speed - from 355 to 950 m/s; rate of fire - 25 rounds per minute; transportation speed on the highway – up to 35 km/h; height of the firing line – 1 m; firing range - 13.2 km, armor penetration at a distance of 1000 m at an impact angle of 90° - 60 mm; calculation – 5 people.

76-mm regimental gun mod. 1927

The gun was created on the basis of a 76-mm gun mod. 1913 and produced since 1928. In 1929-1930. it was modernized: it received metal wheels with rubber tires, a monoblock barrel, and standard unitary ammunition. The SU-76 self-propelled gun was armed with a gun with reduced recoil. The gun's ammunition included armor-piercing, cumulative, high-explosive fragmentation shells, shrapnel and buckshot. The gun was transported using a limber by four horses or a mechanical traction machine. The Wehrmacht captured 1,815 guns, designated “7.62-cm Infanteriekanonenhaubitze 290(r).” Finland used 235 captured guns. A total of 18.1 thousand guns were fired. TTX guns: caliber – 76.2 mm; trunk length – 1.2 m; weight in traveling position - 1.6 tons, in combat position - 903 kg; ground clearance - 300 mm; shield thickness – 3.5 – 4 mm; projectile weight - 6.3 kg; initial projectile speed – 387 m/s; rate of fire - 10 - 12 rounds per minute; transportation speed on the highway – 25 km/h; height of the firing line – 945 mm; armor penetration at a distance of 1000 m at an encounter angle of 90° - 28 mm; maximum firing range – 8.5 km; calculation of 7 people.

76-mm divisional gun mod. 1902

The gun, known as the “three-inch”, was produced in 1903-1931. The gun had unitary loading and used fragmentation shells, shrapnel and buckshot. On June 1, 1941, the troops had 2066 guns. In Finland, 249 guns served under the designation “76 K/02”. Poland used 466 guns under the designation “Armata polowa 75-mm wz. 02/26", which were captured by the Wehrmacht and served to arm armored trains under the designation "7.5-cm FK 02/26(p)". TTX guns: caliber – 76.2 mm; length – 4.3 m; width – 1.8 m; height – 1.6 m; trunk length – 2.3 m; weight in traveling position - 2.4 tons, in combat position - 1.4 tons; initial speed – 588 m/s; rate of fire - 10 - 12 rounds per minute; maximum firing range – 8.5 km.

76.2 mm divisional gun mod. 1902/30

76.2 mm gun mod. 1902 (three-inch) in the period 1931-1937. during the modernization process, it received an extended barrel, an increased elevation angle, a panoramic sight and a new balancing mechanism. The guns were also used on special pedestal installations in armored trains. On June 1, 1941, the troops also had 2,411 guns. 110 captured guns were used by the Wehrmacht (7.62-cm FK-295/1(r)" and "7.62-cm FK-295/2(r)"), 135 by Finnish troops ("76 K/02-30" and "76 K/02-40"). TTX guns: caliber – 76.2 mm; length – 5 m; width – 1.8 m; height – 1.6 m; ground clearance - 315 mm; trunk length – 3 m; weight in stowed position - 2.4 tons; in combat - 1.4 tons; height of the firing line – 1 m; initial firing speed - 662 m/s; armor-piercing projectile weight – 6.3 kg; rate of fire - 10 rounds per minute; maximum firing range – 13 km; armor penetration at a distance of 1000 m at an encounter angle of 30° - 49 mm; transportation speed – 7 km/h.

76 mm gun model 1933

The gun was obtained by applying a 76 mm 50 klb barrel. guns model 1902 on the carriage of a 122-mm howitzer model 1910/30. The gun had a dual purpose - anti-aircraft and field gun. It used ammunition from 76-mm guns model 1902 and 1902/30. In total, about 200 guns were produced. TTX guns: caliber – 76.2 mm; height – 1.8 m; width – 1.6 m; trunk length – 3.8 m; weight in traveling position - 2.4 tons, in combat position - 1.5 tons; shield thickness – 3.5-4 mm; projectile weight - 6.5 kg; initial projectile speed – 710 m/s; rate of fire - 8 - 10 rounds per minute; transportation speed on the highway – 6 km/h; maximum firing range – 14.5 km; armor penetration at a distance of 1000 m at an impact angle of 60° - 52 mm; transition time from traveling to combat position - 1 minute; calculation – 4 people.

Regimental gun mod. 1943 (OB-25)

The gun was created by placing a new 76.2 mm monoblock barrel on a modernized carriage of the 45 mm M-42 anti-tank gun. It had sliding frames, suspension, pneumatic wheels with bulletproof tires. The gun was transported by a mechanized tractor or four horses. The ammunition included: high-explosive fragmentation and cumulative shells. A total of 5,100 guns were fired. TTX guns: caliber – 76.2 mm; length – 3.5 m; width – 1.6 m; height – 1.3 m; ground clearance – 275 mm; trunk length – 1.5 m; weight in combat position - 600 kg; traveling - 1.3 t; height of the firing line – 0.7 m; rate of fire - 12 rounds per minute; projectile weight - 6.2 kg; initial speed – 262 – 311 m/h; maximum firing range – 4.2 km; transportation speed – 35 km/h; calculation – 6 people.

100-mm hull field gun BS-3 mod. 1944

"BS-3" is an adaptation of the naval anti-aircraft gun "B-34" for land use - as an anti-tank and hull gun for long-range counter-battery fire. The gun was transported without a front end by a Studebaker US-6 truck. The ammunition included armor-piercing ammunition (ammunition weight - 30 kg, projectile weight - 15.8 kg, explosive weight - 65 g; initial speed - 895 m/h, armor penetration at a distance of 1000 m at an impact angle of 90° - 150 mm) and high-explosive fragmentation (ammunition mass - 27 - 30 kg, projectile mass - 15 kg, explosive mass - 1.4 kg; initial speed - from 600 to 900 m/s) shells. A total of 3,816 guns were fired. TTX guns: caliber – 100 mm; trunk length – 6 m; weight - 3.6 t; rate of fire - 10 rounds per minute; firing range - 20 km; transportation speed on the highway – 50 km/h; calculation – 8 people.

107-mm divisional gun M-60 mod. 1940

"M-60" served in limited numbers in the corps artillery and artillery of the RVGK. The gun was equipped with a sector-type lifting mechanism and a rotary screw mechanism. The carriage had sliding frames and plate suspension. In the stowed position, the gun moved with the barrel pulled out. The gun had a separate case loading; it was supplied with three propellant charges - full, first and second. The guns captured by the Wehrmacht had the index “10.7-cm K.353(r)”. A total of 139 guns were manufactured. TTX guns: caliber – 106.7 mm; length – 8 m; width – 2.2 m; height – 1.9 m; ground clearance - 315 mm; trunk length – 4.6 m; weight in traveling position - 4.3 tons, in combat position - 4 tons; projectile weight - 17.2 kg; initial speed – 730 m/s; rate of fire - 6-7 rounds per minute; maximum firing range – 18.3 km; transportation speed on the highway – 35 km/s; height of the firing line – 1.2 m; the time for transferring the gun from the traveling to the firing position is 3 minutes; armor penetration at a distance of 1000 m at an impact angle of 60 ° - 99 mm; transportation speed on the highway – 35 km/h; calculation – 8 people.

107 mm gun mod. 1910

In 1907, the Russian army ordered a long-range cannon from the French. 107 mm was developed. gun, called "M/1910". By the beginning of the First World War, 107 guns had been delivered. The gun was produced under license at the Putilov, Perm and Obukhov factories with the official name “42-line heavy field gun of the 1910 model”. In total they built 224 guns. With minor changes, the gun was produced in France under the name "Canon de 105 L, Modele 1913 TR". Until the end of the First World War, France produced 1,340 guns. About 1,000 of them took part in World War II. Finland had 11 French-made guns under the designation “107 K/13”, Russian – “107 K/10”. By the beginning of World War II, about 150 guns were in service in the USSR. TTX guns: caliber – 107 mm; weight – 2.5 t; projectile weight - 21.7 kg; initial speed – 579 m/s; rate of fire - 5 rounds per minute; firing range - 12.5 km; transportation speed – 6 km/h.

107 mm gun model 1910/30.

The gun was a modernization of the hull gun mod. 1910, carried out in 1931-1935. It was equipped with a muzzle brake and had wooden or metal wheels with rubber tires. The gun was transported by eight horses, another six horses carried a charging box for 42 shots. Guns on pedestal mounts were used to arm heavy armored trains. The gun had a separate case loading; it was supplied with two propellant charges - full and reduced. The guns captured by the Wehrmacht were designated “10.7-cm K.352(r).” A total of 139 guns were modernized and 430 new ones were built. TTX guns: caliber – 106.7 mm; length – 7.5 m; width – 2 m; height – 1.7 m; ground clearance - 360 mm; trunk length – 4.1 m; weight in traveling position - 3 tons, in combat position - 2.5 tons; projectile weight - 16.4 - 18.7 kg; rate of fire - 5 - 6 rounds per minute; height of the firing line – 1.1 m; maximum firing range – 16 km; armor penetration at a distance of 1000 m – 84 mm; transportation speed on the highway – 12 km/h; calculation – 8 people.

122 mm gun mod. 1931 (A-19)

The A-19 model hull gun was mass-produced in 1935-1939. The gun had a carriage with sliding frames and sprung wheel travel. The recoil brake is hydraulic, the knurl is hydropneumatic. The wheels are metal, with spokes and rubber weights (some later guns had metal wheels with dual pneumatic tires from the carriage of the ML-20 howitzer-gun). To protect the crew, the gun had a shield. The gun was towed by S-2 tractors “Stalinets-2”, “Comintern”, and since 1943 - “Ya-12”. The gun had a separate case loading; it was supplied with four propellant charges - full, No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3, placed in a metal case 785 mm long. Both special cannon and howitzer shells were used for firing. The high-explosive fragmentation projectile weighed 25 kg, had 3.8 kg of explosives and an initial speed of 800 m/s. The armor-piercing caliber had the same weight and had 156 g of explosives and at a distance of 1000 m it penetrated armor 145 mm thick at an impact angle of 90°. The guns captured by the Wehrmacht were designated "12.2-cm K-390/1(r)", and by the Finnish army - "122 K/31". In total, about 500 guns were produced. TTX guns: caliber – 121.9 mm; length – 8.9 m; width – 2.3 m; height – 1.9 m; ground clearance - 335 mm; trunk length – 5.7 m; weight in combat position - 7.1 tons, in stowed position - 7.8 tons; firing range - 20 km; rate of fire - 3-4 rounds per minute; transportation speed on the highway – 17 km/h; height of the firing line – 1.4 m; calculation – 9 people.

122 mm gun model 1931/37. (A-19)

Gun arr.
1931/37 - the result of modernization of the 1931 model, achieved by superimposing the barrel of the previous model on the carriage of the ML-20 howitzer. The gun was put into service in 1939 with the same designation as “A-19”. The wheels were made in two versions: cast with rubber tires; dual disc with sponge rubber tire. The gun was transported on a carriage with the barrel in a retracted position and disconnected from the recoil devices. The gun had separate-case loading. The guns captured by the Wehrmacht received the index “12.2-cm K.390/2(r)”. A total of 2,450 guns were manufactured. TTX guns: caliber – 121.9 mm; length – 8.7 m; width – 2.3 m; height – 2.3 m; ground clearance – 335 mm; trunk length – 5.6 m; weight in stowed position - 7.9 tons; in combat - 7.1 tons; rate of fire - 4 shots; speed on the highway – 20 km/h; height of the firing line – 1.6 m; calculation – 9 people. Share to:

Stories about weapons. "Regiments." 76-mm regimental guns of the 1927 and 1943 model

In this material we will talk about regimental guns of the 1927 and 1943 models, the difficult work of which fell on the forefront of more than one conflict and the Great Patriotic War.
It was these guns that took on the entire load as the main infantry support weapon. 76-mm regimental gun model 1927.

Soviet light regimental gun of 76.2 mm caliber for direct support of infantry and cavalry. “Colonel”, “snub-nosed”, “bobby”.

The first Soviet large-scale artillery gun. The gun was produced en masse (more than 18 thousand guns were produced) from 1928 to 1943, and took part in the fighting in Khasan, Khalkhin Gol, the Polish campaign of 1939, the Soviet-Finnish and the Great Patriotic War.

The main task of the gun, which was located in infantry combat formations, was to quickly suppress enemy firing points both in defense and on the offensive, following the attackers.

The gun served as a prototype for the creation of the first domestic serial tank guns (“76-mm tank gun model 1927/32” on the T-28 tank) and self-propelled guns (SU-12 self-propelled guns) of medium caliber.

The gun was quite conservative in design, overly heavy, and had insufficient horizontal aiming sector and armor penetration (before the introduction of the cumulative projectile). The creation of a gun based on not the newest models had an impact.

When the decision was made to create a regimental gun in 1924, the 76-mm gun of the 1902 model was in service.

The main disadvantages of the 1902 model gun were its excess weight (1350 kg in combat position and 2380 kg in stowed position) and low mobility.

Considering the engineering difficulties in the Soviet Union at that time, it was decided to abandon the design of the gun “from scratch”, creating a gun based on existing samples.

Several models were considered as prototypes, but the 76-mm gun of the 1913 model, the so-called “short three-inch gun,” was taken as the starting point.

The design of the new gun was completed by the end of 1925, at the beginning of 1926 a prototype of the gun was manufactured, at the beginning of 1928 the gun was adopted by the Red Army under the official name “76-mm regimental gun mod. 1927."

All work was entrusted to the Artillery Technical Office (ATK) of the Putilov Plant, where mass production of guns began.

From 1929 to 1934, the gun was subject to constant modifications. Their goal was to simplify the design and increase the manufacturability of production, as well as improve the tactical and technical characteristics. Work to modernize the gun was carried out at the ATK Putilov plant under the leadership of A. A. Monakov and I. A. Makhanov.

In 1929, some changes and simplifications were introduced into the design of the bolt; in 1930, the fastened barrel was replaced with a monoblock; in the same year, a new metal wheel with rubber tires was developed for the gun, which made it possible to increase the maximum speed of cannon transportation to 25 km/h . However, it was possible to completely replace the old version with wooden wheels in production only by 1934.

76-mm regimental gun mod. 1927 had a number of disadvantages, including a small vertical guidance angle and low armor penetration. Despite the fact that at that time most tanks were protected by bulletproof armor 10-20 mm thick, the low initial velocity of the projectile did not allow them to successfully fight armored vehicles.

The 30 mm armor of German tanks (the front of the light and the side of the medium) was at the limit of the gun's ability to penetrate even at short distances.

The situation was somewhat corrected by the adoption of a 76-mm cumulative projectile into service in 1942, but by that time it had already become clear that, if not the creation of a new weapon, then a radical modernization was required.

The gun crew consisted of 7 people: a gun commander, a gunner, a loader, a lock man, a correct man (a crew member who turned the gun in accordance with the gunner’s instructions) and two box men (carriers).

The gun was carried by four horses, another four were required to transport the charging box. Mechanical traction could also be used - Pioneer, Komsomolets tractors, cars.

But in combat conditions, the crew often had to cope with transporting the gun.

Gun limbers were used for transportation. Each limber contained six trays of 4 shots. The charging box consisted of forward and reverse passages. The forward stroke was generally similar to the limber and also accommodated 6 trays of 4 shots. The rear passage was somewhat larger and accommodated 8 trays of 4 shots each. Thus, the ammunition carried was 80 rounds (24 in the front, 24+32 in the forward and rear passages of the charging box).

In 1943, the gun was discontinued, but until the end of the war it continued to be one of the main artillery systems of the Red Army. An interesting feature of the gun was its air transportability, which turned out to be in demand in practice - in besieged Leningrad at the end of 1941, 457 pieces of 76-mm regimental guns were manufactured, which were delivered to Moscow by plane and provided significant assistance to Soviet troops in the Battle of Moscow.

76-mm regimental gun mod. 1927 was intended to solve the following problems:

for direct support and escort of infantry; to combat armored vehicles and tanks; to suppress and destroy enemy infantry fire weapons located openly and behind light field shelters; to suppress and prohibit all types of fire from bunkers (bunkers) by direct fire at embrasures; for making passages in wire fences and passages in grooves for their tanks.

The gun was intended almost exclusively for direct fire. During the offensive, regimental guns had to move as a crew in the combat formations of the advancing infantry and quickly suppress enemy fire weapons that impeded the advance - machine gun nests, artillery pieces and mortars, and various firing points.

In defense, the guns also had to be in infantry combat formations, firing at the advancing enemy infantry, and, if necessary, at tanks and armored vehicles.

The specificity of the actions of regimental guns led to large losses of both material and crews, but at the same time, along with battalion artillery (45-mm cannons) and mortars, regimental guns were the only artillery systems that were located directly in battle formations and had the ability to maximize quickly hit identified targets.

Due to their relatively small size and weight, regimental guns were actively used during river crossings, landing operations, and in urban battles.

Characteristics:

Caliber, mm: 76.2 Crew, people: 7 Rate of fire, rds/min: 10—12 Carriage speed on the highway, km/h: 25 Height of the firing line, mm: 945

Weight in stowed position, kg: 1620 (with front end and servants) Weight in combat position, kg: 740-780 kg (on wooden wheels), 903-920 kg (on metal wheels)

Firing angles Vertical aiming angle, degrees: from −5.6 to +24.5° Horizontal aiming angle, degrees: 5.5°

The small maximum elevation angle of the gun greatly limited the firing range. However, the firing tables indicate the maximum range at an elevation angle of 40° - to fire at such an elevation angle, it was necessary to tear off a special trench under the trunk part of the machine, which required significant time to prepare the firing position and made it difficult to maneuver with fire, but made it possible to fire at distant targets.

Another feature of the “regiment” was a very impressive set of ammunition.

Armor-piercing shells: UBR-353A, UBR-353V, UBR-353SP. Firing range up to 4,000 m. HEAT shells: UBP-253A (since 1943), UBP-353M (since 1944). Firing range up to 1,000 m. High-explosive fragmentation shells: UOF-353A, UOF-353AM, UOF-353M. Firing range up to 8,500 m. Old-style high-explosive grenades: UV-353, UV-353M, UV-353F. Firing range up to 6,700 m.

76-mm regimental gun model 1943.

Developed in 1942-1943 under the leadership of M. Yu. Tsirulnikov. This gun replaced the 76-mm regimental gun of the 1927 model and was actively used at the final stage of the Great Patriotic War.

A total of 5,192 guns of this type were built in 1943-1946, which were in service with the Soviet Army in the post-war period until the end of the 50s, when they were replaced by more modern systems.

Tsirulnikov proposed placing a 76-mm cannon barrel of the 1927 model on the carriage of a 45-mm M-42 anti-tank gun of the 1942 model. This solution made it possible to obtain a fairly light artillery system using well-proven elements in production.

The new system turned out to be almost a third lighter than the 1927 model gun, the horizontal aiming angle increased significantly, the overall dimensions decreased, but armor penetration, maximum firing range and rate of fire remained the same.

Initially, the new gun was accepted by the commissions without enthusiasm, however, with the advent of cumulative projectiles in 1943, which made it possible not to worry too much about the initial velocity of the projectile and guarantee penetration of armor up to 70 mm thick at medium distances, Tsirulnikov’s development was remembered again. Moreover, in comparison with other existing projects, it was practically a finished and perfected product. So the gun was put into service under the designation OB-25.

Characteristics:

Caliber, mm: 76.2 Crew, people: 6 Rate of fire, rds/min: 12 Carriage speed on the highway, km/h: up to 35 Weight in stowed position, kg: 1300 (with limber) Weight in firing position, kg: 600 Angle VN, degrees: from −8 to +25° Angle GN, degrees: 60°

Compared to the 76-mm regimental gun of the 1927 model, the range of OB-25 ammunition was not rich and included only 4 types of shells. OF-350 high-explosive fragmentation shells and O-350A fragmentation shells were used to fire at enemy personnel, fire weapons and fortifications.

There were two types of cumulative shells: steel BP-350M (armor penetration up to 100 mm) and steel cast iron BP-353A (armor penetration about 70 mm). Both projectiles were equipped with an instant-action BM fuse.

No armor-piercing shells were produced for the Ob-25.

Compared to its predecessor, the 76-mm regimental gun of the 1927 model, the OB-25 significantly benefits in mobility (less gun mass and higher transport speed) and horizontal guidance angle (which gives better opportunities for fire maneuvers and fighting tanks), but inferior in maximum range and accuracy of fire.

True, many experts, making comparisons, noted that a long firing range for a regimental gun, intended primarily for firing at targets located in the line of sight of the crew, is not a significant advantage.

Despite the shortcomings it inherited from its ancestor, the OB-25 cannon had one incomparable advantage - a very light weight for its caliber. This made it possible to provide direct support to infantry on the battlefield, and quickly switch to suppressing field fortifications, as well as effectively fight enemy light/medium tanks using cumulative ammunition.

In general, the “regiments” played a very significant role in the Great Patriotic War. Together with 82 mm and 120 mm mortars and a 45 mm anti-tank gun, these guns were the main infantry assistants on the front line.

Today these guns can be found in our country as exhibits, although they are not as common as the 76-mm divisional gun. But this in no way detracts from their enormous contribution to the Victory.

The guns in the photographs belong to the Museum of Military History in Padikovo, Moscow Region.