Projectile weight 100 mm guns. Cannon "Rapier": technical characteristics, modifications and photos. Use in combat

21.09.2019

The artillery of Russia and the world, along with other states, has introduced the most significant innovations - the transformation of a smooth-bore gun loaded from the muzzle into a rifled one loaded from the breech (lock). The use of streamlined projectiles and various types fuses with adjustable time setting; more powerful gunpowders, such as cordite, which appeared in Britain before the First World War; the development of rolling systems, which made it possible to increase the rate of fire and relieved the gun crew from the hard work of rolling into the firing position after each shot; connection in one assembly of the projectile, propellant charge and fuse; the use of shrapnel shells, after the explosion, scattering small steel particles in all directions.

Russian artillery, capable of firing large projectiles, sharply highlighted the problem of weapon durability. In 1854, during the Crimean War, Sir William Armstrong, a British hydraulic engineer, proposed the wrought iron gun barrel method of first twisting iron bars and then welding them together by forging. The gun barrel was additionally strengthened with wrought iron rings. Armstrong set up a business that made guns of several sizes. One of the most famous was his 12-pounder rifled gun with a 7.6 cm (3 in) bore and a screw lock mechanism.

Artillery of the Second World War (WWII), in particular Soviet Union, probably had the largest potential among European armies. At the same time, the Red Army experienced the purges of Commander-in-Chief Joseph Stalin and endured the difficult Winter War with Finland at the end of the decade. During this period, Soviet design bureaus took a conservative approach to technology.
The first modernization effort was to improve the 76.2 mm M00/02 field gun in 1930, which included improved ammunition and the replacement of barrels for part of the gun fleet, the new version of the gun was called the M02/30. Six years later, the 76.2 mm M1936 field gun appeared, with a carriage from the 107 mm.

Heavy artilleryof all armies, and rather rare materials from the time of Hitler's blitzkrieg, whose army smoothly and without delay crossed the Polish border. The German army was the most modern and best equipped army in the world. Wehrmacht artillery operated in close cooperation with infantry and aviation, trying to quickly occupy the territory and deprive the Polish army of communication lines. The world shuddered upon learning of a new armed conflict in Europe.

Artillery of the USSR in the positional conduct of hostilities on the Western Front in the last war and the horror in the trenches of the military leaders of some countries created new priorities in the tactics of using artillery. They believed that in the second global conflict of the 20th century, mobile firepower and accuracy of fire would be decisive factors.

Once appeared on the battlefield, the tank became an infantryman's nightmare for a long time. The first of these machines were practically invulnerable, and fought them only by digging anti-tank ditches and creating barrage gouges.

Then came the power of which, by today's standards, is simply ridiculous. Even at that time, tanks, having again increased their armor, could no longer be afraid of most of these weapons. And then anti-tank guns entered the scene. They were imperfect and clumsy, but the tankers immediately began to respect them.

Are anti-tank guns needed today?

Many inhabitants believe that this “archaic” weapon no longer has a place on the modern battlefield: they say that the armor of modern tanks is far from always breaking through even with cumulative ammunition, what can we expect from some guns there! But this point of view is not entirely correct. There are such samples of them that are capable of delivering a lot of problems even to very “fancy” machines. For example, the Rapira anti-tank gun is still Soviet-made.

The weapon is so interesting that it should be discussed separately. What are we going to do now.

Background of creation

Around the middle of the 50s of the last century, it became clear that the main anti-tank weapons needed an urgent increase in combat power. The reason was that the Americans had their own projects of heavy tanks. At that time, the SA was armed with the D-10T and BS-3 guns (both 100 mm). Technicians rightly assumed that their technical characteristics might not be enough.

The easiest way was to increase the caliber ... but this path led to the creation of huge, heavy and clumsy guns. And then Soviet engineers decided to return to smooth-bore artillery, which had not been used in Russia since 1860! What made them make such a decision?

And the whole point is the enormous speed to which the armor-piercing projectile in the barrel must accelerate. Any error in the manufacture of the latter leads not only to a catastrophic drop in accuracy, but also to an increased risk of destruction of the entire weapon. With a smooth trunk, the situation is completely opposite. Its main advantage is uniform wear.

Difficulties of choice

But what kind of replacement to find rifling? After all, it is due to them that the projectile retains directional stability, allowing you to conduct effective fire over long distances! And again, the solution was found in the archives of the gunners. It turned out that feathered shells could be used for smoothbore artillery. Modern (at that time) technologies made it possible to make it not only caliber (coinciding with the inner diameter of the gun), but also drop-down. Simply put, the projectile opened the blades after leaving the barrel (like the RPG-7 grenade launcher).

First experiments and first sample

The very first experiments showed that a minimum of a 105-mm gun would be required to confidently knock out promising enemy tanks. At the same time, intelligence received a report that the British were designing a gun of a similar caliber with hitherto unseen characteristics. The chief designer of the project - V. Ya. Afanasyev - was obliged to "catch up and overtake" competitors in as soon as possible. The most talented designer not only met the time allotted for this, but also provided for the possibility of installing a new gun in domestic tanks. To do this, he slightly sacrificed ballistics, shortening the projectile to exactly 1000 mm.

Thus was born the "Rapier" - an anti-tank gun, the photo of which is repeatedly given in this article.

What was used to create it?

To speed up the work, they took a carriage from the D-48 gun, slightly changing its design. But field tests immediately showed that he was too flimsy for the new gun. I had to redo this part literally from scratch. The gun passed the new tests with honor and was put into service. It is known as the 105 mm T-12 gun. The "rapier" of the modern model is largely different from it.

The barrel of the new gun was made according to a monoblock scheme. Length - 6510 mm. The designers preferred to use an active-reactive version of the muzzle brake. The breech is equipped with a vertical wedge gate. Shooting was carried out directly from the wheels, additional fixation (by blocking the suspension) was not required.

In order for you to better imagine what the Rapier cannon is capable of, the characteristics of which we briefly described, we suggest taking a look at the table.

Note that this is not a modern Rapier cannon. The characteristics of its latest modifications are much more serious.

Characteristics of ammunition

For an anti-tank gun, ammunition is the first thing. Even a phenomenally long-range and reliable weapon turns into a "pumpkin" if outdated, low-quality shells are used for it. And the "Rapier" cannon, the performance characteristics of which we have given above, is the best confirmation of this.

Ammunition for the new weapons also caused a lot of trouble, as they had to be developed from scratch. The main type is sub-caliber and cumulative. To defeat enemy manpower, a standard high-explosive fragmentation type of shot is used. Calculation studies are carried out using training ones. The plumage of the latter caused a lot of problems, since there was simply no experience in creating something like that, and the 100-mm smooth-bore gun itself had not yet been properly mastered by the domestic industry.

The difficulty was that the projectile with unopened blades had to fit securely enough to the barrel channel without forming backlash. Dozens of concepts were accepted and immediately discarded, but none of them met all the requirements of the designers. Oddly enough, but the solution turned out to be working, which was proposed at the very beginning and rejected “because of primitiveness”. This once again confirmed that the simplest is often the most reliable.

New solution

The core in this case was proposed to be made of high-quality maraging steel. The projectile splitter tip is made of the most ordinary stamped sheet steel, from which some parts of the tail stabilizer were made. The plumage of the “arrow” was cast from a special aluminum alloy, and it later turned out that aluminum needed to be additionally anodized. The tracer is pressed into the tail and additionally fixed to the threaded connection and the core.

A lot of work was done with the leading belt of the projectile: in the end, they settled on a triple version, the elements of which were connected by an obturating copper ring. As soon as the projectile leaves the barrel channel, aerodynamic forces simply break this belt, and the “arrow”, which opened the plumage, rushes to the tanks. At a distance of up to 750 meters, the deviation is no more than 2.5 degrees along the horizontal line of sight.

Features of other types of shots

Cumulative and standard high-explosive fragmentation shots had a similar design. In their case, the body of the projectile was also rigidly connected to the tail sleeve, on which the plumage was attached. The difference was the absence of an obturating belt and a diameter that coincided with that of the barrel. For a bushing with five plumage blades was used, and in the case of a high-explosive fragmentation shot - with six.

Cumulative and high-explosive fragmentation shots did not impose such high requirements on the sleeve, and therefore it was made of ordinary (varnished) steel. Projectiles of the sub-caliber type were equipped exclusively in a high-quality brass sleeve, which did not wear out the weapon so much. "Rapier" - the gun at that time was very expensive, and therefore the experts were looking for any ways to increase its operational life.

Improvement of shells

But with the adoption of different types of shots, the problems had just begun, since they all required serious improvement. In particular, sub-caliber shells perfectly penetrated vertical layers of armor, but they did not cope so convincingly with inclined ones. The projectile either entered the armor at some unthinkable angle, or simply ricocheted. Dozens of decommissioned tanks were smashed at the test sites, while experts found a solution that suited everyone.

New elements in the design

It was necessary simply to add an additional core made of a particularly strong alloy to the design of the “arrow”. As soon as this part was introduced (weighing only 800 g), made from shooting, they immediately showed fantastic results: the penetration of sloping armor improved immediately by 60%!

Soon all these characteristics were tested in practice. The Rapier cannon, whose combat use began during the incident on the Golan Heights, showed excellent penetration results.

Further development of the project

Very soon, Soviet tankers also drew attention to the new gun. They were impressed by the power and low recoil of the smoothbore gun and its light weight. The first samples were hastily assembled, which immediately made an indelible impression on the military.

Being installed on the chassis of the T-54 tank, the new 100-mm Rapira cannon pierced training targets (decommissioned hulls of the same T-54s) right through, and from prohibitive distances. From the sheep, which played the role of the crew, there was practically nothing left.

In 1960, the Rapira gun, modified to the required state, began to be mounted on experimental chassis (based on the T-55 tank). Shortly thereafter, all tests of the D54 were fully completed, as the new smoothbore gun showed its absolute superiority. The difference from the "infantry" modification is that the tank gun of this series does not have a muzzle brake. Just six months later, the tank gun "Rapier" (the photo of which can be seen in this material) was put into service under the symbol 2A20 "Stiletto".

The fact is that with a caliber of 100 mm, it was not particularly needed. Considering the fact that Soviet tanks never differed in transcendental dimensions and weight, but greatly increases the return, its installation in domestic tank building was practiced only in those cases when all other methods of extinguishing had already been tried and did not give the desired result.

New modifications

In the early 1970s, the Rapier gun was modified again. The result of the work of scientists and engineers was the T-12A (2A29) gun. Metallurgists and chemists have found a way to make more durable barrels, which automatically gave the groundwork for testing new, reinforced ammunition.

Once again, the carriage was completely redesigned, as a result of which it was possible to almost completely get rid of vibration during firing, the practical rate of fire increased by almost one and a half times. A sight for night shooting was developed and put into service, as well as a radar complex designed for both night and daytime, subject to poor visibility ( dust storms, for example). Outwardly, this modification is very easy to distinguish, since the muzzle brake of the gun looks a lot like a salt shaker.

Simultaneously with the modification of 2A29, a completely new sub-caliber projectile with working part made from whole piece tungsten alloy. The mass of ammunition has increased slightly, but the firing range has increased by approximately 30%. Next came a new edition of the instructions for the gun. It said that firing improved ammunition from the old Rapier 2A19 was strictly prohibited, since the barrel could burst.

Starting in 1971, the updated tank "Rapier" under the T-12A index - 2A20M1 "Stiletto" went into production.

Conclusion

To date, this weapon is significantly outdated. It is believed that the "Rapier" cannon can no longer guarantee a confident penetration of armor, but under certain conditions it does its job quite well.

So, during the Yugoslav conflict, it was used by all parties with very good results. Experts note that this weapon is ideal for combating enemy light armored vehicles (which are twice as heavy as domestic infantry fighting vehicles). In addition, the Rapier cannon (photo above) can almost certainly hit most NATO tanks in the side and stern. This gives reason to assume that the "old woman" is still too early to retire.

A.M. BRITIKOV

Employee of RSC Energia Member Public Council Museum of Local History Comrade Korolev

On May 7, 1944, by the Decree of the GOKO (namely, this is what the abbreviation of the State Defense Committee looked like in the described period), for No. 5822, a 100-mm field gun of the 1944 model was adopted by the Red Army with the assignment of the name BS-3 to it.

Among the domestic artillery systems of the wartime ground forces, this weapon occupies a special position, defined in the categories "for the first time" and "the only one" by a number of technical and historical circumstances. This is the first and only towed 100-mm rifled gun in service, designed primarily to deal with heavily armored moving targets. Moreover, the characteristics inherent in the design allowed it to remain in service for a number of decades after the completion of production. Despite the rapid evolution of jet anti-tank weapons and continued work on the creation of more advanced rifled and smooth-bore anti-tank artillery systems (D-60, Sting, Rapier, Octopus, etc.), this is the only field gun that took a noticeable part in the hostilities, whose production began in the years war and continued for a long time after its completion.

This is the only almost completely constructively original large-scale field artillery system created in the USSR during the Great Patriotic War(all other cannons that entered service at that time were either a deep modernization of previously created ones, or a successful combination of elements of already existing guns). The BS-3 is characterized by the absence of direct predecessors and the degree of borrowing is limited to the use of a ballistic solution for the device of the barrel and, in part, ammunition. Although, of course, during its development, the potential of previous work was taken into account.

The combination of unitary loading, a hydropneumatic balancing mechanism, a torsion wheel suspension and the possibility of frontless towing at high transport speeds with an unretracted barrel was a novelty in domestic artillery for systems of this caliber.

The abundance of innovative solutions and, ultimately, their successful implementation have clearly demonstrated high level design training and professional maturity of the TsAKB team - the Central Artillery Design Bureau, headed by Lieutenant General of the Technical Troops V.G. Grabin. Despite the fact that the TsAKB itself was formed in the NKV (People's Commissariat of Arms) system just a year and a half before the delivery of BS-3.

The history of this organization, which was the second in Soviet period an attempt to form a leading industry center focused on conducting a variety of research and development work in the interests of the development of all domestic artillery still requires fundamental study and coverage. The liquidation of TsNII-58 - as it was called in the last years of its existence - in 1959 was an absolute mistake, which was confirmed by the creation of a similar institute eleven years later - the TsNII Burevestnik.

In fairness, it should be noted that this period was perhaps the most dramatic in the history of Soviet artillery, whose constructor-co-production base has undergone drastic changes due to the indiscriminate reorientation of the structure of the entire defense industry under the influence of the emerging "missile boom". Then, however, they came to their senses. But that was later.

And at the beginning of 1943, long before the summer, the fiercest battles in the history of the war with the use of large armored formations, the most far-sighted specialists in industry and the GAU (Main Artillery Directorate) of the Red Army clearly felt the threat of the appearance of thick-armored tanks and assault self-propelled guns in the German army equipped with long-range guns.

Existing in the troops during this period field artillery could attempt to fight such an adversary only on terms that mostly bordered on suicide. The standard anti-tank weapons of the army were obsolete 45-mm guns that had already reached the technical limit of their capabilities (the production of the powerful 57-mm ZIS-2 gun of the 1941 model had to be stopped in the same year after the release of several hundred systems). Anti-tank ammunition of divisional and regimental level guns in the current situation has lost the required effectiveness. Only corps artillery met the changed requirements, but it was heavy, bulky and therefore poorly maneuverable and vulnerable. Yes, and not so numerous. On April 13, 1943, People's Commissar D.F. Ustinov sent a list of proposals from the NKV on measures to strengthen anti-tank warfare to Deputy Chairman of the GOKO L.P. Beria. Among the most important were: the restoration of the production of ZIS-2, the use of existing developments on the use of a modified 85-mm anti-aircraft gun, an increase in the production of 122-mm A-19 guns of the 1931 / 37 model, the creation of new cumulative and sub-caliber shells. But the most promising and promising was the 100-mm gun (Grabin justified the possibility of creating such a system), using the ballistics of the B-34 naval anti-aircraft gun mastered in the pre-war period. It was fundamentally important for her to have a proven technology and an established industrial base for the production of elements of unitary loading shots (in this part, it was only required to additionally develop an armor-piercing projectile that was not in the B-34 ammunition range). At the same time, it was assumed that the new gun would have an armor-piercing capacity of 125 mm at a distance of 1000 m at an encounter angle of 30 degrees from the normal. It was also envisaged that its production could be deployed in two versions - both towed and installed in a KV tank or self-propelled gun. To work out the second option, it was proposed to use the existing backlog on the previously developed 107-mm ZIS-6 tank gun.

Already on April 15, 1943, GOKO Decree No. 3187 was issued on measures to strengthen anti-tank defense. Basically, it contained decisions regarding work on systems already prepared for production, but at the same time, the NKV was instructed to submit proposals to the GAU on the development of a new hull gun based on the M-60 and B-34 guns, which at the same time had anti-tank qualities. After their consideration and the issuance of recommendations (in particular, the option of using the M-60 - a 107-mm cannon with separate loading - did not receive approval), GOKO Decree No. : 100 mm - with B-34 ballistics and 122 mm - with A-19 ballistics. Their development and manufacture (one copy of prototypes each) was entrusted, respectively, to the TsAKB and the Motovilikhinsk plant No. 172 named after Molotov NKV - the only one capable of fulfilling such an order at that time. Tight deadlines were set: TsAKB - to submit drawings to production - according to the 100-mm system - by May 30, for 122-mm - by June 10, plant No. 172 - to produce both prototypes by July 15 and by August 1 submit them to the GAU for field tests. At the same time, TsAKB received additional funds to improve working conditions and provide housing for employees, and a significant bonus fund was allocated for both organizations.

A group of leading employees of Grabima Design Bureau (circa 1947). 1st row (from left to right): Meshchaninov V.D., Nazarov P.M., Sheffer D.I., Goabin V.G., Renne K.K., Pererushev S.G., Sveranovsky R.S. . 2nd row (left to right): Tyurin P.A., Koptelov N.V., Muravyov P.F., Khudyakov A.P., Rittenberg G.S., Kaleganov F.F., Belov A.Ya. ., Krasovsky P.F.

Khvorostin Alexander Evgenievich

For achievement given weight 100-mm guns (no more than 3.5 tons) when creating the S-3 - it received such an index at the TsAKB, the team used all the experience of the design team of plant No. 92 named after. Stalin of the NKV, which formed the backbone of the TsAKB during the formation. It was these engineers who recently put into service the ZIS-3 divisional cannon, which later became legendary and famous, and the already mentioned ZIS-2.

The overall layout of the system was carried out by A.E. Khvorostin. The monoblock barrel with a vertical wedge breech and a powerful muzzle brake was designed by I.S. Griban. The cradle was handled by B.G. Lasman. The recoil devices and the balancing mechanism were developed by F.F. Kaleganov. Upper machine - A.P. Shishkin, lower - E.A. Sankin. P.F. was responsible for the sights. Muravyov, B.G. Pogosyants and Yu.V. Tizenhausen.

On June 4, the documentation was sent to the plant. P.A. Tyurin was sent there as a responsible representative from the TsAKB, who personally carried out the transportation of the main part of the secret materials (the design materials for the barrel, which were labeled “top secret”, were sent through the appropriate channels) to the Urals by plane. Director of one of the oldest and most honored in the national artillery history enterprises - the famous "Motovilikha" - Bykhovsky A.I. immediately upon arrival, Tyurin accepted him, and after a prompt discussion of the task, the enterprise team began to fulfill the order. Moreover, despite the great experience of the TsAKB designers, the documentation had to be processed on the spot for the specific capabilities of the existing production, it was required to master new materials and technologies. And here the Permians made many valuable proposals.

So, jointly overcoming the inevitable "dampness" of experimental drawings and production problems, in a little over three months, the first experimental gun appeared in metal. And already on the fourteenth of September, even without the production of factory small control tests, she was sent to the firing range. By the way, Decree No. 3290 initially contained a clause obliging the People's Commissariat of Railways to ensure the urgent transportation of guns and ammunition.

In this regard, on September 15, V.G. Grabin issued order No. 245 for the TsAKB on the appointment of a commission for acceptance, debugging and factory testing of prototypes S-3 and S-4 (in December, its powers in relation to S-4 were terminated by the corresponding order).

The very first firing at the Sofrinsky range revealed, along with a number of natural minor flaws, two fundamentally serious ones. The design of fastening the cast muzzle brake with the help of a sleeve turned out to be unsuccessful (it was torn apart after several shots, and had to be urgently changed to a stamped one). When firing, the gun jumped heavily, which made the gunner's work unsafe and knocked down the aiming mounts, which, in turn, led to a decrease in the practical pace aimed shooting- qualities for a field anti-tank gun are very important. The gun was poorly self-digging after the first shot. Carriage tests showed that the wheels were overloaded (in the traditions of the design bureau, there was the use of standard automobile wheels, and here it was necessary to use a pair of wheels from a GAZ-AA truck with a GK tire, which had not previously been used in domestic practice).

Design and technology group led by P.M. Nazarova in TsAKB proposed a set of measures to eliminate the detected abnormalities (moreover, the issue of "jumping" became the subject of a special discussion at the Technical Council of the NKV) with the corresponding processing of the drawings. The modified prototype was re-tested already at the Gorohovets training ground in the period December 17-31, 1943. During January 22-29, 1944, after new improvements, the tests continued. And again without much success on the previously noted main shortcomings.

Meanwhile, at the Bolshevik plant, according to the drawings of a modified prototype, the first series of five guns was already being manufactured. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that already in November 1943, in the conditions of unfinished battles on the deblockade (they had to get to the city by “roundabout” ways), Tyurin was again sent (now to plant No. 232 in Leningrad) to ensure the production of guns of an experimental series according to the drawings prototype, taking into account the adjustments developed by Nazarov's group. A set of new drawings arrived in December 1943.

С-3 at the range combat position

German self-propelled guns"Ferdinand" - a polygon target and an example of the defeat of the frontal armor of the "Ferdinand"

Four guns from the experimental series in the period February 5-15, 1944 were tested at the Leningrad training ground. The GAU Artillery Committee in its conclusion noted that two main shortcomings - in terms of the stability of the gun when fired at small elevation angles of the barrel and the strength of the muzzle brake attachment, were preserved. In addition, manufacturing defects were discovered caused by insufficient equipment of the plant and the degree to which it mastered production. But, given the urgent need to have such a gun in the army, according to the Artkom GAU, it was necessary to start production immediately, subject to the immediate elimination of issues on the muzzle brake and technological omissions. The rest was considered possible to work out in the manufacturing process of the first 30-40 systems.

On the twenty-fourth of February, during routine shooting for accuracy, the back of the breech was torn off at gun No. 1 of factory No. 232 at the 89th shot. There were no casualties, the fragment hit the wall of one of the polygon structures. The reason for what happened was not clear, since the prototype, according to the documentation of which this breech was made, had already withstood a significant number of shots without comments on the strength of this assembly. Metallographic analysis showed no errors in the applied steel grade and violations of the metal structure. The performed recalculation confirmed the presence of a fourfold margin of safety for this part. The TsAKB's attempt to accuse the plant of deviations from the requirements of the design documentation was argued by him. Due to the uncertainty of the situation, on March 16, at a joint meeting, they decided to strengthen the breech by increasing the thickness of its walls and replacing the steel grade, although the plant again expressed its objections, considering the use of stronger steel as a sufficient measure of reinforcement, while the new enlarged breech would require processing of interacting parts and technological processes. And, as the development of events showed, this position turned out to be correct. At the end of February, an assumption appeared, expressed by the director of the plant, A.I. Zakharyin, about the possibility of the appearance of stress concentration zones in the breech during the production process in the corners of the bolt nest. Subsequent analysis confirmed his correctness - in the end it turned out that the method of manual finishing of the part after machining leads to this. Mandatory compliance with the fulfillment of the radius in the zone of conjugation of the planes was introduced into the drawings, and the problem with the widened breech disappeared by itself (but the last word in this story had to be said by the chairman of the Technical Council of the NKV, E.A. Satel).

Work continued on the processing of the design of the muzzle brake. In early January, TsAKB agreed to manufacture it and a number of other parts not by stamping, but by casting. This suited the plant, which was experiencing difficulties with stamping equipment, and they quickly designed a one-piece muzzle brake from high-quality BRO steel previously worked out at the plant. In March 1944, tests began. And although the first sample shattered at 149 shots, now the situation was dealt with quickly.

On March 29, GOKO Decree No. 5509 determined the priority tasks for restoring production at Leningrad factories. In particular, the Bolshevik plant was ordered to focus on the development of the BS-3 gun. Plant No. 7 "Arsenal" named after Frunze NKV was also connected to its release in cooperation with other Leningrad enterprises.

Tank "Tiger" after shelling from S-3 at the training ground and an example of through penetration of the frontal armor of the "Tiger"

In the period from April 15 to May 2, 1944, according to the directive of the commander of the artillery of the Red Army, Chief Marshal of Artillery N.N. Voronov, in the Gorohovets artillery training camp held military trials batteries of four S-3 cannons, mass-produced by plant No. 232.

Their main tasks were: checking the technical and operational qualities of the gun, determining compliance with the requirements for heavy anti-tank systems and issuing an opinion on the possibility of adopting the S-3 into service as an anti-tank or hull gun. fire tests provided for full-scale shooting at captured armored vehicles: the heavy tank Pz.VI "Tiger" and the assault gun "Ferdinand" (as the German self-propelled gun "Elephant" was called at that time). Their results and mood are indicated by an excerpt from a telegram sent to Grabin by the head 18th department of TsAKB K.K. - Renne April 26: “Vasily Gavrilovich! I report briefly. For moving targets, the results are good. On the "Tiger" from 500-1000 meters and 1300 meters and at an angle of 30 degrees forehead and 60 degrees we pierce the side without difficulty. Accuracy and accuracy now leave no doubt ... "

For reference (as indicated in the test materials) - the front hull plate of the "Tiger" had a thickness of 110 mm. And further. So that the telegraphic text does not involuntarily mislead, German trophies could not move and were used only as stationary targets.

At the same time, it should be borne in mind that the gun crews of the formed battery were completed from the personnel of the training artillery regiment, taking only three days to familiarize themselves with the new equipment. True, when selecting artillerymen Special attention given to the gunners. As a result, it was determined that the S-3 is capable of hitting the Pz.VI tank over the entire area of the frontal projection at ranges up to 2000 meters from any angle and from a distance of up to 500 meters, inflict tangible damage to the frontal armor of an assault gun (penetrating through the 200-mm "forehead" of this "Elephant" could not be reached even with such a gun). On the sides, both representatives of the German "menagerie" were amazed at all aiming ranges. To hit a moving target, an average consumption of 2.2 rounds was required at a rate of fire of 4.5 rounds per minute.

The shortcomings organic for the system still showed themselves. A jump when firing at low elevation angles did not allow the gunner to continuously keep his eye at the eyepiece of the sight (in the troops, the gunners managed to adapt to this vice that had not been eliminated: they dodged jumping optics in time). The presence of a powerful muzzle brake with a low line of fire and flat trajectories characteristic of firing at armored targets led to the formation of a significant smoke and dust cloud, which unmasked the position and blinded the calculation. But this was the inevitable price of achieving the required weight: after all, the muzzle brake absorbed 60% of the recoil energy.

Other detected defects, such as a breakdown during testing of the entire set of semi-automatic shutter cams, were attributed to temporary manufacturing flaws of an unprincipled nature. The general conclusion is that the S-3 cannon can be recommended as a heavy anti-tank gun for manning separate divisions and regiments as part of separate artillery anti-tank brigades. At the same time, it can also be used as a hull one in addition to the A-19 systems.

The release of the Decree on adoption for service determined the timing and volume of production.

From May 1944, Plant No. 232 began scheduled deliveries, having managed to produce 275 guns by the end of the year. Since August, the Arsenal plant named after Frunze began their production, bringing the total annual output to 335 copies. Production at the Bolshevik plant lasted three years, and the N97 plant made the BS-3 until 1953, which eventually gave the army almost four thousand systems. And before the appearance in service in the early sixties of the new smooth-bore guns BS-3 and its tank counterpart D-10 (by the way - almost the same age, which owes its appearance to the same proposals of the NKV in April 1943) formed the basis of anti-tank warfare ground forces.

Of course, it is difficult to compare in quantitative terms with the D-10 family of guns, the period and scale of production of which are worthy of the Guinness Book of Records, but each system occupied its place in the general structure of the army’s artillery equipment. An important detail in this case is the fact that both systems - BS-3 and guns of the D-10 family used the same ammunition, which greatly simplified the provision of such a massive type of weaponry in a combat situation.

The importance that the military attached to this gun is indirectly evidenced by the fact that the Service Manual, published in 1954 (i.e., after production was discontinued), describing the design of the BS-3 and its ammunition, was classified as “secret”.

In the process of service, in order to maintain the requirements of the guns at the proper level, they underwent planned overhauls and were subjected to unprincipled modifications that improved their combat and operational qualities. Ammunition was developed and deployed by production increased efficiency several types.

Attempts were made and more serious upgrades. For example, in the JSCB NII-88 of the Ministry of Defense Industry, a group of designers led by E.V. Charnko, who were engaged, incl. artillery equipment airborne troops, proposed in 1954 to turn the towed BS-3 into a self-propelled one. Similar work - the creation of a self-propelled SD-57 based on the 57-mm towed gun 4-26 shortly before this was crowned with success. To create the same version (received the index 4-76), the planned amount of alterations to the BS-3 did not affect the actual swinging part of the gun - it was necessary to place the engine with the gearbox, controls, fuel system and replace the wheels. In the proposed project, due to the lack of an engine of a suitable design in the existing domestic nomenclature, the use of a 55-horsepower air-cooled engine from a Tatraplan passenger car was envisaged. But for a number of reasons beyond the control of the developers, these works did not receive development.

C-3 in the process of field testing by a wagon

Some technical characteristics of the 100-mm field gun model 1944. (from the Service Manual, 1966 edition):

Gun weight in combat position 3650 kg

Dimensions in stowed position 9370 x 2150 x 1800 mm

Height of the line of fire 1010 mm

The horizontal aiming angle is about 58 degrees.

The initial speed of the armor-piercing tracer projectile is 895 m/s.

High-explosive fragmentation grenade weight 15.6 kg

The maximum firing range (table) with a high-explosive fragmentation grenade is 20,000 m

Reports from parades, footage military photo and newsreels have preserved for us the episodes of the “live”, so to speak, biography-service of this gun. She happened to be a member of the "extras" in the once popular film "Maxim Perepelitsa" (1955). The service of the gun was also carried outside the country. The system was exported and took part in many local conflicts on the Asian continent and the Middle East. In the 1950s, the issue of organizing licensed production in Poland was studied.

A number of expedient technical solutions, implemented in the design of the gun, as well as some of the incoming elements, were later borrowed by other design teams when developing more modern artillery systems. For example, the shutter with minor changes was used in the largest-scale towed system of the Ground Forces for the post-war period - the 122-mm D-30 divisional howitzer.

May 9th, 1985 in Kaliningrad, near Moscow, where the Grabin design bureau worked for 17 years, a memorial was opened in honor of the Kaliningraders - the defenders of the Motherland. And as a symbol of military and labor glory, it was decorated with a BS-3 cannon. This was preceded by a very troublesome operation to request, receive and prepare for the installation of weapons from the storage of the Ministry of Defense, undertaken at the initiative of Grabin veterans who worked in the Scientific and Production Association Energia of the Ministry of General Mechanical Engineering (now the Rocket and Space Corporation Energia named after S. .P. Koroleva). It was in the composition of this organization in 1959 (then it was called OKB-1 GKOT), by the will of state circumstances, that TsNII-58, which was redesigned for a purely missile theme, was included.

As a monument to BS-3, it was also installed on the territory of the Arsenal plant.

The gun occupies a worthy place in the expositions of the Central Museum of the Armed Forces, the Central Museum of the Great Patriotic War in Moscow and the Central Military History Museum of Artillery, engineering troops and signal troops in St. Petersburg (there, by the way, there is a system No. 316 of the release of another 1944).

But to consider the BS-3 today as an object of only memorial, so to speak, interest is premature - as an armament system it appears in the relatively recently concluded agreement on the limitation of conventional weapons in Europe.

In conclusion, it should be mentioned that the 122-mm S-4 cannon, stipulated by the Decree of May 5, 1943, was also manufactured (albeit in more late dates) and carried out the required amount of testing. But, like the D-2, its competitor, created in the design bureau of plant No. 9 of the NKV, it did not get into the series due to the end of the war, the presence of a sufficient number of A-19 systems, the expanded production of BS-3 and a number of shortcomings caused by the desire to achieve maximum unification with minimum weight.

In the spring of 1943, V.G. Grabin, in his memorandum addressed to Stalin, proposed, along with the resumption of production of the 57-mm anti-tank ZIS-2, to begin designing a 100-mm cannon with a unitary shot, which was used in naval guns B-34.

Interestingly, the "ancestor" of the Soviet naval and land guns of 100-mm caliber was the Italian naval universal artillery system Minizini.

100-mm AU Minisini cruiser "Red Caucasus"

In the mid-1930s, the USSR purchased 10 100-mm double-barrel mounts developed by engineer-general Eugenio Minisini in Italy to arm the Svetlana-class cruisers: Krasny Kavkaz, Krasny Krym and Chervona Ukraina.

The need to create a 100-mm towed gun was motivated by the appearance of heavy tanks Panzerkampfwagen VI "Tiger I" Ausf E in 1942 among the Germans, with a frontal armor thickness of 100 mm, as well as the possible appearance of even more protected tanks and self-propelled guns.

In addition to anti-tank missions, such a weapon during the transition of the Red Army to offensive operations was necessary for the destruction field fortifications and conducting counter-battery fire. Since the existing 107-mm divisional gun of the 1940 model (M-60) was discontinued, and the 122-mm corps gun of the 1931/37 model (A-19) was too heavy and had a low rate of fire.

In September 1943, the first prototype was sent to the test site. Preliminary tests have shown that the new 100-mm gun does not meet the reliability requirements and is unsafe to operate. After a number of improvements and changes were made in April 1944, military trials of four guns began. They ended on May 2, the selection committee recommended that the gun be put into service, subject to the elimination of a number of shortcomings.

100 mm gun BS-3

By a GKO decree of May 7, 1944, the gun was put into service under the name “100-mm field gun mod. 1944", her factory index was BS-3. It was under this designation that this weapon became widely known.

The phrase "field gun" appeared for the first time in the designation of a weapon created in the Soviet era. Employees of the Main Artillery Directorate took a long time to decide how to name the new gun. As a divisional 100-mm gun was too heavy. And as an anti-tank, it did not satisfy a number of then conditions. Moreover, the creator of this tool V.G. Grabin never considered the BS-3 an anti-tank system, which, apparently, was reflected in the name.

When creating the BS-3, design bureau designers led by V.G. Grabin widely used their experience in creating field and anti-tank guns, and also introduced a number of new technical solutions.

To ensure high power, weight reduction, compactness and high rate of fire on a gun of this caliber, a wedge semi-automatic shutter and a two-chamber muzzle brake with an efficiency of 60% were first used.

The wheel problem was originally solved; for lighter guns, wheels from GAZ-AA or ZIS-5 were usually used. But they were not suitable for the new gun. The wheels from the five-ton YaAZ turned out to be too heavy and large. Then a pair of wheels from GAZ-AA was taken, which made it possible to fit into the given weight and dimensions. The wheels from the GAZ-AA truck had a reinforced rubber tire and a special wheel hub. Guns equipped with such wheels could be transported by mechanical traction at sufficiently high speeds.

In the spring of 1944, the BS-3 was put into serial production. But the rate of output due to the workload of the factories was not high. Until the end of the Great Patriotic War, only about 400 guns were supplied by industry to the Red Army.

Due to the presence of a wedge gate with a vertically moving wedge with semi-automatic, the location of the vertical and horizontal aiming mechanisms on one side of the gun, as well as the use of unitary shots, the gun's rate of fire is 8-10 rounds per minute. The cannon was fired with unitary shots with armor-piercing tracer shells and high-explosive fragmentation grenades.

Technical characteristics of the 100 mm BS-3 field gun:
The mass of the gun in combat position is 3650 kg.
Barrel caliber - 100 mm.
Barrel length - 5960 mm / 59.6 calibers.
The height of the line of fire is 1010 mm.
The number of grooves - 40.
Dimensions of the gun in the stowed position:
- length - 9370 mm;
- height - 1500 mm;
- width - 2150 mm;
Shooting range:
- OF-412 and OFS - 20 thousand m;
- OF-32 - 20.6 thousand m;
- direct shot - 1080 m.
Rate of fire - up to 10 rounds per minute.
Angle of horizontal guidance - 58 degrees.
Angle of vertical guidance - from -5 to +45 degrees.
Ammunition - BS, DS, OS, OFS.
Loading - unitary.
Sights:
- OP1-5 - optical sight;
- С71А-5 - mechanical sight (panorama).
The maximum towing speed is 50 km/h.
Calculation - 6 people.

The 100-mm BS-3 turned out to be a very effective anti-tank weapon, which was demonstrated by firing at the firing range at captured tanks"Tiger" and "Panther". For its excellent armor penetration, ensuring the defeat of any enemy tank, front-line soldiers gave it the name "St. John's wort".

Armor-piercing tracer projectile initial speed 895 m / s at a distance of 500 m at a meeting angle of 90 ° pierced armor 160 mm thick. The range of a direct shot was 1080 m.

However, the role of this gun in the fight against enemy tanks is greatly exaggerated. By the time it appeared, the Germans practically did not use tanks massively. The BS-3 was produced during the war in small quantities and could not play a significant role. In addition, most of the guns delivered to the troops, as a rule, were far from the "front line" being a "special anti-tank reserve" in case of a breakthrough large groups heavy enemy tanks. Moreover, the guns of the first release had only sights for firing from closed positions - the S-71A-5 panorama. Optical sight OP1-5 for direct fire was mounted only a couple of months after the start of mass production of guns. However, soon all the guns were equipped with "direct fire" sights.

At the final stage of the war, 98 BS-3s were given as a means of reinforcing five tank armies. The gun was in service with the light artillery brigades of the 3rd regiment (forty-eight 76-mm and twenty 100-mm guns).

As of January 1, 1945, the RVGK artillery had 87 BS-3 guns. At the beginning of 1945, in the 9th Guards Army, one cannon was formed as part of three rifle corps. artillery regiment 20 BS-3 each.

For comparison, the SU-100 tank destroyer with a gun of a similar caliber D-10S was released in war time in an amount of about 2000. Naturally, the SU-100 operating on the battlefield in one order of battle with tanks, the chances of meeting enemy tanks were much higher and these self-propelled guns made a much greater contribution to the fight against enemy tanks.

The BS-3 had a number of shortcomings that made it difficult to use it as an anti-tank weapon. When firing, the gun jumped heavily, which made the gunner's work unsafe and knocked down aiming mounts, which, in turn, led to a decrease in the practical rate of aimed fire - a very important quality for a field anti-tank gun.

The presence of a powerful muzzle brake with a low line of fire and flat trajectories, typical for firing at armored targets, led to the formation of a significant smoke and dust cloud, which unmasked the position and blinded the calculation.

The mobility of a gun with a mass of more than 3500 kg left much to be desired, transportation by crew forces on the battlefield was almost impossible.

If the towing of 45-mm, 57-mm and 76-mm guns was carried out by horse teams, GAZ-64, GAZ-67, GAZ-AA, GAZ-AAA, ZIS-5 cars or Dodge WC cars supplied from the middle of the war under Lend-Lease -51 ("Dodge 3/4"), then to tow the BS-3, tracked tractors were required, in extreme cases, all-wheel drive Studebaker US6 trucks.

During the fighting at the final stage of the war, the BS-3 was used mainly as a corps gun for firing from closed positions and for counter-battery combat due to its high range of fire.

Sometimes she fired direct fire at enemy fortifications. Cases of using 100-mm BS-3 guns against armored vehicles were very rare.

To give unequivocal assessment this tool is quite difficult. On the one hand, the BS-3 confidently hit any heavy German tank, and was quite effective when firing from closed positions. On the other hand, the need for such a weapon was not obvious. By the time the BS-3 was adopted, the ridge of the Panzerwaffe was broken, the Red Army already had quite effective 57-mm anti-tank guns ZIS-2, self-propelled guns SU-100 and T-34-85 tanks. In extreme cases, 122-mm A-19 guns and 152-mm ML-20 howitzers, as well as heavy self-propelled guns ISU-122 and ISU-152, could be brought in to fight the few heavy enemy tanks.

More in demand during the war years would have been an 85-mm anti-tank gun, which could be rolled onto the battlefield by crew forces, was more compact, simpler and cheaper to manufacture. And in the case of the use of an armor-piercing projectile, according to the characteristics of armor penetration, it was not inferior to the 100-mm BS-3.

85 mm gun D-44

But the development of such a weapon was delayed, and it entered service after the war. It was the 85-mm D-44 gun, created under the leadership of the chief designer F.F. Petrov, put into service in 1946. Subsequently, it was decided to use the 85-mm D-44 as a divisional one to replace the ZIS-3, and to assign the fight against tanks to more powerful artillery systems and ATGMs.

In this capacity, the D-44 gun was used in many conflicts, including in the CIS. The last case of combat use was noted in the North Caucasus, during the "counter-terrorist operation." In the troops, the D-44 outlived the BS-3 much. Yielding to the latter in terms of projectile power and firing range, the 85-mm gun was more than 2 times lighter, easier to maintain and more convenient.

Before the cessation of production in 1951, the industry delivered 3816 BS-3 guns to the troops.

AT post-war years the BS-3 gun was subjected to a slight modernization, which primarily concerned ammunition and sights.

In the first post-war years, the AT-L tractor and the ZIS-151 vehicle were usually used to tow the gun. In the mid-50s, the AT-P light semi-armored tracked artillery tractor became the main means of traction. MT-LB was also used as a tractor.

Until the early 1960s, BS-3 guns could fight any Western tanks. However, later the situation changed: armor-piercing shells BS-3 guns were unable to penetrate the frontal armor of the tower as well as the upper frontal armor British tanks"Chieftain" and American M-48A2 and M-60. Therefore, feathered cumulative and sub-caliber projectiles were urgently developed and put into service. Sub-caliber shells were capable of penetrating any armor of the M-48A2 tank, as well as the turrets of the Chieftain and M-60 tanks, but did not penetrate the upper frontal armor of these tanks. HEAT shells were able to penetrate any armor of all three tanks.

However, after the appearance of new anti-tank guns: 85-mm D-48 and 100-mm smoothbore T-12 and MT-12, the BS-3 gun began to be gradually withdrawn from the troops and transferred "to storage". A significant number of BS-3s were delivered abroad, where they were popular due to the unification of ammunition with widely used guns. Soviet tanks T-54/T-55.

The ammunition load of the 100 mm BS-3 gun included the following ammunition:
High-explosive fragmentation projectile OF-412:
Shots - 3UOF412/3UOF412U.
Projectile weight - 15.6 kg.
Weight explosive- 1.46 kg.
Initial speed - 900 m/s.
Direct shot range - 1100 m.
The maximum firing range is 20 thousand meters.

100-mm unitary shots with OF-412 high-explosive fragmentation shells: a - with a full charge; b - with reduced charge

Fragmentation grenade O-412:
Shot - UO-412.
Projectile weight - 15.94 kg.
Initial speed - 898 m/s.
The maximum firing range is 21.36 thousand meters.
Direct shot range - 1.2 thousand m.

Armor-piercing shells BR-412, BR-412B, BR-412D:
Shots - UBR-412/3UBR3/3UBR412D.
Projectile weight - 15.088 kg.
The weight of the explosive is 0.06 kg.
Initial speed - 895 m/s.
Direct shot range - 1040/1070 m.
The maximum firing range is 4 thousand meters.

100-mm unitary shots with armor-piercing tracer projectiles: a - with a BR-412D projectile with an armor-piercing and ballistic tip, b - with a BR-412B projectile with a ballistic tip

Armor-piercing projectiles 3BM25 and 3BM8:
Shot - 3UBM11 and 3UBM6.
Projectile weight - 5.7 kg.

Cumulative armor-piercing shells 3BK17, 3BK5:
Shot - 3UBK9 and 3UBK4.

High-explosive fragmentation projectile OF-32 (1980s):
Shot - 3UOF10 / 3UOF11.
Projectile weight - 15.6 kg.
The mass of the explosive is 1.7 kg.
Firing range of a direct shot - 1100 m.
The maximum firing range is 20600 m.

Managed anti-tank missile 9M117 of the Bastion complex:
Shot - 3UBK10-1.
Firing range - 100-4000 meters.
Armor penetration: at 60 degrees - 275 mm, at an angle of 90 degrees - 550 mm.

In the 80s, the gun underwent the last, in my opinion, completely unjustified for this obviously hopelessly outdated artillery system by that time, modernization. The ammunition load of the 100 mm BS-3 gun received a controlled anti-tank projectile 9M117 ( missile system"Bastion"), its effective firing range left up to 4000 meters and pierced normal 550 mm armor. But by that time, there were already few BS-3 guns left in the troops, and we can say that the funds for development work on modernization were wasted.

Currently, the 100-mm BS-3 guns in most countries where they were supplied have already been removed from service with combat units. In Russia, the BS-3 guns, as of 2011, were used as coastal defense weapons in service with the 18th machine gun and artillery division stationed at Kuril Islands, and some of them are in storage.

According to materials:
http://www.militaryfactory.com
Shirokorad A. B. The genius of the Soviet artillery. Triumph and tragedy of V. Grabin. M.: AST, 2003.

A similar gun with the index D-10S 52-PS-412 was used for installation on self-propelled guns - SU-100

Description

D-10T is a Soviet rifled gun of 100-mm caliber during the Second World War, developed in 1944 at the OKB-9 design bureau. The first anti-tank gun was called D-10S 52-PS-412, originally installed on the SAU (Self-Propelled Artillery Mount) SU-100. After a successful application, the gun was upgraded for installation on T-54 medium tanks. The gun on the T-54 tank was called the D-10T with the index 52-PT-412. The D-10T gun had a unitary loading of ammunition and a rate of fire of 5-6 rounds per minute. T-54s with a 100-mm D-10T caliber gun remained in service until 1978, after which they were replaced by new T-64 medium tanks.

Vehicles equipped with these weapons

The game is installed on the following vehicles:

Use in combat

In the game, the gun of the medium tank T-54. Is one of best guns in Game. Armor penetration with a top shell allows you to effectively deal with almost all opponents at distances up to 800 meters. at these levels, the fights are most often until the first penetration, so almost every shot you make will be fatal to the enemy. In general, the gun is good and shooting from it is a pleasure.

Advantages and disadvantages

Advantages

Good penetration with top ammo.
Good rate of fire
The presence of sub-caliber and cumulative shells

disadvantages

Small ammo
Small declination angles

History reference

At the end of 1945, OKB-9 created a 100 mm D-10T tank gun based on the LB-1 gun for the medium T-54. The D-10T gun, unlike the base gun, did not have a muzzle brake. The profile of the rifling compared to the D-10S gun in the D-10T was changed, but their depth remained the same. The barrel of the D-10T gun consisted of a monoblock pipe, a breech and a clutch. The wedge horizontal shutter had a semi-automatic mechanical type. By the end of the Great Patriotic War, the 100 mm D-10S gun mounted on SU-100 self-propelled guns proved to be exceptionally powerful and effective weapon. The SU-100 self-propelled gun could effectively deal with almost any type of existing at that time production tanks and self-propelled units. Its accuracy also deserves the highest praise and, in principle, even meets modern requirements.

After the war, this gun in the D-10T, D-10TG and D-10T2S versions was installed on medium tanks of the T-54 and T-55 series for a long time and for some time retained superiority over foreign tank guns. Medium tanks T-54 and T-55, produced in huge numbers, continued (and continue) to be in service with many countries, but their firepower no longer met the requirements of the time. After the appearance in the 70-80s of the 20th century, the main battle tanks of the second and third post-war generations were in service with developed countries.

Media

SU-100 Review: At the forefront - Realistic fights

Overview of the T-54 arr. 1951: The Best Tank - Realistic Fights

Links

Domestic tank guns. Family of 100 mm D-10T tank guns
100 mm tank gun D-10(
Self-propelled gun SU-100(

· Soviet tank and anti-tank guns
20mm	TNSh
45 mm	20-K
57 mm	ZiS-2 ZiS-4 ZiS-4M Ch-51M
73mm	2A28
76mm	arr. 1902/30 KT-28 L-10 L-11 F-32 F-34 F-96 ZiS-3 ZiS-5 D-56-TS
85 mm	F-30