Naval artillery installations in the Technical Museum, Tolyatti. Big guns of Leningrad

By the mid-1950s, missile cruisers, large anti-submarine ships and boats of various displacements were replacing cruisers, destroyers, and anti-ship missiles with classic artillery weapons. To equip them, universal small-caliber naval artillery mounts (30-, 57-, 76.2 mm) with radar fire control systems were created. In 1956, the design of the 30-mm twin automatic installation KL-302 (KL - OKB-43 index) began. After the reform of OKB-43, its work and employees were transferred to TsKB-34, and the machine guns to OKB-16. The chief designer of the installation was S.A. Kharykin. The revolver-type assault rifle was created by A.E. Nudelman and V.Ya. Nemenov, and the name NN-30 was formed from the initial letters of their surnames. The production of the assault rifles was entrusted to the Tula Machine-Building Plant (No. 535), and the guidance drives were produced at the Moscow Plant No. 710.

Three different AK-230 installations
degree of understaffing

Fairing and its fastening. Fan hoods - later modification

AK-230, No. 74415

State tests of the KL-302 were carried out on the lead missile boat of Project 205. In addition to the P-15 cruise missiles, it received two new type of artillery mounts. In the early 1960s, tests of the boat and its systems were carried out in the Gulf of Riga and in the Baltiysk region.
"The long duration of this stage was apparently determined by the fact that at that time tests of the P-15 complex were being completed in the Black Sea. It would be desirable to take their results into account to refine the equipment supplied to the large boat. The resulting “time out” could be used for thorough testing and fine-tuning of the boat’s traditional shipbuilding systems and assemblies." Source: V. Asanin "Missiles of the domestic fleet" ("Equipment and weapons" No. 7/2009)
After the completion of state tests, artillery mounts under the designation AK-230 were put into service. The guidance mechanisms are controlled remotely, from the MP-104 “Lynx” fire control radar, used for detection and automatic tracking of air and surface targets. During serial production(from 1959 to 1983) more than 1000 of these installations were transferred to the Navy. This is the second most common Soviet naval artillery machine gun. In first place is the twin 37-mm V-11 (1,872 units of all modifications).

A brief idea about the features of the AK-230 assault rifles will be given by a quote from A. Shirokorad’s book “Weapons of the Domestic Fleet”: “ The barrel is cooled from the outside by a liquid circulating between the outer surface of the barrel and the inner surface of the pipe placed on the barrel. The barrel at the rear inside and the breech at the front inside are cooled after each shot by injecting liquid into the bore at the rear and into the breech chambers at the front and then evaporating it there. The presence of four chambers makes it possible to distribute the preparation and production of a shot between the chambers as follows: the first chamber, located directly opposite the bore, is used to fire a shot; the second chamber, counting by the rotation of the breech, is for ejecting the spent cartridge case with powder gases removed from the muzzle of the machine gun; the third and fourth chambers are for loading the cartridge into the chamber. This scheme makes it possible to time the shot with the ejection and loading of the cartridge into the chamber and thereby increase the rate of fire. All parts of the machine gun are located in the casing. The machine is mounted on the installation by the casing at two points, its front mount is for power, the rear is for support."

No fairing

Remains of cooling system hoses are visible

Numbers of NN-30 machines: 74691 and 74693

An attempt to determine at least the type of ship from nameplates and found serial numbers was unsuccessful. On three installations, a single readable plate was found that provides a minimum of information: AK-230, No. 74415. The search for any features in the design of the three AK-230s on display in the museum also did not yield results. There are differences: " Depending on the year of manufacture, the gun mounts had some external differences. Thus, two visors located on the fairing, covering the fans that provide suction of powder gases formed under the fairing during firing, had, depending on the time of manufacture of the gun mount, a different shape (the diagram shows one of the latest options).
In the front part of the fairing there is an embrasure for the passage of machine gun barrels, closed by a sealing shield. The window in the seal shield for the passage of machine gun barrels is covered with a cover. Initially, a canvas cover was installed, which was tightened with a cord. Later, canvas covers were used, and belts were used to tighten the cover. On the latest gun mounts the cover was made of metal." Source: V.V. Osintsev, "Artillery armament of modern Russian ships"
In this case, nothing useful for identifying a specific ship (or at least its type) could be found. I found only a few signs. First: the seal shield window was covered with a fabric cover (now lost), i.e. early type. Later they began to install metal ones. Second: the absence of the letter “M” (low-magnetic) on the surviving nameplate means that these installations were not installed on minesweepers. Third: on one of the installations, the fan visors in the space under the machine fairing are of an early type. So early that you can only find a photo of a similar installation after a long search on the Internet. Fourth: the presence of an antenna in the museum exhibition radar arrays"Spar". Hence, with great stretch, we can assume that AK-230 installations could be installed on Project 205 missile boats.

The folding part of the fairing is missing

Early form of canopies covering fans
removal of powder gases

Visor - close-up

Later visor

Well, since we’re already talking about the combination of Project 205 and the AK-230, I can’t resist quoting: “ The main disadvantage of the RK pr.205 and its modifications, which emerged by the end of the 1960s, in particular, in local conflicts, was the weakness of the artillery weapons, since the 30-mm AK-230 guns, due to their short firing range, turned out to be ineffective in the fight against airplanes and helicopters, as well as in artillery duels with enemy boats, usually armed with 40-mm machine guns (and with early 1970s -76 mm rapid-fire guns). This circumstance forced the deployment of the Strela-2 (later Strela-3) MANPADS on Soviet boats, Project 205 and Project 205U, and in 1977, the construction of the Project 206MR RK with the 76-mm AK-176 gun began. By the end of the 1970s, the boats of Project 205 became obsolete, they began to be gradually withdrawn from service Soviet fleet and sell abroad or disassemble for metal." Source: Yu.V. Apalkov, "Ships of the USSR Navy. Small rocket ships"

Instance No. 4 of the 130-mm mobile coastal artillery installation SM-4 (S-30). The production of this weapon began at plant No. 221 in 1947, and was completed in 1949. The gun in the photograph is from the 201st separate coastal mobile battery, which underwent state tests near Riga. The SM-4-1 with a modified rammer and sleeve reflector went into production.

General view of the SM-4 installation

Muzzle brake

Under the barrel there are two cylinders of recoil devices

The SM-4-1 installation was put into service in 1951 and discontinued in 1958 (according to other sources - in 1955). Production was carried out at plant No. 221 “Barricades” (Stalingrad) and from 1952 to 1954 at SKMZ (Kramatorsk). A total of 140 such artillery installations were built. Some of them are stored at bases, and some are still in the army. Thus, according to A. Shirokorad, as of January 1, 1984, there were 32 guns in mothballed batteries and 108 in warehouses.

Vertical wedge valve

In the lower right corner there is a handle to open the shutter

SM-4 model 1948

Gun No. 4

So, the successor to the experimental weapon displayed in the museum - the SM-4-1 installation - was put into service in 1951. The fire control of this installation was carried out using the Moskva-TsN control system and the Zalp-B radar. Direct fire was carried out using a panorama and an MVSh-M-1 sighting tube. However, the speeds of high-speed sea targets increased and the old fire control system no longer met the requirements for shooting accuracy. It is not surprising that further improvement of the system was carried out in the direction of improving fire control devices.

Receiving device for central aiming - setting the full angle of horizontal aiming. The upper scale is for rough reading, the lower one is for precise reading.

In 1955, after passing State tests of a prototype of the Bureya MT-4 fire control system, artillery installations received the SM-4-1B designation and began to be equipped with the Bureya fire control system and the Burun centimeter range radar. Interestingly, the artillery radar was interfaced with the Nickel-K friend-or-foe identification station. The target tracking range has increased to 60 kilometers.
Also in 1955, the Mys surface target detection radar with a range of up to 183 km was put into service. At a distance of up to 90 km, it operated at a frequency of 1240 Hz, and then 604 Hz. The Mys radar was also interfaced with the Nickel-K friend-or-foe identification equipment. The Mys radar and Burun radar were placed on APM-598 wheeled trailers weighing 14.8 tons, which were transported by AT-S tractors.

The running gear consists of front and rear dual-slope moves. In a combat position, they are hung on spinal frames and with their weight they increase stability when fired

Receiving central aiming device - setting the full vertical aiming angle (the angle between the horizontal plane and the elevation line). At the top right is a rough scale. In the center there is a precision scale

Device 61 - signal indicator

Very little is known regarding the use of 130 mm SM-4-1 coastal artillery guns. Several Egyptian SM-4-1s were captured by the Israelis during the 1967 Six-Day War in the Sharm el-Sheikh area and dropped into the Red Sea. One of the captured installations is on display at the Israeli Air Force Museum, where it depicts a large-caliber anti-aircraft gun.
They still serve partially in the coastal defense of North Korea modernized installations SM-4-1. Reliable shelters were dug out for them in the coastal rocks, a set of camouflage measures was carried out, including setting up false positions, etc. On the Internet it is easy to find reportage photographs in which their great leader and teacher poses with the artillerymen. The background is one of the North Korean SM-4-1s deployed in a firing position. Unfortunately, it is just as easy to find online reports of the rate of fire of North Korean artillerymen demonstrating their skills while “exchanging pleasantries” with their South Korean counterparts.

Battery Power Handle

Jacks are installed at the end of the frames to level the installation and absorb the overturning moment when firing

Two side frames, right and left, are hingedly connected to the body, and the other two (spine) are rigidly connected

12.7 mm coaxial machine gun mount 2M-1

A very interesting exhibit. A search for the name “TU-2M-1” indicated on the sign does not produce any results. We look at Soviet 12.7-mm machine gun mounts in the second part of Shirokorad’s book “Domestic Heavy Machine Guns” (published in the magazine “Technique and Armament”, No. 3/1998). Quote: " MTU-2 turret mounts were designed for torpedo, patrol and other types of boats. MSTU (TsKB-14) and 2-UK (OKB-43). All of them were open type, there were no guidance mechanisms, and aiming was carried out by the shooter manually. At the end of the war, plant No. 2 produced an experimental quadruple installation DShKM-4, and OKB-43 created an experimental 12.7-mm mine installation P-2K. designed for submarines. In the stowed position, it was retracted inside the boat. In 1945, the 12.7 mm 2M-1 double-barrel deck mount with a ring sighting device was adopted."
Products MTU-2, MSTU, 2-UK do not match the appearance of the exhibit. Let's try to use the fact that the first Soviet post-war minesweepers of Project 254 were armed with 2M-1 installations. Enough photographs of these ships have been preserved. They clearly show two machine gun mounts located on the sides of the chimney. Modern photographs of Project 254 MTShch, which are still part of the Chinese and Alabani fleets, also clearly show that the 2M-1 has a horizontal barrel arrangement. But in the photographs and diagrams of Project 254M minesweepers, the arrangement of the barrels is already vertical, i.e. like an exhibit in a museum. At the same time, the technical characteristics of minesweepers still indicate 12.7 mm 2M-1.

On the DShK barrel there is a flame arrester instead of the usual muzzle brake

Installation number: 477Н

Fencing for collecting cartridges

Cutout of the vertical armor shield - a place for a sight

We open the book “Secrets of Russian Artillery” by Alexander Shirokorad, read the chapter about the developments of OKB-43: “ In August 1941, OKB-43 was evacuated from Leningrad to Yoshkar-Ola (Mari Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic). There, the design bureau was located in the building of the Palace of Pioneers with an area of ​​540 m2 and in a specially built building with an area of ​​53 m2. The mechanical shop was located in the power plant building. By September 20, 1941, 23 machines were put into operation and the installation of the rest continued. During the war years, the work of OKB-43 devoted a large place to naval topics. As already mentioned, due to the fault of Tukhachevsky and Co., the production of anti-aircraft machine guns in the USSR began only in 1939, and they began to arrive in the army and navy at the end of 1940. At the same time, 37-mm naval machine guns 70K are the only machine guns in service our fleet - had a number of fundamental shortcomings, and there were very few of them. Due to the lack of anti-aircraft guns, the Soviet fleet suffered heavy losses.
...
Back on March 14, 1946, the Navy leadership approved the tactical and technical specifications for the design of three two-machine gun installations with 14.5 mm Vladimirov machine guns. The development of all three installations was entrusted to OKB-43. The parallel development of three installations was caused not by the desire to organize a competition, but by the design of the ships for which the installations were designed. Thus, the 2M-5 installation was designed for torpedo boats, 2M-6 for armored boats, and 2M-7 for minesweepers.
...
A prototype of the 2M-7 pedestal installation was manufactured at OKB-43 in September 1947. The swinging part of the 2M-7 consisted of two cradles (upper and lower), connected to each other by a parallelogram rod. The swinging part with the machine was mounted on a stationary stand attached to the deck of the ship. The installation had two armored shields 8 mm thick. The KMT-14.5 collimator sight allowed firing at targets with speeds of up to 200 m/s. To fire at targets moving at a speed of 200 to 300 m/s, a mechanical ring sight was used. When conducting intense fire, the barrels were replaced or cooled every 100 shots.
Factory tests of the installation took place in May 1948. State field tests of the 2M-7 were carried out from August 7 to August 28, 1948. The installation was presented in two versions: with a lower machine gun firing line height of 650 and 850 mm. Based on the test results, the commission recommended adopting a higher installation. Ship tests of the 2M-7 were carried out in two stages: from November 22 to December 7, 1948 on boat No. 141 of the MO-4 type, and in 1950 - on boats of the M-123bis and TD-200bis types. The 2M-7 installation was adopted for service by Resolution of the Council of Ministers No. 1400–703ss of July 28, 1951 and by order of the Minister of Navy No. 00 248 of August 15, 1951. The cost of one installation is 157.3 thousand rubles in 1950 prices. Preparation for gross production of all three installations began in 1950 at the Tula Machine-Building Plant (No. 535). And already next year, the delivery of serial installations began. The installations were in production for about 10 years.
In the post-war years, large-caliber machine guns were not installed on large ships. This was due, on the one hand, to an increase in the speeds and survivability of aircraft, and on the other, to the advent of relatively effective anti-aircraft guns 25-mm 2M-ZM, and then 30-mm AK-230. But 14.5 mm machine guns are widely used on boats of all classes. Thus, the 2M-5 installations received torpedo boats of projects 123bis and 184; 2M-6 - armored boats of Project 191M and part of the boats of Project 1204; 2M-7 - patrol boats of the “Grif” type of project 1400 and project 368T, minesweepers of projects 151, 361T, etc."

The piston tube is missing (should be under the barrel)

Upper machine gun marking: 1950 L27

Sight settings table

Lower machine gun markings: 1950 L48

It turns out that in front of us is a shield and stand of a 14.5 mm 2M-7 installation in combination with 12.7 mm DShK barrels. I was averted from the thought that this was a home-made mutant by scans of drawings from the GDR magazine "Modelbau heute" dated December 1984. The product depicted in the German drawings corresponded to the appearance of the exhibit from Tolyatti. The caption under the illustrations read: “WKN-12.7-mm-Fla-MG Typ MK-7.” Attempts to find this issue of the magazine and a search by name did not lead to success. But a search on the forums led to guns.ru, in the topic Model of an anti-aircraft machine gun. The topic discussed a photograph from the 1970s, taken at the Primorye airfield in Baltiysk. The product in the picture repeated the appearance of the Togliatti machine gun mount: the shape of the armor shield and the vertical arrangement of 12.7 mm barrels with a characteristic gas outlet. The conclusion was: “DSK machine guns on a 2M-1 stand.” I assume that in the museum there is a modification of the machine gun mount based on a unified stand.

Butt plate of the upper DShK

Butt plate of lower DShK

Fencing - for collecting cartridges

General view of the installation

In 2016, while in St. Petersburg, I came across a fully complete copy of a machine gun pedestal installation. It is exhibited in a branch of the Central Naval Museum, more precisely in the annex to the submarine D-2 “Narodovolets”.

45-mm semi-automatic universal gun 21-KM

We open the orange book “Soviet Naval Artillery” published back in 1995. This was the first open publication on the topic, valuable also because it was a “creatively revised” departmental reference book, worn out by Shirokorad. For those who are not satisfied with the quality of scans of pages printed in 1995, I recommend the Encyclopedia domestic artillery"(published in 2000). The material is generally duplicated. However, let's return to the exhibit: " The 21-K artillery system, according to the design documentation, was a device for a 45-mm anti-tank gun mod. 1932 to a marine machine. The body of the gun was entirely borrowed from the 19-K cannon and consisted of a fastened barrel and casing. Serial production of 45-mm 21-K guns began at Plant No. 8 in 1934. In the absence of other anti-aircraft guns, 21-K guns were installed on all classes of ships of the Soviet fleet - from patrol boats and submarines to cruisers and battleships.
In 1944, a modification of the 21-KM gun was put into production. work on modernizing the 21-K gun began at OKB-172 in 1942 under the designation VM-42. The lead series of 25 barrels was successfully tested in September 1943, after which the 21-KM gun was put into mass production. The modernization of the gun was expressed in an increase in the rifled part of the barrel by 1010 mm, replacement of inertial automatics with a carbon copy, strengthening of the barrel and recoil devices, and installation of a shield (shield cover). Until now (2000s), 21-KM guns have been used on ships of the Russian Navy as salute guns."

The body of the 21-K gun was borrowed from the 19-K gun and consists of a fastened barrel and casing. Later a monoblock barrel was introduced

45-mm universal gun 21-KM in series from 1944 to 1947 Year of production of the exhibit: 1945

The machine tool is a regular stand. Shield cover was introduced on the 21-KM, but this gun does not have it

"A serious drawback of the gun (including its modification 21-KM) was the low rate of fire (25 rounds per minute) and the absence of a remote fuse on the shells, so that the target could only be hit by a direct hit (which was due to the continuous increase in aircraft speeds in the 1930s). e years it became almost impossible). The consequence of the listed shortcomings of the gun was its extremely low anti-aircraft effectiveness. For this reason, already during the Great Patriotic War As the troops received 37-mm 70-K assault rifles of domestic production, as well as Oerlikon (20-mm) and Bofors (40-mm) guns - under Lend-Lease - the widespread replacement of 21-K guns on ships began TO."

Initially, the 21-K guns did not have a semi-automatic bolt. After 1935, semi-automatic inertial type was introduced. Since 1944, on the 21-KM, inertial automation was replaced with a carbon copy

Toothed sector of the vertical guidance mechanism

If you are interested in looking at 21-K in excellent condition, look at photographs from the branch of the Central Naval Museum, submarine D-2 “Narodovolets”, St. Petersburg. Of course, it’s even better to just visit D-2, and at the same time, in the annex to the boat, inspect the “magpie.”

37-mm automatic anti-aircraft artillery mount 70-K

The 70-K on display at the museum is a naval modification of the widely used Soviet automatic anti-aircraft gun 61-K. When you search the Internet for information on installing 70-K, you usually come across fragments of text borrowed from Shirokorad, where a lot of reproaches are expressed against the ancestors. They say that the GAU made a mistake and before the Great Patriotic War they adopted a 37-mm anti-aircraft gun instead of the more effective 45 mm caliber. The German 37-mm Flak 37 and Flak 43, the American 37-mm M1A2 L/53.5, the 40-mm English QF 2 pdr AA (“pom-pom”), as well as the “mother” of the Soviet gun - 40- look at the critic with bewilderment. mm Bofors L60 model 1936. By the way, the last one listed is still used on Lockheed AC-130 gunships for firing at ground targets, as well as on military boats of some countries.

Another accusation against Shirokorad was the thesis that the leadership of the Soviet Navy “constantly copied” the decisions of the GAU and generally did not pay attention to naval air defense, as well as large-caliber anti-aircraft artillery. Indeed, in the pre-war period, the GAU had plenty of mistakes and “fashionable ideas” - Kurchevsky recoilless guns, a light 107-mm howitzer, as well as the beautiful theme of a universal anti-aircraft divisional gun. It is clear that mobility and ammunition weight are not as important for a naval gun as for an army anti-aircraft gun. Alas, the USSR could not afford the highly specialized systems of the 1930s. Whatever one may say, it was a rather poor country with a low literacy rate and a very young industry. However, according to Shirokorad’s logic, the sailors had to go against the chosen standard and develop their own anti-aircraft gun, incompatible with ground systems in terms of ammunition and spare parts. At the same time, the abundantly quoted artillery historian forgets about the rather modest capabilities of Soviet industry. The release of the long-awaited 37-mm 61-K anti-aircraft gun was significantly behind schedule, and by the beginning of the war the Red Army received about a quarter of the required quantity: approximately 1,200 in the army and 133 in the navy. A similar shortage occurred with 37 mm shells.
You can learn more about the history of the issue by clicking on the link Anti-aircraft artillery in the Technical Museum, Tolyatti.

As for examples of combat use, I will cite two fragments from the memoirs of the commander of the destroyer "Tashkent", captain 3rd rank Eroshenko Vasily Nikolaevich. It must be said that by the beginning of the war, the 21-K anti-aircraft semi-automatic guns on this ship were replaced with 37-mm 70-K automatic guns. In total, six such machine guns were installed on the leader; later the anti-aircraft weapons were strengthened by adding a 76-mm 39-K from the unfinished destroyer "Ognevoy". Before moving on to the quotes, let me remind you that the 37-mm 70-K barrels were air-cooled, so the overheated barrel had to either be changed (about 15 minutes per operation) or cooled for an hour and a half. Whether the anti-aircraft gunners of "Tashkent" had those one and a half hours - judge for yourself.

June 24, 1942: " “The break is over, they’re going again...” Orlovsky announces half an hour later. The sharp-sighted first mate, who had hardly looked up from his binoculars all this time, was the first to notice new group aircraft, ahead of the signalmen. These are Heinkels again, perhaps the same ones that managed to refuel and hang bombs. Again they are divided into two groups. And the height is different now, no more than a thousand meters. They know that we are no longer covered, and they behave more impudently...
The bombs land closer than the first time. Making sharp turns, “Tashkent” cuts off the side of the water columns that have not had time to settle. They collapse onto the deck, superstructures, and bridge. Blinded by the “shower” that gushed over me, I missed the moment when the bomber hit anti-aircraft shell. Shaking myself off the water, I hear screams of delight on the deck and only then do I notice the falling plane. Well done Makukhin! However, Gimmelman's machine guns probably also helped him.
There is a respite, but it is short - there is another group of bombers ahead. I turn straight towards them, it’s more profitable. Meanwhile, the signalmen manage to contact the Impeccable. There, like us, there are no losses or damage.
We fight off a new attack. General fire of naval and army anti-aircraft weapons merges into a deafening crash. But fire is fire, and maneuver means no less. I try not to miss the moment when the first bombers approach the bomb drop point, and I turn the ship sharply to the left. Turning helps - the bombs fall to the side. And another plane began to smoke. What a day today for our anti-aircraft gunners! But this group of bombers did not reach the “Impeccable” - they discharged themselves at the “Tashkent”, achieving nothing."

On June 27, 1942, in the last days of the defense of Sevastopol, the Tashkent transported evacuees to Novorossiysk. Starting from 5 a.m. until 9 a.m., the leader was subjected to continuous attacks by enemy aircraft (about 90 aircraft). Over 300 bombs were dropped on it. " With flooded compartments and a jammed steering wheel, the Tashkent continues to fight. This is a very unequal fight. After all, the strength of our ship lies in the combination of fire and maneuver. And now sharp, rapid turns are no longer possible for a leader. While dodging bombs, the ship only manages to turn to the right or left by twenty to thirty degrees. Since maneuver is limited, it is necessary to increase anti-aircraft fire as much as possible. But the barrels of the machine guns are already so hot that they have to be poured with water. A group of Sevastopol women stood up to supply water to the anti-aircraft gunners, some armed with a boatswain's canvas bucket, some with a soup tank."

37-mm twin artillery mount B-11

The project to create a 37-mm automatic anti-aircraft gun for the Soviet Navy (two 70-K machine guns are installed in one cradle) appeared back in 1940. Despite the huge need for shipborne air defense systems, work on the B-11 dragged on until 1944. This story is summarized in the same book by Shirokorad: " The contract for the production of a prototype installation was concluded with plant No. 4 on May 30, 1941. Working drawings of the installation were completed in 1942. The prototype was manufactured and shipped by plant No. 4 on March 2, 1944. Field tests of the B-11 took place at NIMAP from April 15 to May 18, 1944, in the amount of 1193 rounds. During field tests, after a continuous burst of 83 shots, the water in the casing began to boil, and after 166, it completely turned into steam. According to the project, the stabilization mechanism was supposed to have an electric drive, while the prototype and production models were equipped only with a manual one. State ship tests of the B-11 installation took place on the large hunter “Shturman” in the Northern Fleet from July 16 to August 12, 1944. The B-11 gun mount was adopted by Order of the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy No. 0155 of July 25, 1946.
In general, the B-11 was the first to use continuous external water cooling of barrels during firing, which made it possible to double the length of the continuous burst. At the same time, they got rid of a significant limitation: after 100 shots, the air-cooled barrel either had to be changed (which required at least 15 minutes), or wait for it to cool for about an hour and a half. Another innovation - stabilization of the trunnion axis in the horizontal plane and additional stabilization in the firing plane, was effective due to the presence of manual aiming drives. However, the main problem of the B-11 (as well as its predecessor, the 70-K) was the lack of automation of combat work, since the supply of cartridges from the ship's elevators, as well as the targeting of the artillery mount, were done manually. Hence the weak capabilities of combating high-speed air targets and the practical rate of fire is 2-3 times lower than the technical one.

The barrel casing serves as a reservoir for the circulation of sea water in the cooling system

Vertical and horizontal guidance mechanisms are manual only, have two speeds

Two machine guns with 70-K gun ballistics, mounted in one cradle

Spring knurl, assembled on a water cooling casing

And again Shirokorad, “Weapons of the Domestic Fleet”: “ In the post-war period, the B-11 installation was modernized and received the designation B-11M. The V-11 and V-11M installations were placed on cruisers of projects 26, 68, 68bis; destroyers of projects 30K and 30bis, as well as minesweepers of project 254. The V-11M installation has an AZP-37-2M automatic sight. By 1991, the USSR Navy had over 1000 V-11 and V-11M gun mounts. Production of V-11M units was discontinued in the early 80s. The V-11 and V-11M units were manufactured at Plant No. 4 from 1944 to 1953, and from 1952 at Plant No. 614. Such a long production of the V-11 units is explained not by any of their exceptional qualities, but rather by their inertia thinking of fleet leadership. As already mentioned, machine guns like 70-K had a lot design flaws and in general they were very mediocre weapons. Nevertheless, during the war they acted as the basis of the air defense of the ground forces and navy, and they accounted for the majority of German aircraft shot down by anti-aircraft artillery."On this slightly howling note, we will end the topic of installing the B-11.

25-mm twin artillery mount 2M-3M

In 1945, OKB-43 received the task of developing a 25-mm two-gun deck automatic installation 2M-3, intended for arming minesweepers and boats of projects 183, 201. For this installation, OKB-16 (chief designer Nudelman) developed the 110-PM assault rifle. Vertical and horizontal guidance was carried out using two hydraulic motors, one of which is connected to the HV gearbox, and the other to the GN gearbox. As a backup, there was also manual guidance, carried out by one gunner. Recharging was carried out using two power hydraulic cylinders. The barrels are cooled by air when firing. When replacing magazines, water was supplied to the barrels through a hose with a nozzle from the breech for cooling. Cooling time with water is at least 15 seconds. The 110-PM machine is powered by a double-sided belt, but the first series of machines also allowed for clip-on power supply. Loose metal tape.

25mm installation 2M-3M

Breech of 25 mm machine guns

Workplace gunner

Mechanical ring sight

In 1949, three prototypes were manufactured, which did not pass the testing ground and ship (Project 183 boat) tests. In 1952, the 2M-3 passed state ship tests for the second time and was put into service the following year. " Later, OKB-43 modernized the 2M-3 installation. In particular, engineer Sokolov K.I. reworked the design of the 110-PM assault rifle, and as a result, the M-110 assault rifle was obtained with a rate of fire of 470-480 rounds/min. (on trials). In the 110-PM assault rifle, the automation operates only due to the recoil energy during a short barrel stroke, and in the new M-110 assault rifle, the energy of the powder gases removed from the barrel is additionally used. This energy is used in the operation of a gas buffer designed to increase the roll-up speed of moving parts. The M-110's power supply is only right-handed and only tape. The tape, magazine and cartridges are the same as for the 110-PM." Source: A. Shirokorad, "Weapons of the Domestic Fleet"

The new installation received the index 2M-3M and since 1950, both versions of the artillery system went into production at Tula plant No. 535. Installations of this type were used to arm torpedo boats Project 183 and Project 206M, missile boats Project 183-R, minesweepers of projects 254m, 264, 266m, 1258, 1265, as well as BDK Project 1171 and others warships and auxiliary vessels of the USSR Navy.
A few words about combat use installations 2M-3. Torpedo boats Project 183 and missile boats Project 183-R, supplied to Egypt and Syria, took part in the naval battles of the Arab-Israeli War of 1973. In this relatively short-term conflict, the fight at sea was of a secondary nature. Significant events include the naval battle near the Syrian port of Latakia and the military clashes between the Egyptians and the Israelis that occurred on October 9 and 16, 1973.

.

I will quote the article The Arab-Israeli conflict of 1973 published in 2010 on the Rocketry website: " Israeli missile boats, as part of small attack homogeneous and mixed groups (three to five missile and two to three torpedo or patrol boats), widely used raiding tactics. The mixed composition of the strike groups increased combat stability and made it difficult for the enemy to identify the true composition of the attacking side. Most of the fighting took place at night, which, in combination with other methods of camouflage (primarily electronic warfare), facilitated the organization of surprise missile attacks from one or several directions. The initial position for the attack was chosen outside the range of coastal radars at a distance of 30-40 miles from the attack targets. The group entered the missile firing position after a tactical deployment at maximum speed, most often on a catch-up course. As a rule, a salvo of missiles was launched against the main enemy targets. Firing was carried out from a range of 6-8 miles with the launch of six to eight Gabriel Mk1 missiles by each boat with the minimum possible launch interval. After the rocket salvo, the group moved on to further approach the enemy to deliver an artillery strike from a distance of 2-6 miles."Since, due to the unsatisfactory state of the equipment, even the fastest Egyptian boats developed a speed of no more than 24 knots, their withdrawal after a missile salvo was often fraught with danger. Israeli boats, whose maximum speed reached 30 knots, had the opportunity to catch up with the enemy and strike him effectively missile and artillery strike. At the same time, the weak effectiveness of the 25-mm 2M-3 installation as a self-defense weapon against the 40-mm/70 gun "Breda-Bofors" Mod.58/11 and 76-mm gun "OTO Melara" of Israeli boats was revealed.

57-mm twin artillery mount ZIF-31B of the floating missile-technical base Project 1798 "PRTB-33"

Before us is the first gun with the index "ZIF" (abbreviation for "Frunze Plant"). In the post-war period, this plant became the main supplier of naval artillery weapons for the Soviet Navy. Let's take a short excursion into the history of the design bureau.
In 1942, Vasily Gavrilovich Grabin founded the Central Artillery Design Bureau near Moscow. The first deputy chief designer of TsAKB V. Grabin was Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov, under whose leadership such well-known artillery systems as the 85-mm ZIS-S-53 tank gun and the 100-mm BS-3 anti-tank gun were created. It must be said that even before the war, I.I. Ivanov headed OKB-221 at the Stalingrad "Barricades" plant, where he was involved, among other things, in naval topics. Among other installations, under his leadership, a 100-mm naval gun of the 1940 model was created, first installed on the cruiser Kirov and then widely used on Soviet warships.

In June 1944, I.I. Ivanov was appointed head of the Leningrad branch of the TsAKB. Among the developments was a project for a self-propelled system, which was supposed to dramatically increase the mobility of a duplex consisting of a 210-mm Br-17 cannon and a 305-mm Br-18 howitzer. The basis of the system is a self-propelled gun made of two T-34s connected to each other in the bow, while in the stowed position the barrel part of the system was installed on the rear hull. A year later, the branch was transformed into an independent Naval Artillery Central Design Bureau, and then, in March 1945, into TsKB-34, and Ivanov returned to work on creating naval and coastal artillery. One of the first developments of TsKB-34 was a 57-mm two-gun automatic installation for arming submarines.

57-mm twin artillery mount ZIF-31B

57 mm machine gun barrels

Here it must be said that in 1945, Soviet specialists got acquainted with the captured submarines of the XXI series, as well as with their working drawings and the production process. Under the strong impression from them, the technical specifications for the Project 613 medium submarine were formed. Including, under the impression of the trophies, the artillery armament of the new submarines was determined. Anti-aircraft weapons of German type XXI boats - twin 20-mm automatic guns were placed in turret installations, at the ends of the wheelhouse fence, being inscribed in its contours. When submerged, the towers were automatically retracted inside the wheelhouse. The towers could be controlled either directly or using electromechanical drives from inside the durable housing. For Soviet boats of Project 613, TsKB-34 was supposed to create a 57-mm twin automatic installation SM-24-ZiF.

In October 1949, the SM-24 prototype was tested at plant No. 4. It was transferred to the Frunze Plant (No. 7), where at the same time the Central Design Bureau No. 7 was formed, later renamed the Arsenal Design Bureau. The working documentation for the SM-24 was also transferred there from TsKB-34. In 1953, the SM-24-ZIF was put into service, and while it was being created, tested and refined, only part of the artillery armament was installed on the boats - the 25-mm 2M-8 twin automatic cannon. However, in 1956, artillery was removed from Soviet submarines due to their obvious inability to fight jet aircraft. The Arsenal design bureau continued to work on ship gun mounts, so the exhibition of the Technical Museum has plenty of guns with the ZIF index. In addition to work on the creation of mechanized turret artillery installations, in the 1950s, the designers of the Arsenal design bureau began the transition to missiles. The design bureau created deck-type ship launchers ZIF-101 and ZIF-102 (Volna air defense missile system), ZIF-122 (OSA-M air defense missile system), as well as complexes for setting false targets: PK-16, PK-2M ( ZIF-121). Individual components of these systems are presented in the museum exhibition.

As for TsKB No. 34 (modern name - Design Bureau special mechanical engineering), then its engineers switched to developing launch systems and complexes for the Strategic Missile Forces, Navy and Air Defense. Among the achievements are a train and a BZHRK launcher (created under the leadership of chief designer V.F. Utkin).

TsAKB Grabin in 1946 was renamed the Central Scientific Research Institute of Artillery Weapons (TSNIIAV). By this time, the USSR had set a course for the priority development of rocket technology. It is not surprising that only one post-war development by Grabin was adopted - the anti-aircraft S-60 (1950). In 1955, the institute was given a fundamentally new main task - the creation of nuclear reactors. Academician Anatoly Alexandrov (later president of the USSR Academy of Sciences) was appointed head of this work, and Grabin was transferred to the position of head of the department. Vasily Gavrilovich made enormous efforts to defend the role and tasks of the institute, and in March 1956, with the name TsNII-58, the institute returned to the Ministry of Defense Industry. Grabin was again appointed director and chief designer, and Alexandrov returned to his home Institute of Atomic Energy. In July 1959, TsNII-58, together with the pilot plant, was attached to the nearby OKB-1 of S.P. Korolev, which required resources from the government to expand work on long-range solid fuel missiles. Grabin was appointed to an advisory group to the Minister of Defense, and most of his former employees, under the leadership of Sergei Pavlovich, began designing solid-fuel strategic ballistic missiles.
Unfortunately, the attempt to solve all problems with the help of missiles led to the fact that domestic artillery began to seriously lag behind the artillery of the United States and other NATO countries. The lag was observed almost everywhere - from naval to self-propelled and tank guns.

The ZIF-31 installation was developed at TsKB-7, while the swinging part, with minor changes, was taken from the SM-24-ZIF1 anti-aircraft gun for submarines of the 613th project, already known to us. Since 1955, many Soviet ships were equipped with the ZIF-31 as an air defense weapon: Project 264 sea minesweeper, Project 188 medium landing ships, Project 1171 Tapir large landing ships, etc.
"The Navy is armed with the ZIF-31, ZIF-31S, ZIF-31 B and ZIF-31 BS installations, which mainly differ in the presence of remote control and motors for vertical and horizontal guidance drives. The engines of the ZIF-31 and ZIF-31B installations operate on three-phase alternating current 220 V or 380 V, and the ZIF-31 S and ZIF-31BS installations operate on a direct current of 220 V. The ZIF-31 and ZIF-31 S installations have remote control from PUS "Fut-B". The ZIF-31B and ZIF-31BS installations do not have remote control, and fire is fired only at the AMZ-57-2 sight."
Source: A. Shirokorad, “Weapons of the Domestic Fleet”

Gun No. 07 FOR THE PROJECT 1798

Another marking: PR.1798

Traces of a Failed Career in the Indonesian Navy - Warning Labels in English

Warning notices are also in Russian/p>

The museum displays a modification of ZIF-31B with the number on the nameplate: 07. Interestingly, the type of installation is stamped in Russian letters, and the rest of the inscriptions (current, voltage, etc.) are in English. Even more interesting is that the control handles are factory marked in English. They are supplied with a homemade Russian translation. Safety signs are available in both Russian and English. However, the most useful inscription found is "FOR THE PROJECT 1798". In addition, upon re-examination of the exhibit, we were able to find another nameplate: “PR. No. 1798 POS. No. 1 SB 10/2 1.”
Further identification is not particularly difficult, because only one ship was built according to Project 1798, the floating missile and technical base "PRTB-33". Its artillery armament consisted of two 57-mm mounts (bow and stern) and two 25-mm 2M-3M artillery mounts on the wings of the superstructure. It is one of these 57-mm twin ZIF-31B artillery mounts that we see in photographs from the museum. At the same time, the question remains open as to why the exhibit has the serial number “No. 7” on its nameplate. As they say, this question is still waiting for its persistent researcher.

Factory inscription GUY VOLLEY, translation stamped below: VOLLEY

Marking SM-24 - in memory of the development of an anti-aircraft gun for submarines

Machine numbers: 9195 and 14309

The idea of ​​​​creating such floating bases involved not only the prompt delivery of ammunition to replace that spent in a dashing naval battle. These ships were created rather to disperse arsenals during a threatened period. It is obvious that ammunition storage sites should have been among the targets for the first enemy strikes. Therefore, upon alarm, special weapons transports had to disperse along the coast, in their territorial waters. Preferably, hiding in secluded bays. However, there are also references to reloading missiles on the high seas. For example, Soviet submarines, lying in a drift south of the island Crete, we successfully loaded ammunition from our anti-tank missile tanks. In this way, the supply of missile weapons to Soviet warships at dispersed deployment points was worked out.

The toothed sector of the cradle is part of the vertical guidance mechanism

The "PRTB-33" we are interested in was part of the 41st missile boat brigade Black Sea Fleet, repeatedly participated in combat services in the Mediterranean Sea. The story of her military service can fit in literally a couple of paragraphs. The floating missile and technical base was laid down in Nikolaev at the shipbuilding plant No. 444 named after. I. Nosenko according to the original project 1798. The weapons transport was intended for transportation, storage and preparation for delivery of P-15 cruise missiles to warships. It was assumed that the ship would be transferred to the Indonesian Navy in addition to the 12 Project 183-R missile boats transferred. This explains the abundance of English-language inscriptions on the artillery installation. However, by the time construction was completed, the political situation had changed and in 1965 the floating base went to the USSR Navy. This is how hastily made Russian translations appeared for English-language designations.

In the spring of 1971, at the same plant No. 444 (Nikolaev), “PRTB-33” began to be re-equipped according to project 2001. The modernization took about a year. Rocket technology developed rapidly and after some time the weapons transport was modernized according to the 2001M project in Kronstadt, at KMOLZ. Now the floating base could supply combat units of the fleet with Malachite anti-ship cruise missiles.

In December 1998, the armament was removed and the floating base was reclassified as a medium sea dry cargo transport (VTR-33) with a transfer to a civilian staff. On January 1, 2004, the ship was decommissioned and excluded from the KChF. It was laid up at the Ugolny pier (Sevastopol) until January 2007, when the VTR-33 was towed to Inkerman for cutting into metal.

76.2-mm twin artillery mount AK-726 (ZIF-67) of the training ship Project 887 "Hasan"

In 1954, it was decided to develop a 76-mm two-gun mount. By this time, our army and navy did not have automatic guns with a caliber greater than 57 mm. The design of the installation was carried out by TsKB-7. In 1958, a prototype ZIF-67 was manufactured by Plant No. 7 and passed factory tests. In 1961, various installation options with the FUT-B launcher were tested in the Black Sea and the Baltic. To understand the context, it is necessary to clarify that this period is characterized by the search in the Soviet Union for asymmetrical ways to combat the naval forces of NATO countries, which were many times superior to the forces of the Soviet Navy. There was no money to match the potential enemy in terms of quantity. Therefore, they relied on the use of nuclear power plants and guided missile weapons. The missiles were supposed to compensate for the lack of carrier-based aircraft in our fleet, which limited its strike capabilities to the range of shore-based aircraft. It was assumed that these ships would be able to go out alone against the adversary’s AUG and destroy them with missile salvoes with maximum distances. At the same time, the single-channel Volna air defense system (a naval version of the S-125 air defense system) will be able to provide the cruiser with effective air defense. This is how the USSR developed a project for missile cruisers armed with the P-35 anti-ship missile system.

In 1962, Grozny, the lead ship of Project 58, entered testing in the White Sea, near Severodvinsk. Two experimental ZIF-67 with the Turel radar control system were also tested on it. It was planned to use them to combat light surface targets, as well as to strengthen air defense. It is interesting that not only the artillery installations, but also the main weapons - the P-35 complex and the Volna air defense system - did not yet exist at the time the cruiser was laid down. The ship and its weapons were created and tested in parallel. By the way, it was planned to build 16 Project 58 cruisers, but in fact only 4 were built, one for each of the fleets of the USSR Navy. The last, fourth, cruiser of this type entered service in 1964. I refer those interested to the book by Kuzin and Nikolsky “The USSR Navy 1945-1991”.

The barrels fire simultaneously. Synchronized firing of machine guns is ensured by a mechanical synchronizer in the trigger mechanism

The disadvantage of the tower was poor ventilation, so the fire was carried out with open hatches

The installation has a 5 mm thick armor

Vertical guidance angle ranges from -10° to +85°

In the same year, 1962, two ZIF-67 installations with the Turel launcher on the Project 61 Komsomolets of Ukraine BOD were tested on the Black Sea. This was the lead ship of the series, the representatives of which were nicknamed “singing frigates” in the fleet for the melodious whistle of gas turbines. The context of its creation was this: sea-based nuclear missiles had a short range (hundreds of kilometers), which forced submarines to come close to the enemy’s sea borders. The USSR understood that our fleet did not have adequate countermeasures to modern American attack aircraft and nuclear submarines. It was decided to create a layered anti-submarine defense, where in the far zone the boats were intercepted by helicopter carriers (Project 1123) and basic anti-submarine aircraft, and in the near zone by small missile patrol ships, the first of which was the Project 61 ship. In addition, anti-submarine ships (this is in domestic terminology , but in fact destroyers) had to ensure the combat stability of their submarines deployed off the enemy’s coast (we will leave the question of the feasibility of this task outside the scope).

Returning to the topic of artillery armament of the Project 61 BOD, we note that under the influence of “missile euphoria” it was limited to two twin 76-mm machine guns. " The lack of medium-caliber artillery deprived the ship of the ability to provide fire support to the landing force and fire at various coastal targets. In the Russian Navy, the return of medium-caliber artillery to ships began only in the 70s".

It turns out to be a kind of paradox - the “organs” were imprisoned, thereby disorganizing the work of the military design bureaus, and then they created their own design bureaus to continue the same areas of research. But let’s make a reservation here - the “organs” really imprisoned, but they did it not on their own initiative, but on orders from above from the party leadership, according to their official rules, circulars, etc. Remove or leave such prominent figures as Bukharin and Tukhachevsky , Stalin personally decided, and not People’s Commissar Yezhov, and especially not ordinary employees of his People’s Commissariat. But Stalin was physically unable to lead the arrests of tens or even hundreds of thousands of ordinary people. The arrests began with denunciations. Actors denounced actors and directors, engineers denounced engineers, etc. Low- and middle-level NKVD employees were illiterate in those years and often could not understand the “ninth wave” of denunciations. By the way, even now there are more than enough denunciations “where they should be.” After the publication of the book “Rockets over the Sea” and a number of articles in the mid-1990s, about two dozen denunciations were written against me to the FSB. They wrote from competitors who were preparing similar publications, and from researchers from Okhta and Tula who were left without work and, out of idleness, turned to denunciations. In the end, it turned out that I had not disclosed any state secrets, and legally could not be a defendant in a case involving the disclosure of state secrets. But all these gray-haired “Pavlik Morozovs” went unpunished. Why am I, Duma deputy Korzhakov exposed the informer-TV presenter, and he still flashes on the TV screen. Priest Gleb Yakunin exposed a number of high-ranking church fathers, and part-time KGB agents. So those “fathers” also remained on television, and Yakunin was excommunicated from the church, like Stenka Razin and Leo Tolstoy.

By the way, even in pre-Petrine Rus' there was a proverb: “The whip comes first to the informer.” And indeed, in most cases, the investigation in the Robbery Order began with the raising of the informer on the rack. And even during the “cult of personality”, informers made up a significant percentage of those repressed.

So, the engineers reported, the “organs” were imprisoned, and in the end it was decided to use the repressed engineers for their intended purpose.

Another factor that prompted the NKVD to take up the design of artillery systems was the complete chaos in our artillery. The reader already knows something about this. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. The tireless Tukhachevsky gave free rein to his fantasies and brought our artillery to the limit.

During the war years 1914–1917. special anti-aircraft guns 76-mm Lender mod. 1914, as well as 37-mm Maxim and 40-mm Vickers machine guns were not at the front, but something had to be done to defend against German airplanes. As a result, several dozen types of makeshift or semi-makeshift installations are created, onto which 76-mm field guns were rolled and fired at aircraft at an elevation angle of up to 50–60°. So, for example, Staff Captain Rekalov converted... a horse-drawn thresher into an anti-aircraft gun. In total, during the First World War, 96 76-mm guns mod. 1902 and 762 76-mm guns mod. 1900

There is no data on the results of fire from improvised installations, and if they managed to shoot down anyone, then these planes can be counted on one hand. Another question is that it was often possible to drive away enemy aircraft or reduce the accuracy of bombing. This was explained by the low speed and maneuverability of the aircraft, low survivability, lack of parachutes and inexperience of the pilots.

In the early 1930s, materials appeared in the open press of the USA and England about the creation of universal (divisional anti-aircraft) guns in these countries. Whether this was the stupidity of the military leadership of these countries, or deliberate disinformation, is difficult to find out now, and it is hardly necessary. In any case, the leadership of the Red Army had no information about the testing of these guns, nor about the start of their serial production abroad.

And so Tukhachevsky decided to create a universal anti-aircraft field (divisional) gun. The best artillery design bureaus and 4 artillery factories worked on a universal cannon for almost 4 years. Several dozen prototypes were tested, but all of them were used for metal. Tukhachevsky did not pay attention to anti-aircraft machine guns, and the defectors of plant No. 8 (named after Kalinin) were unable to establish mass production of even 20-mm and 37-mm machine guns from Rheinmetall. Although the production technology, prototypes and semi-finished products for several systems were presented to them on a silver platter. True, it cost the Soviet Union 5 million dollars. As a result, by the beginning of World War II, Red Army units had 7.62 mm machine guns as their only means of air defense.

At the end of 1932, at the instigation of Tukhachevsky, work on the creation of towed guns of special power was stopped, and instead the design of a triplex on the SU-7 self-propelled gun began. The triplex was supposed to include a 400-mm mortar, a 305-mm howitzer and a 203-mm cannon; all these guns had fairly decent ballistic data for their time. And if they had been allowed to be completed in a towed version, they would have gone into production in the worst case scenario in 1935. But the great theorist said: “The future war will be a war of engines.” From 1932 to December 1937, several million rubles were spent on the self-propelled gun, and only a wooden model was ready.

Chief designer Bolshevik plant E. G. Rudyak sent a letter to Marshal Kulik on November 19, 1937, which said: “The attitude of the Art Directorate towards the design of the SU-7 was ugly... Everything taken together gives reason to think about a deliberate delay in the production of the prototype.”

The SU-7 self-propelled gun itself could neither cross existing bridges nor cross even small rivers. It was necessary to create a special tractor capable of pulling out a stuck SU-7 self-propelled gun. It is also necessary to create a special railway platform for its transportation along railway. The self-propelled vehicle fit into the 3rd class railway gauge, that is, it required closing oncoming traffic.

In November 1937, work on triplex on the SU-7 was stopped.

The political leadership tried to rectify the situation by starting negotiations with the Czech company Skoda on the purchase of a transportable duplex consisting of a 210-mm cannon and a 305-mm howitzer.

By order of the People's Commissar of Internal Affairs Lavrentiy Beria No. 00 240 dated April 20, 1938, the Main Artillery Design Bureau was organized in Leningrad, which later became the second largest artillery design bureau after the TsAKB, headed by V. G. Grabin.

The annex to Beria’s order stated that the design bureau was organized “for the purpose of making full use of imprisoned specialists to carry out special design work of defense significance.

The main task of the OKB is to eliminate emerging design defects in naval and coastal artillery systems manufactured according to the drawings of the Leningrad Bolshevik plant, as well as to develop projects and working drawings of new artillery systems in service with the fleet and coastal defense. The OKB works according to the plan approved by the 3rd Main Directorate of the People's Commissariat of Defense Industry."

The location for the design bureau was chosen in Kresty.

The first head of the OTB was military engineer 1st rank Lomotko, and in the post-war years - Lieutenant Colonel Balashov and Lieutenant Colonel (then Colonel) Bespalov.

The working premises of the OTB were located on the territory of “Krestov” in a four-story building with a blind end facing Komsomol Street. There was a carpentry shop in the basement.

Former prisoner S.I. Fomchenko, sentenced to 10 years in prison in October 1937, later recalled: “... a closed “funnel” takes me to “Kresty”. Somewhere in the middle of the day I was called and led across the courtyard to the dining room, a spacious semi-basement room with vaulted ceilings, filled with long tables. There were chairs at the tables, not benches, as would have been proper for our brother. But that’s not what struck me then. A deep enamel bowl was placed in front of me, filled to the brim with sliced ​​hot sausages, topped with tomato sauce. They don't feed you that way in prisons. They took me to the bathhouse, where I washed alone that time, gave me clean linen and took me to the bedroom. The bedroom, like a number of other similar ones, was located in a small one-story building, near the gate facing Komsomol Street. If it weren’t for the heavy prison door (albeit without a “feeder”) and the bars on the window, this was a typical student dormitory room. Four iron beds with armored nets in the corners, a stationery table by the window overlooking the outer wall, a wardrobe by the door. Moreover, there is a fifth bed in the middle - this is for me. Everything is laid out neatly, with clean linen. Nobody here. My neighbors arrived in the evening. Dinner right away, in the same dining room.

In the dining room I was the only one in a padded jacket - suits, shirts, ties... My God, where did I end up?..

The tables were covered with white tablecloths, and dinner was served by waiters in white jackets. (As I found out later, these were also prisoners, household workers.) A small blank piece of paper was prepared for each device. The neighbors explained to me that this was for an order for tomorrow.

The ordering options were sufficiently characterized by the fact that some avoided ordering fried chicken to avoid fiddling with bones and getting their hands dirty. Everything was served on plates (not aluminum bowls!), hot, straight from the stove.”

Here, for example, is a meeting of the OTB team in December 1939, dedicated to the bureau’s annual report. Excerpts from the section “Staffs of recruiting specialists”: “Replenishment to the budgeted team was carried out over two quarters of the year with great difficulties, and only during the 3rd and 4th quarters did we manage to increase the number to 146 people. specialists and 12 people. serving, up to 158 people in total. The average payroll for the year is 136 people, and the estimate provided for 130 people.”

And further: “Comrades, the work program for 1940 is intense, it requires us to exert our strength and maximum energy to implement it. Our team is quite healthy and, I would say, well-knit, and is not afraid of any difficulties, and therefore, we, party and non-party Bolsheviks, must say our weighty word that the work plan for 1940 will be honestly and efficiently completed ahead of schedule, to This, comrades, is what I urge you all to do.”

I am sure that many middle-aged and older readers have often heard such cliched words at work.

From Muravyov’s speech (it is not clear from the report whether he is a prisoner or a civilian): “We must also complete the work proposed to us by the party and the government for 1940 with honor and ahead of schedule; for this we all need to take on specific practical socialist obligations.”

As we can see, by the end of 1939, 136 prison specialists worked in the OTB. It was not possible to establish the names of all prisoners, since all documentation relating to OTB is still classified. However, a number of names can already be named. These are Viktor Leonidovich Brodsky, Eduard Eduardovich Papmel, Antony Severinovich Tochinsky, Alexander Lazarevich Konstantinov, Andrei Mitrofanovich Zhuravsky, Nikolai Sergeevich Koshlyakov and Mikhail Yurievich Tsirulnikov. The leading designer of the OTB from the beginning of its operation was Sergei Ivanovich Lodkin, who had previously worked as a designer at the Baltic and Metal plants and was arrested in 1933. Lodkin was accused of transmitting information about the Soviet Navy to Czech intelligence and was sentenced to 10 years. Until 1937, Sergei Ivanovich drove a wheelbarrow on the construction of the White Sea-Baltic Canal, where he fell ill with tuberculosis, and then was sent to Leningrad, where in 1938 he headed the OTB.

In the pre-war period, a restaurant food system was organized in the OTB. Prisoner specialists received a salary of 50–240 rubles per month. They were given free clothes - suits, shirts, ties, since prisoners often went on business trips to factories, mainly to Bolshevik.

Prisoned specialists were given security clearance. Imprisoned project managers and senior engineers were accompanied by plainclothes guards when traveling to factories, production meetings, or field tests. But they were not allowed to attend production meetings, or to the workshops, or to the shooting range. The security was waiting for their charges at the entrance or in the 1st department. It never occurred to anyone that the specialists who arrived were prisoners, since they were all well dressed, with haircuts and shaven. I note that OTB has always had a good hairdresser.

Looking ahead, I will say that when, at the end of the 1940s, prisoners’ ten-year sentences began to end, they faced a difficult choice: to remain working in the sharaga, but as a civilian employee, or to go 101 kilometers away from Moscow, Leningrad and others large cities and at the same time have restrictions in the choice of work. Many people chose sharaga and received special passes from the Ministry of Internal Affairs. S.I. Fomchenko recalled: “One of our designers jumped off the tram on Liteiny, just opposite big house, and on the sidewalk, as luck would have it, a policeman: “Your documents.” The loser hands over the pass. The guard, taking a short look, returns it and, taking it up, with a sigh, sadly comments: “You write the laws yourself, but you break them yourself.” KB is, of course, fun.”

In July 1941, the evacuation of the OTB from Leningrad began.

Documents covering this process, alas, are stored in the secret archives of the FSB. It is only known that prisoners from “Kresty” ended up in both Tomsk and Molotov (before 1938 and since 1957 Severodvinsk), where they worked in the 20th department of the STP at shipbuilding plant No. 402.

By the summer of 1942, most of the OTB employees were concentrated in Perm (the city was called Molotov from 1940 to 1957, but I will use a name more familiar to readers). In Perm, OTB employees were scattered across several buildings in different parts city, at least one of them was located on the territory of artillery plant No. 172 named after. Molotov. Based on the name of this plant, OTB was renamed OKB-172. Let me immediately note that plant No. 172, both before and after 1942, operated its own design bureau, where civilian engineers worked. To distinguish them, in the “Encyclopedia of Russian Artillery” I wrote OKB-172 and OKB of Plant No. 172.

In December 1944, OKB-172 returned to Leningrad to its old premises in Kresty. The full 20th department of plant No. 402 was transferred there in May 1945 from Molotov.

The work at the design bureau was intense; we had to work 10 hours a day. At first, after returning to Leningrad, supplies and food for the imprisoned specialists were meager, but after May 9, 1945, everything returned to normal. The working day was reduced to 8 hours, food improved, weekends appeared and holidays, two or three times a month a bathhouse was arranged for the prisoners. The daily routine was approximately as follows: get up at 7 a.m., breakfast at 8 a.m., lunch at 2 p.m., dinner at 7 p.m., lights out at 11 p.m. The living rooms were for 3–4 people.

The OKB had a wonderful technical library, which received technical journals in both Russian and foreign languages. The library did not receive newspapers, but the radio worked there.

Guns for leaders and destroyers 1938–1945

In 1938–1953 OTB (OKB-172) designed several dozen artillery systems. It is physically impossible to talk about everyone due to the volume of the publication, and the author was unable to find information on many systems. Therefore, only the most interesting systems will be discussed here, and the reader can find information about the rest in the “List of OKB-172 Works” at the end of the chapter.

The first and very important task assigned by the government to the OTB was the creation of new turret installations for leaders and destroyers. At the end of the 1930s, the leadership of the USSR decided to create an ocean-going fleet, but, alas, there were no artillery systems necessary for its armament. Thus, the 130/50-mm B-13 cannon in a shield installation, which entered service with the leaders of Projects I and 38 and the destroyers of Projects 7 and 7U, had a number of design flaws and was not suitable for anti-aircraft fire.

The first version of the tactical and technical specifications for a 130-mm turret twin-gun installation was issued on April 15, 1936. The preliminary design was approved on October 19, 1938. The installation was intended for the leaders of projects 20, 48 and destroyers of project 30. For both projects of the leaders, rigid drums were originally designed under the 130-mm B-31 artillery system, which never left the design stage, with both barrels in the same cradle.

A new technical design was produced by OTB and approved on February 16, 1939. The installation was named B2-LM (two-gun turret for leaders and destroyers). The swinging part of the installation was manufactured by the Bolshevik plant (No. 232), and the remaining parts of the installation were manufactured by the Leningrad Metal Plant (Fig. 8.1).

Rice. 8.1. 130-mm B-2-LM turret for leaders and destroyers.

Factory tests of the prototype B-2-LM were carried out at LMZ in July - August 1940. Field tests were carried out in two stages: from December 4, 1940 to January 27, 1941 and from April 27 to May 27, 1941. Total 240 shots were fired. Based on the test results, the installation was recommended for adoption.

By July 8, 1941, three B-2-LM turrets were installed on the Tashkent leader instead of the B-13. State ship tests were carried out on it in July 1941 in Sevastopol Bay. Due to the hasty evacuation, 5 B-2-LM turrets were left at plant No. 198 (Nikolaev). In 1942, the State Defense Committee ordered the People's Commissariat of the Shipbuilding Industry (NKSP) to organize the production of B-2-LM units at plant No. 402 (Molotov).

In the post-war period, production of the B-2-LM was carried out until 1953 at the Bolshevik plants, the Starokramatorsk Machine-Building Plant and at plant No. 75 (Yurga).

In addition to the Tashkent, the B-2-LM was installed on destroyers of projects 30K and 30bis and one destroyer of project 7.

For his services in the creation of the B-2-LM, its chief designer Lodkin was released early in 1943, awarded two orders and Stalin Prize. After his release, he remained working at OKB-172 until its disbandment, and then until his death in 1955 he worked at OKB-43.

The B-2-LM installation had a monoblock barrel with deep grooves. The valve is two-stroke piston. The bolts of the right and left guns opened to the left. Although the project provided for pneumatic opening of the shutter, they were opened manually. Each weapon had its own cradle. The swinging part is similar to the B-13. The vertical and horizontal guidance mechanisms had electric drives.

The lifting of ammunition in the rotating part was carried out through feed shafts by carriages separately for each gun (chain type feed). The shaft passed through the combat table and turret compartment and was attached to the deck of this compartment through a centering pin. The transfer of ammunition from the fixed part to the rotating part was carried out manually.

The bow (“high”) and stern (“low”) turrets of the destroyers differed in the height of the rigid drum (4075 mm and 3700 mm, respectively).

The B-2-LM installation was equipped with an MB-6 sight.

B-2-LM installation data

Caliber, mm - 130

Barrel length, mm/club - 6581/50.6

Liner length, mm/club - 6450/49.6

Length of the threaded part, mm - 5199

Chamber volume, dm3 - 17.53

Number of grooves - 40

Depth of rifling, mm - 2.7

Width of rifling, mm - 6.0

Border width, mm - 4.2

Shutter weight, kg - about 133

Airliner weight, kg - 487

Barrel weight, kg - 3680

Weight of the barrel with breech and bolt, kg - 5070

AngleVN, degrees -?5;+45

Loading angle, degrees - ?5; +45

Angle GN, degrees - 360

HV speed, deg/s: from electric motor - 9.85

manually - 6

GN speed, deg/s: from electric motor - 9.7

manually - 2.3

Radius of the lifting sector, mm - 915

Ball diameter, mm - 76.2

Number of balls - 120

Number of vertical rollers - 9

Tower length, mm - 5283

Tower width, mm - 4316

Sweeping radius, mm: along trunks - 5210

on rotating armor - 3180

Booking, mm:

Tower walls - 8

Barbet - 5

Weight of recoil parts (one gun), kg - 5400

Weight of the swinging part (one implement), kg - 7400

Weight of PUS tower, kg - 1600

Weight of electrical equipment, gearbox of the rotating part - 1200

fixed part - 1400

Armor weight, kg - 7000

Weight of the fixed base, kg - 5325

Weight of the rotating part of the tower, kg - 42,000

Weight of the fixed part of the tower, kg - 6600

Total weight of the tower, kg - about 49,000

Rate of fire per barrel, rds/min - 12

Tower crew, people - 23

Magazine capacity (per tower): 300 shells

charges - 300

Control device - BAS

Sight - MB-6

Number of sights - 1

Chemical protection of the tower - Individual

Transportable by rail... Assembled without top feed, like oversized cargo. The ammunition and ballistics of the B-2-LM were completely identical to the shells and ballistics of the 130 mm B-13 cannon.

In December 1938, OTB presented sketches of 130-mm turret installations for B-2-KM cruisers and monitors. The B-2-KM installations were 80% unified with the B-2-LM. The B-2-KM project was not accepted, although it received a good assessment from the leadership of the Navy.

On May 2, 1942, the State Defense Committee obliged the NKSP (resolution No. 1684ss) to organize the production of 130-mm towers for monitors and destroyers of Project 30: a total of 16 towers at plant No. 402.

It was unrealistic for plant No. 402 to produce two fundamentally different installations under wartime conditions. In this regard, OKB-172 developed technical and detailed designs for an installation for monitors, which received the index B-2-LMT (T - heavy). The B-2-LMT installations were 80% unified with the B-2-LM. All work on the design of the B-2-LMT was completed by the end of 1943.

Six B-2-LMT turrets, manufactured at plant No. 402, were installed on the Sivash and Perekop monitors.

The barrels of the B-2-LMT installation were identical to the barrels of the B-28 installation.

Two swinging parts were installed in the installation. The basis of each swinging part was a light cradle with trunnions. The liner was changed without removing the swinging part from the tower. There was a pneumatic rammer into the tray. When the shutter was closed, the tray was tilted towards the breech, and when the shutter was opened, it was installed on the delivery line.

The recoil devices consisted of a hydraulic recoil brake and a hydropneumatic knurler. Vertical and horizontal guidance each had two drives: the main one from an electric motor and a backup manual one.

The lifting of ammunition in the rotating part was carried out through feed shafts by carriages separately for each gun. Chain type ammunition supply. The feed shaft passed through the combat table into the turret compartment and was attached to the deck of this compartment through a centering pin.

The transfer of ammunition from the fixed part to the rotating part was carried out manually. The shells entered directly into the turret compartment, where they were manually transferred to the top feed shell trays. The feed had electric and manual drives.

Installation data B-2-LMT

Angle VN, degrees -5; +45

GN angle, degrees - ±150

HV speed, deg/s: from electric motor - 10

manually - 6

GN speed, deg/s: from electric motor - 10

manually - 2

Maximum rollback length, mm - 505

Excess of the gun axis over the trunnion axis, mm - 6

Height of the firing line above the deck, mm - 2227

Height of the gun axis above the floor of the fighting compartment, mm - 1540

Tower height from the bottom pin to the top of the roof, mm - 5400

Height of the tower roof above the deck, mm - 3140

Tower length, mm - 5283

Tower width, mm - 4316

Radius of sweeping along trunks, mm - 5210

Sweeping radius on rotating armor, mm - 3180

Tower diameter along a fixed base, mm - 3550

Reservation, mm: Forehead - 100

Back plate - 100

Swinging shield - 8

Weight of the swinging part of one gun, t - 7.4

Total weight of the tower, t - 90.9

Turret sight - VB-1

Turret sight - MB-6

Calculation, persons: without cellars - 21

with cellars - 27

Ammunition, rounds/barrel - 150

The shots and ballistics of the B-2-LMT installation are identical to the B-2-LM installation.

The B-2-LM turrets, like the B-13, were not suitable for anti-aircraft fire. This was due to the small (45°) elevation angle, low rate of fire, cap loading, etc. For new destroyers in 1939, the OTB received tactical and technical requirements for a two-gun turret universal installation. The preliminary design of such an installation was completed by OTB on December 26, 1939. The installation was named B-2-U (turret two-gun universal), I note that the swinging part of the installation was called B-2-U.

The B-2-U had a 55-caliber barrel with a free tube and a horizontal wedge bolt with a spring-type semi-automatic mechanism. The cradle is individual for each trunk. The installation has stabilized in the horizontal plane.

For the first time, an automatic tube (fuse) installer was used in Soviet naval guns. The installation's turret had 8 mm of armor around it, with the exception of 10 mm of the rear wall, which was done to balance the system. The installation had a Smena fire control system and an MB-6/VB-1 sight.

B-2-U installation data

Caliber, mm - 130

Barrel length, mm/club - 7150/55

Liner length, mm - 6750

Length of the threaded part, mm - 5540

Charging chamber volume, dm3 - 17.13

Rifling steepness, class - 30

Number of grooves - 40

Cutting depth, mm - 2.7

Cutting width, mm - 6.0

Field width, mm - 4.2

Airliner weight, kg - 965

Barrel weight with bolt, kg - 3420

Barrel survivability, rds. - 600

Angle BH, deg. - ?5; +85

Angle GN, degrees. - 360

Speed ​​from the electric motor, deg/s: VN - 12

Excess of the gun axis over the trunnion axis - 30

Height of the gun axis from the deck, mm - 1930

Distance between the trunnion axis and the tower axis, mm - 270

Distance between the axes of the guns, mm - 960

Tower height from deck, mm - 3175

Tower length according to armor, mm - 5310

Tower width according to armor, mm - 4400

Ball ring diameter, mm - 3400

Rate of fire of the installation, salvoes per minute - 13

Initial projectile speed, m/s - 900

Firing range, km - 28.6

Ceiling, km - 13

In April 1940, the People's Commissar of the Navy ordered to arm the project 35 destroyer (displacement - 2000 tons) with three B-2-U installations. It was decided to begin construction of the lead destroyer in 1942.

In 1940, the Bolshevik plant together with plant No. 371 named after. Stalin began manufacturing a prototype B-2-U, but with the outbreak of the war, work on it was stopped.

In the fall of 1942, the design of a Project 40 destroyer with a displacement of 2,700 tons began. In 1943, OKB-172 developed a modernized version of the 130-mm universal installation B-2-U-TL for it. The construction of Project 40 destroyers was supposed to begin in 1946, but already in 1945 work on them and on the B-2-U-TL was stopped.

180 mm MU-1 installation

The tactical and technical specifications for the installation of the MU-1 with the ballistics of the 180-mm B-1-P cannon were issued in 1939, and in the same year the OTB designed it.

In 1940, work on the MU-1 was suspended due to the acceleration of work on the MU-2 and resumed in 1943. In 1943, OKB-172 developed a technical project, which was approved by the head of the Art Directorate on June 22, 1944.

According to GKO Decree No. 7849 of March 16, 1945, the production of the MU-1 series was carried out without preliminary construction and testing of the prototype. The Barrikady plant produced a series of 12 MU-1 swing parts in 1947.

Twelve MU-1 units were manufactured by the Leningrad Metal Plant. Moreover, the riveted barrel was replaced with a welded one. In the fourth quarter of 1947, LMZ completed 8 installations and in the 1st quarter of 1948 - 4 installations.

The head model MU-1 (barrel No. 3, machine No. 2) was tested at the test site in two stages from October 26 to December 3, 1947 and from February 19 to March 20, 1948. A total of 352 shots were fired. The results were considered satisfactory, and the MU-1 was recommended for adoption.

The first four MU-1 installations (No. 5, 6,7 and 8), in accordance with Council of Ministers resolution No. 5924–2227ss of December 30, 1949, were installed on battery No. 127 in Port Arthur in 1952. The battery was built from 1950 to 1953. State tests of the battery were carried out from November 1953 to January 1954. By Order of the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy of April 9, 1954 No. 00137 180-mm four-gun battery MU-1 with the Moscow-2s launcher -TSM" was accepted into the coastal defense of Port Arthur.

In 1953, in Kamchatka near Cape Bezymyanny, the construction of battery No. 41 began, consisting of four MU-1 installations. Battery No. 41 was commissioned in 1957. By directive of the General Staff of the Navy of March 12, 1974, the battery was disbanded.

In the deck version, the MU-1 was supposed to be installed on ships, and in the coastal version - in single-gun turrets. In addition, the MU-1 swinging part could be installed on the TM1-180 railway conveyor, on the MO-1-180 onshore switchboard installation and on the MB-2-180 onshore tower installation.

At the end of 1946, OKB-172 developed drawings of the left and right swing parts of the MU-1-B and MB-2–180.

The barrel of the MU-1 installation is lined. The shutter was a two-stroke piston action; when opened, the shutter tilted upward. The bolt was opened by an electric drive, which was automatically turned on using an electrical contact at the end of the gun's roll. The drive motor is mounted on a foundation fixed to the left side of the cradle. The ramming was carried out by a throw-type spring rammer.

The MU-1 serial installation was intended for stationary coastal batteries. In addition, it could be used to create temporary batteries. In this case, instead of the central supply of ammunition from the reloading compartment, a device is provided for external carrying and loading of shells through windows in the armor.

The reloading compartment was located in a concrete block. The thickness of the concrete ceiling of the cellar is 1600 mm. The cellar capacity is 200 shots. Ammunition supply is manual only.

A projectile feed shaft, a charging tube, electrical cables and hoses for supplying compressed air passed through the cavity of the combat pin from the reloading compartment.

The fixed base - the support of the rotating part - served to attach it to the embedded parts of the concrete block. It was a cast ring with a flange and stiffeners.

Sighting devices - B-13–1 and LB-13–1. PUS system "Moscow".

MU-1 barrel data

Caliber, mm - 180

Barrel length, club - 57

Chamber volume, dm - 52.27

Rifling steepness (constant), clubbing - 25

Number of grooves - 40

Depth of rifling, mm - 3.6

Width of rifling, mm - 8.9

Border width, mm - 5.24

Table 35. Data for the MU-1 single-gun turret gun mount

The ammunition and ballistics of the MU-1 installation are the same as the ammunition and ballistics of the 180 mm B-1-P cannon.

Table 36. Firing table for the 180/57 mm MU-1 cannon

Note: When firing a remote grenade with a BM-16 tube, the firing range with an initial speed of 920 m/s is 29,447 m, and with an initial speed of 800 m/s - 25,606 m.

The maximum pressure in the barrel bore is 3157 kg/cm2.

152 mm MU-2 installation

In March 1939, a technical specification was developed for the design of a 152/57 mm open deck and shore installation (later called MU-2). According to the technical specifications, the installation must have a barrel and ballistic data of a 152-mm B-38 cannon, which was used in the MK-5 installations of Project 68 cruisers. A pin-type machine with a box-shaped shield (Fig. 8.2).

Rice. 8.2. 152/75 mm open deck and shore installation MU-2 (longitudinal section).

By order of the People's Commissar of the Armed Forces of September 21, 1939 No. 254ss, OTB was entrusted with the design of a 152/57-mm installation with a swinging part for the B-38.

On December 8, 1939, a technical meeting on the MU-2 was held at OTB, where two installation options were considered: with changes to the B-38 swinging part and without changes. The first option had the following advantages: pneumatic shutter drive; use of a rammer without air flow, type B-2-LM; the location of the system and its mechanisms are more compact. The second option was faster to design, and it was possible to issue working drawings already in April 1940. The meeting decided to do the installation without changes (according to the second option).

In fact, the MU-2 barrel had a breech of a fundamentally different type than that of the B-38, which is why the MU-2 and B-38 barrels required different types of machines.

The agreement between the Navy Art Directorate and the Design Bureau for the development of a technical project was concluded on March 21, 1940, and the Bolshevik plant was immediately ordered the lead series of 20 installations.

For the first time, for open installations (in coastal and ship versions), the supply of ammunition through a pin was designed.

Table 37. Weight data of MU-2

The first battery of MU-2 coastal guns (out of 20 ordered) was manufactured at the Bolshevik plant according to the drawings and OTB specifications. The prototype MU-2 was presented to the commission on June 26, 1941. The sample was delivered to NIAP on June 29, 1941, and firing tests took place from July 4 to July 11, 1941. The MU-2 has the same liner as the B-38.

In September 1941, the 152-mm MU-2 system was tested there on the B-64 railway transporter. At the beginning of the war, control shootings of six swinging parts of the MU-2 were carried out at NIAP.

In 1940, ANIMI gave an order to plant No. 172 to design a 152-mm mechanized gun based on the MU-2 with a B-38 swinging part, with a technical project completion date of the fourth quarter of 1941.

In 1941, OKB-172 developed the following sketches: MU-2/B-4 - installation of MU-2 on a B-4 carriage; MU-2/P - installation of MU-2 on a portable base.

In 1944, OKB-172 carried out adjustments to the working drawings of the MU-2 before launching it into series. In 1945–1946 The Bolshevik plant produced the head series MU-2 in a coastal version.

In 1947, OKB-172 carried out a new adjustment to the MU-2 drawings based on the results of the production of the lead batch. Structural and technological changes were made to the design of the installation, such as: the forged breech was replaced by a cast one, a welded one was introduced instead of a riveted combat table, most parts began to be manufactured by stamping, etc.

After this, the installations, manufactured according to modified drawings produced in 1947, began to be called MU-2 series II artillery mounts.

The description of the MU-2-IIc installation, published in 1952, speaks only of a manual drive for vertical guidance. Nevertheless, the vertical and horizontal guidance drives retain the levers for switching from manual to electric drives.

In 1946, the Bolshevik plant delivered 18 MU-2 units, in 1947 - 32, in 1948 - 16, and in 1950 - 16 units.

As of January 1, 1991, the Navy had 15 MU-2 II series installations. Of these, 4 installations are on batteries of the Northern Fleet (battery No. 10), 4 - on batteries of the Black Sea Fleet and 7 - in central warehouses.

In 1948, the technical design of the MU-2M, developed by OKB-172, was approved. The MU-2M installation was intended for stationary coastal defense batteries and was a modernization of the MU-2-IIc. The modernization consisted of the introduction of a spring rammer of the MU-1 type and the installation of all-round armor protection.

A prototype MU-2M with all-round armor was manufactured by the Bolshevik plant and passed factory tests in 1952. During these tests, the liner was displaced, and a number of other design flaws were identified. They decided to finalize the project in the plant’s design bureau (chief designer T.D. Vylkost). At the end of 1952, they decided to assign a new “Bolshevik” index “B-140” to the system. But for some reason this index did not catch on, and the installation received the index MU-2MB. The vertical guidance angle remained -2°; +40°.

There were still no electric drives, but the loading angle became +10°; +25° instead of 0°; +12°. The rate of fire at high angles has increased accordingly. The MU-2MB was supposed to have a Bureya or Moskva launcher.

In 1955, the MU-2MB unit passed factory and field tests, and at this point all work on it was stopped.

The barrel of the MU-2 installation consisted of a liner, a monoblock, a bolt bushing and a breech. The piston shutter was two-stage, push-pull, and opened to the right. The shutter drive is manual only. Shooting mechanism BS-9.

Loading of the projectile and half-charges was done manually. The projectile delivery time was about 2 s and the charge was also about 2 s. The installation was equipped with B-13–1 and LB-13–1 sights and the Moskva PUS system. All ammunition supply drives were manual only.

The installation was transported by rail without feed mechanisms. The maximum weight of transported parts is about 45 tons.

MU-2 barrel data

Caliber, mm - 152.4

Full length of the barrel from the breech cut, mm/club - 8950/58.9

Channel length, mm/club - 8690/57.0

Length of the threaded part, mm - 6980

Chamber length, mm: without slopes - 1455

with slopes - 1637.5

Chamber volume, dm - 32.8

Number of grooves - 40

Depth of rifling, mm - 3.05

Width of rifling, mm - 7.5

Border width, mm - 4.47

Shutter weight, kg - 583

Liner weight, kg - 1100

Barrel weight without breech and bolt, kg - 7045

Weight of the barrel with breech and bolt, kg - 11,780

Table 38. MU-2 installation data

* Technical design and working drawings.

The ammunition and ballistic data of the MU-2 were consistent with 180 mm ship and coastal installations.

Universal 100–130 mm ship mountings

In 1946, OKB-172 developed a technical design for a two-gun universal turret installation BL-109 for leaders and destroyers. In the first quarter of 1947, OKB-172 completed working drawings of the BL-109 with plans for installation on Project 30bis destroyers.

The production of BL-109 was planned at LMZ, and the swing parts at the Bolshevik plant. However, it was later decided that Bolshevik would manufacture the entire installation. The Bolshevik plant produced six units.

The installation of the BL-109 on Project 30bis destroyers required modifications to the technical design of the ship, which the Ministry of Shipbuilding Industry did not agree to, and the old B-2-LM turrets began to be installed on the destroyers again.

In 1948, OKB-172 released a preliminary design of two BL-109A towers, intended for installation on linear icebreakers of the Stalin type.

It was planned to install 6 BL-109A turrets on Project 82 heavy cruisers that were under construction. In March 1953, work on Project 82 cruisers was stopped. By that time, the Bolshevik plant had already delivered 12 BL-109A swing parts. In the summer of 1953, the BL-109 system was renamed 2M-109.

The BL-109 barrel consisted of a free tube, a casing and a breech. Horizontal wedge shutter, semi-automatic copy type. Drive is manual. The bore of the BL-109 is identical to the bore of the SM-2–1. The ammunition and ballistic data are completely identical to the SM-2–1.

The supply of ammunition was carried out by a constantly moving chain. The rammer is hydropneumatic. Pneumatic knurl.

The firing was controlled using the Sirius B radar (STAG-B). Control of guidance drives is remote (BL-200 system), local and manual.

BL-109 installation data

Trunk

Caliber, mm - 130

Total barrel length, mm/club - 7810/60.1

Channel length, mm/club - 7050/54.2

Length of the threaded part, mm - 5927

Chamber length, mm: without slopes - 817.5

with stingrays - 1224

Chamber volume, dm - 19.6

Rifling steepness (constant), clubbing - 25

Number of grooves - 28

Depth of rifling, mm - 2.7

Width of rifling, mm - 8.3

Border width, mm - 6.3

Shutter weight, kg - 150

Free pipe weight, kg - 1177

Weight of the barrel with breech and bolt, kg - 4880

Installation

Angle VN, degrees - ?8; +83

GN angle, degrees - ±320

manually - 5

manually - 1.2

Rollback length, mm - 600

Distance between gun axles, mm - 1000

Ball diameter, mm - 75

Diameter along the axes of the combat pin rollers, mm - 3280

Rigid drum diameter, mm - 3700/3930

Booking options

Frontal, rear and side walls, mm - 81 225

Roof, mm - 81 225

Swinging shield, mm - 8812

Shelf, mm - 668

Dimensions of the turret with 8 mm armor

Tower length, mm - 5846

Tower width, mm - 4536

Roof height above deck, mm - 3013

on armor - 450

Weight summary

Recoil part of one gun, t - 6.1

Swinging part of one gun, t - 5.25

Fixed part of the tower, t - 6.2

Options with armor thickness: - 8 mm - 12 mm - 25 mm

Weight of the rotating part, t - 49.8 - 51.8 - 59.0

Weight of the entire installation, t - 56.0 - 58.0 - 65.2

Operating data

Rate of fire (single barrel) with loading:

from electric motor, rds/min - 15

manually, rds/min - 8

Number of feeds per minute, shots - 2x17

Tower crew, people - 23

Calculation with cellars, people - 27

Sights - VB-I, MB-1

With a projectile weight of 33.4 kg, a charge weight of 12.92 kg and an initial speed of 950–1000 m/s, the firing range was 32,390 m and the reach was 22.4 km.

Loading is separate-sleeve. The weight of the sleeve is 27.8 kg.

In 1946, OKB-172 developed a technical design for the 130-mm two-gun universal turret installation BL-110 and in November 1947 expected to submit its working drawings. The production of BL-110 towers was planned at LMZ, and the swing parts at the Bolshevik plant.

The BL-110 turrets were planned to be installed on Project 82 cruisers and Project 24 battleships. The guns and ballistic data of the BL-110 coincided with those of the BL-109.

Working drawings of the BL-109 and BL-110 installations were completed in 1950–1951. In the summer of 1953, the BL-110 system was renamed 2M-110.

In 1953, the Bolshevik plant produced a prototype of the BL-110, and in the same year they conducted factory tests of the installation. After the liquidation of OKB-172, OKB-43 took part in the work on 2M-110.

In 1954, the 130-mm 2M-110 installation was tested by firing at Rzhevka. Shooting results on May 5, 1954: Shooting was carried out with a projectile of drawing No. 2–4172 weighing 33.14 kg. The weight of the 130/58BP brand charge was 14.37 kg. The average rollback length was 533 mm.

Soon work on 2M-110 was stopped.

BL-110 installation data

Angle VN, degrees - ?8; +83

GN angle, degrees - ±320

HV speed, deg/s: from electric motor - 20

manually - 5

GN speed, deg/s: from electric motor - 20

manually - 0.7

Rollback length, mm - 600

Height of the firing line, mm: above deck - 1945

above the fighting compartment flooring - 1400

Distance between the axes of the guns, mm - 1000

Ball ring diameter, mm - 3600

Ball diameter, mm - 75

Tower length, mm - 5990

Tower width, mm - 4680

Tower height above deck, mm - 3195

Sweeping radius, mm: along the trunk - 6600

on armor - 3520

Reservation options: BL-110* - BL-110A**

Frontal, rear and side walls, mm - 50* - 80**

Roof, mm - 70* - 70**

Swinging shield, mm - 30* - 30**

Shelf, mm - 20* - 20**

Weight summary

Recoil part of one gun, t - 6.1* - 6.1**

Swinging part, t - 9.5* - 9.5**

Fixed part of the tower, t - 6.2* - 6.2**

Rotating part, t - 83.8* - 92.8**

Entire installation, t - 90.0* - 99.0**

* For the cruiser "Kirov".

** For battleships.

Operational and other data

Rate of fire of one barrel, rds/min:

with charging from an electric motor - 15

with manual loading - 8

Calculation without cellars and overloads, people - 19

Sights - VB-1, MB-6

In 1949, OKB-172 completed the project of the 100-mm four-gun turret mount BL-127 (Fig. 8.3).

Rice. 8.3. 100-mm four-gun turret mount BL-127, designed to replace the SM-5 mount on cruisers pro. 68bis.

The installation was not accepted for service, but it is worth considering as an original design solution. Its four trunks were located in two cradles, and in one common cradle the trunks were placed one above the other. The barrel was taken from the SM-5 installation. BL-127 could be installed on battleships, cruisers and patrol ships (except destroyers). For example, on Project 68bis cruisers, instead of 6 SM-5-1 gun mounts, 6 BL-127 mounts were placed (without any special design changes), which doubled the number of 100-mm anti-aircraft guns without a significant increase in displacement. (According to calculations for 1949, the overload of the cruiser when replacing the SM-5-1 with the BL-127 would have been no more than 1.5–2% of the standard displacement.)

BL-127 installation data

Angle VN, degrees - ?5; +85

GN angle, degrees - ±320

Tracking a target on the move

with guidance speed, deg/s: VN - 20

Height of the line of fire of the lower gun from the deck, mm - 1480

Tower height from deck (without radar), mm - 3270

Drum height, mm - 2080

Drum diameter, mm - 3950

Tower width, mm - 4560

Horizontal distance between the axes of the guns, mm - 1600

Tower length, mm - 6040

Radius of sweeping over armor, mm - about 3640

Weight of the turret with bulletproof armor, t - 66

Calculation, people - 19

Of these in the tower, people - 14

Rate of fire, rds/min - 16–18

The ammunition and ballistics of the BL-127 installation were completely identical to the ammunition and ballistics of the SM-5.

Modeled after BL-127 in 1949–1950. A project for the 130-mm four-gun turret mount BL-132 was created. Two 130-mm barrels were placed one above the other in a common cradle. Four BL-132 installations were supposed to be installed on the projected light cruiser of the MLK 16... 130 type.

Anti-aircraft ship guns

On February 25, 1945, ANIOLMI issued a tactical and technical specification to the industry for a 25-mm twin deck-mounted automatic installation 2M-3, intended for arming torpedo boats of projects 183 and 184. The updated tactical and technical specification was approved by the Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Navy on March 14, 1947.

OKB-43 took on the design of the installation, but work on its sample, which received the index 2M-3, proceeded with difficulty, and on December 31, 1949, the Ministry of Armaments sent letters to OKB-172 with instructions to develop a similar 25-mm twin installation, and already On February 21, 1950, OKB-172 presented a project for installing the BL-130. The leading designer of the installation was A. L. Konstantinov.

By this time, engineer Lieutenant Colonel A.V. Androshchuk became the head of OKB-172, and L.M. Alaverdyants became the leading engineer.

The BL-130 installation is pedestal with a horizontal arrangement of trunks. Anti-corrosion materials are used in the installation. Like the 2M-3, the BL-130 uses 110-P assault rifles, but their design includes a device for pneumatic charging and a special pneumohydraulic device for shock absorption.

The installation had local armor, streamlined armor 3–4 mm thick. The weight of the installation without shock-absorbing devices is 1200 kg, and with shock-absorbing devices - 1400 kg.

In a number of characteristics, the BL-130 was superior to the 2M-3, but at the end of 1950 it was decided to put the 2M-3 into mass production, since its readiness level was higher than that of the BL-130.

At the end of the 1940s, to arm heavy cruisers of Project 82 (10 installations per ship) and destroyers, OKB-172 developed 25-mm quad automatic installations BL-120-I and BL-120-II, differing in power supply systems (for direct and alternating currents). The first two BL-120–1 installations were manufactured in 1950 at plant No. 535. The installations' guidance drives are electro-hydraulic. The food is reasonable. There are 4 cartridges in the clip. The barrels are cooled by air (Fig. 8.4).

Rice. 8.4. 25mm quad automatic mount BL-120.

BL-120 installation data

Caliber, mm - 35

Barrel length, club - 80

Angle VN, degrees - ?5; +90

Angle GN, degrees - 360

HV speed, deg/s - 30

GN speed, deg/s - 40

Armor, mm - 610

Tower weight, t - 4.0

Rate of fire of one barrel, rds/min - 270–300

In 1953, the BL-120–1 and BL-120-P installations were, for well-known reasons, renamed 4M-120–1 and 4M-120-II. Work on the installation from the disbanded OKB-172 was transferred to OKB-43.

In 1954, two 4M-120–1 units were mounted on the Project 41 destroyer Neustrashimy for state testing. A few years later, both installations were removed from the Project 41 ship and replaced with the 45-mm SM-20ZIF. The 4M-120 did not enter mass production.

152 mm turret installations for cruisers and monitors

In 1946, OKB-172 developed preliminary designs for 152-mm turret installations: the two-gun BL-115 and the three-gun BL-118. The installations were intended to arm the designed cruisers. The ballistics and shells of the BL-115 and BL-118 installations were taken from the 152-mm B-38 guns. But, unlike the MK-5 installation, the OKB172 installations were universal, that is, they had the ability to fire at aircraft. This was achieved by increasing the maximum elevation angle from 45° to 80° and increasing the rate of fire of one barrel from 7 rounds/min to 12–17 rounds/min. Instead of cartridge loading on the B-38 cannon, the 152-mm OKB-172 installations had separate cartridge loading (Fig. 8.5).

Rice. 8.5. Preliminary design of the cruiser MLK-8–152, armed with four twin-gun 152-mm BL-115 turrets.

In 1950, the forces of OKB-5, OKB-172 and OKB-196 of the IV special department of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs (also sharazhki) developed preliminary designs for several light cruisers. The MLK-8–152 project cruiser was armed with four BL-115 two-gun turrets, and the MLK-9–152 project cruiser was armed with three BL-118 three-gun turrets. The standard displacement of the cruisers was 7980 tons and 8243 tons, respectively.

In addition, BL-118 installations were part of one of the weapon options heavy cruiser"Stalingrad" project 82.

In 1947, the preliminary design of the BL115 and BL-118 installations was completed, and in 1953–1954. - technical design, and work began on the production of prototypes of the installations. However, at the end of 1954 - beginning of 1955, all work on BL-115 and BL-118 was stopped.

Table 39. Data from the BL-115 and BL-118 installations

In the table, the thickness of the armor and the weight of the installations are given according to the preliminary design of 1947. In the projects of light cruisers of 1950, the thickness of the armor is less: forehead - 100 mm, side walls - 50 mm and roof - 50 mm. In the BL-118 version for the Project 82 cruiser, the armor is thicker: the forehead is 200 mm, the side walls are 150 mm and the roof is 100 mm. Accordingly, the weight of the tower increased to 320 tons.

The BL-115 and BL-118 tower units were supposed to be equipped with a radio range finder.

In 1946, OKB-172 designed 152-mm turret installations: single-gun BL-113 for small monitors of Project 303 and two-gun BL-112 for large Danube monitors of Project 311.

In both installations, the swinging parts were created on the basis of the swinging parts of the 152-mm ML-20 army howitzer (model 1937).

The rate of fire in the new installations has increased significantly. 6 rounds per minute versus 3–4 rounds per minute for the ML-20 were achieved through the introduction of a wedge breech (instead of a piston) and an automatic rammer for projectiles and devices for supplying ammunition. To reduce the dimensions of the towers, the rollback length was reduced from 1250 mm to 500 mm. By the way, this also gave a small gain in the rate of fire.

In the BL-112 installation, the vertical guidance mechanism had only a manual drive, and the horizontal guidance mechanism had an electric drive. The BL-113 installation had two versions: with a manual drive of the horizontal guidance mechanism and with an electric drive. Vertical guidance in both installations was manual.

In the BL-112 installation, each gun was placed in its own cradle.

Table 40. Data for tower installations of monitors of projects 303 and 311

Note. The ammunition load and ballistics of the BL-113 and BL-112 installations were the same as the ML-20. Loading is separate-sleeve.

Railway installations TP-1 and TG-1

The beginning of the history of the creation of a new generation of Soviet railway installations should be considered the Decree of the Defense Committee of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR No. 6ss dated May 5, 1937 on the creation of a system of weapons of high and special power, which included heavy-duty railway installations.

On February 8, 1938, the head of the Red Army Art Directorate, Kulik, approved the tactical and technical requirements for railway installations - the 356-mm TP-1 cannon and the 500-mm TG-1 howitzer. The caliber of the howitzer was chosen after a serious study carried out at the Academy of Sciences at the end of 1937. Options for 450 mm, 475 mm and 500 mm howitzers were considered. Calculations have shown that a 450-mm howitzer will have the best ballistic properties. The action along the shore was supposed to be approximately the same for all howitzers, but the action on the ground was supposed to be better for the 500-mm howitzer. She was given preference.

The situation was different with the 356 mm gun. The prototype was a 356-mm naval gun, but not the 356/52-mm gun for the Izmail-class cruisers mounted on the TM-1-14, but the projected 356/54-mm gun for the MK-12 turret installations on the "Izmail" type battleships. B." Work on the naval installation was stopped in 1938, and the 356/54 mm gun began to be developed only for the TG-1 railway installations.

Unlike the transporters TM-1–14, TM-2–12, TM-312 and others, the creation of the TP-1 and TG-1 was solely the responsibility of the Red Army Art Directorate. The Navy leadership was only informed about the progress of work, and even then selectively.

According to the tactical and technical specifications, the TP-1 railway battery was intended both “to combat the enemy’s battle fleet and monitors” and for operations “on the land front.” TG-1 transporters were intended for operations only on the land front. This explained the fact that the TP-1 was designed both for firing from rails and for firing from a concrete base, the same type as the base for the TM-1–14.

OTB was appointed as the lead developer of the project. It also developed the documentation for the swinging part of the installation.

The design of transporters was entrusted to TsKB-19 (agreement No. 2–118 dated April 10, 1938 with the Art Directorate of the Red Army). The work was led by the chief engineer of TsKB-19 Dukelsky. Issues of external and internal ballistics were dealt with by NII13, and projectile design by NII-24.

In August 1938, a resolution of the Defense Committee identified the following manufacturing plants: the main enterprise that assembles railway systems and the entire gun mount as a whole is the Novokramatorsk Mechanical Plant (NKMZ); the swinging part was to be manufactured by plant No. 221 “Barricades”; railway bogies, balance beams with movement mechanisms - Krasny Profintern plant; the electrical part was entrusted to the Kharkov Electrotechnical Plant (KHETP); Jenny clutches (universal speed controllers) - plant named after. Kirov in Leningrad; cellar cars and a power station car were to be built by the Krasny Profintern plant; Komintern engines were ordered from plant No. 183 (KhPZ); PUAO was supposed to be made by plant No. 212; sights - factory No. 172; shells - factory No. 3, and charges - factories No. 40 and No. 59.

The design of TP-1 and TG-1 was slowed down due to the position of TsKB-19. On July 23, 1938, TsKB-19 submitted a preliminary design of a transporter to the Art Directorate of the Red Army; on August 2, 1938, the project was reported to Kaganovich and approved by him. Further, TsKB-19 stated that the preliminary design had been developed in such detail that there was no need for a technical design. And in October, the head of TsKB-19, Manukhov, generally decided to mothball work on the transporter, citing naval orders for the design of ships of projects 29, 30, 59, 68 and 69. That is, TsKB-19, in one preliminary design, developed within three months, decided receive 1.16 million rubles under agreement No. 2–118.

According to the project, preliminary tests of TP-1 and TG-1 were supposed to be carried out on a mobile universal testing machine TPG - a conveyor of a simplified design, which was supposed to have the same overall dimensions, bogies, balancers, main beam, guidance and feeding mechanisms, etc., as and combat transporters.

Prototypes TP-1 and TG-1 were included in the 1939 order with a completion date of the third quarter of 1940. According to the original plans, by the end of 1942 it was planned to produce 16 howitzers and 14 guns.

At the beginning of 1939, OTB released working drawings of the TP-1 and TG-1 barrels in two versions: with a liner and with a free tube. The option with a liner was finally adopted.

The valves of both systems were identical in design - push-pull piston, opening upwards. In the final version, weight balancing of the gates was adopted. Loading was designed to be cap-shaped.

According to the project, TP-1 could fire in two positions: from the railway track and from the concrete base. When firing from the path, the conveyor rested on 16 bogie axles, on support legs up to 10 m long and on the prefabricated base of the system. For TP-1 there is one pair of legs, and for TG-1 - two pairs. The prefabricated base of the system - a sub-base with support rails - was tinkered with during the systems on special platforms, which were removed during firing. “When firing, the conveyor had to rest its base through wooden beams and rails on the path, which experienced a specific pressure of 6 kg/cm2.

The concrete base had to be interchangeable with the base adopted by the Navy, and the TP-1 had to be able to fire from already built bases.

For TP-1 and TG-1, following the example of Navy transporters, a 220 V DC electrical network was adopted.

A battery of three TP-1s was supposed to be transported along all normal (1524 mm) railway tracks of the USSR at a speed of up to 50 km/h and be able to switch to the narrow European gauge (1435 mm). The conveyor had to go through arrow curves with a radius of 200 m.

The TP-1 railway battery was to include 3 artillery transporters; 3 cars - power stations (one per gun); 6 magazine cars (two per gun) with 24 rounds in each car; 1 car - battery post (type TM-3–12), 1 car - central post (type TM-3–12). In addition, the mobile base was supposed to have 2 spare storage cars per gun, an installation for changing the liner (later abandoned) and means for restoring the destroyed track 40 m long.

The air defense of the TP-1 battery was supposed to consist of a three-battery division with mechanical traction.

To transport artillery transporters, cellar cars and other cars, “E” type steam locomotives were to be used.

The batteries of the TP-1 and TG-1 guns, like the batteries of railway transporters, were supposed to have a battery post with a collapsible tower and a central post.

For the 500-mm howitzer, two ammunition were developed - concrete-piercing with a projectile weight of 2050 kg and explosive - 205 kg and high-explosive (1450 kg and 276 kg, respectively). At an angle of incidence of 70, a concrete-piercing projectile could pierce a concrete floor 4.4 m thick.

For a concrete-piercing projectile, 4 charges are provided for initial speeds of 490, 430, 380 and 340 m/s. When firing a full charge weighing 210 kg, the range was 19,500 m.

The high-explosive projectile had 6 charges for speeds of 600, 540, 480, 430, 390 and 450 m/s. When firing a full charge weighing 233 kg, the firing range of a high-explosive projectile is 24,820 m.

For 356 mm guns, 4 types of projectiles were developed - armor-piercing, high-explosive, long-range and “combined”.

Armor-piercing and high-explosive shells had the same weight of 750 kg and differed in the weight of the explosive. At a distance of 11 km, an armor-piercing projectile was supposed to penetrate 440 mm cemented armor along the normal line, and at a distance of 30 km - 230 mm. The long-range projectile was an ordinary high-explosive projectile, only lighter in weight (495 kg). In the 1920s–1940s, a sub-caliber projectile was considered a combined projectile. The weight of the sub-caliber projectile with the pallet was 234.4 kg, and the weight of the “active projectile” with a diameter of 230 mm was 126.8 kg. Interestingly, a special liner with a steeper groove was designed for the sub-caliber projectile.

Table 41. Firing table for the 356 mm TP-1 gun

At the end of 1939, the Barrikady plant began manufacturing swing parts TP-1 and TG-1, and in the spring of 1941 both swing parts were sent to Kramatorsk. By April 24, 1941, NKMZ had completed the installation of the TPG conveyor with the TG-1 swinging part attached to it, and factory tests of all mechanisms were carried out without firing.

To conduct field tests, the TPG and both swinging parts were delivered to ANIOP, where the firing of both systems was to take place at the end of the summer of 1941.

According to the plan, by the end of 1942, 16 howitzers and 14 guns on railway installations were to be manufactured. However, the production of the systems was behind schedule, as many factories were busy with work on creating a “large fleet”. By the beginning of the war, only two swing parts (one TG-1 and one TP-1) and one universal conveyor were manufactured.

The war interrupted work on TP-1 and TG-1. The manufactured material was mothballed, and the prototypes TP-1 and TG-1 were lying around at a test site near Leningrad for several years. In the post-war period, no serious work was undertaken to resuscitate these systems.

Table 42. Data of the TP-1 gun and TG-1 howitzer on a railway transporter

Regimental, divisional and anti-tank guns

By the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, 45-mm anti-tank guns mod. 1932 and arr. 1937 were considered not to meet the requirements, which primarily concerned ballistics and armor penetration. Along with the design of anti-tank guns of a new caliber (57 mm), Plant No. 7 (Arsenal) was working on a new 45-mm anti-tank gun "7-1", which had more powerful ballistics than the guns mod. 1932 and arr. 1937

With the outbreak of the war, work on creating more powerful anti-tank guns was interrupted for several months, but at the very end of 1941 they resumed again. The design bureau of plant No. 8 developed a design for a new 45-mm anti-tank gun 101K and manufactured its prototype. In the design bureau of plant No. 172, where civilian engineers worked, they developed a project for a 45-mm M-6 anti-tank gun. It was a completely new system that had no interchangeability with the 53K gun, except for semi-automatic and wheels. Ballistics and ammunition were identical to the M-42 cannon.

At the end of 1942, the 45-mm M-6 gun passed factory tests at the Ural test site, and on February 19, 1943, four M-6 guns arrived at the Gorokhovets test site (near the city of Gorky) to undergo field tests. From 12 to 23 March 1943, these four guns passed military tests in the Moscow Military District. Based on the results of field and military tests, the M-6 was recommended for adoption. However, the authorities preferred another 45-mm anti-tank gun - the M-42.

In January - March 1942, OKB-172 developed a project for the 45-mm M-42 anti-tank gun. In the spring of 1942, a prototype was manufactured at plant No. 172. In August - September 1942, the M-42 passed field and military tests and was put into service under the name “45-mm anti-tank gun mod. 1942." Gross production of the M-42 began at Plant No. 172 in January 1943.

Data from the 45 mm M-42 gun

Caliber, mm - 45

Sample - Arr. 1942

Factory index - M-42

Total barrel length, mm/club - 3087/68.6

Channel length, mm/club - 2985/66.3

Length of the threaded part, mm - 2660

Rifling steepness, class - 25

Chamber volume, l - 0.54

Number of grooves - 16

Cutting depth, mm - 0.5

Cutting width, mm - 6.5

Field width, mm - 2.5

Shutter weight, kg - 7.87

Barrel weight with bolt, kg - 159

Angle VN, degrees - ?8; +25

Angle GN, degrees - 60

limit - 780

Height of the firing line, mm - 710

Length of the gun with the frames moved, mm - 4885

Implement width, mm: with frames moved - 1634

Stroke width, mm - 1400

Shield thickness, mm - 7

Wheel diameter, mm - 925

Weight of sliding parts, kg - 175

Weight of the swinging part, kg - 222

Shield weight, kg - 53.6

Carriage weight without gun and shield, kg - 406

Weight of the system in combat position, kg - 625

Rate of fire, rds/min - 15–20

Carriage speed on the highway, km/h - 50–60

In 1943, Plant No. 172 produced 4,151 45-mm anti-tank guns, in 1944 - 4,628, in 1945 - 2,064, in 1946 - 140. In total, since January 1943, the plant has produced 10,983 45-mm anti-tank guns.

Project 76-mm regimental gun OB-25 mod. 1943 was developed at OKB-172 in February 1943. The carriage for the regimental gun was taken from a 45-mm anti-tank gun mod. 1942 (M-42). Prototypes were manufactured at plant No. 172.

Field tests of the OB-25 prototype were carried out at the Gorokhovets training ground from June 18 to June 26, 1943, in the amount of 157 rounds. Tests revealed: unsatisfactory accuracy, poor performance of recoil devices (the length of the recoil reached 800 mm, and the roll-up occurred with a knock), the combat axis was bent. The prototype did not pass field tests. Nevertheless, at the end of July 1943, military tests of prototypes of the OB-25, on which reinforced combat axles were installed, began. During military tests, barrels with a rifling angle of 15, 20, 25, 30 and 35 calibers were shot. As a result, we settled on the steepness of 15 calibers.

By August 12, 1943, military trials were over. The OB-25 was adopted by the State Defense Committee on September 4, 1943. The 76-mm regimental gun mod. 1943 was launched at the end of 1943 at two factories: No. 172 and No. 106. Factory No. 172 produced 2,730 guns in 1944, and 1,434 in 1945, and this ended production of the OB-25. And plant No. 106 produced 464 guns in 1944, 494 in 1945, and only 30 guns in 1946. In total, both factories produced 5,152 OB-25 guns.

Despite its light weight and relatively good mobility, overall the OB-25 turned out to be an unsuccessful regimental gun, and with the end of the war it was taken out of production and the development of new regimental guns began.

In 1944, OKB-172 developed the BL-11 project - a 76-mm regimental gun mod. 1943 with wedge shutter. A prototype BL-11 was manufactured. However, the gun was not accepted for service.

The barrel of the OB-25 gun consisted of a monoblock pipe and a screw-on breech. Piston bolt from a 76-mm regimental gun mod. 1927. Trough-shaped cradle. The recoil brake is hydraulic. When fired, the recoil brake cylinder rolled back along with the barrel. The spring knurl consisted of four springs. The lifting mechanism had one sector. Sector-type rotary mechanism.

The lower machine is hingedly connected to the combat axis, which made it possible to level the guns when positioned on uneven terrain. The gun had sliding frames. In the extended position, the frames were disengaged from the combat axis. In the folded position, both frames tightly covered the combat axis with their fork-shaped ends and thus created a rigid and stable position for the carriage on the move. The combat axis is slightly curved (almost straight).

Suspension was provided by cylindrical springs. Wheels of automobile type ZIK-1 (with spokes) or GAZ-AA (disc type). Wheel data: weight of GAZ-AA type wheels 59–61 kg, tire size 6.5–20 mm, wheel diameter 870 mm.

The gun limber is taken from a 45 mm anti-tank gun. The tray boxes have been modified so that each tray box holds three rounds for a total of 3x8 = 24 rounds in the limber. The gun limber could also be used as a charging box (forward and reverse).

Data from the 76-mm regimental gun OB-25 mod. 1943

Trunk

Caliber, mm - 76.2

Barrel length, mm/club - 1480/19.41

Channel length, mm/club - 1394/18.3

Length of the threaded part, mm - 1214.7

Chamber length (from the breech to the beginning of the rifling), mm - 179.3

Chamber volume, dm3 - 0.408

Rifling steepness (constant), clubbing - 15

Number of grooves - 24

Depth of rifling, mm - 0.762

Width of rifling, mm - 7.0

Border width, mm - 3.0

Shutter weight, kg - 12.5

Barrel weight with bolt, kg - 136

Carriage design data

Vertical guidance angle, degrees - ?8; +25

Horizontal guidance angle, degrees - 60

Rollback length, mm: normal - 640–780

limit - 780

Height of the firing line, mm - 718

Length of the system in combat position with the frames folded, mm - 3540

System width with beds folded, mm - 1634

Height of the gun on the shield, mm - 1300

Stroke width, mm - 1400

Ground clearance, mm - 275

Wheel diameter, mm - 814

Weight summary, kg

Recoiling parts of the carriage - 26

Recoiling parts with barrel - 162

Swinging part - 210

Non-recoil part of the carriage - 438

Carriage without gun - 464

System in combat position - about 600

System in stowed position with front end - about 1300

Operating data

Rate of fire, rds/min - 10–12

Transition time from traveling to combat position, min - 1

Number of rounds: in the front - 24

in the charging box - 48

Number of horses for carriage: carriage - 4

charging box - 4

Carriage speed, km/h: on the highway - up to 30–35

on a good dirt road - up to 10

Loading with a unitary cartridge. There are no interchangeable cartridges with other guns. Brass sleeve weighing 0.89 kg.

Table 43. Firing table for the OB-25 gun

* Direct shot range at a target height of 2 meters.

In 1944, OKB-172 designed a 76-mm anti-tank and divisional gun BL-14 and manufactured a prototype.

BL-14 had a screw lifting mechanism and a two-chamber muzzle brake. The barrel is a free pipe. Vertical wedge valve. The recoil brake is hydraulic. The knurl is hydropneumatic.

The shield consisted of two sheets. Tubular beds. Torsion bar suspension.

Data from the 76 mm BL-14 gun

Caliber, mm - 76.2

Barrel length, club - 60

Angle VN, degrees - ?5; +28

Angle GN, degrees - 54

Weight of the system in combat position, kg - 1300

An armor-piercing projectile weighing 6.5 kg had an initial speed of 900 m/s and a range of 14,000 m. A sub-caliber projectile weighing 3.02 kg had an initial speed of 1260 m/s.

An armor-piercing projectile from a distance of 500 m at an angle of 0° penetrated armor 117 mm thick, and a sub-caliber projectile penetrated 230 mm armor.

In 1944, OKB-172 designed the 85-mm BL-19 anti-tank gun.

Project gun data:

Caliber, mm - 85

Barrel length, club - 66.8

Angle VN - ?5; +25

GN angle - ±29

Weight of the system in combat position, kg - 2100

Rate of fire, rds/min - 20

An armor-piercing projectile weighing 9.2 kg had an initial speed of 1000 m/s and a range of 16,000 m, a sub-caliber projectile weighing 4.3 kg had an initial speed of 1380 m/s. Armor penetration at a distance of 500 m at an angle of 0°: with an armor-piercing projectile - 157 mm, with a sub-caliber projectile - 245 mm.

Work on the gun was completed at the technical design stage. In 1944, OKB-172 designed the 85-mm anti-tank and divisional gun BL-25.

The gun had a monoblock barrel with a removable breech and muzzle brake. There was a clip to attach the knurling cylinder to the barrel. Vertical wedge shutter with semi-automatic mechanical (copier) type.

The cradle is cylindrical cast with welded clips. A rollback brake is placed inside the cradle. The recoil devices consisted of a spindle-type hydraulic recoil brake and a hydropneumatic knurler.

The lifting mechanism is screw type, located on the left side of the upper machine. The rotating mechanism is a screw type, push-type, located on the left side of the upper machine. The balancing mechanism is spring-type, pulling type. Each of the two columns had three springs.

The cast combat axis was also the lower machine. An upper machine with guidance mechanisms, a shield and sliding frames were mounted on it. A torsion bar suspension was mounted in the cavity of the combat axle. The wheels were taken from a GAZ-AA car. Sliding frames are box-shaped, welded construction. The openers are equipped with a parallelogram device, which ensures that the implement can be mounted at four points on uneven terrain.

The cartridge case and shells were taken from an 85-mm anti-aircraft gun mod. 1939. The bolt and semi-automatic mechanism were taken entirely from the 85-mm tank gun mod. 1944 ZIS-S-53. The balancing mechanism is made like the 76 mm F-22 cannon.

A prototype of the BL-25 cannon was manufactured by Plant No. 172, its factory tests began on November 6, 1944. On January 16, 1945, the BL-25 arrived at the Main Artillery Range for ground tests, during which 293 shots were fired, after which - due to the failure of the lifting mechanism and a number of other malfunctions, testing of the gun was stopped. The system was not run-in.

According to the commission's report dated April 2, 1945, the BL-25 gun did not withstand field tests and requires improvement. Soon work on the cannon was stopped.

Data from the 85 mm BL-25 gun

Barrel design data

Caliber, mm - 85

Total barrel length, mm/club - 4573/53.8

Channel length, mm/club - 4150/48.8

Length of the threaded part, mm - 3495

Rifling steepness, class - 25

Number of grooves - 24

Depth of rifling, mm - 0.85

Width of rifling, mm - 7.5

Border width, mm - 3.7

Barrel weight with bolt, kg - 602.5

Carriage design data

Angle VN, degrees - ?8.5+35.5

Angle GN, degrees - 54

Rollback length, mm: normal - 880–960

limit - 1150

Height of the firing line, mm - 880

Dimensions in stowed position, mm: length without front end - 7420

width - 1735

Stroke width, mm - 1490

Ground clearance, mm - 310

Wheel diameter, mm - 800

Weight summary

Recoil parts with barrel, kg - 670

Swinging part, kg - 865

Carriage without gun, kg - 1018

System in firing position, kg - 1620

Operating data

Transition time from traveling to combat position, min - about 1

Carriage speed on the highway, km/h - 50

In tests of the BL-25, when firing an armor-piercing projectile, an initial speed of 792 m/s was obtained, and with a high-explosive fragmentation projectile weighing 9.54 kg - 652 m/s and a range of 12,170 m (at an elevation angle of 30).

High power guns

In April 1939, the OTB, on its own initiative, began developing a project for a 203-mm hull howitzer based on the tactical and technical data of the Red Army Art Directorate, approved on February 2, 1938.

In June 1939, the GAU reviewed the project for the BL-39 203-mm hull howitzer and found the project generally satisfactory, but made a number of comments. In particular, it was proposed to leave the 100-kg projectile, and take the same 80-kg long-range projectile as the B-4. The bolt, which opened upward, had a complex drive of the locking mechanism and a complex balancing mechanism, so the GAU proposed to install the bolt from the B-4 without changes.

On February 10, 1940, the GAU entered into an agreement with plant No. 172 for the production of one prototype of the BL-39 howitzer. On May 10, 1940, the head of the OTB turned to the GAU with a request to produce not one, but two experimental BL-39 howitzers, the GAU agreed.

Both barrels for the BL-39 howitzer were manufactured at Plant No. 221 "Barricades" and delivered on August 7, 1940 to Plant No. 172.

Prototypes of BL-39, manufactured by plant No. 172, had a number of differences:

Table 44. Prototypes of the BL-39 howitzer

In addition, the samples had different springs, different stowage mountings for the frames, and different front ends.

Factory testing of the first BL-39 sample began on October 15, 1940, and firing tests began on November 4. The next day, on the 16th shot when shooting at an angle of 72°5? after the shot, the barrel fell to an angle of +16°, and the lifting mechanism failed. The system was removed from testing.

In 1940, things did not come to military testing of the BL-39. Since the barrel of the BL-39 had the same rifling steepness as the M-40 and U-3, in December 1940, Marshal Kulik ordered not to carry out military tests of the BL-39, but to make for it three free tubes with a rifling steepness of 25, 30 and 35 club. They were supposed to be manufactured by January 15, 1941. Apparently, new tests of the BL-39 could not be carried out until April 1942, and in April 1942 the system arrived at the Gorokhovetsky test site. From May 5 to June 15, 1942, comparative field-military tests of 203-mm corps howitzers BL-39 and U-3 were carried out there. 395 shots were fired from the BL-39. The cart was driven behind a Voroshilovets tractor at a speed of 20–0 km/h.

The commission's conclusions based on the test results: the 203-mm howitzer BL-39 did not withstand military testing.

Main disadvantages of the system:

1. The howitzer is too heavy for corps artillery

2. The complexity of the design of the chassis and insufficient cross-country ability of the system.

3. Poor chassis design.

4. Unsatisfactory design of the rollback brake, which failed during testing.

5. Insufficient strength of the lifting mechanism parts. According to the commission, modification of the BL-39 is inappropriate.

For the BL-39 howitzers, all standard shells from the B-4 howitzer were used. With a projectile weight of 100 kg, the initial speed was 475 m/s, the range was 14,000 m, and the pressure in the barrel bore was 2253 kg/cm2. With a projectile weight of 146 kg, the initial speed was 355 m/s and the range was 10,500 m.

Howitzer BL-39 data

Caliber, mm - 203.4

Barrel length without muzzle brake, club - 18.4

Barrel type - Free tube

Length of the threaded part of the channel, mm - 2970

Chamber volume, dm - 13.69

Rifling steepness, class - 20

Number of grooves - 64

Depth of grooves, mm - 2.0

Width of rifling, mm - 6.0

Border width, mm - 3.974

Angle VN, degrees - 0;+75

Angle GN, degrees - 50

Rollback length, mm: long from 0° to +12° - 1250 (constant)

Height of the firing line, mm - 143!

Panorama eyepiece height, mm - 1574

Length of the howitzer with the frames extended at an angle of 0°, mm - 7310

System width along the stroke axis, mm - 2452

Stroke width, mm - 1900

Ground clearance, mm - 351

Wheel diameter, mm - 1104

Weight of sliding parts - 2800

System weight, kg: in combat position - 8250

in stowed position - 9250

Carriage speed with the Kommunar tractor (calculated), km/h - 40

The 152-mm BL-7 gun was designed by OKB-172 at the beginning of 1944. The original system index was OBM-43. The BL-7 was a superposition of a modified Br-2 barrel on a modernized ML-20 carriage.

The gun had a barrel with an active muzzle brake (60%) and a piston bolt.

Plant No. 172 completed a prototype gun by November 1944. Field testing of the system was completed in April 1945. The BL-7 did not enter service.

BL-7 gun data

Caliber, mm - 152.4

Barrel length, club - 47.5

Angle VN, degrees - ?2; +50

GN angle, degrees - ±29

Weight of the system in combat position, kg - 7880

Rate of fire, rds/min - 5

Muzzle energy, tm - 1715

A projectile weighing 43.5 kg with an initial speed of 880 m/s had a range of 25,700 m.

In 1946, OKB-172 modernized the 152-mm howitzer-cannon ML-20, which received the index BL-29. In particular, the new gun featured a cast breech and a wedge breech. A prototype was manufactured and tested.

In 1946, OKB-172 completed a preliminary design of a 203-mm rifled mortar BL-24, and in 1947 its technical design was developed.

The 203-mm mortar BL-24 was a rifled recoilless mounted fire gun on a rigid carriage (without recoil devices), made according to a completely new design, fundamentally different from the usual designs of guns in service. The rotating part of the gun was mounted on a massive base plate, equipped with pointed spurs along the lower surface. All recoil energy during a shot was absorbed by the impact deformation of the base plate. At the moment of firing, the guidance mechanism and the trunnion were completely unloaded by resting the breech against the arched shoulder straps of the heel, located perpendicular to the axis of the barrel bore (along the arc) with a gap to the breech within 0.5 mm.

The mortar barrel was a monoblock with a screw-on breech. There was no muzzle brake. Loading is separate-sleeve. The chamber volume is the same as the 203 mm B-4 howitzer. The valve is horizontal wedge. A frame-type cradle with windows for better barrel cooling.

The machine was a welded structure consisting of two jaws and a base in the form of a blind drum. The base of the machine had lower and upper slots for placing rollers, which served to facilitate the movement of the rotating part of the implement. The mortar had sector-type lifting and rotating mechanisms and a pull-type spring balancing mechanism.

The reverse gear (carriage travel) consisted of a frame and two wheels of the 8TB trolleybus type with a modified hub. The front is pivot type. The rear suspension is torsion bar, and the forward (front) suspension is spring.

The ammunition of the BL-24 mortar included shells from the 203-mm B-4 howitzer: a concrete-piercing G-620 weighing 100 kg, a concrete-piercing G-620T weighing 146 kg, and a high-explosive one weighing 100 kg.

Charges from the B-4 howitzer were used as charges for the B-024: for 100 kg shells - from No. 2 to No. 11 (their weight is 13–3.24 kg); for shells weighing 146 kg - charges No. 4, No. 5 and No. 6 (their weight is 11–9 kg).

The mortar case was taken from a 203-mm E-16 howitzer, but in the future it was supposed to be replaced with a special case.

A prototype of the BL-24 mortar was manufactured by Factory No. 172 in April 1948. There it underwent factory testing with 47 rounds of fire and transportation over a distance of 190 km.

On December 31, 1948, the mortar was sent by rail to the GNIAP in Rzhevka. There, from February 18 to December 26, 1949, the mortar underwent field tests in the amount of 251 rounds, of which 58 with an enhanced charge, and carried over a distance of 839 km.

Tests revealed some instability when fired, caused by errors in the design of the base plate and trunk. There were deficiencies in the guidance and balancing mechanisms.

The GNIAP report dated December 31, 1949 states that the BL-24 mortar, compared to the B-4 howitzer with the same projectile power, had a weight of almost 3.5 times less, a much simpler design, significantly cheaper and much more mobile.

Additional stability tests of the BL-24 prototype were carried out at GNIAP on February 17 and 18, 1950, in the amount of 20 shots.

These tests showed that:

1. The stability of the system at an elevation angle of 50° from solid ground is unsatisfactory, since at this angle there was a large backlash of the system, reaching an average of 595–517 mm per shot.

2. The stability of the system at elevation angles of 60° and 70° from frozen soil is satisfactory; at an angle of 60°, the system’s withdrawal per shot was in the range of 23–100 mm; at an angle of 70° there was practically no withdrawal.

The strength of the base plate was still unsatisfactory.

Based on the results of additional tests, many changes were made to the design of the mortar, especially the carriage. At the end of 1953, Plant No. 172 began manufacturing the modernized BL-24 mortar. However, in December 1953, work was suspended due to defects in the base plate. It was supposed to redo the slab design again. The further fate of the BL-24 is unknown to the author; in any case, it was not accepted for service.

These BL-24 mortars (according to field tests)

Caliber, mm - 203

Barrel length, club - 26

Angle VN, degrees - +50; +75

Loading angle, degrees - 0

Angle GN, degrees - 30

System weight, kg: in combat position - 5415

in stowed position - 8655

Rate of fire, rds/min - 0.8

Transition time, min: from traveling to combat position - 9.5

from combat to traveling position - 14

Carriage speed on the highway, km/h - up to 40

Calculation - 8 people. + gun commander

Ballistic data (standard G-620 projectile)

Projectile weight, kg - 100

Initial speed, m/s - 524

Range, m - 15 921

Tank and self-propelled guns

In the second half of 1942, OKB-172 developed the 45-mm VT-42 cannon for the T-70 light tank. The VT-42 gun had a 68.5-caliber barrel, the same as the barrel of the 45-mm anti-tank gun M-42 mod. 1942. The ammunition and ballistics of both guns were identical. The VN angle of the VT-42 gun was? 4°; +19°. Rollback length 230–275 mm. The gun cradle is rectangular, made of sheet steel. The lifting mechanism is a screw attached to the turret mantlet.

The weight of the gun with a machine gun, but without a lifting mechanism, was 499 kg. Ammunition capacity: 90 shells. Estimated rate of fire 30 rds/min.

A prototype of the VT-42 gun was manufactured by Plant No. 235. From May 19 to June 1, 1943, this sample underwent field tests in the T-70 tank at the Gorokhovets training ground. During the tests, the accuracy of fire of the VT-42 turned out to be better than that of the standard gun of the T-70 tank - a 45-mm gun mod. 1934 (20K), but worse than the 45 mm M-42 anti-tank gun.

OKB-172 did not modify the VT-42 cannon, but instead they designed a 45-mm VT-43 cannon for the T-80 light tank. The data of the new gun is close to the VT-42, the main difference is the larger elevation angle: -6°; +70°.

The prototype was manufactured at plant No. 235 and in September 1943 passed field tests at the Gorokhovets training ground. The VT-43 was not accepted for service, since there was no longer any special need for light tanks.

At the end of 1943, OKB-172 received the task of creating more powerful guns for self-propelled guns of the ISU type than the existing standard guns with the ballistics of the 152-mm ML-20 gun-howitzer and the 122-mm A-19 gun.

At the beginning of 1944, OKB-172 designed the BL-8 high-power 152-mm cannon. The gun barrel had a smooth-walled nozzle and a muzzle brake. The valve is piston. The gun was equipped with a system for purging the barrel bore after firing with compressed air from special cylinders. Loading is separate-sleeve. The recoil brake is hydraulic spindle type, the knurl is hydropneumatic.

The BL-8 cannon was manufactured at Factory No. 172 and installed in an artillery self-propelled gun manufactured by Factory No. 100. Later it became known as ISU-152–1.

The self-propelled gun with the cannon arrived for field testing on July 22, 1944. During the tests, the cannon fired standard 152-mm OF-540 shells weighing 48.6 kg, Br-540 weighing 48.8 kg and G-530 weighing 40 kg. In total, by August 17, 1944, 501 shots were fired and a run-in of 52 km was carried out.

During the tests, it turned out that the 152-mm armor-piercing projectile Br-540 is able to penetrate a 203-mm plate (k = 2300) along the normal from a distance of 600–700 m and a 180-mm plate (k = 2350) at an angle of 30° to the normal from a distance of 200 m. However, most of the shells were destroyed when passing through the armor, that is, the shells were of poor quality, not the gun, and the destroyed shell fragments quite effectively hit the inside of the tank.

Initial projectile speed: OF-540 - 851 m/s, Br540 - 826 m/s and G-530 - 866 m/s. Maximum range firing range of the OF-540 projectile was 17 km at an elevation angle of 17°.

According to the test results, the BL-8 gun was considered satisfactory, but the performance of the projectiles was considered unsatisfactory.

Data from the BL-8 gun in the IS self-propelled gun

Caliber, mm - 152

Barrel length, mm/club: with muzzle brake - 7910/52

without muzzle brake - 7540/49.6

Rifling steepness (constant), degrees - 7°18?

Angle BH, degrees - ?3°10?; +17°45? (according to specifications +20°)

Angle GN, degrees - right 5°27?, left 2°24? (according to specifications 7° and 3° respectively)

Height of the firing line, mm - 1655

Rollback length, mm - 870+25 according to specifications, and on tests up to 928

Ammunition, rounds - 21 Maximum speed, km/h - 30–34

Rate of fire for a high-explosive fragmentation projectile, in 100 s - 1 shot at the training ground; according to specifications 2 rounds/min

Weight of gun with self-propelled gun, t - 47

Transition time from traveling to combat position (for small transitions), s - 25

Crew, people - 5

Following the BL-8, the OKB began to design a more powerful 152-mm BL-10 gun. The new gun had a semi-automatic wedge breech, which doubled the rate of fire (up to 3 rounds/min). The creation of a semi-automatic bolt for a gun of such power was a great technical success for 1944. The length of the gun barrel was 48.5 calibers. Vertical guidance angle?2°; +20°. The horizontal guidance angle is 7° to the right, 3° to the left. The weight of the swinging part of the gun is 4.9 tons. When firing an armor-piercing projectile Br-540, the initial speed was 880 m/s.

A prototype of the BL-10 cannon was manufactured by Factory No. 172. The cannon was installed on an ISU-152-2 artillery self-propelled gun and sent for field testing, which it passed with satisfactory results. But the BL-10 was not accepted for service. The main reason for this was the end of the war.

In parallel with 152-mm high-power guns for artillery self-propelled guns, OKB-172 also designed 122-mm high-power guns. So, at the beginning of 1944, the project of the 122-mm BL-9 gun was completed. The gun had a semi-automatic wedge breech and separate-case loading. I note that the desire of the OKB-172 designers to have a standard sleeve, and not to design a new one, led to the fact that the entire charge was not contained in the sleeve, and additional bundles had to be stuffed into the chamber in front of the sleeve.

A prototype of the 122-mm BL-9 cannon was manufactured in May 1944 at plant No. 172, and in June it was installed on the ISU-122–1 artillery self-propelled gun, manufactured by plant No. 100. In September 1944, the BL-9 and self-propelled gun underwent testing tests. Firing was carried out with armor-piercing and high-explosive fragmentation shells weighing 25 kg. The initial speed for the armor-piercing projectile at the test site was 987 m/s (calculated 1000 m/s). The firing range of the high-explosive fragmentation projectile was 10,700 m. The estimated rate of fire was 3 rounds/min, but it was not tested at the training ground.

During state tests in May 1945, during firing, the barrel of the BL-9 gun ruptured due to a metal defect. This episode, as well as the end of the war, served as a reason to abandon mass production of the BL-9.

Data from the BL-9 gun in the IS self-propelled gun

Caliber, mm - 122

Barrel length, mm/club - 7240/59.3

Channel length, mm/club - 6934/56.8

Length of the threaded part, mm - 5884

Rifling steepness, class - 30

Number of grooves - 38

Cutting depth, mm - 2.0

Cutting width, mm - 8.0

Field width, mm - 5.67

Barrel weight with bolt, kg - 3270

Weight of sliding parts, kg - 3312

Weight of the swinging part, kg - 5060

Angle BH, deg -1; +16

Angle GN, degrees - 10

Maximum rollback length, mm - 810–900

Height of the firing line, mm - 1820

Ammunition, rounds - 24

Transition time from traveling to combat position, min:

for a long journey - 7.5–8.5

for a small transition - 1.5–2

Weight of gun with self-propelled gun, t - 47

Crew, people - 5

Maximum speed, km/h: on the highway - 31–34

by area - 16

It is curious that in 1944, OKB-172 designed a 122-mm high-power gun BL-20, intended for the chassis of the T-34 medium tank. The BL-20 gun had the same ballistics as the BL-9. The elevation angle reached +25°, and the horizontal guidance angle reached 20°. The weight of the swinging part is 4 tons. The rate of fire is 10 rounds/min. However, work on the BL-20 ended at the preliminary design stage.

Artillery mounts for fortified areas

In 1940, OTB developed a preliminary design for a 45-mm BUR-20 installation, which was a collapsible turret. It took one and a half to two hours to assemble and disassemble the tower. The disassembled parts of the tower were carried manually; their weight did not exceed 150–200 kg. The turret did not enter service.

In the same year, OTB designed a 45-mm single-gun universal concealed turret installation for fortified areas BUR-30. The matter ended with a sketch diagram.

The rotating part of the BUR-30 was divided into:

a) a rotating stationary part, consisting of an armored dome with a combat barrel, guidance mechanisms, etc., lying on the balls of a normal type support unit;

b) a lifting part, consisting of a cannon and a machine gun, enclosed in an armored box, which slides along the guides of the rotating part and rotates with it in a horizontal plane.

The aiming was carried out in the open position.

Installation data BUR-30

Caliber, mm - 45

Vertical guidance angle, degrees -12; +85

Horizontal guidance angle, degrees - 360

Installation lifting height, mm - 900

Time of ascent or descent, s - 4–5

Turret armor, mm - 125–200

Machine guns in the turret - 7.62 mm DS type

Installation weight, tons - 35.0

Rate of fire, rds/min - 30–35

Tower crew, people - 8

Projectile weight, kg - 1.3

Initial projectile speed, m/s - 650

On March 22, 1939, the GAU issued tactical and technical requirements for the design of the 76-mm BUR-76 turret installation. The requirements stated that the height of the tower above the armored barbette should not exceed 1200 mm, the crew should be 6–7 people, of which 3 people in the tower. The swinging part should be the standard L-11 cannon with a coaxial 7.62 mm Silin machine gun.

The roof armor must withstand a normal hit from one 152-mm howitzer projectile with an initial speed of up to 350 m/s. The side armor must withstand a normal hit from a 76-mm armor-piercing projectile with an initial speed of up to 650 m/s. The armor covering the barrel must withstand a 45-mm armor-piercing projectile with an initial speed of up to 760 m/s.

In addition, the turret as a whole must withstand the impact of a 203-mm projectile falling directly at the turret, and ensure the stability of the rotating part of the turret when hit by a T-28 type tank at a speed of 10 km/h.

The design of the BUR-76 was carried out at OTB. On August 25, 1939, the OTB reported to the GAU: “When designing the BUR-76, we adopted the following units: 76-mm L-11 tank gun from the L-17 installation, 7.62-mm DS machine gun, KT-45 sight and PTFC periscope "

In 1940, the BUR-76 project was changed by OTB designers and received a new index BUR-10. The KT-45 sight was replaced by the KT-6.

In mid-1941, a prototype BUR-10 was completed at the Kirov plant and installed in a combat position on the outskirts of Leningrad. Several shells hit the tower, however, the installation was in effect until the blockade was broken.

In 1943, OKB-172 developed a preliminary design for the modernization of the BUR-10 with its re-equipment with an 85-mm cannon (BUR-10s).

Installation data BUR-10 (for 1940)

Caliber, mm - 76.2

Barrel length, club - 30.5

Recoil resistance, t - 14.2

Vertical guidance angle, degrees -12; +12

Horizontal guidance angle, degrees: along the gun - ±6

along the tower - 360

Vertical guidance speed, degrees per 1 revolution of the flywheel - 1.5

Horizontal guidance speed, degrees per 1 flywheel revolution - 1

Turret armor thickness, mm - 100–125

Installation weight, t - 42.0

Rate of fire, rds/min - 18

Calculation with cellars, people - 7

A projectile weighing 6.23 kg with an initial speed of 635 m/s had a range of 7100 m.

In 1946, OKB-172 designed the 100-mm single-gun turret mount BL-106, intended for fortified areas. Working drawings of the towers were submitted in October 1946 and transferred to plant No. 7 on January 15, 1949. The prototype was manufactured at the end of 1949.

OKB-172 intended to use the swinging part of the 100-mm D-10T tank gun in the BL-106 installation. The design bureau of plant No. 7 decided to replace it with a swinging part from the 100-mm ZIF-25 cannon.

BL-106 installation data

Caliber, mm - 100

Barrel length, club - 56

Recoil force, t - 30.16

Angle VN, deg -8; +20

Angle GN, degrees - 360

Vertical guidance speed, degrees per flywheel revolution - 1

Horizontal guidance speed, deg/s - 20.2

Turret armor thickness, mm - 125–200

The turret is equipped with: 7.62 mm Maxim machine gun - 1

sight GTUR-5 - 1

stabilized periscope PBUR-1 - 1

Installation weight, t - 85.7

Calculation with cellars, people - 5

Rate of fire, rds/min - 15

Fire mode (including cooling), rounds/hour - 240

In 1947, OKB-172 designed the BL-107 100-mm single-gun concealed turret installation for fortified areas. It ended with a technical project.

The rotating part of the BL-107 was divided into:

a) a rotating non-lifting part, consisting of an armored dome with a combat barrel, guidance mechanisms, etc., lying on the balls of a normal type support unit;

b) a lifting part, consisting of a cannon and a machine gun, enclosed in an armored box, which slid along the guides of the rotating part and rotated with it in a horizontal plane.

Aiming is carried out in a hidden position. The tower was raised and lowered using hydraulic devices within 5 seconds; there was also a backup manual drive.

BL-107 installation data

Caliber, mm - 100

Barrel length, club - 56

Rollback resistance force, t - 22.5

Angle VN, degrees -6; +10

Angle GN, degrees - 360

Vertical guidance speed, degrees per 1 flywheel revolution - 1

Horizontal guidance speed, deg/s - 20

Tower lifting height, mm - 1030

Time of ascent and descent, s - 5

Tower armor thickness, mm - 100–200

The turret is equipped with a Maxim machine gun - 1

Installation weight, t - 78.0

Rate of fire, rds/min - 20

Fire mode (including cooling), rounds/hour - 315

Calculation, persons - 6

A projectile weighing 15.6 kg with an initial speed of 900 m/s had a range of 15,000 m.

An armor-piercing projectile normally penetrated 150 mm armor at a distance of 1000 m, and 100–120 mm at a distance of 2000 m.

OKB-172 designed the BL-117 single-gun turret installation for fortified areas. As of 1947, the technical design was completed and the production of working drawings began. The project had two options: for a 100 mm gun and for a 130 mm gun.

An interesting feature of the turret was the movement of the armored dome using a torsion-wedge device when a projectile hit the turret.

The turning mechanism of the tower had an electric drive with an amplitude control circuit.

Table 45. Installation data BL-117

Table 46. Ballistic data of BL-117

In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the design of tower installations for fortified areas continued. The projects of plant No. 172 are known: 100-mm M-67 guns and 122-mm M-66 guns for turret installations.

The work of OKB-172 was noted in a top secret report to Stalin dedicated to the 10th anniversary of the OKB. This report deserves to be quoted almost in full.

“It has been 10 years since the founding and organization of a SPECIAL DESIGN BUREAU in the system of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR and the Ministry of Defense of the USSR for the design of artillery systems using prisoner specialists.

During its activity, the SPECIAL DESIGN BUREAU of the 4th special department of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs (OKB-172) completed the most important government tasks for the design of artillery weapons, developing 23 major projects and completing over 60 research projects.

OKB-172 developed designs for the following artillery systems: 45-mm anti-tank gun model 1942 (M-42), 76-mm regimental gun (OB-25), 130-mm two-gun turret artillery mount (BL-2LM), 130- mm two-gun turret artillery mount for monitors (B-2-LMT), 152 mm naval mount (MU-2), 100 mm turret for strengthening areas (BUR-10).

These systems were adopted and used during the Patriotic War, showing excellent results.

Currently, Special Design Bureau No. 172 is successfully working on the design of new powerful artillery installations for the Navy, fortified areas and Ground Forces Soviet Army: in 1948, tests were completed at the test site of the new 180-mm single-gun coastal turret artillery mount (MU-1) and successfully continues to work on projects: 130-mm two-gun universal ship turret mounts (BL-109 and BL-110), 152-mm three-gun universal turret mount (BL-118), 130-mm armored turret mount for strengthening areas (BL-117), etc.

Considering the extensive and fruitful work carried out by Special Design Bureau No. 172 during its activities, we ask for your consent to submit:

1. To award OKB-172 with the Order of the Red Banner of Labor.

2. The most distinguished operational officers of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs and civilian employees of OKB-172 will be awarded with orders and medals of the Soviet Union in the amount of 30 people.

3. Particularly distinguished specialists who work after serving their sentence in OKB-172 on a free-hire basis will be eligible for expungement of a CRIMINAL RECORD in the amount of 10 people.

(MINISTER OF ARMAMENTS OF THE USSR) ((Ustinov)) (MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR OF THE USSR) ((Kruglov)) (COMMANDER OF ARTILLERY OF THE GROUND FORCES CHIEF MARSHAL OF ARTILLERY) ((Voronov)) (COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE NAVAL FORCES ADMIRAL) ((Yuma shev)) (CHIEF OF ENGINEERING FORCES ST. MARSHAL OF ENGINEERING FORCES) ((Vorobiev)")

Liquidation of OKB-172

On March 5, 1953, Stalin died. In April 1953, the Soviet government decided to disband OKB-172. This resolution itself and the accompanying documents are still top secret, but based on indirect evidence it can be assumed that the initiator of the disbandment of the OKB was L.P. Beria.

As V.K. Akulov recalled: “In early May, several “funnels” entered the OKB territory, and they began to load us into them for transportation to other camps.” Indeed, some of the prisoners were transported to the camp zone of Metallostroy (Lagpunkt of the Leningrad UITLC, now an institution US20/5), where they were used in the design bureau, which worked on civilian orders (based on the Giproniinerud Institute). Some of the prisoners were released in April-May 1953.

The released prisoners, along with civilian employees, were transferred to OKB-43 of the Ministry of Defense Industry. I will tell you about this design bureau in the next chapter.

List of OKB-172 works from 1938 to 1947

I. Ship and coastal guns

1938–1940

B-31- 130 mm two-gun turret for leaders. Work was stopped in August 1940 at the technical design stage.

B-2-U- 130 mm two-gun turret for leaders. See text.

PS-305- Range machine for shooting the 305-mm B-50 cannon. In 1940, production of the machine began.

MU-2- 152 mm gun. See text.

1941

MK-15- Three-gun 305-mm turret for heavy cruisers of the Kronstadt type. The working draft is not completed (Fig. 8.6).

Rice. 8.6. 305-mm turret installation MK-15 for cruisers pr. 69.

MB-20- Three-gun 305-mm turret installation (based on MK-15) for coastal installations. The working draft is not completed.

BPU-14- Single-gun 356 mm coastal turret installation. A sketch diagram has been completed.

MU-2- Installation on a railway conveyor. A battery of such guns fought at Stalingrad.

1942

VM-42- 45/68-mm/klb universal semi-automatic deck installation weighing 720 kg.

OB-21- Two-gun 152 mm turret installation for monitors. A preliminary design has been developed.

OB-23- 152 mm deck installation for mobilized merchant fleet vessels.

1943

B-2-LMT

B-2-U-TL- 130 mm installation. See text.

1944

U-2–130- Two-gun 130 mm universal turret installation.

BL-104- 85-mm universal gun for submarines based on the 85-mm anti-aircraft gun mod. 1944 Sketch diagram completed.

BL-105- 130 mm single-gun installation. The preliminary design has been completed.

1945

BL-101- Two-gun 130 mm stabilized turret installation. The technical design has been completed.

BL-102- 130-mm single-gun installation with cartridge loading. The preliminary design has been completed.

MU-1- 180 mm installation. See text.

BL-111- Single-gun 130 mm universal installation. The preliminary design has been completed.

BL-114- Single-gun 122-mm turret installation for river monitors. A preliminary design has been released.

1946

BL-109

BL-110- Two-gun 130 mm universal turret installation. See text.

BL-112- Two-gun 152-mm turret installation for river monitors. See text.

BL-113- Single-gun 152-mm turret installation for river monitors. See text.

BL-115

BL-118- 152 mm installation. See text.

1947

MU-1-B- MU-1 in a turret installation. See text.

BL-200- Remote control system for guidance mechanisms of 130 mm gun mounts BL-109 and BL-110. Experimental samples have been manufactured.

II. Artillery of fortified areas

1940

BUR-10- Single-gun 76 mm installation. See text.

BUR-20

BUR-30- 45 mm installation. See text.

1941

BMB-1- Armor turret for a 120mm mortar. (Work of the Tomsk group.)

1943

BUR-YUS- Turret 85 mm installation. See text.

1946

BL-106

1947

BL-107- 100 mm installation. See text.

BL-116- Hiding turret installation for two Maxim machine guns and a pneumatic grenade launcher. Armor thickness - 40–90 mm. The lifting height of the tower is 500 mm. Installation weight - 9.5 tons. Calculation - 2 people.

BL-117 - 100mm and 130mm installations. See text.

III. Ground Forces Artillery

1939

BL-39- 203 mm howitzer. See text.

BL-40- 85 mm automatic anti-aircraft gun. The preliminary design has been completed.

CEA- Shells with a pallet for extra-long range shooting for CEA barrels. Research has been carried out and prototypes have been created.

1940

BL-140- Twin 100-mm stationary anti-aircraft gun, designed for coastal defense and air defense of the country. The installation mechanisms had electric drives. Ammunition and ballistics from the 100mm 73K anti-aircraft gun. Production of the BL-140 prototype began at the Kirov plant in Leningrad, but was discontinued in July 1941.

1941 Works of the Tomsk group

BK-76

BK-45- Sub-caliber armor-piercing projectile. Work has been carried out since the end of 1941.

B-38-T- 152-mm B-38 naval gun on a railway transporter. The preliminary design has been completed.

B-24- 100-mm B-24 naval gun on a field carriage. The preliminary design has been completed.

MU-2/B-4- Installation of a ship's 152 mm MU-2 cannon on a tracked carriage from a 203 mm B-4 howitzer. The preliminary design has been completed.

MU-2/P- Installation of a ship's 152-mm MU-2 cannon on a portable base. The preliminary design has been completed.

B-38/B-4- 152-mm B-38 naval gun on a B-4 howitzer carriage. The preliminary design has been completed.

RS-450- 450 mm rocket projectile. The preliminary design has been completed.

OM-450- 450 mm mortar with recoil devices. The preliminary design has been completed.

M-400- 400 mm mortar. The preliminary design has been completed.

BM-450- Recoilless 450 mm mortar. The preliminary design has been completed.

1942 OKB-172 works in Perm

M-42- 45 mm anti-tank gun mod. 1942 See text.

B-42

OB-22- 450 mm mortar. (In some documents it was called OB-20.) Barrel length - 11 klb. System weight - 14.5 tons. Rate of fire - 1 rounds/min. The mine weighing 750 kg had an initial speed of 257 m and a range of 6 km. The technical design has been completed.

PM-1 And PM-2- Placing the barrel of a 122-mm mortar on the carriage of a regimental gun mod. 1927 Prototypes produced.

1943

VT-43- 45 mm tank gun. See text.

OB-25- 76-mm regimental gun mod. 1943 See text.

OB-24- 76 mm infantry gun. The preliminary design has been completed.

OB-45- 45/30 mm anti-tank gun with a conical barrel (modeled on German guns). The preliminary design has been completed.

OB-46- 57 mm anti-tank gun. Barrel length 106 klb (!). Angle BH?5°; +25°, GN 54°. Weight in combat position 1170 kg. An armor-piercing projectile weighing 3.14 kg had an initial speed of 1175 m/s, and a sub-caliber projectile weighing 1.76 kg had an initial speed of 1490 m/s and armor penetration of 200 mm normal. The technical design has been completed.

MT- 450-mm heavy-duty mortar on a railway transporter. A sketch diagram has been completed.

PM-3- Placing the barrel of a 122 mm mortar on the carriage of a 76 mm regimental gun. The technical design has been completed.

OB-30- 122 mm light hull gun. A sketch diagram has been completed.

SU-2–122- Twin 122 mm self-propelled howitzer. A sketch diagram has been completed.

SU-2–76- Twin 76 mm self-propelled gun. A sketch diagram has been completed.

BK-203- 203-mm concrete-piercing cumulative projectile. Detailed design completed.

ZIS-Z-V- Modernization of the 76-mm ZIS-3 divisional gun. A prototype has been manufactured.

OB-29- 240 mm heavy mortar. Mine weight - 125 kg. Firing range - from 250 to 7000 m. Weight in firing position - 3.5 tons. A preliminary design has been completed.

1944

BL-7- 152 mm gun. See text.

BL-8- 152 mm gun. See text.

BL-9- 122 mm gun. See text.

BL-10- 152 mm gun. See text.

BL-11- 76-mm heavy gun mod. 1943 with wedge shutter. A prototype has been completed.

BL-12- 152-mm self-propelled gun ML-2 °SM.

BL-14- 76 mm anti-tank gun. See text.

BL-17- 120 mm assault mortar. The preliminary design has been completed.

BL-18- 50-mm semi-automatic assault mortar. The preliminary design has been completed.

BL-19- 85 mm anti-tank gun. See text.

BL-20- 122 mm self-propelled gun. See text.

OB-40- Experimental 122 mm barrel with a conical nozzle. A prototype has been completed.

M-42-P- Simplified semi-automatic system for the 45-mm anti-tank gun mod. 1942 Launched into full production.

1945

BL-25- 85 mm divisional gun. See text.

BL-26- 45/30 mm experimental conical barrel and shells for it. A prototype has been completed.

BL-28- Experimental installation of automatic barrel fastening. Detailed design completed.

1946

BL-15- 76-mm aircraft automatic cannon. The technical design has been completed.

BL-24- 203 mm mortar. See text.

BL-29- Barrel with cast breech and wedge breech for the 152 mm ML-20 howitzer gun. A prototype has been manufactured.

BL-33- 50 mm smooth barrel for anti-aircraft installations. A prototype was manufactured at plant No. 92. Barrel length - 150 calibers (!!!). Projectile weight - 2.2 kg, initial speed - 1700–1920 m. Working pressure in the barrel bore - 5200 kg/cm2.

BL-123- 23-mm automatic aircraft cannon with a rate of fire of 700–800 rounds/min. Projectile weight - 200 g, initial speed - 910–920 m/s. Gun weight - 31 kg. In 1946, a working draft was completed. The further fate of the gun is unknown.

Notes:

Cm. Khalikov A. Kh. Mongols, Tatars, Golden Horde and Bulgaria. - Kazan: Feng, 1994.

Miftakhov 3.3. A course of lectures on the history of the Tatar people (1225–1552). - P. 261.

OGPU - United State Political Directorate, since 1934 included in the NKVD (People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs) and renamed the Main Directorate of State Security.

VSNKh - Supreme Council of the National Economy.

Stetsovsky Yu. History of Soviet repressions. - M.: 1997. T. 2. P. 166–167.

Korzhakov A.V. Yeltsin: from dawn to dusk. - M.: Interbook, 1997.

By January 1, 1917, all these guns were part of the air defense system... of Tsarskoe Selo, where German airplanes were physically unable to reach.

Formally, the divisions also had 76-mm weapons in their arsenal. anti-aircraft guns arr. 1931 (from Rheinmetall), but most divisions did not have them, and besides, they could not fight low-flying aircraft.

IN early XVIII century, Russia becomes one of the first maritime powers. The fleet grew into a powerful unit, and the transformations carried out by Peter I in the army and navy aroused the admiration of foreigners. When creating the fleet, Peter paid a lot of attention to naval artillery, which initially consisted of cast iron and copper cannons of no more than 24-pound caliber and copper 3-pound mortars for bombardment ships. Each cannon was equipped with 500 cores.
In Peter and post-Petrine times, the number of guns on the ships of the Russian fleet was very different: the ships of the Baltic Fleet were two- and three-decker with the number of guns from 74 to 110, on frigates, corvettes, brigs and schooners from 3 to 70. The number of guns on board varied: from 17 - for large ships and up to 6 - for brigs and schooners. Large ships had three closed batteries: the lower one was the gondeck, the middle one was the middeck, and the third was the front deck. On two-deck ships there were two batteries: a gondeck and an operadeck. The frigates had one closed battery deck - the operdeck. All ships had open batteries on the upper deck. Bombardier ships had up to 30 large-caliber guns on a closed deck (operdeck), including mortars. Galleys and smaller scampaways, which moved mainly under oars, had one large-caliber cannon on the bow and up to 8 small ones on the sides. Peter I introduces a definition of the caliber of guns by the artillery weight of the corresponding cannonball: the artillery pound is taken as a unit of weight - the weight of a cast-iron cannonball with a radius equal to one inch: for example, a 12-pound cannon - 4.8 inches, or 11.8 cm, a 36-pound cannon - 6.8 inches or 17.2 cm.
The 110-gun ships were armed as follows: the heaviest 30-pounder guns were placed on the gondeck, 18-pounder guns in the middeck, 12-pounder guns on the front deck, and 6-pounder guns on the open deck.
Naval artillery changes and improves over short periods of time. Perhaps the change in ship architecture did not proceed as quickly as the development of artillery. All these changes in the armament of Russian military ships were determined by Admiralty regulations. Even before the regulations were approved in 1761, unicorns, or long howitzers, proposed by Shuvalov, who was then at the head of the Russian artillery, were adopted into service with the Russian fleet. The new guns got their name from the Shuvalov coat of arms embossed on them with the image of a mythical unicorn. The unicorn was a shortened cannon or a long howitzer from which it was possible to fire explosive bombs and grenades, which could not be done when firing from long cannons, since the hollow body of the bombs and grenades could not withstand the pressure of the powder gases in the long barrel of the cannon and split before fly out of the trunk.
The desire to have large-caliber guns on ships for close combat and light enough to be installed on the upper decks led to the invention of carronades, named after a factory in Scotland.
The carronades had a short barrel without trunnions, and below the barrel there was an eye through which a roller was passed, replacing the trunnions.
Carronades were cast from cast iron and had a small powder charge compared to a large caliber. In 1787, carronades were introduced on ships of the Russian fleet and differ in the weight of the kernels.
1805 brings new changes in ship artillery; a “regulation” was issued that determined the type and caliber of guns for different types of ships: 36-pound guns and 24-pound carronades were prescribed for ships, 24-pound guns for frigates. Brigs and luggers were armed only with carronades, bombardment ships were supposed to have 5-pound mortars and 3-pound howitzers. In addition, the mentioned unicorns were preserved on military ships.
In 1833, after experimental firing in Kronstadt, new weapons were installed on the ships of the Russian fleet - bomb cannons, which had great destructive power and a firing range of 2.5 km at an elevation angle of 15°. As already mentioned, bombs were used only for firing from mortars, howitzers and unicorns. The bomb gun was a short, large caliber cannon with a weighted breech. At first it was cast from bronze, and then from cast iron.
At the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th centuries, sailing battleships were divided into four ranks, frigates into three, corvettes into two and brigs into two ranks. Battleships of the 1st and 2nd ranks were armed with 100-135 guns, ships of the 3rd and 4th ranks - with 80-90 guns. Frigates had from 40 to 60 guns, corvettes - from 24 to 30, brigs - one open battery on the deck with 18-20 guns and were used in fleets for messenger and reconnaissance service. In 1856, a new type of warship was introduced in Russia - a clipper, distinguished by sharp hull lines, large windage and engine. Their artillery armament consisted of 6 guns: four 24-pound (15 cm) carronades and two 60-pound (19.6 cm) guns.
A revolution in weapons and architecture occurs with the use of steam engines, propellers as propulsion devices, and rifled guns firing elongated and heavier projectiles than cannonballs.
The idea of ​​protecting ships with armor has excited sailors and inventors for a long time. Thus, during the siege of Gibraltar in 1782, the Spaniards, together with the French, used armored roofs made of leather and iron bars on their floating batteries. In the period from 1812 to 1829, several projects of armored ships were proposed, and in 1861 Russia ordered for itself from England the armored battery "Pervenets", protected by 4.5 inches (114 mm) of iron armor and armed with 22 smoothbore 60-pounders ( 19.6 cm) guns. Since then, armor began to be widely used in military shipbuilding.
In the 19th century, smoothbore artillery, which existed for about five centuries, reached its highest development. Guns and shells are manufactured with great precision. Tactical and technical requirements are being increased, the most advanced design forms are being selected, and the greatest strength of guns is being achieved. All unnecessary decorations are canceled.
Different calibers of guns are rounded up. The production of carronades and unicorns ceases, and they are gradually withdrawn from service.
After all the improvements, in the early 50s of the 19th century, the Russian fleet had 15 thousand guns, half of which were cast back in the 18th century. The armament was very diverse and differed in different types and calibers of guns. The following types of guns were used on ships: falconets, carronades, and cannons, which were intended for flat shooting with cannonballs and buckshot. Cannons and carronades could fire explosive grenades and bombs. Bomb guns and unicorns (long howitzers) were also intended for flat firing of explosive bombs and grenades. In addition to explosive shells, they could fire buckshot and cannonballs. The unicorns could be fired from above at a low elevation angle. Mortars were intended for mounted firing of bombs and cannonballs and were mainly installed on bombardment ships and coastal forts. All of the listed tools were bronze and cast iron, differing in weight, channel length and installation location.
In the mid-19th century, the most common calibers for ship guns ranged from 3-pounder (76 mm) to 60-pounder (19.6 cm).
The guns differed in appearance depending on which factory and at what time they were cast. Guns of an earlier period had decorations in the form of friezes and belts decorated with intricate casting. Cannons made later did not have these decorations. In 1863, Russia made the last attempt to achieve strong armament with 15-inch smooth-bore cast iron guns for arming monitors. These guns were soon replaced by more powerful steel rifled 9-inch caliber ones. The appearance of armor, which began to cover the sides of ships, forced artillerymen to strive to increase the destructive power of the projectile. Rifled guns appeared that fired not spherical, but oblong cylindrical projectiles and loaded not from the muzzle, but from the breech. The force of gas pressure increased, the initial speed of the projectile increased, and, consequently, the impact force increased. Helical grooves were cut into the cannon barrel, and a leading belt was put on the projectile. When fired, the belt, together with the projectile, rotated along the rifling of the barrel, thanks to this and its elongated shape, the projectile was lighter than the cannonball, overcame air resistance, was stable in flight, had a greater range and accuracy of hitting the target. The invention, owned by the outstanding Russian engineer I. A. Vyshnegradsky, of a method for producing prismatic gunpowder instead of black smoky gunpowder greatly increased the range of guns.
Russian scientists, engineers and artillerymen play a leading role in the improvement and development of domestic artillery. The works of D. I. Mendeleev, N. V. Mayevsky, A. P. Gorlov and N. A. Zabudsky served as the basis for the development of rifled artillery, and many of their works are still relevant today.

Production and combat service

3*

Projectile	Charge	Initial speed, m/s	Firing range, m
			at +20°	at +30°
Armor-piercing	62.2 kg B 10	777	17072	20486
High Explosive	62.2 kg B10	777	16644	19419
Segmental	39.7 kg B11	610	5760 by handset

Notes:

10" (254 mm) coastal guns of 45 klb.

Adoption history and installation device

In the mid-90s, the GAU decided to introduce 10"/45 coastal guns, which, together with 6"/45 Kane guns, were supposed to provide the country's coastal defense. The choice of the maximum caliber of 10" for coastal artillery was influenced by several factors. Firstly, 10" guns were accepted in the navy and already in 1892 the OSZ received the first order for 8 guns. Secondly, at the time described, the artillery committee was like hell afraid of any innovations in artillery and considered that 10 "caliber was the limit, where the supply of ammunition and aiming of guns could be carried out by the muscular power of servants. By the way, we note that by 1895 in various fleets already There were large-caliber gun mounts with electric guidance and feed drives, and similar hydraulic drives were in service with naval gun mounts for more than twenty years both in Russia and abroad.

In the mid-90s, foreign fleets experienced a continuous increase in the tonnage of battleships, the caliber and length of guns, the thickness of armor, and the systems for ensuring the unsinkability of battleships were improved. And already in 1895 it was clear that the adoption of the 10"/45 gun was 7-10 years late, and that in 5 years it would be hopelessly outdated. Nevertheless, the technical illiteracy of the generals took precedence over the interests of the country's defense.

Looking ahead, let's say that if the 6"/45 Kane guns of the Naval and Land departments had at least some uniformity, then the GAU generals from the very beginning decided to make a fundamentally different gun and carriage than in the fleet. And again it came down to the conservatism of the generals . The naval department was making a modern cannon with a recoil along the axis of the bore, a hydraulic compressor and a hydropneumatic knurl. Well, the hydraulic compressor had been used in land artillery for 10 years, and the generals reluctantly agreed. But what is a hydropneumatic knurl, no one among the bearded generals knew. Therefore, it was decided to make a carriage modeled on the carriages of the 70s, where the machine rolled back along an inclined rotary frame, and then rolled under the influence of gravity. Accordingly, the gun had to be made with trunnions. This was the last domestic coastal artillery system with a rolling machine. So Thus, the interchangeability of the barrel and carriage with naval artillery systems was completely disrupted, and only partial interchangeability of ammunition remained. Therefore, unlike Cane's guns, 10"/45 naval guns were never installed on coastal batteries.

For the first time, the issue of 10 "/45 coastal guns was raised in 1891, when the Manager of the Naval Ministry addressed a letter to the Minister of War about the introduction into service of a single naval coastal gun. The design of the gun took a long time to design and settle between both ministries. By mutual agreement, the body of the guns should was to be the same with the exception of the trunnion ring. Moreover, both departments wanted a cheaper and lighter gun. This logic is difficult to understand. Both on a battleship and on a coastal battery, an increase in the weight of the gun body, say, by 10%, does not play a special role. Similarly, an increase in cost guns by 10-15% are also a drop in the bucket compared to the total cost of a coastal battery, and especially an armadillo. It is clear that for lightness and cheapness you have to pay for the strength of the barrel. As a result, the first naval guns could not withstand the calculated ballistics and almost every battleship had a cannon that differed in design from others.

The military department was playing for time with the order of 10"/45 coastal guns and avoided these troubles. The first order for 5 coastal 10"/45 guns was given to the OSZ only on October 28, 1896, and the first gun was to be delivered in 12 months. The price of one gun was 55,100 rubles.

However, due to damage to the 10"/45 naval guns during testing at a naval test site in March (September 1897), work on coastal guns was suspended by order of the GAU. New working drawings for the reinforced body of the coastal gun were received by the OSZ only on March 16, 1893, after whereupon work was resumed. As a result, the first 10"/45 guns were delivered to the USZ in May 1899.

The gun had trunnions. The piston bolt had a shutter with a mushroom-shaped rod. Rate of fire – up to 1 rounds/min.

The machine for the 10"/45 coastal gun was designed by the famous carriage designer General R.A. Durlyakher. The carriage turned out to be solid and it is not the fault of the creator for the outdated system of the machine, which was predetermined by the GAU.

The lifting mechanism had two toothed arcs. Initially, the BH angle was -5°; +15°, which, by the way, was determined not by constructive necessity, but by the instructions of the generals from the GAU, in order to stop any attempts to fire at long distances. In the Most Submissive Report on the Military Department for 1895 there was a catchphrase: “since it does not seem necessary to shoot from a 10” gun further than 10 versts (10.5 km).” The rotating chain mechanism allowed all-round firing.

The compressor is hydraulic. The compressor cylinder is connected to the rotating frame, and the piston rod is connected to the machine.

The 10"/45 gun was mounted on a concrete (standard) base, and, if particularly necessary in wartime, on a wooden base.

Concrete base: Large stones were placed under the base and compacted with crushed stone and sand, then the lower installation circle was installed with the installation bolts threaded through and the entire space between them was filled with concrete, along with the entire base.

The wooden base was built from pine logs in several rows, through which bolts were passed and installation circles were laid. The installation time for the implement on pre-prepared bases is 4-7 days.

Production and combat service

Officially, the 10"/45 guns were put into service by the Highest Order of August 7, 1895, on the same day as the 6"/45 Kane coastal gun.

The gross production of 10"/45 coastal guns was carried out only by the Obukhov plant. Already by August 25, 1901, one 10"/45 gun was tested at the GAP, one was fitted to the carriage at the Putilov plant, and two more were loaded onto the steamer "Korea", en route to the Port -Arthur.

By the beginning of the war in Port Arthur, five 10"/45 guns were installed on the Electric Cliff battery out of 10, allotted by the state. The elevation angle of the Electric Cliff guns did not exceed +14°. In total, there were 295 steel guns in addition to 5 armor-piercing shells and 495 shells made of ordinary cast iron. There were no high-explosive steel shells at all. Another 4 10"/45 guns for Port Arthur were loaded onto the steamer "Korea", but due to the outbreak of war, it never left Revel, and the guns were unloaded and sent by rail to Vladivostok.

In total, the OSZ produced 89 10"/45 guns in 1895-1909 (of which 67 in 1899-1906). By August 10, 1908, coastal fortresses were supposed to have 84 10"/45 guns, but in fact there were 80.

Carriages of the Durlyakher system have been mass-produced since 1899 at the Putilovsky plant, and since 1904 at the Bryansk plant. Both plants produced carriages according to the same drawings, but only the first carriages of the Putilov plant had an angle of +15°, and all subsequent ones had an angle of +20°.

In 1905, the Artillery Committee, under the leadership of Durlyakher, drew up a project for remaking the 10 "/45 gun machine with an increase in the angle of the gun from + 20 ° to + 30 °. Thus, the firing range increased from 14 to 17 versts. The modification of the carriage was carried out at St. St. Petersburg Metal Plant, and in 1907 the modernized carriage was tested at the GAP. During the tests, it became clear that it was necessary to change the design of the rotating frame and crane. And in order to compile firing tables, it was necessary to increase the size of the range itself. As a result, the tests were completed only on September 22, 1909.

On August 16, 1910, a contract was signed with the Putilov plant for the production of 10 new carriages and the conversion of 10 old ones to an elevation angle of +30°. Interestingly, the cost of making a new carriage was 4,775 rubles, and remaking the old one was 4,275 rubles, that is, it was more profitable to make new carriages.

To celebrate, AK, instead of making new artillery systems, ordered new carriages to be slapped onto the long-outdated ten-inch gun. On February 26, 1912, the OSZ received an order for 45 carriages with a HV angle of +30°, and exactly five months later - for another 31 carriages. Total 76. One can only quote State Duma member Guchkov, “that it is stupidity or treason” to load the only plant in Russia capable of producing heavy naval guns with a caliber of up to 406 mm inclusive with such scrap metal. It is clear that the plant, overloaded with orders, was able to make the first 4 carriages from an order for 45 carriages only in October 1914, that is, after the start of the war.

To the credit of the OSZ, it coped with orders in wartime conditions; by February 1, 1915, all 45 carriages of the first order were delivered, 7 of them in January. And by July 1, 1915, 15 carriages out of an order for 31 carriages were delivered.

Attempts were made to automate the operation of the machine. So, in October 1913, the AK presented a project for converting a 10" carriage "for accelerated firing", which was supposed to increase the rate of fire from 60-90 seconds per shot to 40 seconds.

3* – General Durlyakher was a Baltic German by nationality. At the beginning of the 1st World War, with the Highest permission, he changed his surname to Durlyakhov, which gave rise to numerous jokes like “Durlyakher lost his ... dick.” In the book "The Sea Fortress of Peter the Great" Amirkhanov claims that Durlyakher changed the Jewish faith to the Orthodox. Let us leave this statement to the conscience of the expert on Orthodoxy, Mr. Amirkhaiov.

Installing a 10" implement on a concrete base

The Putilov plant produced everything necessary equipment, which was then mounted on the right-flank 10"/45 carriage of the Alexander Battery in Kronstadt.

An electric motor with a power of 10 hp was installed inside the rotating frame. voltage 110 V and 800-1000 rpm. With the help of this electric motor, the gun was aimed, the shell with the projectile was raised, and the chain hammer was used. The electric motor was connected to the guidance drives via Jenny couplings (one for the HV and one for the GN).

The modernized carriage was tested in April 1915. The test results were considered satisfactory by the commission.

Based on the model of the tested carriage, the GAU decided to remake another 35. Of these, 12 were in Sveaborg and 23 in Kronstadt, and first of all, of course, the three remaining unconverted carriages at the Alexander Battery. However, the GAU's submission about this order took many months to navigate through bureaucratic authorities. In the end, on January 18, 1916, the GAU entered into a contract with the Putilov plant for the conversion of only three machines (for the Alexander Battery) with a delivery date of August 12, 1916. However, by the end of the year, the delivery date was postponed to April 1917 and, apparently, the modernized machines were never put into operation. In Soviet times, 10"/45 gun machines were not modernized.

At the beginning of the 1920s, 10"/45 guns were considered obsolete and were mostly dismantled. On March 1, 1923, the BO had 15 on staff and actually consisted of 15 10"/45 guns. Their supply of ammunition was 35%. Of these, 9 guns were in Kronstadt and 6 in Sevastopol.

By June 22, 1941, only 7 10"/45 guns remained in service. They were part of the 12th and 13th separate artillery divisions (OAD) in Kronstadt. Their ammunition load was 721 high-explosive and 1457 armor-piercing shells. New shells in the years no wars were carried out.In total, 1098 shells were used during the war.

Ammunition and ballistic data 10" /45 guns

The ammunition load of the 10"/45 gun included "old model" (i.e. 1899-1904) and model 1907 shells. All shells had the same weight of 225.2 kg.

The “old model” steel armor-piercing projectile had a length of 3 klb, an explosive of 2 kg of smokeless gunpowder, a bottom tube model 1896, and then 10DT.

Armor-piercing projectile mod. 1907, 3.07 klb long, equipped with 3.89 kg of TNT and an 11 DM bottom fuse.

A cast-iron high-explosive projectile with a length of 3.6 klb was loaded with 9.6 kg of a mixture of gunpowder with coarse-grained powder and a head tube arr. 1884 When fired with a full charge, cast iron shells exploded in the bore or when leaving the muzzle. Therefore, they were fired only with reduced charges. After 1904, such shells were not produced.

An “old-style” high-explosive steel shell with a length of 3.2 klb contained 8.7 kg of pyroxylin, an 11DM fuse or mod. 1913

High-explosive steel projectile mod. 1907, 4.0 klb long, was equipped with 28.3 kg of TNT and fuses 11DM, 11 DT and model 1913.

In addition, in 1898, a segmented projectile with 212 segments was adopted. Projectile length 2.7 klb, explosive 1.1 kg of black gunpowder. Tube 16-second arr. 1888

10"/45 guns could fire naval department shells from 10"/45 naval guns, which was practiced in Port Arthur.

Test results of the modernized carriage

Projectile	Charge	Initial speed, m/s	Firing range, m
			at +20°	at +30°
Armor-piercing	62.2 kg B 10	777	17072	20486
High Explosive	62.2 kg B10	777	16644	19419
Segmental	39.7 kg B11	610	5760 by handset

Kronstadt-class heavy cruisers

The refusal in February 1938 to create battleship “B” in favor of one “battleship of the most powerful type” did not mean a rejection of the idea of ​​​​creating, in addition to battleship “A,” a large ship of the second type - “a fighter of enemy heavy cruisers.” The above-mentioned KO decree of August 13/15, 1937, recognized the need to “build two types of cruisers: a heavy one with 254 mm artillery and a light one. A heavy cruiser must have powerful tactical and technical elements: a) armament: 9-254 mm guns in three-gun turrets with ammunition of 150 rounds per barrel, 8-130 mm guns in two-gun turrets, 8-100 mm anti-aircraft guns, 16 -37-mm anti-aircraft guns and two triple (three-tube) torpedo tubes; b) the cruiser must accept two aircraft on catapults; c) the armor protection of the cruiser must ensure the impenetrability of vertical armor by 203-mm caliber shells at heading angles of 40–50° and 130–140° from a distance of more than 60 cables and the deck with the same projectile closer to 150 kbt at all heading angles and from a 250-kg aerial bomb from a height of 4000 m; d) the navigation area (range) of a heavy cruiser without overload (with a full supply of fuel) at full speed should be 600 miles, at cruising speed - 3000 miles, with receiving fuel in overload (with a maximum fuel reserve) the navigation area at economic speed should be up to 8000 miles. Cruising speed of at least 34 knots with a normal fuel supply; e) the standard displacement of such a cruiser should not exceed 22,000-23,000 tons. The silhouette is the same as a “B” type battleship.

In September 1937, in development of the KO resolution of August 13/15, a commission chaired by the joint venture. Stavitsky developed a TTZ project for a heavy cruiser with a main gun battery of nine 254 mm guns, armor protecting against 203 mm shells and a speed of 34 knots. SP. Stavitsky insisted on limiting the ship’s displacement (no more than 18,000-19,000 tons) “so that this ship does not move from the category of the strongest cruisers into the category of the weakest battleships (as happened with battleship “B”).”

On November 1, 1937, the People's Commissariat of Defense Industry was issued new “Tactical and Technical Requirements (TTT) for the heavy cruiser of Project 69,” approved by Namorsi M.V. Viktorov.

Chief designer of the Project 69 heavy cruiser F.E. Bespolov

The main purpose of the CRT was determined: in squadron combat - to fight enemy cruisers (especially heavy ones) to support the actions of friendly light forces, to support the active actions of light forces in remote areas; independent actions on enemy communications.

The development of the preliminary design 69 was carried out by TsKB-17 (formerly TsKBS-1) under the general supervision of the chief engineer of the bureau V.A. Nikitin, the responsible executor of these works was F.E. Asexual.

At the beginning of the design of the ship, the Military Council of the Navy agreed with the proposal of the People's Commissariat of Defense Industry to exclude torpedo weapons from the cruiser's armament. The implementation of the TTT to protect the ship required armoring the side of 140 mm, decks: middle - 80 mm, bottom - 20 mm. The standard displacement was determined to be about 24,800 tons, the speed was 33.3 knots, the greatest length and width were 232 and 26.6 m, and the draft at full displacement was 8.4 m.

In connection with the completion of the construction in Germany of two battleships of the Scharnhorst type (with a 280-mm main gun and a speed of about 30 knots), and in France of similar ships of the Dunkirk type (with a 330-mm main gun), the Deputy People's Commissar of the Navy, flagship of the 1st rank I.S. Isakov reported to KO about the need to revise the main elements of the TTZ for Project 69, established in August 1937. As a result, this cruiser was tasked with new task- the fight against ships of the Scharnhorst type and on June 29, 1938, the CO decided to change the TTZ, which determined its armament with 305-mm main battery artillery, increasing the side armor to 250 mm, displacement to 30,000-31,000 tons at a speed of 31 to 32 knots The Navy NK was instructed to issue the NKOP with the necessary additions to the main specifications for the heavy cruiser within ten days.

In accordance with this decision, I.S. On July 10 of the same year, Isakov approved the revised “Basic Technical Specifications for the Design of the RKKF Heavy Cruiser” prepared by the General Staff and the Management Committee of the RKKF, which imposed the following requirements on it:

a) inflict decisive damage on enemy ships at combat distances of 70-120 kbt, having the following main elements: artillery: IX - 280 mm guns with a projectile weight of 304 kg, with an initial speed of approximately 950 m/s, XII - 150 mm guns; armor: sides 254 mm, decks PO mm-40 mm (pickup), speed: 32 knots.

b) repel attacks by aircraft attacking from two directions: two groups of bombers and two groups of attack aircraft.

Based on the requirements, a heavy cruiser must have:

I. Armament:

1. Artillery: IX - 305 mm guns (in turrets) with a projectile weight of 450 kg with an initial speed of 900 m/s and a rate of fire of 3.5 rounds/min; VIII - 130 mm guns (in turrets); VIII - 100 mm guns (in turrets); XXIV - 37-mm machine gun (in armored slots with closed ammunition supply).

2. Ammunition: 305 mm caliber - 100 rounds per barrel, 130 mm caliber - 150 rounds per barrel; 100 mm caliber - 300 shots per barrel, 37 mm caliber - 800 shots per barrel.

II. Equipment (aircraft weapons - Author): 2 seaplanes (for reconnaissance and artillery fire adjustment) on a catapult.

III. Protection:

1. Armour: providing combat with the enemy at heading angles of 40-500 at a distance of 70-120 kbt and protection from 250 kg aerial bombs from a drop height of 4000 m. The following approximate thicknesses, subject to clarification by calculation: side 230 mm [medium (main armor) ] deck - 96 mm, pick-up deck (lower - Auto.) - 30 mm. traverses - 270 mm. barbettes (main caliber turrets) - 330 mm, main control tower (conning tower - Author): wall - 270 mm, turrets of 305 mm guns: (frontal wall) - 305 mm.

2. Mine protection - the maximum permissible for a given hull design and the selected mechanisms of the main power plant. The protection system is “American”.

VI. Travel speed. The main requirement for a heavy cruiser is a guaranteed speed of 32 knots with normal (on test) displacement and normal (nominal - Author) power of the mechanisms.

V. Cruising range. At full speed with displacement on test - 650 miles. Cruising speed (approx. 20 knots), with a full fuel supply - 5000 miles. Economical range with full fuel reserve is 8000 miles.

VI. Displacement. According to the calculation, measures must be worked out to ensure that the displacement reaches the government target.”

The preliminary design 69 developed by TsKB-17 based on these TTZs was submitted for consideration to the NKVMF and NKOP in October 1938. The standard displacement of the ship was 32,870 tons. According to the conclusion of the Criminal Code of the RKKF, the project had a number of significant shortcomings and was subject to adjustment before approval. Bringing the armor elements, PKZ and unsinkability elements into compliance with the requirements of technical specifications increased the displacement by approximately 1500 tons; ensuring the specified speed required increasing the steam output of the boilers. The cruising range, determined by placing part of the largest fuel reserve in the Boolean parts of the hull (PKZ air chambers), was subject to clarification.

To evaluate the preliminary design and make a decision on the further design of the cruiser, the new People's Commissar of the Navy, 1st Rank Commander M.P. Frinovsky (previously - Deputy People's Commissar of Internal Affairs N.I. Ezhova, head of the Main Directorate of State Security) was appointed in September 1938 by his order from On December 30 of the same year, he appointed a special commission chaired by the head of the command faculty of the VMA SP. Stavitsky. The commission considered ships of a similar subclass of foreign fleets: Scharnhorst, Dunkirk and Congo (Japan), having a speed of 26– 30 knots

The results of eight tactical games held at the Academy in various operational conditions showed that the Project 69 cruiser with the main elements according to the presented preliminary design is slightly superior to the Scharnhorst, has an advantage over the Kongo at combat distances of 50–90 kbt and is inferior to the Dunkirk. It was also significantly superior in artillery and armor to the Washington-class heavy cruisers and light cruisers of foreign fleets, but was inferior to some of them in speed.

According to the commission’s conclusion, Project 69 met the main tasks assigned to it, but its speed was low to successfully pursue enemy high-speed cruisers. The main caliber (305-mm) in terms of the number of guns, their power and rate of fire corresponded to these tasks, while the mine-resistant artillery (eight 130-mm guns) was insufficient in terms of the number of barrels to repel attacks by destroyers, and in terms of power - to act against cruisers. Long-range anti-aircraft weapons (eight 100 mm guns) had limited capabilities; the number of 37 mm machine guns was considered quite sufficient. The commission proposed replacing the 130-mm B-28 gun mounts with the 152-mm MK-4 adopted for the Project 23 battleship, and by reducing the cruising range, strengthening the cruiser’s armor and armor protection, leaving the cruising speed unchanged.

The results of the commission's work were reviewed at a meeting with the People's Commissar of the Navy, and its proposals, after approval, were sent to TsKB-17 as an assignment for adjusting the project, which was completed at the end of 1938. In addition to increasing the caliber of the secondary battery, the armor of the bow beam, conning tower, main battery and secondary battery turrets was strengthened, the power of the electrical power system generators was increased, which overall caused an increase in the cruiser's displacement to 35,000 tons.

In January 1939, People's Commissars of the Navy M.P. Frinovsky and the shipbuilding industry I.F. Tevosyan presented the corrected preliminary design of the heavy cruiser to KO for its approval, after which TsKB-17 began developing a technical design. In February of the same year, F.E. was appointed chief designer of Project 69. Bespolova.

By a resolution of July 13, 1939, the KO accepted the proposal of the NKVMF and NKSP to approve the preliminary design of the 69th heavy cruiser. The list of its tactical and technical elements (Appendix No. 1 to the KO resolution on approval of the preliminary design) was determined:

I. Displacement. Standard - no more than 35,000 tons; on test - ok. 38,000 t.

II. Propulsion and sailing area: 1. Speed ​​when testing displacement in deep water and sea and wind conditions is not higher than 3 points, with a rated power of the mechanisms of 201,000 hp. - 32 knots. 2. The maximum speed when forcing the mechanisms during a two-hour test is 32–33 knots. 3. The power of the mechanisms is normal - 201,000 l. s, with a two-hour boost - 231,000 hp. 4. Area (range - Auto.) of navigation at economic speed (14–17 knots) with a full supply of fuel - 6000 miles.

III. Weapons:

a) main artillery: 1. Three three-gun turrets (MK-15), two in the bow and one in the stern, IX - 305 mm guns;... 3. Projectile weight - 470 kg; 4. Initial projectile speed - 900 m/s; 5. Rate of fire - 3.2 rounds/min; 6. Number of shots per barrel - 100;

b) anti-mine artillery: 1. Four two-gun turrets (MK-17), with light armor, two turrets on each side, VIII - 152 mm guns;... 3. Projectile weight - 55 kg; 4. Initial speed - 950 m/s; 5. Rate of fire - 7.5 rounds/min; 6. Number of shots per barrel -150;

c) long-range anti-aircraft artillery: 1. Four two-gun turrets (MZ-16), with light armor, two turrets on each side, VIII - 100 mm guns;... 3. Projectile weight - 15.5 kg; 4. Initial speed - 900 m/s; 5. Rate of fire - 16 shots/min; 6. Number of shots per barrel - 300;

d) close combat anti-aircraft artillery: 1. Seven four-barreled machine gun nests (46-K), with light armor, XXVIII - 37 mm guns; 2. Projectile weight - 0.7 kg; 3. Initial speed - 915 m/s; 4. Number of shots per barrel - 800;

f) aircraft equipment: 1. KOR-2 aircraft (without hangars) - 2; 2. Catapult (between pipes) - 1.

IV Defense:

a) vertical armor (cemented): 1. Main side belt - 230 mm; 2. Bow traverse -330 mm; 3. Stern beam - 275 mm; 4. Main caliber barbettes (above the middle deck) - 330 mm; 5. Frontal wall of the conning tower - 330 mm.

c) horizontal armor (homogeneous): 1. Middle deck - 90 mm; 2. Lower deck (pickup) - 30 mm.

d) turret armor: 1. 305 mm turret (MK-15), frontal wall - 305 mm;

f) mine protection - “American” type (4 longitudinal bulkheads) with a width of 6 m in the middle part of the ship’s hull and at least 4 m at the ends.”

The progress of the creation of the heavy cruiser was personally monitored by I.V. Stalin, therefore, in accordance with the “Navy Ship Laying Plan for 1939”, without waiting for the completion of the development and approval of the technical project, in November of the same year two ships were laid down: the lead “Kronstadt” - at plant No. 194 named after. A. Marta in Leningrad and the first serial “Sevastopol” - at plant No. 200 named after. 61 Communards in Nikolaev.

On January 20, 1940, People's Commissars of the Navy N.G. Kuznetsov and the shipbuilding industry I.I. Nosenko presented technical project 69 to the KO, which was approved by a decree of April 12 of the same year with technical specifications that differed from the elements approved in 1939 in terms of displacement, cruising range, power of the power plant, steam output of boilers, rate of fire of 100-mm artillery installations, inclusion in the armament of four twin 12.7-mm DShK machine guns, reinforced armor.

When drawing up the resolution, the Navy’s proposal for installation was accepted to increase the efficiency of fire control anti-aircraft caliber long-range combat at the bow heading angles, three stabilized aiming posts instead of two due to the removal of the bow 37-mm 46-K machine gun. Otherwise, the composition of the ship's armament fully corresponded to that listed in Appendix No. 1 to the Decree of the CO of July 13, 1939. It should only be added that the GK PUS (located in two central artillery posts) was provided with two KDP2-8 and three 12-m turret rangefinders, the PMK - with two KDP2-4t, and the ZKDB - with three SPNs. Four 90 cm and four 45 mm searchlights, as well as eight paravanes, were provided. The ship's radio communications had to ensure its stable maintenance at a range of up to 4000 miles. For communication with submarines, the Arcturus station was installed.

305 mm three-gun turret MK-15:

1 - filter-ventilation unit;

2 - electric heater; 3 - rangefinder DM-12; 4 - upper charger; 5 - piston lock; 6 - fighting compartment; 7 - breech; 8 - spindle-type rollback and rollback brakes; 9 - swinging shield; 10 - gun barrel; 11 - knurl; 12 - vertical guidance mechanism; 13 - ball shoulder strap; 14 - vertical roller; 15 - upper reloading compartment; 16 - rotary return feed tray; 17 - hard drum; 18 - lower charger; 19-winch of the lower loader of the 1st gun; 20 - charging cellar; 21 - shell magazine; 22 - winch for the lower loader of the middle gun; 23 - winch for the upper loader of the middle gun; 24 - horizontal guidance mechanism; 25 - feeder; 26 - chain hammer.

The ship had a citadel extending 76.8% of its length along the vertical line, formed by a 230-mm main armor belt 5 m high, inclined 5° outward, covered with 90-mm armor on the middle deck, and 330-mm bow and 275-mm stern beams. The lower deck within the citadel had 30 mm armor, and on the sides, above the bullpen compartments, 15 mm armor. A 20-mm bow armor belt was provided, and 14-mm armor was provided above the main battery cellars. The gas storage facility located at the stern end of the ship was protected by 50 mm armor. The side walls and roof of the MK-15 main gun turrets were protected by 125 mm armor, and the rear and front walls by 305 mm. The PMK MK-17 turrets had a 100 mm front wall, a 110 mm rear wall, a 50 mm roof and side walls with 75-50 mm barbettes. The ZKDB MZ-16 turrets were protected by 50 mm armor (the rear wall was 75 mm), and their barbettes were protected by 40 mm. The GKP had a 330 mm front wall, 275 mm rear, 260 mm side and 125 mm roof with a 230 mm wire protection pipe. The FKP was protected by 20 mm armor.

According to calculations, the main armor belt was not penetrated by a German 280-mm armor-piercing projectile at distances of 70 kbt or more at heading angles of up to 50°. The horizontal armor was not penetrated by the same projectile from distances up to 140 kbt and could withstand a hit from a 250 kg high-explosive bomb.

The design of the PKZ (the length of 61.4% of the length of the ship according to the vertical line) belonged to the so-called American type and was developed by TsKB-17 in accordance with the recommendations of the commission of V.I. Pershina. In order to determine its resistance to explosion, as well as to identify and eliminate structural defects, the order of the NKSP and NKVMF dated April 27, 1940 ordered TsNII-45 to carry out the corresponding experimental work. In Sevastopol, at plant No. 201, four experimental compartments were manufactured on a scale of 1:5, reproducing the designs of the most characteristic sections of the PKZ of Project 69. Tests carried out from July 1940 to February 1941 made it possible to establish that the adopted PKZ design can withstand a contact explosion of a 550-kg charge in the middle part of the ship and 400 kg at the extremities. These values ​​were considered acceptable for the ships under construction, so it was not recommended to make any major changes in the design of their onboard underwater protection (thickness of longitudinal bulkheads, counting from the side, 7+16+14+18+10 mm).

The ship's power plant included three gas turbine engines with a power of 70,000 hp each. (maximum - 77,000 hp) and six water-tube boilers with a steam capacity of 90 t/h (maximum 95 t/h), producing steam with a pressure of 37 kg/cm2 at a temperature of 380 °C. The GTZA of the cruiser was unified with the units of the Project 23 battleship. The evaporation installation was provided as a part of two devices (total capacity 240 t/day). The power plant was located in echelon in three TOs and six COs, with the 1st and 2nd TOs located in the same compartment, separated by a longitudinal bulkhead and located aft of the 3rd CO. The control of the power plant was supposed to be remote from specially equipped hermetic cabins, but local control was also provided.

The ship was supposed to have a full speed of 32 knots (with a shaft power of 210,000 hp) and a maximum speed of 33 knots (with a power of 231,000 hp). The cruising range at technical and economic speed (16.5 knots) was 6900 miles. The three-bladed propellers had a diameter of 5.0 m (side) and 4.8 m (middle).

The ship's electrical power system was supposed to operate on mixed direct and alternating current with a voltage of 230 V. There were four turbogenerators with a capacity of 1200 kW and four diesel generators of 650 kW, which were located in four power plants: the turbogenerators were located in the citadel, and two diesel generators were located in the bow and aft of it.

The ship had a smooth-deck hull, slightly collapsed sides and bulges in the middle part of the hull. There were three continuous decks along the entire length (upper, middle and lower), as well as two platforms. The superstructure was designed to be two-tiered; the tower-like foremast had seven tiers. The ship's hull was a riveted structure, made of the same materials as the hull of the Project 23 battleship. Two semi-balanced rudders installed behind the onboard propellers provided a circulation diameter equal to five lengths of the ship's hull at full speed when the rudder was fully shifted.

Based on the results of the development of the technical design, the value of the ship’s standard displacement (35,240 tons) slightly exceeded the specified KO when the preliminary design was approved.

Under all load conditions the ship had some trim aft; at displacements from standard to full, the transverse metacentric height was in the range from 1.66 m to 1.74 m, and the rolling period was 14.6–13.7 s, respectively.

In accordance with the technical design, the ship's crew was supposed to include 1,406 people: 125 commanders and commanding officers, 93 junior commanders (midshipmen and chief petty officers) and 1,188 Red Navy men and foremen (later the crew was increased to 1,837 people). The command staff was housed in one-, two- and four-berth cabins on the middle deck, as well as on the 2nd tier of the superstructure; petty officers and rank and file - in cockpits equipped with stationary beds for 16–52 people. The ship's autonomy in terms of provisions was 20 days.

KO allowed to continue the construction of heavy cruisers according to the approved technical design, while simultaneously warning the People's Commissariats of the shipbuilding industry and the Navy about the inadmissibility of exceeding the established displacement, and proposed to ensure strict compliance with the accepted assignment during the issuance of working drawings and the construction of ships.

The design was not completed with the approval of technical project 69. The formation of cruiser hulls on the stocks of both construction plants was carried out in parallel with the development of weapons and equipment for them, which was seriously behind the planned deadlines. Delays in the production of weapons and the need to ensure the construction of cruisers on time forced the Navy command and the leadership of the NKSP to consider the proposal of the German company Krupp to supply them with main gun turrets with 380 mm guns.

38 cm twin-gun turret SKC/34 of the Project 69I heavy cruiser:

I - swinging shield; 2 - turret sight; 3 - breech; 4 - feed tray; 5 - 10.5-m rangefinder; 6 - ventilation pipe; 7 - rammer; 8 - charging cellar; 9 - shell magazine; 10 - shell reloading compartment; 11 - main pipe of the lift; 12 - charge reloading compartment; 13-hard drum; 14 - hydraulic system; 15 - auxiliary lift; 16 - engine room; 17 - vertical guidance mechanism; 18 - ball shoulder strap.

This proposal was received by the Soviet “Economic Commission” headed by People’s Commissar I.T. Tevosyan at negotiations in Germany in February 1940. The German company, which had a significant backlog of turret installations for the third and fourth Bismarck-class battleships planned for construction, after abandoning their construction, tried to avoid losses from unsold products.

At the direction of I.V. Stalin, a group of specialists from the NKVMF and the NKSP were instructed to urgently consider the issue of the technical feasibility of installing German 380-mm two-gun turrets and launchers for them on the heavy Project 69, according to preliminary data from Krupp and Siemens. Joint report on this issue by I.V. Stalin, Chairman of the KO V.M. Molotov and People's Commissar of Foreign Trade of the USSR A.I. People's Commissars Kuznetsov and Tevosyan introduced Mikoyan on April 17, 1940. The report noted that German 380-mm guns, while surpassing our 305-mm in terms of projectile weight, are inferior to them in firing range, rate of fire and fire performance (total weight of projectiles fired per minute by all main battery guns) - 11,000 kg versus 13,700 kg .

38-cm turret installations SKC/34 of the German battleship Tirpitz

According to the directive of N.G. Kuznetsov, to evaluate the combat capabilities of heavy cruisers of Project 69 when installing 380-mm German turrets (Project 69I) on them, two tactical games were held at the Military Academy in May 1940, where the same “small” battleships of the type were taken as opponents of Project 69I ships Scharnhorst and Dunkirk. The results of these games showed that replacing 305 mm guns with German 380 mm guns, even with fewer guns, qualitatively changes and increases the power of the cruiser's artillery. At the same time, the armor of enemy ships is penetrated by larger shells, while disadvantageous combat distances (105–170 kbt) are eliminated. The smaller number of hits of such projectiles is compensated by their greater destructive impact with an increase in the affected area behind the armor. The Project 69I ship, while remaining a heavy cruiser in terms of armor, armor protection and speed, would correspond to a battleship in the main caliber of artillery. This predetermined the decision to develop a rearmament project. On July 10, 1940, People's Commissar of the Navy N.G. Kuznetsov approved the “TTZ for the re-equipment of the KRT project with 69 German 380-mm turrets (instead of the 305-mm MK-15 turrets) and the main caliber launcher.” The draft design 69I, developed at TsKB-17, was submitted to the People's Commissars I.I. for consideration in October of the same year. Nosenko and N.G. Kuznetsov, its results were the basis for their joint report to the new Chairman of the Defense Committee K.E. Voroshilov.

Project 69I heavy cruiser: location of posts on the foremast and first funnel

Copy of original drawing

In connection with the acquisition, under a trade agreement with Germany of February 11, 1940, of 38 cm (caliber designation adopted in Germany - Author) two-gun turrets from the Krupp company, the control system for them from the Siemens company and instructions that these towers and PUS should be used on Project 69 ships under construction (according to the technical design approved on April 12 of the same year), the report contained a request to make a decision by the CO under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR on the following issues:

On the installation of these turrets on the heavy cruisers “Kronstadt” and “Sevastopol”, laid down under Project 69 at plants No. 194 in Leningrad and No. 200 in Nikolaev and the further construction of these ships with German 380-mm turrets and German main-caliber launchers according to a new technical project ;

On changing the KO decree of April 12, 1940 and the development at TsKB-17, by order of the Navy, of preliminary and technical (contractual) designs for a heavy cruiser, taking into account all imports for it (project 69I).

The report noted that “as a result of the development of the preliminary design, the installation of imported towers causes major changes in the previously approved project 69: a) displacement of the axes of the towers, b) complete redevelopment of the main caliber cellars with a change in the location of all longitudinal and transverse bulkheads and platforms in areas 62 -175 sp. and 351–431 shp., as well as changes in superstructures.

It is expected that the standard displacement of the ship will increase by approximately 800 tons (actually by 1000 tons - Author) and the draft for the displacement during testing will be up to 9 m, the speed and navigation area will change slightly. Due to large changes in the general layout of the ship, the reverse transition from Project 69I to Project 69, if this is necessary, will be very difficult and will require additional special work with the involvement of contractors.

In order to avoid a slowdown or even suspension of work at factories No. 194 and 200 on the construction of these heavy cruisers, the People's Commissars asked for permission to issue working drawings for the variable areas of Project 69, without waiting for the completion of the development of the contractual technical project 69I.”

The issue of the main caliber of the KRT was resolved by signing an agreement in Moscow on November 30, 1940 with the Krupp company for the supply of six 380-mm two-gun turrets with ammunition. The deadlines for the towers to be ready for shipment to the USSR were determined by the agreement in stages: 1st tower - from October 5, 1941 to February 28, 1942; 2nd tower - from December 5, 1941 to March 31, 1942; 3rd tower - from February 5 to April 30, 1942; 4th tower - from May 5 to November 30, 1942; 5th tower - from August 5 to December 31, 1942; 6th tower - from November 5, 1942 to March 28, 1943; ammunition - in two batches: July 1, 1942 and February 1, 1943.

The set of ammunition supplied under the contract included a double (in terms of barrel survivability - 240 rounds) number of shots, consisting of armor-piercing, semi-armor-piercing, high-explosive and practical projectiles, complete (with a half-charge in the case and without the case) combat charges, charges for practical projectiles and warming rounds, as well as 127 mm ammunition for training barrels. Despite the timely payment by the Soviet side of advance payments (50 million marks) under this agreement, the German side was in no hurry to fulfill its obligations, even delaying the delivery to the USSR of documentation on the towers and PUS, necessary for the development of the technical project 69I.

On February 11, 1941, the NKVMF and NKSP submitted a preliminary design for 69I to the KO for approval. In the report of People's Commissars N.G. Kuznetsov and I.I. Nosenko to the chairman of the CO K.E. Voroshilov, based on the results of a joint review of the project, noted an increase in the ship’s displacement (in accordance with part of the documentation received from Germany) by 1250 tons and an associated slight deterioration in the parameters of combat unsinkability. Such overload did not cause changes in speed: during the development of propellers, it was possible to compensate for its effect by improving the propulsive coefficient. Both people's commissars considered it possible to continue further development of the technical project and at the same time - the construction of ships. If Germany refuses to supply the ordered weapons, the report indicated, the forced transition to the original version with domestic weapons will be associated with significant alterations of the hull with the replacement of about 50% of the cable routes, as well as a significant delay in the readiness of the ships. Creating a “universal” ship, equally suitable for installing domestic 305-mm or imported 380-mm towers, was not possible: the variable locations of cellars, towers and launch control systems for them on projects 69 and 69I had significant differences.

In the event of a forced transition to domestic weapons, the main factor determining the timing of completion of the construction of cruisers would be the supply of MK-15 and PUS turrets. Therefore, simultaneously with the development of the technical project 69I, it was proposed to continue the production of working drawings of these towers and begin their production. It was also not possible to develop a comprehensive project for the transition to the original Project 69 in advance, since the amount of alterations to the ship was related to the degree of technical readiness of the cruisers at the time of the transition. The time required to create the prototype MK-15 turret and manufacture serial turrets was sufficient to rework the ship design and ship structures.

The construction of the hulls of both heavy cruisers at factories No. 194 and No. 200 was carried out at that time along their entire length, with the exception of modified areas. In order to avoid a further reduction in the pace of construction of these ships, the People's Commissars asked the KO to authorize their decision to issue working drawings and continue the construction of the SRT, without waiting for the completion of the development and approval of the technical project 69I, and also to approve the attached draft resolution.

At a meeting held in the Kremlin in early April 1941, I.V. Stalin got acquainted with the state of supplies for the construction of the KRT, but decided not to break the agreements concluded at the end of 1940, avoiding complications in relations with Germany. By the Decree of the KO dated April 10 of the same year “On the installation of 380-mm main-caliber artillery on heavy cruisers under construction,” the NK of the Navy and the NKSP were allowed to install on these ships three two-gun 380-mm main caliber turrets with their launchers instead of three three-gun 305 -mm towers provided for by the approved project 69. In connection with this, changes to individual technical specifications of cruisers under construction were also approved. The NKSP was instructed to amend technical project 69 in accordance with the resolution and approve it in its final form together with the NKVMF by October 15, 1941.

As already noted, the development of the preliminary design of 69I showed that a heavy cruiser with 380 mm artillery would have a standard displacement of at least 30,660 tons, a normal displacement of 36,240 tons and a total displacement of 42,830 tons. Due to the expansion of the axes of the main battery towers, the length of the citadel had to be slightly increased , as well as PKZ (from 147.5 to 156.5 m), while the length of the ship along the vertical line increased from 240 to 242.1 m. The chief designer of the ship F.E. Bespolov recalled that due to the shift of the main armor belt to the stern, where the contours of the hull acquired a complex curvilinear shape, the 230-mm armor plates closing the citadel would have to be given the same shape, which all armor factories categorically refused. But things did not come to a real need for the supply of such slabs, since with the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, the construction of ships was stopped.

The further development of the subclass of heavy cruisers in the USSR Navy did not stop there. Pre-war design work in this area received additional impetus after the purchase from Germany of the unfinished heavy cruiser “Lutzow” with 203-mm main battery artillery (Project 83 in the domestic industry). The idea arose of creating a similar heavy cruiser in the USSR. This is how Project 82 appeared, which will be discussed below.

Forward>>