Continuing the theme of 1942 SPGs, while considering that this material will be released on the eve of Victory Day, we decided to tell you about the car that most of our readers know. About the machine, which was developed in parallel with the already described ACS SG-122. About the car, which was a direct competitor to the SG-122.
So, our heroine today is SU-122. Self-propelled gun, which was designed specifically to support and escort tanks. And, accordingly, it was created on the basis of the most massive T-34 tank.
Very often, talking about the weapons of the initial period of the war, about the work of designers in 1941-42, we come across the opinion that the shortcomings of this weapon are caused by the speed of creation of the machines themselves. The example of ACS SG-122 and SU-76i seems to prove this very conclusion. In the same way as the example of the SU-122. However, we think we should still talk about this. The matter is, in fact, much more complicated.
Prehistory of the emergence of self-propelled guns
Most of the readers formed their attitude to the ACS after watching the film by Viktor Tregubovich "In War as in War" (1968). Remember, "The tank loved the self-propelled gun, took her for a walk in the woods …"? By the way, many do not know, but this is really a ditty of the times of the Great Patriotic War. Truly a soldier's creativity. It was first performed in the film by Nikolai Kryuchkov ("Star", 1949). Only in the initial version, the self-propelled gun was a wedge.
The full text looked like this:
Why did the tankers need self-propelled guns? Precisely for the tankers! And the commanders of tank brigades and regiments "fought" for each such support vehicle fiercely. Hoarse. They asked the command to give at least a couple of vehicles for the attack. And it really was necessary. The life of the tankers really depended on this! And it began long before the war.
The fact is that the tanks of the pre-war and first war period, with all the apparent power of this weapon, had a rather serious drawback. Tanks could conduct effective fire on the enemy at fairly short distances - 600-900 meters. This is due to the very design of the machines. Quite limited visibility and lack of a gun stabilizer. Either fire on the move "for good luck" from a long distance, or under the enemy's anti-tank guns, at a short distance. It is clear that anti-tank guns had a huge advantage in this variant.
It was then that the ACS was included in the work. Vehicles with larger caliber guns that fired from behind advancing tanks (not necessarily direct fire) and suppressing enemy anti-tank batteries with fire just in that short period of time that tanks need to reach the effective range of their own weapons.
During the period when the tanks were inactive, it was possible to use field artillery to suppress the PTS. It was then that requirements appeared for the guns for a quick transfer from the traveling position to the combat position and vice versa. But the tanks "drove off". And we drove off quickly. It was then that there was a need for artillery, which could keep up with mobile tank units.
Remember the era of artillery tractors? This was precisely the attempt to increase the mobility of field artillery. In principle, it is possible to create a tractor capable of keeping up with tank units. In the same way, you can create a chassis for implements that can withstand such movements. But the idea of the efficient operation of batteries, which start fire without reconnaissance and artillery gunners on the front line, looks completely unrealistic. And the management of such batteries looks more than problematic.
Thus, the massive appearance of various self-propelled guns in the Red Army, as in other belligerent countries, precisely in the period 1942-43, is a general trend in the development of armored vehicles. The development of tanks gave rise to the development of artillery support for these vehicles. Not infantry support, but tank support. And this direction is developing in the present tense.
About the ACS itself
Returning to our heroine, it must be said that this machine is a logical continuation of all those developments that existed in Soviet industry both in the pre-war and war periods. That is why our cars of that time look like brothers (or sisters). Not twins, of course, but brothers for sure.
Sometimes questions are raised about the tools that were used. Today, from the future, we can already assess the effectiveness of the tools of that time quite objectively. However, at that time there was no such opportunity. The advantages and disadvantages of the guns were often revealed already in the process of operation. Therefore, the decisions were made based on the assessment of the guns and howitzers by experts. The calibers and even the guns themselves, which should be used in the self-propelled guns, were determined very specifically.
On April 15, 1942, a plenum of the Artillery Committee of the GAU of the Red Army was held. Not only members of the committee were invited, but also representatives of military units, heads of factories and design bureaus, specialists from the People's Commissariat of Arms (NKV). It is believed that it was at this plenum that specific tasks were set to create full-fledged Soviet self-propelled guns. There were also identified and tools that were proposed to be used for new machines.
The following systems have been identified for self-propelled artillery.
To support the infantry on the ACS, it was proposed to install a 76, 2-mm ZiS-3 cannon or a 122-mm M-30 howitzer, model 1938.
For the destruction of heavily fortified positions, engineering structures and defensive zones, it was proposed to use the 152, 4-mm howitzer-gun ML-20, model 1937.
The SU-122 was developed with these recommendations in mind. And given that the car was developed almost in parallel with the SG-122, this self-propelled gun is generally the record for the speed of creation. Well, imagine the speed of work. In October 1942, the GKO decided to start developing a machine based on the T-34 (October 19, GKO decree No. 2429ss). On October 29, a special design group of UZTM L. I. Gorlitsky (N. V. Kurin, G. F. Ksyunin, A. D. Neklyudov, K. N. Ilyin and I. I. Emmanuilov) presented the project of the U-35 facility.
Factory tests began on November 30, 1942. From December 5 to December 19, the designers of UZTM and plant No. 592 are already conducting state tests at the Gorokhovets proving ground. And in December 1942, the vehicle had already been tested, put into service and recommended for serial production. The first pre-production vehicles went to the troops (10 units of the old (U-35) cabin design). Production vehicles went into production in January 1943. Self-propelled artillery regiments of medium SU were armed with machines. 16 units per shelf.
Let's take a closer look at the car itself. The installation was mounted on the basis of the T-34 tank (T-34-76). The conning tower is installed in the front of the hull. The deckhouse is welded, made of rolled armor plates of various thicknesses - 15, 20, 40 and 45 mm. The projectile action was enhanced by the rational angles of inclination of the armor plates. The forehead was composite and had different angles of inclination - 57 and 50 degrees. For protection from enemy infantry and additional visibility, the crew had holes in the armor plates, closed with armor plugs around the entire circumference of the vehicle.
There were two turrets on the roof of the wheelhouse. The commander's and observation room (at the gunner's) for setting the Hertz panorama.
For embarkation and disembarkation of the crew, a rectangular hatch with an armored cover was equipped on the roof of the wheelhouse. Interestingly, the driver's hatch, which was inherited from the T-34, was not used for the mechanic's landing. This is a purely inspection hatch.
Observation of the battlefield was carried out using special mirrored viewing devices. The instruments were located in three places. On the forehead of the car, on the starboard side and in the stern.
Armed with the U-35 was the standard M-30 piston-action howitzer. The gun was mounted on a special pedestal mounted on the bottom. The aiming angles were: vertically from -3 to +25, horizontally in a sector of 20 degrees (+/- 10 degrees). The aiming of the gun is carried out over the Hertz panorama. The howitzer, due to the design features, had a rather low rate of fire - 2-5 rounds per minute. Ammunition 36 rounds of separate loading.
In the fighting compartment there were also two standard PPSh submachine guns and 20 disks with cartridges (1420 pcs).
Communication was provided through the R-9 radio station. The tank intercom TPU-3F was used for intercom.
The power department remained practically unchanged and was of the same type as the T-34. But the chassis had to be reinforced at the front. Due to the obvious overload of the front end of the vehicle, the front suspension units of the tank could not withstand the loads.
Way to the front line
In general, the car caused a lot of complaints. Most studies treat these shortcomings as minor. But, on the other hand, most of the materials only mention the subject in parallel SG-2 of the Mytishchi plant No. 592. It is understandable. Otherwise, it will be necessary to clarify the beginning of the production of these control systems almost immediately after the tests. Let's try to figure out what actually happened in Sverdlovsk.
It is clear that U (or SU, as in the documents of UZTM) -35 passed sea trials with a bang. Considering that by this time T-34 tanks were being assembled at UZTM. Shooting can be called more or less successful. As for the rest … The fact is that the state commission made a conclusion that was completely undesirable for UZTM. The conning tower at U (SU) -35 did not just fail. She was dangerous to the crew.
"The Commission considers it necessary to instruct the Uralmash plant NKTP to finalize the sample of the self-propelled 122-mm howitzer, taking as a basis the layout of the fighting compartment of the tested self-propelled 122-mm howitzer of the plant No. 592 and eliminating the shortcomings outlined in this report. decisions on the introduction of the artillery of the Red Army ".
But there is another question as well. If Mytishchi Plant No. 592 made such a good car on the same base, why did they accept the UZTM version? The answer is simple and incredible. SG-2 did not pass … sea trials! It was the SG-2 chassis, the T-34 tank chassis, that could not withstand the load. And the reason was not some overload of the chassis or design flaws of the SG in general. The reason is in the T-34 tank itself. It was the tank itself, on the basis of which the prototype SG-2 was created, that turned out to be defective. So the history of SG-2 ended.
There is no talk of any sabotage or intrigues of dishonest designers. Simply because the Mytishchi plant could not be entrusted with the production of SU at all. Even then, before the start of testing, the plant was intended for the production of light tanks. The production of the SU-122 was already planned at UZTM for December 1942 (25 units) by GKO decree No. 2559 "On the organization of the production of artillery installations at Uralmashzavod and plant No. 38".
So, what kind of wheelhouse became serial in the SU-122? The answer is again standard. Own! Not U (SU) -35 and not SG-2.
Here is a list of changes that were made to the felling in December at the initiative of the head of the design group N. V. Kurin (Gorlitsky was on trial), Deputy People's Commissar of the Tank Industry of the USSR, Chief Designer of the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant Zh. Ya. Kotin, Chief Designer of Plant No. 9 F. F. Petrov, his deputy A. N. Bulashev, chief designer of UZTM N. D. Werner and military representatives headed by G. Z. Zukher.
On the roof, instead of the commander's cupola, a hood appeared with three inspection hatches for a periscope sight. The commander was now using the PTC periscope. The hatch on the roof of the wheelhouse (though single-leaf, in contrast to the SG-2). Changed the placement of the BC. It actually repeated the decision of the design bureau of the Mytishchi plant.
The installation of the periscope made it possible to move the commander's seat forward. This increased the effective felling volume. And the commander now began to perform the duties of both a radio operator and a vertical gunner. Not the best option, but we talked about the overload of the commanders of Soviet tanks more than once.
The gunner's position underwent the same changes. The viewing slits have been removed. Instead of them, the same viewing periscopic devices were installed. The left fuel tank, which was just above the gunner, was removed. Thus, the volume of felling has been increased in this sector as well.
For the first time, the loaders were taken care of. Now folding seats were provided for them. When moving, the loaders had their regular places, and in battle, the seats did not interfere with work.
Has undergone changes and the forehead of the installation. It has become simpler. The "step" has disappeared. Thus, we can say that the concept of maximum use of the T-34 chassis was abandoned. They decided to remake the body. The gaps and holes in the armor were eliminated.
Combat use
It is silly to say that the SU-122 was produced in a small series. 638 units is quite a lot. However, it is also difficult to say that the car was successful. Sometimes one gets the impression that the car was created for 1941. Or at the beginning of 1942. Frontal armor of 45 mm at a time when the Germans had the PAK-40, when the first "Tigers" were already in battle (autumn 42, Sinyavino), when the German "fours" and "shtugs" got their "long arm", that is, a long-barreled 75-mm gun …
Of course, one can argue about what this weapon is intended for. Assault gun. However, this weapon must work directly in the second echelon. But as soon as the SU-122 reached the visibility range (1000 meters), it was immediately defeated by the German T-4 and Stugs. It's scary to talk about "Tigers" in such a situation. The forehead of the Soviet car was unequivocally under-armored. The example of the Germans and their self-propelled guns is not a decree to us. The Kursk battle "buried" this car. It was there that cars burned all and sundry.
The transition after Kursk to the SU-85 and the abandonment of the SU-122, as we think, was also a mistake. The machine could perfectly fulfill the duties of an assault weapon and beyond. But as part of tank brigades. Battery SU-85 and battery SU-122. It's just that everyone would be doing their job. The guns of the 85th, which in fact were anti-tank, would hit tanks, and the 122nd howitzers would destroy everything else: bunkers, bunkers, infantry. But what happened happened.
By the way, the Germans, who captured several SU-122s as trophies, used them with great benefit for themselves. The cars did not even change the name - StuG SU122 (r).
Already in 1944, SU-122s became a rarity. In the shelves where they were, they tried not to send these machines for repair, but to repair them on the spot. Otherwise, the car will be replaced with SU-85. But in Berlin in 1945, these machines were. Little, but there were.
Today, the only SU-122 that has survived in its original form is the machine (hull number 138) of Lieutenant V. S. Prinorov under the number 305320. Unfortunately, the combat path of the vehicle is little known. A vehicle from the 4th battery of the 1418th SAP of the 15th Tank Corps of the 3rd Guards Tank Army. Was knocked out in the battle for the village of Nikolskoye, Sverdlovsk district, Oryol region on July 24, 1943. The vehicle commander and mechanic were wounded. The gunner and the castle were killed. The car has been sent for repair.
All in all, according to our information, there are 4 cars of this type in Russian museums today.
Well, the traditional performance characteristics of the heroines of the material, SU-122:
Combat weight - 29.6 tons.
Crew - 5 people.
The number of issued - 638 pieces.
Dimensions:
Body length - 6950 mm.
Case width - 3000 mm.
Height - 2235 mm.
Clearance - 400 mm.
Reservation:
Hull forehead - 45/50 ° mm / deg.
Hull side - 45/40 ° mm / deg.
Hull feed - 40/48 ° mm / deg.
The bottom is 15 mm.
The roof of the case is 20 mm.
Cutting forehead - 45/50 ° mm / deg.
The gun mask is 45 mm.
Cutting board - 45/20 ° mm / deg.
Cutting feed - 45/10 ° mm / deg.
Armament:
The caliber and brand of the gun is the 122 mm M-30C howitzer.
Gun ammunition - 40.
Driving performance:
Engine power - 500 HP
Highway speed - 55 km / h.
Cross country speed - 15-20 km / h.
In store down the highway - 600 km.
The climb is 33 °.
The overcome wall is 0.73 m.
The covered moat is 2, 5 m.
Overcome ford - 1, 3 m.
