Soviet purchase programs, logistics and everything, alternatives and realities 1937-43 (5 Viewers)

[bf109xxl]

Tank engagements were seldom tank on tank duels. A company that can engage/destroy more enemy tanks per minute can often overcome initial odds.

Soviet tanks suffered their main losses from anti-tank artillery, not from enemy tanks. It was much more important for the Soviets to provide anti-tank artillery (and divisional artillery in general) with tractors and trucks than to improve the ballistics of the guns.

 

[bf109xxl]

You do know that F-34 and F-22 used the ammo with same outward dimensions, right?

Initially F-22 prototype had a larger chamber for a new cartridge - the same way as the Germans afterwards. F-22 was created as an universal gun with AA capabilities which were never used, it had numerous flaws which made it inappropriate for the Soviets. The Germans had enough chassis to produce AT self-propelled units - it was reasonable to use the captured guns, however only with the the improved AP-round. When the Soviets were able to produce enough chassis for the self-propelled artillery, they had already 85-mm gun which was even more efficient! In 1941, even the 57-mm ZIS-2 proved to be overpowered as AT gun - the need for it appeared only in the second half of 1942. And a weak HE shell was considered to be the major disadvantage of the ZIS-2.

 

[fone]

IMO one of the most important things for Soviet fighter aircraft is keeping Polikarpov in the design business. The MiG that was formed in his absence made disappointment after disappointment, and when they finally got their act together with the I-220 series, they had no need for the aircraft anyways.
By contrast, the excellent I-185 which first flew in 1941 could be argued to be one of the best fighter aircraft in the world until 1944, and the ITP was no slouch either.
If the M-71 actually gets put into production (along with Yakovlev not being a jealous bastard), the I-185 would be an extreme headache for the Germans and help put the VVS on a more level playing field with the Luftwaffe.

1) If the design bureau of the N1 plant remains with Polikarpov, then the world will see biplane (I-170 with an M-105 engine) instead of the MiG-1/3. And it will also be necessary to remove from history the entire line of Mikoyan jet fighters, from MiG-9 to MiG-31))
2) The I-185 is not the best fighter in the world, it is just an experimental aircraft with an experimental engine.
3) The M-71 is absolutely not viable in the form in which it was installed on the I-185.

 

[Shortround6]

Revisiting this

Would it be bad for the Soviets to have a higher-powered 76.2mm gun on their tanks and artillery units between 1941 and 1944?

Maybe not but for some of those years does it really give the Soviets any real advantage?
And in 1943/44 are higher powered 76.2mm guns offer any advantage over the historic 85mm guns?

Advantages of higher powered (higher velocity) 76.2mm guns are.
1. more armor penetration for AT work.
2. longer range for artillery work.
3 higher ceiling for AA work.

Disadvantages are.
1. Larger, heavier gun barrel (cost)
2. need for larger mounting (cost)
3. faster barrel wear (also cost)
4. more expensive ammo (cost of brass/steel casing and more propellent)
5. cost also includes larger trucks/tractors for towing and more trucks/tractors to transport larger/heavier ammunition.

With the 76.2mm field guns being the bulk of Soviet divisional artillery does adding much range to the existing 13.3k range do much for the artillery capability? It out ranges the German 75mm guns and 105mm howitzers. It out ranges any German allied field guns and it out ranges the American 105 and British 25pdr. Granted the shell size/weight is small but higher power/velocity will not fix that. Can soviet divisions make use of any extra range? I mean did soviet divisions have the needed targeting ability to locate German guns at longer ranges by sound or flash spotting or aircraft or other means? Soviet heavier artillery units may have dedicated units with such targeting capabilities which date to WW I but such units need some special equipment and/or training and a way to communicate to the firing units. Messenger is probably not going to work.
The Soviets had longer barreled 76.2mm guns but with the same ammunition that didn't give much greater range.
There were some 76.2mm AA guns with more powerful ammunition (and longer barrels) but here the Soviets decided that 85mm guns gave better results for the 'cost'. They basically stuck the 85mm gun/barrel on the 76.2mm carriage in 1939(?)

For tank use things are a bit harder to figure out. How much extra power do you want and what can the soviet gun designers (and ammo makers) do for you?
Adding 200-225mm to cartridge length (and more width) may have been OK for an AA gun or field gun but cramming the bigger gun and larger ammo into the T-34 tank without a brand-new turret (T-34/85 style) is going to be very hard. Maybe the soviet gun designers can do a bit better than the Americans and British but it also depends on what you are trying to do. High velocity means lots of extra propellent.
US 75m tank gun ammo used about 80-88 cu/in propellent space.
US 76m tank gun ammo used about 140-144 cu/in propellent space.
US 3 in tank gun ammo used about 204 cu/in propellent space.***
British 17pdr gun used about 300 cu/in of propellent space.

***US 3in actually used spacers in the cartridge case. Modern (1930s) propellants did not need the same space as 1900-1910 propellants needed. problem with using legacy shells/engineering.

Higher velocity shells or AP shot gave better penetration but nothing for HE capability.
Higher velocity makes it easier to hit at tank ranges but even so, ability to hit at much over 1000 meters requires good equipment and training. Adding 200m/s to the velocity may buy another 200-250 meters of effective range using the same equipment/techniques. Using a gunner and a commander may add several hundred meters of effective range vs using a single man as a gunner trying to spot his own shots.

 

[tomo pauk]

Maybe not but for some of those years does it really give the Soviets any real advantage?
And in 1943/44 are higher powered 76.2mm guns offer any advantage over the historic 85mm guns?

Throwing the 85mm guns into the 1941-43 timeframe muddles the water a lot. If any 85mm gun was firing towards the Germans in that period, it is an AA gun in 9999 times of 10000.
Further, it is not about being better on aggregate than a 85mm gun, but being better than the bulk of the Soviet 76mm guns historically used by army, namely the zis-3 and F-34, some USVs and whatever the Germans didn't captured of the F-22 fleet.

Advantages of higher powered (higher velocity) 76.2mm guns are.
1. more armor penetration for AT work.
2. longer range for artillery work.
3 higher ceiling for AA work.

Over the weaker 76mm guns - certainly. (note that I did not specify that AA work in the quoted post)
Over the 85mm gun(s) - 1) earlier availability, 2) factories can churn them and the respective ammo in the far greater rate, should fit in the existing turrets, more ammo can be carried. 1) plus 2) are the kickers here.

Disadvantages are.
1. Larger, heavier gun barrel (cost)
2. need for larger mounting (cost)
3. faster barrel wear (also cost)
4. more expensive ammo (cost of brass/steel casing and more propellent)
5. cost also includes larger trucks/tractors for towing and more trucks/tractors to transport larger/heavier ammunition.

Note that I'm not advocating for the Soviet equivalent of the Panther's gun or the 17 pdr. The equivalent of the kwk 40 or something close to the 77mm HV will do the trick until the 85 and 100 mm guns arrive, that will be with all of these shortcomings and then some. Soviets can piggy-back on their 76mm AA gun and work from there.