Cannon with two barrels. Anti-tank guns with a conical bore

22.09.2019 Trips

The use of throwing machines to hit enemies at a distance has been practiced since ancient times. A significant breakthrough in the improvement of artillery weapons occurred after the advent of gunpowder. Throwing machines became a thing of the past, their place was taken by various models of cannons, howitzers and mortars. Changing battle tactics led to the improvement of artillery weapons. One of the most advanced examples of the 18th century is Shuvalov’s unicorn cannon.

Smoothbore artillery reform

In the period from the 18th to the 19th centuries in army weapons Tsarist Russia the material part was reformed: it was simplified and unified. The changes were reflected in the length of the artillery pieces and the thickness of their walls. The number of calibers and friezes - decorations on the barrels - has decreased significantly. As a result of unification, it became possible to use the same parts for different weapons. Under the command of General Feldzeichmeister (chief of artillery) Count Pyotr Ivanovich Shuvalov, a new weapon was approved - a unicorn (cannon). From that moment on, the howitzer was removed from service with the tsarist army. The reform carried out determined the face of Russian artillery in the War of 1812.

Design work

It took a team of design officers under their leadership several years to work on the creation of a new, improved weapon until they came up with a model that satisfied them - a new gun - the Shuvalov unicorn. “Do it yourself,” specialized websites offer modern craftsmen, providing all the necessary drawings and designs for this. Creating a weapon according to existing ready-made drawings is a much simpler task than the one that the authors of the gun had to solve. Since science at that time was far from theoretical calculations, work on a new model of the gun was carried out through trial and error.

As a result of numerous experiments, in addition to unicorns, various other models of guns appeared, most of which were rejected. One of these models, not accepted by the Russian army for service, are double-barreled “twin” guns. This consisted of two barrels mounted on one carriage.

This weapon was fired with buckshot, which consisted of chopped iron rods. It was assumed that the effect of firing such a projectile would be enormous. After testing, it turned out that in terms of its effectiveness, a double gun was no better than a conventional single-barreled one.

What is a unicorn (gun)?

Since 1757, Russian artillery has been equipped with a new weapon developed by officers M.V. Danilov and M.G. Martynov. The weapon was created to replace long-barreled guns and howitzers. The gun got its name - unicorn - from the mythical animal that was depicted on the coat of arms of Count P.I. Shuvalov.

Conclusion

In the 18th century, steel mills in the Urals were considered a gigantic industrial complex, producing more metal than any Western European state. Great amount the necessary material made it possible for Count Shuvalov to bring his design project to life. As a result of mass production, by 1759, workers had cast 477 different models of the unicorn: the guns had six calibers and weighed from 340 kg to 3.5 tons.

Unicorns proved their effectiveness in the war with the Turks, whose victory over Tsarist Russia gave Crimea and Novorossiya. The presence of these artillery pieces in the 18th century allowed the Russian army to become the strongest in Europe.

At the end of the summer of 1942, a German artillery piece fell into the hands of the Red Army, which aroused the interest of the Main Artillery Directorate of the Red Army. It was a new German anti-tank gun with a conical barrel 7.5 cm Pak 41. Several shells were captured along with the gun, which made it possible to conduct tests and determine its characteristics. What kind of weapon was this and what were the results of its tests in the USSR?

History of the Pak 41

After the first meetings of German troops in June 1941 with the new Soviet T-34 and KV tanks, it became obvious that the power of the standard 3.7 cm Pak anti-tank gun of infantry units was not enough to effectively combat them. It was possible to solve the problems of anti-tank defense with anti-aircraft and infantry artillery using direct fire, but these guns were poorly suited for these purposes: they had a high silhouette, low mobility and weak crew protection. Therefore, Germany accelerated work on creating more powerful anti-tank guns.

Pak 41 gun being tested at the Gorokhovets training ground of the GAU KA, autumn 1942 (TsAMO)

One of the areas of work to increase the power of anti-tank artillery was the creation of guns with conical barrels, using the principle of engineer Hermann Gerlich. Such systems included, for example, the heavy anti-tank rifle 2.8 cm schwere Panzerbüchse 41 (2.8 cm s.Pz.B. 41). The use of this principle made it possible to quickly create an effective anti-tank weapon with a high initial projectile velocity, which provided good armor penetration, but at the same time gave rise to a number of problems. The main ones were the low survivability of the barrel due to rapid wear and the use of scarce tungsten, from which the cores of armor-piercing projectiles were made.

By mid-1941, Germany experienced an acute shortage of tungsten, the deposits of which were located far beyond the borders of the Third Reich. It had to be delivered by sea by special blockade-breaking ships in small quantities. Mass production of a gun designed to use this material in its projectiles was not the best idea, but it was an option that the industry could come up with quickly.

By January 1942, two systems with a conical barrel of variable caliber 75/55 mm (at the breech 75 mm, at the muzzle 55 mm) had been developed: a joint development of Rheinmetall and Krupp under the designation Schwere 7, 5 cm Pak 44, as well as the 7.5 cm Pak 41 designed by Krupp.

7.5 cm Pak 41 (NARA) anti-tank gun barrel drawing

Tests have shown that the barrel life of the Schwere 7.5 cm Pak 44 is only about 250 shots. The 7.5 cm Pak 41 barrel was not more durable, but the design provided for the possibility of replacing a section of the barrel that was subject to a lot of wear directly in the field. As a result, the advantage was given to the 7.5 cm Pak 41.

Due to the lack of a full-fledged ability to provide the guns with ammunition, only 150 guns were ordered for Krupp, the production of which began in March 1942. At the same time, it was separately noted that the production of ammunition for this weapon will reduce the production of projectiles with a tungsten core for other anti-tank systems.

The cost of the gun was not much higher than that of the “traditional” Pak 40, which appeared a little later (about 15,000 Reichsmarks versus 12,000); 2,800 man-hours were spent on the production of one gun.

The release was distributed by month as follows: March - 48, April - 25, May - 77. Military acceptance was carried out with some delay: four guns were accepted in April, and the remaining 146 in May.

Combat use of the weapon

Of the 150 guns fired, 141 were immediately sent to the troops on the Soviet-German front and distributed among the anti-tank divisions of infantry and motorized divisions. Soon about combat use The guns began to receive rave reviews from the front.

A gun of the 36th anti-tank division of the 36th Wehrmacht infantry division in a firing position. Baranovichi region, spring 1944 (RGAKFD)

In August 1942, the Wehrmacht lost its first three guns, while one of them was captured by the Red Army in good condition, along with a small number of armor-piercing shells. A total of 17 Pak 41 guns were lost by the end of 1942.

A “shell famine” soon forced the Germans to look for a replacement for tungsten, but new type shells for the Pak 41 with a steel core turned out to be significantly worse in armor penetration. At the same time, another anti-tank gun, the 7.5 cm Pak 40, which was more traditional in terms of barrel and shells, proved itself to be excellent and subsequently began to be supplied en masse to the troops.

By April 1943, the Wehrmacht had 78 Pak 41 guns, and some of the losses were non-combat: some guns were dismantled for spare parts. On July 25, 1943, an entry appeared in the OKW (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht - Wehrmacht High Command) combat log:

“Due to shortages of spare parts and difficulties with ammunition, Army Group Center transferred 65 7.5 cm Pak 41 guns to the High Command in the West (OberkommandoWest - author's note), where they were repaired, put in order and were subsequently used by troops stationed on the coast for coastal defense.".

Low profile is a valuable quality for any anti-tank gun, and the Pak 41 met this requirement

However, even on the Atlantic Wall, these guns were soon no longer needed due to the lack of armor-piercing shells, but they were not written off or sent for melting down. Conical guns continued to remain in service and took part in battles against the Allies in 1944.

The number of Pak 41s in the army was steadily declining: on February 1, 1944 there were 56 of them, on April 1 - 44, on September 1 - 35, and by March 1, 1945, only 11 guns survived.

As already mentioned, in August 1942, one of the conical guns became a trophy of the Red Army, and on October 6, the Artillery Committee of the GAU KA issued an order to test it. The purpose of the tests was to compile a description of the gun, determine armor penetration and ballistic characteristics systems. Special attention it was necessary to turn to recoil devices, semi-automatics and a bolt.

Pak 41 anti-tank gun during testing at the Gorokhovets training ground, right view (TsAMO)

The gun arrived at the Gorokhovetsky training ground of the GAU KA on October 22, 1942, along with six shells. The range documents indicate Pzgr.40, but this is an obvious mistake - if you tried to fire a projectile from a “regular” Pak 40, the barrel of a “conical” Pak 41 would simply be torn off. Therefore, it is now hardly possible to say what type of shells were actually used.

Tests on the stability of the gun when firing (jumping, throwing, recoil of the gun) were carried out during firing to determine the ballistic characteristics; three shells were used for this. The gun was aimed through the barrel - the sight of the captured gun was lost.

There are only three shells left for testing to determine armor penetration. It was planned to fire at a homogeneous armor plate 120 mm thick from a distance of 200 meters. In this case, the first shot was supposed to be fired at an angle of impact between the projectile and the armor of 60°. If there had been no penetration, the second shell would have been fired at an angle of 90°. If the armor was penetrated during the first shot, then for the second shot it was planned to use a slab with a thickness of 140–150 mm at an impact angle of 60°.

Sectional view of 7.5 cm Pak 41 shells

However, the tests went differently. There was no 120 mm armor at the test site, so for testing they took two plates with dimensions of 1.2 × 1.2 meters, thickness 45 mm and 100 mm, with different modes cementation and hardness coefficients, and set at 60° to the direction of flight of the projectile. In addition, the 100 mm slab had already been shot at and was deformed, so it was not possible to install the slabs closely, and there was a gap of about 30 mm between them. The first one was a slab with a thickness of 45 mm. They shot from 200 meters, aiming again through the barrel.

The first shot failed to hit the target, so the second was fired from a distance of 100 meters. Alas, it was also unsuccessful - the shell hit the wooden frame that held the armor plates. The third shot, the last shell, was fired from a distance of 75 meters, and finally hit the target. The ballistic tip was crumpled, the core, having pierced the 45-mm plate, shattered into small fragments, the mangled shell of the projectile got stuck between the plates and in the pothole of the 100-mm plate.

A projectile after hitting armor plates at the GAU training ground (TsAMO)

Even one hit was enough to conclude that a projectile from the Pak 41 could penetrate 120 mm armor at a shell-to-armor angle of 60°. According to calculations, it was supposed to penetrate armor 195 mm thick at a distance of 500 meters and 170 mm at a distance of 1000 meters. Due to a shortage of shells, the Gorokhovets GAU training ground was unable to confirm the theoretical calculations of the Artillery Committee.

At this point the tests were completed. Based on the initial velocity of the projectile, determined to be 1190 m/s, it can be assumed that they fired a projectile not with a tungsten core, but a Pzgr. 41 St. – with steel.

Description of the 7.5 cm Pak 41 anti-tank gun

An anti-tank gun with a conical barrel of 75/55 mm caliber was designed to fight tanks and armored vehicles and could fire to suppress firing points and destroy manpower.

The gun was transported by mechanical traction, for which it was equipped with a torsion suspension mechanism, automatically turned off when the frames are moved apart, and a pneumatic brake controlled by the driver of the tractor. Wheels are metal, with solid rubber tires. A carriage with sliding frames made it possible to conduct horizontal fire in a sector equal to 60°.

View of the gun from the crew side (TsAMO)

The main parts of the gun were a barrel with a bolt, a cradle with recoil devices and a ball segment, lifting and turning mechanisms, a shield cover with running parts, and sighting devices.

A design feature of the Pak-41 was the absence of upper and lower gun mounts, while their presence was virtually standard for all types of guns, both then and now. The functions of the lower machine, and at the same time the main element to which everything was attached, were performed by the shield. It consisted of a package of two armor plates, each 7 mm thick, reinforced with intermediate bulkheads to increase rigidity.

A cradle with a ball segment, a move with a suspension mechanism for the machine, as well as guidance mechanisms were attached to the shield. At the same time, the shield provided reliable protection for the crew from fire from all types small arms at all distances, the fragments were also largely not dangerous. The barrel passed through a spherical segment in the center of the shield - this method is more typical for casemate installations of bunkers than for anti-tank guns.

The shutter is vertical, wedge, semi-automatic. The sight is optical, periscope, for direct fire only. Sighting devices are located in the upper part of the cradle. The sight design made it possible to take into account barrel wear.

7.5 cm Pak 41 gun in transport position (TsAMO)

The monoblock barrel was composite and consisted of a pipe, a nozzle, a barrel bushing, a muzzle brake and a breech. The breech was connected to the pipe using a coupling. The nozzle was screwed onto the pipe, for which turnkey edges were cut on it closer to the muzzle. The joint between the pipe and the nozzle was covered with a sleeve, which was secured with a screw. The pipe channel had 28 grooves of constant steepness, the caliber of the pipe channel was 75 mm along the entire length, the length of the channel was 2965 mm.

The nozzle had a more complex design: its channel combined cylindrical and conical parts, and there were no rifling in it. Thus, the main wear occurred on this part of the barrel, and the design implied its rapid replacement by crews in the field. The length of the nozzle channel is 950 mm, the caliber at the beginning of the nozzle channel is 75 mm, at the muzzle – 55 mm. The length of the conical part is 450 mm, the length of the cylindrical part is 500 mm. The muzzle brake was slotted and screwed onto the barrel attachment. The design of the gun provided elevation angles from −10 to +18°.

Some historians and researchers incorrectly read the drawings and the accompanying text, which led to the erroneous opinion that the barrel attachment was collapsible and consisted of two parts.

Ammunition for Pak 41 and a tube container for its transportation

Four types of ammunition were created for the 7.5 cm Pak 41:

Pzgr. 41 H.K. – a cartridge with an armor-piercing tracer projectile, with a tungsten core. Projectile weight 2.58 kg, initial speed 1260 m/s;
Pzgr. 41 St. – a cartridge with an armor-piercing tracer projectile, with a steel core. Projectile weight 3.00 kg, initial speed 1170 m/s;
Pzgr. 41 W. – cartridge with an armor-piercing tracer sub-caliber projectile. Projectile weight 2.48 kg, initial speed 1230 m/s;
Spgr. 41 – cartridge with a fragmentation tracer grenade. Projectile weight 2.61 kg, initial speed 900 m/s.

According to Soviet calculations (according to Jacob de Marre's formula, strength coefficient K = 2400), an armor-piercing tracer projectile with an initial speed of 1200 m/s penetrated armor at an angle of encounter between the projectile and the armor of 60° at the following distances:

According to the same estimates, a fragmentation tracer projectile could be accurately fired at a range of 4200 meters. According to German data, the armor penetration of the Pak 41 was:

Projectile type
7.5 cm Pzgr. Patr. 41 H.K.
7.5 cm Pzgr. Patr. 41 W.

The 7.5 cm Panzerjägerkanone (Pak) 41 gun was a unique weapon with outstanding characteristics, posing a threat to all types of both contemporary tanks and those that appeared in the first post-war years. Only a small series and a shortage of tungsten did not allow it to show its full potential. At the same time, acquaintance with the gun led to the beginning of work in the USSR to create several similar guns, especially since the emergence of new types German tanks it was already known at the front, and the armor penetration results of the Pak 41 were impressive.

Translation German documents Antonova V.A.

Sources And literature:

Documents from the fund of the Main Artillery Directorate (TsAMO RF)
Waffen Revue No. 33, 1979
Handbook on German military forces. War Department technical manual TM-E 30–451. War Department 03/15/1945 – US Government Printing Office. Washington, 1945
Handbook of German artillery - M.: Military Publishing House NKO, 1945
Artillery ammunition of the former German army. Directory. GAU USSR Armed Forces - M.: Military Publishing House of the Ministry of the Armed Forces of the USSR, 1946
Documentation W 127: Datenblätter für Heeres Waffen Fahrzeuge Gerat. Karl. R. Pawlas, publizistisches Archiv für Militär- und Waffenwesen

For a century now, the best anti-tank ammunition has been the fast-flying crowbar. And the main question that gunsmiths are struggling with is how to accelerate it faster.

It’s only in films about World War II that tanks explode after being hit by a shell – it’s a movie, after all. In real life, most tanks die like infantrymen who caught a bullet while running at full speed. A sub-caliber projectile makes a small hole in the thick hull, killing the crew with fragments of the armor of the tank itself. True, unlike the infantryman, most of these tanks easily return to life after a few days, or even hours.
True, with a different crew.

A modern reconstruction of a cannon with a conical barrel has a characteristic detail clearly visible: the shield is made up of two armor plates

Almost until the start of World War II, the speed of conventional field artillery shells was sufficient to penetrate the armor of any tanks, and the armor was for the most part bulletproof. The classic armor-piercing projectile was a large steel blunt-pointed (so as not to slip off the armor and not break off the tip of the projectile) piercer, often with an aerodynamic copper cap-fairing and a small amount of explosives in the bottom part - reserves of their own armor in pre-war tanks were not enough for good fragmentation.

Everything changed on December 18, 1939, when, supporting the advance of the Soviet infantry, he launched an attack on Finnish positions. experienced tank KV-1. The tank was hit by 43 artillery shells, but none of them penetrated the armor. However, for unknown reasons, this debut was not noticed by specialists.

Therefore, the appearance at the front of Soviet tanks with shell-resistant armor - the heavy KV and the medium T-34 - was an unpleasant surprise for the Wehrmacht generals. In the very first days of the war, it became clear that all the Wehrmacht anti-tank guns and thousands of captured ones - English, French, Polish, Czech - were useless in the fight against KV tanks.

It should be noted that the German generals reacted quite quickly. Corps artillery was thrown against the KV - 10.5 cm cannons and 15 cm heavy howitzers. Most effective means Anti-aircraft guns of 8.8 and 10.5 cm calibers began to fight them. Within a few months, fundamentally new armor-piercing shells were created - sub-caliber and cumulative (according to the then Soviet terminology - armor-piercing).

Mass and speed

Let's leave cumulative ammunition aside - we talked about them in previous issues of PM. The armor penetration of classic, kinetic projectiles depends on three factors - impact force, material and shape of the projectile. The impact force can be increased by increasing the mass of the projectile or its speed. An increase in mass while maintaining the caliber is permissible within very small limits; the speed can be increased by increasing the mass of the propellant charge and increasing the length of the barrel. Literally in the first months of the war, the walls of the anti-tank gun barrels thickened, and the barrels themselves lengthened.

A simple increase in caliber was also not a panacea. Powerful anti-tank guns at the beginning of World War II were made basically this way: they took the swinging parts of anti-aircraft guns and placed them on heavy carriages. Thus, in the USSR, on the basis of the swinging part of the B-34 naval anti-aircraft gun, a 100-mm BS-3 anti-tank gun with a warhead weight of 3.65 tons was created. (For comparison: the German 3.7-cm anti-tank gun weighed 480 kg). We were even embarrassed to call the BS-3 an anti-tank gun and called it a field gun; before that there were no field guns in the Red Army, this is a pre-revolutionary term.

The Germans, based on the 8.8 cm anti-aircraft gun "41", created two types of anti-tank guns weighing 4.4–5 tons. Based on the 12.8 cm anti-aircraft gun, several samples of anti-tank guns were created with a completely prohibitive weight of 8.3–12 ,2 tons. They required powerful tractors, and camouflage was difficult due to their large dimensions.

These guns were extremely expensive and were produced not in thousands, but in hundreds, both in Germany and in the USSR. Thus, by May 1, 1945, the Red Army had 403 units of 100-mm BS-3 cannons: 58 in the corps artillery, 111 in the army artillery and 234 in the RVGK. But the divisional artillery did not have them at all.

Half gun, half gun
German 20/28-mm anti-tank rifle sPzB 41. Due to the conical barrel, which gave a high initial velocity to the projectile, it penetrated the armor of T-34 and KV tanks

Forced guns

Much more interesting was another way to solve the problem - while maintaining the caliber and mass of the projectile, accelerate it faster. Many different options were invented, but anti-tank guns with a conical bore turned out to be a real masterpiece of engineering. Their barrels consisted of several alternating conical and cylindrical sections, and the projectiles had a special design of the leading part, allowing its diameter to decrease as the projectile moved along the channel. This ensured the fullest use of the pressure of the powder gases on the bottom of the projectile by reducing its cross-sectional area.

This ingenious solution was invented even before the First World War - the first patent for a gun with a conical bore was received by the German Karl Ruff in 1903. Experiments were carried out with a conical bore in Russia. In 1905, engineer M. Druganov and General N. Rogovtsev proposed a patent for a gun with a conical bore. And in 1940, prototypes of barrels with a conical channel were tested at the design bureau of artillery plant No. 92 in Gorky. During the experiments, it was possible to obtain an initial speed of 965 m/s. However, V.G. Grabin failed to cope with a number of technological difficulties associated with the deformation of the projectile during passage of the bore, and to achieve the required quality of processing of the bore. Therefore, even before the start of the Great Patriotic War The Main Artillery Directorate ordered the end of experiments with barrels with a conical bore.

Shadow Genius

The Germans continued their experiments, and already in the first half of 1940, the heavy anti-tank rifle s.Pz.B.41 was adopted, the barrel of which had a caliber of 28 mm at the beginning of the channel, and 20 mm at the muzzle. The system was called a gun for bureaucratic reasons, but in fact it was a classic anti-tank gun with recoil devices and a wheeled drive, and we will call it a gun. The only thing that brought it closer to an anti-tank rifle was the lack of guidance mechanisms. The barrel was manually aimed by the gunner. The weapon could be disassembled into parts. Fire could be fired from wheels and bipods. A version of the gun, lighter to 118 kg, was produced for the airborne troops. This gun did not have a shield, and light alloys were used in the carriage design. The standard wheels were replaced with small rollers without any suspension. The weight of the gun in firing position was only 229 kg, and the rate of fire was up to 30 rounds per minute.

The ammunition included a sub-caliber projectile with a tungsten core and a fragmentation projectile. Instead of the copper belts used in classic projectiles, both projectiles had two centering annular protrusions made of soft iron, which, when fired, crumpled and crashed into the rifling of the barrel bore. During the entire path of the projectile through the channel, the diameter of the annular protrusions decreased from 28 to 20 mm.

The fragmentation projectile had a very weak damaging effect and was intended exclusively for self-defense of the crew. But the initial speed of the armor-piercing projectile was 1430 m/s (versus 762 m/s for classic 3.7 cm anti-tank guns), which puts the s.Pz.B.41 on a par with the best modern guns. For comparison, the world's best 120-mm German Rh120 tank gun, mounted on Leopard-2 and Abrams M1A1 tanks, accelerates a sub-caliber projectile to 1650 m/s.

By June 1, 1941, the troops had 183 s.Pz.B.41 guns; that same summer they received baptism of fire at Eastern Front. In September 1943, the last s.Pz.B.41 gun was delivered. The cost of one gun was 4520 Reichsmarks.

At close ranges, 2.8/2 cm cannons easily hit any medium tanks, and with a successful hit they also disabled heavy tanks of the KV and IS types.

The design of the projectiles allowed them to be compressed in the bore

Larger caliber, lower speeds

In 1941, a 4.2 cm anti-tank gun mod. 41 (4.2 cm Pak 41) from Rheinmetall with a conical bore. Its initial diameter was 40.3 mm, and its final diameter was 29 mm. In 1941, 27 4.2 cm guns mod. 41, and in 1942 - another 286. The initial speed of the armor-piercing projectile was 1265 m/s, and at a distance of 500 m it penetrated 72 mm armor at an angle of 30 °, and 87 mm armor normally. The weight of the gun was 560 kg.

The most powerful serial anti-tank gun with a conical channel was the 7.5 cm Pak 41. Its design was started by Krupp back in 1939. In April-May 1942, the Krupp company produced a batch of 150 products, at which point their production ceased. The initial speed of the armor-piercing projectile was 1260 m/s, at a distance of 1 km it penetrated 145 mm of armor at an angle of 30° and 177 mm along the normal, that is, the gun could fight all types of heavy tanks.

Short life

But if conical barrels never became widespread, then these guns had serious shortcomings. Our experts considered the main one to be the low survivability of the conical barrel (on average about 500 shots), that is, almost ten times less than that of the 3.7 cm Pak 35/36 anti-tank gun. (The argument, by the way, is unconvincing - the probability of survival for a light anti-tank gun that fired 100 shots at tanks did not exceed 20%. And not a single one survived to 500 shots.) The second complaint is the weakness of fragmentation shells. But the gun is anti-tank.

Nevertheless, the German guns made an impression on the Soviet military, and immediately after the war, work began on domestic anti-tank guns with a conical bore at TsAKB (Grabin Design Bureau) and OKB-172 (“sharashka”, where the prisoners worked). Based on the captured 7.5 cm PAK 41 cannon with a cylindrical-conical barrel, in 1946 the TsAKB began work on a 76/57-mm regimental anti-tank gun S-40 with a cylindrical-conical barrel. The S-40 barrel had a caliber at the breech of 76.2 mm, and at the muzzle - 57 mm. The total length of the barrel was about 5.4 m. The chamber was borrowed from the 85-mm anti-aircraft gun of the 1939 model. Behind the chamber there was a conical rifled part of 76.2 mm caliber with a length of 3264 mm with 32 rifling of constant steepness in 22 calibers. A nozzle with a cylindrical-conical channel is screwed onto the muzzle of the pipe. The weight of the system was 1824 kg, the rate of fire was up to 20 rds/min, and the initial speed of the 2.45-kg armor-piercing projectile was 1332 m/s. Normally, at a distance of 1 km, the shell penetrated 230 mm armor; for such a caliber and weight of a gun, this was a fantastic record!

A prototype of the S-40 gun passed factory and field tests in 1947. The accuracy of combat and the armor penetration of armor-piercing shells of the S-40 was significantly better than that of the standard and experimental shells of the 57-mm ZIS-2 cannon that were tested in parallel, but the S-40 never entered service. The opponents' arguments are the same: the technological complexity of manufacturing the barrel, low survivability, and the low effectiveness of the fragmentation projectile. Well, besides, the then Minister of Arms D.F. Ustinov hated Grabin fiercely and opposed the adoption of any of his artillery systems.

Soviet 76/57 mm S-40 cannon with a cylindrical-conical bore

Conical nozzles

It is curious that the conical barrel was used not only in anti-tank guns, but also in anti-aircraft artillery and special-power artillery.

Thus, for the 24-cm long-range K.3 cannon, mass-produced with a conventional barrel, several more samples of conical barrels were created in 1942–1945, the creation of which was jointly developed by Krupp and Rheinmetall. For firing from a conical barrel, a special 24/21 cm sub-caliber projectile was created weighing 126.5 kg, loaded with 15 kg explosive.

The survivability of the first conical barrel turned out to be low, and changing barrels after several dozen shots was too expensive. Therefore, it was decided to replace the conical barrel with a cylindrical-conical one. They took a standard cylindrical barrel with fine rifling and equipped it with a conical nozzle weighing one ton, which was simply screwed onto the standard gun barrel.

During the firing, the survivability of the conical nozzle turned out to be about 150 shots, that is, higher than that of the Soviet 180-mm B-1 naval guns (with fine rifling). During firing in July 1944, an initial speed of 1130 m/s and a range of 50 km were obtained. During further tests, it also became clear that projectiles that initially passed through such a cylindrical part were more stable in flight. These guns, along with their creators, were captured Soviet troops in May 1945. The K.3 system with a cylindrical-conical barrel was refined in 1945–1946 in the city of Semmerda (Thuringia) by a group of German designers led by Assmann.

By August 1943, Rheinmetall had produced a 15 cm GerKt 65F anti-aircraft gun with a conical barrel and a swept-fin projectile. A projectile with a speed of 1200 m/s made it possible to reach targets at an altitude of 18,000 km, where it flew for 25 seconds. However, the survivability of the barrel of 86 shots put an end to the career of this miracle gun - the consumption of shells in anti-aircraft artillery is simply monstrous.

Documentation for anti-aircraft installations with a conical barrel ended up in the Artillery and Mortar Group of the USSR Ministry of Armament, and in 1947, experimental Soviet models of anti-aircraft guns with a conical channel were created at Plant No. 8 in Sverdlovsk. The projectile of the 85/57 mm KS-29 cannon had an initial speed of 1500 m/s, and the projectile of the 103/76 mm KS-24 cannon had an initial speed of 1300 m/s. Original ammunition was created for them (by the way, still classified).

Tests of the guns confirmed German shortcomings - in particular, low survivability, which put a final end to such guns. On the other hand, systems with a conical barrel of 152–220 mm caliber, before the advent of S-75 anti-aircraft guided missiles in 1957, could be the only means of destroying high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft and single carrier jet bombers nuclear weapons. If, of course, we could get into them.

Angel without wings 23-07-2016 06:38

In 1930, German infantry units at the platoon to battalion level had 7.92 mm anti-tank rifles (ATR) and 37 mm anti-tank guns as anti-tank weapons. However, by the beginning of the Second World War, these weapons did not meet the requirements for infantry anti-tank weapons - the guns did not have sufficient destructive power.

To create a new anti-tank system, German designers used a weapon design with a conical bore, which made it possible to increase projectile speed and armor penetration. The guide belts of the projectile, made of relatively soft metal, are compressed when moving along the conical bore of the barrel. Thus, the most complete use of the pressure of powder gases on the bottom of the projectile is ensured by reducing its cross-sectional area. In addition, when a projectile passes through the barrel, these belts take on an optimal shape from a ballistics point of view.

This method of increasing projectile speed was proposed by German professor Karl Puff. In 1903-1907, he developed a rifle for a special bullet with a belt. The barrel had rifling of progressive depth (conical rifling) - deep in the breech and shallow in the muzzle. The bullet itself had a diameter corresponding to the diameter of the bore along the fields, and the leading part was only a belt of such a diameter that it filled the rifling and gradually flattened as it passed through the bore. This made it possible to ensure that the bullet, while moving along the barrel, encountered constant resistance.
Puff's idea was further developed by experiments conducted in the 1920s and 1930s by German engineer German Gerlich. In Gerlich's design, the conical section of the barrel bore was combined with cylindrical sections in the breech and muzzle parts, and the rifling, the deepest at the breech, gradually disappeared towards the muzzle. This made it possible to rationally use the pressure of powder gases. Gerlich's experimental 7-mm Halger-Ultra anti-tank rifle had a muzzle velocity of 1800 m/s. For the gun, Gerlich designed a special 7-mm bullet - the “ultra-bullet”. The bullet had two crushable leading bands, which, when moving along the bore, were pressed into recesses on the projectile.
In 1939, designers of the German company Mauser-Werke AG, based on Gerlich's developments, began work on creating a light anti-tank gun with a conical bore. Initially, the gun, which had the indices "Gerät 231" and "MK. 8202", was developed as a universal (infantry and anti-tank) automatic gun equipped with an 18-round magazine. However, during development, it was decided to abandon this concept and create a single-shot version of the weapon with a conical barrel, and only for anti-tank needs. According to a number of German sources, this work was carried out by the Rheinmetall company.
In June - July 1940, an experimental batch of 30 samples was manufactured and sent for military testing. Based on their results, modifications were made, and from February 1941, the troops began to receive a new infantry anti-tank weapon, designated “sPzB 41” (2.8 cm schwere Panzerbüchse 41 - 2.8 cm heavy anti-tank rifle of the 1941 model).

Caliber, mm 28/20x188
Length, mm 2690
Barrel length, mm 1730
Weight, kg 229
Rate of fire,
rds/min 12 - 15
Sighting
range
shooting, m 500
starting speed
projectile, m/s 1400
Armor penetration,
(distance /
meeting angle /
penetration) 100 m / 60o / 52 mm
300 m / 60o / 46 mm
500 m / 60o / 25 mm
100 m / 90o / 75 mm
500 m / 60o / 40 mm

If anyone has materials on such weapons, please post them here.

abc55 23-07-2016 23:29

resource is small

Alexander Pyndos 27-07-2016 16:50

quote: Originally posted by Angel without wings:
It turns out that these existed and were created by German gunsmiths.
One of them is the "Heavy anti-tank rifle sPzB 41".

..and who would have thought! But there could be less copy-paste...

abc55 27-07-2016 22:50

poet's dream
accelerate the sub-caliber to 1800

Varnas 11-08-2016 12:34

But only after the war. In fact, for a conical barrel, only one direction was promising - like a cannon for jet aircraft. But now it's too late.

abc55 11-08-2016 11:57

Can this thing be adapted for long-range sniper tasks?
it is not necessary to rest the weapon on your shoulder
you can also fire from a tripod with manual loading
for a long-range sniper, the rate of fire is a secondary task

modern combat
an easel rifle with combat for 2 or 3 km in the city and on the plain ochenama is even needed

speeds of 1500ms and higher are needed
hit walls, equipment, and even a tank, say, in the roof, or
between the wheels
the same abrams can be fired into the back of the turret's head while stowed

Varnas 11-08-2016 23:59

quote: Can this thing be adapted for long-range sniper tasks?

An open question about the accuracy of conical barrels.

quote: I periodically watch the war in Syria on YouTube
The Internet provides a lot of material for thinking about -
modern combat
an easel rifle with combat for 2 or 3 km in the city and on the plain ochenama is even needed

On the plain, such a fool will be taken down by a 60 mm mortar on a plate and with a normal sight. And to shoot at 2-3 km, you need both suitable optics on the rifle and optics for target detection. Not a toy for women...

quote: speeds of 1500ms and higher are needed

We need the required energy at the target at the required range. And whether a bullet has a higher energy and a lower BC or a lower muzzle energy and a larger BC must be calculated for each range.

quote: the same abrams can be fired into the back of the turret's head while stowed

Fairy tales. An isolated incident was when a burst from a 14.5 machine gun penetrated the armor of an auxiliary power plant located at the rear of the turret. Some idiots there installed a tank without cellular filler. As a result, burning fuel spilled onto the MTO grille.

Pretty good article. Could they really mention that the 28/20 PTR is almost an exact copy of http://strangernn.livejournal.com/1057859.html

Echo 12-08-2016 07:15

An isolated incident was when a burst from a 14.5 machine gun penetrated the armor of an auxiliary power plant located at the rear of the turret. Some idiots there installed a tank without cellular filler. As a result, burning fuel spilled onto the MTO grille.

Moreover, not 14.5 mm, but “medium caliber” - which in American terminology means “from 20 mm”. Apparently, our own Bradley hit him in the back of the head; such incidents have happened more than once.

Now the APU has been removed from the aft niche, and to penetrate the turret armor itself, even the aft one...

abc55 12-08-2016 13:01

Steyr AMR/IWS 2000

Gerlich

abc55 12-08-2016 13:11

quote: An open question about the accuracy of conical barrels.

What problems might there be with accuracy with a conical barrel?
I'm not talking about the resource

the shape of the projectile is quite streamlined at the exit
well, there is a small squiggle in the center

maybe uneven flattening of the skirt?
mini distortion when accelerating

Varnas 12-08-2016 15:15

As for the picture - even according to it, the armor resistance of the rear of the turret is at least 60. As for igniting the gunpowder - the gunpowder there has reduced vulnerability and even those that have been ignited at atmospheric pressure burn extremely slowly. And the shells themselves have long been equipped with insensitive explosives.

quote: What problems might there be with accuracy with a conical barrel?

According to the SALVO program, the Americans also made multi-bullet cartridges for PP. For example, there was a 9*19 cartridge with three bullets for a conical barrel. Despite the absence of bevels on the back surface, the bullets flew well. It’s so good that even for a PP it was considered excessive.

Echo 12-08-2016 18:25

quote: Originally posted by abc55:
Steyr AMR/IWS 2000
The diameter of the arrow is 5.5 mm, the weight according to various sources is from 20 to 35 grams, the initial speed is 1450 meters per second. At a distance of 1000 meters, this arrow penetrates 40mm homogeneous steel armor

normal. And does she have a conical barrel?

quote:
Gerlich
initial projectile speed - about 1400 m/s;
firing range - up to 500 m;
caliber (conical) - 28/20 mm;
projectile weight: armor-piercing - 121 g, high-explosive fragmentation - 91 g

quote:
Abrams can be punched in the back of the head - it will ignite gunpowder

It is more reliable to shoot at the stern of the MTO.
Not only was the rear of the turret shielded with air conditioning and a bunch of rubbish ("crew property", spare parts, etc.), but the armor was sloped, which German shells categorically did not like. If you manage to penetrate at close range - the shots in the niche are located with shells to the armor, and not with cartridges, it is not a fact that you will be able to ignite. If a miracle happened and the gunpowder caught fire - knockout panels and isolation from the crew.

I would shoot at the MTO...

Fireman2 12-08-2016 18:39

quote: Originally posted by Echo:

The projectile is not sub-caliber and quickly loses energy.

Varnas 12-08-2016 18:53

quote: The projectile is not sub-caliber and quickly loses energy.

So it was not intended for long distances. Although you can play with bookmakers there significantly.

quote: I would shoot at the MTO...

quote: The sub-caliber one loses energy even faster..))

Amendment - sub-caliber with non-detachable pallets. Although, in truth, the first designs of sub-caliber shells looked like they were designed by syphilitics sitting on mercury. A tungsten carbide core half the length of a projectile. At a minimum, they would make the projectile as long as possible, or even longer. Borchardt's patent for a projectile/bullet with a core longer than the projectile itself dates back to the 19th century.

Echo 12-08-2016 23:53

The sub-caliber one loses energy even faster..))

AMR rifle sub-caliber "arrow"?!

Echo 13-08-2016 12:01

quote: Originally posted by Varnas:

And there the result is the same as in the Second World War - when hole punchers barely penetrate thin armor. Only here there is diesel fuel and modern fire extinguishing systems.

And we don’t necessarily need to set it on fire. It is enough that the turbine has a hole or the transmission is broken - the tank is disabled in this particular battle and is no longer useful.

quote:
A tungsten carbide core half the length of a projectile. At a minimum, they would make the projectile as long as possible, or even longer. Borchardt's patent for a projectile/bullet with a core longer than the projectile itself dates back to the 19th century.

WEIGHT.
The core is longer than the projectile and will have the same mass as the projectile itself. The essence of the sub-caliber is a significantly smaller mass to achieve a higher speed. By the way, the core, this was already the second step, at first they tested just steel shells - it turned out badly. That’s why we switched to a tungsten carbide core, but to maintain low mass we had to make a tiny core.

Varnas 13-08-2016 09:08

quote: But we don’t necessarily need to set it on fire. It is enough that the turbine has a hole or the transmission is broken - the tank is disabled in this particular battle and is no longer useful.

And the hole, depending on where and what it is, can crawl through enough without oil.

quote: WEIGHT.
The core is longer than the projectile and will have the same mass as the projectile itself.

Kick. Were you friends with geometry or did you hate it with passion? The diameter of the core is less than 2 times the diameter of the projectile, the length is twice as long. How many times is the volume of the core less than the volume of the projectile? Can you calculate it yourself or can you help? |

quote: The essence of the sub-caliber is a significantly smaller mass to achieve a higher speed.

The essence of a sub-caliber projectile is more joules per square mm of penetrator. Dot.

quote: The core, by the way, this was already the second step, at first they just tested steel shells - it turned out badly. That's why we switched to a tungsten carbide core

Past again. Even the sub-caliber fins were made of steel, with a carbide insert. The insert was either in the front or in the back. Although the speeds there are not 1200-1400 but 1800.

quote: Common mistake- consider yourself smarter than your ancestors.

I don’t even consider myself smarter than Herr Borchardt. And by the way, you don’t have to be smarter - just know more. And in addition, one company produced Borchard bullets

Echo 13-08-2016 12:16

quote: Originally posted by Varnas:

The turbine of a diesel engine may not work at all - it will drive, albeit slowly. In passenger cars, turbines generally start working at 2,000 rpm.

The only thing left to do is to understand what diesel and passenger cars have to do with it...

quote:
The diameter of the core is less than 2 times the diameter of the projectile, the length is twice as long. How many times is the volume of the core less than the volume of the projectile? Can you calculate it yourself or can you help?

First, find a diesel engine on the Abrams. Then offer to help... And we’ll laugh.

And all this should weigh 1.5 less than a classic projectile.
Take a drawing of any sub-caliber of that time - and count. Then extend the core to the full length of the projectile, and “studio calculations!” . And we'll laugh again
Next - COMPROMAT.
A thin and long core made of brittle material behaves very poorly against armor, especially during oblique impacts and encounters with inclined plates.

quote:
The essence of a sub-caliber projectile is more joules per square mm of penetrator.

Which depend quadratically on speed
And with the joules per area themselves, everything is also very complicated.
I have already given an example - early sub-caliber ones made of steel. Everything is very bad, there is almost no increase in armor penetration. It turns out that the core material is no less important, and sometimes even more important.

quote:
Even the sub-caliber fins were made of steel, with a carbide insert

ChVKB.

quote:
I don’t even consider myself smarter than Herr Borchardt.

Yes, you are not at all smarter than the designers of the first generation of sabots. You even know much less of them.

Varnas 13-08-2016 18:17

quote: The only thing left to do is to understand what diesel and passenger cars have to do with it...

quote: First, find a diesel engine on the Abrams. Then offer to help... And we’ll laugh.

For example, http://warfiles.ru/show-42399-...-v-1630-ls.html

quote: The density of the core is approximately twice as high. And it also requires the projectile itself (at least a coil, until they learn how to make detachable ones).

quote: And all this should weigh 1.5 less than a classic projectile.

What does this have to do with it? Whatever mass is needed, that’s what they will make. It is impossible to lighten a caliber projectile too much (even with a sub-caliber core) - the ammunition drops.

quote: Next - COMPROMAT.
A thin and long core made of brittle material behaves very poorly against armor, especially during oblique impacts and encounters with inclined plates.

Oh damn - again a gag. The current cores, although made of an alloy, are noticeably stronger than steel, the elongation there is not even 1/30. And it is precisely the enormous elongation that provides large torques and prevents the core from deflecting when encountering inclined armor. Modern cores almost a meter long do not ricochet even at an angle of 75 degrees.

quote: Which depend quadratically on speed

Again, ignorance of elementary mathematics. Lightening the projectile by half gives an increase in speed of no more than 1.41 times. That is, the energy of the projectile is no more. Even less, taking into account the drop in throwing efficiency with increasing speeds.

quote: I have already given an example - early sub-caliber ones made of steel. Everything is very bad, there is almost no increase in armor penetration. It turns out that the core material is no less important, and sometimes even more important.

Provide the design and data, then we can discuss something. Here is an example of projectiles with a steel core and a small carbide insert. Although here the elongation speed is much higher than what was achievable in World War II.

quote: It was this core that pierced the armor. The steel projectile showed its complete failure.
PCHKB.

Yeah, so what?

quote: Will making the entire core from a hard alloy immediately increase armor penetration by an order of magnitude? By the way, some of these shells had an insert not in the front part, but in the rear part of the steel core. What should I do?

Yes, you are not at all smarter than the designers of the first generation of sabots. You even know much less of them.

We now know much more - for example, that short armor-piercing cores tragically lose their effectiveness on inclined armor - noticeably inferior to caliber steel blanks. You see, the formula for the kinetic energy of a projectile is not a sealed secret for all people. 13-08-2016 23:12

quote: Originally posted by Varnas:
MiG

But only after the war...

Varnas 14-08-2016 08:10

quote: Are you talking about IM-1? 1943

Are you talking about IM-1? 1943

Echo 14-08-2016 12:53

quote: Originally posted by Varnas:

I don’t know about IM-1. Grabin tried to make a weapon with a conical barrel before the war - he designed it for 1000 / s, got about 950 (with an enhanced charge). But they barely made it through one trunk. After the war 75/57 mm. Punched 300 mm. However, they were not accepted into service.

Do you want to say that a turbocharged diesel engine in a tank is fundamentally different from a turbocharged diesel engine in a passenger car?

quote:
I don't want to say anything. I asked a question and want to hear the answer - how are Abrams, a diesel engine and a passenger car connected?

For example
But what religion forbids you to read it yourself?
The article says that someday, perhaps, a diesel engine will be installed on the Abrams. Or they won't install it.

quote:
Until now, there has never been a diesel engine on the Abrams.

But that’s not the point - the turbine pumps air probably in cubic meters per second, if there is a hole in the housing of a couple of centimeters (without other damage), then it may not even be noticed in battle.
It's difficult to miss a failed engine or transmission

quote:
Almost impossible.

In short - in geometry it's a two. Having halved the diameter of the core, the volume and mass will be reduced by 4 times, while elongating it twice relative to the length of the projectile, the mass will still be 2 times less.
You, as always, forgot just a little, the body of the projectile

quote:
The core itself will not fly anywhere.

What does this have to do with it?

quote:
Otherwise, there is no point in fencing the garden - reducing mass is the only way to increase the initial speed. That's why sub-caliber shells were born.

It is impossible to lighten a caliber projectile too much (even with a sub-caliber core) - the ammunition drops.

Well, God be with him, with BC! The sub-caliber ones were fired at 500 meters, as a maximum.
Would you teach the mathematical part at least a little, are you our geometrician?
BR-350B - 6.5 kilograms.

BR-354P - 3 kilograms.

quote:
The weight is more than doubled!

More precisely, your total ignorance of the hardware. Read Shein's (Litlbro) reports on shell tests, read "Private Issues of Final Ballistics".

quote:
The current cores, although made of an alloy, are noticeably stronger than steel, the elongation there is not even 1/30.

MATERIAL PART. Learn. Urgently.
Modern (and not so modern) cores are not made from tungsten carbide. Just because it is very fragile.

quote:
Again, ignorance of elementary mathematics.

More precisely - again your total ignorance of the hardware

quote:
Provide the design and data, then we can discuss something.

What can we discuss with you if you don’t even know the basic things and history of the subject being discussed, trying to replace knowledge with third-grade arithmetic? Ballistics (both internal and finite) is “somewhat” more complicated than the arithmetic and geometry of the school course.
To begin with, learn the subject, master at least the basics and history, then you can at least somehow talk to you about it.
For now, I can only laugh at the frantic attempts to find a diesel engine on the Abrams.

quote:
Here is an example of projectiles with a steel core and a small carbide insert.

Where is the example? I do not see

The most interesting thing is that no one has made a tungsten carbide core the length of the entire projectile. Have you ever wondered why? Only a short core.

quote:
This insert was 4-10 times shorter than the steel core.

Yes, but it was she who ensured the penetration of the armor.

quote:
Will making the entire core from a hard alloy immediately increase armor penetration by an order of magnitude?

No, it won’t increase. Guess why.

quote:
By the way, some of these shells had an insert not in the front part, but in the rear part of the steel core. What should I do?

So I’m asking YOU - why did they make a short core from tungsten carbide, and not the entire “arrow” from it? What should I do? (WITH)
The location in the rear did not affect armor penetration - the conclusion is simple, it is the core that does the main work, and it does not matter where it is located. In the rear part, for less tendency to ricochet, it was moved to 3BM26 Nadezhda.

quote:
for example, short armor-piercing cores tragically lose their effectiveness on inclined armor - noticeably inferior to caliber steel blanks.

3BM11 looks at you with bewilderment...

quote: Originally posted by Varnas:
I don’t know about IM-1.

There is a document about IM-1 - a report from the head of the design bureau of plant N 172, Gurenko (autumn 1943).
And here's another article. True, there were mistakes made with the chronology and design bureau...
http://otvaga2004.ru/air/air-8/stvol-odin-kalibra-dva/

quote: Originally posted by Varnas:
Grabin tried to make a weapon with a conical barrel before the war - he designed it for 1000 / s, got about 950 (with an enhanced charge). But they barely made it through one trunk. After the war 75/57 mm. Punched 300 mm. However, they were not accepted into service.

So, in addition to Grabin, we were engaged in bicaliber guns before, during, and after the war. Well, yes, they turned out to be too expensive and low-tech.

Varnas 14-08-2016 16:37

They wrote so many gags - that it’s even a pity to waste time. Vbin school geometry is unnecessary, logic is also unnecessary - arguments - I heard a ringing, but I don’t know where it is. There are no answers at all, only trollism. Even to a direct question

quote: This insert was 4-10 times shorter than the steel core.
Yes, but it was she who ensured the penetration of the armor.

you write all sorts of crap.
For example

quote: The location in the rear did not affect armor penetration - the conclusion is simple, it is the core that does the main work, and it does not matter where it is located.

It turns out that the steel core is superfluous there, and in vain they didn’t work with a duralumin core and a solid insert, since that’s the only thing that works. The velocity of the projectile would increase noticeably. Yes, there’s just zero logic, but you’re trying to teach others here... You’re tired of it.

Thank you - I didn’t read this article.

quote: So, besides Grabin, we were engaged in bicaliber guns before, during, and after the war. Well, yes, they turned out to be too expensive and low-tech.

On the other hand, there are excessive requirements for barrel survivability. An anti-tank gun fired 100 shots, hit, say, 30 times, knocked out 10 tanks and was not destroyed - IMHO a super result. Replacing part of the barrel with such results is only a joy. For an attack aircraft, for example, the gun barrel can withstand 1-2 zeroings and 1-1.5 rounds of ammunition - survivability beyond the eyes, taking into account how many aircraft sorties it takes to shoot down an attack aircraft and the cost of the gun barrel and the cost of the aircraft + crew. Linear ships and cruisers of the 1930s and 1940s generally have typical survivability of main caliber barrels with 1-2 rounds of ammunition, but everyone put up with this, although replacing barrels there is extremely difficult.

quote: Originally posted by Varnas:
I see two nuances here. On the one hand, they tried to tear apart German weapons using Soviet - more primitive technologies. However, this was a well-known problem of the USSR throughout its existence.
On the other hand, there are excessive requirements for barrel survivability. An anti-tank gun fired 100 shots, hit, say, 30 times, knocked out 10 tanks and was not destroyed - IMHO a super result. Replacing part of the barrel with such results is only a joy. For an attack aircraft, for example, the gun barrel can withstand 1-2 zeroings and 1-1.5 rounds of ammunition - survivability beyond the eyes, taking into account how many aircraft sorties it takes to shoot down an attack aircraft and the cost of the gun barrel and the cost of the aircraft + crew. Linear ships and cruisers of the 1930s and 1940s generally have typical survivability of main caliber barrels with 1-2 rounds of ammunition, but everyone put up with this, although replacing barrels there is extremely difficult.

Yes. A 122-mm experimental OB-40 barrel with a conical nozzle was even manufactured. They were looking for all sorts of ways to beat tanks. Although I personally don’t understand why such an attachment is needed in general.

Fireman2 14-08-2016 19:09

The most effective penetrator must have high speed, high elongation and high material density. Tungsten carbide is a thing of the distant past. Now it has been replaced by VRP or depleted uranium.

Echo 16-08-2016 12:53

quote: Originally posted by Varnas:

They wrote so many gags - that it’s even a pity to waste time.

Why aren't there any Abrams with a diesel engine?
So, it’s not your cow’s job to moo about the “gag.”

quote:
There are no answers at all, only trollism. Even to a direct question

Self-critical. I’m still waiting for an answer to a direct question - how are the Abrams MTO and diesel connected?
When will the answer be, little troll?

quote:
you write all sorts of crap.

quote:
Tired of it.

Naturally
As soon as they started asking the troll specific direct questions, he immediately got tired of everything

Go ahead and study the math, you sick guy. And put a plantain to your head along the way.

P.S. At the same time, learn the Russian language; it’s almost impossible to read that nonsense.

Echo 16-08-2016 12:56

quote: Originally posted by Fireman2:

Well, Semyooon Semyooonich

I kept waiting for the customer to realize that a short core made of tungsten carbide and a long core made of TRP are not the same thing.

And you took, and just like that, all the raspberries...

Varnas 16-08-2016 22:40

quote: Yes. A 122-mm experimental OB-40 barrel with a conical nozzle was even manufactured. They were looking for all sorts of ways to beat tanks. Although I personally don’t understand why such an attachment is needed in general.

quote: Tungsten carbide is a thing of the distant past. Now it has been replaced by VRP or depleted uranium.

Who can argue that the stage has been passed? But to say that it is impossible to make penetrators with an elongation of more than 5-6 from it is ridiculous. Moreover, at that time there was no multi-layer inclined armor, and the maximum that was opposed was a monolith with an inclination of 60 degrees from the normal. Moreover, it is not difficult to push a tungsten carbide penetrator into a steel case.

quote: Why aren't there any Abrams with a diesel engine?

And what - one hole necessarily disables the turbine?

quote: So, it’s not your cow’s job to moo about the “gag.”

I'm sure you will watch your language in the future...

quote: Originally posted by Varnas:
It’s clear why - even the tank 122 (IS-2) has an initial speed of 800 m/s, no more. With the attachment, almost all parameters would increase - armor penetration and direct shot range, and even the rate of fire would increase slightly due to the lighter projectile.

So all this was achieved in the setting of a training ground. And in a real combat situation? Unfortunately, not found yet appearance products OB-40. But, IMHO, it looked something like this.

Varnas 17-08-2016 15:50

quote: But, IMHO, it looked something like this.

Is the conical nozzle longer than the barrel? Heresy.

quote: And in a real combat situation?

In reality, they probably calculated that a powerful OFS was also needed, if this was during the second half of the war. And after the war, naturally, the sub-caliber ones ruled the roost...

Weapons semi-expert 17-08-2016 16:27

I heard about the pre-war S-40. Caliber - 76/57. Penetration was 230 mm at a distance of 1000 meters. After the war, the 85/57 KS-29 gun and the 103/76 KS-24 gun were tested. Their performance characteristics are still classified, only the speed of the projectile is known.

37/25
45/30 (MI-1)
75/50

23/20 (automatic, TKB-446)
I don't know the others.

quote: Originally posted by Varnas:
Is the conical nozzle longer than the barrel? Heresy.

By the way, do you know what kind of monster this is? Photo from Aberdeen emnip. I didn't come across any descriptions.
What if the length of the nozzle is equal to the length of the main trunk?

quote: Originally posted by Varnas:
In reality, they probably calculated that a powerful OFS was also needed, if this was during the second half of the war. And after the war, naturally, the sub-caliber ones ruled the roost...

quote: Originally posted by Weapon Semi-Expert:
I heard about the pre-war S-40. Caliber - 76/57...

Exactly. I completely forgot about the S-40!

captain-1977 17-08-2016 21:59

quote: Exactly. I completely forgot about the S-40!

Isn't this 1947?

quote: Originally posted by kapitan-1977:
Somehow it doesn’t look like it did before the war.
Isn't this 1947?

Well, yes. 47th year. It was NOT me who wrote about the pre-war S-40.

Topicstarter got lost somewhere. He asked me to post materials on conical guns and disappeared. It is necessary, it is not necessary - it is not clear. Well, I found an educational article...
http://www.popmech.ru/weapon/9...skimi-stvolami/

Varnas 18-08-2016 12:42

quote: I heard about the pre-war S-40. Caliber - 76/57. Penetration was 230 mm at a distance of 1000 meters.

This is somehow doubtful. The wartime German 75/55 had less penetration, and Soviet guns were usually inferior in ballistics to German ones. Maybe this is the Grabinskaya post-war?

quote: Other Soviet guns (all I know):
37/25
45/30 (MI-1)
75/50
37/25 (automatic, TKB-369)
23/20 (automatic, TKB-446)

Can you tell me by year of creation?

quote: By the way, do you know what kind of monster this is? Photo from Aberdeen emnip. I didn't come across any descriptions.

This is the first time I've seen it. IMHO there was something else attached to the end of the barrel/nozzle.

quote: So they would shoot a powerful OFS with the nozzle removed.

A quick-release attachment, which still doesn’t need to be adjusted after removing/putting on, IMHO, and now it’s a bit difficult. Yes, and we do it during the battle....

quote: What if the length of the nozzle is equal to the length of the main trunk?

I know only two guns - where the conical section is longer than the cylindrical one - this is the English pre-war one, and the German 28/20. All the rest are a cylinder, a short (relatively) cone, a smooth nozzle.

quote: The accuracy of combat and the armor penetration of armor-piercing shells of the S-40 was significantly better than that of the standard and experimental shells of the 57-mm ZIS-2 cannon that were tested in parallel,

It seems that the accuracy of the ZIS-2 suffered from the barrel being too long for its weight. Insufficient rigidity. It seems that guns with a conical barrel can produce approximately the same accuracy as conventional guns with caliber shells.

abc55 18-08-2016 05:21

what kind of anchor is on the barrel??))

Varnas 18-08-2016 16:49
do not know how. However, there is now enough information on German guns with a conical barrel. This is something about which there is no information at all - for example, about Czech anti-tank rifles with a conical bore.

quote: Originally posted by Varnas:
do not know how. However, there is now enough information on German guns with a conical barrel. This is something about which there is no information at all - for example, about Czech anti-tank rifles with a conical bore.

Have you looked at valka.cz?

Varnas 18-08-2016 21:15

quote: Have you looked at valka.cz?

Had tried. Didn't find anything. There was some kind of bullpup chambered for a cartridge similar to the German/Polish anti-tank rifle, but with 0 cones.

quote: Originally posted by Varnas:
Had tried. Didn't find anything. There was some kind of bullpup chambered for a cartridge similar to the German/Polish anti-tank rifle, but with 0 cones.

Were they really like that? The Czechs seem to describe all their weapons in detail, incl. and on the Web. You can finally ask Valka on the forum.

Varnas 19-08-2016 13:52

quote: Isn't there a moderator option for merging topics?

I tried it - it was glitchy and didn't work.

quote: Were they really like that? The Czechs seem to describe all their weapons in detail, incl. and on the Web. You can finally ask Valka on the forum

I'm almost sure there were. Calibers like 15/11 and 11/7.92. I also saw mention of it in paper magazines. In general, the Czechs did something more original, though after the war - PP chambered for 9/7.62 cartridge with a hollow bullet acting as a cartridge case. Apparently Schirnecker then got wind of this and offered his own dream of reason...

quote: Originally posted by Varnas:
I tried it - it was glitchy and didn't work.

Old topic is closed. Maybe you need to unlock it first. and then connect with this IMHO.

quote: Originally posted by Varnas:
I'm almost sure there were. Calibers like 15/11 and 11/7.92. I also saw mention of it in paper magazines. In general, the Czechs did something more original, though after the war - PP chambered for 9/7.62 cartridge with a hollow bullet acting as a cartridge case. Apparently Schirnecker then got wind of this and offered his own dream of reason...

Were they also made in Brno? Ceska Zbrojovka?

Varnas 19-08-2016 18:50

quote: Old topic is closed. Maybe you need to unlock it first. and then connect with this IMHO.

Uselessly.

quote: Were they also made in Brno? Ceska Zbrojovka?

Don't know

Varnas 19-08-2016 21:20

quote: http://www.valka.cz/15330-Ing-...amy-znamy-1-dil

Thank you . It’s a pity that the ballistic data was not preserved, but not everything can be obtained

For a century now, the best anti-tank ammunition has been the fast-flying crowbar. And the main question that gunsmiths are struggling with is how to accelerate it faster

A modern reconstruction of a cannon with a conical barrel has a characteristic detail clearly visible: the shield is made up of two armor plates

Almost until the start of World War II, the speed of conventional field artillery shells was sufficient to penetrate the armor of any tanks, and the armor was mostly bulletproof. The classic armor-piercing projectile was a large steel blunt-pointed (so as not to slip off the armor and not break off the tip of the projectile) piercer, often with an aerodynamic copper cap-fairing and a small amount of explosives in the bottom part - reserves of their own armor in pre-war tanks were not enough for good fragmentation.

Everything changed on December 18, 1939, when, supporting the advance of the Soviet infantry, an experienced KV-1 tank launched an attack on the Finnish positions. The tank was hit by 43 artillery shells, but none of them penetrated the armor. However, for unknown reasons, this debut was not noticed by specialists.

It should be noted that the German generals reacted quite quickly. Corps artillery was thrown against the KV - 10.5 cm cannons and 15 cm heavy howitzers. The most effective means of combating them were anti-aircraft guns of 8.8 and 10.5 cm calibers. Within a few months, fundamentally new armor-piercing shells were created - sub-caliber and cumulative (according to the then Soviet terminology - armor-piercing).

Half gun, half gun
German 20/28-mm anti-tank rifle sPzB 41. Due to the conical barrel, which gave a high initial velocity to the projectile, it penetrated the armor of T-34 and KV tanks

Mass and speed

The design of the projectiles allowed them to be compressed in the bore

Forced guns

This ingenious solution was invented even before the First World War - the first patent for a gun with a conical bore was received by the German Karl Ruff in 1903. Experiments were carried out with a conical bore in Russia. In 1905, engineer M. Druganov and General N. Rogovtsev proposed a patent for a gun with a conical bore. And in 1940, prototypes of barrels with a conical channel were tested at the design bureau of artillery plant No. 92 in Gorky. During the experiments, it was possible to obtain an initial speed of 965 m/s. However, V.G. Grabin failed to cope with a number of technological and logical difficulties associated with the deformation of the projectile during passage of the bore, and to achieve the required quality of processing of the bore. Therefore, even before the start of the Great Patriotic War, the Main Artillery Directorate ordered the cessation of experiments with barrels with a conical channel.

Shadow Genius

The fragmentation projectile had a very weak damaging effect and was intended exclusively for self-defense of the crew. But the initial speed of the armor-piercing projectile was 1430 m/s (versus 762 m/s for classic 3.7 cm anti-tank guns), which puts the s.Pz.B.41 on a par with the best modern guns. For comparison, the world's best 120-mm German Rh120 tank gun, mounted on Leopard-2 and Abrams M1 tanks, accelerates a sub-caliber projectile to 1650 m/s.

By June 1, 1941, the troops had 183 s.Pz.B.41 guns, and that same summer they received their baptism of fire on the Eastern Front. In September 1943, the last s.Pz.B.41 gun was delivered. The cost of one gun was 4520 Reichsmarks.

At close ranges, 2.8/2 cm cannons easily hit any medium tanks, and with a successful hit they also disabled heavy tanks of the KV and IS types.

Soviet 76/57 mm S-40 cannon with a cylindrical-conical bore

Larger caliber, lower speeds

Short life

Conical nozzles

It is curious that the conical barrel was used not only in anti-tank guns, but also in anti-aircraft artillery and special-power artillery.

Thus, for the 24-cm long-range K.3 cannon, mass-produced with a conventional barrel, several more samples of conical barrels were created in 1942–1945, the creation of which was jointly developed by Krupp and Rheinmetall. For firing from a conical barrel, a special 24/21 cm sub-caliber projectile weighing 126.5 kg, loaded with 15 kg of explosive, was created.

During the firing, the survivability of the conical nozzle turned out to be about 150 shots, that is, higher than that of the Soviet 180-mm B-1 naval guns (with fine rifling). During firing in July 1944, an initial speed of 1130 m/s and a range of 50 km were obtained. During further tests, it also became clear that projectiles that initially passed through such a cylindrical part were more stable in flight. These guns, along with their creators, were captured by Soviet troops in May 1945. The K.3 system with a cylindrical-conical barrel was refined in 1945–1946 in the city of Semmerda (Thuringia) by a group of German designers led by Assmann.

Documentation for anti-aircraft guns with a conical barrel ended up in the Artillery and Mortar Group of the USSR Ministry of Armament, and in 1947, experimental Soviet samples of anti-aircraft guns with a conical bore were created at Plant No. 8 in Sverdlovsk. The projectile of the 85/57 mm KS-29 cannon had an initial speed of 1500 m/s, and the projectile of the 103/76 mm KS-24 cannon had an initial speed of 1300 m/s. Original ammunition was created for them (by the way, still classified).