US Lend lease variants in Russian service?

[Tooz]

Saw these pics from Pinterest. Actually designed or some toy model fantasy? I will guess these are fantasy, but with all of the improvised vehicles made during WW2 are any of these authentic? Fun, if historically true.

 

[Paul M. Weir]

I have never seen anything close to those in any photo. Not saying they were not built but I would extremely, extremely doubt it.

Soviet major rebuilds.
SU-76i: rebuild of Pz III (mainly J) or early StuG with F-34 76.2mm gun as used in the T-34. 2 variants, one without a cupola and a rarer one with a Pz III cupola on RHS.
SG-122: as the SU-76i but with 122mm howitzer (as used in the SU-122), only about 20/21 built.

Soviet minor rebuilds.
Sherman: One was fitted with Soviet 76.2mm F-34. Maybe they were afraid that ammo supply for the M4's M3 75mm gun might be a problem. Not continued.
Matilda: One fitted with a version of the Soviet 76.2mm ZiS-5 called the F-96. This gun could also handle a souped-up round as well as the standard F-34 round, just by using a 'hotter' charge. Not continued. See: http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2017/12/matildas-new-sword.html

As far as I can see the Soviets, though they experimented, ended up retaining the original armaments for LL vehicles. The SU-57 kept its US 57mm M1 even though the Soviet 57mm ZiS-2 was superior, even carriers can be seen with Brens and Boys ATR. Their main concern, ammo supply, turned out to be not a problem during the war.

 

[Sparky]

those are cute, really only one seems plausible. The 122mm M3 variant. If it existed I'd look closely at the Petsamo-Kirkenes offfensive to try find evidence of it. M3's were said to be there, long after they had been retired from primary front line duty. Perhaps some were altered to provide greater HE potential against the largely tankless Germans.

 

[Hutch]

Don’t worry, CH will soon make counters featuring them.

 

[Paul M. Weir]

those are cute, really only one seems plausible. The 122mm M3 variant. If it existed I'd look closely at the Petsamo-Kirkenes offfensive to try find evidence of it. M3's were said to be there, long after they had been retired from primary front line duty. Perhaps some were altered to provide greater HE potential against the largely tankless Germans.

That one I would judge to be the least likely as the 122mm howitzer was a much bulkier and more powerful gun than the M3's M2 or M3 75mm gun. Replacing the M2/M3 with a F-34 or a ZiS-4 (tank version of the 57mm ZiS-2) might be practical (just about in the case of the ZiS-4). I just don't see a 122mm howitzer workable in such a cramped position.

The Soviets, when building the SG-122 (and the similar SU-76i) gutted the fighting compartment and built a totally new superstructure. Doing the same with the M3 would work, move the driver to one side and provide a central position for the 122mm. The Soviets experimented with the same 122mm howitzer in one of their later KV development series (KV-9/KV-122?) and mounted in the turret. That was somewhat practical but they could not do the same with the lighter T-34, just too much power and not enough space. They had to use a casemate for the 122mm howitzer for the T-34 chassis as the SU-122.

 

[Sparky]

you obviously know your shit Paul so kudos.

However looking at the specs of the 75mm M2 and the 122mm M30S. Not all that dramatically different. If you have better numbers I'd love to see them. I do think it was practical Not to mention the M3 had a lot of space, especially losing the 7th crew member a lot more than the SU-122 that sarbined 5 poor souls into the shoebox of a fighting compartment. I was looking at a Soviet picture of a crew within an M3. Hah.. they could have thrown a couch in there haha. Anyhow.. as I alluded to before. There was a late war unit that had the M3. Interesting stuff there. The primary English language resource on that campaign completely missed the presence of the 91st Separate Tank Regiment attached to the Karelian Front around Murmansk and was still there and M3 equipped in late 1944. Long after most M3's were destroyed or retired after the inferno of central Russia in 1943.

If English historians missed this, very possible they might have missed a small scale field re-engineering of the M3. Supposedly there is photographic evidence of the M3 around Petsamo in late 1944. I'll be tracking those down, put the book they are in on order this evening, if any M3 were, it would be those.

 

[Justiciar]

...If English historians missed this, ...

At best* this is western historians...it has nothing to do with native languages.

 

[Paul M. Weir]

I have no doubt that there was quite enough space in the M3 hull for a 122, just that slap bang up against the RHS hull wall is not where I would put it, despite the existing M2/M3 gun mount.

OK, just did some calculations:
75mm M3 gun firing M72 6.32 kg AP, MV 619 m/s, gives muzzle energy of 1.21 MJ.
122mm M-30 howitzer firing F-462A 21.7 kg HE, MV 458 m/s, gives muzzle energy of 2.28 MJ.

The 122 has almost twice the muzzle energy of the 75 which implies twice the strain on the gun mount. The only solution would be to almost double the recoil length or build a new, stronger mount. If you are doing that then why not move it a bit more centrally?

Could it have been done? Quite possibly, but it would have been an awkward bitch to use and likely over-strain its mount.

Edit: Apart from the muzzle energy, an other indication of what was involved to support a firing gun and its recoil is the total weight of the field piece. For the M1897 (that use the same shell as the M2/M3) that was 1544 kg, for the M-30 it was 2450 kg. In this case the M-30 was about 60% heavier.

 

[xenovin]

I think somebody was kit bashing and made up those vehicles but I could be wrong. I’ve always had a soft spot for the M3. Maybe I watched bogart in Sahara too many times.