"ZiS-3 76mm, Anti-tank versus Divisional Artillery" Topic

Fiddling with my ‘Guards Tank Brigade' rules, where 1 base = 1 company, and thinking about the Soviet ZiS-3 76mm gun. It was deployed in Anti-tank regiments as well as being part of divisional artillery. I assume that:

- Anti-Tank regiments would have a higher proportion of armor-piercing rounds, fewer HE FRAg rounds, and no fire direction center for indirect fire.

-Divisional artillery would have a few armor-piercing rounds, but most HE FRAG and have fire direction centers, etc and be primarily focused on providing indirect fires or direct fires against soft targets

I have no data to support this…

Does anyone have any insight? I'd like to be able to make a tactical distinction if there was one, even though it is the same weapon, units have different roles.

I would think that is a good presumption. Also the anti-tank regiments would be deployed part of the time as separate companies reinforcing front-line units while the divisional artillery would normally support the entire division with indirect fires.

Jim

I honestly thought I had some figures for this, but on checking them I'm not sure.

Figures for the Artillery Regiment of a Rifle Division on the July 1942 organisation give the following;

76-mm gun (1939)
140 rpg, split as;
104 HE
8 AP tracer
28 shrapnel

The equipment table for an Anti-tank Battalion, as part of a Rifle Division, and equipped with ZIS-3 guns, dated to December 1943, shows exactly the same split.

There are several summaries for ammunition allocations, mostly appearing late 1943 onwards, that tweak the above figures slightly.

120 HE
16 AP tracer
4 sub-calibre

But there appears to be a note that those figures don't apply to anti-tank units. I can only find one set of figures that might be the anti-tank version but I'm not sure. It gives;

80 HE
48 AP
12 sub-calibre

Make of that what you will, I was definitely expecting more AP.

Gary

60 AP rounds seems plenty considering the Soviet rule of thumb that an AT gun could expect to destroy two tanks before it was destroyed itself and that it took 5 to10 rounds fired to knock a tank out.

As the Zis was dual purpose, a decent amount of HE doesn't seem unreasonable.

I can offer you a good article to read on this topic, but in Russian. Use Google translator to read. If you need explanations, I am ready to make them for you.
The main difference is the specialization of artillery crew. In fighter-anti-tank units sought to send the best soldiers and officers who had combat experience (usually after hospitals). They had enhanced training in anti-tank warfare, had high salaries (higher than in conventional artillery units), and received large cash bonuses for each tank destroyed. These parts had a special difference – a patch on the sleeve.
Fighter anti-tank artillery had special tactics for using guns, different from divisional and other artillery. On ZiS-3 guns, a protective shield was often removed to facilitate the gun and improve its maneuverability during the battle.
Here is the article:
link
link

Missed an important point! Division guns did not have a sight for direct fire, unlike anti-tank guns.

During the first year of the war there was an acute shortage of AP rounds. There was a recommendation that even tanks use HE against enemy armor at times.

Anti-tank guns didn't have direct sights either.

A good English language reference that, to a degree, covers this topic is "The Tanks of Operation Barbarossa – Soviet versus German Armour on the Eastern Front" by Boris Kavalerchik (Pen & Sword).

B

"Anti-tank guns didn't have direct sights either."

Huh? How could you possibly hit anything?

link

The guns sent to the anti-tank artillery were equipped with direct-fire sights:
45 mm M-37 guns – PP and PP1 sights
45 mm M-42 gun – PP1-3 sight
57-mm ZIS-2 – sight PP1-2
76-mm ZIS-3 – usually didn't have such a sight, the standard panoramic sight PG-1 was used, which was quite sufficient for anti-tank combat. But in the instruction to the gun it is said that for the anti-tank version it is possible to install a direct aim sight using special devices.

"The guns sent to anti-tank artillery were equipped with direct-fire sights PP1-2 or OP2-1."
Citation?
What are the stats of these sights? Where ever used on anything heavier than a 57mm?
PP1-x is a panoramic sight.

Wow! Thank you for the detailed responses. I did read the article, thank goodness for Google Translate.

For my rules, at the scale I am looking at, I think I will make the Anti-Tank units a bit more effective against armor, to reflect their tactical role, but disallow indirect fire.

Where on the sleeve were these badges worn? That's a really useful detail point.

I do not specialize in anti-tank artillery and even in this historical period, so I can not give you the appropriate sources of information. Contact the author of the above article on anti-tank artillery – I think he can help.
I can only say that many articles on the topic of anti-tank artillery speak of a specialized modification of the ZIS-3 gun designed for anti-tank artillery. For example:

army.lv/ru/zis-3/1109/518#info

Here are a lot of photos:

link

I do not think that the anti-tank units were somehow limited in their ability to conduct indirect fire – nevertheless, it was the artillery elite, which was equipped with veterans.

I am afraid I am a bit late to the party, but I did check through Red Army Handbook (by Zaloga) for interesting information on various unit organisations, and discovered the following.

1.) Gun batteries in divisional artillery regiment (infantry division)

These guns (and their ammo) were horse-drawn, so in game table they probably would not be moving around very quickly. For communication, each battery (4 guns) was authorised 2 radios and wire (telephone equipment), though there was no fire direction centres (of the kind encountered in US units), with the battery commanders or forward observers tasked with the calculations. Small arms are apparently rifles/carbines, though there are also 3 SMGs authorised per battery.

2.) Gun battery in divisional anti-tank battalion (infantry division, authorised December 1943)

This unit is motorised, with one truck per gun and one more for battery HQ, allowing for much faster re-deployment. For communication, the battery is authorised 2 radios (earlier 45 mm batteries were authorised no radios at all). For small arms, the gun crews are mainly armed with SMGs to repel infantry close assaults.

3.) Gun battery in anti-tank regiment (separate or part of anti-tank brigade)

This unit is also motorised. Unfortunately no information is provide by Zaloga regarding the communication equipment (which would be quite important for evaluating their ability to conduct indirect fire). No details are provided on crew small arms, though each gun platoon (2 per battery) is provided with 1 LMG and 2 anti-tank rifles for additional firepower.

In game terms you might want to consider the following:
- Truck-equipped batteries should be significantly more mobile than horse-drawn batteries
- Any battery with 2 radios probably should be able to organise a forward observation party to control indirect HE fire (though if there is immediate risk of tank attack in the sector, this might not be their priority)
- The differences in crew small arms could have an effect in anti-infantry firepower at ranges below 500 m or so, but at high level game it might not be significant enough to represent
- Apparently the anti-tank units were expected to keep on firing until the tanks would be over-running their positions, and while not all crews may have lived up to the expectation it might still be worth to provide the units with some sort of morale bonus when fighting tanks (e.g. if you have "tank shock" morale rules for proximity of enemy armour, make anti-tank units immune to that – maybe the effect could partially affect also other friendly units in their proximity as long as they keep firing at the tanks)

Excellent, thanks. Does anyone know what is written in chalk on the inside of that gunshield?

Google says Tahkob means tanks.
6 tanks.

Some great pics there !

Legend has it that the divisional guns often had to be used for direct fire because there were not enough trained artillery officers to give every battalion or even every division the ability to calculate indirect fire. This was, IIRC, in 1941-2, mostly.

Google says Tahkob means tanks.

And the translitteration to Latin alphabet would be "Tankov" in case you want to pronounce it.

With 6 tanks bagged, that is one quite successful gun crew – not to mention an impressive moustache on the gentleman with SMG.

Time to revive this thread a bit, since I discovered that Gary Kennedy has posted on his website details of the motor SMG battalion of a tank battalion (authorised November 1943):

link

Interestingly, this organisation includes a single anti-tank battery, of 4 officers and 40 other ranks, which was armed with 4 guns (57 or 76 mm). Each of the guns has a crew of 7, including a driver for the assigned truck, all armed with carbines for close defense (interesting detail in a battalion otherwise almost fully armed with SMGs).

Interesting element of the battery structure is the headquarters platoon, which contains a scout squad (4 scout-observers) and communications squad (2 radio operators, 3 telephonists and a driver for the platoon truck). However, the radio equipment seems to be limited to a single relatively short-ranged (3 km), which could be used for communication with battalion HQ.

Thus, if this battery would be employed in an indirect fire role, it would mainly need to rely on telephone lines for communication. Still, the communication assets are still superior compared to the battalion mortar company, which had no radio at all, and significantly smaller headquarters element to handle communications.