Source: http://world-of-kwg.livejournal.com/188750.html
In December 1942, the Technical committee of the Main Artillery Command of the Red Army developed technical/tactical requirements for a self-propelled artillery gun, equipped with a twin-linked pair of 122mm M-30 howitzers. These requirements then went to the OKB-172 factory, based in Perm, where by the end of April 1943, a project for the twin-barrelled SPG based on T-34 was developed. It recieved a factory designation of SU-2-122.
Just like with the KV-7, the main point of the idea was the possibility to fire in salvos. In order to implement this idea, a price had to be paid: the T-34 hull was prolonged by one roadwheel and the weight was increased to 35 tons. After considering advantages and disadvantages, the aforementioned committee decided to scrap the SU-2-122 project, not even a prototype was built.
Maybe when we'll get the multi-turret/gun mechanism we'll also get this arty
ReplyDeleteSo.... it's an SPG with a 2 round burst? That's how they handeled the MTLS's double gun.
ReplyDeleteI still can't imagine that you'd ever hit anything with the 2nd shell though
Probably good enough for bunker busting. As that is all the Russians needed back then, Germany was in defense.
Delete/Lito
Wouldn't be a bad tier VI TD...
ReplyDeleteOr a tier 3-4 premium arty since the russian tehctree got already 2 premium TD-es but no arty?
Delete:)
Out of curiosity:
ReplyDeleteWhat does the red text/watermark (YAMO PO, imagine Cyrillic letters here) say in English, and who applies them? Are those from Yuri P.'s archive digs?
In Russian it reads CAMO RF), it means "Central archive of the Ministry of Defense, Russian Federation" (centralnyj archiv ministerva oborony russijskoj federacii) - it's a copy from the archives.
DeleteThank you very much for this info.
DeleteIt is not from archives, it was added by Yuri himself to "protect" images (so you cant take it as your image and claim it).
DeleteWell, it's not like I would, I always quote him as a source.
Delete"You" not you (SS).
DeleteTBH I'm a bit puzzled about the supposed merits of having two examples of the same gun side-by-side - if it's pure demolition power you're after, wouldn't a single bugger gun do a better job with less hassle? By that point the Soviets had been cramming the 152mm howitzer into about anything that could conceivably carry it already for a few years right?
ReplyDeleteOfc the committee apparently had the exact same concerns...
>_>
DeleteEr, "a single BIGGER gun" I mean. "Bugger gun" gives rise to all manner of alarming mental images...
Twinlinked weapons reroll hits, dude! Hipster Russians were playing Warhammer 40k before it was cool.
DeleteAh, that explains it. Must come in useful with that average BS of 2. :v
DeleteI suppose an advantage would be having 2 different types of rounds loaded if you were advancing and didn't know what to expect. So say you were advancing against a bunker but there would be enemy tanks in the area, so you could load 1 HE and 1 AP shell.
Delete"Twin-linked" ... 40K much? :D
ReplyDeleteijp