Development Problems of The Soviet 2S1 Gvozdika

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 14 січ 2025

КОМЕНТАРІ • 33

  • @bobiwt
    @bobiwt  3 дні тому +3

    Additional Information:
    A fully rotating turret was considered essential for the new self-propelled howitzer. This feature allowed the vehicle to fire in any direction on short notice, which ensured quick and effective support during combat. The D-30 howitzer, which served as the base weapon for the design, already had this capability thanks to its tripod mount, which allowed for 360-degree firing.
    This was a major advantage because, in the West, one of the key reasons for developing self-propelled guns with rotating turrets was that their towed artillery couldn’t fire in all directions without being repositioned. But the D-30 didn’t have this limitation.
    This all-around firing capability became especially valuable during the Soviet Union’s war in Afghanistan. The D-30 was the primary artillery weapon of the Soviet 40th Army and was highly effective at Soviet forward operating bases. Its ability to quickly provide artillery support in any direction made it a critical asset - which was something that was still lacking in Western light howitzers like the 105mm L118 and M119, used by British and American forces in Afghanistan.
    Given this advantage, it was only logical for the new Soviet self-propelled howitzer to include a fully rotating turret, continuing what the D-30 already offered. This was a clear step forward compared to older self-propelled guns from World War II, like the German Wespe, British Sexton, American M7 Priest, and Soviet vehicles such as the ISU-152, SU-122, and SU-76, which didn’t have this feature.

  • @yetamm
    @yetamm 3 дні тому +4

    Maaaan , 02:38 soviet-russian artillery was and IS no joke. Its hauntingly beautiful

    • @bobiwt
      @bobiwt  3 дні тому

      @yetamm That was artillery with style

    • @belgianfried
      @belgianfried 3 дні тому +1

      "IS" no joke, teehee

  • @mayfieldcourt
    @mayfieldcourt 2 дні тому +8

    The T64 as the 'first main battle tank'? Centurion stares at you in disbelief 😂but great video nonetheless - keep up the good work!

    • @39MinuteMan
      @39MinuteMan 2 дні тому

      Yes, famous British school of tank deslgn

    • @bobiwt
      @bobiwt  2 дні тому

      @@mayfieldcourt Thank you!

    • @chieftainmk_11
      @chieftainmk_11 2 дні тому +1

      Maybe he meant first production MBT with composites?

    • @TomoreniusTom
      @TomoreniusTom День тому +1

      you can Honestly say it was the Soviet Union's first MBT
      T53/55/62 are kinda still taking ques from Ww2 Medium tank design

  • @piotrd.4850
    @piotrd.4850 День тому

    For it's time it was quite a neat thingy and actually one of few non-nonense pieces of hardware that came of out Soviet union. Interesting autoloader. Aged somewhat quickly, however still has niche and sadly, was skipped in modernisation effrots worldwide.

  • @kaldo8429
    @kaldo8429 3 дні тому +1

    Very pleasant video

    • @bobiwt
      @bobiwt  3 дні тому +1

      Your comment pleases me too, thanks!

  • @Pumpuli3797
    @Pumpuli3797 3 дні тому

    Splendid video, the 2S1 has quite the silly shape.

    • @bobiwt
      @bobiwt  3 дні тому

      Thanks! I had to Google what Splendid means 😂 it sounds like Royal British English

  • @belgianfried
    @belgianfried 3 дні тому +1

    I get that Khruschev restricted development on SPGs which did not stymie but entirely halted Gvozdika/Akatsiya development, but if anything I would agree with him for that time period (1955) considering the Soviets weren't exploring 122/155 mm tubes like the Gvozdika or Akatsiya but 406 mm tubes like the Kondensator-P

    • @bobiwt
      @bobiwt  3 дні тому

      Thanks for your comment!
      As far as I know, the Kondensator 2P wasn't a conventional piece of artillery, since it was supposed to fire shells with nuclear warheads. Also, even Krushchev ordered the development on the Kondensator 2P to be stopped and instead focus on nuclear missile technology.

  • @rs5974
    @rs5974 3 дні тому

    Great vid!

    • @bobiwt
      @bobiwt  3 дні тому

      @rs5974 Thank you!

  • @Godvana_
    @Godvana_ 3 дні тому +1

    I would say the Centurion is probably the first MBT, and the SPz lg HS-30 the first IFV.

    • @bobiwt
      @bobiwt  3 дні тому +1

      @@Godvana_ Fair take

  • @xapocotacox
    @xapocotacox 3 дні тому

    I believe the first "mbt" title goes to the centurion. But good job man I like your videos, your channel should be way bigger!

    • @bobiwt
      @bobiwt  3 дні тому

      Thank you, I appreciate it :)

    • @prototypgamerhd
      @prototypgamerhd 3 дні тому

      What about the t44?

    • @bobiwt
      @bobiwt  3 дні тому

      @@prototypgamerhd The T-44 was basically the father of the T-54. The T-44 didn‘t really make it big in the Soviet army as I think only about 2,500 were built, whereas the T-54, which was based on the T-44, was widely adopted in the Soviet army and produced in large quantities (≈ 100,000 units produced).
      Therefore, I think the T-54 would more likely be seen as the first MBT of the Soviet army.

    • @prototypgamerhd
      @prototypgamerhd 3 дні тому

      @bobiwt i mean it never saw Combat but got good mobility armor and a good gun for its time

    • @bobiwt
      @bobiwt  2 дні тому

      @@prototypgamerhd For it's time it was relatively good.
      But there were a few problems. Firstly, the T-44 didn't have much potential for a bigger cannon. It had the same 85mm cannon from the T-34, which didn't have sufficient firepower to penetrate early cold war tanks. This problem was solved by the T-54, which was equipped with a 100mm cannon from the beginning. Efforts to equip the T-44 with a 100mm cannon failed because the turret was too small and there wasn't enough space inside the tank.
      Also, the reason why the T-44 was produced in limited numbers (about 1,823 units) and only for a few years (1944-1947) was partly because of the end of World War 2, which reduced the immediate need for mass production, and partly because the T-54 was already in development and seen as a more capable successor.
      If I remember right, the T-44 was supposed to fight during WW2, but its development took too long and it was only accepted into service once the war was already over. After the war, there was no immediate need to mass produce the T-44.
      If you have more questions about the T-44, this video might provide you with answers:
      ua-cam.com/video/B6-UumwUI9o/v-deo.html&ab_channel=Bobiua-cam.com/video/B6-UumwUI9o/v-deo.html&ab_channel=Bobi

  • @IS400-z6h
    @IS400-z6h 3 дні тому

    +

  • @lukapaic7560
    @lukapaic7560 2 дні тому

    Its not yugoslavian civil war, such thing didnt happen
    Yugoslavian independence wars
    Its like saying american revolution was a british empire civil war

    • @bobiwt
      @bobiwt  2 дні тому

      @@lukapaic7560 Oh okay. Thank you for adding this

  • @BaronEvola123
    @BaronEvola123 3 дні тому

    The .122mm in a self propelled never made sense. The .122 shell doesn't have the range. The workhorse of the artillery is the .155mm.

    • @rkadi6540
      @rkadi6540 3 дні тому +2

      122 is on par with 105 howitzer, not with 155. You better off with 152 if you want comparable outcome to 155, or go crazy with 207 if 155 or 152 won't cut it

    • @MM22966
      @MM22966 2 дні тому +3

      At the time the D30 was first in service, 105mm and 122mm was considered fairly "standard" caliber for a heavy gun. It was only later that 155mm and 152mm became the new standard. Overall quality and capability was also going up during these periods.

    • @piotrd.4850
      @piotrd.4850 День тому

      It had at the time.