Saturday, 22 May 2010

THE TRUTH prints ... the truth?

Further to its recent article about self-propelled artillery that uses the FT-17 chassis, THE TRUTH (the official newspaper of the Soviet Peoples' United Republic) has printed the following photographs.

The first photograph shows a vehicle where the 75mm gun is mounted in a fixed position low down in the hull front. Whilst this would make it very easy to use the gun where the range is short and the crew needed to be protected by armour, it is difficult to understand how it could be used to provide traditional artillery support.

The second vehicle has obviously been designed to use the tracks and lower hull of the FT-17 to provide a means of moving a 75mm gun over difficult terrain. However, the fact that the gun faces towards the rear of the hull seems to show that it could not be used offensively as it could not engage targets as it advanced.

The third vehicle seems to combine the best aspects of both of the previous prototypes. Its gun faces forward, which means that it can be used offensively, whilst the crew platform at the rear provides some shelter to the crew on a fire-swept battlefield.

THE TRUTH did not provide any further information about these prototypes, and their country or countries of origin are unknown. Only time will tell if these prototypes are the progenitors of a whole new breed of self-propelled artillery.


  1. I'm a bit dubious of the top one as it seems the gun breech would be at the drivers position. It's very much a poor-man's CA-1.

    The first 75mm version is a tad awkward, but as it's unlikely to be used in a direct fire role, the direction of the mount isn't critical.

    The bottom one is the best option, but has quite a high profile. Again not critical for a support weapon and there seems to be more crew protection from counter-battery fire.

  2. Very nice. I like the second as it is quirky, impoerfect but does the job.

  3. I think the first was not for traditional artillery support but, more like the later
    German STUG. The last is the best option
    for the general artillery fire support role.

  4. Don M,

    I totally agree with you.

    What amazes me are the lengths designers were willing to go to in order to provide mobility for artillery in the 1920s and 1930s. The middle of the three designs looks very awkward to use, whereas the third has the look of the German improvised conversions built during World War II.

    All the best,