Originally applied to any group of infantry primarily armed with projectile weapons, artillery has over time become limited in meaning to refer only to those engines of war that operate by projection of munitions far beyond the range of effect of personal weapons. These engines comprise specialised devices which use some form of stored energy to operate, whether mechanical, chemical, or electromagnetic. Originally designed to breach fortifications, they have evolved from nearly static installations intended to reduce a single obstacle to highly mobile weapons of great flexibility in which now reposes the greater portion of a modern army's offensive capabilities.

  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
artillery
embed
share
view previous next
Share Image
Share on Facebook Post Email a friend
Embed Image
Post comment Comments
C&C_FOREVER
C&C_FOREVER - - 786 comments

105mm LeFH 18?

Reply Good karma Bad karma+2 votes
aidas2
aidas2 - - 3,816 comments

ugh... It's either zis 2 ir 3

Reply Good karma Bad karma+2 votes
asureka
asureka - - 506 comments

Zis 3 76.2mm gun

Reply Good karma Bad karma+2 votes
tanker1408
tanker1408 - - 512 comments

anti tank gun ._.

Reply Good karma Bad karma+3 votes
P3ACE753
P3ACE753 - - 651 comments

Not really, its armor penetration values are 2 times worse than the enemy's equivalent AT guns (such as the German Pak40 75mm, the British 76mm 17 pounder or the American 76mm M5).

For example:
The 17pounder can penetrate 161mm of armor at a range of 100m and 79mm of armor at a range of 2000m.
The 76.2mm ZIS-3T can penetrate 67mm of armor at 100m and 29mm of armor at 2000m.

The 17pdr penetrates MORE armor at a range 2000m than the ZIS-3T can at 100m.

So it sucks so bad at being an AT gun that it was better as a light howitzer. And thats why this picture is in the Artillery Lovers Group.

Reply Good karma Bad karma-1 votes
tanker1408
tanker1408 - - 512 comments

LOL What? Just because its "armor penetration values are 2 times worse", doesn't change the fact that this STILL is and was a anti tank gun!

I could say the same too: Pak40 75mm was MUCH worse than the 8,8cm Pak 43, does that suddenly mean the Pak40 is not a anti tank gun anymore based on this stupid logic? A little SELF-CONTRADICTING don't you think... :) Some guns were better and some were worse, but that does not change the fact they're still anti tank guns..

And just for your information, the Zis-3 was already used in 1940, way before the 17pdr was even designed. The 17 pdr was first used in 1944 (4 years after the Zis-3) SO OF COURSE IT IS BETTER, sherlock.

Reply Good karma Bad karma+2 votes
Post a comment

Your comment will be anonymous unless you join the community. Or sign in with your social account:

Description

A piece of artillery on display