APCR and HEAT Instructions

"Artillery HQ of the 25th Rifle Corps

May 23rd, 1944

#[illegible]378

To artillery commanders of divisions. Copy personally for the 77th Guards Rifle Division

I send out a copy of instructions issued by the GAU KA regarding the use of 76 mm subcaliber ammunition, 76 mm HEAT, and 122 mm HEAT.

The Corps Artillery Commander orders that:

1. The instructions are to be taught to all artillery personnel of the units (for the appropriate caliber) before May 27th, 1944.
2. Personally check the knowledge of these instructions by officers on May 27th, 1944, and report on the results of the check.
3. Subcaliber and HEAT ammunition must always be stored with the guns and kept in reserve against tanks and SPGs. Do not permit firing at other targets.

Chief of the Artillery HQ of the 25th Rifle Corps, Lieutenant Colonel Solodilov"

Matilda's New Sword

On October 11th, 1941, the PQ-1 convoy arrived in Arkhangelsk: the first British convoy that delivered weapons and military vehicles to the USSR. It was the result of the agreement titled "On joint action of the Soviet and British governments in the war against Germany", signed in Moscow on July 12th. Matilda III tanks were among the cargo. In total, 1084 Matilda tanks were sent to the USSR, of which 933 (918 according to Soviet data) arrived.

ZIK-7

"To the People's Commissar of Armament, comrade Ustinov

To the People's Commissar of Tank Production, comrade Malyshev

June 16th, 1942

RE: production of installation parts and cradle for the 76 mm ZIK-7 gun

In accordance with the decision of the Artillery Committee plenum and NKV and NKTP orders, factories #8 and #37 designed a 76 mm light assault gun with the ZIK-5 tank gun on a chassis made from T-70 components.

Big Gun for a Small Turret

In June of 1940, the Red Army GABTU began working on modernizing the KV-1 heavy tank. Even though production had not yet fully began, the military already had issues with the tank. This is a fairly ordinary scenario, especially considering the fact that tank development sped up with the start of WWII. According to the GABTU, the KV-1 needed more armour and, more importantly, a more powerful gun. It's hard to argue with the latter, since the Red Army's heavy and medium tanks, KV-1 and T-34, ended up with the same gun.

ZIS-5, Take One

"May 30th, 1941
To the Central Committee of the VKP(b)
Comrade Zhdanov

According to USSR SNK and Central Committee Decree #1216-502 issued on May 5th, 1941, two experimental T-44 tanks built by factory #183 are supporsed to be armed with the 76 mm ZIS-5 or 57 mm ZIS-4 gun. The main characteristics of these guns is shown in the following table:

Gun model	Caliber in mm	Muzzle velocity, m/s	Shell mass, kg	Penetrates armour
				At 0 degrees		At 30 degrees
				Thickness in mm	Distance in m	Thickness in mm	Distance in m
F-34	76.2	662	6.3	60	Up to 1000	50	Up to 1000
ZIS-5	76.2	813	6.5	90	Up to 1000	70	Up to 1000
ZIS-4	57	992	3.14	90	Up to 1000	70	Up to 1000

Ready for Trials

"Acceptance Act #8

On August 29th, 1941, the commission consisting of chair Intendant 3rd Grade comrade M.V. Kudryavtsev and members Military Technician 1st Grade comrade F.A. Olkhov and Military Technician 2nd Grade comrade A.P. Pavlov performed an inspection of a KV-1 tank with a 76 mm ZiS-5 gun sent to the ANIOP at the Gorohovets Artillery Proving Grounds from factory #92 (Gorkiy) for the purpose of undergoing proving grounds trials on request of Interim Chair of the Artillery committee #281347s issued on August 22nd, 1941. The following items arrived:

1. A KV-1 tank with: 76 mm ZiS-5 gun #1, assembled, tank sight #50051, 1527 (the light on #50051 is broken), telescopic sight #900, DT machinegun #138 and one machinegun mount (rear turret).

The tank has no special instruments or parts aside from a towing cable and three hatches piled up with various instruments in random order.

At the same time, two sets of documentation (for the barrel and mount) arrived, one tarp and 4 sets of tools and parts, according to the manifest.

The arrived parts appear to be functional based on a visual inspection."

CAMD RF 81-12104-79

Here are photos of the novelty that arrived: the brand new gun that the KV series would finish their combat career with.

T-50's Case Part 3: Reasons for T-50 Production Lag and Protest

Continued from part 2.

"Part 3: Reasons for T-50 production falling behind quota

The main reasons are:

1. The incorrect choice of placing factory #174 on the grounds of the Chkalov factory (not enough space).
2. Lack of a local metallurgical production base in the Chkalov region, and a lack of necessary equipment for starting one, in addition to lack of temporary half-processed shipments from Kirov and STZ factories.
3. Lack of equipment at factory #174 due to non-deliveries of assigned equipment, and confiscation of equipment sent to factory #174 for temporary use at the Kirov factory in September of 1941 (70 units).
4. A lack of technological expertise, both due to a lack of technological help from the People's Commissariat of Tank Production, as well as technical mistakes of the factory management.
5. Factories attached to factory #174 are weak, and cannot compensate for missing equipment. Compared to all other tank factories, factory #174 received the least support.

Part 4: Protest against removing the T-50 from production

Kirov factory's proposal to remove the T-50 from production is based on the following reasons:

1. Production of V-4 engines for the T-50 impedes production of V-2 engines for the KV tank. There is a shortage.
   This assertion is false. The V-4 engine differs little from the V-2, and takes 20% less time to produce. Our three engine factories can produce 90 engines per day, with a demand of 60 engines per day. I propose to remove 8-9 V-2 engines to allow for production of 10-12 V-4 engines, in the event that these engines can be compensated for at STZ. Later, this can be compensated by building a factory in Barnaul that can output 50-60 V-4 engines per day instead of the scheduled 35 per day. It will be possible to partially cover the output of one factory with American engines.
2. Cooperation between factory #174 and Kirov factory on forging and casting reduces production of KV tanks. The same can be said about the cooperation of factories #37 and #183.
   This assertion is also wrong. The powerful forge of the Kirov factory can produce 12 thousand tons of parts, but only gave 4 thousand in December of 1941, compared to the factory plan of 7 thousand and the acknowledgement of factory workers that 8.5 tons was possible. This kind of weak use of the forge says nothing about its limitations.
   One only needs to look at GAZ and STZ, that produce a colossal amount of goods (cars, tractors, tanks, mortars, car parts, shells, detonators, etc) thanks to correct organization of technologies and use of production capacity.
   Sadly, even though Kirov factory was freed from other goods, its production capacity is used poorly, which led to not only the removal of T-50 from production, but delays at factory #183 and #37. At the same time, despite a surplus of tools, after removing the T-50, Kirov factory treats factory #174 as its subsidiary, farming out KV parts to it. Despite an overabundance of equipment at the Kirov factory, they are receiving an extra 1000 machines, which is incorrect and excessive.
3. There are no 45 mm guns for the T-50 tank.
   I don't know how many guns are built, but GAU KA requested factory #183 to ready a reserve source of 45 mm guns in case they needed to equip the T-34 in lieu of a 76 mm gun. It seems that there is a disagreement as to the availability of these guns.
   Alternatively, the turret of the T-50 is big enough for a ZiS-5 gun or 37 mm AA gun, with the added possibility of AA fire.
4. The T-50 tank is not mastered by production.
   This is incorrect. After testing several tens of vehicles, the T-50 can be considered ready for mass production. Simplifications drastically simplified its production. Existing defects are well studied and easily removable."

CAMD RF 38-11355-957

Continued in part 4.

ZiS-5 (3-K)

Aside from the ZiS-5 we know and love, there was another project with this designation, which started in early 1941. The gun was based on the 3-K model 1939 76 mm AA gun, and was noticeably longer than the ZiS-5 that ended up on the KV in late 1941.

"Summary:

Based on trials of the experimental 76 mm tank gun (ZiS-5) in a KV-1 turret, tested over 612 shots and 170 km, ANIOP has come to the following conclusions:

1. The robustness of the system in general is satisfactory. The factory must increase the robustness of the breech wedge by increasing the quality of the metal, as there was a dent in the lower part of its bearing surface.
2. The recoil mechanisms of the model 1940 tank gun [F-34] (without a compensator) used in the ZiS-5 system performed satisfactorily, and may be used in this gun system. The factory must improve the return mechanism valve due to its unreliability (when checking pressure, air and fluid can escape through the valve).
3. The semi-automatic mechanism worked perfectly. There were no breakdowns or deformations. The elevation and trigger mechanisms are reliable, and worked perfectly. The factory must:
1. Balance the oscillating part of the gun such that the effort required to lower the gun is decreased (effort reached 9-12 kg). 
2. Turn around the elevation mechanism handle and put it closer to the sight for more convenient work.
3. Put the firing mechanism lever closer to the elevation mechanism for more convenient work.
4. The model 900 telescopic sight performed satisfactorily, and can be used with the ZiS-5 gun in the KV-1 turret.
5. The deviation at 1000 meters is satisfactory:
1. Shooting with AP shells:
1. Vertical deviation: 0.17 - 0.24 m
2. Horizontal deviation: 0.16 - 0.2 m
2. Shooting with HE shells:
1. Vertical deviation: 0.29 - 0.34 m
2. Horizontal deviation: 0.18 - 0.35 m
6. The gun has insufficient depression (-2 degrees), which is less than required (-5 degrees).
7. The gun's length does not impede maneuverability. The gun is not afraid of dirt during marches.
8. Only 44 testing shells were fired. The testing program requires 180 such shells. 120 various special shells that are mentioned in the report body do not give sufficient information about the robustness of the system when firing special shells, as the mount was loaded 14.5% less than required.
   The possibility of using a special shell with this system is doubtful, as the force of resisting recoil reaches 16,000 kg (at the end of the recoil), which is twice as much as calculated. The factory must revise the recoil mechanism in order to make the resistance uniform through the entire path when shooting with a special shell.

Conclusions:

Based on the results of the trials, ANIOP has come to the following conclusions:

1. The 76 mm ZiS-5 tank gun in the KV-1 turret passed trials. After removing the defects in the report, the gun can begin production.
2. The feasibility of using special shells is still undetermined. Additional trials must be done using a special charge at a temperature of 40-50 degrees (at a rate of fire of 4-5 RPM), 100-120 shots in total. This can be carried out by the GAU military representative at the factory proving grounds."

CAMD RF 38-11355-151

Gun Production

Some useful numbers from CAMD RF 38-11369-1, production of tank guns in the Soviet Union from 1941 to 1945. Keep in mind that a lot of these are multi-purpose guns. Clearly the model 1931 corps gun A-19 was produced before 1944, but this table only counts those that went into an ISU-122.

The columns are as follows: Name, 1941 (6 months), 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945 (4 months) and Total. The guns are ShVAK, 45 mm tank gun, F-34, ZiS-5, ZiS-3, D-5, S-53, D-10, D-25, D-25S, M-30, and ML-20, and total.

"But wait", some keen-eyed readers may exclaim, "these numbers are all wrong! Only 34355 F-34s? Less than 20,000 85 mm guns? Wikipedia tells me that there were over 35,000 T-34s and nearly 50,000 T-34-85s, not to mention all other vehicles that used these guns!"

Did they go into battle with no gun, in some kind of bizarre Enemy at the Gates type arrangement? Of course not. Every vehicle had a gun, with ample spares. The discrepancy comes from the definition of "produced". A vehicle that came out of the factory counts as produced regardless of how it came in: as raw materials or as a heavily damaged tank. Where a German bureaucrat would keep track of a single tank regardless of how many times it was knocked out and sent back to the factory, without counting it as a loss until it could no longer be repaired, a Soviet one would count it as a loss if it could not participate in battle, and the factory would count the tank as produced once more. A tank could last throughout the entire war, and if it required major repairs (even due to noncombat damage like engine wear), it would count as multiple casualties and multiple tanks.

KV-1S Comfort

"Minutes of a technical meeting at the Kirov factory on September 19th, 1942

Present:
Deputy chief engineer Duhov
Senior machine engineer Balzhi
Armament group chief Shneidman
Assistant to the chief of the 2nd department of Artkom, Major Solomonov

Investigated the issue of changes in armament and turret design of the KV-1S.

Conclusions: the turret of the KV-1S is smaller, internally and externally. The crew locations have been changed. The installation of the gun has been changed: the frame was replaced with a mount on the bottom of the turret with a central bar. A mount for a second machinegun is included. The meeting examined blueprints of the gun and turret, sketches of changes in the armament, and examined a production KV-1S turret and tested all main gun mechanisms.

Despite the reduced size, the KV-1S turret provides comfortable working conditions for all crew members in the fighting compartment, good visibility of the battlefield and ability to command the crew for the commander. The loader is the only crew member positioned to the right of the gun, giving him large amounts of volume to work in, increasing comfort.

The commander's position behind the gunner, and the commander's cupola allow him to control the vehicle and the gunner's actions. However, the gunner's workspace is somewhat cramped, and the existing pedal trigger is uncomfortable to use. It is also desirable to move the 9T-7 sight elevation mechanism forward.

In order to increase maneuverability in the rear of the turret, the brass catcher and firing mechanism shield should be moved. The brass catcher box should be lightened.

The meeting considers it necessary to:

1. Propose that GAU KA orders changes to the ZiS-5 gun:
1. Remove the pedal trigger for the gun and machinegun, and replace it with a hand trigger mechanism on the handle of the aiming mechanism.
   Attached are blueprints for a hand trigger mechanism developed by SKB-2 of the Kirov factory (for the machinegun). The meeting considers it possible to use an electrical solenoid trigger mechanism, the development of which could be assigned to SKB-2.
2. When installing the elevation mechanism, turn the worm gear up (by 5-7 degrees) (should be implemented at the Kirov factory).
3. The elevation mechanism should be moved 300-400 mm forward, which will require changes to the elevation mechanism and gun mount (preliminary development at the Kirov factory).
4. Change the firing mechanism shield according to the attached sketches.
5. Reduce the weight of the brass catches by drilling holes in it.
6. Make an opening in the tail of the gun mount for the gun stopper, according to the attached sketches.
7. Place the 9T-7 sight in the same plane as the periscopic sight by moving it forward. A sketch of the changes is attached.
2. It is useful to perform the following after these changes are made:
1. Perform trials of a tank with the KV-1S turret to check the gun: trajectory angles, precision at 1000 meters, rate of fire when stationary and in motion.
2. Test the radio man's machinegun, compare the old ball mount and new ball mount (with periscopic sight), and determine parameters for sight markings.

Deputy chief engineer Duhov

Senior machine engineer Balzhi
Armament group chief Shneidman
Assistant to the chief of the 2nd department of Artkom, Major Solomonov"
CAMD RF 38-11355-697

Soviet Sight Testing

The life of KV-1S #15002 was no ordinary life. As its serial number might suggest, it was the second KV-1S built. Later on, it was converted into a KV-85. In a third and final experimental step, it was equipped with a PT-8 sight.

And shot at. CAMD RF 38-11369-64 tells us why:

"Trials of the tank turret by shooting

The tank's armour was tested with mount testing shells, in order to find out the reliability of the optical sight and its mounts.

Factory #100 performed a shelling of the tank with armour piercing shells in order to determine the reliability of various components of the tank. At the same time, this was used by our commission to test the sight.

The IS turret had a new 4x sight installed and carefully calibrated.

The tank as shot at with a 76 mm ZiS-5 gun from a distance of 300 meters. 10 shots were fired, 5 shots with mount testing shells, and 5 shots with armour piercing shells.

The mount testing shells were aimed at the area of the sight, with two shells impacting the shell on the level of the sight, and three in the mantlet on the same plane.

The armour piercing shells were used to test the sturdiness of various parts of the tank (driver's hatch, commander's cupola, etc). The hits were as follows:

• Driver's hatch: one hit
• Front armour: two hits
• Commander's cupola: two hits"

Figure 7. Blue dots represent the mount testing shells. Red dots represent armour piercing shells.

"After shelling, the sight was examined externally and looked into. The result was as follows:

1. The sight was free of deformations and defects.
2. Sight adjustment and sharpness did not suffer.
3. Calibration of the sight was not knocked off.

The support pole of the ocular portion of the sight, welded to the turret, fell off. The ocular part fell down, to the hydraulic turret traverse mechanism. This was a defect of the installation, and not the sight. Additionally, no defects or damages were caused by the falling of the sight. 

These tests show that the PT8-15 sight is sufficiently rugged and continues to function after numerous nonpenetrating hits. The sight mount is adequate. The only part that needs perfecting is the support pole for the ocular part of the sight."

"Figure 8. KV-85 tank with IS turret and PT8-15 sight after shelling. The white marks on the turret are results of the mount testing shells."

"Mount testing shells" are a special kind of shell, used for training. It is a homogeneous shell, with the same mass as the shell it's supposed to represent, but without things like an explosive filler. Obviously, these shells have lesser penetration than regular AP, but the IS turret withstood both types of shell from 300 meters, something Tigers weren't quite capable of. 

76 mm AP

For fans of shells, blueprints, and very, very large images, I present blueprint #2-03545: "76 mm armour piercing shell (standard)".

ZiS-5

"In order to solve the issue of arming the KV-1 tank manufactured by the Chelyabinsk Tractor Factory, the workers of factory #92, factory director comrade Elyan, chief engineer comrade Grabin, and chief of the OGK sub-department comrade Muravyev, determined the following:

1. In August of this year, factory #92, while mounting the F-34 gun on the KV-1, reinforced the gun mount as a result of having to move the trunnions in order to balance the gun (which takes as much effort as making a new mount).
2. The resulting 76.2 mm caliber gun is called "ZiS-5" by the factory, and is preferable for installation in the KV-1 tank for the following reasons:
1. The mount is sturdier, with 15 mm walls instead of 8 mm.
2. The button firing mechanism is made according to the Artkom GAU KA journals, and is superior in performance. 
3. A T-900 4x sight is used instead of a 2.5x sight, in order to reduce the opening in the gun mantlet.
4. The muzzle velocity of the armour piercing shell can be increased to 780 m/s with a special charge, which increases penetration to 75 mm at 1000 meters.
3. Factory #92 received an order from Moscow to cease manufacturing of prototypes, despite the fact that parts for 25 prototypes have already been produced.
4. Since the Kirov factory has stopped supplying ChTZ with F-32 guns as of August this year, ChTZ was ordered to install the F-34 gun on the KV-1, with all required mount trunnion changes. In order to assist in this, one engineer from factory #92 was sent to ChTZ by airplane with one F-34 gun, and later, 16 more F-34 guns were sent by rail. If necessary, factory #92 can send more of its employees.

Conclusions:

1. It will take as much time to adapt the F-34 gun to the KV-1 as it would take to produce the ZiS-5 gun.
2. No additional equipment is required to produce the ZiS-5 gun. Required tools have already been ordered by the factory. The factory has necessary blueprints and instruments.
3. Factory #92 can start manufacturing ZiS-5 guns at the cost of removing other guns from production, such as the F-34.
4. Major-General comrade Grabin made it clear that he can produce 20-25 ZiS-5 guns in excess of the factory's quota.
5. Major-General comrade Grabin stated that all he saw on the issue of producing the ZiS-5 is talk, and despite its advantages, there is no singular decision. If this continues, he will have to write to Stalin personally.

September 27th, 1941"

CAMD RF 38-11355-148

Letters to Stalin or not, but the ZiS-5 gun made it into mass production for the KV-1. The special AP shell, on the other hand, didn't, as every source that I have read gives identical ballistics for the F-34 and ZiS-5. 

Soviet Tractor Tanks

Armoured tractors have frequently shown up in the 20th century, both as improvised fighting vehicles built by militias or resistance movements, and as organized attempts at creating a cheap and dirty armoured vehicle for a real army. This article covers armoured tractors built in the Soviet Union as more or less organized production efforts.

Masttyazhart AA Daimler

In 1925, as a part of the Mechanization and Tractorization of the Army program, Masttyazhart (Heavy Artillery Workshops) installed a 76.2 mm Model 1915 AA gun on a Daimler tractor (the model was not specified). The gun could rotate 360 degrees, had an elevation of up to 75 degrees, and depression of 0 degrees. The tractor towed a cart with 192 rounds of ammunition and a crew of six. It could only fire while stationary, with spades deployed. The vehicle was not mass produced.

D-10

Image from Solyankin et al, "Soviet Light Tanks 1920-1941", Zeughaus, 2007

This tractor-tank was developed in 1930 in Moscow. It was based on the Kommunar 9GU tractor, with 6-16 mm of armour, 4 machine guns, and one 76.2 mm model 1927 regimental gun facing backwards. The tractor could achieve 9 kph with a 75 hp engine. It was designed as a support tank, with one variant (D-14) capable of carrying infantry in it. The off-road capability was good, but reliability, crew ergonomics, and vision for the driver were deemed unsatisfactory. It is interesting to note the presence of a commander's cupola, giving the commander excellent 360 degree view range. The tank was not mass produced. 

D-11

Image from Solyankin et al, "Soviet Light Tanks 1920-1941", Zeughaus, 2007

The D-11 was a similar project to the D-10, but based on the Caterpillar-80. It had the same armament, but a weaker 60 hp engine, and a smaller fuel tank. It was not mass produced for the same reason as the D-10. The failures of the D-10 and D-11 projects made the Red Army seriously reconsider the viability of future tractor-tank projects.

SU-2 and SU-5

Image from Solyankin et al, "Soviet Self Propelled Guns 1923-1941", Zeughaus, 2008

The SU-2 self propelled gun was developed in 1931, at the Bolshevik factory. A 76.2 mm model 1902 divisional gun was mounted on a Kommunar 9GU tractor, behind an armoured shield. The gun could rotate 360 degrees. The tractor chassis had to be reinforced, and the driver's seat removed, in order to fit this modification. Armour thickness of the hull was 10 mm. The 75 hp engine accelerated the vehicle up to 12 kph. One of these vehicles was built. The vehicle had a crew of five.

In 1932, another, project at the Bolshevik factory put a 76.2 mm model 1915 AA gun on the same tractor. To compensate for the extra weight, the vehicle had no armour, and had four spades deployed when firing. One of these vehicles was built and passed trials, but the project was not continued due to the insufficient capacity of the Kommunar chassis to support 76.2 mm guns. This vehicle was designated SU-5, not to be confused with the SU-5 light triplex on the T-26 chassis.

NI-1

Early NI tank. Due to the highly improvised nature of manufacturing, two NI tanks can look vastly different.

NI, or Na Ispug (For Fear) was an improvised armoured vehicle, produced in Odessa. A STZ-5 tractor was equipped 10-20 mm of armour, or even mild steel with wooden boards, which would protect it from bullets. Armament varied based on what was available. NI tanks went into battle with 37 mm or 45 mm guns, 1-2 DT machine guns, sometimes only with a pipe to simulate a cannon. Some sources say that a 76.2 mm model 1938 mountain gun was used. The idea of the tank was not to combat other tanks, but to combat infantry, unprepared for the arrival of tanks, and lacking anti-tank weapons. The loud noise produced by this contraption contributed to the psychological impact of the tank. 55 of these tanks were built. The name NI was given to the after the war. During the war, they are designated as "tractor-tank". Three NI tanks exist to this day, at least one a reproduction for movies.

HTZ-16

Reproduction of a HTZ-16 tank in Kiev

Kharkov's approach to an armoured tractor was similar, but more uniform. A STZ-3 tractor was chosen for the job. It was equipped with 10-25 mm of armour, a 45 mm gun for enemy tanks, and a DP machine gun for enemy infantry. The turret of the tank did not rotate. Unlike with the NI, the HTZ-16 was set to be mass-produced, but problems with supplies limited the total production run to 60 at Kharkov and 30 at Stalingrad. At least one tank made it through the war and returned to its life as a tractor.

SU-2-2

CAMD RF 38-11355-190, a record of a meeting on turning obsolete tanks into tank destroyers, proposes installing the 57 mm ZiS-4 tank gun and, 37 mm and 25 mm automatic AA guns in the STZ-5 tractor "with extended hull and ZiS-16 engine". Meeting notes from Factory #92 list "SU-2-2, 57 mm tank gun on the fast artillery tractor STZ-5" as a potential option for production. However, this option was not chosen.

Voroshilovets 105-K

The same document proposes installing an 85 mm AA gun on a Voroshilovets tractor. The project was deemed unlikely, but launched at Factory #8 under the index 105-K anyway. A prototype was built, but not mass produced, due to the army's lack of heavy tractors.

ZiS-30

The ZiS-30 project was created by mounting a ZiS-2 57 mm anti-tank gun on a T-20 Komsomolets artillery tractor. This vehicle had 10 mm of armour in the front, and 7 mm on the sides and rear. It could reach a speed of 40 kph. The center of gravity was very high, leading to a chance of flipping the tank if the gun was fired without spades deployed. 101 of these vehicles were assembled over the course of about a month, and one with a 45 mm gun. The ZiS-30 performed well in combat, due to its powerful gun. However, the T-20 tractor was no longer produced in 1941. There were no spare parts for vehicles that managed to survive combat. Today, no ZiS-30s remain.

SU-2S

CAMD RF 38-11355-238

Despite a similar name, this project has nothing to do with the SU-2. It was developed in the fall of 1941, ten years later, at the Chelyabinsk Tractor Factory. A Stalinets-2 tractor, with a torsion bar suspension, had a 122 mm M-30 howitzer installed, and was armoured with anti-bullet armour (the Soviet "anti-bullet" category encompassed 4-20 mm of highly hardened steel). However, ChTZ became the new home of the Kirov factory, and started producing KV tanks, which were more important than this improvised solution. The M-30 howitzer found its way to an armoured hull in a few months, but one from a real tank.

Stalinets Tank Destroyer

CAMD RF 38-11355-639, fragment

In 1942, two engineers from the Ural Heavy Machinery Factory proposed a tank destroyer project. They intended to arm a Stalinets-2 tractor with a ZiS-5 gun, in a fully enclosed armoured hull. The resulting vehicle would have a crew of 3 and a height of only 1.8 meters. With only 25-32 mm of armour, and a reduced mass of 6-7 tons, the tank could theoretically reach a speed of 40 kph. The project was technically sound, but Stalinets-2 tractors were not built since 1941, and no compatible chassis was currently produced for this vehicle to ever be built.