Talk:152 mm gun M1910/30

Incorrect image
Note to the author: One hates to be the bearer of bad news, but the weapon in these photos seems to actually be a (locally?) substantially modified Schneider/Putilov 152mm M-1909 fortress/field howitzer aka. ''152mm Krepostnaya Gaubitza obr. 1909g or 152mm Krepostnaya Gaubitza obr. 1909/30g'' (M-1909 or M-1909/30 fortress howitzer). The modification in this case seems to consist primarily in lengthening the barrel, then reinforcing the ordnance at the chase and chamber, fitting a multi-baffle muzzle brake (which is indeed similar to, but not identical to that fitted to the ordnance of the actual Soviet M-1910/30 field gun), and adding a substantial counterweight to the breech ring, which is similar to those seen on many Schneider manufactured pieces. There is also what appears to be a folding loading tray on top of the counterweight (the cylindrical item above the breech in the bottom photo). It is noteworthy that the original Russian/Soviet Putilov 152mm M-1909 and the slightly modified M-1909/30 fortress/field howitzers both had a distinctive folding loading tray which rested on top of the breech ring when not in use. The weapon in these photos is marked "152H30" on the back of the shield, which itself is identical to that of the M-1909 and M-1909/30 series howitzers rather than that of the M-1910 or M-1910/30 gun. In Finnish designations the "H" meant howitzer, and "30" denotes the model year or the year of the modification. The actual M-1910/30 field gun was a much larger equipment than the weapon seen in these photos, with a substantially longer ordnance to which was attached a multi-baffle muzzle brake similar to that used on the later M-1910/34 gun and the M-1937 (ML-20) gun-howitzer. The ordnance of the M-1910/30 field gun also had large guide horns attached near the muzzle just behind the muzzle brake; the ordnance of the M-1910/30 field gun was also characterized by its cylindrical breech ring with no folding loading tray or large counterweight at all, unlike the weapon seen in these photos. There was also a much more substantial elevation quadrant under the cradle than that found on the weapon in these photos, and there were two large (elevation?) handwheels on the right side of the gun with two smaller (traverse?) handwheels on the left. To the left side of the the cradle there was fitted a substantial recoil shield to protect the gunner from the recoiling ordnance. The gun also had platforms for the crew on the box trail, and either dual solid rubber tired, five hole disc wheels with bolted rims, or, on earlier examples, large solid steel tractor type wheels with cleats for tractiion. A large curved shield was attached to outriggers which held it away from the wheels some 20-30 cm or so. The M-1910/30 gun, was, as stated in the article, transported in two loads; the weapon in these photos was small enough to be moved in one load. Unfortunately for artillery historians, collectors and afficionados, it is highly unlikely that any examples of this rare weapon survived the war, and good photos of it are almost as rare. SASH155 (talk) 02:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)SASH155/W. Thomas, Alexandria, VA, U.S.A. User:SASH155


 * Thanks Wesley. One hates to admit, but I should have noted that the gun in the photos looks similar to the 152 mm howitzer M1909/30, and seems small in comparison to 152 mm gun M1910/34, a modernization of the M1910/30 gun. Bukvoed (talk) 07:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bukvoed.
Hello Bukvoed, I was just wondering if you would be using any of the information provided to update the article? BTW: there are now several good to excellent photos of the M-1910/30 field gun which have been posted on the Axis History Forum website, just look in the artillery and fortifications section. I particularly like the one taken in June/July 1941 from the right rear quarter showing a captured battery of intact guns still in their firing position. The Soviet gunners seem to have managed nonetheless to have destroyed or disposed of the breech blocks from these guns, as they are missing from the breech rings in the shot.SASH155 (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)SASH155/W.Thomas, Alex. VA


 * Uhm, I thought I have removed thiese pictures. I'll do it now.
 * Thanks, there are indeed some good pictures in the Axis History Forum:, . But I am not sure any of them is public domain. Perhaps fair use will apply here. Bukvoed (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)