Talk:76 mm divisional gun M1942 (ZiS-3)

Best Artillery piece?
"Many artillery experts give this gun the honorable place amongst the best artillery pieces of World War II with German 88-mm FlaKs and British 25pdr howitzer."

Let's not get too hasty here. There were a lot of great artillery pieces used in World War II, and yes the ZIS-3 should be counted, but I don't agree most experts place it as one of the top three as implied here. Plenty of refernce book out there offer alternative views.

How about the US 105mm M2? At least as divisional level artillery, the US piece has the edge over the ZIS-3 and 25pdr, particularly in payload placed on target. Furthermore, in it's M7 SP HMC form, was the most useful of fire support platforms in the mobile warfare seen in 1944.

Both the ZIS-3 and the 88 FlaK were widely use in multiple roles. The 25pdr was used in multiple roles to an extent (standard divisional arty and AT), but the nod would go to the 88 if the measure is multi-role application (AA, AT, and standard indirect artillery use).

Before going down that road too far, I'd point out, much as with aircraft of the period, the Americans didn't see much need for multi-role weapons generally speaking. The Americans perferred to let the divisional howitzer battalions focus on indirect missions, while dedicated AA batteries did their role (playing a lesser role than the Axis counterparts one might add, what with P-51s, P-38s, and P-47s depriving them of targets). AT work was amply done by those same aircraft once the air-to-air work was done, BTW.

Use the same generalization applies to aircraft -- with penty of good medium bombers, capable single Caswain01 01:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)and twin engine fighters, and long range bombers, there was no requirement in the American stable for a Ju 88.

The Germans on the other hand, and to a great extent the Russians also, had to make due with less options. If the FlaK gun is the only thing that can couter a Matilda, Sherman, or T-34, then that is what you'd use.


 * Please, do not be hasty too. I wrote this words about “among best artillery pieces” amd I am know of course that on the battlefield ZiS-3 was only good gun – it worked pretty well as ATG before Tigers and outranged 105mm howitzers but Tiger was quite a problem and 76mm HE shell was much less powerful than 105mm. Not the best on the battlefield definitely, only good.


 * But estimation of weapon must consider not only battlefield usage. For weapons, as for money the best quality is a quantity, 103,000 pieces is a figure. But what is more important – these good guns were built WITH EXTREMELY LOW QUALITY WORKFORCE. My Grandma worked on the mentioned in the article Factory No.92 when she was 13. She did not finish the secondary school at this time and years after told me that the food ration was only slightly better than starvation level. The only literate person in their brigade known with mathematics, types of steel and spare parts was the head, returned to the factory from old-age pension. The condition of work were terrifying (e.g.):


 * My Grandma lived in a village from 30 km away of Gorky, but there were no train, no bus so she slept near factory machinery and only for Sundays she had permit to leave the facility and go home by foot. In a city she couldnt use a tram – the money were needed for food from the black market dealers and trams themselves were rare and overcrowded.
 * German POWs when saw the Factory No. 92 teenage girl workers could not hold a tears – they were better fed in captivity than the most citizens of Gorky.
 * When the Grandpa of my Grandma went to the Factory for taking his granddaughter away back to the village, guards stopped him and ask: Do you wish, old one, that your granddaughter were sent to a prison? The workforce transfer is permitted only by high authorities.”
 * And in this bad conditions ZiS-3 was the simple enough to be constructed by such a workers and worked well in a hands of non-experienced soldiers. So my native Russian experts called it among the best artillery pieces from easy handling, designer’s point of view and technology suitability. LostArtilleryman 03:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I can understand your logic, but just don't agree with it. If I apply the same rules to assessing the tanks used in World War II, the Sherman would be the top of the mark. It was built in very large numbers and could be shipped to every corner of the world (due to light weight). Thus giving the Sherman the nod over the T-34, which because of it's weight and production standards, could not be used in places such as Iwo Jima or Burma.

In my opinion, the opening statement is rather biased and should be revised. It is clearly misleading. Perhaps something to the affect - "The ZiS-3 was one of the most widely used divisional artillery pieces used in the war." Such would be more in line with your statements about production. Caswain01 01:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, IMHO the Sherman was the great tank too especially if we remember the absence of experience of American designers before the war. (despite antipathy of my Russian sources to it, I am not a xenophobist regarding machinery; some of Russian tank soldiers fought bravely on M4s and found it as a worthy vehicle ). T-34s and M4s were the mainstay of tank fleet which defeat Germany. But for guns: ZiS-3 was one of the best pieces of Soviet artillery without doubts (for approaching NPOV) but it became an iconic gun in Soviet artillery as 25pdr in British and 88 Flaks in German one. LostArtilleryman 05:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Before we denigrate the power the ZIS-3's HE round to much in comparison to the US 105 mm, let's remember that the ZIS-3 had a much higher rate of fire than the 105. Of course, being able to fire 24 light shells may not always be the equal of 12 or even 8 heavier shells, I imagine for some purposes, the higher rate of fire would be better than a slower, heavier hitting shell.Cbmclean (talk) 03:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"History" section should be streamlined
Dear Wikieditors, I'Ve enjoyed this article and I think that it can be improved to a higer standard with a little rework. I found the "History" section a bit too chunky, grouping information about the gun's development as well as its use diring WW2. I suggest that these two topics are treated separatley to increase the clarity of the article. I also found confusing the section "Combat history" where it mentions that "A battery of ZiS-3 consisted of four guns, with three batteries combined into a division, or battalion.", given that a division is a much bigger unit than a battalion. Which is the source used for this statement?. I don't have written bibliography on this topic, hence can't amend the article as suggested. Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 06:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 76 mm divisional gun M1942 (ZiS-3). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090729043028/http://www.modellingmarket.pl/photos/76mm-divisional-gun-m1942-zis-3 to http://www.modellingmarket.pl/photos/76mm-divisional-gun-m1942-zis-3
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060621143648/http://www.freeweb.hu/gva/weapons/soviet_guns5.html to http://www.freeweb.hu/gva/weapons/soviet_guns5.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)