In 1940, the Tula Design Bureau, or known by the full name JSC Konstruktorskoe Buro Priborostroeniya (KBP), developed and built an anti-aircraft defense installation, with the help of Tokarev Nikolai Fedorovich, consisting of a trinity of 12.7 mm DShK machine guns. The machine guns appeared to be fed by magazines of the classic type, pointer and gunner seats, guidance mechanisms, and sights on a special bracket. The equipment was named as “TKB-149,” and one of these systems was mounted on a GAZ-AAA truck in September 1941 at Sverdlov Square, Moscow, in preparation for possible German air attacks. Shortly before these events the People’s Commissariat of the Navy ordered 10 of these rigs for mounting on top of light naval vessels and 20 for the NKVD, but it is not known how many were actually delivered so the rig used in Moscow remains the only one with known use. The vehicle was probably rearmed after more sophisticated antiaircraft armament was designed and the armament itself was probably reused for land use with the infantry.
Armaments and propulsion.
As mentioned earlier, the vehicle was armed with three 12.7 mm DShK machine guns placed in a TKB-149 type rig and fed by magazines of unknown capacity, and the weapon had good range and elevation. The ammunition reserve is not known.
The armament was probably mounted on a GAZ-AAA truck powered by a 3.3L GAZ-AA I4 engine of 50 hp power, which could propel the truck up to 60 km/h top speed.
Specifications.
Spoiler
Crew: 5
Length: 5,335 m
Width: 2.04 m
Height: ~2 m
Weight: 3.1 tons
Engine: 3.3L GAZ-AA I4 (50 hp)
Maximum speed: 60 km/h
Armament: 3x DShK 12.7 mm (TKB-149)
Pivot: 360°
Elevation: 0°/50° (estimated)
Would a excellent little Anti-Air the DShK is effective and funny enough these little tripple and quad mounts are coming back to hunt loitering munitions but this time with thermals, night vision, mini radar and acoustic detectors!
That would require an AA Reshuffle.
GAZ-AAA (DShK)->First to research.
GAZ-AAA (4M)->Second to Research GAZ-AAA DShK (TKB-149)
BTR-152A
BTR-152D (really shouldn’t be a 4.0): 3.7, yes. 4.0 no.
GAZ-MM (72-K)
ZiS-12 (94-KM)
ZiS-43
ZSU-37
If it were done, this would make the most sense. Right now it’s all over the place, as if someone drunk set it up that way.
This just means: it goes from Light machine guns to straight-up all-around protected armored vehicles.
Br’s aren’t changing btw. I know that wouldn’t occur.
ya give or take fair point the demands where also much different then in the west where altitude was king more battles happened closer to the ground. DShk will chew through plane no matter how awesome your potential high altitude performance could be if your flying low because you have to.
Only P-47 thunderbolt gets to laugh at all altitude if the German rail industry has anything to complain about.
German Rail industry on the Western Front was bombed by B-17’s.
We did a lot of Carpet bombing, which made German AA defenses less effective than they were designed to be. This includes firebombing. To a far lesser degree, since it wasn’t really needed.
We realistically didn’t bother with close engagements cause it wasn’t necessary not to say it didn’t occur.
P-47s where known to go train busting which caused a lot of traffic jams on the rail lines which would result in more trains becoming easy pickings. If I remember right B-17s had a noticeable effect on rail junctions and yards but the bulk of the critical damage was done by the Germans them selves by destroying there own rail lines. Interestingly the destruction of the rail systems would be the catalyst for the European Coal and Steel Community in a effort to rebuild the rail system as Germany really did a lot to it at the end of the war. Interestingly the European Coal and Steel Community would also help form the EU there job was to fix the paradox of the rail systems.
Even today though back to planes destroying rail by air is a painful and slow effort with high risks. A Train Anti-Air car can eat though your aircraft or attack drones and fixing a small hole in a rail line is surprisingly easy for the effort you put into causing that hole. Rail yards and junctions are still a useful target but its a known target which is a issue for you.
Both are correct. However, it wasn’t a standard.
Not everyone was busting trains in a P-47 or any aircraft with the capability. Nor was every German destroying the rails. You can also say this for bombing runs, but often it depended on whether we bombed strategically when it made sense.
