This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"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.
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)
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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"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.
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)
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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)