57-mm Anti-tank Gun Lb-3 technical Details
- Years of production-1946
- Total issued – no data available
- Caliber-57 mm
- Weight in combat position-818 kg
- Barrel length-4340 mm
- Length of the threaded part-3420 mm
- Payment – 5 people
- Driving speed – no data available
- Rate of fire – no data available
- Maximum firing range-6460 m
- Direct shot range-1100 m
- Firing angles:
- Horizontal – 58°
- Vertical – 9° +17°
57-mm Anti-tank Gun Lb-3 Details
In accordance with the same tactical and technical requirements of the GAU Art Committee of 1945 for the creation of a new 57-mm anti-tank gun, for which the ZIS-2 guns were replaced, another 57-mm LB-3 anti-tank gun was designed in the design bureau of plant No. 92 (Gorky). Its prototype was made in the second half of 1946.
The 57-mm LB-3 anti-tank gun had a light two-wheeled carriage with tubular sliding frames, on which a monoblock barrel was mounted with a semi-automatic vertical bolt, taken almost unchanged from the ZIS-2. Semi-automatic equipment of the mechanical (copy) type. The LB-3 gun barrel was a monoblock with a screw-on breech and a two-chamber muzzle brake. The rollback brake is hydraulic, the knurler is hydropneumatic. Lifting mechanism-sector type, rotary screw mechanism-push type. Balancing mechanism of the sector type. Springing – torsion.
The OP1-2 telescopic sight was used for direct fire, and it was also possible to place the basket under the Hertz panorama. The wheels were used from the GAZ-AA car, but with a modified hub. Due to the use of the muzzle brake, it was possible to weaken the recoil of the barrel when fired and, accordingly, reduce the recoil devices and cradle. This significantly reduced the mass of the gun – up to 800 kg . The LB-3 cannon also had a low firing line height of 630 mm .
In October – November 1946, field tests of LB-3 guns were conducted at the Main Artillery Range. During field tests, significant design flaws were identified and the tests were soon discontinued due to poor extraction of spent cartridges, which reached 50 % by the end of the tests.
As a result of the tests carried out, according to the commission’s conclusion, the system
LB-3, presented to the Design Bureau of plant No. 92, did not pass the field tests, and significant design improvements were required for further testing. In addition, it was noted in the materials of the conclusion that the large mass and high hobot pressure of the LB-3 cannon create worse transportation conditions on the battlefield compared to similar experienced 57-mm anti-tank guns of the Charnko Ch-26 and Grabin S-15 systems. Therefore, due to the design flaws identified during the tests, work on the LB-3 gun was stopped, and a few years later the 57-mm Ch-26 anti-tank gun entered service with the Soviet Army.