Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

Showing posts with label Br-2. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Br-2. Show all posts

Monday, 13 December 2021

A Second Life for Obsolete Chassis

Instances where obsolete tank chassis are used to make quite modern vehicles that nevertheless remained experimental are common. Nearly a dozen German SPGs were produced in tiny amounts but still saw front line service. One common example is the Pz.Sfl.V tank destroyer, better known as the Sturer Emil. This vehicle was built on the chassis of the VK 30.01(H) heavy tank that was never put into mass production. Only two Pz.Sfl.V were built, but they were used quite successfully.

This German SPG was brought up as an example intentionally. Today it is displayed alongside its Soviet analogues, which also remained experimental. These are the SU-14-1 and T-100Y SPGs, built as bunker busters. They did not make it to the Winter War, but were likely used in battle during the defense of the NIBT Proving Grounds. Both vehicles were built on the chassis of tanks that were either considered obsolete or otherwise unfit.

Friday, 23 October 2020

Bunker Buster

"Top Secret
Copy #2
1st Department of Land Artillery, GAU
December 14th, 1940
#721557ss

To the Chief of the Red Army GABTU, Lieutenant General of the Tank Forces, comrade Fedorenko

The Red Army Main Artillery Directorate ordered the following types of armament at the Kirov factory for 1941:
  1. 152 mm Br-2 gun on a self propelled chassis.
    1. Experimental prototype due on April 1st.
    2. Production batch of 12 due on October 1st.
  2. 130 mm B-13 gun on a self propelled chassis.
    1. Experimental prototype due on May 1st.
    2. Production batch of 12 due on November 1st.
The GAU will sign a contract for the armament and its installation in an SPG. I ask you to order the GABTU to sign a contract with the Kirov factory to produce 2 experimental and 24 production vehicles for installation of B-13 and Br-2 guns in the specified timeframe.

Deputy Chief of the GAU, Major General Savchenko."

Saturday, 2 May 2020

High Caliber Convertibles

History often repeats itself. This well known fact is often confirmed in tank building. For instance, Soviet SPGs, especially heavy ones like the SU-14, were created in order to mechanize artillery. The requirements changed during the process of their creation. The Red Army was in need of an assault gun that was capable of direct fire and had shell-proof armour. The 212 SPG and subsequent vehicles were designed according to this concept. Work resulted in the creation of the SU-152. However, one day the Red Army once more found itself in need of a self propelled gun with an open fighting compartment equipped with a 203 mm B-4 gun.

Saturday, 21 December 2019

Heavy Tank Destroyers that Remained on Paper

The KV-14 (SU-152) SPG was accepted into service on February 14th, 1943. It was designed primarily to combat enemy fortifications, but its first use in combat pitted it against German tanks. Work on tank destroyers on the SU-152 chassis began in the spring of 1943. Even though none of these projects was implemented in metal, the work eventually led to the ISU-122.

Saturday, 7 July 2018

High Caliber Beast Killers

The acceptance of the KV-14 SPG, better known as the SU-152 "Beast Killer", didn't mean that further development of its design ceased. The use of an ML-20 gun-howitzer was, in a way, a compromise, and attempts to install more powerful systems continued. This article will discuss alternative armament for the heavy Soviet SPG: 203 mm howitzer and mortars. The SU-203 could have been one of these vehicles.

Tuesday, 7 November 2017

Light SPGs

"Decision of the meeting held by the Deputy People's Commissar of Defense, Marshall of the Soviet Union, comrade Kulik
May 23rd, 1941

1. It is necessary to have four kinds of SPGs:
  1. SPAAGs
  2. Assault guns
  3. Tank destroyers
  4. Bunker busters

Thursday, 20 July 2017

Br-19 152 mm Gun

"To the Chief of the 3rd Department of the USSR NKV 85 Gorkiy St
In response to #5488s and 5255s-41

CC: Factory #221 director, Stalingrad
In response to #2890s-41

CC: Chief of the 2nd Department of the GAU UVNA, 2nd NKO Building

CC: GAU Regional Military Engineer at factory #221, Stalingrad

September 2nd, 1941

RE: Br-19 system

The Br-19 152 mm gun showed satisfactory precision at proving grounds trials, and the elevation mechanism worked flawlessly.

Considering the positive results of the trials and the advantages of the Br-19 over the 152 mm Br-2 gun in its lack of balancing mechanism, I consider it possible to put the gun into production to replace the 152 mm Br-2.

In connection with this, I ask that you instruct factory #221 to develop copies of blueprints and technical documentation for the Br-19 gun and send it by November 1st, 1941, through the GAU regional engineer to the 1st Department of the GAU UVNA for approval.

GAU UVNA Chief, Colonel Sorokin
GAU UVNA Military Commissar, Regimental Commissar Kozlov
1st Department of the GAU UVNA Deputy Chief, Komarov
3rd Section of the 1st Department of the GAU UVNA Chief, Yudov"

Wednesday, 15 March 2017

S-51

"Installation of a 203 mm mod. 1931 howitzer (B-4) on a KV-1S chassis (factory index S-51)

Produced by NKV TsAKB by order of the GAU Artkom.

The self propelled S-51 howitzer consists of the oscillating part of the 203 mm mod. 1931 howitzer (B-4) installed on a KV-1S. The installation is done in the following way:

The turret and turret ring are removed from the KV-1S. Instead of the turret, a plate is installed above the driver's head and the 203 mm mod. 1931 howitzer (B-4) is installed on it.

The fighting compartment remains free and is used to house the recoiling parts of the howitzer at high gun elevations.

Wednesday, 18 January 2017

180 mm Br-21

"To the People's Commissar of Armament of the USSR, comrade B.L. Vannikov

Reply to letter #125s from January 21st, 1941

The precision trials of the 152 mm Br-19 gun with a friction clutch in the elevation mechanism are scheduled for April of 1941, after which the decision regarding this system will be made.

The 180 mm Br-21 gun was trialed at the ANIOP with 120 shots.

The tactical-technical characteristics of the 180 mm Br-21 gun on the B-4 mount make for a weapon that has insufficient range for a gun and insufficient arc for a howitzer. The objectives that could be given to a 180 mm gun can be resolved by the B-4 or Br-2.

Based on the above information and the availability of a more powerful 210 mm Br-17 gun, the adoption of the 180 mm Br-21 gun on the B-4 mount and, therefore, the continuation of work on it, is unreasonable.

Marshall of the Soviet Union, Kulik."

There is also a note written across the typed page:

"The range is the same as the Br-2 while using twice as much propellant. Did you think about this? You approach the solution of problems formally, but fail to analyze all sides, and sometimes don't know what you're doing and confuse others. Gather all documents regarding trials and report to me. 26.2.41", followed by a signature but no name.

CAMD RF 81-12104-86

Wednesday, 24 August 2016

Self Propelled Heavy Howitzer

"Tactical-Technical Requirements for Supreme Command Reserve Self Propelled Artillery
  1. The main purpose of Supreme Command Reserve Self Propelled Artillery is the destruction of pillboxes and dugouts with direct and indirect fire, destruction of fortifications in settlements and railway stations, destruction of headquarters and concentrations of enemy personnel and vehicles.

Sunday, 10 July 2016

SPG #212: Pillbox Hunter

The war between the USSR and Finland that broke out on November 30th, 1939, revealed a ton of deficiencies in the organization and management of the Red Army. Naturally, questions regarding materiel also arose. It was finally clear that the Red Army needs tanks that can withstand cannons. The need for a specialized SPG that could destroy fortifications was also obvious. The KV-2 was one such vehicle, and even had time to fight the Finns, but it was destined to be replaced by the 212 SPG with an even more powerful gun.

Tuesday, 19 April 2016

Weighing In

"Comments on the draft of tactical-technical specifications of the SPG

1. The weight of 55 tons specified in the tactical-technical characteristics combined with the requested armour is impossible to achieve for the following reasons:
  1. According to the tactical-technical requirements, the SPG will use the transmission and suspension of the KV. The weight of these components is 17,400 kg (including the engine, fuel system and cooling system), and cannot be reduced further.
  2. The Br-2 system used in the SPG weighs 17,600 kg with the mount and ammunition.
  3. The machineguns, machinegun ammunition, observation cupola, seats, radio, fuel, crew, tools, etc. weighs 3,000 kg.
  4. If the mass of the SPG is limited at 55,000 kg, then the mass of the hull and the (immobile) turret will be 17,000 kg.
Due to the size of the system, the following dimensions have to be maintained:
  • Length: 7900 mm
  • Width: 1920 mm
  • Height (from bottom): 2570 mm
Building a hull that weighs 17,000 kg with these dimensions is impossible. Reducing the size is also impossible.

As an example, take the SMK-1 hull that had the following armour: 60 mm (sides, front, turret) 20-30 mm floor and 30 mm roof weighed 31 tons (including turrets). The requirements for the SPG are:
  • Front: 75 mm
  • Sides: 60 mm
  • Turret: 60 mm
  • Roof: 30 mm
  • Floor: 40-30 mm
It is not possible to design a 55 ton SPG with a turret and hull weighing 17 tons. During the design process, we used the following armour thicknesses:
  • Sides: 60 mm
  • Front: 60 mm (at 30 degrees)
  • Lower front: 50 mm (at 45 degrees)
  • Lower rear: 50 mm
  • Turret: 60 mm (at 10 degrees)
  • Floor: 30 mm front, 20 mm rear
  • Roof: 20 mm
Without fuel, ammunition and crew, the weight of this design is 60 tons. The combat weight is 65 tons. At 65 tons, the ground pressure (without sinking) is 0.83 kg/cm^2.

2. 
  1. The speed of aiming has been reduced by 33% vertically and 10% horizontally compared to the Br-2 field gun. The effort required to turn the elevation flywheel is up to 10 kg and the effort required for the horizontal flywheel is up to 8 kg.
  2. With the current return mechanisms, you cannot fire at an angle of over 30 degrees.
  3. The horizontal traverse is 4 degrees to each side, same as the field gun.
  4. The ammunition capacity is 47 shells. There is no loading crane, only a loading tray like on the M-10 system in the KV.
  5. The SPG fits into the "O" railway dimensions and is approaching the limits of the "O" dimensions.
SKB-2 Chief, Military Engineer 1st Grade, Kotin
SKB-4 Chief, Military Engineer 2nd Grade, Fedorov
Senior Engineer Goldburt"


The mysterious "SPG" referred in this document later obtained a factory index of "212", and is more commonly known as Object 212, despite never carrying that designation.

Sunday, 23 February 2014

World of Tanks History Section: Object 212

The history of domestic SPGs began in September of 1931. During work on a "self propelled corps triplex", SU-7 and SU-14 SPGs were developed. SU-7 was designed to use a 152 mm gun, 203 mm howitzer, and a 305 mm mortar. The SU-14 was designed to use a 107 mm gun, 152 mm gun, and a 203 mm howitzer. After the arrests of N.N. Magdeisev (designer of the B-4 howitzer) and then P.I. Syachintov, who was in charge of the SU-14 project on August 7th, 1938, the "small triplex" was cancelled.

High powered SPGs came up again in late 1939. While storming the Mannerheim Line, the Red Army needed an SPG with a high caliber gun and at least light anti-shell armour. In the middle of December of 1939, the Kirov factory and factory #185 design bureaus received an order from the Military Council of the North-West Front to develop engineering tanks with anti-shell armour. Factory #185 started two projects at once. Work began on an SPG based on the T-100. Additionally, it was decided to equip the SU-14 with armour. You would assume that the already made SPG was the faster solution, but no, work only competed on March 20th, a week after the end of the Winter War. The creation of an SPG on the T-100 chassis was not fast either, resulting in a vehicle named T-100Y, armed with a 130 mm B-13 naval gun.

The Kirov factory took a different route. In January of 1940, a prototype of the KV heavy tank (serial number U-0) arrived from the front. According to orders from the Military Council of the North-West Front, the first 4 tanks, including U-0, were to be equipped with 152 mm howitzers to defeat pillboxes. An enlarged turret was rapidly developed as a result. Work on the enlarged turret was done by SKB-3, headed by N.V. Kurin. Initially, the 152 mm model 1909/30 howitzer was planned, indexed L-21. In metal, the assault KV was equipped with a shortened M-10 (indexed MT-1). By February 10th, the new U-0 passed gunnery trials, and by February 17th, U-0 and U-1 were sent back to the front. "KV with large turret" tanks first saw battle on February 22nd. By March 3rd, there were 4 tanks of this type on the front lines.

Due to the results of the Winter War, it was decided that the "bunker buster" theme would be continued. During the spring and summer of 1940, the Kirov factory and factory #185 continued designing heavy SPGs on the T-100 and SMK chassis. However, the final fate of these vehicles was decided by the end of June. Based on the results of trials, it was clear that neither tank will be mass produced, since the KV was more protected and weighed less. The "KV with a large turret" was an adequate interim solution for the bunker buster problem.

As mentioned above, the "KV with a large turret" was a temporary answer to the need for a heavy assault SPG. Kurin's tank was a hypertrophied support tank like the artillery BT-7 (frequently called BT-7A, but that index belongs to another tank). The vehicle on the KV chassis (indexed KV-2 in 1941) had the advantage of parts commonality with its base vehicle. However, it had many drawbacks. The chassis allowed for a limited power gun, while the military demanded that the Br-2 gun be used. Due to the limited size of the turret, loading the M-10T was no easy task. The presence of a rotating turret did not mean that the tank could shoot from any angle.

After the SMK and T-100 projects died, efforts were concentrated on the creation of a heavy tank that was a modernized KV. On July 17th, 1940, the Committee of Defense of the Council of People's Commissars issued decree #198ss on the creation of new vehicles on the KV chassis. According to the decree, the Kirov factory was to develop the following:

  • Two experimental KV tanks (T-220) with 100 mm armour. One was to be armed with the F-30 85 mm gun, the other with the F-32 76 mm gun.
  • Two experimental KV tanks with 90 mm armour. One was to be armed with the F-32 76 mm gun, the other with the F-30 85 mm gun.
  • One experimental SPG with a Br-2 152 mm gun. 
The KV with 90 mm of armour received the factory index "150" (GABTU correspondence used the index T-150). It differed from its base vehicle in its 76 mm F-32 gun and a commander's cupola. It was planned that this tank, under the index "KV-3" will replace the KV-1.

The "220" tank was more distinct from the KV-1. The tank had a longer hull; the amount of road wheels increased to 7 on each side. The T-220 had a new turret, which housed the 85 mm F-30 gun. The tank used an 850 hp V-2F (V-10) engine. It was completed on December 5th, 1940.

The technical requirements for the 152 mm SPG were finalized by the end of August of 1940.

The SPG that the Kirov factory was tasked with received the index of "212". The chief engineer for this project was T.N. Golburt. The 212 was reminiscent of the SU-14-1, especially when it came to the layout of the fighting compartment. The chassis was a reworked T-220 suspension, with an engine in the middle and drive wheels at the front. The front also housed the driver's compartment. The fighting compartment was in a large casemate at the rear of the hull. On one hand, this design increased the size of the SPG. On the other, it increased crew comfort. The rear position of the casemate also reduced the distance that the Br-2 stuck out past the vehicle's hull.

2 million roubles were issued to this project. 100,000 went into the development of the technical project, 25,000 to the design of a model, 300,000 on blueprints, 75,000 on blueprint edits, 1.1 million on the production of a prototype, 100,000 on trials, and then 300,000 on repairs. The cost of the armament was not included in this sum.

The first prototype was due on December 1st, 1940, but serious corrections had to be made due to faults found during the design process. According to a GABTU report on experimental works, some components for the 212 were produced by January of 1941. Also, the technical project was completed, and sent to the Izhor factory for the production of a hull. By then, 1.5 million roubles have been spent. Work was going slowly due to higher priority of the T-150 and T-220, as well as other problems.

The hull for the new SPG was received only on March 5th, 1941. According to reports, assembly was stalled due to a lack of ready components. By the spring of 1941, the 212 project was dropping in priority at the Kirov factory. The factory received an urgent order for a heavy tank that inherited the T-150's index of "KV-3". The project, indexed "223", was developed on the T-220 chassis, with a front plate thickened to 120 mm and a new turret for the 107 mm ZiS-6 gun. The mass was estimated at 68 tons. The design of this vehicle began after learning of a new German heavy tank. Due to this load, work on the 212 stalled starting in the second half of March of 1941. April and May reports on experimental work state "No changes" in the row titled "self-propelled gun on the KV chassis". 

After Germany's attack on the USSR, designs were reconsidered. Work on some designs was accelerated. Others, either in the initial stages or not compatible with the realities of modern war, were cancelled. According to the most common version of this story, this was the fate of the 212, but it did not happen quite this way.

According to order #253ss of the People's Commissariat of Heavy Production, the KV-3 was transferred from the Kirov factory to the Chelyabinsk Tractor Factory (ChTZ). Engineers, technologists, and materials were sent to Chelyabinsk. One KV-3 made it to the front, another, without a turret or components, was sent to Chelyabinsk. In February of 1942, this KV-3 was assigned to the experimental OP-2 plant. As for the 212, until the start of August of 1941, it was still at the Kirov plant. Only then was it transferred to the Ural Factory of Heavy Machine Building (UZTM in Sverdlovsk, modern Ekaterinburg). 

Meanwhile tank production had no time for the KV-3, nor a bunker buster on its chassis. The Kirov factory was evacuated to Chelyabinsk and renamed Kirov Factory in Chelyabinsk (ChKZ), and the Izhor factory that made KV armour was sent to Sverdlovsk. UZTM was renamed to Izhor factory, and only got its name back on January 4th, 1942. UZTM was also loaded with Ordzhonikidze factory #37 and Kalinin factory #8 setting on up its territory. Factory #75, which was producing the V-5 engine was moved to Chelyabinsk, and began working on the much more necessary V-2. The situation with 152 mm guns was no better. The last Br-2 was produced by Barricade factory #221 (Stalingrad, modern Volgograd) in 1940.

Bunker busters fell out of priority, but not for long. In November of 1941, work restarted on many prototypes referred to in the SNK report "On self-propelled artillery" from May 27th, 1941. Nearly all of these projects remained in the requirements stage until 1942, there was not even a possibility of a design. Most factories tasked with designing the SPG were either busy with setting up manufacturing in the buildings where they were evacuated to in the summer and fall, or loaded with more urgent requests. Nevertheless, the list of experimental works for 1942 once again included the KV-3, scheduled for completion on May 1st, 1942. The same was true for a "two-stroke 1200 hp diesel engine" (due on October 1st, 1942), "charging the V-2 engine to 1200 hp" (due on July 1st, 1942). In March of 1942, the topic of "152 mm SPG on the KV-3 chassis (bunker buster)" resurfaces. The KV was indicated as its chassis, and the oscillating part of the Br-2 its armament. Factory #100 was listed as responsible for the chassis. Factory #8 was responsible for the gun. 1.5 million roubles was issued for this project. A prototype was expected by July 1st, 1942. However, the KV-3 was dead and buried in spring of 1942, and different vehicles were considered candidates for a bunker buster chassis.

Read more about the Object 212 and other SPGs on the KV heavy tank chassis in the book "SU-152 and other KV-based SPGs", published by Tactical Press.

Article author: Y. Pasholok.

Original article available here

Monday, 30 September 2013

Artillery Wishlist for 1940

The Supreme Military Council made a recommendation in May of 1940 regarding the state of artillery in the Red Army. The first half is about AA guns, and falls outside of the scope of this blog, but about halfway through, we get some juicy tidbits.

"
4. Consider large caliber artillery a task of utmost importance. Develop 210 mm field guns, 305 mm field howitzers in 1941, and 356 mm guns and 500 mm howitzers on rails for 1942. Develop and build prototypes of a 450 mm field howitzer in 1941.

5. On anti-tank guns:
Organize the manufacture of 45 mm shrapnel shells, producing 200,000 of them in 1940. GAU should develop an anti-tank gun, 50-60 mm in caliber, that can penetrate 50 mm of armour at 1000 meters.

Regimental guns:
Regimental guns currently being developed do not match the requirements of regimental guns due to being too heavy (900 kg). Currently developed guns should be completed and tested. In 1941, develop a new regimental gun, that weighs no more than 500 kg, has a 5 km range, and is not made for fighting tanks.
...
Medium caliber tank gun:
Leave the L-11 tank gun for 1940 Gradually shift to the F-32 and develop a new, more powerful tank gun  that is capable of fighting modern tanks. Hold the development of the F-32 until this issue is resolved.

6. On the armour piercing capabilities of field artillery.

Develop AP shells for the following artillery systems:
  • 152 mm model 1938 howitzer
  • 107 mm model 1910/30 gun
  • 122 mm model 1931 gun
  • 152 mm model 1935 gun
  • 152 mm model 1937 gun"
As always, let's see how successful these requests were. The massive artillery isn't really my department (I included it for fans of large numbers), but it looks like they got somewhere, combining the 450 mm requirement and the rail requirement into...something.

CAMD RF 81-12104-36

The request for a 50-60 mm AT gun was met with the 57 mm ZiS-2. According to the table here, it overfulfilled the penetration requirement, with 75 mm of penetration (against armour at 30 degrees, no less) at 1000 meters. Similar results are achieved by the ZiS-4 here.

The request for a lighter regimental gun was almost satisfied with the model 1943 regimental gun. At 600 kg of combat weight, and with a 4200 meter range, it doesn't quite get there. Also, unlike in the requirement, it was issued with HEAT shells, making it capable at fighting enemy tanks at under 1000 meters.

The development of AP shells for the listed artillery systems was very much successful, and is explored in another article.

A GABTU wishlist for 1940 (CAMD RF 38-11355-10)  also has some artillery components in it:

"On artillery:
  1. Immediately mass produce the 107 mm M-60 gun.
  2. Order the 107 mm mountain gun.
  3. Accelerate the trials of 203 mm howitzers.
  4. Accelerate the trials of AP shells for 107 mm, 122 mm, and 152 mm guns.
  5. Select the best possible 76 mm AP shell, and equip 76 mm model 1933 AA guns with it.
  6. Develop armour piercing shells for the 122 mm model 1938 howitzer, 152 mm model 1937 gun-howitzer, and 152 mm model 1938 howitzer.
  7. Develop armour piercing shells for 37 mm, 45 mm, and 85 mm AA guns."

Thursday, 26 September 2013

GABTU's Tank Wishlist for 1940

The Red Army received a new heavy tank in 1940, and GABTU wasted no time before demanding more things from it. CAMD RF 38-11355-10 tells us the full story.

"
  1. The KV tank must have a 76 mm gun with a muzzle velocity of at least 800 m/s, in order to penetrate 70-80 mm of armour at 1000 meters. The gun must fire quickly, and have sufficient stock of ammunition. Must have an armour piercing shell and a high explosive grenade.
    At this time, the most appropriate gun is the AA gun model 1931. The tank should also have 90-100 mm of armour.
  2. The KV-2 tank must have a 107 mm gun with a muzzle velocity of 730-750 m/s in order to penetrate 100-110 mm of armour at 1000 meters. The gun must fire quickly, have high penetration, and have sufficient stock of ammunition. Must have an armour piercing shell and a high explosive grenade.
    At the time, the most appropriate gun is the 107 mm M-60 gun.
  3. Build heavy self propelled armoured artillery to destroy pillboxes. Use a 122, 130, 152, and 180 mm guns. 
    1. The most realistic way of solving this problem is the production of an SPG on the SMK or T-100 chassis, and installing a 100-130 mm gun on it, giving it an AP shell capable of penetrating 130-150 mm, and an HE shell. 
    2. In short order, develop an experimental 152 mm model 1935 gun (Br-2) mount on the SMK tank, supply the system with an AP shell capable of penetrating 150-160 mm of armour, and a concrete wall 1.5 meters thick.
      The gun must be protected by 60-70 mm of armour and weigh no more than 65 tons.
    3. Install a 180 mm gun on the SMK chassis. If necessary, alter the chassis, and reduce armour. [This entire paragraph is scratched out]
  4. During the transitional period:
    1. Manufacture KV tanks with a 152 mm model 1938 howitzer (M-10).
    2. Manufacture KV tanks with L-11 guns and regular shells.
    3. Immediately develop a mount for the 76 mm AA gun model 1931 and the M-60 107 mm gun.
    4. Immediately begin producing the T-100 with a 130 mm gun, and begin work on installing a 152 mm model 1935 (Br-2) gun on the SMK.
    5. Install 122, 130, and 152 mm guns on the T-35 and simultaneously test armour screens.
    6. Have two types of T-34 tanks, ones with 45 mm guns, and ones with 76 mm guns. Improve the armour piercing capability of the 45 mm gun, and use F-32 or F-34 guns.
    7. All tanks must use DS machineguns with thickened barrels, as they allow for longer continuous fire than the DT."
That's a lot of requirements. Let's go through and see which ones came true.

The first one came from the L-11's already insufficient AP performance. The F-32 gun that the KV-1 was stuck with had the same ballistic properties. The KV-1 didn't get a gun that satisfied this requirement until the ZiS-5. Next, the KV-2's 107. The tank was tested with a gun of that caliber, and it met the penetration requirements, but the KV-2 had no worthy opponents in 1941, and production ceased. 

Heavy self propelled guns are a whole different topic. The SU-100-Y definitely satisfied the 130 mm bunker buster requirement. The requirement for a mobile 152 mm gun wasn't met until the SU-152. The Br-2 was mounted on several self-propelled platforms, but never mass produced in that configuration. Its half-AP shell could penetrate 180 mm of armour, so that requirement is satisfied. 

The KV with an M-10 was certainly manufactured (KV-2). The KV-1 eventually switched to the F-32, and then ZiS-5 guns. The model 1931 AA gun was only ever tested in the T-34, and then discarded, as it was not necessary with the advent of the T-34-85. The T-100 with a 130 mm gun was the SU-100-Y, so that one was successful. The T-35 with a 152 mm gun wish was granted, in the shape of the SU-14, but only two were built.  

Plans were drafted to built T-34s with 45 mm guns in the event of a shortage of 76 mm guns, but such a shortage never happened. The T-34 received the F-34 in 1941. The AP capability of 45 mm guns was improved, with the 45 mm AT gun model 1942.

A number of these requirements was drafted with the Winter War in mind, when the Red Army was stuck on Finnish defensive lines. When Germany invaded, the USSR no longer had any use for bunker busters, as the bunkers they would have to one day storm were hundreds of kilometers away. Additionally, Germany did not bring any tanks with armour as thick as was foreseen, so 107 mm guns with ridiculous penetration were not needed.