Military Review

100 years of Russian glory. Russian cavalry: lancers, dragoons, hussars

42



To begin with, we will at once omit the customary reasoning that the machine gun and the magazine rifle reduced the role of cavalry to some kind of auxiliary type of troops. In World War I, especially on the Eastern Front, cavalry was still a mobile strike force of troops, capable of having a significant impact on the course of the battle. The question basically was the ability to apply it.

The traditional role of cavalry in battle is an open attack, which had the name of "horse shock." That is a cold blow weapons on the enemy being forced to defend himself, his capsizing in a short-term furious attack and subsequent destruction. Either the oncoming battle cavalry of the two sides.



Yes, the machine gun significantly complicated the actions of cavalrymen in terms of performing the task of an open strike. But in the course of the war, the use of cavalry gradually changed, adapting to the existing conditions.

Especially on the Eastern Front, which was distinguished by large spaces and a low level of fire weapons per unit area. There the cavalry was used more actively.

Cavalry was used for reconnaissance, while pursuing a retreating enemy, bypass maneuvers and close combat. In addition, horses at that time were still the only means of rapid deployment of troops in the absence of roads.

On the Eastern Front, in contrast to the Western, the value of cavalry in battle remained high. An example is the Russian strikes in East Prussia, Galicia, Poland, and the German strikes in Lithuania and Romania.

At the beginning of the war, the Russian army received an 124 regiment of army cavalry, and by the end of 1917, it had up to two and a half hundred cavalry regiments (mostly Cossack, but Cossacks are worthy of a separate topic).

The cavalry of the Russian Imperial Army was the most numerous and prepared not only in Europe but also in the world. So say many experts, including foreign ones.

If the Russian cavalry did not fulfill all the tasks that were set before it, then the reason for it was not the reduction in the number of cavalry or its backwardness, but in many respects the failure of the equestrian command.

Intelligence was considered one of the main tasks of the cavalry before the war. And not only the near, front of their combined-arms units, but also the furthest - in the rear of the enemy. This refers to the intelligence that provides commanders with valuable operational-tactical information.

Development aviation actually deprived the cavalry of this type of action. The progress of technology (cameras, airships, airplanes) has turned the tide with obtaining intelligence in favor of technical means. Aviation almost completely replaced cavalry as a means of long-range reconnaissance.

Nevertheless, the Russian cavalry continued to remain the main branch of the army. At least in last place in the triad after the infantry and artillery.

Since 1882, the Officer Cavalry School has become a forge of cavalry personnel. Initially, this training was limited to an ordinary set - the theory of tactics and the practice of horse riding. Gradually, the case was pulled up to train cavalry officers to act in war.

With the appointment of A. A. Brusilov (1902 - 1906) to the post of school head, the case was finally put on the basis of preparing the cavalryman for war. General Brusilov’s school, and then the entire cavalry, were obliged to introduce a new horse dressage system (Phyllis system), which at first had many detractors, new tactics. The energy of Brusilov was envious, and the general gained a reputation as an unprincipled careerist and intriguer.

100 years of Russian glory. Russian cavalry: lancers, dragoons, hussars


The last remark relates to the popular belief that it was A. A. Brusilov who removed his predecessor from his post. But, as practice has shown, intrigue is often bringing considerable benefits.

1912's "Instruction for cavalry classes" stated that a cavalry unit is considered prepared if it is able to complete all the tasks ahead of it in wartime. Among these tasks, the following skills stood out:

attack in the equestrian order all kinds of enemy troops;
prepare the success of horse attack by fire;
freely maneuver in any terrain, without disturbing the order of movement, overcoming obstacles and applying to the terrain;
act in a hurry order offensively and defensively;
to go hiking both day and night;
carry the service of security and intelligence as a hike, and at the bivouac.

Before the war, the Russian army consisted of twenty-one dragoon regiments, seventeen Uhlan regiments, eighteen hussars.

But there was no particular difference in the types of cavalry, with the exception of dress uniform, by the beginning of the 20 century. All RIA cavalry in its essence turned into a dragoon - horsemen, in appearance similar to infantry, armed with a rifle, pistol, saber and lance.

The exception was the Cossacks. But I repeat about them, let's talk separately.

Each cavalry regiment consisted of six squadrons (hundreds). The squadron, according to the state, numbered five officers, twelve non-commissioned officers, three trumpeters and one hundred twenty-eight rank and file lower ranks.

According to the states, each division consisted of a horse-sapper team, which was supposed to have eight motorcycles and one passenger car.

The horse-artillery division, attached to the cavalry division, consisted of two batteries of six light guns (76-mm). Each battery had a thousand rounds of ammunition, including 144 grenades, and the rest was shrapnel. By the beginning of the war in the Russian cavalry, there were sixty-five horse batteries of six guns. In 1914 - 1917 Forty-two more equestrian batteries were formed, mostly Cossacks.


76,2-mm field gun


In addition, the cavalry division had a divisional machine-gun command of eight machine guns. The benefit of machine guns for equestrian units recognized already in the course of the Russian-Japanese war 1904-1905. In service initially were Madsen machine guns, which were later replaced by Maxim machine guns.



In addition to the divisional machine-gun team, there were also regimental teams of machine-gunners, modeled on infantry and armed with Maxim machine guns. In 1912, there were twelve Maxim machine guns in the cavalry division. These were Maxim's machine guns. Both the machine gun itself and the machine system of Colonel Sokolov, who specially designed it for cavalry in 1910, were transported in the packs.


Pack version machine gun Maxim machine Sokolov

Opponents, the Germans, also attached great importance to machine guns and attached to each cavalry division a separate machine-gun battery of eight machine guns. In addition, each cavalry division was joined by a rangers battalion with its machine-gun company (six more machine guns).

The cavalry of Austria-Hungary at the beginning of the war had no machine guns at all.

Russian cavalrymen were armed with checkers and three-line rifles with a bayonet (Cossacks had a rifle up to 1915 of the year without a bayonet).

Shortly before the war, regular cavalry, like the Cossacks, received spikes. At first, this innovation caused a lot of complaints and discontent, as the peaks turned out to be a thing that was extremely inconvenient in the march. However, with the opening of hostilities, the troops were convinced that in the equestrian battle of the peak it was simply irreplaceable, being a much better weapon than a saber. The same famous Cossack K. Kryuchkov also accomplished his feat, acting with a lance, and not with a sword. So, pretty soon, non-commissioned officers, and even some of the young officers who were directly involved in equestrian clashes, also armed themselves with picks.



Under Emperor Alexander II, the cavalry division consisted of three brigades — the dragoon, lancer, and hussar divisions. In the era of Emperor Alexander III, in connection with the general unification of the cavalry of the Cossacks, it was decided to combine with regular cavalry. Under the last emperor Nicholas II, the latter organization was preserved.

At the same time, it was believed that the Cossack hundreds did not have the striking force that is characteristic of close, slender squadrons of regular cavalry. On this basis, it was recognized for the benefit of the cavalry divisions to make up of four regiments of six squadrons: the dragoon, Uhlan, hussar and Cossack. Such an organization was supposed to lead to the fact that from close unity with the Cossacks, regular regiments would be improved in the guard, intelligence services, guerrilla actions and, in general, enterprises of the so-called minor war. On the other hand, it was expected that the Cossacks would acquire the skill to close attacks, developing for this the proper strike force necessary when meeting slender enemy attacks.

I would like to say a few more words about horses.

For the Eastern Front, the horse was the only available and only possible vehicle at the beginning of the twentieth century. Neither the railway nor the car in 1914-1917. could not replace the usual horse in the fight in the East. Moreover, the more the war dragged on, the more, due to the deterioration of the car-locomotive fleet, the role of the horse increased.

The total number of horses in 1914 is presented in the following approximate figures: Russia - almost 35 000 000, USA - 25 000 000, Germany - 6 500 000 4, Austria-Hungary - 000 000 4, France - more 000 XNXXXNXX000, Austria-Hungary 2 000 000, France over XNUMX XNUMX, NNXX XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX.

As can be seen, the number of horses in Russia exceeded their number in all the great powers of Europe combined. And especially characteristic comparison of the number of horses per capita in Europe. In Russia, one workhorse accounted for seven people, in Germany - by fifteen, in France - by twelve, in Austria-Hungary - by twenty-nine people.

And do not tell tales of high mechanization in these countries. The peasants did not plow in Europe on tractors.

With regards to the acquisition of cavalry horse composition.

Horses in the army were divided into several categories, being designed for various functions. The horses supplied to the troops, depending on their qualities, went to the cavalry, artillery (including machine-gun teams) and carts.

Accordingly, the prices of horses of different categories were also different: the prices of riding and artillery horses were one and a half times higher than the prices of the horses of the 2 category. At the same time, the prices of the military department, according to which horses were taken to the troops, could differ significantly from the market prices of the horse. For example, a riding horse cost 355 rubles, an artillery 355, a convoy of the first category 270, a denomination of a second discharge 195 rubles for the head.

In the carts were ordinary peasant horses. In the artillery - peasant and steppe horses, more durable compared with the main mass of horses.

The cavalry was supposed to be equipped exclusively with race horses. At the beginning of the century, such race rocks as Tekinsk (Akhal-Teke), Streletskaya, Oryol, Race, Don, Kabarda, Terek were grown in Russia. The main suppliers of combatant horses are private steppe Don stud farms of the Voronezh and Rostov gubernias. Also riding horses gave Kherson, Yekaterinoslav, Taurian provinces.

The peacetime repair system consisted of the following process: the repair commission bought a horse of the year 3,5. This horse went to the reserve cavalry regiment, where during the year it was brought up and trained. In the fifth year of her life she entered the regular regiment: “Only a five-year-old horse develops enough to let her go to work.”


So passed the commission selection of horses


A year later, the horse passed the exam, after which it was finally put into operation. At the same time, in the year before the exam, it was impossible to put a horse into service and send it to the teachings with gaits.



Of course, in wartime conditions, this situation was violated. But this does not give the right to "experts" and "historians" to talk about the Russian cavalry, which fought on the tortured peasant horses. And it gives us the full right to send such "experts" to hell.

As an example, I would suggest that readers familiarize themselves with the works of the famous Russian and Soviet reporter Gilyarovsky. In those years, he was engaged in the selection and distilling of horses for the army. Who cares - the book is called "My wanderings."

On the form of cavalrymen Ria.

Speaking about the form of wartime, of course, we mean hiking / field form. The uniform of the cavalry, of course, differed, but here we touch only the field.

The field (marching) uniform for cavalry was introduced on the eve of the First World War. For the cavalry she included:

cap or hat (in winter);
single-breasted coat (in summer) or marching uniform (in winter) among officers and a tunic in lower ranks; harem pants tucked into high boots with spurs;
epaulets (for lower ranks marching epaulets);
hiking gear (officers) or belt (lower ranks);
brown gloves (officers);
a strap on a belt belt and a revolver with a traveling cord (officers) or
a sword, a steel lance without a weather vane, a revolver, a dragoon rifle and a cartridge bag (lower ranks).
Protective cap greenish-gray color, with protective leather visor, cockade, chin strap.

The dragoon, lancer, and hussar regiments practically did not differ at all in terms of form.

Dragoons



The shape of the dragoons was reminiscent of an infantry, only the uniforms were distinguished by cuffs with toes. The shoulder straps were trimmed with uniform-colored edging: black at the lower ranks and dark green for officers. The marching epaulettes of the edges did not have, on them was placed the number and next to it - the capital letter “D” of light blue color or the monogram of the regiment for nominal regiments.

The edges of the trousers were of different colors, in accordance with the color of the regiment.

Lancers.

The lancers wore a uniform similar to the dragoon, the shoulder straps were with dark blue edging from officers and without edging from the lower ranks. On the pursuit were the number of the regiment of light blue color and the letter "Y" or a monogram for nominal regiments.

Lancers wore gray-blue trousers with colored edging, also dependent on the number of the regiment. The equipment did not differ from the dragoons' equipment, except that about a quarter of the personnel of each regiment were armed with lances without flags.
Polish lancers wore breeches with scarlet stripes.

Hussars



Regarding the marching form, the hussars followed the style adopted by the dragoons, although officers often continued to wear red breeches (chakchirs) and shoulder straps with zigzag galloons.

The shoulder straps of the rank and file did not have Kant; the regiment number and the letter “G” of light blue color or the monogram of nominal regiments were located on them.



Summing up some intermediate result before thoroughly undertaking a review of the actions of the Russian army and its command, it is worth saying only that we are dealing with a global rewriting. stories, Unfortunately.

For so many years, we were hammered into our heads that the Russian Imperial Army was numerous, but poorly armed with all the old-fashioned trash that it was impossible not to believe.

Yes, RIA was not technically advanced. But also a gathering of "cannon fodder" sent for slaughter, was also not in any way.

In principle, this whole cycle of “100 years of Russian glory” can be regarded as an apology and confession to the soldiers, officers and all who stood behind them in Russia.

It was an army that can and should be proud of.

Sources:
North D. Soldiers of the First World War 1914-1918
Oskin M. The collapse of the horse blitzkrieg. Cavalry in the First World War.
http://borisovdimitry.livejournal.com/115189.html.
Author:
42 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. igordok
    igordok 27 November 2017 08: 50 New
    +9
    In principle, this entire cycle of “100 years of Russian glory” can be regarded as apology and recognition to the soldiers, officers and everyone who stood behind them in Russia.

    How apologized these apologies. No one belittles the strength and dedication of the Army of the Russian Empire in WWI. They did everything they could. But society (the social system), no matter how, did not contribute to the victory in the WWII.
  2. Basil50
    Basil50 27 November 2017 09: 47 New
    +9
    No one at school, let alone in universities, did not belittle the heroism of RUSSIAN SOLDIERS in WWI. They did not hide the fact that the RED ARMY was built by officers of the tsarist army, patriots of RUSSIA. Like the fact that in the RED ARMY during the Civil War there were much more former tsarist officers than among * whites *.
  3. Horseman without a head
    Horseman without a head 27 November 2017 12: 33 New
    16
    Is it so superficial?
    There are bricks about cavalry
    As a Headless Horseman - I know for sure
    1. moskowit
      moskowit 27 November 2017 19: 50 New
      +1
      Very interesting numbers on horse mobility ... Not everywhere you can find ....
      1. Horseman without a head
        Horseman without a head 27 November 2017 21: 11 New
        15
        That yes
        Agree
  4. viktorch
    viktorch 27 November 2017 12: 37 New
    +4
    WHERE BL THE RED CAVILITY, which was fighting the white traitors and interventionists, where is the Red Army cavalry of the second world fighting the farm?

    that you ran into the tsarist army in its most crap version of the time of the WWII, there was nothing before it, and after it nothing existed, the black hole did not otherwise absorb the sun.
    1. Horseman without a head
      Horseman without a head 27 November 2017 12: 41 New
      18
      C'mon about red
      Here about ulans, hussars and dragoons PMV is not really written. I don’t know what level is designed for reading
      1. soldier
        soldier 27 November 2017 16: 18 New
        15
        Trying is still very important.
        There would be bones - the meat will grow
    2. Blackgrifon
      Blackgrifon 28 November 2017 20: 45 New
      +1
      Quote: viktorch
      traitor whites

      Yeah, the reds were all in white. Do not judge those events so primitively. There was neither white nor black in the GV: all parties took money from the side, robbed, etc. On the part of the “reds” was the Brest Peace, surplus-appraisal, red terror, and so on. (True, it is important to note that it was not the Reds who were to blame for that grinder, but a group of temporary workers who overthrew the tsar, destroyed the army and industry, armed the Bolsheviks, and then faced them one on one). The same can be said of the whites (fortunately, they did not have a united front, but there were various groups with their own programs).
      1. viktorch
        viktorch 28 November 2017 23: 44 New
        +2
        Oops, you hear the crunch of French rolls, and the howling of conscience for the sins of grandfathers.

        yes yes, the tsar was not at all unaware that he created such a situation with his ingenious actions,
        you generally know that the white examples of the civil war are by no means monarchists, but the successors of those very interesting personalities who staged the February putsch.
        yeah, there were no right-wingers in the GV, the oligarch is unique according to the new history - there were people brought to the handle and those who brought him there. That's the whole section. What was confirmed by the fact of winning the Reds.
        But what do you call people who bet on foreign invasion, or intervention? patriots? Nope, they are traitors.

        Did you happen to play in the Bundestag recently?
        1. Blackgrifon
          Blackgrifon 1 December 2017 09: 17 New
          +1
          Quote: viktorch
          Oops, you hear the crunch of French rolls, and the howling of conscience for the sins of grandfathers.


          It would be better if you read carefully what I wrote to you, and did not reproduce what you hear. And the history of the motherland must be studied, studied not on television, but on literature. Scientific preferably.

          No one says that Nicholas 2 was a brilliant statesman, but it was his overthrow by a handful of temporary workers that led to the complete destabilization of the country: the democratization of the army is the most vivid example. The Bolsheviks came to power in general was an accident: this party did not enjoy the special support of the population (the whole peasantry was for the Socialist Revolutionaries), they armed the Provisional Government to counteract Kornilov, and after that no one was going to disarm, and as a result they were the only decisive force in the capital.

          Quote: viktorch
          yeah, there were no right-wingers in the GV, the oligarch is unique according to the new history - there were people brought to the handle and those who brought him there. That's the whole section. What was confirmed by the fact of winning the Reds.

          Hmm And the appearance of passports among peasants only in the 50s, is this also a merit of whites?
          And the statement that "the peasants are a petty bourgeois element"? Didn’t you hear about dispossession? Do you even know what the top of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks wanted before coming to power? What did she declare? How then did the surplus? I will surprise you very much, but in 1917 the party of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, and not the All-Union Communist Party of the Bolsheviks, enjoyed the greatest support in the country. You should be no less surprised by the fact that neither white nor red could set up really large formations equal to the fronts of the WWII period - a maximum of several dozen divisions - the people poured neither the first nor the second in crowds.

          Quote: viktorch
          But what do you call people who bet on foreign invasion, or intervention? patriots? Nope, they are traitors.

          Someone did, someone did not. In principle, they were the same traitors as the party elite of the Reds with their subsidies from the Germans for the revolution, “neither peace nor war” and the Brest Peace, with their worship of Marx and Engels (who called us slaves in their writings (and this is still relatively soft example)).

          You cannot understand one simple truth: GV is over. Those events and those people are our story. Pouring mud on one side of their people (which enjoyed significant, if not equal, support from the population) instead of studying and analyzing the mistakes of the parties is tantamount to stepping on a rake several times.
          1. viktorch
            viktorch 4 December 2017 13: 15 New
            +1
            are you not ashamed of this propaganda nonsense, liberal litter of the oligarchs to carry?
            my side is the people on the side of which my great-grandfathers fought in the Great Patriotic War, the white movement with the backbone of the nobles and oligarchs is not my people, since they FIRST refused kinship, if you failed, you won’t build if you put yourself higher people, then you are not with him, no matter how crowing about unity.
            Everything is very simple. And this is true, and not fabrications about some mistakes made, the need for repentance, and stepping on a rake.
            Actually, you are broadcasting to the wrong audience, if you didn’t notice your ideological bosses - the oligarchs, have already stepped on the same rake again, all according to Marx and Engels that somehow do not become obsolete, stock up on popcorn and see how some people fly on the forehead, but sooner or later arrive.
            1. Blackgrifon
              Blackgrifon 4 December 2017 23: 04 New
              0
              Quote: viktorch
              you are not ashamed of this propaganda nonsense, the liberal litter of the oligarchs, to bear

              I am ashamed not to know the history of my homeland and boast about it.

              Quote: viktorch
              And this is true, and not fabrications about some mistakes made, the need for repentance, and stepping on a rake.

              Truth is not what you come up with, but facts. Moreover, publicly available. It is a fact that receiving money from the Germans (the enemy during the war) for the revolution. It is a fact that the Civil War began in the year 18. Remind me what this concept means? There are no right or wrong in GV - this is not a war with an external enemy.
              And the fact that one of your ancestors fought on the side of the Reds does not mean that all the people fought and supported the Reds on the side of the Reds. There are a lot of sources about GV (including those that came out in the Soviet period). Do not want to study scientific literature, read the Quiet Flows the Don.
              In addition, you do not understand that by the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, the aristocracy / nobility in the classical sense was practically gone. Even before the WWII, the nobility made up no more than 5% of the population. For example, the bulk of the officer corps of the Republic of Ingushetia for 18 years was made up of immigrants from the middle class and indeed they did not constitute the bulk of the White detachments.

              Quote: viktorch
              Actually, you’re not broadcasting to that audience, if you haven’t noticed then your ideological bosses - oligarchs, have already stepped on the same rake again, all according to Marx and Engels which somehow do not become obsolete,

              I don’t know what bosses you are thinking about (apparently you’re still bored with voices in your head), but you should read the works of your beloved Engels - be very surprised HOW and WHOM he called Russians, because to admire a man who hated Russia and Russians and at the same time call Russian itself is at least stupid.

              In general, the conversation is strange, I brought you well-known and generally available facts that were recognized back in the days of the USSR, and you tell me "you're lying," etc.
              1. viktorch
                viktorch 5 December 2017 00: 32 New
                0
                you tell tales like pozdner and other "truth broadcasters" for the past 20 years,
                starting with Lenin on an armored car from Germany with Kaiser money, and then on the list of terrible revelations,
                you probably think that hearing a hundred and five hundred times this nonsense normal people will believe, well, there is Herr Goebels? I assure you no.
                leave these well-known and universally recognized facts by your followers for the kitchen meetings of the sects "witnesses of the holy new Russian history".

                do you think Marx and Engels did not read much, did not master? I understand that now education is about nothing, no one has been accustomed to working with primary sources, give all the training manuals whatever the nonsense is written there.
                I’m even wondering how your personal hatred of Marx and Engels relates to the relevance of their work? however, you may not answer, if you manage to appeal to emotions in relation to Marx personally in a dispute, then this is generally the end. I recommend reading Capital and trying to understand the ideas that are outlined there and their relevance today, it sometimes clears the brains.
                1. Blackgrifon
                  Blackgrifon 5 December 2017 19: 56 New
                  0
                  Respected! You do not happen from the sect of "adepts of bulk"? They are the same as you communicate - they begin to bear complete nonsense on a specific question. You are facts that are well-known and scientifically proven, and in response to sheer nonsense, imagination and not a single argument. I strongly recommend that you study at least a little the history of Russia and read the works of your own idols (only unabridged editions for children). There is no point in continuing the conversation with you.
          2. Naum
            Naum 5 February 2018 17: 41 New
            +1
            "the appearance of peasants' passports only in the 50s"
            In the 60s, and even not at all. In 1974, I entered the university according to the village Soviet reference ...
            Pensions from collective farmers also appeared in the 70s. Grandma did not know what to do with these 12 rubles ...
  5. fighter angel
    fighter angel 27 November 2017 15: 31 New
    +4
    I quote the author: “For so many years they drove into our heads that the Russian Imperial Army was numerous, but weakly armed with all kinds of obsolete trash, which could not be disbelieved ....” Roman, are you trying to idealize the rule of the last Russian Tsar? The merit of the Russian Army in WWI on the battlefield is not diminishing in the least, Paris was saved only thanks to the blood of a Russian soldier, and this is only one episode ... The point is different: you never wondered why the RIA was armed with what it had, namely, 80% of the artillery fleet was foreign systems, and it would be okay - Vickers and Schneider-Crezo, allies all the same, but there were Krupp systems, why not the most advanced models were in service in aviation the airplanes, to put it mildly, produced under license and purchased abroad, the same can be said about machine guns- "Shoshi", "Madsen", "Lewis" ... The Russian fleet is 70% built on foreign shipyards ... What couldn't you? And everything is very simple - all the persons responsible for supplying the RIA with weapons and equipment, including "royal persons" - received good kickbacks from arms manufacturers !!! You do not want to accidentally write about the “violent color” of corruption, bribery and protectionism in the idealized pre-revolutionary society that you flourished ??? And what did Russia lead to? About cartridge-shell hunger, the inability to maintain artillery of foreign systems, about aviation sitting on the ground due to lack of spare parts and deterioration of the materiel? And someone from the "blue blood" is very weakly enriched in soldier's blood !!! Write better about Myasoedov and about counterintelligence in WWI ...
    1. soldier
      soldier 27 November 2017 16: 30 New
      17
      Speaking for the author, I want to note that many powers had problems in the technical sphere.
      And rollback is not only a Russian invention.
      But you can recall the 305-mm gun or 76-mm putilov among the foreign-made guns.
      Problems were overcome
      1. fighter angel
        fighter angel 27 November 2017 16: 51 New
        +3
        Everything is right, and they were and were overcome ... But not in Russia, it was believed at our court at the court of Nicholas II that we ourselves couldn’t do anything, we are lapniks! Equal to Europe, we’ll buy all the essentials there, and at the same time we’ll "agree on the benefits" ... The simple-grain-currency-procurement / rollback scheme. None of the “haulers” a priori wanted to create their own industry in Russia completely; moreover, they resisted this in every way. So much for the penny ... The tsarist regime in Russia.
        1. soldier
          soldier 27 November 2017 16: 58 New
          15
          Painfully simple scheme hi
          Not everything is so gloomy
          Disagree
          And you can recall the military chemistry - CREATED in the years of WWII, and much more.
        2. fighter angel
          fighter angel 27 November 2017 17: 01 New
          0
          Although sometimes, the most persistent punched the wall with his forehead - and there appeared a “three-inch”, “Novik”, “Ilya Muromets”, “M-9”, Fedorov’s assault rifle ... But this is a unit, but the rest, as it was a swamp, it remained .
          1. soldier
            soldier 27 November 2017 21: 23 New
            19
            Too many punching)
            You can recall Mosinka, the Sikorsky S-16 escort fighter, Novik, Zelinsky Gas mask, Slesarev's incendiary bomb, SPS flamethrowers (Strandden, Povarnin and the Capital) and Gorbova.
            Under the tsar, S. I. Mosin, F. G. Fedorov, F. V. Tokarev (gunsmith), I. I. Sikorsky worked. V. A. Slesarev, Y. I. Gakkel, B. Yu. Yuraev, D. P. Grigorovich (aviation), A. N. Krylov, I. G. Bubnov (fleet), N. V. Maievsky, N. A. Zabudsky (gunners).
            And we always have a swamp - only of different depths))
            1. fighter angel
              fighter angel 28 November 2017 09: 28 New
              +2
              Well, let’s evaluate the results of the above "comrades". Mosin, a three-line, Tokarev, the results appeared only in the USSR, these are PPD, TT, SVT ..., Sikorsky- "Muromets" and German fighter and reconnaissance models, produced in small batches, Gakkel-units, were not accepted for service, in series they weren’t built, Grigorovich- designed by the method of “scientific poking”, didn’t recognize any science and didn’t want to learn anything- the result, one M-9 is quite successful, the rest of the machines are not wealthy, Krylov - projects of battleships such as “Sevastopol”, “Poltava”, "Empress Maria", the location of the main-caliber towers is still very, very controversial, Zabudsky is a "three-inch" ... Well, how do you like the productivity and "fertility" of Russian designers under Tsar-priest ???
            2. fighter angel
              fighter angel 28 November 2017 11: 45 New
              +1
              Yes Yes. You still recall Lebedenko, with his Tsar-Tank, stuck in a swamp at the first sea trials, and Bezobrazov's Centrifugal Cannon ... There was no normal design school in tsarist Russia, no systematic work on weapons design, and engineering education nor the normal modern heavy and machine-building industry. All this was done by the Soviet Government, it is a fact, and an indisputable fact.
              1. Dalailama
                Dalailama 3 January 2018 05: 24 New
                0
                And how many tanks in general can ride through swamps? The steeper the jeep ... And how else is “Tsar-Plane” not scolded. And there was industry and there was a design school with a scientific school, only then most of it left for the USA and France to be constructed so that they would not be killed "for the lack of calluses in their hands", and for the presence of brains that are not intellectuals of the nation, but. In the imperial fleet, the battleships of their construction that were modern at the time of the WWI were not, in the Soviet, it was not, an indisputable fact.
                A centrifugal cannon has long been ugly repeated for police abroad.
    2. not main
      not main 27 November 2017 23: 32 New
      +4
      Quote: fighter angel
      About ammunition and shell hunger,

      And the fact that during the HE used shells PMV? What about “Russian Knight” and “Ilya Muromets”? And these are not isolated planes!
      1. fighter angel
        fighter angel 28 November 2017 09: 21 New
        +1
        Well, what do you mean by that? Remember Valentine Savich? That in the 30s drafts were withdrawn from warehouses - “For Faith, Tsar and Fatherland”? In 41-42gg. everything was used that could be used — both Arisak’s rifles, and Lewis’s, and the French rifles of the Gra system. They weren’t used from a good life ... And this doesn’t speak of the power of the tsarist industry. And with the "Russian Knight" - a mistake came out, it was he who was built in a single copy. Consider this, and then state! As for Ilya Muromets, progress didn’t stand still; it was Tsarist Russia that stood still, resting on its laurels. And they appeared already in 1915/1916. and “Handley Page-0/400” and “Vickers-Vimi” from the allies, and “Goths” with “Glasses” from the enemy! And we still had "Muromets" and remained ... No progress and movement forward! I don’t even speak about fighters at all, just as Russia didn’t have modern ones capable of fighting the Fokkers and Albatrosses on an equal footing so they never appeared. Tsarist Russia is always 2-3 steps behind the rest of the countries, even the Austrians had their own Berg fighter, which by the way surpasses our Sikorsky in all respects. What can I talk about here?
        1. not main
          not main 28 November 2017 20: 36 New
          +1
          Quote: fighter angel

          1
          fighter angel Today, 09:21 ↑

          I agree with aviation, but you wrote about shell hunger in WWI. To this I answered you. In the 30s, Grabin created a 22mm F-76 divisional cannon with an enlarged chamber and a muzzle brake, but at a higher level, it was decided that the chamber should be suitable for a three-inch shot. there were a huge number of these shots in stocks! Yes, the Hitlerites converted the captured F-22s as Grabin suggested: reducing the vertical angle, squandering the chambers and installing a muzzle brake. By the way, our gunners called these guns "vipers". these are teeises, information is free. Here, it’s rather not a shortage of shells, but the question of the lack of logistics for their supply. Where is thick and where is empty!
        2. CTABEP
          CTABEP 29 November 2017 22: 30 New
          +1
          That is, in 1941-1942 it was normal to use all kinds of rubbish, just like stopping the Germans from Moscow, and in 1915-1916 to arm the infantry purchased by the Arisaks was a taboo? And about the power of industry - the release of 3-inch shells in 1916 would cover, for example, the needs of the 1943 Red Army.
          "Always lagging behind" Russia has slowly and steadily developed, not without problems of course, but who did not have them. It’s just that many have in their eyes the picture built by Soviet propaganda that everything until 1917 was crap with rare exceptions that only confirm the rule. And this was not so, it was only necessary to study the matter more closely. This of course does not deny the guilt of the Government of the Republic of Ingushetia for February 1917.
          1. fighter angel
            fighter angel 30 November 2017 10: 41 New
            0
            These are the words, dear! Give, if not difficult, facts and figures. As for Soviet propaganda, there were much more reasons for pride in the country in the USSR than in imperial Russia. “Progressively and slowly” Russia would certainly develop, but Russia would never have reached such a military-political significance and weight in the world as the USSR had under the tsar and the EP. So they would remain at 90% an agrarian country, with the industry needed only “as long as”. Equipment and weapons would be bought around the world, and not the best and most advanced models, but what they deign to sell, today we buy from an ally, tomorrow the situation is changing, and he becomes an enemy, how will we ensure the combat readiness of the purchased samples? And would we remain within modern borders with the approach to defense capability that we had before the 17 year? The big question is ...
            1. captain
              captain 30 November 2017 17: 12 New
              +1
              Quote: fighter angel
              These are the words, dear! Give, if not difficult, facts and figures. As for Soviet propaganda, there were much more reasons for pride in the country in the USSR than in imperial Russia. “Progressively and slowly” Russia would certainly develop, but Russia would never have reached such a military-political significance and weight in the world as the USSR had under the tsar and the EP. So they would remain at 90% an agrarian country, with the industry needed only “as long as”. Equipment and weapons would be bought around the world, and not the best and most advanced models, but what they deign to sell, today we buy from an ally, tomorrow the situation is changing, and he becomes an enemy, how will we ensure the combat readiness of the purchased samples? And would we remain within modern borders with the approach to defense capability that we had before the 17 year? The big question is ...

              The population of Russia in 1914 was 178 million people. The area of ​​Russia in 1913 was over 21 million square km. After 75 years of Bolshevik rule; population-145 million people, an area of ​​about 17 million square meters km Christ seller, where is the land and people of deeds? Wow success. About space and other achievements, please compare in accordance with time. The Americans didn’t launch rockets in 1917. And land and people like you sold.
              1. fighter angel
                fighter angel 30 November 2017 17: 41 New
                0
                Take it easy with the Christ seller! And with the sale of land and people! And you, WASHBROAD, LIHR-S! Yes, my friend, liar, sir! The population of Russia in 1914 was 170 mln. People, and after 75 years, the population of the USSR was 293.047.571 people, and with the area missed, in 1914, it was 19.155.587 sq. Km, and the area of ​​the USSR was 22.402.200 sq. Km . That's it, dear, sss !!! What shame will we wash away, sir? Blue blood?
                1. captain
                  captain 3 December 2017 19: 06 New
                  +1
                  Quote: fighter angel
                  Take it easy with the Christ seller! And with the sale of land and people! And you, WASHBROAD, LIHR-S! Yes, my friend, liar, sir! The population of Russia in 1914 was 170 mln. People, and after 75 years, the population of the USSR was 293.047.571 people, and with the area missed, in 1914, it was 19.155.587 sq. Km, and the area of ​​the USSR was 22.402.200 sq. Km . That's it, dear, sss !!! What shame will we wash away, sir? Blue blood?

                  So we have 300 million people in Russia? Yes, it’s time for you to go to a psychiatrist, otherwise the whole world will laugh at us.
                  1. fighter angel
                    fighter angel 4 December 2017 10: 26 New
                    0
                    How many “you in Russia” people have, I don’t know. We are talking about the end of the Russian Empire and data on the USSR, after 75 years, have you lost your mind? Then this is for you, blue, to the "psychiatrist" you need ...
            2. Gartny
              Gartny 9 January 2018 16: 30 New
              0
              Quote: fighter angel
              As for Soviet propaganda, there were much more reasons for pride in the country in the USSR than in imperial Russia.

              Well, yes ... For example, after the lost Polish-Russian war, for which Russia paid off with Belarusian lands, or, for example. after the lost Soviet-Finnish war, which was “won” by throwing the Finns in the corpses of Soviet soldiers, right?
  6. fighter angel
    fighter angel 27 November 2017 15: 38 New
    +3
    But there are pluses in this article. It should be noted, very wonderful illustrations! Dragoon, hussar in field uniform, shoulder straps of hussar regiments! For the first time I see such people, but for this, Roman, thank you!
    1. igordok
      igordok 27 November 2017 15: 59 New
      +3
      Quote: fighter angel
      But there are pluses in this article.

      I fully agree with both of your comments. Thank.
    2. soldier
      soldier 27 November 2017 16: 18 New
      16
      Keep
  7. polpot
    polpot 28 November 2017 00: 10 New
    0
    Special thanks for Budenny, Zhukov, Rokossovsky, Gorbatov and other former cavalrymen of the Imperial cavalry
  8. barbiturate
    barbiturate 28 November 2017 14: 07 New
    0
    The problem of our cavalry was precisely in the tactics of application and the ability to conduct reconnaissance in the interests of higher headquarters, but they were not able to deal with these issues.
    Here we take the initial period of the war - 1914 and our invasion of East Prussia. There, against the eighth German army, the best personnel divisions acted and the entire brilliant guards cavalry - the elite, so what?
    And nothing sensible, constant dissatisfaction with the actions of the cavalry and especially blame for the lack of intelligence.
  9. fighter angel
    fighter angel 30 November 2017 17: 44 New
    0
    The author, Roman Skomorokhov, and where are four more valiant regiments of the Russian cavalry? The Life Guards Equestrian, Cavalier Guard, Her Majesty's Life-Cuirassier and His Majesty's Life-Cuirassier? They also fought in the WWII, but you did not say a word about them ...
  10. Gartny
    Gartny 9 January 2018 16: 25 New
    0
    [quote] As you can see, the number of horses in Russia exceeded their number in all the great powers of Europe [quote] - And what? Can you be proud of this? This only speaks of backwardness. The author would probably have been even more enthusiastic if the imperial army had armed elephants.)) So what, this is a complete superiority in the armies of Europe. On June 22, 1941, there were more tanks in the USSR army than in all European armies, however, on the 6th day of the war, after passing 500 km the Germans took Minsk. Recognize.