Military Review

New type batteries

New type batteries

9-inch mortar on the machine Durlehera installed for viewing in Sveaborg.

13 February 1856 in Paris in order to sum up the results of the Crimean War opened the congress of representatives of the great European powers. It was the grandest European forum since 1815 of the year. Finally, on March 18, after the Congress 17 meetings, a peace treaty was signed, according to which, in peacetime, Turkey closes the Black Sea straits for all military courts, regardless of their affiliation, with the exception of stationery in Istanbul. The Black Sea is declared neutral and open to merchant ships of all nations. Russia and Turkey pledge not to have "naval arsenals" on its shores. They are allowed to keep on the Black Sea for coastal service no more than 10 light military vessels each.

At the insistence of Foreign Minister Gorchakov in 1864, the Sevastopol fortress was officially abolished. The guns were taken to Nikolaev and Kerch, the artillery companies disbanded. The post of military governor was also abolished, and Sevastopol became part of the Tauride province. Initially, the city was incorporated into Simferopol, and then Yalta districts.

The southern part of Sevastopol lay in ruins that no one tried to restore. In the summer of 1860, the playwright Alexander Ostrovsky visited the city. He wrote: “I was in poor Sevastopol. Without tears of this city it is impossible to see, there is no positive stone left in it ”. The restoration of the city began only in the 1871 year.


Since the beginning of the 19th century, in the city, two infantry regiments of the 60 Infantry Division and the 13 artillery brigade were garrisoned by the garrison. Since 13, in Sevastopol, the preparation of submarine mine components began secretly, and a warehouse of Kerch fortress artillery (1865 78 gunpowder pods and 970 143 shells) was organized. For the construction and repair of buildings and structures of the Military Department, Simferopol engineering distance was created, the management of which was located in Sevastopol.

After the abolition of the “neutralization of the Black Sea” in 1871, Russia formally got its hands free in construction fleet and coastal defense. But then both the Military and Naval ministries did practically nothing. I note that the London treaty of March 1, 1871 finally resolved the issue of the construction of the Lozovaya – Sevastopol 613 km railway. And although the Parisian world did not prohibit the construction of roads even along the entire perimeter of the Black Sea, trains went to Kharkov from Moscow in 1869, and the first train went from Lozovaya to Sevastopol only in January 1875.

At the start of 1870, an elderly lieutenant general, Count Totleben, drew up a plan for the construction of seven coastal batteries in Sevastopol. However, it was launched only in 1876, when Alexander II finally decided to start a war in the Balkans.

As of October 15 1876, the list of fortifications of Sevastopol was as follows (all batteries under construction). North side: Battery No. 1 — Two 6 inch mortars of the 1867 model and four 24-pound cast iron guns; Battery No. 2 — Two 6-inch mortars of the 1867 model of the year; Battery No. 3 - two 6-inch mortars of the 1867 model of the year; South side: battery No. 5 (formerly Aleksandrovskaya) - four 9-inch guns of the 1867 model of the year and two 24-pound pig-iron cannons, battery No. 6 (former No. of 10) - four 9-inch guns of the 1867 model of the year and four 24-pound pig-iron guns, battery No. 7 (former No. 8) - fourteen 6-inch mortars of model 1867 of the year, in stock - six 12-pound cast-iron guns of model 1867 of the year.

Moreover, all coastal batteries in Sevastopol at the end of 1876 were already connected by a telegraph line.

However, a few weeks after the king ratified the Berlin Congress 15 in July 1878, the War Department decided to disarm the batteries of the Sevastopol fortress. The official wording: for financial reasons, “in order not to give Sevastopol fortress status”. At the same time disarmed the coastal fortresses of Odessa and Poti. Thus, on the shores of the Black Sea there is not a single coastal battery. Their guns were removed from the batteries and stored in these cities in the so-called "emergency reserve". This stock was intended to arm the fortresses in the event of war.

In such circumstances, the disarmament of Sevastopol was actually a crime. Moreover, the money for the maintenance of the fortress in Sevastopol was. Another issue is that very many high-ranking officials had huge profits in the form of bribes from the commercial activities of the Sevastopol port. The turnover of the Sevastopol commercial port grew steadily from 1859, and by 1888 only overseas traffic reached 31 million rubles, and together with short-sea shipping, it exceeded 47 million rubles. In 1888, the 42 981 passenger arrived in the port of Sevastopol and the 39 244 man departed. Naturally, the officials dreamed of turning Sevastopol into the second Odessa and by all means prevented the militarization of the city.


At the end of 1884, a new crisis erupted in connection with the advancement of Russian troops in Central Asia, which the press of that time dubbed “1884 – 1885's military alarm”. In fact, England and Russia were on the brink of war. Spring and early summer of 1885 became the apogee of the Russo-British conflict, and only on 29 in August (September 10) in London was agreement reached on the division of the spheres of influence of Russia and England.

From the beginning of 1885, Sevastopol began to prepare for defense. By April 1885, the 28 078 people lived within the Sevastopol city government. In addition, there was a 5177 man from two regiments of the 13 Infantry Division and the 13 Artillery Brigade. April 12 issued the highest commandment, according to which seven old built in 1876 – 1877 years should be restored in Sevastopol and two new batteries built. Two weeks were given for the restoration of old batteries, and six for the construction of new ones. The cost of the engineering part allocated 160 thousand rubles.

28 April 1885, frightened by Sevastopol authorities, began to search for guns stored in 1879. In stock artillery assets in Sevastopol in the "emergency reserve" it has been found: the three-inch gun 11 1877 sample year, twelve-inch 9 1867 sample guns year 24 sixteen-pounder long iron cannons, six 12-pounder iron guns, two 9- inch steel mortars of model 1867 of the year and twenty-four 6-inch copper mortars of model of 1867 year. In addition, 400 mines turned up at the mine depot of the Military Department.

According to the Highest order of 12 on April 1885, seven 11-inch guns of the 1867 model of the year and seven 9-inch mortars of the 1867 model from the Kerch fortress and nine 9-inch guns of the 1867 model from the Poti fortress were to be delivered to Sevastopol. Fortunately, 9 March 1885, the highest order issued on the abolition of the fortress of Poti.

Work on the restoration of old and construction of new batteries were carried out mainly by the 5-th sapper brigade of the Odessa Military District.

Based on the conclusion of the Special Meeting of 3 of May 1886 of the year, under the chairmanship of the Minister of War, it was decided to build land fortifications of a temporary nature around Sevastopol. At the same time, for the service on batteries in April 1886, in Sevastopol, the management of the fortress artillery and one fortress artillery battalion of the five-third squad were formed.

As a result, by March there were thirteen 1888-inch guns (three 11 models of the year and 1877 10 models of the year) for arming coastal batteries in Sevastopol, twenty-one 1867-inch guns of the 9 model, two 1867-inch guns weighing 6 guns , four 190-inch mortars and nine 11-inch mortars of the 9 model of the year. There were six 1867-inch guns in 6 pounds, forty 190-pound long and six 24-pound short guns, thirteen 24-inch copper mortars of the 6 model of the year and several smaller-caliber guns for arming ground batteries that protected the rear of the fortress. August 1867 31 of the year from the Ochakov fortress to Sevastopol transported three more 1887-inch guns of the model 11 of the year. In addition, in the fall of the same year, thirteen 1867-inch copper fortress mortars of the 6 model of the year were delivered from Ochakov to Sevastopol.

Smooth was on paper

On paper, everything looked smooth - dozens of serf guns defended Sevastopol from the rear. In fact, all the tools of the land defense peacefully lay in stock. This broke out only 30 May 1889 of the year. In 5 hours 30 minutes of the morning for an unknown reason (apparently, it was still a diversion) a fire broke out in an artillery depot in the Laboratory gully. I note that our brilliant generals decided in order to save and for their own convenience to build a powder cellar on the 45 thousand pounds of gunpowder next to the warehouse of guns.

The fire turned into a disaster. The Sevastopol authorities tried to hide its size even from the leadership of the Military Department in St. Petersburg. Therefore, the scale of the catastrophe can be judged only by indirect data found by me in the Military Historical Archive. So, four 6 guns in 190 pounds 6 of September 1891 of the year that were seriously damaged were sent to overhaul in Perm, and thirty-eight 24-pound cast-iron long guns, four 24-pound short guns, twenty-six 9-pounder guns 1867 of the year and eleven 6-inch mortars of the 1867 model of the year were sent for repair to the Bryansk arsenal. As you can see, heavy damage received 83 guns.

Meanwhile, 17 May 1890, Sevastopol was officially counted among the fortresses of the 3 class.


Initially, shells with a lead sheath were taken to the guns of the 1867 model of the year, and shells with copper bands were specially developed for them in the 1880s. However, there was no interchangeability of projectiles with copper belts for 1867 sample guns of the year and shells of the same caliber for 1877 sample guns, since their belts had a different design.

The largest caliber until the end of the 10-ies of the twentieth century in the Russian coastal artillery remained the caliber 280 mm, that is, 11 inches (single 14-inch and 13,5-inch guns in the Kronstadt fortress - a special question). Armed with the Sevastopol fortress consisted of three types of 11-inch guns: 11-inch model 1867 year, 11-inch model 1877 year and 11-inch 35 caliber in the latter (initially 11-inch model gun 1887 year, but this name is not unsuccessful 80-inch model 1-year model, but this name is not unsuccessful, 1918-inch model 11 guns of the year, but this name is not unsuccessful in 1867-inch model 1885 guns of the year, but this name is not unsuccessful, 11-inch model 1867 guns of the year, but this name was unpleasant in 1889 calibers. . From the middle of the 19th century XNUMX and up to XNUMX in January XNUMX, ten XNUMX-inch guns of the XNUMX model of the year were in service with the Sevastopol fortress (in XNUMX, four XNUMX-year guns of the XNUMX model were sent by sea to Vladivostok and four XNUMX-inch guns of the XNUMX model of the year, and in XNUM by sea year they took three of the same guns from Ochakovo).

These 10 guns were made at the Krupp plant and initially stood on the carriages of the sample 1870 of the Semenov system with a maximum angle of elevation 15 degrees. By 1895, this elevation angle, which limited the range of 5,3 km, was found to be small, and in 1897, the Semenov machine, successfully reworked by Colonel Durlyakher, was successfully tested at angles up to 35 degrees at the Main artillery range. Accordingly, the firing range of a projectile weighing 224 kg has increased from 5,3 km to 10,3 km, that is, almost twice. The first six gun carriages of the 1870 model of the year went down from Sevastopol for remaking in Petersburg at the Metal Plant in 1897. By 1 July 1908, all ten 11-inch guns of the 1867 model of the year stood on machines with an elevation angle of 35 degrees.

As of January 1, 1891, in Sevastopol, for 11-inch cannons of model 1867, there were shells: old armor-piercing hardened cast iron with thin lead shells - 1762, old cast-iron ones from ordinary cast iron with thick lead shells - I, I had found by 16 years, I had found 16, I went. 450 of the year (shells with leading belts, close to the shells of the model 1888 of the year) - 1877 pieces.

Three 11-inch guns of the 1877 sample, manufactured by the Krupp plant, were delivered to Sevastopol at the end of the 1879 year. Initially, they stood on the Krupp “first delivery” machines with an elevation angle of 24 degrees. In 1895, the Putilov factory began the reworking of Krupp machine tools designed by Durlecher. The converted machines had an elevation angle of 35 degrees, thanks to which the firing range increased from 8,5 km to 12 km. By 1 July 1908, all three guns were on converted machines, and three undistorted Krupp machines remained in reserve until the end of 1911, when they were sent for scrap.

By 1 January 1891 of the year in Sevastopol for three 11-inch guns of the 1877 model of the year there were projectiles: old cast iron - 296, old armor-piercing tempered cast iron - 734, new steel armor-piercing (delivered in 1889 year) - 162 pieces.

In connection with the abolition of the Batumi fortress at the beginning of 1911, eight 11-inch guns of the 1877 model, produced by the Obukhov Steel Plant, arrived from Batumi at the beginning of the year. In addition, by March 1 1888, five 11 / 35-inch Krupp guns were delivered to Sevastopol. The first one was put on the battery number 10 in June 1889 of the year, and the last one was put on the 10 of August of the same year. However, they were not shells. But the Journal of the Artillery Committee (Jacques) number 592 from 1888 years allowed was obtyuriruyuschih in case of need to shoot from 11 / 35-inch cannon shells from 11-inch 1877 sample cannon year, although this will burn barrels, because the sample 1877 years cannons rings. For example, 24 and 26 on July 1891 of the year in Sevastopol passed training shooting of four 11 / 35-inch guns (No. 1, 2, 3 and 4), as a result of the cannon No. 2 had a premature rupture of the projectile in the channel.

By 1 January 1891, there were five 11 / 35-inch guns in Sevastopol, and only 496 ordinary iron bombs, that is, shells that were formally considered high-explosive, but were not very powerful explosives. Later, three more 11 / 35-inch guns manufactured by the Obukhov factory with gun carriages were delivered to Sevastopol. At the end of 1910, five 11 / 35-inch guns arrived from the Libava disarming fortress (four of them were manufactured at the Obukhov plant and one at the Perm plant). In 1911, one of these cannons departed for the Main Artillery Range to St. Petersburg.

In 1912, the Putilov factory ordered new machines for the 11 / 35-inch guns. However, the crooks at the Putilov factory didn’t make a single machine for 1 in January 1918, and most of the 11 / 35-inch cannons during the 1914 – 1918 war lain in warehouses.

1 June 1913 of the Year with the Putilov Plant of the Military Department was contracted to manufacture 13 machines for 11 / 35-dm guns at the price of 37 thousand rubles. each. 12 machines were intended for the Sevskoraz, and one - for the gap. The machines had to have electric drives for vertical and horizontal guidance and projectile feed.


The Main Artillery Directorate of Russia strongly overestimated the role of coastal mortars in the nineteenth-century 70, and by the beginning of the twentieth century they had become absolutely useless when firing at ships, with the exception of narrowness. Nevertheless, the defense ministry spent enormous sums on the production of 9-inch and 11-inch coastal mortars and the construction of mortar coastal batteries.

From the mid 80-ies of the XIX century in the Sevastopol fortress consisted of twenty-one 9-inch mortar model 1867 year. Of these, 16 mortars were with a wedge lock manufactured by the Obukhov plant, and five with a piston lock produced by the Perm plant. All 9-inch mortars were installed on the Semenov's gun carriages, which allowed the maximum angle of elevation 17 degrees. In addition, there were two spare gun carriages in stock. 1 January 1891 year to 9-inch guns and mortars in the fortress kept shells: ordinary cast iron with a thick lead sheath - 569, hardened cast iron with a thin lead sheath - 5177, steel with a thin lead sheath - 105 pieces.

By the beginning of the 1905 of the year, seventeen 9-inch guns of the 1867 model of the year consisted in the fortress. Moreover, twelve of them, with a wedge lock, were installed on new Durlächer system machines with a hydraulic compressor instead of friction compressors at Semenov's carriages and with an elevation angle of 40 degrees. All twelve 9-inch guns were on the battery number 1 in combat status. By this time, five 9-inch piston-bolt guns lay on the lining, and the Semenov 13 gun carriages were stored separately. This old one was scrapped at the end of 1911.

In the first half of 1915, four 9-inch guns of the 1867 model were sent from Sevastopol to the Kerch fortress, and in the second half of 1915, four more such guns poisoned the city of Reni on the Danube.

By the beginning of the 1888 of the year, nine 9-inch mortars of the 1867 model of the year consisted in the Sevastopol fortress. In the 1893 year, the first eight 9-inch mortars of the 1877 model of the year arrived from Perm. In 1897, eight more such mortars arrived from Perm. As a result, by 1905, all 9-inch mortars of the 1867 model of the year were removed from Sevastopol, and the number of 9-inch mortars of the 1877 model of the year was brought to 40.

After the 1907 survey, three 9-inch mortars were found to be unusable, and three new 9-inch mortars were sent in exchange for them. However, unfit mortars were not excluded from official reports, and it was believed that there were 43 mortars in the Sevastopol fortress. All mortars were installed on Durlecher machines that were manufactured from 1899 onwards.

In the second half of 1915 of the year (hereinafter the second half means the period from July 1 to 1 of January of the following year), the 9-inch mortars were taken out of Sevastopol: the 24 mortars with carriages - to the Grodno fortress, and the 16 mortars - to the Petra fortress Great to the Baltic. The three remaining worthless mortars were taken from the Sevastopol fortress in the first half of 1916.

By the beginning of the 1888 of the year, the first four 11-inch mortars of the 1877 model of the year, manufactured by the Obukhov plant, were delivered to Sevastopol. At the same plant, unique machines of the Lieutenant Raskazov system were made for them. The main difference between the Razskazov machine and other cannon and mortar gun carriages is not the tilt of the pivoting frame forward, but backward in order to reduce the pressure on the frame when rolling back.

The machine consisted of the actual machine of the Vavaler system and the frame of the cobbled system. In addition to the hydraulic compressor, Balvilean springs served to reduce recoil, and they also provided the machine after the gun samonakat. 209 springs were put on each compressor stock. When fired, the mortar with the machine, as a result of recoil, slid down the pivoting frame, and after the end of the run-up period, the Belvilean springs, opening, lifted the machine. In this case, there were difficulties with the adjustment of the springs with a decrease in charges. The design of the machines was extremely difficult, and they began to function normally only after the modernization made in 1895 at the Sevastopol Marine Plant. More Razskazov machines were not made.

By 1905, there were sixteen 11-inch mortars in the Sevastopol fortress, four of which were on Razskazov’s machines, and twelve on Kokorin’s machines. This situation was maintained at least until September 15, 1917, after which there was no reporting in the Sevastopol fortress. Eight 11-inch mortars were located on the No. 3 battery on the North side and eight on the No. 12 battery at Quarantine Bay.


The weakest guns, which consisted of 1885 of the year in service with the coastal batteries of Sevastopol, were 6-inch guns weighing 190 in pounds of the 1877 model of the year.

I'll start by explaining the name of the gun. The 1875 – 1878 years produced about one hundred 6-inch guns of the 1867 model year, which weighed 190 pounds. From the beginning of the 1880-s, they began to be manufactured with a channel of the 1877 model of the year, and in parallel they made lighter 6-inch guns weighing 120 pounds. Both systems were intended for siege fortress artillery and in order to distinguish them, the weight was entered into the name - 190 pounds and 120 pounds. At the end of 1880-X - the beginning of 1890-s, all the guns in 190 of poods with the 1867 model's channel of the year were remade by inserting a new pipe with the 1877 model's channel of the year. After that, the words “model 1877 of the year” disappeared from the name of the guns in 190 and in 120 pounds.

By March, 1888 had eight coastal batteries in Sevastopol, and in fact there were two 6-inch guns in 190 pounds, and for the defense of the fort's land front, there were six 6-guns in 190 poods, but the latter were not on batteries, but rusting in warehouses. By 1907, the number of 6-inch guns in the 190 pounds transferred to shore batteries was brought to 20.

Initially, the 6-inch guns in the 190 poods were installed on high fortress carriages of the 1878 model of the year that did not have a turning mechanism. It is clear that shooting at a moving ship, turning manually the entire carriage with high wheels, was extremely inconvenient. Therefore, in 1889, the coastal carriage of the Durlecher system was tested. The swivel frame of the new gun carriage rotated on the pedestal, which allowed for fast horizontal targeting and circular firing.

By 1907, out of twenty 6-inch 190 pounds, 14 cannons were on Durlecher's carriages, and six were on machines from 9-inch light mortars. These machines were listed under the authority of the Sevastopol fortress artillery in 1906, from a part of the Special Reserve located in Sevastopol. A special reserve was created back in the 1880-ies and was intended for the landing in the Bosphorus. Altogether, four 9-inch light mortars were listed in the property of the Sevastopol fortress with carriages. I note that the maximum firing range of such a mortar 160-kg projectile was only 3 km. And no matter what else, except for shooting in the Black Sea straits, this weapon was not suitable. Therefore, four 9-inch light mortars remained in the same warehouse where they were, and were only formally listed as the Sevastopol fortress. Where they disappeared between July 1 1913 and July 1 1914, the author could not be established.

But back to the 6-inch guns weighing 190 pounds. There was no rent from them in the coastal defense due to bad ballistics and low rate of fire. At the beginning of 1915, they were sent to Riga and Reni.

By order of the Military Department No. 31 of February 28 of 1892, the Nordenfeld Coastal Gun 57-mm cannon is put into service. Readers will have a reasonable question, but what could such a “cracker” do not only with an armadillo, but even with a cruiser? Quite right, but the matter is different. The leadership of the Ministry of War desperately clung to the old coastal systems of the 1877 model of the year and 1867 of the year, and instead of replacing them with new rapid-fire guns with improved ballistics, they used various tricks to improve the capabilities of the old guns. Since the 8 – 11-inch 1867 model cannon and the 1877 of the year were able to make one shot in three to five minutes, the Main Artillery Directorate decided to introduce into the 57-fortress guns fast-firing guns with good ballistics for use in sighting. Since by the 1890 year, our generals planned to fight with enemy battleships at distances from 0,5 km to 5 km, the 57-mm guns could provide sighting at all "real" combat distances. In addition, 57-mm coastal guns were planned to be used to combat the destroyers and enemy landing forces. Installed Nordenfeld's 57-mm guns on or near heavy gun batteries.

By November 24, 1906 was supposed to be 24 coastal 57-mm Nordefeld cannons in Sevastopol, but only two were, and 18 were listed from Special Reserve.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. NF68
    NF68 17 December 2017 15: 46
    + + + + + + + + + +
    1. Cat
      Cat 17 December 2017 16: 22
      I don’t know how anyone, but I liked it!
      1. igordok
        igordok 17 December 2017 19: 23
        When Alexander Shirokorad talks about artillery (his horse), it turns out beautifully. And when it comes to politics, it’s often messy.
  2. serge siberian
    serge siberian 17 December 2017 16: 13
    Very interesting facts are present. But the fact that Sevastopol as a fortress was stifled!
  3. Torquemada
    Torquemada 17 December 2017 17: 59
    You would have a map for clarity, so that it was clear where what was.
    Atlas of the fortresses of the Russian Empire. 1830s
    1. Monster_Fat
      Monster_Fat 17 December 2017 19: 04
      In Helsinki, a ferry runs from the center to the Suomenlinna fortress (Sveaborg) (4,5 euro return ticket). Here is the official website: I advise all lovers of military history to visit this interesting place, there is a huge amount of military equipment of the Russian Empire, plus German weapons. The Finnish Military History Museum is located not far from the maritime station. There are wonderful exhibits and plus captured in the courtyard captured Soviet equipment of the "winter war" and "continuation war", as well as German equipment (tanks, artillery, self-propelled guns, etc. (entrance 7,5 , 113336 euros). Http://
      In general, to all lovers of military history, here is a list of military museums in Finland:
      The expositions in them are very rich, Finns carefully preserve all samples of any military equipment that, one way or another, fell into their hands — visit — you won’t regret it.
      1. Cat
        Cat 17 December 2017 20: 01
        We ourselves with a "mustache"!
        Museum of the military glory of the Urals in Verkhnyaya Pyshma!

        210 mm gun Br-17.
        By the way, entrance to the open exposition is free! To the pavilions - 200 rubles.
        1. Cat
          Cat 17 December 2017 20: 06
          Unfortunately, you can’t throw a few photos into the comment.
          Armored train during the Second World War.
          1. Cat
            Cat 17 December 2017 20: 14
            Full-size mock heavy tank T-35. The efforts of the reenactors are impressive. The main tower from the swamps of Karelia, the rest from the rest of the world - a tank on display!

            And this is not Moscow and St. Petersburg, not even the Gosprom, but the two-thousand-town in the Urals !!!
            1. Monster_Fat
              Monster_Fat 17 December 2017 21: 19
              Come on. The password in Finnish is generally an outback, and there it is
              and here it is and still this is
              ml wink
            2. Sverdlov
              Sverdlov 18 December 2017 01: 56

              Well, the T-35 is not really a mockup. He knows how to run in parades. And this year I was even able to turn into the intersection ... :)
              1. Svarog51
                Svarog51 18 December 2017 05: 57
                Write about the T-35, and in the photo T-28 request
                1. Cat
                  Cat 18 December 2017 18: 42
                  1. Why I called the T-35 layout. This tank was restored with the golden hands of the Ural masters, both from audidentic parts, and from newly created ones.
                  2. The T-28 runs in the photo, but I think on May 9, the T-35 will also be put in the parade box.
                  1. Svarog51
                    Svarog51 18 December 2017 19: 32
                    Vladislav, welcome hi So I don’t argue about what I don’t know. I have no comments for you. I will only be glad if there is yet another valid T-35 prototype. In Kubinka, one was restored. The T-28 also deserved to be rebuilt. He bore the brunt of Finnish on his shoulders. And there is also an episode of a breakthrough through Minsk. Heroic tank and its crew. The T-35 does not have such feats. T-28 also has the right to go in full dress. IMHO.
                    1. Cat
                      Cat 19 December 2017 04: 54
                      I did not refute your comment! Moreover, I agree with him 100%.
                      I just clarified my position.
                      In Kubinka. The restored T-35 and T-28 on Kubinka are 90% real tanks, assembled from 2-3 others.
                      T-35 in Pyshma unfortunately remake 50% collected by pine from all over Russia. Many details were redone.
                      T-28 in Pyshma restored real tank, five years ago, rotted at the bottom of the river.
                      Both models are priceless for Russia.
                      Yours faithfully! Cat
                      1. Svarog51
                        Svarog51 19 December 2017 05: 56
                        Vladislav hi
                        Both models are priceless for Russia.

                        Golden words good But how many unique exhibits sailed abroad. I want to believe that again this will become the property of our people. Recently there was an article about tanks and other equipment raised from the seabed. How would she adorn the expositions of our museums. And which films using this technique can be removed. The Americans were able to afford to shoot the real Tiger in Fury, and Shakhnazarov in the White Tiger used a miserable fake. And how elegant the German triples and fours looked in "28 Panfilov". I'm generally a fan of armored vehicles. I had a chance to visit Kubinka - indelible impressions.
            3. d ^ Amir
              d ^ Amir 21 December 2017 12: 04
              Good afternoon!!!! and have you shot this video? a lot of old restored equipment and how the apotheosis of T-35 ...
  4. Curious
    Curious 17 December 2017 19: 34
    Mr. Shirokorad’s completely disproportionate ability and knowledge does not allow him to produce full-fledged materials, since in his articles the facts are completely randomly mixed with fiction, and they are accompanied by “derogatory” comments by the author, which completely confuse an unprepared person. We will not trawl the entire article, take the penultimate paragraph on the 57 mm guns of Nordefeld and the "dumb" generals, who are afraid to shoot further than 5 km. Let me remind you, we are talking about the year 1892.
    Question to the “master” - and who at that moment could shoot further? The question to the master is as follows. Does he have a concept of artillery fire control and artillery fire control devices that existed at that time.
    As an example, let’s open a book by the history teacher of Harvard University, the naval historian Theodor Ropp, "The development of a modern navy: French naval policy 1871-1904. - Annapolis (Maryland): Naval Institute Press, 1987" (Creating a modern fleet: French military maritime policy 1871–1904).
    Here is how the author describes the state of firing control of the main caliber of the ships of the French fleet in the chapter "Artillery and Torpedoes, 1895-1905". In other fleets the situation was similar (hereinafter extensive citation, without which it is impossible)
    “The problem of hitting a moving target from a ship was so complex that a very competent British author was able to identify and discuss eleven possible sources of serious errors. Of all the problems associated with hitting the target, only the problem with guns was satisfactorily resolved by the mid-1890s. Improving their design and production has led to the fact that when using a specific projectile and charge, the new guns will be able to release the projectile in the right direction.The question of how to change the sight in order to compensate for the wind and moving the target was also more or less solved.

    The most difficult was the question of determining the distance to the target and shooting from a swinging ship - so that the angle of the vertical guidance of the gun allowed the projectile to be fired at that distance. None of the hundreds of odd devices used in the 1890s to measure the distance to an enemy ship was satisfactory .. (The most common was the sextant used to measure the angle between the lines passing through the observation point and the claw of the mast of the ship - and its waterline, or - across the waterline and horizon.In addition, the distance of the fifteen minutes required to load and aim the old guns could change so significantly that for each shot it would have to be re-measured.
    The usual practice was as follows: the gun was directed horizontally and vertically to the required angle, after which the gunner fired at the moment when the aiming line due to the ship's rolling coincided with the target. The difficulty consisted in firing a shot at this moment, and not a moment earlier or later, and it was here that the source of the greatest errors lay. A tenth of a second error on a ship swinging with an amplitude of ten degrees meant that the projectile would go 30 feet above or below a target 1000 yards away.
    Each artilleryman had to endlessly train in firing exactly at the moment when three points - the notch of the rear sight, the front sight and the target - were on the same line. Some could achieve perfection through a long field of training - but it was generally believed that good artillerymen are born, not become. Even after all possible training sessions, the errors were so great that on average it was considered impossible to carry out any accurate shooting in a battle from a distance of more than 1000 yards.
    Under Santiago, during the Spanish-American War, well-trained American gunners fired nearly 2000 rounds at a range of 6000-6000 yards and achieved only 130 hits (2.2 percent).
    The last tests preceding the adoption of new instructions were passed in 1897.
    The new rules, however, were adopted, and their adoption was accompanied by an order to conduct at least three large practical fires annually. The result was measures aimed at training gunners and successful firing at distances of up to 4000 yards. "

    For information, the yard is 0,91 m. The coastal artillery faces the same problems as the naval artillerymen, except for pitching. So sarcasm about "stupid generals and admirals" in this case is completely inappropriate and only disorientates the reader.
    As for the 57-mm cannons, they were, first of all, considered as a melee and internal combat weapon - for hitting small vessels and landing boats.
  5. 27091965
    27091965 17 December 2017 19: 48
    The Main Artillery Directorate of Russia strongly overestimated the role of coastal mortars in the nineteenth-century 70, and by the beginning of the twentieth century they had become absolutely useless when firing at ships, with the exception of narrowness. Nevertheless, the defense ministry spent enormous sums on the production of 9-inch and 11-inch coastal mortars and the construction of mortar coastal batteries.

    The defense of the coastal fortresses included, according to the classification of that time, long-range and mounted combat guns. Therefore, these guns, together, were located on the same defense site, where each type of gun had its own goals and objectives. I think writing about excessive enthusiasm for this or that type of weapon makes no sense. It is enough to consider the planned tactics of fortress defense from the sea. It is impossible to separate these guns into separate types, since they were part of a unified defense system under the general command.
    1. Cat
      Cat 17 December 2017 20: 27
      What is the point of proving what and who foresaw! The fact that they were “twisted” into the defense of Sevostopol was later installed in Port Arthur. And it is not surprising that the theory of A. Shirokorad about the "enthusiasm" and "stupidity" of "certain people" found its full and irrevocable confirmation!
      For five miles no one sailed to the fortress guns, and to increase the firing range had to use home-made and even roll ships. By the way, mortars with an elevation of 15-25 ° are not a genius, but the insanity of the royal general!
      Now 57mm anti-storm guns? What kind of boats and boats were they supposed to shoot in the harbor? Any landing will be landed outside the fire exposure of the fortress. The Crimean War proved this axiom. Against the infantry, a "high-explosive" 57mm shell was negligible. Moreover, it was proved by the British who used these guns as tank guns in WWI.
      1. 27091965
        27091965 17 December 2017 21: 02
        Quote: Kotischa
        And it is not surprising that the theory of A. Shirokorad about the "enthusiasm" and "stupidity" of "certain people" found its full and irrevocable confirmation!

        Unfortunately, I did not find it, the author uses dates very interestingly. He does not indicate that the decision to install 9 and 11 inch mortars in coastal fortresses was made on the basis of the analysis of shelling by the English fleet of Alexandria. The guns were replaced, but the lack of finances forced the use of what was available, the cost of one gun with ammunition cost, depending on the caliber, from 100.000 to 200.000 rubles at that time.
        1. Cat
          Cat 17 December 2017 21: 18
          In his books “Miracle Weapons of the Russian Empire”, “Russia Goes to the Ocean” A. Shirokorad raises these topics. Reasons, the need for a mortar, a special supply. In the book about "Turkey" (he forgot the name) he dwells especially on the analysis of the Battle of Alexandria. The author’s conclusions are similar to yours. Only in search of reasons he goes further, and this is an amateur.
          Now about the artillery lobby! Not surprisingly, the only Obukhov plant did not have time to fulfill orders, and the price of the barrel was 100 thousand rubles. At the beginning of the reign of Nicholas II, the rest of the plants were without orders, some for 5-6 years. Or will you convince me that Perm, Setroset and Izhora plants could not pour guns?
          The photo is a little off topic, but it’s a very illustrative example. The Tsar Cannon in Perm!
          1. 27091965
            27091965 17 December 2017 21: 37
            Quote: Kotischa
            Or will you convince me that Perm, Setroset and Izhora plants could not pour guns?

            In the Perm plant I can answer, the main type of production is shells, by the way of rather poor quality.

            The author’s conclusions are similar to yours. Only in search of reasons he goes further, and this is an amateur.

            I think for conclusions it’s enough to get acquainted with the "Engineering Journal" for 1898-1899, it describes very well the arrangement and armament of coastal fortresses.
            We reason with modern views, often forgetting that we did not think much differently then.
  6. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 15 January 2018 11: 11
    That's right, but the point is different. The leadership of the Ministry of War desperately clung to the old coastal systems of the 1877 and 1867 type, and instead of replacing them with new quick-firing guns with improved ballistics, they went to various tricks in order to improve the capabilities of old cannons.

    A strange statement: Kane's rapid-firing guns began to be adopted in 1889. They were accepted into the arsenal of the Russian fleet literally 2 years later - which is necessary for negotiations and obtaining a production license - that is, literally right from the moment they appeared.
    In 1893-1894, land experiments were carried out with a 6 "/ 50 Kane gun. But in 1895, a 6" / 45 Kane gun was adopted by the coastal fortresses. That is, in coastal fortresses, new Kane guns began to arrive 2-3 years after entering the fleet - so the author clearly exaggerates the "resistance" to the new guns. Quite the contrary.
    In addition, the 57-mm coastal guns were planned to be used to combat destroyers and enemy landing.

    And it was quite justified. By the time the Japanese attacked Port Artut (by then Russia had owned it for 7 years), contemporaries recalled that if the Japanese landed troops at that time, he would have nothing to resist - the garrison was small and not ready to repel the attack, but the batteries large caliber, could not effectively resist the landing - they even the Japanese firemen could not fight off effectively due to the low rate of fire. The anti-mine caliber of Retvisan, who was aground, overwhelmed the attacks of the firewalls, and one of them only by fortunate coincidence (they killed the anchor mount) crashed aground 100 fathoms from the battleship.
    Subsequently, 120 mm guns taken from the auxiliary cruiser Angara (Vladimir Semenov Rasplata were used for anti-border operations