Military Review

Cruiser type "Svetlana". Part of 2. Artillery

54
In this part of the cycle we will look at the Svetlan artillery in comparison with the light cruisers of leading maritime powers.


Battleships and battlecruisers amaze the imagination with their size and power: apparently, therefore, historians pay more ships to large ships than to their smaller counterparts. It is not difficult to find detailed descriptions of the main caliber of any battleship, but with the cruisers everything is much more complicated: the information about their artillery systems is often incomplete or contradictory.

Russian light cruisers were supposed to arm the 15 with the latest 130-mm / 55 guns arr. 1913, the production of the Obukhov plant. It was these guns that made up the mine caliber of the dreadnoughts of the “Empress Maria” type, and they had very impressive characteristics for their time. But ... what? The problem is that this gun was produced in the Russian Empire, modernized in the USSR, and then on its base a new 130-mm gun was created. At the same time, new ammunition was being developed and ... everything was messed up, so today it is not so easy to figure out exactly what characteristics the original artillery system possessed and what shells it fired.


130-mm / 55 gun arr. Xnumx


So, for example, S.E. Vinogradov indicates that

“The total weight of an 130-equipped 1911-mm projectile was 35,96 kg, of which 4,9 kg was its TNT bursting charge ... ... To defeat surface targets, the 130-mm artillery system was equipped only with a high-explosive projectile of 650 mm length (5 klb) with a armor with a armor; "Makarovsky cap" and, in essence, was a high-explosive armor-piercing ammunition. "


It seems to be all clear. However, other sources report the presence of a second type of high-explosive projectile, designated as "a high-explosive sample of 1911 (without a tip)". It would seem, well, what's wrong with that, one with a tip, the second without, but the problem is that the descriptions of this projectile are extremely strange. Thus, it is stated that this second projectile had the same weight as the projectile with a tip, while, again, it is indicated that both projectiles had a weight of 33,86 kg or 36,86 kg.

Of course, it can be assumed that the 130-mm gun was decided to be supplied with two types of ammunition - one as if semi-demurrage (with a tip), and the second - purely explosive without a tip, then, with the same weight, a high-explosive could get a greater amount of explosive and all that looks reasonable. But the joke is that the sources indicating the presence of a second, “endless” projectile indicate for him a smaller amount of explosives in the projectile — 3,9 kg versus 4,71 kg!

But the sources have no discrepancies in the fact that TNT was used as explosives, that a powder charge of 11 kg was used for firing, and this charge gave the projectile an initial speed of 823 m / s. By the way, this suggests that the mass of the projectile was still 35.96-36,86 kg., Because lighter shells were arr. 1928 g had a speed of 861 m / s.

Difficulties arise in determining the firing range. The fact is that the maximum firing range depends, among other things, on the angle of elevation (vertical guidance or HV), but it is unclear what HV the Svetlan guns would have had.

It is more or less reliably known that the project envisaged machine tools with an HV angle in 20 degrees, which ensured the maximum firing range of 16 364 m or almost 83 kb. But in 1915, Obukhovsky Zavod began to produce machines with HV angle increased to 30, at which 130-mm / 55 guns would shoot with shells, arr. 1911 g at a distance of 18 290 m or 98,75 kb.

According to the contract with the Revel plant, the first two cruisers, the Svetlana and the Admiral Greig, were to go on trials in July and October 1915 g, respectively. It can be assumed that if the construction was carried out within the established deadlines, cruisers would still receive old installations with an angle of ВН 20 deg. - we will take them for further comparison. Although upon completion the Svetlana (“Profintern”) had installations with an angle of elevation 30 hail.

The loading of the 130-mm Obukhov gun was separate and, apparently, by the caps. In this case, the cartridges were stored (and probably transported to the guns) in special 104,5 cm-long canisters, which, as far as can be understood, were still not sleeves. Interesting is the storage system for caps used on Svetlana: not only were the shot cases placed in a separate pencil case, this case was placed in a steel and hermetically sealed case capable of withstanding the water pressure when the cellar was flooded without deforming. Cases, in turn, were stored in special cellular racks.

Rate of fire 130-mm / 55 guns arr. The 1913 g was 5-8 rounds per minute, but the cruisers' hoisting gear ensured the delivery of 15 shells and 15 charges per minute.

Despite some ambiguities, it can be stated that in service fleet a very powerful medium-caliber artillery system arrived - I must say, in operation it has proven itself to be quite reliable weapons. Of course, she also had drawbacks - the same kind of cap load can not be attributed to the advantages of the gun, and good ballistic qualities were “bought” by increased barrel wear, the life of which was only 300 shots, which was especially sad due to the lack of lining.

What could this oppose the British and Germans?

The German cruisers were armed with 3 main artillery systems:

1) 105-mm / 40 SK L / 40 arr 1898 g., Standing on the ships of the type "Gazelle", "Bremen", "Koenigsberg" and "Dresden".

2) 105-mm / 45 SK L / 45 arr. 1906 was established on cruisers, starting from the type of “Mainz” and up to the very end of the German hobby for small calibers, that is, up to “Graudents” inclusive.

3) 150-mm / 45 SK L / 45 arr. 1906 was equipped with “Wiesbaden”, “Pillau”, “Koenigsberg” with these guns, and during the modernization - “Graudents”. In addition, they were equipped with light cruisers-minelayers "Brummer" and "Bremse"

The oldest 105-mm / 40 SK L / 40 fired 16 kg with armor-piercing and 17,4 kg high-explosive shells with an extremely moderate initial speed of 690 m / s, which caused the maximum range of the non-limiting 30 elevation angle to exceed 12 200 m (almost 66 x XUMUM XNUMX m (almost XNUMX)


105-mm / 40 gun on the cruiser "Bremen"


105-mm / 45 SK L / 45 was not too different from its “ancestor” - the barrel increased by 5 gauges and the increase in initial velocity by only 20 m / s, while the ammunition remained the same. With the same maximum angle HV (30 deg) the firing range of the updated artillery system did not exceed 12 700 m or 68,5 kb.

Unfortunately, the sources do not contain information about the content of explosives in the shells of German 105-mm cannons. But the domestic 102-mm / 60 guns arr. 1911 g, which armed the famous "Noviki" was a high-explosive projectile of similar mass (17,5 kg) containing 2,4 kg of explosive. Probably, it will not be a big mistake to assume that, according to explosives content, German 105-mm high-explosive shells were about two times less than their Russian 130-mm “vis-a-vis”.

On the other hand, 105-mm artillery significantly exceeded our 130-mm guns in the rate of fire - mainly due to the unitary shot, because its mass (25,5 kg) was less than that of the Obukhov’s 130-mm / 55 gun (36,86) kg). In ideal conditions, the German guns could show 12-15 rounds per minute.



Thus, losing twice to the Russian cannon in the mass of the projectile and, probably, in the mass of the explosive in the projectile, the German 105-mm artillery systems were about twice as high as their rate of fire. In the firing range, the gain remained for the Russian gun, which fired nearly a mile and a half further. All of this suggested that the 105-mm German cruiser was strongly discouraged from picking up the Svetlan. The same "Magdeburg", having standard armament from 12 105-mm guns and 6 guns in the onboard salvo was significantly inferior in firepower to the Russian cruiser, who had 15 130-mm guns with 8 guns in the onboard salvo. The only situation where the German cruisers were somehow equalized with the “Svetlana” is a night fight at a short distance, where the rate of fire could be crucial.

Realizing the inadequacy of the artillery armament of their cruisers, Germany turned to larger calibers - 150-mm / 45 SK L / 45.

Cruiser type "Svetlana". Part of 2. Artillery


This gun fired high-explosive and armor-piercing shells that had a mass of 45,3 kg. The armor piercing contained 0,99 kg of explosives, how many were in a high-explosive - alas, it is not known. However, in World War II, high-explosive shells to this gun contained 3,9-4,09 kg of explosives. At the same time, the high-explosive shells of earlier 150-mm / 40 SK L / 40 had no more than 3 kg of explosive: so it can be assumed that the German 150-mm projectiles in their impact on the enemy were approximately equivalent to domestic high-explosive shells. 1911, or even slightly inferior to them. The initial velocity of the 150-mm / 45 SK L / 45 projectiles was 835 m / s, but the information is somewhat contradictory about the firing range. The fact is that kayserlhmarin widely used this gun, it was installed on various machines that had different elevation angles. Most likely, the VN angle of the German light cruisers was 22 hail, which corresponded to the maximum firing range of 15 800 m (85,3 kb). Accordingly, the 150-mm guns only slightly exceeded the Svetlana artillery (83 kb) in range. In the rate of fire 150-mm / 45 SK L / 45 was expectedly inferior to 130-mm / 55 "obukhovke" - 5-7 shots. / min

In general, we can say that the German 150-mm and the Russian 130-mm artillery systems were quite comparable in their fighting qualities. The German cannon had a heavier projectile, but this was not supported by an increased content of explosives, and in terms of range and rate of fire of the artillery system were almost equal.

British cruising artillery for the First World War was presented:

1) 102-mm / 50 BL Mark VII arr. 1904 g, which were armed scouts types "Body Disease" and "Bristol"

2) 102-mm / 45 QF Mark V arr. 1913 - Aretuza, Caroline, Calliope

3) 152-mm / 50 BL Mark XI arr. 1905 Mr. - cruisers of the type "Bristol", "Falmouth" (they are also called the type "Weymouth") and "Chatham"

4) 140-mm / 45 BL Mark I arr. 1913 - put on only two light cruisers, the Chester and the Birkenhead of the same type

5) 152 / 45 BL Mark XII arr. 1913 - All cruisers, starting with "Arethusa."

The small remark “BL” and “QF” in the name of the British guns indicate the method of their loading: “BL” is a separate cartridge case or a cap type, “QF”, respectively, is unitary.


102-mm / 50 BL Mark VII


As it is easy to see, the English guns were much more modern than the Germans. However, “newer” doesn’t mean “better” - 102-mm / 50 BL Mark VII was considerably inferior in its characteristics to 105-mm / 40 SK L / 40 XRUMX g. Arr. While the German gun fired 1898 kg with armor-piercing and 16. kg high-explosive shells, the British high-explosive and semi-slash 17,4-mm shells had an equal weight 102 kg. Unfortunately, the author could not find out the content of explosives in British shells, but at this size it obviously could not be large - as we shall see later, there is reason to believe that it was significantly lower than that of 14,06-mm / 105 SK L / 40. Because of separate loading, the 40-mm / 102 BL Mark VII fire rate did not exceed 50-6 shots / min. and almost half the German artillery system. The only indisputable superiority of the English gun was the high initial speed - 8 m / s versus 873 m / s for the Germans. This could give the British an excellent gain in range, but alas - while the German machine provided 690 vertical guidance, the British only 30 degrees, which is why the range 15-mm / 102 BL Mark VII was some kind of 50 10 m (a little more than 610 KBT) so that even here the “Englishwoman” lost to the German cannon by almost a mile.

The only advantage of the British cannon can be considered somewhat better flatness and, accordingly, shooting accuracy, but otherwise it was completely inferior to the older German artillery system. Not surprisingly, for the Germans, who were preparing their fleet against the British, their 105-mm artillery seemed completely sufficient.

The next British gun - 102-mm / 45 QF Mark V arr. 1913 became, if I may say so, the “work on the errors” of 102-mm / 50 BL Mark VII.



The new gun used unitary shots, which increased the rate of fire to 10-15 shots / min., And the maximum angle of elevation brought to 20 hail. But at the same time, the initial speed dropped to 728 m / s., Which ensured the maximum range of 12 660 m (68,3 kb), which corresponded to the German 105-mm SK L / 40 and SK L / 45 guns, but did not exceed them. Also Mark V got a high-explosive shell, weighted to 15,2 kg, but it contained only 820 grams of explosive! Therefore, it can be said for sure that the English 102-mm gun was almost three times losing to the domestic 102-mm / 60 "obukhovka", and the Svetlana gun was six times the 130-mm / 55 gun, but to say how it was compared to the German 105-mm guns It is impossible, because the author does not have information on the content of explosives in their shells. We can only state that the newest British 102-mm / 45 QF Mark V arr. 1913g was, at best, equal to the German 105-mm / 45 SK L / 45

The low combat qualities of the British 102-mm cannons caused the British to have a quite understandable desire to have at least a couple of 152-mm guns on their scouts. And 152-mm / 50 BL Mark XI arr. 1905 r quite answered these aspirations. This gun used 45,3 kg semi-armor and high-explosive shells containing explosives 3,4 and 6 kg, respectively. In their power, they left absolutely everything 102-mm and 105-mm shells far behind, and the German 150-mm too. Of course, the power of the 152-mm British projectile with 6 kg of explosives exceeded that of the Russian 130-mm projectiles with their 3,9-4,71 kg. BB

The only thing that can be reproached by the British artillery system is the relatively small firing range. On light cruisers of the Bristol type, the angle of the VN 152-mm / 50 BL Mark XI installations was only 13 hail, on the others - 15 hail, which gave the 45,36 kg firing range using an SRVS projectile (unfortunately, the range is indicated only for this) in 10 240 m (55,3 kb) and 13 085 m (70,7 kb), respectively. Thus, the Bristol was not lucky, because they received the least long-range artillery system among all English and German cruisers, but other cruisers, for example, like the Chatam, were in no way inferior to any 105-mm German cruiser. However, both the Russian 130-mm / 55 and the German 150-mm / 45 guns with their 83-85 kbt maximum range had a great advantage over the 152-mm / 50 BL Mark XI.

The English guns' rate of fire was 5-7 rds / min and was, in general, common to six-inch artillery systems. But in general, the gun length as much in 50 calibers was recognized by the British too cumbersome for light cruisers. It should also be borne in mind that British attempts to increase the length of the barrels of their guns to 50 calibers in large-caliber artillery failed - the wire construction of the guns did not provide acceptable accuracy, and it is possible that the BL Mark XI had similar problems.

When developing 152 / 45 BL Mark XII arr. 1913 The English have returned to 45 calibers. The shells remain the same (they don’t look for good), the initial speed decreased by 42 m / s and amounted to 853 m / s. But the angle of the VN remained the same - only 15 hail, so that the maximum firing range even decreased slightly, making up from various data from 12 344 to 12 800 m (66,6-69 KBT).

Later, in the years of the First World War, this deficiency was eradicated during upgrades, when the HV 20 and even 30 hail angle was attached to the machine tools, which made it possible to shoot at 14 320 and 17 145 m (77 and 92,5 kbt, respectively), but it happened later, and we compare guns at the time of entry into service of ships.

It is interesting that, having a predilection for 102-mm and 152-mm calibers, the British quite unexpectedly for their two cruisers adopted an intermediate, 140-mm gun. But this is quite understandable: the fact is that, although six-inches were superior to 102-mm / 105-mm guns in almost everything, they had one very bad disadvantage — a relatively low rate of fire. And the point here is not at all in tabular data showing 5-7 rounds per minute versus 10-15. The fact is that projectiles (i.e., those who are responsible for loading the projectile, charges, respectively, provide charging) usually have two naval guns. And in order for the 152-mm gun to give 6 shots per minute, it is necessary that the projectile take the projectile (and it does not lie directly with the gun) and load the gun with it every 20 seconds. Recall now that the six-inch shell weighed in for 45 kg, put ourselves in the gear box and think about how many minutes we can work at that pace?

In fact, the rate of fire is not such an important indicator in the battle of cruisers (if we are not talking about "dagger" fire in the night) because the need to adjust the sight significantly reduces the rate of fire. But the rate of fire is very important in repelling the attack of the destroyers, and this is one of the essential tasks of the light cruiser. Therefore, an attempt to switch to a projectile of sufficient power to fight with cruisers, but at the same time less heavy than a six-inch one, was certainly of great interest to the British.


140-mm gun of the cruiser "Chester"


In this regard, 140-mm / 45 BL Mark I arr. 1913 g was very similar to the domestic 130-mm / 55 “buttress” - the mass of the projectile 37,2 kg versus 36,86 kg, the initial speed - 850 m / s versus 823 m / sec. But the “Englishwoman” loses in explosives content (2,4 kg versus 3,9-4,71 kg) and, oddly enough, again in firing range - solely due to the fact that the British for some reason limited the angles of vertical alignment to only 15 degrees. Unfortunately, the firing range of the 140-mm / 45 BL Mark I is not given at this elevation angle, but even at 25 hail the gun fired at the 14 630 m. almost 79 kbts., which was still less than the Russian 130-mm / 55 with its 83 kbts at an angle of HV in 20 degrees. Obviously, the loss of the English artillery system on 15 degrees BH was measured in miles.

As for the light cruisers of the Austro-Hungary Admiral Spoon, their weapons were 100-mm / 50 K10 and K11 arr. 1910 g, produced by the famous factories "Skoda". These guns were able to send a 13,75 kg projectile with an initial speed of 880 m / s to a range of 11 000 m (59,4 kbt) - obviously, they could have continued, but the HV angle of the Austro-Hungarian 100 units was limited to 14 degrees. Unfortunately, the author has not found information about the explosives content in Austro-Hungarian shells. The guns had unitary loading, the rate of fire indicated 8-10 rds / min. This is noticeably less than what the British 102-mm and German 105-mm guns showed with a unitary shot, but there is some suspicion that where the Germans and the British indicated the maximum possible rate of fire, which can be developed only in greenhouse-polygon conditions, the Austro -Hangers brought realistic, attainable on the ship performance.

Apparently, the 100-mm gun of the Škoda company can be considered approximately equivalent to the English 102-mm / 45 QF Mark V and, possibly, slightly inferior to the German 105-mm / 40 SK L / 40 and 105-mm / 45 SK L / 45 artillery systems.

Concluding our review, we state that, in terms of the totality of characteristics, the Russian 130-mm / 55 artillery system significantly surpassed all 100-mm, 102-mm and 105-mm British, German and Austro-Hungarian guns, superior to the English 140-mm gun, was approximately equivalent to the German 150-mm cannon and inferior to the English 152-mm cannons in the power of the projectile, winning in the firing range.

Here, however, the attentive reader may ask: why the comparison did not take into account such factors as armor penetration? The answer is very simple - for fights between light cruisers during the First World War, armor-piercing shells would be far from the best choice. It was much easier and faster to smash the unarmored parts of light ships, crushing openly standing artillery, mowing up its calculations and thus bringing the enemy ship to a non-operational state than “sticking” the enemy with armor-piercing projectiles capable of penetrating its unarmoured sides and flying away, not exploding, hoping "Golden" hit.

Продолжение следует ...
Author:
Articles from this series:
Light cruisers like "Svetlana"
54 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. CentDo
    CentDo 11 January 2018 16: 19
    +2
    Andrey, thanks for the article.
    The second part had to wait a long time, but it was worth it.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      11 January 2018 17: 33
      +6
      Quote: CentDo
      The second part had to wait quite a while

      Generally speaking, I posted it at the very beginning of the holidays, but it hit the main page only now request
  2. Amurets
    Amurets 11 January 2018 16: 42
    +1
    But ... what? The problem is that this gun was produced in the Russian Empire, modernized in the USSR, and then a new 130-mm gun was created on its basis. In parallel, new ammunition was being developed and ... everything was messed up, so today it is not so easy to figure out exactly what characteristics the original artillery system had and what shells it fired.

    So in Soviet times, two more types of trunks cutting appeared: ANIMI-deep and the second I don’t remember which research institute. So for these varieties, the nareki also needed their shells and charges.
    1. Conductor
      Conductor 11 January 2018 16: 52
      +1
      High Impact
  3. Conductor
    Conductor 11 January 2018 16: 50
    +2
    Andrey, as always, is convincing. Thank you, although about 130 mm I do not agree on everything. .
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      11 January 2018 17: 31
      +3
      Quote: Conductor
      Andrey, as always, is convincing.

      Thank you!
      Quote: Conductor
      about 130 mm I do not agree on everything.

      And what do not agree?
  4. Andy
    Andy 11 January 2018 16: 57
    +1
    provided a maximum firing range of 16 m or almost 364 kbt. something is wrong - 83 * 0,1852 = 83
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      11 January 2018 17: 31
      +2
      Quote: Andy
      provided a maximum firing range of 16 364 m or almost 83 kbt.

      Please forgive me, an eyelid. Of course, 15 364 meters.
      1. Andy
        Andy 11 January 2018 17: 39
        +2
        it happens. it turned out a little test for attention when reading the article :) a very interesting article, thanks
      2. Alf
        Alf 11 January 2018 21: 45
        +1
        Andrew ! And what British were 140-mm guns? Honestly, I hear about such a caliber in the British Navy for the first time.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          11 January 2018 21: 51
          +4
          Quote: Alf
          Andrey ! And on what British were the 140-mm guns?

          “Chester” and “Birkenhead” - two light cruisers classified as “town” - some consider them the best cruisers of WWI of England. And the caliber ... the fact is that initially they were built for the Greek fleet.
          But in general, then 140-mm gained some distribution among the British. Hood, for example
          1. Rurikovich
            Rurikovich 11 January 2018 22: 06
            +2
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            But in general, then 140-mm gained some distribution among the British. Hood, for example

            It became more widespread among the Japanese. Almost all of their light cruisers, starting with the Tatsuta and ending with the Sendai and Yubari, carried 140-mm guns.
            The British got their
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            “Chester” and “Birkenhead” - two light cruisers classified as “town” - some consider them the best cruisers of WWI of England. And the caliber ... the fact is that initially they were built for the Greek fleet.

            because of lazy Greeks laughing
            1. volodimer
              volodimer 12 January 2018 11: 38
              +2
              Greetings! hi I came across information that 140mm after the Russo-Japanese War for the Japanese and developed. Saying it was difficult for them to pull small 6 "shells, which was noted by British observers.
          2. Alf
            Alf 11 January 2018 22: 39
            +1
            Thank you Andrey! Did not know.
            I also heard about the caliber in 133 mm, but this is the Dutch caliber, on De Reuters.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 12 January 2018 10: 06
              +1
              Quote: Alf
              Thank you Andrey! Did not know.
              I also heard about the caliber in 133 mm, but this is the Dutch caliber, on De Reuters.

              The 133-mm is just the British caliber: 5.25 "/ 50 QF Mark I. Universal ACs for all kinds of Dido and new LCs. Theoretically, a good system was killed in practice by close towers + heavy and long shells.
              And the Dutch put the traditional 15-cm.
              1. Alf
                Alf 12 January 2018 20: 51
                0
                Yes, I made a mistake.
  5. Taoist
    Taoist 11 January 2018 17: 30
    +2
    Something tells me that when designing, “Svetlan” wanted to get a “Modernized Novik” - and by the way, the logic of choosing artillery lies in this version. The roots are clearly drawn to the 120mm cane gun.
  6. Andy
    Andy 11 January 2018 18: 07
    +1
    I re-read the article again and thought, too big a fork between 130mm and 203mm caliber cruisers.
    (152mm was changed to 130-ki - Bogatyr, Oleg, Varyag). shouldn't another, heavier type of cruiser appear?
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 11 January 2018 20: 45
      +1
      Quote: Andy
      I re-read the article again and thought, too big a fork between 130mm and 203mm caliber cruisers.

      what
      The author is considering the light cruisers of a certain period - in this case, it is the eve of the WWII (well, a little earlier for foreign ones). And they have a very classic runaway 102 - 152mm yes And already 203mm is already a threshold higher, which has nothing to do with light cruisers ... Unless, of course, you start an excursion into history and mention Kasagi, Olympia, Chacabuco, Blanco Encalada, Buenos Aires "with their 203mm guns. But then there were different views on some points of using the then actual light cruisers in some countries. So, the period of 203 mm described by Andrey is no longer in the “armament” column of light cruisers hi
      1. Potter
        Potter 11 January 2018 22: 06
        +1
        Not at all!
        In the version worked out at the beginning of 1910, the Svetlan armament was Bayanovsky - 2x203 and 12x102mm. But by the end of 1910 - "Chapaevsky" -12x152 in 4 3-gun turrets, with a displacement of 10000 tons and a speed of 34 knots! This option was a victim of savings, the money was transferred to battlecruisers, and so they got trimmed in the power of the “Svetlana” with 15x130mm.
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 11 January 2018 22: 19
          +1
          Quote: Potter
          But by the end of 1910 - "Chapaevsky" -12x152 in 4 3-gun turrets, with a displacement of 10000 tons and a speed of 34 knots!

          belay what
          Come on!!! laughing
          I do not argue, such an option was proposed, as well as an option with 2-203mm and 12 - 120mm ... BUT! We discuss what was really being built yes , and not what preceded in the committees during discussions of various options under very diverse requirements wink
      2. Andy
        Andy 11 January 2018 23: 15
        +1
        it is within the framework of the article, the choice of the cruiser’s caliber. It is interesting that at this time the line of battleships was increasing in caliber — from 305 Sevastopols to 356 Izmail and 406 mm third generation dreadnoughts. And cruisers, on the contrary, were reduced from 152 to 130 mm, acquiring an armored belt. choosing 130mm gk did you expect a larger type of cruiser to support svetlana?
  7. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 11 January 2018 18: 52
    +2
    Greetings, colleague! hi
    As always for the review, approving s yes
    The real advantages (or disadvantages) of our 130-mm artillery system could be seen in the case if the Black Sea cruisers “Cahul” with “Memory of Mercury” were re-equipped on time. Then the commander of the Breslau would have to tickle the nerves thoroughly. wink
    In the Baltic, there were practically no opportunities to check the characteristics of the “hundred and thirty” due to the secondary nature of the theater among the Germans. Comparison of the cited systems of other countries in a battle would lead to the appearance of a sickly-sized article. But the advantage of a larger caliber could be traced under equal conditions (the sinking of Emden and Dresden). The sinking of the "Pearls" by the same "Emden" had a factor of surprise. In any case, the main players in Europe gravitated towards the six-inch cruiser optimal for the displacement
    So if you dream, then the confrontation between the Svetlans and their opponents at the time of commissioning (suppose 1915) would be influenced by many factors: visibility, detection range, distance to the nearest bases, sea state, the presence of other enemy forces, etc.
    And it’s good if you are alone in the morning when the weather is clear and you have a speed higher than your opponent and around you only akiyan for a couple of hundred miles. Then yes - the firing range with a good SUAO and a decent rate of fire will do the trick.
    In such comparisons, dear Andrei, everything is relative smile
    Thanks for the interesting and informative review - I look forward to continuing good
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      11 January 2018 20: 59
      +3
      Quote: Rurikovich
      when the commander of the Breslau would tickle the nerves thoroughly.

      That's for sure, with their range.
      Quote: Rurikovich
      In the Baltic, there were practically no opportunities to check the characteristics of the “hundred and thirty” because of the secondary theater of the Germans

      Nuuu, and run after the enemy cruisers?
      Quote: Rurikovich
      But the advantage of a larger

      Certainly.
      Quote: Rurikovich
      In any case, the main players in Europe gravitated towards the six-inch cruiser optimal for the displacement

      I’m not sure that it was optimal - nevertheless, shells in 43-45 kg for manual loading ... I was like a healthy moose once, but even that ... ehhkm ...
      Quote: Rurikovich
      In such comparisons, dear Andrei, everything is relative

      True, but the word “relatively” implies “relative to something” :))))) So I’m trying to find the points against which you can build comparisons on other available material
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 11 January 2018 21: 22
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Nuuu, and run after the enemy cruisers?

        Well, there was no one to run after request
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        still shells in 43-45 kg for manual loading ..

        As if miscalculating the pros and cons, it is assumed that the advantages of a larger caliber will block the hardships of sailors from carrying heavy loads. Although in psychology, the motivation and adrenaline rush in physiology minimizes such moments. Even recruits when recruiting for such positions can be chosen purposefully. So the choice of 152mm for the British and Swabians is justified.
        It’s another matter that the Russians managed to create a weapon quite competitive with 152mm cannons with a smaller caliber. The Eurapeians did not bother to find a middle ground and went in a simpler way. It seems to me
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        So I’m trying to find the points regarding which you can build comparisons on other available material.

        You do it very well yes
        I just developed the idea that the characteristics on paper can be perfectly leveled not only by the situation on the battlefield, but also by many other introductory ones. Therefore, the rate of fire may have the main criterion for winning a duel, or it may not have request hi
        They say, after all, that "it’s beautiful on paper, but they forgot about the ravines" wink
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 11 January 2018 21: 43
          +1
          Quote: Rurikovich
          Therefore, the rate of fire may have the main criterion for winning a duel, or it may not have

          Moreover, you yourself talked about it repeat
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          11 January 2018 23: 22
          +2
          Quote: Rurikovich
          Well, there was no one to run after

          so what? Give Svetlana Bahirev and drive Augsburg, for example
          Quote: Rurikovich
          Therefore, the rate of fire may have the main criterion for winning a duel, or it may not have

          That's for sure. The rate of fire is perhaps the least influential indicator.
      2. 27091965
        27091965 11 January 2018 22: 06
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        So I’m trying to find the points regarding which you can build comparisons on other available material.


        It will be difficult to do. The cruisers you are trying to compare with are ships built on the basis of the views worked out in 1905-1908. Cruisers such as "Svetlana" is the next step.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          11 January 2018 23: 20
          +3
          Quote: 27091965i
          It will be difficult to do. The cruisers you are trying to compare with are ships built on the basis of the views worked out in the 1905-1908 of the year.

          Why so? I’m taking both Koenigsberg and Danu - i.e. ships that were later laid down by Svetlan, and even those that were already created under the influence of military experience.
          1. 27091965
            27091965 12 January 2018 08: 38
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Why so? I’m taking both Koenigsberg and Danu - i.e. ships that were later laid down by Svetlan, and even those that were already created under the influence of military experience.


            This applies primarily to weapons. It can conditionally be divided into three stages. Guns 102-105 mm; 102-152 mm; 150-152 mm, all three passed in England, Germany almost did not notice the second stage, Russia immediately switched to an intermediate caliber.

            Concluding our review, we note that in terms of the combination of characteristics, the Russian 130-mm / 55 artillery system significantly exceeded all 100-mm, 102-mm and 105-mm British, German and Austro-Hungarian guns,


            The fact is that when considering the armament of cruisers in 1905-1908, the average battle distance was determined to be 4000-5000 meters, the armor belt was supposed to be up to 70 mm, this was enough to protect against 102-105 mm armor-piercing shells, but it did not constitute a large obstacle for armor-piercing shells of cruisers such as "Svetlana." Therefore, it is difficult to compare these tools with 130 mm.
  8. Kurdyukov
    Kurdyukov 11 January 2018 20: 08
    +2
    I want to add, the Obukhov plant designed a 130-ku in several versions, the EMNIP with a separate-case, cartridge shot loading, spring and pneumatic reel, rammer, but they adopted the cheapest option, like the cruiser itself. At first, they wanted to equip the light cruisers with 12 six-inch guns in four towers, he decided to save on them in favor of the Ishmaels. And for the new six-inch projectile weighed under 60 kg, which was too much for manual loading, so they made 130-ku. The author correctly noted that there is confusion with the weight and initial speed of the last tsarist sea guns. For example, I met Vo 130, 853 m / s for 835 matches, for 305 mm \ 52 cal 980 at 386 kg, 950, 914 at 331, 877 853 at 447 kg 835, 823, 792, 777, 762 at 470 and 521 kg, and in the USSR They wrote that the good quality of Obukhov steel made it possible to raise the pressure of powder gases to 3000, and now Shirokorad writes that because of the poor quality of steel, the gas pressure was reduced to 2400. I don’t know who to believe. And the rate of fire for 130 matches 12 rpm, for 102/60 20 rpm. Interestingly, this data is still closed? Although they say 305/52 until 1998 they were in service.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      11 January 2018 20: 54
      +4
      Quote: Kurdyukov
      for 305mm \ 52cal 980 at 386 kg, 950, 914 at 331, 877 853 at 447kg 835, 823, 792, 777, 762 at 470 and 521 kg

      I can’t pretend to be the Truth In Last Instance, but according to my data it was like this:
      The initial drawing from July 18 1906 g - 331,7 kg and 914 m / s.
      Then on July 27 1907 r Dubrov intervenes and already requires 975 m / s for 378,4 kg of projectile.
      But then 470,9 kg projectile is taken, and for him, while maintaining pressure in 2400 kgf / cm2, 763 m / s was obtained. I will not name the exact date, but after the start of the manufacture of guns.
      However, the gun is half the battle, you still need a machine for it. And the machine for the gun was calculated by the recoil of the gun firing 471 kg with a projectile with an initial speed of 810 m / s, which corresponded to the pressure in the barrel 3 000 kgf / cm2
      Then, under the USSR, they designed an 581,4 kg projectile, which they were going to shoot with an initial speed of 690-700 m / s. But waved a hand. But lightweight, 314 kg and 920 m / s. - adopted by the 1939
      Well, something like this, about :) hi
      1. unknown
        unknown 12 January 2018 22: 08
        0
        And what about a projectile weighing 512 kg of 1912?
  9. kvs207
    kvs207 11 January 2018 20: 21
    +2
    Hooray, the year began wonderfully - dear author, pleased with his articles and would like to enjoy further and more.
  10. Vladislav 73
    Vladislav 73 11 January 2018 22: 13
    +3
    Greetings to the respected author, my fellow countryman! hi I have a little addition, so to speak:
    Interestingly, having an addiction to 102-mm and 152-mm calibers, the British quite unexpectedly for their two cruisers adopted an intermediate, 140-mm gun.
    Let's just say so, not unexpectedly. Initially, the 140-mm artillery system was developed not for ourselves, but for 2 light cruisers being built in England by order of Greece. The British successfully confiscated and called “Chester” and “Birkenhead.” “Greek” The 140 mm pleased the British, because they felt that the loaders could actually maintain a higher rate of fire than in the case of the 152-mm artillery system, while providing the same weight of a single volley. The Admiralty was seriously considering introducing this caliber on the main classes of battleships and cruisers, but in military of time it was unrealistic. As a result, the artillery system received the two cruisers listed above, the linear-light Furies (quickly converted into an aircraft carrier) and the linear cruiser Hood. Respectfully hi
    1. unknown
      unknown 12 January 2018 22: 26
      0
      Yes, originally 140mm - "Greek order." Southern Europeans normally have less mass than northern Europeans. For the same reason, this caliber was to the taste of the Japanese. Which, even during the REV, came to the conclusion that the 6 "shell is too heavy for manual loading. After the PMV, the Japanese switched to this caliber on their light cruisers.
      To this caliber, the French were addicted. In the French version it is 138,6mm. Armored, armored cruisers, squadron battleships, battleships. Further, this caliber was registered on leaders. The French mastered the caliber of 130mm.
  11. Conductor
    Conductor 12 January 2018 03: 54
    +1
    Andrei, deeply respected, it was the explosive impact of 130 that was weak. And what kind of caliber of 133 mm, did not even hear about this. And the British had calibers even stranger, and 190 and 114, wore them somehow strange in relation to this.
    1. kvs207
      kvs207 12 January 2018 08: 28
      +1
      Not so strange, it's 7.5 "and 4.5" respectively.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 12 January 2018 10: 21
      0
      Quote: Conductor
      And what kind of caliber of 133 mm, did not even hear about this.

      5.25 "/ 50 QF Mark I. They were placed on the British post-Washington LK and KRL of the Dido type. A good example is that best the enemy of the good: in pursuit of the power of a lime shell, a too heavy and long shell was chosen, which, coupled with a cramped turret, lowered the rate of fire from the planned 10-12 to the real 7-8 rounds per minute.
      Plus, the gun turned out to be too difficult to manufacture - and as a result 3 KRLs of the Dido type received 4 towers instead of 5, and the Charybdis and Scylla didn’t receive 133 mm guns at all and were armed with 114 mm AA (who said - "dagger" and project 1155? smile ).
      1. unknown
        unknown 12 January 2018 22: 38
        +1
        Uh, there you are like the English. Contemptuously derogatory. Limey. We are not Yankees. What an Anglo-Saxon showdown. Although, what are the Anglo-Saxon? Among the white population of the North American United States, more than 70 percent are descendants of Germans. And if you add the descendants of the Irish, Italians, Russians, Poles, French, and different Swedes there, then the descendants of the Angles are a minimum. As part of the statistical error.
  12. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 12 January 2018 17: 36
    +3
    This could give the British a great gain in range, but alas - while the German machine provided 30 degrees of vertical aiming, the British - only 15 degrees., Why the range of 102 mm / 50 BL Mark VII was some 10 610 m (a little over 57 kbt) so even here the “Englishwoman” lost almost a mile to the German gun.


    You surprise me Andrew.
    This does not mean that the German gun was better.
    The high initial velocity of the projectile is:
    1 - better armor penetration and large structural damage due to significant kinetic energy;
    2 - higher accuracy (less time the impact of atmospheric factors and precession;
    3 - shorter flight time of the projectile to the target, which again increases the probability of hitting due to the shorter distance traveled by the target - less lead time;
    4 - the persistence of the trajectory increases the likelihood of getting into the side projection of the ship at short and medium distances.

    The initial velocity of the projectile is crucial to ballistics. A gun with better ballistics is more effective in battle, even if the weight of the projectile and explosive in it is less. What is the use of a heavy projectile if its probability of hitting a target is 30% lower ...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      12 January 2018 18: 09
      +1
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      You surprise me Andrew.

      Yes, I am like this:)))
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      1 - better armor penetration and large structural damage due to significant kinetic energy;

      No armor penetration - only high-explosive shells fire. To put the 102-mm armor-piercing cruiser is a perversion
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      higher accuracy (shorter exposure to atmospheric factors and precession;

      Higher accuracy ceteris paribus, you forgot to add. And can you guarantee that other conditions were equal?
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      shorter flight time of the projectile to the target, which again increases the likelihood of hitting due to the shorter distance traveled by the target - less lead time;

      Sorry, but it doesn’t matter at all - whether the large lead, the small one, is such that either it is taken correctly or not. And if it’s wrong, then there will be a miss
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      flatness of the trajectory increases the likelihood of getting into the side projection of the ship at short and medium distances

      This is noted in the article. Immediately after the paragraph you quote is written
      The only advantage of the British guns can be considered somewhat better flatness and, accordingly, firing accuracy

      Quote: DimerVladimer
      The initial velocity of the projectile is crucial to ballistics.

      For example, regarding the execution of the barrel? :))))
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      What is the use of a heavy projectile if its probability of hitting a target is lower by 30% ...

      Take for example the Soviet 180-mm gun and see the standard deviation at a distance of 60 kbt (in range, horizontal, vertical, in fathoms). For 920 m / s - 23 / 1,8 / 2,9. For 720 m / s - 20 / 1,8 / 4,4 Sorry, I do not see 30% at point-blank range.
      1. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer 15 January 2018 10: 37
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Sorry, but it doesn’t matter at all - whether the large lead, the small one, is such that either it is taken correctly or not. And if it’s wrong, then there will be a miss


        This is important, dear Andrey. Ships never go strictly parallel - the course always either leads to rapprochement or diverges - i.e. the distance is constantly changing - during the flight of the projectile, the ship can leave the zone of the scattering ellipse, for which the dalmer posts make constant adjustments and here the flight time of the projectile will greatly affect the probability of being hit.
        You only take the question of shooting at a non-maneuvering target - moving rectilinearly at a constant speed, which corresponds to a battle in a line.
        But the cruising forces more often act differently - when they get under concentrated fire, they begin to maneuver, the destroyers, when meeting the cruising forces, are very active in maneuvering, and here the advantage of guns with a fixed trajectory will be decisive.

        If you have the time, create an account on World of Warships.
        The programmers, relatively meticulously reproducing ballistics (of course, without precession and wind, but the mathematics of calculating ballistics, creates a close-to-real scattering ellipse), including 105 mm German guns (105 mm L / 45 MPL - cruiser of the Kolberg type).
        Of course, this is very arbitrary, but it is quite possible to feel the difference between flat shooting and throwing shells into "space" as on German 105 mm.
        Together with the mathematical model of booking a specific ship, it creates an interesting atmosphere for calculating the lead points for firing at a ship moving along a certain trajectory, with a certain speed.

        In addition, the tendency of a relative increase in barrel length and an increase in the initial velocity of the projectile - you will not deny it? If at the beginning of the XX century it is 40-45 calibers, then in the middle it is 45-50 for GK and 55-60 calibers for medium caliber.
      2. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer 15 January 2018 10: 47
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Take for example the Soviet 180-mm gun and see the standard deviation at a distance of 60 kbt (in range, horizontal, vertical, in fathoms). For 920 m / s - 23 / 1,8 / 2,9. For 720 m / s - 20 / 1,8 / 4,4 Sorry, I do not see 30% at point-blank range.


        I remember this example from your series about a cruiser such as Kirov.
        The numbers do not seem reliable in order to accept them a priori for all weapon systems. There is a lot of nuances that affect accuracy. From the stability of the quality of gunpowder (which in the USSR was of poor quality), to the calculation of barrel cutting, the accuracy of the manufacture of shells.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          16 January 2018 11: 15
          +2
          Quote: DimerVladimer
          You only take the question of shooting at a non-maneuvering target - moving rectilinearly at a constant speed, which corresponds to a battle in a line.

          In no case. Regardless of the position of the ships, dear DimerVladimer, the cruiser’s effort will necessarily calculate the VIR and VIP, that is, the magnitude of the distance change and the magnitude of the bearing change, taking into account the fact that they (depending on the course of the ships) can change and already calculate the lead and vertical aiming angle. Generally speaking, an undertaking is still a mathematician, his work is not easy, it was not in vain that analogous control systems were created for PMW. And the changing VIR and VIP are almost the basics of artillery, one of the initial entertainments of future gunners - a complex maneuver of the enemy ship and its movement were drawn on paper, and it was necessary to correctly calculate the lead in the marked points.
          Quote: DimerVladimer
          Of course, this is very arbitrary, but it is quite possible to feel the difference between flat shooting and throwing shells into "space" as on German 105 mm.

          So it’s precisely “conditional”, like all the ballistics of the Warships. There, whatever one may say, the programmers did not have the task of reproducing ballistics, but the task was to entertain the player. And the difficulties with sighting are somewhat far-fetched, simply because the player must feel the difference between guns with different ballistics.
          Quote: DimerVladimer
          The numbers do not seem reliable in order to accept them a priori for all weapon systems.

          Why?
          Quote: DimerVladimer
          From the stability of the quality of gunpowder (which in the USSR was of poor quality)

          Let's clarify - if my sclerosis does not lie to me, the domestic artillery in external ballistics was superior to the German :)))
          Quote: DimerVladimer
          In addition, the tendency of a relative increase in barrel length and an increase in the initial velocity of the projectile - you will not deny it? If at the beginning of the XX century it is 40-45 calibers, then in the middle it is 45-50 for GK and 55-60 calibers for medium caliber.

          I will not, but this is a consequence of the introduction of new technologies for the production of trunks (the British didn’t force it, so they sat on the EMNIP of 42-caliber 381-mm
          1. DimerVladimer
            DimerVladimer 17 January 2018 09: 54
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Let's clarify - if my sclerosis does not lie to me, the domestic artillery in external ballistics was superior to the German :)))


            Undoubtedly.
            I meant by the term "quality of gunpowder" - the stability of characteristics from batch to batch. From charge to charge. From the design.
            At the same Semenov's “Retribution” there is about 6 "/ 45 Kane (the cruiser Pallas on patrol at the outer Raid" Port Arthur ":
            ... In the midst of the battle of our two six-inch, which could act on the enemy - one suddenly ceased fire. -- What? - It turns out (it’s insulting to write) - when a charge was put in, a poorly bound pack of smokeless powder plates crumbled; the plates fell out of order from the cartridge case into the charging chamber and piled up in front of the bottom of the shell, as a result of which the cartridge case did not reach the place and the lock did not lock. It was not possible to clear the chamber from the breech with a hand, a stick or a hook. I had to unload the cannon from the muzzle, pushing the projectile itself, which was firmly seated in the rifling, pushing the arrester! ..
            - Well, quick-fire guns! - I could not resist, so as not to hurt the innocent senior artillery.
            He only shrugged.
            - The ammunition equipment system, the hermetic sleeve cover, which is removed only before loading, - I didn’t invent all this. Designed and approved by the technical committee. Maybe in battle, each cartridge, before sending into the cannon, open, inspect and feel? “Of course, you will have to do this in advance, but only this is not in favor of rate of fire! ..


            And more about the quality of the shells in the same place:
            During these same days a new, very sad and alarming circumstance became clear.
            During the usual night shooting at the Japanese destroyers, one of the 6 inches suddenly fell silent.
            -- What? Didn’t look again? Again the charge disintegrated? the commander shouted angrily, seeing that the gun was being unloaded from the muzzle.
            - No, not a charge! - the plutong commander responded irritably from the deck. -- Much worse! The shell does not climb into place! ..
            It turns out that when hastily sending ammunition to Port Arthur, which was in danger of being cut off from the north, some consignments of shells were sent either not calibrated at all, or only partly calibrated (a certain percentage of the total).
            Of course, senders could refer to Art. 527. Maritime Regulations, according to which an artillery officer, "in case of disagreement of the items with the approved samples, suspends reception and reports to the commander"; of course, an artillery officer could indicate physical impossibility, the absence of any means, and most importantly, time, for a thorough verification of the military stocks taken from port warehouses to replenish the expended ones; Of course, the head of the Arthurian warehouses could rightly point out that he didn’t take shells from the factory, but from the central departments, that he also had neither time nor means to calibrate them ... In a word, as always, all were guilty, that is, no one, but the fact remained a fact.
            Our artillery officer was extremely concerned about this discovery. The shells were taken by us as they were consumed and placed in the cellars on empty seats. It now turned out to be impossible to make out exactly which ones remained from the receptions before the war, which ones were adopted again. It was impossible to check the entire contents of the cellars under wartime conditions immediately, but only gradually, unloading shells in small batches ... It took time, but did we know how much time was at our disposal? - It depended on the intentions of the enemy ...
            I don’t know whether due to careless calibration or simply due to the bad quality of the metal, it turned out that our cast-iron shells (the cheapest, and therefore very numerous in the combat kit) often crack when they take off from the gun’s barrel ... When the fire is fired at the Japanese destroyers Since the Gilyak had to be sent close past our place (the cruiser on duty), then in the mornings we often found fragments of his cast-iron shells on the deck.
            In addition to the danger to the neighbors, such a projectile, having split in the very muzzle, could put the gun out of action, and therefore the order followed: "When shooting with cast-iron shells, use practical (i.e., half) charges".
            A sad decision in the sense of using all the power of their artillery, but alas! - inevitable ...

            The above example of the fact that you can talk a lot about the "paper" characteristics of artillery, but in reality - everything was very sad.
      3. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer 15 January 2018 12: 06
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        No armor penetration - only high-explosive shells fire. To put the 102-mm armor-piercing cruiser is a perversion


        "For the destruction of the trenches 152-mm Kane guns are unsuitable due to the insignificant high-explosive action of a bomb (grenade) - only 2,86 kg of TNT."

        What was the charge of the 102 -105 mm sea guns if the high-explosive action of the 152 mm shell was not considered sufficient?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          15 January 2018 16: 37
          +1
          Quote: DimerVladimer
          What was the charge of the 102 -105 mm sea guns if the high-explosive action of the 152 mm shell was not considered sufficient?

          I will answer all other questions later, with your permission, but this ....
          Quote: DimerVladimer
          "For the destruction of the trenches 152-mm Kane guns are unsuitable due to the insignificant high-explosive action of a bomb (grenade) - only 2,86 kg of TNT."

          Tell me, where did you get this quote from? :))))
          In Kane’s shells there was never 2,86 kg of TNT. 1907-3,6 kg of TNT was placed in a high-explosive sample 3,7 g. 1915 kg of TNT were placed in a landmine of 5,8 g. But in the old, the model of the Russian-Japanese war, the shells really fit 2,71 kg, but not TNT, but pyroxylin :)))) In which, yes, the high-explosive effect was insignificant. And something seems to me that in this case we are talking about the Dotsushima shell.
          I can still quote Barsukov
          The main purpose of field light howitzers with a rather strong high-explosive shell (explosive charge from 1,3 kg in Japanese and Austrian howitzers to 2,7 kg in 114-mm English and to 4,7 kg in Russian 122-mm) is the destruction of trenches and dugouts without strong concrete; strong dugouts could not destroy these howitzers, but they destroyed and blocked the exits from solid shelters. Japanese 12-cm and Austrian 10-cm howitzers, as weaker ones, were assigned to destroy the communication lines and weak or secondary sections of the trenches.
          1. DimerVladimer
            DimerVladimer 16 January 2018 11: 12
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            And something seems to me that in this case we are talking about the Dotsushima shell.


            Yes - you are right - I mean a shell from the time of the REV.

            Initially, all the shells for the 6 "/ 45 gun had the same weight - about 41,4 kg. So, the" old blueprint "armor-piercing shell had a length of 2,8 klb and contained 1,23 kg of melinite, an 11 DM fuse. High-explosive steel shell" of the old drawing, “3 clb length contained 2,713 trotyls, a 9DT fuse. True, often, for the sake of economy”, 3,25 clb shells of ordinary cast iron, with an explosive weight of 1,365 kg of black powder and an impact tube, model 1884, were still cast .

            HE shells arr. In 1907 they weighed 41,46 kg, had a length of 3,2 klb, the weight of explosives was 3,7 kg of TNT, a fuse arr. 1913. In 1915 - 1916, a projectile arr. In 1907 they modernized - the weight was increased to 49,76 kg, and the length was up to 4,1 klb. The high-explosive shell, model 1915, weighed 41,46 kg, had a length of 4,1 klb, the weight of explosives was 5,8 kg of TNT, the fuse of arr. 1913 or MR.

            For example, here http://wunderwafe.ru/Magazine/MK/1997_02/17.htm
            not the most reliable material.
            It’s also strange for me - where did I get TNT when pyroxylin was used in the Russian Navy ...
            Perhaps the authors of publications do not take into account that in different fleets the filling of shells was different pyroxylin, melinite, TNT ...
  13. Victor Wolz
    Victor Wolz 12 January 2018 18: 55
    0
    Thank you Andrew for the article, it's a pity of course the ships were late for their war, and few of 8 of them built them.
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 12 January 2018 20: 21
      +1
      That’s for sure ... they wouldn’t have had a price for the REV ... And so they were late for the WWII ... Like all of us.
      1. Victor Wolz
        Victor Wolz 12 January 2018 22: 29
        +2
        Well, for the RPV turbine cruisers is too much)))
  14. doktorkurgan
    doktorkurgan 12 January 2018 22: 35
    +1
    That's interesting.
  15. CTABEP
    CTABEP 13 January 2018 13: 52
    0
    Thank. waiting for the continuation! Ah, finally, good articles about your favorite era of the fleet - the first third and half of the 20th century :).