Projectile that changed the artillery

71
It is not for nothing that artillery is called the god of war, but this capacious definition still needed to be earned. Before becoming the decisive argument of howling parties, artillery has come a long way of development. In this case, we are talking not only about the development of the artillery systems themselves, but also about the development of the used artillery ammunition.

A great step forward in increasing the combat capabilities of artillery was the invention of the British officer Henry Shrapnel. He created a new ammunition, the main purpose of which was to fight the enemy with manpower. It is curious that the inventor himself did not witness the triumph of his brainchild, but he found the beginning of the use of new ammunition in combat conditions.



Henry Shrapnel became the creator of the projectile, which brought artillery to a new level of its power. Thanks to shrapnel, artillery was able to effectively deal with infantry and cavalry, located in open areas and at a considerable distance from the guns. Shrapnel became a steel death over the battlefield, hitting troops in marching columns, in moments of rebuilding and preparing for an attack, on halts. In this case, one of the main advantages was the range of use of ammunition, which could not provide the canister.

Projectile that changed the artillery

Henry Shrapnel


Henry Shrapnel, whom descendants began to call the "killer of infantry and cavalry," began to create a new artillery ammunition at the end of the XNUMXth century. The idea of ​​a British army officer was to put together a new weapons - two types of already known shells - a bomb and buckshot. The first ammunition was a hollow core filled with gunpowder, and having an ignition tube. The second - was a set of metal striking elements that were placed in a bag, or in the late stages of development in cardboard, metal packaging of a cylindrical shape. Shrapnel’s idea was to combine the striking power of these two ammunition, from the bomb he wanted to borrow the radius of destruction and the power of the explosion, and from the buckshot, the lethal effect of defeating the enemy’s openly located infantry and cavalry.

The birthplace of shrapnel can be called Gibraltar, where Lieutenant of the British Royal Artillery Henry Shrapnel was appointed in 1787. Here the inventor not only served, but also seriously studied the experience of the Great Siege of Gibraltar (1779-1783), mainly the use of artillery by the opposing sides. Six months after arriving at the fortress, the lieutenant showed his brainchild to the commander of the British garrison. The date of the first experiment using shrapnel is December 21, 1787. As a weapon, an 8-inch mortar was used, which was loaded with a hollow core, inside which was placed about 200 musket bullets and the powder necessary for an explosion. They were shooting from the fortress towards the sea from a hill about 180 meters above the water level. The experiment was deemed successful, the new ammunition exploded about half a second before meeting the water surface, the water literally boiled from being hit by hundreds of bullets. The officers present, including Major General O'Hara, were well impressed by the tests, but the Gibraltar garrison commander did not dare to take the implementation of the project under his personal patronage.


Shrapnel Card Grenade


As a result, in 1795, Henry Shrapnel returned to the British Isles with ideas, test results, but without the ammunition itself and the prospects for its production. Already in the rank of captain, he did not abandon his idea and engaged in “the beloved affair of the inventors” - active correspondence with all sorts of officials. Continuing to improve the new ammunition Henry Shrapnel prepared several reports to the Commission of the Artillery Council. Here his paper lay motionless for several years, after which the inventor received a refusal to support the work. However, Shrapnel did not intend to surrender and literally threw the commission with his messages and suggestions, after all the artillery officer knew a lot about conducting good artillery preparation. As a result, in June 1803, the bureaucratic British monster fell under the attacks of a persistent officer, and a positive review was received on his messages. Despite the fact that at that time the problem of premature detonation of ammunition was not fully resolved, the results of tests conducted in England were considered successful and encouraging. A new artillery shell entered the approved list of ammunition for the British field forces, and Henry Shrapnel himself 1 November 1803 year advanced in service, receiving the rank of major artillery.

The grenade grenade proposed by officer Henry Shrapnel was made in the form of a hollow solid sphere, inside which there was a charge of gunpowder, as well as a bullet. The main feature proposed by the inventor of the grenade was a hole in the body, which was placed in the ignition tube. The firing tube was made of wood and contained a certain amount of gunpowder. Such a tube served as both a moderator and a fuse. When fired from a cannon, gunpowder ignited while it was in the barrel bore in the firing tube. Gradually, while the projectile flew toward its target, the powder burned through, as soon as it burned out all, the fire approached the powder charge, which was located in the hollow case of the grenade itself, which led to an explosion of the projectile. The effect of such an explosion is easy to imagine; it led to the destruction of the body of a grenade, which in the form of fragments and bullets flew apart, hitting the enemy’s infantry and cavalry. A feature of the new projectile was that the length of the pilot tube could be adjusted by the gunners themselves before the shot. Thanks to this solution, it was possible to achieve an explosion of a grenade at the desired time and place with an acceptable level of accuracy at that time.


Attack of the light cavalry brigade under the fire of Russian artillery


The brainchild of Henry Shrapnel was first tested in real combat conditions of 30 on April 1804 of the year. The debut of the new shell came on the attack on the fort New Amsterdam, located on the territory of Dutch Guiana (Suriname). Major William Wilson, who in the battle led the actions of the British artillery, later wrote that the effect of the use of new shrapnel shells was stunning. The garrison of New Amsterdam decided to capitulate after the second salvo, the Dutch were amazed that they were suffering losses from their musket bullets at such a large distance from the enemy. It should be noted here that the smooth-bore guns of that era could effectively shoot a canister at a distance of 300-400 meters, while the cores flew to a distance of 1200 meters, the same was true for smooth-bore guns, whose firing range was limited to 300 meters. In the same year 1804 Shrapnel was promoted to lieutenant colonel, later this artillery officer and inventor successfully rose to the rank of general and even received money from the British government in the amount of 1200 pounds a year (a very serious sum of money at that time), which also shows recognition of his merits. And shrapnel was becoming more common. In January, 1806, the new ammunition brought death and horror to the opponents of the British in southern Africa, where the empire, over which the sun never set, regained control of the Cape colony, after a new projectile was used in India, and in July, 1806, and in the battle at Maida . New artillery ammunition quickly took its place in the sun and every year was increasingly used in battles around the world.

Over time, the British invention became widespread in the armies of all countries. One of the examples of successful use of shrapnel is the famous “attack of light cavalry” during the years of the Crimean War of the 1853-1856 years. The witness of the battle, General of the French Army Pierre Bosquet, described it best of all at one time: “This is great, but this is not war: this is madness.” We can only agree with the French general, the attack of the English light cavalry brigade, commanded by Lord Cardigan, entered into history. Poetry, paintings, and then films were devoted to this event. The attack itself under Balaclava under the fire of the Russian artillery, which used shrapnel, and the shooters, located on the heights dominating the terrain, cost the British about half the brigade’s personnel and even more horses.


Projectile with diaphragm shrapnel


It is worth noting that it was Russian artillerymen who made a significant contribution to the improvement of ammunition. In the Russian Empire, he found his own Henry Shrapnel, his place was taken by the Russian artillery scientist Vladimir Nikolaevich Shklarevich. Once in the armies of the world only began to appear rifled guns, Vladimir Shklarevich presented a new type of projectile - diaphragm shrapnel with a central tube and bottom camera, this happened in 1871 year. The presented ammunition looked like a cylindrical body, the diaphragm (cardboard partition), it was divided into two compartments. In the bottom compartment of the Shklarevich projectile was placed a charge of explosive. Ball-shaped bullets were placed in another compartment. Along the axis of the projectile was a central tube, which was filled with pyrotechnic composition. On the front of the projectile was placed the head with a cap. After the shot from the gun, an explosion occurred and the ignition of the slowly burning pyrotechnic composition in the longitudinal tube. In flight, the fire passed through the tube and reached the powder charge in the bottom compartment, which led to the explosion of the projectile. The explosion was pushing the diaphragm forward along the projectile's flight, as well as the bullets behind it, which flew out of the projectile. The new scheme proposed by the Russian engineer allowed the use of ammunition in modern rifled artillery. There was a new projectile and a significant plus. Now, when the projectile was blown up, the bullets did not fly evenly in all directions, as originally happened when the spherical grenade of the Shrapnel construction was blown up, but directed along the axis of the flight of the artillery projectile with a deviation from it. This decision increased the combat effectiveness of artillery fire when shooting shrapnel.

The design presented was a significant disadvantage, but it was quickly eliminated. The first projectile of Shklarevich envisioned firing only at a predetermined distance. The deficiency was eliminated already in 1873, when the tube of remote blasting of a new ammunition with a rotating ring was created. The main difference was that now from the capsule to the blast charge the fire went along the path consisting of three parts. One part, as before, was the central tube, and the remaining two sections were channels with the same pyrotechnic composition, but located in rotating rings. By turning these rings, the gunners could change the amount of the pyrotechnic composition, providing shrapnel at a distance that was needed during the battle. At the same time, two terms appeared in colloquial artillery calculations: the projectile was put "on shrapnel", if it was necessary that it exploded at a great distance from the gun and "on the canister" if the remote tube was regulated for a minimum burning time. The third use of such projectiles was the “strike” position, when the path from the capsule to the blasting charge was completely blocked. In this position, the projectile exploded only at the moment of encountering an obstacle.



The use of shrapnel shells reached its peak by the beginning of the First World War. According to experts, for the field and mountain artillery caliber 76 mm such shells were the absolute majority of ammunition. In this case, shrapnel was actively used by large-caliber artillery systems. For example, in the 76-mm projectile fit about 260 bullets, and in 107-mm already about 600. In the event of a successful break, a similar deadly swarm of lead could cover an area 20-30 meters wide and up to 150-200 meters deep - almost a third of a hectare. With a successful break, only one shrapnel could cover a section of a large road, along which in the column a company of 150-200 moved along with its machine-gun gigs.

One of the most effective episodes of using shrapnel shells came at the beginning of the First World War. 7 August 1914, captain Lombal, the commander of the 6 battery of the 42 regiment of the French army, during the battle that began, managed to locate the German troops that had left the forest at a distance of five kilometers from the location of their guns. A cluster of troops was fired with shrapnel shells from 75-mm guns, 4 guns of his battery made 16 shots in total. The result of the shelling, which caught the enemy at the time of restructuring from marching to battle formation, was disastrous for the Germans. As a result of an artillery strike, the 21 th Prussian Dragoon Regiment lost only 700 people killed and about the same number of trained horses, after such a strike the regiment ceased to be a combat unit.


Fight during the First World War


But by the middle of the First World War, when the parties switched to positional actions and the massive use of artillery, and the quality of the officers of the warring parties fell, the minuscule shrapnel began to manifest themselves. Among the main shortcomings were:
- a small slaughter effect of spherical shrapnel bullets (usually quite low-grade ones), any obstacle could stop them;
- powerlessness against targets concealed in trenches, trenches (with a flat shooting trajectory), dugouts and caponiers (with any trajectory);
- low efficiency of firing at a long range when using poorly trained officers, especially reservists;
- a small damaging effect against the material part of the enemy, even openly located.
- greater complexity and high cost of such ammunition.

For these reasons, even during the First World War, shrapnel was gradually supplanted by a fragmentation grenade, which had an instant fuse, which did not have these shortcomings and, moreover, had a great psychological effect on the enemy soldiers. Gradually, the number of shrapnel in the troops was declining, but even during the Second World War, such ammunition was used quite extensively, as search engines working on the battlefield can tell you. And the very use of shrapnel shells was also reflected in fiction, for example, the famous novel Volokolamsk Highway. In the second half of the 20th century, shrapnel shell, which had been a real infantry storm for more than a century, practically ceased to be used, but the very ideas on which this weapon was based, albeit in a modified version, continue to be used today even at a new level of development of science and technology.

Information sources:
https://fakel-history.ru
http://otvaga2004.ru
http://www.popadancev.net
http://www.battlefield.ru
https://russian.rt.com
Open source materials
71 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +2
    21 March 2019 19: 00
    I’m still interested in how they introduce information on the detonation in ammunition, the earliest from 76 mm anti-aircraft artillery use remote detonation tubes.
    If the star was shown primarily, now it’s very interesting. And in what way.
    1. +4
      21 March 2019 19: 20
      To begin with, we determined the distance to the target, and then, on a command, set the range of the grenade on the fuse.
      1. +1
        21 March 2019 19: 29
        Right now, as they enter the Old. My opinion is the induction order after a shot from the barrel, there is a rim on the AU 222. Maybe this is the Doppler sensor but x knows it.
        The same 30 that on the air defense barrels have the same rims, Tunguska and Shell, I just think they didn’t document, but the country changed, due to remote blasting.
        1. +10
          21 March 2019 20: 15
          Right now, as they introduce Old.
          Two programming schemes are used - a muzzle programmer or programming in the feed path.

          Functional diagram of a remote fuse installation system.
          1. +9
            21 March 2019 20: 19

            Muzzle brake with a muzzle velocity meter (1) and a programmator for detonating a projectile (2) for an Oerlikon 35/1000 gun
            The process of entering data on the time of undermining the projectile is as follows. The characteristics of the target’s movement are determined using a radar or laser range finder and transmitted to the fire control computer, where the distance to the target is calculated. The target data is sent to the electronics block of the fuse installer, where the measured muzzle velocity of the projectile is also transmitted.
            Muzzle velocity is determined using two induction coils 1 located at a distance of 10 cm from each other. When the first coil passes, the timer starts; when the second coil passes, the timer stops. Knowing the distance between the coils and the time of flight of the measuring base by the projectile, the actual velocity of the projectile is calculated. This data is fed into the computer of the fire control system. It calculates the time the projectile meets the target, taking into account the specific type of target, and with the help of the programmer transfers it to the projectile.
            A detailed article can be read at http://btvt.narod.ru/4/rarn_airburst.htm
            1. +4
              21 March 2019 21: 23
              Quote: Decimam
              Muzzle brake with a muzzle velocity meter (1) and a programmator for detonating a projectile (2) for an Oerlikon 35/1000 gun

              Quote: Decimam
              Muzzle brake with a muzzle velocity meter (1) and a programmator for detonating a projectile (2) for an Oerlikon 35/1000 gun

              A year ago, the early ones read another 90's in outfits about entering information in magazines, they considered me an idiot, a year ago I described the same thing, you can see from the history of my comments. no one believed.
          2. +2
            21 March 2019 20: 21
            Quote: Decimam
            Right now, as they introduce Old.

            So the rim on the barrel at 57 and 30 is not a Doppler sensor? For adjusting firing, this is a real sensor, induction for entering information, there are miles of seconds.
            This is probably already true - at the expense of the development of science.
            1. +4
              21 March 2019 20: 26
              At a muzzle velocity of the projectile of about 1050 m / s, the entire process of measuring the muzzle velocity, calculating and programming the projectile takes less than 0,002 seconds. Further, inside the projectile, data from the receiving coil is transmitted to a programmable electronic fuse.
              1. +1
                21 March 2019 20: 35
                Quote: Decimam
                At a muzzle velocity of the projectile of about 1050 m / s, the entire process of measuring the muzzle velocity, calculating and programming the projectile takes less than 0,002 seconds. Further, inside the projectile, data from the receiving coil is transmitted to a programmable electronic fuse.

                In short, as before, he wrote that the shell was blown up thanks to induction input at the initial stage. But people didn’t believe that the NORNIKO Chinese managed to make a subversive 30-programmable fuse. Although the whole idea came from the USSR.
                1. +4
                  21 March 2019 20: 41
                  Why only the Chinese?

                  30-mm shell AHEAD PMC308 company Rheinmetall.
                  1. +1
                    21 March 2019 20: 49
                    Quote: Decimam
                    30-mm shell AHEAD PMC308 company Rheinmetall.

                    So veiled, On our Barys-Mbomba 4x4, by the way, the Yuravans even had no plans for such a machine. For 3x3, BM is purely of our design, such a shell appeared.
                    1. +3
                      21 March 2019 21: 10
                      So you want to say that the Paramount Group has nothing to do with BARYS?
                      According to the projectile. The Rheinmetall 2A42 cannon has been making shells since the early 2000s.
                      1. +1
                        21 March 2019 21: 18
                        Quote: Decimam
                        So you want to say that the Paramount Group has nothing to do with BARYS?

                        Not really, it’s just that Paramountites were strained, in addition, the general public who completed the MTI on the Bolashakov program, yes, near Boston. We needed an 8x8 armored personnel carrier. Here we solved the problem.
                        By the way, Paramount Group transferred most of the design bureau to Kazakhstan.
                      2. +1
                        21 March 2019 21: 32
                        And who is left in Africa?
                      3. +2
                        21 March 2019 21: 40
                        Quote: Decimam
                        And who is left in Africa?

                        And FIG knows. Moto and auto tourists from South Africa often meet on our roads, but I am surprised.
                        By the way, along with the armored personnel carrier and BA, we are releasing hovercraft, two already in service.
                        here I wait when
                      4. +1
                        21 March 2019 22: 06
                        Paramount cooperates with more than 30 countries, in many it has branches and subsidiaries, for example - Paramount Aerospace Systems USA. So you do not have everything.
                      5. +1
                        21 March 2019 22: 15
                        Quote: Decimam
                        Paramount cooperates with more than 30 countries, in many it has branches and subsidiaries, for example - Paramount Aerospace Systems USA. So you do not have everything.

                        It is possible that not everything, by the way, at that plant, the Israeli Desert cats are being collected.
              2. 0
                21 March 2019 22: 27
                Quote: Decimam
                the entire process of measuring muzzle velocity, calculating and programming a projectile takes less than 0,002 seconds.

                You are an optimist :) The figure is unrealistically small even for today's computers. Well, even according to the muzzle brake scheme, it can be seen that in order to measure speed, the projectile must completely fly through the sensors, while it almost passes the master coil.

                I am sure that the processes listed by you went sequentially, since the gun is automatic. The first calculation and recording in the projectile according to tabular data and then the speed meter corrected the computer according to the actual speed.
                1. +6
                  21 March 2019 23: 00
                  This is not me an optimist. This is the department of SM-6 (Missile and pulse systems) MVTU Bauman.
                  The author of the article is an associate professor of this department, he defended the candidate's one on these devices. An article for publication was recommended by Professor Selivanov. If you are more competent in the matter, write an article, we are pleased to read it.
                  1. 0
                    21 March 2019 23: 06
                    Quote: Decimam
                    This is not me an optimist. This is the department of SM-6 (Missile and pulse systems) MVTU Bauman

                    Thanks a lot for the link to the article! Interesting stuff.

                    If speed calculation and programming were carried out in one cycle, the spread in the series would not be 5 meters as it is written there, but one to one. In addition, below, in the description of the 30 mm projectile, it is directly written that 0.002 seconds is the projectile programming time. Those. this is the time of one operation, recording the distance in the memory cell of the munition. Therefore, the programmer is so long, the shell just flies through it in these 0.002 seconds. And the calculation was obviously carried out in the previous cycle.
                    1. +3
                      21 March 2019 23: 12
                      Quote: Saxahorse
                      the scatter in the series would not be 5 meters as it says there, but one to one.

                      ?
                      It's impossible. There, in addition to deviating the initial speed, there are a bunch of errors.
                      1. 0
                        21 March 2019 23: 17
                        Most of these errors affect the initial speed. Well, do not forget that these are autocannon shells. Follow each other in 0.1 second. I can’t vouch for millimeters, but I’m sure that two shells will fit within a meter at perfectly the same initial speed. (or its instant calculation)
                      2. +2
                        21 March 2019 23: 45
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        Most of these errors affect the initial speed.

                        No.
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        Well, do not forget that these are autocannon shells. Follow each other in 0.1 second.

                        Exactly. For example, in such conditions, achieving absolute immobility of the barrel simply will not work.

                        ====
                        In general, to be honest, I don’t really understand why the speed of the shells in this case is to be measured Is that money from the military to slap.
                      3. 0
                        22 March 2019 00: 04
                        Quote: Spade
                        In general, to be honest, I don’t really understand why the speed of the shells in this case is to be measured Is that money from the military to slap.

                        You're not right. Read about Bushmeister accuracy for example for 2-3 km. It's about centimeters horizontally. And here we look at the accuracy along the length. The speed of the projectile continuously changes during the shooting and its measurement can improve accuracy several times not only for autocannons.

                        Even tanks have sensors for measuring the bending of the barrel from heating and for changing the velocity of the projectile from the same heating. Read something on this topic.
                    2. +2
                      21 March 2019 23: 27
                      The scatter will be anyway. The programming of the projectile is made according to it (this projectile velocity), and not according to the speed of the previous projectile.
                      By the way, 10 cm between the induction coils at a speed of 1050 m / s the projectile will fly for 0,000095 seconds.
                      1. 0
                        21 March 2019 23: 54
                        Quote: Decimam
                        By the way, 10 cm between the induction coils at a speed of 1050 m / s the projectile will fly for 0,000095 seconds.

                        I agree, this is 9.5x10 (-5) This is somewhere around 95 microseconds. Let's go on the other side. Recall the speed of recording devices. The write speed of a flash memory cell is tens to hundreds of microseconds. You need to write a few tens of bits. Just get a time of the order of 0.001-0.002 seconds.

                        Well, let me remind you that the article directly says "the programming speed of the projectile is 0.002 sec. We also have no time left for the calculation in the same cycle.
                      2. +2
                        22 March 2019 00: 01
                        The programming process includes measurements. But if you don’t have time for this, do not program. Artillery, I think, will not suffer.
                      3. 0
                        22 March 2019 00: 06
                        I'm afraid you did not understand how the system described in the article you mentioned works exactly.
                      4. +2
                        22 March 2019 00: 15
                        Do not be afraid, read Nasruddin, he has a similar case described.
    2. +6
      21 March 2019 21: 14
      Quote: marshes
      I’m still interested in how they introduce information on the detonation in ammunition, the earliest from 76 mm anti-aircraft artillery use remote detonation tubes.
      If the star was shown primarily, now it’s very interesting. And in what way.


      To begin with, it is worth distinguishing a fuse from a tube. The first gives a detonation, the second a sheaf of fire.
      The tubes are used to "activate" projectiles with various propellant expelling charges. Type of lighting, cluster and shells with GGE, they are also shrapnel.

      The installation of the tube is taken from the shooting tables for the calculated range. It is adjusted as well as range or direction.
      The settings are introduced mechanically by means of various kinds of keys, or with a special device (for the bourgeoisie so), the "installer" is engaged in this in the boxes. artillery, or a shell loader in self-propelled (including those of the bourgeoisie)
      Everything written below about automatic input does not apply to artillery
      1. 0
        21 March 2019 21: 28
        Quote: Spade
        To begin with, it is worth distinguishing a fuse from a tube.

        Agree that a year ago they talked about this. laughing
        How tired of being a dreamer, or rather describing the early information received, to explain what and how. And those big X lie, until others start using it. laughing
    3. 0
      22 March 2019 23: 23
      Handset 15, sight 120, bang bang - and by!

  2. +3
    21 March 2019 19: 08
    Now this type of projectile has become even smarter, manageable, programmable! Man does not show a healthy imagination inventing ways to destroy everyone and everything!
    In general, it is SCARY.
  3. +1
    21 March 2019 19: 12
    "The projectile that changed the artillery" - how? - and why did they abandon it? - so as not to change the artillery? laughing
    1. +2
      21 March 2019 20: 20
      Quote: Bone1
      -and why did they refuse it? -not to change artillery?

      Now they don’t want to attack in columns.
      1. +2
        21 March 2019 20: 47
        The affected area shrapnel about 10 times more than a fragmentation shell, including for manpower that has not been entrenched (even if it doesn’t move in columns) - very effective, and for anti-aircraft guns too
        1. +2
          21 March 2019 20: 51
          Quote: Bone1
          very effective, and for anti-aircraft guns too

          So in the anti-aircraft art shrapnel remained. And the principle of shrapnel and went into air defense missiles.
          1. +1
            21 March 2019 20: 54
            And who used shrapnel in anti-aircraft artillery in 2MB? -To shells and warheads of missiles with ready-to-use striking elements returned years to 70m.
            1. 0
              21 March 2019 20: 58
              Quote: Bone1
              to shells and warheads of missiles with ready-to-use striking elements returned years to 70m.

              Everything new is well forgotten old. request But shrapnel is almost useless on the battlefield.
              1. +2
                21 March 2019 21: 18
                Quote: Ingvar 72
                But shrapnel is almost useless on the battlefield.

                The "umbrella" created by shells with GGE allows you to almost completely protect attacking tanks.
                Any uncle with a grenade launcher who tries to pop out in order to shoot a tank will turn into a hedgehog
                1. +1
                  21 March 2019 21: 31
                  Quote: Spade
                  Any uncle with a grenade launcher who tries to pop out in order to shoot a tank will turn into a hedgehog

                  You for me are of course the authority in the field of art, but they are no longer fighting against tanks in the field with RPGs. wink But ATGM range have a mother do not worry, and to calculate the calculation of ATGM at this distance, and to cover it with shells with GGE is almost impossible. request
                  1. +3
                    21 March 2019 21: 35
                    Quote: Ingvar 72
                    You for me are of course the authority in the field of art, but they are no longer fighting against tanks in the field with RPGs.

                    I do not like the RPG-ATGM "arrow" GGE is capable of hitting with the same success As the ATGM installation itself

                    Quote: Ingvar 72
                    and calculate the ATGM calculation at this distance

                    Why calculate it? It is enough to conduct methodological fire on the enemy’s positions until the dismounted infantry engages in their cleaning.
    2. +3
      21 March 2019 21: 27
      Versatility is preferable.
      A high-explosive fragmentation projectile on air gaps is not much less effective in defeating an "open-air". But at the same time, such a projectile is much, much more versatile.

      However, shells with GGE from the BC did not seem to be excluded ... Despite the "universal" somersaults under Gorbachev-Yeltsin.
      They are especially good at self-defense fire
      1. 0
        21 March 2019 21: 59
        And you compare the affected area of ​​the HE shell and shrapnel, and after the assessment, let's.
        1. +2
          21 March 2019 23: 00
          Quote: Bone1
          And you compare the affected area of ​​the HE shell and shrapnel

          8))))
          Which one? I mean, from the "affected areas" 8))))
          1. 0
            21 March 2019 23: 10
            laughing -yes no difference, the main thing is that the same
            1. +2
              21 March 2019 23: 39
              Quote: Bone1
              Yes, no difference, the main thing is that the same

              Well, let's compare 8))))
              Give the numbers ...
    3. +1
      22 March 2019 11: 15
      Quote: Bone1
      The projectile that changed the artillery "- how? - and why did they abandon it? - so as not to change the artillery?

      I agree with you! This title is "bullshit" in its essence! Shrapnel did not change the artillery (absolutely!), But only added ...
  4. +7
    21 March 2019 19: 42
    In the concentration of troops, shrapnel shells from 75 mm guns were fired, 4 guns of his battery were fired in the total of 16 shots. The result of the shelling, which caught the enemy at the time of perestroika from marching into battle formations, was disastrous for the Germans. As a result of the artillery strike, the 21st Prussian Dragoon Regiment lost only 700 killed and about the same number of trained horses, after such an attack the regiment ceased to be a combat unit.
    Don’t go to a fortuneteller, and the Germans either were rebuilding in a place shot by the French, or near the landmark on the fire cards of the French battalion commander, and he did not miss such a gift. Four volleys, no sighting and cover the first time. A minute and no cavalry regiment, and yet his commander was probably taught to be wary of places with objects clearly visible and marked on maps ... Survivors of that meat grinder must have dreamed for the rest of their lives .. Respect to the author for an excellent article and an interesting topic.
  5. +10
    21 March 2019 19: 47
    Until 1852, the application of the Shrapnel invention was associated with significant risk. The friction between the powder explosive charge and the firing bullets under the influence of acceleration during firing led to the rupture of the buckshot in the gun barrel.

    The problem was solved in 1852 by Colonel Boxer. He proposed to separate the bullet cartridges from the bursting charge with a diaphragm, as well as fix the bullet cartridges by pouring resin, which prevented their deformation.
    1. +1
      21 March 2019 22: 21
      Quote: Decimam
      The friction between the powder explosive charge and the firing bullets under the influence of acceleration during firing led to the rupture of the buckshot in the gun barrel.

      Not friction of course, but the detonation of a grain of gunpowder in the event of a successful hit of this grain between shrapnel bullets at the time of the shot.
      1. +1
        21 March 2019 22: 48
        Original - problem that friction between the shot and black powder.
        With regard to shock sensitivity, when a load of 10 kg falls from a height of more than 45 cm, a powder explosion occurs; at a drop height below 35 cm, an explosion does not occur. The harder the impacting parts, the easier the explosion is the easiest - when steel hits steel, then brass on iron, harder when copper hits bronze and bronze on wood. Could shrapnel bullets in the event of collision provide the appropriate energy - must be considered, but for this we need the appropriate data.
        1. 0
          21 March 2019 22: 53
          Quote: Decimam
          Could shrapnel bullets in the event of collision provide the appropriate energy - must be considered, but for this we need the appropriate data.

          Could. This was also written by Nilus that the Spanish officers conducted experiments by firing a pistol into gunpowder bags. Make sure that regularly undermines. The same problems were with grenade grenades then. The cannon itself sets the impulse here and it is enough for one grain to be between the bullet and the shell of the bomb, as there is a high risk of detonation.
    2. +1
      22 March 2019 11: 10
      And after the "recommendation" to fill buckshot bullets with "compound", they still continued to use shrapnel "without filling"!
  6. +2
    21 March 2019 22: 19
    Good article. Thank!

    It is interesting that today interest in shrapnel partially returns, albeit under a different name. Programmable undermining shells :)

    And yes, I agree with previous commentators, for so long with the introduction of his invention, Henry Shrapnel was tormented by numerous cases of premature projectile detonation in the barrel. As a result, the risks were considered moderate and justified by a qualitative strengthening of the role of art.
  7. +1
    22 March 2019 07: 10
    started to create a new artillery ammunition in the late XIX century
    - typo, all the same 17 ** years is the end of the 18 century ... hi
  8. +3
    22 March 2019 08: 49
    I know the breeches, French, Reglan, I found out about Shrapnel, thanks!
    1. 0
      22 March 2019 23: 29
      There is also a Cardigan.

      laughing
  9. +1
    22 March 2019 11: 29
    It is believed that Henry Shrapnel did not invent shrapnel! He simply "met" a used, but little-known "construction" ... "imbued" with it ... and began to "propagate" it! If you look at the "nomenclature" of artillery ammunition of the Russian army of the 1st half of the 19th century, then there is no name "shrapnel", but there is the name "grape-grenades" ...
    1. +1
      22 March 2019 12: 43
      Give a link to the source of the ammunition list of the Russian army in the first half of the XNUMXth century.
      1. +2
        22 March 2019 14: 40
        The magazine "Tekhnika-Molodyozhi" once had a very good description of the history of the development of Russian artillery and ammunition ... dig for yourself ... I'm lazy! By the way, in my opinion, there was also a "picture" of "cluster" bombs ... that is, bombs stuffed with "small" grenades, like buckshot ... In the meantime, have a snack with this ...
        Card grenades
        In 1800, the Swede Neumann invented the so-called grenade grenade (stuffed with canister), in 1803, the Englishman Shrapnel invented the grenade-type grenade, which came into general use and was named after him; however, Mention of grenades, filled with bullets, are already known in the XVII century.
        1. +1
          22 March 2019 14: 49
          No, Vladimir, not accepted.
          If you look at the "nomenclature" of artillery ammunition of the Russian army of the 1st half of the 19th century, then there is no name "shrapnel" - Your words?
          "Technology for youth" is not a source here.
          1. +1
            22 March 2019 16: 49
            Well, what source do you need? After all, the same authors are "published" in the magazines "Technology-Youth", "Science and Technology", "Technology and Armament" ... and on the VO website! Well, if you really need (!). then wait! It's already night for me, and it's high time to get off the computer ... Tomorrow we'll see! wink
          2. +3
            23 March 2019 06: 51
            New was also the introduction to 1840.grenade grenades. This projectile differed from an ordinary grenade in that in its body, besides the explosive composition, there were bullets {89}. Essentially a grenade grenade was the first fragmentation shell with ready-made fragments. Of great interest is that[the idea of ​​such a projectile was given in the XVII century by Onisim Mikhailov, the author of the “Charter of military and cannon affairs” [73]. The 364 article of this “Charter” stated that the shells were stuffed with gunpowder and “faceted iron shot”, and the ratio of gunpowder and iron fragments was also indicated: “by handful of shot per pound of gunpowder”. In the first half of the XIX century was introduced, a grenade canister, each bullet of which was a small grenade with a pipe. Buckshot had a great damaging effect. "Equipment and weapons" Denisov AP
            1. +1
              23 March 2019 11: 12
              Yeah, that's the source. Thank. Good book. But still, 1840 is much later after Shrapnel.
              And Denisov is also sometimes mistaken. Not bullets, hand grenades.
              Pomegranate buckshot - is an iron cylinder filled with spherical 3-fn. grenades and assigned for firing from smooth mortars, we have 2- and 5-poods. When fired, the tubes inserted in the grenade glasses light up, the grenades fly apart and explode at a certain distance from the guns.
              Wessel, Egor Khristianovich. Notes on artillery: to guide officers studying at the Artillery School / comp. Wessel. - SPb. : A type. Headquarters Sep. internal guard corps, 1830. Part II p. 80-81. By the way - I recommend. Very high quality source.
              As for the proposal of Onisim Mikhailov, then yes, Art. 364 describes in great detail the process of equipping the kernel "which spun". But here we must not forget that the "Charter" is a selection from "Foreign War Books", compiled by Mikhailov on the orders of Shuisky.
              1. +2
                23 March 2019 14: 04
                Quote: Decimam
                And Denisov is also mistaken sometimes. Not bullets, but hand grenades.

                Denisov not that he was mistaken, but put it “tongue-tied”! He wanted to say that, as in the usual buckshot-bullet, in the grenade "buckshot" -grenades!
                Quote: Decimam
                But still 1840 year - it is much after Shrapnel later.

                This means that buckshot grenades (Russian name ...) "of the Shrapnel type (and)" (!) Were "legalized" (officially introduced into the "nomenclature" ....) in 1840.
                By the way, thanks for the info about the book! I really need it, because. some time ago I had problems with the archive (somewhere about half of the archive disappeared ...) Now I am trying, using my memories as "reference points", to restore information. (Unfortunately, I also ran into such a situation when the information that was once downloaded is not currently available on the Internet ... in any case, I cannot find it again.) Now I also need to solve such problems as the lack of notifications about responses to comment ... I can not "normally" read messages sent to the "PM" ... hi
    2. +1
      22 March 2019 21: 37
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      If you look at the "nomenclature" of artillery ammunition of the Russian army of the 1st half of the 19th century, then there is no name "shrapnel", but there is the name "grape-grenades" ...

      A card grenade is another munition. No remote handset i.e. there is no possibility of programmable detonation. And by the way, the problems are exactly the same, breaks in the trunk. For the same reason, they were practically not used until the middle of the 19th century. Although the very idea of ​​ready-made striking elements was worn for a long time.
      1. +1
        23 March 2019 06: 57
        Quote: Saxahorse
        A grenade is another ammunition. There is no distance tube, i.e. no programmable feature

        Deep wrong! All grenades and bombs of the time were equipped grenade tubeswhich were kind remote tubes!
  10. +3
    22 March 2019 18: 05
    Attack of the light cavalry brigade under the fire of Russian artillery

    Uv. The author, do not be offended, but the above screen shows a painting by Lady Elizabeth Thompson (and, perhaps, her most famous work) "Scotland Forever!" cavalry at the Battle of Waterloo, wonderfully quoted, more precisely embodied on a wide screen by Sergei Bondarchuk.
    From SW. hi
    PS
    Thank you for the work done and the material communicated! fellow
  11. 0
    22 March 2019 23: 27
    Then - shrapnel. Today - cluster munitions.
    1. +1
      23 March 2019 15: 15
      Quote: Horse, lyudovѣd and soulѣlyub
      Then - shrapnel. Today - cluster munitions.

      No, not that ... "then" shrapnel - "today's" fragmentation-beam shells, shells with ready-made fragments ... "Today's" cluster munitions can be compared, to some extent, with grenade "buckshot" 1st half of the 19th century