Fiery expense. Shooting hunger - a universal disaster

84
Let us conclude the discussion on the expenditure of artillery ammunition by French and German artillery during the First World War, begun in the previous article of the cycle (see Fiery expense. Should there be economical artillery?)

Russian-Japanese War Experience


It is interesting how the experience of the Russo-Japanese War 1904 — 1905 was used. the Germans, the French and the Russians regarding the consumption of ammunition in a general arms battle.



The large consumption of munitions of rapid-fire artillery among the Russians was recognized as nothing more than an abuse that had to be dealt with in every way. During the First World Limit (for objective reasons) the amount of ammunition in Russian field artillery, on the one hand, became a very important factor for increasing the effectiveness of the latter (accuracy, the latest methods of shooting and firing, advanced tactics to some extent compensated for the lack of ammunition) but, on the other hand, they had a very negative effect on the effectiveness of a number of important combat operations that required more abundant artillery support.

And the French and especially the Germans saw this as a new factor in their strength - and they took all measures to ensure that this expenditure was as intense as possible at the right moments of the war.


Hurricane artillery fire


The power consumption of ammunition did not mean wasting them. The Germans, as a rule, did not spare artillery ammunition - and a hurricane of fire affected the fate of many battles. They did not skimp on the shells (in order to immediately fall asleep the enemy), but fired such shots for a very short time (maximum a few hours) - and then immediately exploited its result, conducting a decisive attack. Condensing the power of artillery defeat in time, the Germans used their powerful and heavily supplied ammunition artillery to achieve tactical surprise. This method was vividly highlighted during the spring offensive of 1918.

When preparing for this offensive, the Germans do not set themselves the goal of systematic destruction and destruction, but want to force the enemy to go into closure - in order to paralyze his defense. They open shooting immediately to defeat, without zeroing, reaching surprise.

But where a special methodic of shooting is needed, as in the shallow of protective curtains, they lead it with remarkable methodicalness.

Almost until the end of the war, the French did not adhere to such a reasonable economy in wasting ammunition: they sought complete destruction of fortifications and wire barriers, preparing the terrain for “mastering” - and often without carrying out the latter. This caused many days of artillery shooting and, consequently, a large waste of ammunition, not completely and not always productive.

In preparing the 1916 breakout, the French artillery even went beyond what was really necessary: ​​it completely destroyed not only the enemy’s defenses, but all the paths and passages through which it was possible to penetrate enemy positions — which made it difficult for the enemy to attack captured terrain, reduced heavy artillery in a chaotic state, could not for some time to establish a connection, or to arrange their artillery ammunition).

Such a system was abandoned by the French only at the end of the war, expressing this in a directive issued by the Supreme Commander from 12 July 1918.

Unproductive waste of ammunition was in the hands of the enemy - and therefore in World War I special measures were taken to involve the enemy in such expenses. Among these measures: the organization of false batteries, towers, observation points, etc. All this was widely used by all parties to the conflict.

Manufacture and delivery of ammunition to the troops


"Snuffy hunger" touched all opponents - but each in its own time period. And each overcame him in his own way.

France launched a war with a large ammunition: for every 75-mm gun there were 1500 shots. But immediately after the battle on Marne 1914 (early September), there was a lack of ammunition for these guns — that is, after 35 — 40 days from the announcement of mobilization and only three weeks after the start of large-scale hostilities.

Already, by virtue of this alone, we had to resort to using the tools of the old models (the Banja system) - after all, they had the same stock of ammunition as the 75-mm guns (for 1500 shots). Only then did the French manage to disguise the shortage of ammunition for 75-mm guns.


Banja's 120-mm gun in position. Pataj S. Artyleria ladowa 1881-1970. W., 1975.


At the same time, the Germans also felt the lack of ammunition, which, according to Gascuen, was the main reason for their decision to retreat from the Marne.

The French in 1915 felt such a lack of ammunition that they considered it necessary to resort to using even old-style cast iron grenades for Banja guns.

And although almost from the very beginning of the war, the French launched mass production of ammunition, but in the first months of the war they could produce no more than 20000 gun shells per day. At the beginning of 1915, they tried to increase this number, bringing it to 50000 per day. Production was significantly expanded, which attracted not only factories that had previously manufactured completely different items (moreover, in April 1915, most of the factory workers who had been called up for mobilization were returned to the enterprises), but wider tolerances were also allowed. . e. weakened requirements for acceptance of products. The last circumstance had sad consequences - the gun barrels began to wear out quickly and, in large numbers, tear.

It is noteworthy that at a time when the French found it possible to allow a deterioration in the manufacture of their shells, the Germans, who had shells at the beginning of the war, had worse quality than the French (both in material and workmanship) began to improve with 1915. and material, and dressing.

After the sad results of 1915, which led to a massive rupture of the barrels of 75-mm guns, the French turned to making shells for these guns from the best steel, and also paid attention to dimensional accuracy. And in 1916, the massive rupture of the trunks stopped. At the beginning of the same year, the number of daily manufactured ammunition (and without compromising quality) increased significantly - shells for 75-mm guns were made using 150000 per day. And in 1917 - 1918. volumes climbed to 200000 per day.

In the second half of 1918, ammunition (charges and projectiles) for guns of all calibers were produced daily in quantities of total weight 4000 - 5000 tons, which, as we previously indicated, was on the verge of daily demand (the same 4000 - 5000 tons).

But from the 2 half of 1918, the quality of both the projectiles and explosive compositions deteriorated again. As we noted earlier, the percentage of shrapnel (making shrapnel was more time-consuming compared to a high-explosive grenade) in a field gun ammunition in 1918, compared with 1914, decreased from 50 to 10% - this is despite the fact that shrapnel became again, they are just as necessary as in 1914. After all, in the last military campaign, maneuverable hostilities re-launched - when artillery had to act, mainly, not by closures, but by live targets.

The supply of ammunition is not only in their manufacture. Ammunition must also be delivered to the guns - i.e., by train, and from the latter by truck or horse. If the supply is not sufficiently powerful, even with an abundance of reserves at the bases, the supply of ammunition will not correspond to the level of requests for combat flow.

Gascuen argues that the shells of the French 75-mm cannon were too bulky, heavy and uncomplicated - and therefore for transporting them, both by railways and trucks, then by charging boxes, the unproductive consumption of vehicles was present. The same applied to the ammunition of all the guns of the flat trajectory of fire, as well as to the ammunition of the guns of large caliber.

Moreover, the specialist even defended the need to abandon too much flatness of shooting (less weight of the charge - shorter and lighter projectile), and large caliber, which was relevant for periods of maneuvering war, giving greater effectiveness of destruction (after all, artillery had to hit outside serious closures).
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

84 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +8
    26 May 2019 18: 19
    Interesting photos, plus a clear intrigue. I look forward to continuing.
    1. +13
      26 May 2019 18: 21
      Plus a very informative text. Comparative analysis.
      In the French and Germans everything is visible, probably it will be in ours? Well, I'm also looking forward to continuing.
      We will wait together
  2. +8
    26 May 2019 18: 23
    Interesting trends, for example, on the quality of ammunition.
    and how the French got out of the situation of shell hunger. its own specifics everywhere)
  3. -4
    26 May 2019 18: 35
    In the first picture, for some reason the "hurricane fire" is being fired by shrapnel, although no advancing infantry is observed.
    Apparently, the wife of the division commander has a birthday and the hubby decided to salute on this occasion.
    At public expense.
    1. +3
      26 May 2019 18: 45
      An explosion of shrapnel over the trenches can also ruin your appetite. Kartechin in soup, etc.
      1. 0
        26 May 2019 21: 09
        Quote: Ken71
        Blast shrapnel over trenches

        Such shooting was very often used. The infantry was forced to react, digging special deep trenches (much deeper than human growth) and arranging special anti-shrapnel visors.

        1. +2
          27 May 2019 00: 42
          and arranging special anti-shrapnel visors.

          decided to write after I mentioned the visors?
          right after 3 minutes) Everything in the case stuck, bravo)
          then an article in the topic
          https://topwar.ru/147700-ne-tolko-kepki-imejut-kozyrki.html
          1. -5
            27 May 2019 08: 58
            Quote: Albatroz
            right after 3 minutes) Everything in the case stuck, bravo)

            eight)))))))))))))))))))))))))
            I could not read your dregs in such a time, find the picture, save it to the computer and upload it to the site, well, and type your post.

            So "hedgehog, exhale" (c)
            laughing
            1. +2
              27 May 2019 09: 03
              And I'm not talking about the picture and did not write)))))))))))))))))
              you heard my thought - and immediately rushed to exploit it, to build yourself a specialist and a discoverer. I about it)))))
              1. -5
                27 May 2019 09: 24
                Quote: Albatroz
                you heard my thought - and immediately rushed to exploit it

                That is, in three minutes I managed to find the correct name for the aforementioned "visor", by this correct name to find a suitable picture, and insert it. Yes, and a post to dial. Yes, I'm cool ... 8))))))))))))))))))
                Hedgehog, exhale (s) laughing
                1. +3
                  27 May 2019 09: 25
                  Well, so you live on this site, your brainchild, and all the equipment is at hand
                  therefore, in this case there is nothing surprising)))))))))))
                  1. -4
                    27 May 2019 09: 31
                    Dear, for this you need to have a direct connection of the brain to Google.
                    So let’s do it, you have three minutes, and here should be an image of the niche in which they hid from shrapnel.
                    The time has gone.
                    1. +3
                      27 May 2019 09: 33
                      I don't care much about your teams
                      and your brain is connected directly to VO, therefore, I repeat, this is not surprising
                      1. -5
                        27 May 2019 09: 36
                        The time has passed. You made yourself a person who is not responsible for your words
                      2. +3
                        27 May 2019 09: 37
                        Time has passed

                        I repeat - command your body parts
                        You made yourself a person who is not responsible for your words

                        with what fright? it is you who put yourself as such. And more than once by the way
                      3. -4
                        27 May 2019 09: 43
                        Quote: Albatroz
                        with what fright?

                        You said that in three minutes I managed to read your post, read Ken71's post, find the correct name for the "visor", find a picture by this name, write your post and insert this picture into it ..

                        I objected that this was impossible for such a time, but you persisted. Then I suggested that at the same time you do at least part — find an image of the abusive niche. You could not do it.

                        What made themselves appear to be a person who is not responsible for their words and, moreover, prone to unfounded accusations.
                      4. +2
                        27 May 2019 09: 47
                        Yes, you did all this quickly. Especially since you justify yourself for so long.))))))
                        Trying to reason something like
                        I objected that this was impossible for such a time, but you persisted. Then I suggested that at the same time you do at least part — find an image of the abusive niche. You could not do it

                        only your suggestions do not bother me much.
                        and the fact that I did not fall for your stupid and childishly naive offers to find something there does not mean that
                        put themselves up as a person not responsible for their words and also prone to unfounded accusations

                        it only means that the shovel's couch is twisted and justified as a child in kindergarten
                      5. -5
                        27 May 2019 10: 11
                        Quote: Albatroz
                        Yes, you did all this quickly.

                        That is, you continue to persist in your unfounded accusation?

                        Quote: Albatroz
                        only your suggestions do not bother me much.

                        Naturally. Because you cannot answer for your words.

                        Quote: Albatroz
                        it only means that the shovel's couch is twisted and justified as a child in kindergarten

                        laughing
                        "I can jump to the moon." "So jump up." "I don't want to now"

                        In short, you got caught hot. Verbal allegations, inability to answer for their words.

                        It was not I who accused you, you accused me. And when I suggested that you repeat what you ascribe to me, you immediately began to play around like a snake in a frying pan. The "reasoning" is just fine

                        Quote: Albatroz
                        I don't care much about your teams

                        Quote: Albatroz
                        I repeat - command your body parts

                        Quote: Albatroz
                        only your suggestions do not bother me much.
                        and the fact that I did not fall for your stupid and childishly naive sentences


                        And then they completely accused me of my own inability to confirm my words with deed

                        Quote: Albatroz
                        it only means that the shovel's couch is twisted and justified as a child in kindergarten
                      6. +2
                        27 May 2019 10: 17
                        You can only talk about business.
                        Build fabrications and draw thoughtful conclusions from them.
                        Better shpa-murzik answer my specific question below - regarding the nature of your numbers))))
                      7. -3
                        27 May 2019 10: 40
                        Quote: Albatroz
                        You can only talk about business.

                        Oh how ....
                        How unfounded to accuse me, so "in the case", how to answer for these words, already "not in the case."

                        Do you demand indulgences for self-indulgence, any of your words must be taken on faith, and any demands to confirm them must be recognized as "idle talk"?

                        Quote: Albatroz
                        Better shpa-murzik answer my specific question below - regarding the nature of your numbers))))

                        Now, you have already reached direct insults.
                        But it doesn’t matter. I see you are trying to apply the next method of evasion, an attempt to transfer the conversation to other topics. Despite the fact that I have already answered this question on a branch.
                        ==========================

                        So, are you going to confirm your accusations against me?

                        Let me remind you that you must confirm by deed that in three minutes it is possible to read two other people's messages, find the correct name for the "visor", find a picture by this correct name, then write your message and insert the found picture into it.
                        Or you repeat this result in time. Or admit your charge unfounded.
                        And I won’t let you chat.
                      8. +6
                        27 May 2019 14: 25
                        no no respected
                        you did not answer the question: regarding the nature of your numbers regarding French artillery shells.
                        It turned out that this was not Etienne, but just the balabolstvo shovel.
                        and since we saw the unscrupulousness of Lopatov in this matter - the price is worthless and all the rest of his opuses
                      9. -7
                        27 May 2019 19: 22
                        Quote: Albatroz
                        no no respected
                        you did not answer the question: regarding the nature of your numbers

                        Are you going to confirm your accusations against me?

                        Quote: Albatroz
                        It turned out that this is not Etienne

                        8))))))))))))))))
                        Yeah. And I wrote to you about this 4 (four) times. It came to you for a long time ...
                      10. 0
                        5 July 2019 10: 09
                        You are not respected in kindergarten, that would be measured by ambitions, stop.
    2. +2
      26 May 2019 19: 20
      In the first picture, the combined fire: shrapnel (clouds in the air) / high-explosive grenade (explosions of shells on the ground)
      1. -3
        26 May 2019 20: 30
        Quote: Albatroz
        In the first picture, the combined fire: shrapnel (clouds in the air) / high-explosive grenade (explosions of shells on the ground)

        Do not be clever, just part of the shrapnel works on the ground. Due to imperfection of the tubes. By the way, to this day, only a radio fuse can give an almost identical gap height. Because he is popular despite the super-expensive
        "Combined fire ...." wassat
        1. +2
          26 May 2019 20: 36
          Nothing works here. It hurts a lot of positives)))
          A normal person sees that shrapnel and high-explosive shells are used.
          That is why the picture is called not "shrapnel fire", but "hurricane fire" - a combination.
          Yes, and what shrapnel against dugouts a few rolls, and a connoisseur?))) In quotation marks naturally))
          1. -5
            26 May 2019 21: 02
            Quote: Albatroz
            Therefore, the picture is called not "shrapnel fire", but "hurricane fire"

            This five! wassat
            Now I will know what the agitprop expression "hurricane fire" really means

            Quote: Albatroz
            A normal person sees that shrapnel and high-explosive shells are used.

            A normal person would look at the characteristic emissions of the earth, which in no way resembled shell explosions. Very characteristic tilted ...

            In short, "pecks" in their purest form. Of which up to 25% were allowed.

            Quote: Albatroz
            Yes, and what shrapnel against dugouts a few rolls, and a connoisseur?)))

            Are you aware that even tanks were shot with shrapnel, "expert"?
            1. +2
              26 May 2019 21: 06
              A normal person would look at the characteristic emissions of the earth, which in no way resembled shell explosions. Very characteristic tilted

              Oh really)))
              what other pecks, we see a series of explosions of high-explosive shells.
              Are you aware that even tanks were shot with shrapnel, "expert"?

              on tanks from which they just didn’t shoot. even from rifles along the viewing slots, so what?))
              but against durable closures shrapnel is useless, and even against a trench equipped with a visor. Here, completely different ammunition was used.
              1. -4
                26 May 2019 21: 18
                Quote: Albatroz
                what other pecks

                So from the time of the First World War they called ground-based firing / detonation of a projectile with a remote fuse / tube

                Quote: Albatroz
                a series of high-explosive shell explosions

                Here we just do not see them

                Quote: Albatroz
                on tanks from which they just didn’t shoot. even from rifles along the viewing slots, so what?))

                The Shooting Rules of 1942 consider firing shrapnel shells at tanks effective at ranges up to 300 meters. I do not think that you can be so authoritative that you can refute their real experience.
                1. +1
                  26 May 2019 21: 20
                  We see precisely a series of explosions of HEAM shells, do not try to pull an owl on a globe
                  The Shooting Rules of 1942 consider firing shrapnel shells at tanks effective at ranges up to 300 meters. I do not think that you can be so authoritative that you can refute their real experience.

                  I am not interested, and out of place.
                  but to the place this
                  against durable closures, shrapnel is useless, and even against a trench equipped with a visor. Here, completely different ammunition was used.
                  1. +5
                    26 May 2019 21: 23
                    if you understand the shovels then what I wrote above - to fight with tanks that just did not apply)))
                    and this experience is not applicable to the typology of ammunition designed to deal with wood-earthen and concrete closures
                  2. -4
                    26 May 2019 21: 32
                    Quote: Albatroz
                    We see precisely a series of HEAT shells explosions

                    And for some reason, without characteristic puffs of smoke caused by detonation products
                    One ejection of earth and fragments ....
                    But then what then? Super high-explosive shell?


                    Quote: Albatroz
                    I am not interested, and out of place.

                    The kitten is also not interested when it is dipped into a puddle. For the sake of education.
                    1. +3
                      26 May 2019 21: 35
                      And for some reason, without characteristic puffs of smoke caused by detonation products
                      One ejection of earth and splinters

                      powerful argument laughing the wind blew smoke
                      The kitten is also not interested when it is dipped into a puddle. For the sake of education.

                      kitten are you?
                      it is you who need to be educated)) draw completely inappropriate analogies
                      1. -2
                        26 May 2019 21: 58
                        Quote: Albatroz
                        powerful argument blows the smoke away

                        Naturally powerful, HE shell rupture has a very characteristic appearance

                        Quote: Albatroz
                        kitten are you?
                        it is you who need to be educated)) draw completely inappropriate analogies

                        Did I just start talking about "hurricane fire", which supposedly means some kind of "combined"?

                        Here one of the two, or ordinary trenches, then used shrapnel. Or PF on rebounds. It was in World War I that they began.
                        Or are these deep trenches with visors, ceilings, under-niche niches and the like. Then the first volley of firing raids fragmentation, then a series of runaway fire with the installation of the fuse on the HE

                        No one toiled at the foolishness in the form of some kind of "combined", it must be considered separately for shooting, separately shoot, separately to control the shooting to kill. In fact, the simultaneous firing of two different targets. This is despite the fact that hitting targets with shrapnel is a complex bardzo thing that requires zeroing in not only the range / direction, but also the height of the gap.

                        In short, there were no fools who removed tonsils through the ass just so that the Expert would invent some kind of "combined" lights in 100 years.
                      2. +2
                        27 May 2019 00: 37
                        The illustration is clearly a combined fire.
                        Shrapnel and pomegranates.
                        Here one of the two, or ordinary trenches, then used shrapnel. Or PF on rebounds. It was in World War I that they began.
                        Or are these deep trenches with visors, ceilings, under-niche niches and the like. Then the first volley of firing raids fragmentation, then a series of runaway fire with the installation of the fuse on the HE
                        No one toiled at the foolishness in the form of some kind of "combined", it must be considered separately for shooting, separately shoot, separately to control the shooting to kill. In fact, the simultaneous firing of two different targets. This is despite the fact that hitting targets with shrapnel is a complex bardzo thing that requires zeroing in not only the range / direction, but also the height of the gap.

                        My God, what a kookie you are!)) This is so that for the artilleryman to pass you need such reasoning. Cool))))
                        And why can not you use shrapnel and grenades in the same battle?)) Just different batteries. Or a platoon within the same battery. Have you ever read the memoirs of artillery officers, for example, to thoughtfully utter invented truths?))
                        even as possible and used. In one battle - and shrapnel, and grenades. Learn the story.
                        Yes, and carefully study the illustration.
                        In short, there were no fools who removed tonsils through the ass just so that the Expert would invent some kind of "combined" lights in 100 years.

                        this is a question for you, under the expert you mow more and more. groundlessly
                      3. -8
                        27 May 2019 08: 52
                        Quote: Albatroz
                        In one battle - and shrapnel, and grenades. Learn the story.

                        Naturally. Only for different purposes, and not vice versa.
                        Once again, for experts. The different ballistics of HE and shrapnel rounds meant that it was necessary to count the settings separately for each projectile. Then shoot one target at the same time with two types of shells - that is, two zeroing. Then control of shooting to kill simultaneously with two shells. That is, at the same time trying to distinguish between the sign (near-flights from the center of the target) for the office and for the shrapnel, moreover, for the shrapnel, the number of air gaps and "pecks" in order to correct the height of the gaps.
                        In short, a giant, but unnecessary work.

                        Once again, to make it extremely simple for you personally.
                        It is necessary to change the angle of elevation of the guns, direction, response time of the remote tube to ensure that the shrapnel rupture occurs over the target and at the optimum height. As well as changing the elevation angle of the guns and the direction to ensure that most HE shells.
                        And all this at the same time, with the participation of one person. And all in order to shell the target with shells that do not make sense to use one target.

                        Quote: Albatroz
                        My God, what a kookie you are!)) This is so that for the artilleryman to pass you need such reasoning. Cool))))

                        That is, your knowledge was not enough to understand what I mean. I tried above to explain easier for you personally

                        Quote: Albatroz
                        under the expert you mow more and more. groundlessly

                        Definitely not an expert. An expert is able to explain to anyone. But I just could not find the words available to you.

                        Quote: Albatroz
                        Shrapnel and pomegranates.

                        Shrapnel. Air bursts and "dives", that is, ground triggers.
                        The "peck" of shrapnel looks like a point-blank shot from a shotgun into the ground. Therefore, in the picture, the soil emissions have such a characteristic slope
                      4. +5
                        27 May 2019 08: 56
                        There is only one answer to your verbosity - learn history.
                        and then you will find out that for one target (or section) one battery could fire with shrapnel, and the other with grenades. The testimonies of the artillerymen of those years and the participants in the battles are the best argument.
                        Unlike you - they are experts)
                      5. -5
                        27 May 2019 09: 15
                        Quote: Albatroz
                        There is only one answer to your verbosity - learn history.

                        That is, it’s still not clear? Sadly

                        Quote: Albatroz
                        and then you will find out that for one target (or section) one battery could fire with shrapnel, and the other with grenades.

                        Dear, you probably have never in your life seen real artillery shooting. Shooting with two batteries in one section is possible only in one case, when one person rules the firing, the division commander.
                        Otherwise, none of the batteries will be able to carry out the adjustment and carry out corrections during the shooting to kill

                        Quote: Albatroz
                        The testimonies of the artillerymen of those years and the participants in the battles are the best argument.

                        Oh, the evidence ... And let’s not be unfounded, and bring them, these "evidence" 8))))
                        Moreover, the "combined" shells of this particular year are almost identical in action. That is, "combinations" involving smoke, chemical and incendiary are not accepted
                      6. +4
                        27 May 2019 09: 20
                        Dear, you probably have never in your life seen real artillery shooting. Shooting with two batteries in one section is possible only in one case, when one person rules the firing, the division commander.

                        you saw a lot)))
                        even as possible, such shooting
                        Oh, testimonies ... But let’s not be unfounded, and bring them, these "testimonies"

                        Of course I’ll give you the time I said. After you provide Etienne's information (part 1 of the article) about the consumption of French ammunition in WWI. you quoted the numbers there.
                        So that we can see that these are the figures of Etienne, and not the sofa "expert" mowing under the artilleryman, shovel.
                        I asked in that article, I repeat here - to name the source of these figures. otherwise you ignore my requests, but I have to go
                        so after you, pliz. I'm waiting
                      7. -5
                        27 May 2019 09: 58
                        Quote: Albatroz
                        you saw a lot)))

                        A lot of. laughing
                        If we go from Moscow towards Ryazan, right behind the bridge in front of the Kolomna platform we see on the right side along the train the old VDP town (its remnants) and a sports town. And the trenches along the shores - there were classes on the AIR.
                        Next, behind the fence, is a military work camp, right-to-left is the barracks of the first division, the training and administrative corps (management, department of tactics and combat work, department of the airborne forces, library, shop, tea room, food warehouses and the Russian Chemical-Chemical Plant. On the left is the canteen .....
                        And so on.

                        Quote: Albatroz
                        even as possible, such shooting

                        Of course it is possible. And drinking compote while standing on your head is also possible. Some clowns do that.

                        Quote: Albatroz
                        Of course I’ll give you the time I said.

                        Where?

                        Quote: Albatroz
                        After you provide Etienne information

                        I wrote several times (namely four times) in Russian that Etienne did not write any works.
                        What do you lack in order to not understand this rather simple fact from the fourth repetition? laughing
                      8. +4
                        27 May 2019 10: 00
                        You do not feed me fairy tales about your heroic past. Not interested
                        I wrote several times (namely four times) in Russian that Etienne did not write any works.
                        Well, then Etienne as a source falls away. Then why did you lie so much in the comments on the 1st part, and what was the conversation about then.
                        Whose figures then did you give? are these your thoughts
                      9. +5
                        27 May 2019 10: 02
                        figures on the consumption of ammunition, because an article about it.
                        Whose figures are they, which you so selflessly highlighted in bold in your huge and, as you now see, puffy post?
                      10. -5
                        27 May 2019 10: 25
                        Quote: Albatroz
                        You do not feed me fairy tales about your heroic past

                        Where did you see about the heroic there. I just described the Kolomenskoye Artillery. Do you have enough gray matter to understand how I know this?

                        Quote: Albatroz
                        Well, then Etienne as a source falls away.

                        From the fifth time to understand this ... For you, this is an outstanding result.

                        But I wrote it from the very beginning, from the first post about Etienne laughing

                        Quote: Albatroz
                        figures on the consumption of ammunition, because an article about it.

                        I brought them twice. Numbers from the Rules of Shooting and numbers from the academic work of Barsukov. Both times the numbers were marked by you as not corresponding to your conclusions.
                        Moreover, you could not refute the figures themselves, you tried to disavow the sources.

                        Quote: Albatroz
                        Whose figures are they, which you so selflessly highlighted in bold in your huge and, as you now see, puffy post?

                        I will repeat the third time, this is the "Rules for Shooting and Fire Control", a guideline document. Specifically, from the rates of ammunition consumption. Figures, I repeat the second time, for 76 mm of shells. The numbers are calculated based on the Theory of Probabilities. After which they were confirmed by real live firing.
                      11. +7
                        27 May 2019 14: 28
                        I brought them twice. Numbers from the Rules of Shooting and numbers from the academic work of Barsukov. Both times the numbers were marked by you as not corresponding to your conclusions.
                        For the third time I repeat, this is the "Rules of Shooting and Fire Control", a guiding document. Specifically, from the rates of ammunition consumption. The numbers, I repeat for the second time, are for 76mm shells. Figures are calculated, based on the Theory of Probabilities. After that they were confirmed by real live firing.

                        that's it. It has nothing to do with the First World War.
                        these are Lopatov’s probabilities, drawn by him for lack of knowledge on the subject - regarding the consumption of ammunition of French artillery.
                        so we found out that shovels are a juggler, a schemer and an unclean subject.
                        Communicate with this I do not see the point.
                        as in a well-known truth - the dispute is terminated not by the one who has nothing to say - but the one who is smarter.
                        happily remain a sharpie and ignorant shovels.
                      12. +5
                        27 May 2019 14: 45
                        Correctly did Albatrose that they stopped this booth.
                        the subject of shovels is an illiterate upper guard grazing on the Internet (the benefit is that badgers are laid out there, there are) and getting out I'm not afraid of this word - in a womanish way.
                        in terms of French consumption, he has nothing to say (zero),
                        then he allegedly pulled Etienne - it turned out that this was not Etienne at all. especially since he has nothing.
                        Then Barsukov went into action (and this is a different front) and, finally, his own probabilities (in the understanding of the sofa "expert" of the early 21st century).
                        when all this didn’t work again, he became attached to the picture (and even incorrectly corrected it) and, finally, launched the respect-not respect.
                        argue with this - do not respect yourself. but, unfortunately, this is a reality on this site. Moreover, reality considers itself a scholar and a polyglot.
                        But no Internet service provider will ever be an erudite person - without archives and libraries. Unfortunately, such shovels are the misfortune of modern Russia
                      13. -7
                        27 May 2019 19: 18
                        Quote: Black Joe
                        in terms of French consumption, he has nothing to say (zero),
                        then he allegedly pulled Etienne - it turned out that this was not Etienne at all. especially since he has nothing.

                        Dear, you are either inattentive or intentionally distort.

                        I initially gave the example of Etienne, not as a source of numbers, but as a person who actively fought with a high consumption of shells.
                      14. -7
                        27 May 2019 19: 16
                        Quote: Albatroz
                        that's it. It has nothing to do with the First World War.

                        Lies, and you are aware of this. The same 76-mm shell, the same theory of probability.

                        Quote: Albatroz
                        Communicate with this I do not see the point.

                        Where? And who will prove their allegations?
                      15. -7
                        27 May 2019 21: 11
                        Colleague Shovels!
                        Most likely you were attacked by one person who registered under several nicknames. Spit on it and on the pluses and minuses.
                      16. +9
                        28 May 2019 08: 16
                        You have a good colleague!
                        However, I think that this "colleague" of shovels is registered under almost all nicknames
                        and exiled freely, making himself a pro.
                        Claims he has a wagon, and knowledge - a small cart. Some tolerances and probability theory
                        Well, now we know what these things are - shovels
                      17. +9
                        28 May 2019 08: 41
                        What is already there
                        He picked up the tops, this Lopatov, from books downloaded on the Internet, and now he is making himself out of it.
                        This is called militant ignorance.
                        Only the grave will correct such, they are not even worth the time to spend on them. The story is a fantasy novel for them. With insane exposures of black myths, distortion of facts. They think that as they see it, history, it’s right.
                        And you can impose your vision on people, because the latter, according to such shovels, do not even have the right to reliable information and should read the shovel's fabrications.
                        Well, everything will fall into place, let the shovels not slip)
                      18. +7
                        29 May 2019 09: 59
                        Sinful.
                        With regard to his dispute with Lopatov, he did not take into account the old truth of Mark Twain:
                        Never argue with idiots. You go down to their level, where they crush you their experience.
                        laughing
                      19. -3
                        30 May 2019 11: 55
                        Quote: Albatroz
                        With regard to his dispute with Lopatov, he did not take into account the old truth of Mark Twain:

                        It is significant: not a single argument, only insults.
                        Colleague Shovels! Your sensible comments hinder someone very much!
                      20. -3
                        30 May 2019 11: 51
                        Quote: XII Legion
                        Some tolerances and probability theory

                        The theory of probability is the basis of the basics of small business. Because the hit is probabilistic. Only people without a military education do not understand this.
                      21. +8
                        30 May 2019 11: 55
                        So deal with the probabilities and do not meddle in history.
                        To do this, you need to know the facts.
                      22. 0
                        2 June 2019 08: 36
                        Quote: Square
                        So deal with the probabilities and do not meddle in history.

                        I say the same; one person writes under several nicknames. One words, one expression ... One rudeness and nothing more. From the theory of probability it already sausages, so much it seems to him inaccessible ... tongue
                      23. -4
                        27 May 2019 10: 23
                        Quote: Spade
                        There is only one answer to your verbosity - learn history.


                        Learn the HISTORY of Shovels.
                        And the textbooks on the MSA, PSUONA, NOSNA, BUART.SV, NUONA and a bunch of other documents that stuffed you at one time was a waste of time. And about practice in general I am silent, an unnecessary lesson.

                        So a man read a story plus battle scenes in fiction immediately understood everything and immediately became a super-gunner. bully
                      24. -3
                        27 May 2019 10: 29
                        Quote: chenia
                        So a man read a story plus battle scenes in fiction immediately understood everything and immediately became a super-gunner.

                        laughing
                      25. MAG
                        -1
                        27 May 2019 17: 52
                        Greetings. Do not pay attention to hipsters are untrained)) You are the last of the Mohicans on the site to comment and explain something on the case.
                      26. +2
                        27 May 2019 11: 50
                        I conscientiously read both parts of the article and comments on them, and if I can still understand the colleagues’s bias towards some historical authors with a categorical rejection of an excellent opinion, then when they argue about a fight based on a claim to objectivity based on historical experience, this is not great.
                        Yes, it’s sad that it’s not professionalism (it’s stupid to demand an absolute knowledge in all areas of military affairs), but many of us lack common sense. The pluses and minus signs to the main opponents in the comments speak eloquently about this.
                      27. +8
                        28 May 2019 09: 49
                        chenia (kanonier)
                        Learn the HISTORY of Shovels.

                        Right
                        And the textbooks on the MSA, PSUONA, NOSNA, BUART.SV, NUONA and a bunch of other documents that stuffed you at one time was a waste of time. And about practice in general I am silent, an unnecessary lesson.

                        whatever you stuffed there (unless of course you were stuffed at all), it is ugly to transfer modern realities to historical experience. Even if there are technical analogies.
                        Such transfers occur, as a rule, from ignorance of historical facts - when a person tries using the knowledge of the present to compensate for the deficit of factology in relation to the historical period under consideration. So the marching soldiers of 1812 appear in films in tarpaulin boots and shoot tanks of the Second World War on the move.
                        There is only one cure - attention to real facts, evidence of the past.
                        So a man read a story plus battle scenes in fiction immediately understood everything and immediately became a super-gunner. bully

                        Yes, he’s like shovels. He is not just an artilleryman, but a super-duper lol
                        the truth - VOShny
                      28. -5
                        28 May 2019 10: 56
                        Quote: Adjutant
                        He is not just an artilleryman, but a super-duper


                        Lopatov is a real professional and very competent artilleryman, and even with combat experience. Therefore, all kinds of remarks by couch warriors to some of his statements are ridiculous, the meaning of which they did not even understand.
                        It happens. he often came across when the opponent, not knowing the interpretation of the terms and understanding of some issues (level, heard ringing ....) aggressively and with insults. trying to convince of their own right.
                        When you try to explain to him (well, not everyone graduated from VU and the Academy), he gives arguments either taken out of context or from dubious sources (moreover, tons, with the expectation that the opponent’s hell will even reconsider this).
                      29. +8
                        28 May 2019 15: 51
                        Lopatov is a real professional and very competent gunner

                        not bigger than me
                        judging by his opuses - just an impostor.
                        Well, you can't check your combat experience here, and it's initially ugly to trump them, especially when it's fiction, like many other "legends" of the local characters
                      30. -2
                        28 May 2019 17: 03
                        Quote: Adjutant
                        not bigger than me


                        No problem.
                        And on the topic?
                        Where did you as a gunner notice a discrepancy? And what is the stupidity of all these activities in WWI. Well, from the point of view of the gunner (modern).
                      31. +8
                        28 May 2019 18: 29
                        As for the gunner, I joked, I thought you understood)) yes)) I mean that he is the same gunner as I, that is - no))) but unlike him (you) I do not consider myself a gunner.
                        and is it too big a figure of some anonymous person under the name of shovels to discuss it ???
                        But, if you want to know, it’s striking
                        1) his childishly naive reasoning and playing with technical terms, the meaning of which he probably does not understand. In the first part of the article, the same nameless guys like him made comments on this subject.
                        2) the drag and drop of what he picked up in our time on the historical realities of those years. But you need to know the numbers, facts. He does not know the numbers and facts, but he portrays a techie. So the article is historical, and without exact data there is nothing to talk about at all. The article is not about guns or shells, but about ammunition consumption French and Germans.
                        Do not know - do not go. Play the terms elsewhere. And what kind of shells are fired in the picture has no special relation to the subject of the article.
                        But for that matter, the opponents of Lopatov are right - during the artillery bombardment and not only the artillery bombardment actually used shells of various types - mixed up. Mixed shrapnel and high-explosive grenades - one site or object. Yes, combined fire.
                        And for me personally, the testimonies of the artillerymen of those years that so shot or have seen similar enemy fire a million times more important than the fact that there he fantasized some sort of shovels.
                        We look at historical documents.
                        In the afternoon the enemy approached s. Chepanosy and a battle ensued. Don artillery was bombarded with enemy shrapnel and pomegranates.

                        This is a report on the battle of the 7th Don Kazbattery at the town of Khotin. May 1915
                        The shooting was carried out by the enemy with bombs, as a gun, and lasted only 3-4 minutes. The conditions for its conduct were undoubtedly extremely favorable, as can be seen from the following summary: the first bomb lay down in 1 m. to the right of the battery and 170 h. ahead of her front; 150 bomb fell in 2 sh. to the left of the battery exactly on the front line; 100 bomb went down in 1 h. in front of the second gun from the right flank, incapacitating it (the battle was interrupted); 2 bomb fell in 4 h. behind the left-flank gun. After four single shots, with which the shooting was completed, the enemy went on to kill, which was conducted combined fire. Fire developed with startling methodism: turn in 4 bombs - turn in 4 shrapnel - pause two minutes - turn in 4 bombs - turn in 4 shrapnel - pause 2 minutes, etc., etc.. The first bombs that fell interrupted the telephone connection of the battery with the commander’s observation. paragraph. Fire battery verse. .. People took refuge in the dugouts. Thanks to good position preparation and fortification shrapnel bombs and shrapnel bullets no damage was done. Direct hits were terrible, one of which shot down 2 guns.

                        And this is the Report on the battle of the 1st Division of the 37th Artillery Brigade on September 22, 1914.
                        Early in the morning of August 18, the Germans opened fire from two distant batteries. The direction of their shots was taken to the saddle with the gun trenches, behind which stood our 3rd battery, and soon the enemy shells began to lie on the very top bordered by infantry trenches. First they fired strong high-explosive and shrapnel fire the very trenches and then fired a square fathom forward for 100-150

                        This is from the combat report of the 3rd battery of 42-line guns
                        "110, tube 110, the battery to the left," the team flies, and immediately again the battery throws out a fiery whirlwind. The noise of bursting shells of the enemy, but bursting somehow randomly, unsystematically, too scattered ... is mixed with a bang of shots ... "107, tube 107, two rounds." The command is instantly accepted, the battery — concentrated attention. “Quick fire”, rushing from the flank, and the guns rumble almost in one gulp, adding the solitary sounds of secondary shots to their mighty chord. “Good,” rushes from the phone. "108 - a grenade." "Two rounds" ... The enemy does not shoot. The spirit sparkles, chokes with surging joy. “Quick fire”, and again a deadly whirlwind rushes into the distance.
                        “Well, the maid is running,” comes from the telephone. “The first half-battery with shrapnel 107, tube 107, and the second with grenade 108”, - they command from the observation post ... And again, a rhythmic rumble, again to automaticity, fast execution, running from gun to gun, calibration of installations, hasty work, sweaty, worried faces ... "Take out the cartridge, hang up," - command to the battery . The gates open, the cartridges are removed, the foreheads and damp hair are wiped. The lively rise and tension subside, giving way to fatigue and the need for rest.

                        And these are the memories of the artilleryman Kravkov about the battle at the village. Lykashin on August 18, 1914.
                        Etc.
                        Etc.
                        Here are the historical facts. Because this shovel is not an artilleryman, and simply ignorant.
                        But ... a lot of honor. Enough about our excellent student)
                        those who read comments, and, most importantly, understand the topic, they will draw a conclusion themselves.
                        good luck to you
                        and leave me alone for God's sake
                        to me, and so already all this is honestly tired of all this. Be
                      32. -3
                        28 May 2019 19: 46
                        Quote: Adjutant
                        Because this shovel is not an artilleryman, and simply ignorant.


                        As a professional, Lopatov correctly noted that firing with a remote fuse (tube) is one of the most difficult in our time (if you adjust the height of the gap).

                        Only he did not take into account. that you can shoot with the same projectile to strike, and with the installation of the tube (the height of the gap as God sends, just setting in range) therefore
                        Quote: Adjutant
                        shrapnel bombs and shrapnel bullets did not inflict damage.
                        .

                        And the memories of Krakow, similar to the stories of demobilization girls.
                      33. +7
                        29 May 2019 09: 02
                        As a professional, Lopatov correctly noted that firing with a remote fuse (tube) is one of the most difficult in our time (if you adjust the height of the gap).

                        now he needed to notice only this, and not go into history. Understand that you don’t have a hunchback. I personally always pay particular attention to facts.
                        Only he did not take into account

                        he didn’t take much into account
                        Krakow's memoirs, similar to demob's tales to girls

                        Why? A person conveys the dynamics of a battle, reflects all the sounds on the battery during the last one, and also conveys his personal impressions. The gunners are a learned people, so he’s also a great storyteller
                      34. -3
                        30 May 2019 12: 02
                        Quote: Adjutant
                        and do not go into history

                        Right! Only an "Adjutant" who does not know artillery can crawl into the history of artillery, which he himself confessed as soon as he was asked a specific question. lol
                      35. +10
                        31 May 2019 09: 21
                        Only an "Adjutant" who does not know artillery can crawl into the history of artillery, which he himself confessed as soon as he was asked a specific question.

                        Yes no buddy Svateev
                        The adjutant even KNOWS historical facts. AND answered to a specific question.
                        But shovels and the like should not go into history, that is, you - not only not knowing the facts (the higher I poked in my face))) lol wink , but also not knowing artillery - as we also found out by joint efforts good
                      36. -3
                        30 May 2019 11: 58
                        Quote: Adjutant
                        I joked about the gunner

                        It can be seen.
                      37. +10
                        31 May 2019 09: 23
                        It can be seen that you and the shovel are not gunners or historians, which is also visible with the naked eye
                        just worms littering comments with different nonsense
  4. +3
    26 May 2019 18: 44
    Very interesting article. It is not yet clear why the mass of shells that could be released in a few hours and crushed a stunned enemy by an attack, like in WWII, was extended for several days, giving him the opportunity to draw up reserves.
    1. +2
      26 May 2019 20: 40
      because in the 20th century there was a fairly rapid progress in military affairs, and what you taught as "correct" at the end of this century, at its beginning, only had to be figured out and invented
    2. 0
      27 May 2019 08: 32
      So you can knock out manpower, as you shoot, the density of infantry in positions decreases, as does the effectiveness of artillery. If the enemy fills the voids with reinforcements and also involves the sanitary teams to clear the positions of the corpses and take out the wounded, then a lot more soldiers will die from the fire. War of attrition, alas ruthless.
  5. +1
    26 May 2019 18: 53
    very relevant ....
  6. +5
    26 May 2019 19: 26
    "Shell hunger is a universal disaster "
    If you look deeper into this issue, then the calamity of shell hunger was not quite for everyone. For some, it turned out to be just manna from heaven.
    A vivid example is the famous automaker Andre Citroen, who, in 1915, built a plant for the production of shrapnel shells in Paris on the promenade Javel in four months for an advance received for future production.

    By the end of the war, this plant had produced about 24 million shells. It was on it that the order for the production of shrapnel for the Russian army was carried out in the period from August 1, 1915 to August 1, 1916. The order was completed "with a minimum delay and without a single percentage of defects." Due to the introduction of modern equipment and technologies on the one hand (replacing the turning of housings by stamping) and the introduction of a sweatshop labor system, the profitability of shell production was at least 40%.
  7. +14
    26 May 2019 19: 41
    Thanks for the interesting cycle.
  8. 0
    27 May 2019 17: 07
    It is interesting how the experience of the Russo-Japanese War 1904 — 1905 was used. the Germans, the French and the Russians regarding the consumption of ammunition in a general arms battle.
    The large expenditure of ammunition for quick-fire artillery among the Russians was no more recognized as an abuse that had to be fought in every way.

    At the same time, the pre-war rate of ammunition stockpiles per barrel in Russia was calculated exactly according to the results of the strategic nuclear weapons, with 40% overlapping of the PS consumption in that war.
    2. Altogether, 1276 76-mm field guns participated in the war with Japan from the Russians, throughout the campaign 918000 76-mm gun rounds were shot and lost, and on average about 720 rounds for a 76-mm gun were spent on the whole campaign.
    3. According to the GUGS, at that time both the French and Germans had no more than 1200-1500 rounds per gun in the combat set.
    4. The commission of the geninsparta took into account that the greatest consumption of shots during the year of the war will be no more than 1000 rounds of ammunition per 76-mm gun; therefore, this amount of 76-mm rounds should be enough, in any case, for half a year of war, that is, for the entire maximum duration of the modern big war, which was conceived by the assumptions of the General Staff.

    In the combat kit for guns, 1/7 of the shots relied on melinite grenades, the remaining 6/7 in shrapnel; in the combat kit of howitzers - 3/4 in grenades (bombs) and 1/3 in shrapnel.
    © Barsukov
    With these norms, the army of the Empire entered the war. All pre-war proposals to increase the combat set of shots to 1500 rounds on a 76-mm gun were rejected both for financial reasons and because of the impossibility of fulfilling orders at domestic factories engaged in the manufacture of PS for the main ammunition.
    After 1910, in connection with the information received about the norm of a cannon combat set in foreign armies, the question was repeatedly raised of increasing the combat set for only 76-mm field guns. So, in 1911, the chief of the General Staff Zhilinsky spoke out about the need to increase the combat set to 1500 rounds per 76-mm cannon. According to the GUGS, the French proposed in 1912 to increase the combat set of 75-mm cannon cartridges to 1800 and even to 3000 per gun.

    At the insistence of Zhilinsky, the GAU was released at the end of 1912 10 million rubles to begin to increase the combat set of field artillery. But this small allocation could not have significant significance, especially since at that time the Russian factories were overloaded with orders of ammunition according to the established norm of the combat set, and they could not produce anything by new additional orders until about 1915; ordering military supplies abroad was generally undesirable.
    1. +8
      27 May 2019 18: 29
      Barsukov mastered)
      Thank God that there is on the Internet and, accordingly, there is at least something to post)
      And if it weren’t?) wink
      1. 0
        27 May 2019 18: 31
        Quote: heavy division
        Barsukov mastered)
        Thank God that there is on the Internet and, accordingly, there is at least something to post)
        And if it weren’t?) wink

        And then it would have to be interrupted by a secondary - like the thin green book of Beskrovny "The Army and Navy of Russia at the beginning of the XX century." smile

        I quoted Barsukov to show that the Army men of the Empire perfectly understood the insufficient stockpile and production of ammunition. But they could not do anything: there was no money to increase the stored BK, and most importantly - there was nowhere to do new shells.
        1. 0
          27 May 2019 21: 21
          Quote: Alexey RA
          and most importantly - there was nowhere to do new shells.

          There was no "Russian Citroen" that would:
          Quote: Undecim
          in four months, for the advance received from future production, he built a plant for the production of shrapnel shells ... and fulfilled orders "with a minimum delay and without a single percentage of defects." Through the introduction of modern equipment and technologies on the one hand (replacing the turning of the bodies with stamping) and the introduction of a sweatshop labor system,
          1. +1
            28 May 2019 11: 39
            Quote: Svateev
            There was no "Russian Citroen" that would:

            ... found modern equipment, technologies, qualified specialists - and would have got into all this with a cozy world of military orders. In which a 100-150% excess of the cost of shells of private factories over state-owned was considered the norm.
            The same Tsaritsyno "Vickers" plant, according to the plans of the British, was to begin work that way in 1912. In fact, all sorts of agreements, reconciliation and taking into account the interests of all interested parties (for example, the binding of the construction of the plant to the correct participation of Vickers in the competition for new "big pots" for the RIF) led to the fact that the plant was not launched before the war. The plant never received a set of machine tools. and the resulting machines were distributed in bulk among other factories. The plant was brought together only under the Bolsheviks.
            1. 0
              30 May 2019 12: 03
              Quote: Alexey RA
              Tsaritsyn plant "Vickers"

              You mean "Barricades"?
              1. 0
                30 May 2019 12: 18
                Quote: Svateev
                You mean "Barricades"?

                Yes, the Barricades plant, originally called the Tsaritsyno Gun Plant. The decision on the plant was delayed for three years - as a result, it was laid down right before the war.
  9. 0
    27 May 2019 17: 52
    Hope this is not all. How did Russia overcome shell hunger?
  10. The comment was deleted.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"