Military Review

Historical detective. Caliber 45 mm

83
We continue the topic historical investigations, since the debut turned out. Today the issue of caliber is on the agenda. A caliber of 45 millimeters, a caliber that existed in one and only country - the Soviet Union, in service with one army - the Red Army.




And here there are not just a lot of irregularities and roughnesses.

To begin with, the bulk of researchers for some reason speak of an anti-tank gun with a caliber of 45 mm, completely ignoring the rest. Probably because Comrade Shirokorad did not write, and without him it is difficult to swing his arms, I agree.

But Shirokorad really wrote about the anti-tank gun, and he wrote well. Which, however, is no reason to forget all the other guns.

The rest is tank the gun, this is the battalion howitzer, this is the anti-aircraft gun, this is the semi-automatic station wagon, this is the sea gun. And all - 45 mm.

Historical detective. Caliber 45 mm

45-mm universal gun of the cruiser "Red Caucasus"


Say that the tank / anti-tank is the same thing. Well, yes, here are just ways to mount and move a little different, as well as the shells that were used. Tanks with tanks fought only with not-so-good generals. Good tanks were hollowed out by bunkers, bunkers and everything else, for which mostly high-explosive shells were needed.

However, we have written quite a lot about this, there is nothing special to invent.

As an intermediate result, we note that the 45 mm is not exclusively an anti-tank caliber of the Red Army. There were more than enough guns with such a caliber, and this, I must say, pretty much shakes the opinion of my respected Alexander Borisovich.

Why? Everything is simple.

If you look at a single "forty-five", then yes, it all fits together, and the version works. If you look at the caliber as a whole - no, no, and again no.

So, the version of Shirokorad and followers.

The famous “forty-foot” is the overlay on the carriage of the 37-mm anti-tank gun 1-K of the 1930 model of the year of its barrel, bored to 45 mm.

Logically, the reception is as old as the world, nothing new. If the base allowed, they sharpened everything. Not only ours.

About the 1-K gun, it’s also worth saying a few words, although we wrote about it. Yes, this is the same 3,7 anti-tank gun of the 1926 model of the year from Rheinmetall, bought by the Soviet Union through the shell company Butast. Purchased "with giblets", that is, with all possible technological documentation. For a million with a small (1,125 million, to be exact) dollars.

The 1-K cannons were fired only in half a thousand, but the military didn’t like the gun, it seemed frankly weak (the Great Patriotic War confirmed this), and the gun was quickly replaced with the 19-K.

Caliber 45-mm ... Although ...


45-mm battalion gun design Sokolov. 1927 year


Currently, there are several versions of how this strange caliber formed in our troops. In the world there was a place to be a standard caliber 47 mm, why did it all turn out “not like everyone else”?

Version No.1


Version No. 1 says that allegedly it was impossible to mount the barrel from the same 37-mm gun on the carriage of the 47-mm gun, because it was cut to 45 mm.

I don’t even want to criticize and disassemble the version.

2 (TWO!) Millimeters. On the gun carriage. What kind of admission is this that could not fit? And, perhaps, the 47-mm gun had such a powerful shell that the gun carriage could not stand it? Well, more or less suitable, however, I will give a tablet from an article about anti-tank guns of the Second World War. And there you can see that the 45-mm gun is not particularly inferior in terms of power to the 47-mm sisters. And even surpasses some.

In any case, that dimensional, that strength weaknesses - well, it looks stupid.

The Hotchkiss gun gave an initial projectile speed of 701 m / s versus 760 m / s for the gun of the 1932 / 37 sample.


Hotchkis gun 47-mm


For an armor-piercing projectile, the difference is not very critical, but for a high-explosive fragmentation, so much is not even necessary. This is evidenced by such a quantity as the mass of the powder charge: at the Hotchkiss cannon 350 g, armor-piercing shells of "forty-five" until 360 g. A high-explosive fragmentation shell was thrown 100-115 g of gunpowder.

Version No.2


Version # 2 looks more serious, and Shirokorad and other (very numerous) supporters in the forums favor it. According to this version, supposedly after the revolution, a large number of armor-piercing ammunition accumulated in the military depots for the aforementioned 47-mm Hotchkiss naval gun.



Well, there was such a gun. Yes, at that time it was completely out of date, and yes, the shells from it at sea were theoretically completely useless, so they decided to transfer them to land and use them as anti-tank / infantry support instruments. There were not very many tanks at that time.



The whole problem is that the Hotchkiss anti-mine gun was originally imprisoned for the fight against unarmored targets such as destroyers, boats and submarines. And so bad luck, I did not find armor-piercing shells in the specification for it. Iron and steel grenades were. So there is no clear docking.

The idea of ​​remaking itself also looks strange.

Well, we decided to clean up the warehouses, transfer the land artillery shells, let them suffer. It's that simple ...

Grind belts by 2 mm. Is it easy or what? This, I think, or how.

Need to defuse the shell. That is, remove it from the sleeve. Then remove the fuse. So, just in case. And then you can tighten the shell into the cartridge and grind the belt. Without a real prospect of falling under the explosion of this shell.

Then again insert the shell into the sleeve, restore the tightness again, and yes, you can shoot.

I immediately have a question: wasn’t it easier to make an 47-mm gun at once and not to engage in perversions?

Now experts will begin to say that the grenade flew at the Hotchkiss cannon at a speed of 700 m / s, at 19-K the speed was already 760 m / s, and at M1932 - 820 m / s. And unfortunate belts could tear.

I agree that the initial velocity of the shells has increased. And they could completely tear off their belts. However, there is a nuance that spoils everything. Namely, the complete lack of data.

“A lot of shells in warehouses” - how many in pieces? Quantity is not called by anyone. Yes, and in principle, it is unrealistic to call it, because the Russian-Japanese, World War I, Civil Wars plus the centuries-old Russian mess.

The fact that 47-mm was about nothing became clear back to Russian-Japanese. No wonder the guns of Hotchkiss were removed from the ships by hundreds, installed at least on some semblance of machine tools and sent to the front line in order to somehow compensate for the shortage of battalion and regimental guns.

And since for the infantry in those years, the armor-piercing projectile was a completely useless thing, it is not surprising that these shells were simply lying around in warehouses. It is logical, it is indisputable, it is normal.

Another question is how many in grams ... There is a complete secret with this, but I think that they were pretty much there. If the tsar’s reserves for half of the Great Patriotic War (76,2 mm) were enough, then the 47-mm “good” could be in excess.

And here there is a dual feeling.

Well, if mountains of shells lie directly, take and shoot - I return to the question of whether it was easier to make a barrel for shells. Simply, at Obukhovsky and not such calibers were deployed.

Plus (very substantial) it would be possible “in case of what” to intercept the shells from the Allies. During the First World War, both the British and Americans supplied us with 76,2-mm shells, not only in full, but supplied.

But if there aren’t so many shells, then it’s quite possible to decide on such an adventure as regrinding a shell.

And what do they lie? Well, let it be useful, such shells can easily be used as combat training, why not? The wagon benefits, huge savings, training costs are reduced, let the artillerymen beat this ancient for training purposes ...

But again, it is very, very doubtful that millions. I found the figure that on the 1 of January 1901 of the year in the Maritime Department there were 963 47-mm guns of Hotchkiss. From this we conclude how many shells could be in the warehouses for a thousand guns.

And since we are talking about the fact that there were frankly few guns, therefore, there were hardly millions of shells for them. A couple of hundred thousand in strength.

We are talking about the gestures of the 30 of the last century, when the First World War, the Civil one, and the intervention already died out. And gobbled up their shells.

So it turns out that the mosaic does not quite add up.

Version No.3


Version No. 3 states that the caliber 45 mm is actually the caliber 47 mm, but:

1. It was developed according to a cunning plan, so that the enemy could not use our shells in case of emergency.

2. 45 mm is exactly the same 47 mm, but it was simply measured in different ways. Ours was measured by the distance between the opposite rifling fields, and abroad we measured from the bottom of the rifling groove to the bottom of the opposite groove.

Both cases are so-so. Finnish, World War II, and World War II showed that one can and should not give a damn about such an approach with calibers, as practice has shown that ammunition can usually be very easily provided with trophy guns and vice versa.

As for such aspects of the measurement ... There is still no way to get such a difference, which is why we needed a lathe in order to remove the copper bands and turn the projectile into 45-mm.

Own version


I don’t think I’ll open any such secret, but it seems to me that our idea of ​​the 45 mm caliber was simply borrowed from us. How much at that difficult time for the country. Especially regarding artillery.

Buy - it does not matter if they sold. More often not sold. But the fact that intelligence worked for the Soviet Union, God forbid others, is a fact.

It turned out during the selection of material for this article that the development in Russia on the calibers 40-47 mm was carried out before the revolution. There was a very interesting Lichonin project, unified with the Hotchkiss cannon, and Lender worked in this direction.

Then, of course, it was not up to the development.

Meanwhile, in the West, too, did not sit idly by. Especially the French, not tied hands, unlike the Germans. And the French in the work of Saint-Chamonix and Nordenfeld used calibers from 42 to 45 millimeters.

Honestly, I don’t know how this caliber was calculated, but somehow the designers came to the conclusion that the caliber 40-45 mm would be optimal for a battalion gun (the so-called trench guns).

The guns of Nordenfeld and Saint-Chamonix were not adopted. And this is possible and lies in such a nuance, since we also began to creep in the direction of creating tools for the future.

Research work was carried out by Lender in the 1916 year, there were achievements. The new gun was supposed to replace the 37-mm trench guns and adapted Hotchkiss sea guns.

Franz Franzievich Lender proposed the 42 mm caliber as a working variant, but apparently they decided to make the gun more powerful, therefore they approved the 45 mm.

Apparently, not just like that. It is possible that there was an opportunity to get acquainted with the work of Nordenfeld and Saint-Chamonix. I admit, because it was in those years that our intelligence plowed like a damn.

As a result, in the 1929 year (yeah, we started in the 1916-m, continued practically to zero in the 1922-m and here you are) the battalion howitzer 45 mm of the 1929 model of the year came into service.



And in addition to the howitzer, a certain “BM gun,” that is, high power, was also discussed. BM did not go into the series, but after a while, work on it was used when remaking the 1-K.

But I will argue about the alteration of the projectile. According to the order, Lender developed the 45 mm HE shell in the 1916 year. So, the 47-mm shell from Hotchkiss had absolutely nothing to do with it. The 45 mm projectile was, and the guns were designed with support on it.

And this is very logical.

Who consumes HE shells? Anti-aircraft guns? Yes. Tanks? Yes. Infantry support guns? Yes. Howitzers? Yes!

The exceptions are indeed anti-tank and sea guns. Well, tank to a lesser extent.

This means that the industry long before all this noise around Hotchkiss shells was sharpened for the release of 45 mm shells.

And this is a fact from which it is difficult to get away. The wedge did not converge on armor-piercing shells, because the nomenclature implied that they would not only shoot at tanks.

The range of shots of the 45-mm guns was as follows:

Armor-piercing: 53-B-240
Armor-piercing tracer: 53-BR-240
Armor-piercing tracer: 53-BR-240SP (solid)
Armor-piercing tracer subcaliber: 53-BR-240P
Shrapnel: 53-O-240 (steel)
Fragmented: 53-О-240А (steel cast iron)
Card-case: 53-Щ-240
Smoke: 53-D-240

Plus a line of shots for anti-aircraft guns:

Shrapnel tracer: O-333, OR-73, OR-73
High explosive: O-240

What is the conclusion? And the conclusion is very simple: the caliber 45 mm was due to anything but the desire to use allegedly huge stocks of armor-piercing shells 47 mm. Because in addition to armor-piercing shells, it was necessary to release all of the above-mentioned nomenclature of shells.

And released. And in huge quantities, because the 45-mm unitary cartridge was used everywhere: gunners, tankers, anti-aircraft gunners, sailors. Do not write off the entire submarine fleet of the Red Army, armed with 45-mm universal guns. And also battleships, cruisers, leaders, destroyers, minesweepers, hunters and so on.

Compared to the huge amount of shells that were to be released for ALL 45 mm guns, a drop of 47-mm shells from Gochkiss guns was exactly what it was.

Moreover, sharpened belts, which were supposed to cut into rifling, thereby improving compression and spinning the projectile around its axis, are unlikely to have a positive effect on ballistics. Rather, on the contrary, they worsened, and so much so that it was difficult to demand something really combat from these shells.

I am sure that the only application that they found was just training shooting. For the most part, this crippled shell was hardly suitable.

Therefore, I consider it possible to voice this conclusion:

1. The caliber 45 mm was a pre-revolutionary development of Russian engineers.

2. They returned to the project when the opportunity arose. Probably not without the help of intelligence and foreign developments.

3. The regrinding of 47-mm shells to the caliber 45 mm is nothing more than a successful attempt to attach shells that were actually useless at that time. The most useful disposal.

This is the opinion.
Author:
83 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Ali Kokand
    Ali Kokand 14 August 2019 06: 11
    +13
    The combat use of the Magpies as a military technical assistance at the initial stage of the Second World War was still positive. Although everyone knows about the marriage of armor-piercing 45 mm shells. They fulfilled their historic mission to protect the fatherland in hard times.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 14 August 2019 11: 11
      +14
      Quote: Ali Kokand
      Although everyone knows about the marriage of armor-piercing 45 mm shells.

      In addition to defective BBS with a deformed hull, the 45 mm also had problems with standard armor-piercing shells - when working on high-resistance armor (K = 2600), they did not give tabular armor penetration (40 mm of armor with a 30-degree deviation from the normal penetrated only 150 m )
      The problem was solved only in November 1941 - Hartz's "undercuts-localizers" ensured controlled destruction of the outer part of the shell on the cemented armor, while the inner part and the chamber with the explosives remained intact and pierced through the armor.
  2. Amurets
    Amurets 14 August 2019 06: 31
    +3
    [quote] [/ quote] And there was also an opinion that this was the result of competition or sabotage of the Land and Naval Departments of Tsarist Russia. You don't have to go far: the coastal defense of tsarist Russia was part of the Land Department and the Kane coastal defense cannons had cartridge-case loading, and ship-loaded caps. Ship 12 "guns and the same guns of the land department had different chambers. And this was noted by A.B.Shirokorad in his work" Domestic coastal artillery. "Therefore, I do not exclude that, in spite of the 47mm of the Naval Department, the Land Department conducted its work in a nearby its caliber is 45mm.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 14 August 2019 11: 25
      +9
      Quote: Amurets
      You don't have to go far: the coastal defense of tsarist Russia was part of the Land Department and the Kane coastal defense cannons had cartridge-case loading, and ship-loaded caps. The ship's 12 "guns and the same guns of the land department had different chambers.

      So ... the problem of the different types of ship and coastal guns of the same caliber and even the same barrel length was not only ours.
      The Yankees had the coolest thing - they had a difference even in the barrel design. For example: the naval 16 "/ 50 Mark 2 and Mark 3 had a barrel fastened with cylinders, and the army 16" / 50 M1919 - a barrel with a wire fastening (the army generally liked the "wire" barrels). In caliber 14 "army men, in the presence of naval 14" / 45 Mark 1, still ordered their 14 "/ 40 Model 1909 (and" wire ") and put them in their towers (Fort Drum). smile
  3. svp67
    svp67 14 August 2019 06: 41
    +12
    The article is interesting. And it is interesting in that it very well shows the method of work of the "amateur". To ask "a bunch of questions", in fact to answer them yourself and not understand it.
    2 (TWO!) Millimeters. On the gun carriage. What kind of admission is this that could not fit?
    The question is, that is, and next to it there is an answer
    And there you can see that the 45-mm gun is not much inferior in terms of power to the 47-mm sisters. And even surpasses some.
    Here he is. Power 45-mm guns MORE. Before creating an artillery piece in metal, it takes a long time to calculate and, as a result, understand what parameters it should be in order to satisfy the conditions set by the customer or the developers themselves. Not bad this process is shown in the book of Grabin on the design of the 57-mm anti-tank gun. We must look at the calculations. Most likely, it was the 45 mm that was the MAXIMUM caliber that provided the necessary armor penetration and fit on this carriage. With 47-mm, it would be necessary to reduce the flight speed of the projectile, and mean armor penetration.
    Into the account of "turning" the belt. The problem is the same seeming. Let's start with the fact that at the arsenals the process of "unpatronizing" is put on stream and is not particularly complicated. But after that, I do not see a particular problem in cutting ONE millimeter of copper from the leading belt in a circle from such a projectile (a belt in the tail of the projectile).


    More question arises, but did such a "refined" belt withstand the load when fired and did not tear it off?
  4. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 14 August 2019 06: 41
    +10
    In principle, it is logical request If you dig carefully, then almost every European country will have systems of "strange" calibers. Okay, 88-mm guns of the Germans, the pasta on the Cayo Duilio had not only the main battery guns bored to 320mm (from the English thick-walled 305-mm wire guns), but also the 135-mm guns of the SK, and in addition 90-mm anti-aircraft guns! Weight of different calibers lol I am silent about the paddling - they are 194mm and 164mm with 138mm guns from the time of the WWII winked
    So we made a "forty-five" instead of the standard 47mm pusher - and that's it. smile
  5. andrewkor
    andrewkor 14 August 2019 06: 57
    +11
    I want to stand up for the respected AB Shirokorad before the no less respected Author.
    Shirokorad's "Encyclopedia of Russian Artillery", which is heavy (in kg), describes in great detail the entire line of 45 mm guns. in the army and the navy, except for tank, and not only anti-tank, as can be understood from the preamble of the article.
  6. doktorkurgan
    doktorkurgan 14 August 2019 07: 43
    +12
    Tanks with tanks fought only with not-so-good generals.

    The British, who were among the leaders in the tank industry in the 20s and early 30s, have 47 mm in the BC. (and later 40 mm.) tank fragmentation shells were not introduced - it was believed that a machine gun was enough above the roof to fight the infantry.
    Hotchkiss’s mine cannon was initially sharpened to combat unarmored targets such as destroyers, boats and submarines.

    EMNIP, shells for mine ordnance regularly had to break through the destroyer’s side, a coal pit and the wall of a steam boiler. In total, it’s quite armor.
    My opinion is that the caliber is 45 mm. - the fruit of theoretical research in terms of the development of battalion guns. It was necessary to create a system that the calculation could move on the battlefield on its own with sufficient speed and at the same time the projectile power would be enough to guarantee the suppression of a typical target - a machine gun nest.
    Actually, the fruit of similar studies was the failed new caliber for 95 mm field artillery. (ideas of Lender and Durlyakhov of the mid-20s).
    1. hohol95
      hohol95 14 August 2019 09: 43
      0
      EMNIP, shells for mine ordnance regularly had to break through the destroyer’s side, a coal pit and the wall of a steam boiler. In total, it’s quite armor.

      Is it for a caliber of 47 mm? Or something bigger?
      The 47 mm guns of Hotchkiss during their use in combat conditions on ships showed their low efficiency in the fight against destroyers and destroyers.
      1. doktorkurgan
        doktorkurgan 15 August 2019 08: 18
        +1
        Quote: hohol95
        Is it for a caliber of 47 mm? Or something bigger?

        Actually, even for 37 mm Hotchkiss anti-mine guns - even single-barrel, even revolving.
        Just from the moment the destroyers appeared, they pretty much grew in size (late 70s - early 80s. 19th century. Destroyers with a displacement of 40-50 tons, late 80s - early 90s - about 100 tons, end 90 of the 19th century - the beginning of the 20th century - water destructors of destroys. 250-400 tons). Correspondingly, the coal pits have become larger, and the boilers are more durable (the casing remains almost the same).
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 14 August 2019 15: 53
      +4
      Quote: doktorkurgan
      EMNIP, shells for mine ordnance regularly had to break through the destroyer’s side, a coal pit and the wall of a steam boiler.

      This is already in the days of the 75 mm Kane.
      47 mm guns of Hotchkiss had in the BC only OFS.
  7. Potter
    Potter 14 August 2019 07: 55
    +1
    Plus Roman for research.
    But according to this statement there is a clarification.
    During the First World War, both the British and Americans supplied us with 76,2-mm shells, not only in full, but supplied.

    The largest volume of deliveries of 76,2mm shells (shrapnel) to Russia came from France. A certain Andre Citroen (according to the version from "My memoirs" of Count Ignatiev, Odessa citizen Andrei Citron) contracted to make it at the expense of the French loan, in a short time he built a plant from scratch and launched it. After completing the order and the end of the war, he just as quickly organized the production of cars, the very Citroens.
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 14 August 2019 10: 19
      +4
      Quote: Potter
      The largest volume of shipments of shells (shrapnel) of 76,2 mm caliber to Russia came to France.
      Memories of V.G. Grabin "Weapon of victory:" So large that it was necessary to shoot it at the ranges until the mid-50s and of such quality that after firing the bolts and breeches of guns melted. "Semi-automatic machines refused very often, and he had to" fly "almost continuously. that in a fever he strove to thrust the arrester into the barrel of a cannon that had not yet fired. By the end of the firing he was so exhausted that after the command "retreat" he fell to the ground.
      But our troubles didn’t end with this, they just started from this: after all, the cartridges did not obey semiautomatic devices because they were destroyed both along the wall and the bottom; escaping gases melted the chamber and some parts of the shutter. To fix the shutter, it was necessary to disassemble it and clean these parts. In general, the first shooting led us, the factory workers, discouraged. Subsequent firing did not differ from the first ..... But why did it work flawlessly on the field tests, of which there were a lot, and on the military shutter-type shutter? We decided to study the spent cartridges and cartridges. It turned out that these were French cartridges; They were delivered to Russia in 1915 and lay in warehouses for 22 years. The term is long, but in artillery the duration of storage of ammunition was set at 25 years, and even after this period they should serve without fail. So, the brass from which the shells are made is bad, it has lost its plastic properties, because of this, the shells are torn when fired.
      I reported to Voronova: the cartridges are substandard, they do not allow to objectively judge the operation of a semi-automatic shutter. It is necessary to replace the French cartridges with normal, air-conditioned.
      “But there are so many French cartridges in the army that you can't use them up on practice shooting,” Voronov answered. - Well, would you order them to be thrown away? No, guns need to be tested with these cartridges. "
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 14 August 2019 11: 33
        +9
        Comrade Grabin is a little disingenuous - as is customary in his memoirs, he is trying to transfer the arrows from his jamb to external circumstances.
        The problem during the tests was not in the shells - for the tests, exactly the same shots of the "wartime model" (the so-called "French" - that is, made according to French technology, which sacrificed the quality of the shot for the sake of increasing the release) were filed, which would have release and use during the likely "big war". The problem was in the mechanism for extracting the sleeve from the F-22.
        However, further Grabin admitted his defect - describing how his design bureau had to completely rework the extraction mechanism so that it worked normally even with deformed sleeves.
  8. abc_alex
    abc_alex 14 August 2019 07: 57
    +10
    Well, as far as I understand the process of designing art. systems (and I understand it solely from historical literature), it begins with the requirements of the military for the striking effect of ammunition. The second point is the projectile throwing range.

    That is, engineers first, based on the available materials, explosives and manufacturing technologies, form a projectile with a given power and destructive effect. Then, under this projectile, a propellant charge and a barrel are formed, capable of throwing the projectile at the desired distance. Therefore, as a rule, the artillery system always has a "regular" projectile.

    So, if you manage to get (conditionally) a grenade with a radius of damage of 30 meters, as the customer requires, in a caliber of 45 mm, no one will do it in 47 mm. Because it is overweight. And in mass production, a millimeter of diameter saves tons of metal, including extremely needed and very scarce copper.

    As I understand it...
  9. mark1
    mark1 14 August 2019 08: 33
    +4
    The topic was raised interesting, it seems to be a trifle but puzzling. By the way, I haven’t seen places anywhere so far, so the version of Roman has the right to be. In turn, I’ll also put forward a version (assumption) - perhaps in the 20s a transition to a new step in the dimension of calibers, not linear-inch, was supposed and decimal (e.g. 5). Let me remind you that in the 20th there appeared battalion art systems of 60mm and 45mm caliber. And then, as it often happens, everything was blacked out and forgotten, but the dimension of 45 mm was preserved and came to life, again I suppose (to compose so to compose) that due to the presence at the enterprise of the prepared equipment for the production of battalion guns being prepared in the 20s.
    Threat Pre-war calibers of 25,85 and 95 and even 180mm also suggest the idea of ​​step 5.
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 14 August 2019 10: 24
      +1
      Quote: mark1
      The pre-war calibers of 25,85 and 95 and even 180mm also suggest Step 5.

      The desire for such a step. There were other calibers 23; 37; 57;
      1. mark1
        mark1 14 August 2019 11: 58
        +1
        Well yes, the pursuit. The initiative most likely died in the 20s, but memory could be preserved. Maybe even in the form of some kind of draft normative documents (a topic for specialists in weapons historians).
  10. hohol95
    hohol95 14 August 2019 08: 58
    +2
    Moreover, sharpened belts, which were supposed to cut into rifling, thereby improving compression and spinning the projectile around its axis, are unlikely to have a positive effect on ballistics. Rather, on the contrary, they worsened, and so much so that it was difficult to demand something really combat from these shells.
    I am sure that the only application that they found was just training shooting. For the most part, this crippled shell was hardly suitable.

    If work on the re-grinding of old GARNET with a caliber of 47mm was carried out BEFORE June 22, 1941, why then M.N.Svirin in his book "Stalin's self-propelled guns. History of the Soviet ACS 1919 - 1945" wrote -
    The issue of rearmament of the former "chemical" tanks during their repair was not as simple as it might seem at first glance. Of course, the installation of 130-mm tank guns mod. 45 would not have caused much trouble. There were guns, in particular, on the "Bolshevik", but at that moment the Leningrad Front was experiencing an acute shortage of 45-mm fragmentation grenades and fuses for them. The stockpile was barely enough for two to three weeks of fighting to arm the entire arsenal of 45-mm battalion guns, as well as the existing T-26 and BT tanks. By order of the head of the Department of Artillery Supply (UAE) Lenfront, work began on the question of regrinding old 47 mm naval grenades for use as part of a 45-mm round, as well as organizing release at the plant named after Lepse 45 mm garnet made of malleable and gray cast iron. True, the situation with armor-piercing shells was a little better, but what is a tank that does not have fragmentation ammunition, and where were the guarantees that research in the direction of its own release of surrogate fragmentation ammunition would be crowned with success?

    So the stocks of old shells were only in the Leningrad region, and before the war, there were NO work on regrinding of grenades with a caliber of 47 mm to 45 mm! And only because of problems with the supply of guns of the specified caliber with shots with fragmentation grenades, they decided to conduct such experiments!
    The version about the "pre-war re-grinding of shells" does not correspond to reality.
  11. hohol95
    hohol95 14 August 2019 09: 34
    +2
    3. The regrinding of 47-mm shells to the caliber 45 mm is nothing more than a successful attempt to attach shells that were actually useless at that time. The most useful disposal.

    Coercive measure applied in the blocked Leningrad. Where the stocks of shells from 47 mm sea guns were concentrated.
  12. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 14 August 2019 10: 12
    +1
    Hmmm ... a little bit sorry that the 45 mm caliber has gone, as it were, into "nothingness"! A "sidekick" once told me that back in the 70s, in the artillery brigade of 130-mm cannons, where he served, they took "magpies" with them to the exercises ... sighting! At the beginning of this century, there was hope of equipping the Kurganets-25 with a newly developed automatic 45-mm cannon ... but, alas, they gave up on the 57-mm caliber ...
  13. hohol95
    hohol95 14 August 2019 10: 26
    +2
    As a result, in the 1929 year (yeah, we started in the 1916-m, continued practically to zero in the 1922-m and here you are) the battalion howitzer 45 mm of the 1929 model of the year came into service.

    The chest opened simply.
    How did the above howitzer shoot?
    The weight of a light armor-piercing projectile, 1,41 kg, 385 m / s, a heavy fragmentation projectile - 2,15 kg, 250 m / s, the weight of the system itself is 215 kg.
    I did not find photographs of shells. But!
    The weight characteristics of the shells of this howitzer are similar to the weight characteristics of the shells - shots with O-240 fragmentation steel grenade weighing 2,15 kg and B-240 armor-piercing blunt-headed weighing 1,43 kg!
    Howitzers were made in 1931-1932. Only about 100 pieces were produced. But the shells then naturally produced more! And the production was tuned to such shells! And if there are shells, then you need to make an instrument for them.
    It's my opinion.
    (Unless of course there is a photo and full characteristics of the shells for these howitzers and they differ from the ones given by me - the opinion is not true)
    But the example of the design and production in the USSR of divisional guns with a caliber of 76,2 mm (for shells of the "three-inch" model of 1902) prompts just such thoughts!
    1. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 14 August 2019 10: 55
      +1
      Quote: hohol95
      How did the above howitzer shoot?

      By the way, the ammunition also had over-caliber ammunition (feathered mines ...)
      1. hohol95
        hohol95 14 August 2019 10: 59
        +2
        All battalion artillery systems of caliber 45-65 mm fired armor-piercing, fragmentation shells and buckshot. The Bolshevik plant also produced a series of “muzzle” (super-caliber) mines - 150 pieces weighing 8 kilograms for 45 mm guns and 50 pieces for 60 mm howitzers. However, the Artillery Directorate, for reasons that were not understood, refused to accept the armament mines.

        magSpace.ru
        Domestic battalion cannon 1915 — 1930
        1. Nikolaevich I
          Nikolaevich I 14 August 2019 11: 44
          0
          Quote: hohol95
          However, the Artillery Directorate, for reasons that were not understood, refused to accept the armament mines.

          Well ... anything can happen! I remember that in the "source" it was said that the above-caliber mines, in the end, did not "take root" ... but I assumed that a certain amount and for some time they were ... By the way, in that "material" and the "photo" was with the image of a "magpie" with a caliber mine ...
          1. hohol95
            hohol95 14 August 2019 12: 00
            +1
            "Forty-five" what? Model 1929 or 1932?
            You probably saw a photo of the tests of the over-caliber cumulative mine held on June 29, 1942 at the Sofrinsky training ground.
            Based on the test results, GKO issued 10 on July 1942. Decree No.2010ss on the issue of 500pcs 45mm mines for conducting military tests.
            And whether this was accomplished is a mystery.
            1. Nikolaevich I
              Nikolaevich I 14 August 2019 12: 24
              +1
              Quote: hohol95
              "Forty-five" what?

              It was a battalion howitzer ... The "black-and-white" photo was from the 30s ... I remember the weight of the 8 kg mine (as in your data ... so it is not cumulative.)
              1. hohol95
                hohol95 14 August 2019 12: 26
                +3

                And this is cumulative.
                1. Nikolaevich I
                  Nikolaevich I 14 August 2019 13: 04
                  0
                  Interesting ! Now I cannot say: this or not that "photo"! Already a lot of time has passed ... now it "seems" to me that "that" photo was less clear than this one ... and the mine looked "like" somewhat differently! But I remember that the photo "illustrated" a fragment of the book, which described a 45-mm battalion howitzer and an 8 kg over-caliber mine ... The book was published in the 60s. I can even assume that the author could illustrate this fragment of the book with the photo that he "fell under the hands of"! request
            2. bubalik
              bubalik 14 August 2019 12: 40
              +2
              Based on the test results, GKO issued 10 on July 1942. Decree No.2010ss on the issue of 500pcs 45mm mines for conducting military tests.
              And whether this was accomplished is a mystery.
              hi Well, in May 1943. they entered the troops.
              The 45mm NKM-45 caliber mine is an armor-burning mine and is used as a caliber projectile for the 45mm cannon of the 1932-37 model. ,,,

              1. hohol95
                hohol95 14 August 2019 13: 29
                +1
                Do you have any documents on the use of these over-caliber mines?
                1. bubalik
                  bubalik 14 August 2019 14: 59
                  +2
                  Do you have any documents on the use of these over-caliber mines?
                  ,, did not come across. request
                  1. hohol95
                    hohol95 14 August 2019 15: 03
                    +2
                    hi and THANKS on that! And it is possible that it was more difficult to operate these grenades on the battlefield than at the training ground!
                    That's why we stopped at military trials! hi
    2. Potter
      Potter 14 August 2019 11: 17
      +1
      There is such an example of the post-revolutionary period. Koroteev’s self-propelled 45 mm gun arr. 1923 The information on this gun indicates that it was manufactured using a lightweight caterpillar chassis with a 10 hp engine. and weighing 500 kg (the driver walked next to the cannon) with the carriage of a 45-mm battalion gun. The weight of the projectile is indicated as 2,3 kg. The presence of such a battalion gun confirms the version that the roots of the 45mm caliber lie in the years of WWI and the first post-revolutionary years.
      1. hohol95
        hohol95 14 August 2019 11: 29
        +2
        They chose, counted, recounted. Production prices are calculated. There are many factors.
        But naturally, not from scratch, all this was born at the wave of the hand of the ranks of the Artillery Directorate!
  14. slasha
    slasha 14 August 2019 10: 57
    0
    Thank! Informative and interesting!
  15. Undecim
    Undecim 14 August 2019 11: 36
    +8
    The author has already formed a signature style. As soon as it is taken to debunk a myth or investigate a detective story, it is imperative that instead of a debunked myth it will create several new ones, and instead of solving the detective story, the reader will get another version.
    For starters - about Shirokorad. I am not a fan of him, but his first books, and they were about artillery, Shirokorad wrote in good faith working in the archives. Then he turned into a multi-compiler compiler. Therefore, the refutation of the version of Shirokorad requires appropriate documentary evidence.
    As for the developments of Lender and developments based on Lender (45-mm experimental battalion cannon of high power, USSR, 1927, chief designer F. F. Lender, 45-mm experimental battalion gun, USSR, 1925, design A. A. Sokolov and F. F. Lender, 45-mm howitzer model 1929 designed by F. F. Lender), then all of them were created at a time when the Hotchkiss cannons and shells were gathering dust in warehouses, so the version Shirokorada confirms rather than refutes.
    As for the number of shells in the warehouses, there is nothing mysterious here. Ammunition 47 mm gun Hotchkiss was 810 shells per barrel. We multiply 810 by 963 and we get 780030 pieces. But after all, not one ammunition was stored in warehouses. So a figure of two to three million shells is more than real.
    And the regrinding of belts. For the author’s information, the shells in the warehouse are stored separately from the fuses, so you do not need to twist them. It is also not necessary to unload the projectile, to fix a unitary shot of this size in the machine does not present a problem, as does the groove of the belt.
    So the author failed to present convincing arguments.
    1. hohol95
      hohol95 14 August 2019 12: 11
      +2
      And the regrinding of belts. For the author’s information, the shells in the warehouse are stored separately from the fuses, so you do not need to twist them. It is also not necessary to unload the projectileTo fix a unitary shot of this size in the machine is not a problem, as is the groove of the girdle.

      And the shells of the shots 47 and 45 mm were the same?
      In Leningrad in 1941, they were going to use only fragmentation grenades themselves. Sharpening and connecting with sleeves for 45 mm shot.
      By order of the Head of the Artillery Supply Department (UAS) Len Front, work has begun on the question of regrinding old 47 mm naval grenades for use as part of a 45-mm round ...
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 14 August 2019 12: 35
        +2
        And the shells of the shots 47 and 45 mm were the same?
        Now there is no literature at hand to look at and compare, ng I did not state this. I just meant that for regrinding of belts it is not necessary to unprotect a shot.
    2. Dooplet11
      Dooplet11 15 August 2019 08: 18
      +1
      So the author failed to present convincing arguments.

      But in the comments to Roman’s articles, where he fails to provide convincing arguments, as a rule, commentators have a lot of convincing arguments. True, often not in favor of Roman. laughing
  16. Nycomed
    Nycomed 14 August 2019 12: 38
    +1
    They forgot about the NS-45 aviation gun, which was mounted on the Yak-9K.
    1. hohol95
      hohol95 14 August 2019 15: 11
      +3
      For the NS-45 there were completely different shots! Very different from the shots for 19K and M42.
      1. Nycomed
        Nycomed 14 August 2019 15: 25
        0
        Just talking about caliber, and I thought that about this gun, too, could be mentioned. feel
        1. hohol95
          hohol95 14 August 2019 15: 44
          +3
          It was possible to mention, but the guns with the same shots were mentioned!
          And for the NS-45, their shots were developed.
          Do you know about the difference between the shots of the German 50 mm anti-tank and tank guns or 75 mm anti-tank and tank?
          The PTO guns had longer shots (plus for the Panther they fired their own)!

          1 - Pak-40;
          2 - KwK-42 (Panther)
          3- KwK-40 (Pz.IV)
          And for tank guns were not suitable.
          And for our tank, battalion and universal (anti-aircraft) 45 mm guns, the shots were identical!
          Caliber does not mean the identity of ammunition!
  17. yehat
    yehat 14 August 2019 12: 39
    0
    Quote: Undecim
    It is also not necessary to unload the projectile, to fix a unitary shot of this size in the machine does not present a problem, as does the groove of the belt.

    yes, although such a projectile, if any, was placed on the lathe where I was taught to work, with great difficulty.
    but are you not afraid of knocking during work?
    just because it can get hot?
    1. base1
      base1 14 August 2019 13: 07
      +1
      No, I won’t have time. The heat capacity of the disc is very large. Remove the diameter of 2mm in general about anything. Especially if only a belt.
    2. hohol95
      hohol95 14 August 2019 15: 05
      0
      yes, although on the lathe on which I was taught to work,

      16K20?
      1. yehat
        yehat 14 August 2019 15: 42
        0
        I don’t remember the marking, but the machine of the 50-60s.
        1. hohol95
          hohol95 14 August 2019 15: 46
          0
          hi Clear! So another.
          1. Amurets
            Amurets 15 August 2019 12: 48
            +1
            Quote: hohol95
            Clear! So another.

            Lathes of even one model were produced with different long beds and, accordingly, with different distances between the centers. The 1K62 machine, probably the most common in the USSR, had a distance between centers of 1000 and 1500 mm.
            1. hohol95
              hohol95 15 August 2019 13: 03
              +1
              yehat (Sergey) replied that he learned to work on lathes of 50-60 years of release!
              A screw-cutting lathe 16K20 began to produce since 1973!
              The machine was discontinued in the late 1980s.
              I worked on it in the summer of 1994.
              1. Amurets
                Amurets 15 August 2019 13: 40
                +1
                Quote: hohol95
                yehat (Sergey) replied that he learned to work on lathes of 50-60 years of release!

                16k20 is an updated version of the 1K62 machine.
                Machine 1K62 - purpose, area of ​​use
                The model of the machine 1K62, which replaced the obsolete modification 1A62, began to be produced by the Moscow machine-tool plant "Red Proletarian" in 1956. Serial production of the unit lasted until 1971. https://sibnovostroy.ru/stanki/tehnicheskie-harakteristiki-tokarno-vintoreznogo-stanka-1k62-i-osobennosti-konstruktsii.html

                Here it is a 1K62 machine.
                1. hohol95
                  hohol95 15 August 2019 13: 47
                  +1
                  There were differences!
                  At the LTZ, during practice, the guys saw a German drilling machine of the 30s!
                  1. Amurets
                    Amurets 15 August 2019 14: 25
                    +1
                    Quote: hohol95
                    At the LTZ, during practice, the guys saw a German drilling machine of the 30s!

                    In the locomotive depot, on the Trans-Siberian Railway, where I worked after the army and studies, there were two pre-revolutionary lathes in the machine shop: EMNIP 1903 and 1908 produced with a drive from the transmission, then the drive was converted into a gearbox, Strogalny, Kaganovich Plant in 1935 release and the French milling 1931 release and everything worked. That's where the rarities were, so the rarities.
  18. Snakebyte
    Snakebyte 14 August 2019 15: 22
    0
    The whole problem is that the Hotchkiss anti-mine gun was originally imprisoned for the fight against unarmored targets such as destroyers, boats and submarines. And so bad luck, I did not find armor-piercing shells in the specification for it. Iron and steel grenades were. So there is no clear docking.

    Actually, in those days, the anti-mine gun was required to break through the destroyer’s board, a layer of coal behind it and a car or boiler to slow down the course. And armor-piercing shells were the basis of ammunition for mine guns.
    Actually, the steel shell was an armor-piercing chamber. Well, cast-iron shells are just a cheap ersatz, such were used even on six-inch ones.
    1. hohol95
      hohol95 14 August 2019 15: 57
      0
      Actually, in those days, the anti-mine gun was required to break through the destroyer’s board, a layer of coal behind it and a car or boiler to slow down the course.

      This is the second comment with a similar statement!
      Where does this information come from?
      And why then did not exist on our ships in the Russian-Japanese armor-piercing 37 and 47 mm shells for guns Hotchkiss?
      There were only Pomegranates!
      When and who created the BB for the guns of Hotchkiss?
      1. Snakebyte
        Snakebyte 14 August 2019 17: 53
        0
        Attached to the word "grenade". As much as 20 grams of explosives in a 1,5 kg projectile. Incredible high-explosive impact! And the steel "grenade" pierced 80 mm steel. If this is not an armor-piercing shell, which one?
        And ask, when did the high-explosive shells appear for the more modern 75-mm "Kaneshek" (the main secondary battery of the newest ships)? And what were the ships in the BC during the ROE?
        1. hohol95
          hohol95 14 August 2019 22: 07
          0
          But dear PROVIDE with documents in your hands that it was exactly armor-piercing shells!
          In some online articles, these include CAST IRON shells for 37 mm Hotchkiss guns!
          Do you have any evidence?
          Or just decided to shake "beads"?
          1. Snakebyte
            Snakebyte 15 August 2019 23: 04
            +1
            So breaking through 80 mm steel does not make the shell armor-piercing. And the presence of 20 grams of explosives (originally ordinary black gunpowder. By the way, it was noted that the high-explosive action of these shells is negligible, often just pulled out a bottom fuse) makes the shell high-explosive. Interesting logic.
            It was called a grenade according to the classification established in the RIF.
            In the Russian naval artillery of that period, everything that the cannon fired was called a shell. The shells were of several types: a bomb was a hollow shell that weighed more than 1 pound, grenade - hollow shell weighing less than 1 poundshrapnel - a hollow shell that had a bursting charge and was equipped with round bullets; buckshot - a shell consisting of a thin body in which correctly placed round bullets were placed. The core was a solid shell weighing more than 1 pound, and the bullet was a solid shell weighing less than 1 pound. Bombs, grenades and shrapnel had a cylindrical-lancet shape, the buckshot case had a cylindrical shape, and the core had a round shape. Later, the shape of the core changed to a cylindrical lanceolate, but it was still called the core.
            And there were no high-explosive shells for the PMK, not only in Russia, but also in other countries, as already noted below. For the 75-mm OFS, they did it in 1905, already from the experience of the war, for the 37- and 47-mm they did not even bother, they simply removed these guns from the ships as completely ineffective.
        2. unknown
          unknown 15 August 2019 06: 05
          0
          Since the conversation turned to shells for 75 mm Kane guns from the time of the REV.
          High-explosive shells of this caliber (three-inch) were absent not only in the ammunition of the ships of the Russian fleet, but also in French, and English, and Japanese.
  19. yehat
    yehat 14 August 2019 15: 43
    0
    Quote: baza1
    No, I won’t have time. The heat capacity of the disc is very large. Remove the diameter of 2mm in general about anything. Especially if only a belt

    1 shell - yes, but when it flows, the machine heats up.
    can hot shavings get on the capsule ...
    1. base1
      base1 14 August 2019 16: 29
      0
      And the machine and cutter and equipment and the projectile itself will acquire some temperature. The shavings, too, but will cool down in seconds (not until cold of course). The capsule would still be closed by sending. In addition, as far as I know, in those days, "rapid" incisors were used, so that the rotation of revolutions of 200 maximum, it will lie down heap. As for me, no problem at all.
      1. yehat
        yehat 14 August 2019 16: 32
        0
        Quote: baza1
        As for me, no problems at all.

        cool, I just remember how the chips burned through rough leather shoes.
        pretty unpleasant. And since she burned goggles and got stuck literally a millimeter from the pupil.
        1. hohol95
          hohol95 14 August 2019 16: 39
          0
          You had a dashing lathe if his shavings burned through a leather boot!
          A welding machine, not a lathe!
          Was there cooling on it?
          16K20 with cooling heated the chips only to the ability to burn and scratch a brush that was not protected by tarpaulin mittens!
          1. base1
            base1 14 August 2019 16: 48
            +1
            It can be seen that many factors converged. Most likely made "stripping" ie. rough processing. Aisle by aisle will of course warm up the blank and with it the shavings, which will ignite the oil. And there is a high feed, a blunt cutter, increased speed, steel grade. That's all in the compartment and issued.
        2. Undecim
          Undecim 14 August 2019 16: 48
          +1
          Have you ever heard anything about the use of coolant in machining?
          1. base1
            base1 14 August 2019 17: 36
            0
            Yeah, the emulsion is called. Only as a rule it is not used on peeling.
  20. yehat
    yehat 14 August 2019 16: 45
    +1
    Quote: hohol95
    You had a dashing lathe if his shavings burned through a leather boot!
    A welding machine, not a lathe!
    Was there cooling on it?

    we studied - did not observe speed, etc.
    the cutters did not cool, the oils did not cool, the chips flew all over the workshop in all directions
    1. hohol95
      hohol95 14 August 2019 16: 55
      +1
      You had a bad MASTER! He taught us ELECTRICIANS to turn on the cooling on the machine! And I sharpened his "Sabbath" details (grunted at me, as at the most careless, but it was me who gave him his "Sabbath").
      And after each lesson they used oil to prevent corrosion from the coolant !!!
      Infuriated it, but did!
      1. yehat
        yehat 14 August 2019 16: 58
        +1
        but I learned to wave the hammer
        heated metal and forged all garbage on the anvil.
        the most popular were small fruit knives.
        1. hohol95
          hohol95 14 August 2019 17: 03
          0
          Fast, but you had a SMITH, not a turning shop!
          We had guys for both milling and turning!
          Me for a lathe 16K20 and a simple mechanical saw (for "jambs")! At the same time, we studied to be electricians!
          1. yehat
            yehat 14 August 2019 17: 19
            +1
            we started milling only on holidays.
            mainly lathes for wood or metal.
            but hell itself was when they forced files to work instead of machines.
            1. hohol95
              hohol95 14 August 2019 17: 25
              0
              I was lucky to know - only machines! And once a trowel, sand and cement - to cover up a hole in the fallen off plaster!
              But it was already the dashing 90s!
              The files were resharpened under the "toothpicks".
              And who did you graduate by profession, if not secret?
              1. yehat
                yehat 14 August 2019 17: 30
                +1
                Quote: hohol95
                And who did you graduate by profession, if not secret?

                this is a mystery to me
                mathematician-programmer with a 4-bit locksmith.
                it's about like a prima ballerina of a fishing seiner.
                1. hohol95
                  hohol95 14 August 2019 17: 40
                  0
                  Cool!
                  And when did you see the CNC machine?
                  Here we were not allowed to approach such a machine with the words - "You are not a turner or a mechanic! Electric barefoot!"
                  1. yehat
                    yehat 14 August 2019 18: 01
                    +1
                    And when did you see the CNC machine?
                    I saw him only after 3 years, when I went to pilot production at the university
  21. Catfish
    Catfish 14 August 2019 22: 47
    +3
    So, the version of Shirokorad and followers.


    There is also a FIFTH version - it was easier to pronounce. Try to say "forty-five" and "forty-seven" out loud, and everything will become clear. smile
    1. hohol95
      hohol95 14 August 2019 22: 56
      +1
      "Karl stole the corals from Clara, and Clara stole the clarinet from Karl."
      Reasonably ...
      1. Catfish
        Catfish 14 August 2019 22: 59
        +2
        Lazy people push everything new. An example is a wheel, the dude did not want to drag on his hump, so he came up with an improvement to the stretcher. smile
        1. hohol95
          hohol95 14 August 2019 23: 05
          +1
          So the American Indians were not lazy at all since they did not "invented" the wheel! And all the centuries before H. Columbus toiled with drags!
          And you, Konstantin, which version do you lean toward?
          1. Catfish
            Catfish 15 August 2019 00: 01
            +1
            I am inclined to the version that the wheel would not help them either, because before the gunpowder they too were underfunded. request
        2. unknown
          unknown 15 August 2019 06: 13
          0
          Come up with one, and make another.
          The traditional story, invented by humanities, began to crumble when technicians began to check it.
          There are such authors: Zhabinsky, Kolyuzhny, Volanskiy.
          They wrote a number of books: "Another history of technology", "Another history of wars", etc.
  22. Vadim_2
    Vadim_2 16 August 2019 05: 08
    0
    Gauges, sizes of bolts, nuts, etc. do not "choose from the bulldozer", as the author suggests.
    There is a number series calculated by a certain formula.