Bombards in Russia: great and special power for the tsars

29

The front annalistic vault: the siege of Smolensk in 1513. Moscow pishchiki use artillery

In the 14th century, firearms spread in Europe weapon various kinds, including early artillery systems. Quickly enough, the development of artillery led to the appearance of bombards - a heavy large-caliber gun with a monstrous destructive force and extremely low rate of fire. Naturally, similar systems existed in Russia.

Historical issues


It should be noted that the study of Russian bombards and other artillery can be significantly hampered by a number of characteristic factors. First of all, this is a certain disadvantage historical documents. The authors of the famous chronicles, describing the weapons of the rati, usually did not go into details. The documents of the Pushkar order could have been more useful, but they have repeatedly died in fires.



The topic of classification also hinders the study of the topic. In historical sources, often no distinction is made between artillery of different classes. The terms “bombard”, “gun”, “peep” or “mattress” can be used as synonyms. The definition of bombardments as a large-caliber weapon under the nucleus appeared noticeably later.

Finally, there is a definite drawback of real samples. Large-caliber guns, by the standards of the XIV-XVI centuries. were extremely complex and expensive, and their production was not the cheapest raw materials. They tried to use them until the resource was fully exhausted and then sent to remelting. As a result of this, only a few Russian guns have been preserved that meet the “traditional” definition of bombards.

The history of the scorers


It is believed that Russia met with artillery in the last quarter of the 14th century, and these were German-made guns. In just the next few decades, Moscow and Tver armed their troops with similar systems - they were purchased from foreigners, and in parallel there was the development of their own production.

By this time, European gunsmiths had already managed to create the first guns, which can be classified as "classic" bombards. Similar ideas came to Russian casters and led to well-known consequences. During the XV century. the Russian army received its first bombardments. Judging by the surviving samples, early guns of this kind differed in modest dimensions and caliber, but in the future there was a tendency to increase these parameters.


The early bombers of the XIV century in VIMAIViVS. Photo Technomuzei.ru

A striking example of the early Russian bombardments are items stored in the Military History Museum of Artillery, Engineering and Signal Corps (St. Petersburg). They have wrought iron trunks in caliber from 75 to 110 mm, mounted on wooden decks. The cameras were made removable for reloading.

Later iron specimens of 230 and 520 mm caliber with a relatively short barrel length were also preserved. The total length of these products is 1,4 m and 77 cm, respectively. In their appearance, such bombards generally correspond to the foreign systems of that time.

A new stage in the development of Russian artillery began in the last quarter of the 15th century. and is associated with the name of the Italian engineer Aristotle Fioravanti. In Moscow, he worked as an architect, a builder of fortifications and a weapons engineer. Having received the post of chief of artillery, A. Fioravanti ensured the development of new technologies brought from leading foreign countries. In the same period, other Italian masters came to Russia.

In 1488, the Italian Pavel Debossis cast the first gun of a new class for our army - the copper (bronze) Peacock bombardment. She had a large caliber and could shoot stone kernels weighing 13 pounds (more than 210 kg). On the model of foreign bombard "Peacock" had a conical expanding bore and a narrowed charging chamber.

Two other iconic bombers appeared in the middle of the 16th century. German gunsmith Kashpir Ganusov in 1554 g. Cast in bronze the so-called Kashpirovu gun caliber 530 mm. The gun had an 4,88 m barrel and weighed 1200 pounds (more than 19,6 tons). An important feature of the Kashpir Cannon was the barrel’s cylindrical channel. The standard ammunition was the 330-kg stone core.

A year later, Stepan Petrov cast the second “Peacock” under the 245-kg core. This bombardment had a length of 4,8 m and weighed 16,7 t. Probably, the name for this gun was chosen due to the similarity of designs.


520-mm gun from the collection VIMAIViVS. Photo Technomuzei.ru

In 1568, Andrei Chokhov, a student of K. Ganusov, cast his first cannon. Subsequently, he manufactured many tools of all basic types, from light squeaks to heavy bombers. The most famous of his creations was Tsar Cannon 1586 g. This bronze gun had a length of more than 5,3 m with a caliber 890 mm and a mass of more than 39 t.

The era of heavy artillery


By the second half of the XVI century. in the Russian army developed artillery appeared, which had different systems, including tools of "great and special power." For example, during the Livonian war, up to fifty lungs and the same number of heavy guns could be involved in one operation — the last included several bombers.

Kashpirova and Stepanova cannon along with the “Peacocks” were regularly used in the siege and capture of enemy fortresses. Such weapons were very difficult to operate and did not differ in rate of fire, but heavy stone cores made it possible to make gaps in the walls. However, it took a lot of time.

Due to a number of characteristic factors, the bombardments in the Russian army were never the basis of artillery and always remained a small means for solving special problems. In the future, with the development of fortification and artillery, the need for large-caliber systems for a stone or cast-iron core gradually decreased.

By the second half of the XVII century. such weapons are virtually obsolete. It should be noted that in Russia this happened later than in other countries. European fortress builders took the necessary measures already at the beginning of the 16th century, after which the benefits of bombardments sharply decreased.

It is known that before the beginning of the XVIII century. several large-caliber bombers were stored in Moscow. These and other guns were guarded in one of the sections of Red Square. In 1701, after the Narva embarrassment, Peter I ordered that some of the obsolete cannons be transferred from storage to modern models. Kashpirova’s cannon and one of the “Peacocks” (which one is unknown) got into the smelting.


The Tsar Cannon is the most famous weapon of its class. Wikimedia Commons Photos

The other scorers were more fortunate. Some historical examples later under certain circumstances came to museums. The Tsar Cannon remained in the Kremlin, and later acquired a richly decorated carriage and decorative cores. However, the bulk of the heavy guns - as well as other obsolete artillery systems - fell into remelting due to damage or due to obsolescence.

In the second half of the XVII century. such weapons went out of operation and gave way to more convenient and efficient guns. Therefore, the remelting of the bombards into guns was expected and logical - although unfair to unique historical patterns.

Design features


In their design, Russian bombards were close to foreign ones. The same was true for combat use methods. Particularly large-caliber guns under the stone core were used during sieges and assaults to destroy the walls. Defensive use in some circumstances was also possible.

Early bombards had a barrel of limited length (no more than 5-7 calibres) and diameter. The barrel was made by the method of forging welding of iron strips, which limited its strength and other characteristics. Later, the Fryzhsky masters helped to master bronze casting, which allowed to increase the power of the guns. In this case, the caliber grew, but the proportion of the barrel remained the same.

Most bombers had a special barrel design. The channel containing the core was usually conical and expanded slightly towards the barrel. The breech contained a chamber of smaller diameter with thick walls. The outer surface of the gun was decorated with patterns, covered with inscriptions, etc. Staples were provided for transportation and management.

The bombardments were not equipped with a regular carriage and needed special means. They were transported to the place of use by horse traction and log rollers. At the position, a wooden blockhouse was built on which the gun was laid. Behind the product was propped up with masonry or logs, taking on the impact.

Bombards in Russia: great and special power for the tsars
The design of the Tsar Cannon. The barrel has the characteristic features of bombards. Figure Milhist.ru

The process of loading a large-caliber bombardment was complex and lengthy, because of which she could make no more than a few shots a day. After each shot, restoration of the tip and a new loading procedure were required. With each shot, a multi-pound core caused serious damage to any fortress walls, and for several days of continuous shooting, the gunners could make a gap for the subsequent assault.

As ammunition, spherical stone cores weighing up to hundreds of kilograms were originally used. Later, mainly abroad, cast-iron kernels of a larger mass appeared. Throwing heavy ammunition was associated with increased loads on the barrel and led to its rapid wear. As the resource is depleted, bombards are often converted into shotguns - for firing stone shots. Then the weapons were written off and remelted.

The special power of the Middle Ages


One of the reasons for the appearance and development of artillery, which led to the emergence of the “classic” bombardment, was the improvement of fortification. Large-caliber guns could slowly but surely destroy any fortresses. They were a very complex, but effective tool for solving special problems.

Bombards appeared abroad, but the Russian army did not stand aside. In the XIV-XV centuries. our troops received all the necessary artillery samples, including large and special power. Such weapons were used in numerous battles and showed themselves well - despite the low operational characteristics.

However, the development of military affairs continued, and already in the XVII century. the bombard has lost its potential. Now, other weapons and equipment were required to storm the fortresses, and almost all of the outdated Russian bombards went for processing. After themselves, they left mostly only the most general descriptions and a noticeable mark in Russian military history.
29 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +7
    29 November 2019 18: 20
    It is believed that the Tsar Cannon was not intended for firing nuclei, it was a card case.
    1. +3
      29 November 2019 18: 46
      Exactly! To the campaign, the author did not understand the difference between the bombard-analogue of today's mortar. And the food. Essentially a defensive shotgun. But as a buckshot, it was charged with gravel. Yes and the bombardment was not used to destroy the walls. For it shot a hinged trajectory.
      1. +10
        29 November 2019 19: 27
        Quote: AU Ivanov.
        It is believed that the Tsar Cannon was not intended for firing nuclei, it was a card case.

        Well, probably not a card case, but a shotgun! This version is called into question by the flat breech of the Tsar Cannon, which is still characteristic of bombards. It was them who the bombers rested on the log house or masonry.

        Quote: jekasimf
        Exactly! To the campaign, the author did not understand the difference between the bombard-analogue of today's mortar. And the food. Essentially a defensive shotgun. But as a buckshot, it was charged with gravel. Yes and the bombardment was not used to destroy the walls. For it shot a hinged trajectory.

        A bombard is a bombard! The mortar is closest to the medieval mortar (stupa in French). The property of curtain fire was mathematically justified only in the middle of the 16th century. Prior to this, mostly direct fire, with minimal elevation.

        In the future, with the development of fortification and artillery, the need for large-caliber systems for a stone or cast-iron core gradually decreased.

        Dear Cyril, here you are deeply mistaken! The large caliber was killed precisely by the cast-iron core, which at a small size was corny harder! Due to the high specific gravity of cast iron.
        A typical example is the shelling in the mid-19th century of an English battleship when breaking through the Dardanelles! The stone core weighing 200 kg, breaking the freeboard and igniting the charges could not put the ship to the bottom. 400 kg of core fell into Agagemon during the First World War even less harm!
        Well, somewhere like that!
        Regards, Kote!
        1. +4
          30 November 2019 21: 44
          "Best regards, Kote!"
          Nekstati wanted to ask:
          You seemed to have another quite polite Japaneseized nickname that made you change it:
          Have you really gotten drunk up to the point that you called all the local moderators not very good names laughing
          Another reason I somehow can not imagine ...?
      2. +8
        29 November 2019 19: 45
        Quote: jekasimf
        charged with gravel

        Stone shot.
        Hence the "shotgun".
        And from here, a fraction.

        The version "the Tsar Cannon is a medieval analogue of the Monkey" is still controversial. Although it has the right to life.

        By and large, here you need to know exactly the place where they planned to place it.
        1. +2
          29 November 2019 22: 13
          It was placed opposite the main entrance (gate). And in the event of an enemy breakthrough, she mowed everything a few hundred meters away, because the gates to the gate were always in the form of a long, narrow corridor.
          1. +5
            30 November 2019 11: 19
            Quote: jekasimf
            It was placed opposite the main entrance (gate). And in the event of an enemy breakthrough, she mowed everything a few hundred meters away, because the gates to the gate were always in the form of a long, narrow corridor.

            Based on this, they decided that the Tsar Cannon is a shotgun.
            However, as far as I read. this placement is just an assumption.
      3. +3
        29 November 2019 22: 40
        Quote: jekasimf
        Exactly! To the campaign, the author did not understand the difference between the bombard-analogue of today's mortar. And the food. Essentially a defensive shotgun. But as a buckshot, it was charged with gravel. Yes and the bombardment was not used to destroy the walls. For it shot a hinged trajectory.


        I agree with you. And make it worse. The author did not understand anything. The author does not distinguish a unicorn from a grenade launcher. For ... he is a historian ... probably. A person with brains (not a historian) would load the chamber with gunpowder and calculate the energy of this charge. Then he would try to throw with this energy a solid-cast core-bomb (a thin-walled core with a charge inside) - shrapnel / buckshot / shot. Would fall into sadness. And in the future I would not try to carry artillery heresy. Punishable by burning. But alas. The authors of VO write not about what they have a professional understanding of, but about what they read on Wikipedia. Well, like a venereologist writes about quantum physics or the theory of quarks.
    2. +3
      29 November 2019 19: 31
      Quote: AS Ivanov.
      It is believed that the Tsar Cannon was not intended for firing nuclei ..
      I’m afraid that this gun, the Tsar’s cannon, or as it is written in the bombard article, could shoot anything with small restrictions, which is actually written in this article. Including, of course, the buckshot, that is, to some extent, the buckshot, that is, a fairly universal device for using various types of charge.
    3. +2
      29 November 2019 19: 52
      The way it is. At the time the cannon was created, the main condition is to destroy the advancing manpower that besieged the Moscow Kremlin, and the cores are mainly needed to break through and destroy the besieged fortress walls.
    4. BAI
      0
      29 November 2019 20: 14
      The Tsar Cannon was not originally intended to be fired at all. It was made to intimidate foreign ambassadors.
      1. +5
        29 November 2019 21: 38
        Campaign in Tsarist Russia, the Supreme, also liked the ambassadors cartoons about the latest weapons show good
      2. +6
        30 November 2019 02: 40
        Quote: BAI
        The Tsar Cannon was not originally intended to be fired at all. It was made to intimidate foreign ambassadors

        Is Otkedov such a bold statement? The fact is that I had to read that historians-investigators somehow managed to somehow find traces of gunpowder in the barrel of the Tsar Cannon ... historians also suggested that at least one shot (most likely a test one). ..) was perfect! That is, the Tsar Cannon was still made for practical use, and not for the role of the scarecrow!
        1. +4
          30 November 2019 05: 16
          Quote: Nikolaevich I
          That is, the Tsar Cannon was still made for practical use, and not for the role of the scarecrow!

          Nikolaevich, did you read such a myth?
          The myth of the weapon and the impostor king False Dmitry

          And yet she shot !? A myth surviving says that the only shot was fired by the ashes of the temporary Russian Tsar False Dmitry.

          After the exposure, he tried to escape from Moscow, but stumbled on a combat patrol and was brutally murdered. The body was interred twice, and twice it again appeared on the surface: either at the almshouse or at the graveyard. Rumors spread that even the land did not want to accept it, after which it was decided to cremate the body, and to fire a shot from the cannon, turning the gun in the direction of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (present-day Poland), where he came from.
          https://progulkipomoskve.ru/publ/dostoprimechatelnosti_moskvy/car_pushka_v_kremle_v_moskve/47-1-0-650
          1. +4
            30 November 2019 07: 17
            Yes ... I had to read this myth ... But we must take into account that the Tsar Cannon was made in 1586 .... then it was customary to demonstrate to the customer the quality of the product when "handing over the product"; that is, the gun was tested with a test shot. The legend with the ashes of False Dmitry refers to the beginning of the 17th century, and there is no specifics about the type of weapon, but I do not think that the Tsar Cannon is involved here!
            1. +2
              30 November 2019 13: 28
              The tsar’s cannon was first created by the Fatih Sultan. The first tsar’s cannon was lit. 1452. The gun’s diameter was 91.5 cm, the projectile weight was 680 kg, and the firing range was 1200 m. The sound of the gun was heard from 24 km away)
              1. +3
                30 November 2019 13: 38
                In Russia, under the name "Tsar Cannon" was always meant a weapon cast by Chokhov in 1586, which is still in Moscow!
                1. +1
                  30 November 2019 15: 08
                  I meant that the Fatih cannon was also called "Sah-Topu", which is translated as "Tsar Cannon." One was presented to the British, to this day they have in the museum. 6 pieces are in Turkey. In total, 42 pieces were cast and stood on the defensive borders of the Bosphorus.
                  1. +2
                    30 November 2019 20: 16
                    Quote: Oquzyurd
                    I meant that the Fatih cannon was also called "Sah-Topu", which is translated as "Tsar Cannon.

                    Yes, this happens from time to time ... and in the world there is, perhaps, a "decent" number of "twins-names" ... I understood what you wanted to say, but just mentioned that in the topic of discussion "there was a" Moscow " Tsar Cannon"... hi
        2. BAI
          +1
          1 December 2019 16: 04
          Simple elementary material resistance. The barrel walls are too thin. I didn’t come up with it myself - professionals have already discussed this topic on the History channel. Both historians and physicists.
          1. +1
            2 December 2019 01: 13
            Quote: BAI
            Simple elementary sopromat. The walls of the trunk are too thin. I didn’t come up with it myself -

            Well, such an "elementary resistance material" is known ... his "formula":
            And here is the internal structure of the Tsar Cannon:
            Question: How about arranging a loading chamber in the barrel, "forming" a tapered barrel ... and all this according to all the rules of the "cannon" business in the manufacture of a bombard, if a fake gun was made? It was enough to cast a "log with a hole" and frighten foreigners to the delight of Muscovites!
    5. +8
      29 November 2019 22: 12
      It is believed that Russia met with artillery in the last quarter of the XNUMXth century, and these were German-made guns.


      I don’t know about the bombards, but this is what the French encyclopedia Dalamber and Diderot wrote in the 18th century.



      Muscovites were the first to invent muskets, and not, as is now considered, the Spaniards.

      Another fact is the famous wedge-lock at the squeak of the 17th century, which Alfred Krupp wanted to buy from RI in the 19th century.
      also our invention and it was the first in the world.

    6. +4
      30 November 2019 17: 47
      In 2006, it seems, the trunk channel of the Tsar Cannon was explored by the trasologists of the State Historical Museum. The verdict is unequivocal: a) shot b) stone cores, not a shot. Look on the site of the State Historical Museum, several articles on this subject were laid out even then.
  2. +6
    29 November 2019 18: 25
    I read the article with great interest! Thanks to the author! hi
  3. +4
    29 November 2019 20: 40
    The Tsar Cannon is an example of an uber weapon! Like we can!
    As a tech device, it has no capabilities. But what about positioning opportunities? Fine!
    1. +5
      30 November 2019 17: 53
      Do you seriously think so, or is it such a thin banter? Ponty-like mogu was the Tsar Bell (one of the three, and which you know actually as the Tsar Bell), but the tools of the Chokhov casting could not be ponty and props, if only because they were ordered by a cannon order and for specific tasks.
  4. +6
    29 November 2019 20: 53
    If my memory serves me, for the first time the Russian army collided with artillery during the siege of Bulgar in 1376. As a result, guns from the captured Bulgar were fired at Tokhtamysh troops in 1382 during the siege of Moscow - the first recorded fact of the combat use of artillery by Russian troops.
    Question: so where did the artillery come to Russia from the west or from the east?
  5. +2
    29 November 2019 23: 18
    "And the friends from them, who are more than lstvitsi and sending me, lodge at the walls. Citizens, however, boil water in the cauldron and boil them for nya, and so scold them. Those who departed and started to pack. And so for three days, beating between them. Whenever a Tatar attack comes to hail, close to one that is approaching the city of Hail, then the citizens, threatening the hail, oppose them in an electrifying way: they shoot the fire with the fence, and the ovii stone the shibakh on the nya, the friends are mattresses comin 'on them, and the lines are self-straining, annoyingly, scarecrow and vices. There are also NNCs, and you are always the guns to the Pushcha."
    Mention of mattresses and guns in the Tale of the invasion of Tokhtamysh.
  6. +6
    30 November 2019 00: 49
    Therefore, the remelting of the bombards into guns was expected and logical - although unfair to unique historical patterns.
    At that time, any metal was of great value. At that time there were no high-performance units for the production of metals. And where to understand the historical value of the samples, when Peter I went into conflict with the church, ordering to pour the bells into guns. However, part of the old cannons was forbidden to transfuse.
    But in general, about metal and bell mobilization, see the link: https://profile.ru/culture/kolokolnaya-mobilizatsiya-3388/
    "The Northern War with Sweden began for Russia with a catastrophe. In November 1700, the Russian army suffered a terrible defeat at Narva. Among other trophies, the enemy got all our artillery - 195 guns, including 64 heavy siege guns.
    In order to realize the severity and significance of this loss, two historical facts must be understood. Firstly, at that time guns were the most metal-intensive production, and metal was extremely expensive. It is no coincidence that the Russian peasantry of that time in everyday life dispensed with virtually no metals and products from them - the only metal objects in agriculture were an ax, a sickle, a "coulter" or "ploughshare", metal cutting tips of a plow or a plow cutting earth.
    Secondly, before Peter I, Russia had almost no metal sources of its own. Before the industrial development of the Urals, begun by the reformer tsar, iron in Russia was either made from insignificant reserves of “swamp” ores or bought in Western Europe. Under the first tsars from the Romanov dynasty, more than half of the metals used in the country were purchased from merchants from Germany, England, Holland and Sweden.

    The situation with copper and tin was even worse — until the beginning of the 3669th century, these metals were not mined at all in Russia. Despite the fact that it was from bronze, an alloy of copper and tin, that the best artillery pieces were then made. To take an enemy fortress at that time, it required at least several dozen large siege guns, each of several tons of copper alloy. For example, the heavy Russian cannon “Skoropeia” captured by the Swedes near Narva (made by the skilled gunmaster Andrei Chokhov several years after the death of Ivan the Terrible) is XNUMX kilograms of bronze.

    At the beginning of the reign of Tsar Peter I, high-quality copper was bought from European merchants at a price of 6 rubles per pood, imported tin cost even more - up to 7 rubles per pood. That is, only the cost of metals (excluding work) for one gun "Skoropeya" was about 1200 rubles. To understand what this amount meant then, let's say that at that time it was possible to buy 600 horses with it. "