Military Review

North and South: smooth-bore and rifled guns

53

At the enemy infantry with buckshot ... Fire!


The Lord commanded: “Go, Moses,
To the Egyptian land.
Tell the pharaohs
Let my people go!
Oh! Let My People Go: The Song of the Contrabands, 1862


Weapon from museums. We continue our story about the artillery weapons of the northern and southern states that fought during the Civil War of 1861-1865. Today we will talk about the comparative characteristics of the then guns, both smooth-bore and rifled, which were in service with the southerners and northerners.

Smoothbore artillery was dominant at that time and reached its maximum perfection. Well, it was classified according to the approximate weight of the cast cannon with which one or another gun fired. For example, a 12-pound 12-pounder field gun had a bore diameter of 4,62 inches (117 mm). As for the American army, in the years preceding the war, field guns of 6, 9 and 12 pounds, and 12 and 24 pound howitzers were produced for its needs.


Northern artillery at the Battle of Malvern Hill, July 1, 1862. Stephen Welsh

The 6-pound field cannon featured bronze models from 1835, 1838, 1839 and 1841. Even older cast iron guns of the 1819 model were used, and in 1861 they were used by both sides. Large 9- and 12-pounder guns are less common, as their production was extremely small after the war of 1812. However, with at least one federal battery ("13th Indiana"), the 12-pounder field gun was in service at the start of the war. The main disadvantage of these heavy field guns was poor mobility, as they required eight horses to be harnessed, while the lighter guns required six, and in war at the time, every horse was of great importance.


This is what they were, bronze "Napoleons". Vicksburg. Vicksburg national military park

The most popular smoothbore cannon for the Union and Confederate artillery was the 12 Light 1857-pounder, commonly referred to as the Napoleon. The 1857 model was lighter than the previous 12-pounder guns and could be pulled by six horses, but it could fire both cast cannonballs and explosive grenades. Therefore, it was sometimes even called a howitzer cannon and was highly valued for its versatility.

The Napoleon smoothbore cannon was named after the French Napoleon III and was widely admired for its safety, reliability and destructive power, especially at close range. In the leadership of the Union it was called the "light 12-pounder gun" to distinguish it from the heavier and longer-barreled 12-pounder gun (which was practically never used in the field). The federal version of the "Napoleon" can be recognized by the expansion on the muzzle of the barrel, while the barrels of these guns from the Confederates were mostly smooth.

North and South: smooth-bore and rifled guns

Tour de Tulstrup. Sheridan's final attack at Winchester. Library of Congress In the foreground on the right - Napoleon, ready to fire

Southerners produced their "Napoleons" in six versions, most of which had straight barrels, but at least eight of the 133 that have survived to this day have a traditional design, but southern brands. In addition, four cast iron Napoleons from the Tredegar Iron Works in Richmond were discovered. In early 1863, General Robert E. Lee dispatched most of the 6-pounder 1863-pounder guns of the Army of Northern Virginia to Tredegar to be transferred to the Napoleons there. The fact is that copper for casting bronze products for the Confederation throughout the war became more and more scarce, and the need for it became especially acute in November 1864, when the copper mines of Ducktown near Chattanooga were captured by the troops of the northerners. The Confederation stopped the production of bronze "Napoleons", and in January XNUMX Tredegar began their production of cast iron.


Bronze "Napoleon" model 1857 Produced in the northern and southern states from 1857 to 1863. Caliber 4,62 inches (117 mm). Powder charge - 2,5 lb. black powder. Effective firing range at an elevation angle of 5 ° is 1,619 yards. The bronze barrel weighs 1227 lbs, the cast iron barrel 1249 lbs. Gun total weight: 2.350 lbs. In total, about 1100 pieces were produced. Cost in 1861 - $ 490 (US), $ 565 (KSA); price in 1864 - $ 614 (US), $ 1840 (KSA)


Landscape with a gun on the Gettysburg field. And looks at the battlefield ... yes, yes, it was she - Whitworth's cannon with a hexagonal bore

Most of the Union Army guns of this type were produced in Massachusetts by the Ames and Revere Copper Company. The Confederation produced them in several foundries in Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi, Virginia, Georgia, and South Carolina. The design of these guns was slightly different from the design of the northerners, but they used the same 12-pound ammunition, which was certainly convenient in terms of using trophies.


Tour de Tulstrup. Northern artillery fires at the enemy at the Battle of Shiloh. Library of Congress

The howitzers had shorter barrels, used smaller powder charges and were mainly designed for firing explosive grenades. Northerners and Southerners used 12-pound (4,62-inch), 24-pound (5,82-inch) and 32-pound (6,41-inch) guns of this type. Most of the howitzers used in the war were bronze, with the exception of a few made in the southern states.


Over time, the barrels of the guns of both the North and the South lost all the excesses, which saved them a lot of valuable copper. And here on the right are prominent field fortifications of that time, restored after historical According to

The standard was the 12-pound field howitzer, which was introduced by the 1838 and 1841 models. Since the 12-pound Napoleon was in no way inferior to her, the northerners stopped using it, but this howitzer remained in service with the southerners until the end of the war. Heavy 24- and 32-pound howitzers were used in stationary fortifications.

Battles of the Civil War 1861-1865 reflected their certain specificity, which the art of war had to reckon with. The fact is that the infantry was armed with relatively long-range firearms and was now able to keep artillery out of effective range. That is, it became difficult for enemy artillery to inflict heavy losses on troops preparing for an attack. But on the other hand, when the enemy's infantry was on the attack, it was met with a flurry of fire, since the arrows could not suppress the fire of the defenders on the move. Buckshot and massive infantry volleys thwarted attack after attack, and hours of shelling were ineffective. In addition, both artillery and infantry operated in wooded, rugged terrain, where firing over long distances was virtually impossible.


A 7,44-inch Widow Blakely rifled howitzer. And at first it was a cannon. But then a shell exploded in her barrel, and then the southerners cut off the barrel and continued to use it! It says on the shield that they used it as a mortar, but, most likely, based on the size and length of the barrel, it was still like a howitzer!

True, the firing range and accuracy of rifled guns at that time really amazed the world. So, the 30-pound (4,2-inch) Parrott cannon sent its shells to 8453 yards (7729 meters), and the notorious "Swamp Angel", which shot at Charleston in 1863 (the 200-pound Parrott cannon), was completely on a swamp 7000 yards from the city. But it turned out that even their shells, which were good at destroying brick and stone walls, were powerless in front of ... earth fortifications, which both sides immediately took advantage of.


And here is what is written on the plate, fixed on her trunk

The main artillery unit of the northerners' army was a battery of six guns of the same caliber. Among the southerners - out of four. The batteries were divided into "sections" of two guns under the command of a lieutenant. The captain commanded the batteries. The artillery brigade consisted of five batteries under the command of a colonel. Moreover, each infantry corps had to be supported by one artillery brigade.


Toure de Tulstrup. Siege of Atlanta. Library of Congress

At the start of the war, there were 2283 guns in the US arsenals, but only 10% of them were field guns. At the time of the end of the war, there were 3325 guns available, of which 53% were field guns. Over the years of the war, the army of the northerners received 7892 guns, 6335295 shells, 2862177 cores, 45258 tons of lead and 13320 tons of gunpowder.

However, the specificity of the then artillery was such that it also needed horses. On average, each horse had to pull approximately 700 pounds (317,5 kg). Usually, the gun in the battery used two harnesses with six horses: one carried the gun with a two-wheeled front end, the other towed a large charging box. The large number of horses posed a serious logistical problem for the artillery units, because they had to be fed, maintained and "repaired" as they ... worn out! Moreover, the horses for artillery were usually chosen second, since the best horses were manned by cavalry. The life expectancy of an artillery horse was less than eight months. Horses suffered from disease and exhaustion from long hikes - usually 16 miles (25,8 km) in 10 hours, and battle wounds, after which special teams were dispatched to the battlefield only to finish them off and thereby save them unnecessary suffering.


Toure de Tulstrup. Battle of Gettysburg. Restored by Adam Querden. And what do we see first of all on it? "The problem of horses"!

By 1864, the supply of horses proved to be a daunting task for the Union army, as it required 500 horses a day to maintain its mobility. Sheridan's army alone, fighting in the beginning in the Shenandoah Valley in 1864, demanded 150 horses in exchange every day. The situation with horses was even worse among the Confederates, who were deprived of the opportunity to purchase thoroughbred horses abroad.


Transportation of barrels of large-caliber guns required such "carts"!

The combat crew of each gun consisted of eight gunners. Five serviced the actual gun: these are Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4. The gunner was responsible for the aiming, and he also gave the command to fire the shot. Gunners # 1-4 loaded, cleaned and fired their guns. Gunner # 5 was bringing ammunition. Gunners Nos. 6 and 7 prepared ammunition and screwed the caps off the fuses, or, on the contrary, screwed them into the shells.

During the course of the war, three important advantages of rifled artillery came to light. Firstly, the significantly greater range and accuracy of fire. For example, a cannonball fired by the Napoleon bounced off the aiming point by three feet at 600 yards and 12 feet at 1200 yards!


The Confederates had to find a replacement for non-ferrous metals for the guiding belts of rifled guns, and they found it. For example, General N. B. Forrest suggested such shells with papier-mâché belts!

The second was that a large explosive charge entered the cylindrical projectile, and the field of fragments when it burst formed a more "lethal" one. Finally, the third benefit was gunpowder savings! Yes, yes, in rifled guns with the same firing range it was required less. For example, James' 14-pound cannon fired a heavier projectile than the Napoleon, but the gun itself was 300 pounds lighter and required 1,75 less propellant charge. The reason is clear. The cylindrical projectile fit snugly against the walls of the barrel, so the propellant gases of the charge "worked" better, and the propellant itself required less than the huge savings achieved in the army as a whole.


"The fountain of fire hit": then a buckshot shot looked like this!

True, purely psychologically (and at close range!) Smooth-bore guns were more profitable, especially when they fired buckshot. The fact is that in the canister charge, the bullets in the linen cap were sprinkled with sawdust. And when fired, when they ignited, just a fountain of fire hit from the barrel of the gun, not to mention a cloud of smoke!


3-inch iron cannon designed by John Griffen (patent 1855). Produced from 1861 to 1865. Caliber 3 inches. Number of grooves: seven. Standard charge: one pound of black powder. Shells: 8-, 9-pounder Hotchkiss or Schenkel. Effective range at 5 ° elevation is 1850 yards. Barrel weight - 816 lbs. The weight of the gun is 1720 pounds. Harness - six horses. Price in 1861 - $ 330 (US), price in 1865 - $ 450 (US). Manufactured by Phoenix Iron Company, Phoenixville, PA. CSA Manufacturing: Tredegar Iron Works, Richmond, VA.


The barrel of a gun with the confederation mark. Fort Frederick State Park

It should be noted that the Civil War in the most serious way advanced the level of military equipment and technology, and embodied the previously existing ideas into metal. We will talk about this and much more next time.

To be continued ...
Author:
Articles from this series:
US Civil War ammunition
The most popular caliber of the North and South
Cannons of Tredegar and the Noble Brothers
Cannons of Brooke and Viard
James and Sawyer cannons: rifled versus smoothbore
"The parrot gun." Man and his instrument
Faceted bore gun
53 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Mwg
    Mwg 26 July 2020 05: 44
    -2
    1835, 1838, 1839, 1841, 1857, 1864, and smooth-bore guns. Russia in the 16th century, and the cannons and squeaks were steel, rifled and breech-loading. What is this degradation? And why did this happen?

    https://go.mail.ru/search_video?fm=1&q=%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5%20%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B8%D0%B5%2016%20%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%B0&frm=ws_p&d=3260694032815296572&s=youtube&sig=baf245ec92
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 26 July 2020 07: 32
      10
      I will "horrify" you even more the second half of the last century - guns for the main battle tanks T-62 (115mm), T-64, T-72, T-80, T-90 (125mm), foreign Leopard 2 and Abrams M1A2 ( 120mm) - smooth-bore !!! All kaput regression of humanity !!! laughing
      Considering that in the 16th century breech-loading artillery prevailed in the fleets, it is possible to think of such an alternative that the "dummy" would crack! belay
      Unique rifled and breech-loading masterpieces of the 15-16th centuries that have survived to this day are not a mass and technological product! With a production value equal to 100 or 1000 smooth-bore and muzzle-loading brothers, they could survive in the army of Philip the Handsome or Ivan the Terrible, but already during the ZO-Years War, in the fields of Poltava, Ryaba Mogila and Borodin, definitely not! In the last battle, over 1000 guns rumbled! And you think that unique, each with its own caliber (alas, this is the reality of rifled barrel technology), low rate of fire and low barrel survivability (and this is true) - could a rifled wunderfall be useful?
      The dawn of rifled artillery coincides with the capabilities of metallurgy! The rest is from the evil one !!!
      Thank you Vyacheslav Olegovich !!! Best regards, Vlad!
      1. Mwg
        Mwg 26 July 2020 12: 14
        -6
        Urrrah! Give me! Five-year plan in three days!
        "... smooth-bore !!!" - Yes, you shooo? True? They don't shoot cannonballs, do they? Otherwise, they would be surprised if that. This is how the gun-projectile system is being developed as a single concept. Didn't know, go, about it? And the transition to sub-caliber shells dragged smooth-bore guns along. This is logical. But using the example of modern artillery systems to explain the logic of the concepts of firing cast-iron cannonballs from copper cannons is a little ... that. Not that .... Can you have a similar answer, where did the steel suddenly go? And how were the rifling made on "piece" guns, by hand? Write, it is interesting to read the opinion of believers "The rest is from the evil one !!!"

        Py.Sy. I beg your pardon, but you have not appeared anywhere under the name of Black Cat? For there it was that someone called this "kohan", and he was also told that ...
        1. Trilobite Master
          Trilobite Master 26 July 2020 14: 12
          +9
          If you had bothered to express your thoughts more clearly, perhaps you could get some kind of intelligible answer. And so ... In addition to "egegei" and "hurray", you have something difficult to answer.
          Smoothbore guns fired not only cannonballs.
          It happened that new shells were developed for existing guns, it happened, on the contrary, new guns for existing ammunition.
          Sub-caliber shells caused a return to a smooth barrel? Prove.
          Why it is impossible to shoot cast-iron cannonballs from bronze (not copper) cannons - explain.
          About steel, too, the idea is incomprehensible - why, in your opinion, did it disappear somewhere or, on the contrary, did not disappear ...
          In short, if your comments contain less pathos and more balanced thoughts, it may be interesting to read them. And if, at the same time, you do not deliberately distort the words of the Russian language, then you will undoubtedly rise a little even above the level of the cave troll ...
          Quote: MVG
          Py.Sy.

          "Where is there? Answered what?
          Where and under what nicknames do you appear? Or maybe "there" and they answer you, "what."
          1. Mwg
            Mwg 28 July 2020 06: 26
            +1
            I will try to express ..
            "egegei" and "hurray" are used as an expression of my attitude to the commentary "Kote pane Kohanka", which, judging by the ratio of exclamation marks to the number of words in it, is clearly emotional (enthusiastic? triumphant?). This is also indicated by obvious logical contradictions in the adjacent phrases: "Considering that in the 16th century breech-loading artillery prevailed in the fleets, it is possible to think of such an alternative that the" dummy "will crack!" and "Unique rifled and breech-loading masterpieces of the 15-16th centuries that have survived to this day are not a mass and technological product!"
            At the same time, such arguments are common among the followers of the author of the article, as my personal experience shows. Comments like the one "answered" by "Kote pane Kohanka" are always ridiculed with some degree of sarcasm. When trying to conduct a discussion, arguments are always used that are unsubstantiated, emotional, but with giving them a sense of well-known.

            And the most interesting thing: for some reason, in such disputes, the site moderator often tries to restrict me in commenting - to attempts to publish my arguments I receive an answer "you are not allowed to comment on articles on this site", while my access to the resource is not limited. Yesterday, for example.

            "Py. Sy." - not personal. On another resource, there was a friend who persistently and persistently in the form of presentation and style, similar to the comments of "Kote pane Kohanka", tried to impose his opinion on the community members. For which he was repeatedly ridiculed by members of the community and, not finding like-minded people, quietly left the battlefield. Therefore, I asked a direct question, is it not him. For personally I do not have enough there a defender of false common truths to conduct pleasant conversations.

            Best regards
            1. Catfish
              Catfish 28 July 2020 09: 55
              +2
              ... the site moderator often tries to restrict me in commenting - on attempts to publish my arguments I get in response "you are forbidden to comment on articles on this site"

              Do not sin on the mod, this is a glitch. I have had this several times, it can be treated simply - restarting the vompUter and everything goes on as usual.
              From your answer to Mikhail I understood only one thing, I was still right in assuming that you have "personal hostile relations" with Vladislav.
              1. Mwg
                Mwg 28 July 2020 10: 27
                +2
                I swear there is no dislike for Vladislav (now I know his name), there is a history of long disputes on the topic of the universe, social justice, primogeniture and its history, spiritual practices, life and death, the beginning and end of civilizations.
                For the moderator it is accepted
            2. Trilobite Master
              Trilobite Master 28 July 2020 10: 29
              +2
              Good answer, the passage about the troll is being filmed, I apologize. hi
              I don't want to go into the essence of your disagreements with Vladislav, you will figure it out for yourself, but on my own behalf I want to say the following. I have known Vladislav at VO for several years now and I know him as a thoughtful, erudite interlocutor and a correct opponent, with whom it is always interesting to discuss something, to argue about something. And I can absolutely certify that the change of the nickname on this site was not caused by a loss of authority on the part of the participants in the discussions (on the contrary, it was and remains at a high level), but by completely different reasons that I know, but I will not publish them ... If Vlad wants, he will do it himself.
              In this case, do not pay attention to typos and errors in his messages (although they are sometimes very funny smile ), just understand their essence and try to answer correctly and kindly - you will find an excellent interlocutor, very pleasant in communication and you will surely learn something new, interesting and useful for yourself.
              1. Mwg
                Mwg 28 July 2020 10: 38
                +1
                I am (well. Or was) in correspondence with him on another resource. The topic of the conversation was indicated in the answer to the Cat of the Sea. Vladislav's enormous amount of knowledge aroused and evokes respect, as well as his positive attitude to the work of governing the country. But he is a dogmatist and there is no way to put it. Poorly accepts arguments that do not fit into his established stereotype, which affects the emotionality of his objections))))))))))))))))
                1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
                  Kote Pan Kokhanka 28 July 2020 11: 48
                  +1
                  Quote: MVG
                  I am (well. Or was) in correspondence with him on another resource. The topic of the conversation was indicated in the answer to the Cat of the Sea. Vladislav's enormous amount of knowledge aroused and evokes respect, as well as his positive attitude to the work of governing the country. But he is a dogmatist and there is no way to put it. Poorly accepts arguments that do not fit into his established stereotype, which affects the emotionality of his objections))))))))))))))))

                  Dear Valery!
                  Military Review is the only resource where I live since 2013. Previously under the nickname Kitische, now as it is.
                  There was a case we discussed with you, but only here (On the branches of Istoii, Arms and Novostra) and nowhere else!
                  Regards, Vlad!
                  1. Mwg
                    Mwg 28 July 2020 15: 13
                    +1
                    It means that he was mistaken. I beg your pardon
          2. Mwg
            Mwg 28 July 2020 07: 15
            +1
            I will add. My considerations about Kote Pan Kohanka were confirmed - I recognized him by his style and argumentation. Here is part of his answer: "To your question, yes, I used to be a Cat, now I live in Pan's cellars! All the best!"
        2. Catfish
          Catfish 26 July 2020 15: 17
          +3
          ... and you have not appeared anywhere under the name Black Cat? For there it was that someone called him a "kohan", and he was also told that ...


          And this is how sideways here, let me be curious? Something personal?
          1. Mwg
            Mwg 28 July 2020 07: 36
            +1
            No, not personal)))))))
            For the Master of the Trilobite (Michael) above, he gave an explanation on this topic.
            And, I will boast, I was not mistaken))))
        3. Kote Pan Kokhanka
          Kote Pan Kokhanka 26 July 2020 16: 19
          +3
          Quote: MVG
          Urrrah! Give me! Five-year plan in three days!
          "... smooth-bore !!!" - Yes, you shooo? True? They don't shoot cannonballs, do they? Otherwise, they would be surprised if that. This is how the gun-projectile system is being developed as a single concept. Didn't know, go, about it?

          As an example, Peter the Great inherited such a menagerie of artillery that during the siege of Narva, having spent a fifth of the nuclei, there were no more suitable nuclei. What remained corny did not fit what else could shoot !!!
          Therefore, throughout the 18-19 centuries, all countries participating in the artillery club were engaged in the unification and reduction of the number of artillery calibers!
          And the transition to sub-caliber shells dragged smooth-bore guns. This is logical. But using the example of modern artillery systems to explain the logic of the concepts of firing cast-iron cannonballs from copper cannons is a little ... that. Not that .... Can you have a similar answer, where did the steel suddenly go?

          1. Technology! The guns tended to explode. On the bronze and copper cannon - it could be predicted by the bulges! Iron tore into the trash. Yes, and it did not work until the beginning of the 18th century to cast steel, and the Kirich iron was heterogeneous. Cast iron is essentially a compromise between the first and the second.
          2. Again technology. Drilling the barrels of cannons has been around since the mid-18th century. Copper cannons are much lighter than cast iron ones. The Austrians and the French got rid of it !!!
          Now tell me at least two 16th century rifled guns with the same caliber? Even small-bore squeakers have a tolerance of up to 5 mm!
          3. Gunpowder! Black powder clogged the bore on 10 rounds. Secondly, the throwing power is an order of magnitude lower than that of no smoky. All this did not allow the projectile to be accelerated to transonic speeds, so that the conical or cylindrical projectile would not tumble in the air!
          Plus, they hadn't thought of zinc copper belts yet, and the lead core for the gun was hammered along the grooves like a choke bullet! The rate of fire suffered from this.
          Well, somewhere like that.
          To your question, yes, I used to be a Cat, now I live in Pan's cellars!
          All the best!
          1. Mwg
            Mwg 28 July 2020 06: 58
            0
            Oh, how glad I am to find you again, my restless dreamer on topics unfamiliar to him!
            Would you deign to explain how you think (what is the mechanism of the phenomenon):
            1.steel cannons
            2.black powder clogs the bore
            3.lead core for the cannon is hammered along the grooves
            4.The roll of the projectile depends on its speed
            5.Drill the bore of copper and cast iron guns
            And most importantly: where did you get this from. Equally, where did they get the information about the drilled bores of the barrel of copper and cast-iron guns ("It has been steel to drill the barrels of guns since the middle of the 18th century. It is much easier in copper guns than in cast-iron guns").

            And the last thing. How were copper cannons made?

            Sincerely. Your faithful admirer Valery with YAP
          2. Vladimir Demyanov
            Vladimir Demyanov 8 September 2020 20: 53
            0
            Not Kirk iron, but screaming - from the word "krytsa". Direct extraction of iron from ore.
          3. Vladimir Demyanov
            Vladimir Demyanov 8 September 2020 21: 39
            +1
            Not Kirk iron, but screaming - from the word "krytsa". This iron was obtained by direct reduction from iron ore. To increase the hardness, they burned in a furnace with horns and hooves, saturating them with carbon. With this technology to achieve uniformity and stability of properties ... Later we came to the blast-furnace method. Received cast iron, and already from it - steel. Puddling steel in the 19th century - the quality of barrels increased sharply, then converter steel (Bessemer and Thomas), then open-hearth steel.
  2. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 26 July 2020 11: 10
    0
    Well, as the tsar used to say in "The Tale of Fedot the Archer, a daring fellow" ......: "And there is also an antires: what do women wear there ... in pantaloons or without ...?" So we have "antires"! Why there was such a "caste" division: smooth-bore artillery - spherical "artillery shells" .... rifled ... - oblong shells ...! To each his own ! But in the 20th century, feathered oblong shells for smooth guns began to appear with might and main (!) ... but from what "pantalyk"? And how is it ... suddenly or gradually, feathered oblong shells appeared? Why did you "panimat", they did not appear in the 17-18 centuries? So, for some reason, no one wondered too much about this "rebus" ... No, of course ... there was something ... For example, brandskugels of a "melon-like" shape are known ... attempts are known to shoot cylindrical (cylindrical -conical) shells in the 18th century, for example ... But this did not become massive!
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 26 July 2020 12: 55
      +4
      Good day!
      They even experimented with curved guns with disk shells, but the experiments did not go further!
      You can blame the retrograde and the economy, but I believe that the problem was different - the rate of fire!
      In addition, in search of a solution to the problematic issue of "armor and projectile", at the beginning the issue was resolved by the appearance of cast-iron cannonballs, which led to a decrease in calibers in artillery, then the development of explosive bombs - the culmination of 64-pound bomb cannons! It was the appearance of later iron steel armor on ships that gave impetus to the development of artillery, both smooth-bore and rifled!
      Best regards, I corrected your karma a little!
      1. 3x3zsave
        3x3zsave 26 July 2020 13: 33
        +8
        karma I corrected you a little!
        And cleansed the chakras! laughing
        1. Catfish
          Catfish 26 July 2020 15: 22
          +5
          Hello Anton!
          And cleansed the chakras! laughing

          It was necessary to fill the face and to the one who deserves it. bully
        2. Korsar4
          Korsar4 26 July 2020 15: 24
          +4
          It's good that it's remote.
          1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
            Kote Pan Kokhanka 26 July 2020 16: 45
            +4
            Quote: Sea Cat
            Hello Anton!
            And cleansed the chakras! laughing

            It was necessary to fill the face and to the one who deserves it. bully


            Quote: Korsar4
            It's good that it's remote.


            Quarantine Guys, however !!! laughing
            1. Korsar4
              Korsar4 26 July 2020 17: 31
              +2
              Not so well absorbed.
      2. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 26 July 2020 16: 44
        +1
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        Best regards, I corrected your karma a little!

        Thank you, of course, for "taking care" of my karma; but I would like to understand ...: has karma got to do with it? request if the topic of shells was raised? The question was and is ... the answer is no! There were curved guns firing "discs" ... Duc, there was more ...! There were guns shooting bricks " belay ! or "secret" howitzers with "oval" barrels .... So what? .....? Rate of fire? You can, in part, agree ... that the feathered cylindrical-conical bonba will be heavier (more) than the spherical one ... but this did not frighten fans of rifled guns ... Maybe it's all about gunpowder? what The use of a large number of feathered artillery mines "coincides" with the massive use of pyroxylin powder! But even here it is not "so simple"! There are a lot of WW1 artillery pieces known ... "smooth" and "black powder" firing projectiles! And the German "faust cartridges" (a feathered "mine" + a charge of black powder ...) There are also known later Finnish (Israeli) mortars ... smoothbore and muzzle-loading caliber 160 mm and 300 mm ... yes. on smokeless powder, but they did not stop to be smooth-bore and use muzzle loading with feathered mines! So why, for example, in the 18th century, feathered mines for smoothbore artillery did not appear in order to get rid of some of the shortcomings of "smoothbore" and, subsequently, to prolong the coexistence of smoothbore and rifled artillery ?! I didn't get a specific answer to this question! And the mantras of some comrades: "Hare Krishna ... hare, Rama ..." do not help here!
        1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
          Kote Pan Kokhanka 26 July 2020 17: 28
          +2
          Conical bombs, could not save smooth-bore muzzle-loading artillery.
          Have you ever wondered why the knippels rotated when fired, however, like melon-like bombs and cylinder-conical shells?
          By the way, guns firing with darts, bolts and spears also did not take root! But they were at the dawn of firearms!
          The plumage of a sub-caliber projectile was not needed by anyone in the 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th and even the 18th century. At 14 they shot stones or even stone and iron fraction. At 15, they sincerely believed that the raised spears would hold back the flight of the nucleus. At 16 that the parallel barrel will shoot farther than at an angle of 45 degrees !!!
          Now about the quality of materials for guns! To throw a conical or cylindrical projectile, it must be corny stronger!
          Hence the troubles with knitted from rods and rolled from sheets of guns !!! Also cooling the inner bore of the barrel, putting the barrel on the barrel (fastening) and the appearance of liners and much more!
          The Kamensk plant cast 25 cast-iron cannons a day, do you think How much steel forged from bars would it have mastered?
          Therefore, stop engaging in afterbirth and comparing modern mortars with the basilicas of Louis 14!
          1. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I 26 July 2020 22: 40
            -1
            Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
            about the quality of materials for guns! To throw a conical or cylindrical projectile, it must be corny stronger!
            Hence the troubles with knitted from rods and rolled from sheets of guns

            Gospidya! Whatever phrase, then "pearl"! For some reason, many of the rifled guns of the late 50s and 60s were bronze ... without rods and rolled sheets! But this did not prevent them from firing cylindrical-conical shells! Troubles with rods, tapes, sheets began when, for certain reasons, it was necessary to use iron (steel), but the necessary "gun" steel with the necessary casting properties ... (the required viscosity ... and so on ...) could not be obtained! At the dawn of the existence of artillery, they entered with an iron rod, strips ... they "forged" the cannons, and did not cast them, because at that time they had not yet learned how to obtain high-quality bronze ... cast iron ... and foundry steel! Therefore, along with bronze (copper) cast tools, forged iron ones were also used ... Namely, the technological shortcomings of metallurgical production in the mid-19th century forced the use of additional rings, bandages, tape wrapping, etc. ... "Normal" steel gun barrels received by casting, giving the barrel the necessary "spring" and drilling a bore in the barrel ... And I brought "modern" mortars in response to your statement that the use of feathered cylindrical-conical shells instead of spherical shells for loading smooth-bore guns would worsen their rate of fire! Moreover, in my example, not just mortars were indicated, but those having a certain specificity of loading!
        2. Mwg
          Mwg 28 July 2020 07: 23
          0
          You grasp the essence of the enthusiastic responses
    2. zenion
      zenion 26 July 2020 18: 01
      +1
      Here is another matter. The projectile escaping from the barrel rotates, and the tip of the projectile wags around a certain axis. If, while hitting the target, he twisted to the left and hit the right side of the gunner's barrel, then he will ricochet. If it hits the same target and swerves to the right, there is a possibility of penetration. A round from a smoothbore cannon flies and does not wag, wherever it hits, it will pierce the armor. In addition, in a smoothbore gun, you can use not only a feathered projectile, but even a rocket projectile, which has a strong impact and has a chance to penetrate armor. Some Panthers were equipped with smooth-bore guns and showed their high penetration ability. And the cannonballs against the tank are nonsense, ricochets, these blanks for destroying fences, picket fences and chicken sheds.
      1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
        Kote Pan Kokhanka 26 July 2020 18: 35
        +1
        All right!
        Until the middle of the century before last, the cannons fought against the "sheds" of the wooden armor of ships and the earthworks of fortresses.
        So it was more profitable to ensure hitting the "barn" with a bomb than with a blank !!!
        The bombs exploded in the barrel bore on the couliverns, basilikas and pischal. Then the bastards appear, later the haufnits and unicorns. In the Navy - cannonade and bomb cannons!
        Armor appeared Rifled artillery and devilish shells went into use!
        1. Zufei
          Zufei 26 July 2020 19: 15
          +2
          Probably coolers and caronads. Jules Verne has it.
          1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
            Kote Pan Kokhanka 26 July 2020 20: 14
            +1
            Thanks for editing! Really Jules Verne too. My paws are crooked !!!
            1. Vladimir Demyanov
              Vladimir Demyanov 8 September 2020 21: 54
              +1
              Jules Verne described the "cannon king" in his novel "500 Million Begums". There, just the production of steel is described by the puddling method. For a long time they could not get the temperature required for steel melting. Only by the end of the 19th century they could. In terminology:; hafunitsa, basilisk, caronade.
  3. 3x3zsave
    3x3zsave 26 July 2020 13: 31
    +5
    Let my people go
    "Go Down Moses" by L. Armstrong, 1958
    I love the blues !!!
    Thank you, Vyacheslav Olegovich!
  4. bars1
    bars1 26 July 2020 14: 10
    +3
    Sorry for the horses ... People at least know what they die for.
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 26 July 2020 16: 46
      +3
      Quote: bars1
      Sorry for the horses ... People at least know what they die for.

      Not always!
    2. Krasnodar
      Krasnodar 26 July 2020 17: 06
      +3
      Quote: bars1
      Sorry for the horses ... People at least know what they die for.

      And horses know - for oats! ))
  5. Catfish
    Catfish 26 July 2020 15: 20
    +3
    Interestingly, I didn't even think about horses, thanks to Vyacheslav, he enlightened me about this.

    It should be noted that the Civil War in the most serious way advanced the level of military equipment and technology ...

    I wonder how in this regard with our Civil War?
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 26 July 2020 17: 47
      +3
      Uncle Kostya, we had a little different introductions! There was no World War I across the sea, and the front was quite stable for 3 years.
      We have corny "gobbled up" the legacy of the World War and the gifts of the interventionists !!!
      In fact, our war was maneuverable in the face of the canons of the latest military science! So the vehicles of the Armored Train and carts were riveted on their knees and in droves! How is Makhno's "Fuck you catch up, Fuck you leave" !!! The hotel was tucked in, they began to remove the guns from the ships, the tail was pinched - they learned how to arm river steamers!
      And this concerned both sides !!!
      1. Catfish
        Catfish 26 July 2020 18: 14
        +1
        Hello, hello! hi
        ... learned to arm river steamers!


        How, from childhood I remember, then I literally did not crawl out of the museum of the Red Army, fortunately I was ten minutes walk from home, and I remembered the model of the gunboat called "Vanya the Communist" for the rest of my life.


        1. Catfish
          Catfish 2 August 2020 06: 21
          +1
          Eagles, minus someone? Communist Vanya? They were already completely stupid. laughing laughing laughing
    2. gsev
      gsev 2 August 2020 03: 15
      0
      Quote: Sea Cat
      I wonder how in this regard with our Civil War?

      One of the reasons for the victory of the Reds in the civil war was that they armed their armored trains and river gunboats with heavier guns. We even managed to make our own tanks. The imperial industry in the First World War, having received an order for the production of mortars, stupidly resumed the production of arquebuses in the 16th century.
      1. Catfish
        Catfish 2 August 2020 06: 20
        +1
        The first Soviet tank, "Russian Renault", was produced in 1920-21 in a small series of 15 vehicles. Despite being adopted by the Red Army in 1920, these tanks did not participate in any hostilities.
        1. gsev
          gsev 2 August 2020 07: 04
          0
          Quote: Sea Cat
          these tanks did not participate in any hostilities.

          However, the successes of the Bolsheviks in the arms race are strikingly different from the successes of imperial and modern Russia. If drones were now built like the Bolsheviks tanks in 1920, apparently the war in Ukraine ended as quickly as the civil one, and all extremists from Syria would be driven out faster than the Bolsheviks of Ungern from Mongolia.
          1. Catfish
            Catfish 2 August 2020 16: 00
            +1
            The civil war did not end quickly, four years is not quick. And this is without taking into account the subsequent constant uprisings that broke out here and there.
            The war in Ukraine does not depend on drones in any way, and now there would be enough strength to end it, there would be political will, but there is none.
            In Syria, our government is interested in oil fields more than any extremists put together. The fight against ISIS is for naive fools, at all times and everywhere a purely economic factor was at the head of everything.
            And about "how the Bolsheviks built tanks in 1920" I will say one thing: when the tanks were assembled as it should be, the mileage from Kharkov to Moscow was obtained without breakdowns, and when they began to drive the shaft, it barely reached the front from the railway station on its own half of the cars, or even less.
            1. gsev
              gsev 2 August 2020 17: 23
              0
              Quote: Sea Cat
              Fighting ISIS, this is for naive ducks

              If the Syrians and Libyans had eliminated the extremists on their own, then their oil would not have been stolen by all and sundry. Nevertheless, the Bolsheviks eliminated the consequences of the national catastrophe of 1917 by 1922 by 90 percent, and by 1945 even the consequences of the military catastrophe of 1905 were eliminated. After 1991, only Crimea was returned. So compare the effectiveness of the communist bastards and modern managers.
              1. Catfish
                Catfish 2 August 2020 17: 37
                +1
                So compare the effectiveness of the communist bastards and modern managers.

                And I do not compare, for all the shortcomings and disadvantages of the Soviet system, to compare it with the abomination that is happening now there is no desire. hi
  6. Senior seaman
    Senior seaman 26 July 2020 15: 32
    +4
    required 1,75 less powder per charge

    Uh ... by 1 pounds, kilograms, percent?
    1. kalibr
      26 July 2020 17: 55
      +2
      A pound, of course. Sorry, I missed ...
  7. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 26 July 2020 16: 07
    +3
    I never tire of thanking Vyacheslav Olegovich for an interesting cycle. Thank you, it's interesting to read.
  8. CTABEP
    CTABEP 26 July 2020 20: 53
    +1
    Gorgeous. Low-light topic, interesting articles, thanks!
  9. Sasha_rulevoy
    Sasha_rulevoy 28 July 2020 18: 00
    0


    Is this exactly about the eight- and six-dog sleds for cannons? Maybe there are still riding horses included? The authors of the sets of soldiers present the cannon harness as a four-horse or six-horse harness, plus two horse harnesses (photo).