Military Review

Tsushima. Shell version: shells and experiments

152
We continue to study the "shell version".


The version became widespread after the Battle of Tsushima and is based on personal observations of participants from the Russian side. In the second article Cyclewe will consider the objective characteristics of Russian and Japanese shells, as well as pre-war knowledge about the effectiveness of the latest high-explosive shells filled with high explosives.

I draw the readers' attention to the fact that I will only compare the "key" types of naval artillery shells (armor-piercing and high-explosive) used in the Russo-Japanese War. The main characteristics according to E.V. Polomoshnov's data are given in the table below:

Tsushima. Shell version: shells and experiments

Russian shells were lighter in weight due to the transition in 1892 to the concept of "light shell - high muzzle velocity". For the time of adoption, this concept had several indisputable advantages: better accuracy and armor penetration at expected combat distances (up to 2 miles), savings in the weight and cost of projectiles, and a decrease in barrel wear. But according to the results of the Russo-Japanese War, one could confidently say that this concept was outdated due to the increase in the actual battle distance.

The Japanese shells were heavier, which could theoretically give an advantage in armor penetration at long ranges. And most importantly, the Japanese shells carried many times more explosives!

A comparative graph of armor penetration according to R.M.Melnikov's data is shown below (solid line - Russian shells, dotted line - Japanese):


Some superiority of Russian shells at short distances is due precisely to their lighter weight.

Now let's take a closer look at shells. Let's start with the Japanese ones. The Japanese 12 "projectile had a mass of 385,6 kg, but depending on the type it differed in the length and content of the explosive. According to EV Polomoshnov (unfortunately, other authors have some differences), the armor-piercing projectile had 19,28 kg ( 5%), high-explosive - 36,6 kg (9,5%) shimosa. The explosives were in a case covered with aluminum foil, which, in turn, was placed in silk bags or waxed paper. The inner walls of the projectile were varnished. Both types of ammunition The use of an instant tube and very sensitive explosives in armor-piercing shells actually meant that the Japanese were unable to effectively hit parts of the ship protected by armor, since the shells exploded when passing through the armor. This was due to the technical lag of Japan. , which did not have the opportunity to develop an effective shock tube with deceleration and explosives capable of avoiding detonation when a shell passes through armor.

Cutaway Japanese 12 "shells:


The Russian 12 "projectile had a mass of 331,7 kg, the armor-piercing one was loaded with 4,3 kg (1,3%), the high-explosive one - 6 kg (1,8%) of explosives. Such an extremely low weight of explosives in domestic shells was due to the fact that in order to save money, a decision was made to produce them at state-owned factories that could not master the production of high-strength steel (and this would greatly increase the price of the projectile!), and the quality was compensated for by the quantity, that is, by thickening the walls of the shells. and short, with a small chamber for explosives. 6 "and larger ammunition were loaded with pyroxylin and Brink shock tubes with delayed action, but for the 2nd Pacific squadron, due to the lack of pyroxylin 12", the shells had smokeless powder and Baranovsky instant shock tubes. The "armor-piercing" shock tubes in the high-explosive shells were explained by the presence of thick walls and a small charge, which made the instant tube irrelevant. inside a nickel-plated brass case that protected it from contact with steel. The small amount of explosives and the use of delayed-action shock tubes in high-explosive shells actually meant that such shells were not high-explosive in their action.

Sectional Russian shells:


An intermediate result can be summed up: the Japanese fleet had powerful high-explosive shells, but did not have full-fledged armor-piercing shells. The Russian fleet had full-fledged armor-piercing shells, but did not have shells with a powerful high-explosive effect. Certain unpleasant features of the shells, and on both sides, manifested themselves already during the war, but I will write about this in the next article.

And now we will understand the explosives with which the ammunition was equipped, since several common misconceptions are associated with them at once. Historically, shells were filled with black powder, but at the very end of the XNUMXth century, powerful explosives became widespread: pyroxylin and a whole family made on the basis of picric acid (trinitrophenol): liddite, melinite, shimose, etc. In terms of explosiveness (the volume of gases released during an explosion) and blasting (the ability to crush a projectile into fragments), the new explosives were many times superior to black powder, but created additional difficulties associated with the risk of spontaneous detonation.

First, it was required to maintain a significant moisture content of the explosives. For example, 1% moisture pyroxylin can explode even from cutting it with a knife! With increasing humidity, its sensitivity to detonation decreases. Pyroxylin 5-7% moisture can already be used in intermediate detonators. The shells were filled with pyroxylin of 10-30% moisture content. Thus, we can safely dispel the myth that the 30% moisture content of explosives in the shells of the 2nd Pacific Squadron caused the shells to explode!

Secondly, picric acid-based explosives needed to be reliably isolated from the steel hull, otherwise picrates were formed - extremely sensitive salts of picric acid that could cause spontaneous detonation of the projectile.

Soon after the Russo-Japanese War, tragic explosions of the cellars on the ships "Mikasa" and "Matsushima" occurred, presumably associated with the spontaneous detonation of shells. Therefore, there was a transition to the next generation explosives, which are safer to use: TNT or mixtures of trinitrophenol with other explosives.

Unfortunately, due to known limitations, even reference information on explosives is now difficult to obtain. Therefore, the following comparative characteristics of explosives for ammunition of that time were collected from various sources.


Immediately, I note that shimose, liddite and melinitis are complete analogues in their characteristics and correspond to trinitrophenol in the table. The information that shimosa contained aluminum is not supported by reliable sources.

Based on the physicochemical properties, it can be noted that pyroxylin is even slightly superior to shimose in explosiveness and explosion power. But due to the brisance shimosa creates a noticeably larger number of fragments, and due to a slightly higher density, a slightly larger weight of shimosa will fit in the same volume.

As for smokeless powder, its properties practically corresponded to pyroxylin (by 91-95% it was pyroxylin, the rest was moisture, as well as the remains of alcohol and ether, which impart plasticity), but at a lower density of the substance.

Powerful high-explosive shells filled with explosives based on picric acid were still little tested before the Russo-Japanese War. Therefore, in order to understand their capabilities and role in the upcoming battle, information about the experiments with the shooting of the outdated battleship Belile, carried out by the British in 1900, is very valuable.

Reservation scheme of the battleship "Belaille":


Battleship "Majestic" from close range (1550-1200 meters) in 6-8 minutes fired eight shots at the target with 12 "high-explosive shells (black powder), seven - 12" armor-piercing shells (black powder), about a hundred - 6 "high-explosive shells (liddite), about a hundred - 6-inch high-explosive shells (black powder), about four hundred - 76-mm high-explosive (black powder) and about seven hundred and fifty - 47-mm armor-piercing shells (black powder) .Approximately 30-40 hit the target. % of the projectiles fired (five 12 ", seventy five 6", one hundred and forty 76 mm and two hundred 47 mm).

Scheme of shells hitting the battleship "Belaille":


On Belayle, the armor covered the entire length of the waterline and the casemate. During shelling, the armor was pierced by two 12 "shells (casemate and just below the waterline). Most of the 6" shells hitting the armor did not cause any damage; only one shell pierced the casemate, and another sheet was loosened with the occurrence of a leak by successive hits of several shells. The guns in the casemate remained intact, but a 12 "shell and several small ones that flew into the embrasures destroyed all the sights and dummies of the people inside. The armored deck was not pierced.

The unarmored parts of the ship were simply riddled with explosions of high-explosive 6 ", 76-mm and 47-mm shells. The difference between the effect of powder filling of 6" shells and liddite was very large. But no fires broke out on the ship, although the combustible materials (decoration, furniture, bedding) remained in place.

Battleship Belile after shelling:




Experiments with Belile showed:

1. The high-explosive effect of shells filled with liddite is much stronger than shells filled with black powder.

2. Unarmored parts of the ship are very vulnerable to fire from rapid-fire guns.

3. The armor provides effective protection against high-explosive shells.

4. Even a large number of hits by high-explosive shells does not lead to the sinking of the ship.

5. A ship that has undergone intensive shelling with high-explosive shells is practically defenseless against destroyers due to artillery damage.

Without a doubt, Togo was familiar with the results of these experiments and, taking them into account, built his tactics in the Battle of Tsushima: subject enemy ships to a massive impact of high-explosive shells and then destroy them with torpedoes.

The Russian admirals, most likely, were also aware of these experiments, since their results were presented in open sources: the Times newspaper and the Inzhener magazine. Indirectly, this is evidenced by the fact that Vice Admiral ZP Rozhestvensky (and our other admirals) considered torpedoes from destroyers, and not shells from enemy battleships, to be the main threat to armored ships.
Author:
Articles from this series:
Tsushima. "Shell version": history of origin
152 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. lucul
    lucul 26 August 2020 18: 15 New
    +2
    Excellent article, and without any Russophobia.
    1. Civil
      Civil 26 August 2020 21: 13 New
      +7
      The article is very informative, while readable in one breath. Plus to the author, we are still waiting in the same perspective of analytics. Bravo.
    2. Jura 27
      Jura 27 27 August 2020 05: 56 New
      +1
      [/ quote] This was due to the technical lag of Japan, which did not have the opportunity to develop an effective shock tube with deceleration and explosives capable of avoiding detonation when a shell passes through the armor. [quote]

      Why would they have to develop all this? With EBRs, in the kit, there was an English b / c BBS and FS.
      1. Alexandra
        Alexandra 27 August 2020 15: 53 New
        +3
        British armor-piercing in those years had an explosive charge of black powder, and high-explosive (Common lyddite naval shells) often had a head fuse, a cast liddite charge ... and the problem of incomplete detonation of the charge.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_(projectile)

        Proper detonation of a lyddite shell would show black to gray smoke, or white from the steam of a water detonation. Yellow smoke indicated simple explosion rather than detonation, and failure to reliably detonate was a problem with lyddite, especially in its earlier usage. To improve the detonation "exploders" with a small quantity of picric powder or even of TNT (in smaller shells, 3 pdr, 12 pdr - 4.7 inch) was loaded between the fuze and the main lyddite filling or in a thin tube running through most of the shell's length.
        1. Jura 27
          Jura 27 28 August 2020 16: 39 New
          +1
          [/ quote] English armor-piercing in those years had an explosive charge of black powder, [quote]

          It's about fuses, not charges.
  2. Wwk7260
    Wwk7260 26 August 2020 18: 16 New
    +1
    there was a version about zeroing guns on exercises during a campaign in the southern hemisphere, amendments in the northern one are exactly the opposite.
  3. antivirus
    antivirus 26 August 2020 18: 37 New
    10
    business is to build schools, railways and highways in the European part of the Republic of Ingushetia instead of concessions in Korea, China
  4. 27091965
    27091965 26 August 2020 18: 56 New
    11
    The Russian admirals, most likely, were also aware of these experiments, since their results were presented in open sources: the Times newspaper and the Inzhener magazine.


    The admirals learned about the action of shells equipped with strong explosives a little earlier and not from the newspapers. In 1899, in Kronstadt, experimental firing of coastal batteries with shells filled with melinite was carried out. Officers of the Naval Department were invited to these firing, after examining the results of the hit of these shells, they concluded that it was necessary to strengthen the protection of the decks of ships from hinged fire and increase the armor area of ​​the sides to protect against flat fire. So, I think they knew what effect these shells have on the ship's hull.
  5. Cyril G ...
    Cyril G ... 26 August 2020 18: 57 New
    +1
    According to E.V. Polomoshnova (unfortunately, other authors have some differences), the armor-piercing shell had 19,28 kg (5%),

    It is rather a semi-armor-piercing projectile, if according to our classification
    1. rytik32
      26 August 2020 19: 11 New
      12
      The British called these shells common. But the Japanese called them an armor-piercing projectile 1 and an armor-piercing projectile 2))) And they called a land mine a projectile with 48 kg of shimosa and a copper (I think this is a bad translation, in fact brass) shell! But this miracle land mine was not used in the war.
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 26 August 2020 20: 16 New
        +7
        and a copper (I think this is a bad translation, actually brass) sheath!
      2. Jura 27
        Jura 27 27 August 2020 05: 58 New
        +1
        Quote: rytik32
        The British called these shells common. But the Japanese called them an armor-piercing projectile 1 and an armor-piercing projectile 2))) And they called a land mine a projectile with 48 kg of shimosa and a copper (I think this is a bad translation, in fact brass) shell! But this miracle land mine was not used in the war.

        Where does the information come from that the land mine was not used?
        1. rytik32
          27 August 2020 08: 13 New
          +6
          Reports from British observers, top secret history ...
          But, I will clarify again, they did not use a land mine with 48 kg shimosis, and those two types of shells that I described in the article were used.
          1. Jura 27
            Jura 27 28 August 2020 16: 40 New
            0
            Quote: rytik32
            Reports from British observers, top secret history ...
            But, I will clarify again, they did not use a land mine with 48 kg shimosis, and those two types of shells that I described in the article were used.

            And where can you read about it?
            1. rytik32
              28 August 2020 16: 51 New
              +2
              If you speak English, I can post you reports.
              still here http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_12-40_EOC.php
              1. Jura 27
                Jura 27 29 August 2020 17: 58 New
                0
                Quote: rytik32
                If you speak English, I can post you reports.
                still here http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_12-40_EOC.php

                Lay it out, master it. In extreme cases, the computer will help.
                1. rytik32
                  30 August 2020 00: 16 New
                  +1
                  You are welcome!
                  https://yadi.sk/d/Gff6ghH2suVRAA
                  1. Jura 27
                    Jura 27 30 August 2020 16: 44 New
                    0
                    Quote: rytik32
                    You are welcome!
                    https://yadi.sk/d/Gff6ghH2suVRAA

                    THX ! On what page about not using shells?
                    1. rytik32
                      30 August 2020 21: 54 New
                      0
                      I don’t remember. You need to reread)))
                      And there is more than one place. Describes the shells used by the Japanese.
                      1. Jura 27
                        Jura 27 31 August 2020 16: 20 New
                        0
                        Quote: rytik32
                        I don’t remember. You need to reread)))
                        And there is more than one place. Describes the shells used by the Japanese.

                        There are a lot of pages and everything is not our way. There are at least approximate coordinates about the applicability of the projectile under discussion.
                      2. rytik32
                        31 August 2020 17: 28 New
                        0
                        Try with 135 file
  • Operator
    Operator 26 August 2020 19: 30 New
    +3
    The article is brilliant, especially in comparison with the "Chelyabinsk" pouring from empty to empty.
  • kapitan92
    kapitan92 26 August 2020 20: 08 New
    +5
    Immediately, I note that shimose, liddite and melinitis are complete analogues in their characteristics and correspond to trinitrophenol in the table. The information that shimosa contained aluminum is not supported by reliable sources.

    In 1886, the American C. Hall and the Frenchman P. Héroux developed an electric method for producing aluminum. The production of this metal began to develop rapidly. A year later, the Frenchman E. Turpin patented the high explosive trinitrophenol. Explosive, simple enough to manufacture, powerful, and relatively safe. Despite its toxicity, the main drawback was the formation of picrates - picric acid salts. These compounds were in most cases very explosive (especially iron picrate and even more nickel). Steel shells after a short storage period became unusable because of the extreme danger of use. At the turn of the century, chemists and artillerymen from leading European powers found a way to somewhat level this effect. Explosives began to be packed in tin foil (one of the few metals that does not interact with picric acid). The method was not very reliable (since it was difficult to ensure complete isolation), but it was quite effective. Masachiki Shimose (Japanese) went another way, he began to add aluminum to trinitrophenol, which by that time was already actively used as an additive in explosives. In addition to increasing the energy of the explosion and the flash point, aluminum brought a much more important quality to explosives. Rapidly reacting with picric acid and forming a fairly stable (in contrast to iron picrate and even more so nickel) aluminum picrate, significantly reduced the chemical activity of the resulting mixture. In this state, it was enough to pack the shimose in several layers of silk to reduce the likelihood of the formation of explosive picrates to a minimum. As practice has shown, the method is not the safest, but if we compare shimosis with "liddite", and "melinitis", then we get quite excellent BB... Basically, shimosa is a mixture of trinitrophenol and aluminum picrate.
    https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ruwiki/702499
    1. rytik32
      26 August 2020 23: 30 New
      +9
      I read this article. But where does the data come from? From what source?

      In the first article of the series, in the comments I posted a link to the article - a translation of Japanese authors about shimosa. No aluminum!
      Article from Brockhaus and Efron. Shimosa = melinitis.
      Read explosives guides - there is no difference between shimose and other trinitrophenol explosives.
      So I am confident in my position.
      1. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 27 August 2020 23: 04 New
        +4
        Quote: rytik32
        So I am confident in my position.

        It seems to me in this matter that you are in a hurry with final conclusions.

        There is aluminum in the Japanese article you posted. A coil of aluminum wire is suddenly found in the inventory of reagents and equipment in Shimosa's laboratory. For the end of the 19th century, this is a non-trivial position; they barely learned to produce aluminum at this time. By the way, at that time the melinite was not wrapped in aluminum but in tin foil. Or they tinned the shell from the inside, which, as you understand, is also tin.

        Trinitrophenol itself was produced in different ways, there are at least two main ones. Each gave a different amount of impurities and therefore influenced the properties. By the way, this is also mentioned in that Japanese article.

        Finally, where does it follow that it was chemically pure trinitrophenol that was put into the shell? For example, the filling of both the French and Russian shells was called the same, melinite. But the composition of what is inside the projectile is strikingly different!
        See for yourself:

        It can be added that the American fleet of that time had explosives based on the same picric acid, but even there more than 10% of the weight were phlegmatizers.

        In general, indeed, liddite, melinite and shimosa are made on the basis of picric acid. But the real composition in different countries was noticeably different precisely in phlegmatizers. The Japanese, as we can see, decided that the phlegmatizer would also be good from aluminum. It looks like they didn't guess.
        1. rytik32
          27 August 2020 23: 59 New
          +1
          Quote: Saxahorse
          a coil of aluminum wire is suddenly discovered. For the end of the 19th century, this is a non-trivial position, they barely studied aluminum at this time.

          And we made all the strikers of aluminum)))
          Quote: Saxahorse
          See for yourself

          And this one about what time? Not after RYAV?
          Quote: Saxahorse
          The Japanese, as we can see, decided that the phlegmatizer would also be good from aluminum.

          There is not a single reliable source confirming the presence of aluminum in shimose.
          1. Saxahorse
            Saxahorse 28 August 2020 00: 25 New
            +1
            Quote: rytik32
            And we made all the strikers of aluminum)))

            That's right, they figured out how to apply the novelty.
            Quote: rytik32
            And this one about what time? Not after RYAV?

            I don’t think so. It says "soon" :) Well, the aforementioned American "maximit" was adopted in 1901, for example. (and in 1906 it was replaced by dinnit :)).
            Quote: rytik32
            There is not a single reliable source confirming the presence of aluminum in shimose.

            The sources are just listed in the article that was given to you. But all these sites are diligently blocked, because nefig! laughing
            1. rytik32
              28 August 2020 00: 40 New
              +2
              Quote: Saxahorse
              I don’t think so. It says "soon" :) Well, the aforementioned American "maximit" was adopted in 1901, for example. (and in 1906 it was replaced by dinnit :)).

              Yeah, there is also about the imperialist war)))

              Well, in all reference books on explosives they write that this is the same thing! I have just read Horst and Sapozhnikov.
              1. Saxahorse
                Saxahorse 28 August 2020 23: 28 New
                0
                Quote: rytik32
                I have just read Horst and Sapozhnikov.

                I specifically cited Horst's textbook for you. It's just that he wrote in more detail than others what exactly is invested in a shell called melinitis. :)
                1. rytik32
                  28 August 2020 23: 49 New
                  0
                  Here's a Gorst "Gunpowder and Explosives" 1972

                  Liddite, melinitis and shimosa are one and the same!
                  If there was any difference between them, they would have seized on it long ago. But it was only after the RYAW that they began to move away from pure picrinks to mixtures in order to reduce sensitivity.
                  1. Saxahorse
                    Saxahorse 29 August 2020 00: 54 New
                    +1
                    Quote: rytik32
                    Liddite, melinitis and shimosa are one and the same!

                    Hmm .. i.e. Do you prefer the "don't believe your eyes" tactic? wink
                    I quoted you another textbook: A.G. Gorst "Manufacturing nitro compounds"

                    p. 415 This application is titled "Historical Sketch"
                    there the composition of melinite for Russian and French production is indicated in black and white. laughing
                    1. rytik32
                      29 August 2020 08: 51 New
                      0
                      Quote: Saxahorse
                      there the composition of melinite for Russian and French production is indicated in black and white.

                      Then in the fragment you posted I ask for the word "melinitis" - I didn't succeed)))
                      1. Saxahorse
                        Saxahorse 29 August 2020 18: 51 New
                        0
                        Frankly speaking, your position is not clear to me. In the late 1890s, the need for picric acid for phlegmatizers became apparent to all participants in this French rally. We see active work on the introduction of additional components into the initially pure picric acid.

                        It remains only to assume that such an alignment somehow spoils, or contradicts some conclusions of your next article. I don't understand, but I hope to figure it out next time.
                      2. rytik32
                        30 August 2020 00: 24 New
                        +1
                        Then remember when the mistress of the seas left from a pure picrinka to its mixture with phlegmatizers. And the new explosives were no longer called liddite.
        2. Andrey Shmelev
          Andrey Shmelev 30 August 2020 11: 04 New
          -1
          Good afternoon, I'm sorry, I didn't see the article right away,

          I have a question that suddenly arose, is there any documented data on the low resistance of iron picrates, which caused the danger of melenite?
  • bazitron
    bazitron 26 August 2020 20: 11 New
    +7
    The article is detailed, good, thanks to the Author.
    For the first time, I read the version of the shortcomings of the Russian squadron's shells in the Tsushima battle from Alexei Silych Novikov-Priboy in his two-volume Tsushima.
    The date of the first publications of the work itself, for reference:
    - magazine "Roman-newspaper", 1932, No. 5-6 ", 1932
    - magazine "Roman-newspaper", 1935, No. 1-2 ", 1935
    And just like the Author, in my humble opinion (of course, far from an expert), the problems with the shells were only one of the reasons for the tragedy that happened in the Tsushima Strait on May 15 (28), 1905.
  • Comrade
    Comrade 26 August 2020 21: 18 New
    10
    Such an extremely low weight of explosives in domestic shells was due to the fact that in order to save money, a decision was made to produce them at state-owned factories that could not master the production of high-strength steel

    It follows from this proposal that shells were made in Russia and steel for their hulls was brewed at the same factories, which is not true.
    The Rudnitsky factory, which purchased shells for thin-walled 12 '' shells in France, released a limited batch of shells at an unacceptable price.

    By the way, the "native" ammunition of both Japanese "Garibaldians" was manufactured in France.

    Without a doubt, Togo was familiar with the results of these experiments and, taking them into account, built his tactics in the Battle of Tsushima: to subject enemy ships to the massive impact of high-explosive shells

    Judging by the fact that in the battle on July 28, 1904, Togo focused on armor-piercing shells, with the results of shelling "Belleisle" Togo met with a strong delay.
    Another option is also possible.
    Togo, who knew about the results of shelling "Belleisle", in the battle of Port Arthur on January 27, 1904, made a bet on high explosive shells (seventy-seven high-explosive and 2 armor-piercing 12 '' shells). The high-explosive shells in that battle did not justify the high confidence placed in them, and Togo, in the battle on July 28, 1904, decided to try his luck with armor-piercing shells.
    And when he was again dissatisfied with the results of the battle, he returned to high-explosive shells.
    Let us state the throwing of Togo when choosing which shells should he finally put the shells on?


    PS
    Alexey, no offense.
    In the title of the article "Shelling of the battleship "Belile" 1900"From the LJ of my old opponent from the AI ​​site, the name of the battleship is written in Russian. It is written in the same way in your article.
    But with a soft sign ("Belьayle ") it sounds in a French manner, which is very painful to the eye. It is better to write in the original language, otherwise the battleship is English, and the name sounds in an English-French language mixture.
    1. rytik32
      27 August 2020 00: 03 New
      +4
      Quote: Comrade
      From this proposal it follows that shells were made in Russia and steel was brewed for their hulls at the same factories, which is not true

      Why is this not true? Didn't the Obukhov and Putilov plants have their own metallurgy?
      Quote: Comrade
      Judging by the fact that in the battle on July 28, 1904, Togo focused on armor-piercing shells

      Please decipher your thought. What do you mean "made an emphasis"?
      Quote: Comrade
      But with a mild sign ("Belaille") it sounds in the French manner, which hurts the eye.

      So the battleship was named after French the island, near which the English fleet won a victory in due time.
      1. Comrade
        Comrade 27 August 2020 01: 53 New
        +5
        Quote: rytik32
        Didn't the Obukhov and Putilov plants have their own metallurgy?

        Sorry, please, for the thoughtless words.
        You are right, and I was wrong.
        Quote: rytik32
        Please decipher your thought. What do you mean "made an emphasis"?

        Most of the 12 '' shells fired by the Japanese during the battle at Cape Shantung were armor-piercing.
        Quote: rytik32
        So the battleship was named in honor of the French island, near which at one time the English fleet won a victory

        The island is French, and the battleship is English, so its name in Russian should be written as it sounds in English, and not in French.
        An abstract example.
        In the Russian navy there was a battleship "Paris", it was called that because in Russian this is how the name of the capital of France sounds. And according to your logic, this Russian ship should have been called "Parí", because this is how the name of the capital of France sounds in French.

        Quote: rytik32
        I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that the name "Belile" is widely found in the literature

        Just a delusion that has become widespread in Russian-language literature.
        1. rytik32
          27 August 2020 09: 00 New
          0
          I have slightly different data from the FID:
          Armstrong's 12-dm 40-caliber gun
          Armor-piercing shells: August - 257
          Forged Steel High Explosive Shells: August - 336

          True, this is an expense per month and without breakdown by ship.
          There are similar data for other calibers and for other months.
          1. Comrade
            Comrade 28 August 2020 06: 35 New
            0
            Quote: rytik32
            I have slightly different data from the SSI

            Seeing them, I remembered that they had already come across to me on the Tsushima website, but I had forgotten them because of the remoteness of the years.
            Quote: rytik32
            Armor-piercing shells: August - 257
            Forged Steel High Explosive Shells: August - 336

            And why do you think, why in the battle at Cape Shantung Togo's battleships fired high-explosive 12 '' shells 56,66 % of the total, and in the Battle of Tsushima 7,17 %?
    2. rytik32
      27 August 2020 00: 31 New
      +7
      Quote: Comrade
      It is written in the same way in your article.

      I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that the name "Belile" is widely found in the literature, for example T. Ropp "Creation of a modern fleet ...", Pakhomov N.А. "Majestic-class battleships."
      Quote: Comrade
      Better to write in the original language

      富士 - will it be clear? )))
      1. Trapperxnumx
        Trapperxnumx 27 August 2020 16: 26 New
        +3
        Quote: rytik32
        富士 - will it be clear? )))

        about! So much better and shorter!
        True, it is not clear ...
    3. Andrey152
      Andrey152 28 August 2020 07: 56 New
      +2
      The Rudnitsky factory, which purchased shells for thin-walled 12 '' shells in France, released a limited batch of shells at an unacceptable price.

      Explain, please, where does the information come from that the Rudnitsky plant used shells of French-made shells? The MTK reports indicate that the shells were produced by the Rudnitsky plant. Moreover, there were several experimental deliveries.
      1. Comrade
        Comrade 29 August 2020 01: 49 New
        +3
        Quote: Andrey152
        Explain, please, where does the information come from that the Rudnitsky plant used shells of French-made shells?

        From the Polish segment of the Internet, where else?
        In our country, practically nothing is written about this factory.
        The factory at one time cost the owners fifty thousand rubles, the list of equipment included various metal-cutting machines and a forge with three steam hammers.
        They produced bridge structures, artillery shells, steam engines and steam boilers, agricultural tools and automatic brakes for railway cars.
        Since the steel was not cooked there, blanks for the shells were purchased from the side.
        By the way, it is not correct to call this factory Rudnitsky's factory, since in 1900 it changed owners.
  • Andrey152
    Andrey152 27 August 2020 06: 49 New
    +2
    It is interesting that the weight of the explosive charge in the Japanese 6-inch high-explosive projectile is the same as in the Russian 12-inch high-explosive ...
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 August 2020 07: 34 New
    10
    Good day, dear Alexey! hi
    Very good, in my inexperienced opinion :)))) But there are a couple of comments
    An intermediate result can be summed up: the Japanese fleet had powerful high-explosive shells, but did not have full-fledged armor-piercing shells. The Russian fleet had full-fledged armor-piercing shells, but did not have shells with a powerful high-explosive effect.

    This is not entirely true. The Russians did not have full-fledged armor-piercing shells, they had shells that fully penetrated armor, and these are two big differences. But their armor-piercing effect was negligible, which does not allow us to speak of them as "full-fledged armor-piercing".
    Therefore, the following comparative characteristics of explosives for ammunition of that time were collected from various sources.

    There is one important nuance here. As far as I understand (but this is not accurate, I will be grateful if someone corrects) the data on pyroxylin given in the table correspond to pyroxylin with a minimum, near-zero humidity. If so, then
    and due to a slightly higher density, a slightly larger weight of shimosa will fit in the same volume
    .
    We do a simple calculation. We take a Russian high-explosive projectile with its 6 kg of explosives. Let's say pyroxylin has a moisture content of 20%. Accordingly, the projectile contains 1,2 kg of water and 5,8 kg of pyroxylin. Accordingly, the volume of the slug chamber is (in the case of a density of 1,3) = 5661,5 cubic meters. centimeters, and this volume fits 9,058 kg of shimose.
    I would not say that 9 kg of shimose versus 5,8 kg of pyroxylin is "slightly more" weight.
    1. rytik32
      27 August 2020 09: 05 New
      +5
      Andrei, good afternoon!
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      The Russians did not have full-fledged armor-piercing shells, they had shells that fully penetrated armor, and these are two big differences. But their zabronevoe effect was negligible, which does not allow us to speak of them as "full-fledged armor-piercing".

      Russian armor-piercing shells in terms of the amount of explosives were not so much inferior to, for example, English ones. But I will tell you about the reserve action in the fourth article of the cycle.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 August 2020 09: 09 New
        +7
        By the way, have you noticed how epic I stumbled with the calculation? 1,2 kg of water and 4,8 kg of pyroxylin, of course - all the same rest is relaxing :)))))
        Total 4,8 kg of pyroxylin versus 7,8 kg of shimose
        Quote: rytik32
        Russian armor-piercing shells in terms of the amount of explosives were not so much inferior to, for example, English ones.

        And the English ones with black powder were completely worthless, as evidenced by dozens (!!!) of 305-mm armor-piercing shells that were required to destroy Scharnhorst and Gneisenau
        Quote: rytik32
        But I will tell you about the reserve action in the fourth article of the cycle.

        I will read it with great pleasure!
        1. Pereira
          Pereira 27 August 2020 10: 43 New
          +1
          The inaccuracy was noticed. But the meaning of the statement was not lost from this.
    2. 27091965
      27091965 27 August 2020 09: 11 New
      +5
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      This is not entirely true. The Russians did not have full-fledged armor-piercing shells, they had shells that fully penetrated armor, and these are two big differences. But their armor-piercing effect was negligible, which does not allow us to speak of them as "full-fledged armor-piercing".


      Dear Andrey, there are more questions than answers on this topic. If we consider 6 inch shells for Kane's guns used in the navy and coastal batteries, we will see that the problem of explosive detonation when a shell meets armor existed in the navy and in the army. For Kane's coastal guns, this problem was solved in 1901 by Captain Maximov, who developed potent explosives based on picric acid. These explosives were used to equip semi-armor-piercing shells for these guns, while the speed of these shells, as well as armor-piercing, did not differ from the speed of armor-piercing shells used in the fleet for Kane's guns. This raises the question of why the Navy ignored this explosives, although the joint artillery committee of the army and navy was created, in my opinion, back in 1893 precisely for the joint development of guns, shells and explosives.
      1. rytik32
        27 August 2020 09: 22 New
        +1
        Nevertheless, Cherkasov wrote that the batteries of the coastal defense of Port Arthur had shells without explosives at all, and from the beginning of the war they received shells with pyroxylin from the fleet)))
        A.B. Shirokorad:
        On August 18, 1901, during the acceptance tests of a batch of 11-inch deck bombs at the Main Artillery Range, a mortar exploded. Further tests of 9-inch and 11-inch bombs were immediately terminated, the melinite in these shells was temporarily replaced with pyroxylin, the case loading was canceled in February 1902, about 7 thousand of the existing cases were sawn, and the melinite of them, after cleaning, was sent to equip 6-inch bombs.

        And after that, the production of melinite in Russia (produced by the Okhtinsky plant) was curtailed.
        1. 27091965
          27091965 27 August 2020 09: 59 New
          +3
          Quote: rytik32
          And after that, the production of melinite in Russia (produced by the Okhtinsky plant) was curtailed.


          There were two Okhta factories. Melinite production was discontinued at the end of 1907 in connection with the start of TNT production.
          1. rytik32
            27 August 2020 10: 04 New
            0
            This means, most likely, with the beginning of the RYA, production was launched again.
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 August 2020 09: 23 New
        +3
        Greetings, dear colleague!
        Quote: 27091965i
        Dear Andrey, there are more questions than answers on this topic

        Yes, not to say that ...
        Quote: 27091965i
        For Kane's coastal guns, this problem was solved in 1901 by Captain Maximov, who developed potent explosives based on picric acid.

        But we're talking about the guns of the fleet.
        Quote: 27091965i
        This raises the question of why the Navy ignored this explosives, although the joint artillery committee of the army and navy was created, in my opinion, back in 1893 precisely for the joint development of guns, shells and explosives.

        So picric acid is trinitrophenol and is, in other words, shimose, liddite, melinitis and so on and so forth. And it was not accepted precisely because of its explosiveness.
        1. 27091965
          27091965 27 August 2020 09: 33 New
          +2
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          But we're talking about the guns of the fleet.


          The fact of the matter is that these weapons practically had no differences.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 August 2020 09: 39 New
            +2
            Quote: 27091965i
            The fact of the matter is that these weapons practically had no differences.

            There were no picric acid shells in the fleet, and we are talking about them.
            1. 27091965
              27091965 27 August 2020 10: 02 New
              +4
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              There were no picric acid shells in the fleet, and we are talking about them.


              This is the question of why a projectile with a potent explosive, comparable in performance to the projectile used in the fleet for the 6 inch Kane guns, was ignored by the fleet.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 August 2020 10: 06 New
                +2
                Quote: 27091965i
                This is the question of why a projectile with a potent explosive, comparable in performance to the projectile used in the fleet for the 6 inch Kane guns, was ignored by the fleet.

                So the answer has long been - due to the explosiveness of shimosa. This is quite an official reason for the refusal. For the fleet, this factor is of greater importance than for land use.
                1. 27091965
                  27091965 27 August 2020 10: 39 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  So the answer has long been - due to the explosiveness of shimosa. This is quite an official reason for refusal.


                  The explosive was developed, the projectile was created, the muzzle velocity is comparable to the projectile used in the Navy. No detonation occurs when it hits the armor.

                  For the fleet, this factor is of greater importance than for land use.


                  Detonation of a projectile in the barrel of a gun has the same meaning for both the army and the navy.

                  The muzzle velocity for Kane's coastal 6-inch guns has been reduced for cast iron powder bombs and steel pyroxylin bombs.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 August 2020 11: 02 New
                    +6
                    Quote: 27091965i
                    Detonation of a projectile in the barrel of a gun has the same meaning for both the army and the navy.

                    Igor, what are we arguing about? There is a fact - our armed forces abandoned shimosa precisely because of its explosiveness. Then she nevertheless "climbed" to the ground, and the fleet stubbornly stood its ground :))) And would be right in something, since this shimosa exploded not only in the barrels of guns, Mikasa was a witness to this. The decision was made, the grounds are clear, although not the fact that they are correct
                    1. 27091965
                      27091965 27 August 2020 11: 15 New
                      +6
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      The decision was made, the grounds are clear, although not the fact that they are correct


                      I agree with this.
                  2. Saxahorse
                    Saxahorse 27 August 2020 23: 19 New
                    +2
                    Quote: 27091965i
                    The muzzle velocity for Kane's coastal 6-inch guns has been reduced for cast iron powder bombs and steel pyroxylin bombs.

                    Strictly speaking, pure Trinitrophenol is more resistant to detonation than gunpowder or pyroxylin. But everyone spoiled these small, annoying salts ..
    3. rytik32
      27 August 2020 11: 25 New
      +3
      There is such a problem. In the reference books, which provide data on pyroxylin, its moisture content is not indicated. Now I have specially looked, found the density for dry (5-6%) pyroxylin 1-1,28 g / cm3, and for wet (20-30%) 1,3-1,45 g / cm3.
      Thus, it turns out that when moistened, the weight of pyroxylin in the projectile increases along with its density.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 August 2020 11: 46 New
        +1
        Quote: rytik32
        Now I have specially looked, found the density for dry (5-6%) pyroxylin 1-1,28 g / cm3, and for wet (20-30%) 1,3-1,45 g / cm3.

        Dear Alexey, something strange with reference books.
        We have dry pyroxylin - and it is heavier than water (roughly 1 g per cubic cm). How can adding water increase the density of the resulting mixture? Or does he change his physical qualities in the course of interaction with water? That is, by mixing roughly 4 cubes of pyroxylin with 1 cube of water, we get less than 5 cubes of the mixture?
        1. rytik32
          27 August 2020 11: 50 New
          +7
          I think like with sand. Dry and wet sand have the same volume (even wet sand can be compacted to a smaller volume) with different densities.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 August 2020 12: 15 New
            +3
            Well, you are probably right. That is, either you are right or the reference books are lying, but I prefer to consider your position correct, and I will consider it as such until a documentary refutation appears - if it appears at all.
          2. Saxahorse
            Saxahorse 27 August 2020 23: 23 New
            +4
            Quote: rytik32
            I think like with sand. Dry and wet sand have the same volume (even wet sand can be compacted to a smaller volume) with different densities.

            The way it is. Water does not dissolve pyroxylin, but fills the micropores in the material, displacing air from there. Of course, the weight of wet pyroxylin increases, just by the difference in weight between water and the air displaced by it.

            For example, if you brought the usual 5% pyroxylin to 20% moisture, then its density should increase by just 15%, for example, from 1.2 to 1.38 g / cm3
            1. Turist1996
              Turist1996 28 August 2020 16: 44 New
              +2
              It became interesting, and since I am not friends with chemistry, then "Baba Vika" asked, she answered: "Nitrocellulose does not dissolve in water and non-polar solvents (benzene, carbon tetrachloride)."
              Pyroxylin is just one of the types of nitrocellulose.
  • Harry cuper
    Harry cuper 27 August 2020 09: 23 New
    +2
    Thank! A very sensible, intelligible article.
  • Victor Leningradets
    Victor Leningradets 27 August 2020 09: 55 New
    +6
    Thank you so much for the article!
    One, and perhaps most important, remark.
    All the time we are talking about 12 "shells, as if they decided the outcome of the battle, and in fact the number of their hits is much lower than 8" and 6 ". "Eagle" can be said:
    12 "high-explosive projectile with a deceleration when hitting close to normal:
    - disables any gun turret;
    - tears off the belt armor plate from the attachment (in whole or in part) and damages the skin behind it;
    - Penetrates light armor and unarmored plating and produces a huge amount of high-energy secondary fragments;
    - the shock wave destroys unprotected structures and light bulkheads in the explosion area.
    8 "high-explosive projectile with deceleration (those that V.P. Kostenko, correlating with domestic ones, took for 12"):
    - is unable to disable a two-gun twelve-inch turret, but a two-gun six-inch one is incapacitated;
    - is unable to tear off the belt armor plate from the mount, but if it hits the edge of a thin plate, it can damage the skin behind it;
    - light armoring of casemates and decks effectively resists the force of the explosion of this shell;
    - the shock wave causes limited damage to structures and bulkheads.
    6 "high-explosive instantaneous projectile (these V.P. Kostenko counted 8"):
    - unable to disable the two-gun six-inch turret;
    - unable to rip off the armor plate from the mount;
    - when hitting a light skin, it gives a large amount of high-energy fragments,
    - the most effective for destroying unprotected manpower and initiating fires.
    - the shock wave is dangerous for personnel in open space.
    Thus:
    - 12 "shells gave an insignificant percentage of hits, but the effect of a successful hit sharply reduced the combat power of the ship by knocking out artillery (" Suvorov "), and had grave consequences due to the possibility of breaking plates of the armor belt (" Oslyabya ").
    - 8 "shells inflicted significant damage to the structures of the surface and knocked out the middle and 75-mm artillery;
    6 "shells became the main means of exterminating manpower in open spaces and initiators of fires.
    Thus, we see that the role of 6 "and 8" shells in reducing the combat effectiveness of Russian ships is very significant, and Togo's tactics, aimed not at sinking enemy ships with artillery fire, but turning them into convenient non-combatable targets for destroyers, is very effective. True, it was classically implemented only in relation to "Suvorov".
  • Victor Leningradets
    Victor Leningradets 27 August 2020 11: 13 New
    +3
    An interesting question: how did our admirals interpret the purpose of 12 "high-explosive and 12" armor-piercing projectiles. How were these 3 - 4 hits to the battleship supposed to influence the outcome of the battle?
    If there are works by FV Pestich for 6 "shells, then the purpose of large-caliber artillery in battle is not completely clear.
    1. rytik32
      27 August 2020 11: 48 New
      +4
      The admirals counted on a battle from a distance of up to 20 cables, at which both the accuracy is higher and the shells pierce the belt. And the admirals did not even forget about very close combat, bordering on ramming and boarding)))
      But the reality showed completely different distances ...
      1. Victor Leningradets
        Victor Leningradets 27 August 2020 13: 10 New
        +4
        Thank you Alexey!
        There is some deviousness in my question.
        All admirals of the sunset of the 21.05.1805th century began in the era of the sailing fleet and the only emerging armor. Of course they kept pace with progress. but the patterns of linear tactics pressed on them. Therefore, in the monstrous turret guns (remember "Victoria"), the admirals saw the "Lakishota" means for getting into the artillery cellars (directly through the side or through the tower / barbet to the bottom). Little has changed at the dawn of the twentieth century. Well, maybe they also remembered about the machine-boiler plant, and from XNUMX, the defeat of the top command staff was considered a great success. The second, rapid-fire caliber was intended to destroy weakly protected posts and unarmored sides (in the old-fashioned way - shooting at a mast).
        Of course, in a side-to-side squadron battle at a "pistol" distance, this can work. But with an increase in the distance, taking into account the low rate of fire, hits from the main caliber became extremely rare, and the possibility of penetrating an armor-piercing projectile into an artillery cellar was an exceptional success.
        All this manifested itself in Tsushima.
        Moreover, the verdict for battleships of the "Borodino" type was signed by Z.P. Rozhestvensky, artificially reducing the course of his main striking force to the "most lame" one. This gave the initiative to the enemy from the first minutes of the battle - the meeting! And then - the choice of distance, concentration of fire and the failure of ships with full speed and active artillery, but devoid of control, engulfed in fires and flooded with hundreds of tons of water.
        But there was an option to fight differently! And it was shown in a hopeless situation by the unknown officer of "Borodino"! Having increased the speed to 12 -13 knots and spent the last hour of the battle at a distance of 40 - 60 cab. the already tortured Russian squadron achieved a number of dangerous hits on Japanese ships.
        If the first unit acted independently, then choosing a distance of 50 - 70 cab. the effectiveness of the six- and eight-inch guns of the Japanese squadron could be drastically reduced. From even greater distances, concentrated fire of the main caliber can be used to try to hit the cellars and MCU through the decks (example of "Glory" in 1915).
        Of course, there are many but, both visibility conditions and unimportant fusion of the squadron, and the flock of destroyers. But there was a chance.
        1. Trapperxnumx
          Trapperxnumx 27 August 2020 16: 40 New
          +4
          Quote: Victor Leningradets
          Moreover, the verdict for battleships of the "Borodino" type was signed by Z.P. Rozhestvensky, artificially reducing the course of his main striking force to the "most lame" one.

          If Rozhestvensky did exactly as you write, today we would all unanimously scold "this stupid careerist" for splitting up the fleet and allowing himself to be smashed in parts, instead of sticking together ....
          12 versus 5! Do you really think that we had a chance in this situation? Even at the same speed, Togo could put our ships in two fires and ... that's all ...
          1. Victor Leningradets
            Victor Leningradets 28 August 2020 09: 19 New
            +1
            Having entered the warrior's path, renouncing vanity and vanity. The path of the warrior is the path of death, make the enemy go forward.
            In other words, everything from the region "Oh my God! What will Princess Marya Aleksevna say!" does not matter here (and does not matter).
            I propose to consider the option of organizing a squadron:
            1st Squad - 4 new battleships pose as a pseudo-dreadnought maneuvering independently and acting as the main caliber against the MAIN target. Aviso - Pearls
            2nd Squad - 10 other armored ships acting as a breakout squadron. Aviso - Emerald.
            Others as appropriate.
            So at least not a senseless death in the slaughterhouse.
      2. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 27 August 2020 23: 34 New
        +3
        Quote: rytik32
        But the reality showed completely different distances ...

        Recently posted by you reports Asahi and Fuji at Tsushima showed 4600-4800 meters in the first stage of the battle. Oddly enough, this is just 24-26 kbl., The very ones for which the admirals were preparing. laughing
  • Alexandra
    Alexandra 27 August 2020 15: 37 New
    +4
    Both types of ammunition were equipped with an instant Idzyuin shock tube ... 12 "shells had smokeless powder and Baranovsky instant shock tubes


    Neither Idzyuin's pipe nor Baranovsky's pipe were instant fuses. These were "normal action" bottom inertial fuses.

    Classification. "Instant fuses cause a projectile to burst in 0,001 seconds after meeting an obstacle. Conventional fuses cause a projectile to burst, 0,001-0,05 seconds after meeting an obstacle." Delayed fuses - later than 0,05 sec. after meeting an obstacle.

    Due to the fact that the bottom tube of Baranovsky was adopted for the Russian 12 "high-explosive projectile, the latter exploded at medium distances after it managed to penetrate a 6" thick armor plate, or in the process of penetrating a thicker armor plate. At the same time, neither the projectile itself, nor its fragments, of course, were capable of hitting the vital centers of the enemy ship. The explosion took place immediately after the penetration of the armor plate, or in the process of passing the projectile through the plate.

    The use of "armor-piercing" shock tubes in high-explosive shells was due to the presence of thick walls and a small charge, which made the instant tube inappropriate.


    The use of a Brink delayed action fuse for high-explosive projectiles equipped with a charge of pressed wet pyroxylin was explained by the fact that this fuse had an intermediate detonator, a dry pyroxylin stick, capable of causing detonation in the wet pyroxylin charge. The Baranovsky fuse did not have such an intermediate detonator and was not suitable for detonating explosive charges of wet pyroxylin.

    An intermediate result can be summed up: the Japanese fleet had powerful high-explosive shells, but did not have full-fledged armor-piercing shells. The Russian fleet had full-fledged armor-piercing shells, but did not have shells with a powerful high-explosive effect.


    The Russian fleet did not have not only full-fledged high-explosive, but also full-fledged armor-piercing shells capable, after breaking through the armor, to reach the vital parts of the ship (cellars, boilers, machines) and explode with great effect, because the Russian fleet:

    a) did not have a reliable delayed fuse. Fuse Brink due to its design and production features for 1904-1905. It was not reliable - a problem with sensitivity / too soft aluminum striker, a problem with a break in the fuse body when an oblique impact on an armor plate, a problem with an intermediate detonator charge, most likely insufficient to cause a complete detonation of a waterlogged (25-30% humidity) bursting charge of pyroxylin ...
    b) did not have a reliable explosive charge. Already by the end of the XNUMXth century, it became clear that wet pyroxylin self-explodes in the process of breaking through an armored plate with a thickness of the order of the caliber, i.e. wet pyroxylin was too sensitive an explosive for armor-piercing projectiles. They did not manage to find an effective replacement
    until the very end of RYAV.

    The fact that 120 mm, 6 ", 8", 10 "high-explosive shells for the modern guns of the Russian fleet were with explosive charges of wet pyroxylin is known. The fact that 12" high-explosive shells due to "unavailability of charge" (ie it did not have time to work ) had an explosive charge of smokeless gunpowder, slightly less, but also known. It is even less known that the coastal artillery armor-piercing shells by the beginning of the RYA had inert equipment, and explosive charges for them were worked out already during the war (a pyroxylin explosive charge, for example, for a 10 "projectile of the Military Department, did not have time to develop until the end of the RYA, they were equipped with a smokeless rifle The question of what kind of explosive charges had 120 mm, 6 ", 8", 10 "and 12" armor-piercing shells of the Russian fleet - pyroxylin, or smokeless powder, is even darker. the time is not confirmed (in any case, personally, I have not seen such documents).

    Thus, we can safely dispel the myth that the 30% moisture content of explosives in the shells of the 2nd Pacific Squadron caused the shells to explode!


    The "myth" of incomplete detonation of such waterlogged explosive charges cannot be dispelled. To ensure complete detonation of pyroxylin of 30% moisture content, it is required to increase the mass of the explosive charge of the intermediate detonator (in this case, dry pyroxylin), or the probability of incomplete detonation of the charge of wet pyroxylin sharply increases.

    By the way, a similar problem of incomplete detonation of an explosive charge was observed in early British shells with melinite (cast charge) equipment. It is treated by increasing the mass of the explosive charge acting as an intermediate detonator. Whether the Japanese cured this problem before the RJV, or already during the RJV, is again a dark question.

    Therefore, there was a transition to the next generation explosives, which are safer to use: TNT or mixtures of trinitrophenol with other explosives.


    It happened in different ways. If the US Navy abandoned maximite (90% picric acid) in favor of dannit (ammonium nitrate) in 1906, then in the same Japanese Navy, the transition from shimose to trinitroanisole began only in 1931.

    As for smokeless powder, its properties practically corresponded to pyroxylin (by 91-95% it was pyroxylin, the rest was moisture, as well as the remains of alcohol and ether, which impart plasticity), but at a lower density of the substance.


    In addition to ~ 1,2-1,3 times lower bulk density, smokeless gunpowder is strongly inferior to wet pyroxylin in terms of brisance. Brisance of smokeless gunpowder from 4 to 6 mm. This is a low-blasting explosive.

    Without a doubt, Togo was familiar with the results of these experiments and, taking them into account, built his tactics in the Battle of Tsushima: subject enemy ships to a massive impact of high-explosive shells and then destroy them with torpedoes.

    The Russian admirals, most likely, were also aware of these experiments, since their results were presented in open sources: the Times newspaper and the Inzhener magazine.


    It is noteworthy that it seems that no one in Russia or Japan was familiar with the results of American experiments on shelling armor plates with projectiles with delayed action fuses and explosive charges of explosive explosives Maximit and Dannit, although they were also widely covered in the open American press at the very beginning of the 1914th century. In any case, V.I. Rdultovsky in his "Historical sketch of the development of tubes and fuses from the beginning of their use until the end of World War 1918." does not mention anything about these experiments, nor about the American explosives maximit and dunnit, nor about the American explosives.
    1. rytik32
      27 August 2020 18: 30 New
      +1
      Quote: AlexanderA
      At the same time, neither the projectile itself, nor its fragments, of course, were capable of hitting the vital centers of the enemy ship.

      It's about a land mine! Of course it is not meant to be.

      Quote: AlexanderA
      The use of a Brink delayed action fuse for high-explosive projectiles equipped with a charge of pressed wet pyroxylin was explained by the fact that this fuse had an intermediate detonator, a dry pyroxylin stick, capable of causing detonation in the wet pyroxylin charge. The Baranovsky fuse did not have such an intermediate detonator and was not suitable for detonating explosive charges of wet pyroxylin.

      We had (though not in the Navy) fuses for pyroxylin (with an intermediate block) and without deceleration. So technically it was not a problem, and if needed, a new fuse would be quickly developed. The problem was precisely the high cost of high-quality steel from which thin-walled shells had to be made.
      Quote: AlexanderA
      full-fledged armor-piercing shells capable, after breaking through the armor, to fly to the vital parts of the ship (cellars, boilers, cars)

      This is a question of the distance of the battle. The shells lacked speed to penetrate the belt, armor bevel and coal.
      Quote: AlexanderA
      Fuse Brink due to its design and production features for 1904-1905. was not reliable

      Please wait for the 3rd article!
      Quote: AlexanderA
      wet pyroxylin self-explodes in the process of penetrating armored plates with a thickness of the order of the caliber

      In the RYAV, this issue was relevant only against one Japanese ship. The rest had a belt noticeably thinner than 12 "Yes, and after 6" armor, the projectile speed was no longer enough to pierce even coal and bevel. Thus, we did not run into pyroxylin.
      Quote: AlexanderA
      The question is what kind of explosive charges did 120 mm, 6 ", 8", 10 "and 12" armor-piercing shells of the Russian fleet have - pyroxylin, or smokeless gunpowder, even darker

      These comments are read by Andrey Tameev, I think he will help us clarify this issue.
      Quote: AlexanderA
      This is a low-blasting explosive.

      I laid out the plate earlier. It's not so bad that smokeless powder creates shards.
      1. Pushkowed
        Pushkowed 28 August 2020 05: 01 New
        0
        I laid out the plate earlier. It's not so bad that smokeless powder creates shards.
        In this plate, the blasting action of the smokeless powder is indicated as a "dash". If we take 4 ... 6 mm, then this means that it forms fragments much worse than pyroxylin (13,3 mm) and shimose with TNT (both 16 mm).
        1. rytik32
          28 August 2020 09: 19 New
          +3
          Quote: Pushkowed
          This means that it forms fragments much worse than pyroxylin (13,3 mm) and shimose with TNT (both - 16 mm

          There are experimental results

          and smokeless powder certainly looks worse than pyroxylin, but not bad.
    2. rytik32
      28 August 2020 09: 37 New
      +1
      Quote: AlexanderA
      The question is what kind of explosive charges did 120 mm, 6 ", 8", 10 "and 12" armor-piercing shells of the Russian fleet have - pyroxylin, or smokeless gunpowder, even darker. The established opinion that such shells had bursting charges of wet pyroxylin was not confirmed by documents of that time (in any case, I personally have not seen such documents)

      Is the 1894 instruction sufficient?

      Thanks to Andrey Tameev for the information.
      1. Alexandra
        Alexandra 28 August 2020 13: 54 New
        +2
        Is the 1894 instruction sufficient?


        Not enough. As I already wrote, by the end of the 20th century, it turned out that the pyroxylin charge self-explodes when a projectile passes through an armor plate of the order of. Let me remind you that the same Rozhestvensky ordered to shoot armor-piercing at distances of 12 cables or less for 10 "and 10" caliber, and 6 cables or less for shells of 120 "and 5 mm caliber. That is, the calculation was to pierce armor plates not half a caliber thick, but up to to the thickest plates for large-caliber shells and 6 "armor plates for medium caliber.

        https://vtoraya-literatura.com/pdf/ipatiev_zhizn_odnogo_khimika_vospominaniya_tom1_1945_text.pdf
        page 203-204
        "This commission, very important in its purpose, was formed after the accident with Cap. Panpushko, who, as was said above, was solely engaged in equipping projectiles with picric acid. After his death, a special explosive commission was formed under the Artillery Committee, the chairman of which was appointed General Tenner, members of General Muratov and Captain PA Gelfreikh, and clerk Captain Petrovsky (Nikolai Ivanovich) Gelfreich carried out experiments at an artillery range: in a specially arranged workshop, he filled shells with various explosives and then subjected them to shooting tests from guns of different calibers. At the beginning, this commission was attended by a representative of the maritime department, cap. Barkhotkin, who was engaged in equipping armor-piercing shells with pyroxylin bombs. After Barkhotkin left, my friend from the Academy, K.I.Maksimov, was involved in the commission, and he was instructed to equip the shells with wet pyroxylin. But soon pyroxylin was replaced by other explosives."

        https://vtoraya-literatura.com/pdf/ipatiev_zhizn_odnogo_khimika_vospominaniya_tom1_1945_text.pdf
        Стр. 205
        "Cap. Maksimov ... He was the first to have the idea to introduce such compounds for equipping projectiles that, having sufficient detonating properties, would not explode when passing through solid barriers. So, for example, an armor-piercing projectile equipped with such an explosive should to pass through the armor and then explode from the action of the detonator in the shock tube. He shared this idea with me and offered to work with him on its implementation. I willingly agreed to this joint work, and began to research various combinations of aromatic nitro compounds with picric acid in the laboratory trinitrocresol and not only to study their suitability from a physicochemical point of view, but also to investigate their explosive properties during explosions in the Sarro and Viell bomb. after the death of Maksimov, which followed in the beginning e 1898, such combinations of nitro compounds have found great application in the equipment of shells, and my student at the Academy cap. AA Dzerzhkovich, who took the place of Maksimov, successfully continued to develop this issue. "

        A well-known "other explosive" was smokeless gunpowder. Eckerdit (see p. 204) did not fit. And explosive charges from picric acid phlegmatized with trinitrocresol ... Russian armor-piercing shells never received. Cresolite was used by the French:

        "Trniitrocresol alone is not used. In France, it was used in the form of alloys with picric acid. The most commonly used alloy consisting of 60% trinitrocresol and 40% picric acid, called cresolite. A valuable property of this alloy is less sensitivity than picric acid, low melting point (75-80) and plasticity at 65-70, which makes it easy to obtain a dense charge (D = 1.65) "
        1. rytik32
          28 August 2020 14: 07 New
          0
          Quote: AlexanderA
          As I already wrote, by the end of the XNUMXth century, it turned out that the pyroxylin charge self-explodes when a projectile passes through an armor plate of the order of.

          Only "Fuji" had such a thick belt.

          Quote: AlexanderA
          A well-known "other explosive" was smokeless gunpowder.

          Not at all obvious.

          The reason for replacing pyroxylin with gunpowder was voiced in the document - it is a lack of pyroxylin.
        2. Saxahorse
          Saxahorse 28 August 2020 23: 59 New
          +1
          Quote: AlexanderA
          As I already wrote, by the end of the XNUMXth century, it turned out that the pyroxylin charge self-explodes when a projectile passes through an armor plate of the order of.

          And there is. But you forgot to add that black powder and picric acid explode at 0.5 gauge armor thickness. Although this can be fought with a special stacking of the charge, separating it with wads. Which of course reduces the weight of the charge.

          Quote: AlexanderA
          And explosive charges from picric acid phlegmatized with trinitrocresol ... Russian armor-piercing shells never received.

          Russian shells were phlegmatized with dinitronaphthalene. And this same trinitrocresol was used by the Americans in their maxim, which was put into service in 1901. But of course not 60%, but quite sufficient 10% and 25% for armor-piercing.
          1. Alexandra
            Alexandra 29 August 2020 19: 25 New
            +1
            Quote: Saxahorse
            And there is. But you forgot to add that black powder and picric acid explode at 0.5 gauge armor thickness.


            As Rdultovsky put it: “By the time of this war, the difficult task of developing good armor-piercing projectiles was far from being resolved everywhere. Not only were studies in the field of explosives capable of withstanding an impact on armor without an explosion, but even the shells themselves often did not meet the conditions for firing at armor, although were quite expensive. "

            Nobody, except the Americans (about whom Rdultovsky did not know), who developed good armor-piercing shells equipped with "maximit" explosives (picric acid phlegmatized with mononitronaphthalene) with a workable delayed-action fuse (p. 384 ff):

            https://ingenierosnavales.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Scientific-American-Vol.-85-No.-24-December-14-1901-Development-of-the-U.S.-Navy-since-the-Spanish-War.pdf

            Russian shells were phlegmatized with dinitronaphthalene.


            "Russian mixture" (48,5% dinitronaphthalene and 51,5% picric acid) was widely used during the First World War to equip small and medium-caliber artillery shells and aerial bombs, but I don’t remember any information that it was used to equip armor-piercing shells of naval artillery ... For their equipment during the First World War, phlegmatized TNT was used:

            "Since 1908, the widespread use of TNT began in Russia, and by the beginning of the World War, almost all weapons in service received shells equipped with this substance. Fuses for TNT shells partly retained the old melinite detonators, and partly received new ones from pressed tetril. fuses for field and partially for coastal shells received a modern safety device ... The adoption of TNT also made it possible to solve the problem of equipping armor-piercing shells. when a projectile pierced armor about one caliber thick ... coastal 12-inch shells weighing 446,4 kg with 31 kg of TNT and with 8DT fuses were a completely different weapon than the old pyroxylin shells.
            The task of supplying coastal artillery with deck and armor-piercing shells was also resolved.
            Already in 1906, a patent was taken in Germany for equipping armor-piercing projectiles with an alloy of TNT with 6% naphthalene. In Russia, an alloy of picric acid with naphthalene and dinitrobenzene was tested even earlier, and therefore the transition to alloys of TNT with these substances was a natural continuation of previous work.
            By 1910-1911. AA Dzerzhkovich completed experiments with this alloy and found that deck-piercing shells were of good quality to 11-inch. coastal mortars, equipped with 24,5 kg of phlegmatized TNT, can successfully penetrate 100-mm Krupp cemented armor at a final speed of about 300 m / s and an encounter angle of 25 degrees with normal. Equipped with slow-motion 5DM fuses, these projectiles explode behind the slab and can inflict severe damage to vital parts of the ship that are hidden under the deck armor and are inaccessible to high-explosive projectiles. At the same time, phlegmatization with naphthalene (up to 12-15%) and dinitrobenzene did not noticeably reduce the explosive properties of TNT: the explosive charge acted impeccably from a powerful detonator in 115 g of melinite (or tetril) adopted for this fuse.
            With regard to chemical resistance, phlegmatized TNT has been extensively investigated and has shown quite favorable results. "
            Rdultovsky
  • geniy
    geniy 27 August 2020 16: 28 New
    -2
    Arkady Raikin once said in one of his scenes: "I listened to you all for a long time and understood: ...... everything!"
    The bottom line is that before you all talk about the power of the explosions of Russian and Japanese shells, it would be better if you all first figured out the question: did Russian shells explode at all or not? And this question also applies to Japanese at different times. It is one thing if the percentage of non-explosive shells is very small, then one could ignore this, and quite another thing if the percentage of non-explosions approaches half of their fired number. So - the English observer Pekingham after Tsushima decided that 24 of the 8 shells that hit the target did not explode in the Russians, that is, the percentage of no explosion was 33%. And Admiral Nebogatov believed that there were 75% unexploded, and which of them is right? I personally use the following practice - as soon as there are different numbers for one event, then you should immediately start investigating which figure is correct and which is false. But among modern Russian "experts" in the history of the fleet, unconditional preference is given to foreign specialists. And in my personal opinion, this Packinham was greatly mistaken - that is, he considered the hits of unexploded Russian shells to explode and thus greatly distorted his statistics. The fact is that quite often the impact of a blank of a projectile on the armor carves out of it steel fragments, which injure and kill people, that is, these are fragments of armor, not a shell. For example, during the Second World War, the Germans fired at Soviet tanks exclusively with blanks (if you do not take into account cumulative ones). Everyone knows the words from the pest: "Here is a blank hit in the tank - goodbye, beloved crew!" So - fragments of their own armor killed people, and not at all the fragments of German shells or Russian shells in Tsushima. It seemed to Togo's lieutenant that a splinter of his own ship's armor cut off his finger. Moreover, there is often an INTERNAL spall of armor from the rear side, when the shell did not pierce the armor at all and did not make holes, and the dead and wounded appeared behind the armor. And if behind the armor in the casemate there was a Japanese cannon and several charges with gunpowder and shells lay next to it, then the fragments of the armor piercing the powder charges caused a fire of gunpowder, or even an explosion of their own Japanese shells, which killed or received terrible burns the servants of Japanese guns. But the stupidity of Japanese doctors and modern historians is that they did not bother at all with the question of what cause the person was wounded or died: that is, they all and (you too) did not care whether the Japanese artilleryman suffocated from the smoke of a powder fire, whether he received only burns, without any other wounds, and died from this, or he was killed by fragments of his own Japanese armor, or it was really fragments of a Russian shell. That is, Japanese doctors simply treated people and never did chemical analysis of the fragments that fell into the Japanese sailors to determine a specific piece of steel: whether it was Russian or Japanese. And they simply wrote of all those killed in a naval battle "killed by a hit from a Russian shell", which at the same time could not explode at all, but worked like a simple blank. In the same way, all the wounded and burned were recorded in the same column "wounded", despite the fact that a particular person could have only burns without a single piece of metal. By the way, now there is a deceitful practice in relation to plane crashes in the same way: pathologists write there: Wounded or killed, often not wanting to clarify, a person died from an aircraft hit, or simply received terrible burns or suffocated in smoke, but in fact this difference is very important for understanding.
    Therefore, stupid historians groundlessly believe that the explosions of Russian shells wounded and killed Japanese sailors in Tsushima. This, for example, refers to the Japanese battleship Fuji "in which a Russian shell hit the turret of 12 Inch guns. I think that in this case there was no reliable penetration of its armor and the explosion of a Russian shell inside the turret, but simply a Russian shell knocked out the cork from the armor, (and itself flew back from this), but the cork of armor and fragments of armor flying at high speed ignited powder charges inside the Japanese tower, and from this the Japanese artillerymen suffocated and received fatal burns, and some managed to jump out. Thus, in this and many other cases everyone mistakenly thinks that the Russian shell pierced the armor and exploded inside, but in fact there was no explosion at all.Thus, in my opinion, Packinham's statistics are completely false, and in fact, the percentage of non-explosions of Russian shells was much higher and probably Admiral Nebogatov is more right speaking about 75% of non-explosions, and his figure is much closer to the truth.
    But not only the British observers are fools along with the Japanese, but the Russian officers are also half-witted !! Everyone is familiar with the experience of the test shelling of old cylindrical boilers by the Vladivostok detachment of cruisers after the Russian-Japanese war, which showed that Russian shells piercing these boilers gave a very weak explosion with a small amount of fragments. But in fact, all readers are simpletons who believed these words. According to my research, Russian shells pierced these cauldrons through and through (and the outlet was larger than the inlet), but none of them exploded, and all these shells flew away for 2-3 kilometers, and buried themselves in the sand without an explosion. where stupid Russian officers simply did not bother to look for them. and mistakenly thought all these shells exploded. But in fact, a blank projectile flying at high speed at the moment it hits the steel strikes a large sheaf of sparks from it - which from afar seems to observers to be a flash of its explosion. And besides, the walls of the cauldrons, and they thought it was a flash of a weak explosion of shells. And when they came closer, they found pieces of iron from the walls of the cauldrons, and mistakenly thought that these were shell fragments, while in fact the unexploded shells flew several kilometers away and buried themselves in the sand.
    1. geniy
      geniy 27 August 2020 16: 32 New
      -1
      Also, every history buff can easily give me proof of the explosion of Russian shells hitting the Izumo, so I will quote them to you: “Two hits were seen from the 6-inch bow turret near the cruiser's front pipe.! A 2-inch shell from the aft turret hit under the conning tower and exploded under it after hitting the armor of the bow tower. A characteristic rupture of our shell with bright yellow smoke was observed. A fire broke out on the cruiser, it left the column and began to retreat ... "You all tell me - Well, is it not true? that's clear evidence of the explosions of Russian shells! However, this is a common misconception. In my opinion, 6-inch shells only slipped on the steel deck of the Japanese cruiser, and caused by this friction steel on steel a bright sheaf of sparks, similar to the explosion of a shell, but it is not. And the impact of a 12-inch projectile on the Japanese tower caused an internal spalling of the armor in it and the fragments of the armor ignited the powder charges, which caused a fire of gunpowder inside the tower - but there was no explosion of a Russian shell! steam and stood in one place, helpless and doomed ... A shot from a large cannon of some ship rang out from behind. A high-explosive shell flashed dazzlingly in the very center of the destroyer .. "It would seem that it is obvious to everyone that a large-caliber Russian shell exploded, but I personally think otherwise. After all, the destroyers of that time had a shallow draft - only 1,5 meters, and the boiler furnaces were even higher - about only 1 meter from the waterline, so the Russian shell hit the waterline in the middle of the destroyer near the boiler room - that is, into one of the boilers, and threw up burning coal from the boiler, which created a bright flash after reading an excerpt from the book "Tsushima" all stupid experts mistakenly think that the Russian shell exploded.
      And since then, everyone believes that Russian shells exploded, just very weakly and with a small number of fragments, but in fact all Russian shells did not explode at all! Here is an episode with the sinking of the destroyer "Exuberant": "... The sixth and seventh shots hit the destroyer, and only the eighth hit thoroughly in its bow ..." All "connoisseurs" of history think that the Russian artillerymen over and over again missed the one standing next to boat, to which it was a spit to file. But in fact, all 6-inch shells simply pierced it THROUGHOUT, and leaving only a small hole with a diameter smaller than the cap, flew away further, without any harm! And none of them exploded, because the thickness of the destroyer's skin is only about 6 mm - a 6-inch shell can penetrate easily - like a sheet of paper. That is, the firing accuracy in this case was about 100%, but the shells did not explode, and the small holes were above the waterline and the destroyer did not sink because the Russian shells did not explode .. But after all, everything happened exactly the same with the Japanese destroyers, with the exception of three drowned! The Russian artillerymen hit them very well, but they left tiny holes in their sides because the Russian shells did not explode, but the Japanese very easily plugged these holes, and their destroyers did not sink, and the Japanese did not even consider it necessary to even consider these holes for hits by Russian shells ... And now all readers laugh at the words of the Russian artillerymen, when they say that they sank a large number of Japanese destroyers at night ... But in fact, the Russian sailors say the honest truth - they accurately hit the Japanese destroyers, and it is not their fault that their shells did not explode ... It is clearly seen in the case of the armored cruiser "Russia" during its march to the Far East, when they conducted a demonstration shooting. To demonstrate to the personnel and check the explosive action of cast-iron grenades, five combat shots were fired from a 75-mm gun. "The breaks turned out to be very good ..." wrote Commander Domozhirov. That is - the Russian sailors saw with their own eyes what could not be at all - the explosions of Russian shells, because Russian shells did not explode! But in fact, they saw just columns of water, raised by the falls of unexploded shells into the water.
      But all the same: is there any reliable evidence that 100% of Russian naval shells during the Russian-Japanese war did not explode at all? Yes, and everyone knows this case: the battleship "Tsarevich" fired at the rebellious fortress of Sveaborg and none of its dotsushima shells exploded! Only some of them had their bottom torn out - apparently their fuse worked, but could not cause the detonation of the main charge. Thus, all Russian naval shells were essentially ineffective non-explosive blanks in long-range combat. that is, the Russian sailors were armed with a wooden sword. But upon learning about the stunning results of the shelling of Sveabrga, the tsarist government was simply obliged to conduct a state investigation into why Russian shells did not explode and whether this circumstance was the main reason that Russia suffered a fatal defeat in the Russo-Japanese war. But as you know, there was no investigation or at least a nationwide publication of the result of this investigation at all! And why? I am sure that there was of course a secret investigation, but its result is so shameful that publishing it was mortally dangerous for many top officials. The fact is that decades before this investigation, all the shells made at the factories undergo state acceptance, at which several shells are taken from each batch and checked by real shooting. And if at least one shell does not explode on such a practical acceptance, then a big scandal will immediately follow, the whole batch will be sent back to the plant for a complete alteration. But as you know, twenty years before the start of the Russo-Japanese War, not a single scandal has occurred related to the acceptance of non-explosive shells, so I am sure that all Russian shells exploded perfectly during the receiving firing, that is, there were no non-explosions. But why, then, in a real war, all the shells - almost all 100% - did not explode? I assume that unrealistic light conditions for explosions were created at the acceptance firing. That is, during the receiving firing, they probably fired at more or less thick armor plates - 1,5-2 inches thick - that is, 38-50 mm, and having received a strong blow, all the shells exploded perfectly. However, in a real war, shells, shells fell in INCREDIBLE physical and technical conditions unknown to all of you, and therefore they were 100% non-explosive. I will not explain to you what those physical and technical conditions were - because lovers of traditional history put too many disadvantages to me. Therefore, you are tumbling with your little minds as you know. I am sure that none of you understands anything. That none of you understands anything, I will give a few quotes from your statements:
      "IMHO, no versions other than undercover sabotage can explain the explosion of Russian shells."
      "The TNT equivalent of trinitrophenol (aka melinitis, shimosa, liddite) is approximately 1,0. For pyroxylin, about 0,9. Not that much of a difference." Dears - does it occur to you to compare the percentage of unexploded Russians and Japanese shells at Tsushima before comparing the power of explosives?
      Andrey from Chelyabinsk: "Sorry, but 25% of water can't cause a decrease from 1,1 to 0,9 :)))"
      Tell me - are you all not interested in the percentage of unexploded Russian shells? But only the difference in the force of the explosion?
      "But the main trouble with Russian shells was not that. But that we are talking about 2,9-3,6% of the mass of the shell, and not about 10%. We are talking about 6,7-8,1 kg of blasting explosive, and not about 20-25 kg. That is, a complete non-explosion of all shells is not the main reason for the defeat for all of you?
      The author of the original article: “For a subsequent article, I pulled data from different sources into such a table.” And what - the percentage of unexploded shells does not interest you at all, but only the power of the explosion of different explosives?
      1. rytik32
        27 August 2020 22: 34 New
        +3
        Quote: geniy
        And what - the percentage of unexploded shells does not interest you at all

        Moreover, I even calculated this%. And my next article is about this - it has already been written. And the conclusions of the article can make a very big impression on you.
        1. geniy
          geniy 28 August 2020 07: 39 New
          0
          So I will test your honesty as a researcher. Because it is not enough to put forward any hypothesis, it is still necessary to confirm it with facts. And even any calculations will not help here, because many calculations can be deeply erroneous. And I'm going to test it using the Mueller method. As you remember, he served as an investigator in the German police and interrogated suspects and witnesses many times, and found a discrepancy in their words: But another witness claims that he saw you at that time on another street! In the same way, I check everyone. In particular, the hypothesis on non-explosions of projectiles, if the figure for the percentage of non-explosions is correct, then it should be confirmed by many other sources, and if it is false, then there is no confirmation. True, the essence of my personal hypothesis is that none of the Russian officers at all knew that our shells did not explode. Neither Makarov, nor the Grand Duke, nor Rozhdestvensky, with Nebogatov, nor Jessen, and no one in general knew this. Therefore, all figures for the percentage of non-explosions are different, because everyone determines it at their own will and not on the basis of reliable artillery experiments. So I will check you how you substantiate your personal hypothesis.
          1. rytik32
            28 August 2020 09: 23 New
            +2
            Quote: geniy
            So I will test your honesty as a researcher.

            Be sure to check.
            Take the Japanese damage data of their ships, select hits that are estimated at 8 "and larger, then take those where the failure was or was suspected and analyze it. It's very simple!
            1. geniy
              geniy 28 August 2020 10: 13 New
              0
              take where the failure was or was suspected and analyze them. Everything is very simple!

              Indeed, everything is very simple, but at the same time very troublesome - too much dust will have to be swallowed to prove something. I will do something simpler - I will analyze your mistakes in the analysis - if, of course, I can find them.
              But let me remind you that the essence of the very important topic you raised: was the technical execution of Russian and Japanese shells the reason for the defeat at Tsushima and in the Russo-Japanese War. And I can immediately see your delusions and all other participants in the fact that you are all confused in some very important details - and the devil is in the details! Well, wait, I'll consider some of them.
              1. rytik32
                28 August 2020 10: 27 New
                +1
                Quote: geniy
                I will do something simpler - I will analyze your mistakes in the analysis - if of course I can find them.

                Can you do it?
                Can you first analyze the errors in Campbell's Tsushima analysis?
                I'm just really interested in what you can find there.
                1. geniy
                  geniy 28 August 2020 11: 02 New
                  0
                  Can you first analyze the errors in Campbell's Tsushima analysis?
                  I'm just really interested in what you can find there.

                  Of course I can, but you yourself understand that if you analyze his conclusions in full, you will have to write a very large work. Here you give me at least one or two Facts that interest you with a detailed description and photographs, and I will analyze them. I found a huge number of errors in the analysis of all other authors describing shell hits.
                  1. rytik32
                    28 August 2020 11: 45 New
                    +1
                    The shell hit the lower edge of the upper 6 "armor belt under the 152 mm gun casemate, about 2 feet above the waterline. The armor was pierced (hole diameter 300 mm), the plate was concave (maximum dent depth about 60 mm, diameter 1,75 m)

                    Was there a gap? What is the caliber of the projectile? And in general, what can be said according to this scheme.
                    1. geniy
                      geniy 28 August 2020 13: 00 New
                      +1
                      You didn't even bother to indicate either the name of the ship, or the time of the hit (by which you can calculate which Russian ships fired at it), or the area of ​​impact, because there were two hits in Mikasa's 152 mm armor belt. And so I have to guess all this?
                      But I will try to conduct a technical analysis. I have been doing this for many years and have a lot of experience. Firstly: whatever the descriptions and drawings of the hit, the people who make them have become so insolent that very often they drive out open falsification and draw what did not exist at all. So I assume that this hole was drawn by an irresponsible person and perhaps there was no hole at all ... This can be assumed for the following circumstances: although you did not indicate the time, it can still be assumed that the shell was 12-inch from the head Russian battleships of the type Borodino, because they were closer, and by no means a 254 mm shell from the terminal battleships of the coastal defense.
                      And this means that either you personally, or the author of which you took it, is blatantly false, since a 305 mm caliber projectile would in no way be able to crawl through a hole with a diameter of 300 mm - and even with uneven edges. For penetration, the hole in the light must be at least 350 mm in diameter. That is, the truth is that either the Russian shell did not penetrate through this hole at all, but immediately flew back, but upon impact knocked out a plug from the armor, which flew into the compartment.
                      And if a Russian projectile actually pierced this armor belt and exploded into a coal pit there, it would certainly have raised a cloud of coal dust, which would have instantly exploded with tremendous force - much stronger than the explosion of the projectile itself, with the complete destruction of all surrounding thin bulkheads. the thickness of which is most likely about 6 mm. And the explosion of the Russian shell in the coal pit would probably have caused a fire in the coal pit .. That is, there was no explosion of the Russian shells inside Mikasa's coal pit at all. And this means that if the unexploded Russian shell really remained lying in this coal pit, then after the battle the Japanese would certainly get it out and take a picture. But of course you don't have a photograph of this unexploded shell - guess why? Yes, simply because the shell did not penetrate this coal pit!
                      But even if we assume that the Russian shell exploded in this coal pit, then it should have very large fragments - in particular, almost an entire warhead and a whole bottom. And the Japanese would then take out these fragments and photograph them. Can you make photos of the fragments of the Russian shell for everyone to see? Of course you cannot, because they did not exist in nature. Should I continue my analysis of this deception further?
                      1. rytik32
                        28 August 2020 13: 15 New
                        +2
                        Thanks for the comment )))
                        This hit "Mikasa" in the JM. Estimated as 254mm. The time of the hit is not recorded.
                        By the way, where did you get the idea that this is Tsushima? It's about the quality of your analysis ...
                        This scheme is taken from the FID. I have several downloaded files with damage diagrams created by Kure and Sasebo shipyard specialists. These files are publicly available. So the probability of their falsification is very low.
                        Further, the argument “no photo means there wasn’t” in historical science is simply laughable.
                        You also amused me about the dust explosion in coal pits.
                        Quote: geniy
                        Should I continue my analysis of this deception further?

                        No, of course not worth it anymore!
                      2. geniy
                        geniy 28 August 2020 13: 39 New
                        0
                        This hit "Mikasa" in the JM. ...
                        By the way, where did you get the idea that this is Tsushima?
                        And from the fact that it was in Tsushima that Mikaza received as many as two hits in the armor belt in the area of ​​coal pits, and I could not imagine that we were talking about a battle in the Yellow Sea, and you did not even bother to immediately clarify this!
                        But in any case - if the shell pierced the armor and flew into the coal pit, then huge traces of it must have remained! If the shell exploded inside the coal pit, then it would riddled all the bulkheads of this pit, which is no more than 6 mm thick. You do not think to provide photos of fragments of this shell, then show photos of the bulkheads riddled with it!
                        Again, you do not want to provide a photograph - well, then provide at least a verbal description of these shrapnel holes as evidence. Don't you want to again? Or maybe this Russian shell didn't explode, but the Japanese were too lazy to photograph it - could it be? What do you personally think about this hit?
                        And falsifications are possible in general of anything, and not by historians of subsequent times, but by the compilers themselves initially. I can provide you with thousands of fake hits of all time.
                      3. geniy
                        geniy 28 August 2020 13: 57 New
                        +1
                        And by the way, let me remind you that your article is called "Tsushima. Shells and Experiments." Therefore, I quite reasonably assumed that you gave an example of the hole in the battleship Mikaza in Tsushima, and not in the battle in the Yellow Sea.
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 27 August 2020 17: 12 New
    +1
    But in fact, all 6-inch shells simply pierced it THROUGHOUT, and leaving only a small hole with a diameter smaller than the cap, flew away further, without any harm!

    This happens when breaking through armor becomes the main task of artillery. The Germans also stepped on a rake in the Second World War. When their tanks were fed by armor-piercing shells, they would destroy anti-tank guns and infantry in positions.
  • Saxahorse
    Saxahorse 27 August 2020 22: 41 New
    +3
    A good continuation of an interesting topic. Thanks a lot to the author!

    Although of course there are some details with which you can argue and questions that I would like to clarify.

    For example, 1% moisture pyroxylin can explode even from cutting it with a knife! With increasing humidity, its sensitivity to detonation decreases.

    Here it is probably more correct to say not "explode" but "spontaneously ignite". Nitrocellulose, especially dry, begins to decompose already at 40-60 degrees C. This is actually the main problem of pyroxylin. It is clear that attempts to drill or saw dry pyroxylin immediately lead to local heating and ignition.

    I note right away that shimose, liddite and melinitis are complete analogs in their characteristics and correspond to trinitrophenol in the table

    It is difficult to agree with this. The composition of the explosives differed at least in different phlegmatizers.

    But no fires broke out on the ship, although the combustible materials (decoration, furniture, bedding) remained in their places ..

    A very interesting point. The battleship Belile did not catch fire, although extensive fires were typical of the Battle of Tsushima. Here, or the features of liddite, either the features of the experiment are affected. Maybe after each shot they swam up and extinguished? Chob holes to measure for example. wink

    And of course it will be interesting to see the third article, as I understand it about the alleged reasons for the refusals.
    1. rytik32
      27 August 2020 23: 39 New
      +2
      Quote: Saxahorse
      A very interesting point. The battleship Belile did not catch fire, although extensive fires were typical of the Battle of Tsushima. Here, or the features of liddite, either the features of the experiment are affected. Maybe after each shot they swam up and extinguished? Chob holes to measure for example.

      No, no one extinguished Belile.
      I also asked myself a question, why there were no fires from English shells, but from Japanese shells? Apparently, the reason is the incomplete detonation of the shimosa. This is confirmed by yellow or black "smokes" and "traces" from explosions. It was shimosa that was flying. Yellow - no ignition. Black - with ignition. And the burning shimose particles started the fires.
      1. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 27 August 2020 23: 52 New
        +4
        Quote: rytik32
        Apparently, the reason is the incomplete detonation of the shimosa. This is confirmed by yellow or black "smokes"

        Trinitrophenol is the same yellow dye. :) Quite persistent by the way. The soldiers in WWI who were shell-shocked by the explosion of melinite shells were often called canaries, they stained their skin with high quality and for a long time. Fires from shimosa are inclined to be attributed to a higher explosion temperature and heaps of very small fragments loosening wooden surfaces.
        1. rytik32
          28 August 2020 10: 24 New
          0
          Quote: Saxahorse
          Quote: rytik32
          Apparently, the reason is the incomplete detonation of the shimosa. This is confirmed by yellow or black "smokes"

          Trinitrophenol is the same yellow dye. :) Quite persistent by the way. The soldiers in WWI who were shell-shocked by the explosion of melinite shells were often called canaries, they stained their skin with high quality and for a long time. Fires from shimosa are inclined to be attributed to a higher explosion temperature and heaps of very small fragments loosening wooden surfaces.

          Is this versus liddit? )))
          1. Saxahorse
            Saxahorse 28 August 2020 23: 21 New
            0
            Quote: rytik32
            Is this versus liddit? )))

            Yes! I didn’t find anything on liddit, so we can only guess what was mixed there.
  • Andrey152
    Andrey152 28 August 2020 08: 11 New
    +2
    Quote: AlexanderA
    The question is what kind of explosive charges did 120 mm, 6 ", 8", 10 "and 12" armor-piercing shells of the Russian fleet have - pyroxylin, or smokeless gunpowder, even darker. The established opinion that such shells had explosive charges of wet pyroxylin was not confirmed by documents of that time (in any case, I personally have not seen such documents).

    According to the instructions of 1894, armor-piercing and high-explosive shells were equipped with pyroxylin.
  • geniy
    geniy 28 August 2020 10: 44 New
    0
    Dear Rytik32! So you gave in your article a graph of the armor penetration of the Russian and Japanese shells of Melnikov and, I think, even Suliga, and at the same time did not inform the reading public that this schedule is absolutely false. And I don’t know if you personally understand what the lie of this schedule is, not to mention the thousands of other readers who are much less competent in naval matters. That is, as I say: none of you understands anything at all, and this is the essence of delusions about the reason for the defeat at Tsushima and other battles.
    The fact is that the armor penetration data in this graph is absolutely false and very far from reality. I believe that all these data are not obtained on the basis of reliable artillery experiments, and the armor penetration is corny calculated according to the formula of the famous Jacob de Marr. But the essence of this formula lies in the fact that Jacob de Marr introduced a simplification - as if the projectile is absolutely hard and does not explode instantly when it strikes a hard steel armor plate, but this is not at all a fact. This is easy to refute. That is, if we make the simplest primitive calculation - how far the projectile will travel through the armor, then for this we need to know its speed and time. I will tell you these figures: The final speed of a 12-inch projectile at a distance of 30 cab is about 500 meters per second (definitely not necessary, because it will still result in a paradox. And time can be taken as the response time ordinary fuse (which the Japanese had) - that is, 0,01. And now, stupidly multiplying 500x0,01 = 5 m, we get that any 12-inch projectile will pass about 5 meters, breaking through the armor.
    But we all know that this is not at all the case! Because during the entire Russo-Japanese War, not a single Japanese shell never pierced the slightest average thickness of Russian armor! And why? Yes, simply because at the moment the shell hits the armor, such gigantic overloads occur that most types of explosives immediately detonate spontaneously at the same moment !!! That is, not at all from the detonation of the fuse, but spontaneously! And this is the fault of most types of explosives - except for the extremely wet pyroxylin and trinitrotoluene - TNT. And all types of melenite (shimosa and others - I'm just too lazy to remember their exact technical names) - spontaneously detonate!
    It would seem that I did not reveal any secret to you. But in fact, in fact, I completely refute the Melnikov-Suliga schedule, that is, there is an absolutely false figure for the armor penetration of Japanese shells, obtained absolutely by calculation, considering that every Japanese shell is supposedly a solid steel blank that does not contain a single gram of explosives.
    This is what I want to check your honesty: after all, you succumbed to Melnikov's opinion and, after him, told your readers absolutely false data. And I would like to ask you and everyone else a question to fill in: have any of you seen the results of reliable artillery experiments on shelling armor plates with Japanese melenite shells? And also experiments on shelling armor plates with Russian shells with wet pyroxylin? Just do not think for God's sake that I supposedly need your answers - this is just a test of honesty, because I believe that no ordinary person has seen the results of such experiments, because they have been deeply classified for over a hundred years. And I just would like to see honest people who confess their ignorance, because, for example, the well-known Andrey from Chelyabinsk and the Senior Sailor (Ivan Ochenkov) immediately dive into the mud and avoid answering when they try to get secret information from them a hundred years ago.
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 28 August 2020 11: 33 New
    +1
    That is, not at all from the detonation of the fuse, but spontaneously!

    I think it beat like that. But at the same time, some, though considerable, the thickness of the armor broke through, depending on the caliber of the projectile.
    1. geniy
      geniy 28 August 2020 11: 49 New
      0
      It doesn't matter at all what you personally think and assume. Instead of thinking, you just need to bring a photograph of any hit by a Japanese projectile into Russian armor and clearly show everyone the penetration depth. But in fact, as eyewitnesses note, there was no deepening except for a hole about one inch deep in 25 mm and there was no color change from the high temperature in the Russian armor. But I remind her once that I am only checking your general honesty, because I want to know: how many of you have reliably seen the photographs of the results of artillery experiments on shelling armor with Japanese melenite shells and Russian artillery experiments with dotsushima shells.
  • Alexandra
    Alexandra 28 August 2020 12: 57 New
    0
    Quote: rytik32
    It's about a land mine! Of course it is not meant to be.

    What design a modern high-explosive projectile should have and how to operate in Russia knew. "The useful effect of such projectiles will be the greater, the greater the weight of the explosive charge. That is why the technique seeks to reduce, as much as possible, the thickness of the projectile walls. The Obukhov plant is preparing high-explosive shells with an explosive charge of 9,5% for a 6-day caliber and 7,75% for a 12-day caliber. "

    Doesn't it seem to you that the quality of the steel of a 12 "high-explosive projectile (without an armor-piercing cap and hardening of the warhead) at a distance of 43 cab., Piercing the 178 mm Krupp armor plate, was in general all right? the constructive (explosive powder charge, Baranovsky bottom tube, wooden gasket between the powder charge and the screwed bottom) of the high-explosive projectile was modern at a time when such an armor-piercing projectile was considered modern:


    We had (though not in the Navy) fuses for pyroxylin (with an intermediate block) and without deceleration. So technically it was not a problem, and if needed, a new fuse would be quickly developed. The problem was precisely the high cost of high-quality steel from which thin-walled shells had to be made.

    My doubt that the quality of projectile steel was low, I voiced a little higher. And the fuse, yes, there was, the Military Department - 11DM. "Fuse 11 DM (Fig. 62) was adopted for 6- and 10-inch. Projectiles equipped with wet pyroxylin and taken from the Naval Department after the declaration of the Japanese war. In design, it differed little from the 5DM fuse described above, but was much smaller in size, weighed about 1,5 kg and contained in the detonator only 55,5 g of picric acid... The 11DM fuse did not have a retarder, and its action time after hitting the slab did not exceed 0,005 sec. Thus, he could not act on the passage of the armor and was torn before it was pierced. The steel pyroxylin shells of the Naval Department, to which this fuse was adopted, did not have high armor-piercing qualities and were assigned for firing at decks and superstructures; they had no armor-piercing points and were not hardened. "

    The question of why the Russian ships entered the Tsushima battle with high-explosive shells made according to drawings from the early 1890s, and in particular with a 12 "high-explosive charge with a bursting charge of smokeless gunpowder and Baranovsky's bottom tube, is apparently still waiting for its explorer. However ... Vladivostok Experiments have shown that in at least 6 "caliber a high-explosive projectile with an explosive charge of smokeless gunpowder, just as a high-explosive one, in its" useful effect "turned out to be much better than the same projectile with a charge of moist pyroxylin and a Brink delayed-action fuse.

    And let's not forget that for all this, it is believed that in the Tsushima battle a third of the 12 "Russian shells hit by Japanese ships did not explode.

    This is a question of the distance of the battle. The shells lacked speed to penetrate the belt, armor bevel and coal.


    Do you think that the speed of the Russian 12 "shells when hitting the armor plates in the Tsushima battle was less than the British 12" shells' speed when hitting the armor plates in the Falkand battle?

    "In the second part of the battle, the 152-mm upper belt of the Mikasa was again pierced by a Russian 305-mm projectile - most likely a high-explosive one, fired from a distance of 4 ... 000 m (5 ... 000 cab).

    This case was described as follows:

    At 16.15 a 305-mm projectile pierced the upper belt under the casemate of gun No. 7, just below the middle deck, at the 89th frame. The size of the hole in the armor was approximately 3 '× 1'. The shell exploded on impact on the bulkhead between the coal pits on frame 88, a 5'6 "× 6'6" hole appeared in the middle deck deck above the blast site, the center of the hole was approximately 8'9 "from the side and about 9 ' from the place where the shell hit. The longitudinal bulkhead between the lower and middle decks was also pierced. The bottom edge of the hole was 7'4 ”from the design waterline. As in the case of hitting under casemate # 1, the hole was overwhelmed by waves, but it was timely repaired and significant flooding was avoided. "


    As you can see, the projectile, breaking through the 152 mm Krupp armor plate, flew another 2,75 m (9 ft), and only then exploded. Maybe the slowing down of the "normal action" fuse was not enough?

    In the RYAV, this issue was relevant only against one Japanese ship. The rest had a belt noticeably thinner than 12 "Yes, and after 6" armor, the projectile speed was no longer enough to pierce even coal and bevel. Thus, we did not run into pyroxylin.

    I have already written that I have not seen a single document of that time, which would indicate that there was pyroxylin in the armor-piercing shells. Pyroxylin, in particular, was definitely not in the armor-piercing shells of the Military Department that received an explosive charge already during the RYA:

    http://ava.telenet.dn.ua/history/10in_coast_gun/desc_1905/gl_03.html#06
    "Prior to the development of the equipment of steel armor-piercing bombs with pyroxylin, it is allowed, according to the journal of the Commission of 1904 No. 316 on the use of explosives to equip projectiles, to equip armor-piercing bombs with smokeless gunpowder when the bottom screws of these bombs are supplied with the bottom tube of the drawing of the order for artillery of 1896 No. 209. "

    At the same time, the 10 "steel high-explosive projectile of the Military Department, which replaced the cast iron, immediately received a pyroxylin explosive charge:

    "According to the 1904 artillery order No. 115, steel bombs will henceforth be made instead of ordinary cast iron bombs. The steel bomb (sheet XXXV, Fig. 2) consists of a body a, a screw-in bottom b and a lead gasket under the screw-bottom flange. A pyroxylin charge in a case is placed into the cavity of the bomb, and a fuse is screwed into the screwed hole in the bottom. Instead of pyroxylin, the bomb can be loaded with smokeless gunpowder and a bottom shock tube, model 1896. "

    And the armor-piercing 10 "shells of the Military Department of the" old model "remained with a powder explosive charge:

    https://kk-combat.ucoz.ru/ino_n/HTM/suppl1.htm
    "Steel armor-piercing" old model "Weight 225,2 kg. Explosive smokeless gunpowder. Weight 2 kg. Fuse type bottom tube, model 1896; 10DT"

    For the 10 "old-style" armor-piercing projectile of the Military Department, any other explosive charge, except for the charge of smokeless gunpowder, was never developed, although the projectile received a modern 10DT fuse with an auto-setting deceleration developed after RYAV.

    However, all this in the context of Tsushima is insignificant, due to Rozhdestvensky's instructions:


    I laid out the plate earlier. It's not so bad that smokeless powder creates shards.


    Yes, I am familiar with this sign. "The number of collected fragments is 145"... Let me remind you that the American not even 6 ", but 127 mm projectile equipped with a maximit gave 700 collected fragments:


    Thus, the "useful effect" of obsolete Russian shells on the one hand, and the compliance with the requirements of the time for the high-explosive and fragmentation action of the Japanese shells used in the Tsushima battle ... this alone was enough for the Russian Navy to be able to lose RYA at sea. Combined with a number of other factors, what could have simply been a defeat turned into a Tsushima disaster.
    1. rytik32
      28 August 2020 15: 19 New
      +2
      Quote: AlexanderA
      However ... Vladivostok experiments showed that in at least 6 "caliber a high-explosive projectile with an explosive charge of smokeless gunpowder, just as a high-explosive one, in its" useful effect "turned out to be much better than the same projectile with a charge of wet pyroxylin and a Brink delayed-action fuse.

      The experiments there are incorrect. Of course, you cannot shoot shells with an armor-piercing tube at the ship's steel!

      Quote: AlexanderA
      Let me remind you that the American not even 6 ", but 127 mm projectile, equipped with a maximite, gave 700 collected fragments

      And you can ask how thick the armor (or structural steel) could penetrate these fragments? Here are the fragments from our shells, even the side and the upper deck were easily pierced.
    2. geniy
      geniy 28 August 2020 17: 28 New
      -1
      As I wrote earlier that I have vast experience in the technical analysis of the results of shell hits, since I have been doing this for more than thirty years. And during this time, I have developed a strong belief that thousands of descriptions of these injuries are simply falsified, that is, they are described completely incorrectly. And now AleksandrA gave as an example a description of the hit of a Russian 12-inch shell in Mikaza at Tsushima. And I immediately suspected something was wrong. It would seem quite clearly and clearly described how the Russian shell exploded, although as you all remember, I argue that almost all Russian shells did not explode in the Russian-Japanese war, but this description completely refutes my opinion. However, as soon as I looked more closely, we found oddities that were not consistent with the reality of naval battles. I will quote from the source text given by Alexander:
      “At 16.15:305 pm, a 7-mm projectile penetrated the upper belt under the casemate of gun # 89, just below the middle deck, at the 3th frame. The size of the hole in the armor was approximately 1'x3 '(1 feet by 5 foot). coal pits ..., a 6'6 "x6'1,7" hole was formed in the middle deck deck above the explosion site (the size of this hole is approximately 2,0 mx 7 m), ... The longitudinal bulkhead was also pierced between the lower and middle decks. The lower edge of the hole was at a height of 4'2,2 "(1 m) from the design waterline. As in the case of hitting under casemate # XNUMX, the hole was overwhelmed by waves, but it was timely repaired and significant flooding was avoided . "

      All readers are usually ordinary people, almost unfamiliar with the detailed structure of ships and the basics of damage control, which I studied at the institute. Therefore, I will immediately explain to you the important features, which almost none of you know, and reveal what the deception of this description is.
      For example, it is said that the hole was repaired in a timely manner and allegedly avoided significant flooding. And I inform you that during the Russo-Japanese War, ships all over the world calculated that in battle they would receive shell holes with a standard diameter of 305 mm (this is 1 foot) - that is, approximately the same diameter as a soccer ball. And about 500 tons of water flows through such a hole per hour. And if you were careful, the size of the hole is indicated as 3 feet by 1 foot - that is, 3 times the size of the standard hole. Although this first figure of 3 feet in the size of the hole immediately indicates that the projectile pierced the armor not directly like a nail, but sideways! That is, he either tumbled or something else, but the sideways projectile would not have been able to pierce the armor !! But all lay laymen certainly believe this description. In your opinion and the opinion of respected rytik32 - can Japanese engineers lie or be wrong?
      But let's pretend for a minute that they believed that the Russian shell pierced 152 mm armor by hitting it sideways. But then the area of ​​the hole will be more than 3 times larger than the size of the standard hole, which means that not 500 tons of water will flow through it, but about 1500 tons per hour. I will tell you that in shipbuilding there is such a thing as a variable waterline - that is, when a ship is in calm water, the waterline is constant, but on a stormy sea, the ship sways with a large heel and trims and the waterline is variable. And the tops of the crests of the waves, as it was in the Tsushima battle, with waves of 5-7 points reached a height of 8 feet, that is, 2,4 m, while the hit of a shell at a height of 2,2 m from the calm water waterline.And I will remind you that as soon as the ship receives flooding of any side compartment, then it immediately gets a roll to the side of the hole and the hole from this sinks deeper. And although the description says that this hole was repaired "in a timely manner", but what does this mean in minutes? Large holes in the outer skin are usually sealed from the outside so that the plaster would be pressed by external water pressure. This means that Japanese sailors in a stormy sea, being under fire from Russian ships, first had to go to the upper deck and make the so-called "podkilny ends" - in other words, two ordinary ropes or two thin cables. But it was necessary to start them starting from the stem itself - that is, they pull the ropes at a distance of two-thirds of the battleship - and under fire. It is unlikely that all this took less than an hour, during which about 1000 tons of water could flow into Mikaza and a large list would form, so that its guns of the main caliber of the starboard side would bump into the sea, and the guns of the middle would completely exhaust the elevation angle and stop shoot. But after all, none of this happened, does it mean, according to ordinary people, the author of the comment is lying? No, it means quite the opposite - that there was no open hole.
      And also in this description it is written that a hole of 1,7 mx 2,0 m was allegedly formed in the middle deck. The inhabitants often do not understand what the middle deck is. And this is the deck on which the 152 mm cannon of casemate No. 7 is located in this place. That is, a hole from the explosion of a Russian 12-inch shell was formed either next to this gun or directly under it. But if the laymen believe this description, then the 305 mm shell did not bring any harm to this gun! There used to be such a song: "He took (the old man) - and turned the whole oven with dynamite ... The terrible explosion was transferred like an affectionate click - four inseparable cockroaches and a cricket!" So the Japanese artillerymen of the seventh gun suffered a terrible explosion like a gentle click. Do you all believe it? So you are complete laymen. And by the way - for some reason, from the explosion of the Russian 12-inch projectile, practically inside the cannon casemate, no fire arose, and no explosion of gunpowder and shells next to the Japanese gun - miracles and more! And of course, all laymen do not believe that from the explosion of a 12-inch shell in a coal pit, tons of coal dust will instantly rise into the air, and explode so that this Mikasa would immediately drown. But none of this happened, so the author of the comment is lying? No notorious Japanese engineers are lying. In fact, the Russian projectile struck sideways at the 152 mm armor of Mikaza, but did not pierce it, but only bent inward, ripping off several mounting bolts, and this projectile itself bounced into the water. But through the dent with the rupture of the skin, a little water began to pour in, and this leak was easily eliminated from the inside. That is, in my opinion, this description is absolutely false - as well as thousands of others like it. And the Russian shell most likely did not explode - after all, he struck sideways. But all the so-called "connoisseurs" of naval history of course believe the Japanese - how can they deceive?
  • Alexandra
    Alexandra 28 August 2020 14: 35 New
    0
    Quote: rytik32
    Well, in all reference books on explosives they write that this is the same thing! I have just read Horst and Sapozhnikov.


    French (Rdultovsky): "In France, after studies of picric acid detonation carried out in 1885-1887 by Turpin (I. Challeat, Histoire technique de l'Artillerie de terre en Prance pendant un siecle (1816-1919), 1935), this substance was studied by artillerymen and in 1886 under the name 'melinite' it was adopted for the equipment of French shells.To detonate the cast melinite, a strong detonator cap with explosive mercury and an intermediate charge of compressed powdered picric acid were used.
    At first, they tried to use melinite for the old cast-iron shells, but after several bursts of guns caused by the breaking of such shells when fired, they switched to steel shells as more durable and capacious.
    In the 90s, almost all French shells were stamped from steel and, in order to eliminate the formation of iron picrates, which are more sensitive to impact than picric acid, they were coated inside with half-day and varnish. Due to the high quality of steel, grenades were made thin-walled and contained up to 30% of the explosive.
    Until 1892, the shells were filled with melinite 0 (ordinaire), consisting of picric acid with a natural admixture of 2-3% trinitrocresol.
    It was noticed that these two substances form a solid solution and, at any ratio, give an alloy, which at a certain temperature turns into a pasty state. Upon further heating, the alloy becomes semi-liquid and then gradually melts. When solidified, it acquires such a fine-crystalline structure that the mass of the bursting charge can be considered almost amorphous.
    This property was the basis for the method of equipment developed around 1892 at the L'Ecole Centrale de Pyrotechnie Militaire in Bourges, where new projectiles and fuses were developed. An alloy of 60% trinitrocresol and 40% picric acid was chosen, which becomes ductile at about 60?; this alloy was named cresilite.
    Steel shells of shells with solid bottoms were filled with cresilite using a wooden heel and a mallet. The filled projectile was supplied with a temporary brass bushing and heated in a dryer to 60 °. Then, the plastic explosive was pressed on a hydraulic press.
    Pressing was carried out as follows.
    A polished steel punch entered the projectile through a brass bushing, forming a deep channel in the charge. Then this channel was filled with cresilite and again subjected to the pressing charge. To eliminate friction between the brass bushing and the punch, a thin sheet of paraffin wax was applied to the bushing.
    From the last pressing in the mass of the charge, a channel with a length slightly longer than the ignition nozzle remained.
    To strengthen the cresilite, the shells were allowed to cool, after which they poured in a little powdered cresilite, hammered the latter with a wooden hammer and a mallet, and drilled a socket for the detonator with a brass drill.
    After removing the brass bushing and cleaning the point, the free surface of the charge was varnished and the ignition glass was screwed in, and into the latter, a 24/31 tube with an explosive mercury capsule was screwed in.
    The charge density is about 1,65; shells, cracks and bubbles were not noticed.
    Some French factories filled the shells with molten cresilite in a semi-liquid state.
    It is interesting to note that in 1905 prof. AV Sapozhnikov proposed to organize in our country the filling of shells with a semi-liquid alloy of trinitrocresol with picric acid, which perfectly filled the shell and had an almost amorphous structure. The alloy did not find application only as a result of the transition in 1906 to the equipment of shells with TNT. "


    In fact, we experimented with cresilite back in the XNUMXth century:
    https://vtoraya-literatura.com/pdf/ipatiev_zhizn_odnogo_khimika_vospominaniya_tom1_1945_text.pdf
    Стр. 205
    "... an armor-piercing projectile equipped with such an explosive must pass through the armor and then explode from the action of the detonator in the shock tube. He shared this idea with me and offered to work with him on its implementation. I willingly agreed to this joint work and started
    to investigate in the laboratory various combinations of aromatic nitro compounds with picric acid trinitrocresol and not only to study their suitability from a physicochemical point of view, but also to investigate their explosive properties in the explosions in the Sarro and Viell bomb. After a year's work
    the obtained data were reported to the Commission, and it was decided to carry out experiments of equipping projectiles with the intended explosives.
    Already after the death of Maksimov, which followed at the beginning of 1898, such combinations of nitro compounds found great application in the equipment of shells, and my student at the Academy cap. A. A. Dzerzhkovich, who took the place of Maksimov, successfully continued
    elaboration of this question. "


    But ... "nobody needs it" (C)
  • Alexandra
    Alexandra 28 August 2020 14: 54 New
    0
    Quote: rytik32
    Only "Fuji" had such a thick belt.


    Well that is Rozhestvensky ordered to shoot 10-12 "armor-piercing from a distance of 20 cab. And less, 120 mm and 6" from a distance of 10 cab. and less wrong?

    The reason for replacing pyroxylin with gunpowder was voiced in the document - it is a lack of pyroxylin.


    I quote: "Due to the unavailability of pyroxylin charges." The pyroxylin charges were simply not developed in time. As well as pyroxylin charges for 10 "War Department projectiles." Prior to the development of steel armor-piercing bombs with pyroxylin, it is allowed, according to the 1904 Commission magazine No. 316 on the use of explosives to equip projectiles, to equip armor-piercing bombs with smokeless gunpowder ... "
    1. rytik32
      28 August 2020 15: 09 New
      +2
      Quote: AlexanderA
      I quote: "Due to the unavailability of pyroxylin charges." Pyroxylin charges trite did not have time to develop

      I understand this as "did not have time to make".
      Report of 20 February 1904:
      ... The funds available at our pyroxylin plant are not enough for the urgent production of pyroxylin curved charges. It is urgently necessary to purchase and install two hydraulic presses, which will require up to 35000 rubles. The General Directorate asks Your Excellency to authorize this strengthening of the pyroxylin plant facilities.
      All of the above is submitted for the consideration of Your Excellency.

      Head of the Main Directorate, Lieutenant General L. Lyubimov.
      Assistant to the Head of the Department, Lieutenant Colonel Ivanov.

      And the fact that the charges were developed can be seen from the instructions back in 1894.

      Quote: AlexanderA
      Well that is Rozhestvensky ordered to shoot 10-12 "armor-piercing from a distance of 20 cab. And less, 120 mm and 6" from a distance of 10 cab. and less wrong?

      He had no other shells)))
  • Alexandra
    Alexandra 28 August 2020 15: 03 New
    +2
    Quote: 27091965i
    Dear Andrey, there are more questions than answers on this topic. If we consider 6 inch shells for Kane's guns used in the navy and coastal batteries, we will see that the problem of explosive detonation when a projectile meets armor existed in the navy and in the army. For Kane's coastal guns, this problem was solved in 1901 by captain Maximov, who developed potent explosives based on picric acid.


    Captain K.I. Maksimov, of course, worked out the domestic version of French cresilite (an alloy of trinitrocresol and picric acid), but he actually died in 1898 (p. 205, pp. 203-204).

    https://vtoraya-literatura.com/pdf/ipatiev_zhizn_odnogo_khimika_vospominaniya_tom1_1945_text.pdf

    And the armor-piercing shells of the War Department (for coastal artillery guns) had inert equipment until the very beginning of the RYA. Already during the war they began to equip them ... with explosive charges of smokeless gunpowder.
    1. 27091965
      27091965 28 August 2020 17: 01 New
      0
      Thanks for the reply.
      1. 27091965
        27091965 29 August 2020 11: 08 New
        0
        https://vtoraya-literatura.com/pdf/ipatiev_zhizn_odnogo_khimika_vospominaniya_tom1_1945_text.pdf


        These are memoirs, it is interesting to read them, but in some places they differ from the official point of view, I will not list them, I think you yourself know what this is about.
  • Alexandra
    Alexandra 28 August 2020 15: 59 New
    0
    Quote: Andrey152
    According to the instructions of 1894, armor-piercing and high-explosive shells were equipped with pyroxylin.

    https://vtoraya-literatura.com/pdf/ipatiev_zhizn_odnogo_khimika_vospominaniya_tom1_1945_text.pdf
    page 203
    "Gelfreich carried out experiments at an artillery range: in a specially arranged workshop, he filled shells with various explosives and then subjected them to firing from guns of different calibers. At the beginning, a representative of the naval department, Cap. Barkhotkin, who was involved in equipping armor-piercing shells with pyroxylin After Barkhotkin left, my friend from the Academy KI Maksimov was involved in the commission, and he was instructed to equip the shells with wet pyroxylin. But soon pyroxylin was replaced by other explosives.. "

    Стр. 205.
    "Cap. Maksimov ... He was the first to have the idea to introduce such compounds for equipping projectiles that, having sufficient detonating properties, would not explode when passing through solid barriers. So, for example, an armor-piercing projectile equipped with such an explosive should
    go through the armor and then explode from the action of the detonator located in the shock tube. He shared this idea with me and offered to work with him to implement it. I willingly agreed to this joint work, and began to investigate in the laboratory various combinations of aromatic nitro compounds with picric acid trinitrocresol and not only to study their suitability from a physicochemical point of view, but also to investigate their explosive properties in the explosions in the Sarro and Viell bomb. After a year of work, the data obtained were reported to the Commission, and it was decided to carry out experiments on the equipment of shells with the intended explosives. Already after the death of Maksimov, which followed at the beginning of 1898, such combinations of nitro compounds found great application in the equipment of shells, and my student at the Academy cap. AA Dzerzhkovich, who took the place of Maksimov, successfully continued to develop this issue. "


    http://istmat.info/node/25120

    "From the All-Report on the Ministry of War on the Activities and Status of All Branches of Military Administration for 1904

    ... In order to increase the destructive effect of armor-piercing shells, the question was raised about equipping such shells with any strong explosive. But since all the explosives used for equipping high-explosive shells, such as pyroxylin or melinite in their pure form, do not withstand the impact of a shell in the plate and explode with such an impact before the shell has time to penetrate the plate, it was decided to test what - or a chemical combination of an explosive with inactive substances (as a result of which the explosive becomes more inert), and at present the Commission on the Use of Explosives has settled on explosive "B", which promises to give good results. "


    http://istmat.info/node/25469
    "From the All-Report on the Ministry of War on the Activities and Status of All Branches of Military Administration for 1905

    ... in view of the desire to increase the destructive effect of armor-piercing projectiles, the question was raised of equipping them with some highly effective explosive that would not explode from a projectile strike into the armor, and it was necessary to develop a type of fuse that, without deforming itself upon impact of a projectile about armor, would produce an explosion of an explosive charge upon the passage of the projectile through the armor or after it has completely stopped in the armor; A fairly persistent explosive was found by the now deceased captain Maksimov, and the results of firing from a 6-inch cannon of 190 pounds with armor-piercing shells equipped with this substance gave such favorable results that it was decided to proceed to experiments with equipping him with armor-piercing shells for 11-inch guns mod. 1877, for Kane's 6-inch guns and for 10-inch guns; experiments with fuses have not yet yielded the desired result; "


    http://ava.telenet.dn.ua/history/10in_coast_gun/desc_1905/gl_03.html#06

    "Prior to the development of the equipment of steel armor-piercing bombs with pyroxylin, it is allowed, according to the journal of the Commission of 1904 No. 316 on the use of explosives to equip projectiles, to equip armor-piercing bombs with smokeless gunpowder when the bottom screws of these bombs are supplied with the bottom tube of the drawing of the order for artillery of 1896 No. 209. "

    https://kk-combat.ucoz.ru/ino_n/HTM/suppl1.htm

    "10" steel armor-piercing "old model" Explosive smokeless gunpowder, weight 2 kg fuse tube bottom arr. 1896; 10DT "

    As you can see, the epic of the search for a potent, but at the same time insensitive explosive for armor-piercing shells ... was somewhat delayed. And while they were looking, armor-piercing shells were equipped with smokeless gunpowder.

    PS War Department? Was it different at the Naval Department? I admit it. What to expect from the Maritime Department, if they did not deign to switch to intermediate detonators from picric acid before the completion of the RYA, whereas in the 1890s, the 2GM head fuse was developed by Maximov for the War Department projectiles and the 5DM and 11DM bottom fuses were developed by von Gelfreich with intermediate detonators made of compressed picric acid powder:

    https://vtoraya-literatura.com/pdf/ipatiev_zhizn_odnogo_khimika_vospominaniya_tom1_1945_text.pdf
    Стр. 98
    "At the beginning, for the explosion of picric acid, a detonator was used in the form of a checker of dry pyroxylin, which exploded from a primer of explosive mercury. pyroxylin detonator. Working with dry pyroxylin is very dangerous, and it was soon replaced by compressed picric acid powder; the preparation of such a detonator did not pose any danger, and it did not give premature explosions in the channel of the guns, which sometimes happened when using dry pyroxylin. In the Maritime Department, the dry pyroxylin detonator was used to detonate wet pyroxylin (containing 22-24% moisture), which was filled with special zinc cases inserted into large-caliber marine shells. "
  • Alexandra
    Alexandra 28 August 2020 16: 43 New
    0
    Quote: rytik32
    The experiments there are incorrect. Of course, you cannot shoot shells with an armor-piercing tube at the ship's steel!


    Oops! But the so-called "high-explosive" shells for naval guns were equipped with Brink's "double shock tube" ... and a priori no one doubted that this was correct!

    And you can ask how thick the armor (or structural steel) could penetrate these fragments? Here are the fragments from our shells, even the side and the upper deck were easily pierced.


    I was wrong there. Collected 800 shards. At 12 "they collected 7000 fragments. How many did they pierce? Large fragments of 152 mm HE shells with TNT ammunition pierce 25 mm armor. tank fragments pierced tank armor up to 100 mm thick. "

    And the fragments of our Tsushima shells ... Maybe the subsequent reloading of these "old-style" shells with melinite and TNT:

    "In 1904, steel high-explosive shells filled with pyroxylin (weight with a case 1,13 kilograms) were in production. In the 20s, they were re-equipped with TNT."

    In 1905 - 1907, a projectile filled with 1,23 kilograms of melinite with an 11DM fuse was introduced.

    Was it a mistake? Large fragments ... after reloading, they are no longer so large.
    1. rytik32
      28 August 2020 17: 14 New
      +1
      Quote: AlexanderA
      But the so-called "high-explosive" shells for naval guns were equipped with Brink's "double shock tube" ... and a priori no one doubted that this was correct!

      Didn't I write about this in the article?
      Quote: AlexanderA
      How many were punched?

      I'm specifically talking about this little thing, and not about modern shells and bombs. Here Lutonin writes about the very weak effect of Japanese fragments. Often, only the paint could be peeled off. So what is the point of thousands of small fragments if they are not capable of breaking through bulkheads?
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. rytik32
          28 August 2020 18: 41 New
          +1
          Quote: AlexanderA
          The fact that the Brink fuse was completely unsuitable for the high-explosive shells of the Naval Department? In my opinion, no.

          I wrote it like this:
          The small amount of explosives and the use of delayed-action shock tubes in high-explosive shells actually meant that such shells were not high-explosive in their action.
  • Alexandra
    Alexandra 28 August 2020 17: 21 New
    0
    Quote: Jura 27
    It's about fuses, not charges.


    So the British had fuses then (Rdultovsky):

    "British shells and fuses before 1899

    In England, in the mid-80s, they also began to study picric acid, adopted it under the name 'liddite', but used the following peculiar method of exploding it. A cylindrical channel was left along the axis of the liddite cooled in the bomb (Fig. 51) and a detonator was inserted into it in the form of a cambric bag in a cardboard sleeve with a finely ground mixture of 57% potassium nitrate and 43% ammonium picrate. For ignition, head tubes with a strong firecracker from black gunpowder were used. One of these pipes, preserved in service before World War II, is shown in Fig. 52 ...
    With this method of detonation, liddite shells almost never gave a complete detonation; in most cases, they gave incomplete explosions with the release of yellow smoke. But on the other hand, this allowed the British to avoid the explosive mercury capsules, which they considered dangerous to shoot.
    Armor-piercing and steel shells were loaded in England with a mixture of coarse-grained black powder Pebble (Pebble (pebble) - gunpowder with grains of irregular shape, about 12-15 mm in size) and the same fine powder and were supplied with bottom tubes with powder firecrackers and a fuse, cocked directly from the pressure of powder gases in the gun.

    [...]

    The Anglo-Boer War pointed to major imperfections in the armament and military organization of England, in particular, the remote tubes turned out to be outdated and did not work satisfactorily. Therefore, shelling the Boer positions with shrapnel, even at a distance of about 2 km, was not valid. High-explosive liddite shells for long-range naval guns of about 12 cm caliber (placed on wheeled carriages) were equipped with shock tubes 'direct action' (see Fig. 52) and detonators from a mixture of ammonium picrate and potassium nitrate. The tubes had low sensitivity and gave many failures, and the unsatisfactory detonators had 100% incomplete explosions. The fragmentation and high-explosive effects of these projectiles were far from matching their ballistic power and clearly required improvement."
    1. Jura 27
      Jura 27 29 August 2020 18: 18 New
      +1
      [/ quote] "British shells and fuses before 1899 [quote]

      The b / c on the Yapovskie EBR was loaded later in 1899. And there is not a word about fuses for the British BBS, moreover, the Yapas did not use head fuses for large-caliber guns.
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 28 August 2020 17: 52 New
    +1
    Quote: geniy
    It doesn't matter at all what you personally think and assume. Instead of thinking, you just need to bring a photograph of any hit by a Japanese projectile into Russian armor and clearly show everyone the penetration depth. But in fact, as eyewitnesses note, there was no deepening except for a hole about one inch deep in 25 mm and there was no color change from the high temperature in the Russian armor.

    What I think is of course not important, but the famous work of Goncharov "Artillery and Armor" (1932) says: 305 mm high-explosive shell sample 1911:
    - at a meeting angle of 65 degrees for a 229 mm plate and 90 degrees for a 254 mm plate and at speeds corresponding to a distance of 65, the cable breaks through the armor, exploding when the armor passes.
    A 305 mm high-explosive projectile sample 1907 without a tip when hitting 127 mm armor at an angle of about 90 degrees and at a speed corresponding to a distance of 51 cables gives a breakdown.
    Here I do not comment on the hits and exploding high-explosive shells in the horizontal armor of battleships.
  • Andrey152
    Andrey152 28 August 2020 21: 55 New
    +3
    Quote: AlexanderA
    PS War Department? Was it different at the Naval Department? I admit it. What to expect from the Maritime Department, if they did not deign to switch to intermediate detonators from picric acid before the completion of the RYA, whereas in the 1890s, the 2GM head fuse was developed by Maximov for the War Department projectiles and the 5DM and 11DM bottom fuses were developed by von Gelfreich with intermediate detonators made of compressed picric acid powder:

    Since I am now finishing my article, which has turned into a book on the equipment of shells and shell tubes of the domestic fleet, I am a little in the subject.
    So, Barkhotkin was the creator of the first domestic marine explosives. That is, tubes with an intermediate detonator for milking pyroxylin high-explosive and armor-piercing projectiles. However, this pipe was produced for only a couple of years and was replaced by the Brink pipe.
    Gelfreich proposed replacing the pyroxylin intermediate detonator in the Brink tube with melinite, but, alas, the topic of development was not received.
    The standard equipment for armor-piercing shells was pyroxylin.
    Equipment with smokeless powder was allowed only as a last resort.
    There were no other equipment options in real life.
  • Andrey152
    Andrey152 29 August 2020 08: 42 New
    0
    Quote: AlexanderA
    when such an armor-piercing projectile was considered modern:

    Such kinetic (without explosive charge) armor-piercing shells were produced by the British until 1903.
    1. Saxahorse
      Saxahorse 29 August 2020 18: 57 New
      +3
      Quote: Andrey152
      Such kinetic (without explosive charge) armor-piercing shells were produced by the British until 1903.

      As far as I remember, there were claims that the Russian 75 mm and 47 mm shells were also purely kinetic armor-piercing blanks. Strictly speaking, when firing at a destroyer, mostly consisting of boilers and steam pipes, such a shell also made a lot of sense.
    2. Alexandra
      Alexandra 29 August 2020 19: 49 New
      +1
      And they were removed from service by the Royal Navy only in 1909.But I believe that by 1904 they were still not considered modern.)
  • Andrey152
    Andrey152 29 August 2020 19: 01 New
    0
    Quote: Saxahorse
    As far as I remember, there were claims that the Russian 75 mm and 47 mm shells were also purely kinetic armor-piercing blanks.

    Until 1903, the British produced armor-piercing kinetic projectiles up to 12-dm caliber inclusive
  • Alexandra
    Alexandra 29 August 2020 21: 24 New
    0
    Quote: Andrey152
    The standard equipment for armor-piercing shells was pyroxylin.
    Equipment with smokeless powder was allowed only as a last resort.


    I will leave for a while the question of explosive charges of Tsushima armor-piercing shells. The main ones were high-explosive ("For one 12" gun, 36 high-explosive, 18 armor-piercing and 6 segment shells were fired ").


    Will you comment? I mean, where are the actual pyroxylin explosive charges?
    1. rytik32
      30 August 2020 00: 26 New
      +2
      These are cast iron shells with black powder
      1. Alexandra
        Alexandra 30 August 2020 02: 23 New
        0
        Oh, exactly. I'm used to seeing cast iron with a shock tube head.)
  • Andrey152
    Andrey152 30 August 2020 07: 04 New
    +2
    Quote: rytik32
    These are cast iron shells with black powder

    That is how
  • Andrey Shmelev
    Andrey Shmelev 30 August 2020 11: 07 New
    0
    A comparative graph of armor penetration according to R.M.Melnikov's data is shown below (solid line - Russian shells, dotted line - Japanese):


    This is, as I understand it, we are waiting for the schedule, it would be great to see an analysis of its loyalty, taking into account the specific results of the battles
    1. rytik32
      30 August 2020 23: 33 New
      +1
      Unfortunately, there is no data on the actual range of specific hits, so it will not be possible to check the graph in practice (((
      1. Andrey Shmelev
        Andrey Shmelev 31 August 2020 00: 14 New
        -1
        the muzzle energies of twelve-inch guns are approximately equal, but the Russian projectile has a Makarov cap, which inevitably gives it an advantage in armor penetration, which the ZhDEM graph does not display (obviously)
        1. Jura 27
          Jura 27 31 August 2020 16: 23 New
          0
          Quote: Andrei Shmelev
          the muzzle energies of twelve-inch guns are approximately equal, but the Russian projectile has a Makarov cap, which inevitably gives it an advantage in armor penetration, which the ZhDEM graph does not display (obviously)

          What kind of a Makarov cap, in Russian 12 "BBS?
          1. Andrey Shmelev
            Andrey Shmelev 2 September 2020 08: 44 New
            0
            ok, well, okay. Is there a reliable source for the design of the arr 1892?
            1. Jura 27
              Jura 27 2 September 2020 17: 37 New
              +1
              Quote: Andrei Shmelev
              ok, well, okay. Is there a reliable source for the design of the arr 1892?

              Yes, Japanese data on the Eagle shells; 6 "s, there is a part with a cap, 12" s, all without caps.
              1. Andrey Shmelev
                Andrey Shmelev 2 September 2020 17: 51 New
                -1
                can you reset the link?
                1. Jura 27
                  Jura 27 3 September 2020 16: 27 New
                  0
                  Quote: Andrei Shmelev
                  can you reset the link?

                  In the autopsy on tsushima I will look. Somewhere here, or in the previous post, infa flashed.
      2. geniy
        geniy 4 September 2020 07: 42 New
        0
        And you do not have an understanding that it is not necessary to have exact numbers - to get enough and approximate ones. That is, you know that at certain moments of the battle the distance in Tsushima decreased to 20 cables, so take this figure into account. Moreover, the shorter the distance, the greater the accuracy of the shooting, that is, at the minimum distances, more shells hit than at the average and maximum distances. So: for 20 cabs, both Russian and Japanese 12 "shells must penetrate 200 mm of armor, but in reality the Russians never pierced 152 mm, and the Japanese did not even pierce 75 mm! And even the figure of the pierced armor 150 mm thick is clearly falsified, therefore that in some places (near Fuji) there was not Krupp's but Harvey's armor similar to 127 mm Krupp's armor, but in those places where 152 mm Krupp's armor was penetrated - in fact, the Russian shell only knocked out the plug - that is, there was a hole, but the shell penetrated for the Japanese armor actually was not. Therefore, for the entire Tsushima battle, at most one or two Russian shells pierced the thickness of the armor of half a caliber, and the Japanese - no thickness at all. And how would you explain this? And not only you personally, but the whole society so called "experts" who have been studying Tsushima for a hundred years?
        1. rytik32
          4 September 2020 11: 20 New
          0
          Quote: geniy
          That is, you know that at certain moments of the battle the distance in Tsushima decreased to 20 cables, so take this figure into account.

          Why not 40-45 cables?
          Quote: geniy
          but in reality the Russians never pierced 152 mm

          You are wrong. Please wait for the next parts of the cycle.
          1. geniy
            geniy 4 September 2020 14: 20 New
            0
            Why not 40-45 cables?

            But because at a distance of 20 cabs, the most favorable conditions for piercing armor come, and the battleship Suvorov alone was shot by the entire Japanese squadron from a distance of even 10-15 cables and apparently its belt armor was not pierced. So - we are considering the most favorable conditions - and the Japanese shells did not penetrate the armor! Yes, even if we ignore the waist armor, the casemates were only 75 mm thick - do you have at least one fact of penetrating such armor with Japanese shells? Except for shells flying into the casemates through their open doors ...

            You're wrong.

            Let's see, let's take a closer look at your arguments. I already had a case of a skirmish here with the famous AiCh, when I proved all the cases of armor penetration cited by him are falsifications.
  • Andrey Shmelev
    Andrey Shmelev 30 August 2020 11: 09 New
    -1
    The Russian 12 "projectile had a mass of 331,7 kg, the armor-piercing one was loaded with 4,3 kg (1,3%), the high-explosive one - 6 kg (1,8%) of explosives.


    Sectional Russian shells:


    To be honest, it seems to me that the cavity of a high-explosive in the section is much more than 1,5 armor-piercing, is this the drawing? is this the data?
    1. rytik32
      30 August 2020 21: 57 New
      +1
      These are diagrams from the book. Khurgin V.A. Marine artillery shells and aerial bombs. L .: VMA, 1941
      Unfortunately, I do not have the book itself. I only found the scheme on the net.
      1. Andrey Shmelev
        Andrey Shmelev 31 August 2020 00: 09 New
        -1
        eating this picture



        perhaps no pictures of ersatz land mines have survived
        1. rytik32
          31 August 2020 00: 17 New
          +1
          In this picture, the tip on the AP shell (1) is confusing. There was no such thing in RYAV for 12 "
          1. Andrey Shmelev
            Andrey Shmelev 31 August 2020 00: 19 New
            +1
            There was no such thing in RYAV for 12 "


            this is just a very good topic to think about
  • Andrey152
    Andrey152 31 August 2020 15: 55 New
    +1
    Quote: Andrei Shmelev
    eating this picture

    Semi-fantastic picture
    1. Andrey Shmelev
      Andrey Shmelev 2 September 2020 08: 43 New
      +2
      but there are generally drawings and a description of 12 inch arr 1892? it would be interesting to discuss