Military Review

Tsushima. Shell version. Breaks and discontinuities

134
We continue to study the "shell version". In the third article Cycle we will look at the unpleasant features of the shells that manifested themselves during the war. In Japanese, these are ruptures in the barrel at the time of the shot. For Russians, this is an abnormally high percentage of non-breaks when hitting a target.


Consider the Japanese problem first. During the battle in the Yellow Sea, the Japanese suffered heavy artillery losses from their own shells. One 12 "gun on the Mikasa, two 12" guns on the Asahi, and one 12 "gun on the Sikishima tore apart. At the same time, the entire tower on the flagship Mikasa was destroyed, heavy losses (according to various sources, 21 or 22 people) were carried by the gunners.

Bursting of the trunk of the Mikasa stern tower in the Yellow Sea:

Tsushima. Shell version. Breaks and discontinuities

There are several versions explaining the reasons for barrel bursts. One of them is known from an English observer's report in Japanese navy W.C. Packingham:

Arsenal workers attribute this damage not to shell defects, but to the fact that the charges were placed in a gun that was highly overheated by continuous firing, and they recommend that after about 20 shots fired at a fast pace, the guns are cooled with water from a hose starting from the inside. These workers say that heating the gun accelerated the combustion of the charge, thereby significantly increasing the pressure, and that the pressure exceeded the permissible parameters that the shells of the shells could withstand, and their bottoms were pushed inward, and the explosives inside the shell ignited from temperature and pressure at the rate of combustion almost corresponding to the detonation effect.

But this version is rather doubtful due to the fact that the gunpowder was in the gun for a rather short time and could not heat up significantly. In addition, no one else encountered similar problems, although the same cordite was massively used by other countries and not only in the navy.

The second version is that the detonation of the projectiles was caused by gas breakthroughs through leaks in the fuse thread. This version is voiced in the article by Koike Shigeki and is indirectly confirmed by the work carried out by Japanese specialists to replace the shells and refine the fuse bodies. According to the documents of the Kure arsenal, the most important requirement in these works was the preservation of the high sensitivity of the fuses. Thus, the assumption of W.K.Packinham that the sensitivity of the fuses to Tsushima was reduced is refuted.

The third version explains the breaks by the fact that a very sensitive fuse was triggered due to the slowing down of the projectiles caused by copper plating of the barrel bore (copper from the leading belts of the projectiles settled on the inner surface).

In addition, it was noticed that mainly armor-piercing shells exploded in the barrels, and even a temporary ban was introduced on their use. In December 1904, the British observer in the Japanese fleet, T. Jackson, reported that Japanese officers were unanimously repeating about the unsuitability of the existing armor-piercing shells and wanted to get "normal" shells in their cellars, i.e. equipped with black powder. In April 1905, the Japanese fleet even began to receive new armor-piercing shells with black powder, and even on May 4, 1905, the Sikishima fired such shells experimentally, but the accuracy was found to be unsatisfactory. The use in Tsushima of shells other than those with an ijuin and shimozu fuse has not been documented. The only case of the use of "old" shells in the entire Russo-Japanese War was recorded on August 1, 1904 in the Korean Strait, where Izumo fired 20 8 "shells equipped with black powder.

In order to avoid overheating the barrels, the Japanese in Tsushima slowed down the rate of fire of their main battery guns compared to the battle in the Yellow Sea, used a special water cooling system for the barrels, and minimized the use of armor-piercing 12 "shells. But that did not help either! gun on "Mikasa" (and there were two explosions, the first happened shortly after the projectile was fired from the barrel and did not cause harm), one 12 "gun on" Sikishima "and three 12" guns on "Nissin" (the Japanese themselves write that on " Nissine ”the barrels were torn off by Russian shells, but the photographs and the testimony of British observers do not confirm the official version). In addition, self-destruction of several smaller-caliber guns were recorded. One 8 ”tore apart into Izumi, Chin-Yen and Azuma. Moreover, on the Azuma, the Japanese did not recognize self-rupture, and the separation of the tip of the barrel was attributed to a fragment of a Russian 6 ”projectile that exploded overboard. One 12-mm gun exploded into Mikasa, Chitose and Tokiwa.

"Nissin". Bursting of the trunk of the stern tower in Tsushima:


"Shikishima". The barrel torn apart in Tsushima:


In general, speaking about the problem of explosions, one should assess it as very serious, since the fire potential of the fleet suffered greatly from its own shells. For example, during the battle in the "Yellow Sea" more than 30% of the 12 ”barrels were out of order. And in Tsushima, it was necessary to reduce the rate of fire with large caliber, and, consequently, the fire effect on the enemy.

Comparison of the consumption of shells of the main caliber:


In this regard, it should be recognized that the imperfection of the shells seriously affected the efficiency of the Japanese fleet.

Now we will deal with the "Russian" problem and for this we will study the device of a two-capsular bottom shock tube of the delayed action of AF Brink's design, which is used on our "pyroxylin" shells.


When fired, the extensor (5) by inertia moves back and unbends the safety catch (4). When hitting the target, the tuba firing pin (6) hits the rifle capsule (9), which ignites the powder firecracker (11). Under the action of propellant gases, the aluminum firing pin (10) opens the safety sleeve (12) and, with a shock, ignites the detonator cap with explosive mercury (14). It ignites two sticks of dry pyroxylin (15 and 16) and then detonates wet pyroxylin, which is stuffed with the projectile.

At the end of Tsushima, the Brink pipe, which had a lot of complaints, was studied very closely (including tests) and the following weak points were found in it:

1. If a projectile (especially a large one) was not decelerated sharply, for example, when it struck thin unarmored parts of a ship or water, the inertial force of the striker might not be enough to ignite the rifle capsule (design pressure not less than 13 kg / cm2) But this is a feature of the fuse for an armor-piercing projectile, because it should not be initiated by hitting a thin metal.

2. Defect of the aluminum striker, when due to low hardness it could not ignite the detonator cap. Initially, the sufficient hardness of the striker was ensured by the presence of impurities in aluminum, but the shells of the 2nd Pacific Squadron were hit by a striker made of cleaner and, accordingly, softer aluminum. After the war, this firing pin was made of steel.

3. The problem of breaking the brass body when hit too hard.

4. The problem of incomplete detonation of the explosive in the projectile due to the too small volume of dry pyroxylin in the fuse.

The list of disadvantages is impressive! And it seems that there is every reason to call the "damned" pipe the main culprit of Tsushima, but ... we have the opportunity to evaluate its real work according to Japanese sources. With the only limitation: due to the lack of data on 6 "and smaller shells, we will not consider them. Moreover, according to claim 1., the defect is most pronounced precisely on large shells, which means that this should not greatly distort the real picture.

To analyze the hits on Japanese ships, I used the damage schemes from Top Secret stories», Analytical materials by Arseny Danilov (https://naval-manual.livejournal.com), monograph by V.Ya. Krestyaninov's "Battle of Tsushima" and an article by N.J.M. Campbell "The battle of Tsu-Shima" ("The Battle of Tsushima"), translated by V. Feinberg.

I will give the statistics of hits of large shells (8 ... 12 ") on Japanese ships in Tsushima according to the data of Arseny Danilov (they are more elaborate and accurate than the data of Campbell or Krestyaninov). The numerator indicates the number of hits, in the denominator - continuity:

Mikasa 6 ... 9/0
"Shikishima" 2/1
Fuji 2 ... 3/2
"Asahi" 0 ... 1/0
Kasuga 1/0
"Nissin" 3/0

"Izumo" 3/1
Azumo 2/0
"Tokiwa" 0/0
"Yakumo" 1/0
"Asama" 4 ... 5/1
"Iwate" 3 ... 4/1

In total, from 27 to 34 hits with shells of 8 ... 12 "caliber, of which 6 are non-breaks (18-22%), and it seems that this is a lot! But we will go further and consider each case separately to find out the circumstances of the hits and their possible effect ...

1. "Shikishima", time is not specified. A projectile with a caliber of about 10 "pierced the cargo boom of the mainmast without explosion or loss. The reason for the non-rupture is most likely the weak force of the impact on the obstacle. This hit could not cause serious damage due to the high height above the deck.


2. "Fuji", 15:27 (15:09). Hereinafter, first Japanese time, and in brackets - Russian according to Krestyaninov. A shell, presumably 10 ... 12 ”, pierced through the base of the bow tube and the right fan of the bow boiler room, without an explosion. 2 people were injured. The reason for the failure is still the same. The explosion of the projectile could theoretically cause noticeable damage on the deck, the bridge and, with very great luck, in the boiler room.

3. "Fuji", 18:10 (17:52). The projectile, presumably 6 ... 12 ”, overcame the bridge fence, ricocheted against the roof of the forward conning tower and flew overboard. The roof of the conning tower was damaged, 4 people were injured, including the senior mine officer was seriously wounded in the conning tower, the senior navigator was slightly injured. The reason for the non-rupture is probably in the very large angle of encounter with the obstacle. The explosion, even if it had happened, would not have caused serious damage after the ricochet.


4. Izumo, 19:10 (18: 52-19: 00). The 12 ”shell pierced the port side, several bulkheads, the upper deck, the middle deck, slid along the armored deck and stopped in coal pit # 5 on the starboard side without exploding. This hit killed 1 and wounded 2 people in the boiler room. The reason for the non-rupture is difficult to attribute to the weak force of the blow, most likely there was some serious defect. If the shell exploded, it would not have inflicted critical damage not near the boiler room, but during the passage of the upper deck and critical damage; there could have been significant damage and more casualties.


5. Asama, 16:10 (15: 40-15: 42). The shell pierced through the base of the rear chimney, which led to a sharp drop in thrust in the boiler furnaces, and the speed of the cruiser dropped to 10 knots for a while, because of which it again lost its place in the ranks. According to V.Ya. Krestyaninov, this shell exploded, but the Japanese schemes suggest otherwise. In the documents, the caliber of the projectile is estimated at 6 ", but the size of the holes in the casing and pipe (from 38 to 51 cm) suggests that the pipe was pierced by a 12" projectile. The reason for the non-rupture is probably the weak impact force. The effect of the hit was maximum and without an explosion.


6. "Iwate", 14:23 (-). An 8 "(10" according to the Sasebo shipyard) projectile pierced the starboard side at the level of the lower deck at the base of the aft tower of the main battery, ricocheted off the bevel of the lower deck, broke through several bulkheads and stopped. There were no casualties, however, through this hole and the adjacent one (a 152-mm shell exploded a little closer to the stern), water entered the ship, filling two compartments on the lower deck by 60 centimeters. The reason for the non-rupture is a clear defect. In the event of a standard projectile firing, there might have been losses among personnel and flooding of adjacent compartments.



Now we can summarize. In no case of non-detonation was there a hit in the vertical armor. In three episodes, there were hits to pipes and masts with a clearly weak impact on an obstacle, which can be attributed to the "features" of armor-piercing fuses. In one - a very sharp angle of encounter, under this circumstance, even the shells of the next generations often did not explode. And only in two cases there are serious arguments to suspect fuse defects. And these two cases give only about 6% of non-breaks from the total number of hits with large shells, which almost fits into the "norm" voiced by V. I. Rdultovsky (5%).

Well, if we talk about the possible consequences, then in no case would the rupture (if it happened) would affect the course of the battle. Thus, it can be concluded that there was a problem in the Russian navy due to the equipping of high-explosive shells with "armor-piercing" shock tubes, but not because of the abnormally high proportion of defects in large-caliber shells. And in general, the problem of non-explosions of Russian shells should be considered much less acute than the problem of bursting of the barrels of Japanese guns from the detonation of shells during a shot.

In the next part, we will consider, systematize and compare the effect of Russian and Japanese shells on the armored parts of the ship.
Author:
Articles from this series:
Tsushima. Shell version: shells and experiments
Tsushima. "Shell version": history of origin
134 comments
Ad

The editorial board of Voenniy Obozreniye urgently needs a proofreader. Requirements: impeccable knowledge of the Russian language, diligence, discipline. Contact: [email protected]

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. mmaxx
    mmaxx 6 September 2020 06: 04 New
    12
    As usual, all factors add up. But most likely, the reason is precisely in the order in the fleet. Savings on studies and tests. At normal shooting, everything would be revealed. And the shortcomings of scopes and rangefinders, and the strength of the guns, and the accuracy of the tables and all these fuses, damn them. All problems begin when managers get to power and start saving a penny. And then the whole fleet is lost.
    After all, in principle, the same Englishmen had enough problems in WWI. And the rush in collecting the 2TOE made everything worse.
    That's not what our admirals were doing. But as always.
    Another thing is even more interesting. The Japanese to the WWII had almost the same armor-piercing shells as the Russians. And the landmines were clearly not even in second place.
    1. lucul
      lucul 6 September 2020 12: 00 New
      +1
      As usual, all factors add up. But most likely, the reason is precisely in the orders in the fleet.

      What do you mean, but I am extremely confused by the presence of British "observers" on the Japanese battleships in the Battle of Tsushima.
      1. mmaxx
        mmaxx 6 September 2020 14: 14 New
        12
        Well, they were. So what? But now we can read all sorts of Packinhams.
      2. ecolog
        ecolog 6 September 2020 20: 58 New
        10
        so the Englishwoman financed this war. At the same time, they collected valuable information.
        1. Harry cuper
          Harry cuper 7 September 2020 00: 47 New
          +8
          And not only the "Englishwoman". And this is not surprising. Each state pursues the policy that it considers necessary and possible. You also need to be prepared for this. And about collecting information - it is preferable to learn from other people's mistakes. Their own was very expensive for RI.
    2. Senior seaman
      Senior seaman 7 September 2020 10: 18 New
      +1
      Quote: mmaxx
      The Japanese to the WWII had almost the same armor-piercing shells as the Russians.

      Is it?
      It's just that there are almost 15 kg of explosives (and 44 in a clod). Yes, by% it is almost like our ... high-explosive projectile. And they have this armor-piercing weight of 940 kg.
      http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_161-45_3ns.php
      1. mmaxx
        mmaxx 7 September 2020 16: 13 New
        +2
        This refers to the deceleration of the fuses, due to which the shells exploded poorly in unarmored areas. And disregard for high-explosive shells. VV learned how to report.
        1. Senior seaman
          Senior seaman 10 September 2020 10: 33 New
          0
          In this case, it is difficult to name them "almost identical"
          1. mmaxx
            mmaxx 10 September 2020 17: 24 New
            0
            They did not explode in the same way. Identical to me. What do you think - I don't know
  2. Kote Pan Kokhanka
    Kote Pan Kokhanka 6 September 2020 06: 30 New
    +8
    Thank you, it was interesting to read!
    Regards, Kote!
  3. unknown
    unknown 6 September 2020 06: 55 New
    +3
    Perhaps the damage to the guns from their own shells is related to the design of the guns.
    In the English fleet, even before the Russo-Japanese War, during firing practice, there were cases of damage to guns when the inner tube was damaged.
    1. Jura 27
      Jura 27 6 September 2020 11: 15 New
      10
      Quote: ignoto
      Perhaps the damage to the guns from their own shells is related to the design of the guns.
      In the English fleet, even before the Russo-Japanese War, during firing practice, there were cases of damage to guns when the inner tube was damaged.

      Yes, in England there was a whole investigation into the defects of 12 "guns. In the Japanese case, the supersensitivity of the Japanese fuses was superimposed on the defect of the English guns.
      On the whole, the article clearly states that the reason for the defeat is not at all in the quality of Russian shells. You need to be able to shoot - this is just luck, in the distribution of hits you need to have (because it happened that after 3-4 hits the ship went to the bottom).
    2. mmaxx
      mmaxx 6 September 2020 14: 12 New
      +5
      For example, our 6-inch Kane was compared to Armstrong's 6-inch. And they bought Kane. Because she was better. The 12-inch guns of the Japanese were hardly superior to the Russians.
  4. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 6 September 2020 07: 22 New
    +8
    Very interesting! Never heard of the bursting problem in the Japanese Navy! Thanks to the author for interesting articles.
  5. Wwk7260
    Wwk7260 6 September 2020 08: 04 New
    17
    This is not the first version of Tsushima to appear on VO, and they are all interesting, BUT, the main reason for the defeat in the Battle of Tsushima and the entire Russo-Japanese War is the rotten monarchy of the feudal tyrants of the Holstein-Romanovs, the anti-people essence of the tsarist regime. his corruption and depravity.
    1. VIP
      VIP 6 September 2020 16: 02 New
      +8
      However, "krrompirovannosti and depravity" did not prevent Peter 1 or Catherine 2 from doing that: "no cannon dared to shoot without the knowledge of Russia." You just need a strong-willed leader, not a slob
      1. Wwk7260
        Wwk7260 6 September 2020 18: 48 New
        +2
        the serfs, the disadvantaged urban poor, who were beaten to death, were especially proud of this. the peasant lies under the lord's whip and thinks, how are the guns in Europe? shoot, but no? Peter in general barely managed to defeat Sweden, destroying half of the population during his reign, and after the death of E2, just 16 years later, Napoleon burned Moscow Smolensk, and devastated many cities and villages, and before that he defeated the Russian Army at Austerlitz and Borodino, and you say cannons ...
        1. Ascold1901
          Ascold1901 7 September 2020 09: 00 New
          +4
          You should learn some History. And then you are talking nonsense.
        2. Omskgasmyas
          Omskgasmyas 8 September 2020 05: 34 New
          +2
          Go to ukruinsk sites to breach
          1. Wwk7260
            Wwk7260 8 September 2020 05: 46 New
            -2
            and, you go to the jelly, evening m and mashka - a marafet. The wicked primitives believe that they are patriots, and all those who disagree are recorded in Ukraine, and they themselves often have a surname.
            1. Omskgasmyas
              Omskgasmyas 8 September 2020 06: 12 New
              +2
              Let's go through the facts. You write: "Peter in general barely managed to defeat Sweden, destroying half of the population during his reign ..." and the scientist Vodarsky Ya. E. writes in his work "Population of Russia in the late 1977th - early 1678th centuries." Moscow: Nauka, 1719 that "Dynamics of the total population in 30-1." showed a population growth of XNUMX%. Moreover, only male souls are taken into account. Maybe under Peter XNUMX, only women fought? The population of Russia grew similarly under Catherine.
              Source: https://statehistory.ru/books/YA-E--Vodarskiy_Naselenie-Rossii-v-kontse-XVII---nachale-XVIII-veka/24
              And everything else you also have demagoguery, sucked from the finger.
              Are you approving something? Proofs in the studio!
            2. Train
              Train 12 September 2020 15: 45 New
              0
              about "half" of the population you somehow gave a little blunder.
        3. Senior seaman
          Senior seaman 10 September 2020 10: 34 New
          +2
          Quote: Wwk7260
          Peter in general barely managed to defeat Sweden

          Generally, before Peter the Swedes usually won with us.
          1. Jager
            Jager 14 September 2020 19: 04 New
            0
            Since then, the Swedish team in Russia has not worked with hockey)
      2. Kwas
        Kwas 7 September 2020 12: 07 New
        +2
        There is little will, more brains are needed.
        And in general, how did they get extreme and categorical opinions!
        Two hundred years passed from Peter to Nicholas II, problems accumulated for generations and were not solved. So by the beginning of the twentieth century, a Great Ruler was needed plus a lot of luck. Or maybe it wouldn't help. Neither the nobility, nor the imperial family even a little bit wanted to share power and wealth. And the people saw that it was already clearly superfluous, so the poor fellows got it in the end.
        What a hundred years ago! Now the bourgeoisie have seized power, they compose the rules for themselves, row, reassure themselves with mantras, and as if they do not understand how it might naturally end.
    2. Ascold1901
      Ascold1901 7 September 2020 08: 56 New
      +4
      Do you know regimes with a folk essence? Please share. Father Makhno need not be mentioned))))))
      1. VIP
        VIP 8 September 2020 06: 49 New
        +1
        Novgorod veche
        1. Ascold1901
          Ascold1901 9 September 2020 13: 03 New
          +1
          Yah??? And in what way did this essence of it manifest itself?
        2. Senior seaman
          Senior seaman 10 September 2020 10: 36 New
          +2
          Quote: V I P
          Novgorod veche

          An ordinary oligarchic republic.
          It is not surprising that ordinary Novgorodians did not want to protect their snickering boyars.
  6. swzero
    swzero 6 September 2020 08: 36 New
    0
    Where are you hitting the fuji tower? Didn't the shell fire there too?
    1. rytik32
      6 September 2020 20: 54 New
      10
      It exploded very much and even ignited the powder charges for two shots.
      1. Catfish
        Catfish 6 September 2020 21: 26 New
        +5
        Alexey, thanks. As always, a very interesting and scrupulous analysis. good smile
      2. swzero
        swzero 7 September 2020 01: 13 New
        +1
        so it is possible without an explosion, a red-hot projectile, or its fragments, fragments of armor.
        1. rytik32
          7 September 2020 10: 15 New
          +6
          The Japanese medical description clearly states the break and even indicates its location.
  7. Cyril G ...
    Cyril G ... 6 September 2020 10: 07 New
    +2
    Quote: mmaxx
    At normal shooting, everything would be revealed.


    At normal shooting, they shoot with practice, that is, with blanks. To determine the effectiveness, adequate tests were needed and then the shooting of several shells from large batches
    1. lucul
      lucul 6 September 2020 12: 05 New
      +9
      At normal shooting, they shoot with practice, that is, with blanks. To determine the effectiveness, adequate tests were needed and then the shooting of several shells from large batches

      On normal firing, they take an old ship of the line and shoot it and draw conclusions.
      And in our country, the battleship was fired after Tsushima ...
      1. Cyril G ...
        Cyril G ... 6 September 2020 12: 25 New
        +6
        Quote: lucul
        On normal shooting -


        Normal practice is when the blanks are fired at the towed Shields. And this is quite a constant exercise in the Navy. What you are talking about is Experienced Shooting in order to investigate damage to ships.

        Quote: lucul
        take an old battleship and shoot it and draw conclusions.


        Our choice before RYAV was not great actually .. Although on the other hand there would be a desire. You can shoot as in the experimental shooting of 1906 at close range, metering the charge so that the initial speed approximately corresponds to the BATTLE RANGE
        1. lucul
          lucul 6 September 2020 12: 41 New
          +2
          Normal practice is when the blanks are fired at the towed Shields.

          Yes, I know that, I mean that if the battleship Chesma had been shot as a training target BEFORE Tsushima, and not AFTER, then the result of Tsushima could have been different ...
          1. Cyril G ...
            Cyril G ... 6 September 2020 12: 46 New
            +5
            For the first time, the thought that what was going wrong came to the minds of the officers of the WOC after the battle on August 1, 1904. Arranged shooting along the shore where the boiler and fragments of structures were used as a target
            1. lucul
              lucul 6 September 2020 12: 50 New
              +5
              Arranged firing along the shore where a boiler and fragments of structures were used as a target

              As usual - savings, hey ...
              you save on a penny, and then you lose rubles ...
              It's time to get away from this practice, which lasted for centuries ...
              1. VIP
                VIP 6 September 2020 15: 53 New
                +8
                This is an eternal practice and not only under the king
            2. mmaxx
              mmaxx 6 September 2020 14: 23 New
              +6
              At the same time, there was a heap of armored rubbish in the ranks that could be retrofitted and shot.
            3. VIP
              VIP 6 September 2020 15: 40 New
              +3
              You do not know what those shootings showed and what were the PRACTICAL CONCLUSIONS? It's one thing to shoot in order to sigh: "ah, if grandmother had a grandfather bolt" and another thing when they act according to the principle: "the need for invention is cunning"
            4. geniy
              geniy 10 September 2020 21: 15 New
              0
              But in fact, they did not fire this shooting in 1904, but in 1905 - after Tsushima ...
    2. mmaxx
      mmaxx 6 September 2020 14: 16 New
      +6
      Normal shooting and normal shells are fired. How do you find out what your weapon actually represents? And cast iron blanks are the savings.
  8. Operator
    Operator 6 September 2020 11: 00 New
    -2
    In fact, more than 30% of large-caliber guns of the Japanese were disabled during the battle, since a shell burst in the barrel concussion / wounds / kills the gun crew of the whole tower.

    Nevertheless, Zinochka Rozhestvenskaya, who is experiencing critical days, managed to lose to Tsushima - the degradation of naval art in the Russian fleet is obvious.
    1. lucul
      lucul 6 September 2020 12: 09 New
      -1
      Nevertheless, Zinochka Rozhestvenskaya, who is experiencing critical days, managed to lose to Tsushima - the degradation of naval art in the Russian fleet is obvious.

      As you know, any boss tries to select subordinates who are not much smarter than himself, what is the pop - such is the parish, this is all that can be said about Nicholas 2.
      Ehhh ... how Alexander III was killed at the wrong time, with him, such a shame would not have happened ...
      1. VIP
        VIP 6 September 2020 15: 50 New
        11
        Quote: lucul
        Nevertheless, Zinochka Rozhestvenskaya, who is experiencing critical days, managed to lose to Tsushima - the degradation of naval art in the Russian fleet is obvious.

        As you know, any boss tries to select subordinates who are not much smarter than himself, what is the pop - such is the parish, this is all that can be said about Nicholas 2.
        Ehhh ... how Alexander III was killed at the wrong time, with him, such a shame would not have happened ...

        In fact, Alexander 2, Nikola's grandfather, was killed, and Nikolayev's father was Alexander 3.
        I remember, according to the story about Alexander 2, though, there was something positive, but about Alexander 3, NOTHING positive. I have already learned that Alexander 3 was a MAN, and his henpecked son
        1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
          Kote Pan Kokhanka 6 September 2020 18: 45 New
          12
          In Soviet historiography, Alexander III was traditionally exhibited as a retrograde. Among his contemporaries he was nicknamed the Peacemaker. During his reign, there was only one military incident on the Afghan border at Kushka! I personally have only one complaint to him - the decree “on the cook's children”, otherwise I agree with you - “man”.
          His death was tragic, after the train disaster, the emperor strained himself holding the roof of the royal carriage, allowing his family and servants to get out of it.
          Regards, Vlad!
        2. Oprichnik
          Oprichnik 9 September 2020 16: 26 New
          +2
          Over the past 30 years, about 15 solid books have been published about Emperor Alexander III and his kingdom, as well as a lot of books about certain aspects of the life of Ingushetia in his time: On the economy, police, peasants, intellectuals, the army, science, etc. Just read !!! His Imperial Majesty Al-r the Third was a real Russian tsar, although, like any person, not without mistakes.
      2. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 6 September 2020 19: 44 New
        +9
        Quote: lucul
        Ehhh ... how Alexander III was killed at the wrong time, with him, there would be no such shame

        Alexander III, probably for a change, no one killed. laughing

        However, it is worth remembering that we owe the conflict, and then the war with Germany, to him. Before A3, Prussia and then Germany were, as a rule, either an ally of the Republic of Ingushetia, or at least a benevolent neutral.
        1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
          Kote Pan Kokhanka 6 September 2020 20: 37 New
          +1
          This benevolent neutral, managed to make war with us three times between 1700 and 1900!
        2. Andrey Shmelev
          Andrey Shmelev 6 September 2020 23: 33 New
          +2
          Before A3, Prussia and then Germany were, as a rule, either an ally of the Republic of Ingushetia, or at least a benevolent neutral.


          well, A2 started first, deciding that Bismarck would fight against the whole world so that A2 could "free" a few more Balkans, and then he was offended to snot
          instead of an idiotic war A2, it would be better to build a Transsib;)))
        3. Senior seaman
          Senior seaman 7 September 2020 10: 03 New
          0
          Quote: Saxahorse
          Before A3, Prussia and then Germany were, as a rule, either an ally of the Republic of Ingushetia, or at least a benevolent neutral.

          Are you talking about the Berlin Congress?
          1. Saxahorse
            Saxahorse 7 September 2020 23: 54 New
            0
            Quote: Senior Sailor
            Are you talking about the Berlin Congress?

            This is a little earlier, this is San Stefano, where Alexander suddenly decided to abandon his ally Austria, and at the same time Germany, acting as the guarantor of the fulfillment of his promises. Oh, those Romanovs .. And in the end, yes, and the Berlin Congress, and WWI.
            1. Senior seaman
              Senior seaman 10 September 2020 18: 32 New
              0
              Not without that, but this is all a little earlier than the Peacemaker.
              1. Saxahorse
                Saxahorse 10 September 2020 22: 49 New
                0
                Dad started, son continued. Unfortunately.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 September 2020 11: 04 New
      11
      The operator continues to burn with napalm.
      Quote: Operator
      In fact, more than 30% of large-caliber guns of the Japanese were disabled during the battle.

      It seems that the number of large and medium caliber art on the ships of the main forces of the United Fleet (battleships and armored cruisers) is known - 16 * 305-mm 1 * 254-mm, 30 * 203-mm.
      It seems that the article clearly says about Tsushima
      One 12 "gun on the Mikasa exploded (and there were two explosions, the first one happened shortly after the projectile left the barrel and did not cause any harm), one 12" gun on the Sikishima and three 8 "guns on the Nissin

      Well, how can 2 305-mm guns be 30% of 16 such guns? How can 3 203mm guns be 30% of 30 guns?
      The operator can. He simply could not read it and did not understand that the Japanese lost 30% of the arts in the battle in the Yellow Sea. True, there the Russian ships were commanded by V.K. Vitgeft, but the operator, of course, is to blame
      Quote: Operator
      Zinochka Rozhdestvenskaya
  9. mmaxx
    mmaxx 6 September 2020 14: 21 New
    +5
    Striking another thing in that war. No experience was critically reviewed. One thing they realized was that there was nothing to catch without stereo range finders and optical sights. They put it that way at the last moment. All this went out of order in battle because of just untestedness.
  10. sevtrash
    sevtrash 6 September 2020 15: 22 New
    +2
    Good article - facts and conclusions, everything seems to be reasonable. It turns out that everything was not so bad with the shells. What not to say about shooting. The fact that the shooting was not very well known for a long time, there was no reason for that, during the campaign there was little shooting and the result was not very good, in the testimony of the officers they spoke unambiguously. "They didn't know how to shoot and there was no move ..." the phrase is more than a hundred years old. But all the same, someone thinks that they were shooting super accurately.
  11. Alexander Trebuntsev
    Alexander Trebuntsev 6 September 2020 15: 53 New
    +3
    Quote: lucul
    Ehhh ... how Alexander III was killed at the wrong time, with him, such a shame would not have happened ...

    Who killed Alexander III? As far as I remember, he died a natural death.
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 6 September 2020 18: 46 New
      +3
      Quote: Alexander Trebutsev
      Quote: lucul
      Ehhh ... how Alexander III was killed at the wrong time, with him, such a shame would not have happened ...

      Who killed Alexander III? As far as I remember, he died a natural death.

      Railway accident, briefly described the Events above. hi
      1. Harry cuper
        Harry cuper 7 September 2020 01: 01 New
        +2
        In fairness, the emperor did not turn away from the glass either
        1. Oprichnik
          Oprichnik 9 September 2020 16: 35 New
          -1
          The Bolsheviks tried to spoil the whole history and all the kings. So Al. 3 was exposed as a drunkard. A critical analysis of various documents has shown that all this is a LIE! But I read about the murder, but for years ago I forgot who. Very sensible analysis and system of evidence of interest in this filthy Britt. One thing is known for sure all the court doctors were either Britons or Jews and only 1 Russian! And as always, in such cases, medical certificates of death are rigged. The circumstantial evidence is above the rooftop. And the "love" of the Britons for eliminating their opponents with the help of poisons has long been known.
  12. Engineer
    Engineer 6 September 2020 17: 08 New
    +6
    Thanks to the author for the article.
    Although he is sometimes reproached in the comments, the overall level of his articles is quite decent. As well as the level of the author's discussion in the discussion.
  13. DrEng527
    DrEng527 6 September 2020 18: 36 New
    +2
    Thanks to the author for an interesting analysis!
  14. Saxahorse
    Saxahorse 6 September 2020 19: 20 New
    +2
    Thanks to the author for a good continuation of the series! The article is rather compact, but quite informative. True, for some reason it is again in another section, now in the "history" posted. :)

    However, there are some questions or clarifications on the material. For example, the first photo is clearly NOT damage to Mikasa in the Yellow Sea. That photo is famous enough:

    As we can see here, the barrel is different, and most importantly - the characteristic destruction of the frontal armor of the tower, which apparently caused the explosion of the shell in the barrel. Bursting 250 mm armor indicates a very strong impact. The Japanese claim that they have not yet had time to load the charge and the explosion was caused precisely by the hit of a Russian shell. I am sure that any other projectile, even if there is TNT or pyroxylin, would also detonate from an almost direct hit.

    The second unclear point, the real consumption of 12 "shells by the Japanese at Tsushima. In a recent article by Valentin (aka" Comrade ") I recalled that Pekinham's data on the consumption of Fuji's shells, for example, somehow contradict his own data on the number of shots. It turns out that Fuji shots of 12 "guns were about a third more than the spent shells. A mystery however. :)
    1. Saxahorse
      Saxahorse 6 September 2020 20: 14 New
      +3
      I'll get better right away. The tower in the photo is still the same, and the barrel is right. It's just that the photo is very late, when the piece of armor has already been put in place. repeat
  15. rytik32
    6 September 2020 21: 07 New
    +3
    As a bonus, I'll give you some more results of calculations. The percentage of non-breaks for 10-12 "Russian shells in WM is about the same as in Tsushima. The percentage of non-breaks for 6" Russian shells is slightly higher than for larger ones: 25-32% in Tsushima and 40% in WM, but 6 "is small sampling, conclusions cannot be drawn.
    1. Alexandra
      Alexandra 7 September 2020 00: 53 New
      +4
      It is a pity that the article does not mention that the main 12 "high-explosive" Russian shells at Tsushima were filled with smokeless gunpowder, not wet pyroxylin, and were equipped with a Baranovsky tube and not a Brink tube as a fuse.

      The percentage of incomplete ruptures of Russian shells (when the explosive charge of wet pyroxylin does not fully detonate because the explosion of a frankly small charge of an intermediate detonator of dry pyroxylin was not enough to fully detonate the main charge) will probably never be assessed.

      By the way, incomplete detonations of explosive charges of liddite were then characteristic of British shells, due to the anachronistic approach that was used in their fuses (a powder petard instead of a full-fledged intermediate detonator from a high explosive charge).

      Thus, the Japanese shells were then more effective than the British liddite shells, and were one of the first representatives of the new generation shells. If they were inferior to anyone else, then apparently the American projectiles with explosive charges of picric acid phlegmatized with mononitronaphthalene and delayed-action fuses with a reliable intermediate detonator.

      Thus, the point is not even that the Russian shells were bad. For 1894, they weren't bad. Russian steel shells with small explosive charges of wet pyroxylin or gunpowder (smokeless rifle, or black, in shells for obsolete guns) by 1904-1905. corny morally obsolete against the background of Japanese shells with an increased content of a new generation of high explosives - picric acid (cast), with reliably triggered sensitive bottom fuses with intermediate detonators made of the same picric acid (powdered).

      Also, segment projectiles, which continued to occupy a place in ammunition, and 75 mm armor-piercing projectiles without an explosive charge, became obsolete. Cast-iron shells with explosive charges of black powder, which were still in ammunition at the beginning of the war, were frankly bad, it was simply dangerous to shoot them with a full charge.

      The result of the obsolescence of Russian shells against the background of Japanese shells was failure in literally all artillery battles of the Russian-Japanese war - from the collision of armored squadrons to night battles of destroyers.

      In that war, Russian artillery did not manage to sink anything larger than a numbered destroyer from the combat strength of the Japanese fleet.
      1. rytik32
        7 September 2020 09: 56 New
        +2
        Alexander, good afternoon!
        Quote: AlexanderA
        It is a pity that the article does not mention that the main 12 "high-explosive" Russian shells at Tsushima were filled with smokeless gunpowder, not wet pyroxylin, and were equipped with a Baranovsky tube and not a Brink tube as a fuse.

        I mentioned this in the last article.
      2. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 8 September 2020 00: 06 New
        -1
        Quote: AlexanderA
        The percentage of incomplete ruptures of Russian shells (when the explosive charge of wet pyroxylin does not fully detonate because the explosion of a frankly small charge of an intermediate detonator of dry pyroxylin was not enough to fully detonate the main charge) will probably never be assessed.

        Curious but is it so? Maybe the problem is not in the power, but in the design of the intermediate detonator, which destroys the projectile faster than the entire charge could detonate. This is the same question for the British.
        1. Alexandra
          Alexandra 8 September 2020 19: 08 New
          +2
          Maybe the problem is not in the power, but in the design of the intermediate detonator, which destroys the projectile faster than the entire charge could detonate.

          http://fulltext.pl.spb.ru/Blokad%D0%A0%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%8F/BL_129830.pdf стр. 19
          "When making up charges from wet pyroxylin No. 1, it is necessary to take dry pyroxylin No. 1 — 1/10 of the weight of the charge, and in any case at least 60 g."

          I do not know how much dry pyroxylin was in the Brink tube, but about the 11DM military department fuse which "was adopted for 6- and 10-inch shells filled with wet pyroxylin and taken from the Naval Department after the declaration of the Japanese war," the same Rdultovsky wrote " In design, it differed little from the 5DM fuse described above, but it was much smaller in size, weighed about 1,5 kg and contained in the detonator only 55,5 g of picric acid. "(Approx. - my selection)

          Those. for the case of wet pyroxylin, the mass of the blasting explosive in the intermediate detonator less than 60 grams was considered insufficient. For example, a 5DM fuse for pyroxylin shells for 9 and 11 inches. coastal mortars contained 115 grams of picric acid in an intermediate detonator.

          This is the same question for the British.

          The British at that time banal retrograde in full. Again, Rdultovsky: "A cylindrical channel was left along the axis of the liddite cooled in the bomb 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 were used from black gunpowder ... 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 this allowed the British to avoid primers with explosive mercury, which they considered dangerous to shoot . "

          Historical note: "Beginning in 1859, Alfred Nobel, his father and younger brother experimented with liquid nitroglycerin in Sweden, trying to find the best ways of its production and industrial application. In 1863, they found, in particular, that the detonation of nitroglycerin can be caused This simplified its practical application and led to the invention by Nobel of an improved detonator cap, which is still used today. In 1864, Alfred Nobel created a series of ten detonator caps with explosive mercury. "

          By the beginning of the XNUMXth century, the British, with their refusal to use a detonator cap with explosive mercury to detonate the charges of cast liddite, were "behind the times" by more than three decades.
        2. Alexandra
          Alexandra 8 September 2020 19: 48 New
          +3
          To clarify, there was only 45 grams of dry pyroxylin in the intermediate detonator of the Brink tube.

          http://keu-ocr.narod.ru/Uroki/
          "... which were in service with 152-mm high-explosive shells with two-capsular bottom Brink tubes and equipped with 920 g of wet and 45 g of dry pyroxylin ..."
          1. Saxahorse
            Saxahorse 8 September 2020 22: 08 New
            +1
            Quote: AlexanderA
            "... which were in service with 152-mm high-explosive shells with two-capsular bottom Brink tubes and equipped with 920 g of wet and 45 g of dry pyroxylin ..."

            Good info by the way! However, the question arises what was meant by incomplete detonation. Insufficient power of the intermediate detonator can affect the absence of detonation of the main charge at all. Maybe the incomplete detonation meant a projectile destroyed by these very 45 grams of dry pyroxylin?

            Another thing is when the detonation began, but the shock wave broke off halfway. Here the reasons should be different.
            1. Alexandra
              Alexandra 8 September 2020 23: 17 New
              +2
              http://factmil.com/publ/vooruzhenie/artillerija/sozdanie_za_rubezhom_vzryvchatykh_veshhestv_ponizhennoj_chuvstvitelnosti_dlja_osnashhenija_artillerijskikh_boepripasov_2019/134-1-0-1674

              Six steps on how an explosive explosive charge can behave:

              1. Detonation - operation of the explosive in the normal mode due to the propagation of the detonation wave. It is characterized by the greatest damaging effect. Many effective shards are formed;
              2. Partial detonation - partial operation of explosives in detonation mode, less effective fragments are formed;
              3. Explosion - the resulting gases caused the destruction of the shell with the formation of fragments, burning and unreacted explosive pieces scatter;
              4. Deflagration - destruction of ammunition, often with the release of a burning explosive charge;
              5. Combustion - the explosive burns out without destroying the shell of the ammunition;
              6. No response.

              http://www.pirochem.net/index.php?id1=3&category=otherpirotech&author=suharevskiy-m&book=1923t1&page=25
              "According to Abel's experiments, 140 grams of dry pyroxylin are capable of detonating any amount of moisture with any percentage of moisture."

              It turns out that even in the 5DM detonator of the Military Department the pressed picric acid "was not poured a little." And already in the two-casul Brink tube, a charge of dry pyroxylin, which was too weak to ensure complete detonation of moist pyroxylin (with an increased moisture content), was clearly placed.
              1. Saxahorse
                Saxahorse 9 September 2020 21: 51 New
                0
                Quote: AlexanderA
                Six steps on how an explosive explosive charge can behave:

                The link is muddy and did not answer the question "what is incomplete detonation" in our case. Deflagration and Combustion are one and the same for example. How partial detonation differs from an explosion is also not clear. laughing
                1. Alexandra
                  Alexandra 9 September 2020 23: 56 New
                  0
                  Quote: Saxahorse
                  The link is muddy and did not answer the question "what is incomplete detonation" in our case.

                  http://urss.ru/PDF/add_ru/198526-1.pdf стр. 227
                  "1. Detonation of an explosive charge. Excitation of detonation has a shock-wave character; detonation occurs at the initial shock-wave stage of interaction or with a certain delay. The main signs of detonation transformation of an explosive are: a) destruction of the shell into many small fragments flying at high speed; b ) on fragments of even relatively thick shells, shear fracture surfaces are easily detected; c) a strong high-explosive effect is recorded, determined by the amount and type of reacted explosive. Distinguish between full and incomplete (partial) detonation of the explosive charge.
                  2. Explosion. Low-order explosive transformation (LDPT) of shock-wave and deformation nature. It is realized with damped volumetric explosive transformation or accelerated development of explosive combustion. As a rule, only part of the explosive reacts, the rest of the explosive in a finely dispersed state is scattered; the shell breaks down mainly by the brittle fracture mechanism into large and medium fragments, which fly off at a sufficiently high speed. A moderate high-explosive effect is recorded.
                  3. Local explosion. Fast response of a small part of the explosive, not turning into an explosion or detonation due to a rapid release of pressure due to local destruction of the shell - tearing off the bottom part, opening the shell at the impact site, etc. The rest (unreacted) explosives are sufficient ... "

                  http://bg.bstu.ru/shared/attachments/108434

                  "Each explosive has a detonation propagation velocity, which depends on the chemical structure, physical state of the explosive, the degree of grinding of its particles, density. A constant detonation velocity is not established instantly, but within a very short period of time - the detonation acceleration period. The duration of this period depends on the properties of the explosive and the power of the initial pulse.The detonation acceleration period depends on the amount of energy transferred to the explosive by the initial pulse.The more energy transferred by the initial pulse, the more particles are simultaneously involved in chemical transformation and, consequently, the more heat is released.If the power of the initial pulse is small , is insufficient for the development of the optimal detonation velocity, the explosion occurs with a lower
                  speed. As a rule, the speed will gradually decrease, the detonation will die out (incomplete detonation of the explosive will occur), or the explosive transformation may turn into ordinary combustion (the explosive will burn out - deflagration). With sufficient energy of the initial pulse, detonation, when the optimal and constant speed is reached, spontaneously propagates through the explosive at a constant speed. "

                  Deflagration and Combustion are one and the same for example.

                  Deflagration is a process of subsonic combustion in which a rapidly moving zone (front) of chemical transformations is formed. Energy transfer from the reaction zone in the direction of the front movement occurs mainly due to convective heat transfer. It is fundamentally different from detonation, in which the transformation zone propagates at a supersonic speed and energy is transferred due to heating from internal friction in the substance when a longitudinal wave passes through it (shock wave in the detonation process).

                  In some explosives, detonation may not develop or decay, and a transition to deflagration may occur. The greatest tendency to detonation-deflagraphion transitions is possessed by multicomponent mixtures, many or all of the components of which do not possess individual explosive properties; classical examples are ammonium nitrate explosives that do not contain individual blasting explosives. The high tendency to switch from detonation to deflagration leads to a decrease in the reliability and efficiency of blasting explosives when used for their intended purpose.
  16. deddem
    deddem 6 September 2020 21: 19 New
    0
    Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
    Quote: Alexander Trebutsev
    Quote: lucul
    Ehhh ... how Alexander III was killed at the wrong time, with him, such a shame would not have happened ...

    Who killed Alexander III? As far as I remember, he died a natural death.

    Railway accident, briefly described the Events above. hi


    By the way, then formally it turns out that Alexander 3 was killed by Alexander 2, with his reforms to attract private capital to the railways (and there, effective managers were the same at all times)
  17. Andrey Shmelev
    Andrey Shmelev 6 September 2020 23: 14 New
    0
    pre = great! + 100500
  18. Harry cuper
    Harry cuper 7 September 2020 00: 55 New
    +2
    Many thanks to the author, Alexey (unfortunately, I don’t know the middle name). Thoughtful, reasoned, balanced article. I got great pleasure in reading, as well as from other articles in the cycle. How few of you, real Authors, are left here on VO!
  19. Comrade
    Comrade 7 September 2020 02: 24 New
    0
    In order to avoid overheating the barrels, the Japanese in Tsushima ..... minimized the use of armor-piercing 12 "shells.

    Dear Alexey, let me ask you, what is the connection between barrel overheating and the type of projectile?
    Burst ..... three 8 "guns on the Nissin (the Japanese themselves write that the barrels on the Nissin were torn off by Russian shells, but the photographs ... do not confirm the official version).

    Dear colleague, what did you manage to see in the photo that the Japanese experts who studied the damage to the barrels did not see, who as a result came to the conclusion that these were hits from Russian shells?
    If I understand the situation correctly, they are not propagandistic journalists, they had no motive to bend their souls, the document was intended for a narrow circle of people, so it will be interesting to know what escaped their attention?

    the testimony of British observers does not confirm the official version.

    If not difficult, please list these observers and the dates when their reports were written.
    1. rytik32
      7 September 2020 10: 03 New
      +3
      Valentine, good afternoon!
      Quote: Comrade
      Dear Alexey, let me ask you, what is the connection between barrel overheating and the type of projectile?

      It was the Japanese who revealed such a connection (I have no information about which shells exploded in the barrels in the LM). They also introduced a ban on the use of armor-piercing shells (later withdrawn) and reduced their number in the cellars to Tsushima.
      Quote: Comrade
      Dear colleague, what did you manage to see in the photo that the Japanese experts who studied the damage to the barrels did not see, who as a result came to the conclusion that these were hits from Russian shells?

      The destruction of the inner part of the trunk goes deeper than the outer one. This is a clear sign of self-rupture.
      Quote: Comrade
      If I understand the situation correctly, they are not propagandistic journalists, they had no motive to bend their souls, the document was intended for a narrow circle of people, so it will be interesting to know what escaped their attention?

      Who knows the mysterious Japanese soul? )))
      Quote: Comrade
      If not difficult, please list these observers and the dates when their reports were written.

      This data I took from Campbell.
      A British officer who examined the Nissin after the battle believed that these guns could have collapsed as a result of premature bursts of shells in the bore, but Japanese reports quite definitely state that the guns failed as a result of shell hits.
      1. Comrade
        Comrade 8 September 2020 03: 23 New
        +1
        Hello, Alexey!

        Quote: rytik32
        It was the Japanese who revealed such a connection (I have no information about which shells exploded in the barrels in the LM).

        I believe that there may be a connection between the type of projectile and the gap trunk, but there can be no connection between overheating barrel and type of projectile.
        It turns out that the barrel may or may not overheat depending on the type of projectile.

        Quote: rytik32
        The destruction of the inner part of the trunk goes deeper than the outer one. This is a clear sign of self-rupture.

        Here are the remains of the left bow 8 "gun of the cruiser" Nisshin "in close-up. Not being a specialist in artillery, I ask you to indicate on the photos in any way convenient for you
        clear sign of self-rupture

        this tool.


        Quote: rytik32
        This data I took from Campbell.

        So, we are not talking about
        Quote: rytik32
        British observers

        but only about one the only English observer. We open the report of Captain Jackson and read the following paragraph:

        As you can see, there not it is said that the 8 '' guns were out of order due to the detonation of shells in the bore.
        Probably in a private conversation, Captain Jackson admitted that
        guns could collapse as a result of premature explosions of shells in the bore

        however, in the official report he not began to write it.
        And from your article it follows that the reports of at least two
        Quote: rytik32
        English observers do not confirm the official version

        which is obviously not the case.
        .
        1. rytik32
          8 September 2020 09: 27 New
          +1
          Quote: Comrade
          It turns out that the barrel may or may not overheat depending on the type of projectile.

          This is the Japanese version retold by Pakineh. I myself do not like it, which I wrote about.

          Quote: Comrade
          point to the photos in any way convenient for you

          Here is the Eagle. The outside of the barrel is more damaged than the inside

          Here is Nissin. Damage to the inside is deeper in places than to the outside.

          Quote: Comrade
          which is obviously not the case.

          Remark accepted
          1. Comrade
            Comrade 9 September 2020 03: 56 New
            0
            Hello, Alexey!
            Quote: rytik32
            Here is the Eagle. The outside of the barrel is more damaged than the inside

            And here is "Nisshin":

            Take a look at the picture with an open mind, your words about the "Eagle" gun are quite applicable to this gun.

            From the version about the explosions of shells in the barrels of the cruiser "Nisshin" it follows that first the commander of the cruiser lied to his superiors, hiding the facts of explosions of shells in the barrels of three guns, and then the specialists who examined the damaged guns covered up this lie.
            And what was their motive in this case?
            By the way, all this reminds me of believers that shells from the Varyag hit the cruiser Asama, they say, there were hits, but the cruiser commander hid them.
            1. rytik32
              9 September 2020 09: 30 New
              +1
              I think the Japanese sincerely believed it was a hit. After all, there were no more cases of bursting of 8 "guns. Even these bursts had a pronounced fragmentation effect.
              1. Comrade
                Comrade 9 September 2020 15: 07 New
                +1
                I think this is not a matter of faith, but of knowledge.
                The artillery servants in the towers knew perfectly well whether it was a burst of their own shell or not.
                If you don’t shoot, and your barrel blows, then you understand what it was.
                Dozens of people were sitting in two towers, and they knew whether the damaged gun was firing at the moment the barrel was demolished or not.
                1. rytik32
                  9 September 2020 16: 25 New
                  0
                  So in the case of the "Azuma" barrel, which we talked about in the previous topic, the logbook says:
                  2 h. 20 min. At this time, both we and the enemy were walking in the same direction, [and] the distance changed little, the success / effectiveness of our fire is very good, we observe a shot down gaff on Oslyabya.
                  At this time, 6 "gun No. 7, having made the 1st shot, completed loading for the 2nd shot, the enemy large-caliber projectile fell extremely close to the side, raising a lot of water and foam, a large fragment of this exploded projectile, having arrived, hit [into the barrel at a distance ] about 2 shaku from the muzzle and chopped it off, on the upper deck 2 numbers of the gun servant were slightly wounded. The gun servant of gun No. 7 moved ammunition from its casemate to the casemate of gun No. 8
                  1. Comrade
                    Comrade 9 September 2020 18: 55 New
                    0
                    Excellent.
                    And what does the Nisshin logbook say, exploding its own shells?
                    1. rytik32
                      9 September 2020 21: 18 New
                      0
                      Unfortunately, I do not have a translation of the Nissina logbook.
                      But today I found a file on the jakar with damages to "Fuji" and a rotated tower, the picture from which you posted a little earlier. Yes, it shows a completely unrealistic position of the tower for that time and the direction of arrival of the projectile.
                      1. Comrade
                        Comrade 10 September 2020 04: 03 New
                        0
                        Quote: rytik32
                        Unfortunately, I do not have a translation of the Nissina logbook.

                        Well, no, then no.

                        With your permission, dear colleague, a couple more remarks to the article under discussion.

                        In order to avoid overheating the barrels, the Japanese in Tsushima slowed down the rate of fire of the main battery guns, used a special water cooling system for the barrels, and minimized the use of armor-piercing 12 "shells. But that did not help either! One 12" gun on Mikasa exploded (moreover there were two explosions, the first one happened shortly after the projectile left the barrel and did not cause any harm), one 12 "gun on the Sikisima"

                        In my opinion, there is an obvious contradiction here.
                        On the one hand, you claim that the measures taken to prevent premature bursts of shells have not yielded results.
                        On the other hand, you list the incidents on the battleships "Mikasa" and "Shikishima" as proof of your thesis.
                        However, as you know, only these two battleships used armor-piercing shells in the battle of Tsushima (28 and 4, respectively). But on the other two battleships, which did not fire armor-piercing shells, the main caliber guns did not suffer.
                        Consequently, the no reasons to say that a decrease in the rate of fire against the background of cooling the barrels and the refusal to use armor-piercing shells did not bring the expected result.
                        The facts are that all Asahi and Fuji guns escaped premature explosions.
                      2. rytik32
                        10 September 2020 09: 15 New
                        0
                        According to Campbell:
                        According to information received in 1906, "Mikasa" during the battle fired high-explosive shells from the right 12 "guns and armor-piercing from the left, however, when the distance fell below 25 cab., Switched exclusively to armor-piercing shells.

                        At 17:44, the distance was clearly more than 25 cab., So a land mine exploded in the barrel of the Mikasa's right gun.
                        And looking at the measures taken by the Japanese, it seems that they themselves did not fully understand the cause of the breaks.
                        I am rather inclined to the second option - the breakthrough of gases through the leaks of the fuse thread.
                      3. Comrade
                        Comrade 10 September 2020 15: 16 New
                        0
                        Quote: rytik32
                        According to Campbell:

                        As follows from your article, this source is not the ultimate truth. He writes as an indisputable fact that the fuses were replaced by less sensitive ones, and you, referring to another source, claim that
                        refuted the assumption of W.K.Packinham that the sensitivity of the fuses to Tsushima was reduced.
                      4. rytik32
                        10 September 2020 15: 54 New
                        0
                        Quote: Comrade
                        this source is not the ultimate truth

                        And what's so unusual about that? No source can be considered the ultimate truth.
                        But while there is no other information, we use what we have.

                        Bursting of the trunk of the battleship "Michigan" in 1916
                        Sound familiar? wink
                      5. Comrade
                        Comrade 10 September 2020 17: 09 New
                        +1
                        Quote: rytik32
                        Sound familiar?

                        And you ?
                        On the left is damage to the gun barrel of the cruiser "Nisshin", on the right is damage to the gun barrel of the "Eagle".

                        If it does not bother you, indicate on the photo on the left,

                        Quote: rytik32
                        clear sign of self-rupture


                      6. rytik32
                        10 September 2020 17: 24 New
                        0
                        I have highlighted the places where the inner layer collapsed further from the tip than the outer one.
                      7. Comrade
                        Comrade 10 September 2020 17: 40 New
                        0
                        Quote: rytik32
                        I have highlighted the places where the inner layer collapsed further from the tip than the outer one.


                        And your humble servant pointed to the same place on the gun barrel of the "Eagle", which means that the shell exploded inside the barrel too?


                        In fact, the places indicated by you and me are particulars that do not affect the overall picture.
                      8. rytik32
                        10 September 2020 18: 21 New
                        +1
                        Arrows point to average layer, not the outer one.
                        But based on the destruction of the Nissin's barrel, can you explain from which side the Russian shell exploded?
  • Saxahorse
    Saxahorse 9 September 2020 22: 06 New
    +1
    Quote: Comrade
    Take a look at the picture with an open mind, your words about the "Eagle" gun are quite applicable to this gun.

    Did you notice that both Nissin trunks were torn off in exactly the same place? Where there are projectiles before firing. Do you want to take a look at this moment "unbeatable"? It's not enough three hits in a fight exactly in the barrel, so all three more and in the same place at each barrel hit !?

    At the same time, you can see that the barrel of the Eagle is torn off somewhere closer to the muzzle and you can even determine by the deformation of either the barrel or the casing that the blow was from the left side to the right by looking at the picture.
  • rytik32
    8 September 2020 12: 37 New
    +1
    Quote: Comrade
    however, he did not write it in the official report.

    I have already read in several places that Campbell took Packinham's report as a basis for counting hits on the Eagle. Only in the collection that you and I have, these data are absent.
    It turns out that this collection is not complete?
    1. Comrade
      Comrade 9 September 2020 04: 03 New
      0
      Quote: rytik32
      It turns out that this collection is not complete?

      Incomplete, of course.
      This is just what was published in the press of the time, for example in Proceedings.
      At the same time, the colossal array of reports from foreign observers was not intended for the general public.
      For example, the archives of the Argentine naval attaché number one thousand four hundred documents and a corresponding number of photographs, and they have survived to this day.
      Now I'm trying to find out if you can get acquainted with them?
  • Saxahorse
    Saxahorse 8 September 2020 00: 15 New
    +3
    Quote: Comrade
    Dear colleague, what did you manage to see in the photo that the Japanese experts who studied the damage to the barrels did not see, who as a result came to the conclusion that these were hits from Russian shells?

    If I were an Englishman, I would not have believed this explanation either. A rupture in the barrel as a result of being hit by a Russian shell (or a large fragment) is quite possible, Mikasa confirms this. But three such hits in a row look incredible in terms of statistics. Immediately there is a thought about some kind of internal, systemic problem of this particular ship.
    1. rytik32
      8 September 2020 09: 31 New
      +2
      I, too, would rather believe in a batch of defective shells that hit the Nissin than in three consecutive hits in the main guns.
      And another important point. Our shells didn't explode instantly. The shell would have hit the barrel but exploded a few meters further, as with the Azuma. The Japanese, on the other hand, painted the explosions right on the trunks. laughing
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 September 2020 07: 28 New
    +4
    The author did a great job, for which many thanks to him! I learned something new for myself.
    Alas, I can only partially agree with the conclusions of this article. The main question is about the statistics of the hits of Russian shells. Yes, there were comparatively few explosives, but Russian high-explosive 305-mm projectiles were equipped with fuses with "ordinary shock tubes arr 1894" - and here you need to somehow try to analyze how many Russian heavy shells with such tubes hit the Japanese ships.
    And this business, admittedly, is thankless - for example, if we even knew exactly the number of shells fired with the Brink and Baranovsky fuses, this would not give us the hit ratio - the possible deviations are too strong. But we don't even know that.
    1. rytik32
      7 September 2020 10: 07 New
      +5
      Dear Andrey, good afternoon!
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Yes, there were comparatively few explosives, but Russian high-explosive 305-mm projectiles were equipped with fuses with "ordinary shock tubes arr 1894" - and here you need to somehow try to analyze how many Russian heavy shells with such tubes hit the Japanese ships.

      Unfortunately, it is very difficult to distinguish 12 "from 10" shells and armor-piercing from high-explosive.
      However, a comparison of the statistics of continuity in Tsushima in LM (% is the same!) Allows us to assert that neither the moisture content of pyroxylin, nor the type of fuse, nor the type of explosive had a noticeable effect on this indicator. But why 6 "burst less often than large-caliber ones is still a mystery to me.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 September 2020 11: 08 New
        +2
        Greetings, dear Alexey!
        Quote: rytik32
        However, comparison of the statistics of continuations in Tsushima in FM (% is the same!)

        Frankly, I don't quite understand how you did this analytics
        1. rytik32
          7 September 2020 11: 15 New
          +2
          The article https://naval-manual.livejournal.com/56888.html contains data on Mikasa. You can also take into account 3 explosions when large shells hit Asahi, Nissin and Yakumo.
  • Senior seaman
    Senior seaman 7 September 2020 10: 11 New
    +2
    Thanks for the work done, there is something to think about.
    But, as for me, the question is still not in the type of explosives and (as it turned out) not in the fuse, but in the amount of explosives.
    Just for example. A shell hitting the Mikasa bridge. Had it not been 6 kg of smokeless powder, but 18 ... would have survived him?
    1. rytik32
      7 September 2020 10: 27 New
      +6
      Good afternoon, Ivan!
      Quote: Senior Sailor
      Just for example. A shell hitting the Mikasa bridge. Had it not been 6 kg of smokeless powder, but 18 ... would have survived him?

      Now I once again figured out the place of that hit on the Mikasa. Yes, most likely Togo would be at least wounded. If that projectile had more explosives and a detonator without slowing down, then the fragmentation effect on the conning tower would be much stronger.
      1. mmaxx
        mmaxx 7 September 2020 16: 28 New
        +3
        It is difficult to say what TNT equivalent is that smokeless powder. Yet this is not a blasting explosive. But 12 kg of explosives, and even in a shell, is a lot. With Togo's manner of standing open, his intestines would have been emptied out by such a difference. 12 kg of TNT, for example, is half a box. 30 checkers. I will find it difficult to even remember in which land shell there are so many.
  • andron352
    andron352 7 September 2020 18: 40 New
    +3
    Unfortunately, I don't remember where, but somehow I read that even before the RYAV it was proposed to test shells by firing. The issue price was 70 rubles. But it was refused on the pretext that the shells had already been ordered and in the event of war would be tested on the enemy. When you read the history of RYAV, you are amazed - many correct proposals were proposed, but all were rejected in favor of completely unsuccessful ones.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 8 September 2020 09: 04 New
      +3
      Quote: andron352
      Unfortunately, I don't remember where, but somehow I read that even before the RYA it was proposed to test shells by firing. The issue price was 70 rubles. But it was refused on the pretext that the shells had already been ordered and in the event of war would be tested on the enemy.

      It Relationship of the Marine Technical Committee to the Chairman of the Investigative Commission on the Tsushima battle case. February 1, 1907 No. 234. On No. 34.
      Then, believing that the first urgent need of the fleet for high-explosive shells, to replace the old cast-iron shells, can be considered to a certain extent satisfied, in 1896 it was planned, according to the head of the Ministry, Adjutant General Chikhachev, to carry out extensive experiments in the presence of admirals, flagships and other representatives of the fleet, over all kinds of shells accepted in our country, including high-explosive ones, to determine their destructive action and clarify the question: is it possible to reduce the variety of types of shells, and before that - to conduct preliminary experiments of this kind on the Okhtensky field.
      The program of preliminary experiments was presented by the magazine of the Committee on Artillery on March 4, 1897 No. 24, the Head of the Ministry of the Sea, Vice Admiral Tyrtov, who put forward the resolution: “I agree, but in accordance with the funds available for this. Report to the General Directorate. ”
      By relationship No. 9 of April 1897, 6812, the General Directorate of Shipbuilding and Supply informed the Committee that the alleged preliminary experiments would cause an expense of up to 70000 rubles; that on the economic side, the very experiments are no longer of great importance, since the shells required for the ships were made or ordered almost to the full combat set; that it considers it possible to allow the production of experiments only in passing when testing shells, plates, etc. on current gross orders, and that these considerations are approved by the Managing Ministry.
      Such a decision, in essence, was tantamount to a complete refusal of experiments, since the conclusion of average results and any conclusions from single shots fired at different indefinite times and under different conditions would inevitably be delayed for many years, which actually happened .
      In a report to the Head of the Marine Ministry, June 20, 1900, No. 2350, the Committee applied for permission to experiment without delay on the installation of tubes of segment projectiles and mentioned that the experiments on all kinds of projectiles supposed in 1897 had not yet been carried out. Adjutant General Avelan issued a resolution: “Such experiments are desirable. Report to the Main Directorate of Shipbuilding and Supplies. " The permission of experiments with tubes for segment projectiles was obtained, while the question of other types of projectiles did not receive any movement.
      No further submissions were made by the Marine Technical Committee about the high-explosive shells.
      1. andron352
        andron352 8 September 2020 21: 15 New
        0
        Yeah. Saved a penny. just ... l billions.
  • geniy
    geniy 8 September 2020 09: 11 New
    -3
    All articles about Tsushima: The shell version is a complete delusion and an introduction to naive readers. In this post, I will not disassemble the Japanese artillery - how many non-explosive shells they actually had there and that in Tsushima over a hundred guns exploded at the Japanese. Here, really naive readers will think that I am writing as if a hundred and twelve-inch guns exploded in the Japanese, but in fact, in addition to twelve and eight-inch guns, there are also medium-caliber guns - six inches and less. So - the total number of shells that exploded in their barrels, taking into account medium calibers - over a hundred guns. But Alexei knows nothing about this. And how many non-explosions of Japanese shells were before Tsushima - over two thousand! Alexei doesn't know about this either, and you don't understand how Japanese fuses actually work either.
    1. rytik32
      8 September 2020 09: 41 New
      +2
      Your answer would be very valuable if the data on the number of bursts of barrels or unexploded shells of our shells were supported by sources.
      It's no coincidence that I bring all my data with time (where it is known) and diagrams - so that they can be checked. How can I check your data?
      1. geniy
        geniy 8 September 2020 09: 46 New
        -2
        if the data on the number of bursts of barrels or unexploded shells of our shells were supported by sources.

        Yes, you are right that you need to cite the source - now I just have no time to look for the source, but somehow I will look and write.
  • geniy
    geniy 8 September 2020 09: 49 New
    -1
    But the attitude of the "experts" and, in particular, the author of these articles to the non-explosions of Russian shells is especially interesting. As you remember, Campbell counted 33% of the unexploded Russian large-caliber projectiles that hit the Japanese ships. Admiral Nebogatov believed that the percentage of non-explosions was about 75% - that is, three quarters. The shelling of the battleship "Tsesarevich" Sveaborg probably gave 100% non-explosions. The shooting of the destroyer "Exuberant" by the cruiser "Dmitry Donskoy" from an extremely close distance - almost point-blank, suggests that all 8 Russian shells hit it exactly, but none of them exploded, which means that the percentage of non-explosions was probably 100%. The trial shelling of ship's boilers from the cruisers of Jessen's detachment showed an unclear picture: either all 100% of the shells exploded there only very weakly, or, in my opinion, all 100% did not explode at all, and flew away and buried themselves in the ground without explosions, but the officers were too lazy to look for them. And the author of the article, Aleksey, counted 18-22% of non-explosions. In addition, I will remind you that there are also acceptance tests of shells, in which if at least one randomly selected shell out of a thousand does not explode, then a grandiose scandal will immediately follow, and since no one has heard of such scandals, we can conclude that all 100% of the tested shells exploded on acceptance tests.
    Let me remind you that there is such a method of searching for the truth and investigating crimes: when the investigator interrogates suspects and witnesses many times in order to ensure that all the testimonies agree with each other. And if suddenly there was a difference, then the clever investigator immediately seized on it, for example, did the famous Müller from the German police, for example: "And last time you said that you met him on Friday, and not on Thursday, as you say now." Or: "But another witness says that he saw you at this time in a completely different place!" And it immediately became clear that as soon as there was a difference in the testimony, it means that one of the witnesses or suspects was lying.
    So - according to the given figures of non-explosions of Russian shells: Japanese data 33%, Nebogatov 75%, shooting of the destroyer "Buyny" 100% of non-explosions, shelling of Sveaborg 100% of non-explosions, firing dozens of times = 0% of non-explosions, and according to the research of the author of this article Alexei 18-22% of non-explosions. I hope everyone can see the wildest difference in the readings, which means that one of them is very much lying or wrong.
    1. rytik32
      8 September 2020 10: 45 New
      +4
      Are you familiar with such work as criticism of historical sources?
      For example, Neobogatov, how could he calculate the% of non-breaks? Did the Japanese let him board their ships for a week so that he would scrupulously examine them all? laughing
      Where does the data come from for Sveaborg? Can I see the report?
      According to Buiny? Cite quotes. We will consider this case too.
      And do not forget other cases, for example, the testing of 152-mm high-explosive shells on the Tendrovskaya Spit in 1901-02 and the shooting of Ochakov.
      1. Andrey152
        Andrey152 8 September 2020 14: 56 New
        +5
        Hi Aleksey!
        Good article turned out.
        And it is better not to argue with trolls who "know everything", but they "have no time to see the evidence", this is not constructive ...
        One interesting question appeared in the comments, which is just worth considering in the next article: were our shells complete or incomplete? During experimental firing on the reef spit, quite a lot of pyroxylin shells gave an incomplete rupture, scattering pyroxylin, which goppel, smoking. Again, during the shelling of Sveaborg, the shells knocked out the bottom instead of the complete detonation of the explosives. And how did the Japanese assess the detonation of our shells? Full? Incomplete?
        1. rytik32
          8 September 2020 16: 01 New
          +4
          Hi Andrew!
          Then, probably, in the fifth and last part I will try to write about partial breaks. Here, in the lecture by Abo (senior artillery officer of the Mikasa in the RYAV, later the Minister of the Navy) there is an interesting phrase:
          After the Tsushima battle, I found a completely whole Russian 6-inch shell on the upper deck of the Mikasa, which did not explode or crash; I disassembled it later, and I found that the fuse was only half active.
          1. Andrey152
            Andrey152 8 September 2020 18: 27 New
            0
            Yes, I also met this, dig it, pliz, 6 more. Interesting!
            1. rytik32
              9 September 2020 10: 26 New
              +1
              An interesting question is, by what criteria can a partial gap be determined. If the head part of the projectile flew like a large splinter (met this a couple of times) - is this a sure sign? Well, and you can also measure the damage from the explosion ... there is a difference sometimes at times
    2. 27091965
      27091965 8 September 2020 13: 31 New
      +3
      Quote: geniy
      shelling Sveaborg 100% no explosions,


      The Sveaborg fortress is located on several islands, large-caliber shells that did not explode, in the main citadel, refer to shelling from one of the rebel batteries from the neighboring island. On this occasion, there is a report from the officers who were in the fortress. These shells have nothing to do with the fleet.
      1. Andrey152
        Andrey152 8 September 2020 15: 04 New
        +2
        Quote: 27091965i
        The Sveaborg fortress is located on several islands, large-caliber shells that did not explode, in the main citadel, refer to shelling from one of the rebel batteries from the neighboring island. On this occasion, there is a report from the officers who were in the fortress. These shells have nothing to do with the fleet.

        Melnikov's book about "Tsarevich" specifically refers to incomplete bursts of 12-inch shells
        1. 27091965
          27091965 8 September 2020 15: 37 New
          +1
          Quote: Andrey152
          Melnikov's book about "Tsarevich" specifically refers to incomplete bursts of 12-inch shells


          In the reports of the officers of the Sveaborg fortress, large-caliber shells that did not explode up to 11 inches are indicated, inclusively, I did not see any mention of 12 inch shells. Perhaps there is still a report ..
          1. Andrey152
            Andrey152 8 September 2020 18: 28 New
            0
            I myself would have looked at the primary sources in the RGAVMF, but I did not come across cases about the uprising in Sveaborg ...
            1. 27091965
              27091965 8 September 2020 23: 25 New
              +1
              Quote: Andrey152
              I myself would have looked at the primary sources in the RGAVMF, but I did not come across cases about the uprising in Sveaborg ...


              In principle, you can see the minutes of the meeting of the fighting squads of the rebels, they indicate that the battery was fired with training shells, and the fire from the ships was fired by combat. At the same time, they write that the shooting from the ships was quite effective.
  • geniy
    geniy 8 September 2020 17: 33 New
    -6
    Before answering your question: where does this or that data come from? I will first explain to you the general essence of the situation with the study of the action of projectiles. The essence of my theory is that, contrary to the opinion of all experts, shells often leave microscopic traces of their impact, instead of huge holes. I will not explain to you the true reason for such a strange phenomenon, and no one except me knows it. And I'm not going to explain yet. Thus, according to my version, in addition to huge and visible holes in the thin skin, there are still many microscopic hit marks that no one is looking for with a microscope. And as a result, counting the number of hits in all naval battles is a complete fiction. In general, this topic contains a large conglomerate of mysterious, but very real physical phenomena that are unknown to anyone due to general stupidity and inattention. One of them is the phenomenon of non-explosions of projectiles. And so I intended to start a little explanation of this topic with a detailed study of non-explosions. That is, I intended to show everyone that even very experienced specialists - Japanese engineers in most cases could not correctly recognize the effect of each specific Russian projectile, and in many cases Japanese engineers wrote erroneous conclusions about the traceological results of the strikes of each Russian projectile. But to describe this I would have to write a small book, for which there is neither the moral strength nor the time. And I suggested to the author of this article, Alexei, that he give me descriptions of several, in his opinion, reliable results of EXPLOSIONS of Russian shells in Tsushima, which I intended to quickly expose. But Alexei apparently had his own plans and, in fact, a ready-made article about the fact that non-explosions of Russian shells did not play a big role in the outcome of the Tsushima battle, and it seemed to him that he successfully (and I think very wrongly) proved this topic. And I hope to dispel his misconceptions in the future. But first, I would like to show connoisseurs that Japanese engineers deeply mistakenly conducted their traceological studies and in most cases they mistook the explosion of a Russian projectile for an explosion, and the author of this series of articles further strengthened the fallacy of this view - if, according to Japanese data, the percentage of non-explosion is 33%, then according to Alexei's research - the percentage of non-explosion is allegedly even less than 18-22%. And so Alexey took and cited cases of only reliable non-explosions, and he simply did not consider all the dubious ones, so that his erroneous theory would not collapse. This is a case of replacing one phenomenon with another.
    In much the same way, a salesman in America in the thirties tried to sell a Ford-T ("Lizzie" tin) car to a naive and stupid villager. This car had many drawbacks, one of them was the lack of a gas pump, and the fuel supply was carried out by gravity, since the gas tank was located above the engine. But when going up a hill, the gas tank turned out to be lower than the engine and it was deaf, so Lizzie's cans drove very badly onto the hills. And so a villager asked the seller - how does she drive up the mountain. To which a resourceful deceiving seller says that it is very easy to drive up a mountain - even in reverse. He turned the car backwards, while its gas tank was higher than the engine and in reverse, he easily drove into the hillock. In the same way, the respected author of this article, Aleksey, substituted phenomena - instead of offering me reliable cases of the explosion of Russian shells, he considered reliable cases of non-explosions. But nevertheless, he somehow considered one case in the comments - of course, deeply mistaken.
    This is the well-known case of an explosion in the tower of the battleship Fuji. Everyone knows that this tower was hit by a large-caliber Russian shell and an explosion occurred in it, and all laymen think that the Russian shell pierced the tower's armor and exploded inside it. That is, in the opinion of all laymen - a reliable explosion.
    And in my opinion, the opposite is true. Firstly, the Russian projectile was unable to reliably penetrate the armor of this tower, despite its small thickness. Although formally, the thickness of the frontal armor is 152 mm, but after all, Fuji had Harvey armor, which is weaker than Krupp's and 152 mm of Harvey's armor is equal to approximately 127 mm of Krupp's. That is, the Russian 12-inch projectile tried to penetrate 127 mm of normal armor strength from the force, but it could not. But after all, all the profane see a hole - a hole in the armor of the tower - so it got inside the tower and exploded there? But no! The fact is that when a projectile hits the armor, a part knocks out the so-called steel plug from it, which, of course, flies into the armor-plated space. But the shell itself, to the surprise of amateurs, could bounce back from the armor. And this is very easy to check - a Russian shell flew into the Fuji tower or flew back from it. If you were all attentive and smart, you should have known that after this shell hit and explosion inside the tower, 3 Japanese sailors managed to jump out of it and survived - and this salvation could not have been if the Russian shell really exploded inside towers - then he would have killed absolutely all the gunners of the rear tower of the main battery! But in fact, the essence of this case is that the charges of gunpowder for guns of the main caliber of that time did not have metal cases at all, but were simply wrapped in silk cloth, which very easily caught fire from the slightest spark and when burning two hundred kilograms of gunpowder, all gunners of the main caliber just burned alive - even without any explosion! However, those gunners who were closer than others to the back door often managed to jump out and thanks to this they remained alive! This is exactly what happened in the rear tower of Fuji: a Russian shell knocked out a plug inside the tower, and bounced back. But pieces of armor struck inside the tower and struck sheaves of sparks that set fire to powder charges, which immediately caught fire and almost all the Japanese gunners burned out from this heat, and only three of them managed to jump out. And then this fire of gunpowder went out by itself. The Japanese really claim that a broken hydraulic system from which fluid was pouring helped to extinguish this fire. But I think that Japanese engineers are complete fools, because in the hydraulic system there is oil and not water, which burns, although it is very bad. And in fact, in my opinion, all the gunpowder simply burned out without any extinguishing. And note - soon after that, the rear turret resumed firing again when new gunners entered it - which means that there was no special damage from the explosion of a Russian shell inside the turret (although one gun could not shoot, possibly due to jammed armor). That is, most likely there was no explosion of a Russian shell inside this tower.
    And there is one more proof of this. As everyone knows, Russian shells with a reliable explosion gave very large fragments. Personally, I am sure that at least a large head part and almost a whole rear part - a bottom, albeit with a knocked out fuse - broke off. Moreover, if the explosion took place on the upper deck or on the water, then all the fragments of the Russian shell could fly away irrevocably. But an explosion inside the thick-walled main-caliber turret would have guaranteed to leave most of the large-caliber Russian shells INSIDE the turret, and the Japanese would certainly have photographed them or wrote about it! But there is absolutely no mention of pieces of the Russian shell inside the rear tower of Fuji - which means that the Russian shell did NOT EXPLODE inside this tower! And now compare: in the opinion of the author of this article, Alexei, the Russian shell that hit the rear turret of the main battery of the battleship Fuji EXPLODEDLY exploded and he did not even consider this case in a series of non-explosions. And in my opinion, this projectile DID NOT EXPLODE RELIABLY! And I regard all other cases of hits by Russian shells in the same way - as completely erroneous opinions of all laymen that Russian shells allegedly exploded. And all statistics on the Tsushima battle, in my opinion, are deeply fictitious.
    1. Barb
      Barb 9 September 2020 09: 43 New
      +2
      Quote: geniy
      I will not explain to you the true reason for such a strange phenomenon, and no one except me knows it. And I'm not going to explain yet.

      You seem to be enjoying a megalomaniac. Is your last name Teslenko by chance?
  • Andrey152
    Andrey152 9 September 2020 07: 00 New
    0
    Quote: 27091965i
    At the same time, they write that the shooting from the ships was quite effective.

    And what does this mean?
  • Katran
    Katran 10 September 2020 12: 11 New
    -1
    Allow to "insert your five cents" into the discussion wink
    I read in fiction, it seems at Pikul, that during the passage of the Russian squadron through the tropics, they poured shells with water. They say it was very hot, they were afraid of fires and explosions. By this the author explained the fact that the shells were damp and did not explode when hitting the Japanese ships, but "pierced them through". But maybe it's all "artistic whistle" lol
    1. rytik32
      10 September 2020 16: 19 New
      +1
      The shells themselves were not flooded with water. The moisture content of pyroxylin was increased to 30%, and at the plant.
      There were penetrations of Japanese ships from side to side without an explosion.
      Only here the% of continuity in Tsushima and FM is the same smile
  • nnz226
    nnz226 20 October 2020 19: 19 New
    0
    The result is still lousy! Russian ships at the bottom, except for a few smaller ones that broke through, and held captive by the Japanese. And the Japanese celebrate the victory, shoot propaganda films, and Mikasa is a museum in honor of the victory over the Russians ...