Military Review

The largest cannons in history. Marine calibers

116

Battleship HMS Benbow with 413 mm guns


The second half of the XNUMXth century was a kind of rehearsal for the arms race, which culminated in the First World War. During this period, military engineers developed more and more advanced and powerful weapons, including for fleet... At the end of the XNUMXth century, several projects of ships were created in Great Britain and Italy, the main emphasis in which was placed precisely on the caliber of the artillery used.

The distribution of large-caliber artillery in the fleet was significantly influenced by the civil war in the United States, during which the parties to the conflict massively used artillery, including quite destructive and monstrous samples. Such tools included, for example, Rodman's Columbiade. Manufactured in 1863, the gun had a caliber of 381 mm and a weight of 22,6 tons. Also in the civil war in the United States were noted 13-inch (330 mm) mortars "Dictator", which were installed even on railway platforms.

The Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871 also contributed. The experience of the American Civil War was used this time in the Old World. During the siege of Paris, the Prussian army also used railway platforms to place guns of special power and shell the city from different directions.

The next logical step was the deployment of large caliber artillery on ships. In this regard, the British battleship of 1876 Temeraire can be distinguished. The ship was equipped with four rifled muzzle-loading 25-ton RML 11 inch 25 ton Mark II guns. These 280-mm guns in the XX century could hardly surprise anyone, but at that time they looked very impressive on a warship.


280 mm guns on HMS Temeraire

It is all the more surprising that just a few years later, even larger caliber guns appeared on the battleships of Great Britain and Italy, surpassing in this indicator the main caliber of most future battleships of both world wars.

Admiral Benbow's main caliber


The battleship with the familiar to everyone who read in childhood the novel by Robert Stevenson "Treasure Island", the name Admiral "Benbow", received two destructive weapons as the main weapon. It was the last of six Royal Navy Admiral-class barbet battleships built. It differed from the five ships of its predecessors by the presence of two huge 110-ton 413-mm guns, which were its main caliber.

The ship HMS Benbow was completely identical to the battleships HMS Camperdown and HMS Anson, differing from their sisterships only in armament. Instead of four 343-mm guns, the designers placed two 413-mm guns on it - one each at the bow and stern of the vessel. It is believed that the changes in the configuration and composition of the main caliber guns of the battleship were associated with the emerging shortage of 343 mm guns. This version looks a little odd considering that the 413mm guns themselves were a much more scarce item.

According to another version, at Admiral Benbow, the British fleet wanted to work out a new concept of warships, as well as the use of super-powerful artillery. The so-called "idea of ​​a knockout blow" on an enemy ship from a super-powerful weapon. The idea was to defeat the enemy ship and disable it with just one hit. Also, this ship seemed to be a logical response to Italian experiments with large-caliber naval artillery.


Battleship Admiral Benbow in one of the ports on the Mediterranean

This theory did not justify itself in any way, but at the end of the 413th century it still had many supporters. In reality, the choice in favor of two 343-mm guns, located in single barbette installations, instead of four XNUMX-mm guns, influenced the combat value of the battleship only in a negative way.

The British developed 413-mm guns on the basis of the 432-mm guns previously ordered by the Italians, which were intended for the battleship Andrea Doria. The guns were created by engineers at Armstrong Whitworth. In total, 12 unique guns were produced, which received the designation 413-mm / 30 BL Mk I. Almost each of the guns was manufactured according to separate drawings, for this reason, many elements of the guns were not unified. All of them had one or another design difference from each other, while the main characteristics of the guns were almost the same.

To avoid confusion, each gun had its own number from 1 to 12. The first two assembled guns were placed on the battleship Benbow. They were installed in barbets measuring 18,29 by 13,72 meters. In addition, there was a variant of placing these guns in a two-gun turret mount. The barbets on the battleship Benbow were pear-shaped fortified structures, each of which was equipped with only one weapon.

The guns themselves were placed on a rotating platform and were equipped with a hydraulic drive. The hydraulic drive was responsible for pointing the guns in a vertical plane. Horizontal aiming at the target was provided by rotating the platform. In theory, the rate of fire of monstrous guns was 0,29-0,33 rounds per minute, but in practice this figure did not exceed one shot every 4-5 minutes.

The largest cannons in history. Marine calibers
Cannon 413 mm / 30 BL Mk I on a test carriage

The barrels of 413-mm guns were designed for 104 rounds, however, in practice, their geometry began to be violated after the implementation of literally several volleys. The maximum firing range of the guns was 11 meters with an initial projectile speed of 340 m / s. The arsenal of guns included not only armor-piercing and high-explosive shells, but also shrapnel. For example, Palliser's armor-piercing shells featured a body made of red-hot cast iron weighing 636 kg. Such ammunition was supplied with an explosive charge weighing 816,46 kg, which was detonated by a bottom fuse.

413 mm / 30 BL Mk I guns included in history also under the designation Elswick 110 ton gun (after the name of the Elswick Ship Building Yard), are rightfully considered one of the largest-caliber and powerful guns in the history of not only the Royal Navy, but the entire world artillery. Despite the impressive caliber, the guns were extremely limited in capabilities and potential due to their too large mass and low structural reliability.

The disadvantages of the guns were also attributed to the high complexity of maintenance and low rate of fire. Although at a distance of 910 meters, the shells fired from these guns could penetrate 810 mm of armor, the armor penetration of the guns at that time was absolutely unclaimed. For this reason, they were significantly inferior to the simpler and faster-firing 305-mm and 343-mm guns, the firing range of which grew continuously.

Harbinger of "Yamato" 1876


Even before the appearance of the British battleship Admiral Benbow, which was commissioned in 1888, the Italian navy received a ship with much more monstrous weapons. Only the famous battleship "Yamato" could compete with it in caliber. We are talking about the battleship Caio Duilio, which was launched on May 8, 1876.


Italian squadron battleship Caio Duilio

The battleship, which became the lead in a series of two ships, was built for the Italian naval forces according to the design of the engineer Benedetto Brin. The ship got its name in honor of the famous Roman naval commander Gaius Duilius, who was credited with the first naval victory in the history of the Roman fleet. Within the framework of this project, the Italians tried to implement their doctrine of "individual superiority", which they continued to implement in their other projects.

The concept was to build ships that were guaranteed to be stronger than the enemy. For Italy, which did not have great industrial and financial potential and was unable to compete with Great Britain at sea, this approach with a focus on quality rather than number of ships seemed justified.

The Italian admirals counted on achieving "individual superiority" at the expense of the most powerful guns. The battleship Caio Duilio was armed with four 450 mm RML 17.72 inch gun, located in pairs in two turrets. Weighing almost 100 tons, the guns were the most powerful muzzle-loading rifled guns in history.

Eight guns ordered in Britain for two ships of the Caio Duilio project cost the Italians a very decent amount at that time - 4,5 million lire, which was comparable to the cost of a fully equipped and equipped battleship of the previous series.


Tower of the battleship Caio Duilio with 450 mm guns

In the arsenal of these guns were armor-piercing, high-explosive fragmentation shells and shrapnel. At the same time, the rate of fire of the guns was not at all impressive. The maximum rate of fire did not exceed one shot every six minutes, and this is in the presence of a calculation of 35 people. This significantly limited the combat capabilities of the ship.

In this case, the initial velocity of a projectile weighing approximately 910 kg was 472 m / s. The guns were distinguished by a small maximum firing range - no more than 6000 meters. Although at this distance, an armor-piercing 450 mm projectile could still penetrate up to 394 mm of armor. At a distance of 1800 meters, armor penetration was 500 mm. With a caliber of 450 mm, the length of the gun was only 9953 mm, which did not have the best effect on the firing range.

The battleship Caio Duilio surprisingly combined a number of completely innovative ideas (a complete rejection of sailing weapons, the presence of a dock-hangar for a minion boat in the stern, a strong armor belt), which together gave not a positive, but a negative result. The designers of the battleship, in an effort to bring the concept of a battleship to perfection, brought it to the point of absurdity.

The monster guns were housed in progressive enclosed main-caliber turrets, but they were loaded from the muzzle on the outside of the turret and had a monstrously low rate of fire. For this reason, the impressive 910 kg shells in battle would have little chance of hitting the enemy. In turn, enemy ships with rapid-fire artillery would quickly turn the Italian battleship into a colander.


450 mm RML 17.72 inch gun in Gibraltar

By the way, the 550-mm armor of the ship, almost invulnerable to artillery, was placed in a rather narrow strip along the waterline for 52 meters, that is, it covered half of the length of the ship. Neither this armor nor the division of the ship's hull into 83 watertight compartments would have saved from shelling with more advanced rapid-fire guns, even when meeting a cruiser.

True, at least some plus in such an unusual choice of weapons by the Italians could be found if desired. The British were shocked by the Italian order and the new battleships and began to spend money on such artillery themselves. In particular, they built similar guns and placed them in coastal batteries to protect Malta and Gibraltar.
Author:
116 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, daily additional materials that do not get on the site: https://t.me/topwar_ru

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. mmaxx
    mmaxx 28 March 2021 05: 32
    +10
    Eh! ... What an era! Steam, cars, guns. Big cars, huge guns. No stinking airplanes or cars. No electricity. The triumph of human strength. Now Jules Verne even has no prerequisites to appear.
    No wonder they love steampunk so much now.
    1. Lech from Android.
      Lech from Android. 28 March 2021 05: 52
      +8
      Age of dinosaurs smile.. in the end, small mammals will survive anyway.
      Now a small rocket boat will easily drown such a mastodon.
    2. Free wind
      Free wind 28 March 2021 06: 19
      +14
      If not sarcasm, then on the same "Aurora", the coal reserve was about 900 tons, imagine a bunch of such, the power reserve is up to 6 thousand km, depending on the speed. The sailors were dirty as hell, blacker than that Maxim.
      1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 28 March 2021 12: 52
        0
        Quote: Free Wind
        If not sarcasm, then on the same "Aurora", the coal reserve was about 900 tons, imagine a bunch of this ,.

    3. geniy
      geniy 28 March 2021 15: 46
      +2
      Well, you are wasting your hope. Right now I am working on a fully armored ship, though not with big guns, but still with missiles (and helicopters and short take-off planes). Here I am trying to determine the armor penetration of enemy missiles in order to hold them back with thin armor. So far it is problematic. That is, it is necessary to create a ship that can withstand dozens of hits from various weapons.
      1. Simargl
        Simargl 28 March 2021 20: 58
        0
        But as? It used to be possible to estimate from what angle and how it will arrive, but now - from any angle. In the light of the latest trends - you can get strictly "in the place". If the ship is a steel ball without caverns, it is not a big problem to split it if necessary.
        1. geniy
          geniy 28 March 2021 21: 28
          0
          But as? It used to be possible to estimate from what angle and how it will arrive, but now - from any angle.

          And the fact of the matter is that if earlier ships tried to fight in wake columns so as to shoot at about 90 degrees - the most unfavorable case for penetration, now the horizontal angle of hit of the rocket can be any - including very sharp, then there is a high probability of ricochets.
          But besides this, I personally hope that the armor penetration of missiles will be much worse than that of shells. Firstly, the speed of foreign anti-ship missiles is generally less than 300 m / s, and for large-caliber projectiles it is about 600 m / s, and this double speed advantage gives 4 a fourfold decrease in the kinetic energy of armor-piercing ammunition. And besides, the missile's armor-piercing warhead is much smaller in diameter than the missile itself. This means that if an anti-ship missile warhead penetrates the armor, the missile itself will remain outside and simply fall into the water. But in fact, the fuel of the rocket, be it gunpowder like Exocet or kerosene, is the main damaging factor. Because the Exocet that got to the English Sheffield continued to burn with gunpowder and caused a big fire, which caused the crew to abandon this destroyer. You can also remember the cruiser Admiral Nakhimov, which was struck by a missile, it seems, P-5 with kerosene fuel and the ship burned out almost completely.
          And also the fact that the missile's armor-piercing warhead must have thick steel walls and a very small explosive charge, in contrast to a rocket with a purely high-explosive warhead. That is, an armor-piercing missile can penetrate armor, but it will introduce a very small charge of explosives inside the hull.
          1. Simargl
            Simargl 28 March 2021 21: 50
            +1
            Quote: geniy
            And also the fact that the missile's armor-piercing warhead must have thick steel walls and a very small explosive charge, in contrast to a rocket with a purely high-explosive warhead.
            More about this!
            Exocet is a funny racket against boats, practically. If we take serious vehicles of the P-500/700/800/1000 type, then there is already about two meters of armor penetration, and an explosive charge (HEAT) that is excessive for a cumulative ammunition.
            1. geniy
              geniy 29 March 2021 00: 12
              0
              then there is already about two meters of armor penetration, and an explosive charge (cumulative high-explosive) that is excessive for a cumulative ammunition.

              Personally, I strongly despise cumulative ammunition. Because they are only suitable against tanks and only if the cumulative core hits the tank's ammunition. And so there were cases when the tank withstood up to 7 hits of cumulative without hitting the ammunition, nothing special happened to the tank. And although you are right that a cumulative weighing 500 kg is capable of penetrating armor with a thickness of 2 m (and I think that it will penetrate even 5 meters), this is only monolithic armor, and this thickness does not exist on any ship. But on ships, they can easily install spaced two-layer armor - for example, on battleships of the Littorio type. And whether the cumulative can penetrate the spaced two-layer armor is not a fact - it's just that no one has ever checked it. But even if we take a completely unarmored ordinary modern ship completely without armor and with a side skin about 10 mm thick, then the cumulative in the form of a shock core will be able to pierce such a ship through and through - 20-30 meters.
              However, if there is even thin armor of the order of 50 mm on board, then the energy of the external explosion will completely dissipate and there will be only a wide dent in the side. Although in this case the impact core will sew through the ship, but I think that the size of the hole will be negligible (about 100 mm) compared even with an open window with a clear diameter of 380 mm. And a hole with a diameter of 100 mm can be easily plugged with a wooden stopper. So the water will not flow into the ship and the battleship will not sink from such a hole. So missiles with high-explosive cumulative warheads are not dangerous for armored ships. Offer real armor-piercing warheads.
              1. Simargl
                Simargl 29 March 2021 07: 15
                0
                Quote: geniy
                And although you are right that a cumulative weighing 500 kg is capable of penetrating 2 m thick armor (and I think it will penetrate even 5 meters), this is only monolithic armor, and such a thickness does not exist on any ship.
                2 m maybeLo... Considering all the bulkheads and both sides ... but a shaped charge doesn't work that way: it just has effective depth and focus. So it is possible to pierce the partitions for 5 m. And then drive in excess pressure there.

                Quote: geniy
                So missiles with high-explosive cumulative warheads are not dangerous for armored ships.
                They are against battleships and were created, if that!
                1. geniy
                  geniy 29 March 2021 09: 29
                  0
                  2 m may have happened. Taking into account all bulkheads and both sides ...

                  No, you completely misunderstood me. I meant exactly solid cast steel of absolutely gigantic thickness of 2-5 METERS! That is, such an insane design that has never existed in nature. And in my opinion, a 500-kilogram cumulative missile warhead is capable of penetrating such a thickness of CAST CONTINUOUS armor, in my opinion. Why am I using this as an example then? Yes, simply because to test the armor penetration of cumulative ammunition AGAINST TANKS, they put steel CAST ARMOR 1 METER THICK - that is, 1000 mm !!!! And they punch through such a slab! And I think that this is a hoax - because if we used two-layer spaced armor, it would turn out that even the total thickness of two layers is much less than 1000 mm of cast armor. That is, all tests of armor penetration are complete fiction and deception!
                2. geniy
                  geniy 29 March 2021 09: 40
                  0
                  So missiles with high-explosive cumulative warheads are not dangerous for armored ships.
                  They are against battleships and were created, if that!

                  I could give you an example of dozens of types of weapons over the past hundred years, which were created against what, but in real combat they suddenly turned out to be completely ineffective. For example, there were steam cannons with dynamite shells, or pyroxylin shells of the Russian fleet in the Russian-Japanese war with a water content of 30%, or on all ships of the world during the Russian-Japanese war there were ram-type stems - to ram enemy ships and board. Moreover, the ram-type stems were even on destroyers with their skin thickness of 5 mm and on tiny submarines. or German baby tanks, or German helmets with thick armor, or Soviet self-loading SVT rifles, and a lot of other types of weapons, or BT-5 tanks, or T-35 tanks. ...
                  So - what is not tested does not mean that it can work.
                  That is, the fact that high-explosive cumulative warheads were created against battleships does not mean that their designers are not fools. Because, although a cumulative warhead will pierce the battleship's armor and create a hole in it with a diameter of about 100 mm, the battleship's sailors will simply fill this hole with a wooden plug. You will remember how in Tsushima Russian armor-piercing shells perforated the sides of Japanese ships and left holes with a diameter of 305 mm, and I laughingly just hammered these holes with wooden plugs and were not going to sink.
              2. Andrey NM
                Andrey NM 29 March 2021 09: 16
                +1
                My father had a subordinate officer who served in Vietnam at that time, who said that their C-75 crew hit the battleship New Jersey with two missiles. He himself was part of that battery (apparently an adviser or instructor), and the crew was Vietnamese. The complex was modified for firing at surface targets, and the missiles themselves were "simple", so the missile warheads did not explode, the propellant components burned strongly. And they flew in "otvetka", barely carried away their legs. After that, "New Jersey" went into repairs with subsequent conservation.
                For Vietnam, this officer was awarded the Order of the Red Star. Then there was a sharp turn in his service, after the academy (VIRTA) he was transferred to the Navy, changed into a black uniform and in the rank of captain of the 2nd rank he retired at the end of the 80s. Unfortunately, he died several years ago.
                I tried to find more information on this case on the Internet, but there were only a couple of mentions without details. The Vietnamese announced the defeat of the battleship, the Americans denied. But the fact that the battleship left with the subsequent setting for repair is a fact.
                1. geniy
                  geniy 29 March 2021 10: 27
                  +1
                  Dear Andrey - getting into an enemy object does not mean that he will be hit. I could give you hundreds of examples when any tanks, aircraft and ships returned to the base with hundreds of holes, but remained in the ranks. These two missiles also hit in New Jersey, and they probably even exploded, but an external explosion of a dozen kilograms of explosives will not bring any harm to the battleship - at best, it will only create minor damage in the deck superstructures - for example, a hole in the superstructure with a diameter of about a meter. And the battleship may even be sent for repairs. By the way, repairs are not only in order to remove combat damage - and repairs are sometimes needed just for repairs - that is, to remove the wear and tear of various parts of the ship from old age. Thus, I do not want to belittle the merits of the person you mentioned - he fought bravely and it was not at all his fault that anti-aircraft missiles had to be fired at the battleship. Personally, he did everything he could - he got into an enemy ship. And the fact that anti-aircraft missiles are weak against a battleship is not his fault. It's like shooting at a Tiger tank with an anti-tank rifle. It will not break through, but there is little hope that it can damage.
                  1. Andrey NM
                    Andrey NM 29 March 2021 11: 29
                    -1
                    According to the officer, the shells of missiles with heads pierced the hull of the ship, but did not explode, probably due to the fact that the fuses were under the air target. There was just a strong fire. I myself do not know the principle of the fuse and what was the revision for firing at surface targets. The very head of the C-75 carries 180kg of explosives with striking elements. If they exploded, it would not seem a little. The calculation had to leave quickly, because a retaliatory blow was struck at the launch site, they were not allowed to look at them for a long time. In general, my opinion is that in terms of their impact, the missiles are weaker than torpedoes, tk. the environment in which the shock wave propagates is different.
          2. Andrew Matseevsky
            Andrew Matseevsky 29 March 2021 01: 49
            0
            Ha ha ha. Have you heard of tandem ammunition? the rocket, in principle, does not penetrate the armor with a blow like a projectile. On a rocket, there are no walls so thick that it does not split when it hits the armor. And the tandem ammunition will penetrate the spaced armor - in fact, this is exactly what it was designed for.
            1. geniy
              geniy 29 March 2021 09: 20
              0
              Ha ha ha. Have you heard of tandem ammunition?

              You are greatly mistaken about the principle of operation of tandem ammunition, thinking that from the explosion of the first charge of explosives, a hole is formed in the armor of such a large diameter that a second charge of explosives supposedly fits into this hole. But in fact, the tandem ammunition was invented so that the first explosion would simply make the overhead explosive plates on the side of the tank explode and thereby expose the armor for the second cumulative explosion. But the diameter of the hole in the light is just tiny - only a few tens of millimeters! So the second explosive charge just won't fit into this hole with a diameter of a pencil!
              Moreover, this armor is for a ship - which does not even have any plates with explosives on its side armor.
          3. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 29 March 2021 12: 05
            +1
            Quote: geniy
            Firstly, the speed of foreign anti-ship missiles is generally less than 300 m / s, and for large-caliber projectiles it is about 600 m / s, and this double speed advantage gives 4 a fourfold decrease in the kinetic energy of armor-piercing ammunition.

            As soon as reservations appear in the projects of the ships, the means of dealing with it will appear in the projects of the anti-ship missiles. From the solutions "in the forehead" - an armor-piercing warhead with a stage of additional acceleration. Or "for old money" - the equivalent of a 12 "armor-piercing projectile, but with a supersonic speed of meeting armor.
            Moreover, the body of an armor-piercing warhead will be lighter than that of a projectile, since the acceleration of the warhead will be smoother, and its body does not need to rely on shock loads, overloads and pressure during firing and acceleration in the barrel bore.
      2. Baron pardus
        Baron pardus April 4 2021 09: 41
        0
        I completely agree with you. It seems to me that if you get the same Cleveland within the range of your 155mm cannons, then the Ticonderoga simply has nothing to defend with. A couple of hits from the PF with pigs that do not care about ECM and interference and an unarmored boat goes to the bottom. Sheffield sent ONE unexploded Exocet to the bottom, Stark almost fell apart after TWO Exossets, rescued, EMNIP with the entire fleet, and after two hits the ship itself turned into a target where nothing worked. But I'm sure that a 155mm HE shell from Cleveland would have done no less trouble than one exoset. But how many Ticonderoga Harpoons will be able to against Cleveland's armor belt - I don't think. Or even armored decks. The bodies of modern missiles, be it Harpoon, RBS-15 or Ehoset, are lightweight aluminum or plastic, even if the steel is not hardened. And such a warhead will detonate, on the surface of the armor, but how much will a harpoon warhead do against the 80-127mm Cleveland belt? Obviously, less than a 155mm ingot would make an unarmored Ticonderogi hull. The problem is not to make ships with an armored belt and a deck, as during the Second World War, the problem is that if you replace the warhead on the same Harpoon with the Cumulative one, then no armor will help. And it will be necessary to hang active protection systems on ships like on tanks :-). I'm much more interested in the fact that NONE of the anti-ship missiles hit the ship on which the electronic warfare / MZA means were working. Neither Exocets, nor Harpoons, nor Ottomata, nor RBS15.
        I, a purely terrestrial person, just have a question, if anti-ship missiles do not hit the enemy protected by electronic warfare and all sorts of Phalanxes, what for are they needed? Isn't it easier to stir up a similar Cleveland, but hang it with electronic warfare, missile defense and air defense? In pure theory, a ship whose offensive armament is artillery, wanted to spit on electronic warfare and Phalanxes on enemy ships.
  2. Sergey M. Karasev
    Sergey M. Karasev 28 March 2021 06: 19
    +5
    I expected that there would be a story about the main caliber of the Yamato. I look forward to continuing.
  3. astra wild2
    astra wild2 28 March 2021 06: 33
    +4
    * Admiral Benbow ", and where:" Blind Pew "and John Silver?
    1. Mordvin 3
      Mordvin 3 28 March 2021 19: 50
      0
      Quote: Astra wild2
      John Silver

      Fifteen people for a dead man's bottle, oh-ho-ho, and a bottle of rum ...
    2. Maikcg
      Maikcg 29 March 2021 01: 36
      0
      Copywriters will rip off millions for copyright rights.
  4. Senior seaman
    Senior seaman 28 March 2021 08: 33
    +6
    In turn, enemy ships with rapid-fire artillery would quickly turn the Italian battleship into a colander.

    Rapid-fire naval artillery did not exist when the Caio Duilio was designed.
    1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
      Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 28 March 2021 14: 38
      +3
      Quote: Senior Sailor
      Rapid-fire naval artillery did not exist when the Caio Duilio was designed.

      By the way, it is not clear why then not to mention Duillo's sister ship - Enrico Dandolo. In order not to create the impression of "uniqueness and uniqueness" Duillo)). Dandolo carried the same 2 x 450mm monsters. However, after the reconstruction in 1895-98, these mastodons were replaced by 250mm.

      1. Mordvin 3
        Mordvin 3 28 March 2021 20: 45
        0
        Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        However, after the reconstruction in 1895-98, these mastodons were replaced by 250mm.

        Deck is the Titanic. Petka looks through binoculars: "Vasil Ivanovich, what is this? Binoculars, Petka, binoculars ... Vasil Ivanovich, what is this ice floe? Petka, look, T-ta-nik ...
      2. Senior seaman
        Senior seaman 29 March 2021 09: 37
        0
        Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        However, after the reconstruction in 1895-98, these mastodons were replaced by 250mm.

        EMNIP is still 254mm the same as the bow on the Kasuga.
        1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
          Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 29 March 2021 09: 41
          +1
          Quote: Senior Sailor
          EMNIP is still 254mm the same as the bow on the Kasuga.

          well, yes, 10 '')
  5. Undecim
    Undecim 28 March 2021 10: 08
    +7
    In this regard, the British battleship of 1876 Temeraire can be distinguished. The ship was equipped with four rifled muzzle-loading 25-ton RML 11 inch 25 ton Mark II guns.
    The HMS Temeraire armament is a full inch "step back."
    Launched in 1869, HMS Captain carried RML 12-inch 25-ton guns.
    1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
      Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 28 March 2021 11: 31
      +4
      Quote: Undecim
      In this regard, the British battleship of 1876 Temeraire can be distinguished. The ship was equipped with four rifled muzzle-loading 25-ton RML 11 inch 25 ton Mark II guns.

      In my opinion, it would be more appropriate to cite "Inflexible" of the same 1876 as an aperitif. with its RML 16-inch 80 ton. Still 406mm)
      And, at least, Inflexible fired 88 shells from its monstrous main battery during the siege of Alexandria.
      1. Alf
        Alf 28 March 2021 20: 23
        +1
        Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Inflexible fired 88 rounds from its monstrous main battery during the siege of Alexandria.

        Have you ever come to Alexandria from such and such stubs?
        1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
          Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 28 March 2021 20: 55
          +1
          Quote: Alf
          Have you ever come to Alexandria from such and such stubs?

          In vain you so much) Quite a hit for yourself, like Tamerer.
          1. Richard
            Richard 28 March 2021 21: 23
            +3
            In 1917, the English battle cruiser Furies was commissioned.
            Light armor, high speed, and at the same time two truly monstrous Mk I 457 mm guns located in the bow and stern of the ship. Clearly answer the question "Why?" after Fischer's departure, none of the high-ranking officials could retire, and therefore the battle cruiser was rebuilt into an aircraft carrier.
            a photo Turret "Furies" with a 457-mm gun

            a photo Furies during conversion into an aircraft carrier
            1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
              Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 28 March 2021 21: 27
              +1
              Quote: Richard
              In 1917, the English battle cruiser Furies was commissioned.

              It seems that it is in its cruising incarnation and has not been 'exploited', is it?
              1. Richard
                Richard 28 March 2021 21: 29
                +2
                To the credit of the British, the alteration was begun even before the completion of the ship's construction. And in the role of the aircraft carrier "Furies" acted quite successfully - having passed both the interwar period and the Second World War "from bell to bell."
            2. Richard
              Richard 28 March 2021 21: 27
              +4
              In 1940, the Japanese wiped their noses around the world. Meet: truly the largest and most advanced of the serially built naval guns.

              Three turrets with three 460 mm guns each. The weight of the gun with the bolt is 165 tons, the rate of fire is up to two rounds per minute. The rotating part of each of the three gun turrets weighed 2510 tons. The weight of one projectile is up to 1460 kilograms. However, there was a problem with them: the Japanese sailors received only armor-piercing and anti-aircraft (yes, they also fired at planes FROM THIS) shells, they simply did not have time to develop a high-explosive shell. The maximum firing range of an armor-piercing projectile was more than 42000 meters.

              However, the "Yamato" wonder guns did not help. Ten hits from aerial bombs and thirteen torpedoes will bring whoever you want to the grave.
              1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 28 March 2021 21: 36
                +3
                Quote: Richard
                However, the "Yamato" wonder guns did not help. Ten hits from aerial bombs and thirteen torpedoes will bring whoever you want to the grave.

                But he is handsome, you bastard, like a god. I feel absolutely boyish delight looking at this masterpiece.
            3. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
              Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 28 March 2021 21: 29
              +1
              I would remember Victoria. The ramming cruiser was rammed and, under the weight of the main battery, sank vertically to the bottom, emnip)
          2. Alf
            Alf 28 March 2021 21: 39
            0
            Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
            In vain you really)

            Well, in vain you really so, let me mock something. Did you end up in Alexandria in general or exactly where you were aiming? laughing
  6. bk0010
    bk0010 28 March 2021 10: 21
    +2
    Were these guns smoothbore or rifled? Judging by the fact that the shells were fired - rifled, but then what about the fact that one of the guns was muzzle-loading?
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 28 March 2021 13: 32
      +2
      Quote: bk0010
      Were these guns smoothbore or rifled? Judging by the fact that the shells were fired - rifled, but then what about the fact that one of the guns was muzzle-loading?

      Dulio and Bingbow were armed with muzzle-loading smooth-bore guns.
      1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
        Kote Pan Kokhanka 28 March 2021 13: 35
        +3

        Charging scheme for a muzzle-loading smooth-bore naval gun.
        1. Catfish
          Catfish 28 March 2021 14: 06
          +9
          Vlad, hello. hi
          Looking at these monsters for some reason I remembered the old film "The Mystery of Back Cup Island".


        2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
          Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 28 March 2021 16: 32
          +1
          Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
          Charging scheme for a muzzle-loading smooth-bore naval gun.

          With what fright 'smooth-bore'? The materiel would be studied before writing the game
      2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 28 March 2021 14: 13
        +4
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        Dulio and Bingbow were armed with muzzle-loading smooth-bore guns.

        Don't write nonsense: the RML 17.72 inch gun is threaded implement - RML - rifled muzzle loader - rifled muzzle-loader... Antipode - RBL - rifled breech loader - rifled breech-loading.
      3. Undecim
        Undecim 28 March 2021 17: 56
        +5
        Dulio and Bingbow were armed with muzzle-loading smooth-bore guns.
        Hello Vladislav. The ships you indicated were armed rifled guns.
        "Cayo Duilio" was armed with a muzzle-loading British RML 17.72 inch gun with Palliser shells.

        It's a cannon.

        And this is how the shell looked.
        1. Undecim
          Undecim 28 March 2021 18: 06
          +3
          HMS Benbow was armed with breech-loading rifled BL 16.25-inch Mk I naval gun.

          Anyone who put a minus to a friend with the nickname "Paragraph Epitafievich Y", it is advisable to apologize.
        2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
          Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 28 March 2021 19: 45
          +3
          Quote: Undecim
          And this is how the shell looked.

          It seems that the Woolwich system differed from the Armstrong system in that the shell did not have these zinc pimples, and the copper pan played the role of a belt and a gas check at the same time.
          1. Undecim
            Undecim 28 March 2021 21: 19
            +1
            Yes, you're right, the 100-ton gun used automatic gas-checks projectiles.
      4. Senior seaman
        Senior seaman 29 March 2021 14: 27
        +2
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        Dulio and Bingbow armed with muzzle-loading smoothbore guns.

        Is it? In my opinion, it is quite sliced
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100-ton_gun
    2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
      Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 28 March 2021 14: 51
      +1
      Quote: bk0010
      but what about the fact that one of the guns was muzzle-loading?

      Well? What's confusing?
      1. Doliva63
        Doliva63 28 March 2021 17: 39
        0
        Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Quote: bk0010
        but what about the fact that one of the guns was muzzle-loading?

        Well? What's confusing?

        And the fact that if the projectile can be shoved into the barrel along the grooves, these grooves will not play a special role when fired. In fact, a smoothbore gun, albeit with grooves.
        1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
          Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 28 March 2021 18: 09
          +2
          Quote: Doliva63
          And the fact that if the projectile can be shoved into the barrel along the grooves, these grooves will not play a special role when fired. ...

          They will play. Armstrong's guns had two types of rifling - charging and combat.
          Quote: Doliva63
          In fact, a smoothbore gun, albeit with grooves.

          No.
          1. Doliva63
            Doliva63 28 March 2021 21: 01
            +2
            Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
            Quote: Doliva63
            And the fact that if the projectile can be shoved into the barrel along the grooves, these grooves will not play a special role when fired. ...

            They will play. Armstrong's guns had two types of rifling - charging and combat.
            Quote: Doliva63
            In fact, a smoothbore gun, albeit with grooves.

            No.

            I can't imagine. Two types of rifling?
            1. Senior seaman
              Senior seaman 29 March 2021 14: 29
              +2
              Quote: Doliva63
              I can't imagine. Two types of rifling?

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas-checks_in_British_RML_heavy_guns#Automatic_Gas-Checks
        2. Mordvin 3
          Mordvin 3 28 March 2021 18: 17
          +1
          Quote: Doliva63
          In fact, a smoothbore gun, albeit with grooves.

          Duc inserted a twisted rod, and hammered it.
          1. Doliva63
            Doliva63 28 March 2021 21: 04
            +2
            Quote: mordvin xnumx
            Quote: Doliva63
            In fact, a smoothbore gun, albeit with grooves.

            Duc inserted a twisted rod, and hammered it.

            It’s hard for me, I grew up at MZ / AZ.
            1. Mordvin 3
              Mordvin 3 28 March 2021 21: 08
              +3
              Quote: Doliva63
              Quote: mordvin xnumx
              Quote: Doliva63
              In fact, a smoothbore gun, albeit with grooves.

              Duc inserted a twisted rod, and hammered it.

              It’s hard for me, I grew up at MZ / AZ.

              I'm on ZiLu. The box of matches was closed with a press hammer.
              1. Doliva63
                Doliva63 29 March 2021 15: 56
                0
                Quote: mordvin xnumx
                Quote: Doliva63
                Quote: mordvin xnumx
                Quote: Doliva63
                In fact, a smoothbore gun, albeit with grooves.

                Duc inserted a twisted rod, and hammered it.

                It’s hard for me, I grew up at MZ / AZ.

                I'm on ZiLu. The box of matches was closed with a press hammer.

                Ha! I saw how on the Mi-6 the boxes of matches were closed with a hanging wheel!
                1. Mordvin 3
                  Mordvin 3 29 March 2021 16: 04
                  +1
                  Quote: Doliva63
                  the box of matches was closed!

                  I closed the box of matches. He threshed on a press hammer.
      2. bk0010
        bk0010 28 March 2021 19: 50
        +2
        Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Well? What's confusing?
        Do you remember how a bullet was inserted into a rifled muzzle-loading gun? Naturally they scored. So I can hardly imagine a hammer for driving such a 17 "projectile into the barrel.
        1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
          Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 28 March 2021 20: 42
          +2
          Quote: bk0010
          Do you remember how a bullet was inserted into a rifled muzzle-loading gun? Naturally they scored.

          Well, I would not start comparing this colossus with some kind of Liege fitting)
          As far as I know, the algorithm was something like this after the shot:
          1.turn the gun towards the charger, lower the barrel to the flushing hatch
          2. rinse the barrel with a jet of water. Let the water drain
          3.Lower the barrel to the charging hatch
          4.Clean the barrel with a broomstick
          5. submit a cart with a charge. Send a charge to the barrel.
          6. Align zinc beads on the projectile with the inlet grooves of the groove, feed and send the projectile.


          Quote: bk0010
          So I can hardly imagine a hammer for driving such a 17 "projectile into the barrel.

          Hydraulics "hammered" the projectile)
        2. Mordvin 3
          Mordvin 3 28 March 2021 21: 16
          0
          Quote: bk0010
          Do you remember how a bullet was inserted into a rifled muzzle-loading gun?

          Eeee, ... I remember ... Don't be jealous of my lady friends ...
  7. Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter 28 March 2021 19: 56
    +2
    Somewhere I read z caliber (maximum) achieved in 480 mm.
    It's good that they calmed down on this.
    Although, the consumption of ammunition when firing at sea ..
    And the number of hits ...
    The crew is somewhat encouraging. And it instills some hope for existence in the future.
    I never wanted to serve in the navy.
    Although the shape is beautiful! hi
    1. Mordvin 3
      Mordvin 3 28 March 2021 20: 03
      0
      Quote: Benzorez
      Somewhere I read z caliber (maximum) achieved in 480 mm.

      The largest cannon was in the possession of the pirate. Treasure from the island. He dragged her on his hump.
      1. Petrol cutter
        Petrol cutter 28 March 2021 20: 33
        +2
        It ended badly for him. As far as I remember from an animated film.
        If we discard the cinematography ...
        In any case, such events lead to severe pain in the spine.
        What I personally encountered. And it cannot be cured.
        From the word at all.
        For me the money I earn.
    2. Ilya Shikhailo
      Ilya Shikhailo April 3 2021 15: 48
      0
      There is information that the Germans made a 530-mm drin during the war for a certain super-battleship, moreover, it was not the H-44, because there was "only" 508 mm.
      It is banal that no one had any money. And, of course, there are special needs too, because it makes sense to create megalinkors only if all the other main participants also have them. Before WWII, everyone took part in the battleship race, after its end the very fat shipbuilding of Germany and Russia, as well as Austria-Hungary, dropped out of the participants. Plus the Washington Treaty. But it was the 1910s - 1920s that were the golden time for battleships. Imagine a situation that PMA has not started. Germany and Austria-Hungary go from 380 to 420 mm, Russia goes from 356 at once to 406 mm (and to the most evil in caliber), and then to 457 mm. What should the British do with the Amers? That's right, build up calibers. There will be 508 and 530 mm, and probably more. In fact, only the absence of the main rivals of the fleets of England, the USA and France - the fleets of Germany and (in the future) Russia - made it possible to stay in calibers of 406-480 mm. Moreover, the amers and brites had 406 mm serial, and 457 mm experienced, the Japanese 460 mm serial and 480 mm experienced. And so, a lot of fierce creep was designed in Interbellum. In Japan - 3х4х510, in the USSR - 3х3х500, 2х3х530, 4х4х457, in the USA - 4х2х508, 4х2х640, etc. Yes, the Americans reached 640 mm on paper. It's a pity that we never saw these monsters of 100-200K tons. It would be cool))) if not for WWI, we would now have Nikolaev battleships in 12x406 or 12x457 as museums)))
  8. Michael
    Michael 28 March 2021 21: 32
    +1
    1850-1950 is the century of the vulgarization of the impossible! Humanity will never repeat this again.
  9. Sevastiec
    Sevastiec 29 March 2021 02: 35
    0
    -This, he says, is not a gun, but a dinosaur
    -No, this is a gun from which you can lay a dinosaur
    -No, this is the gun that dinosaurs used to fight each other
    (C)
  10. mmaxx
    mmaxx 29 March 2021 05: 26
    0
    I will advertise the creativity of a good person.

    And he has a lot of all sorts of goodies
  11. mmaxx
    mmaxx 29 March 2021 05: 28
    0

    This is from the same channel
  12. mmaxx
    mmaxx 29 March 2021 05: 36
    0
    Since we're talking about big guns, I'll give you a link to this video. Not that time, of course, later. But informative. And the main thing is that the video is not lost.

    Then there will be an article about English cannons, I'll put the link again :-)
  13. mmaxx
    mmaxx 29 March 2021 11: 03
    +1
    And this video is closer to the topic:
  14. Torukmakto
    Torukmakto 29 March 2021 16: 03
    +1
    Quote: Andrew Matseevsky
    Ha ha ha. Have you heard of tandem ammunition? a rocket, in principle, does not penetrate armor with a blow like a projectile. There are no such thick walls on a rocket so that it does not split when it hits the armor.... And the tandem ammunition will penetrate the spaced armor - in fact, this is exactly what it was designed for.

    To be fair, there was an armored warhead on Granites. The question is really about the effectiveness of the armor, yes. But it was calculated, emnip, precisely for deep penetration inside large targets like aircraft carriers.
    1. Ilya Shikhailo
      Ilya Shikhailo April 3 2021 16: 14
      0
      Modern rockets have up to 3000 m / s, that's a hell of a lot. In theory, if you make a BPS, it will pierce much more than conventional armor piercing. By the way, it seems, there are ATGMs with BPS instead of KS.
  15. certero
    certero 30 March 2021 07: 02
    0
    Quote: mmaxx
    The triumph of human strength

    Something tells me that you did not like you there at all.
    The era of the triumph of reason over the forces of nature is right now.
  16. Ilya Shikhailo
    Ilya Shikhailo April 3 2021 15: 27
    0
    Where's our 406/20 made at NEO in 1883? Projectile 697 kg at 427 m / s or 631,5 kg at 449 m / s. She's still a beast. Yes, we then also participated in the "caliber race", Admiral Popov in 1877 proposed building battleships with 6x406 or 4x508-mm cannons, with a belt up to 914 mm, but, fortunately, they did not drill much into this topic. Already in 1880, our MGSh began to consider the idea of ​​a single-caliber dreadnought with 305-mm guns, monsters in 406 and even more so 508 mm were much inferior to them in rate of fire.