On the power of Russian "lightweight" 305-mm shells during the Russo-Japanese War

This article, alas, will not give unambiguous answers to the questions posed, but will offer the respected reader a consistent hypothesis about the content of explosives in the so-called "lightweight" 305-mm high-explosive and armor-piercing shells that our fleet used in the Russo-Japanese War.

And what is the difficulty?

The problem is that there are no reliable figures for the content of explosives in the above-mentioned shells, and publicly available sources give very different figures. For example, the well-known Internet encyclopedia navweaps gives the following data:

AP "old model" - 11.7 lbs. (5,3 kg);
HE "old model" - 27.3 lbs. (12,4 kg).

If we recall M.A. Petrova "Review of the main campaigns and battles of the steam fleet", Then we will see 3,5% B (11,6 kg) for high-explosive and 1,5% (4,98 kg) for armor-piercing 305-mm shells. According to V. Polomoshnov, Russian armor-piercing shells had an explosive content of 1,29% (4,29 kg), and high-explosive shells - 1,8% (5,97 kg). But, according to the "infographics" attached below, the content of explosives in the Russian armor-piercing 331,7 kg projectile was just 1,3 kg!

Official documents only add intrigue. "The attitude of the Naval Technical Committee to the Chairman of the Investigative Commission in the Tsushima battle case" (hereinafter - "Attitude") dated February 1, 1907 indicates that the weight of the explosives in the high-explosive 305-mm projectile, which the battleships of the 2nd Pacific squadron were equipped with, was 14,62 , 5,99 lbs or about 0,40951241 kg (in Russian pounds it was 1,8 kg), which roughly corresponds to a percentage of explosives of XNUMX%.

But in the text of this document itself, a completely different percentage of the content of explosives is indicated - 3,5%.

Well, how do you order all this to be understood?

About the density of explosives

The dear reader, no doubt, knows that any explosive has such a characteristic as density, measured in kilograms per cubic meter or - in grams per cubic centimeter (in this article, I will indicate the density values ​​in g / cubic cm). And, of course, the content of explosives in each specific projectile depends on it. After all, the projectile is, in fact, a metal "case" for explosives, in which a certain volume is provided for filling it with explosives. Accordingly, if we take two absolutely identical projectiles with identical fuses, but fill them with explosives of different densities, then the volume that these explosives will occupy will be the same, but the mass of the explosives is different.

What am I leading to?

The thing is that the same Russian shells could be equipped with completely different explosives.

So, for example, high-explosive lightweight 305-mm shells, which we fought in the Russo-Japanese War, sometimes referred to as shells of the "old model", sometimes - "arr. 1892 ", and sometimes not at all, it was originally planned to equip with pyroxylin. Yes, in fact, it was done that way. But in those cases when there was not enough pyroxylin, they were equipped with smokeless powder - these were the shells that the 2nd Pacific squadron was equipped with. However, I came across indications that subsequently, unused projectiles of this type with pyroxylin (and, perhaps, powder) filling were re-loaded with trinitrotoluene (TNT). This looks extremely logical. The shell itself was in five minutes the pinnacle of foundry, and it was irrational to send old shells to be melted down. But to give it additional lethality by equipping it with more advanced explosives is a very correct thing.

Indirect confirmation of all this is contained in the "Album of shells of naval artillery", published by A.N.IM.I. in 1934 (hereinafter - "Album"). Let's consider this using the example of a high-explosive 254-mm projectile.

So what's with the ten-inch?

According to "Attitude", the fragments of which I quoted above, the 254-mm high-explosive shell of the Russo-Japanese War era was equipped with 16,39 pounds of pyroxylin packed in a case, and the mass of explosives together with the case was 19,81 pounds. The Russian pound, as I already reported above, was 0,40951241 kg, from which it follows that the mass of the cover was 1,4 kg, and the mass of pyroxylin was 6,712 kg.

At the same time, according to Album, the mass of the explosive in the old-style projectile is 8,3 kg. I want to note that in 1907 the fleet received new shells of various calibers, including 254-mm. In this case, the 254-mm projectile mod. 1907, according to "Album", had the same mass (225,2 kg), but the content of explosives in it reached 28,3 kg, so no confusion is possible here.

Unfortunately, the "Album" does not contain a direct indication that the 254-mm projectile with an explosive mass of 8,3 kg was "dotsushima", but what else could it be? I was unable to find any evidence that between the "dotsushima" shells and shells arr. In 1907, there were some other shells. Accordingly, it will not be a mistake to assume that the "dotsushima" 254-mm projectile with its 6,712 kg of explosives and the 254-mm projectile with an explosive mass of 8,3 kg indicated in the Album is the same projectile, but equipped with different explosives. ... In the first case, it is pyroxylin, in the second, TNT.

We consider the density of pyroxylin

"Why count it?" - the dear reader may ask.

And really, isn't it easier to take a reference book?

Alas, the problem is that different publications give completely different densities of pyroxylin. For example, "Technical Encyclopedia 1927-1934." indicates the true density of pyroxylin in the range of 1,65-1,71 g / cc. see But here the density of pyroxylin blocks in some publications indicate significantly lower - 1,2-1,4 g / cu. see. The same saper.isnet.ru reports that the density of pyroxylin with a moisture content of 20-30% is 1,3-1,45 g / cu. cm.

Where is the truth?

Apparently, the problem is that the density of pyroxylin given in the reference books is ... the density of pyroxylin, and nothing else, that is, a pure product. At the same time, ammunition usually uses pyroxylin, whose moisture content is brought to 25-30%. Thus, if the density of absolutely dry pyroxylin is 1,58-1,65 g / cc. (the most frequently cited values), then pyroxylin with a moisture content of 25% will have a density of 1,38-1,42, and pyroxylin with a moisture content of 30% - 1,34-1,38 g / cc.

Let's check this hypothesis by calculating a 254-mm projectile. For TNT, the run-up in density in sources is much lower: 1,65 is usually indicated, but in some cases (Rdutlovsky) 1,56 g / cubic meter. cm. Accordingly, it turns out that 8,3 kg of TNT will take, with a density of 1,58-1,65 g / cu. cm, volume equal to 5030-5320 cubic meters. cm. And this is the same volume that was previously occupied by the cover and pyroxylin in the "dotsushima" configuration of the projectile.

The covers were made in brass. The density of brass is approximately 8,8 g / cu. cm, respectively, 1,4 kg the cover will occupy about 159 cubic meters. see The share of pyroxylin remains, thus, 4871-5161 cubic meters. cm. Taking into account that they contained 6,712 kg of pyroxylin, we obtain the density of the latter in the range of 1,3-1,38 g / cc, which exactly corresponds to the density of dry pyroxylin calculated by us with a density of 1,58, "diluted" up to a moisture content of 25%.

Thus, for further calculations, we take the values ​​that are most suitable for the sources. The density of TNT is 1,65 g / cubic meter. cm, and the density of wet pyroxylin is 1,38 g / cu. cm.

"Album" gives the following explosive content for 305-mm "dotsushima" shells. For armor-piercing with a tip - 6 kg of explosive, for armor-piercing without a tip - 5,3 kg of explosive and for high-explosive - 12,4 kg of explosive. Taking into account the TNT density, we calculate the volume under the explosive in these shells - it turns out, 3 636, 3 212 and 7 515 cubic meters. see accordingly. As far as I know, in the Russo-Japanese War, "capless" shells were used, respectively, it should be assumed that we fought with "armor-piercing" with a "charging chamber" capacity of 3 cubic meters. cm and land mines - with a volume of explosives of 212 7 cubic meters. cm.

Unfortunately, I do not know the volume or mass of the brass sheath used to isolate pyroxylin in 305mm projectiles. But from "Relationship" we can calculate that the mass of such a cover for a high-explosive 254-mm projectile was 2,06 times greater than the mass of a cover for a high-explosive 203-mm projectile, while the volume under the explosive was 2,74 times. Accordingly, it can be very roughly estimated that the brass cover for an armor-piercing 305-mm projectile had a mass of 0,67 kg, and for a high-explosive projectile - 2,95 kg, and they occupied a volume of 77 and 238 cubic meters. cm (rounded off) respectively.

In this case, the share of, in fact, pyroxylin, remained the volume of 3 and 135 cubic meters. cm, which we have adopted for the density of pyroxylin 7 g / cu. cm gives the mass of explosive:

4,323 kg of pyroxylin in an armor-piercing shell;
10,042 kg of pyroxylin in a high-explosive projectile.

That is, taking into account the calculation errors, we should talk about 4,3 kg of pyroxylin in armor-piercing and 10 kg in high-explosive 305-mm shells.

But why then only 6 kg of gunpowder "fit" into the high-explosive projectile ?!

Indeed, almost any reference book gives the density of smokeless powder at the level of pyroxylin, that is, not less than 1,56 g / cu. cm, or even higher. And given that a brass cover is not needed for smokeless powder, it turns out that the projectile should contain more smokeless powder than wet pyroxylin?

So, but not so.

The thing is that most of the reference books give us the density of gunpowder as a substance. But the problem is that you cannot fill the entire volume of the projectile with gunpowder. Gunpowder was usually produced in granules. And when these granules were poured into any vessel, they occupied only part of its volume, while the rest was air. As far as I understand, it is possible to compress gunpowder to a monolithic state, but such gunpowder will burn, not explode. But for an explosion in a confined space, he needs a certain amount of air. However, I am not a chemist, and I will be grateful to a competent reader for clarifications on this issue.

However, there is a completely immutable fact - along with the "real" density, that is, the density of the "monolithic" powder, there is also the so-called "gravimetric" density of the powder - that is, the density, taking into account the free space between its granules. And this density for gunpowder usually does not exceed one, or even lower, which is well illustrated by the table below.

Moreover, as we can see, the gravimetric density of smokeless powder is approximately 0,8–0,9 g / cu. cm.

So, taking into account the fact that the mass of gunpowder in a 305-mm high-explosive projectile was, as can be seen from the "Relationship", 14,62 pounds or 5,987 kg, and our calculated capacity under the explosives of this projectile was 7 cubic meters. cm, then we get a gravimetric density of smokeless powder equal to 515 g / cu. cm, which practically coincides with 0,796 g / cu. cm for one of the types of smokeless powders shown in the table.

Conclusions

In view of the above, I believe it can be safely asserted that the Russian 305-mm armor-piercing lightweight shells used in the Russo-Japanese War had 4,3 kg of pyroxylin. And high-explosive - either 10 kg of pyroxylin, or 5,99 kg of smokeless powder.

Firepower of the 2nd XNUMXnd Pacific Squadron

As you know, high-explosive shells for 2TOE, due to the unavailability of pyroxylin, were equipped with smokeless powder, and, very likely, on a pyroxylin basis.

Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to compare explosives with each other in terms of the strength of their effect. Well, here is, for example, Trauzl's lead bomb method: according to it, the work of dry pyroxylin is greater than TNT. Hence, it seems that pyroxylin is better than trinitrotoluene. But the point is that dry pyroxylin of equal mass with TNT was tested, despite the fact that not dry, but wet pyroxylin is used in the shells. At the same time, more TNT will enter the limited volume of the projectile than wet pyroxylin (the density of the former is higher, besides, pyroxylin needs an additional cover).

And if you look at the example of the "dotsushima" 305-mm projectile, you get this.

On the one hand, I came across data that the force of the explosion of dry pyroxylin is about 1,17 times greater than that of TNT.

But, on the other hand, the "dotsushima" 305-mm projectile included either 12,4 kg of TNT, or 10 kg of wet pyroxylin. Assuming a humidity of 25%, we get 7,5 kg of dry pyroxylin, which is 1,65 times less than 12,4 kg of TNT. It turns out that according to the table, pyroxylin seems to be better, but in fact, the projectile equipped with it loses to the projectile with TNT by as much as 41%!

And I am not getting into the nuances that the energy of the explosion of pyroxylin will be spent on the evaporation of water and heating the steam, and TNT does not need to do anything of this ...

Unfortunately, I do not have the knowledge to correctly compare the explosion power of pyroxylin and smokeless powder based on it. On the net, I came across opinions that these forces are comparable, although it is unclear whether smokeless powder was equated with dry or wet pyroxylin. But in both cases, it must be stated that the 305TOE high-explosive 2-mm projectiles were significantly weaker than those with which the 1st Pacific squadron was equipped.

If the assumption is true that the smokeless powder approximately corresponded to dry pyroxylin, then the 2TOE high-explosive projectiles were about 1,25 times weaker (5,99 kg of gunpowder versus 7,5 kg of dry pyroxylin).

If smokeless gunpowder in terms of explosion strength should be equal to wet pyroxylin, then by 1,67 times (5,99 kg of gunpowder versus 10 kg of wet pyroxylin).

However, it should be borne in mind that both of these statements may be wrong.

And it is possible that the difference between the high-explosive 305-mm shells of the 1st and 2nd Pacific squadrons actually turned out to be much more significant.

Comments

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

Andrey is a slippery topic, but thanks anyway! It would be interesting to continue in comparison with the Japanese shells of battleships.

[mark1]

And I liked the approach. Interesting angle of view.

[Vladimir_2U]

Moreover, as we can see, the gravimetric density of smokeless powder is approximately 0,8–0,9 g / cu. cm.

Yes, but as an explosive, it is quite permissible to press gunpowder into cartridges as a thrower, and why not into a projectile. Although, in comparison with TNT, do not press gunpowder, on the drum and on the tambourine there will be

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Yes, but as an explosive, it is quite permissible to press gunpowder into cartridges as a thrower, and why not into a projectile.

As I understand it, this cannot be done, since in this case only part of the gunpowder detonates.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

As I understand it, this cannot be done, since in this case only part of the gunpowder detonates.

I don’t know in large volumes, I don’t think so, but in cartridges it is not recommended precisely because of the probable excessive pressure on the barrel, i.e. too much turned out, I will clarify, we are talking about smokeless powder.

[Elturisto]

Solid gunpowder under normal conditions, a cylinder 20 mm long and 7 in diameter, burns for 3-4 seconds. On the other hand, in tank shots of separate loading, the propellant charge consists of translucent noodles of rather high density to the touch.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: ElTuristo

Hard powder under normal conditions, a cylinder 20 mm long and 7 in diameter, burns for 3-4 s

That is why there is such a parameter for the primer - the force of the flame, in order to ensure optimal ignition of the powder. By the way, it seems that the microwave ignition of the entire volume just made it possible to create powder modules for the "Coalition"! They are very dense.

[Dimax-nemo]

So he should burn, not explode.

[Dimax-nemo]

This is already a “slightly different” gunpowder compared to 1904.

[Kuroneko]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

As I understand it, this cannot be done, since in this case only part of the gunpowder detonates.

With all due respect, you have not considered the blasting action of various substances at all. However, if the article made sense only to establish the weight of various explosives in the shells, and not the real combat effect, then this is not so important.
And so, more blasting explosives are generally preferable, even if the explosive itself is smaller in the projectile.

[psiho117]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

As I understand it, this cannot be done, since in this case only part of the gunpowder detonates.

That's right - when bulk explosives turn into a bound mass with a loss of flowability, this significantly reduces the detonation ability, to the point that only a limited amount of gunpowder detonates, and the rest is simply scattered by an explosion.

The article turned out to be interesting - however, only in the field of comparing the filling of shells with explosives.
Unfortunately, an important fact has not been disclosed (which Kuroneko naturally pointed out below) that explosives have a number of important parameters - blasting capacity, performance, sensitivity, durability, density, detonation velocity, heat and temperature of explosion, oxygen balance, etc.
There is also such a complex concept as a high-explosive action, which is considered as the conditional operability of an explosive, which depends simultaneously on the heat generated during the explosion, the amount of emitted gases and the degree of their expansion.

What am I leading all this to - the above-mentioned possible options for explosive equipment, such as smoky and pyroxylin powder, TNT, pyroxylin of different moisture content - differed greatly in such key parameters as high explosiveness and high explosiveness.
Moreover, for high-explosive shells, respectively, the priority is high explosiveness, and for armor-piercing shells - blasting.
The problem is that if everything is fine with the high explosiveness of pyroxylinic propellants (only hexogen surpasses them in this parameter), then with blasting, everything is not so rosy - from 4 to 6mm, versus 15mm for TNT.
In addition, a more or less acceptable detonation of propellants is possible only with the explosion of a powerful intermediate detonator - at least 300-400 g of a highly blasting explosive of the TNT type, which again takes away part of the volume.
So, from these very 5,99 kg of smokeless powder, it is necessary to subtract the volume of the detonator (moreover, it is not known whether it was identical to that used to detonate the "raw" pyroxylin, or was it of a larger volume).
So, I'm afraid that the high explosiveness (and therefore the combat power) of the Russian armor-piercing shells equipped with pyroxylin powder could be categorically unsatisfactory.

However, with projectiles filled with pyroxylin, the situation is not much better: the problem is that the detonation velocity (and, accordingly, brisance) of pyroxylin does not depend on moisture linearly, and a difference in 10% moisture can lead to a difference in detonation velocity by 30% and more.

Something like that.
Unfortunately, I got to VO only a week after the article was published.

[IbnAlex]

> Moreover, for high-explosive shells, respectively, the priority is high explosiveness, and for armor-piercing shells - blasting.
High-explosiveness is a measure of general performance, destructive, propelling and other effects of an explosion. The main influence on the explosiveness is exerted by the volume of gaseous explosion products.
Brisance is a measure of the ability of explosives to local crushing effect on the environment in which the explosion occurs. Brisance depends on the composition of the explosive, its density, physical condition, and the degree of grinding. As a rule, brisance increases with an increase in the density and detonation velocity of the explosive.
An armor-piercing projectile must penetrate the armor and explode behind it. So he needs enough explosiveness to defeat him behind an obstacle. And this should be achieved by effective explosives.

[psiho117]

Quote: IbnAlex

An armor-piercing projectile must penetrate the armor and explode behind it. So he needs enough explosiveness to inflict defeat behind an obstacle

No, the main damaging factor behind the barrier explosion (as applied to armor-piercing ammunition) is not the gaseous products of the explosion, but precisely the fragments - and it is the explosive blasting that is the fundamental factor in salinization.
An explosive with a high high-explosive effect and a low blasting effect - most likely, it will simply split the hull into 2-5 large low-speed parts, which will not have a significant over-blocking effect.

[Vladislav Shulga]

This is not true. On the contrary, compacted substances detonate better, and granular gunpowder is just inclined to burn

[doktorkurgan]

As always interesting and informative.

[Niko]

Thank you. Interesting. But the topic is dangerous (now our "friends" will wake up and there will be comments about the rotten regime and improper maneuvering)

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Niko

But the topic is dangerous (now our "friends" will wake up and there will be comments about the rotten regime and improper maneuvering)

This is as usual :)))

[Andrey152]

Andrey, very interesting!
I am just trying to understand the weight of pyroxylin in our shells, so the presented logic is very useful for me, thanks!

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Good day!
I am extremely glad that I could help you with something.

[rytik32]

Greetings, Andrew!
A wonderful article that sheds light on one of the dark pages.

For my part, I will give a few clarifications.
According to the technology of production of pyroxylin for shells.
The checkers were obtained by pressing, and then they were soaked in water until they were completely saturated with moisture.
The harder it was pressed, the higher the density of dry pyroxylin was obtained. But the higher the density of the dry, the less water it then collected.
Apparently, the increase in the moisture content of pyroxylin according to the instructions of 1904 was caused by the fact that, due to a lack of presses, they decided to press the checkers weaker and they gained more moisture.

The second interesting question is about the final weight of the projectile when equipping it with explosives of different densities. In some places there is evidence that this led to a difference in the weight of the projectile! http://ava.telenet.dn.ua/history/10in_coast_gun/desc_1905/gl_03.html
The weight of the bomb loaded with pyroxylin is about 549 lbs.
The weight of a bomb filled with smokeless powder is about 535 lbs.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: rytik32

The second interesting question is about the final weight of the projectile when equipping it with explosives of different densities. In some places there is evidence that this led to a difference in the weight of the projectile!

Of course, dear Alexey!

[Trapperxnumx]

As always interesting and detailed.
But one question remains - was it possible for 2TOE with such shells to win at all? As I understood, the impact on the armored cruisers was still quite good, but the battleships suffered much less from our fire. And it is very significant.

[rytik32]

Quote: Trapper7

was it possible for 2TOE to win with such projectiles at all?

Well, the Japanese won with their "under-equipment"!

[Edvid]

"Rurik" from the Vladivostok cruiser detachment, fired shells filled with gunpowder. See the destruction on the Japanese cruiser "Iwate" from the hit of the "Rurik" shell. Rozhdestvensky's squadron was unable to do something similar to any Japanese ship.

[rytik32]

The Nakhimov had the same guns as the Rurik and the same shells. And there were 3 hits in Tsushima in the same Iwate, estimated at 203 mm. So it was just unlucky. It's like in Jutland: someone exploded, and someone calmly transferred hits to the same towers. And to be lucky - you have to hit more often!

[Trapperxnumx]

Alexey, very carefully and with great pleasure I read all your articles published on VO regarding shells in the RYA. I completely agree that in order to damage / destroy enemy ships and subsequent victory, you need to fire as accurately and quickly as possible. However, I would like to note that the impact of Japanese shells on our battleships was still more destructive than ours - on Japanese battleships. I do not touch the cruiser, because I believe that those shells that Rozhdestvensky had were enough to destroy any asamoid. However, I still cannot make such a conclusion on the battleships.
At least that's my opinion.

[rytik32]

Dmitry, just recently there was a wonderful comparative review
https://naval-manual.livejournal.com/109611.html
I recommend!

And I also recently compared the action of Japanese shells with English ones NOT in WWI. And you know, the comparison is not in favor of the Japanese. Their 12-inch is somewhere on the level of English 6-inch. I recommend looking at the photos of "Emden" and "Konigsberg".

[Mooh]

Gunpowder was and is being produced in granules. The larger the caliber of the weapon, the larger the powder fraction.
Pyroxylin-based naval artillery smokeless powder was not produced in granules. During WWI, it was definitely a sheet in bunches.
In Russian-Japanese - in bundles of pasta-shaped tubes (but it's not exactly where I read it, I don't remember)
At the same time, none of the authors indicates what kind of gunpowder the shells were equipped with. Sources describe most likely naval artillery, but not the fact that it was he who was in the shells. It could be gunpowder in granules, artillery in tubes, rocket in checkers, some kind of mine in hell knows what. Humidity, high explosiveness and high explosiveness do not understand what kind of gunpowder is also not known.
I propose to consider the pyroxylin and powder filling approximately equivalent, since the ancestors did not soar much on this topic, but they knew exactly how much and what kind of powder goes into the projectile.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: MooH

I propose to consider pyroxylin and powder filling approximately equivalent

Andrey, well, it doesn't turn out to be equivalent. 12,4 kg TNT or about 6 kg of gunpowder - what's the equivalent?

[Mooh]

TNT and gunpowder are certainly not nearly equivalent. TNT is stupidly denser. And pyroxylin in checkers and pyroxylin in sheets (under the pseudonym gunpowder) are very close.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: MooH

TNT and gunpowder are certainly not nearly equivalent. TNT is stupidly denser.

He is not denser. The density of TNT is given 1,58-1,65, the density of smokeless powder sources indicate an average of 1,56.
Thus, if you were right, the projectile would have included 12,4 kg of TNT or no less than 11,7 kg of smokeless powder. And included - 6.
In this case, wet pyroxylin with its density of 1,3-1,4 should have included even less than compressed gunpowder. And also a brass case. In general, if you were right, no one would equip projectiles with pyroxylin - only pyroxylin powder, since much more would enter the projectile

[Andrey152]

Quote: MooH

At the same time, none of the authors indicates what kind of gunpowder the shells were equipped with.

There is no mystery here. The shells were filled with smokeless gunpowder.

[mmaxx]

Time passed and everything became incomprehensible. Absolutely.
How I was taught that pyroxylin, that smokeless powder is gunpowder, that is, propelling explosives. What is the difference between them when equipping shells is not clear. We didn't have TNT then. So they shoved gunpowder. The British, over there, back in WWI had just black powder in their shells. By the way, it burns faster. And for an explosion, it is necessary to provide either detonation or possibly rapid combustion of gunpowder. The gunpowder does not need air. Oxygen is formed during the reaction. It is not clear about detonation. Perhaps it started when burning in a closed volume, or the explosion of the projectile was provided by simple rapid combustion. For the correct organization of the combustion of propellants, they are given a certain shape. To burn as quickly as possible, the simplest is graining. Then the burning area is maximal immediately. Therefore, it is possible that there was much less gunpowder in the projectile than then TNT. TNT can simply be poured. Detonation, as a process, is fleeting and here, on the contrary, one must have an explosive in a solid piece, then the reaction is faster.
But! We read in Krylov that after the war they began to achieve an increased density of pyroxylin, up to the so-called elephant (for its resemblance to ivory). And here again it is not clear - is it a solid piece of this elephant in the shell or some of its elements: grains, ribbons, pasta? However, it was immediately replaced by TNT.
In our time, everything was simpler. They throw gunpowder, explode with TNT / RDX. Well, and all sorts of high-power explosives for initiation.
Knowledge is lost, and we are left to guess.
Perhaps the reason for the low efficiency of our projectiles is precisely the slow burning of the explosive or the poor transition from combustion to detonation, or poor detonation, if it should have been somehow organized in the projectile. There is only a fact: a large percentage of unexploded shells. Again: which one? What to compare with? Reading about the battles here and there, I constantly see that the shell did not explode. And not in our lapotniki)), but in everyone. The Japanese themselves distinguished themselves most of all. Their BB shells from WWII, it seems, exploded with a percentage of our unexploded weapons in the RYA.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: mmaxx

How I was taught that pyroxylin, that smokeless powder is gunpowder, that is, propelling explosives.

There is pyroxylin powder and there is pyroxylin, and these are completely different things.

Quote: mmaxx

What is the difference between them when equipping shells is not clear.

It is obvious. For pyroxylin, a brass cover was required, otherwise it entered into chemical interaction with the walls of the projectile. Pyroxylin powder did not do this, and even a (maximum) silk cap would have been enough for him. Second, pyroxylin was necessarily diluted with water, on average 25%. Pyroxylin powder did not require this. And thirdly, pyroxylin was, so to speak, cast, but gunpowder was usually granular.
That is, the density of the substance - pyroxylin powder and pyroxylin - is one, but taking into account the fact that one is diluted with water having a lower density, and the second is in granules, everything is very confused :)))

Quote: mmaxx

The British, over there, back in WWI had just black powder in their shells. By the way, it burns faster. And for an explosion, it is necessary to provide either detonation, or possibly rapid combustion of gunpowder

That's why they needed 30-40 305-mm rounds to sink the not most armored Scharnghorst and Gneisenau. In general, the British made it as simple as possible, but hardly as better

[mmaxx]

My words about gunpowder are not detailed. I'm not going to delve into pyroxylin and not pyroxylin. The question is that at that time there was no adequate blasting explosive for projectiles. Here is TNT. Everything is clear with him. The explosion is nearby and it detonates. Moreover, in the entire volume of explosives. Otherwise, everything is fine with him. But the Germans had it and that's it.
But somehow some of them rushed at me, which I called English shells junk. Not you)). But people do not understand one thing. Yes, black powder is an old reliable remedy. But! He needs to light up. It is impossible to ensure the ignition of the charge of the nigella at the same time in the entire volume. Therefore, the 100% charge in the British shells did not explode all the way until the shell burst. And, accordingly, the Japanese at the beginning of the RYA on BB shells had no advantage over the Russians. But then, it is also clear that the stocks of British shells have run out. A m b. they wanted to try new things. Complete success awaited them. But strangely enough, they immediately abandoned their high-explosive projectile. And the British, from the experience of the war, somewhere noted that it was the BB shells of the largest calibers that were needed. Because high-explosive are ineffective. I don’t remember this old how I know. Something based on materials on dreadnoughts.
But the problems of propellant ignition are common. Moreover, smokeless powder burns slower than black ((.
Another assumption. About wet pyroxylin. It is quite possible that moisture simply increases power. The same happens when adding paraffin to passivate RDX or adding aluminum powder to TNT.

[Bolt cutter]

paraffin additive for RDX passivation

Hexogen is poorly compressed, and to melt it is dangerous; mechanical sensitivity sharply increases and decomposition begins. Compression with paraffin gives the desired density gain.

additives in TNT aluminum powder

In an explosion, trinitrotoluene interacts with aluminum (oxygen oxidizes aluminum, not carbon) - therefore, such a mixture is more powerful. Water in the explosion of pyroxylin is ballast.

[mmaxx]

Yes.
But I mean that the seemingly thinning impurities, which reduce the mass of the explosive itself, give even more power. Perhaps the increased humidity of pyroxylin, in addition to greater stability, gave something else. After all, this moisture was manipulated as needed and there were no problems. What happened there and why didn't the Tsushima shells explode? After all, there were no more such problems. Information on the shelling of Sveaborg by "Slava" is somewhat strange: either true or not. Does anyone have something reliable?

[Mooh]

It is obvious. For pyroxylin, a brass cover was required, otherwise it entered into chemical interaction with the walls of the projectile. Pyroxylin powder did not do this, and even a (maximum) silk cap would have been enough for him. Second, pyroxylin was necessarily diluted with water, on average 25%. Pyroxylin powder did not require this. And thirdly, pyroxylin was, so to speak, cast, but gunpowder was usually granular.

Everything is absolutely fair if we talk about gunpowder smokeless, the beginning of the century. There, the fibers are twisted into grains in a waxy shell.
Gunpowder for 12 dm guns of the WWI era is a bunch of sheets of fabric. The fabric was probably nitrated and cut into the desired pieces. Or maybe first cut then nitrated. I do not know whether there is wax.
Rocket powder is pressed into checkers. It is possible that

The checkers were obtained by pressing, and then they were soaked in water until they were completely saturated with moisture.

then it turns out that pyroxylin and rocket powder are the same thing under different names?
And these are only those types of "smokeless gunpowder" about which I have heard of a small specialist.
Why are you so sure that granular gunpowder was shoved into the shells? It would be more logical to assume that the missing pyroxylin in the naval arsenals will be replaced by the abundant artillery powder. But this is just a guess. Such questions, dear author, are not solved right away, it is obvious that some calculations that have not come down to us were carried out, and the explosives in the projectiles were replaced with minimal losses of efficiency. They could have stupidly poured black powder, it's cheaper, but no, they used expensive smokeless ones.

if you were right, no one would equip the projectiles with pyroxylin - only with pyroxylin powder, since much more would enter the projectile

So I say, somewhere you have a mistake. Something was not taken into account, which is not surprising, since you do not know the type of gunpowder used and its properties, and received wild figures about a decrease in efficiency by 67% and maybe even more. I suspect that the same shell with black powder will yield to pyroxylin less than 50%

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: MooH

then it turns out that pyroxylin and rocket powder are the same thing under different names?

Of course not. Pyroxylin is pyroxylin and rocket powder is compressed smokeless pyroxylin powder
Andrey, there are enough descriptions of pyroxylin-explosive and pyroxylin-gunpowder in the network to clearly see how different they are

Quote: MooH

Gunpowder for 12 dm guns of the WWI era is a bunch of sheets of fabric. Probably the fabric was nitrated and cut into fragments.

Yes, at least how - the question is that there is still an air gap, the gunpowder was not monolithic in the charges

Quote: MooH

Why are you so sure that granular gunpowder was shoved into the shells? It would be more logical to assume that the missing pyroxylin in the naval arsenals will be replaced by the abundant artillery powder.

Logic is the enemy of the historian :))))) There is a fact - the shell included either 12.4 kg of TNT, OR 5,99 kg of pyroxylin powder. This is where we must proceed. You are starting from the opposite.

Quote: MooH

got wild numbers about a decrease in efficiency by 67% and maybe more.

You don't like them, and you try to come up with a reason why it was not so.
Although the simple logic I have outlined above completely refutes the version of "pressed gunpowder". If it were possible to use it in a projectile, then no one would ever use pyroxylin as an explosive for projectiles - smokeless powder would be much more convenient.

[mmaxx]

The difference in mass is most likely due to the fact that TNT can be poured in any volume, and they constantly write about checkers about pyroxylin. What are the checkers? What is the mass-shape? If you lay checkers, there will be a place.

[Mooh]

Pyroxylin is nitrocellulose. Even in checkers, he must maintain a certain flexibility and pliability.

[Mooh]

Down there, Unidecim confidently stated that ground artillery powder was used and gave the approximate parameters of its high-explosiveness. Than closed at least half of the questions I had. By the way, it requires at least a very dense cap, or even a full-fledged cover.
The question of the compaction of the powder charge is still open.

[Andrey152]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

For pyroxylin, a brass cover was required, otherwise it entered into chemical interaction with the walls of the projectile.

No, Andrey. The cover was used so that it was possible to separately make pyroxylin charges, with the required moisture content. And then, in the ports, they loaded the shells with covers with pyroxylin.

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

And the third - pyroxylin was, so to speak, cast,

No, pyroxylin was not cast, but pressed. And cast were, for example, picrinka or TNT.
And everything else is exactly as described in your article. And about the calculation of the moisture content of pyroxylin, and about the gravimitric density of gunpowder.

[Kayuk]

Greetings, Andrey Nikolaevich! A very interesting article, in principle, confirming the opinions of contemporaries that something is wrong with the shells of 2 TOE.

And it is possible that the difference between the high-explosive 305-mm shells of the 1st and 2nd Pacific squadrons actually turned out to be much more significant.

And I strongly agree with this conclusion.

[vladcub]

Good afternoon, thank you for not forgetting us

[Alexandra]

As you know, high-explosive shells for 2TOE, due to the unavailability of pyroxylin, were equipped with smokeless powder, and, very likely, on a pyroxylin basis.

12 "shells. Pyroxylin gunpowder. There was no difference between the 12" shells 1TOE and 2TOE in this respect.

Watch Cherkasov V.N. Notes of an artillery officer of the battleship "Peresvet"

http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/cherkasov_vn/01.html

"Our shells are filled with black powder (cast iron), smokeless (12-in. And small) and pyroxylin (10-in., 8-in. And 6-in.). Japanese shells are filled with black powder, melinite, and possibly cordite." For the production of a shot we have smokeless powder, and the Japanese have cordite. Melinite is not used here - we limited ourselves to experiments. On February 26, all armor-piercing ones flew, but it seems there were also some high-explosive ones. "

The mention of "unavailability of pyroxylin charges" from the attitude (report) of the ITC to the Chairman of the Investigative Commission on the Tsushima battle case means that they did NOT have time to fire pyroxylin charges for 12 "shells, but to develop and test them.

Similarly, for the 10 "armor-piercing shells of coastal artillery, they also did not have time to develop and test a pyroxylin explosive charge:

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

"Prior to the development of the equipment of steel armor-piercing bombs with pyroxylin, it is allowed, according to the journal of the Commission of 1904 No. 316 on the use of explosives to equip projectiles, to equip armor-piercing bombs with smokeless gunpowder when supplying the bottom screws of these bombs with the bottom tube of the drawing of the order for artillery 1896 No. 209. [140] "

It was with such shells that I had to fight at sea in the Russo-Japanese war.

And on land they had to fight with only one shrapnel for 3 "field artillery.

[Senior seaman]

Quote: AlexanderA

And on land they had to fight with only one shrapnel for 3 "field artillery.

This is true, but only for the newest 1900-inch arr. 87 guns. However, in the Far East there were quite a lot of obsolete 1877 mm arr. 1895 and their modifications arr. XNUMX. And so they had grenades for themselves.

[Alexandra]

There were grenades for them, but they were as outdated as these 87 mm guns mod. 1877, i.e. equipped with black powder.

https://forum.guns.ru/forummessage/42/73859.html

"... In the early 90s, with the introduction of smokeless powder, an improved sample of a 3,42-inch (87-mm) field gun with a piston breechblock and an elastic opener was developed. The gun was designed for firing smokeless powder and was named the sample of 1895 g. He received a steel shrapnel with a 12-second double-acting tube, model 1891. The development of a melinite high-explosive grenade was not completed ... "

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: AlexanderA

12 "shells. Pyroxylin gunpowder. There was no difference between the 12" shells 1TOE and 2TOE in this respect.

An interesting version, but I don't see any confirmation of it. "Ratio" constantly writes about 3,5% explosives, which is not true for gunpowder, while he writes about the unavailability of charges in relation to 2TOE. In addition, in "Ratio" there are several direct indications that the shells were loaded with pyroxylin.

[Alexandra]

In the "ratio" for projectiles of different calibers, 3,5% -3,6% weight of the bursting charge is indicated with a cover, that is, pyroxylin... So, for a 12 "projectile there is a dash in the table. Because there was simply no bursting charge with a cover, that is, a pyroxylin one, for a 12" projectile. We didn't manage to develop it.

Besides Cherkasov V.N. in his memoirs he directly writes: "Our shells are filled with black powder (cast iron), smokeless (12-dm and small) and pyroxylin (10-dm, 8-dm and 6-dm). "

There are versions, but there is a fact.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: AlexanderA

So, for a 12 "projectile in the table there is a dash

In "Relation" the table refers ONLY to the projectiles supplied at 2TOE. There is a phrase at the top "On the first question." And if you read the questions themselves (they are given on page 356), then it is there that it is asked about the shells with which the 2TOE was equipped
Further, the "Relations" are not limited to one table, there are readings further, and there are indirect references to equipping 12-dm with pyroxylin.

Quote: AlexanderA

Besides Cherkasov V.N. in his memoirs he directly writes: "Our shells are stuffed with black powder (cast iron), smokeless (12-dm and small) and pyroxylin

And he writes right there

When I asked the commander of Camp Battery No. 16 why this was so, he replied that they had been taught at the school that if an armor-piercing projectile had been loaded with explosives, it would not have fulfilled its purpose, since it would have burst without breaking through the armor. but from hitting its surface, and that he had only recently heard that armor-piercing shells in the fleet are being filled with pyroxylin.

That is, they are charging, then they are not charging ... With memoirs, in general, you need to be careful. The same Lutonin, for example, writes

So it was in fact, the projectile, falling at an angle of 45 degrees, exploded, breaking through five-inch steel, that is, almost the same tube as our armor-piercing and high-explosive ones, but ours have a pyroxylin explosive charge, not black powder.

And he, if anything, is also an artillery officer

[rytik32]

And I will also add an argument to your piggy bank:
during the investigation of the death of the battleship "Petropalovsk" one of the versions was the detonation of shells stuffed with pyroxylin .
Because the explosion was in the bow, it could only be the main battery shells. And smokeless powder, as you know, does not detonate.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: rytik32

And I will also add an argument to your piggy bank:

Thank:)

[Alexandra]

"Petropavlovsk" died from the explosion of sea mines barrage stuffed with pyroxylin and lying in the cellar near the underwater mine vehicles. There were 30 such mines on board the Petropavlovsk on the day of its death.

[Alexandra]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

In "Relation" the table refers ONLY to the projectiles supplied at 2TOE. There is a phrase at the top "On the first question." And if you read the questions themselves (they are given on page 356), then it is there that it is asked about the shells with which the 2TOE was equipped

Derive from the "unavailability of pyroxylin charges" of this document the inability of industry to produce at least one already developed (spent) pyroxylin explosive charge for 12 "2TOE shells ... At the same time knowing that even for 10" steel armor-piercing shells 10 "/ 45 coastal artillery cannons by 1905, they had not yet managed to develop a pyroxylin explosive charge, and also knowing that, according to the testimony of the senior artilleryman of the battleship "Sevastopol" V.N. pyroxylin (12-dm, 10-dm and 8-dm) "... Can you reveal the logical sequence of reasoning and indirect references, with the help of which you succeeded?

That is, they charge, then they do not charge ... With memoirs, in general, you need to be careful

The War and Navy used different shells for the 10 "/ 45 cannon and 6" Kane cannons. By the beginning of the Russian-Japanese war, the steel armor-piercing shells of the Military Department for these guns did not have an explosive charge, and there were simply no military high-explosive steel shells, only cast iron. If you know this then the details of V. Cherkasov and the commander of Camp Battery No. 16 raise no questions. I will quote to you on this occasion V.I. Rdultovsky:

"... in the first days of the war, the Main Artillery Directorate, not having a proven sample of high-explosive shells for 10- and 6-inch guns, was forced to accept for them steel shells with marine pyroxylin equipment, but supplied them with more satisfactory fuses 11DM. Fuse 11 DM (Fig. 62) was adopted for 6- and 10-inch. Shells equipped with wet pyroxylin and taken from the Naval Department after the declaration of the Japanese war ... Steel pyroxylin shells of the Naval Department, to which this fuse was adopted , did not have high armor-piercing qualities and were assigned for firing at decks and superstructures; they did not have armor-piercing tips and were not hardened. "

The same Lutonin, for example, writes

How do you understand that Lutonin wrote about our 12 "shells?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: AlexanderA

Can you reveal the logical sequence of reasoning and indirect mentions, with the help of which you succeeded?

I just did it.
"Attitude" does not confirm your theory from the word "absolutely" - it does not say anywhere, directly or indirectly, that there were no pyrokisline 12-inch land mines. Accordingly, your evidence boils down to the fact that the 10-inch armor-piercing of the coastal art did not have pyroxylin, and that Cherkasov mentioned that the 12-inch shells were loaded with gunpowder, not pyroxylin.
The absence of pyroxylin in 10-inch armor-piercing shells can neither confirm nor refute your hypothesis. As for Cherkasov's memoirs, I brought you his own memoirs, where he says that armor-piercing 12-dm was nevertheless equipped with pyroxylin, that is, he contradicts himself, since his phrase

smokeless (12-dm and small)

includes both high-explosive and armor-piercing 12-inch shells. And finally, I quoted you Lutonin, who reported that our shells had a pyroxylin charge

Quote: AlexanderA

How do you understand that Lutonin wrote about our 12 "shells?

And what other "armor-piercing and high-explosive" shells could be discussed if Lutonin wrote about an 11-inch Japanese "bomb"?

[Alexandra]

"Attitude" does not confirm your theory from the word "absolutely" - it does not say anywhere, directly or indirectly, that there were no pyrokisline 12-inch land mines.

There it is written in black and white "... 12 dm high-explosive shells due to unavailability of pyroxylin charges, had equipment made of smokeless powder ...". You apparently translated it from Russian into Russian as "not a single pyroxylin charge for 12 dm of high-explosive shells for 2TOE battleships was produced by the industry." Excuse me, what do you think the industry was doing?

In fact, "unavailability" means that they did not manage to develop a pyroxylin explosive charge for a 12 dm high-explosive projectile. Just as, for example, they did not manage to develop a pyroxylin charge for a 10 dm of armor-piercing projectile of the War Department.

The same fact is confirmed by the testimony of the senior artilleryman of the battleship "Sevastopol" V.N. Cherkasov: "Our shells are filled with black powder (cast iron), smokeless (12-dm and small) and pyroxylin (10-dm, 8-dm and 6-dm)."

To this testimony, you replied "with the memoirs in general it is necessary to be more careful" ... but immediately referred to the memoirs of the senior officer of the battleship "Poltava" S.I. Lutonin ...

I can only note that, unlike Cherkasov, Lutonin did not specify the caliber of our naval artillery shells with a pyroxylin explosive charge.

As for Cherkasov's memoirs, I brought you his own memoirs, where he talks about where he says that armor-piercing 12-dm was still equipped with pyroxylin

You referred not to Cherkasov, but to Lutonin. But if you have a quote from Cherkasov's memoirs about the type of equipment 12 "armor-piercing shells, then bring it of course. A quote from a conversation between Cherkasov and the commander of Camp Battery No. 16 is not one of those.

And what other "armor-piercing and high-explosive" shells could be discussed if Lutonin wrote about an 11-inch Japanese "bomb"?

About domestic shells not 12-inch caliber. Moreover, the decks.

http://istmat.info/node/25469

"In 1905 * the following outfits were given to factories for the preparation of gunpowder and explosives:

Prepare pyroxylin charges for 6-, 9-, 10- and 11-inch bombs 3591 "

http://istmat.info/node/25120

"For 1905, the gunpowder factory gave the order to produce: 180 thousand poods of smokeless powder, 2130 pyroxylin charges for 9-inch and 11-inch bombs and equip 12 235-inch bombs with melinite ...

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

... The activities of our three gunpowder factories (Okhtensky, Shostensky and Kazansky) have been brought to the production of 180 thousand poods of gunpowder per year; but such productivity is possible only with strenuous work, badly affecting the condition of the machines, mechanisms and the workshops themselves.

With some expansion of the factories, it will be possible to produce 220 thousand poods annually. In the same way, it is possible to expand the production of curved pyroxylin at the Okhten gunpowder factory from 6 thousand to 20 thousand poods per year, which will satisfy the engineering department's need for it. "

If you find information that at the Okhtensky plant in 1901-1905. pyroxylin charges were made for 12-dm bombs, will you write about this?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: AlexanderA

There it is written in black and white "... 12 dm high-explosive shells due to unavailability of pyroxylin charges, had equipment made of smokeless powder ...". You apparently translated it from Russian into Russian as "not a single pyroxylin charge for 12 dm of high-explosive shells for 2TOE battleships was produced by the industry."

Well, let's go by syllables or something. First, we read this, underlined with a red line.

ON PER-IN-MU IN-PRO-SU.
Now we open the questions themselves

So, we see that the question was asked simple - WHAT were the 2TOE FUGASES equipped with?
The answer to this question is ON THE UNREADY OF PYROXYLIN CHARGES.
That is, if you read what was written, the pyroxylin charges were not ready :))) Nowhere is it said that they could not be created. Further, "Attitude" describes in great detail the problems faced by the production of high-quality high-explosive shells in Russia, but again nowhere is it mentioned that no pyroxylin charges were created for them. And this would ALWAYS be mentioned in the answer to the second question - "Did the Committee raise ... ... the question of the insufficient explosive action of these shells." But this was not done.
Conclusion - your version that

Quote: AlexanderA

In fact, "unavailability" means that a pyroxylin explosive charge for a 12 dm high-explosive projectile did not have time to develop

Has no confirmation in "Relationship". With the same success, you could put forward a version that our shells were produced on the planet Nibiru. And the ONLY PROOF of your theory is the words of Cherkasov.

Quote: AlexanderA

To this testimony, you replied "with the memoirs in general it is necessary to be more careful" ... but immediately referred to the memoirs of the senior officer of the battleship "Poltava" S.I. Lutonin ...

First of all, I quoted you that Cherkasov contradicts himself - either his 12 dm is charged only with gunpowder, then 12-dm shells are loaded with pyroxylin. Secondly, he quoted Lutonin. All this should have hinted to you that memoirs are not the best source for such large-scale historical theories.

[Alexandra]

You are given the testimony of V.N. Cherkasov. - 12 dm. shells on battleships 1TOE were also "stuffed with smokeless powder".

We understand the words "unavailability" in different ways. Please show both the evidence and the stages of logical constructions, with the help of which you came to the following conclusions:

a) High-explosive 12 dm. shells of battleships 1TOE had a bursting charge of moist pyroxylin;
b) All high-explosive 12 dm. shells for battleships 2TOE had explosive charges of smokeless gunpowder, not because they did not manage to develop a pyroxylin charge for them, but because the industry did not manage to develop a single explosive charge of wet pyroxylin (see above, the Okhtensky gunpowder plant produced such charges for 9 "-11" guns in thousands per year) for some reason could not produce.

PS Where can you find the mention of 305 mm "pre-tsushima" high-explosive shells of Russian battleships with an explosive charge not ~ 6 kg (14,62 lb), but ~ 10 kg of explosive? After all, this should be the mass of explosives in a Russian high-explosive projectile of the "old model" when equipped NOT with smokeless gunpowder, but with moist pyroxylin in a case, right?

PS The source, which indicates that for the steel armor-piercing bombs of the Military Department, before the start of the Russian-Japanese war, pyroxylin explosive charges did not have time to be developed, you were given. I can repeat:
http://ava.telenet.dn.ua/history/10in_coast_gun/desc_1905/gl_03.html
"Prior to the development of the equipment of steel armor-piercing bombs with pyroxylin, it is allowed, according to the journal of the Commission of 1904 No. 316 on the use of explosives to equip projectiles, to equip armor-piercing bombs with smokeless gunpowder when supplying the bottom screws of these bombs with the bottom tube of the drawing of the order for artillery 1896 No. 209. [140] "

Write why you think that everything was different in the Naval Department.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: AlexanderA

You are given the testimony of V.N. Cherkasov. - 12 dm. shells on battleships 1TOE were also "stuffed with smokeless powder".

And in response to you, the testimony of the same Cherkasov is given from which it follows that 12 dm BB shells were equipped with the same pyroxylin. You yourself do not argue with this, since you postulate that only high-explosive 12-inch shells were equipped with gunpowder. That is, you acknowledge the erroneousness of Cherkasov's statement and ... immediately refer to him.

Quote: AlexanderA

Please, show both the evidence and the stages of logical constructions, with the help of which you came to the following conclusions: High-explosive 12 dm. shells of battleships 1TOE had a bursting charge of moist pyroxylin;

There are sources that directly indicate that we had high-explosive 12-inch shells with pyroxylin. For example - an article by Captain 2nd Rank M.I. Smirnov, published in 1913. By the way, the weight of the explosives of the Russian projectile in this article indicated 2,5%, that is, 8,3 kg.
In the mass of our literature, it is mentioned that the shells of Russian ships were filled with pyroxylin, although without specifying up to a high-explosive 12-dm. In complaints about a weak high-explosive action, I do not see anywhere a mention of equipment with smokeless powder

Damage to Japanese ships in combat in the LM is very similar to those that a projectile with a pyroxylin filling could give

W.C. Pakenham about hitting Mikasa during the fight in the JM. - between 17.35 and 18.05 (16.50 - 17.20 Russian time) 12 "the projectile hit the port side opposite the stern barbet and exploded inside the hull. Severe damage was received in two decks and the crew suffered heavy casualties. The head of the projectile pierced the opposite side and tore out the sheet the side plating just above the armor belt (as observed by J. de M. Hutchison, the second British attaché) W. C. Pakenham wrote: "The extensive destruction suggests that the projectile was loaded with pyroxylin."

The hit of a 12-inch projectile on the Nissin led to serious crew losses, which indirectly testifies to pyroxylin.

Quote: AlexanderA

Where can you find the mention of 305 mm "pre-tsushima" high-explosive shells of Russian battleships with an explosive charge not ~ 6 kg (14,62 lb), but ~ 10 kg of explosive? After all, this should be the mass of explosives in a Russian high-explosive projectile of the "old model"

The takeoff run is very large. I have already cited Smirnov with his 2,5%, there are references to 3%, Petrov writes about 11,6 kg (in the article there is a link) there is about 12,4 kg, there is about 6 kg. That is the problem that they indicate

[Alexandra]

And in response to you, the testimony of the same Cherkasov is given from which it follows that 12 dm BB shells were equipped with the same pyroxylin

I do not see such evidence of Cherkasov. Quote it again.

You yourself do not argue with this, since you postulate that only high-explosive 12-inch shells were equipped with gunpowder ... That is, you admit the erroneousness of Cherkasov's statement

I do not "postulate" anything about armor-piercing 12-inch shells. I know for sure that they did not manage to develop a pyroxylin explosive charge for 10-inch armor-piercing shells of the War Department before the war. About 12-inch armor-piercing shells ... they were recommended to be used at distances less than 25 cables, (according to the instructions of Rozhdestvensky EMNIP at distances less than 20 cables). And the distances of real squadron battles were higher. For this reason, such a keen interest of the Investigative Commission in the case of the Tsushima battle to the characteristics of high-explosive, and not armor-piercing shells.

There are sources that directly indicate that we had high-explosive 12-inch shells with pyroxylin. For example - an article by Captain 2nd Rank M.I. Smirnov, published in 1913

By 1913, they probably already had it with pyroxylin and reloaded with TNT. The question is, what did we have in 1904-1905?

In the mass of our literature, it is mentioned that the shells of Russian ships were filled with pyroxylin, although without specifying up to a high-explosive 12-dm.

Equipped. But not all. With regard to the armor-piercing shells of the Naval Department, the big question is whether they were equipped with a pyroxylin explosive charge. After all, it was known that shells with pyroxylin equipment self-detonate in the process of penetrating armor plates with a thickness of the order of the caliber. For the armor-piercing shells of the War Department, by the beginning of the war they had inert equipment, as well as a 75 mm steel armor-piercing grenade mod. 1898 for Kane's ship cannon. For steel high-explosive shells of the Naval Department, yes, those in calibers 6-dm, 8-dm, 10-dm had a pyroxylin explosive charge. For a 12-inch high-explosive projectile of the Marine Department, the pyroxylin explosive charge was "not ready" even at the moment the 2TOE was dispatched. Deck (mortar and howitzer) shells of the War Department, and they had a pyroxylin explosive charge by the beginning of the war.
http://ava.telenet.dn.ua/bookshelf/Yudenich_N_P%20-%20Beregovoe_vooruzhenie/text.html
By the beginning of the war, the Military Department simply did not have steel high-explosive for a 10-inch cannon and a 6-inch Kane cannon, only cast-iron ones with an explosive charge of black powder. Likewise with shells for obsolete naval guns.

At the same time, to declare that all the shells had a pyroxylin explosive charge is to oversimplify the issue. As well as the question of fuses, which, among other things, the Naval and Military departments, as a rule, were different.

In complaints about a weak high-explosive action, I do not see anywhere a mention of equipment with smokeless powder

The devil is always in the details. This is how the devil manifested itself in the issue of 12-inch high-explosive shells with gunpowder equipment and an ordinary shock tube in the Tsushima battle. This is how the devil manifested itself in the memoirs of Cherkasov, who wrote: "Our shells are filled with ... smokeless (12-dm and small) and pyroxylin (10-dm, 8-dm and 6-dm)." Indeed, the 75 mm armor-piercing projectile of the 1902 model had a powder explosive charge. Will you find in the memories you know of a weak effect on the target of Kane's 75 mm projectile a mention of the fact that he had gunpowder, not pyroxylin equipment? Or is this detail always overlooked?

The hit of a 12-inch projectile on the Nissin led to serious crew losses, which indirectly testifies to pyroxylin.

It is when?
https://naval-manual.livejournal.com/55723.html
“At 3 pm, a 20-inch shell exploded on impact below the waterline, directly under the aft bridge and the open gun port of the 12-inch gun # 6 on the middle deck. Three gun servants who were on the side were injured. at the same time armor, [the projectile] stopped in the center of coal pit # 14, which was flooded, but the armored (protective) deck ... "
The Russian shells "are not to blame" for the large losses wounded on the Nissin at Tsushima.
https://naval-manual.livejournal.com/1613.html

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

I will answer a little later

[Alexandra]

I understood about what kind of hit in "Nissin" you wrote. Is there evidence that a 12 "and not a 10" shell hit the Nissin's stern bridge in battle? Is there evidence that hits with extensive destruction in combat in the LM were caused by 12 "and not 10" shells? Large fragments, projectile warheads, by which one can judge the caliber of these projectiles?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: AlexanderA

I do not see such evidence of Cherkasov.

I'm sorry, I was wrong

Quote: AlexanderA

By 1913, they probably already had it with pyroxylin and reloaded with TNT. The question is, what did we have in 1904-1905?

So, Smirnov's article just includes a comparison of Russian and Japanese shells RYAV

Quote: AlexanderA

I do not "postulate" anything about armor-piercing 12-inch shells. I know for sure that they did not manage to develop a pyroxylin explosive charge for the 10-dm armor-piercing shells of the War Department before the war.

So the problem is that what you know does not prove your theory in any way.
Do you think that Cherkasov's opinion regarding 12-inch high-explosive shells is correct. But he did not single out the high-explosive shells separately, but wrote about all the shells of 12-inch caliber in bulk. You think that he was right about high-explosive, but you do not answer unequivocally the question of whether 12-inch gunpowder or pyroxylin were used in BB shells. You admit that pyroxylin could have been used, and this is already a definite vote of no confidence in Cherkasov.
Further. You are sure that the War Department's 10-inch AP shells did not have a pyroxylin filling, because no such equipment was developed for them. And here comes a logical contradiction.
If you read your link http://ava.telenet.dn.ua/history/10in_coast_gun/desc_1905/gl_03.html, we will see that nothing prevented the Russian Empire from replacing the 254-mm cast-iron bomb with a steel one that had a charge of pyroxylin. That's right, the fleet used such shells, so there was simply an order to make these shells instead of bombs made of Orthodox cast iron. But for a steel AP round, this number for some reason did not work - it turns out that the equipment has not been developed.
And then one of two things. Or the Naval Department also did not have a 254-mm AP shell charged with pyroxylin, but then it turns out that Cherkasov is wrong - he wrote

Quote: AlexanderA

pyroxylin (10-dm, 8-dm and 6-dm).

And it turns out that only 254-mm land mines were equipped with pyroxylin.In this case, there is no reason to trust Cherkasov's words about 305-mm shells - he could have made a mistake in the same way.
Or, nevertheless, Cherkasov is not mistaken, and the fleet did have its own 254-mm AP shells with pyroxylin, but in this case it turns out that no extrapolation of the state of the 254-mm AP shells of the Military Department to 305-mm AP shells of the Naval Department is impossible. And if so, then I definitely see no reason to consider 12-inch shells equipped with smokeless powder based on your link.
And it turns out that the only confirmation of your version is the words of Cherkasov, and even those you do not fully trust (since you question the equipment with pyroxylin BB 12-dm shells of the Naval Department)

[Alexandra]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

So the problem is that what you know does not prove your theory in any way.

What's my theory? That the 1TOE shells did not differ from the 2TOE shells? Such. Your theory - pyroxylin charges for 12 "high-explosive shells 2TOE for some unknown reason did not have time to produce. Absolutely. For me, my theory will be simpler.)

I think you are familiar with this illustration:

It was always believed that these were cast-iron shells, but ... open pages 124-125:

In the illustration, Russian high-explosive projectiles of 10 "and 12" caliber (as far as I know, it was always stated that in the upper illustration there were Port Arthur trophies of the Japanese) ... with an explosive charge of smokeless powder (determined by wooden blanks not used in cast-iron shells with a charge of black gunpowder). You can flip through the entire tutorial:

https://sassik.livejournal.com/541282.html

Yes, it mentions such explosives as pyroxylin and melinite. But ... the method of equipping projectiles with pyroxylin charges, as well as a Brink fuse equipped with an intermediate detonator of 45 grams of dry pyroxylin (required to detonate the explosive charges of wet pyroxylin) ... in this textbook, I recall, 1904 edition, are not described.

My conclusion? By 1904, equipping naval artillery shells with pyroxylinic charges was a completely new business for the Russian Navy, not even described in the textbook of this year of publication.

And yes, the Japanese in Port Arthur captured not only 12 "high-explosive shells with an explosive charge of smokeless powder, but also 10" high-explosive shells with an explosive charge of smokeless powder.

[rytik32]

Quote: AlexanderA

but ... open pages 124-125:

Did you specify what kind of guns of 1877, about which you are citing?
In what years were the 10-inch and 12-inch guns designed, which were on the ships of the 2nd TOE, you know ???

Quote: AlexanderA

But ... the method of equipping projectiles with pyroxylin charges, as well as a Brink fuse equipped with an intermediate detonator of 45 grams of dry pyroxylin (required to detonate the explosive charges of wet pyroxylin) ... in this textbook, I recall, 1904 edition, are not described

There is a separate instruction

And there are 12-inch land mines

[Alexandra]

Did you specify what kind of guns of 1877, about which you are citing?
In what years were the 10-inch and 12-inch guns designed, which were on the ships of the 2nd TOE, you know ???

In the Russian Imperial Navy, rifled artillery was put into service in 1867 and until 1917 had only two barrel-cutting systems - "model 1867" and "the sample of 1877".

https://vasik-catn.livejournal.com/310239.html

"The 12-inch (304,8-mm) 40-caliber heavy naval gun, the main weapon of the armored battleships of the Russian Imperial Navy (classified in 1892-1907 as" squadron battleships "), had an extremely eventful service. winter 1891-1892 After testing an experimental barrel in 1895, the model was adopted by the fleet under the name "12-inch 40-caliber gun, model 1895 in length" (abbreviated designation 12 "/ 40) {1}

[...]

Notes:

{1} In the special literature on artillery, its name is also common as "the model of 1877", taking into account the barrel-cutting system. "

There is a separate instruction

There is. For equipping those shells that are "equipped in a special way" (see p. 124, line 5 below).

We look at the illustration of Russian Shells and see 12 "and 10" steel high-explosive shells, seized by the Japanese in Port Arthur, equipped with a "NOT in a special way", with explosive charges of smokeless powder and a Baranovsky bottom shock tube.

Thus, it was proved that the 1TOE ships had 12 "high-explosive shells with an explosive charge of smokeless powder in their ammunition, the same as on the 2TOE ships.

[rytik32]

Quote: AlexanderA

There is. For equipping those shells that are "equipped in a special way" (see p. 124, line 5 below).

Why should a textbook for a training artillery detachment be extended to 1TOE ships?

[Alexandra]

Why should a textbook for a training artillery detachment be extended to 1TOE ships?

Maybe you still read the textbook and look at the atlas of drawings for it to make sure that the manual contained information about the modern guns for 1904, the same ones that were armed with the 1TOE ships?

Lock 12 inch cannon in 40 calibers

[rytik32]

And did you find the shells with the Brink tube there? )))

[Alexandra]

The Japanese did not find 10 "and 12" shells with a Brink pipe in Port Arthur. Or do you think they found it, but hid it from the British?))

[rytik32]

Read more about those shells from the picture. And there will be fewer questions. Read in the same book as this picture.

[Andrey152]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Quote: AlexanderA

You are given the testimony of V.N. Cherkasov. - 12 dm. shells on battleships 1TOE were also "stuffed with smokeless powder".

And in response to you, the testimony of the same Cherkasov is given from which it follows that 12 dm BB shells were equipped with the same pyroxylin. You yourself do not argue with this, since you postulate that only high-explosive 12-inch shells were equipped with gunpowder. That is, you acknowledge the erroneousness of Cherkasov's statement and ... immediately refer to him.

Quote: AlexanderA

Please, show both the evidence and the stages of logical constructions, with the help of which you came to the following conclusions: High-explosive 12 dm. shells of battleships 1TOE had a bursting charge of moist pyroxylin;

There are sources that directly indicate that we had high-explosive 12-inch shells with pyroxylin. For example - an article by Captain 2nd Rank M.I. Smirnov, published in 1913. By the way, the weight of the explosives of the Russian projectile in this article indicated 2,5%, that is, 8,3 kg.

Colleague, can you post this article?

[anzar]

ON PER-IN-MU IN-PRO-SU.
Now we open the questions themselves

Uv. Andrey, does this (answers) mean that the shells for 8 "/ 35 guns of Nakhimov (the only ones for 2ToE) were equipped with pyroxylin?
We look forward to continuing! The answer to the question in the title (about power ...) has not yet been given))

[Petrov-Alexander_1Sergeevich]

Not ready means not ready = not developed. Ready=developed, but not delivered; it is out of stock, not delivered, not produced, not loaded into cellars.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Petrov-Alexander_1Sergeevich

Not ready means not ready = not developed.

Why do you think so? There is no need to replace the meanings of words with your own conjectures. Read a fragment of the Testimony of senior officer "Oleg". In your opinion, does “the squadron’s unpreparedness” mean that its ships are not designed?

[Andrey152]

Really interesting version. I came across information that in 1907 at the Black Sea Fleet 12-inch high-explosive shells were equipped with smokeless powder. The question arises, they were re-equipped, is this a batch of pre-Tsushima ones due to a shortage of pyroxylin charges, or really, 12-dm high-explosive ones were not equipped with pyroxylin?
Tell me, where in "Relation" there are direct indications of pyroxylin in 12-inch shells?

[vladcub]

More than twenty years ago, I read somewhere: in RI they could not produce high-quality pyroxylin, technology or dullness of power, and therefore the shells turned out to be different. In times of war and lack of pyroxylin, the shells began to be filled with smokeless powder.
Due to the fact that pyroxylin was of different quality and there could not be a single standard. Perhaps this explains the discrepancy in BB
PS
That the shavers in PMV used black powder is new to me. This is what the then GAU turns out to be smarter than the brits?

[mmaxx]

Liddite in BB shells could detonate on its own from hitting armor. The shell exploded prematurely. So the Angles decided to get out of the situation so simply. ...
The Germans in WWI were very surprised at the familiar stench of explosions. We did not expect this from the enlightened.
In general, our artillery work was very good. Another question is that the army and the navy received what they ordered. They wanted to fight up to 20 cab. so we got it. And shells and tables and everything else. Plus, there are technological and especially political problems, with all sorts of great dukes. Who steered money as they needed.

[Undecim]

However, there is a completely immutable fact - along with the "real" density, that is, the density of the "monolithic" powder, there is also the so-called "gravimetric" density of the powder - that is, the density, taking into account the free space between its granules.
Crushed gunpowder was used to equip the shells. During the period under review, pyroxylin tape and tubular gunpowders were used in the Russian artillery. If you look at "Description and rules for handling a 6-inch coastal rapid-fire cannon Canet. St. Petersburg, 1899", then the charges include B6 tape powder.
A similar method of making explosives for the disposal of artillery powder is still used today. The most common explosives made from crushed gunpowder are granipor and dibasite.

Shape and size of grains of pyroxylin powder in granipore.
The bulk density of granipore, depending on the degree of grinding of the starting material, is 0,8-0,95 grams per cubic centimeter, of dibasite - 0,75 -0,85.
Unfortunately, I do not have the knowledge to correctly compare the explosion power of pyroxylin and smokeless powder based on it.
This work has already been done by experts, measuring the explosiveness, that is, the value of the overall performance, destructive, propelling and other action of the explosives under consideration according to the Trauzl method. I do not think that modern granipores and dibasites are very different from those compositions. with which shells were equipped during the Russo-Japanese War. In any case, it is possible to compare. So - pyroxylin - 237 cubic centimeters, granipor - 270 - 350 cubic centimeters, dibasite - 280 - 300 cubic centimeters.
That is, in terms of the high-explosive effect, the charge made of smokeless powder was not inferior to the pyroxylin one, but due to the low density, the value of the powder charge was significantly less than the pyroxylin one.
Then you can calculate the percentage of the projectile with a powder charge in the end was inferior to the high-explosive effect of a projectile with a pyroxylin charge.

[Mooh]

Viktor Nikolaevich, as usual I am in shock. Is there even a topic in which you do not have expert knowledge?
I counted the high explosiveness on my knee. I got 28 spherical percent in a vacuum, which is quite close to the conclusions of Andrei Nikolaevich.
The last question I have left - in childhood, when we were making bombs, we moistened "nitro paper" with kerosene and sculpted a very dense explosive mass of arbitrary shape. Why can't this be done with belt powder?

[Undecim]

Do you mean increasing the charge density?

[Mooh]

Yes sir. The main problem with gunpowder is that there is little of it in the shell. However, for some reason, no technologies for increasing the charge density were used. I would have at least rolled the tape powder tightly before loading it into the projectile, but according to your data, it would be ground on the contrary, which would reduce the gravimetric density. Or was the ground gunpowder tamped directly into the shell?

[Undecim]

The peculiarities of the combustion process of gunpowder have not been canceled. And this process has its own characteristics.
I wrote that the powder was crushed, but this does not mean that it was simply poured. Unfortunately, I have not yet been able to find a description of the process of equipping projectiles with gunpowder. Therefore, it is too early to put an end to the question.

[Kuroneko]

Quote: Undecim

This work has already been done by experts, measuring the explosiveness, that is, the value of the overall performance, destructive, propelling and other action of the explosives under consideration according to the Trauzl method.

For shells in general, blasting is much more important than high explosiveness.

Brisance is the ability of an explosive to crush, destroy objects in contact with it (metal, rocks, etc.). The brisance value indicates how quickly gases are formed during an explosion. The higher the blasting rate of one or another explosive, the more it is suitable for equipping shells, mines, and aerial bombs. During an explosion, such an explosive will better crush the shell of the projectile, give the fragments the highest speed, and create a stronger shock wave. The characteristic is directly related to the blasting rate - the detonation velocity, i.e. how fast the explosion process spreads through the explosive substance. Brisance is measured in millimeters (mm). This is a conventional unit. There is no need to describe the method for measuring blistering.

High explosiveness - in other words, the efficiency of explosives, the ability to destroy and throw out of the explosion area surrounding materials (soil, concrete, brick, etc.). This characteristic is determined by the amount of gases formed during the explosion. The more gases are formed, the more work a given explosive can perform. The explosiveness is measured in cubic centimeters (cc). This is also a fairly conventional value.

From this it becomes clear enough that different explosives are suitable for different purposes. For example, for blasting operations in the ground (in a mine, when making pits, breaking ice jams, etc.), an explosive with the highest explosiveness is more suitable, and any blasting is suitable. On the contrary, for equipping projectiles, first of all, high blasting is valuable and high explosiveness is not so important.

http://army.armor.kiev.ua/engenear/bach.shtml

[Undecim]

For shells in general, blasting is much more important than high explosiveness.
To compare these indicators, you need to have them. The brisance of pyroxylin is found in the literature, I have not seen the brisance of granipore and dibasite. It is possible that they were not tested for this parameter. Judging by the detonation velocity, on which the brisance directly depends, it is noticeably higher for pyroxylin.

[Alexandra]

To compare these indicators, you need to have them. The brisance of pyroxylin is in the literature,

There is:
http://koi.tspu.ru/koi_books/arhipov1/ch7r2.htm
Table 7.5 Results of the study of brisance by the method of compression of copper crushers

Pyroxylin - 3.0 mm
TNT - 3.6 mm

Comparison of the results of the Hess test and the method of compression of copper crushers showed their identity (the scatter of results does not exceed 2-4%).

[Undecim]

Yes, but what did I write?
Again. The brisance of pyroxylin is in the literature, I did not see the brisance of granipore and dibasite.
Where are the granipores in the table?

[Alexandra]

Why do you need a granipor? Domestic shells of naval artillery were equipped with: steel, wet pressed (curved) pyroxylin in a case (in this case, a Brink fuse was used), or smokeless gunpowder (a shock tube of 1894 g was used as a fuse); cast iron - with black powder (a shock tube model 1884 was used as a fuse).

Japanese naval artillery shells were equipped mainly with melinite (shimosa). Other options (the use of non-reloaded British shells) were very rare.

So, the brisance of wet pyroxylin is lower than that of TNT. The brisance of melinite is higher than that of TNT.

[Undecim]

Why do you need a granipor?
To see the result of the Hess test. This is the same gunpowder.

[Alexandra]

A smokeless rifle was used for the shells. pyrocollodious powder. Granipores are made from outdated brands ballistic gunpowder. These are different types of smokeless powder.

[Undecim]

These are different types of smokeless powder.
Really?
For the shells, a smokeless rifle pyrocollodion gunpowder was used.
And for what guns was this gunpowder used in Russia?
Granipores are made from outdated grades of ballistic propellants
Did you not notice dibasite next to the granipores in my commentary?

[Alexandra]

Really?
Why should I lie? Pyroxylinic propellants (pyrocollodion, one of) and ballistites are different types of smokeless propellants.)
And for what guns was this gunpowder used in Russia?
For a rifle of the 1891 model "The first version of the Russian rifle cartridge, with a cartridge case measuring 7,62x53,72 mm, was adopted by the Russian army in 1891 together with the Mosin rifle. The design of the cartridge was developed by Colonel N. Rogovtsev. First, the cartridge was produced with nickel - a copper platted bullet with a rounded head, which was fixed in the neck of the sleeve with the help of three persistent indentations. The cartridge had a brass bottle sleeve with a protruding flange and was equipped with a smokeless pyrocollodion banded powder. "
Did you not notice dibasite next to the granipores in my commentary?
I assure you, no water was poured into Russian shells with an explosive charge of smokeless powder.
http://pirochem.net/index.php?id1=3&category=otherpirotech&author=shukin-ug&book=1998&page=46
"The main explosive and physical-mechanical characteristics of dibasite are given below.
Estimated
Oxygen balance,% ............... —30, -45
Heat of explosion, kcal / kg ............... 800 - 900
Gas volume, l / kg .................. 850 - 900
The volume of toxic gases in terms of CO, l / kg:
in anhydrous state ............. 250 - 350
in water ..................... 15 - 20
Experimental
Flash point, ° С .............. 170
Detonation speed, km / s:
open charge in anhydrous state ..... 2,8 - 3
in a water-filled state .......... 5,8 - 6

https://diss.muctr.ru/media/dissertations/2019/06/Михеев_Д.И._КД_Особенности_детонации_ПВГСВерсия_06.06.22.42.pdf
Table 1.4
Brisance of pyroxylin and nitroglycerin propellants in water

Pyroxylin powder Brisance, mm, without water 2,4

[Undecim]

Why should I lie? Pyroxylinic propellants (pyrocollodion, one of) and ballistites are different types of smokeless propellants.)
Yes, Alexander, you have a tense sense of humor.
When the 7,62x54R cartridge was being developed, pyrocollodious gunpowder did not exist and it could not physically be developed for it.
This is the first thing. Secondly, pyrocollodion gunpowder was never accepted in Russia and cartridges were never equipped for them.
Read the IX volume of Mendeleev's works.
Granipores are made from outdated grades of ballistic propellants.
According to their composition, granipors are:
- pyroxylin (grade PZF TU
11509793-07-94, PPF TU 075118-96-95, FM TU 36 1403062-01-95);
-mixture, in which, in various ratios, crushed ballistic artillery powder or ballistic rocket solid fuel and granular PP (grades BP-1 and BP-3 TU 3-7509009.06-90) are used, or crushed BAP and BRTT mixed with granulated and crushed tubular PP (grades No. 7-No. 9 TU
07511819-103-97);
- ballistic grades BM TU 3-7509009.31-92.
Dibasite TU 3-7509103.325-93, is made of BAP and BRTT.
I assure you, no water was poured into Russian shells with an explosive charge of smokeless powder.
Did you understand what you wrote?

[Alexandra]

Yes, Alexander, you have a tense sense of humor.
When the 7,62x54R cartridge was being developed, pyrocollodious gunpowder did not exist and it could not physically be developed for it.
This is the first thing. Secondly, pyrocollodion gunpowder was never accepted in Russia and cartridges were never equipped for them.

Perfectly. It was a "B" grade smokeless pyroxylin plate powder.
http://pirochem.net/index.php?id1=3&category=azgotov-prim-vv&author=vovk-aa&book=1963&page=26
"Smokeless propellants are propellant explosives. They are produced in the form of small grains (rifle), discs, tubes, ribbons, plates, etc. The actual density of powder grains is 1,54-1,64 g / cm3, bulk density depends on the shape and size of particles and can be 0,9-1,0 g / cm3. Brisance of propellants ranges from 4 to 6 mm, working capacity about 100 cm3.
Smokeless propellants are sensitive to external influences: they easily ignite from fire or sparks, easily explode from impact. As can be seen from the characteristics, smokeless propellants are low-blasting explosives, and in the conditions of mining enterprises, their use is ineffective. "

Did you understand what you wrote?

Write why did you want to look at the blasting action of granipore and dibasite on the issue of explosive powder charges of Russian naval artillery shells during the Russo-Japanese War? You still do not understand that the brisance of granipore and dibasite is determined by the percentage of water content? :-)

[Undecim]

You still do not understand that the brisance of granipore and dibasite is determined by the percentage of water content? :-)
Read about the role of water in commercial explosives and why water appears in their descriptions. Otherwise, you will convince your opponents that water is not poured into the shells.

[Alexandra]

Quote: Undecim

Read about the role of water in commercial explosives and why water appears in their descriptions. Otherwise, you will convince your opponents that water is not poured into the shells.

I have already read it, and I advise you. :-) The role of water in increasing the detonation velocity, as a result of explosive blasting on the basis of utilized smokeless propellants, was sorted out in the USSR only in the 30-40s. In 1904-1905. they didn’t know anything like that. In old (in particular, in cast iron) shells, black powder and a bottom shock tube of the 1884 model were used. The new shells used a conventional bulk charge of "rifle" (rifle) smokeless powder initiated by the bottom shock tubes of the Baranovsky model of 1894 (shells of the Naval Department) and sample of 1896 (shells of the War Department). These shock tubes did not have an intermediate detonator. To detonate the charges of insensitive explosives of granipore and dibasite, an intermediate detonator is needed (as a rule, a checker like T-400G or TG-500 weighing 400-500 grams). Thank you for awakening my sense of humor and making my day. :-)

[Undecim]

You awakened my sense of humor
Well, at least some kind of positive result.

[Saxahorse]

Quote: Undecim

So - pyroxylin - 237 cubic centimeters, granipor - 270 - 350 cubic centimeters, dibasite - 280 - 300 cubic centimeters.

Cubes are not enough. In addition to the pure volume of gases at 0 degrees, the combustion temperature is also needed, it may differ.

[Undecim]

How does the combustion temperature participate in the measurement of explosiveness?

[Saxahorse]

Quote: Undecim

How does the combustion temperature participate in the measurement of explosiveness?

In accordance with Sharles' law (or he is the second law of Gay-Lussac) of course.

\ V_ {100} -V_ {0} = kV_ {0}, where k = 1 / 2.7315

Well, or he

V / T = const
"at constant pressure, the volume of constant gas mass is proportional to the absolute temperature"

[Undecim]

You do not catch the difference between theoretical and experimental estimates of explosiveness?
Read here. http://docs.cntd.ru/document/1200018206

[Saxahorse]

Quote: Undecim

I do not think that modern granipores and dibasites are very different from those compositions. with which shells were equipped during the Russo-Japanese War. In any case, you can compare

I pointed out this part of your statement to you. The combustion temperature of modern hunting powder for example 2400-2950 degrees. The spread is 20%, the same will be with their high explosiveness. It is hardly possible to vouch for the temperature of the compositions of the RNE period, especially in comparison with these "granipores and dibasites". By the way, the range you specified, for example 270 - 350, is also too large. Number from the ceiling.

[Undecim]

I pointed out this part of your statement to you.
Suggest a better option with specific data in relation to RYAV projectiles.
Number from the ceiling.

Refute by your sources.

[Saxahorse]

Quote: Undecim

Refute by your sources.

What to refute then?

Do you have a combustion temperature for propellants from the RYAV era? What are you bragging about with your granipors? For comparison, the explosiveness of TNT = 285 ± 7 cm, see the error? How to compare your 270-350 with this? Plus or minus bast shoes? In general, all explosives can be entered into 30% of the spread.

[Undecim]

What are you bragging about with your granipors?
I want and brag. The site rules are allowed.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Hello dear Undecim!

Quote: Undecim

The bulk density of granipore, depending on the degree of grinding of the starting material, is 0,8-0,95 grams per cubic centimeter, of dibasite - 0,75 -0,85.

Got it, thanks! It coincides with the data I received, which is good news :)))

Quote: Undecim

So - pyroxylin - 237 cubic centimeters, granipor - 270 - 350 cubic centimeters, dibasite - 280 - 300 cubic centimeters.

I would be grateful for the source of this data. And then I came across data, for example, 420 cubic meters. see Trauzl for dry pyroxylin

[Undecim]

Good morning!
Figures from different reference books were taken as the comment was written. If I get to the computer, I'll write. In any case, dry pyroxylin was not used in the projectile.
By the way, there, in the comments, AleksandrA gave an interesting tablet, which, in fact, gives an answer to the question, since one of the ways to determine the blasting is to assess the crushing of the shell.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Good morning!

Quote: Undecim

In any case, dry pyroxylin was not used in the projectile.

In the projectile, of course, not, but according to Trauzl, it was dry pyroxylin that was taken

Quote: Undecim

By the way, there in the comments Alexander A gave an interesting tablet, which, in fact, gives an answer to the question, since one of the ways to determine the blasting

This is completely different :) I would prefer if and evaluate it by Trauzl, otherwise you can get into such a jungle, where there is absolutely nothing to do without the appropriate education ...

[Ryaruav]

the effectiveness of the fire of the ships of the 1st squadron was higher than that of the second

[also clean]

Somewhere in the internet there was an article about the EBR "Glory". During the uprising in Sveaborg in 1906, "Slava" in the squadron fired at the rebels. So there was an investigation into the "extreme ineffectiveness" of the shells from the "Slava". It was about the "Tsushima" ammunition. It's a pity, but I could not find this article ...

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: alsoclean

During the uprising in Sveaborg in 1906, "Slava" in the squadron fired at the rebels. So there was an investigation into the "extreme ineffectiveness" of the shells from the "Slava". It was about the "Tsushima" ammunition. It's a pity, but I could not find this article ...

And you will not find it. The story about the unexploded shells of "Glory" came from Novikov-Priboy. The problem is that Slava did not take part in the shelling of Sveaborg :))))))))

[anzar]

+++ Great uv. Andrey, you (we) have already considered this topic here (though with little success ((The most interesting (and primary) question about the volume of chambers in shells. Previously, I was eating to solve it by measuring the area of ​​the side sections of different shells and making the proportions ... alas, this is inaccurate) ...
Your attempt now is very good. But due to the abundance of comparison, the final recapitulation would not interfere. Is it possible to consider it as her

We fought with "armor-piercing" with a "charging chamber" capacity of 3 cubic meters. cm and land mines - with a volume of explosives of 212 7 cubic meters. cm.

(Is it with covers and the volume of the tube?). But ... according to the "infographics" 5,3 kg of TNT contained BBS mod. 1907 (№5) Whose chamber is apparently different (and much more) than the one in the mod. 1892 (№1) The same is observed in other "infographics". Those. is everything okay with your original message?

By measuring on a scaled figure ("infographic" and a drawing)) and calculating, I got other values ​​- for the BBS "old drawing" (model 1892g) approx. 2900cc total and 2860 cc with a cover but without the volume occupied by the tube. Which is ~ 10% less than your values. What do you think about the baby, and also where did the figure 1,3kg "gun cotton" come from in the "infographic"?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: anzar

But ... according to the "infographics" 5,3 kg of TNT contained BBS mod. 1907 (№5) Whose chamber is apparently different (and much more) than the one in the mod. 1892 (No. 1)

What kind of infographic? You brought high-explosive shells, and nothing more. And my source is indicated in the article.

Quote: anzar

By measuring on a scaled figure ("infographic" and a drawing)) and calculating, I got other values ​​- for the BBS "old drawing" (model 1892g) approx. 2900cc total and 2860 cc, which is ~ 10% less than your values.

I believe that the calculation from density is more correct than measurements, since the latter must be carried out according to the projectile drawing, and not infographics

[anzar]

What kind of infographic?

Your lead. Eats others the same. There 5,3kg TNT contain BBS arr. 1907 that are not "dotsushima", the camera is different (larger) and eats the cap. Probably steel, too, with an elastic limit of more than 2800 atm. But let's say that it is not "infographic" but the text is more correct? Here

"Album" gives the following explosive content for 305-mm "dotsushima" shells. For armor-piercing with a tip - 6 kg of explosive, for armor-piercing without a tip - 5,3 kg of explosive and for high-explosive - 12,4 kg of explosive. Taking into account the TNT density, we calculate the volume under the explosive in these shells - it turns out, 3 636, 3 212 and 7 515 cubic meters. see accordingly. As far as I know, "capless" shells were used in the Russo-Japanese War

There is a contradiction in this phrase. If only "capless" ones were used in RYAW, why do you think that "capless" ones are also dotsushima ones? And why then does the size of the chamber differ? For me, "cap" - is arr. 1907 from a larger chamber, and "capless" is a dotsushima reloaded on TNT, arr. 1892

You brought high-explosive shells, and only
... the latter should be carried out according to the projectile drawing, not infographics

The measurements were carried out using the BBS, and drawing high-explosive (samples 1892 and 1907) used only to check the accuracy of "pictures from infographics", the cross-sectional area of ​​the chambers of land mines coincided. Now I will calculate the volume of the high-explosive))

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: anzar

Your given

These are drawings made by someone unknown, and there is no faith in them.

Quote: anzar

There is a contradiction in this phrase. If only "capless" ones were used in RYAW, why do you think that "capless" ones are also dotsushima ones?

The fact is that in the "Album of shells of naval artillery", published by A.N.IM.I. in 1934 there are no armor-piercing shells at all in 1907. High-explosive - please, but no armor-piercing. Accordingly, I conclude that the opinion that I came across earlier that no armor-piercing shells mod. 1907 does not exist in nature, and that in WWI our EBRs fired old, dotsushima armor-piercing shells reloaded by TNT.
At the same time, there are 2 types of armor-piercing shells in the Album. With a cap and an explosive mass of 6 kg and without a cap and an explosive mass of 5,3 kg. Since, as far as I know, there were no shells with a cap in the RYAV, I conclude that the shells with 5,3 kg of explosives were Tsushima.

Quote: anzar

For me, "cap" - is arr. 1907 from a larger chamber, and "capless" is a dotsushima reloaded on TNT, arr. 1892

You are perfectly logical, but the cap shell is not listed in arr. 1907 Perhaps they were produced in the period 1905-1907, but this is not known for certain.

Quote: anzar

The measurements were carried out using the BBS, and the drawing of the explosives (samples of 1892 and 1907) was used only to check the accuracy of the "pictures from infographics", the cross-sectional area of ​​the mines' chambers coincided.

I did not understand what you want to say. If the fact that the infographics correspond to the drawings, then it does not coincide in any case, including the 1907 shells.

[anzar]

You are perfectly logical, but the cap shell is not listed in arr. 1907 Perhaps ...

Maybe they were "in the project" before, but they considered it possible to make the chamber bigger (with the same steel). the cap strengthens the nose.

If the infographics correspond to the drawings, then they do not match in any case, including the 1907 shells.

I have matched the land mines, and because I don’t have a drawing of the BBS .... If you have, send it to me.
ps The accuracy of the "... graph" may not be so hot, but you don't think that someone drew them (looking at the ceiling)) Of course, the images were taken from the drawings.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: anzar

I have matched the land mines, and because I don’t have a drawing of the BBS .... If you have, send it to me.

The high-explosive 1892 does not coincide and the armor-piercing 1907 does not match. As for the armor-piercing, the error is generally gross - 5,3 kg carried a projectile without a cap, in the infographics - with a cap, the charging chambers are incorrect on both projectiles.
Alas, I cannot send it. I promised the person who gave me this "Album" to refrain from publishing. This was a condition for the transfer of an electronic copy of the "Album" to me.

[anzar]

High-explosive 1892 does not match

I'm telling you that it coincided!

and the armor-piercing 1907 does not match.

I don’t know this, I don’t have a drawing, so I leveled the land mines.

In terms of armor-piercing, the error is generally gross - 5,3 kg carried a projectile without a cap, in the infographics - with a cap

Yes, it may be confused

the charging chambers are incorrect on both projectiles.

But this is interesting. I can't check. But after all, on land mines in 1892, the drawings and graphs coincided. I will check it for arr. 1907g

alas, I can't

Sorry But even so, the 10% difference is small. Since the chambers are "not the same" ... we will continue to dance from your figure - 3212 cc.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: anzar

But after all, on land mines in 1892, the drawings and graphs coincided.

did not match. Most likely, your drawing is incorrect

[anzar]

Most likely, your drawing is incorrect

I don’t know how to distinguish the faithful from the unfaithful)) I used this here

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

The projectile on the left in your drawing is the correct drawing. Its charging chamber does not match the projectile number 2 in the infographic. Elementary - the wall thickness of the projectile at the base of the charge, in the drawing it is about 1: 1, in the infographics - more

[anzar]

The projectile on the left in your drawing is the correct drawing.

He also used it, this is the "old drawing" projectile. I did not equalize with your "i-graphics" but with this down

... The dimensions and cross-section of the chambers of the landmines coincided. And the BBS measurement gave those ~ 2800 cc (minus the tube), approx. 2900cc with her

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: anzar

equated not with your "i-graphics" but with this down

What's the point? These are not drawings, these are drawings. So you "intended", for example, that for an armor-piercing projectile, the base of the chamber of the explosive has a width of 14,29 cm, whereas in reality, the base of the projectile with 5,3 kg of explosive had 15,42 cm. And so on.

[anzar]

What's the point?

The meaning is the same as that of you, they are trying to find out "how many fit in there ..." something)) He had something and measured it. I repeat, the land mines coincided. And the chamber at the land mine 92g is also 143mm))) But the accuracy of measurements is not very ... but the difference is small, so he said that we accept your figure

in reality, the base of the projectile with 5,3 kg of explosive had 15,42 cm

Well, then the volume of the chambers will be larger (if it's not a mythical model 1907g)))

[anzar]

PS I just measured a land mine from a drawing. His camera diameter is also 14,3 cm and this is not measured, but written on the drawing. Wed part - cylinder, bottom - truncated. the cone, since the upper part is not a cone, not a sphere, but ... the "bulging cone" there increased the volume of the cone by the proportion of lateral areas.
Believe it or not, I got exactly 7500 cubic meters. cm! Almost the same as your 7515 (with a tube)

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: anzar

I just measured a land mine from a drawing. His camera diameter is also 14,3 cm and this is not measured, but written on the drawing

The drawing says - 15,42 cm

[anzar]

The drawing says - 15,42 cm

F15 is written at the bottom,32 (which I overlooked) and at the top - ф14,3 cm (which I took). the part that is mistaken for a cylinder is also a truncated cone. The new calculation gave approx. 7913cc all that alas differs markedly from 7515.
If the "album" says that the weight of TNT = 12,4 kg, then your figure is 7515 cube. not enough even at a density of 1,65. some volume is occupied by a tube (approx. 150 cc). I do not know the volume of the tube for TNT, but with a volume of 7900-150 (tube) 12,4 kg are obtained at 1,6 g / cc

[Andrey152]

Quote: AlexanderA

"Prior to the development of the equipment of steel armor-piercing bombs with pyroxylin, it is allowed, according to the journal of the Commission of 1904 No. 316 on the use of explosives to equip projectiles, to equip armor-piercing bombs with smokeless gunpowder when supplying the bottom screws of these bombs with the bottom tube of the drawing of the order for artillery 1896 No. 209. [140] "

It was even worse. Armor-piercing shells were not loaded at all! They were filled with sand and sawdust. Read the reports of S. O. Makarov.

[Alexandra]

It was even worse. Armor-piercing shells were not loaded at all! They were filled with sand and sawdust. Read the reports of S. O. Makarov.

By the beginning of 1904, the naval artillery was already equipped (except for a 75 mm steel armor-piercing grenade for Kane's cannon, the equipped (with gunpowder) version of which was not widely used). In coastal artillery, yes, armor-piercing shells are still inert, cast iron bombs, blackpowder weapons. And steel high-explosive shells for the 10 "/ 45 coastal cannon and 6" coastal cannon Kane have not been trite yet.

[Andrey152]

Quote: AlexanderA

except for the 75 mm steel armor-piercing grenade for the Kane cannon, the equipped (with gunpowder) version of which was not widely used

Can you tell me where the information comes from that the 75-mm shells were loaded with gunpowder? And how much can you trust her?

[Alexandra]

Information from the now deceased M.S. Svirin.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Свирин,_Михаил_Николаевич
"Armor-piercing Canet mod. 1892 and 1898 did not have a bursting chamber. But the fact of the matter is that the 75-mm shell Canet model 1902 and (all the more so) 1907 (universally adopted for service) had a chamber. It was just that the arr. 1902 was equipped with gunpowder. That is why it did not receive arr 1902 distribution because gunpowder, in the opinion of the art committee, is not the best filling for a projectile. "

For all shells with a bursting charge of wet pyroxylin during the Russo-Japanese War, a Brink fuse with a charge of dry pyroxylin was used as an intermediate detonator. This fuse was too large for a 75 mm caliber. It actually weighed 3,75 pounds with an intermediate detonator. But the bottom shock tube of the 1896 sample weighed only 66 spools. But at the same time, it did not have an intermediate detonator and was unsuitable as a fuse for explosive charges of wet pyroxylin, only for powder explosive charges.

[Dimax-nemo]

There this chamber was ..... the cat cried. There was no point in stuffing pyroxylin in a case into it at all.

[Dimax-nemo]

Not only 75mm, but also 120mm and 305mm high-explosive, not to mention 47mm and 37mm. As much as the written sources can be trusted.

[Dimax-nemo]

So it was not only with us. The projectile, when piercing the armor, heated up so much that at one time even projectiles equipped with gunpowder did not have fuses. But the new "light" armor-piercing shells were equipped with a small amount of wet, moist pyroxylin, and a Brink fuse, the deceleration of which history is silent about ...

[Andrey152]

Quote: Undecim

I wrote that the powder was crushed, but this does not mean that it was simply poured. Unfortunately, I have not yet been able to find a description of the process of equipping projectiles with gunpowder.

You are wrong. Used ordinary smokeless gunpowder. Poured and compacted with a wooden pestle.

[Mooh]

I was ashamed to ask Viktor Nikolaevich such a question, I will ask you: what is the source of your knowledge about the process?

[Andrey152]

Instructions for equipping shells

[Andrey152]

Quote: alsoclean

Somewhere in the internet there was an article about the EBR "Glory". During the uprising in Sveaborg in 1906, "Slava" in the squadron fired at the rebels. So there was an investigation into the "extreme ineffectiveness" of the shells from the "Slava". It was about the "Tsushima" ammunition. It's a pity, but I could not find this article ...

See Melnikov's book about the EBR "Tsesarevich". It was he who fired at Sveaborg with the Bogatyr cruiser. The shells had incomplete detonation.

[Saxahorse]

thus, 4871-5161 cubic meters. cm. Taking into account that they contained 6,712 kg of pyroxylin, we obtain the density of the latter in the range of 1,3-1,38 g / cc, which exactly corresponds to the density of dry pyroxylin calculated by us with a density of 1,58, "diluted" up to a moisture content of 25%

The numbers are correct, the wording is only strange. Pyroxylin does not dissolve in water, so it simply absorbs water due to its porous structure. And it has its own gravimetric density to which some more water is added. And water is needed because dry pyroxylin is very flammable but does not detonate. An additional bonding liquid makes it possible to increase the speed of the shock wave in pyroxylin and, as a consequence, the blasting of the explosive as a whole.

As far as I understand, it is possible to compress gunpowder to a monolithic state, but such gunpowder will burn, not explode. But for an explosion in a confined space, he needs a certain amount of air.

On the contrary. Pressed gunpowder is prone to detonation, and therefore began to granulate. The combustion of gunpowder goes through layers and therefore an oversized pressed piece will compress the pressure of gases from the burning outer layer so that it explodes instead of burning. The speed of the shock wave increases sharply and, as a consequence, blasting. Will smash the trunk in general. The gaps between the pellets allow the flame to spread throughout the entire charge without detonating every single piece of powder mass.

[Pushkowed]

As far as I understand, it is possible to compress gunpowder to a monolithic state, but such gunpowder will burn, not explode.

Strange ... I always believed that the compression of gunpowder (at which the gravimetric density approaches the truth, i.e., the air gaps decrease) leads to increase burning rate, i.e. gunpowder no longer just burns, but explodes.

The powder track in the open air simply burns at a speed of a few cm / sec. And the gunpowder in the case gives the bullet / projectile a speed of several hundred m / s. Three orders of magnitude more. Those. without air access, the speed is higher.

In bickford cords (filling - the same gunpowder) during underwater blasting operations, the following is observed: with increasing depth (pressure), the burning rate increases. At too great depths, a "lumbago" is possible (almost instantaneous burnout of the line, without the required deceleration).

It turns out that in order for the gunpowder to explode, it just needs to be pressed.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Pushkowed

The powder track in the open air simply burns at a speed of a few cm / sec. And the gunpowder in the case gives the bullet / projectile a speed of several hundred m / s. Three orders of magnitude more. Those. without air access, the speed is higher.

Air is present in the case itself, the gunpowder is not pressed in it

Quote: Pushkowed

In Bickford cords (filling - the same gunpowder) during underwater blasting operations, the following is observed: with increasing depth (pressure), the burning rate increases.

There is no powder filling, although gunpowder also has a place to be, but it is mixed with the same saltpeter

[Pushkowed]

Air is present in the case itself, the gunpowder is not pressed in it

But its quantity is limited. And the new has nowhere to take (unlike burning in the open air) until the projectile has left the barrel.

There is no powder filling, although gunpowder also has a place to be

With modern fuses, yes. But the earliest (still Bikforodovs) had gunpowder filling. And this effect was observed even then.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Pushkowed

But its quantity is limited.

In the shell - too :)

Quote: Pushkowed

With modern fuses, yes. But the earliest (still Bikforodov) had a filling made of gunpowder.

And in what underwater work were they used? :)

[Pushkowed]

In the shell - too

And it is precisely because of this that the gunpowder can break it into fragments. The whole question is in the "quality" of crushing. When fired, the powder gases have room to expand (the volume increases due to the movement of the projectile). And in the shell itself - there is nowhere. The pressure builds up until the body collapses. And for better crushing, the pressure jump needs to be faster.

For example, the British, when equipping their shells, used the so-called. "pebble powder" (abbreviated as P.) with very coarse grains, obtained by crushing a thick powder "cake" into large pieces. There were no air gaps inside the grains, of course. I saw in the instructions for the 9-inch rifled muzzle-loading gun of 9-tons:

When equipping a projectile, it was required to pour gunpowder in layers. Pebble powder - put "grain to grain" (pebble by pebble), then sprinkle with fine powder (fine grane, abbreviated as FG) and then tamp down so that the powder settles well. And so each layer.

Fine-grained gunpowder filled the voids between the grains of pebbles. And all this - so that there is more gunpowder and less air in the charging cavity.

And in what underwater work were they used?

Yes, in the same as modern ones :)
It was just invented so that it was possible to isolate gunpowder from a humid environment.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Pushkowed

When fired, the powder gases have room to expand (the volume increases due to the movement of the projectile). And in the shell itself - there is nowhere. The pressure builds up until the body collapses. And for better crushing, the pressure jump needs to be faster.

Not this way. It is necessary to select this pressure jump in such a way that all the gunpowder has time to detonate, otherwise a partial detonation will result, as was the case in Russian powder sea mines.

Quote: Pushkowed

When equipping a projectile, it was required to pour gunpowder in layers. Pebble powder - put "grain to grain" (pebble by pebble), then sprinkle with fine grane (abbreviated as FG) and then tamp down so that the powder settles well

Which leaves gaps in the air anyway.

Quote: Pushkowed

Fine-grained gunpowder filled the voids between the grains of pebbles. And all this - so that there is more gunpowder and less air in the charging cavity.

However, he was there.

[Pushkowed]

It is necessary to select this pressure jump in such a way that all the gunpowder has time to detonate.

So he managed detonate, it must detonate as quickly as possible.

partial detonation, as was the case in Russian powder sea mines

Mines explode underwater. And gunpowder is not friendly with water. If it will "explode" for too long, then the water that has penetrated into the destroyed body of the mine will have time to "extinguish" it.

That leaves gaps in air anyway

Nobody and not the sport that they are. The main thing is that there are few of them. Gunpowder - neither TNT nor melinite. It cannot be converted into a liquid state of aggregation and poured into the projectile so that there is no air left at all. The main thing - volume ratio air gaps and the gunpowder itself. For detonation, it should be minimal.

Roughly speaking, the burning of gunpowder is chain chemical oxidation reaction. Products this reaction themselves, in turn, enter into a further reaction, but already as reagents, which is why the reaction is called a chain reaction. The reaction rate depends on temperature and pressure: the higher they are, the faster the reaction. In the open air, the propellant gases dissipate - and the combustion is relatively calm and slow. In the bore, they have nowhere to scatter, the pressure and temperature rise, and this speeds up the reaction by orders of magnitude. But there at least the volume increases (due to the movement of the projectile), which compensates for the increase in pressure. In addition, the gunpowder in the case still has large air gaps (including so as not to burst the gun). For if the air gaps almost no, then the gases have nowhere to scatter, the pressure grows exponentially, and the reaction is accelerated exponentially as well. This is detonation. Inside the projectile, this is aggravated by the fact that the volume does not change until the projectile is scattered. And he should scatter, ideally, after the news of gunpowder reacts.

According to the "ideology of construction" of grains, pebble powder is similar to cube-shaped crushed stone: a minimum of air gaps. This type of gunpowder has a gravimetric (bulk) density, which is closest to the true density of the substance. And it was intended only for equipping large shells, as well as for blasting operations in the ground. And yes, the British did not hesitate to ram it. For compressed gunpowder in a closed volume explodes, and does not burn.

[Alexandra]

Quote: rytik32

During the investigation of the death of the battleship "Petropalovsk" one of the versions was the detonation of shells stuffed with pyroxylin.

Barrage of sea mines stuffed with pyroxylin.

https://military.wikireading.ru/21642
"From the memoirs of the chairman of the commission for the investigation of the causes of the death of the squadron battleship" Petropavlovsk "Captain 1st Rank E.N. Port Arthur ... The explosion of the mine fell on the right side under the compartment of the mine apparatus. Pyroxylin in the barrage mines lying in the cellar near the underwater mine vehicles detonated, the ammunition magazines ignited, and the fire began to spread throughout the ship with amazing force. The officers who were in the wardroom, having heard the explosion, rushed upstairs and in the exit of the wardroom they already saw the yellow flaming tongues of burning gunpowder in such quantities that the gunpowder that was outside the cellars could not give. Then several repeated explosions followed. "30 * ... Recall that the command intended to bring the entire stock of mines to the shore from large ships. The Governor did not agree with this and allowed only half of the stock to be removed, which was done. Only after the disaster on March 31 mines from battleships and cruisers were delivered to the port. At the time of the death of Petropavlovsk, there were 58 minutes. 31 * "

[rytik32]

Here's about prioxilin in 12-inch shells.
Dry pyroxylin was in fuses

[Alexandra]

Dry pyroxylin powder was in the powder charges.

http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/cherkasov_vn/01.html

"... from all the testimonies [48] it turned out that there were three explosions at Petropavlovsk: the first was weak, probably from a Japanese mine, the second, terribly strong, under the bridge, which almost broke the battleship in two, a mass of debris flew into the air , and, finally, the third, not so sharp, after which thick brown smoke started and after two minutes there was no Petropavlovsk. all the battleships had a fair amount of them, and then there was an explosion of the nasal gun-chamber, smokeless gunpowder burned, giving clouds of brown smoke. "

[Alexandra]

There was 45 grams of dry pyroxylin in the Brink fuse. The fuses were screwed into the shells, but in a safe condition. Against the background of the explosion of hundreds and hundreds of kilograms of pyroxylin in the fuses and charging compartments of torpedoes and mine barriers that were closer than the shells to the torpedo explosion site, dry pyroxylin in Brink's fuses in the case of several tens of 12 "shells can not even be remembered. a cellar of powder charges Against the background of the explosion of this cellar, initiated by the explosion of the charging compartments of torpedoes and mine barriers, the explosion of 12 "shells in the shell cellar can only be seen through a microscope.

[Alexandra]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

So, we see that the question was asked simple - WHAT were the 2TOE FUGASES equipped with?

You are given the testimony of V.N. Cherkasov. - 12 dm. shells on battleships 1TOE were also "stuffed with smokeless powder".

Please indicate both the evidence and the stages of logical constructions, with the help of which you came to the following conclusions:

a) High-explosive 12 dm. shells of battleships 1TOE had a bursting charge of moist pyroxylin;
b) All high-explosive 12 dm. shells for battleships 2TOE had explosive charges of smokeless gunpowder, not because they did not manage to develop a pyroxylin charge for them, but because the industry did not manage to develop a single explosive charge of wet pyroxylin (see above, the Okhtensky gunpowder plant produced such charges for 9 "-11" guns in thousands per year) for some reason could not produce.

PS Where can you find the mention of 305 mm about "dotsushima" high-explosive shells of Russian battleships with an explosive charge not ~ 6 kg (14,62 lb), but ~ 10 kg of explosive? After all, this should be the mass of explosives in a Russian high-explosive projectile of the "old model" when equipped NOT with smokeless gunpowder, but with moist pyroxylin in a case, right?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Why copy and paste questions? In your opinion, I have nothing else to do, how to respond to the same remarks in different parts of the discussion?

[Dimax-nemo]

Thoughts are interesting and correct, in my opinion (especially about the density of gunpowder). But. The ITC document clearly states that 12 "high-explosive shells were loaded with gunpowder and an old pipe. In view of the fact that pyroxylin landmines simply did not have time to develop. Their action in the Yellow Sea, in Tsushima only confirms the document. They pierced 0,5 caliber armor, but At the same time, the armor action was insufficient, which is typical for powder shells with old tubes without powerful primers.
Yes, they reduced the content of explosives by more than half, compared to the proposed "compromise" 7,7%, they got 3,5%. Together with the "overhead" (case, water in pyroxylin) we get the 2,5-2,9% indicated by Titushkin. By the way, the fuse of the Land Department for the same shells weighed .... 1 kg. about. It's not even funny for a 6 "shell with its 1,2 kg. Of pyroxylin. I don't know how much Brink's fuse weighed.

[Alexandra]

Everything was even worse, the internal cavity of the shells was not fully used. In 10 "and 12" steel high-explosive shells equipped with an explosive charge of "new weapon" smokeless powder, in addition to the cap with gunpowder, there were also blanks of wood. In a 12 "projectile, only an igniting one, in which an igniter was placed from the same gunpowder with which the projectile was loaded, placed in a bag of fine silk material, designed to transfer fire from the tube to the explosive charge. If the charge took up little space in the internal cavity of the projectile, as it was in the 10 "projectile, then also a tube blank, into which the shock tube was screwed, and into which the ignition blank also entered, connecting with a spike.

The British illustration of the 10 "and 12" shells captured by the Japanese is well known. A little higher, I freely retold a couple of paragraphs from page 125 of the Artillery Manual. For students of the gunnery class of the Training Artillery Detachment of the Baltic Fleet, 1904 edition.

https://sassik.livejournal.com/541282.html

[rytik32]

Quote: AlexanderA

In 10 "and 12" steel high-explosive shells equipped with an explosive charge of "new weapon" smokeless powder, in addition to the cap with gunpowder, there were also blanks of wood.

These are not steel, but cast iron shells with a piece of wood.
Fought the explosion of shells when fired:
either reduced the charge,
or reduced the amount of gunpowder in the projectile with the same piece of wood.

[Alexandra]

Quote: rytik32

These are not steel, but cast iron shells with a piece of wood.

Did you elaborate on what the cast iron shells looked like before writing this?

17. Bomb of common cast iron of the modern type.
20. Steel deck high-explosive bomb.

Cast iron shells did not have a screw bottom.

And so as not to get up twice, p. 75:

"The bottom of cast-iron shells is one whole with side flanges, and of steel shells it is screwed in."

I read the tutorial.;) You, no.

It was impossible to insert wooden blanks into cast-iron shells that did not have a screw-in bottom. :)

[rytik32]

Quote: AlexanderA

"The bottom of cast-iron shells is one whole with side flanges, and of steel shells it is screwed in."

Sample of what year ???

Quote: AlexanderA

I read the tutorial.;) You, no.

You have read a few textbooks.
Here is Yatsyno for you

[Alexandra]

Sample of what year ??? You have read few textbooks. Here's Yatsyno

When you find a drawing of a cast-iron projectile with a bottom shock tube and a screwed bottom, be sure to inform. Damn. 92 steel shell. The cast-iron shells, as I already wrote, did not have a screw-in bottom, and the head shock tube of the 1884 model served as the fuse.

[rytik32]

Quote: AlexanderA

Damn. 92 steel shell

Are there proofs?
Here's what the "ordinary" shells have gone from

[Alexandra]

"... or some other cheap stuff." Yes, I am familiar with the version that the cast-iron "ordinary shell" of this drawing appeared in the mid-1890s. And that by the beginning of the Russian-Japanese "single-walled bombs" of ordinary cast iron were left only for coastal guns (6 "Kane and 10" / 45) of the Military, but not the Naval Department. Only in Yatsyno's "Course of Naval Artillery" (is this from the 1895 edition?) The drawing of such a projectile is incorrect. This projectile had a sidewall thickness variable in height:

And at Yatsyno, under the guise of "ordinary" made of "cast iron or other cheap material", a drawing, or, if you like, a diagram, of a typical steel high-explosive projectile is shown, judging by the wall of constant thickness and elongation in calibers.

Suppose the version of the adoption in the mid-1890s of ordinary cast iron shells with a screw-in bottom is correct.

Well then, this is a uniform sabotage.

In the diagram I have given, it is clearly seen that the wall thickness of this projectile in the so-called critical section is less than that of a steel high-explosive projectile (thick walls and a low filling factor of which explosives, as we remember, were determined by the mediocre quality of domestic projectile steel of that time).

To accept such a cast-iron projectile with a wall thickness less than that of a steel high-explosive in the critical section and a large elongation in caliber, moreover, with a bottom inertial fuse of "ordinary action" manages to initiate a powder explosive charge) ... only hard labor could fix all those who took part in this action.

And yes, about the wooden blanks in the cavity. Single-walled cast-iron shells without a screw-in bottom dispensed with inserting wooden blanks, and the powder in them somehow did not self-explode when fired. Please note that the wall thickness in the critical section (on the far left, in the region of the leading belt) was increased at the same time:

[rytik32]

Quote: AlexanderA

And at Yatsyno, under the guise of "ordinary" made of "cast iron or other cheap material", a drawing, or, if you like, a diagram, of a typical steel high-explosive projectile is shown, judging by the wall of constant thickness and elongation in calibers.

I would not be at all surprised if they were made according to the same drawing.

Quote: AlexanderA

Take such a cast-iron projectile with a wall thickness less than that of a steel high-explosive in the critical section

The steel land mine actually had a huge margin of safety.
In terms of elasticity limit, cast iron was fully matched to the requirements.

Quote: AlexanderA

the destruction of the shell of the projectile can often occur before the fuse has time to initiate a powder explosive charge)

Black powder in the shells ignites perfectly even without a fuse. Didn't you know that that's why at one time they didn't even put fuses in armor-piercing shells with black powder? So it's okay. Moreover, the main requirement for the projectile was cheapness!
By the way, did you clarify the circumstances of obtaining those shells, the pictures of which were depicted by the British attachés?

[Alexandra]

I would not be at all surprised if they were made according to the same drawing.

Judging by the illustration from 1904, where these shells are shown side by side, the drawings for the "ordinary" and the steel high-explosive had significant differences.

The steel land mine actually had a huge margin of safety.

According to the then simplified methods for evaluating critical stresses, it was precisely the insufficient safety margin of the used projectile steel that forced the volume of the internal cavity in the steel high-explosive shells of the Naval Department for the Kane cannons to be reduced, as well as for the 8 "/ 45, 10" / 45 and 12 "/ 40 guns" of the sample 1877. "As a result, a charge (with a cover) of 3,5-3,6% of the weight of the projectile was placed in the steel high-explosive shells for these guns. In the" ordinary "shell of the new drawing, the cavity was larger than in the steel high-explosive shell. the cavity was partially filled with wood that had not previously been used in cast-iron shells with a head shock tube, and the hull wall in the critical section of these shells was thinner than that of a steel high-explosive shell. "shells with a screwed bottom and shells of ordinary cast iron) were often destroyed when fired with a full charge. Again, uniform sabotage. As if regressors arrived from the back Aniem: The Russian Empire must lose the Russo-Japanese War, and they (sad joke) made a number of "minimum necessary impacts", including in the issue of the design of ammunition.

Black powder in the shells ignites perfectly even without a fuse. Did you not know that that is why at one time they did not even put fuses in armor-piercing shells with black powder?

Black powder ignited in armor-piercing shells heated up in the process of passing the armor plate. In a cast-iron "ordinary" projectile, when firing on hard ground, the interaction with the obstacle is different.

Actually, the rather frequent destruction of the bodies of steel cast iron shells with the head fuses set for high-explosive action when firing at frozen and hard soils without an explosion is a later experience.

"Tests by firing steel cast iron shells during the current winter, which took place under the conditions of the deployment of the manufacture of these shells at a number of factories, gave numerous cases of shell splits when they fell to the ground.
In this regard, the Artillery Directorate carried out experimental tests, which gave a clear picture of a satisfactory fragmentation and unsatisfactory high-explosive action of 122 mm and 152 mm shells made of steel cast iron. " November 1940, XNUMX

To use a bottom inertial fuse for the naval cannon shells of ordinary cast iron ... it looks like they were not even really tested before they began mass production ...

[Dimax-nemo]

Steel 10 "shells were filled with pyroxylin, writes Rdultovsky. It was 10" and 6 "steel pyroxylin high-explosive shells that the military department received from the navy for coastal guns since the beginning of the war, because it did not have such.

[rytik32]

Quote: Dimax-Nemo

Their action in the Yellow Sea, in Tsushima only confirms the document. They pierced the armor of 0,5 caliber, but the armor-piercing effect was insufficient. This is typical for powder shells with old tubes without powerful primers.

Dmitry, good afternoon!
Where did you get the information that the armor action of our shells was insufficient?
What are you comparing with?

[Dimax-nemo]

I draw this conclusion because in Tsushima, after the explosion of 12 "high-explosive" shells behind the armor, Japanese guns were usually not disabled in Tsushima. At the same time, there were repeated incidents of incapacitation of Russian guns by fragments of Japanese shells that fell behind the armor through the embrasures. This is what I compare with. 12% of the explosive content was enough to explode the projectile, but that was all - the energy of large and heavy fragments was not great.

[rytik32]

Quote: Dimax-Nemo

At the same time, there were repeated incidents of incapacitation of Russian guns by fragments of Japanese shells that fell behind the armor through the embrasures.

There were not many such cases, and usually on those ships that received a lot of hits.
The number of these hits is a matter of debate.
And in those cases when our ships received a moderate number of hits, then the artillery and we were almost all in place.

Quote: Dimax-Nemo

This is what I compare with. 1,8% of the explosive content was enough to explode the projectile, but that was all - the energy of large and heavy fragments was not great.

The fragments of our shells were large and powerful. We flew to the opposite side, and if at the extremities, then it was in the sieve (see "Asama"). But the Japanese could only get large fragments of secondary ones.

[Dimax-nemo]

Japanese shrapnel in an amicable way should not have hit the armor at all, since the Japanese shells pierced it twice at most.
The fact remains - Mikasa received 10 hits from 12 "shells ... and count not a single weapon disabled. Yes, there were floods. But it was still the same number of times it was necessary to get to such places for it to have any serious effects.

[rytik32]

Quote: Dimax-Nemo

Japanese shrapnel in an amicable way should not have hit the armor at all, since the Japanese shells pierced it twice at most.

Unfortunately, in those days in the towers and casemates there were a lot of cracks around the barrel and for observation, into which fragments penetrated. The Japanese also suffered from this: the Mikasa had both wounded and disabled optical sights from the explosions of Russian shells overboard.

Quote: Dimax-Nemo

The fact remains - Mikasa received 10 hits with 12 "shells

There were no 10 hits by 12 "shells in" Mikasu ", most likely there were 6 (six): (Japanese time)
1. Roof of casemate No. 14.14
2. Forward wheelhouse
3. Upper belt under casemate No. 14.25
4. Under casemate No. 14.40
5. Under casemate No. 16.15
6. Upper deck behind the bow barbet.
Well, a couple more hits can be "pulled"

Quote: Dimax-Nemo

and count not a single disabled weapon

The "Tsarevich" also has not a single withdrawn gun for 15 Japanese "suitcases"

Quote: Dimax-Nemo

But it was the same number of times it was necessary to get to such places for it to have any serious consequences.

The question is no longer about the number of hits, but about their intensity. Compare "Varyag" with "Oleg" and "Aurora". With an approximately equal number of hits, the Varyag's position was more difficult due to the fact that they all arrived in 10 minutes. "Oslyabya" died due to the fact that he received numerous damage to the outer side, which they did not manage to cope with in time.

[Dimax-nemo]

Cessarevich, perhaps, did not have it, but Orel and three times less was enough to remain without half of the artillery. And Suvorov. And Oslyabya lost a lot of guns in less than 40 minutes. Feel the difference. So don't. At that time, the Russians did not have effective shells, neither armor-piercing nor high-explosive. The Japanese at least had landmines. Yes, joint ones. But they were. Our "land mine" is neither a candle to God, nor a devil's poker. And armor-piercing, by and large, almost blanks with a very low content of explosives.

[rytik32]

Quote: Dimax-Nemo

and three times less was enough for Eagle to remain without half of the artillery. And Suvorov. And Oslyabya lost a lot of guns in less than 40 minutes. Feel the difference.

The number of hits in the "Eagle" is a controversial issue. The fact is that the Japanese did not take into account hits in the armor that did not cause damage, and there were a lot of reserved areas ...
On "Suvorov" and "Oslyaba" there is no exact data at all.
Have you not yet paid attention to the fact that we had big losses in artillery only when the number of Japanese hits was difficult to count?
I once suggested in the comments to calculate the losses in artillery from our ships, which received 15 ... 20 shells each and whose damage was well described: "Sisoy", "Nakhimov", "Oleg", "Aurora". So, despite the fact that they were all poorly armored, only the "Nakhimov" with its tarpaulin roof of barbets had any noticeable losses in artillery.

[Dimax-nemo]

In addition to the Japanese, Oryol, Mikasa and other ships that remained afloat were examined by Pekingham and other foreign officers, less interested than the Japanese. Their grades were enough for Campbell. For me too. Even if the Japanese somewhat underestimated the consumption of ammunition (and this certainly cannot be checked now), the Russian ships could not get much more based on the probability of hitting at that time at normal combat distances. This is also evidenced by the fact that, despite the overload and rather stormy sea that day, Suvorov was not sunk by artillery, although at times the Japanese fired at him from a very small distance.
According to Suvorov and Oslyab, there are testimonies from the surviving crew members, the damage to Oslyab is analyzed in sufficient detail. Up to the analysis of which Japanese ships at what time and how long they fired at him.
Even the estimates of Kostenko are not so far from the truth, if we remember that in the Japanese 6 "explosive mine" is approximately equivalent to the Russian 12 ".
Unfortunately or fortunately, everything here has already been stolen before us. A number of nuances remain. For example, the response time of the Brink fuse.

[rytik32]

Quote: Dimax-Nemo

Their grades were enough for Campbell. For me too.

Only five 12-inch hits in the "Eagle" is a clear overkill. Only in the last half hour of Tsushima, with perhaps the longest distance in battle, the Japanese recorded five 12-inch hits in Borodino. And on "Eagle" they beat much more!

Quote: Dimax-Nemo

much more Russian ships could not get based on the probability of hitting at that time at normal battle distances

Three Japanese sources (including Togo and the senior artillery officer "Mikasa") have information that in the first phase of the battle, almost all volleys of "Mikasa" (both 12-inch and 6-inch) had hits. Now calculate your accuracy based on at least one hit in a volley. And compare with your probability)))

Quote: Dimax-Nemo

Up to the analysis of which Japanese ships at what time and how long they fired at him.

And on whom did Asahi open fire?

Quote: Dimax-Nemo

if you remember that in the Japanese 6 "explosive mine" explosive is approximately equivalent to the Russian 12 ".

Ah, if only this amount of explosives would explode normally!
Our shell tore through the deck of the Mikasa 4,3x3,4 meters. If you find a similar effect of a Japanese land mine, I will accept your position.
In general, the Japanese 12-inch land mines were somewhere on the level of the British 6-inch land mines (NOT). Photos of "Emden" and "Konigsberg" clearly demonstrate this.

[Dimax-nemo]

Did the Japanese fix it? Sitting on Mikasa? You can fix it by examining the target after shooting. All the rest is "conjectural". Hits in the armor of even landmines are not at all without a trace, and such hits were noted by the British and German officers during the inspection. Moreover, Borodinos were sitting up to their ears that day. There, the armor above the overhead line turned out to be a thin strip (and even that, in conditions of excitement, periodically went under the water), casemates of 75-mm guns, 6 "barbets (Japanese shells simply did not reach 12" barbets) and towers. Oslyabya did not have that either.
There was nothing then to have such a percentage of hits. There is no fire control system at all. From rangefinders with such a base it is further 30 kb. there is no use (and closer even for 6 "they are not really needed). And there is nothing else. There are no" hours "." Dumaresques "- no. There are no" computers "of any kind. 40 minutes, not point-blank, but from 25-30 kb. Do you want to say that the Japanese in 1905 fired at the level of Eustathius and Goeben in 1914? From room 35-37 they immediately hit someone in a rather stormy sea? , I will not believe.
According to Japanese sources, Oslyaba was fired mainly by Shikishima, briefly by Fuji, as well as most armored cruisers. Sikishima inflicted decisive damage to Oslabe.
Normally it exploded there. The Japanese risked using a strong explosive mercury capsule to detonate the picric acid charge, unlike some "teachers." It cost the Japanese several lost barrels, but in most cases it gave full breaks.
The "gate" in Alexander's nose doesn't tell you anything? Or similar holes in Oslyab? Or the armor plates turned out completely on it? Do you think he just drowned in half an hour? Yes, and Russia with Thunderbolt left all in holes. If it weren't for the calm, we might not have left.
I don't know which Japanese 12 "and English 6" you are talking about. Svetlana for critical damage, which entailed a partial loss of combat effectiveness, even 12 was enough. "Quite the equivalent of Emden.
In a Russian high-explosive projectile of that time, according to most reliable sources, the charge was 1,8%. It was almost certainly gunpowder. The tube was adequate for such a filling, although it gave an action that was too slow for a land mine (but all together it pierced 6 "armor). 6 kg. Is 6 kg., No more, no less. The Japanese used blasting explosives, in general in their strength equivalent TNT, with a charge many times larger and a fuse, although not of a safe type, but generally similar to PMV fuses. That's all. What you bring on the Mikas deck could be the result of not one hit, but two at once. there are no miracles to look for, they do not exist, everything has already been stolen before us.

[rytik32]

Quote: Dimax-Nemo

Did the Japanese fix it? Sitting on Mikasa?

How else??? You have a very bad opinion of Japanese observers!
The Japanese even recorded a 12-inch hit from Mikasa to Kamchatka from 5200 m without a break.

Quote: Dimax-Nemo

There is no fire control system at all.

You just don't know about her.
I am not in the sense that there was a machine for calculating corrections, but in the fact that the Japanese method was then the most advanced.
Wait - I will write an article here on this technique, now I am in the process of writing.

Quote: Dimax-Nemo

C 35-37 cab. immediately hit someone in a rather stormy sea? Sorry, I won't believe

"Mikasa" hit from the GC in the third salvo - this is confirmed by both Japanese and our sources. Where did you get your doubts?

[Dimax-nemo]

I have a very good opinion of Captain Packinham, who later became an admiral (counter-, vice-) - it doesn't matter. He was in a clearly more advantageous position than the Japanese observers at 7-8 thousand meters.
I am happy to read about the technique, but other advanced (no kidding) in the control of the country's fire "went the other way." And literally in a year or two. So it was impossible to squeeze out anything particularly significant without calculations. How accurately it was possible to shoot at 20-30 kb without all this. - the question is also "closed". What's Campbell, what's after.
The very first sighting volley of Suvorov lay near Mikas. This is not the point. I doubt Mikasa has hit more than 5-10% after that, depending on the distance. For there are no technical and technological grounds for this.

[rytik32]

Quote: Dimax-Nemo

He was in a clearly more advantageous position than the Japanese observers at 7-8 thousand meters.

There was no way he could have been in a better position. The best position is with a telescope on fore-mars. This is the number 1 point of Japanese shooting lessons in WM.

Quote: Dimax-Nemo

How accurately it was possible to shoot at 20-30 kb without all this. - the question is also "closed". What's Campbell, what's after.

Have you seen this sign?

Quote: Dimax-Nemo

I doubt Mikasa has hit more than 5-10% after that, depending on the distance. For there are no technical and technological grounds for this.

To say this, you must be familiar with the Japanese fire control technique in Tsushima (it was very different from the ZhM).

[Dimax-nemo]

The best position is when you look at the target point-blank.
"Careful analysis of the reports of the British and German naval attaches and the study of numerous photographs allow us to say with a high degree of probability that the Eagle most likely received 5 12", 2 10 ", 9 8", 39 6 "and 21 small-caliber or shrapnel hits , of which 2 12 ", 5 8", 28 6 "and 11 small-caliber or shrapnel hits fell on the port side."

On the issue of the size of holes from 12 "Japanese landmines.
"The resulting damage is generally similar to the damage sustained by Russian ships in the battle in the Yellow Sea. There are many large holes in the unarmored sides, including a 12" shell hole in the port side under the front pipe measuring 10 x 8 feet, but damage to the internal premises are relatively small ...
Two 12 "high-explosive shells hit nearly side by side can create a hole in the unarmored side, described as" 20 feet across. "
There were no such holes from Russian shells in Japanese ships in Tsushima, although there were 37 or so hits.

I read this article about the Varyag. Here the key words ".. just started to approach."
"It is possible that by the day of Tsushima, the methods of aiming guns used by the Japanese had undergone further improvement, but the state of the sea and visibility were noticeably worse than during the battle in the Yellow Sea, and the distances, although they were never as great as in the initial phase of the battle in the Yellow Sea, were rarely less than the distance of closest approach in the later period of this battle, with the exception of individual cases of shooting at the damaged Suvorov. In the battle in the Korean Strait, conditions (shooting) were also better than at Tsushima, and for a long time the firing distances fires in these battles did not differ very much. The assumption of a very large number of hits by heavy shells received by three sunken ships of the Borodino class leads to an incredibly high percentage of hits. It should not be assumed that this value exceeded 10% for 12 "guns, but for 8 "guns, the hit rate should be noticeably lower. This gives about 45 12" hits. "
The British did not notice anything particularly new, and instead of adopting the "advanced" Japanese technique, they took up the "clock", mechanical calculators, tables, new rangefinders:
"The initial distance was determined using the Barr and Stroud rangefinder, but after the start of the battle, the rangefinder was not used until the ceasefire. Volleys of 6" guns were used to zero in at range, and at moderate distances the distance to the enemy was set twice after 3 volleys. During the battle, it was often impossible to distinguish between the Mikasa shells falling from the shells falling from other ships, and when this happened, the fire temporarily stopped, and again switched to sighting 6 "volleys. On the Mikasa, the senior artillery officer watched the shells fall, when it was possible, from the bow bridge and transmitted the corrected distance to the guns through the conning tower, and the second artillery officer was on fore-mars.To transfer the distances to the guns, 5 methods were used: an electric transmitter (dial-indicator) Barr and Stroud, a loud-speaking telephone apparatus, telephone pipes, messengers with megaphones and manual distance dials. "

[rytik32]

Quote: Dimax-Nemo

The best position is when you look at the target point-blank.

Did Campbell see damage to the Eagle? )))

Quote: Dimax-Nemo

Thorough analysis of English reports

Only Fischer, regarding the Packinham report, said that he believed more in Kostenko's data :)

Quote: Dimax-Nemo

The British did not notice anything particularly new, and instead of adopting the "advanced" Japanese methodology

The Japanese technique was sharpened for the UK, and the British already had a "Dreadnought".

Quote: Dimax-Nemo

Initial distance

In general, it is true according to the Tsushima method, but it is not revealed how the Japanese managed to focus the fire of several ships at one target.

[Dimax-nemo]

The Eagle was inspected by Packingham and other foreign officers. There are a lot of photographs of its damage. Campbell got the hang of it all.
That's why observers observe, to spy on what's interesting. Moreover, competent officers at that time knew not only their own instructions on fire control, but also those of others. For example, Italian instructions were translated into Russian. At that time they did not consider it necessary to make a secret of this. Percy Scott is actually English.
In order to concentrate the fire of three ships on one target, a stopwatch is enough. And the Japanese didn’t shoot more than three at a time.

[rytik32]

Campbell got the hang of it all.

Campbell blatantly distorted Packinham's report with a clear tendency to underestimate the caliber of the shells that hit.

Moreover, competent officers at that time knew not only their own instructions on fire control, but also those of others

No, they didn't know. Ours, even after Tsushima, very roughly represented the Japanese shooting technique.

For example, Italian instructions were translated into Russian

Met in the Marine Collection. But it is not a fact that this was a combat instruction.

And the Japanese didn’t shoot more than three at a time

How they shot!
https://sidorenko-vl.livejournal.com/37363.html
After "Oslyabi", at about 2:35 (Japanese) the fleet was almost constantly hitting the "Suvorov"

[Maxim G]

What could be the motives for misrepresenting the report?

[rytik32]

A common thread running through all parts of Campbell’s article is that the accuracy of the Japanese with 12-dm guns could not have been more than 10%. This is what the data was adjusted to.

[Maxim G]

Why did they promote such an idea?

[rytik32]

Don't know. It's hard to even guess.

[KuollutMoominpappa]

“Back in 1885, a very thin-walled, durable projectile with a large explosive charge that meets the requirements was developed. Unfortunately, it turned out to be very expensive, as a result of which it was not accepted; with ordinary cheap steel, the walls had to be thicker and we got a 8 pound 214-inch high explosive projectile with a 6 pound bursting charge, while the current 8-inch projectile weighs 271 pounds and has 38 pounds of bursting charge. .. "" ... The projectile was lightened to give the greatest flatness of the trajectory ... for example, 6 inches from 136 to 101 1/4 pounds by some reduction in its length ... " the lack of manufacture of the tube itself ... At present, the tube has been worked out, which cost many hundreds of shots, and its sensitivity has been brought to a guaranteed explosion of a 12-inch projectile upon impact on a ½-inch steel shield ... "" ... Previously, an explosive charge in shells we used from pyroxylin or smokeless powder. Both substances are of a relatively low density, about 1,1, so there was not much of it in the projectile. In addition, the products of the explosion are colorless, and therefore the rupture of a shell at large distances of the last war did not help to see the places where the shells fell and did not facilitate the sighting, even as the black smoke of the shimosa showed this clearly. At first, in our scientific and technical laboratory, an attempt was made to increase the charge density of pyroxylin, and indeed it was possible [156] to achieve such a density by pressing that this pyroxylin, called "elephant", completely resembled ivory even in appearance, but the force of its explosion it was in no way inferior to shimose, but its manufacture was difficult and expensive.

Then it was possible to reproduce shimose, but they did not stop at it, since they found a completely safe in handling and storage and equally strong explosive, called "tolom". These shells are finally worked out, and the factories have been given orders for their gross production ... "

Let us now supplement the given data with information that logically follows from them, namely: since the new 8-inch projectile weighs 274 pounds and has 38 pounds of explosive charge and all the projectiles are geometrically similar, then:

The 12-inch weighs 274 * 1728/512 = 924 lbs and has a bursting charge of 38 * 1728/512 = 128 lbs.

The 10 '' weighs 274 * 1000/512 = 535 pounds and its burst charge 38 * 1000/512 = 74 pounds, etc.

The given data are more than enough to have a complete judgment about our high-explosive shells, which were the result [157] of both the experience of the war and three years of intensive work, constituting a true, and not imaginary, secret of state importance. "

A.N. Krylov. "My memories".

[fomin]

An interesting analysis, however, it is not known that not all shells were loaded with gunpowder, which was inferior to pyroxylin in both mass and power, but most importantly, the shells equipped with pyroxylin did not explode when they hit the enemy ship. fuse power was not enough to detonate pyroxylin 30% moisture, considering that pyroxylin shells for the 1st Pacific squadron had a normal pyroxylin moisture content of 12-15% and therefore they exploded well, and did not create problems during storage and transportation, then an increase in the pyroxylin moisture content to 30% for the 2nd Pacific Squadron under the pretext that it will pass through tropical zones, otherwise it cannot be called an act of sabotage.

[rytik32]

Quote: fomin

1st Pacific squadron had a normal moisture content of pyroxylin 12-15% and therefore they exploded well

You have two misconceptions in your post.
1. That the 1TOE shells exploded well. I was doing analysis on large projectiles. The percentage of non-breaks is about the same.
2. That the humidity of pyroxylin is 30% because of the tropics. Not! Read some handbook or textbook for the WWI army. There is also 30% pyroxylin. So the 30% humidity had nothing to do with the tropics or even the navy.

[Dimax-nemo]

According to Rdultovsky, the humidity of pyroxylin in shells is from 18 to 25%. "Dry" pyroxine 9-10% - for detonators. Russian shells did not always explode, not because of the moisture of the pyroxylin (you need to soak it halfway), but because of the peculiarities of the Brink fuse. Some were known, some were guessed at, some became known after the debriefing.

[IbnAlex]

Quote: Undecim

For shells in general, blasting is much more important than high explosiveness.
To compare these indicators, you need to have them. The brisance of pyroxylin is found in the literature, I have not seen the brisance of granipore and dibasite. It is possible that they were not tested for this parameter. Judging by the detonation velocity, on which the brisance directly depends, it is noticeably higher for pyroxylin.

For what shells. Here it is necessary to clarify. For fragmentation - blasting (so that if the hull breaks, there are more fragments). For high-explosive - high-explosiveness (the action of gases to release, for example, soil, to form a funnel). For armor-piercing - most likely also high-explosiveness (impact behind armor).

[Andrey152]

Quote: AlexanderA

In the Russian Imperial Navy, rifled artillery was put into service in 1867 and until 1917 had only two barrel-cutting systems - "model 1867" and "the sample of 1877".

It's a delusion.
There was also a third constant-slope rifling system used on the new 50-caliber guns.

[Dimax-nemo]

Everything that is written above and below is very interesting. On the website ava.fortoved. ru you can find, roughly speaking, “service manuals” for 45 caliber. 6" and 10" until 1905. And there are descriptions of shells, for 6" even with drawings. Moreover, if for 6" the shells of the Military Department itself are described, then for 10" - obviously from the Naval Department with General Brink's tube. But here It is also reported that these shells can be filled with smokeless powder and an 1896 tube.
10" high explosive steel bomb:
unloaded bomb weight without tube and sleeve - 525 pounds
length 31,83" (3,2 cal.)
weight of a bomb filled with pyroxylin - 549 pounds
weight of pyroxylin charge with case - approx. 20 lbs.
weight of the "fuse" - 3,75 lbs.
weight of the Brink gene shock tube - 2 lbs. 22 gold
the weight of a bomb filled with dry powder is 535 lbs.
smokeless powder charge weight - 9 lbs. 51 gold
shock tube weight 1896 - 66 gold.

steel armor-piercing bomb 10" without tip
weight of an unloaded bomb without a tube - 538 lb., length - 30" (3 cal.)
the weight of a bomb filled with pyroxylin is 550 lbs.
the weight of the bursting charge of pyroxylin is 7,5 lbs.
the weight of the brass case is 2,1 lbs.
"fuse" and tube are the same as those of a steel high-explosive bomb
smokeless loaded weight gunpowder bombs - 544 lbs.
smokeless powder charge weight - 5 lbs.
pipe 1896

I will also give a description of a 6" cast iron bomb; it is unlikely that the naval ones were any different.
Length - 19,14" (3,19 cal.)
The weight of the bomb loaded with gunpowder is 101,25 pounds.
Empty weight: 96,07 lbs.
The weight of the copper belt is 1,17 lbs.
The weight of the explosive charge of gunpowder is 3,38 lbs.
Tube weight arr. 1884 (head) - 0,63 fn.

It was prohibited to fire cast iron and segmented projectiles with full charges. However, the Military Department did not intend to widely practice this in peacetime, because with full charges the survivability of the 6" Kane was 400 shots. I believe that the same "economists" were in Morveda.
About the 6" steel armor-piercing bomb, I will only say that according to the drawing it is clearly not a blank, a cavity for the charge is clearly provided. But they were not equipped, which is clearly indicated in the document. Such a charge of gunpowder could not burst the projectile at all, but only knock out the bottom. For what reasons For some reason, the Military Department, having shells filled with pyroxylin for mortars of various calibers and even melinite for 6" 120 pounds, which were quite sophisticated at that time and served as fuses for them for a long time, did not bother to do the same for the newest coastal guns before the war.
Gunpowder can burn without air, that’s why it’s gunpowder. But, if you push it somewhere all the way (press it), it will no longer explode, but burn slowly. This is exactly what powder retardants do. The powder filling does not “work” very quickly anyway, so, having pierced a 0,5" casing sheet, a shell with a tube from 1896 allegedly exploded 5-6 m from the “side” during tests. No other conditions were specified, but it seems , that the total “reaction” time is clearly more than 0,005 sec., and maybe even 0,01 sec. The 1896 tube did not have a special slowdown, but was forced to have a powder firecracker of approximately 25 g (which, again, is by itself not a moderator yet). Gunpowder is just gunpowder, to burn quickly as much as possible, and not to tear apart gun barrels. Therefore, equipping shells with it at the beginning of the 20th century was no longer a very good idea.
It seems that Rdultovsky wrote that the density of Russian wet pyroxylin is 25% 1,2. The density of picric acid (which the French, for example, poured directly into the projectile, without any cases) is 1,65. The same high-explosive shells would fit a third more than wet pyroxylin. Work was also carried out on phlegmatizing picric acid to equip armor-piercing projectiles with it, but by 1904 they had not yet been completed. Even the damn caps actually received only part of the 6" armor-piercing shells, and even then only 2/3 of the TOE.