Main caliber of the Russian Imperial Navy

244
Main caliber of the Russian Imperial Navy

In the proposed series, I will provide the dear reader with a description of some aspects of the evolution of domestic twelve-inch armor-piercing and high-explosive shells in the period 1877–1911. As well as armor-piercing tips, which were tested in the Russian Empire starting in the 90s of the 152th century, but were first used to equip part of the ammunition (a certain number of 2-mm shells) of the ships of the XNUMXnd Pacific squadron leaving for Tsushima.

Armor-piercing shells


According to the textbook (we are talking about the 30s of the last century), an armor-piercing projectile is such a projectile in which the design of its body and specially its head part (with corresponding hardening) achieves the greatest possible armor-piercing qualities. Moreover, the high-explosive action is used only to the extent permitted by the drawing, without prejudice to the full satisfaction of its main purpose.

Obviously, the body of an armor-piercing projectile must be as strong as possible. In this case, it would seem that the ideal armor-piercing projectile should be a steel blank, consisting entirely of metal and not having an internal void for placing explosives (explosives) in it. Of course, German armor-piercing shells of the late 19th century immediately come to mind, which were exactly that. But such a conclusion, despite all its apparent logic, will be erroneous.



The fact is that the strength of steel depends, among other things, on heat treatment, and the best quality of the latter is precisely achieved in the presence of that same internal void - due to more uniform heating of the workpiece. Therefore, the body of an armor-piercing projectile with an explosive content of up to approximately 3% was stronger than a solid projectile of the same caliber and weight, containing absolutely no explosives, but a further increase in the charge had a negative effect on the strength of the projectile.

A little about domestic twelve-inch cameras


As you know, the 2nd half of the 508th century was marked by many achievements of scientific and technological progress, including: a massive transition to breech-loading rifled guns. Following new trends, in their native Fatherland they decided to equip the new battleship “Peter the Great” not with cyclopean XNUMX-mm muzzle-loading and smooth-bore monsters, as was intended in the original project, but with artillery systems of the latest design.


It must be said that when designing land and naval artillery, our engineers took, perhaps, the best path possible. In 1858–1861 In Russia, guns from almost all leading foreign manufacturers were tested, and, of course, guns of our own production.

According to the results of the experiments, the American and English guns were considered very unsatisfactory: both range and accuracy were lame, but the products of the Krupp plant turned out to be beyond praise. That is why it was decided that the Krupp design had the best prospects, which was adopted as the basis for all domestic developments.

Obviously, this decision also indicates that the first domestic artillery systems were inferior to Krupp guns. However, the German experience was not absolute: in the Russian Empire the search for the best solutions and numerous tests of various innovations in artillery continued, both in terms of the design of the gun and in terms of the gunpowder that made up the charges for it.

Accordingly, when the question of organizing the production of large-caliber naval guns arose, Russia had already accumulated its own considerable experience, which was quite successfully combined with German experience. Simply put, ours acquired an 11-inch Krupp gun and modified it, resulting in 280-mm and 305-mm guns mod. 1867. These guns were produced according to our drawings, which were somewhat different from Krupp’s, and, it must be said, they turned out to be very, very successful for their time.


280 mm gun mod. 1867

So, for example, a 280-mm gun of domestic production fired shells weighing 520 pounds (212,95 kg), like the German one, but for our guns the charge was 100 pounds of gunpowder, while for the German ones it was 91,5 pounds. At the same time, a firing test showed that even after 500 (five hundred) shots the gun had such minor damage that it could continue to serve, and it was installed on the gunboat “Ruff”.

The twelve-inch gun, according to the information I have (alas, not exhaustive), was created by our engineers by scaling the 11-inch Krupp, with a change in the location and size of the rings holding the barrel together, and, possibly, other modifications. Since 1873, six 305 mm/20 guns mod. 1867: four for the battleship “Peter the Great” and two for the Black Sea “popovka” “Kyiv”.

But no matter how good the first domestically produced twelve-inch was, it quickly became outdated - progress in those years moved forward by leaps and bounds. Work on gunpowder, metal and the design of artillery systems made it possible to move on to the production of so-called “long-range” guns, achieving a significant increase in the initial speed of the projectile and its flight range.

The new twelve-inch gun, also based on a 280-mm German gun (but more modern), received a barrel extended to 30 calibers. The first copy of the 305 mm/30 artillery system mod. 1877, was ready in 1880. These guns were adopted by battleships of the “Ekaterina II” and “Alexander II” types, as well as the non-serial “Gangut” and “Twelve Apostles”. The latter, as is known from reliable sources, later together with the “Three Saints” formed the striking fist of the Black Sea fleet among fifteen battleships.

The next step was the 305 mm/35 gun mod. 1886. I must say that story the creation of “35-caliber” twelve-inch guns is very interesting, and I will return to it, albeit a little later. Following it came the turn of the famous “butt” - a 305 mm/40 gun model 1895. It was the most advanced twelve-inch Russian naval gun of the pre-dreadnought era, but, alas, far from the best weapon of this caliber in the world.


305 mm/40 gun mod. 1895 in the tower of the squadron battleship "Tsesarevich"

The crowning achievement of the development of twelve-inch guns in the Russian Empire was the 305-mm/52 gun mod. 1907, installed on dreadnoughts of the Sevastopol and Empress Maria types. This gun was truly at the level of the world's best examples, and could well lay claim to the title of the best artillery system of its caliber during the First World War.

This marked the end of the evolution of domestic twelve-inch naval guns. In the USSR, they returned several times to the creation of 305-mm cannons, which, due to their characteristics, should have left the Tsarist twelve-inch guns far behind, but it did not work out: neither for the heavy cruisers of Project 69, nor for the post-war project “Stalingrad”.

305 mm armor-piercing shells - mass and explosive content


Of course, the latest for its time, 305 mm/20 guns mod. 1867 demanded the latest shells, and they tried to create them. Alas, the first pancake turned out to be lumpy.

It is quite obvious that ordinary cast iron bombs, used as ammunition for smooth-bore guns, could not possibly fulfill the role of an armor-piercing projectile. Accordingly, our gunsmiths made a steel armor-piercing projectile, but it was too expensive. Then they tried to experiment with different hardenings of cast iron, but, of course, no tricks could give the “cast iron” the required strength. I had to come to terms with the rising cost of ammunition, but another problem arose.

The fact is that both hardened cast iron and steel armor-piercing shells were equipped with a powder charge, the rupture of which in all tests for some reason occurred in the process of penetrating the armor. Moreover, apparently, at the moment of contact with the plate, since the shells were destroyed during the explosion and, although they left significant potholes, they did not penetrate the armor at all.

Unfortunately, I was unable to figure out what exactly went wrong. Perhaps it was the operation of the fuse. But, whatever the problem, it was not possible to solve it at that moment, and the ammunition load of 305 mm/20 guns mod. 1867, in addition to cast iron high-explosive bombs, included steel armor-piercing shells that did not contain any explosives. As for the mass of these shells, in the publications known to me it is indicated differently: from 306 to 321 kg.

Armor-piercing projectile for the next 305 mm/30 gun mod. 1877 was already different. Its mass is known exactly and is 810 pounds or 331,7 kg (Russian pound - 0,40951241 kg). It is also reliably known that this armor-piercing projectile was equipped with explosives, but I was unable to find out how many explosives were placed in it.

It is noteworthy that the mass of shells for 305 mm/30 guns mod. 1877 corresponds to the later “lightweight” shells of the Russian Navy, with which our squadron battleships fought at Shantung and Tsushima. But if for 1895–1905. a twelve-inch 331,7 kg projectile would rightfully be called lightweight, but 17 years earlier, and even in the first half of the 1890s, it was not such.

British battleships accepted by the fleet in the second half of the 1880s (even the lead Collingwood of the “Admiral” series) carried 305 mm/25 guns firing 325 kg shells. The twelve-inch Krupp guns mounted on the Dingyuan-class battleships destined for China carried shells weighing 329 kg (although there are different opinions, this weight seems to be the most realistic). The French, on their battleships Charles Martel, carrying two 305-mm guns, made do with ammunition weighing 292 kg.

In other words, at the time of the creation of the 305 mm/30 gun mod. 1877 Russian shell was one of the heaviest twelve-inch shells in the world.


Alas, having taken the first step so successfully, we stumbled on the second. Black powder, which Russian shells were loaded with in those years, had a very limited explosion force, and obviously not much could fit into a 331,7 kg armor-piercing projectile. Hence the relatively small armor effect, and, of course, the sailors wanted more.

“Be afraid to dream, dreams sometimes come true.” As many as 1-pound (111 kg) projectiles were created. Heavyweight record holders, which in those years not a single twelve-inch projectile in the world came close to. It was assumed that the new 454,97 mm/305 gun mod. 35 can be made much more durable than the 1886 mm/305 mod. 30, accordingly, it will be possible to increase the pressure in the barrel and give the new armor-piercing projectiles a high initial velocity, ensuring confident defeat of the enemy at all reasonable (at that time) combat distances.

Unfortunately, the possibilities of scientific and technological progress turned out to be overestimated. It was assumed that the new gun would be able to fire 454,97 kg projectiles with an initial speed of 2 feet per second (almost 000 m/sec), while the pressure in the barrel was supposed to reach 610 atm. However, with such pressure, after the fiftieth shot, the accuracy ceased to be any real. By reducing the initial speed to 3 f./s (000 m/s), it was possible to obtain an acceptable barrel life, but this speed was considered too low and did not provide the required armor penetration.

And here our decision-makers should have drawn the right conclusions by creating an “intermediate” projectile weighing 380–390 kg, which would provide acceptable values ​​for barrel survivability, initial velocity and explosive mass in high-explosive and armor-piercing projectiles. But, unfortunately, this did not happen.

When developing technical specifications for the design of a new 305-mm/40 gun mod. In 1895, completely different requirements were established. The first was quite reasonable - to ensure the survivability of the barrel for at least 150 shots without a critical loss of accuracy. But the second - a significant reduction in the weight of the gun, apparently, was dictated solely by ideas of economy, since, according to some, albeit indirect, data, the pricing of a gun in those years depended on its mass. This is nothing more than a hypothesis, but I cannot give any other reasonable explanation for this phenomenon: I will be happy to listen to the opinions of knowledgeable readers on this matter.

So, against the background of these requirements, a return to 810-pound (331,7 kg) shells suggested itself. Moreover, at short combat distances, lightweight shells actually had an advantage in armor penetration over heavier ones. And about no other distances in August 1891, when the requirements for the future 305 mm/40 gun mod. 1895, no one could even imagine.

In essence, in this whole harmonious concept of a light, cheap, but survivable gun and a light, but perfectly armor-piercing projectile, there was only one problem left - the low weight of the explosive. But here pyroxylin turned up very inopportunely: it is quite obvious that as an explosive it was significantly superior to black gunpowder, which is why, with the same volume of the charging chamber in the projectile, when equipped with pyroxylin, a much greater effect from the explosion was achieved.

That is, it turned out that the new projectile would be smaller, but the force of the explosion would be greater. The fact that a heavier armor-piercing projectile could be equipped with even more explosives was obviously not taken into account.

As a result, the 305 mm/40 gun mod. 1895 turned out to be technically much more advanced than the 305 mm/35 gun - with a decrease in weight from 57,05 to 42,3 tons, the muzzle energy increased by 55%. But it was equipped with only 331,7 kg shells, both armor-piercing and high-explosive, which are mentioned in sources as “shells mod. 1892”, or as “old-style shells”, or even nothing at all.

In fact, shells for the 305 mm/40 gun were created at different times. Professor E. A. Berkalov, in his work “Design of naval artillery shells” indicates that the drawings:

– high-explosive shells were approved in 1894;
– armor-piercing shells without a tip – in 1899;
– armor-piercing projectiles with a tip – in 1900.

During the Russo-Japanese War, only the first two were used, and the sources give very different masses of explosives and percentages of its content in these shells. Which, however, is not at all surprising if we take into account that over the years of service, these shells were equipped with as many as three types of explosives - pyroxylin, smokeless gunpowder based on it, and after the Russo-Japanese War - trinitrotoluene (TNT). At the same time, the mass of TNT placed in Tsushima shells is absolutely known: 5,3 kg for armor-piercing shells, and 12,4 kg for high-explosive shells.

But significantly less gunpowder was placed due to the low density of the latter. As is known from the “Relations of the Marine Technical Committee to the Chairman of the Investigative Commission in the case of the Tsushima Battle”, the 331,7 kg high-explosive projectile was loaded with only 5,99 kg (14,62 Russian pounds). What’s interesting is that gunpowder itself differs little in density from TNT.

But the whole point is that it makes no sense to equip a projectile with a pressed powder bomb - in order to “prove itself” as an explosive, gunpowder needs air. Accordingly, granulated gunpowder was used as an explosive, which is why part of the volume of the projectile chamber was filled with gunpowder, and the other part with air, while TNT completely filled the volume of the charging chamber.

And now the gravimetric (i.e. bulk) density of granulated gunpowder is more than twice that of TNT. At the same time, the density of pyroxylin is almost equal to TNT, and it does not need air, but there were quite a few other problems with it. In shells it was not used in its pure form, but diluted with water, which made its density somewhat lower. In addition, pyroxylin required a brass case to isolate it from the walls of the projectile, which further reduced the payload of the latter.

I described all this in more detail in the article “On the power of Russian “lightweight” 305-mm shells from the Russo-Japanese War”, here I will limit myself to the final figures of my calculations.


It is noteworthy that if our industry had been more efficient, the fleet could well have received a certain number of 305-mm shells with armor-piercing tips and, at least slightly, increased explosive content by the beginning of the Russo-Japanese War.

What is there! Japanese artillerymen had English 305-mm/40 guns with a projectile weight of 386 kg and an initial speed of 738 m/s for the Yashima and Fuji and 762 m/s for subsequent battleships. Taking into account the domestic level of technology, the Russian fleet could well receive an artillery system that fires the same 386-kg shells with an initial speed in the range of 735–740 m/sec. The muzzle energy at such an initial speed would be quite consistent with our 305-mm/40 gun mod. 1895.

But British guns were heavier than domestic ones, approaching 50 tons, and it is possible that if we had not artificially limited the mass of our guns, we would have been able to achieve a slightly higher initial speed. However, it is unlikely that our hypothetical gun was capable of delivering 762 m/sec, at least due to the fact that our engineers were required to have a barrel life of 150 shots, while the British limited themselves to 100 shots.

And again, taking into account the timing of the development of domestic shells, in theory we had time to equip the newest Russian battleships with 386 kg armor-piercing shells with an armor-piercing tip. Scaling the characteristics of a real 331,70-kg projectile mod. 1900, we find that a 386-kg armor-piercing projectile of those years could carry a completely shameless 5,7 kg of wet pyroxylin.

Of course, in comparison with Japanese landmines, this is ridiculous, but for a projectile capable of penetrating armor, it’s very good. The content of dry pyroxylin would reach 4,3 kg, and since dry pyroxylin, according to some data, is 1,17 times more powerful than TNT, we could talk about a TNT equivalent of about 5 kg.

Of course, the next generation of 305-mm armor-piercing shells contained much more explosives, and our 470,9 kg shells for the 305-mm/52 guns of the Sevastopol-class battleships had 12,8 kg of TNT. But large-caliber German shells, carrying 10,6–11,5 kg of explosives, caused heavy damage to Queen Elizabeth-class battleships and sank British battle cruisers, and our opponents in 1904–1905. ships of much more modest size performed.

We have to admit that, taking into account the technologies at our disposal and the level of design thought, the Russian Imperial Navy could well have received a much more formidable weapon, than the one with which the Russo-Japanese War actually met. Alas, for objective reasons, both the 305-mm/40 gun and the 331,7-kg lightweight ammunition that made up its ammunition turned out to be very far from perfect.

But most importantly: technology and design minds are only one of the components of success. In the Russian Empire, of course, they could have designed heavier shells and a gun capable of firing them, but the latest armor-piercing shells with a tip, despite the presence of a drawing, were not even ready for Tsushima in 1900, and instead of pyroxylin, smokeless gunpowder based on it.

To be continued ...
244 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -3
    25 January 2024 03: 58
    How much did one shot from such a large caliber cost? And what damage, if hit, could it cause to the ship? Immediately to the bottom or just big troubles for the crew and the ship?
    1. +8
      25 January 2024 05: 11
      Quote: Dutchman Michel
      How much did one shot from such a large caliber cost?

      It depends on what year and what kind of projectile.
      Quote: Dutchman Michel
      And what damage, if hit, could it cause to the ship?

      See where it goes.
    2. +9
      25 January 2024 05: 26
      How much did one shot from such a large caliber cost?

      In the literature on the fleet, there is a statement that when the Argentine fleet went to sea for firing, inflation began in the country.
      1. +3
        25 January 2024 06: 20
        Quote: Ermak_Timofeich
        In the literature on the fleet there is a statement

        There is also a saying: if you want to ruin a country, give it a battleship (or cruiser) wink
      2. +7
        25 January 2024 16: 05
        In the literature on the fleet, there is a statement that when the Argentine fleet went to sea for firing, inflation began in the country.


        Judging by the state of the Argentine economy, their fleet is constantly firing.
        1. 0
          30 January 2024 03: 39
          They are the ones who have simply not yet recovered from the Battle of the Falklands. Then it cost them a pretty penny)
    3. +11
      25 January 2024 09: 04
      Quote: Dutchman Michel
      How much did one shot from such a large caliber cost?

      The shell itself - in Tsushima times with a fuse - was 548,6 rubles for armor-piercing and 167,8 rubles for high-explosive. However, the training projectile is cheaper. But it still needs a charge, it was also not cheap - the price of gunpowder reached 42 rubles per pound, and 100 kg of it is needed for a shot.
      1. +1
        25 January 2024 13: 52
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        548,6 rubles for armor-piercing and 167,8 rubles for high-explosive.

        Is high-explosive cheaper than armor-piercing? belay
        1. +5
          25 January 2024 15: 46
          Quote: Senior Sailor
          Is high-explosive cheaper than armor-piercing?

          Yes, sir!
          1. 0
            25 January 2024 17: 35
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Yes, sir!

            Why were they so lacking? recourse
            1. +1
              25 January 2024 17: 45
              Who? :)))) I indicated the cost of our real landmine, which was equipped with the ships. A normal, adequate landmine would cost much more
              1. +2
                25 January 2024 17: 55
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Whom?:))))

                I remembered Lutonin
                At first, “Nissin” and “Kasuga” stayed within 90 cables, and only “Peresvet” could answer them, then “Kasuga” began to approach and entered the “Poltava” area of ​​operations. “Poltava” fired from the rear 12-dm turret, its commander was lieutenant Roshchakovsky ordered the supply of high-explosive shells, and when I came to the tower and said that it was a pity to waste such fortune-telling high explosive, then Roshchakovsky asked not to waste time changing shells and shoot as directed.
                1. +1
                  26 January 2024 00: 35
                  Perhaps you wanted to switch to cast iron? They definitely don’t shoot armor-piercing guns at 90 cables.
                  1. +1
                    26 January 2024 12: 37
                    Quote: MooH
                    Perhaps you wanted to switch to cast iron?

                    Who knows, dear colleague.
                    Quote: MooH
                    They definitely don’t shoot armor-piercing guns at 90 cables.

                    So EMNIP cast iron was also fired only with a reduced charge. So not at a long distance request
  2. +14
    25 January 2024 04: 38
    Hello, deeply respected Andrey!

    Thank you very much for the series (oh, I remember with nostalgia the glorious time when your works came one after another). In your work you touched on the topic of the dependence of the cost of a gun on its weight; somewhere I had specific figures for Italian guns that were produced under license and under the supervision of the British. If I find it, I'll definitely post it. I don’t remember the exact numbers, but I remember that the same gun, produced in Italy and England, cost much more in Italy. Despite the fact that the salary there was seriously lower than in England.
    This has nothing to do with the Russian fleet, of course, but we all know very well that the high cost of military shipbuilding was a scourge not only among the Italians and the French, but, alas, also among us.

    shells for the 305 mm/40 gun were created at different times. Professor E. A. Berkalov, in his work “Design of naval artillery shells” indicates that the drawings:

    – high-explosive shells were approved in 1894;
    – armor-piercing shells without a tip – in 1899;
    – armor-piercing projectiles with a tip – in 1900.

    During the Russo-Japanese War, only the first two were used, and the sources give very different masses of explosives and percentages of its content in these shells.

    In the literature there are references to shells from the Warsaw Rudnitsky factory, which were superior to the shells that were included in the ammunition of our battleships. Apparently, this is the third type, armor-piercing with a tip. But their cost was quite high.
    There is some interesting, in my opinion, information about this factory. The factory was not in Warsaw, but in Pruszkow, and belonged to two partners - Rudnicki and Kuczynski. Completed in 1882, it cost fifty million gold rubles (!).
    Among other things, they began to produce and supply shells to the army and navy, but in 1897, shell manufacturers in Russia began to fuss, the Poles were removed from this business, and the following year the factory closed. In 1900, it was bought by businessmen Kosinsky and Preiss; apparently, they offered 12'' shells to the Navy Ministry. They were going to buy blanks in France. The quality of the steel is excellent, but the price is appropriate. So this option did not work out.
    1. +6
      25 January 2024 08: 32
      Good morning, dear Valentin!
      Quote: Comrade
      In the literature there are references to shells from the Warsaw Rudnitsky factory, which were superior to the shells that were included in the ammunition of our battleships

      It would be interesting to know more about this.
      Quote: Comrade
      Among other things, they began to produce and supply shells to the army and navy, but in 1897, shell manufacturers in Russia came to the rescue

      Well, it was mainly the Maritime Department who came to the rescue - they still preferred to buy shells at state-owned factories, and there was a reason for this, which I will touch on in the next article
      Quote: Comrade
      I remember with nostalgia the glorious time when your works came one after another

      And so it will be - I deliberately “kept silent” for a long time so as not to break the cycle, and first I wrote it (almost completely), so now I will post an article a week :) hi
      1. +6
        25 January 2024 22: 14
        THANK YOU, now there will be something to read on VO. Your articles were clearly not enough.
        1. +1
          26 January 2024 08: 23
          And thank you for your kind words!
      2. +4
        26 January 2024 04: 45
        Hello, dear Andrey!

        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        It would be interesting to know more about this.

        Unfortunately, I don't know the details. Rafail Mikhailovich mentioned that, supposedly, real armor-piercing 12'' shells made by the Rudnitsky factory were offered, but they were rejected. The rest of my comment I found on the Polish Internet.

        a significant reduction in the weight of the gun, apparently, was dictated solely by ideas of economy, since, according to some, albeit indirect, data, the pricing of a gun in those years depended on its mass. This is nothing more than a hypothesis, but I cannot give any other reasonable explanation for this phenomenon: I will be happy to listen to the opinions of knowledgeable readers on this matter.

        I don’t know for sure why they reduced the mass of the gun, but I came across information that they were trying so hard to compensate for the inevitable construction overload, which was considered a necessary evil. For the same reason, the ammunition load was reduced.
        I can’t vouch for the accuracy of the information; I bought it for what I sold it for :-)

        With savings, an interesting picture emerges, judge for yourself.
        Cost of artillery weapons (without ammunition):
        “Retvizan” - 1 rubles.
        “Tsesarevich” - 1 rubles.
        “Emperor Alexander III” - 2 rubles.

        It is not clear whether it was stolen like that, or whether objective factors influenced it. Alternatively, a combination of both.
        By the way, when compared with Mikasa, while the total cost of the battleship is noticeably lower, the cost of its weapons is twice as high as that of our battleships (if we count the ammunition). It turns out that English guns and shells were very significantly superior to ours in cost.
        1. +2
          27 January 2024 09: 20
          Thank you for the information, dear Valentin!
    2. -5
      26 January 2024 21: 03
      “In the literature there are references to shells from the Warsaw Rudnitsky factory, which were superior to the shells that were included in the ammunition of our battleships.”

      This is fiction in the genre of alternative history. Have you read it on the website alternathistory.ru?
      1. +2
        27 January 2024 03: 56
        Quote: AlexanderA
        This is fiction in the genre of alternative history. Have you read it on the website alternathistory.ru?

        Teach materiel.
        1. 0
          27 January 2024 14: 24
          Do you really consider R. M. Melnikov’s research, published in 1989, and specifically in this place, not formalized by a reference apparatus, to be the ultimate truth?

          So, Comrade, judging by the indicated relative weight of the explosive charge, presented in 1889, 15 years before the war, the 6-dm bombs from the Rudnitsky plant were intended for 6-dm mortars. In addition, the factory simply could not produce them in any significant quantity.

          If you want to find domestic shells for naval artillery guns that were normal for that time, look for them not at the Rudnitsky factory in Warsaw in 1889, but a little later at the Obukhov factory.

          IN AND. Kolchak "The history of the Obukhov steel plant in connection with the progress of artillery technology" 1903. This book will give you the equipment you are looking for to study.

          "The Obukhov plant is preparing high-explosive shells with a bursting charge of 9,5% for a 6-dm caliber and 7,75% for a 12-dm caliber."
          1. +1
            27 January 2024 16: 50
            Quote: AlexanderA
            In addition, the factory simply could not produce them in any significant quantity

            Leave your game to the public, and save psychological tricks for other opponents.
            You categorically spoke about the plant in a derogatory sense. Hence the specific question - how do you know what the production capacity of the Rudnitsky plant was?
            Show that your words are worth something. Provide documents confirming your words, otherwise your statements are demagoguery.
            Nomenclature of produced shells, annual production. Let's !
            1. 0
              2 February 2024 14: 16
              You did not finish reading the above excerpt from the book by V.E. Egoriev to the words “Rudnitsky’s plant had too little productivity.” ?

              So the story about the factory, which was completed in 1882 and cost fifty million gold rubles,” is one of the stories published on the website alternathistory.ru.

              And yes, you ignored the most important thing, in those years the weight of the explosive charge from 18 to 22,5% of the total weight of the loaded projectile was achievable only for 6 dm mortars.

              Only today the weight of the explosive charge in a 152-155 mm HE projectile intended for firing from guns with a barrel length of 47-52 calibers and with an initial velocity close to the initial velocity of a 6-inch Kane projectile reaches the same values ​​as were declared for experienced 6-inch bombs from the Rudnitsky plant in 1889

              For example, the domestic 152 mm HE projectile 3OF64 - projectile weight 43,56 kg, explosive charge weight 7,8 kg - 17,9% of the weight of the explosive charge from the weight of the projectile. Or, for example, the American 155 mm M107 projectile - projectile weight 40,82 kg, explosive charge weight (TNT) 6,62 kg - 16,2% of the explosive charge weight of the projectile weight.

              For comparison, a 152-mm field mortar of the 1885 model. The bomb is steel, weight 27,4 kg, explosive weight 5,43 kg - 19,8% of the weight of the explosive charge from the weight of the projectile.

              But you can’t fire mortar bombs from naval artillery cannons with a full charge. As an engineer, you understand this, right?

              I hope the story with the 6 dm bombs from the Rudnitsky plant and their place in domestic naval historiography is clear. If not, then read Shirokorad’s chapter “Rifled mortars in the fleet” in the “Encyclopedia of Domestic Artillery”.
  3. +6
    25 January 2024 04: 48
    But the whole point is that it makes no sense to equip the projectile with a pressed powder bomb - in order to “prove itself” as an explosive, gunpowder needs air.
    - some kind of bullshit!
    Black powder does not require air to burn. Indeed, there is a strong dependence of the combustion of black powder on the ambient air pressure. This makes it difficult to use in anti-aircraft ammunition, which explodes at altitudes with pressure well below normal atmospheric pressure. During experiments it turned out that at a pressure of about 450 mm Hg. Art. partial attenuation of the burning black powder in the spacer tubes begins (powder goes out in about 20-30% of the tubes), and at pressures below 350 mm all tubes go out. However, these dependencies have nothing to do with naval artillery, whose shells fly flat and explode at sea level.
    The problem with black powder is different. Dust-like gunpowder, which existed in the 14th and 15th centuries, became wet very quickly due to the extreme hygroscopicity of saltpeter and the large area of ​​​​contact of powder particles with air. These problems were largely solved at the beginning of the 16th century, when they learned to granulate gunpowder (grain, as they said in Russian). Saltpeter-gray-coal powder, mixed with water, was turned into a paste, which was then dried in the form of lumps and, as necessary, ground into grains. This not only increased the safety of the gunpowder, but also simplified the loading process. It also turned out that the granules explode almost twice as powerfully as pulverized gunpowder of the same mass. In addition, granular powder, unlike fine powder, did not require additional empty space in the breech of the barrel for effective ignition - the gaps between the granules were sufficient for this. If there is no such empty space in the projectile, then the initial burning area of ​​the fine powder will be small, the burning time will increase and instead of an explosion the result will be zilch.
    As you can see, the main advantage of grained gunpowder is that it produces a twice as powerful explosion. An added bonus is that, unlike fine powder, there is no need for an air cavity to ignite grain powder. The only downside is that its density is lower than that of fine powder.
    1. -12
      25 January 2024 05: 20
      Quote: Old electrician
      Black powder does not require air to burn.

      Any combustion requires air...
      1. +7
        25 January 2024 06: 59
        This means that during the combustion of the specified gunpowder, and during the explosion of a number of explosives, oxygen (not air), which is part of the chemical composition of the explosive, is used. When some explosives (nitroglycerin, ammonal) explode, oxygen is even released. This depends on the oxygen balance of the explosive.
        1. +2
          25 January 2024 09: 57
          When some explosives (nitroglycerin, ammonal) explode, oxygen is even released.
          Bullshit. When ammonal explodes, no oxygen is released. Look at the composition of ammonals: there are so many additives to ammonium nitrate (and, above all, aluminum) that the oxygen balance becomes negative. It is positive for nitroglycerin - here you are right, for hexogen and for heating element. There are many more subtleties, but this is beyond the scope of discussion.
      2. +4
        25 January 2024 07: 43
        Quote: Luminman
        Any combustion requires air...


        Not air, oxygen. It, or a component that produces it, may be part of the mixture.

        I remember experiments from childhood, when we made rockets using zinc paint as fuel, to which potassium permanganate was added so that there was more oxygen. All our rockets either took off or exploded, which made us equally happy; not a single one went out :)
        1. -5
          25 January 2024 08: 10
          Quote: S.Z.
          Not air, oxygen. It, or a component that produces it, may be part of a mixture

          To create sufficient pressure in the bore to push the projectile out, you need fast-forming gases produced by the combustion of gunpowder. For this - rapid combustion - various additives are added to the gunpowder. I don’t remember which ones, but I’m lazy to look for them. The oxygen released by the components of the gunpowder simply will not provide the energy required for instant combustion and creation of the necessary pressure required to accelerate the projectile in the barrel...
        2. +4
          25 January 2024 10: 20
          Quote: S.Z.
          Quote: Luminman
          Any combustion requires air...

          They made rockets using zinc paint as fuel, to which potassium permanganate was added to provide more oxygen. All our rockets either took off or exploded, which made us equally happy; not a single one went out :)
          Not zinc paint. “Zinc” paints contain zinc oxide and they neither burn nor support combustion. You probably used aluminum silver paint. I, too, went through everything that burns and explodes in my childhood - from ammonals to dinitroethylene glycol, lead styphnate, picric acid, silver acetylenide, mercury fulminate and much more. Detonators are a separate matter. But through this I entered the profession: I graduated from the Faculty of Chemistry and have been a “chemist” for sixty years.
          1. +2
            25 January 2024 12: 34
            Quote: astepanov
            Quote: S.Z.
            Quote: Luminman
            Any combustion requires air...

            They made rockets using zinc paint as fuel, to which potassium permanganate was added to provide more oxygen. All our rockets either took off or exploded, which made us equally happy; not a single one went out :)
            Not zinc paint. “Zinc” paints contain zinc oxide and they neither burn nor support combustion. You probably used aluminum silver paint. I, too, went through everything that burns and explodes in my childhood - from ammonals to dinitroethylene glycol, lead styphnate, picric acid, silver acetylenide, mercury fulminate and much more. Detonators are a separate matter. But through this I entered the profession: I graduated from the Faculty of Chemistry and have been a “chemist” for sixty years.


            Silver, yes. For some reason we thought it was zinc, that’s what the adults called it.
            At first we used magnesium, but it had to be stolen from a military unit first, broken off from a decommissioned aircraft, and this was troublesome. And it still had to be turned into powder with a file. Although now I thought, maybe it was also not magnesium, but aluminum, but we all called it magnesium, it made good explosive packages.

            Silver suited better.

            No, I didn’t go into chemistry, I’m working in IT, that’s also been a long time ago
            1. +1
              30 January 2024 12: 31
              Not quite like that, or rather almost like that. What they broke off in childhood from decommissioned airplanes were aluminum-magnesium alloys (the landing gear was best suited), and yes, they extracted the powder with files. And in the silver paint there is pure aluminum, but finer, really a powder. And as you know, the finer the powder, the faster it burns. Of course, the “silver” banged more effectively. I confirm.
      3. +1
        25 January 2024 10: 57
        Quote: Luminman
        Any combustion requires air...

        What a twist.. belay Let's say the Proton rocket nozzle is on fire. There are two components - heptyl and amyl. Does this combustion also require air (oxygen)?
        1. +1
          25 January 2024 16: 46
          Quote: Proxima
          There are two components - heptyl and amyl. Does this combustion also require air (oxygen)?

          If you are such a great chemistry connoisseur, you probably should know that amyl is a nitrogen-oxygen component that is an oxidizing agent for rocket fuel. Do you actually know what oxygen is or do you need to explain it too?
    2. +5
      25 January 2024 08: 36
      Quote: Old electrician
      - some kind of bullshit!

      You write and burst out with a comment... completely confirming my statement.
      Quote: Old electrician
      Black powder does not require air to burn.

      Actually, we are talking about shells equipped with smokeless pyroxylin powder
      Quote: Old electrician
      It also turned out that the granules explode almost twice as powerfully as pulverized gunpowder of the same mass.

      This is ensured by granular gunpowder by the presence of a larger combustion area and the rapid spread of fire - due to the same air between the granules...
  4. +4
    25 January 2024 05: 10
    "Twelve Apostles". The latter, as is known from reliable sources, later, together with the “Three Saints,” formed the strike force of the Black Sea Fleet among fifteen battleships.

    Author, are you joking like that? The article seems to be serious. It is clear that 12+3=15, but why repeat the historical anecdote about Great Britain’s claims to Russia about laying down 12 battleships at once? There have never been so many of them in the Black Sea Fleet in the entire history of the fleet.
    1. +5
      25 January 2024 05: 20
      12 Battleships

      Strange, I can’t correct the previous post. Typo, of course -15.
      1. +2
        25 January 2024 08: 38
        Quote: Ermak_Timofeich
        Author, are you joking like that?

        Of course.
        Quote: Ermak_Timofeich
        The article seems to be serious

        All the more reason to dilute it with a little humor
        Quote: Ermak_Timofeich
        But why repeat the historical anecdote about Great Britain’s claims to Russia about laying down 12 battleships at once?

        Why do people even joke? To make others have more fun.
        Those who are interested in the article know how many battleships we had at the World Cup. Those who don’t know this are unlikely to be interested in the article.
        1. +3
          25 January 2024 09: 53
          All the more reason to dilute it with a little humor

          You do not regret the inquisitive but fragile minds of your readers. They will take it “at face value” and will then prove, with reference to your authority, that this is exactly what happened.
          1. +2
            25 January 2024 12: 03
            Quote: Ermak_Timofeich
            You, inquisitive but fragile minds of readers, do not regret

            :))))) Yes, I am like this
  5. +6
    25 January 2024 07: 14
    Quote: Luminman
    Quote: Old electrician
    Black powder does not require air to burn.

    Any combustion requires air...

    In fact, all types of gunpowder and any explosive ALREADY contain unstable oxygen-containing compounds. External oxygen sources are not needed.
  6. +2
    25 January 2024 07: 37
    As a result, the 305 mm/40 gun mod. 1895 <...> But it was equipped with only 331,7 kg shells, both armor-piercing and high-explosive, which are mentioned in sources as “shells mod. 1892”, or as “old-style shells”, or even nothing at all. In fact, shells for the 305 mm/40 gun were created at different times. <...> drawings:
    – high-explosive shells were approved in 1894;
    – armor-piercing shells without a tip – in 1899;
    – armor-piercing projectiles with a tip – in 1900.

    Maybe “old-style shells” meant 331,7 kg shells from 30- and 35-caliber old guns? They could be forced to fire from the new 40-caliber guns until they received sufficient quantities of new shells of the same mass, but already adapted for 40-caliber guns. Still, if the gun arr. 1895 receives armor piercings no earlier than 1899, then was it really forced to make do with landmines alone for 4 years?
    1. +1
      25 January 2024 08: 44
      Quote: Pushkowed
      Maybe “old-style shells” meant 331,7 kg shells from 30- and 35-caliber old guns?

      No, we are talking specifically about Tsushima-style shells. The fact is that in the literature, shells of the “old model” are distinguished; the old model includes shells that the fleet used to fight in Tsushima
      Quote: Pushkowed
      Still, if the gun arr. 1895 receives armor piercings no earlier than 1899, then was it really forced to make do with landmines alone for 4 years?

      Quite possibly, I didn’t study it. But your assumption about using old shells also has every right to life
      1. 0
        25 January 2024 10: 14
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        No, we are talking specifically about Tsushima-style shells. The fact is that in the literature, shells of the “old model” are distinguished; the old model includes shells that the fleet used to fight in Tsushima


        Cast iron shells were also used there, aren't we talking about them?
        1. +2
          25 January 2024 10: 48
          Quote: S.Z.
          Cast iron shells were also used there, aren't we talking about them?

          No, we are talking specifically about high-explosive and armor-piercing steel
  7. +6
    25 January 2024 07: 52
    To “prove itself” as an explosive, gunpowder needs air
    Just not. The burning rate of gunpowder (like any chemical reaction) depends on temperature and pressure. The higher they are, the faster the reaction, the higher the blasting (crushing) properties of the explosion. Gunpowder is a propellant explosive; it should not break the breech. Therefore, channels are left in the granules so that gases fill the volume of the chamber, increasing pressure smoothly (and also - so that due to the layered combustion of granules from their surfaces - the increase in pressure lasts throughout the entire flight of the projectile along the barrel, compensating for the increase in the volume of gases behind the projectile). If there are no cavities, an increase in pressure will lead to an exponential increase in the rate of reaction - and detonation. A powder track in the open air burns so that a pedestrian can catch up with it, and in the barrel - hundreds of m/s, because the pressure.
    1. +2
      25 January 2024 08: 20
      Quote: Pushkowed
      A powder track in the open air burns so that a pedestrian can catch up with it, and in the barrel - hundreds of m/s, because the pressure

      Oil, oil ... wink
    2. 0
      25 January 2024 08: 48
      Quote: Pushkowed
      The burning rate of gunpowder (like any chemical reaction) depends on temperature and pressure. The higher they are, the faster the reaction, the higher the blasting (crushing) properties of the explosion.

      Don't mind
      Quote: Pushkowed
      Gunpowder is a propellant explosive; it should not break the breech.

      In cases where it was used as an explosive in a projectile, it ceased to be projectile. And I'm talking about such cases
      Quote: Pushkowed
      If there are no cavities, an increase in pressure will lead to an exponential increase in the rate of reaction - and detonation.

      If pressed gunpowder was preferable as an explosive, then it would be used as an explosive. Meanwhile, we see a completely different picture.
      It is absolutely certain that either 12 kg of TNT or 12,4 kg of smokeless gunpowder were placed in a high-explosive 6-inch projectile.
      1. +2
        25 January 2024 09: 09
        If pressed gunpowder was preferable as an explosive, then it would be used as an explosive
        He not would be preferable even under the most severe pressure. After all, this is a mixture of solids, where the reagents are physically separated in space. If an explosive consists of a single substance, then it, like a high explosive, detonates much more effectively than gunpowder. But if there is nothing but gunpowder, and you need to load shells, then pressing will help. And special “blasting” varieties of gunpowder, with very large grains and a minimum of air. This is what they did in the days of black powder. There was even a type of gunpowder called pebble powder ("pebble gunpowder") - like cube-shaped crushed stone, especially for blasting and loading projectiles. But it's all black powder. But the smokeless powder with which Russian shells were forced to be loaded was no longer intended for this. He did not have such varieties - because... High explosives were already known. Making special presses for pressing smokeless powder in shells was apparently too expensive. They poured it in as it was and compacted it with a manual “pusher” - hence the low density and the remaining air gaps.
        1. -1
          25 January 2024 12: 02
          Quote: Pushkowed
          It was apparently too expensive to build special presses for pressing smokeless powder in shells. They poured what they have

          I believe this is completely wrong. With smokeless powder, only the edge burns; accordingly, in order to ensure an explosion of the highest power, the combustion of the maximum amount of gunpowder in the shortest possible time is required - this is exactly what granulation is responsible for.
          Pebblepowder. — It got its name from the English word pebble (pebbles, pebbles), since its grains are irregular in shape and very similar to small polished pebbles. In Russia, pebble powder is officially called coarse-grained. So this is not pressed gunpowder, and it, like any other, has a gravimetric density that is inferior to the true one.
          1. +2
            25 January 2024 13: 00
            That's what they did in the days of black powder. There was even a type of gunpowder called pebble powder ("pebble gunpowder") - like cube-shaped crushed stone, especially for blasting and loading projectiles.

            Comrade writes nonsense. Increasing the grains of black powder (Pebble Powder, Prism Powder) actually reduced the burning rate and contributed to a more uniform increase in pressure during the firing process. And to increase the effectiveness of gunpowder as an explosive, the burning rate must be, on the contrary, increased, that is, the smallest grains must be used.
            1. +3
              25 January 2024 13: 55
              On the one hand, this is correct, but on the other, “mine powder” has a much coarser grain size than gun powder, so it’s most likely a matter of optimal grain sizes.
              1. +3
                25 January 2024 17: 55
                On the one hand, this is correct, but on the other, “mine powder” has a much coarser grain size than gun powder.
                Gunpowder was not used in artillery. At the time in question it was used in artillery
                black prismatic with 7 channels - density 1,75, height 25 mm, diameter of the circle inscribed in the base 37,5 mm, channel diameter 5 mm

                or
                brown prismatic (chocolate) with one channel - density 1,88, external dimensions as previous, channel diameter 10 mm

                Black mine powder has a maximum grain size of 8,5 mm.
            2. +3
              28 January 2024 17: 43
              You are completely right, for equipment they used fine powder: black graphite, and smokeless - new gun powder, i.e. the same as for shooting a gun.
          2. 0
            25 January 2024 13: 59
            There are “two big differences” between combustion and detonation. Nitrocellulose is capable of detonation only in a compressed state (starting from a certain density).
            1. 0
              25 January 2024 14: 36
              There are “two big differences” between combustion and detonation.

              Are you in a hurry to show off your erudition? Take your time. Black powder is discussed. What kind of nitrocellulose is in it?
              1. +2
                25 January 2024 15: 50
                And you, apparently, only read your messages. I responded to Andrey’s post from Chelyabinsk:
                I believe this is completely wrong. With smokeless powder, only the edge burns; accordingly, in order to ensure an explosion of the highest power, the combustion of the maximum amount of gunpowder in the shortest possible time is required - this is exactly what granulation is responsible for.
                1. +1
                  25 January 2024 17: 28
                  Sorry, I didn't get my bearings.
  8. +2
    25 January 2024 08: 01
    The content of dry pyroxylin would reach 4,3 kg, and since dry pyroxylin, according to some data, is 1,17 times more powerful than TNT, we could talk about a TNT equivalent of about 5 kg.


    In shells it was not used in its pure form, but diluted with water, which made its density somewhat lower.

    Pyroxylin is a fibrous substance. He didn't "dilute", but soaked water. The density only increased from this, because water replaced air (more mass, same volume). And this did not affect the TNT equivalent - because the mass of the explosive itself remained the same. In dry form, it could not be used to load shells - because it would explode in the barrel. Water was needed as a desensitizer - to reduce the sensitivity of the explosive so that it would not explode upon impact (including when the bottom of a projectile hits its explosive charge).
    1. 0
      25 January 2024 09: 01
      Quote: Pushkowed
      Pyroxylin is a fibrous substance.

      Which is then usually pressed, forming pyroxylin blocks
      Quote: Pushkowed
      The density only increased from this, because water replaced air

      Wrong. The density of pyroxylin as a substance is indicated precisely as a substance, that is, pyroxylin itself, and not fibers mixed with air. The difference is like between the density of gunpowder and the gravimetric density of gunpowder.
      If you want to argue, please start by explaining why the 254-mm “old-style” projectile contained 8,3 kg of TNT but only 6,7 kg of pyroxylin, despite the fact that the density of absolutely dry pyroxylin is 1,58-1,65 g/cc, and TNT - 1,56-1,65 g/cc
      1. 0
        25 January 2024 09: 20
        Dry pyroxylin (standard humidity 5-7%) has a density of 1,00-1,28 g/cm3, and at a humidity of 20-30% (which is what the shells were loaded with) - a density of 1,30-1,45 g/cm3.
        1. +2
          25 January 2024 10: 52
          Quote: Pushkowed
          Dry pyroxylin (standard humidity 5-7%) has a density of 1,00-1,28 g/cm3

          But the reference books give something a little different - 1,58-1,65 g/cc. "Technical Encyclopedia 1927–1934" indicates the true density of pyroxylin in the range of 1,65–1,71 g/cu. cm.
          Moreover, if the density of absolutely dry pyroxylin is 1,58-1,65 g/cc. (the most frequently given 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% will have a density of 1,34-1,38 g/cc.
          That is, you calculate from the “fibrous” pyroxylin, I - from the true density, but in the end we both arrive at similar figures for wet pyroxylin.
          We have nothing to argue about.
          1. 0
            26 January 2024 00: 45
            If you want to argue, please start by explaining why the 254-mm “old-style” projectile contained 8,3 kg of TNT but only 6,7 kg of pyroxylin
            Case, however) Not for the sake of argument, in fact you are right, just a light joke)
            1. +1
              26 January 2024 08: 26
              Quote: MooH
              Case, however)

              Ah, that's it :)))))
  9. ban
    0
    25 January 2024 08: 41
    Andrey, with initiative!
    Finally!


    – high-explosive shells were approved in 1894;
    – armor-piercing shells without a tip – in 1899;
    – armor-piercing projectiles with a tip – in 1900

    And also from 1907
    1. +3
      25 January 2024 10: 53
      Quote: ban
      And also from 1907

      Of course, but we'll talk about them later hi
  10. +2
    25 January 2024 10: 08
    Good afternoon.
    Dear Andrey, thank you for the interesting start to the new cycle, I think the continuation will be even more interesting.

    The fact is that both hardened cast iron and steel armor-piercing shells were equipped with a powder charge, the rupture of which in all tests for some reason occurred in the process of penetrating the armor. Moreover, apparently, at the moment of contact with the plate, since the shells were destroyed during the explosion and, although they left significant potholes, they did not penetrate the armor at all.


    French reference books on naval artillery from that period mention shells filled with gunpowder, without fuses. To define them, the term “Obus de rupture” is used; heating of the projectile body when passing through the armor plate caused ignition and explosion of the charge.
    1. +3
      25 January 2024 10: 54
      Good afternoon, dear Igor, I will try not to disappoint your expectations!
      Quote: 27091965i
      shells filled with gunpowder without fuses are mentioned

      Very interesting, thank you, this is the first time I've heard of this
      1. +2
        25 January 2024 12: 59
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Quote: 27091965i
        shells filled with gunpowder without fuses are mentioned

        Very interesting, thank you, this is the first time I've heard of this


        The British also did not ignore such shells, they only replaced the gunpowder with liddite, but limited themselves to a small experimental batch. We carried out several experimental shootings and that was the end of it.
        1. +3
          25 January 2024 15: 49
          Quote: 27091965i
          We carried out several experimental shootings and that was the end of it.

          In principle - predictable, but I didn’t know anything about that either, so - thanks again!
  11. +4
    25 January 2024 10: 34
    Congratulations to the author on emerging from a long period of “creative downtime.” For today's site, articles of this level are an event!
    While reading, a question arose.
    Armor-piercing projectile for the next 305 mm/30 gun mod. 1877 was already different. Its mass is known exactly and is 810 pounds or 331,7 kg (Russian pound - 0,40951241 kg). It is also reliably known that this armor-piercing projectile was equipped with explosives, but I was unable to find out how many explosives were placed in it.

    An interesting source of information is that the shell for the 1877 gun contained a charge, since all available sources claim the opposite.
    1. +2
      25 January 2024 11: 58
      Quote: Dekabrist
      Congratulations to the author on emerging from a long period of “creative downtime.” For today's site, articles of this level are an event!

      Thank you!
      Quote: Dekabrist
      An interesting source of information is that the shell for the 1877 gun contained a charge

      The problem with working with a large number of sources is that you don’t immediately remember where you got what from. If my memory serves me correctly, this is information from V.I. Kolchak “History of the Obukhov Steel Plant in connection with the progress of artillery technology,” but I can’t find the page right away. I’ll check the source and be sure to respond.
  12. +3
    25 January 2024 11: 04
    The fact is that both hardened cast iron and steel armor-piercing shells were loaded with a powder charge, the rupture of which in all tests for some reason occurred during the process of penetrating the armor...Perhaps it was due to the operation of the fuse.

    Dear colleague, as far as I remember, the Petra shells were not equipped with fuses at all.
    The gunpowder detonated on impact.
    1. +1
      25 January 2024 12: 06
      Thank you very much, I didn't know!
  13. 0
    25 January 2024 11: 16
    Based on the description, heavy shells from Russian ships caused even more damage to the Japanese than to ours. The point was not that the shells were worse, they were better because they penetrated armor, but that much fewer of them hit the Japanese
    1. +2
      25 January 2024 12: 06
      Quote: certero
      It wasn't that the shells were worse

      It is in this
      Quote: certero
      but the fact that there were much fewer of them among the Japanese

      It was much easier for the Japanese to hit our ships with their shells than it was for ours to hit them. In addition, we almost did not fire armor-piercing weapons - the distances did not allow
    2. +3
      25 January 2024 12: 06
      Quote: certero
      Based on the description, heavy shells from Russian ships caused even more damage to the Japanese than to ours.

      Why did it happen?
      Not a lot arrived at Mikasa at Tsushima, but the Japanese flagship practically did not lose its combat effectiveness
  14. +4
    25 January 2024 12: 00
    Andrey, well done! Very well done! I liked the material!
    1. +5
      25 January 2024 12: 05
      Quote: kalibr
      Andrey, well done! Very well done!

      (blushing) Thank you very much! hi
  15. +2
    25 January 2024 12: 03
    But the second - a significant reduction in the weight of the gun, apparently, was dictated solely by ideas of economy, since, according to some, albeit indirect, data, the pricing of a gun in those years depended on its mass.

    Savings, in this case, with almost piecemeal rather than mass production, are of very little importance.
    But lightening the gun is very important - especially for a ship. The mass of one barrel is less - you can install them without disturbing the alignment of the ship and get a larger salvo weight.
    1. 0
      25 January 2024 12: 48
      Quote: Ivan Ivanych Ivanov
      But lightening the gun is very important - especially for a ship

      It doesn't matter at all.
      Quote: Ivan Ivanych Ivanov
      Less weight of one barrel - you can put more of them

      This only works in cases where the mass of installations differed by multiples. And so - we put 305-mm/35 4 per ship (and even 6), and 305-mm/40 - also 4
      1. +2
        25 January 2024 14: 55
        It doesn't matter at all.

        Arguments will be?
        This only works in cases where the mass of installations differed by multiples. And so - we put 305-mm/35 4 per ship (and even 6), and 305-mm/40 - also 4

        Why didn’t they install 25 main battery guns then? Well, since there are a lot of guns for the ship, in your words -
        It doesn't matter at all.
        1. 0
          25 January 2024 15: 07
          Quote: Ivan Ivanych Ivanov
          Arguments will be?

          They are given, you even quoted them
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          This only works in cases where the mass of installations differed by multiples. And so - we put 305-mm/35 4 per ship (and even 6), and 305-mm/40 - also 4

          What is unclear to you in two sentences?
          Quote: Ivan Ivanych Ivanov
          Why didn’t they install 25 main battery guns then? Well, since there are a lot of guns for the ship, according to you

          Learn to read
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          This only works in cases where the mass of installations differed by multiples.
          1. -2
            25 January 2024 15: 20
            This only works in cases where the mass of installations differed by multiples.

            Let's say you can reduce the weight of 1 gun by 33%, then instead of a 3-gun turret you can install a 4-gun turret of approximately the same mass, without changing the alignment of the ship and without compromising stability - is this really a multiple difference?
            But this gives an increase in the mass of the salvo by 25% - isn’t it?
            1. +3
              25 January 2024 15: 45
              Quote: Ivan Ivanych Ivanov
              Let's say you can reduce the weight of 1 gun by 33%, then instead of a 3-gun turret you can install a 4-gun turret of approximately the same mass, without changing the alignment of the ship and without compromising stability - is this really a multiple difference?

              The multiple is many times. And your gain by weight is not multiple :)
              Well, yes, the gun is 33% lighter. It may even be possible to make the machine 33% lighter, but it’s unlikely to be much - after all, it must take the load from a shot, and with us only the weight of the gun changes, but not the charge to it, and the recoil force will be quite comparable.
              What about the feed mechanisms? They depend only on the weight of the projectile and charge, the weight of the gun has nothing to do with it. What about the defense (barbet)? The gun may be lighter, but the installation will still be wider, which means the feed pipe will be wider, which means more armor is needed. What about the ammunition? The fourth gun still needs it, and this is in no way compensated for by the weight of the gun. The sailors will not agree to distribute ammunition among 3 guns, 4 each.
              What about storage areas for supplies? And additional people (crew for the gun) - it’s necessary to load it, aim it, and supply ammunition... What about cabins and supplies for people?
              1. 0
                25 January 2024 16: 01
                The multiple is many times. And your gain by weight is not multiple :)

                A multiple is not a multiple - not everything is measured by the slogan “All or nothing”.
                This mass is very important for the ship - it greatly affects stability due to its high location - even leaving the 3 gun turrets (without changing) in my example we get additional displacement that can be used to greater advantage.
                1. +5
                  25 January 2024 16: 27
                  Quote: Ivan Ivanych Ivanov
                  This mass is very important for the ship

                  Believe me, for a battleship with a displacement of 11 - 500 tons, a saving of 12-500 tons per gun (10-15 tons per ship) is practically negligible
                  1. 0
                    25 January 2024 22: 06
                    Believe me, for a battleship with a displacement of 11 - 500 tons, a saving of 12-500 tons per gun (10-15 tons per ship) is practically negligible

                    I believe, especially since practically no ship could be built without being overweight by hundreds, or even thousands of tons, from the design.
                    This was a version - because your version about saving metal on guns is completely frivolous.
                    1. +2
                      26 January 2024 22: 21
                      As is known, the weight of the 10-inch gun barrels on the coastal defense battleships Admiral Senyavin and Admiral Ushakov was ~22,85 tons. On the battleship "Peresvet" ~24,1 tons. On the battleship "Pobeda" there are 27,6 tons. Why? Because:

                      “Tests of the first five guns took place at the Commission of Naval Artillery Experiments on the Okhtinsky field in the summer of 1895. A total of 70 combat shots and 12 shots with a reduced (half) charge were fired from the guns. Despite the use of brown (smoky) powder at an initial speed of only 685 m/s *, tests revealed the low strength of excessively “lightweight” guns, which required their alteration. finally got on the ship. At the same time, on July 421, 2, the Obukhov plant was ordered to transfer one gun from the battleship to the ownership of the naval battery of the Okhtinsky field, which had “eaten away” in the canal, and instead install another gun, previously intended for the next ship of the same type *. [* TsGIASPb. F. 934. Inventory 118. D. 119. L. 1897.]"
                  2. 0
                    29 January 2024 14: 03
                    "a saving of 10-15 tons per gun (40-60 tons per ship) is practically negligible"
                    Not at all, this is the upper weight - look at the BPKR Aurora "To eliminate overload, he proposed reducing fuel reserves to 800 tons, provisions to 75 days and reducing the number of 152-mm guns from ten to eight. These proposals were considered and approved at a meeting of the shipbuilding department of the MTK December 12. Along with the reduction in the number of guns, it was decided not to install shields for the 152-mm and 75-mm guns on the upper deck.The MTK gunners, having developed drawings for the location of these guns and providing for the possibility of covering the gun servants and guns with shields, rightly believed that there would be an overload According to their calculations, the weight of eight 25,4 mm shields for 152 mm guns was 8 tons, and ten 19,5 mm shields for 75 mm guns was 1,6 tons. Unfortunately, this was not taken into account ; subsequently penny savings (9,6 t) turned into excess blood"
                    http://keu-ocr.narod.ru/Aurora_P/chap03.html#chap3_3
                    thus 2 * 6/45 = 24t + 11 t shields = 35t savings, but the Aurora had a displacement of 6700t, but they went for it...
                    1. +2
                      29 January 2024 14: 56
                      Quote: DrEng02
                      thus 2 * 6/45 = 24t + 11 t shields = 35t savings, but the Aurora had a displacement of 6700t, but they went for it...

                      Let's go, but only the author Lev Lvovich Polenov, who graduated from VVMU named after. Frunze in 1953, SKOS in 1958, KBF - navigator, chief of staff of the missile boat brigade, captain 1st rank, member of the Writers' Union and the Union of Journalists of Russia, Art. Researcher at the Polenovo Estate Museum, St. Petersburg. just indicates that there were savings
                      Quote: DrEng02
                      penny

                      and completely disproportionate to the loss of the ship's combat qualities.
                      1. 0
                        29 January 2024 17: 01
                        "and completely disproportionate to the loss of the ship's combat qualities."
                        Polenov appreciated the regalia :) however, for the sake of symmetry, would you bother to bring the regalia of those members of the MTC who carried out this saving? However, I wrote about something else - 40-60 tons of top weight is a lot for an EDB...
                      2. +2
                        29 January 2024 17: 35
                        Quote: DrEng02
                        however, for the sake of symmetry, would you bother to provide the regalia of those members of the MTK who carried out this saving?

                        You see, we do not know the reasons for the savings. You assume that for the sake of saving top weight, but this is nothing more than a hypothesis. So what is the point of listing the regalia of the members of the artillery department if there is no confirmation that they were specifically trying to lighten the top weight of the ship?
                      3. 0
                        29 January 2024 17: 52
                        “You are assuming that it is for the sake of saving top weight, but this is nothing more than a hypothesis” seriously? is there any other reasonable reason? I will be sincerely grateful to you if you voice it - I just don’t have enough imagination....
                      4. 0
                        29 January 2024 18: 53
                        Quote: DrEng02
                        seriously? is there any other reasonable reason?

                        I told you - perhaps the artillery system will become cheaper
                      5. 0
                        30 January 2024 10: 41
                        “I told you, perhaps the artillery system will become cheaper”
                        I already answered you - Brink reduced the cost of the system due to a different design and technology for manufacturing the barrel and bolt - Do you understand the difference between the manufacture and installation of 100 shells and 10?
                      6. +1
                        30 January 2024 10: 57
                        Quote: DrEng02
                        I already answered you

                        And I'm already tired of explaining why this answer is wrong.
                      7. +2
                        29 January 2024 19: 25
                        It can be assumed that we were closely watching the English fleet.
                        You see, we do not know the reasons for the savings.

                        Installing new 305 mm guns instead of 343 mm resulted in a saving of 140 tons. Due to this, it was possible to install 10 instead of 152 12 mm guns; a new machine from Elswick allowed for manual loading. Part of the saved weight was supposed to be used to enhance the protection of the main caliber guns. If that's U, White again.
                      8. +1
                        29 January 2024 18: 00
                        Quote: DrEng02
                        However, I wrote about something else - 40-60 tons of top weight is a lot for an EDB...

                        Not a little, but not enough to reduce the BG (you’re arguing about this, right?)
                        But enough for a BBO with a displacement of 4000 tons. see "Gen-Adm Apraksin"
                        P.S. Subsequently, the number of six-inch guns on the Aurora was increased to 14.
                      9. +1
                        30 January 2024 10: 50
                        “(You’re arguing about this?)” no, the question is different - the author believes that the condition for reducing the weight of guns from the MTK is associated with savings, but I believe that it is caused by a complex of reasons, including preliminary data on the new barrel design from Brink. The transition to light projectiles is associated with the short-sightedness of the MTK and COM personally; they did not correctly assess the development trends. Although the bet on AP shells, or rather AP shells in essence, turned out to be generally correct. In my opinion, the author is looking for simple reasons, but they are complex and complex... Any weapon has both advantages and disadvantages - therefore the commander must take this into account in battle... Alas, the ZPR turned out to be incapable of this, although he had a chance - with in a sharp approach, light projectiles could show themselves...
                        "Subsequently, the number of six-inch guns on the Aurora
                        This is true, but you forgot that you shot 24*75, and this is roughly 24t., and also Mars, etc....
            2. +2
              26 January 2024 21: 58
              Do you know what the mass of the 4-gun turret of the main battery was, for example, the 4-gun turret of the battleship Richelieu in comparison with the mass of the 3-gun turret of the main battery of the battleship Littorio? 2476 tons and 1570 tons. In the mass of the Richelieu turret, the 94-ton main battery gun barrels changed little. And yes, the Littorio main battery gun barrels had a mass of 111,6 tons. For obvious reasons. On the Littorio, the main battery gun barrels had a length of 20,72 meters, on the Richelieu - 17,88 meters.
  16. +4
    25 January 2024 12: 08
    The fact is that both hardened cast iron and steel armor-piercing shells were equipped with a powder charge, the rupture of which in all tests for some reason occurred in the process of penetrating the armor. Moreover, apparently, at the moment of contact with the plate, since the shells were destroyed during the explosion and, although they left significant potholes, they did not penetrate the armor at all.

    Unfortunately, I was unable to figure out what exactly went wrong. Perhaps it was the operation of the fuse.

    It's not the fuse, but the properties of the black powder.
    Black powder is very sensitive to inertial loads. In old textbooks on explosives, the characteristics of black powder and its resistance to mechanical stress can be easily found. For example: A. Stettbacher Gunpowder and explosives, ONTI, 1936
    In terms of its sensitivity to impact and friction, gunpowder is one of the safest explosives to handle; however, this property of gunpowder cannot be overestimated. When a 10 kg load falls from a height of more than 45 cm, a gunpowder explosion occurs; If the fall height is below 35 cm, a failure occurs. The harder the impacting parts, the easier the explosion occurs, most easily when steel (iron) hits steel (iron), then brass hits iron, and it’s more difficult when copper hits bronze and bronze hits wood.
    1. +5
      25 January 2024 12: 27
      Quote: Dekabrist
      It's not the fuse, but the properties of the black powder.

      Thank you, you are most likely absolutely right
  17. -4
    25 January 2024 13: 47
    In addition, pyroxylin required a brass case to isolate it from the walls of the projectile, which further reduced the payload of the latter.

    Pyroxylin does not need a “brass case”. A “brass case” was needed for picric acid (melenite, shimose), since during storage it formed a highly sensitive compound (to impact and friction) with iron - iron picrate. Nitrogen oxides released during long-term storage of pyroxylin (when all the diphenylamine, which is added to pyroxylin powder as a stabilizer, has already been consumed) does not in any way affect safety.
    About water mixed with pyroxylin - this is generally “bully bullshit on a moonlit night.” It is well known that even slightly damp pyroxylin completely loses its ability to detonate.
    Currently, water is added to nitroglycerin powders during explosive disposal for better detonation. Apparently the author, as they say, “heard a ringing, but did not understand where it was.”
    1. +1
      25 January 2024 14: 08
      Quote: whowhy
      Pyroxylin does not need a “brass case”.

      I think MTK understands this issue a little better than yours (screenshot below)
      Quote: whowhy
      About water mixed with pyroxylin - this is generally “bully bullshit on a moonlit night.” It is well known that even slightly damp pyroxylin completely loses its ability to detonate.

      You have confused God's gift with scrambled eggs. Because detonation is one thing, and explosives are another. For explosives, 18-30% diluted pyroxylin is used, but for its detonation, dry pyroxylin is used in the fuse.
      1. -3
        25 January 2024 14: 28
        You have confused God's gift with scrambled eggs. Because detonation is one thing, and explosives are another.

        laughing good
        Doesn’t it occur to you that the shock tube and the main charge are “two big differences”?
        But the fact that pyroxylin at a certain humidity completely loses its ability to detonate (not to mention the mixture with water) is, as they say, a “medical fact.”
        1. +3
          25 January 2024 14: 57
          Quote: whowhy
          Doesn’t it occur to you that the shock tube and the main charge are “two big differences”?

          This occurred to me for a very, very long time, so it’s obvious to me that your speech is about
          Quote: whowhy
          About water mixed with pyroxylin - this is generally “bully bullshit on a moonlit night.” It is well known that even slightly damp pyroxylin completely loses its ability to detonate.

          Has nothing to do with the issue under discussion. The shells were filled with wet pyroxylin. And the detonators for them were made of dry pyroxylin, which was stored in special conditions, because dry pyroxylin is a very dangerous thing. There is nothing written in the article that contradicts this, and if you had not confused the detonator with an explosive, then no question would have arisen.
          1. -4
            25 January 2024 15: 43
            I don’t know, you picked up these cockroaches, request but what you cited - 18-30% nitrocellulose mixed with water, has nothing to do with explosives. These are the percentages for safe transportation of nitrocellulose.
            1. +3
              25 January 2024 15: 51
              Quote: whowhy
              but what you cited - 18-30% nitrocellulose mixed with water, has nothing to do with explosives.

              Right away
              "Wet pyroxylin, which can be used as an explosive, must have a humidity of 10 to 30%. As humidity increases, its sensitivity decreases. At a humidity of about 50% or more, it completely loses its explosive properties. When pyroxylin is used as a blasting explosive, then For safety reasons, it is advisable to use wet (10-25%) pyroxylin in handling, while it is necessary to use dry pyroxylin (5 percent) with such a charge as an intermediate detonator." https://saper.isnet.ru/mines-4/ piroksilin.html
              1. -3
                25 January 2024 16: 09
                Now let's read the article:
                In shells it was not used in its pure form, but diluted with water...

                And here is what is written in a modern handbook on explosives:
                With increasing humidity, the sensitivity of pyroxylin decreases. With a moisture content of 20%, pyroxylin does not detonate upon impact. At a humidity of approximately 30%, pyroxylin is considered safe to handle. Even the detonator capsule does not cause detonation in it.
                1. +5
                  25 January 2024 16: 31
                  Why were you ashamed to give a full quote?
                  With increasing humidity, the sensitivity of pyroxylin decreases. With a moisture content of 20%, pyroxylin does not detonate upon impact. At a humidity of approximately 30%, pyroxylin is considered safe to handle. Even the detonator capsule does not cause detonation in it. But if there is a small amount of dry pyroxylin in it (playing the role of an intermediate detonator), such pyroxylin can detonate.
                  1. +3
                    25 January 2024 18: 31
                    Why were you ashamed to give a full quote?

                    good On business Yes
    2. +1
      25 January 2024 18: 57
      Quote: whowhy
      A “brass case” was needed for picric acid (melenite, shimose), since during storage it formed a highly sensitive compound (to impact and friction) with iron - iron picrate.
      Copper picrate and zinc picrate, which are formed from the contact of a brass case with picric acid, although not as sensitive as iron picrate or lead picrate, also behave poorly at the moment of firing, which can lead to the rupture of the projectile in the barrel. In practice, to prevent contact of melinite with the ammunition body, they used non-metallic insulating substances, often in several layers: waxed paper, flannel wrap, acid-proof varnish (after all, melinite is an acid).
  18. 0
    25 January 2024 13: 51
    “- in order to “prove itself” as an explosive, gunpowder needs air.”
    If it's not a secret - why? This is from Wiki (link to SVE):
    “Gunpowder is a multicomponent solid “explosive” (not a blasting substance) mixture capable of regular combustion in parallel layers, without access to oxygen from outside, with the release of large amounts of thermal energy and gaseous products used for throwing projectiles, propelling rockets and for other purposes"
    If you look at the oxidation reaction underlying the process:
    2KNO3+3C+S⟶K2S+N2+3CO2+Q↑ then there is no oxygen in it...
    As for the equipment of the projectiles, the British even used black powder for the 15 dm Mk-1... "CPC 4 crh - a semi-armor-piercing (Common) projectile with an armor-piercing tip, 1608 mm long and filled with 58,8 kg of initially black powder [11], then "TNT"
    1. +2
      26 January 2024 08: 33
      Yes, there’s already a whole discussion about this :))))
      The bottom line is that to ensure the force of the explosion, the gunpowder must burn as quickly as possible. At the same time, smokeless powder burns along the edge - that is, the same pressed bomb will burn for a long time. The issue is solved by granulation - the fire has access to the granules due to the air gap, and at the same time the maximum combustion area is ensured.
      Quote: DrEng02
      a projectile with an armor-piercing tip, 1608 mm long and filled with 58,8 kg of initially black powder[11], then “TNT”

      Moreover, please note that there is no link to the source. And it doesn’t say that TNT is the same as gunpowder. Most likely, this is with navveps CPC - 129.3 lbs. (58.6 kg) Originally gunpowder, later TNT. But navveps in matters of shells... that’s it.
      1. 0
        26 January 2024 13: 51
        "At the same time, smokeless powder burns on the edge"
        all gunpowder burns (and even wood) from the surface, which is why smokeless gunpowder is used to make noodles for artillery.
        "a pressed checker will burn for a long time." There is still no detonation, so the differences in combustion time are not large!
        "And please note that there is no link to the source." I have repeatedly come across information about loading English shells with black powder, the goal is to obtain large fragments for the destruction of ship structures - there is no fragmentation of the shell into small fractions during the explosion!
        I recommend looking at https://rgantd.ru/vystavki/archive-ntd/razdel-4.htm - there are design drawings of 11 dm mortars and howitzers model 1877, as well as shells.
      2. 0
        26 January 2024 14: 53
        I’ll take the liberty of recommending to you Vinogradov’s article on the 12/40 gun, where the requirements for the new 12 dm gun are set out more precisely and there are interesting photos https://vk.com/@artillery_club-vinogradov-se-afbrink-sozdatel-12-dm- morskogo-orudiya-v-4
        1. +1
          26 January 2024 15: 42
          Yes, I think I read it... Do you see any contradictions?
          1. 0
            26 January 2024 16: 46
            you:
            "But the second - a significant reduction in the mass of the gun, apparently, was dictated by was exclusively ideas of economy, since, according to some, albeit indirect, data, the pricing of a gun in those years depended on its mass. This is nothing more than a hypothesis, but I cannot give any other reasonable explanation for this phenomenon: I will be happy to listen to the opinions of knowledgeable readers on this matter."
            From Vinogradov:
            "A.F. Brink put forward a bold idea to change the type of fastening elements. A feature of his project was the use of exclusively long (up to 3 m) cylinders for this purpose. The successful implementation of such a plan promised many benefits, the most important of which were a significant increase in the longitudinal strength of the barrel and reducing his weight"
            "Lieutenant Colonel Brink suggested, dTo reduce the weight of the implement, increase the elastic steel resistance from 3000 to 3300 atm, and also reduce the pressure in the channel from 3000 atm, at which high burnout occurs, to 2500 atm. The above data... reduced the weight of 12-dm. guns from 3400 to 2600 pounds, despite the fact that at the same time it was proposed to lengthen the gun from 35 to 40 calibers.."
            “The introduction of a new piston-type bolt, which weighed more than half as much (622 versus 1360 kg), instead of the previous wedge breech, made it possible to almost double the rate of fire. At the same time, the cost of the new gun decreased by 14% (87 versus 100 rubles) { 99}."
            In short, the reduction in weight of the new gun was associated with new technical solutions - changing the barrel fastening system, using higher quality steel and a different bolt design. The bonus was the reduction in cost, i.e. Not only the weight of the gun decreased, but also the labor intensity:
            "using instead of numerous short rings (108 in total, 305 mm wide in 12"/35 models "Chesma" and "George the Victorious") nand the order of less long cylinders, which significantly increased the longitudinal strength."
            1. +2
              26 January 2024 18: 10
              Quote: DrEng02
              In short, the reduction in weight of the new weapon was associated with new technical solutions

              True, but only half true. Reading from the beginning
              This conclusion, formalized by the Journal of the Artillery Department (JSC) MTK No. 23 dated August 5, 1891, received an approving resolution from Admiral N.M. Chikhachev, who thus authorized the development of a new 12-dm. models. The fundamental conditions assumed as its basis were determined at a meeting of JSC MTK, held on November 18, 1891, with the participation of specialists from the Obukhov Steel Plant (OSZ), the main manufacturer of artillery for the Russian Navy.

              That is, it was the meeting that adopted the basics of the technical specifications. And what was in them?
              They were as follows. Firstly, the gun was subject to significant lightening compared to its predecessor (12"/35). Secondly, the new gun was supposed to be more durable - it had to withstand at least 150 shots without loss of accuracy, which prevented an increase in pressure that would cause intense burnout , above accepted values ​​(2500 atm.).

              So the Russians have said it in plain English - a significant relief is the task of designing a weapon. Further
              Possibility of realizing both conditions - both lightening the new barrel and ensuring greater initial speed - followed from the achievements of the OSZ in the production of new, high-strength grades of cannon steel.

              That is, it is the requirements of the JSC that are primary, and the capabilities of the NEO corresponded to them.
              You understand one simple thing. At the JSC meeting, no one demanded to make a gun capable of firing a 1111-pound projectile. There were no requirements to ensure the firing of ammunition, albeit not so heavy, but still superior to 331,7 kg of ammunition. There were no requirements for firing range, rate of fire, armor penetration, etc. But there was a requirement for weight loss.
              That is, at the meeting, apparently having familiarized themselves with the capabilities of the NEO, they essentially said: “Make the gun light and durable, the rest will be as it turns out.”
              1. +1
                26 January 2024 18: 57
                "It is the requirements of the joint-stock company that are primary,"
                The customer always wanted a lighter gun with a longer service life - reducing the top weight is always good, as is shooting without restrictions!
                But then a technical opportunity arose, including thanks to a new design of fastening and shutter - so they did it!
                "At the JSC meeting, no one demanded to make a gun capable of firing an 1111-pound projectile." They considered it unnecessary... if they had required it, then perhaps the engineers would have solved the problem.
                "There were no requirements for firing range, rate of fire, armor penetration"
                The rate of fire was improved thanks to the new bolt! As for range and armor penetration, you are wrong:
                from Vinogradov: “it had to withstand at least 150 shots without loss of accuracy"Accuracy is the initial speed, and the range at the same angle of inclination of the gun depends on it, as well as armor penetration - the square of the energy depends on the speed.
                "For a “heavy” 12-inch projectile weighing 1111 pounds (455 kg), this meant an initial velocity limit of the order of 1800 fps instead of 2000 (i.e., 550 instead of 610 m/s) required for suitable armor penetration."
                I see no point in further discussion - Vinogradov has everything written down.
                I suppose you just came up with a hypothesis for some reason (as I understand it, the short-sightedness of the MTK in choosing the weight of the projectile :)) and adjusted reality to it... Then they simply formulated the technical specifications differently, and the pros did it for themselves and a lot of what was omitted they meant it...
                The thesis about the priority of the importance of the weight of the projectile is not absolute and depends on many factors - such as the combat distance, which also depends on weather conditions! If during maintenance the Americans made the weight of the projectile a priority, then for the North and Baltic Seas this is not obvious! Therefore, the Germans held on to the 11dm gun for a long time with a high initial velocity. The smaller mass of the gun made it possible to install more of them or increase the percentage of armor in the displacement.
                If you look at the results of the WW1 battles, there is no definite answer, although the Germans had fewer LK losses - they just need to hit more, as you yourself wrote about Tsushima.
                1. +1
                  26 January 2024 22: 17
                  Quote: DrEng02
                  The customer always wanted lighter guns

                  And can you prove this with documentary evidence? :))))
                  Quote: DrEng02
                  I see no point in further discussion - Vinogradov has everything written down.

                  Me too. Precisely because Vinogradov has everything written down. But, alas, not everyone can read it.
                  1. 0
                    28 January 2024 18: 27
                    “And you can prove this with documentary evidence? :)”
                    what for? If you are talking about modernity, I will refrain! bully In the case under consideration, this has been proven; the reason for this requirement is on the surface.
                    "But, alas, not everyone can read it."
                    Why? Hanging open https://vk.com/@artillery_club-vinogradov-se-afbrink-sozdatel-12-dm-morskogo-orudiya-v-4
                    1. 0
                      28 January 2024 19: 15
                      Quote: DrEng02
                      Why? Hanging open

                      It was sarcasm. As in the case of gunpowder detonation
      3. 0
        27 January 2024 17: 11
        I also did not understand these words about the need for air.

        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        The bottom line is that to ensure the force of the explosion, the gunpowder must burn as quickly as possible. At the same time, smokeless powder burns along the edge - that is, the same pressed bomb will burn for a long time.

        So the pyroxylin in the projectile detonates and does not burn.
        1. +1
          27 January 2024 17: 22
          Quote: DenVB
          So the pyroxylin in the projectile detonates and does not burn.

          We are not talking about pyroxylin, but about smokeless gunpowder. In order to give the strongest possible explosion, you need to ensure that the gunpowder burns quickly. Otherwise, only part of it will detonate, the rest will fly apart. In order for it to burn faster, you need the largest possible combustion area, which is provided by the granules and the free space between them
          1. 0
            27 January 2024 17: 30
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            We are not talking about pyroxylin, but about smokeless powder.

            I'm completely confused. Are we talking about an explosion, not a gunshot? The projectile uses pyroxylin. It detonates. First the primary dry charge, then the wet secondary charge.

            Or what are we even talking about?
            1. 0
              27 January 2024 19: 29
              Quote: DenVB
              The projectile uses pyroxylin. It detonates. First the primary dry charge, then the wet secondary charge.

              In high-explosive 305-mm shells, smokeless gunpowder was used as an explosive instead of pyroxylin. That's what we're talking about :)))
              1. 0
                27 January 2024 20: 12
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                In high-explosive 305-mm shells, smokeless gunpowder was used as an explosive instead of pyroxylin.

                That is, instead of molded pyroxylin bombs, granules of pyroxylin gunpowder were poured? But this does not change the essence of the process; it still needs to detonate and not burn.
                1. 0
                  27 January 2024 21: 05
                  Quote: DenVB
                  That is, instead of molded pyroxylin bombs, granules of pyroxylin gunpowder were poured?

                  Yes
                  Quote: DenVB
                  But this does not change the essence of the process; it still needs to detonate and not burn.

                  Gunpowder does not detonate, gunpowder burns
                  1. 0
                    27 January 2024 21: 12
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Gunpowder does not detonate, gunpowder burns

                    When used for shooting. And in the projectile it must detonate. If it burns, the projectile will begin to fly in the vicinity of the target, like a rocket. This is also, of course, an option, but this is not quite what is usually expected from a projectile. Well, or at most it will split into several parts from the pressure.
                    1. 0
                      27 January 2024 23: 57
                      Quote: DenVB
                      When used for shooting. And in the projectile it must detonate.

                      Alas, gunpowder cannot detonate
                      1. 0
                        28 January 2024 00: 05
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Alas, gunpowder cannot detonate

                        He knows what he can't do. This is what you write about. In order for gunpowder to burn in the chamber of a gun, it must be left with empty space. Otherwise, the pressure will increase so quickly that the gunpowder will detonate.

                        But why achieve combustion where detonation is needed - I cannot understand this. If we assume that the manufacturers of the “Tsushima” shells really achieved this, then shooting them is not enough.
                      2. 0
                        28 January 2024 13: 27
                        Quote: DenVB
                        Can do what he can't

                        Can not.
                        Quote: DenVB
                        But why achieve combustion where detonation is needed - I cannot understand this.

                        Because gunpowder does not detonate - it burns. Accordingly, in order for its combustion to look like an explosion, it must burn as quickly as possible. In the barrel, the gunpowder, burning, pushes the projectile, and the projectile, moving in the barrel, seems to expand the combustion chamber - the volume increases. Therefore, the longer the barrel (to reasonable values), the longer it takes the powder gases to accelerate the projectile.
                        And in the chamber of the shell, the gunpowder must burn instantly.
                      3. 0
                        28 January 2024 13: 45
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Can not.

                        Some pointless argument. The fact that gunpowder can detonate under appropriate conditions is a well-known fact mentioned in school textbooks.
                      4. +1
                        28 January 2024 13: 49
                        Quote: DenVB
                        Some pointless argument.

                        I agree.
                        Quote: DenVB
                        The fact that gunpowder can detonate under appropriate conditions is a well-known fact mentioned in school textbooks.

                        Interesting schools you visited:))))
                        Detonation of explosives is a form of their explosive transformation that is caused by a shock wave (SW) passing through the charge and is characterized by a constant and the highest speed of propagation of the chemical transformation for the given conditions and state of the explosive. Gunpowder, I repeat, burns
                      5. 0
                        28 January 2024 13: 57
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Interesting schools you visited:))))

                        Schools are like schools. I can look for these textbooks if you want.
                      6. 0
                        28 January 2024 15: 41
                        [/quote]Schools are like schools. I can look for these textbooks if you want.[quote]

                        Andryusha, judging by his pearls that the main criterion when designing a gun is to reduce its weight, and gunpowder cannot explode, did not attend any schools at all, except for economics. Therefore, forget it.
                      7. +1
                        28 January 2024 16: 01
                        You will be surprised, but the author is right - gunpowder does not detonate! The criteria for designing the weapon were set by the Customer and the author reflected them correctly.
                        Ergo - he’s right about the last one too - you and DenVB didn’t study well... hi
                      8. +1
                        28 January 2024 16: 30
                        Quote: DrEng02
                        You will be surprised, but the author is right - gunpowder does not detonate!

                        OK. The author does not need it, but I have already found such a textbook. You can read it too. Textbook called "Artillery", ed. Chistyakov M.N., Voenizdat, 1953. Available on rutracker. Download, open on page 74 and read the chapter “Explosion and detonation”.
                      9. -1
                        28 January 2024 18: 21
                        "You can read it too. A textbook called "Artillery","
                        Thank you, I have known the subject of discussion for a long time! If you can give the detonation speed for gunpowder, I will be grateful to you... crying
                      10. 0
                        28 January 2024 18: 46
                        Quote: DrEng02
                        If you can give the detonation speed for gunpowder, I will be grateful to you...

                        6-7 km / s.
                      11. +1
                        28 January 2024 18: 50
                        Not at all, 600 m/s...
                        https://dpva.ru/Guide/GuideChemistry/burningandexolisions/DdetonationSpeedandREtnt/
                        explain further? hi
                      12. 0
                        28 January 2024 18: 58
                        Quote: DrEng02
                        Not at all, 600 m/s...

                        This is black powder.
                      13. +1
                        29 January 2024 13: 47
                        Exactly! What were we talking about? bully
                      14. -1
                        29 January 2024 15: 21
                        Quote: DrEng02
                        Exactly! What were we talking about?

                        About pyroxylin.

                        Probably, before getting into a discussion, you need to at least understand what we are talking about. Or, if you’re really lazy, then first ask what they’re talking about, and then offer your conclusions.
                      15. -1
                        29 January 2024 16: 30
                        [/quote]Ergo - he’s right about the last one too - you and DenVB didn’t study well... [quote]

                        This is the whole world, I studied poorly and not at your school. Otherwise, I wouldn’t have poured gunpowder into the shells so that it would explode when it hit the target.
                        And the directive would have been to set the low weight of the guns so that the guns wouldn’t penetrate anything.
                      16. 0
                        29 January 2024 17: 11
                        “And the directive would have been to set the low weight of the guns, so that the guns wouldn’t pierce anything.” so these guns, on the contrary, penetrated Japanese armor... bully
                        “This is the whole world, I studied poorly and not at your school.”
                        what are the global conclusions of global emptiness...
                        "We need to at least understand what we're talking about"
                        about gunpowder! bully
                      17. 0
                        30 January 2024 06: 41
                        [/quote]so these guns, on the contrary, penetrated Japanese armor...[quote]

                        In order for guns to pierce something, it is necessary to prescribe the muzzle energy, and not their weight. The weight of the gun is a derivative of the muzzle energy, and not vice versa.
                        Is it really that such a simple thing is still not clear to you? Are you a clone of Andryusha?

                        "What are the global conclusions of global emptiness...
                        "We need to at least understand what we're talking about"
                        about gunpowder!"
                        So did the gunpowder in the shells explode when they hit the target or did they just burn?
                        And why was it used as an explosive if it could only burn? What did they say at your school about this?
                      18. 0
                        30 January 2024 10: 38
                        "The weight of a gun is a derivative of the muzzle energy, and not vice versa."
                        You are as technically illiterate as the author... hi Brink created a new system for fastening the gun and, due to this, obtained mass-specific characteristics higher than those of the English gun...
                        "Are you a clone of Andryusha?" do you know the author so closely? Or are they just poorly educated?
                        “So the gunpowder in the shells exploded,” if you’re talking about black gunpowder, it burned; if you’re talking about smokeless gunpowder, then it wasn’t gunpowder that was used in the shells, but explosives based on it.
                        “And why was it used as an explosive if it could only burn?”
                        If you are talking about black, then I already wrote earlier, as a courtesy I will repeat it - to obtain large fragments to destroy ship structures.
                        "And why was it used, as an explosive"
                        Stages of development, a good explosive for shells has not yet been created!
                        "What did they say at your school about this?"
                        At my high school, people like you were kicked out from the first year - FTF TPI... bully
                      19. 0
                        2 February 2024 06: 42
                        [/quote]You are as technically illiterate as the author... [quote]

                        As for the author, I completely agree. But as for myself, compared to you, I am the most literate of literates.
                      20. 0
                        2 February 2024 13: 07
                        Quote: Jura 27
                        - I am the most literate of literates.

                        I reasonably believe that you are flattering yourself! but I won’t reveal it incognito...
                        Quote: Jura 27
                        Brink did not create anything, everything was created by the French, from whom he tore up the design of the gun.

                        You have the extremism of an immature - competently tearing apart a great cause... hi
                        Quote: Jura 27
                        There are very few people who support absurdist theories, in this sense, you are his clone.

                        Thank you! I try not to stiffen... hi
                        I should note that this is an entertainment site... bully
                        Quote: Jura 27
                        That is, normal people were kicked out, and only those who remained were those who believed that the low weight of a gun could be set prescriptively and that the gunpowder in the shell’s chamber would burn but not explode.

                        1) we have different understandings of normality!
                        2) reducing the weight of the gun brings many positive aspects for the ship as a whole, so the customer should kick the contractor in this direction... experience shows that it is always easier for the manufacturer to make something heavy for a lot of money and that’s normal! hi
                        3) I already indicated above - I discussed black powder - it, in principle, does not detonate in the exact sense of the term! As for smokeless powder in the chamber of a projectile, its combustion should turn into detonation as the pressure increases - in theory, but this depends on the initial conditions.
                      21. 0
                        2 February 2024 06: 44
                        [/quote] Brink created a new gun fastening system and due to this received mass-specific characteristics higher than those of the English gun...[quote]

                        This is nonsense of the highest standard, you are frankly out of touch - Brink did not create anything, everything was created by the French, from whom he tore up the design of the gun.
                      22. The comment was deleted.
                      23. 0
                        2 February 2024 06: 50
                        [/quote]In my high school people like you were expelled from the first year - FTF TPI...[quote]

                        That is, normal people were kicked out, and only those who remained were those who believed that the low weight of a gun could be set prescriptively and that the gunpowder in the shell’s chamber would burn but not explode.
  19. +3
    25 January 2024 13: 55
    Simply put, ours acquired an 11-inch Krupp gun and modified it, resulting in 280-mm and 305-mm guns mod. 1867. These guns were produced according to our drawings, which were somewhat different from Krupp’s, and, it must be said, they turned out to be very, very successful for their time.

    Regarding the 280 mm gun. Its design was redesigned very seriously and fundamental changes were made in terms of barrel fastening. If you compare the photographs, this change is very clearly visible. In the first photo is a Krupp cannon, in the second - from the Obukhov plant.
    1. +3
      25 January 2024 14: 10
      Still, I am not qualified enough to judge the level of design processing. The fact of improvement is obvious, some change in performance characteristics is also obvious, I don’t presume to judge everything else hi
  20. +1
    25 January 2024 14: 47
    An excellent article that clearly shows the problems of the fleet at the turn of the era. Technology developed extremely quickly, and the bureaucracy in the Russian Empire was terrible. That’s why there are problems with shells and guns. And also with rangefinders, PUAO, etc. And the story of the humidity of pyroxylin in Rozhenstvensky’s squadron is the talk of the town, I hope the author will mention it in the sequel.
    1. +5
      25 January 2024 15: 05
      Quote: D-Master
      And the story of the humidity of pyroxylin in Rozhenstvensky’s squadron is the talk of the town

      Dear Danila, I have been looking into this question for a very, very long time. Over-moistened pyroxylin is a myth that came from the light hand of Novikov-Priboy, who wrote:
      “Why are our shells not torn? ... Here is the explanation given on this subject by a connoisseur of naval affairs, our famous academician A. N. Krylov:
      "Someone from the artillery bosses came up with the idea that for the shells of the 2 squadron it is necessary to increase the percentage of pyroxylin moisture. This initiator proceeded from the considerations that the squadron would spend a lot of time in the tropics, there would be no time to check the shells and may appear on the ships of spontaneous combustion pyroxylin. The normal humidity of pyroxylin in the shells was considered to be ten to twelve percent. For the shells of the 2 squadron, thirty percent were installed ... If any of them occasionally hit the target, then upon impact, pyro the xylin checkers of the firing nozzle of the projectile tube, but pyroxylin, which was placed in the projectile itself, did not explode because of its thirty percent moisture. ”

      Firstly, Novikov refers to the words of a respected academician, but without reference to the work in which A.N. Krylov makes this statement. Personally, I cannot boast that I have read all the works of A.N. Krylov, however, I have never seen this phrase anywhere other than with reference to Novikov-Priboy, but never to the specific work of A.N. Krylova. Among the “regulars” of Tsushima forums who are much more knowledgeable than me, there is an opinion that the academician never said anything like that. Secondly, a minimal educational program on pyroxylin reveals absolutely surprising news - it turns out that pyroxylin may well have 25-30 percent humidity!
      "Wet pyroxylin, which can be used as an explosive, must have a humidity of 10 to 30%. As humidity increases, its sensitivity decreases. At a humidity of about 50% or more, it completely loses its explosive properties. When pyroxylin is used as a blasting explosive, then For safety reasons, it is advisable to use wet (10-25%) pyroxylin in handling, while it is necessary to use dry pyroxylin (5 percent) with such a charge as an intermediate detonator." https://saper.isnet.ru/mines-4/ piroksilin.html

      Thirdly, the fact is that pyroxylin in Russian projectiles was placed exclusively in sealed brass packaging, so there is no test (remember, “there will be no time to check projectiles!”) And there can be no question.
      And finally, fourth. Novikov attributes the following words to the honorable academician:
      “It all turned out in 1906 during the shelling of the rebellious Sveaborg fortress from the battleship“ Slava ”from the squadron battleship. The battleship "Glory" ... was equipped with shells made for this squadron. When fired from the Glory, the fortress on the battleship did not see the explosions of their shells. When the fortress was nevertheless taken and the gunners went ashore, they found their shells in the fortress almost completely intact. Only some of them were bottomless, while others were slightly ruined. ”

      What can I say? It would be extremely strange if on the battleship "Glory" would see the explosions of their shells in Sveaborg. For one simple reason, the squadron battleship Glory was not considered trustworthy at the time of the suppression of the uprising, therefore, although it was sent to connect with other ships of the fleet, it did not accept participation in the shelling of Sveaborg. Sveaborg fired "Tsesarevich" and "Bogatyr". But there is also the "fifth" ...
      Could the famous A.N. Krylov, a world-class star, known for his meticulous attitude to work, make such gross and numerous mistakes?
    2. +3
      25 January 2024 17: 42
      Quote: D-Master
      Technology developed extremely quickly, and the bureaucracy in the Russian Empire was terrible. That’s why there are problems….with rangefinders

      Colleague, at the beginning of the last century, even before the Russo-Japanese War, there were no problems with rangefinders in the Russian Imperial Navy; this is a propaganda myth of Melnikov-Novikov.
      In fact, we fared better than the British. The French were left very far behind. They didn't have Bar&Strud at all.

      The source of information is the anniversary publication of the Barr&Strud company.
  21. +3
    25 January 2024 15: 04
    +++ Welcome back! Good article, with some (occasional) flaws. Here:
    But British guns were heavier than domestic ones, approaching 50 tons, and it is possible that if we had not artificially limited the mass of our guns...

    British guns are heavier (but cheaper) due to the winding technology of the barrel. Italian (British license) too.
    There is no “artificial limitation on the mass” of Russian guns, it’s just that guns (of all nations) using black powder are heavier (and shorter) due to its rapid combustion = higher max. pressure, resulting in very thick breech parts of the gun. Look at the picture. 280mm guns in the article. As you know, I think the phrase is random.
    Looking forward to the continuation! (more than once a week))
    1. +1
      25 January 2024 15: 49
      Quote: anzar
      There is no “artificial mass limitation” of Russian guns

      Yes, dear colleague. Low mass was specified at the TK level. I don’t argue at all that the British ones were heavier due to the wire construction, but you must admit, no one stopped us from designing a gun 5-10 tons heavier
      1. +1
        25 January 2024 16: 37
        [/quote] Low mass was specified at the level of technical specifications.[quote]

        Where does this information come from?
        1. +1
          25 January 2024 17: 24
          Quote: Jura 27
          Where does this information come from?

          Vinogradov with reference to the meeting of JSC MTK dated November 18.11.1891, XNUMX
          1. -1
            26 January 2024 04: 56
            [/quote]Vinogradov with reference to the meeting of JSC MTK dated November 18.11.1891, XNUMX[quote]

            At the meeting: “... it was recognized that it was possible to fit the weight of the gun into no more than 2500 pounds.”
            That is, this is not a requirement, make us a cannon no more than 2500 pounds, otherwise the battleships will be too big.
            The weight of a gun is a derivative of a given muzzle energy, production capabilities (length of machines and steel quality) and a given barrel life.
            1. +1
              26 January 2024 08: 34
              Quote: Jura 27
              That is, this is not a requirement

              This is precisely a requirement that must be fulfilled when working on a tool.
              1. -1
                26 January 2024 10: 19
                [/quote]This is precisely a requirement that must be fulfilled when working on a tool[quote]

                Nonsense. I have provided a quote with the “demand” you made up.
                1. +1
                  26 January 2024 10: 21
                  Quote: Jura 27
                  Nonsense.

                  And this quote completely confirms what I write. It’s just that, as usual, in polemical fervor, you forgot how to read and perceive information
                2. +2
                  26 January 2024 11: 07
                  [quote=Yura 27][/quote]This is precisely a requirement that must be fulfilled when working on a tool


                  Nonsense. I have provided a quote with the “demand” you made up.


                  I apologize for interfering in your discussion. Regulatory requirements for the weight of guns when designing ships have always existed. As an example, I will give the French Navy, since much of the Russian Navy was taken from it. When designing guns, designers had to keep within the weight allocated for these purposes. This was enshrined, so to speak, at the legislative level; violating these norms was prohibited. In cases of changes in tactical views on the conduct of combat operations, ship design, strengthening of weapons and armor, weight load standards were revised and were mandatory when designing ships.
                  The gun was designed for the ship, not the ship for the gun.
                  1. +2
                    26 January 2024 11: 17
                    Quote: 27091965i
                    I apologize for interfering in your discussion.

                    There is no discussion. To prove that I am at least something wrong is personal for Yura :)))) After in the last discussions that I had with him on althistories, I repeatedly caught him in outright lies, I have no discussions with him not going to. I answer only in cases where I consider it necessary to clarify something for other readers.
                    1. +1
                      26 January 2024 11: 40
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      There is no discussion.

                      I think any exchange of opinions, even if not very pleasant, can be called a discussion.
                      1. +2
                        26 January 2024 12: 03
                        Well, maybe only in this sense :)
                    2. -1
                      26 January 2024 17: 46
                      [/quote]I am not going to have any discussions with him. [quote]

                      What kind of discussions are there after I caught you in yet another lie, about the directive weight limit for 12"/40 guns? It’s just an urgent need to merge.
                      1. 0
                        26 January 2024 18: 12
                        I answered the person above, read, educate yourself, and don’t distract me with any nonsense
                  2. -1
                    26 January 2024 17: 43
                    [/quote]Regulatory requirements for the weight of guns when designing ships have always existed.[quote]

                    This is complete nonsense, you are confusing it with the weight of the AU with armor, which, indeed, should not have exceeded a certain value.
                    What's the point if you deliberately reduce the weight of a 12" gun to 30 tons, for example? Yes, you can build a battleship that is smaller in size and cost, or increase the number of guns on a large battleship, but these lightweight guns of yours will not penetrate the required armor thickness at the required distance.
                    Andrei, of course, is unaware of such simple truths, which is why he comes up with outright nonsense.
                    1. +1
                      26 January 2024 19: 23
                      At that time, as now, the concept of a balanced warship existed, it was the maximum combination of all the main combat characteristics. It was calculated for each class of ship, since technical progress did not “stand still”; a percentage ratio was used.
                      Reducing the weight of the engine installation, guns, and introducing new types of armor made it possible to improve certain characteristics.

                      What's the point if you manually reduce the weight of a 12" gun to 30 tons, for example?


                      No one tried to reduce the weight of the gun; people weren’t stupid at that time; existing guns were used as a basis. At the same time, it was indicated that reducing weight while maintaining characteristics is only welcome. See the development of the 12 inch French gun. Another reason or requirement for reducing weight was the appearance of guns of the same caliber, but of lower weight, in another country.
                      Yes, you can build a battleship that is smaller in size and cost, or increase the number of guns on a large battleship, but these lightweight guns of yours will not penetrate the armor of the required thickness at the required distance.

                      You forget about the German, Austrian and Italian battleships. The ability to penetrate armor with 240-280 mm guns was quite consistent with the level of that time, with combat distances of 20-30 cables.
                      1. 0
                        27 January 2024 05: 05
                        [/quote]No one tried to reduce the weight of the gun, there weren’t stupid people living at that time,[quote]

                        So I’m talking about exactly the same thing, but the author of this opus under discussion fundamentally disagrees with you - I quote him again: “The low mass was specified at the technical specification level.”
                        That is, Andryusha, he is talking outright nonsense (the criteria were completely different). Well, it would be fine if he stopped being stupid and admitted it, but he will stubbornly deny it to the end, because... I discovered this stupidity.
                      2. +1
                        27 January 2024 11: 08
                        Quote: 27091965i
                        No one tried to reduce the weight of the gun; people weren’t stupid at that time; existing guns were used as a basis.

                        As we can see, they still tried, since the requirement to reduce weight for the 305 mm/40 took place. They took an existing weapon, decided that technological progress made it possible to make a much lighter one, and set this task to the designers. It is clear that they proceeded from the capabilities of the NEO, but the fact is that, as a result of the meeting, no one was puzzled by the power of the ammunition - only by the weight of the weapon and its survivability. Why is not clear
                      3. +1
                        27 January 2024 12: 19
                        Dear Andrey, I agree with you.
                        As we can see, they still tried, since the requirement to reduce weight for the 305 mm/40 took place. They took an existing weapon, decided that technological progress made it possible to make a much lighter one, and set this task to the designers.


                        There is no need to “go far” here, just look at the history of the design of the battleship Royal Sovereign, I will give an excerpt from William White;
                        " ......It was suggested that a 12-inch gun of modern design, weighing about 50 tons, could be made, which would have sufficient power for most purposes; but since such a weapon did not exist, it had to be ordered and, in case of successful development, installed on other ships of this type. Install a 67 ton 343 mm gun on the first ships...... "
                        This is what you wrote about. But you understand that the standards included the instrument that existed at the time the project was developed. Although two projects were developed for the battleship Royal Sovereign. hi
                      4. 0
                        28 January 2024 04: 25
                        [/quote]Dear Andrey, I agree with you.[quote]

                        Still, just for fun, you can finally say what you agree with:
                        - with himself: “No one tried to reduce the weight of the gun,”
                        - or with Andrey: “The low mass was specified at the technical specification level” ?????
                      5. 0
                        28 January 2024 09: 23
                        Quote: Jura 27
                        Still, just for fun, you can finally say what you agree with:
                        - with himself: “No one tried to reduce the weight of the gun,”
                        - or with Andrey: “The low mass was specified at the technical specification level” ?????

                        Dear Yuri, I agree with both statements. A directive is essentially an order. Those. the brief defines the project's objectives, parameters and technical specifications. In the future, everything depends on designers, engineers, technologists and the level of industrial development.
                        You can directively order the creation of a weapon that will shoot “a hundred miles and weigh like a feather,” but this does not mean that such a weapon will be constructed.
                      6. 0
                        28 January 2024 15: 51
                        [/quote]I agree with both statements[quote]

                        They are mutually exclusive. It's strange that you don't understand this. There was no directive to reduce the weight of the gun. Because this is absurd. Then, the best anti-tank gun will be a Mosin rifle with an armor-piercing bullet. What, it’s light, cheap, mobile, inconspicuous and can penetrate some kind of armor.
                      7. 0
                        28 January 2024 17: 58
                        You and I interpret the purpose of the document differently.
                        They are mutually exclusive. It's strange that you don't understand this. There was no directive to reduce the weight of the gun. Because this is absurd

                        The Directive does not give direct instructions to develop, if we are talking about our topic, weapons of reduced weight. She demands or suggests, as you prefer, to consider possibility of creating weapons of less weight while maintaining characteristics. It is proposed to make preliminary calculations and evaluate technological capabilities, etc. That is, the directive cannot give direct instructions to develop weapons of lighter weight. There may simply not be opportunities for this. But after a preliminary assessment, a technical specification can be drawn up.
                        In the matter of designing ships and guns, I prefer foreign publications; the amount of available information on the navies of different countries is many times greater than what we have about our own navy.
      2. +3
        25 January 2024 20: 59
        but you must admit, no one to us did not interfere design a gun 5-10 tons heavier

        The “light” projectile and the overall length of the barrel were in the way. If you increase its initial speed, then the survivability of the barrel will drop (with those steels). The projectile's acceptance was not successful. And if we chose “heavy” (455kg), then the barrel length would not be enough for those max. pressures And the length is the machines (max. 500")
        As you noted, if you chose a new projectile (370-380kg), then more is possible, but it is unlikely that the gun will reach 50t (51t is 305"/52) with 40 calibers. More like the Franks (47t; 349kg; 815m/s) - like Mikasa in terms of energy))
        And about the task, that’s interesting. What was discussed there - maximum or minimum weight?)) 10"/45 for Oslyabi is still to come)
        1. 0
          26 January 2024 05: 03
          [/quote]As for the task, that’s interesting. What did they discuss there - maximum or minimum weight?[quote]

          https://www.reenactor.ru/ARH/PDF/Vinogradov_11.pdf
          The weight was not specified, it was obtained based on the factors you listed.
        2. +1
          26 January 2024 08: 38
          Quote: anzar
          The “light” projectile and the overall length of the barrel were in the way.

          The question is that at the time the decision was made on the weapon, the mass of the projectile was negotiable.
          Quote: anzar
          As you noted, if you chose a new projectile (370-380kg), then more is possible, but the gun is unlikely to reach 50t

          I completely agree with your reasoning. Maybe and it’s unlikely, I can’t refute or confirm.
  22. +2
    25 January 2024 18: 14
    Greetings, dear hi
    At last fellow
    Plus it is still in the morning Yes . Interesting as always good
    Looking forward to the continuation. Comments, most likely, probably after the entire material. I am not a chemist, and I do not intend to enter into battles with explosives experts smile
    With y, hi
    1. +2
      25 January 2024 18: 47
      Good evening, dear namesake!
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Comments, most likely, probably after the entire material.

      Well, in terms of the length of the cycle - this is already drawing on a vow of silence :)))))))
      1. +2
        25 January 2024 19: 19
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        by cycle length

        Yeah, but what does two years of waiting mean for us? wink
        this is already drawing on a vow of silence :)))))))

        Let's just say - as the material becomes available, if questions arise Yes
        And so - very pleased drinks hi
        1. +2
          25 January 2024 19: 21
          Quote: Rurikovich
          Yeah, but what does two years of waiting mean for us?

          Yes, time flies unnoticed:(((((
          Quote: Rurikovich
          And so - very pleased

          And I’m glad to read you in the comments! drinks
  23. +1
    25 January 2024 18: 26
    What serious damage did the German 280 mm inflict? British "Queen Elizabeth"?))) the Germans were simply lucky that Jellicoe drove his striking fist to hell knows where.
    1. 0
      25 January 2024 18: 46
      Quote: TermNachTER
      What serious damage did the German 280 mm inflict? British "Queen Elizabeth"?)))

      Someday I’ll write about this too :))) But in general, the article indicates the reserve of explosives for 280-305 mm German warheads
      1. +3
        25 January 2024 19: 29
        "Warspite" was hit by 7 280mm shells
        [quote The first German 280-mm armor-piercing shell hit (in the period 16 hours 20 minutes - 16 hours 30 minutes) into the unarmored part of the port side between the main and middle decks (probably in the aft part) and exploded in the commander’s quarters, turning it into a pile debris (Fig. 25).

        The next heavy shell passed through the 152-mm armor, causing a hole 0,9 m above the middle deck and exploded inside the ship (Fig. 26).

        The third shell passed through the 25,4 mm upper deck and exploded inside the ship (probably in the stern).

        The fourth shell passed through the rear chimney, hit the armored grates, but did not penetrate them, ricocheted and exploded on the starboard side. The grate, despite the high gas pressure when the shell exploded, was almost undamaged.

        The next shell hit the upper deck and, exploding, produced a small fire of cordite prepared for the mine artillery of the bow battery (Fig. 27).

        This shell damaged the fan wells in the bow boiler room, which was filled with smoke and gases from the burning of cordite; therefore, the stokers were forced to temporarily leave the fire department and then work for some time wearing respirators.

        The sixth shell hit the rear superstructure, exploded inside the ship and caused a fire (Fig. 28).

        The next shell hit the rear of the aft armored deck, running from the aft conning tower to the central post, almost destroyed it, bent it at an angle of 60°, and then exploded.][/quote]
        "Barem" has 6 280mm shells
        During 1 hour and 15 minutes of being in the sphere of actual artillery fire, the Barham received 6 hits from 280 mm armor-piercing shells, which caused the following damage.

        The hull had a surface hole on the starboard side in the 152 mm armor.

        On the left side, the 330-mm armor under the influence of a 280-mm projectile (in the area of ​​its impact) was displaced from its place and pressed inward by 19 cm.

        Two shells pierced the upper deck on the forecastle and exploded inside the premises.

        One 280-mm shell penetrated 152 armor on the starboard side in the area of ​​the second turret.

        63 people were injured in the battle, which was 5%

        This is according to Puzyrevsky
        1. +4
          25 January 2024 19: 30
          "Barem" received all its 11" from "Von der Tann".
          12 arrived at Malaya; the Valiant was not served. hi
        2. 0
          25 January 2024 22: 54
          Well? What are the significant damages? The ships remained in service and fired until the end of the battle. For the sake of objectivity, you can write down which holes the British 15-dm made. in German LC, then the picture will not be so rosy.
          1. +1
            26 January 2024 06: 26
            Nikolay, well, it’s still relative wink
            If 11" shells did no harm at all, then yes. To displace the "queens" you need many times more 11" shells to sink them than what hit them. BUT the shells still caused damage, which (well, purely hypothetically) with longer exposure could have disabled the ships.
            Here, rather, the problem of the Germans is in their views on combat, that they did not keep up with the Anglo-Saxons in increasing the artillery power of their guns... hi
            1. 0
              26 January 2024 13: 17
              So the British 15-dm. They also did not remain silent and caused much more significant damage than the Germans. The Germans were saved from disaster only by the uncontrolled drape.
          2. +1
            26 January 2024 09: 47
            Quote: TermNachTER
            Well? What are the significant damages?

            Nikolay, have you read anything about Jutland?
            Quote: TermNachTER
            The ships remained in service and fired until the end of the battle.

            Yes. Especially Warspite, who noticed damage to the power plant, causing him to almost collide with other battleships, was forced to turn sharply, causing the rudders to fly out, went into an uncontrolled circulation in full view of the German fleet, and then was forced to stop altogether, standing for about 10 minutes in place under enemy fire.
            With damage to the power plant, with out of order rangefinders, and flooding (from being hit by shells), the battleship crawled to Rosyth at 6 knots - this is the period of time of the first battle of battleships, if that.
            1. 0
              26 January 2024 13: 24
              Could you please list the German battleships that barely made it to their bases? And how long were those battleships under repair? Significant, but by no means fatal damage to the Queens, this is not the merit of the Germans, but the stupidity of Jellicoe, who first “stuffed” them God knows where, and then set them up for a blow, in the circulation, where they could not really shoot at all.
              But if they had fought the Germans in the right battle, the result could have been completely different. However, this does not really matter - there was a result. Hochsee Fleet, never again risked contacting the Grand Fleet.
              1. +1
                26 January 2024 14: 18
                Quote: TermNachTER
                Why don't you list the German battleships?

                I won't list it. If your soul hurts for the British, then, forgive me, it doesn’t touch me one iota. I wrote
                But large-caliber German shells, carrying 10,6–11,5 kg of explosives, caused heavy damage to Queen Elizabeth-class battleships and sank British battlecruisers

                And I confirmed the fact of causing such damage by referring to Warspite's story. All the rest of your pain about Hochseeflotte and the Grand Fleet has nothing to do with the issues in the article, and I am not going to discuss it. Moreover, with the man whose Warspite fought with the Germans until the very end of the Battle of Jutland :)))
                This is counterproductive - I am not at all happy about the prospect of giving you a personal lecture on the history of the Battle of Jutland. I will only note that your thesis
                Quote: TermNachTER
                Significant, but by no means fatal damage to the Queens, this is not the merit of the Germans, but Jellicoe’s stupidity

                Just as wrong as the previous ones
                1. 0
                  26 January 2024 19: 27
                  I don't really care about anyone except the Slavs. I am for objectivity. But the objectivity is such that Scheer was saved from defeat only by Jellicoe’s stupidity and Beatty’s arrogance.
                  British battlecruisers were not supposed to engage in artillery duels with German battleships. Beatty did it, it’s not clear why.
                  I don’t need lectures on Jutland and I’ve read enough myself. The Germans themselves began to tell the tale about the fact that the Germans almost won at Jutland, immediately after the battle)))
                  1. +1
                    26 January 2024 22: 13
                    Quote: TermNachTER
                    And objectivity is like this

                    That you, in an article about Russian shells, threw your chest into an embrasure in defense of the British, whom, in fact, no one humiliated.
                    1. 0
                      27 January 2024 10: 12
                      I don't quite understand your logic. What do Russian shells have to do with the British? Although, it cannot be denied that the British seriously assisted the Russian fleet. The same second “Rurik”, although they had already built “Invincible” for themselves, and turbines for the Sevastopol type aircraft.
                      1. +1
                        27 January 2024 11: 01
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        I don't quite understand your logic.

                        :))) What exactly do you not understand in 2 paragraphs?
                        The content of dry pyroxylin would reach 4,3 kg, and since dry pyroxylin, according to some data, is 1,17 times more powerful than TNT, we could talk about a TNT equivalent of about 5 kg.
                        Of course, the next generation of 305-mm armor-piercing shells contained much more explosives, and our 470,9 kg shells for the 305-mm/52 guns of the Sevastopol-class battleships had 12,8 kg of TNT. But large-caliber German shells, carrying 10,6–11,5 kg of explosives, caused heavy damage to Queen Elizabeth-class battleships and sank British battle cruisers, and our opponents in 1904–1905. ships of much more modest size performed.
                      2. 0
                        27 January 2024 11: 14
                        About my sympathies for the British. I don’t feel the slightest, moreover, I really don’t like their younger brothers because of the puddle, but in everything there should be an objective approach. It is what it is, and denying the obvious is simply stupid.
                      3. +1
                        27 January 2024 11: 29
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        but in everything there must be an objective approach

                        Only you have a very strange idea of ​​an objective approach. That German shells caused serious damage to British ships is a historical fact. A fact cannot be biased. If I were to discuss the comparative merits of German and English ships of the WWII era, citing as an example the effect of German shells, but ignoring British ones, then even then the fact of the impact of German shells would remain objective, and my ignoring other facts important in the comparative assessment would be biased.
                        When I say that a projectile with a TNT equivalent of 5 kg could cause severe damage to ships with a displacement of 10-15 thousand tons, because the Germans with 10,6-11,5 kg inflicted them on ships with a displacement of 30 thousand tons , I am absolutely objective. When you start demanding from me some kind of recognition of the qualities of British shells, you are completely biased, since they are completely irrelevant to the issues I have raised.
                        But just between us - the British had bad shells :)))))
                      4. 0
                        27 January 2024 11: 57
                        No one disputes that the Germans’ shells were of better quality. I even do not know why. And the science and industry of the British are at least no worse. But, if you count the number of guns in a broadside salvo, the weight of the salvo and the number of ships, then the superiority looks very relative or not superiority at all. Japanese shells were also considered better than Russian ones by the Russian Army, but some of them exploded right in the barrel.
              2. +1
                26 January 2024 18: 53
                Quote: TermNachTER
                and the stupidity of Jellicoe, who first “stuffed” them God knows where, and then set them up for a blow, in the circulation, where they really couldn’t shoot at all

                This “stupidity” saved Beatty from even greater defeat wink
                By the time the battleships arrived, Beatty had already lost the Indefatigable, having leveled from 6:5 to 5:5. The battleships drew off the fire of some of Hipper's ships and, moreover, worsened the position of the German cruisers themselves. Still, 15" is 15". But at the same time, they again managed to lose the Queen Mary. And they got “lizzy” lyuli because of the sluggishness of their commander Evan-Thomas. They generally obeyed Beatty. What does Jellicoe have to do with it?
                1. +1
                  26 January 2024 19: 37
                  Beatty was supposed to “lead” the Germans to Jellicoe, and not “fight” the German battleships.
                  1. +1
                    26 January 2024 20: 06
                    So Beatty brought it out request And the fact that Evan-Thomas is a hat and exposed his battleships to Scheer’s fire is his problem, not Jellicoe’s.
                    Hipper perfectly brought Beatty to Scheer's Battleships. The fact that the Germans walked in a column and could not fire with all the ships AT ONCE was the Germans' problem. The British perfectly led the Germans to the Grand Fleet, which successfully turned around and made a “crossing-T” to the Germans, so this is the merit of Beatty, who, while maintaining fire contact, did his job. And the fact that the British failed to defeat the Germans was the problem of the British and the luck of the Germans.
                    Imagine if Beatty had fallen into the middle of the German formation, and not on his head, what would have happened to Evan-Thomas' battleships?
                    And Beatty even reduced his speed so as not to break away from the Germans and do what was required of him
                    At 16:57, when the range reached 17500 yards, Beatty changed course to 347° and paralleled Hipper. But after hitting Lyon at 17:00, Beatty turned 325° and a few minutes later 320°[71]. Hipper, meanwhile, without the support of Scheer’s battleships, did not want to expose his cruisers to the fire of the 5th squadron of the LC, so he did not change course and at 17:02 reduced speed for several minutes. As a result of these maneuvers, at 17:10 the distance between Lion and Lützow increased to 21000 yards. The battlecruisers ceased fire except Lützow, which continued to fire at the British battlecruisers until 17:27. At 17:14 Beatty, maintaining contact with the enemy, reduced speed to 24 knots and turned towards the enemy on a course of 336°
  24. +2
    26 January 2024 11: 44
    Andrey's work is interesting as always. But this statement is not entirely true: “This is where the evolution of domestic twelve-inch naval guns ended. In the USSR, they returned several times to the creation of 305-mm caliber guns, which, by their characteristics, should have left the Tsarist twelve-inch guns far behind, but it didn’t work out: not for heavy cruisers project 69, nor for the post-war project "Stalingrad."

    The cruisers were not completed, but the gun barrel, as far as I know, was tested.
    1. +1
      26 January 2024 12: 03
      However, the weapon was not accepted for service, this is exactly what I meant
  25. +3
    26 January 2024 20: 47
    “Our shells are filled with black powder (cast iron), smokeless (12-dm and small) and pyroxylin (10-dm, 8-dm and 6-dm). Japanese shells are filled with black powder, melinite, and it is possible that there are also cordite ones. " Cherkasov Vasily Nilovich "Notes of an artillery officer of the battleship "Peresvet""

    The presence of explosive charges of wet pyroxylin in domestic 12-dm high-explosive and armor-piercing shells during the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. extremely doubtful. They were not yet “ready” (not worked out). Just as any (even powder) explosive charges for 10-inch armor-piercing shells of coastal artillery were not ready at the beginning of the war. At the beginning of the war, the 10-inch armor-piercing shells of the military department were without fuses and contained inert (sand with sawdust) ammunition.

    The equipment is 12 dm. smokeless powder shells also means the absence of a Brink deceleration fuse. The fuse was an ordinary shock tube "model 1894" which, of course, cannot be classified as an instantaneous fuze, but the deceleration of this shock tube was extremely insufficient for the armor-piercing projectile to explode in the interior of the ship.
    1. +1
      26 January 2024 22: 15
      Quote: AlexanderA
      The presence of explosive charges of wet pyroxylin in domestic 12-dm high-explosive and armor-piercing shells during the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. extremely doubtful

      But most likely it is true. Because shells of smaller calibers were quite equipped with pyroxylin
      Quote: AlexanderA
      They were not yet “ready” (not worked out).

      There was no need for any “working out”. The question was the availability of pyroxylin, and only
      1. 0
        26 January 2024 23: 39
        But most likely it is true. Because shells of smaller calibers were quite equipped with pyroxylin

        Quoted above "Notes of an artillery officer of the battleship "Peresvet"". The quotation indicates what caliber naval artillery shells in Port Arthur were equipped with pyroxylin explosive charges - 10-dm, 8-dm and 6-dm.

        There was no need for any “working out”. The question was the availability of pyroxylin, and only

        Well, yes, after all, pattern blocks of wet pyroxylin could be made in a ship’s workshop, and neatly made nickel-plated brass cases could be made by any tinsmith without any drawing. There was also no need to check by shooting whether the developed charges did not explode when passing through the armor. :D

        I noted above that for 10-inch armor-piercing shells of coastal artillery at the beginning of the Russian-Japanese war there were no explosive charges at all ready, no black powder, no smokeless rifle, no wet pyroxylin.

        "Prior to the development of the equipment of steel armor-piercing bombs with pyroxylin, it is permitted, 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 a bottom tube of the drawing of the order for artillery of 1896 No. 209. "

        That's bad luck, pyroxylin equipment had to be developed. And for some reason you are sure that pyroxylin explosive charges were developed for 12 dm shells. Neither the testimony of V.N. Cherkasova, nor "Relation of the Chairman of the Investigative Commission in the case of the Tsushima Battle to the Naval Technical Committee":

        “High-explosive shells of 6 dm., 8 dm. and 10 dm. calibers were equipped with pyroxylin, having double shock tubes of pyroxylin, and 12 dm. high-explosive projectiles, due to the unavailability of pyroxylin charges, were equipped with smokeless gunpowder with ordinary shock tubes of the 1894 model. .."

        For some reason it doesn’t convince you of anything.

        Do you think that you were already there in 1904-1905? explosive charges of wet pyroxylin in cases for 12 dm. shells and that's it. What sources do you base your estimates on?
        1. +1
          27 January 2024 09: 17
          Quote: AlexanderA
          Quoted above are “Notes of an artillery officer of the battleship Peresvet.” The quotation indicates what caliber naval artillery shells in Port Arthur were equipped with pyroxylin explosive charges - 10-dm, 8-dm and 6-dm.

          Alas, such a mention cannot be considered exhaustive evidence. Memoirs are such a thing, the saying “lies like an eyewitness” did not arise out of nowhere.
          Quote: AlexanderA
          That’s bad luck, pyroxylin equipment had to be developed

          Alexander, your irony here... how can I say it :)))))))
          Quote: AlexanderA
          I noted above that for 10-dm armor-piercing shells of coastal artillery, no explosive charges were ready at all at the beginning of the Russian-Japanese war

          Right. And now attention, question. How did it happen that all the necessary developments were completed for the armor-piercing 254-mm shells of the Naval Department, but not for the land ones?
          And why are you projecting the situation in land artillery onto naval artillery, when we know for sure that at least in the case of 10-dm the fleet had pyroxylin BBs, but the land did not?
          Quote: AlexanderA
          High-explosive shells 6 dm., 8 dm. and 10 dm. calibers were equipped with pyroxylin, having double percussion pyroxylin tubes, and 12 dm. high-explosive shells, due to the unavailability of pyroxylin charges, were equipped with smokeless powder with ordinary shock tubes of the 1894 model..."

          And not a word about armor-piercing ones.
          Quote: AlexanderA
          Do you think that you were already there in 1904-1905? explosive charges of wet pyroxylin in cases for 12 dm. shells and that's it. What sources do you base your estimates on?

          Due to lack of evidence to the contrary
          1. +2
            27 January 2024 12: 51
            “Alas, such a mention cannot be considered exhaustive evidence. Memoirs are such a thing, the saying “he lies like an eyewitness” did not arise out of nowhere.”

            Proving the absence of God, dragons, or pyroxylin explosive charges in the 12-inch shells of the battleships of the Port Arthur and 2nd Pacific squadrons is always difficult.

            It’s good that at least the testimony of V.N. Cherkasov that the 10-dm 6-dm armor-piercing shells of the coastal artillery at the beginning of the war did not have any explosive charges at all, you believe.

            Alexander, your irony here... how can I say it :)))))))

            Sinful. Your confidence that pyroxylin explosive charges did not need to be developed and tested during test firing, that it was enough that pyroxylin was simply present, and then with such charges it was possible to equip (reload) shells of any caliber (and any design) set me in an ironic mood. Let's turn to another witness/eyewitness, V.I. Rdultovsky "Historical sketch of the development of tubes and fuses from the beginning of their use to the end of the World War of 1914-1918.":

            "... in the first days of the war, the Main Artillery Directorate, not having a proven example of high-explosive shells for 10- and 6-inch guns, was forced to accept for them steel shells with pyroxylin equipment of a naval type, but supplied them with more satisfactory fuses 11DM. Mortar 11- and 9-inch shells had pyroxylin ground equipment, little tested and unreliable, and a satisfactory 5DM fuse. Carriages and sighting devices for heavy guns were of outdated types. It should be noted, however, that in the Main Artillery Directorate and in The Navy Department began developing armor-piercing shells with substances that could withstand the passage of a projectile through modern armor without explosion in 1900. One of these substances turned out to be an alloy of picric acid with naphthalene, and the other was an alloy of picric acid with dinitrobenzene.
            For the explosion of an armor-piercing projectile after passing through the armor, A.A. Dzerzhkovich (GAU) began the development of a tube with an automatic slowdown setting. These works were not completed by the beginning of the war, and they will be discussed below. "


            Based on this and the above quotes, can we assume that:

            a.) Pyroxylin gaps had to be developed for the shells of each drawing. For example, it was impossible to take the already developed pyroxylin explosive charges for the 10-dm and 6-dm Navy Department of the corresponding drawings and equip them with 10-dm and 6-dm shells of the Military Department, designed for coastal artillery guns, made according to other drawings (with a different shape chambers of shells);

            b.) The developed pyroxylin charge for the projectile of each design had to be checked for reliability by test firing. The task was especially difficult for armor-piercing and semi-armor-piercing ("deck-piercing") shells, since pyroxylin explosive charges tended to explode when the shell passed through armor.

            The task was so complex that, having despaired of developing pyroxylin explosive charges that could reliably withstand the passage of an armor-piercing projectile through armor of “modern qualities” without exploding, in Russia since 1900 they began developing such charges based on picric acid phlegmatized with naphthalene, or picric acid phlegmatized with dinitrobenzene (they ended up with what we know - trinitrotoluene, phlegmatized naphthalene and dinitrobenzene - but this was already in the spring during World War I. But for example, in the USA by 1906 they came to ammonium picrate, also known as Dunnite, also known as Explosive D).

            I managed to convince you that it was impossible to simply take and, in the presence of pyroxylin, directly “on the spot” equip a projectile of any design with an explosive charge of wet pyroxylin?
            Such a charge had to be developed first. Then, using the appropriate molds and pressing equipment, make patterned pyroxylin blocks of the appropriate humidity at the powder factory, place these blocks in nickel-plated brass cases of the appropriate shape, again factory-made. Having placed the cases in the shells, equip them with a corresponding screw bottom with a point for screwing in a bottom fuse with an intermediate detonator (with an intermediate detonator from a charge of dry pyroxylin in the Brink fuse used in shells of the Navy Department. With an intermediate detonator from a charge of picric acid in fuses 11DM adopted to 6-dm 10-inch shells of the Maritime Department, which entered service with the coastal artillery after the start of the Russo-Japanese War.)
            Then it’s all long and tedious to test during test firing (and it constantly exploded prematurely when passing the armor plate). And only then, upon receiving at least some positive test firing results, should it be adopted and put into mass production.
            And so, a 12-inch armor-piercing projectile without a tip was developed in 1899. In what year was the pyroxylin explosive charge developed for it?
            We already know that the pyroxylin explosive charge was not developed for the 12-dm “high-explosive” projectile (the development of which was completed in 1894) that fell into the shell magazines of the battleships of the 2nd TOE from the “Relations of the Marine Technical Committee to the Chairman of the Investigative Commission in the case of Tsushima Battle" dated February 1, 1907.
            However, you can, of course, interpret the “unavailability of pyroxylin charges” for 12 dm “high-explosive” shells of all battleships of the 2nd TOE as meaning that there was no pyroxylin for these shells in the entire Republic of Ingushetia at that time. Pyroxylin was found for shells of other calibers, but specifically for 12 dm high-explosive ones they could not find it.

            "...In 1906, factories were given orders to prepare gunpowder and explosives in the following quantities:
            Powder factories:
            ...prepare 5185 pyroxylin bombs, prepare 6 pyroxylin charges for 9-, 10-, 11- and 5835-dm bombs.
            ...Okhten Explosives Plant:
            b) equip: obturating tubes for Lieutenant Colonel Ivanov 40 thousand pcs., primers for Major General Brink's tubes - 41 pcs., primers for shock tubes for 400‑dm Kane guns - 6 pcs., equip with melinite 32‑dm bombs - 150 and fuses for 6-, 29-, 709- and 6-dm bombs - 9 pieces."
            Tell me, where did they plan to make pyroxylin explosive charges for 12-dm naval artillery shells? Not at the powder factories of the Russian Empire? And where?

            Right. And now attention, question. How did it happen that all the necessary developments were completed for the armor-piercing 254-mm shells of the Naval Department, but not for the land ones?

            We didn't have time to develop it. We took our time. Or maybe they have simply been waiting since 1900 for the results of work on the phlegmatization of picric acid.

            And not a word about armor-piercing ones.

            The Investigative Commission asked about "high explosives". MTK responded about them.

            Due to lack of evidence to the contrary

            As I already noted, proving the absence of something is much more difficult than proving its presence. All eyewitnesses who have not seen dragons are lying. Joke
            1. +1
              27 January 2024 13: 24
              Quote: AlexanderA
              Sinful. Your confidence that pyroxylin explosive charges did not need to be developed and tested during test firing, that it was enough that pyroxylin was simply present, and then with such charges it was possible to equip (reload) shells of any caliber (and any design) set me in an ironic mood.

              Sorry, but I never expressed such “confidence” anywhere. It is clear that it had to be developed, but this is far from the most technically complex development. I understand why this was not developed by the ground forces (I think they simply did not do this), but our AP is the main projectile of the fleet, they fired a lot of them, AP caps were tested very intensively, and to assume that with
              they gave up on equipping with pyroxylin...
              At the same time, there is nothing technically complicated there. At all. Just a little time and work.
              Quote: AlexanderA
              Then, using the appropriate molds and pressing equipment, make patterned pyroxylin blocks of the appropriate humidity at the powder factory

              Which in a technical sense is a very elementary task.
              Quote: AlexanderA
              The task was so complex that, having despaired of developing pyroxylin explosive charges that could reliably withstand the passage of an armor-piercing projectile through armor of “modern qualities” without exploding, in Russia since 1900 they began developing such charges based on picric acid phlegmatized with naphthalene, or picric acid phlegmatized with dinitrobenzene

              ...at the same time, having accepted AP shells equipped with pyroxylin :))))) Or do you reject the presence of 10-dm pyroxylin AP shells?
              Alexander, black powder also tends to detonate when it hits the armor. So what? It is clear that the dry pyroxylin in the fuse could detonate from the impact. But this did not happen on a regular basis, and since it did happen, they looked for other ways to equip shells. But to conclude from this that the BB shells were not loaded with pyroxylin at all is too bold an assumption
              Quote: AlexanderA
              However, you can, of course, interpret the “unavailability of pyroxylin charges” for 12 dm “high-explosive” shells of all battleships of the 2nd TOE as meaning that there was no pyroxylin for these shells in the entire Republic of Ingushetia at that time.

              Конечно.
              Quote: AlexanderA
              Pyroxylin was found for shells of other calibers, but specifically for 12 dm high-explosive ones they could not find it.

              Of course. Because 12-inch shells require a lot of pyroxylin.
              Quote: AlexanderA
              Tell me, where did they plan to make pyroxylin explosive charges for 12-dm naval artillery shells? Not at the powder factories of the Russian Empire? And where?

              Nowhere. In 1906 they already switched to TNT
              Quote: AlexanderA
              The Investigative Commission asked about "high explosives". MTK responded about them.

              Agree. That is why it makes no sense to quote “Attitude” in this matter
              1. 0
                27 January 2024 18: 14
                Sorry, but I never expressed such “confidence” anywhere. It is clear that it had to be developed, but this is far from the most technically complex development.

                You wrote so confidently: “There was no need for any ‘working out’. The question was the availability of pyroxylin, and that’s all.” - that I thought that the explosive charges of wet pyroxylin were for 10 dm. and 6 dm. coastal artillery shells of the War Department, and explosive charges of wet pyroxylin of at least 12 dm. There were no “high-explosive” shells of the Maritime Department in the cellars of the battleships of the 2nd TOE simply because there was no pyroxylin for them in the country.

                The development of appropriate forms for pattern blocks of wet pyroxylin placed in the shell chamber of each accepted drawing, as well as the development and factory production of a nickel-plated brass case in the shape of the chamber, is certainly not an extremely difficult matter.

                But test shooting on armor plates, and successful ones at that, is difficult. So difficult that from 1900 they simply began experiments with the phlegmatization of picric acid, presumably focusing on the development of pyroxylin charges for cannon 10-dm and 12-dm armor-piercing and deck-piercing (“high-explosive”) shells of the Military and Naval Departments, respectively.

                This hypothesis looks, in my opinion, more plausible than the one according to which in the Russian Empire there was not enough pyroxylin for these very shells.

                From the most comprehensive report on the Ministry of War on the activities and condition of all branches of military command in 1904

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

                From the most comprehensive report on the Ministry of War on the activities and condition of all branches of military command in 1905

                "in view of the desire to increase the destructive effect of armor-piercing projectiles, the question was raised about equipping them with some kind of strong explosive that would not explode when a projectile hits the armor, and it was necessary to develop a type of fuse that, without deforming itself when a projectile hits the armor , would produce an explosion of the explosive charge after the projectile passes through the armor or after it has completely stopped in the armor; the now deceased captain Maksimov managed to find a sufficiently stable explosive, and the results of firing from a 6-dm cannon with 190 pounds of armor-piercing shells equipped with this substance were so favorable results that it was decided to move on to experiments with equipping armor-piercing shells for 11-dm guns model 1877, for 6-dm Kane guns and for 10-dm guns; experiments with fuses have not yet given the desired result;"
                ...at the same time, having accepted AP shells equipped with pyroxylin :))))) Or do you reject the presence of 10-dm pyroxylin AP shells?

                Let's just say I'm already starting to doubt it. In what year was the pyroxylin explosive charge developed for the 10-dm armor-piercing projectile of the Naval Department? Otherwise, Rdultovsky only mentions that the 10-dm and 6-dm “steel pyroxylin shells of the Naval Department, to which (in the coastal artillery) this fuse (11DM) was adopted, did not have high armor-piercing qualities and were intended for firing at decks and superstructures They did not have armor-piercing tips and were not hardened." And he writes nothing at all about the 10-inch steel armor-piercing pyroxylin shells of the Maritime Department that were given to the coastal artillery.

                By the way, V.E. Egoriev in his book "Operations of Vladivostok cruisers in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905." writes:


                Same as V.N. Cherkasov, forgot to mention 305 mm shells with a double-capsule Brink fuse (pyroxylin explosive charge)?
                Alexander, black powder also tends to detonate when it hits the armor. So what? It is clear that the dry pyroxylin in the fuse could detonate from the impact. But this did not happen on a regular basis, and since it did happen, they looked for other ways to equip shells. But to conclude from this that the BB shells were not loaded with pyroxylin at all is too bold an assumption

                Well, why at all? Apparently in 1904-1905. The guns that were fired in battle never received 12-dm shells from the Naval Department with pyroxylin explosive charges, nor did they receive 10-dm shells from the Military Department with the same charges. We didn’t get it because it was the most difficult to practice with test shootings and was put off “for later.”

                With the “high-explosive”/“deck-breaking” ones, respectively, the Naval and Military Departments of these calibers were simpler. But even admitting that it was simpler with them, we know that 12-dm “high-explosive” ones with pyroxylin equipment did NOT get into the cellars of the battleships of the 2nd TOE. And in the coastal artillery during the war, they used either 10-dm “high-explosive” transferred from ships with pyroxylin equipment of the Naval Department and with “their own” 11DM fuse, or 10-dm projectiles of the Military Department’s drawing, equipped “on the spot” with a bursting charge of gun smokeless gunpowder and ordinary shock tubes model 1896

                As Rdultovsky writes: “By the time of this war, the difficult task of developing good armor-piercing projectiles was everywhere far from being resolved. Not only were the research in the field of explosives capable of withstanding a blow to the armor without explosion not completed, but even the very bodies of the projectiles often did not satisfy the conditions of firing at armor, although they were very expensive... Russian naval shells contained a relatively small amount of wet pyroxylin (about 3%) and were equipped with insensitive fuses. As a result, their effect on Japanese ships was completely insufficient."

                According to your calculations, he writes, at best, about a 12-inch “high-explosive” projectile with a pyroxylin explosive charge, but not about an armor-piercing one.

                No, I certainly admit that by 1905, 12-dm armor-piercing shells of the 1900 model with a cap and a pyroxylin explosive charge had already reached the arsenals of the fleet. We reached the arsenals of the fleet, but not the shell magazines of the battleships that went into the Tsushima artillery battle.
                “Dear egg for Christ’s day” (C)
                Of course. Because 12-inch shells require a lot of pyroxylin.

                Excuse me, why treat your ancestors as idiots? Before the war, of course, you could fool around and party with French ballerinas, but wartime clears your mind. Superiority in 12-inch barrels was the main trump card of Rozhdestvensky's squadron. And precisely for equipping 12-dm high-explosive shells with explosive charges intended for the shell magazines of the battleships of the 2nd TOE, there was no pyroxylin found in the entire Russian Empire? Well okay. So maybe there was no pyroxylin for the 12-dm armor-piercing shells intended for the cellars of the battleships of the 2nd TOE? Why not? To be delirious is to be delirious.
                Nowhere. In 1906 they already switched to TNT

                I actually quoted a document from 1905 to you, albeit with plans for 1906.

                “Already in 1906, a patent was taken out in Germany for equipping armor-piercing shells with an alloy of TNT with 6% naphthalene. In Russia, an alloy of picric acid with naphthalene and dinitrobenzene was tested even earlier, and therefore the transition to alloys of TNT with these substances was a natural continuation of previous work .
                By 1910-1911 A. A. Dzerzhkovich completed experiments with this alloy and found that deck-piercing shells of good quality are 11-inch. coastal mortars, equipped with 24,5 kg of phlegmatized TNT, can successfully penetrate 100-mm Krupp cemented armor at a final speed of about 300 m/sec and an impact angle of 25? with normal. Being equipped with fuses of the 5DM type with a delay, these shells give complete explosions behind the plate and can cause severe damage to those vital parts of the ship that are hidden under the deck armor and are inaccessible to destruction by high-explosive shells. At the same time, phlegmatization with naphthalene (up to 12-15%) and dinitrobenzene did not noticeably reduce the explosive properties of TNT: the explosive charge functioned flawlessly from the powerful detonator of 115 g of melinite (or tetryl) used for this fuse.
                In terms of chemical resistance, phlegmatized TNT has been extensively studied and has shown quite favorable results.
                In 1911, experiments were completed on equipping armor-piercing shells with this alloy for large-caliber guns. A. A. Dzerzhkovich developed a 10DT fuse for them with automatic installation..."

                In the meantime, while we were experimenting with TNT, “shells of the old design” with explosive charges of picric acid and shells of the 1907 model, again with explosive charges of picric acid, appeared. The same 6-dm armor-piercing projectile of the “old design” with 1,23 kg of melinite and an 11 DM fuse.
                1. 0
                  27 January 2024 19: 50
                  Quote: AlexanderA
                  But test shooting on armor plates, and successful ones at that, is difficult. So difficult that from 1900 they simply began experiments with the phlegmatization of picric acid, presumably focusing on the development of pyroxylin charges for cannon 10-dm and 12-dm armor-piercing and deck-piercing (“high-explosive”) shells of the Military and Naval Departments, respectively.

                  I understand your logic, and I tell you again - if it were as you think, then pyroxylin would not be used in BB at all. And it was used :)))) Moreover, the problem there could only be in the dry pyroxylin detonator.
                  Quote: AlexanderA
                  “In order to increase the destructive effect of armor-piercing projectiles, the question was raised about equipping such projectiles with some kind of strong explosive. But since all explosives used to equip high-explosive projectiles, such as pyroxylin or pure melinite, do not withstand projectile impacts into the slab

                  Keyword - in pure form Pyroxylin was used, brought to approximately 25% humidity, which resolved the issue. But this, naturally, weakened the gap.
                  Quote: AlexanderA
                  Let's just say I'm already starting to doubt it.

                  But what about Cherkasov with his mention of pyroxylin shells? :))))))) But what about
                  Quote: AlexanderA
                  As Rdultovsky writes: ... Russian naval shells contained a relatively small amount of wet pyroxylin (about 3%) and were equipped with: low-sensitive fuses.

                  You write
                  Quote: AlexanderA
                  According to your calculations, he writes, at best, about a 12-inch “high-explosive” projectile with a pyroxylin explosive charge, but not about an armor-piercing one.

                  That is, Rdutlovsky is mistaken in any case - if he writes about high-explosive shells, it means they were still with pyroxylin, but you say no. If he writes about armor-piercing ones, then he is mistaken about the weight of the pyroxylin.
                  Quote: AlexanderA
                  Excuse me, why treat your ancestors as idiots?

                  You know, I don’t take them for idiots. These are solely your definitions, and there is no need to assign them to me. Our ancestors did not find the money for a second set of shells for 1TOE and were forced to replenish the ammunition with cast iron. The ancestors did not find the opportunity to provide 2TOE with large-caliber BBs with armor-piercing caps. It doesn't make them idiots. But if they didn’t succeed, then it might not have worked with pyroxylin either.
                  Quote: AlexanderA
                  I actually quoted a document from 1905 to you, albeit with plans for 1906.

                  Moreover, in the place you indicated, it was precisely the plans for 1906 that were quoted. In general, in order to talk about this, it would not hurt to first know how many 305-mm shells were planned to be produced in 1906.
      2. +1
        29 January 2024 18: 50
        Andrei, good afternoon!
        12-inch shells, both high-explosive and armor-piercing in the RYV, were equipped with smokeless powder. If only because there were no orders for the production of brass cases. The weight of the shells turned out to be less than the standard, and several kg of lead mugs were added to the shells))) 1903 even proposed to take the slightly lower weight of a 12-dm shell as the base and change the shooting tables instead of converting the lead! Apparently due to the lack of molded pyroxylin, even 6-dm armor-piercing shells in 1905 in Vladivostok were equipped with smokeless gunpowder. But what kind of tube it was is the question. It is known that for many years after the REV, at least until 1912, our armor-piercing shells had smokeless powder and a Brink tube. So this combination is not fantastic.
        1. 0
          29 January 2024 19: 45
          Alex, good evening!
          I, of course, will agree with you if you tell me the source of this information.
          1. 0
            29 January 2024 21: 57
            RGA Navy f421o2d1357: about smokeless powder, lack of ordering cases. Now I brought up something interesting:
            12-inch high explosive, the weight of the bursting charge of smokeless powder reached a maximum of 15,5 pounds
            for comparison, a cast iron 12-inch projectile contained 16,75...17 pounds of black powder.
            when equipped with smokeless powder, the weight of a high-explosive projectile is 2% less than required, i.e. these 2% were catching up with lead. By the way, this is also food for calculation...
            About the equipment of 6-dm armor-piercing shells - a letter from the Kronstadt port to Vladivostok about the dispatch of 562 6-dm armor-piercing shells, 2,8 cal long, and gunpowder for their equipment, also from the archive.
            About smokeless powder and Brink - a textbook for gunners, 1912.
            1. 0
              30 January 2024 08: 28
              Quote: rytik32
              RGA Navy f421o2d1357

              Thank you, Alexey, but I’m unlikely to be able to visit the archive in the foreseeable future. Therefore, please clarify what kind of documents you mean.
              1. 0
                30 January 2024 09: 27
                This is an archival file from 1903 about equipping shells. This contains approximately 500 sheets of documents on relevant topics. I wrote down the most interesting things at the time, for example, about the equipment of a 12-inch high explosive, about the equipment of cast iron shells...
                1. 0
                  30 January 2024 11: 01
                  Quote: rytik32
                  This is an archival file from 1903 about equipping shells. There are approximately 500 sheets of documents on relevant topics.

                  That's why I'm interested in what kind of document it was. Because there are a lot of questions about it - did it apply to all AP shells “from the birth of Christ” or only to a specific year/factory/batch, the cases were not ordered at a specific plant in a specific year, or were never ordered at all, etc. But thank you very much for the case number, I still hope to visit the Russian State Administration of the Navy someday, although this is not easy for me, it will be very interesting to read
                  1. 0
                    30 January 2024 12: 17
                    To be sure, you need to look at such cases over several years. They contain summary reports for the year: how much of what was ordered and made, throughout the country, at all factories. There are separate cases on shells: high-explosive, armor-piercing, etc. There are orders, test results, sometimes even with photos, contracts and correspondence with factories...
                    1. 0
                      30 January 2024 12: 42
                      Alexey, I really want to go to the archive :))))) You are saying everything correctly - to be sure that the conversion of the 305-mm BB to gunpowder is not some kind of fluctuation of a particular year, you need to look at annual reports over a number of years .
                      I'd rather have a pension, damn it...
  26. +2
    29 January 2024 10: 28
    This gun was truly at the level of the world's best examples, and could well lay claim to the title of the best artillery system of its caliber during the First World War.

    The 52-caliber gun is certainly outstanding, but, as Voroshilov used to say: “Artillery is an exact science.”
    French 12/45" - 440 kg, 780 m/sec. and Austrian 12/45" - 450 kg, 800 s/sec. at least not worse. In any case, they are not inferior in power. What sets our 52-caliber apart is its ability to provide good ballistics and accuracy for projectiles weighing from 331 to 470 kg. Rare omnivore!
    1. +1
      29 January 2024 16: 40
      Quote: Grossvater
      French 12/45" - 440 kg, 780 m/sec. and Austrian 12/45" - 450 kg, 800 s/sec. at least not worse.

      You see, artillery is an exact science :))) And the same Austrians strangely liked to pass off firing with a high-intensity combat shell as a standard. In addition, if my sclerosis is not lying to me, then the Austrians’ barrel survivability seemed to be half that of the 305 mm/52...
      1. 0
        29 January 2024 21: 40
        Well... I don't know. Anything can happen, of course, but the Czechs’ metallurgy was still stronger than in Russia. Actually, due to the weakness of metallurgy and metalworking, the Russian cannon grew from 50 to 52 calibers. The British actually had an even worse situation with this matter.
        1. +2
          29 January 2024 23: 06
          Quote: Grossvater
          but the metallurgy of the Czechs was still stronger than in Russia

          Why?:))
          Quote: Grossvater
          Actually, due to the weakness of metallurgy and metalworking, the Russian cannon grew from 50 to 52 calibers.

          Sorry, but this is complete nonsense. Quite the opposite - a long barrel is an achievement, including metallurgy
  27. +1
    30 January 2024 00: 22
    The cruiser Aurora had the most destructive calibers. He fired once (with a blank and then) and the whole Empire collapsed. . . winked
  28. 0
    31 January 2024 10: 12
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Why?:))

    At least because it is one of the world centers for the emergence of metallurgy in general. In addition, for some reason, it was there that the balls for the Izmailov turret shoulder straps were ordered, and the British in the twenties and thirties bought armor for battleships from the Czechs.
  29. 0
    31 January 2024 10: 17
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Sorry, but this is complete nonsense. Quite the opposite - a long barrel is an achievement, including metallurgy


    Hmmm! Of course, I will try to find and indicate the source for you. But the 12" gun of the new generation was initially supposed to be 50-caliber, only when it became clear that such a barrel could not be manufactured, they added length and in this way were able to slightly reduce the pressure.
    You see, when manufacturing a gun barrel with relatively high ballistics, there are the following problems:
    1. Make the barrel so that it can withstand the pressure when fired;
    2. So that the barrel has sufficient longitudinal strength and rigidity (on this, by the way, the Angles got burned with their wire guns)
    3. What you are writing about is the difficulty of processing a long barrel.
  30. 0
    31 January 2024 10: 23
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Quote: Grossvater
    French 12/45" - 440 kg, 780 m/sec. and Austrian 12/45" - 450 kg, 800 s/sec. at least not worse.

    You see, artillery is an exact science :))) And the same Austrians strangely liked to pass off firing with a high-intensity combat shell as a standard. In addition, if my sclerosis is not lying to me, then the Austrians’ barrel survivability seemed to be half that of the 305 mm/52...

    You intrigued me, but, unfortunately, I did not find any information on the Austrian (actually Czech) 12/45" gun of the 1010 model, except for the one in MK #3 for 2001:
    Separate-sleeve loading, charge weight 170 kg, without specifying any options, maximum pressure 2800 atmospheres (by the way, not so much if we talk about survivability)..
    I will be very grateful to you if you provide links to your sources of information. Let's exchange the history of the 12/52" gun.
  31. 0
    31 January 2024 10: 33
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Quote: Grossvater
    but the metallurgy of the Czechs was still stronger than in Russia

    Why?:))
    Quote: Grossvater
    Actually, due to the weakness of metallurgy and metalworking, the Russian cannon grew from 50 to 52 calibers.

    Sorry, but this is complete nonsense. Quite the opposite - a long barrel is an achievement, including metallurgy

    Damn it! I wanted to correct a grammatical error, but the forum, apparently offended by this, devoured the entire message.
    See what problems the creators of the powerful gun face:
    1. The barrel must withstand pressure, i.e. have sufficient lateral strength;
    2. The barrel should not come off, sag or dangle when firing. Those. must have sufficient longitudinal strength and rigidity (the Angles with their wire got burned on this);
    3. It should be possible to make the barrel long enough, this is what you are writing about. A long barrel is needed to reduce the peak pressure when firing.
    1. 0
      8 March 2024 13: 06
      "...2. The barrel should not come off, sag and dangle when shooting....." And how much can you shoot if the barrel suddenly comes off, sag, and dangles when shooting..??? Don’t you think that this is all some kind of creepy game, as they say now...? It always seemed to me that the fact that the barrel should stand tightly when shooting is a matter of course. But it turns out that everything is wrong. The barrel can come off, sag and dangle when shooting......
  32. 0
    31 January 2024 11: 54
    Quote: Grossvater
    Let's exchange the history of the 12/52" gun.

    Well, for now here it is: “In 1907, the design of a 12/50” gun began at the OSZ. However, due to the low quality of the steel used, its barrel was lengthened by two calibers in order to reduce the pressure of the powder gases while maintaining ballistic characteristics."
    MK #2 for 1997.
    About survivability. The firing pressure of our 12" is indicated in various sources from 2400 to 3000 atm. So the survivability can be very different.
    For now I have everything, I will still look, but part of the library is at my dacha, and when I can get there depends on the tractor driver Stepanov from the Emekovsky rural settlement winked.
    I would be very grateful for information on the Austrian cannon.
    Regards, Alexey.
  33. 0
    31 January 2024 15: 44
    Quote: Grossvater
    Damn it! I wanted to correct a grammatical error, but the forum, apparently offended by this, devoured the entire message.

    Hee hee! The seemingly missing message has appeared!
  34. 0
    31 January 2024 21: 01
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    among the Austrians, the survivability of the barrel seemed to be half that of the 305 mm/52...

    What I found regarding the survivability of 12/52":
    Andrei Mikhailovich Vasiliev in the book: "The first battleships of the red fleet." Marat, "October Revolution, "Paris Commune". Moscow, "Yauza", "Collection", "Eksmo". 2008.
    Page 45 - 46,
    ... "At the same time, due to a pressure distribution in the barrel that was different from what was provided for in the project, abnormal wear occurred due to excessive burnout of the steel, and shooting accuracy also dropped."
    Unfortunately, no figures are provided again. Value judgments only.
    I hope that at least you will please me with accurate information on Austrian guns, but until now the road to my dacha has not been cleared winked I'll try to count the firing of the Paris Commune's cannons. They write that near Sevastopol she shot her guns to pieces!
  35. 0
    1 February 2024 11: 09
    Quote: Grossvater
    firing of the cannons of the "Paris Commune".

    Ibid., page 115:
    “During the fighting, from November 1941 to March 1942, the battleship covered 7700 miles, expending 1159 main battery shells...
    The barrels of six main battery guns were cracked at the muzzles, some of them had the latter torn off, and the life of the liners (250 combat rounds per barrel) was completely spent."
    It seems that they fired from just these jammed trunks.
  36. 0
    8 March 2024 13: 02
    Black powder, which Russian shells were loaded with in those years, had a very limited explosion force, and it was obviously not possible to fit it into a 331,7 kg armor-piercing shell.
    And long ago they began to put gunpowder into shells as an explosive...??? Someone is talking nonsense here......