Work on mistakes. Twelve-inch shells 1907–1915

В past material I presented to the respected reader my thoughts regarding the “Tsushima” high-explosive shells, now it’s time to move on.

Twelve-inch high-explosive shells mod. 1907

Of course, after the Russo-Japanese War, the unsuitability of domestic high-explosive shells became completely obvious. At the same time, there were three ways to increase their impact on the enemy:

– replacing the explosive with a more effective one;

– increasing the size of the charging chamber due to the use of stronger steel and corresponding thinning of the projectile walls;

– increasing the length of the projectile.

Unfortunately, in the case of domestic 305-mm shells, their creators could only take full advantage of the first two methods. Instead of the pyroxylin powder that was planned for use, or the actually used pyroxylin gunpowder, TNT began to be used.

Although trinitrotoluene was inferior to dry pyroxylin in terms of power, it was more preferable, taking into account the need to dilute the latter with water and the mandatory presence of a brass cover to prevent interaction with the steel of the body. Much more TNT was placed in the same volume, and it provided a much stronger explosion than a projectile equipped with pyroxylin.

In addition, TNT was much less demanding in terms of storage conditions, did not have a tendency to premature detonation, and in general was much more convenient as an explosive than pyroxylin. Steel for the production of projectiles mod. 1907, of course, they also used high quality.

But things didn’t work out with the increase in length. As E. A. Berkalov later wrote:

“In fact, the redesign of high-explosive projectiles of all calibers had to be carried out under completely exceptional and abnormal conditions of the need to adjust the designed projectiles along their length to the possibility of using them in the feeding devices of elevators and ship loaders.”

In the line of projectiles mod. 1907 calibers were different, and some of them managed to avoid this fate. For example, 102 mm shells had not been used before fleet, which is why there was no need to adjust their length.

All Baltic battleships with 254-mm guns were lost during the war, and there was no point in pursuing unification just for the sake of the already obsolete Black Sea Rostislav. Something interesting happened with the 203 mm story: I can only assume that the elevators and chargers available to the fleet made it possible to slightly increase the length of the projectiles, which made them slightly heavier (87,8 kg versus 84,6 kg) and longer - 616,4 mm instead of 518,2 mm.

However, at the same time, heavier (112,2 kg) and longer (805,2 mm) landmines were created, which were also considered projectiles mod. 1907. Most likely, the latter were made for the latest 203 mm/50 guns at that time.

But in the case of twelve-inch shells, everything was much worse. The length of the Tsushima landmine was 858,2 mm or 2,82 calibers. The maximum that could be “stuffed” into the existing elevators and chargers was 965,2 mm or 3,17 caliber, which predetermined the relatively low explosive content in the projectile: according to the “Album of Naval Artillery Projectiles” for 1934, it could hold 28,2 kg of explosives (we are talking about TNT). The weight of the projectile remained Tsushima - 331,7 kg.

Of course, in comparison with the old high-explosive projectile, this was a giant step forward - the latter contained only 12,4 kg of TNT. But in fact, the newest twelve-inch turned out to be even slightly weaker than the 254-mm Russian high-explosive projectile - since there were no restrictions for the latter, its length was 1 mm or 011,9 caliber, and the explosive charge was 3,98 g higher than in the 100 -mm – 305 kg.

At the time of the creation of 305-mm high-explosive shells, they were not given requirements for armor penetration: it was necessary to ensure maximum high explosiveness for a given length and weight. Accordingly, these shells did not have an armor-piercing tip. However, the ability to overcome at least relatively thin armor was desirable.

Therefore, in 1908, to increase armor penetration, the requirement for special hardening of the warhead was introduced, and from that year “high-explosive projectiles mod. 1907 with a tough head.” Only after testing the experimental vessel “Chesma” (1913) was it decided to equip these shells with an armor-piercing tip. This, of course, required a change in the design, since direct screwing would lead to an elongation of the projectile.

New shells with an armor-piercing tip became shorter (889 mm plus the tip, bringing the total length to the maximum 965,2 mm), but at the same time they received even more explosive - 28,5 kg due to thinner body walls. But, unfortunately, I don’t know whether the same steel was used for their production as before.

Thus, in essence, shells of a new design were created, but according to the documents they continued to pass as shells mod. 1907 with an armor-piercing tip.

And one moment. In those years, artillerymen gradually came to the understanding that both armor-piercing and high-explosive shells should have the same weight and similar outlines of the projectile head in order to bring their ballistic qualities as close as possible.

This was necessary in order to use the same shooting tables for both types of projectiles when shooting at long distances. But when creating a high-explosive 305-mm high-explosive projectile mod. 1907, no such task was set, and it, having equal weight with the armor-piercing one, differed from it in the design of the warhead, which is why it had different ballistics.

At the same time, I do not know that our artillerymen used separate firing tables for 305-mm armor-piercing and high-explosive projectiles mod. 1907. It can be assumed that my knowledge is incomplete, or that the differences in the ballistic qualities of landmines and armor-piercing weapons were minimal.

In fact, a 305-mm high-explosive projectile mod. 1907 (without an armor-piercing tip) shows us what domestic 331,7 kg high-explosive shells could have been like during the Russo-Japanese War if the Naval Ministry had found money for high-quality steel and pyroxylin for them.

In this case, we could fire at the Japanese at Shantung and Tsushima with shells containing approximately 22,75 kg of wet or 17 kg of dry pyroxylin. It is unlikely that this would have allowed us to win the war, but the Japanese losses at sea could have been much more serious than the real ones.

Twelve-inch armor-piercing shells mod. 1907

Everything is very simple here, because such a projectile has never existed, although references to it can be found in some publications. Usually under an armor-piercing projectile mod. 1907 refers to a 331,7 kg projectile with an armor-piercing tip, manufactured according to a 1900 drawing and filled with 6 kg of TNT.

According to E. A. Berkalov:

“The available data testified to their (armor-piercing shells – Author’s note) high armor-piercing qualities, and their incomplete satisfactory performance in the Russo-Japanese War was explained by their equipment, and not by the drawing.”

In fact, from the entire line of domestically produced guns, the new armor-piercing projectile mod. 1907 received only an eight-inch gun - paired with a new landmine weighing 112,2 kg.

This all looks strange, and here's why. For the reasons stated above, 305 mm shells could not be longer than 3,17 calibers. Armor-piercing projectile mod. 1900 was even smaller - only 2,72 calibers, that is, it was possible to design a longer and heavier projectile with a higher explosive content.

Let us assume, again, that it was not used in order to maintain equality of mass with the new high-explosive projectile. This is reasonable and logical.

But why not redesign the projectile so that it could carry more explosives?

And indeed, 6 kg of TNT for a 331,7 kg projectile gives only 1,81% explosive content. At the same time, already in 1910, drawings were ready for a heavy 470,9 kg armor-piercing projectile, which had 12,8 kg of TNT, or 2,72% of the explosive content in the projectile.

Bringing the explosive content to at least 2,3–2,5% would have ensured the presence of 7,63–8,3 kg of TNT in an armor-piercing 331,7 kg projectile, but why was this not done?

At first I thought that the whole problem was in the head of the projectile. However, it must be massive enough to penetrate the armor. At the same time, the amount of explosives will be determined by the length of the projectile, and the relationship here may be nonlinear.

But armor-piercing shells mod. 1911 from the tip of the projectile (not the ballistic tip, but the projectile itself) to the beginning of the charging chamber, depending on the drawing, 301–311 mm of steel. The armor-piercing projectile mod. 1900, the head part is much more massive, there this figure is 391 mm.

It is known that domestic 305-mm armor-piercing shells mod. 1911 showed excellent qualities, despite the fact that there was no special significant breakthrough in improving the technology of production and hardening of projectile steel in the period 1907–1911. I couldn't find it. Accordingly, it can be assumed that the creation in 1907 of an armor-piercing projectile weighing around 331,7 kg with an enlarged charging chamber was quite possible.

Another assumption may be closer to the truth. The fact is that ammunition weighing 331,7 kg in 1907 was no longer considered by the MTK as promising weapons future twelve-inch fleet. It must be said that the initial drawing of the 305 mm/52 gun, which was subsequently armed with Russian dreadnoughts, was designed specifically for 331,7 kg shells and was approved by the Ministry of Transport and Communications on June 18.06.1906, XNUMX.

But on July 27, 1907, the acting chief inspector of naval artillery, K. G. Dubrov, approved an increase in the weight of the projectile to 378,4 kg, and later, as we know, as a result the gun received even heavier 470,9 kg projectiles.

And if so, then it turns out that in 1907 it was already completely clear that the history of the 331,7 kg shells ends with the 305 mm/40 gun, which was obsolete by that time, with which our ships fought in the Russo-Japanese War. And for him, oddly enough, an armor-piercing projectile could no longer be considered as the main ammunition.

The thing is that after the Russo-Japanese War, understanding of increased battle distances came very quickly. Sailors began to learn to shoot at 40–60 cables, and then further. But at such distances, the armor-piercing capabilities of the 305 mm/40 gun were categorically insufficient.

The relatively modest initial velocity of 331,7 kg of shells, even if equipped with an armor-piercing tip, even with 45 cables in real combat conditions, could hardly provide a breakdown of the 178-mm Krupp armor plate. What can we say about distances of 50–70 cables!

In other words, at increased battle distances, armor-piercing shells of 305 mm/40 guns could no longer cause decisive damage to enemy ships: boiler rooms and engine rooms, main caliber artillery, conning towers, etc. were protected by much more powerful armor than that which they were able to break through.

Accordingly, high-explosive 305-mm shells became the main armament of squadron battleships, and armor-piercing shells were only suitable for finishing off an enemy who had lost momentum.

In this case, was it worth making a fuss for the sake of armor-piercing shells of a new design, especially since the existing shells weren’t that bad?

However, there is a third option – bureaucratic, and this makes it perhaps the most realistic. Let's not forget that armor-piercing shells were in favor of the Navy Ministry, and a lot of attention was paid to their design in pre-Tsushima times. But the Russian-Japanese War did not give a direct indication of their unsuitability: so they did not redo what was already working. As for the explosives being a bit high, well, replacing pyroxylin with TNT has improved matters somewhat.

Twelve-inch shells mod. 1911

Having suffered greatly from the hefty Japanese “suitcases,” the Russian Imperial Navy wanted to get at its disposal something similar, or better yet, superior, and for this it was necessary to radically increase the explosive content in the projectile. And therefore it is not at all surprising that in 1906–1908. Work was carried out to determine the maximum possible length of the projectile.

Obviously, the cross-sectional area of ​​the projectile is limited by the caliber of the gun for which the projectile is intended. Reducing the thickness of the projectile walls is possible only to a certain limit, dictated by the quality of the steel. Accordingly, a further increase in the charging chamber, and therefore the explosive content in the projectile, is achievable only by increasing its length.

As I said earlier, the length of the Dotsushima 305-mm landmine was only 2,82 caliber, and the projectile for the same purpose mod. 1907 had a length of 3,17 calibers. But this is a consequence of the limitations imposed by the capabilities of elevators and loading mechanisms of operating ships.

Where it was possible to ignore this requirement, projectiles with a length of 3,96 calibers (203 mm) were developed; 3,98 caliber (254 mm) and full 4 caliber (102 mm).

Thus, in 1907, our industry easily coped with the 4-caliber length, but research in 1906–1908. showed that this is far from the limit, and it is possible to increase the length of projectiles to 5 calibers.

As a matter of fact, this is how 470,9 kg high-explosive shells appeared, marking a small military-technical revolution in heavy naval ammunition. It consisted in the fact that until then the main projectile was an armor-piercing one, and the high-explosive one was adjusted according to its weight.

Now they went from the opposite, creating a high-explosive projectile that was the limit for the technical level of those years, and only then, focusing on its mass, they designed an armor-piercing one to match it.

However, there are certain mysteries here too, because the “Album of Naval Artillery Shells” gives two drawings of high-explosive shells mod. 1911:

1) drawing 254 - the projectile has an armor-piercing tip, the total length of the ammunition reached 1 mm, that is, 530,6 calibers, but the projectile itself was 5,02 mm shorter (159,7 calibers) and was loaded with 4,49 kg of TNT ;

2) drawing 45108 - the projectile was not equipped with an armor-piercing tip, had a length of 1 mm (491 calibers), and was loaded with 4,89 kg of TNT.

I did not completely understand the reason for the presence of two different drawings, making the assumption that the “tipless” projectile appeared as a simpler and cheaper version of the 254 drawing for wartime. There were thoughts on the Internet and in some sources that one of these shells was considered semi-armor-piercing. But, apparently, both of these versions are incorrect, and I will explain why below.

Here I would like to note that, unlike previous types of projectiles equipped with armor-piercing tips, the ammunition mod. 1911 received two tips at once - both armor-piercing and ballistic. I will return to the topic of armor-piercing tips in more detail later; here, for the sake of brevity, I will not mention the ballistic tip each time.

Twelve-inch shells mod. 1913

Professor E.A. Berkalov, in his work “Design of Naval Artillery Shells,” indicates that based on the results of the shelling of “Chesma” in 1913, a decision was made on the need to increase the armor-piercing qualities of high-explosive shells.

As mentioned above, it was then that 331,7 kg high-explosive shells with an armor-piercing tip of a new design began to be produced. What’s interesting is that despite the reduction in the length of the projectile, the high explosiveness even increased.

Most likely, the same thing happened with the newest 470,9 kg shells. It can be assumed that the “tipless” projectile with an explosive content of 58,8 kg is the projectile mod. 1911, and a projectile with an armor-piercing tip and an explosive content of 61,5 kg appeared later, in the period 1911–1913, and was finally adopted based on the results of the shooting in 1913, since, as we know, they also fired at “Chesma” and high-explosive 470,9 kg projectiles with a tip. In the documents it was described as a “projectile mod. 1911."

Where did semi-armor-piercing shells come from in various publications?

Apparently from the future. Even in 1934, in the “Album of Naval Artillery Shells,” high-explosive shells with an armor-piercing tip model 1911 were called high-explosive, but, for example, a similar “Album” from 1979 has a different definition. It contains all high-explosive 305-mm shells mod. 1911 with a tip are called semi-armor-piercing, and only shells that do not have an armor-piercing tip are called high-explosive.

Twelve-inch shells mod. 1915

With the outbreak of the First World War, the insufficient firing range of the Baltic squadron battleships quickly became apparent. That is, of course, battleships according to the classification of that time, but in order not to confuse them with dreadnoughts, I will allow myself to call them that.

This insufficiency was revealed already during the first battle (26.07.1915/XNUMX/XNUMX) in the Gulf of Riga, when “Slava” was forced to restrain the German pre-dreadnoughts with an exceptionally formidable appearance - it did not even open fire, so as not to demonstrate to the Germans the true range of its main caliber guns.

Later, by the time of the second battle, which took place a week later, L.M. Galler proposed to take water into the battleship’s hull and thereby create an artificial roll of 3 degrees in order to increase the firing range by 8 cables.

In general, the task was looming large, and it had to be solved extremely quickly.

As a result, they took a 331,7 kg land mine arr. 1907 in its original version, the earliest drawing, in which an armor-piercing tip was not yet provided for, and a thread was cut into it. A giant brass ballistic tip was screwed onto this thread, increasing the overall length of the projectile from 965 mm to 1 mm.

Of course, ammunition of such length could not possibly fit into the battleship’s elevator, so the tip was screwed on immediately before the projectile was loaded into the gun. One can only guess how much the rate of fire dropped, but, in any case, it was better than nothing.

Twelve-inch shells mod. 1915 had the same 28,2 kg of TNT and were not equipped with an armor-piercing tip. Their weight, together with the ballistic tip, reached 355 kg, which, in my opinion, became the source of rumors according to which a projectile intermediate in weight between 331,7 kg and 470,9 kg was adopted for our squadron battleships.

The muzzle velocity of such a projectile decreased from 2 to 600 feet per second (from 2 to approximately 565 m/s), but the firing range at a maximum elevation angle of 792 degrees increased by almost 782%.

To be continued ...

Comments

[Comrade]

Hello, dear Andrey!
Thank you for continuing the series, I checked all week to see if there was a continuation :-)

With the outbreak of the First World War, the insufficient firing range of the Baltic squadron battleships quickly became apparent.
This insufficiency was revealed already during the first battle (26.07.1915/XNUMX/XNUMX) in the Gulf of Riga, when “Slava” was forced to restrain the German pre-dreadnoughts with an exceptionally formidable appearance - it did not even open fire, so as not to demonstrate to the Germans the true range of its main caliber guns.

At the same time, "Panteleimon", having an elevation angle of thirty-five degrees for its main caliber guns, fired at Turkish forts from a distance of up to one hundred and ten cables during the 1915 campaign. Later, from one hundred and four cables, the first salvo hit Goeben.

In fact, a 305-mm high-explosive projectile mod. 1907 (without an armor-piercing tip) shows us what domestic 331,7 kg high-explosive shells could have been like during the Russo-Japanese War if the Naval Ministry had found money for high-quality steel and pyroxylin for them.
In this case, we could fire at the Japanese at Shantung and Tsushima with shells containing approximately 22,75 kg of wet or 17 kg of dry pyroxylin. It is unlikely that this would have allowed us to win the war, but the Japanese losses at sea could have been much more serious than the real ones.

This, of course, is a debatable issue, dear colleague. Here everything would come down to the number and distribution of hits.
Let’s not forget that the “grandfather” “Rurik” managed to do a lot of things in the battle of Ulsan with an old shell.

[Jura 27]

[/quote]Here everything would come down to the number and distribution of hits.[quote]

It’s precisely that the number of hits was not enough, and there were no “golden” hits. And the shells were quite normal for that time.

[Alexandra]

“Completely normal for that time,” domestic “high-explosive” shells, in addition to being light for their calibers, were inferior to all high-explosive shells of other fleets with trinitrophenol equipment.

And then no one, except apparently the Americans, had normal armor-piercing shells (an explosive that does not explode when it penetrates an armor plate more than half the caliber of a shell and a delayed-action fuse with sufficient deceleration).

Since 1902, the Americans have reloaded their armor-piercing shells from black powder to “maximit” (phlegmatized trinitrophenol), and since 1906 to “dunnit” (ammonium picrate) and had delayed-action fuses with a large delay. For example, a 12 dm American armor-piercing projectile of that time contained a 23 lb (~10,43 kg) Maximit bursting charge.

Considering that the American 12 inch armor-piercing shells of that time weighed 850 pounds and 870 pounds (heavier with a Johnson armor-piercing cap), these were very impressive heavy armor-piercing shells with high armor-piercing effect.

[Jura 27]

[/quote] domestic “high-explosive” shells, in addition to being light for their calibers, were inferior to all high-explosive shells of other fleets with trinitrophenol equipment.

You put the name “high-explosive” in quotes, but compare them with real high-explosive ones. Commons must be compared with commons.

And no one had normal armor-piercing shells (an explosive that does not explode when it penetrates an armor plate more than half the caliber of a projectile thick and a delayed-action fuse with sufficient deceleration) then, except apparently the Americans.[quote]

Russian BBS with wet pyroxylin and a double Brink tube actually exploded behind the armor.

[Alexandra]

Quote: Jura 27

You put the name “high-explosive” in quotes, but compare them with real high-explosive ones. Commons must be compared with commons.

Our sailors then called these shells high-explosive (coastal artillerymen called them deck-piercing shells).

“When I asked the commander of Camp Battery No. 16 why this was so, he told me that they were taught at school that if an armor-piercing projectile had been filled with an explosive, it would not have fulfilled its purpose, since it would have exploded without penetrating the armor , but from an impact on its surface, and that he had only recently heard that in the navy armor-piercing shells are filled with pyroxylin. There was nothing to be done, he had to release the required number of 6-dm and 10-dm armor-piercing and high-explosive shells from the Mine Town to all coastal batteries, but “, in any case, in the battle of January 27, armor-piercing ones filled with sand or cast iron were used.” Cherkasov V. N. Notes of an artillery officer of the battleship “Peresvet”

If you want, we will assume that in our fleet the real high-explosive shells were then cast iron shells with an explosive charge of black powder and we will begin to compare them with the high-explosive shells of foreign fleets with melinite/lyddite/shimoz explosive charges.

Quote: Jura 27

Russian BBS with wet pyroxylin and a double Brink tube actually exploded behind the armor.

No further than the coal pit after breaking through the side armor. The farthest gap of a 12 dm projectile is less than three meters behind 6 dm of armor. High explosive and fragmentation action at the same time... no comment. I’ll better illustrate this by comparing fragments of American armor-piercing 12 dm shells collected after the explosion, one with pyroxylin equipment, the other equipped with “Maximit”. And yes, in the American 12 dm armor-piercing projectile, unlike the domestic one, there was at least 10,8 kg of explosives.

[Jura 27]

[/quote]If you want, let’s assume that in our fleet the real high-explosive ones were cast iron shells with an explosive charge of black powder and let’s start comparing them with the high-explosive shells of foreign fleets with melinite/lyddite/shimoz explosive charges.[quote]

They were outdated by the time of the REV and were actually common.

[Alexandra]

Quote: Jura 27

They were outdated by the time of the REV and were actually common.

If you prefer British terminology, then fine, outdated lightweight “commons”. In American 12 dm armor-piercing the explosive shell contained twice as much as in the Russian "common". And even so, when loaded with pyroxylin (gun-cotton), this projectile produced few large fragments (when loaded with explosives, the maximite produced more than 7000 collected fragments).

During the Russo-Japanese War, the RIF had NEITHER modern armor-piercing weapons, nor modern "commons". RIF did not have any real high-explosive shells at all.

Is it possible to use these outdated lightweight projectiles with a low content of outdated explosives (wet pyroxylin, smokeless gun powder, black powder) and with two types of fuses, of which only an ordinary (without deceleration) shock tube of the 1894 model (the projectile was equipped with powder explosive charges) demonstrated acceptable sensitivity and reliability “normal for that time”?

In comparison with the shells of the American-Spanish War of 1898 with explosive charges of black powder and fuses that unscrewed after the shot, the threads on which were cut against the rotation of the projectile in flight, they may, of course, look normal.

But a fleet with high-explosive shells, modern for the beginning of the 20th century, with a high content of high explosives modern for that time and sensitive fuses, would have defeated the RIF in artillery battles, which is what actually happened.

[Jura 27]

[/quote]No further than the coal pit after breaking through the side armor. The farthest gap of a 12 dm projectile is less than three meters behind 6 dm of armor. High explosive and fragmentation action at the same time... no comment. [quote]

This indicates insufficient speed on the armor (long distance), or a large meeting angle (or both).
Thin decks and bulkheads were completely penetrated by the force of the explosion and fragments. There are extremely few Russian hits in general, and rather a complete absence of them, with the “traverse” position of the enemy ships.
And if there are almost no hits from large-caliber shells and there are no “golden” hits at all, then there will be a complete defeat, which is what happened in Tsushima. And no shells, neither 1907, nor 1911, nor 1928, would have helped.

[Alexandra]

Quote: Jura 27

This indicates insufficient speed on the armor (long distance), or a large meeting angle (or both).

This is the best result demonstrated by Russian 12 dm shells. In other cases, there is either a rupture immediately behind the armor or at the moment the projectile overcomes the armor.

Thin decks and bulkheads were completely penetrated by the force of the explosion and fragments.

They broke through, for example, the roofs of the casemates. But out of all (to memory, five) Russian shells hit the frontal armor and roof of the casemates of the battleship "Mikasa" in the Tsushima battle, one gun in the casemate was disabled by a direct hit of a shell on the gun. About the same success could be fired with solid armor-piercing shells without explosives.

[rytik32]

Quote: AlexanderA

This is the best result demonstrated by Russian 12 dm shells. In other cases, either a rupture immediately behind the armor or at the moment the projectile overcomes the armor

Why did you forget about Fuji? Is it only 3 meters from the front plate to the rear plate of the tower?

in the battle of Tsushima, one cannon in the casemate was disabled by a direct hit by a shell on the cannon

One gun was completely withdrawn, but several temporarily stopped firing due to damage.

[Alexandra]

Quote: rytik32

Why did you forget about Fuji? Is it only 3 meters from the front plate to the rear plate of the tower?

The projectile only touched the upper edge of the frontal armor plate of the barbette hood, as a result it turned slightly and penetrated the mount through the 76 mm roof of the armored hood... which generally implies a rather large angle of incidence for that period, a long distance, a “high-explosive” projectile and... the 1894 shock tube of “normal action”, which was triggered when it hit something already inside (like the back wall), and not at the moment when a projectile that hit the roof at a very acute angle, but normalized, passed through its 76 mm armor.

Quote: rytik32

One gun was completely withdrawn, but several temporarily stopped firing due to damage.

I would like to see descriptions of these damages. Did the optical sight fail due to the shaking of the casemate and had to be replaced with another? In the barbette installation of the Fuji Group of Companies, both telescopic sights were also broken, but nothing, after 40 minutes the left gun resumed firing (and the right one was probably showered with fragments of the roof armor and damaged the hydraulic hammer, or something else “delicate”, not typical for loaders manually casemate guns).

[rytik32]

The shell only touched the upper edge of the frontal armor plate

It didn’t just touch him, but penetrated him. It is torn over the embrasure.

rather large angle of incidence for that period

The distance at that moment was approximately 5,5...6 km.

I would like to see descriptions of these damages

To do this you will have to translate from Japanese. IMHO it is unlikely that there was anything radically different in design and, accordingly, in damage from the Peresvet and Pobeda in ZhM. I studied them carefully at one time. At first glance, there is a lot of damage, but almost all of them can be repaired using ship equipment.

[Alexandra]

It didn’t just touch him, but penetrated him. It is torn over the embrasure.

The gap in the slab along the edge is ten centimeters deep, a third of the caliber of the projectile. I bent the edge of the plate, tore it.... the main thing is that this contributed to the rotation of the projectile. It’s just that if the projectile hit the sloping 76 mm roof, it would bend it over a certain area, leave a groove and go into a ricochet. Having touched the edge of the frontal plate, it somewhat normalized and, as a result, striking at such an acute initial angle, it pierced the roof armor of a quarter caliber.

A similar case, although the armor is thicker and the projectile is more advanced:

https://topwar.ru/201195-o-povrezhdenijah-linejnogo-krejsera-lajon-v-jutlande-stoilo-li-nemcam-streljat-bronebojnymi.html

“The projectile hit the joint of the 229-mm frontal armor plate and the 82,5-mm inclined section of the turret roof next to the embrasure. It is noted that part of the 229-mm armor was pressed into the gun, but, judging by the description and photo, the main blow hit the roof of the tower. She was unable to stop the shell, and it went inside the turret, exploding 91 cm (3 ft) behind the armor, causing great destruction, a fire and almost sinking the ship. On the one hand, the projectile passed less than a meter behind the armor, and it would seem that we can talk about another defective fuse. But here everything is not so simple, precisely due to the fact that the projectile, judging by the description, pierced the roof of the tower: although relatively thin, it was still located at a large angle, and it is not possible to say to what extent its penetration slowed down the projectile . Formulas for armor penetration at such angles give too much error and are not applicable, moreover, part of the impact energy was absorbed by the 229-mm armor plate.

So the assumption that the German projectile overcame the British defense "at the limit of its strength" looks quite reasonable, and I have no reason to count the results of this hit as a minus for the German fuse.

A Russian high-explosive shell would explode in the process of breaking through the armor..."

If it is alleged that the shell received by the aft gun of the Fuji Civil Corps exploded in the area of ​​the rear plate of the armored dome of the barbette installation, then I assume that the “ordinary action” inertial fuse simply did not work when it penetrated 76 mm of the roof armor at a very acute angle, but only worked when the projectile hit the rear dome slab. This allowed the projectile to knock out the slab with its body, and a moment later, having almost lost kinetic energy (“manpower”), explode.

By the way, on the Fuji near Tsushima, a Russian shell ricocheted off the armor of the conning tower roof without an explosion. In the control room one was seriously and one was slightly wounded by armor fragments.

"The reason for the failure is probably a very large angle of contact with the obstacle."

[rytik32]

A gap in the slab along the edge about ten centimeters deep, a third of the caliber of the projectile

For clarity, I highlighted the edge of the outer side of the front sheet in red.
And in the descriptions they write that the shell went through the front sheet, and not the roof.
The shell clearly arrived before 15:00, when the Fuji had not yet turned “suddenly” with the entire 1st detachment. The direction of arrival is approximately from the right shell. I found in our sources that at that time the Eagle was firing at the Fuji with its starboard side, apparently a gift from its bow turret. Although another ship could have done it.

very large angle of encounter with an obstacle

Yes, the fuses of that time did not yet have side-impact mechanisms.

[Alexandra]

Quote: Jura 27

Russian BBS with wet pyroxylin and a double Brink tube actually exploded behind the armor.

They exploded behind the armor, but behind the armor NOT when penetrating Krupp cemented armor plate more than half the caliber thick. Very close behind the armor (the best result for Mikasa, less than 3 meters behind the 6" Krupp armor plate of the upper side belt) and with a weak fragmentation and high-explosive effect of its explosion behind this very armor (at Tsushima, five hits in Mikasa casemates - only one was permanently disabled casemate cannon, direct hit by a projectile).

The American 850 pound (American pound) 12" armor-piercing projectile of that time, equipped with 23 pounds of "Maximite" (phlegmatized trinitrophenol), produced in a test explosion over 7 thousand fragments that were collected. The same projectile, filled with pyroxylin, gave a much worse fragmentation spectrum.

According to the Russian 6" steel armor-piercing weapon, it is known that the one loaded with wet pyroxylin produced 244 collected fragments during a test explosion, with the largest fragment weighing 3 pounds (unlike the Americans, we did not try to collect all the fragments), the one loaded with melinite during the explosion produced 392 fragments, which we managed to collect from the largest fragment weighs 1 lb.

The same projectile with an explosive charge of smokeless gunpowder (in 1905, in the Vladivostok detachment, 6" steel armor-piercing shells were reloaded with smokeless gunpowder and a tube of the 1894 model after failed test firing of shells with pyroxylin equipment and a Brink fuse at those used as targets on the shore old ship boilers) gave during a test detonation 145 collected fragments with a maximum weight of 3 pounds.

For comparison, an American 127 mm armor-piercing projectile equipped with a Maximit produced over 700 collected fragments.

[MCmaximus]

So the Japanese believed that the Russians did not know how to shoot. That’s why we had no doubt about victory.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Good afternoon, dear Valentine!

Quote: Comrade

At the same time, "Panteleimon", having an elevation angle of the main caliber guns of thirty-five degrees

Yes, the Baltic battleships could only dream of this.

Quote: Comrade

This, of course, is a debatable issue, dear colleague.

I agree, that’s why I don’t claim, but assume

Quote: Comrade

but Japanese losses at sea could have been much more serious

Togo would have had less chance of surviving in Tsushima, the explosion in the Fuji Tower could have caused more casualties, etc. Naturally, all these are assumptions, and nothing beyond that

[Comrade]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Togo would have had less chance of surviving in Tsushima

Definitely, dear colleague.
Some of the hits were very successful, and the consequences for the Japanese could be very serious. And so in these situations they escaped with only severe fright.

[Dimax-nemo]

The most successful hit of the Russians during the entire war, this “grandfather” Rurik. We were very lucky, but in the end, not only the Japanese, but also Rurik were very unlucky.

[Jura 27]

[/quote]The initial speed of such a projectile decreased from 2 to 600 feet per second (from 2 to approximately 565 m/s)[quote]

On the contrary, where m/s.

[Jura 27]

[/quote]Their weight together with the ballistic tip reached 374,7 kg[quote]

Is it true that the balloon tip weighed 43 kg?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Jura 27

Is it true that the balloon tip weighed 43 kg?

Difficult to explain error. Total projectile weight 867 pounds or 355 kg
A! All clear.
The album of shells indicates 374,7 kg. Berkalov gives 867 pounds

[Pushkowed]

Although trinitrotoluene was inferior to dry pyroxylin in terms of power, taking into account the need to dilute the latter with water...

The term "dilution" is incorrect here. You can only dilute with water what is miscible with water. Pyroxylin does not mix with water and does not dissolve in it. This is a solid substance. Here it is more appropriate to use the term “impregnation”.

... shoot at the Japanese at Shantung and Tsushima with shells containing approximately 22,75 kg of wet or 17 kg of dry pyroxylin.

I hope this meant conversion to equivalent mass. For dry Pyroxylin cannot be used anywhere except (in very small masses) for equipping fuses and detonators. He's very sensitive.

And in general, TNT is inferior to RDX in terms of power, but in its pure form RDX is used only in capsules as an initiating explosive, in an amount of about 1 g (one gram!), and to equip ammunition, hexogen is always mixed with something less sensitive (for example, with the same TNT). Nobody even tries to equip shells with pure hexogen for the same reasons as dry pyroxylin - it will explode not even in the barrel, but even during transportation.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Pushkowed

The term "dilution" is incorrect here.

Quite possible. I think you're right.

Quote: Pushkowed

I hope this meant conversion to equivalent mass.

(shrugs) Of course. You probably yourself know the densities of substances, and I also mentioned earlier https://topwar.ru/234660-glavnoe-oruzhie-rossijskogo-imperatorskogo-flota.html that the densities of TNT and dry pyroxylin are comparable. Accordingly, approximately the same amount of dry pyroxylin would go into the projectile as TNT

[MCmaximus]

Phlegmatized RDX is RDX with paraffin. I don't know the relationship. But it is 1,6 times higher than TNT.
This is from memory from army manuals. Everything that needs to be blown up is counted as TNT. For other explosives, a coefficient is entered.

[Sergey Zhikharev]

Before the discussions on one part had finished, colleague Andrey laid out the next one.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

So the series is almost written, so I’m posting an article a week :))))

[Comrade]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

So the series is almost written, so I’m posting an article a week:

Pardon my curiosity, dear Andrey, but will the topic of armor of that era be covered?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Of course :))) Shells is a prequel to it. Just a prequel that has grown... to a size larger than the original series.
Now there will be an article devoted to testing, then - to armor-piercing tips, then - two articles on confirming the qualities of "Makarov" tips on domestically produced Krupp armor, and now there will already be a lot of calculations on armor and shells. And a lot of interesting conclusions. So far only in bulk
But then I will return to the roots - Harvey, and from there - again to Krupp :))))

[27091965]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Shells is a prequel to it. Just a prequel that has grown... to a size larger than the original series.

Solid, I think there will be a lot of interesting things.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: 27091965i

I think there will be a lot of interesting things.

I tried, dear Igor :)

[Comrade]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Certainly:)))

Excellent, deeply respected colleague!
Or maybe it would be logical for Hervey to at least superficially illuminate even earlier armor?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Comrade

Or maybe it would be logical for Hervey to at least superficially illuminate even earlier armor?

We will touch on it a little - the steel-nickel one, which was used before Harvey. But I don’t have any data on other armor, and anyway I’m primarily interested in cemented armor.

[rytik32]

Valentine, good afternoon!
The most complete work on ship armor - Kostenko V.P. The evolution of reservation systems in connection with the history of the development of military fleets

[Comrade]

Quote: rytik32

The most complete work on ship armor - Kostenko V.P. The evolution of reservation systems in connection with the history of the development of military fleets

Thank you for the recommendation, dear Alexey!

[Victor Leningradets]

Thanks for the interesting article, Andrey!

The muzzle velocity of such a projectile decreased from 2 to 600 feet per second (from 2 to approximately 565 m/s), but the firing range at a maximum elevation angle of 762 degrees increased by almost 782%.

Please correct the typo: The initial velocity of 2600 feet per second is rounded up to 792 m/s. 762 m/s corresponds to 2500 feet per second.
I am constantly tormented by doubts about the accuracy of long high-explosive projectiles mod. 1911 The Russian Empire was not the most advanced state in terms of technology, however, no one even came close in terms of elongation and power of Russian high-explosive shells. In addition, Russian cannon steel was inferior in characteristics to both German and Austrian, but the ballistic qualities of our system are superior to both Krupp and Skoda indicators. Is there a significant loss in accuracy behind this?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Victor Leningradets

Please correct the typo

Yes, thank you, I asked you to correct it. Unfortunately, I myself cannot edit it after the article was published on the main page.

Quote: Victor Leningradets

however, no one has even come close to the elongation and power of Russian high-explosive shells.

Why? The Austrians seemed to have the same length - 122 cm.

Quote: Victor Leningradets

In addition, Russian cannon steel was inferior in characteristics to both German and Austrian

On what basis do you think so? Armor was not inferior, why should gun steel be inferior?

[Victor Leningradets]

The Austrians seemed to have the same length - 122 cm.

I meant a 1530 mm long projectile. And 61,5 kg of explosives is absolutely beyond competition.
As for the armor - don't believe it. Up to thicknesses of the order of 270 mm - everything is correct, not only was it not inferior, but it was also superior due to the larger size of the slabs. But technological limitations did not allow the production of high-quality slabs of greater thickness. A thin layer of cementation with a very steep “ski slope” did not meet the requirements for a balance of hardness and elasticity. As a result, the slabs were either “raw” or with an overly fragile substrate. You can look at the Berkalov curve based on the drop in strength of armor plates depending on their thickness.
Kolotovsky also wrote about cannon steel. The attempt to switch to alloy gun steels also rested on the technological capabilities of the factories.
At the same time, things were not going better for the Allies. It was not for nothing that Vickers failed in the production of guns for the Izmails! (However, deliberate sabotage is not excluded).

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Victor Leningradets

I meant a 1530 mm long projectile. And 61,5 kg of explosives is absolutely beyond competition.

I take the length of the projectile without the tip. And in order to compare the dispersion, you need to have it for the German gun. There’s really nothing at all about Austro-Hungarian language.
In any case, the value of one probable deviation in fathoms is 58 in range. This is not that bad for a distance of 150 cables

Quote: Victor Leningradets

As for the armor - don't believe it. Up to thicknesses of about 270 mm - everything is correct, not only was it not inferior, but it was also superior due to the larger size of the slabs. But technological limitations did not allow the production of high-quality slabs of greater thickness.

Firing tests of armor and shells do not confirm this thesis. That is, the armor that was made was of very high quality. Another question is that it could not be made in large quantities.

[Victor Leningradets]

For ballistics, the decisive factor is the position of the projectile's center of gravity relative to its length. Therefore, all long projectiles are less stable in flight than short ones with a massive warhead.
As for the armor, the experimental compartment with 370 mm plates was pierced with 12" shells from off-design distances. The given plate thickness corresponded to 330 mm armor of normal quality.
Gavrilov I.A., taking this into account, developed a new scheme for armoring battleships.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Victor Leningradets

For ballistics, the decisive factor is the position of the projectile's center of gravity relative to its length.

Which, mind you, has nothing to do with the quality of the gun barrel from which it is fired

Quote: Victor Leningradets

As for armor, the experimental compartment with 370 mm plates

Yes, I know, but experiments with 305 mm armor showed a completely different result. We'll get to these experiments later in this series :)

[Pushkowed]

For ballistics, the decisive factor is the position of the projectile's center of gravity relative to its length. Therefore, all long projectiles are less stable in flight than short ones...

More precisely, the position of the center of gravity (the point to which the resultant force of gravity is applied) relative to the center of pressure (the point to which the resultant force of air resistance is applied) is important. A round rifle bullet is very short (the length is equal to the caliber), but very unstable: both centers of it coincide. And a arrow-type bullet (for example, a McElveen bullet) is long and hits more accurately: it has a center of pressure in the tail, and a center of gravity near the tip, like an arrow for a bow (hence the classification - arrow-type). Well, yes. Arrows. They are very long. And this is not without reason. Specifically, to space the center of gravity and the center of pressure (on the tail) further away from each other.

[stankow]

. For ballistics, the decisive factor is the position of the center of gravity of the projectile relative to the length
No, relative to the center of aerodynamic forces.

[MCmaximus]

But Vickers still made these guns. Unlike our factories.

[Jura 27]

[/quote] In addition, Russian cannon steel was inferior in characteristics to both German and Austrian, but the ballistic qualities of our system are superior to both Krupp and Skoda indicators.[quote]

The Russian 12"/52 is just inferior to both the German and Austrian, with a longer barrel length.
Made from cheap steel. Unlike FS arr. 11g, which were very expensive, even more expensive than armor-piercing ones.

[Victor Leningradets]

In fact, the Russian 12"/52, due to the projectile, is superior to its competitors at long distances, but at medium distances it is quite sufficient.

[Jura 27]

Quote: Victor Leningradets

In fact, the Russian 12"/52, due to the projectile, is superior to its competitors at long distances, but at medium distances it is quite sufficient.

This is if you fight with Russian LKs at long distances. But the reservation did not allow using this advantage.
And the Baltic theater of operations did not always allow fighting only at long distances; this is not a Pacific theater of operations.

[27091965]

Good afternoon.
Dear Andrey, thank you for continuing.

This all looks strange, and here's why. For the reasons stated above, 305 mm shells could not be longer than 3,17 calibers. Armor-piercing projectile mod. 1900 was even smaller - only 2,72 calibers, that is, it was possible to design a longer and heavier projectile with a higher explosive content.

Perhaps the problem was not a revision of views on the use of projectiles, but the need to make changes to the design of existing 12-inch guns. With an increase in the weight of an armor-piercing projectile, in order to maintain an acceptable speed, it was necessary to increase the weight of the charge, which apparently would require changes to recoil devices. This can be done in casemates, but the design of the towers will allow such changes.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Good afternoon, dear Igor, you are always welcome!

Quote: 27091965i

Perhaps the problem was not a revision of views on the use of shells, but the need to make changes to the design of existing 12-inch guns. With an increase in the weight of an armor-piercing projectile

No, no, I’m talking about something else - the thinning of the “head” of the projectile, which was thicker than that of the BB mod. 1911, that is, it could be reduced a little. And the weight, of course, had to be kept the same

[Pushkowed]

the need to make changes to the design of existing 12 inch guns

Unless this concerns the length of the chamber. And even that is not a fact.

[ban]

The thing is that after the Russo-Japanese War, understanding of increased battle distances came very quickly. Sailors began to learn to shoot at 40–60 cables, and then further

Cherkasov, Peresvet:
20) The kind of shells for shooting in various cases.

10-dm:

a) Zeroing. Cast iron, equipped with black powder - clearly visible.

b) On armored ships. From 100 to 60 cables - cast iron; from 60 to 35 cables: the right gun - high-explosive, and the left one - armor-piercing; with 35 cables and less - armor-piercing.

c) By non-armored ships. From 100 to 35 cables - cast iron; with 35 cables and less - high-explosive.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Yuri, did you want to say something?

[ban]

Already they shot at the Russian-Japanese almost 100 cabs

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: ban

Already they shot at the Russian-Japanese almost 100 cabs

They shot because they had to. But no one LEARNED how to do this before the REV. I wrote specifically about training

The thing is that after the Russo-Japanese War, understanding of increased battle distances came very quickly. Sailors have become study shoot at 40–60 cables, and then further

At the same time, you are completely inattentively reading Cherkasov. See Appendix 3 for his third point

For combat, I consider 60 cables to be the maximum distance.

The same Black Sea squadron also did not immediately learn to shoot at 100 cabs after the nuclear attack

[ban]

And the artillery genius Rozhdestvensky carried out 60 rounds of shooting, as you wrote earlier, right?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: ban

And the artillery genius Rozhdestvensky carried out 60 rounds of shooting, as you wrote earlier, right?

It was DURING THE ROAR :)))

[ban]

At the same time, you are completely inattentively reading Cherkasov. See Appendix 3 for his third point

This is not Appendix 3, but a memo after the fight on July 28, if anything

paragraph 5, before which there are also paragraphs 3 and 4.
I read it carefully, unlike

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: ban

This is not Appendix 3, but a memo after the fight on July 28, if anything

And the memo after the fight on July 28 at Cherkasov is given in Appendix No. 3
Just in case

[ban]

The relatively modest initial velocity of 331,7 kg shells, even if equipped with an armor-piercing tip, even with 45 cables in real combat conditions, could hardly provide a breakdown of the 178-mm Krupp armor plate

The hit was in the 150-mm armor of the third (counting from the nose) casemate of the 150-mm gun on the left side; the rupture, according to the Germans, occurred when the shell passed the armor plate, so that only the force of fragments of its head went inside
parts. They "demolished several deck beams and a coal mine...
The charges ignited, the rear bulkhead received a strong
it was torn, and in two places opposite the rupture site it was torn.
Due to the detonation of three high-explosive shells and the combustion of 16 charges, a hole was formed in the deck with an area of ​​\u1b\uXNUMXbXNUMX square. meter, the upper deck swelled. The covers of two coal necks in the upper deck and three in the casemate were knocked out. A strong fire raged in the casemate for about five minutes, accompanied by a whistling sound.
noise..."
The biggest disaster, fraught, in the worst case, with death
of the entire ship, there was a burst of flame force down the ammunition supply shaft
reserves in the artillery cellar, where about 250 shells were stored
and 250 charges (about 3,5 tons of gunpowder). This was the common magazine of guns No. 3 and No. 4 on the left side. Everything happened so suddenly that there was no talk of flooding the cellar, and there was no water or pressure in the flood lines. The flames burned the inside of the cellar,
which was filled with thick smoke, as well as the people in it, who, however, managed to survive and run out, although many received serious burns and gas poisoning. Next, the flame penetrated up the elevator into the adjacent casemate No. 4, which was also “filled with... poisonous smoke so thick that the hands raised to it were not visible.”
to the eyes, and the casemate had to be abandoned.”
...
The very first Russian shell
The Russians managed not only to destroy the casemate of the auxiliary gun,
but also to create a dangerous fire in the artillery magazine of it and the gun next to it. The supply of ammunition to three more 150-mm guns on the left side turned out to be out of action, a considerable part of the lighting and ventilation was de-energized (all auxiliary artillery was left without light
rammed side), a threat has been created to remove one main caliber turret from use. Several electrical cables and supply pipes in the nearby boiler room were also damaged by shrapnel...

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: ban

The hit was in the 150-mm armor of the third (counting from the bow) casemate of the 150-mm gun on the left side; the gap, according to the Germans, occurred when the projectile passed through the armor plate

That's what we're talking about - the projectile as a whole did not penetrate the armor. And the battle distance at that moment was EMNIP even less than 45 cables.

[ban]

But he did something wrong. You can also remember the battle near the Bosphorus. The shells weren't that bad, actually.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: ban

But he did something wrong.

Only this was, with a 99 percent probability, a high-explosive projectile mod. 1907. At least at Goeben near the Bosporus they shot high-explosive with tips accurately. But Evstafiy fired only 12 shots; the shooting should have definitely been done with landmines.

Quote: ban

You can also remember the battle near the Bosphorus.

From the report of Eustathius

A total of 60 12-dm high-explosive projectiles with tips and 32 8-dm high-explosive projectiles were fired

[ban]

The high-explosive 150 mm penetrated, but the armor-piercing 178 supposedly did not penetrate. Doesn't anyone see the contradictions here except me?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: ban

The high-explosive 150 mm penetrated, but the armor-piercing 178 supposedly did not penetrate. Doesn't anyone see the contradictions here except me?

The contradiction here can only be seen by a person who does not understand anything about projectiles.
The armor is considered penetrated if the projectile passes through the armor in its entirety. Understanding of this fact came in 1905, if that. For high-explosive shells, by the way, the norm was to penetrate armor up to half the normal caliber. Here the projectile hit at an angle and detonated in the process of breaking through the armor, which is quite good for a high-explosive projectile. But the shell did not penetrate the Goeben’s armor.

[ban]

For high-explosive shells, by the way, the norm was to penetrate armor up to half the normal caliber. Here the projectile hit at an angle and detonated in the process of breaking through the armor, which is quite good for a high-explosive projectile. But the shell did not penetrate the Goeben’s armor

You already decide

The shell did not penetrate the armor, but Goeben almost exploded.
Only from a projectile expert can you hear this

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: ban

You already decide

Am I contradicting myself somewhere?

Quote: ban

The shell did not penetrate the armor

Yes, absolutely right.

Quote: ban

but Goeben almost exploded.

Wrong. Goeben almost had an ammunition fire in his cellars. A fire in a cellar and an explosion are not the same thing. Seydlitz with burnt-out aft towers at Dogger Bank did not explode, for example.
And yes, I repeat - this is a consequence of being hit by a shell that did not penetrate the armor. The fact that this seems illogical to you is a problem solely of your logic, not mine.

[DrEng02]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

The armor is considered penetrated if the projectile passes through the armor in its entirety.

There is a term - partial penetration of armor, why don’t you use it?

[geniy]

It seems to me that Andrey from Chelyabinsk is misleading his readers, of course not out of a desire to deceive, but simply because he does not know the truth. At the same time, I do not want to say that I know this topic better than him, and, like him, I mainly use guesses. The essence of my complaints is that Andrey uses logical thinking a lot. This would seem to be a wonderful property. But it would be better to use documentary facts taken from archives, rather than your own speculation. And here lies the catch. As Andrei himself admitted several years ago in one of his articles, he does not visit naval archives at all due to the fact that he lives far from them. But the point is that in our time, many archives have been digitized, and many documents are posted openly on the Internet, and Andrei could use these sources. But this is just a joke on my part. The fact is that several years ago I personally tried to look for documents about artillery shells of the Russian fleet, but I did not find anything interesting. From this I made a paradoxical conclusion that the true documents on Russian shells of the pre-Tsushima era are still classified, so if anyone had such a desire, he would not be able to read anything. And therefore I have an assumption that this Andrey uses only open literature and his own logical reasoning. At the same time, he apparently does not know the reliable truth and is often mistaken, like all other history buffs.
I will continue in the next post.

[27091965]

Quote: geniy

From this I made a paradoxical conclusion that the true documents on Russian shells of the pre-Tsushima era are still classified, so if anyone had such a desire, he would not be able to read anything.

What is the point of classifying these documents, but at the same time publishing Soviet developments. These documents cannot have any influence on modern history, much less political life.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Don't pay attention, dear Igor. A person has his own views on life

Quote: geniy

And pyroxylin is essentially the most ordinary gunpowder, which is still used today and placed in steel cartridges, where it lies for decades

That is, he doesn’t even know that pyroxylin as an explosive is one thing, and pyroxylin gunpowder is another.

Quote: 27091965i

What's the point of keeping these documents secret?

Mr. X has his own view of history, very... different from the real state of affairs.

[geniy]

What is the point of classifying these documents, but at the same time publishing Soviet developments. These documents cannot have any influence on modern history, much less political life.

I opened several topics - not only on shells, which in my opinion have been brutally classified since pre-Tsushima times.
And if you don’t agree, then I can offer you questions for you to answer based on archival data that neither you nor anyone else will simply find.

[27091965]

Quote: geniy

I opened several topics - not only on shells, which in my opinion have been brutally classified since pre-Tsushima times.
And if you don’t agree, then I can offer you questions for you to answer based on archival data that neither you nor anyone else will simply find.

I will read with interest your questions about shells, but first you need to answer the question I asked;
"What is the point of classifying these documents?".

[geniy]

I will read with interest your questions about shells, but first you need to answer the question I asked;
“What is the point of classifying these documents?”

The point is that many Russian shells simply did not explode during the nuclear war and this was actually a big crime. And if he had been investigated, a huge scandal would have arisen in the Navy Department.
Now you answer me:
as everyone knows, there was a shelling of Sveaborg during which most of the shells did not explode. And so I ask you and everyone else. But don’t think that I want to learn anything from you - I’m sure that you personally and many others don’t know anything. And I ask the question to show the secrecy of the topic. So: how many shells were fired at Sveaborg, how many shells did not explode, and what was the percentage of non-explosion? Was there also an investigation on this topic after the Russo-Japanese War?

[27091965]

Quote: geniy

The point is that many Russian shells simply did not explode during the nuclear war and this was actually a big crime. And if he had been investigated, a huge scandal would have arisen in the Navy Department.

This was not a secret; this issue was discussed not only in various documents, but also in publications of participants in the Russo-Japanese War.

So: how many shells were fired at Sveaborg,

I can’t give an exact number.

how many shells did not explode, and what was the percentage of non-explosion?

Large-caliber shells that did not explode in the Sveaborg fortress were classified as coastal defense guns and were training, that is, they did not contain explosives, you can find out this from the report of the commandant of the fortress, for this you do not need to go to the archive. Documents on the uprising at Sveaborg Fortress have been published.

Was there also an investigation on this topic after the Russo-Japanese War?

If you mean the shelling of the Sveaborg fortress, then what is the point of conducting an investigation into training shells.

[geniy]

Unexploded large-caliber shells in the Sveaborg fortress belonged to coastal defense guns and were training, that is, they did not contain explosives

The battleships Tsesarevich and Slava and the cruiser Bogaty approached Sveaborg and then their officers saw their unexploded shells - do you think that they could not distinguish them from the guns of the fortress? and do you think that they fired at training shells, some of which had their bottoms destroyed?
Was there an investigation into the non-explosions of shells in Tsushima?

[27091965]

Quote: geniy

The battleships Tsesarevich and Slava and the cruiser Bogaty approached Sveaborg and then their officers saw their unexploded shells - do you think that they could not distinguish them from the guns of the fortress?

Could you please clarify where the officers saw the unexploded shells and in what report, under whose signature, this was recorded.

[Comrade]

Quote: geniy

The battleships Tsesarevich and Slava and the cruiser Bogaty approached Sveaborg and then their officers saw their unexploded shells

Colleague, thank you from the bottom of my heart for your comments, I laughed until I cried.
And now a few words on the merits.
You read that “Slava” allegedly fired at the rebels either in the notes to “Tsushima” by Novikov-Priboy (who referred to Academician Krylov), or from Krylov himself. Why did the respected academician need lie, it doesn't matter now. The facts are that "Slava" in the shelling of Sveaborg not accepted.

Here is a screenshot from Vinogradov’s book “Battleship “Slava””, it says this in black and white.

As for the consumption of shells fired at the rebels, there is no secret here, these figures are well known.

[rytik32]

Quote: Comrade

The fact that "Slava" allegedly fired at the rebels

The Russian National Library has a Novikov-Priboi fund, in which I read his correspondence with Larionov. This unreliable information came to Novikov through Larionov from Krylov. In later letters, Larionov wrote that he conveyed erroneous information about the firing of “Slava” and unexploded shells, but apparently it was too late, the book was published... But why this information was not removed in the next edition of “Tsushima” is not clear.

[Comrade]

Quote: rytik32

In later letters, Larionov wrote that he conveyed erroneous information about the firing of “Slava” and unexploded shells, but apparently it was too late, the book was published... But why this information was not removed in the next edition of “Tsushima” is not clear.

The first edition of Tsushima had no notes. Only tables with ships of the 1st and 2nd squadrons.

In what edition of the year did the note with Krylov’s lies about “Slava” first appear? You can probably find out in the library, where there are all the publications of “Tsushima”. Perhaps this is Lenin's library.

[rytik32]

Quote: Comrade

In what edition of the year did the note with Krylov’s lies about “Slava” first appear? You can probably find out in the library, where there are all the publications of “Tsushima”. Perhaps this is Lenin's library

I looked, the letters were dated 1934-35

[Comrade]

Quote: rytik32

I looked, the letters were dated 1934-35

It turns out that Novikov did not believe Larionov.

[Macsen_wledig]

Quote: Comrade

It turns out that Novikov did not believe Larionov.

The question is rather when the notes appeared in the book in the first place.
If some time after the correspondence, then the author, for example, could simply forget about the letter... Or perhaps there was some kind of opportunism: his nonsense about the drowning wanders from edition to edition of Krylov’s memoirs without any footnotes or comments." Huda...

[Comrade]

Quote: Macsen_Wledig

Krylov’s memoirs wander from edition to edition without any footnotes or comments, his nonsense about the sinking of the Hood...

What do you think of this from his book?

[Macsen_wledig]

Quote: Comrade

What do you think of this from his book?

I'll have to re-read it sometime.
I read “My Memoirs” a long time ago...

[Comrade]

Quote: geniy

as everyone knows, there was a shelling of Sveaborg during which most of the shells did not explode

How can this be known if, according to you, the topic is classified?
According to you, neither the number of shells fired nor the number of unexploded shells is known.
So how, in this case, does “everyone know” that “most of the shells did not explode”?

[DrEng02]

Quote: 27091965i

What's the point of keeping these documents secret?

Alternatively, they just didn’t get around to it - there’s a lot of bureaucracy

[rytik32]

Quote: geniy

The fact is that several years ago I personally tried to look for documents about artillery shells of the Russian fleet, but I did not find anything interesting.

Which archive were you looking in? Which fund? What inventory?

[geniy]

[quote]Which archive did you look in? Which fund? What inventory?
[/ quote
Yeah. Now, five years later, I will rush to remember exactly in which fund and in which inventory I looked for data on shells. Therefore, I will answer you that I ran through the ENTIRE FOUNDATION and looked for data ON ANY naval shells - and did not find anything useful at all.
And then I have a question for you in return. I was looking for data on the number of fragments created by Russian shells. And in one of your articles you mentioned that the AMERICAN projectile created 1402 fragments. BUT at the same time you modestly did not mention Russian shells. And why? Have you looked for data on them in the archive?

[rytik32]

Quote: geniy

I ran through the ENTIRE FOUNDATION and looked for data ON ANY naval shells - and didn’t find anything useful at all

Thank you for your answer, which makes it clear that you were not in the archive. And you can’t even imagine how work happens in the archive.

And why? Have you looked for data on them in the archive?

I didn’t have this data then.

[Macsen_wledig]

Quote: rytik32

Thank you for your answer, which makes it clear that you were not in the archive. And you can’t even imagine how work happens in the archive.

Alexey, don’t pay attention to your comrade, he understands the issue like F.V.L. :)

[Comrade]

Quote: Macsen_Wledig

Don’t pay attention to your comrade, he understands the issue like F.V.L. :)

Let him ring his bells, it’s fun to read.

[geniy]

So, it seems to me a big misconception that Russian shells filled with pyroxylin allegedly used a brass case. But what is it for? Really in order to avoid the chemical interaction of pyroxylin with the steel walls of the projectile in order to avoid the formation of picrates. But picrates are formed only from picric acid - that is, melinite or shimose.
And pyroxylin is essentially the most ordinary gunpowder, which is still used today and placed in steel cartridges, where it lies for decades - fifty years.
And Andrei, of course, can immediately provide evidence - the primary source. BUT I think that some idiot from the Navy Department wrote this nonsense a hundred years ago and now Andrei constantly uses this statement. So I would like to see reliable data from the archive, which shows a drawing of a Russian shell with the number and technology of its manufacture, because I don’t believe modern pictures and I think that modern computer scientists using a computer are simply redrawing old sketches that someone simply sketched by hand.

[Senior seaman]

Quote: geniy

place it in steel sleeves

At the beginning of the 20th century?

[geniy]

At the beginning of the 20th century?

Well, why are you clinging to trifles? steel casings of course appeared during the Second World War. But the point is that phlegmatized pyroxylin and pyroxylin gunpowder are chemically quite stable substances. and why does pyroxylin need a brass case?

[Pushkowed]

Pyroxylin in a shell wet. When steel comes into contact with moisture, the steel will corrode severely. Iron oxides (rust) have mechanical properties that differ from copper oxides (patina) - in particular, they do not create a protective film that prevents further oxidation. The moisture in the pyroxylin charge is not enough to reduce the mechanical strength of the projectile by rusting. But the trouble is that the water from the pyroxylin charge will gradually leave, being spent on the oxidation of iron. And one day the pyroxylin dries out - then there will be bang at the most inopportune time. When pyroxylin gunpowder was poured into the projectile, no cover was used. Because the gunpowder must be dry.

[geniy]

The pyroxylin in the shell is wet. When steel comes into contact with moisture, the steel will corrode severely. Iron oxides (rust) have mechanical properties that differ from copper oxides (patina) - in particular, they do not create a protective film that prevents further oxidation. The moisture in the pyroxylin charge is not enough to reduce the mechanical strength of the projectile by rusting. But the trouble is that the water from the pyroxylin charge will gradually leave, being spent on the oxidation of iron. And one day the pyroxylin dries out - then there will be bang at the most inopportune time. When pyroxylin gunpowder was poured into the projectile, no cover was used. Because the gunpowder must be dry.

You apparently have very little understanding of chemistry, even worse than me. and those readers who gave you pluses apparently don’t understand anything at all.
The fact is that water - moisture as you call it - does not oxidize iron at all. In fact, iron oxidizes the oxygen contained in water. And there is very little oxygen in water - only 5%. And if iron objects in water really rust, then this is due to the fact that in most cases the water is running, and new water flows in to replace the water that has consumed oxygen. But swamp stagnant water consumes oxygen very quickly, so corpses can remain in swamps for thousands of years - because there is no influx of fresh oxygen to them. Likewise, there is no flow of fresh oxygen inside the projectile. Therefore, the idea that the pyroxylin inside the shells could have dried out since all the water was used to rust the steel looks absolutely crazy...

[rytik32]

Quote: geniy

Why does pyroxylin need a brass case?

Everything is written in the instructions for equipping shells. It is in the archive.

[Alexandra]

Quote: geniy

So, it seems to me a big misconception that Russian shells filled with pyroxylin allegedly used a brass case. But what is it for? Really in order to avoid the chemical interaction of pyroxylin with the steel walls of the projectile in order to avoid the formation of picrates.

Picrate and wet pyroxylin are two very different things. Picrates are salts of picric acid. Pyroxylin has a different chemical formula. Charges of wet pyroxylin were placed in covers to maintain moisture.

"According to the “Instructions for equipping and storing pyroxylin projectiles” of 1894, a pyroxylin explosive charge was placed in a projectile in a charging case, made according to the shape of the internal cavity of the projectile. The charging case consisted of a brass nickel-plated seamless body and a stamped cover. The explosive charge consisted of folded together checkers of wet pyroxylin pressed and ground to the shape of the internal void of the charging case. The checkers were placed in a vessel with distilled water and remained in it until completely saturated, absorbing 20-25% of moisture. Upon saturation, the checkers were removed from the vessel, charges were made from them, checked with templates, were weighed and placed on the table with the head part up. When the excess water drained, a cover was put on, and a lid was put on it, the joint was covered with rubberized tape. The equipped cover was weighed and placed in a sealed sealed box with the top down, and in this form it was sent to the ports for loading shells. This design of the charge made it possible to maintain a given humidity in the pyroxylin, preventing it from drying out."

You can figure out why patterned pieces of wet pyroxylin were a high explosive, but gun pyroxylin gunpowder was not a high explosive, by studying, for example, the topic of granipores - granular industrial explosives made on the basis of recyclable pyroxylin and ballistic gunpowders.

[geniy]

In addition, Andrey wrote “dry pyroxylin” several times. Another Author Pushkoved corrected him before me that dry pyroxylin, in principle, cannot be used in shells, because it will immediately explode even when loading ammunition. And several times in a previous article, Andrei wrote that supposedly Russian shells used pyroxylin with a moisture content of 25%, while according to my data, the humidity of pyroxylin in naval shells was 30%. And I assume that Russian artillerymen conducted hundreds of experiments with firing at armor, carefully selecting the percentage of moisture in their shells. BUT it seems to me that all these experiments are still classified and Andrey from Chelyabinsk knows nothing about it at all. Therefore, I propose to him and all opponents to reveal this topic in detail, but not from open literature, but using reliable archival documents. How and on what basis was this percentage of moisture content of Russian shells chosen?

[Dekabrist]

And I assume that Russian artillerymen conducted hundreds of experiments with firing at armor, carefully selecting the percentage of moisture in their shells. BUT it seems to me that all these experiments are still classified and Andrey from Chelyabinsk knows nothing about it at all.

Why should they be classified in principle, especially until now, if already during the First World War pyroxylin for loading shells was not used anywhere else except in Russia?

[geniy]

Why keep them secret in principle?

Tell me, what do you personally know about the artillery experiments of Russian engineers in selecting the percentage moisture content of pyroxylin in shells?
How many of these experiments were there? at what year? What thickness of armor were they shooting at? Did you fire shells with fuses or without fuses?
Don't you really know anything about this? Like thousands of other readers...

[Dekabrist]

Tell me, what do you personally know about the artillery experiments of Russian engineers in selecting the percentage moisture content of pyroxylin in shells?

No one “selects the percentage moisture content of pyroxylin” using artillery experiments. Such experiments are carried out in laboratory conditions. Read something on this issue. Possibly Casta or the textbook "Chemistry and Technology of High Explosives".
Therefore, there is no point in keeping anything secret.

[Dimax-nemo]

Well, if these were “old design” shells, then 1,8% TNT is still much better than 1,2% wet pyroxylin. 1,8% in the type of "high-explosive" Russian 12" gunpowder shells sometimes brought a lot of harm to the Japanese. The key word is sometimes.

[DrEng02]

I am glad that at least in the title the author took into account the criticism, but then again there was misgrading and he completely forgot about the declared rounding, but the worst thing is the systematic arithmetic errors....

But in the case of twelve-inch shells, everything was much worse. The length of the Tsushima landmine was 858,2 mm or 2,82 calibers. The maximum that could be “stuffed” into existing elevators and chargers is 965,2 mm or 3,17 calibers,

25,4 * 12 * 2,82 = 859,5
25,4 * 12 * 3,17 = 966,2

its length was 1 mm or 011,9 caliber,

25,4 * 10 * 3,98 = 1010,9
In general, I gave up and didn’t check the numbers anymore...

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Learn to count first, "inspector"

Quote: DrEng02

25,4 * 12 * 2,82 = 859,5

Projectile length - 858,2 mm.
Convert to inches - 858,2 mm/25,4 mm = 33,7874 inches
Converting to calibers - 33,7874 inches / 12 inches = 2,815617 calibers
Let's round up - 2,82 caliber.

Quote: DrEng02

and I completely forgot about the declared rounding

Of course, due to your limitations, you could not guess that I was converting from millimeters to inches, but not vice versa. And even in this case, if you already decided that I was converting from inches to millimeters, you were not smart enough to realize that 2,82 could be rounded.
Hmmm, and these people call themselves engineers... At least tell me what you are creating. I wish I never used this in my life

[DrEng02]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Learn to count first, "inspector"

you are being rude for a banal reason my calculations are transparent, yours are pretentious...

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: DrEng02

you are being rude for a banal reason

Yes. The beads are out.

Quote: DrEng02

my calculations are transparent, yours are pretentious...

Oh, new terminology has arrived - “fancy calculation” :))) When you find an error in it, please let me know.

[DrEng02]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

When you find an error in it, please let me know.

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Projectile length - 858,2 mm.

the drawings of those years did not have such dimensions...
By the way, will you find an error in my calculations? oh yes - the beads are out...
Well, in general:
1) whoever is interested in shells should read the classics without stupid calculations and conclusions, from the same Vinogradov:
briefly: http://history.milportal.ru/proizvodstvo-morskix-12-dm-snaryadov-v-rossii-nakanune-pervoj-mirovoj-vojny/
full version: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/dostignuto-vysokoe-iskusstvo-izgotovleniya-snaryadov-sovershenno-novogo-tipa-proizvodstvo-morskih-12-dm-snaryadov-v-rossii-nakanune/viewer
Well, who is interested in a documentary investigation into the quality of shells with scans of documents:
https://dzen.ru/a/ZD0b1rCe90xdM9a5
Compared to these articles, the author is a banal graphomaniac...

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: DrEng02

the drawings of those years did not have such dimensions...

And who told you that I used “drawings of those years”? :))) I used the “album of naval artillery shells” from 1934 - all dimensions are already given there in millimeters to tenths.

Quote: DrEng02

By the way, will you find an error in my calculations?

That is, even after my explanations you did not understand it? Mmm, how everything is running. Okay, I’ll explain it in simple terms, since a modern engineer doesn’t understand it any other way.
You are taking
25,4*12*2,82=859,5.
What's wrong?
25,4 mm*12 inches = 304,8 mm is correct. You define the caliber in millimeters.
304,8 mm* 2,82 is NOT correct since you are taking 2,82 caliber as the exact value. And it could be, for example, 2,817 or 2,8222 caliber, or, as in this case, 2,815617 caliber.

Quote: DrEng02

Well, who is interested in a documentary investigation into the quality of shells with scans of documents:

With your level of understanding, it is not at all surprising that this opus seems to you to be a “documentary investigation” :)))))

[DrEng02]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

there all dimensions are already given in millimeters to tenths.

How can I explain to you that the drawing doesn’t give dimensions like that?
Here are the modern ones for the shaft system with sizes from 800 to 1000 mm, qualifications from 12 to 18 (dimensions in mm, dm, too lazy to look for tolerances):
0 -0.9 0 -1.4 0 -2.3 0 -3.6 0 -5.6 0 -9 0 -14
I think they made 12 shells, then the size is written on the drawing: 858 with tolerances 0 -0,9 (the engine does not allow you to do it as expected - upper and lower case for the tolerance field)

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

So how do you take 2,82 caliber as the exact value.

Hmmm - you gave a figure and it’s not the exact value?

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

And it could be, for example, 2,817 or 2,8222 caliber, or, as in this case, 2,815617 caliber.

for this there is a concept of error, it is given in % or absolutely, for example: 2,81 + - 0,01

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

With your level of understanding -

1) to my level of understanding and knowledge - you are like the moon - see above! To realize that a number is not an exact value is very educational!
Well, yes, we write 2, we count 2, 1
2) the quoted author provided readable SCANS from archival documents - everyone can draw conclusions from them for themselves...
Well, they kept silent about Vinogradov’s article? there, many of your thoughts and fabrications are simply written

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: DrEng02

How can I explain to you that the drawing doesn’t give dimensions like that?

How can I explain to you that it was not a drawing that was used, but the “Album of Naval Artillery Shells” from 1934?

Quote: DrEng02

Hmmm - you gave a figure and it’s not the exact value?

I’ll tell you a secret - yes, the numbers are rounded in one direction or another :)))) It’s a pity that you didn’t know this. Well, at least now you know :))))

Quote: DrEng02

for this there is a concept of error, it is given in % or absolutely, for example: 2,81 + - 0,01

No, and now you don’t know. You have to be able to manage to confuse rounding with an error.

Quote: DrEng02

Well, yes, we write 2, we count 2, 1

Exactly. Because you have to be completely crazy to demand that authors not round numbers. Because the exact value of a 12-inch projectile with a length of 858,2 mm = 2,81561679790026 caliber. And in other cases you will end up with an endless series :)))))))

Quote: DrEng02

to my level of understanding and knowledge - you are like the moon - see above!

Yes. I will never stoop to such a plinth. With all the desire.

Quote: DrEng02

the quoted author provided readable SCANS from archival documents - everyone can draw conclusions from them for themselves...

Maybe, of course. And they strongly contradict the opinion of the author who wrote that material.
You see, unlike you, I know this author and the reasons why he wrote the article to which you referred. And explained to him the mistakes he made when writing it

[DrEng02]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

How can I explain to you that it was not a drawing that was used, but the “Album of Naval Artillery Shells” from 1934?

those. drawing and size of fractions of mm? Hmmm. the red military men were technically illiterate...

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Yes, the numbers are rounded in one direction or another:

I indicate this with the words: “approximately, about, etc.”

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

No, and now you don’t know. You have to be able to manage to confuse rounding with an error.

How illiterate you are, you don’t even know that rounding a number introduces an error...

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Because the exact value of a 12-inch projectile with a length of 858,2 mm = 2,81561679790026 caliber.

your technical illiteracy is simply terrifying... the exact value of the projectile that you gave cannot be! On the edge by chance in a large batch under certain measurement conditions.. The most funny thing is that, being technically uneducated, you have the audacity to argue with an engineer...

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

And they strongly contradict the opinion of the author who wrote that material

which speaks in favor of the author!

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

and the reasons why he wrote the article

I don't care... sandbox wars don't appeal to me, I prefer Q1-Q2

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

to which you referred

I did not write any work on this issue... I provided a link to a sane article...

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: DrEng02

those. drawing and size of fractions of mm?

Imagine, yes. Do you have any idea why shell albums are used? :)))

Quote: DrEng02

I indicate this with the words: “approximately, about, etc.”

I have already given you scans of technical literature with a 305 mm caliber in relation to 12 dm. When you find “about 305 mm” there, let me know.

Quote: DrEng02

How illiterate you are, you don’t even know that rounding a number introduces an error...

Sit down, deuce.
1. Error is the deviation of the data result from the measured value.
2. Rounding - replacing a number with its approximate value
And what you are saying now is not an error, it is a rounding error :))))))) And to your text

Quote: DrEng02

for this there is a concept of error, it is given in % or absolutely, for example: 2,81 + - 0,01

she has no relation. Because the rounding error is known, and "+-" is not specified.
Congratulations, comrade engineer, on yet another mistake in the definitions of secondary school...

Quote: DrEng02

your technical illiteracy is simply terrifying... the exact value of the projectile that you gave cannot be!

It’s a pity that you only remembered this now, and not when you were scribbling your calculations

Quote: DrEng02

25,4 * 12 * 2,82 = 859,5

That is, now, when you are trying to justify yourself, you suddenly remembered that shells (like any other industrial product) have certain tolerances, but when you felt the urge to show me that I incorrectly calculated the length of the shell, which, according to you, was not 858,2, and as much as 859,5 - You forgot about that.

Quote: DrEng02

which speaks in favor of the author!

That is, the fact that the conclusions of the article contradict the documents cited in it - does this speak in favor of the author? Well, medicine is powerless here :)

Quote: DrEng02

I provided a link to the sane article...

Firstly, not for the sane one, but for the article that SEEMS sane to you. And secondly, you do not have sufficient qualifications to assess the quality of articles on this topic

[DrEng02]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

why are shell albums used? :)))

no, I think for training, but definitely not for manufacturing...

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

scans of technical literature from 305 mm

This is not technical literature! Let me note that I am used to noticing errors in any literature...

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Sit down, deuce.
1. Error is the deviation of the data result from the measured value.
2. Rounding - replacing a number with its approximate value
And what you are saying now is not an error, it is a rounding error :))))))) And to your text

You don’t have the right to give two marks, but I do. So - you wrote nonsense!
1) According to your definition, as I understand it - the error of the measurement result, and not the measuring instrument, you know the quantity being measured, but this is not so - why then measure?
2) Again stupidity - listen to wisdom: "the number of significant
digits in the numerical value of the measurement result makes it possible to roughly judge the accuracy of the measurement. This is due to the fact that maximum error due to rounding, equal to half a unit last category numerical value of the measurement result."
"Since the digit values ​​can range from 1 to 9, then with one significant figure (the maximum rounding error can range from 6 to 50%. With two significant figures it will be from 0,6 to 5%,
with three - from 0,06 to 0,5%." Listen, neophyte!

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Because the rounding error is known, and "+-" is not specified.

You are incredibly illiterate - the intervals may not be symmetrical!

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

You remembered this only now, and not when you scribbled your calculations

my calculation is impeccable according to your data - you made arithmetic errors, and instead of admitting the obvious, you are demagogueting and showing your technical illiteracy

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

when you try to justify yourself,

in what? in your illiteracy?

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

You forgot about it.

those. I proved to you that your approach with exact numbers is stupidity and turned out to be to blame? Are you continuing to self-flog? The next stage of recognition?

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

That is, the fact that the conclusions of the article contradict the documents cited in it - does this speak in favor of the author?

Exactly! The author provides data from which he draws his conclusions! Therefore, the reader can evaluate their validity if desired! But this is difficult for you - you are used to Murzilkas, where everything is accurate, down to a fraction of a mm...

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Well, medicine is powerless here :)

so you are also a doctor? I’ll disappoint you, a banal plagiarist who blows bubbles!

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Firstly, not for the sane one, but for the article that SEEMS sane to you. And secondly, you do not have sufficient qualifications to assess the quality of articles on this topic

1) I am writing on my own behalf, your filipina speaks only of injured pride!
2) Who knows, I won’t reveal my incognito identity, but I assure you that if I write a review in VIZH on my own behalf, they will carefully consider it and write a response! Can you write this about yourself?

[27091965]

Quote: DrEng02

Who knows, I won’t reveal my incognito identity, but I assure you that if I write a review in VIZH on my own behalf, they will carefully consider it and write a response! Can you write this about yourself?

"Forum (communication) - a place (platform) for communication and debate between people on various topics of life; also the process of communication itself."
Don't turn this forum into a boring thesis defense. Everyone shares their thoughts, for some they may seem acceptable, for others not. But this is communication, I repeat; not a thesis defense.

[DrEng02]

Quote: 27091965i

Don't turn this forum into a boring thesis defense. Everyone shares their thoughts, for some they may seem acceptable, for others not.

I think you are not fair - I did everything so that the author would not be approved!

[27091965]

Quote: DrEng02

I did everything to avoid approval for the author!

An immodest question, but why? What will this give you? Those who have read the author’s articles will read them; those who have not read them will not read them. I don't think you can influence this.

[DrEng02]

Quote: 27091965i

You can influence this.

I didn’t even set such a goal for myself - on the contrary, I tried to shake up the author - in my opinion, from series of articles to series the level begins to noticeably decrease... Well, and then - I don’t know about you, I don’t like reading absurdities, and especially hidden plagiarism - why? Everything is hanging on the Internet - it’s easier to read the original, which is written better... so to speak, in a simplified way - for wasted time...

[27091965]

Quote: DrEng02

Well, and then - I don’t know about you, I don’t like reading absurdities, and especially hidden plagiarism - why?

Regarding plagiarism, look at books on the navies of other countries published in Russia, there is plenty of plagiarism there. Moreover, these are not documents, but reprints from foreign publications. To be honest, I doubt that our authors pay anything to the copyright owners.

Everything is hanging on the Internet - it’s easier to read the original, which is written better... so to speak, in a simplified way - for wasted time.

The author expresses his thoughts based on available or read information. At the same time, he invites discussion and actively participates in it. Is it bad? In addition, not every person will spend time searching for this or that individual material.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: DrEng02

your filipina speaks only of damaged pride!

Yes, but not about mine, but about yours. I hurt your pride and now you are trying in every possible way to prove what a wrong bastard I am.
But this is the norm. My articles are usually accompanied by several characters like you. I don’t mind, since they amuse and entertain serious readers with their “insights and discoveries.”

Quote: DrEng02

but I assure you that if I write a review in VIZH on my own behalf, they will carefully consider it and write a response!

And I even know which one :))))

Quote: DrEng02

Can you write this about yourself?

Why should I write such nonsense about myself? You manage to be proud not of a fact, but of the possibility “if I write, they will answer me!”, not of publication in a publication, but of the publication’s response to your writing. Well, I’ll tell you that I received my first answer from a serious federal-level publication at the age of 15 - what will this change/prove? Nothing. Well, I’ll say that I was offered to write for the same Marine collection - so what? Well, I’ll say that from time to time I receive offers from various kinds of publications, but that I can’t accept them, because articles for me are a hobby, not a means of earning money, and there I have to fulfill certain plans, and the topics are determined by the magazine and I’m not interested - Does this give me some kind of cool? No. Well, I tried it once, I have an article printed on paper - and then what?
Is it just that your attempts to look like an expert look simply touchingly funny - and that’s all.
And I already answered the rest of your demagoguery above, and I won’t repeat myself, otherwise dear readers are already wondering why I’m wasting time on you

[DrEng02]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

.I hurt your pride

Is your Russian not native? they pinch a finger, and they hurt their pride... that’s how you write...
calm down - for me you are a competitor and your opinion about my humble person (or rather nickname ) this is part of the holiday...

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

And I even know which one :))))

happy for you!

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

not by publication in a publication,

I don’t publish in publications of this level...
This is only VAK

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

that your attempts to look like an expert

I'm just...

[Foul skeptic]

Oh, acquaintance from the “GOELRO plan developed under the Tsar”

my calculation is impeccable according to your data - you made arithmetic errors, and instead of admitting the obvious, you are demagogueting and showing your technical illiteracy

Please help me close (for me personally) the question raised by you and Andrey and flawlessly step by step recalculate the lengths from metric units of 858,2 mm, 965,2 mm, 1011,9 mm as the number of calibers (for a 12'' gun).

[DrEng02]

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

personally for me

see above my message from 8,02, I recalculated the figures given by the author - they did not agree with him... it turns out he rounded his calculations, but kept silent, although he gave the results accurate to decimal places....
"25,4*12*2,82=859,5
25,4*12*3,17=966,2"

[Foul skeptic]

see above my message from 8,02, I recalculated the numbers given by the author - they didn’t agree with him

I saw the message.
I asked you to do correctly what Andrey did incorrectly - recalculate the lengths from metric units 858,2 mm, 965,2 mm, 1011,9 mm as a number of calibers (for 12'' guns). To know how it should be right.

[DrEng02]

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

To know how it should be right.

it is correct to use inch dimensions with tolerances or round them within these tolerances... in our case it is reasonable to whole mm.

[Foul skeptic]

correctly use inch sizes...reasonably up to whole mm.

Understood nothing

in our case, up to whole mm is reasonable.

I don't understand again. Our case is my request to express a specific metric size in terms of the number of calibers, what are “up to whole mm” here?

[DrEng02]

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

Understood nothing

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

Again I did not understand.

it means you don't want to understand...

[Foul skeptic]

it means you don't want to understand...

Really want to. If you provided the calculation, it would be clearer to me.

[DrEng02]

no problem:
4 dm is exactly 101,6 mm, it is customary to round up to 102 mm.
But if you take a rounded number, then you get that caliber: 4,015 dm... and so on - it seems like increased accuracy of calculations, but the result is nonsense...

[Foul skeptic]

4 dm is exactly 101,6 mm, it is customary to round up to 102 mm. But if you take a rounded number, then you get that caliber: 4,015 dm

Sergey, I didn’t ask for an example at your discretion, but for a calculation of a very specific task - recalculate lengths from metric units 858,2 mm, 965,2 mm, 1011,9 mm as the number of calibers (for 12'' guns). If Andrey's numbers (2,82 klb, 3,17 klb and 3,98 klb) are wrong, then what numbers should there be and how to get them?

[DrEng02]

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

If Andrey's numbers (2,82 klb, 3,17 klb and 3,98 klb) are wrong, then what numbers should there be and how to get them?

trivial - you just need to READ:
“As a result, the Marine Technical Committee (MTK) on September 19, 1906, in its Artillery Journal No. 15, decided to accept shells for future 12-dm guns with a weight increased to 378 kg with the length of the new shells up to 4 calibers. The projectile had to accommodate an explosive charge weighing about 52 kg (i.e., about 13,7 percent) 2." This is from Vinogradov’s article
“On July 27, 1907, the acting chief inspector of naval artillery, K. G. Dubrov, approved an increase in the weight of the projectile to 378,4 kg, and later, as we know, as a result the gun received even heavier 470,9 kg projectiles.” this is from the author
so 3,98 is 4 calibers
Even more interesting is the figure that wanders through books and the Internet: “470,9 kg”
1 Russian pound = 0,40951241, the resulting projectile weight is 1198,74267 pounds - it turns out that the projectile weight is 1200 pounds... the error is 0,001 pounds.
Did I explain it clearly enough?

[DrEng02]

Quote: DrEng02

1 Russian pound = 0,40951241, the resulting projectile weight is 1198,74267 pounds - it turns out that the projectile weight is 1200 pounds... the error is 0,001 pounds.

I shortchanged myself - weight 1150 lbs with an error of 0,0001 lbs...

[Foul skeptic]

with an error of 0,0001 lb...

0,5 lbs.

[DrEng02]

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

0,5 lbs.

projectile mass 470,9 1149,904102
1150-1149,9 = 0,0958 pounds, if it’s not a secret - where does 0,5 come from?

[Foul skeptic]

We convert the mass of the projectile in kg to pounds - 470,9/0,40951241=1149,9041018 pounds.
The number 470,9 has 4 significant figures.
Therefore, from 1149,9041018 we also need only 4 significant figures - 1149,9..., which for the round-to-nearest option becomes £1150.
Having set this degree of accuracy, we reduced this accuracy to the smallest digit of the number, to units of pounds. The rounding error is half of this smallest digit. That is, 1/2=+-0,5 pounds (well, actually the limit is [-0,5;+0,5)). In other words, we could get the value 1150 in any measurement interval from 1149,5 to 1150,49(9) pounds. The required 1149,9041018 falls within this limit.
Your figure is 0,0001 pounds - I can assume that you are simply confused measurement resolution, with error. By the way, industrial mechanical (early 20th century technology) scales with an upper measurement limit of more than 1000 pounds and with a measurement resolution of 0,0001 pounds do not exist even now. Therefore, the number 0,0001 is meaningless.

[Foul skeptic]

so 3,98 is 4 calibers

It doesn't say that 3,98 is 4. It says UP TO 4 calibers. Yes, 3,98 is actually up to 4 gauges.
Okay, then both 2,82 klb and 3,17 klb are 3 calibers in this case?

[DrEng02]

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

It’s not written that 3,98 is 4.

If you want to run, it's your right...

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

when are both 2,82 klb and 3,17 klb equal to 3 calibers in this case?

Not at all, in the recording systems of that time it was 2 and 3/4 and 3 and 1/8 cal...

[Foul skeptic]

Not at all, in the recording systems of that time it was 2 and 3/4 and 3 and 1/8 cal...

1) In those days, is it in the 30s of the 20th century?
2) Even if at that time, this is 20 years earlier, then different forms of recording coexisted for different purposes. For example, for most purposes, it was sufficient (then and now) to display inch linear dimensions in 1/64-inch gradations. This was even reflected in engineering reference books (the appendix to the first volume of Hutte will convince you that I am not making this up). But this does not mean that there were no records of the fractional part in decimal form when this was justified by the task assigned to the designer. Here is an example in the picture. Which, by the way, will serve as the basis for a question for you.
Why is recording the length in the number of calibers, accurate to hundredths, inappropriate, when here is a clear example of recording the caliber down to ten-thousandths of an inch and without indicating the limits of measurement? And the lengths range from two to four significant figures. That is, two orders of magnitude, exactly as in Andrei’s case? Moreover, I took a Western example, so that it would be more difficult for you to refer to “illiterate red military men”
PS A leaf from an album of 1916.

[DrEng02]

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

1) In those days, is it in the 30s of the 20th century?

Were the shells really created in the 1930s? You surprised me badly.... :(

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

Moreover, the example is Western, so that it would be more difficult for you to refer to “illiterate red military men”

You are funny, although thanks for the drawing - interesting!

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

For example, for most purposes, it was sufficient (then and now) to display inch linear dimensions in 1/64-inch gradations.

You see, you yourself write 1/64", not 0,39 mm.
As far as I saw, you understand everything yourself, but for some reason you defend the author, who, due to technical illiteracy, uses strange approaches to recording sizes and weights.
The most interesting thing is that the author in one article of the series writes about the weight of the projectile 810 pounds, and then constantly these strange 331,7 kg People thought in pounds and inches, so they rounded up in these units!
Okay - I don’t see any point in wasting my time and yours. So, for the future - if you want to say something - write right away, it saves time, which is the highest value...

[Foul skeptic]

Were the shells really created in the 1930s? You surprised me badly...

The metric system of measures became mandatory for use in Russia in 1917, in the USSR in 1925. In fact, the decimal number system in mechanical engineering has also become mandatory.
I seem to remember that measurements Andrey took from the album 1934 of the year. It is very strange in an album from 1934 to expect the display of quantities in the form of natural fractions of 8-, 16-ary or any other system other than base 10. Regardless of when the projectiles were created.

You see, you yourself write 1/64", not 0,39 mm

This is appropriate for a historical excursion; for practical use I will use 0,39 mm. I don't think you will do anything differently.

People thought in pounds and inches, so they rounded up in these units!

That's exactly what they thought. Past tense. Those people who thought in pounds and inches are long gone due to natural reasons. The author uses quantities familiar to modern people (and he writes for them, not their deceased ancestors) (while also indicating numbers in historical units). What's wrong with that? I think you just wanted to find fault. I can assume that for this you have forced students

Okay - I don’t see any point in wasting my time and yours.

All the best.
PS

By the way, do you think my criticism is unfounded? And 12 dm guns fire 305 mm shells? Or can the projectile length be specified as 859,3?

Well, for example, 32 caliber pistols are chambered for and fire the 7,65 mm Browning cartridge. All that is needed is to rename the cartridge 0,32 ACP

[DrEng02]

You are so restless...

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

I seem to remember that Andrei took the measurements from a 1934 album.

What about the head? By the way, I could have referred to the source, and not been covered by some professor - I’m not afraid...

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

This is appropriate for an excursion into history,

and what's going on here?

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

I don't think you will do anything differently.

Exactly differently - for manufacturing you will have to use inch tolerances, or recalculate the design... It’s like LI-3 turned out from DS-2

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

That's exactly what they thought. Past tense.

and what do they write about? about the present? Do you seriously think that it will be clear to the reader why the weight of the projectile was reduced from 378,4 to 331,7 kg? But to say from 810 to 925 pounds will become clearer - the numbers are round...

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

I think you just wanted to find fault.

This is not nitpicking - doesn’t the figure of 470,9 kg bother you? What if it’s 1150 poods?

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

I can assume that for this you have forced students

of course there is, including from the next level of higher education , but if you don’t drive them, then they will be technically illiterate...

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

All the best.

mutually!

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: DrEng02

Well, they kept silent about Vinogradov’s article? there, many of your thoughts and fabrications are simply written

You apparently failed to read these articles. However, you can indicate what exactly aroused your inquisitive mind, and I will even answer.

[DrEng02]

"Where did semi-armor-piercing shells come from in various publications??
Apparently from the future. Even in 1934, in the “Album of Naval Artillery Shells,” high-explosive shells with an armor-piercing tip model 1911 were called high-explosive, but, for example, a similar “Album” from 1979 has a different definition. It contains all high-explosive 305-mm shells mod. 1911 with a tip are called semi-armor-piercing, and only shells that do not have an armor-piercing tip are called high-explosive."
Vinogradov:
“It should be noted that the design of the new 12-inch Russian projectile, 5 calibers long, called “high-explosive” had little in common with the purely high-explosive type of ammunition of the then naval artillery, which in other navies was more of a thick-walled steel shell of a ballistic shape for the explosive contained in it charge and equipped with a head fuse. The new Russian projectile with an armor-piercing tip and a bottom fuse was in fact “moderately armor-piercing” and was subsequently used in the Soviet Navy officially requalified to "semi-armor-piercing"
I note, article by Vinogradov VIZH, 2018, 12, pp.68-75

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: DrEng02

The new Russian projectile with an armor-piercing tip and a bottom fuse was in fact “moderately armor-piercing” and was subsequently officially reclassified in the Soviet Navy as “semi-armor-piercing.”

That is, I have absolutely no contradiction with Vinogradov - I come to the same conclusions as him. But this

Quote: DrEng02

It should be noted that the design of the new 12-dm Russian projectile, 5 calibers long, called “high-explosive” had little in common with the purely high-explosive type of ammunition of the then naval cannon artillery

he, alas, is completely wrong

Quote: DrEng02

in other navies it was more of a thick-walled steel shell of a ballistic shape for the explosive charge it contained and equipped with a head fuse.

German high-explosive shells had much less explosives than our shells and were also equipped with a bottom fuse :))))
Yes, just so you know, Vinogradov also sometimes makes mistakes. That is why one should not take all his conclusions on faith.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

However, okay, here at least we can say that the German ones were considered semi-armor-piercing, and not high-explosive...

[Rurikovich]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

However, okay, here at least we can say that the German ones were considered semi-armor-piercing, and not high-explosive...

The Germans themselves call them high-explosive
And it was precisely this “high explosive” that pierced the 89mm roof of the Lion turret... German high-explosive shells have good armor penetration Although we know that Paschen lamented that he did not use armor-piercing shells and that is why “Lion” survived...
Different countries have their own classifications of projectiles depending on their worldviews and technical capabilities

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

I'm already confused there. We often call them half-BB, but I regularly came across the name landmine, but I don’t remember what the Germans themselves called them...

[Rurikovich]

The L/3,4 armor-piercing projectile weighed 405 kg, and the L/3,8 high-explosive projectile weighed 415 kg. L/3,8 had a charge of 26,4 kg of explosive and the use of a bottom fuse allowed the projectile to explode after breaking through the armor. In unarmored units, the shell exploded 2-6 m behind the point of impact. Armor-piercing shells were painted blue, explosive shells were painted yellow.

In fact, it was semi-armor-piercing, but the Germans called it high-explosive

[27091965]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

I'm already confused there. We often call them half-BB, but I regularly came across the name landmine, but I don’t remember what the Germans themselves called them

The French write that the Germans called such shells “halb panzergranate”, this is from a 1914 publication.

[Rurikovich]

The French write

That's what the French write
Welcome

[27091965]

Good evening.

Quote: Rurikovich

That's what the French write

Dear Andrey, they also touch on the British, giving examples of the names of their shells when compared with the French. If you used your own it turned out something like this;

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Thank you very much, I'll let you know. This means that the French believed that the Germans called them half-BB.

[Macsen_wledig]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

but I don’t remember what the Germans themselves called it... hi

Something like this: 30,5 cm Sprenggranate.
Well, the armor-piercing 30,5 cm Panzersprenggranate mit Kappe

[Rurikovich]

Well, the armor-piercing 30,5 cm Panzersprenggranate mit Kapp

All German WWII battleships armed with 30,5 cm guns ("Heligolands", "Kaisers" and "Königs") fired only the armor-piercing shells you specified

The 305-mm caliber guns fired one type of semi-armor-piercing projectile with the letter designation 30,5 cm Psgr (Panzersprenggranaten) L/3,4 with a length of 3,4 calibers (1037 mm) with a bottom fuse weighing 405 kg. The projectile had a bursting charge of (2,88) kg (2%). Colour: red with black head

BUT ... the ammunition load of the Derflinger-class battlecruisers also included 30,5 cm Sprenggranate, which were 10 kg heavier and were considered high-explosive by the Germans, as you indicated.
Although it is not the Germans who call them semi-armor-piercing.
The Yapps over there also call their aircraft carriers destroyers
Although in the above quote the projectile called “armor-piercing” in the ammunition of battlecruisers is called “semi-armor-piercing” in the ammunition of battleships...
Damn, the devil himself will break his leg

[Macsen_wledig]

Quote: Rurikovich

Although non-Germans call them semi-armor-piercing.

The Germans, in fact, believed that there were two types of landmines:
- Sprenggranate mit Bdz (with bottom fuse);
- Sprenggranate mit Kz (with head fuse),
and the rest is all from the evil one... :)
From the Scharnhorst category, a battleship or battlecruiser.

[Rurikovich]

It was believed that there are two types of landmines:

This is exactly what happened between the wars
In WWI, two types of shells were introduced - armor-piercing and high-explosive, which were essentially semi-armor-piercing (they pierced armor, they won’t let you shave them off on the Lion ), and in the ammunition loads of the Scharnhorsts and Bismarcks there were already three types of shells - armor-piercing with a bottom fuse to fight their own kind, high-explosive with a bottom fuse - to fight less protected targets (cruisers), which is called both semi-armor-piercing and high-explosive with an instantaneous bow fuse - destroyers, shore, sighting.
Worked out bugs

[Macsen_wledig]

Quote: Rurikovich

This is how the request actually happened between the wars
In WWII, two types of shells were introduced - armor-piercing and high-explosive, which was essentially semi-armor-piercing

Not entirely true: for the 150 mm caliber this nomenclature was also used during WWII...

[Rurikovich]

Quote: Macsen_Wledig

for the 150 mm caliber this nomenclature was also used during WWII...

Maxim, this is obvious due to the tasks for this caliber on battleships I know this very well. Don’t shoot at cardboard destroyers with armor-piercing shells... But at the moment we are talking about 305mm shells from Russian naval artillery. Consequently, the comments spread to a similar caliber of the German fleet

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Thank you very much! As always - an exhaustive comment.

[rytik32]

Data on the penetration of German AP shells, if required for future articles

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Thank you very much, where is this from?

[rytik32]

From the Web.
A comment:
According to the official Kriegsmarine archives, the penetration depth curves for large-caliber German guns at that time looked like this:

The vertical coordinate is the penetration depth, the horizontal coordinate is the distance, the black curve is for old German shells, green is for new German shells, orange is for British shells (which can be ignored).

The 28 cm gun (28 cm SK L/50) was capable of penetrating 285 mm of armor at a range of 12 meters (000 degree incidence);

30,5 cm cannon (30,5 cm SK L/50), capable of penetrating 345 mm of armor at a distance of 12 meters (000 degree incidence angle).

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: rytik32

From the Web.

It's a pity. There are all sorts of things on the Internet, and without understanding where they came from, I won’t be able to use them.

Quote: rytik32

30,5 cm cannon (30,5 cm SK L/50), capable of penetrating 345 mm of armor at a distance of 12 meters (000 degree incidence angle).

It’s not that it didn’t fight to death with my calculations, I got 314 mm at an angle of incidence typical for this distance of 11.3 degrees, but still a decent difference.

[rytik32]

What data did you use to calculate?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Having calculated the few results of firing at German armor, I came to the conclusion that it was approximately identical to ours. Hence, the ballistic data of the guns was determined using a calculator

[rytik32]

The results of firing German or British shells?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Both. Evers and the shelling of Baden
https://topwar.ru/180899-o-stojkosti-germanskoj-korabelnoj-broni-jepohi-pervoj-mirovoj-vojny.html
Then - work on the mistakes, they explained to me that I had overestimated the speed of the 305-mm German cannon shells
https://topwar.ru/182935-tjazhelye-morskie-artsistemy-rossii-i-germanii-jepohi-pervoj-mirovoj-rabota-nad-oshibkami.html

[Macsen_wledig]

Quote: Rurikovich

German high-explosive shells have good armor penetration what

I can’t speak for WWII, but in theory, the “Scharnhorst” 28 cm Spgr L/4,4 Bdz (m.Hb) penetrated 60 mm of homogeneous armor at an angle of 45 degrees. from a distance of approx. 70 cables

[DrEng02]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

I come to the same conclusions as him.

5 years after the article was published? there are 2 possibilities - either you didn’t read the articles in this Vinogradov series about the 12"/40 gun and shells for 12 dm guns, or you remade them to the best of your abilities... In the discussion about the gun, you admitted that you had read it, and then what remains?

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

alas, completely wrong

so completely? below you write only about the Germans, and the British? Franks, Italians? Austrians? You had the opportunity to show your erudition and poke a little prick at the knowledge of this author - alas, you decided to show your erudition in plagiarism!

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Yes, just so you know, Vinogradov also sometimes makes mistakes. That is why one should not take all his conclusions on faith.

He is not the Lord God, answer for yourself, I note that the quality of his articles is incomparably higher than yours purely in the culture of writing - he doesn’t have gems like yours and 12-dm guns fire 12-dm shells....

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: DrEng02

5 years after the article was published?

Yes. For a long time I believed that Vinogradov was mistaken, since in the Soviet documents I have (including the album of shells from 1934), these shells were not called semi-armor-piercing shells. And only recently, after studying an album from the 70s, I finally saw that they were called semi-BB.
Thus, I did not copy anyone, but quite independently, based on searching and working with documents, I came to this conclusion.

Quote: DrEng02

below you write only about the Germans, and the British? Franks, Italians? Austrians?

The Germans alone are refuting Vinogradov.
And if you dig deeper, it turns out that some of the countries are the same Germans, the British relied not on land mines, but on semi-armor guns, other countries, such as the USA, generally tried to make do with only air guns, etc. Vinogradov did not expand on the topic; from his words, one gets the impression that only we had semi-armored shells (in fact, not in name).

Quote: DrEng02

He is not the Lord God, answer for yourself

Before you? :))) So you yourself are asking me to compare you with Vinogradov :))) Have you forgotten again?

Quote: DrEng02

I will not reveal my incognito

Dolly the fish, how old, how many winters!:))))

[DrEng02]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

I came to this conclusion quite independently, based on searching and working with documents.

this is significant only for you - since Vinogradov voiced this earlier, then you joined his opinion...

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Vinogradov did not expand on the topic,

this is his right, but you didn’t do this in the article, only in the comments... to be honest, this is not clear to me - you were given a chance to show knowledge and erudition, and the article was decorated with new data - you would have been cited in this regard. ..

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

In front of you? :)

and for whom do you write? It’s clear to yourself, but you’re publishing it for readers...

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

You yourself are asking me to compare you with Vinogradov :)

You demanded - I gave you a quote from you and him... I can, and I also have good experience as a reviewer, but I don’t see the point - instead of gratitude from you there is negativity... And honest criticism is unpleasant, but healing...

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Dolly fish, how old, how many winters! :)

maybe it's your sense of humor?

[Comrade]

Quote: DrEng02

Well, in general:
1) whoever is interested in shells should read the classics without stupid calculations and conclusions

Buddy, if everything is so bad here, what are you doing here?
Want to get smart? So sit down and write an article, and we will evaluate it.

[DrEng02]

Quote: Comrade

what are you doing here

Out of politeness, I’ll answer - I’m resting... I'm waiting for a response from you...

Quote: Comrade

So sit down and write an article, and we will evaluate it.

So I’m writing what I’m an expert in, but I don’t see the point in posting them here - contact me via PM, I’ll send them... they’re in English - nothing?

Quote: Comrade

Want to get smart?

For what? I have long been established, but I don’t like profanity and plagiarism! By the way, do you think my criticism is unfounded? And 12 dm guns fire 305 mm shells? Or can the projectile length be specified as 859,3?

[rytik32]

Andrei, good afternoon!
Please accept comments on the article:

The reason for the refusal of pyroxylin is not covered. It was that the shells equipped with it were poorly stored (fungi, mold and other things multiplied in a humid environment). Therefore, armor-piercing shells were reloaded with smokeless powder, and high-explosive shells with TNT.

TNT... had no tendency to detonate prematurely

Not true. There was a tendency, so the TNT that went into the AP shells was not pure, but phlegmatized.

I would also like to clarify the situation with the fuses that were equipped with the described shells.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Alex, welcome!

Quote: rytik32

The reason for the refusal of pyroxylin is not covered. It was that the shells he loaded were poorly stored

As far as I can see, there were many reasons, so it hardly makes sense to single out just one.

Quote: rytik32

Not true. There was a tendency, so the TNT that went into the AP shells was not pure, but phlegmatized

That is, it is still true. Phlegmatization is a mandatory process for many explosives, and I see no point in singling it out separately. I consider it as a stage in creating explosives, such as drying TNT, say.

Quote: rytik32

I would also like to clarify the situation with fuses,

What do you want to clarify? However, I’ll say right away that I was not involved in fuses, I was interested in shells and tips for them

[rytik32]

There were many reasons, so it hardly makes sense to single out just one.

What other reasons were there to replace pyroxylin with smokeless powder in armor-piercing shells?

I was interested in shells and tips for them

A loaded projectile is a “blank” + explosive + fuse. You describe the explosive, but you don’t have the fuse. this is not very logical.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: rytik32

What other reasons were there to replace pyroxylin with smokeless powder in armor-piercing shells?

Lack of pyroxylin? :))))
Alexey, if the problem was with pyroxylin as a substance, then it would be removed from all shells, not only armor-piercing ones. Because pyroxylin should not care in which shell it rots with fungi and mold :)))))

Quote: rytik32

You describe the explosive, but you don’t have the fuse. this is not very logical.

If we remember how the cycle began, I presented it as materials about highlighting some aspects of the evolution of projectiles. And not as an exhaustive work on this topic. In order to exhaust the topic, I need to dig into the archives for more than one year, alas, I can’t yet.

[rytik32]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

then it would be removed from all shells

So they removed it from all the shells

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: rytik32

So they removed it from all the shells

Well, we went to Tsushima with pyroxylin after all.

[rytik32]

After Tsushima it was removed. And the pyroxylin plant was closed in 1906 (this is about the issue of “shortage”)

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: rytik32

And the pyroxylin plant was closed in 1906 (this is about the issue of “shortage”)

Is this radiotelegraphic or what? So this is because the production of explosives was moved to Okhta

Quote: rytik32

After Tsushima it was removed

We already talked about this.

[Saxahorse]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

That is, it is still true. Phlegmatization is a mandatory process for many explosives, and I see no point in singling it out separately. I consider it as a stage in creating explosives, such as drying TNT, say.

This is a serious mistake. The requirements for explosives in AP shells differ sharply from the requirements for explosives in high-explosive shells. primarily in terms of sensitivity to detonation. This was not immediately realized, but in the interval between the wars you mentioned, such an understanding had already appeared.

[Rurikovich]

Of course, ammunition of such length could not possibly fit into the battleship’s elevator, so the tip was screwed on immediately before the projectile was loaded into the gun. One can only guess how much the rate of fire dropped, but, in any case, it was better than nothing.

In essence, yes, but if you shoot in turn from one turret gun with subsequent correction, then it’s not critical. Anyway, no one has ever fired in the technical rate of fire mode Therefore, while the senior artillery officer conjures over the numbers, a healthy forehead can be screwed into the turret That's right, thoughts out loud ...
Greetings, dear namesake
Plus it’s been standing since morning. So far everything is clear with the development of shells.
I'm looking forward to the continuation, it's very interesting. You can, of course, start pouring from empty to empty, but... I don’t see the point yet
Regards, I

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Rurikovich

but if you shoot in turn from one turret gun with subsequent correction, then it’s not critical.

How can I say? :))) The question is how much time all this took, and there is a certain feeling that it was a lot. After all, you need to take this tip, and it weighs more than two dozen kg, and somehow screw it onto the projectile. Moreover, this was not provided for constructively. That is, such a procedure could take a minute or more. And much more. Especially in the dynamics of the battle. And under no circumstances should the thread be torn off, which is why I don’t think it’s possible to shoot from another weapon until it’s screwed on. So I would not dare to say that such an innovation did not slow down the rate of fire.
I'm writing from my phone so I'll keep it short, but thank you so much for your kind words!

[Rurikovich]

So I would not dare to say that such an innovation did not slow down the rate of fire.

It slowed down, no one argues... But it’s better to increase the firing range by 20%, albeit at a lower rate of fire, than to be a target for execution without the opportunity to respond..
Unfortunately, something always has to be sacrificed.
At that time, it was considered that this option was preferable. Moreover, during training, you can reduce the shooting interval to an acceptable level. We understand that the measure was forced

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Rurikovich

But it’s better to increase the firing range by 20%, albeit at a lower rate of fire, than to be a target for execution without the opportunity to respond..

This is completely undeniable. Of course, the measure was necessary. There was no time to bother with increasing the elevation angle, so...

[Macsen_wledig]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

How can I say? :))) The question is how much time all this took, and there is a certain feeling that it was a lot. After all, you need to take this tip, and it weighs more than two dozen kg, and somehow screw it onto the projectile. Moreover, this was not provided for constructively.

Friends, I will disappoint you a little, but the “ballistic cap - armor-piercing tip” pair was assembled and adjusted and processed together (moreover, on the assembled projectile cup), so tricks with screwing the ballistic cap will not work.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

But here I disagree. You are now writing about classics, but at the same time
1) Ballistic caps in the “armor-piercing-ballistic” pair were interchangeable, so they were shipped to ships 10% in excess of the set - brass easily bent during loading/moving.
2) We are now talking not about a standard pair, but about a ballistic tip for a projectile model 1907. This monster, almost the length of a projectile, in principle could not be stored with the projectile and was screwed on immediately before chambering the projectile
And yes, good evening!

[Pushkowed]

Perhaps the tips were screwed onto shells stored directly in the turret, in the fenders of the first shots. This made it possible to fire several salvos with an acceptable rate of fire. But this depends on how many shells were stored there and what the dimensions of the storage areas were. It is also possible that the tips were screwed onto the projectile when it was already lying in the cradle, ready to be chambered. But did the length of the cradle allow this? And was there anywhere to get around with such a bulky item? Or maybe the tip was first put into the chamber, then the projectile was lifted and its head was connected to the tip. Depends on how laborious the screwing process was. Maybe I should have only done 1/2 or even 1/4 of a turn? If the direction of the thread is opposite to the direction of threading of the barrel, then the rotation of the projectile will contribute to the self-tightening of the thread - and so even such a small number of turns can fail so that the tip does not fall off in flight. And anyway tips should also be stored somewhere. Even if they “stack” into each other, a lot of space is still required. Perhaps the tips were supplied to the elevator from the cellar, along with shells and caps?

[Macsen_wledig]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

We are now talking not about a standard pair, but about a ballistic tip for a projectile model 1907.

Yes... I'm blunt here...
I look at the projectile from 11th year, and the speech is from 07th.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

No problem, even the most knowledgeable people can sometimes show inattention.

[Rurikovich]

Therefore, tricks with screwing a ballistic cap will not work.

On "Andrews"

During the war, elongated (up to 1,22 m) shells of the 1911 and 1915 models for 305 mm turret guns were adopted. To adapt the projectiles to the ship's guns, an additional brass ballistic tip was used, which had the shape of a 1915 model projectile and was screwed onto its body immediately before loading. Although this affected the rate of fire, it at the same time made it possible to increase the firing range by 20%

[Alexandra]

Quote: geniy

I assume that Russian artillerymen conducted hundreds of experiments with firing at armor, carefully selecting the percentage of moisture in their shells. BUT it seems to me that all these experiments are still classified

“Hundreds of experiments” have shown that wet pyroxylin is an unsatisfactory explosive for armor-piercing projectiles and explodes when the projectile passes through a sufficiently thick armor plate at any acceptable percentage of humidity. Therefore, from the end of the 1th century, other high explosives began to be sought for armor-piercing shells. Including in Russia. V. N. Ipatiev. "The Life of a Chemist. Memoirs. Volume 1867. 1817-XNUMX"

"...Gen. Kostyrko informed me that he had decided to invite me to take part in the commission on the use of explosives in filling projectiles as a permanent member and, in addition, to include me among the employees of the 5th Department of the Artillery Committee, who dealt with all gunpowder and chemical issues. I very much thanked General Kostyrko for this invitation, telling him that I was glad to apply my knowledge to artillery, but I did not need any remuneration, because this would only hinder me in my scientific work.

[...]

This commission, very important in its purpose, was formed after the accident with the cap. Panpushko, who, as mentioned above, was single-handedly involved in equipping the projectiles with picric acid. After his death, a special explosives commission was formed under the Artillery Committee, the chairman of which was appointed general. Tenner, members gen. Muratov and cap. P. A. Gelfreich, and clerk cap. Petrovsky (Nikolai Ivanovich). Gelfreich carried out experiments at an artillery range: in a specially designed workshop, he equipped shells with various explosives and then tested them by firing from guns of different calibers. At the beginning, a representative of the naval department, Capt. Barkhotkin, who was engaged in equipping armor-piercing shells with pyroxylin bombs. After Barkhotkin left, my Academy comrade K.I. Maksimov was brought into the commission, and he was entrusted with equipping the shells with wet pyroxylin. But soon pyroxylin was replaced by other explosives.

[...]

Captain Gelfreich and Maksimov, both were capable artillerymen, but, unfortunately, did not receive good chemical training at the Artillery Academy, and therefore the invitation to the commission of me and Sapozhnikov was very useful for the cause. My comrade, Capt. Maksimov was a very capable man, and I considered him higher than Gelfreich. The latter knew how to pull the wool over the eyes of his superiors and therefore had a reputation as a good specialist; but I soon recognized the weakness
his knowledge. He often spoke to the commission with very frivolous proposals that had no scientific basis. Soon after my invitation to the commission, I was assigned to investigate a new explosive substance obtained by Gelfreich from naphthalene. The commission could not decide whether it was worth carrying out experiments on loading projectiles with the substance proposed by Gelfreich, which he called “ekkerdite” in memory of his visit to the explosives plant in France in Esquerde. I carried out a complete analysis of the substance in my laboratory and found that it was a mixture of various nitro compounds of naphthalene, and
it is dominated by dinitro compounds, which I managed to separate into isomers by skillful selection of solvents. There was very little trinitronaphthalene in this explosive. This study showed that due to insufficient nitration of naphthalene, the product obtained from it will not develop sufficient explosive force and is therefore not of interest for testing in projectiles. My report to the commission was so convincing that everyone agreed with my opinion, and the author of this product, despite my negative attitude towards his product, noted the brilliant fulfillment of my first assignment.

[...]

Cap. Maksimov was very friendly with me and consulted me on all chemical issues that arose during his work. Unfortunately, he was not distinguished by good health, but working in a cold equipment workshop with powdered or molten explosives,
giving off toxic fumes undoubtedly destroyed his already weak body. He was often ill, but being a very careful and honest worker, he did not want to skimp and
went to work at a time when it would have been better for him to stay at home. He was the first to come up with the idea of ​​introducing compounds for equipping projectiles that, having sufficient detonating properties, would not explode when passing through solid barriers. So, for example, an armor-piercing projectile equipped with such an explosive must pass through the armor and then explode from the action of the detonator located in the shock tube. He shared this idea with me and invited me to work on its implementation together. I readily agreed to this joint work, and began to study in the laboratory various combinations of aromatic nitro compounds with picric acid trinitrocresol and not only to study their suitability from a physicochemical point of view, but also to study their explosive properties in the Sarro and Vielle bomb explosions. After a year of work, the data obtained were reported to the Commission, and it was decided to carry out experiments in equipping projectiles with the intended explosives. After Maksimov’s death, which followed at the beginning of 1898, such combinations of nitro compounds found wide application in equipping projectiles, and my student at the Academy of Cap. A. A. Dzerzhkovich, who took Maksimov’s place, successfully continued the development of this issue."

Neither an acceptable option for phlegmatizing picric acid nor ammonium picrate for shells of the Russian fleet was found before the start of the Russo-Japanese War. It all ended with the choice of such an explosive as phlegmatized TNT. But this choice occurred several years after the defeat in the Russo-Japanese War.

[Alexandra]

Regarding post-Tsushima research, I will quote the memoirs of A.N. Krylova:

"...Previously, the explosive charge in our projectiles was made from pyroxylin or smokeless gunpowder. Both substances have a relatively low density, about 1,1, so little of it was placed in the projectile. In addition, the explosion products are colorless, and therefore the explosion of the projectile at long distances last war did not help to see where the shells were falling and did not make it easier to zero in, while the black smoke of the shimosa showed this clearly.At first, in our scientific and technical laboratory an attempt was made to increase the charge density of pyroxylin, and indeed it was possible to achieve such a density by pressing that this pyroxylin, which received the name “elephant” completely resembled ivory even in appearance, the force of its explosion was in no way inferior to shimosa, but its manufacture was complex and expensive.
Then they managed to reproduce shimosa, but they didn’t stop there, since they found an explosive substance that was completely safe to handle and store and was called “tol.” These shells have been finally developed, and the factories have been given orders for their gross production..."