The difficult path to perfection. On the evolution of testing methods for naval artillery shells in the period 1886–1914

73
The difficult path to perfection. On the evolution of testing methods for naval artillery shells in the period 1886–1914

In previous materials I briefly described the evolution of twelve-inch guns in the Russian Imperial navy and ammunition for them. Now let's move on to the topic of testing shells.

But before that, a small remark.

Some errors


I would like to draw the attention of dear readers to a strange discrepancy in the sources, which, to my shame, I did not notice right away. It concerns the 305-mm high-explosive projectile mod. 1915, which was a 331,7 kg landmine arr. 1907, to which a huge ballistic tip (730,5 mm!) was screwed during the loading process. This shell can be seen “live” in S. Vinogradov’s monograph “Battleship “Slava”. The Undefeated Hero of Moonsund” on page 135.



So, Professor E.A. Berkalov indicates the total weight of the projectile with the indicated tip is 867 pounds (Russian) or 355 kg. However, in the “Album of Naval Artillery Shells” of 1934, the mass of the same projectile is indicated as 374,7 kg. I can only guess which of this is true, but taking into account the fact that the brass tip in the “Album” is depicted as thin-walled, presumably the correct mass is 355 kg. It must be said that the masses of other projectiles in these sources are the same.

And a little about TNT.

I believed that in all cases of equipping shells, phlegmatized TNT was used, which, without further ado, was called TNT. However, according to Professor E.A. Berkalov, only armor-piercing projectiles mod. 1911. High-explosive shells of the same year, at least before the experiments with Chesma, and possibly later, were filled with pure, non-phlegmatized TNT. Phlegmatization of TNT was needed to prevent the detonation of armor-piercing projectiles during penetration of armor, and it can be assumed that the projectiles arr. 1907 and earlier were equipped with TNT in a similar way.

Test criteria for armor-piercing projectiles


It is obvious that certain requirements should be established for an armor-piercing projectile, compliance with which will be verified by tests when accepting a batch of projectiles into the treasury. It is also quite clear that upon acceptance the projectile must demonstrate its ability to penetrate armor under certain conditions, by which we mean:

1. The speed of the projectile at the moment of impact on the armor plate.
2. Armor strength.
3. Armor thickness.
4. The angle of deviation from the normal (that is, from an angle of 90 degrees relative to the plane of the armor plate) at which the projectile hits the armor.
5. The state of the projectile after passing through the armor.


The importance of the fourth criterion is obvious. The easiest way for a projectile to penetrate armor is when it hits it at an angle of 90 degrees to its surface; the deviation from the normal in this case is zero. The greater the angle of deviation from the normal, the greater the path that the projectile must travel through the armor plate, and the more difficult it is to penetrate it.

But at the same time, you need to understand that in a naval battle you cannot expect ideal conditions for shells. To ensure zero deviation from the normal, the enemy ship needs to place its armored belt strictly perpendicular to the axis of the barrel of our gun, and then also adjust it so that the pitching compensates for the angle of incidence of our projectile.

In reality, ships, as a rule, do not fight on strictly parallel courses and are not exactly opposite each other, so shells almost always hit the armor at angles significantly different from the ideal 90 degrees. And this, of course, should be taken into account when designing and testing armor-piercing projectiles. Therefore, tests by shooting at normal cannot be considered sufficient; it is also necessary to test projectiles by shooting at an angle to the armor plate.

As for the condition of the projectile, this is no less important.

Will the mere fact of penetrating the armor be sufficient, even if the projectile itself is destroyed, or is it necessary to require that the projectile penetrate the armor as a whole?

From the standpoint of today, it is quite obvious that the projectile must pass into the armored space relatively intact. It is quite possible to allow a certain deformation and even partial destruction of the head part (as in the image below), but without opening the internal cavity containing the explosive.


It is obvious that an armor-piercing projectile fulfills its purpose only if it passes behind the armor, penetrating to the vital parts of the ship, and there it produces a full-fledged explosion. If the projectile exploded in the process of breaking through the armor, then it will only cause fragmentation damage to the compartment located directly behind the armor. And if a projectile penetrates the armor without exploding, but after breaking, its explosive may not detonate at all, or it may detonate partially, which is why the force of the explosion will be significantly weakened.

Unfortunately, I could not find comprehensive information about the evolution of naval artillery testing, but what I managed to find is of some interest. Perhaps we can distinguish four periods of testing naval shells during the time of interest to us.

1886 – early 1890s (advent of cemented armor)


Why 1886?

Without a doubt, before testing armor-piercing shells, one should have learned how to produce them. In the second half of the 1886th century in Russia there were many experiments with both cast iron and steel projectiles for this purpose, both successful and not so successful. According to V.I. Kolchak, the turning point should be considered XNUMX, when the technology for their production was finally determined, and at the same time armor-piercing shells began to be ordered en masse to Russian factories. At the same time, principles for accepting shells into the treasury were developed, which, however, tended to change over time.

And, as will be shown below, not always for the better.

Well, in 1886 the following order was established. A sample of 2% from each batch of shells was subject to verification, of which 1% was subjected to mechanical testing of the metal, and another 1% was tested by shooting. At first, the size of the batch was not limited, but they soon realized that this approach was wrong, and established that the size of the batch to be tested was 300 shells.

Accordingly, out of every three hundred shells, the receiver selected 3 shells for firing testing, and the same number for testing mechanical qualities. The “most questionable” shells were subject to selection. The batch was accepted if two out of three shells passed the tests successfully. Moreover, if the first two shells tested by firing passed the tests, then the third was no longer tested, and the batch was accepted into the treasury. Likewise, if the first two shells were defective, then the third shot was not fired and the batch was rejected. All three projectiles passed mechanical tests in any case.

If the number of shells to be accepted was not a multiple of 300, then the following was done. When there were 149 shells or less remaining over a multiple of three hundred shells, they were taken into account as part of one of the “300-shell” batches, thereby reducing the sample to less than 1%. If there were 150 or more “extra” shells, then three shells were taken from them for mechanical testing and for firing testing, as for a batch of 300 shells.

Tests by firing armor-piercing shells were carried out on an armor plate mounted vertically on a frame, and the distance between the gun and the frame should not exceed 300–350 feet (roughly 91,5–106,7 m). This may seem strange, but until 1886 the distance from the log house to the gun was not regulated. However, you need to understand that in those years, domestic science took only the very first steps in studying how to overcome armor and determine the quality of projectiles.

There were, of course, some funny things along the way.

Thus, in the Russian Empire, although for a very short time, there was a very interesting practice of accepting armor-piercing shells in the manner of Lieutenant Mikhailovsky. The quality of the projectile was determined, just don’t laugh, please – by the sound. That is, in much the same way as we choose watermelons today. This practice was quickly abandoned, since test firing showed its complete unsuitability, but this method conveys the general level of theory and practice of those years well.

As for the angle at which the projectile hits the armor, Professor E.A. Berkalov claims that until the Russo-Japanese War, armor-piercing projectiles were tested almost exclusively by firing at armor plates in the normal direction, and high-explosive steel ones were not tested at all. V.I. Kolchak reports that the very first tests of steel armor-piercing shells, carried out on iron armor, were carried out at an angle from the normal of 25 degrees, but later, when moving to steel-iron armor, they were already shooting strictly along the normal.

I can assume that V.I. Kolchak is right. Since the transition to steel-iron armor happened very quickly, and soon it was replaced by cemented armor, E. A. Berkalov, most likely, simply did not delve into history question so as not to overload your textbook with redundant information.

Nevertheless, we have to admit that with the transition to steel-iron armor, for some reason we took a step back in testing armor-piercing projectiles.

To determine the thickness of the armor plate that the projectile should penetrate, the Ministry of the Navy used Muggiano's formula, which was aimed at calculating iron armor. That is, only the thickness of the plate, weight, caliber and speed of the projectile were taken into account as variables.


Accordingly, when they switched from steel armor to steel-iron armor, they continued to count according to Muggiano, making an adjustment for thickness. Initially, it was believed that an iron plate was equivalent to a steel-iron one, if the latter was one-sixth thinner. However, in France this figure was equal to a quarter, and in England – a third.

As a result, in Russia they came to the “French” meaning: iron and steel-iron plates were considered equal if the steel-iron plate was 25% thinner than the iron one - or if the iron plate was 33% thicker than the steel-iron one, if you like. However, Muggiano's calculations were of little help in the process of testing shells. The thing is that in that historical period the task of penetrating the armor of shells accepted into the treasury... was not set.

According to the rules in force after 1886, the test result was considered satisfactory if the projectile did not break after hitting the armor, did not have severe deformation and did not receive through cracks. Cracks were considered non-through if they did not allow water to pass through under pressure of 3 atmospheres. Whether the armor was pierced or not was considered unimportant and was not taken into account during acceptance.

As for high-explosive shells, unfortunately, only one thing is known for certain about them - when they were accepted, no firing tests were carried out. I do not know whether the mechanical properties of the steel were checked, but most likely such checks were carried out.

Early 1890s – 1905


In the early 90s of the XNUMXth century, some innovations occurred, which, apparently, were associated with the advent of cemented armor. Muggiano's formula was replaced by Jacob de Marre's formula.




Unfortunately, I do not know the exact date of the transition to the de Marre formula. Obviously, this happened after the advent of cemented armor, but before 1903, when V.I. Kolchak’s book was published, in which he mentions the transition to this formula.

Probably, it is precisely the appearance of cemented armor that we owe to the next innovation. If earlier during testing it was not necessary for a projectile to penetrate armor, but it was necessary for it to remain intact, now everything has become the other way around. From now on, an armor-piercing projectile was considered valid if it penetrated the armor, but it was absolutely not necessary for it to remain intact.

There is a certain nod to industry here. They fired at iron armor at an angle of 25 degrees. to normal, we switched to a stronger steel-iron one - and now we are testing projectiles only in normal, but as the more durable cemented one appeared, we stopped demanding the integrity of the projectile. However, they began to demand mandatory armor penetration...

But, of course, all this looked strange, so after the Russo-Japanese War, in the technical conditions of 1905, both of these requirements were finally brought together: that both the armor be penetrated and the projectile not be broken.

Alas, the reasonableness of these conditions was compensated by the optionality of their fulfillment. Simply put, during testing of armor-piercing projectiles, the requirement for the integrity of the projectile after penetrating the armor was impudently ignored.

But the Russo-Japanese War did bring a certain positive: upon its completion, a test was introduced for armor-piercing shells with a deviation of 15 degrees from the normal. At the same time, unfortunately, I did not figure out whether they replaced normal shooting: it is more likely that they supplemented it.

As for the testing procedure, at least until 1903 it had no fundamental differences from the above. But then differences should have appeared. It is unlikely that three shells from a batch would be enough to carry out tests both in the normal and at an angle to it: but all this is just my guess for now.

Period 1905–1910


The main innovation during this period was the introduction of firing tests for high-explosive shells, because they had not been carried out in previous periods.

This innovation arose with the understanding that it would still be desirable for a high-explosive projectile to be able to penetrate armor, even if it was of relatively small thickness. As mentioned earlier, in order to increase the armor penetration of high-explosive projectiles mod. In 1907, in 1908, requirements for special training of the warhead were introduced.

The technical conditions for the manufacture, acceptance and testing of these shells (No. 191 - 1910) provided for firing testing. In this case, projectiles from 152 mm and above were tested by firing at cemented slabs half the caliber of the test projectile in thickness. As for shells of smaller caliber, they were tested against uncemented armor, since at that time they did not yet know how to cement slabs less than 75 mm thick. At the same time, 120-mm shells were tested against a 75-mm plate, 102-mm shells against a 68-mm plate, and 75-mm shells against a 50,4-mm plate. Shooting was carried out at a normal angle and at an angle of 25 degrees. To her. The tests were considered successful if the armor was penetrated; maintaining the integrity of the projectile was not required.

As for armor-piercing shells, during this period of time the production of those with a caliber of 152 mm and below was completely stopped, but, unfortunately, the exact date of production cessation is unknown to me. It must be said that, based on the results of the shelling of the experimental vessel "Chesma", the release of 203-mm armor-piercing shells was also abandoned, but this, of course, happened later.

Unfortunately, I did not find direct indications of how armor-piercing shells were tested in this period. Judging by the context of the sources, it should be assumed that the procedure did not change: that is, they shot at the normal and at an angle of 15 degrees. to it along cemented slabs, the thickness of which was determined by applying the de Marre formula. At the same time, the requirement for armor penetration while preserving the projectile as a whole existed, but it was apparently ignored during testing.

From 1911 onwards


For projectiles mod. In 1911, new testing rules were introduced.

An armor-piercing 305-mm projectile was tested by firing at a cemented armor plate one caliber thick, and high-explosive 305-mm projectiles - half a caliber. New 130 mm shells were tested against 75 mm cemented armor. As for smaller calibers, everything remained the same: 120 mm shells were tested against a 75 mm uncemented plate, 102 mm - against a 68 mm one.


However, now a rule was strictly established, according to which the projectile had to penetrate the armor into the normal while maintaining the integrity of the hull, and this requirement was strictly fulfilled during testing.

As a result, it was possible to improve the overall quality of the projectiles, which is why they often pierced armor during tests without splitting, even with a deviation from the normal of 25 degrees, although this was not required of them by the test conditions.

Unfortunately, the question remained unclear whether these requirements applied to shells of earlier designs, and indeed what kind of armor-piercing shells, except mod. 1911, produced after 1911. But this issue goes beyond the scope of studying twelve-inch projectiles and therefore will not be considered here: in the next article we will talk about armor-piercing and ballistic tips.

To be continued ...
73 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +12
    16 February 2024 05: 20
    Andrey, respect to you for an interesting publication! good Few authors, including you, prevent Military Review from finally sliding into the pit of an amateurish propaganda resource!
    1. +3
      16 February 2024 07: 16
      Thank you very much, dear Vasily!
  2. +4
    16 February 2024 06: 54
    Thank you, Andrey, for continuing the interesting series.
    I would like to note on my own that during tests in the early 20s of the last century the following circumstance was revealed:
    - armor-piercing, etc. semi-armor-piercing shells arr. 1911 caliber 305 mm corresponded to the best world standards and confidently penetrated armor of a given thickness;
    - armor-piercing shells arr. 1911 caliber 356 mm demonstrated disgusting quality and often split when interacting with armor;
    - the 270 mm thick armor was of excellent quality and approximately matched the nominal durability;
    - armor with a thickness of 320 mm was of worse quality and approximately corresponded to the nominal value of 305 mm;
    - the 370 mm thick armor was of disgusting quality and approximately corresponded to the nominal 330 mm.
    Obviously, the main problem is the quality of large ingots, carburization technology and heat treatment. By the way, this “birth trauma” also affected the 406-mm shells for the B-37. Well, there’s no desire to remember about the “armor epic” of Stalin’s battleships.
    1. +6
      16 February 2024 07: 18
      You're welcome!
      Quote: Victor Leningradets
      the 270 mm thick armor was of excellent quality and approximately equal in resistance to the nominal value;

      We'll get to the denominations very soon, I think we'll surprise you :)
    2. 0
      17 February 2024 19: 45
      Quote: Victor Leningradets
      - armor-piercing shells arr. 1911 caliber 356 mm demonstrated disgusting quality

      Seriously? In 1911, we had serial 14" guns? On which ships exactly, may I ask you? belay
  3. -7
    16 February 2024 07: 00
    Something very weak. The article is nothing. No citations of documents, no photographs of shells and plates (with one exception). There are only guns in the photo, although we are not talking about them.
    If this is a preface, then it could be made five times shorter and placed before the normal material. Or payment line by line?
  4. 0
    16 February 2024 08: 37
    [/quote]If the shell exploded in the process of overcoming the armor

    its explosive may not detonate at all[quote]

    Dear author, I can’t understand, did the shells explode or detonate? To be honest, I have never encountered a situation where the explosives of a projectile were initially oriented toward detonation rather than explosion.
    1. +3
      16 February 2024 09: 15
      Quote: Sergey Valov
      I can’t understand whether the shells exploded or detonated

      In this case, as far as I understand, these are identical concepts, because the TNT detonated, causing an explosion. I am ready to listen to other points of view.
      1. +1
        16 February 2024 11: 10
        Detonation and explosion are not synonymous, they are different processes. “detonate giving an explosion” is a meaningless set of sounds, like “fell like a swift jack.” If it’s on your fingers, then both explosion and detonation are combustion processes at different speeds. In reality, everything is much more complicated and is not a topic for comment. In reality, detonation is very rare. For a complete understanding of the process, please refer to the relevant literature.
        1. +3
          16 February 2024 11: 29
          Quote: Sergey Valov
          Detonation and explosion are not synonymous

          No, not synonyms.
          First, the word "explosion" has two meanings. One is the chemical process of transformation itself, and the second is the consequences of this transformation. That is, the word “explosion” is quite acceptable to use outside the terminology you specified
          Secondly, detonation is a narrower concept of the first meaning of the word “explosion” because not every explosion is a detonation, but every detonation is an explosion. In essence, detonation is the process of moving a chemical transformation zone through an explosive by means of a shock wave. An explosion can also be caused by the combustion of explosives; the main difference will be the speed of propagation of this very chemical transformation.
          Quote: Sergey Valov
          “detonate giving an explosion” is a meaningless set of sounds, like “fell like a swift jack”

          This is not a meaningless set of sounds; everything will depend on the context of the phrase.
          1. -1
            16 February 2024 22: 00
            In principle, I agree with many things, but not with everything.
            [/quote]not every explosion is a detonation, but every detonation is an explosion
            - no not like this. And detonation and explosion and combustion are the same process, the difference is in the speed of this process.
            An explosion can also be caused by the combustion of explosives[quote]

            an explosion is the combustion of an explosive.
            1. 0
              16 February 2024 22: 05
              Quote: Sergey Valov
              an explosion is the combustion of an explosive.

              Due to insufficient knowledge of chemistry, I prefer the formulation “chemical transformation process”. Simply put, I don’t know whether any detonation (let alone an explosion) is a combustion. hi
              1. 0
                16 February 2024 22: 20
                I'm not very good with chemistry either. I repeat what I read earlier in the literature on artillery. And most importantly - my father in the 50s. He graduated from Zhukovka with a degree in aviation weapons engineer, they were taught this seriously there, and he explained these concepts to me, still a boy, on his fingers.
                Try to find the book Artillery, military publishing house, M. 1938. On p. 29 - 33 this topic is covered very clearly and with excellent illustrations. drinks
        2. +1
          17 February 2024 19: 59
          Quote: Sergey Valov
          Detonation and explosion are not synonymous

          In this particular case, the author quite rightly used them as synonyms. The author points out the moment when the process of destruction of the enemy ship begins, this is an explosion, but it is triggered by the timely detonation of explosives.
      2. +1
        17 February 2024 16: 19
        Depending on the conditions, the same substances can change the combustion rate. A striking example of this is pyroxylin, which, when burned, can have a propelling and crushing effect.
    2. +3
      17 February 2024 02: 25
      An explosion is a fast-paced physical or physico-chemical process that occurs with a significant release of energy in a small volume in a short period of time. Detonation is the process of propagation of a chemical reaction zone at supersonic speed.

      The shells exploded. The explosives in them detonated. Unless, of course, they were high explosives. Both black powder and smokeless gunpowder, which were also used as explosives in shells during the Russo-Japanese War, are propellant explosives that are not prone to detonation. The gunpowder in the shells did not detonate, but deflagrated. Deflagration is a subsonic combustion process in which a rapidly moving zone (front) of chemical transformations is formed.

      And yes, in order to reliably initiate detonation in many high explosives (in wet pyroxylin and in trinitrophenol too), a sufficiently powerful intermediate detonator was required - a charge from a more sensitive powerful high explosive, designed to enhance the initiating impulse of such primary means of explosion as a detonator capsule, detonating cord, etc. With a weak intermediate detonator, the detonation of a high explosive projectile was not always complete. There are a number of stages in the reaction of a high explosive charge in a shell explosive device (in particular, in an artillery shell) to the initiating effect:

      1. Detonation of an explosive charge. The excitation of detonation has a shock-wave character; detonation occurs at the initial shock-wave stage of interaction or with some delay. The main signs of the detonation transformation of an explosive: a) destruction of the shell into many small fragments flying at high speed; b) shear fracture surfaces are easily detected on fragments of even relatively thick shells; c) a strong high-explosive effect is recorded, determined by the amount and type of reacted explosive. A distinction is made between complete and incomplete (partial) detonation of an explosive charge.
      2. Explosion. Low-order explosive transformation (LDPT) of shock-wave and deformation nature. It is realized with damped volumetric explosive transformation or accelerated development of explosive combustion. As a rule, only part of the explosive reacts, the rest of the explosive in a finely dispersed state is scattered; the shell breaks down mainly by the brittle fracture mechanism into large and medium fragments, which fly off at a sufficiently high speed. A moderate high-explosive effect is recorded.
      3. Local explosion. Quick response of a small part of the explosive, which does not turn into an explosion or detonation due to a rapid release of pressure due to local destruction of the shell - separation of the bottom part, opening of the shell at the point of impact, etc.

      The fact that not all the gunpowder had time to burn during the explosion of a projectile with a powder explosive charge is associated with the relatively high incendiary effect of such projectiles.

      The 75 mm steel projectiles of the 1902 model, the first domestic steel projectiles for the 75 mm Kane cannon with an explosive charge (54 gram bursting charge of smokeless gunpowder), were characterized by the separation of the bottom part of the projectile body, simply due to the explosion of a small amount of a relatively weak explosive. For comparison, the high-explosive shell of the Japanese 75 mm field gun model 1898 contained an 800 gram explosive charge of “shimoza” (trinitrophenol). The 76 mm naval high-explosive projectile apparently contained slightly less shimoz, but not by much.
  5. +4
    16 February 2024 08: 40
    Dear Colleague ...
    1) Thanks for the article!
    2) Is there any data on what and how they tested in the Black Sea Fleet in 1897?
    1. +3
      16 February 2024 09: 15
      Good afternoon, dear Ivan!
      Quote: Senior Sailor
      Is there any data on what and how they tested in the Black Sea Fleet in 1897?

      What is not there is not there, alas
      1. +2
        16 February 2024 09: 18
        It seems like all the heavy shells for 35-caliber guns were sent there and they were convinced of their unsuitability...
        1. +2
          16 February 2024 10: 48
          Quote: Senior Sailor
          It seems like all the heavy shells for 35 caliber guns were sent there

          All the more interesting, but alas...
  6. +2
    16 February 2024 08: 46
    Great job!
    I wanted to know if the author has information on how the speed of projectiles was measured in those days?
    1. 0
      16 February 2024 09: 42
      I wanted to know if the author has information on how the speed of projectiles was measured in those days?

      Initial - shooting through two spaced disks rotating on the same shaft.
      1. +1
        16 February 2024 12: 34
        Suitable for a rifle, but unlikely for a twelve-inch rifle. This delicate mechanics with two disks will be blown away by the shock wave and the force of the flame.
        In Meppen, large cross-section wire frames are visible at the training ground - obviously here also from induction signals.
        1. +1
          16 February 2024 12: 45
          Suitable for a rifle, but unlikely for a twelve-inch rifle. This delicate mechanics with two disks will be blown away by the shock wave and the force of the flame.

          Well, as an engineer, I can imagine very easily how to prevent this from happening. But I won’t persist with the proposed method; for 12 inches it would actually look controversial. Although less controversial than the shock pendulum wink
          In Meppen, large cross-section wire frames are visible at the training ground - obviously here also from induction signals.

          Wire mesh was used, stretched over a frame; the projectile tore the network, breaking the electrical circuit. The only thing I don’t know is how they could accurately measure the time interval between the signals.
          1. +2
            16 February 2024 12: 48
            The loop oscilloscope gave us a measurement interval of one millisecond.
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. +2
              16 February 2024 12: 54
              The loop oscilloscope gave us a measurement interval of one millisecond.

              The time is right. The light-beam oscilloscope appeared in 1897.
          2. 0
            22 May 2024 21: 48
            Electromagnet, armature, pen, ink, fast drawing of paper tape. The length of the devil divided by the drawing speed.
    2. +2
      16 February 2024 10: 47
      Quote: mr.ZinGer
      I wanted to know if the author has information on how the speed of projectiles was measured in those days?

      In the naval collection No. 01 for 1898, on page 75 of the unofficial section (which is important, because each had its own official and unofficial numbering), there is an interesting article on the topic of measuring the speed of a projectile directly in the bore. This MS is online, but if you want, I can send it to you by mail
  7. +2
    16 February 2024 10: 52
    Good afternoon.
    Dear Andrey, perhaps, for a more complete understanding of shell testing, it would be worth briefly mentioning foreign experience? If we look at other navies, they did not limit themselves to testing only shells. Each new batch of gunpowder for charges was also tested with these shells and, based on these firings, firing tables were compiled for this batch, in relation to guns of various calibers. After this, once every six months it was necessary to carry out repeated firing at the training ground in connection with possible changes in the quality of the gunpowder and, if necessary, the shooting tables were adjusted. That is, a year later, after the first tests of the shells, different results could have been obtained and in battle the shells could have shown a different result than was expected from them. This is how the French did it.
    1. +2
      16 February 2024 11: 01
      Good afternoon, dear Igor!
      Quote: 27091965i
      If we look at other navies, they did not limit themselves to testing only shells.

      Likewise, our Navy did not limit itself to testing shells.
      Quote: 27091965i
      Each new batch of gunpowder for charges was also tested with these shells and, based on these firings, firing tables were compiled for this batch, in relation to guns of various calibers.

      As far as I know, this is not what we did - gunpowder was tested for compliance with the specified parameters, and, if it complied, was accepted into the treasury. In this case, recalculation of the shooting tables was not necessary. The process did not stop there; the condition of the received and stored gunpowder was monitored by taking periodic samples. This or that batch of gunpowder in storage could have been rejected; there were definitely such cases in Port Arthur.
      But in general, even on the topic of shells, I still have to work and work (but this needs to go into the archives) in order to give the materials now published a finished look. Where else would I have gunpowder?
      1. +1
        16 February 2024 11: 12
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        As far as I know, this is not what we did - gunpowder was tested for compliance with the specified parameters, and, if it complied, was accepted into the treasury. In this case, recalculation of the shooting tables was not necessary.

        The fact of the matter is that the French came to the conclusion that the gunpowder produced and stored would not always correspond to the “ideal” parameters and accepted “minimums”. They were also accepted for shells. I wrote that for a high-explosive projectile, a “minimum” penetration of 1/10 caliber armor was adopted. I think not everything was bad with our shells.
        1. +3
          16 February 2024 11: 48
          Quote: 27091965i
          The fact of the matter is that the French came to the conclusion that the gunpowder produced and stored would not always correspond to the “ideal” parameters and accepted “minimums”.

          Well, let's remember that the half-charges of the "Empress Maria" raised from the bottom of the sea (not all, of course, but those that remained sealed) in 1927 at range shooting showed less than a 1% drop in quality (instead of the required 762 m/s they gave 755 m/s)
          Quote: 27091965i
          I think not everything was bad with our shells.

          Конечно.
          1. +3
            16 February 2024 13: 09
            I didn't know about this fact.
            Another confirmation that the pests have deprived us of the fourth Black Sea battleship. Using artillery, armor and mechanisms from Empress Maria and Empress Catherine the Great, it was quite possible to complete the construction of Emperor Nicholas I instead of transferring Sevastopol from the Baltic to the Black Sea.
            1. +3
              16 February 2024 13: 18
              Quote: Victor Leningradets
              I didn't know about this fact.

              "The battleship "Empress Maria" by the respected Vinogradov, "Fifth Rome" 2017. A magnificent thing. An example of how books should be written
  8. 0
    16 February 2024 11: 24
    It is obvious that an armor-piercing projectile fulfills its purpose only if it passes behind the armor, penetrating to the vital parts of the ship, and there it produces a full-fledged explosion.

    This maximalist requirement is one of the mistakes of that era. Getting into a vital part of the ship and passing through so that there will be a full-fledged ruin is like winning a big prize in the lottery. But that's not all. A small charge of an armor-piercing projectile, and in this case, may not destroy the ammunition load.
    But if a projectile hits non-vitally important parts of the ship, it hits an order of magnitude and more often, and without a full rip through the armor or a rip at the moment it passes through the armor (which increases armor penetration), it causes very unpleasant damage.
    1. +3
      16 February 2024 11: 57
      Quote: Kostadinov
      This maximalist requirement is one of the mistakes of that era.

      This is not a mistake, but a completely fair demand. This is how an AP projectile should work. If it doesn't work like that, then it turns out to be Jutland for German ships. If it works like this, then it turns out to be Jutland for British ships. The British quickly drew conclusions and used full-fledged greenboy AP shells based on the results of Jutland
      1. 0
        16 February 2024 20: 18
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Quote: Kostadinov
        This maximalist requirement is one of the mistakes of that era.

        This is not a mistake, but a completely fair demand. This is how an AP projectile should work.

        Between 1886 and 1918 the period of time was too long, there were also three wars with the participation of the Navy, I didn’t count the First World War, views changed. This can, in principle, be traced by changes in the reservation system. The armor-piercing projectile has always been relevant, but its importance, during this period of time, either increased or decreased. In many navies, the high-explosive shell began to be considered not just an addition, but a very valuable addition. In Russia, in my opinion, they were too keen on armor-piercing shells, to the detriment of high-explosive shells.
        1. +2
          17 February 2024 19: 28
          Quote: 27091965i
          In Russia, in my opinion, they were too keen on armor-piercing shells, to the detriment of high-explosive shells.

          In the pre-Tsushima period, of course, but then, from 1907, they began to make very good high-explosive shells, and the 305-mm mod. 1911 is absolutely magnificent. hi
          1. 0
            18 February 2024 08: 37
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            In the pre-Tsushima period, of course, but then, from 1907, they began to make very good high-explosive shells, and the 305-mm mod. 1911 is absolutely magnificent.

            I put everything in its “dreadnought” place, so to speak, “looked, discussed, criticized” and “together” rushed to design something similar. hi
  9. -1
    16 February 2024 11: 35
    Quote: Victor Leningradets
    By the way, this “birth trauma” also affected the 406-mm shells for the B-37. Well, there’s no desire to remember about the “armor epic” of Stalin’s battleships.

    What injury caused the B-37 shells? Their tests went quite well.
    And what is the armor epic of Stalin’s battleships? They carried out tests, found the best solution, the armor was produced and used for the defense of Leningrad, like the B-37 test gun.
    Only a few were late in stopping the construction of absolutely unnecessary battleships, but still did not rivet them on a large scale like the Americans, Japanese, British and even the French and Germans.
    1. -1
      16 February 2024 12: 27
      Find Shirokorad, it’s mentioned in passing there. Low quality of everything: shells, propellant charges, fastened barrels. We received shells that punctured when they met armor of equal caliber (though the armor was forged). The dispersion is incredible. Somehow the barrels were modified and the charge was derated. But they never learned how to cement, seal and release thick armor normally and foolishly refused to supply imports. The same Americans had plenty of reserves of 343 mm thick belt plates. And then it was too late.
      BC armor was produced and was of worse quality than American or German.
      And the cemented slabs were more or less 230 mm thick, the rest was defective.
      1. +3
        16 February 2024 12: 41
        Quote: Victor Leningradets
        Find Shirokorad

        No need:)))))
        1. +1
          16 February 2024 12: 47
          Well then, in the museum of the Obukhov plant, look at the archive, at the same time you can see the correct drawings of the three-gun MK-1 turret, and not what is published in the literature.
          By the way, the gun ended up working out, as did the high-explosive shells for it. As a child, I heard long-range shooting when I was picking mushrooms in the restricted area.
          1. +3
            16 February 2024 13: 03
            Quote: Victor Leningradets
            Well then, look at the archive at the Obukhov Plant Museum

            Oh, I’ll get to St. Petersburg someday...
            1. +2
              16 February 2024 13: 15
              Waiting, sir!
              I spent two years on business trips with you in Chelyabinsk.
              1. +2
                16 February 2024 13: 38
                And I lived with you with my family a long time ago, probably 2,5 years hi
  10. 0
    16 February 2024 13: 00
    Find Shirokorad, it’s mentioned in passing there.

    Shirokorad mentioned that there were problems like any new product. Moreover, the main problem was the maximalist, unrealistic and unnecessary characteristics of the product, which exceeded the characteristics of the same products in other countries. Compare the characteristics of the B-37 with American, British and German guns for battleships of that era. But these problems were solved. Neral and unnecessary characteristics were discarded and very good results were obtained. Shirokorad didn’t write about this?
    But they never learned how to cement, seal and release thick armor normally and foolishly refused to supply imports. The same Americans had plenty of reserves of 343 mm thick belt plates. And then it was too late.

    Who told you that the USA produced cemented armor of such thickness and quality as was required for Soviet battleships? Look at the armor of American battleships of World War II. Who needs this 343 mm armor? It is not needed for Soviet battleships, especially for a war in which battleships are not needed.
    BC armor was produced and was of worse quality than American or German.

    For which ship did the Americans and Germans produce 400 mm cemented armor side tiles? To compare the quality with the Soviet one. Only the Japanese did this for Yamato. And Soviet armor of such thickness turned out to be no worse than Japanese.
    And the cemented slabs were more or less 230 mm thick, the rest was defective.

    It was like that at the beginning, and then they made 400 mm side plates, which, apart from the USSR, were made only by the Japanese in the world.
    1. 0
      16 February 2024 13: 14
      When is this next? In 1940, it was decided to equip the battleships with uncemented armor. This significantly reduced the durability of the armor.
      And Japanese armor is the same ersatz, only very thick.
      1. 0
        16 February 2024 17: 58
        Quote: Victor Leningradets
        And Japanese armor is the same ersatz, only very thick.

        Based on what such conclusions?
        Based on American post-war shootings?
        1. 0
          16 February 2024 18: 04
          Based on what such conclusions?
          Based on American post-war shootings?

          I won’t give proofs, I read them in the nineties. But the Japanese themselves put the equivalent of their 410 mm belt in 360 mm.
  11. 0
    16 February 2024 13: 22
    I looked at the relationships in the Jacob-de-Mar formula.
    It already follows from it that (to break armor) the higher the caliber of the projectile, the higher the projectile speed should be, all other things being equal.
    But! With an increase in caliber, the weight of the projectile increases, which (according to this formula) requires a decrease in the speed of the projectile.
    And if you specify cos(90) Degrees in the formula, then the formula cannot be applied, because you cannot divide by zero.
    Somehow it (the formula) is not entirely correct.
    1. 0
      16 February 2024 13: 30
      I figured out the cosine - you need to take the angle of entry of the projectile into the armor.
      1. +3
        16 February 2024 13: 36
        Quote: Simple
        I figured out the cosine - you need to take the angle of entry of the projectile into the armor.

        Absolutely right. This is not the angle of the projectile’s trajectory to the plane of the plate, but the angle of deviation from the normal, that is, from 90 degrees. If the projectile hits the plate at an angle of 75 degrees, then the angle of deviation from the normal will be 15 degrees hi
        Quote: Simple
        It already follows from it that (to break armor) the higher the caliber of the projectile, the higher the projectile speed should be, all other things being equal.

        It's right
        Quote: Simple
        But! With an increase in caliber, the weight of the projectile increases, which (according to this formula) requires a decrease in the speed of the projectile.

        Certainly. What matters is the energy of the projectile, or “living force,” as it was called then. And it, of course, consisted of speed and mass, according to the well-known square in half...
  12. +2
    16 February 2024 17: 03
    Quote: Victor Leningradets
    When is this next? In 1940, it was decided to equip the battleships with uncemented armor. This significantly reduced the durability of the armor.
    And Japanese armor is the same ersatz, only very thick.

    And I never wrote that the USSR made 420 mm cemented armor for battleships. They made it like the Japanese, uncemented and very thick. No one in the world made 420 mm cemented armor, and there was a good reason for this - cemented armor at angles of contact with the projectile of more than 40-45 degrees turned out to be worse than uncemented armor. We must congratulate the Soviet engineers that they realized this in time, just like their Japanese colleagues, they did what was necessary.
  13. +1
    16 February 2024 19: 34
    If the projectile exploded in the process of breaking through the armor, then it will only cause fragmentation damage to the compartment located directly behind the armor.

    The only question is what kind of compartment it will be and what will be in it wink
    If it’s a coal pit or some kind of storage room, then it’s tolerable... But what if this armor turns out to be the roof of a tower or a barbette?? Then even an unexploded shell can lead to the death of the ship...
    Greetings, dear namesake hi
    The plus sign has been there since morning. While I’m getting ready for work, I still have time to read and evaluate it, but I can’t respond... request
    I won’t run ahead of the carriage; I’m interested in waiting for descriptions of the tests themselves with conclusions.
    And yes. Any range tests provide only relative knowledge on the issue being studied, because in battle the conditions are far from range conditions...
    In short, we look forward to the continuation Yes
    C y hi
    1. 0
      17 February 2024 03: 12
      The only question is what kind of compartment it will be and what wink will be in it
      If it’s a coal pit or some kind of storage room, then it’s tolerable... What if this armor turns out to be the roof of a tower or a barbette??

      I will probably disappoint you, but not only the roofs, but also the frontal armor plates of the main battery towers, the barbettes of these towers, the conning tower plates of the Iowa-class battleships were made of homogeneous “class B” armor steel.

      https://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2925

      "The turret armor is made from a combination of Class A and B armor and STS plate. The turret faces are 17" Class B armor over 2,5" STS plate. The side plates are 9,5" Class A armor over 7,5" -inch STS plate. The rear plates have 12" Class A armor and the turret roofs have 7,25" Class B armor."

      No "Class A" cemented armor plates thicker than 12,1 inches have been found on Iowa-class battleships.

      https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS_(сталь)
      1. 0
        17 February 2024 09: 17
        I don’t belong to the club of fans and adherents of “Iows”, but at the moment we are talking about the period before WWI wink And if the REV became a kind of marker for understanding what weapons could be for main battery battleships, then WWII drew a line under this period. Jutland is indicative. And for now we are considering the 12" caliber as the main one in the Republic of Ingushetia at that time.
        “Iowa” is in a completely different period, and their opponents are different. hi
        PS. Let's get to WWII, there you can frolic with your Iowas smile
        1. 0
          17 February 2024 13: 18
          The issue with 370-420 mm cemented armor plates for the "Soviet Unions" came up above. In particular, the following statement was made (not by you): “BC armor was produced, the quality was worse than American or German. And cemented plates were more or less 230 mm thick, the rest was defective.”

          If we talk about the period before WWI, then more than 330 mm forged slabs of cemented vertical armor were something from the future. For horizontal armor, before WWII, such thick cemented armor was not used (we will not remember the individual plates of the Krupp vertical armor of the Poltava-class battleships).

          Yes, above I was mistaken about the Iowa barbettes; credible sources state that cemented armor up to 17,3 inches thick was used for the barbettes of the Iowa battleships... But it was cast armor, without subsequent rolling/forging of the plates. On the surface of the barbette armor plates there are still traces of the sand molds in which they were cast. And yes, there were clearly some problems with the quality of the slabs. "Crack? Let's putty."



          1. 0
            17 February 2024 19: 49
            If we talk about the period before WWI, then more than 330 mm forged slabs of cemented vertical armor were something from the future.

            what
            The reservation system was formed by armor plates and sheets made using Krupp technology from nickel steel (nickel 3,5-4%, chromium 1-2%) with a hardened (cemented) outer layer, and from armor steel with a low nickel content (nickel 1- 1,5%, chromium 0,5-1%)

            "Kaiser", launched in 1911, main belt thickness 350mm...
            request
            1. 0
              17 February 2024 21: 19
              Quote: Rurikovich
              "Kaiser", launched in 1911, main belt thickness 350mm...

              I forgot to write “not inferior in relative armor resistance to cemented armor plates of smaller thickness.”

              Weren't you surprised by the cemented armor plates of "class A" barbettes up to 17,3" thick on the Iowa-class battleships, which were sand-cast and not subjected to subsequent forging under a hydraulic press after casting? After all, as you know, cast armor is inferior in armor resistance to rolled/forged armor.

              Were you not surprised that the thick frontal plates of the main battery turrets of this battleship and the armored deckhouse plates were made not of cemented, but of homogeneous “class B” armor?

              Is it strange that on a series of virtually the most advanced battleships in the world, the maximum thickness of forged cemented armor plates did not exceed 12,1"?

              Or is it not strange for someone who knows that the trend of deterioration in the relative armor resistance of cemented armor plates with a thickness of significantly more than 12" could not be overcome.
              1. +1
                17 February 2024 21: 43
                Quote: AlexanderA
                Is it strange that on a series of virtually the most advanced battleships in the world, the maximum thickness of forged cemented armor plates did not exceed 12,1"?

                Forged? belay
                Since the 60-70s of the 19th century, armor has been rolled...
                1. +1
                  17 February 2024 21: 52
                  "...Chromium-nickel steel (up to about 4% nickel, up to 2% chromium plus other elements) was cooked in open hearth (first with an acid hearth and then with the main hearth) and cast into a mold. The mass of the ingot (up to 150-180 tons) in 1,75-2,3 times the mass of the finished slab.The transformation of the ingot into a slab was achieved either by rolling or forging (after preheating from 800° to 1200°). Rolling took less time than forging, however, to obtain a higher-quality metal structure, forging on a press (with a force of 10-15 thousand tons) and subsequent finishing rolling on a mill was required.
                  The rolled plate was cooled in air, then annealed at a temperature of 650°, kept in an oven (depending on the thickness) for up to 18 hours or more, followed by hardening with a water shower. After cutting the slab and cleaning it from scale, cementation was carried out: the slab was placed in a special furnace, where at a temperature of 950° for 10-18 days its outer surface was saturated with carbon. Then, after lowering the temperature to 880° (within 650 hours), the slab was immersed in a water-cooled bath with rapeseed oil. Next, the plate was annealed again (heating to 650° and cooling with a water shower). If bending was required, the slab was again heated to 880° and bent with a powerful press. Next, one-sided hardening was carried out with heating of the cemented surface to 550°, and the rear one to XNUMX°, followed by rapid complete cooling under a double-sided shower. As a result, the outer surface of the slab received a hard “porcelain-like” structure, and most of its thickness received a soft fibrous structure. Then, after checking the quality of heat treatment, chemical and mechanical characteristics, we began mechanical processing, which consisted of cutting the edges of the plate according to templates, drilling holes for bolts, gouging edges for keys, etc. Then the assembled set of plates was assembled, for which special ones were built at armored factories stands that imitated the corresponding sections of the sides, towers, deckhouses, and decks. Each slab was individually tailored and had its own passport - certificate."

                  "On average, the cost of one ton of deck slabs was 2-2,5 times, and cemented ones were 4-7 times higher than the cost of carbon shipbuilding steel."
                  1. 0
                    18 February 2024 12: 49
                    Quote: AlexanderA
                    to obtain a higher-quality metal structure, forging on a press was required

                    I know... :)
                    You described a special case of technology (probably only for the Republic of Ingushetia/USSR) used in the absence of rolling mills with appropriate efforts.
                    1. 0
                      21 February 2024 16: 25
                      I don’t understand why you don’t know then that I described a general and not a special case:

                      http://www.combinedfleet.com/metalprp.htm

                      III. MECHANICAL TREATMENTS:

                      FORGING: This is a direct offshoot of hammering where, instead of pounding the metal into shape, strong pressure is applied more slowly, though sometimes again and again, to force the hot metal to the desired shape, usually using a specially-formed tip to the press called a die. This reduces the effects of work hardening and allows shaping of objects in very complex ways. Since the advantage of gravity-induced velocity is lost, the steam-, hydraulically-, or, more recently, electrically-powered presses required to get enough pressure to bend and flatten large Iron or steel objects, such a thick armor plates, are enormous in size and somewhat expensive compared to any other method of mechanically working the metal, but the results are more controllable and usually superior. All US manufacturers used forging for all heavy armor, with very good results.

                      The disadvantages of rolling alone are described as follows:

                      ROLLING: This is the most wide-spread method used for making Iron and steel plates, both construction and armor, since it gradually flattens the entire plate at one time, making the plate more even and much less time-consuming to manufacture. It has a few drawbacks, however. Any internal flaws in the metal, such as undissolved alloying element pieces or bubbles, are flattened out parallel to the plate face and thus act as laminations (gaps between layers in the plate) over a much wider area, where they can increase the chance of plate failure. Also, unless the plate is small enough to be able to fit under the rollers to be rolled sideways as well as up and down (depending on which end of the plate is defined as "up"), the crushing of the crystals will result in a wood-like grain in the metal that makes its strength, toughness, and so forth, different in the up/down direction than the left/right direction, which can also influence plate failure if a projectile hits an armor plate from a direction other than the most likely one designed against. A decided advantage of rolling is that even pressure over the entire plate can be used to apply work hardening to a plate by rolling it at a lower temperature, creating "cold rolled" steel which is hardened to a marked degree without having to use any other process that would increase the cost of the plate.
                    2. 0
                      21 February 2024 16: 46
                      Also read here on page 12. Find out from what thickness the Japanese armor was processed by forging on a press:

                      https://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/USNTMJ%20Reports/USNTMJ-200E-0184-0239%20Report%200-16.pdf

                      A "typical example" of the production of 16,5" Vickers Hardened armor plate on the in stock page.

                      I didn’t know that to process the thickest armor plates, the Japanese used a Japanese-made 50 ton hydraulic press, “the largest in the Empire.”

                      It is impossible to know everything.

                      I guess there are no more questions about forged cemented ship armor?
                      1. 0
                        21 February 2024 20: 19
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        I guess there are no more questions about forged cemented ship armor?

                        That's it... I understand what you mean. :)
                        Essentially we are talking about the same thing.
                        As I said above, the question is the availability of equipment and the speed of armor production.
                        Krupp in Essen had rolling mills of the appropriate force and rolled the slab all the time from the slab to the rough billet alternately in the longitudinal and transverse directions.
                        Manufacturers who did not have such equipment at the initial stage of slab production pressed the slab (precisely pressed, not forged) to the required dimensions (so that the slab could fit first in the crimping and then in the rolling mill), and then rolled.
                        Press processing, as you rightly noted, accelerated and, accordingly, made the plate manufacturing process somewhat cheaper compared to full Krupp rolling.
                        As for the quality of fully rolled and pressed-rolled armor, no one has conducted comparative shooting.
                      2. +1
                        21 February 2024 23: 24
                        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                        As I said above, the question is the availability of equipment and the speed of armor production.

                        As well as its quality and cost. Armor plates of thick cemented armor processed on forging presses differed:

                        a) the longest production time;
                        b) the highest cost;
                        c) the highest quality.

                        Krupp in Essen had rolling mills of the appropriate force and rolled the slab all the time from the slab to the rough billet alternately in the longitudinal and transverse directions.


                        https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geschichte_der_Dillinger_Hütte

                        20. century

                        Mit dem exponentiellen Wachstum der Anzahl der Beschäftigten wuchs die Produktion entsprechend. Mit 200.000 t pro Jahr hatte sich die Stahlproduktion seit Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts etwa verzehnfacht. Mit der ebenfalls Panzerplatten produzierenden Friedrich Krupp AG entwickelte man gemeinsam einseitig gehärtete Nickelstahlplatten. Die Produktionsmengen teilte man sich. Dieser Ausbau der Panzerplattenproduktion erforderte den Bau einer mit Dampf betriebenen hydraulischen Presse mit einer Presskraft von 10.000 t. Die Dampfmaschine leistete 10.000 PS. Der 1904 auf dem Werksgelände gebaute Schießstand wurde mit großkalibrigen Geschützen ausgestattet. Etwa die Hälfte der Produktion bestand aus Panzerplatten; der Rest aus Feinblech und Eisenbahnschienen.

                        Tell me when the Germans stopped using forging presses to produce thick slabs of Krupp cemented armor.

                        In turn, I will tell you about the availability of equipment. During World War II, a 50-ton press was available only in Japan.

                        In the USA, similar (45 ton) presses were acquired only in the 400s:

                        https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_Press_Program

                        Of the 10 presses built then, six extrusion and four forging, eight are still in operation.

                        Manufacturers who did not have such equipment at the initial stage of slab production pressed the slab (precisely pressed, not forged)

                        The equipment is called hydraulic forging presses.

                        https://www.wepuko.de/ru/gidravlicheskie-kovochnye-pressy

                        And the process is called press forging.

                        As for the quality of fully rolled and pressed-rolled armor, no one has conducted comparative shooting.

                        Apparently they did it in the USA.

                        https://www.eugeneleeslover.com/ARMOR-CHAPTER-XII-C.html

                        Class B armor, when less than 4 inches thick, is rolled in a mill instead of being forged, but above that thickness it is forged, as rolling thick plates is believed to work the plate less uniformly than forging, a condition which would, of of course, tend to reduce ballistic resistance.

                        Moreover, in the USA they still use forged aluminum armor:

                        https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/trecms/pdf/AD1214400.pdf
                        https://www.chalcoaluminum.com/application/aluminium-military/5083-armored-vehicle-forging/
  14. +1
    17 February 2024 14: 50
    Continuation of the series of wonderful articles. I'm looking forward to the continuation. Extremely interesting.
    1. 0
      17 February 2024 19: 29
      Good evening, and thank you very much!
  15. +3
    17 February 2024 20: 11
    Very good, thanks to the author! This is the first time I’ve seen a review of projectile testing methods. There's a bit of dates missing. When exactly what method was used and in what year did they decide to change it.
  16. 0
    22 February 2024 06: 19
    Thank you, Andrey, a very interesting article! He dragged him into his bins.
  17. +1
    24 February 2024 18: 49
    The author described a funny madhouse - what kind of sample from which the test was carried out - yes, as you want - at what distance to place the plate - yes, at will - what kind of armor to shoot at - yes, what kind of armor can you find in a landfill - what should happen to the projectile there - after it penetrates - but what difference does it make? -but you have to penetrate the armor, even if you are a 102 mm ki landmine laughing
  18. 0
    31 March 2024 20: 52
    I wonder, is there anything left from the Krasnoarmeysky training ground in the Moscow region?