The most unique armored motorized wagon in history

79 492 105
The most unique armored motorized wagon in history
Motorized armored wagon "Zaamurets". Model in scale 1:87. Work of Y. Pivkin. Company "Major models", Penza. Photo by the author


Thus I saw in the vision horses and riders on them, who had on them armor of fire, hyacinth and sulfur; the heads of the horses were like the heads of lions, and from their mouths came fire, smoke and sulfur.
Revelations of John the Evangelist, 9: 17




History weapons. I have already encountered on "VO" the opinion of some readers who claimed that in Tsarist Russia there was nothing worthwhile, no world-class scientists, no discoveries of world significance, and the technology was just limping, and in part this was true. But only in part. Our engineers knew how to surprise and sometimes created real technical masterpieces. And something similar happened during the First World War...


The armored car in its original form. The armament in the domed turrets is the Nordenfeld guns of 57 mm caliber with a high rate of fire. Due to the peculiarity of the turret mounts, these guns could be used to fire at airplanes. In other words, we have before us not just a motorized armored car, but also an anti-aircraft motorized armored car!

And it was so that the experience of the first year of the war showed that the armored train, as a weapon of war, has a number of significant shortcomings. It is large, that is, a good target, gives itself away with clouds of smoke and steam, and most importantly, despite its large size, it is rather weakly armed. The conclusion suggested itself to make an armored train in the form of a single carriage with a diesel engine and weapons in the turrets.

And already in the autumn of 1915, Lieutenant Colonel Butuzov, the head of the department of railway troops and field railways of the military communications department of the Southwestern Front, presented a project for such a self-propelled armored car. The engine is diesel, which means there is no smokestack and clouds of smoke and steam, fire control, which on ordinary armored trains in the event of damage to the armored platforms could not be disrupted here in principle, well, and powerful weapons and reliable armor should have further increased the value of this war machine.

The work was undertaken by the former Zaamur repair brigade, which had worked in the Odessa workshops of the Southwestern Railway. The importance of the work is evidenced by the fact that the construction of the armored car was supervised by Major General M. V. Kolobov, and reports on its progress were sent to the Supreme Commander-in-Chief's Headquarters on a weekly basis. As early as November 16, the motorized armored car, named "Zaamurets" in honor of its creators, was sent to the Tsar at Headquarters for a demonstration.

Due to the peculiarities of its armament, the Zaamurets was used as a self-propelled anti-aircraft gun in the area of ​​the 1917th Army of the Southwestern Front in the spring and summer of 8. After which, in September, it left for Odessa for repairs, where it met the October Socialist Revolution.

When the Odessa Bolsheviks began their uprising in January 1918, the Zaamurets also entered the battle and actively supported the Red Army. But then it fell into the hands of anarchists, who used it to travel along the Southwestern Railway and collect "contributions in favor of the Soviet government" in the form of vodka and lard. These outrages ended when it was recaptured by the revolutionary sailors of A. V. Polupanov and began to be used as part of armored train No. 4 "Freedom or Death" (another name is "Polupanovtsy").

Until May 1918, the Zaamurets, together with armored train No. 4, Freedom or Death, operated near the cities of Odessa and Melitopol, and then left for the Eastern Front. There, on July 22, in the battle for Simbirsk, the motorized armored car and the armored train were lost by the Reds, but the Zaamurets did not disappear, but ended up in the hands of the Czechoslovaks. And they, in turn, attached it to the armored train of the Czechoslovak corps, Orlik, and rearmed it (the 57-mm Nordenfeld guns in its turrets were without shells) with three-inch guns of 1902. In this form, the motorized armored car circulated along the Trans-Siberian Railway in the summer of 1919, ensuring its safety.


Model of a motorized armored car after modernization. The guns are still old, but the turrets are new, with increased volume, and equipped with commander's cupolas. The number of machine guns has been reduced, but they are equipped with armored shields...

It should be noted here that the Zaamurets was a true masterpiece of military-technical thought at that time. It had two Fiat diesel engines, a dynamo, telephone communication, two rapid-fire guns and ten machine guns. Despite its heavy weight, it easily overcame steep climbs, had a speed of 45 km/h and could even move on one engine! The armored platforms of the Zaamurets received new armored turrets - still hemispherical in shape, but taller.


Inside the machine gun casemate of the Zaamurets armored car

Having become a combat unit of the Czechoslovak Corps, Zaamurets (now Orlik) also worked in the diplomatic field – it accompanied the American diplomatic mission to a meeting with Admiral Kolchak in Omsk. Participating in battles, it showed itself from the best side. It could change its position faster than a regular armored train, it was more difficult to detect and, therefore, destroy.


It is interesting that there is even a film shot in those years in which this armored car is clearly visible in motion...

When the Czechoslovak Corps began its evacuation from Russia in 1920, the Orlik fell into the hands of the Japanese invaders, but did not stay with them for long, as they handed it over to the local White Guards. Interestingly, it hardly needed any repairs, although it traveled thousands of kilometers from Kyiv and Odessa to Moscow, Simbirsk, Irkutsk, Chita and Vladivostok, participating in hundreds of battles. As part of the White Rebel Army of General V. Molchanov, it took part in the Khabarovsk Campaign and the capture of Khabarovsk on December 22, 1921. But the general was unable to hold the city for long and began to retreat. At the same time, the commander of the armored car, Colonel Chekhov, decided not to fight anymore and took the armored train to Harbin, along with its entire crew.


Before leaving for China

M. Kolomiets and I. Drogovoz wrote in their book "Armor of the Russian Army" that in 1924, the "Zaamurets" together with the Czech "Orlik" under the command of the same Colonel Chekhov as part of the troops of Zhang-Zhu Chang participated in battles against the People's Revolutionary Army of China. And Soviet military advisers as part of the NRA reported that Chekhov's armored trains brought downright horror to the Chinese soldiers. Then, already in 1925, an American military attaché photographed a motorized armored car with a Russian crew. Well, and in 1931, it was apparently captured by the Japanese in Manchuria and then served for some time in the Kwantung Army!


Vladivostok, 1920.


"Orlik" in China, 1925

In any case, this armored motorized wagon traveled about 9300 kilometers along the Trans-Siberian Railway from Moscow to the Pacific Ocean with the Czech legionnaires alone. It played an important role in escorting no less than 259 trains with legionnaires from Penza to Vladivostok. It hardly makes sense to talk about how much was taken out of Soviet Russia, but history will never forget that all this wealth had such a wonderful "escort"!

As for the model itself, it is made in a very modern way - printed from special plastic using 3D technology. The chassis is standard from similar railway models: a frame adjusted to the dimensions of the body, pairs of wheels, a micro-electric motor, current collectors and a gearbox. The rails are purchased, as well as gravel and grass.

There is another option for making a similar model for those who do not have the opportunity to use 3D technology. All the parts of the hull, and even the hemispherical towers, are made of thin sheet polystyrene, which is glued with polystyrene glue. All the rivets are stamped on the hull from the inside before cutting into "armor sheets", which allows you to not crumple the edges along the cutting line. That is, first stamp from the inside, and then cut. Similarly, the hull can be made from a thin brass sheet: first stamp the rivets, and then solder everything.

Hemispherical towers are easily squeezed out using wooden balls of the appropriate size, and these balls are sold in the Leonardo store. A sheet of polystyrene is raked over a gas or candle, and then a ball is taken and pressed into the polystyrene. The excess is cut off, and the tower is almost ready. Thin rods are Chinese toothpicks or extracts from sprues from prefabricated plastic models. The model is painted with an airbrush, but this can also be done with a brush, using acrylic paints for this.

P.S. The author and the site administration express their deep gratitude to Yu. Pivkin for the provided photographs of the model of the armored car "Zaamurets" that he made.
105 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +2
    6 March 2025 05: 27
    The device is nice, but nothing more. The Austrians built a gasoline-powered armored car a year earlier as part of the "Schober armored train".
    By the way, it is not a fact that the "Zaamurets" was diesel.
    https://dzen.ru/a/Yu-brZILwE3y0doH?ysclid=m7wpvs0l8y867461773

    That is, before us is not just a motorized armored car, but also an anti-aircraft motorized armored car!
    Overly optimistic assessment.
    1. +5
      6 March 2025 05: 39
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      By the way, it is not a fact that the "Zaamurets" was diesel
      In the photo, unless it is a product of Photoshop, the smoke exhaust pipe is not visible. And the dimensions for a steam engine are not quite appropriate (it needs water and a compartment for coal. There is simply no place to put it there)
      1. +6
        6 March 2025 06: 27
        Quote: Dutchman Michel
        And the dimensions for a steam engine are not quite appropriate (you need water and a compartment for coal. There is simply no place to put it there)

        I don't mean that it's a steam locomotive, but that it's gasoline-powered.
        Quote: Dutchman Michel
        Coal was available at every station, but diesel fuel in Russia was considered an exotic fuel

        And there was gasoline in every pharmacy! wink
        1. +9
          6 March 2025 07: 27
          In fact, Bertha Benz refueled in pharmacies during her famous motor rally.
        2. +3
          6 March 2025 13: 14
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          And there was gasoline in every pharmacy!

          It seems to me that on pharmacy packaging "a whole train" wouldn't go far (you can't find that many pharmacies in the area), and diesel engines worked great on vegetable oil, which could be "loaded in barrels" (the Brothers Karamazov) :)
          1. +1
            6 March 2025 14: 05
            Quote: Rodez
            It seems to me that with pharmacy packaging the "whole train" wouldn't go far
            Well, this is a joke with a grain of a joke, the first motorists often bought gasoline in pharmacies, but where are the first motorists and where is 1915.
            1. +1
              6 March 2025 16: 42
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              The first motorists often bought gasoline from pharmacies, but where are the first motorists and where is 1915.

              Yes, I'm not offended :)
              it really happened, but I'm talking about the size of the gas tank... they mentioned here that diesel fuel was in short supply back then, but the engine itself was designed to run on "everything that burns", diesel initially started working with coal powder using coal owners' money, but it didn't live up to their expectations :)
          2. 0
            15 March 2025 21: 28
            The possibility of installing a bollinder should not be ruled out.
      2. +4
        6 March 2025 06: 53
        Quote: Dutchman Michel
        unless it's a product of Photoshop,

        Who needs it and why?
        1. +2
          6 March 2025 13: 31
          Quote: kalibr
          Who needs it and why?

          I am begging you!
          Yes, because there is an opportunity and free time!)))
          1. 0
            6 March 2025 18: 16
            Quote: Senior Sailor
            Who needs it and why?

            But I don't need it!
            1. +1
              6 March 2025 18: 20
              Quote: kalibr
              But I don't need it!

              So you don't photoshop)))
              You make/made models for children. Others play around with Photoshop, sometimes creating incredible cadavers. So much so that sometimes you can't even tell where the real picture is and where the creation of a gloomy genius is.
    2. +1
      6 March 2025 11: 23
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      Overly optimistic assessment.

      It’s just that ours was really better: 2 guns against 1, 12 machine guns against 6.
      1. -1
        6 March 2025 14: 30
        Quote: kalibr
        It’s just that ours was really better: 2 guns against 1, 12 machine guns against 6.

        Better. But this does not mean that it was anti-aircraft. Because even 12 machine guns in a casemate arrangement cannot conduct anti-aircraft fire, and the guns, although rapid-fire and even with a high elevation angle, but with primitive sights and the same shells, had limited value, in fact they were anti-aircraft scarecrows.
        And this is with an open placement, with a reasonable aiming speed. But, as you understand, aiming the turret requires much more effort, and the view in it is much worse.
        1. 0
          6 March 2025 18: 20
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          But this does not mean that it was anti-aircraft. Because even 12 machine guns in a casemate arrangement cannot conduct anti-aircraft fire, and the guns, although rapid-fire and even with a high elevation angle, but with primitive sights and the same shells, were of limited value, were actually anti-aircraft guns.

          So, anti-aircraft after all? Sometimes the process is as important as the result!
          1. -1
            7 March 2025 03: 19
            Quote: kalibr
            So it is anti-aircraft after all?

            The guns were pop guns, specially modified, in ideal conditions of placement, and it is not a fact that they were installed in the motorized armored car, in obviously worse conditions.

            Quote: kalibr
            Sometimes the process is just as important as the result!

            You know better. laughing
    3. +3
      6 March 2025 14: 49
      Caliber: The most unique armored car in history

      Vladimir_2U: An overly optimistic assessment.

      Well, who is the author? He has everything - the best. The main thing is to call the article on the hypeway
      Author: Powerful armament and reliable armor further increased the value of this war machine.
      In fact - two 57-mm Nordenfeld coastal guns with frame sights and 10-12 mm rolled homogenous
      1. +5
        6 March 2025 15: 04
        The most unique armored motorized wagon in history

        Not a bad motorized armored car. But what is unique about it? The first? Far from it. For example - the Austro-Hungarian 3-axle motorized armored car of Captain Schober. And Dyrenkov's motorized armored railcar was more powerful both in armor and in armament - in two turrets with 16 mm. armor 76.2-mm anti-assault guns mod. 1913
        In photo 1 - Schober's motorized armored car
        In photo 2 - Dyrenkov's motorized armored railcar
        1. +6
          6 March 2025 15: 23
          The Soviet armored train "Leningradets" can be called truly unique - according to Hitler's classification - "Schwer fassbar" ("Elusive"). For the Germans besieging Leningrad, it was a shock when it suddenly separated and attacked at four distant sections at once. The fact is that in addition to armored platforms, it included two armored motor railcars D2 and a motor armored car MBV-2 (in the photo below), for its combat merits received a personal official name - "Swift"
          1. +2
            6 March 2025 16: 07
            And here is a photo of the legendary armored train itself
            1. +3
              6 March 2025 16: 11
              Soviet armored car MBV-2
              1. +3
                6 March 2025 16: 33
                During the Second World War, the Germans widely used Kommandowagen motorized armored cars to protect railways (photo 1). But... unlike ours, they were all light. The effectiveness of the Soviet heavy motorized armored cars MBV-2 was also appreciated by the Nazi command, and by the end of the war they released their own heavy motorized armored car to fight Soviet tanks, Motorpanzerwagen Nr. 16 "Panzerjäger" (Fig. 2). However, this "Tank Destroyer-16" did not distinguish itself in anything special - in its very first battle it was suddenly attacked by a platoon of thirty-fours of Junior Lieutenant N. Silkov, lost its speed and preferred to capitulate.
          2. +3
            6 March 2025 18: 18
            Quote: Richard
            The Soviet armored train can be called truly unique.

            That was later!
            1. +2
              6 March 2025 18: 22
              Naturally. It was built in 39. It had a chance to participate in both the Finnish and the Great Patriotic War.
              1. +2
                6 March 2025 18: 24
                Quote: Richard
                Naturally.

                And if it's natural, then why the hell compare it to a finger. We're talking about a car from the beginning of the century, not the middle... The SVO also has an armored train, why don't you compare it to it?
                1. +1
                  6 March 2025 19: 19
                  why the hell compare it to a finger. We're talking about a car from the beginning of the century

                  Since you started being rude, I'll try to answer you in your own language - why the hell is this? the most unique armored motor car in history? It was not the first - the MBV "Zaamurets" was manufactured in November 1916, and the Austro-Hungarian MBV Schober back in May 1915. In terms of armor, armament, speed and power reserve, it was inferior even to the first Dyrenkov motorized armored railcar of the 16th year, not to mention the famous second - the Dyrenkov BD2 motorized armored railcar of Soviet construction in 1936. And it is generally embarrassing to compare its characteristics with the MBV-1 (1935) and MBV-2 (1936-1937) motorized armored cars. So why, in your opinion, is "Zaamurets-Orlik" - the most unique armored motor car in history?
                  Why the hell compare the BP "Leningradets" with the BMW "Zaamurets". We are talking about a car from the beginning of the century, not its middle.

                  This is not a comparison, but an example of a truly unique railway combat vehicle.
                  1. +1
                    6 March 2025 19: 31
                    Quote: Richard
                    So why do you think "Zaamurets-Orlik" is the most unique armored car in history?

                    Because the Austrian was inferior to him! And he was the very first one.
                    1. +2
                      6 March 2025 20: 01
                      Bravo!!! I applaud your logic! Shober - although the first, but worse. The same age as Dyrenkov - let's consider it about the same, MBV-1, MBV-2, and BD2 are not taken into account at all - these are not cars from the beginning of the century, but from its middle. The final conclusion is that "Zaamurets" is definitely the most unique armored car in history! fellow
                      Just like Raikinsky's accountant: wink
                      This is in the mind, we cross this out, we don't count this here, we don't count this either, we don't take this into account at all. That's it, - Done! (c)
                      1. 0
                        6 March 2025 20: 35
                        Quote: Richard
                        The final conclusion is that "Zaamurets" is definitely the most unique armored motorized wagon in history!

                        You are right, as always!
          3. +1
            8 March 2025 17: 47
            Powerful! It's a pity the hatches are welded shut.
        2. +1
          6 March 2025 18: 17
          Quote: Richard
          In photo 1 - Schober's motorized armored car
          In photo 2 - Dyrenkov's motorized armored railcar

          The first one was worse than ours. The second one was... second.
        3. +1
          6 March 2025 19: 29
          Quote: Richard
          And Dyrenkov's motorized armored railcar was more powerful both in armor and in armament - in two turrets with 16 mm. armor 76.2 mm anti-assault

          The same armor was on the "Zaamurets" and the 76,2 mm guns of 1902 were not inferior to these guns. And again, the "Dyrenkovites" were after!
  2. +2
    6 March 2025 05: 34
    Quote: V. Shpakovsai
    The engine is diesel, which means there is no smokestack.
    But there was probably a problem with fuel. Coal was available at any station, but diesel fuel in Russia was considered exotic fuel, especially since this armored car crawled across Russia all the way to Vladivostok
    1. +9
      6 March 2025 07: 25
      It is not a fact that he covered the entire mileage under his own power. He could have done so as a trailer.
      1. +3
        6 March 2025 13: 34
        By the way, yes. This is a common method not only for motorcars, but also for armored trains themselves. Armored steam locomotives, as a rule, were steamed only during combat, and ordinary non-armored locomotives were used on the stretches.
    2. Fat
      +11
      6 March 2025 08: 14
      Semi-diesels were widely used in Russia - oil engines with a calorizer, which were valued for their simplicity and cheapness. Such engines were often called "bolinders" - after the name of the Swedish company, one of the first to start mass-producing them.
      Some semi-diesel manufacturers: Fyodor Blinov. At the end of the 1899th century, cheap oil engines with a simple glow head (or open calorizer) without water cooling became widespread. In 1, Blinov decided to use an igniter instead of an open glow head - a pre-heated element placed through the cover into the ignition chamber. 1903Yakov Mamin. Together with his brother Ivan, at their own enterprise - the "Cast Iron Foundry Mechanical Plant of Brothers Ya. and I. Mamin" - in 9,5, the first engine with a capacity of 1908 horsepower was made based on an engine from the English company "Hornsby". In 14061, the Mamins received a privilege and patent No. XNUMX for an engine that they called "Russian Diesel".
      These engines could run on any liquid fuel, even waste oil and vegetable oil and of course kerosene...
      Motor cars are also not a new invention, they were called motorcars...
      1. +4
        6 March 2025 10: 40
        Quote: Thick
        In Russia, semi-diesel engines were widely used - oil engines with a calorifier
        I've heard something about such engines a long time ago, but they didn't really catch on in technology. I can imagine how they clogged the injector. Thanks for the detailed answer.
        1. Fat
          +5
          6 March 2025 11: 16
          Quote: Dutchman Michel
          the injector was clogged.

          There were no such problems. Fuel was supplied under pressure of about 5 atm.
          "Bollinders" were generally distinguished by their complete unpretentiousness and ease of maintenance in field conditions. The engine is insensitive to the addition of water to the fuel. It is clear that this type of engine, in addition to low power, has many disadvantages, but they have not completely gone into history...
        2. +1
          6 March 2025 13: 36
          https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B5%D1%86_(%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80)
        3. +2
          6 March 2025 15: 00
          I was in the Kuril Islands in 65. There were a lot of Japanese Bolinders there. They were used both as engines on Kawasaki and as engines for generators. A massive, half-meter diameter cylinder with a massive lid on 4 bolts. A "candle" about the size of a fist was attached to the lid, which was heated to red with a blowtorch, then attached. A massive flywheel. But what's interesting is that if you turn the flywheel, the cylinder moves without any effort. Later I learned that the Japanese prepared lubricating oils based on whale oil, which practically did not decompose, since there are no bacteria in the atmosphere that decompose it. Only in the sea.
          1. 0
            6 March 2025 15: 05
            Quote: Zyablicev43
            Japanese Bolinders were there in large numbers.
            Why does an industrially advanced nation like the Japanese need such engines? wink
            Quote: Zyablicev43
            The Japanese prepared lubricating oils based on whale oil, which practically did not decompose, since there are no bacteria in the atmosphere that decompose it
            Nowadays, in my opinion, any oil can be synthesized. Why kill whales for this?
            1. +4
              6 March 2025 15: 19
              It was in 1965, 20 years after the liberation of the Kuril Islands. So your questions are somehow...
    3. +2
      6 March 2025 13: 32
      Quote: Dutchman Michel
      Coal was available at every station, but diesel fuel in Russia was considered an exotic fuel.

      Diesel and kerosene can eat request
      And there was plenty of it in Russia at that time
      1. +1
        6 March 2025 14: 49
        Quote: Senior Sailor
        Diesel and kerosene can eat
        Kerosene is not the best fuel for such an engine. It is better to let it run on dirty diesel fuel. wink
        1. +4
          6 March 2025 15: 11
          Quote: Dutchman Michel
          Kerosene is not the best fuel for such an engine.

          For modern ones - yes. And for those of that time it was practically the norm. Actually, the first Diesel engine ran on kerosene.
          1. 0
            15 March 2025 01: 12
            Diesel's first engine was powered by carbon powder.
      2. 0
        15 March 2025 01: 10
        And semi-diesel runs on crude oil. There was plenty of that in Russia too.
    4. +1
      9 March 2025 07: 48
      But there was probably a problem with fuel. Coal was available at any station, but diesel fuel in Russia was considered exotic fuel, especially since this armored car crawled across Russia all the way to Vladivostok

      This is not quite true. It was good if there were coal mines nearby, but if there weren't, the mined coal had to be transported hundreds of miles. That's why on some roads there really were no problems with coal. And in some places there was none at all. Steam locomotives on the Amur and northern parts of the Ussuri ran on firewood. The same problem existed on the northern roads, where Cardiff coal was brought in from England.
  3. +8
    6 March 2025 07: 08
    Good morning everyone!
    Remembering "Zabaikaltsev", it is worth recalling that in the Soviet Union this topic was not forgotten.
    MbV-2
  4. +6
    6 March 2025 07: 14
    The central casemate housed 8 machine guns with ammunition (four on each side), as well as a power plant of two petrol engines (Fiat and Florence) with a capacity of 60 hp each, "installed on a common shaft, connected to each other by reversers and a gearbox, the transfer of energy to the two driving axles is carried out using two cardan shafts and a bevel gear." This design ensured movement on one engine, and the reverser ensured movement forward and backward at the same speed. The motorized armored car was equipped with two sets of brakes - manual and pneumatic "Westinghouse", the air for which "is pumped by a special compressor, driven by the primary shaft of the gearbox."


    "Armor of the Russian Army. Armored Cars and Armored Trains in the First World War" by Maxim Kolomiets
  5. +2
    6 March 2025 08: 36
    I have already encountered on "VO" the opinion of some readers who claimed that in Tsarist Russia there was nothing worthwhile, no world-class scientists, no discoveries of world significance,


    Well, these are the consequences of Stalin's propaganda, how from "bast shoe" Russia in 10 years an industrial socialist state suddenly emerged...
    Few people like to remember that Russia was ranked 4th in the world in terms of industrial development, and that twice as many engineers graduated from universities in Tsarist Russia every year than in Germany...
    All light industry in the central regions of the RSFSR worked in factories built before the revolution...
    The Bolsheviks themselves are to blame for the fact that, due to the terror they unleashed, the majority of engineering personnel either joined the Whites or emigrated from Russia.
    1. +5
      6 March 2025 12: 02
      Few people like to remember that Russia was ranked 4th in the world in terms of industrial development, and that twice as many engineers graduated from universities in Tsarist Russia every year than in Germany...

      Correlate 1) natural indicators of production volumes to the number of population, 2) industrial workers to the number of population, 3) natural indicators of production volumes to the number of workers. 4) the power of engines used in industry to natural indicators of production volumes. Well, and 5) the number of graduates of technical universities to the number of population.
      And your soap bubble about 4th place, inflated by "Volkov and Co." will immediately burst.
      Well, for specifics, can you tell us about how things stood with industrial production of the “metal of the century” in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, in comparison with other countries, in the century conventionally called aluminum (by analogy with bronze and iron).
      And for specifics, can you tell us how things were in the empire with what is pointless to dream about industrialization without. Namely, standardization.
      1. +2
        6 March 2025 16: 43
        Let's add that at that time, the industry of Russia for the most part did not belong to Russia, these same canonized people together with their family mastered an excellent business, renting out Russia together with the people for a low price, accordingly, a completely brutal attitude towards workers (Lena goldfields, for example) and provoked many demonstrations in defense of their rights, which the tsarist government dispersed with whips
        1. 0
          6 March 2025 18: 26
          Quote: d ^ Amir
          absolutely brutal attitude towards workers

          With a very good salary!
          1. +1
            6 March 2025 18: 31
            Vyacheslav Olegovich!!! hi Hello very much and for a long time!!! If everything in Russia was so crispy and spiritually strong, then the armorácia rusticána would have exploded in 1917, and you see, we would still be living like small-minded people under the monarch
            1. +2
              6 March 2025 18: 34
              Quote: d ^ Amir
              if only everything in Russia were so crisp and spiritually strong

              But there was none! There were plenty of dark and ignorant peasants and the same gentlemen, clinging to the old already in the new world!
              1. +1
                6 March 2025 18: 41
                and this too, the board of the PRODUGOL concern, a monopolist in the Russian Empire, sat in Paris, the board of the PRODMET concern sat in Brussels, "everything flowed across borders, for next to nothing, for nothing" but against this background, the standard of living of, for example, Izhevsk gunsmiths, who did not support the revolution en masse, never made a weather hi
                1. -1
                  6 March 2025 19: 30
                  Quote: d ^ Amir
                  but in this background, the standard of living of, for example, Izhevsk gunsmiths, who did not support the revolution en masse, has never been done

                  Of course I didn't. The village ruled!
                  1. +2
                    6 March 2025 19: 44
                    absolutely the majority of them are poor, but the nobility deigned to go abroad, once again with respect, Vyacheslav Olegovich, if there were no reasons, real reasons, no Lenin with no Bronstein and the like, this nightmare that "Georgutsia" and the civil war would not have happened
                  2. 0
                    6 March 2025 19: 50
                    and yes, you haven’t described the end of his combat path, what happened to him, how did he end up with the Japanese???
                    1. +1
                      6 March 2025 19: 57
                      Quote: d ^ Amir
                      and yes, you haven’t described the end of his combat path, what happened to him, how did he end up with the Japanese???

                      No information.
                      1. +1
                        6 March 2025 20: 02
                        It's bad, it's a shame, they probably just took it apart for scrap metal
                      2. +2
                        6 March 2025 20: 36
                        Quote: d ^ Amir
                        they probably just took it apart for metal

                        Sooner or later - definitely!
    2. +1
      7 March 2025 21: 17
      A small fact: Russian factories were unable to master the production of a full cycle of turbines even for destroyers. The turbines on Novinka were German, the battleship "Alexander the Third" took a long time to complete because they did not have time to deliver them through the Dardanelles before the war began, at the last moment the steamship with turbines was turned around and sent to Arkhangelsk, then they were dragged across all of Russia to Chernoye.
      Izmails are also British turbines Brown.
      The USSR, having bought a license from the Italians, organized a full production cycle independent of the West.
      1. -1
        8 March 2025 00: 29
        If it had not been for the October Revolution, the Russian Empire would have mastered its own production of turbines.
        By 1916, the Russian Empire had switched its economy to a war footing, supplying the army with cartridges, shells, and machine guns.
        Only the betrayal of the 5th column in the leadership of the Russian Empire led to the collapse and snatched victory from Russia in WWI.....
        1. +1
          8 March 2025 14: 40
          There is such a tangle of corruption and all sorts of financial interests, the state wanted everything from us, but the owners of the factories in St. Petersburg, Nikolaev and Kharkov were foreign, as a result, almost ten years after the 07th adoption of the program for the construction of the new fleet, they could not. It got to the point that the armor produced here cost more than from abroad.
          The craziest thing was that before the first one we ordered light cruisers, as well as turbines for destroyers of the Novik type and cruisers of the Svetlana type in Germany. As a result, these turbines went to destroyers of the V type, with which our Novik later met. And the Noviks on which they were planned to be installed were not completed, and the Svetlanas (for German turbines), the hulls of the Svetlanas, which did not wait for turbines, were later converted into tankers under the Soviets. Sometimes it is easier to write what we did, it turns out briefly, but what we did not do is an endless list.
  6. +3
    6 March 2025 11: 08
    Good article, interesting unit! Thanks to the author!
    I wonder if armored trains were used in the Russo-Japanese War?
  7. +5
    6 March 2025 11: 17
    I have already come across the opinion of some readers on “VO” who claimed that in Tsarist Russia there was nothing worthwhile, no world-class scientists, no discoveries of world significance, and technology was completely lame, and in part this was indeed the case.

    The Empire's problem was that its science and industry were still able to pull off discoveries and prototypes. But here's how it came to setting up world-class samples into series - then the hellish hell began. It was good if it was possible to get parts and units abroad. But what if not? Moreover, sometimes the snag was not even in complex mechanisms, such as engines - the deployment of automobile production in the Empire during the war ran into the lack of the necessary grades of steel.
    So they built a motorized armored wagon. The reviews are excellent. And what next? Nothing - it remained a prototype.
    1. -2
      6 March 2025 12: 05
      At that time, British tanks were also produced in single copies...
      1. 0
        6 March 2025 13: 16
        First, google how many tanks the British produced, and then hit the keyboard.))
      2. +1
        6 March 2025 13: 17
        In 1916-17, the British produced about 2 Mark series heavy tanks and two hundred Whippets.
        1. 0
          6 March 2025 18: 24
          faiver, in 1916-17 the British produced about 2 thousand heavy tanks of the Mark series and two hundred Whippets


          There is no need to lie!!!
          In 16-17 years, 75 "males" and 75 "females" were released.
          1. +3
            6 March 2025 18: 40
            And where did you put the rest of the Marks? the second ones? the third, fourth, fifth?
            1. 0
              6 March 2025 22: 03
              When 4, 5 appeared... RI was no longer there...
              We are comparing what happened in 1916 in the Russian Empire and Great Britain...
      3. +7
        6 March 2025 16: 30
        Quote: assault
        At that time, British tanks were also produced in single copies...

        But during the war, the Limeys were not only able to make individual tanks, but also to move from piecemeal production to something like this:

        British Mark IV tanks in mass production at the Oldbury Carriage Works in WWI. 1918
      4. 0
        7 March 2025 21: 32
        The Russian Empire built only one single "tank" - Akhtyrets, and even then it was the Alice-Chalmes tractor that was armored.
        So the comparison is not correct.
        1. 0
          8 March 2025 07: 56
          and what about Lebedenko's crap? laughing
          1. 0
            8 March 2025 14: 45
            And with the Ferris wheels, a dumb drank. As with Svyatogor, a beautiful plane, only there were no engines for it, even the trophies from the derezhbambel could not lift it into the air.
    2. +2
      6 March 2025 13: 19
      But when it came to putting world-class models into production, that was when the hellish hell began.
      - I don't know, but it reminds me of something bully
    3. +4
      6 March 2025 13: 31
      The Empire's problem was that its science and industry were still able to pull off discoveries and prototypes. But when it came to putting world-class prototypes into production, that was when the hellish hell began.
      - we should not forget about the admiration of royalty and other elites of that society for everything foreign
      1. 0
        8 March 2025 00: 36
        we should not forget about the admiration of royalty and other elites of that society for everything foreign

        And among the royal persons there are no Russians left at all, only Germans...
        1. 0
          8 March 2025 07: 55
          that's true, only as a result of the coups staged by the British.....
    4. +2
      6 March 2025 15: 04
      Quote: Alexey RA
      But here's how it came to producing world-class examples

      Russian steam locomotive construction is massive and advanced in the world.

      Russian river steamship building is also the largest river fleet.
      1. +5
        6 March 2025 16: 35
        Quote: Olgovich
        Russian steam locomotive construction is massive and advanced in the world.
        Russian river steamship building is also the largest river fleet.

        Excellent. How many years have passed since the invention of the steam locomotive and the steamship? wink

        In 1914, world-class models were already a car and an airplane. Their own car and airplane, and not stuffing the bodies with imported components, which in the event of a war either disappear or are sharply reduced in supply.
  8. -4
    6 March 2025 11: 20
    After this phrase I stopped reading - "Here it should be noted that "Zaamurets" was at that time a real masterpiece of military-technical thought. It had two diesel engines from the company "Fiat".
    It smelled like a crispy bun.
    It is not clear what is so outstanding about this chest?
    What kind of idiot created such a complex hull shape? Why the inconvenient hemispherical prefabricated turrets?
  9. -1
    6 March 2025 11: 24
    Quote: assault
    The Bolsheviks themselves are to blame for the fact that, due to the terror they unleashed, the majority of engineering personnel either joined the Whites or emigrated from Russia.

    My God - what kind of engineering personnel are they? They had nothing of their own - no electric motors, no steam power plants, no internal combustion engines, no precision optics - how do the arms of such admirers of the greatness of the Russian Empire not wither away?
    1. -1
      6 March 2025 12: 13
      Read for general development:
      https://www.stoletie.ru/territoriya_istorii/rossija_kotoruju_my_im_podarili_845.htm
  10. -2
    6 March 2025 11: 57
    Tsarist Russia had nothing worthwhile, no world-class scientists, no discoveries of world significance, and technology was completely lame,

    just one example: each of the billions who turn on the television can remember that the world's first TV broadcast was produced in RUSSIA by a Russian scientist, a nobleman, Boris Lvovich Rozing. back in 1911.

    In 1931, he was arrested by the regime in the "Academicians' Case"... "for financial assistance to counter-revolutionaries", and exiled to the workers' settlement of Kotlas, Komi. He died in exile in Arkhangelsk, like many, many thousands of other great Russian scientists and engineers.
    1. +8
      6 March 2025 13: 06
      The first TV broadcast in the world was produced in RUSSIA by a Russian scientist, nobleman, Boris Lvovich Rosing. back in 1911.

      If we start from the term "TV program", then Nipkov's disk already corresponded to it. If we start from "turning on the TV", then we should remember not Rosing, but Zvorykin or Grabovsky.
      And, if we are to be fair in our search for the person who brought modern television into being, then we should thank the selfless Brown, who refused to patent his cathode-ray tube, and Campbell-Swinton, who came up with a completely electronic circuit (Rosing still had an electronic-mechanical one, the transmitter was mechanical). In general, significant inventions are almost always the merit of a galaxy of scientists, refining each other's work.
      The problem in the Russian Empire was not the lack of scientists, but the lack of industrial technologies and industry itself, allowing their work to be realized. This is what led to the success of some Russian scientists who moved to the United States or Germany - the industry of these countries could realize their ideas, and the owners of industry saw commercial potential in them.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. The comment was deleted.
      2. +2
        6 March 2025 16: 00
        Russia was ready in many ways, but did not have time to make the transition to a new technological order. There were crystals for growth, the environment was oversaturated with ideas, but the mass use of new technologies in a complex - this has not yet happened. Dialectics, and some are right and others. Everyone can find examples confirming their point of view, but there is no analysis of the economy as a whole. Strictly speaking, steam locomotives (steam engines) are the previous order. With it, more or less well. And internal combustion engines in all forms, electrical engineering (mainly Western manufacturers), etc. - at the start. By the way, the question of demand, the market was too weak to absorb a large volume of high-tech industrial products, i.e. a long payback period for innovations. One reason and one simple answer cannot be found.
        1. +2
          6 March 2025 16: 52
          Russia was prepared in many ways, but did not have time to make the transition to a new technological order.

          "Readiness in many ways" no longer played any role. And there were plenty of "transition" inhibitors.
          If you are interested, read the works of Prebisch, Cardoso, Singer and other followers of the theory of dependent development of states. And was the empire ready to apply those methods that allow to escape from dependent development? I have serious doubts about that.
          The growth of the rural population, which far outpaced the growth of productive forces, hung over Russia like the sword of Damocles in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In order for the country to develop further under such conditions, it would inevitably have to go through an administrative forced mass migration of peasants, and in an extremely short time frame. With the inevitable pauperization of the latter, since neither the creation of the required number of jobs nor the development of the infrastructure required for such a large population could be accomplished within the same time frame. The country had already passed the point of no return; a social explosion was only a matter of time.
          1. 0
            6 March 2025 18: 30
            Quote: Nefarious skeptic
            The growth of the rural population, which far outpaces the growth of productive forces, hangs like the sword of Damocles.

            How well you said!
          2. +1
            6 March 2025 21: 13
            So who's arguing? We've only touched on the technical aspects. And the analysis of the economy as a whole, the political situation and social characteristics of the Russian Empire - this is definitely not something that can be covered in one comment.
          3. 0
            6 March 2025 21: 28
            But regarding the theory of dependent development and Russia, I would note the following.
            If we consider that the theory of dependent development, which arose in the mid-20th century, seeks to explain how and why some countries remain economically backward while others develop, the theory operates on several basic aspects.
            Unequal distribution of resources: The development of countries occurs in conditions of uneven distribution of resources and wealth, which leads to dependence on more developed countries.
            Historical context of colonialism: The colonial past of many countries has created structures that continue to influence their economic development, leaving them dependent on their former metropolises.
            Economic Dependency: Peripheral countries often rely on the export of raw materials and the import of finished goods, which limits their ability to develop independently.
            Unequal trading relationships: Developing countries often face unfavorable terms of trade, which leads to worsening economic conditions and increasing debt dependency.
            Influence of international institutions: International financial institutions (such as the IMF and the World Bank) can impose conditions that increase the dependence of developing countries, limiting their economic autonomy.
            Social and political factors: Political regimes and social structures in dependent countries may be influenced by external forces, making the process of independent development difficult.
            The need for alternative development paths: The theory emphasizes the importance of developing one's own development models that take into account the unique conditions and needs of countries, rather than following imposed external standards.
            These principles help to analyze the complex relationships between developed and developing countries and to identify the mechanisms that promote or hinder economic development.
            The theory of dependent development is applicable to the analysis of the economic and social dynamics of the Russian Empire in the early 20th century. It can be assessed how external economic factors, such as foreign investment and raw material exports, influenced Russia's dependence on Western countries, which hindered its internal development. Economic dependence
            The theory of dependent development explains how Russia, as an agricultural country, was forced to rely on the export of raw materials, which limited its ability to industrialize. This created conditions for the deterioration of its trade position and a dependent position in the international arena.
            The influence of foreign capital
            Foreign investment played a significant role in the Russian economy, but it often led to the creation of dependent relationships, where local resources were used to meet the needs of foreign companies, which hindered the development of domestic industry.
            Social implications
            Dependence on external economic factors contributed to social inequality and class conflicts. Serfdom and traditional forms of economic activity continued to exist, which hindered the formation of a modern working class and the development of civil society.
            Modernization and its limitations
            The process of modernization in Russia was incomplete and uneven. The theory of dependent development helps to understand why attempts at industrialization did not lead to sustainable economic growth, and why many regions remained in a state of backwardness.
            Historical context
            At the beginning of the 20th century, Russia stood at the crossroads between a traditional agrarian society and a modern industrial one. Dependent development theory allows us to analyze how internal and external factors interacted to shape Russia’s unique path of modernization.

            However, a number of authors point to certain contradictions related to the diversity of economic processes, the presence of internal potential and active reforms, which do not always correspond to the concept of dependence. It is also important to take into account the unique social and political conditions that influence the development of the country. Internal resources and potential
            The presence of significant natural resources, such as oil, coal and metals, allowed Russia to develop its own industry.
            The diversity of agricultural conditions contributed to the development of local production and trade.
            Modernization and reforms
            The implementation of reforms such as those of Sergei Witte, aimed at industrialization and modernization of the economy, contradicts the idea of ​​complete dependence on external factors.
            Attempts to create a railway network and the development of a financial system also indicate active steps towards independent development.
            Social and political conditions
            Social movements and political reforms, such as the creation of the State Duma, demonstrate a desire for change within the country.
            The diversity of ethnic and cultural groups in the Russian Empire created unique conditions for development that do not always correspond to dependency theory.
            Influence of external factors
            External economic relations and international politics also played an important role, but did not always determine internal processes.
            Russia's involvement in international trade and politics could foster both dependencies and independent initiatives.
  11. +3
    6 March 2025 12: 19
    Questions:
    Model scale H0?
    What are the actual dimensions of the composition?
    The original was created on the basis of a Pullman or a completely independent development of the chassis
    1. +2
      6 March 2025 16: 38
      Quote: balabol
      The original was created on the basis of a Pullman or a completely independent development of the chassis

      It looks like the MBV base was a special construction:
      Initially, it was supposed to use a four-axle Fox-Arbel railway platform as a base, on which the armament and power plant were placed. However, later it was necessary to abandon the use of this chassis. In the explanatory note to the project, Butuzov wrote: "The construction of an armored motor car on the chassis frame of Fox-Arbel cars is not possible due to the weak design of the kingpin beams of these cars, the poor design of their bogies, which have very complex frames, as well as rigid springs. In addition, the chassis frame is insufficient in length (only 14 m), which makes it impossible to place all the devices for the correct operation of the motor car."
    2. 0
      6 March 2025 18: 32
      Quote: balabol
      Questions:

      All the answers are in your private messages!
  12. UAT
    +2
    6 March 2025 15: 13
    Dear author, let me remind you of the definition: "Unique - one of a kind, inimitable, existing in one copy." Therefore, the word "unique" cannot have a comparative degree, as in your title.
    1. 0
      6 March 2025 18: 35
      Quote: UAT
      Therefore, the word "unique" cannot have a comparative degree, as in your title.

      Ha! But it attracts attention and besides, there was no second "Zaamurets", right? So it is one of a kind!
      1. UAT
        0
        7 March 2025 08: 59
        So he is one of a kind!

        Why break into an open door, no one doubts the uniqueness of "Zaamurets". And to attract attention with illiteracy is disrespect not only to the reader, but also to oneself.
        1. 0
          7 March 2025 09: 52
          Quote: UAT
          And drawing attention to illiteracy is disrespectful not only to the reader, but also to oneself.

          There are no people without fear and reproach!
  13. +3
    6 March 2025 20: 38
    I have already encountered on "VO" the opinion of some readers who claimed that in Tsarist Russia there was nothing worthwhile, no world-class scientists, no discoveries of world significance, and the technology was just limping, and in part this was true. But only in part. Our engineers knew how to surprise and sometimes created real technical masterpieces. And something similar happened during the First World War...
    The Russian land has always been rich in Kulibins and Lomonosovs, no one argues with that. The point is different.
    57mm Nordenfeld guns,
    So where are the guns of Russian engineers? For example, like in the USSR of F. F. Petrov, V. G. Grabin. Nope Farther
    Had two Fiat diesel engines,
    Why Fiat? In those distant times, the Italians weren't particularly interested in diesel engines. And where are their Russian ones? The Soviet Union had its own NATI-1-60 diesel. The Russian Empire also had its own, from the Nobile plant. Why didn't they install it? So it turns out to be a "Russian masterpiece" with Belgian guns and Italian engines?! And what achievement is that? The only thing that is surprising is how it could still work with Fiat engines, no matter which ones, gasoline or diesel, after
    then he fell into the hands of anarchists
    1. 0
      7 March 2025 06: 44
      Quote: Unknown
      Nope

      There will be materials about everything that "doesn't exist"...
  14. +2
    7 March 2025 09: 46
    On the issue of fuel: At the beginning of the 40th century, diesel fuel in its modern sense was simply not produced due to the lack of production technology. Primitive still installations produced only gasoline, kerosene or a mixture of the two called ligroin from oil. Everything else went into the distillation residue - fuel oil. Almost all tractor and other diesel engines then ran on this very ligroin. Ligroin was used in tractor engines until the end of the XNUMXs. Of course, this fuel was not available at every station - but it could be obtained. From the photos in the article, it is clear that in most cases a steam locomotive was simply used for transportation. And no ligroin was needed.
  15. 0
    7 March 2025 20: 12
    The armored trains have one thing in common: their armor was only bulletproof. Even 20 mm automatic guns could pierce such an armored car. 76 mm guns from T-34 turrets are quite justified, such turrets were also installed in addition to tanks and armored boats. Although in the early 1930s, the guns were frankly weak.
    The second drawback, besides weak armor, is its dependence on railway lines.
    and bridges. That is why the use of such BP was similar to the delivery of cargo or escort rather than battles. Quite a few armored trains were lost in 1941, mainly due to Junkers Ju-87