On the training firing of the Russian Imperial Navy in 1903 and the expenditure of shells on them

54 140 80
On the training firing of the Russian Imperial Navy in 1903 and the expenditure of shells on them

“The instructions to the commanders of batteries, groups and plutongs of the squadron battleship Peresvet describe in great detail the number and procedure for conducting training firing of ships of the Russian Imperial Navy. fleet, which were adopted in 1903. I would like to note that this “Instruction”, although it was written for one ship, actually reflected the state of affairs throughout the Pacific Ocean Squadron.

Training shooting could be roughly divided into:

1. Barrel-fired guns – when, to conserve barrel life and ammunition, 37mm barrels were installed in guns of 6-inch and larger calibers (probably also in 120mm, but the Peresvet simply didn't have such guns), and rifle barrels were installed in guns of 75mm and smaller calibers. Accordingly, barrel-fired guns were fired with small-caliber projectiles and rifle cartridges.

2. Combat - when training or combat shells were fired that corresponded to the caliber of the guns.

3. Mixed - when, within the framework of one exercise, some guns conduct barrel firing, while others fire caliber projectiles.

I'd like to point out that this classification is my own. The "Instructions" divided shooting into practical (barrel and mixed) and combat.

Barrel shooting in 1903


In the lead-up to the Russo-Japanese War, barrel firing varied in type. The simplest, initial type was auxiliary firing, which was conducted either at anchor or underway.

Auxiliary shooting at anchor. The target was a model ship towed by a steam launch; unfortunately, the model's dimensions are not specified. Firing was carried out with 37mm shells at ranges of 4 to 10 cable lengths, and rifle cartridges at ranges of 1 to 4 cable lengths. Several of the ship's guns were prepared for firing, trained crews fired the required number of shots, and then they were relieved by other crews. It is unclear from the description whether dials were used to control this firing, but I can assume that in some cases they were. When firing 37mm shells, special firing tables were used, designed for the separate use of black and smokeless powder, but firing rifle bullets was done without tables, only by sighting.

Auxiliary shooting on the move. It was fired at one or more pyramidal or rectangular canvas shields. Shooting was carried out according to all the rules. artillery Science: fire was controlled centrally, distances were transmitted using dials, and trainees had to not only determine the aiming position but also calculate the rear sight correction, including for their own ship's movement, etc. All guns participated in firing, so the crews were stationed at their guns, as in combat. Training with two or more shields allowed for practice in transferring fire from one target to another and split-fire: some plutongs would fire at one of them, while others would fire at the other. However, it was noted that such training was extremely rare.

During firing exercises, the ship was required to maneuver so that its shields were initially within 4-10 cable lengths, allowing medium- and large-caliber artillery to fire 37mm shells. Once the exercise was complete, it was moved closer to 1-4 cable lengths to train the crews of guns of 75mm and smaller calibers firing rifle rounds. Several ships could participate in the exercise simultaneously, which was permissible, but not required.

During the secondary firing exercises (at anchor and underway), both zeroing and rapid fire were practiced. Each gunner (there were two—the first and second gunners) was required to fire five 37mm rounds or ten rifle rounds. The first three 37mm rounds or five slug rounds were fired individually, allowing the gunner to observe the fall of their shells or bullets. Then they moved on to rapid fire with all guns, firing two 37mm rounds or five slugs, respectively.

Mixed shooting


Squadron counter-tack firing. Medium and large-caliber guns used 37mm rounds, while 47mm guns fired "cannonballs," or training projectiles. Interestingly, the 75mm guns didn't fire any rounds during this exercise, but their crews were required to practice aiming at the shields without firing.

Firing was conducted at several shields towed by ships in another column. Firing was conducted within a sector of 35–145 degrees, assuming the ship's direction of travel was zero degrees. Firing at shields outside this sector was prohibited, even if the gun's firing angle permitted it. The firing order was as follows: all guns capable of firing at the lead shield opened fire on it; when it entered the sector, the others joined in as the shield entered their firing sector. Firing was permitted as long as the shield was:

1. For bow guns - no further than a third of their firing sector from the beam to the bow;

2. For medium guns - no further than the beam;

3. For stern guns - no further than half of their firing sector from the beam to the stern.

Upon reaching the specified values, the guns were to transfer fire to the next shield. The end shield was to be fired upon either as long as the gun's firing arc permitted, or upon reaching the 145-degree arc in which firing was permitted.

As for centralized fire control, it was practically nonexistent in this type of exercise. Only the target's abeam range was transmitted verbally and only once. The only exception was if the ship changed course, in which case the distance was announced again. However, firing was not conducted by eye—based on the abeam range, the corresponding firing tables were used to set the sights and rear sights.

Squadron counter-tack shooting could be competitive. In this case, each ship was assigned its own shield, marked with a "vane" (a sort of sign or emblem of the ship), and fired only at that shield.

First preparatory shooting. All artillery, from the main caliber up to and including the 47mm, participated in it. Medium- and large-caliber artillery fired 37mm shells, while 75mm and 47mm guns were required to fire cast-iron "cannonballs"—blanks. In the absence of these, unloaded cast-iron shells were permitted. Under certain circumstances, cannonballs or unloaded shells of large calibers could be used for the initial preparatory firing. Furthermore, if by some miracle enough shells were available for practice firing, even loaded shells for all calibers except the main caliber could be used.

However, given the general shortage of ammunition, it is obvious that the most common option was the basic one: 75 mm and smaller - cast iron blanks or unloaded shells, and for larger calibers - barrels and 37 mm.

Firing was conducted at a standard pyramidal shield while moving, at a speed of 10-12 knots. The 37mm shells were pre-loaded, and for the guns firing the full-caliber rounds, elevators and magazines were used for training—the loading was carried out in the same way as in combat.

First, medium- and large-caliber guns, as well as 75mm artillery, fired. Then, after they completed their exercises and approached the target, the 47mm guns took over. For the gun crews of 75mm and above, the initial preparatory firing simulated combat—all commands were issued centrally, dials, whistlers, and firing tables were used, sight and rear sight adjustments were determined, etc. Firing always began with sighting, followed by an equally obligatory transition to fire to kill. Firing with the 47mm guns, however, was conducted while approaching the target shield; the gunners were not informed of the distance to it, so the effectiveness of their fire was left entirely to the eye and skill of their gunners.

Interestingly, in some cases, the 47mm guns were fired at virtually point-blank range—at a shield located just a few fathoms from the ship. This was considered a very challenging exercise, as the shield quickly moved relative to the ship and quickly passed through the arc of fire of each gun.


During both the squadron counter-tack firing and the initial preparatory firing of 37-mm shells from medium- and large-caliber artillery, the first and second gunners, artillery quartermasters, and warrant officers were required to fire, while lieutenants were free to do so. The 47-mm cannon was fired by one gunner, who was authorized to fire it. Each gunner was assigned five rounds, but the 75-mm cannons received only three.

Battle Shooting


Second preparatory shooting. It was almost the same as the first preparatory shooting, but there were some differences.

1. For firing from all calibers, it was necessary to use cast-iron “cores” (for small-caliber artillery) and unloaded cast-iron shells for the rest.

2. Since the firing was carried out with high-caliber projectiles, the distances increased significantly. Unfortunately, the "Instructions" don't specify by how much, but from the data I have, it can be assumed that the firing began at 25 cable lengths and continued as the guns approached. As in the first preparatory exercise, guns of 75mm and above were supposed to fire first, and then, when the range allowed, the 47mm.

3. Only the first and second gunners were allowed to fire; quartermasters, warrant officers and lieutenants were not allowed to fire during these exercises.

4. The supply of shells was carried out “as needed” for all guns through standard means - elevators, etc. In contrast to the firing of 37-mm shells, the full supply of which was supplied directly to the guns before firing began.

Preparatory night shooting. This type of exercise was significantly different from preparatory shooting due to its night-time nature.

Firing was conducted at fixed shields, several of which were deployed for each ship. The shields were deployed after dark, so the trainees had no prior knowledge of which shield was which. During firing, the searchlights alternated between shields, requiring the gunners to quickly adjust their aim to engage the suddenly illuminated target.

Learning to operate with minimal illumination was crucial here. The guns were supposed to have only a hand-held candle lantern lit. Other lighting was to be kept to a bare minimum, and it was permitted to be turned on only long enough to retrieve the shell sling from the elevator and load the gun. This was necessary not only, and not even primarily, to avoid revealing the ship, but to make the gunner's job easier—everyone knows that if, say, you sit by a fire at night, you won't be able to see anything outside the illuminated area. Similarly, a light in a casemate would interfere with the gunner's ability to see a target in the dark.

Preparatory night firing was limited by natural visibility conditions, so no sighting was performed during it. Furthermore, if loaded shells were allocated for live firing, they were used specifically for the preparatory night firing.

Approximately combat shooting. This type of training was conducted after all of the above. It had to be conducted as part of a squadron or detachment: conducting live-fire exercises by a single ship was permitted only if this requirement was completely impossible to meet and was discouraged. Furthermore, an individual tactical plan had to be developed for each live-fire exercise, bringing it as close as possible to a real combat situation. Duplication of conditions was not permitted—each live-fire exercise had to be different from the previous ones. Because of this requirement, there were no uniform conditions for live-fire exercises.

Targets could be shields, lybes, boats, or even imitation coastal fortifications. Distances could be long or short. Sighting could be done or ignored. Firing could be from one side or from both sides. The ship could fire at a single target or split its fire.

In all previous exercises, each gun was required to fire its assigned number of rounds, but during the live-fire drills, this requirement was not imposed. The essence of the exercise was that gun crews had to expend their allotted rounds with maximum accuracy in a short period of time. If they didn't manage to fire their allotted rounds, so be it. If one gun ran out of rounds much faster than the others, its crew could be declared dead and replaced by another crew with shells remaining—for example, if the designated target left their gun's arc of fire.

If in all other exercises the 47-mm guns fired separately from the others, then during the combat firing exercises they fired together, as soon as the distance allowed.


The ship's speed during live-fire exercises had to be at its maximum, but no less than 90% of the speed developed during testing. Frankly, I seriously doubt this requirement was strictly adhered to. But in some cases, it certainly was—for example, the armored cruiser Rurik conducted its second live-fire exercise in 1902 at a speed of 16 knots.

The projectiles to be used were cast iron and unloaded.

All previous exercises were conducted "without aggravating circumstances," but during live-fire exercises, all possible complications were introduced: fires, small and large water alarms, personnel losses, damage to guns and mechanisms, including dials, and so on. Each aggravating circumstance could be introduced either individually or in combination with others.

Squadron competitive shooting. Two live-fire exercises were supposed to be held annually, but squadron competition shooting could be used instead of the second. The difference between the two was very slight. Squadron competition shooting was to be conducted under the supervision of a special commission, which:

1. Approved (or independently developed) the shooting plan;

2. Conducted competitive shooting evaluation.

In addition, during squadron competitive shooting, the use of loaded cast iron shells was permitted.

Consumption of shells for combat firing


The number of shells that were supposed to be expended during combat firing of the squadron battleship Peresvet is given in the table below.


It's worth noting that the two live-fire exercises are combined into one row in the table for a reason. Six shells were allocated for two such exercises, say, for a 10-inch gun, but how many were to be expended in the first and how many in the second was determined by the exercise's plans. This means that the shell consumption wasn't necessarily three per exercise—the first live-fire exercise could have used, for example, four, and the second, two.

Conclusions


Overall, the Instructions leave a rather ambivalent impression.

The firstWhat's striking is that artillery exercises begin not with firing practice, but with familiarization with the equipment, mastering it, and learning how to load the gun and set the correct sights and rear sights. Certainly, similar exercises were conducted in the Russian Imperial Navy in general and the Pacific Ocean Squadron in particular. But the "Instructions" did not regulate them—they specifically prescribed only shell-handling exercises, which, however, practiced feeding shells, charges, and cartridges from the magazines to the guns, but not the procedure for loading the gun itself.

Accordingly, it can be assumed that artillery exercises preceding the firing were established by some other documents, such as orders and circulars for the squadron, but such a situation does not indicate a systematic approach to the training of artillerymen.

The second The "Instructions" regulate the number of combat firings, but only provide a description of practical firings, without specifying how many such firings are required per year. The esteemed N. Pakhomov, in his monograph "Ocean Cruiser Rurik," noted that such firings, due to their low cost, were conducted quite frequently, up to 20 times per year.

This seems like an excellent result, but N. Pakhomov points out that the Rurik fired 1239 37mm rounds during exercises in 1902. What does this mean?

The armored cruiser Rurik carried a total of 26 guns of 120 mm or larger caliber—4 x 8-inch, 16 x 6-inch, and 6 x 120-mm. Two gunners were required to be trained for each gun, meaning a minimum of 52 men had to be trained. In reality, of course, there were more, as quartermasters, warrant officers, and lieutenants also participated in barrel firing exercises, the latter optionally. But even without them, that only comes to 1239 / 52 = 23,83, or 23-24 shells per man per year. And considering that at least five shells per man were required to be expended during exercises, it turns out that in 1902 each gunner participated in only four or five firing exercises!

So, it appears that either there were few practical firings, or there were many, but not all of the cruiser's gunners were trained in each of these firings. Therefore, it can be concluded that the lack of guidance on the number of firings was a significant shortcoming of the "Instructions."

The third. This is the low consumption of caliber shells during combat firing, combined with the organization of combat firing, which I would risk calling flawed.

Let's take, for example, the crew of a 6-inch gun. It requires training two gunners, but only five rounds are allocated for this during the second preparatory and night firing exercises. Therefore, even if the artillery training program is fully completed, each gunner will only have to fire one or two shots during daylight and one at night. How much can you learn from this? I doubt it—after all, even just practicing the same gunnery adjustments requires at least three rounds. And then come two live-fire exercises, where each gunner will be assigned another three rounds. You'd think this would at least reinforce the skills they've already acquired... But no!

The fact that they tried to conduct mock-firing exercises under conditions close to combat would have been fine if the gunners had received good basic training beforehand, or if there had been many such mock-firing exercises. But neither was the case. Let's assume that the required ammunition had to be expended three rounds per firing exercise, with the first gunner firing the gun during the first exercise, and the second during the subsequent exercises. Three rounds might have allowed for at least some practice in zeroing. But that was a matter of luck, since the exercise conditions could have involved transferring fire from one shield to another. Or even rapid fire without zeroing. Or...

Overall, in my opinion, too much variability in live-fire exercises with limited ammunition was not the optimal way to reinforce previously acquired skills.

Let us now move on to how artillery exercises were seen after the Russo-Japanese War, in 1907.

Продолжение следует ...
80 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    April 1 2026 08: 44
    And the results of such "exemplary" shooting are the results of battles in the Yellow Sea, the Korea Strait, and Tsushima... Economy above all! Effective managers were born long before the 21st century...
    1. +7
      April 1 2026 11: 38
      Quote: Evgeny Lyubchinov
      and as a result of such "approximate" shooting - the results of the battles in the Yellow Sea

      Not quite so. The results of the battle in ZhM are the absence of even such firing exercises; the squadron did not complete the 1903 firing exercises and did not conduct any further firing exercises until July 1904. They were out of practice.
      Quote: Evgeny Lyubchinov
      in the Korea Strait

      Our guys didn't shoot too badly there.
      Quote: Evgeny Lyubchinov
      and at Tsushima

      As long as centralized fire control was maintained, the new battleships shot well.
      Quote: Evgeny Lyubchinov
      Savings above all!

      Unfortunately, yes. But it's not the sailors' fault that they couldn't even scrounge up enough money for a second set of shells, let alone intensive training.
      1. +4
        April 1 2026 16: 03
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        But it is not the sailors' fault that they could not even beg for money for a second set of shells, not to mention intensive training.

        * looks thoughtfully towards Port Alexandre III. wink
        More than 15 million, according to estimates from the early 90s. And the navy never used the base during the two World Wars.
        1. +5
          April 1 2026 16: 07
          Quote: Alexey RA
          And during the two World Wars the navy never used the base.

          That's true, but who knew it would turn out like this? :)))) Of course, with hindsight we understand that it could have been sacrificed, but back then its creation seemed like a matter of the utmost importance.
          1. +3
            April 2 2026 11: 09
            Another problem was that the sailors were constantly tossed back and forth over which base to choose. If I remember correctly, Shestakov advocated for Moonsund, while Chikhachev, after his death, advocated for Libau. As a result, neither was successfully implemented.
          2. +3
            April 2 2026 16: 47
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            That's true, but who knew it would turn out like this:))))

            Well, yes, building a naval base designed to house 20 EBRs and an admiralty less than 100 km from the border with the main enemy of the Russian Empire's main creditor... what could go wrong? wink
            Even though it was already clear at the beginning of the 20th century that the Empire was losing the pace of mobilization and concentration, it was necessary to liquidate the Warsaw Fortified Region and move the line of fortresses to the east.
            1. +3
              April 2 2026 19: 07
              Quote: Alexey RA
              Well, yes, building a naval base designed to house 20 EBRs and an admiralty less than 100 km from the border with the main enemy of the Russian Empire's main creditor... what could go wrong?

              Well, it kind of works both ways - a potential enemy has 20 battleships right next to you... Makes you think about it!:)))) In the early 90s, the prospects of the Hochseeflotte were still unclear.
              Quote: Alexey RA
              Although it was already clear at the beginning of the 20th century

              That's true, but that was at the beginning of the 20th century—and even later—they planned to build a very strong defense of the port from land, and the fleet had somewhere to retreat to if something happened. But I'm certainly for Moonsund.
        2. 0
          April 2 2026 21: 23
          Quote: Alexey RA
          More than 15 million, according to estimates from the early 90s. And the navy never used the base during the two World Wars.

          but the command staff's dachas are nearby
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. -1
        April 4 2026 04: 36
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        But it is not the sailors' fault that they could not even beg for money for a second set of shells, not to mention intensive training.


        In fact, in terms of maintenance and training costs, the Russian fleet was first in the world, and by an even greater margin!

        And if, in your opinion, it was impossible to beg for money for the shells, then why did the BBO approach Tsushima with their barrels so badly worn out!
        1. +3
          April 4 2026 10: 03
          Quote: Theorist
          In fact, in terms of maintenance and training costs, the Russian fleet was first in the world, and by an even greater margin!

          Alternative story on another site.
          Quote: Theorist
          And if you think it was impossible to beg for money for the shells,

          This is not "in my opinion", it is a historical fact.
          Quote: Theorist
          then why did the BBO approach Tsushima with their guns heavily worn out!

          Because the BBOs were part of the Practical Squadron, transferred to the training artillery detachment, that is, they were intensively used as training ships for primary training, including for gunners.
          However, some shooting of the barrels is not at all evidence of some kind of super-intensity, if we remember that the ships entered service in 1895-99.
          Overall, yes, the ABROs used as training ships fired more rounds than the combat ships—there was enough money for the initial training of gunners. But this training needs to be supported by annual training, and the combat ships also need to have at least two sets of live ammunition before the war. And the Russian Empire failed to achieve this.
          1. -2
            April 5 2026 12: 46
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Alternative story on another site.

            You just need to study the documents. You're the one putting forward the alternative: that too little money was spent on the navy! The problem wasn't money, but intelligence!

            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            But some shooting of guns is not at all evidence of some kind of super-intensity


            Yes, the intensity seemed normal:

            "The coastal defense battleships, although in relatively good condition in terms of engines, were armed with guns that had been almost completely worn out during the training of naval gunners. Many of the 120-mm barrels
            During their lifetime, they fired more than 400 shots. The 254-mm main caliber guns were in little better condition. A complete replacement of the artillery was necessary."


            Apraksin, commissioned in 1899 and then spent over a year in repairs after hitting a reef, fired 200 rounds from its 120mm gun! And by the end of the battle, the 10-inch gun's rings had come loose!

            Ushakov fired 472 shots from all barrels of the 10-inch gun.

            By the way, during the emergency training of the 3rd squadron, six 120 mm guns were replaced on the BBO because they were dangerous to fire!

            Is this some kind of shooting of guns? So, one could even call the Tsushima defeat a kind of failure!!!

            Besides, there were far more than just three training ships! Nikolai and Donskoy were also training ships! And many others. The fleet was occupied with nothing but endless exercises, which, of course, cost a fortune! As for what they learned, well, that's a question for Rozhdestvensky, who staged sparse and accurate shooting exercises along the shore!

            Didn't you yourself write somewhere that the 2nd squadron at Madagascar spent many more shells than the Japanese?

            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            There was enough money for the initial training of gunners. But it needs to be supported.
            annual training


            Then it would be necessary to replace the barrels every year on non-combat ships!!! And even if this were done, would it change the outcome?
            1. +2
              April 5 2026 13: 50
              Quote: Theorist
              You just need to study the documents.

              Exactly. If you'd read the documents, you'd know that Vice-Admiral Avelan requested 22,6 million rubles from Finance Minister S. Yu. Witte on July 19, 1900, for a second set of shells for the fleet, but only 4,1 million were actually received—and by the deadline of 1903.
              But you don't read the documents. You take the firing rate of a training artillery detachment and begin to extrapolate it to the entire fleet. The firing rate of the BRBO barrels wasn't at all mind-boggling—by Tsushima, Ushakov and Senyavin had fired around 120 rounds per barrel—over eight and six years of service, respectively. Taking an average of seven, we get somewhere between 17 and 18 shells per year.
              In general, you couldn’t do either the documents or the mathematics.
              Quote: Theorist
              Besides, there were far more than just three training ships! Nikolai and Donskoy were also training ships!

              The only issue is that training on training ships didn't end, but rather began, the preparation of gunners, who were required to constantly practice on warships. How this was done is described in the article.
              Quote: Theorist
              Then it would be necessary to change the barrels every year.

              Don't talk nonsense, it hurts her. Are you planning on firing 200+ live rounds from each gun every year?
              1. -2
                April 5 2026 20: 56
                Excellent response, looks like it was quick!!!

                Now, I will also give an answer, wait a day or two!!!!!
              2. -3
                April 5 2026 20: 58
                And you can write complaints about me in the whining section!!!
                1. -3
                  April 5 2026 21: 04
                  If such a section exists on this site (not sure)!
                  1. +4
                    April 5 2026 21: 20
                    Quote: Theorist
                    Now, I will also give an answer, wait a day or two!!!!!

                    I'm in no rush. But think carefully before you publish it. :))))
                    Quote: Theorist
                    And you can write complaints about me in the whining section!!!

                    You exaggerate the value of your comments:))) They are not worth complaining about.
                    1. -1
                      April 5 2026 23: 45
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      You exaggerate the value of your comments:))) They are not worth complaining about.


                      Why didn't you put an exclamation mark or a period at the end - it's nothing?
                      1. +2
                        April 6 2026 05: 34
                        Quote: Theorist
                        Why didn't you put an exclamation mark or a period at the end?

                        Because I'm not finished with you yet:)))
                    2. 0
                      April 6 2026 08: 50
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      You exaggerate the value of your comments:))) They are not worth complaining about.


                      These are not valuable comments, just drunk ones... drinks

                      _________________________

                      It's a pity that you can't make adjustments here after a while, sometimes it's necessary!
                      1. +4
                        April 6 2026 11: 15
                        Oh well, let's leave it at that for the sake of clarity:))) drinks
              3. -1
                April 5 2026 23: 38
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                If you had read the documents, you would have known that Vice-Admiral Avelan requested 22,6 million rubles from Finance Minister S. Yu. Witte on July 19, 1900, for the second set of shells for the fleet, but in fact only 4,1 million were received.


                Great, but what does this have to do with Russian equipment and firing training?

                These are completely different things!
                1. +2
                  April 5 2026 23: 42
                  Quote: Theorist
                  Great, but what does this have to do with Russian equipment and firing training?

                  Hmm, let me think about it:)))) It's true - the country can't scrape together enough money for a second set of combat shells, so how could this affect the number of shells for the navy's training firing? laughing
  2. +4
    April 1 2026 15: 55
    Good afternoon.
    Dear Andrey, thank you for continuing.
    The 47mm cannon was fired by one gunner, who was supposed to fire it. Each gunner was supposed to fire five rounds, but the 75mm cannons only received three.

    Compared to the training of small-caliber artillery crews, the French fared better. Crews trained both on ships and at firing ranges, with firing distances ranging from 200 to 1300 meters. Each crew member had to fire 10 shells per exercise, using 2x4 meter shields. To hone their shooting skills without having to drive the ship out to sea for each firing, special firing simulators were used at the firing range.
    The quality is not very good, but the meaning of the action is clear.
    1. +3
      April 1 2026 16: 26
      Good afternoon, dear Igor!
      Quote: 27091965i
      If we compare the training of small-caliber artillery crews, the French were better in this regard.

      And what about medium- and large-caliber?
      Quote: 27091965i
      The quality is not very good, but the meaning of the action is clear.

      It really reminds me of "winged swings" :))))
      1. +5
        April 2 2026 08: 59
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        And what about medium- and large-caliber?

        Good afternoon.
        In this matter, it is necessary to consider the system of training and rewarding gunners.
        According to an order dated March 13, 1899, a special category of gunners was created in the Navy. It included both the best graduates of the "École de Canonnage" and gunners already in service. They were assigned first to large-caliber guns. They were entitled to a 20-franc bonus, a special badge on their uniform, and other benefits. During gunnery practice, a performance bonus of 70% was paid to the first gunner, and 30% to the second gunner. This system extended to medium-caliber artillery, but gunners of 100mm guns prior to 140mm caliber guns were not eligible for this bonus.
        The incentive system had a great influence on the attitude towards one's duties.
      2. +4
        April 2 2026 10: 12
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        And what about medium- and large-caliber?

        I'll add a little about the firing practice. Basically, the exercises are all standard, with slightly more training rounds for medium-caliber artillery. This is due to the barrel's lifespan. For example, for 140mm guns, the barrel lifespan was set at 400 rounds.
        Given that the French were actively developing new shells and fuses, they "loved" shooting at older ships. On these ships, the armor belt and casemates were painted. Depending on the shell type used, firing ranges ranged from 1500 to 4000 meters, and speeds ranged from 6 to 10 knots.
        Firing at a moving target at a firing range determined the distance a ship would travel, say, at a speed of 10 knots, in a specified time. Three targets were set up at this distance. The countdown began with a shot at the first target. The gunner then had to aim the gun horizontally at the second target, fire a shot, and then do the same for the third. Accuracy, aiming speed, and crew coordination were all taken into account. The gunners were unaware of the distance; it was announced by an officer stationed near the gun. For the 140mm guns, either single-piece or separate loading was used, with one crew number added.
  3. +2
    April 1 2026 18: 13
    In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, no one paid truly serious attention to target practice, except perhaps the Japanese. In fact, the British, until the infamous Scott and his point marker, weren't particularly successful.
    However, the point marker, as a simulator, was also effective for training in shooting from a maximum of 4,7" guns.
    In general, the Japanese were better marksmen because they were drilled to the point of being flying crocodiles. And who knows how a hypothetical battle between the British and Japanese fleets would have ended at that time.
    1. +3
      April 1 2026 19: 49
      Quote: Grossvater
      In general, the Japanese were better shooters because they were trained to the point of being flying crocodiles.

      They didn't demonstrate much skill in the first battle of the Russian Navy (the day after the destroyer attack at Arthur). Subsequently, the Japanese frankly performed poorly against three of our cruisers, which came under fire from Togo's main force.
      They were not flying crocodiles, but they received good training and then combat experience.
  4. -2
    April 1 2026 20: 55
    Accordingly, even if the artillery exercise program is fully completed, each of them will have to fire 1–2 shots in daylight and 1 shot at night.

    How did you manage to calculate that? How many gunners were there for the 6" gun?
    1. 0
      April 1 2026 21: 13
      There's a little hint in the photo. wink
      1. +1
        April 1 2026 23: 14
        Quote: Saxahorse
        There's a little hint in the photo.

        Suddenly, the mechanical sight on the 6-inch Canet was one and was located on the left side of the gun.
        1. -1
          April 2 2026 08: 51
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Suddenly, the mechanical sight on the 6-inch Canet was one and was located on the left side of the gun.

          In the photo, quite unexpectedly, there is a 6" Canet gun. wassat
          1. +3
            April 2 2026 12: 11
            Quote: Saxahorse
            In the photo, quite unexpectedly, there is a 6" Canet gun.

            Yeah. And? :))) You didn't know that the 1TOE didn't have optical sights?
            Quote: Saxahorse
            After the RYaV, by the way, they started removing the second sight.

            good laughing Well, yeah, what was I talking about? Of course, you don't know. They started removing his second sight:)))))
            Saksakhors, optics were only installed on our ships in the Russian Navy at the 2nd TOE. And the photo you posted here is from the very beginning of the end of World War I. And the photo screams it out loud.
            1. -2
              April 2 2026 21: 18
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Optics on our ships in the Russian Navy are only available at 2 TOE.

              Take a look at another photo, without the optics. This isn't a Canet gun, but the exact date it was taken is clearly indicated. Separate vertical and horizontal aiming was implemented on guns dating back to the 19th century.
              1. +3
                April 2 2026 21: 29
                Quote: Saxahorse
                Take a look at another photo, without optics.

                I admired it. And?
                Quote: Saxahorse
                This is not a Kane gun.

                I won't ask you what the non-Kane gun has to do with the Canet gun. You don't know that yourself.
                Quote: Saxahorse
                Separate vertical and horizontal guidance was implemented on guns of the 19th century.

                I'll let you in on a military secret: separate aiming was already implemented in muzzle-loading guns. You see, they were aimed vertically by a wedge, and horizontally by moving the gun carriage. laughing
                What next? Finish your thought, I feel like laughing.
                1. +4
                  April 3 2026 08: 38
                  Good morning.
                  I'll let you in on a military secret: separate aiming has been implemented in muzzle-loading guns.

                  The first Canet guns used a single steering wheel for both horizontal and vertical aiming. A special switching mechanism was installed on the gun. The only "lucky" owner of these guns was the Chilean Navy. What the Chileans subsequently did with these guns is of no interest to me.
                  1. +3
                    April 3 2026 12: 02
                    Quote: 27091965i
                    The first Canet guns used a single steering wheel for horizontal and vertical aiming.

                    This did happen, but in general, separate aiming in the horizontal and vertical planes can be considered the norm for artillery:)))
                    1. +3
                      April 3 2026 12: 44
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      This did happen, but in general, separate aiming in the horizontal and vertical planes can be considered the norm for artillery:)))

                      I agree with you that only during a certain period of time on French and British medium-caliber artillery could both the gunner and the second gunner fire a shot. It all depended on the type of firing or training exercise being conducted.
                      1. +3
                        April 3 2026 21: 55
                        Quote: 27091965i
                        Only during a certain period of time on the medium-caliber artillery of France and England could both the gunner and the second number fire a shot.

                        Who's arguing? :)))) And thanks for the clarification. But the real issue here is that our friend Saksakhors is diligently insisting that during all the firing practice, the first and second gunners didn't swap duties. And that's truly amusing.
                      2. +3
                        April 4 2026 09: 41
                        Good afternoon.
                        But here the question is different - our friend Saksakhors diligently leads to the fact that during all the training shooting the 1st and 2nd gunners did not change duties.

                        Dear Andrey, the principle of interchangeability has always existed in the army and navy. Both gunners completed the same training course; it couldn't have been any other way.
                      3. +3
                        April 4 2026 10: 20
                        Dear Igor, good afternoon!
                        Quote: 27091965i
                        Both gunners went through the same training course; it couldn’t have been any other way.

                        Of course. That's why, during exercises, including with guns with separate vertical and horizontal aiming, they were swapped—including during firing.
                      4. +2
                        April 4 2026 15: 46
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Of course. That's why, during exercises, including with guns with separate vertical and horizontal aiming, they were swapped—including during firing.

                        The point is that artillery crews received their primary training on ships. Artillery school, in modern parlance, is a training facility.
                      5. +3
                        April 4 2026 16: 43
                        Quote: 27091965i
                        The point is that artillery crews received their basic training on ships.

                        Of course, that's true. Actually, the 1903 instructions themselves were for warships, not training ships.
                2. -2
                  April 3 2026 21: 54
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  What next? Finish your thought, I feel like laughing.

                  Let's laugh together! laughing
                  A gunner is basically a gunner. You yourself are quoting instructions that clearly state, "prepare two gunners." TWO! Try to tense that useless organ dangling between your ears. Maybe you'll finally figure out what exactly that funny three-letter word—TWO—means! wassat
                  1. +2
                    April 3 2026 22: 07
                    Quote: Saxahorse
                    Let's laugh together!

                    Come on. Please formulate your thoughts clearly and distinctly—what you disagree with and how things actually happened. laughing
                    1. -2
                      April 3 2026 22: 23
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Come on. Please formulate your thoughts clearly and distinctly—what you disagree with and how things actually happened.

                      All that remains for me to do is quote Zadornov... fool
                      1. +3
                        April 3 2026 22: 27
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        All that remains for me to do is quote Zadornov...

                        You're simply afraid to make a clear and precise statement. Because after I completely destroy it, you'll have nowhere to go. And while you're asking me to formulate your thoughts for you, you'll still have the opportunity to cry later about being misunderstood.
      2. +6
        April 1 2026 23: 27
        Photo from a later period. Two sights were installed on the RIF after the Russian Nuclear War. During the Russian Nuclear War, the Japanese began switching to two sights and two gunners on some ships.
        During the years of the Russian Revolution, the crew of the 6-inch Kane gun on the central pintle had, according to the staff, 2 gunners and 4 crew members.
        1. -1
          April 2 2026 08: 49
          Quote: rytik32
          During the years of the Russian Revolution, the crew of the 6-inch Kane gun on the central pintle had, according to the staff, 2 gunners and 4 crew members.

          And what were these two gunners doing? laughing
          In fact, the brochure for Peresvet stated that two gunners needed to be trained. Incidentally, after the Russian Air Force, they started removing the second sight. Look at the Aurora's guns.
          1. +5
            April 2 2026 09: 26
            Quote: Saxahorse
            And what were these two gunners doing?

            See Shpynev's textbook of 1904
            I posted the beginning
            1. 0
              April 2 2026 21: 06
              Quote: rytik32
              I posted the beginning

              I can't read anything. It's murky and shallow. I don't have a textbook like that. Couldn't you write it down briefly in your own words?
              1. +4
                April 2 2026 21: 50
                Quote: Saxahorse
                I don't have such a textbook

                The textbook is online
                https://djvu.online/file/Y4L9sbrMWSYYS?ysclid=mnhttig1hb996558268

                Quote: Saxahorse
                in my own words

                Assists the first gunner: looks at dials, opens the breech, etc. His main task is to replace the first gunner in the event of his departure.
                1. -1
                  April 3 2026 21: 45
                  Quote: rytik32
                  The textbook is online

                  Thank you very much for the link! The book is interesting; I'll definitely read it in more detail later. Overall, the textbook confirmed what we see in the photo: the guns of that time had two sights. Take a look at the scans. smile
        2. +2
          April 3 2026 14: 51
          Good afternoon.
          During the RYA, the Japanese began to switch to two sights and two gunners on some ships.

          Dear Alexey, if I understand correctly, the installation of two sights was envisaged on 6-inch guns?
          1. +3
            April 3 2026 18: 07
            Good afternoon!

            Dear Igor, In early 1905, the optical sights on the armored ships of the 1st and 2nd Detachments were replaced with more advanced ones. At this time, only the 8-inch turret guns were equipped with two sights. The 12-inch and 6-inch guns were equipped with one sight each. The "old" sights that had been removed were installed on the 76-mm guns or transferred to other ships.
            The 6-inch guns received two sights each, but later. Unfortunately, I don't know the details.
            1. +2
              April 3 2026 19: 49
              Quote: rytik32
              The 6-inch guns received two sights each, but later. Unfortunately, I don't know the details.

              The reason I asked is that the design of the Armstrong 6-inch rapid-fire guns provided for the installation of a sight both to the right and to the left of the gun barrel.
              Photo 1892 of the year.
              1. +2
                April 3 2026 23: 18
                Judging by the photo provided, one gunner could not control such a weapon: the horizontal and vertical aiming handles were on different sides.
                1. +1
                  April 4 2026 09: 32
                  Good afternoon.
                  Judging by the photo provided, one gunner could not control such a weapon: the horizontal and vertical aiming handles were on different sides.

                  Dear Alexey, one gunner could aim this gun. The horizontal and vertical aiming wheels are located on the left side of the gun, while the backup vertical aiming wheel is located on the right side of the gun. The use of two gunners was intended for situations where either the enemy or friendly ship was maneuvering. The first gunner "tracked" the target using horizontal aiming, while the second gunner, using the backup wheel, adjusted the gun's elevation angle according to incoming data. That's why I was interested in what the Japanese intended when installing the second sight.
                  The photo shows a standard British 6-inch Armstrong gun.
                  1. +2
                    April 4 2026 11: 01
                    Quote: 27091965i
                    What actions did the Japanese foresee when installing the second sight?

                    The Japanese aimed to divide the gunner's work vertically and horizontally.
                  2. +2
                    April 4 2026 11: 12
                    Quote: 27091965i
                    adjusted the gun elevation angle according to incoming data

                    As far as I remember, the British had a separate person, a sightsetter, who adjusted the elevation angle relative to the sighting line. The gunner, however, handled the vertical and horizontal aiming. This was part of the "continuous aiming" concept. The Japanese, however, didn't use "continuous aiming."
                    1. +1
                      April 4 2026 11: 31
                      Quote: rytik32
                      As far as I remember, the British had a separate person, a sightsetter, who adjusted the elevation angle relative to the sighting line. The gunner, however, handled the vertical and horizontal aiming. This was part of the "continuous aiming" concept.

                      This exercise was used for cruiser gunners, engaging enemy "trade fighters" and "scouts." Although all gunners underwent initial training, regardless of the ship they were subsequently assigned to.
            2. +1
              April 3 2026 21: 47
              Quote: rytik32
              Unfortunately, I don't know the details.

              The textbook you suggested explicitly mentions the presence of two sights, right and left. They weren't optical, but rather "steel" sights, but this is very interesting for understanding the specific aiming techniques being taught at the time. hi
              1. +2
                April 4 2026 11: 15
                Quote: Saxahorse
                for the presence of two sights, right and left

                It says you can mount the sight on the left or right. But have you ever mounted two sights at the same time?
                1. -1
                  April 4 2026 20: 18
                  Quote: rytik32
                  It says you can mount the sight on the left or right. But have you ever mounted two sights at the same time?

                  Sorry... It clearly indicates to students where and how they are installed, and also emphasizes the need to account for the interchangeable rails so as not to confuse the right and left ones. It's hard to imagine a more specific instruction regarding the presence of two sights.
                  1. +3
                    April 5 2026 01: 05
                    Quote: Saxahorse
                    It’s hard to even come up with a more specific indication of the presence of two sights.

                    Stop this comedy already!
                    In order to use the sight on the right, you need to place the flywheels on the right and make the slot in the shield on the right.
                    1. -1
                      April 5 2026 12: 22
                      Quote: rytik32
                      Stop this comedy already!

                      You yourself provided a link to a 1904 textbook that explicitly describes the presence of a second sight. The instructions for Peresvet, which started this debate, explicitly mention the training of two gunners per gun.
                      Which of us is doing the comedy now?

                      And I touched the Aurora's guns myself.
                      1. +1
                        April 5 2026 14: 15
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        directly indicate the training of two gunners per gun

                        That's what I wrote about, that there were two gunners for each 6-inch gun. But there was only one sight.
                    2. -1
                      April 5 2026 13: 25
                      Quote: rytik32
                      In order to use the sight on the right, you need to place the flywheels on the right.

                      Oddly enough, we're both right. It turns out that cartridge guns have five crew numbers, and there are always two gunners. 45-caliber cartridge guns have two or three crew numbers. Moreover, mounts mounted on the central pintle have two crew numbers, and there's only one gunner. Mounts with side mounts have three crew numbers, and there are two gunners. So, Peresvet really does have two gunners and two gunners, as stated in the manual.
                      1. +2
                        April 5 2026 14: 26
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        Moreover, the machines have 2 numbers on the central pin and there is only one commander there

                        These are all gunners:
                        first number and second number.
                      2. -1
                        April 5 2026 20: 47
                        Quote: rytik32
                        These are all gunners:
                        first number and second number.

                        By rank. But the gunner, the gunner, there's only one, the one with the number 1. The second one is actually the castle commander.

                        It's all very sad. It turns out that a 1904 textbook is devoted to studying the obsolete 35-caliber cartridge cannons adopted in 1877. And barely a few pages are devoted to the 45-caliber Canet cannons, even though they were adopted in 1896, eight years earlier. Here again, a big shout-out to Rozhestvensky, who oversaw the training of gunners in the Baltic. This character has managed to wreak havoc on our country everywhere.

                        And a separate issue is the abandonment of separate aiming on some of the Kane guns. While in other countries, the opposite is true: the Japanese guns, as well as our Soviet ones, had separate vertical and horizontal aiming. Could someone explain why and how they decided to cut corners here?

                        The photo shows a 6" 35-caliber model of 1877. It turns out that gunners were trained to use it.
  5. +3
    April 1 2026 20: 58
    And what’s most interesting is that history NEVER TEACHES ANYTHING!
    Even if a dumb person understands that they'll be attacked tomorrow, and the smart ones who lead them believe that's not the case, the country will live in peace, saving money and busying itself with sprucing up... And then, when the dumb person is ultimately proven right, something begins that should have happened even earlier, without the need to overwhelm the enemy with bodies or engage in window dressing...
    What kind of people are we? what
    P.S. As they say now: "It's possible, but why?"
    PPS Materialu plus from this morning, dear namesake, we are waiting for the continuation hi
    1. +2
      April 2 2026 11: 24
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Even if a dumb person understands that he will be attacked tomorrow, and the smart people who lead him believe that this is not the case, the country will live in peace, saving money and doing its own sprucing up.

      "Since copper is more important than shooting these days, pack up shop and hurry to get yourself in shape," - Admiral Percy Scott.
  6. -4
    April 3 2026 21: 02
    from 1 to 4 cables.


    Author, tell me, who are you writing this seafaring nonsense for? Okay, they're seasick in their youth, they can't accept the fact that they're human and no better than anyone else. That's why everything they do is abnormal, everything is "shrouded in tradition," and either in English or Dutch. But you're writing for ordinary people who haven't hit their heads on a steel boat. Convert distances to the metric system. Miles to kilometers, cable lengths to meters. Nobody needs nautical units of length; no one understands them. By preserving them, you're showing disrespect for the reader.
    1. +4
      April 3 2026 22: 04
      Quote: abc_alex
      Author, tell me, for whom are you writing this seaman's nonsense?

      For those you affectionately call
      Quote: abc_alex
      hit their heads on the steel side

      You obviously don’t belong to them, so my articles are not for you.
      Quote: abc_alex
      Convert distances to metric.

      I wouldn't even think about it. Those interested in the navy have long since become accustomed to naval terminology, since numerous documents and books by historians are written in knots, cable lengths, and so on, which are incomprehensible to you.
      If I were to take the liberty of converting everything into the metric system, it would cause inconvenience to readers, who would have to convert everything back into miles, rhumbs, etc.
    2. +5
      April 4 2026 12: 51
      Quote: abc_alex
      But you're writing for ordinary people who haven't hit their heads on a steel ship. Convert distances to the metric system. Miles to kilometers, cable lengths to meters. No one needs nautical units of length; no one understands them. By retaining them, you're showing disrespect for the reader.

      Are you sure that some Vasya-Podpivkovich, who dropped by VO on Friday evening and will read an article about target practice with a light drink and chips?
      If so, then there will be two possibilities:
      1. He will decide that it is not for his tired brain and will give up reading;
      2. He will become interested and will understand cable lengths and miles.

      As for disrespect, when I read, say, British or American forums, I don’t run around to threads demanding that the imperial system be converted to the metric system... laughing
      1. +1
        April 6 2026 15: 17
        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
        As for disrespect, when I read, say, British or American forums, I don’t run around to threads demanding that the imperial system be converted to the metric system...

        That's a shame. It would have been worth a try. winked
        1. +1
          April 6 2026 17: 08
          Quote: Trapper7
          Too bad. Winked would have been worth a try.

          But why, Holmes?.. (almost (C)
          1. 0
            April 6 2026 17: 55
            Quote: Macsen_Wledig
            Quote: Trapper7
            Too bad. Winked would have been worth a try.

            But why, Holmes?.. (almost (C)

            So that life doesn't seem like a bed of roses))))
    3. +4
      April 6 2026 15: 18
      Quote: abc_alex
      Convert distances to the metric system. Miles to kilometers, cable lengths to meters.

      I just imagined for a second how the Author is busy converting all the data into metrics, and how half the readers are then busy converting it back... wassat
      1. +2
        April 6 2026 17: 07
        Well, that's almost it. But he'll write 15 km/h, and everyone will start mentally converting it into knots, and with numerous errors!

        It's better to use a generally accepted and understandable system of measurements; after all, the sea is not land!!!
  7. The comment was deleted.
  8. The comment was deleted.
  9. The comment was deleted.