Duties of officers and lower ranks of plutongs and other ranks of artillery specialty in 1903–1907.

33 450 36
Duties of officers and lower ranks of plutongs and other ranks of artillery specialty in 1903–1907.

Having considered the duties of the senior artillery officer and personnel of observation posts, we move on to the guns.

Plutong Commanders


In 1903, the artillery command structure was, in my opinion, overcomplicated. There were batteries that were perfectly adequate for maintaining materiel in peacetime, but inconvenient for operating guns in combat. Therefore, the ship's artillery was further divided into plutongs, with some plutongs not belonging to any battery. Some plutongs were also grouped together.

In 1907, the organizational structure of the ship's artillery was reduced to the presence of plutongs - this seemed more convenient.

The commander of the 1907 plutongs was appointed by the ship's commander from among the watch officers and officers. Only for plutongs with guns of less than 75 mm caliber were artillery quartermasters allowed to be appointed commanders due to a shortage of officers.

In terms of duties, a plutong commander was a miniature senior artillery officer, responsible for the proper functioning of materiel, personnel training, and artillery command in combat—within the confines of his plutong, of course. The 1907 "Rules" stipulated that the plutong commander's area of ​​responsibility included the materiel—not only the guns, but also the means for supplying shells and charges, as well as the ammunition magazines and the rooms in which all of this was located—both in combat and in peacetime. If several plutongs were located in a single compartment, the senior plutong commander was in charge of that compartment, with the other commanders serving as his subordinates.

The 1903 "Instructions" did not regulate this issue. However, the duties of plutong commanders in combat in 1903 and 1907 were largely the same, but there were some differences.

Thus, in 1903, the plutong commander was required to ensure that the guns were supplied with the type of shells designated by the artillery fire director. The "Instructions" described a dial that provided the corresponding instructions, and even stipulated that the plutong commander must personally (by voice) transmit the data to the ammunition magazines. But in 1907, the "Rules" contained nothing of the sort—the procedure for transmitting information from the command post to the plutongs regarding the type of shells to fire was not described. Furthermore, it stipulated that the plutong commander made the decision on the type of shells to fire independently.

At the same time, it's difficult to imagine that the decision about which shells to fire—armor-piercing or high-explosive—was left to the discretion of the plutongs, especially since this could have resulted in a single target being bombarded with different shells simultaneously. I'm inclined to believe that this issue was poorly formulated in the "Rules," and that in reality, the choice of shells was only granted to the plutong commander when centralized fire control was abandoned and a switch to plutong-based fire control was made.

In 1903, one of the duties of a plutong commander was to indicate to the gunners which part of an enemy ship to aim for. In 1907, perhaps due to the increasing range of artillery engagements, this requirement was no longer enforced.

In 1903, there was a rule that a gun should never have more than two shell holders—apparently to reduce the force of the explosion if these stores were hit by the enemy. In 1907, the "Rules" also set this goal, but less specifically: "Make sure that the ammunition supplied does not accumulate near the gun.".

In 1907, the plutong commander was responsible for sealing watertight doors, hatches, and manholes in the compartment assigned to him. In 1903, this requirement was absent from the "Instructions."

In 1903, the plutong commander was required to ensure that gun crews were not exposed to unnecessary danger: for example, during periods of inactivity of the 75-mm artillery, he was required to take measures to send their crews behind armor protection. In 1907, this requirement was reformulated and required commanders of anti-tornado artillery plutongs, when their crews were removed from combat protection, to organize their timely return to their guns. The reason for this change was that in 1903, guns of different calibers were allowed to be combined into a plutong, meaning the plutong commander had both medium (6-inch) and anti-tornado (75-mm, 47-mm) calibers at his disposal, despite the fact that six-inch guns were usually protected by armor, while anti-tornado caliber guns were not always so. In 1907, the plutong included guns of one caliber, which meant that the plutong commander either had all of his crews behind the armor, or none at all.

In 1903, the plutong commander was required to report all damage and other important events to the command post. In 1907, his duties were limited to reporting only those damages that the plutong commander could not repair himself.

In 1903, one of the plutong commanders was also the battery commander. He did not interfere with the combat command of his battery's plutongs, but was required to assist their commanders with problems such as removing the wounded, replacing crew members, and ensuring the supply of ammunition, which the plutong commanders could not handle independently, or which required the cooperation of several plutongs. In 1907, the "Rules" did not stipulate the position of battery commander, and accordingly, no requirements were established for them.

In 1903, the "Instructions" required the plutong commander to maintain silence in the compartment—this was necessary for the vocal transmission of instructions. In 1907, the plutong commander no longer had this responsibility.

Otherwise, the duties of a plutong commander in 1903 and 1907 were extremely similar. In combat, he was responsible for:

1. Ensure that the guns precisely carry out all instructions given to them by the command post.

2. If communication with the command post is interrupted, take measures to restore it within your capabilities.

3. In the event of a transition, non-plutong fire - organize the fire of your plutong, essentially performing the functions of the ship's senior artillery officer, but only within the limits of your plutong, of course.

4. Ensure repairs to equipment damaged by combat or other causes. This included both the guns themselves and other equipment, including elevators, lighting, etc.

5. Organize the removal of cartridge cases.

6. Manage the removal of the wounded and the replacement of servants.

7. Ensure fire extinguishing, sealing of holes, and isolation of rooms with holes.

With centralized fire control and in 1903, the plutong commander had to:

1. Check that the sights' front sights are set according to the ship's speed shown on the dials (only for mechanical sights; this was not required for optical sights).

2. Check that the sights are set to the distance indicated by the dials.

3. Independently calculate the rear sight setting using firing tables, unless the size of this correction has been transmitted from the command post via telephone or voice communication.

In 1907, the duties were similar with one exception: since the rear sight adjustment was transmitted centrally, via the appropriate dial, the duties of the plutong commanders included recalculating the transmitted correction for the caliber of the guns of their plutong.

As for controlling the sight installation, there is an interesting nuance here.

The fact is that gun sights for elevation (i.e., the rear sight for traverse) were marked with divisions in tenths of a degree. At the same time, the distance to the enemy was expressed in cable lengths. Accordingly, it was necessary to convert these cable lengths into degrees of elevation.

There were two ways to do this. The most convenient was to use special insertable rails marked with cable lengths instead of fractions of a degree. These rails were intended for live ammunition and training barrels. They were installed directly on the gun, so the sight could be set to the specified distance, rather than using fractions of a degree.

Another method was firing tables. These indicated how many divisions the sight should be set to for each range, how long the projectile would travel to those divisions, the rear sight offsets to eliminate drift, windage corrections, target movement, and so on.

It's quite obvious that the inserted rails had to comply with firing tables, which is why the rail had to indicate the firing table number on which it was based. In 1903, one rail per sight for firing live ammunition was required; by 1907, as can be judged from the context of the "Rules," there were already several such rails, as well as firing tables for different firing conditions.

I can only speculate on how widespread inserted rails were in 1903, how exactly their use was organized, and when they were used and when not. But in any case, it's quite clear that if firing was conducted using inserted rails, the plutong commander checked the sight's alignment with the distance indicated by the dials. If firing was conducted using tables, however, there's some uncertainty. Most likely, the plutong commander determined the elevation angle himself, using the firing tables, communicated it to the gunners, and checked its setting. However, there is information that the gunners could use the firing tables themselves, but this most likely occurred when the plutong commander was incapacitated and there was no one left to replace him.

Assistant to the Plutong Commander


In 1907, a plutong commander was entitled to a deputy in the position of artillery quartermaster. Moreover, if a plutong had more than two guns, there would be one deputy for each pair of guns. In 1903, such a "luxury" was considered unaffordable: the plutong commander appointed his deputy from among the gunners at his disposal.


The duties of the assistant to the plutong commander in 1907 were formulated very briefly: to ensure the precise execution of the orders of the command post and the plutong commander by the crews of the guns assigned to him and to replace the plutong commander in the event of his absence. Since the assistant to the plutong commander in 1903 was the gunner, he performed his assigned duties during combat without being distracted by other duties: his only responsibility in this position was to deputize for the plutong commander.

Gun crew


The number of crews for guns of various calibers was not regulated by either the 1903 "Instructions" or the 1907 "Rules" - they were established by other documents. But the "Rules" stipulated that for 10-12-inch guns there were three gunners per gun, for smaller-caliber guns up to and including 120 mm - two gunners, and for guns of less than 120 mm - one gunner. Here it should be noted that the 4-inch guns of the 1911 model, which armed the famous "Noviks", were, for obvious reasons, not in service in 1907. fleet They weren't members, so the "Rules" didn't apply to them. According to the "Rules," the gun crew (not all of them) had the following positions.

The owner of the weapon. One of the gunners was appointed to this position; he was responsible for:

1. Maintaining the gun and the nearest supply of shells and other material at his disposal in full working order.

2. Familiarization with the equipment of the gun crew.

Gunner. His duties were apparently so obvious that they were not specified in the "Rules"; it was only mentioned that if the gun had two sights, it was supposed to have two gunners, one of whom carried out vertical aiming and fired the shot, and the second - horizontal aiming.

Sight and rear sight installer. His tasks included installing the sight and rear sight:

1. During centralized fire - according to data from dials or other means of transmitting information, while the installer of the sight and rear sight himself observed the dials and, as the distances and rear sight changed, adjusted the sight and rear sight on the gun.

2. During the fire of the pluton, he did the same, receiving instructions about the sight and rear sight from the pluton commander.

3. During gunfire, he did the same, receiving instructions from the gunners.

If the sight and rear sight were installed by the gunners, the job of the sight and rear sight installer was to monitor the dials and inform the gunners of new instructions.

At this point, the esteemed reader might ask: why do we need gunners if someone else is setting the sights and rear sights? But the rear sight itself is just an adjustment.

Typically, the aiming point was the enemy ship's stem at the waterline. If the enemy ship was far away and moving fast, it was quite possible that the shell, having covered the distance separating the warships, would fall astern of the target. This is why the rear sight adjustment was made—to provide a lead. With a rifle, we can aim ahead of the target to achieve a lead, but this is inconvenient when aiming a gun. Therefore, with the same iron sights, the sight and rear sight adjuster would adjust the front sight so that when the gunner aimed at the target's stem, the ship's barrel would aim ahead of the stem, providing the required lead.

Thus, the sight and rear sight installer set the appropriate correction for the rear sight, but aiming the gun at the target's stem was the gunner's job.

As for elevation, if the gun were on land, the gunner would set the sight to the desired value and act as the gunner. But at sea, the gun is constantly moving, requiring the gunner to compensate for pitching and rolling. This was accomplished by aiming the gun so that when the ship, listing to its firing side, came to a stop, the sight would be slightly below the target. Then, when the side began to rise, but had not yet gained much speed, and the gun's aiming line "reached" the base of the target (usually the waterline), the gunner fired.

Lock number. He was appointed from among the gunners, or, if there was a shortage, from among the other gun crews. His duties were not specified in the "Rules."

The "Rules" also stated that gun crews must be trained to be able to replace gunners, sight and rear sight installers, and lock-on operators. At the same time, it was specifically stipulated that "troikas" of a single gun—two gunners and a sight and rear sight installer—must always train together.

Other ship ranks of artillery specialty


We won't dwell on them in detail. In 1907, the "Rules" established the following ranks:

Artillery conductors Their primary task was to maintain the guns in working order and repair battle damage. During combat, they were assigned to different compartments to ensure the fastest possible repairs, but could be called upon to work anywhere on the ship.

Gunsmiths — were subordinate to the artillery conductors, two masters per conductor.

Galvanized conductors — the same duties as those of artillery conductors, but in relation to the electrical part of the artillery, primarily in relation to electrical signaling (dials) and, apparently, telephone communications.

Galvanizer quartermasters - assistant galvanizing conductors.

Galvanizers — unlike all the aforementioned lower ranks, they were assigned to specific control devices and gun turrets or feed.

Thank you for attention!

36 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +6
    April 22 2026 06: 35
    Thank you Andrey, great!!!!!!!
    Wishing you creative success. Today is your last day in your hometown. It's amazing that a love for the sea could develop in someone born on the banks of the Miass River.
    No matter how you look at it, Chelyabinsk is a city of stone and steel, but not of the sea.
    hi
  2. +6
    April 22 2026 09: 11
    Interesting article! It helps us better understand the Russian navy of the early 20th century.
  3. +8
    April 22 2026 11: 49
    I definitely didn't expect the topic to take off, so I took it upon myself to describe it at Igor's (nickname -27091965i) suggestion, solely out of respect for him and his interest in the topic.
    Obviously, I don’t know my dear readers well:)
    1. +7
      April 22 2026 19: 14
      I liked it. Plus it's been standing since this morning. drinks good There's simply not enough time right now to properly take it all in. And that's why there are so few "respected" readers, because when you specifically attack the commentators, they have no desire to engage in polemics. request After all, you have to think, analyze, and align all the arguments under a common denominator, but it turns out that it’s easier to beat the Japanese on the couch than to think about why things turned out this way and not differently...
      In 1903, the plutong commander was required to ensure that gun crews were not exposed to unnecessary danger: for example, during periods of inactivity of the 75mm artillery, he was required to take measures to send their crews behind armor protection. In 1907, this requirement was formulated differently and required the commanders of anti-mine artillery plutongs, when their crews were removed from combat protection, to organize their timely return to the guns.

      I wonder if any of the Gromoboy's officers were reprimanded after the Battle of the Korean Strait on August 1, 1904, for suffering almost twice as many casualties as the less armored Rossiya, due to the fact that they kept crews at the secondary battery guns due to the enemy's lack of destroyers and the combat range being prohibitive for small calibers?
      The gun's vertical aiming was carried out so that when the ship, listing to its firing side, stopped, the sight would be slightly below the target. Then, when the side began to rise, but had not yet gained much speed, and the gun's aiming line "reached" the base of the target (usually the waterline), the gunner fired.

      And was this only transverse motion taken into account? It seems to me that when on a long ocean swell with a good crosswind, the bow and stern will also move vertically, which complicates the task altogether. After all, longitudinal motion is added to transverse motion. what Or am I wrong?)
      So, Andrey Nikolaevich, don’t be upset. smile As the classics of culture say, if there is even one spectator in the hall before the performance, we can talk about a full house!
      I always read your materials. I just don't always get to participate in the f... pardon the verbal skirmishes. laughing And even the couch potatoes are quiet these days... Although the wind would have blown such people off the bridge of the Suvorov at the first enemy sightings wink
      C y hi I'm waiting for something else interesting on the topic of the Russian Revolution or that era!
      1. +4
        April 22 2026 20: 42
        When I was a child reading Tsushima, I had a hard time understanding who a conductor was.
        1. +5
          April 22 2026 20: 53
          The same hat smile hi And back then, after Stepanov's "Port Arthur" and the aforementioned "Tsushima," I was so upset by our defeats that I cried. Now, when this topic has been more fully explored by documents and analyses than by fiction, I look at it with a more mature perspective than I did back then. Although some of the couch potatoes still linger in the realm of childhood fantasies... smile
          1. +3
            April 24 2026 08: 21
            Quote: Rurikovich
            The same hat smile hi And back then, after Stepanov's "Port Arthur" and the aforementioned "Tsushima," I was so upset by our defeats that I cried. Now, when this topic has been more fully explored by documents and analyses than by fiction, I look at it with a more mature perspective than I did back then. Although some of the couch potatoes still linger in the realm of childhood fantasies... smile

            And even though I began to understand the objective and subjective reasons for the defeat, the bitterness from it still does not go away.
      2. +2
        April 24 2026 08: 23
        Quote: Rurikovich
        I wonder if any of the Gromoboy's officers were reprimanded after the Battle of the Korean Strait on August 1, 1904, for suffering almost twice as many casualties as the less armored Rossiya, due to the fact that they kept crews at the secondary battery guns due to the enemy's lack of destroyers and the combat range being prohibitive for small calibers?

        Good question.
    2. +4
      April 23 2026 10: 26
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      I definitely didn't expect the topic to take off, so I took it upon myself to describe it at Igor's (nickname -27091965i) suggestion, solely out of respect for him and his interest in the topic.
      Obviously, I don’t know my dear readers well:)

      Dear Andrey, I've read your articles and am grateful that you responded to my request. Even though I'm retired, sometimes financial matters require extra attention, which is exactly what happened. I hope you'll continue to delight readers with your interesting work.
    3. +2
      April 24 2026 16: 46
      Andrey, thank you for the article. I respect you as an author and in general. But could you clarify this detail?
      It was done like this: the vertical aiming of the gun was carried out so that when the ship, When the gun tilts toward the firing side and freezes, the sight will be slightly below the target. Then, when the gun begins to rise, but doesn't yet gain much speed, the gun's aiming line will "reach" the base of the target (usually the waterline)., the gunner fires.
      I seem to have read somewhere before about artillery fire that the shot was fired at the moment when the ship was on an even keel, otherwise, to what parameter should the corrections be introduced?
      1. +3
        April 25 2026 08: 57
        Quote: NIKNN
        I seem to have read somewhere before about artillery fire that the shot was fired at the moment when the ship was on an even keel.

        This is a rather complex question, and I don’t have a clear answer.
        It's clear that over time, with the advent of gyroscopic inclinometers (and this was already in WWI and later), ships fired on an even keel—the shot was fired automatically when the inclinometer showed 0. But before these inclinometers appeared...
        Some sources report that aiming was carried out as described in the article. The last textbook I read stated that only the guns located closer to the beam fired this way. The guns located closer to the ship's centerline were on an even keel.
        As for the adjustments, let's use the example of a mechanical sight. The adjustment is made directly on the sight, meaning the aiming line doesn't coincide with the gun's axis. Then, the gun itself is "adjusted" until the notch on the sight aligns with the front sight. In other words, the pitch angle is determined by aiming the gun itself and doesn't require adjustment.
        1. +2
          April 25 2026 10: 37
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          As for the adjustments, let's use the example of a mechanical sight. The adjustment is made directly on the sight, meaning the aiming line doesn't coincide with the gun's axis. Then, the gun itself is "adjusted" until the notch on the sight aligns with the front sight. In other words, the pitch angle is determined by aiming the gun itself and doesn't require adjustment.

          Well, that clarified things a bit, but it's not entirely true. I'm actually a pilot, so I'm far from sea conditions, so to speak, but it's very interesting. smile Thank you for the clarification and patience with people like me.
          1. +2
            April 25 2026 12: 15
            Quote: NIKNN
            Well, that cleared it up a bit, but it's not entirely true.

            If you could clarify what exactly remains unclear, I will try to answer if I can.
            Quote: NIKNN
            Thank you for the clarification and patience with people like me.

            I don't have to "tolerate" you at all; your desire to understand the issue only fuels my desire to help you do so. The comments on my articles attract many knowledgeable and knowledgeable readers, many of whom are willing to share their insights—this is invaluable, and I strive to maintain that.
            1. +3
              April 25 2026 12: 22
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              If you could clarify what exactly remains unclear, I will try to answer if I can.

              Well, making adjustments for an even keel seems logical, but everything else (in terms of making the same adjustments for pitching) I didn't really understand. I understand that they took shooting accuracy seriously, but I still don't understand the principle behind such multi-stage adjustments.
              When the gun is tilted toward the firing side and comes to a stop, the sight is positioned slightly below the target. Then, when the gun begins to rise but hasn't yet gained much speed, and the gun's aiming line "reaches" the base of the target (usually the waterline), the gunner fires.
              Plus, there were several types of gunners, a central control center, and each gun. How could all this effectively coordinate in combat given that the target was mobile and... well, I'm obviously an amateur here, but it's all very complicated. Who was responsible for the final shot? (I mean, who was responsible for, say, a hit or a miss?) And correct me if I'm wrong. Were the guns actually aimed from a central control center, or not? Well, perhaps, under certain conditions, each gun battery could aim according to the situation....
              1. +3
                April 25 2026 13: 00
                You, of course, have a good idea of ​​how to aim an airgun with a mechanical sight at a shooting range. The shooter's eye, seeing the center of the rear sight notch, the top of the front sight, and the target, is the aiming line. And the direction of the barrel is the bore axis.
                At point-blank range, a cannon fired from a stationary ship at a stationary target requires no adjustments (more accurately, you'll have to adjust for deviation, since the projectile deviates in the direction of its spin, but let's ignore that). That is, at range, as long as the projectile is flying straight and doesn't deviate significantly toward the ground, the aiming line should be parallel to the gun barrel axis.
                Let's say the distance is too great, and to hit the target, the gun's axis needs to be elevated by 5 degrees. Then, the front sight is adjusted so that its tip aligns with the rear sight notch when the gun barrel is elevated by 5 degrees.
                When I adjusted the front sight, I adjusted the range. Then, like at a shooting range, I had to align the aiming line with the target ship's waterline. When I did this, the gun barrel would be pointing 5 degrees above the aiming line, and if I fired at that moment, the shell would hit the target.
                From 1903 to 1907, the fire control station transmitted only distances and (in 1907) rear sight corrections. These corrections were set on the guns, and then the guns were aimed.
                If the rifle barrel axis were parallel to the aiming line at the shooting range, the bullet, flying straight ahead, would always land slightly below the shooter's aim. To prevent this, the sights are adjusted so that the bullet flies slightly upward, so that it hits the shooter's aiming point exactly at the distance from the shooting position to the target.
                So, the range officer adjusts the sight (makes the adjustment), and the gunner aims the rifle. It's the same with a naval gun, except the "range officer" (artillery officer) doesn't set the adjustment himself, but rather communicates it to the gun, and the gunner then adjusts it independently.
                Quote: NIKNN
                Well, it's clear that I'm an amateur here, but everything is very complicated, and who did the final shot depend on?

                That's all:)))) The officer from the command post must give the correct adjustments, the gun crew must set them up correctly, then aim correctly and fire the shot on time.
                This system subsequently evolved. For example, the Geisler 1910 fire control system relied on the alignment of the sights—an officer in the command post would "aim," and the sight, in the form of the sighting needle, would be transmitted to the gun. The gunner had to adjust the gun so that the sighting needle aligned with the transmitted sighting needle, and then fire on command.
                And then it happened that the gunner, having aimed the gun at the target, pressed the ready button without adjusting the pitching at all, the fire controller closed the circuit and the shot occurred when the inclinometer recorded the position of the ship on an even keel.
                1. +1
                  April 25 2026 14: 04
                  Let's say the distance is too great, and to hit the target, the gun's axis needs to be elevated by 5 degrees. Then, the front sight is adjusted so that its tip aligns with the rear sight notch when the gun barrel is elevated by 5 degrees.
                  This is understandable, I am a military man after all and am familiar with the basics of shooting, and they even explained how to do it specifically from a tank... But so many intermediate adjustments (central fire control, each gun also having a senior and junior gunner (well, that's my rough interpretation) didn't add to the aiming error or (well, since that's how it was accepted at the time) did they still help with aimed shooting?
                  1. +2
                    April 25 2026 14: 37
                    Quote: NIKNN
                    But didn’t so many intermediate corrections (central fire control, each gun also had a senior and junior gunner (well, I roughly interpreted this) add to the aiming error?

                    The system is complex, but it's the only possible one. Centralized fire control is essential because it allows the distance to the enemy to be determined through sighting. If each gun were to sight in independently, they wouldn't be able to distinguish the fall of their shell from that of other guns. Therefore, the senior gunner is best placed to determine the distance to the enemy and its changes.
                    In those days, guns could only be aimed manually at the gun itself. Consequently, only the gunner knew when to fire—the officer in the conning tower had no way of knowing. As for having two gunners, it was indeed more convenient. One was the primary gunner, responsible for elevation and firing. He could see through his sight whether the second gunner had aimed the gun horizontally or not, so there would probably be fewer errors than if he had to adjust both elevation and traverse himself.
                    1. +3
                      April 25 2026 14: 51
                      In principle, I agree. I believe the gunner was tasked with seeing the target through the sight (otherwise there was no point), and it was not he who made the corrections. Did I understand correctly?
                      1. +2
                        April 25 2026 15: 44
                        Quote: NIKNN
                        I believe the gunner was tasked with seeing the target through the sight (otherwise there was no point), and it was not he who made the corrections.

                        In 1907, this was generally the case—that is, there was a dedicated sailor who adjusted the elevation and horizontal aiming, while the gunner(s) only aimed the gun. In 1903, there were two gunners per gun, but there was often only one sight. So, the second gunner adjusted the rear sight (horizontal angle), monitored the dials, communicated their data to the first gunner, and supposedly aimed the gun horizontally, but without a sight, he could only do this on commands from the first gunner. The first gunner, meanwhile, adjusted the elevation angle and aimed the gun vertically.
                      2. +2
                        April 25 2026 16: 02
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And the first gunner set the vertical angle correction and aimed the gun in the vertical plane.

                        That is, he was responsible for the range, and who was responsible for horizontal guidance, taking into account the speed of the target and his own ship?
                        Sorry Andrey, but the further we go into this, the more difficult it is for me to understand.
                      3. +2
                        April 25 2026 16: 12
                        Let's do it this way
                        1 He was in charge of artillery fire, well, in today's terms, the commander of some kind of combat unit, what was he doing?
                        2 some data was transmitted to the gunners, horizontal or vertical (who was responsible for what? After all, it's an army and everything should be regulated.
                        No. One of the gunners made adjustments to the sight, the question was which ones and where in the vertical (I think the range to the target was available to the rangefinder, who transmitted the data to the central post). That is, in terms of vertical adjustments, the gunners relied on commands from the central post...
                        What did the gunner do next? How did he account for the target's speed and his own? I assume it was again based on corrections from the control post...
                        And finally, who was aiming anyway and why were there two gunners per gun barrel or turret?
                      4. +2
                        April 25 2026 17: 25
                        Quote: NIKNN
                        He was directing artillery fire, well, in today's terms, he was the commander of some kind of combat unit, what was he doing?

                        More details here: https://topwar.ru/280832-objazannosti-oficerov-i-nizhnih-chinov-artillerijskoj-specialnosti-na-korabljah-rossijskogo-imperatorskogo-flota-v-1903-1907-gg.html
                        In short, it received data from the rangefinders, determined the distance to the enemy, the magnitude of the change in distance, and in 1907, determined the lead; in 1903, it usually didn't do this, but transmitted the ship's own speed to the targeting stations, with the targeting station commander calculating the corrections. It controlled the gunnery (including ordering the guns performing the gunnery to fire using a signal), determined the ammunition to fire, determined when the gunnery had been covered and needed to switch to lethal fire, and when this fire became ineffective, requiring a return to gunnery.
                        Quote: NIKNN
                        Some data was transmitted to the gunners, horizontal or vertical (who was responsible for what? After all, it's an army and everything should be regulated.

                        In 1903, the range, projectile type, fire mode, and own ship's speed were transmitted. In 1907, instead of speed, the sight adjustment was transmitted. For more details, see
                        https://topwar.ru/278317-ob-organizacii-upravlenija-ognem-jeskadrennogo-bronenosca-peresvet.html
                        https://topwar.ru/279847-jevoljucija-sredstv-upravlenija-artillerijskim-ognem-korablej-rossijskogo-imperatorskogo-flota-v-1903-1907-gg.html
                        Quote: NIKNN
                        No. One of the gunners made adjustments to the sight, the question is which one and where in the vertical

                        Gunner #1 adjusted the sight, elevation, and firing position, while #2 adjusted the horizontal aim. In 1907, a third gunner, who was not a gunner, adjusted the sight (in other cases, he informed the gunners, who adjusted the aim themselves).
                        Quote: NIKNN
                        What did the horizon gunner do next? How did he take into account the target's speed and his own speed?

                        Through the correction that was given to him in 1907 from the central post, and in 1903 - either by the commander of the plutong, or by the one who calculated it himself, having received the speed of the ship
                        Quote: NIKNN
                        And finally, who was aiming anyway and why were there two gunners per gun barrel or turret?

                        Both gunners aimed simultaneously, one vertically, the other horizontally. This was more convenient.
                      5. +1
                        April 25 2026 17: 34
                        For more details see
                        https://topwar.ru/278317-ob-organizacii-upravlenija-ognem-jeskadrennogo-bronenosca-peresvet.html
                        https://topwar.ru/279847-jevoljucija-sredstv-upravlenija-artillerijskim-ognem-korablej-rossijskogo-imperatorskogo-flota-v-1903-1907-gg.html
                        Thank you, I will definitely take a look when I have time.
                      6. +1
                        April 25 2026 17: 40
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        The Plutong commander calculated the corrections. He controlled the sighting (including ordering the guns being sighted to fire using a signal).

                        Andrey, I still don't understand who was responsible for the shooting, but someone has to. Who's to blame if they missed? Or who's the hero if they did? Something smells more like shirking responsibility than skill on the part of the gunners. I admire the gunners, but the fire control is disappointing...
                      7. +1
                        April 25 2026 18: 03
                        Quote: NIKNN
                        Andrey, I still don’t understand who was responsible for the shooting, but someone had to.

                        Collective responsibility, alas. In fact, the entire development of naval fire control systems was based on minimizing the responsibility of gun crews and maximizing the responsibility of the fire controller, but even during WWII, a turret crew could easily screw up, disrupting fire.
                        Quote: NIKNN
                        Something here smells not of the gunners' skill, but of an evasion of responsibility.

                        No:))) Naval gunnery is simply a complex process that couldn't be managed by a single person. That's why the chain of command was required: "senior gunner - plutong commander - gunner." It was simply impossible to assign all of this to one person; the volume of calculations and actions is very large, and concentrating it in one place so that everything could be verified was also impossible.
                      8. +1
                        April 25 2026 19: 53
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        It is simply impossible to put all this on one person.

                        Who's talking about just one person? This is absurd, the responsibility falls on the system, and not even on the system... and I don't even dare to place responsibility on anyone... But... even responsibility here is somehow marginal... It would be easy to blame everything on the gunner or someone else involved - the ideal option, but the effectiveness of artillery fire ship to ship (I apologize if they were right, I was 1, (comma and 6%). And it's not so much my misunderstanding, as a question. I'm asking a question: how difficult is shooting at sea? (I know the answer, and how was it solved? So, two gunners produced a result in aiming????
                      9. +1
                        April 26 2026 11: 23
                        Quote: NIKNN
                        но эффективность артиллерийского огня корабль против корабля (прошу прошу прощения если те прав составлял 1, (запятая и 6 %)

                        Это сильно зависит от дистанций боя. К примеру, японцы в 27 января и в ЖМ добивались точности 12-дм орудий 9-10%, а 6-дм - 2,6%
                        В Ютланде немцы отстрелялись с общей точностью порядка 3,55%, англичане - 2,42%, при этом
                        The British 3 squadron of battlecruisers - 4,56% demonstrated the best accuracy indicators in the battle of Yutland.
                        In second place is the battle cruiser 1 of the admiral Hipper's reconnaissance group - 4,19%.
                        The third place is occupied by the British "343-mm" superdreadnoughts - 3,44%.
                        The fourth place in the “381-mm” super-dreadnoughts of the British is 3,14%.
                        The fifth place is received by the battleships of Germany - 2,39%.
                        The sixth place in the British 1-nd squadron of battle cruisers (343-mm) - 1,78%.
                        Seventh place was taken by the British "305-mm" battleships - 1,68%.
                        And, finally, the British 2 Squadron of the battle cruisers (305-mm) - 0,91% turns out to be the first from the end.
                        Это не точно, так как я считал только по русскоязычным источникам
                        https://topwar.ru/129995-o-tochnosti-strelby-v-yutlandskom-srazhenii-chat-1.html
                        https://topwar.ru/130451-o-tochnosti-strelby-v-yutlandskom-srazhenii-chast-2.html
                        Quote: NIKNN
                        И мое не то что бы недоразумение, сколько вопрос Задаю вопрос на сколько сложна стрельба на море

                        очень сложна
                        Quote: NIKNN
                        все таки она решалась?

                        Только путем большого количества тренировок. Наши после РЯВ стрелять стали много точнее, чем до и во время, но и тренировки изменились радикально
                        https://topwar.ru/280042-ob-uchebnyh-strelbah-rossijskogo-imperatorskogo-flota-v-1903-g-i-rashode-snarjadov-na-nih.html
                        https://topwar.ru/280533-artillerijskie-uchenija-rossijskogo-imperatorskogo-flota-do-i-posle-russko-japonskoj-vojny.html
            2. +1
              April 25 2026 12: 33
              Andrey, I'm also interested in how artillery fire is controlled these days. Missile weapons are perfectly understandable. Recent news reports indicate that artillery fire hit a tanker's engine room. Again, I wonder about the accuracy of the targeting in sea conditions...
              1. +2
                April 25 2026 13: 42
                Quote: NIKNN
                And in general, Andrey, I’m interested in how artillery fire is currently controlled?

                Now everything is simple - the target's position is determined by the fire control system radar, and the AU is also stabilized...
                Quote: NIKNN
                Here's a recent news story about artillery fire hitting a tanker's engine room. Again, I wonder about the accuracy of the guns at sea...

                There are no problems there at all - they were most likely shooting at point-blank range.
  4. +5
    April 23 2026 09: 58
    Good afternoon.
    Dear Andrey, thank you for adding to the previous series.
    In my opinion, from 1890 to 1908, instructions had a common purpose. This can be seen in the methods used on various ships. This problem existed not only in the Russian Navy, but also in the British and French navies. Only after improvements in instruments, guidance systems, and data transmission systems was it possible not only to create a unified system but also to make it mandatory for all ships.
    1. +1
      April 25 2026 08: 58
      Quote: 27091965i
      In my opinion, from 1890 to 1908, the instructions had a general purpose.

      You're absolutely right, dear Igor. We see the existence of some general instructions, at best, for formations (squadrons), and even then, they're not comprehensive; some things are left to the discretion of the individual ship's commander.
      1. +2
        April 25 2026 09: 24
        Good afternoon.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        We see the existence of some general instructions at best for a connection (squadron), and even then, they are not comprehensive; some things are left to the discretion of the commander of an individual ship.

        I'll send you a small publication—N.L. Klado's lectures on the French Navy. N.L. Klado abridged a lot, but you can still get a general idea of ​​the duties. And most importantly, it's in Russian, so you don't have to search or translate. Basically, it's a brief overview of the French Navy.
        1. +2
          April 25 2026 12: 15
          Quote: 27091965i
          Klado N.L. has cut out a lot, but you can get a general idea of ​​the official duties

          Thank you very much, dear Igor!
  5. +1
    April 24 2026 09: 55
    I will be brief.
    More Thanks!
    1. +2
      April 25 2026 08: 59
      You are always welcome, dear Vitaly!
  6. +1
    April 24 2026 20: 46
    Another THANKS to the author)
    I recall my own childhood bewilderment after reading Tsushima (where, already in captivity, I spoke with the gunner of the Asahi Group): how was it possible to squander such truly rare specialists - gunners?
    Some kind of clinic...
    I can't wrap my head around this logic - wasting valuable and acutely scarce resources (and most importantly - TIME!!!)...
    And write off already trained professionals to the reserve.