Military Review

Tsar Cannon is not a cannon at all: What stands in the Kremlin

33
Tsar Cannon is not a cannon at all: What stands in the Kremlin
Tsar Cannon has long been one of the symbols of Russia. Almost no foreign tourist leaves Moscow without examining the miracle of our technology. She entered dozens of anecdotes, which featured the Tsar Cannon that had never fired, the Tsar Bell that had never called, and some non-working miracle Yudo of the H-3 lunar rocket.


In a row with the Tsar Cannon, the poet Alexander Roslavlev even erected the famous monument to Alexander III by Trubetskoy:

Third wild toy
For the Russian serf:
There was a king-bell, a king-gun,
And now the king ...

But, alas, our venerable historians and dissident anecdators around are wrong. Firstly, the Tsar Cannon fired, and secondly, this weapon is not a gun at all.



But I will start in order. The Tsar Cannon was cast by the famous Russian master Andrei Chokhov (up to 1917, he was listed as Chekhov) by order of Tsar Fedor Ioannovich. Giant guns weighing 2400 in poods (39 312 kg) were cast in 1586 at the Moscow Cannon Yard. The length of the Tsar Cannon is 5345 mm, the outer diameter of the barrel is 1210 mm, and the diameter of the thickening at the barrel is 1350 mm.

Currently, the Tsar Cannon is located on a cast-iron decorative gun carriage, and next to it are decorative cast-iron cores, which were cast at the iron foundry of Byrd in 1834 in St. Petersburg. It is clear that it is physically impossible to shoot from this cast-iron gun carriage, nor to use cast-iron cores - the Tsar Cannon shatters smithereens! The documents about the Tsar cannon tests or its use in combat conditions have not been preserved, which gave grounds for long disputes about its purpose. Most historians and military men in the 19th and early 20th centuries believed that the Tsar Cannon was a shotgun, that is, an instrument designed to shoot shot, which in the 16th – 17th centuries consisted of small stones. A smaller part of the specialists generally excludes the possibility of using the gun in combat, considering that it was made specifically to frighten foreigners, especially the ambassadors of the Crimean Tatars. Recall that in 1571, Khan Devlet Girey burned Moscow.





In the XVIII - early XX centuries, the Tsar Cannon was called in all official documents a shotgun. And only the Bolsheviks in the 1930-s decided for propaganda purposes to raise its rank and began to magnify the gun.

The secret of the Tsar Cannon was revealed only in 1980, when a large automobile crane removed it from the gun carriage and placed it on a huge trailer. Then the powerful KrAZ took the Tsar Cannon to Serpukhov, where the cannon was repaired at the factory of the military unit No. 42708. At the same time a number of specialists of the Artillery Academy. Dzerzhinsky made her inspection and measurement. The report was not published for some reason, but from the preserved draft materials it becomes clear that the Tsar Cannon ... was not a cannon!

The highlight of the gun is its channel. At a distance of 3190 mm, it has the shape of a cone, the initial diameter of which is 900 mm, and the final diameter is 825 mm. Then comes the reverse taper charging chamber - with an initial diameter of 447 mm and a final (at the breech) 467 mm. The length of the chamber is 1730 mm, and the bottom is flat.

So this is a classic bombard!

For the first time bombers appeared at the end of the XIV century. The name "bombard" comes from the Latin words bombus (thunder sound) and arder (burn). The first bombardments were made of iron and had screw-bolts. So, for example, in 1382, in the city of Ghent (Belgium), the Mad Margaret bombardment was made, so named in memory of the Countess of Flanders, Margarita the Cruel. Bombardy caliber - 559 mm, barrel length - 7,75 caliber (klb), and the length of the channel - 5 klb. Gun weight - 11 t. “Mad Margaret” fired stone cores weighing 320 kg. The bombardment consists of two layers: the inner one, consisting of longitudinal welded strips, and the outer one - of 41 iron hoop, welded to each other and with the inner layer. A separate screw chamber consists of a single layer of discs welded together and is provided with sockets where the lever is inserted when it is screwed in and unscrewed.

On loading and aiming large bombards spent about a day. Therefore, during the siege of the city of Pisa in 1370, each time the besiegers prepared to make a shot, the besieged would go to the opposite end of the city. The besiegers, taking advantage of this, rushed to the attack.

The bombardment charge was no more than 10% of the core weight. Axles and carriages were not. The tools were placed on wooden decks and log cabins, and piles were hammered in the back or brick walls were erected for emphasis. Initially, the angle of elevation did not change. In the 15th century, primitive lifting mechanisms were used and copper bombardments were cast.

Note that the Tsar Cannon has no trunnions, with the help of which an elevation angle is attached to the instrument. In addition, it has an absolutely smooth rear section of the breech, with which, like other bombers, it rested against a stone wall or frame.

Dardanelle Protector

By the middle of the XV century, the most powerful siege artillery was at ... Turkish Sultan. Thus, during the siege of Constantinople in 1453, a Hungarian caster Urban cast a copper bombard of an 24 inch (610 mm) caliber to the Turks, shooting stone cores weighing about 20 pounds (328 kg). It took 60 bulls and 100 people to transport it to the position. To eliminate the rollback, behind the gun the Turks built a stone wall. The rate of fire of this bombard was 4 shot per day. By the way, the rate of fire of large-caliber Western European bombardment was about the same order. Just before taking Constantinople, the 24-inch bombardment exploded. At the same time, its designer Urban himself died. The Turks appreciated the high-caliber bombers. Already in the 1480 year, during the battles on the island of Rhodes, they used bombers 24 – 35-inch caliber (610 – 890 mm). The casting of such gigantic bombarding required, as indicated in old documents, 18 days.

It is curious that the bombers of the 15th – 16th centuries in Turkey were in service until the middle of the 19th century. So, 1 March 1807, when Admiral Dukworth’s British squadron was crossing the Dardanelles, the marble core of the 25 caliber inches (635 mm) weighing 800 pounds (244 kg) fell into the lower deck of the Windsor Castle and ignited several cannons with gunpowder, and the resultant guns were cast, and the resultant guns were cast, and the resultant guns were cast in the bottom of the Windsor Castle. there was a terrible explosion. 46 people were killed and injured. In addition, many sailors with a fright rushed overboard and drowned. The same core hit the ship "Aktiv" and punched a huge hole in the board above the waterline. Several people could stick their heads in this hole.

In 1868, over 20, huge bombardments still stood on the forts defending the Dardanelles. There is evidence that during the Dardanelles operation 1915 of the year, the English battleship Agamemnon had hit an 400-kilogram stone core. Of course, it could not penetrate the armor and only amused the team.

Let's compare the Turkish 25-inch (630-mm) copper bombard, cast in 1464, which is currently stored in the museum in Vulwich (London), with our Tsar Cannon. The weight of the Turkish bombard 19 t, and the total length - 5232 mm. The outer diameter of the barrel - 894 mm. The length of the cylindrical part of the channel - 2819 mm. Chamber length - 2006 mm. The bottom of the chamber is rounded. Bombard fired stone cores weighing 309 kg, gunpowder weighed 22 kg.

Bombarda once defended the Dardanelles. As you can see, externally and on the device of the channel, it is very similar to the Tsar Cannon. The main and fundamental difference is that the Turkish bombard has a screw breech. Apparently, the Tsar Cannon was made on the model of such a bombardment.

King shotgun

So, the Tsar Cannon is a bombardment designed for firing stone cores. The weight of the Tsar-cannon stone core was about 50 pounds (819 kg), and the cast-iron core of such a caliber weighs 120 pounds (1,97 t). As a shotgun, the Tsar Cannon was extremely ineffective. At cost, instead of it, it was possible to make 20 small shotguns, which require much less time to load - not just a day, but only 1 – 2 minutes. I note that in the official inventory “At the Moscow Arsenal of Consisting Artillery” # 1730 copper and 40 cast iron shotguns were counted on 15 for the year. Pay attention to their calibers: 1500 pounds - 1 (this is the Tsar Cannon), and then follow calibers: 25 pounds - 2, 22 pounds - 1, 21 pounds - 3, etc. The largest number of shotguns, 11, is in the 2-pound caliber.

And yet she shot

Who and why recorded the Tsar Cannon in shotguns? The fact is that in Russia all the old guns that were in the fortresses, with the exception of mortars, were automatically transferred to shotguns over time, that is, in the case of the siege of the fortress, they had to shoot (stone) with shotgun, according to the infantry on assault. It was inexpedient to use old guns for firing cores or bombs: what if the guns were blown apart, and the new guns had much better ballistic data. So the Tsar Cannon was recorded in shotguns, in the late XIX - early XX centuries the military forgot about the orders in the smooth-bore serf artillery, and civilian historians did not know at all, and by the name "shotgun" decided that the Tsar Cannon should be used exclusively as an anti-assault guns for shooting "stone shot".

The point in the dispute, whether the Tsar Cannon shot, was put in 1980 by experts from the Academy. Dzerzhinsky. They investigated the canal cannon and, for a number of signs, including the presence of particles of burnt powder, concluded that they shot from the Tsar Cannon at least once. After the Tsar Cannon was molded and trimmed at the Cannon Yard, it was dragged to the Spassky Bridge and laid on the ground next to the Peacock Cannon. # To move the cannon, ropes were tied to the eight brackets on its trunk, 200 was simultaneously tied to the ropes horses, and they rolled a gun lying on huge logs - rinks.

Initially, the Tsar and Peacock guns lay on the ground near the bridge leading to the Spasskaya Tower, and the Kashpirov’s gun at the Zemsky order, located where it is now Historical a museum. In 1626 they were lifted from the ground and installed on log cabins densely packed with earth. These platforms were called roscates. One of them, with the Tsar Cannon and the “Peacock”, was placed at the Frontal Place, the other, with the Kashpirova Cannon, at the Nikolsky Gate. In 1636, wooden roskats were replaced by stone ones, inside which warehouses and shops selling wine were arranged.

After the "Narva confusion", when the tsarist army lost all the siege and regimental artillery, Peter I ordered urgently to pour new guns. The king, necessary for this, decided to mine by melting bells and antique cannons. By “nominal decree” it was “ordered to pour into the cannon and mortar casting the Peacock cannon, which is in frontal place on the rossate; the Kashpirov gun, that of the New Money Court, where the Zemsky order was; the “Echidna” cannon, which is near the village of Voskresensky; the gun "Krechet" core pud ten pounds; the Nightingale cannon with the 6 core of pounds, which is on the square in China. ”

Peter, because of his ignorance, did not spare the most ancient tools of the Moscow casting and made an exception only for the largest tools. Among them, of course, was the Tsar Cannon, as well as two casting mortars of Andrei Chokhov, which are currently in the Artillery Museum in St. Petersburg.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.popmech.ru
33 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Denis
    Denis 29 June 2013 08: 13
    +3
    And yet she shot
    As a child, in the late 70s, I heard that she shot from the fortress walls not with cores, but with stuff, with stones, etc. That the cores and carriages were cast later for decorative purposes
    1. Apologet.Ru
      Apologet.Ru 29 June 2013 16: 48
      +8
      Wunderwafel and nanotechnology of those centuries. Though ancient, but beautiful ...
  2. AK-47
    AK-47 29 June 2013 08: 16
    +5
    Thank you pleased, still shot.
    1. Gahprom
      Gahprom 29 June 2013 11: 56
      -19 qualifying.
      no, I didn’t shoot
      she has neither a deposit nor an ignition hole,
      shirokorad, as always somewhere out there ... heard a tinkle more often, the only examination proved that it didn’t shoot

      once again, the article is old, shirokorad flew by, it is known for a long time
      http://www.milhist.info/2013/06/13/lobin_5/
      1. Simon
        Simon 29 June 2013 15: 05
        +5
        Read attentively. It is written that the analysis of the trunk was carried out, where they found traces of gunpowder and rizka from the charge passing through the trunk, although in the literature this is not mentioned anywhere. Most likely conducted a test. So she shot, but was not used in hostilities.
    2. Apologet.Ru
      Apologet.Ru 29 June 2013 16: 34
      +1
      And many thanks to the author hi
  3. Beck
    Beck 29 June 2013 09: 38
    -15 qualifying.
    The Tsar Cannon, like the Tsar Bell, are not functional objects intended for use, they are works of art.

    The Tsar Bell in those days could not be lifted by more than one bell tower, since there were no corresponding lifting mechanisms capable of lifting such a weight of 200 tons and there was no bell tower that could withstand such a weight.

    The Tsar Cannon cannot fire at all. The configuration of the barrel, uniform thickness along the entire length, will not withstand the pressure of powder gases. All guns of those times, and even now, in their breech, are much thicker precisely in order to restrain pressure. The Tsar Cannon doesn’t. And the thickness of the barrel itself does not correspond to the diameter of the channel of the gun, too thin. In addition, the strength of the barrel is weakened by an artistic ornament.

    Who does not believe. Try to charge the gun according to the rules of the time, I don’t know the gunpowder how much is needed, ten kilograms, maybe twenty. Insert the core, or stones, squirt and raise the wick. Definitely break the gun.
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 29 June 2013 10: 21
      +3
      Good day everyone, In my opinion, the article describes a gradual increase in the thickness of the walls from the muzzle to the "breech" part, and look at the drawings of medieval bombards and photographs of surviving samples - they are almost indistinguishable from the tsar cannon, at least for me an amateur) )
    2. Horde
      Horde 29 June 2013 11: 07
      +9
      The Tsar Cannon, like the Tsar Bell, are not functional objects intended for use, they are works of art.


      Well, naturally, Beck, our long-time ancestors and even the famous Andrei Chokhov were just fucking fucking, why did they get rid of something worthless casts
      they made life difficult for themselves from the abundance of strength and stupidity, all the fun for, and the wars at that time were waged like this, the Russians pull out the forty-ton monster into the Tatar clearing in FIFTY BULLS AND HUNDRED HUNDREDS and yelling that there is urine - "hey filthy Tatarva saw what the hell we have, so that they got scared quickly and turned wildly, or else we'll shoot into the white light ", and the Tatars responded," but not so? Well, your horde took on a horse and back to the steppe "
      that's how traditions write history, but you repeat.
      Quote: Beck
      The Tsar Cannon cannot fire at all. The configuration of the barrel, uniform thickness along the entire length, will not withstand the pressure of powder gases. All guns of those times, and even now, in their breech, are much thicker precisely in order to restrain pressure. The Tsar Cannon doesn’t. And the thickness of the barrel itself does not correspond to the diameter of the channel of the gun, too thin. In addition, the strength of the barrel is weakened by an artistic ornament.


      Shirokorad told you that they found traces of gunpowder and traces of a shot, what are you insisting on? are you that specialist? then give evidence that you didn’t shoot, why in vain do you grind your tongue?

      Who does not believe. Try to charge the gun according to the rules of the time, I don’t know the gunpowder how much is needed, ten kilograms, maybe twenty. Insert the core, or stones, squirt and raise the wick. Definitely break the gun


      do you seem to have completely abandoned reality? maybe I’d shoot from the Tsar Cannon, say the creation of Tsereteli into the statue of Peter, only who would let it be done, or maybe this is not a problem for you?
      1. Flooding
        Flooding 29 June 2013 14: 50
        0
        Quote: Horde
        Well, naturally, Beck, our long-time ancestors and even the famous Andrei Chokhov were just fucking fucking, why did they get rid of something worthless casts

        Horde, I like the way you think.
        In later times, Peter did not have enough metal for guns.
        But before him this good was lying under his feet, the conveyors were without work.
        Here are the masters and are hungry.
        1. Horde
          Horde 29 June 2013 15: 51
          0
          Quote: Flood
          Bulk (4)


          Greetings to Vladimir. hi
          that you have not been seen in historical subjects for a long time, there’s already a new generation of fans on the site who is growing up, both stand and the other side.
          Recently found the super site of the historian Alexander Kas.
          This is something incomparable, it easily spins out the most complicated historical puzzles, from troubled times to Peter, or the Kulikovo battle-Kosovo field.
          I recommend you get acquainted, you will not regret it.
          http://istclub.ru/ good
    3. Artyom
      Artyom 29 June 2013 11: 20
      10
      quote - "The Tsar Cannon cannot shoot in principle. The configuration of the barrel, uniform thickness along the entire length, will not withstand the pressure of powder gases."
      Well, firstly: you must read the article carefully, the inner bore of the trunk is conical with an increase in thickness to the breech.
      secondly: it is necessary to take into account which gunpowder was then used. These were smoky gunpowder with a relatively low burning rate and the pressure in the barrel increased more smoothly.
      I think that this weapon was cast primarily as a siege, and not as a defensive one, with a siege of an enemy fortress, the time factor is not so important and the main thing is to breach a wall, and for this, turning mechanisms are not needed, the main thing is to find out where the enemy has a wall thinner, and the gate, I think a stone under a ton, can be taken out at a time. Everything is better than ramming under hot tar.
      1. old man54
        old man54 29 June 2013 15: 13
        +1
        Quote: Artyom
        I think that this weapon was cast primarily as a siege, and not as a defensive one, with a siege of an enemy fortress, the time factor is not so important and the main thing is to breach a wall, and for this, turning mechanisms are not needed, the main thing is to find out where the enemy has a wall thinner and the gate, I think, with a stone under a ton, can be taken out at times. Everything is better than ramming under hot tar.

        Your golden words, well done you! It is for this that it was designed and made. It was used, but it was problematic to move it a dozen then, that’s little use.
    4. Ivan_Ivanov
      Ivan_Ivanov 29 June 2013 11: 36
      10
      400 years later, the same experts will say that the Voivode is "not a functional object intended for use, but a work of art." Well, they would say, such a rocket could not fly.

      The Tsar Cannon cannot fire at all.


      We read the article:
      The point in the dispute, whether the Tsar Cannon shot, was put in 1980 by experts from the Academy. Dzerzhinsky. They investigated the canal cannon and, for a number of signs, including the presence of particles of burnt powder, concluded that they shot from the Tsar Cannon at least once.


      You suggest that we do not believe the specialists from the Academy. Dzerzhinsky and believe you - an amateur who saw the Tsar Cannon only in pictures? Gone are the days when the reader, for the most part, believed every liberal you ... ru.

      The Tsar Bell in those days could not be lifted by more than one bell tower, since there were no corresponding lifting mechanisms capable of lifting such a weight in 200 tons


      Wikipedia, The Bronze Horseman - pedestal weight 1600 tons. That is, you want to convince us that our ancestors somehow could transport 1600 tons, but they could not lift 200 tons?
      1. Alex
        Alex 8 September 2013 17: 35
        +2
        That is, you want to convince us that our ancestors somehow could transport 1600 tons, but they could not raise 200 tons?

        Well, let's put to transport and then put not exactly the same as lift up, and then hang up. But on the other hand, somehow they lifted Stonehenge blocks onto stone pillars, and that was a little earlier wink
    5. Vasilenko Vladimir
      Vasilenko Vladimir 29 June 2013 13: 22
      +3
      Quote: Beck
      The Tsar Bell is not a functional object intended for use, it is a work of art

      in fact, it was not made as a decorative product, but rather as a bell
    6. Flooding
      Flooding 29 June 2013 14: 59
      +3
      Quote: Beck
      The Tsar Bell in those days could not be lifted by more than one bell tower, since there were no corresponding lifting mechanisms capable of lifting such a weight of 200 tons and there was no bell tower that could withstand such a weight.

      It is really not surprising for a modern person to see a bell on earth. Everybody saw on TV :)
      It would seem at least strange to the same generation to cast a bell to decorate their pavement.
      Would you be interested in his story or something ...
    7. Karlsonn
      Karlsonn 30 June 2013 01: 08
      +1
      Quote: Beck
      The Tsar Bell in those days could not be lifted by more than one bell tower, since there were no corresponding lifting mechanisms capable of lifting such a weight in 200 tons


      Greetings buddy hi now I will break your argument laughing

      ... A giant cannon weighing 2400 pounds (39 312 kg) and not how not 200 tons!

      and the weight of 40 tons our ancestors were able to lift.
      By the way, the weight of some statues on Easter Island reaches up to 90 tons, which did not prevent their transportation or their establishment.
      I recommend reading carefully! bully drinks
      1. Beck
        Beck 30 June 2013 09: 49
        -3
        Quote: Karlsonn
        Greetings buddy, now I will break your arguments


        Hi!

        Yeah, the chut fell on me here. 200 tons is a bell. 39 tons is a gun. And I wrote about raising the bell. Find buddy Carlson the bell tower from Lamansh to the Tatar Strait to the east and from Lamansh to the Tatar Strait to the west that would accommodate and withstand such a bell as the Tsar Bell. There are no such bells in the world.

        A minus to me is from laudatory patriotism. (here the word patriotism in the best sense). And I do not deny that the cannon and the bell are the largest in the world and that they must be cast outstanding, supreme craftsmanship. But they cast like prestige. And now people are proud of the longest street, the tallest building, the largest pie.

        At the same time. Look carefully at the gun. This pipe is the same at both ends of the diameter. And one of the visitors in a rage of confrontation wrote that
        Quote: Artyom
        Well, firstly: you must read the article carefully, the inner bore of the trunk is conical with an increase in thickness to the breech.
        ... If so, then this is nonsense. Where and who has seen in the history of firearms with a thickening of the breech by the inner diameter of the barrel, and not by the outer diameter. This is the type of a bell. With such a bell, all physical laws of gas dynamics of gas outflow work differently. Any such flared weapon will "spit", not shoot.

        But if you take the Tsar Cannon as a work of art, then yes, the trunk canal can be made by anyone, even with a zigzag. This zigzag does not affect the artistic value.

        And yet = who would dare to shoot a gun from such a gun?
        1. Beck
          Beck 30 June 2013 10: 24
          -3
          Quote: Beck
          And yet = who would dare to shoot a gun from such a gun?


          I will add. Carriage. Look at the carriage and barrel of the Tsar Cannon, isn't there a clear imbalance with the combat guns of those times? All the carriages of medieval cannons were made massive, since there were no knurlers and haul trucks in those days. The purpose of the massive gun carriage is to extinguish the recoil when fired. In this regard, the carriage of the Tsar Cannon, well, just useless. The barrel of the Tsar Cannon will simply rip off such a gun carriage when fired, and most likely, if the barrel does not break, the cannon will fly off in one direction, and the gun with a gun carriage in the other. And what more damage will bring is unknown and unknown, whether to the enemy, or to his own.

          And how the artistic proportions of the barrel and gun mounts of the Tsar Cannon look.
          1. Alex
            Alex 8 September 2013 17: 47
            +3
            Dear Beck, are you actually in the subject? Both the carriage and the cannonballs were made as decorative elements and, of course, were adjusted precisely to the proportions of the weapon, which has just mortar ripples. By the way, maybe you are not up to date, so I will reveal a "terrible secret": the diameter of the nuclei is larger than the caliber of the Tsar Cannon lol . Also for aesthetics - such a bunch of pyramids looks better.
        2. Flooding
          Flooding 30 June 2013 12: 02
          +2
          Quote: Beck
          If so then this is nonsense. Where and who saw firearms in history with breech thickening along the inner diameter of the barrel, and not on the outer diameter. This is the type of bell produced.


          Here is a diagram of Tsar Cannon from that same Falkovsky N.I. Have a look. No bells.
          1. Beck
            Beck 1 July 2013 11: 37
            +1
            Quote: Flood
            Here is a diagram of Tsar Cannon from that same Falkovsky N.I. Have a look. No bells.


            But this is not a conical thickening or narrowing, as Artem writes. And what a wonderful design. For example, I do not know a similar design with the guns of the Middle Ages, not to mention our days. Charge and clean torment. And if you look carefully, the wide part of the trunk is still conical, that is, a bell. The outer end has a diameter of 920 mm, the breech 870 mm. 5 cm difference.

            Here one member of the forum wrote that 20 kg of gunpowder was laid in the largest Russian gun, Perm, in 50 inches (53cm). The Tsar Cannon is 35 inches, that is 89 cm. According to the proportions of the Tsar Cannon, 92 kilograms of gunpowder would have to be planted. Well, stick 92 kilograms of gunpowder in your existing appendicitis. Moreover, there is no pilot hole.

            Here is a real big, functioning Perm gun. And the appearance shows the correspondence between the thickness of the barrel, the gun carriage and the thickening of the breech. And the channel itself is straight without sockets and appendicitis.

            Tsar Cannon and Tsar Bell are PRESTIGE of Russia, but not functional objects.
            1. Flooding
              Flooding 4 July 2013 13: 30
              0
              Quote: Beck
              And what a wonderful design. For example, I do not know a similar design with the guns of the Middle Ages, not to mention our days.

              Classic bombardment. We look:
              - Lazy Metta (Faule Mette, 1411)
            2. Flooding
              Flooding 4 July 2013 13: 35
              0
              - Mons Meg (Mons Meg, 1449)
              Image is not inserted. Look on the internet.
        3. Flooding
          Flooding 30 June 2013 12: 13
          0
          Quote: Beck
          And I do not deny that both the cannon and the bell are the largest in the world, and in order to cast them, one must have extraordinary, supreme skill.

          Not certainly in that way. In Akhmendagar (India) in 1584 (according to other sources in 1551) a weapon was cast, which received the name "Malik-e-Maidan" (translated as the prince of the battlefield). Its weight is about 57 tons !!!
          She can now be admired on the wall of the fortress of Birjapur

          Quote: Beck
          I will add. Carriage. Look at the gun mount and the barrel of the Tsar Cannon, is it really obvious disproportion with the battle guns of those times?

          The carriage was cast much later. And this is no secret to anyone.
        4. Mikhail3
          Mikhail3 30 June 2013 12: 27
          +2
          Bell tower. In Russia, there was such a method of construction - staining. That is, a certain building was cut from oak (usually a bell tower, for height and strength), after which the finished wooden elements were placed in the river. Not for long ... years 70-80. During this time, the logs gained strength, allowing them to bear the load and more than 200 tons. Not preserved, this is true. A stained tree is a jewel. As soon as the control over the safety of such valuable things was weakening ... Therefore, this bell, apparently, was not mounted. Russia weakened ... the stained bell tower was either stolen or simply used in parts.
          About the "impossibility to hang". Do you know how this was done? They made ... a mound. Just simply. Not fast in time, but completely reliable and executable by not at all fantastic means.
        5. Alex
          Alex 8 September 2013 17: 43
          +2
          But if you take the Tsar Cannon as a work of art, then yes, the trunk canal can be made by anyone, even with a zigzag. This zigzag does not affect the artistic value.

          Then it is generally not clear why all these delights and difficulties are necessary: ​​two cones, and even inside the bore. As well as arrange zigzags there. Chokhov was not a newcomer, he worked at the request of the tsar, so if he had been given an order for a toy, he would not have sought all these tricks, and he could have cast something even more impressive - what difference does it make to shoot anyway will have to.
      2. kavad
        kavad 30 June 2013 11: 28
        -1
        simply moving from point A to point B and hanging a two hundred ton bell under a dome are slightly different things.
    8. Andrew-001
      Andrew-001 30 June 2013 20: 49
      0
      Quote: Beck
      ... in those days they could not have lifted more than one bell tower, since there were no corresponding lifting mechanisms capable of lifting such a weight ...

      Following your logic, then there are no pyramids in Egypt.
      Judging by your mattress flag, you seem to think that everything real and good could be done only in the States.
    9. Alex
      Alex 8 September 2013 17: 30
      +2
      Quote: Beck
      Try to charge the gun according to the rules of the time, I don’t know the gunpowder how much is needed, ten kilograms, maybe twenty. Insert the core, or stones, squirt and raise the wick. Definitely break the gun.


      And burst, in the European chronicles of messages about it - through one, if not more often. And the Sultan’s guns were bursting (the article even says), and ours are no exception. At a time when virtually nothing was known about pneumatics, gas dynamics, thermodynamics, mechanics and resistance of materials, all new items were tested by experience, and the designers and casters of the guns themselves were often also gunners. So gradually they gained experience, sometimes at the cost of their lives.
    10. The brightest
      The brightest 7 January 2017 07: 11
      0
      You read old articles and comments under them and you are amazed ... How many are "Chukchi not a reader, Chukchi writer". I have not read the article, but I am trying to express my opinion. And what is an opinion without knowledge - an empty shudder of air. So bek with a small letter, you are empty-headed and your opinion is the same empty-headed.
  4. psdf
    psdf 29 June 2013 10: 55
    0
    The point in the dispute, whether the Tsar Cannon shot, was put in 1980 by experts from the Academy. Dzerzhinsky. They investigated the canal cannon and, for a number of signs, including the presence of particles of burnt powder, concluded that they shot from the Tsar Cannon at least once.

    According to their conclusion and historical search, the "shot" consisted of blank stuffing with packages of gunpowder (in fact, an imitation charge) by several students, not long before the revolution. The charge was also ignited from the muzzle side.
    By the way, in the breech, the firing hole for this gun is missing.
    1. Horde
      Horde 29 June 2013 11: 25
      +5
      Quote: psdf
      By the way, in the breech, the firing hole for this gun is missing.


      The ignition hole at the Tsar Cannon is at the top of the torch, like all other guns. Its diameter is 10 mm. At the hole there is a special deep cavity in the form of a square box into which gunpowder was poured. To prevent gunpowder from being blown away by the wind and damp in rainy weather, a lid was mounted above the box, which reclined on a hinge.
      http://www.razlib.ru/nauchnaja_literatura_prochee/car_pushka/p3.php
      don’t worry buddy, our ancestors were not idiots and when they cast the gun they did not forget about the ignition hole.

      According to their conclusion and historical search, the "shot" consisted of blank stuffing with packages of gunpowder (in fact, an imitation charge) by several students, not long before the revolution.


      no, it wasn’t just seminarians in the trunk of bonfires in the winter, sunk from the cold and basking, they sat well and spoiled their gunpowder, they were spoiled, but our scientists simply did not understand laughing
      1. psdf
        psdf 30 June 2013 21: 26
        0
        Quote: Horde
        don’t worry buddy, our ancestors were not idiots and when they cast the gun they did not forget about the ignition hole.

        Dear, distinguish the real from the imaginary. Fiction Facts
        In 1980, in fact, before the Olympics, the Tsar Cannon was taken for restoration. The study of the barrel was carried out by a group of specialists under the direction of the "gunsmith" M.E. Portnov, engineer G.M. Zakharikov was invited as a technical consultant. So, in the course of a thorough study, it was found that the Tsar Cannon ... lacks an ignition hole through which the charge was ignited! Prof. Falkovsky mistakenly considered in 1946 that there was a fuse - therefore, he depicted it in the drawing. The Tsar Cannon has a shell, there are indications of a fuse (about 10 mm in diameter), but there is no channel itself leading to the breech. In addition, the inner chamber of the barrel is not cleaned after casting; there are tides on it - metal remnants at the edges of the mold that are formed during the casting process. If the cannon had been fired, these remnants of bronze would have disappeared. But that did not happen. These two facts are indisputable evidence that they did not shoot from the Tsar Cannon ... "

        http://www.milhist.info/2013/06/13/lobin_5/
    2. Gahprom
      Gahprom 29 June 2013 12: 26
      -5
      recycled literary legend http://www.dedushka.net/book/read/118750
  5. alexdol
    alexdol 29 June 2013 11: 09
    +1
    Interesting article, thanks to the author!
  6. MAG
    MAG 29 June 2013 11: 37
    0
    The Tsar Cannon we have in the Motovilikhinsky Museum in nete there is a photo and she shot. 20 inch caliber
    1. Saburov
      Saburov 30 June 2013 02: 34
      +1
      Perm has the world's largest 20-inch cast iron cannon. Unlike other "tsar-cannons", Perm is a military weapon. The Perm giant was manufactured in 1868 by order of the Ministry of the Sea at the Motovilikhinsky pig-cannon factory (the enterprise, the famous artillery armament factory, exists to this day: with 1871 - Perm cannon plants, with 1957 - the machine-building plant named after V.I. Lenin, now - OJSC Motovilikhinskiye Zavody, which produces various guns, mortars, howitzers, self-propelled guns, Grad, Hurricane and Tornado volley fire systems). The Perm cannon was cast using the “Ural method” from very high quality hardened cast iron [4] according to American drawings. There is still some reason to believe that the prototype was the “giant gun” of the American steamer “Poukhanan”, (A. B. Shirokorad Encyclopedia of Russian artillery, N. Zadornov “Head”.)
      Perm Tsar Cannon
      The cannon was tested from 16 on August 1869 of the year by firing from the shore across the Kama River (the width of the river here is from 0,8 to 1 km). Later, gun tests were also carried out by shooting across the river until the end of Perestroika - in the Soviet years there was a huge training ground.
      Major General F.V. Pestich, chief of the artillery unit of the Kronstadt port, attended the tests of the Perm giant. During the tests of the Perm Tsar Cannon, 314 shots were fired by the cores and bombs of various systems. As a result, the strength of the gun was checked, the weight of the powder charge was optimized. At the same time, the charge was gradually increased to 120 kilograms of black powder. As a combat charge was installed in 53 kg. The firing range was up to 1,2 kilometer. And Tsar Cannon did not fire a single shot in Moscow, there have already been so many conversations on this and the expertise.
  7. Gahprom
    Gahprom 29 June 2013 11: 57
    +1
    Now, finally, we turn to the last question - did they shoot from a gun or not? If we go back to AB Shirokorad's opus, we can find in it the following “conclusion”: “The point in the dispute over whether the Tsar Cannon fired was put in 1980 by specialists from the Academy. Dzerzhinsky. They investigated the canal of the gun and by a number of signs, including the presence of particles of burnt gunpowder, they concluded that the Tsar Cannon had been fired at least once. " In my opinion, Shirokorad put an end to his reputation as a "historian of artillery" long ago. Either his guns were used by the Tatars on the Kulikovo field in 1380, then it turns out that they fired from the Tsar Cannon. Why come up with some unpublished "1980 draft report" and the "conclusion" itself, if the results of the survey were ... published back in 1984, in the collection of the Institute of the History of Natural Science and Technology of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR (Zakharikov G.M. On the combat purpose of the Tsar Cannon "p.31-45) And it should be noted that the conclusions of the experts were completely opposite to the insinuations of Shirokorad.

    So, the conclusions can be drawn as follows:
    1. The Tsar Cannon, as it sounds trite, was a cannon. It was named not so much because of its impressive size, but because of the bas-relief decoration - the equestrian image of Tsar Fedor Ivanovich
    2. Guns in the XVI century. they called giant bombers, which fired both with large stone cores (“into the knee to the man and in the waist”), so with bundles of iron cores, bound in lead bands.
    3. The Tsar Cannon was created for demonstrative purposes to strengthen the position of Tsar Fedor after the unrest in Moscow, as well as to demonstrate the power of the state to the visiting embassies.
    4. The Tsar Cannon is an example of offensive armaments - wall-walled ("siege") bombers of the XNUMXth century.
    5. The Tsar Cannon never fired.
    once again, I haven’t fired once, there is neither a deposit nor an ignition hole
    http://www.milhist.info/2013/06/13/lobin_5/
    1. Ivan_Ivanov
      Ivan_Ivanov 29 June 2013 12: 09
      +1
      After reading an article that clearly says:
      The point in the dispute, whether the Tsar Cannon shot, was put in 1980 by experts from the Academy. Dzerzhinsky. They investigated the canal cannon and, for a number of signs, including the presence of particles of burnt powder, concluded that they shot from the Tsar Cannon at least once.


      The man concludes:
      5. The Tsar Cannon never fired.
      Once again, I didn’t shoot once, there is not a deposit ...


      Where is the logic, b ...? fool
      1. Gahprom
        Gahprom 29 June 2013 12: 13
        +1
        Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
        Where is the logic, b ...?

        In 1980, indeed, before the Olympics, the Tsar Cannon was taken for restoration. The study of the barrel was carried out by a group of specialists under the guidance of the “gunsmith” M.E. Portnov, engineer G.M. Zakharikov was invited as a technical consultant. so, in the course of a thorough study, it was found out that the Tsar Cannon ... doesn’t have a pilot hole, through which the charge was ignited! Prof. Falkovsky mistakenly considered in 1946 that there was a fuse - and therefore depicted it in the drawing. The Tsar Cannon has a sink, there are indications of a fuse (approx. 10 mm in diameter), but the channel itself, which goes to the breech, is not. In addition, the inner chamber of the barrel is not cleaned after casting, there are tides on it - metal remains at the edges of the mold, which are formed during the casting process. If a gun were fired, then these bronze remnants would have been removed. But that did not happen. These two facts are indisputable evidence that they did not shoot from the Tsar Cannon.
        1. Ivan_Ivanov
          Ivan_Ivanov 29 June 2013 12: 27
          +2
          That is, one source says that:
          in 1980, specialists from the Academy. Dzerzhinsky. They examined the canal of the gun and, according to a number of signs, including the presence of particles of burnt gunpowder, concluded that the Tsar Cannon was fired


          And the other source is that after the same study in 1980 concludes:
          These two facts are indisputable evidence that the Tsar Cannon was not fired.


          It seems to me that someone is brazenly lying. am
          1. Gahprom
            Gahprom 29 June 2013 12: 32
            +1
            and I know who on W begins, on D ends.
            This author has long stained himself and his reputation.
            for example
            http://dr-guillotin.livejournal.com/88603.html

            ps, by the way, in my link, if you noticed several "co-authors"
            The author thanks for the advice of Prof. S.N. Bogatyrev, Senior Researcher Armory, Ph.D. S.P. Orlenko.
            1. Ivan_Ivanov
              Ivan_Ivanov 29 June 2013 13: 04
              +1
              The study (1980) of the trunk was carried out by a group of specialists under the guidance of the “gunsmith” M.E. Portnov, engineer G.M. Zakharikov was invited as a technical consultant.


              Where is the conclusion of Portnov? Do they not refer to him when they say that the gun fired? Why do we, as a last resort, palm off the statement of only consultant Zakharikov?
              1. Gahprom
                Gahprom 29 June 2013 13: 41
                -1
                to the author of the article
        2. Horde
          Horde 29 June 2013 12: 33
          0
          Quote: Gahpro
          Prof. Falkovsky mistakenly considered in 1946 that there was a fuse - and therefore depicted it in the drawing.


          But what does this mean the professor was mistaken that there is a hole? in general, how can you make a mistake that you see with your own eyes? it is either there or not. Stories of this kind are not just strange, but simply stupid.
          1. Gahprom
            Gahprom 29 June 2013 13: 35
            0
            Do you think there’s a hole in your hand?
            ... eyes ... well, well
            1. Ivan_Ivanov
              Ivan_Ivanov 29 June 2013 13: 49
              +1
              The professor was simply a fool and did not know that it was possible to check the through hole or not with an ordinary probe - a metal bar, and the drawing was simply speculatively thought up. I.diot professor, AHA ...
            2. Horde
              Horde 29 June 2013 13: 53
              -1
              Quote: Gahpro
              Do you think there’s a hole in your hand?
              ... eyes ... well, well


              the human eye has a resolution of less than 10 microns, but this is a human eye, maybe experts examined the gun with other eyes?
          2. psdf
            psdf 30 June 2013 21: 33
            -1
            Quote: Horde
            But what does this mean the professor was mistaken that there is a hole? in general, how can you make a mistake that you see with your own eyes?

            Have you seen many professors in your life? Did you do a lot of research? Personally / as part of a group?
    2. Horde
      Horde 29 June 2013 12: 28
      +1
      . The Tsar Cannon was created for demonstrative purposes to strengthen the position of Tsar Fedor after the unrest in Moscow, as well as to demonstrate the power of the state to the visiting embassies.


      if Tsar Fedor needed to splurge on foreigners, then he could have made a visual aid to the POWER of the state and simpler. The Tsar Cannon is TOO complicated to manufacture and 40 tons of copper have been invested too much resources, it needs to be mined, brought, smelted, decorated , then drag everywhere on all sorts of demonstrations. Our ancestors were not idiots, as the INFLUENCE AGENTS try to assure us at the local forum
      1. Gahprom
        Gahprom 29 June 2013 12: 31
        -1
        if I think we are discussing the appointment, but the issue with classification and shooting, IMHO, is closed
        1. Horde
          Horde 29 June 2013 12: 35
          -2
          Quote: Gahpro
          I think we are discussing the appointment, but the issue with classification and shooting, IMHO, is closed

          if you do not want to answer, it’s better to close your mouth
          1. Gahprom
            Gahprom 29 June 2013 12: 37
            +1
            that is, there is nothing to answer? nothing to provide, and nothing to say in return?
            Search for influence agents — the last straw?
            ok, drain protected
            1. Horde
              Horde 29 June 2013 12: 46
              0
              Quote: Gahpro
              that is, there is nothing to answer? nothing to provide, and nothing to say in return?
              Search for influence agents — the last straw?
              ok, drain protected


              do not need so much chatter, you wrote that Professor Falkovsky was mistaken in determining the presence of an ignition hole in the barrel of a gun, I ask you how it is possible that he looked with his eyes closed, or what, and how then could "specialists of the Dzerzhinsky Academy" not find a hole? What kind of mysticism ???
              1. Ivan_Ivanov
                Ivan_Ivanov 29 June 2013 13: 08
                +1
                The hole was found exclusively by the consultant Zakharikov.

                Where is the conclusion of Portnov?
                1. Gahprom
                  Gahprom 29 June 2013 13: 31
                  -1
                  ask this question to the author of the article
                  http://alexuslob.livejournal.com/84733.html#comments
              2. Gahprom
                Gahprom 29 June 2013 13: 33
                -2
                Falkovsky climbed on top of it and did an external inspection, with an external inspection, the depression he discovered was mistaken for a clogged ignition hole, which then turned out to be simply not drilled and not clogged
                ps, let's have less hysteria
      2. Ivan_Ivanov
        Ivan_Ivanov 29 June 2013 12: 43
        +1
        +5 that is, interpreters of history after 500 years, without any written or other evidence, they understand so well and know what the king meant by creating this cannon. it turns out to throw dust in the eyes wanted. scare the adversary ...
      3. Lopatov
        Lopatov 29 June 2013 13: 07
        0
        Quote: Horde
        if Tsar Fedor needed to splurge on foreigners

        Dear, this is not dust in the eyes, this is a demonstration of the level of industrial development. It was worth it.
        1. Horde
          Horde 29 June 2013 13: 40
          -1
          Quote: Spade
          Quote: Horde
          if Tsar Fedor needed to splurge on foreigners

          Dear, this is not dust in the eyes, this is a demonstration of the level of industrial development. It was worth it.


          I don’t understand something for the gun or against?
          According to TI, I remember a moment when Peter seized the mouth of the Neva and began to build his own town, in order to annoy the Swede and surprise foreigners, he built a house and painted it like a stone, how, from your point of view, is this a "demonstration of development" or "a demonstration of complete weakness "?
          It is known that during the life of Peter in St. Petersburg ONE or TWO stone houses were built.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 29 June 2013 13: 46
            +2
            Of course for. Even if she didn’t shoot.

            Quote: Horde
            how from your point of view is this "demonstration of development" or "demonstration of complete weakness"?

            Have you forgotten about the Peter and Paul Fortress? Is she like a show of strength or weakness?
            And in St. Petersburg, and not such things happened. Under Anna Ioannovna, beautiful stone facades were built, and the remaining three walls of the houses were temporarily made of wood. So what?
            1. Horde
              Horde 29 June 2013 14: 12
              -6
              Quote: Spade
              Have you forgotten about the Peter and Paul Fortress? Is she like a show of strength or weakness?


              if about the Peter and Paul Fortress, like Peter’s creation, then here it is
              -in the first historians lie that before Peter there was nothing the city of Oreshek, and other settlements
              -secondly, again, the stone dressed the fortress in Minichus only under Anna Ionanovna i.e. 20 years after Peter
              therefore, not to mention the numerous other shoals of Peter, it becomes absolutely clear that the truth during his life about Peter was said to be ARCHIACTER. So, the conclusion of Petrovsky Petersburg is DEMONSTRATION OF DISABILITY.
        2. Alex
          Alex 8 September 2013 18: 04
          +2
          Quote: Spade
          Dear, this is not dust in the eyes, this is a demonstration of the level of industrial development. It was worth it.

          That is, creating a tool that absorbs a huge amount of resources, but was initially unfit for anything, the tsar expects to intimidate all suckers and ignoramuses? Or were there no artillery specialists of the time among them? Or were they shown a cannon from a considerable distance from such angles that all blunders were not visible? That's too mysticism.
      4. Gahprom
        Gahprom 29 June 2013 13: 34
        0
        inappropriately, as you like, consider foreigners fools
        they can determine whether they are dummy or not,
        the manufacture of this type of weapon is a statement of the country's ability. It’s not necessary to consider your ancestors stupid,
    3. Karlsonn
      Karlsonn 30 June 2013 01: 12
      0
      Quote: Gahpro
      Now, finally, we turn to the last question - were they fired from a gun or not?


      even if you didn’t shoot, then what?
      I think personally you are unlikely to be able to do what our ancestor did more than four centuries ago.
  8. specKFOR
    specKFOR 29 June 2013 11: 58
    -1
    Not really with current nanotechnology it is impossible to determine what was fired, what kind of gunpowder was set on fire, etc. In general, this monster looks like a launcher of medieval tactical missiles ...
    1. Ivan_Ivanov
      Ivan_Ivanov 29 June 2013 12: 39
      +1
      The Tsar Cannon shot, or not, this is no longer historical, or technical issues. This is, b ..., a political issue.

      If you shot, then this is an amazing, unparalleled work of technical and artistic art of our ancestors with all the patriotic consequences that follow for us.

      And if you didn’t shoot, then this is a stupid, absurd, worthless craft proving that our ancestors were stupid and not far-off savages. And the fact that the artistic casting of 40 tons also has no analogues of that time, somehow against this background, is neither significant nor important, and in general it can be overlooked. After all, a non-firing gun is the height of stupidity and absurdity.

      Therefore, insenuations are going on, and there is a lie, and there are disputes surrounding this outstanding work of military, technical, and art.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 29 June 2013 13: 05
        +2
        Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
        And if you didn’t shoot, then this is a stupid, absurd, worthless craft proving that our ancestors were stupid and not far-off savages. And the fact that the artistic casting of 40 tons also has no analogues of that time is somehow against this background and is not essential and not important, and in general it can be overlooked

        Do not tell. Think of the Vienna World Exhibition of 1873. Two guns - Krupp (carriage weighing 36 tons and a barrel of 26 tons) and Obukhov factory (12-inch gun weighing 39 tons of crucible cast and forged steel.)
        No one knew if they fired, everyone paid attention to the possibilities of industry, the novelty of technology.
        1. Horde
          Horde 29 June 2013 13: 46
          -3
          Quote: Spade
          Do not tell. Think of the Vienna World Exhibition of 1873. Two guns - Krupp (carriage weighing 36 tons and a barrel of 26 tons) and Obukhov factory (12-inch gun weighing 39 tons of crucible cast and forged steel.)
          No one knew if they fired, everyone paid attention to the possibilities of industry, the novelty of technology.


          what do you compare the end of the 19th century with FACTORY developed MACHINE technologies and the 17th century, when everything was simpler and, accordingly, longer and more expensive?
          Even if Krup did not create products for war, but to show, then it didn’t cost him much what Tsar Fedor did.

          technology and century 17
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 29 June 2013 13: 55
            +2
            I compare relations between states in the 17th and 19th centuries. They remained absolutely unchanged - the weak were beaten.
          2. Andrey77
            Andrey77 30 June 2013 12: 30
            -1
            "The weight of the stone core of the Tsar Cannon was about 50 pounds (819 kg)"

            Let the gun fire only stone cores weighing 819 kg. Immediately the question is - where do you find ammunition? Stone cores weighing under 800 kg must be shaped like a bore. I wonder how the stone kernels were shaped? And if it was poured from metal, then it doesn’t turn out 819 kg ... Will we calculate the strength of the barrel if there is only one cast iron?
      2. omsbon
        omsbon 29 June 2013 13: 07
        0
        Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
        Therefore, insenuations are going on, and there is a lie, and there are disputes surrounding this outstanding work of military, technical, and art.

        Your comment is the most interesting and correct. I fully support him!
      3. Gahprom
        Gahprom 29 June 2013 13: 40
        -3
        Therefore, insenuations are going on, and there is a lie, and there are disputes surrounding this outstanding work of military, technical, and art.

        that is, the staff of the armory, and one of the leading museums in the country brazenly lie
        I certainly know that most of the screamers of this forum did not think beyond the ABC book, and they are capable of a lot of hysteria, but you don’t have to argue with smart people with a hysteria and looking for an enemy, you’re not equal to them anyway

        I gave Old, on matters of faith it is to the Russian Orthodox Church
        1. Ivan_Ivanov
          Ivan_Ivanov 29 June 2013 13: 57
          +1
          Where is the conclusion of the study of the Portnov group?

          Give it to me.

          No?

          Why?

          Why is Portnov's research not publicly available?

          Why do they just say something to us? ONLY one not even a member of a research group, but an engaged consultant?

          Why do you offer to believe exclusively in him?
        2. tungus-meteorit
          tungus-meteorit 30 June 2013 16: 44
          0
          Questions of faith or not faith are neither to the Russian Orthodox Church, nor to the muftiate, nor to the rabbinate, and not to the Buddhist sangha, but to the philosophical faculty of Moscow State University :)
  9. Ivan_Ivanov
    Ivan_Ivanov 29 June 2013 13: 21
    +1
    The Tsar Cannon never fired.
    Tu-160 has never been bombed.
    The shark never fought.
    The governor did not deliver a single charge to the target.
    But the Tsar bomb did not destroy a single city.

    Here we are all fools. We stamp expensive and absolutely useless crafts. I. idiots?

    And after 500 years, miracle historians will convince our descendants of this. Indeed, then the truth will be no longer any evidence that our weapons could: shoot, bomb, deliver, destroy.
    1. Gahprom
      Gahprom 29 June 2013 13: 41
      -1
      pattern torn on the british flag ??
    2. Andrey77
      Andrey77 1 July 2013 11: 10
      0
      You are mistaken. Tu-160 bombed at the training ground, otherwise they simply would not have accepted it. A shark (if about a submarine) has gone through so many running ... The voivode delivered a training warhead to the training ground. But I doubt the reliability of the Tsar Cannon. And do not call everyone fools.
  10. ed65b
    ed65b 29 June 2013 14: 11
    +2
    Good article. I read in my opinion somewhere long ago. And I also heard that they shot her after the turmoil of the ashes of the ousted Polish tsar towards the west saying they came from there and go away. More likely a legend but beautiful.
  11. Stas57
    Stas57 29 June 2013 15: 49
    +1
    I would advise everyone to cool down and wait a bit for an answer
    http://alexuslob.livejournal.com/86546.html
    1. Horde
      Horde 29 June 2013 15: 59
      0
      Quote: Stas57
      I would advise everyone to cool down and wait a bit for an answer
      http://alexuslob.livejournal.com/86546.html


      and what kind of fair and gracious court do you expect from LJ? Zheshka is like Wikipedia, where, like in a crazy house, anyone says they want to. FREEDOM.
  12. cth; fyn
    cth; fyn 29 June 2013 16: 02
    +1
    Peter, because of his ignorance, did not spare

    And he did it right, the main thing is that the army could fight, and let the guns, and with the guns, let historians later understand.
  13. Ivanovich47
    Ivanovich47 29 June 2013 16: 09
    0
    The Tsar Cannon, like the Tsar Bell, are some of the significant works of Russian craftsmen. They left the category of weapons, church attributes, etc. and worthily entered the category of worthy historical symbols of the Russian state. It is there that the Kremlin, the beautiful creations of Russian architects of the Golden Ring of Russia, are located, as well as Yu.A. Gagarin. I do not presume to list everything. Russia is rich in its history. Well, whether she shot or not ... I personally am not interested.
  14. Black
    Black 29 June 2013 16: 35
    0
    Indeed, the past in Russia is unpredictable!
  15. Snoop
    Snoop 29 June 2013 17: 16
    +1
    Just a deterrent weapon)
  16. Taurus
    Taurus 29 June 2013 18: 11
    -1
    I skimmed through this nonsense, as any sane person would understand that it’s easier to shoot yourself in the brain than to rake this afftor miracle. What difference does it shoot and how much does it shoot at all? The legends of antiquity are deep. (Eprst, A.S. Pushkin is always with me) Chpok! And if there is not a cannon-tsar in the Kremlin, but a papier-mâché, then I will not love my homeland less. We have different guns and to the eyeballs. And who does not believe, please visit Syria.
  17. aleks77
    aleks77 29 June 2013 19: 12
    -1
    Regarding the King of the Bell, that he could not be raised. As a child, I read that he was lifted and installed, but the bell tower burned down or didn’t bear the weight of the bell and collapsed, which caused a piece to break off the bell. Quote = Beck]
    The Tsar Bell in those days could not be lifted by more than one bell tower, since there were no corresponding lifting mechanisms capable of lifting such a weight of 200 tons and there was no bell tower that could withstand such a weight. [/ Quote]
    So they raised it.
  18. mark7
    mark7 29 June 2013 20: 36
    0
    this is what our history is all about, so it’s possible about everything, like there was a war and there was something to remember, what kind of future awaits us then.
  19. Mikhail m
    Mikhail m 29 June 2013 21: 31
    0
    A bunch of emotions and not a single documentary link what
  20. mark7
    mark7 29 June 2013 22: 50
    0
    [quote = aleks77] Regarding the King of the Bell, that he could not be lifted. In childhood, I read, that it was lifted and installed, but the bell tower burned down or could not bear the weight of the bell and collapsed, which made the piece break off from the bell. Quote = Beck]
    The Tsar Bell in those days could not be lifted by more than one bell tower, since there were no corresponding lifting mechanisms capable of lifting such a weight of 200 tons and there was no bell tower that could withstand such a weight. [/ Quote]
    So they raised it. [/ Quote]
  21. mark7
    mark7 29 June 2013 22: 53
    +1
    Sorry, but you yourself are contradicting yourself, but the above wrote the man was not ancestors go about there ...
  22. georg737577
    georg737577 29 June 2013 23: 04
    +1
    I doubt very much that in those days it would have crossed the mind of someone to spend a huge amount of money, materials + the colossal work of a large number of people to build a decorative tool. Our ancestors were not fools.
    1. Cat
      Cat 29 June 2013 23: 16
      0
      Quote: georg737577
      I doubt very much that in those days it would have crossed the mind of someone to spend a huge amount of money, materials + the colossal work of a large number of people to build a decorative tool

      after all, they spent on religious buildings, such as churches. And as much as not a single Tsar Cannon ever dreamed of. And the royal mansions, and boyar estates, marble for which they dragged from Italy ... and much more can be remembered if you wish.
      In general, whatever the "enlightened" historians, our ancestors did not spare money "for culture" =))
      1. tungus-meteorit
        tungus-meteorit 30 June 2013 16: 48
        0
        But what about churches, royal mansions and boyar estates are no longer the property of Russian culture? what's your inappropriate sarcasm?
      2. Alex
        Alex 8 September 2013 18: 26
        +2
        Quote: Cat
        after all, they spent on religious buildings, such as churches.

        The church is not only a religious building. In those days, this was the registry office, and the psychological support service, and the Tritei court, and the culture department. And religion, as such, also played an important role (and still does) in the life of society.
        royal mansions

        These mansions were built more than one day and were not intended for one year. Yaroslav the Wise in the tower of his great-grandmother, Princess Olga lived (rebuilt and updated, but still the same).
        As for motivation, well, we are also famous for this, but you should not confuse weighting for the sake of our own honor and state orders to gunsmiths.
    2. Andrey77
      Andrey77 30 June 2013 12: 48
      -4
      "Buran" was built by our contemporaries, although they perfectly understood that it would take a very long time to stomp before the "Shuttle". Here's the "Tsar Cannon" of the 21st century - "Buran". Exhaust from this idea (to make a copy of amers) zero.
      1. Alex
        Alex 8 September 2013 18: 31
        +3
        Quote: Andrew77 (1)
        "Buran" was built by our contemporaries, although they perfectly understood that it would take a very long time to stomp before the "Shuttle". Here's the "Tsar Cannon" of the 21st century - "Buran". Exhaust from this idea (to make a copy of amers) zero.


        Only a person who is not familiar with these projects can say that "Buran" is a copy of "Shuttle". External similarity is almost everything they have in common. And it would be good if the Union had not collapsed, or real patriots, and not "hurray", "leavened" or just thieves, would be at the helm of the state.
  23. mithridate
    mithridate 30 June 2013 00: 11
    +1
    and what prevents us from conducting an examination in our time and dotting all and?
    1. Andrey77
      Andrey77 30 June 2013 12: 08
      0
      Easy. Rzhevsky training ground near St. Petersburg. All artillery systems were tested. Bring, try. :)
  24. Hleb
    Hleb 30 June 2013 02: 57
    0
    Despite his Polish defenders, False Dmitry was
    captured and killed. His corpse was burned, the Tsar Cannon was charged with ashes, and
    a shot was fired - the only Tsar Cannon shot in history.

    L. Gumilev
  25. Ivan_Ivanov
    Ivan_Ivanov 30 June 2013 10: 14
    +2
    I will repeat

    The Tsar Cannon shot, or not, this is no longer historical, or technical issues. This is, b ..., a political issue.

    If you shot, then this is an amazing, unparalleled work of technical and artistic art of our ancestors with all the patriotic consequences that follow for us.

    And if you didn’t shoot, then this is a stupid, absurd, worthless work proving that our ancestors were stupid and not far fools. And the fact that the artistic casting of 40 tons also has no analogues of that time against this background is no longer essential, and it does not matter, and in general it can be overlooked. After all, a non-firing gun is the height of stupidity, absurdity and idiom.

    Therefore, insenuations are going on, and there is a lie, and there are disputes surrounding this outstanding work of military, technical, and art.
    1. Andrey77
      Andrey77 30 June 2013 12: 11
      -1
      For politics, this monster has the same relationship as the tank Mouse. None.
      1. Andrey77
        Andrey77 4 July 2013 12: 41
        0
        And in vain they set up cons. If you want the truth, bring it to our landfill.
  26. Michael_Zverev
    Michael_Zverev 1 March 2017 21: 38
    0
    In the XVIII - early XX centuries, the Tsar Cannon was called in all official documents a shotgun. And only the Bolsheviks in the 1930-s decided for propaganda purposes to raise its rank and began to magnify the gun.
    The inscription on the left on the trunk:
    “This cannon is merged in the predominant city of Moscow in the summer of 7094, in the third summer of his state. The cannon-clerk Andrei Chokhov made the cannon. ” So they began to dignify it so even when casting.