Mitralezy Skobeleva

17
Surely many interested in military history they know that the so-called Turkmen or Akhal-Teke 1880-81 expedition successfully used mitrales. The Expeditionary Corps under the command of General Skobelev was attached to the naval artillery detachment of Lieutenant Sheman, armed with two 44-millimeter-speed Engström guns and four rifle-caliber mitralles, which we called gunmen.

However, it is hardly known to many that these were not widespread in many countries Gatling, Gardner or Nordenfelt mitraleses, but much more rare, one might even say unique tools developed by DeWitt Clinton Farrington and not used in battles anywhere except in Russia. Moreover, Russia was the only country in the world to adopt this system.

Farrington, who worked at the Lowell Manyufechchuring Company, an armory in Massachusetts (which is why his development is sometimes called the Lowell system), set out to create the simplest, cheapest, reliable, and trouble-free Mitraleise, superior in all these parameters to the well-known revolving speed switch Gatling And I must say that he succeeded.

Farrington's Mithralesa looks like Gatling and has four trunks located around a horizontal axis. However, the external similarity hides a fundamental constructive difference: the barrels of Farrington guns do not rotate when fired, and the fire is fired only from one. And only after it is heated, the shooter turns the block with the lever, putting the cold one in place of the heated-up barrel. In fact, Farrington's Mithralea was a single-barrel instrument with quick-change trunks. So without any cooling systems, the problem of overheating was solved. weapons when shooting, the rate of which with the rapid rotation of the handle could reach 400 shots per minute.

Mitraleza tests were conducted on the naval artillery range in Annapolis, Maryland, on September 30 of the year 1876. In order to demonstrate the ease of operation of his weapon, Farrington suggested testing it to people who had never dealt with mitraliases. Employees of the landfill invited two Negro laborers, who, after a brief briefing, were able to independently disassemble the case, assemble it, charge it and open fire.

The reliability of the weapon was proved by the fact that during the tests of mitraliasis within five hours it fired 24 thousand shots, while there were only 10 delays, the elimination of which took 10 to 20 seconds. Nevertheless, the Navy refused to take it into service, citing the fact that he was completely satisfied with the Gatling. Perhaps this was due to the fact that the command fleet had an “informal” relationship with Richard Gatling and his company.

Lowell was able to sell only four mitraleses in the United States, three of which were bought by the California prison department, and another by the Cincinnati City Police Department. Attempts to enter the international market turned out to be not much more successful: Turkey bought a few pieces for acquaintance and the Russian Empire bought 20 copies - this was the only more or less large order.

We have "Farrington", installed on light tripod carriages, used as amphibious assault guns, however, the only Akhal-Teke expedition was the only episode of their combat use. There, they performed very well in repelling the massive attacks of the Turkmen cavalry 7 July and 28 December 1880 of the year, as well as 4 January 1881 of the year.

It is interesting that not a single “Farrington” has survived to this day in the States. They can be seen only in the Central Naval Museum of St. Petersburg and in the Istanbul Museum of Turkish Armed Forces.



A well-preserved specimen of Farrrington mitraleza in the St. Petersburg Naval Museum.



The block of mitraliez trunks in a bronze sliding bearing and the receiver of a vertical magazine on 30 cartridges, in front of which the barrel turning lever is visible.



On the left - the reloading handle and the vertical pickup mechanism of the "Petersburg" mitraleza, on the right - the same as the mitraillea in the Istanbul Military Museum.



On the left is Farrington's Mitraleleza on an artillery wheeled carriage with a connected magazine. On the right - mitraleza with an open bolt-case, which when cleaning / disassembling the weapon was reclined to the left on the hinge, while the breech block of the barrel rose up.
17 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +8
    28 February 2015 07: 21
    Looking at such a unit, there is an association with a meat grinder, in the literal and figurative sense!
    1. +9
      28 February 2015 07: 49
      For the times of the Civil War in the United States and indeed the first appearance of gamblers, when the infantry went on attacks in a dense square of mitrales and were real meat grinders ...
      1. anomalocaris
        +2
        28 February 2015 17: 49
        Well, in a square in the offensive, it is very difficult to go. This formation of infantry is purely defensive, moreover, imprisoned mainly against cavalry. And during the civil war in the USA, the main infantry formation became a chain. So, the card cases were not a very effective weapon against such a system. Despite the general similarity of the idea - the maximum number of shots, the minimum number of shooters, the mitrales did not possess one of the main qualities of real machine guns, namely the ability to control fire during shooting.
  2. +4
    28 February 2015 08: 02
    The author forgot to mention that the appearance on the battlefields of sailors with this weapon was the initiative of Makarov, the future great Russian admiral. In general, thanks to the author, plus article.
  3. +7
    28 February 2015 08: 55
    generally conquering Central Asia is a heroic page in our history! not deservedly forgotten and intensely hushed up ...
  4. +4
    28 February 2015 11: 42
    In general, very little attention is paid to the history of land development by the Russian Empire. Take UWB_a. They have a whole cult built on land development.
    1. anomalocaris
      +1
      28 February 2015 18: 29
      Take UWB_ana. They have built a cult on land development.

      Not a cult - mythology. In fact, they have nothing more in history ...
  5. +1
    28 February 2015 12: 35
    To shoot, you need to twist the handle? But how to aim and rotate the barrel during shooting?
    1. +9
      28 February 2015 13: 49
      When firing at the dense battle formations of enemy infantry or cavalry, as well as at the natives attacking in a crowd, there was no special need for aiming - it was enough to conduct dense fire in the direction of the enemy. And the rotation of the barrel block was carried out due to inertia. The main thing was to turn the knob evenly at the same speed - otherwise there would be no automatic firing, there could be delays in firing, or even breakdown of the "hellish meat grinder". But in any case, the mitralese (aka grapeshot) was not a very convenient weapon to use, and if the enemy had enough long-range artillery, the use of the mitralese was completely impossible. During the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71, the French had an overwhelming superiority in mitraleses, which accounted for a quarter of all field artillery. However, the Germans had Krupp's magnificent rifled breech-loading cannons, which quickly knocked the mitraleses out of the game.
      I have the honor.
    2. anomalocaris
      +1
      28 February 2015 18: 02
      But how to aim and rotate the barrel during firing?

      But no way. To change the sight, it was necessary to stop shooting, conjure with a lifting and turning mechanism, open fire again. Although this particular instance, judging by the photographs of the machine, allowed guidance on the front and in the manual. However, the most typical (especially large-caliber) gamblers did not allow this because of their mass.
      In principle, the appearance of shrapnel with a modern-style remote tube in the ammunition of field tools (this is the 70-80s of the 19th century) forced the card cases from the battlefield in the fortress. There they were used to cover ditches. By the way, it was precisely the shortcomings of the card cases that caused a rather cool attitude towards a full-fledged, automatic machine gun.
  6. Dudu
    +2
    28 February 2015 13: 51
    A solid car, but aiming shooting could be a problem. Apparently, they really shot at the crowd. In general, at that time one could observe many very interesting technical solutions in various fields of technology, distinguished by the greatest simplicity and indescribable reliability.
    1. +2
      28 February 2015 15: 13
      In general, at that time one could observe many very interesting technical solutions in various fields of technology, distinguished by the greatest simplicity and indescribable reliability.
      Yes, a lot of things started with the rotation of the handle, take a curved starter, a coffee grinder or the first movie cameras. Nevertheless, it is strange that Hiram Maxim, when he invented his famous machine gun in 1884, chose a casing with water for cooling the barrel, and not the principle of turning (or replacing) the barrel, which has already been tried with success. Maybe because he was not a professional gunsmith (the use of the principle of recoil in a machine gun was prompted by the memory of a blow to the shoulder of a hunting rifle during the first shooting), but he was a talent with diverse interests, doing a lot of things, including the design of his plane.
      1. anomalocaris
        0
        28 February 2015 18: 06
        However, it is strange that Hiram Maxim, when he invented his famous machine gun in 1884, chose a casing with water for cooling the barrel, rather than the principle of turning (or replacing) the barrel, which has already been tested with success.

        There were maxims and air-cooled.

        This particular instance is on display at the Artillery Museum.
        The rotating block of trunks to a machine gun designed for field troops is not applicable in principle, and a quick change barrel (in Maxim, replacing the barrel implies almost complete disassembly of the machine gun) in those days was still too tough for the industry. Hence the water cooling.
        Maybe because he was not a professional gunsmith (he was prompted to use the principle of recoil in a machine gun by the memory of a shot in the shoulder of a hunting rifle butt during the first shooting), but he was a talent with diverse interests, doing so many things, including the design of his plane.

        Before moving to Europe, Hiram Stevens Maxim quite successfully (at least a workable one turned out) converted into a Winchester automatic carbine arr. 1873. Subsequently, many decisions from this carbine also migrated to the machine gun.
    2. 0
      28 February 2015 20: 58
      The name of the unit speaks for itself - in fact, a cloud of lead was created in the direction of the enemy almost the same as when firing shotgun from guns. In the future, when inventing machine guns, aiming accuracy began to attach greater importance.
      1. anomalocaris
        0
        28 February 2015 21: 26
        In terms of accuracy and accuracy, the machine guns were not too superior to the canister (if we compare the variants of machine guns chambered for black powder with mitrailleuses). It's just about handling. The machine gun allows you to make adjustments and transfer of fire without interrupting firing. The card holder does not allow this in principle.
  7. +3
    28 February 2015 16: 13
    If memory serves, the use of "canister" by the Russian troops in the Akhal-Teke expedition is written in the "History of the Russian Army" by Kersnovsky. I also read somewhere about arming torpedo boats with mitrailleuses for mine action. In the Khiva campaign of 1873, in the detachment of Major General Golovachev, there was a platoon (2nd grapeshot). In 1877, a "rapid-fire field battery" was created in the Ruschuk detachment of the Danube army under the command of Captain Meshetić. They were also used near Plevna.
    1. +1
      28 February 2015 21: 03
      The use of mitrales on destroyers has been known since the Russo-Japanese War. There is an episode of the use of such a captured gun on the Scary destroyer in the famous unequal battle at Port Arthur.
      1. anomalocaris
        0
        28 February 2015 21: 32
        The use of mitraliasis on destroyers has been known since the Russo-Japanese War.

        In fact, these units were installed in the 80s of the XIX century on larger ships, just like mine artillery. True, as a rule, in more serious calibers.
  8. +4
    28 February 2015 20: 34
    Is all this hassle with a multi-barrel just to cool the trunk? Then it’s clear why she wasn’t much favored. It seems to me that the only advantage over the Gatlings is the possibility of excluding from the shooting a damaged barrel (rupture of a sleeve, bloating, etc.) without significantly reducing the effectiveness of the fire. Everything else is clearly lost or on an equal footing.
    1. anomalocaris
      +2
      28 February 2015 21: 28
      Exactly. The advantage over gatling is huge. Firstly, this unit is much simpler than the creations of the doctor, and secondly, and most importantly, it is almost six times lighter.
      1. +3
        2 March 2015 21: 19
        And in terms of rate of fire? Farrington has up to 400 (seems to be the maximum), Gatling has up to 800 (seems to be working). Weight - yes, an indicator, but at the time when machine guns were considered a division of artillery and mounted on gun mounts, this, it seems to me, is not so significant. However, this is in literature, as it was in reality, I do not know. Most likely, they hardly felt much difference.
        1. anomalocaris
          0
          3 March 2015 14: 30
          Gatling has up to 800 (it seems working)

          Nothing like this. 10-barrel gatling, with a not tired arrow, provided a maximum of 300 rounds per minute. I had a chance to twist the gatling handle. So, even though I’m far from frail, I’ll be able to twist this knob at full speed for no more than 5 minutes.
  9. +2
    28 February 2015 23: 03
    not only brave but also competent!
    1. Boos
      0
      2 March 2015 18: 31
      Skobelev-eagle!
  10. Aspirin
    0
    1 March 2015 09: 16
    All the same, this is not a machine gun. He became a genuine death machine.
  11. John Silver
    0
    8 March 2015 15: 44
    Bronze! So I want to touch. Cool thing, interesting museum exhibit still shoots?
  12. 0
    17 March 2015 20: 52
    A significant drawback of the gatling machine gun was that the handle had to be rotated evenly, which was problematic during the battle. When an electric motor was attached to gatling at the beginning of the century, it showed 1000 rounds per minute, at that time such a rate of fire was simply not needed and the machine gun was forgotten, Maxim went into the series.
  13. +1
    17 March 2015 20: 54
    But in general, the doctor came up with the guillotine, the doctor a gatling machine gun, the doctor electrostool. I won’t go to doctors anymore; it will somehow be calmer.