Military Review

Pull the rope!

37
Pull the rope!



It is considered to be. that for the whole XVIII century nothing fundamentally new appeared in artillery, and that the armats of the Northern War practically did not differ from the guns of the times of Borodin and Waterloo. Regarding field artillery, this is generally true, but in naval - Something interesting did happen.

In 1745, in England, an artillery flintlock was patented, and after some time, the production of naval guns with such locks was established. The importance of this invention lay in the fact that when firing from wick ignition guns standing on the lower decks of battleships and frigates, the gunner could not see where he was shooting at. He had to be on the side of the gun so that he would not be crippled by a rollback, and it was impossible to look at the gun port from this position.

Accordingly, the gunner could not accurately calculate the time of the shot. When firing at relatively large (by then standards) distances in rolling conditions, this often led to misses. The cores either whistled over the enemy ship, or were buried in the water with undershoot.

And the flintlock was pulled down by a long rope. In this case, the gunner could stand behind the gun at a safe distance, look at the target through the embrasure and produce a shot at exactly the right moment.

By the beginning of the 19th century, all British battleships being commissioned were equipped with flint tools, and much of the old ships, including the famous Victory Nelson, were equipped with them during repairs and upgrades. However, in other countries, the introduction of new items was much slower. Even under Trafalgar, almost the entire French fleet was armed with wicker artillery, and in Russia the production of flintlock gun locks in English style began even later - in the 20-s of the XIX century.

The fleets of secondary naval powers, this "high tech" generally bypassed, wick guns were used there until the appearance of blasting trigger mechanisms.









Flintlock gun locks of various designs, made in the last quarter of the XVIII and the first half of the XIX century.



The mechanism of a flintlock gun, the trigger is lowered.



Guns with flint locks on the battery deck of the battleship Victory. The release cords wrapped around the locks.



The gun on the upper deck of the same battleship. For protection from sea water and precipitation, the lock is covered with a tin casing.

[/ Center]

English (above) and Russian (below) flintlock gun locks. It is clearly seen that the Russian mechanism, made in Tula in the 1836 year, is almost an exact copy of English.



A replica of the Russian carronades of the XIX century with a flintlock.
Author:
Originator:
http://vikond65.livejournal.com/404396.html
37 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. ICT
    ICT 1 November 2015 07: 11 New
    16
    just the cabin of those times
    1. Nicholas C.
      Nicholas C. 1 November 2015 14: 54 New
      +5
      Quote: Author Vyacheslav Kondratiev
      It is considered to be. that for the whole XVIII century nothing fundamentally new appeared in artillery, and that the armats of the Northern War practically did not differ from the guns of the times of Borodin and Waterloo. Regarding field artillery, this is generally true,

      Well, how so, author? Materiel.
      Russian "Unicorn" topwar.ru/79210-russkiy-edinorog.html
    2. Civil
      Civil 1 November 2015 19: 08 New
      +1
      a lot has changed over the century
    3. Saburov
      Saburov 2 November 2015 04: 43 New
      +1
      This is by chance not from the book of the Navy of the Russian Navy?
  2. tasha
    tasha 1 November 2015 07: 42 New
    11
    Complement
    After creating the flintlock, not only the accuracy of one shot increased, but it was also possible to launch a volley from all the deck guns at the command of the officer.
    1. Moore
      Moore 1 November 2015 12: 16 New
      +1
      Of course, I’ve never been naval, but, as far as I remember from history, sailing ships, other than in volleys, never shot.
      The effective range of fire was no further than 300m at a sea target (take into account the almost one meter thickness of the bog oak of the battleships' skin of that time and the deviation of 15 meters even at such a distance from the target) and there was simply no sense in shooting "single" ones.
      I also heard the opinion that the calculation served two guns - one on board, so the ship fought only one side. Amendment of aiming was made only by artillery officers, and then it consisted only in what was supposed to hit - board or rigging.
      1. tasha
        tasha 1 November 2015 13: 01 New
        +3
        Before the flintlock appeared, a shot from a ship’s cannon was fired using a stick - a long stick with a piece of a burning wick. Not only do you need to monitor the condition of the wick, but also you need to achieve the synchronism of the gunners on command in the pitching conditions. And here he pulled the rope and that’s all ... It seems that some people managed to tie the ropes from several guns, but I’m not sure of the accuracy of the information.
      2. fennekRUS
        fennekRUS 1 November 2015 13: 57 New
        +6
        Quote: Moore
        almost a meter thick bog oak sheathing battleships of the time

        in general, the lining was combined, almost a meter is the outer, inner boards and stuffing. Try to get a half-meter diameter tolka, and process such blocks)) ... wooden sailing ships [linear] ships and frigates by the then offensive means had a high degree of survivability. They were not invulnerable, most of the nuclei pierced their sides, nevertheless, the lack of invulnerability was replenished with survivability. Damage to two or three rails and sails did not deprive the ship of her ability to steer; damage to two or three dozen guns did not prevent the rest from continuing artillery fire. Finally, control of the entire ship was carried out by people without the help of steam engines, and there were no such devices, knocking out or damage of which makes the ship unsuitable for battle ...
        - S.O. Makarov. Discussions on maritime tactics.
        »
        1. kashtak
          kashtak 1 November 2015 16: 27 New
          +3
          and they didn’t collect fuel. Each sensible shipyard had morale ponds where timber was aged. like somewhere like that? the preparation of the tree as far as I read was that process of staining, drying, boiling out, or as it was called. IMHO such a skin flew a pretty penny, more precisely, into the ruble. but probably served for a long time.
      3. kashtak
        kashtak 1 November 2015 16: 17 New
        0
        Quote: Moore
        (take into account almost a meter thick bog oak sheathing battleships of that time and a deviation of 15 m even at such a distance from the target)

        I’m also not a navy, correct if that but I kind of remember that the lining on large ships was a foot thick (305mm)
        1. Moore
          Moore 2 November 2015 09: 03 New
          0
          [quote = chestnut] [quote = Moore] I'm also not a navy, correct if that but I kind of remember that the lining on large ships was a foot (305mm) thick [/ quote]
          Well, they've already corrected me: "almost a meter" is all sort of like the total thickness.
    2. gladcu2
      gladcu2 2 November 2015 00: 47 New
      0
      tasha

      In my opinion, a dubious advantage.

      Someone could always bring a wick standing on the side of the gun at the command of the gunner. Yes, and a volley simple business to organize.

      Something wrong.
      1. AUL
        AUL 2 November 2015 11: 26 New
        0
        IMHO, flintlock introduced for one purpose.
        Near the gun was an ammunition - cores and barrels with gunpowder. And when near this good - especially at the moment of loading the gun - a man with a burning wick hangs around - this is very fraught! Swing the ship on a wave, or the core hit the side, or the spark from the wick is blown away by the wind, or stupidly stumbles and flew with its wick into a barrel of gunpowder, that’s the end of the combat unit! A flintlock is security.
  3. bionik
    bionik 1 November 2015 07: 47 New
    +4
    Article plus.
  4. Amurets
    Amurets 1 November 2015 08: 30 New
    +1
    Is this a question and not a joke? The ruler is in a unit of what inches or millimeters. I still do not understand. And the article is not only for clarity but also for clear, clear photos.
    1. ICT
      ICT 1 November 2015 08: 54 New
      0
      by the fact that Made in the United States and therefore. that the 1 unit has a quarter markup. it turns out that in inches the ruler comes out
    2. spech
      spech 1 November 2015 09: 10 New
      0
      judging by the inscription on the ruler, in inches
  5. Olezhek
    Olezhek 1 November 2015 09: 03 New
    +2
    the gunner, bringing palnik to the seed hole, could not see where he was shooting. He had to be on the side of the gun so that he would not be crippled by a rollback, and it was impossible to look at the gun port from this position.


    Question: why the commander of the calculation could not give command to the artilleryman with a wick? At the right moment. And he stand at a safe distance and look at the port.
    So to say to shout: "Fire!" Fire! Feuer! Fuego! Fogo!
    Pli!
    Or just pull the pen?
    ?
    1. gladcu2
      gladcu2 2 November 2015 00: 51 New
      +1
      Olezhek

      They had no idea. No one explained to them.
  6. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 1 November 2015 10: 09 New
    +2
    I suppose the minimum necessary command was with guns. And so on the ships of that era the crews were - be healthy, relatively small displacement of the then ships. And the silicon locks of the guns saved the calculation commanders, who could give the command to shoot, looking into the port at a safe distance.
    1. gladcu2
      gladcu2 2 November 2015 00: 54 New
      0
      Mountain Shooter

      You do not suppose. This is a far-fetched reason.

      The castle didn’t push any advantage. Most likely this part was useless.

      Even when the castle got wet, which could give an advantage, it didn’t work anyway.

      The lock on individual weapons gave an advantage over the wick, if necessary, a quick response. No need to set fire to the wick. The complexity of this.
    2. trenkkvaz
      trenkkvaz 2 November 2015 04: 18 New
      0
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      I suppose the minimum necessary command was with guns. And so on the ships of that era the crews were - be healthy, relatively small displacement of the then ships. And the silicon locks of the guns saved the calculation commanders, who could give the command to shoot, looking into the port at a safe distance.


      The wick could bring any of the team.
      There is no saving in that case.
  7. kvs207
    kvs207 1 November 2015 11: 40 New
    0
    Quote: Olezhek
    Question: why the commander of the calculation could not give command to the artilleryman with a wick? At the right moment. And he stand at a safe distance and look at the port.
    So to say to shout: "Fire!"

    I partially agree. In my opinion, there was such a position in the calculations as "ignition".
    For an accurate answer to this question, you need to know the organization of firing on ships of that time.
  8. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 1 November 2015 12: 42 New
    +1
    so that it is not crippled

    Some nonsense. The wick was attached to a long stick and was generally not in the hands of the gunner. Rollback aiming did not bother anyone, so many did fine without a silicon fuse to the very end. The only such fuse is certainly more convenient to manipulate, and safer than a constantly burning cord near gunpowder. And if the fleet often fights and shoots then it’s also cheaper.
    1. tasha
      tasha 1 November 2015 13: 40 New
      +3
      Nonsense is not nonsense, but the author really did something wise in this paragraph.

      Ship guns of that era most often did not have horizontal aiming. The captain ordered to direct higher and lower based on the distance and type of projectile, turned the ship in the direction of the enemy and gave the command. It is possible that in large ships this was done by the senior officer of the battery deck. So there was nothing gunners from the ports to look out.

      As for the flintlock, a number of historians argue that with his invention, the rate of fire increased by one and a half to two times. However, it is already necessary to look for it in other forums.
      1. gladcu2
        gladcu2 2 November 2015 01: 01 New
        0
        With this pitching, the command is higher, lower, as it is hard to carry out.

        There the board rose or fell. So they caught the right moment. Shooting is then at 300 m. There is simply direction and practical intuition. The core can be seen flying. The trajectory can always be predicted.
        1. tasha
          tasha 2 November 2015 05: 26 New
          +1
          In the first illustration, under the barrel of the gun is a wooden triangle. This is the so-called lifting wedge. Later it was replaced with a screw (in the last photo). So pointed vertically. First they raised the rules, then fixed with a wedge.
          In the first drawing, wooden pencils are in the hands of the sailors to the left and right of the gun. These are horizontal aiming mechanisms.

          Most likely, vertical guidance was more important when firing different types of shells. Those. bibs - on sails, cores - on board.
  9. Logos
    Logos 1 November 2015 15: 06 New
    +8
    It is considered to be. that for the whole XVIII century nothing fundamentally new appeared in artillery

    This is a false statement. The technologies of barrel casting and channel drilling have fundamentally changed. In particular, the introduction of a new method of drilling a bore, in which the workpiece itself rotated and the drill was stationary, made it possible to process harder bronze alloys and made it much easier to guns. This immediately affected the method of warfare: regimental 3-pound guns were replaced in most armies by more powerful 6-pound guns, and it was these guns that buried linear tactics.
    The new guns had a range of firing shots of up to 300 meters and sufficient mobility. This allowed maneuvering artillery directly on the battlefield, accumulating artillery in the place of the enemy’s defense breakthrough and literally mowing out his linear infantry with fire. Then, columns of their infantry set off to break through, consolidating their success.
    It was to these guns and this tactic that Napoleon Bonaparte owed his victories. The French army was the first to adopt a new tactic, which allowed it to defeat other European armies, adhering to outdated linear tactics
    1. Olezhek
      Olezhek 1 November 2015 19: 02 New
      +1
      Thank you - succinctly and briefly.
    2. gladcu2
      gladcu2 2 November 2015 01: 04 New
      +1
      Logos

      Napoleon had Russian-style cannons cast. Then, and always, Russia had priority in the cannon business.
      There was an article on VO.
  10. moskowit
    moskowit 1 November 2015 18: 28 New
    0
    Thanks. I did not know about flintlocks in artillery. Apparently they were used only in the navy? It would be interesting to read about special shells for marine artillery, such as knippels, brandeskugels and others ...
  11. Olezhek
    Olezhek 1 November 2015 19: 22 New
    0
    But an interesting topic. wink thank you

    And by the way, what's in the hands of a tolerant black? Bannik?
    1. tasha
      tasha 2 November 2015 14: 49 New
      0
      Bannik. You task on quick wits. Why is the brush not on a stick, but on a rope?
      1. Olezhek
        Olezhek 5 November 2015 08: 47 New
        +1
        Well, apparently in connection with the dimensions of space available when cleaning the barrel. repeat
  12. Locksmith
    Locksmith 1 November 2015 19: 28 New
    0
    Quote: tasha
    After creating the flintlock, not only the accuracy of one shot increased, but it was also possible to launch a volley from all the deck guns at the command of the officer.

    I think that the reliability of the shot was not determined by this feature, but by the dryness of the seed shelf, in fact, it doesn’t care what design, but if the gunpowder gets wet, there will be no shot, and not every spark will ignite in the flame wink and the wick is already a specific fire - I can imagine how gunners argued on this subject before laughing
    1. tasha
      tasha 2 November 2015 05: 59 New
      +3
      To the question of the reliability of the shot. At the flintlock, the shelf is covered with a lid. When fired, it opens automatically.

      Let's imagine, all the guns on the deck are loaded, everyone is waiting for the command. The moment came, the horseman commanded "Fire". The cannoneer must pull the wick out of the deck with the wick burning (!) All this time, make sure that the wick has not gone out or burned out, that the gunpowder has not blown off the shelf or it has not gotten wet, if necessary add it, bring the wick up and fire.

      From the report of the captain of the LK Vladislav Berkha after the battle at Gogland in 1788: "During the entire battle, more than 2035 shots were fired from the ship, which I attribute to the quick firing of locks attached to the cannons, which had an extremely good effect."
  13. bad
    bad 3 November 2015 14: 58 New
    0
    informative +
  14. sds127
    sds127 3 November 2015 20: 14 New
    0
    very interesting