Military Review

The Truth About Three Line Rifle

193
"BAD KING" AND GOOD SPINDLE


Not so long ago, a material appeared on the pages of the VO on the rifle of the 1891 model of the year created in Russia. It seems to be the "next" piece of information, no more and no less. All the same, only in a more concise form, we can read in the encyclopedia "Gunshot weapon»Authors Yu.V. Shokoreva, S.V. Plotnikova, and Dragunova E.M. (Avanta +, 2007 g.) On the pages of 107-108 and also many other authors. “Many other authors”, especially of the Soviet era, in this case can not be called, because their works are specially shifted accents.

The Truth About Three Line Rifle


For example, this is very characteristic of the work of authors such as N.I. Gnatovsky and P.A. Shorin "History development of domestic small arms "(M .: 1959 g.). And it is interesting that in it the authors, with the aim of raising the authority of their work, even refer to the materials of the Central State Military Historical Archive (TsGVIA) and cite specific documents: TsGVIA. 516 Foundation, Op.3, D. №121, 424,485 sheets, etc. Well, in the past, we had fashionable to print books in which the authors, by any means, tried to prove Russia's priorities literally in everything, just to bring the scientific basis for the installation that “the new historical community of people - the Soviet people” - seems to be the most progressive social phenomenon in the world. Well, the fact that the captain Mosin's rifle was not named after him, these authors explained by the fact that the “bad” Tsar Alexander III, as well as his War Minister Vannovsky, simply “was in awe of the West”. It seems that there are references, if not to everything, in the book, who will check them in the archive, but if they check, then ... who at that time would dare to assert that the king is right, but his critics are wrong?

The authors of the articles in the publication Avanta + did not specify either, but from the article in VO, one thing would also seem obvious: “the king was bad,” in the sense of not a patriot. And, probably, with respect to some other kings, one could probably agree with this statement, but one cannot agree with him in relation to Alexander III. Because with him everything was completely different. Under him, Russian battleships were called Russian saints, progressive “male uniforms” were adopted in the army, traditions of Russian nationality were widely promoted, in a word, in which, and in “worship of the West”, it was this king and his war minister who were accused just stupid. So, they had reason to do so. And if we turn not to the part of the documents devoted to the history of the captain Mosin's rifle in Russia, but to study their entire scope, then ... it will be easy to find out that the king had every reason to leave the rifle nameless. In addition, you should pay attention ... just the words. Since the game is in them, sometimes it is able to completely distort the meaning of what is happening or which took place once. So let's see how the story began with the “Captain Mosin rifle”?

IN THE BEGINNING WAS A COMMISSION ...

And it began with the organization of the commission, which received the following name: “Commission for testing multi-shot rifles”, and created in Russia at the GAU (Main Artillery Directorate) in 1883 year. She was engaged in the fact that, after obtaining some or other samples of rapid-fire multiply-charged rifles abroad, she tested them, deciding which ones to adopt for the Russian Imperial Army. Recall that before that time in its armament, domestic samples were not. At various times these were the systems of Karla, Krnka, Berdan, and the question of what was better was decided on a competitive basis. Here brought their development and our Russian designers. And that's just the gun of Captain S.I. Mosina, who had a shop in the butt, was noted by the commission as “deserving of full attention,” although the matter went no further. That is, he, on his own initiative, developed this rifle and thereby attracted the attention of this commission.

MONEY FOR YOURSELF AND MONEY FOR COUNTRY

In Soviet times, we liked to write that when the French firm Rikte offered him 600 thousands of francs for the right to use the shop invented by him on the French rifle of the Gra system, he refused "as a true patriot of Russia." But the Russian-French rapprochement at that time was already evident, and it must be admitted that Captain Mosin did not act too cleverly, because if he really wanted to show himself as a disintegrated patriot, he should take the money ... and pass them on to the needs of the cadets, hospitals or disabled people. That is, he did not deprive them of himself, but, in fact, robbed his country immediately on 600 of thousands of francs that would have been received for nothing, since his store was unsuccessful anyway! But he did not take them! Apparently he was afraid of temptation. Indeed, at that time, the officers received a salary such that they were allowed to marry only after receiving the captain's rank. Otherwise, they simply had nothing to support their spouse. Well, and about randomly married ensigns in the Russian army and at that time they were singing ditties, such was their hopeless life!

WITHOUT BAR NO GUN!

And in 1889, the commission decided not to subtilize, but to take a sample of the French Lebel rifle, but not its store, but first of all its barrel, and, reducing its caliber to 7.62-mm (i.e., to 3's), instead of 8 mm. The commission also changed its name and became known as the “Commission for the development of a sample of a small-caliber rifle”. So the first step to the "three-line" was made without the direct participation of Captain Mosin. Well, hardly anyone will argue that the barrel is not the basis of any firearm! And in this case, both he and, accordingly, his ballistics were taken from a Lebel rifle. About how important this is the name of the other rifles - Lee-Metford and Lee-Enfield: shop and shutter of the Lee system, and cutting the barrel of Metford and Enfield!

PRICE OF NEW WEAPONS

Well, and then it was like that, and all the documents confirm that the first sample of his rifle, Leon Nagan, delivered 11 of October 1889 to Russia. After that, in December of the same year, now Captain Mosin GOT from the Committee a task that was formulated as follows: “Guided by the gun of Nagant, to design the gun of the pack system (i.e., powered by cartridges from a pack - clips — author's note) on the 5 ammo, but apply the shutter of your system in this gun. ” That is, everything is simple and clear - the commission liked the shutter, is not it? And then during the spring and summer of 1890, both Nagan and Mosin worked on their rifles: Mosin - at the Tula Arms Plant, and Nagan at their factory in Liege. Then it was time to order rifles for testing, and it turned out that both the rifles and the Nagan design holders are more expensive than the Mosinsky ones, although not very much. But since the army of the Russian Empire was well, just very large, and it needed a lot of rifles, even a penny difference eventually turned into millions of rubles. Moreover, the amount needed for rearmament was calculated in 1889 year, they reported it to the king, and he was horrified by it. But it was necessary not only to produce all these new rifles and cartridges for them, it was necessary to organize their production, to equip factories, to purchase materials. Therefore, any savings here king only welcomed! It should be noted that literally every detail matters in weapons. For example, the mass of the Austrian pack for cartridges was 17,5 grams, but the plate holder for a three-line rifle was just 6,5 grams. This means that for every hundred rounds of ammunition with burst loading, there is an excess mass in 220 grams. In a thousand - this is more than two kilograms of metal, which must be smelted, processed and diluted by position! And each such pack or clip costs money!

CONTRACT IS CONTRACT

The most interesting thing is that a special contract was signed with Nagan, which stipulated that even if the rifle he made was not accepted for service, even in this case he would still be paid 200000 rubles. For what? Again, the king bow to the West? But no, only the observance of all the norms of international copyright, because the Mosin was given a gun to do, LEADING THE GUN OF NAGAN, i.e., in fact, it’s very simple and without a hint, and even more so - officially encroached on his author's rights! Nagan understood all this very well, so a week after the contract was signed, he sent a letter to the GAU in which he complained about non-observance of his copyright on eight points at once. “I have reason to believe that a gun similar to mine was not in Russia either in March of this year, or when I presented it last year,” he wrote.

And the Commission immediately raised all the minutes of its meetings and considered that Nagant had the rights of the inventor on almost all of the details listed. True, with regard to Mosin, he did not agree with these conclusions, but the Commission insisted on its own. And, of course, everyone understood that it was a matter of multi-million dollar orders for the army, and then who had it, what ... "borrowed" and how is this tenth thing. The main requirement was to equip the army with a product of the best quality and at the same time at the lowest price, so that the end justified any means, including “borrowing”.

WHAT ARE WRITTEN, AND HOW IT WAS IN THE WORK ...

Finding out who is better and who is worse was possible only through comparative tests. They passed in March 1891 of the year and showed that ... Naganovsky rifles were made more carefully, and therefore gave less misfires. But in conclusion of the Armament Department of the State Agrarian University, it was noted that "they ... are a more complex mechanism for dressing." It was by this conclusion of 9 on April 1891 that the fate of the Mosinskaya rifle was decided, because the main criterion for the quality of Russian mass infantry weapons, for all other data, was always the simplicity and cheapness of its manufacture. But the Commission then still called the new rifle the “Mosin system with the Nagant clip”, which emphasized that it had not one author, but two.

WHAT IS INTERNATIONAL PRACTICE TALKING?

So, both the Commission and Minister of War Vannovsky knew and understood that Mosin was not the only creator of the rifle. That is why in the rescript to the Highest Name, he wrote about it as follows: “In ... a new model there are parts proposed by Colonel Rogovtsev, Commission of Lieutenant-General Chagin, Captain Mosin and gunsmith Nagan, so it is advisable to give the developed model the name“ Russian 3-linear 1891 g. rifle. ”But then how was it with the barrel taken from a Lebel rifle? After all, sooner or later, but they would still know about it, so that only the word “Russian” attracted to its name also the words “French” and “Belgian”, which would lead to a complete absurdity! So it was absolutely impossible to write to Gnatovsky and Shorin that “Vannovsky took all measures to make the Mosin rifle impersonal.” On the contrary, he took all measures to eliminate any judicial and legal incidents related to its name and which could prevent the early rearmament of the army!

But was it really impossible in international practice to find precedents with the name of a weapon when several authors were its creators at once? Yes, they were, but only in our case it was impossible to apply them. The rifle would then have too many creators! You could give her the name "commission gun," but then what about Nagan? Indeed, ONLY captain Mosin and his ilk worked directly for the Commission, and Nagan was just a "free shooter." You could try giving her the name "Mosin-Nagan rifle", but for Alexander III, an ardent Russophile who called the Russian warships fleet by the names of Orthodox saints, this was completely unacceptable, since it directly indicated that ... we cannot without the West! Of course, if such a thing had happened in the USSR, the rifle would have been given the name of Mosin alone, and it’s the end, as, for example, this was done in the story of the Tu-4 bomber. But in the then tsarist Russia, the concept of officer honor was simply not allowed.

AWARDS AND MONEY

Well, and then began the distribution of money and awards. Naganu, as agreed with him, gave 200000 premium rubles. But ... they were given not for "beautiful eyes", but for transferring to the Russian side in full ownership not only all the patents on his rifle he had at that time, but also those (well, just a real Asian trick, isn't it ?!) that he could get five years ahead, which in itself is the best recognition of the significance of his contribution to its development. In addition, he handed over to Russia all (!) Of his technological drawings, as well as patterns and tooling, information on tolerances, grades and cost of the steels required for its production, the technology of hardening shafts, i.e. to fully provide the entire technological basis for the development of a new weapon, and also to give a guarantee that it will arrive if there is a need for that in Russia together with its master to establish its fabrication! And all this for 200000? Yes, we did this Nagan himself simply ... stripped off like a sticky one, because otherwise, ALL THE ABOVE CALLED HAS COME TO DO HERE! And it is unlikely that Captain Mosin would help here at least in something ...

Well, Mosinu was given a very solid 30000 premium in rubles at the time, but he was not given more money, because the Commission considered that he was working on building his own gun at state-owned factories and at public expense, and being completely released from service at the same time, the salary that for those years was by no means a characteristic affair. Then he was honored with the Great Mikhailovsky Prize, which was awarded once every five years, from the captains he was sent directly to the colonels, and then also awarded the Order of St. Anna, and appointed head of the Sestroretsky Arms Factory. As a result, he became a major general - that is, in just ten years, he made his way from captain to general, and in the eyes of the people of that era his career could only be envied.

But despite this, the rest of his life, Mosin grumbled that ... "Nagan was given 200 thousand rubles ..., and I only had 30 thousand for the project and the construction of the whole gun, which was not even given the name of its inventor ... and that Nagan was rewarded more than me. " He wrote letters to the Minister of War, humiliated himself before the powers that be. That is, for some reason he forgot that he worked on the official task on other people's samples, having an order to improve them. And yes, indeed, he coped with the assignment very well, created perhaps not the best in the world, but a very reliable weapon, as well as the Lebel rifle more convenient for bayonet attacks than for shooting. But again, this was the requirement of the military doctrine of the Russian imperial army. It’s just that where various social doctrines interfere in the matter and the struggle for their triumph is being waged, the truth of history always fades into the background!

P.S. And now as a postscript, the personal experience of the author. The fact is that a very honored person, a doctor of science, a professor, the author of many inventions works at my university. It just so happened that when he was young, he went to a factory where Kalashnikovs were made and found out that a very high reject rate gives a press-fit to the barrel with just one piece, and the defect can be fixed only by shooting. That is, the marriage was not the part itself, but the finished machine! And he came up with a device that solved this problem. His work was appreciated, given ... an award, and not very large, and ... EVERYTHING! He started talking about getting to it all the time, at least a little bit, but he was immediately told that in this case you won’t get anything at all and “go, Moor, you did your job!” Now he thought ( a fair assessment of his contribution) should have belonged to our entire university and a couple more factories to the bargain, but what’s not, that’s not. In comparison with this, the scientist “offended by tsarism”, Major General Mosin, can only be envied!
Author:
193 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. qwert
    qwert 4 March 2016 06: 58
    13
    Well, what does the author have his own opinion. General summary of the article:
    Again, the "evil commies" offended a good man and sold to drive in a series of defective Kalash. And as soon as half of the world fought and fights with them.
    And again, someone was hurt that the anointed of God’s Bloody Nicholas was hurt, so how can one not intercede? He was among the martyrs. Yes, and the people affectionately called him - our Bloody Nikolai. And most importantly, Russians are such a people that without the West and looking back to the West they can’t do anything traveling.
    In general, I do not agree with the author, but I will not enter into disputes. Everyone has the right to their opinion.
    1. V.Kazakov
      V.Kazakov 4 March 2016 07: 13
      +2
      I support your opinion.
    2. Volgobalt
      Volgobalt 4 March 2016 07: 34
      20
      About the "anointed of God". Nikolashka abdicated the throne at the height of the First World War, being the commander-in-chief! In fact - DECERTED! Any army in the world would have been shot, and most likely would have been hanged, bullets are not spent on scoundrels! The Bolsheviks corrected this mistake, although they overdid it, the family could not be touched.
      1. Ingvar 72
        Ingvar 72 4 March 2016 10: 49
        +9
        Quote: Volgobalt
        The Bolsheviks corrected this error, although they overdo it, it was impossible to touch the family.

        It's not about overdoing it. The dynasty was destroyed. Any surviving member of the royal family was the flag for the white movement. Therefore, the Bolsheviks destroyed the royal family completely and consciously. By direct order of Lenin.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 4 March 2016 11: 19
          13
          Quote: Ingvar 72
          Any surviving member of the royal family was the flag for the white movement.

          * There should be a scene of performance in the restaurant "God Save the Tsar" - from "The Elusive". laughing

          Well, the White movement did not raise the flag as a flag. Kirill Vladimirovich? Or any other surviving Romanov?
          White army under the flag of the Romanovs - This, forgive me, is Bolshevik propaganda. In fact, there was such a hodgepodge ... from far-right monarchists to nationalists and separatists like Krasnov. By the way, the Socialist Revolutionary Committee and his kappelevtsy they also belonged to the "white".
          1. Ingvar 72
            Ingvar 72 4 March 2016 12: 15
            -3
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Kirill Vladimirovich

            The third water is on jelly.
          2. kalibr
            4 March 2016 12: 52
            +1
            And they fought under the red banner (!) - KOMUCH, but then Kappel insisted on a "guards ribbon", that is, a black-orange banner and the same cockades were on KOMUCH's planes!
            1. AK64
              AK64 4 March 2016 13: 12
              +7
              So yes, the People’s Army (and not only by name).

              Citizens, most of you know very little the history of your native country. You live in a completely fantasy world! And she doesn’t just know badly - you are also proud not that.
              The Russians have much to be proud of, the Russians have many reasons to be proud - but here you manage to be somehow proud of ... what it would be worth to be ashamed of, that’s surprisingly something.
          3. hard rock
            hard rock 4 March 2016 13: 46
            +4
            Quote: Alexey RA
            The white army under the flag of the Romanovs is, forgive me, Bolshevik propaganda.

            +
            The White Army united those who were against the Bolsheviks. There were also many monarchists there, but to draw everything in one tone, this is not true.
          4. The comment was deleted.
        2. hard rock
          hard rock 4 March 2016 13: 51
          +1
          Quote: Ingvar 72
          Any surviving member of the royal family was the flag for the white movement.

          And life-doctor E.S. Botkin, chamber-lackey A.E. Troupe, cook I.M. Kharitonov and the maid A.S. Demidov, too, would be a "flag for the white movement"?
          1. V.ic
            V.ic 5 March 2016 06: 01
            +2
            Quote: hardrock
            A life doctor E.S. Botkin, camera footman A.E. Troupe, cook I.M. Kharitonov and the maid A.S. Demidova

            ... just ended up in the wrong place at the right time!
            1. AK64
              AK64 5 March 2016 10: 26
              +2
              ... just ended up in the wrong place at the right time!


              That is, you agree that it was the elimination of witnesses? Well, right: witnesses must also be killed. Suddenly, they’ll tell you something superfluous, huh?
        3. The comment was deleted.
        4. sibiryouk
          sibiryouk 4 March 2016 17: 12
          +1
          RED ADVANCE !!! And a very weak excuse.
        5. moskowit
          moskowit 4 March 2016 20: 54
          +1
          Clearly lords! Have you read the article? An article about the rifle and the history of its name ...
      2. AK64
        AK64 4 March 2016 11: 48
        +2
        Nikolashka abdicated at the height of the First World War, being the commander in chief! Essentially - DESERVED!


        All this is like a lie. There were no witnesses. More precisely, there was one Shulgin, all the stories about the abdication only on his individual testimony. But ... but the fact is that Shulgin was invited there to just testify. And it was hard to call him particularly intelligent ... That is, he saw what they showed.

        But even if we consider the circumstances of the horses described by Shulgin, then even talking about desertion is not just ridiculous, but directly mean.
        1. V.ic
          V.ic 5 March 2016 06: 04
          0
          Quote: AK64
          And it was hard to call him particularly intelligent ...

          Read, just in case, his books: "1920", "Days", "Three Capitals" and do not be so harsh. By the way, how many books have you personally written?
          1. AK64
            AK64 5 March 2016 10: 14
            +2
            Read, just in case, his books: "1920", "Days", "Three Capitals" and do not be so harsh.


            It’s you who were so worried about Shulgin that I refuse to acknowledge him as particularly clever?

            Biography of a prominent politician Vasily Vitalievich Shulgin: a landowner from the provinces, who suddenly became one of the leaders of the State Duma; a nationalist defending Beilis; a monarchist who accepts the abdication of the throne from his monarch. After the abdication, Shulgin spat: "I renounced the kingdom as I gave up a company." But Nicholas II a year later bravely died for the Motherland, and Shulgin lived for another 60 years. And what 60 years! In the 20s, this ardent opponent of Soviet power went illegally to the Soviet Union and after this trip, favorably released by the GPU back abroad, he wrote a book about "the successes of the communist regime" (which the GPU showed him). It is characteristic that in the USSR this "denouncer of Jewish dominance" lived with a false passport issued in the name of a Jew, and walked the streets in the make-up of an "old rabbi." Subsequently, Shulgin was arrested by Soviet troops in Yugoslavia, was in prison, but he got out safely and still managed to sing corn under Khrushchev. If you look at this whole century-old life in your mind's eye, it will amaze us with a complete lack of logic. This is the theater of the absurd. The trouble is that Shulgin was too logical. I've read his books. This is extreme rationalism. Furthermore. To the Russian rationalist, Shulgin's biography seems romantic, sublime. For a certain part of modern Russian Shulgin, this is an idol, almost an object of worship.


            And by the way, do you know that Shulgin is Kisa Vorobyaninov? Or vice versa: Kisa Vorobyaninov is Shulgin. The cartoon, of course, is a caricature, but nonetheless recognizable.
            So, IMHO, Kisa Vorobyaninov is much closer to the real Shulgin than the image that some Russian intellectuals paint for themselves.

            By the way, how many books have you personally written?

            Go to the person - this is of course in our opinion, it is right. It’s still good to ask a passport, check the registration ....

            Here, for example, simply, there is such a Latynina --- so, in your opinion, she’s much smarter than Shulgin. Yes, yes: much more Books.

            (But Latynina is not the limit - there is also Dantsova, Shilova at last. Yes, Shilova ...)
            1. V.ic
              V.ic 5 March 2016 19: 36
              0
              Quote: AK64
              You know that Shulgin is Kisa Vorobyaninov?

              We "know" that one of the authors worked in Menzhinsky's department and made a lot of jokes about the gullible "sucker", so after all, the Chekists similarly "blinded" Solomon Rosenblum, he seemed to be also not poor in mind ... And Shulgin, by the way, was one of the organizers of "Azbuka" / AzBukiVedi /. By the way, I attended the 22nd Congress of the CPSU on a guest ticket.
      3. Stas57
        Stas57 4 March 2016 18: 54
        0
        About the "anointed of God".

        yes and ... let him


        I’m Zhmakal 98k and a mosquito and I say, it’s quite adequate weapons, it’s quite possible to put a =
      4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 March 2016 20: 00
        +1
        Quote: Volgobalt
        . Nikolashka abdicated at the height of the First World War, being the commander in chief! Essentially - DESERVED! In any army of the world would be shot,

        You are still unfair. Against him, then the whole country rose, he could not find support in anyone - even the family turned against him.
        Another question is that this position of Nicholas led to his absolute lack of talent as a manager, as a leader, a king. I can’t imagine a similar end to tsarist Russia if at that moment someone like Alexander III were at the head of it.
        1. AK64
          AK64 4 March 2016 20: 51
          -5
          You are still unfair. Against him, then the whole country rose, he could not find support in anyone - even the family turned against him.

          Is "the whole country" a bunch of liberals? (in modern language)

          And they population asked? Or opinion population they were never interested


          Another question is that this position of Nicholas led to his absolute lack of talent as a manager, as a leader, a king.

          In fact, and without emotion: one of the best Russian tsars, and one of the best monarchs in history.

          This is a fact, if we consider not emotions, but only facts.

          And the probability of an imminent victory in the war led to "this situation": the "allies" will see if the opportunity to destroy not only Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire, but at the same time the Russian Empire.
          There was a lot of joy in Paris - even Russian securities for some reason rose in price ...
          (Then, however, for some reason they fell - the liberals, as usual, were only able to criticize; somehow they didn’t really manage to manage something, then what now)

          I can’t imagine a similar end to tsarist Russia if at that moment someone like Alexander III were at the head of it.

          It was the policy of Alexander 3 that led to the revolution of 1905.
          But the "patriots" (precisely in quotation marks - for they are ignorant velmas and velmas) do not want to understand this.
          1. Camel
            Camel 4 March 2016 21: 59
            0
            AK64 (1) ES
            In fact, and without emotion: one of the best Russian tsars, and one of the best monarchs in history.
            This is a fact, if we consider not emotions, but only facts.

            Forgive me, but how do you assess the "best" of the monarchs? What scale? Do you take into account the economic growth of the country under his rule, the growth of military power, maybe you mean unprecedented social transformations? How do these, for example, indicators relate to each other? Or do you evaluate the kings by "holiness" - then YES! Nicholas II is really the best monarch, although no - Alexander Nevsky is also a saint, and Dmitry Donskoy is still there.
            But according to the indicators that I described above - according to them, Nicholas 2 is simply a loser, judge for yourself: 1) lost the Russo-Japanese War; 2) allowed the revolution of 1905, and then did not draw the necessary conclusions from it; 3) got involved in the 1st world, did not gain success in it; 4) renounced power (February 1917) ... well, then without his participation.
            Yes, even "without emotion" I would like to ask - who needs such a king? Who wants to protect him? Well, if it is not needed, and its very existence harms the victorious system, well ... at a expense. With a family, so that there are no sudden "legitimate" heirs, etc.

            PS If it does not bother you, please provide the TOP-5 (10) best monarchs of your list (with brief explanations for what)

            PPS Yes, minus mine
            1. AK64
              AK64 4 March 2016 22: 35
              -2
              Forgive me, but how do you assess the "best" of the monarchs? What scale? Do you take into account the economic growth of the country under his rule, the growth of military power, maybe you mean unprecedented social transformations?


              Exactly so: I see exactly that.
              I see industrialization that was no slower than Stalinist.

              Ah, you see nothing? So you’re blotting out your eyes.

              How do these indicators, for example, relate to each other?


              That is, you still see - but do not know which ones to relate? So, under Nikolai Aleksandrovich, it was precisely that at the same time social transformations were taking place, industrialization was carried out (without ruining the peasants, by the way, they managed) and military power grew. All at once. Somehow "correlated".

              Or do you evaluate the kings by "holiness" - then YES! Nicholas II is really the best monarch, although no - Alexander Nevsky is also a saint, and Dmitry Donskoy is still there.


              You are a very stupid person, and if so then you should not talk to you. But it’s worth wasting words on you.

              Farewell.


              PPS Yes, minus mine


              Who would doubt it: the lack of intelligence and knowledge in oneself is easiest to compensate for by putting minuses to others.
          2. V.ic
            V.ic 5 March 2016 06: 16
            0
            Quote: AK64
            It was the policy of Alexander 3 that led to the revolution of 1905.

            I wonder: what did Alexander Alexandrovich have to do with the concessions in Korea, the suppression of the "boxing" uprising, the Tsushima defeat? Alexander 3 ruled RI from 1881 to 1894, i.e. 13 years old and left his son the Empire, which is in excellent development, but "nicholas", by the beginning of R.Ya.V. ruled for 10 years! The terms are of the same order of magnitude, but the results vary significantly. Everyone should be "repaid" according to his deeds!
            1. AK64
              AK64 5 March 2016 10: 37
              0
              I wonder: what did Alexander Alexandrovich have to do with the concessions in Korea, the suppression of the "boxing" uprising, the Tsushima defeat? Alexander 3 ruled RI from 1881 to 1894, i.e. 13 years old and left his son the Empire, which is in excellent development,


              Golden you are mine, let's start with the last statement, about "wonderful development". You know what, because we live in the era of the Internet. After all, the iron horse has replaced the peasant horse! But the trouble is: people like you do not know how and do not want to use this "iron horse"!

              After all, today everything is simple: after spending some 3-4 hours, with a known skill you can find ALL STATISTICAL data for Russia for the second half of the 19th century (the first half is more complicated - they are just very, very few.)

              But you, and others like you, do not want to do this: even 3-4 hours apart from your favorite "dancers" is too difficult for you.

              But everything is simple and easy to check: you can easily and naturally make sure that there was no "wonderful development" under Alexander-3.

              But under Nikolai Alexandrovich it was. And this is confirmed by statistics. And if you don’t want statistics, you would at least look at the growth of the fleet: the fleet reflects the state of the industry.

              Further, you say "well, what does Alexander have to do with it if it happened under Nicholas, eh ???"

              So even your question itself is wild and absurd. because the right question would be "So WHY did the 1905 revolution happen?" That is, the question should not be asked about "who is to blame?" namely, "what are the reasons?"

              But you don’t understand this either.

              But, as I already said, you are lazy, and you don’t want to do such a simple job as a comparative analysis of the development of the Russian economy - and despite this, EVERYTHING IS ONLINE!
              So why should I, a very busy person, waste time on you, lazy? I WILL NOT --- remain in your ignorance.
              1. Pilat2009
                Pilat2009 5 March 2016 12: 42
                -1
                Quote: AK64
                After all, the iron horse replaced the peasant horse!

                Yes, the peasant to process his 10 acres and the horse will fit.
                Perhaps the tractor has an efficiency higher, but a couple of hectares can be plowed on bulls for three days without a hitch. Before World War I, without any tractors, Russia was the largest agricultural power
                1. AK64
                  AK64 5 March 2016 15: 08
                  0
                  Yes, the peasant to process his 10 acres and the horse will fit.

                  Firstly, I’m talking about the Internet and the ability to use it (before, I had to go to the library and there, in the cold reading room, to shove books)
                  And secondly, it's the Golden Calf Pitata

                  Perhaps the tractor has an efficiency higher, but a couple of hectares can be plowed on bulls for three days without a hitch. Before World War I, without any tractors, Russia was the largest agricultural power

                  There is no such thing as "agricultural power".
                  If "agricultural power" means agrarian and backward, it means a large proportion of the population is involved in food production.
                  This is bad. It means that agricultural there is, but powers no.

                  But as soon as Russia was a power, it quite rightfully entered the then G-8.
                  Then there were only 10 powers: B-Britain, Germany, France, the USA (these four are the "first league"); A-Hungary, Russia, Japan, Italy (these four are the second league). Well, China and Turkey - but these two are no longer serious - so, they have somehow managed to maintain at least formal independence.

                  There were no other powers at that time - everything else is the same, "objects of politics", without the right to say a word.

                  So it is not worth it to complex and get prey, normally Russia stood then. Better than now, IMHO.
                  1. Pilat2009
                    Pilat2009 5 March 2016 20: 44
                    0
                    Quote: AK64
                    ok then Russia stood

                    So no one really argues. Only during the war it turned out that the problems are higher than the roof.
              2. V.ic
                V.ic 5 March 2016 14: 30
                0
                Quote: AK64
                on you, lazy, wasting time?

                Oh, knowledgeable! I sprinkle ash on my head and start asking questions: 1. Have you paid your enlightened attention to the term of the reign of Alexander the 3rd and the reign of Nikolai the 2nd / 13 and 10 years, respectively / to the beginning of R.Ya.V.? 2. Was Alexander the 3rd giving concessions to the river Yala Bezobrazov and Alekseev? 3.
                Quote: AK64
                And this is confirmed by statistics.

                Here and look, my dear lover of statistics on the state of the USSR in 1991 in relation to the state of the Russian Federation in 2015. 24 years have passed, and the economy of the Russian Federation, as it was in a "well-known place", remains there. Let me remind you of the coined truth: "there is a lie, there is a big lie and there is" statistics ".
                I was always touched by the ability of Russian managers to "blame" everything on their predecessors: "they are guilty of everything!" I put Alexander's activity as a peacemaker two orders of magnitude higher than that of my son ...
                1. AK64
                  AK64 5 March 2016 15: 24
                  +1
                  Oh, knowledgeable! I sprinkle ash on my head and start asking questions: 1. Have you paid your enlightened attention to the term of the reign of Alexander the 3rd and the reign of Nikolai the 2nd / 13 and 10 years, respectively / to the beginning of R.Ya.V.?

                  You steal my time.
                  Here kraz now (at your request, please note!) I am trying to straighten the article of my graduate student. And by the way - Saturday.
                  So why are you stealing my time?

                  Well, I will answer you, but VERY briefly - and do not ask questions anymore: begin to show independence not only in a talk, but also in your searches.

                  TROUBLE Rosisi was - serfdom. It was quite real to attack.
                  Alexander-2 abolished serfdom. You can scolded him as much as you like, which he did poorly - this is all nonsense, he did something that no one had dared to do before him. AND so he was killed. (They say that the Volunteers killed - broad smiles to you, gentlemen ...)
                  So the immediate consequence of the abolition of serfdom were:
                  (1) a dramatically explosive economic growth, and
                  (2) explosive population growth.

                  Yes, yes: for fans of the whip and stables: the banal abolition of serfdom immediately turned into a (surprise-surprise !!!) explosion literally in population. And the reason - infant (0-5 years) mortality BEFORE the cancellation was 40-45% (horror!), Before the cancellation of 42-43%, and a little later - only 27-29%.
                  So tell after that about how serfdom was a "good"!

                  But this is only infant, that is, 0-5 years old, and then there is also a nursery.

                  So: the population ovanul at the top. But the zemstvos were allocated to the peasants in 1861, 2 tithes per capita, and the souls were DOUBLED by 1901. That is, the soul began to account for 1 tithe. And this is HUNGER, guaranteed.

                  This was the reason for the revolution of 1905. As you can see, the reasons are quite objective, and no "ugliness" has anything to do with it.

                  So Nikolay SOLVED this problem in 1906-08. I decided not in the best way, but I DECIDED it, quite realistically. Yes, yes, a complex of reforms (including the notorious "Stolypin" reforms, to which Stolypin is no sideways.)

                  But you need to ask a question why such an acute problem suddenly arose? And it arose because Alexander 3 ... was frightened of fright: the dad for the reforms was killed - well, he ... tried to fix the situation, without change so that. But you cannot forbid women to give birth, and moreover, the population is the main wealth of any country (well, at least THEN it was.)
                  But Alexander-3 locked himself in the Gatchina Palace, essentially closed himself from the world - and in response to all the changes, only ... tightened the nuts on the boiler. And the boiler was already boiling and steam was rising.

                  Nikolai Alexandrovich inherited BOBMU. But he did not know about it: he somehow considered that it should be so!
                  But to his credit: he figured out and disarmed the bomb. Demined.

                  But I give 100 dollars against a torn sock that you did not understand anything.
                  However, I refuse to spend time on you further.
                  1. kalibr
                    5 March 2016 16: 11
                    0
                    Mulladets, doraga, wrote well, but all-out Dzhigit however!
                  2. V.ic
                    V.ic 5 March 2016 19: 21
                    +1
                    Quote: AK64
                    So Nikolai solved this problem in 1906-08. I decided not in the best way, but I DECIDED it, quite real.

                    As for the "DECIDED" look in the work of V.I.L. "Stolypin and the Revolution".
                    Quote: AK64
                    Yes, yes, a set of reforms (including the notorious "Stolypin", to which Stolypin no side.)

                    .this being prime minister? Well, you give!
                    Quote: AK64
                    But I give 100 dollars against a torn sock

                    I don’t mind the promised 100 dollars, send it, I look forward to it. yes By the way, the graduate student / s / s would have to "plow" themselves, negative and you only sow: reasonable / good / eternal. Sorry to take your precious minutes! hi
                2. kalibr
                  5 March 2016 16: 09
                  0
                  There is one indicator that will reconcile you. The historian Morozov published a whole series of articles "Who Lives Well in Russia?" in the magazine RODINA. As a criterion, he took the data of the draft commissions of the Russian imperial army: height and weight. So at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, all these indicators increased from year to year! In lean years 1898 1901, the weight indicators decreased. That is, people ate better and better from year to year, became stronger and stronger. That is, progressive development really took place both under Alexander and under Nicholas! After all, the main task of the ruler is not concessions, but the welfare of the people. So that he is fed and reproduces well. It was? It was!
        2. The comment was deleted.
      5. moskowit
        moskowit 4 March 2016 20: 52
        +1
        Everything is correct. But the rifle was adopted by Alexander the Third ....
      6. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 4 March 2016 21: 59
        +1
        Quote: Volgobalt
        Nikolashka abdicated at the height of the First World War, being the commander in chief!

        Forgive me, why should the army have a shitty commander in chief? De facto, the army was ruled by the generals, and the tsar only gave the go-ahead. The rest of the "free from the main work" time he shot crows and drank.
        1. AK64
          AK64 4 March 2016 22: 27
          0
          Forgive me, why should the army have a shitty commander in chief? De facto, the army was ruled by the generals, and the tsar only gave the go-ahead. The rest of the "free from the main work" time he shot crows and drank.


          You slander the murdered.

          When "the army was ruled by the generals" - it retreated and went from defeat to defeat. 1915th, please - "relevance of the generals!" Indeed, at the most difficult moment for the country, Nikolai Aleksandrovich removed his useless "uncle-general" and took full responsibility upon himself!

          But here they are ... slanderers like you and IT blame him.

          How can you not be ashamed, huh?
          1. Jurec
            Jurec 5 March 2016 00: 14
            +1
            As the dead are said, it’s either good or not at all. But there is one thing. The singing world, in which Nicholas pulled the country. It was better to sit on the sidelines and add current to the oil. Let Europeans tear each other. hi
            1. hard rock
              hard rock 5 March 2016 00: 36
              +2
              Quote: Jurec
              The singing world, in which Nicholas pulled the country. It was better to sit on the sidelines and add current to the oil. Let Europeans tear each other.

              But what about the roofing system? Or do you think that bandits came up with a racket in the 90s? Hell no. Coating, this is a favorite activity of the so-called politicians. At different times, this roofing has a different name and takes on different forms. But it does not disappear, it blooms and smells. Often, unfortunately, a little sweet.
              But you can’t protect, you won’t have any respect. The one who does not roof, that sucker is shameful, not a cool kid.
              So it is then. Russia roofed Serbia. And the Germans were roofing Austria-Hungary. Ferdinand of Austria during a friendly visit to Serbia in Sarajevo banged. The Austrians hit the Serbs. Russia fit in with the Serbs, but did not officially run into. The Germans fit in with the Austrians and drove into Russia. France fit into Russia, Germany ran into it. Britain ran into Germany for France and Russia. Austria-Hungary came upon Russia after Germany. Serbs came to Germany for Russia. And then Britain and France drove into Austria-Hungary for Russia. There were still a bunch of participants, but you won’t list all.
              That's how it all began. And why? Because Germany was roofing Austria-Hungary, and Russia was Serbia. So the Austrians would have marked the Serbs, this would have ended the whole thing. Fast and low blood. And so, tens of millions died. And then another tens of millions in the second series.
              1. V.ic
                V.ic 5 March 2016 06: 21
                0
                Quote: hardrock
                Russia roofed Serbia. And the Germans roofed Austria-Hungary

                Sultan by whom "protected"? Don't talk nonsense. As a result of the 1st MV, 4 empires disappeared at once / I hope = no need to enumerate? / And who was it in the hands of?
                1. hard rock
                  hard rock 5 March 2016 08: 50
                  +1
                  Quote: V.ic
                  Sultan by whom "protected"?

                  Germany, the most gracious, Germany.
                  Quote: V.ic
                  As a result of the 1st MV, 4 empires disappeared immediately / I hope = no need to list?

                  Why are you doing this? Are you showing your awareness?
            2. AK64
              AK64 5 March 2016 10: 46
              0
              As the dead are said, it’s either good or not at all. But there is one thing. The singing world, in which Nicholas pulled the country. It was better to sit on the sidelines and add current to the oil. Let Europeans tear each other.


              You should read at least something on the question of how exactly Nikolai Aleksandrovich "dragged the country into the war."
              Honestly, you would have learned a lot of new and interesting things.

              For example, you could find out that EVERYTHING, ALL countries (including Serbia, it’s not strange) - apart from Russia and Nikolai Aleksandrovich personally, were eager for the war.
              If you dared to spoil at least a couple of hours of your precious time that you spend on "Tanchiki" and the fool-box, you could find out about the telegrams of Nikolai Alexandrovich "to cousin Willie" - on which this cousin with his own hand, you see - he SHOOT !!! "

              Russia was the only European country that was completely NOT interested in the war, quite objectively. Moreover, Russia was in the process of modernizing the army, which should have been completed in 1917. So why Russia fight in the 14th?

              But you are lazy, you don’t want to search for something even on the Web, and prefer fast food from the TV.

              Well, if so, then why should I, a very busy person, spend my time on you?

              Farewell.
              1. Jurec
                Jurec 5 March 2016 14: 01
                0
                Russia was the only European country that was completely NOT interested in the war, quite objectively. Moreover, Russia was in the process of modernizing the army, which should have been completed in 1917. So why Russia fight in the 14th? That's exactly why? When the country was not ready. But he threw Russia to Ur, threw German bayonets.
                1. hard rock
                  hard rock 5 March 2016 14: 36
                  +1
                  Quote: Jurec
                  Russia was the only European country that was completely NOT interested in the war, quite objectively.

                  Nobody was interested in the war at all. But nonetheless, it has begun.
                  By the way, Russia itself unleashed this massacre. So the Austrians would pester the Serbs (and there was a reason), the whole conflict would be exhausted.
                  Quote: Jurec
                  Russia was in the process of modernizing the army,

                  Russia in the permanent process of "army modernization". Therefore, that the 13th, that the 17th year, there was no difference. In the 17th year they would have been "not ready".
                  Quote: Jurec
                  But he threw Russia to Ur, threw German bayonets.

                  But here it’s difficult to disagree with you. The personal ambitions of Nicholas 2 in those days played a huge role in world history.
                  PS. Perhaps he hoped that the Kaiser had a small intestine. But no. It turned out to be quite a colon. Although in the position of the Kaiser, twitching was extremely risky. But he jerked, not afraid.
                2. The comment was deleted.
                3. AK64
                  AK64 5 March 2016 18: 50
                  0
                  Russia was the only European country that was completely NOT interested in the war, quite objectively. Moreover, Russia was in the process of modernizing the army, which should have been completed in 1917. So why Russia fight in the 14th? That's exactly why? When the country was not ready. But he threw Russia to Ur, threw German bayonets.


                  if you went to the store for milk, and in the gateway there are 3-4 gopas on you "well, let me have a smoke!" - it's your fault, right? Went to the wrong place, put on the wrong hat, right?
                4. The comment was deleted.
            3. Pilat2009
              Pilat2009 5 March 2016 12: 33
              0
              Quote: Jurec
              Let Europeans tear each other.

              You do not take into account that, having dealt with France, Germany would have gone to Russia. What actually happened in 1941
              1. hard rock
                hard rock 5 March 2016 14: 39
                +1
                Quote: Pilat2009
                You do not take into account that, having dealt with France, Germany would have gone to Russia. What actually happened in 1941

                Why would they "deal with France" without Russia? It was France (and Britain) who ran into Germany, in response to her run over Russia.
                1. Pilat2009
                  Pilat2009 5 March 2016 20: 40
                  0
                  Quote: hardrock
                  The same France (and Britain) came to Germany in response to its impact on Russia.

                  “But by the mid-1880s, the country, which had become stronger economically and militarily, began to fight for hegemony in Europe by the mid-XNUMXs. Germany embarked on colonial expansion too late and therefore practically remained without colonies, which caused German capital to be deprived of markets. In addition, Germany was experiencing acute lack of living space for its rapidly growing population and food shortage. To solve these problems, a new division of the world was needed in favor of Germany and German capital. That is, Germany had to conquer hegemony on the European continent by defeating the bloc of great powers that had already divided the whole world: Russia , France and England "
                  So the First World War was inevitable. Sooner or later. And if Russia had to fight one on one, it would be hard, which actually happened, only in this case Germany fought on two fronts
              2. The comment was deleted.
      7. Dam
        Dam 5 March 2016 22: 39
        0
        I agree completely. This person had only one duty in life and he ignored it. Even if he had been killed in that head carriage, which had not renounced, the history of Russia would not have turned on the bloody path of self-destruction
    3. kalibr
      4 March 2016 07: 46
      12
      Quote: qwert
      Again, the "evil commies" offended a good man and sold to drive in a series of defective Kalash. And as soon as half of the world fought and fights with them.

      Don't you think it's not even funny? And you do not disagree with me, but with the documents that I rather stupidly and trite quoted with a link to archival materials. The Romans had a phrase: The law is harsh, but it is the law. Having changed it, we can say that it was so, at least someone does not like it. But history “would” not know. Nobody drove just defective Kalash, where did you get it from? Just after the introduction of what was written about, the percentage of rejects for this operation practically dropped to 0. And Nikolai has to do with it? Have you read about him in the article? You know - don't read your thoughts in other people's articles!
      1. moskowit
        moskowit 4 March 2016 21: 00
        +1
        Everything is correct. Interestingly, citizen commentators at least sometimes read comments expressing someone's opinion? In the comments to the previous article about the rifle, I made a link to Fedorov's research "History of the rifle", where everything is explained with the situation of the Russian three-line.
        Though he looked, somebody? Huh?
        But I, naive, still think that the main thing in life is KNOWLEDGE!
    4. Amurets
      Amurets 4 March 2016 08: 11
      +4
      Quote: qwert
      Everyone has the right to their opinion.

      I support you completely. What I once read about the 1891 model rifle in my childhood, I also seemed to be indignant at the satrap king, until I saw drawings of the Mosin rifle and Nagant rifle in the Technique-Youth magazine. Initial samples and final samples. They differed both day and night. But how much the rifles differed in the device initially and how close they became before being adopted. In essence, it was like two versions of the same model.
    5. Aleksandr72
      Aleksandr72 4 March 2016 08: 31
      +9
      Everyone has the right to his opinion, even if he simply quotes other articles, but this:
      “Guided by a Nagan gun, design a shotgun system gun (that is, powered by cartridges from the“ pack ”- clips - author's note) for 5 rounds, but use the shutter of your system in this gun”

      I want to draw the attention of the author to the moment that the pack and clip, having one purpose - the equipment of the store (in this case, a store rifle) firearms, have different designs. At the same time, the pack serves to place cartridges in the magazine until they are fully used up during firing and is removed (extracted) after all cartridges have been shot, and the clip serves to temporarily place cartridges and make the rifle magazine equipment more convenient.
      For clarity, photos of packs and different types of clips to rifles:
      above - a pack to the Manlicher rifle arr. 1895, under it a standard clip to the Mosin rifle arr. 1891/1910, on the side of a plate holder for the Mauser rifle arr. 1898 By the way, one more nuance - it follows from the text of the article that the plate holder in the Mosin rifle was adopted at the same time as the rifle - but this is not so: the most advanced plate holder was adopted during the modernization of the Mosin rifle in 1930, because only then could they establish the release of spring steel necessary for the manufacture of such clips.
      1. kalibr
        4 March 2016 09: 19
        0
        This is also true, but then often the pack and the clip did not differ. Even the term was "to shoot in bundles" or "bundle fire", although everyone already knew that the bundle was in "Mannlicherovka", and the clip was in "Mosinka". And in the documents it is written everywhere - "a pack of Nagant", but at the same time ... "insertion of cartridges with a finger"! And if the "pack", then the input is not cartridges in the store, namely the pack! So this is not an error, but a literal adherence to the text of the document.
    6. Fitter65
      Fitter65 4 March 2016 10: 00
      +3
      Neither Nicholas II, but Alexander III — there seems to be some difference between them ... well, at least that the Second bore the middle name of the third ...
    7. dkflbvbh
      dkflbvbh 4 March 2016 10: 53
      +5
      "And again someone was hurt that the anointed of God, Bloody Nicholas, was touched, well, how can we not intercede? He was considered a martyr. And the people affectionately called him - our Bloody Nicholas."

      And what does Nicholas the Bloody have to do with it? (we work out stars) ...
    8. AK64
      AK64 4 March 2016 11: 44
      +3
      Yes, and the people affectionately called him - our Bloody Nikolai.


      Is "the people" Tavarish Trotsky? Well then, yes, I did.

      And if the people are in the village of Malaya Ivanovka or there is Bolshaya Pokrovka, then there is more "tsar-father". In the 70s, old relatives were already telling me how well they lived under the tsar: well, we had a drink, that's why their tongues got loose.
      1. kalibr
        4 March 2016 12: 49
        +3
        In Penza, when Tsar Nicholas 2 arrived in the city, people almost beat a drunken man - "I couldn't get drunk later!" And the inhabitants of one village in 1918 wrote a letter to the newspaper and it was published as a sample of their "darkness": Give us back Tsar Nicholas with him everything was and was cheap! "It is interesting that such letters were also written in other provinces!
    9. Alekseev
      Alekseev 4 March 2016 16: 39
      +3
      Quote: qwert
      that the anointed of God’s Bloody Nicholas was hurt, how can one not intercede here?

      Before "chasing a blizzard" you need to be at least a little on friendly terms with your head. fool
      What does Bloody Nikolai have to do with it?
      A three-ruler of 1891, and Nicholas II ascended the throne in 1894 ...
      Yes, and his historical fault was only that he could not keep the country on a historic turning point, Monomakh’s cap didn’t follow Senka, letting it slide into really bloody chaos ...
      Quote: qwert
      I do not agree, but I will not enter into disputes

      And it would be necessary. Only essentially with facts in hand, and not with chatter at the level of biased rags about "commies" and "bloody".
    10. sibiryouk
      sibiryouk 4 March 2016 17: 10
      +1
      And here Nikolai-rifle was adopted by Alexander III. Nick. II ascended the throne in 1894!
    11. Real stalinist
      Real stalinist 7 March 2016 10: 57
      0
      You definitely read THIS article, and not some other? Where is it mentioned about Nicholas the Bloody? In addition, the article is not about a good person offended by "commies" and defective Kalash ...
      So, after reading it diagonally and focusing on the last paragraph (and even not understanding it), a very competent article can only come to a verdict ... only an "alternatively thinking person" can.
  2. Volgobalt
    Volgobalt 4 March 2016 07: 17
    10
    And no matter what, Mosin did well! Improving your product through competing developments in Euro-immoral countries was not considered shameful, so why should we sprinkle our heads with ash !? With this rifle, we won the Second World War, the most massive small arms were! Therefore honor and praise to Mosin!
    1. kalibr
      4 March 2016 08: 02
      +9
      Of course well done! I managed to make a sample at the level of world samples. It costs a lot. And nobody argues with that. It was simply claimed that he made almost a masterpiece of world arms art solely at the expense of his mind and imagination. But this is not true. And by the way, there’s nothing wrong with that. There are no weapons without flaws.
      1. chunga-changa
        chunga-changa 4 March 2016 11: 37
        0
        Maybe you can write something about "cutoff reflector". Was this detail (idea) really so original? If so, was it patented and did Mosin (Russia) receive anything for it?
        1. kalibr
          4 March 2016 12: 33
          0
          I won't answer right away. We must "dig"!
    2. 97110
      97110 4 March 2016 11: 24
      +2
      Quote: Volgobalt
      the most massive small arms were!

      Tell me, to illustrate "the very mass", in the armies of which countries was it in service? And until what year? I remember that Israel removed the Mauser 98 from service in 1974 (?). Do you remember a similar fact about Mosinka? Add the word "Russian" to the quoted text, and I will remove all my objections.
      1. Volgobalt
        Volgobalt 4 March 2016 14: 42
        -1
        I agree, I add, this is what I meant.
  3. Volga Cossack
    Volga Cossack 4 March 2016 07: 21
    +8
    A double article ........... a three-line weapon is a good weapon ... although not without its drawbacks ....... for example, because of the shutter when reloading, you have to tear the rifle off your shoulder. but overall simple and reliable - it’s not for nothing that she’s still alive ..........
    1. pimen
      pimen 4 March 2016 08: 52
      +2
      also ambiguous: when shooting on the run, in attack, such a shutter handle is more convenient
      1. hard rock
        hard rock 4 March 2016 16: 13
        +2
        Quote: pimen
        when shooting on the run, in attack, such a shutter handle is more convenient

        May be. But how many infantryman shoots while running in an attack? Pitiful fraction of interest. And in the main mode, using the shutter is inconvenient.
        1. pimen
          pimen 4 March 2016 16: 23
          +1
          okay, such an introductory one: try to distort the Mauserian wedged (frozen) shutter in mittens?
      2. The comment was deleted.
  4. Hammer
    Hammer 4 March 2016 07: 31
    +4
    author -> author -> author did not discover America. If we were behind in something, then there is nothing shameful in the beginning to use the experience of foreign countries. What made the T-34 appear?
    1. kalibr
      4 March 2016 07: 41
      +4
      That's it! Every opportunity should be taken. And no one offers to sprinkle ashes on his head, and there is not a word about Tsar Nicholas in the article. Or is everyone looking at the "bukovy", reads that he "hotsa"? And it's not about the discovery of America, but about the same thing in the previous article. Well, if someone does not like archival documents, then he can go himself, take the specified folder and ... referring to them, find something new there! It is only doubtful that this is possible!
  5. alex-cn
    alex-cn 4 March 2016 07: 41
    +5
    By the way, Stoner, the designer of the M16, supposedly supposedly got 1 (I could be wrong) dollar from each issued rifle.
    1. 97110
      97110 4 March 2016 11: 27
      +1
      Quote: alex-cn
      By the way, Stoner, the designer of M16, is supposed to
      by whom? You should add "under the terms of the agreement" and rejoice for the burning of Stoner and the spender at the Pentagon.
  6. qwert
    qwert 4 March 2016 07: 46
    +3
    Quote: Volga Cossack
    a three-line gun is a good weapon ... although not without flaws ....... for example, because of the shutter during reloading, you have to tear the rifle off your shoulder. but overall simple and reliable - it’s not for nothing that she’s still alive ..........
    And no one will name a weapon that has no flaws. Well, there is no complete ideal in the technique. And usually flaws are the flip side of the merits. For example, the Yak-3 has excellent maneuverability and rate of climb due to the light weight and lightness of the structure, but because of this, the small flight range. The P-47 has a huge range, but it is difficult because of the need to have increased dimensions for fuel, and according to our pilots, it is not a fighter at all in terms of maneuverability. The main thing here is to choose the right compromise. The three-line in the first place manufacturability and reliability with a good rate of fire, but the shutter clanged)))
  7. parusnik
    parusnik 4 March 2016 07: 49
    +5
    That is, he did not deprive them of himself, but in fact robbed his country of 600 thousand francs at once..Not for us to judge..Now, they take the identity too .. and the result is a robbery of the country, the people ..
    1. Aleksandr72
      Aleksandr72 4 March 2016 08: 55
      26
      That's not for us to judge. Captain Mosin, making such a decision, was guided primarily by officer honor - that did not allow him to accept money from anyone for an invention that, in his opinion, could benefit his homeland - Russia. It doesn’t matter whether his invention was useful or if it was initially useless, it is important that Captain Mosin could not have acted differently, being a patriot of his country and an officer. He is not a businessman, who saw only profit in everything. It is difficult to call the Mosin system rifle a weapon masterpiece, but nevertheless, this rifle was the most suitable mass weapon for the often illiterate (generally illiterate, not just technically!) Recruits from the remote villages of the Russian Empire, because of the simplicity of their design and operation. for not far from them those who left in terms of education and technical knowledge of future Red Army soldiers from collective farms or Central Asian villages and villages. If they talked about and wrote about the T-34 tank, it was a Soviet tank for a Soviet soldier who, due to his low technical literacy, could only correctly exploit such a simple tank and, due to his natural modesty, could do without comfort and fight on it, then about Mosin rifle can be said that this was a Russian rifle for a Russian soldier. The Mosin rifle with honor having passed a series of wars of the first half of the twentieth century became the weapon of Victory.
      I have the honor.
      1. kalibr
        4 March 2016 09: 07
        +1
        That's right! You noticed it well. Usually every technical innovation takes into account the mentality of the nation, and the "colonels from the commission", although the elite, but ... also the people and they know him and work for him.
      2. Chukcha
        Chukcha 4 March 2016 12: 44
        +1
        Is there a picture in higher resolution?
        1. igordok
          igordok 4 March 2016 13: 19
          0
          Quote: Chukcha
          Is there a picture in higher resolution?

          He was also interested.
          1. Aleksandr72
            Aleksandr72 4 March 2016 14: 11
            +2
            I can bring to your attention only such a photo in the maximum resolution that I have:
      3. hard rock
        hard rock 4 March 2016 15: 17
        -1
        Quote: Aleksandr72
        I have the honor.

        I want to remind you that the code of noble honor, together with the estates, was canceled back in 1917. Therefore:
        if you are a nobleman, then your phrase looks like swagger and anachronism. There have been almost 100 years of estates, however.
        if you are not a nobleman, then you just do not look very good.
        In any case, in the internet, such a phrase is not entirely appropriate.
        Quote: Aleksandr72
        If they talked about and wrote about the T-34 tank, it was a Soviet tank for a Soviet soldier who, due to his low technical literacy, could only correctly exploit such a simple tank and, due to his natural unpretentiousness, could do without comfort and fight on it,

        Those. For some reason, you think that the KV tank was completely too tough for the "stupid Soviet soldier"? And what is its "difficult difference" from the T-34? And the Valentine's tank? And the Churchill tank? And the Sherman tank? Or was the Soviet soldier still not stupid? Think about it.
        Quote: Aleksandr72
        then about the Mosin rifle we can say that this was a Russian rifle for a Russian soldier.

        Those. Are you sure that if you had left the cartridge on a flangeless sleeve, as Nagan had suggested from the very beginning, then the Russian soldier would never have managed with it? But what about the PCA? After all, he was on a cartridge with a flangeless sleeve. And somehow managed, used.
        1. sibiryouk
          sibiryouk 4 March 2016 17: 19
          0
          Generals who have recently learned to suppress SMS messages and turn on the computer themselves still consider the Russian soldier dumb and incapable of mastering the AN-94 !!!
      4. The comment was deleted.
    2. gross kaput
      gross kaput 4 March 2016 17: 19
      +2
      I did not deprive the silt, no one knows - firstly, we are not talking about a rifle magazine Model 1891, but a much earlier development of an applied rack store in 1885, and secondly, what how and why no one knows - because all the data about that history is only a commercial offer from the Rikter firm found after the death of Mosin in his papers and that's all, therefore, to judge for what reason the deal did not take place can only be as in the famous comedy "is there life on Mars, is there life on Mars - this is not known to modern science!"
      Well, besides this, do not forget that Mosin was not a lone inventor but practically a military designer on a salary, and for his development he received a salary, therefore, all the designs he designed in working order belonged neither to him nor to the Government of the Republic of Ingushetia.
  8. Cartalon
    Cartalon 4 March 2016 07: 52
    +5
    Explanatory article
  9. qwert
    qwert 4 March 2016 08: 00
    +2
    "But the Commission at that time still called the new rifle" the Mosin system with a Nagant clip ", which emphasized that it had not one author, but two." - pleased. Then the Degtyarev-Lewis machine gun, because he has a disc store on top. Either the Shpagin-Thompson submachine gun, since Thompsan had the first drum shop, or the Kalashnikov-Schmeiser submachine gun, this was the Schweizer wedb in the first world that offered a horn store. And you can also recall those who were the first to come up with a free-gate circuit or automation with the removal of powder gases, a sort of AKMShLM-Kalashnikov-Schmeiser-Lebel-Mauser machine. All monoplanes are Blerio. And therefore, MiG automatically becomes MiGiB. ))))
    1. kalibr
      4 March 2016 08: 21
      +4
      You get on the time machine and go there ... to the commission and teach them how it should have been. Well, these were the "dark" ones ... As for the Lewis store, the main difference is not that from above, but in the absence of a supply spring and rotation when firing, so it doesn’t roll. And PPSh not Shpagin-Thompson, by no means. All European PPs grew out of MP-18. And Schmeiser was not the first to offer the carob shop. So humor is, of course, good. But you need to think a little before humor.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 4 March 2016 11: 24
      +3
      Quote: qwert
      And you can also recall those who were the first to come up with a free-gate circuit or automation with the removal of powder gases, a sort of AKMShLM-Kalashnikov-Schmeiser-Lebel-Mauser machine

      It is necessary to dig deeper - the names of the inventors of smokeless gunpowder and gunpowder in general must necessarily be reflected in the name of the entire gunshot. For without them there would be no firearm. smile
    3. AK64
      AK64 4 March 2016 11: 58
      0
      Then the Degtyarev-Lewis machine gun, because he has a disc store on top. Either the Shpagin-Thompson submachine gun, since Thompsan had the first drum shop, or the Kalashnikov-Schmeiser submachine gun, this was the Schweizer wedb in the first world that offered a horn store.


      Docks, so as not to cause such a rejection written by you, up to and including gagging, Learn to finally use Google!

      That is, before you write something - check in Google!

      / and dirty obscenities /
    4. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 4 March 2016 12: 09
      0
      And you are not confused by the fact that Nagan spent a lot of time developing a store, and then it was used on a mosquito? At the same time, the main problem of rifles of that time was to get a simple, easy, reliable and seemingly simple Nagan store, which required a lot of effort, time and knowledge to create it.
      1. gross kaput
        gross kaput 4 March 2016 20: 02
        +1
        Quote: cth; fyn
        And you are not confused by the fact that Nagan spent a lot of time developing a store, and then it was used on a mosquito?

        Who told you that? Leon Nagan is not the inventor of the middle magazine and the magazine loading thereof, and the officers of the "commission for the development of a small-bore rifle" were not a sivolapa village who had just figured out the design of the match musket, before the revolver rifle in RI, all, at that time, the latest store systems with middle shops and magazine or pack loading - Mauser 1888 and 1889, Mannlicher 1889, so it is absolutely wrong to ascribe the development of a three-rug store to Nagan, the only thing that can be considered Naganov's at a stretch is the idea of ​​placing the feeder on the lid - but even then it is precisely the idea and not the construction.
    5. gross kaput
      gross kaput 4 March 2016 19: 38
      0
      It’s rare when I’m negative, but your mind deserves it.
  10. kvs207
    kvs207 4 March 2016 08: 08
    +1
    Quote: Cartalon
    Explanatory article

    And most importantly, how many links)))
  11. inkass_98
    inkass_98 4 March 2016 08: 27
    +6
    To be honest, the article is quite controversial. And the point here is not in the relationship between the "kgov tsarism" and Mosin personally, but in the fact that practically none of the samples of serial firearms could do without borrowing from outside. Almost every sample had at least one "donor", or even more. Take the same Springfield M1903. Quite an American rifle, but with a Mauser bolt, so what is it to be considered German now? And there are a lot of such examples, no need to make an elephant out of a fly.
    1. kalibr
      4 March 2016 09: 11
      0
      That is, do you think that Tsar Alexander needed to give the rifle a double name? Controversy, I personally see only in this ... And "Springfield" should not be considered anything. This is also an impersonal rifle, like the Mosinka - by the way, a good example! Springfield is the name of the arsenal! And what details were there, from whom they took - God knows!
    2. AK64
      AK64 4 March 2016 12: 02
      0
      That is, it is necessary to drive only the most severe "patriotism": "Russia is the homeland of elephants - and that's it!"

      And the anathema (and ten minuses in addition) to someone who says that this elephant was brought from India?

      Kindergarten, honestly ... I think you need a Russian globe.
  12. FID
    FID 4 March 2016 09: 00
    +3
    ... I apologize. And Mosin did not take the money and ...
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 4 March 2016 09: 59
      +5
      Quote: SSI
      ... I apologize. And Mosin did not take the money and ...

      Sergey Ivanovich, I'm sorry to add to your phrase. But I don't remember exactly, either during the Russo-Japanese War or a little later. The tests of automatic rifles at the Oranienbaum rifle school were underway. Browning ran into the workshop where the weapons were being repaired with his failed rifle. After digging around with it, he gave it to a Russian master. After a while the rifle was repaired, the master, according to him, did not take the money, but said prophetic words: "It will not work. Too complicated." And so it happened. And as a gunsmith who repaired the rifle. Browning, was V.A. Degtyarev, later also a famous designer.
      1. gross kaput
        gross kaput 4 March 2016 18: 09
        +1
        Quote: Amurets
        I didn’t remember it either during the Russo-Japanese War or a little later. We tested the automatic rifles of the Oranienbaum Rifle School. Browning rushed into the workshop where the guns were being repaired. Having picked it up, he gave it to the Russian to the master

        Brad RARE Browning has never been to Russia, he has never presented his weapon to competitions in RI. The most interesting thing is that as many as five people were marked by pluses - probably the same "experts".
        1. Amurets
          Amurets 4 March 2016 23: 51
          0
          Quote: gross kaput

          Brad RARE Browning has never been to Russia, he has never presented his weapon to competitions in RI. The most interesting thing is that as many as five people were marked by pluses - probably the same "experts".

          If the writer German Nagaev is lying, then I am lying too. Link: G. Nagaev "Degtyarev". Published: 1954 "Molodaya Gvardiya" publishing house.
          1. gross kaput
            gross kaput 5 March 2016 00: 57
            +1
            Quote: Amurets
            then I'm lying too.

            Do not you just repeat nonsense after him - especially amusing in the description of how the famous American designer Browning puffs a cigar and shoves Degtyarev a pack of bucks with the words - "Russian Karosh" laughing And what actually happened? And in fact, in RI, self-loading was tested not even by the great John Moses' namesake, but by a friend with a similar surname - a certain Karl Browning - Karl Brauning and the "real" name was John Moses Browning and in RI he has never been and how difficult it is to guess never with Degtyarev did not intersect, and this is not counting the fact that Karl Browning's self-loading rework from a mosinka was tested in 1911. when Degtyarev had not worked in Oraninbaum for a long time, but comrade Nagaev for some reason stubbornly insists on the Russo-Japanese War, even though the commission on self-loading in Ingushetia was created in 1908.
            The moral of this fable is simple - you do not need to repeat all the nonsense from children's literature.
          2. kalibr
            5 March 2016 08: 13
            0
            But just such books at that time were published very often! And there were books where they wrote that there was Sikorsky - the creator of "Murom" and ... a Pole - the creator of helicopters in the USA!
          3. AK64
            AK64 5 March 2016 11: 59
            -1
            Of course he’s lying!

            Well, you would have thought: Browning in Rossi, and even in Orenburg! WHY is Browning?

            And in honor if, according to the Hamburg account: Who is Browning and who is Diagterev? Browning is a genius who not only developed a huge number of samples, but also invented PRINCIPLATALLY NEW methods and schemes.
            Browning is the most-most-most gunsmith of our time (according to the number of fundamental introductions). No Mausers or Bergmans are standing nearby.

            And Dyagterev, with all due respect to him, is a maximum of a good designer. Dyagterev did not invent anything fundamentally new (well, or let him show his fundamental inventions)
  13. Was mammoth
    Was mammoth 4 March 2016 09: 13
    +1
    The author laid out everything on the shelves:
    Tsar is smart, patriot;
    Nagan is smart, greedy;
    Mosin is sheer plagiarism, greedy.
    wink
    1. kalibr
      4 March 2016 09: 30
      0
      Quote: There was a mammoth
      Mosin is sheer plagiarism, greedy.

      Not true, however. We must read more carefully. Not plagiarism. An executive and good constructor. Because a bad one would not have coped with the task entrusted to him, would he? And the greedy ... well ... love of money and that "everything is fair" is in our blood and it is very difficult for even talented people to rise above this. I repeat for ... conjectural text. Mosin followed the order of his superiors and did it very well. For that honor and praise him! And for this he received what the authorities considered possible to give him! This is information. Everything else is propaganda! Feel the difference!
      1. Was mammoth
        Was mammoth 4 March 2016 09: 46
        +1
        Quote: kalibr
        And greedy ... well ... love of money and that "everything is fair" is in our blood

        I think you should not judge others by yourself ..
        There was such a count, A.A. Ignatiev. Well, you know as a historian. He gave state funds to Soviet Russia, equal to almost a third of the "gold reserves" of tsarist Russia. He, however, is accused of embezzlement by "historians".
        Quote: kalibr
        Feel the difference!

        wink
        1. kalibr
          4 March 2016 10: 37
          0
          So I do not judge by myself, but according to historical documents. The Japanese captain Kodayu when he was in Russia - and he was there for a long time, noted in his memoirs that Russian people tend to brag about their wealth, talk about money and their estate. And you want to say that since then something has changed by the end of the 19 century? I well remember the later Soviet times. People met ... Well, how are you, how are you ... BECAUSE MANDATORY ASKED HOW MUCH YOU GET, what a salary! Now it’s not accepted, and then it was in every second conversation. And it was natural before that time. And more ... one feature! The discussion draws on exceptions. Count Ignatiev is one of them. The rule is different!
          1. Was mammoth
            Was mammoth 4 March 2016 17: 44
            0
            Quote: kalibr
            ... BECAUSE MANDATORY ASKED HOW MUCH YOU WILL RECEIVE what salary! ...

            Well, who "cooked" where. I did not notice this among my friends. Everyone judges according to his depravity.
            Quote: kalibr
            I remember well later Soviet time

            I haven't forgotten either. Do you remember the difference between 120 and 140 rubles? And how did this difference affect "social status"?
            Quote: kalibr
            Count Ignatiev is one of them.

            Of course, Count A.A. Ignatv is an exception. Not everyone is capable of such a sense of duty. And how many people know about him even on "VO"? Russia has stood and will continue to stand on such "exceptions". As well as on people like S. I. Mosin, who "robbed at once for 600 thousand francs."
            Do you think the country should know its heroes or be interested in how much Chubais went to a party of stolen people, or how Sobchak and Volochkovova "come off" or ...?
            Are you a historian? Or how?
            1. kalibr
              4 March 2016 20: 14
              0
              The historian just writes on the basis of documents ... And you write on the basis of what?
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 4 March 2016 11: 30
          +1
          Quote: There was a mammoth
          There was such a count, A.A. Ignatiev. Well, you know as a historian. He gave state funds to Soviet Russia, equal to almost a third of the "gold reserves" of tsarist Russia. He, however, is accused of embezzlement by "historians".

          And there was such a Baranov - the hero of the Russian-Turkish war of 1887-1888, the commander of the armed steamer "Vesta" during his battle with the Turkish armored corvette "Fethi-Bulend".
          So he, with his claims to the allegedly unpaid prize money for the seizure of the Turkish transport "Mersin", reached right up to the admiral-general V.K. Konstantin Nikolaevich.
          1. Was mammoth
            Was mammoth 4 March 2016 17: 47
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            And there was such a Baranov

            Yes. There was also A. Menshikov.
      2. Ingvar 72
        Ingvar 72 4 March 2016 10: 54
        +2
        Quote: kalibr
        Executive and good constructor

        Like Kalashnikov, however. In the same AK, a lot of borrowings, but assembled as a whole with genius. hi
        1. AK64
          AK64 4 March 2016 12: 13
          +1
          Like Kalashnikov, however. In the same AK, a lot of borrowings, but assembled as a whole with genius.


          It should be said that a whole team of designers (Soviet and not very Soviet) worked for Kalashnikov: to tell the truth, the AK that they adopted was that Kalashnikov initially brought to the competition, very little. even the appearance has changed.
          1. cth; fyn
            cth; fyn 4 March 2016 13: 59
            0
            Well, the chief designer for that is what needs to organize the work of the design bureau, let's take the same Koshkin, he was appointed on the party line, he wasn’t a very good engineer, but he’s a great manager, so we praise him for the t-34, without his labors would not have been a tank.
            You can draw an analogy with a company of motorized riflemen with and without a commander. Agree that in the first case, the fighters will be much more effective in acting.
            1. pimen
              pimen 4 March 2016 14: 14
              0
              that's never the case: take a look at the contour of "Koshkinsky" t34 full face: what a purity of the lines, when the angle of inclination of the sides is combined with the edges of the conical tower, and the dissonance of t34-85. I think he would have rolled over in his grave if he had to approve such a modernization
              1. hard rock
                hard rock 4 March 2016 15: 39
                0
                Quote: pimen
                I think he would have rolled over in the grave if he had been able to approve such a modernization

                He had to toss and turn before. And not in a coffin. And then, when he pushed a 45-mm cannon into a three-man turret with a 76-mm cannon. By "killing" the commander. Do you understand? In each T-34/76 the commander was "killed". In advance, even before the tank enters the battle. I read somewhere, liked it, "the headless horseman". These are the "legends" I had to fight.
                1. pimen
                  pimen 4 March 2016 15: 49
                  0
                  the matter is not so much in the commander - as in the review, and that 76mm in this tower was a bit too much. But 57mm was praised
                  1. hard rock
                    hard rock 4 March 2016 16: 00
                    0
                    Quote: pimen
                    it's not so much the commander

                    Really? Do you think the tank does not need to be commanded? A platoon company? It is necessary. There was none. There was no such unit.
                    Quote: pimen
                    and the fact that 76mm in this tower was a bit much. But 57mm was praised

                    For reference, the 57 mm ZIS-4 was generally sediment. To begin with, her shell was much longer than the 76-mm F-34. And the sleeve too. And in the tank closely.
                    In addition, the fragmentation effect of the 57-mm projectile was "none." Yet the 57mm ZIS-2 was originally an anti-tank gun. And it is far from a universal tank.
                    It would be logical to place such a gun in the T-50 with a double tower. But to do it in 1941. there was nowhere, the same applies to the T-50. And so the T-50 with a 57-mm ZIS-4 would be a very good tank of the PTO.
                    1. pimen
                      pimen 4 March 2016 16: 19
                      0
                      Quote: hardrock

                      For reference, the 57 mm ZIS-4 was generally sediment. To begin with, her shell was much longer than the 76-mm F-34. And the sleeve too. And in the tank closely.

                      Well, breech zis4 should still be smaller than breech f34. But what about the command of a single tank - a question? .. Although, say, the shooter-radio operator - was clearly an extra wheel in the cart
                      1. hard rock
                        hard rock 4 March 2016 16: 31
                        0
                        Quote: pimen
                        Well, breech zis4 should still be smaller than breech f34.

                        More, of course. At ZIS-4. With approximately the same recoil devices (recoil momentum did not differ much).
                        Quote: pimen
                        Although, say, the radio operator shooter was clearly an extra wheel in the cart

                        Yes, what are you? Firstly, do not forget that the radio in those days was hoo. And then, and who will keep the foreground in front of the tank? The gunner (he’s like a commander)? And who will shoot from the gun? And then, the viewing sector through TOD-6 is only 26 degrees. But after the start of the Second World War, they put TMFD-7 with HF, there the sector is generally 15 degrees. No, the shooter was not superfluous.
                        By the way, here's an illustration of the "extra commander". The gunner-commander has a view radius of 15-25 degrees forward. A mechanic and a radio operator, also strictly forward and obviously not a lot (too lazy to look). The charger charges. There is a PTK (let's say), but who looks into it? Props. Everyone is busy with business. And how can you spot a cannon from the side if there is no one?
                      2. AK64
                        AK64 4 March 2016 18: 52
                        0
                        What is more is nonsense. There was virtually no 57mm gun: there was nothing to drill this barrel on. With such trunks a single plant in Podlipki could work. And he was loaded beyond measure with anti-aircraft guns.

                        That is, the Zis-4 could be produced only at the expense of anti-aircraft guns - which was unacceptable.

                        In addition, there were many 76 mm shells, and the 57 mm shell was in short supply.
                        In addition, the high-explosive fragmentation effect at 57mm is, let’s say, much lower: and this is for the enemy’s machine guns and anti-tank missiles - that is, for much more frequent targets.
                      3. The comment was deleted.
                  2. goose
                    goose 4 March 2016 16: 13
                    0
                    Quote: pimen
                    the matter is not so much in the commander - as in the review, and that 76mm in this tower was a bit too much. But 57mm was praised

                    And you look at how much space the shutter from the ZIS-2 will take in the tower, then look at the dimensions of the projectile with the anti-aircraft shell, then you will understand that the F-34 was, at least, no worse in ergonomics.
                    The main ambush was with poorly equipped facilities, due to which it was very painful to change parts. The T-34M was ready in 1941, but parts from 60 mm rolled metal were more difficult to handle. Thank you for even introducing the achievements on the tower, although, as they say, the designers, the tower is half a tank. There was nowhere to do the torsion bars the same. Even the new 1940 checkpoint was far from immediately put on stream with an obvious advantage.
                    But the T-34M promised ergonomics, reliability and reservation at the level of KV-1941C by the second half of 1.
              2. sibiryouk
                sibiryouk 4 March 2016 17: 28
                0
                This is due to the fact that the T-34-85 strengthened its armament (the 85-mm gun did not fit into the old tower, and the diameter of the tower’s shoulder strap had to be increased to at least 1600 mm, three-Commander, gunner and loader should enter the tower) - What pureness of lines is there, pure PRACTICE!
                1. pimen
                  pimen 4 March 2016 18: 58
                  0
                  I will answer immediately to everyone:
                  - at the expense of zis4, I seem to have got excited: judging by the pictures - the size of the breech is the same, but the rollback is indicated much more. Rollback in this sense is not critical (there is nobody behind the cannon), but with the same size of the breech and a slightly longer projectile length (480mm sleeve?) There is no winnings.
                  - with the review - yes, there was a miss in the normal all-round view, but the turret above the gunner with a panorama on the deaf half of the hatch could fix the matter.
                  - at the expense of the cleanliness of the lines: at the first thirty-four - a possible rebound from the side - ricocheted further from the tower. At t34-85 - the ricocheted shell rested from below on the tower, which is in front and on the side. They even aimed under the tower. About the vertical walls of the tower and say nothing
            2. AK64
              AK64 4 March 2016 14: 38
              0
              Well, the chief designer for that is needed to organize the work of the design bureau,

              So Kalashnikov at that time did not organize anything either (and he could not have done that).
              Organized without him: ordered to "take this and this, and change the design accordingly." And a number of comrades were ordered to work out the technology.

              The fact that Kalashnikov initially brought was, to put it mildly, not entirely satisfactory.

              But the fact that at the end he was appointed "the main genius" - that's in vain - that's why they sat with a Kalashnikov assault rifle unchanged for 50 years ...

              I am not anti-machine gun satisfactory. But the result was stagnation in the shooter! Not a single designer except the "great"! Who was trying to figure out how best to move the swivel (I'm not kidding)
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 4 March 2016 14: 18
            +2
            Quote: AK64
            It should be said that a whole team of designers (Soviet and not very Soviet) worked for Kalashnikov: to tell the truth, the AK that they adopted was that Kalashnikov initially brought to the competition, very little. even the appearance has changed.

            EMNIP, it was not only about the designers. Mikhail Timofeevich was very lucky with his place of work. Traditional weapons design bureaus were actually "stewed in their own juice", knowing only their own developments thoroughly. And Kalashnikov worked in a place that practically not a single sample of the rifle was passed by. The research and development range of small arms tested samples of small arms not only of domestic development, but also foreign ones, analyzed designs, collected statistics on the reasons for failures and reliability of units, gave recommendations on improving our systems, etc., etc.
        2. cth; fyn
          cth; fyn 4 March 2016 12: 15
          +1
          And this is true, but only Mosin improved the finished rifle, and the MTK assembled the hodgepodge in a pile without a working sample in front of it.
        3. hard rock
          hard rock 4 March 2016 15: 34
          +1
          Quote: Ingvar 72
          assembled whole with genius

          Yes?
  14. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 4 March 2016 09: 27
    +9
    I was surprised at the author's opinion and .... I was not surprised! I was not surprised that the author decided to "gain laurels" in the field of "refutation" ...... "Soviet dogmas"! I was not surprised, because I had been reading about the "joint work" of Mosin and Nagan for a long time. Moreover .... I first learned this information from Soviet (!) "Historical and technical" literature ... In fairness, I can note that in " the Soviet source "about" the "co-authorship" of Mosin and Nagan was mentioned very "modestly" (laconically) ... In the "nineties-zero" years, when there was a massive denigration of the facts established in Soviet times, I managed to read an article in which it was explained, that the "three-line" rightly has the right to be called "Mosinskaya". The fact is that Nagan himself "willingly" used the "developments" of other gunsmiths ... there was nothing to complain about for some; because they were used by many after the expiration of the privilege .... well, as with the production of generic Viagra wink ! And on others it was not without a dispute, that is why there was a "bagpipe" with the payment of 200.000 rubles to Nagan. The Commission referred to the fact that this full amount should be paid for the "original" rifle, where all the details should be "Nagan". But only part of the gunsmith's ideas was realized in Nagant's "gun". And only Nagan's "promise" (like a threat) to use copyrights abroad forced Russia to pay the full amount. Otherwise, a "gimmick" would arise with the production of "three lines" abroad, for the Russian industry was not able to ensure the speedy rearmament of the Russian army. Until the 20s of the twentieth century, the "three-line" was everywhere called "Russian"; and only in the 20s did "amendments" begin with the United States.
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 4 March 2016 10: 24
      0
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      Otherwise, there would be a "gimmick" with the production of "three-line" abroad, because Russian industry was not able to ensure the prompt rearmament of the Russian army. Until the 20s of the twentieth century, the "three-line" was everywhere called "Russian"

      There was no time to look for this lawsuit, but it was. And even in the same book that, according to the contract, I do not remember the exact number, Russia was obliged to order the Browning factory in Belgium. A book about Mosin. S. And
      1. gross kaput
        gross kaput 4 March 2016 18: 06
        +2
        Browning factories never existed in nature
        1. Amurets
          Amurets 5 March 2016 00: 31
          0
          Quote: gross kaput
          Browning factories never existed in nature

          I apologize. Company Nagan.
          1. gross kaput
            gross kaput 5 March 2016 01: 13
            -1
            Quote: Amurets
            There was no time to look for this lawsuit, but it was. And even in the same book it was that according to the contract, I do not remember exactly the figure, Russia

            What litigation? again pop. It is difficult to pull a later saga with a revolver into a lawsuit when Nagan demanded 75 and received 000 as a result had to find a consensus, and in the story with the rifle, Nagan was more than satisfied - he essentially introduced three not the most important structural elements of his rifle for 25 in terms of modern money is 000 bucks.
  15. Chtononibrator
    Chtononibrator 4 March 2016 10: 08
    +1
    In any case, the fundamental work on the trilinear based on archives has not yet been written, but for now, only rocking the boat in different directions.
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 4 March 2016 10: 31
      0
      Quote: Chtononibrator
      In any case, the fundamental work on the trilinear based on archives has not yet been written, but for now, only rocking the boat in different directions.

      How not written? Here is the link. The whole library.
      http://guns.allzip.org/topic/164/278314.html
  16. SerB60
    SerB60 4 March 2016 10: 26
    -4
    At first, they could not create their own normal rifle, and then they were produced for decades almost unchanged. I do not consider it an achievement to remove the Cossack and infantry versions for it. With a slight stretch, the namushnik, sector sight, cut-off reflector, spring latch mount bayonet. Or is it an achievement - replacing a brass device with chermet, and a nut with a birch? These are just cheap and temporary measures. One cartridge with a welt is worth it. A miss with a three-ruler stands out for our exceptional insight! We have a vinar with Russian-Japanese yet! All rearmament, but we did not need. Something like this went on with the T-34 and KV. Created, mastered and rest on their laurels. The Germans are already on the Tigers, and we all have three inches in the towers, and with the KV they also cut the armor, became the KV-1S.
    1. Chtononibrator
      Chtononibrator 4 March 2016 11: 36
      +2
      Quote: SerB60
      Three-line miss

      This "blunder" was used by snipers with the highest scores in WWII. The fact that the three was outdated was understood after the civil one and self-loading should have come to replace it. The difficult situation of 1941-42 prevented. The same applies to your passage about the T-34 and KV. No one rested on their laurels.
      1. AK64
        AK64 4 March 2016 12: 19
        0
        This "blunder" was used by snipers with the highest scores in WWII.


        You are mistaken: on the other hand, there are more and more accounts than Zaitsev.
        Another thing is mass: in the Red Army, the sniper movement was massive.
        1. pimen
          pimen 4 March 2016 12: 21
          +1
          Come on ... And who?
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. bunta
              bunta 4 March 2016 12: 57
              +1
              Quote: AK64
              To make it clearer: the same Germans often and even as a rule worked for a sniper as a whole team of observers and target designators.


              Oh. And Bruno Syutkus did not know.
              1. pimen
                pimen 4 March 2016 13: 37
                +1
                in vain you, he corrected
      2. kalibr
        4 March 2016 12: 24
        -2
        No rested! In any case, there was a letter from Rotmistrov to Stalin, where he directly pointed to "the designers who have retired on their laurels and their conceit." Of course, this can be attributed to an attempt to make excuses for Kursk. But there (in the letter) everything is very reasonable. And ... look at the strangeness: the Germans are going to Leningrad in light tanks, and there they are preoccupied with the creation of the KV-3,4,5 ... But ... 43 years old. The Germans bring in Tigers and Paters ... And the Kirovites are preoccupied with the lightweight KV-13 tank!
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 4 March 2016 14: 37
          +3
          Quote: kalibr
          No rested! In any case, there was a letter from Rotmistrov to Stalin, where he directly pointed to "the designers who have retired on their laurels and their conceit." Of course, this can be attributed to an attempt to make excuses for Kursk. But there (in the letter) everything is very reasonable.

          Yeah ... justified. The very beginning of the letter is already pleasing:
          In tank battles and battles from July 12 to August 20, 1943, the 5th Guards Tank Army met exclusively new types of enemy tanks. Most of all on the field there were tanks T-U ("Panther"), a significant number of tanks T-U1 ("Tiger"), as well as modernized tanks T-III and T-1U.

          Where Rotmistrov found a significant number of T-U1 ("Tiger") tanks is a great mystery. And the "panthers" on the Kursk Bulge were only on the northern face.
          His entire letter is a traditional desire to place the blame for tactical and operational failure on industry: "Give me such a tank so that I can bring tank corps into battle, without reconnaissance, without artillery training, without interacting with infantry - and at the same time win."
          Quote: kalibr
          And ... look at the oddity: the Germans in light tanks go to Leningrad, and there they are concerned about the creation of KV-3,4,5 ... But ... 43 years. The Germans introduce the Tigers and Patera ... And the Kirovites are concerned about the lightweight tank KV-13!

          Duc ... Order 325 - Tanks do not fight tanks.
          Therefore, gunners worked on the means to combat the menagerie. But tank design bureaus solved another extremely important problem: how to increase the security and reliability of the medium tank, the main tank for our army. Because without a motor-military unit neither defense nor an offensive are possible.

          By the way, the "lightweight" KV-13 was booked more abruptly than the KV-1S ... and even the basic KV.
        2. cth; fyn
          cth; fyn 4 March 2016 14: 52
          +2
          Well, let’s remember that the 1700mm epaulette had practically nothing to cut down until in 43 the Americans threw up the equipment, and without the epaulette and turret there would be no room for space, and without a turret you couldn’t put a cannon on the tank, alas. (According to M. Svirin, he has a good three-volume)
          they regaled on the account, but what about the A-43 ?, because the car was excellent and 5 were almost ready, the hulls were there, the towers were just not installed, but bam and war! Need tanks! Losses are colossal! TANKS NEEDED! MANY TANKS !!! Where is there to enter and finalize a new car? Give to the front of the tanks in the right amount would. So here I disagree with you Vyacheslav Olegovich, people worked and worked in good faith.
          After Kursk, it was both easy and new cars began to be introduced into the series, there is no time for fat, as they say.
          1. AK64
            AK64 4 March 2016 15: 11
            0
            but what about the A-43 ?, because the car was excellent and 5 were almost ready, the hulls were, the towers were just not installed, but there was a bang and a war! Need tanks! Losses are colossal! TANKS NEEDED! MANY TANKS !!! Where is there to enter and finalize a new car?


            The A-43 "new" had the maximum shape of the hull and turret.
            The main drawback - the transmission - remained the same. What's new"?
            (And the same ajnik remained until T-44)
            1. cth; fyn
              cth; fyn 4 March 2016 16: 08
              0
              But what about thicker armor, a torsion bar suspension and a larger tower? The commander returned to the crew and got a lump turret, is this not a breakthrough? If they let him in the series, eh. In practice, this would be the same T-34 only without the drawbacks for which we all harass it. So I repeat, people worked and did not regale on their laurels
              1. hard rock
                hard rock 4 March 2016 16: 21
                +1
                Quote: cth; fyn
                But what about thicker armor, a torsion bar suspension and a larger tower? The commander returned to the crew and got a lump turret, is this not a breakthrough?

                This breakthrough has been released since 1939. It was called KV-1. The Red Army did not need it.
                Quote: cth; fyn
                If they let him in the series, eh. In practice, this would be the same T-34 only without the drawbacks for which we all harass it.

                Let’s go. At LKZ and ChKZ. But then they gradually removed it from production. There were cheaper options.
                It appears that few people were interested in a good tank. I was interested in a massive tank (this is the main criterion), but at the same time the minimum tolerable level. In order not by skill, but by number.
              2. AK64
                AK64 4 March 2016 17: 19
                0
                The T-34 had many shortcomings, which he immediately entered on the list. You mentioned some of these.
                There are many shortcomings - But he had one drawback: insufficient mechanical reliability of the transmission. (Yes, and the V-2 engine, too, but this is not Koshkin’s problem, and it was brought somewhere to the 43rd dviglo.)
                Problems with the transmission chased the T-34 to the very end. But for some reason they didn’t rush to fix it in the new car ..

                To make it clearer: the T-44 was tested in Kubinka (not at the factory - in Kubinka - these are different things) 2500 km of uncontrolled mileage (THEN only). He was filthy in ... let's say - strongly. But passed. T-34 and 1500, even towards the end of his career, did not always pass.

                And the rest ... The rest could have been ironed out in a "working order".
              3. The comment was deleted.
          2. hard rock
            hard rock 4 March 2016 16: 06
            0
            Quote: cth; fyn
            Well, let's remember that the 1700mm shoulder strap was practically nothing

            It was what. But for nothing.
            For the 76 mm, 1535 mm HF was enough. For the T-34/85, 1600 mm was already needed. But the 85-mm S-53 could only be done on imported equipment. Because Before WWII, only one plant could drill such trunks. And he was loaded with the 52-K anti-aircraft gun release. If the Germans in 1930. this plant was not sold by the USSR, then generally there would be no air defense guns in the USSR.
            1. cth; fyn
              cth; fyn 4 March 2016 20: 32
              0
              It is interesting to know how they sawed the shoulder strap of 1700 mm, but when I read Svirin there in categorical form it was indicated that there was nothing, it would be interesting to read your source and compare.
              1. hard rock
                hard rock 4 March 2016 20: 51
                +2
                Quote: cth; fyn
                I just when Svirin read there in categorical form it was indicated that there was nothing

                The T-28 shoulder strap was 1620 mm. So for an 85-mm cannon there was something to "cut". But there was nothing to drill the 85-mm tank guns with. Only if to the detriment of anti-aircraft guns 52-K. But then if someone would go wrong, then. The same applies to 76 mm tank guns with 3-K ballistics.
                1. cth; fyn
                  cth; fyn 5 March 2016 05: 36
                  0
                  It turns out that Svirin was cunning? Although 1620 is not 1700, but it sounds pretty convincing, the shoulder strap is not small.
                  1. kalibr
                    5 March 2016 16: 16
                    0
                    Everywhere you look for guile ... Documents would be searched better!
                    1. cth; fyn
                      cth; fyn 5 March 2016 21: 56
                      0
                      Do you think there is no guile? Svirin bribed me by the fact that at the end all the links were given, I did not check, but here it is.
                      1. hard rock
                        hard rock 5 March 2016 22: 52
                        +1
                        Quote: cth; fyn
                        Svirin bribed me by the fact that at the end all the links were given

                        As you know, 90% of links on the internet "go in a circle". And in fact, they are nothing.
                      2. cth; fyn
                        cth; fyn 6 March 2016 08: 35
                        0
                        He had links to archival documents.
                      3. cth; fyn
                        cth; fyn 6 March 2016 08: 36
                        0
                        He had links to archival documents.
        3. The comment was deleted.
        4. goose
          goose 9 March 2016 08: 30
          0
          Quote: cth; fyn
          Well, let’s remember that the 1700mm epaulette had practically nothing to cut down until in 43 the Americans threw up the equipment, and without the epaulette and turret there would be no room for space, and without a turret you couldn’t put a cannon on the tank, alas. (According to M. Svirin, he has a good three-volume)

          You read the wrong book. We still had unused rotary machines for the production of shoulder straps of ship towers, and similar for the production of locomotive wheels. There almost any diameter was possible.
          And how did we do the T-30 in the 28s, whose tower shoulder strap was 1620 mm ??
    2. hard rock
      hard rock 4 March 2016 15: 51
      +1
      Quote: Chtononibrator
      This "blunder" was used by snipers with the highest scores in WWII.

      Do you think if they had better weapons, the score would be less?
      Quote: Chtononibrator
      The difficult situation of 1941-42 prevented.

      Yeah of course. Inability to create it prevented. And than the situation in 1945. Was it even harder that self-charging in general was removed from production?
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. goose
      goose 9 March 2016 08: 27
      0
      That's for sure, by 1941, documentation was prepared for the T-34M with 60-mm armored plates, a new checkpoint, the construction of new 57-122 mm guns was constantly going on. (Yes, there was an option to install a 122 mm gun with a turret on the T-34). There were new modifications of B-2 and B-4. New sights and review devices. The commander’s turret and machine-gun mounts were designed. Much has been done to improve production technologies, especially in the field of automatic welding and the production of cast towers, as the most labor-intensive parts. Since 1939, intensive work was underway to improve the ammunition, when it turned out that all of the Red Army’s AP shells were substandard.
  17. 97110
    97110 4 March 2016 11: 37
    +1
    Quote: SerB60
    The Germans are already on the Tigers

    What all? Or partly on the Skoda?
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 4 March 2016 15: 42
      +2
      Quote: 97110
      What all? Or partly on the Skoda?

      Well, Skoda had already started to leave the scene by that time. But "threes-lang" was quite widespread, yes ...
  18. AK64
    AK64 4 March 2016 11: 41
    +6
    At first, they could not create their own normal rifle, and then they were produced for decades almost unchanged.


    How much scream ...

    Firstly, as we see, they were able to create it.
    Secondly, the screw turned out to be at least adequate.
    Thirdly, both Mauser and Lee Enfield "until the end of WWII" (and Lee Enfield until the 50s) are in production - so what? Of all the screws of that time, only Lebel fell out of production (in the 30s), but he was IMHO the poorest of all.

    So what is the reason for convulsions?
    1. hard rock
      hard rock 4 March 2016 14: 24
      0
      Quote: AK64
      Firstly, as we see, they were able to create it.

      What "could"? Attach a bolt based on the Lebel bolt to the Nagant rifle? Because of the cartridge with flanged sleeve. We could. But happiness is not great, because the shutter of this design is clearly unsuccessful. And Lee's successful shutter was overlooked.
      Quote: AK64
      Secondly, the screw turned out to be at least adequate.

      Could shoot, that's a fact. It is difficult to call it adequate due to the increased technological tolerances.
      Quote: AK64
      Thirdly, both Mauser and Lee Enfield "until the end of WWII" (and Lee Enfield until the 50s) are in production - so what?

      Yeah. You still compare the three-ruler with Anfield. She does not pull against Mauser. Nothing.
      Quote: AK64
      Of all the screws of that time, only Lebel fell out of production (in the 30s), but he was IMHO the worst one of all.

      This is true. The trouble is that the three-ruler had about the same shutter as the "inferior Lebel".
    2. The comment was deleted.
  19. hard rock
    hard rock 4 March 2016 20: 19
    +1
    Quote: SerB60
    . A miss with a three-ruler stands out for our exceptional insight! We have a vinar with Russian-Japanese yet! All rearmament, but we did not need.

    Is that a blunder? This is bullshit. In fact, the three-ruler turned out the way it turned out, quite consciously. And if it weren’t for a shutter like the shutter of a Lebel rifle, there would have been nothing at all. True, there is still a jamb with a bayonet ... But these are trifles.
    The real blunder was during the USSR. And such a permanent.
    At first they thought of re-equipping with self-loading. Great thought. Hands and feet "for". But they could not make a normal rifle. We were able to make only "brilliant SVT". It all ended in 1945. "Ingenious" was removed from production. And the whole war had to be fought with the same "royal" three-line (this is a good option) or ersatz like PPSh / PPS (this is a terrible option). Judging by the number of ersatz made, the number of actually conditionally armed fighters was catastrophically large.
    Further, worse. For some reason, Soviet strategists liked the German MP43 / StG44. No, the fact that the Soviet Napoleons were not very versed in weapons was known for a long time. But why StG44? Why not the perfect Garand rifle? And most importantly, whom did you choose as your idols? The Germans, people who have never done a decent shooter.
    In other words, a cartridge of 7,62x39 mm and a weapon on it happened in the USSR. Now it was a GLOBAL curiosity. Now this was a huge blunder. As a result, in the 70s, a whole family of army ersatz (AK / SKS / RPK) had to be derailed. Moreover, this family was the main armament of the SA. This is not a story with SVT, this is much cooler. I do not know how much money the USSR lost on this, but the losses should have been grandiose.
    Here is a question for neo-Stalinists, where did the wise in all places look Dzhugashvili? His affairs, by the way. And with SVT, and with AK / SKS / RPK.
    And only in the 70s in the field of shooting in the USSR the first signs of reason appeared. A global mistake was the focus on the only correct "ingenious mechanism", this full-fledged variation on the M16A1 theme did not work. And it could not work, the mechanism did not allow. This is still nothing. The cartridge was made without a boost margin. Therefore, it will not be possible to force it today, we must make a new one. And these are unaffordable expenses. But still, the pale shadow that came out was a huge step forward. Just a breakthrough, a jerk, compared to AKM. And in general, if you do not find fault with much, then you can trample with modern weapons on a cartridge of 5,45x39 mm. Especially if you use a balanced mechanism and lengthen the barrel by 90 mm.
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 4 March 2016 20: 36
      0
      5,45 say, too, not very good option, I wonder why?
      1. hard rock
        hard rock 4 March 2016 21: 03
        +1
        Quote: cth; fyn
        5,45 say, too, not very good option, I wonder why?

        Because it is made for AK-74. And the AK-74 under it. This is a single complex. And this complex was made to balance the "only correct mechanism". And she's a fig. Therefore, in order to improve accuracy, the cartridge is made weak, and the bullet is light. Excessively weak. Excellent ballistics on it, even with the RPK-74, cannot be obtained, only minimally acceptable. Although in this regard, the RPK-74, roughly speaking, is about the M16A1. But at the cost of a very long barrel. And even worse than that of the AK-74, accuracy. There are also advantages, the rate of fire of the RPK-74 is noticeably higher than that of the M16A1.
        And the Americans replaced M16A1 with M16A2 with excellent ballistics.
        1. cth; fyn
          cth; fyn 5 March 2016 05: 42
          0
          I didn’t understand anything, why did they take a deliberately losing cartridge when they could take from scratch almost anything, stretching for 7,62 for another 5-10 years? There was nuclear weapons, a direct confrontation was unlikely, it was possible to choose the rifleman, especially since the AKM is pretty good.
          1. hard rock
            hard rock 5 March 2016 09: 18
            +2
            Quote: cth; fyn
            why then did they take a deliberately losing cartridge when they could take almost anything from scratch, stretching for 7,62 for another 5-10 years?

            Who would have held out? The military in the USSR? It would be better if they would completely rearm 10 times more. Yet there was a draw around. They rearm. Many times. Only under Dzhugashvili (only reigned 25 years) there were 3 (!!!) global rearmament. And they say people lived poorly. By itself. Then back under Brezhnev. Do not doubt, they did not spare money.
            Quote: cth; fyn
            especially since AKM is pretty good too.

            This is what they told you.
            In fact, since the invention of smokeless powder, not a single normal country in the world has massively armed the army with such weapons. Nor is she armed with it now. The weapon is chambered for 7.62x39 mm, this is the lot of poor states and "banana republics". They would have armed themselves with something simpler and cheaper (for example, PP or Cristobal M2 submachine guns), but the USSR "shipped" a huge number of barrels on credit (that is, gave them away) to "friends" for promises of eternal friendship and supplies of bananas. As a result, no friendship, no bananas. Not the USSR. Rearmament is a very expensive thing.
          2. AK64
            AK64 5 March 2016 10: 55
            +1
            I didn’t understand anything, why did they take a deliberately losing cartridge when they could take from scratch almost anything, stretching for 7,62 for another 5-10 years? There was nuclear weapons, a direct confrontation was unlikely, it was possible to choose the rifleman, especially since the AKM is pretty good.


            Because, to our deep regret, the country has a monopoly of the "great and infallible and brilliant" Kalashnikoa. And all possible competitors - to crush in diapers.

            That is why.

            In general, in vain they appointed Kalagnikov as a genius: a friend took it and believed it.

            Do not believe? And look how many design schools in rifleman were in front of the Second World War --- and how many remained in the 60s.
            1. cth; fyn
              cth; fyn 5 March 2016 22: 05
              0
              Well, Korobov worked, Makarov, Stechkin, Nikonov, Koksharov, this is a surname. Moreover, Nikonov and Koksharov gave working samples, and Nikonov won the Abakan competition in general.
  20. hard rock
    hard rock 6 March 2016 13: 43
    0
    Quote: SerB60
    and with KV they also cut armor, became KV-1S.

    And they set up a new checkpoint.
    By the way, the tank was good. It would be until the end of 1942. put into production at all plants instead of the T-34, it would be just a wonderful solution. And a new tower with an 85 mm cannon in 1944. on its platform it would be much more appropriate than on the frail light armored platform T-34.
    Quote: hardrock
    The Germans are already on the Tigers

    Yes, ISy gradually had to do. But that's another story.
  • Romanenko
    Romanenko 4 March 2016 10: 27
    +8
    You can discuss the advantages and disadvantages of weapons endlessly, especially weapons adopted for service in 1891 ...
    The point is that without getting into the "skin" of the then Russia, this choice cannot be understood. Although this applies to any weapon in any country, it is just that now there is talk about the Mosin three-line.
    Now, of course, no one would have adopted such a rifle, but let's put aside our Wishlist, hunting and other personal weapons and move on to Russia at the end of the 19th century, and more specifically to its army.
    Back then, there were quite progressive, at that time, types of small arms - the Berdan rifle and the Smith and Wesson revolver, and here the first question is - why rearm?
    The answer is simple - the Berdan rifle is single-armed and shoots ammunition based on black powder, which requires, especially for individual shooting, good enough skills due to the low initial bullet speed and low rate of fire, a caliber of 10,75 implies large and heavy cartridges in this light, in a word , you needed something better. But at the same time, one should not forget that since the advent of firearms in the Russian army they have always sought to reduce the consumption of ammunition, although some commanders like Suvorov achieved this through skill and mastery of weapons, and ministers cherished the budget - a large expenditure of ammunition was biting ...
    Already against this background, the competitor of Smith and Wesson appears - Nagan about seven cartridges with far from the best reloading system, unlike the American.
    That is, the approach was this: for officers and non-commissioners to create conditions to limit the consumption of ammunition, and for soldiers to give a rifle more convenient in shooting, less smoking and firing further. What actually did. By the way, the non-commissioners went with Nagan seriously, officer Nagan was self-platoon, and non-commissioned single action.
    That is, all this was not accidental.
    Now, regarding the construct of the three-line - it is even at first glance simpler and "oakier" than her younger brother Mauser in '98, also for a reason.
    At that time, the contingent replenishing the armies of Russia and Germany was very different in terms of both technical education and education in general, so Mauser was good for Germany, and a three-line for Russia.
    And it is not for nothing that both rifles are still "neck-deep" in laurels.
    Any army weapon that is taken into service carries a lot of different justifying factors from the Economy to the social sphere. And it is indiscriminate to scold or praise someone for accepting exactly that, and this is not pointless, and simply incompetent.
    Believe me, no matter how much they scolded or praised the then ministers, any weapon is a child of its time and country.
    1. kalibr
      4 March 2016 10: 45
      0
      - Rouge, uncle? - guesses Bondarenko. ... That was at home, but it is simply called in the service: the small-caliber quick-fire infantry rifle of the Berdan system, number two, with a sliding bolt.
      A.I. Kuprin. "Duel"
  • oyavi.top
    oyavi.top 4 March 2016 11: 05
    -1
    So what? How much can you "hammer" about this rifle. Authorship in military technical issues is a conditional concept. Russia did not pull anything else either then or on the eve of the Second World War. Anyone allowed a bullet from the trenches ... And the fact that after each shot you need to hit the lever, lose the target and raise the arrow's head, this can be seen even on the staged "chronicle" ...
  • AK64
    AK64 4 March 2016 11: 35
    0
    in the eyes of the people of that era, his career could only be envied.


    Toy era? I am a man of this era - but I'm ready to burst with envy: how many gingerbread was there for the designers under the tsar-priest!

    Compared to this scientist, “offended by tsarism,” Major General Mosin can only be envied!


    Sorry, any engineer with this kind of problem should be able to cope (that is, find a solution - creating a stand can take a little longer) somewhere in 15 minutes.
    I would do for 5min - a solution on the surface, and only humanities think that there is something complicated.
  • Docent1984
    Docent1984 4 March 2016 12: 27
    +2
    And yes, indeed, he coped with the task very well, created, maybe not the best in the world, but a very reliable weapon, as well as the Lebel rifle more convenient for bayonet attacks than for marksmanship.


    I would tell about this, for example, to Vasily Zaitsev, how he delegated from the "convenient for bayonet attacks" the Fritz rifle dozens to hells ...
    1. goose
      goose 9 March 2016 08: 40
      0
      In the "dragoon" Mosin rifle, standardized a little later for the army, the bayonet was a secondary weapon. The infantry, after a short period of parallel production, was withdrawn due to the lack of real advantages over the cavalry, having a large mass and dimensions.
  • qwert
    qwert 4 March 2016 12: 29
    +1
    Quote: There was a mammoth
    There was such a count, A.A. Ignatiev. Well, you know as a historian. He gave state funds to Soviet Russia, equal to almost a third of the "gold reserves" of tsarist Russia. He, however, is accused of embezzlement by "historians".

    Soviet historians did not blame.
    Quote: cth; fyn
    And you are not confused by the fact that Nagan spent a lot of time developing a store, and then it was used on a mosquito? At the same time, the main problem of rifles of that time was to get a simple, easy, reliable and seemingly simple Nagan store, which required a lot of effort, time and knowledge to create it.

    There it is. The most difficult thing in a rifle is the store. Cool. No, I do not argue that the store is not easy, but to say that it is more complicated than ALL the remaining parts is somewhat strange.
    Quote: AK64
    Sorry, any engineer with this kind of problem should be able to cope (that is, find a solution - creating a stand can take a little longer) somewhere in 15 minutes.
    I would do for 5min - a solution on the surface, and only humanities think that there is something complicated.

    I agree that if for a rational proposal for one detail in the USSR they would require payments from each produced sample))))) I think that even the Soviet Union would not have had a budget. The author did not really think of an example.
    Quote: Nikolaevich I
    I was surprised at the author's opinion and .... I was not surprised! I was not surprised that the author decided to "gain laurels" in the field of "refutation" ...... "Soviet dogmas"!

    This is unambiguous. Since he was so competent, he could just tell about the Nagan and his rifle or his contribution to the Russian arms business. But no, I wanted to "sparkle" properly. And by the way Nikolaevich, a good comment in its entirety. I subscribe to your every word. A good result for the article and for all disputes.
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 4 March 2016 15: 11
      +1
      Apparently I didn’t put it that way and you didn’t understand me, I’ll try again, maybe it will work out.
      Look, before you go directly to the rifles with the magazine in service, there were single-shot rifles, i.e. they have already been tested and brought shutter, descent, barrel. And so we needed a store rifle, we think and take a single charge, priests, yes everything is ready, we need to make the current store! There is a proven tube-type magazine under-barrel and applied, but we want to charge them quickly, but they don’t charge by only one cartridge, so you need to look for some way out? And we see the Gatlink card holder, yeah! That’s what we need, well, almost, and almost over a long time they puzzled over how to make it so that you could charge and clip the magazine and it was reliable, by the way, at the expense of the card case it’s just a fantasy, maybe the guiding light gave something different, but Gatling was probably the first store where cartridges were located one above the other.
      1. AK64
        AK64 4 March 2016 15: 36
        +1
        It will not work out because there is a lot of novelty: here there is smokeless (more powerful) gunpowder, and a correspondingly smaller caliber. Which means that all technological processes are different!

        And the store "like Gatling's" also does not run: there is a box of cartridges, cartridges from above were filled up and simply fell. What is common, then?

        That’s why there was such a variety in the shops, until they stopped at a simple box.
        1. cth; fyn
          cth; fyn 4 March 2016 16: 29
          0
          Well, there were single-shot rifles and on smokeless powder, for example N2

          I mentioned about gatling not in the sense that they took his store unchanged, but that the principle itself was spied when the cartridges in the store were one above the other, because earlier only cartridges in magazine rifles were placed one after another (for example, ribbed)

          Well, here I completely agree with you, looked for ways in all possible ways, got a lot of different results and compared, well, and in the end the gunsmiths settled on acceptable options
          1. AK64
            AK64 4 March 2016 17: 11
            0
            AFAIK, powder in a 4.2-line cartridge.

            In fact of the matter....

            A very interesting question, therefore, the same box store the same Americans did not come up with ....
    2. AK64
      AK64 4 March 2016 21: 34
      0
      There it is. The most difficult thing in a rifle is the store. Cool. No, I do not argue that the store is not easy, but to say that it is more complicated than ALL the remaining parts is somewhat strange.


      You still laugh, but ....

      And how, in fact, is Lebel’s rifle conceptually different from three? And not only conceptually, but also simply constructively?
      So here is just one: and that’s it shop.

      At that time, this is a terrible novelty.

      And I honestly wonder: who is this one who invented such a box-shaped magazine for a rifle?
      (They suggested Gatling - IMHO is not suitable.)
      1. cth; fyn
        cth; fyn 5 March 2016 05: 46
        +1
        Well, here I think we need to look for the oldest with a similar store or the idea of ​​placing cartridges, we proceed from the fact that the gunsmiths are not Papa Carlo and borrowed and developed each other's ideas.
  • qwert
    qwert 4 March 2016 12: 40
    +5
    Quote: Aleksandr72
    and then for those who had gone away in terms of education and technical knowledge of future Red Army soldiers from collective farms or Central Asian villages and villages. If they talked about and wrote about the T-34 tank, it was a Soviet tank for a Soviet soldier who, due to his low technical literacy, could only correctly exploit such a simple tank and, due to his natural unpretentiousness, could do without comfort

    You are very much mistaken about the Soviet citizens of the 30-40s. Here on the site there is an article "Admiration of the enemies" read.
    Here is an excerpt from the German document "CHIEF OF THE SECURITY POLICE AND SD. Directorate III. Berlin, August 17, 1942 CBII, Prinz-Albrechtstrasse, 8. Ex. No. 41. Secret! ......
    Previously, broad circles of the German population were supported by the opinion that people in the Soviet Union were distinguished by illiteracy and a low level of education. The use of Ostarbeiters now gave rise to controversies that often confused Germans. Thus, in all reports from the field, it is stated that the illiterate make up a very small percentage. In a letter from one certified engineer who ran a factory in Ukraine, for example, it was reported that at his enterprise, out of 1800 employees, only three were illiterate (Reichenberg) ..... "According to many Germans, the current Soviet school education is much better, than it was during tsarism. Comparison of the skill of Russian and German agricultural workers often turns out to be in favor of the Soviet "(Shgettin).

    "Special amazement caused widespread knowledge of German, which is being studied even in rural junior high schools" (Frankfurt an der Oder).
    "I almost disgraced myself, said one apprentice, when I asked the Russian a small arithmetic task. I had to strain all my knowledge in order to keep up with him ..." (Bremen).
    "Many believe that Bolshevism brought the Russians out of limitation" (Berlin).
    "Our propaganda always presents Russians as stupid and stupid. But I found the opposite here. While working, Russians think and don’t look so stupid at all. For me, it’s better to have 2 Russians at work than 5 Italians."
  • qwert
    qwert 4 March 2016 12: 41
    +4
    [b] And further: [/ b] "In many reports it is noted that a worker from the former Soviet regions displays a special awareness of all technical devices. , can eliminate breakdowns of any kind in motors, etc. Various examples of this kind are given in a report from Frankfurt an der Oder:
    "On one estate, a Soviet prisoner of war figured out an engine with which German specialists did not know what to do: in a short time he started it up and then found damage in the tractor's gearbox, which had not yet been noticed by the Germans servicing the tractor." [/ B ]
    In Landsberg-on-Warta, the German brigade leaders instructed Soviet prisoners of war, most of whom came from the countryside, on the procedure for unloading machine parts. But this instruction was perceived by the Russians shaking their heads, and they did not follow him. They performed the unloading much faster and technically more practical, so their ingenuity greatly amazed the German employees.
    The director of a Silesian flax spinner (the city of Glogau), regarding the use of Ostarbeiters, stated the following: "Ostarbeiters sent here immediately demonstrate technical awareness and do not need more training than the Germans."
    1. AK64
      AK64 4 March 2016 13: 18
      +1
      May I ask?

      And what does all this have to do with the Mosin rifle?
  • VSkilled
    VSkilled 4 March 2016 13: 07
    +1
    The Jew "sort of Shpakovsky," again - pooped ...

    One and the same event can be viewed from different angles: for someone the glass is "half full", but for someone, moreover, it is always (!), The same glass is "half empty"!

    A Jew "sort of Shpakovsky" with manic persistence evaluating "our glasses" always sees them, practically - "empty".

    From Prince Alexander Nevsky to Major General Mosin.

    Our merits (the merits of the representatives of OUR people) - in every possible way belittled and even (!) - are openly questioned.

    The most glorious sons of our fatherland are intentionally depicted in the blackest colors:
    Mosin murmured the rest of his life ... He wrote letters to the Minister of War, humiliated himself in front of those in power ...


    But, especially and most of all, in this article the Jew was "as if Shpakovsky" agitated ... "the material side of the question"! (Who is the thread, about this - surprised?)

    In this regard, it is quite logical to conclude that the "literary" activity of this subject is regularly paid by the outside.

    I have a question for a Jew personally "as if to Shpakovsky": what are you taking?

    How much do you need to hand in so that you shut up your cesspool?

    Boldly, Mr. "as it were Shpakovsky", do not hesitate! Who knows, maybe I am quite capable of solving your material problems?

    You exploit your intestines so hard, in attempts to spew out the maximum amount of guano, that I, just - fear for your health!

    If, however, you create on yourself SUCH - "only out of love for the truth", then I know the means how to relieve your pathological itching.

    There is such a historian, an Israeli Shlomo Zand, who conducted a detailed historical research, the result of which was the work "How and Who Invented the Jewish People."

    Join the ranks of the followers of Mr. Zand, go to Jewish sites and "cut the truth" to the Jews. Open their eyes, WHOM, they - we really are!

    I hope that the "hot Jewish guys" will be there - "they will regularly tear you like Tuzik is a heating pad", and your unhealthy inclinations will be completely satisfied.

    In turn, you will no longer have time and energy to spoil the air on Russian-language sites.

    The air will become - noticeably cleaner ...
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 4 March 2016 15: 23
      0
      At the expense of the glass, it is always full, purely technically, half full of liquid, half full of air.
      at the expense of Shpakovsky, you have not read Svirin about the T-34 yet, he wrote this, although he simply did not repeat Soviet cliches and wrote according to documents, and not according to the editorial of Pravda. So as one artist says: If all lies are removed from the story ...
    2. kalibr
      4 March 2016 20: 27
      +2
      Quote: VSkilled
      Boldly, Mr. "as it were Shpakovsky", do not hesitate! Who knows, maybe I am quite capable of solving your material problems?


      No problem: 1 million US dollars and that’s it, I’ll leave for Tahiti! But you are unlikely to have so much.
    3. hard rock
      hard rock 4 March 2016 20: 47
      +1
      Quote: VSkilled
      Boldly, Mr. "as it were Shpakovsky", do not hesitate! Who knows, maybe I am quite capable of solving your material problems?

      And if you can mine too. I categorically insist. If necessary, I’m also ready to write about the three-line. You can choose the direction of the article yourself. bully
  • oxotnuk86
    oxotnuk86 4 March 2016 13: 23
    +1
    The article is controversial. Tell me which of the designers like Papa Carlo made a rifle or a gun from the pale. All used the achievements of previous developers. If so, who invented the rifled barrel is the inventor of all modern small arms because the trunk is the basis and all that is around it is variatsiy. The name who gives the assertiveness and gives. Or
  • hard rock
    hard rock 4 March 2016 13: 32
    +2
    Quote: Vyacheslav Shpakovsky
    received for nothing, since his store was still unsuccessful!

    It may be. But show me an inventor whose invention he himself considers unsuccessful. Everything is always brilliant. For himself.
    Quote: Vyacheslav Shpakovsky
    IN THE BEGINNING WAS A COMMISSION ...

    And at the end there was a commission. In fact, the commission did the three-ruler. Hands Mosin.
    Quote: Vyacheslav Shpakovsky
    And in 1889, the commission decided not to be smart, but to take Lebel’s French rifle as a sample, but not her store, but first of all its trunk, and, reducing its caliber to 7.62 mm (i.e., to 3 lines) instead 8 mm.

    Quote: Vyacheslav Shpakovsky
    Well, hardly anyone will argue that the barrel is not the basis of any firearm! And in this case, both he and, accordingly, his ballistics were taken from Lebel’s rifle.

    There is obvious absurdity. Cognitive dissonance, if you write in a scientific way.
    1. Trunks of different calibers will be different by definition.
    2. For trunks of different calibres, even with the same barrel length, the ballistics will be different.
    Therefore, the barrel was from ... Nagant rifle. From him, the three-line (such a caliber was given to developers from the very beginning) got ballistics. This is confirmed in the article below, where it is written about the transfer of barrel production technology to Russia, including weapons steel for them, etc. etc. Lebel did not transmit anything like Russia. And without this, then nothing.
    A similar article (apparently formed the basis of this one) had to be read on Tyrnet before. There was also nonsense about Lebel’s trunk. The author simply rewrote it thoughtlessly. Sorry.
    Why the Lebel rifle is braided, this is understandable. Because of the flange sleeve (Nagan offered a more modern wafer type) and a very (very, very) similar shutter (see below). In the original article, the motivation for adopting at the suggestion of the commission (not Mosin) exactly the cartridge with a flange sleeve is given. This has nothing to do with Lebel’s rifle, but the author has reduced this part. He is the author, he knows better.
    Quote: Vyacheslav Shpakovsky
    That is, everything is simple and clear - the commission liked the shutter, right?

    Here, everything is just incomprehensible. The fact is that it is the bolt that makes the three-ruler the worst European rifle. If the bad location and shape of the bayonet can still be reconciled, then the shutter cannot be bypassed. He has the following main and fundamental shortcomings:
    1. Front location of the short straight handle. In sniper versions, the handle is long and curved, but also located in front.
    2. The locking system operates at 90 degrees of rotation. This is a lot. 60 was enough.
    Those. all unsuccessful solutions for sliding bolts in the assortment are available. They are all present in Lebel’s shutter. And in the shutter three-ruler they are exactly the same and exactly the same (right down to the last detail). In addition, the system has large tolerances, which entails a not always stable shutter movement in the grooves. But the tolerances are again made large especially on the instructions of the commission.
    1. hard rock
      hard rock 4 March 2016 13: 36
      0
      Quote: Vyacheslav Shpakovsky
      that it is a matter of multi-million orders for the army, and then who is who, what ... "borrowed" and how is the tenth thing.

      Not even the tenth, but the first. Russia, unlike the USSR, was in the international legal field. And she didn’t allow theft, as it was fraught with large material losses. Therefore, Nagan got his money.
      And the letter ... So Nagan insured himself. It was a hint that he sees everything and understands everything. And it won’t fly past the cash register. The hint was understood and the parties parted, happy with each other.
      Quote: Vyacheslav Shpakovsky
      The main thing was the requirement to equip the army with a product of the best quality and at the same time at the lowest possible price.

      Not certainly in that way. The main thing was the requirement to equip the army with a product of more or less acceptable quality, but at the same time requiring minimally sophisticated equipment for its production. Those. everything was done taking into account the technological backwardness of Russia. What was right.
      Only here a slop shutter ... This is a clear blunder and lack of professionalism of the commission members. It is clearly based on the unsuccessful shutter of the Lebel rifle. While in those days there was a much more successful (excellent, and also under the flange sleeve) Li bolt (Li-Metford rifle). All countries that took the shutter of the Lebel design as a basis, then replaced it with more advanced ones (Germany did from the very beginning), and in Russia and the USSR it served for many years (in France, too, until the mid-30s). Turning a three-ruler (along with increased tolerances) into the worst army rifle in Europe. True, the French still had Berthier rifles with more successful bolts.
      Quote: Vyacheslav Shpakovsky
      so that the end justified any means, including “borrowing”.

      So this was not, this is not the USSR. Everything was honestly bought from Nagan.
      Quote: Vyacheslav Shpakovsky
      The commission then called the new rifle "the Mosin system with a Nagant clip", which emphasized that she had not one author, but two.

      This is a fantasy. As for the "Mosin system with a Nagant clip."
      Quote: Vyacheslav Shpakovsky
      You could try to give her the name "Mosin-Nagan rifle", but for Alexander III, an ardent Russophile who called the warships of the Russian fleet the names of Orthodox saints, this was completely unacceptable, since it directly indicated that ... we cannot do without the West!

      But this statement is absolutely true. Than to mention Nagan, they decided not to mention anyone at all. Just allegedly from considerations of patriotism.
      Quote: Vyacheslav Shpakovsky
      because otherwise we ALL HAVE THE ABOVE HAD TO DO IT MYSELF!

      In Russia at the end of the 19th century? It wouldn’t work out. Or the shot would be a ridiculous number of shots. Russia in those days did not know smokeless gunpowder in the rifleman. And had no experience on its use.
    2. hard rock
      hard rock 4 March 2016 13: 36
      +2
      Quote: Vyacheslav Shpakovsky
      But, despite this, Mosin murmured for the rest of his life that ...

      Insolence, of course, is amazing. He worked while in the service. Received a salary for this. In addition, they gave a bonus and not weakly promoted, but still not enough.
      Quote: Vyacheslav Shpakovsky
      "Nagan was given 200 thousand rubles ... but I was only 30 thousand for the project and the construction of the whole gun, which was not even given the name of its inventor ... and that Nagan turned out to be more rewarded than me." He wrote letters to the Minister of War, humiliated himself in front of those in power.

      Nagan was his own master. And Mosin was a "mercenary." And not just civilian, but military. He did not work on his own, but following specific instructions and orders of the commission. The members of which, as I understand it, received nothing at all. But the authors of the three-ruler were just them. They just didn’t do everything themselves, but contracted for this special “boy”.
      I would have demoted him back to captain after the first letter and would have selected the prize. To realize his "outstanding role". Especially considering the clumsy shutter.
    3. AK64
      AK64 4 March 2016 14: 21
      0
      There is obvious absurdity. Cognitive dissonance, if you write in a scientific way.


      I would strongly advise you to look at what "cognitive dissonance" is - this is a sychological defense reaction that is so called. In this case, one should speak of absurdity, or, if politely, engineering ignorance.

      The original article gives motivation for making


      So he plagiarized?
      Ah yes Shpakovsky, oh well done!
      I respect: an illiterate abstract manages to be presented as a "bibliographic article". Direct plagiarism - for an original idea. Well done!

      the shutter cannot be bypassed. He has the following main and fundamental shortcomings:
      1. Front location of the short straight handle. In sniper versions, the handle is long and curved, but also located in front.


      Pulling is easier than pushing, and especially with large gaps. (And the gaps are large forcedly - not for Russian industry high accuracy. And dirt is less affected.)
      In general, the "front handle" is nonsense.

      Long handle? Well, yes, it seems to be more convenient. But with large gaps, a warping moment arises, with all the consequences.

      In general, the front of the handle and in modern rifles is found.

      In addition, the front location of the handle with the front location of the combat stops greatly simplified the shutter. So if we consider simplicity as a virtue, then this arrangement of the handle is just a plus.

      2. The locking system operates at 90 degrees of rotation. This is a lot. 60 was enough.


      And again, by: Lee has fighting stops at the back, so there are a lot of 60 for him - he could have managed 45. But for Mosin, the stops in the open position are located vertically (and where else can you hide them ???), and in the latches - horizontally. Horizontal is certainly bad. But at an angle of 60 degrees, or even 30 degrees --- this is even worse!

      In general, it would be ideal to have vertical stops (in the locked barrel). But then where should these stops "hide" when the bolt moves?

      That's it ... So that's it - for simplicity.

      Those. all unsuccessful solutions for sliding bolts in the assortment are available.


      Well, well ... It depends on what is the criterion.


      In addition, the system has large tolerances, which entails a not always stable shutter movement in the grooves. But the tolerances are again made large especially on the instructions of the commission.


      What culture of production - such and tolerances. It is precisely in the fact that the cimus is used for the production of the Mosin rifle. Something more complex would have led to mass rejection, and accordingly the price would have rocketed.

      Yes, judging by the criticism of the locking, this is another reincarnation of the same "expert" (the previous one was a carbine.)
      Rejoice me, say that I was wrong.
      1. hard rock
        hard rock 4 March 2016 14: 54
        +2
        Quote: AK64
        So he plagiarized?

        He did not plagiarize. There are simply a number of phrases and absurdities that I read earlier elsewhere. But the coincidence is far from 100%. A lot of added extra. Something removed. Just some article could form the basis of this. This is not plagiarism.
        Quote: AK64
        In general, the "front handle" is nonsense.

        This "nonsense" cost the three-ruler (and all the bolts with the front handle) about 5 rounds per minute. Nonsense? How to say. The rate of fire of the three-line is only 10 rounds per minute.
        Quote: AK64
        So here everything is for simplicity.

        This is about 5 rounds per minute. Simplicity just doesn’t work.
        Quote: AK64
        It depends on what is the criterion.

        TTX rifle, of course. You will not argue that the British Lee-Anfield rifle is reliable and successful enough?
        Quote: AK64
        pile Mosin rifle.

        Probably faded. If you can call it the alteration of a Nagan rifle under a cartridge with a flange sleeve (it was under a cartridge with a flangeless one). To do this, I had to redo the store and attach a new bolt, very similar to the bolt on the Lebel rifle. And everywhere to increase technological tolerances to the maximum. That's all sculpting, in short.
      2. AK64
        AK64 4 March 2016 15: 06
        -1
        judging by the criticism of the locking, this is another reincarnation of the same "expert" (the previous one was a carbine.)
        Rejoice me, say that I was wrong.


        And here I guessed right!
        It seems to be a trifle - but it's nice.

        And most importantly, with what speed he threw me in an emergency: respects
      3. kalibr
        5 March 2016 16: 22
        0
        Do not look for devils in the censer, mon sher! There is always a place where the legs grow with reference to ... the source!
        1. AK64
          AK64 5 March 2016 19: 02
          0
          Ok convincingly
  • Rosinmn
    Rosinmn 4 March 2016 17: 11
    +1
    Quote: AK64
    Not even the tenth, but the first. Russia, unlike the USSR, was in the international legal field. And she didn’t allow theft


    Yes, brost, you! The Germans copied the Soviet mortar during the war, only talrep? put their own. The French still consider their compatriot to be the discoverer of the theory of water hammer, although Zhukovsky N.E. (the father of Russian avivation, as Lenin called him) wrote this theory several years earlier and made, as he did everything, fundamentally. From my practice I can say that I made a report at an international conference on the method of the energetic attitude that I invented. Hundreds of witnesses! The Italians or the Spaniards, I don't remember, then staked out my method with a patent. So much for the "legal field". Any nation is a patriot of its country. There is no need to demonize the Russians or the Soviets.

    So the point is not that the Soviet Union or Russia is stealing everything that lies badly, but the point is our ignorance, ignorance of history.

    The author of the article is slandering and ascribes to people malicious intentions from his own head. I can not believe in these invented motives!
    1. AK64
      AK64 4 March 2016 17: 26
      -1
      You just do not refer to me, okay? Because it wrote I do not

      And so ... well, who is stopping you from patenting? Or was there no money?
      In principle, everything really pulls - but gentlemen do it with a better expression, more naturally somehow.
  • Rosinmn
    Rosinmn 4 March 2016 17: 31
    +1
    I forgot to say. In the US, RPG-7s are now going to be produced. And did you say anything about the release of AK? "Our nation is not worse. They will surely be deceived" This is not a quote, the meaning of what was said. This is a saying about 19th century Germans. By Karl Marx. The Russian nation is not exclusively thieves or extremely stupid in comparison with others.
    1. gross kaput
      gross kaput 4 March 2016 20: 42
      0
      Quote: RosinMN
      In the US, RPG-7s are now about to be released.

      And what? not for his army tea, but for sale to the Papuans and those close to them - because the stock of shots for the seven in these countries is impressive, therefore the airtronic earns money - the benefit of the patents for the seven is not and was not, and they don’t need a license for figs because it’s far from nano-super Wunderwafer. The same thing with AK-shaped sales in the US civilian market is good why not make a couple of dollars? We have won the Hammer for our market, the AR-15 (M-16) is riveting, and for some reason in the states it doesn’t excite anyone on Ur-patriotism.
    2. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 4 March 2016 20: 44
      0
      RPG 7 has long been available in the USA in a two-part form, with a plastic case, a steel liner, a tactical butt, and picatinny rails for additional handles and optics.
  • gross kaput
    gross kaput 4 March 2016 18: 00
    +2
    Vyacheslav, why did you get the idea that the Lebel trunk was used on Mosinka? The only thing they look like is a rifling pitch of 240 mm and a trapezoidal shape - which by the way is dominant, the trehlen barrel as well as the cartridge are made with an eye on Lebel but are not copies, the trunk has the right direction of the rifling, unlike the left for the lebel, the diameter of which is by fields that the bottom is the same.
    And the Commission immediately raised all the minutes of its meetings and considered that Nagan had the rights of the inventor to almost all of the details listed.
    What kind? the weapons committee for adopting a rifle compiled a list with which Nagan agreed
    Parts developed by Mosin:
    Bar locking mechanism.
    Safety cocking device.
    Combining the shutter parts together.
    The idea of ​​a cutoff-reflector and its device.
    Magazine cover latch.
    The method of connecting the feeder to the cover.
    Place the swivel on the hinge bolt serving as the axis of rotation of the magazine cover.
    Change the store box for its easier manufacture.
    Parts developed by Nagan:
    The idea of ​​placing a feed mechanism on the store door and opening it down.
    The way to fill the store with a clip and grooves under it in a box.
    Cartridge clip.


    Other parts are developed by the commission and other persons.
    1. kalibr
      4 March 2016 20: 40
      0
      But is it written there about Lebel’s trunk taken?
      Quote: gross kaput
      The only thing they look like is the pitch of the 240 mm grooves and the trapezoidal shape - which by the way is dominant, the tresh barrel as well as the cartridge are made with an eye on Lebel but are not copies
      So you yourself write what they look like. It served as the main one, which is what the commission documents about.
      1. gross kaput
        gross kaput 4 March 2016 21: 01
        -1
        Quote: kalibr
        . He served as the main

        Well so basis and you write that And in this case, both he and, accordingly, his ballistics were taken from Lebel’s rifle those. after reading this, it seems that we stupidly ripped up the barrel, but this is not so, besides this, the external ballistics of the bullet fired from our barrel had one very significant nuance - it seems like such a trifle changed the direction of the rifling from left to right and the consequences are very interesting - that's what he writes about this is one of the "main experts" (in a good way) Mosinka Sergey Chelnokov - The right step was chosen because of the traditionally right location of the bayonet on Russian rifles, which, in turn, acted on the bullet as a gas compensator, displacing it to the left by the action of powder gases relative to the aiming line. This eliminated the influence of derivation. .... In Lebel’s rifles, the derivation was compensated by shifting the fly to the left by 0,2 points (“dot” - 1 tenth of a line, a line - 1 tenth of an inch), which required additional high-precision operations when assembling the rifle.
      2. AK64
        AK64 4 March 2016 21: 46
        +1
        But is it written there about Lebel’s trunk taken?
        Quote: gross kaput
        The only thing they look like is the pitch of the 240 mm grooves and the trapezoidal shape - which by the way is dominant, the tresh barrel as well as the cartridge are made with an eye on Lebel but are not copies

        So you yourself write what they look like. It served as the main one, which is what the commission documents about.


        If you do not mind, I will translate into normal Russian.

        And what was the commission supposed to do?
        Maybe the commission should have created an institute of ballistics, a person with at least 20 research workers, and set them the task of studying the combustion of smokeless gunpowder? And calculate the trunk accordingly?

        Given that there were no methods for such calculations then, and smokeless powder itself was a completely new thing - it would take 10 years ...

        Another approach: take what works as a sample.
        But what exactly were they to take? Could of course take Berdan 2 - but he was on black powder and large-caliber bullets. Well, what if it works on a smokeless little thing?

        So they took as a sample what was and what showed satisfactory results.

        What did you take? Yes, the strength (i.e. thickness) of the barrel, rifling. Even a cartridge in many ways. (Although the Russian cartridge is better in the sense that the French sleeve is already very CONIC.)

        Why copy the slicing? So they didn't exactly copy - they "took as a model." Therefore, otherwise you need to calculate gyroscopic moments, study stability ... There is a lot of fuss, and there is no one to do: there are no such specialists in the country.

        That is, instead of wasting time thinking, they took a working sample. And you should not complex about this - this is the right decision. And I would do the same, and you would do the same.

        PS: the shutter, by the way, is also licked with Lebel. The main difference is the power system (store).
  • svp67
    svp67 4 March 2016 20: 08
    0
    In theory, he now (with a fair assessment of his contribution) should have owned our entire university and a couple of factories in addition, but what is not, is not.
    And how many factories, newspapers, and steamboats were then supposed to belong to the bright memory of M. Kalashnikov?
    The point here is that the USSR had its own incentive system and now it is stupid to try to "pity" some kind of "injustice" in it. Then, apparently, it is worth "regretting" that higher education, vocational training, schools, kindergartens, medicine and much more were FREE for all citizens. After all, all this required money, which just did not pay extra to our "geniuses".
    And Mr. Mosin received less for his work than a foreigner, although he worked on the "three-line" enough and his discontent, I think it is fair.
  • Robert Nevsky
    Robert Nevsky 4 March 2016 20: 43
    0
    An interesting article, read on one doha! soldier
  • Romanenko
    Romanenko 4 March 2016 20: 58
    0
    Then I read the question of why the Americans did Berdan without stores, only under one cartridge. It’s also an interesting historical incident, but the single-shot systems like Remington and Berdan quietly got along with Henry's gun (what we call Winchester) It was believed that Henry 0,45 (11,43 mm) gun is a civilian weapon, and in the army swell to nothing, the soldier must save ammunition and shoot accurately, for some time this doctrine suppressed stores in the US Army.
    1. AK64
      AK64 4 March 2016 21: 31
      0
      Then I read the question of why the Americans did Berdan without stores, only under one cartridge. It’s also an interesting historical incident, but the single-shot systems like Remington and Berdan quietly got along with Henry's gun (what we call Winchester) It was believed that Henry 0,45 (11,43 mm) gun is a civilian weapon, and in the army swell to nothing, the soldier must save ammunition and shoot accurately, for some time this doctrine suppressed stores in the US Army.

      Henry's Rifle is fucking crap.
      That is, I would take for hunting, but here in the army .... most likely not in the army.

      Why is hellish sucks: because the cartridge is low-power. And with a normal rifle cartridge on smoky gunpowder you cannot cram into a subbarrelled tubular magazine.

      Lebel’s just underbarrel and tubular - but he already has an 8mm caliber, and perhaps this only became possible with smokeless gunpowder.
  • Lechik2000
    Lechik2000 5 March 2016 00: 33
    +1
    Mosinka 50 years in the ground in Myasnaya Bor - minimal tuning and she shoots.
    (if at the moment of falling into the ground she had a sleeve in her trunk and a purely better cartridge
    (the puller is small and it is inside the receiver))
    Mauser98k 50 years in the ground in Myasnaya Bor - megatuning so she shoots.
    (if at the moment of falling into the ground she had a sleeve in her trunk and a purely better cartridge
    (the HARROWER is pulled out and it is OUTSIDE the receiver - it rots nafig, you need to make a new one for this skill and for that they can give a term;))
    Another confirmation is our most reliable, even after 50 years in the earth ...
    1. hard rock
      hard rock 5 March 2016 00: 40
      +2
      Quote: Lechik2000
      Another confirmation is our most reliable, even after 50 years in the earth ...

      Do you think army weapons are made to dig into the ground for 50 years? I doubt it. And then, how can this serve as a confirmation of reliability? This only says that 50 years in the earth for a three-ruler is not a deadline. But this factor has nothing to do with the army.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Romanenko
      Romanenko 5 March 2016 07: 48
      +1
      I won’t argue about the reanimation of trunks from the ground, but there was one curious observation on the ammunition, somehow at the Marukh pass they were waiting for the weather with the guys to go to the Georgian side. And there, serious battles were just going on and the platform under the pass was heavily covered with bones of either our Germans or ours, but rather ours, the Germans carried out with scraps of belts and all kinds of fragments, shell casings and other traces of the war. So our sleeves were represented mostly by bottoms, since they were made of iron and almost all rotted, but the Mauser sleeves and sleeves and cartridges look quite normal for their age and storage conditions, there is no secret - brass ... Yes, more expensive than ours, but the whole, rubbed and sparkled. I didn’t try to shoot them from anything, as they say, 7,92 was not our caliber, but I brought them as souvenirs of the cartridge case.
      1. gross kaput
        gross kaput 5 March 2016 10: 21
        0
        Quote: Romanenko
        there is no secret - brass ... Yes, more expensive than ours, but the whole, wiped and shone

        Duc, there is definitely no secret - you were just lucky the Germans actively began to switch to a steel lacquered sleeve since 1940, since 1944 almost all the sleeves were steel, we began to introduce bimetal for three-piece cartridges since 1936. although cartridges with brass sleeves were produced until 1944. absolutely exactly (the "extreme" box marked 7,62 B-32 GL that I saw was exactly 1944). Well, during the war, steel sleeves were also produced without coating at all - the marking on the closure "GS", in contrast to the bimetal "ГЖ" ...
    4. gross kaput
      gross kaput 5 March 2016 10: 05
      0
      Quote: Lechik2000
      Mosinka 50 years in the ground in Myasnaya Bor

      let's say 63 years have passed since the fighting, and secondly, the safety of the "iron" at this time does not depend on the size of its "extractor", in other words, in our workers 'and peasants' way, the ejector laughing or is there a sleeve in the chamber, and it depends only on the soil in which the iron was in the swamp, for example, not only the iron but also the bodies are preserved perfectly - about 15 years ago, a hurricane was raised from the swamp near Peter, the father who buried the dead pilot could not believe that he died in 1943.
      For example, a Mauser lying in a swamp for 55 years
  • Lechik2000
    Lechik2000 5 March 2016 00: 47
    +1
    what does the Army have to do with - the three-ruler is not in service with the RA, the speech is about the reliability of the Mosin-Nagan rifle design - it is brilliant in its simplicity and reliability Karl!
    1. hard rock
      hard rock 5 March 2016 00: 59
      +1
      Quote: Lechik2000
      we are talking about the reliability of the Mosin-Nagan rifle design - it is ingenious in its simplicity and reliability Karl!

      Do not understand what it says about reliability?
  • Lechik2000
    Lechik2000 5 March 2016 00: 52
    0
    Imagine in the land after 50 years of AK or M-16%)))
    Z.Y. Especially M-16 and other ovskoe ...
    1. hard rock
      hard rock 5 March 2016 01: 01
      +2
      Quote: Lechik2000
      Especially M-16 and other ovskoe ...

      So what? Does this somehow mean that something is worse, but something is better?
      As for reliability. Modern German and American submachine guns often have a barrel resource of 20-25 thousand shots. And AK-74 in different types of 10 thousand shots. These are already figures that can be compared. And right now, not in 50 years.
  • Lechik2000
    Lechik2000 5 March 2016 01: 06
    +1
    Okay, let's hang up the troll ...
    1. hard rock
      hard rock 5 March 2016 01: 19
      +2
      Quote: Lechik2000
      Okay, let's hang up the troll ...

      Your spelling is bad at all. Before the signature, put an end to it. Clear? Not many dots after the signature, but one in front of it, and one more after it. Got it?
  • Lechik2000
    Lechik2000 6 March 2016 02: 13
    0
    Quote: Romanenko
    I won’t argue about the reanimation of trunks from the ground, but there was one curious observation on the ammunition, somehow at the Marukh pass they were waiting for the weather with the guys to go to the Georgian side. And there, serious battles were just going on and the platform under the pass was heavily covered with bones of either our Germans or ours, but rather ours, the Germans carried out with scraps of belts and all kinds of fragments, shell casings and other traces of the war. So our sleeves were represented mostly by bottoms, since they were made of iron and almost all rotted, but the Mauser sleeves and sleeves and cartridges look quite normal for their age and storage conditions, there is no secret - brass ... Yes, more expensive than ours, but the whole, rubbed and sparkled. I didn’t try to shoot them from anything, as they say, 7,92 was not our caliber, but I brought them as souvenirs of the cartridge case.

    My friend absolutely agree with you - our cartridges rotted to zero.

    I remember in 1985 two German backpacks were digging out on the outskirts of Novgorod (Kirilovsky Monastery) 7.92,
    sorted out and threw out an average of one and a half backpack, the rest dried up and waited for us and the Soviet army to arrive.
    Then, firing was carried out at the Rdeisky Monastery - two-thirds of the cartridges were suitable (although ten percent gave a slow shot)
    That's what I mean - the Germans lay for 40 years in a layer 10 cm thick. Mixed with earth and fragments of bricks FIRED.
    How many cartridges did not dig from the three-ruler - even the thought did not arise to check them, everything was clear immediately ...
  • Lechik2000
    Lechik2000 6 March 2016 02: 46
    0
    Quote: gross kaput
    Quote: Lechik2000
    Mosinka 50 years in the ground in Myasnaya Bor

    let's say 63 years have passed since the fighting, and secondly, the safety of the "iron" at this time does not depend on the size of its "extractor", in other words, in our workers 'and peasants' way, the ejector laughing or is there a sleeve in the chamber, and it depends only on the soil in which the iron was in the swamp, for example, not only the iron but also the bodies are preserved perfectly - about 15 years ago, a hurricane was raised from the swamp near Peter, the father who buried the dead pilot could not believe that he died in 1943.
    For example, a Mauser lying in a swamp for 55 years


    I do not agree with you - if there was no sleeve or cartridge in the barrel at the time it hit the ground (usually after the death or injury of a soldier).
    That rifle chamber for decades in the land corroded and became absolutely unsuitable for firing - the cartridge can still be driven there,
    but to pull it out after a shot is practically not realistic, it wedges in the bumps of the chamber from a swollen sleeve.
    1. gross kaput
      gross kaput 9 March 2016 23: 45
      -1
      Quote: Lechik2000
      That rifle chamber for decades in the land corroded and became absolutely unsuitable for firing - the cartridge can still be driven there,

      You didn’t understand what I wanted to tell you - I’ll try it easier - if the weapon is in such a condition that the Mauser ejector rotted away, then in any case it’s not a weapon anymore, and even if the chamber has preserved the barrel bore in some way In any case, one large sink, in a normal state, weapons can only be stored in swamps - there is no access to oxygen, which means there is no corrosion, the Mauser in the picture to understand what is a copan in a normal state.
  • fitter71
    fitter71 12 March 2016 22: 49
    0
    Quote: SerB60
    Something like this went on with the T-34 and KV. Created, mastered and rest on their laurels. The Germans are already on the Tigers, and we all have three inches in the towers, and with the KV they also cut the armor, became the KV-1S.

    well, nonsense, nonsense ... over the years of the war, the cost of the T-34 has decreased almost by half, square - by one and a half times ... of course - somewhere not without simplification, but in any case - such an achievement by the simple abolition of some the node cannot be achieved! so there is no need to "rest on our laurels" - they plowed like the damned, especially since all this production time was practically not reduced - given the "relocation" of most factories, both producing and subcontractors / suppliers.
    Quote: AK64
    And they asked the population? Or the opinion of the population they were never interested

    in fact, the population, going over to the side of the Reds, voted "with their feet" - on whose side they are. you can tell as much as you like about someone's money and conspiracies against the "tsar-father", but the invaders who came by "invitation" rather helped the final choice of the majority of the "ungrateful people" who did not appreciate the care of Nikolashka ... in other words, Nikolay2 "was not lucky with the people "- like today's liberals like Misha2%, Garik, Bazheny, Sobchak and others ...
    1. Nikolay Bylkov
      Nikolay Bylkov 6 October 2017 12: 34
      0
      Do you repeat the Bolshevik lies of ignorance or what? Throughout the years of the civil war, the world conspiracy for money of Jewish bankers of the whole world and the Entente, in the person of its rulers, helped the Bolsheviks in every possible way, preventing White from winning any means possible.
      ““ The great book of Marx “Capital” is at the same time a monumental example of argumentation and a storehouse of facts. ”Lord Milner, member of the British War Cabinet, 1917, and director of the London Joint Stock Bank.

      The secret documents of the British War Cabinet are now open, and they contain the argument with which Thompson persuaded the British government to pro-Bolshevik policies. At that time, David Lloyd George was the Prime Minister of Great Britain. Lloyd George's private and political machinations rivaled those of the Tammany Hall politician, * but during his lifetime and decades later biographers could not or did not want to study them. It wasn't until 1970 that Donald McCormick lifted the veil of secrecy in The Mask of Merlin. McCormick says that in 1917 D. Lloyd George got stuck “too deep in the swamp of international arms fraud to remain a free leader,” and owed much to the international arms dealer Sir Basil Zakharov, who made himself a considerable fortune by selling arms to both sides in several wars [107]. Zakharov had tremendous power behind the scenes and, according to McCormick, advised Allied leaders on military policy. McCormick writes that Woodrow Wilson, Lloyd George and Georges Clemenceau met several times in Zakharov's Paris home. McCormick notes that "statesmen and Allied leaders were forced to consult with him prior to planning any major attack." British intelligence, according to McCormick, “has uncovered documents which accused the servants of the Crown of being secret agents of Sir Basil Zakharov with the knowledge of Lloyd George” [108]. In 1917, Zakharov was associated with the Bolsheviks; he tried to prevent the supply of weapons to the anti-Bolsheviks and acted in London and Paris in favor of the Bolshevik regime. "
      "Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution"
      1. fitter71
        fitter71 2 June 2018 17: 37
        0
        I understood you correctly: in February 1917, the Bolsheviks picked up Nikolaus with the money of the Kaiser and the Entente? :))) what else amuse my pliers? :))
    2. Nikolay Bylkov
      Nikolay Bylkov 6 October 2017 12: 35
      0
      “Dear Mr. President, I sympathize with the Soviet form of government, as the most suitable for the Russian people ...”
      From a letter to US President Woodrow Wilson (October 17, 1918) from William Lawrence Saunders, President of Ingersoll Rand Corporation, Director of American International Corporation and Vice President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

      The Russian revolution can, at least in part, be seen as a war between the Rothschild Royal Dutch Co. and Rockefeller Standard Oil for control of Baku oil fields. In fact, there have been several revolutions. (This is discussed in more detail in The Secret History of the West.)
      The first occurred in 1905, when the Rockefellers, through Kuhn, Loeb, financed Trotsky's unsuccessful activities. [74]
      After that, the Rothschilds mobilized Lord Milner (a 33rd degree Freemason whose activities in South Africa led to the outbreak of the Boer War, which became Minister in 1916 in the military office of Lloyd George, and the British Embassy in Moscow. Milner spent 21 million rubles (about 50 million dollars in modern currency) to finance the second revolution, carried out by Kerensky and supported by the Mensheviks. [75]
      The Rockefellers, whom the Kerensky revolution took by surprise, retreated. An urgent meeting of the Great East Lodge was urgently convened in Hamburg. A telegram was sent to banker Jacob Schiff: “Prepare Trotsky.” [76]
      Trotsky (whose real name is Lev Bronstein), who lived comfortably in Rockefeller’s owned Standard Oil and financed by the Great East Lodge [77], Constable Hook’s residence in New Jersey, was sent to Russia, where he was to get involved with Lenin (Vladimir Ulyanov) and implement the third Russian revolution that took place in October 1917. Jacob Schiff was authorized to transfer $ 20 million (320 million in modern currency) for the needs of the revolution. [78]
      Hamburg company Max Warburg and Co. and Rhineland Westphalia Syndicate decided to place this money in the Swedish bank of Warburg Nya Banken in Stockholm. [79]
      Max Warburg (brother of Paul Warburg, creator of the Federal Reserve System) at that time was the chief of the secret police in Germany. [80]
      It was also decided that $ 10 million would be transferred directly to Trotsky, and 15 to Lenin. 5-6 million of this amount, Lenin brought with him to Russia. [81]
      The cartoon that appeared in 1911 in the St Louis Dispatch newspaper illustrates these events perfectly. Karl Marx stands on Wall Street surrounded by joyful financiers: John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, John D. Ryan from National City Bank and Morgan's partner, George W. Perkins. Everyone knew that the Rockefellers (who under the tsar could not get into Baku in any way) were "oooh very happy" (caricature title) of the intensification of revolutionary activity in Russia. [82] ----------------------------------
      [75] Josephson, The Truth About Rockefeller, Public Enemy No. 1, p. 44. For inflation, see also The Inflation Calculator, http://www.westegg.com/inflation. Milner spent $ 3 million. Documents show that the organization of J.P. Morgan allocated at least $ 1 million (report compiled by the public information committee, Washington, quoted in Daniel, same, pp. 498-489; see Rivera, same, p. 127).
      [77] See: http://jerusalem.indymedia.org/news/2004/02/13004
      6.php.
      Trotsky lived on an estate owned by Standard Oil. John D. Rockefeller I acquired a special passport from President Woodrow Wilson for him. Rockefeller then sent Lincoln Stevens, who was supposed to ensure the safe return of Trotsky from Russia. Rockefeller put Trotsky’s wallet in his pocket with $ 10000 for travel expenses. For information, see Daniel, ibid., Pp. 488-489. In my book The Secret History of the West, I dedicated an entire chapter to the Duke of Orleans, the founder of the Great East Lodge, Trotsky was sent back to Russia with 275 Communist revolutionaries on the Christianiafjord ship.
      [78] Rivera, same, p. 127. Also: “According to Jacob’s grandson, John Schiff, the old man spent about $ 20 million on the“ Significant role that the wealthy American banker Jacob Schiff played in the events that took place to ensure the victory of Bolshevism in Russia. " New York Journal-American, February 3, 1949; cited in Rene Wormser, Foundations, Their Power and Influence.

      In 1920, the Rockefeller Standard Oil acquired from the Bolsheviks half of the Baku oil fields owned by Nobel Oil Co. When in 1921, Lenin proclaimed the NEP, the capitalists returned to Russia, whose economy was in complete chaos. The Rockefellers took the most active part in this process. The Chase Manhattan National Bank (later simply Chase Manhattan), which belonged to them, organized the US-Russian Chamber of Commerce in 1922, where Frank Vanderlip and Harriman represented the Rockefellers. In 1925, Chase National agreed to finance the export of Soviet raw materials to the United States and the import of cotton and machine tools into the Soviet Union. 83

      In 1924, Lenin died, and the fourth revolution took place in Russia. Stalin successfully defeated his rivals. In 1925, the Rockefellers received half of Russian oil, including the Baku oil fields (previously owned by the Rothschilds). In exchange, the Rockefellers agreed to finance the Stalinist five-year plans. 84
      The first five-year plan was funded in 1926 through Schiff's Kuhn, Loeb & Co. Now this company was acting in the interests of the Rockefellers, not its creators, the Rothschilds. 85
      In March 1926, the Rockefeller-owned Standard Oil of New York and its subsidiary Vacuum Oil Co. provided the Bolsheviks a loan of $ 75 million by buying 800 tons of crude oil and 000 tons of kerosene from the Soviet government, and then reselling Soviet oil in Europe.100
      In 1927, Standard Oil of New York built an oil refinery in Russia, with the help of which the Bolsheviks managed to rebuild their economies. 87
      In 1928, Chase National Bank sold Bolshevik bonds in the United States, which helped raise money to support the Stalinist regime.88

      Now the Rockefellers had a direct influence on the imperialist policies of the XNUMXth century. Their influence was the same as that of the Rothschilds on XNUMXth century politics, but much more aggressive. "
      Nicholas Hagger. "Syndicate. The history of the creation of a secret world government and methods of its impact on world politics and economics ”
    3. Nikolay Bylkov
      Nikolay Bylkov 6 October 2017 12: 37
      0
      Marburg Plan
      Senator Walcott: So your argument is that it is in America's interest for Russia to be oppressed?


      Mr. Williams: Not oppressed ...


      Senator Walcott: You said so. Why should America want Russia to become its industrial competitor?


      Mr. Williams: This is from a capitalist point of view. On the whole, America is not interested, I think, in the emergence of another great industrial rival on the market, like Germany, England, France and Italy. I think another government in Russia, not the Soviet one, would probably increase the pace or speed of Russia's development, and we would have another rival. Of course, this is argumentation from a capitalist point of view.


      Senator Walcott: So, you are presenting an argument here that you think may be attractive to the American people, and your point of view is that if [/ b] we recognize the Soviet government of Russia in its current form, we recognize the government that won't be able to compete with us in the industry for years?


      Mr. Williams: That's a fact.


      Senator Walcott: So your argument is that under the Soviet government, Russia will not be able, at least for many years, to come close to America in industrial development?


      Mr. Williams: Absolutely so ”[259].


      This frank statement by Albert Rhys Williams * contains the key to revising the interpretation of Russian history over the past half century.

      * The Soviet edition of Ten Days That Shook the World contains the following editorial note about the author of this confession: “Albert Rhys Williams is a friend of John Reed, a prominent American progressive figure and publicist; author of several books on the struggle of workers for socialism ”(M. 1957, p. 165). - Approx. ed. “RI”.



      Wall Street, or rather the Morgan-Rockefeller complex, featured at 120 Broadway and 14 Wall Street, was guided by something very close to Williams' argument. Wall Street entered the battle for the Bolsheviks in Washington - and won. The Soviet totalitarian regime survived. In the 1930s, foreign firms, mainly from the Morgan-Rockefeller group, were fulfilling five-year plans. They continued to build Russia both economically and militarily [260]. On the other hand, Wall Street probably did not foresee either the Korean War or the Vietnam War, in which 100.000 Americans and countless of our allies lost their lives to Soviet weapons made with the same technology imported from the United States. What appeared to the Wall Street syndicate as a forward-looking and undoubtedly lucrative policy has become a nightmare for millions outside the chosen power circle and the ruling class.

      The Marburg Plan, funded from the vast legacy of Andrew Carnegie, was prepared in the early 250th century. He testifies to the deliberation of this type of seeming schizophrenia, which in fact masks a coherent program of gaining power: “If Carnegie, with his unlimited wealth, could organize international financiers and socialists in a movement to subordinate to their will the formation of the League for the establishment of peace” [ XNUMX].


      The governments of all countries of the earth, according to the "Marburg" plan, must be socialized, while the ultimate power will remain in the hands of international financiers "to control the councils and enforce peace, [and thus] create a specific remedy for all political diseases of mankind" [ 251].


      This idea was linked to other elements with similar goals. Lord Milner in England provides a transatlantic example of banking interests that recognize the merits and possibilities of Marxism. Milner was a banker influential in British wartime politics and sympathetic to Marxism. [252] In 1903, the X Socialist Club was founded in New York. Its members included not only the communist Lincoln Steffens, the socialist William English Walling, and the communist banker Morris Hillquith, but also John Dewey, James T. Shotwell, Charles Edward Russell, and Rufus Weeks (vice president of Life Insurance in New York). Socialists also spoke at the annual meeting of the Economic Club at the Astor Hotel in New York. In 1908, when A. Barton Hepburn, President of the Chase National Bank, was president of the Economic Club, the main speaker was the aforementioned Morris Hillquith, who “had ample opportunity to preach socialism before a congregation that represented wealth and financial interests”. [253]


      From these incredible seeds grew the modern internationalist movement, which included not only the financiers Carnegie, Paul Warburg, Otto Kahn, Bernard Baruch and Herbert Hoover, but also the Carnegie Endowment and its brainchild - International Reconciliation. The Trustees of the Carnegie Endowment stood out, as we have seen, on the board of the American International Corporation. In 1910, Carnegie donated $ 10 million to found the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and the board of trustees included Elihu Ruth (Ruth's mission to Russia, 1917), Cleveland H. Dodge (provided financial support to President Wilson), George W. Perkins (partner Morgan), J.J. Balch (AIK and Amsink), R.F. Herrick (AIK), H.W. Pritchett (AIC) and other Wall Street moguls. Woodrow Wilson fell under the powerful fusion of this group of internationalists, because he owed them money. As Jennings K. Weiss wrote: “Historians should never forget that Woodrow Wilson ... provided Leon Trotsky with the opportunity to enter Russia with an American passport” [254].
      A revolution and international finance are not so contradictory if a more centralized power is to be established as a result of the revolution. International finance prefers to deal with centralized governments. The banking community least of all wants a free economy and decentralized power, as it disperses power.


      So, here is the sought-after explanation that fits our evidence. This group of bankers and stock traders was neither Bolshevik, nor communist, nor socialist, nor democratic, nor even American. Above all, these people wanted markets, that is, they captured the international markets and their monopoly in the world market as the ultimate goal. They wanted markets that they could exploit monopoly without fear of competition from the Russians, Germans, or anyone else, including American businessmen outside their chosen circle. This vicious group was apolitical and immoral. In 1917, it had a direct goal - to capture the Russian market; and all this seemed under the intellectual cover of some league to establish peace. "
      "Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution"
      Anthony Sutton.
  • Krokodil68
    Krokodil68 April 30 2016 09: 29
    0
    Quote: qwert
    In general, I do not agree with the author, but I will not enter into disputes. Everyone has the right to their opinion.


    lol
    Especially if you look at the last name of the author of the article.
    Well, for one SURNAME with tomorrow's Passover holiday - you can congratulate. winked
    "Comrades" with similar surnames ALWAYS have "their own opinion".
    Especially in relation to Russia.
  • Nikolay Bylkov
    Nikolay Bylkov 6 October 2017 12: 26
    0
    To cherish tsars is easy and the only inheritance of the parties is to understand and name the cause of the tragedy of Russia and its multinational people. No matter how the Bolsheviks lied about tsarist Russia and the tsars, Nikolai deserved his "holiness" only because he, knowing about his terrible future death, did not run away abroad, did not abandon the people and boldly accepted Fate.
    It is not His fault in this disaster. In 1917, the hands of world Zionism destroyed the Orthodox monarchy, as the foundation of Christianity in Russia, which is basically a religion of worship of the evil Spirit.

    "Theology of the Christian world was laid bare naked by the most serious minds of our time. And it was found that it is generally more destructive than favorable for spirituality and morality. Instead of interpreting the rules of divine law and justice, she expounds only herself. Instead of an eternally living deity, she preaches the Evil Spirit and makes it indistinguishable from God Himself.
    “And do not lead us into temptation,” is the desire of Christians. And who is this adversary? Satan? No; this prayer is not addressed to him. This is the fiery genius who hardened the heart of Pharaoh, put an evil spirit in Saul, sent false messengers to the prophets and seduced David to sin; it is the biblical God of Israel! "
    EP Blavatsky "Isis Unveiled" vol. 2. CHAPTER XII