Technology of artillery and ammunition production in Europe in the 18th century

Technologies

The main innovation in the production of artillery pieces was the transition from a one-time one-piece model to a reusable detachable model. Instead of wooden models, brass and cast iron ones began to be used for castings. The old method of casting guns (when the gun was cast entirely along with the bore) is being replaced by a new one, in which the guns are cast as a solid blank, and then the bore is drilled into it. As a result of the use of drilling, the barrel bore was very smooth, its surface was clean (that is, without roughness, sagging and dips characteristic of a cast surface). This method was called “deaf” and was preserved until the end of the 19th century.

The method of drilling the bore also underwent very important changes. The old vertical drilling machines (the machines used to be called “machines”) were replaced by horizontal drilling machines. What's the benefit? The fact is that when the barrel being drilled was in a vertical position, the drill was always under significant pressure from the barrel settling on it and very often broke; the workpiece with a fragment of the drill usually turned out to be damaged and was discarded, and this is a lot of money. When the barrel was positioned horizontally, it was securely mounted on a special slide, and the drill, without experiencing unnecessary loads, made it possible to operate machining modes in a wide range, which significantly improved the quality of processing.

Later, the drilling machine was further improved. Now the drill was no longer inserted into the socket of the water wheel shaft, but was mounted on a special cart that moved onto the barrel rotated by the water wheel or steam engine along guide rails.

The processing of gun trunnions (barrel protrusions that attach the gun to the carriage) was difficult. Previously, they were processed manually, which took up to 5-6 days. The first machines for turning axles, powered by a water wheel, appeared in the second half of the 18th century. Up to 5 gun barrels were processed on such a machine per day. Later, steam engines were used instead of water propulsion.

It must be said that already in the first half of the 18th century, steam engines began to receive increasing development in Europe. This process was especially rapid in England, which was technologically far ahead of all other states in the world. Here the water wheel noticeably lost ground, although it was still used at enterprises located along river banks as a free source of energy (a steam engine needed firewood or coal, and in significant quantities).

What were artillery pieces made of? A small part of the guns were made of cast iron, but these guns were heavy, since cast iron is a fragile metal and sensitive to casting errors, so it was necessary to make thick barrel walls with a margin in order to reduce the risk of it breaking when fired. The bulk of the guns were made of bronze. Bronze poured perfectly (that is, it flowed well into molds, cooled evenly without severe shrinkage, the formation of cavities and other hidden defects), and, in addition, it was excellent for machining and, compared to cast iron, was less susceptible to the risk of rupture. Bronze cannons were lighter in weight than cast iron ones. But, nevertheless, in practice, the service life of bronze guns was low: due to accumulated fatigue changes in the metal, the guns burst at the 500-600th shot. We had to put up with this, since there were no other materials suitable for making tools at that time.

By the way, bronze as an alloy of copper and tin for guns was somewhat different from the bronze from which bladed weapons or household items were made; this alloy was called “artillery bronze” or “artillery metal” and consisted of 89-92% copper and 8-11% tin (the larger the caliber of the gun, the less tin).

Another reader will ask - what about iron and steel? Yes, although steel was known, they still did not know how to make cannons from it. The main problem was the very high strength of the steel, which caused great difficulties for its machining. Therefore, until the second half of the 19th century, when the first steel guns of the Armstrong , all guns were made of bronze and cast iron.

To be fair, it must be said that attempts were made to create a steel cannon. For example, in Russia such a gun was created by engineer Yakov Zotin at the Nizhneisetsky plant, the only enterprise in Russia at that time where steel production was organized. Zotin organized the work of forging the gun, using hammer forges and water hammers “with steel welding.” A vertical drilling machine was used to drill the barrel bore, and a lathe was used to process the outer surface of the barrel. By May 1812 the cannon was ready. It was a steel-laminated rifled 3-pounder gun. But the artillery inspector refused to accept it as “not provided for by the highest instructions.” In September of the same year, the second gun was ready, this time made in strict accordance with the instructions - it was smooth-bore. The gun, according to the receiver, was “very well forged and can withstand night action.” The gun was accepted and sent to St. Petersburg, where it was highly praised. The Artillery Department was especially struck by the fact that the gun was very cheap. But they were in no hurry to adopt it. Moreover, in 1824, A. A. Arakcheev “personally explained to His Imperial Majesty that iron cannons could never be as easy to operate and manufacture as copper ones.”

At this point, many textbooks on Russian history bitterly report that “the use of steel guns in Russian artillery was delayed for 30 years.” Let’s try not to condemn the “stupid” officials led by the “extravagant” Arakcheev, as his same textbooks tend to be printed, but to understand why they abandoned what seemed to be such a promising artillery system?

There was a reason for this: making one rifled gun was much easier than organizing mass production of not only rifled guns, but also completely new ammunition for them. After all, the old ammunition from smoothbore artillery was completely unsuitable for firing from a rifled gun. If someone thinks “what the hell, they took it and switched from round cannonballs to ordinary shells,” then they are deeply mistaken. Ballistics is a whole science. How to make a projectile fly not just along a given trajectory, but also in a certain direction? The cannonball is round and we don’t care which side it flies: all its sides are the same. The spindle-shaped projectile has a different shape and should fly with its nose forward, and not sideways or bottom-first. If the gun is rifled, then the projectile spins in flight. How to make his nose not describe a cone due to poor symmetry? How long should the projectile be made? What shape should it be? How to ensure a good fit of the projectile to the walls of the barrel bore and at the same time so that it does not jam there at the slightest misalignment?

Today we have all the answers, but then we still had to come up with it, test it, run into a lot of problems, solve these problems, come across the next problems, solve them, and only after that start rearmament of the army. And what? To do all this in the context of a major war already underway with Napoleon and with the obvious threat of an invasion of Napoleonic army into Russia? So it’s in vain that our textbooks are looking for fools, saying that our ancestors were fools and did not understand the obvious advantages. They were not idiots, but, unlike us, they saw and understood many more things that we lose sight of today, or simply do not know.

Russian artillery in the second half of the 19th century

Artillery guns from the time of the Sevastopol defense were the last word in smooth-bore artillery technology. In the 60s of the 19th century, rifled guns loaded from the breech began to come into use. .

We have already said that the first rifled gun with a bolt appeared in Rus' in the 17th century, but with the low technology of that time it was impossible to master the mass production of such guns: therefore, the production of smooth-bore guns, loaded from the muzzle, continued.

Only in the middle of the 19th century, in factories equipped with special machines and machines, mass production of rifled guns with bolts was established.

But they didn’t succeed right away: first they learned how to make rifled guns. The bullets of these guns flew further than the bullets of buckshot, which was the main projectile of smooth-bore artillery. Infantry fire began to incapacitate significantly more people than artillery fire; the infantrymen could now calmly shoot the artillerymen from a safe distance. In part, this already happened during the Crimean War of 1853–1856.

Designers began to work hard on creating rifled guns and shells for them. A lot of experiments were done until it was possible to establish mass production of such guns and shells.

The metallurgical industry began to develop especially rapidly from the middle of the 19th century. Its development was greatly facilitated by the works of the “father of metallography” Dmitry Konstantinovich Chernov, a world-famous Russian scientist. He studied the structural changes in steel during heating and cooling and, based on these studies, created the theory of heat treatment of steel (hardening, tempering and annealing). Only the use of new methods of steel processing at Russian factories helped to get rid of the frequent ruptures of gun barrels during firing, the causes of which no one before Chernov could correctly explain. Chernov's theory was borrowed by metallurgical plants in all other countries.

Rie. 25. D. K. Chernov

As a result of Chernov’s work, especially strong grades of steel appeared: it was used for the armor of warships and for defensive land structures. Such armor could only be penetrated by heavy artillery shells with a very high final velocity.

Gun factories designed powerful long-range guns and began producing them. To characterize the progress of gun technology over 50 years, it is enough to give a few figures. In 1840, the largest cannon weighed 5 tons and fired shells weighing 28 kilograms with an 8-kilogram gunpowder charge. And in 1890, the heaviest gun weighed 110 tons, fired shells weighing 720 kilograms with a 340-kilogram charge of gunpowder; the initial velocity of the projectile reached 600 meters per second.

The basis for the creation of powerful artillery in Russia and abroad was the outstanding work of the Russian scientist A.V. Gadolin, “The Theory of Guns Fastened with Hoops,” written in 1861–1862 and which earned a major Mikhailov Prize.

The Large and Small Mikhailov Prizes were awarded annually by the conference of the Mikhailov Artillery Academy for particularly valuable works of Russian scientists in the field of artillery and gunpowder. The Mikhailovsk Artillery Academy was the center of scientific thought in these areas, and almost all outstanding Russian artillerymen and gunpowder masters came from its walls.

General A.V. Gadolin (1828–1890), an extraordinary member of the Russian Academy of Sciences and an honorary member of many Russian and foreign scientific societies and institutions, was also a professor at the Mikhailovsky Artillery Academy.

Rice. 26. A. V. Gadolin

Made according to the method

A.V. Gadolin’s gun barrels were especially strong: another steel pipe, the “casing,” was hot fitted onto one steel pipe. As it cooled, the casing compressed the inner tube, and the barrel turned out to be extremely durable.

However, the huge guns created according to the theory of A. V: Gadolin have not yet given the effect that was expected from them; the reason was the weakness of black powder, which could not impart a sufficiently high initial velocity to heavy projectiles. A. V. Gadolin himself found a way out of the situation in collaboration with another outstanding Russian artilleryman Nikolai Vladimirovich Maievsky.

Artillery General N.V. Maievsky (1823–1892), professor of ballistics at the Mikhailovsky Artillery Academy, became famous for his work “Course of External Ballistics,” which was also awarded the Grand Mikhailov Prize. The work of N.V. Maievsky far surpassed all similar works; Scientists from foreign countries took advantage of it, and textbooks for foreign military academies were created on its basis.

The scientific thought of N.V. Maievsky and A.V. Gadolin was not limited to the field of artillery; both of them were outstanding powder chemists. A.V. Gadolin and N.V. Maievsky invented a new type of gunpowder, which had great force and produced less smoke when fired - it was the so-called brown or chocolate prismatic gunpowder. The grains of this gunpowder were made in the form of hexagonal prisms. Each prism had seven through channels. You will understand the significance of this form of gunpowder grains by reading chapter four.

At the end of the 19th century, chocolate prismatic gunpowder was the last word in the science of gunpowder, and this word was pronounced in Russia.

Gunpowder grains with seven channels are widely used today. Thus, the invention of Gadolin and Maievsky is of great importance for our time.

Here is what the famous Russian scientist Nikolai Aleksandrovich Zabudsky wrote in the Artillery Journal in July 1885:

“Foreign experts believe that Europe owes Russia the introduction of prismatic gunpowder. We tested it much earlier than anywhere else. The credit for developing this issue belongs to the Russian artillerymen, especially generals Gadolin and Maievsky. In Russia, for the first time, they began to produce gunpowder for large guns in the form of regular prismatic cakes with seven holes on the press of Professor Vyshnegradsky’s system. Other states followed our example. Prussia turned to the manufacture of gunpowder similar to ours. Belgium in 1867 and then England adopted molded cylindrical gunpowder with a small central blind hole."

Rice, 27. N. V. Maievsky

General Yafimovich, a major specialist in the gunpowder business, introduced the production of brown prismatic gunpowder at the Okhtensky powder plant. The Okhtensky powder plant (in St. Petersburg) was the first in the world to begin factory production of prismatic gunpowder.

Thanks to the works of D.K. Chernov, N.V. Maievsky and A.V. Gadolin, Russian artillery was the first in the world to receive fastened guns, which could shoot twice as far as the old unfastened ones, and were deservedly called long-range. In 1877, the rearmament of Russian artillery with bonded guns began. The method of fastening guns was very quickly adopted from the Russians by Western European designers.

The production of steel tools in Russia was established by the talented engineer P. M. Obukhov. High-quality steel tools were manufactured in St. Petersburg - at the Obukhov plant, where D.K. Chernov's theory was first applied - and also in Perm at the Motovilikha plant. Russian guns were distinguished by their exceptional durability; they served in the army for 40–50 years and at the end of such a huge period were still active. For example, along with new guns during the First World War (1914–1918), the Russian army successfully used guns manufactured in 1877!

At the same time as A.V. Gadolin and N.V. Maievsky, the talented inventor Vladimir Stepanovich Baranovsky was working on improving artillery guns. Twenty years earlier than Western European designers were able to achieve this, he created a gun whose carriage remains in place after being fired; In such a weapon, the recoil forces only the barrel to roll back, which then returns to its place on its own. Such a weapon does not need to be rolled into place while firing; therefore, it can fire much faster than the old guns, which rolled back 4-6 meters after each shot. Such guns, in which, after firing, the carriage remains in place, and only the barrel rolls back (and even that itself returns to its place), are called rapid-fire.

Nowadays in artillery all guns are rapid-fire; and 75 years ago such a weapon was an unprecedented novelty, a dream of artillerymen. And this dream was realized by V.S. Baranovsky, who in 1872 created the world’s first rapid-firing field gun, and three years later completed the construction of a rapid-firing mountain cannon. Baranovsky's mountain cannon was disassembled into several parts for transportation over the mountains on packs.

Rice. 28. V. S. Baranovsky

For his rapid-fire cannon, V.S. Baranovsky also created a high-speed piston bolt. The essence of the Baranovsky valve design remains unchanged in modern piston valves.

V. S. Baranovsky was the first to propose the use of a unitary cartridge for loading a gun. In such a cartridge, the projectile and charge are connected into one whole using a sleeve, so loading the gun has become much more convenient and faster. The combination of recoil devices, cartridge loading and a high-speed gun breech made Baranovsky's gun truly fast-firing.

The works of V. S. Baranovsky promised a lot for Russian artillery. But the talented inventor died in 1879 from an accident during one of his experiments; his death suspended work on rapid-fire guns, and they were introduced only two decades later...

When the fast-firing fast-firing gun was adopted, the power of artillery fire increased dramatically. This was also facilitated by the fact that smokeless powder was invented in 1886. It is three times stronger than the old smoky one, which artillery fired for more than 500 years; but smokeless powder has one more remarkable property: it saved the battlefields from a huge amount of smoke.

With the introduction of smokeless powder, the cloud of smoke no longer obscured the target from the shooter and prevented him from aiming correctly. The shooter no longer had to wait long for the smoke to clear before firing the next shot. And this, in turn, contributed to an increase in the rate of fire of guns and rifles.

At the end of the 19th century, another important event occurred in the history of the development of artillery: instead of black powder, they began to fill artillery shells with new highly explosive substances - first pyroxylin, then melinite and, finally, TNT. As a result, the power of artillery shells increased several times, and they began to cause enormous destruction.

In the history of the invention of smokeless gunpowder and its introduction into artillery, Russian scientists played an outstanding role. In many matters they have primacy, which for many years was unfairly attributed to foreign inventors.

We will talk about the extremely important role of Russian scientists in the development of gunpowder in the second chapter of this book.

Guns

The process of making an artillery gun included molding, casting, bore drilling, external turning and final hand finishing. When receiving orders for guns, the plant also received their drawings, as well as patterns. Models of guns were made from these drawings. Usually the model consisted of two longitudinal parts made of wood, dividing the tools into two halves.

Molding was carried out in cast iron flasks connected to each other using bolts. Ordinary river sand mixed with wool was used as a molding material. After filling the flasks, the model was taken out, the molds were allowed to dry and they were smeared with special ink consisting of soot, fire-resistant clay and water. Depending on its size, from 5 to 9 people were involved in molding the gun. The process lasted 12 hours. The finished forms were sent to the dryer for two days, then smeared with ink again.

Both halves of the flask were connected with bolts. Using a special crane, the mold was lowered into the foundry vat, where, using a plumb line, it was brought into a strictly vertical position, which took up to 6 hours. A furrow was drawn from the furnace to a tank made of brick and coated with clay inside. From the reservoir to the casting vat there was a trench made of sheet iron, at the end of which there was a funnel installed perpendicular to the middle of the tool. Iron dampers were installed at the junction of the furrow with the reservoir and the reservoir with the trench and funnel to regulate the influx of bronze. While filling the mold, workers observed that the metal flowed quietly, in a continuous stream, and did not touch the walls of the mold. After filling the mold with bronze, it was left to cool for 12-20 hours, depending on the size of the weapon. Then they separated the parts of the flasks and, wrapping the gun with a rope, lifted it up, beat off the molding sand and took it to the factory area, where it was allowed to cool completely.

The cooled gun went to the drilling shop, where the sprue was first cut off on a special machine, and then the barrel bore was drilled and its external turning was carried out. Drilling of the guns was carried out with three drills: through and caliber, making 4-6 revolutions per minute, and ironing, making 2 revolutions per minute. In addition, several drills were used to drill out the chamber for the powder charge in the mortars. With the second drilling, simultaneous turning of the barrel from the outside began. The trunnions (the protrusions with which the barrel was attached to the carriage) were processed, as I already said, on a special turning machine. The surface of the barrel between the trunnions was processed manually. After this, the fuse was drilled.

All these operations took 3-4 days. Then the gun was tested with live and reinforced shots, as well as a “water test”, for which the barrel was placed vertically with the muzzle up and, after pouring water into it, it was left under the load for 6 hours. If after this the outer surface of the weapon was wet, it means that it had microscopic cracks and it was rejected. The accepted weapon was branded and sent to the warehouse.

S. I. Titushkin. ARTILLERY OF THE RUSSIAN FLEET in 1877-1904

Home » Literature on the history of the fleet » S. I. Titushkin. ARTILLERY OF THE RUSSIAN FLEET in 1877-1904

Literature on the history of the fleetReal historyControversial history of the recent past

Aley 08/04/2019 4049

in Favoritesin Favoritesfrom Favorites 11

Despite the overwhelming superiority in battleships on the Black Sea in the war of 1877–1878, the Turkish command did not dare to take the risk and send its ships to the shallow coasts, reliably protected by popovkas [1]. The high qualities of Russian artillery were manifested in such striking military episodes as the successful battle on July 11, 1877 of the armed steamship Vesta with the Turkish battleship Fethi Buland near the Bosphorus or the sinking of the Turkish monitor Lutfi-Jelil by coastal batteries on April 29 of the following year on the Danube at Brailov's. The success of Vesta was explained by the presence of artillery fire control devices of the A.P. Davydov system; her fighting qualities and the heroism of her crew allowed five 6-inch field mortars to repel the attack of an armored ship armed with 9-inch guns.

Successes in creating powerful Russian rifled naval artillery did not allow, however, to stop there, since in the 70s of the 19th century. The thickness of the armor plates of ships begins to increase rapidly. If the first battleships (1860) were protected by 100-120 mm iron armor, then by the end of the 70s its thickness reached 600 mm. Even 12-inch (305 mm) guns with 300 kg shells, which had an initial speed of 450 m/s, were powerless against such powerful defense. The English, Italian and French fleets sought a way out of this situation by sharply increasing the calibers, and, consequently, the guns themselves, which had reached monstrous sizes; an example is Armstrong's 110-ton 17.75-inch (450 mm) guns [1], but a number of tragic incidents and great difficulties in use on ships forced them to look for other ways of improvement. The English company Armstrong, then the Prussian company Krupp, managed to achieve in 1878 a significant increase in the initial velocities of projectiles due to increased strength of the barrels, the use of rifling of progressive steepness, projectiles with copper leading belts (the soft lead shell did not withstand the increased angular velocities) and powerful charges. The opportunity arose to create much more effective guns of pre-existing calibers, which was facilitated by the production of new varieties of black powder - in the late 70s, the density of black increased from 1.61–1.66 to 1.75, and in the early 80s, brown prismatic with a density of 1.85–1.87 [2].

Thus, the combustion of the charge became slower and more regular, which made it possible to significantly reduce the maximum pressure in the barrel bore, by lengthening which it was possible to increase the initial velocity of the projectile. The Navy Ministry did not remain an indifferent observer - in 1877, the first 11-inch (279 mm) guns of a new design were purchased from the Krupna company [3], the peculiarity of which, in comparison with the same guns of the 1867 model, was the following: larger by two caliber length, rifling with a stroke of 45 calibers instead of 70, a copper leading belt instead of a soft lead shell of projectiles, a charge weighing 60 kg instead of 41, a 225-kg projectile instead of 213, an initial speed of 460 m/s instead of 410.

In the same year, immediately after the completion of the tests, the Obukhov Steel Plant received an order for the production of naval and fortress artillery. Less than a year later, the Naval Ministry organized extensive experiments to test the design of a new generation of guns, later called the “system of long-range guns of the 1877 model”; The prototype was the 152 mm gun, as the most advantageous in size [3]. The results obtained allowed Lieutenant General R.V. Musselius to design a new sample 28 calibers long with rifling of progressive steepness (the pitch changed from chamber to muzzle, from 70 to 25 calibers) and a heavy projectile 4 calibers long (instead of the previous 2.4) weighing 51.2 kg (instead of 38), which was given an initial speed of 470 m/s (instead of 440). In 1880, the Obukhovites produced their first 12-inch (305 mm) gun with a length of 30 calibers [3], but the tests dragged on until 1883, and after the 84th shot, cracks were discovered in the charging chamber. At the same time, the plant received an order for the first 9-inch long-range guns (length 30 calibers) designed by R. V. Musselius. A number of complex technical problems revealed during numerous experiments, as well as the low survivability of the barrels of 11-inch guns of a new design that were already arriving on ships, forced the Naval Ministry to create in 1884 an authoritative “Special Commission” of artillery specialists, chaired by the chief inspector of naval artillery, General Lieutenant F.V. Pestich [4].

Fundamental research in the field of the theory of fastening guns, carried out by a member of the commission, Lieutenant General N.V. Kalakutsky, made it possible for the first time to formulate a number of important requirements for the manufacturing technology and design of new type guns, as well as the modernization and improvement of the material base of the main manufacturing enterprise - the Obukhov Steel Plant . At the same time, a member of the MTK artillery department, staff captain A.F. Brink, developed drawings for a 12-inch gun with a length of 30 calibers; 8-inch—30 and 35; 6-inch - 35 [3]; all of them withstood maximum loads 20% greater than existing ones of similar calibers (up to 5800 kg/cm2). In the 6-inch (152-mm) gun, to speed up loading, for the first time in domestic practice for medium-caliber guns, a piston breech of the French Treules-de-Beaulieu system with a de-Baillage obturator was used. (Previously, piston bolts were used only in domestic amphibious rapid-firing 2.5-inch guns of the A. A. Baranovsky system, adopted by the fleet in 1877 [3].) Tests with 1090 rounds took place at the Okhtinsky training ground in 1885-1887, and the initial speed reached 610 m/s. In November 1886, the first 8-inch, 35-caliber long gun intended for the cruiser Admiral Nakhimov was successfully tested there, providing an 87.8 kg projectile with initial velocities of up to 700 m/s [4]. In those years, the Obukhov plant produced eighteen 12-inch guns with a length of 30 calibers for the Black Sea battleships: “Ekaterina II”, “Sinop” and “Chesma”. An urgent and important order, including field tests, was successfully completed by the Obukhovites already in 1889 [3]. The plant mastered the new 9-inch 35-caliber long guns, designed by A.F. Brink in 1886, in just two years, after which they entered service with the battleships Nicholas I and Alexander II.

By 1885–1890 includes the initiative development by Obukhov engineers of a very advanced design for that time of 6-inch guns with a length of 35 calibers, fastened with wire (steel tape 6.6 × 1.3 mm, cold wound) according to the English Longridge system; this made it possible to reduce the weight by 20% and reduce the cost of manufacturing barrels compared to the ring and cylinder fastening system. Great achievements in the design and establishment of production of this and a number of other types of artillery weapons, solving a number of complex engineering, technical and organizational problems belonged to a prominent specialist in domestic artillery technology, Rear Admiral A. A. Kolokoltsov, who for over 30 years (until 1894) permanently headed Obukhov plant [3]. 6-inch wire guns were part of the armament of the battleships “Nicholas I”, “Navarin”, “George the Victorious”, and the gunboats “Gremyashchiy” and “Brave”. An obstacle to further improvement of this technology in Russian naval artillery was the insufficient longitudinal strength of the barrels, the length of which was continuously increasing [4].

To study the achievements of foreign technology, the Navy Ministry ordered six 12-inch guns with a length of 35 calibers from the Krupp company in April 1886; under the terms of the contract, a heavy 455-kg projectile was guaranteed an initial speed of up to 610 m/s with a maximum pressure in the barrel bore of no more than 3000 kg/cm². The company never managed to fully fulfill these conditions - A. A. Kolokoltsov and N. V. Kalakutsky, who received the guns in Prussia, made a number of serious comments during field tests: expansion of the charging chambers, severe burnout of the barrel bores, exceeding the contractual limit pressure to achieve initial speed 610 m/s. A year late, the contractor delivered the guns to Sevastopol, but only one of them was used for some time on the battleship Chesma. This was the end of Krupp’s supplies of artillery for the Russian fleet [3]. Already in 1888, the Obukhov plant began producing 12-inch guns with a length of 35 calibers, the first of which was tested in 1891 and demonstrated high ballistic qualities - the initial speed of the 331.7-kg projectile exceeded 640 m/s with a maximum pressure of 2300 kg/cm². The squadron battleships "Chesma", "George the Victorious" and "Navarin" were armed with artillery of this type.

Instead of iron, back in 1884, shipbuilders began to use steel-iron armor, which had a 25% higher resistance to projectiles; during 1890-1896, the strength of the plates increased by another 15–40%, as steel, steel-nickel armor and, finally, cemented varieties, the so-called harveyed and crushed, appeared [2]. A need arose to increase the initial velocities of projectiles to 700–900 m/s, and a positive solution to this problem depended only on the creation of a new type of gunpowder - smokeless pyroxylin; it was invented in 1887 by the famous French chemist Viel, who, for obvious reasons, kept everything secret. However, just five years later, the scientific and technical laboratory of the Naval Ministry, under the leadership of professors D.I. Mendeleev and I.M. Cheltsov, developed a method for the mass production of high-quality smokeless gunpowder, the so-called pyrocollodion [2], which made it possible to dramatically increase the ballistic qualities of marine guns At the same time, specialists from the artillery department of the MTK and the Obukhov plant carried out work on the design of a new 12-inch gun, the optimal length of which was determined to be 45 calibers, but the imperfection of the technological equipment, which did not allow the processing of such barrels, forced the length to be reduced by five calibers [3].

In 1895, a new sample arrived at the Okhta test site. 13 tons less weight and 50 kg/cm² maximum pressure, 150 m/s higher initial speed with the same projectile and a reliable piston bolt that speeded up loading several times - all this distinguished the new gun from the previous 12-inch long 35 caliber [4]. Battleships from Poltava (1896) to St. Andrew the First-Called (1912) were armed with 12-inch artillery of exactly this model. For battleships of the Admiral Ushakov, Pobeda and Rostislav types, A.F. Brink designed a 10-inch gun (barrel length 45 calibers), the weight of which did not exceed 27 tons - only 18% more than the 9-inch 35 calibers long [4].

The widespread introduction of rapid-firing medium-caliber guns on foreign ships was the reason for a commission abroad (1891) chaired by the senior artilleryman of the Nikolaev port, Lieutenant Colonel L. I. Sanotsky; Having studied the artillery systems of Armstrong, Hotchkiss, Gruzon and Canet, Russian experts settled on the last of them and recommended adopting them [4]. Thanks to the use of a piston bolt of an original design (closed and opened in one step), unitary or separate-case loading, French engineer Gustav Canet managed to achieve a five to sixfold increase in the rate of fire compared to the same guns of previous systems. The use of smokeless powder also had a significant impact, since there was no longer a need to sanitize the bore after each shot. Drawings were urgently delivered from France, and the Obukhov plant immediately began production of 6-inch, 120- and 75-mm rapid-fire guns with lengths of 45, 45 and 50 calibers, respectively. Soon, based on their model, Colonel A.F. Brink designed an 8-inch rapid-fire cannon with a length of 45 calibers, intended primarily for the armored cruisers “Russia” and “Gromoboy” [3, 4].

Over the course of eight years (1879–1887), the fleet adopted five-barrel revolving and single-barrel rapid-fire 47- and 37-mm guns, intended to repel attacks by destroyers, and in 1886 their production was mastered by the Tula Arms and Obukhov Steel Plants [4] . Obukhovites, in addition, in 1900 began to produce high-speed 37-mm X. Maxim machine guns (250 rounds per minute) under an English license [3].

A significant increase in the thickness of iron armor by 1880 led to the fact that armor-piercing shells of previous models (made of cast steel and hardened cast iron) were no longer effective enough; from this year, for all guns from 6- to 12-inch, much longer (3.5–4.1) and, therefore, much heavier shells were adopted instead of the previous short shells (length 2.1–2.5 calibers); the goal was the following: to reduce speed losses when firing at long distances and, most importantly, to increase the specific impact load of the projectile on the armor at the moment of its penetration. Naturally, heavy shells could have more powerful explosive charges than light ones, however, the need to increase the survivability of the barrels (a 12-inch Krupp gun with a length of 35 calibers lost accuracy after 50 shots of 455-kg shells), to increase the initial speed and flatness of the trajectory on those envisaged at that time in the Russian fleet, short-distance decisive artillery battles (no more than 10–15 kbt) entailed the refusal of the Naval Ministry from heavy shells [4], which, as it turned out, had fatal consequences during the Russo-Japanese War. By 1886, Russian factories (Obukhovsky, Putilovsky, Nobel, Bryansk, Perm) had fully mastered the production of steel, heat-treated armor-piercing projectiles of all calibers [3]. The invention of the chief inspector of naval artillery, Rear Admiral S. O. Makarov, had a great effect - in 1893 he proposed armor-piercing tips made of mild steel, which increased the ability of shells to overcome armor by 15–20% [4].

All Russian naval artillery shells in those years were divided into armor-piercing, high-explosive, ordinary (cast iron), shrapnel (including segmental ones), and buckshot. Armor-piercing ones were intended to destroy the thickest armor in accordance with their caliber, and due to the requirement for maximum strength, they had a very low explosive content - 1.27–1.67%. High-explosive ones served to destroy unarmored and lightly armored structures of ships and coastal objects with the force of an explosion of combat equipment, which accounted for 7.75–9.5 and even 19.5% of the weight of the Rudnitsky plant shells. Ordinary (cast iron) were a type of cheap high-explosive with an explosive content of about 3%; due to their extreme fragility, they often burst in the canal or immediately after leaving the barrel. Shrapnel was the name given to shells used to destroy openly located enemy personnel, like buckshot, but at a much greater distance. Premature detonation of the powder load of armor-piercing shells when penetrating thick iron armor forced designers in the 70s to abandon the combat “stuffing”; However, already in the early 80s, three times more powerful wet pyroxylin (30% humidity) was used for explosive charges instead of black powder. Despite the fact that experiments on the use of melinite had been carried out since 1891, the fleet did not have time to receive such shells for service before the Russo-Japanese War [1, 4].

The progress of artillery weapons was accompanied by intensive improvement of both tower and deck installations. In 1883, according to the drawings of Lieutenant Colonel L.A. Rasskazov, the Obukhov and Metal plants, with technical assistance from the English, began production of barbette installations of 12-inch guns with barrel lengths of 30 and 35 calibers for battleships of the “Ekaterina II” type [3]. Hydraulic barbette installations of a slightly different design were manufactured in the 80s for the battleships “Emperor Alexander II”, “Gangut” and “Twelve Apostles” by the Metal Plant. Without going into details, it should be noted that despite some shortcomings (imbalance relative to the center of horizontal guidance of the barbette mounts of the Catherine II type battleships, which caused the ship to roll up to 7° when turning the guns to the beam), they turned out to be very perfect - the angular guidance speeds reached 4 –10°/s, and the feeding and loading system made it possible to fire targeted salvos in 17 minutes 4 s (“Chesma”) or 2 minutes 47 s (“Twelve Apostles”) [4]; However, later on the ships of the Russian fleet, barbette installations did not become widespread. In 1891, based on the documentation presented, the engineer of the Obukhov plant E. E. Gagen-Thorp developed the design of a two-gun 12-inch (305 mm) turret gun mount for the battleship Navarin [3], based on which they were designing for six years similar towers, after which electric drives began to be used instead of hydraulic ones [6]. Progress in feeding and loading mechanisms over 15 years (1884–1899) made it possible to increase the rate of fire from one shot per 17 minutes to 2 minutes [4]. In the 80-90s, the Metal, Obukhov and Putilov plants created turret installations with 10-, 8-, 6-inch guns for battleships and cruisers. In general, Russian gun turrets met the requirements of those years, however, there were characteristic disadvantages, which were the following: an elliptical shape with vertical frontal and side armor, large embrasures, extreme complexity of the feeding and loading mechanisms, which led to the fact that the turret guns had a lower rate of fire, than those located on deck installations. Mechanical recoil brakes have given way to much more reliable and lightweight hydraulic brakes, and self-rolling brakes have given way to spring and pneumatic brakes. In 1885, the Obukhov and Metal plants mastered the production of light and durable deck installations of the English Vavaser system for 9-, 8- and 6-inch guns with a length of 30–35 calibers; within two years, their design was significantly improved by staff captain K. T. Dubrov [3], while simultaneously reducing the weight by 7–10%.

In 1892, the production of deck installations for rapid-fire guns of the Cane system began according to drawings delivered from France, and two years later, using their model, Captain A.P. Meller designed the same installation for an 8-inch gun with a length of 45 calibers [4]; At the end of the 90s, he created installations for 75- and 47-mm rapid-fire guns that were 2-2.5 times lighter. As the rate of fire increased, the importance of balancing the guns relative to the center of horizontal guidance also increased (at that time only manual drives were used); as a result, the scheme with the middle pin received preference over the other, with the front pin, as it provided twice the horizontal guidance speeds. To ensure a given rate of supply of ammunition to deck artillery, manual and electric elevators were designed in the late 80s [6]. By the end of the 19th century. Artillery fire control devices now have electromechanical synchronous transmissions [6].

At the beginning of the 20th century. English in-base optical rangefinders of the Barr and Stroud system were installed on Russian ships [1]. Only in 1901 did ship tests begin of the first domestic naval artillery optical sight, which was developed at the Obukhov plant by Lieutenant Ya. N. Perepelkin [3]; however, mechanical (sine and tangent) sights, even in 305 mm turrets, survived until the Russo-Japanese War [6]. With few exceptions, a certain standard was established in the placement of artillery on Russian ships; Large-caliber guns of battleships were placed in turrets mainly in the center plane for firing on both sides, medium-caliber guns were placed in casemates and side-to-side turrets, and small-caliber guns were placed on the upper deck, superstructures, bridges and combat tops of masts. The armament of ships of all other classes, with the exception of the cruisers “Admiral Nakhimov”, “Bayan” and four types of “Bogatyr”, consisted of deck installations, located mainly along the sides openly or behind the light armor of casemates and batteries; this was dictated by the prevailing ideas at that time about the decisive role of massive fire from medium-caliber rapid-fire artillery [1]. It should be noted that 12- and 10-inch artillery was not considered the main caliber that determined the outcome of the battle due to its low rate of fire; the primary role was given to quick-firing 152- and 120-mm cannons, taking into account the predicted combat distances (no more than 15 cables), which was explained by the weakness of the firing instrumentation and the armoring capacity of the ships; at such distances, firing training was carried out until 1904. Maximum decentralization of fire control was provided - the gunners fired directly, introducing corrections according to the drops of their shells, and the senior artillery officer only preliminary indicated the target and commanded the initial values of the sight and rear sight [1, 7].

In this state, domestic naval artillery entered the Russian-Japanese War of 1904–1905.

LITERATURE

Pavlovich N. B. Development of naval tactics. M.: Voenizdat, 1979.
Yatsyna G.I. Essays on modern naval artillery // Marine collection. 1902. No. 4-7.
Kolchak V.I. History of the Obukhov Steel Plant in connection with the progress of artillery technology. St. Petersburg 1903.
Reports of the artillery department of the MTK for 1879-1893. St. Petersburg, 1880—1900.
Military fleets and naval reference book for 1904. St. Petersburg, 1904.
Yatsyna G.I. Naval artillery course. St. Petersburg, 1990-1901.
TsGAVMF USSR, f-671, op. 1, dd. 1-8, op. 2, dd. 7, 10, 49, 65, 76, 80.

Shells

Clean sifted river sand was used to mold the shells. Molds for the cores were made using cast iron flasks and models in the form of two hemispheres. Having molded two flasks, the workers removed the models and put the flasks together. The outer forms of bombs and grenades were made in exactly the same way, with the only difference being that the lower form had a special hole in the middle (“fuse”) into which a cast iron tube (“subpipe”) was inserted. Molds for forming internal voids in bombs and grenades (“cores”) were made from raw coarse river sand, sometimes with an admixture of clay. They were stuffed into a special tube lined with hemp (“choker”). After drying, the finished core was inserted into the outer mold so that the choke passed through the subpipe channel, and then the flasks were folded together.

When molding grapeshot bullets, models were used that were carved from soft stone and smoothly polished. A special wooden block (“putets”) was placed between the models, with the help of which grooves were formed for pouring metal.

The shells were cast into wet molds without pre-drying. Cast iron was poured into molds with iron ladles coated with clay inside. After 10 minutes, the flask was turned over to ensure uniform shrinkage of the cast iron; after another 15 minutes, the flasks were separated, the sand was raked out, and the sprues were hammered out.

Useful shells were sent for cleaning. On the buckshot received for cleaning, the sprues were leveled with small cast-iron hammers. To clean buckshot from carbon deposits, it was placed between two cast-iron horizontally lying circles and driven by one worker. Cannonballs were also cleaned like buckshot, only the circles were larger and were driven by a water wheel. The choke was removed from the hollow shells and the remains of the core were cleaned out. Bombs and grenades were cleaned of carbon deposits by hand.

When receiving shells, they used special measures (“circles”) to check the diameter of the shells, and calipers to measure the diameter of the ignition hole. By hitting the surface with a hammer, they found out whether there were hidden shells or cracks. The shells were then weighed to ensure the density of the cast iron. Accepted shells were branded and delivered to the warehouse.

Valery Potapov

Sources:

Zagorsky F. N. “Essays on the history of metal-cutting machines until the middle of the 19th century”, M., 1960. Smirnov A. A. “Arakcheevskaya artillery”, Reitar, M., 1998. Starkov D. P. “On the issue of production of steel and layered artillery pieces at the Ural factories at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries", Leningrad, 1952. Lyapin V. A., Shcherbakov N. V. "Army weapons and military industry of Russia 1799-1815", Reitar, M., 2002. Zvorykin A. A., Osmova N. I. “History of technology”, M., Sotsekgiz, 1962. Terry S. Reynolds. "Stronger than a hundred men: a histoiy of the vertical water wheel." The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983.

Artillery caliber as a term appeared in Europe in 1546, when Hartmann from Nuremberg created a prismatic tetrahedral ruler. This device is called the Hartmann scale. Units of measurement (inches) were marked on one face, and the actual dimensions (based on weight in pounds) of iron, lead and stone cores, respectively, were marked on the other three.

Examples (approximately):

1 face - mark of 1 lb lead core - corresponds to 1.5 inches;
2nd face - iron core weighing 1 pound - s 2.5;
3 face - a stone core weighing 1 pound - with 3.

Knowing the size or weight of the projectile, it was possible to manufacture ammunition and complete the charge in advance. This system existed in the world for about three centuries. In Russia, unified standards did not exist until the reforms of Peter I. Army arquebuses and cannons had separate characteristics for the weight of the projectile, in Russian national units. There were guns from 1/8 hryvnia to a pound. At the beginning of the 18th century, on behalf of Peter I, a domestic caliber system was developed under the leadership of Feldzeichmeister-General Count Bruce. The Hartmann scale was taken as a basis. This system divided the guns according to the artillery weight of the projectile (cast iron core). The unit of measurement became the artillery pound - a cast iron core with a diameter of 2 inches and weighing 115 spools (approximately 490 grams). It didn’t matter what types of projectiles the gun fired—bombs, buckshot, or anything else. Only the theoretical artillery weight that a gun could fire given its size was taken into account. Tables were developed correlating artillery weight (caliber) with the diameter of the bore. Artillerymen were responsible for operating calibers and diameters. In the “Naval Charter” (St. Petersburg, 1720), in chapter seven “About the artillery officer, or constappel”, in paragraph 2 it is written: “You must measure the cannonballs to see if their diameters are similar to the calibers of the guns and place them on the ship according to your places." This system was introduced by royal decree in 1707 and lasted for more than a century and a half.

Examples:

3-pounder gun, 3-pounder gun - official names;
artillery weight 3 pounds - the main characteristic of the gun;
size 2.8 inches - bore diameter, an auxiliary characteristic of the gun.

In practice, it was a small cannon that fired cannonballs weighing about 1.5 kg and had a caliber (in our understanding) of about 70 mm. D. E. Kozlovsky in his book gives a translation of Russian artillery weight into metric calibers:

3 lbs - 76 mm,
4 lbs - 88 mm,
6 lbs - 96 mm,
12 lbs - 120 mm,
18 lbs - 137 mm,
24 lbs - 152 mm,
60 lbs - 195 mm.

Explosive shells (bombs) occupied a special place in this system. Their weight was measured in poods (1 pood - 40 trade pounds - equals approximately 16.3 kg). This is due to the fact that the bombs were hollow, with explosives inside, that is, made of materials of different densities. During their production, it was much more convenient to operate with generally accepted weight units.

D. Kozlovsky gives the following relationships:

1/4 pood - 120 mm,
1/2 — 152,
1 pood - 196,
2 - 245.v
3 — 273,
5 — 333.

A special weapon was intended for bombs - a bombard, or mortar. Its tactical and technical characteristics, combat missions and calibration system allow us to speak of a special type of artillery. In practice, small bombards often fired ordinary cannonballs, and then the same gun had different calibers - a general one of 12 pounds and a special one of 10 pounds.

The introduction of calibers, among other things, became a good material incentive for soldiers and officers. Thus, in the “Naval Charter”, printed in St. Petersburg in 1720, in the chapter “On rewarding” the amounts of reward payments for guns taken from the enemy are given:

30 pound - 300 rubles,
24 — 250,
18 — 210,
12 — 170,
8 — 130,
6 — 90,
4 and 3 - 50,
2 and below - 15.

In the second half of the 19th century, with the introduction of rifled artillery, the scale was adjusted due to changes in the characteristics of the projectile, but the principle remained the same.