Trowel.zhzh.rf

Officially, the king-gun is a medieval artillery gun, a monument of Russian artillery and foundry, cast from bronze in 1586 by the Russian master Andrei Chokhov On a cannoned yard. The length of the cannon is 5.34 m, the outer diameter of the barrel is 120 cm, the diameter of the patterned belt in the dula is 134 cm, the caliber is 890 mm (35 inches), mass - 39.31 tons (2400 pounds).

From the first professional look at the king gun it becomes clear that it is impossible to shoot it. Actually, it is immentable to shoot almost everything from the trimming of a tap pipe, from the ski stick, etc. But this artillery complex, placed on the Review in the Kremlin - Real props. Or not?

Let's deal with more ...

The people go many delusions about her. For example: "In Russia, there was the most powerful and advanced production and technological basis for the manufacture of cast iron, whose monuments are these unique artifacts (this is about the king bell and king gun, - avt..) ... It has long been proven, and there are documentary evidence that the king-gun really fired. "

On the bell and so understandable. They are made solely from bronze, and not any, but a special composition. Well, and guns, of course, are different. To do this, in difficult times, our wonderful people used even the birch cap. They took a dense dressing birch blank, they did a hole in it, the iron stripes were brought, they lived a small hole in the treasury part for the smelled and here the gun is ready. In the 17th ... 19th centuries, they were mainly lily from the cast iron. But the king gun is still bronze.

On documentary evidence that the gun shot, the remark is important. Indeed, the people are spinning information about the fact that some specialists accurately installed ... discovered ... etc. This rumor is run by journalists. About who, and what really installed, will be described in detail below. We will also consider the question of another misconception that wanders in scientists. Many of them believe that the king cannon is a huge shotgun. A very convenient opinion that allows historians to explain many riddles associated with it. In fact, it is not so that it will be convincingly shown.

It also makes one more steady misconception that makes doubt the intelligence of human nature. They argue that the king-gun is made to scare foreigners, especially the ambassadors of the Crimean Tatars. The absurdity of this statement will also become apparent, as the article reads.

What arguments can be brought:

FirstlyThe cast iron kernels are thrown into the eyes, which in the 19th century and became the source of those most conversations about the decorative purpose of the gun. In the 16th century, they used the stone nuclei, and they are 2.5 times easier than the cast-iron. It is possible to say quite accurately that the walls of the guns would not withstand the pressure of the powder gases, when they are shot with such a nucleus. Of course, it was understood when they were cast at the Berdy plant.

Secondly, Butaphoric flaws, cast there. Shoot it is impossible. When shooting with a regular stone-old 800 kilogram core of 40 ton tsar guns, even with a small initial speed of 100 meters per second, the following will happen:

• expanding powder gases, creating increased pressure, will be how to push the space between the kernel and the bottom of the gun;
• the kernel will begin to move in one direction, and the gun is in the opposite, while the speed of their movement will be inversely proportional to the mass (how many times it is easier for the body, it will fly faster in so many times).

Gun weight just 50 times More core mass (in the Kalashnikov machine, for example, this is the ratio of about 400), therefore, when the core will fly forward at a speed of 100 meters per second, the gun will ride back at a speed of about 2 meters per second. This mahina will not stop immediately, after all, 40 tons. Rangeneel energy will be approximately equal to the hard kick of KAMAZ in an obstacle at a speed of 30 km / h.

Tsar-gun will break from the boiler. Moreover, she simply lies on it from above, like a log. To keep all this can only with a special sliding boat with hydraulic dampers (rolled back), and reliable fastening of the gun. I assure you, this is today a rather impressive device, and then there was no such thing. And all this is not only my opinion: "Currently, the tsar-gun is located on a cast-iron decorative laphant, and the decorative cast iron kernels are located near, which were cast in 1834 in St. Petersburg at the Cultuncine Plant Bird. It is clear that neither shooting from this cast-iron fauthete, nor use cast iron kernels is physically impossible - the king of the gun will divide! "

Therefore, the artillery complex that is shown to us in the Kremlin called Tsar Cannon, this is giant Butaforia.


Classical Bombard

Today, hypotheses on the use of tsar guns as a shotgun are persistently. The opinion is very convenient for historians. If this is a shotgun, then it is not necessary to carry it. Put to the boot and all, wait for the enemy.

What castled Andrei Chokhov in 1586, that is, the bronze stem himself, really could shoot. It would only look like this at all as many think. The fact is that by his design king gun is not a gun, but classical Bombard (Fig. 1). The gun is called an instrument with a barrel length from 40 calibers and above. The king cannon the length of the barrel channel is only 4 caliber. And for the bombard, this is just fine. They often had an impressive size, and were used for siege as trumpet tool. To destroy the fortress wall, you need a very heavy projectile. For this and giant calibers.

I didn't go about any laphant. The trunk was just cheated into the ground. The flat end was drunk in deep piles (Fig. 2). Nearby, 2 more engines for artillery calculation were digging, since such guns often tearned. Chargeing sometimes took a day. Hence the rapidity of such guns - from 1 to 6 shots per day. But all this was worth it, for it allowed to crush impregnable walls, to do without multi-month siege and reduce the battle losses during the assault.

Only in this may be the meaning of the casting of 40 ton trunk with a caliber of 900 mm. Tsar-gun is a bombard - a trumpet weaponintended for the siege of enemy fortresses, and not a shotgun at all, as some tend to count.

Here is the opinion of a specialist on this issue: "... as a shotgun, the king gun was extremely ineffective. According to costs, instead of her it was possible to make 20 small shotguns, for the charge of which is not necessary, and only 1-2 minutes. I note that in the official inventory "with the Moscow Arsenal of Artillery" in 1730, 40 copper and 15 cast-iron shotgun were listed. Pay attention to their calibers: 1500 pounds - 1 (this is the king gun), and then follow the calibers: 25 pounds - 2, 22 pounds - 1, 21 pound - 3, etc. The largest number of shotguns, 11, falls on a 2-pound caliber. Rhetorical Question: What place was our military who recorded the king gun in the shotgun? .. " (Alexander Broadworm "Miracle Weapons of the Russian Empire").

King-gun never applied

As it was said at the beginning of the article, there are rumors about some "documentary evidence" that the king gun shot. In fact, it is of great importance not only the fact of the shot, but also what she shot, and under what circumstances. The kernels who charged the gun could be of a different weight, and the barefoot can be different. The pressure in the barrel channel and the shot power depends on it. All this now do not determine. In addition, if testing shots were performed from the gun, then this is one, and if it was used in battle - quite another. I will give this quotation about this:

"Documents on the tests of the tsar-gun or the use of it in combat conditions are not preserved, which gave the basis of later historians for long-term disputes about its appointment ... A smaller part of the specialists generally excludes the possibility of combat use of guns, and it is made to scare foreigners, especially the ambassadors of the Crimean Tatar ... Interesting detail, in 1980, those who studied the canal of the guns from the Academy. Dzerzhinsky concluded that the tsar gun shot at least 1 time ... " (Alexander Broadworm "Miracle Weapons of the Russian Empire").

By the way, the report of these most experts for incomprehensible reasons was not published. And since the report does not show anyone, it cannot be considered proof. The phrase "fired at least 1 time" apparently some of them was frown in a conversation or interview, otherwise we would not know anything about it at all. If the gun was used for the appointment, it would be inevitably in the trunk there would be not only particles of powder, which, according to rumors, were discovered, but also mechanical damage in the form of longitudinal scratches. In battle from the king cannon, it would not be shot not by cotton, but by stone cores weighing about 800 kg.

There must be some wear of the surface of the barrel channel. Otherwise, it cannot be, because the bronze is a rather soft material. The expression "at least", just indicates that in addition to the particles of the gunpowder, nothing significant was found there. If so, the gun was not applied for its intended purpose. And the powder particles could remain from the test shots. The point in this question puts the fact that The king-gun never left the limits of Moscow:

"After the tsar was cast and separated on the gun yard, they dragged to the Spassky Bridge and put it on the ground next to the Pavlin gun. To move the gun, the ropes were tied to eight brackets on his trunk, these rings were injected simultaneously with 200 horses, and they rolled the gun lying on huge rollers. Initially, the instruments of the "king" and "peacock" lay on the ground at the bridge leading to the Spasskaya Tower, and Kashpirov cannon - at the Zemsky order, located where the historical museum is now. In 1626 they were raised from the ground and installed on log fires, tightly stuffed earthly. These platforms were called Roskati ... " (Alexander Broadworm "Miracle Weapons of the Russian Empire").

At home, it is somehow suicide at home to apply a trumpetition. Who was going to shoot a 800 kilogram core from the walls of the Kremlin? For the lively enemy's strength 1 time a day, it is meaningless. There were no tanks. Probably expected the appearance of Godzilla. Of course, these huge cutting guns were put up for universal review not with combat goals, but as an element of the prestige of the power. And, of course, it was not their main purpose. Under Peter I, the king gun was installed on the territory of the Kremlin itself. There she is still to this day. Why was it never used in hostilities, although how the trumpet tool is completely combed? Maybe the reason for this is her too huge weight? Is it possible to move such an instrument over long distances?

Transportation

Modern historians extremely rarely ask themselves the question: "for what?". And the question is extremely useful. So let's ask, for what was to cast a siege tool weighing 40 tons, if it could not be delivered to the enemy city? In order to scare ambassadors? Unlikely. Could for this make a cheap layout, and show it from afar. Why do so much work and bronze spend on bluff? No, the tsar was cast to use it practically. So they could move. How could they do it?

40 tons - it's really very hard. Such weight is not able to translate the KAMAZ truck. It is only calculated on 10 tons of cargo. When you try to immerse the gun on it, the suspension will be destroyed first, then the frame is brought. For this you need a tractor 4 times more durable and powerful. And all that could be made of wood, in order to convenient transporting guns on wheels, would be truly cyclopic dimensions. The axis of such a wheelchair would be a thickness of at least 80 cm. Then it makes no sense to represent, anyway there is no such evidence about something like that. Everywhere it is written that the tsar of the gun was dragged, and not taken.

Look at the drawing on which a heavy tool is loaded. Unfortunately, here we see only the bombarding from the flooring, and not the process of moving. But in the background there is a transport platform. She has a nasal part bent (protection against stirring in irregularities). The platform was clearly used to slip. I.e, cargo dragged, and not rolled. And it is right. Rollers can only be used on a flat and solid surface. Where do you find such? It is also clear that the curved nose is riddled by metal, because the cargo is very heavy. The weight of most of the trumpet guns did not exceed 20 tons.

Suppose that they overcame the bulk of the way along the water. Moving these bombard with the wolf for small distances a few kilometers using a variety of horses, also performing the task, although very hard. But is it possible to do the same with a 40 ton gun? Typically, such studies are completed by the expressions of the "historical incident" type. As if they decided to surprise everyone, they cast something record giant, and how to drag did not think. Here, they say, as it is in Russian - the king bell, which does not ring the tsar-gun, which does not shoot.

But we will not continue in this spirit. Let's say goodbye to thoughts that our rulers are more stupid historians. It is pretty pouring everything on the inexperience of masters and self-smuggling of the kings. The king, who managed to take this high post, who ordered a 40-ton gun, who paid its production, was clearly not a fool, and was to think very well. Such costly questions from the boom are not solved. He understood exactly exactly how going to deliver this "gift" to the walls of the enemy cities.

The design of the stems of the ancient Mortira A CHOKHOV: A - Mortira "Samornoan", 1605; B - "Tsar-gun", 1585

By the way, the exclusion of the type "first did, and then thought how to drag" quite often found in historical studies. It became familiar. Not so long ago, the Culture canal told the audience about the Chinese traditional architecture. Showed a cut-down slab weighing 86,000 tons. Explanation in general terms is: "The Chinese emperor, allegedly, had deviations in the psyche on the basis of a giant pride and ordered a unthinkable sizes to the tomb. He himself, architects, thousands of chamberots, allegedly, were mentally inferior and in terms of logic. For decades, they all carried out megaproject. Finally, the slab was cut down and then they just realized that even the place to move it could not. Well, threw this business ... " It looks like our case.

Malik e-Maidan's huge gun

The fact that the king-gun is not just a splash of the enthusiasm of the Moscow Latchikov, proves the existence an even more huge gun of Malik-E-Maidan (Fig. 4, Fig. 5). It was cast in Achman-Dagar in India in 1548, and has a lot of as much as 57 tons. There, historians also sing songs about 10 elephants and 400 buffaloes that have dragged this gun. This is the same as an appointment of a siege tool, like a king gun, only heavier to 17 tons. What is this, the second historical incident in the same historical time? And how many such guns need to be found to understand that they were cast at that time, delivered to the depreciated cities and practically used? If a we do not understand todayhow it happened means these are our knowledge.

Here we are confronted with residual low level Our today's technical culture. This is due to a distorted scientific worldview. With modern position, we do not see the solution that was at that time obvious. It remains to conclude that back in the 16th century in Russia and in India knew somethingWhat allowed to move similar cargoes.

Decay of artillery technologies in the Middle Ages

On the example of the Bombard, you can see the obvious degradation of artillery art over the centuries of the Middle Ages. The first samples were made of two-layer iron. The inner layer was welded from longitudinal stripes, and outside the thick transverse rings were strengthened. After some time, they began to produce cast guns from bronze. This definitely reduced their reliability, and, accordingly, increased the weight. Any engineer will confirm that forged iron is an order of magnitude stronger cast bronze. Especially if it is assembled, as described above, a two-layer package with the direction of the fibers with appropriate existing loads. Probably the reason in the desire to reduce the process of manufacture.

The design of the first bombard is also surprisingly progressive. For example, today you will not find modern samples of small arms that would be charged by the muzzle hole. This is very primitive. Already one and a half century in the course of charging from the treasury part. In such a way, mass of advantages - and rapidity is higher, and the maintenance of the gun is more convenient. The lack of one is a more complex design with locking the treason part of the trunk at the time of the shot.

How interesting is the first in the history of the gun (bombard), immediately had a progressive way to charge From the treasury part. The executioner was often fastened to the trunk with the help of thread, that is, was screwed. Such a design has been preserved for some time in the cast guns. Look in Fig. 6. There is a Turkish bombard and king gun. According to geometric parameters, they are very similar, but the king gun, cast on a hundred years later, has already been undeveloped. So in 15 ... 16th centuries switched to more primitive dulpage.

The conclusion here can be only one - the first bombards were performed with residual knowledge Progressive structural solutions of artillery weapons, and possibly copied with some old and more advanced samples. However, the technological base was already quite backward for these design solutions, and could only reproduce what we observe in medieval guns. With this level of manufacture, the benefits of treason charging are already practically not manifested, but they are stubbornly continued to make casnosnostable, because they did not know as different as possible. Over time, the technical culture continued to degrade, respectively, the tools began to be carried out ineffective, along a more simplified and primitive charging scheme with the muzzle.

1894 year

Conclusion

That lined up a logical picture. In the 16th century, the Moscow principality was led by numerous fighting, both in the east (taking Kazan), in the south (Astrakhan) and in the West (wars with Poland, Lithuania and Sweden). The gun was cast in 1586. Kazan for this time has already taken. With Western countries, a shaky truce was installed, more similar to a breather. Could the king can be demanded in these conditions? Yes, of course. The success of a military campaign depended on the preset artillery. The cities-fortresses of the Western neighbors had to somehow take. Ivan Grozny died in 1584, 2 years before the cannon casting. But it was he who determined the state of state in such guns, and the process of their manufacture was launched. Here's how events developed:

"From 1550 to 1565, on the Moscow cannon court, the works were led by Kishpir Ganus (Ganus), according to nationality, apparently, German. In the chronicles there are mentions of eleven tools, they cast, but not the same thing came to us. The largest copper gun, cast Ganus in 1555, was named Kashpirov cannon. Its weight was 19.65 tons. In the same 1555, Moscow Master Stepan Petrov cast the Pavlin's gun weighing 16.7 tons ... It is curious that both of the huge guns Ivan Grozny commanded to deliver to the deposited Russian Polotsk. On February 13, 1563, the king ordered the governor to Prince Mikhail Petrovich Repnoun "Guns Bare Kashpirova and Stepanova Yes Peacock Yes, Yelo Yes, the Bear and the whole outfit of the wall and top to deliver a close city gate" and shoot "without running, day and shop." From this shooting, the Earth was trembling - "the kernels from a bunch of guns along the twenty swell, and the other cannons are a little easier." The next day the gate was destroyed, and several breats were made in the wall. February 15 Polotsk surrendered to the mercy of the winners. In 1568, the young student of Kashpira Andrei Chokhov (until 1917, he wrote Czechs) cast her first tool ... The most famous instrument of Andrei Chokhov became the king-gun (1586) " (Alexander Broadworm "Miracle Weapons of the Russian Empire").

With Ivan Grozny, the production of such guns was debugged and their use was mastered, including transportation. However, the volitional state grip disappeared after his death and entry into the throne of the successor. Fedor 1 John was a man of a completely different warehouse. In the people, he was called sinless and blissful. Probably, the efforts of the followers of Ivan the Terrible order for the manufacture of the king gun was still formed. However, the greatness of the creation of Andrei Chokhov still exceeded the requests of the new king. Therefore, the king cannon remained unclaimed, although the fighting with the use of siege artillery was conducted after 4 years (Russian-Swedish war 1590-1595).

Output

Tsar-gun - real. Entourage around it - props. Formed public opinion about it - false. The king cannon must be amazing us, much more than ancient megaliths. After all, they are amazing that huge stones weighing a few tons were delivered ... raised ... set ... etc. In the 16th century, nothing fundamentally new, different from neolithic in transportation and loading (according to the official point of view) was not applied, but 40-ton gun transported. In addition, the stones were put once on the century, and no less severe cannon were supposed to be rejected to huge distances.

It is all the more surprising that was made relatively recently, in the 16th century. Indeed, about the time of Megaliths, scientists are free to fantasize how they are upheld - hundreds of thousands of slaves, centuries of construction, etc., but about the 16th century a lot of things are known. Here with fantasies you can not walk.

In the Kremlin exhibited For review present miracledisguised under reliable, But we do not notice it, because they are zombied by propaganda, false hypothesis and the opinion of authorities.

On the one hand, it is a sample of the giant boutaphoria of the 19th century, on the other - one of the largest active medieval guns. At the same time, she is a wonderful witness to the decline of artillery technologies of the Middle Ages.