Last time I cast cannons for the lower deck of a galleon. Was highly praised by friends and rightly criticized by several. Based on a tip from critics, I got acquainted with the developments in silicone casting. Which I took advantage of as soon as I got my hands on a master copy of the upper deck cannon. So what happened:

As I already said, I didn’t bother making a master copy: I bought a ready-made one with the next release of “Great Sailboats.” I drilled the barrel out a bit. I inserted a pin into the barrel (to hold it when I coat it with silicone and later tin will be poured through the hole formed by the pin). And he began to cover it with a thin layer of heat-resistant silicone sealant (holds up to 300 degrees, sold in auto goods, costs about 20-30 UAH). Don't rush: five thin layers dry faster than two thick ones. Layer 2 mm, 2 hours between layers. Carefully cut (not all the way through) and take out the master copy. Pour some graphite powder inside (grind off from a pencil) and rub it with a brush.

Then we make the outer shape: the thin silicone shell can be deformed, and it’s difficult to pour molten tin into the small hole: you need a funnel. We make a box from foil cardboard (juice packaging), fill it halfway with putty (plaster), and submerge the cocoon halfway. If the putty is thick, the cocoon will not sink. As soon as it hardens, we make several indentations (in order to subsequently match both ladles of the outer shape along them), grease everything with Vaseline (oil, graphite) - so that the other half does not stick. Fill everything with plaster and form the second half of the mold. We wait.

Once it dries, open the cardboard, separate the halves, cut out a sprue and a sprue bowl (a funnel through which the tin will be poured) in the plaster. Let's dry it. We melt a bar of solder in a spoon (I have 40% tin, 60% lead - although any will do). Fill it up. It turned out to be nonsense. We forgot to make evaporations! Where does the air go, for example, from those “handles” on which the cannon hangs on the carriage? We heat up the paperclip and pierce the silicone. If you prick, for example, with a cold needle, nothing will come of it - the hole will “shrink.” Therefore, be sure to use a red-hot thick needle or paper clip. Otherwise, air is quite capable of escaping through the cut. Where it goes from the external form - don’t let it bother you at all.

Again it didn't work out very well. We expand the sprue. A thin channel through which tin is poured into the mold is unacceptable. Firstly, it should be thicker. Secondly, keep it short. It's better to make it conical. The sprue bowl should be high and quite massive. This, together with a good “passage” into the mold, will provide sufficient pressure and the metal will flow into all the cracks.

A little theory: the pressure in a liquid depends on the density of the liquid and depth, but not on the shape of the vessel. Those. the pressure of the molten metal inside the mold created by the column of molten metal depends on the height of the gate, and not on its massiveness. But still, it should be quite massive: it is easier for the metal to spill, and it cools less along the way. In addition, based on the theory, the metal hardens in a massive bowl for a long time and compensates for the shrinkage of the metal in the mold. Those. in a small mold the metal should begin to crystallize earlier than in a massive sprue. The cannon contracts as it hardens, but shells do not form, because more molten metal is added on top. This is true in theory. I have not assessed how significant the shrinkage of the tin-lead alloy is under our conditions.

So let's try again - voila! Everyone who said that pouring without a centrifuge is impossible is put to shame. There is also a method of creating additional pressure: as soon as a crust has formed on top, press the metal (it is still liquid inside) with some kind of wooden stick. I tried it - in my case it turned out to be unnecessary. If it is structurally difficult to ensure a sufficiently easy passage of metal into the mold and it turns out poorly, try it. I tried it last time - it helped.

Next time I’ll talk about how I processed and copper plated the resulting castings.

Conclusions: I really liked the method of pouring into silicone. The quality is excellent. Compared to casting directly into plaster it is not that difficult. Firstly, because a vacuum chamber is not needed to expel air bubbles from the plaster, and secondly, silicone provides a smooth surface and perfectly conveys small details. Due to its elasticity, small parts do not chip. The shape is not afraid of “locks.” Even if the cut is not made exactly in half, the cannon can be removed. The shape is quite wear-resistant. I cast two dozen - I simply didn’t need more.

What turned out to be a little unfortunate was that the barrel on the muzzle side came out so-so (I had to work with needle files). Because here the mold has a cut (it’s a little flattened), and there’s also a sprue. But it is the muzzle that sticks out from the sides of the ship - that is, this is the most noticeable part of the gun. So next time I’ll try to pour not through the barrel, but somewhere below or behind. There is also an option to make a one-piece “stocking” type mold, but then you will have to cast it without “handles” for the carriage, and insert them later. Something like that.

The stage of craft foundry technology began with the rapid development of iron foundries, which became possible with the invention of powerful air blowers, which made it possible to create more productive furnaces for the recovery of iron from ore. In addition, the demand for cast iron cannonballs and cast iron cannons increased.

The manufacture of guns was a rather complex, labor-intensive technological process (Fig. 1.5).

First, a clay model was made on a wooden rod. A straw rope was initially wound around this rod and coated with clay. Using a template, the outer surface of the model was formed, the diameter of which was supposed to be 20-25 mm less than the outer diameter of the finished gun. When the clay dried, a final layer was applied to the model, consisting of wax and lard, to which crushed coal was mixed for hardness. Decorations (coats of arms, inscriptions, etc.) were made separately in plaster core boxes and attached to the model’s body.

The production of the casting mold itself began with applying with a brush a layer of lean clay mixed with coal and fibrous materials (straw, tow). The layer thickness was approximately 15 mm, and the number of such layers reached 25-30. Then layers of rich clay were applied until the total thickness of the clay coating reached 120-150 mm, depending on the diameter of the tool. After this, transverse hoops were placed, and a series of longitudinal beams were placed on them. After coating and drying was completed (the wax layer was melted out), the wooden rod was removed. Next, a ceramic rod was inserted. We attached a separately manufactured breech mold and began pouring.

A unique monument of foundry art of the 16th century is the Tsar Cannon - an outstanding creation of the Russian master Andrei Chekhov.

According to the inscription on the cannon, it was cast by order of Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich in 1586. Its weight is more than 2,400 pounds (40 tons), length - 5.34 m, caliber - 89 cm. According to the creators, the weight of the cannonball was 120 pounds, the mass of one powder charge - 30 poods.

The Tsar Cannon is famous not only for its size, but also for its artistic merits. The cannon is decorated with finely executed graceful bas-reliefs. On the right side of the muzzle, Tsar Feodor is depicted in full royal garb, with a scepter, riding on horseback. The Tsar Cannon was created as a military weapon for the defense of the Kremlin, but not a single shot was fired from it.

A special area of ​​foundry art is the casting of bells. It flourished in the Middle Ages, but the basic technological techniques accumulated over millennia.

The bell alarm announced an invasion of enemies, a rebellion, a fire, or a plague epidemic. People were executed to the sound of bells. At the signal of the bell, Novgorodians gathered for a meeting. In Russian villages, during snowstorms, bells rang day and night to help travelers find their way. Bells, installed on ships or in dangerous places on the coast, protected ships from collisions and wrecks in fog. The ringing of church bells, now joyful and blaring, now solemnly flowing, now painfully mournful, accompanied man throughout his entire life.

The bell had to have a loud, sonorous and clear voice, melodic and of a certain timbre.

The sound of Buddhist bells is characterized by intimacy. Their ringing is not a distress signal, not a call to action. This is a voice calling to the gods. There is a cast spot on the side of the bell, which is struck with a log suspended on ropes or chains. The sound is soft and muffled. The bell itself must be a good accumulator and resonator of sound, so that the growing hum that arises a few seconds after the strike seems to be the answer of the “celestials”, which is interpreted by the monk.

As a rule, all kinds of inscriptions were made on the bells. Initially they contained information about the time the bell was made and religious texts. Later, their form and content became more complex, and dedications to various historical events and sovereigns appeared.

Inscriptions are especially common on eastern bells. Several Buddhist canons are cast on the surface of the Beijing Ta-zhong bell - more than 200 thousand characters, which corresponds to a Chinese medium-format book of about 300 pages.

Early bells had a tulip or barrel shape, which is preserved in some Eastern bells, as well as in bells whose garlands are hung around the necks of camels.

Over time, the form changed quite significantly. Masters from different countries developed their own specific style.

European bells acquired a noticeably flared lower part, which has survived to this day. For these bells

characterized by careful processing of the surface, which was decorated with drawings and inscriptions, first extruded and later convex (decorations were made by attaching wax elements to the mold).

Eastern bells are different from European ones. Chinese ones, for example, often resemble bell flowers in shape. In China, bells have long been cast from cast iron. The cast iron casting was not subjected to mechanical processing, as evidenced by the preserved metal fills at the joints of the molds. The casting molds of Chinese bells, unlike European solid ones, were composite.

As casting technology developed, the size and weight of bells increased. The casting of bells became a kind of demonstration of power. Those who knew how to cast bells could also cast cannons.

Large bells were usually formed in pits near the smelting furnaces to allow the metal to be poured by gravity.

In the pit, a base was laid out of ordinary brick. A wooden stand was placed in the center of the base, to which a temporary template was attached for making the lower part of the hollow block (Fig. 1.6, a). Then the template system was replaced with a permanent metal one for the final molding of the block (Fig. 1.6, b). The internal cavity of the blockhead was a firebox in which wood or coal was burned to dry the blockhead. The last layers of the block were made from sand and clay diluted with kvass wort. The dried blockhead was painted with a mixture consisting of ground ash, which was diluted in soapy water or beer, and then the blockhead was smeared with lard.

A clay jacket was applied to the finished block using a template - the place of the future body of the bell (Fig. 1.6, c). The shirt was dried and covered with a composition made from soap, lard and wax. Various relief images were applied to the treated surface: inscriptions, ornaments, drawings. These images were prepared from a mixture of wax, rosin, red lead and soot.

The prepared blockhead later served as a model of the bell. The upper flask with frames and other devices was prepared using it (Fig. 1.6, G).

After drying, the casing was removed, the clay jacket was removed, the gating system and other elements of the mold were completed, and it was finally assembled for pouring (Fig. 1.6, d).

Metal pouring, as mentioned above, usually occurred by gravity.

After the metal hardened, the mold was destroyed, the casting was removed, cleaned and finishing work was carried out - minted, polished.

Nowhere in the world have bells reached such perfection as in Russia. Russian bells amaze not only with their shape and art of execution, but also with the beauty of their sound. The parts of the bells are so proportioned that they give three tones: the first - at the point of impact, the second (upper semitone) - in the middle of the bell, the third (a whole octave lower) - at the top.

The first bells appeared in Rus' in the 10th century. But the skill of foundry workers reached its greatest perfection by the beginning of the 14th century.

Under Ivan the Terrible, casting of cast iron bells was mastered. By the 14th century there were at least 5,000 bells in Moscow.

The first of the bell craftsmen to be mentioned in the chronicles was the Moscow master Boris (1342).

By the 16th century, the skill of Russian foundry workers had reached such a level that they were able to begin casting giant bells.

Moscow master Nikolai Nemchinov casts in 1532-1533. two bells, one weighing 500 and the other 1000 pounds.

Andrei Chokhov, who was a court foundry worker for 64 years and became famous for making the Tsar Cannon, during the time of Boris Godunov, casts the Reut bell, weighing more than 2,000 pounds, almost equal to one of the largest Beijing bells at that time.

Under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, it was planned to cast a bell of unprecedented size, weighing 10,000 pounds. Foreign craftsmen undertook to make this bell in 5 years. And the royal order was completed in 1654 in less than one year by the Russian master Emelyan Danilov, a representative of the famous Moscow foundry family Danilovs.

In 1655, in just 10 months, Alexander Grigoriev cast the Assumption Bell - the “father” of the Tsar Bell, almost equal in weight to its famous “descendant”. The following figures indicate the scale of the work. To smelt the metal, 5 furnaces were built, each with a capacity of 2,500 poods. To load just one piece of charge, 40-50 archers were required at the same time. The metal was melted in furnaces for three days and poured into the mold for almost a day. The casting cooled for several days. The top of the mold was removed using 16 blocks. To knock the casting out of the mold, 70-80 archers were required for each of the sixteen blocks.

The bell amazed eyewitnesses with its beauty. It skillfully depicted the Tsar, Tsarina, Patriarch Nikon and cherubs. The Syrian traveler Pavel Aleppo stated: “There is nothing like this rarity, great, amazing, unique in the world, there has not been and never will be: it surpasses human strength.” And he compared its sound to thunder.

The Assumption Bell, like its giant predecessors, has not survived to this day. 46 years later he became a victim of the great Moscow fire. Its scrap was used to make the Tsar Bell, the only surviving evidence of the art of Russian foundries.

Ivan Motorin, who created the masterpiece of bell casting, belonged to one of the famous dynasties of foundries. The Tsar Bell turned out to be Ivan Motorin's swan song.

When making a unique bell, Ivan Motorin showed himself not only to be a talented foundry artist, but also an excellent organizer. However, due to the fact that every now and then he had to turn to the Senate for help, the launch of the furnaces was delayed for several

months. Two accidents occurred during the smelting. After the second accident, Motorin died without ever seeing his brainchild.

The casting of the world's largest bell (256 tons) was completed by his son and assistant Mikhail. On November 25, 1735, the filling was carried out. The bell was not removed from the casting pit; a wooden structure was built over it. During the fire, the structure caught fire, the bell became hot and, when they began to fill it with water, it cracked - a piece weighing 11.5 tons broke off.

In 1836, the Tsar Bell was installed on a pedestal near the Ivan the Great Bell Tower in the Kremlin.

In pre-revolutionary Russia, the recognized center of bell making was the city of Valdai. Thousand-pound bells were cast here for the main churches of Moscow and St. Petersburg. But special fame and love

Valdai bells were deservedly used. In purity of voice and melody, they were not inferior to the bells from the Belgian city of Mechelen-Malines, from which the expression “raspberry ringing” came.

Unfortunately, today only Rostov ringings remind of the harmonious harmony of bells, which was a characteristic feature of Russian life in the 16th-17th centuries. Subsequently, the harmonic coherence of the bells faded into the background, and rhythmic advantages became the main ones. This influenced technology, further alienating the form of Russian bells and their casting techniques from Europe.

Today, bells sound not only in churches. The country's leading opera houses have a fairly large set of bells, without which it is impossible to feel the full depth of the composer's plan and the beauty of many musical works. At the Mariinsky Theater in St. Petersburg, during opera performances, the voices of up to 18 bells, large and small, are heard, weighing from 3 tons to 5 kg Almost all Russian composers included bell ringing in their works - from Glinka to Stravinsky. At the Mariinsky Theater there is a set of cup-shaped bells that are not quite ordinary in shape, the sound of which makes up the chromatic scale (Fig. 1.7).

1.3. SCULPTURE CASTING IN XVII-XIX FOR CENTURIES

Europe, as already indicated, inherited the traditions of sculptural casting laid down by the ancient Greeks and Etruscans. Since the Renaissance, ancient statues have become classical models from which many generations of sculptors learned and imitated.

Russia's wide acquaintance with ancient art occurs during the reign of Peter I. The production of cast statues required special, very complex techniques, therefore in the 17th century in Russia the casting of sculptures turned into an independent field of foundry production

If in pre-Petrine Rus', in honor of outstanding events - victories, miraculous healings, etc. - temples, monasteries, or chapels were erected, then from the beginning of the 18th century, under the influence of “enlightened Europe”, memorial structures in the form of sculptural monuments became widespread. They very quickly won the widest popularity It was in monuments that the best sculptor artists were able to demonstrate both Russian scope and a sense of beauty.

Sculptures are made from various materials that are resistant to weathering. Materials that combine high ductility, strength and sufficient resistance to corrosion and erosion with decorative properties are bronze, cast iron, and steel.

There are cast monuments in almost every city; they decorate squares, squares, and parks. Some of them have so merged with the architectural ensemble of cities and the surrounding landscape that they have become

their inseparable part, their symbolic expression. The monument to Bogdan Khmelnitsky (sculptor M. Mikeshin, 1888) became such a symbol for Kiev. It is difficult to imagine Novgorod without a monument to the 1000th anniversary of Russia (sculptor M. Mikeshin, 1862). The monument to Duke Richelieu (sculptor I. Martos, 1823) is inextricably linked with Odessa. Anyone who has been to Arkhangelsk will probably remember the monument to Lomonosov (sculptor I. Martos, 1829).

St. Petersburg, the northern capital of Russia, is especially rich in monuments.

The first works of Russian sculpture casting were statues of Peter I.

In 1747, K. B. Rastrelli created an equestrian statue of Peter I in the Baroque style, but Empress Catherine II did not like it because it did not correspond to the new style - early classicism. Only in 1800 was the statue installed in front of the Engineering Castle.

The creation of a new equestrian statue was entrusted to the Parisian sculptor E. M. Falconet. His work, which after A.S. Pushkin began to be called “The Bronze Horseman,” was a masterpiece of world art.

A talented artist, selflessly devoted to his favorite work, worked on his brainchild for 12 years, patiently enduring interference, nagging and even deliberate humiliation from eminent dignitaries.

At first, the plaster model of the monument caused a storm of indignation - “a half-naked, barefoot king, on an enraged stallion, covered with an animal skin instead of a saddle.” But Catherine II approved the project.

Falcone was caused a lot of trouble by the President of the Russian Academy of Arts I. I. Betsky, who imagined himself to be the author of the project.

Difficulties arose with the production of the casting mold. Falcone himself took up the foundry craft, using the help of Russian craftsmen.

During the production of the casting, two accidents occurred, which almost led to complete failure. The first time, during melting, the wax caught fire, and the apprentice on duty fell asleep. The form was saved by the sculptor himself, who checked the progress of the work at night. The second accident occurred during pouring when metal burst out of the mold. And only thanks to the courage of the foundry worker Khailov, the pouring was completed safely.

In the casting, which had a maximum size larger than the wall thickness of 7.5 mm, there were practically no sinks or underfills. Only in the heads of the rider and horse did metal deposits form as a result of a fire during the melting of wax. Falcone, who believed that “there has never been a better casting,” found successful solutions that corrected these casting defects.

In November 1777, work on the statue was completed. But the sculptor ran out of patience. Unable to withstand the persecution, gossip, intrigues, and without waiting for the statue to be installed on the pedestal, Falcone left for his homeland.

The monument to Peter I was inaugurated on August 7, 1782. It perpetuated not only the memory of an outstanding statesman,

but also the glory of Russian foundry craftsmen and the great sculptor E. M. Falcone.

In 1873, in front of the building of the Alexandria Theater, a monument to Catherine II was unveiled, created according to the design of M. Mikeshin by sculptors M. Chizhov and A. Opekushin.

In 1859, an equestrian monument to Nicholas I was erected on St. Isaac's Square (design by O. Montferrand). The figures of the horse and rider were executed with great skill by P. Klodt. The talented sculptor masterfully solved the difficult technical problem of installing an equestrian statue on only two support points.

In 1909, in a solemn ceremony, a monument to Emperor Alexander III was unveiled on Znamenskaya Square in St. Petersburg (now Vosstaniya Square). It was built over 9 years. There are probably few monuments in the world with such an unfortunate fate as this masterpiece by Paolo Trubetskoy. Long disputes and harsh criticism accompanied the creation of the monument and did not cease after its opening. Among the few, I. E. Repin appreciated the artistic merits of the sculpture and put it on a par with Falconet’s “The Bronze Horseman.”

After the October Revolution, the attitude of the official authorities towards the monument was sharply negative. With the light hand of Demyan Bedny, the nickname “scarecrow” stuck to him. In 1937, the city authorities decided that the “gate of the city” - the square near the Moskovsky Station - was clearly an inappropriate place for the monument. He was transported to the courtyard of the Russian Museum. Several instructions were given to melt down the monument. But to the credit of the museum staff, this did not happen. During the Great Patriotic War, the monument was transported to the Mikhailovsky Garden and covered with sand. This embankment turned out to be so reliable that it protected the sculpture from destruction when it was directly hit by a high-explosive bomb on October 7, 1941.

After much debate, the monument to Alexander III was transported to the Marble Palace in November 1994 and installed on the pedestal that was once occupied by Lenin’s armored car.

One of the authors of this textbook was tasked with assessing the condition of the monument (all documentation was lost) (Fig. 1 8) As a result of the examination, it was established that the monument consists of five parts plinths, the head of a horse, the front part of a horse, the back part of a horse, the figure of Alexander 111 Such dismemberment monument dramatically simplified the technological process of casting, eliminated the development of segregation processes (as, for example, in the “Bronze Horseman”) and ensured high quality of cast sculpture. The creation of such a design was made possible thanks to the special mechanical processing of large castings (parts of the monument are connected by half-flanges and bolted together) (Fig. 1 9), as well as welding (the hooves are attached to the pedestal with pins and welded) The last operation was the articulation of the horse’s head with pins, cut flush after fastening was completed

The monument has a small number of casting defects - small shells on the rider's boot, on the hand and in the upper part of the fist. Traces of a small squeeze were found in the lower part of the hand. All these defects are not noticeable from the outside.

The monument to Alexander III is cast from the so-called green artistic bronze (8% tin, 8% zinc, 1% lead, the rest copper). The alloy has a structure characteristic of this class of bronzes and consists of a solid solution with eutectoid inclusions (Cu 3 1 Sng + a)

Pre-revolutionary Moscow was somewhat poorer in urban sculptures than St. Petersburg.

The bronze statues of the heroes of the liberation war of 1612, Minin and Pozharsky, were made in one piece. This first sculptural monument in Moscow was created by the sculptor I. Martos. The monument was cast in 1818 by the famous Russian foundry worker V. Ekimov.

Making a colossal and complex wax model is a serious technical task that requires the high skill of foundry workers. The wax group was installed on a foundation with a lattice, and a complex gating system was built around it.

The finished model and gating system were coated 45 times with mastic made from ground brick and beer (Fig. 1.10). They were then covered with raw clay. The entire structure was reinforced with a brick wall and iron hoops. 16 furnaces were lit to melt the wax. The burning continued for a month. To prevent the mold from being destroyed by the pressure of the liquid metal, it was additionally reinforced with hoops. The mold was poured through a common sprue bowl and branched channels. The final finishing of the sculptures was carried out by minters.

In 1880, using public donations, Moscow erected the first monument to Pushkin in Russia, talentedly executed by the sculptor A. Opekushin. In 1909, also with public donations, a monument to Gogol (sculptor N. Andreev) was erected on Arbat Square. In the same year, Moscow received another excellent sculpture - a monument to the pioneer printer Ivan Fedorov (sculptor S. Volnukhin).

1.4. CASTING OF FENCES AND GRILLS

One of the varieties of artistic casting is fences and gratings. It is impossible to imagine St. Petersburg without cast iron lace, which not only successfully complements the architectural ensemble of the city, but is also its organic part, harmoniously connected with palaces, parks, embankments and bridges.

Cast iron grates appeared in Russia during the time of Peter I and became especially widespread in the period from the first half of the 18th century to the last quarter of the 19th century. Forged iron gratings and wooden fences were almost everywhere replaced by cast iron.

Since the requirements for the quality of gratings and fences are reduced to the absence of gross defects on the surface (sinks, blockages, bays), the simplest technology was used for their manufacture - casting into raw sandy clay molds, more precisely, a variation of this method called soil molding.

They made a hole in the floor of the foundry, filled it with molding mixture, and pressed the model into this mixture.

A distinction was made between soil molding based on a soft bed and a hard bed.

In the first case, the depth of the hole exceeded the height of the model by 150-200 mm. The width and length of the pit were slightly larger than the corresponding dimensions of the model.

When molding on a hard bed, the depth of the pit was 300-500 mm greater than the height of the model. In this case, a layer of coarse slag or sand was poured onto the bottom of the pit, and matting or straw was laid to remove gases when pouring metal. Sometimes ventilation pipes were additionally installed for these purposes. The pit was then filled with molding sand (Fig. 1.11) and compacted.

Molding in soil can be open or closed.

Open molding was carried out, as a rule, on a soft bed. The model was laid on the pre-compacted and leveled molding sand and hammered down. This is how castings were made, one side of which was flat.

In closed molding, after deposition, the model was installed and then the upper flask was molded.

In modern conditions, soil molding for the manufacture of gratings and fences is used relatively rarely. This type of casting is now produced in two flasks.

The openwork fences were designed not to hide the estate from immodest eyes or to separate personal possessions - they emphasize the integrity and completeness of the composition of the architectural structure.

Among the best lace works made of cast iron are works by world famous architects.

According to Rastrelli's design, the following are being created: the Smolny grille, a cast-iron fence separating the palace of Count M.I. Vorontsov from Sadovaya Street.

The drawings of the lattice of the Summer Garden were developed by E. Felten and P. Egorrv, the fences of the Catherine and Alexander parks in Pushkin were developed by C. Cameron and D. Quarenghi.

One of the largest representatives of classicism in Russian architecture, I. E. Staroe, designed a cast-iron fence for the ensemble of the Tauride Palace. Its artistic solution is subordinated to the general plan of the architect - the simple and calm pattern of the lattice is designed in a strict classical style. Many cast iron gratings were created according to the drawings of A. N. Voronikhin. These include an elegant fence with wreaths and garlands in Pavlovsk, cast gratings in Strelna, Gatchina, Peterhof, and at the Alexander Palace in Pushkin. One of his best creations is the cast iron fence of the Kazan Cathedral, created in 1811. Its cast iron lattice, distinguished by its beauty and complexity of composition, has a majestic appearance.

But, perhaps, the most significant contribution was made by K. I. Rossi and V. P. Stasov, creators of the late Empire style. The lace grilles of Anichkov, Elagin, Mikhailovsky and other palaces were cast according to the drawings of K. I. Rossi. Probably the most successful creation of Rossi is the monumental fence at the main facade of the Mikhailovsky Palace building. A clear lattice pattern, graceful counterforms, and successful proportions place this fence among the best in St. Petersburg. The decoration of St. Petersburg was the lattices of numerous bridges and embankments. Their creators found successful shapes and patterns for the spans of low gratings. The elongated lines, simplicity and transparency of the design transform the lattices against the background of the water surface into the finest cast lace (Fig. 1.12). The length of the artistic gratings on the city’s bridges reaches 11 km.

In the architectural decoration of Moscow, fences did not play such a huge role as in St. Petersburg. Construction has been carried out for centuries and without a single plan. Estates and palaces are scattered over a large area, so that individual sections of the fence could not form a continuous lace fabric. In terms of the time of creation, Moscow cast iron gratings date back mainly to the end of the 19th century.

Noteworthy is the grille of the Morozov mansion (“Spanish Compound”). The house itself is a typical example of the eclectic architectural style of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In the fence, the severity of the vertical pattern is harmoniously combined with the baroque dynamism of the floral ornament. To link the design of the fence with the design of the walls of the mansion, it was decorated with applied reliefs in the form of shells. These reliefs are made very skillfully, but still look like alien elements.

ABOUT THE ROYAL ARTILLERY

D. Fletcher, to his displeasure, is forced to state: “I believe that none of the Christian sovereigns has such good artillery and such a supply of shells as the Russian Tsar, which can partly be confirmed by the Armory Chamber in Moscow, where there are huge quantities of all kinds of guns , all cast from copper and very beautiful” (7). An English author of the 16th century testifies: “The Russians have excellent artillery made of bronze of all kinds: small cannons, double, royal, falconets, basilisks, etc., they also have six large guns, the cores of which are up to an arshin high, they have many mortars, from whom they shoot with Greek fire" (11). The Austrian ambassador John Cobenzl wrote with horror to Emperor Maximilian II: “The Russians always have at least 2,000 guns of all kinds at the ready... I was assured with an oath that, besides others, in only two places two thousand guns with many different types of machines are stored. Some of these guns are so large, wide and deep that a tall man in full armor, standing at the bottom of the gun, cannot reach its upper part...” (12). The soldiers of Maximilian II experienced first-hand the crushing power of the artillery of Ivan the Terrible, who, thanks to his magnificent army, would regain the scepter of the Autocrat of Europe. And what kind of artillery was this!

Russian cannons were first mentioned in the Sofia Vremennik, where it is said that during the defense of Moscow from the Tatars in 1382, the Russians used “mattress” firearms and beat the enemy with “great cannons.” By the beginning of the 15th century, artillery pieces were in service not only in the Moscow Principality, but also in other Russian principalities. Thus, the presence of firearms in Veliky Novgorod was mentioned in the chronicle in 1393, and in the Tver Principality in 1408. In 1479, a “cannon hut” already existed in Moscow where the casting and finishing of cannon barrels was carried out en masse. By 1400, there were several armory huts on the banks of the Neglinka River.

Pike with a “twisted” barrel. Bronze. Foundry master Yakov Osipov. 1671

An important breakthrough in the development of Russian artillery was that at the end of the 15th century, Moscow gunsmiths learned to cast artillery guns from bronze. The only example of bronze casting of that time that has survived to our time is considered to be a Russian weapon, cast by the master Yakov the Russian in 1483; a cast arquecal dating back to 1491, on which the names of Russian craftsmen “Vanya and Vasyuk” are preserved. And in Europe at that time iron arquebuses, which were extremely limited in use, were still being forged in very small series.

Already in 1488, the first giant cannon was cast in Moscow, which was called the Tsar Cannon. This cannon has not survived to this day, but it had great fame. An outstanding achievement of Russian foundry workers of the 16th century was the creation of super-powerful battering guns weighing several tons. Among them, “Stepanova Cannon”, “Nightingale”, “Bear”, “Eagle” stood out. These guns were widely used by Ivan the Terrible during the capture of Kazan and Polotsk. The kernels reached knee-deep sizes. In 1555, master Stepan Petrov cast a new howitzer of gigantic proportions. In the inventory of the Pushkarsky order, it was listed as “Peacock cannon, stone cannonball, weighing 15 pounds, length 6 arshins 3 inches, from the fuse, floor length 6 arshins 3 inches, weighing 1020 pounds.” And the famous master Andrei Chokhov, who created the famous school of Russian foundries, cast a whole series of giant cannons, among which the famous “Lion” weighing 344 pounds, “Troilus” - 430 pounds. Excellent examples of the royal battering artillery have survived to this day: “Inrog” (1577), “Lion” and “Scorpea” (1590), “King Achilles” (1617).

In 1586, Andrei Chokhov cast the famous “Tsar Cannon” weighing two thousand four hundred poods (about forty tons). It was the largest weapon of its time. For a long time, in historical literature, the Tsar Cannon was mistakenly viewed as a false fake weapon, allegedly made with the aim of “scaring” foreigners with its gigantic appearance (it is not clear why it was necessary to spend so much effort and valuable raw materials from which a dozen military weapons could be cast) . According to measurements and examinations carried out by specialists in the field of artillery systems in 1946, it was established that the cannon was a mortar in its type, and, being a fortress weapon, was cast with the aim of hitting enemy personnel, firing with stone “shot” (buckshot), and not the core, and at that time it was called the “Russian Shotgun”. In the sixteenth century, no country in the world had a cannon with a caliber of 890 mm! In the 16th century, the Russian arsenal had the most powerful howitzer at that time - the Kashpirova Cannon, weighing 1200 poods (about twenty tons). And there were not just a lot of similar guns and howitzers with a slightly smaller caliber - a lot! And they were cast not under the strict guidance of the “enlightened” foreigners of Peter the Great’s era, but a century and a half before him. These guns were the horror of vassal Europe. And for many years, because they were the most durable and reliable in the world. “The guns, cast by order of Ivan the Terrible, were in service for several decades and took part in almost all the battles of the 17th century” (13). The guns cast by Andrei Chokhov were used even during the Northern War of 1700-1721. (14). Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, you need to understand, also did not sit still and at least doubled this amount.

Andrey Chokhov. Pike "Wolf", Pike "Porcupine". 16th century. Artillery Museum, St. Petersburg. Photo by Alexander Sakov 2011

In addition to numbers and durability, Russian artillery was also the most effective. Pskov craftsmen of the 16th century were the first in the world to place guns on carriages, which greatly increased the rate of fire, aiming accuracy and cannonball range. It is not without reason that the coats of arms of Russian cities, for example, Smolensk, featured a cannon carriage - this device frightened the enemy no less than the heraldic lions. At the same time, Russian craftsmen began to think about increasing the range of the shot. The embodiment of these plans was the arquebus “Three Asps”. This gun was a long pipe (over a hundred calibers long, that is, about 5 meters), loaded from the breech. The caliber of the arquebus was 45 mm, length 4930 mm, weight 162 kg. The barrel was locked with a wedge, which was the first prototype of the future wedge bolt, which was used back in the 19th century. Another typical example of long-range siege artillery of the 16th century was the Scroll gun, which was cast by master Semyon Dubinin. The cannon had a barrel, decorated on the outside as if with a scroll, about 4.5 meters long and about 200 mm in caliber. The cannonballs and grenades sent by this weapon easily covered a distance of 2.5 kilometers. Andrei Chokhov's mortars of the "Wolf" system became the world's first serial production of artillery guns. Nothing like this was observed in Europe at that time. Five-meter long-range guns and super-powerful mortars of the tsarist artillery terrified all the vassals of the Russian Empire.

Siege arquebus "Skoropea". Andrey Chokhov, 1590. Artillery Museum in St. Petersburg. Photo by Alexander Sakov, 2011

In the 16th century, Ivan Vasilyevich, in addition to bronze ones, began to cast giant cast-iron cannons. So, in 1554, a metal cannon with a caliber of 26 inches (66 cm) and a weight of 1200 Poods (19.6 tons) was made, and in 1555 another one, with a caliber of 24 inches (61 cm) and a weight of 1020 Poods (18 T). We can speculate as much as we like where iron casting originated, but nothing like this was cast from cast iron in Europe at that time.

Siege mortar from the time of Ivan the Terrible, 16th century. Artillery Museum, St. Petersburg. Photo by Alexander Sakov 2011

In the middle of the 16th century. The Tsar's gunsmiths created the first standards of artillery multiple launch rocket systems - multi-barreled guns, known from documents of that time under the names "magpies" and "organs". “The first “magpies” arose in the first half of the 16th century. – the existence of such guns in the capital’s army was reported in a Lithuanian document of 1534. In Russian sources, “fortieth” gunpowder was mentioned starting in 1555... The barrels were connected by a common steel groove, into which gunpowder was poured to ignite the charges and produce simultaneous shots.” (14). The music of these “organs” became a funeral mass for many enemies of the Orthodox Kingdom.

Siege arquebus "King Achilles". Andrey Chokhov, 16th century Artillery Museum, St. Petersburg. Photo by Alexander Sakov, 2011.

Among the works of Andrei Chokhov were special masterpieces of multi-barrel salvo artillery, which included the “hundred-barreled” rapid-fire cannon. A contemporary wrote about this wonderful invention: “I saw one gun that was loaded with a hundred bullets and fired the same number of shots, it was so high that it would be up to my shoulder, and its bullets were the size of goose eggs” (15). This weapon was cast in 1588, its weight reached 5300 kilograms. Imagine this know-how in the 16th century! Yes, after a salvo of this cannon, the entire enemy army will flee in horror. This weapon became the prototype of the famous Russian multiple launch rocket systems “Katyusha” and “Grad”, the traditions of which were laid by our great ancestors. Do our historians remember these glorious pages in school textbooks?

But that's not all. The Tsar's gunsmiths were the first in the world to apply spiral rifling to the inner barrel of guns, usually from six to ten, which is noted on many Russian cannons of the 17th century. The arquecal of 1615 with ten spherical rifling on the inner barrel has survived to this day. This is the oldest rifled gun that has survived to this day; the very first rifled cannon in Europe appeared only at the end of the 17th century, with 6 rifling.

In the 17th century artillery in Rus' took a significant step forward. At this time, in Moscow, craftsmen were already divided into barrel makers, machine operators, locksmiths, etc., i.e., now different parts of the guns were made by different craftsmen, thereby putting the production of guns on stream. Russian gunsmiths in some cases introduced improvements into their production that were ahead of the technology and science of that time. So, in the 17th century. two Russian craftsmen invented bolts for guns - one made a arquebus with a retractable bolt in the form of a wedge (wedge bolt), and the other invented a screw-in bolt. Only in the 19th century. - two hundred years later - European technology was able to master this Russian invention, and guns with similar breech blocks (improved, of course) are now used in all armies. The guns made by Russian craftsmen in the 17th century are kept in the Artillery Historical Museum in Leningrad, as the forefathers of modern guns with wedge and piston bolts. Thus, already in the 16th century there were hundreds of examples of Russian artillery guns, structurally close to the guns of the late 19th century with vertical and horizontal wedge and screw-in bolts.

Interestingly, at the end of 1880, a representative of the dynasty of German gunsmiths, Friedrich Krupp, wanted to patent the wedge bolt he had invented. But when I saw in the Artillery Museum of St. Petersburg a rapid-fire arquebus from the 17th century, which even then had a wedge breech, I was simply shocked. Russian gunsmiths were ahead of all of Europe, ahead of the Europeans by several centuries! And these were not visiting Germans, these were often our domestic craftsmen. One great Chokhov trained a whole galaxy of masters, among whom Druzhina Romanov, Bogdan Molchanov, Vasily Andreev, Mikita Provotorkhov stood out.

In 1547, the gunners were withdrawn from the Streltsy army into an independent “Attachment”, for the leadership of which the Pushkarsky Prikaz (a kind of ministry of artillery) was created. Later, the “Pushkarsky Order” was divided into divisions: city (serf), large (siege) and small (regimental) squads. Since the 16th century, each rifle regiment had from 6 to 8 “regimental guns”. And the organization of the Russian gun business was at its best; each caliber of gun had its own calibrated cannonballs and grenades. In the discharge book of the Pushkar Order of the 16th century. Not only are all the guns and mortars named, but their main characteristics (cannonball weight) are also reported. Thanks to this, it can be established that for some types of guns - “upper Jacob guns”, “one and a half” and “rapid-firing” shells of uniform weight were used (14). And this was long before Peter, under whom Russian weapons suddenly became backward.

That’s why historians don’t like to talk about the history of Russian artillery. These glorious pages absolutely do not fit into modern dogmas about the backward Russian army before Peter I. By the way, the best examples of domestic artillery were destroyed by the “personal decree” of the Great Reformer. It was “ordered to cast the Peacock cannon, which is in China near the Execution Ground, into a cannon and mortar casting; the Kashpirov cannon, which is near the new Money Dvor, where the Zemsky order was located; the Echidna cannon, near the village of Voskresensky; the Krechet cannon with a ten-pound cannonball; "Nightingale" cannon with a 6-pound cannonball, which is in China on the square." Peter conscientiously fulfilled the main order of his trustees, and the horror of vassal Europe - the tsarist imperial artillery ceased to exist.

68 hryvnia (216 mm) siege arquebus "Inrog". Andrey Chokhov. 1577 Artillery Museum, St. Petersburg. Photo by Alexander Sakov, 2011. Discovered in the 18th century in the German city of Elbing. These were the real dimensions of the Russian Empire in the 15th-17th centuries.

But the geography of the discovery of Russian cannons eloquently testifies to the former greatness of the Tsarist Empire. The first two European hand cannons discovered and stored in Italy. They are made of bronze, but at the same time they have an ornament of oak leaves and an Orthodox cross. There have never been Orthodox crosses in Italy, only Latin ones. What did guns do with Russian Orthodox crosses in the Apennines? Further even more interesting. Two giant cannons made by master Andrei Chokhov were discovered in Stockholm, where they are still located. Obviously, where the Russian cannons froze, that was where the final goals of the campaigns were, and that’s where the tsar’s arsenals remained. By the way, during the Livonian campaign of 1577, Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich took the Inrog cannon with him. This campaign became one of the most successful Russian campaigns; almost all the cities and castles of Livonia were captured, not counting Riga and Revel... However, after this campaign, traces of “Inrog” are lost and resurface already in the time of Peter in the German city of Elbing. It was there that Ivan the Terrible’s campaign ended in 1677 - on the banks of the Elbe, no more, no less. In the 18th century, grateful Germans would return this famous cannon to Peter. They had nothing to fear anymore - the guns of the Russian tyrants were silent forever. But the geography of the location of the giant Russian cannons eloquently testifies to the real scale of Russian imperial influence. By the way, the famous helmet of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich was also discovered in Stockholm. Historians cannot explain this fact in any way. But, if Stockholm is the Russian imperial city of Glass, as it was called in Russian documents, then the presence of Russian cannons and royal helmets there is quite understandable.

So who was the real Emperor of Europe? Leopold? Maximilian? Or is it still the Russian Tsar? This is reminiscent of an argument between a frog and an elephant over who is boss in the jungle. The little frog croaks, the elephant slaps his foot - and silence... It is clear why the Prussian greyhound writers belittled the power and organization of the best army in the world. They have suffered greatly for two hundred years from the Russian imperial horde. The Russian army was at its weakest just under Peter the Great, when it lost one battle after another. In the 16th and 17th centuries there was no force on planet Earth capable of resisting Russian weapons.

CASTING OF GUNS IN Rus'

As we have seen, the Russian Tsar not only had claims to Ecumenical power, but also the ability to take and maintain this power. But in order to create such a powerful army and artillery, the Russian emperor needed to have developed metallurgy and convenient ore deposits. No ancient civilization could have prospered without the presence of natural resources and, first of all, metals. This is an axiom.

Almost all Russian cannons of the 15th-17th centuries were cast from high-quality bronze, where copper was mainly used. Was there copper in Rus'? Here historians have serious problems, because, having narrowed the size of the Russian Kingdom to tiny Muscovy, the Russians found themselves completely cut off from all copper mines. And in addition to copper, casting bronze also requires rare earth metals: zinc, nickel, tin and a lot of coal. Where can you get such wealth on the Central Russian Upland? The closest place where all this ore along with coal could come from was the Urals. The Ural deposits are unique in that the ore here is diverse and lies on the surface, without requiring mining.

According to TI, the first development of Ural copper began under Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich. The beginning of industrial production is associated with the name of the Demidovs during the time of the Great Reformer. So it turns out that until the conquest of Siberia at the very end of the 16th century, the Urals were not accessible to the Russians - the hated Horde sat there. Of course, there could be no talk of any industrial supplies of strategic raw materials from hostile khanates. Then historians refer to European sources of supply. There are only two places in Europe with rich deposits of metals - Germany and Sweden. But it was precisely these countries that were constantly at enmity with the Russian tsars; there was no need to expect large-scale deliveries from there either. And how can such a huge amount of copper ore, tin, zinc, and coal be delivered? These are hundreds of thousands of tons - no amount of trade can handle it. Delivery of such heavy cargo could only be carried out by sea, and even then in the presence of a super-powerful fleet. But the only Russian port in Arkhangelsk was first opened by the British only during the time of Ivan the Terrible, when thousands of huge bronze cannons were already stationed in Rus'. And nothing is known about these extra deliveries. Therefore, the developed metallurgy of Medieval Rus' is a very big problem that has no solution within the framework of TI.

The only real source of metal remained the Urals. In addition to the relative proximity of the location, the Urals are unique in that most of the rivers flow into the Kama, which in turn flows into the Volga, and all of Rus', including Moscow, was located in the Volga basin. Delivery of such heavy cargo by river water transport is the ideal and, I repeat, the only possible delivery option.

But metal mining in the Urals immediately puts an end to the Mongol conquest of Rus'. The centuries-long existence of hostile Tatar hordes in the Volga region and Siberia is becoming a fiction. The most interesting thing is that already in the 1580s, the entire Western Siberia to the Ob was marked by many Russian settlements of prospectors. It is not possible to explain such a rapid settlement of such incredible expanses by Russians within the framework of TI. Numerous cannons have been known in Rus' since the end of the 15th century, long before the conquest of Siberia by Ivan the Terrible. If we add here the giant bell casting, which appeared according to chronicle sources from the 10th century, then the version with the undeveloped Urals becomes completely untenable. Bells in Rus' have always been huge and in incredible quantities, mainly made of copper and bronze. At the same time, the need for metal for casting bells was tens of times greater than for cannon casting, although even for casting cannons within the TI there was no place to get copper. This is another completely independent argument about the inconsistency of the German version of the conquest of Rus' by the Mongols. The Russians had developed metallurgy, but did not have metal, and the mythical Mongols had metal, but did not have developed metallurgy. Such are the TI paradoxes.

Therefore, we are simply forced to significantly expand the real boundaries of Medieval Rus'. The Ural, or as it was called in Rus', the Ugra stone has been Russian since ancient times. This was the main material and raw material base of the Scythian-Russian state.

Further improvement of the cannon casting process was associated with the need to increase their reliability, service life, mobility, and increase their number. The requirement to reduce the mass of guns led to strict standardization of their sizes, reduction, and then elimination of decorations. The latter also simplified their production.

In the 17th century In many countries, the technology of casting guns and shells from cast iron begins to spread. This material appeared in China, according to some sources, in the 6th century. BC, according to others - at the turn of the old and new eras. In any case, the mentioned giant cast iron “Lion Tsar” dates back to 954 (see Fig. 50). In Europe, the appearance of cast iron dates back to the 14th century, which led a number of researchers to associate the invention of cast iron with Germany in the 14th century.

In fact, this is a striking example of a multi-temporal, but almost independent emergence of an innovation due to poor dissemination of information.

It is not known exactly how they began to smelt cast iron in the Middle Ages. Apparently this happened by accident. With an increase in the amount of blast in the shaft furnaces, which were used at that time to produce iron ash from ore, it was noticed that a substance that did not resemble slag flowed out of the blast furnace along with the slag. Having hardened, it had a metallic sheen when broken, was as strong and heavy as iron, but differed from it in its fragility and could not be forged. Since its appearance during smelting reduced the yield of finished iron, this substance was considered undesirable. It is no coincidence that cast iron in England still retains the old, very unflattering name pig iron, i.e. "pig iron"

Foundry workers began to use cast iron for cannons as a material that was more durable, technologically advanced 34 and, most importantly, less scarce. But its use required a more advanced metallurgical base. Therefore, until the 18th century. in some countries cannons were still cast from bronze, in others from cast iron.

The increasing need for guns comes into conflict with the process of their “slow molding”. Making a one-time, destroyable clay model for each casting was clearly irrational, especially after the standardization of the sizes of guns of the same caliber. The process of obtaining a puff mold from clay was also labor-intensive. Essentially, a revolution in this area was carried out by the famous French scientist, engineer and politician Gaspard Monge (1746-1818), the author of the method of so-called rapid casting of cannons.

G. Monge was the creator of descriptive geometry, without which technical drawing is impossible, co-author of the modern decimal metric measurement system and much more. An active supporter of the Great French Revolution, he was in 1792-i 793. was Minister of Naval Affairs, in 1793 he was in charge of gunpowder and cannon affairs in the republic. Based on the results of his activities, he published the book “The Art of Casting Cannons,” which was popular in its time, translated into Russian in 1804. Grateful descendants, noting his merits, in 1849 installed his bust and four tricolor banners with the inscriptions on the house where he was born with the inscriptions: “Descriptive Geometry”, “Political School”, “Cairo Institute”, “Cannon Casting”.

At the suggestion of G. Monge, the permanent model of the cannon is divided into parts, which are molded separately (similar to dividing a statue into parts). In Fig. 169 shows a longitudinal section of the mold with parts of the model not removed. The hollow brass or cast iron model of a cannon consists of six separate parts, tightly fitted to one another: four ring models of the barrel, one ring - a profitable extension and one breech. The protrusions on the model at the joints reproduce the belts on the body of the gun. Each of the six parts of the model has hooks on the inside to facilitate assembly and disassembly. The upper part of the model forms the profit, which is then cut off from the body of the gun.

The mold was made in a collapsible metal jacket (flask 35), consisting of ring parts corresponding to the parts of the model and additionally divided along the axis of symmetry, i.e. 6 parts of the model accounted for 12 parts of the jacket. The individual parts of the jacket were fastened with pins and pins (wedges).

Rice. 169. Method of “quick casting” of guns. General view and section of the form

This design of the jacket makes it easier to mold and, most importantly, remove the finished casting from the mold.

The mold was made in a vertical position: first, the lower part of the model was molded at the bottom of the ring jacket. It was pre-lubricated with a release agent. Then the space between the wall of the model and the jacket was filled with a molding mixture consisting of greasy sand mixed with horse manure and compacted. After that, both the model and the casing were gradually increased. The contact surface of the individual parts of the mold was coated with a release agent. The molded parts were removed (the mold was disassembled), the models were removed from them, and the parts of the mold were dried separately from one another. After this, the inner surface of the mold parts was painted with molding ink and dried. The rod for decorating the inner surface of the gun was made in the same way as with the “slow molding” method.

The mold was assembled, the rod was installed, and all parts of the jacket were fastened together. The mold was poured in a vertical position. Later, a modernized method of rapid cannon casting was used to produce cast iron water and sewer pipes (before the widespread use of centrifugal casting for these purposes).

You should focus on the quality of the guns being cast. Long clay rods had poor gas permeability, so it was difficult to obtain castings without gas pockets on the inner surface of the tools. While the quality requirements were not very strict, minor defects were repaired. However, when a connection was established between the presence of gas pockets in the channel and the service life of the gun, the requirements for the cleanliness of the internal channel became more stringent. As a result, from 40 to 90% of cast iron cannons began to be rejected. Then the “Maritz method” became widespread, according to which the gun was cast in the form of a solid blank, and not with a finished channel. The channel was then drilled out, its inner surface was obtained without defects. However, guns with a drilled bore had a significantly shorter service life than defect-free guns with a cast bore, and they were more expensive to produce. In other words, the search for more advanced technological options for making cast iron cannons continued.

One of the most successful should be considered the idea of ​​the American Rodman, who proposed using a metal water-cooled rod to design the internal channel of the gun. At the same time, during the process of solidification and cooling of the gun, the outer surface of the mold, made in metal jackets, was heated. In this case, the hardening of the gun barrel occurred sequentially from the inner layers to the outer ones, i.e. the principle of directional solidification was implemented. The gun barrel with a cast bore was dense and free of defects. Using partly this idea (without external heating), in 1869 the world's largest cast iron cannon with a caliber of 20 inches was cast at the Motovilikha plant in Perm. A mold with a height of 10665 mm (Fig. 170) was made using the “quick molding” method from a sand-clay mixture followed by drying. The mold consisted of five parts, molded in metal jackets (opkas).

The cast blank consisted of three parts: the gun itself, 5480 mm long with a “tail” of 229 mm, a sub-compartment with a height of 685 mm, and a profit section with a height of 2957 mm. The total weight of the gun exceeded 4 thousand pounds (65.5 tons). The cast iron water-cooled rod was lined on the outside with asbestos cord and fire-resistant clay with a layer of 9.5 mm. The metal was brought into the mold cavity at the level of the axis of the gun trunnions.

The casting was subjected to significant mechanical processing: the profit was cut off, the outer surface, trunnions and bore were machined, and the fuse hole was drilled. It took 3.5 months.

“Powder tests” of the gun were carried out with cast-iron hollow cores weighing 448 kg. Careful measurements showed that after 314 shots, the increase in the size of the bore did not exceed 0.127 mm. The cannon is currently in the factory museum in Perm.

However, cast iron cannons eventually became a thing of the past. They were replaced in the 19th century. steel guns arrived. Steel is more durable, and most importantly, it is ductile; it can be forged and rolled. Therefore, an alternative to cast guns appeared - forged guns with a drilled channel. Which guns are better, cast or forged? There are opposing points of view on this matter, but this is a topic for another publication.

Rice. 170. Mold for casting a 20-inch cast iron cannon using the Rodoman method

34 Manufacturability here means better fluidity of cast iron and less shrinkage.

35 A detailed explanation is given in Part II, Ch. 5, page 178.

ABOUT THE ROYAL ARTILLERY

D. Fletcher, to his displeasure, is forced to state: “I believe that none of the Christian sovereigns has such good artillery and such a supply of shells as the Russian Tsar, which can partly be confirmed by the Armory Chamber in Moscow, where there are huge quantities of all kinds of guns , all cast from copper and very beautiful” (7). An English author of the 16th century testifies: “The Russians have excellent artillery made of bronze of all kinds: small cannons, double, royal, falconets, basilisks, etc., they also have six large guns, the cores of which are up to an arshin high, they have many mortars, from whom they shoot with Greek fire" (11). The Austrian ambassador John Cobenzl wrote with horror to Emperor Maximilian II: “The Russians always have at least 2,000 guns of all kinds at the ready... I was assured with an oath that, besides others, in only two places two thousand guns with many different types of machines are stored. Some of these guns are so large, wide and deep that a tall man in full armor, standing at the bottom of the gun, cannot reach its upper part...” (12). The soldiers of Maximilian II experienced first-hand the crushing power of the artillery of Ivan the Terrible, who, thanks to his magnificent army, would regain the scepter of the Autocrat of Europe. And what kind of artillery was this!

Russian cannons were first mentioned in the Sofia Vremennik, where it is said that during the defense of Moscow from the Tatars in 1382, the Russians used “mattress” firearms and beat the enemy with “great cannons.” By the beginning of the 15th century, artillery pieces were in service not only in the Moscow Principality, but also in other Russian principalities. Thus, the presence of firearms in Veliky Novgorod was mentioned in the chronicle in 1393, and in the Tver Principality in 1408. In 1479, a “cannon hut” already existed in Moscow where the casting and finishing of cannon barrels was carried out en masse. By 1400, there were several armory huts on the banks of the Neglinka River.

Pike with a “twisted” barrel. Bronze. Foundry master Yakov Osipov. 1671

An important breakthrough in the development of Russian artillery was that at the end of the 15th century, Moscow gunsmiths learned to cast artillery guns from bronze. The only example of bronze casting of that time that has survived to our time is considered to be a Russian weapon, cast by the master Yakov the Russian in 1483; a cast arquecal dating back to 1491, on which the names of Russian craftsmen “Vanya and Vasyuk” are preserved. And in Europe at that time iron arquebuses, which were extremely limited in use, were still being forged in very small series.

Already in 1488, the first giant cannon was cast in Moscow, which was called the Tsar Cannon. This cannon has not survived to this day, but it had great fame. An outstanding achievement of Russian foundry workers of the 16th century was the creation of super-powerful battering guns weighing several tons. Among them, “Stepanova Cannon”, “Nightingale”, “Bear”, “Eagle” stood out. These guns were widely used by Ivan the Terrible during the capture of Kazan and Polotsk. The kernels reached knee-deep sizes. In 1555, master Stepan Petrov cast a new howitzer of gigantic proportions. In the inventory of the Pushkarsky order, it was listed as “Peacock cannon, stone cannonball, weighing 15 pounds, length 6 arshins 3 inches, from the fuse, floor length 6 arshins 3 inches, weighing 1020 pounds.” And the famous master Andrei Chokhov, who created the famous school of Russian foundries, cast a whole series of giant cannons, among which the famous “Lion” weighing 344 pounds, “Troilus” - 430 pounds. Excellent examples of the royal battering artillery have survived to this day: “Inrog” (1577), “Lion” and “Scorpea” (1590), “King Achilles” (1617).

In 1586, Andrei Chokhov cast the famous “Tsar Cannon” weighing two thousand four hundred poods (about forty tons). It was the largest weapon of its time. For a long time, in historical literature, the Tsar Cannon was mistakenly viewed as a false fake weapon, allegedly made with the aim of “scaring” foreigners with its gigantic appearance (it is not clear why it was necessary to spend so much effort and valuable raw materials from which a dozen military weapons could be cast) . According to measurements and examinations carried out by specialists in the field of artillery systems in 1946, it was established that the cannon was a mortar in its type, and, being a fortress weapon, was cast with the aim of hitting enemy personnel, firing with stone “shot” (buckshot), and not the core, and at that time it was called the “Russian Shotgun”. In the sixteenth century, no country in the world had a cannon with a caliber of 890 mm! In the 16th century, the Russian arsenal had the most powerful howitzer at that time - the Kashpirova Cannon, weighing 1200 poods (about twenty tons). And there were not just a lot of similar guns and howitzers with a slightly smaller caliber - a lot! And they were cast not under the strict guidance of the “enlightened” foreigners of Peter the Great’s era, but a century and a half before him. These guns were the horror of vassal Europe. And for many years, because they were the most durable and reliable in the world. “The guns, cast by order of Ivan the Terrible, were in service for several decades and took part in almost all the battles of the 17th century” (13). The guns cast by Andrei Chokhov were used even during the Northern War of 1700-1721. (14). Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, you need to understand, also did not sit still and at least doubled this amount.

Andrey Chokhov. Pike "Wolf", Pike "Porcupine". 16th century. Artillery Museum, St. Petersburg. Photo by Alexander Sakov 2011

In addition to numbers and durability, Russian artillery was also the most effective. Pskov craftsmen of the 16th century were the first in the world to place guns on carriages, which greatly increased the rate of fire, aiming accuracy and cannonball range. It is not without reason that the coats of arms of Russian cities, for example, Smolensk, featured a cannon carriage - this device frightened the enemy no less than the heraldic lions. At the same time, Russian craftsmen began to think about increasing the range of the shot. The embodiment of these plans was the arquebus “Three Asps”. This gun was a long pipe (over a hundred calibers long, that is, about 5 meters), loaded from the breech. The caliber of the arquebus was 45 mm, length 4930 mm, weight 162 kg. The barrel was locked with a wedge, which was the first prototype of the future wedge bolt, which was used back in the 19th century. Another typical example of long-range siege artillery of the 16th century was the Scroll gun, which was cast by master Semyon Dubinin. The cannon had a barrel, decorated on the outside as if with a scroll, about 4.5 meters long and about 200 mm in caliber. The cannonballs and grenades sent by this weapon easily covered a distance of 2.5 kilometers. Andrei Chokhov's mortars of the "Wolf" system became the world's first serial production of artillery guns. Nothing like this was observed in Europe at that time. Five-meter long-range guns and super-powerful mortars of the tsarist artillery terrified all the vassals of the Russian Empire.

Siege arquebus "Skoropea". Andrey Chokhov, 1590. Artillery Museum in St. Petersburg. Photo by Alexander Sakov, 2011

In the 16th century, Ivan Vasilyevich, in addition to bronze ones, began to cast giant cast-iron cannons. So, in 1554, a metal cannon with a caliber of 26 inches (66 cm) and a weight of 1200 Poods (19.6 tons) was made, and in 1555 another one, with a caliber of 24 inches (61 cm) and a weight of 1020 Poods (18 T). We can speculate as much as we like where iron casting originated, but nothing like this was cast from cast iron in Europe at that time.

Siege mortar from the time of Ivan the Terrible, 16th century. Artillery Museum, St. Petersburg. Photo by Alexander Sakov 2011

In the middle of the 16th century. The Tsar's gunsmiths created the first standards of artillery multiple launch rocket systems - multi-barreled guns, known from documents of that time under the names "magpies" and "organs". “The first “magpies” arose in the first half of the 16th century. – the existence of such guns in the capital’s army was reported in a Lithuanian document of 1534. In Russian sources, “fortieth” gunpowder was mentioned starting in 1555... The barrels were connected by a common steel groove, into which gunpowder was poured to ignite the charges and produce simultaneous shots.” (14). The music of these “organs” became a funeral mass for many enemies of the Orthodox Kingdom.

Siege arquebus "King Achilles". Andrey Chokhov, 16th century Artillery Museum, St. Petersburg. Photo by Alexander Sakov, 2011.

Among the works of Andrei Chokhov were special masterpieces of multi-barrel salvo artillery, which included the “hundred-barreled” rapid-fire cannon. A contemporary wrote about this wonderful invention: “I saw one gun that was loaded with a hundred bullets and fired the same number of shots, it was so high that it would be up to my shoulder, and its bullets were the size of goose eggs” (15). This weapon was cast in 1588, its weight reached 5300 kilograms. Imagine this know-how in the 16th century! Yes, after a salvo of this cannon, the entire enemy army will flee in horror. This weapon became the prototype of the famous Russian multiple launch rocket systems “Katyusha” and “Grad”, the traditions of which were laid by our great ancestors. Do our historians remember these glorious pages in school textbooks?

But that's not all. The Tsar's gunsmiths were the first in the world to apply spiral rifling to the inner barrel of guns, usually from six to ten, which is noted on many Russian cannons of the 17th century. The arquecal of 1615 with ten spherical rifling on the inner barrel has survived to this day. This is the oldest rifled gun that has survived to this day; the very first rifled cannon in Europe appeared only at the end of the 17th century, with 6 rifling.

In the 17th century artillery in Rus' took a significant step forward. At this time, in Moscow, craftsmen were already divided into barrel makers, machine operators, locksmiths, etc., i.e., now different parts of the guns were made by different craftsmen, thereby putting the production of guns on stream. Russian gunsmiths in some cases introduced improvements into their production that were ahead of the technology and science of that time. So, in the 17th century. two Russian craftsmen invented bolts for guns - one made a arquebus with a retractable bolt in the form of a wedge (wedge bolt), and the other invented a screw-in bolt. Only in the 19th century. - two hundred years later - European technology was able to master this Russian invention, and guns with similar breech blocks (improved, of course) are now used in all armies. The guns made by Russian craftsmen in the 17th century are kept in the Artillery Historical Museum in Leningrad, as the forefathers of modern guns with wedge and piston bolts. Thus, already in the 16th century there were hundreds of examples of Russian artillery guns, structurally close to the guns of the late 19th century with vertical and horizontal wedge and screw-in bolts.

Interestingly, at the end of 1880, a representative of the dynasty of German gunsmiths, Friedrich Krupp, wanted to patent the wedge bolt he had invented. But when I saw in the Artillery Museum of St. Petersburg a rapid-fire arquebus from the 17th century, which even then had a wedge breech, I was simply shocked. Russian gunsmiths were ahead of all of Europe, ahead of the Europeans by several centuries! And these were not visiting Germans, these were often our domestic craftsmen. One great Chokhov trained a whole galaxy of masters, among whom Druzhina Romanov, Bogdan Molchanov, Vasily Andreev, Mikita Provotorkhov stood out.

In 1547, the gunners were withdrawn from the Streltsy army into an independent “Attachment”, for the leadership of which the Pushkarsky Prikaz (a kind of ministry of artillery) was created. Later, the “Pushkarsky Order” was divided into divisions: city (serf), large (siege) and small (regimental) squads. Since the 16th century, each rifle regiment had from 6 to 8 “regimental guns”. And the organization of the Russian gun business was at its best; each caliber of gun had its own calibrated cannonballs and grenades. In the discharge book of the Pushkar Order of the 16th century. Not only are all the guns and mortars named, but their main characteristics (cannonball weight) are also reported. Thanks to this, it can be established that for some types of guns - “upper Jacob guns”, “one and a half” and “rapid-firing” shells of uniform weight were used (14). And this was long before Peter, under whom Russian weapons suddenly became backward.

That’s why historians don’t like to talk about the history of Russian artillery. These glorious pages absolutely do not fit into modern dogmas about the backward Russian army before Peter I. By the way, the best examples of domestic artillery were destroyed by the “personal decree” of the Great Reformer. It was “ordered to cast the Peacock cannon, which is in China near the Execution Ground, into a cannon and mortar casting; the Kashpirov cannon, which is near the new Money Dvor, where the Zemsky order was located; the Echidna cannon, near the village of Voskresensky; the Krechet cannon with a ten-pound cannonball; "Nightingale" cannon with a 6-pound cannonball, which is in China on the square." Peter conscientiously fulfilled the main order of his trustees, and the horror of vassal Europe - the tsarist imperial artillery ceased to exist.

68 hryvnia (216 mm) siege arquebus "Inrog". Andrey Chokhov. 1577 Artillery Museum, St. Petersburg. Photo by Alexander Sakov, 2011. Discovered in the 18th century in the German city of Elbing. These were the real dimensions of the Russian Empire in the 15th-17th centuries.

But the geography of the discovery of Russian cannons eloquently testifies to the former greatness of the Tsarist Empire. The first two European hand cannons discovered and stored in Italy. They are made of bronze, but at the same time they have an ornament of oak leaves and an Orthodox cross. There have never been Orthodox crosses in Italy, only Latin ones. What did guns do with Russian Orthodox crosses in the Apennines? Further even more interesting. Two giant cannons made by master Andrei Chokhov were discovered in Stockholm, where they are still located. Obviously, where the Russian cannons froze, that was where the final goals of the campaigns were, and that’s where the tsar’s arsenals remained. By the way, during the Livonian campaign of 1577, Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich took the Inrog cannon with him. This campaign became one of the most successful Russian campaigns; almost all the cities and castles of Livonia were captured, not counting Riga and Revel... However, after this campaign, traces of “Inrog” are lost and resurface already in the time of Peter in the German city of Elbing. It was there that Ivan the Terrible’s campaign ended in 1677 - on the banks of the Elbe, no more, no less. In the 18th century, grateful Germans would return this famous cannon to Peter. They had nothing to fear anymore - the guns of the Russian tyrants were silent forever. But the geography of the location of the giant Russian cannons eloquently testifies to the real scale of Russian imperial influence. By the way, the famous helmet of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich was also discovered in Stockholm. Historians cannot explain this fact in any way. But, if Stockholm is the Russian imperial city of Glass, as it was called in Russian documents, then the presence of Russian cannons and royal helmets there is quite understandable.

So who was the real Emperor of Europe? Leopold? Maximilian? Or is it still the Russian Tsar? This is reminiscent of an argument between a frog and an elephant over who is boss in the jungle. The little frog croaks, the elephant slaps his foot - and silence... It is clear why the Prussian greyhound writers belittled the power and organization of the best army in the world. They have suffered greatly for two hundred years from the Russian imperial horde. The Russian army was at its weakest just under Peter the Great, when it lost one battle after another. In the 16th and 17th centuries there was no force on planet Earth capable of resisting Russian weapons.

CASTING OF GUNS IN Rus'

As we have seen, the Russian Tsar not only had claims to Ecumenical power, but also the ability to take and maintain this power. But in order to create such a powerful army and artillery, the Russian emperor needed to have developed metallurgy and convenient ore deposits. No ancient civilization could have prospered without the presence of natural resources and, first of all, metals. This is an axiom.

Almost all Russian cannons of the 15th-17th centuries were cast from high-quality bronze, where copper was mainly used. Was there copper in Rus'? Here historians have serious problems, because, having narrowed the size of the Russian Kingdom to tiny Muscovy, the Russians found themselves completely cut off from all copper mines. And in addition to copper, casting bronze also requires rare earth metals: zinc, nickel, tin and a lot of coal. Where can you get such wealth on the Central Russian Upland? The closest place where all this ore along with coal could come from was the Urals. The Ural deposits are unique in that the ore here is diverse and lies on the surface, without requiring mining.

According to TI, the first development of Ural copper began under Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich. The beginning of industrial production is associated with the name of the Demidovs during the time of the Great Reformer. So it turns out that until the conquest of Siberia at the very end of the 16th century, the Urals were not accessible to the Russians - the hated Horde sat there. Of course, there could be no talk of any industrial supplies of strategic raw materials from hostile khanates. Then historians refer to European sources of supply. There are only two places in Europe with rich deposits of metals - Germany and Sweden. But it was precisely these countries that were constantly at enmity with the Russian tsars; there was no need to expect large-scale deliveries from there either. And how can such a huge amount of copper ore, tin, zinc, and coal be delivered? These are hundreds of thousands of tons - no amount of trade can handle it. Delivery of such heavy cargo could only be carried out by sea, and even then in the presence of a super-powerful fleet. But the only Russian port in Arkhangelsk was first opened by the British only during the time of Ivan the Terrible, when thousands of huge bronze cannons were already stationed in Rus'. And nothing is known about these extra deliveries. Therefore, the developed metallurgy of Medieval Rus' is a very big problem that has no solution within the framework of TI.

The only real source of metal remained the Urals. In addition to the relative proximity of the location, the Urals are unique in that most of the rivers flow into the Kama, which in turn flows into the Volga, and all of Rus', including Moscow, was located in the Volga basin. Delivery of such heavy cargo by river water transport is the ideal and, I repeat, the only possible delivery option.

But metal mining in the Urals immediately puts an end to the Mongol conquest of Rus'. The centuries-long existence of hostile Tatar hordes in the Volga region and Siberia is becoming a fiction. The most interesting thing is that already in the 1580s, the entire Western Siberia to the Ob was marked by many Russian settlements of prospectors. It is not possible to explain such a rapid settlement of such incredible expanses by Russians within the framework of TI. Numerous cannons have been known in Rus' since the end of the 15th century, long before the conquest of Siberia by Ivan the Terrible. If we add here the giant bell casting, which appeared according to chronicle sources from the 10th century, then the version with the undeveloped Urals becomes completely untenable. Bells in Rus' have always been huge and in incredible quantities, mainly made of copper and bronze. At the same time, the need for metal for casting bells was tens of times greater than for cannon casting, although even for casting cannons within the TI there was no place to get copper. This is another completely independent argument about the inconsistency of the German version of the conquest of Rus' by the Mongols. The Russians had developed metallurgy, but did not have metal, and the mythical Mongols had metal, but did not have developed metallurgy. Such are the TI paradoxes.

Therefore, we are simply forced to significantly expand the real boundaries of Medieval Rus'. The Ural, or as it was called in Rus', the Ugra stone has been Russian since ancient times. This was the main material and raw material base of the Scythian-Russian state.