Tsar Cannon

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

We live in a kind of information matrix or theater, as we like. Someone carefully decorates all events for us with decorations. The historical past is framed like a museum exhibition. One of the notable elements of the panorama entitled "Medieval Muscovy in the wild expanses of the Russian Plain" is the Tsar Cannon.

We do not believe in the word of these deceiving puppeteers, so each exhibit has to be studied independently. It often turns out that this is a fake made of cardboard or a replica. And sometimes things are real, but not of the time or purpose. It is interesting to do this, you always learn something intimate.

Collection of misconceptions about the Tsar Cannon

Today we'll talk about the Tsar Cannon. There are many misconceptions about her among the people. For instance:

“Russia had the most powerful and advanced industrial and technological base for the manufacture of cast iron in the world, the monuments of which are these unique artifacts (this is about the Tsar Bell and the Tsar Cannon, - author) … it has long been proven, and there is documentary evidence that that the Tsar Cannon really fired”(commentary to the article“The walls of the “Ancient Kremlin” are not ancient”, published on the website“Newsland”).

It's clear from the bell. They are made exclusively of bronze, and not any, but of a special composition. Well, guns, of course, are different. For this, in difficult times, our wonderful people even used a birch burl. They took a dense dumpy birch blank, made a hole in it, bound it with iron strips, burned a small hole in the breech for a fuse, and now the gun is ready. In the 17th and 19th centuries, they were mainly poured from cast iron. But the Tsar Cannon is still bronze.

It is important to note about documentary evidence that the gun fired. Indeed, there is information circulating among the people that some experts have precisely established … discovered … and so on. This rumor was launched by journalists. About who, and what really installed, will be described in detail below.

Also consider the question of another misconception that roams the minds of scientists. Many of them believe that the Tsar Cannon is a huge shotgun. A very convenient opinion that allows historians to explain many of the mysteries associated with it. In fact, this is not the case, which will be convincingly shown.

There is another persistent delusion that makes you doubt the rationality of human nature. It is said that the Tsar Cannon was made to frighten foreigners, especially the ambassadors of the Crimean Tatars. The absurdity of this statement will also become apparent as you read the article.

Artillery complex "Tsar Cannon", presented in the Kremlin

Officially, the Tsar Cannon is a medieval artillery piece, a monument to Russian artillery and foundry art, cast in bronze in 1586 by the Russian craftsman Andrei Chokhov at the Cannon Yard. The length of the gun is 5.34 m, the outer diameter of the barrel is 120 cm, the diameter of the patterned belt at the muzzle is 134 cm, the caliber is 890 mm (35 inches), and the weight is 39.31 tons (2400 pounds).

From the first professional glance at the Tsar Cannon (the author is a specialist in the design of small arms), it becomes clear that you cannot shoot with this. In fact, at least one can shoot from almost anything - from a cut off a water pipe, from a ski pole, etc. But this artillery complex, on display in the Kremlin, is a real props.

Firstly, cast-iron cannonballs are striking, which in the 19th century became the source of those very conversations about the decorative purpose of the cannon. In the 16th century, they used stone cores, and they are 2.5 times lighter than the exposed cast iron. We can definitely say that the walls of the cannon would not have withstood the pressure of the powder gases when fired with such a cannonball. Of course, this was understood when they were cast at the Byrd factory.

Secondly, a fake carriage, cast in the same place. You cannot shoot from it. When a standard 800 kilogram stone cannon is fired from a 40-ton Tsar Cannon, even with a low initial speed of 100 meters per second, the following will happen:

- expanding powder gases, creating increased pressure, will sort of push the space between the cannon core and the bottom;

- the core will begin to move in one direction, and the cannon - in the opposite direction, while the speed of their movement will be inversely proportional to the mass (how many times the body is lighter, so many times faster it will fly).

The mass of the gun is only 50 times more than the mass of the nucleus (in a Kalashnikov assault rifle, for example, this ratio is of the order of 400), therefore, when the nucleus flies forward at a speed of 100 meters per second, the cannon will roll backward at a speed of about 2 meters per second. This colossus will not stop immediately, still 40 tons. The recoil energy will be approximately equal to the hard impact of a KAMAZ on an obstacle at a speed of 30 km / h.

The Tsar cannon will rip off the gun carriage. Moreover, she just lies on top of him, like a log. All this can only be held by a special sliding carriage with hydraulic dampers (rollback dampers) and a reliable attachment of the implement. I assure you, this is a rather impressive device even today, but then this simply did not exist. And all this is not only my opinion:

(Alexander Shirokorad "The Miracle Weapon of the Russian Empire").

Therefore, the artillery complex that is shown to us in the Kremlin under the name Tsar Cannon, this is gigantic props.

Appointment of the Tsar Cannon

Today, hypotheses about the use of the Tsar Cannon as a shotgun are persistently discussed. The opinion is very convenient for historians. If it's a shotgun, then you don't need to carry it anywhere. Put it to the loophole and that's it, wait for the enemy.

What Andrei Chokhov cast in 1586, that is, the bronze barrel itself, could really shoot. Only it would not look at all the way many people think. The fact is that, by its design, the Tsar Cannon is not a cannon, but classic bombard.

A gun is a gun with a barrel length of 40 calibers and above. The Tsar Cannon has a bore of only 4 calibers. And for a bombard, that's just fine. They were often of impressive size, and were used for siege, as battering tool … To destroy the fortress wall, you need a very heavy projectile. For this, and gigantic calibers.

At that time there was no talk of any gun carriage. The barrel was simply dug into the ground. The flat end was rested against deeply driven piles.

Nearby, 2 more trenches were dug for artillery crews, since such weapons were often torn apart. Charging sometimes took a day. Hence the rate of fire of such guns is from 1 to 6 rounds per day. But all this was worth it, because it made it possible to crush impregnable walls, do without months of sieges and reduce combat losses during the assault.

This alone could be the point of casting a 40 ton barrel with a caliber of 900 mm. The Tsar Cannon is a bombard - battering tool, intended for the siege of enemy fortresses, and not at all a shotgun, as some are inclined to believe. Here is the opinion of a specialist on this issue:

(Alexander Shirokorad "The Miracle Weapon of the Russian Empire").

The Tsar Cannon was never used for its intended purpose

As it was said at the beginning of the article, there are rumors about some "documentary evidence" that the Tsar Cannon fired. In fact, not only the fact of the shot is of great importance, but also with what she shot, and under what circumstances. The cannon balls used to load the cannon could be of different weights, and the amount of gunpowder could be different. The pressure in the bore and the power of the shot depend on this. All this cannot be determined now. In addition, if test shots were fired from a gun, then this is one thing, and if it was used in battle, it is quite another. Here is a quote on this matter:

(Alexander Shirokorad "The Miracle Weapon of the Russian Empire").

By the way, the report of these same specialists was not published for some unknown reason. And since the report is not shown to anyone, then it cannot be considered evidence. The phrase “they shot at least once” apparently was dropped by one of them in a conversation or interview, otherwise we would not have known anything about it at all. If the gun were used for its intended purpose, then inevitably in the barrel there would be not only particles of gunpowder, which were rumored to have been discovered, but also mechanical damage in the form of longitudinal scratches. In battle, the Tsar Cannon would have fired not with cotton, but with stone cannonballs weighing about 800 kg.

There should also be some wear on the bore surface. It cannot be otherwise, because bronze is a rather soft material. The expression "at least" just testifies to the fact that apart from the particles of gunpowder, nothing significant could be found there. If so, then the gun was not used for its intended purpose. And particles of gunpowder could remain from test shots.

The point in this question is put by the fact that the Tsar Cannon never left limits of Moscow:

(Alexander Shirokorad "The Miracle Weapon of the Russian Empire").

At home, using a battering tool for its intended purpose is somehow suicidal. Who were going to shoot 800 kilogram cannonball from the walls of the Kremlin? It is pointless to shoot at the enemy's manpower once a day. There were no tanks then. Probably expecting the appearance of Godzilla. Of course, these huge battering guns were put on public display not for combat purposes, but as an element of the country's prestige. And, of course, this was not their main purpose.

Under Peter I, the Tsar Cannon was installed on the territory of the Kremlin itself. There she is to this day. Why was it never used in combat, although as a battering weapon it is quite combat-ready? Maybe the reason for this is its too huge weight? Was it realistic to move such a weapon over long distances?

Transportation

Modern historians rarely ask themselves the question: "for what?" … And the question is extremely useful. So let's ask, why was it necessary to cast a siege weapon weighing 40 tons, if it could not be delivered to the enemy city? To scare the ambassadors? Unlikely. We could make a cheap model for this and show it from afar. Why waste so much labor and bronze on bluffs? No, the Tsar Cannon was molded to be used practically. That means they could have moved. How could they do this?

40 tons is really very hard. Such a weight is not capable of transferring a KAMAZ truck. It is designed for only 10 tons of cargo. If you try to load a cannon on it, the suspension will first collapse, then the frame will bend. This requires a tractor that is 4 times more durable and powerful. And everything that could be made of wood, for the purpose of convenient transportation of a cannon on wheels, would have truly cyclopean dimensions. The axle of such a wheeled device would be at least 80 cm thick. There is no point in imagining further, anyway there is no evidence of something like this. Everywhere it is written that the Tsar Cannon was dragged, not carried.

Look at the drawing in which a heavy weapon is being loaded.

Unfortunately, here we see only the pushing of the bombard off the deck, and not the process of moving itself. But the transport platform is visible in the background. She has a nose part bent towards the top (protection against bumping in unevenness). The platform was clearly used for sliding. That is, the load was dragged, not rolled. And it is right. The rollers should only be used on level and solid surfaces. Where can you find one? It is also quite understandable that the curved nose is bound with metal, because the load is very heavy.

Most battering guns did not weigh more than 20 tons. Let's assume that they covered the main part of the way by water. Moving these bombards by dragging over short distances of several kilometers with the help of many horses is also a doable task, although very difficult. But can you do the same with a 40 ton gun?

Usually, such studies end with expressions like "historical incident". As if they decided to surprise everyone, they cast something gigantic, but they didn’t think how to drag it. Here, they say, as it is in Russian - the Tsar Bell, which does not ring, and the Tsar Cannon, which does not fire. But we will not continue in this spirit. Let's say goodbye to the thought that our rulers were stupider than today's historians. Enough to blame everything on the inexperience of the craftsmen and the tyranny of the tsars.

The king, who managed to occupy this high post, ordered a 40-ton gun, paid for its manufacture, was clearly not a fool, and had to think over his act very well. Such costly issues cannot be solved right off the bat. He understood exactly how he was going to deliver this "gift" to the walls of enemy cities.

By the way, the excuse like “they did it first, and then they thought how to drag it” is quite common in historical research. It has become habitual. Not so long ago, the Culture Channel told viewers about Chinese traditional architecture. They showed a slab carved into the rock weighing 86,000 tons. The explanation in general terms is as follows: “The Chinese emperor allegedly had deviations in his psyche on the basis of gigantic pride and ordered himself a tomb of inconceivable size. He himself, the architects, thousands of stonecutters, allegedly, were mentally deficient in terms of logic. For decades, they have all been carrying out a megaproject. Finally, they cut down the slab and only then realized that they would not even be able to move it. Well, they gave up this business. It looks like our case.

The fact that the Tsar Cannon is not just a burst of enthusiasm among the Moscow foundry workers proves the existence of an even more enormous weapon. Malik-e-Maidan.

It was cast in Ahman-dagar in India in 1548, and has a mass of as much as 57 tons. There, historians also sing songs about 10 elephants and 400 buffaloes dragging this cannon. This is a siege weapon of the same purpose as the Tsar Cannon, only 17 tons heavier. What is this, the second historical incident at the same historical time? And how many more of these weapons need to be discovered in order to understand that they were cast at that time, delivered to the besieged cities and practically used? If today we do not understand how it happened, then this is our knowledge.

I believe this is where we run into again residual-low of our today's technical culture. This is due to a distorted scientific worldview. From a modern point of view, we do not see a solution that was obvious at that time. It remains to conclude that even in the 16th century in Russia and in India they knew something that made it possible to move such goods.

The decline of artillery technology in the Middle Ages

On the example of the bombard, one can see the obvious degradation of the art of artillery throughout the centuries of the Middle Ages. The first samples were made of two-layer iron. The inner layer was welded from longitudinal strips, while the outside was reinforced with thick transverse rings. After some time, they began to make cast bronze tools. This definitely reduced their reliability and, accordingly, increased their weight. Any engineer will tell you that wrought iron is an order of magnitude stronger than cast bronze. Moreover, if it is assembled, as described above, in a two-layer package with the direction of the fibers corresponding to the existing loads. Probably the reason is the desire to reduce the cost of the manufacturing process.

The design of the first bombards was also surprisingly progressive. For example, today you will not find modern models of small arms that would be loaded from the muzzle hole. This is very primitive. For a century and a half, breech loading has been in use. This method has a lot of advantages - both the rate of fire is higher and the maintenance of the gun is more convenient. There is only one drawback - a more complex design with locking the breech of the barrel at the time of the shot.

How interesting that the very first guns (bombards) in history immediately had a progressive method of loading from the breech. The breech was often attached to the barrel with a thread, that is, it was screwed in. This design was retained for some time in cast guns.

Here the Turkish bombard and the Tsar Cannon are compared. In terms of geometric parameters, they are very similar, but the Tsar Cannon, cast a hundred years later, has already been made one-piece. This means that in the 15th … 16th centuries they switched to a more primitive muzzle loading.

There can be only one conclusion here - the first bombards were carried out with residual knowledge progressive design solutions of artillery weapons, and possibly copied from some older and more advanced models. However, the technological base was already quite backward for these design solutions, and could only reproduce what we see in medieval tools. With this level of manufacture, the advantages of breech-loading are practically not manifested, but they stubbornly continued to be made breech-loading, because they did not yet know how to do it differently. Over time, the technical culture continued to degrade, respectively, and the guns began to be made one-piece, according to a more simplified and primitive loading scheme from the muzzle.

Conclusion

So a logical picture has lined up. In the 16th century, the Moscow principality waged numerous hostilities, both in the east (the capture of Kazan), in the south (Astrakhan), and in the west (wars with Poland, Lithuania and Sweden). The cannon was cast in 1586. Kazan had already been taken by this time. A shaky truce was established with the Western countries, more like a respite. Could the Tsar Cannon be in demand under these conditions? Yes, absolutely. The success of the military campaign depended on the availability of battering artillery. The fortress cities of the western neighbors had to be taken somehow. Ivan the Terrible died in 1584, 2 years before the cannon was cast. But it was he who determined the state's need for such weapons, and the process of their manufacture was launched. Here's how events unfolded:

(Alexander Shirokorad "The Miracle Weapon of the Russian Empire").

Under Ivan the Terrible, the production of such weapons was debugged and their use was mastered, including transportation. However, the strong-willed state grasp disappeared after his death and the accession to the throne of a successor. Fyodor 1 Ioannovich was a man of a completely different kind. The people called him sinless and blessed. Probably, thanks to the efforts of the followers of Ivan the Terrible, the order for the manufacture of the Tsar Cannon was nevertheless formed. However, the greatness of Andrei Chokhov's creation still exceeded the demands of the new tsar. Therefore, the Tsar Cannon remained unclaimed, although hostilities with the use of siege artillery were fought after 4 years (the Russian-Swedish war of 1590-1595).

Conclusion

The Tsar Cannon is real … Entourage around her - props … Formed public opinion about her - falsely … The Tsar Cannon should surprise us, much more than the ancient megaliths. After all, they are amazing in that huge stones weighing several tons have been delivered … raised … placed … and so on. In the 16th century, nothing fundamentally new, different from the Neolithic, was used in transportation and loading (according to the official point of view), but 40 ton gun transported. In addition, the stones were placed once and for centuries, and no less heavy cannon was supposed to be repeatedly moved over great distances.

It is all the more surprising because it was made relatively recently, back in the 16th century. After all, about the time of the megaliths, scientists are free to fantasize as they please - hundreds of thousands of slaves, centuries of construction, etc., but a lot is known about the 16th century. Here you can't go wild with fantasies.

On display in the Kremlin real miracledisguised as absurdity, but we do not notice it, because we are brainwashed with propaganda, false hypotheses and the opinion of authorities.

Alexey Artemiev, Izhevsk