First year of the Great Patriotic War turned out to be difficult both for the country as a whole and for the defense industry in particular. The changing situation at the front made adjustments to the plans for the development and launch into mass production of even quite viable models of personal protection for the Red Army - many projects were closed simply because the leadership "was not up to them." reverse side medals were initiative developments "from below", attempts to familiarize themselves with imported samples. As a result, by the summer of 1942, it was possible to create the CH-42 breastplate, which, according to the test results, received excellent reviews from the front.
Works of the second half of 1941

According to the results of tests at the research site small arms in Shchurovo, it would seem, was found effective remedy protection of a fighter from bullets and fragments - a steel bib CH-40A. Gross production was about to begin, but everything turned out to be not so simple. It was not possible to document whether the CH-40A ended up in the troops.

On August 22, 1941, at the end of the ground tests, 200 pieces of CH-40A "light" and "heavy" types were sent to the Western Front, where the front commander Marshal of the USSR S. K. Timoshenko got acquainted with them. He did not like the significant weight of the bibs (from 5.5 to 9.3 kg). On August 23, on behalf of Tymoshenko, the head of the artillery supply of the Western Front, Major General of the quartermaster service A. S. Volkov, wrote a letter with the following resolution: “... Steel bibs cannot be used by a soldier who is already overloaded. The marshal considers it expedient to make instead of a breastplate a marching embrasure, because of which a fighter could fire. Apparently, Marshal Timoshenko was not aware of the work of the previous few years ...

Since Moscow was in the rear of the Western Front with a large number of factories, including metalworking ones, an experimental embrasure was made at the ZiS (Stalin Plant) and shown to Timoshenko, after which he personally made adjustments to the design of the shield. On September 6, 1941, the marshal demanded to urgently make a batch of 20 pieces and send it for testing to the military council of the Western Front. It is not known whether these products received any index, but at the ZIS and Hammer and Sickle factories two batches of "Tymoshenko design embrasures" were manufactured with a total of 25 pieces. Both series did not survive the factory fire tests and were safely forgotten.

The difficult situation at the front, the encirclement, the evacuation of factories and the general confusion of 1941 stopped work on the means of protecting soldiers at the level of main departments, but now work was carried out without orders and instructions on the ground.

Thus, Timoshenko's activities served as an impetus for the start of initiative work at the Ordzhonikidze plant in Podolsk and at the Moscow Institute of Steel named after Stalin (later the Moscow Institute of Steel and Alloys, also known as MIS or MISiS). The Institute of Steel was developing on the basis of one of the breastplates, a sample of which was received from the People's Commissariat of Ferrous Metallurgy, the rest of the designs were unique and developed independently.

On December 7, 1941, a draft armored shield was presented for a single fighter developed by the Ordzhonikidze plant. According to the factory's calculations, it had to withstand a normal rifle bullet from a distance of 175 m, and a B-30 armor-piercing bullet from a distance of 100 at an angle of 45 °. The shield was to be made of steel grade AB-2 with a thickness of 5 mm. The prototypes were made in two thicknesses, 4 mm and 5 mm - the first one withstood the hit of a simple bullet from a distance of at least 300 meters, the second from a distance of 75 meters. Alas, the plant was soon evacuated, and the production of an experimental batch did not take place.

Armor shield designed by the plant. Ordzhonikidze, Podolsk (TsAMO). Click to view in full size

At about the same time, a military doctor of the 3rd rank Borovkov (unfortunately, the name and patronymic of the inventor were not preserved) a reflective shield was proposed own design for a rifle. On December 6, 1941, the proposal was considered by the Sanitary Directorate of the Red Army, and then sent to the Combat Training Directorate of the spacecraft. There it was studied, and on January 20, 1942, the results were sent to the Main Artillery Directorate (GAU) of the Red Army. The following significant shortcomings of the reflector shield were identified:

Increases the weight of the rifle;
- creates inconvenience when wearing a rifle on a belt and especially behind the back;
- hinders the actions of a fighter in hand-to-hand combat.

However, for the final conclusions, it was proposed to make 300-500 prototypes and conduct tests at the front. On February 19, 1942, it was decided to produce, after some refinement of the design, an experimental batch in the amount of 500 pieces. The reflector shield was produced by March 30 at the LMZ in the amount of 100 pieces (NII No. 13 was engaged in the selection of steel and finalization of the design), but the further fate of this proposal is unenviable. Borovkov's shields did not go into production, the characteristics and test results of this invention were not found in the archives.

Shield-reflector for the rifle of the military doctor of the 3rd rank Borovkov (TsAMO)

In addition, work was also carried out on an initiative basis in Leningrad at plant No. 189 of the People's Commissariat of the Shipbuilding Industry (NKSP). At the beginning of January 1942, an interesting design was presented, which had straps, could be used as a shield and as a bib, and was carried behind the back in the stowed position.

The shield was tested at the artillery research range in Leningrad, about which the command of the Leningrad Front was notified. Unfortunately, the test report for this moment was not found, and further work, apparently, was stopped.

Shield of the plant No. 189 of the People's Commissariat of the shipbuilding industry, Leningrad (TsAMO)

The GAU did not rely only on domestic developments - for example, the American experience was studied, where personal protective equipment was actively used by the police. A vest was purchased and tested in the USA, which showed good protection against the German 9-mm MP-38/40 submachine gun, but mass purchases never took place.

Elliott Wisbrod vest (patent US2052684 A US Patent and Trademark Office)

In the United States, work on the creation of means of protection against bullets was initially carried out in a different direction. Due to a different political system, either the state or private investors could act as customers for the work. The US Army at that time did not think about war and did not conduct developments to protect soldiers, but the Great Depression and Prohibition gave rise to a surge in crime - shootings were not a rare occurrence on the streets of American cities. They were carried out mainly from pistols and revolvers, and later with the use of submachine guns, so the engineers did not have the task of protecting against rifle bullets. Means were developed that looked like ordinary clothes, but protected the wearer from a pistol or revolver bullet fired almost “point blank”. They were used by policemen, gangsters and ordinary citizens. An advertisement for one of these products was seen in the newspaper by representatives of the USSR purchasing commission.
Pre-production samples of the steel breastplate CH-42

On February 2, 1942, all developments on shields and bibs were officially transferred to Research Institute No. 13 of the People's Commissariat of Armaments as an organization that by that time had vast experience in developing and creating means of protecting soldiers. However, under a separate agreement with the Artillery Committee of the GAU KA, work on the bibs was continued by the Moscow Institute of Steel.

Since, according to the GAU, “one of the main types of small arms of all branches of the armed forces is a submachine gun,” work was carried out to create steel bibs with a slight thickness and weight that protect the fighter precisely from the bullets of a German submachine gun at all distances. In parallel, the construction of steel embrasures was going on, protecting the fighter from bullets from a rifle.

On February 9, the chairman of the technical council of the People's Commissariat for Armaments, E. A. Satel, received a letter signed by the deputy chief and military commissar of the Artillery Committee of the GAU, which indicated that the committee did not object to the production of a series of shell shields for testing at the front, protecting from bullets, fired from a German machine gun, and embrasure shields.

By March 3, 1942, on the basis of a letter from the GAU dated February 13, 1942 and an order from the Deputy Commissar of Ferrous Metallurgy V. S. Bychkov dated February 18, 1942, with the direct participation of representatives of Research Institute No. 13, steel bibs (330 pieces) and bib shields (25 pieces).

The bibs, which received the CH-42 index, were produced only in the 2nd growth, 2 ± 0.2 mm thick, from silicon-manganese-nickel helmet steel 36SGNA (factory index I-1). It is important to note that these breastplates of the March 1942 model have some design differences from the later, "classic" version of the CH-42. They were modifications of the CH-40A with a reduced thickness, modified in accordance with the wishes received after testing in August 1941. The most notable difference was the introduction of a second vertical shoulder strap in the style of the CH-38 breastplate. The total weight of the bibs in the batch ranged from 3.2 to 3.6 kg, with an average weight of 3.4 kg.

Acceptance of finished products was carried out in two stages, first individual acceptance, and then control and verification tests were carried out. During the first stage, each part was individually fired at with a cartridge with a reduced charge from a rifle of the 1891/1930 model from a distance of 25 meters, while the rear strength limit (P.T.P.) was set at 400-410 m / s.

Subjected to individual acceptance tests:
chest part - 336 pieces, 331 passed the test, or 98.5%;
the abdominal part - 345 pieces, 339 passed the test, or 98%.

The parts that passed the test were painted and assembled into finished bibs, and then five pieces were selected from them for the second stage of testing. At the second stage, the bibs were fired from the PPD-40 with live ammunition along the normal from a distance of 25 meters. The shelling was carried out in short bursts of 5-10 shots, the bibs were attached to a wooden dummy. The number of hits in each bib ranged from 5 to 12. The bibs withstood 70% of the hits without any violations of the back strength of the metal, the remaining 30% had "gray hair" and small cracks. There were no holes.

The first batch of bibs was made according to the drawing of the first version dated February 28, 1942. A little later, without an order from the GAU, the second batch of SN-42s (about 160 pieces) was produced according to the drawing of the second version dated 03/23/1942, which had a slightly modified design: a different shape of the abdominal part, changed attachment points for the “underbreast device” (lining between the body and steel bib in the upper part), a slightly different carabiner for hooking the second vertical strap.
Steel shield-bib SShN-42

The embrasure shields mentioned in the letter of the GAU art committee on February 9, 1942 received the index SCHN-42 - a steel breastplate of 1942, by analogy with the 1939 breastplate of the year SNSH-39. During development, SNSC-39 was also taken as a basis, but with some changes:

The upper side is bent more;
- teeth are made on the lower edge;
- the loophole was redesigned: the cutout for the rifle was made at an angle of approximately 45 °;
- the foot-stand is attached at one point, the divorce of the lower stops of the stand is already done;
- Added additional waist strap.

The shield was supposed to protect the fighter, both running and shooting lying down, from rifle and machine gun bullets at all distances, should not interfere with getting cartridges from the bandolier on the fighter’s belt. SSHCHN-42 was manufactured at LMZ simultaneously with the first batch of SN-42, from the same steel 36 SGNA (I-1) with a thickness of 4.9 ± 0.6 mm. The assembled weight was 5.3 kg. The tests were also carried out in two stages.

Steel shield-bib SSCHN-42 (TsAMO)

In the factory shooting range, from a distance of 25 meters from a rifle of the 1891/1930 model with a cartridge with a reduced charge, 27 bibs SSCHN-42 were subjected to individual acceptance tests. The average bullet speed when hitting the shield was 782.8 m / s. 26 shields withstood the first stage without tears and cracks, after which painting and final assembly were carried out.

The second stage (control and verification tests) was carried out in the form of shelling in the factory shooting range from a distance of 25 meters from a German rifle with trophy live ammunition, the average bullet speed on impact was 768 m / s. For testing, two shields were selected, on which six shots were fired along the normal - both shields withstood all hits without any violations of the rear strength.
Checking the first CH-42s in combat

In early April 1942, the first batch of SN-42s were sent from Lysva to the 5th department of the GAU Artillery Committee, where they underwent additional tests for bullet resistance and TTT compliance. The final verdict was as follows: "Protect the fighter's chest from bullets fired from a German submachine gun at all distances."

On May 16, 1942, 300 CH-42s, which remained intact after all the tests, were sent to the head of the artillery supply of the Western Front for testing in the army. In the event of a positive test result, the CH-42 bibs were supposed to be launched into gross production. Unfortunately, to this day, documents on the tests of the SCHN-42 have not been found - the only mention of them has survived in the correspondence of the GAU Artillery Committee: “... they are on the way. Upon receipt of them, they will also be sent for testing to the army in the field. After that, traces of SCHN-42 are lost.

The bibs that arrived at the front were sent to the 5th Army, from where rave reviews were received in the first days of June 1942. So, in a letter from the army command, sent to the chairman of the technical council of the People's Commissariat of Armaments of the USSR Latsis (name and patronymic unknown) and the chairman of the Artillery Committee of the GAU KA, Major General V.I. practice of application, the military council of the 5th Army of the Western Front asks for the urgent manufacture and direction of 35,000 pieces of armored breastplates to the 5th Army.

Breastplate CH-42 from the first batch, found in the battle zone of the 5th Army of the Western Front. In the center of the bib, a bullet mark is visible, obtained during the testing process.

The review of the headquarters of the 5th Army on the tests of CH-42 stated:

"1. Armored breastplates provide reliable protection of the fighter from the fire of German machine guns (submachine guns) from any distance, and also protect against fragments of mines and grenades.
2. The maneuverability of the fighters almost does not decrease, the armored breastplate does not interfere with crawling and makes it possible to fire at the enemy both standing up and kneeling and lying down.
3. The armored breastplate, in addition to armor protection of the chest and abdominal cavity from enemy fire, increases the confidence of a fighter in the performance of combat missions.
On the basis of the above, the Military Council of the 5th Army considers it expedient to use armored breastplates in mass quantities in the Army ... In the gross production of armored breastplates, it is necessary to eliminate a number of shortcomings ... "

The shortcomings of the first CH-42s, according to the command of the 5th Army, were as follows:

"1. To eliminate the noise from the impact of the upper and lower shield, apply the lining of the edge of the lower shield.

2. Install several sizes of armored breastplates depending on the height of the fighters.

3. When a bullet hits the upper shield, the lug of the carbine fastening sometimes flies off, therefore, instead of the lug, a slot should be made in the shield.

4. Make the wire for attaching the upper and lower shield stronger and larger in diameter.

5. With several hits of the bullet, the rivets become loose, so they should be more firmly fastened.

On their own initiative, the leadership of the LMZ, not relying on the GAU, decided to independently test their products at the front - apparently, the negative experience of similar tests in previous years had an effect. In order not to incur the wrath of the military, the party resource was used. At the end of April 1942, a delegation of party workers from the Molotov region, on whose territory the Lysvensky plant was located, went to the 34th Army of the North-Western Front.

Bib CH-42, found by searchers S. Ivanov and S. Katkov in the battle zone of the 171st Infantry Division of the 34th Army

Bib CH-42 of the second batch, captured from the soldiers of the 171st Infantry Division. In the photo, an unterscharführer (non-commissioned officer) of the SS division "Dead Head" next to a captured KA fighter in uniform before the introduction of shoulder straps. The affiliation of a German to the SS is given out by a belt buckle, to the division "Dead Head" - buttonholes on the collar. This combination of shape and equipment allows you to unambiguously date the place and time of the picture - the photo was taken in the spring-summer of 1942 in the "Demyansk Cauldron" (http://waralbum.ru)

The 34th Army of the NWF was not chosen by chance: it included a large number of units formed or replenished from the inhabitants of the Perm region, and the delegation was sent with patronage purposes. One of the sponsored units, the 171st Rifle Division, was given 160 CH-42 bibs of the second batch, which were involved in the May offensive against the positions of the Simon combat group of the SS Totenkopf division.

The bibs were used by scouts of the 171st SD, who described the positive and negative sides of the bibs. Subsequently, these descriptions were included in the report to the command of the army, and then the front. On June 3, 1942, the recall of the NWF command was sent to the GAU and to the secretary of the Molotov Regional Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, from where he ended up in Lysva. In general, it is similar to the report of the headquarters of the 5th Army, written a little later:

"1. Bullet and shrapnel hits make minor dents, and the fighters' maneuverability is almost not reduced, and they also do not prevent crawling.

2. The bibs turned out to be very useful in blocking bunkers and during attacks, they protect against machine gun fire, fragments of mines and shells.

3. They give full opportunity to fire at the enemy from hand weapons, both standing and kneeling or lying ...

According to the fighters and commanders of the reconnaissance group who used breastplates in battle, they are valuable and necessary, even in an offensive battle they are not a tedious type of equipment ...

Scouts believe that the main disadvantage is that moving and crawling makes noise from the impact of the upper and lower shields, as well as from the impact of the breastplate on local objects; thus the scouts reveal themselves. In addition to this negative side, the bib for fighters of small stature creates some inconvenience when crawling, resting on the hips, thereby hindering normal movement and appropriate maneuverability ... "

The lower part of the CH-42 breastplate found by S. Ivanov and S. Katkov in the battle zone of the 34th Army. Judging by the damage, the breastplate received a direct hit from a mortar round.

In addition, protective characteristics were noted, which are interesting in that evidence and descriptions of the direct participants in the battles are given:

“... In the process of reconnaissance, three fighters dressed in bibs had dents from direct hits, but people were not out of action. According to the commander of this reconnaissance group, the enemy fired from a distance of 250-300 meters, and yet there were no through holes.

In one of the fighters, a dent in the shield from a bullet turned out to be about 3 mm deep on the right side of the upper shield at the level of the heart. The second fighter had a similar dent in the lower shield at the level of the abdominal cavity. According to all reports, the scouts, who were wearing bibs, in the cases cited were guaranteed against severe or even fatal wounds.

Particularly noted was a tactical technique using a breastplate, which was used in battle:

“... As a characteristic fact, I consider it necessary to point out that some scouts, during the period of shelling them with machine-gun fire from the enemy, loosened the straps for fastening, and the bib itself was used as shields, exposing them somewhat in front of them, in the direction from which the enemy’s machine-gun fire was fired” .

At the end of the report, there was information about the duration of the test - "about three weeks, and are currently in operation" - and a capacious review of the warring soldiers: "... the soldiers are very grateful for the gift of the Molotov delegation."

It would seem that after such reviews from the active army, the bib should have been launched into gross production, and it would have taken its place among the equipment of the Red Army soldiers as having proven its effectiveness ... But worthy competitors appeared at the bib produced by the Lysvensky Metallurgical Plant, and the GAU Artillery Committee decided to conduct comparative tests, which will be discussed in the next article.

Armor is a protective material that is characterized by high stability and resistance to external factors that threaten deformation and violation of its integrity. It doesn’t matter what kind of protection we are talking about: whether it is knightly armor or the heavy coating of modern combat vehicles, the goal remains the same - to protect against damage and take the brunt.

Homogeneous armor is a protective homogeneous layer of material that has increased strength and has uniform chemical composition and identical properties throughout the cross section. It is this type of protection that will be discussed in the article.

History of armor

The first mentions of armor are found in medieval sources, we are talking about armor and shields of warriors. Their main purpose was to protect body parts from swords, sabers, axes, spears, arrows and other weapons.

With the advent firearms there was a need to abandon the use of relatively soft materials in the manufacture of armor and move on to more durable and resistant not only to deformations, but also to conditions environment alloys.

Over time, decorations used on shields and armor, symbolizing the status and honor of the nobility, began to become a thing of the past. The form of armor and shields began to be simplified, giving way to practicality.

In fact, the entire world progress has been reduced to a speed race of invention newest species weapons and protection against such. As a result, the simplification of the shape of the armor led to a decrease in cost (due to the lack of decorations), but increased practicality. As a result, armor became more affordable.

Iron and steel continued to find use when the quality and thickness of the armor became paramount. The phenomenon found a response in shipbuilding and mechanical engineering, as well as in the strengthening of ground structures and inactive combat units such as catapults and ballistas.

Armor types

With the development of metallurgy in historical terms, improvements in the thickness of the shells were observed, which gradually led to the appearance of modern types of armor (tank, ship, aviation, etc.).

IN modern world the arms race does not stop for a minute, which leads to the emergence of new types of protection as a means of counteracting existing types of weapons.

Based on the design features, the following are distinguished:

• homogeneous;
• reinforced;
• hinged;
• spaced.

Based on how to use:

• wearable - any armor worn to protect the body, and it does not matter what it is - the armor of a medieval warrior or the bulletproof vest of a modern soldier;
• transport - metal alloys in the form of plates, as well as bulletproof glass, the purpose of which is to protect the crew and passengers of the equipment;
• ship - armor to protect ships (underwater and surface parts);
• construction - a type used to protect pillboxes, dugouts and wood-and-earth firing points (bunkers);
• space — all kinds of shockproof screens and mirrors for protection space stations from orbital debris and the harmful effects of direct sunlight in outer space;
• cable - designed to protect submarine cables from damage and durable operation in an aggressive environment.

Armor homogeneous and heterogeneous

The materials used to make the armor reflect the development of outstanding design ideas of engineers. The availability of minerals such as chromium, molybdenum or tungsten allows the development of high-strength specimens; the absence of such creates the need to develop narrowly targeted formations. For example, armor plates, which could easily be balanced according to the criterion of value for money.

By purpose, armor is divided into bulletproof, anti-ballistic and structural. Homogeneous armor (from the same material over the entire cross-sectional area) or heterogeneous (different in composition) is used to create both bulletproof and anti-ballistic coatings. But that's not all.

Homogeneous armor has both the same chemical composition over the entire cross-sectional area and identical chemical and mechanical properties. Heterogeneous, on the other hand, can have different mechanical properties (steel hardened on one side, for example).

Rolled homogeneous armor

According to the manufacturing method, armor (whether homogeneous armor or heterogeneous) coatings are divided into:

• Rolled. This is a type of cast armor that has been processed on a rolling machine. Due to the compression on the press, the molecules approach each other, and the material is compacted. This type of heavy-duty armor has one drawback: it cannot be cast. Used on tanks, but only in the form of flat plates. On a tank turret, for example, a rounded one is required.
• Cast. Accordingly, less durable in percentage terms than the previous version. However, such a coating can be used for tank turrets. Cast homogeneous armor, of course, will be stronger than heterogeneous. But, as they say, a good spoon for dinner.

purpose

If we consider bulletproof protection against conventional and armor-piercing bullets, as well as the impact of fragments of small bombs and shells, then such a surface can be presented in two versions: rolled homogeneous high-strength armor or heterogeneous cemented armor with high strength both on the front and back sides.

Anti-projectile (protects against the effects of large projectiles) coating is also represented by several types. The most common of them are rolled and cast homogeneous armor of several strength categories: high, medium and low.

Another type is rolled heterogeneous. It is a cemented coating with hardening on one side, the strength of which decreases "in depth".

The thickness of the armor in relation to hardness in this case is a ratio of 25:15:60 (outer, inner, back layers, respectively).

Application

Russian tanks, like ships, are currently covered with chromium-nickel or nickel-plated steel. Moreover, if a steel armored belt with isothermal hardening is used in the construction of ships, then the tanks are overgrown with a composite protective shell, which consists of several layers of materials.

For example, the frontal armor of the Armata universal combat platform is represented by a composite layer impenetrable for modern anti-tank projectiles up to 150 mm caliber and sub-caliber arrow-shaped projectiles up to 120 mm caliber.

Also, anti-cumulative screens are used. Hard to say, best armor it or not. Russian tanks are improving, and with them the protection is also improving.

Armor vs Projectile

Of course, it is unlikely that members of the tank crew keep in mind detailed performance characteristics combat vehicles, indicating how thick the protective layer is and what projectile at what millimeter it will contain, as well as whether the armor of the combat vehicle they use is homogeneous or not.

The properties of modern armor cannot be described by the concept of "thickness" alone. For the simple reason that the threat from modern projectiles, against which, in fact, such a protective shell was developed, comes from the kinetic and chemical energy of the projectiles.

Kinetic energy

Kinetic energy (better to say “kinetic threat”) refers to the ability of a projectile blank to flash through armor. For example, a projectile from or will pierce one through. Homogeneous steel armor is useless against hitting those. There are no criteria by which it can be argued that 200 mm homogeneous is equivalent to 1300 mm heterogeneous.

The secret of counteracting the projectile lies in the location of the armor, which leads to a change in the vector of impact of the projectile on the thickness of the coating.

HEAT projectile

The chemical threat is represented by such types of projectiles as anti-tank armor-piercing high-explosive (according to international nomenclature, it is designated as HESH) and cumulative (HEAT).

Cumulative projectile (contrary to popular belief and influence World games Of Tanks) does not carry a flammable stuffing. Its action is based on focusing the impact energy into a thin jet, which, due to high pressure, and not temperature, breaks through the protective layer.

Protection against this kind of projectiles is the build-up of the so-called false armor, which takes on the impact energy. The simplest example is the fitting of tanks with chain-link mesh from old beds during the Second World War by Soviet soldiers.

The Israelis protect the hulls of their Merkavs by attaching steel balls to the hulls hanging from chains.

Another option is to create dynamic armor. When a directed jet from a cumulative projectile collides with a protective shell, detonation of the armor coating occurs. An explosion directed in opposition leads to the dispersion of the latter.

land mine

The action is reduced to the flow around the body of the armor in the event of a collision and the transmission of a huge shock impulse through the metal layer. Further, like pins in a bowling alley, the layers of armor push each other, which leads to deformation. Thus, the armor plates are destroyed. Moreover, the layer of armor, flying apart, injures the crew.

Protection against high-explosive projectiles can be the same as against cumulative ones.

Conclusion

One of the historically recorded cases of the use of unusual chemical compositions to protect the tank is the initiative of Germany to cover the equipment with zimmerite. This was done to protect the hulls of the "Tigers" and "Panthers" from magnetic mines.

The composition of the zimmerite mixture included such elements as zinc sulfide, sawdust, ocher pigment and a binder based on polyvinyl acetate.

The use of the mixture began in 1943 and ended in 1944, for the reason that drying required several days, and Germany at that time was already in the position of the losing side.

In the future, the practice of using such a mixture did not find a response anywhere due to the abandonment of the use of hand-held anti-tank magnetic mines by the infantry and the appearance of much more powerful types of weapons - anti-tank grenade launchers.

ship armor- a protective layer that has a sufficiently high strength and is designed to protect parts of the ship from the effects of enemy weapons.

History of occurrence

Before early XIX centuries in shipbuilding, a certain balance was maintained between the means of defense and attack. Sailing ships were armed with smooth-bore muzzle-loading guns that fired round cannonballs. The sides of the ships were sheathed with a thick layer of wood, which protected quite well from cannonballs.

The first to protect the ship's hull with metal shields was the British inventor Sir William Congreve, who published his article in the London Times on February 20, 1805. A similar proposal was made in the USA in 1812 by John Steveno of Hoboken, New Jersey. In 1814, the Frenchman Henri Peksant also spoke about the need to book ships. But at the same time, these publications did not attract attention.

The first iron ships that appeared at that time - the steam frigates Birkenhead (eng. HMS Birkenhead (1845)) and Trident (eng. HMS Trident (1845)) built for the British fleet in 1845, were perceived by sailors rather coldly. Their iron sheathing protected against shots worse than wood of the appropriate thickness.

Changes in the status quo occurred in connection with progress in artillery and metallurgy.

As early as 1819, General Peksan invented the explosive grenade, which upset the established balance between protection and projectile, since wooden sailing ships were subjected to severe destruction from the explosive and incendiary effects of new weapons. True, despite a convincing demonstration of the destructive properties of the new weapon in 1824 during test firing on the old two-decker battleship Pacificator (eng. French ship Pacificateur (1811)) the introduction of this type of weapon was slow. But after the phenomenal success of its use in 1849 at the Battle of Eckern Fjord and in 1853 at the Battle of Sinop, doubts disappeared even from its biggest critics.

In the meantime, ideas for the construction of armored ships were developing. In the USA, John Stevens and his sons carried out a series of experiments at their own expense, in which they studied the laws of the passage of nuclei through iron plates and determined the minimum thickness of the plate necessary to protect against any known artillery piece. In 1842, one of Stevens' sons, Robert, presented the results of experiments and a new design for a floating battery to a Congressional committee. These experiments aroused great interest in America and Europe.

In 1845, the French shipbuilder Dupuy de Lom, on the instructions of the government, developed a project for an armored frigate. In 1854, the Stevens floating battery was laid down. A few months later, four armored batteries were laid down in France, and a few months later, three in England. In 1856, three French batteries - "Devastation", "Lave" and "Tonnate", invulnerable to artillery fire, were successfully used in shelling the Kinburn forts during the Crimean War. This successful application experience prompted the leading world powers - England and France, to build armored seaworthy ships.

iron armor

The only metal suitable for practical use and available in sufficient quantities at that time was iron - wrought iron or cast iron, and all experiments showed that wrought iron, with the same weight, had an advantage over cast iron. Wrought iron was used in the first armored ships, which were protected by 101-127 mm thick plates attached to 90 cm thick wooden beams. The most extensive experiments to improve the strength of iron armor were carried out in Europe, where the metallurgical industry was most developed. Layered iron protection with a wood lining was tested and it was found that in any case, solid iron plates gave the best protection per unit weight.

During civil war, most American ships had multi-layer protection, which was caused more by a lack of industrial capacity for the production of thick iron plates than by the advantages of this type of protection.

Since the process of armor penetration by a projectile is rather complicated, extremely conflicting requirements are imposed on armor. On the one hand, the armor must be very hard so that the projectile falling into it is destroyed on impact. On the other hand, it is viscous enough not to crack on impact and effectively absorb the energy of the fragments that occur during the destruction of the projectile. Obviously, these two requirements contradict each other. Most materials of high hardness have extremely low ductility.

With the development of armor production technology, a way was quickly found to meet these conflicting requirements. Armor began to be made two-layer - with a solid outer surface and a plastic substrate, which made up the bulk of the armor. In such armor, the hard outer layers break the projectile, and the viscous inner layers do not allow fragments to pass inside the ship.

At first it was proposed to clad iron plates with cast iron or hardened iron, but these schemes showed the same decrease in reliability as wood-iron protection and did not surpass solid iron plates in strength. However, in 1863, the Englishman Cotchette suggested welding 25 mm steel plates to 75 mm wrought iron plates. Later, in 1867, Jacob Reese of Pittsburgh, pc. Pennsylvania, patented a cementing compound that he claimed was suitable for cementing and hardening armor plates. Efforts to implement these proposals were not successful for many reasons, primarily due to the insufficient development of metallurgy. It should be recalled that the Bessemer process for making steel in a converter was developed between 1855 and 1860, and the Siemens-Marten process for making steel in an open furnace appeared in France and England a few years later. Each of these processes appeared in the USA with a delay of several years after their introduction in Europe.

Cast iron was never used in the navy, but was used to armor ground fortifications, where the weight did not have such of great importance. The best-known example of cast iron armor is the Gruson Towers, which were built in large iron castings and were widely used to defend European borders. The first Gruson tower was tested in 1868 by the Prussian government.

Armor compound

The desire to obtain armor with a hard surface and a viscous substrate, and at the same time amenable to processing, led to the emergence of compound armor. the first efficient technology its production was proposed by Wilson Cammel: a steel face obtained in an open furnace was poured onto the surface of a hot wrought iron plate. Also known compound plate Ellis-Brown (Ellis-Brown), in which the steel face plate was brazed to the iron substrate with Bessemer steel. In both of these processes, developed in England, the boards were rolled after soldering.

In the next 10 years, the process of armor production did not change, except for small improvements in production technology, but this entire period was marked by intense competition and confrontation between all-steel and compound armor. The all-steel armor was ordinary steel with a carbon content of 0.4-0.5%, while the steel surface of the compound armor had 0.5-0.6% carbon. These two types of armor, whose comparative strength was largely dependent on the quality of workmanship, were approximately 25% stronger than armor wrought iron, i.e. A 10" solid steel or compound slab withstood the same impact loads as a 12.5" wrought iron slab.

steel armor

By 1876, the power of artillery had increased so much that 560 mm armor was required to protect against the most powerful guns. But this year, tests were carried out in La Spezia that revolutionized the production of armor and made it possible to significantly reduce its thickness. In these tests, a 560 mm mild steel plate manufactured by the well-known French firm Schneider & Co. significantly outperformed all other samples tested. It was known that the steel contained 0.45% carbon and was obtained from a billet about 2 m high by forging it to the desired thickness. The steel making process was kept secret.

These steel plates, while exhibiting excellent ballistic strength, were difficult to machine, and this difficulty led to further developments to match the stiffness of the steel plate and the toughness of the iron substrate. The steel that was used in these plates was produced in Siemens-Maren open furnaces.

Nickel armor

The next step was alloying the steel with nickel.

Nickel tends to greatly increase the toughness of steel. Under the same impact loads, nickel steel armor plates do not crack or flake off in fragments, as happens with pure carbon steel. In addition, nickel facilitates heat treatment - during hardening, nickel steel warps less.

In 1889, Schneider was the first to introduce an admixture of nickel into all-steel armor, after which compound armor began to gradually fall out of use. The amount of nickel in the first samples varied from 2 to 5%, but eventually settled at 4%. At the same time, Schneider successfully applied the hardening of steel with water and oil. After forging with a hammer and normalization, the plate was heated to the hardening temperature, after which its front part was immersed to a shallow depth in oil. After quenching, low-temperature tempering followed.

These innovations resulted in an additional 5% improvement in armor durability. Now 10 inches of nickel steel armor was equivalent to about 13 inches of iron plate.

By this time, the American company Bethlehem Iron, under the leadership of John Fritz, was engaged in the production of armor, and shortly after that, the Carnegie Steel company under the Schneider patents. The first steel deliveries for the old battleships Texas, Maine, Oregon and other ships of this period consisted of heat treated nickel steel with 0.2% carbon, 0.75% manganese, 0.025% phosphorus and sulfur and 3.25% nickel.

Harvey armor

In 1890, the next major improvement in armor quality came with the introduction of the Harvey process, first used in the Washington Navy Yard to machine 10.5-inch steel plates.

It is known that the hardness of iron-carbon alloys increases with increasing carbon content. So, cast iron is much harder than steel, which in turn is much harder than pure iron. This means that to obtain a solid front surface of the armor, it is enough to increase the carbon content in its surface layer.

The process invented by the American G. Harvey was as follows. A steel plate in close contact with some carbon-containing substance (such as charcoal) was heated to a temperature close to the melting point, and maintained in this state for two to three weeks. As a result, the carbon content in the surface layer increased to 1.0–1.1%, and at a depth of 25 mm it remained at the level characteristic of ordinary steel.

Then the slab was hardened through its entire thickness, first in oil and then in water, as a result of which the cemented surface became superhard.

This process is called cementation (carburization). In 1887, Tressider patented in England a method for improving the hardening of a heated surface of a plate by applying small water sprays to it under high pressure. This method proved to be better than liquid immersion because it provided reliable access cold water to the surface of the metal, while when immersed between the liquid and the metal, a layer of vapor appeared, which worsened heat transfer. Steel with a hardened surface, alloyed with nickel, hardened according to Harvey, tempered in oil and hardened with water sprays was called Harvey armor. Chemical analysis of typical Harvey armor of this period shows that the carbon content is about 0.2%, manganese - about 0.6%, nickel - from 3.25 to 3.5%.

Shortly after the introduction of the Harvey process, it was discovered that the ballistic strength of armor could be improved by re-forging after cementing. Forging, which reduced the plate thickness by 10–15%, was carried out at low temperatures. Initially, it was used to more accurately maintain the thickness of the plate, improve the surface finish and structure of the metal after heat treatment. This method was patented by Corey of Carnegie Steel under the name "double forging".

Harvey armor instantly proved its superiority over other types of armor. The improvement was 15–20%, i.e. 13 inches of Harvey armor corresponded approximately to 15.5 inches of nickel steel armor.

Cemented armor Krupp

In the 80s of the 19th century. in metallurgy, another alloying additive, chromium, began to be used for alloying small steel castings. It turned out that the resulting alloy, with appropriate heat treatment, acquires significant hardness. However, steel workers, despite constant efforts, were unable to obtain large ingots of chromium-nickel steel and process them properly until the German industrialist Krupp solved this problem in 1893.

Krupp also introduced the cementing process to armor production, but instead of the solid hydrocarbons used in the Harvey process, he used gaseous hydrocarbons - lighting gas was passed over the hot surface of the stove. Such gas carburizing was often used, but it was gradually replaced by the use of solid hydrocarbons. Gas carburizing was used in Bethlehem in 1898, but after that it was not used in America for the production of armor.

Around this time, Krupp developed a process for deepening a cemented layer on one side of a steel plate. To do this, the slab was covered with clay, with the cemented side left open, and then the open side was subjected to strong and rapid heating. As the temperature drops from the surface to the depth of the plate, the surface is hotter than the back of the plate, which allows for “falling hardening” with water spray. Steel heated above a certain temperature becomes very hard when rapidly cooled with water, while steel whose temperature is below the specified limit practically does not change its properties when quenched. For convenience, we call this temperature critical. If the surface of the plate is heated above this critical temperature, then there is a level inside the plate where the metal has a critical temperature, and this level gradually moves deeper into the plate and eventually reaches its rear surface if the heating is long enough.

However, the steel is heated in such a way that the critical temperature level does not fall deeper than 30-40% of its thickness. When this heating was reached, the slab was quickly pulled out of the furnace, placed in the tempering chamber, and powerful jets of water were applied first to the heated surface, and then, a second later, to both surfaces simultaneously. This double-sided irrigation was necessary to prevent deformation of the slab due to uneven cooling.

This process, called "drop-down surface hardening", made it possible to obtain a very strong front side of the slab, which was 30-40% of its thickness, while the remaining 60-70% of the slab volume remained in its original viscous state. It should be noted that this densification method is based on cascading heating and does not necessarily involve a change in the carbon content of the steel. In other words, in this hardening method, the face becomes superhard due to the higher temperature at the time of hardening, and the hardened layer depth can be controlled by changing the heating mode and can be larger than the carburizing depth if necessary.

The face hardening process was, of course, the board finishing process that was applied after the heat treatment process. The latter improved the graininess of the material and created fibers that increased the strength and ductility of the steel.

The success of the Krupp process was immediate, and soon all armor manufacturers adopted it. On all plates thicker than 127 mm, Krupp armor was about 15% more effective than its predecessor, Harvey armor. 11.9 inches of Krupp steel was roughly equivalent to 13 inches of Harvey steel. In America, Krupp steel began to be used to armor ships from 1900. Most of the armor made in the next 25 years was Krupp cemented armor.

Over the next 15 years, some improvements in manufacturing technology were introduced, and now Krupp armor is about 10% stronger than its first examples.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ship armor- a protective layer that has a sufficiently high strength and is designed to protect parts of the ship from the effects of enemy weapons.

History of occurrence

The first iron ships that appeared at that time were steam frigates built for the British fleet in 1845. Birkenhead (English) And "Trident" (English) were perceived by sailors rather coldly. Their iron sheathing protected against nuclei worse than wood of the appropriate thickness.

Changes in the status quo occurred in connection with progress in artillery and metallurgy.

In the meantime, ideas for the construction of armored ships were developing. In the USA, John Stevens and his sons, at their own expense, carried out a series of experiments in which they studied the laws of the passage of nuclei through iron plates and determined the minimum thickness of the plate necessary to protect against any known artillery piece. In 1842, one of Stevens' sons, Robert, presented the results of experiments and a new design for a floating battery to a Congressional committee. These experiments aroused great interest in America and Europe.

In 1845 a French shipbuilder Dupuis de Lome on the instructions of the government, he developed a project for an armored frigate. In 1854, the Stevens floating battery was laid down. A few months later, four armored batteries were laid down in France, and a few months later, three in England. In 1856, three French batteries - "Devastation", "Lave" and "Tonnate", invulnerable to artillery fire, were successfully used in shelling of Kinburn forts during Crimean War. This successful application experience prompted the leading world powers - England and France, to build armored seaworthy ships.

iron armor

The process of interaction between armor and projectile is quite complex and mutually contradictory requirements apply to armor. On the one hand, the material for the armor must be hard enough for the projectile to break on impact. On the other hand, it must be sufficiently viscous so as not to crack on impact and absorb the energy of the fragments of the destroyed projectile. Most hard materials are quite brittle and therefore not suitable as armor. In addition, the material should be fairly common, not expensive and relatively easy to manufacture, since it was required in order to protect the ship. in large numbers.

The only suitable materials at that time were wrought iron and cast iron. During practical tests, it turned out that cast iron, although it has high hardness, is too fragile. Therefore, wrought iron was chosen.

The first armored ships were protected by multi-layer armor - iron plates 100-130 mm (4-5 inches) thick were attached to wooden beams 900 mm thick. Large-scale experiments in Europe have shown that, in terms of weight, such multi-layer protection is worse than solid iron plates in terms of efficiency. Nevertheless, during the American Civil War, American ships had mostly multi-layered protection, which was explained by the limited technological ability to produce thick iron plates.

The first seaworthy armored ships were the French battleship Gloire with a displacement of 5600 tons and the English frigate Warrior with a displacement of 9000 tons. "Warrior" was protected by armor 114 mm thick. A 206.2 mm gun of that time fired a 30 kg cannonball at a speed of 482 m/s and pierced such armor at a distance of only less than 183 meters.

Armor compound

One of the ways to get an armor plate with a hard surface and a viscous substrate was the invention of the armor compound. It was found that the hardness and toughness of steel depends on the carbon content in it. The more carbon, the harder, but also more brittle the steel. The armor plate compound consisted of two layers of material. The outer layer consisted of a harder steel with a carbon content of 0.5-0.6%, and the inner layer of a more ductile low carbon wrought iron. Compound armor was made of two parts: thick iron and thin steel.

The first method for making compound armor was proposed by Wilson Cammel ( English Wilson Cammel). Steel from a foundry furnace was poured onto the heated surface of a wrought iron slab. Another option was proposed by Ellis-Brown ( English Ellis Brown). According to his method, steel and iron plates were soldered to each other with Bessemer steel. In both processes, the boards were additionally rolled. Depending on the type of projectile, the effectiveness of compound armor varied. Against the most common iron projectiles, 254 mm (10 in) compound armor was equivalent to 381-406 mm (15-16 in) iron armor. But against the special armor-piercing projectiles made of strong steel that appeared at that time, compound armor was only 25% stronger than wrought iron - a 254 mm (10 in) compound plate was approximately equivalent to a 318 mm (12.5 in) iron plate.

steel armor

Around the same time as compound armor, steel armor appeared. In 1876, the Italians held a competition to select armor for their ironclads. Dandolo" And " Duilio". The competition in Spice was won by Schneider & Co., who offered mild steel plates. The carbon content in it was about 0.45%. The process of its production was kept secret, but it is known that the plate was obtained from a billet 2 meters high by forging it to the desired thickness. The metal for the stoves was produced in Siemens-Marten open furnaces. The slabs provided good protection but were difficult to work with.

The next 10 years were marked by a competition between compound and steel armor. The carbon content in steel armor was usually 0.1% lower than that of the front part of compound armor - 0.4-0.5% versus 0.5-0.6%. At the same time, they were comparable in effectiveness - it was believed that steel armor with a thickness of 254 mm (10 inches) was equivalent to 318 mm (12.5 inches) of iron armor.

Nickel armor

Ultimately, steel armor prevailed when, as a result of the development of metallurgy, steel alloying with nickel was mastered. It was first used by Schneider in 1889. Conducting experiments on samples with a nickel content of 2 to 5%, a content of 4% was experimentally chosen. Under impact loads, nickel steel plates were less prone to cracking and splinting. Besides nickel facilitated the heat treatment of steel hardening plate warped less.

After forging and normalizing, the steel plate was heated above the critical temperature and immersed to a shallow depth in oil or water. After quenching, low-temperature tempering followed.

These innovations made it possible to improve strength by another 5% - 254 mm (10 in) nickel steel plate matched 330 mm (13 in) iron armor.

According to the Schneider patents, companies engaged in the production of nickel armor in the United States Bethlehem Iron and Carnegie Steel. The armor of their production was used in the construction of the battleships "Texas", "Maine", "Oregon". The composition of this armor included 0.2% carbon, 0.75% manganese, 0.025% phosphorus and sulfur and 3.25% nickel.

Harvey armor

But progress did not stand still and the American G. Harvey in 1890 used the process grouting to obtain a hard front surface of steel armor. Since the hardness of steel increases with increasing carbon content, Harvey decided to increase the carbon content only in the surface layer of the plate. Thus, the back of the plate remained more viscous due to the lower carbon content.

In the Harvey process, a steel plate in contact with charcoal or other carbonaceous material was heated to a temperature close to its melting point and kept in the furnace for two to three weeks. As a result, the carbon content in the surface layer increased to 1.0-1.1%. The thickness of this layer was small - on the 267 mm (10.5 inch) slabs on which it was first used, the surface layer was 25.4 mm (1 inch) thick.

Then the plate was hardened throughout its thickness, first in oil, then in water. In this case, the cemented surface received superhardness. Even better results were achieved when using the hardening method patented in 1887 by the Englishman Tressider by applying small water sprays under high pressure to the heated plate surface. This method of rapid cooling turned out to be better, since when simply immersed in water, a vapor layer appeared between the hot plate and the liquid, which worsened heat transfer. Nickel steel with a hardened surface, tempered in oil and hardened by water spray, and received the name "Harvey's armor". This American-made armor contained about 0.2% carbon , 0,6 % manganese and from 3.25 to 3.5% nickel.

It was also found that the strength is positively affected by the final forging of the plate at low temperature, which reduces its thickness by 10-15%. This "double forging" method was patented by Carnegie Steel.

Harvey armor instantly replaced all other types of armor, as it was 15-20% better than nickel steel - 13 inches of Harvey armor corresponded approximately to 15.5 inches of nickel steel armor.

Cemented armor Krupp

In 1894, Krupp added chromium to nickel steel. The resulting armor received the designation "soft Krupp" or "Qualitat 420" and contained 0.35-0.4% carbon, 1.75-2.0% chrome and 3.0-3.5% nickel. It should be noted that a similar composition was used back in 1889 by the Schneider company. But Krupp did not stop there. He introduced the process of cementing his armor. In contrast to the Harvey process, he used gaseous hydrocarbons - lighting gas (methane) was passed over the hot surface of the stove. Again, this was not a unique feature - this method was used in 1888 before the Harvey method at the American plant in Bethlehem, and at the French plant Schneider-Creusot. Krupp's armor was made unique by the hardening method.

The essence of hardening is to heat the steel to a critical temperature - when the type of crystal lattice changes and austenite is formed. With a sharp cooling, the formation of martensite occurs - hard, strong, but more brittle than the original steel. In the Krupp method, one of the sides of the steel plate and the ends were coated with alumina or immersed in wet sand. The plate was placed in a furnace heated to a temperature above the critical one. The front side of the slab was heated to a temperature above the critical one, and a phase transformation began. The back side had a temperature less than the critical one. The phase transformation zone began to shift from the front side into the depth of the slab. When the critical temperature level reached 30-40% of the plate depth, it was pulled out of the furnace and subjected to drip cooling. The result of this process was a plate with “falling surface hardening” - it had high hardness up to a depth of about 20%, at the next 10-15% there was a sharp decline in hardness (the so-called ski slope), and the rest of the plate was not hardened and viscous.

With a thickness of over 127 mm, Krupp cemented armor was about 15% more effective than Harvey - 11.9 inches of Krupp armor corresponded to 13 inches of Harvey armor. And 10 inches of Krupp armor was equivalent to 24 inches of iron armor.

For the first time this armor was used on the German Battleships of the Brandenburg class. Two ships of the series - "Elector Friedrich Wilhelm" and "Wörth" had a belt of 400-mm compound armor. And on the other two ships - Brandenburg and Weissenburg - the belt was made of Krupp armor, and thanks to this, its thickness was reduced to 215 mm without deteriorating armor protection.

Despite the complexity of the manufacturing process, Krupp armor, due to its excellent characteristics, replaced all other types of armor, and for the next 25 years, most of the armor was just Krupp cemented armor.

Notes

Write a review on the article "Ship armor"

Notes

1. // Military Encyclopedia: [in 18 volumes] / ed. V. F. Novitsky[and etc.]. - St. Petersburg. ; [M .] : Typ. t-va I. V. Sytina , 1911-1915.
2. (English) . - American leadership. Retrieved 18 January 2013.
3. , With. 28.
4. , With. 27.
5. , p. 158.
6. , p. 161.
7. , p. 162.
8. , p. 240.
9. , With. 219.
10. www.wunderwaffe.narod.ru/Magazine/BKM/Brand/04.htm V. B. Muzhenikov. Battleships of the Brandendurg type. Section "Booking".

Literature

• Balakin S. A., Dashyan A. V., Patyanin S. V. et al. Battleships of World War II. - M ., 2005. - ISBN 5-699-13053-3.
• Evers G. Military shipbuilding = Kriegsschiffbau von H. Evers / edition and translation from German Zukshverdt A. E. - L. - M .: Main editorial board of shipbuilding literature, 1935. - 524 p. - 3000 copies.
• Steam, Steel and Shellfire: The Steam Warship, 1815-1905 / ed. Robert Gardiner, Andrew Lambert. - Conway Maritime Press, 1992. - ISBN 0851775640.

Links

ship armor Historical armor types Armor of the First World War Armor of the Second World War Surface hardened armor Homogeneous Heavy Armor Homogeneous Light Armor High strength structural steel

An excerpt characterizing the ship's armor

What can he write? Tradiridira, etc., all just to gain time. I tell you that he is in our hands; It's right! But the funniest thing of all,” he said, suddenly laughing good-naturedly, “is that they couldn’t figure out how to address the answer to him? If not the consul, it goes without saying not the emperor, then General Buonaparte, as it seemed to me.
“But there is a difference between not recognizing the emperor, and calling Buonaparte general,” said Bolkonsky.
“That's just the point,” Dolgorukov said quickly, laughing and interrupting. - You know Bilibin, he is very clever man, he proposed to address: "to the usurper and enemy of the human race."
Dolgorukov laughed merrily.
- No more? Bolkonsky noted.
- But still, Bilibin found a serious address title. And a witty and intelligent person.
- How?
“To the head of the French government, au chef du gouverienement francais,” Prince Dolgorukov said seriously and with pleasure. - Isn't that good?
“Good, but he won’t like it very much,” Bolkonsky remarked.
- Oh, and very much! My brother knows him: he dined with him more than once, with the present emperor, in Paris and told me that he had never seen a more refined and cunning diplomat: you know, a combination of French dexterity and Italian acting? Do you know his jokes with Count Markov? Only one Count Markov knew how to handle him. Do you know the history of the scarf? This is a charm!
And the garrulous Dolgorukov, turning now to Boris, now to Prince Andrei, told how Bonaparte, wanting to test Markov, our envoy, purposely dropped his handkerchief in front of him and stopped, looking at him, probably expecting services from Markov, and how, Markov immediately he dropped his handkerchief beside him and picked up his own without picking up Bonaparte's handkerchief.
- Charmant, [Charming,] - said Bolkonsky, - but here's what, prince, I came to you as a petitioner for this young man. Do you see what?…
But Prince Andrei did not have time to finish, when an adjutant entered the room, who called Prince Dolgorukov to the emperor.
- Oh, what a shame! - said Dolgorukov, hastily getting up and shaking hands with Prince Andrei and Boris. - You know, I am very glad to do everything that depends on me, both for you and for this nice young man. - He once again shook Boris's hand with an expression of good-natured, sincere and lively frivolity. “But you see…until another time!”
Boris was excited by the thought of the closeness to the highest power in which he felt himself at that moment. He was aware of himself here in contact with those springs that guided all those enormous movements of the masses, of which he in his regiment felt himself to be a small, obedient and insignificant part. They went out into the corridor after Prince Dolgorukov and met a short man in civilian clothes, with an intelligent face and a sharp line of protruding jaw, which, without spoiling him, gave him a special vivacity and resourcefulness of expression. This short man nodded, as to his own, Dolgoruky, and began to stare at Prince Andrei with an intently cold look, walking straight at him and apparently waiting for Prince Andrei to bow to him or give way. Prince Andrei did neither one nor the other; Anger was expressed in his face, and the young man, turning away, walked along the side of the corridor.
- Who is this? Boris asked.
- This is one of the most remarkable, but the most unpleasant people to me. This is the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Prince Adam Czartoryski.
“These are the people,” said Bolkonsky with a sigh that he could not suppress, while they were leaving the palace, “these are the people who decide the fate of peoples.
The next day, the troops set out on a campaign, and Boris did not have time to visit either Bolkonsky or Dolgorukov until the battle of Austerlitz, and remained for a while in the Izmailovsky regiment.

At dawn on the 16th, Denisov's squadron, in which Nikolai Rostov served, and who was in the detachment of Prince Bagration, moved from overnight to work, as they said, and, having passed about a verst behind other columns, was stopped on the main road. Rostov saw how the Cossacks, the 1st and 2nd squadrons of hussars, infantry battalions with artillery passed by him, and generals Bagration and Dolgorukov with adjutants passed by. All the fear that he, as before, experienced before the deed; all the internal struggle through which he overcame this fear; all his dreams of how he would distinguish himself like a hussar in this matter were in vain. Their squadron was left in reserve, and Nikolai Rostov spent that day bored and dreary. At 9 o'clock in the morning he heard firing ahead of him, shouts of cheers, saw the wounded brought back (there were few of them) and, finally, saw how in the middle of hundreds of Cossacks they led a whole detachment of French cavalrymen. Obviously, the matter was over, and the matter was apparently small, but happy. Soldiers and officers passing back spoke of a brilliant victory, about the occupation of the city of Vishau and the capture of an entire French squadron. The day was clear, sunny, after a strong night frost, and a cheerful brilliance autumn day coincided with the news of the victory, which was conveyed not only by the stories of those who participated in it, but also by the joyful expression on the faces of soldiers, officers, generals and adjutants who were traveling back and forth past Rostov. The more painful was the heart of Nikolai, who in vain had suffered all the fear that preceded the battle, and spent this cheerful day in inaction.
- Rostov, come here, let's drink from grief! shouted Denisov, sitting down on the edge of the road in front of a flask and a snack.
The officers gathered in a circle, eating and talking, near Denisov's cellar.
- Here's another one! - said one of the officers, pointing to a French dragoon prisoner, who was led on foot by two Cossacks.
One of them led a tall and beautiful French horse taken from a prisoner.
- Sell the horse! shouted Denisov to the Cossack.
"Excuse me, your honor..."
The officers stood up and surrounded the Cossacks and the captured Frenchman. The French dragoon was a young fellow, an Alsatian who spoke French with a German accent. He was choking with excitement, his face was red, and, hearing French, he quickly spoke to the officers, addressing first to one, then to the other. He said they wouldn't take him; that it was not his fault that they took him, but le caporal, who sent him to seize blankets, that he told him that the Russians were already there. And to every word he added: mais qu "on ne fasse pas de mal a mon petit cheval [But don't hurt my horse,] and caressed his horse. It was evident that he did not understand well where he was. He then apologized, that he was taken, then, assuming before him his superiors, showed his soldierly serviceability and care for the service.He brought with him to our rearguard in all the freshness the atmosphere of the French army, which was so alien to us.
The Cossacks gave the horse for two chervonets, and Rostov, now having received the money, the richest of the officers, bought it.
- Mais qu "on ne fasse pas de mal a mon petit cheval," the Alsatian said good-naturedly to Rostov when the horse was handed over to the hussar.
Rostov, smiling, reassured the dragoon and gave him money.
- Hello! Hello! - said the Cossack, touching the prisoner's hand so that he would go further.
- Sovereign! Sovereign! was suddenly heard among the hussars.
Everything ran, hurried, and Rostov saw several horsemen with white sultans on their hats driving up along the road. In one minute everyone was in place and waiting. Rostov did not remember and did not feel how he ran to his place and got on his horse. Instantly his regret for non-participation in the case, his everyday disposition of the spirit in the circle of looking at faces, instantly disappeared, all thought of himself disappeared: he was completely absorbed in the feeling of happiness that comes from the closeness of the sovereign. He felt himself rewarded for the loss of this day by this closeness alone. He was happy, like a lover waiting for an expected date. Not daring to look back at the front and not looking back, he felt with an enthusiastic instinct its approach. And he felt this not only from the sound of the hooves of the horses of the approaching cavalcade, but he felt it because, as he approached, everything became brighter, more joyful, more significant and more festive around him. This sun for Rostov moved closer and closer, spreading rays of gentle and majestic light around itself, and now he already feels captured by these rays, he hears his voice - this gentle, calm, majestic and at the same time so simple voice. As it should have been according to Rostov's feelings, there was dead silence, and in this silence the sounds of the sovereign's voice were heard.
– Les huzards de Pavlograd? [Pavlograd hussars?] – he said inquiringly.
- La reserve, sire! [Reserve, your majesty!] - answered someone else's voice, so human after that inhuman voice that said: Les huzards de Pavlograd?
The sovereign drew level with Rostov and stopped. Alexander's face was even more beautiful than at the review three days ago. It shone with such gaiety and youth, such innocent youth, that it resembled a childish fourteen-year-old playfulness, and at the same time it was still the face of a majestic emperor. Accidentally looking around the squadron, the eyes of the sovereign met the eyes of Rostov and stopped on them for no more than two seconds. Did the sovereign understand what was going on in Rostov's soul (it seemed to Rostov that he understood everything), but for two seconds he looked with his blue eyes into Rostov's face. (Light poured out of them softly and meekly.) Then suddenly he raised his eyebrows, with a sharp movement kicked the horse with his left foot and galloped forward.
The young emperor could not resist the desire to be present at the battle and, despite all the representations of the courtiers, at 12 o’clock, having separated from the 3rd column, with which he followed, he galloped to the vanguard. Before reaching the hussars, several adjutants met him with news of a happy outcome.
The battle, consisting only in the fact that the French squadron was captured, was presented as a brilliant victory over the French, and therefore the sovereign and the whole army, especially after the powder smoke had not yet dispersed on the battlefield, believed that the French had been defeated and were retreating against their own. will. A few minutes after the sovereign passed, the Pavlograd division was demanded forward. In Vishau itself, a small German town, Rostov once again saw the sovereign. On the square of the city, on which there had been a rather strong skirmish before the arrival of the sovereign, several people were lying dead and wounded, whom they did not have time to pick up. The sovereign, surrounded by a retinue of military and non-military, was on a red, already different than at the review, english mare and, leaning on his side, with a graceful gesture holding a golden lorgnette to his eye, looked into him at the soldier lying prone, without a shako, with a bloody head of a soldier. The wounded soldier was so unclean, rude and vile that Rostov was offended by his closeness to the sovereign. Rostov saw how the sovereign's stooped shoulders shuddered, as if from a passing frost, how his left leg convulsively began to beat the side of the horse with a spur, and how the accustomed horse looked around indifferently and did not budge. The adjutant, dismounted from his horse, took the soldier by the arms and began to put him on the stretcher that appeared. The soldier groaned.
Hush, hush, can't you hush? - apparently, suffering more than a dying soldier, the sovereign said and drove away.
Rostov saw the tears that filled the sovereign's eyes, and heard him, driving away, say in French to Chartorizhsky:
What a terrible thing war is, what a terrible thing! Quelle terrible chose que la guerre!
The vanguard troops were stationed in front of Wischau, in view of the enemy's line, which gave way to us at the slightest skirmish throughout the day. The sovereign's gratitude was announced to the avant-garde, rewards were promised, and a double portion of vodka was distributed to the people. Even more merrily than on the previous night, the bivouac fires crackled and soldiers' songs were heard.
Denisov was celebrating his promotion to major that night, and Rostov, already quite drunk at the end of the feast, proposed a toast to the health of the sovereign, but “not the sovereign emperor, as they say at official dinners,” he said, “but to the health of the sovereign, kind, charming and great man; we drink to his health and to a sure victory over the French!
“If we fought before,” he said, “and did not let the French down, as at Shengraben, what will happen now when he is ahead? We will all die, gladly die for him. So, gentlemen? Maybe I'm not talking like that, I drank a lot; Yes, I feel that way, and so do you. To the health of Alexander the First! Hurrah!
– Hurrah! - the enthusiastic voices of the officers sounded.
And the old captain Kirsten shouted enthusiastically and no less sincerely than the twenty-year-old Rostov.
When the officers drank and broke their glasses, Kirsten poured others and, in only a shirt and breeches, with a glass in his hand, went up to the soldiers' fires and, in a majestic pose, waved his hand upwards, with his long gray mustache and white chest, visible from behind the open shirt, stopped in the firelight.
- Guys, for the health of the Sovereign Emperor, for the victory over enemies, hurrah! he shouted in his gallant, senile, hussar baritone.
The hussars crowded together and answered in unison with a loud cry.
Late at night, when everyone had dispersed, Denisov patted his favorite Rostov with his short hand on the shoulder.
“There is no one to fall in love with on a campaign, so he fell in love with tsa,” he said.
“Denisov, don’t joke about that,” Rostov shouted, “it’s such a high, such a wonderful feeling, such ...
- Ve "yu, ve" yu, d "uzhok, and" I share and approve "yayu ...
- No, you don't understand!
And Rostov got up and went to wander between the fires, dreaming about what happiness it would be to die without saving his life (he did not dare to dream about this), but simply to die in the eyes of the sovereign. He really was in love with the tsar, and with the glory of Russian weapons, and with the hope of a future triumph. And he was not the only one who experienced this feeling in those memorable days preceding the battle of Austerlitz: nine-tenths of the people of the Russian army at that time were in love, although less enthusiastically, with their tsar and with the glory of Russian weapons.

The next day the sovereign stopped at Vishau. Life physician Villiers was called to him several times. In the main apartment and in the nearest troops, the news spread that the sovereign was unwell. He did not eat anything and slept badly that night, as the people close to him said. The reason for this ill health was the strong impression made on the sensitive soul of the sovereign by the sight of the wounded and killed.
At dawn on the 17th, a French officer was escorted from the outposts to Vishau, who arrived under a parliamentary flag, demanding a meeting with the Russian emperor. This officer was Savary. The emperor had just fallen asleep, and therefore Savary had to wait. At noon, he was admitted to the sovereign and an hour later went with Prince Dolgorukov to the outposts of the French army.
As was heard, the purpose of sending Savary was to offer a meeting between Emperor Alexander and Napoleon. A personal meeting, to the joy and pride of the whole army, was refused, and instead of the sovereign, Prince Dolgorukov, the winner at Vishau, was sent along with Savary to negotiate with Napoleon, if these negotiations, contrary to expectations, were aimed at a real desire for peace.
In the evening Dolgorukov returned, went straight to the sovereign and spent a long time alone with him.
On November 18 and 19, the troops passed two more marches forward, and the enemy outposts retreated after short skirmishes. In the higher spheres of the army, from noon on the 19th, a strong, troublesomely excited movement began, which continued until the morning of the next day, November 20th, on which the so memorable Battle of Austerlitz was given.