Unknown ship

Discussion in 'Everything else' started by Kaz, Oct 6, 2005.

  1. Kaz

    Kaz Member

    I have seen posts here (I'm sure) of the 'guess the aircraft' style, and my virtual pilots and I are stuck on this particular ship, with its recoiless gun, does anyone have an answer?

    Attached Files:

  2. Ziga

    Ziga Member

    It's a Russian destroyer with a sort of recoilless gun. I've seen this photo before, but I don't know the name of the ship. I will look through my stuff and let you know later.

    Best regards,

    P.S. "Kaz" because my full name is Kazimierz
  3. Bowdenja

    Bowdenja Active Member

    Thats one brave sailor who pulls the trigger.
  4. shrike

    shrike Guest

    The Russians surely did love playing with recoilless rifles didn't they? the Tupolev I'm making up instructions for had a pair of 3 inch recoilless repeaters (and i would LOVE to see a schematic of THAT!)
  5. Kaz

    Kaz Member

    Siema Kaz.
    I chose the name Kaz after my Mathematics Tutor,a wonderful man, to fly in IL2 online games as a Polish Pilot, and the names stuck, so much so my partner actually called me Kaz once. its the IL2 Forums that this ship has come from.
  6. Ziga

    Ziga Member

    Hi Kaz,

    I was also playing IL2 online, usually flying P-11c, but it was back in 2001. Now, I don't have much free time.
    Anyway, I have some details concerning the photo you posted. It shows the Russian destroyer "Karl Marks" armed with the experimental recoilless gun designed by Leonid Vasilevich Kurchevsky. There was an article about those experimental guns in "Citadel" (2/1996).
    My friend is interested in the Russian Navy, so he identified it quickly (and I saw it before in his collection).

    Best regards,
  7. gera

    gera Member

    That ship was the " Big Boom Boom"

  8. charliec

    charliec Active Member

    Looks like Kurchevsky wasn't satisfied with a monster recoilless gun on ships - he also did a 76mm gun which was fitted to a T-27 in 1933. The arrangement would have been quite scary - it was fixed in the hull over the top of the engine and between the two crew. From www.battlefield.ru:

    "...was sent to the army's trials which it failed because of the poor ballistics of the gun. The gun was also unstable when it fired and it was unsafe to operate."

    Image at: http://www.battlefield.ru/tanks/t27/t27_17.jpg


  9. Gil

    Gil Active Member

    Sorry guys but I've got to break in here,

    Can you imagine the test trials for this? It would make a great piece for a Roadrunner style cartoon...,

    1 Acme recoiless tank cannon with practice shell. Two witless tank types to maneuver, aim and fire the thing. Tank gunner lights fuse to fire gun, plugs ears with finger tips while tank commander sits rigidly upright with arms crossed, tank commander hat and googles, warn jauntily, while smoking a cigarette. Recoiless shell ignites ejecting a mighty cloud of smoke and makes sounds like the launch of Apollo 13. Problem arises when the shell hangs in the launch tube and begins to accelerate tank at an ever increasing rate. Tank commander and gunner now look at one another with the "what we do now look". Tank goes over edge of cliff. Long, long, long whistle as tank drops toward canyon floor. Just as it's about to hit the ground the recoiless shell detonates, "Kaboooooooom". Sad music plays to anounce the end....,

  10. charliec

    charliec Active Member

    I think it gets worse - Wikipedia says that the Sikorsky Ilya Muromets trialed
    a 76 mm Kurchevsky experimental recoilless gun. Always wondered where Junkers (Ju88P) and Henschel (Hs129B-3) got the big gun idea from.

    I saw a reference on the Web to a plan to equip Soviet destroyers with the 305mm Kurchevsky gun and patrol boats with a 152mm version.

    There doesn't seem to be a single authoritative source for Kurchevsky's weapons around - at least not in English.


  11. Kaz

    Kaz Member

    identified ship!

    Thankyou all who helped and made me laugh!
  12. Bowdenja

    Bowdenja Active Member

    OK........ big guns on ships, tanks and planes!!???

    Where did they get the guys to try these things, cause I really want to know?

    I agree Gil..........I see ships rolling over multiple times.........tanks being shot backwards and having to move back up to the original position to see if they hit anything..........and pilots flying forward with nothing but a seat and the stick in their hand!
  13. charliec

    charliec Active Member

    In the absence of concrete data you can make reasonable estimates.

    The Ilya Muromets last flew in the early 1920s so a reasonable time frame is probably 1919-1922 since the Kurchevsky recoilless guns seem to be associated with the Soviet era.

    The T-27 tankette is known - 1933.

    I'd guess the ship cannon at about the same period - someone else may know this precisely. The Soviet destroyer Karl Marx was built in 1904 and served through WW2 so there's a fair time period to choose from. I believe Kurchevsky was executed in the mid 1930s for wasting state resources so that's probably the upper limit on any of these.

    It wasn't as suicidal for personnel as you might think since the point of the Kurchevsky guns was that they were recoilless so the loads
    on the carrier vehicle were much reduced compared to a conventional gun.
    There was a modification of a Jeep in the 1950s to carry a 105mm recoilless
    rifle which worked reasonably well. There was also the Ontos - a 1950s/60s light tank with 6 x 105mm recoilless rifles - worked pretty well.


  14. shrike

    shrike Guest

    I'm going to ramble a bit, one of my "shift" keys is sticky and it's really too early in the morning so please bear with me.

    the recoilless rifle is not that silly of an idea. It allows a relatively small vehicle/craft or man to deliver a devastating amount of firepower within certain compromises. The major compromise is that the RR has a low velocity and thus short range.

    For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If the shell goes left the gun - or something - must go right. With a recolilless rifle the trick is making the "something" going right NOT be the gun. The simplest method would be to shoot a secont equally sized projectile the opposite direction. At first glance that souunds suicidal, but the trick is to make it "Equal" not identical. A 10kg shell going one way can be balanced by 10kg of confetti going the other. This is actually how the initial launch charge on a Milan ATGW is handled. The rocket engine starts AFTER it has been kicked out of the tube. You still don't want to stand rigt behind the launcher, but the confetti disperses into harmless fluff fairly quickly.

    The other way is more elegant. The actions must be the same, but the mass and velocity needn't be. E=mv^2 which means you can play alot with m and v to get the same result. If you use a portion of the expanding gasses from the propellant charge and direct them through a properly shapped nozzle you get a rocket thrust equal to the 'recoil' of the projectile. I draw you attention to the large cone at the rear of the tube in the picture posted.

    Trading range for destructive power isn't that bad in some cases. A man carrying one can sneak much closer to a tank than another tank can. A small vessel can be built much light and faster, and fairly small aircraft can deliver a single shot kill to the largest of bombers. The germans in WWII made the same compromise with the MK108 30mm cannon. Short range, arcing trajectory but devastating effect.

    Once you added an explosive charge to you projectile the low velocity isn't as much an issue. In fact in the anti-armour role with a shaped charge warhead a fast projectile can reduce effectiveness and only complicates fusing. In and anti-aircraft role with fragmentation warheads the forward velocity is inconsequential

    Kurchevsky's work was to make a RR self-loading. Most self-loading weapon use recoill energy to aid the process and that's obviously not an option here. I'd love to see a schematic of his work. I know how I'd go about it, and it would be complex and troublesome to say the least. no wonder that many of them (including the ones on the <start plug> ANT-23 - model to be released soon <end plug>) had a tendency to explode.

    The RS82 rocket projectile developed concurrently with Kurchevsky's work was a better and simpler answer to the problem and RR devlopment was dropped.

    If Kurchevsky was executed (and I don't know that he was) then it shouldn't be a surprise. After all in 1937-8 Stalin was imprisoning or executing practically everyone smarter that a bumpkin anyway.
  15. charliec

    charliec Active Member

    And for the motorcyclist who really wants to have firepower on the freeway....

    It's a test version of a Kurchevsky gun from 1930. Apparently Kurchevsky
    was arrested and executed in 1937 during the Stalin’s repressions in the end of 1930s.

    A real disadvantage of recoilless guns is the back blast zone behind the gun. The 105mm US recoilless rifle was notorious for deafening and injuring the gunners. Firing a Carl Gustav has been described as like being hit across the kidneys with a shovel from the back blast.



Share This Page