It was a sight never seen before. For more than three months, from November 26, 1860 to March 8, 1861, a single gun at a test site near St. Petersburg conducted targeted fire. The first thousand shots were fired, the second. The charge increases, the firing speed increases. To cool the gun, which was very hot, it was necessary to pour snow on it and clean the barrel channel with a bath soaked in snow. The third thousand shots. The gun remained intact. The 12-pound cast-iron cannonballs also hit the target 500 fathoms away. The fourth thousand shots... The first Russian steel cannon withstood the tests brilliantly. According to their results, the artillery instance gave the following assessment: "Obukhov's cast steel is excellent... Its gun perfectly withstands firing charges even stronger than ordinary ones. The viscosity and elasticity of this steel is such that the gun withstood more than 4 thousand shots without breaking, and the metal did not give up at all. The gun delivered by Mr. Obukhov is in no way inferior to Krupp's, and one can only wish that exactly the same tools were prepared by him in the production of cast steel tools in a large tesla. " 1
The Obukhov cannon with the inscription "Cast in 1860 at the Knyaz-Mikhailovskaya factory from Obukhov steel; withstood more than 4 thousand shots" was deposited in "S". - St. Petersburg Arsenal "among memorable objects" 2 . In May-June 1861, the gun was exhibited at the St. Petersburg Manufactory Exhibition and was a considerable success3 . At the World's Fair of 1862 in London, the first Russian steel cannon not only won a gold medal, but also surpassed all the guns of Western European countries and the United States presented there in terms of metal quality. "You can guarantee, and I am responsible for this," wrote one of the mining engineers, "that in the entire London exhibition there is not a single metal product that can match the quality of the metal with the Obukhov cannon." 4 The owners of the famous Sheffield steelworks, who knew a lot about the steel business, were amazed to get acquainted with the samples of Obukhov steel 5 . The triumph of this gun was an important recognition of the merits of the Russian steel industry.

So far, there are no special works devoted in general to the development of steel production in Russia. There are only a number of works on certain aspects of the development of this branch of domestic industry. Among them are biographies of its founders that contain interesting material6 . Their works are interesting, because they contain-

1 Archive of the Military-Historical Museum of Artillery, Engineering Troops and Signal Troops in Leningrad (hereinafter - AVIMA), f. Provisional Artillery Committee. (VAK), op. 41, d. 24. ll. 236-237.

2 TSGVIA SSSR. f. 503. op. 3, d. 486, ll. 30, 31.

3 Ibid., p. 39

4 Severnaya pchela, 1862; N-160.

5 Poletika V. On the Iron industry in Russia, St. Petersburg, 1864, p. 81.

6 Paduchev P. The first Russian steel guns. - Historical Bulletin, 1894, N 4; Kavaderov P. M. Obukhov. - Russkaya starina, 1905, vol. 123; D. K. Chernov: an essay from life and activity, posthumous works and selected correspondence. Pg. 1923; Danilevsky V. V. Russkaya tekhnika. L. 1948; D. K-Chernov-osnovodavodnik nauchnogo metallovedeniya. Moscow 1950; D. K-Chernov i nauka o metallakh. L. - Moscow 1950; Sergeeva O. P. Pavel Petrovich Anosov. M. 1950; Sharts A. Uralskie tekhniki-inventors. Molotov. 1950; Chernyak A. Ya., Nakhimov D. M. Russian Metal scientist-

page 101

reaper rich first-hand factual information. There are also works on the Obukhov, Putilovsky, Perm (Motovilikhinsky) plants, etc. 7. The use of these materials, as well as archival research and data from published sources, allow us to give an outline of the formation of the steel industry in Russia in the XIX century.

The prehistory of Russian steelmaking goes back to the haraluzhny swords of the heroes of "The Tale of Igor's Regiment". The Middle Ages knew a relatively well-established steel business. Many steel products of Russian craftsmen of the XVI-XVII centuries have been preserved. In 1785, the first large steel-making manufactory in Pyshma was established in Russia, producing raw steel. In the first quarter of the 19th century, the production of domestic steel reached a significant size. It was smelted at the state-owned factories of Kamensk, Verkh-Isetsky, Alapaevsky, Botkin, Nizhne-Tagil, Izhevsk, Zlatoust, and private factories of Batashov, Maltsev, Stroganov, and others. It is characteristic that in 1820, The Department of Mining and Salt Affairs refused to grant the merchant Polyukhov the privilege of producing steel at his factory, explaining that "the preparation of steel in its various forms has already been brought to perfection in Russia and in other factories, and besides, its manufacture, which was already very significant, is an important branch of private industry, useful for the state itself" 8 .

By that time, a number of factories produced cast steel, which had valuable technical properties. A great contribution to the development of the steel industry was made by the talented master Semyon Ivanovich Badaev (1778-1849). While still a serf, he discovered a new method of producing cast steel at the state-owned plant of surgical instruments in St. Petersburg in 1808. Later, Badaev founded a "steel factory" at the Kamsko-Votkinsk plant, where he improved his production method . Its steel was not inferior to the best grades of English steel . The plant manager I. P. Tchaikovsky (the composer's father) was very helpful to Badaev. "Since it is proved that this steel is not inferior in any way to English steel," he wrote, " appropriate measures have been taken to spread its popularity, and at the same time care has been taken to prepare steel of the best quality and as cheap as possible." Badaev was the first in Russia to solve the problem of obtaining a particularly high-quality metal that was used for stamps, coins, and various stamps. His authority was so great that when in 1830 the Haarlem Society of Sciences announced an international competition for the best method of producing cast steel, there was no doubt that it was Badaev who should receive the prize .12 Nevertheless, he died half-forgotten, having upset his health with hard work, but managed to pass on his knowledge and experience to a group of craftsmen and workers of the Kamsko-Votkinsk plant.

Another center of steel manufacturing was then the Zlatoust plant (a factory of white weapons attached to it). Steel production began there in 1802, initially on a small scale. But it was there that skilful cadres of steelworkers were formed (among them such nugget craftsmen as N. Shvetsov, P. Utkin, P. Kamchatov, etc.) and a type of Russian master metallurgist was developed who was able to get high results.-

ved N. V. Kalakutsky. M. 1951; Bogachev I. N. P. P. Anosov and the secret of bulat. M. Sverdlovsk. 1952; Peshkin I. P. P. Anosov. M. 1954; Sorokin Yu. N. Outstanding Russian metallurgist A. S. Lavrov. In: Works on the history of Technology. Issue 4. Moscow, 1954; Golovin A. F. O zhizni i deyatel'nosti Dmitri Konstantinovich Chernov (1839-1921). Moscow, 1968; Fedorov A. S. Tvortsy nauki o metale. Moscow, 1969; Aleksandrov A. A. S. I. Badaev. Moscow, 1971; Prokoshkin D. A. P. P. Anosov, 1799-1851. Moscow, 1971; Gumilevsky L. Chernov, M. 1975; Garin F. A. Zapazdaloe pismo, M. 1976.

7 V. Kolchak The history of the Obukhov steel Plant in connection with the progress of artillery technology. St. Petersburg, 1903; Rozanov M. Obukhovtsy, Moscow, 1938; Melnikov F. E. Vozrozhdenie Motovilikhinsky artilleriyskogo zavoda [The emergence of the Motovilikhinsky Artillery factory]. - Uchenye zapiski Permskogo universiteta, 1947, vol. 5, vol. 2; Mitelman M., Glebov B., Ulyansky A. Istoriya Putilovskogo zavoda, 1801-1917. M. 1961; et al.

8 TsGIA SSSR, f. 37, op. 3, d. 38, l. 134.

9 First obtained cast steel in 1740 in England (Encyclopedic Lexicon, vol. 4, St. Petersburg, 1835, p. 68); about Badaev, see: Alexandrov A. A. Uk. soch.

10 TsGIA USSR, f. 44, op. 2, d. 705, ll. 16, 19, 38, 96.

11 Ibid., l. 1.

12 Severniy muravey, 1830, N 45, p. 373

page 102

low-quality metal in the most difficult production conditions. "Experience, attention, firmness of character and sharpness of mind," wrote a contemporary about them, " are the qualities necessary for a good steelworker: a skilful but weak one will get lost in a breakdown in the forge and will not find decent means to correct it. They are also difficult for the master, who is gifted with firmness of mind and the ability to anticipate the true cause of the disorder: everything that happens in the forge is hidden from him, and he must be guided only by phenomena on the surface of the forge and some limited signs. " 13 At that time, the steel industry was still based on personal art, and not on developed scientific principles.

By the mid-19th century, the quality of steel did not always meet the increased technical requirements, and the scale of production was small. Obtaining high-quality metal was in the experimental stage. It was necessary to generalize them and bring the scientific base under the production process. This task was set and largely solved by the great Russian metallurgist Pavel Petrovich Anosov (1799-1851). His activity is also connected with the Zlatoust plant, where he worked for 30 years. Directly to the search for new ways of producing cast steel, Anosov began in the mid-20s of the XIX century. after being appointed to the position of manager of an arms factory. The machine-building enterprises that were emerging in Russia at that time were in urgent need of steel, it was needed for the manufacture of various tools, it was required for arming the army. Under these conditions, the problem of obtaining high-quality steel on a large scale has acquired national significance. Many major scientists were working on it abroad, but they did not find the right ways to solve it at that time .14
Anosov discovered and justified a new method for producing cast steel, which consisted "in fusing unusable iron and steel cuttings in clay pots using elevated temperatures of air furnaces" 15 . Contrary to the prevailing ideas that carburization-the saturation of iron with carbon-requires their direct contact, Anosov proved the possibility of carburization in a gas environment, for which it is enough to stop the saturation process at the right moment: "A melting pot with a roof is just an unlockable box. You just need to know when to open it and when to close it. " 16 In Zlatoust, they began to practically manage the melting of steel, and it was distinguished by high qualities and was used for cold weapons, scythes, tools, locksmiths ' saws, etc. Some 10 thousand braids were made there in 183617 . In 1839, the Moscow Society of Agriculture awarded Anosov a gold medal "for improving the stagnant production at the Zlatoust plant" 18 . He also carried out for the first time: rolling of cast steel 19 . Having a broad outlook, Anosov showed that rolling will lead to a sharp increase in the use of steel 20 .

In addition, he went down in the history of metallurgy as a scientist who for the first time restored the lost secret of damask steel production. The results of this work are summarized by him in the work "On bulat" (1841). His bulat products were shown at industrial exhibitions in Russia and abroad and received high marks, because only in Russia did they produce a new bulat 21 . Anosov's outstanding achievements made it possible to move from manufacturing small products to casting products weighing tens of pounds. In the late 1840s, F. Erupp in Germany began to produce from

13 Central Military Academy of the USSR, f. VUA (Military-scientific Archive), op. 1, 26124, l. 10.

14 TsGIA USSR, f. 44, op. 2, d. 482, ll. 93-94, 104-105; Artillery magazine, 1857, n 1, Department of Scientific and Technical, p. 22.

15 Anosov P. P. On the preparation of cast steel. - Gorny zhurnal, 1837, N 1, p. 88.

16 Ibid., pp. 88-89.

17 Central Archive of Glavpoligraphizdat (hereinafter - TSAGPI), f. 1, op. 177, d. 7, l. 80; d. 14, l. 10.

18 Bogachev I. N. Uk. soch., pp. 92, 137.

19 TsGIA SSSR, f. 44, sp. 2, d. 482, l. 1; Chernyak A. Ya. New documents about P. P. Anosov. Voprosy istorii estestvoznaniya i tekhniki [Questions of the History of Natural Science and Technology], 1957, issue 4.

20 TsGIA SSSR, f. 44, op. 2, d. 482, l. 2.

21 Manufakturnye i gornozavodskie izvestiya, 3. IX. 1843, p. 285; 6. VI. 1851, p. 215.

page 103

cast steel artillery pieces. They were exhibited at the 1855 World's Fair in Paris. They are considered to be the first tools of this kind. However, there are references to the fact that even earlier Anosov cast a steel cannon. The archive has preserved a signed "Statement on the manufacture of weapons and products of the Zlatoust arms Factory", from which it can be seen that in fact in 1835 40 pounds 30 pounds of "cast steel in guns"were made at his factory. The fate of these weapons, unfortunately, is unknown. In the last years of his life, Anosov worked on the development of alloy steels. His research on the structure of metals is of great importance. He successfully used a microscope for this purpose and pointed out the relationship between the structure of steel and its properties .22 These works laid the foundations of metal science as a science.

The emergence of a social need and the final formation of the scientific, technical and organizational framework for the development of large-scale steel production in Russia dates back to the second half of the XIX century, when it was necessary to rearm the army and navy, build a number of metallurgical plants, establish metalworking, mechanical engineering and machine tool construction. A significant role was played by the transition in the army to rifled weapons. He raised the question of a stronger metal for the barrels. Bronze, cast iron and iron did not meet the new requirements 23 . Only cast steel would do. In 1860. The Provisional Artillery Committee recognized that "Steel guns should be substituted for copper and cast-iron ones." 24 This problem was then faced by all the leading powers, but each country solved it in its own way. In Russia, this was done by building its own steel mills.

Pavel Matveyevich Obukhov (1820-1869) made a huge contribution to this work. The son of a factory foreman, he graduated from the Institute of the Corps of Mining Engineers, worked at a number of Ural factories and in the 50s of the last century applied a new method of steelmaking, which was based not on carburization of iron, but on the reverse process-decarburization of cast iron using iron oxides fused together with cast iron; magnetic ironstone was also introduced into the charge, steel and iron cuttings, black slag, arsenic, saltpeter, clay 25 . Obukhov's activity became more intensive in 1854, when he became the manager of the Zlatoust arms factory, where he began to make blades. Comparative tests of Obukhov, German (Solingen) and Spanish (Toledo) blades showed the superiority of the Russians. According to the review of Academician A. Y. Kupfer, who tested them, "there is hardly a steel that, in a soft tempered state, can better over-hold this cruel test, as the tested one" 26 .

Then Obukhov began to make cuirasses for heavy cavalry and also achieved success. "The cuirasses of Lieutenant Colonel Obukhov that have now been tested," the Artillery Committee noted in 1855, "are not only not inferior in dignity to Krupp's cuirasses, but even surpass them in terms of lightness and resistance to bullet impacts, even from very close distances." 27 At the same time, Obukhov steel was much cheaper than English and German steel. In 1858, the factory received an order for the manufacture of 2,883 cuirasses, and their production became widespread. For the first time, the production of 60-pound steel cores and steel planks for the skin of military vessels was also mastered .28 Even during the Crimean War, the question arose about replacing iron in the barrels of firearms with steel. Only Krupp conducted such experiments abroad. Obukhov has now begun to work on them. In December 1855, the Ministry of Finance conducted comparative tests of Krupp and Obukhov rifle barrels. The latter turned out to be better 29 . Further, it was shown that Obukhov steel can be used to make in-

22 TsGIA OF the USSR, f. 44, op. 2, d. 482, l. 28.

23 TSGVIA USSR, f. 501, op. 1, d. 939, l. 26; f. 506, op. 1, d. 676, l. 110.

24 AVIMA, f. VAK, op. 41, d. 24, l. 46.

25 TsGIA USSR, f. 44, op. 3, d. 160, l. 154.

26 Ibid., 317, ll. 21-22, 33.

27 TSGVIA USSR, f. 503, op. 5, d. 418, ll. 46-47.

28 Ibid., d. 506, l. 161; AVIMA, F. BUK (Military-scientific collection), op. 40, d. 239, ll. 73, 142, 178.

29 TsGIA OF the USSR, f. 37, op. 11, 525, l. 8.

page 104

strument and all artillery pieces. Nevertheless, the tsarist government continued to order barrels from Krupp, and only in 1869 were practical steps taken to organize the production of steel rifle barrels in Russia .30
By 1857, Obukhov could already create various grades and grades of steel: hard and medium tool, blade, cuirass, barrel, etc., which was achieved by appropriate calculations of the charge composition. He was granted a privilege for his method of smelting cast steel 31 and soon solved the problem of producing it with a homogeneous large mass. This made it possible to cast large items, including tools. However, this required building a special factory. In 1858 , the construction of steel mill No. 32 began in Zlatoust, and in February 1860, the first stage of the steel mill was put into operation. The factory was named Knyaz-Mikhailovskaya, and the first steel guns were soon cast there. After their brilliant tests, the Provisional Artillery Committee on April 19, 1861, noted:: "Obtaining excellent steel tools at the Zlatoust factory is not a matter of chance, the possibility of obtaining such tools is beyond doubt... From the artillery and technical side... the question of Obukhov's cast-steel guns can be considered solved. " 33 Now it was necessary to equip the factory with equipment. Steam hammers, machines, boilers and machine tools ordered from Belgium and manufactured in Yekaterinburg were delivered to Zlatoust 34, factory buildings were built (steel, forging, drilling, turning, finishing, crucible, model, tool, etc.), a landfill, rooms for chemical, physical and mechanical testing of metal and testing of finished tools were built. There was a lack of equipment, many labor-intensive operations were performed manually, and the energy sector was at a low level, represented mainly by a system of primitive water wheels. All this could not fully meet the production needs of the factory.

Construction of the second stage and installation of equipment were slow. One of the most important reasons was the unprofitability of labor. The factory was being built, and former serfs worked on it. "Anyone who has served in factories for even a short time," wrote a mining official at the time, " will agree with me that all factory work, with the exception of back - office work, has always been extremely expensive, unprofitable, and rarely carried out permanently. The reason for this is one: the property of serf labor " 35 . After the cessation of steel-gun production at the Knyaz-Mikhailovskaya factory, the situation of workers deteriorated sharply. Up to 3 thousand people were dismissed and left without means of subsistence. Their letter to the Minister of Finance, M. H. Reytern, dated May 18, 1867, describing the desperate situation of the unemployed and asking them to provide them with work, has been preserved. However, no assistance was provided, and a significant part of the workers were forced to leave Zlatoust for St. Petersburg and Perm. 36 Another reason for the slow pace of construction was the lack of funds, which were allocated little, and the released money was plundered by officials. The Belgian equipment turned out to be poor, and there was no unified construction plan .37 The organization of steel production in Zlatoust took about 3 million rubles 38 . Obukhov was particularly burdened by the bureaucracy of the Ural mining authorities: "Instead of live assistance," he wrote, "for the speedy fulfillment of the assignment, as prescribed by the mining chief of the Zlatoust factories, I meet only obstacles, receive bad and expensive materials." 39
39 V. B. R. A few words about the introduction of cast steel for rifle barrels in our country-Oruzheyniy sbornik, 1863, No. 1, ll. 141-146; TSGVIA SSSR, f. 506, op. 1, d. 1118, l. 1.

31 TsGIA OF the USSR, f. 44, op. 3, d. 160, l. 158.

32 Ibid., f. 37, op. 11, d. 529, l. 78.

33 AVIMA, f. VAK, op. 41, d. 24, ll. 223-224.

34 TsGIA OF the USSR, f. 37, op. 11, 531, l. 257.

35 Kotlyarevsky. About the introduction of free labor in factories and some upcoming changes. - Gorny zhurnal, 1863, N 3, p. 575.

36 TSAGPI, f. 1, op. 177, 21, ll. 165 - 166, 169 - 170, 183.

37 TsGIA SSSR, f. 37, op, 11, 532, l.: 208.

38 Golos, 1864, N 269; Paduchev P. Uk. soch., p. 176.

30 TsGIA USSR, f. 37, op. 11, d. 530, l. 257.

page 105

It was important to obtain high-quality castings with a homogeneous mass of metal. Steel was smelted in crucibles from a mixture of refractory clay and graphite. Each crucible contained 1 pood of 25l. charge. Liquid steel was fused into the mold, resulting in an ingot. With 127 furnaces, the factory could simultaneously produce up to 570 pounds of steel. Here is how an eyewitness described this operation: "The steel is ripe, and from all the crucibles it is necessary to cast a tool, observing that it flows into the mill in a continuous, even stream and that it does not stand still; we were pleased to watch as the workers approached the vat in rows on both sides of the furnaces in the greatest order. Before reaching the vat, the crucible was placed on the floor, the lid was carefully removed from it, the coal debris was blown away, the crucible was picked up again with pincers and brought to the vat, into which the steel was poured in a smooth, quiet stream. The empty crucible was quickly set aside to make room for others, and the boys used their hooks to grab the empty ones... As soon as the tool is cast, the mill is covered from above with a cast-iron lid so that the steel does not boil, and covered with sand to prevent air access. " 40 Forging was carried out with 250-and 550-pound hammers, the 1000-pound hammer brought there was not installed. After turning and drilling, the guns were sent for quality control to the receivers from the Ministry of War. Receiving orders from the military and naval departments, the factory from 1860 to 1867, before the closure of the steel-gun production, produced 365 guns 41 .

The factory's activities began to decline with the departure of Obukhov to St. Petersburg in 1864 and the arrival of a new administration: "The management of the factory," wrote the military receptionist of the Knyaz - Mikhailovskaya factory, "fell into other hands, and the mining authorities within a few years led to a complete breakdown and the cessation of gun production in Zlatoust." 42
Alexey Stepanovich Lavrov (1838-1904) and Nikolai Veniaminovich Kalakutsky (1831-1889), military receptionists of the Knyaz-Mikhailovskaya Factory, made a significant contribution to the development of the scientific and technical foundations of steel production. They came forward after in 1866 the Committee for the Manufacture of artillery pieces for fortresses and the Navy considered the issue of steel guns of the Perm factory and the Knyaz-Mikhailovskaya factory. Recognizing that their production was not based on a solid scientific basis, the Committee decided to introduce tests of gun metal to find the relationship between the physical properties of metal and products made from it .43 Lavrov and Kalakutsky's research was conducted in difficult conditions, outside of their work responsibilities, and in an atmosphere of pessimism that surrounded them. One of the high-ranking officials of the mining department, I. F. Felkner, after visiting a number of foreign factories, wrote that difficulties in the development of large steel products "are inseparable from the nature of things and beyond the power of human hands, therefore, they are unattainable precisely because steel is steel" .44
But then the articles of young researchers began to appear: "Sample of steel tools"," On the preparation of steel tools"," Materials for the study of steel tools"," Materials for the study of steelmaking in Russia " 45 . They summarized several thousand experiments. The authors called for abandoning the old methods of work and putting production on a different basis. "We wanted to carry out the idea here," Kalakutsky wrote, "that both the casting and forging of steel blocks should be based on strictly scientific principles, and not on the mere considerations and skill of craftsmen." 46 Lavrov and Kalakutsky then resolved the most important issues of metallurgy and steel processing. The later famous scientist D. K. Chernov said at the same time: "The works of Messrs. Lavrov and Kalakutsky, without having any-

40 Kotlyarevsky. Travel to the Ural and Lugansk factories in 1864-Gorny Zhurnal, 1865, N 6, pp. 234-235.

41 Artillery Magazine, 1869, No. 9, pp. 276, 282, 284.

42 Lavrov A. S. Raboty i zametki po liteynomu delo [Works and notes on the foundry business]. Vol. I. SPb. 1904, p. 1.

43 TSGVIA SSSR, f. 506, op. 1, d. 802, l. Pob.

44 Gorny zhurnal, 1864, N 6, pp. 420-421.

45 Artillery Magazine, 1866, NN 1, 10, 11; 1867, NN 5, 7, 9, 10; 1869, NN 1, 4, 9.

46 Ibid., 1867, No. 9, pp. 1641-1642.

page 106

There are many examples of their kind not only in Russian, but also in foreign literature that deserve our full appreciation for their authors... They were the first to indicate the distribution of voids in cast steel ingots and their dependence on the circumstances of melting and casting - the distribution of the densities of the steel itself in different places of the ingots and the difference in their chemical composition " 47 . For the first time in the world, Kalakutsky laid out the foundations of the theory of internal stresses in metals. In faraway Zlatoust, the foundations of a true science of steel were being laid on the foundation that Anosov had already erected.

Further success of steel production in Russia was associated with the activities of the Obukhov, Perm and Putilovsky plants. The emergence of the Obukhov plant was due to the need to re-equip naval artillery, especially the battleships that were being built. The founders of this largest Russian steel company were Obukhov and entrepreneur N. I. Putilov. On September 12, 1861, they: signed a contract for 25 years: being associated with the Knyaz-Mikhailovskaya factory, Obukhov transferred the right to the method of steel production he had invented to Putilov, who received the exclusive right to build steel mills so that the technical management was in the hands of Obukhov, and the latter demanded strict secrecy of production, "so that the method of steel production this document could not be transferred abroad. " 48 They entered into an agreement with a wealthy contractor and on May 4, 1863, signed a contract with the Maritime Ministry .49 The plant began to be built on private capital with considerable support from the treasury, and in 1864 it was put into operation. It was equipped with the latest technology, consisted of a foundry, hammer mill, drilling, crucible shops, a number of workshops; it had a gas plant, and in 1867 a factory for locomotive and wagon wheels was built.

From the very beginning, the Obukhov plant produced 22 grades of steel. Soft grades were used for rifle barrels, and hard grades were used to make tools and glass cutters. The complex equipment was partly imported from abroad, and partly manufactured at domestic enterprises .50 Its pride was the largest in Europe 35 - ton, then 50-ton hammers. The power industry was built on a steam basis. The Obukhov crucible method of steel production was used. Its author moved to the factory in 1863 together with the best Zlatoust foundry workers. In 1871, Kalakutsky 51 became a receptionist there . The best people of the steel industry gathered in St. Petersburg. They have made many improvements to the technological process. So, the melting of steel required for blocks weighing up to 900 pounds., previously lasted up to three hours, and later-45 minutes.

However, when tested, some guns perfectly withstood up to 3 thousand shots with reinforced charges, while others exploded immediately 52 . Engineers and technicians only stated the fact that the metal turned out to be heterogeneous in various tools. A significant number of guns ordered to the factory did not stand up to the tests, were rejected and dumped in the warehouse. The reason was the imperfection of the technological process, the lack of scientific principles of manufacturing products. The task of strict testing of all operations arose. The fate of the steel-gun industry depended on its decision. If the first steps in this direction were taken by Lavrov and Kalakutsky, then the honor of the final decision belongs to Chernov, the founder of modern metal science and the theory of heat treatment of steel.

Dmitry Konstantinovich Chernov (1839-1921) at the invitation of Obukhov

47 Notes of the Russian Technical Society (hereinafter - ZRTO), 1868, July, pp. 339-340.

48 TSGVIA SSSR, f. 501, op. 1, d. 935, l. 84.

49 State Historical Archive of the Leningrad region, building of the Main office of the Obukhov plant, N 1267, op. 1, St. 1, d. 1-a, 1863, ll. 1-8.

50 Kolchak V. Uk. soch.; Kapter V. Obukhov Steel Plant, St. Petersburg, 1908; Journal of Manufactories and Trade, 1865, vol. 5, pp. 589-600; Marine Collection, 1864, No. 10, pp. 1-15: No. 11, pp. 81-88.

51 St.-Petersburg Vedomosti, 3. I. 1869, N 3; TSGVIA SSSR, f. 504, op. 9, d. 63. ll. 33-34.

52 Engelhardt A. Note on steel tools. - Artillery magazine, 1864, N 9, ed. neofits., p. 701; Bulletin of the Society of Technologists, 1914, N 23, p. 844.

page 107

in 1866 he entered the Obukhov factory. The bursting of the guns during testing interested him, and he began systematic research, subjecting the entire technology to a detailed analysis. He was able to establish that the reasons are rooted in the processing of cast blocks. "General Obukhov," he later wrote, " knew how to cast crucible steel well, but he did not know how to work it. The processing of steel according to the ideas of General Obukhov was incorrect. At the same time, they did not know the reason at all... bva-ka material " 53 . The results were summarized by him in the report "A critical review of the articles of Messrs. Lavrov and Kalakutsky on steel and steel tools and D. K. Chernov's own research on the same subject", made at a meeting of the Russian Technical Society in ' 1868. Paying tribute to Lavrov and Kalakutsky, Chernov outlined the essence of his discovery: he investigated the influence of the chemical composition of steel on mechanical properties, the structure of cast steel bars, the temperature regime and conditions for forging, and established the dependence of the structure and properties of steel on the heating temperature; at certain temperatures, steel undergoes transformations that change its structure and properties.

These nodal points are now known in science as "Chernov points". The point " a "corresponds to a temperature below which the steel" does not take quenching, no matter how quickly it is cooled "54; the point" b " corresponds to the temperature at which the steel gets an amorphous structure. Guided by the established critical points, Chernov deduced a rational temperature regime that ensures high-quality homogeneous metal in products, showing that the decisive role in shaping the structure and properties of steel is played not by forging, as previously thought, but by heat treatment. Chernov managed to fix a number of rejected Obukhov guns without any mechanical processing .55
These findings marked a revolution in steel production and were recognized worldwide. In 1900, at the World's Fair in Paris, the director of the Society of French Metallurgical Plants, P. Montgolfier, said:: "I consider it my duty to declare openly and publicly to so many experts and specialists that our plant and the entire steel industry owe their real development and success to a large extent to the work and research of the Russian technician G. Chernov, and I invite you to express our sincere gratitude and gratitude to him on behalf of the entire metallurgical industry." 56 Although Chernov's discoveries were put into practice, the plant administration (Obukhov left him due to illness in 1868) refused the scientist funds, stating "that the plant is not for science"; Chernov believed that "without science there is no plant", and in 1880 he left the Obukhov plant57 . At the All-Russian Manufactory Exhibition of 1870, the products of the latter were still in the center of attention. There were exhibited guns, rifle barrels, axles for locomotives, tires for wagon wheels, samples of steel 58 . A major achievement of the plant was also the development since 1872 of progressive methods of steelmaking-Bessemer and open-hearth.

The workers of the Obukhov plant have a glorious revolutionary past. Since the end of the 19th century, the enterprise has become one of the centers of the working-class movement in St. Petersburg, and in 1901 it became famous for the famous "Obukhov Defense" - the armed resistance of the proletarians to the tsarist oprichniks. Nevertheless, the life of workers in the first decades of the plant's existence is still poorly illuminated 59 . The construction of the enterprise was carried out by freelancers, former posession workers of the Alexander manufactory. Workers were divided into two main groups: numbered (permanent) and gross (daily). By 1877, there were 800 numbered cars and 260 gross cars . Position

53 D. K-Chernov: essay, p. 120.

54 ZRTO, 1868, July, p. 399.

55 Ibid., 1903, No. 4, p. 221.

56 Cit. By: Livshits B. G. D. K. Chernov and the world significance of his works on metal science, Moscow, 1949, pp. 4-5.

57 Bulletin of the Society of Technologists, 1914, N 23, p. 849.

58 TSGAVMF of the USSR, f. 421, 1869, 3, l. 275; Golos, 23. VII. 187O, N 206.

59 See, in part.: Gordon M. Materials on the history of Obukhov plant workers. - Archive of the History of Labor in Russia, 1923, N 9; Rozanov M. Uk. soch.; Istoriya rabochikh Leningradskogo. Vol. 1..L. 1972.

60 Rozanov M. Uk. soch., p. 25...

page 108

the former were better off, while the gross ones did not enjoy even the meager rights that the numbered ones had achieved: the daily salary did not exceed 35 kopecks .61 In more favorable conditions were the Zlatoust masters, who together with their family members numbered 150 people. However, all workers, without exception, were subjected to severe exploitation, worked in difficult conditions, were often ill, and lived in unsettled dwellings .62 The plant management received high profits, sometimes 3 times higher than the cost of orders 63 .

In 1863, the construction of the Perm (Motovilikha) plant began. The location was chosen near the Motovilikha foundry. N. V. Vorontsov, Obukhov's former assistant for the construction of the Knyaz - Mikhailovskaya factory, was appointed head of construction and the plant. The construction was completed within two years and was cheap. "These sums," wrote the chief manager of the Ural factories, A. Iosea, " are insignificant in comparison with the huge expenses made by the state for the purchase of Krupp guns... The entire construction of the Perm factory, which cost up to 940 thousand rubles, slightly exceeds the cost of a large steam hammer at the Krupla factory, and more than two million pounds sterling were spent in England on the production of experiments on the manufacture of Armstrong guns. " 64
The factory could produce 1080 pounds of steel in one melting according to the Obukhov method. The technological process almost did not differ from those adopted at the Knyaz-Mikhailovskaya Factory and the Obukhov plant, except for some improvements. As early as 1864, a research program was developed to determine the best composition of the charge, the degree of hardness of steel, and the choice of the method of forging it .65 Tests of the first steel gun were excellent: it withstood 4 thousand shots 66 . This was of fundamental importance. "The superiority of cast steel as a material for making guns," the Artillery Committee noted, " proved by experiments on Krupp and Obukhov guns, is fully confirmed by new experience on the Perm Factory gun. This experience is all the more important because it proves the technical feasibility of making good steel, not only in a single factory, according to methods that are the secret or art of one person, but in many factories, through which the business itself is strengthened and the character of personal art is lost." 67 The factory received large orders from the War Ministry, and began to produce steel castings for cars and railway accessories.

But in the future, mass explosions of guns made at the Perm plant also began. A situation has arisen in which "the true cause, which obviously lies in the methods and methods of production, remains without proper explanation" 68 . From the mid-60s of the reptiles of the XIX century. all three of the first Russian steel companies stop fulfilling orders and start experimenting. Each plant was looking for its own ways out of the current crisis. Shortcomings in the technological process were revealed: raw steel of an inhomogeneous structure was used in the charge; a solid steel charge was made for tools, which often cracked in finished products; spruce coal was used instead of pine coal, which left a lot of harmful ash; steel 69 was allowed to overheat during forging . These shortcomings have been corrected. Vorontsov's work on determining the relationship between the properties of metal and the strength of tools was of great importance. They were conducted according to the original methodology, which was amended by Chernov 70 .

Since the end of the 60s of the XIX century, the technical crisis began to be overcome. Military

61 Votes, 21. XI 1868, N 322.

62 Ibid., 13. XI. 1879, N 314; Archive of the History of Labor in Russia, 1923, N 1, p. 68.

63 TSGVIA USSR, f. 504, op. 15, d. 159, ll. 2-3.

64 TsGIA of the USSR, f. 37, op. 11, 746, ll. 1, 8, 9, 23, 24, 31, 145 - 150; d. 747, ll. 26-165; AVIMA, f. VAK, op. 41, d. 24, ll. 531-540; TSVIA OF THE USSR, f. 506, op. 1, d. 802, l. 464.

65 AVIMA, f. VAK, op. 41, d. 24, ll. 551-562.

66 TSGVIA USSR, f. 506, op. 2, d. 9, ll. 83-89.

67 Ibid., l. 88.

68 Ibid., d. 1694, l. 6.

69 Kotlyarevsky. On the reasons for the rupture of Russian steel guns. - ZRTO, 1867, N 4, pp. 201-205.

70 Vorontsov N. V. On testing the physical properties of steel in cast blocks for tools at the Perm plant. - Ibid., 1869, N 7, pp. 178-187.

page 109

Minister D. A. Milyutin wrote in a report dated January 1, 1869:" The results achieved in the steel industry at the Perm Plant are particularly important. " 71 Soon the factory received official recognition from the War Ministry and extensive orders. In 1870, an expert commission of the Ministry of Finance recognized the state of steel production at the Perm plant as very satisfactory .72 The period of mastering the technology of high-quality steel products has ended. And in the mid-70s, due to the expansion of needs, the plant's steel industry underwent reconstruction based on new equipment: 10 Siemens furnaces were built, the first open-hearth furnace was built, and the production volume increased.

Work at the Perm plant was carried out by the hands of freelancers, mostly local or assigned to the Motovilikhinsky society, but, according to the regulations of March 8, 1861, they maintained a forced connection with the land . 73 V. I. Lenin pointed out that as a result of such conditions of "liberation" of the mining population, "wages are extremely reduced; factories receive "their own", tied to the land. to the factory and cheap workers " 74 . The wages of the Perm factory workers were lower than those of the Obukhov workers. In 1868, on Obukhovsky, a registered laborer received up to 75 kopecks a day, a skilled worker - up to 1 p. 50 kopecks, and on Perm, respectively, up to 50 kopecks and up to 1 ruble 75 . Production and living conditions were also unsatisfactory 76 . The plant was in need of labor. True, the Motovilikhin workers were highly qualified. 77 N. V. Vorontsov emphasized: "Our workers are not only not inferior to European ones, but in terms of courage, dedication and ability to make extraordinary efforts in emergency cases, they even surpass them." 78 In 1894, 4 thousand people worked at the Perm plant, in 1905 - 8 thousand. 79 . The first strike of the Motovilikha proletarians took place in 1882. 80
Putilovsky factory, one of the oldest, was founded by the treasury in 1801, but in the 60s fell into disrepair. A new period of its history began in 1868, when it was bought by Putilov. A capable scientist, a prominent engineer and businessman, Putilov introduced the production of iron rails with a steel head at the plant, for the first time in Russia. Its rails had an advantage over pure steel, which at that time was fragile, and iron, which easily bent. In 1867, the Nikolaev railway was in a critical situation: the rails of English and Belgian production failed prematurely, there was no replacement, and the Ministry of Railways applied for an order for 600 thousand pood. to Putilovsky zavod 81 . In a short time, the factory began mass production of rails, and the production capacity was soon increased to 2 million pounds per year. Gross production of Russian rails has begun. It was possible to introduce old, unusable rails into technological circulation, which resulted in great savings. Puddled metal was used, for which it was installed in a rolling range of furnaces.

Improvement and expansion of rail production at the Putilovsky plant took place in the 70s of the XIX century. The main direction is the transition from combined steel-iron rails to steel ones. In 1870, a Bessemer converter was installed for the production of cast steel 82 , then Martin began to develop. The development of the plant's technical facilities was greatly promoted by its new director N. V. Vorontsov. In 1879, the plant produced over 3 million pounds of steel rails.-

71 RO GBL, f. D. A. Milyutina, N 10514/1, p. 158.

72 Gorny zhurnal, 1893, N 3, p. 52.

73 Melnikov F. E. Uk. soch., pp. 61-62; PSZ. Vol. XXXVI, N 36719.

74 Lenin V. I. PSS. Vol. 3, p. 486.

75 Golos, 11. XI. 1868, N 312.

76 Moselle X. Perm Province, Part II, Perm, B. G., p. 653.

77 Metalworkers of the Urals before and during 1905 Sverdlovsk. 1926, p. 49.

78 Voice, 27. IV. 1875, Ns 115.

79 Red Archive, 1940, N 6, p. 85.

80 Russian Courier, 1882, N 46.

81 To the centenary of the Putilov factory, 1801-1901. SPb. 1902, p. 18; Mitelmian M., Glebov B., Ulyansky A. Uk. soch., p. 12.

82 To the centenary of the Putilov Factory, p. 18.

page 110

In the first 10 years of its existence, it provided Russian railways with about 14 million pounds, including 5 million pounds of steel. 83 Russia was gradually freeing itself from dependence on Western countries in this matter. Since the 70s of the XIX century, the metallurgical profile of the plant began to expand: it switched to the production of artillery shells, freight cars and parts of steam locomotives, steel bridges, railway tools and rolled products, although until the end of the 80s of the XIX century it mainly remained a steel mill. In the 90-ies of the last century, new types of products were mastered: artillery guns and carriages, warships, steam locomotives.

In 1873, the joint-stock company Putilovsky Zavod was established, in which Putilov himself continued to play the main role. After his death, the company fell into a difficult financial situation. More than 4 million pounds of rails were accumulated there, which were dead weight, and the work of the main rolling shops was curtailed. The debt to the treasury amounted to 16 million rubles. Rails, buildings, and shares were laid on account of the debt, and the company was sold to the "Syndicate of the Bryansk and Warsaw Steel Mills", then the majority of shares passed into the hands of N. N. Antsiferov, the property manager of Count Stroganov .84
By the beginning of the XX century. The Putilovsky plant has become a giant enterprise with 12,440 workers, 38 workshops and an annual turnover of more than 20 million rubles. It was second only to Krupp in Germany and Armstrong in England in Europe, and was on a par with Schneider in France and Cockerill in Belgium, but it could not boast of a stable financial situation, new equipment and machine park. "Russian enterprises," P. I. Lyashchenko noted in reference to the 1890s, " even such leading industries as, for example, the state-owned Obukhov military and gun factory or the private Putilovsky machine-building and metalworking plant, had a chronic lack of funds, even for basic equipment, and often used machine tools and machines 30-50- a year ago " 85 . The technical significance of the work at the Putilov plant then consisted in the fact that welding of a steel rail head with an iron base, casting of steel shells with a finished void (without turning and drilling), and the production of steel products on a very large scale were mastered .86
The success of the enterprise was also due to a team of thousands of workers. Many of them were talented craftsmen, experts in their field. At the same time, from the very beginning of the plant's existence, the most severe exploitation of workers, a system of predatory fines and deductions were established there. The Putilov workers organized revolutionary circles, declared strikes, and held May Days. In the 90 - ies of the XIX century. advanced Putilovtsy participated in the first social-democratic circles, Lenin's "Union of Struggle for the Liberation of the working class". From 1896 to 1899, M. I. Kalinin worked at this factory as a turner. Even then, the enterprise became one of the bases of the proletarian movement. The Putilovites carried this role through all three Russian revolutions. "There has never been a moment in the history of the more revolutionary movement in Russia," S. M. Kirov noted, "when the mighty name of the Putilov worker was not heard." 87
As for the overall level of the steel industry in tsarist Russia, it still lagged markedly behind the level in the most developed capitalist countries .88 Its history in the XIX century is a series of bright milestones of scientific discoveries, technical improvements, selfless work of talented engineers and craftsmen against a general, dimmer technical background in contradictory conditions of progress, complicated by the presence of feudal remnants in the country.

83 Ibid., p. 19.

84 Petunia P., Shurgin M. Nash Kirovsky zavod, 1801-1951. L. 1951, p. 16; Bovykin V. I. Origin of financial capital in Russia. Moscow, 1967, p. 102.

85 Lyashchenko P. I. Istoriya narodnogo khozyaistva SSSR [History of the National Economy of the USSR]. Vol. 2. Moscow, 1956, p. 149.

86 N. Putilov's factories, 1857-1870. St. Petersburg, 1870, pp. 55-63; Levitsky M. Putilov Steel, Iron and Mechanical plant. Kronshtadt, 1898, p. 8; Metallurgy of the Kirov Plant. Collection of articles dedicated to the 100th anniversary of open-hearth production at the plant (1874-1974). l. 1974, pp. 18-26.

87 Cit. by: Petunia P., Shurgin M. Uk. soch., p. 5.

88 Khromov P. A. Ekonomicheskoe razvitie Rossii v XIX-XX vekakh [Economic Development of Russia in the XIX-XX centuries]. Moscow, 1950, pp. 325-326.

page 111

Permanent link to this publication: