ACCIDENT ON BOARD RUSSIAN BATTLE-SHIP. 
415 
Yet, practically, all the telegrams and reports which have appeared on 
the subject of this accident agree with the circumstantial evidence, 
meagre though it is, and plainly show that if some such safety arrange¬ 
ment had existed the accident could not have occurred. 
The 12-inch L/40 B.L. guns mounted on board the Sisoi Veliki are 
steel built-up trunnionless guns, 40 calibres in length and weigh 
41.5 tons; with pyro-collodion smokeless powder, they are said to give 
a muzzle velocity of 2800 f.s. to a 729-lb. projectile. It will, however, 
be noticed, as mentioned above, that at the time of the accident 
prismatic powder was being used. 
The manufacture of these guns was only commenced in 1893 at the 
Obukhof Works, Alexandroski, Russia, the designs for both the guns 
and the breech mechanism are said to have been supplied by Canet. 
The following extract from the Times of the 2nd April last show how¬ 
ever that although CaneFs design of breech mechanism has been taken 
as the model, the details have been somewhat modified by the Russian 
authorities :•— 
“ M. Canet writes to point’out that his system of closing the breech 
has only been supplied to the Russian Admiralty for quick-firing 
ordnance up to 15 cm (6-in.) and not for guns of large calibre. 
“ It is possible, he says, that certain portions of the breech-closing 
mechanism for the heavy guns, the plans for which are prepared at 
the Obukhof Works, may be similar to those in the Canet design, but 
he claims for his system that with it such an accident as occurred on 
board the Sisoi Veliki can never happen, because it affords absolute 
security against premature fire.” 
As has already been stated, these 12-inch B.L. guns are mounted in 
pairs in closed turrets, worked by hydraulic gear and fitted with hand 
gear as an alternative, and it appears that in order to have the breech¬ 
block of the right gun opening to the right and that of the left gun to 
the left and at the same time to have the guns and mechanism 
interchangeable, the left gun and mechanism are exactly similar to the 
right, only turned through 180° in the mounting; consequently the 
indicator, which shows when the breech is properly closed, in the right 
gun is on the top of the rear end of the breech and in the left gun it 
is at the bottom; therefore the two guns when ready for firing do not 
present the same appearance. 
In a French account of the accident it is stated that it is quite pos¬ 
sible to understand that the man stationed in rear of the guns thought 
they were ready because they did appear the same. With this we 
cannot agree, because, as only one-sixth of a turn is necessary to lock 
the breech, in no position would the breech-blocks present the same 
appearance. 
However that may be, it is quite evident that in the absence of any 
automatic safety gear the officer in the sighting position is dependent 
on the man in rear of the guns to inform him when the guns are ready, 
and the very fact of the accident having occurred showed that the 
officer either pressed the firing key without waiting to be so informed, 
or that he was so informed in error. 
55 
