Given that the service life of tin pontoons was set at 10 years, since their introduction, of course, more than once it was necessary to resort to the construction of new pontoons. However, it is unknown whether the previous dimensions and designs of the pontoons were maintained, or whether any particular changes and improvements were made to them each time.
General Laskovsky, based on data preserved in the archives, believes that until 1745, tin pontoons were used exclusively in Russia. We can agree with this opinion, since in the report I quote below, compiled by Count Shuvalov, and approved on January 11, 1757, there are quite accurate and clear indications that until that time, only tin pontoons were used in Russia.
In addition to tin pontoons, there were also wooden ones. For example, on May 20, 1723, the highest order was to prepare wooden pontoons for the crossing of troops across the Kuban. The pontoons contained “supply chests.” Pontoons were transported either by land, on hired horses, or by water. When transporting by water, in types of accelerated delivery, sometimes pontoons were placed on ships, which, according to the rivers, were pulled with a whip!).
The price of each pontoon was determined at 100 rubles. In view of the 10-year term assigned to them, 10 rubles were allotted annually. for each pontoon. The war that happened at that time proved that tin is a material that is completely unsatisfactory for the purpose of pontoons and does not withstand the designated 10-year service life. From transportation, frequent removal and placement on “dissolutions” (the so-called carts adapted for transporting them), the pontoons bent and broke. From being in the water, when the bridge was being built, from rain and even dampness, the tin very quickly became covered with rust and fell into such disrepair that they had to be removed much earlier than the appointed time, and when sold, the material from which they were made did not represent any value.
Feldmaster General Prince Repnin was the first to raise the question of the unsuitability of the pontoons that were previously used. On July 24, 1745, the Military College examined the report on the state of the pontoon part and fully agreeing that tin, as a material, is completely unsuitable for pontoons, decided to build again 40 pontoons from copper, in weight (with wooden trim and accessories) at 41 pounds. 10 lb. 2). The service life was supposed to be set at 30 litres, and their cost was set at 360 rubles. everyone; so, according to calculations, 12 rubles were supposed to be released annually. for each pontoon. But due to the fact that Prince Repnin, as a person, was of too little importance in the post he held, he was not
1) Arch. General Feldzeichmeister, St. No. 4, p. 191. 3) The weight of the wooden covering reached 8 poods. 10 lb.
is able to insist on the implementation of the above-mentioned decision of the Military Collegium. Tin pontoons continued to exist, but no one thought about making copper pontoons.
So, we see that the pontoon unit itself in Russia, during this period, was in a very poor position, although examples of military practice of that time fully proved the need for pontoon bridges for the army. |
The main reason for such an indifferent and passive attitude towards such an important issue must be sought, of course, in the fact that the pontoon part was directly subordinated to the artillery department, which could have nothing in common with this branch of military specialization.
1756 Count Shuvalov, as a person who treats all institutions entrusted to his administration very conscientiously and equally, was the first, the ambassador of Peter the Great, to pay due attention to the Pontoon part in Russia. It can undoubtedly be said that he gave this branch of military art the correct organization and laid the foundation for its development.
From the report on the Pontoon part, submitted to the Highest Review, November 18, 1756, it is clear that Gr. Shuvalov was already fully aware that the pontoon unit should not be part of the artillery! and, but, not daring to express it directly, so as not to offend the artillery’s pride! and, in his report he wrote like this:
“The appointing pontoon company, in which the corps will be under the Artillery Corps or under the Engineering Corps, Your Imperial Majesty does not deign to submit the order for consideration by the Chief Commander at the Artillery Corps, who, based on the state of need and circumstances, can determine it to be a unit under the Artillery and Engineering Corps.”
Unfortunately, until 1822, the pontoon unit continued to be in direct line with the Artillery Department and no one even thought about separating it.