The Design of Dynamo-Reactive Guns in the USSR During the 1920s and 1930s, Theoretical Foundations and Implementation

This article reviews the process of forming the theoretical foundations of the dynamic reaction principle (DRP) in artillery design in the Soviet Union during the 1920s - 1930s and clarifies the content of the development work on this topic. The relevance of this study is due to the fact that during this period, DRP occupied a prominent place in scientific and technical artillery investigations in the USSR, and most often it is associated with the name of L.V. Kurchevsky, who developed recoilless guns. Interest in his person and work has been preserved in modern historical literature. However, the development of similar weapons in other scientific institutions remained in the shadows of OKB-1 headed by Kurchevsky at the time The identification of the main directions and stages of scientific research in the field of artillery guns based on the dynamoreactive principle led to the need to clarify the list of organizations that, along with Kurchevsky, were involved in similar projects. For the first time, this article highlights the activities of the Artillery Research Institute (Leningrad) and the employees of the Leningrad Artillery Academy, and also provides new information on the work of the engineering bureau of Kondakov in this area. To solve the problem of research, it was necessary to consult the materials from state and departmental archives at federal and regional levels. The source base for research consists of materials from the State Archive of the Russian Federation, the Russian State Military Archive, and the Central State Historical Archive of St. Petersburg, the Scientific Archive of the Military Historical Museum of Artillery, Engineers and Signal Corps. As a result of the research, documents containing a theoretical justification for the dynamoreactive principle at various stages of its development with respect to artillery guns have been identified. This allowed us to examine the polemic between L.V. Kurchevsky and V.E. Sluchotsky, as well as the opinion of Professor I.P. Grave. A conclusion is drawn regarding the greater persuasiveness of Kurchevsky's theoretical calculations and the need to reconsider the current approach to the history of dynamoreactivity theory development. The importance of the development work of Kondakov's Design Bureau is clarified, along with a conclusion about the characteristics of his designs and the specific aspects of this bureau's work as one of several schools of thought in the field of recoilless gun design