Armadillos of the Peresvet type. Wonderful mistake. Part of 3

127


Comparing the capabilities of artillery and armor of the Russian, German and English battleships, we conclude that at the time of their laying, the fighting qualities of the battleship cruisers of the Peresvet type were in line with the concept of fighting the German battleships in the Baltic and English 2 class - in Asia. But, in addition to fighting, pure cruising qualities were also required from ships of the Peresvet type, and here everything turned out to be much more complicated.

Strictly speaking, information about the speed and range of the "battleships-cruisers" is very contradictory. The most common source, perhaps, should be considered the monographs of V. Krest'yaninov and S. Molodtsov, “Battleships of the Peresvet type, as well as the works of R.M. Melnikov, but, oddly enough, they do not give unambiguous answers about the speeds and cruising range of the “battleships-cruisers”. So, V. Krestyaninov and S. Molodtsov write:

“The power of the mechanisms with the natural hp 11 500 hp had to provide speed in 16,5 knots, and with the forced 14 500 hp - 18 knots. ”


It seems to be short and clear, and also confirmed by the results achieved by ships of this type on the measured mile. The fact is that all further descriptions of the battleship tests report that they have reached 13 775 - 15 578 hp, and this power usually developed during six-hour continuous runs, while the planned speed of 18 knots was exceeded in almost all cases. It would seem that everything is correct and understandable - a similar result corresponds to the planned indicators of the power of the machines and the speed at the boost.

But the problem is that the Russian ships, as a rule, were tested without forcing mechanisms, with natural thrust. At the same time, the description of tests of battleships of the Peresvet type does not indicate anywhere whether natural or forced traction was used. It is only known that on tests “battleships-cruisers” showed an average speed:

“Relight” - 18,64 knots (during the first run, showed 4 knots for 19,08 hours, but then it was necessary to withdraw one boiler) with an average power of 13 775 hp
Oslyabya - 18,33 knots (15 051 hp)
"Victory" - 18,5 knots (15 578 hp)

But was this average speed the limit for the ships, or could they (when crossing) give more? The author of this article believes that the "armadillos-cruisers" were tested all the same during a forced blast. Interestingly, from September 30 to October 2, 1902 Mr. Peresvet participated in battleships in full swing, while, as R.M. Melnikov, the race was held:

"Without harming the machines and boilers"


which clearly implies the refusal to force boilers. The Nagasaki-Port Arthur route (566 miles) was traveled by Peresvet in 36 hours, with an average speed of 15,7 nodes - which is close enough to the planned 16,5 nodes, which the ship had to show on a natural load.

It should also be noted that “Peresvet” came to the test underloaded, having a displacement of only 12 224 t, while its normal displacement actually tends to 13 868 t. Accordingly, the speed in a normal displacement should have been lower what is shown on tests, nevertheless, recalculation by the method of admiralty coefficients adjusted for an increase in displacement shows that even at 13 868 t the ship would exceed the 18-node threshold (the speed should have been 18,18 knots). Consequently, it can be stated that the Peresveta developed speed and even exceeded a little.


Squadron battleship "Peresvet"

Rinaun turned out to be somewhat faster than the Russian “battleships-cruisers” - it developed 17.9 knots on natural thrust (8 hourly mileage, power 10 708 hp) and 19,75 knots with forced air (6 hour mileage, power 12 901 l .c.), but here it is necessary to make a small reservation - it is not known at what displacement these results were shown (the ship could be greatly lightened) and moreover, it is not known whether the speeds indicated above were average mileage or maximum. Of course, comparing the Peresvet 18,64 ties to the British battleship's 19,75 ties becomes a bit sad, but if the maximum speed is indicated for Rinaun, the differences in speed are not as great as it seems - remember that the average speed on the four-hour mileage Peresvet reached 19,08 bonds, which means that the maximum was even higher - and it would not differ much from the one shown by Rinaun.

The German Kaiser Frederick III developed the maximum power on the 13 053 hp shafts, giving the speed of the 17,3 node, which was less than the contractual node on the 0,2 - again it is unclear whether it was the rated power of the machines or forced. Yet, and most likely, in its speed qualities, Peresvet occupied an intermediate position between Rinaun and Kaiser Frederick III.

In terms of range, everything is much more complicated. Usually for Peresvet and Oslyib indicate 5610 miles at a speed of 10 nodes, we will meet these figures in V. Krestyaninov and S. Molodtsova, but in the same book, respected authors point out:

“... Armadillos of this type expend 100-114 per day of coal at a speed of 12 knots. For comparison, the "Tsarevich" spent 76 tons per day at the same speed. This limited the cruising range of the 5000 miles instead of the 6860 miles of the project and then in good weather. ”


Firstly, in itself it is strange that it is not a question of 10, but of the 12 hub economic process. And secondly, the above quote already contains a certain contradiction, because even if we take the consumption not "100-114 tons per day", but all 114 tons, then even the planned full coal supply (2058 tons) guaranteed the ship more than 18 days full speed, for which the ship (at a speed of 12 nodes passing 288 miles per day) could pass 5199 miles, but not 5000 miles. If we take the average daily consumption of 100 tons, then the course range will obviously increase (20,5 days and 5927 miles).

It can be assumed that the range of Peresvet was (calculated) 5610 miles on 10 nodes and 5000 miles on 12 nodes. At the speed of 10 nodes, the Russian battleship would pass 240 miles per day and 5610 miles would pass in 23 days and 9 hours, while the average daily coal consumption would be slightly more than 88 tons (if you take the planned full supply of 2058 coal).

At a speed of 12 nodes, the ship would have passed 288 miles per day, and 5000 miles would have passed in 17 days and almost 9 hours, the average daily consumption of coal would be 118,5 tons. But what about the 100-T specified by the authors? It can be assumed that these figures do not include coal consumption for any on-ship needs. In addition, the calculation formula that we used implies the mandatory and complete consumption of all 114 tons of coal, while calculating the range of Peresvet type ships could take into account some losses during storage and transportation of coal or others that similarly affect on the calculation of the cause.

Suppose that the above version is correct. Then we have that the reduction in economic speed from 12 to 10 knots caused an increase in the range of 610 miles or 12,2%. So, if the project provided for a range of 6860 miles on 12 nodes, then on 10 nodes this distance should have been on the order of 7 70 miles. All would be nothing, but we read from V. Krestyaninov and S. Molodtsov:

“According to the information available at MTC, the twin-screw installations of the English battleships Barfleur and Centurion consumed coal per day at the 10 hub, reached 86 t, taking into account 5 t for ship needs. Driving under one medium car in economy mode made it possible to reduce consumption to 47 t ”


For example, even the planned fuel consumption in 47 tons does not include the very "5 tons for ship needs." Let the Russian “battleship cruiser” have them not even 5, but 10 tons. But even then, the average daily consumption of 57 tons will provide more 36 days of travel at 10 knots, or a range of 8665 miles!

And then - even more interesting: in another chapter of his book, V. Krestyaninov and S. Molodtsov write about the first exits of the battleship Peresvet:

"The economic progress regime was determined at sea: with 10 operating boilers and two on-board machines, the speed of 10-10,5 knots and coal consumption are about 100 tons per day"


In other words, if earlier it was said that when 100-114 T was consumed, the speed of 12 nodes was reached, now it is only 10-10,5 knots at 100 t / day! Given that 100 tons per day at an average speed of 10 knots and coal reserves 2058 tons give about 5000 miles of range, but not 5610 miles!

Thus, the only thing that can be argued for sure is that the armadillos of the “Peresvet” type, having achieved and even slightly exceeded the planned maximum speed indicators, very “failed to get” the course range. Presumably, their estimated range was no more than 5610 miles per 10 knots (Pobeda had 6080 miles), while the actual did not exceed 5000 miles at the same speed, and maybe even less.

In principle, a similar range against the background of the British and German ships was not so bad: for example, the German Kaiser Frederick III had 2940-3585 miles on 9 nodes, although other sources give 5000 miles. As for the Rinaun, O. Parks assigns utterly utter 8500 miles on 15 (!) Nodes, and here we can assume a banal typo, especially since for ships of the previous series (Centurion) 6000 miles are shown on 10 nodes . Probably it would not be a mistake to assume that the Peresvetov’s range also proved to be intermediate between the German and English battleships, but the problem was that such a range did not at all meet the objectives of the battleship cruiser. Yet 5000 for miles or less was completely insufficient range for raider operations in the ocean. Thus, we are forced to state with regret that one of the most important characteristics that determine the purpose of the ship was not achieved. Why did it happen?

The fact is that on the “battleships-cruisers” a new, very ingenious power plant was used, consisting of three steam engines working on three shafts and rotating three screws. It was assumed that the economic move will be ensured only by the middle machine, and the other two, located on the sides, will work only in a combat situation.


"Relight" in the Alexander Dock, September 1900 g

The calculation was perfectly sound, but ... the material part of the Experimental basin failed. Already much later, in 1898 g, the captain A. N. Krylov, the future academician, characterized his work as follows:

“... From this it becomes clear why the five-year activity of the basin has remained fruitless; if this activity continues in the same way, without any systematic program, it can, as already indicated, lead to irreparable errors. Testing models without screws, predicting the quality and drawing up the ship's drawings for such tests and not basing on proven facts, but on the “conviction” of the loyalty of Froude’s theory, and that the presence of a screw does not change the nature of the phenomena, the current basin’s activity is just as dangerous for shipbuilding, how dangerous for navigation would be the activity of such a meteorological station, which would display its warning signs based not on synoptic maps, but on the “conviction” of Bryuce’s loyalty and the calendar. "


The problem was that when one of the three machines was working, one of the three screws also rotated. And the remaining two screws created such disturbances that movement under one machine turned out to be almost impossible: all this would have been easily revealed on testing models of battleships like Peresvet ... if the models were tested with screws. Well, the result was the following - if one or two machines worked, they were forced to overcome the resistance of non-rotating screws: if all three machines worked, then too much coal was spent on their work, because each of them required relatively low power, at which the efficiency was low.

If this problem was revealed at the ship design stage, it is possible that it could be solved by some transfer, when the work of one central machine would rotate all three screws at once - in that case, perhaps, the planned range would be achieved or, at the very least, failure would not have been so grandiose.

Sometimes “on the Internet” one has to read that the three-screw “Peresvetov” scheme is dictated by the fact that in Russia there was no place to take machines capable of providing the required power on two shafts. It is at least strange to read this: two years before Peresvet and Oslyab, the armored cruiser Russia was laid down, which had 2 machines for 7250 hp. each (and the third, of lesser capacity, for the economic course). Those. if the problem of “braking screws” would be revealed in a timely manner, then the “Peresvet” could easily have become twin-screw without losing the power at all. But generally speaking, in itself, the three-screw chassis was not at all any flawed compared with the two-screw or four-screw one adopted much later. Interestingly, the Germans, having equipped their Kaisers (including, of course, Kaiser Friedrich III) with three steam engines, were so pleased with this scheme that all their subsequent series of battleships and battleships sought to do exactly three-rotors.



Sometimes you hear complaints about the quality of machines and boilers "Peresvetov". Obviously, they were not the peak of perfection at the time the ships entered service, but it must be remembered that at the time of the laying the Russian ships received the most modern boilers in comparison with their peers. At Peresveta, Belleville water-tube boilers were installed, while the British Rinaun carried obsolete fire-tube boilers, while the German-based Kaiser Frederick III had both fire-tube boilers and water-tube boilers.

Also, sometimes you have to deal with unflattering statements about “these Krivorukov Russians”, who are unable to efficiently exploit the sophisticated equipment that Belleville boilers used at that time. But here you need to understand that with the transition to a new, more sophisticated technique, all nations faced problems - just not all of them like to trumpet about their problems and difficulties, which may give the impression that the same English people mastered the development of new boilers painlessly. Meanwhile, it is not so - the same O. Parks, even if it is extremely streamlined, but still writes:

"The new boilers, in comparison with the old ones, required more skillful handling, and since the instructions of the Admiralty, if they were punctual, did not contribute to achieving the best results, during the first few years of operation of the water tube boilers we had to face a wide variety of problems, until and the skills of proper maintenance did not take root, making things more tolerable. ”


Translated into Russian, it sounds like this: the British crews did not receive any training or competent instructions for handling water tube boilers, which is why they had to learn the latter by trial and error, with all the ensuing consequences. Alas, about the same thing happened in Russian navy - a very contemptuous attitude and underestimation of the role of Beelzebub led to insufficient training of machine teams, which, moreover, mastered their naval specialty on the fire tube boilers of old training ships.

Concluding the description of the main technical features of the first Peresvetov, I would like to note that the ships received a number of extremely useful innovations: for example, they received autonomous drainage systems, when 9 was provided with drainage turbines instead of a single main pipe. For the first time were used electric steering cars. The ships were distinguished by good seaworthiness, which was provided by a high forecastle.

Unfortunately, the battleships of the Peresvet type did not escape the “scourge” of domestic shipbuilding - the overload, which on ships of this type took on very large values. So, Peresvet turned out to be overloaded on 1136 t, Oslyabya on 1734 t, and on Victory, which was laid later, in the project which managed to take into account some of the flaws of these ships, it was possible to reduce the overload to 646 t.

Again, “on the Internet” we often read about ugly weight discipline and poor design quality, but this is not entirely true. Figuratively speaking, one of the main problems of domestic shipbuilding was that too often the ship that was designed was not built at all, but that ship that was laid was not the one that was being completed.

Here is the same “Peresvet” - according to the original project, it should have had a completely different composition of medium and small-caliber artillery than it actually received. Initially it was thought that the normal displacement of ships would be 12 674 t and in a number of documents, the MTK called new ships:

"Three-screw steel armored cruisers in 12 674 t"


But it was supposed to install not 11 six-inch guns, but only 8, not 20 anti-mine 75-mm guns, but 5 with 120-mm caliber, not 20 small-caliber 47-mm, but 14, and only the number of 37-mm “X” button, and in the final draft, reduced from 10 to 6 units. At the same time, all the six-inches were originally supposed to be “stuffed” into a single casemate - in the final draft each gun had to get its own casemate.
All this required additional displacement - and in fact, numerous modifications of the ship during the construction process were not limited to artillery and armor. Thus, the very first and very significant reason for overloading is the insatiable desire of admirals and designers to improve the already designed ship in every way. In some way they could be understood - technical progress in those years was striding by leaps and bounds, and technical solutions just now modern ships quickly became obsolete, and the long construction time of domestic battleships and ships of other classes led to the fact that at the time of completion the fleet received not the most modern combat units. Thus, the desire to improve the ship in construction was understandable, but could not lead to a good result.

In addition, the desire to use modern "stuffing" led to the fact that at the time of designing the ship, the exact weight characteristics of the equipment were not yet known, and this also created an additional overload. And, besides, in other cases an ugly building did take place.

Peresvet and Oslyabya were laid on one project at the same time, but in different shipyards - the first at the Baltic Shipyard, the second - at the New Admiralty. But the total time of construction of Peresvet was about 50 months, and Oslyabi - almost twice as many, 90,5 months, while the Oslyab overload exceeded that of Peresvet by 598 tons. The Oslyaby construction overload exceeded all imaginable limits, which, of course, could not but affect the fighting qualities of this ship.



Thus, it can be stated that the attempt to get "battleships-cruisers" equally suitable for battle against squadron battleships of Germany and battleships of England's 2 class, as well as for actions on oceanic communications failed. The fighting qualities of Peresvetov allowed them to cope with the first task, but their range, quite acceptable for squadron battleships, was too small for ocean raiding - the miscalculations in the design of the power plant and the large construction overload of these ships caused this.

In comparison with the same British battleships of the 1 class, the Peresvet type ships received weakened weapons and reservations - this was a sensible compromise for the cruiser battleship capable of long operations in the ocean. But, since the cruisers from Peresvet did not work, we can say that the Russian Imperial fleet received two relatively weak squadron battleships.

Продолжение следует ...
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

127 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    4 November 2016 15: 18
    We are looking forward to talking about the Pobeda guns.
  2. 0
    4 November 2016 15: 38
    Normal parades, from the moment of design, they have so grown by 3000 thousand tons
    1. 0
      4 November 2016 21: 33
      Quote: Nehist
      3000 thousand tons

      Do you really mean 3 million tons? Or just got excited? Try re-reading before publishing - it helps.
      1. 0
        4 November 2016 23: 34
        I duplicated the number with words, forgot quotes (
  3. +2
    4 November 2016 16: 26
    Speaking about the difference between the actual duration of the cruise of the ship on one coal reserve, from the theoretical, the author, criticizing, does not seem to take into account factors such as headwind and currents that impede navigation.
    1. +2
      4 November 2016 19: 15
      Yeah, everyone just does that they walk against the wind or towards the oncoming currents feel These values ​​are not so important that they are not taken into account. Of course, if the ship was intended to sail exclusively against the powerful Gulf Stream constantly, then this value would be taken into account. It’s like on a river - there is a speed against the current, but there is a stream, the flow rate in one case is greater, in the other case less, but always indicate the average value, because ships on the river do not go upstream all the time wink So today the wind can blow in one direction, tomorrow in the other, today you go with the flow, tomorrow against ...
      The author is right and does that does not take into account that which is not important. hi
    2. +1
      5 November 2016 07: 26
      Quote: guzik007
      Speaking about the difference between the actual duration of the cruise of the ship on one coal reserve, from the theoretical, the author, criticizing, does not seem to take into account factors such as headwind and currents that impede navigation.

      I agree with you, because the braking effect of screws, idle machines is not taken into account. The author, I must say, notes this point, but does not draw a conclusion. The same problem was encountered on the Vladivostok cruisers. This moment was especially pronounced on the cruiser Russia. See Melnikov. R.M. "The cruiser of the 1st rank Russia chapter six. About the opinion of Krylov, written by the author.
    3. +4
      5 November 2016 16: 27
      Quote: guzik007
      criticizing the author, it seems that he does not at all take into account factors such as the headwind and currents that impede swimming.

      This has nothing to do with the matter, because such amendments will affect any ship of any fleet
  4. +3
    4 November 2016 18: 22
    My respect, Andrei Nikolaevich hi
    You are absolutely right. If you build a ship for certain requirements and make its characteristics compromise to fulfill these requirements, then you need to do what you intended. In this case, the idea is clear to me, it had the right to life, but execution ruined everything. For that matter, really it was necessary to achieve an adequate cruising range that could compensate for the weakening of the armament and armor in this ship. I’m not talking about speed anymore. Although it should have been 2-3 knots faster than modern armadillos, it would still make sense to send these ships somewhere to raid. And so, at the beginning of the century, neither the speed nor the sailing range made these ships special in characteristics and the admirals didn’t think of anything better than raising them to the rank of an EDB ... That is, the idea was not bad, but the implementation let us down, so it’s good for a number to the ships of the first line. Although initially they were not intended for this ... request
    I also absolutely agree with you about overloads. Archimedes' "eureka" has not yet been canceled, which means that if you get into the ship in excess of what is supposed to be, nothing will be very naive winked
    This suggests the concept of "white elephants" in the fleet. We received ships that, in fact, due to their data, it is not known how to use, but they are. That is why they were pushed to the highest rank, rather for the number, but then the war broke out and ... I think you better tell me what came of it wink
    Personally, everything is clear to me from today's material and you have nothing to comment on. Yes
    Another plus good drinks hi
    1. +2
      5 November 2016 16: 36
      Greetings, Andrey Nikolaevich!
      Quote: Rurikovich
      I’m not talking about speed anymore. Although it should have been 2-3 knots faster than modern armadillos

      Nuuu, strictly speaking, in 1895 she surpassed ...
      Quote: Rurikovich
      And so at the beginning of the century, neither speed nor cruising range made these ships special in characteristics and the admirals did not think of anything better than elevating them to the rank of EDB ...

      True, because, while building the speed, the EDB caught up with the generally accepted
      Quote: Rurikovich
      This suggests the concept of "white elephants" in the fleet. We received ships that, in fact, due to their data, it is not known how to use, but they are. That is why they were pushed to the highest rank, rather for the number, but then the war broke out and ... I think you better tell me what came of it

      Nothing is better - you yourself see that they were most directly related to the EDB. If we build a battleship cruiser, and then it turns out that cruising qualities are nowhere, so what remains?
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Another plus

      Thank you!
      1. 0
        5 November 2016 17: 09
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Nuuu, strictly speaking, in 1895 she surpassed ...

        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        True, because, while building the speed, the EDB caught up with the generally accepted

        I know this and perfectly understand, but it is unlikely that the usual "critics" will take this into account. wink
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Thank you!

        You're welcome drinks hi
  5. 0
    4 November 2016 19: 00
    Yes, it is a pity that such an interesting idea has not been implemented. Of course, one could call these ships the forerunner of battlecruisers, (as planned), but again, the range is small and the speed does not exceed the speed of the battleships modern to these ships.
    And the caliber of the main artillery, which should be equal to the main caliber of full-fledged battleships of the 1st class.
    But beautiful ships, and not the worst page in the history of our fleet.
    1. +1
      4 November 2016 19: 29
      Quote: Ulan
      Yes, it is a pity that such an interesting idea has not been implemented. Of course, one could call these ships the forerunner of battlecruisers, (as planned), but again, the range is small and the speed does not exceed the speed of the battleships modern to these ships.
      And the caliber of the main artillery, which should be equal to the main caliber of full-fledged battleships of the 1st class.

      That's why they by no means can be considered the forerunner of the linear cruisers. And the very concept of battlecruisers appeared after the REV and most likely on the basis of the seemingly positive use of protected cruisers as part of a squadron for linear battle. Although the Japanese put them there not from an easy life. Here is the effect of using a separate high-speed detachment of ships and was developed. Some characteristics were weakened due to the strengthening of others. There you have battlecruisers request
      As for the "overexposures", the author in the first part clearly described what they were thinking hi Certainly not a "fast" wing in the squadron. Although if you dream, it can be assumed that if Oslyabya had reached the Far East by the beginning of the war and Makarov did not die, then the idea of ​​a separate detachment to solve problems either to fight the Japanese brigade, or to strengthen fire on certain enemy flanks in battle, they would have fit , due to their partly weaker characteristics than real EBRs, there could be winked But ... dreaming is not harmful. It’s not harmful to dream wink hi
      1. 0
        4 November 2016 19: 55
        After launching the completion and during sea trials and other trials, Peresvet was referred to in all reports as a cruiser. Their concept of application as intended was then to be compared with the later German Scharnhorsts and Gneisenau.
        1. 0
          4 November 2016 20: 57
          Quote: Nehist
          After launching the completion and during sea trials and other trials, Peresvet was referred to in all reports as a cruiser.

          What he thought, Alexander, is perfectly described by the author in the first part smile
          Quote: Nehist
          Their concept of application as intended was then to be compared with the later German Scharnhorsts and Gneisenau.

          The Scharnhorst and Gneisenau are a logical continuation of the German school of building armored cruisers. We looked after the rivals, something appeared with them, which means that it also found a response among the Germans. And each country had its own ships, depending on wants and dreams, they turned out the way politicians and admirals wanted to see them. request Simply enlarged Roons with better armor, more powerful weapons and higher speed, for which I had to pay with increased displacement and, therefore, price. But the ships turned out to be wonderful for their time. I personally like good
          1. 0
            4 November 2016 23: 41
            Unfortunately, the ships in the RIF didn’t turn out that way at all (in general, a series of armored cruisers Vladimir Monomakh and Dmitry Donskoy is indicative of this! They laid down one project and turned out to be absolutely two different ships. The same can be said about Rurik and his series. that Relights on their background look more or less unified by ships.
        2. 0
          5 November 2016 01: 14
          Quote: Nehist
          After launching the completion and during sea trials and other trials, Peresvet was referred to in all reports as a cruiser.

          1. 0
            5 November 2016 02: 23
            https://rgavmf.ru/fond Лучше здесь посмотрите тогда поймете почему и с кокого года он стал ЭБР. Поищите
            1. 0
              5 November 2016 03: 17
              Quote: Nehist
              Better look here

              I brought you the data from the report to the Tsar for 1900. Then overexposure has not even entered into operation (Oslyabya was launched on 11.05.1900/XNUMX/XNUMX). But even then they were listed as EDB.
              I’ll add on my own, and were designed as EDB (2 classes). And they were built like an EDB (2 classes). And they were never and never thought of as any cruisers.
              1. +1
                5 November 2016 06: 26
                And who says they are cruisers? It’s just that in the process of their design and creation they did not know which class they belong to, since they did not fall under more than one classification adopted at that time in the RIF
      2. 0
        4 November 2016 21: 31
        So I said this, that in many ways they cannot be considered as such.
        And on the account of the fact that you need to dream, and I would even say it is important, because even the most fantastic dreams. which seemed like that, then they came to life.
        It is clear that the Japanese put armored cruisers in the battle line not from a good life.
        1. +2
          4 November 2016 21: 55
          You're right hi The ships are beautiful, but their use ... winked
  6. 2-0
    0
    4 November 2016 19: 26
    I will write my thoughts.
    Andrew! The cycle is good, but ... somehow, that. Collecting information and writing a series of articles is difficult, but is it necessary? Probably necessary for educational program, but there are nuances.
    Here is the moment: it is not known whether tests were carried out with forcing machines. Krestyaninov and Melnikov do not, no, and in the internet. But I think there are test reports in the archive. But you need to request an archive, go there (we already had a conversation on this topic in Jutland - count hits in the repair lists). Therefore, it is necessary to think and fantasize in the article for a long time - it was, was not.
    The "Oslyabi" overload exceeded all conceivable limits. A serious application, but not complete. And what are conceivable, how much and why?
    Yes, about the idea of ​​the battle of "overexposures" with the EBR of Germany - this is your personal thought, or it is based on something, otherwise I am a little crazy ...
    But I honestly don’t squeak, so reflect on usefulness.


    Yes, my. People who are human. Tell me why I have such breaks in the text, although I write together. Can't I understand with this new format?
    1. 0
      5 November 2016 01: 19
      Quote: 2-0
      Here is the moment: it is not known whether tests were carried out with forcing machines.

      According to the Russian test method, were not conducted. According to British, conducted.
      Quote: 2-0
      And what are conceivable, how much and why?

      There were no conceivable and could not be. Because in Peresvet and Oslyaby, even in the absence of overload (according to the project), the range was still less than what was required by the modern 2nd-class EDB. The range of modern EDB class 2 (at a minimum) was with the EDB Victory project. But in fact, no, it didn’t work out.
    2. +1
      6 November 2016 02: 29
      Quote: 2-0
      Collecting information and writing a series of articles is difficult, but is it necessary? Probably necessary for educational program, but there are nuances

      Am I arguing? :)
      Quote: 2-0
      But I think there are test reports in the archive. But the archive must be requested

      The answer is extremely simple. My recent "breakthrough" in journalism is directly related to the fact that having lost my job, I got enough time to publish. However, having time, I have no money to work with archives. I hope to get out and work in the very near future, then there will be money, but there will be no time :)))
      Quote: 2-0
      Therefore, it is necessary to think and fantasize in the article for a long time - it was, was not.

      At least I raised this question :))))
      Quote: 2-0
      The "Oslyabi" overload exceeded all conceivable limits. A serious application, but not complete. And what are conceivable, how much and why?

      Well, for example, the overload (construction) of the "Eagle" (according to Kostenko) was 635 tons. The overload of the "Mikas" is about 784 tons.
      Those. an overload of 700-800 tons should be considered "thinkable" for battleships,
      Quote: 2-0
      Yes, about the idea of ​​the battle of "overexposures" with the EBR of Germany - this is your personal thought, or it is based on something, otherwise I am a little crazy ...

      It’s as if I wrote what it is based on :)))) We have the entire naval strategy based on the cruising war against England and the rule of the Baltic :)))
      It was nice to surprise you with something :)))
      1. 0
        6 November 2016 02: 42
        Andrey can safely multiply by 2 overload !!! There are interesting circulars of the Ministry of the Sea about the so-called operational overload. hi
        1. +2
          6 November 2016 13: 15
          Quote: Nehist
          There are interesting maritime ministry circulars about the so-called operational overload

          So this is operational, but I'm strictly talking about construction :)))
      2. +1
        6 November 2016 09: 13
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        The overload of Mikas is about 784 tons.
        Those. an overload of 700-800 tons should be considered "thinkable" for battleships,

        Overload Mikasa 805 tons.
        But this is not the point.
        Such overload can be considered conceivable in which the ship does not drop out of the class in which it was built.
        For example, when transshipping 805 tons Mikasa did not fall out of the EBR class 1 class. Although his data became rather mediocre. The reason is that the Vickers designers in the project gave a large gap (~ 1030 tons) for unforeseen circumstances. Which subsequently almost completely went to an unforeseen advantage. The result is "bingo".
        There was no gap at all in the Borodin project. And the ships were designed on the lower boundary of the class of EDB class 1. The unsuccessful booking scheme, the legacy of Cesarevich, affected. For reference, I can inform you that the permissible design and construction load of Borodin residents under the project could reach a maximum of 5 (five) tons. And taking into account the quality of design (and construction) works at Russian shipyards, it was unrealistic to achieve this. Therefore, it turned out what happened. Despite repeated thinning of the armor, to reduce the advantage.
        In general, if you compare ONLY ONLY projects (i.e. the quality of design work), then the Retwisan project was the most successful. Grand was a project. It is a pity that the customer subsequently saved on the weight of the armor. The Sikishima / Hatsuse project was very, very good. Other projects were noticeably weaker.
        It should also be noted that contrary to the aham and oham of runet by world standards, the Japanese EDB were so-so. Because on the weight of their armor, the Japanese saved too. Not as much as the Russians on Retvisan. But nonetheless. And Asahi’s project can hardly be called successful.
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. 2-0
        +2
        6 November 2016 12: 49
        Andrew! All this is nonsense, and little things in life. This is me about the forum and comments. This is really a trifle and vanity.

        Good luck with your job. I myself was in such a situation, though once, in the late 90s. Bitch .... the situation.
        1. +3
          6 November 2016 13: 15
          Quote: 2-0
          Good luck with your job.

          Many thanks! I hope that everything works out :)))
          1. 2-0
            0
            7 November 2016 00: 09
            hi Yes good
            Yes, b, until you write a thread, do not miss the censor ...
  7. 2-0
    0
    4 November 2016 19: 55
    The stern balcony in the photo in the dock is super. A hike, an armadillo cuts water, went out, barked so that they would dump them from the rails, put in a chair, a bottle of cigar, a cigar - and sit relax, hi the old man is writhing, oh, lepota.
    1. +1
      4 November 2016 21: 08
      The main thing is not to sort out and play through the fences, otherwise they will not be found in the stream from as many as three screws wink
      1. 2-0
        0
        4 November 2016 21: 43
        So in any nonsense, there are nuances ...
    2. 0
      4 November 2016 21: 37
      And if a 12-inch "suitcase" flies by, relaxation will instantly disappear and run into the aft conning tower (only on "Peresvet") laughing
    3. +1
      6 November 2016 02: 31
      Quote: 2-0
      put a chair, a whiskey bottle, a cigar

      Nuuu, nothing human was alien to our ancestors :)))
  8. 0
    4 November 2016 20: 12
    The Italians incidentally managed to create what our MTK wanted to see in Relights. In the Regina Elena series, Kuniberti embodied a high speed of 20-21 knots and a range of 10 with a nodal stroke of 9000-10000 miles and weapons of 2X305mm and 12X203mm all of 13000 tons. But they were built for a long time for almost 6 years.
    1. +1
      6 November 2016 02: 32
      Quote: Nehist
      The Italians incidentally managed to create something

      I would not risk asserting this without the most serious analysis of the Italians booking scheme :)))
      1. +1
        6 November 2016 02: 45
        Fully a normal scheme. In general, the Italian fleet is very interesting in itself
  9. 0
    4 November 2016 21: 08
    The problem was that during the operation of one machine out of three, one screw out of three also rotated. And the other two screws created such disturbances ...
    If this problem were identified at the design stage of the ship, then it is possible that it could be solved by a certain transmission, when the operation of one central machine would rotate all three screws at once - in this case, perhaps, the planned range would be achieved, or at least the failure would not be so grandiose character.

    In those years, the problem of the hydrodynamic resistance of a non-rotating propeller was already well known and studied. No wonder the steamboat-frigates had folding blades or wells for cleaning screws. If during the construction of a large series of ships this effect was simply forgotten, then just the transcendent incompetence of the designing and controlling authorities emerges. This is real sabotage. After testing have were flying heads. Based on the fact that the heads did not fly, I suppose that everything was not so simple and the lack of performance was caused by a certain complex of problems, and the effect of braking by screws by the respected author was exaggerated.
    1. +1
      5 November 2016 01: 25
      Quote: MooH
      If during the construction of a large series of ships this effect was simply forgotten, then just the transcendent incompetence of the designing and controlling authorities emerges. This is real sabotage.

      The problem was the lack of cars in Russia. From this, all the last (before the new generation) ships were built according to the far from optimal three-screw scheme. And from this, the range of their action, despite the disconnecting mechanisms, was far from optimal. Due to the increased consumption of coal, due to the increased weight of the boilers, due to the suspended weight of the machines, due to the increased weight of the drives and screws themselves, etc.
  10. +3
    4 November 2016 21: 34
    Those. if the problem of “braking screws” were identified in a timely manner, then “Relight” could very well become a twin-screw, without losing any power.

    It was recalled from one author (;))
    1. +1
      6 November 2016 02: 33
      Good you :)))) In general, yes, it is from these considerations :))))
  11. +1
    5 November 2016 03: 06
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    that the fighting qualities of "battleship-cruisers" such as "Relight"

    Ugh you. Again, some mythical battleships-cruisers. A little higher I laid out an excerpt from the All-Subject Report on the Naval Department for the years 1897-1900 to the Tsar. It clearly says "battleships".
    And taking into account the fact that we know their design characteristics and the fact that the EDB did not divide classes and grades in the RIF, we can clarify for ourselves that these were 2 classes.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    But, in addition to combat, pure cruising qualities were also required from ships of the Peresvet type.

    This is why such a fright? Even according to the project, Peresvet and Oslyabya did not have any special cruising qualities. Those. less than the norm for modern EDB class 2. Only at Victory this figure was brought to a minimum for the 2nd class EDB. But in fact, of course, this figure was much smaller. At the level of the old (former generation) EDB class 2.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    It would seem that everything is correct and understandable - a similar result corresponds to the planned indicators of machine power and speed on the afterburner.

    Well, but where is this nonsense from? Not tested in the RIF ships with a blow. There was such an opportunity, perhaps they even experienced it, but these figures did not enter anywhere. And now they can’t be found.
    And the numbers that are, they are in tests without boost.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    The author of this article believes that the "battleships-cruisers" were tested nevertheless with forced blasting.

    This is because "the author is not in the know." He does not know the typical power of Russian naval vehicles of those years. Therefore, he wanders in the dark.
    In fact, this is the power of Russian "battleship" machines of those years WITHOUT blowing. And the power of Peresvet was 14532 HP.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    The Nagasaki-Port Arthur route (566 miles) was covered by Peresvet in 36 hours, with an average speed of 15,7 knots - and this is close enough to the planned 16,5 knots that the ship was supposed to show on natural traction.

    Yeah. Well, now it's clear where the author's dog rummaged. The author decided to "adjust" the first figures to the second. But in vain.
    In fact, the tests lasted 36 hours. This is a huge period of time for domestic technology. And during this time there was a lot that broke, and then it was repaired. Therefore, it turned out only 15,7 nodes. And not because the official tests used blowing. By the way, Relight on official tests showed 18,64 knots of average speed, and not 18,5.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    while its normal displacement actually tended to 13 tons.

    13778 item
    Further there is nonsense, funny inventions of the author.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    It can be assumed that the range of the “Relight” was (estimated) 5610 miles at 10 knots

    It is completely incomprehensible why it takes so long to suck up something that in fact was not?
    The actual range in combat-ready condition was:
    at Peresvet - 2600 m.m.
    Oslyaby - 880 m.m.
    near Victory - 4260 m.m.
    At the norm for modern EDB 2 classes 6000-7000 m.m. (for old 4000-5000 m.m.). The rest is empty demagogy.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Despite the fact that 100 tons per day at an average speed of 10 knots and coal reserves of 2058 tons give about 5000 miles of range, but not 5610 miles!

    All this is hurt, but for some reason the author stubbornly considers not a combat, but a traveling range of action. Why he needs it is incomprehensible.
    Apparently there is no material at all, so he stretches the rubber as soon as he can.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Presumably, their estimated range was no more than 5610 miles per 10 knots (Victory had 6080 miles), but the actual one did not exceed 5000 miles at the same speed

    And I think that the marching (not to be confused with the combat) range approximately corresponded to the calculated one. And the discrepancies were only those that were associated with excess displacement. But not very significant.
    At the same time, this range in itself is not very interesting, therefore, it would not even be worth stopping at it.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    The fact is that on the “battleships-cruisers” a new, very witty power plant was used, consisting of three steam engines working on three shafts and rotating three screws.

    Calling this compelled (Russia did not have its own powerful ship machines) sucks "a very ingenious power plant" is something. The author managed to surprise even me, a person who expects anything from him.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    that the economic move will be provided only by the middle machine

    In this case, the screws of 2 other machines will be disconnected from the machines. This, as explained below, is very important. Because the author does not know this.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Much later, in 1898, captain A.N. Krylov, the future academician, described his work in this way

    Apparently Krylov, this is such a special surname for storytellers. Read what he wrote on the calculations of the speed of the goddesses in his pool, laugh.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    The problem was that during the operation of one machine out of three, one screw out of three also rotated.

    The author does not know about disconnecting couplings. This is a very sad fact.
    In fact, all 3 screws rotated. But 2 of them rotated in streams of water (I don’t remember the exact minimum speed of the start of rotation, but you can find it on the Internet). The release couplings of these screws were disconnected.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    And the other two screws created such disturbances that the movement under one machine was almost impossible

    Well, about "impossible", the author has traditionally turned it down. He could quite move with 10 knots. The fuel consumption was just slightly increased.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    it could be solved by a certain transmission, when the operation of one central machine would rotate all three screws at once - in this case, perhaps, the planned range would have been achieved, or at least the failure would not have been of such a grandiose nature.

    Enchanting. The author never ceases to delight us with his innovations. The solution to the problem has already emerged, this is a kind of mythical "transfer". No, after all, the author should read about disconnect couplings.
    This is what I will not write about in my commentary on the previous article, so the author in the next one will certainly blunder out on this topic. Now here about disconnecting couplings from ignorance stumbled.
    1. 0
      5 November 2016 03: 06
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Sometimes "on the Internet" have to read

      Not "on the Internet", but in my comments. Why be ashamed.
      All your "revelations", they come from them, from my comments. I can imagine what you would have written if I had not constantly corrected you. So, I haven't written about drive circuits yet, you immediately fell into a puddle and sat down. Everything is as usual. And expected.
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      two years before the Peresvet and Oslyaby, the armored cruiser Rossiya was laid down, which had 2 vehicles of 7250 hp each. each (and a third, less power, for the economic course)

      Here is an example and did not take long to wait.
      Just in case, I inform the author that in Russia there was a FIVE machine three-screw circuit. At the same time, FOUR CRUISERS (not the ones like at relights, but the ones like the goddesses) machines worked on 2 shafts, being paired in series. And another machine, economical running, worked on the middle shaft.
      This scheme has never been used anywhere else in the RIF (on Gromoboy, a machine scheme of overexposure was used). And her hemorrhoids served as a cause of inhibition of the wok in the first period of the battle in the CP. Of course, 2 cars connected in series on one shaft were not used for a good life. And precisely because of the lack of normal powerful cars in Russia.
      At the same time, these 4 cars had a total capacity of 15680 h.p.
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Those. if the problem of “braking screws” were identified in a timely manner, then “Relight” could very well become a twin-screw, without losing any power.

      Just in Russia there were as many as 5 disconnecting couplings (the gimor is still the same). 3 screw and 2 machine-to-machine. Of course, everyone knew everything about the "braking screws" for a long time. These are just empty fantasies of the author. Well, like most of his "materials" (secret, of course).
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      But generally speaking, the three-screw chassis itself was not at all flawed in comparison with the two-

      Yes? But why did all of them do mostly twin-screw? For ships NOT short range, of course.
      You are at least a factor. recalculation for three-screw schemes, in comparison with two-screw schemes you know?
      However, whom am I asking.
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      or adopted already much later than the four-screw

      The author does not even know that due to technical progress, the weight of cars, boilers and fuel has ceased to play a decisive role in the range of ships. And to increase the combat stability of ships, the world SPECIAL subsequently switched to a multi-rotor scheme.
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      problems in the transition to a new, more sophisticated technique faced by all nations

      In fact, by the time Oslaby and Victory were put into operation, Belleville boilers were far from innovations in the RIF. But, nevertheless, it was on these ships that they were immediately brought into a terrible state. Oslyabya demanded repairs in the Mediterranean Sea. Victory barely reached Port Arthur. And repaired already there. I note that there were new ships. Just got into operation.
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      But, since the cruisers from "Peresvetov" did not work out, we can say that the Russian Imperial Navy received two relatively weak battleships.

      Yeah. The author finally understood what I wrote to him about the Victory. Already well, Victory is quite rightly separated from this "sweet couple".
      1. 2-0
        0
        5 November 2016 11: 19
        rjxtufh! He cursed Andrei as best he could, but Mog was a healthy guy ...

        Yes, the review on "overexposures" was probably written together with "Battle in the Yellow Sea" and resembles a "shaft plan".
      2. +3
        6 November 2016 02: 41
        Enchanting lies. Especially "pleased" 5 cars "Russia" and disconnect clutches ...
        As I wrote earlier, rjxtufh will not help anything - but if anyone is interested, I’m ready to give any clarifications on the issues raised.
        Dear readers, it will be enough to copy into the comment the statement of interest rjxtufh that interests them - and I, of course, will answer :))))
        1. 0
          6 November 2016 09: 33
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Enchanting lies. Especially "pleased" 5 cars "Russia" and disconnect clutches ...

          The fact that you are "not in the subject" about ship machines, I realized while reading the "article". So your nervous reaction did not surprise me.
          Refute me if you can. And do not simply shake the air, seasoning it with unappetizing aromas.
        2. 0
          6 November 2016 10: 18
          Please comment on the passage about the "twin" lines of "Russia".
          1. +1
            6 November 2016 12: 13
            Quote: Vladimir Romanov
            Please comment on the passage about the "twin" lines of "Russia".

            You are welcome!
            None of the sources available to me writes about the "five-machine" scheme - they all indicate exactly not a three-machine one, including one (2500 hp) for an economic move, two others - for a complete one. For example, R.M. Melnikov in "Rurik was the first" writes:
            "Considering the power of the two machines already under construction by the plant (7250 hp each) sufficient to achieve a 19-knot speed and taking into account the" excessive difficulty of coordinating "the action of the average auxiliary machine with them, MTK proposed to abandon its use at full speed"

            Of course, I cannot cite a source in which it would be written that "Russia" had 3 cars, not 5. In the same way, I cannot cite a source that claims that "Russia" had 3 cars, and not a nuclear reactor, but from it does not follow that there was a nuclear reactor on "Russia" :))))
            The most important thing is something else. rjxtufh is unable to see contradictions in his own statements. He constantly writes (in previous comments) that the lack of cars forced to make "Peresvet" three-shaft. Let's assume for a second that the "Russia" really had four instead of two onboard cars. Or ... why waste time on trifles? Eight. And it worked on 4 machines on 1 shaft.
            It just turns out that the planned shaft power was 7250 hp. whether there are at least two cars, at least twenty. And such a scheme was considered acceptable by our admirals and designers, because the "Russia" was built this way. At the same time, "Russia" was commissioned in 1897, i.e. if there really were 2 (eight? one hundred and forty-one?) machines on the shaft, then they could not figure out the viciousness of this practice at the time of the design of "Peresvetov".
            And it turns out that since that moment they learned to provide 7250 hp on the shaft (no matter one machine or three hundred), then there was no need to create three-shaft "Peresveta". Who prevented from using the scheme of "Russia" and putting two (or five hundred) machines on one shaft?
            1. +1
              6 November 2016 13: 03
              I suppose that the version about "double" (with a doubled number of cylinders?) Machines is something out of the realm of fantasy. In any case, there is nothing like this on the drawings of "Russia" that can be found on the net! The article as a whole is very solid, IMHO - you can send Katorin to the "Military Collection". If you are not familiar with him (and he is on the Wiki), then this is "Jurgen" on the Tsushima forum, the details of the publication can be discussed with him in a "personal". Good luck!
              1. +1
                6 November 2016 14: 13
                Quote: Vladimir Romanov
                I suppose that the version about "double" (with a doubled number of cylinders?) Machines is something out of the realm of fantasy.

                From the realm of fantasy, Russian cars with a capacity of 7840 h.p. each one. 15680: 2. And in the mid-90s.
                Just in case, I’ll remind you that at Peresvet there were the most powerful ship engines of the old generation from three-cylinder ones. Here, in general, the most powerful. Moreover, their power was from 4566 to 5257 (an average of 4844).
                And before that there was generally a "terrible story" with the purchase of cars (for ever-scarce currency) for Petropavlovsk. Since the machines they needed, 5300 ILS each, were not produced in Russia at that time.
                And here are 7840 ILS vehicles Welcome. Doesn't it seem strange? Doesn't it suggest any thoughts?
                Quote: Vladimir Romanov
                In any case, there is nothing like this on the drawings of "Russia" that can be found on the net!

                So the network is generally not sensible. Mostly gossip, like this "article".
                Quote: Vladimir Romanov
                The article as a whole is very solid, IMHO - you can send Katorin to the "Military Collection".

                Better in Murzilka magazine. There, this kind of "publication" is more appropriate.
            2. 0
              6 November 2016 13: 41
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              they all indicate not a three-machine

              Three-shaft, mon sher. Do not confuse it with a three-machine. And do not get out.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              For example, R.M. Melnikov

              He has a lot of different funny written.
              It’s understandable, it’s not the pastry that should stitch the boots.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              rjxtufh is unable to see contradictions in his own statements.

              Oh, poor me. Oh, flawed. I can not see. And only Andrei from Chelyabinsk can see, and guides on the right path.
              Henceforth you should be called Explorer? Like, Ivan Susanin?
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              then they could not find out the viciousness of this practice at the time of the design of the Peresvetov.

              Dear, I already wrote on this thread, Donskoy had the same scheme. In the old days. Unlike Monomakh. So, they could compare.
              And Rurik (except for the auxiliary machine shaft).
              It was quite a working scheme. But it’s very hemorrhagic, because disconnection-communication machines required a very good time. For raiders, this was acceptable; for squadron battleships, no.
              In addition, at the end of 19, the power of even 4 "cruising" and one auxiliary vehicle (BrKR Russia) was already too small for a raider. And 4 "battleships" did not intermeddle. As a result, the world saw a strange three-machine and three-shaft musk ox named Thunderbolt. The true purpose of this ship is not clear to me to this day. Well, there is no logic in it, for everything it is bad.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Who prevented from using the scheme of "Russia" and putting two (or five hundred) machines on one shaft?

              Well, for starters, apparently, Rurik's scheme. Because Russia also used a three-shaft scheme.
              Apparently grandfather Pikhto called the weight and dimensions of the machines interfered. Which in total (4 "cruising") were larger and heavier than 3 "battleships", even taking into account the extra shaft. On the raiders of armor and artillery was a gulkin's nose. But overexposures required all this, and quite a lot. Because these were (conceived) ships of the squadron battle.
              In addition, the hemorrhoid when disconnecting / communicating machines was not weak (it required a lot of time). And this is precisely what caused Russia to stall at first in the Communist Party. Nevertheless, the hemorrhoid during the separation / communication of the shafts was noticeably smaller. But it caused increased fuel consumption.
              1. +1
                6 November 2016 19: 40
                It is touching!
                Quote: rjxtufh
                Dear, I already wrote on this thread, Donskoy had the same scheme. In the old days. Unlike Monomakh. So, they could compare.

                good Now strain and remember when it was surrendered to the Don fleet? 1886 When was Russia laid down? 1893 The question is, why didn’t Russia give up twin cars - a rhetorical one.
                Congratulations to you lie - 100500 times
                1) The five-machine version of Russia is only your imagination born of the belief that a machine of such strength could not be created in Russia.
                2) Your second fantasy is
                Quote: rjxtufh
                Apparently Fir Grandpa called weight and dimensions of the machines interfered

                No less entertaining. Taking into account the fact that the EU power unit weighed 2051 tons together with the economic propulsion machine, which was not needed on the twin-shaft ship, and the Peresvetov power unit - 2027 tons according to the project, the Russian power unit fits perfectly in weight with Peresvet :))
                1. 0
                  6 November 2016 20: 01
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  When was the Don fleet delivered? 1886 g

                  In 1885g.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  The question is, why didn’t Russia give up twin cars - a rhetorical one.

                  And why should Russia abandon twin cars?
                  Have you solved the very questions that I ask you, to remake me?
                  You do not engage in verbiage.
                  You don’t know what happened to ship engines in Russia, just write.
                  You don’t know the basic ship engine diagrams, and so on.
                  And then he gets out.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Congratulations to you lie - 100500 times

                  If you out of habit haunted something from morning to evening, this will not become a fact. Your favorite technique, learned from Dr. Goebbels, it certainly won’t work in technical matters.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  1) The five-machine version of Russia is only your imagination born of the belief that a machine of such strength could not be created in Russia.

                  So disprove it with concrete examples. Why are you hesitating? Why, then, mutter the same thing as a jammed gramophone?
                  There are no arguments, but I don’t feel like going into a puddle? Well, that's it.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Taking into account the fact that the EU power unit weighed 2051 tons together with an economic running machine, which was not needed on a twin-shaft ship, and Peresvetov ES - 2027 tons according to the project

                  Did you get this from "wide literature"?
                  I can congratulate you, I, at one time, also almost fell on this hook. Fortunately, I began to dig further and to the bottom did get to the bottom of the truth.
                  Don't run around here on the branch looking for fleas. You are engaged in a specific task, confirm the nonsense that you wrote in your opus. Namely: "... two years before" Peresvet "and" Oslyabi "the armored cruiser" Russia "was laid down, which had 2 vehicles of 7250 hp each ...".
                  1. +1
                    7 November 2016 14: 29
                    Quote: rjxtufh
                    You do not run here on a branch looking for fleas. You are engaged in a specific task, confirm the nonsense that you wrote in your opus.

                    By the way, dear Verboo, you have noticed since you began to communicate a little more politely, you stopped immediately banning.
                    And the fact that you are such a hater of the Bolsheviks for mimicry pulled upon themselves The Soviet flag also played into your hands. Well, the lack of minuses, of course. Now you go without skulls, which, of course, is not bad.
                    You still learn something, it pleases.
                    But when it comes to the RJV, you (as a real ideological fanatic) still brings in. The very same thought could be expressed more politely.
                    PS By the way, I congratulate you on the anniversary of the October Revolution. I know you will appreciate. Will you go to the demonstration? smile
                    1. 0
                      7 November 2016 14: 44
                      Quote: Odyssey
                      dear Verboo

                      Today is Verboo.
                      Yesterday, on another branch, I even forgot who.
                      Not so long ago, strictly Nikolai.
                      I envy myself. Everyone will recognize me, everyone will somehow call me in their own way.
                      My self, in other words. For all.
                      I wonder what this phenomenon is called in psychiatry?
                      1. 0
                        7 November 2016 14: 54
                        Quote: rjxtufh
                        Today is Verboo.

                        Don’t flirt, I just called one of your old nicknames, you had a lot of them, so it’s not surprising that someone remembers you under a different name.
                        Quote: rjxtufh
                        My self, in other words. For all.

                        Otozh. Everyone loves you. I, for example, remember I received a real pleasure in reading how you dealt with Peter 1.
                        At the same time, I had thoughts like a famous character in the movie "That same Munchausen".
                      2. 0
                        7 November 2016 16: 53
                        Quote: Odyssey
                        For example, I remember I received a real pleasure in reading how you dealt with Peter 1.


                        Quote: Odyssey
                        I had thoughts

                        You see how good it is. You had thoughts. Why are you so unhappy with this Verboo?
                  2. +2
                    7 November 2016 16: 29
                    Quote: rjxtufh
                    You are engaged in a specific task, confirm the nonsense that you wrote in your opus. Namely: "... two years before" Peresvet "and" Oslyabi "the armored cruiser" Russia "was laid down, which had 2 vehicles of 7250 hp each ...".

                    Confirmed by reference to Melnikov. I do not like? No question let's get yours
                    Quote: rjxtufh
                    So disprove it with concrete examples. Why are you hesitating? Why, then, mutter the same thing as a jammed gramophone?

                    What for? The whole "dispute" flared up due to the fact that you are already trying to tell the world that the Peresvets were made three-machine and three-shaft due to the fact that in Russia they could not make machines of sufficient power to provide 14 hp. on 500 shafts. When you are given the example of "Russia" you begin to tell that she had 2 cars per shaft. To this I answer you that if there were 2 of them on each shaft, the total power of 100500 hp per shaft was provided (in practice, even more, but when designing Peresvetov they could not know about it yet). Accordingly, Peresvety could be made with two-shaft.
                    You, as usual, start to rampage and shout that the scheme, when 2 machines worked on 1 shaft, did not justify itself, and that is the only reason why it was abandoned. I inform you that "Donskoy", which definitely had 2 machines on the shaft, was built long before the laying down of "Russia", so the shortcomings (if any) should have been known at the time of its design.
                    What else can I talk about?
                    Want to prove that Russia was a five-machine? It’s not a question, lay out a reliable source (your fantasies are not such). That's just it will not have any relation to Relight - for the reasons stated above. And I generally write about Relight, and not about Russia :))
                    1. 0
                      7 November 2016 17: 40
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Confirmed by reference to Melnikov.

                      Do you know how you surprise me?
                      Truly fantastic ignorance in those issues about which you undertake to write with such aplomb. In half with phenomenal stubbornness. You are ready to deny the quite obvious facts, grabbing, like a straw, for the words written by God knows who, and God knows where.
                      Try somewhere in the world shipbuilding in 1880. find a ship with a car at 6600 h.p. If you are not in the know, this is the power of Donskoy cars. Two and connected in series, because there was one shaft.
                      And stop horning against the wall. This is not a sign of a great mind.
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      that Peresvet was made by three-machine and three-shaft ones because in Russia they could not make cars of sufficient power to provide 14 hp on 500 shafts.

                      Exactly. For the same reason, Diana and Stormbreaker were made three-shaft.
                      And the two-shaft ships on the Russian technical base, here they are. Sisoy (two "battleship" vehicles) and Almaz (2 "cruising" vehicles). Both are little good slugs. Although they used machines of the maximum, for those times, power.
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      When you are given the example of "Russia" you begin to tell that she had 2 cars per shaft.

                      Do not tell, but bring to your attention. For you do not know from this. And users of the site, as it turns out, too. Except ignoto, who kind of heard something about it somewhere.
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      To this I answer you that if there were 100500 on each shaft, the total power of 7 hp per shaft was provided

                      No, the point there is something else, you did not claim 7250 IHL. on the shaft, you stated that there were 2 machines with a capacity of 7250 HP. If it were "7250 HP per shaft", no one would say a word to you. Do not twist.
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Accordingly, Peresvetov could be done by two-shaft.

                      Those. like Rurik. But you could only do that in your fantasies. Because you completely do not understand how the squadron battle ship differs from the armored raider.
                      And he is different to everyone. That's almost all. Other priority tasks, another line item load.
                      But you don’t understand this, therefore you boldly assert that paired cars could have stood at overshoots on 2 shafts. Those. only 4 pcs. Like on Rurik.
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      as usual you start to run amok and scream

                      You dream up even more and write that I was lying on my feet and struggling in tantrums.
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      they say the scheme when 2 cars worked on 1 shaft did not pay off, and that is why it was abandoned.

                      Yes, the scheme to the beginning of the 20th century. has outlived itself. Progress, you know. On more modern raiders, 1 powerful machine worked on 1 shaft (see Varangian).
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      I inform you that "Donskoy", which definitely had 2 machines on the shaft

                      Are you informing me about Donskoy? Actually, I told you about the Donskoy machine circuit. You begin to distort already quite boorishly.
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      so that the flaws (if any) should have been known at the time of its design.

                      When there are no other machines, the disadvantages of those available are not particularly so.
                      And then, the scheme, despite its antiquity, was not so bad. Only extremely hemorrhoids. What was evident in the battle in the CP. And so, with the conscientiousness and hard work of the crew, it’s quite tolerable.
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      What else can I talk about?

                      On confirmation of your (and now Melnikov's) statement that 7250 ill.s. were in cars in Russia each one.
                      Those. the question has not moved off the ground. Despite your verbose comments. Empty, in fact.
                      By the way, Melnikov has a lot of cocks, to put it mildly.
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      No question, lay out a credible source

                      How much more do you need to give credible facts so that you can finally guess the obvious? Are you always so bad with quick wits?
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      And I generally write about Relights,

                      So you also know nothing about Relight. Read how many comments I have written on them for you (in all your parts). Not an article, a book can be written on them. And a fairly correct book, unlike your opus.
                      1. +1
                        7 November 2016 18: 23
                        Quote: rjxtufh
                        How much more do you need to give credible facts so that you can finally guess the obvious?

                        I understand that there are no links that confirm your point of view on 5 Russian cars and that the three-shaft scheme was adopted because 2-cars on 1 shaft were not good, I can’t wait.
                        And why am I not surprised? :)
                      2. 0
                        7 November 2016 19: 16
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        I can’t wait.

                        Do not wait.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And why am I not surprised?

                        Maybe because you're really Wang's grandmother?
                        PS. I did not wait for confirmation of your words from you either. And you can’t refer to Melnikov. I do not know such a serious specialist.
      3. 0
        6 November 2016 08: 43
        Enlighten, please - where does the information about the "twin" machines of "Russia" come from?
        1. 0
          6 November 2016 09: 29
          Quote: Vladimir Romanov
          Where does the information about the "twin" cars of "Russia" come from?

          I have a lot of interesting information.
          I’ll inform you personally that there were 4 cars in Rurik with a two-shaft scheme. Those. unlike Russia, there was no auxiliary machine and its shaft (third). And on Donskoy there were 2 cars that worked on 1 shaft (half of Rurik).
          In this case, the machines could be disconnected from each other. To save fuel.
          But on Monomakh, 2 machines were already working on 2 shafts. These were the "identical ships".
          1. 0
            6 November 2016 10: 15
            And yet - if possible - a link, please!
    2. +1
      5 November 2016 20: 49
      Ugh you. Again some mythical cruiser armadillos.


      And taking into account the fact that we know their design characteristics and the fact that the EDB did not divide classes and grades in the RIF, we can clarify for ourselves that these were 2 classes.


      Many states had thoughts about creating an armadillo cruiser, but not everyone tried to bring them to life. The following is an estimate in terms of the battleship-cruiser of one ship at a time.
      1. +3
        5 November 2016 21: 29
        As far as I remember, the "Fuerst Bismarck" was just a slightly smaller version of the "Kaisers" with a slightly higher travel speed (at the time). And she became actually the first armored cruiser in Germany at that time. If we consider that the speed of 18-18,5 knots was normal for cruisers of the late 19th century, then the same "Peresvets" at the time of design and bookmarking could well be considered as meeting their specified characteristics and moments of use by ships. They had a speed higher than the EBR of that period ("Poltava" had 15-16 knots), had better seaworthiness and weaker artillery (254mm versus 305mm, although the same "Furst Bismarck" carried the caliber of its contemporaries - armored carriers - 240mm), had more weak armor (precisely in terms of location, which could still play for the relatively low-power guns of cruisers, but no longer met the requirements against real EBRs)
        Personally, my opinion is that a ship is not a gun; you cannot crypt it in a day. And while these thousands and tens of thousands of tons are collected on a slipway, technology in the world can bend so that when commissioned it will no longer meet its purpose ... And in the late 19th-early 20th centuries this happened ... winked Therefore, when analyzing any ship of those times, this must be taken into account. The same "Peresvets" exactly at the time of design and bookmarking fully corresponded to what was intended from them. And the fact that they were under construction for a long time ("Oslyabya") and no longer met their cruising characteristics, not only from time to time, but also from execution, is already a problem for the builders ... request As a result, they turned out to be against the background of later ships really 2nd-class ships in the line (where they were shoved from despair), where their weakened characteristics played by no means a positive role ... That's the whole layout ... Yes
      2. 0
        5 November 2016 21: 57
        Quote: 27091965i
        Many states had thoughts about creating an armadillo cruiser, but not everyone tried to bring them to life.

        I have already cited a report on the tsar in 1900 on this thread. It clearly says that Peresvet and Oslyabya are squadron battleships. Therefore, the inventions of writers of historical sciences on this subject (supposedly about some battleships-cruisers), as well as the author of this opus, are superfluous.
        Once again, for ourselves, we can conclude that these were class 2 EDBs (according to the British classification). There is nothing more to add (to reduce) on this subject. The question is settled and closed.
        1. 2-0
          0
          6 November 2016 13: 11
          No question. Namely squadron battleships. I don’t mean to bark, it’s just that there are no armadillo cruisers in the Russian classification, so there’s nothing to fantasize about.

          For ourselves, of course we can, it's about grade 2. But we are not Angles who could pull the Grand Fleet into an over-the-horizon column, we have "overexposures" in the first line. Sorry for "Oslyabyu"! He did not heap so quickly, maybe it would have gone differently.
          1. +1
            6 November 2016 16: 22
            Quote: 2-0
            Sorry for "Oslyabyu"!

            Sorry for the sailors. Which put on this little good for the pelvis and forced to fight on it.
            Quote: 2-0
            He did not heap so quickly, maybe it would have gone differently.

            Nothing would have gone anywhere else. Because I Japanese had 4 full-fledged EDBs (one of them is old). And in the composition of 2 and the TOE there was not a single EDB, although there were a lot of ships with such names. In addition, the situation was significantly worsened by the overload of ships (in fact, Oslyabya died so quickly from this).
            I can even safely assume that if the Japanese linear forces were halved, the result would be about the same. You cannot draw a good picture on paper, and then run around with this paper and persuade the enemy to surrender. Will not work. Enemy, he is not either.
            1. 2-0
              +1
              7 November 2016 00: 06
              rjxtufh! Of course I understand the polemic enthusiasm, but why go too far?
              If "Oslyabya" is a worthless pelvis, then what are the Japanese KBR, forced to stand in the first line?
              And "Retvizan", for example, which can be recognized as the best EBR of the Russian-Japanese war, is WHAT?

              If the Japanese forces were halved, then Togo would have flooded, if only he himself had been tormenting people for nothing ...
              1. 0
                7 November 2016 11: 51
                Quote: 2-0
                If "Oslyabya" is a worthless pelvis, then what are the Japanese KBR, forced to stand in the first line?

                Oslyabya stood at the head of the column. Japanese BrKR stood in the tail. Feel the difference.
                The actual state of these ships during the battle inspired more concern for Oslyabyu than for Nissin and Kasuga. which received further confirmation in practice.
                Quote: 2-0
                And "Retvizan", for example, which can be recognized as the best EBR of the Russian-Japanese war, is WHAT?

                Retvisan was not the best EDB RYV. EDB Initial Project Krampa was the best among the projects of the EDB REV. But Retvizan was not built according to the initial design.
                Specifically, on Retvizan very much saved on armor. From this, Retvisan immediately turned into a not very strong class 1 EDB. True, as a side effect, it has gained the potential for raiding. Which was never used.
                Actually, Retvisan was noticeably weaker even Asahi. Which was the most unsuccessful Japanese EDB among the new four.
                Quote: 2-0
                If the Japanese forces were halved, then Togo would have flooded, if only he himself had been tormenting people for nothing ...

                Even 2 normal class 1 EBRs could easily handle a bunch of floating "buckets with nuts". Once again, I repeat and emphasize, among the 2 and 3 TOEs there was not a single full-fledged ship of the EBR level. Even the old EBR. Moreover, this situation was aggravated by the overloading of ships. Which, as a result, became only partially combat-ready.
                But 1 TOE, after the destruction of Yasima and Hatsuse, had very real chances of success. Although she was noticeably weaker than the remaining Japanese EDB. In its composition were:
                - not very strong class 1 EDB (Retvisan),
                - An EDB located on the border of classes (new 1st-class EDBs and old 1st-class EDBs - Cesarevich),
                - old EDB 1st class (Poltava).
                - old EDB class 2 (Victory).
                Well, there were several ships NOT a linear battle.
                Of course, these forces against the Japanese were also weak. But not so much. In addition, "never a naval commander" Vitgeft (who, unlike the "brilliant naval commanders", destroyed a third of the Japanese linear fleet) followed the weight discipline of the ships of his squadron. Unlike Rozhdestvensky. Therefore, his squadron was a completely ral and formidable force. Potentially, of course.
                1. 2-0
                  +1
                  7 November 2016 13: 14
                  rjxtufh! I do not play cards for money and other gambling, firstly because they make a fool, and secondly because I am a "gambling paramosh".
                  Here you begin to fool and cheat. What does the tail mean? And yet, not BrKR, but the CBD. And the loop of Togo, and in the Yellow Sea, turns, when the KBR was at the head.

                  We will not compare the performance characteristics of the Japanese and ours, this is pointless. One well-hit projectile or a jammed barrel cancels out all the advantage. I will also not go into "2 normal EBRs" ... You believe in this, I am not going to dissuade you.

                  Where did the 1st grade and 2nd grade come from now, if you yourself argued that there is no such thing? Why did the newest "Tsarevich" suddenly become "old"?

                  Yes, I will add. I don’t know what Wilhelm Karlovich was watching there, but you will remember where Vitgeft was loaded with coal and where Rozhestvensky was.

                  I, in principle, fall off, as I'm fed up, and the discussion went into a twilight state.
                  1. +1
                    7 November 2016 14: 15
                    Quote: 2-0
                    I, in principle, fall off, as I'm fed up, and the discussion went into a twilight state.

                    Oh ... And you felt on yourself all the "power" of our fabulous character laughing Communicate with him - that head against the wall ... It is useless winked There is its own fabulous Universe and it is difficult to understand, or even impossible. It is easy to get there - being drawn into a discussion with its apologist on its terms. The result - rage comes unnoticed wink
                  2. 0
                    7 November 2016 14: 28
                    Quote: 2-0
                    Here you begin to fool and cheat.

                    Oops Could already begin to be ashamed of himself, but could not find where he cheated.
                    Quote: 2-0
                    What does the tail mean?

                    This is when not in the head.
                    Quote: 2-0
                    And yet, not BrKR, but the CBD.

                    Each Dodik has his own technique. But actually armored cruiser. Or an armored cruiser.
                    Quote: 2-0
                    And the loop of Togo, and in the Yellow Sea, turns, when the KBR was at the head.

                    During the Togo loop, the BrKR never stood at the head. Even when they were closer to Russian ships than Japanese EBRs.
                    Quote: 2-0
                    One successfully hit shell or jammed barrel level all the advantage.

                    Army weapons are not designed and built like this. And wars are not waged like that. This is an unscheduled force majeure.
                    Quote: 2-0
                    Where did class 1 and class 2 come from now, if you yourself claimed that there wasn’t such a thing?

                    Did I argue? Hm.
                    I even wrote that the BBB - budget armadillos Nissin and Kasuga are very CONDITION can be attributed to the EDB 3 classes. Unlike other Japanese BrKR (and Russian too). But class 2 EDBs existed quite realistically. Not in the RIF, of course.
                    Quote: 2-0
                    Why did the newest "Tsarevich" suddenly become "old"?

                    Not old, but on the border of old and new. And since it was designed and built like that. According to the FAILURE scheme of continuous booking. As a result, above the overhead line he had armor with a gulkin nose. And he was quite exposed to high-explosive shells. That's right, almost like Fuji and Yashima. These are definitely old class 1 EDBs.
                    Quote: 2-0
                    but you will remember where Witgeft loaded with coal and where Rozhdestvensky

                    So what? Who prevented Rozhdestvensky from calculating the coal so that 100 miles before Tsushima, his ships would be in operational condition? Is this Newton’s binomial? Or do you think that he hoped to slip unnoticed?
                    You are wrong, you didn’t count. It's just that some of the "Russian naval commanders" of those times had the level of professionalism. Below the plinth - they did not even understand the basics of materiel (ships). Against their background, Makarov, who in Port Arthur demanded to observe weight discipline (and Witgeft observed it), really looks very good.
                    1. 0
                      7 November 2016 17: 22
                      Quote: rjxtufh
                      I even wrote that the BBR - budget armadillos Nissin and Kasuga can very CONSIDERATELY be attributed to the 3rd class EDB


                      Could you explain why?
                      1. 0
                        7 November 2016 18: 04
                        Quote: 27091965i
                        Could you explain why?

                        So in the internet on this topic is full of material.
                        Yes, and I wrote on this subject repeatedly. Look in my profile, it definitely is there. Laziness is repeated.
                    2. 2-0
                      0
                      7 November 2016 19: 41
                      rjxtufh! Oh well ... It's already becoming uninteresting.

                      I will not enter into an incomprehensible discussion with you, I will only note that the captured "Eagle", whose armor with "gulkin, um, nose" was not pierced, and "Eagle" is an unprincipled altered "Tsarevich".

                      CBD, KRL, KRT, LKR - catch the trend?
                      1. 0
                        7 November 2016 20: 01
                        Quote: 2-0
                        that the captured "Eagle", whose armor with "gulkin, um, nose" was not pierced

                        Apparently, therefore, the post-war Commission recognized the surrender of Eagle as a prisoner. It's like "... and he died perfectly healthy."
                        By the way, what about the other three sisterships? Do you recall their fate?
                        Quote: 2-0
                        CBD, KRL, KRT, LKR - catch the trend?

                        No.
          2. +3
            6 November 2016 19: 22
            Quote: 2-0
            just in the Russian classification there are no cruiser armadillos

            Of course not :))) But this is how the "Peresvets" were often called in quite official correspondence during their design, and they were presented to the Emperor as armored cruisers. In addition, the phrase "battleship-cruiser" very well reflects the original idea of ​​the admirals.
            1. 0
              6 November 2016 19: 36
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              But this is what Peresvets were often called in quite official correspondence during their design.

              You, an eyewitness and an active participant in those events know better, of course.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              and to the Emperor Emperor they were completely introduced as armored cruisers

              Actually, above in this thread, I posted an archival document, a report to the tsar, where "squadron battleships" is written in black and white.
              But, I repeat, you, the eyewitness and the active participant in those events, know better.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              In addition, the phrase "battleship-cruiser" very well reflects the original idea of ​​the admirals.

              No, well, how much longer can this enchanting delirium last?
              What is the idea? Which cruisers? They, with their design with a range of ~ 5600 m.m, and they were not pulled to the class 2 EDB. Only Victory on the project received a range of almost 2 m.m.
              With a norm for an EDB of class 2 6000-7000 m.m. And for armored raiders 7000-8000 m.m.
              1. +1
                7 November 2016 16: 16
                Quote: rjxtufh
                Actually, above in this thread, I posted an archival document, a report to the tsar, where "squadron battleships" is written in black and white.

                So what is next? The document is dated 1900, well, so "Peresvets" were promoted to the rank of EBR even earlier. But this does not negate the fact that before the bookmark they were called very differently.
                Quote: rjxtufh
                No, well, how much longer can this enchanting delirium last?

                You know better
                Quote: rjxtufh
                What is the idea? Which cruisers? They, with their design range of ~ 5600 m.m,

                Well, for some reason, Krestyaninov and Molodtsov indicate that the projected range was 6860 miles, and it remains to be seen whether it is 10 knots at 12 knots.
                1. 0
                  7 November 2016 18: 49
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  The document is dated 1900, well, so "Peresvets" were promoted to the rank of EBR even earlier.

                  No, you are not fixable. It is useless for you to explain anything. You have read "Squadron battleships of the" Peresvet "type" by Melnikov, and you are knee-deep in the sea.
                  Yes, it is this "writer of historical sciences with a technical bias" who has "battleships-cruisers".
                  Yes, it is with him that we can read nonsense like:
                  1. "Enlisted in the class of squadron battleships, at the same time it was essentially a tower modification of the cruiser" Russia. "This is not even nonsense, this is enchanting nonsense. was different, except that both were armored ships, just some inexplicable fantasies of the author.
                  2. "" Battleships-cruisers "- so called these ships in the Marine Technical Committee." Let's leave this statement on the conscience of Melnikov. Neither I nor he was there and could not hear it.
                  3. "Such battleships could effectively represent the Russian flag in all countries of the world, and if necessary (come to a break with England), together with the ships of the Volunteer Fleet, successfully operate on trade routes." Again enchanting nonsense. Even according to the project, the first overexposures had a range of 5600 m. And armored raiders, i.e. ships operating on sea communications were supposed to have a range of 7000-8000 m.
                  In addition, there is one technical subtlety, raiders, i.e. ships that operate on maritime communications, NEVER in those days were built on a three-shaft scheme. Only two-shaft. Of course, normal raiders, and not just what.
                  Russia made exceptions, but there is a third shaft (and a car on it), it is optional. Not like both main ones.
                  Also an exception was the Stormbreaker. But there is a very difficult case - this ship was bad for any tasks. And he was not suitable for raiding for a while.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  But this does not negate the fact that before the bookmark they were called very differently.

                  Unofficially, they could be called, at least "horse". But from the moment the decision was made to build them (1889), it was about class 2 squadron battleships.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Well, for some reason, Krestyaninov and Molodtsov indicate that the projected range was 6860 miles, and it remains to be seen whether it is 10 knots at 12 knots.

                  It is your "cunning calculations" that lead you to such conclusions. And not at all Krestyaninov and Molodtsov. Again you twist. It's even somehow traditional.
                  1. 0
                    8 November 2016 11: 05
                    Quote: rjxtufh
                    It is your "cunning calculations" that lead you to such conclusions. And not at all Krestyaninov and Molodtsov.

                    Look at page 57 of the monograph by Krestyaninov and Molodtsov "Battleships of the type" Peresvet "." Heroic tragedy "". Not in the old frame from Midel, from 2007, namely where I indicated. Read

                    In general, I congratulate you lie about 100501 times :))
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                    2. 0
                      8 November 2016 13: 26
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      I congratulate you

                      I do not have your habits.
                      Why should I believe Molodetsovy Krestyaninov, and not S. Suliga?
                      For Tsesarevich at a speed of 12 knots, he gives a consumption of 110 tons per day. And for Victory (not Relight and Oslyaby) at the same speed, 153 tons. And at the same time, I’ll also notice that Victory was more economical four-cylinder cars, and not three-cylinder ones.
                      Oslyabya on the way to Tsushima REALLY spent an average of 120 tons per day (easily checked by the Diamond signal book). And this is moving at an average speed of 5,5-6 knots per hour.
                      There is not that up to 6860, there and up to 5000 m.m. long away.
                      Moving in this mode, on his "combat-ready" coal reserve (324 tons), he could pass 650 meters. (this can be easily verified with a calculator). Therefore, the figure given by me for the range of the Oslyabi in a combat-ready state (i.e. WITHOUT overload and with a uniform speed) = 880 m. looks very realistic.
                      Why should I believe in the 100-114 tons of coal consumption given by someone at a speed of 12 knots per hour?
                      Your problem is that you find in the internet the most suitable figure for you, and the choice there is wide, for every taste. And then you begin to prove to everyone, often contrary to common sense, that only this figure is the only true one.
                      But you don't turn on your head. Almost never. You don't know how or you can't. And from this you have "puddle" after "puddle".
                      1. +1
                        8 November 2016 19: 40
                        Quote: rjxtufh
                        I do not have your habits.

                        Yeah. Who wrote this?
                        Quote: rjxtufh
                        It is your "cunning calculations" that lead you to such conclusions. And not at all Krestyaninov and Molodtsov.

                        It turns out that nevertheless the Peasants are with Molodtsov, and what do you want to call your words, except as a lie?
                        Quote: rjxtufh
                        Why should I believe Molodetsovy Krestyaninov, and not S. Suliga?

                        Believe Suliga, who's stopping?
                        S. Suliga. Ships of the Russian - Japanese War of 1904-1905 Part 1. Russian fleet
                        For "overexposures" a range of 6200 miles at 10 knots is indicated http://www.navylib.su/ships/ships1904-1905/03.htm
                        And here is another article by Suliga called "Why did" Oslyabya "die?"
                        http://tsushima.su/RU/libru/i/Page_7/page_18/page
                        _19 / Page_32 / suliga-oslyabya /
                        4 days before the battle, the squadron passed less than 800 miles at a speed of 5-8 knots, that is, Oslyabya used up about 270 tons of coal.

                        Generally speaking, even if we interpret "less than 800" as 700 miles, then in four days the average speed will be 7,3 knots. But what is interesting is that the average daily consumption of coal for Suliga (and not according to Almaz's book, which is clearly more accurate) is ... some unfortunate 67,5 tons! laughing
                        So, according to Suliga, whom you believe, the range of "Oslyabi" (after the transition as part of 2TOE!) Is (where is your calculator there? :))) well, even 700 miles / 270 tons of consumed coal along Suliga * 2058 tons of total design margin = 5335 miles at 7,3 knots! laughing
                        So who do you believe? Sulige or the signal book of Diamond? Would you somehow decide, or something.
                        Quote: rjxtufh
                        Why should I believe in the 100-114 tons of coal consumption given by someone at a speed of 12 knots per hour?

                        Yes, for one simple reason - sometimes you need to include your head in addition to the calculator.
                        "Oslyabe" is recording 114 tons / day at 12 knots during its campaigns under the leadership of Virenius, so this is after a two-month overhaul in Italy! After that, "Oslyabya" goes to Arthur, does not reach, returns to the Baltic and gets into preventive repairs, but it is not known what they did with her machines (Molodtsov and Krestyaninov call preventive repairs) And if you imagine that they are right and that they are serious EH "donkey" was not treated, and remember that "Oslyabya" as part of 2TOE again left for many months of sailing, then at the end of 120 tons / day at 7-8 knots is no longer surprising.
                        Quote: rjxtufh
                        But you don't turn on your head. Almost never. You don't know how or you can't. And from this you have "puddle" after "puddle".

                        Oh yes, my unrecognized genius .... laughing
                      2. 0
                        8 November 2016 20: 11
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        It turns out that nevertheless the Peasants are with Molodtsov, and what do you want to call your words, except as a lie?

                        Not at all. The selection on the Internet of not entirely reliable data (to them I include at least part of the data of Molodtsov and Krestyaninov), this is also a kind of deception of readers.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        So, according to Suliga, whom you believe

                        And again, you jerk. I wrote:
                        Quote: rjxtufh
                        Why should I believe Molodetsovy Krestyaninov, and not S. Suliga?

                        And then he brought the figures of Suliga.
                        And then he gave his calculations according to the book of Diamond.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        So who do you believe? Sulige or the signal book of Diamond? Would you somehow decide, or something.

                        Of course, I believe my calculations more.
                        But if you do not like the calculations of Suliga, then please forward claims to him. Not to me.
                        I’m not going to defend his figures personally.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And if we imagine that they are right, and that they didn’t seriously treat the EW "slugs", and remember that "Oslyabya" as a part of 2TOE again went on a many-month voyage, then at the end of it 120 t / day at 7-8 knots will not be surprised have to.

                        Who was "not treated"? New ship?
                        No, well this is a paragraph. Soon you will agree that it was impossible to launch it into the water. Disassemble immediately for metal.
                        If there were any problems with the machines, then we would know about that. As we know about the problems with its boilers and their repair.
                        But I asked you not to refer to Krestyaninov and Molodtsov. Are you back for the old?
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Oh yes, my unrecognized genius.

                        Yes, your genius is unrecognized. Or maybe it just isn’t?
                      3. The comment was deleted.
            2. 2-0
              0
              7 November 2016 23: 11
              rjxtufh!
              I will round off my answer, tk. at the moment it has become uninteresting to correspond with you. If you talked to Yushchin, and he told you something, then write, if not, then why write nonsense (I'm talking about three sister ships of "Eagle")?
              1. +1
                8 November 2016 02: 48
                Quote: 2-0
                If you talked with Yushchin, and he told you something, then write, if not, then why write nonsense (I'm talking about the three sister ships "Eagle")?

                1. I do not know who Yushchin is. About Yushchenko something and once heard.
                2. What are you so excited about these sisterships?
                They were not under Tsushima?
                Were but not dead?
                Killed, but not them?
                What a strange reaction?
                1. 2-0
                  0
                  8 November 2016 09: 53
                  rjxtufh! Do not be rude to strangers, advice to you. You can get hurt and hard in your nickel. The kidneys can also fall.

                  Yushchin is the only one saved from three sisterships. Things you need to know!
                  1. 0
                    8 November 2016 10: 59
                    Quote: 2-0
                    Do not be rude to strangers, advice to you. You can get hurt and hard in your nickel. The kidneys can also fall.

                    Those. for some reason you decided to fall into rudeness, but fears that your nickel and kidneys? It’s quite reasonable.
                    Quote: 2-0
                    Yushchin is the only one saved from three sisterships. Things you need to know!

                    1. Why do I need to know the name of the sailor who escaped from Borodino?
                    2. But what about the adm. Rozhdestvensky and 19 people from his headquarters with Suvorov? Which of them did you record? In addition, there are allegations (E. Bratsun) that at the same time 20 sailors from Suvorov were transferred to the destroyer.
  12. +2
    5 November 2016 04: 30
    Dear Andrey, thanks for the interesting work +! The ship, despite all the shortcomings, is still not bad. Yes, they built for a long time, but not longer than in France, for example.
    if one machine or two worked, then they had to overcome the resistance of non-rotating screws: if all three machines worked, then too much coal was spent on their work

    It is interesting to recall the French experience of operating the three-shaft battleship "Jena" as well. Coal consumption with one machine running and a speed of 13,03 knots. was 80,57 tons / day, and with two working side machines and a speed of 13,08 knots. - 65,17 tons / day. Ship needs are not included here.
    1. +1
      6 November 2016 02: 52
      Greetings, dear Valentine!
      Quote: Comrade
      The ship, despite all the shortcomings, is still not bad.

      It could have been better ... But the insidious English are to blame for everything! (I will write about this a little later, the next article completes the series)
      Quote: Comrade
      It is interesting to recall the French experience of operating the three-shaft battleship "Jena". Coal consumption with one machine running and a speed of 13,03 knots. was 80,57 tons / day, and with two working side machines and a speed of 13,08 knots. - 65,17 tons / day.

      This data - yes, to Nikolai’s ears .... :))))) However, it’s useless to him - the Black Hole between them (ears) will absorb any facts ....
  13. 0
    5 November 2016 11: 04
    The problem was that during the operation of one machine out of three, one screw out of three also rotated. And the other two screws created such disturbances that the movement under one machine turned out to be almost impossible: all this would have been easily revealed by testing models of battleships of the Peresvet type ... if the models were tested with screws.


    Hello Andrey. Below are the conclusions made when testing the Thunderbolt cruiser’s vehicles, it’s clear that you can’t use them 100% relative to the battleship Peresvet, but it seems to me that it’s also not worth making a conclusion about the impossibility of movement when using one machine ..
    1. +1
      5 November 2016 16: 39
      That's the whole thing !!! No difference, for 0,8 knots are not critical ... In the Peresvetovskaya series, the whole difference was in construction and operational overload
    2. +1
      6 November 2016 02: 53
      Hello Igor!
      quote = 27091965i] The following are conclusions made when testing the machines of the cruiser "Stormbreaker" [/ quote]
      Alas, in this case they are not applicable.
      1. 0
        7 November 2016 20: 11
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Alas, in this case they are not applicable.

        But what about the disconnect couplings?
        When, a little earlier, I brought to you the "military secret" about their existence, you called it "enchanting lies".
        And then suddenly, mowing, bite, were. And even including on the Thunder. And even on all 3 shafts.
        How to deal with them now? Were they or were not?
        1. 0
          8 November 2016 10: 58
          Quote: rjxtufh
          And then suddenly, mowing, bite, were. And even including on the Thunder. And even on all 3 shafts.
          How to deal with them now? Were they or were not?

          The truth is that they were. Enchanting lies that they solved the issues of resistance of screws to the environment at Relight.
          1. 0
            8 November 2016 11: 58
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            The truth is that they were. Enchanting lies that they solved the issues of resistance of screws to the environment at Relight.

            And again, twisting and turning.
            Here are your "pearls":
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Andrey from Chelyabinsk November 6, 2016 02:41 ↑
            Enchanting lies. Especially "pleased" 5 cars "Russia" and disconnect clutches ...

            Quote: Article
            The problem was that during the operation of one machine out of three, one screw out of three also rotated. And the other two screws created such disturbances that the movement under one machine was almost impossible

            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            The truth is that they were

            Explain to me, my dear. If they were, then why at overexposures "when one machine out of three was running, one screw out of three also rotated"?
            But initially you were more logical. And to the remark about the existence of disconnecting couplings, he wrote that this is "Enchanting lies".
            For 2 days, they changed their position, but admit it is not enough spirit?
            Nothing, soon we’ll get close to the twin cars ... In the meantime, we’ll wait for the 4th part of your funny opus.
  14. 0
    5 November 2016 11: 22
    The German armored cruisers Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, being built a little later, came in quite well with the same cruising range.

    Well, I also want to note that a simple comparison of the range does not mean that this or that ship is adapted for action on communications. As if autonomy (and why the nuclear submarines cannot be under water all year round :)) and seaworthiness in this case are much more important than when operating on small TVDs.

    For starters, I would like to hear a comparison of these important parameters.
    1. +1
      5 November 2016 22: 39
      Quote: kayman4
      Well, I also want to note that a simple comparison of the range does not mean that this or that ship is adapted for action on communications. As if autonomy (and why the nuclear submarines cannot be under water all year round :)) and seaworthiness in this case are much more important than when operating on small TVDs.

      A ship is a compromise of characteristics that depend on displacement (cost). In this case, to ensure, for example, actions on communications, you need a ship with a long cruising range (fuel supply + vehicle economy), seaworthiness (side height, hull contours, therefore, the mass of hull structures => displacement), and autonomy depends on provisions and fresh water, which is not so important as a percentage of other loads. Well, also the habitability conditions that follow from seaworthiness and displacement. Now, let's take also purely combat characteristics (the ability to withstand a possible enemy, which is determined rather from political motives and the theater of expected military operations - hypothetically, of course. At the same time, one should not forget about the wishes of the customer. That is, if he says that the displacement there should be no more than 12000 tons, then try and fit mechanisms, armor and weapons that correspond to your time into this limit. And decide what you have to sacrifice in order to win something wink
      The same task was faced by the builders of "Peresvetov" at the time of laying. A small nuance - do not forget about the economy of the manufacturing country, because if some did not bother about cost, then others looked for reserves and saved on everything that played an important role in the pressure on the shipbuilder. And if for actions on communications it is quite cheap and practical to use transport ships (seaworthiness, cruising range, but they lose in speed, armament and protection), then creating a raider from a warship is quite problematic, because a warship is not only expensive, but also has such a jumble of characteristics that affect each other, that such a task is not an easy one. So at the time of the laying, they were supposed to "overexposure" for some cases, but after the construction and timing they were attributed to others. This is just a typical example of unsuccessful execution of the plan. request
      Personally, for a warship as a raider, I consider the embodiment in the form of a "German" Deutschland ", although even here the limitation of displacement and the irrational composition of weapons negatively affected the protection. So there were already technologies of the 20th century. ...
    2. 0
      6 November 2016 02: 58
      Quote: kayman4
      Well, I also want to note that a simple comparison of the range does not mean that this or that ship is adapted for action on communications.

      Well then :)))) Coal is still the most critical thing, water and food issues are resolved
      1. 2-0
        0
        6 November 2016 13: 12
        You can boot from "prizes" ...
  15. +1
    7 November 2016 05: 52
    Thanks Andrey, as always a good and informative article.
  16. +1
    7 November 2016 14: 06
    1. Someone again hinted at the "forerunners" of battle cruisers. Yes, they did not. Like the Japanese armored vehicles, with their real speed of 15-17 knots.
    2. The issue of overloading the construction "Oslyabi" has already been discussed at the "alternative", where Andrey is a regular. We came to the conclusion that Molodtsov and Krestyaninov made mistakes in the text, and the real overload is no more than that of "Peresvet". It's still a lot. And the construction overload of "Borodino" could easily be cut in half, since a significant part of it is the additional equipment of the crew quarters. By the way, "Eagle" from the whole series had the greatest overload.
    3. I read about the twin cars of "Russia" myself. I don't remember the source. I can't say anything about the reliability of the source either. If I find, I'll write.
    4. Someone mentioned Italian ships. And I like Austro-Hungarian more. With balanced characteristics, they were distinguished by two important and permanent features: the absence of building overload and low cost of construction.
    Unfortunately, the ships of this fleet were not considered as samples for ours. Also, I read somewhere that the British categorically did not recommend German shipbuilders to participate in the Russian competition of armadillos.
    1. +1
      7 November 2016 15: 03
      Quote: ignoto
      Someone again hinted at the "forerunners" of battle cruisers. Yes, they did not.

      Can I be it? Well, the one who stuttered? And even then, he repeatedly hinted. Because the EDB 1 classes of the pre-dreadnought era grew into battleships. And EDB 2 classes of the same era, in the line. cruisers.
      Quote: ignoto
      Like the Japanese armored, with their real speed of 15-17 knots.

      Yes, you already finish your tales about the speeds of Japanese armored defenders.
      You can only agree on one thing, armored defenders in the line. cruisers did not grow.
      Quote: ignoto
      The issue of overloading the construction "Oslyabi" has already been discussed at the "alternative", where Andrey is a regular. We came to the conclusion that Molodtsov and Krestyaninov made mistakes in the text, and the real overload is no more than that of "Peresvet".

      But I’m not a regular. And I do not agree with the conclusions of Internet users. I have my own data. I cited them repeatedly, including and on this thread.
      Quote: ignoto
      And the construction overload of "Borodino" could be easily cut in half

      And grandfather is easy to turn into a grandmother. But just do not often turn.
      Orel had an overload of 635 tons. Alexander III has 665 tons. Guess who has more?
      Slava had 899 tons at all, but he was different. Those. significantly different, but due to the range of action in a combat-ready state. Those. Glory was actually targeted for the Baltic. That’s why he was not hastily completed.
      The fame is interesting in that we actually got a figure that Russian designers made a mistake in their calculations when designing Borodin residents. These are the same 900 tons.
      But the fact that others had less, it has already gone due to "relief". Guess what was the main reason for facilitating?
      Quote: ignoto
      somewhere to read that the British categorically did not recommend German shipbuilders to participate in the Russian competition of armadillos.

      And for cruisers, could it be? The cruisers (including clones) in the Republic of Ingushetia were all German. Well, and a little French.
      And then, what about these Germans? Kramp’s EBR project was generally hurt. No worse than the British. It would be better if they forbade the French to participate in the Russian competition of armadillos.
      1. +1
        7 November 2016 15: 23
        For God's sake. I'm tired of academics.
        According to the forerunners. They mean primarily Japanese armored cruisers. According to the characteristics and tactics of use. Both that, and another by.
        By speed. This is you to the English observers. And to domestic authors. For example., To Balakin. Or, to Lisitsyn.
        On overloading "Borodintsy" met other figures. Here we differ from you.
        For armadillos.
        Crump's project was good. The main thing: inch. No need to recount: nothing good came of it. But technologies: profile steel of a z-shaped section and channels. Not ours, well, really.
        The Germans, of course, are metristians, as are the French.
        And armadillos are weak. But from them "Alsace" grew. They could have grown up earlier in the Russian fleet.
        Change 283mm to 305mm and 170mm to 152mm. Reservations are just right. Speed ​​too. And no SC towers (on "Deutschland" they refused at all), no curved sides.
        After all, we have not only German cruisers, but also some of the destroyers. And why on 12 "* 40 abandoned the Krupp wedge lock and switched to the domestic piston?
        1. 0
          7 November 2016 17: 55
          Quote: ignoto
          I'm tired of academics.

          Prefer to communicate with people without education?
          Quote: ignoto
          They mean primarily Japanese armored cruisers.

          Who is this nonsense? Do not communicate with him, he will teach you bad.
          Quote: ignoto
          According to the characteristics and tactics of use.

          Hm. Japanese armored cruisers are armored ships protecting the water area. From armored cruisers-raiders of the enemy.
          What do they have to do with linear (squadron) combat? But just LINEAR cruisers (and SQUADRED armadillos of the 2nd class) have.
          Quote: ignoto
          This is you to the English observers.

          Why will I retell Packingham's funny tales? This is not interesting to me. Still, I have basic knowledge of ships, so I can quite distinguish reliable information from false information.
          Quote: ignoto
          On overloading "Borodintsy" met other figures

          Maybe.
          Quote: ignoto
          And why on 12 "* 40 abandoned the Krupp wedge lock and switched to the domestic piston?

          And why on the field three-inch have abandoned the eccentric shutter and switched to the piston?
          And why on a Nagant rifle in the Russian version (three-ruler) did not use a shutter like a Li shutter, but a shutter like a Lebel shutter?
          Apparently due to "improved manufacturability of the product."
          1. 0
            8 November 2016 09: 55
            1. Academists, in my understanding, are people who, for various reasons, cannot, or do not want, to deviate from the "general party line", from tradition.
            2. According to "predictions" - this is to Krestyaninov and Molodtsov, the authors of the research about "Peresvet"
            3. It is generally accepted that Japanese armored cruisers were created as a high-speed wing for squadron combat. Academic, but I have no objection.
            4. According to the speeds of the Japanese armored cruisers, I trust the information of both the British and S. Balakin. Limited displacement, armored contours (not high-speed), excessive reservation - donated by the CMU.
            No, during the tests, of course, everything is fine. But, in real life? Over-lightened mechanisms, and the Azuma also has poor assembly. There are plenty of such examples. The brightest are the Italian WWII cruisers, especially the Zara type.
            5. The low rate of fire 12 "* 40 is usually blamed on the design of the shutter, which had to be done manually ... 27 revolutions in 20 seconds ... But, I also met this: for loading, the gun was brought to a zero angle, the lock was opened, then the gun it went up to the angle of loading, the projectile and the charge were put in, again dropped to zero, the bolt closed, the gun was guided.
            Perhaps the allegedly insufficient mass of the shell Makarov accused in vain. The previous system was heavier, the margin of safety higher, although it did not digest heavy shells. The new system was originally designed for lightweight shells.
            1. 0
              8 November 2016 11: 20
              Quote: ignoto
              Academicians, in my understanding, are people who, for various reasons, cannot, or do not want, to deviate from the "general party line", from tradition.

              Do I look like those who play traditional tune?
              Quote: ignoto
              According to "predictions" - this is to Krestyaninov and Molodtsov, the authors of studies on "Peresvet"

              And to Admiral V.A. Belli, for example.
              Quote: ignoto
              It is generally accepted that the Japanese armored cruisers were created as a fleet for the squadron battle.

              Who is it "generally accepted" to think so? In the naval military literature it is clearly written that the high-speed wing of the linear forces in those days were class 2 EBRs. And later they became ling. cruisers.
              Armored cruiser defenders for a full-fledged linear battle were not created and were not used. NEVER. In view of its apparent deadness.
              Quote: ignoto
              According to the speeds of the Japanese armored cruisers, I trust the information of both the British and S. Balakin.

              Trust. Once you can’t make ends meet.
              Just try to somehow substantiate why the Japanese "sluggish squadron" in the command post caught up and overtook (embraced the column) the VOK. If it is known for sure that Rurik (was the closing) dumped at a speed of 17,5 knots. At the same time, he caught up (on the right) with the flagship Russia, which had just problems with couplings and connected machines. From the sloppiness of the team. The flagship after all. Moreover, Rurik and Thunderbolt did not have such problems.
              Connect all the machines and shafts, and Russia could give a full stroke AFTER that. how the Japanese caught up and surpassed the wok. By the way, Stormbreaker also caught up (to the left) with Russia. And at one time they marched on the front line.
              Then Rurik began to bypass Russia, after which he received Jessen's order "to take his place in the order." Everything, from that moment on, a kirdyk came for Rurik. He stood between the Japanese and the rest of the WOK ships. And after all the machines and shafts were connected in Russia and gave full speed (along with Thunderbolt), he could not give full speed.
              Quote: ignoto
              No, in tests, of course, everything is fine. But in real life?

              My dear. Asama, Tokiva, Iwate and Izumo were from Armstrong. Yakumo, from the Volcano. Any other comments are needed or it’s clear what I’m talking about?
              Quote: ignoto
              Lightweight Mechanisms

              Did you come up with this yourself? What fright did they suddenly become lightweight with?
              Quote: ignoto
              and on "Azuma" there is also a bad build.

              In Saint Nazaire? I categorically doubt it. Although, this is not Armstrong and not Volcano.
              Quote: ignoto
              The brightest - Italian WWII cruisers

              You do not align the Italians with the British. And with the Germans. And with the French.
              Quote: ignoto
              Perhaps the allegedly insufficient mass of the shell Makarov accused in vain.

              GMSH RI writes so.
              Quote: ignoto
              The new system was originally designed for lightweight shells.

              This is not the case. The fact is what percentage of explosives was in the shell. And he was lightweight or heavier, this is another matter. Following.
  17. +1
    7 November 2016 16: 49
    Quote: Vladimir Romanov
    And yet - if possible - a link, please!

    Why are you Vladimir ... rjxtufh never condescends to such a thing ... shit out the floor of the forum with ismizlisms, please, but give specific links to documents and / or analytics confirming his words .... ahem .. I have never seen it.
    1. +1
      7 November 2016 18: 55
      Quote: Minotavrik
      sweep the forum floor

      "Shit", that's your part. This is how it is now. I always argue my statements.
      Can you refute at least one of my "fabrications with which I fucked up the floor of the forum"? No you can not?
      Well, then you only have to do what you do. Pouring dirt on those in the know. From the envy of his indefatigable.
  18. +1
    7 November 2016 18: 54
    rjxtufh,
    Yes, and I wrote on this subject repeatedly. Look in my profile, it definitely is there. Laziness is repeated.


    I respect other views on history. This is the right of everyone, but you took the system for determining ships of different states and are trying to create a universal classification table. Unfortunately this is not possible. Each state had its own planned theater of operations and its own strategy for using the Navy. Therefore, ships were created and classified in accordance with the needs of these states. It was practically impossible to create a universal classification system for those times, views and understanding were different.
    1. 0
      7 November 2016 19: 12
      Quote: 27091965i
      Therefore, ships were created and classified in accordance with the needs of these states.

      I don’t understand, what does the Garibaldians have to do with it? And where is the "world classification".
      The Garibaldians were typical budget battleships, "battleships for the poor." Squadron ships for the world's poor countries that could not afford to buy expensive full-fledged EBRs (both ranks). Those. they were actually the same EBRs, only scaled down to a smaller size, equipped with less powerful main guns and less powerful protection. As compensation, they received a travel speed exceeding the speed of a class 2 EBR. It is because of all this that they are CONDITIONALLY often called class 3 EBRs. Although officially they were called "armored cruiser". At the same time, you should not be confused by the word "cruiser", this is not at all belonging to any class of ships.
      The Garibaldians constructively had nothing to do with the Japanese armored trade defenders. Well, nothing at all. Only the GK guns were of the same caliber. And that’s all.
      The speed of the Garibaldians was slightly lower, the nature of the reservation, and a completely different type of reservation, too.
      Although to fight against such gains as the Russian armored raiders, they were quite suitable. For this, the Japanese bought them.
      But Russia did not wage a cruising war then, so they were bought, in general, in vain.
      1. 0
        7 November 2016 19: 58
        Quote: rjxtufh
        I don’t understand, what does the Garibaldians have to do with it? And where is the "world classification".
        The Garibaldians were typical budget battleships, "battleships for the poor."


        I would agree with you if it were not for one thing, but, indeed, in the Spanish Navy, the "Garibaldian" was classified as a class 2 battleship. But the Spaniards and their "Infants" designated the 2nd class battleships. The Argentines considered them, by their classification, armored cruisers, as did the Italians. Therefore, it is difficult to agree with this definition.
        1. 0
          7 November 2016 20: 15
          Quote: 27091965i
          The Argentines considered them to be armored cruisers in their classification.

          According to all international classifications, they were considered armored cruisers. This can be clarified in any directory of those years.
          It is much more important who and how used them.
          Someone used them as armored defenders. Ie, like an armored cruiser. Here's how the Japanese, for example, at first. Although then they used them in a line, like a class 2 EDB.
          Someone, like an EDB class 2, a mobile wing of linear forces.
          I don’t know for sure, but it is possible that someone could use them as flagships of linear forces. In very dead molted squads and squadrons.
          1. 0
            8 November 2016 10: 06
            I do not see the fundamental difference between the Italian and Japanese armored cruisers. Maybe they were created for different application concepts, but it turned out the same thing.
            Limited displacement, not high-speed contours, a full belt along the waterline, towers, part of the average artillery in casemates.
            The types of guns are the same, even the towers are the same. Insufficient speed, not higher, or even lower than modern armadillos. Same. The debate about whether the panda is a bear or not.
            1. 0
              8 November 2016 11: 33
              Quote: ignoto
              I do not see the fundamental difference between the Italian and Japanese armored cruisers

              To no avail.
              Quote: ignoto
              but it turned out the same thing.

              Not at all. Although there was a certain, rather distant resemblance.
              Quote: ignoto
              Limited displacement, not high-speed contours, a full belt along the waterline, towers, part of the average artillery in casemates.

              You somehow miss the main thing. The Garibaldians were the strongholds of the armadillos. The Japanese armored defenders were traverseless (armored deck cruisers hung with armor) armadillos. Those. completely different design.
              Quote: ignoto
              The types of guns are the same.

              The Garibaldians were newer. And on Kasuga, there is only one 10 ".
              Quote: ignoto
              Insufficient speed, not higher, or even lower than modern armadillos.

              Bullshit, of course. All Japanese armored cruisers walked faster than the 2nd class EDB. Than even normal, British.
              Actually, it could not be otherwise, it was thought so. Otherwise, they would not survive. You can’t hide in the sea behind a bush. And an EDB of class 2 will crush such an armored cruiser for one or two, like a bug.
  19. +1
    7 November 2016 22: 42
    rjxtufh,
    Well, of course, it was you who destroyed the chapel.
    Understand, you have one such person in the whole universe. There was no one else with a set of ideas — VOSR (by the way, didn’t you forget to go to a rally today?) - there was no industrialization in the 30s — Stalinist socialism is a slave system — Witgeft is good -Makarov is bad — all Soviet equipment was badly filled with corpses — Peter 1 is bad, and with an obsessive love for analyzing the weight return of armadillos in the RNV there are no more.
    Even Novodvorskaya against your background is "reasonable as an explanatory dictionary" (do not be offended, this is a quote from Carroll)
    Quote: rjxtufh
    Why are you so unhappy with this Verboo?

    Lord, be with you. I wrote "got great pleasure", and you are "dissatisfied"
    Are you aware that a good psychologist can write a doctorate for you? You are a very valuable and rare case.
    1. 0
      8 November 2016 02: 39
      Quote: Odyssey
      You are the only one in the whole universe.

      It is always nice to hear that you are an extraordinary person.
      Quote: Odyssey
      Even Novodvorskaya against your background is "reasonable as an explanatory dictionary"

      You don't want to be an expert. Probably because they are NOT "reasonable, like an explanatory dictionary."
      Yes, and I do not need experts.
      I look, you looked at my comments. Well done, already, consider a short course of free educational program passed. I hope you noticed that I have the habit of confirming all my theses with solid arguments. Here, memorize them, come in handy. For general development.
      Quote: Odyssey
      can write a doctorate

      Do not worry. I’m fine with the doctorate. And for quite some time now.
      Quote: Odyssey
      You are a very valuable and rare case.

      But this, I agree. But not in the sense that you write about.
      1. +1
        8 November 2016 18: 18
        Quote: rjxtufh
        It is always nice to hear that you are an extraordinary person.

        Well, how can I say, from an ideological point of view, you are an anti-Soviet with violent chaos in your head, that is, the most banal character of the modern Russian Federation, since the authorities have been creating just such people since 1987 (they allow them to maintain power and calmly plunder the former public property). But from a personal psychological point of view, you are truly an unusual case - a combination of direct denial of reality (even Academician Sakharov and Novodvorskaya did not reach the denial of industrialization), obsessive-compulsive disorder, and the Napoleon complex (unrecognized "genius") is rare.
        Quote: rjxtufh
        I look, you looked at my comments.

        No, this was not necessary. As I already wrote, one of the pillars of your personality is a neurosis of obsessive states, with its characteristic symptoms, the presence of supervaluable ideas, a tendency to obsessive repetition of ideas, words, thoughts, and involuntary fears, a tendency to swarm in small details, sets of numbers, etc.
        I got acquainted with the set of your ideas even when you wrote from the already banned nicknames. Knowing these ideas, I had no doubt at all that in your new incarnation you were chewing the same mental chewing gum. As you can see from your reaction, I was not mistaken.
        Quote: rjxtufh
        But this, I agree. But not in the sense that you write about.

        I think it will be difficult to completely return you to reality, but there are two ways to improve your condition
        1) Earn / steal money and go to live in the West, completely changing your environment and lifestyle. There, away from the damned autocracy and the evil scoops-lumpens, it may be calmer for you.
        2) If for some reason you cannot earn / steal such an amount (and I think, despite your commitment to capitalism, this is the case), then you can sublimate your ideas.
        As I wrote, people with chaos in their heads in the post-Soviet RF are countless, and they all try to somehow express their ideas and look for oneself. For example, Rodnovers (funny eccentrics talking about returning to paganism), Fomenkovtsy (alternative historians, like You, only in your own way). They all write books, find supporters, arrange a meeting, etc.
        Why are you worse? Try to write a couple of monographs (for example, on the history of the REV), it costs a lot, now they publish everything for money.
        Think for yourself - why spend the rest of your life writing innumerable long messages on forums on the Internet, scolding paper authorities, and encountering constant ridicule, cursing, banning and needing to maintain your existence on the forum in mimicry under the flag of the hated Bolsheviks?
        It’s better to become an authority yourself (even for a narrow circle of people). So you will become much better.
        1. 0
          8 November 2016 19: 55
          Quote: Odyssey
          ...

          Enchanting nonsense is written. Here, just enchanting.
          I won’t even comment.
          And was it all worth stuffing, breaking your fingers? Or do you have a "specially trained girl" for this?
          No, I understand when I "go through the article" and find shoals. But there is so much to scribble in your own words and absolutely nothing.
          You must write treatises. About tasty and healthy food. Get rich.
          1. 0
            8 November 2016 22: 07
            Quote: Odyssey
            ...

            Yes, and one more thing. If you do not know the history of your homeland, this does not mean at all that those who know it are alternativeists.
            By the way, not knowing the history of their homeland is embarrassing. The badge you have, as I look, is Russian.
          2. +1
            11 November 2016 23: 16
            Quote: rjxtufh
            Enchanting nonsense is written. Here, just enchanting.

            Alas, my dear rjxtufh, sheer truth.
            Or are you seriously wanting to say that you first registered on this forum on August 28 this year (this time I actually looked at your profile)? But it was absolutely stupid of you. For a long time ago I drew attention to an insane person who writes long posts with your theses and your words. In normal people he caused confusion and indignation and therefore quickly got two skulls and got banned. But he did not lose heart changed nicknames and continued again. So it was not difficult for me to list your "theses" without even seeing your messages.
            Or do you want to say that you are not an anti-Soviet? Or that you don't use the Soviet flag (despite your hatred of the "scoop")? Or don't you waste the rest of your life writing long posts on this forum? So you have more than 1000 posts in 2,5 months only under this your nickname. And how many of them you had in total under all nicknames, I think even you yourself do not know.
            Or that you do not spit? So just look at any topic to see what epithets you are awarded. If you were minus now, you would have been banned a long time ago and you would have to change your nickname again.
            Only a diagnosis of -NNS (neurosis of obsessive states) can cause some doubt. But this is because you do not know what it is. Believe me, you have it. Consider me your doctor. smile
            As for the rest, I didn’t even say anything, but simply gave you a couple of tips on how to ease your mental torment. Do not want to, don’t do it, but I have been strongly recommending you to listen to them.
            PS There is one option that I missed, namely, that you have already left to the West in one way or another and indulge in your favorite pastime of emigrants from among the losers - sublimate your own insignificance by endless stories to former compatriots about how they should live (or in your case, understand own story).
            Then, to facilitate your condition, I will advise you to try to forget about Russia and begin to be interested in the new Motherland, and ideally, completely immerse yourself in its interests and problems.
            1. 0
              11 November 2016 23: 52
              Quote: Odyssey
              Only a diagnosis of -NNS (neurosis of obsessive states) can cause some doubt. But this is because you do not know what it is. Believe me, you have it. Consider me your doctor. smile

              Or maybe you, a patient? Oh, if I were you, I would not be so arrogant. Once, and you are a patient. "Manipulation" to describe?
              Quote: Odyssey
              just gave you a couple of tips on how to ease your mental anguish

              Do I have them? I’ll look, if I find it, I will definitely inform you.
              Quote: Odyssey
              PS There is one option that I missed, namely that you have already left to the West one way or another and indulge in your favorite pastime of emigrants from among the losers - sublimate your own insignificance with endless stories to former compatriots about how they should live

              Here you have the expected "by". For who, with whom, and where he lives, I'm not interested. I just don't write on very old technical topics. Not interested.
              Quote: Odyssey
              Then, to facilitate your condition, I will advise you to try to forget about Russia and begin to be interested in the new Motherland, and ideally, completely immerse yourself in its interests and problems.

              "New Motherland" does not exist. This is for you to think about. Like, Eustace Alex.
    2. 0
      8 November 2016 10: 15
      I do not see anything wrong in another point of view, if it is reasoned. Historiography is the most difficult discipline in specialized universities. It makes you think differently interpret the same facts. For example: a plane crashed onto a house, a house fell apart. Reason? At least three versions: the plane collapsed; the plane has nothing to do with it, the dilapidated house itself collapsed, just the time of events coincided; and the plane and the state of the house played together.
      In reality, there are even more versions, and all of them have the right to exist within the framework of historiography. Although, as a rule, one is chosen for the population and students. But not the fact that the most reliable. But the most comfortable. Question: to whom?
  20. 2-0
    0
    7 November 2016 23: 10
    I will round off on this answer, because it has become uninteresting to correspond with you at the moment. If you talked with Yushchin, and he told you something, then write, if not, then why write nonsense?

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"