Military Review

About shooting accuracy in the battle of Jutland (part of 1)

95



The Battle of Jutland, being the largest in stories the collision of linear steam fleets will always attract the attention of lovers of maritime history. In this article, we will look at some of the accuracy issues of German and British battleships and battle cruisers.

It is believed that the British shot at the Jutland battle much worse than the Germans and, if we take into account only the general figures, this is true. For example, according to Puzyrevsky, the Germans spent 3 497 large-caliber projectiles (including 2 324 305 mm and 1 173 - 280 mm) during the battle, achieving 121 hits, which is 3,46% of the total number of shells fired.

The British spent 4 538 heavy shells, including:
1 179 - 381-mm;
42 - 356-mm;
1 533 - 343-mm;
1 784 - 305-mm.
But they only achieved 100 hits, or 2,20%.

Of course, the average values ​​of the fire impact of the fleets are very indicative and important. But we will try to isolate from this average the results of shooting individual detachments or groups of ships: deal with how the battle cruisers Beatty and Hud, the newest British battleships with 381-mm guns of the "Queen Elizabeth" type, fought under the command of Evan-Thomas, dreadnoughts and Jellico's superedrednouts compared to German battleships and battle cruisers.

The course of the Battle of Jutland is repeatedly described in sources, and for a number of ships not only the time of hit of enemy shells is indicated, but also the ships from which these hits were made, as well as where and whom the ship fired (and hit) itself. Of course, such information cannot be absolutely reliable, because two (or more) enemy ships can fire at the same target, and how then can you tell from whom the projectile came from? Again, if, for example, the British Queen Mary had survived, then later it would have been possible to accurately determine not only the number of hits in it, but also the caliber of the shells falling into it. It is known that “Derflinger” and “Seidlitz” were shot at this line cruiser. Since the first one was armed with 305-mm guns, and the second 280-mm, it would be possible to accurately estimate the effectiveness of the fire of the German battle cruisers. But Queen Mary exploded and died, so that the number and caliber of the shells hit it can only be judged from descriptions made by observers from other British and German ships, which are almost never accurate.

It is unlikely that anyone will dispute that in the battle of Jutland, the German "battle cruisers" became the real "heroes of the day." It was they who destroyed the three British battlecruisers, and subsequently covered the retreat of the Dreadnoughts with their heroic attack in all respects. fleet high seas. Let's start with them.

According to sources, the champion of Franz Hipper’s ships (the knight’s title he received after Jutland) was his flagship Lutz.


"Lutz". Linear cruisers of this type were considered as one of the most beautiful kaiserlhmarin ships.


Having spent 380 305-mm shells, the cruiser achieved 19 hits, including the flagship Beatty "Lion" - 13, "Barham" - 1, "Invinsible" -2 and the armored cruiser "Defense" - 3. The percentage of hits was 5,00%.

In second place is “Derflinger”: 385 spent heavy shells (hereinafter, only the main caliber projectiles are consumed) and 16 hits, including “Princess Royal” - 6, “Queen Mary” - 3, “Barham” - 4 and Invincible - 3. Percentage of hits - 4,16%.

Third place - “Fon der Tann”: 170 shells and 7 hits (“Indefatigeble” - 5, New Zealand ”and“ Barham ”- one by one) Total - 4,12%.

Moltke and Seidlits, for unclear reasons, demonstrated much worse shooting.

There is some ambiguity with the consumption of Moltke shells - according to Muzhenikov, he used 334 shells, according to Puzyrevsky - 359. At the same time the battle cruiser achieved 9 hits in the British "Tiger". What is surprising is that they all occurred in the initial period of the battle (run to the south), and it is likely that at this time Moltke showed the best accuracy among the German battle cruisers. But for some reason, such a brilliant start did not continue: afterwards, Moltke did not achieve a single hit by enemy ships. If Muzhenikov’s projectile consumption data are correct, then the Moltke hit percentage was 2,69%, if Puzyrevsky is right, then 2,51%. According to the author of this article, the husbands are more accurate.

Approximately the same shot out "Seidlits", spent 376 shells, and hit 10 hits: "Queen Mary" - 4, "Tiger" - 2, "Worspite" - 2, "Ear" - 2. Percentage of hits - 2,66%.

In total, the German battlecruisers spent 1645 large-caliber shells (or 1667, if Pulyrevsky was right to use the Moltke missiles) and achieved 61 hits, which accounted for 3,71% (or 3,69%) of the total number of shells fired.

Nevertheless, there is reason to believe that the percentage of hits by Rear Admiral Hipper was even higher. The thing is: after analyzing the hit lists, we will see that Queen Mary has only 7 of them (three from Derflinger and four from Seidlitz). But such calculations are fundamentally contrary to the opinion of eyewitnesses who claim that Queen Mary has got from 15 to 20 shells. In his calculations, Puzyrevsky points out 15 hits on Queen Mary. In the initial phase of the battle, only battlecruisers of the Germans fired at the English ships; the Seydlitz and Derflinger fired at Queen Mary. Accordingly, it can be assumed that these German ships achieved more hits than is commonly believed.

If we assume that Queen Mary got from 15 to 20 projectiles, then the number of hits of the German battlecruisers rises to 4,19-4,50% (with the consumption of Moltke projectiles in Puzyrevsky - 4,14-4,44%).

With their opponents, the battlecruisers of the English, everything is somewhat more complicated. The best result was demonstrated by the 3 squadron of battlecruisers consisting of Invinsible, Inflexible and Indomiteble commanded by Rear Admiral Horace Hud.


Invincible, 3's flagship of the battlecruiser squadron


The following data is generally recognized. Invincible and Inflexible spent together 176 (according to Puzyrevsky) or 198 shells (according to Muzhenikov). The most reliable data are presented by Muzhenikov (110 shells - Invincible and 88 - Inflexible). Puzyrevsky shows 88 shells for each cruiser, here you can assume a typo or the fact that due to the lack of accurate data on the consumption of the Invincible shells (he died), the consumption of shells on it was adopted by analogy with the Inflexible. Be that as it may, both of these battlecruisers got 8 hits on the Lutz, but it is not known how the successful shots from Invincible and Inflexible were distributed. Therefore, for these two cruisers, only their combined percentage of hits, which is 4,04-4,54%, can be calculated.

At the same time, Indomiteble shot out a little worse: by spending 175 shells, he achieved 5 hits - three in Derflinger, one in Seidlitz and one more in domodredut Pommern, which gives a percentage of hits in the amount of 2,86%.

In general, the three British battlecruisers, having spent 351-373 shells, achieved 13 hits, or 3,49-3,70% of the total number of shells fired. This is consistent with the "official" data on the accuracy of the German battle cruisers (3,69-3,71%). True, we assumed that Rear Admiral Hipper’s ships “didn’t count” on Queen Mary, taking into account the percentage of hits of his cruisers is 4,14-4,50%. But here we come to an interesting “lacuna” that some historians who have written about the Battle of Jutland have somehow missed.

The fact is that the 3-I squadron of battlecruisers fired not only at the German battlecruisers. Husbands writes:

“In 17 hours. 50 meters from the 9100 distance m (49 cab.) Invincible and Inflexible were the first to fire on the German 2 light cruisers of the reconnaissance group, Wiesbadena and Pillau, seriously injuring both. Te they immediately turned away, covered by a torpedo attack of German destroyers of the destroyers. Nevertheless, on the German light cruiser Wiesbaden, well-aimed volleys from the Invinsible, successfully corrected by Senior Artillery Officer Danreiter, consistently lost both his vehicles, and he lost time , and "Frankfurt" and "Pillau" were damaged ".


Judging by eyewitness accounts, several heavy shells hit the Wiesbaden; Pillau may have received one hit. But for some reason they are not taken into account in the results of shooting 3-she squadron of battle cruisers. Moreover, these hits are not counted, and in general, the hits of the British fleet! Meanwhile, with good reason, we could have counted on the line cruisers of Sir Horace Hood more 3 or 4 falling into the German light cruisers.

In view of the above, the accuracy of the Invincible, Inflexible and Indomiteble may well not even be 3,49-3,70% of the total number of shells fired, and 4,29 - 4,84%, which even exceeds the "maximum" results of Germanic cruisers we calculated (4,19-4,50%)!

From the foregoing, it is possible to conclude that the 3-I squadron of battlecruisers in terms of the quality of training of gunners was in no way inferior to the gunners of German ships of the same class. But, unfortunately, this can not be said about the other English battlecruisers.

Consider the results of shooting the 1 th battleship of the battlecruisers, which included all four British battle cruisers carrying the 343-mm gun.


"Princess Royal"


Surprisingly, but according to reports, among them in accuracy of shooting "Queen Mary" is in the lead. According to observers, the battle cruiser managed to launch 150 shells before their deaths, having achieved four hits at Seidlits. Accordingly, the percentage of hits was 2,67%, which roughly corresponds to Moltke. It is noteworthy that the most productive ship of the 1 th squadron of British battle cruisers corresponds to the least efficient ship of the same class from the Germans.

The next is "Princess Royal" - 230 spent shells and 5 hits (three in "Lutz" and two in "Seydlitz"). 2,17% hit rate

Admiral Beatty's flagship, the battle cruiser Lyon in Jutland, spent 326 343-mm shells, but achieved only 5 hits, including: 4 in Lutz and one in Derflinger. This gives a hit percentage of 1,53%. But then the riddles begin. So, Muzhennikov indicates that in 20.16 the battle cruisers Beatty fired at the battleships Markgraf and Kaiser, having achieved at the same time hits. But according to all the same Muzhenikov, of all the British cruisers who had 343-mm guns, only the Lion fired at the German battleships, respectively, if there were hits, it was from Beatty’s flagship.

At the same time, according to Muzhenikov, for the whole battle, one 343-mm projectile really hit the “Markgraf”, but the exact time of entry is unknown — so it is possible that this could be a projectile from Lion. On the other hand, there are no exact data on “Kaiser” in foreign sources either. Here Muzhennikov writes:

“According to Hildebrand [9], the Kaiser in the Jutland battle was no different and did not suffer any damage; Brayer [5] received two hits, but was again in full combat readiness in August.”


In accordance with the above, we can assume that the final score of Lion was somewhat better and that he achieved not 5, but 6, and perhaps even 7 hits. In this case, the percentage of hits of this ship can be increased to 1,84 - 2,15%, but hardly more. And in any case, "Lion" takes a rather poor third place.

And finally, the worst shooting among 343-mm cruisers was demonstrated by the newest Tiger - 303 projectile and only 3 hits (“Fon der Tann” - 2, Moltke - 1), the percentage of hits was completely unintelligible 0,99%.

In total, the 1 squadron of battlecruisers in the Jutland battle spent 1 009 shells and achieved 17 hits (very reliably) and possibly another one or two - in this case (with 17, 18 and 19 hits) the British ship hits 1,68 hits %, 1,78% or 1,88% In any case, only one thing can be asserted - Hipper battlecruisers fired at least twice as much as the ships of the British 1th squadron.

The 2 Squadron of the battle cruisers did no better.

“Indefatigeble” died in the battle of Jutland, and before his death managed to spend only 40 305-mm shells. Puzyrevsky gives a different figure (180 shells), but it is extremely doubtful. The fact is that on “Indefatigeble” shot “Von der Tann”, which he managed to spend on “Indephatigeble” before his death 52 projectile. It is also known that the “Defatable” fired back with a slight delay, so it is completely impossible to imagine that he managed to shoot 180 shells in response to the German 52. But 40 shells look very authentic.

In any case, if the Indefatigeble gunners could demonstrate the percentage of hits at least at the level of 2,5%, then, having spent 40 shells, they would have achieved the 1-th hit, but it did not happen. Thus, it can be argued that the “Indefatigeble” could not show any acceptable accuracy of shooting.

The situation is even worse with New Zealand. He used 420 main-caliber shells (more than any other battlecruiser of the British and Germans in Jutland), but achieved only three or four hits. Here, Muzhenik has different interpretations - in one case, he claims that there were 4 hits without detailing which particular enemy ships hit the projectiles, but describing the damage of the German battlecruisers only 3 hits by “New Zealand” in “Seidlitz”. On the other hand, it is known that a significant part of the battle of New Zealand was shooting at Moltke and Von der Tannu, while one heavy projectile hit the Von der Tann that could not be identified. Could this have been hit by New Zealand?

In any case, even with 4 hits, the shooting accuracy of the New Ziland does not exceed 0,95%.

What conclusions can be drawn from the above?

It can be stated that the accuracy rates of shooting at individual formations and even of individual ships within one formation may differ significantly. The 3 squadron of British battlecruisers showed comparable, and possibly better, results than the top five of the famous German battle cruisers, Rear Admiral Hipper. But the 1-I squadron of battlecruisers fired at least twice as bad as those and others.

The same definitions were observed inside the compounds. Among the ships of the 1 reconnaissance group, the best accuracy was demonstrated by the battle cruiser Lutzov (5%), and the worst Moltke shot out almost twice as bad - 2,51-2,69%. The best of 343-mm British cruisers, Queen Mary, gave the percentage of hits of 2,67%, and the worst Tiger - only 0,99%, i.e., almost 2,7 times worse.

To be continued ...
Author:
Photos used:
http://tsushima.su
95 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 23 November 2017 07: 09 New
    16
    To drink !!! fellow
    The topic is most interesting. But if you draw parallels with the development of human society itself, it will become clear that the combat effectiveness of each individual ship depends on the commander, the number of exercises carried out. From the state economy as a whole and a number of other reasons. At the same time, inside the compound, when everyone is in the same conditions, the weight and experience of the ship's commander with subordinates is most noticeable when one uses the provided opportunities to the maximum, and the other after the sleeves. The Tiger example is indicative. Moreover, if there are objective reasons for low accuracy, that is, subjective ones that appear during the battle and at the same time affect the quality of shooting no less than training on shields. Changing the tactical situation, frequent change of targets, weather conditions, fighting damage and etc.
    That is, both the internal and external factors influence the common denominator. Therefore, the conclusion about the quality of preparation of the artillerymen of each ship is very relative request This topic can be procrastinated for a long time, but it's time to work hi
    Looking forward to continue with impatience drinks good hi
    1. zyablik.olga
      zyablik.olga 23 November 2017 07: 13 New
      19
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Looking forward to continue with impatience

      Another example of publication is when amateur authors write better and dig deeper than regular "writers."
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        23 November 2017 09: 24 New
        12
        Thanks for the kind words! hi
        1. NOMADE
          NOMADE 24 November 2017 13: 46 New
          +1
          Andrey, many thanks for the work! hi
          I look forward to continuing!
        2. saigon
          saigon 17 March 2018 12: 17 New
          0
          The article is interesting thanks. The English students (not scientists) came across on the Internet spent on computers such as simulation of shooting in the Jutland battle.
          In general, what they were looking for or wanted to calculate I don’t know, one thing was interesting when they accepted the declared characteristics for the dispersion of shells at the guns at a distance of the battle, the conclusion was interesting - either the gunners fired without particularly aiming or the characteristics of the guns for the dispersion of shells were greatly overestimated.
          That's what inquisitive young minds mean to break down stereotypes)))))
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      23 November 2017 09: 23 New
      +4
      Greetings! drinks
      Quote: Rurikovich
      The Tiger example is indicative.

      With this ship - in general a joke. The fact is that one of his hits (in Moltke) is rather doubtful. The thing is this - in most cases Tiger is counted for this hit, but in the Moltke damage description it turns out that it was a close gap, from which the case received fragmentation holes! In general, I'm not sure that he can write 3 hits, most likely two, and then - 0,66% of hits! You won’t drink skill :)))))
      Quote: Rurikovich
      That is, both the internal and external factors influence the common denominator. Therefore, the conclusion about the quality of preparation of the artillerymen of each ship is very relative

      As if yes, that’s true. We will touch on this in the final article.
      1. Kibb
        Kibb 23 November 2017 09: 48 New
        +2
        With Tiger, there’s no joke at all, but absolutely - Beatty’s best ship has the worst crew and commander prone to “increased nervousness”
      2. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 23 November 2017 19: 44 New
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        As if yes, that’s true. We will touch on this in the final article.

        Damn, Nikolaitch, I’m running ahead of the engine again recourse repeat !
        My regards drinks hi
    3. antivirus
      antivirus 23 November 2017 09: 24 New
      +3
      it makes no sense to pour out. need see tactics. who and how evaded or climbed ahead. to maintain superiority for the future blockade is already Victory
      THE BRITISH WINS THE FLEET-SAVED THE BLOCKADE. The Germans lost and hid before the delivery of the fleet to the Winners in 18g
      and the number of hits of 177 mm shells on the Reichstag in April 45 does not interest anyone (only builders - the strength of the box)
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        23 November 2017 09: 29 New
        +7
        Quote: antivirus
        and the number of hits of 177 mm shells on the Reichstag in April 45, nobody cares

        You are mistaken, many are interested.
        1. antivirus
          antivirus 23 November 2017 09: 48 New
          +1
          were 177mm?
          the density of fire (infantry) on the front km was equal by August 43g. how did they win in Stalingrad in the summer of 43g before the Battle of Kursk?

          in the sea, my unenlightened opinion, it all depends on tactics and goals.
          the Germans failed to break the aglitskaya and impose their vision of the world. how much did you need to drown and damage the grand fleet to lift the sea blockade? -
          1. Rurikovich
            Rurikovich 23 November 2017 19: 54 New
            +1
            Quote: antivirus
            how much did you need to drown and damage the grand fleet to lift the sea blockade? -

            The fact is that the Germans planned to set up traps and destroy the Grand Fleet in parts. Formally, their battleships were designed to confront the Aglitsky (“Kaisers” and “Königi” against the series from “Orion” to “Marlboro”), because with approximately the same number of Germans, they were, in principle, more resilient due to booking. But alas, this was not destined to happen. Because the Anglo-Saxons made a knight's move and turned out “Queens” with “Ark Royal”, the German “Baden” did not have time for a showdown (economy-s). This is in quality. But the quantity played a cruel joke with the Germans. Therefore, the superiority in the weight of the volley already did not rule out any qualitative parameters. When the fleets were cut in the morning, the British simply, in spite of any percentage of hits, would simply bombard the Germans with metal ...
            1. antivirus
              antivirus 23 November 2017 20: 01 New
              0
              from the 17th century to Victoria, supposedly, up to 1 \ 2 or 2 \ 3 of the "federal" budget was spent on the fleet and its development-- therefore, - "When the fleets were cut in the morning, the British simply, despite any percentage of hits, simply fell asleep would the Germans metal. "
              1. rasteer
                rasteer 23 November 2017 20: 58 New
                +2
                Quote: antivirus
                from the 17th century to Victoria, supposedly, up to 1 \ 2 or 2 \ 3 of the "federal" budget was spent on the fleet and its development-- because and - "
                say what they wanted? Apparently, “And the British fleet came out in all its sails (tongue twister“ from the 17th to the 20th century ”) and heaped on the Germans with a boisterous airborne salvo, and who it didn’t hit, it was boarded by the machinations of the devil laughing
                Dear you rave, the question of the number of modern ships depends solely on the development of the country's economy in the previous 10-15 years. / And everything that came before that ... nostalgia.
                1. antivirus
                  antivirus 24 November 2017 07: 26 New
                  +1
                  here and there: raved about world power and spent 1/2 of the treasury's income on the fleet.
                  and you about the weed.
                  not a moroman, BUT: without tactics, who got out, where he framed himself, whom he covered %% only remain a number
                  mentioned lighting and fire control
                  tsifir cannot defeat the spirit-- can only help the spirit ....... or interfere
          2. rasteer
            rasteer 23 November 2017 20: 41 New
            +1
            were 177mm?

            ours according to REICHSTAG (otherwise it’s not up to each other wassat ) shot 88mi but flew constantly the 85th, the friction force is the same, the shell you understand about the air being erased.
            So think about it, if 152mm arrives in REICHSTAG, then what caliber it has not yet erased about 720mm of mercurylol
  2. kvs207
    kvs207 23 November 2017 08: 11 New
    +9
    Respect to the author.
    One of the few interesting articles on the site recently. And the period of naval history, for me, is the most interesting.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      23 November 2017 09: 25 New
      +3
      Quote: kvs207
      Respect to the author.

      Thank you!
      Quote: kvs207
      One of the few interesting articles on the site recently.

      I’ll continue to lay it out .... but perhaps as of today, but, as I understand it, recently VO has no problems with the authors, so a few days elapse between posting the article and putting it on the main page
      1. avt
        avt 23 November 2017 10: 17 New
        +8
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        as I understand it, recently VO has no problems with the authors,

        bully Thank you good have fun in the morning good bully
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 23 November 2017 11: 47 New
          +8
          hi Greetings to the White Shark!
          Quote: avt
          have fun in the morning

          Indeed, in the last year there has been an acute shortage of serious authors, it has reached the point that even Sivkov’s ravings are perceived with joy recourse and Andrei’s joke in terms of a large concentration of authors is really successful !!! good
          Andrew, my friend, welcome hi
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            23 November 2017 12: 14 New
            +3
            Quote: Serg65
            Andrew, my friend, welcome

            Hello to you, too! hi
            Quote: Serg65
            and Andrew’s joke

            Yes, what kind of jokes are there :)))) Today is Thursday, and this article was posted by me on Sunday. Two more articles (the continuation of the Glory and the eternal theme of aircraft carriers) are still being processed.
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 23 November 2017 13: 06 New
              +4
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Today is Thursday, and this article was posted by me on Sunday

              laughing My friend, I’m not too lazy to count the article on the “armament” branch since Monday, 21, but each of them has “opinions” and “analytics” on 40! And someone will remember what is written in these 80 opuses, but heros there !!!
              what And you say
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              What a joke

              drinks Well, for the speedy birth of God of your labors wink !!!
              1. Rurikovich
                Rurikovich 23 November 2017 19: 56 New
                0
                Quote: Serg65
                Well, for the speedy birth of God of your labors

                I join !!! drinks hi
                1. NOMADE
                  NOMADE 24 November 2017 13: 51 New
                  0
                  drinks I join everyone, including good commentators!)
  3. 27091965
    27091965 23 November 2017 09: 16 New
    +5
    But then the puzzles begin. So, Muzhenikov points out that at 20.16, battle cruisers Beatty fired at the battleships Markgraf and Kaiser, thus achieving hits. But according to Muzhenikov, of all the British cruisers who had 343-mm guns, only the Lyon shot at the German battleships, respectively, if there were any hits, it was from Beatty’s flagship.


    You are not mistaken. From the report of the commander of the battle cruiser Lyon:

    “At 17:12 the Lion ceased fire due to poor visibility, and did not open until 17:41. When the fire was reopened, the ship along which it was fired was identified as a Kaiser class battleship.

    At 17:46 p.m. the range was 14 yards and the enemy was observed to be hit by two volleys, which caused him to change course towards the starboard side and cease fire ......

    At 20:23, the Lion opened fire on the enemy’s lead ship. Presumably it was the Lyuttsov or the Kaiser, our shooting was effective ......

    My ship was hit 12 times with large-caliber enemy shells, but the damage that I already reported to you separately does not seriously affect our combat effectiveness ... "

    Perhaps an error indicating the time, in the second case, they could not accurately determine the type of ship.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      23 November 2017 09: 51 New
      +7
      Good day! hi
      Quote: 27091965i
      You are not mistaken. From the report of the commander of the battle cruiser Lyon:

      Everything is complicated here.
      Quote: 27091965i
      At 17:12, the Lyon ceased fire due to poor visibility, and did not open until 17:41. When the fire was reopened, the ship along which it was fired was identified as a Kaiser class battleship.

      That's right, like the Kaiser. But the Germans had “Kaisers” as many as 5 pieces, and for whom Lyon shot - this riddle is great.
      Quote: 27091965i
      At 17:46 p.m. the range was 14 yards and the enemy was observed to be hit by two volleys, which caused him to change course towards the starboard side and cease fire ......

      Strictly speaking, it is unclear whether it is a hit or cover
      Quote: 27091965i
      My ship was hit 12 times with large-caliber enemy shells

      But at the same Muzhenikov - a detailed description of 13 hits ...
      Thank you very much for the extract from the report, but, as you perfectly understand, this is also not the last resort truth
      Ehhhh, here would take all the reports, but all the reports from the shipyards with a description of the damage ... and pills from greed, but more :))))
      Alas, my destiny is picking monographs that I have not written
      1. 27091965
        27091965 23 November 2017 11: 06 New
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Ehhhh, here would take all the reports, but all the reports from the shipyards with a description of the damage ... and pills from greed, but more :))))


        Good afternoon. hi
        Such a report exists, at least for the English ships. It was prepared at the direction of the English Admiralty in 1919-1920. There are 12 hits in this report.

        Thank you very much for the extract from the report, but, as you perfectly understand, this is also not the last resort truth


        I understand perfectly well that in 7 minutes, the beginning of 20:23 and the end of 20:30, the battle “Lyon” manages not only to make a sighting, but to achieve several hits and set fire to the enemy’s ship. Although, anything can be.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          23 November 2017 11: 18 New
          +4
          Quote: 27091965i
          Such a report exists, at least for the English ships. It was prepared at the direction of the English Admiralty in 1919-1920. There are 12 hits in this report.

          Ehh, where do you get them? You probably speak English well and are guided by English-language sites? I sincerely envy, and accept my assurances of utmost reverence! hi
          Quote: 27091965i
          and 7 minutes, beginning 20:23 ending 20:30, the battle "Lyon" manages not only to make a sighting, but to achieve several hits and set fire to the enemy’s ship. Although, anything can be.

          And again - I agree. Logic is the historian's worst enemy laughing Lyon should not have achieved several hits in 7 minutes ... but he could.
          1. 27091965
            27091965 24 November 2017 11: 50 New
            +2
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Ehh, where do you get them?


            I sent an answer to the mail.
  4. EvilLion
    EvilLion 23 November 2017 09: 34 New
    +2
    Without taking into account the distance, reasoning is meaningless. And why is "Lyon" when lion reads like "lyen"?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      23 November 2017 09: 56 New
      +7
      Quote: EvilLion
      Without taking into account the distance, reasoning is meaningless.

      Not deprived. Because distance without visibility will tell you extremely little. In addition, there is one important nuance - the British battlecruisers fired at the German battlecruisers from the same distance that the German LKR fired at the British, since they shot at each other
      Quote: EvilLion
      And why is "Lyon" when lion reads like "lyen"?

      (shrug) because the generally accepted transcription is so "left" translated.
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 23 November 2017 11: 07 New
        +8
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        (shrug) because the generally accepted transcription is so "left" translated.

        It’s necessary to get to the bottom of something, and when all is well, then it is possible before transcription. )))))))))))))))
      2. EvilLion
        EvilLion 23 November 2017 17: 03 New
        +2
        And the conditions of visibility on an area of ​​hundreds, if not thousands of square kilometers in a time interval of tens of hours are definitely not evaluable at all. Even the pitching on each ship was different, and even at the level of connections distant from each other for kilometers ...

        conventional transcription so translate the "left".


        According to GOST No. 543213546ASH-U, you should pronounce "Z-table." X)
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          23 November 2017 17: 15 New
          +2
          Quote: EvilLion
          According to GOST No. 543213546ASH-U, you should pronounce "Z-table." X)

          This is not GOST, it is in accordance with the decisions of the XXVII Congress of the CPSU laughing
  5. Amurets
    Amurets 23 November 2017 09: 38 New
    +1
    It can be stated that the accuracy rates of shooting at individual formations and even of individual ships within one formation may differ significantly. The 3 squadron of British battlecruisers showed comparable, and possibly better, results than the top five of the famous German battle cruisers, Rear Admiral Hipper. But the 1-I squadron of battlecruisers fired at least twice as bad as those and others.

    I completely agree. I just want to quote from the book “Battleships in battle" by Herbert Wilson "It can be stated that the accuracy of shooting for individual formations and even individual ships within the same compound can vary significantly. The 3rd squadron of British battlecruisers showed comparable, and possibly better results than the five famous German line cruisers Rear Admiral Hipper, but the 1st Squadron of battle cruisers fired at least twice as bad as both.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      23 November 2017 09: 58 New
      +3
      You seem to want to put a different quote? :) Really Wilson and I ... word for word? :))))
      1. Amurets
        Amurets 23 November 2017 10: 45 New
        +3
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Do you think you would like to put another quote? :)

        Yes. "This one.
        It is difficult to assume that in all artillery battles between British and German ships, the lighting conditions were favorable for the latter: it would be more correct to admit that the Germans were able to quickly determine the distance and cover the target. In almost all the clashes, they were the first to get hit, and in most cases in the vital parts of the target. "And here is the opinion of the senior artilleryman" Lyuttsov "Pashen. Between 18 and 19 hours (that is, when the Grand Fleet appeared) the visibility from the German side was so bad that “not a single British ship was visible,” while Luttsov, “clearly outlined in a clear western sky, was under heavy fire.” The German fire control system worked flawlessly, but, according to Paschen, it was significantly worse than the British central guidance system, he ascribes the deaths of so many British ships from explosions exclusively to the ignition of combat stocks: "In our country, such fires remained localized ... were not destructive for the ship."
  6. Kibb
    Kibb 23 November 2017 09: 44 New
    +2
    A good "debriefing", but to be honest, it is advisable to immediately lay out a general overview - for those who are at least a little in the topic without a difference, but for the rest the picture will be somewhat "torn". However, I also know your way of presenting the material from “Slag in the Yellow Sea”, and I can’t say that I don’t like it - you leave the reader to the conclusion. And this, as for me, is good!
    The best result was demonstrated by the 3rd Squadron of battlecruisers as part of the Invincible, Inflexible and Indomiteble under the command of Rear Admiral Horace Hood.
    . Which, in principle, is not surprising, if we recall for what reason the 3rd squadron was in Scapa, and not in Rosythe before the battle. Questions with the poor shooting of battle ships of the Navy of the battlecruisers arose long before Jutland.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      23 November 2017 10: 00 New
      +2
      Quote: Kibb
      A good "debriefing", but to be honest, it is advisable to immediately lay out a general overview - for those who are at least a little in the topic without a difference, but for the rest the picture will be somewhat "torn"

      Yes, how to say? The site administration believes that long materials are difficult to read, so I divide it into two.
      Quote: Kibb
      However, I also know your way of presenting the material from “Slag in the Yellow Sea”, and I can’t say that I don’t like it - you leave the reader to the conclusion. And this, as for me, is good!

      Thank!:))))
  7. Kibb
    Kibb 23 November 2017 10: 45 New
    +2
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Yes, how to say? The site administration believes that long materials are difficult to read, so I divide it into two.

    Since the article deals exclusively with accuracy, it might be more informative to break down the review into episodes of the battle, as you did in the cycle about the battle of the Yellow Sea, and about the general nuclear forces in general. All the same, the firing efficiency depends not only on one’s own skills, but also on what the enemy is doing at this time — just in the cycles on the REV, this topic sounded for you.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      23 November 2017 10: 50 New
      +2
      Quote: Kibb
      Since the article deals exclusively with accuracy, it might be more informative to break down the review into episodes of the battle,

      I tried, but it’s not working out for me. Not enough information.
      1. Kibb
        Kibb 23 November 2017 11: 24 New
        +2
        Well, you can’t grasp anything that’s not grasped - I would never have succeeded in writing an article at all hi . I will try to clarify my point. For example: at about 19.20 no one really shot heavy ships at Beatty’s ships. Beatty’s ships (not dead) retained most of their combat effectiveness, but there weren’t German ships, of course, nobody really bothered to shoot the British, and the percentage of hits was higher for the British.
        About the same thing with the entry into battle of the squadron Evan Thomas at 16.20 - no one shot at him at first, the Germans were not easy for him. But then his ships snapped decently, because of his, to put it mildly, not clever maneuvering
        Hood’s grandiose maneuver, and in the beginning he naturally with fresh strength achieves hits - the Germans have 5, already severely battered ships, against 7 British.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          23 November 2017 11: 37 New
          +3
          Quote: Kibb
          I will try to clarify my point. For example: at about 19.20 no one really shot heavy ships at Beatty’s ships. Beatty’s ships (not dead) retained most of their combat effectiveness, but there weren’t German ships, of course, nobody really bothered to shoot the British, and the percentage of hits was higher for the British.

          That's right. And if there are detailed battle records, then ... even in this case, the data will be very so-so.
          Here, for example, is a fragment of the report of Lyon, kindly provided by respected 27091965i.
          At 17:46 p.m. the range was 14 yards and the enemy was observed to be hit by two volleys,

          And how many outfits were fired in these salvos? Was the shooting carried out and how many shells were spent on this shooting? Were there any hits, and how many? Are they confirmed by the German side? Who else at that time shot at the same target? (and which one, after all, a Kaiser dreadnought is a very vague definition) However, even without these my questions, you perfectly understand the necessary amount of initial information for such an analysis.
          And so, it is certainly interesting. But alas, not with my capabilities.
          1. Kibb
            Kibb 23 November 2017 11: 42 New
            +3
            Well, what can I say, even if reference to the coordinates was made only after the discovery of Invincible, in the presence of gaskets on either side.
  8. soldier
    soldier 23 November 2017 10: 59 New
    18
    Interesting analysis
    Congratulations to the author! hi
  9. demiurg
    demiurg 23 November 2017 11: 17 New
    +4
    6th generation aircraft will be built, Armata will become an obsolete tank, soldiers will run in exoskeletons across the battlefield with plasmogans. All this does not matter, people will care about the last battle of the armored titans.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      23 November 2017 11: 38 New
      +4
      Quote: demiurg
      All this doesn’t matter

      Why doesn’t it matter?
      Quote: demiurg
      people will care about the last battle of the armored titans.

      Someone - yes, they will worry. History is a very widespread hobby and will remain one in the century when spacecraft plow the expanses of the galaxy :))))
  10. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 23 November 2017 11: 19 New
    +3
    I think 99% of the combat work of battleships is strikes against coastal targets, where such a caliber replaces aviation.
  11. BAI
    BAI 23 November 2017 11: 38 New
    +6
    In addition to training gunners, something needs to be said about the technical side of shooting - sights, rangefinders, etc. According to the article, it turns out that these funds in the fleets were the same, because not a word is said about them.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      23 November 2017 11: 40 New
      +4
      While we are talking only about the results, then we will look for an explanation for them :)
    2. Nehist
      Nehist 25 November 2017 00: 29 New
      0
      In quantitative terms, sighting devices on one ship, the German fleet had the advantage, they not only duplicated the PUAO devices
  12. Andy
    Andy 23 November 2017 14: 44 New
    +1
    as I understand it, the continuation of your articles, Andrei, will only be seen next week ... but for now, we have to be content with red caps, it is not clear how they relate to VO ...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      23 November 2017 14: 47 New
      +1
      Quote: Andy
      as I understand it, the continuation of your articles, Andrey, will only be seen next week ...

      Most likely one more this week will come to the main ... maybe two, who knows? Everything is in the hands of the moderator :))))
  13. Curious
    Curious 23 November 2017 16: 30 New
    +4
    According to the number of hits during Jutland, there is another source.

    Herbert Risley Wilson. Battleships in the battle of 1914-1918. 3rd ed. - M., 1938.
    "A detailed listing of losses and the number of hits is given in the appendices; since the British artillery report was not published, the numbers contained in them are somewhat inaccurate. But the number of hits and shots indicated in German official history is almost completely true. The Germans do not exaggerate the number of hits into British ships, although they made some mistakes.
    German ships achieved only about 120 heavy projectile hits out of 3597 fired, which is 3,3%. The British made 100 hits out of 4598 heavy shells fired (1239 of which were 381 mm) 2,2% of hits. The Germans fired 109 torpedoes, of which 3 hit (in Marlboro, Sharq, Nomad). The English fired 74 and made 5 hits (in Seidlitz, Pommern, Rostock, Frauenlob and V 4). "
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      23 November 2017 16: 50 New
      +1
      Quote: Curious
      According to the number of hits during Jutland, there is another source.

      Of course!
      But he is very close to Puzyrevsky
    2. 27091965
      27091965 23 November 2017 21: 19 New
      +2
      Quote: Curious
      due to the fact that the British artillery report was not published, the numbers contained in them are somewhat inaccurate.


      In principle, the British themselves did not fully know which ship had hit many times.
  14. Raphael_83
    Raphael_83 23 November 2017 16: 32 New
    +2
    SW Andrey, thanks for the article! I repent recourse , from the time of the stunning cycle "Verticals on the front line" (Harriers in battle, of course - 2016), not one of your art. I didn’t comment, but if possible I tried to get acquainted - very, very worthy. Mathematics and statistics in your materials, by the way, are available even for such pronounced right-minded thinking humanitarians as your humble one. Write ischo!
    From SW. hi
    PS
    Nevertheless, in “wild cats” there is a certain grace and even a certain elegance of design, shape and contours compared to the clumsy boxes of obsolete battleships, highly specialized dreadnoughts and absolutely monstrous superdreadnoughts; perhaps my favorite class (if the destroyers are not counted). repeat
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      23 November 2017 16: 55 New
      +3
      Thank you, dear Rafael_83!
      Quote: Raphael_83
      Nevertheless, in "wild cats" there is a certain grace and even a known elegance of design, shape and contours

      Of course. The ships are very beautiful. Although it depends on the specifics of perception - for example, for some reason I like the same "Helgolands" for example.
      By the way (our fly in the ointment), our officers were very disappointed to get acquainted with their design (when they visited us in the Baltic before the war). We didn’t like the mechanisms, including the 343-mm guns.
      In general, if purely visual - to me, perhaps, “Moltke”, “Goeben” and “Seidlitz” are most attractive
      1. Raphael_83
        Raphael_83 23 November 2017 17: 24 New
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        In general, if purely visual - to me, perhaps, “Moltke”, “Goeben” and “Seidlitz” are most attractive

        Well, it's hard to argue! The ships of the High Seas Fleet - and indeed the majority of the ships of the Hans of that era completely break the maxim "maximally functional essence is extremely ugly", because their creations, being as technically and constructively rational as possible (engineering and technical!), Were also very beautiful in art if you will allow me, the plan is to recall “Hindenburg”, “Luttsov” and, at least, “Prince Eugen” and “Bismarck” (even if this is already later WWII and classes).
        From SW. hi
      2. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 23 November 2017 20: 09 New
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        In general, if purely visual - to me, perhaps, “Moltke”, “Goeben” and “Seidlitz” are most attractive

        I’ve been using Seidlitz since childhood. yes good
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          23 November 2017 22: 23 New
          +5
          Wow :))) Yes, in general, all of them - "type" Moltke "- handsome :)
          1. Kibb
            Kibb 23 November 2017 23: 11 New
            +3
            Handsome, but I like them more, I suspect I'm a Germanophobe repeat wink
            1. 27091965
              27091965 24 November 2017 04: 43 New
              +3
              Quote: Kibb
              Handsome, but I like them more, I suspect I'm a Germanophobe


              Let me then add to your photo.
              and view from the other side
            2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              24 November 2017 14: 14 New
              +4
              Well, in the destruction there is also some attractive force :))))
          2. Trapperxnumx
            Trapperxnumx 24 November 2017 17: 39 New
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Wow :))) Yes, in general, all of them - "type" Moltke "- handsome :)

            I once read that the Germans planned to sell Blucher to Turkey (they sold a couple of armadillos as a result instead) and to build another type of Seidlitz with this money ... it’s a pity that they didn’t sell it. Blucher still died senselessly, but another Seydlitz would definitely not hurt them.
            1. Rurikovich
              Rurikovich 24 November 2017 20: 26 New
              +1
              Quote: Trapper7
              Blucher still died senselessly, but another Seydlitz would definitely not hurt them.

              That's right! Post "Blucher" in its performance characteristics hung. He would have to keep the Baltic, but in the shallow and cramped Baltic Sea basin with the passivity of the Russians hiding behind the TsMAP (not counting a couple of cruiser sorties) he has nothing to do. So they stuck it in the showdown of adult uncles for quantity .... The result is known ...
  15. Comrade
    Comrade 24 November 2017 05: 36 New
    +2
    Dear Andrew,
    You touched on an interesting topic, accuracy of shooting in the First World War, thanks. The topic is so interesting, so, unfortunately, not fully understood. So, the number of hits is derived from the commander’s reports, at the same time, they, these reports, often commit errors, which is clearly illustrated by the history of the identification of Russian shells that fell into the “Albatross”.
    Nowadays, for any person, it is possible to get as close as possible to the final figures illustrating the number and calibers of the shells that hit the surviving ships, alas, such work, if it was done by any of the professionals or enthusiasts, is not known about it. If you will, a few remarks in addition to your analytical calculations, criticizing the generally accepted statistics on the Battle of Jutland.
    The British used up 4 538 heavy shells, but achieved only 100 hits

    This figure is conditional, since it includes the estimated consumption of shells by Puzyrevsky by the dead British battlecruisers. At the same time, in the book of the aforementioned author, such an expense is presented as an indisputable fact. Whereas in English sources there is always a note that this is an approximate, estimated expense. Accordingly, the percentage of hits inferred from such data by Puzyrevsky will be a priori incorrect. By the way, the number of hits there is indicated incorrectly. Puzyrevsky writes that "In total, 4538 large-caliber shells were fired; of which the English made 101 hits", but, firstly, the number of shells fired, as already mentioned, is not exactly known, and secondly, it is unclear what kind of hits he took into account. Because there are other numbers that differ in the direction of increase.
    The same applies to the Germans, how many “Lutts" and which shells were fired are not known, and Puzyrevsky claims that there are 400 shells of the main caliber. And then continues "In total, German ships fired 3497 large-caliber shells (305-280-mm). Of the total number of large-caliber shells fired, 121 shell hit the English ships"But that’s not all hits, and then, how does he know how many got into the dead ships? There is something to analyze, compare and think about.
    Many of your arguments are reasonable, and I can only join them.
    1. 27091965
      27091965 24 November 2017 07: 17 New
      +2
      Quote: Comrade
      So, the number of hits is deduced from the reports of the commanders, at the same time, they, these reports, often commit errors


      The squadron commanders tried to give a more careful assessment of the hits.

      "22. As for the damage done to the enemy before joining the fleet, it is difficult to be determined because of the thick haze in the east. Enemy battlecruisers were often covered, as reported by all ships. ” from Admiral Hugh Evan-Thomas report.
      1. Comrade
        Comrade 25 November 2017 03: 15 New
        0
        Quote: 27091965i
        The squadron commanders tried to give a more careful assessment of the hits.

        And yet it’s not that. In the battle at Cape Sarych, everyone “saw” three hits in the “Goeben”, about which they wrote in the reports. But in fact, there was only one hit.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      24 November 2017 14: 06 New
      +4
      Good afternoon, dear Valentine!
      Quote: Comrade
      You touched on an interesting topic, accuracy of shooting in the First World War, thanks. The topic is so interesting, so, unfortunately, not fully understood.

      This is exactly
      Quote: Comrade
      Nowadays, for any person, it is possible to get as close as possible to the final figures illustrating the number and caliber of the shells that hit the surviving ships, alas, such work, if it was done by any of the professionals or enthusiasts, nothing is known about it

      Absolutely agree. And my article does not pretend to be anything like that. That is, I, in fact, point out the contradictions in the sources and justify that “not everything is so straightforward” + I make hypotheses as it could be. No more than that, alas.
      Quote: Comrade
      Many of your arguments are reasonable, and I can only join them.

      Thank you, such an assessment means a lot to me! hi
  16. Comrade
    Comrade 24 November 2017 06: 11 New
    +5
    Yes, I forgot to attach the photo. Thanks to an Australian collector who bought several shells exported from Turkey, we can see the shell from the Göben in the center, and shells from the Turkish coastal battery on the sides. I wonder how much a man paid for this shell, and how much can it cost today? On ebay, not so long ago, an 75 mm shell from Mikas was sold, something around a thousand US dollars was requested.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      24 November 2017 14: 13 New
      +4
      Quote: Comrade
      I wonder how much a man paid for this shell, and how much can it cost today?

      I have no idea:))))
      Quote: Comrade
      Not so long ago, a 75 mm shell from Mikas was sold on ebay. Something about a thousand US dollars was requested.

      Ooooh, I imagine what field for the activities of Ostap Bender! :)))) But you can be more cunning - for example, with a personal autograph of Heihatiro Togo (anyway, no one can read hieroglyphs laughing )
      Maybe offer a shell, which “Aurora” ushered in a revolution? :)))) And with the money raised - do the same normal analysis on Jutland, with archival documents and so on? laughing
      Just kidding, of course, I'm sorry :))))))
      1. Nehist
        Nehist 25 November 2017 00: 56 New
        0
        I’ll sell the 120mm barrel of the Novik cruiser’s guns from the time of the RJAV !!! :)))
        1. Comrade
          Comrade 25 November 2017 03: 19 New
          0
          Quote: Nehist
          I will sell the barrel 120mm guns of the cruiser Novik

          Yes, it’s there in the thicket ownerless, come and take it.
  17. Trapperxnumx
    Trapperxnumx 24 November 2017 17: 16 New
    +1
    Thank you so much! Just the other day I reread A. Patients with his description of this battle, the topic is most interesting! Of course, of particular interest are the concepts of the development of ships in the two main rivals of that time - England and Germany.
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 24 November 2017 18: 50 New
      +1
      "Battle of the giants"? wink
      Patients were also very interested in writing yes good
      1. Trapperxnumx
        Trapperxnumx 26 November 2017 16: 06 New
        0
        Quote: Rurikovich
        "Battle of the giants"?


        Yes. It is him))))
        Well, the tragedy of mistakes, of course)))))
        I do not agree with all his conclusions, but he writes interestingly. And for me it was generally the first book that gave such detailed material on the Anglo-German naval confrontation in WWI.
    2. Kibb
      Kibb 24 November 2017 20: 48 New
      +1
      He writes the patients extremely interestingly, and translates them very well, but as an exclusively lover of the topic, not claiming more, I can give advice, if you will, check in the details, sometimes he has extremely gross errors in them.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        24 November 2017 21: 05 New
        +5
        Quote: Kibb
        I can give advice, if you will, check in the details, sometimes he has very gross errors in them.

        Wow ... He’s an excellent translator, but as an author .. alas, in a number of cases personal sympathies and antipathies begin to lead him, and also a certain confidence in his own infallibility. Well...
        Nevertheless, in my memory he was the first to demonstrate a truly critical approach to sources, asking questions that were very inconvenient for official historiography. In this part, I studied with him :)
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 24 November 2017 21: 27 New
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Nevertheless, in my memory he was the first to demonstrate a truly critical approach to sources, asking questions that were very inconvenient for official historiography. In this part, I studied with him :)

          good Criticism is useful for revealing the truth, while the critic should have the ability to adequately perceive information from the outside and be prepared for the fact that someone’s arguments will be worth it.
          Only then can there be a constructive dialogue (polemic) repeat
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          alas, in a number of cases personal sympathies and antipathies begin to lead him, and also a certain confidence in his own infallibility.

          "Tragedy of mistakes" in this regard is interesting smile
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            24 November 2017 23: 07 New
            +2
            Quote: Rurikovich
            "Tragedy of mistakes" in this regard is interesting

            Definitely! drinks
        2. Kibb
          Kibb 24 November 2017 22: 27 New
          0
          I noticed for a long time that you studied with him in this part, therefore I drew attention to you as an author))), I’ll repeat once again that, I read you a long time ago, much earlier than commenting, I remember how in this forum, you helped me out about the Gotland battle. I think that I'm sorry for not docking an infantryman who loves the history of the fleet negative
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            24 November 2017 23: 06 New
            +2
            Quote: Kibb
            I remember how on this forum, you helped me out about the Gotland battle

            I apologize in advance! I didn’t get too crazy there? And it happens to me if I suddenly didn’t like the material - the “sacred fire” in my eyes lights up, the pedal to the floor and ...
            1. Kibb
              Kibb 24 November 2017 23: 28 New
              0
              To my regret, it was the other way around, I gave everything I think, the "patriots" got involved, and then you gave a very brief analysis of the battle, understandable to the "patriots"
  18. IL-18
    IL-18 25 November 2017 09: 08 New
    +1
    Andrew! Thank you for the article. Well, it’s right when it’s interesting.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      25 November 2017 09: 27 New
      +2
      Always please, come again :))) I have already laid out the ending, but most likely I will get to the main one already next week
  19. SER905057
    SER905057 25 November 2017 15: 09 New
    +2
    I want to express my opinion about the shooting with MOLTE. Yes, at the beginning of the battle he shot at TIGER and made 9 hits. But for some reason, in the descriptions of the battle I have encountered, no one pays attention to the fact that after 16.20 he fell with the TANN under the fire of 380 mm shells from 5 squadron of British battleships and received 4 hits by these shells, terrible in destructive force: 1-16.23, 1 -16.26, 2- 16.27. Everyone knows that when designing this battlecruiser, it was not designed for this. I want to put forward my version, because of which in the future this ship could not achieve more hits. So, when he resumed shooting after 16.20 on TIGER, at first he did not pay attention to the shells falling around him from the 5th squadron. He was even able to achieve 2 more hits, but paid for it and received 4 English 380-mm shells. After that, the commander began to evade maneuvers, and at the same time, as is known, it is impossible to fire at the enemy. The same happened with TANN, which was able to get only 1 time to N. ZELAND at 16.26. I want to put forward a version of the third shell, which is attributed to the MOLK. trapped in the barbet shaft of the bow tower of the TIGER Group of Companies at 16.27. MOLTEK at that time was behind TIGER and physically couldn’t get there, but the DERFLINGER shell, which sank 16.26 Queen Mary could. In my opinion, when QUEEN MARY exploded with DERFLINGER the last salvo was fired. The TIGER following him turned to the right to go around the sinking ship and thereby put the side under the shell from the last salvo that had fallen off the water. Since the DERFLINGER was in front of the TIGER, the shell could really hit the TIGER's nose at the right angle. True, he could only penetrate the side armor, but did not penetrate the armor of the tower shaft, and even this battlecruiser could explode. As you know in the future MOLTK could not achieve a single hit.
    On this. In my opinion, they influenced: 1) the accuracy of the firing instruments was impaired by hits of 380 mm shells and resulting damage and from body shocks. (so on TIGER one of the towers fired at the N-th number of degrees to the side.) 2) and most importantly - in the future, German ships began to pursue the enemy and the 4th in service MOLTA due to disgusting weather and great distance simply could not see the English ships and bursts from the explosions of their shells. Therefore, MOLTE's great accuracy at the beginning of the battle was explained by good visibility. Personally, I do not believe that in the second clash of the main forces after 19.00, if not for the disgusting appearance, the Germans could have achieved only 2 hits, but could have achieved much more and would not have conceded 30-odd hits from the English side. Then there was the beating of the Germans, they simply did not see the English ships. Although the result of the battle would have remained the same, to sink a few more English ships the Germans would simply not have enough shells, and getting the GOLD shells is a matter of chance.
    1. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer 28 November 2017 09: 44 New
      0
      Quote: SER905057
      The TIGER following him turned to the right to go around the sinking ship and thereby put the side under the shell from the last salvo that had fallen off the water.


      Why would a large caliber shell ricochet off the water? Was the distance less than 3 cable? - No. Not at point blank range shot each other. Or was the sea without waves and the fuse cocking did not happen? No - there was the usual excitement. The assumption of a ricochet from the water is from an area of ​​unrealistic assumptions.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        28 November 2017 11: 50 New
        +2
        Quote: DimerVladimer
        Why would a large caliber shell ricochet off the water?

        Very often this happened. By the way, in the British 343-mm shell falls into the water at an angle of 10 degrees per 11,5 km. For the German, by the way, the angle can be even less (but I don’t know for sure, I won’t cheat)
      2. SER905057
        SER905057 29 November 2017 11: 48 New
        +1
        [quote] [/ quote] Why would a large caliber projectile bounce off the water? Was the distance less than 3 cable?

        As you know, DERFLINGER sank QUEEN MARY from a distance of 71 cabs, and not 3. In addition, sometimes the trajectory of the projectile does not lend itself to logic. Well and some more information: SEYDLITZ, after drowning, Queen Mary, was able to get into TIGER 2 times. I have information that from 16.35 to 16.58 he received a 2-280 mm shell from Seydlits and another 1 mm shell. So MUZHENIKOV said that 305 mm shell was hit by a rebound, and the distance between the opponents there were no less than 1 cabs, if you look at the battle plan. But for some reason there was a rebound and the shell hit through 280 or 70 TIGER tubes. But if you think that this can’t happen anyway, then we’ll assume that there was no rebound, and the shell from the DERFLINGER simply flew over the exploded QUEEN MARY and pierced the armor belt, but couldn’t penetrate the 2 mm armor of the tower barbet A. The same MUZHENIKOV writes that it was a 3 mm shell.
  20. Razvedka_Boem
    Razvedka_Boem 26 November 2017 15: 13 New
    +2
    He reminded VO what it was before ..) Yes, and it was interesting to read the comments.
    Thank you.
  21. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 28 November 2017 09: 34 New
    0
    Judging by eyewitness accounts, several heavy shells hit the Wiesbaden; Pillau may have received one hit. But for some reason they are not taken into account in the results of shooting 3-she squadron of battle cruisers. Moreover, these hits are not counted, and in general, the hits of the British fleet! Meanwhile, with good reason, we could have counted on the line cruisers of Sir Horace Hood more 3 or 4 falling into the German light cruisers.


    Your sources do not look like trustworthy.
    A lot of assumptions.
    A good source would be a logbook, which records hits in the enemy and their own damage. Or reports written on these magazines. And eyewitness accounts - to check and double-check.
    Who shot, whether he hit or another ship from the line ...
    To do from such sources, statistical calculations is a thankless task.

    For me, this is only a curious assumption, not supported by reliable sources.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      28 November 2017 11: 38 New
      +2
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      A good source would be a logbook, which records hits in the enemy and their own damage.

      Especially from the deceased Wiesbaden. Well, we should dive on the ship, then wave a magic wand ... This is first. Secondly, logbooks, alas, themselves make mistakes themselves - unless the shipyard reports on damage to the ship will be less reliable.
  22. SER905057
    SER905057 29 November 2017 12: 10 New
    0
    I can add a small comment on the topic - why MOLTKE after 16. 30 no longer achieved a single hit. In my first comment, I suggested that, after hitting 4 mm shells, the central fire control system or rangefinders were damaged, and so on. etc.
    I want to comment on this with a similar case with TIGER. At 15.53 a shell hit it at tower Y. This tower failed for 7 minutes, and then again began to shoot, and only after more than 2 hours it became clear that the tip of its guns was 19 degrees different from the truth. It turned out that 3 towers fired in one place, and this tower in another. In this regard, I want to put forward one incredible version. As you know, TIGER fired at MOLTA from 16.00 p.m. to 16.30 p.m., but he was credited with 2 hits of 343 mm shells in 1 and 4 TANN towers. This happened at 16.20 and 16.23. It turns out that 3 towers fired at MOLTA, and Tower Y was able to hit the TANN following in the fool. As the saying goes, you can’t imagine.
  23. SASHA OLD
    SASHA OLD 20 December 2017 12: 53 New
    0
    This is the approach! Thank you, Andrey from Chelyabinsk, greetings from Surgut, it was very interesting to read, cool topic!