Military Review

Light cruisers like "Svetlana". Part of 3. Firepower versus peers

66
In the previous article of the cycle, we examined the artillery systems that were in service with the British, German and Austro-Hungarian cruisers, and compared them with the domestic 130-mm / 55 gun, which the Svetlana-type light cruisers were going to equip. Today we will compare the artillery power of the above cruisers.


Artillery

It is well known that the Svetlana was supposed to get 15-mm / 130-armament 55 with 1913 armaments. At that, ten guns were located on the upper deck of the ship, three guns on a forecastle and two on the aft superstructure. The location of the artillery should have allowed a very strong fire to be concentrated on the bow and stern of the ship, but then questions immediately arise.



The fact is that the guns on the Svetlana were placed in the majority of the port, in deck shield installations and casemates: in theory, they were shooting directly at the rate of nine guns, and at the stern - of six. As a rule, the installation of guns in this way still did not allow to fire directly on the nose (stern), because gases escaping from the barrel during a shot damaged the sides and superstructures. This seems to be confirmed by A. Chernyshev, who writes in his monograph, with reference to the 1913 g specification, that only a tank gun could shoot at the nose, and only two guns on the stern superstructure could shoot at the stern. The remaining guns placed in deck installations and casemates on the sides of the cruiser, could not shoot straight along the course, but only at 85 degrees from the beam (that is, at an angle of at least 5 degrees to the ship's course).

Unfortunately, the author does not have the specification that A. Chernyshev refers to, but there is a similar “Specification of the light cruiser for the Black Sea“ Admiral Lazarev ”built by the Society of Nikolaev factories and shipyards. For booking and artillery. ”, And it says quite differently.

Light cruisers like "Svetlana". Part of 3. Firepower versus peers


And if the artillery of the Black Sea cruisers still had the task of firing directly along the course, then why wasn’t such a task set for the Baltic cruisers? This is extremely doubtful, and in addition, in the description of the hull construction, A. Chernyshev himself gives information about special reinforcements and thickening of the “have blown guns” plating. And therefore there is every reason to assume that when designing cruisers of the Svetlana type, fire right on the bow or stern was originally intended.

On the other hand, to set a task is one thing, but to achieve its solution is quite another, so one can only guess whether the Svetlana could actually develop such a strong fire on the bow and on the stern or not. But even if they could not, then you still have to admit that cruisers of this type had extremely powerful fire on sharp bow and stern corners.

The fact is that the light cruiser very rarely has to catch up or retreat, having the enemy strictly on the nose (stern). This is explained by the fact that in order to catch up with the enemy, it is necessary not to go straight at him, but to move along a course parallel to him, as illustrated by the diagram below.



Suppose two ships (black and red) were going towards each other before mutual detection (solid line), then black, seeing the enemy, turned and lay down on the opposite course (dotted line). In this case, the red ship to catch up with black, it makes no sense to try to go straight at him (dash), and should lie on a parallel course and catch up with the enemy (dotted line). And since the "work" of light cruisers is connected with the need to catch up with someone (or run away from someone), the ability to concentrate fire on sharp bow and stern angles is very important for him, perhaps more important than the number of trunks in side salvo. This is often forgotten, comparing only the mass of onboard volleys and evaluating the placement of the guns only in terms of maximizing the fire on board. Such an approach might be right for a battleship, but a light cruiser is not a battleship and is not designed to fight in line. But when leading destroyers, when performing reconnaissance functions, catching up with enemy ships or fleeing from them, it is more important for a light cruiser to have a strong fire on sharp bow and stern corners. That is why (and not at all due to the natural lack of mind of designers) we can regularly see on the First World War light cruisers a pair of guns in the bow or stern, arranged according to the Varyag cruiser method.

With regard to the battle on the sharp corners of the cruiser type "Svetlana" were very strong. So, on a target located in 5 degrees from the ship's heading, five 130-mm / 55 guns could fire on the nose, and four in the stern. The target, which is on the course angle 30 on the bow or stern, came under fire from eight guns.

As we have said, at the time of the laying of the Svetlan, the British built two types of light cruisers: scout cruisers for squadron service, reconnaissance and destroyer lead, and trade cruisers, the so-called “towns” (named after English cities). The same age scout for “Svetlan” were the cruisers of the Caroline type, the first cruisers of the so-called “C” type and the last “cities” - the cruisers of the “Chatham” type of the Birkenhead subtype, which some researchers call the best light cruisers in England of wartime.

Of the listed cruisers, the Caroline was the smallest and carried the weakest weapons - the 2-152-mm and the 8-102-mm, and the layout of the artillery was very original: the main thing weapon the cruisers, both 152-mm guns, were located in the stern in a linearly elevated pattern, six 102-mm guns were stationed on the board and two on the ship's tank.



I must say that the placement of the main caliber "in the rear" contradicted all the traditions of British shipbuilding. But the British believed that fights with light cruisers would be fought out, and 102-mm guns would be better suited to attack the destroyers, and that was quite reasonable. Nevertheless, Caroline is expected to lose to Svetlana in absolutely everything - theoretically 4 102-mm guns against 9 130-mm can work in the nose, and 2 152-mm and 2 102-mm in stern - against 6 130-mm. On the sharp nasal heading angles, the British cruiser would have fought with three, hardly four 102-mm guns against 5 130-mm, aft - 2 152-mm and 1 102-mm against 5 130-mm in the Russian cruiser. The British have 2 152-mm and 4 102-mm guns against 8 130-mm Svetlana guns in the side salvo. The weight of the onboard salvo at “Caroline” is 151,52 kg versus 294,88 kg “Svetlana”, that is, the Russian cruiser surpasses the “Caroline” by 1,95 times by this indicator. The mass of explosive in one side salvo from the Svetlana is 37,68 kg, the Caroline has only 15,28 kg, here the superiority of the Russian ship artillery is even more noticeable - in 2,47 times.

The light cruiser “Chester” had more powerful artillery, which was located much more traditional than on the “Caroline” - one 140-mm each on the tank and the canteens, and eight 140-mm along the sides. This theoretically allowed to fire directly on the nose and the stern of the three guns, on sharp course aft or bow angles - from two, maximum three, but it gave a very decent side salvo of seven 140-mm guns. The weight of the onboard volley "Chester" was almost equal to "Svetlana", 260,4 kg versus 294,88 kg., But due to the relatively low explosives content in the shells, it lost much of its mass in the side salvo - 16,8 kg versus 37,68 kg., Or in 2,24 times.

Interestingly, in terms of the mass of explosives in the onboard salvo, the much larger Chester almost did not outperform the Caroline with its 15,28 kg.

It is quite another thing - the cruiser "Danae" with its seven 152-mm guns.



On this ship, the pursuit and return guns were placed in a linearly elevated pattern, and the other two were not airborne, but in the middle of the hull, with the result that all six six-inch guns took part in the side salvo from the six six-inch guns. This gave almost equal to the "Svetlana" mass parameters of the side volley (271,8 kg) and explosives in the side salvo (36 kg), but ... at what price? Only two guns could fire on the sharp bow and stern corners of the British cruiser.

As for the German "Koenigsberg", the Germans tried to provide this project not only with an onboard volley of maximum power, but also with powerful fire at sharp course angles.



As a result, having a total of 8 150-mm cannons, theoretically right at the bow and stern, the Koenigsberg could shoot four guns, on sharp bow and stern corners - three, and in a side salvo - five. Accordingly, the German cruisers had an impressive mass of onboard volley in 226,5 kg, but still inferior to Svetlana by 1,3 times and the not so impressive mass of explosives in the onboard salvo 20 kg (approximately, as the exact mass of explosives in German 150-mm shells he does not know). By this parameter (approximately) “Konigsberg” was inferior to “Svetlana” by 1,88 times.

The most catastrophic was the backlog of the Austro-Hungarian cruiser "Admiral Spoon". With only seven 100-mm guns, the latter could lead 4 and 3 guns to the bow and stern, respectively, on the acute nasal corners - 3 guns, stern - 2, and in the side salvo - only four. The mass of the onboard volley was some 55 kg.

In general, it can be stated that the domestic "Svetlana" in its artillery weapons was significantly superior to the best cruisers of Great Britain and Germany, not to mention Austria-Hungary. At least as much as equal to the “Svetlana” can be considered unless the cruisers of the “Danae” type, but they, laid down in 1916 g, actually entered already after the war. In addition, the approximate equality in the onboard salvo from the “Danae” was “bought” due to the very dubious refusal of any strong fire on sharp bow and stern corners, where two six-inch Englishmen with their mass of salvo in 90,6 kg and explosives content in The 12 kg salvo was completely lost against the background of five 130-mm Russian guns with their mass of 184,3 kg salvo and the mass of explosives in the 23,55 kg salvo.

Here the reader may be interested in, why the comparison of fire performance, i.e. masses of shells fired over a certain period of time? Is there a trick here? In fact, the author does not consider this indicator as significant and here is why: in order to compare fire performance, you need to have an idea of ​​the firing rate of the guns, that is, their rate of fire, taking into account the actual time of their loading and, most importantly, making adjustments to aim. But usually reference books contain only maximum values ​​of firing rate, possible only under certain ideally-polygon conditions - in a battle at such a speed, ships cannot shoot. Nevertheless, we will make a calculation of fire performance, focusing on the maximum rate of fire:

1) Svetlana: 2 359,04 kg of shells and 301,44 kg of explosives per minute

2) “Danae”: 1 902,6 kg shells and 252 kg BB per minute

3) Königsberg: 1 585,5 kg of shells and 140 kg BB per minute

4) Caroline: 1 547,04 kg of shells and 133,2 kg BB per minute

“Chester” stands apart - the fact is that for its 140-mm guns, the BL Mark I with its shells weighing a little more than domestic 130-mm and cartwheel loading indicates a completely unrealistic rate of fire of 12 rpm. If this were the case, then Chester would have won the Svetlana (3 124,8 kg) by the mass of shells fired per minute, but it was still inferior by the mass of explosives produced per minute (201,6 kg).

It should be remembered that for 152-mm guns, reference books indicate the rate of fire of 5-7 rpm, for 130-mm - 5-8 rpm, and only for 102-mm artillery with its unitary loading - 12-15 rds / min In other words, the Chester clearly did not have a rate of fire in 12 rds / min. 12-mm guns of the British of the Second World War, which had characteristics similar to 133-mm guns (140 kg projectile, split charging) and installed in much more advanced tower installations for linkor, had similar “passport” rate of fire (36 rds / min). "King George V" and light cruisers "Dido". But in practice, and they did no more than 7-9 shots. / min

OMS

Of course, the description of the capabilities of the artillery light cruisers will be incomplete without mentioning their fire control systems (FCS). Unfortunately, there are very few Russian-language literature devoted to the fire control systems of the First World War epoch, the information in it is rather stingy, and besides, there are certain doubts about their authenticity, since the descriptions are often contradictory. All this is complicated by the fact that the author of this article is not an artilleryman, and therefore all of the following may contain mistakes and should be interpreted as an opinion, and not as a ultimate truth. And one more note - the description offered to your attention is rather difficult for perception and to those readers who do not wish to delve into the specifics of the OMS, here the author strongly recommends to go straight to the last paragraph of the article.

Why do we need an MSA? It must provide centralized fire control and supply the gun calculations with necessary and sufficient information to defeat the designated targets. To do this, in addition to specifying what ammunition to use and the transfer of commands to open fire, the OMS must calculate and bring to the gunners the angles of the horizontal and vertical guidance of the guns.

But in order to correctly calculate these angles, it is necessary not only to determine the current position of the enemy ship in space relative to our ship, but also to be able to calculate the position of the enemy ship in the future. The data from the range finders is always late, since the moment of measuring the distance to the enemy always occurs before the range finder reports on the measured distance. It still takes time to calculate the scope and give the appropriate instructions to the calculations of the guns, the calculations also need time to set this sight and prepare for the volley, and the shells, alas, do not hit the target all at once with a shot - their flight time for several miles is 15-25 seconds, maybe more. Therefore, naval gunners almost never shoot at an enemy ship - they shoot at the place where the enemy ship will be at the time of the fall of the shells.

In order to be able to predict the location of an enemy ship, you need to know a lot, including:

1) Distance and bearing to the enemy ship at the current time.

2) Rates and speeds of your ship and target ship.

3) The magnitude of the change in distance (VIR) to the enemy and the magnitude of the change of bearing (VIP) to him.

For example, we know that the distance between our ship and the target is reduced by 5 cables per minute, and the bearing decreases at a speed of half a degree for that minute, and now the enemy is in 70 cables from us at the course angle 20 degrees. Consequently, in a minute the enemy will be from us in 65 cables for 19,5 bearing hail. Suppose, just in time for this we will be ready to shoot. Knowing the course and speed of the enemy, as well as the time of flight of shells to him, it is not so difficult to calculate the point at which the enemy will be at the time of the fall of the shells.

Of course, in addition to being able to determine the position of the enemy at any time, one must also have an idea about the trajectory of its own shells, which is influenced by many factors - shooting of barrels, gunpowder temperature, wind speed and direction ... The more parameters the FCS takes into account, the greater the chances that we will give the correct corrections and the shells fired by us will fly precisely to the point of the future location of the enemy ship, calculated by us, and not somewhere to the side, closer or farther.

Before the Russian-Japanese war, it was assumed that the fleets would fight on the 7-15 cable, and to shoot at such distances, complex calculations were not needed. Therefore, the most advanced MSAs of those years didn’t count anything at all, but were transmission mechanisms — the senior gunner set the distance and other data on the instruments in the conning tower, and the gunners saw the “installations” of the starrart on special dials, determined the sight and made the gun themselves . In addition, the explorer could indicate the type of ammunition, give the command to open fire, go on a quick fire and stop it.

But it turned out that the battle can be waged at a far greater distance - 35-45 KBT and further, and here the centralized fire control turned out to be too complicated, as it required a lot of calculations, which were performed, in fact, by hand. It took mechanisms capable of producing at least part of the calculations for the senior gunner, and at the beginning of the century similar instruments were created: let's start with the English fire control devices.

Probably the first (at least - among the common) was the calculator Dumaresca. This is an analog computer (AVM, strictly speaking, all the calculating mechanisms in that period were analog) into which you had to manually enter data on the courses and speeds of your ship and the target ship, bearing to the target ship, and based on this data it was able calculate the value of VIR and VIP. This was a great help, but it did not solve even half of the problems faced by the artillerymen. At about 1904 g, another simple, but ingenious instrument appeared, called the Vickers dial. It was a dial on which the distance was displayed, and to which a motor was attached. He worked like this - when entering the initial distance and setting the VIR value, the motor started to rotate with the corresponding VIR speed, and thus the senior artilleryman could at any time see the current distance to the enemy target ship.

Of course, all this was not yet a full-fledged OMS, because it automated only part of the calculations: the artilleryman still had to count the same angles of vertical and horizontal guidance. In addition, both of the above devices were completely useless if the distance change between opponents was not constant (for example, in the first minute - 5 kbt, in the second - 6, in the third - 8, etc.), and this happened at sea all the time.

And, finally, much later, the so-called “Dreyer table” was created - the first British full-fledged fire control system.



The Dreyer table was extremely (for those times) automated - it was necessary to manually enter the course and speed of the enemy ship, but the range finder was directly entered by the range finder, that is, the senior gunner did not need to be distracted by this. But the course and speed of its own ship fell into the table of Dreyer automatically, because it was connected to a gyrocompass and speedometer. An amendment to the wind was automatically considered; the original data came directly from the anemometer and wind vane. The Dumaresk calculator was an integral part of the Dreyer table, but now the VIR and VIP were not just calculated at some point, but they were constantly monitored and predicted for the necessary time for the artillerymen. The angles of vertical and horizontal pickup are also automatically calculated.

It is interesting that in addition to Dreyer (and the table was named after his creator), another Englishman, Pollen, was engaged in the development of the OMS, and, according to some reports, his brainchild ensured much greater accuracy. But Pollan’s OMS was significantly more complex and, importantly, Dreyer was an officer fleet with an impeccable reputation, and Pollen - just obscure civilians. As a result, the Royal Navy adopted the Dreyer table.

So, among the British light cruisers of the first world table, Dreyer received only cruisers of the “Danae” type. The rest, including “Carolyn” and “Chester”, at best, had only Dumaresc calculators with Vickers dials, and perhaps this was not the case.

The Russian cruisers installed artillery fire control devices from the company Geisler and K of the 1910 model. Generally speaking, this MSA was designed for battleships, but it turned out to be very compact, as a result of which it was installed not only on cruisers, but even on the destroyers of the Russian fleet. The system worked as follows.

The distance finder, measuring the distance, set the corresponding value on a special device, the receiving device was located in the conning tower. The course and speed of the enemy ship was determined from observations, its own - on the basis of instruments that were not part of the MSA and were not connected to it. VIR and VIP were calculated manually, and entered into the device for transmitting the height of the sight, and he independently determined the required elevation angles for the guns and transferred them to the calculations.

At the same time, as they say, with one click of the lever, corrections were established for the firing of guns, the wind, the temperature of gunpowder, and later, when calculating the sight, the OSS Geisler constantly took into account these amendments.

That is, if we assume that the British light cruisers of the Chester and Caroline types still equipped with the Dyumaresk calculator and the Vickers dial, then in this case the VIR and the VIP were calculated on them automatically. But the calculation of the sight had to be done manually, and each time adjusting the calculation for numerous corrections, and then manually transfer the sight to the calculations of the guns. A "Geysler" arr. 1910 r manually needed to count the VIR and VIP, but after that the system automatically and constantly showed the correct sight to the gun calculations, taking into account numerous amendments.

Thus, it can be assumed that the MSA installed on the Svetlana was superior to devices of similar purpose on light cruisers of the Chester and Caroline types, but inferior to those on the Danai. As for the German SLA, very little is known about them, but the Germans themselves believed that their instruments were worse than those of the British. Therefore, it can be assumed that the Königsberg OMS did not exceed, and perhaps it was, inferior to that on Svetlana.

Продолжение следует ...
Author:
Articles from this series:
Light cruisers like "Svetlana"
Cruiser type "Svetlana". Part of 2. Artillery
66 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Serge72
    Serge72 17 January 2018 06: 30
    19
    Interesting analysis
    And Svetlana is an interesting and excellent cruiser.
    1. avt
      avt 17 January 2018 10: 30
      +4
      Quote: Serge72
      Interesting analysis

      Yes . Not bad compared and ... really ,, Danae "is more thoughtful in terms of installing artillery in a crazy version. Placing trunks in onboard sponsons is, to put it mildly, anachronism. It’s like when, back in ,, Modeller Constructor, I saw ,, Red Crimea, then the thought began to creep in - “Haha?” Then, over time, after I had mastered Kuznetsov’s memoirs, I began to think - “Wasn’t it worth it to spend the gun’s weight in sponsons on something no longer so heroic, but it’s not even visible inside is good for vitality, or for fuel? Even in parts op booking ..... to the glory of the ideas of Oleg. bully
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        17 January 2018 11: 39
        +4
        Quote: avt
        Placing trunks in onboard sponsons to put it mildly -anachronism

        In what? The fact that artillery received at least minimal protection from fragments? :)))
        Quote: avt
        But wasn’t it worth the whole gun weight in sponsons to spend on something no longer so heroic

        And what is the weight there? :) The casemates were not armored, that is, apart from the gun itself and the reinforcements under it, there was no weight
        1. avt
          avt 17 January 2018 12: 06
          +1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          And what is the weight there ?:

          Whatever it was, all one is easier bully
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          That artillery received at least minimal protection from fragments?

          This type of this
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          The casemates were not armored

          wassat Hosh is like hosh, and 4 guns with all the tricks in fact ballast.
          1. avt
            avt 17 January 2018 14: 45
            0
            By the way! And why was the project ,, Svetlana "precisely with" Danae "and not" Adelaide "compared?" Chatams "are closer in design years. Well, about TA, will there be a debriefing on them?
            1. Rurikovich
              Rurikovich 17 January 2018 20: 12
              +2
              Quote: avt
              And why was the project ,, Svetlana "precisely with" Danae "and not" Adelaide "compared?" Chatams "are closer in design years.

              It is more logical to compare the launching (1915):
              Calyoppa, Chester England
              Wiesbaden Germany
              And fso what
              Well, even the first “Seres” began to descend at the end of the 15th and the “Koenigsberg” of the last series was also launched at the end of the 15th ... The rest are either after or before .... request
          2. Rurikovich
            Rurikovich 17 January 2018 20: 02
            +1
            Quote: avt
            and 4 guns with all the troubles upon the fact of ballast.

            6 - and feed two? wink tongue
            1. avt
              avt 17 January 2018 20: 25
              +2
              Quote: Rurikovich
              6 - and feed two?

              wassat Are they also sponsored by airborne? I missed something in life ..... bully
              Quote: Rurikovich
              Calyoppa, Chester England

              what From shaved all the same
              The Chester light cruiser had more powerful artillery, which was much more conventional than the Caroline - one 140 mm each on the tank and the utah, and eight 140 mm along the sides.
              ,, Danae "This is the next stage, which with ,, Svetlana" can be compared solely in the light of the long-term construction of the latter. request
              1. Rurikovich
                Rurikovich 17 January 2018 20: 35
                +2
                Quote: avt
                Are they also sponsored by airborne?

                3 on the forecastle, 10 on the main deck - 6 on-board casemates and 4 on-board sponsons
                2 on the aft superstructure hi
                Total - 15 pieces, as from a bush repeat
                1. avt
                  avt 17 January 2018 21: 44
                  +1
                  Quote: Rurikovich
                  2 on the aft superstructure

                  wassat Yo mine .... I really forgot about the add-in, carried away
                  in theory, at the same time, firing was provided directly on the course of nine guns,
                  wassat Well, it means that these aft royal casemates are also annulled, as well as underwater torpedo tubes. bully The main gauge is increased to 180mm in single-armed four towers and paired 100s on deck bully
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    18 January 2018 00: 03
                    +2
                    Quote: avt
                    Hosh is like hosh, and 4 guns with all the tricks in fact ballast.

                    Why? :))) What did the casemates do not please you with? :)))
                    Quote: avt
                    This type of this

                    Well, there at least a centimeter and a half became - what is bad?
                    Quote: avt
                    By the way! And why the project ,, Svetlana "precisely with ,, Danae, and not ,, Adelaide"

                    Of the chatams to Svetlana, the closest are Chester and Birkenhead, and they are considered better than other towns.
                    Quote: avt
                    Well, about TA, will there be a debriefing on them?

                    And why not be, we will analyze :)
                    1. avt
                      avt 18 January 2018 10: 10
                      0
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Why didn’t the casemates please you?

                      Imperial casemates? Yes, at least because I forgot about feed! : bully The joke is that the arms of the turbine cruiser were made according to the rule - the military is preparing for the past war. Well, in fact, after the Japanese, the transition to the towers and the linearly elevated scheme were clear. As an option, they were also considered for battleships. BUT! request On battleships this was embodied by Russian specialists in the USA, who were massively sent there back to World War I. You can see how the architecture changed from a shaved school to a neo-American one with the shukhov masts. That’s with the Svetlans, they dragged on the implementation, but in fact it was already possible to make an option that was offered in the 30s when the buildings were remade. But in the end only ,, Red Caucasus "was remade into .... semi-Washigton bully And by the way, it turned out pretty well! Especially considering the well-trained crew and competent, and even more, well, right across the Buonaparty, a successful commander. What can’t you say about ,, Little Red ", which was drowned solely through the fault of the commander who did not change his position after the scout’s flight. The Russian Avos and Probably request As a result, Nakos Vykusi came and the cruiser died. request
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        18 January 2018 11: 31
                        +1
                        Quote: avt
                        Well, in fact, after the Japanese, the transition to the towers and the linearly elevated scheme was understandable

                        In no case - exactly the opposite. It was after the RJV that the Russian fleet completely abandoned the artillery towers of medium (152 mm) caliber.
                        As for the linearly elevated one, it was still very, very, very far away; here, the RYAV did not do any push
                      2. Crimea26
                        Crimea26 21 January 2018 13: 48
                        0
                        And why is the light cruiser of the WWI period heavy and complex towers? In addition, the failure of at least one immediately reduces the "weight" of the cruiser in battle by at least 25% ??? Its goal is to bombard the same easy target .. The towers are already for the heavier class (and armor) .. The remodeling of the "Red Caucasus" is already an attempt to fit the old project with new realities and technologies ...
  2. Torins
    Torins 17 January 2018 06: 57
    +5
    Quote: Serge72
    Interesting analysis
    And Svetlana is an interesting and excellent cruiser.

    I agree, and then did not spare the money for the fleet. For some 10 years after the loss of almost the entire fleet in the Far East, they created a fleet far superior to it. As far as I remember, they occupied the 3rd place in the world. For all the shortcomings of the Russian Empire, the state spent on itself as much as needed, and not how many oligarchs would allow ...
    1. kvs207
      kvs207 17 January 2018 07: 49
      +5
      Even as they regretted, the Russian fleet was, alas, not in 3rd place.
    2. Conductor
      Conductor 17 January 2018 10: 00
      +5
      Yeah, the balanced fleet, except for the Noviks, is nothing interesting, strange battleships, which never joined the battle (On the Baltic for sure), a pair of outdated goddesses, the Last Bayan _Makarov, Rurik 2 in 1916 failed. it's about the Baltic, it seemed like a more balanced fleet at the World Cup, but even that one was chasing Goeben and did not catch up. At least the battle at Cape Sarych, where only Eustathius really fought. In general, since some time such confusion and reel were in the plan of the fleet. what a wonder.
    3. Nubia2
      Nubia2 17 January 2018 10: 15
      +2
      Quote: Torins
      As far as I remember, they occupied the 3rd place in the world

      Do not remember correctly ..
    4. Nubia2
      Nubia2 17 January 2018 10: 17
      +3
      Quote: Torins
      the state spent on itself as much as needed

      but what exactly and how did they spend it?)
      You obviously overacted the French roll
    5. Looking for
      Looking for 17 January 2018 19: 41
      +4
      Do not write nonsense. The RI fleet in the period 1905-1914 was a wretched sight precisely because of microscopic financing and a lack of production capacity.
  3. Scaffold
    Scaffold 17 January 2018 08: 27
    +6
    As always interesting, Andrey! hi
    If not mistaken, the "speedometer" in the fleet is called the "lag." drinks
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      17 January 2018 11: 41
      +3
      Quote: Scaffold
      As always interesting, Andrey!

      Thank you!
      Quote: Scaffold
      If not mistaken, the "speedometer" in the fleet is called the "lag."

      So then it is, but maybe not quite. Strictly speaking, the lag was thrown from the ship into the sea, automation was somehow not very good :)))) Most likely there was a “speedometer” that measured the speed by the speed of the car, although strictly speaking this is wrong
  4. ydjin
    ydjin 17 January 2018 08: 29
    +4
    Thanks Andrew for an interesting analysis of the cruiser’s artillery weapons, I look forward to continuing!
  5. Taoist
    Taoist 17 January 2018 10: 20
    +4
    By the way, I read somewhere that Pollan’s devices were used by the RIF - I just don’t remember exactly where. It is necessary to rummage through the search. Sank in memory because our sailor dubbed them as understandably "log" ...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      17 January 2018 11: 06
      +6
      Quote: Taoist
      By the way, I read somewhere that Pollan’s devices were used by RIF

      Battleships of the type "Sevastopol" :))))
      1. Kibb
        Kibb 24 January 2018 11: 39
        0
        And why did you refuse me at the time that Pollen’s devices are the basis of Geisler’s 10th? wink drinks
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 22 January 2018 10: 34
      0
      Sobolev - "Englishman":
      The spaceships on the battleship are looking for free space, wedged between towers, cellars and piping by cunning figures that have no names in geometry. Among these rooms, the lower central post with its rectangular outlines resembled an apartment of three rooms. It turned out that almost all of this apartment was occupied by artillery. She grabbed two rooms for herself: she clogged one with the motors of artillery fire control devices (abbreviated as the cry of the newborn: "UAO"), and hung the second from top to bottom by the UAO devices themselves, occupying the middle of the post with Polen's table - a clever mechanism calculating for the gunner.
      (...)
      Snigir threw into the heat. He rushed to the levels. Their bubbles came out of working position. This meant that a random push of the artillery butt brought the gyroscope out of the meridian. The compass has ceased to be a compass - at least for half an hour it has turned into a buzzing top unknown for what ...
      This case led Snigir to three conclusions. Firstly, to the invention of handrails enclosing the compass; secondly, to the arrogant professional thought that the “log” is no smarter than the gyrocompass and has its fame due to other instruments; thirdly, that not only the ship’s path, but also the whole battle depends on the malfunction of the gyrocompass. The latter further strengthened his love for a wonderful machine called a gyroscopic compass.
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 22 January 2018 16: 44
        0
        But for sure, from there I remembered.
  6. Taoist
    Taoist 17 January 2018 10: 45
    +4
    Yes, in conjunction with the "Novikov" they would be great cruisers. But as always did not have time. One thing is not clear why ours so stubbornly ran away from the "linearly elevated" arrangement of guns ... It was precisely this that made it possible to fire precisely over the nose, and compactness increased. And so if you think well ... 15 guns of which half can’t shoot at least. But at the same time, calculations are needed for them, but they need to be placed somewhere, fed ... etc. If you calculate how much on a small boat, in general, does displacement and size increase as a result?
    Two two-gun towers in the bow and stern, and we have the same 8 guns in the airborne salvo and 6-4 guns at sharp heading angles ... It’s clear that these are all speculations of afterthought ... but the towers were already there and the scheme already existed ...
    1. avt
      avt 17 January 2018 10: 56
      +1
      Quote: Taoist
      Two two-gun towers in the bow and stern, and we have the same 8 guns in the airborne salvo and 6-4 guns at sharp heading angles ... It’s clear that these are all speculations of afterthought ... but the towers were already there and the scheme already existed ...

      “Bogatyrs?” Well, the biggest series. Well, according to the results of the Russo-Japanese, there were offers to remove the tower - there were problems in terms of fire control. By the way, they rearm at the Black Sea Fleet by 130mm without towers.
      1. Bormanxnumx
        Bormanxnumx 17 January 2018 11: 37
        +1
        Quote: avt
        “Bogatyrs"? Well, the biggest series. Well, according to the results of the Russo-Japanese, there were offers to remove the tower - there were problems in terms of fire control.

        The criticism was caused by the unsuccessful construction of the towers, which led to a low practical rate of fire.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          17 January 2018 12: 09
          +6
          Quote: BORMAN82
          The criticism was caused by the unsuccessful construction of the towers, which led to a low practical rate of fire.

          This is not an unsuccessful design, but the prose of life, because at that technical level, rapid-fire towers did not work in principle. Andrei the First-Called's casemate 203-mm guns tripled (!) In speed over the same turret guns, the British so hated the 152-mm two-gun turrets on armored kents that then they categorically pushed them away ...
          In fact, already in the 20s, the British were scratching their turnips for a long time, whether to make towers for the KRL, or to put guns openly (on the Linders)
          1. unknown
            unknown 17 January 2018 21: 17
            +1
            The British were somehow more fortunate with hydraulic drives, and on the "Kentes" the towers had an electric drive. As for the Linders ... it’s unlikely that the British would have settled on deck-mounted installations on a ship of such a displacement. In the 30th year.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              17 January 2018 23: 56
              +1
              Quote: ignoto
              As for the Linder ... it’s unlikely that the British would have settled on deck-mounted installations on a ship of such a displacement.

              So they in fact did not stop :))) But! Chose a very long time. In the end, they came to the conclusion that for guns 140 mm and below, deck installations are better, and for everything higher than that, tower
      2. Taoist
        Taoist 17 January 2018 13: 51
        +1
        Yes, the question is not even turret installations - for such a cruiser, "tower-like shields" are quite enough, namely, the location of the GK guns - the side-by-casemate layout of the GK guns against the "linearly elevated" one.
    2. Dedall
      Dedall 18 January 2018 00: 20
      +1
      They initially refused because they were afraid of the impact of the blast wave on the shots of the towers standing behind. And experiments partially confirmed these assumptions. Although, I would call into question the American test reports. This is because they then abruptly changed the conclusions and began to rivet the boats with diametrically elevated towers. But our engineers could not afford to experiment and began to develop protected towers late.
      And the next reason was that the cannons in the towers were just the top of the iceberg. The total weight is huge, and at the beginning of the 20th century, ship science in Russia greatly weakened after the death of Makarov and the departure from the affairs of Academician Krylov. Only the method of calculation according to the model was used, and as a result, in the descriptions of our ships of that time, the trim on the bow and stern is always mentioned.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 22 January 2018 10: 51
        0
        Quote: Dedall
        They initially refused because they were afraid of the impact of the blast wave on the shots of the towers standing behind. And experiments partially confirmed these assumptions. Although, I would call into question the American test reports. This is because they then abruptly changed the conclusions and began to rivet the boats with diametrically elevated towers.

        So the problems with the downstream towers with a linearly elevated scheme were not only for the Yankees. The same limes after switching to the “Michigan” scheme - on “queens” and “eras” - were forced to limit the firing of the upstream BS GK, banning fire in the 30-degree sector on the bow and stern. The reason - the shock wave and other effects of the shot penetrated into the downstream tower through the inspection caps.
        The problem was solved only at Hood, Valiant, and also (after a big modernization in the 30s) at Korolev, Valiant, Worspayt and Rinauna - they just took off the inspection caps. The rest remained the same, as evidenced by the fact that on the Malaya on the roof of the BShGK "A" directly under the cuts of the barrels of tower "B" they put "erlikons" (when shooting in the 30-degree sector "on the nose" they would be just bold) .
        With the exceptions of HMS Hood and HMS Vanguard, superfiring turrets on these ships as built could not fire within 30 degrees of the axis because the blast effects would have penetrated into the lower turrets through the open sighting hoods. From an examination of photographs taken during World War II, it would appear that this problem was not corrected on the other ships except for the four that had major rebuilds during the 1930s. As an example of this, in 1944 the non-reconstructed HMS Malaya mounted 20 mm Oerlikon AA guns atop "A" turret which were thus located directly below the muzzles of "B" turret, which implies that she could not fire "B" turret on a forward bearing.
        © navweaps
  7. Cat Marquis
    Cat Marquis 17 January 2018 10: 54
    +3
    The number of guns is one, but at what range could they shoot? It seems that the sponson-casemate placement limited the angles of vertical aiming guns, no?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      17 January 2018 11: 08
      +4
      Quote: Cat Marquis
      The number of guns is one, but at what range could they shoot?

      This was in a previous article. In short - the farthest.
      Quote: Cat Marquis
      It seems that the sponson-casemate placement limited the angles of vertical aiming guns

      Not in this case. Well, yes, you can’t put anti-aircraft art there
      1. Trapperxnumx
        Trapperxnumx 17 January 2018 13: 31
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Not in this case.

        By the way, in continuation of the question - British ships were often reproached for the low location of the casemates, which did not make it possible to use them in fresh weather, how was Svetlan doing with this matter?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          18 January 2018 00: 04
          +2
          Quote: Trapper7
          By the way, in continuation of the question -

          We’ll definitely get to this :)
  8. faiver
    faiver 17 January 2018 12: 01
    +1
    and again five points, thanks for the interesting reading hi
  9. Scaffold
    Scaffold 17 January 2018 12: 53
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Strictly speaking, the lag was thrown from the ship into the sea, automation here somehow not really

    So in the days of the pirates. :-) Then the lag turned into a device, and the name remained.
  10. xomaNN
    xomaNN 17 January 2018 13: 10
    +5
    Andrei (author) - Respect for the deep "plowing" of the theme of cruisers. I understand clearly. how hard it was in the USSR in the 20s to finish building these still old royal ships.
    ----------
    Now a similar situation with the modernization of pr. 1144 "Adm. Nakhimov" bully
  11. arturpraetor
    arturpraetor 17 January 2018 13: 28
    +5
    Taki is very happy with the detailed analysis of “Svetlan” - a lot has been said about them in well-known sources, with predominantly “all-proverbial” estimates - and the location of the fu-fu guns, and the caliber, and in general ... But, as always, a deepening into the materiel and a detailed comparison going to the magical sounds of crackling patterns laughing He himself always liked Svetlana very much, once he was interested in details in them, even thought of writing an article ... But even Svetlana, who knew me well, didn’t believe that Svetlana was not a well-known person. and suddenly good, why are they all so scolded? wassat Because the article did not work. Here, to be convincing, one must have a powerful name, and not just thoughtfulness, and therefore the articles by Andrei's colleagues from Chelyabinsk on this subject are very encouraging - he has both.

    I will wait for the continuation drinks
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      18 January 2018 00: 06
      +6
      Greetings, dear colleague!
      Quote: arturpraetor
      Here, for credibility, you must have a powerful name

      Do not embarrass the pianist; he plays as best he can! hi
      1. Svarog51
        Svarog51 18 January 2018 10: 58
        +3
        Andrey, I welcome you hi
        Do not embarrass the pianist; he plays as best he can!
        good
        In our "philharmonic society" a bad pianist would have been cut off at the very first opus. And you liked, because only applause and cries of "Bravo!" good
  12. Trapperxnumx
    Trapperxnumx 17 January 2018 13: 28
    +5
    Many thanks to the author for the article, as always very interesting.
    The cruiser “Danae” with his family 152-mm guns.

    here is probably a typo. they had six like guns
    1. unknown
      unknown 17 January 2018 21: 03
      +2
      Sometimes, such errors are "made" knowingly. For an attentive and thoughtful reader.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      18 January 2018 00: 04
      +5
      Quote: Trapper7
      here is probably a typo.

      Yes of course. Thank!
  13. doktorkurgan
    doktorkurgan 17 January 2018 15: 19
    +4
    Vladimir Yakubov's blog has scans of pages from the Barr & Stroud rangefinder catalog of 1906-09 (http://vova-modelist.livejournal.com/135537.html
    ) In particular, there is an image of the LMS:
  14. zxc15682
    zxc15682 17 January 2018 19: 24
    +1
    Need to keep a rhombus laughing
  15. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 17 January 2018 19: 33
    +3
    Good evening, Andrey hi
    For the review has already become a familiar plus yes
    Although I agree with a number of members of the forum regarding artillery. Of course, it’s good that the Svetiki exceeded the foreign analogues compared with them in terms of the salvo’s weight, but we don’t forget that the displacement of our cruisers was an order of magnitude higher wink Therefore, stuffing the ship with so many trunks it is quite possible to get an advantage. And the casemate location, in principle, does not make weather, because from experience with the service of such ships, conclusions were drawn about the compatibility of open and casemate guns when controlling fire (at least in terms of rate of fire, there is no need to alternate volleys due to the imperfection of tower installations, as in "Heroes"). It seems to me that if the "lights" were similar in size to their peers, then the casemates would not exist in principle, but they would be similar to the same "Caledons" or "taunas." Only the British and Germans found a balance between the displacement and comparable firepower, while with larger sizes and comparable protection to the British, we simply increased the number of trunks. Therefore, they got such a diverse arrangement of guns. request Of course, if you start to consider the tones of sharp exchange rate angles, the advantages are undeniable, but the question is - how often battles are fought in such angles that would justify the need for such an arrangement of guns? After all, beauty and grace sometimes looks simple, and if they are also adjacent to rationality, then, in terms of layout and general arrangement of weapons, “Svetika” lose to the British. This is personally to me, of course.
    "Wiesbaden" - "Emden" II - 5200-5400t.
    "Caledon" - 4200t., "Danae" - almost 5000t.
    "Svetlana" - 6800t.
    So that a greater displacement brought a greater number of barrels, therefore, a larger salvo weight, even despite the mostly onboard artillery position. Whether such advantages are worth fewer larger ships is also a question. Still need to see the comparative cost of the compared samples what
    1. unknown
      unknown 17 January 2018 21: 01
      +2
      Read your thoughts. "Svetlana" is larger than the ships that are compared with them. Hence the advantages. It seems that the Svetlana, and even more so, their Black Sea version, are oversized. Regardless of the time of laying, launching, Svetlana should be compared with Omaha. These ships (both ours and the Americans) were late for WWI, and rightly so. For, they do not refer to the optimal type of cruiser that the British and Germans developed during the war, but to the post-war type. Which, undoubtedly, would have received further development, if not for the French from Lamot Piquet and Primoga. Their appearance also influenced the evolution of heavy cruisers, chopping off the line started by the Hawkins.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      18 January 2018 00: 11
      +4
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Of course, it’s good that the Svetiki exceeded the foreign analogues compared with them in terms of the salvo’s weight, but we don’t forget that the displacement of our cruisers was an order of magnitude higher

      It was :))) So my article cycle doesn’t end :)))) We’ll have time to talk about it :) You yourself asked for the MSA, where do I also put the displacement in one article? :)))
      Quote: Rurikovich
      It seems to me that if the "lights" were similar in size to their peers, then the casemates would not exist in principle, but they would be similar to the same "Caledons" or "taunas"

      Definitely. After all, there was no Nevelsky.
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Of course, if you start to consider the tones of sharp exchange rate angles, the advantages are undeniable, but the question is - how often battles are fought in such angles that would justify the need for such an arrangement of guns?

      Yes, generally speaking, it turns out almost more often "board-on-board." Especially if you consider situations in which it was necessary to attack or drape in a good way, and you had to turn on board to equalize the strength of the fire with the enemy
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 18 January 2018 06: 36
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        So my article cycle doesn’t end :)))) We’ll have time to talk about it :)

        Damn it! Again running in front of the engine recourse winked hi
        You have to wait for the whole material in order to see the whole picture and only then draw conclusions (criticize, praise, etc.) request wink
        Although on the other hand in the comments sometimes passions boil lol
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Yes, generally speaking, it turns out almost more often "board-on-board"

        Maybe ... Again - everything is relative. Ship after all compromise characteristics request
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 22 January 2018 10: 56
      0
      Quote: Rurikovich
      It seems to me that if the "lights" were similar in size to their peers, then the casemates would not exist in principle, but they would be similar to the same "Caledons" or "taunas."

      Actually, here is the KRL of the Russian fleet, similar in size to peers:

      True RIF, he did not get. sad
  16. Saxahorse
    Saxahorse 18 January 2018 22: 40
    +1
    "In fact, the author does not consider this indicator to be of any significance and this is why: in order to compare fire performance, you need to have an idea of ​​the combat rate of fire of the guns, that is, their rate of fire, taking into account the actual time of their loading and, most importantly, making adjustments in sight. "

    Do you think that changes to the guidance settings are made after each shot? As far as I remember, this is not so. After several sighting shots, it is supposed to make several salvoes from all trunks to kill. And so that the enemy does not have time to begin the evasion maneuver, you need to shoot quickly. And only then they begin a new cycle of changes in attitudes, targeting and covering.

    Rate of fire matters.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      19 January 2018 09: 57
      +5
      Quote: Saxahorse
      Do you think that changes to the guidance settings are made after each shot? As far as I remember, this is not so.

      This is so.
      Quote: Saxahorse
      After several sighting shots, it is supposed to make several salvoes from all trunks to kill.

      What you write is true only for the case when the ships are motionless relative to each other. And this is a fairly rare case, even for battleships, not to mention light cruisers. Usually, in battle, the magnitude of the change in distance and the magnitude of the change in bearing are non-zero and therefore require adjustment after each shot, even when the cover is received.
      That is, covering the evidence that the VIR and VIP values ​​are determined correctly, but you still have to make an amendment, since the direction to the enemy ship and the distance to it continue to change
  17. volodimer
    volodimer 19 January 2018 15: 47
    +1
    Andrey from Chelyabinsk,
    Greetings! hi Thanks again for the interesting reading. As a rule, they usually don’t remember about SLAs, but shooting accuracy is not only rangefinders and sights. As for the casemate installations, in my opinion, fodder implements could be replaced without changing the concept with deck ones, while receivingоThe best sectors of fire. But the nasal ... hardly. Linear elevation is the need to reduce the height of the forecastle and seaworthiness. And as a result, a rearrangement leading to a weakening of the nasal salvo. So perhaps this is the best configuration in these conditions.
  18. Saxahorse
    Saxahorse 19 January 2018 23: 03
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Usually, in battle, the magnitude of the change in distance and the magnitude of the change in bearing are non-zero and therefore require adjustment after each shot, even when the cover is received.


    Excuse me, what figures do you think are in question? For example, I see that in 5-6 seconds of reloading, at 20 knots, the VIR will be from 0 to 60 meters maximum. Depending on the course angles. Despite the fact that the ellipse of dispersion of shells even by 30 kb. will be about 200 meters. What prevents the enemy from throwing 3-4 volleys while he is in the affected area? Unless pacifism or insufficient rate of fire. However, if under the change in guidance settings you think the gunner’s continuous tracking of the target with a constant rear sight, then yes, this was used. But this was just introduced to increase the rate of fire.

    "Battery! Three shells runaway! ..." - This is a command familiar to all viewers and readers to switch from shooting to firing to kill. I suppose you yourself have read or listened to this more than once. You can and should shoot in series.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      20 January 2018 00: 05
      +1
      Quote: Saxahorse
      Excuse me, what figures do you think are in question? For example, I see that in 5-6 seconds of reloading, at 20 knots, the VIR will be from 0 to 60 meters maximum

      Strictly speaking, up to 120 if two ships of 20 knots meet each other, but, of course, this is an extreme case :)
      Quote: Saxahorse
      While the projectile dispersion ellipse is even 30 kb. will be about 200 meters

      Let's say. This means that the area where 50% of the shells will fall has only 50 meters - presumably, it’s worth tweaking the scope for this
      Quote: Saxahorse
      However, if under the change in the guidance settings you consider continuous tracking of the target by the gunner at a constant

      But the naval gun of those times, in principle, has no concept of a constant pillar - the pillar permanently changes simply under the influence of pitching, so it’s still necessary to “twist” it.
      1. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 20 January 2018 00: 36
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Let's say. This means that the area where 50% of the shells will fall has only 50 meters - presumably, it’s worth tweaking the scope for this


        You forget about the height of the ship. The board will collect almost all flights. The affected area may be larger than the dispersion ellipse. For this, the gunner also accompanies the target, in range the affected area is 8-10 times more than wide. On average, "on the ward" and you can put 5-6 volleys.

        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        But the naval gun of those times, in principle, has no concept of a constant pillar - the pillar permanently changes simply under the influence of pitching, so it’s still necessary to “twist” it.


        As far as I remember, the “sight” is a vertical figure, but the “rear” is a horizontal correction. It is the lateral correction for speed, wind and derivation. As if the pitching usually does not interfere with the whole.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          20 January 2018 12: 47
          +1
          Quote: Saxahorse
          You forget about the height of the ship. The board will collect almost all flights.

          Quite the contrary - I remember this, but you do not hi
          So, let's say the target ship is 30 kb from us. Then it makes sense to choose the aiming point behind the ship so that the flights (collect) would be on board the ship. Let's say we have an ellipse 200 m long (the standard deviation is one-eighth, i.e. 25 m) and the side height is such that it allows you to collect 3 standard deviations for flights over the width of the ship

          In other words, aiming so as to place the enemy at 25 m, where the probability of getting into the ship is 16%, we will also collect hits in the next 75 m (25 + 25 + 16 m) and ensure the probability of hitting 16 + 25 + 25 + 16 = 82%.
          One shift of the enemy’s hull by 25 m in the direction of fire reduces this chance to 25 + 25 + 16 + 7 = 73%, a shift of 50 m to 25 + 16 + 7 + 2 = 50% and so on.
          Quote: Saxahorse
          As far as I remember, the “sight” is a vertical figure, but the “rear” is a horizontal correction.

          You will laugh, but I confuse them all my life
          1. Saxahorse
            Saxahorse 23 January 2018 16: 18
            +1
            By the way, the dispersion ellipse will be much more elongated, 30x200m. somewhere. It looks great in the picture, but in practice, how will the gunner determine where the middle of this ellipse really is? The fact that the enemy in the affected area is guessed by indirect signs, noting that part of the shells of the sighting salvo went down with a shortage and some with a flight. All source data, distance, course, enemy speed are very approximate. Radar was sorely lacking at that time :)

            In addition, as you put it, "slightly adjust the scope" you need to pause and give two or three sighting volleys in a full cycle. Which will take not a couple of seconds, but two or three minutes. Do you seriously offer to shoot to kill only once every 3 minutes? Do not get to the port if you will so generously give the initiative to the enemy. Ask Mr. Rozhdestvensky, he tried it that way. :)

            By the way, this means that the figures of the peak rate of fire that the manufacturers of guns publish with such pleasure can also matter. A well-trained team that knows how to squeeze the most out of its weapons can easily plant a seemingly equal but worse trained opponent on the cook. Admiral von Spee here as an example.
  19. Kibb
    Kibb 24 January 2018 11: 30
    0
    I did not understand why they were built, such ships should obviously not in the Baltic Sea and not in the Black Sea Fleet. Svetlana stands like three Arethus or S, why were they built?