Military Review

Errors of British shipbuilding. The battle cruiser "Invinsible". H. 2

85
In this article we will look at history the design of the latest British armored cruisers (which, in essence, should be considered the “Invincible”), in order to understand the reasons for the appearance of the 305-mm caliber and a somewhat strange layout. The thing is that, contrary to popular belief, D. Fisher, the "father" of the British dreadnought fleet, came to understand the need for 305-mm guns and the concept of "all-big-gun" ("only big guns") for armored cruisers far from immediately.


So, in 1902, John Arbetnot Fisher, who served as commander of the Mediterranean fleet at that time, proposed the projects of the new battleship “Unapproachable” and armored cruiser “Inaccessible” created by him together with engineer Gard. Around the time that Fisher and Gard developed the above ships, Sir Andrew Noble published a theoretical rationale for the advantages of 254-mm guns over 305-mm as the main caliber for battleships. Sir Andrew, of course, appealed to a higher rate of fire, but also to a smaller mass of 254-mm guns, due to which the battleship of the same displacement could receive a larger number of 254-mm trunks compared to 305-mm. This argument seemed to D. Fisher extremely convincing, so for his battleship he proposed 254-mm guns. Judging by the data of O. Parks, the “Impregnable” did not immediately become an “all-big-gun” ship, and it can be assumed that at first he had weapons similar to that offered by Sir Andrew, i.e. eight 254-mm with a dozen 152-mm. However, D. Fisher soon abandoned the intermediate caliber, increasing the number of 254-mm guns to 16, while the anti-mine caliber should have been 102-mm guns.

As for the armored cruiser "Inaccessible", then it was provided for a mixed artillery of 254-mm and 190-mm guns. Although the sources do not say this directly, but most likely it was intended to install only four 254-mm guns, i.e. fewer of them than on the battleship: on the other hand, the speed of the new ship was far superior to any armored cruiser of the world. As for the booking, the requirements for the new ship indicated:

"The protection of all guns must withstand shelling of 203-mm melinite shells."


As a matter of fact, even 75 – 102 mm of armor is sufficient for such protection, besides, we are talking only about the protection of artillery, but nothing is said about the corps, chimneys, logging. In general, the above phrase can be interpreted as you like, but not in terms of enhancing the booking of British armored cruisers.

It can be assumed that the project of the armored cruiser D. Fisher was strongly influenced by the Swiftshur and Tri-amph battleships.


Swiftshur


These two ships were built for Chile, who sought to equalize themselves in power with Argentina, which was the time when the fifth and sixth armored cruiser of the Garibaldi type was ordered in Italy: it was the Mitra and the Roca, later renamed Rivadavia and Moreno ", but in the end they became" Nissin "and" Kasuga ". I must say that the Italian cruisers were very good for their time, but the British, by request of the Chileans, prepared a completely furious answer. "Constituion" and "Libertad" (Chileans who experienced difficulties with money, eventually gave them to the British, who renamed them "Swiftshur" and "Triumph") was a type of lightweight and high-speed battleship normal displacement 12 175 t. Their characteristics - 4 * 254-mm and 14 * 190-mm guns with 178-mm armor and speeds up to 20 nodes, probably struck D.Fisher's imagination. First, they confirmed the correctness of some of the calculations of Sir E. Noble, and second, despite the fact that the dimensions were even smaller than the largest British armored cruisers (Good Hoop - 13 920), they could hardly stand against " Libertad "even together. From the point of view of D. Fisher, the only drawback of these ships could be only low speed for an armored cruiser.

At the same time, the views of the British Admiralty on the use of armored cruisers also changed. If the ships of the Cressy, Drake, Kent and Devonshire types were created in order to protect British communications from attacks by French armored cruisers, additional tasks were set for the subsequent types of cruisers. As the famous British historian O. Parks writes:

“In addition to fulfilling their direct cruising duties, with heavier armament and protection, it was intended to operate as a high-speed wing in the line fleet, oriented against the German lightweight battleships of the Kaiser, Wittelsbach and Braunsweig classes.”


In 1902, the main builder in Great Britain was replaced: Philip Watts, the creator of such interesting and famous ships as Esmeralda and O'Higgins, replaced White. They expected a lot from him.

Watts was in a rather interesting situation: by the time he took office, the British armored cruisers did not have artillery powerful enough to fight raiders or armor capable of ensuring the combat stability of ships in a squadron battle. Watts has always been prone to maximizing the firepower of ships, and his cruisers receive very strong weapons: the first series, the Duke of Edinburgh and Black Prince, developed in 1902 and laid out in 1903, receive six 234-mm main guns caliber instead of four 190-mm on the “Devonshire” or two 234-mm on the “Drake”. Alas, the reservation remains roughly the same as before: for some unknown reason, the British believed that armor-bearing cruisers would have enough armor to protect against 152-mm armor-piercing projectile. To be precise, the British considered protection for 152-mm steel shells sufficient for their armored cruisers, but this definition most likely meant armor-piercing.

Thus, in 1902 in the UK was a very interesting situation. John Arbetnot Fisher is often and rightly reproached for neglecting armor protection in favor of firepower and speed in the projects of his battlecruisers. But in fairness it should be said that such an approach is by no means his invention and that in England at the beginning of the century it was accepted everywhere. In the same 1902, the difference between the ideas of Fisher and the British Admiralty consisted only in the fact that the top naval hierarchies of Great Britain, having lightly armed and insufficiently armored armored cruisers, preferred to sharply increase their armament without losing their speed and leaving the reservation at the same level. And “Jackie” Fisher, having taken “Swiftshur” as a basis, with his very powerful armament, preferred to loosen the reservation and at the expense of it increase the speed. In any case, both the Fisher and the Admiralty came to the same type of armored cruiser — fairly fast, with powerful weapons, but weak, protecting only against medium caliber artillery.

Nevertheless, the ideas of D. Fisher were much more progressive than those adhered to by the Admiralty:

1) Although the armored cruiser proposed by D. Fisher was not the embodiment of the “only big guns” concept, it was nevertheless unified in terms of the main caliber with a corresponding battleship. That is, the "Inaccessible" carried the same main caliber as the "Unapproachable", yielding to it only in the number of trunks.

2) D. Fisher offered turbines and oil boilers for armored cruisers.

On the other hand, of course, the project of D. Fisher contained a number of completely unjustified, although quite funny innovations - for example, telescopic chimneys and refusal of masts (only a stand for radio).

Later, however, D. Fisher and Gard, an engineer, took a “step back” approaching their project to the Watts ships - they abandoned 254-mm caliber in favor of 234-mm, since this British instrument was very successful, and, in their opinion, The power of the 254-mm gun did not compensate for the weight gain. Now the armored cruiser they proposed was a ship, with a normal displacement of 14 000 t for oil heating or 15 000 t for coal. The armament consisted of 4 * 234-mm and 12 * 190-mm in two-turrets, the power of the mechanisms was at least 35 000 hp, and the speed had to reach 25 nodes. By the way, where did this speed come from - 25 nodes? O. Parks writes about this:

"Since foreign armored cruisers had 24 knots speed, we had to have 25 knots."


Here are just some armored cruisers and whose powers could develop such a speed? In France, only ships like the Waldeck Rousseau (23,1-23,9 bonds) possessed something similar, but they were laid at the end of 1905 and 1906, and of course, in 1903-1904, they could not know about them. "Leon Gambetta" had a speed not higher than 22,5 bonds, while in armored cruisers in other countries it was even lower. So we can only assume that the British, setting such a high level of speed, were victims of some kind of misinformation.

Of course, with such weapons and the free weight rate for reinforcement armor already remained - the cruiser received a standard 152-mm belt for British ships of this class (it’s unclear how the extremities were reserved). But the most unusual in the project was, of course, the placement of artillery weapons.



In this seemingly absurd scheme, the position of D. Fisher, who pointed out in his Memoirs, clearly manifested itself:

“I am a champion of the End-on-Fire fire (fire at the tip), in my opinion, the fire on one side is complete nonsense. The delay in pursuing the enemy by deviating at least one atom from the direct course is, in my opinion, the height of absurdity. ”


It should be noted that if such a viewpoint can hardly be considered correct and at least controversial for battleships, then for cruisers the fire on sharp bows and stern corners is really extremely important, and perhaps just as important as a side salvo. Cruisers in essence have to catch up a lot or run away from the enemy. As Rear Admiral Prince Louis Battenberg rightly noted:

“On most French ships and our newest battleships and cruisers, shooting directly at the bow and the stern is limited by the fact that the line of fire can hardly cross the diametrical plane in the bow and the stern. Consequently, in the case of chase, even when heading straight on the nose, the slightest deviation from the course will close each of the guns, which is not located amidships. The location of the weapons proposed by Mr. Gard is most remarkable precisely from this point of view, since the bow and stern towers 7,5 d (190-mm, hereinafter - the next day) guns from each side can cross the center line of fire, approximately 25 degrees deviating from the bow and stern line - this means that during the pursuit and during retreat the nasal implements (10 from 16) can actually be used ”.


Of course, it is extremely doubtful that such an unusual arrangement of artillery was applied in practice, and not only because of its novelty, but also for objective reasons: such a concentration of artillery in the extremities causes certain difficulties. In any case, D. Fisher & Gard's scheme was not accepted. Officially, the fleet did not want to switch to two-gun 190-mm towers - the Royal Navy, having suffered with the turrets of armored cruisers of the "Kent" class, did not want to see two-gun turrets on cruisers at all, but made an exception for 234-mm guns. In general, the last series of armored cruisers of Great Britain (type "Minotaur"), laid at the very beginning of 1905, turned out to be much more traditional than the innovative project of D. Fischer.

However, by the end of 1904, several events occurred that in any case devalued the D. Fisher project - primarily in the eyes of its creator.

Firstly, the battleship project “Non-Intrusive” faced criticism of 254-mm caliber guns, and the argument was that D. Fisher unconditionally sided with a twelve-inch caliber. We will not go into details now, but we note that from now on D. Fisher adhered to the point of view that:

"... with the same displacement, it is better to have six 12-dm (305-mm) guns firing simultaneously in the same direction than ten 10-dm (254-mm)."


And secondly, just towards the end of 1904 in England, it became known about the new Japanese “vundervaffe” - armored cruisers like “Tsukuba”.



These ships, in fact, to a large extent repeated the ideas of D. Fisher himself, expressed by him in the original version of “Unapproachable” and “Inaccessible”. The Japanese armed their armored cruisers with the same main caliber as the battleships - 4 * 305-mm guns, while their speed, according to the British, was to make 20,5 nodes. It should be noted that, before the Japanese, in 1901, in Italy, “battleships-cruisers” were laid down “Regina Elena”: the Admiralty knew that these ships carried two 305-mm and twelve 203-mm guns, while the speed, according to the English, was to make up the 22 node.

Thus, at the end of 1904, the United Kingdom was faced with the fact that other countries had begun building armored cruisers with the 305-mm main and 152-203-mm average caliber. Given that the British, unlike the Germans, were never content with lighter guns than other countries, their next step was completely obvious. In order to surpass the Italian and Japanese ships in firepower, while maintaining the speed advantage, there was only one rational solution - to build all-big-gun cruisers armed with 305-mm artillery.

Consequently, the fact that Invincible received 305-mm guns ... well, of course, the merit of D. Fisher is all the same. But we must understand that the twelve-inch caliber on his cruisers, he did not come as a result of a glimpse of genius or creative illumination, but under the influence of objective circumstances. In fact, we can say that England was forced to build armored cruisers with 305-mm artillery.

But here is the merit of D. Fisher indisputable, so it is in "pulling" the concept of "all-big-gun" on the armored cruiser. The fact is that the concept of “only big guns” was still not obvious to many: for example, it was not shared by the main builder F. Watts, who preferred mixed weapons from 305-mm and 234-mm guns, he was supported by Admiral May, controller Royal Navy.

At the end of 1904, Mr. D. Fisher received the post of First Sea Lord and organized the Design Committee, to which the most knowledgeable and influential people are responsible for the development and construction of ships for the Royal Navy. D. Fisher "managed to" push through "the rejection of medium-caliber artillery on battleships and armored cruisers: the committee members for the most part agreed on the need to arm the new armored cruiser 6 or 8 with 305-mm cannons. But the next problem arose - how to place this artillery on the future ship? The history of the selection of the artillery layout on the Invincible is a bit anecdotal.

The fact is that the committee at its meetings considered many different options for the arrangement of 305-mm artillery for an armored cruiser (knowing the extravagance of D. Fisher, we can assume that it was something extraordinary), but could not come to an agreement and the matter was stalled. Meanwhile, one of the chief builder’s subordinates, engineer D. Narbett, who was responsible for developing the details of the projects under consideration, repeatedly presented sketches of an armored cruiser to his boss, F. Watts, with weapons from only 305-mm guns. But the chief builder categorically refused to submit them for consideration by the Design Committee.

But a drop sharpens a stone, and some day F. Watts, who was probably in a particularly good mood, nevertheless took D. Narbett’s drawings with the promise to present them to the Committee. Just on that day, for some error, the meeting turned out to be without an agenda, so that the members of the committee could only disperse. At this point, F. Watts pulled out D. Narbett’s drawings, and D. Fisher seized on it in order not to disrupt the meeting. Having reviewed the submitted sketches, the members of the Committee chose the layout of artillery for both the battleship and the armored cruiser from those presented by D. Narbett.

True, for an armored cruiser, the first one, nevertheless, was considered option “A” - a project for the deployment of artillery presented by D. Fisher and Gard.



It was rejected because of the linearly elevated location of the feeding towers, which was still a little feared, and the excessively low height of the board in the stern. Next, consider the option "B"



It was abandoned because of doubts about the ship’s seaworthiness, which had two heavy 305-mm towers on the bow across the center plane of the ship. In addition, there was a weakness of the side salvo. What up to the project "C"



He was also accused of poor seaworthiness, although in this case the two bow towers were heavily displaced to the center of the ship. In addition, there was a weakness of fire in the stern (only one 305-mm tower) and this option was quickly abandoned. But the “D” scheme was considered by the committee members to be optimal, since it provided strong fire both on board and right on the nose, as well as on sharp nasal corners.



The diagonal arrangement of two “traverses” (i.e. located in the center of the hull) towers of the main caliber became the addition of this scheme, but the reasons for this decision are unclear.



One glance at the scheme suggests that the British hoped to achieve an eight-gun salvo in a narrow, roughly 30-degree sector. But sources say that the British initially did not want anything like that, but assumed that the turret tower could only fire on the opposite side if another turret tower was disabled. But there is an interesting nuance.

In the battle at Falkland, the British tried to shoot eight guns on board, but quickly discovered that the roar and the effects of muzzle gases on the tower closest to the enemy prevented her from firing to the utmost inability to fire. It was then that it was noted that shooting from the turret tower to the opposite side is possible only if the tower closest to the enemy is disabled. Accordingly, it is quite possible to assume that initially the Committee nevertheless counted on shooting from eight guns, but in practice this turned out to be unattainable.

Subsequently, the project "E" slightly improved - by lengthening the forecastle in the stern, in order to raise the traverse towers above sea level.



It was she who became the final for battlecruisers of the Invincible type.

It is also interesting that when choosing weapons schemes, the committee members discussed options for placing all the guns in the center plane, as well as placing the traverse towers closer to the ends, in order to provide an airborne volley of eight guns, as it was later done on New “Sealand” and German “Von der Tanne”.



But the first option was refused due to very weak longitudinal fire - only one two-gun tower could “work” in the bow, stern and on sharp course corners, which was declared unacceptable. As for the separation of the towers to the extremities, the committee recognized the usefulness of this innovation, but did not see the possibility of shifting the towers without changing the ship’s lines, and they were needed to achieve the 25-node speed.

From the standpoint of today, the layout of the Invincible’s artillery is considered unsuccessful and, of course, this is true. According to the results of the practice of the First World War, an unequivocal conclusion was made that, for effective shooting, it was necessary to have at least eight guns on board, while the shooting should have been done with half shots, i.e. four guns (the rest at this time reload). The use of fewer than four guns in the "half-silt" made it difficult to determine where the shells fell and, accordingly, to adjust the fire. At Invincible, in the same direction, only six guns could be fired, respectively, it could only fire three-guns, or shoot at them with full salvos, which delayed the shooting. The creators of the Russian and German dreadnoughts knew all this well before the First World War.

Why did members of the Design Committee not consider this?

The fact is that the Russian-Japanese war had a great influence on the tactics of artillery combat, which demonstrated, among other things, the ability to conduct effective fire (in fact - with great reservations, but nonetheless) at a distance in 70 cables. At the same time, according to pre-war views, the ships had to fight at a distance of no more than 10-15 cables.

So, in order to understand why Invincible turned out the way it turned out, we must remember that D. Fisher arrived at the concept of “all-big-gun” long before the Russian-Japanese war. His first offspring, the Dreadnought and Invincible, were developed during this war, when it was not yet possible to comprehend and draw conclusions from its battles. Suffice it to recall that the Tsushima battle took place on 27-28 in May of 1905 (in a new style), and the main drawings and detailed elaboration of Invincible were ready on 22 in June of 1905, that is, all major decisions on it were made much earlier. And these decisions were made on the basis of the pre-war practices of the British fleet, and not by the results of the analysis of the battles of Shantung and Tsushima.

And what were these practices?

To be continued ...

Previous articles of the cycle:
Errors of British shipbuilding. Linear Cruiser "Invincible".
Author:
85 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 22 January 2018 06: 55
    14
    Article plus! good
    One comment, Andrew. In theory, ship names are not translated when used in another language, but are only transcribed into the desired alphabet yes Therefore, “Unapproachable” and “Inaccessible” really hurt the eye, especially in the neighborhood with the correct “Invincible.” The fact that in the original language these are hard-to-pronounce names should not be confusing, because rules are rules request hi
    It seems to me that the British "ruined" the inertness of thinking, which is normally so adjacent to breakthrough ideas
    As a result, we received an unprotected ship against the background of actually raising rates. Neglected one of the parameters due to conservative views. The 152 mm armor, in principle, showed its effectiveness against 203 mm shells, as expected (Falklands), but an isolated case cannot be taken as proof of the concept. Because the "Invincibles" simply became the "victims" of the conservatism of the British fleet in their views on waging war at sea. The armored cruiser with its tasks ... albeit with a good club, but a thin skin. Because the cruiser must fight the cruiser. And at that time, the “invincibles” were the most powerful cruisers. But just cruisers to carry out cruising functions. When it came to the realization that the guys could be more serious on face, the fear of building a cruiser more battleships disappeared along with conservatism, because the following cruisers were already larger than battleships, but also much better protected (“Lyon”). All the same, 229mm will be more impressive than 152mm.
    So the reason lies more in the views and traditions than in common sense .... Fisher's innovations in one "brilliantly" leveled in the other request
    Personally, my opinion drinks hi
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      22 January 2018 08: 45
      +8
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Therefore, “Unapproachable” and “Inaccessible” really hurt the eye, especially in the neighborhood with the correct “Invincible.” The fact that in the original language these are hard-to-pronounce names should not be confusing, because rules are rules

      Good :))) It was me that was difficult to pronounce and embarrassed.
      Quote: Rurikovich
      It seems to me that the British "ruined" the inertness of thinking, which is normally so adjacent to breakthrough ideas

      Let's just say - 305 mm are non-alternative, 25 knots - too, but what to sacrifice in a displacement of 17 kilotons? The picture is made by little things - the British could not go on a more balanced project like Blucher say with 234 mm and increased armor after 305 mm on Tsukuba
      1. Trapperxnumx
        Trapperxnumx 22 January 2018 17: 36
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        the British could not go on a more balanced project like Blucher say with 234-mm and increased armor after 305-mm on Tsukuba

        That is, if I understood correctly, Russia could build ships only against Germany in the Baltic, Austria-Hungary against Italy and so on, but Britain had to take into account all these countries at once - Russia, Italy and distant Japan)) )))
        Yes, it’s not enough to be a leader, you still have to hold this title, and with so many applicants it’s a very difficult task.
        Thank you very much for the article, as always!
      2. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 22 January 2018 18: 31
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        It was me who was difficult to pronounce and embarrassed.

        It’s better to read “Impregable” and “Inakesible” (all the more so, these names are purely projects, but not planned ships wink ) than "Kaiserin und Könegin Maria Theresa" laughing
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Let's just say - 305 mm are non-alternative, 25 knots - too, but what to sacrifice in a displacement of 17 kilotons?

        Let's not forget the cruising range. Although the British certainly were not going to sacrifice this laughing In my opinion, it was just necessary to go to increase the displacement. Indeed, in the next generation, they were not afraid to make the cruiser an order of magnitude more battleships (Lyon). That's why “invincibles” turned out because of the framework for which they did not dare to go request
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        The picture is made by little things - the British could not go on a more balanced project like Blucher say with 234 mm and increased armor after 305 mm on Tsukuba

        Agree yes He doesn’t roll out to create a ship to fight what’s being created to you, when the sun never sets on the British Empire, and therefore opponents can be on the other side of the world, so it’s worth it to play all-in, getting something more powerful all his classmates smile
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          22 January 2018 22: 42
          +5
          Quote: Rurikovich
          Well, it’s better to read “Impregable” and “Inakesible” (all the more so these names are purely projects, but not planned wink ships at all) than “Kaiserin und Könegin Maria Theresa”

          Yes? :)))) And for me, so kaiserin / kenigin is much more melodic at times :))))
          Quote: Rurikovich
          In my opinion, it was just necessary to go to increase the displacement.

          Practical opinion ... They got angry at the Dreadnought, and said that this is not necessary, but if the cruiser is bigger than the Dreadnought
          1. Rurikovich
            Rurikovich 22 January 2018 23: 33
            +3
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            They got angry at the Dreadnought, and said that this is not necessary, but if the cruiser is larger than the Dreadnought

            That's it !!!! fellow
            To drink - so cognac! Sleep - so with the queen! wink
            If you break stereotypes, break them to the end and make sure that what is embodied in a new guise turns out to be perfect .... Conservatism? Traditions?! Ugh on them, if you can have perfection that can overthrow the obsolete and raise you to the top !!! winked .
            Psychology, 5th grade school laughing
            The British could not break the shackles of conservatism at the right time, in the end ..... "Invincible" request
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            And for me, so kaiserin / kenigin at times more melodious :))))

            yes drinks Imagine if they write in books:
            "A pair of fighter jets took off from the Lucky Crane and set off to patrol the sector from which the probability of the appearance of American torpedo bombers was the highest" wink repeat
            I look forward to continuing !!!! With all respect, Andrew hi
    2. Vladislav 73
      Vladislav 73 25 January 2018 03: 33
      +1
      Quote: Rurikovich
      When it came to the realization that the guys could be more serious on face, the fear of building a cruiser more battleships disappeared along with conservatism, because the following cruisers were already larger than battleships, but also much better protected (“Lyon”). All the same, 229mm will be more impressive than 152mm.

      Well, yes, yes, yes ... When Fisher was given the “Admiralty” “drive” for a short while at the beginning of the Great War, Royal Neavy got five ships at the exit, which they did not know what to do with later. were designed as an “improved Invincible” all with the same 152 mm of armor in the original version. The entire service of which during the interwar period passed under the banner of countless upgrades, enhanced reservations. And 3 linear-light cruisers belay "Furyes", "Glories", "Koreizhes" - this is generally something .... Battleship weapons with the protection of a light cruiser belay
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Fisher's innovations in one brilliantly leveled in another

      Rather, ideas are fixed, like "speed is the best defense!" Well, or the so-called "Baltic Project", under which the technical characteristics of similar "innovative" ships were customized, the "scope" of which, it seemed, was not really known to anyone, not even their mastermind Fisher! When the "white elephants" came into operation, (and this happened a couple of months after the battle of Yutland memorable for the British), Admiral Beatty generally said that he refused to lead them into battle! What can I say, a very "useful" replenishment of the fleet! hi
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 25 January 2018 06: 27
        +1
        Quote: Vladislav 73
        . When at the beginning of the Great War Fisher was given a brief “steer” by the Admiralty, at the exit, Royal Navy received five ships, which they later did not know what to do.

        This is about the role of personality in history. The appearance of “light battlecruisers” brought to the point of absurdity is a “merit” exclusively of Fisher, and not common sense wink hi
        1. Vladislav 73
          Vladislav 73 25 January 2018 17: 45
          +1
          Yes, that’s exactly what I wanted to say - any idea can be brought to absurdity! what Although common sense refuses not only individuals but also entire collectives. Well, for example, in the USA, after the development of North Caroline and South Dakota type LCs, the Fleet General Council set the task of designing a high-speed battleship (in the end, “Iowa”). But consideration in January 1938 of 6 pre-draft projects brought a lot of surprises, because the design exercises looked extremely extravagant - with the most powerful weapons - 12 406 mm guns of the main gun and great speed - 35,5 knots, the defense against this background looked just wretchedly - 203 mm thick armored belt! And this is for ships with a standard displacement (in different versions) from 49 350 t to 50 950 t belay In fact, these “cruiser fighters” were the concept of Admiral Fisher, which was brought to the point of absurdity. Of course, all these options were not even seriously considered. But as an example, this is very revealing - common sense sometimes refuses not only individual “personalities in history”, but also the whole "creative" teams! laughing hi
          1. Rurikovich
            Rurikovich 25 January 2018 18: 03
            +1
            Quote: Vladislav 73
            But the consideration of 1938 pre-draft projects in January 6 brought a lot of surprises, because the design exercises looked extremely extravagant - with the most powerful weapons - 12 406 mm guns of the main gun and tremendous speed - 35,5 knots, the defense against this background looked just wretched - the armored belt was thick 203 mm! And this is for ships with a standard displacement (in different versions) from 49 350 t to 50 950 t

            Well, here you still need to find out the thickness of the decks. If you shoot at maximum distances, then, in principle, decks play a big role. Even 203mm side armor is enough for projectiles falling at a large angle. So if such an option was considered, then only for certain conditions of use request
            And yes, the idea is extravagant. yes
            Quote: Vladislav 73
            But as an example, it is a very revealing one - common sense sometimes refuses not only individual "personalities in history", but also entire "creative" groups!

            Yes, there are already whole nations with no head friends winked
            hi
            1. Vladislav 73
              Vladislav 73 25 January 2018 18: 38
              +1
              Quote: Rurikovich
              So if such an option was considered, then only for certain conditions of use

              No, I said that the Fleet’s General Council was smart enough not to seriously consider these options. But with regards to the British, I really liked the British Admiralty’s Memorandum regarding criticism of Ripals and Rinaun. It’s clear that Fisher’s creations had to be used somehow, but here’s how and where? Well, the Memorandum dotted the “and”: Line cruisers were recognized as useful, BUT only against the light forces of the fleet! It was also stated that they were unlikely to ever be able to use their 15 dm GK , since in no case E must engage in any lengthy battle with the enemy’s LK and LKR! Well, what can I say, surprisingly “useful” ships! By the way, all these reservations are very reminiscent of the restrictions on the use of Russian “Sevastopol”. This is about the word “friendship with the head” peoples, collectives and individuals hi
              1. Rurikovich
                Rurikovich 25 January 2018 18: 53
                +1
                Quote: Vladislav 73
                : The battle cruisers were recognized as useful, but only against the light forces of the fleet! It was also stated that they were unlikely to ever be able to use their 15 dm GK at all, since in no case should they engage in any lengthy battle with enemy LK and LKR!

                Well, in fact, such restrictions would be applicable to extravagant ideas in the United States, if they were embodied in metal smile
                So leave the ideas of Fisher history drinks hi
                1. Vladislav 73
                  Vladislav 73 25 January 2018 19: 10
                  +1
                  Quote: Rurikovich
                  So leave the ideas of Fisher history

                  I agree! In addition, it’s generally very interesting to study, compare, just read about it! Well, one idea of ​​Fisher - “Dreadnought” certainly belongs to history! hi
                  1. Rurikovich
                    Rurikovich 25 January 2018 19: 49
                    +1
                    Quote: Vladislav 73
                    Besides, it’s generally very interesting to study, compare, just read about it.

                    Well, the continuation of this topic still follows, so discussions are yet to come. wink
    3. yehat
      yehat 8 February 2018 15: 35
      0
      I am more confused by the incorrect Good Hoop transliteration. I almost messed up the ship
      Good Hope is correct. In any case, it is useful to indicate the original Good Good hope ’
      or "Invincible"
  2. soldier
    soldier 22 January 2018 08: 03
    17
    Specific goals - imperial, control of the colonies.
    Speed ​​dominated the booking.
    Ships with all the minuses were universal and served well
  3. demiurg
    demiurg 22 January 2018 10: 12
    +2
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

    Let's just say - 305 mm are non-alternative, 25 knots - too, but what to sacrifice in a displacement of 17 kilotons? The picture is made by little things - the British could not go on a more balanced project like Blucher say with 234 mm and increased armor after 305 mm on Tsukuba

    One could sacrifice the number of towers. Or switching to 10 "
    The fact that these cruisers climbed to fight with battleships could not be guessed, no matter what tasks he was prescribed. No admiral will be forgiven for having ships with 10-12 "guns and not putting them in line.
    By the way, why did Europe hold onto two-gun towers for so long?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      22 January 2018 10: 45
      +6
      Quote: demiurg
      One could sacrifice the number of towers.

      They thought about it, but did not find acceptable accommodation.
      Quote: demiurg
      Or switching to 10 "

      This decision lost 305 mm Tsukube
      Quote: demiurg
      By the way, why did Europe hold onto two-gun towers for so long?

      So comfortable they are :))))
      1. prodi
        prodi 22 January 2018 12: 46
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Quote: demiurg
        One could sacrifice the number of towers.

        They thought about it, but did not find acceptable accommodation.

        and why not make one three-gun middle tower?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          22 January 2018 13: 01
          +3
          Quote: prodi
          and why not make one three-gun middle tower?

          And where to put it? If in the center of the hull - then only 2 guns will be able to fire in the bow and stern and at sharp heading angles, and this is considered insufficient for the cruiser
          1. prodi
            prodi 22 January 2018 13: 28
            +1
            with "small tacks" (do not hit, I am not naval) it would be even better than the regular one (three-gun tower is wider). An advantage in general in everything except redundancy of trunks, and even that, rather, is nominal
        2. Trapperxnumx
          Trapperxnumx 22 January 2018 17: 40
          +2
          Quote: prodi
          and why not make one three-gun middle tower?

          Judging by the submitted projects, such a bright thought of the Lords did not even visit))))
          1. Amurets
            Amurets 23 January 2018 00: 42
            +1
            Quote: Trapper7
            Judging by the submitted projects, such a bright thought of the Lords did not even visit))))

            She did not visit our admirals, since the first question was cheapness and, in the last turn, expediency.
      2. Snakebyte
        Snakebyte 26 January 2018 11: 13
        0
        In addition, there was a point of view that, with a larger number of guns in the tower, the ship would lose more in firepower when one tower failed.
        The Japanese built 4 six-tower battleships, the apogee in general was the seven-tower "Agencourt" (or correctly, "Agecourt"?).
    2. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 22 January 2018 18: 07
      +3
      Quote: demiurg
      By the way, why did Europe hold onto two-gun towers for so long?

      Europe did not particularly hold on to two-gun towers .... Each country developed gun battleships based on their views on what should be in their fleets to achieve their goals. Russia, Italy and Austria-Hungary immediately began with three-guns. Germany and England were content with two pieces. The French in their style came to the need for four-gun towers. Therefore, it is not worth talking about the uniformity of views in Europe
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        22 January 2018 21: 05
        +3
        Quote: Rurikovich
        The French in their style came to the need for four-gun towers.

        Well, strictly speaking, their four-guns were essentially a pair of two-guns :)))) Although ... as for their superdreadnoughts, I don’t remember. Richelieu with Dunkirks - for sure
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 22 January 2018 21: 33
          +2
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          their four-guns were essentially a pair of two-guns :)))) Although ... here about their superdreadnought - I do not remember.

          On the "Normandy" were supposed to be in each tower two cradles, each with two trunks. yes
      2. yehat
        yehat 8 February 2018 15: 43
        0
        it’s not just a matter of opinion.
        the only country that made successful 4 gun turrets was France,
        although many have tried.
        A 2-gun turret is one of the simplest and most reliable solutions, which usually ended.
        The Japanese, not particularly worried, made to 2 world ships with 5 2-gun turrets
        and it turned out to be a completely normal solution
        although personally it seems to me that in comparison with Richelieu this sucks.
    3. Lexus
      Lexus 22 January 2018 19: 31
      +3
      By the way, why did Europe hold onto two-gun towers for so long?

      Due to weight and size restrictions, only such a scheme made it possible to place an inter-armored armored partition and individual aiming systems, which avoided the simultaneous failure of all guns with one hit. hi
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        22 January 2018 21: 03
        +2
        Quote: lexus
        only such a scheme made it possible to place an inter-system armored partition and individual aiming systems

        Nope. We had three-guns in different cradles, no problem. And about the fact that one gun was knocked out, and the second shot - during the entire 2 world wars EMNIP once this happened. Usually, hitting the tower still incapacitated it (if the ammunition worked properly)
        hi
        1. Lexus
          Lexus 22 January 2018 21: 20
          +2
          Nope. We had three-guns in different cradles, no problem

          Well, Duc, our towers were located on the axis between the stem and the stem. And they had central towers on the sides.
          And about the fact that one gun was knocked out, and the second shot - during the entire 2 world wars EMNIP once this happened. Usually, hitting the tower still incapacitated it (if the ammunition worked properly)

          Now I have raised a serious topic ... At least, it was thought so. Well, or, if the shutter is not fully closed, or with overhangs, they went too far. hi
          1. Amurets
            Amurets 23 January 2018 01: 21
            +1
            Quote: lexus
            Now I have raised a serious topic ... At least, it was thought so. Well, or, if the shutter is not fully closed, or with overhangs, they went too far.

            An explosion, as happened in the tower of the cruiser Senyavin.
            Explosion of the tower on the cruiser Admiral Senyavin



            June 13, 1978 KRU "Admiral Senyavin" conducted training firing. Only one tower led the fire (No. I); the second was mothballed and had no personnel. Used practical shells (that is, without explosives) and low-combat charges. After eight successful volleys, on the ninth, the right gun did not fire. Such a case was foreseen, and two locks automatically turned on, which did not allow opening the shutter. However, the calculation turned off the locks, opened the shutter, and the tray with the next charge was set to the charging position. As a result of the automatic inclusion of the drive, the striker sent a new shell into the gun’s chamber, crushing the charge in it, and it ignited. A stream of hot gases through the gap between the shell sent and the gun’s chamber broke into the fighting compartment. The old shell flew out of the barrel and fell into the water 50 meters from the ship, and the new shell flew back into the fighting compartment. A fire broke out in the tower. By order of the commander of the ship, captain of the 2nd rank V. Plakhov, the cellars of I and II towers were flooded. The fire was extinguished by regular fire extinguishing means, but everyone who was in the first tower, including the correspondent of the newspaper Krasnaya Zvezda, captain of the 2nd rank L. Klimchenko, died. Of the 37 dead, 31 people were poisoned by carbon monoxide, three drowned during the flooding of the cellars and three were fatally injured.

            By order of the Minister of Defense, the commander of the cruiser and his deputy for political affairs were removed from their posts and appointed with demotion. The same thing happened with the commander of the artillery warhead, Captain Lieutenant A. Shubin. The commander of the unit, Rear Admiral V. Varganov, was warned by the Minister of Defense of incomplete official compliance, and other officials received penalties. http://wunderwafe.ru/Magazine/MK/1998_02/13.htm
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 23 January 2018 11: 29
              +1
              Quote: Amurets
              An explosion, as happened in the tower of the cruiser Senyavin.

              Or like on the "Marat" in 1933, when at the next firing again the delay time for opening the lock during a long shot was not sustained. The calculation of the gun prematurely opened the lock - and the charge flashed, "spitting out" the burning powder in the tower. 68 dead, including calculations of neighboring guns of the tower. The tower is out of order.
              During the investigation, it was revealed that there were other low-quality charges in the cellars of the medical complex: some of them were rendered unusable due to inappropriate storage conditions, and some were factory defective.
              1. Amurets
                Amurets 23 January 2018 12: 19
                0
                Quote: Alexey RA
                During the investigation, it was revealed that there were other low-quality charges in the cellars of the medical complex: some of them were rendered unusable due to inappropriate storage conditions, and some were factory defective.

                I agree. therefore, there were special requirements for the storage and use of gunpowder.
      2. Amurets
        Amurets 23 January 2018 01: 06
        +3
        Quote: lexus
        Due to weight and size limitations, only such a scheme allowed to place an inter-armored armored partition and individual aiming systems,

        In the towers of the Putilov factory designed and installed on the Black Sea battleships there were partitions between each 12 "gun.
  4. sd68
    sd68 22 January 2018 11: 12
    +1
    The diagonal arrangement of two “traverses” (i.e. located in the center of the hull) towers of the main caliber became the addition of this scheme, but the reasons for this decision are unclear.

    Perhaps in order to disperse the load on the hull along the length of the ship
    Or for the convenience of placing cellars.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      22 January 2018 11: 14
      +2
      Quote: sd68
      Perhaps in order to disperse the load on the hull along the length of the ship

      not in this case - all the same, the towers and the artillery cell are practically in one place
      1. sd68
        sd68 22 January 2018 11: 45
        +1
        not entirely in one. The towers are slightly offset in length, which means that the application of load is dispersed and less load on the case, which is especially important in the center. Look at the picture, how the load application area expands and the load on the housing elements in this area decreases almost twice by eye.
        You need to look at the cellar on the diagram - is it possible to place them without shifting the towers or at the same time two will not fit next, therefore they moved
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          22 January 2018 12: 13
          +2
          Quote: sd68
          Look at the picture - how the load application area expands

          so the fact of the matter is that if you look at the cellars - it was what it was and remains (the cellars occupy much more inside the ship than the area of ​​the tower itself from above). Just the towers and cellars in the same area of ​​accommodation changed their position
          1. sd68
            sd68 22 January 2018 15: 45
            +1
            The tower itself weighs a lot, and is located high.
            If the cellars remained exactly the same as they would be when the towers were located without displacement, there may still be an explanation of the location for the rational use of the volume of the cellars — the elevator is not centered.
            but these are all just possible explanations
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              22 January 2018 21: 06
              +2
              Quote: sd68
              If the cellars remained exactly the same as they would be with the location of the towers without displacement

              As I understand it, they swapped places with towers a little
      2. Amurets
        Amurets 22 January 2018 11: 49
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        not in this case - all the same, the towers and the artillery cell are practically in one place

        IMHO. True, you have already noted this in the article. Reduce the effects of gases from one tower on another when firing on one side of the traverse towers. This option of placing towers was considered during the design of Sevastopol, but it was abandoned, even at the design stage, due to the proximity of the cellars to the sides.
  5. Scaffold
    Scaffold 22 January 2018 11: 25
    +3
    In France, only ships of the "Waldeck Russo" type (23,1-23,9 knots) possessed something similar, but they were laid at the end of 1905 and 1906, and of course, in 1903-1904 they could not know about them.

    Controversial statement. The project, of course, was developed before the bookmark, and intelligence should not doze off. wink

    The fact is that the committee at its meetings considered many different options for the location of 305-mm artillery for an armored cruiser (knowing the extravagance of D. Fisher, we can assume that this was something unusual)

    It’s for such witty comments that we love your articles, Andrey! hi drinks
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      22 January 2018 12: 11
      +2
      Quote: Scaffold
      Controversial statement. The project, of course, was developed before the bookmark, and intelligence should not be asleep

      I don’t know when exactly Waldek began to be developed, but I doubt very much that it should be before 1905. However, your version also has the right to life :)
      Quote: Scaffold
      It’s for such witty comments that we love your articles, Andrey!

      Thank!:) drinks
  6. igordok
    igordok 22 January 2018 13: 54
    +1
    Thank you.
    At times I play "World of Warships". The diagonal arrangement of two "traverse" towers on some ships very often causes a headache. It is clear that a game is a game, but information is never superfluous.
  7. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 22 January 2018 14: 28
    +2
    More than in Wicca - thanks for the selection.
    It should be noted that a similar arrangement of guns was used on battleships of the Kaiser type (Kaiser-Klasse 1910), which is quite justified for battleships.
    Option E with turbines.
  8. Miner
    Miner 22 January 2018 14: 33
    +2
    Well, Comrade Andrei got to the battle cruisers with his Analysis!
    Great!

    Solve the question:
    "The use of less than four guns in the" half-salvo "made it difficult to determine where the shells fell and, accordingly, to adjust the fire."

    Is it possible in more detail? What does it mean "difficult"?
    Three bursts (explosions) is not enough? And why?

    The fact itself is not even trying to dispute. For starting from the 80s. last century, on the example of "Ripalsa" read about it. But nowhere do they write what the essence of this issue is and why three shells are not enough, but four - just right.

    So our Expert kept silent about this ... :(


    PS
    Signature to article: "Author: Andrey from Chelbinsk"
    I’ll venture to suggest that probably all the same from Chelyabinsk :-) well, of the very one where the famous “Tractor” has been since childhood and in which men lace up their boots with reinforcement ;-)

    I apologize...
    1. prodi
      prodi 22 January 2018 14: 47
      0
      a little sideways, in general let me doubt that the concept of "Dreadnought" is absolutely correct.
      I see no particular problems for guns smaller than the (main) caliber, to shoot both further than the main one, and to imitate the shooting of the main one. Those. 4 trunks of a smaller gauge - was not an anachronism
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 22 January 2018 19: 40
        0
        Quote: prodi
        I see no particular problems for guns smaller than the (main) caliber, to shoot both further than the main one, and to imitate the shooting of the main one. Those. 4 trunks of a smaller gauge - was not an anachronism

        Problems 3:
        1. The adjustment for each of the calibers will have to be organized separately. Because already at the EDB "Lord Nelson" faced with the problem - how to distinguish bursts of 305 mm and 234 mm shells? And this means that it would be nice to have at least 4 guns of each of the calibers on board.
        2. On the second caliber, you need to have another SUAO.
        3. The penetration of the second caliber will be worse. Compare: BBS guns 234/50 for 5 km pierced 234 mm of armor. A BBS guns 305/45 at 9,1 km - 269 mm.
        1. prodi
          prodi 22 January 2018 20: 01
          0
          Yes, it’s convenient in any case: in case of simulating ballistics of the main caliber - everything is common, plus a bonus, shoot further, plus saving ammunition ch. caliber and rate of fire in the same sighting. The second caliber is significantly smaller than the main 305mm / 150mm, the armor penetration of the smaller does not count at all - there are different goals
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 22 January 2018 20: 10
            0
            Quote: prodi
            Yes, it’s convenient in any case: in case of simulating ballistics of the main caliber - everything is common, plus a bonus, shoot further, plus saving ammunition ch. caliber and rate of fire in the same sighting.

            That is, do 6 "gun with 12 ballistics?" What kind of projectile / shot should it be?
            Quote: prodi
            The second caliber is significantly smaller than the main 305mm / 150mm, the armor penetration of the smaller does not count at all - there are different goals

            The main goal of the line ship is the same line ship. All other goals are secondary to him. And if on the one hand comes LK with 8 * 12 "+ 16 * 6", and on the other - LK from 12-14 * 12 ", then the result is obvious. For the fate of the battle of LK is decided by the Civil Code.
            The real battle is not WoWs, where a pair of KP 6 "-8" with HEs and fires clogs the LC. smile This in real life can only be done with those LCs that were given an “advance” class, such as the Japanese four “Congo” (“Hiei” was put out of action by 8 “shells - but there the fire was fired at close range).
            1. prodi
              prodi 22 January 2018 21: 54
              0
              Quote: Alexey RA
              Quote: prodi
              Yes, it’s convenient in any case: in case of simulating ballistics of the main caliber - everything is common, plus a bonus, shoot further, plus saving ammunition ch. caliber and rate of fire in the same sighting.

              That is, do 6 "gun with 12 ballistics?" What kind of projectile / shot should it be?
              But in my opinion, it is still possible, although this must be laid in the design of both guns. As a last resort, make tables
              Quote: prodi
              The second caliber is significantly smaller than the main 305mm / 150mm, the armor penetration of the smaller does not count at all - there are different goals

              The main goal of the line ship is the same line ship. All other goals are secondary to him. And if on the one hand comes LK with 8 * 12 "+ 16 * 6", and on the other - LK from 12-14 * 12 ", then the result is obvious. For the fate of the battle of LK is decided by the Civil Code.
              The real battle is not WoWs, where a pair of KP 6 "-8" with HEs and fires clogs the LC. smile This in real life can only be done with those LCs that were given an “advance” class, such as the Japanese four “Congo” (“Hiei” was put out of action by 8 “shells - but there the fire was fired at close range).

              Well, maybe, although I thought that in real life it’s not the one who has the bigger caliber who wins, but who shoots better
    2. Bormanxnumx
      Bormanxnumx 22 January 2018 16: 41
      +3
      Quote: Miner
      The fact itself is not even trying to dispute. For starting from the 80s. last century, on the example of "Ripalsa" read about it. But nowhere do they write what the essence of this issue is and why three shells are not enough, but four - just right.

      Three shells in a sighting salvo, this is not enough, and the minimum number of "signs of the fall" to determine the "midpoint" of the salvo. Over 4 shells in the salvo made it difficult to observe the gaps (bursts could visually overlap), and therefore came to the optimal 4-shell sighting salvo.
    3. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 22 January 2018 19: 08
      +2
      Quote: Miner
      The use of less than four guns in the "half-salvo" made it difficult to determine where the shells fell and, accordingly, to adjust the fire. "

      The targeting method is called the “echelon.” Two pairs of guns fire the lead in advance (one pair shoots to the right of the imaginary lead line, the second to the left. When bursts are observed for (in front of) the target, the second pair starts shooting from a distance, correcting after observing bursts (reducing or increasing the distance for each pair of guns depending on the observation of bursts) When covering, the data is summed up and shooting is fired. Since the distances are quite large, observation of paired bursts is enough convenient for identifying shooting parameters.
      This method is faster than shooting with a “fork” for each pair.
      It was the "layered" method that the Germans used under Jutland, shooting and covering the British much faster. They subsequently in 1917 introduced him to the Grand Fleet.
      Paired volleys are the most optimal when adjusting the shooting hi
    4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      22 January 2018 22: 18
      +6
      Quote: Miner
      I would venture to suggest that probably all the same from Chelyabinsk :-)

      That's for sure :))) Alas, the laptop keys began to sink and it is not always possible to control the result :))) There were much worse mistakes - for example, somehow in the phrase “the SSBN launched simultaneously from all 16 missile silos” the word “launch” disappeared the letter "c", but at least I saw this when subtracting ...
      Quote: Miner
      But nowhere do they write what the essence of this question is and why three shells are not enough, but four - just right.

      In simple terms, the 1927 artillery shooting guide states that the cover is considered reliable if 2 shells fall in front of and XNUMX shells fall behind the ship. If only one shell falls behind (or in front of) the ship, then such a cover is not considered reliable (it may very well be that this one shell is a deviation, but in fact the volley gave a flight or undershot - depending on where the other two shells bumped )
      At the same time, which is characteristic, at long distances, falls behind an enemy ship are poorly visible, and are often taken into account as missing (i.e. if we see two falls in front of the ship, it means that the rest of the shells fell behind the ship). And everything complicates the fact that even a high-explosive projectile hit at a long distance may not be visible.
      So it turns out - we shoot 4 shells. We saw 2 falls in front of the ship (and all) - cover., Since the other 2 fell due to the ship or one hit, the second fell behind the ship - this is also a cover. We saw 2 in front and one behind the ship - the cover (the fourth either fell behind the ship, but we did not notice it or gave an unnoticed hit). This is all almost certain. And with three? We saw two falls in front of the ship - 50 to 50, either a cover or a shortage. They saw 2 in front of the ship, one after it - 50 to 50, either a cover or a shortage. In essence, a guaranteed cover is if you saw one shell in front of the ship, the second behind it, and the third gave a visible hit. Everything else is debatable.
      Quote: Miner
      and in which men lace up shoes with reinforcement

      But what, can it be somehow different? In principle, of course, you can tie bows with wire, but this is a day nursery garden, and the Chelyabinsk mosquito is not something that you cannot knock down — you will not even scratch it.
      1. Miner
        Miner 23 January 2018 09: 41
        +1
        This is the answer. Here is the Explanation!
        Thank you for it! Everything is clear and to the point.

        Comrades BORMAN82 and Rurikovich, thank you too!

        "men lace up boots"

        But what, can it be somehow different? In principle, of course, you can tie bows with wire, but this is a nursery garden, and the Chelyabinsk mosquito is not something you can’t get down with - you won’t even scratch it. "

        : D: D: D

        Thank you very much for the essence of the issue and for the humor :-)
        Regards, Andrei (Andreas) Miner


        PS
        And the topic of battlecruisers, even though their service was as short as lightning (from damned Falklands to Skagerrak (a fight in the Danish Gulf for obvious reasons - a little does not count)) always along with Tragedy and the Riddle of Tsushima was very interesting.

        And after all, everything has already been read, re-read many times and there can be nothing new, but it turns out that there is such a person who can calmly, thoughtfully and reasonably tailor new material, based on what would seem to have been known to everyone for a long time.

        This is Talent!

        I have said before that you should sit down for a dissertation, or even more ...
        I don’t refuse from what was said before, I rather only strengthened my opinion on your account.
        Do not blame me.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          23 January 2018 10: 18
          +3
          Quote: Miner
          Thank you very much for the essence of the issue and for the humor :-)

          You're welcome. Nice to answer a good person :)
          Quote: Miner
          This is Talent!

          No :))) Just mindfulness. In fact, the vast majority of sources have a lot of strange or unreasoned :))))
  9. Curious
    Curious 22 January 2018 14: 39
    +2
    "British Shipbuilding Mistakes."
    If you strictly approach the history of the development of military shipbuilding with such a pattern, then all the warships of all countries, created between about the middle of the XIX century, when they stopped building sailing battleships and until 1918, when the first in the world aircraft carrier of the classic layout, the British "Argus" "is a complete mistake. Almost none of the ships created during this period met the expectations placed on him. Rare exceptions are more likely to confirm the trend.
    1. sd68
      sd68 22 January 2018 17: 14
      +1
      what I wrote about in the last article of the cycle - technology developed too fast at that time
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      22 January 2018 22: 25
      +3
      Quote: Curious
      sheer mistake

      ??? The same Dreadnought was not a mistake. Royal Soverin. And many others - Lamprey, Albatross, for example
      Quote: Curious
      and until 1918, when the world's first aircraft carrier of the classic layout was commissioned, the British Argus

      Forgive me, but the first AV of the classic layout was Jose. Argus had a solid deck but - without a superstructure. But Jose had both of them (although the add-on was then sawn off for some reason)
  10. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 22 January 2018 14: 52
    0
    And the choice of 305 mm guns is justified - the arms race does not tolerate compromises.
    for example, Goeben had 280 mm guns and with the advent of the Empresses - he was inferior in the firing range:
    On January 8, during another exit, he ran into the new Russian battleship Empress Catherine the Great. Five volleys of "Göben", fired from the maximum distance, fell short-lived. The cruiser began to retreat, gradually increasing the distance. The Russian battleship developed its maximum speed and continued the pursuit for another 30 minutes, firing from 305 mm guns: the last volleys were made from a distance of 22,5 km. "Goeben" received only shrapnel hits and went to the Bosphorus.
    1. NF68
      NF68 22 January 2018 16: 02
      +3
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      for example, Goeben had 280 mm guns and with the advent of the Empresses - he was inferior in the firing range:


      The elevation angle of the main aircraft on most German battleships and battlecruisers was relatively small based on the conduct of battles mainly in the North Sea, where visibility for most of the year rarely exceeds 20 km. From that and a slightly smaller firing range. After the battle of Jutland, the Germans decided to provide a maximum firing range of 420 mm. GK for the newly developed battleships in 30 km.
  11. NF68
    NF68 22 January 2018 15: 58
    +2
    + + + + + + + + + +
  12. Taoist
    Taoist 22 January 2018 17: 24
    0
    Good job. Although, of course, our dances with a tambourine on the basis of afterthought smack of masochism. IMHO, most errors arose simply because there were no modeling systems then - by and large, even ordinary prototyping was neglected. Hence, there are so many schemes for the deployment of artillery of the Civil Code - they went through everything that is possible and impossible ... As a result, well, what did we all know in the end. Because a rational decision is really one.
    1. prodi
      prodi 22 January 2018 17: 39
      0
      pancake! What ?!
      1. Trapperxnumx
        Trapperxnumx 22 January 2018 18: 28
        0
        Probably the construction of high-speed battleships
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 22 January 2018 19: 55
          +1
          Standard Linear Elevation Ledger wink
      2. Bormanxnumx
        Bormanxnumx 22 January 2018 19: 52
        +1
        Quote: prodi
        pancake! What ?!

        The linearly elevated location of the towers of the Civil Code)
        1. yehat
          yehat 8 February 2018 15: 53
          0
          Well, not the fact that this is such a good decision
          in my opinion, the most successful solution was the French in Richelieu
          it can also be called linearly elevated, but the towers are far apart
          and the Russian battleships
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 22 January 2018 19: 54
      +1
      Quote: Taoist
      Hence, there are so many schemes for the deployment of artillery of the Civil Code - they went through everything that is possible and impossible ... As a result, well, what did we all know in the end. Because a rational decision is really one.

      At least 2:
      - linearly elevated in the nose 2x3 + in the stern 1x3;
      - linearly elevated in the bow 2x2 + linearly elevated in the stern 2x2.
      Plus, the French, with their linearly elevated nose 2x4 (and a large battery of station wagons on the fodder KU - for a short time that destroyer chased me smile ).
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 22 January 2018 19: 56
        0
        Changing the number of towers and guns in them does not change the scheme in principle ...
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 22 January 2018 20: 03
          0
          Yes ... but here, PMSM, another factor influenced - it was necessary to shove somewhere more and more anti-aircraft or universal guns. 4-6-8 anti-aircraft guns with a linear scheme still climbed - on the bridges and next to them. And when are these trunks 12-20? Yes plus MZA? Bet on BS GK? Then it turns out hemorrhoids with the supply of BP and with the remote aiming FOR.
          So I had to free the middle part of the ship from sweeping everything in front of its trunks BS GK. smile
      2. Potter
        Potter 22 January 2018 20: 25
        +2
        Well, also Italian 1x3 + 1x2 linearly - elevated in the bow and stern.
        And the English 1x4 + 1x2 linearly elevated in the bow and 1x4 in the stern.
        But there is only one sense - a linearly elevated arrangement.
        And the first to come to this were almost land author-Hungarians: 1x3 + 1x3 linearly elevated both in the bow and stern, then the USA repeated this in their 14 "battleships
  13. Potter
    Potter 22 January 2018 18: 59
    +4
    Thanks! Good sequel to the loop.
    In the interval between the exit of the units I read the monograph on the battleships of Germany - what a difference in approaches to the design of ships and what a striking result that appeared during the meeting of the two concepts in Jutland!
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      22 January 2018 22: 20
      +1
      Quote: Potter
      In the interval between the exit of the units I read the monograph on the battleships of Germany

      Hubby?
      1. Potter
        Potter 22 January 2018 23: 27
        +4
        Yes, Husbands. And the translation books about the pursuit of Harnhorst and Gneisenau, and of course the recollections of "On Derflinger ....." were recalled.
        If the British created in the class of battlecruisers very powerful in artillery, but "cardboard" armored cruisers, the Germans (and the Japanese) went along the path to the high-speed battleship.
        1. SASHA OLD
          SASHA OLD 24 January 2018 19: 54
          0
          Well, as I understand from what I read (though I only read Muzhennikov’s extracts and various analyzes of Jutland), the Germans still bother with vitality, which in the 2nd World War greatly played into their hands
  14. doktorkurgan
    doktorkurgan 22 January 2018 21: 15
    +1
    Pure IMHO: Fisher's initial ideas in terms of placing artillery on a promising armored cruiser were more or less realized on Rurik-2 ...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      22 January 2018 22: 20
      +1
      Quote: doktorkurgan
      Fisher's initial ideas in terms of placing artillery on a promising armored cruiser were more or less realized on Rurik-2 ...

      By quantity - perhaps, but by placement ... not at all :)))
      1. doktorkurgan
        doktorkurgan 22 January 2018 22: 52
        +2
        But the movement was quite in that direction!

        PS: I, in fact, about 10-dm GK + 7-8 dm. SK and strong frontal fire.
        1. SASHA OLD
          SASHA OLD 24 January 2018 19: 55
          0
          ABOUT! Modeler Designer, still in the pantry is a voluminous stack inherited from the uncle-moroman
  15. Nehist
    Nehist 23 January 2018 00: 09
    0
    Good day Andrew. It is strange that you did not mention Benedetto Brina. But it was he who first put forward the concept of a lightly armored high-speed ship with large-caliber monociber weapons. As far as I remember, Fisher, like Makarov, were big fans of his ideas. Could it be that LCR grew from there?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      23 January 2018 10: 20
      +2
      Quote: Nehist
      Good day Andrew.

      Same to you! drinks
      Quote: Nehist
      As far as I remember, Fisher, like Makarov, were big fans of his ideas. Could it be that LCR grew from there?

      Nope. This is the concept of the Admiralty, here Fisher did nothing new. I’m just writing about the fact that Fisher did not create the LCR concept - he picked it up from the Admiralty
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 23 January 2018 12: 49
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        that Fisher did not create the LCR concept - he grabbed it from the Admiralty

        But brought to the point of absurdity ... This is also a kind of talent ... In principle, any sound thought can be turned into its opposite simply by "missing the scale" ...
        "Jackie" whatever you say, was a man of completely choleric temperament that left its mark ...
  16. SASHA OLD
    SASHA OLD 24 January 2018 19: 27
    +1
    I read both parts, I’m really looking forward to the third, I’m not at all special at all, I’m purely a lover, but because of this I was doubly interested in reading
    Thanks, Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    hi from Surgut