Military Review

Errors of British shipbuilding. The battle cruiser "Invinsible". H. 4

84
In the last article, we examined in detail the technical characteristics of the Invincible project cruisers, and now we will see how they showed themselves in battle, and finally summarize the results of this cycle.


The first battle, with the Falklands, with Maximilian von Spee's German squadron, is described in sufficient detail in numerous sources, and we will not dwell on it in detail today (especially since the author’s plans for this article contain the idea of stories raider squadron von Spee), but we note some nuances.

Strangely enough, but despite the advantage in the caliber of guns, neither Invincible nor Inflexible had an advantage in firing range over German cruisers. As we have said, the firing range of the 305-mm artillery of the first British battlecruisers was about the 80,7 cable. At the same time, German tower installations 210-mm guns had about 10% more - 88 cable. True, the casemate 210-mm guns of the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau had a smaller elevation angle and could only fire on 67 cables.

Therefore, with all the inequality of forces, the battle did not become a “one-sided game”. This is evidenced by the fact that the British commander Stardi considered himself forced to break the distance and go beyond the reach of the German guns only later 19 minutes after the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau opened fire on British battlecruisers. Of course, he returned later ...

In general, during the battle of the German armored and English battle cruisers, the following became clear.

Firstly, the British didn’t succeed in shooting at distances close to the limit. In the first hour, “Inflexible” spent 150 shells at a distance of 70-80 cable, of which no less than 4, but hardly more than 6-8 was released along the “Leipzig” light cruiser, and the Gnezig, which closed the German column, and the rest - “Gnezig”, and the “Gnezig” cruiser, and the “Gnezig” cruiser, and “Gnezig”. At the same time, according to the British, 3 was achieved falling into the "Gneisenau" - so it is or not, it is difficult to judge, because in battle you often see what you want, and not what actually happens. On the other hand, the senior artillery officer of Infelksibla, Commander Werner, kept detailed records of the hits in Gneisenau, and then, after the battle, interviewed the rescued officers from Gneisenau. But it should be understood that this method did not guarantee a certain degree of complete authenticity, since the German officers, while accepting a mortal combat, were under severe stress, and yet they still had to fulfill their official duties. Lead with the timing of the effectiveness of the British shooting, of course, they could not. Assuming that the British managed to achieve 2-3 hits at Gneisenau during this period of battle with the expenditure of 142-146 shells on it, we have a hit percentage equal to 1,37-2,11, and this, in general, almost under ideal shooting conditions .

Secondly, we are forced to state the disgusting quality of British shells. According to the British, they achieved 29 hits at Gneisenau and 35-40 hits at Scharnhorst. In the battle of Yutland (according to Puzyrevsky), 7 needed large-caliber missile hits, the Black Prince 15 and the Warrior received 15 305-mm and 6 150-mm shells eventually died, as well, to destroy the “Defense”, although the team fought for cruiser still 13 hours. It is also worth noting that armored cruisers of the Scharnhorst type had armor, even slightly weaker than the Invincible battlecruisers, and the Germans did not use as many shells as squadron ships to even one British battlecruiser. von Spee. And finally, you can remember Tsushima. Although the number of hits in the Russian ships 12-inch Japanese "suitcases" is unknown, but the Japanese spent 446 305-mm projectile in that battle, and even if we assume a record 20% of hits, even then their total does not exceed 90 - but for the whole the squadron, while the armadillos of the Borodino type were protected by armor much better than the German armored cruisers.

Apparently, the reason for the low effectiveness of the British shells was their filling. According to the peacetime state, the Invincibles relied on 80 shells on 305-mm guns, of which there were 24 armor-piercing, 40 semi-armor and 16 high-explosive, and only high-explosive shells were loaded with Liddite, and the rest - black powder. In wartime, the number of shells per gun increased to 110, but the proportion between types of shells remained the same. Of the total 1 174 projectile, which the British spent on German ships, the high-explosive was only 200 (39 projectiles from Invincible and 161 from Inflexible). At the same time, every fleet sought to use high-explosive shells from the maximum distance, from which they did not expect to penetrate armor, but as they approached they went over to armor-piercing, and it can be assumed (although it is not known for sure) that the British used their land mines in the first phase of the battle, when the accuracy of their hits left much to be desired, and the bulk of the hits were given projectiles equipped with black powder.

Thirdly, once again it became clear that a warship is a fusion of defensive and offensive qualities, the competent combination of which allows it (or does not allow) to successfully accomplish the tasks assigned. The Germans fired very accurately in their last battle, having achieved 22 (or, according to other data, 23) hits in "Invinsible" and 3 hits in "Inflexible" - this is, of course, less than the British, but, unlike the British, the Germans This battle was lost, and it is impossible to demand that the barely injured English from the German ships battered in the trash. From 22, 12-X hits were made by 210-shells, 6-150-mm shells, and in 4 (or five) cases, the caliber of shells could not be determined. At the same time 11 shells hit the deck, 4 - side armor, 3 - unarmored board, 2 fell below the waterline, one hit the front plate of the 305-mm tower (the tower remained in the ranks) and another projectile interrupted one of the three "legs" of the British mast . Nevertheless, injuries that threaten the combat capability of the ship were not received by Invincible. Thus, the Invincible-type battlecruisers demonstrated the ability to effectively destroy old-style armored cruisers, inflicting decisive damage on them with their 305-mm projectiles at distances from which the artillery of the latter was not dangerous for the battlecruisers.

The battles at Dogger Bank and in the Helgoland Bay add nothing to the fighting qualities of the first battlecruisers of the British. When Dogger Bank fought "Indomiteble"



But he failed to prove himself. It turned out that the speed in 25,5 units is already insufficient for full participation in the operations of the battlecruisers, so in battle both he and the second “twelve-inch” battle cruiser “New Sieland” fell behind the main forces of Admiral Beatty. Accordingly, Indomiteble didn’t cause any harm to the newest German linear cruisers, but only took part in the shooting of the Blucher blinded 343-mm projectiles. Who also managed to answer with one 210-mm projectile, which did not cause any damage to the English cruiser (ricochet). Invincible participated in the battle in the Helgoland bay, but that time the British battlecruisers did not meet with an equivalent opponent.

Another thing - the battle of Jutland.

All three ships of this type took part in this battle, as part of the 3 squadron of battlecruisers under command of Rear Admiral O. Hood, who commanded the forces entrusted to him with skill and valor.

Having received an order to unite with David Beatty's cruisers, O. Hood led his squadron forward. He was the first to hit the 2 light cruisers of the reconnaissance group, and in 17.50, from a distance of 49, the cable Invinsible and Inflexible opened fire and inflicted heavy damage on the Wiesbaden and Pillau. Light cruisers turned away, in order to let them go the Germans threw destroyers into the attack. In 18.05, O. Hood turned away, because with very poor visibility, such an attack really had a chance of success. Nevertheless, Invincible managed to damage Wiesbaden so that the latter lost its course, which, subsequently, predetermined his death.

Then, in 18.10, on the 3 Squadron of the battlecruisers, D. Beatty's ships were discovered and, in 18.21, O. Hood brought his ships to the vanguard, taking up a position ahead of the flagship Lyon. And in 18.20, the German battle cruisers were discovered, and the 3-I squadron of the battle cruisers opened fire on the Lutzow and Derflinger.

Here we need to make a small digression - the fact is that during the war the British fleet re-armed with shells filled with Liddit and the same Invincible, according to the state, would have to carry 33 armor-piercing, 38 semi-armor-piercing and 39 high-explosive shells, and by the middle 1916 g (but it is not clear whether they managed to get to Jutland) a new ammunition set of 44 armor-piercing, 33 semi-armored and 33 high-explosive shells on the gun was installed. However, according to the recollections of the Germans (yes, Haase), the British also used shells filled with black powder in Jutland, that is, it can be assumed that not all British ships received liddit shells, and what exactly 3-I squadron of battle cruisers shot The author of this article does not know.

But on the other hand, the Germans noted that the British shells as a rule did not have armor-piercing qualities, since they exploded either at the moment of penetration of the armor, or immediately after the breakdown of the armor plate, without delving into the hull. At the same time, the force of the shells was quite large, and they made big holes in the sides of the German ships. However, since they did not penetrate the inside of the hull, their impact was not so dangerous as a classic armor-piercing projectiles would have.

At the same time, what is a leadit? This is trinitrophenol, the very substance that in Russia and France was called melinite, and in Japan - shimoza. This explosive is very susceptible to physical impact and could easily detonate on its own at the time of the armor breakdown, even if the fuse of the armor-piercing projectile was set at an appropriate delay. For these reasons, Liddit does not look like a good solution for equipping them with armor-piercing shells, and therefore, whatever the 3 squadron of the battle cruisers in Jutland would shoot, there were no good armor-piercing shells among its ammunition.

But if they had the British - and the final account of the Battle of Jutland could be somewhat different. The fact is that, joining the battle with the German battlecruisers at a distance of no more than 54 cable, the British quickly reduced it and at some point were no more than 35 cable from the Germans, although then the distance increased. In fact, the issue with distances in this episode of the battle remains open, as the British started it (according to the British) on the 42-54 cable, then (according to the Germans) the distance was reduced to the 30-40 cable, but later, when the Germans saw " Invincible ”it was from them on the 49 cable. It can be assumed that there was no convergence, but perhaps it still was. The fact is that O. Hood took an excellent position with respect to the German ships - due to the fact that visibility towards the British was much worse than towards the Germans, he saw “Lutz” and Derflinger well, but they didn’t see him. . Therefore, it cannot be excluded that O. Hood maneuvered so as to get as close as possible to the enemy, remaining invisible to him. To tell the truth, it is not entirely clear how he could determine whether the Germans see him or not ... In any case, one thing is for sure - for a while the 3 squadron of the battle cruisers was fighting "at one gate". Here is how von Haase, the senior artilleryman of Derflinger, describes this episode:

"In 18 h. 24 m. I fired at enemy ships of the line in the direction of the northeast. The distances were very small - 6000 - 7000 m (30-40 cab.), And despite this, the ships disappeared into bands of fog, which slowly stretched interspersed with powder smoke and smoke from pipes.
Watching the fall of the shells was almost impossible. In general, only undershoots were visible. The enemy has seen us much better than us. I switched to shooting at a distance, but because of the haze it did not help. Thus began an unequal, hard fight. Several large shells hit us and exploded inside the cruiser. The whole ship cracked at the seams and several times failed to get away from the covers. Shooting under such circumstances was not easy. "


Under these conditions, O. Hud's ships achieved superb success in 9 minutes, hitting the “Lutz” with eight 305-mm projectiles, and “Derflinger” - with three. At the same time, it was at this time that “Lutzov” received blows, which became, in the end, deadly for him.


The same "Lutz"


The British shells hit the Luttsov's nose under the armor belt, causing flooding of all the nasal compartments, and water was filtered into the artillery cellars of the nasal towers. The ship almost immediately took over 2 000 t of water, sat down on the 2,4 m and, due to the damage indicated, was soon forced out of service. Subsequently, it was these floods, which became uncontrollable, that caused the death of Lyuttsov.

At the same time, one of the British shells that hit the Derflinger exploded in the water opposite 150-mm guns No.1, which caused the deformation of the skin under the armor at 12 meters and filtered water into the coal bunker. But if this English projectile would have exploded not in the water, but in the corps of the German battle cruiser (which could well have happened if the British had normal armor-piercing projectiles), then the flooding would have been much more serious. Of course, this hit in itself could not have led to the death of the “Derflinger”, but recall that it received other injuries and, during the Jutland battle, took inside the 3 400 t body of water. Under these conditions, an additional hole under the waterline could well be fatal for the ship.

However, after 9 minutes of such a war, fortune turned to the Germans. Suddenly, there was a gap in the fog, in which, to its misfortune, Invincible appeared and, of course, the German gunners took full advantage of the opportunity presented to them. It’s not quite clear who exactly and how many got into Invincible - it is believed that he received 3 projectiles from Derflinger and two from Lutzoff, or four from Derflinger and one from Luttsov, but this could be and not so. More or less credible is only that first the Invincible received twice two shells, which did not cause fatal injuries, and the next, fifth shell landed in the third turret (traverse turret of the starboard), which became for the ship fatal. 305-mm German shell pierced the tower’s armor at 18.33 and exploded inside, causing a cordite fire inside it. There was an explosion that tossed the roof of the tower, shortly after which, in 18.34, the cellar detonation occurred, splitting Invincible in two.

Errors of British shipbuilding. The battle cruiser "Invinsible". H. 4

The death of "Invincible"


Perhaps there were more than five hits at the Invincible, because, for example, Wilson notes that from the German ships there were hits near the turret, which received a fatal blow, and besides, a shell could have hit the Invincible bilge, according to eyewitnesses, a pillar of fire rose. On the other hand, one cannot exclude errors in the descriptions - in battle, it is often not what is actually happening. Perhaps the force of the explosion of the ammunition of the middle tower was so strong that it detonated the bow cellars?

In any case, the battlecruiser Invincible, which became the subordinate of its class of ships, died under concentrated fire from German ships in less than five minutes, taking with it the lives of 1 026 sailors. Only six managed to save, including the senior artillery officer Dunreiter, who was at the time of the catastrophe at the time of the catastrophe on the mast in the central fire control post.

In fairness, it must be said that no booking would save Invincible from death. At a distance of a little less than 50 KB, even twelve-inch armor would hardly become an insurmountable obstacle against the German 305-mm / 50 guns. The tragedy caused:

1) An unsuccessful device of the under-squad units, which, when exploded inside the tower, passed the energy of the explosion directly into the artillery cellars. The Germans had the same thing, but after the battle at Dogger Banks, they modernized the construction of the sub-battalions, but the British did not.

2) The disgusting qualities of the British cordite, who was inclined to detonate, while the German gunpowder simply burned. If German gunpowder were in the charges of Invincible, then there would be a strong fire, and the flames from the doomed tower would rise to many tens of meters. Of course, all died in the tower, but the detonation did not happen and the ship would have remained intact.

However, let us assume for a second that the German shell did not hit the tower, or the British would use the “correct” powder and no detonation would occur. But according to the Invincible, two German battlecruisers fired, and the Koenig joined them. Under these conditions, we have to admit that, in any case, even without a “golden shell” (the so-called particularly successful hits that cause fatal damage to the enemy), was doomed to death or to complete loss of combat effectiveness, and only very powerful armor would give he has some chance of survival.

The second "twelve-inch" liner cruiser who died in Jutland, became "Indefatigebl." It was the ship of the next series, but the reservation of artillery of the main caliber and the protection of the cellars was very similar to the Invincible battlecruisers. As with Invincible, the towers and barbets of the Indefatigebla had 178-mm armor to the upper deck. Between the armor and the upper deck of the barbeque "Indefatigebla" were protected even slightly better than its predecessor - 76 mm against 50,8.

It was precisely the Indefatigeble that was destined to demonstrate how vulnerable the defense of Britain’s first battlecruisers at long distances was. At 15.49, the German Fonder der Tann battle cruiser opened fire on the Indefatigable - both ships were trailing in their columns and were supposed to fight each other. The battle between them lasted no more than 15 minutes, the distance between the cruisers increased from 66 to 79 cable. The English ship, having spent 40 shells, did not achieve a single hit, but “Fon der Tann” in 16.02 (i.e., 13 minutes after the order to open fire) hit “Indefatigeble” with three 280-mm shells that fell into it at the level of the upper deck in the area of ​​the aft tower and mainmast. The Indefatigeble failed to the right, with a clearly visible roll on the port side, while a thick cloud of smoke rose above it — besides, according to eyewitness accounts, the battle cruiser sank astern. Shortly thereafter, two more shells hit the Indefategable: both were hit almost simultaneously, in a forecastle and in the nose tower of the main caliber. Shortly thereafter, a high column of fire rose in the bow of the ship, and it was enveloped in smoke, in which large fragments of the battle cruiser could be seen, the 15-meter steamboat flying upside down. Smoke rose to a height of 100 meters, and when it dissipated, Indefatigebla was gone. 1 017 crew members died, only four managed to save.

Although, of course, nothing can be asserted for sure, but judging by the damage descriptions, the first shells hit the area of ​​the aft tower delivered a fatal blow to the Indefatigable. Germanic semi-slaughter-projectiles 280-mm guns “Fon-der-Tann” contained 2,88 kg of explosives, high-explosive - 8,95 kg (data may be inaccurate, as there are contradictions in the sources in this regard). But in any case, the gap even three shells weighing in 302 kg, trapped at the level of the upper deck, could not lead to a noticeable roll on the left side, and damage to the steering looks somewhat doubtful. In order to cause such a sharp roll and trim the shells should have fallen below the waterline, hitting the ship’s side below the armor belt, but the descriptions of eyewitnesses directly contradict this scenario. In addition, observers have noted the appearance of thick smoke over the ship - uncharacteristic for the appearance of three projectiles phenomenon.

Most likely, one of the shells, beating the upper deck, hit 76 mm with a barbet of the stern tower, broke it, exploded and caused the detonation of the stern artillery cellar. As a result, the steering was reversed, and water quickly began to flow into the ship, through the bottom punched by the explosion, that is why the roll and trim appeared. But the aft tower itself survived, so the observers saw only thick smoke, but not the flames of a break. If this assumption is true, then the fourth and fifth shells just finished off the already doomed ship.

The question of which of them caused the detonation of the cellars of the bow tower remains open. In principle, the 178-mm turret of the tower or barbet on the 80 cable could have kept the impact of the 280-mm projectile, then the explosion caused a second projectile that struck the barbet with the 76 mm inside the case, but this is not certain. At the same time, even if in the cellars of Inflexible there were not a British cord, but German gunpowder, and there was no detonation, all the same two of the strongest fires in the bow and stern of a battle cruiser would have resulted in complete loss of its combat capability and, probably, would still be destroyed. Therefore, the death of "Indefatigebla" is entirely attributed to the lack of armor, and especially - in the area of ​​artillery cellars.

The cycle of articles proposed for your attention is entitled “Errors of the British shipbuilding”, and now, summing up, we will list the main mistakes of the British Admiralty made during the design and construction of the Invinsible battlecruisers:

The first mistake made by the British was that they had missed the moment when their armored cruisers, in their defense, had ceased to meet their task of participating in a squadron battle. Instead, the British chose to strengthen the artillery and speed: the defense prevailed on anything not based on the tendency "and so it will come down."

Their second mistake was that, while designing Invincible, they did not realize that they were creating a new class ship and did not care at all about defining the range of tasks for it, or finding out the necessary tactical and technical characteristics to match these tasks. To put it simply, instead of answering the question: “What do we want from the new cruiser?” And then: “What should be the new cruiser to give us what we want from it?” The position “And let's create such the same armored cruiser, as we built earlier, only with more powerful guns, so that it would correspond not to the old battleships, but to the newest Dreadnought. ”

The consequence of this error was that the British did not just duplicate the shortcomings of their armored cruisers in the Invincible-type ships, but also added new ones. Of course, neither the Duke of Edinburgh, nor the Warrior, nor even the Minotaur were suitable for a squadron battle where they could get under fire from 280-305-mm armadillos. But the British armored cruisers were quite capable of fighting against their “classmates”. The German Scharnhorst, the French Waldeck Rousseau, the American Tennessee, and the Russian Rurik II did not have any decisive advantage over the British ships, even the best of them were roughly equivalent to British armored cruisers.

Thus, the British armored cruisers could fight against ships of their class, but the first battlecruisers of Great Britain could not. And what is interesting is that such an error could be understood (but not excused), if the British were convinced that the opponents of their battlecruisers, as they had done before, would carry 194-254-mm artillery, the shells of which Invinsible could still then confront. But after all, the era of 305-mm cruisers was opened not by the British with their Invincibles, but by the Japanese with their Tsukubas. The British were not pioneers here, they, in fact, pushed for the introduction of twelve-guns on the big cruisers. Accordingly, for the British, it was not at all a revelation that the Invincibles would have to face enemy cruisers armed with heavy weapons, which the defense “like the Minotaur’s” obviously could not withstand.

The third mistake of the British is an attempt to make a "good face on a bad game." The fact is that, in the open press of those years, the Invincibles looked much more balanced and better protected by ships than they were in reality. As the husbands wrote:

"... even in 1914, naval guides attributed to the Invincible battlecruisers armor protection throughout the waterline of the 178-mm main armored belt, and 254-mm armored armored turrets."


And this led to the fact that the admirals and designers of Germany, the main enemy of Great Britain at sea, were selecting the performance characteristics for their battle cruisers in such a way as to oppose not the real, but the English invented ships. Strangely enough, perhaps the British should have stopped the exaggerations in the bud, and made public the true characteristics of their cruisers. In this case, there was a small, but non-zero likelihood that the Germans would have started to “ape”, and, following the British, also began to build an “egg-shell, armed with hammers.” This would not, of course, strengthen the protection of the English, but at least level the odds in the confrontation with the German battle cruisers.

In essence, it is the inability of the British first battle cruisers of the first series to fight on an equal footing with ships of their own class, which should be considered a key mistake of the Invincible project. The weakness of their defense made ships of this type a stubby branch of naval evolution.

When creating the first battlecruisers, other, less noticeable errors were made that could be corrected if desired. For example, the main caliber of the “Invincibles” received a small angle of elevation, as a result of which the range of the 305-mm guns was artificially lowered. As a result, the Invincibles were inferior in their firing range even to the 210-mm turret guns of the last German armored cruisers. To determine the distance, even in World War I, relatively weak, “9-foot” range finders were used, which didn’t cope well with their “duties” at 6-7 miles and more. The attempt to “electrify” the 305-mm towers of the head Invincible was erroneous - at that time this technology turned out to be too tough for the English.

In addition, it should be noted the weakness of the British shells, although this is not a drawback exclusively to “Invincible” - it was inherent in the entire Royal the fleet. English shells were equipped either with liddite (i.e., the same chimose), or black (not even smokeless!) Gunpowder. Strictly speaking, the Russo-Japanese war showed that gunpowder as an explosive for shells had clearly exhausted itself, while at the same time, shimoza was overly unreliable and prone to detonation. The British managed to bring the leaddit to an acceptable state, avoiding problems with bursting shells in the trunks and spontaneous detonation in the cellars, but still the leaddit was of little use for armor-piercing shells.

The German and Russian fleets found a way out, filling the shells with trinitrotoluene, which showed high reliability and unpretentiousness in operation, and in its qualities was not much lower than the famous “shimoze”. As a result, by the 1914, the Kaiserlhmarin had excellent armor-piercing projectiles for their 280-mm and 305-mm guns, but the British had good armor-piercing after the war. But, again, the poor quality of the British shells was then a common problem for the entire British fleet, and not an “exclusive” disadvantage of the Invinsible design.

Of course, it would be wrong to assume that the first English battlecruisers consisted of only shortcomings. Invincibles also had dignity, the main of which was a superpowerful for its time, but a sufficiently reliable power plant, which informed Invinsiblam about previously inconceivable speed. Or recall the high "three-legged" mast, which allowed placing a command-range post at a very high altitude. But nevertheless, their merits did not make battlecruisers of the Invincible type a successful ships.

And what happened at that time on the opposite side of the North Sea?

Thank you for attention!

Previous articles of the cycle:
Errors of British shipbuilding. Linear Cruiser "Invincible"
Errors of British shipbuilding. The battle cruiser "Invinsible". H. 2
Errors of British shipbuilding. The battle cruiser "Invinsible". H. 3

List of used literature

1. Muzhenikov V.B. The battlecruisers of England. Part of 1.
2. Parks O. Battleships of the British Empire. Part of 6. Firepower and speed.
3. Parks O. The British Empire's Battleships Part of 5. At the turn of the century.
4. Ropp T. Creation of the Modern Navy: French Naval Policy 1871-1904
5. Fetter A.Yu. Linear cruisers such as "Invincible".
6. Site materials http://wunderwaffe.narod.ru.
Author:
84 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. arturpraetor
    arturpraetor 21 February 2018 15: 54
    +10
    Judging by the end of the article, we are waiting for a series of articles on German battlecruisers drinks
  2. DimanC
    DimanC 21 February 2018 16: 14
    +1
    ... "It was the Indefatigable who was destined to demonstrate how vulnerable the protection of Britain's first battlecruisers over long battle distances was ..."
    But the same Warspite showed the exact opposite when he described the circulation towards the enemy in the middle of the battle. I even liked the phrase from one source: ... "but the armored carcass stoically took this blow" ... Perhaps the most battered battleship of GrandFleet, in fact, did not lose in combat effectiveness.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 21 February 2018 17: 13
      +2
      Quote: DimanC
      But the same Warspite showed the exact opposite when he described the circulation towards the enemy in the middle of the battle.

      Duc ... the best battle cruiser for the North Sea would be the "Queen", which would have drowned a couple of knots. smile
      1. DimanC
        DimanC 21 February 2018 17: 42
        0
        To some extent, eventually became such a "Hood"
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 21 February 2018 17: 45
          +2
          Quote: DimanC
          To some extent, eventually became such a "Hood"

          The “thin” reputation was spoiled by his death from one volley of the enemy in the very first classic battle (I don’t consider “Catapult”). A sort of LCR under Jutland in a new way.
          But for “Korolev” one can always cite “Worspite” as an example of survivability (as much as two examples - he and the “Fritz-X” survived).
          1. DimanC
            DimanC 21 February 2018 18: 11
            0
            Well, this one fought for all the "queens" drinks
            1. Kibb
              Kibb 21 February 2018 21: 16
              0
              The queens fought for everyone in the two world wars, but “Hood” did not happen, although no one can still say why it exploded.
      2. Kibb
        Kibb 22 February 2018 09: 35
        0
        By and large, the fast-moving battleship is the ideal linear cruiser for any theater of war, and without any “second class” prefixes, as we can say, it is the German large cruisers and the Later Scharnhorsts. Undoubtedly, the Queens, the German LKR, the unfinished Ishmaels and the Hood can be considered steps to this (of course different for everyone.). And Hood, by and large, was quite a battleship at the time of construction, he was only late for the WWII, but outdated to WWII if it weren’t a golden bullet and a strange British cordite (ballistic gunpowder should not detonate in principle, if stored properly), it could well spoil the nerves of any modern battleship in WWII.
        1. DimanC
          DimanC 22 February 2018 16: 24
          +1
          In World War I, neither the command was ready for fleet battleships, nor technology allowed. From the point of view of the romance on the “battlefield,” that for Jelliko, that for Sheer, it didn’t matter 21 they had a knot or 31 — they acted in a single fig game in a single wake formation. In this case, 21 nodes are even preferable - events develop smoother, it is easier to respond. The commanders, apparently, purely psychologically were not ready to command a group of relatively small and autonomous formations. The British seemed to be reflecting on the creation of something that during WWII received the term "operational connection", but "could not." Yes, and the younger flagships, initiative and decisive, the same ones were accused of (by the way, if quite a lot is written about English, then the German younger flagships are clearly in the shadow of Scheer; maybe they weren’t so hot ...). The Germans, it would seem, having fewer ships, should have come up with some tactical uber-tricks, but their imagination did not extend more than to terror of non-combatants on the coast and this attempted to call into battle only part of the fleet, and the fastest, able to interrupt the battle by his desire. Which, by the way, under Jutland, happened when the "south run" smoothly gave way to the "north run". Beatty knew perfectly well about "support", and therefore did not break the contact, but could.
  3. saigon
    saigon 21 February 2018 16: 34
    +2
    About the battle of the Falklands, many called the cause of the lapel banal smoke from the chimneys that prevented the enemy from seeing, but not the impact of German artillery.
    Fight at Doger Banks - a bunch of strange English maneuvers, confusion with signals and other pranks, getting into Beatty's flagship and essentially losing control of the squadron. True shot BC Blucher missing all the others.
    I would like to see articles about the mistakes of the Germans, it would also be interesting.
  4. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 21 February 2018 16: 49
    +3
    Is it a mistake that the British battlecruisers of the Invincible type and the subsequent Inflexible type could not resist themselves and their German counterparts?

    Before the battle of Jutland, the British battlecruisers, taking advantage of the speed, fully controlled the outset, the development and withdrawal of the battle - the German battlecruisers, were forced to "escape" under the protection of the main forces, not hoping to deal with the British battlecruisers on their own.

    When the main forces of the German fleet, unable to cover the detachment of the German battlecruisers, the Blucher armored cruiser was lost (the Blucher died on January 24, 1915 at the Battle of Dogger Bank), solely because of a lack of speed and not defense. No one says that the cruiser was badly designed - only they put it in the wrong ships.
    Who studied the raids of the German and British battlecruisers, noticed that it was mainly the British battlecruisers who seized the initiative and pursued the German battlecruisers - so they completely justified their concept?
    In the context of the battle between the battlecruisers of Great Britain and Germany, the British project does not seem so disastrous before the battle of Jutland.
    Or were the British battlecruisers placed in battle conditions that did not match their security?
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 21 February 2018 18: 09
      +3
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      Who studied the raids of the German and British battlecruisers, noticed that it was mainly the British battlecruisers who seized the initiative and pursued the German battlecruisers - so they completely justified their concept?

      Do not forget about the quantitative factor wink
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      When the main forces of the German fleet, unable to cover the detachment of the German battlecruisers, the Blucher armored cruiser was lost (the Blucher died on January 24, 1915 at the Battle of Dogger Bank), solely because of a lack of speed and not defense. No one says that the cruiser was badly designed - only they put it in the wrong ships.

      Rather, the lack of the same battlecruisers. All the same, “Blucher” was no match for “linemen”. At the expense of speed, I would not argue, because according to some sources, the same Von der Tann made about 25 knots, which is almost equivalent to the same Blucher with its 25 knots ...
      But 180mm armor and 210mm artillery is already clearly not enough for the butts with "Lyons" yes
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      In the context of the battle between the battlecruisers of Great Britain and Germany, the British project does not seem so disastrous before the battle of Jutland.

      Yes, Dogger Bank has shown that the battlecruisers of the Germans are in no way inferior to the Aglitsky in squadron qualities, and the absence of hits in the Indomiteble and New Zealand delayed the recognition of the imbalance of these ships at a later time. hi
      1. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer 22 February 2018 09: 48
        0
        Quote: Rurikovich
        Rather, the lack of the same battlecruisers. All the same, “Blucher” was no match for “linemen”. At the expense of speed, I would not argue, because according to some sources, the same Von der Tann made about 25 knots, which is almost equivalent to the same Blucher with its 25 knots ...
        But 180mm armor and 210mm artillery is already clearly not enough for the butts with "Lyons"


        The same Raeder, considered this a mistake, and the withdrawal of the main forces of the fleet - to put it mildly, an erroneous decision of the command.
  5. Kibb
    Kibb 21 February 2018 16: 53
    0
    Quote: saigon
    About the battle of the Falklands, many called the cause of the lapel banal smoke from the chimneys that prevented the enemy from seeing, but not the impact of German artillery.

    There was even a trial, during which it became commonplace that he simply did not see the goal because of the smoke. Sterdy immediately claimed that he had no complaints. 210mm Ibls kept with a large margin, 280 on the verge, but 305 is gone
  6. Cartalon
    Cartalon 21 February 2018 17: 09
    +2
    Too critical, the British LK were sunk by German LK, which were specially built to drown them.
  7. sevtrash
    sevtrash 21 February 2018 17: 21
    +3
    Rather, the Washington Maritime Agreement interrupted the development of battlecruisers. It is debatable to call them a mistake precisely in British shipbuilding; the rest built them, and being second, third, etc. had the opportunity to do something better.
    In fact, the one who does nothing is not mistaken. And the degree of error is different, both in terms of costs and some results. Project 705 Lira - a mistake or achievement? More likely a mistake. A 941 Shark? Rather, a necessary necessity. Carriers of the Soviet Union? Like Queen Elizabeth? They all are, as it were, surrogates of real full-fledged catapult aircraft carriers. Zamvolt - a mistake or a new word in shipbuilding? Rather, the latter. As in due time and battle cruisers.
  8. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 21 February 2018 17: 25
    +1
    Or maybe it was worth comparing the performance characteristics of the English “Invisible” and the German “Von der Taan"? Ships were built almost simultaneously (the difference is 1-1,5 years). Displacement and dimensions are almost the same (German wider by 4,5 m). The German’s speed is 1-1,5 knots higher. But the German reservation is more substantial: 6450 tons against 3460 tons among the British. Well, etc.
    1. Kibb
      Kibb 21 February 2018 17: 33
      +2
      It won’t work out like that. The Germans built them for the well-known theater of war (the North Sea), the British did not succeed - they have a likely enemy the whole world and on any theater
    2. saigon
      saigon 22 February 2018 20: 40
      0
      According to military tests (though according to British information), German armor plates with an equal thickness of 20 percent were inferior in strength characteristics to English ones.
      And somewhere an interesting phrase came across - the main thing for the Germans was not to get it. and drown the English. About the breadth, it’s all about the docks, the British didn’t want to spend money on new ones, and the Germans built stable art platforms for battle in the conditions of the North Sea (short range).
      Although it seems like two MVs with a distance exceeding 110 cable one hit. The battleships of Cannigham rolled in the Italians (and here's the question - is it not by chance?
  9. 27091965
    27091965 21 February 2018 17: 40
    +3
    The first mistake made by the British was that they had missed the moment when their armored cruisers, in their defense, had ceased to meet their task of participating in a squadron battle. Instead, the British chose to strengthen the artillery and speed: the defense prevailed on anything not based on the tendency "and so it will come down."


    In principle, the British did not have a mistake in the first battlecruisers, the defense assumed counteraction to medium-caliber armor-piercing shells and large-caliber high-explosive shells, and participation in the squadron battle in the line was not supposed directly. It is worth considering the year when the first and second series of these battlecruisers were laid and when the first battlecruiser was laid in Germany.

    Their second mistake was that while designing the Invincible, they did not realize that they were creating a ship of a new class and did not at all bother with either defining the range of tasks for it, or finding out the necessary tactical and technical characteristics to meet these tasks.


    The range of tasks has been determined. Planned reduction of squadrons in the Far Eastern waters, Australia and the Indian Ocean. It was these cruisers who were to form the basis of the fleets in these waters. If necessary, they had to quickly move to the desired area and join together for joint action. This is described in the memoirs of D. A. Fisher. But their opponents turned out to be the German Navy, again I pay attention to the year of laying the ships. In the planned locations, they simply did not have rivals.

    Researchers at the Battle of Jutland from the US Navy write, citing documents and memoirs of officers of the German Navy General Staff, that the primary task in this battle was precisely the destruction of the British battlecruisers. It is difficult to determine whether this is true or not, but if it is, then, knowing the weaknesses of the British battlecruisers, they completed part of the task.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      21 February 2018 18: 07
      +2
      Quote: 27091965i
      In principle, the British did not have a mistake in the first battlecruisers, the defense assumed counteraction to medium-caliber armor-piercing shells and large-caliber high-explosive shells, and participation in the squadron battle in the line was not supposed directly.

      Nevertheless - it was assumed, if only here you will not refute Parks
      Quote: 27091965i
      In the planned locations, they simply did not have rivals.

      And where did the Japanese 305 mm cruisers go?
      1. 27091965
        27091965 21 February 2018 18: 27
        +2
        Nevertheless - it was assumed, if only here you will not refute Parks


        Good evening.

        I will not refute, a lot of books have been published both here and abroad. They hold various opinions on ships, shipbuilding programs and views on the actions of certain ships. Everyone draws conclusions and participates in discussions. It is difficult to determine which one is correct, although often we rely, in our reasoning, on the final result. But this is an interesting discussion. hi

        And where did the Japanese 305 mm cruisers go?


        They haven’t gone anywhere. Japan was an ally of England. If in terms of comparison with the British battlecruisers. The latter still had superiority in Japanese.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          21 February 2018 19: 15
          +3
          Good evening!
          Quote: 27091965i
          They haven’t gone anywhere. Japan was an ally of England

          Forgive me, but England has no permanent allies, but only permanent interests, so a confrontation with the Japanese was quite possible - not now, so in the future. The most important thing is that there were already cruisers with 305 mm artillery in the world and the question of their appearance in Germany itself was calculated for several years - in these situations not to plan collisions with such ships - "this is worse than a crime. This is a mistake" drinks
          1. 27091965
            27091965 21 February 2018 19: 51
            +2
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            in these situations, do not plan collisions with such ships - "this is worse than a crime. This is a mistake"


            It seems to me that excessive thirst for theoretical calculations of the battle of two ships failed them. For example, you can take a small theoretical calculation of the battle between an armadillo of the Royal Sovereign type and the Asama armored cruiser. They believed that the “Asama” would triumph because with its 8 inch guns, they would focus on the number of rounds per minute, disable the main caliber of the Royal Sovereign, and if it didn’t capitulate, they would finish it with torpedoes. In fairness, it should be noted that the British assumed that if an armadillo can achieve several serious hits, then the armored cruiser, taking advantage of the speed advantage, will have time to retreat.
            Such calculations, doubts that Germany would enter into rivalry with them and quantitative superiority made the British too self-confident and, as a result, led to a logical result. drinks
  10. Trapperxnumx
    Trapperxnumx 21 February 2018 17: 47
    +4
    Thank you so much for the article!
    And will there be an analysis of Ishmael?
    1. avt
      avt 21 February 2018 20: 13
      +2
      Quote: Trapper7
      And will there be an analysis of Ishmael?

      wassat And why not immediately about the space battleship ,, Yamato "from the cartoon?
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Again, even nothing special to say on the conclusions

      I am after an article in a story about the type of “How the Baltic Fleet was Saved.” I just had a rest reading and I don’t want to comment anything.
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 21 February 2018 22: 04
        +3
        Quote: avt
        I just rested reading and I don’t want to comment at all.

        Yes, there is nothing to comment on - the author perfectly expresses his opinion, multiplied by the excellent presentation of the material good yes Just a pleasure to read .... winked
    2. Kibb
      Kibb 21 February 2018 20: 55
      0
      There are no sensible materials on the Ishmaels. More technically, Vinogradov has figured it all out yet, but the question is why Noviki (or rather their later modifications - like Novik does not exist - it's one destroyer), Svetlana and Izmaili were always needed in the Baltic - documents on Bizerta, how claim lost during the revolution and civil.
    3. Gassdrybal
      Gassdrybal 22 February 2018 00: 37
      +1
      And I would read about the artillery of the link cruiser, the fire control system, as well as the pattern and thickness of the reservation, I like the words of Andrei from Chelyabinsk.
      1. Kibb
        Kibb 22 February 2018 13: 22
        +1
        This can be read from Vinogradov, about Gisler 10, Andrei has an excellent article ..
  11. Kibb
    Kibb 21 February 2018 18: 08
    0
    Quote: DimerVladimer
    solely for lack of speed, not protection

    But the fatal shell hit exactly where it was considered unlikely to be hit, otherwise the Blucher really had nothing to do there
  12. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 21 February 2018 18: 18
    +2
    Again, even nothing special to say on the conclusions request
    I agree with everything yes Ships come out as people think they are. So it’s not a matter of bad ships, but in the brains of those who come up with them for what purpose. After all, there were enough brains to receive later “queens”, wonderful for their time lol
    And of course, we will look forward to the opinion of the author on German ships fellow good drinks hi
  13. Taoist
    Taoist 21 February 2018 18: 19
    +2
    By the way, the question arises, in the description the propensity of cordite gunpowders to detonate all the time is mentioned ... while BC with lidditny shells should be much more prone to detonation than the charging compartment. And apparently it was the detonation of the shell cellars that eventually destroyed the ships. In general, of course, the British are originals in this regard ... then keep the guns with black powder in the BC when everyone has already switched to a much more powerful explosive and then rearm on the explosive whose instability was already more than obvious to everyone ...
  14. dgonni
    dgonni 21 February 2018 18: 22
    -1
    Actually, the electrification of the towers was in fact borrowed from the Russian project Rurik 2. And the Angles had problems with the Rurik when handing it over to the customer, due to the novelty for the British. They used hydraulic drives. However, the system turned out to be promising and, in theory, more reliable and light. What about the tasks that they had to solve? Then these linear cruisers were not planned to be used in linear battles on a par with dreadnoughts. Unlike the same Deutsche that provided for such actions of their ships.
  15. looker-on
    looker-on 21 February 2018 18: 47
    +1
    Hurray! Apparently, the following articles will be about the Germans! My favorite ships! Thank you, Andrey!
  16. Kibb
    Kibb 21 February 2018 20: 45
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Excuse me, but England has no permanent allies, but only permanent interests

    So what I’m constantly talking about - well, there’s no such luxury for them as the Germans have. The Germans can build specialized ships up to Bismarck - they have the main interest in the North Sea and a bit of the Baltic, but the British do not succeed, they need station wagons.
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 21 February 2018 21: 25
      0
      Quote: Kibb
      their main interest is the North Sea and a little Baltic

      Well... what ... "Deutschlands" looked clearly beyond the North Sea wink
      1. Kibb
        Kibb 21 February 2018 21: 47
        +2
        Deutschland Victims of Versailles wink and they’re certainly not battleships or battlecruisers tongue
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 21 February 2018 22: 01
          +1
          Quote: Kibb
          Deutschland Victims of Versailles

          yes
          At the same time, Versailles' strict restrictions forced them to turn on ingenuity, in the end, although they turned out to be unbalanced ships (although at that time, thanks to the Washington agreements, almost all remodels were like that), but with proper and skillful use, they could be used to remove cream from the enemy smile
          1. Kibb
            Kibb 21 February 2018 22: 13
            +1
            I have no doubt, but however, the discussion in this series of articles by Andrei is about British LCR. Extremely original pantserschiffe do not fall under the class LKR wink
            1. Rurikovich
              Rurikovich 21 February 2018 22: 24
              +1
              Then we must mention that we are talking specifically about the ships of the WWI, and not until "up to Bismarck" tongue
              1. Kibb
                Kibb 21 February 2018 22: 36
                +1
                And the Germans built capitalships from Nassau and Von der Tann (and all pre-dreadnoughts) to Bismarck / Tirpitz for the conditions of the North Sea and a bit of the Baltic, to plan Z wink
  17. pacific
    pacific 21 February 2018 22: 07
    +3
    Andrey, many thanks for the wonderful series of articles on British LCR.
    We look forward to continuing, now in the German LCR.
  18. Saxahorse
    Saxahorse 21 February 2018 22: 54
    +3
    Most likely, one of the shells, breaking the upper deck, hit a 76 mm stern tower barbet, shot it, exploded and caused the stern artillery cellar to detonate.

    Absolutely incredible guess! :) An inconspicuous explosion in the cellar is at the level of a Christian miracle. Fountains of fire and towers flying to the moon are usually visible from afar. Well, a hole in the bottom with so many explosives will certainly cause a huge fountain of water. The left roll is most likely caused by a sharp turn to the right. Thick smoke is more likely a sign of a fire in the boiler room, possibly with the destruction of oil tanks. Well and in time, at 16:02 the first blow and already at 16:05 the second blow and explosion. And who there could have time to see in three minutes how the ship of considerable size allegedly landed aft?

    As for the black gunpowder, the British surprised, if this is accurate information of course. Between gunpowder and TNT there was still pyroxisline not prone to detonation but which is three times stronger than gunpowder. The Russian fleet of the time of the REV used pyrocisline as an explosive.

    As for the conclusions from the series on British battlecruisers, I believe that with the "first" and "second" mistake the British need to agree. The author very well showed precisely the nonrandomness of the problem with the protection of the LCR. Its origins and the almost inevitability of the catastrophe that befell the first series of British LCR. Thank you so much. :)
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      22 February 2018 09: 46
      +1
      Quote: Saxahorse
      An inconspicuous explosion in the cellar is at the level of a Christian miracle. Fountains of fire and towers flying to the moon are usually visible from afar.

      Well, the towers didn’t fly away :)))) By the way, the description of the death of Indefatigable h-ski is similar to the description of the death of Borodino
      Quote: Saxahorse
      Well, a hole in the bottom with so many explosives will certainly cause a huge fountain of water

      She called - inside the ship
      Quote: Saxahorse
      And who there could have time to see in three minutes how the ship of considerable size allegedly landed aft?

      This is what testifies to the huge masses of water pouring into it.
      Quote: Saxahorse
      As for the black gunpowder, the British surprised, if this is accurate information of course

      There is Fetter in the list of literature, he wrote about it directly. In general, there is a lot of information that the British used powder shells, including the mention of von Haase
      Quote: Saxahorse
      The Russian fleet of the time of the REV used pyrocisline as an explosive.

      Smoke on Tsushima with smokeless powder as an explosive for 305 mm shells crying
      Quote: Saxahorse
      The author very well showed precisely the nonrandomness of the problem with the protection of LCR.

      Thank you!
      1. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 22 February 2018 23: 42
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Quote: Saxahorse
        Well, a hole in the bottom with so many explosives will certainly cause a huge fountain of water
        She called - inside the ship

        Even a shell with 40 kg of explosives gives a fountain above the pipes during an explosion. And there are ten tons of explosives in the cellar. I understand that we are only talking about an artistic digression in the description of the battle, but here it is worth adhering to logic and real physics.

        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Well, the towers didn’t fly away :))))

        I'm just trying to subtly hint that an inconspicuous cellar explosion is very unlikely, to say the least :) Your photograph of the Invincible death clearly confirms that the cellar explosion is visible from afar (like Indefatigable or Queen Mary)

        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Quote: Saxahorse
        The Russian fleet of the time of the REV used pyrocisline as an explosive.
        Smoke on Tsushima with smokeless powder as an explosive for 305 mm shells

        Sorry, but nevertheless it was pyroxisline and not black powder. And I remember that there was a lot of abuse about the increased humidity of pyroxylin shells of the 2nd squadron, which led to many hits without breaks.

        And by the way, yes, pyroxisline (like gunpowder) has some advantages over liddite (shimoza). Rupture of a projectile filled with pyroxisline (gunpowder) gives large fragments with significant energy. Those. they severely cripple the surrounding mechanisms and easily pierce a half-armor type 25-35 mm. But liddit (as well as shimoza), due to excessive brisance, carry the shell of the shell into fine metal dust. Which significantly reduces the striking capabilities of the projectile.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          23 February 2018 01: 47
          +2
          Quote: Saxahorse
          Even a shell with 40 kg of explosives gives a fountain above the pipes during an explosion. And there are ten tons of explosives in the cellar.

          Which are inside the enclosure :)))) And the explosion of which, in general, does not have to give a fiery fountain over the tower. However, I am afraid that this dispute will lead to nothing.
          Quote: Saxahorse
          Sorry, but nevertheless it was pyroxisline and not black powder.

          Sorry, but it was smokeless (not black) gunpowder, not pyroxylin.
          This was reported by the technical committee to the chairman of the commission of inquiry in the case of Tsushima battle

          Quote: Saxahorse
          And I remember that there was a lot of abuse about the increased humidity of pyroxylin shells of the 2nd squadron, which led to many hits without breaks.

          This is a bike that went for a walk with the light hand of a science fiction baler Novikov. He “quoted” Krylov on a blue eye, who allegedly commented on the results of shelling the Sveaborg fortress with the battleship “Glory”.
          Given that the 305-mm high-explosive shells were loaded with gunpowder, that Glory had never shot at Sveaborg and a number of other stunning blunders, Krylov could not say what Novikov ascribes to him.
          Quote: Saxahorse
          And by the way, yes, pyroxisline (like gunpowder) has some advantages over liddite (shimoza).

          Oh yeah. Four hits in Mikasa’s casemates - and one incapacitated weapon - the shell hit him directly. In other cases, when exploded in a casemate - the guns and calculations are intact. Awesome pluses.
          1. Saxahorse
            Saxahorse 24 February 2018 19: 56
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Which are inside the enclosure :)))) And the explosion of which, in general, does not have to give a fiery fountain over the tower.

            Still as necessary. This is not a dispute over life, but the question of the realism of artistic descriptions. Ten tons of explosives will free the damn abyss of hot gases. And these gases, as well as the results of their impact on structures, will certainly be visible from afar. Like the example of the Invincible photo you’ve taken in his last minutes of his life.

            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Sorry, but it was smokeless (not black) gunpowder, not pyroxylin.

            Very interesting! Those. just the main caliber of the second squadron did not really have time to equip. Do you have links where this situation is described in more detail? I have not heard such details before, but it is interesting to meet you.

            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Given that the 305-mm high-explosive shells were loaded with gunpowder, that the Glory never fired at Sveaborg and a number of other stunning blunders,

            Also news. And where does this issue go into more detail? This is not Rezun accidentally wrote?

            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Oh yeah. Four hits in Mikasa’s casemates - and one incapacitated weapon - the shell hit him directly.

            Well, you can recall the battle in the Korean Channel on August 1, and one hit in the "Iwat" completely took out the entire casemate. One killed more than 80 people. It is clear that the ammunition was detonated, but it wasn’t from a pigeon sneeze that he pulled so much. Taki the same shell with pyroxylin flew.

            And of course, all a Happy Holiday !!! :)
    2. unknown
      unknown 23 February 2018 14: 42
      0
      The explosiveness of pyroxylin is 1,45 times higher than that of chimose (liddite), and 40 times higher than black powder.
  19. Lexus
    Lexus 22 February 2018 01: 54
    +2
    Andrew, a great series! hi
    Today there was a time, I read everything. good
  20. Comrade
    Comrade 22 February 2018 04: 23
    +2
    Dear Andrew,
    thanks for the next interesting work, and the idea of ​​making a series of articles about the von Spee odyssey is just great. In addition to the photos you posted, I post a couple of images. At the first, the British battlecruisers, while chasing the Spee squadron, do not open fire yet.

    On the second - the distribution of hits in the "Invincible", it is clearly shown where exactly the shells hit, hitting both the protected and unarmored parts of the cruiser.

    it can be assumed that not all British ships received leaddit shells, and the author of this article does not know what exactly the 3-I battle cruiser squadron shot with.

    There is no data on the dead cruiser, the rest fired a couple of 12 shells:
    109 - armor-piercing
    69 - the ones with black powder and pebbles
    85 - high explosive.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      22 February 2018 09: 31
      +1
      Greetings, dear colleague! hi
      Thank you very much for the photo:)
      Quote: Comrade
      109 - armor-piercing

      Excuse me, but I have to ask again - is it about armor-piercing, charged with liddite?
    2. DimanC
      DimanC 22 February 2018 16: 26
      0
      Damn, and "Invincible" could explode in 1914 belay He was lucky then with hits
  21. Comrade
    Comrade 22 February 2018 06: 20
    +1
    By the way, dear Andrei, a shell with a powder filling does not mean representing little value. Its adoption took place after a series of experiments that yielded positive results. And they cost, with a powder filling, not much cheaper than full-fledged armor-piercing, and almost two and a half times more expensive than high-explosive.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      22 February 2018 09: 39
      +2
      Quote: Comrade
      By the way, dear Andrei, a shell with a powder filling does not mean representing little value.

      In my opinion, it does mean very much. Like it or not, but gunpowder is a rather weak in terms of high explosiveness, brisance and detonation speed. Especially - black. In addition, this is indirectly confirmed by many battles at sea - the battle of Shantung, where Japanese heavy shells for an unclear reason showed low efficiency (but in Tsushima - high), low efficiency of Russian shells (and they went to Tsushima with smokeless powder) Scharnhorst and Blucher , which took dozens of shells ... In these cases, one of the possible explanations is precisely the low explosive efficiency. Haase was relieved when he felt that the British had used black powder.
      In general, this is of course a hypothesis, but in my opinion it is very justified
    2. Trapperxnumx
      Trapperxnumx 22 February 2018 10: 53
      0
      And what are the positive?
  22. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 22 February 2018 11: 02
    +3
    Nevertheless, despite the difference between the British and German battlecruisers in defense and speed, I do not think the British approach is a mistake - the concept of using in a linear battle is rather wrong.

    In the battle of Jutland, both the British and German battlecruisers took damage, and both suffered from large-caliber shells, and both had flooding and falling into the GK towers. Compared to the 305-mm gun cruisers of the Invincible and Indefatigable types, the 343-mm gun cruisers had significantly better security, which did not prevent the Germans from sinking to the bottom a much better protected battlecruiser Queen Mary (
    At 16:17, the Princess Royal was obscured by smoke, after which the Derflinger moved the fire to Queen Mary. The concentrated fire of the Seidlitz and Derflinger from a distance of about 13–200 m became destructive for the British cruiser. The exact picture cannot be restored, but, presumably, the following happened. At 13:400, a 16-mm shell from the Derflinger hit the Q tower, disabled the right gun and led to the ignition of gunpowder charges located in the fighting compartment. At 21:305 a volley fell into the area of ​​the bow towers, breaking through the barbette of the tower "B". There was an explosion of ammunition, tearing the ship in two in the area of ​​the foremast. At that moment, another hit of the “Q” tower occurred, which led to the explosion of the cellars)


    The Germans also had hits in the GK towers, but the BC did not detonate - only British battlecruisers broke in.

    It is logical to argue that if the British battlecruisers died from the explosions of the cellars, then (as Andrei correctly noted), if the turret rooms were modernized like the Germans, if the British fleet used a different explosive, then the hits would not have led to catastrophic consequences.

    The German battlecruisers also took damage in the Jutland battle, also had flooding compartments, also had hits in the turrets of the main gun, but these hits did not lead to detonation of the ammunition. Zedlitz died from flooding i.e. his defense also did not provide combat stability in a linear battle.
    German battle cruisers in repair stood up to six months, but the fact that they were not lost in battle, like most of their crew, speaks of their better defense.

    The concept of participating in a linear battle of battle cruisers - does not hold water.
    On the other hand, critics of the concept of a battlecruiser can be advised to familiarize themselves with the operations carried out by this type of ship.
    Line cruisers - the most conquered in WWI of large ships - trade protection, raiding operations, large-scale landing operations, all this refutes that the battlecruisers as a class were vicious.
    I consider that their placement in a linear battle was vicious, and the British project had clearly insufficient protection of the turret rooms, GK cellars.

    HMS Queen Mary battle cruiser
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      22 February 2018 11: 34
      +3
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      which did not stop the Germans from sinking to the bottom a much better protected battlecruiser Queen Mary (

      Was he "much better protected"? :)))))
      1. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer 22 February 2018 14: 48
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Was he "much better protected"? :)))))


        Well, of course, not as good as Derflinger :)). But more armor than Lyon;)
        My preference is unequivocally for the German battlecruisers.

        The question is that both the German battlecruisers and the British, were not protected from the main caliber of the opponents, quickly received flooding and the GK broke out.
        The question was, whose hammer will hit the opponent’s "egg" - as you correctly wrote - the "golden shell" faster, more accurately and more successfully.


        However, what happened with the HMS Queen Mary - should not have happened - definitely the cellars of the main caliber, were poorly designed.
        1. Kibb
          Kibb 22 February 2018 14: 58
          0
          And what is the difference between German and British cellars, they are structurally the same and the supply of ammunition, too, only the Germans burned out in the trash, destroying the personnel, but stubbornly did not want to detonate. Maybe all the same, the problem is in the chemists, and the fact is that the Germans learned a lesson from Doger Banks and the British do not?
          1. Saxahorse
            Saxahorse 24 February 2018 20: 02
            0
            And what is infa that burned out? As I understand it, the Germans introduced automatic flaps that prevented the spread of force of the flame down through the channels for supplying shells and charges. The British only thought about this after the Battle of Jutland. And any powder can detonate. Although yes, the sensitivity to detonation is different.
            1. Kibb
              Kibb 1 March 2018 10: 22
              0
              Two cellars of Seidlitz? Blucher?
              1. Saxahorse
                Saxahorse 1 March 2018 22: 14
                0
                What are two Zeidlitz cellars? In the battle of Jutland, the second shell at 15:57 hit Zeydlitsa in the reloading compartment and set fire to him and the tower. The cellar did not catch fire, but was flooded. The sixteenth shell at 19:27 blew up splinters charges in the stern elevated tower. And all .. Cellars did not explode and did not catch fire.
      2. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer 22 February 2018 14: 50
        +2
        With you coming Dear Andrey!
        And all those who put equality between their homeland and give life.
        Happy holiday men!
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          22 February 2018 18: 08
          +2
          And you with the upcoming! Best wishes! drinks
    2. Kibb
      Kibb 22 February 2018 14: 20
      0
      Does he need to? He is, first of all, a cruiser and not a battleship, here is Ripals and Rinaun, all the more with the easy linear ones an already open schiza has gone. Nevertheless, one, something like a modernized Rinaun piled on two Balls
  23. belost79
    belost79 22 February 2018 12: 39
    +1
    Andrey, thanks for the most interesting material!
    While reading, I remembered the 2nd year of VVMiU. Was the subject of Theoretical Mechanics, passed Coriolis acceleration. Wanting to emphasize the importance of seemingly insignificant quantities, the teacher cited the battle of the Falklands as an example. The British could not shoot at the Germans for a long time, until one of the artillery officers realized that they take into account the Coriolis acceleration for the northern hemisphere, and it happened in the southern one. After the amendments, things went more fun. I'm not an artilleryman, how much I bought, so I sell))
  24. Kibb
    Kibb 22 February 2018 13: 55
    +1
    Quote: DimerVladimer
    I consider that their placement in a linear battle was vicious, and the British project had clearly insufficient protection of the turret rooms, GK cellars.

    With all due respect to you and Andrei. Can you give an example when British LCR were put in line? And the shortcomings of the turret sections that the Germans had, the British had exactly the same
    1. Saxahorse
      Saxahorse 24 February 2018 20: 04
      0
      Quote: Kibb
      And the shortcomings of the turret sections that the Germans had, the British had exactly the same

      Can this be clarified? What do you mean by the same flaws?

      And by the way, is the Battle of Jutland really not an example when the British LKR were against the German in the line ??
      1. Kibb
        Kibb 1 March 2018 10: 30
        0
        According to the schemes, everyone has a shut (Patients say that the British did not have them at all) - the technical scheme of the German and British turret sections is perfect the same.
  25. Kibb
    Kibb 22 February 2018 17: 56
    0
    Quote: DimanC
    In World War I, neither command was ready for high-speed battleships,

    In World War I, no command (both naval and army) was generally ready for that war — some did better than others, but on the whole, those who entered it at the end won the war or did not take any serious part — for the rest participants the result came from a crushing defeat, to just defeat
    Quote: DimanC
    From the point of view of the romance on the “battlefield,” that for Jelliko, that for Sheer, it didn’t matter 21 they had a knot or 31 — they acted in a single fig game in a single wake formation.

    No code at all, on the contrary, the LKR always acted separately, and the 5th squadron also
    Quote: DimanC
    The British seemed to be thinking about creating something that, during WWII, received the term "operational connection" but "couldn’t"

    They all blundered but nobody could - they came to this already in WWII, they almost succeeded with the Russians, but they also couldn’t
    Quote: DimanC
    Yes, and the younger flagships, initiative and decisive among the same, were accused of

    It's hard to say, with the smallest flagships of the British, everything is not bad. Beatty is a cavalryman, Geliko is too cautious, but the fact remains that - apart from the failed Turkish operation and two gelglands, the British fleet always expected the Germans to take the lead, surpassing the German fleet in two. What would happen to the Grand Fleet if it had been commanded at the time of Jutland by Beatty? It’s not clear at all - he is a cavalryman, but in any case the Germans couldn’t destroy him - elementary would not have enough shells, and the British had more ships in construction
    Quote: DimanC
    The Germans, it would seem, having fewer ships, should have come up with some tactical uber-tricks, but their imagination did not extend more than to the terror of non-combatants on the coast and this attempt to summon only part of the fleet to battle

    One problem. Suppose one such operation was successful and the Germans, for example, drowned four British battleships, they will repeat indefinitely until the British have battleships over - the second time no one will ever substitute.
    Quote: DimanC
    Itti knew perfectly well about "support", and therefore did not break the contact, but could.

    Beatty knew that he was followed by the 5th squadron, and then almost the entire grand fleet, (but he could not concentrate his forces, and most importantly for the whole war for some reason he did not expel one lieutenant from a position that was clearly not for him), while the whole grand fleet was sure that Scheer’s battleships weren’t at sea (Sheer was sure that there were no Heliko’s battleships at sea)
    1. DimanC
      DimanC 22 February 2018 19: 05
      +1
      No code at all, on the contrary, the LKR always acted separately, and the 5th squadron also There was a “lyrical digression” to the side of high-speed battleships, so my remark was that if Jellico or Scheer had a fleet of high-speed battleships under control, their command image would still not have moved away from the wake column. Well, the “miniflot” from LCR nevertheless, in the general battle, tried to fit into the GrandFleet’s head, which pretty much ruined the “beautiful view” of the German ships and prevented some from shooting at them.
      And Beatty was such a cavalryman that when he saw the Germans, he galloped right in Munichhausen style: the front hooves, along with a piece of croup and Beatty on it, had already galloped, and the back hooves were still thinking where to ride them laughing (talking about Jutland, of course)
  26. Kibb
    Kibb 22 February 2018 21: 20
    0
    Quote: DimanC
    Above, there was a “lyrical digression” in the direction of high-speed battleships, so my remark was that if Jellico or Scheer had a fleet of high-speed battleships under control, their command image would still not have moved away from the wake column

    The wake column was so entrenched in the heads of the admirals that it seems that Ushakova and Nelson were not there, although on the other side there is no other option besides the notorious stick over T (cutting through a suicide system in the age of long-range quick-firing guns) is actually Asama’s , LKR, Queens, German "LKR" is an attempt to break the deadlock
    Quote: DimanC
    Well, the “miniflot” from LKr nevertheless, in the general battle, tried to fit into the head of GrandFleet

    Well, firstly, the 3rd Huda squadron was part of the battleships Geliko by chance, like the 5th squadron as part of the so-called “Fleet of battlecruisers” (or rather, of course, but by accident, but as it turned out so, the main thing was not planned so). Hood did not try to get into the head of the column of battleships, he tried to join Beatty, and at the same time carry out reconnaissance, and ran into the concentrated fire of the battleships of Scheer and LKr of Heeper. But Beatty thought that the fleet had already deployed, and there Arbuthnot drew, in short, what really happened there and today is not clear - according to the reviews of both sides, there was really nothing visible to anyone, in any case Evan Thomas had to go along the entire Grand Fleet formation and take his place in the tail, because he also thought that the fleet had already deployed (I wonder why then fast fleet battleships are needed if they take up space at the end of the system)
    Quote: DimanC
    But Beatty was such a cavalryman that when he saw the Germans, he galloped right in Munichhausen style: the front hooves, along with a piece of croup and Beatty, had already galloped, and the rear hooves were still thinking where to ride them (talking about Jutland, of course)

    Actually, I also talk about this, what would happen if Beatty commanded Grandflit and turned it like LKR, it’s hard to even imagine what would have happened. Then he really stopped a little.
    1. unknown
      unknown 23 February 2018 14: 49
      0
      What is the stick over T with the Asam at their real speed of 15 to 17 knots?
      1. Kibb
        Kibb 1 March 2018 10: 31
        0
        And I don’t know, ask the Japanese
  27. Comrade
    Comrade 23 February 2018 04: 05
    +1
    Dear Andrey!
    I have to ask again - is it about armor-piercing, charged with liddite?

    Exactly :-)
    gunpowder is a rather weak in terms of explosiveness, brisance and speed of detonation means. Especially - black.

    That's right, dear colleague, but remember two circumstances. Black powder used special, or "a great"grainy, as the British called it.
    In addition, its weight in the projectile was more than three times the weight of the liddite in the armor-piercing projectile. At the same time, according to English data, this "a great"black powder in brisant influence was not at all three times inferior to liddit.
    In addition, this is indirectly confirmed by many battles at sea - the battle of Shantung, where Japanese heavy shells for an unclear reason showed low efficiency (but in Tsushima - high)

    In both battles, the Japanese used shells with both powder and shimose fillings. The impact was the same, and the difference in the fate of the ships depended on the distribution of hits. For example, the “Eagle” was lucky with the pipes, but the “Tsesarevich” didn’t, etc. By the way, about the allegedly “miraculous” impact of Japanese shells in Tsushima. Eyewitnesses “saw” that some time after the Suvorov failed, both pipes were knocked down and the approximate time was indicated.
    But in the photograph where Suvorov was seen at a later time, and taken with Izumo, it is seen that there is only one pipe missing. At the same time, a splash from the fallen shell, clearly the main caliber, alas, did not reach the flagship Kamimura, is clearly visible. But it is believed that the main caliber guns have already ceased to fire by this time.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      23 February 2018 10: 26
      +3
      Quote: Comrade
      That's right, dear colleague, but remember two circumstances. Black powder was used special, or "excellent" granular, as the English called it.

      Colleague, what's the difference? :))) Gunpowder - it is gunpowder.
      Quote: Comrade
      In addition, his weight in the projectile was more than three times the weight of the liddite in the armor-piercing projectile

      Dear colleague, I'm afraid you are saying extremely amazing things. The specific gravity of coarse gunpowder is 0,945, the specific gravity of chimose is 1,6-1,77, that is, if you take it as a minimum, the difference is 70%, so in order to provide a charge of gunpowder that is three times the mass, you need five times more volume! And this is not counting the fact that the leaddit will still require a wrapper. In shells of the same type, such a difference in the chamber for explosives is simply impossible.
      Quote: Comrade
      black powder in the blasting effect was not at all three times inferior to liddit.

      They cannot be measured in the forehead - for example, I have huge doubts that a projectile with a high content of gunpowder detonates with the full use of explosives. Most likely, only a part detonates, the rest will scatter, as was the case with our mines.
      Quote: Comrade
      The impact was the same, and the difference in the fate of the ships depended on the distribution of hits

      I'm sorry, but I can’t agree with this. The Japanese themselves used a lot of shells - English with gunpowder, English, in which gunpowder was replaced by shimoza and shells of their own design with shimoza - in principle, the effect from them could not be equal.
      Quote: Comrade
      By the way, about the allegedly "miraculous" impact of Japanese shells in Tsushima. Eyewitnesses “saw” that some time after the Suvorov failed, both pipes were knocked down and the approximate time was indicated.

      Dear colleague, the one you described has nothing to do with shells. The fact that everything is seen in battle does not depend on the types of ammunition used is a feature of the human psyche :))))
      Happy holiday, dear Valentine! All the best and all the best!
      1. Comrade
        Comrade 24 February 2018 04: 43
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Colleague, what's the difference? :))) Gunpowder - it is gunpowder.

        Do not tell, dear colleague, gunpowder and gunpowder are different.

        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        They cannot be measured in the forehead - for example, I have huge doubts that a projectile with a high content of gunpowder detonates with the full use of explosives. Most likely, only a part detonates, the rest will fly apart

        It is possible that this was happening.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        The Japanese themselves used a lot of shells - English with gunpowder, English, in which gunpowder was replaced by shimoza and shells of their own design with shimoza - in principle, the effect from them could not be equal.

        Dear colleague, if we are talking about 12 '' shells, then they were only English. Japan at the beginning of the last century mastered the production of shells, of course, but their maximum caliber was 152 mm.
        Cast-iron blanks for guns of the Matsushima type cruisers didn’t count, it was a semi-artisanal single production.
        I unsuccessfully put it, of course, the effect of a shell rupture with gunpowder and with a shimosa will be different. But in the battle at Cape Shantung, and in the battle of Tsushima, the Japanese used the same shells, in the sense of both gunpowder and shimoza. And as we can see from the damage to the ships of the First and Second Pacific Squadrons, when a “suitcase” with a shimose hit the unarmored part, the size of the holes was approximately the same. On the example of "Poltava" and "Eagle" this is especially clearly visible.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        The specific gravity of coarse gunpowder is 0,945, the specific gravity of shimoza is 1,6-1,77, that is, if taken as a minimum, the difference is 70%, so in order to provide a charge that is three times the mass of gunpowder, you need five times more volume!

        Dear colleague, the shells then had different sizes and different wall thicknesses. That is why the armor-piercing was 26 pounds и 7 ounces liddita, and in a shell filled with gunpowder, the latter had eighty pounds.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Dear colleague, the one you described has nothing to do with shells.

        Trying to explain to society why Rozhestvensky’s squadron was defeated, they came up with a tale of some Japanese miracle shells :-) In support of this myth, the recollections of eyewitnesses who “saw” hitherto unheard of damage inflicted as soon as possible were cited. It is clear that this was possible only with the use of miracle shells. In fact, as can be seen in the photo, the damage was not so dramatic.
        I repeat, in both general battles the Japanese used shells with shimoza, and thanks to Beijingham, we can see in his report the consumption of the same "Fuji" in the details, which exactly and how much was released on July 28.
        Your humble servant painted all this in order to show why the thesis about the weak impact of Japanese shells in the battle at Cape Shantung and the impressive impact of Japanese shells in the Tsushima battle looks unconvincing.
        Thank you for your congratulations, dear Andrew! And you also have a holiday, I will express myself out of habit and the old-fashioned way - Happy Soviet Army and Navy!
        1. unknown
          unknown 24 February 2018 06: 09
          0
          I would never have thought that I would read this on VO.
          REV is a very mythologized war. In fact, many myths crumble when thoughtfully studied. First of all, this concerns the technical superiority of the Japanese fleet. Superiority, of course, was, but not in the familiar stamp, known since Soviet times: "advanced Western technology against the obsolete tsarist." Of the six Japanese battleships, two were frankly outdated, having no advantage over ships of the Petropavlovsk type. Two battleships carried Harvey armor. And only the flagship, corresponded to the Russian “Tsesarevich” and “Retvisan”. Japanese battleships had similar problems with water tube boilers as domestic ships. Boilers of a new type and in the English fleet took root with problems, as in the fleets of other countries ...
          Asama-class cruisers are a separate myth. For some reason, everyone understands that, for example, the Washington cruisers are a compromise, in which rarely anyone succeeded.
          Even the famous "Zara" in real service had a speed of 29-30 knots. The strengths and weaknesses of the Deutschlands were also discussed repeatedly. And ships of the Asama type, for some reason, remain the "high-speed wing of the Japanese armored fleet." And these are ships with a displacement smaller than that of armadillos, overbooked, with low-speed contours (the same problem as the Deutschlands), into which they managed to put in only the lightened CMU (Zaram hi), which was completely inappropriate to the class of ships. ? From a myth.
          The Japanese "miracle shells" are also a myth. More powerful than black powder, the filling of shells appeared before the REV. In the UK, liddit, in France, melinite. Pyroxylin was used in Russia and Germany, which, by the way, was 1,45-fold higher in explosive capacity than explosives based on picric acid. If Japan did not produce shells with a caliber larger than 6 ", then could it have loaded 12" shells with shimoza. Or is shimosa also a myth?
          Or is the myth not only this, but the whole war? What enemy was the war against? Was it conducted in these time frames? And was it conducted at all?
          1. Comrade
            Comrade 25 February 2018 05: 14
            +1
            I would never have thought that I would read this on VO.

            What surprised you?
            REV is a very mythological war.

            Like any other.
            Of the six Japanese battleships, two were frankly outdated, having no advantage over ships like the Petropavlovsk

            “Fuji” went to 14-15 nodes without problems, but “Poltava” and “Sevastopol” and 13 could not keep.
            Two battleships carried Harvey armor.

            How much how much?
            And ships of the Asama type, for some reason, remain the "high-speed wing of the Japanese armored fleet." Where does the speed come from? From a myth.

            In fact, the allegedly low speed of the Asama is a myth.
            If you want to know where the Asama speed comes from, go to my profile and read the article dedicated to this cruiser.
            If Japan did not produce shells with a caliber larger than 6 ", could it have 12" shells loaded with shimoza.

            And who could stop the Japanese from buying from the British 12 '' shells with a powder charge and then changing it to a charge from a shimoza?
            What enemy was the war against? Was it conducted in these time frames? And was it conducted at all?

            What do you think about this?
      2. Comrade
        Comrade 25 February 2018 04: 53
        0
        Dear Andrew,
        I forgot to add that in my comment we are talking about 12 '' shells, modifications of Mark VI A and VII A, respectively.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          25 February 2018 17: 02
          +1
          Dear Valentin, while I do not have the opportunity to answer in detail, with your permission I will unsubscribe a little later
          1. Comrade
            Comrade 27 February 2018 04: 23
            0
            Dear colleague, write when circumstances permit. I perfectly understand you, at the most constant time in short supply.
  28. NF68
    NF68 2 March 2018 16: 34
    0
    + + + + + + + + + +