Errors of the German shipbuilding. The armored cruiser "Blucher". H.2
Having considered in the previous article the situation in which the project of the “big cruiser” “Blucher” was born, we will take a closer look at what the Germans did for the ship.
Artillery
Of course, the main caliber "Blucher" was a big step forward compared with the artillery "Scharnhorst" and "Gneisenau." The Blucher guns had the same caliber, but were more powerful than those obtained by the previous German armored cruisers. The Scharnhorst installed 210-mm SK L / 40 С / 01, firing 108 kg with a projectile with an initial speed of 780 m / s. The Scharnhorst turret systems had an elevation angle of 30 hail, which ensured the firing range of 87 (according to other data, 88) kbt. With casemate installations, things were worse, because all other things being equal, their maximum angle of vertical guidance was only 16 degrees, which allowed them to shoot only at 66-67 kbt.
The ammunition included armor-piercing and high-explosive shells, and with the content of their explosives, the situation was somewhat confusing. As far as the author could figure out, initially an armor-piercing projectile, which was a steel disc, was relied on 210-mm SK L / 40. generally not containing explosive and high explosive, with 2,95 kg of black powder. But later, new projectiles were released, which had an 3,5 kg explosives in an armor-piercing and 6,9 kg in a high-explosive.
The Blucher SK L / 45 cannons fired the same projectiles as the Scharnhorst cannons, but they were informed by a much greater initial velocity - 900 m / s. Therefore, despite the fact that the elevation angle of the blucher’s tower installations was the same as that of the Scharnhorst (30 hail), the firing range of the blucher was 103 KBT. The increased initial speed gave the “Blucher” cannons a “bonus” to armor penetration; in addition, it can be assumed that the control of the “Blucher” tower installations was easier than the 210-mm Scharnhorst X-guns and tower guns.
The same was observed for 150-mm guns - six 150-mm SK L / 40 guns were installed on the Scharnhorst, the 40 speed of m / s was reported to the 800 kg projectile, and eight 150-mm SK L / 45 on the Blucher; firing 45,3 kg with projectiles with an initial speed of 835 m / s. In the years of the 1 world sk L / 40, the 44,9 kg (and even the 51 kg) artillery shells received, but, of course, with a corresponding drop in the initial velocity. The six-inch batteries of both cruisers were located approximately at the same height from the waterline (4,43-4,47 m for Scharnhorst and 4,25 m for Blucher), and in the range of the Blucher gun was also slightly lost - having an elevation angle of just 20 hail against 27 hail by " Scharnhorst ”, they shot at 72,5 cable, while“ Scharnhorst ”- at 74-75 KBT. As for the anti-mine artillery, the Scharnhorst had 18 88-mm SK L / 45 caliber guns, Blucher carried the 16 88-mm SK L / 45 much more powerful. But generally speaking, against destroyers of the prewar era, both of them were frankly weak - the real mine artillery of the cruisers was their 150-mm battery.
Thus, against the background of the previous project, the artillery "Blucher" looks just fine. But if you compare the fire power of the "Blucher" with the latest armored cruisers built in different countries, the German ship looks like the perfect outsider.
The fact is that with rare exceptions, other powers have come to the type of cruiser having 4 guns in 234-305-mm caliber and 8-10 guns in 190-203-mm caliber. What is the 254-mm artillery system? This is the weight of the 225,2-231 kg with an initial speed of 823 m / s (USA) to 870 m / s (Italy) and even 899 m / s (Russia), which means equal or greater firing range, much better armor penetration and where how more significant explosive impact. Armor-piercing 225,2 kg, the Rurik II projectile carried about the same amount of explosives as the German 210-mm - 3,9 kg (more by 14,7%), but the Russian high-explosive projectile was more than four times as high as the German - 28,3 kg against 6,9 kg !
In other words, the weight of the "Blucher" onboard salvo is eight 210-mm shells with a total weight of 864 kg, although it is insignificant, but still lost to those of 254-mm guns only of any "254-mm" cruiser, and even "Rurik" with the most light shells (compared to guns in the USA and Italy) had 900,8 kg. But at the same time in the four high-explosive shells of “Rurik” there were 113,2 kg of explosives, and in eight 210-mm Germans only 55,2 kg. If you go to armor-piercing, then the payoff on explosives in the side salvo was behind the German cruiser (28 kg versus 15,6), but one should not forget that the Russian 254-mm projectiles had much better armor penetration. In other words, the main caliber of “Blucher” cannot be considered equal to only 254-mm cannons of Russian, American or Italian cruisers, but the same “Rurik”, besides 254-mm guns, had four 203-mm guns in the side salvo of which the 210-mm German gun was not too inferior. The Russian 203-mm projectile was a bit heavier - 112,2 kg, had a lower initial speed (807 m / s), but at the same time significantly outperformed its German “opponent” in explosives, having 12,1 kg in a semi-armor shell and 15 kg - in a high-explosive projectile. Thus, the Rurik side salvo of four 203-mm and the same number of 254-mm guns had a mass of 1 349,6 kg shells, which was 1,56 times the mass of the Blucher-guns 210-mm guns. The explosives content in the volley when using armor-piercing and semi-armor-piercing 203-mm shells (as it was not foreseen for Russian 203-mm cannon armor-piercing shells), the explosive mass in the Rurik salvo was 64 kg, and when using high-explosive shells - 173,2 kg, against 28 kg and 55,2 kg from Blucher, respectively.
Here, of course, it can be argued that the “Blucher” in the onboard salvo would have four 150-mm guns, but then it is worth remembering about ten RNHRs on each side, which, by the way, were said to have even a large firing range than the German "six-inch".
“Blucher” in firepower was inferior not only to “Rurik”, but also to Italian “Pisa”. The latter, having quite powerful 254-mm guns, also had 190-mm tools for developing 1908 g, which were somewhat weaker than domestic 203-mm, but were nevertheless comparable in their capabilities to Blucher's 210-mm guns. “Half-way through” “Pisa” fired 90,9 kg with projectiles with an initial speed of 864 m / s. Why are there! Even the weakest artillery of all the 254-mm armored cruisers is the American Tennessee, and he had an advantage over the Blucher, contrasting his four 210-mm cannons with a 254 projectile mass in a side salvo of his 231-mm guns and having at the same time the double superiority in six-inch. About the Japanese monsters "Ibuki" and "Kurama", with their four 305-mm and four 203-mm in the side salvo there is nothing to say - their superiority in firepower over the German cruiser was completely overwhelming.
As for the English cruisers of the Minotaur type, their 234-mm guns were remarkable, but still, in terms of their combat capabilities, they did not reach the 254-mm guns of the cruisers of the United States, Italy and Russia. Nevertheless, they also excelled in combat power 210-mm German guns (172,4 kg projectile with an initial speed 881 m / s), and in addition, it should be noted that four such tools from the Minotaur in the side volley supplemented five 190 -mm guns with excellent characteristics, capable of producing 90,7 kg projectile with an initial speed of 862 m / s. In general, the “Minotaurs”, of course, surpassed “Blucher” in firepower, although this superiority was not as significant as that of “Rurik” or “Pisa”.
The only of the “last” armored cruisers of the world’s leading maritime powers, which was apparently inferior to the “Blucher” in terms of artillery, was the French “Waldeck Rousseau”. Yes, he carried 14 main-caliber guns and had an advantage over the Blucher in the side salvo for one barrel, but at the same time his old 194-mm guns fired only 86 kg with projectiles with a very low initial speed 770 m / s.
Thus, in terms of firepower, in comparison with other armored cruisers of the world, the “Blucher” occupies the unimportant last but one place. Its only advantage over other cruisers was the uniformity of the main caliber, which simplified the shooting at long distances, compared to the two calibers on the cruisers of the USA, England, Italy, etc., but the lag in the quality of artillery systems was so great that doubt the positive aspect could not be decisive.
As for the fire control system, in this regard, "Blucher" in German navy was a real pioneer. He was the first in the German navy to receive a three-legged mast, a centralized fire control system and a central artillery fire control machine. However, all this was installed on the cruiser not during construction, but during later upgrades.
Reservation
To the great joy of all domestic lovers of the naval stories Muzhenikov V. in his monograph “The Armored Cruisers“ Scharnhorst ”,“ Gneisenau ”and“ Blucher ”” gave detailed descriptions of the booking of these ships. Alas, to our disappointment, the description is so confusing that it is almost impossible to understand the system of protection of these three ships, but we still try to do it.
So, the length of the "Blucher" on the waterline was 161,1 m., The maximum - 162 m. (On this occasion, there are minor differences in the sources). From the stem and almost to the stern bow, the ship covered the armored deck, located “stepwise”, on three levels. For the duration of 25,2 m from the stem, an armor-shell was placed at 0,8 m below the waterline, then over the length of 106,8 m - one meter above the waterline, and further, for another 22,8 m - at 0,15 m below the waterline. The remaining 7,2 m deck armor is not protected. These three decks were interconnected by vertical transverse armored partitioning, the thickness of which was 80-mm between the middle and aft sections and, probably, the same number between the middle and fore sections.
Surprisingly, but the fact is that it is completely unclear from the descriptions of Muzhenikov whether Blucher had bevels or all three armored decks were horizontal. Most likely, there were still bevels - in the end, they were in the previous type of armored cruisers, and in the subsequent cruisers of the "Blucher" linear cruisers. At the same time, Muzhenikov writes that the Blucher reservation scheme was similar to the Scharnhorst, with the exception of a slight increase in the thickness of the armor belt. In this case, the middle section of the armored form, rising above the waterline at 1 meter, turned into bevels, descending to the lower edge of the armored belt located at 1,3 m below the waterline, but unfortunately there is no clarity with the fore and aft sections of the armored decks. The thickness of the decks and bevels, alas, Mujeniki also does not report, limited only by the phrase that "the total thickness of the armor plates of the deck decks in different parts was 50-70 mm." One can only guess whether the thickness of the armor was only the above-described armor decks, or whether the 50-70 mm is given as the sum of the thicknesses of the armor, battery, and upper decks.
The author of this article had the following impression: the thickness of the “stepped” armored decks and its bevels probably corresponded to those of the Scharnhorst, which were 40-55 mm, and this thickness includes both the armor and the steel flooring of the deck on top of which . Above the armored deck at the "Blucher" housed the battery (on which stood 150-mm guns) deck, and above it - the upper deck. At the same time, the battery deck did not have armor, but its thickness varied from 8 inside the casemate, to 12 mm outside the casemate, and at the location of the 150-mm guns - 16 mm or maybe 20 mm (Husbands writes that in these places the battery deck consisted of three layers, but does not report their thickness, from the context it can be assumed that it was 8 + 4 + 4 or 8 + 4 + 8 mm).
But the upper deck "Blucher" had a reservation over the casemates of 150-mm guns, but alas, except for the fact of its presence, Hubs did not report anything. By the way, if we assume that she had an 15-mm armor layer laid on top of the shipbuilding steel (something similar describes the Slaughter for the Scharnhorst), then we get the 40-55 mm armor deck + 15 mm upper deck above the deck armor dungeon that as if the specified Muzhenikov 55-70 mm cumulative protection.
The armor belt stretched almost the entire length of the ship, leaving only 6,3 m along the waterline at the stern itself unprotected, but was very different in thickness, height and depth under the waterline. Machine and boiler rooms covered 180 mm armor plates that had a height of 4,5 m (data may be slightly inaccurate), towering above the waterline at 3,2 m with normal draft and reaching the battery deck with the upper edge. Accordingly, this part of the armored belt went under water to 1,3 m. Very powerful protection for the armored cruiser, but armor belt 180 mm thick was wiped only on 79,2 m (49,16% of the length of the waterline), covering only the engine and boiler rooms. From 180 mm of armor plates to the bow and stern, only 80 mm of armored belt of reduced height went - to the stern it towered 2 m above water, to the nose - to 2,5 m and only at the very stem (approximately 7,2 m from it) rose to 3,28 m above the water.
The bottom edge of all these armored belts was located as follows: from the stem and towards the stern during the first 7,2 meters it went to 2 meters under the waterline, then “increased” to 1,3 meters and continued like this throughout the remaining length of the nasal 80 mm belt and 180 mm belt its entire length, but further (aft 80 mm belt) gradually rose from 1,3 to 0,75 m under the waterline. Since the armor plates in the 80 mm feed did not reach the stern stem a little, a stern traverse was provided, which had the same 80 mm armor.
The described booking scheme demonstrates weakness in protecting the extremities, because outside the boiler rooms and machine rooms, the onboard protection of Blucher looks extremely inadequate, not stronger than the British armored cruisers (80 mm armor belt and 40, maximum - 55 mm bevel, against 76-102 mm belt with 50 mm bevels from the British), but still it is not quite so. The fact is that, as far as it is possible to understand the descriptions of Muzhenikov, the 180 mm section of the armor belt was closed with the same 180 mm by traverses. But these traverses were located not perpendicular to the board, but obliquely, to the barbetas of the bow and stern towers of 210-mm guns, about the same as it was on the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau cruisers.
However, it should be borne in mind that the "inclined traverse" "Scharnhorst" took place over the bevels and armored decks, and probably the same thing happened on the "Blucher". In this case, there was a vulnerability at the level of a meter above and below the waterline.
In which the “slanting traverses” of the “Blucher” were not defended from enemy hits, and the cellar cover was limited to 80 mm by armor belts and 40-55 mm by bevels.
On the battery deck (that is, on top of the 180 mm of the Blucher armored belt), there was a 51,6 meter casemate for eight 150 mm guns. The armor plates defending the dungeon along the sides had a thickness of 140 mm and relied on the lower, 180 mm plates, so that, in fact, throughout the above-mentioned 51,6 m the vertical side protection reached the upper deck. From the stern, the casemate closed the 140 mm with a traverse located perpendicular to the board, but the traverse was inclined in the nose, like the citadel of the 180 mm, but did not reach the bow tower of the main caliber. As we said above, the floor of the casemate (battery deck) did not have protection, but from above the casemate was protected by armor, alas - of unspecified thickness. We assumed that it was 15 mm armor on steel armor.
The "Blucher" towers had front and side plates with a thickness of 180 mm and 80 mm in the back wall, presumably (right, alas, Husbands did not write about this) the barbet had 180 mm protection. The forward conning tower had a 250 mm wall and a 80 mm roof, aft - respectively 140 and 30 mm. On the Blucher, for the first time on armored cruisers in Germany, 35 mm anti-torpedo bulkheads were installed, stretching from the very bottom to the armored deck.
In general, one can say that the “big cruiser” armored defense of the “big cruiser” was very moderate. The armored cruisers of Germany were not at all champions of security, and only on Scharnhorst and Gneisenau they reached the world average. "Blucher" was even better booked, but it cannot be said that his defense somehow stood out against the background of his "classmates."
Like it or not, 180 mm belt + either 45 or 55 mm bevel does not have a fundamental advantage over the 152 mm belt and 50 mm bevel of the British Minotaurs, 127 mm of American Tennessee. Of all the armored cruisers of the world, the Russian “Rurik” with its 102 mm belt and 152 mm was slightly inferior to the “Blucher”, but here it should be noted that the Russian defense was much longer than the German one, protecting the barbety points of the 38-mm towers inclusive. The author knows little about booking armored cruisers of the Amalfi type, but it was based on the 254 mm belt, over which the 203-mm upper belt was located for a considerable distance, so it is doubtful that the Italian cruisers were inferior in protection to Blucher. The Japanese Ibuki had almost the same 178 mm of armor belt with 178 mm bevels as the German cruiser, but they also protected more waterlines than the 50 mm belt from Blucher.
Germanic Dreadnoughts and battlecruisers of the First World War are deservedly considered the standard of armor, such impenetrable floating fortresses - which they have repeatedly proven in battle. But alas, all this does not apply to the "Blucher". In principle, if the Germans would have found an opportunity to protect the 180 mm with an armor-belt of the side of their last "big cruiser", it could probably be said that his defense is somewhat superior to that of other cruisers of the world (with the possible exception of the Japanese), but That did not happen. And in general, “Blucher” should be considered a ship protected at the level of its “classmates” - not worse, but, in general, not better than them.
Power plant.
In the ship's power industry, the Germans showed amazing traditionalism - not only the first, but even the second series of their dreadnoughts (the type "Helgoland") carried steam engines and coal-fired boilers instead of turbines and oil fuel. To be fair, it should be noted that in Germany some of the best (if not the best) steam engines of the world were created. As for coal, then, firstly, in those years no one yet risked building large warships whose power plants would work entirely on oil. But there were more weighty reasons: firstly, the Germans considered coal pits to be an important element of ship protection, and secondly, there was a shortage of coal mines in Germany, but with oil fields everything was much worse. In the event of war, the "oil" fleet of Germany could only rely on previously accumulated oil reserves, which could be replenished only from outside supplies, but where could they come from under the British blockade?
"Blucher" received three steam engines, steam for which provided 18 boilers (12 - great performance and 6 - small). The power rating of the power plant was 32 000 hp, under the contract the cruiser had to develop 24,8 knots. On the test machine forced, having achieved a record 43 262 HP "Blucher" while developing 25,835 bonds. In general, despite the use of already obsolete steam engines, in general, the Blucher power plant deserves only praise. She effectively worked not only on the dimensional mile, but also in the course of everyday use - it is interesting that Blucher, acting jointly with the battlecruisers Hochseeflotte, always maintained the speeds set for him, but Fon der Tann sometimes lagged behind. Normal fuel capacity is 900 t, full 2510 t (according to other data - 2 206 t). Blucher, unlike Scharnhorst and Gneuizenau, was not considered a cruiser of the colonial service, but had a range of even more than they were - 6 600 miles on 12 nodes or 3 520 miles on 18 nodes. Scharnhorst, according to various sources, had 12 5 - 120 6 miles on 500 nodes.
It can be stated that on both sides of the North Sea they came to the conclusion that it was necessary to increase the speed of the “big” cruisers to 25 knots, and in this (and, alas, the only) respect, “Blucher” was not inferior to the newest British “Invinsible”. And speed is the only parameter in which the German cruiser had an advantage over the last armored cruisers of other powers. The most heavily armed Japanese "Ibuki" and the following domestic "Rurik" developed the order of the 21 node, the Tenessi 22 bonds, the British Minotaurs 22,5-23 bonds, the Waldeck Rousso 23 bonds, the Italian Amalfi cruisers ”(“ Pisa ”) gave out 23,6-23,47 bonds, but, of course, no one came close to the phenomenal“ Blucher ”25,8 ties.
So, what do we have in the dry residue?
The general logic of the development of naval technology and, to a certain extent, the experience of the Russian-Japanese war, led to the emergence of the last generation of armored cruisers. Those were “Tennessee” in the USA (for the sake of justice - the first “Tennessee” was actually laid in 1903 g, so, although the American cruiser was not the best, but he was the first, so he can be forgiven) “Warrior "And" Minotaur "in England," Pisa "in Italy," Waldeck Russo "in France," Tsukuba "and" Ibuki "in Japan and" Rurik "in Russia.
Germany on this turn of the world cruising race managed to be late. While all countries were laying their cruisers, in Germany they started building the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, which looked great in the background of some Iwate or Good Hope, but were completely uncompetitive to the Minotaur. or "Pisa". The Germans began the construction of their last-generation armored cruiser, the “last generation.” Regardless of where it’s considered the beginning of the creation of “Blucher”, from the date of laying (1907 g) or from the date of the beginning of the preparation of the building berth for construction (the autumn before 1906 g), the “Blucher” was truly the last because their armored cruisers in 1903-1905's.
Under these conditions, the proverb about “slowly harnessing and driving fast” is recalled, because, since the Germans started building with such a delay, they had the opportunity to design if not the best, then at least one of the world's best armored cruisers. Instead, the slipway of the state shipyard in Kiel spawned something extremely strange.
Among other armored cruisers of the world, “Blucher” received the highest speed, armor protection “slightly above average”, and perhaps the weakest artillery. Usually, “Blucher” is perceived as a ship with weakened artillery, but stronger armor than its “opponents”, which results from comparing the thickness of the main armored belts - 180 mm from “Blucher” against 127-152 mm from most other cruisers. But even in this case, for some reason, usually no one remembers the 178 mm armor of the Japanese and 203 mm armor of Italian cruisers.
In fact, given that:
1) Vertical armor should be taken into account together with the bevels of the armored deck, and in this case the difference between the 50 mm bevel + 152 mm belt of the British cruisers and approximately 50 mm bevel and 180 mm Blucher armor is minimal.
2) The 180 mm section of the Blucher belt was very short, and covered only the engine and boiler rooms.
We can confidently say that the armor of the "Blucher" did not have any noticeable advantage even over cruisers with 152 mm armor belts.
Usually, “Blucher” is reproached with the fact that it, being officially laid one year after the start of the construction of “Invincibles”, could not resist them. But suppose for a moment that a miracle happened and the class of battle cruisers was never born. What tasks could the Kaiserlmarine be solved by the “big” cruiser “Blucher”?
As we said earlier, the Germans saw two tasks for their cruisers - the colonial service (under it were built Fürst Bismarck, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau) as well as reconnaissance during battleships of battleships (for which all other German armored cruisers were created). Did it make sense to send "Blucher" to the ocean communications of England? Obviously not, because the English "hunters" obviously surpassed him in armament. True, the "Blucher" was faster, but if you rely on speed, wouldn't it have been easier to build several high-speed light cruisers with the same money? A heavy raider makes sense when it is able to destroy the “hunter”, but what is the point of the armored cruiser, which is initially weaker than its “beaters”? Thus, we see that “Blucher” is absolutely not optimal for ocean raiding.
Service at the squadron? Alas, it's still sadder. The fact is that already in 1906 r for everyone, including in Germany, it was obvious that armadillos are becoming a thing of the past, and in the future the squadrons of dreadnoughts will be foaming the seas. But could "Blucher" serve as a scout in such a squadron?
Arguing in the abstract - yes, it could. Somewhere in the Pacific Ocean, in good weather and with excellent visibility, where you can track the movement of the enemy squadron, being from it miles in 12 or further and without being substituted by the fire of the heavy guns of the new lords of the seas. In this case, the high speed of the “Blucher” would allow him to keep the distance he needed and watch the enemy without being substituted for the blow.
But even in this case, the construction of the “Blucher” is far from optimal, because enemy scouts with their own squadron are usually not welcome and would probably want to drive it away. In this case, any cruiser with 254-mm guns got a big advantage over the Blucher - such a cruiser could effectively hit the German ship from a greater distance than the Blucher 210-gun. As a result, the commander of the German "big" cruiser remained a "rich" choice - either to continue observation, leading the battle at an unfavorable distance for his ship, or get close to the enemy cruiser and get hit by heavy dreadnought cannons, or completely retreat, disrupting the combat mission .
But the ship is not created for combat in a spherical vacuum. The “field of fate” for the Kaiserlichmarin was to be the North Sea with its bad weather and fog. Under these conditions, the scout in the squadron always risked unexpectedly stumble upon the head enemy dreadnoughts, finding them six or seven miles away. In this case, the salvation was to disappear in the fog as soon as possible, or that there would still limit visibility. But the dreadnoughts were much more powerful than the old battleships, and even in the shortest time could turn a high-speed scout into a flaming wreck. Therefore, the “big” German cruiser performing the reconnaissance mission in the squadron needed very good armor protection that would allow him to survive short-term contact with the English Dreadnoughts 305-mm guns. However, as we see, "Blucher" did not possess anything of the kind.
Now suppose that the author still made a mistake in his postulates, and the Germans designed “Blucher” in response to misinformation that the alleged “Invincibles” are the same “Dreadnoughts”, but only with 234-mm artillery. But remember the Invinsib armor.
Their long 152 mm armor belt, which defended the board right up to the fore and aft towers of the main caliber, with the 50 mm bevel and 64 mm cellar protection gave very good protection, and the author of this article would not risk saying that the “short” 180 mm armor belt “Blucher” protected the German ship is better - we can rather say that the protection of the Invincible and Blucher are about the same. But at the same time, if the Invincible had had an 8-mm gun in the onboard salvo of the 234, it would have been much stronger than the Blucher - and in speed these ships would be equal.
The construction of "Blucher" was a mistake of the German fleet, not because he could not resist the Invincibles (more precisely, not only because of this), but because even in their absence he was weaker than other armored cruisers of the world and without them could be able to carry out the tasks assigned to this class of ships in the German fleet in some effective way.
The ending should be!
Previous articles of the cycle:
Errors of the German shipbuilding. Big cruiser "Blucher"
Artillery
Of course, the main caliber "Blucher" was a big step forward compared with the artillery "Scharnhorst" and "Gneisenau." The Blucher guns had the same caliber, but were more powerful than those obtained by the previous German armored cruisers. The Scharnhorst installed 210-mm SK L / 40 С / 01, firing 108 kg with a projectile with an initial speed of 780 m / s. The Scharnhorst turret systems had an elevation angle of 30 hail, which ensured the firing range of 87 (according to other data, 88) kbt. With casemate installations, things were worse, because all other things being equal, their maximum angle of vertical guidance was only 16 degrees, which allowed them to shoot only at 66-67 kbt.
The ammunition included armor-piercing and high-explosive shells, and with the content of their explosives, the situation was somewhat confusing. As far as the author could figure out, initially an armor-piercing projectile, which was a steel disc, was relied on 210-mm SK L / 40. generally not containing explosive and high explosive, with 2,95 kg of black powder. But later, new projectiles were released, which had an 3,5 kg explosives in an armor-piercing and 6,9 kg in a high-explosive.
The Blucher SK L / 45 cannons fired the same projectiles as the Scharnhorst cannons, but they were informed by a much greater initial velocity - 900 m / s. Therefore, despite the fact that the elevation angle of the blucher’s tower installations was the same as that of the Scharnhorst (30 hail), the firing range of the blucher was 103 KBT. The increased initial speed gave the “Blucher” cannons a “bonus” to armor penetration; in addition, it can be assumed that the control of the “Blucher” tower installations was easier than the 210-mm Scharnhorst X-guns and tower guns.
The same was observed for 150-mm guns - six 150-mm SK L / 40 guns were installed on the Scharnhorst, the 40 speed of m / s was reported to the 800 kg projectile, and eight 150-mm SK L / 45 on the Blucher; firing 45,3 kg with projectiles with an initial speed of 835 m / s. In the years of the 1 world sk L / 40, the 44,9 kg (and even the 51 kg) artillery shells received, but, of course, with a corresponding drop in the initial velocity. The six-inch batteries of both cruisers were located approximately at the same height from the waterline (4,43-4,47 m for Scharnhorst and 4,25 m for Blucher), and in the range of the Blucher gun was also slightly lost - having an elevation angle of just 20 hail against 27 hail by " Scharnhorst ”, they shot at 72,5 cable, while“ Scharnhorst ”- at 74-75 KBT. As for the anti-mine artillery, the Scharnhorst had 18 88-mm SK L / 45 caliber guns, Blucher carried the 16 88-mm SK L / 45 much more powerful. But generally speaking, against destroyers of the prewar era, both of them were frankly weak - the real mine artillery of the cruisers was their 150-mm battery.
Thus, against the background of the previous project, the artillery "Blucher" looks just fine. But if you compare the fire power of the "Blucher" with the latest armored cruisers built in different countries, the German ship looks like the perfect outsider.
The fact is that with rare exceptions, other powers have come to the type of cruiser having 4 guns in 234-305-mm caliber and 8-10 guns in 190-203-mm caliber. What is the 254-mm artillery system? This is the weight of the 225,2-231 kg with an initial speed of 823 m / s (USA) to 870 m / s (Italy) and even 899 m / s (Russia), which means equal or greater firing range, much better armor penetration and where how more significant explosive impact. Armor-piercing 225,2 kg, the Rurik II projectile carried about the same amount of explosives as the German 210-mm - 3,9 kg (more by 14,7%), but the Russian high-explosive projectile was more than four times as high as the German - 28,3 kg against 6,9 kg !
In other words, the weight of the "Blucher" onboard salvo is eight 210-mm shells with a total weight of 864 kg, although it is insignificant, but still lost to those of 254-mm guns only of any "254-mm" cruiser, and even "Rurik" with the most light shells (compared to guns in the USA and Italy) had 900,8 kg. But at the same time in the four high-explosive shells of “Rurik” there were 113,2 kg of explosives, and in eight 210-mm Germans only 55,2 kg. If you go to armor-piercing, then the payoff on explosives in the side salvo was behind the German cruiser (28 kg versus 15,6), but one should not forget that the Russian 254-mm projectiles had much better armor penetration. In other words, the main caliber of “Blucher” cannot be considered equal to only 254-mm cannons of Russian, American or Italian cruisers, but the same “Rurik”, besides 254-mm guns, had four 203-mm guns in the side salvo of which the 210-mm German gun was not too inferior. The Russian 203-mm projectile was a bit heavier - 112,2 kg, had a lower initial speed (807 m / s), but at the same time significantly outperformed its German “opponent” in explosives, having 12,1 kg in a semi-armor shell and 15 kg - in a high-explosive projectile. Thus, the Rurik side salvo of four 203-mm and the same number of 254-mm guns had a mass of 1 349,6 kg shells, which was 1,56 times the mass of the Blucher-guns 210-mm guns. The explosives content in the volley when using armor-piercing and semi-armor-piercing 203-mm shells (as it was not foreseen for Russian 203-mm cannon armor-piercing shells), the explosive mass in the Rurik salvo was 64 kg, and when using high-explosive shells - 173,2 kg, against 28 kg and 55,2 kg from Blucher, respectively.
Here, of course, it can be argued that the “Blucher” in the onboard salvo would have four 150-mm guns, but then it is worth remembering about ten RNHRs on each side, which, by the way, were said to have even a large firing range than the German "six-inch".
“Blucher” in firepower was inferior not only to “Rurik”, but also to Italian “Pisa”. The latter, having quite powerful 254-mm guns, also had 190-mm tools for developing 1908 g, which were somewhat weaker than domestic 203-mm, but were nevertheless comparable in their capabilities to Blucher's 210-mm guns. “Half-way through” “Pisa” fired 90,9 kg with projectiles with an initial speed of 864 m / s. Why are there! Even the weakest artillery of all the 254-mm armored cruisers is the American Tennessee, and he had an advantage over the Blucher, contrasting his four 210-mm cannons with a 254 projectile mass in a side salvo of his 231-mm guns and having at the same time the double superiority in six-inch. About the Japanese monsters "Ibuki" and "Kurama", with their four 305-mm and four 203-mm in the side salvo there is nothing to say - their superiority in firepower over the German cruiser was completely overwhelming.
As for the English cruisers of the Minotaur type, their 234-mm guns were remarkable, but still, in terms of their combat capabilities, they did not reach the 254-mm guns of the cruisers of the United States, Italy and Russia. Nevertheless, they also excelled in combat power 210-mm German guns (172,4 kg projectile with an initial speed 881 m / s), and in addition, it should be noted that four such tools from the Minotaur in the side volley supplemented five 190 -mm guns with excellent characteristics, capable of producing 90,7 kg projectile with an initial speed of 862 m / s. In general, the “Minotaurs”, of course, surpassed “Blucher” in firepower, although this superiority was not as significant as that of “Rurik” or “Pisa”.
The only of the “last” armored cruisers of the world’s leading maritime powers, which was apparently inferior to the “Blucher” in terms of artillery, was the French “Waldeck Rousseau”. Yes, he carried 14 main-caliber guns and had an advantage over the Blucher in the side salvo for one barrel, but at the same time his old 194-mm guns fired only 86 kg with projectiles with a very low initial speed 770 m / s.
Thus, in terms of firepower, in comparison with other armored cruisers of the world, the “Blucher” occupies the unimportant last but one place. Its only advantage over other cruisers was the uniformity of the main caliber, which simplified the shooting at long distances, compared to the two calibers on the cruisers of the USA, England, Italy, etc., but the lag in the quality of artillery systems was so great that doubt the positive aspect could not be decisive.
As for the fire control system, in this regard, "Blucher" in German navy was a real pioneer. He was the first in the German navy to receive a three-legged mast, a centralized fire control system and a central artillery fire control machine. However, all this was installed on the cruiser not during construction, but during later upgrades.
Reservation
To the great joy of all domestic lovers of the naval stories Muzhenikov V. in his monograph “The Armored Cruisers“ Scharnhorst ”,“ Gneisenau ”and“ Blucher ”” gave detailed descriptions of the booking of these ships. Alas, to our disappointment, the description is so confusing that it is almost impossible to understand the system of protection of these three ships, but we still try to do it.
So, the length of the "Blucher" on the waterline was 161,1 m., The maximum - 162 m. (On this occasion, there are minor differences in the sources). From the stem and almost to the stern bow, the ship covered the armored deck, located “stepwise”, on three levels. For the duration of 25,2 m from the stem, an armor-shell was placed at 0,8 m below the waterline, then over the length of 106,8 m - one meter above the waterline, and further, for another 22,8 m - at 0,15 m below the waterline. The remaining 7,2 m deck armor is not protected. These three decks were interconnected by vertical transverse armored partitioning, the thickness of which was 80-mm between the middle and aft sections and, probably, the same number between the middle and fore sections.
Surprisingly, but the fact is that it is completely unclear from the descriptions of Muzhenikov whether Blucher had bevels or all three armored decks were horizontal. Most likely, there were still bevels - in the end, they were in the previous type of armored cruisers, and in the subsequent cruisers of the "Blucher" linear cruisers. At the same time, Muzhenikov writes that the Blucher reservation scheme was similar to the Scharnhorst, with the exception of a slight increase in the thickness of the armor belt. In this case, the middle section of the armored form, rising above the waterline at 1 meter, turned into bevels, descending to the lower edge of the armored belt located at 1,3 m below the waterline, but unfortunately there is no clarity with the fore and aft sections of the armored decks. The thickness of the decks and bevels, alas, Mujeniki also does not report, limited only by the phrase that "the total thickness of the armor plates of the deck decks in different parts was 50-70 mm." One can only guess whether the thickness of the armor was only the above-described armor decks, or whether the 50-70 mm is given as the sum of the thicknesses of the armor, battery, and upper decks.
The author of this article had the following impression: the thickness of the “stepped” armored decks and its bevels probably corresponded to those of the Scharnhorst, which were 40-55 mm, and this thickness includes both the armor and the steel flooring of the deck on top of which . Above the armored deck at the "Blucher" housed the battery (on which stood 150-mm guns) deck, and above it - the upper deck. At the same time, the battery deck did not have armor, but its thickness varied from 8 inside the casemate, to 12 mm outside the casemate, and at the location of the 150-mm guns - 16 mm or maybe 20 mm (Husbands writes that in these places the battery deck consisted of three layers, but does not report their thickness, from the context it can be assumed that it was 8 + 4 + 4 or 8 + 4 + 8 mm).
But the upper deck "Blucher" had a reservation over the casemates of 150-mm guns, but alas, except for the fact of its presence, Hubs did not report anything. By the way, if we assume that she had an 15-mm armor layer laid on top of the shipbuilding steel (something similar describes the Slaughter for the Scharnhorst), then we get the 40-55 mm armor deck + 15 mm upper deck above the deck armor dungeon that as if the specified Muzhenikov 55-70 mm cumulative protection.
The armor belt stretched almost the entire length of the ship, leaving only 6,3 m along the waterline at the stern itself unprotected, but was very different in thickness, height and depth under the waterline. Machine and boiler rooms covered 180 mm armor plates that had a height of 4,5 m (data may be slightly inaccurate), towering above the waterline at 3,2 m with normal draft and reaching the battery deck with the upper edge. Accordingly, this part of the armored belt went under water to 1,3 m. Very powerful protection for the armored cruiser, but armor belt 180 mm thick was wiped only on 79,2 m (49,16% of the length of the waterline), covering only the engine and boiler rooms. From 180 mm of armor plates to the bow and stern, only 80 mm of armored belt of reduced height went - to the stern it towered 2 m above water, to the nose - to 2,5 m and only at the very stem (approximately 7,2 m from it) rose to 3,28 m above the water.
The bottom edge of all these armored belts was located as follows: from the stem and towards the stern during the first 7,2 meters it went to 2 meters under the waterline, then “increased” to 1,3 meters and continued like this throughout the remaining length of the nasal 80 mm belt and 180 mm belt its entire length, but further (aft 80 mm belt) gradually rose from 1,3 to 0,75 m under the waterline. Since the armor plates in the 80 mm feed did not reach the stern stem a little, a stern traverse was provided, which had the same 80 mm armor.
The described booking scheme demonstrates weakness in protecting the extremities, because outside the boiler rooms and machine rooms, the onboard protection of Blucher looks extremely inadequate, not stronger than the British armored cruisers (80 mm armor belt and 40, maximum - 55 mm bevel, against 76-102 mm belt with 50 mm bevels from the British), but still it is not quite so. The fact is that, as far as it is possible to understand the descriptions of Muzhenikov, the 180 mm section of the armor belt was closed with the same 180 mm by traverses. But these traverses were located not perpendicular to the board, but obliquely, to the barbetas of the bow and stern towers of 210-mm guns, about the same as it was on the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau cruisers.
However, it should be borne in mind that the "inclined traverse" "Scharnhorst" took place over the bevels and armored decks, and probably the same thing happened on the "Blucher". In this case, there was a vulnerability at the level of a meter above and below the waterline.
In which the “slanting traverses” of the “Blucher” were not defended from enemy hits, and the cellar cover was limited to 80 mm by armor belts and 40-55 mm by bevels.
On the battery deck (that is, on top of the 180 mm of the Blucher armored belt), there was a 51,6 meter casemate for eight 150 mm guns. The armor plates defending the dungeon along the sides had a thickness of 140 mm and relied on the lower, 180 mm plates, so that, in fact, throughout the above-mentioned 51,6 m the vertical side protection reached the upper deck. From the stern, the casemate closed the 140 mm with a traverse located perpendicular to the board, but the traverse was inclined in the nose, like the citadel of the 180 mm, but did not reach the bow tower of the main caliber. As we said above, the floor of the casemate (battery deck) did not have protection, but from above the casemate was protected by armor, alas - of unspecified thickness. We assumed that it was 15 mm armor on steel armor.
The "Blucher" towers had front and side plates with a thickness of 180 mm and 80 mm in the back wall, presumably (right, alas, Husbands did not write about this) the barbet had 180 mm protection. The forward conning tower had a 250 mm wall and a 80 mm roof, aft - respectively 140 and 30 mm. On the Blucher, for the first time on armored cruisers in Germany, 35 mm anti-torpedo bulkheads were installed, stretching from the very bottom to the armored deck.
In general, one can say that the “big cruiser” armored defense of the “big cruiser” was very moderate. The armored cruisers of Germany were not at all champions of security, and only on Scharnhorst and Gneisenau they reached the world average. "Blucher" was even better booked, but it cannot be said that his defense somehow stood out against the background of his "classmates."
Like it or not, 180 mm belt + either 45 or 55 mm bevel does not have a fundamental advantage over the 152 mm belt and 50 mm bevel of the British Minotaurs, 127 mm of American Tennessee. Of all the armored cruisers of the world, the Russian “Rurik” with its 102 mm belt and 152 mm was slightly inferior to the “Blucher”, but here it should be noted that the Russian defense was much longer than the German one, protecting the barbety points of the 38-mm towers inclusive. The author knows little about booking armored cruisers of the Amalfi type, but it was based on the 254 mm belt, over which the 203-mm upper belt was located for a considerable distance, so it is doubtful that the Italian cruisers were inferior in protection to Blucher. The Japanese Ibuki had almost the same 178 mm of armor belt with 178 mm bevels as the German cruiser, but they also protected more waterlines than the 50 mm belt from Blucher.
Germanic Dreadnoughts and battlecruisers of the First World War are deservedly considered the standard of armor, such impenetrable floating fortresses - which they have repeatedly proven in battle. But alas, all this does not apply to the "Blucher". In principle, if the Germans would have found an opportunity to protect the 180 mm with an armor-belt of the side of their last "big cruiser", it could probably be said that his defense is somewhat superior to that of other cruisers of the world (with the possible exception of the Japanese), but That did not happen. And in general, “Blucher” should be considered a ship protected at the level of its “classmates” - not worse, but, in general, not better than them.
Power plant.
In the ship's power industry, the Germans showed amazing traditionalism - not only the first, but even the second series of their dreadnoughts (the type "Helgoland") carried steam engines and coal-fired boilers instead of turbines and oil fuel. To be fair, it should be noted that in Germany some of the best (if not the best) steam engines of the world were created. As for coal, then, firstly, in those years no one yet risked building large warships whose power plants would work entirely on oil. But there were more weighty reasons: firstly, the Germans considered coal pits to be an important element of ship protection, and secondly, there was a shortage of coal mines in Germany, but with oil fields everything was much worse. In the event of war, the "oil" fleet of Germany could only rely on previously accumulated oil reserves, which could be replenished only from outside supplies, but where could they come from under the British blockade?
"Blucher" received three steam engines, steam for which provided 18 boilers (12 - great performance and 6 - small). The power rating of the power plant was 32 000 hp, under the contract the cruiser had to develop 24,8 knots. On the test machine forced, having achieved a record 43 262 HP "Blucher" while developing 25,835 bonds. In general, despite the use of already obsolete steam engines, in general, the Blucher power plant deserves only praise. She effectively worked not only on the dimensional mile, but also in the course of everyday use - it is interesting that Blucher, acting jointly with the battlecruisers Hochseeflotte, always maintained the speeds set for him, but Fon der Tann sometimes lagged behind. Normal fuel capacity is 900 t, full 2510 t (according to other data - 2 206 t). Blucher, unlike Scharnhorst and Gneuizenau, was not considered a cruiser of the colonial service, but had a range of even more than they were - 6 600 miles on 12 nodes or 3 520 miles on 18 nodes. Scharnhorst, according to various sources, had 12 5 - 120 6 miles on 500 nodes.
It can be stated that on both sides of the North Sea they came to the conclusion that it was necessary to increase the speed of the “big” cruisers to 25 knots, and in this (and, alas, the only) respect, “Blucher” was not inferior to the newest British “Invinsible”. And speed is the only parameter in which the German cruiser had an advantage over the last armored cruisers of other powers. The most heavily armed Japanese "Ibuki" and the following domestic "Rurik" developed the order of the 21 node, the Tenessi 22 bonds, the British Minotaurs 22,5-23 bonds, the Waldeck Rousso 23 bonds, the Italian Amalfi cruisers ”(“ Pisa ”) gave out 23,6-23,47 bonds, but, of course, no one came close to the phenomenal“ Blucher ”25,8 ties.
So, what do we have in the dry residue?
The general logic of the development of naval technology and, to a certain extent, the experience of the Russian-Japanese war, led to the emergence of the last generation of armored cruisers. Those were “Tennessee” in the USA (for the sake of justice - the first “Tennessee” was actually laid in 1903 g, so, although the American cruiser was not the best, but he was the first, so he can be forgiven) “Warrior "And" Minotaur "in England," Pisa "in Italy," Waldeck Russo "in France," Tsukuba "and" Ibuki "in Japan and" Rurik "in Russia.
Germany on this turn of the world cruising race managed to be late. While all countries were laying their cruisers, in Germany they started building the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, which looked great in the background of some Iwate or Good Hope, but were completely uncompetitive to the Minotaur. or "Pisa". The Germans began the construction of their last-generation armored cruiser, the “last generation.” Regardless of where it’s considered the beginning of the creation of “Blucher”, from the date of laying (1907 g) or from the date of the beginning of the preparation of the building berth for construction (the autumn before 1906 g), the “Blucher” was truly the last because their armored cruisers in 1903-1905's.
Under these conditions, the proverb about “slowly harnessing and driving fast” is recalled, because, since the Germans started building with such a delay, they had the opportunity to design if not the best, then at least one of the world's best armored cruisers. Instead, the slipway of the state shipyard in Kiel spawned something extremely strange.
Among other armored cruisers of the world, “Blucher” received the highest speed, armor protection “slightly above average”, and perhaps the weakest artillery. Usually, “Blucher” is perceived as a ship with weakened artillery, but stronger armor than its “opponents”, which results from comparing the thickness of the main armored belts - 180 mm from “Blucher” against 127-152 mm from most other cruisers. But even in this case, for some reason, usually no one remembers the 178 mm armor of the Japanese and 203 mm armor of Italian cruisers.
In fact, given that:
1) Vertical armor should be taken into account together with the bevels of the armored deck, and in this case the difference between the 50 mm bevel + 152 mm belt of the British cruisers and approximately 50 mm bevel and 180 mm Blucher armor is minimal.
2) The 180 mm section of the Blucher belt was very short, and covered only the engine and boiler rooms.
We can confidently say that the armor of the "Blucher" did not have any noticeable advantage even over cruisers with 152 mm armor belts.
Usually, “Blucher” is reproached with the fact that it, being officially laid one year after the start of the construction of “Invincibles”, could not resist them. But suppose for a moment that a miracle happened and the class of battle cruisers was never born. What tasks could the Kaiserlmarine be solved by the “big” cruiser “Blucher”?
As we said earlier, the Germans saw two tasks for their cruisers - the colonial service (under it were built Fürst Bismarck, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau) as well as reconnaissance during battleships of battleships (for which all other German armored cruisers were created). Did it make sense to send "Blucher" to the ocean communications of England? Obviously not, because the English "hunters" obviously surpassed him in armament. True, the "Blucher" was faster, but if you rely on speed, wouldn't it have been easier to build several high-speed light cruisers with the same money? A heavy raider makes sense when it is able to destroy the “hunter”, but what is the point of the armored cruiser, which is initially weaker than its “beaters”? Thus, we see that “Blucher” is absolutely not optimal for ocean raiding.
Service at the squadron? Alas, it's still sadder. The fact is that already in 1906 r for everyone, including in Germany, it was obvious that armadillos are becoming a thing of the past, and in the future the squadrons of dreadnoughts will be foaming the seas. But could "Blucher" serve as a scout in such a squadron?
Arguing in the abstract - yes, it could. Somewhere in the Pacific Ocean, in good weather and with excellent visibility, where you can track the movement of the enemy squadron, being from it miles in 12 or further and without being substituted by the fire of the heavy guns of the new lords of the seas. In this case, the high speed of the “Blucher” would allow him to keep the distance he needed and watch the enemy without being substituted for the blow.
But even in this case, the construction of the “Blucher” is far from optimal, because enemy scouts with their own squadron are usually not welcome and would probably want to drive it away. In this case, any cruiser with 254-mm guns got a big advantage over the Blucher - such a cruiser could effectively hit the German ship from a greater distance than the Blucher 210-gun. As a result, the commander of the German "big" cruiser remained a "rich" choice - either to continue observation, leading the battle at an unfavorable distance for his ship, or get close to the enemy cruiser and get hit by heavy dreadnought cannons, or completely retreat, disrupting the combat mission .
But the ship is not created for combat in a spherical vacuum. The “field of fate” for the Kaiserlichmarin was to be the North Sea with its bad weather and fog. Under these conditions, the scout in the squadron always risked unexpectedly stumble upon the head enemy dreadnoughts, finding them six or seven miles away. In this case, the salvation was to disappear in the fog as soon as possible, or that there would still limit visibility. But the dreadnoughts were much more powerful than the old battleships, and even in the shortest time could turn a high-speed scout into a flaming wreck. Therefore, the “big” German cruiser performing the reconnaissance mission in the squadron needed very good armor protection that would allow him to survive short-term contact with the English Dreadnoughts 305-mm guns. However, as we see, "Blucher" did not possess anything of the kind.
Now suppose that the author still made a mistake in his postulates, and the Germans designed “Blucher” in response to misinformation that the alleged “Invincibles” are the same “Dreadnoughts”, but only with 234-mm artillery. But remember the Invinsib armor.
Their long 152 mm armor belt, which defended the board right up to the fore and aft towers of the main caliber, with the 50 mm bevel and 64 mm cellar protection gave very good protection, and the author of this article would not risk saying that the “short” 180 mm armor belt “Blucher” protected the German ship is better - we can rather say that the protection of the Invincible and Blucher are about the same. But at the same time, if the Invincible had had an 8-mm gun in the onboard salvo of the 234, it would have been much stronger than the Blucher - and in speed these ships would be equal.
The construction of "Blucher" was a mistake of the German fleet, not because he could not resist the Invincibles (more precisely, not only because of this), but because even in their absence he was weaker than other armored cruisers of the world and without them could be able to carry out the tasks assigned to this class of ships in the German fleet in some effective way.
The ending should be!
Previous articles of the cycle:
Errors of the German shipbuilding. Big cruiser "Blucher"
Information