Military Review

Battle Cruiser: Fon der Tann vs Indefatigeble

59
In previous articles, we examined in detail the circumstances of the creation of the world's first battlecruisers of the Invincible type and the German “big” cruiser “Blucher”. All of these ships, despite some positive qualities, were unsuccessful and, by and large, should be considered as errors of the British and Germans. However, after them, the UK continued, and Germany began to build the battlecruisers. They will be devoted to a series of articles offered to your attention.


Let's start with the German cruiser “Von der Tann”, especially since it was laid just after the “Invincibles” and “Blucher”, but before the second series of British battlecruisers (of the type “Indefatigeble”).

History Fon der Tanna started 17 on May 1906 of the year, exactly two weeks before the German naval attache in London reported that the newest British cruisers of the Invincible type were armed with an 305-mm cannon. Surprisingly, but the German battle cruiser was invented not by shipbuilders and admirals, but Kaiser Wilhelm II.

The emperor proposed to shipbuilders to develop a new type of warship for special combat operations, which, among other things, could perform the functions of a reconnaissance cruiser during a squadron, but could also participate in linear combat. In this new ship was supposed to:

1) carry at least four 280-mm guns;
2) have a speed exceeding the fastest battleship on a 3 node.

If the author of this article was able to correctly translate the phrase "the new battleships of the Ersatz Bayern / Nassau class", then the project of the newest German Dreadnought type "Nassau" should be taken as the basis for the development.

It is known that the idea of ​​"Nassau" was born before, as it became known in Germany about the British "Dreadnought". As we can see, the Germans also thought quite independently of the concept of the battle cruiser. However, the Kaiser’s brilliant visionary gift should not be overestimated here: it is quite likely that his thoughts were prompted by a visit to Italy in 1905, during which he had the opportunity to familiarize himself with the high-speed Italian armadillos. It is possible that in this case it worked "I want the same, only better."

Nevertheless, we see that, unlike the British, the Germans initially saw battlecruisers as fleet battleships to serve as a fleet wing at the squadron, and this was a fundamental difference in the views of the "big" cruisers among the Germans and the British. However, one should not assume that the Germans did not have a debate about a new class of warships. The main ideas of the German battlecruiser were expressed by the Kaiser, he was supported by the Imperial Ministry of the Sea. In the memorandum of June 29/30, 1906, entitled "The Great Cruiser of 1907 and subsequent years" (German Law on navy"Regulated the bookmarks of warships over the years, so that was referring to the cruiser that was laid down in 1907 and ships of the same class in the future) an excellent justification was given for the German type of battle cruiser. The main points of the memorandum were as follows:

1) the British fleet has a significant superiority in the classic armored cruisers (the Germans used the term "big cruiser", but we will continue to write "armored" for both German and English ships to avoid confusion because of the performance of English shipyards will continue in the future;

2) therefore, any independent operations of a few German armored cruisers, regardless of where they are carried out, are doomed to failure. Whether it is reconnaissance or other actions in the North Sea, or the classic struggle on ocean communications - in the end, the armored cruisers of Germany will be intercepted and destroyed;

3) in accordance with the foregoing, Germany should completely abandon the construction of armored cruisers, and instead lay the new class of ships - high-speed battleships, whose main task will be to participate in the general battle as a high-speed wing.

Due to the fact that at the time of the writing of the memorandum, the British Invincibles were already armed with eight 305-mm cannons, and taking into account the Japanese armored cruisers, the Naval Ministry considered that the new type of ships should have:

1) with six or eight 280-mm implements in three to four two-guns, or in two two-gun and four single-gun towers;

2) eight 150-mm guns in casemates or towers;

3) other weapons should have included twenty 88-mm cannons, four 8-mm machine guns and four torpedo tubes;

4) The nasal armor should be 400 mm thick, or at least 300 mm, and aft - 200 mm. Other bookings should be 10-20% thinner than Nassau-type battleships;

5) coal stock should be 6% of displacement, the speed - not lower than 23 nodes.

On the other hand, the similar point of view had also high-ranking opponents. For example, such an interpretation did not meet with any understanding of the Secretary of State of the Naval Department A. Tirpitz, who believed that the cruiser should be a cruiser, and not something else. The memorandum of the Imperial Maritime Ministry, as they say, did not even have time to dry, when 1906 was published in July in the Marine Review magazine (Marine-Rundschau) an article by the Corvette-Captain Vollerthun, dedicated to the future of armored cruisers. In it, the corvette-captain made a cursory review of the evolution of the class of armored cruisers, on the basis of which he informed the reader:

"The modern English armored cruiser is a very expensive ship, but it does not have the qualities that would allow it to fight a modern battleship in a decisive battle."


This conclusion is undoubtedly indisputable, which cannot be said about the other statements of the author. According to his logic, since the British did not create a cruiser for a squadron battle, then Germany does not need to “run ahead of the locomotive,” and an attempt at such a qualitative jerk is premature. Corvetten-captain said that you can not create a successful ship, which managed to combine the power of the battleship and the speed of the cruiser, and that such hopes are obviously illusory. Consequently, it is not necessary to try to cover the immense, but it is necessary to clearly distinguish between tasks and tactical capabilities of the battleship and armored cruiser. According to the author of the article, under no circumstances should an armored cruiser be used in a general battle as a ship of the line, including as a “high-speed wing”.

I would like to draw the attention of dear readers to this point. As we see, in Germany there were different views on the tasks of armored cruisers, but for all their polarity, they were much more logical and rational than the considerations that guided the design of their armored and battle cruisers by the British. The British admirals wanted to use their moderately armored cruisers as a “high-speed wing” in the linear fleet, absolutely not thinking about what would happen to them if large-caliber guns of battleships or battleships “paid attention” to them. At the same time, in Germany, the debate boiled down to the fact that "either we build high-speed battleships that can fight in line, or we build conventional armored cruisers, which in no case will we put in line."

Nevertheless, it should be noted that, although the Germans independently came up with the idea of ​​a battle cruiser, its practical implementation, Invincible, had the most significant impact. If A. Tirpitz was an opponent of the “high-speed battleship”, he was not opposed to increasing the artillery on armored cruisers. In the same July, 1906, he ordered to prepare a draft of the battleship and armored cruiser with 305-mm guns, the battleship was supposed to carry twelve, and the battle cruiser - eight such guns. However, 305-mm guns were subsequently abandoned, both because of the unavailability of guns and tower installations for them, and in view of the saving in displacement, which was given by the use of 280-mm guns.

After a series of meetings, the tactical and technical characteristics of the future ship were refined: the main caliber should have been eight 280-mm guns, the average - eight-ten 150-mm guns. The speed was supposed to be “as much as possible” close to the armored cruiser E (the future “Blucher”), the reservation should provide protection against the 305-m projectiles. There were also limitations on displacement, but they were formulated somewhat differently than the English: it was assumed that the displacement of the new cruiser should not exceed that of the Ersatz of Bavaria (the future Nassau), which meant that the cruiser could be equal to the battleship weight, but the cost of the cruiser should be lower than that of the battleship. In addition, the use of turbines should be explored.

In September, 1906, the design bureau presented the technical projects under the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 and 4b, but all of them, except No. 1 and 2, were rejected and only the last ones were considered.



Both projects had the same weapons: 8 * 280-mm, 8 * 150-mm, 20 * 88-mm and 4 torpedo tubes, but different placement of artillery. Surprisingly, but a fact: the Germans considered that the combination of one-and two-gun towers was preferable, but they also took into account the fact that the project №2 was half a node faster (2,3-5-24 knots, against the 23-23,5 knots of the project No.1). Interestingly, the designers could not meet the requirements for displacement - it was higher than that of Nassau, but at the same time Project No. 1 was heavier than Project No. 2 on 150 t - 19 500 t against 19 350 t.

In order to reduce displacement, it was proposed to leave only six 280-mm guns on the cruiser, placing them in the median plane, as was done on Brandenburg-type battleships.



At the same time, a side salvo of six 280-mm guns was maintained, but in comparison with project No. 2 the displacement could be reduced by 800 tons. Nevertheless, such an innovation was rejected by A. Tirpitz, who quite logically objected that the idea is good in itself, but the nation will not understand if we only build a six-armed cruiser in response to the eight-cruiser.

Subsequently, many more proposals were made, including, for example, a reduction in the main caliber from 280-mm to 240-mm, but in this case the cruiser was obviously weaker than the British, which was also unacceptable. As a result, we finally settled on eight 280-mm guns, while its placement schemes were offered a variety of, including very original ones, like this one



It soon became clear that a new cruiser of specified characteristics could not be “tamped” into a displacement of less than 19 000, but even that was more than the weight of Nassau, whose displacement in “1906” projects had “grown” to 18, 405, and in fact, the battleship had a normal displacement of 18 569 t., or (according to other data) 18 870 t. In any case, no one ever planned for the Nassau 19 000 t, however, it became clear that the new cruiser would not work less than 19 000 t., put up with it and looked only to ensure that at the cost it did not exceed l "Nassau".

The "correct" placement of artillery to the Germans prompted the British. The fact is that a rumor has passed that the Invincible can still operate with all eight main-caliber guns on board. In fact, this was not the case, because even theoretically the tower of the opposite side could fire only in a narrow sector, 25-30 degrees, but in fact its shooting interfered so much with the second “traverse” tower that if the tower closest to the enemy is disabled. But the Germans could not know this, so the artillery was arranged according to the rhombic scheme.

I must say that this scheme did not immediately become main, because the Imperial Maritime Ministry still preferred an extremely exotic scheme with three two-gun towers in the median plane and two single-gun ones - along the sides (shown above), besides there were certain doubts that Using the rhombic scheme, it will be possible to shoot from the tower located on the opposite side, without damaging the hull structures. However, in the end, it was the rhombic scheme that was used to further design the ship. For the power plant, the turbines were finally adopted, and the new cruiser was to be the first large German ship with four propellers (before that, three propellers were considered the standard). Displacement increased again - up to 19 200 t.

In the final version, the following tactical and technical characteristics of the future cruiser were defined:
Displacement (normal / full) - 19 370 / 21 300 t.
The length of the waterline - 171,5 m.
Width - 26,6 m.
Draft (at normal / full displacement) - 8,13 / 9,17 m.
Rated power of machines - 42 000 hp
Speed ​​at rated power - 24,8 knots.
Fuel supply (normal / full) - 1 000 / 2 600 t.
Progress range - 4 400 miles on 14 knots.



Artillery

The main caliber was represented by eight 280-mm guns (strictly speaking, 279 mm, in Germany the caliber was designated in centimeters, i.e. 28, see, hence the generally accepted domestic 280-mm) with a barrel length of 45 caliber. The guns fired 302-kg with projectiles with an initial speed of 850 m / s. The armor-piercing projectiles had an 8,95 kg of explosive (data may not be reliable). The elevation angle was originally 20 hail., While the range reached 18 900 m, later, in 1915, it was increased to 20 400 m. Ammunition for 8 guns was 660 shells (82-83 projectile on the barrel) . According to the German data, the armor penetration capability of the 280 projectile was 280 mm of armor Krupp at a distance of 10 000 m (54 KBT.) And 200 mm of the same armor on 12 000 m (65 KBT.).

The average caliber is ten 150-mm guns with a barrel length 45 caliber, the maximum angle of elevation before upgrading is 20 hail, shot with armor-piercing and high-explosive shells with a mass of 45,3 kg. with an initial speed of 835 m. / sec. The firing range was originally 13 500 (73 cab.), But later, using new, elongated projectiles and, probably, increasing the maximum angle of elevation, reached 16 800 m (91 cab). "Six-inch" were placed in a casemate, in the center of the case, the ammunition consisted of 50 armor-piercing and 100 high-explosive shells on the gun.

The anti-mine caliber is sixteen 88-mm guns with a barrel length 45 caliber, charged with unitary cartridges weighing 15,5 kg. Projectile weighing 10,5 kg. flew with an initial speed of 750 m. / sec. on 10 700 m. (58 cab.). Bokomplekt made 200 shells on the gun.

Reservation

The booking system “Fon der Tanna” turned out to be another rebus, and I must say that the author of this article does not pretend to understand it one hundred percent. For a start, we note that the Germans had their own system of naming armor. They called the main armor (the lower armor), the armor belt, the armor belt, the upper armor belt, the citadel, the reservation of casemates was higher. However, for simplicity, we will “unite” the citadel and the armor belt into one and will call them the armor belt, and the armor belt together with its traverses will be called the citadel.

To begin with, let us recall what the Nassau armored belt was. Its height reached 4,57 m, but the thickness was not constant. In the middle of the armored belt throughout 2 m its thickness was 270 mm, and then, to the upper and lower edges, the armor was thinned to 170 mm. At the same time the belt was on 1,6 m under water, respectively, 270 mm. the armor section went below the waterline by about 32 cm (further along the 128 cm, its thickness decreased to 170 mm), and at 168 cm it rose above the surface of the water. Then, for the same 128 cm up, the belt also became thinner from 270 to 170 mm.

The Von der Tanna armored belt was similar to the Nassau, but had some differences. Unfortunately, the height of the armored belt is not given in the sources available to the author (even G. Staff, alas, does not write about it), but it can be assumed that it approximately corresponded to that of Nassau, i.e. was 4,57 m, or so. The “thickest” part of the Von der Tanna armored belt was inferior to Nassau in both thickness and height, but if everything is clear with the thicknesses (“Fon der Tann” had 250 mm against 270 mm for “Nassau”) , the height of the 250 mm plot is unclear. V.B. Husbands points:

"At the main waterline, the thickness of the main armor belt was 250 mm against 180 mm in Blucher and the height of 1,22 m, of which 0,35 m went below the main waterline."


Thus, according to VB Muzhenikov turns out that Fon der Tann was defended by a narrow, only 1,22 m strip of 250 mm of armor, but here you can assume a mistake. It is possible that the 250 mm section of the Von der Tanna armored belt had a height of 1,57 m, of which 35 cm were under the waterline, and 1,22 m above it.

Judging by the reducible drawings, the Von der Tanna armored belt went under the water on the same 1,6 m as the Nassau armored belt, and also gradually got thinner, as in the first German Dreadnought. At the same time, it is reliably known that at the lower edge the belt of the battle cruiser was 150 mm. But above 250 mm. The Von der Tann armored belt section received more powerful protection than Nassau’s. Where Nassau’s thickness was reduced from 270 mm to 170 mm, Von der Tann defended 200 mm armor. In some publications, the thickness 225 mm is mistakenly indicated, but this is not true - such thickness of the armored belt was only opposite the barbet of the onboard tower of the main caliber.



The 250-mm armor belt was very long, covering the 62,5% of the length of the waterline. Of course, he covered not only the boiler rooms and engine rooms, but also the flow tubes of the bow and stern towers of the main caliber. In the nose, the armor-belt was “closed” with a beam of 170-200 mm thick, in the stern - 170 mm, and not 180 mm, as is often indicated in the sources.

The ends of the battlecruiser were also armored. The nose of the ship outside the citadel was armored with 120 mm armor plates, which were closer to the stem thinned to 100 mm, while both 120 mm and 100 mm armor plates to their upper edge were thinned to 80 mm. 100 mm of armor belt went to the stern of the citadel, and its armor plates also at the upper edge had only 80 mm of thickness. But if in the nose the armor-belt reached the stem, then in the stern several meters of the waterline remained unregistered. Here the armored belt ended with a beam of 100 mm thick.

Above the armored belt was a casemate of 150-mm guns, the thickness of its armor plates was also 150 mm. In length, it was significantly shorter than the armored belt, the hull was not armored in the bow and stern of it. Inside the casemate, the guns were divided by armored partitions with a thickness of 20 mm.

As for the horizontal booking, it was presented within the citadel by an armored deck 25 mm thick, with 50 mm bevels to the lower edge of the armored belt. In this case, the armored deck was slightly above the waterline. Outside the citadel, the armored form was located below the waterline, apparently on the lower edge of the armored belt, while its nose was 50 mm thick, at the stern - 50 mm, and the section where the side was not armored and 80 mm in the 100 mm area of ​​the plates. In addition, the casemate had a reservation for the roof and floor 25 mm thick.

The battle cruiser of the battlecruiser was protected by 300 mm by armor, the roof by 80 mm, and the stern by 200 mm and 50 mm, respectively. In addition, chimneys, ventilation and lighting shafts were booked. Von der Tann had an anti-torpedo bulkhead, 25 mm thick, which protected the ship throughout the length of the citadel.

In general, and despite some weakening regarding Nassau, the Von der Tanna booking looked extremely solid. Nevertheless, he also had his vulnerabilities.

The main caliber towers were armored fairly well - frontal sheets and rear wall 230 mm, side walls 180 mm, inclined sheet in front of the roof 90 mm, the rest roof 60 mm, flooring in the rear part of the tower 50 mm. The barbety had 200 mm of armor, while at the bow and stern of the barbet that was facing the bow (and, accordingly, stern), the thickness of the armor increased to 230 mm, and on the opposite side only 170 mm. But the problem was that the barbet of such thickness reached only the nearest armored decks, and below it only had a symbolic thickness of 30 mm (or even 25 mm). The height of the barbet at which it had 170-230 mm is marked in blue in the diagram.

The problem was that the projectile, which landed on the deck of “Von der Tanna” something like this



Easily punched the 25-mm deck, after which only 25-30 mm barbet separated it from the supply pipe. Of course, the danger was not only the side tower, the opposite of the one being fought, but all the towers of Fon der Tanna, especially with longitudinal fire on it. But in fairness, it should be noted that such a weakness in barbet bookings was inherent in all the dreadnoughts and first series battle cruisers — a similar vulnerability (even if to a lesser extent, but an 305-mm projectile, in general, doesn’t matter if you pierced 30 mm wall, 50 mm or 76 mm) and had a "Nassau", and "Dreadnought" and "Invinsible", etc. This to some extent justified the German designers, but of course, did not create additional protection for the Von der Tanna sailors.

Power plant.


One of the turbines "Von der Tanna"


"Von der Tann" was the first German large warship to use turbines, and apparently so the manufacturers miscalculated. It was assumed that the nominal power of the ship’s turbines would be 42 000 hp, at which the ship would develop 24,8 knots, however, the 79 007 hp power was achieved during forcing tests, and the maximum speed was 27,398 knots. On a six-hour run, the cruiser showed 26,8 ties. average speed. At the same time, in daily operation, Fon der Tann showed similar results - according to some data (Koop) in 1910 g the cruiser developed 79 802 hp, while achieving 27,74 knots at 339 revs!

I must say that VB Muzhenikov points out that there are some problems with the Von der Tanna turbines, because of which the ship had problems maintaining speed during the war, and even indicates the cause of such problems:

"In 1911, after a trip to South America, he traveled 1913 miles between Tenerife and Helgoland with an average speed of a 24 node, which later during the war led to turbine malfunctions."


Nevertheless, in the Yutland battle, “Fon der Tann” increased the speed to 26 knots and it can be assumed that problems with turbines did not occur regularly, which, however, was not too bad for a warship. In any case, it can only be argued that there was no constant “drawdown” in speed for the “Von der Tanna”.

This concludes the description of the first true German battle cruiser. In the next article of the cycle we will look at the history of the creation and performance of the opponents of the Von der Tanna, the battle cruisers of the Indefatigeble project. In it, we compare the data of the English and German ships and give an assessment of their projects.

Продолжение следует ...
Author:
59 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Potter
    Potter 21 March 2018 15: 22
    +6
    Great start to a new cycle. Thank you, we are waiting for the continuation.
    As for the power of the turbines, the designers rather secured themselves, rather than miscalculated. And, one must take into account that not only for the Germans the features of turbines that allow a large boost with sufficient boiler performance, this was unexpected.
    As far as I remember, Sevastopoli should also have 42000 hp, while testing gave more than 50000 hp. and 24 knots (with poor contours for speed), and after installing the Kinburn boilers, they gave more than 60000 hp.
    So here the Germans provided initially a good speed, which is still oh how useful.
    1. avt
      avt 21 March 2018 19: 03
      +2
      Quote: Potter
      Great start to a new cycle.

      More precisely, Blucher’s continuation, but in general, yes good
      This concludes the description of the first true German battle cruiser.
      Ah ,, Derflinger "is still better. bully
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 21 March 2018 19: 36
        +3
        Quote: avt
        Ah ,, Derflinger "is still better.

        Not all at once !! wink Step by step, the author will get to the ideal yes
        So read s, enjoy s s and wait s drinks hi
  2. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 21 March 2018 15: 44
    +3
    Excellent selection by Von der Tann.
    Something about the OMS did not reveal the details, dear Andrew?
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 21 March 2018 19: 50
      +2
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      Something about the OMS did not reveal the details, dear Andrew?

      Most likely, the author will talk about SUAO when comparing opponents. yes hi
  3. NF68
    NF68 21 March 2018 16: 13
    +2
    + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 21 March 2018 19: 42
      +2
      Vague doubts torment me, Nikolai - Can you read, write, speak for an hour? belay what wink It, of course, to express thoughts succinctly is quite normal, but not to the same extent smile request
      And then go figure it out what these crosses mean:
      плюсы
      I want more
      offer to play tic-tac-toe
      cemetery
      the key is stuck ...
      hi
      1. NF68
        NF68 22 March 2018 15: 59
        +2
        Quote: Rurikovich
        Vague doubts torment me, Nikolai - Can you read, write, speak for an hour? belay what wink It, of course, to express thoughts succinctly is quite normal, but not to the same extent smile request
        And then go figure it out what these crosses mean:
        плюсы
        I want more
        offer to play tic-tac-toe
        cemetery
        the key is stuck ...
        hi


        I can write and speak. But only in cases where you cannot do without it. Crosses are all pluses and they have nothing to do with cemeteries with their inhabitants.
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 22 March 2018 17: 54
          0
          So am I with humor wink repeat hi
          1. NF68
            NF68 22 March 2018 21: 35
            0
            Quote: Rurikovich
            So am I with humor wink repeat hi


            So in cemeteries, crosses are also completely different.
  4. Firework
    Firework 21 March 2018 16: 26
    -1
    explain, is it possible to effectively win battles at sea with the British and Americans if the Germans had an AUG of 2-3 aircraft carriers, 6-8 heavy cruisers and a certain number of destroyers? Are AUGs from the 2nd World Battleship needed? Or can you do without them?
    1. Cartalon
      Cartalon 21 March 2018 16: 42
      +2
      From your imagination, given the state of British carrier-based aviation, if the Germans were overcome by an attack of genius and they created both aircraft carriers and efficient carrier-based aircraft, then Britons would be dead))
  5. Cartalon
    Cartalon 21 March 2018 16: 43
    +1
    The couple did not figure out what to get to the bottom ((
  6. arturpraetor
    arturpraetor 21 March 2018 16: 48
    +1
    Oh, to compare the power density of the British and German ships with the specific power, and the volumes occupied by the machinery ... I remember that the British were completely defeated there, which caused them to have a TTX gap behind the Germans even on the Lyons and Tigers. But on the early ships this information seems to be a little thick - on the “Tiger” and “Derflinger” is, but on the “Invincibles” and “Von der Tann” I do not remember finding something similar when I was looking ...
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 21 March 2018 19: 47
      0
      Then here you need to compare the weight indicators in percentage terms. Then, along with the indicators, it will become clear who due to what achieved this or that component in the performance characteristics
      Quote: arturpraetor
      for the British there was utter defeat, which caused their TTX lag behind the Germans even on Lyons and Tiger

      Come on. In terms of seaworthiness and speed data, “cats” were at their best
      1. arturpraetor
        arturpraetor 21 March 2018 20: 21
        0
        Quote: Rurikovich
        Come on. In terms of seaworthiness and speed data, “cats” were at their best

        Well, not a rout, but I have a very low opinion of the British PM during WWII. The power density was usually lower, more noticeably than that of gloomy Teutons. And if you recall the other performance characteristics, it turns out that the “Tiger”
        - noticeably more modest armor protection;
        - at an almost equal speed with the Derflinger, the weight of the EI is 1,6 (!!!) times greater, while the British has a normal displacement of 1,05 times;
        then we get the output ... Well, I don’t call the Tiger a bad ship, but damn it, with such heavy machinery it is not surprising that the Fisher cats carried weaker armor than the Hipper lions. If they wanted to, the British could not have created Derfa, or it would have turned out slower, or worse protected.
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 21 March 2018 21: 09
          +1
          So the British relied on speed. What's so surprising request
          “Tiger”, according to some reports, developed up to thirty knots, because with 343mm guns it was considered quite miscible, according to the British ship. Let's not forget that the British considered their armor better than the German, because we even limited ourselves to a thickness of only 229mm. Well, the Germans had a different opinion on this subject, which they said under Jutland. And I consider “cats” as relatively true battle cruisers of Aglitz. But all the "-ibles" with 305mm guns were still armored cruisers and they had to be used in accordance with the cruising tasks. Although the Germans had arrived, the Germans "Bayern" and "Baden" were operational by the time of the Jutland battle and the cat was hit by fire 15 "cannons, then this 9" skin would turn out to be too thin. But the German armor quite well (relatively, of course) held not only 343mm, but also 381mm shells. At least only one dreadnought went to the bottom, and even this was due to the Hipper flag in the compartment with the number of hits rather than quality. So the Germans were more balanced for a squadron battle, which was proved.
          1. arturpraetor
            arturpraetor 21 March 2018 21: 15
            +1
            Quote: Rurikovich
            “Tiger”, according to some reports, developed up to thirty knots, because with 343mm guns it was considered quite miscible, according to the British ship.

            EMNIP British thought that he would develop up to 30 nodes, but in real life he maximally developed 29.

            Well, the rest - yes, I agree. Although here the quality of British shells also played a role. Let's just say - if you give the Teutons the Bayern and Baden, and the British - normal shells for the 343-mm and 381-mm guns, it would really be a massacre with a bunch of dead ships on both sides. The Germans still have the best armor - but the British still had more ...
            1. Rurikovich
              Rurikovich 21 March 2018 21: 36
              +1
              Quote: arturpraetor
              and the British - normal shells for 343 mm and 381 mm guns,

              Well, this is the problem of the British. If our shells were also normal, then Tsushima would not be so sad. wink
              Quote: arturpraetor
              but there were still more Britons

              Here the dog is buried. In quantitative superiority. Sheer and saved only the late start of the battle and poor visibility, which allowed him to successfully climb out of the trap. The Germans would only have chances if each volley would successfully lead to the explosion of the enemy’s cellars, but this is already fantastic. Therefore, the Germans needed to meet part of the Grand Fleet in order to equalize the chances due to quality. There were chances, but they were not used smile
          2. NF68
            NF68 21 March 2018 21: 37
            +1
            Quote: Rurikovich
            So the British relied on speed. What's so surprising request
            “Tiger”, according to some reports, developed up to thirty knots, because with 343mm guns it was considered quite miscible, according to the British ship. Let's not forget that the British considered their armor better than the German, because we even limited ourselves to a thickness of only 229mm. Well, the Germans had a different opinion on this subject, which they said under Jutland. And I consider “cats” as relatively true battle cruisers of Aglitz. But all the "-ibles" with 305mm guns were still armored cruisers and they had to be used in accordance with the cruising tasks. Although the Germans had arrived, the Germans "Bayern" and "Baden" were operational by the time of the Jutland battle and the cat was hit by fire 15 "cannons, then this 9" skin would turn out to be too thin. But the German armor quite well (relatively, of course) held not only 343mm, but also 381mm shells. At least only one dreadnought went to the bottom, and even this was due to the Hipper flag in the compartment with the number of hits rather than quality. So the Germans were more balanced for a squadron battle, which was proved.


            At Tiger, the lower belt did not have a thickness of 229 mm over the entire length:
            https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Tiger_(1913)#/m
            edia / File: HMS_Tiger_1913_armour_profile.svg

            And as for booking German ships, the Germans were very lucky in that the British did not have normal armor-piercing shells at that time. After the PMV, it was found that the English Eri armor was better than the German armor.
            1. Rurikovich
              Rurikovich 21 March 2018 21: 46
              +1
              Quote: NF68
              At Tiger, the lower belt did not have a thickness of 229 mm over the entire length:

              Duc so in almost all ships request - to the extremities, the thickness of the armor decreases. And its maximum values ​​are indicated everywhere.
              Quote: NF68
              the Germans were very lucky in that the British at that time did not have normal armor-piercing shells.

              These are the problems of the British (see above) wink yes hi
              Quote: NF68
              After the PMV, it was found that the English Eri armor was better than the German armor.

              This did not save “Invincible” with “Indefatigable” because there is nothing to rush with an almost naked ass on adult uncles.
              But about the quality of the armor is better to read Puzyrevsky "Combat damage and the death of ships in the battle of Jutland" hi
              1. NF68
                NF68 22 March 2018 21: 54
                +1
                Quote: Rurikovich
                So in almost all ships - to the extremities, the thickness of the armor decreases. And its maximum values ​​are indicated everywhere.


                The extremities are located outside the citadel, and the cellars of the Civil Code are located exactly in it.

                These are the problems of the British (see above)


                And the big "luck" of the Germans.

                This did not save “Invincible” with “Indefatigable” because there is nothing to rush with an almost naked ass on adult uncles.


                There, it was not only the smaller thickness of the armor of the British battlecruisers, but also that the British heavy ships did not have a carefully thought-out system for delivering shells and charges to the GK towers in which the ignition of gunpowder in the towers led to the spread of flame through the supply mines shells and charges in the cellar of the Civil Code. And another "guilty" was English gunpowder which, when heated to a certain temperature, simply exploded.

                But about the quality of the armor is better to read Puzyrevsky "Combat damage and the death of ships in the battle of Jutland"


                Was reading. In this case, the matter concerned not only the armor itself, its thickness and quality, but also the entire structure of the ships, the separation of the hulls of the ships into compartments, and so on. With the worst quality of armor, the Germans have not only the armor of towers, belts, etc. etc. was slightly thicker, but everything possible was done to localize the injuries resulting from the hits. The British with this was clearly worse.
                1. Rurikovich
                  Rurikovich 23 March 2018 20: 10
                  0
                  Well, "-ibles" with their maximum armor thickness in 152mm will not be saved by any reasonable design! For it was made through by shells of German battleships and battle cruisers. And even with an artillery duel, the sinking or incapacitation of these ships was a matter of time yes Well-thought-out defense is good if it really protects the ship from the intended means of destruction. For the Germans, it resulted in the stability of ships, for the British, she confirmed the fallacy of the concept. This is for battle cruisers. It’s another matter that side factors can influence the picture in general (because artillery combat in general is a collision of accidents), even impenetrable armor it does not guarantee the destruction of the ship, but only increases the time that the ship is able to hold, necessary to inflict critical damage on the enemy. Breakthrough only exacerbates these factors. So, under equal conditions, the British cruisers, which are linear, will always lose to the Germans. Another thing is that such equal conditions have never been - there have always been more English request
                  1. NF68
                    NF68 23 March 2018 21: 47
                    +1
                    Quote: Rurikovich
                    Well, "-ibles" with their maximum armor thickness in 152mm will not be saved by any reasonable design! For it was made through by shells of German battleships and battle cruisers. And even with an artillery duel, the sinking or incapacitation of these ships was a matter of time yes Well-thought-out defense is good if it really protects the ship from the intended means of destruction. For the Germans, it resulted in the stability of ships, for the British, she confirmed the fallacy of the concept. This is for battle cruisers. It’s another matter that side factors can influence the picture in general (because artillery combat in general is a collision of accidents), even impenetrable armor it does not guarantee the destruction of the ship, but only increases the time that the ship is able to hold, necessary to inflict critical damage on the enemy. Breakthrough only exacerbates these factors. So, under equal conditions, the British cruisers, which are linear, will always lose to the Germans. Another thing is that such equal conditions have never been - there have always been more English request


                    It’s hard to disagree. And yet, the Germans also made a very serious mistake in the form of smaller GKs than the British, starting with EM and ending with battleships with GKs only 12. ”Later, after WWII realized this mistake, the Germans rolled up their sleeves and rushed to explore the possibilities of using GKs that reached 508 mm. Unable to build the same number of heavy ships as the British, the Germans could more successfully at least partially compensate for the backlog in the number of ships using at least approximately equal to the English Civil Code. use 105 mm., on the armored deck cruisers 150 mm. and on the first battleships and battle cruisers instead of 11 / 45, set at least 12 "/ 45, then switch from 12" to 350 mm, and at least 400 / 406 mm. 380 mm. / 45 or 380 mm / 50.
                    1. Rurikovich
                      Rurikovich 23 March 2018 22: 11
                      0
                      Quote: NF68
                      Nevertheless, the Germans also made a very serious mistake in the form of a smaller GK than the English, starting with EM and ending with battleships with GK only 12 ".

                      Well, at that time (the beginning of the dreadnought era) the main caliber was 12 ", because the Germans quite considered 11 to be enough for the fight against the British." Because they quite seriously believed that a slightly smaller caliber does not impair armor penetration if you create a good artillery system. But the additional weights can easily be used for other needs. Yes, and in the rate of fire you can compensate for lighter shells. That’s why they were content with 11 "-12", when the British had already created 13,5 "guns. Even at the end of the 19th century, the Germans on their Kaiser EDB type with 240mm guns were armed with steel blanks in general, considering that they already simply breaking through the armor on the waterline, you can drown the enemy’s ship. But when the British switched to 15 ", the Germans also switched to this caliber for parity.
                      Quote: NF68
                      Later, closer to the beginning of WWII, having realized this mistake, the Germans rolled up their sleeves and rushed to investigate the possibility of using a GK that reached 508 mm.

                      After WWII, the British developed projects of battleships and battle cruisers with 22mm guns right up to Washington, 457.
                      1. NF68
                        NF68 25 March 2018 16: 42
                        0
                        Well, at that time (the beginning of the dreadnought era), the main caliber was 12, "because the Germans quite considered it sufficient to fight the English and 11." Because they quite seriously believed that a slightly smaller caliber does not impair armor penetration if you create a good artillery system. But the additional weights can easily be used for other needs. Yes, and in the rate of fire you can compensate for lighter shells. That's why they were content in 11 "-12",


                        Do not argue. But that turned out to be a mistake. No wonder then the Germans with the 12 GK battleships were immediately forced to switch to 380 mm. And the battleships of the L-20 ea type, which were developed as a result of a thorough study of everything connected with the Battle of Jutland, were already armed with the 8 mm 420 / 45 with firing range up to 33 000 m.


                        But when the British switched to 15, the Germans are also for parity


                        The Germans had plans to arm the Bayerns and 406 mm. But this option was abandoned for a number of good reasons.

                        After WWII, the British developed projects of battleships and battle cruisers with 22mm guns right up to Washington, 457.


                        I know about these developments. Apparently even for BI such ships would be too expensive.
  7. Monarchist
    Monarchist 21 March 2018 16: 52
    +2
    Quote: DimerVladimer
    Excellent selection by Von der Tann.
    Something about the OMS did not reveal the details, dear Andrew?

    Sorry, but at that time did not know ASUO
  8. pacific
    pacific 21 March 2018 17: 20
    +4
    Here she is, finally, the most delicious!
    Thank you Andrew for your truly titanic work!
    We look forward to continuing.
    Somehow it happened that very little information was published about German battlecruisers. Probably because they were a) enemies and b) they lost the war. And the British love and, to be fair, they know how to present information about their achievements.
    So that your articles are a good patch for the gaps of our enany. Thank!
  9. Monarchist
    Monarchist 21 March 2018 17: 25
    +2
    Whatever it was, but the fact remains: Kaiser Wilhelm was the customer of the Line Cruiser.
    Admiral Tirpitz used a pseudonym: Captri (a German converter captain-captain of the third rank) "who believed that the cruiser should be a cruiser, but nothing more" and continue to read "in the journal" Marine Review "published an article by corvette captain Vollerthuna"
    In principle, Tirpitz can hint, but I could write it myself, But since he can’t argue with the emperor and the Ministry of the Sea and someone else’s name for no reason. Anyway, we can’t check anymore
  10. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 21 March 2018 19: 18
    +2
    Nuuuu, in order for SO to hit the right place at the right time, even the Almighty needs good reasons. So personally, I would not consider such a "flaw". If only rivals “FdT” do not have remote-controlled shells wink . And, dear Andrey, the question is - where did you see the perfect reservation? wink
    The Germans immediately went, in my opinion, on the right path - somewhere deep down in their hearts they abandoned the stereotypes that cruisers should be smaller than battleships and began to build squadron cruisers for battle in line with battleships. Knowing specifically what you want and why, you can get a more or less balanced ship, especially in comparison with the British. Therefore, it turns out that not having the capacity to fight the rival in quantity, the Germans took quality. Although, this is also a relatively dead end path. The crowd will always beat alone.
    As for the weakness of horizontal booking, the Germans again proceeded from the conditions of the North Sea. Although displacement restrictions play an important role here, because the Germans of the two evils chose the most appropriate vertical reservation. Which at that moment, and I consider it more correct. The age of aviation has not yet arrived, and the hydrometeorological conditions of the theater, where it was supposed to use PDT, nevertheless assumed relatively short combat distances, because horizontal armor was not so important at that time.
    So with the concept, the Germans outplayed the British and got more or less adequate ships for the purposes for which they were created - a real high-speed wing to cover the head, capable of fighting against battleships. And they did not follow the path of infringement of some characteristics for the predominance of others, but simply at the expense of sober thoughts, discarding prejudices and simply increasing the displacement.
    Personally, my opinion hi
    PS. The article is a chic plus!
    1. DimanC
      DimanC 22 March 2018 03: 57
      +2
      The Germans did not abandon the stereotypes: they still saw themselves the battle of the battleships in the wake column, plus a kind of “high-speed” wing. This makes sense if you have a high-speed wing, but the enemy does not. And if the enemy has its own high-speed wing? Which is even faster? What then? One can only hope for the frank stupidity of the enemy command, which will certainly send part of its linear forces, preferably at the same time, without the notorious "high-speed" wing. Then they can be beaten and "equalize forces in the upcoming general battle." Naturally, to which the enemy will also agree. So to speak, chivalrously.

      Alas and alas.

      The Germans would have broken stereotypes if they had abandoned the construction of "classical" battleships in favor of high-speed, in fact, in favor of their battlecruisers created in practice. But this inevitably entailed a demand for a revision of the tactics of the fleet, but even here the Germans did not offer anything either. In a sense, they were imitating the British, as young children learn life, repeating after adults.

      For the sake of justice, I personally do not know, and any fleet in general suggested anything radical in the field of tactics of using linear forces. In fact, there was a slow progress in the heads, which catastrophically did not keep pace with the progress of technology ...
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 22 March 2018 06: 18
        +1
        Quote: DimanC
        And if the enemy has its own high-speed wing? Which is even faster?

        Because the Germans and made their ships, able to withstand the battle with their own kind. History confirms this. And it remains to be seen what would have remained of the Beatty cruisers had it not been for his battleships Evan Thomas. And under equal conditions, during a long marathon of an artillery duel, more protected ships are more stable. What the Germans proved hi
        1. DimanC
          DimanC 22 March 2018 11: 00
          +2
          This is partly understandable. The question is different: if you understand that you can’t catch up with the number, you need to overtake it with quality and reduce it. Before Jutland, hardly anyone could have imagined that the British cruisers would explode, it was more likely to expect quite lengthy artillery duels. In this case, it is logical that every German ship surpasses English one on one. In speed, caliber of trunks and thickness of armor, as a layout and organization of a system of struggle for survivability, in organizing tactical interaction. The Germans were superior only in the thickness of the armor and the organization of the struggle for survivability. Oh yes, the Germans shot even better at the beginning of the battle, while the eyes of the gunners did not get tired ... In my opinion, it was necessary to answer “Invincible” not “Von der Tann”, but already “Erzatz York”, that is, faster thicker and longer.
        2. Trapperxnumx
          Trapperxnumx 22 March 2018 11: 25
          +1
          I probably still agree with you. With the normal quality of shells from the British, their caliber easily took the armor of the Germans, which in principle brought them to parity.
          But this is also my personal opinion
          1. Rurikovich
            Rurikovich 22 March 2018 21: 56
            +1
            Quote: Trapper7
            With the normal quality of shells from the British, their caliber easily took the armor of the Germans, which in principle brought them to parity.

            German 280mm and 305mm armor-piercing shells pierced the 229mm armor of the English "cats". The 330mm Korolev armor was no longer able to penetrate.
            The English semi-armor-piercing 305mm, 343mm and 381mm pierced vertical armor up to 280mm inclusive, 305mm armor of the Lyuttsov and Derflinger was no longer taken. 350mm armor of the German dreadnought type "König" and "Kaiser" was not pierced, although they received mainly 381mm shells. Not a single English shell hit the boiler rooms and engine rooms — even when the armor was broken (Moltke and Seidlitz), coal pits extinguished the energy of the explosions.
            Draw your own conclusions ...
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              23 March 2018 10: 39
              +1
              Quote: Rurikovich
              pierced vertical armor to 280mm

              With your permission - up to 260 mm. This is the maximum that the British 381-mm projectile "asil"
  11. Saxahorse
    Saxahorse 21 March 2018 22: 48
    +1
    Nice sequel, thanks!
  12. Vedzmin
    Vedzmin 22 March 2018 01: 48
    +1
    We follow, we are interested, we learn. Thank you Andrey!
  13. Comrade
    Comrade 22 March 2018 02: 42
    +2
    Great idea, dear Andrey, to devote a separate article to comparing the first two battle cruisers +!
    I think it will be appropriate to bring here a tablet that once came across to me, which shows the weighted summaries of these two ships, and the data of the German cruiser are recalculated according to the English system.


    And also an illustration from Breer's book with cross sections of cruisers, where the thickness of the armor is visible.


    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      22 March 2018 06: 34
      +2
      Dear Valentine, welcome!
      Unfortunately, the weight summary “didn’t”. And alas, the above diagram is full of errors.
      The British cruisers had two-inch bevels, i.e. 50,8 mm, but not 38 mm. Von der Tann’s casemate disappeared somewhere. the valiant Breuer sawed him off the whole interdeck space :)))) And there the 152-mm armor stood :)))) Further, the 250-200 mm armored belt was single did not have a "step", as shown in the figure. In addition, the armor had 225 mm of thickness only in the area of ​​the barb of the “traverse” GK tower, otherwise it was 200 mm. Von der Tann didn’t have 25 mm armored deck in the place where Breuer painted it. The armored deck had 25 mm in the horizontal part and 50 mm on the bevels (everything is correct here) and 25 mm armored the floor and the ceiling of the casemate, which Breer sawed off for some reason. That is, 25 mm armored deck was one interdeck space higher than on the diagram, then another missing “floor” and again 25 mm deck. But again, they did not go along the entire length of the citadel, but only along the length of the casemate
      Staff has a more correct scheme, I will give it in the next article :)
  14. kvs207
    kvs207 22 March 2018 07: 16
    +2
    Quote: Monarchist
    kaptri (German converter captain- captain of the third rank)

    There was no such title then. Rather, the rank of captain-lieutenant, or Art. lieutenant.
    Bookmark article - read and re-read))).
  15. Trapperxnumx
    Trapperxnumx 22 March 2018 10: 36
    +1
    Cool! Thank you!
    These are ready materials for the book !!!!
  16. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 22 March 2018 13: 58
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Dear Valentine, welcome!
    Unfortunately, the weight summary “didn’t”. And alas, the above diagram is full of errors.
    The British cruisers had two-inch bevels, i.e. 50,8 mm, but not 38 mm. Von der Tann’s casemate disappeared somewhere. the valiant Breuer sawed him off the whole interdeck space :)))) And there the 152-mm armor stood :)))) Further, the 250-200 mm armored belt was single did not have a "step", as shown in the figure. In addition, the armor had 225 mm of thickness only in the area of ​​the barb of the “traverse” GK tower, otherwise it was 200 mm. Von der Tann didn’t have 25 mm armored deck in the place where Breuer painted it. The armored deck had 25 mm in the horizontal part and 50 mm on the bevels (everything is correct here) and 25 mm armored the floor and the ceiling of the casemate, which Breer sawed off for some reason. That is, 25 mm armored deck was one interdeck space higher than on the diagram, then another missing “floor” and again 25 mm deck. But again, they did not go along the entire length of the citadel, but only along the length of the casemate
    Staff has a more correct scheme, I will give it in the next article :)

    Probably the scheme from the "Wiki" will be more accurate, although it is not entirely true:
  17. Mooh
    Mooh 22 March 2018 17: 29
    +1
    If the author of this article was able to correctly translate the phrase "the new battleships of the Ersatz Bayern / Nassau class", then the project of the newest German Dreadnought type "Nassau" should be taken as the basis for the development.

    Dear author, could not correctly translate the phrase.
    Trimmer: New battleships that will replace the Bayern / Nassau class should form the basis of a new type.
    1. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer 23 March 2018 13: 54
      0
      Quote: MooH
      Dear author, could not correctly translate the phrase.
      Trimmer: New battleships that will replace the Bayern / Nassau class should form the basis of a new type.


      Actually, Andrew correctly translated.
      He is just a crooked literal translation, presented in literary Russian
      then as a basis for development should take the project of the latest German dreadnought type "Nassau"
      ..
      The meaning is conveyed correctly.
      And it corresponds to the fact that the basis of the new project of the battlecruiser was laid on the groundwork for battleships of the Nassau type - this is repeatedly found in memoirs.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        23 March 2018 20: 12
        0
        Quote: DimerVladimer
        The meaning is conveyed correctly.

        Thanks! I am very unsure of my ability as a translator, so the opinion of knowledgeable people is very important to me. Honestly, I quoted a phrase in the hope that if I made a mistake, they will correct me hi
        1. Mooh
          Mooh 24 March 2018 12: 56
          0
          1. Andrei certainly did not translate the German word Ersatz, which radically changed the meaning of the phrase.
          2. A cruiser is a cruiser, and the phrase is about battleships that are battleships. Accordingly, once again the phrase has changed beyond recognition. Unless, of course, the source does not explicitly indicate that the new type is a cruiser.

          I intentionally posted the trimmer, to fully translate a phrase without context is fraught with serious errors.
  18. yttg
    yttg 22 March 2018 19: 34
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    the world's first battlecruisers of the Invincible type and the German "large" cruiser Blucher. All these ships, despite some positive qualities, were unsuccessful and, by and large, should be considered as mistakes of the British and Germans.

    It’s a pity that they don’t even know about it.
  19. mager1
    mager1 22 March 2018 20: 04
    0
    According to Ishmael, is it planned to write anything?
  20. Comrade
    Comrade 23 March 2018 04: 33
    +4
    Dear Andrey!

    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Unfortunately, the weight summary “didn’t”.

    I answer you from the computer, and I have a table on the monitor. Spread it again just in case


    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    And alas, the above diagram is full of errors ... the armor had 225 mm thickness only in the area of ​​the barb of the "traverse" GK tower, otherwise it was 200 mm.

    Sorry to answer only one of your comments, just free time to refine the information in the sources was enough for only one of them.
    Concerning the 225 mm reservation, the barbets of two towers were covered with armor of such thickness, including where it is shown in the diagram from Breer's book.


    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Von der Tann’s casemate disappeared somewhere. the valiant Breuer sawed him off the entire interdeck :))

    Dear colleague, there is no barbet in that place. Today it’s late, and tomorrow, if anything, in support of this I’ll take a couple of photos from Staff’s book and post it here. Although it is possible that your humble servant is mistaken :-)

    By the way, I just looked for the first time in Muzyenikov’s book “German Line Cruisers,” what was my surprise when I stumbled upon the same circuit there. Without indicating the source, but with the signature "cross section of the midsection frames."
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      23 March 2018 20: 18
      0
      Greetings, dear Valentine!
      Quote: Comrade
      I answer you from the computer, and I have a table on the monitor.

      Yes, I have no doubt, the problem is that the last time she did not cling to your comment. And now it is visible perfectly, thanks!
      Quote: Comrade
      Concerning the 225 mm reservation, the barbets of two towers were covered with armor of such thickness, including where it is shown in the diagram from Breer's book.

      Yes, but each tower is from the side to which it adjoins
      Quote: Comrade
      Dear colleague, there is no barbet in that place.

      Quite the opposite - both traverse towers are above the casemate :) Here is a picture without my reservation marks

      Quote: Comrade
      what was my surprise when I stumbled upon the same scheme there.

      Honestly, as I delve into the topic, Husbands surprise me more and more ... "Weirder and weirder", as Alice used to say in Wonderland ...
      1. Comrade
        Comrade 24 March 2018 05: 17
        0
        Dear Andrey!
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        the problem is that the last time she didn’t cling to your comment.

        Funny, I go to work with an iPhone in the subject - there is no table in the comment, I go home from the computer - there is a table :-)

        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Quite the opposite - both traverse towers are above the casemate :) Here is a picture without my reservation marks

        Armor with a thickness of 225 mm on the starboard side was installed between 66 and 73 frames. Here is a fragment of the Von der Tann scheme, where it can be seen that the casemate of medium artillery was located to the left of the 66 frame.

        So, correctly Breuer did not put the casemate where 225 mm armor.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          24 March 2018 10: 40
          0
          Greetings, dear Valentine!
          Quote: Comrade
          So, correctly Breuer did not put the casemate where 225 mm armor.

          Nope :))) The Germans had a full reservation of the casemate, it did not interrupt where the tower was "inscribed" into the casemate. Yes, and why? The barbet there was only 30 mm thick, it would be an open gate. Here is the correct booking scheme from Staff
          1. Comrade
            Comrade 25 March 2018 04: 23
            0
            You are right, dear colleague, Breer's scheme really does not correspond to reality.
  21. Comrade
    Comrade 24 March 2018 05: 40
    +2
    Quote: MooH
    Dear author, could not correctly translate the phrase.
    Trimmer: New battleships that will replace the Bayern / Nassau class should form the basis of a new type.

    Time to collect stones :-)
    1) I'm afraid you misinterpreted the text. The original says that the prototype for the new type of ship was the battleship "Nassau".
    2) Class Bayern / Nassau did not exist.
    3) Ersatz Bayern / Nassau means that the battleship "Nassau" was built as a replacement for the battleship "Bayern" (went into operation in 1881). This was the order of the Germans - new shipintended to replace an old one that has expired, and not yet named, conditionally referred to as: first came the word replacement , and then the name of the ship, which was replaced by a new one.
    4) Andrey is right.
    1. Mooh
      Mooh 24 March 2018 13: 18
      +1
      Thanks, you are probably right. He did not have a full context and did not know that Nassau was an ersatz of Bayern.
      Andrey, sorry for the misinformation.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        24 March 2018 16: 07
        +1
        Quote: MooH
        Andrey, sorry for the misinformation.

        Nothing wrong. In disputes, as you know, truth is born :))) And thanks for participating!
  22. The comment was deleted.
  23. Miner
    Miner 26 March 2018 15: 54
    0
    In the next article of the series, we will consider the history of the creation and performance characteristics of the opponents of the Von der Tann - battle cruisers of the Indefatigable project. In it, we will compare the data of the English and German ships and give an assessment of their projects.


    I could be wrong, but they say that Von der Tann himself quite successfully dealt with this issue and gave a direct assessment of the Indefatable in the Battle of Utah ...
  24. Usher
    Usher 26 March 2018 19: 36
    0
    I did not understand, the Germans planned the 24 nodes, and in fact received the 26 nodes. Where is the miscalculation and the flaw? On the contrary, exceeded the set value? What's the catch?
    1. NF68
      NF68 26 March 2018 20: 56
      0
      Quote: Usher
      I did not understand, the Germans planned the 24 nodes, and in fact received the 26 nodes. Where is the miscalculation and the flaw? On the contrary, exceeded the set value? What's the catch?


      The Germans indicated their speed data without taking into account forcing SU. Or indicated the data obtained during tests in shallow water where the speed was always slightly lower than when testing in areas of the sea where the depth is much greater.