Military Review

The cost of building ships in the Russian Empire: the truth against speculation

166
About the royal shipbuilding of the late XIX - early XX century there are many stories and assessments, both enthusiastic and very impartial. The main complaints about domestic shipbuilding are the slow speed of building ships, the low quality of construction and, most importantly, the high cost of living, which forced us to turn to foreign countries for help. And somehow, these claims were settled and turned into a generally accepted opinion and axiom, which does not require confirmation. And if we approach this issue from a scientific point of view and try to determine: did our shipyards really build more than foreign ones? Let's try to find out.


Theory


For convenience of analysis, the article will use a special concept — unit cost, i.e. the cost of ton ship displacement. This will allow to compare the "price tags" of ships of different sizes and classes with the greatest accuracy. If possible, for comparison, the “price tags” of foreign “classmates” will be used, for each ship separately. Among all the many Russian ships will be considered those that were built in the Baltic. This is due to the fact that the cost of the Black Sea ships also included significant logistical costs that are absent from the Baltic shipyards and most of the shipyards in the world (at least on such a scale). Thus, the conditions of comparison will be as close as possible to each other, although there will still be some differences. There will also be some assessment of the pace and quality of construction, but more on this at the end of the article. All calculations regarding both the total and specific value of the ships will be held in pounds sterling. There are several reasons for this, but the main one is the convenience of comparison with foreign contemporaries and analogs.

The obtained figures for the specific cost of the ships may differ from the official ones due to different methods of calculating these prices. As far as I can tell, the unit cost could be calculated by the “dry” displacement, normal or full, as a result of which, at the same cost, different figures per ton will be obtained. In addition, official unit costs could be calculated on the basis of both the design price tag and the displacement, as well as the actual cost, and in addition, there were also two different approaches to determining the cost of the ship - with or without weapons. In the framework of the current article, only one of the above mentioned methods will be used - dividing the total final cost of the ship by the actual normal displacement. This will minimize inconsistencies, although it will not relieve us of them at all. In those cases where it will be impossible to determine the full cost, this will be discussed separately.

It is worth noting that it is not possible in all cases to accurately determine the normal displacement of the ships in question, and in some cases it is not clear whether it is given in “long” tons or metric tons. In the case of an unclear normal displacement, this will be indicated separately, while the difference in the cost of the ships, depending on the type of tons, may differ by 1.016 times, which is quite acceptable "play". In addition, depending on the sources, the cost figures of the ships may differ - just by Novik I could see several distinct values, therefore in such cases the choice of one or another source as the main one remains entirely on the conscience of the author.

State-owned enterprises



Squadron battleship "Oslyabya" on the completion. On the right - a cruiser of the first rank "Aurora" after launching


Under the state-owned enterprises of the Baltic Sea are meant two plants, which were the main shipyards of Russia in the region right up to the beginning of the 20th century. This is about New Admiralty и Galerny Island. Both enterprises were rooted in the time of Peter the Great, and were originally engaged in the construction of rowing fleet. From the ships they built, we can distinguish a number of ships that are useful to us for analysis.

The squadron battleship Sisoy the Great (founded in 1891, entered service in 1896) - the first Russian battleship with rapid-fire artillery under smokeless powder, was built at the New Admiralty. Cost of construction - 762.752 pounds, or 87 pounds per ton. However, different sources give different estimates of the displacement figures, because, depending on who you are targeting, the specific cost of Sisoya can also be 73 pounds per ton. For comparison, the French battleship Charles Martel laid out in 1891 had a unit cost of 94 pounds per ton, and the American Indiana 121 pounds per ton.

Squadron battleship "Sevastopol" (laid in 1892, entered into service in 1900) - belonged to the type of "Poltava", was built on the Galerny Island. The cost of construction was 991.916 pounds, or 86 pounds per ton. Comparison with counterparts will be given below, using the example of Poltava.

The coastal defense battleship Admiral Senyavin (founded in 1893, entered service on 1897) - the strongest battleship of the Baltic coast defense, the lead ship of the series (although this title is challenged by Admiral Ushakov). The cost of construction - 418.535 pounds, the unit cost - about 100 pounds per ton. A comparison will be given below.

The battleship coastal defense "General-Admiral Apraksin" (laid in 1895, entered into service in 1899). Belonged to the type of "Admiral Senyavin", but had a number of differences, most important of which - 3 254-mm guns instead of 4. Built on the New Admiralty. The cost of construction - 399.066 pounds, or 96 pounds per ton.

Oslaby squadron battleship (laid at 1895, commissioned at 1903) - the battleship-cruiser, he is a battleship of the II rank, he is a squadron battleship, belonged to the type of "Peresvet", although he had a number of differences. Built on the New Admiralty. Cost of construction - 1.198.731 pound, or 83 pound per ton. A comparison will be given below.

Armored cruiser "Diana" (founded in 1897, entered service in 1901) - the head cruiser of the goddess series. Had a significant amount of 75-mm anti-mine guns, large size and moderate speed. Built on the Galerny Island. Cost of construction - 643.434 pounds, or 96 pounds per ton. The much larger British cruiser "Diadem" had a unit price of 53 pounds per ton, but excluding weapons. A comparable size German cruiser Victoria Louise cost the treasury 92 pounds per ton. The slightly lighter French “Jurin de la Gravière” had a unit price of 85 pounds per ton. One-type "Aurora", built on the New Admiralty, cost 93 pounds per ton.

Borodino squadron battleship (laid at 1900, commissioned at 1904) - The lead ship of the largest and most famous series of Russian squadron battleships. He had a high degree of technical complexity, good protection and weapons, outstanding survivability. Built on the New Admiralty. The cost of construction - 1.540.169 pounds, or 107 pounds per ton. One-type "Eagle", built on the Galerny Island, had a unit cost of 100 pounds per ton. Ships for comparison - the French "Republik" (108 pounds per ton), the Italian "Regina Elena" (89 pounds per ton), the German "Braunschweig" (89 pounds per ton), the Japanese "Mikasa" (approximately 90 pounds per ton, exact total cost is unknown). The ancestor of "Borodin" - "Tsesarevich", cost 1.480.338 pounds, or 113 pounds per ton.

Armored cruiser "Oleg" (laid in 1902 year, entered into service in 1904) - a slightly modified cruiser type "Bogatyr", was built on the New Admiralty. The cost of construction - 778.165 pounds, or 117 pounds per ton. For comparison - "Bogatyr" cost 85 pounds per ton.

It is worth noting that most of these ships had some or other problems with the quality of construction - in particular, the Eagle and Borodino suffered because of poorly assembled steam engines, and the Oslyabya had a significant overload. In addition, many ships built by state-owned shipyards turned out to be protracted (up to 8 years).

Private enterprises




Squadron battleship "Prince Suvorov" in the process of completion.


For private enterprises it will be appropriate to go separately. Formally private enterprises that are actually controlled by the state will also be included here (this is a Baltic plant). For starters, take Society of Franco-Russian plants, which for the construction of ships leased the territory of state-owned shipyards.

Squadron battleship "Navarin" (founded in 1899, entered service in 1896) - was the development of the British battleships "Trafalgar" and "Nile", was considered at the time of laying one of the most powerful in the world, but by the time of entry into service is morally obsolete. Built on the New Admiralty. In pounds sterling, the ship was worth 837.620 - accordingly, the unit cost was 82 pounds per ton. For comparison, the Royal Soveren battleship, built in the UK and built in the same year as Navarin, cost 913.986 pounds or 65 pounds per ton, and the French Brennus had a specific value of 89 pounds per ton.

Squadron battleship "Poltava" (laid in 1892, entered service in 1900 year) - at the time of laying a rather powerful type of battleship, well-armed and protected, but at the time of entry into operation is morally obsolete. Built by the Society of Franco-Russian factories. Cost of construction - 918.241 pound, or 80 pounds per ton. The foreign “peer” - the French “Massena”, also incorporated in the 1892 year - had a unit price of 94 pounds per ton.

Next on the list is, of course, Baltic factoryabout which you can talk a lot and mostly good. By ships:

Armored cruiser "Rurik" (laid in 1890, entered into service in 1895) - the development of the traditional Russian concept of armored cruiser-raider. The construction cost was 874.554 pounds, or 75 pounds per ton. Comparison with contemporaries is difficult, because the boom of armored cruisers has not yet come, and they were built quite a bit. However, it would be appropriate to make a comparison with the Spanish armored cruisers (81-87 pounds per ton), the Italian "Marco Polo" (71 pound per ton, but without armament) and the American "New York" (67 pounds per ton without armament ). Also, I can not but remember the American armored cruiser, he is a class II Meng'nite battleship, which cost US taxpayers 173 pounds per tonne excluding armaments (the figure is not reliable, perhaps this is the unit cost taking armaments into account).

The battleship coastal defense "Admiral Ushakov" (laid in 1892, entered into service in 1896) - the same type with “Admiral Senyavin”, although I had some differences (the most significant concerns the length of the chimneys). Cost of construction - 381.446 pounds, or 82 pounds per ton. For comparison, the same type "Senyavin", built by a state-owned enterprise, cost 100 pounds per ton, and "Apraksin" - 96. Also, it would not be superfluous to indicate the specific cost of the French BBO "Henri IV", although it was laid down on 5 years later and noticeably larger - 91 pounds per ton.

Armored cruiser "Russia" (laid in the 1893, entered into service in the 1897) - the development of "Rurik" with the best characteristics, new artillery and a larger area of ​​armor. Cost of construction - 1.140.527 pounds, or 94 pounds per ton. For comparison, the American “Brooklyn” cost the treasury 49 pounds per ton excluding weapons, and the Spanish Emperador Carlos IV, deprived of armor belts, 81 pounds per ton (excluding numerous alterations that pulled additional costs in 1,5-2 million pesetas) .

Squadron battleship "Peresvet" (laid in 1895, entered into service in 1901) - Ancestor of a series of battleships-cruisers, and in fact battleships of rank II. The cost of construction - 1.185.206 pounds, or 86 pounds per ton. For comparison, the previously laid out Ranaun had a specific cost of 2 pounds per ton, a modern Peresvet Majestic - 58 pounds per ton, German Kaiser Frederick III - 68 pounds per ton, French Charlemagne - 95 pounds per ton, laid down a year later by the American Kirsaard - 97 pounds per ton.

Armored cruiser "Thunderbolt" (laid in 1897 year, entered into service in 1900) - the development of "Russia", the last ship of its concept. It was built in 2,5, the record year for its size, and with minimal overload (65 tons). The cost of construction - 1.065.039 pounds, the unit cost - 87 pounds per ton. For comparison, the British “Cressy” (65 pounds per ton, but without weapons), the German “Prince Heinrich” (91 pounds per ton), the French “Moncalm” (95 pounds per ton) and the British-Japanese “Asama” (about 80-90 pounds per ton, the determination of the cost is difficult because of the presence of only an approximate cost of construction).

Squadron battleship "Victory" (laid in 1898, entered service in 1902 year) - slightly improved "Peresvet". The cost of construction - 1.008.025 pounds, or 76 pounds per ton. Peresvet and Oslyabye of the same type turned out to be more expensive (87 and 83 pounds per ton), foreign-built ships also did not differ in special cheapness compared to Victory (German Wittelsbach - 94 pounds per ton, British Formidable - 76 pounds per ton).

Battleships "Emperor Alexander III", "Prince Suvorov" and "Glory" were built over a period of 5 years, and differed somewhat in price. Accordingly, their unit price fluctuated - from 104 pounds per ton for “Alexander” to 101 for pounds for “Glory”. It would be appropriate to compare these ships (especially “Glory”) with the ships of the 1902-1903 bookmarks - “King Edward VII” (94 pounds per ton) and Deutschland (91 pounds per ton). The cost of the American battleships of this period, alas, was never found.

Also do not forget about Nevsky Plantwho built the cruiser II rank and destroyers.

Squad destroyers of the Falcon type - the first destroyers ("fighters") of the Russian Imperial fleet. They were distinguished by a relatively low speed with strong housings. The cost was an average of 40.931 pounds, or 186 pounds per ton. For comparison - the head "Falcon" of British construction cost 36 thousands of pounds (without weapons), comparison with other destroyers will be given below.

Destroyers of the Nevsky Plant, also known as "Nevki" - development of Sokolov. Distinguished by increased size, more powerful weapons, theoretically higher speed. 64.644 cost on average pounds per item, or 185 pounds per ton. For comparison, the British class C destroyers had a unit price of 175-180 pounds per ton, the Spanish Furors, built by the British, 186 pounds per ton. An interesting comparison will also be with foreign-made destroyers for the needs of Russia — the British Som (182 pounds per ton), the German Keith (226 pounds per ton), the French Attentive (226 pounds per ton).

Cruiser Class II "Pearls" (laid in 1902 year, entered into service in 1904) - the development of "Novik" with a lower speed, but more robust body and an extra pair of 120-mm guns. The cost of construction - 375.248 pounds, or 121 pound per ton. For comparison, Novik cost 352.923 pounds, or 130 pounds per ton, and Boyarin costs 359.206 pounds, or 112 pounds per ton.

It is also necessary to add that most often private shipyards built ships with relatively little or even negligible overload, the quality of work rarely caused complaints, and most importantly, in the absence of external obstacles (such as constant project adjustments or underfunding), private shipyards were able to build ships with speed, which was not inferior to the best shipbuilding enterprises of the West. Vivid examples are the “Pearls” (27 months from the bookmark), “Emperor Alexander III” (41 month), “Prince Suvorov” (31 month), and “Thunderstorm” (29 months).

Results




USS "Massachusetts" in the process of completion. As practice has shown, at that time the shipyards of the USA built armored ships more expensive than the Russian ones.


The voiced conclusions are no more than my personal opinion expressed on the basis of the figures voiced above. In fact, these figures could be much smaller, but the more numbers - the more accurate the conclusions, and the more weighty the evidence base. So what happened as a result of all this word and tsifrobludiya? But it turns out that the generally accepted point of view, which for years was perceived as an axiom, looks shaky in practice and is applicable only in some cases when the project of the Russian ship itself meant a significant cost, or there were some other factors that influenced the final cost. In almost every case, there were both cheaper peers and more expensive in the world.

However, it should also be understood that the shipyards themselves played their part in pricing, as well as the quality of construction and terms. And here traditional Russian conservatism manifested itself with might and main - and the main forces of the fleet traditionally were built at state enterprises, with significant delays, and without the necessary reorganization, which could significantly speed up and cheapen the process. Something similar to the reorganization began to be carried out during the construction of battleships of the Borodino type, and finished after the NRW was over, but until that moment state-owned shipyards in the Baltic, and the Black Sea, too, were built more expensively, longer, and alas - often less quality than private shipyards, for the most part free from such shortcomings. Even the Franco-Russian plant, about which one had a chance to read a lot of bad things, was able to build Navarin and Poltava at very average prices, much less of which were only products of the best British shipyards in the world. Such ships as “Pearl”, “Rurik”, “goddesses”, and destroyers of domestic construction were not “expensive” either. Yes, some of them were really expensive, flying the treasury into a pretty penny - but much more expensive, for example, foreign-made destroyers cost the treasury. In some cases, the cost of the ships turned out really huge - the same “Oleg”, for example, even Borodino surpassed the unit cost (but also was built by an official enterprise in the shortest possible time, which could not have its price).

Alas, not all claims are so easy to drop. The claim on the quality of construction remains valid, even with the proviso that mostly state-owned enterprises suffered from it, these problems did not always manifest, and they fought and gradually dealt with this phenomenon (as soon as experienced personnel began to appreciate at state-owned factories, before “Turnover” of labor). Most often, the low quality of construction was expressed in the unreliable mechanisms of the ships and the construction overload. The problem of long-term construction remains valid, which is very characteristic not only for state-owned enterprises, but also for private ones in the period of the beginning of the 1890-s. However, it should be understood that this time is not only rapid scientific and technological progress, when the initial projects were constantly “killed” by dozens and hundreds of introduced rationalizations and alterations, but also the time of total savings: despite constant growth, the fleet had to save literally everything including stretching the financing of shipbuilding, which for the fleet was a priority even to the detriment of rearmament. If the Naval Ministry had more freedom with finances, it would be possible to build ships faster. Plus, weak consolation is that the European long-term record does not belong to us, but to the Spaniards - having refused the broad support of foreign industry and English capital, they built three “Princess de Asturias” cruisers at their own state-owned shipyards in 12-14 years old.

It is also worth throwing another stone at the state-owned shipyards of the Russian Empire regarding the cost of construction and delaying the deadlines. The fact is that the "stagnation" of state-owned enterprises was typical not only for Russia, but also for other states of the world. In many ways, these were problems of growth and progress - when in the new conditions enterprises continued to work with the old organization, which led to a drop in the speed of construction, a decline in quality and an increase in value. Practically all the “old” fleets of the world went through these problems: the Americans suffered from this for some time, the French actively fought against this, the British also suffered from grief, and even after the reorganization, state-owned shipyards often lagged behind private ones. Claims against Russia here may be relevant only in the sense that the much-needed reorganization of state-owned enterprises, like the one that was carried out abroad from the 1870-s and which was carried out in Russia only after the REA, was not carried out in time, probably because of same cost savings.

As an epilogue to the article, I can only quote a popular expression: everything is learned by comparison. Those who advanced the thesis that construction in Russia with the tsar was more expensive, either did not make such comparisons, or made them superficially, seeing what they wanted. As a result to stories The Russian Empire was added another bike, not fully corresponding to reality. The other two stories about the quality and terms of construction, have much more reason to live, but the reality is still much more complicated than simple theses “they build in Russia for a long time” and “in Russia they build poorly”. At certain times, it was the same to say about any other fleet of the world.

Sources:
Ship list 1904 of the year.
From the Overall Maritime Office Report for 1897-1900 Years ”, III. Shipbuilding.
Gribovsky V. Squadron battleships like "Borodino".
Brassey's Naval Annual (different years).
Materials that are freely available on the Internet.
Author:
166 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Dart2027
    Dart2027 30 March 2018 15: 45
    +3
    In general, RI was an ordinary country no worse and no better than the rest.
    1. Grandfather
      Grandfather 30 March 2018 16: 19
      +4
      The cost of building ships in the Russian Empire: the truth against speculation
      NOT...! you in modern Russia show the cost of at least SKR ... although no one knows ... TIN! both in terms of time and money ...
      1. arturpraetor
        30 March 2018 16: 32
        +1
        I will simply say - in modern Russia there is its own atmosphere laughing Here it is necessary to look separately, figure out, and simply compare at the rate of, for example, the dollar, it will not be entirely correct, it would also be necessary to make comparisons by PPP - on each other, and so on, and also the nuances with the systems adjusted over the years weapons, life did not prepare me for this request
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 March 2018 17: 30
        +2
        Quote: Dead Day
        you in modern Russia show the cost of at least SKRa ...

        Type 11356 - 18 billion pre-crisis rubles, so what?
        1. Town Hall
          Town Hall 30 March 2018 17: 45
          +1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Quote: Dead Day
          you in modern Russia show the cost of at least SKRa ...

          Type 11356 - 18 billion pre-crisis rubles, so what?




          500.000.000 dollars? ... not bad for a guard



          In 2010 and 2011 The Ministry of Defense entered into two contracts with the enterprise for the construction of a total of 6 patrol ships. The value of each contract amounted to 40 billion rubles (about 13 billion rubles per ship).

          https://www.google.it/amp/tass.ru/info/2728560/am
          p
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 March 2018 20: 01
            0
            Quote: Town Hall
            https://www.google.it/amp/tass.ru/info/2728560/am
            p

            Apparently, then they went up. Or perhaps the contract did not reflect the full value of the ships.
            https://flotprom.ru/news/?ELEMENT_ID=139251
            1. Town Hall
              Town Hall 30 March 2018 22: 39
              0
              By your link:

              "... The main thing that does not suit us is the too high price and excessive armament - Caliber cruise missiles operating for sea and ground targets. Project 20385 does not meet the requirements of the fleet," the source said. According to him, the estimated cost of one ship is about 14 billion rubles, but in reality it can reach 18 billion. For a corvette with a displacement of 2,2 thousand tons, although it was made using stealth technology, this is a lot. Equally modern frigates of project 11356R / M, which are now being built for the Black Sea Fleet, have a displacement of almost twice as much - 4 thousand tons, and cost the same. .. "


              Likely all the same 14 yards had in mind
    2. Borik
      Borik 30 March 2018 17: 05
      +2
      In general, RI was an ordinary country no worse and no better than the rest.


      But for some reason in Russia at that time not a single ship was built for a foreign customer.
      1. arturpraetor
        30 March 2018 17: 11
        +4
        So for myself, my favorite capacities were not enough. There is no time for export.
        1. Borik
          Borik 30 March 2018 17: 46
          +2
          I already know that our capacities were young. This is me comrade question Dart2027 asked. RI was once no worse and no better than other countries who was able to build warships. And there are not a dozen of them.
          1. Dart2027
            Dart2027 30 March 2018 18: 41
            +1
            Quote: Borik
            I already know that our facilities were young

            When people talk about how quickly Europe developed, they at the same time slightly forget about the fact what kind of shisha it developed into. For example, the same British, at about the same time, actually created a state drug court.
            Now, by the way, the same thing - turn off the printing press and the huge US fleet will not last even a year.
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 31 March 2018 07: 02
              +2
              Quote: Dart2027
              Europe, at the same time, they slightly forget about the fact what kind of chiches it developed

              What is the money pump "Jardine Matheson Holdings"!
          2. DimerVladimer
            DimerVladimer April 2 2018 13: 17
            +1
            Russian shipyards bought imported boilers, cars, guns, armor - partially localizing the production of the main components.

            Why should foreign countries buy ships equipped with imported or localized equipment, often of inferior quality?
            Therefore, they ordered the construction of ships in the producer countries, as they say, with a full cycle.
          3. DimerVladimer
            DimerVladimer April 2 2018 13: 43
            +3
            Quote: Borik
            Since RI was no worse and no better than other countries who were able to build warships. And there are not a dozen of them.


            Well, how to say "no worse" - this is an excerpt of V.Yu. Gribovsky escadren armadillo "Borodino":

            The committee approved the revised drawings and specifications of the “Tsesarevich” on January 12, 1899. At that time, the MTK experts, considering the project of A. Lagan the best, recommended accepting it for the construction of an armadillo at the New Admiralty. Claiming this opinion P.P. Tyrtov, at the "decisive insistence" of P.G. Nozikov, demanded that the main mechanisms of the new ship be an exact copy of the machines and boilers "Tsesarevich" ("otherwise you cannot guarantee that the new battleship will be successful.") The “copy” was undertaken by the Franco-Russian plant. However, a large mass of domestic towers and hull structures inevitably led to an increase in displacement.

            Those. despite the fact that French cars were copied, however, the design of the hull and turret led to an increase in mass, which indicates the poor equipment of Russian plants and their technologies, at least inferior to the French ones.

            D.V. Skvortsov was given the difficult task of translating the ideas of A. Lagan into the design of an armadillo for Russian factories.
            It took only 20 days to complete the assignment, and on July 28, 1898, through the commander of the St. Petersburg port, Dmitry Vasilyevich sent to the MTK a draft design of the “battleship with 13225 tons displacement” with an explanatory note. He designed a slightly longer and narrower ship than A. Lagan, and to achieve 18-knot speed he increased the power of cars from 16300 to 16600 hp. Consideration of the capabilities of Russian factories was expressed in the greater relative mass of the main mechanisms.

            Those. D.V. Skvortsov, adapted the technologies of Russian factories to the Lagan project and as a result the mass of the ship grew, with the same armament and armor - and this is a sign of a weak, undeveloped, not modern production base.
            1. fdgf
              fdgf April 2 2018 14: 52
              +1
              Quote: DimerVladimer
              Those. D.V. Skvortsov, adapted

              Skvortsov tried to adapt something somewhere. But as a result, I couldn’t really manage anything. Due to incompetence.
              As a result, the Glory, executed just under the project, was overloaded by 900 tons. Well, the "brilliant Russian designers" were mistaken, with whom it does not happen. And all this overload went into a reserve of coal, which is why the range of Glory in a combat-ready state was simply ridiculous.
              With 4 Borodinians did more difficult. About 300 tons of armor and about 600 tons of coal were removed from them. On average, of course, because the dispersion of the displacement there was 100 tons. That is why the range of their action in a combat-ready state remained greater than that of Glory, but completely insufficient for the EDB of that time.
              At the same time, both Slava and Borodin residents had the same amount of coal pits, which is why another performance line appeared in the technical characteristics, “Full range of travel." Which consisted of two segments, one segment, this is when the ship was fully operational (operational condition). And the second segment is when the ship was limited in combat capability (the GP was sunk more than acceptable due to overloading of coal pits, transport condition).
              Returning to the armor, it should be noted that 300 tons of armor is a lot. And in percent it is wrong to count here. The fact is that they removed (thinned) the armor vertical and cemented. Which in Borodino and so it was not very much. As a result, based on the range in an operational state and the degree of protection, it was possible to call Borodin squadron battleships with a huge stretch. And the Russian GK guns were noticeably worse than the armstrong ones of the Japanese.
              The remaining Russian ships of Tsushima were even worse, and noticeably. One can only wonder why the Japanese took so long with this "invalid squad." The British or Germans on the same ships as the Japanese would not have given him, most likely, a few hours. After all, we remember that they entered the battle in a "transport" state. Those. in a state of incomplete combat readiness. But this is already a question for the "genius" of Rozhdestvensky.
              1. DimerVladimer
                DimerVladimer April 2 2018 15: 47
                0
                Quote: fdgf
                Skvortsov tried to adapt something somewhere. But as a result, I couldn’t really manage anything. Due to incompetence.


                Well, about competence - you can’t say so categorically without witnessing events or having no engineering background and at least a full-fledged project on hand :)

                Rather, the realities of the production of Russian factories regarding the requirements of the MTK and the severe restriction on displacement due to budgetary constraints came up here.

                When the task is set to go all the way up to 18 knots, it is necessary either to increase the capacity of the machines (which leads to an increase in dimensions and mass) or to narrow the body while increasing the length (which means an increase in the structural mass to ensure longitudinal rigidity of the body), the rejection of inclined booking is again growth masses.

                Accordingly, the mass growth in conditions of limited displacement, had to be compensated for by booking - a vicious circle of mutually exclusive requirements
                During the construction of the Borodino, D.V. Skvortsov and his assistants were only partially able to take advantage of the new system, especially since the new French-made machines appeared late in the workshops,

                The builders had to reckon with the terms of the contracts concluded without their knowledge, with the delay in the performance of work by contractors and with changes to the project during construction. The most significant changes in the hull design were associated with the location of the reservation of the average battery of twelve 75-mm guns, designed by the Baltic Plant in two versions. Only in February 1900, the MTK, rejecting the inclined reservation option, settled on the vertical and without ledge on the battery deck, which was liquidated at the suggestion of D.V. Skvortsov. The thickness of the main armor belt, in order to avoid overload, was reduced to 194 mm when ordering armor.
                1. fdgf
                  fdgf April 2 2018 16: 24
                  0
                  Quote: DimerVladimer
                  Well, about competence - you can’t say so categorically without witnessing events or having no engineering background and at least a full-fledged project on hand :)

                  These events are described in great detail by various authors. Therefore, the overall picture is clear - the incompetence of the designers.
                  For example, Borodino and Slava had approximately the same final advantage. What other questions might there be? After all, they were built at different shipyards.
                  Quote: DimerVladimer
                  When the task is set to go all the way up to 18 knots - it is necessary

                  This topic is not relevant to the subject.
                  The challenge is one thing. And the quality of design is completely different.
                  Quote: DimerVladimer
                  Accordingly, the mass growth in conditions of limited displacement, had to be compensated for by booking - a vicious circle of mutually exclusive requirements

                  This does not happen. Or you from the very beginning calculated everything correctly and “scattered” the advantage throughout the ship. Or, in fact, you get out the extra 900 tons and you start to think feverishly where to cut them. And as a result, you cut it alive because there is no other way.
                  Quote: DimerVladimer
                  PS minus 6 mm.

                  You are very wrong.
                  The thickness of the GP Tsesarevich was honest 229 mm kruppa + anti-torpedo partition 63 mm thick.
                  Borodinians reduced the thickness of the GP to 203 mm, and the anti-torpedo wall became 43 mm thick.
                  Then, due to the advantage, they decided to make the reservation of the GP 194 mm thick.
                  And then behind a waterproof partition (2 segments from each side) it was made only 145 mm thick. 63% of the Tsesarevich’s level. This is noticeably smaller than even the Thunderbolt. Even ancient Navarin had more.
                  In addition, it was simply impossible to do so because the Borodinians were continuous reservation ships. And they did not have an armored traverse in principle.
                  I think Borodino exploded just on the conscience of "brilliant designers." Yes, and Alexander turned over too.
                  So, not minus 6 mm, but from minus 9 mm to minus 58 mm. And if you count from the level of Tsesarevich, then the numbers come out just huge.
                  1. DimerVladimer
                    DimerVladimer April 3 2018 09: 56
                    0
                    Quote: fdgf
                    The thickness of the GP Tsesarevich was honest 229 mm kruppa + anti-torpedo partition 63 mm thick.
                    Borodinians reduced the thickness of the GP to 203 mm, and the anti-torpedo wall became 43 mm thick.
                    Then, due to the advantage, they decided to make the reservation of the GP 194 mm thick.
                    And then behind a waterproof partition (2 segments from each side) it was made only 145 mm thick. 63% of the Tsesarevich’s level. This is noticeably smaller than even the Thunderbolt. Even ancient Navarin had more.
                    In addition, it was simply impossible to do so because the Borodinians were continuous reservation ships. And they did not have an armored traverse in principle.
                    I think Borodino exploded just on the conscience of "brilliant designers." Yes, and Alexander turned over too.
                    So, not minus 6 mm, but from minus 9 mm to minus 58 mm. And if you count from the level of Tsesarevich, then the numbers come out just huge.


                    Here I agree with you.
                    I just cited the reason - the project ran into a severe restriction on displacement set by the MTK and the budget, which with this reservation came out with overloads and with that technological base of factories - the designers had to cut it alive, reducing overload, and reducing armor - this is not good. But this is not from the competence of the designers, but from the stupidly set technical requirements for displacement.

                    It happened in a similar way for us - a lot of special units are given, and at least grind - it should fit the medium into the dimensions of the mine and even place the gas generator.
                    As a result, our industry could not make solid propellant launchers in the given dimensions and that pulled the emergence of monstrous Typhoon-type submarines.
  2. andrewkor
    andrewkor 30 March 2018 16: 17
    +4
    Also, they did not shy away from ordering ships abroad. When the domestic plants were busy. The author of the article did a tremendous job +++++!
    1. arturpraetor
      30 March 2018 16: 42
      +2
      Quote: andrewkor
      Also, they did not shy away from ordering ships abroad. When the domestic plants were busy.

      That is yes. And there is one more point - only 4 pieces were built by large armored ships abroad, while little things (armored decks and destroyers) are much larger. Most likely, Russia was nevertheless trying to build the main forces of the fleet at home, but what was smaller, how it would turn out.
      Quote: andrewkor
      With the workload of domestic factories. The author of the article did a tremendous job +++++!

      Thank you!
      1. Andy
        Andy 30 March 2018 18: 18
        0
        Tsesarevich retvisan button accordion, who is the 4th armored? firstborn? sorry riurik2
        1. arturpraetor
          30 March 2018 18: 34
          +2
          Rurik II, built in the UK. Although then the “Admiral Makarov” should be included in the list - then it turns out 5 ships. But if we discard the relatively small "Bayan", then all 3 will work, of which 2 armadillo and 1 large armored cruiser. I didn’t really count the ships before the 1890 of the year - the conditions there were completely different, and the domestic shipbuilding was noticeably inferior to the foreign one, although it was more a matter of desire rather than opportunity - it was hot, as in Crimean steam gunboats and armored battery rafts, they stamped like hot cakes .
  3. metallic
    metallic 30 March 2018 16: 25
    +1
    Quality is not taken into account in vain.
    You can, for example, calculate the cost of the construction of the "Brave" CR. And then add the cost of the "European-quality repair", which had to be done in France.
    1. arturpraetor
      30 March 2018 16: 48
      0
      The quality just took into account, just the article in the first place is not about that. Reread the text - the situation with quality at state-owned and private enterprises is considered, and in the end, something was said about the timing and quality, although not all that could be.
      1. Nehist
        Nehist 31 March 2018 05: 28
        0
        Dear, did you take the cost data based on the amount of the billing or actual?
        1. arturpraetor
          31 March 2018 11: 10
          0
          If possible, from the actual ones, for lack of such - from those that were. And sometimes there are simply numbers without indicating where and what the numbers are. And sometimes there are a few figures of the total cost wassat Therefore, it was not just pointed out in the text that
          in such cases, the choice of certain sources as the main ones remains entirely on the conscience of the author of the article
          1. Nehist
            Nehist 31 March 2018 12: 51
            +2
            As a rule, there are three amounts of balance, contract and total. Mostly contracted. It is a pity there is no access to the documents of the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Ingushetia, there is complete and accurate information: ((
            1. arturpraetor
              31 March 2018 13: 07
              0
              I’m afraid that it’s only in the archives that I have to dig in order to determine the exact numbers - I don’t have such an opportunity, I'm a fan smile But from the information that I have and the regularities of the RIF archives I’m familiar with is not a fact that will help laughing Here, for example, one document indicates one number. If you dig and find individual payments, a little work with a calculator, then you can get a different figure. And from a letter of some cone of that time, we will see the third digit of the total cost of a ship, but not quite archival, but more mass publications can even provide us with the fourth digit wassat Actually, because of such possible distortions with numbers, I took as many ships as possible for comparison - at least the basic patterns in price tags can be determined thanks to the many numbers, and not the comparison of 2-3 Russian ships with 12-15 foreign ones.
              1. Nehist
                Nehist 31 March 2018 13: 15
                +1
                That's the trouble in the RIF archives, basically the contract value. And yet, the wacky habit of making changes to the ship under construction nevertheless significantly increased its total cost. Here are just estimates of the costs could not have the slanting of the ship from there at all and comes in handy information from contemporaries about what to build in Russia was expensive
                1. arturpraetor
                  31 March 2018 13: 29
                  +1
                  No, many ships are clearly indicated final cost. The problem is that the numbers depend on the source laughing And often like final cost are indicated by different numbers. And then, the fact of accounting for all cost items for construction, or not, is in question. And believe me - not only in the RIF. Far not only in the RIF. For example, try to determine the cost of the Spanish Destructor and compare the amount of funds allocated by Spain in pesetas to the contract value of the ship without weapons with Thompson's company. The numbers do not match, moreover, they would have allocated more - there is still armament, so they have allocated even less than what the British expected under the contract request And then what to do? And if you dig on ships of foreign construction - I’m sure that misunderstandings will be enough for them. Already enough. And this is only the available information.
                2. DimerVladimer
                  DimerVladimer April 2 2018 16: 00
                  0
                  Quote: Nehist
                  That's the trouble in the RIF archives, basically the contract value. And yet, the wacky habit of making changes to the ship under construction nevertheless significantly increased its total cost. Here are just estimates of the costs could not have the slanting of the ship from there at all and comes in handy information from contemporaries about what to build in Russia was expensive


                  It doesn’t matter - this practice continues today.
                  Since the project is a project, but a warship, this is not serial production, which is made in hundreds / thousands.
                  A warship, this is piece production - a hand-made.
                  Practical production, reveals the shortcomings of the project itself, entails its alteration, improvement.
                  Even ships made on the same project at different plants and in different years have some differences from the base project.

                  This is normal.
            2. fdgf
              fdgf 31 March 2018 13: 29
              +1
              Quote: Nehist
              It is a pity there is no access to the documents of the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Ingushetia, there is complete and accurate information: ((

              Why not? Something to eat:
  4. BAI
    BAI 30 March 2018 16: 33
    0
    Squadron battleship "Navarin" (founded in 1899, entered service in 1896)

    There is a typo here, or the dates are incorrect.
    But there was not enough production capacity (I see that they have already noted), I had to build abroad. I can’t say for the price, but the terms compared with foreign construction are quite comparable.
    Askold in Germany - 3 years, "Varangian" in the United States - either 2 or 3 (how to count).
    1. arturpraetor
      30 March 2018 16: 56
      +2
      Quote: BAI
      There is a typo here, or the dates are incorrect.

      Strictly speaking, the information is not entirely correct, the official bookmark was in 1890, but the construction was started in 1889. But a “typo” has already arrived. By the way, not the only one - "licked" the article long enough, but could not cope with everything wassat There is still “Navarin” in the part on OFRZ, is being built at the New Admiralty)) Alas, I did not have time to fix it, I just saw it.
      Quote: BAI
      I can’t say for the price, but the terms compared with foreign construction are quite comparable.

      There’s another thing - if you ordered abroad, take the last off yourself, and pay the money on time, otherwise they will start spreading rumors that the impoverished Russia cannot make the next payment by ship. But there were no such problems at domestic shipyards, because financing could be stretched to the fullest, and there also alterations during construction could accumulate ... But when the rooster pecked (in front of the REV), they started to unfasten the money as it should and began to build quickly.
    2. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 30 March 2018 18: 09
      +4
      Quote: BAI
      But there was not enough production capacity (I see that they have already noted), I had to build abroad. I can’t say for the price, but the terms compared with foreign construction are quite comparable.

      Placing an order abroad was caused not only by a lack of own capacities, but also by the search for prototypes. All the ships were built according to the Program "For the needs of the Far East" against the backdrop of the victory of Japan in the Sino-Japanese war and quite sensible reasoning that soon you would have to face Japan itself, which began to build its fleet intensively. Subsequently, the choice between the American “Retvisan” and the French “Tsesarevich” fell on the latter, a series of five “Borodino” began to be built according to the project with some further improvements, long-range reconnaissance vehicles of the 1st rank began to be built on the basis of the German “Bogatyr”, and the cruiser 2- first rank for the service at the squadron were already built on the basis of "Novik"
      So the policy of Russia at that time was quite sound and consistent. The only thing that was not enough was time. The Japanese managed to rebuild and attacked a year ahead of the deadline expected by Russia. That's all...
      1. fdgf
        fdgf 31 March 2018 10: 41
        +2
        Quote: Rurikovich
        Subsequently, the choice between the American “Retvisan” and the French “Tsesarevich” fell on the latter

        Only because of the incompetence of admirals. The whole world, in their "competent" opinion, was not keeping up, and Russia alone was keeping up.
        Quote: Rurikovich
        So the policy of Russia at that time was quite sound and consistent.

        Quite adventurous and inconsistent. What was the constant and almost never-realized desire to build up the linear forces of the RIF! So what? Until the end of the RJV, they managed to build only Poltava and Victory in Russia. Ships corresponding to outdated ships of their classes. That's all, more ships with TTX EDB in Russia until the end of the REV were not built. No one. And so-called "Borodinians" (4 pieces), this is a half-ebony, no more. Surrogates, i.e. Locally similar to EDB. And how much money and effort on them was taken away?
        And also 2 ships were bought from the TTX of the 1st class EDB abroad. Retwisan, performed by an EBR Raider. And Tsesarevich performed ... "bugger." Something between a full-fledged and obsolete first-class EDB. And what happened to the analogs of this “miracle” built in Russia according to “improved drawings” is a completely different story. Tale for adults. Because basically all the words there are obscene.
        Quote: Rurikovich
        a series of five Borodino began to be built

        And they built four "Borodino" and one "Glory". The ships had noticeably different performance characteristics.
        Quote: Rurikovich
        the only thing that was not enough was time.

        Yeah. How many times have you heard this mantra. "Time is running out" always. And to everyone. From tsars to Bolsheviks.
        The mind was not enough. Knowledge, too. Is always. And time was a shaft.
        Quote: Rurikovich
        That's all...

        Yeah of course.
        1. arturpraetor
          31 March 2018 11: 13
          +4
          Quote: fdgf
          And so-called "Borodinians" (4 pcs), this is a half-ebony, no more. Surrogates, i.e. Locally similar to EDB.

          Quote: fdgf
          Retwisan, performed by an EBR Raider. And Tsesarevich performed ... "bugger."


          Passerby / hotel / wer2 / rew2 / erw2 is back!
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 31 March 2018 12: 14
            +2
            Quote: arturpraetor
            Passerby / hotel / wer2 / rew2 / erw2 is back!

            And where without him :)))))
          2. Rurikovich
            Rurikovich 31 March 2018 18: 06
            +1
            Quote: arturpraetor
            Passerby / hotel / wer2 / rew2 / erw2 is back!

            laughing Right! You will not confuse with anyone lol
            1. arturpraetor
              31 March 2018 18: 07
              +1
              For the sake of laughter, I’ll try to keep a list of nicknames of this subscriber here and on the next site, where it also appears periodically. I wonder when the list will reach hundreds. laughing
              1. Rurikovich
                Rurikovich 31 March 2018 18: 21
                +2
                Quote: arturpraetor
                For the sake of laughter, I’ll try to keep a list of nicknames of this subscriber here and on the next site, where it also appears periodically. I wonder when the list will reach hundreds.

                I approve the idea - you need to know all the aspects of exclusivity wink yes good
                1. arturpraetor
                  31 March 2018 18: 23
                  +2
                  Quote: Rurikovich
                  because you need to know all the aspects of exclusivity

                  Or, in the words of my mother, an alternative talent bully
        2. Nehist
          Nehist 31 March 2018 12: 58
          +1
          Well, at least kill, I don’t understand you? What makes you think that Retvisan is an EDB raider? A typical EDB is identical in its performance characteristics to Japanese and English EDBs of the same period
          1. fdgf
            fdgf 31 March 2018 13: 41
            0
            Quote: Nehist
            What makes you think that Retvisan is an EDB raider?

            From the fact that I know his complete performance characteristics.
            Quote: Nehist
            A typical EDB is identical in its performance characteristics to Japanese and English EDBs of the same period

            Let's just say a typical PROJECT of a good grade 1 EDB. As good as the project of Sikishima and Hatsuse from Armstrong.
            But the ships from Armstrong were built with a bias in linear combat. Those. with moderate coal pits and strong armor protection (a lot of armor). And Retvisan was built with a bias in raiding - moderately armor and large coal pits. At the same time, Retvisan could easily be built as a strong linear class 1 EBR. And Sikishima, like an EDB raider. Projects allowed it.
            Mikasa was worse. Although it could be redone too.
            Asahi, worse. And it was already impossible to redo it, the project did not allow it.
            The most unsuccessful among the more or less full-fledged (not outdated by TTX) EDB of the 1st class of nuclear weapons was, of course, Tsesarevich. It's just a bag with some kind of flaws. But, formally, with all its jambs, this is still a class 1 EDB. Unlike his Russian clones. What from 4 Borodinians, what from Glory.
            1. Nehist
              Nehist 31 March 2018 15: 05
              +2
              Since the Japanese did not need large coal pits, the DB theater was limited and therefore all of their EDBs had less coal than their English prototypes, the weight saved and went on to increase armor and weapons. Although you prove something is useless. Apparently this was a dispute with you in 2016 when an article by Valentin aka Comrade about EDB Retvisan was discussed on TV
              1. fdgf
                fdgf 31 March 2018 15: 21
                0
                Quote: Nehist
                So the Japanese didn’t need large coal pits. The DB theater is limited.

                It's not about the Japanese. It's about the performance characteristics of their EDB. And about the performance characteristics of Retvisan. These are purely design troubles that have nothing to do with either the Japanese or the Martians.
                To retvisan, why was there a raider supply of coal, if he had blown up the whole REV in PA? And even after the defeat of the 1st TOE in ZhM, when everything was already decided, he did not dare to go to Vladik or to Europe in the company of Peresvet, Pallada and Bayan.
                Quote: Nehist
                Although you prove something is useless.

                Useful If you can. But this is usually not easy.
                Quote: Nehist
                when on TV the article by Valentin aka Comrade about EDB Retwizan was discussed

                I do not know what, by whom and when was discussed. Moreover, in 2016
                1. Nehist
                  Nehist 31 March 2018 15: 45
                  0
                  And you are not embarrassed that on the British prototypes of Japanese EDB coal reserves were 20-30% higher, which however does not make them EDB raiders ?!
                  1. fdgf
                    fdgf 31 March 2018 20: 12
                    0
                    Quote: Nehist
                    And you are not embarrassed that on the British prototypes of Japanese EDB coal reserves were 20-30% higher, which however does not make them EDB raiders ?!

                    The coal stock is of little interest to anyone. But many are interested in range in combat-capable condition.
                    Besides, you are wrong - Retwisan had a huge coal reserve. And Sikishima was already in second place. In front of Hatsuse.
          2. Rurikovich
            Rurikovich 31 March 2018 18: 20
            +1
            Quote: Nehist
            Well, at least kill, I don’t understand.

            Because these are the thoughts of the chosen one - they do not need to be understood, they need to be accepted as given and to believe that this comrade, who has truly encyclopedic knowledge, knows better why "Retvizan is a raider (!!!), and" Tsarevich " bag of brown odor wink
            1. fdgf
              fdgf 31 March 2018 20: 15
              0
              Quote: Rurikovich
              they do not need to be understood

              Necessary. But not everyone can.
              It is from this that such a bacchanalia in RuNet is going on. Many do not even understand the basics of the topic, but puff their cheeks and greyhounds "write articles." This is exactly the case when you regret the lack of censorship.
              1. Rurikovich
                Rurikovich 31 March 2018 20: 27
                +1
                Quote: fdgf
                Necessary. But not everyone can.

                Where are we ... miserable wink
                Quote: fdgf
                It is from this that such a bacchanalia in RuNet is going on.

                People understand the thoughts of the person who contributes them in a completely different way. lol
                Quote: fdgf
                Many do not even understand the basics of the topic.

                Of course, because if according to archival documents “Retvisan” is a squadron battleship, then people think that this is a squadron battleship, and not a “battleship raider” yes
                Quote: fdgf
                This is exactly the case when you regret the lack of censorship.

                In football, too, many regret that their own goal can’t be laid with a brick for the duration of the game and they didn’t die wassat
                1. fdgf
                  fdgf 31 March 2018 20: 40
                  0
                  Quote: Rurikovich
                  after all, if according to archival documents "Retvisan" is a squadron battleship, then people think that this is a squadron battleship, and not a "battleship raider"

                  In fact, "squadron battleship", this is a very broad concept. About as wide as the cruiser. Therefore, try to somehow understand that inside the category "squadron battleship" there was a thuja hucha of subcategories. Just like this thuja hucha was inside the cruiser category. Only a few already, yet a “cruiser,” is a broader concept.
                  1. Rurikovich
                    Rurikovich 31 March 2018 20: 53
                    0
                    Quote: fdgf
                    In fact, "squadron battleship", this is a very broad concept. About as wide as the cruiser. Therefore, try to somehow understand that inside the category "squadron battleship" there was a thuja hucha of subcategories. Just like this thuja hucha was inside the cruiser category. Only a few already, yet a “cruiser,” is a broader concept.

                    It’s strange, Nikolai (I remember how people who knew you called you), that's just why they didn’t write “cruiser reconnaissance” on the board of Novik, and “Boyarina” wrote “small near fighter cruiser”, although they were created one at a time terms of reference for one Arms Program "for the needs of the Far East" ???? And the functions for them were described as follows: close reconnaissance at a squadron, defense against enemy destroyers, covering their own destroyers in attacks. And for some reason they were all named in all documents of the "cruiser of the 2nd rank" ... And, Nikolai ???? Maybe because the people of that time were not familiar with the brilliant late classifications wassat, and wrote REALITY, in contrast to the enchanting delirium of descendants wink
                    1. fdgf
                      fdgf 31 March 2018 21: 20
                      0
                      Quote: Rurikovich
                      Nikolay (I remember, people who knew you have called you that)

                      I don’t remember anyone calling me Nikolai. Generally, this is a question for the Projector. She collects something similar there.
                      Quote: Rurikovich
                      why didn’t they write “cruiser reconnaissance” on the board of Novik, and “Boyarina” wrote “small near fighter cruiser”

                      You think fools?
                      Quote: Rurikovich
                      although they were created according to one technical task

                      Who told you that? What do they have in common?
                      Quote: Rurikovich
                      one armament program "for the needs of the Far East" ????

                      Well, what does this have to do with it? Did anyone build on this program?
                      Quote: Rurikovich
                      And the functions for them were described as follows: close reconnaissance at a squadron, defense against enemy destroyers, covering their own destroyers in attacks.

                      There was no, and could not be, "principle intelligence at the squadron." Poltou that long-range reconnaissance at the squadron was engaged in a class 2 EDB. Ships are slightly larger than Novik.
                      Moreover, this does not apply to Boyarin. He had his own functions, they are not among the ones listed by you.
                      Quote: Rurikovich
                      And for some reason they were all named in all documents of the "cruiser of the 2nd rank."

                      Probably because of their small size? Have you thought about this? Think about it. At the same time, a "rank 2 cruiser" is not a class of ships. These are just ships of a certain size with some, very wide performance characteristics.
                      Well, then there you have pointless blah blah blah.
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 31 March 2018 23: 35
                        +2
                        Quote: fdgf
                        I don’t remember anyone calling me Nikolai

                        It’s strange. People usually remember what their mother called, but this is probably not your case.
      2. Nehist
        Nehist 31 March 2018 13: 19
        0
        Yes, it was not necessary to look for prototypes! The first large series of quite successful EDBs of the Poltava type was built. The development of this project would have been much cheaper, especially since the projects were offered
        1. fdgf
          fdgf 31 March 2018 13: 46
          +1
          Quote: Nehist
          The first large series of quite successful EDBs of the Poltava type was built. The development of this project would have been much cheaper, especially since the projects were offered

          For that matter, it’s like Petropavlovsk.
          But from this series, more or less in terms of performance characteristics, only Poltava corresponded to the obsolete class 1 EDB. Due to the fact that almost all consisted of imported components. In particular, he had modern (i.e. expensive) imported armor. And imported cars (for the whole series).
          Sevastopol had cheap imported armor. And in terms of armor protection, it was not even an obsolete class 1 EDB.
          Petropavlovsk had domestic (non-cemented) armor. It was generally a miracle in feathers, not an armadillo.
          1. Nehist
            Nehist 31 March 2018 15: 38
            0
            For that matter, all the same, the Poltava type.
            1. Alf
              Alf 31 March 2018 19: 28
              +1
              Quote: Nehist
              For that matter, all the same, the Poltava type.

              Dear Alexander ! Do not argue with him, this Zeus-Carbine has returned, and he has his own alternative view of all things on all topics. He has his own alternative reality.
              1. arturpraetor
                31 March 2018 19: 35
                0
                Quote: Alf
                this is Zeus Carbine

                Is this one or two different nicknames? Here I just decided to do collecting, interestingly, write down in two separate paragraphs, or just one laughing
                1. Alf
                  Alf 31 March 2018 19: 57
                  0
                  Quote: arturpraetor
                  Is this one or two different nicknames?

                  First there was Zeus, then Carbine, and then I lost count.
                  1. arturpraetor
                    31 March 2018 20: 00
                    0
                    Understood thanks. There are already 8 nicknames in the list of clonobots of this character laughing I would add 3, but I did not remember the nicknames myself, only the fact of the appearance to the people.
                    1. Alf
                      Alf 31 March 2018 20: 05
                      0
                      Quote: arturpraetor
                      There are already 8 nicknames in the list of clonobots of this character

                      Announce the entire list, please.
                      1. arturpraetor
                        31 March 2018 20: 11
                        0
                        At a nearby alt site. Stories: Passerby, hotel. Here: rew2, erw2, wer2, rdgf. Well, Zeus and Corbine went to the piggy bank. Who else will remember - I’ll write it down, see how many faces the One Who Cannot be Named laughing
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 31 March 2018 23: 36
                        0
                        Quote: Alf
                        Announce the entire list, please.

                        This is impossible - more than a hundred :)
                    2. fdgf
                      fdgf 31 March 2018 20: 19
                      0
                      Quote: arturpraetor
                      Understood thanks. There are already 8 nicknames in the list of clonobots of this character laughing. I would add 3 more, but I did not remember the nicknames myself, only the fact of the phenomenon to the people.

                      To me, of course, your thoughts to one place. I hope it’s clear to what?
                      But your "statements" are a flame. The thing is, in principle, punishable.
                      On the other hand, I really understand you. I want to tell you something. And there’s nothing to say on the topic - you don’t know anything. So run the circles on the water. With the help of an ... hole. This is your "ceiling".
                      My condolences to you.
                      1. arturpraetor
                        31 March 2018 20: 25
                        +2
                        Quote: fdgf
                        To me, of course, your thoughts to one place. I hope it’s clear to what?

                        So you go then, do not linger, once to one place. But it seems to be the other way around - we are talking about you by 10 words, and you write whole opuses in response. You can see right away - to one place to a man!
            2. fdgf
              fdgf 31 March 2018 20: 42
              +1
              Quote: Nehist
              For that matter, all the same, the Poltava type.

              Yes, I agree here. Poltava was laid down first.
          2. fdgf
            fdgf April 1 2018 10: 53
            0
            Quote: fdgf
            Due to the fact that almost all consisted of imported components.

            And what could be built at that time from completely domestic components is clearly seen in the example of Sisoy. It's just some shame.
  5. Dimka75
    Dimka75 30 March 2018 16: 40
    +3
    Thank you, a lot of facts, interesting and reasonable
    a small corner is exactly "IN" on the site
    1. arturpraetor
      30 March 2018 16: 57
      +2
      And thank you for your appreciation)
    2. Antares
      Antares 31 March 2018 19: 11
      +1
      Quote: Dimka75
      a small corner is exactly "IN" on the site

      Indeed, you read and feel - this is a real high-quality HE without GMOs laughing . Article and comments ..
  6. podgornovea
    podgornovea 30 March 2018 17: 00
    +1
    It would be interesting to read about the cost of building ships in the late USSR.
    And then there’s a lot of talk about “killer for the Soviet economy” military expenditures, but the facts are highly likly.
    1. arturpraetor
      30 March 2018 17: 08
      +1
      To start with the late USSR, we also need to deal with the course - I heard that you can’t correlate the price tags in the USSR and the rest of the world at the official rate ... No, thoughts were something else to do - they say how much the USSR fleet and USA, but that’s not really my topic. I’ve been smoking a topic on the RYAV-era for a long time, and it took a lot to dig for the sake of this article alone, but in the USSR and the USA it will have to start almost from scratch. In general, for now I’m definitely not going to do this, and I don’t mind at all if someone else does this smile
      1. podgornovea
        podgornovea April 1 2018 09: 32
        0
        And what does the course have to do with it? It is possible in rubles Data on the budget of the USSR for expenditure and income for each year is. An itemized list of expenses and income, too. Import export data is also available. Approximately when you figure out how much in% of some expense items, the idea will already be estimated. If the nuclear Ulyanovsk cost about 1 billion rubles and the anti-alcohol company caused damage in the amount of 40 billion, it is clearly not military spending that killed the USSR.
        1. arturpraetor
          April 1 2018 11: 28
          0
          Quote: podgornovea
          And what does the course have to do with it?

          Yes, by inertia, I thought that you, among other things, offer to compare the price tags for ships in the West and the USSR) A little misunderstanding.
  7. Djusha
    Djusha 30 March 2018 17: 00
    0
    So it means that Admiral Makarov was not right, advocating for armored cruisers
    They did not give any advantage in the number of trunks
    Oleg is half the price of Borodino ...
    1. arturpraetor
      30 March 2018 17: 13
      +2
      Admiral Makarov’s ship preferences are a separate issue, and, IMHO, he wasn’t right. And it's not just the price tags or the number of trunks. There are a lot of things ...
    2. Alf
      Alf 30 March 2018 21: 47
      0
      Quote: Djusha
      So it means that Admiral Makarov was not right, advocating for armored cruisers

      And what was he wrong about? RI built armored decks, first of all, as trade fighters against Britain. And in this version, the concept of the six-thousand-cruiser fully proved itself, because it allowed to build a ship that could defeat the caravan in the shortest possible time (due to powerful uniform artillery) and escape from pursuers due to high speed (up to 23 knots). It was not for nothing that the actions of the EQA caused such a panic in Japan and on the European stock exchange.
      Yes, the cruisers Varyag, Askold, Bogatyr, Oleg failed to show themselves, but this is not their fault, but the failure of the general course of hostilities.
      1. Djusha
        Djusha 31 March 2018 00: 48
        0
        I think any adequate admiral would prefer in Port Arthur to exchange two Dianes for another Retvisan
        and drive caravans - Novik would be enough
        1. fdgf
          fdgf 31 March 2018 10: 46
          +1
          Quote: Djusha
          I think any adequate admiral would prefer in Port Arthur to exchange two Dianes for another Retvisan

          Probably would have preferred. But having Retvisan is one thing. And being able to use it is different.
          Admirals and one Retvizan really did not use. Why do they need more?
          Quote: Djusha
          and drive caravans - Novik would be enough

          In fact, Diana were caravan defenders. Colonial Cruisers. Their "service" was a firewall and just the protection of shipping (by escorting them) in case of war. So, under Tsushima Aurora was just in its place.
          1. Nehist
            Nehist 31 March 2018 13: 22
            0
            Yes, they were not Diana korovanozashchalki !!! Well, there was no such concept in the RIF; they were just created for the opposite. But here's how they were made is another question
            1. fdgf
              fdgf 31 March 2018 13: 54
              +1
              Quote: Nehist
              Yes, they were not Diana korovanozashchalki !!!

              In fact, there were. Because no matter what IN FACT were not able. So they built in Russia. One thing was conceived, and on the exhaust received a hole from a donut.
              Quote: Nehist
              Well, there was no such concept in the RIF; they were just created for the opposite.

              This is not an easy question. Of course, when creating the Diane, the cruiser reconnaissance was meant.
              But the ass was scratched through the nose. Therefore, they took the theoretical drawing of Svetlana (a typical French colonial cruiser) and scaled it under a three-machine three-shaft scheme. Just because there were no modern cars in Russia, they were bought later, with Tsesarevich, Bogatyr and Novik.
              Of course, the three-shaft scheme unsuitable for cruisers-scouts + ancient and heavy cars + contours of the French cruiser-in-patient (Svetlana) in the end gave ... What did they give?
              They gave not very good colonial cruisers in the amount of 3 pieces. And such ships, I repeat, are suitable only for firewall, inpatient or escort service.
              Yes, and even a drunken sailor, they can, with their shots, the devil knows what to incite.
              1. unknown
                unknown April 1 2018 14: 05
                0
                Normal cruiser "Diana". The Japanese moved the goods, burying their nose disappeared, and lo and behold ... a speed of 20 knots. Even with 8-6 "guns, an onboard salvo of 5 guns." Varyag "had 6. In the process of modernization, the number of main caliber barrels increased. On the Aurora, it was up to 14-6".
                1. fdgf
                  fdgf April 1 2018 14: 33
                  0
                  Quote: ignoto
                  The Japanese moved the goods, burying their nose disappeared, and lo and behold ... a speed of 20 knots.

                  not 20, but 200 nodes. They could not walk 20 knots. In principle, they could not.
                  And in fact, it is not a matter of cargo. The point is the microscopic range of action in a combat-ready state and a tortoise speed.
                  Therefore, as a result, the Diana were not capable of anything other than the functions of a cruiser-in-patient.
                  Typically, hospital cruisers in countries that do not have overseas colonies are retired cruisers who have served. But Russia, for some reason, built in France the cruiser-in-patient (colonial cruiser) Svetlana. And then she scaled it into three-machine and three-screw diana. Moreover, already at the stage of preliminary prototyping, it was clear that nothing else could happen except for the cruiser inpatients. But still, for some reason they were built.
                  Maybe some overseas colonies planned to grab?
        2. fdgf
          fdgf 31 March 2018 13: 59
          0
          Quote: Djusha
          and drive caravans - Novik would be enough

          Caravans moved under the protection of colonial cruisers. Convoys. Svetlana, Aurora, Diana, Pallas, Donskoy, Monomakh, etc. This is an incomplete list of colonial cruisers (cruisers-inpatients) RIF. They would leave horns and hooves from Novik.
          And Novik was not created for this - he was a reconnaissance cruiser. Boyar was a small and close RIF fighter cruiser. So he just had to hunt for single (non-convoy) transports and merchant ships of the enemy.
          1. unknown
            unknown April 1 2018 14: 47
            +1
            The Boyar was much more seafaring than the Novik. Therefore, according to the memoirs, they rated it higher.
        3. Alf
          Alf 31 March 2018 19: 12
          0
          Quote: Djusha
          I think any adequate admiral would prefer in Port Arthur to exchange two Dianes for another Retvisan

          Sleepy goddesses are generally something.
        4. unknown
          unknown April 1 2018 14: 00
          0
          Wouldn’t be enough. Suliga in his monograph on Japanese heavy cruisers has a very competent introduction, in which he mentions that the Japanese, on the basis of the experience of the RPE, came to the conclusion that cruisers of the second rank are insufficient in terms of displacement, armament, and combat stability. And the British came to the conclusion that the minimum acceptable displacement for the ocean cruiser is 6000 tons. Domestic cruisers with a displacement of 6000 tons were not an error. Rather, the mistake is "Asam." Impartially analyze their combat activities in the REV: nothing outstanding, extra ships.
          1. fdgf
            fdgf April 1 2018 14: 56
            0
            Quote: ignoto
            Rather, the mistake is "Asam"

            How is this a mistake? Nothing like this. And how to deal with the armored raiders of the enemy?
            Quote: ignoto
            Impartially analyze their combat activities in the REV: nothing outstanding, extra ships.

            The fact that the RIF did not actually wage any cruising and raider struggle with Japan was simply a pleasant bonus for her. How could the Japanese know in advance that the RIF would lock itself in the PA and sit there pants? They could not know this. Therefore, we responsibly prepared for anti-cruising and anti-rider activities.
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 31 March 2018 00: 56
        0
        Quote: Alf
        And what was he wrong about?

        For all my respect to Stepan Osipovich, with his armless vessels in 3000, he got excited
        Quote: Alf
        And in this version, the concept of the six-thousandth cruiser fully paid off, because it allowed you to build a ship that could defeat the caravan in the shortest possible time (due to powerful uniform artillery) and escape from pursuers due to the high speed (up to 23 knots)

        So they didn’t go there in cows :)))) And in order to wreak havoc on communications, Emden in WWI was enough. Six thousandth is redundant here
        1. fdgf
          fdgf 31 March 2018 10: 49
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          For all my respect to Stepan Osipovich, with his armless vessels in 3000, he got excited

          Now how to calm Osipycha now? I’m afraid for the old man, maybe I won’t do it.
        2. Nehist
          Nehist 31 March 2018 13: 30
          +1
          Andrei, remember the Japanese trio Matsushim with their 320 mm gun !!!))) The French managed to cram pretty strong artillery in 4,5 thousand tons)))
          1. Alf
            Alf 31 March 2018 19: 10
            +1
            Quote: Nehist
            The French managed to cram rather strong artillery in 4,5 thousand tons)))

            And this 320-mm miracle at least once hit someone during the entire service?
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 31 March 2018 23: 37
              +1
              Quote: Alf
              And this 320-mm miracle at least once hit someone during the entire service?

              Perhaps once in Sino-Japanese, but not a fact. In REV - never
              1. Alf
                Alf April 1 2018 22: 23
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Quote: Alf
                And this 320-mm miracle at least once hit someone during the entire service?

                Perhaps once in Sino-Japanese, but not a fact. In REV - never

                That's it. At three thousandths you can play 320 and 406 or more. But here's what comes out of it ... As they say, any whim for your money.
        3. Alf
          Alf 31 March 2018 19: 59
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          For all my respect to Stepan Osipovich, with his armless vessels in 3000, he got excited

          I mean six thousandths.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Six thousandth is redundant here

          Could Emden keep a full swing in the storm over 6 points?
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 31 March 2018 23: 39
            +1
            Quote: Alf
            I mean six thousandths.

            So it's not him :)
            Quote: Alf
            Could Emden keep a full swing in the storm over 6 points?

            It is doubtful, but raiding for a glimpse :) 29 transports, cruiser and destroyer
        4. unknown
          unknown April 1 2018 14: 10
          0
          Emden wasn’t enough. The main caliber is not the same.
          And the “Sydney” is actually six thousandth. Nautical, main caliber-6 ".
      3. Nehist
        Nehist 31 March 2018 05: 47
        +1
        Nda? That's just the wok did not operate at all by 6 thousand people, for the only ship built according to this concept, the former in the wok in May 1904 sat on stones and stood in the repair for the whole war
        1. fdgf
          fdgf 31 March 2018 10: 53
          +1
          Quote: Nehist
          That's just the wok did not operate at all by 6 thousand people, for the only ship built according to this concept, the former in the wok in May 1904 sat on stones and stood in the repair for the whole war

          In fact, the only ship of this concept in Chemulpo was cunningly transferred to the Japanese. And the Bogatyr was a reconnaissance cruiser. Those. water area protection ship.
          Yes, the boat was pretty good. And in some places he could fulfill the functions of an ersatz cruiser-fighter. But it is always better to have a complete product than ersatz. This is because, as a cruiser-fighter, Bogatyr was much worse than the Varangian.
          1. Alf
            Alf 31 March 2018 19: 16
            0
            Quote: fdgf
            This is because, as a cruiser-fighter, Bogatyr was much worse than the Varangian.

            What?
            Quote: fdgf
            the only ship of this concept in Chemulpo was cunningly transferred to the Japanese.

            Did you understand what you said?
            Quote: fdgf
            And Bogatyr was a reconnaissance cruiser. Those. water area protection ship.

            A scout and a ship for the protection of the water area are completely different things.
            1. fdgf
              fdgf 31 March 2018 20: 24
              0
              Quote: Alf
              What?

              The color was not that. And the dishes in the wardroom were thinner.
              Ask your counterpart of the Projector. He will explain this topic to you in detail. I do not want.
              Quote: Alf
              Did you understand what you said?

              But is there something wrong or incomprehensible written there?
              Quote: Alf
              A scout and a ship for the protection of the water area are completely different things.

              Now. And in those days, the term "scout" (for ships) had a slightly different meaning. And the pioneer. And in general, the language was slightly different.
      4. fdgf
        fdgf 31 March 2018 11: 22
        0
        Quote: Alf
        RI built armored decks, first of all, as trade fighters against Britain.

        Yeah. Already 2 pcs. put up. Moreover, Boyarin was a "sea" (not ocean) fighter cruiser. Therefore, it was difficult to use it against Britain even initially.
        In addition, only a client of House No. 6 could plan to fight with Britain in those days. And those in the leadership of Russia, with all the minuses, were not.
        To combat the trade of the enemy (empirical), Russia built a mass of ships. Moreover, almost all of them were armored:
        1. Light (long) armored cruisers-raiders.
        Rurik, Russia - these were not very. But more or less turned out. Especially Rurik for his time.
        Stormbreaker is a ship of the same concept, but unsuccessful. Only a terry wrecker could build a ship of this concept from such components. Or, a complete ignoramus. The second version is more believable.
        2. Heavy armored cruisers-raiders (battleships-cruisers).
        Peresvet and Oslyabya - were conceived as universal ships which, if necessary, could be used for linear battle too. Something like a hybrid of an EDB class 2 and an armored cruiser raider. As a result, they were not really capable of anything at all. For raiding, due to the use of a three-machine and three-screw scheme (there were no cars and the competence of the designers). For a linear battle, due to weak weapons and armor. Oslyabya also was built ugly.
        As a result, the project was redone into an EDB 2 class project (Victory). Poorly, but obsolete EDB 2 class Victory was.
        3. EDB Raiders.
        Only one was built. Abroad. Retvisan. Pretty decent. For one of the main purposes (for raiding) not a single day was used.
        Quote: Alf
        And in this version, the concept of the six-thousandth cruiser fully paid off, because it allowed to build a ship that could defeat the caravan in the shortest possible time (due to powerful uniform artillery) and escape from pursuers due to high speed (up to 23 knots).

        Which one? Russia had 4 types of six thousandth cruisers. All different classes.
        Quote: Alf
        It was not for nothing that the actions of the EQA caused such a panic in Japan and on the European stock exchange.

        And what did the wok have to do with six thousandth cruisers?
        Quote: Alf
        Yes, the cruisers Varyag, Askold, Bogatyr, Oleg failed to show themselves

        Varangian Russian operators was brought to the handle. And even in this form, he could still serve. But he was shoved into the Chemulpo trap and he did not have a way out, despite the endless fantasies of Runet.
        Askold could serve. Just did not serve. Because ... Well, because he was not needed, he was a RIF. Generally not needed. A strange concept was the ship. And he could be based either in the Baltic or in Vladik. Like Boyarin and Bayan.
        However, this whole company for some reason rubbed into the PA. Find out more why?
        Bogatyr, probably also could. If Jessen had not used it as an accelerating boat. What to do, each has its own official transport. Someone has a minibus. And someone has a six-thousandth cruiser.
        The role of the ersatz cruiser-fighter Bogatyr could fulfill. Poor, but he could.
        Oleg already could not serve anything. There was no fleet base (he couldn’t get to Vladik), there was no water area that he could guard. And the role of ersatz cruiser fighter was nowhere to perform. Yes, and nothing, half a machine NEW the cruiser by that time was no longer working. Convincing quality, nothing to say.
        1. Alf
          Alf 31 March 2018 19: 17
          0
          Quote: fdgf
          Russia had 4 types of six thousandth cruisers. All different classes.

          How to understand it ? Cruiser is one class. Ships were different projects, Yes, but with approximately the same performance characteristics.
          Reading your comments, it seems that you are raving.
          1. fdgf
            fdgf 31 March 2018 20: 34
            0
            Quote: Alf
            Cruiser is one class.

            "Cruiser", this is not a class at all. It’s just a large ship with certain, oooooochen wide TTX. Type, like a "freight car". It happens Gazelle, and sometimes BELAZ. Not very similar, right?
            Quote: Alf
            Yes, but with approximately the same performance characteristics.

            Well yes. What did Diana and Varyag have in common? And the hero and Askold? In addition to the name "cruiser".
            Quote: Alf
            Reading your comments, it seems that you are raving.

            And you do not read. And the impression will not be created.
            True, in this case, with a probability approaching 100%, you’ll find out, well, sheer nonsense. Which would not be worth knowing. But this is not my problem.
    3. fdgf
      fdgf 31 March 2018 10: 42
      0
      Quote: Djusha
      They did not give any advantage in the number of trunks
      Oleg is half the price of Borodino ...

      How can you compare these trunks? Ships are for completely different purposes.
  8. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 30 March 2018 17: 59
    +2
    Bravo, Artyom! Interesting article good
    I will only add that in the late 19th and early 20th centuries Russia was characterized by such a variety of opinions regarding doctrines that resulted in a wide variety of types of ships. There were differences even within the same type. In part, this misunderstanding can be pushed aside in search of the ideal, but the trouble is that such searches sometimes led to the death of not only people, but also the ships themselves. The notorious savings and "improvements" may have led to a reduction in the cost of the ship, but the victims, as a rule, were the performance characteristics of this ship itself.
    So in any separately selected country, you can pick up a fair amount of oddities when building both the fleet as a whole and individual ships in particular
    Yet Russia’s excuse, it can be said that the search for the ideal often led to the relatively large-scale construction of ships of the selected type, although the quality of the ships themselves often depended not on builders, but on customers ...
    Article plus hi
    PS Still honored on the article wink
    1. arturpraetor
      30 March 2018 18: 23
      +3
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Bravo, Artyom! Interesting article

      Thank you very much, dear colleague hi
      Quote: Rurikovich
      There were differences even within the same type. In part, this misunderstanding can be pushed aside in search of the ideal, but the trouble is that such searches sometimes led to the death of not only people, but also the ships themselves. The notorious savings and "improvements" may have led to a reduction in the cost of the ship, but the victims, as a rule, were the performance characteristics of this ship itself.

      Here, by the way, is another interesting question, to which I personally could not find the answer: what was primary - long-term construction, or alterations on a slipway? If alterations on the slipway - then everything is clear as it were. And if it is unfinished, then all other problems are just the consequence of one big one, called "saving." No, well, if you think about it - if, anyway, due to lack of money, the ship is being built slowly, then why not squeeze something better out of it?
      Quote: Rurikovich
      PS Still honored on the article

      Strictly speaking, this is my fifth article lately, just from all the others, only the first, which I decided to publish on topvar smile Now I’m preparing a whole cycle on the Spanish-American war, but I don’t know if this site will fit the text level. I am very frivolous in working with the primary sources (I keep the material, the primary sources are not), besides, I have a bad habit of correcting what was written after 100500 after publication, but it won’t work out here laughing
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 30 March 2018 19: 12
        +1
        Quote: arturpraetor
        what was primary - unfinished, or rework on the slipway?

        The answer must be sought in the guidelines of the MTK wink
        Quote: arturpraetor
        I’m very frivolous in working with the primary sources (I keep the material, the primary sources aren’t), besides, I have a bad habit of correcting what is written 100500 times after publication, but it won’t work out here

        Nuuuu, experience is coming. Moscow, too, was not built immediately ...
        Quote: arturpraetor
        Now I’m preparing a whole cycle on the Spanish-American war, but I don’t know if this site will fit the text level.

        good I can only advise you to consult with a colleague from Chelyabinsk, I think. he, specifically faced with the work of the site will have something to tell yes And the topic itself is amazing. Read the same Andrei-Chelyabinsk "Fight in the Yellow Sea." And on the topic you have proposed, too, there are many interesting things that can be analyzed in terms of admiral tactics, analysis of the quality of shooting, and the technical condition of the ships before the battle. So wait, sir yes drinks hi
        1. arturpraetor
          30 March 2018 19: 32
          +1
          Quote: Rurikovich
          I can only advise you to consult with a colleague from Chelyabinsk, I think. he, specifically faced with the work of the site will have something to tell

          I consulted before the publication of this article)
          Quote: Rurikovich
          Read the same Andrei-Chelyabinsk "Fight in the Yellow Sea."

          I read it several times already. In general, I’ve been familiar with the work of Andrei’s colleague for a long time, as well as with him personally - long before the top-hat) It can be said that it was he who finally kicked me on the path of critical thinking, after one cheerful dialogue about the linear layout of the GK towers laughing
          Quote: Rurikovich
          And on the topic you have proposed, too, there are many interesting things that can be analyzed in terms of admiral tactics, analysis of the quality of shooting, and the technical condition of the ships before the battle.

          Nah, I was not going to talk about that a bit)) Yes, and I don’t know Spanish so well to get into such wilds. It was just that I was faced with the fact that on the Internet about the Spanish-American war they only know what it was, but otherwise they prefer to invent request And somehow it happened by itself that I decided to write a general review of the war, with all the important events, even without special analytics. So that it would be possible to get information from a single source in a normal format not only about the fact that the Spanish-American war was, or not only about the battles at Santiago de Cuba and Cavite, but also about the attack on the San Juan hill, the actions of the Spanish gunboats in the initial period of the war, the effectiveness and participation in the conflict of the American army, etc. So that there was a summary of information in Russian, from which it was possible to build on, and not a bare fact about the presence of some petty war between the Yankees and Spaniards laughing
          1. unknown
            unknown April 1 2018 14: 16
            0
            So, in the series “Marine Collection” of the magazine “Modelist-Constructor” there was a monograph about cruisers like “Infanta Maria-Theresa”.
            1. arturpraetor
              April 1 2018 15: 04
              0
              True, but there is still little information about the Spanish-American War. Not to mention the fact that the battles were not only at sea.
  9. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 March 2018 18: 07
    +3
    Greetings, dear Arthur Praetor! With the initiative of you!
    The article is unambiguously in memoris, I will run to consult who and what cost aki in the directory
    1. arturpraetor
      30 March 2018 18: 29
      +2
      Thank you very much, dear colleague! In fact, the information here is for reference ... Very relative. In almost every ship of the above, you can find at least two different rates. About the four costs of "Novik" I already told you request As a result, the numbers sometimes just have to be taken on faith, which does not add to them a "reference."
  10. belost79
    belost79 30 March 2018 18: 35
    +2
    Excellent article!
    It immediately catches the eye that they built much cheaper only in the UK. With the rest of the countries they went almost on a par.
    You can also take into account that the shipyards of St. Petersburg were located in a more severe climatic zone than the shipyards of other countries cited as an example. This is an additional cost.
    1. arturpraetor
      30 March 2018 18: 52
      +1
      Quote: belost79
      Excellent article!

      Thank you!
      Quote: belost79
      It immediately catches the eye that they built much cheaper only in the UK. With the rest of the countries they went almost on a par.

      Nearly. Here, simply not all statistics are available, before that I dug separately for different countries and classes. Apparently, the Americans, with expensive large armored ships, had very cheap armored decks, the cheapest in the world (though the prices are only without weapons). In addition, they built relatively cheaply in Austria-Hungary - a little more expensive than the UK, although not always. But with the rest - yes, on a par, plus or minus depending on the different classes and structural complexity of individual ships.
      Quote: belost79
      You can also take into account that the shipyards of St. Petersburg were located in a more severe climatic zone than the shipyards of other countries cited as an example. This is an additional cost.

      And extra time for construction - weather conditions didn’t always allow working. In this regard, the Baltic plant won, which had EMNIP one of the largest boathouses (indoor construction site) in Europe. which allowed at least the body to rivet without regard to the weather.
    2. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 30 March 2018 19: 14
      +2
      Quote: belost79
      It immediately catches the eye that they built much cheaper only in the UK.

      Do not forget about the completely logical development of the ship classes of the British and the construction of their large series, which implies cheaper
      1. Alf
        Alf 30 March 2018 21: 50
        0
        Quote: Rurikovich
        building them in large batches, which implies cheaper

        Yes, and they drove to order, which also reduced the cost of ships for their own fleet.
  11. Comrade
    Comrade 31 March 2018 05: 12
    +1
    The main claims to domestic shipbuilding are the slow construction speed of ships, the low quality of construction and, most importantly, the high cost, which forced them to turn to foreign countries for help over and over again. And somehow, these claims settled down and turned into a generally accepted opinion and an axiom that does not require confirmation.

    The question for some history buffs is very interesting, so you can try to figure out how fair this thesis is. When comparing it would be advisable to consider the cost of the ships without weapons (and ideally without booking).
    This would avoid distortion, since the production of armor, fire control systems, rangefinders, artillery systems and their ammunition, as well as torpedo tubes, torpedoes and minefields, was not directly related to shipyards. Therefore, analyzing shipbuilding, it is illogical to compare the cost of ships, which includes not only the price of the hull with the machine, but also the costs of manufacturing and installing armor and weapons with accessories.
    However, since we have only the cost of the battleships, although without weapons, but with armor, we will compare what we have. We turn to several squadron battleships built in the USA, England, Germany, France and Russia, respectively. Products are presented in increasing order of their cost of construction (taken from official sources and texts of contracts), which, for clarity and perception, is converted into rubles (according to the gold parity of currencies as of 1901). It is not possible for me to calculate the cost of a ton of displacement right now, since there is no time to clarify the displacement of each of the ships.

    "Maine" - 5 606 651,00 rub.
    "Mikasa" - 8 795 551,00 rub.
    "Kaiser Friedrich" - 9 259 240 rub.
    "Iéna" - 10 445 623 rub.
    Borodino - 11 058 204 rub.
    1. arturpraetor
      31 March 2018 11: 33
      0
      Quote: Comrade
      This would avoid distortion, since the production of armor, fire control systems, rangefinders, artillery systems and their ammunition, as well as torpedo tubes, torpedoes and minefields, was not directly related to shipyards.

      Actually, if we strictly evaluate shipbuilding, the thesis will be true, but the admirals were looking at the final price tag, and not at one price tag for buildings and cars. Therefore, he considered that the whole complex of military shipbuilding should be evaluated, including the supply of weapons and armor, i.e. full price tag, for which you had to pay if you wanted to get one or another ship.
      Quote: Comrade
      It is not possible for me to calculate the cost of a ton of displacement right now, since there is no time to clarify the displacement of each of the ships.

      Not a problem, dear colleague, now I will recount:
      "Maine" - 444,97 rubles (47 pounds) per ton;
      Mikasa - 582,33 rubles (62 pounds) per ton;
      Kaiser Friedrich - 847,76 rubles (90 pounds) per ton;
      “Yen” - 908,08 rubles (96 pounds) per ton;
      Borodino - 784,77 rubles (83 pounds) per ton;
      As you can see, the French and Germans built more expensive, and the Americans and British - cheaper.
      But there is one big problem: if we look at the price tag of the hull, vehicles and armor, then we should also take the tonnage of hulls, cars, and armor, since the specific gravity of these load items for different ships can vary quite a lot. And there are problems with this, as you know - you can dig up a lot of information, but even more ships laughing
      1. Nehist
        Nehist 31 March 2018 13: 06
        0
        Somewhere I’m getting fed up with the information about the price of Peresvet sisterships just without armor and weapons, the cost did not differ very much
        1. arturpraetor
          31 March 2018 13: 22
          +1
          According to one source. And on the other - the Oslyabya building was estimated to be 0,7 million rubles more expensive than Peresvetovsky, and 1,2 million more expensive than the Victory building request By the way, only now, when I decided to look at the price tags, I discovered a mistake in my calculations - the cost of Oslyaby did not include armor. Those. its unit cost is even greater than that indicated by me.
  12. fdgf
    fdgf 31 March 2018 14: 32
    0
    Quote: arturpraetor
    The Oslyabya squadron battleship (laid down in 1895, entered service in 1903) is a cruiser battleship, it’s a rank II battleship, it’s a squadron battleship,

    Quote: arturpraetor
    The squadron battleship "Peresvet" (laid down in 1895, entered service in 1901) - the founder of a series of battleships-cruisers, but in fact armadillos of the second rank.

    In fact, an armadillo cruiser is not a squadron battleship of the 2 class. It is, in the terminology of later years, a heavy cruiser. And the 2 class EDB is a battlecruiser.
    Those. Relight / Oslyabya and Victory, they are not classmates. Although they were built on the basis of the original one project.
    It should also be added that Peresvet, as the battleship that they originally wanted to build, did not work out. And Victory was originally remade into an obsolete 2nd class EDB. And so they built it. Because It was impossible to build anything else from this project.
    Quote: arturpraetor
    The squadron battleship Borodino (laid down in 1900, entered service in 1904) is the lead ship of the largest and most famous series of Russian squadron battleships. He had a high degree of technical complexity, good protection and weapons, outstanding survivability.

    Borodinians had no high complexity. Craft project from the "brilliant designers" was. But there were no difficulties.
    Their armament was at C grade, no more.
    Protection, a solid deuce. In addition to Glory, he was protected normally. But the weight of the armor increased due to coal in the pits. Therefore, Glory was ... uh ... "Short-Range Class 1 EDB." And his nose did not stick out of the Baltic.
    The rest of Borodin were sometimes “plywood” in some places. Because their weight was very fond of saving due to armor. Which, in part, predetermined their utter defeat under Tsushima. Although, there was still a whole bunch of different factors.
    Quote: arturpraetor
    For comparison, the Royal Sovereign battleship, built in the UK and mortgaged in the same year as the Navarin, cost 913.986 pounds, or 65 pounds per ton

    In general, the “silver piano” was a budgetary EDB. Like Sisoy. And Navarin, full. Therefore, comparing them is incorrect.
    Quote: arturpraetor
    Armored cruiser "Stormbreaker" (laid down in 1897, entered service in 1900) - the development of "Russia"

    The Stormbreaker had nothing to do with Russia. Thunderbolk itself, this is an attempt to build some kind of armored cruiser raider from what was at the moment. And given that there was practically nothing, it turned out, nothing. Those. something worse than even Russia.
    Quote: arturpraetor
    British-Japanese "Asama" (about 80-90 pounds per ton, the determination of cost is difficult due to the presence of only an approximate cost of construction).

    Why are you comparing the cost of completely diverse ships? What did you find common between Asama and Thunderbolt?
    Quote: arturpraetor
    Squadron battleship "Victory" (laid down in 1898, entered service in 1902) - a slightly improved "Relight".

    In fact, Relight and Victory are not even classmates. No, initially the project was one. But they built something different. And built, also different.
    1. arturpraetor
      31 March 2018 15: 11
      +1
      I don’t communicate with the clone robots of the Passerby, all the best hi
      1. fdgf
        fdgf 31 March 2018 15: 26
        0
        Quote: arturpraetor
        I don’t communicate, all the best

        And what, someone suggested you communicate?
        I did not offer, you confused me with someone. Apparently with a "passerby clone boat". I can only tell you something or explain to you. Or point out the most obvious mistakes. If I want to.
        And it's too early for you to communicate with me. There is not enough knowledge on the subject.
        I plan to open an elementary educational program on naval affairs on another site. This thing is very necessary in RuNet, I will tell you. Against the background of total and simply glaring incompetence. Often they don’t know the elementary, but they "write authoritatively."
        1. Alf
          Alf 31 March 2018 20: 02
          0
          Quote: fdgf
          I plan to open an elementary educational program on naval affairs on another site.

          To the viola player. There is a place for you.
          1. arturpraetor
            31 March 2018 20: 09
            +2
            Nope, not once, they kicked him from there even earlier than from the topwar, and now they’ll ban him on the slightest sign of return lol Such speeches are even among alt. historians (to whom I belong) are bullshit. Truly a legendary character.
            1. fdgf
              fdgf 31 March 2018 20: 59
              +1
              Quote: arturpraetor
              among alt. historians (to whom I belong)

              Who is the altistoric? Infinite balabol, or what?
              You will not find historians in the afternoon with fire. But the whole runet is filthy with altistorics. And this is his trouble.
              I’m not an altistoric, I’m just an expert in some areas of weapons. Outside of which I do not poke my head. And this Runetov incompetent bacchanalia just gets me. I just can’t watch how frank ignoramuses write something and “authoritatively assert” in topics about which they simply have no idea. Even simple, superficial. But ambition and vocabulary, a wagon.
              Where is this world heading? Even the pope could not stand it and the other day I went through such "Internet speakers". You need to read, there are many things that concern you. In my evaluative view.
              1. arturpraetor
                31 March 2018 21: 21
                0
                Quote: fdgf
                all runet is contaminated with historians. And this is his trouble.

                Oh don't talk. And alternatively gifted historians - this is generally chaos!
              2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 31 March 2018 23: 41
                +3
                Quote: fdgf
                Who is the altistoric? Infinite balabol, or what?

                No, unlimited balabol is you. And altistorik is altistorik
        2. Comrade
          Comrade April 1 2018 17: 03
          0
          I plan to open an elementary educational program on naval affairs on another site.

          Do not forget to leave the address, to hunt the truth!
    2. Nehist
      Nehist 31 March 2018 15: 22
      +1
      Let me disagree with you about Borodintsy. At the time of construction, the ships had many innovative solutions, which, given the imperfection of the technology, made them difficult both in construction and in future operation. But about Stormbreaker I completely agree. If the construction of Russia still somehow justified itself, then Stormbreaker was a waste of money
      1. fdgf
        fdgf 31 March 2018 15: 56
        0
        Quote: Nehist
        At the time of construction, the ships had many innovative solutions, which, given the imperfection of the technology, made them difficult both in construction and in future operation.

        Do not read Bolshevik newspapers at breakfast (i.e. runet). These were ordinary ships. Only the reservation scheme for its time was extremely unsuccessful. And very exotic 6 "artillery. That's all the differences.
        Moreover, there was nothing complicated there at all. But exotic and unsuccessful, as many as you want.
        1. Nehist
          Nehist 31 March 2018 20: 31
          0
          All of this, as you say, was exotic and unsuccessfully massively used in WWII with the growth of technology, when the reliability of certain design and engineering solutions became reliable and well-established
          1. fdgf
            fdgf 31 March 2018 21: 09
            0
            Quote: Nehist
            All this, as you say, was exotic and unsuccessfully used in WWII.

            I am wildly sorry, but the beginning of the 20th century (WWE) and WWII are two different eras. I’ll give you a third throw, 1MB. These are completely different eras in shipbuilding. Therefore, to compare them, this is at least incorrect.
            Quote: Nehist
            with the growth of technology, when the reliability of certain design and engineering solutions has become reliable and proven

            Not only technology, but technology as a whole. One switch from solid to liquid fuels is worth it. These are incomparable things.
        2. unknown
          unknown April 1 2018 14: 31
          +1
          So among the French, most armadillos carried medium-caliber artillery in the towers.
          Initially, the tactics of using in squadron combat implied a different one. Not linear, in one order, but "dumped". Fight with a conscious violation of the linear system, in the "dump" of ships. Therefore, it was assumed that medium-caliber artillery would require large pointing angles. The casemate could not give this, but the tower could. The idea that during the “loop of Togo” the armadillos of the first detachment should change course and attack the Japanese more actively, subconsciously implies the use of “dump” tactics. That is, armadillos under the "dump" tactics were built, and used them linearly.
          1. fdgf
            fdgf April 1 2018 15: 13
            +1
            Quote: ignoto
            Initially, the tactics of using in squadron combat implied a different one. Not linear, in one order, but "dumped". Fight with a conscious violation of the linear system, in the "dump" of ships. Therefore, it was assumed that medium-caliber artillery would require large pointing angles.

            In fact, contrary to the widespread gossip of Runet, 6 "artillery squadron battleships 20 in was like an elephant shot. Since the level of their security has increased. Therefore, during a linear battle, it was used almost exclusively as an auxiliary one (since there is one). And its function on squadron battleships 20 in It was only anti-cruising. Those. such artillery was the "elder brother" of the EDB anti-aircraft artillery.
            A little later, with the development of technology, armored cruisers were replaced by armored ones. And with them went 6 "artillery (dreadnought).
            8 "artillery was sometimes sometimes put up against armored cruisers. But it was in vain, in any case, they were too expensive to throw them into a torpedo attack on battleships. Moreover, the number of main gun barrels and the range of their aimed fire increased for battleships. Therefore, cruisers there was no chance at all to get to the battleships, and the cruising caliber was abandoned altogether.
            Therefore, the 6 "artillery in the towers on Tsesarevich, Borodino and Slava was just plain nonsense, for an EDB of the 20th century. In any case, an armored cruiser would only discharge its torpedo tubes aboard an EDB. Therefore, a wider sector of firing at 6" guns was simply not needed.
            The enemy could handle the enemy’s EDB and only the GK artillery was intended for this. Here are just those same 4 guns in 2 (usually) towers. The rest was so, insofar as.
            1. Nehist
              Nehist April 2 2018 00: 28
              +2
              So they came to an increase in the average caliber after the REV. And before that, all the wars that the Sino-Japanese that the American-Spanish showed the effectiveness of medium-caliber artillery. This is after the British REV an increase in caliber to 190mm and to 208 for us. Well, and accordingly, then a dreadnought appeared where there was already a mono-caliber artillery GK
  13. Antares
    Antares 31 March 2018 19: 27
    +1
    It was interesting to read the article and comments. Thank you all for the atmosphere of true VO.
    In addition to the article itself, the eternal question is time-money ... After all, the weapons received after the fight are already useless (if it was prepared for it).
    Could RI openly start preparing for the RIA with a large margin of time (everyone always lacks it like money_) Under the prevailing legend that RI was not prepared (we will throw caps on it, etc.), RI still prepared and did it on a large-scale, costly basis.
    Or will the island state of the sea always benefit from fast logistics / consolidation of funds?
    And the fact that climatic conditions do not allow much in Russia (more expensive, longer), despite the fact that the means of production are located in historically established and convenient places for RI, is known. The author refutes the figures, but it is still sad for me that everything turned out not in our favor (the ships received at the price of the average in the world could not achieve the result)
    1. arturpraetor
      31 March 2018 20: 06
      +1
      4-th time I am writing you a comment because of Internet glitches, so I apologize for the laconicism possible))
      Quote: Antares
      Under the prevailing legend that RI was not prepared (we will throw caps on it, etc.), RI still prepared and on a large scale, costly.

      IMHO - the preparation was carried out after the sleeves. Those. have developed the pace more than usual, but not the ones that could. And what they managed to do was not enough. Although, even with that number of ships, everything would have been nice enough if it weren’t for the money, or rather their lack of money before the war — the war got better, but it’s too late.
      Quote: Antares
      Or will the island state of the sea always benefit from fast logistics / consolidation of funds?

      Logistics is an important advantage, but the rest of the Japanese were not doing so perfectly ... In general, this best logistics could be blocked. Including in the literal sense, completely blocking the flow of supplies by sea - and the Japanese army would sit in Manchuria hungry and without shells, conquer the Russian fleet at sea.
      Quote: Antares
      however, all the same, it’s sad for me that everything turned out not in our favor (the ships received at the price of the world average could not achieve the result)

      It is sad and insulting, because everything somehow rests on the simplest economy. If they hadn’t saved, or saved not so earnestly, something would definitely have turned out better than real, and so ... The ships were built and maintained, but it cost close to the price. There was no longer enough money for intensive combat training or even testing new shells and guns. And the war at sea, and then the whole war, was lost because they decided to save rubles, but they had to pay with blood. And in order to "cover up" such a stupid man, then they started about stupid admirals, the backwardness of the state. building and the high cost of building ships compose stories ...
      1. unknown
        unknown April 1 2018 14: 38
        0
        Saved? Did you rebuild the Far? What do we still not know about that war?
        1. arturpraetor
          April 1 2018 15: 08
          +1
          Far built for other purposes, saved on the armed forces. The whole history of the RIF from the second half of the 19th century and according to the 1917 year can be described by the magic word "saving". Then they saved on tests of shells, then on the purchase of rangefinders ...
          1. Nehist
            Nehist April 2 2018 00: 30
            0
            Well, suppose the fleet received even beyond what he requested. But here he received financing in parts and not all at once as they wanted. By the way, this also affected the construction period.
            1. arturpraetor
              April 2 2018 00: 41
              0
              Financing the construction of ships in parts (if you are talking about this) is a common practice of the time, in all states. By the way, it’s possible (because I’m not an economist), this explains the differences between state-owned enterprises (dumbasses with almost everything) and private (efficient and fast work) - private traders built ships for their own capital, and only then, at the end of certain stages, the costs compensated by the customer (state). But state-owned enterprises, most likely, first received funds, and then built on them - more delay, more problems, more dumbasses. Well, just state-owned enterprises ... How to say this ... Sometimes, reading about how such enterprises of that time worked, one gets the impression that there is not the result, but the bureaucracy at the forefront. Yes, I really do not really pity state-owned enterprises without proper reforms of their structure))
    2. unknown
      unknown April 1 2018 14: 36
      0
      What island state are we talking about? The Japanese seriously considered moving the capital to Seoul. That is, on the territory of an allegedly different state, populated by an allegedly different people, with a different language, culture.
  14. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 31 March 2018 20: 30
    +2
    arturpraetor,
    Quote: arturpraetor
    Who else will remember - I’ll write it down, see how many faces the One Who Cannot be Named

    like in style similar rjxtufh
    1. arturpraetor
      31 March 2018 20: 34
      +1
      Right! It was like this when I did not write comments on Topvar, but I already read the topics of my colleague Andrei. The ninth went ...
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 31 March 2018 20: 38
        +2
        Quote: arturpraetor
        Right! It was like this when I did not write comments on Topvar, but I already read the topics of my colleague Andrei. The ninth went ...

        I then spent a lot of nerves on counteracting the original classifications of ships of the same type laughing
        1. arturpraetor
          31 March 2018 20: 49
          +1
          Classifications are generally a scribe. No, it’s understandable for alternative specialists, for example, for alt. states sometimes come up with their own classifications, I’m now thinking about this for alt-Spain. But inventing for your own use is one thing, and replacing the official one (which was different in different states), and with fanaticism claim that everything in the world is nonsense, except for the Classification of His Highest Thought ...
        2. Alf
          Alf April 1 2018 22: 28
          +1
          Quote: Rurikovich
          I then spent a lot of nerves on counteracting the original classifications of ships of the same type

          What's the point? The comrade lives in his own reality, in which he alone has all rights, he simply does not perceive others, like Mr. Shpakovsky, in the world of Caliber.
          1. Rurikovich
            Rurikovich April 1 2018 23: 37
            +2
            Quote: Alf
            like Mr. Shpakovsky, in the world Caliber.

            laughing good
            Today made sure smile
            But ... we need to move on, because how many people, so many opinions wink
            On his planet, the Little Prince can watch the sunset at least a thousand times, because it is his planet. So if you want to laugh, look at the planet of Nikolasha, tell him that the matrix failed and the official classification has lost its power - you will hear about the emergence of a new Messiah with the New Classification of Ships by Coal Pit Size and Propeller Color winked laughing drinks
  15. Comrade
    Comrade April 1 2018 04: 19
    +3
    Quote: fdgf
    In fact, an armadillo cruiser is not a squadron battleship of the 2 class. It is, in the terminology of later years, a heavy cruiser. And the 2 class EDB is a battlecruiser.

    Kolya, when you once again begin to “classify” armadillos, my teeth are already starting to hurt. Well, how much can you pay, maybe, so that you can rest?
    1. Alf
      Alf April 1 2018 22: 29
      +1
      Quote: Comrade
      Well, how much can you pay, maybe, so that you can rest?

      Not enough money. The comrade has a constant aggravation.
  16. Comrade
    Comrade April 1 2018 04: 45
    0
    Quote: arturpraetor
    admirals looked at the final price tag, and not at one price tag for buildings and cars. Therefore, he considered that the whole complex of military shipbuilding, including arms supplies, should be evaluated

    Dear colleague, then the situation will only get worse, since artillery was expensive, and shells too. For example, 12 '' shell in England cost four times more expensive than ours. Alas, it is.

    Quote: arturpraetor
    "Maine" - 444,97 rubles (47 pounds) per ton

    Dear colleague, I'm afraid you have a mistake in all cases.
    Here is the "Maine":
    Case with practical things - 4 836 t.
    Armor with mounts, armor deck - 3 533 t.
    Armament with ammunition - 1 058 t.
    Various accessories - 199 t.
    Ship mechanisms with water in boilers - 1 396 t.
    ______________________________________________
    Total - 11 022 tons (We exclude coal (1 000 tons) and supplies with supplies (478) from weight distribution).
    In addition, subtract water from refrigerators, pipes, boilers and tanks from the amount received earlier - this is about 100 tons.
    Thus, the cost of one ton of displacement of the battleship "Maine" will cost:
    5 606 651,00 / (11 022 - 100) = 5 606 651,00 / 10 922 = 513,33 rub.

    Yes, an important question, dear colleague. And at what rate did you convert rubles to pounds?
    1. arturpraetor
      April 1 2018 11: 42
      +1
      Quote: Comrade
      For example, 12 '' shell in England cost four times more expensive than ours. Alas, it is.

      Of course, there will be differences as a result. So that's just the point - to determine how large these differences were, and how because of them, as a result, the cost of ships in different countries increased. The point is not only in the buildings (but also in them) and cars.
      Quote: Comrade
      Dear colleague, I'm afraid you have a mistake in all cases

      Because, dear colleague, I have slightly different methods for determining the price tag per ton, which I already indicated at the beginning of the article - I always divide by the normal actual displacement, since load articles and dry displacement can not be found on all ships. Yes, coal and water in boilers make a certain margin of error, since they are not taken into account in the cost, but the orders of numbers in general will still be the same. Therefore, the price tags per ton may differ from the official ones - in officialdom they were considered, like you, in terms of dry displacement, but I repeat - just like in officialdom we simply do not have the ability to take into account all the necessary ships, therefore we have to go less accurate, but more accessible for calculations by.
      Quote: Comrade
      Yes, an important question, dear colleague. And at what rate did you convert rubles to pounds?

      9,46 rubles per pound. The Swedish exchange gives out numbers in 9,6-9,62 pounds per ruble for the 1890 years, but I did not see such a figure in Russian-language sources - everywhere 9,46 (with a different number of decimal digits).
      1. Comrade
        Comrade April 1 2018 16: 43
        +1
        9,46 rubles per pound. The Swedish exchange gives out numbers in 9,6-9,62 pounds per ruble for the 1890 years, but in Russian-language sources I have not seen such a figure - everywhere 9,46

        Dear colleague, I do not know the complete information on the dynamics of the change in the gold parity of the Russian ruble against foreign currencies, there is only a few years.
        According to Russian official sources of that time, in 1897, "by legal weight of pure gold" It was 6,30506775 rubles for one pound sterling,
        and in 1901, also "by legal weight of pure gold", this ratio was already 9,45758222 rubles for one pound sterling.
        The battleship “Prince Potemkin-Tauride”, for example, was officially laid down on 28 of September 1898, and the actual work began even earlier. As you know, the cost of the ship was usually divided into ten payments, therefore, some of them passed with the 6,30506775 course, and some with the 9,45758222 course.
        And there were many such cases, take at least the same Aurora cruiser, which began construction in 1896, and which entered service in 1903.
        Unfortunately, there is no way to determine, without the involvement of archival data, at what ratio of the ruble to the pound sterling what part of the payments went for a particular Russian ship.
        1. arturpraetor
          April 1 2018 17: 10
          0
          Quote: Comrade
          According to Russian official sources of the time, in 1897 "according to the legal weight of pure gold" it was 6,30506775 rubles for one pound sterling,
          and in 1901, also "according to the legal weight of pure gold", this ratio was already 9,45758222 rubles for one pound sterling.

          That's right, after the Witte reform, the ruble “sank” a lot, and there are some nuances (the reform took 2 of the year, and some prices from 1895 of the year were indicated at the new rate, although they switched to the new rate only at the end of 1897).
          Quote: Comrade
          therefore, some of them took place during the 6,30506775 course, and some - during the 9,45758222 course.

          Not really. Apparently, all government calculations began to be carried out at a new rate from about the middle of the 1895 year (I met such information), in addition, not all figures of the cost of ships that went into operation before the 1895 year (the beginning of the Witte reform) are given in pre-reform rubles - it all depends on the dating and source. That’s why I tried to use the Ship List on ships before 1895 — despite all its shortcomings, only post-reform rubles are given there on at least the Baltic ships (I’m not sure about the Black Sea ones). From other sources, the course can be both pre-reform and post-reform, and this is a half time difference.
          Quote: Comrade
          Unfortunately, it is not possible without archival data to determine which part of the payments for a particular Russian ship took place at what ratio of ruble to pound sterling.

          Yes, here it’s just with the official course of the problem)) It seems that the course wandering in the Russian-speaking Internet is still incorrect, and the statistics from the Swedish exchange should be more trusted - then the price tags from the article in reality in pounds may differ by certain numbers (by 3-4 percent )
          1. Comrade
            Comrade April 1 2018 23: 22
            0
            Quote: arturpraetor
            That’s why I tried to use the Ship List on ships before 1895 - despite all its shortcomings, only post-reform rubles are given there on at least the Baltic ships

            Dear colleague, the “Ship List” shows the amounts in rubles actually spent, not taking into account changes in the ruble exchange rate.
            In order to verify this, we need to take any amount of money spent during the construction of any ship, and which would be paid in full even at the old course. Then find this expense item in the "1904 Ship List" and compare.
            So, we open the book of V.V. Arbuzov Battleship "Peter the Great":
            “The delivery of finished plates to Kronstadt was planned in six installments: the first (800 tons) by mid-May, the last by October 1 1873 of the year. The amount allocated for contract armor of 1 million 200 thousand rubles was paid in three installments”
            Now we look at how much, according to the “Ship List 1904,” the cost of the armor for the battleship Peter the Great was.
            Arbuzov 1 200 000,00 rub., in the "List" - 1 179 700,00 rub.
            As you can see, these numbers almost coincide, so we can conclude that in the "Ship list 1904 g." amounts in rubles were given without taking into account changes in the ruble exchange rate. How much was paid, so much was printed.
            Thus, if the ship was started to be built at the “old” rate, and ended at the “new” one, part of the payments to the contractors passed at one ruble exchange rate, and some at another.
            1. arturpraetor
              April 2 2018 00: 32
              0
              Strictly speaking, I didn’t go so far, I took ships that had been in operation since the 1895 of the year - and there, as far as I can tell, the price tags were given in gold rubles after the reform course, including the final cost. Those. with Peter the Great there are definitely pre-reform rubles, but with the ships I took ... Actually. this was one of the biggest problems in compiling statistics - because of Witte’s reform, it’s not clear when to get which course numbers ... So yes, I can have serious mistakes with the calculations, although I tried to minimize their possibility. But all the same, it has not yet been said in which specific rubles the price tag of the ships for the commissioning of the pre-reform ships is indicated - to say that these or those specific rubles are somehow ... Well, as for me - it's complicated.
  17. The comment was deleted.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  18. Comrade
    Comrade April 1 2018 05: 10
    +1
    Quote: fdgf
    I’m not an altistoric, I’m just an expert in some areas of weapons.

    You forgot the word specialist quote it.
  19. Huumi
    Huumi April 1 2018 09: 58
    +1
    Thank you-A bunch of interesting and how much information had to be shoveled. Visually. And rightly said, it’s difficult to say exactly what was bad or good. And Toko and the other. But they built and fought on them!
  20. bone1
    bone1 April 7 2018 23: 08
    0
    The author wanted to refute the myths that RI was built poorly, long and expensive? And how disproved? Really expensive, bad and long (Spain is even longer, the argument is good, China is still dragged). In the world, shipyards are mainly engaged in the construction of civilian vessels, and ships as a bonus, and we have ships of all foreign construction and even transportation, mainly by foreign vessels. And what about domestic shipyards? -Periodic construction of ships? with backward equipment? with summer garden workers? with buckets freezing for the winter? with the placement of shipyards in places selected for wooden shipbuilding and not adapted for "normal" construction?
    1. arturpraetor
      April 9 2018 11: 53
      0
      Quote: Bone1
      And how disproved?

      The real price tags of the ships we have and over the hill, and not fiction. The emphasis was on prices - quality and time have their own atmosphere, there it is just right to write a separate article. And according to the real price tags, the ships in Russia are quite at the global average level, I have given enough comparisons. If you continue to claim that it is much more expensive, then I apologize, but questions of personal faith are not discussed here, only facts.
      Quote: Bone1
      And what about domestic shipyards? -Periodic construction of ships? with backward equipment? with summer garden workers? with buckets freezing for the winter?

      Everything is clear, militant illiteracy. Full crap with periodic construction - domestic shipyards were always busy to the eyeballs, because of this I had to buy a lot over the hill, crap with backward equipment - there are enough references that the equipment of Russian shipyards (at least private) was quite at the modern level, crap with gardeners, and ladles that freeze for the winter in shipbuilding are generally tin, but in shipbuilding they only work with buckets ...
      Quote: Bone1
      with the placement of shipyards in places selected for wooden shipbuilding and not adapted for "normal" construction?

      Ha, what do you think over the hillock of the shipyard "moved" after switching from wood to iron and steel? The whole difference is in the necessary equipment, and in Russian shipyards - like any other - it WAS and constantly changing, they invested considerable money in this. So the march to learn materiel, and not to bombard people with unsubstantiated slogans and fantasies.
      1. bone1
        bone1 April 9 2018 19: 50
        0
        Accept sincere sympathy.
  21. kunstkammer
    kunstkammer 28 July 2018 17: 23
    -1
    much more expensive, for example, foreign-built destroyers cost treasury
    something remembered the French helicopter carriers Serdyukov ...
    as soon as experienced personnel began to be appreciated at state-owned factories
    Well, this is generally nothing for our affective managers ...
    The bottom line:
    Long live the bright Putin today! Shame on the terrible Soviet past!
    We say - Putin, we mean - Homeland! We say Homeland, we mean Putin .. Medvedev .. Naibulin .. Matvienko!