Military Review

Line Cruiser Rivalry: Moltke vs. Lion

54
As we said earlier, the Von der Tann turned out to be a wonderful ship for its time, close to the standard of a battle cruiser. Therefore, it is not surprising that next year (and German shipbuilders, in accordance with the "Law on navy”Laid one big cruiser per year), the Germans did not come up with a new project, but went on the path of improving the previous one. But the opinions on which direction the project should be improved were expressed quite interesting and somewhat unexpected: it was interesting that they began to speak out even before the foundation of Von der Tann.


So, 23 on April 1907 Mr. von Tirpitz stated (verbally) that the new cruiser should become an increased Von der Tann. In response to this, the design office submitted an entire memorandum to 2 in May of 1907, which substantiated a slightly different vision of the new battlecruiser. It must be said that G. Staff does not assert anywhere that Tirpitz proposed building a new cruiser with eight 305-mm cannons, but judging by the arguments of his opponents, he meant exactly that.

The design bureau recognized that it was possible to create a battle cruiser with eight newest 305-mm guns within the allocated budget, but suggested not to do so. It was motivated as follows - although, without any doubt, the newest battleships require twelve-inch guns, but the cruiser will have enough 280-mm, perhaps not quite optimal, but still quite suitable for battle with battleships. Instead of increasing the caliber, you should increase the number of guns - this will allow the "big" cruiser to fire several targets at the same time, which is extremely important in a naval battle against the superior British forces. Therefore, it was proposed to leave the 280-mm caliber gun on the new cruiser, but increase their number to twelve. The reservation had to correspond to the “Fon der Tannu”, the speed - not lower than 24,5 nodes.

In response, the Imperial Maritime Ministry responded that the argument of the Design Bureau about the need to increase the number of main-caliber barrels is flawless (!), But still there are no twelve guns needed for the stated goals, ten is enough. At the same time, Admiral von Heeringen pointed out that 305-mm guns on battleships appeared not because of someone else's whim, but because they best meet the tasks of a squadron battle, and if so, then “big” cruisers should be armed with 305-mm guns . The admiral also pointed out that the recent calculations for one of the projects of the high-speed battleship armed with 10 280-mm guns showed that such a ship is possible in a displacement of 20 300-20 700. Now you can build a larger cruiser, so the additional displacement is quite can be spent on 305-mm guns.

In general, the Imperial Maritime Ministry proposed to build a battle cruiser with 10 305-mm guns, arranged according to the “Dreadnought” scheme, while the protection had to correspond to “Fon-der-Tann”, the speed - not lower than 24,5 knots.

As a result, 17 May 1907 g final decisions were made on the future cruiser. We stopped at 10 280-mm guns, the same that were installed on the “Fon der Tann”, the speed should be from 24 to 24,5 knots, the displacement should be no larger than the modern battleship, that is, of the order of 22 000 t (this is how the newest dreadnoughts like "Helgoland" were seen then). At the meeting, in the presence of all interested persons, they also sketched out a map of the location of the artillery of the future "big" cruiser.


That scheme


Interestingly, even then there was a concern about the linearly elevated placement of the feeding towers - it was rightly noted that since they are located very close to each other, they can be put out of action with a single successful hit.

The design of the cruiser showed that these innovations would require an increase in the Fon der Tanna displacement on the 3 600 t, including the 1 000 t - to increase the side height, 900 t - on the additional tower of the 280-mm guns and the corresponding extension of the citadel, 450 t - additional weight of machines and mechanisms; 230; t - other needs; and 1 000; t - an increase in the geometric dimensions of the body so that all of the above can fit in it. However, this seemed excessive von Tirpitz, because it went beyond the previously indicated 22 000 t displacement. In response to this, a small “revolt of designers” took place, offering to completely abandon all kinds of innovations, and build a “big” cruiser in the image and likeness of “Von der Tanna”. It was stated that it was impossible to “shove” the required innovations in 22 000 t, that the design offices were overloaded with work, that in England they built three Invincibles and did not lay down new ones, apparently waiting for the test results of the first series of battle cruisers and only Germany builds every year off-series large cruiser, each time a new project.

Nevertheless, of course, the admirals insisted, and the ship was built according to a new project. The normal (full) displacement of the battle cruiser Moltke was 22 979 (25 400) t.



Artillery.

As we said earlier, eight 280-mm / 45 guns were installed in four two-gun towers on Fon der Tann. The project was supposed to install ten such guns on the Moltka, but in fact the ship received more powerful 280-mm / 50 artillery systems. The Von der Tanna guns sent projectiles with an initial speed of 302 m / s in the 850 kg flight, while the Moltke guns were 895 m / s. Without a doubt, the armor penetration of the main caliber "Moltke" has grown, and in the same way could have increased the firing range. But alas - if the maximum angle of elevation of the guns of the “Von der Tanna” was 20 degrees, then “Moltke” - 13 degrees. As a result, the firing range decreased from 18 900 m to 18 100 m and only in 1916 g, after increasing the elevation angle to 16 hail. reached 19 100 m. Ammunition remained at the same level: “Moltke” had a 81 projectile for each weapon against 82-83 on “Fon der Tanne”, but the total ammunition, due to the addition of a two-gun turret, increased, of course, from 660 to 810 shells. Of course, all 10 guns of the main caliber "Moltke" could fire on one side.

The medium caliber was represented by the same 150-mm / 45 guns that were installed on the “Fon-der-Tanne”. Their ammunition consisted of 50 armor-piercing and 100 high-explosive 45,3 kg shells, which these guns were able to send in flight with an initial speed of 835 m / s at a distance of 13 500 (73 cab.), And after upgrading the range of fire increased to 16 800 m (XNUM) cab.). The only difference was in the number of these guns: “Von der Tann” carried 91 10-mm / 150 guns, and “Moltke” - two more.

The anti-mine caliber was introduced by a dozen 88-mm / 45 guns firing 10,5 kg shells with an initial speed of 750 m / s on the 10 700 m. (58 cab.). Von der Tann was equipped with the same weapons, but there were sixteen of them on the first German battle cruiser.

As for the torpedo armament, there were four 500-mm torpedo tubes on the Moltka (450-mm on the Fon der Tann), two of them were placed in the bow and stern stems, two more - in front of the bow 280-mm turret towers. Total ammunition was 11 torpedoes.

Reservations.

The booking of the Moltke battle cruiser was very similar to that of Fon der Tanna, although there were some differences. In addition, the sources, alas, do not contain some data on the “Von der Tann”, while on the “Moltke” they are.



The basis of Moltke’s armor protection was two armored belts. The bottom one had a height of 3 100 mm. From the top edge and over the 1 800 mm, the belt had a 270 mm thickness, and on the remaining 1 300 mm, it gradually became thinner to 130 mm. At the same time, the 270 mm section went under the waterline at 40 (according to other data, at 60 cm) and, accordingly, rose above the water only at 1,2 - 1,4 m. The difference from Fon der Tanna was that, judging by In all, Moltke’s “thick” section of the armor belt was higher (1,8 m versus 1,22 or 1,57 m) while its thickness exceeded that of Fon der Tanna by 20 mm (270 mm against 250 mm), but on the bottom the edge of the Moltke belt has “lost” the same 20 mm (130 mm against 150 mm).

On top of the lower armored belt was the top - this one had a height of 3 150 mm and the same thickness 200 mm throughout its length. The difference from the “Fon der Tanna” here is that, opposite the “traversing” towers of the main caliber of the Moltke armor belt, the Moltke had no increase in thickness to 225 mm.



Accordingly, the Moltke side protected the entire length of the citadel on 6 250 mm, with the first 3 150 mm having a thickness of 200 mm, then 1 800 mm - 270 mm and lower 1,3 m smoothly thinned from 270 mm to 130 mm. The citadel covered not only the engine and boiler rooms, but also the feeding tubes and cellars of the towers of the main caliber, including the bow and aft towers, but still the stern tower was not completely covered up. Outside the citadel, the board was booked the same way, but had a lightweight protection - 120 mm (closer to the stem - 100 mm) in the bow and 100 mm in the stern, while the thickness of the 100-120 mm armor plate was reduced to 80 mm to the upper edge. At the same time, the last 3 meters of the stern remained unarmoured, but there was a 100 mm traverse that closed the 100 mm of the armored belt. Above the citadel (but not all along its length), casemates of 150-mm guns were located, which, like Fon der Tanna, were armored with 150 mm armor plates. Accurate data on the traverse is not, judging by the descriptions of G. Staffa, they had a variable thickness from 140 to 200 mm.

The Moltke armored formwork had the same thickness of armor (25 mm in the horizontal part and 50 mm bevels), but its shape was slightly different from Fon der Tanna: the horizontal part occupied a large area, and the bevels were located at a large angle (not 30 , and 37 hail). As a result, the barbettes of all the Moltke towers “got up” on the horizontal portion of the armored decks, but a greater angle of inclination relative to the deck and a smaller angle relative to vertical protection resulted in less armor from the effects of projectiles during flat shooting. However, the changes here were minor, if not to say - negligible. We also note that the horizontal part of the armor deck was at a height of 1,6 m above the waterline.

This armored form protected Moltke within the citadel, but, as follows from the description of G. Staff, it ended without reaching 12 m before the end of 270 mm of armor in the stern. From here to the stern, at the height of 45, see below the waterline, there was a horizontal armored deck without bevels. It had a thickness of 40 mm in the 270 mm area of ​​the armored belt and 80 mm - further. In the nose of the citadel, the armor deck was at the level of the waterline at a height of 50 mm, curving downwards closer to the stem.

Above the armor deck at the “Fon der Tanna” only decks were armored in the area of ​​the casemates (or simply had an increased thickness - 25 mm each). As far as can be understood, the same thing was on Moltke, except that the casemate’s “ceiling” was still 35 mm.

The conning tower’s armor thickness reached 350 mm, but was not uniform, the side walls had 300 mm, the rear wall had 250 mm, the roof was 80 mm. The protection of the towers corresponded exactly to Fon der Tannu, front sheets and rear wall 230 mm, side walls 180 mm, inclined sheet in front of the roof 90 mm, horizontal part of the roof 60 mm, flooring in the rear part of the tower 50 mm. But the barbets booking had some differences. In the extreme towers of both battlecruisers, half of the barbet, facing the bow and stern respectively, had 230 mm of armor, the rest of the barbet - 170 mm. The traverse towers of Fon der Tanna had 200 mm barbety to 25 mm deck, and below it only 30 mm. Moltke towers up to 35 mm decks had the same 200 mm, but lower - up to the “floor” of the casemate, i.e. where the board was protected by 150 mm armor, the thickness of the barbet was 80 mm from the nearest side and 40 mm from the opposite side.

An anti-torpedo armored bulkhead with a thickness of 30 mm was installed on the “Fon der Tanne”. "Moltke" received the same, but in the area of ​​artillery cellars, its thickness increased to 50 mm.

In general, Moltke’s booking was somewhat more rational and powerful than that of Fon der Tanna.

Power plant.

Machines and boilers capable of developing the rated power of the 52 000 hp were installed at Moltke, and it was assumed that the speed of the 25,5 nodes would be reached. On tests, the power was significantly exceeded and reached 85 782 hp, while the speed reached 28,074 knots. The maximum recorded speed was 28,4 kn (at what power - alas, not reported). During the six-hour run, the average cruiser speed was 27.25 knots.


"Moltke" at full speed


The coal reserve was 1 000 t in normal and 2 848 t at full displacement. Unfortunately, Moltke's tests for the economic course (12 nodes) were not carried out, but it can be assumed that they were quite equivalent to the same type of “Goeben”, whose stroke range was determined from test results both by calculation and at speed:

27,2 knots - 1 570 miles;

20 knots - 3 200 miles;

17 knots - 4 230 miles;

12 knots - 5 460 miles.

An interesting point - the author of this article for a long time did not understand why the German battleships had a bottom in the vicinity of the stem, as it were, “cut off”, forming something more similar to an icebreaking bow. As it turned out, this sharp “rise” to the stem served the one and only goal - to ensure the best agility of the ships during the shifting of the rudders.

Moltke was built on the 1908 g program and was laid out in April 1909 g, 7 was launched on April 1910 g and 30 September 1911 g was put into operation - a very outstanding result, even if you do not take into account the 2,5 month shipyard strike (4 August - October 20 1910 d), during which the construction of the battlecruiser was not conducted. The next battlecruiser of Germany, the Goben, was built under the 1909 program, and was a ship of the same type as the Moltke. “Goeben” was laid on 28 August 1909 g, lowered 28 February 1911 g and commissioned 2 July 1912 g.

What can be said about the second and third battlecruisers in Germany? Without a doubt, the Germans turned out powerful and well-protected ships. But, oddly enough, it is much more difficult to evaluate the Moltke project than the previous Von der Tannu. On the one hand, everything seems to be simple. In previous articles, we compared the Von der Tann and the British Indefatigeble, and came to the unambiguous, indisputable advantage of the Von der Tanna over the English battle cruiser. But it should be understood that such a comparison, in general, is not entirely correct. The fact is that “Fon der Tann” was laid 21 March 1908 g, almost a year before “Indefatigebla”, whose bookmark took place 23 February 1909 g. And, if we compare the ships in accordance with the timing of their laying, the British battlecruiser second the series should not be compared with Fon der Tann, but with Moltke, laid down some 2 months after Indefatigeble.

Of course, it is even indecent to even compare Indefatigeble and Moltke, as if you rate the chances of a twelve-year-old fighter against an Olympic boxing champion. It can only be stated that the German naval and design ideas were colossally ahead of the English in the creation of battlecruisers. And how can you not remember the boastful words of D. Fisher expressed in a letter to Lord Asher, dated September 1908 g:

“I have Philip Watts, who in the new Indefatigable makes you get water in your mouth when you see the ship, and the Germans gnash your teeth.”


Considering the fact that the Germans immediately after the “Indefatigebla” and long before the “New Zealand” with “Australia” laid the battle cruisers, which were almost 4 400 tons heavier than the English, had ten very powerful 280-mm guns, exceeding the English 305 in armor penetration -mm / 45 guns and, with equal speed, had armor in 200-270 mm where the English had only 102-152 mm, German sailors could gnash their teeth only in order not to burst out laughing out loud.

Of course, England almost never attempted to build ships that did not have peace in the world, preferring the relative cheapness and massiveness of construction to high individual TTX, but, oddly enough, at the time of laying the Moltke and Geben, and with the English, things were not so hot. By the time the Gebena was laid, the British had XVUMX-type Invincible battlecruisers in the ranks and one (Indefatigeble) in construction, the Germans in three battlecruisers in construction.

But on the other hand, shortly after the laying of the Goeben, in England they began to build a second generation of battle cruisers - in November, the Lion was laid out with the 1909-mm guns and 343-mm armor belts. And this was a completely different opponent.

Продолжение следует ...
Author:
54 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Kars
    Kars April 5 2018 15: 08
    +6
    I put on ..Leva ..
    1. BAI
      BAI April 5 2018 15: 26
      0
      Lion with 343 mm guns and 229 mm armored belt

      Of course.
    2. Potter
      Potter April 6 2018 18: 52
      0
      Jutland is your judge.
  2. DimanC
    DimanC April 5 2018 15: 54
    0
    The relative smallness of the caliber, the campaign, the visiting card of the German military machine
  3. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer April 5 2018 16: 16
    0
    If the Britons in the design of the battlecruiser Lyon laid a linearly elevated arrangement of the main caliber guns in the bow (British aggressive manner of battle), then the Germans placed the guns in the stern (retreat tactics) according to this scheme.
    1. NF68
      NF68 April 5 2018 16: 49
      +1
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      then the Germans placed according to this scheme guns in the stern (retreat tactics).


      More likely the Germans wanted to make the ship's center of gravity as low as possible.
      1. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer April 6 2018 14: 54
        0
        Quote: NF68
        Quote: DimerVladimer
        then the Germans placed according to this scheme guns in the stern (retreat tactics).


        More likely the Germans wanted to make the ship's center of gravity as low as possible.


        Metacentric altitude increases - stability increases, lower board - less armor, but reduced seaworthiness. Everyone was trying to design like that.
        1. NF68
          NF68 April 6 2018 17: 00
          0
          Quote: DimerVladimer
          Metacentric altitude increases - stability increases, lower board - less armor, but reduced seaworthiness. Everyone was trying to design like that.


          The British defined priorities differently. Usually, their sides were higher and seaworthiness, respectively, was better than that of the Germans.
          1. saigon
            saigon 8 August 2018 15: 49
            0
            The British needed ships for action anywhere in the ocean, but the Germans designed and built ships for battle in the North Sea.
            So the Germans had enough seaworthiness, and in many works the disgusting habitability of German ships was noted.
            So the Teutons were not going to go far.
            Moreover, in the North Sea, namely, the limited visibility of 254 mm of the main caliber does not look bad. The penetration armor was enough.
            1. Senior seaman
              Senior seaman 8 August 2018 16: 00
              0
              254 mm main caliber

              What did you mean?
              1. saigon
                saigon 8 August 2018 16: 08
                0
                254 was wrong, I apologize - 11 "from the Germans
    2. Saxahorse
      Saxahorse April 5 2018 16: 53
      +1
      I suspect that the linearly elevated towers turned out only aft only for reasons of upper weight.
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich April 5 2018 19: 25
        +2
        Yes, everyone is a little right wink The placement of the aft towers linearly elevated kills two birds with one stone. Because economic power of the British was much more German, the latter decided to take quality. If we take into account the fact that the series “Indefatigebel” was built simultaneously with the “Moltke”, there was a benefit from this arrangement. Hypothetically, the British could put 2-3 of their own for each German LKR, therefore a more solid reservation made it possible to keep the impact of 305 mm shells well, and the tactics of the battle on the retreat would allow in the event of a collision with any of the ships of the first two series to have more GL trunks. So even in the arrangement of artillery, the Germans beat LKr with 12 "artillery. And again, if we take into account the Germans' response to the English" initiatives ", then" Moltke "was called to confront the" Bibles "with their artillery.
        Naturally, the designers did not consider a structural flaw in the conditions of the North Sea as a lower side in the aft.
        1. DimanC
          DimanC April 6 2018 03: 34
          0
          Here the Japanese thought “take quality” a little differently: knowing that the alleged “Iowa” should be “nothing more than”, they immediately decided to make “Yamato”. In this sense, the Germans themselves would have earlier switched to large-caliber artillery ...
          1. saigon
            saigon 8 August 2018 15: 56
            0
            There is a version that the Japanese built the Yamato type with the expectation that it could not pass the Panama Canal.
            And since there were logic on the east coast, the amers had the power to build Battleships on the east coast, but the Americans did not play TTX and the TTX of the Japanese battleships))))))
    3. bone1
      bone1 April 9 2018 21: 02
      0
      But what about the last LK and LKR-changed their minds to retreat?
  4. NF68
    NF68 April 5 2018 16: 47
    0
    + + + + + + + + + + +

    As we said earlier, on the Von der Tann, eight 280-mm / 45 guns were installed in four two-gun towers. The project was supposed to install ten such guns on the Moltka, but in fact the ship received more powerful 280-mm / 50 artillery systems. The Von der Tann guns sent 302 kg of projectiles at an initial speed of 850 m / s, while the Moltke guns sent 895 m / s.



    During the WWI, the initial velocity of the shells was equal to 880 m / s.

    Muzzle Velocity World War I: 2,887 fps (880 mps)
    World War II: 2,936 fps (895 mps)

    http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_11-50_skc09
    . Php
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 5 2018 18: 05
      +2
      Quote: NF68
      http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_11-50_skc09
      . Php

      Dear Nikolai, with all due respect, Navveps is a murzilka, although not the worst. But I trust Staff more - he very professionally dug the topic of the German fleet
      1. NF68
        NF68 April 6 2018 17: 54
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Quote: NF68
        http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_11-50_skc09
        . Php

        Dear Nikolai, with all due respect, Navveps is a murzilka, although not the worst. But I trust Staff more - he very professionally dug the topic of the German fleet


        Some German sources directly indicate that the initial velocity for the shells of this gun used in WWII as coastal is equal to 895 m / s.
  5. Saxahorse
    Saxahorse April 5 2018 16: 54
    0
    Very well booked your boat. But the armored deck at the same time looks rather weak.
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich April 5 2018 19: 26
      0
      Like many of his peers yes
  6. mvg
    mvg April 5 2018 17: 06
    0
    "Goeben" was created already under the program of 1919 - 1909.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 6 2018 16: 44
      0
      Quote: mvg
      "Goeben" was created already under the program of 1919 - 1909.

      I do not argue:)))
  7. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich April 5 2018 19: 37
    +3
    Plus for the next article good
    Once again we are convinced how quality can relatively level the quantity.
    And the correctness of the concept was already visible under Jutland. I am convinced that if Beatty hadn’t been in the coffin of the 5th squadron of “queens”, the result would have been much worse for the British yes
    I remember when I had questions about the shape of the nasal tip of German LCR, but not so much as to ask why laughing Thank you enlightened drinks
    Again, in principle, there is nothing special to complain about your opinion wink Although they suggest vague doubts about the appearance in almost every article of black spots. Is it not special to convince that articles are read? wink repeat smile
    We look forward to continuing! drinks hi
    1. unknown
      unknown April 5 2018 21: 38
      0
      Right About the Seidlitz.
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich April 5 2018 21: 51
        +2
        First, according to the laws of the genre, aglitsky cats
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 6 2018 16: 46
      +1
      Greetings, dear Rurikovich!
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Again, in principle, there is nothing special to complain about your opinion

      Thank:)
      Quote: Rurikovich
      I remember when I had questions about the shape of the nasal tip of German LCR, but not so much as to ask why

      So I wouldn’t recognize it if I didn’t start translating Staff :)))
      Quote: Rurikovich
      otya suggest vague doubts about the appearance of black spots in almost every article.

      The costs of their in-line production, alas.
      Quote: Rurikovich
      We look forward to continuing!

      Already written, it will be laid out next week. I wanted to make a layout according to Lyon and a comparison in one article, but alas, only the alignment got in, so we will compare in a separate article
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich April 6 2018 18: 21
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        The costs of their in-line production, alas.

        You need to connect your wife ... As an editor wink And the load on you will decrease in terms of cross-checks repeat
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Already written, it will be laid out next week. I wanted to make a layout according to Lyon and a comparison in one article, but alas, only the alignment got in, so we will compare in a separate article

        Here, personally, I am quite happy at the moment just such a situation - first, according to the article for each of the opponents (the volume is enough to describe the nuances of the device and operation in relatively detail), and then the general comparative yes
        I’ll just add on my own - it seems to me that it is not entirely correct to compare the LCR by the years of launching in the case of the English-German confrontation of the WWII. To some extent, the German counterparts were an answer to the English, “FdT” was built in response to “- In the first generation, Moltke and Goeben, in response to the second troika, the Seidlitz appeared against the background of the construction of cruisers with 343-mm guns, but the Derflinger troika was already specifically built as a response to the cats. Therefore, it is necessary to compare in the context of artillery - the British with 305 mm against the Germans with 280 mm and the British with 343 mm against the Germans with 305 mm guns. It seems to me that this will be more correct. After all, it was the Germans who built the answers to the English "innovation" hi
  8. Victor Wolz
    Victor Wolz April 5 2018 22: 50
    0
    If the Germans instead of Goeben sent Von der Tann to the Black Sea, maybe the Battle of Jutland would be more interesting. And if instead of armadillos, they would send Bayern even more interesting!
  9. pacific
    pacific April 6 2018 00: 12
    +1
    Andrei, you are magnificent as always! hi
    It remains only to say "we are waiting for the continuation", and also put a plus for the article and PLUSER for the entire cycle
    good
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 6 2018 16: 52
      0
      Quote: pacific
      Andrei, you are magnificent as always!

      repeat Thank you very much, dear pacific!
  10. kvs207
    kvs207 April 6 2018 06: 58
    +2
    Excellent as always. Many thanks and respect to the author.
    “The author of this article did not understand for a long time why the bottom of the German battlecruisers was“ cut off ”in the vicinity of the stem, forming something that most resembled an ice breaking stem. As it turned out, this sharp“ rise ”to the stem served a single purpose - provide better agility of ships when shifting rudders. "
    Similarly. Since the time of the "Model Designer". Always liked the German linear ships of the period of the First World War. Compared with the English, they were "well cut and tightly sewn."
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 6 2018 16: 47
      0
      Quote: kvs207
      Always liked the German linear ships of the period of the First World War.

      Without any doubt:)))))
  11. Vedzmin
    Vedzmin April 6 2018 14: 46
    +1
    Thanks for the new rivalry series! Why do you think that at the beginning of the century everyone was so painfully moving towards a linearly elevated layout of the GK guns?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 6 2018 16: 51
      +2
      Quote: Wedmin
      Why do you think that at the beginning of the century everyone was so painfully moving towards a linearly elevated layout of the GK guns?

      Because, by and large, the Hamburg account, she was not too needed on the dreadnoughts.
      She did not save the length of the citadel, but she demanded to have high barbets of elevated towers - these were hundreds of tons of additional armor that had to be "sawed off" somewhere else. In fact, the linear-elevated scheme has one indisputable advantage - due to the fact that the gun barrels of the elevated towers hang over the lower towers, it gave more free deck space (in the same Sevastopol it was necessary to severely cut the superstructure to provide good firing angles). In WWI, this was uncritical, but subsequently, with the need to deploy masses of anti-aircraft artillery ...
      1. Vedzmin
        Vedzmin April 6 2018 23: 06
        0
        Thank. I did not think about the weight of the barbets. Although, as can be seen from this series of articles, designers tried to save weight by all means.
  12. 27091965
    27091965 April 6 2018 16: 58
    +1
    but, oddly enough, at the time of the bookmark "Moltke" and "Gebena" and with the number of the British, things were not so hot. At the time of laying the Goeben, the British had 3 battlecruisers of the Invincible type in the ranks and one (Indefatigable) in the building, the Germans had three battlecruisers in the building.


    Apparently, Germany managed to misinform its future opponents in the matter of booking their battlecruisers under construction. Below is the reservation schedule published by the French Naval Department.


    Therefore, the British had no particular experiences in quantitative terms.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 6 2018 17: 07
      +1
      Quote: 27091965i
      Apparently, Germany managed to misinform its future opponents in the matter of booking their battlecruisers under construction.

      This is beyond any doubt. The British believed that Moltke - these are ships of equal speed with Invinibles, 10-mm guns and 280 mm armor :)))
  13. bone1
    bone1 April 7 2018 23: 26
    0
    The author, having no information about the main characteristics of armored ships (armor penetration of guns, characteristics of armor ..) still manages to compare something. laughing
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 8 2018 02: 09
      0
      Quote: Bone1
      The author, having no information about the main characteristics of armored ships (armor penetration of guns, characteristics of armor ..) still manages to compare something

      So just not having it at all? :))))
      1. unknown
        unknown April 8 2018 09: 10
        +1
        A new reincarnation of our "beloved" specialist?
        1. bone1
          bone1 April 8 2018 10: 44
          0
          And who is your favorite specialist? Now you have something to occupy your head with for a long time — whether he thought or not, reincarnation or from the street? laughing
      2. bone1
        bone1 April 8 2018 10: 24
        0
        No, not at all not at the level of rumors and fantasies. laughing Can you give the data of practical tests on the armor penetration of the LCR data guns, and even depending on the distance? (according to the calculations of F with M it is not necessary) or the characteristics of armor resistance of armor plates (also practical data)? sad
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 8 2018 11: 11
          0
          Quote: Bone1
          Can you give the data of practical tests on the armor penetration of the LCR data guns, and even depending on the distance?

          Yes, in general, I even brought. There were such practical tests of armor penetration of English and German guns - in Jutland and at Dogger Bank :))) Practical data on the resistance of armor plates were also obtained there :)
          In fact, of course, yes, information about testing guns and armor would be extremely interesting, but I do not have it. At the same time, if you have one and with its help you can refute my conclusions - who is stopping you from doing this? :)))) Go ahead :)))))
          1. bone1
            bone1 April 8 2018 11: 41
            +1
            Understand me correctly - I do not make claims personally to you or to your work - publish more to the delight of readers. Claims are more to the scanty volume of information available to us all. And conclusions cannot be drawn from such information, only reflection is possible.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              April 8 2018 11: 51
              0
              Quote: Bone1
              Claims are more to the scanty volume of information available to us all.

              Well, in this I support you at all 250%
              1. bone1
                bone1 April 8 2018 12: 14
                +1
                Here, as an example, you are comparing the weight summaries of both LKR-well, sort of complicated? (you can draw some conclusions; why is the case so heavy? -can this be a plus-stronger, maybe a minus-poorly corrected). No, these armored decks are part of the hull; for those, the weight of the towers is included in the artillery, which is impossible uniformly? Or should I, in 100 years, find and add up the weight of each sheet and knits?
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  April 8 2018 12: 35
                  0
                  Quote: Bone1
                  Here, as an example, you are comparing the weight summaries of both LKR-well, sort of complicated? (you can draw some conclusions; why is the case so heavy? -can this be a plus-stronger, maybe a minus-poorly corrected). No, these armored decks are part of the hull; for those, the weight of the towers is included in the artillery, which is impossible in the same way?

                  Therefore, I compare the weighted reports of English ships with English, and with German - only when there is "translated" in a single format data.
                  Quote: Bone1
                  Or should I, in 100 years, find and add up the weight of each 0go sheet and knits?

                  So what to do? The British thought it was convenient for them, the Germans thought it was convenient for them, and who would lead to a single coordinate system? Enthusiasts who are interested, who else :)))
                  1. bone1
                    bone1 April 8 2018 16: 07
                    +1
                    Do you think that this is important and interesting historically only to historically distant amateur enthusiasts? Do not the designers themselves? What about ship customers? (if you have data in a single format, you can easily ask a question to designers and builders- "why is this building so heavy, do you think it is bad? or are there pests in life?").
                    Sorry for the maybe immodest question. Do you post your articles only on this site? Or are there any other links?
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      April 8 2018 16: 19
                      0
                      Quote: Bone1
                      Do you think that this is important and interesting historically only to historically distant amateur enthusiasts?

                      In general, yes.
                      Quote: Bone1
                      Do not the designers themselves? What about ship customers? (if you have data in a single format, you can easily ask a question to designers and builders- "why is this building so heavy, do you think it is bad? or life-threatening pests?").

                      The whole question here is that during the design years of the same “indefatigible” or “Lyon”, there was no data on the weight distribution of German ships - only the most common TTXs were known about foreign ships, and they were very often with errors, since they were involved in misinformation many.
                      Quote: Bone1
                      Sorry for the maybe immodest question. Do you post your articles only on this site? Or are there any other links?

                      Yes, how to say? Generally speaking, a million articles are laid out on alternative histories, but there are basically alternatives and chapters of the book “Verb over the Baltic” + a lot of material duplicated from here, although there are technical things that I haven’t published anywhere else either. Now, however, the site is in a fever again on the technical side of tin
                      http://alternathistory.com/blogs/andrei
            2. 27091965
              27091965 April 8 2018 21: 23
              0
              Quote: Bone1
              Claims are more to the scanty volume of information available to us all.


              "MODERN ARMOR AND ARMOR-PIERCING PROJECTILES" 1908.
              There are many such reviews and they are quite accessible on the Internet.
              1. bone1
                bone1 April 8 2018 21: 31
                +1
                Still would know the Busurman language.
    2. saigon
      saigon 8 August 2018 16: 03
      0
      I apologize but there is information on guns, shells and penetration armor, and in a very accessible form.
      So that is not the right remark.
  14. SASHA OLD
    SASHA OLD April 9 2018 17: 52
    +1
    thanks again to Andrey from Chelyabinsk for an interesting article