Military Review

Line Cruiser Rivalry: Moltke vs. Lion. H. 3

33
In the article that is being brought to your attention, we will compare the combat capabilities of the Lion and Moltke battle cruisers. As you know, the warship of those years was a fusion of speed, the power of artillery and defense fortress and, for a start, we will try to evaluate the English and German ships in terms of confrontation between armor and projectile.


Artillery and Booking

Unfortunately, detailed data on armor penetration of 280-mm / 50 and 343-mm / 45 guns are not available to the author of this article, but nevertheless, some conclusions can be made without them. As is known, the thickest armor of the “Lion” was 229 mm thick (not including protection of the conning tower), while Moltke had the 270 mm. For 343-mm “Lion” cannons, firing a “lightweight” 567-kg projectile, indicates the ability to pierce Krupp armor 310 mm thick at 10 000 yards, or almost 50 kbt. Recalculation using the formula by Jacob de Marr suggests that the Moltke 270 mm armor belt will be broken from the 62 kbt distance. At the same time, the author could not find any calculated data on the armor penetration of Moltke guns, but, as we said earlier, according to German data, the somewhat weaker 280-mm / 45 guns of the Fon der Tanna 200 mm Krupp armor on 65 cable. The Moltke guns fired projectiles of the same caliber and weight as the Fon der Tanna cannons, but gave them a greater initial velocity on the 25 m / s. In the Battle of Jutland, Moltke punched 229 mm Tiger's armor from a 66 KB unit, so it would not be a big mistake to assume that his guns were able to penetrate 229-235 mm armor plates at a distance of 65-66 KB.

Thus, we seem to see an approximate parity of "Lion" and "Moltke" in the ability to hit your opponent. Still, the 3-4 cabling advantages of Moltke (the “invulnerability zone” in the 62-66 range of cabels, on which Moltke already pierces 229 mm Lion’s armor, and Lyon cannot hit the German Linear 270 mm yet cruisers) is too insignificant to have a real impact on the outcome of the battle. However, in fact, everything is much more complicated.

The fact is that Moltke’s 270 mm armor was defended by a very narrow (albeit long) side section at the waterline - the height of the 270 mm section of armor plates was only 1,8 m. This provided good protection against flooding and protected the artillery cellars from the penetration of them enemy shells, but above the board "Molte" defended only 200 mm armor. From the projectile that pierced the 200 mm of the armored belt, cars, boilers, and, in fact, Moltke's artillery cellars were protected only by an armored deck that had 25 mm in the horizontal part and 50 mm on the bevels. However (theoretically!), Similar protection was quite permeable for an 343-mm armor-piercing projectile on the same 62 kbt - he punched 200 mm armor, went deep into the ship and hit the deck or bevel.

Line Cruiser Rivalry: Moltke vs. Lion. H. 3


And even if the kinetic energy of the projectile was not enough to overcome this obstacle, it would have exploded directly on 25 mm or 50 mm armor plate, or at the time of overcoming them. Of course, in this case, the projectile would not have gone deep into the engine or boiler rooms as a whole, but machines, boilers, etc. would still be hit by shell fragments and deck armor. In this case, the 200 mm armor British 567 kg shell pierced, in general, at all imaginable distances of the battle - up to 100 KB. Of course, this is not the test results, but only the calculation according to the de Marr formula, but the battles of the First World War fully confirm such possibilities of 343-mm guns.

So, in the battle at Dogger Bank, the Lion projectile struck an unarmored Seidlit deck from a distance of approximately 84 (which, at least slightly, but slowed it down), and then 230 mm barbet of the main caliber tower. The British projectile exploded during the passage of 230 mm armor, but at that time it was generally characteristic of British heavy artillery, in our case it is important that the Lion from a distance of 84 kbt did not just pierce the deck and 230 mm barbet, but also caused heavy damage to the space protected by the barbet - the German battleship was close to death, one hit destroyed both towers of the main caliber, and the 165 people died.


That same hit


The barbety and turret of the main caliber Moltke had 200-230 mm protection and were also vulnerable. Consequently, both the machines, the boilers, and the Moltke artillery could theoretically be hit by the Lion at distances of approximately 62-85 KB. Thus, with the exception of a narrow 270 mm strip on the waterline, the Moltke's reservation did not protect the vital parts of the ship from full-fledged armor-piercing 343 mm shells. However, it should be stipulated separately that such inability of Moltke to resist the English guns arose only after the Jutland battle, towards the end of the war, when the British developed first-class armor-piercing shells, Greenboy.

The fact is that the British, having adopted an ultimatum-powerful 343-mm gun, did not bother to provide it with equally high-quality armor-piercing shells and made it only from Jutland’s experience. Until then, British ammunition of this type was extremely inclined to explode when passing armor, and this seriously changed the protection status of Moltke. After all, the projectile, which exploded in 200 mm armor, continued its flight only in the form of splinters, and such a blow 50 mm bevels and 25 mm horizontal deck could well reflect. However, for the 203-230 mm barbet and the Moltke towers it didn’t matter much - there was no protection behind them, and the passage of the projectile, at least in the form of fragments, caused the hardest damage that could threaten the ship with death.

In general, taking into account the real qualities of the British 343-mm armor-piercing shells, it can be stated that the Moltke vertical booking at the main combat distances (70-75 kbt) could with great probability protect the engine rooms, boiler rooms and ammunition cellars when hit by board, but did not provide protection for artillery towers and barbets.

However, “Lion” in the confrontation with “Moltke” also did not look like an invulnerable knight. His 229 mm belt height in 3,5 m, in combination with inch armor and 229 mm main turret towers, were probably impenetrable for German projectiles on 70 cable and beyond, but 203 mm barbety at this distance could still be struck. The main problem was the armor belt "Lion" in the area of ​​the feed pipes of the bow and stern towers of the main caliber thinned to 102-127-152 mm. Such armor, apparently, penetrated 280-mm German shells and 75-85 KBT., And only 152 mm protection of the second tower could still count to reflect the impact.

Consequently, as in the case of the Moltke, the vertical booking of the Lion did not provide reliable protection at the main combat distances (70-75 KBT.) From the 280 mm projectiles of the German battlecruisers. Like the German battle cruiser, the engine and boiler rooms were well protected, but the artillery was not.

Thus, in terms of the thickness of the vertical armor and the armor penetration capability of the guns, we see parity (before the appearance of the Greenboy projectiles, after which the English ship received the obvious advantage), but one should not forget about such an important parameter as the armor's projectile action. And the British 567-mm shells of the British 302 kg of “suitcases”, almost twice the weight of the 280 kg, were significantly stronger. Without a doubt, the British armor-piercing projectile equipped with 18,1 kg of liddite in an explosion could cause far more damage than the German one, who had 8,95 kg of trotyl. Of course, the mass of explosives in the "greenboats" decreased (to 13,4 kg), but it still remained greater and, moreover, it was compensated by improved armor penetration. For Moltke there was only an advantage in the number of guns of the main caliber (10 versus 8), but of course, these two additional barrels could not compensate for the power of the British 343-mm projectiles.

As for the horizontal armor, here, by and large, the situation was bad for both battlecruisers. Formally, the Lion’s 25,4 mm double decks looked twice as good as Moltke’s 25,4 mm, but in practice both were not a reliable barrier for heavy projectiles. Some serious horizontal protection can only be talked about in the Moltke casemate, which (in addition to the 25-mm armored decks under it) had 25 mm "floor" and 35 mm "roof", which, together, allowed us to hopefully keep 305 -mm projectiles from penetrating the armored deck (even in the form of fragments). Lion had a similar section, next to chimneys and the third tower, - the forecastle deck was thickened there to 38,4 mm (but not from side to side). In view of the above, the horizontal protection of these ships can be considered approximately equivalent, but the problem of the German battle cruiser was the disparity of the threats - heavy and powerful 343-mm shells were much more dangerous for the Moltke decks than the relatively light Molnka X-guns for "Lion".

In addition, for both ships there was a danger of "easy" penetration of projectiles into the barbets of guns of the main caliber. The fact is that the barbet itself is a very wide pipe with a diameter of up to 8 meters and more, its weight is very large - and such barbets require 4-5, according to the number of towers of the main caliber. In order to alleviate the mass of barbets, differential booking was used - for example, opposite the side protected by 200 mm armor belts, the Molbt barbetas had only 30 mm thickness, opposite 150 mm of the upper belt - 80 mm, and where the side armor was not defended barbety - 200 mm. It was logical in the sense that in order to get to the delivery pipes, the projectile had to overcome first the onboard armor, and only then - the barbet's armor, but it was overlooked that the projectile could please the “weak” part of the barbet, punching the board, and passing through the deck.


Artillery drills on "Moltke"


In general, it can be stated that the Lion-class battle cruisers were significantly superior to the German Moltke type ships in terms of defensive and offensive qualities. With the advent of full-fledged 343-mm Greenboy armor-piercing projectiles, this advantage became almost overwhelming. But even in this case, the duel with Moltke remained a dangerous business for the British battle cruiser - there were enough vulnerable spots in the defense of the Lion, getting into which an 280-mm projectile could have caused very serious and even fatal consequences.

Speed ​​and seaworthiness.

The speeds of the Moltke and Lyon turned out to be quite comparable, during the tests the ships of both types developed 27-28 knots, and in the realities of the service they were probably slightly less, but in general their driving performance can be considered approximately equal. The range of the Moltke and Goeben was slightly less - 4 miles at 230 knots versus 17 miles at 4 knots at the Lyon. The British have always attached great importance to the seaworthiness of their ships, and therefore it is not surprising that the battlecruisers of the Lyon type became high-class handsome (though ... in English, it should be said, “beauties”). At the same time, German battlecruisers (and the Moltke are no exception) are usually considered low-sided. But such an important indicator for a warship as the height of the axes of the guns relative to the surface of the sea attracts attention. It is clear that the higher the guns are located, the more difficult it is to fill them with water on a wave. With normal displacement, the axis of the Lyon guns towered above the waterline (starting from the bow, the first tower) by 935 m, 16,75 m; 10 m and 12,4 m. At Moltka, respectively, 9.4 m, 7 m (two “traverse” towers) and aft 10,4 m and 8,2 m. Thus, we can say that according to this parameter battle cruisers in Germany and England were slightly different. On the other hand, of course, the height of the trunks above the sea is far from the only parameter of seaworthiness; here, permeability to the wave is important, etc. In the royal Navy they rated the seaworthiness of “Admiral Fisher's cats” very highly, noted only a very strong roll-on, because of which these ships did not become as stable combat platforms as could be expected with their displacement. As for the Moltke, the author did not find any information about the problems with the seaworthiness of ships of this type. In addition, the German battle cruisers were built to participate in the general battle as a high-speed wing, and not for use in remote ocean theaters, and at least for their operations in the North Sea their seaworthiness was enough.

conclusions

We used to perceive the German ships of the First World War era as excellently protected combat vehicles, and rightly so - no one in the world paid so much attention to the protection of battleships and battle cruisers, as did the German engineers and shipbuilders. They did an excellent job in the case of the Moltke, but it should be understood that it was designed (and then, with certain assumptions) to counter the 12-inch shells. The British, having switched to 343-mm caliber, radically changed the rules of the game - against such projectiles Moltke’s defense was no longer sufficient. The battle of “Moltke” against “Lion” was, in the full sense of the word, a “egg-shell armed with hammers” fight and, despite the best defense, “Moltke” in this battle had more weak spots than “Lion”. But there was still no absolute superiority of the British ship: “Moltke,” like his opponent, had the ability to deliver a fatal blow to the Lion, the German battle cruiser was less likely to have that chance.

The speed of technical progress of those years attracts attention. A first-class first has just been laid, at the time of the start of construction, the uniquely best-in-the-world battle cruiser, Fon der Tann, and after it - one per year - two ships of the Moltke type. They are an improved copy of the first battlecruiser of Germany, but if the Von der Tann was the strongest ship of its class, the Goeben was already significantly inferior to the Lion, with which they were almost the same age. In other words - the speed of progress was as follows, then the improved design of the best ship in the world was out of date for some two years!

Studying history the design of the German battlecruisers, two quite understandable, but no less regrettable errors can be distinguished. Initially, on the Moltka, the Germans intended to unify the main caliber with the corresponding dreadnoughts, i.e. type "Helgoland" and it would be quite the right decision. But during the design they abandoned eight 305-mm guns in favor of ten 280-mm - according to the tactical views of the German fleet, a ship designed for squadron battles should have been able to fire several enemy ships simultaneously, and for this 10 guns were much better suited than 8. At the same time, the use of 10 305-mm guns was a very "hard" decision (by weight) and did not allow to adequately strengthen the protection of the future ship.

However, as the history of the First World War at sea shows irrefutably, this concept was completely erroneous - at the same time, get “Moltke” instead of 10 280-mm 8 very powerful 305-mm / 50 guns if he didn’t have the same qualities, then, at least, he came close to Lion. However, the Germans decided that "and so it will come down" and left on the Moltka 280-mm gun. This was the first mistake of the German shipbuilders.

Nevertheless, the “Moltke” project should in no way be considered a failure or some kind of wrong: as we said earlier, the moment of his laying roughly coincided with the start of construction work on the British Indefatigeble, which in all respects was inferior to the newest brainchild “ gloomy Aryan genius ". In other words, laying the Moltke (even with 280-mm cannons), the Germans did not make any mistake, but the beginning of the construction of the Goben next year for the same project cannot be considered a correct step. In essence, Germany should either build the same type "Moltke" and "Goeben", but with 305-mm guns instead of 280-mm, or it was necessary to pawn the "Goeben" on a new project. They did not do this, and for some time the leadership of the battle cruisers was lost by Germany.

As for the British, they really created a revolutionary ship. The British admirals and constructors set themselves very high benchmarks: a rise in speed from 25,5 to 27 nodes, an increase in the caliber of guns from 305-mm to 343-mm and an increase in armor thickness from 152 mm to 229 mm. These qualities were completely impossible to fit into a displacement equal to the modern battleship, and the British went on an unprecedented step — linear cruisers of the Lyon type had already received a greater displacement at the design stage than their "analogs" — Orion-type battleships. Without a doubt, already at the TZ stage, the British ships were distinguished by a strong imbalance of armament and protection, but the fact of the matter is that against their German counterparts with 280-mm artillery 229-mm armor of Admiral Fisher’s cats was, in general, enough In essence, the main problem of the Lions was that the British could not protect such armor with the entire citadel and barbety of the towers of the main caliber - do it, and the British fleet would receive a series of battle cruisers for which Moltke and Goben would legal booty. Nevertheless, in the face of the "Lions", the British fleet received a series of not ideal ships, but they were fully responding to their missions.


Lion, Queen Mary, Princess Royal and New Zealand in one line


What did the Germans answer?

Продолжение следует ...
Author:
Articles from this series:
Line Cruiser Rivalry: Moltke vs. Lion
Line Cruiser Rivalry: Moltke vs. Lion. H. 2
33 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. avt
    avt April 20 2018 15: 15
    +3
    What did the Germans answer?
    Продолжение следует ...
    Ahhhhhh! So - ,, Derflinger "! And about ,, Erzatz York" - ,, Mackensen "remember, well, at least about the project?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 20 2018 19: 43
      +4
      Quote: avt
      Ahhhhhh! So - ,, Derflinger "!

      (silent and smiling) ....
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich April 20 2018 20: 11
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        I am silent and smiling

        He was already waiting wink laughing
    2. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich April 20 2018 20: 26
      +1
      Quote: avt
      Ahhhhhh! So - ,, Derflinger "

      Ha wassat ! Naive Chukchi young man wink Ahead looms “Seidlitz” winked repeat
      And it is he who is the answer to the appearance of Aglitz "cats". Although the Germans gave a blunder with the Civil Code, the defense of the future Derflinger was already laid on it. I think, dear Andrei Nikolayevich will not jump over this solitary wolf and compare it with some of the "royal prince" or "queen Mary" (I specially distort the names repeat )
      drinks
      1. Nehist
        Nehist April 20 2018 20: 57
        +1
        For this, in a subsequent series of battlecruisers, the British gave a blunder with the reservation and created the “white elephants”
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich April 20 2018 21: 34
          +2
          Quote: Nehist
          For this, in a subsequent series of battlecruisers, the British gave a blunder with the reservation and created the “white elephants”

          Well, the Ripals were laid in the 15th year, even before Jutland, as the apogee of the Fisher doctrine of "speed - armament." Although even their 381mm guns and 152mm side armor fade before the perversion in the form! Furies with his pair of 457mm sledgehammers combined with 76mm side armor request fool
          So the birthplace of the most “chic” elephants is Britain yes laughing hi
          1. arturpraetor
            arturpraetor April 20 2018 21: 36
            +1
            Quote: Rurikovich
            Although even their 381mm guns and 152mm side armor fade before perversion in the form of! Furyes "

            You reminded me of one case when you tried to prove the chic concept of the Furies. Ingenious ship request Colleague Andrei also participated in that action, will not let lie.
            1. NF68
              NF68 April 20 2018 21: 42
              0
              Quote: arturpraetor
              Quote: Rurikovich
              Although even their 381mm guns and 152mm side armor fade before perversion in the form of! Furyes "

              You reminded me of one case when you tried to prove the chic concept of the Furies. Ingenious ship request Colleague Andrei also participated in that action, will not let lie.


              This is where it was?
              1. arturpraetor
                arturpraetor April 20 2018 21: 44
                0
                So on AH, EMNIP in a subject where I published the alt-French fleet. It was a long time ago, the details were forgotten.
            2. Rurikovich
              Rurikovich April 20 2018 21: 51
              0
              Aha belay
              Quote: arturpraetor
              Ingenious ship request

              laughing
              No, we are, of course, for a pleasant relationship between the opposite sexes, but this is already a tough relationship (it’s impossible to say in simple terms - censorship of even ordinary words)request ... "Line Light Cruiser" - the contradictions are already in the wording. Well, what guided those who tried to prove the chic concept of the Furies, I can only guess.
              Personally, I am for balance - (with regards to ships of the artillery era) the ship should have protection from guns of its own caliber, even if not at all distances. Least. All other distortions in the direction of decreasing or increasing some basic one parameter at the expense of another leads to an imbalance and implies immediately various restrictions on the use of this ship, even for solving problems specific to its class.
              I think you should not explain this to Artyom. Moreover, there are a lot of examples hi
              1. Nehist
                Nehist April 20 2018 22: 05
                0
                Honestly, I still didn’t understand the concept of using Furies and his sisterships ... What did the admiralty follow after Jutland it became clear that a weakened booking was fatal
                1. Rurikovich
                  Rurikovich April 20 2018 23: 03
                  0
                  Quote: Nehist
                  Honestly, I still do not understand the concept of using Furies and his sisterships ...

                  Supporting their light forces against the light forces of the enemy in the absence of his support. Such large light cruisers. It's like chasing flies instead of newspapers lol
              2. arturpraetor
                arturpraetor April 20 2018 22: 13
                0
                Quote: Rurikovich
                Well, what guided those who tried to prove the chic concept of the Furies, I can only guess.

                Everything is simple - Fisher is a genius, and if so - he could not do anything bad. Well, the Furies (or sistership - I wasn’t even interested in these irons, they are absolutely not interesting to me) supposedly showed itself chic, chasing German light cruisers with its broads, a kind of ideal of the concept “I bend all who are less than me and run away all who are more "
                Quote: Rurikovich
                Personally, I am for balance - (with regards to ships of the artillery era) the ship should have protection from guns of its own caliber, even if not at all distances. Least.

                So and sobsno always spoke for the same. And the stumbling block was just the balanced alternative version of the French battlecruiser with 8 274-mm guns for the techno-fantasy world with a strong real mowing - I dared to express a blasphemous thought that it was better than the “Invincibles”, or spoke out something like that , and wrap up ... Well, in the process of discussion we reached the ingenious "Furies".
                1. Rurikovich
                  Rurikovich April 20 2018 22: 29
                  0
                  Quote: arturpraetor
                  And a stumbling block was just a balanced alternative version of the French battlecruiser with 8-mm guns for the techno-fantasy world with a strong brace under the real

                  Looks like the superiority of "FdT" over the "-ibl" in real smile wink
                  Quote: arturpraetor
                  Well, in the process of discussion we reached the ingenious “Furies”.

                  Well, formally, under ideal conditions (excellent visibility, the enemy does not exceed at least speed, the brilliant senior gunner, the enemy does not maneuver, hunting for the fall of single shells) and even in the early morning, when the whole day is ahead, the Furies could Overpowering the Pacific Ocean which thread is a light cruiser-raider ... But in reality, with the mass of various surprises in battle, as a combat unit, this ship is not personally quoted by me negative The benefit of the British mind was enough to understand request
                  Quote: arturpraetor
                  chasing the German light cruisers with their broads, a kind of ideal of the concept "I bend all who are less than me and run away all who are more."
                  1. arturpraetor
                    arturpraetor April 20 2018 22: 35
                    0
                    Quote: Rurikovich
                    Looks like the superiority of "FdT" over the "-ibl" in real

                    About that speech and went. Although I also did not plan to leave the British deprived, although there were options - 8 305-mm or 12 234-mm ...
                    Quote: Rurikovich
                    Well, formally, under ideal conditions (excellent visibility, the enemy does not exceed at least speed, the brilliant senior gunner, the enemy does not maneuver, hunting for the fall of single shells) and even in the early morning, when the whole day is ahead, the Furies could The Pacific Ocean to overpower which thread light cruiser-raider ...

                    There are only two things left - to shoot and get wassat The Furies have big guns, yes, but they are stupidly small ... In this situation, even Indefatigable looks even more profitable, due to the presence of more guns, although much less powerful. After all, the cruiser will have enough head and 305-mm shells, why spend money on absolutely monstrous guns?
                    1. Rurikovich
                      Rurikovich April 20 2018 22: 47
                      0
                      Quote: arturpraetor
                      The Furies have big guns, yes, but they are stupidly few ...

                      Absolutely agree. The British, when they designed the post-Dutch ships (before Washington), considered the option of a battlecruiser with 6 GK (N-3) trunks flawed due to an inferior salvo, which made it difficult to control the fire. And what about the 2 barrels in the "salvo" ... request
      2. avt
        avt April 21 2018 08: 09
        +1
        Quote: Rurikovich
        Ahead looms “Seidlitz”

        Ugh on this ,, Asses "-the same ,, Moltke" but with a forecastle. Ah ,, Derflinger "- weigh! bully
        Quote: Rurikovich
        Although the Germans gave a blunder with the Civil Code

        Well then, by that logic, they needed to immediately
        Quote: avt
        ,, Erzatz York "- ,, Mackensen"

        with 350 mm sculpt by ,, Derflinger "
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich April 21 2018 20: 45
          +2
          Quote: avt
          Ugh on this ,, Asses "-the same ,, Moltke" but with a forecastle. Ah ,, Derflinger "- weigh!

          Eeee, nashalichae, Seidlitz according to the pattern and thickness of the reservation is almost identical to Derflinger belay
          Quote: avt
          with 350 mm sculpt by ,, Derflinger "

          350mm guns have already been proposed to put on the “Lutz” with the “Hindenburg”. But at the top of the Second Reich passions boiled no less than in Santa Barbara, therefore, at the time when the Bayerns were being designed, battlecruisers with 305mm GK guns were being built. Therefore, the Mackensens did not physically ripen to become a high-speed wing for battleships with 380mm artillery. Already history request
          1. avt
            avt April 21 2018 21: 26
            +1
            Quote: Rurikovich
            350mm guns have already been proposed to put on the “Lutz” with the “Hindenburg”. But at the top of the Second Reich passions boiled no less than in Santa Barbara, therefore, at the time when the Bayerns were being designed, battlecruisers with 305mm GK guns were being built.

            Maybe it could be ... it could be something else - the Germans already had 12 inches as they were in production, and 350 still had to be made with a fire protection. Here the burghers counted and decided to quickly put in order, albeit with 305 mm, but today, than with 350, but tomorrow.
            Quote: Rurikovich
            Seidlitz is almost identical to Derflinger in terms of the pattern and thickness of the reservation.

            This ,, half-tank "was bungled with Moltke’s armament in one copy, precisely for the same reason - to quickly finish the already mastered series, albeit with a change as a result of operation. If you like, the effect of the manufacturer, for which it is easier to drive a series, than to put a new model into production. So all over the world and the gloomy Teutonic genius is no exception. On the contrary - meticulously and monotonously counting money they work at their own pace.
            1. Rurikovich
              Rurikovich April 21 2018 21: 58
              +1
              Quote: avt
              This ,, half-tank "was bungled with Moltke’s armament in one copy, precisely for the same reason - to quickly finish the already mastered series, albeit with a change as a result of operation. If you like, the effect of the manufacturer, for which it is easier to drive a series, than to put a new model into production. So all over the world and the gloomy Teutonic genius is no exception. On the contrary, meticulously counting money, working at its own pace

              Yes, Karharadon. There is some truth in this sad Every year the Germans laid down one battlecruiser, and this was already a system. yes That’s why the “Seidlitz” came out, capable of competing with the "cats" in defense, but lost in artillery, because at that time the fiscal year was more important for the state as a whole. But in the context of the fact that the Germans were catching up, this intermediate option cannot be considered a failure, because Jutland proved the Germans concept to be correct - fewer higher-quality units + the destruction of the British in parts. Alas, the first part slipped, and the second no - well, the British didn’t swim in parts ..... sorry, they walked. Hello to Magdeburg wink soldier drinks hi
  2. Cartalon
    Cartalon April 20 2018 16: 02
    +11
    The only author whose articles you wait every day hi
    1. Andy
      Andy April 20 2018 16: 46
      +7
      That's for sure. Sometimes the site is unbearable from stories like the little red riding hood ... Andrew writes interestingly and collected good material.
  3. NF68
    NF68 April 20 2018 16: 37
    +2
    As always, great stuff!
  4. 27091965
    27091965 April 20 2018 17: 41
    +1
    But during the design process, they abandoned eight 305-mm guns in favor of ten 280-mm guns - according to the tactical views of the German fleet, a ship intended for a squadron battle should have been able to fire several enemy ships at the same time, and for this 10 guns were much better suited, than 8.


    Some publications say that comparative firing was carried out in Germany. It turned out that the first 12 inch guns had 30 percent less barrel wear resistance than 11 inch guns. Also not the last place was occupied by the number of shells per gun. Line cruisers were supposed to be used more actively than battleships. It was decided to leave on the battlecruisers a proven 11 inch, until the manufacture of 12 inch guns of higher quality.
  5. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich April 20 2018 20: 01
    +1
    The article is a definite plus! hi
    But .... I have already expressed my opinion on the comparison of Moltke and Lyon more than once in the comments on this cycle and I consider it incorrect winked Moreover, the pair “Moltke” - “Goeben” was built based on the calculation of the confrontation against ships with 12 "guns.
    And so in the context of the article there is nothing to comment on request yes It is in the variant proposed by the author that everything is clear smile
    Best regards hi
  6. Curious
    Curious April 20 2018 21: 55
    +1
    Frankly speaking, I did not understand why the author considers only APC 8 / 12crh shells. And where did APC Mark Ia go?
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich April 20 2018 22: 16
      0
      Because the version of the Lyon guns fired precisely with these shells. Lion and Orion hi
      1. Curious
        Curious April 20 2018 22: 44
        0
        Yes, I missed this moment. Lion and Orion and Conqueror
  7. Hole puncher
    Hole puncher April 21 2018 08: 25
    +1
    The soul is just resting ... Thanks for such articles and for discussions in which numerous trolls do not climb.
  8. Dead duck
    Dead duck April 21 2018 13: 11
    +3
    Unfortunately, the author of this article does not have detailed data on the armor penetration of 280-mm / 50 and 343-mm / 45 guns

    "Theoretically, shells pierced the waist armor with a thickness of 270 mm at a distance of 10 800 m at the angle of the projectile with armor 60 °
    In the battle at Dogger Banks, 5 "and 6" armor of British battlecruisers were broken request
  9. dgonni
    dgonni April 21 2018 15: 18
    +1
    Respect to the author. For young people, that’s it. Simple and easy to understand! Without deepening into a long and tedious analysis.!
  10. K-50
    K-50 April 21 2018 18: 59
    0
    For the "Moltke" there was only an advantage in the number of main guns (10 vs. 8)

    On board, anyway, only 8 could shoot, one tower remained on the other side.
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich April 21 2018 22: 06
      +2
      Quote: K-50
      one tower remained on the other side.

      All 10 trunks were fired on board - the traverse tower had limited angles for firing on the opposite side (55 *), but it was all 10 trunks fired on board hi