Military Review

Rifle battle cruisers. "Seidlits" vs "Queen Mary"

48
In the article that is being brought to your attention, we will compare the capabilities of the Queen Mary Mary and Seidlitz liners. Comparing their predecessors, we selected the description of each battlecruiser in a separate article, and then another article was devoted to their comparison, but in the case of the “Seidlitz” and “Queen Mary” this is not necessary. The fact is that both of these ships were not built according to new projects, but were more or less deep modernization of their predecessors, Moltke and Lion. Therefore, we will not make detailed descriptions, but focus only on differences from the previous series of battle cruisers.


In 1909, the German naval thought came close to the concept of a high-speed battleship. On March 8, 1909 Corvette-Captain Vollerthun presented a memorandum to the Secretary of State of the Navy (in fact, the Minister of the Navy) Alfedu von Tirpitz, who presented views on the development of the class of battlecruisers. In this document, the Corvette-Captain made a clear definition of the German and British approaches to the creation of the battlecruisers. Vollertun noted the unsuitability of the British ships for linear battle - their heavy guns and superspeeds (26,5-27 bonds) were achieved due to extreme weakening of armor (178 mm, according to the Corvette-Captain), why the British battlecruisers could be hit by not even the largest guns, and - at a great distance. At the same time, the German battlecruisers were originally designed to participate in the general battle as a high-speed wing. Describing the German and British ships of this class, Vollertun very figuratively noted: "British battlecruisers oppose our cruising battleships."

Further development of the linear cruisers in Germany, Vollertun saw it this way: ships of equal displacement should be built with battleships, which will have a higher speed due to a slight weakening of artillery, while the protection should remain at the same level. Or one should create battlecruisers of equal strength and security to the battleships, in which a higher speed will be ensured due to an increase in displacement. The Corvetten-Captain believed that the difference in the 3,5-4 node for the battlecruiser would be quite enough (surprisingly, but the fact is that the famous British battleships Queen Elizabeth subsequently were built as if exactly according to Wollertun's instructions).

At the same time, the memorandum noted that, starting with the "Fon der Tanna", the German battlecruisers were based on slightly different principles - in order to achieve higher speeds than the battleships, they had weakened artillery and protection. Vollertun believed it was extremely necessary to switch to 305-mm guns (eight instead of ten 280-mm), but nevertheless noted that, taking into account not the most powerful booking of ships in other countries, still 280-mm artillery may be enough.

Alfred von Tirpitz did not at all share the opinion of the corvette-captain. In his opinion, Germany has already found a suitable type of ship and did not have to change anything. A slight weakening of weapons and reservations for the sake of speed with an equal displacement with the battleship is the ideal to be followed.

During the discussion of the draft of the new battlecruiser, two very interesting innovations were proposed - the transition to three-gun (possibly 305-mm) towers and the lowering of the height of armored decks. The first proposal was quickly rejected - the specialists responsible for armament did not consider the three-gun towers suitable for Kaiserlhmarin, while the second was discussed for quite a long time. The fact is that, as we said in the previous article, the armored belt of the Moltke and Goeben German battle cruisers was not uniform: it reached its greatest thickness (270 mm) only at the height of 1,8 m, and in the normal displacement of 0,6 m this site was under water. Accordingly, the 270-mm section of the armored belt protruded only on the 1,2 m over the waterline. At the same time, the horizontal part of the armored deck was located in 1,6 m above the waterline, that is, on the 40 cm where only the 200 mm armor covered the board. This created a certain vulnerability, and in addition, reducing the deck would save her weight (the bevels would be shorter). However, it would also have to put up with a decrease in the amount of the reserved space, which was ultimately declared unacceptable.

The variant with four two-gun 305-mm towers was considered once again, but only with the purpose of understanding whether this placement would not save weight compared to five 280-mm towers.



Savings, if it had arisen, were supposed to be used to reinforce the protection, but it turned out that it does not exist - the individually large mass of 305-mm towers combined with the need to “pull” the upper deck to the stern did not make the placement of eight 305-mm guns more “light” solution than ten 280-mm. On this basis, 305-mm artillery was finally abandoned.

While developing “Zeidlitz”, von Tirpitz had to take into account another important aspect - in July 1909 Mr. von Bülow left the post of Chancellor, and von Betman-Golweg took his place, which was distinguished by a significantly greater propensity to save, therefore it was not possible to count on a serious increase in the cost of the ship. However, von Tirpitz intended to receive, in addition to the appropriated sums, from 750 thousand to one million marks by subscription (fundraising).

As a result of the foregoing, we stopped on a ship with the Moltke TTH, but with a somewhat enhanced reservation. The option of placing artillery in the center plane was considered.



But they refused it. As we noted earlier, it was not a secret for the Germans that one good hit could bring out two Moltke stern towers at once, and they considered that putting two bow towers too dangerous for such a risk. As a result, the “Seidlits” turned out to be an enlarged copy of the “Moltke”, with the same artillery, enhanced armor and increased machine power, in order to ensure the speed increase in the 1 node. The ship's normal displacement was 24 988 t, which is 2 009 t more than the Moltke. Let's see what it was spent on.

weaponry



The Zeidlitz armament, both artillery and torpedo, exactly copied the one of the ships of the previous type (ten 280-mm guns and a dozen 152-mm and 88-mm, as well as four 500-mm torpedo tubes), so we did not We will describe it in detail again. Anyone who wants to refresh their memory can do it in the appropriate section of the article. "The battle battle cruisers." Moltke vs. Lion. But it is necessary to correct the annoying mistake that crept into the description of 280-mm / 45 guns - the initial velocity of the projectile 895 m / s is indicated for them, while the correct one is 877 m / s.

Reservation

The scheme of the armor is left almost the same as that of the Moltke, so we confine ourselves only to the description of the differences.



The thickness of the upper and lower armor belts was increased and was (in parentheses - Moltke data) at a height of 1,8 m - 300 (270) mm further down the 1,3 m to the bottom of the armor plate, it became thinner to 150 (130) mm. The second, upper armored belt had a thickness of 230 (200) mm. Continuing to the stem, the upper armor belt consistently thinned to 120 and then 100 mm (120-100-80 mm).

The armor deck, both in the horizontal part and on the bevels, had an 30 mm (25-50 mm). The forehead and rear walls of the towers were protected by 250 (230) mm armor, the side walls were 200 (180) mm, the sloping sheet in front of the roof was 100 (90) mm, the roof in its horizontal part was 70 (60) mm, the flooring in the rear parts - 50-100 (50) mm. The barbety received 230 mm of armor (on the Moltka, only barbety of the first and fifth towers had such protection in the part facing the bow and the stern, respectively). At the same time, precisely these towers on the “Seidlitsa” in the part of the barbet facing the conning tower (and the fourth tower) had a reservation reduced to 200 mm. In other words, the barbettes of the first and fifth turrets of the 280-mm Zeidlitz guns had protection similar to Moltke, the rest were 230 mm against 200 mm. Below, opposite the 150 mm body armor of the casemates, the Zeidlitz barbet had a thickness of 100 (80) mm., Then the same 30 mm as the Moltke.

Power plant

In addition to the need to compensate for more than two-tonnage displacement growth, the German shipbuilders also wanted to increase the speed to 26,5 knots. (in comparison with 25,5 knots. Moltke). For this, we had to install a much more powerful power plant in the 63 000 HP. (vs 52 000 hp Moltke). On tests, the “Seidlits” reached the speed of 28.1 knots, at maximum power 89 738 hp The normal fuel supply, as on the Moltka, was 1 000 t, but the maximum was significantly longer — the 3 460-3 600 t. Nevertheless, the range of the Seidlitz was quite comparable to the Moltka — for example, for speed in 17 knots. calculated, it was 4 440 miles for the first and 4 230 miles for the second ship.

“Seidlits” was ordered for construction under the 1910 g program, 4 was laid on February 1911 g, 30 March was launched on 1912 March and 22 was commissioned on May 1913.


Linear cruiser "Zeidlits" in completion


"Queen Mary"



Just like the German Zeidlits, this ship was built according to the 1910 program, and was laid just a month later - 6 March 1911, launched on 10 days earlier (20 March 1912 g), but entered into build on 3 months later - in August 1913

Its design differences from Lyon and Princess Royal, built under the 1919 program, were, in general, minimal. From the noticeable one, it can be distinguished that the entire deck of the forecastle got a thickness of 32 mm (at Lyon, the forecastle was thickened to 38 mm only in the region of the chimneys and the third tower of the main caliber). In addition, the nasal superstructure received anti-fragmentation armor where anti-mine weapons were located - but their total number was reduced from 16 to 14 and ... that was all. Oh yes, we’ve returned to the traditional placement of officers' cabins in the stern - starting from the Dreadnought they were transferred to the bow of the ship, which is what Royal officers Fleet did not like.

At the same time, the increase in displacement has led to the need to increase the width of the hull by 152 mm while maintaining the same draft. In order to maintain speed with the displacement increased up to 27 000 t, the power of the power plant was increased from 70 000 to 75 000 hp. The British hoped that due to the more powerful chassis "Queen Mary" would be more high-speed than its predecessors, but these calculations were not justified. On the tests of the newest battle cruiser the British developed the 28,17 knot with the power of the 83 000 hp. The fuel supply was 1 000 t - normal and 3 700 t coal plus 1 170 t oil - the maximum, while the range on 17,4 knots should be 4 950 miles.

In other words, by and large, Queen Mary became the third ship in the Lion series, but it still had one serious difference - despite the fact that the design of the 343-mm guns did not change, the feeding mechanisms were designed for heavier 635 kg shells. And it pretty much increased the capabilities of the ship.

Comparison

Both the "Seidlits" and "Queen Mary" continued the specific lines of development of the Germanic and English types of battle cruisers. The Germans, having the opportunity to build a more expensive and large ship, preferred protection. The increase in speed on the 1 node seems to be due to the fact that, according to German data, British cruisers were built to reach 26,5-27 knots, so the speed increase from 25,5 to 26,5 knots. looked perfectly justified. As for the Queen Mary, this battle cruiser received even more powerful artillery for cosmetic changes in armor and the same (very high) speed.

As a result, “Seidlits” and “Queen Mary” became “a step on the spot”. In the last article, we talked about the fact that the 270 mm section of the Moltke armored belt penetrated the 567-kg with a projectile 343-mm guns approximately on the 62 cable. “Seidlitsa” added 30 mm of armor, “Queen Mary” received additional 68 kg to each projectile and as a result - “Queen Mary” shells could pierce 300 mm “Seydlitz” armor on the same 62 KBT. What changed? Only the fact that behind the armored belt of the Moltke the vehicles, boilers and artillery grains of the ship were protected by the 25 mm horizontal deck and 50 mm bevels, while the Seidlitz and the horizontal part and bevels had only 30 mm. Upper armor and barbety 230 mm thick "did not hold" 343-mm projectiles at all imaginable distances of the battle.

On the one hand, life seemed to put everything in its place. Queen Mary and Zeidlits met in the battle of Yutland, and the first one died, getting 15-20 of shells hit with caliber 280-305 mm, and scared with almost the entire crew. The second received 23 with a caliber of 305-381-mm and one torpedo, took over 5 000 tons of water, but still remained afloat, albeit in distress. As a result, the label of an “egg-shell armed with hammers” stuck to the British battlecruiser, while the durability of the “Seydlitz” became the talk of the town ...


Damaged in the battle of Jutland "Seidlitz". Picture taken from the board of the cruiser "Pillau"


Without a doubt, the German shipbuilders gave great attention to protection and survivability. But you need to understand that losing to the British by the battles of battle cruisers predetermined only one property of the German ships, in fact, not directly related to their design. The British ships, as a rule, exploded during fires inside the barbets and turrets, while the Germans did not. The reason was that the German powder burned evenly during a fire - the flame destroyed the entire calculation of the tower, but the explosion did not occur, but the British powder detonated.

If the charges of the Zeidlitz guns were completed with British gunpowder, the ship would probably have died twice - in the battle of Dogger-Banks, when at a distance of 84 KB. The 343-mm projectile broke the 230 mm barbet and ignited the charges - in the turret, the turret chambers and feed tubes. The reloading department team tried to escape by opening the door to the reloading section of the neighboring tower, but the fire “entered” with them, so that the fire engulfed the sub-wing sections of both towers.

The flames engulfed 6 tons of gunpowder, fountains of flames and hot gases “broke from the house” burst from both towers, as eyewitnesses described it, but ... no explosion occurred. Nevertheless, it is not known whether a catastrophe could have been avoided had the fire reached the cellars, but the position was saved by the heroic deed of the bilge foreman Wilhelm Heidkamp. He burned his hands, opening the red-hot valves flooding the cellars, as a result of which neither the cellars nor the torpedoes near the repository of fire were hit. “Seidlits” did not die, but “got off” “only” with the death of 165 people. If British gunpowder were on the German battle cruiser, then 6 tons in sub-battalions would detonate, and then no heroism would have time to save the artillery cellars from fiery hell.

But, fortunately for the Germans, their powder was not prone to detonation, so that the "Seidlits" survived. And it somehow retorted the fact that as a result of just one hit from a distance of 84 KBT. the ship received the hardest damage, as a result of which two of the main five-caliber towers were put out of action and 600 tons of water entered the hull. In other words, the second shell hit the ship deprived it of at least 40% of combat power.

The second time "Zeidlitsu" was to die in the battle of Jutland, and, again, at the very beginning. And this time the first 343-mm shell hit the ship caused significant, but not critical damage, but the second one (obviously an unlucky number for “Seydlitz”) from a distance of 71-75 kbt. punched 230 mm bronepoyas and exploded when passing armor. Fragments pierced 30 mm barbet armor plates and caused the ignition of four charges in the reloading compartment. And again the crew suffered the hardest losses (a significant part of the calculation of the tower died in the fire) and again it was necessary to sink the cellars. But the fire that broke out in the reloading compartment did not go to the cellars (the result of modernization after the Dogger-Banks battle) and the ship, again, did not die.

At the same time, the Zeidlitz artillery did not seem to have caused significant damage to the British. It so happened that at the beginning of the battle of Yutland, “Zeidlitsu” just fell to fight with “Queen Mary” and, as far as can be judged, this duel was not at all in favor of the German ship. Officially, “Seidlits” achieved four, or perhaps five, 280-mm projectile hits at Queen Mary, but it is possible that there were significantly more hits. The fact is that sources usually report four hits on Queen Mary from Seidlitz and three from Derflinger, but this gives a total of seven hits, but the same sources claim that Queen Mary 15-20 shells hit, and except for the above two battlecruisers nobody fired at it. At the same time, until its very death, Queen Mary did not make the impression of a wrecked, or at least heavily damaged ship - it was unnoticeable that the Seidlitz 280-mm projectiles somehow affected its combat capability. At the same time, the number of hits “Queen Mary” in “Seidlitz” is known for sure - 4 projectile. And the effect of them turned out to be very noticeable.

The first projectile struck the board under the conning tower and damaged the nasal distribution console, severely destroying the unarmored side structures and making a hole in the main deck of 3 size on 3 m. Through this hole, water penetrated into the hull, which (until the end of the battle) was poured into the central post. Seydlitza "and cellars. Not deadly, of course, but pleasant enough.

The second shell - we have already described his actions. “Seidlits” saved two things from death - gunpowder and prone to modernization of loading compartments, which are not prone to detonation, protecting from the penetration of fire into the cellars (as you can see, one of the two armored flames always closed from the transfer compartment to the supply pipe, or from the same compartment in the cellar). But in any case, one of the towers was completely disabled, and much of its calculation was lost. It is noteworthy that the British projectile had to overcome exactly the same armor — the 230 mm board plus the 30 mm bevel armor — to hit the machines and boilers of the German battle cruiser.

The third shell, strictly speaking, did not get into the ship at all, but exploded in the water near the side. But the explosive contained in it was enough to cause a divergence of the seams of the hull plating over 11 meters. As a result, the front outer coal bunkers and additional bins of the XIII compartment, as well as the roll tanks, were flooded.

The fourth projectile - as far as it can be understood, the projectile hit the 230 mm top plate slab and 150 mm casemate, destroyed the 150-mm gun No. 6 from the starboard. The shell caused great damage inside the ship, many of the bulkheads were broken by shrapnel.

“Queen Mary” was eventually destroyed, but how? The concentration of fire of two battlecruisers, moreover, according to eyewitnesses, the British battle cruiser most likely destroyed the Dernlinger 305-mm projectiles. And they were much heavier (405 kg versus 302) and had significantly better armor penetration compared to Seidlitz shells. And whether a similar result was achieved if “Seidlits” continued to single-handedly shoot out with “Queen Mary” - it is rather difficult to say.

Although, of course, anything is possible. As we said earlier, the Lyon-type linear cruisers artillery was very poorly protected from 280 projectiles — 102-127-152 mm armor opposite the barbets of the turrets did not represent any reliable protection. Anecdotal case describes the Muzhenki: in the battle at Dogger-Banks 127 mm, the Lion armor was pierced from a distance of 88 kb. 280-mm projectile ... after he fell into the water in 4,6 m from the side of the ship, ricocheted and hit the armored plate. And, strictly speaking, 203 mm barbetas of the Queen Mary towers were, in principle, also quite penetrable by the Seidlitz shells.

The conclusions from the above are as follows: we have already written that the armor "Lion" and "Moltke" did not protect these ships from the effects of 280-mm and 343 mm shells of their opponents. Without a doubt, Moltke was much better protected than the Lion, but the number of its vulnerable spots for the British 343-mm projectiles was greater than that of the Lion for the 280-mm, and moreover, the heavier shells had better zabronevy impact. All this led to the fact that the British took the lead as their battle cruisers, because all other things being equal (crew training), the chances of causing heavy damage to the enemy from the Lion were higher.

With the Queen Mary and Seidlit pair, nothing has changed. It is known that the sword has priority over the shield, and therefore even a slight increase in the firepower of the British battlecruiser fully balanced a very decent increase in the protection of the German ship. As in the case of the Moltke and the Lion, Queen Mary was stronger than the Seidlitz — the one-on-one battle with this ship was deadly for the German cruiser, although not hopeless.

To be continued!
Author:
48 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. NF68
    NF68 April 25 2018 16: 26
    +4
    Great stuff.
  2. Trapperxnumx
    Trapperxnumx April 25 2018 17: 01
    +1
    We look forward to continuing.
  3. avt
    avt April 25 2018 17: 03
    +4
    The author lures to ,, Derflinger " bully
    As a result, Seydlitz and Queen Mary became a “step in place.”
    good And precisely for
    While developing “Zeidlitz”, von Tirpitz had to take into account another important aspect - in July 1909 Mr. von Bülow left the post of Chancellor, and von Betman-Golweg took his place, which was distinguished by a significantly greater propensity to save, therefore it was not possible to count on a serious increase in the cost of the ship. However, von Tirpitz intended to receive, in addition to the appropriated sums, from 750 thousand to one million marks by subscription (fundraising).
    As a result of all of the above, we stopped on a ship with the TTX "Moltke", but with a somewhat enhanced reservation.
    slowed down to move to more powerful cars.
    On the one hand, life seemed to put everything in its place. “Queen Mary” and “Seidlitz” met in the Battle of Jutland, and the first died, having received 15-20 hits of 280-305 mm caliber shells, and died terribly, with almost the entire crew ...... Without a doubt, German shipbuilders gave Great attention to protection and survivability. But you need to understand that the British losing score in battles of battle cruisers predetermined only one property of the German ships, in fact, not directly related to their design. English ships, as a rule, exploded during fires inside barbets and turret compartments, while German ones did not. The reason was that the German gunpowder burned evenly during a fire - the flame destroyed the entire calculation of the tower, but the explosion did not occur, but the British gunpowder detonated.
    And of course
    The combat vehicle is not so terrible, its cheerful crew is worse
    the Germans were trained not bad. Well and .... We are waiting for, "Derflinger" .... I said - ,, Derflinger !! bully And certainly with a reference to Erzats York, although they didn’t even smell the water.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 25 2018 17: 07
      +11
      Quote: avt
      Waiting ,, Derflinger "

      Consider that you have waited - just now I am writing, admiring the floridity of German military thought ... I didn’t know (before Staff) with which nonsense the Germans began the design of Derflinger :))))
      1. avt
        avt April 25 2018 17: 29
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        and didn’t know (before Staff) with which nonsense the Germans began the design of Derflinger :))))

        When he got acquainted with the options for draft designs for North Carolina, too .... sweated from the fact that the Yankees were drawing, the gloomy genius is resting and what appeared in the gland. bully
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 25 2018 17: 35
          +6
          Quote: avt
          When he got acquainted with the options for draft designs ,, North Carolina "

          Nuuuu ... from the Americans who managed to pile up the 203-mm towers on the 305-mm (“Curse of the white man”, as one of the naval officers put it) I unconsciously expected any dirty tricks, so the sketches of North Krali came to me fun :) ))))
    2. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich April 25 2018 17: 58
      +4
      Quote: avt
      The author lures to ,, Derflinger "

      Ha Carharodon fellow hi , I was right that there will be a “Seidlitz” with which thread of two “cats” with the names of the King tongue wink
  4. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich April 25 2018 18: 23
    +4
    Greetings, A.N. hi
    If you follow this logic, it turns out that the German had an advantage over the “Lion” due to the less powerful weapons of the latter compared to the “Queen Mary”? After all, a heavier shell compensated for the increase in armor thickness. what
    Again - history does not know the subjunctive mood, because the problems of the British with gunpowder are the problems of the British yes
    It is not yet known how the same “cats” would behave if the Germans put their Bayers into operation with Jutland. But we know that the Germans, albeit relatively briefly, but survived the 381 mm Chumadans of the British with their "weak" defense for 343 mm shells. Although see above about the story.
    “Seydlitz” was a kind of tactical miss, because the Germans already knew about the transition to a larger caliber of the British, and by logical conclusions had to come to that. that a decent increase in displacement implies a strengthening of the reservation. Therefore, for such large ships, the 11 "shell is already disastrously small. And already on this ship it was necessary to move to a larger caliber. Although you well described that" Santa Barbara "at the top of the German Ministry of the Sea, which led to the appearance of the ship with 280mm guns instead of the already needed 305mm.
    PS If yes, but .... "Zedlits, although half-dead, barely crawled to the base .... Unlike Queen Mary. Moral - after a fight, they don’t wave their fists
    We look forward to continuing with Karharodon’s good drinks
    Sincerely, Andrey Nikolaevich hi
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 25 2018 18: 44
      +3
      Greetings, Andrew!
      Quote: Rurikovich
      It is not yet known how the same “cats” would behave if the Germans put their Bayers into operation with Jutland.

      Bad :))) And then what is unknown? They grabbed weakly from the 305-mm shells of Luttsov and Derflinger, and the 380 mm would have incinerated them.
      Quote: Rurikovich
      But we know that the Germans, albeit relatively briefly, but survived the 381-mm English Chumadans with their “weak” protection for the 343-mm shells.

      What is the fault - the lack of the British sane armor-piercing shells. :)))
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich April 25 2018 19: 53
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        What is the fault - the lack of British sane armor-piercing shells

        Agree that these are problems of the British smile As well as inadequate armor and explosive gunpowder ...
        The Germans' problems I see only in smaller caliber GK than their opponents, therefore in less weight of metal in a salvo and less power (fu, well, the term) of shells. Therefore, for an adequate confrontation they needed to be more accurate and faster.
  5. anzar
    anzar April 25 2018 20: 26
    +1
    Excellent analysis (as always), but German logic is not very clear. The caliber was not increased, since 8x305mm were not easier (?) than 10x280mm (they wanted to save money? :)), but there was more weight per knot (than the partners), although Seidlitz will not fight alone.
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich April 25 2018 21: 14
      +2
      A tower with 305mm guns weighed 1,3 times more than a tower with 280mm guns
      1. anzar
        anzar April 25 2018 21: 25
        +3
        those. weight (8 to 10) is the same. But the volley is bigger (3200 to 3000 kg) And how was the extra speed knot "marked"? (except power weight) Will be able to run "not faster than a bear, but faster than a neighbor" :)))
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich April 25 2018 21: 49
          0
          The extra speed knot is on paper. In reality, both Seidlitz and Derflinger gave 28 bonds in trials.
          Weight 280mm shell 302kg, 305mm - 405kg. 100 kg in causing damage to the enemy is a big deal.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 26 2018 09: 46
      0
      Quote: anzar
      They didn’t increase the caliber, since 8x305mm were no easier (?) Than 10x280mm (they wanted to save? :)),

      That's just the joke that the Germans did not see the point of changing the caliber, since there is no economy in weight. Now, if weight savings would be - then another thing. That is, they considered the transition to 305-mm at that time not even the third, but the thirty-third
      1. 27091965
        27091965 April 26 2018 11: 57
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        That is, at that time they considered the transition to 305 mm not even the third, but the thirty-third


        At that time, as indeed now, theoretical calculations were very popular. Two 12 inch guns in terms of their fire exposure amounted to three 10 inch. So, initially the Germans were the winner (theoretically) with their 11 inches. In addition, they had a not bad semi-armor-piercing projectile, with 6 percent of explosives and a slow fuse. He punched armor 140 mm thick, the distance given data are contradictory from 9000 to 11000 meters.
        Initially, in the 1906-1907 years, they began to develop immediately three 12 inch guns with a length of 40, 45 and 50 calibers. It is clear that a quick result under such conditions cannot be obtained.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 26 2018 13: 49
          +1
          Quote: 27091965i
          Two 12 inch guns in their fire exposure amounted to three 10 inch. So, initially the Germans were winning (theoretically) with their 11 inches.

          Sorry, but in this case 8 12-dm guns are equivalent to 12 280-mm, where is the profit?
          Quote: 27091965i
          He punched armor with a thickness of 140 mm, the distance given data are contradictory from 9000 to 11000 meters.

          Strictly speaking, he punched 200 mm at 65 kbt - this is Von der Tann, Moltke was capable of more :)
          Quote: 27091965i
          Initially, in the 1906-1907 years, they began to develop immediately three 12 inch guns with a length of 40, 45 and 50 calibers. It is clear that a quick result under such conditions cannot be obtained.

          However, they received it, if we recall from what year the Helgolands were laid :)
          1. 27091965
            27091965 April 26 2018 14: 36
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

            Sorry, but in this case 8 12-dm guns are equivalent to 12 280-mm, where is the profit?


            2 x 3 is the ratio of 12 inch to 10 inch, 2 x 2,5 the ratio of 12 inch to 11 inch, that is, 8 x 10. Superiority due to rate of fire, I repeat the theoretical.
            Since 1908, there was a very active discussion about which guns to install on large ships. Basically, it came down to a dispute between fans of 305 and 356 mm guns.


            Strictly speaking, he punched 200 mm at 65 kbt - this is Von der Tann, Moltke was capable of more :)


            The quality of the armor produced is a complex issue. There are both positive and negative assessments on this subject.

            However - received, if we recall, from which year the Helgolands were laid


            I already wrote earlier, the barrel wear of the first German 12 inch guns was 30 percent more than 11 inch guns, with the same number of shots.
            I think this can not be called a great success.

            All these issues of armor, shells and guns are well considered in foreign artillery magazines from 1905 to 1914, meaning the naval section.
  6. unknown
    unknown April 25 2018 20: 27
    +3
    Andrei did not note another significant difference.
    A more developed forecastle, which, in many ways, allowed to maintain buoyancy.
  7. Comrade
    Comrade April 26 2018 01: 16
    +3
    Dear Andrew,
    interesting, clever article +!
    1. Varna
      Varna April 26 2018 01: 43
      0
      Quote: Comrade
      Dear Andrew,
      interesting, clever article +!

      The phenomenon of paper know-it-all people))))
      1. Comrade
        Comrade April 26 2018 04: 58
        +4
        Quote: Varna
        The phenomenon of paper know-all people

        What to grimace and clown around, they would lay out some kind of material. And we will discuss it.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 26 2018 09: 11
      0
      Thank you, dear Valentine!
  8. DimanC
    DimanC April 26 2018 03: 58
    +1
    This is just the description that shows the disadvantage of using coal bunkers for "additional protection". The author did not pay much attention to this, but at least the Germans during WWI were quite limited by their Wishlist precisely because it was better not to touch the coal in the side bunkers - "so as not to weaken the amount of protection."
  9. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer April 26 2018 16: 40
    +1
    Good comparison.
    What is missing is a comparison of rate of fire.
    If in 2 minutes Seidlitz sends approximately 60 pieces of 280 mm shells, and his opponent Kuyn Mary 24 pieces, then Seidlitz has twice as many chances of hitting the target.
    Greater rate of fire gives an advantage at the end of the shooting, when artillery can reach a maximum rate of fire.
    Especially important is the rate of fire when firing at close range - which is very likely to affect the fate of Queen Mary.

    Yes - no doubt 280 mm shells have less power and armored action - the likelihood of critical damage to armored parts is lower than that of 343 mm British shells.

    But at the same time, the large surface of the battlecruisers did not have a high degree of protection and the penetration of 280 mm shells inevitably led to damage to control systems, power supplies, drainage mechanisms and fire extinguishing systems, flooding and fires, which reduced the ability of the British battlecruiser to fight for survivability, leading to large losses of the crew, which also affected both combat stability and survivability of the ship.
    So, in theory, the 280 mm caliber of German guns, with a double rate of fire, in a collision with the British battlecruisers, gave some advantage in the probability of being the first to inflict combat damage and weaken the enemy. But the British often noted a high rate of fire and accuracy at the beginning of the battle and a drop in the accuracy of the German battlecruisers when they were damaged (the guidance systems were very likely to suffer).
    It’s hard to judge.
    But I would be cautious in evaluating the Queen Mary and Seydlitz projects - considering their chances are very equal: with a high probability of critical damage to Seydlitz from the first hits of 343 mm shells and a very high probability of reducing the combat effectiveness of Queen Mary from more numerous hits of 280 mm shells.
    What damage did Queen Mary receive in the last battle - we are unlikely to find out. One thing is for sure - his barbets could not stand the hits.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 27 2018 09: 19
      +1
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      If in 2 minutes Seidlitz sends approximately 60 pieces of 280 mm shells, and his opponent Kuyn Mary 24 pieces, then Seidlitz has twice as many chances of hitting the target.

      Honestly, I didn’t understand the comparison :))) 3 shots per minute for Seidlitz, okay, but the British had a rate of fire the same 2-3 shots per minute. In fact, their rate of fire is almost comparable
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      Greater rate of fire gives an advantage at the end of the shooting, when artillery can reach a maximum rate of fire.

      A larger caliber gives greater accuracy, in other words, a decrease in dispersion, which you do not take into account at all
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      So in theory, the caliber 280 mm of German guns, with a twice as high rate of fire

      Which, alas, was not.
      1. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer April 27 2018 10: 05
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Which, alas, was not.


        It is possible, since the rate of fire is 1,5 rounds per minute for 343 mm, I found in a source not trustworthy:
        The 13,5-inch naval cannon Mk V is an English ship gun of 13 and a half inches (343 mm) caliber. The gun was developed in 1910 by Armstrong-Whitworth. 13,5 "Mark V type guns (10 guns in five two-gun towers each) armed 12 battleships of the Orion, King George V, Iron Duke types and (8 guns in 4 towers) on linear cruisers “Lyon”, “Princess Royal”, “Queen Mary” and “Tiger.” Rate of fire, rounds per minute: 1,5 (in some sources 1,5-2 rounds / min)
        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/13,5″_морское_оруди
        e_Mark_V - source Tony DiGiulian, British 13.5 "/ 45 (34.3 cm) Mark V (L) 13.5" / 45 (34.3 cm) Mark V (H)
      2. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer April 27 2018 10: 10
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Honestly, I didn’t understand the comparison :))) 3 shots per minute for Seidlitz, okay, but the British had a rate of fire the same 2-3 shots per minute. In fact, their rate of fire is almost comparable


        Well, about 3 rounds per minute - where does such a record rate of fire come from?
        Nowhere in the sources have I met the numbers 3 for this weapon - do not share it?
      3. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer April 27 2018 10: 16
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        A larger caliber gives greater accuracy, in other words, a decrease in dispersion, which you do not take into account at all


        Only for long-range distances - and you have repeatedly indicated the limit for the North Sea of ​​a distance of 8000-16000 m, and the advantage in accuracy of 343 mm will begin to appear at distances of 18000 and higher. Those. when the kinetic energy of a 280 mm projectile, due to inhibition in the atmosphere will decrease.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 27 2018 13: 01
          +1
          Quote: DimerVladimer
          Only for long-range distances - and you have repeatedly indicated for the North Sea distances 8000-16000 m limit

          I usually indicate 70-75 kbt as the main combat distance. The scattering on them will already be quite significant. By the way, all sources from O. Parks continue to note the best accuracy of the 343-mm in comparison with the British 305-mm
          And as for the rate of fire - I'm sorry. I remember exactly what I saw somewhere, but I can’t find it, if I find it, I will inform you, if not, I will sign for defeat :))))
          1. DimerVladimer
            DimerVladimer April 27 2018 13: 30
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Parks and further note the best accuracy of 343 mm in comparison with the British 305 mm


            Undoubtedly - a heavy shell + laws of physics.
            406 mm shell of the US coastal battery, during the exercises the second shell hit the target - a barge (immovable of course) at a distance of 16 km - amazing accuracy. That's what a stable artillery platform means :)
          2. DimerVladimer
            DimerVladimer April 27 2018 13: 39
            +2
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            By the way, all sources from O. Parks continue to note the best accuracy of 343 mm in comparison with the British 305 mm



            Armor-piercing shells of naval guns of the main caliber (from left to right): 343 mm English at the end of the XIX century (battleship Royal Sovereign), 305 mm Russian standard 1911 (battleship Sevastopol), 340 mm French standard 1912/1921. (battleship "Brittany"), 380 mm German (battleship "Bismarck"), 460 mm Japanese (battleship "Yamato"), gunpowder charge 460 mm shot
            http://www.vokrugsveta.ru/vs/article/6528/
            For clarity :)
  10. Saxahorse
    Saxahorse April 26 2018 21: 05
    +2
    English ships, as a rule, exploded during fires inside barbets and turret compartments, while German ones did not. The reason was that the German gunpowder burned evenly during a fire - the flame destroyed the entire calculation of the tower, but the explosion did not occur, but the British gunpowder detonated.

    This is just an old urban legend, long dispelled by experts but revived again during the forums and the Internet :)

    Both British cordite and German ballistite are based on nitroglycerin and have approximately the same detonation properties.

    Moreover, both combustion (Deflagration) and explosion (Detonation) are one and the same chemical reaction of oxidation of difference only in the method of propagation of the reaction front. Diffusion from adjacent layers or shock wave compresses the substance to the ignition temperature. Deflagration and detonation can pass into each other (sometimes repeatedly). This means that any powder is capable of detonation. And the so-called "propensity to detonate" depends mainly on the design features of cellars and charge storage devices. Those. how quickly in a particular cellar or kokor local pressure reaches the flash point.

    And finally, it’s very strange to expect any noticeable advantages from a burning cellar compared to exploding. The volumes of hot gases emitted by both combustion and explosion are the same. That lit up that the detonated cellar will smash the ship to smithereens equally well.

    But the rest of the article I liked, a good continuation. Thank!
    1. NF68
      NF68 April 26 2018 22: 19
      0
      Quote: Saxahorse
      This is just an old urban legend, long dispelled by experts but revived again during the forums and the Internet :)
      Both British cordite and German ballistite are based on nitroglycerin and have approximately the same detonation properties.


      This is not just a city or even a village legend, but what was real.

      Moreover, both combustion (Deflagration) and explosion (Detonation) are one and the same chemical reaction of oxidation of difference only in the method of propagation of the reaction front.


      The difference in the burning rate of gunpowder still varies markedly. Gunpowder is one thing simple, but it burns without detonation, and it’s quite another thing if ignited gunpowder detonates when heated to a certain temperature.
      1. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse April 26 2018 22: 43
        0
        Can you explain what you mean?
        I am aware that the speed of the detonation front is 5 km \ s, the burning rate of gunpowder in layers is 8 mm \ s, but it takes 0.06-0.001 seconds to shoot, i.e. the reaction front moves much faster from 80 to 800 m \ s. There is no free 800 meters of space in the cellar. In the end, do you care what speed the cellar will blow? :)
        1. NF68
          NF68 April 27 2018 15: 05
          0
          Quote: Saxahorse
          Can you explain what you mean?
          I am aware that the speed of the detonation front is 5 km \ s, the burning rate of gunpowder in layers is 8 mm \ s, but it takes 0.06-0.001 seconds to shoot, i.e. the reaction front moves much faster from 80 to 800 m \ s. There is no free 800 meters of space in the cellar. In the end, do you care what speed the cellar will blow? :)


          German fire simply burned when ignited:

          10 h. 43 m. Second hit. The 343-mm shell from the Lyon from a distance of about 15 m (500 cab.) Caused great damage, breaking through the upper deck in the aft. The aft officers' cabins, the company cabin and everything that was near the site of the explosion were destroyed. Then the shell hit the barb of the aft tower, pierced the wall of the barbet with a thickness of 84 mm and, bursting during penetration through the barbet armor, carried red-hot fragments and fragments of armor into the working compartment of the tower.

          These fragments pierced the feed tube and set fire to several main and additional charges there. The flash ignited the charges in the fighting compartment of the tower, in the lower lifts and the reloading compartment of the tower, and the fire penetrated the charging cellar. The ignition of the charges was at first relatively slow, then the smoke from the burning charges in the working chamber began to penetrate into the cargo compartment one deck below. The aft tower reloading squad probably tried to escape through a bulkhead door that led to a nearby turret compartment. At that moment, when the door opened, the charges in the transfer compartment flashed and the flame of burning charges transferred to the charges in the chargers and transfer compartment.

          At the same time, the flame penetrated the aft linearly elevated tower and lit a large number of charges there, as well as in the charging cellar, in the working and fighting sections. Thus, 62 full (main and additional) charges burned out completely. Fire covered 6 tons of gunpowder. From two aft towers a column of flames and gases "the height of a house" rose and poured thick black smoke. The tower did not answer phone calls. A sea of ​​fire engulfed 165 people, of whom 159 died instantly.


          while the English powder heated up to a certain temperature exploded.
    2. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer April 27 2018 09: 05
      +1
      Quote: Saxahorse
      And finally, it’s very strange to expect any noticeable advantages from a burning cellar compared to exploding. The volumes of hot gases emitted by both combustion and explosion are the same. That lit up that the detonated cellar will smash the ship to smithereens equally well.

      The volume may be the same, but the time for which this volume is allocated is different. In one case, the pressure leading to detonation will be achieved; in the second case, no
      The burning rate and the volume in which combustion occurs is a determining factor. And also the purity of the explosive - it affects a lot, the more impurities - the higher the probability of detonation.
      I’m not familiar with detonation properties because it was related to solid-fuel engines, the main task of which is not to achieve detonation pressure during combustion :) But the opposite also happened - for testing in the laboratory there was an armored chamber and thick bulletproof glass.

      By the way, in the WWII, the M4 tanks were distinguished by the fact that the crew could hide under a burning tank - they did not detonate the ammunition, Unlike our tanks - like the T-34, whose ammunition detonated when a fire occurred and the crew was forced to flee from a lighted tank.
      1. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse April 27 2018 21: 24
        +1
        Quote: DimerVladimer
        The volume may be the same, but the time for which this volume is allocated is different. In one case, the pressure leading to detonation will be achieved; in the second case, no
        The burning rate and the volume in which combustion occurs is a determining factor.

        Agree that the rate of burning of cordite and the rate of burning of ballistic are approximately the same. But the volume may differ, but these are questions of the design of the explosion site.

        Quote: DimerVladimer
        By the way, in the WWII, the M4 tanks were distinguished by the fact that the crew could hide under a burning tank - they did not detonate the ammunition, Unlike our tanks - like the T-34, whose ammunition detonated when a fire occurred and the crew was forced to flee from a lighted tank.

        This means that the M4 had all fuel tanks in the engine compartment and were separated from the fighting compartment by an armored bulkhead. Unlike the T-34. If American shells are doused with diesel fuel and set on fire, they will explode as well as Soviet ones. :)
        1. DimerVladimer
          DimerVladimer April 28 2018 12: 25
          +1
          Quote: Saxahorse
          This means that the M4 had all fuel tanks in the engine compartment and were separated from the fighting compartment by an armored bulkhead. Unlike the T-34. If American shells are doused with diesel fuel and set on fire, they will explode as well as Soviet ones. :)


          When the shells in the M-4 fell into the fire - they only snorted - and those sitting under the tank heard shells ricochet inside the tank - but there was no detonation.

          Quote: Saxahorse
          Agree that the rate of burning of cordite and the rate of burning of ballistic are approximately the same. But the volume may differ, but these are questions of the design of the explosion site.
          I agree.
          But heating can cause decomposition and change in properties, since detonation is measured at ordinary temperature - the tabular indicators are equal. When heated, one explosive can detonate at lower pressure - i.e. be less stable.
          Unfortunately I did not experiment with explosives - only with solid fuels.
          But familiar with the principles.
          I believe that the British explosives either had more impurities or when heated became less stable, which led to detonation from the fire.
          In any case, I take off my hat to German chemists - they saved a lot of the lives of their sailors by developing this non-detonating propellant.
          1. Saxahorse
            Saxahorse April 28 2018 18: 28
            0
            Quote: DimerVladimer
            When the shells in the M-4 fell into the fire - they only snorted - and those sitting under the tank heard shells ricochet inside the tank - but there was no detonation.

            Opps! Those. even high-explosive and armor-piercing shells just jumped on the walls inside the case like in a classic comic book? ;)

            Quote: DimerVladimer
            But heating can cause decomposition and change in properties, since detonation is measured at ordinary temperature - the tabular indicators are equal. When heated, one explosive can detonate at lower pressure - i.e. be less stable.

            Sorry, but this is if the heating is slow. The result of a force of flame bursting through holes directly into the cellar is quite another. This is called ignition of the charges due to impact, but not heating.

            By the way, pay attention that when shooting this “prone to knock” cord did not detonate.
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 27 2018 09: 21
      +1
      Quote: Saxahorse
      This means that any powder is capable of detonation.

      Yeah. Only now the British cordit managed to detonate, being stacked in the fresh air. German gunpowder did not allow anything like this
      Quote: Saxahorse
      And finally, it’s very strange to expect any noticeable advantages from a burning cellar compared to exploding. The volumes of hot gases emitted by both combustion and explosion are the same. That lit up that the detonated cellar will smash the ship to smithereens equally well.

      Nevertheless, the burnt gunpowder in the Seydlitz towers only led to damage to the Seydlitz towers, and nothing more
      1. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse April 27 2018 21: 36
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Yeah. Only now the British cordit managed to detonate, being stacked in the fresh air. German gunpowder did not allow anything like this

        The spontaneous combustion of indecently quickly decomposed cordite indicates the low quality of the first British smokeless powder formulations. But this is not relevant to our discussion. Queen Mary didn’t explode in the port, did it?

        The propensity of gunpowder to detonate would appear immediately. Massive separation of trunks immediately after the first battles. Because no matter how a shot from a cannon with a full charge checks the gunpowder with a pressure close to the maximum possible.

        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Nevertheless, the burnt gunpowder in the Seydlitz towers only led to damage to the Seydlitz towers, and nothing more

        The charges at the Seidlitz burned in the pipes and corridors, where there is a lot of space and often there is an open exit. If there is a gunpowder to expand, it burns, if there is nowhere, it detonates. The "Lion" incidentally, too, the pipes were burning, and nothing .. It did not detonate even the same cord. Only bulkheads were inflated.

        Cellars are a completely different story. Well, no way 20 tons of gunpowder will not leave the cellar through a couple of ventilation holes in 0.06 seconds .. More precisely, the gunpowder will come out, but it will take with it most of the surrounding structures. He detonates or not, but the destruction will still be huge.
  11. doktorkurgan
    doktorkurgan April 27 2018 11: 40
    +2
    Excellent as always.
  12. Saxahorse
    Saxahorse April 27 2018 21: 20
    0
    Quote: NF68
    while the English powder heated up to a certain temperature exploded.

    This is out of the question. The cause of the explosion (detonation) is not temperature but pressure.
  13. Potter
    Potter April 28 2018 07: 50
    0
    Thanks for the interesting continuation of the cycle. Keep it up!
  14. BE905057
    BE905057 2 May 2018 16: 16
    +1
    For some reason, no one pays attention to one fact. In Jutland, the battle of the battlecruisers killed Queen Mary and the Individual. In them, the German shells from DERFLINGER and TANN fell at a more obtuse angle, i.e. the armor penetration of shells was higher. At first, all German ships shot, except for TANN, at their numbers, starting with the head LION, but since the English ships overtook the German ones, the angle of contact between the German shells and the English armor was quite sharp, which means that their armor penetration is less. Logically, TANN was supposed to shoot at the fifth in the ranks of N. ZELAND, but he began to shoot at the sixth, which means that the angle of the meeting of his shells became more obtuse, and armor penetration improved. DERFLINGER first shot at the second - P. ROYYAL and could not damage him much - after all, the shells fell at an acute angle, but as soon as the fire was transferred to the third ship - K. MARY and the angle became dumber, the Englishman was sunk for 6 minutes . If the fourth in the MOLTEK system, who had hit the fourth in the TIGER system in 12 minutes with 9 rounds, shot the fifth in the line of N. ZELAND, where the angle of impact would be dumber, N. ZELAND would certainly be sunk even with a small caliber of shells in 280 mm. Well, the drowning of the INVINSIBLE is confirmation of this. There, the angle of impact was almost 90 degrees and the Germans took 4 minutes to sink it. I can assume that the Germans would shoot at English battleships, taking the count not from the lead ship, but from the trailer ship, then the result of the battle between the battle cruisers would be different. The British would definitely lose INDEFATIGEBLE, N. ZELAND, K. MARY and possibly TIGER.
  15. Slug_BDMP
    Slug_BDMP 2 May 2018 17: 54
    0
    I remember in the famous "Maritime Collection" of the magazine "Model Designer" one of the drawbacks of the German battle cruisers was their overload with medium-caliber artillery and torpedo tubes.
    In this cycle, the author of this topic does not concern at all. Did the 150-mm cannons even make one shot in Jutlands or other fights?
    1. Usher
      Usher 21 July 2018 13: 06
      0
      Of course, EMs attacked several times, and 150mm artillery was not in debt.