Line Cruiser Rivalry: Derflinger vs. Tiger

The circumstances of the design of the Derflinger and Tiger battlecruisers are interesting, first of all, because before these ships both the Germans and the British, in fact, created their battlecruisers "with closed eyes", because neither of them had some reliable information about similar enemy ships. For example, when creating the Lion, the British were absolutely confident that German Moltke battle cruisers, when armed with 10 280-mm guns, carried no more than 178 mm of armor. It is clear that if it were so, the Lion would have become a truly overwhelming answer, but still Moltke's armor belt in its thickest part reached 178 mm and 270 mm. However, when designing the “Derflinger” and “Tiger”, both the Germans and the British already had a pretty good idea of ​​what they would face in battle. One of the German shipbuilding engineers "at the most reasonable price" sold the Seydlitz drawings to the English, but the Germans finally found that the British newest battlecruisers carried 343-mm guns, although they slightly "missed" with the armor belt, considering that " Admiral Fisher cats carry 250 mm armor.

History Derflinger was launched in April of 1910, when the design bureau requested technical requirements for battleships and cruisers planned for construction under the 1911 program. The response of the maritime ministry ... let's say, was very intriguing.

It stated that at present it is impossible to put forward such requirements, because there are two, let's say, extremely important innovations for the future of the German military shipbuilding: these are three-gun towers (!) And diesel engines (!!), but the study of the possibilities of their application will last until 1910 Winter

However, Vice-Admiral Pashen had a special opinion on this matter and pointed out one mandatory innovation for the 1911 program cruiser of the year - the transition to the 305-mm caliber. Pashen absolutely rightly believed that the double difference in the weight of the shells (“302 kg versus 600 kg”, obviously, did not yet know the exact weight of the English 343-mm guns in Germany) completely unacceptable. Therefore, he considered it necessary to install on the next 10 305-mm guns, either in the center plane or in a diagonal pattern a la "Seidlits". However, Pashen also advocated the installation of diesel engines (the author of this article is not quite sure about the translation, but it was probably not a complete replacement, but only the installation of diesel engines of the economic course).

Then, Secretary of State von Tirpitz initiated a series of meetings on how to be the newest German ships, the first of which took place on 11 in May 1910. Rear Admiral Jerdes (Gerdes), speaking from the weapons department, reported that, according to research, German 280-mm guns will not be effective weapons at a distance of 8-000 m (10-000 kbt) against British battlecruisers with 43 mm of armor. At the same time, Rear Admiral reminded the meeting that the German battlecruisers, in fact, were intended not only and not so much against the English "classmates" as as a high-speed wing fleet. As such, they would have to meet with British battleships, the last series of which already had 305 mm side armor. Based on the foregoing, Gerdes made the very obvious conclusion that the 280 mm caliber has outlived itself: at the same time, Rear Admiral indicated that replacing 10 mm guns with 280 mm will cause an increase in artillery weight of only 8 tons.

Oddly enough, von Tirpitz completely disagreed with Djerdes. According to the state secretary, even if the battle starts on 45-55 cable, the distance would very quickly be reduced, and there ten 280-mm guns will be more effective compared to eight 305-mm. Surprisingly, von Tirpitz supported Paschen, who had previously argued in his memorandum the need to switch to a twelve-inch caliber. Eleven inches were supported by the shipbuilding department. All this allowed Von Tirpitz to announce that he is still stopping at the 280-mm caliber, despite the fact that the newest German Dreadnoughts have already switched to the 305-mm cannon. But even more important than weapons, he believes the need to change the power plant, namely - the transition from turbines to diesel. The construction of diesel battleships and battlecruisers under the 1911 g program was what, according to the State Secretary, it was necessary to strive with all forces because this would allow the Kaiserlichmarine to make a huge step forward in comparison with the rest of the world’s fleets.

In other words, in the early stages of development, the main persons in charge saw the future battlecruiser of Germany completely different from what it turned out to be: they wanted to get a diesel ship with 280-mm artillery!

Fortunately, common sense gradually prevailed. The design bureau did not consider the options with 280-mm artillery optimal and "blew off dust" from the 305-mm cruiser of the 1910 shipbuilding program of the 280 g. Then it failed (the 305-mm "Zeidlits" was laid), but now the shipbuilders were more successful. Created by the end of May, a draft design of a four-erected battle cruiser with 280-mm artillery, and a month later, another one, with the towers in the center plane, finally found a path to the heart of von Tirpitz: he no longer insisted on ten XNUMX-mm guns .

Line Cruiser Rivalry: Derflinger vs. Tiger

However, the state secretary continued to demand the installation of diesel engines, but here the issue was resolved by itself - in September 1910 g found out that MAN was not yet able to create diesel engines for such large ships, so they had to return to the turbines.

Deciding for himself the need to switch to 305-mm caliber, von Tirpitz continued to be a supporter of ten guns on the battlecruiser, and therefore at 1 September, 1910 proposed to revise existing projects in order to add a fifth tower of 305-mm guns . But it was not possible to do this - the displacement of the ship grew too much. We stopped at four towers, but the question arose of their placement - as a result, the meeting concluded that the location of the four towers in a linearly elevated pattern (that is, as in Derflinger) has a preference, but only if the second tower can fire on top of the first, and the third - respectively, on top of the fourth. In this case, it will be possible to concentrate heavy fire on the bow / stern - but if shooting over the tower proves impossible, then you should return to the diagonal scheme and place the towers like they were installed in Fon der Tanna.

Further design of the ship went quite smoothly, along the path of consistent improvement of the project. On the whole, the following can be said: having created the “Fon der Tann”, the Germans made a qualitative leap, but the ships of the Moltke and Seidlitz series that followed it were an evolutionary development of the first full-fledged German battle cruiser. Creating the “Derflinger” the Germans, one might say, created the next generation of German ships of this class.


The case of the “Derflinger” was distinguished by several innovations, and the first of them is a longitudinal set, first used by the Germans on heavy warships. This design provided acceptable strength while saving weight. Probably, for this reason, the distance between the spurs has decreased - instead of the classic 1,2 for the German fleet, this distance on the Derflinger was 0,64. In all previous articles of the cycle, we did not pay attention to such details, but the fact is that in foreign literature ( and not only in it) they often measure the length or the location of one or another structural element (for example, the armor belt) by means of spacations, therefore this distinction of the “Derflinger” from other German ships should be known.

The ship had a large metacentric height, and it had its advantages - for example, when turning the roll angle was relatively small, so that the lower edge of the armor belt did not come out of the water, exposing the unprotected board. But there was also an important drawback - a small period of pitching, which would make it much less smooth in comparison with the same ship with a smaller metacentric height. At the same time, the quality of a warship as an artillery platform is largely determined by the smoothness of pitching - it is clear that the less its influence, the easier it is to point the gun at the target. Therefore, "Derflinger" equipped with a system of calm pitching - Fram tanks. In principle, it was placed on battlecruisers before, but, as far as it is possible to understand the descriptions in the sources, it wasn’t used on the same “Zeidlitsa” for its intended purpose, but on the “Derflinger” it seemed to work.

If you look at the photos or drawings of the “Derflinger” and “Seidlitz”, the first one looks more low-boring, but this is not so - the board height of the “Derflinger” was 14,75 m in the middle, with an average draft of 9,38 m (9,2 m - nose, 9,56 m - aft) gave the height of the board over the 5,37 waterline, m. At the “Seydlitz”, the mid-board height was 13,88 m, the bow / slump - 9,3 / 9,1 m, respectively, the average draft of 9,2 m and the height of the board over the 4,68 waterline, m smaller than Derflinger. Obviously, this is a matter of a small visual deception - the fact is that the “Seydlitz” had a forecastle, which was attached to the casemate, located on the upper deck. As a result, the Zeydlitz casemate is visually perceived as part of the board, while for the Derflinger bar, which lacks the forecastle, the casemate looks like a separate superstructure, which has nothing to do with the height of the board.

But Derblinger did not have a forecastle - in order to facilitate the hull structures, instead of using it, we used deck lifting in the bow and stern, which gave the linear cruisers of this type a very beautiful and memorable silhouette. True, not the fact that added seaworthiness (we'll talk about it below), but in any case, such an indicator as the height of the freeboard at the stem of the “Derflinger” almost did not yield to that of the “Seydlitz” - 7,7 m against 8 m.


Vertical booking “Derflinger was traditionally powerful. Only the last 4,5 meters of the stern were unprotected by armor - from them to the side of the nose for 33,3 meters the board was protected by 100 mm armor, closely adjacent to the citadel. The citadel itself, 121,5 m long, consisted of a 300 mm section of 2,2 m height, of which 40 cm were under the waterline, and the thickness of the armor plates traditionally decreased to the bottom edge to 150 mm.

Above the 300 mm section of the board the height of the 3 550 mm was defended by 270 mm with armor, only to the upper edge the thickness dropped to 230 mm. Thus, the total height of the Derflinger armored side in the citadel area was 5 750 mm, of which 400 mm were below the waterline. Of course, the citadel traditionally closed not only the boiler rooms and machine rooms, but also the 305 mm cellars of the towers, including the extreme ones. From the citadel to the nose for 19,2 m, the board was reserved with 120 mm plates and then to the stem - 100 mm.

The citadel was closed by traverses, 226-260 mm in nose and 200-250 mm in stern, while at the end of the 100 mm belt in the stern (as we said above, it left the 4,5 mm board unprotected).

The armored deck within the citadel had a 30 mm in the horizontal part, but in the areas of the towers of the main caliber thickened to 50 mm - the same thickness (50 mm) had bevels. Outside the stronghold of the fortress, it was located below the waterline and had a thickness of 80 mm in the stern and 50 mm in the bow.

In addition to armor, the upper deck (thickness 20-25 mm), as well as the casemate roof, which had a variable booking thickness 30-50 mm (unfortunately, where the 50 mm was, the author could not figure it out) could provide some protection.

Artillery armor has once again been reinforced: the forehead of the Derflinger towers defended 270 mm armor (Seidlitz had 250 mm), sides 225 mm (200), sloping front roof 110 mm (100) of the horizontal roof 80 mm (70). The thickness of the barbetts increased from 230 to 260 mm in the same places where the barbet turned out to be behind the armor belt, its thickness was reduced to 60 mm (30 mm from Seidlitz). The attentive reader remembers that Zeidlitz had 80 mm barbet sections, but they were located behind 150 mm casemate armor, while Derblinger barbats were not defended by casemates. Casemates were protected by 150 mm armor, inside of them the guns were separated from each other by 20 mm longitudinal bulkheads. In addition, 150-mm guns had 80 mm shields.

Reservation of the nasal cabin in comparison with “Seidlits” was also strengthened somewhat: 300-350 mm walls and 150 mm roof against 250-350 mm and 80 mm, respectively. Protection of the aft cabin remained unchanged - 200 mm wall and 50 mm roof. The anti-torpedo bulkhead had 45 mm of thickness (versus 30-50 mm for Seidlitz).

In general, if, without going into details, to quickly run through the thicknesses of the Derflinger armor, it would seem that his defense is only slightly greater than that of the Seidlitz. But this is absolutely not true - in fact, Derflinger received, we will not be afraid of this word, a cardinal reinforcement of the reservation.

"Derflinger" after construction

Here, for example, take the citadel of the battlecruisers: its length from the “Derflinger” only slightly exceeded that of the “Seydlitz” - 121 m against 117 m. The thickness of the armor belt within the citadel seems to be also comparable - 300 mm in the most powerful section of both linear cruisers, then 230 mm for the “Seydlitz” and 270 mm (with a decrease to 230 mm at the upper edge) - for the “Derflinger”. But…

Reservation "Seidlitz" consisted of two rows of armor plates located along the side, one of which (main armored belt) had a thickness of 300 mm with decreasing to 150 mm along the bottom edge and up to 230 mm - at the top. Above the armor plates of the main armor belt was located the second row of upper armored plates (the Germans called the second armor belt "stronghold"). But Derflinger was not at all like that. His armor plates were deployed at 90 degrees, they were located not horizontally, but vertically. That is, the 300 mm section, and the 270 mm section with their bevels towards the lower edge up to 150 mm and on the upper edge up to 230 mm was one monolithic armor plate, and they were not connected to each other by means of very reminiscent of the domestic "dovetail", when one armored plate with its edges entered into the grooves of others. With such an arrangement and fastening of the armor plate, the strength of the armor protection was significantly higher than that of the "Seidlts".

But the most important thing was elsewhere - as we said earlier, the “Seidlitz” (and other German battle cruisers) had one very vulnerable spot - their thickest part of the armor did not reach the level of the horizontal armor. For example, the 300 mm of the Zeidlits armored belt, with a normal displacement, rose above the water at 1,4 m, while the horizontal section of the armored deck was located at a height of 1,6 m above the waterline. Accordingly, there was a significant portion of the bead, when hit by an enemy projectile hit 230 mm armor and then hit the 30 mm armored deck. And this section, of course, was much wider than the 20-centimeter difference, because, as is known, the shells hit the board not strictly parallel to the surface of the water, but at an angle to it.

But at Derflinger, this section was significantly reduced, because the height of 300 mm body armor grew from 1,8 m to 2,2 m, of which 1,8 m were above water. That is, the border of the 300 mm section was not on the 20 cm below, but on the 20 cm above the level of the horizontal armored deck. As a result, where it was enough to penetrate 230 mm board and 30 mm bevel, for defeating boiler rooms and machine rooms of “Zeidlitz”, Derflinger defended 300 mm (in the worst case - 270 mm) armor and 50 mm bevel, because bevels compared with "Seidlits" were also strengthened.


[/ Center]
"Derflinger" on artillery exercises

“Derflinger” finally got the 305-mm SK L / 50, which were installed on the dreadnoughts of Hochseeflotte starting from “Helgoland”. For its time, these were extremely powerful guns, firing 405 kg with projectiles with an initial velocity of 875 m / s. Of course, you have to pay for everything - the German cannon withstood 200 shots, and this was not too much. On the other hand, the English 343-mm gun with a "heavy" projectile had a resource in 220 shots.

In foreign sources there is no consensus on how much the high-explosive German projectile weighed - 405 kg or 415 kg (the latter is indicated by G. Staff), but there are no discrepancies in its explosive content - 26,4 kg. There is some interest in the relatively low content of explosives in the German “land mines”, but perhaps the explanation is that the German projectile of this type was more like a semi-slaughter than a pure high-explosive. His detonator had a slight deceleration, which would allow the projectile to detonate at the moment of armor passage - if the projectile hit, say, an unarmored board or superstructure, it exploded through 2-6 meters after breaking through a light obstacle. An armor-piercing projectile was completed 11,5 kg BB.

The maximum angle of elevation was 13,5 degrees, while providing a range of 19 100 m or about 103 cable. Subsequently (after the battle of Jutland), the angle was brought to 16 degrees, getting a range of 110 KB. Ammunition was slightly increased compared with the previous types of battlecruisers and was 90 shots on the gun, while the 65 projectiles were armor-piercing and 25 - high-explosive.

The average caliber of the “Derflinger” was represented by twelve 150-mm SK L / 45, which fired 45,3 kg with projectiles with an initial speed of 835 m / s. Initially it was supposed to install 14 of such guns on the ship, but later, because of the need to allocate a place on the Fram cistern, they limited themselves to 12 guns. In principle, the guns themselves were no different from the Zeidlitz cannons, and the calculations (eight people) remained the same number, but there were changes in their “jobs”, which is why the artillerymen did their work a little differently than they were before the same result. Ammunition was 160 shells on the gun.

Mine weapons consisted of eight 88-mm SK L / 45, located behind the shields, another four 88-mm L / 45 guns were anti-aircraft, the latter were located near the first pipe. Torpedo armament was represented by four 500-mm underwater vehicles, ammunition was 12 torpedoes.

Power plant

The principal difference from the previous German battlecruisers was that on the “Derflinger” from 18 of Schulz-Thornycroft boilers it was coal 14, and the remaining 4 were oil. The Germans “resisted” the transition to oil for a very long time and their arguments were weighty: it was believed that placing the oil on the ship was dangerous, while the coal pits created additional protection, while Germany could not count on replenishing pre-war oil reserves during the war, threatened with its deficiency. However, the innovations of the “Derflinger” demanded weight compensation, and the main reason why the newest battlecruiser received four oil-fired boilers was to save on its displacement.

The power plant "Derflinger" had a rated power 63 000 hp In other words, despite the fact that the normal displacement of the “Derflinger” should have been 26 600 t, which on the 1 612 t is greater than the design displacement of the “Seidlitz”, the power of the power plant remained unchanged. Many sources indicate that Derflinger was designed for 26,5-nodal speed, G. Staff asserts that under 25,5 is a knot. It is difficult to say who is right here, because, on the one hand, a decrease in speed with increasing displacement looks quite logical, but on the other hand, the Germans could make additional efforts to maintain speed, such as optimizing a theoretical drawing and so on.

As a result, the Germans turned out to be even more difficult to say because, “Alas, the Derflinger” did not pass the test cycle. The fact is that the speed of the large ships of Germany was traditionally determined on the Neyrug measuring mile, which fully complied with all the requirements for such tests, but from the beginning of the war it was considered unsafe. As a result, “Derflinger” was sent to the Belt measured mile, where the sea depth was only 35 m. It is known that movement at shallow depths significantly reduces the speed of the ship and it is not surprising that, having given out the power of 76 034 machines, Derflinger achieved only 25,8 knots. speed. Calculated, this result corresponded to 28 nodes on "deep water". The Germans themselves considered the Derflinger type battlecruisers to be the fastest of all built.

The total fuel supply was 3 500 tons of coal and 1 000 tons of oil. Estimated travel range in this case was to be:

3 100 miles at speed 24,25 knots .;

5 400 miles with 16 knots .;

5 600 miles with 14 knots.

Seaworthiness of the ship ... here, I must say, there are questions. Of course, the Germans themselves spoke of her exclusively in superlatives. Nevertheless, the author of this article came up with allegations that at full speed the “Derflinger” feed was completely hidden under water, so that the sea water was splashing at the barbets of the feed towers of the main caliber. In confirmation of this in one of his monographs VB Husbands leads a charming photograph of the cruiser's stern:

Yet, apparently, Derflinger’s seaworthiness was enough for operations in the North Sea, at least no evidence of the author’s reverse was found.

In general, the following can be said about “Derflinger”. Despite the seemingly insignificant differences from the Seydlitz preceding it (the maximum thickness of the armor belt is the same 300 mm, the same power of the power plant, tools, larger by an inch with a smaller number of them, the displacement is increased by only 1,6 thousand tons) the Germans managed to create not even significantly, but radically the best ship. “Derflinger” can be safely considered the representative of the next, second generation of Germanic battlecruisers - well, we will do a comparison with his English rivals a bit later.

Продолжение следует ...
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. avt
    3 May 2018 06: 40
    Well ! good It was necessary to begin with this. bully And then ,, Blucher ", ,, Blucher" .... ,, Moltke "....bully
    1. +1
      3 May 2018 19: 17
      Quote: avt
      It was necessary to begin with this. bully

      After that, “Moltke” with “Blucher” would no longer be interesting feel
  2. +5
    3 May 2018 07: 02
    Chic plus !! fellow
    In fact, based on the concept of the German battlecruiser, they created it. Only a little later, 3-4 years after laying the “gelgolands” - the same 305mm artillery, the same 300mm armor, speed a few knots more ... That's just the ideal, which fully met the ideas, appeared when the enemy was already starting to raise rates in the Civil Code of their battleships and cruisers. Because he had the opportunity to experience the consequences of "Santa Barbara" in the minds of the Kaiser Admiral and shipbuilders. As a result, the ships had a kind of thick and reliable shields, but too thin swords to inflict comparable damage on the enemy in a shorter time. Those. the ideal was a little late. LMM - if you create a ship that will act on a par with battleships, then the weapons should be comparable to battleships.
    Regarding seaworthiness. The photo clearly does not have sunny weather with calm sea, therefore it could have been done at the moment the ship passed through a large wave, which could have caused a decent flooding of the stern. Moreover, it is most likely even at the moment the ship turns to the right. On the one hand, you perfectly give an analytical assessment from your point of view to the ships and at the same time assume negative moments based on the “successfully” taken photo. smile
    Everything, work is waiting. Rest in the evening drinks
    Once again, "bravo" for the material hi
    1. avt
      3 May 2018 11: 01
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Here are just an ideal that fully meets the ideas that appeared when the enemy was already starting to raise rates in the Civil Code of his battleships and cruisers.

      Quote: Rurikovich
      of that time never descended from the slipway - Erzats York "with GK 350mm
      1. 0
        3 January 2020 19: 26
        Erzats York with a 380mm main gun, and a 350mm main gun - at Mackensen.
    2. +2
      3 May 2018 12: 41
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Regarding seaworthiness. The photo clearly does not have sunny weather with calm sea, therefore it could have been done at the moment the ship passed through a large wave, which could have caused a decent flooding of the stern.

      Dear Andrey, compare this with photos of Russian dreadnought at full speed :)))))
      Quote: Rurikovich
      On the one hand, you perfectly give an analytical assessment from your point of view to the ships and at the same time, anticipate negative points based on a “successfully” made photo.

      A bit wrong - I had read about the immersion of the Derflinger stern in a cursed hawk at full speed, but I was skeptical about this, and then I saw a photo confirmation from Muzenikov. And in the end I give a very positive assessment of Derflinger's seaworthiness
      But here is the fact that the Derf was originally supposed to make diesel about the 10 280-mm guns ...
      1. avt
        3 May 2018 16: 52
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        But here is the fact that the Derf was originally supposed to make diesel about the 10 280-mm guns ...

        Hello! Enough of nightmares looking to tell nightmares! bully
        1. +2
          4 May 2018 00: 56
          Quote: avt
          Hello! Enough of nightmares looking to tell nightmares!

          In the black-chipped Admiralstab, the black-chilled state secretary, with a black-chipped pencil ... laughing
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Recalling a later cry for diesels at Leipzig (5 years of refinement) and Deutschland (6 years of refinement) - Derflinger was very lucky that MAN was unable to diesel.

          Not that word. Strictly speaking, MAN wasn’t able to do so in the 20’s, so it’s scary to imagine what could be on the ships of the Kaiserlichmarin
      2. 0
        3 May 2018 17: 08
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        But here is the fact that the Derf was originally supposed to make diesel about the 10 280-mm guns ...

        Remembering a later crying about diesels on “Leipzig” (5 years of fine-tuning) and “Deutschland” (6 years of fine-tuning) - “Derflinger” was very lucky that MAN was unable to diesel. smile
      3. +1
        3 May 2018 18: 40
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        But here is the fact that the Derf was originally supposed to make diesel about 10 mm guns ..

        I do not argue hi
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Compare this with photos of Russian dreadnought at full speed :)))))

        No analogy to Derflinger - the feed is completely dry request
        Problems with nasal flooding - yes, there were

        The site about problems with the stern of the Derflinger is not said. Therefore, personally, I will remain with my own regarding the photo with seething stern (see above). Moreover, rumors about this may have legs precisely from the photo of Muzhennikov feel
        1. 0
          3 May 2018 21: 40
          The "Sevastopol" more complete contours of the stern

          rather than Derflinger

          All the same, German designers took into account the contours of the hull to achieve a higher speed
          So you are right recourse

          1. +1
            3 May 2018 21: 46
            Actually today is some Day of jambs and carelessness ....... winked request
      4. +3
        4 May 2018 08: 05
        At Hood, too, some water splashed at full speed at the barbet of the 4th tower - and so what? German boats were traditionally lower-class for a number of reasons compared to their English counterparts, so there was nothing much to be surprised about. Moreover, at full speed they went very rarely. So there were no references to the drowned in Utah laughing
        1. 0
          5 May 2018 16: 08
          Quote: Irina Grafova
          At Hood, too, some water splashed at full speed at the barbet of the 4th tower - and so what?

          Since I, in general, am a classical Jew (my maternal grandmother is a purebred Jewess) I will answer the question with a question: Irina, do I need to describe the consequences of military injuries sustained during such a draft at full speed?
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. +1
            6 May 2018 12: 07
            No, not necessary.
            And it's not about sediment, but at the height of the freeboard. The problem of filling Utah high-speed ships with a forecastle (such as "Hood") or with an artificially lowered side in order to reduce the area of ​​destruction ("Derflinger" and not only). And the location of the screws also played a role.
            But, as you see, they survived under Jutland, and the Luttsov sank “sitting” with his nose, “Derf”, like the “Seidlitz” - came with a trim on the nose.
            And the "half-tank" English LKRs were not in art fights
      5. 0
        11 May 2018 11: 25
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        A bit wrong - I had read about the immersion of the Derflinger stern in a cursed hawk at full speed, but I was skeptical about this, and then I saw a photo confirmation from Muzenikov. And in the end I give a very positive assessment of Derflinger's seaworthiness
        But here is the fact that the Derf was originally supposed to make diesel about 10 mm guns

        Well, you should not draw conclusions based on one photo.
        Firstly, it is clear that at sea the excitement and the ship passes the crest of the wave. Secondly, some keel pitching is present, even for a ship so long.

        I believe that the trim on the stern was not measured at maximum speed.
        1. 0
          11 May 2018 23: 23
          You hurry. This problem really was with large first-generation high-speed ships. Heavy-duty turbines banally pulled water out from under the stern and they fell into this mess from the bubbles.
    3. +5
      5 May 2018 17: 24
      I still remember something. Therefore, I looked into the literature. Refreshed memory. So that’s what happens.
      The wavelength created by the case depends on the speed. If the full speed of the Derflinger is 26 knots, then this is 13.14 m / s. For simplicity, let 13 m / s. Not all the time to tear cars. A wavelength formula: Wavelength = Speed ​​^ 2 * 2 * pi / g. That is, in this situation, the wavelength will be 108 meters. The length of the Derflinger hull is 210 meters. It turns out that the hump of the third wave at speeds close to full will be just somewhere in the area of ​​the stern edge. That is, there will be a maximum wave height.
      Derflinger ship is old fashioned. No transoms. No volumes in the feed. On such a wave, the feed should also sink. So that the feed does not fall through, for example, on planing vessels, it is made wide and flat.
      The wave height in the smallest approximation is 20 times less than the length. T. e. at least 5 meters. Given the subsidence, the water just has to walk the deck at full speed, even at full calm.
      Everything, of course, is simplified, but even roughly everything is confirmed.
      Which confirms the data from the Haase book published with us. Who introduced them there, the author himself, or our commentators do not want to understand now.
      Racing on yachts, at the backstands, he personally repeatedly planted stern almost before flooding. The stern wave washed over the bulwark. If the transom were racing, i.e. open, the cockpit would be flooded with water. All you need is top speed in a displacement mode.
      I will add. The same crap was on our leaders, Leningrad. In the second series I had to broaden the stern and put the propeller shafts in my pants. They lost speed, but at the stern it became possible for people to be.
      1. +1
        7 May 2018 23: 52
        It is quite intelligible
      2. +1
        7 May 2018 23: 54
        Sorry, not that photo ...
        But, nevertheless, the Italians loved speed. But yut. was "dry"
  3. +4
    3 May 2018 08: 40
    By the way, subsidence of the stern is quite an ordinary thing in high-speed pans. There is not enough power to plan.
    The Germans had a chance in the 40 year to show who had the best armor and avenge a Hochzefleft cut into pins.
    Thanks for the next article.
    1. +1
      3 May 2018 12: 22
      Quote: demiurg
      The Germans had a chance in the 40 year to show who had the best armor and avenge a Hochzefleft cut into pins.

      Honestly, if Germany during the WWI still causes some emotions other than negative for me - the same rivalry in the Navy with Britain and the war itself was more or less honest, then I don’t have any desire to root for Germany of the 1940 model of the year . Even if Britons, Franks, Poles and Yankees are fighting against the Germans, my sympathies are only on the side of the allies.
    2. +3
      3 May 2018 12: 42
      Quote: demiurg
      The Germans had a chance in 40 to show who has the best armor

      On what?:))))
      1. 0
        3 May 2018 14: 42
        Apparently, on the pair “Charles” - “Gnei”. smile
        The trouble is that the commanders of these shortcomings did not risk joining the battle even together against one of the Eras. And from the battle with “Rinaun,” this couple skillfully dumped, taking advantage of poor visibility.
        1. 0
          4 May 2018 00: 58
          Quote: Alexey RA
          The trouble is that the commanders of these shortcomings did not risk joining the battle, even together against one of the “Eras”

          Well, strictly speaking, their 283 mm were good against cruisers. Against battleships ... somehow it’s not even funny. They could pick the same P before the carrotkin conspiracy
          1. +2
            4 May 2018 01: 07
            Well, that's exactly why there were plans for rearmament at 380mm. But the ball and Heine are beautiful in principle, like all the battleships of the Germans
          2. +3
            4 May 2018 08: 12
            Strictly speaking, the “uncles” were “imprisoned” against “Dunkirk” and “Strasbourg”. Or "hunting" in the ocean, despite a completely insufficient range - no more than 7.000 miles. A raider (anyone) is simply contraindicated to engage in battle even by an approximately equal opponent. So they did not run from cowardice, but by necessity. And let's not forget that the "Fuhrer is not enough" ...
          3. 0
            4 May 2018 12: 10
            "Era" - yes. What about the Rinauna with its 229 mm armored belt? wink
            2 LK against one modernized LCR. 18 trunks 283 mm versus 6 381 mm.
        2. +1
          4 May 2018 08: 14
          They didn’t have a “right” to fight with them
          1. 0
            4 May 2018 11: 58
            Quote: Grafova Irina
            They didn’t have a “right” to fight with them

            With the "Air" cover of KOH? The commander of Charles proposed a relatively safe option (and tried to implement it): his LC pulls back the cover, and Gnei works according to KOH. But Lutyens forbade even that.
            But from the “Rinaun” this couple was not supposed to run away. You must remember how the departure of Charles and Gnei ended for Kriegsmarine: after the withdrawal of the forces of far-reaching cover, the British were able to quietly drag the LK to Narvik, who arranged the eventful, but very short, life of the German EM there.
            1. +5
              4 May 2018 13: 36
              Who covered that convoy there? Ramillies? Yes, sort of. Well, so ... Firstly, the youths were not sitting on it either, and simply could not have bought it, knowing perfectly well that "Tamara and I are walking in pairs." Secondly, one successful hit was the “golden bullet” variant (the Germans were lucky for them), the consequence of which could deprive one of them of speed advantages with all the ensuing ... Thirdly, and simply damage in the middle of the ocean could lead to the disruption of the operational task. In the end, it turned out that Lutiens was right not to become involved with security ...
              And the battle to the “victorious end” with “Rinaun” was also not worth it. For the same reason - "The Fuhrer is not enough." Weather conditions - once, the Britons fired excellently (at first) - two, the destruction of the KDP and the failure of the aft tower on the Godfrey and the failure of the radars on the Charlie - three, the presence of a whole "gang" of EMs together with LCR - four. All together fully justified an exit from the battle. And if they could stand together alone LKR “in the open field” in an ideal scenario - this is already in WoB. In addition, it seems to me that it is unlikely that even their presence in the Narvik area would have prevented Worspite and the company from doing anything worthwhile there. Moreover, in the same regions not only he was present at the Britons
              1. +1
                5 May 2018 18: 50
                For some reason, in the war they are very smart and lose. The British should be given their due: they performed tasks and did not leave the battle. They weren’t strong, they still tried to sit on their tail.
                1. +2
                  8 May 2018 02: 10
                  The Britons never (we must pay tribute to them) did not evade the battle. And as that battle will show - God knows.
                  The "king has a lot"
  4. +3
    3 May 2018 13: 09
    There is practically nothing to add. I am sitting, reading, studying the materiel, waiting for the continuation. As always, thank you and a well-deserved plus (sorry no longer put).
  5. +3
    3 May 2018 13: 55
    Dear Andrey Nikolaevich!
    And why, in the "History" section, there are no links to previous articles in the series (((
    1. +1
      4 May 2018 00: 59
      Yes, I really considered articles as small series (about Moltke and Lyon - separately, etc.) But, of course, I can put links, it’s not a question
  6. +1
    3 May 2018 16: 12
    Great stuff.

    The Derflinger finally got the 305-mm SK L / 50, which were installed on the dreadnoughts of the Hochzeflotte starting with Helgoland. For their time, these were extremely powerful guns firing 405 kg of shells with an initial speed of 875 m / s.

    Dear colleague. Different sources indicate the initial speed of 40,5 kg. shells equal to 855 m / s, not 875 m / s. Where did you get the figure 875 m / s. for ship option?
    1. 0
      4 May 2018 01: 00
      Good day, dear NF68!
      Quote: NF68
      Where did you get the figure of 875 m / s. for ship option?

      You will laugh, but - at Gary Staffa
  7. +1
    3 May 2018 16: 29
    What I would like to note: the author has nothing to do with the human factor, namely, the distribution of posts on ships, their effectiveness (precisely from the point of view of the posts themselves, not training people). The same A. Patients noted that the person responsible for the survivability of the same Iron Duke was in battle as almost the senior signalman - when he was to deal with issues of unsinkability. Or, well, the Germans had difficulties with artillery officers - they had to have exactly the same vision in front of their eyes, plus, before the battle, no “Kaiser 100 grams”, blackjack and ... Well and so on.
    1. +1
      4 May 2018 01: 01
      Quote: DimanC
      The same A. Patient noted that the person responsible for the survivability of the same Iron Duke was in battle as almost the senior signalman - when he was to deal with issues of unsinkability

      Everything is complicated here, because there are duties “according to the report card” and there are obligations historically formed, but here I am not Copenhagen, alas.
    2. +1
      4 May 2018 08: 17
      Read Haase ...
      Has Mr. A. Patient already switched from tanks to fleet? Can you tell me the name of his opus on a naval theme?
      1. +2
        4 May 2018 11: 08
        Hm, willingly drinks Там же рядом еще несколько его книжек. Совсем недавно вышла книга "Величайшее морское сражение XX века". Пока дело не доходит до большевиков - читается отлично :-)
        1. +1
          4 May 2018 21: 56
          Thank you Let's look. Just do not like to read from the screen. So we will look for "paper"
  8. 0
    3 May 2018 18: 17
    The article, of course, is a plus, although on Wikipedia the information about the large cruiser Derflinger and his brothers (“K” and a couple of Erzatsevs at birth) is pretty decent.
    It seems to me that one could say about the reasons for Tirpitz’s desire to deliver diesel, because this is not a whim, but economic feasibility, less fuel, easier to maintain.
    The smooth-deck hull was introduced due to the linearly elevated position of the towers, which would lead to an increase in the height of the center of gravity. As a result, Tower A was located lower than the rest of the German line / large cruisers. Dullness to improve seaworthiness gave effect, but the ship was "wet" - nasal casemates were flooded. As for the stern in the photograph, it is more likely a sea excitement; the Germans could not have miscalculated so much. If you look for other photographs of Derflinger, nothing similar can be seen on them on the go.
    The special location of the turbine compartments made it possible to reduce the distance between the towers and to reduce the length of the citadel, which gave several positive effects, body rigidity, and an increase in the thickness of mine protection.
    There were no more Fram tanks at Hindenburg and Lutzow; they were considered ineffective.
    Perhaps the description of the SLA requires a separate article? In addition, in Hindenburg, she was more advanced, twice as large as the rangefinder base.
    1. 0
      3 May 2018 21: 48
      Quote: sevtrash
      If you look for other photographs of Derflinger, nothing similar can be seen on them on the go.

      There is. See above 21.40
      1. 0
        4 May 2018 12: 05
        I looked for information. But here something is not visible descriptions of the fact that the feed was poured. Nasal casemates write that yes, they were flooded, feed - there is nothing. From this we can conclude that this problem was not relevant.
        1. 0
          5 May 2018 16: 09
          Quote: sevtrash
          From this we can conclude that this problem was not relevant.

          Or, that some people really don’t like to think about the problems.
          1. 0
            5 May 2018 17: 03
            Or then it was considered an acceptable norm, they didn’t call it a problem, although in fact the waves walking on the deck can’t be called nonsense. Something like smoke in the battle in the XVIII - early XIX century - yes, uncomfortable, yes, a lot of problems, but where can you get away from the submarine if you do nothing about it ?.
            1. 0
              5 May 2018 17: 35
              It's just that sailors have an order. There is nothing to hang around on the deck when there is nothing to hang around. Now, in general, no one should be on the upper deck on the move. To this came.
              1. 0
                5 May 2018 17: 49
                And the Germans are such a people that they really don’t like to make mistakes. Highly. Others are happy to stumble. And they themselves will either be silent or come up with a hundred excuses.
                1. 0
                  7 May 2018 08: 34
                  Quote: mmaxx
                  And the Germans are such a people that they really don’t like to make mistakes. Highly. Others are happy to stumble. And they themselves will either be silent or come up with a hundred from

                  And not only the Germans. In general, Europeans do not tell much about their mistakes. Unlike us)))
        2. 0
          5 May 2018 19: 02
          The Luttsov, it seems, as in tests, poured stern - perhaps for a while, when gaining speed.
  9. 0
    3 May 2018 22: 07
    Rare retrograde, it is obvious that it was already necessary to put 350 mm guns.
    1. avt
      4 May 2018 07: 24
      Quote: Victor Wolz
      it is obvious that it was already necessary to put 350 mm guns.

      Obviously ...... as well as the fact that they had to be drawn on the whatman paper, laid out on the kulman first, it was necessary to draw it, then send all this for production to the department of their then chief technologist, poto-o- oh-oh sculpt sculpting and everything that is required for mass production. And the same with a firing range, commonly referred to as a shell projectile. So
      Quote: Victor Wolz
      Rare retrograde

      before taking such drastic steps - the transition to a new caliber, at least they consider “cost-effectiveness” and in this particular case they took what they had completely mastered in production, which Andrey mentioned in the article. With ,, Derflinger " simply, in the same way, well, if you like, as with the T-34-85, when the serial Su-85 was aligned with the caliber. Although they tried to put 100mm. Just ask why it didn’t. By and large, the reasons are the same - troubles with a large amount of work. Although, of course, Erzatz York would be cooler. But with the same success, given the 380 mm Bayern, you can now demand for the cruiser 380, exclaiming about
      Quote: Victor Wolz
      Rare retrograde
      and why they immediately ,, Bismarck “do with ,, Tirpitz” did not start.
      1. +2
        4 May 2018 20: 15
        But what did the British, Americans and Japanese with the French do to prevent nothing from calculating "on the culmination", laying and building ships with a caliber of 340-356 mm? But Germany is one of the leaders in the construction of battleships and artillery systems, and intelligence must also work for the Germans. And “Tirpitz” has nothing to do with it, everything is strictly within the time frame.
      2. +2
        5 May 2018 17: 44
        This is surprisingly different. Why did they decide that 10 trunks located on the Seidlitz is better than 8 in a line? Didn’t they shoot at the exercises? One tower is almost always involved in the airborne volley. This is even understandable on paper.
        He worked with the Germans. In general, it is customary for them to reckon with authorities. If someone smart once decided something, they will continue to do the same. This is both good and bad at the same time. But sometimes it was simply amazement. They simply said: well, it was then that the specialists came up with and decided, so it’s right.
        So with the small caliber. Type faster. The inertia of the thinking of some authorities.
        1. +1
          8 May 2018 00: 07
          It was Invisible and the company had a problem with fire on the opposite side. Other boats with a similar layout of the GK, in the salvo had all the barrels ... "Indafatigible" and other "Kaisers".
          1. 0
            8 May 2018 16: 39
            If you just look from above the diagram of the same Seidlitz, then if you deploy a tower of the opposite side on board, you can see that the trunks did not go beyond the waterway, even when turning on the beam. And the real angle where you can shoot with guns will be 30 degrees, not more. I recall that in later times, when, however, the guns were larger in caliber, they shot directly at the nose only from a great height. Or didn’t shoot at all. On the same "King George V" did not even raise his nose. Then I had to endure nasal obstruction. But to shoot at the nose from the first tower still did not work. At Wangard, they simply spat on the possibility of shooting in the nose. And they lifted the stem as needed. The Americans, it seems, also did not foresee such an opportunity. They dragged a bunch of anti-aircraft guns and some antennas on their nose. What on battleships, what on heavy cruisers.
            Examples of a wagon.
            It remains to learn from the Germans: did they succeed. I think only clearly on the beam. And then most likely only as a last resort. Or at a great distance.
            About this whole series. Later ships were designed when the first were not yet built. And there was no way to redo something. Refused from these frills later.
            1. +1
              8 May 2018 19: 04
              Why do designers enroll in a "fool"? The linear-layered location of the towers (except the first, and unsuccessful) allowed to fire on the opposite side. So, that “Seidlitz” or “Kaiser" had 10 barrels in the side salvo in most cases
              1. 0
                9 May 2018 07: 40
                If they are smart, then why was this pattern no longer repeated? As soon as the ships went into operation, this scheme was immediately abandoned. I’ve somehow come across nothing about shooting all overboard. Again, you can, but this angle is very limited. It is not very nice to get damage from your own shooting. And from each shot. Fon der Tann and Indefatigable had more or less spacious layouts.
                And the designers are not geniuses at all. People like everyone else. And taking into account the subsequent experience, we can point out the mistake of sitting at home in a chair. But what of that?
                Here I read Haase. No one will say that he is. But what great attention the Germans gave to torpedo firing from large ships. Now we know that what for all this was not necessary. But all rested. Angles still on the "Nelson" shoved TA. Also geniuses.
                1. +1
                  9 May 2018 09: 40
                  Yes, at “Invincible”, with a full salvo, the hull was very “overstrained,” and the angles of fire on the side towers on the other side were scanty.
                  For other ships with this arrangement of towers, everyone participated in the airborne volley. And as for the muzzle gas range ... Take a look at the photos and drawings of "Keben or" Seidlitz "...
                  To me, personally, the top of the idiocy seems to be the location of the towers on Nassau and Helgoland with companies. But, in fact, they built and walked, swam ... And even shot sometimes
  10. +1
    4 May 2018 12: 04
    On the other hand, the English 343-mm gun with a "heavy" shell had a resource of 220 rounds.

    Perhaps it was worth writing that with a light projectile (although you can’t call it a light projectile compared to a 305 mm projectile), the gun could withstand 450 rounds.

    Of course, you have to pay for everything - the German gun could withstand 200 shots, and that was not too much.

    We can say that Germany has made progress. The British had the best rate for such guns with a projectile speed of 900 m / s 160 rounds, but the projectile was easier for them.
  11. +1
    4 May 2018 23: 07
    I get (in a first approximation) "Tiger" 1,35
    The Derflinger 1,25. In the "naked" form, so to speak ...
  12. 0
    7 May 2018 06: 50
    ... the stronghold 121,5 m long consisted of 300 mm plot 2,2 m high, of which 40 see were under the waterline
    But is it not enough? On the wave (and just at speed) you can easily catch falling under the belt.
    1. 0
      7 May 2018 08: 38
      Quote: anzar
      ... the stronghold 121,5 m long consisted of 300 mm plot 2,2 m high, of which 40 see were under the waterline
      But is it not enough? On the wave (and just at speed) you can easily catch falling under the belt.

      Many ships went overloaded, so that the belt actually went under water more.
      1. 0
        7 May 2018 10: 36
        Many ships went overloaded, so the belt actually ...

        Here it is considered design position. So what did the designers think? For the first time I meet such a small deepening. The numbers should usually be the other way around - 40cm to rise. (Although this is small, rather 0,7 to 1,5m)
        PS Looked, it seems like some kind of Muzhenikovskaya mistake - under these numbers with the following saying he writes:
        "... located 1,4 m above and 0,4 m below the main waterline. (??) The thickness of the belt gradually decreased to 150 mm at its lower edge 1,7 m below the main waterline and up to 230 mm at the upper deck"
        1. +1
          7 May 2018 10: 57
          I understood what it was about (1,8 and 0,4 m) refers only to the straight part of the belt (300 mm thick) But in the text it is somehow unclear / misleading. Here is a drawing is another matter.
    2. 0
      8 May 2018 16: 12
      Really generally not at all.
      It was a constant problem. Here and there, they write about different ships that on a wave or at full speed the lower edge of the belt came out of the water. It seems that the “Hipper” in the New Year’s battle received under the armor belt at the turn, when he banked on the big move in the turn. Lousy 6-inch shell was more than enough.
      Exposure of the belt at full speed - this is the reverse side of the washing stern.
      The author has repeatedly criticized some ships for a low belt in other articles. He gave a rather ghostly defense.
  13. +1
    7 May 2018 23: 56
    Quote: mmaxx
    For some reason, in the war they are very smart and lose. The British should be given their due: they performed tasks and did not leave the battle. They weren’t strong, they still tried to sit on their tail.
    1. +2
      7 May 2018 23: 58
      The British never evaded the battle. If such "loomed"

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"